prepared by Yaakov Montrose of Kollel Iyun Hadaf

Kollel Iyun Hadaf

daf@dafyomi.co.il, www.dafyomi.co.il

Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld


SHABBOS 127 Next
Ask the Kollel
Ask the


תוספות ד"ה של

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that the case is when he is transporting these pitchers of wine in his house.)

והא דתנן בפ' המביא (ביצה דף כט:) כדי יין לא יביאם בסל ובקופה

(a) Implied Question: The Mishnah says in Beitzah (29b) that one should not bring pitchers of wine in a basket or box. (How is this permitted in our Gemara?)

היינו ממקום רחוק דמיחזי כעובדין דחול אבל הכא בביתו

(b) Answer: This refers to bringing them from a far away place, as it appears like one is doing work normally done during the week. However, in this case he is doing so within the confines of his house.


תוספות ד"ה דכולי עלמא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara chooses to say it is better to lessen the amount of walking.)

לא מצי למימר למעוטי במשוי עדיף

(a) Implied Question: The Gemara could not have said that everyone agrees that to lessen the burden is better. (Why not?)

דההיא דקתני ד' וה' קופות לא מצי סבר הכי דא"כ הוה ליה למיתני בעשר וט"ו כשיעור ה' קופות

(b) Answer: The Mishnah that states, “four or five boxes etc.” cannot hold this way, as if it did it should have said with ten and fifteen containers as long as it is the amount that fills five boxes.

וא"ת והא תנן בפרק אין צדין (שם דף כה.) שחטה בשדה לא יביאנה במוט ובמוטה אלא מביאה לאיברים אף על גב דמפיש בהילוכא

(c) Question: The Mishnah states in Beitzah (25a) that if he slaughters it in the field he should not bring the carcass on a pole. Rather, he should bring it as cut up limbs. This is despite the fact that he is making more trips!

התם שאני דאיכא טירחא יותר מדאי להביאה שלימה

(d) Answer #1: The case there is different as there is much more trouble to bring it whole than with a few easy trips.

א"נ משום דמיחזי כמוליכה למכור בשוק

(e) Answer #2: Alternatively, he should not bring it whole because it looks like someone who is bringing a whole animal to sell in the marketplace.

והא דאמרינן בריש שואל (לקמן דף קמח.) היכי ליעבד דמליא בחצבא רבא תימלי בחצבא זוטא קא מפשא בהילוכא דמליא בחצבא זוטא תמלא בחצבא רבא קא מפשא במשוי

(f) Implied Question: The Gemara later (148a) asks, “What should they do? If those who usually fill a big pail with water will fill a small pail, they will increase the amount of trips they take! If those who usually fill up with a small pail will fill with a big pail, they will increase their burden!” (This seemingly ignores our Gemara’s conclusion that it is better to lessen walking than burden!)

התם כיון שנהגו למלאות המים בחצבא רבא או בחצבא זוטא קשה להם לשנות מכמות שנהגו

(g) Answer: The Gemara there means that since they are used to filling either a big pail or a small pail with water, it is difficult for them to switch from the amount they are used to carrying.


תוספות ד"ה אע"ג

(SUMMARY: Tosfos proves that the Mishnah is referring to an amount for one person.)

מכאן יש להוכיח דהא דתנן במתניתין ד' וה' קופות הוי אפי' בשביל אדם אחד

(a) Opinion: One can prove from here that when the Mishnah says four or five containers it is even for one person.

דאי הוי נמי לפי האורחין אמאי נקט ד' וה'

1. Proof #1: If it would be based on the amount of guests one has, why would it give an amount of four or five? (It is dependent on the amount of guests!)

ועוד מדלא מספקא ליה אי חד מפני כולהו או כל חד לנפשיה אלא באת"ל הכל לפי האורחין משמע הא אם אמר אף על גב דאיתרמו ליה אורחין טובא ליכא לאיסתפוקי

2. Proof #2: Additionally, since the doubt whether one person can take everything away or everyone clears the area for his space is only stated if we hold that everything is based on the amount of guests, the implication is that if we say that it is a set amount even if a lot of guests come there is no such doubt.

ואי אמרינן דד' וה' קופות הוי לפי האורחין אכתי איכא לספוקי אי חד גברא מפני לכולהו או כל חד מפני לנפשיה אלא משמע דפשיטא דד' וה' אינן לפי האורחין אלא אפילו לצורך אדם אחד

i. Proof (cont.): If we say that the amount of four or five containers is in fact based on the amount of guests that come, there is still a doubt whether one person can take all of it away or each person clears away his own space. Rather, it implies that it is obvious that four or five is not based on the amount of guests, and that one can do so even for one person.


תוספות ד"ה ולטעמיך

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the Gemara refers to the entire field.)

פי' כל השדה כולה

(a) Explanation: This means the entire field.


תוספות ד"ה דכתיב

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that Rav Yehudah must hold the name in the verse is holy.)

קסבר כמאן דאמר בשבועות (דף לה:) דהאי השם קדש דאיכא מאן דאמר התם שהוא חול שלמלאכים היה מדבר שהיה מזמינם

(a) Explanation: He holds like the opinion in Shevuos (35b) that this name is a name of Hash-m and therefore is holy, as there is an opinion there that says it is a regular name. This second opinion understands he was talking to the angels and inviting them to be his guests.


תוספות ד"ה אוכל

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the meaning of “the principle is reserved for him in the next world.”)

בפ"ק דקדושין (דף לט:) מפ' דהיינו אם היתה שקולה מכרעת דשכר מצות בהאי עלמא ליכא

(a) Explanation: In Kidushin (39b), the Gemara explains this means that if his sins and Mitzvos are equal, this Mitzvah (that is among his Mitzvos) causes him to be considered righteous, as there is no actual reward (as opposed to benefits) for doing Mitzvos that is given in this world (it is reserved primarily for Olam Haba).



תוספות ד"ה