ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS ON TOSFOS
THE YISRAEL SHIMON HA'LEVI TURKEL MASECHES KIDUSHIN
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler of Kollel Iyun Hadaf
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
TOSFOS DH AKRUV OMER VE'HADAR ACHOLclick for question
(a) The Yerushalmi asks that, in spite of the Lav of eating Chadash, why did they not eat Matzah from the new crops - based on the principle 'Asei Docheh Lo Sa'aseh (in which case here too, the Asei of eating Matzah ought to override the Lo Sa'aseh of eating Chadash (see Maharsha).
(b) The Yerushalmi answers - that an Asei that was commanded before Matan Torah cannot override a Lo Sa'aseh that was commanded after Matan Torah.
(c) Alternatively, we can answer - that min ha'Torah, they were indeed permitted to eat the new crops - only the Rabanan decreed the first k'Zayis, which is a Mitzvah, on account of the second one, which is not.
TOSFOS DH U'VENEI YISRAEL ACHLU ES HA'MAN ARBA'IM SHANAH ... I EFSHARclick for question
(a) The Pasuk in Yehoshu'a specifically says - that they ran out of Manna on the day after Pesach (i.e. the sixteenth of Nisan) implying that until then, they had Manna (dispensing with the need for this complicated Derasha).
(b) We don't cite it - because we prefer to cite a surce from Torah than from Navi.
TOSFOS DH AD BO'AM EL ERETZ NOSHEVESclick for question
(a) Rashi interpret "Eretz Nosheves" - as east of the River (the territory belonging to Sichon and Og), "K'tzei Eretz Kena'an" - as the eastern banks of the River and ...
(b) ... 'K'tzei Eretz Kena'an' refers to - the western extremity of the land of Sichon and Og.
(c) Alternately - they mean the entire eastern bank and the eastern extremity of Eretz Kena'an (i.e. the western bank of the River), respectively.
TOSFOS DH TZEI MEIHEN SHELOSHIM-VE'SHALOSH LEMAFRE'Aclick for question
(a) According to Rashi, after Mosheh's death they waited - thirty days by the Yardein River before Hash-m spoke to Yehoshua.
(b) Hash-m issued Yehoshua with instructions to cross the Yardein on the eighth of Nisan (a day after the Sheloshim of Moshe terminated)?
(c) Yisrael crossed - on the tenth of Nisan.click for question
(a) The problem that the Ri has from the Pasuk in Yehoshua "Vayehi Miktzei Sheloshes Yamim Vayomer Yehoshua el ha'Am ... ki Machar Ya'aseh Hash-m be'Kirb'chem Nifla'os" (with reference to the crossing of the Yardein) - is that this implies that they crossed only on the eleventh (a day after the third day ... ).
(b) To answer the question, according to some, Hash-m spoke to Yehoshua - on the thirtieth day of the Sheloshim, on the seventh of Nisan.
(c) We reconcile this with the fact that the Shechinah does not rest on someone who is sad - by applying the principle 'Miktzas ha'Yom ke'Kulo'.
(d) These commentaries explain that whereas the words "be'Od Sheloshes Yamim" that Hash-m said to Yehoshua - preclude the day on which Hash-m spoke with him, the words "Miktzei Sheloshes Yamim" written by the words that Yehoshua spoke to the people - includes it.click for question
(a) We consider the latter explanation a Dochek (pushed) - because it is strange that the 'three days time' mentioned by Hash-m should differ from the 'three days time' mentioned by Yehoshua.
(b) In addition the first Pasuk clashes with the same words in the Pasuk in Mikeitz (in connection with Yosef's interpretation of his fellow prisoners' dreams) "be'Od Sheloshes Yamim" - where it means on 'the third day' (and not after three days).click for question
(a) We therefore conclude - that Hash-m spoke to Yehoshua on the eighth (i.e. the thirty-first day from the day that Moshe died [like Rashi]) ...
(b) ... and in order to conform with the "be'Od Sheloshes Yamim" of Hash-m, Yehoshua's statement "Miktzeh Sheloshes Yamim" means - at the beginning of the third day (including the day on which he was speaking [i.e. the thirty-second]).
(c) We prove this explanation from the Gemara in ...
1. ... Pesachim (in connection with reconciling contradictory statements given by two witnesses) 'be'Meifak Tarti ve'Ayal T'las' - meaning at the end of the second day, when the third day was about to enter.
2. ... Erchin, where the Gemara explains the Pasuk in Yirmiyah "mi'Keitz Sheva Shanim Teshalchu Ish es Avdo" to mean - at the beginning of the seventh year after the Retzi'ah (piercing of the ear) or of the sale of an Eved Ivri, which coincides with the advent of Yovel.
TOSFOS DH SHE'EIN ISURO ISUR OLAMclick for question
(a) Rashi explains this to mean that the Isur of Chadash only applies up to the sixteenth of Nisan, and 've'Yesh Heter le'Isuro' - that it becomes permitted on the sixteenth, when the Omer has been brought.
(b) This goes like R. Yehudah, who rules - that, were it not for the Omer, Chadash would be forbidden all day.
(c) Others maintain - that when there is no Omer, Chadash becomes permitted at daybreak of the sixteenth.
TOSFOS DH VE'HU HA'DIN LE'ORLAH BI'SHETAYIMclick for question
(a) Rashi explains that 'Isuro Isur Olam' does not apply to Orlah - since the fruit becomes permitted in the fourth year.
(b) The two rulings that do apply to it are - 1. That it is Asur be'Hana'ah, and 2. That it has no Heter during its period of Isur.
(c) Rabeinu Tam disagrees with Rashi's first statement - in that the Orlah fruit itself does not become permitted.
(d) The other rulings that does not apply to Orlah is - unlike the other two (Chadash and Kil'ayim) it has a Heter during its period of Isur, seeing as it can be redeemed (though this pertains specifically to Orlah in the fourth year).click for question
(a) According to R. Yom-Tov, Orlah has a Heter (to create an Isur) even in the first three years that Kil'ayim does not. What he means is - that, unlike Kil'ayim, he is permitted to re-plant it, and what grows is Asur because of Chadash and Tevel (see also Hagahos Ya'avetz).
(b) Rabeinu Tam queried him however, from a Sifri which says - that there is a Heter after it became Asur (implying that the Isur goes away completely).
(c) When R. Moshe mi'Pantiza explains that the Isur of Orlah, like that of Chadash, has a Heter via the Beis-Din, he means - that the Beis-Din, by declaring a. Kislev, and b. Adar short months, they remove the Isur of Orlah and Chadash, respectively one day earlier ...
(d) ... which they cannot possibly do in the case of Kil'ayim.click for question
(a) The final explanation is that of the Ri, who explains that the three rulings pertain to the tree (rather than to the fruit). He therefore explain that there is a Heter to the Isur of Orlah - with reference to fruit that grows on the tree after the termination of the period of Orlah.
(b) The same concept will apply to the wheat of Chadash - inasmuch as the kernels that grow on the stalk that was Asur before the Omer is brought, become permitted after the Omer, provided they took root before the Omer ...
(c) ... and the same will apply even according to those who say that Chadash basically becomes permitted as soon as the sun rises on the sixteenth, if they took root before then (see Maharsha and Tosfos, Pesachim 44b DH 've'Hu ha'Din').
TOSFOS DH VE'HU HA'DIN LE'ORLAH BI'SHETAYIMclick for question
(a) We suggest that we learn Tevel, Terumah and Ma'aser from Chadash with regard to - their application in Chutz la'Aretz ...
(b) ... based on the fact that they are more stringent than Chadash inasmuch as their Isur lasts forever, and that they have no Heter (as long as they have the status of Tevel and Terumah ... ).
(c) We might learn them from it either by means of a 'Kal-va'Chomer' or of a 'Mah Matzinu'.click for question
(a) We answer that Chadash is more stringent than Terumah and Ma'aser - in that unlike them, one cannot ask a Rav to annul it.
(b) This does apply to Tevel.
(c) Nevertheless, we cannot learn Tevel alone from Chadash - because, since Tevel is only Asur because of the Terumah and Ma'asros that it contains, it would be illogical for Tevel to be more stringent than them.click for question
(a) The Isur Chadash is also different than the three above Isurim - inasmuch as it comes automatically (without the owner doing anything, which might just be the reason that it applies in Chutz la'Aretz).
(b) We refute this answer by attributing Chadash too, to man's actions - in that it comes about as a result of man having plowed and planted the crops.
TOSFOS DH HASHMATAS KESAFIM CHOVAS HA'GUF HUclick for question
(a) Rashi explains the question as - why does R. Elazar b'R. Shimon then refer to it as a Mitzvah that applies only after they entered Eretz Yisrael?
(b) The Gemara answers that whenever Hashmatas Karka does not apply - (such as in the Desert, where they did not possess land), Hashmatas Kesafim does not apply either.
(c) What does the Gemara mean when it asks that perhaps it is not whenever, but wherever Hashmatas Karka does not apply, Hashmatas Kesafim does not apply either - to preclude Chutz la'Aretz even when it was being observed in Eretz Yisrael.
(d) The Pasuk "Ki Kara Shemitah la'Hashem" answers the question - inasmuch as it comes to include Chutz la'Aretz.click for question
(a) The problem with the previous ...
1. ... answer ('Talmud Lomar, "ki Kara Shemitah la'Hashem") is - seeing as it comes to answer the original question, it should not have said this, but rather 'Amar K'ra "ki Kara Shemitah la'Hashem"?
2. ... suggestion (that Hashmatas Kesafim ought to have applied in the Desert) is - that this is impossible, seeing as even once they arrived in Eretz Yisrael, it did not apply until after they had conquered and distributed the land (as we will learn later in the Perek)?
(b) We therefore explain the Gemara's original question ('Hashmatas Kesafim Chovas ha'Guf Hu'? (not with regard to time, as we just explained, but) with regard to location (not 'whenever', but 'wherever'), why R. Elazar needs to teach us that it applies in Chutz la'Aretz, since it is obvious?
(c) And the Gemara answers like Rebbi, who compares Hashmatas Kesafim to Hashmatas Karka. And we finally learn that Hashmatas Kesafim does apply in Chutz la'Aretz - from the Pasuk "Ki Kara Shemitah la'Hashem"click for question
(a) The difference between the two current explanations (of Rashi and Tosfos) of the phrase 've'Eima be'Makom she'Atah Meshamet Karka, Atah Meshamet Kesafim' is - that whereas according to Rashi, it is a question, according to Tosfos, it is part of the answer.
(b) Consequently, some texts add the word 'Nami' after 've'Eima'.
(c) Based on what we just learned, when the Gemara asks shortly 'Shilu'ach Avadim Chovas ha'Guf Hu' - it also means to ask why Elazar b'R. Shimon needs to teach us that it applies in Chutz la'Aretz, seeing as it is obvious? (and not like Rashi learns here).click for question
(a) The Gemara in Gitin quotes Abaye, establishes the ruling there with regard to Shevi'is nowadays, which is only Meshamet Kesafim d'Rebbibanan. Abaye learn this - from Rebbi, who compares Hashamatas Kesafim to Hashmatas Karka (just as we learned in our Sugya).
(b) We learn from the Pasuk (written in connection with Yovel) "ba'Aretz le'Chol Yoshvehah" - that Yovel only applies when all of Yisrael are living in Eretz Yisrael.
(c) The Yerushalmi now learns from the Pasuk in Re'ei "ve'Zeh D'var ha'Shemitah, Shamot" - that it is dealing with two Sh'mitos of Karka, that of Yovel and that of Yovel, and that whenever the formwe does not apply, the latter does not apply either.
(d) Rashi there explain 'Hashmatas Karka' (referred to by Rebbi) - as 'plowing and planting in the Shemitah.click for question
(a) The fact that Rashi cites the Yerushalmi to explain why Hashmatas Karka does not apply nowadays is problematic - in that such a major Derasha (as that of learning Shemitah from Yovel) is totally omitted by the Bavli.
(b) To answer this question, Rabeinu Tam interprets Rebbi's words ' ... Achas Sh'mitas Karka' - in connection with Yovel.click for question
(a) We refer to ...
1. ... 'Yovel as 'Sh'mitas Karka' - regarding the fields going back to the owners, as this occurs exclusively in the Yovel, but not in the Shemitah.
2. ... Sh'mitas Kesafim as 'Shevi'is' - since, by the same token, the releasing of debts occurs exclusively in the Shemitah, but not in the Yovel.
(b) We prove this latter point from the Sifri which, commenting on the Pasuk in Re'ei "ve'Zeh D'var ha'Shemitah" says - exactly that.click for question
(a) We now explain Rebbi's statement ' ... bi'Zeman she'Atah Meshamet Karka, Atah Meshamet Kesafim' - to mean that whenever the fields go back to their owners in the Yovel, debts are released in the Shemitah (and since the former does not apply nowadays, the latter does not apply either [min ha'Torah]).
(b) The truth of the matter is - that we learn Hashmatas Charishah and Zeri'ah in the Shemitah via the same Derasha ...
(c) ... and Rebbi only mentions Hashmatas Kesafim - because of its similarity to Sh'mitas karka in the Yovel (as we explained).
(d) Alternatively, Rebbi might have done so - because Sh'mitas Kesafim applies in the Shemitah but not in the Yovel (as we explained earlier).
TOSFOS DH HA'ARLAH HALACHAH, VE'HA'KIL'AYIM MI'DIVREI SOFRIMclick for question
(a) We query the fact that Kil'ayim are only mid'Rabanan, in that we ought to learn it from Chadash (which has the three leniencies described on the previous Amud) which is d'Oraisa, like R. Shimon bar Yochai learned earlier.
(b) We answer by citing the word "Sadcha" (in the Pasuk in Kedoshim "Sadcha Lo Sizra Kil'ayim") - which precludes Chutz la'Aretz.
(c) Neither does the Mishnah in Orlah learn Orlah from Chadash - because of the Pircha 'Kil'ayim Yochichu' (that we can take our cue from Kil'ayim, which, despite the three Chumros, is only mid'Rabanan). That is why the Tana needs to learn it from 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai'.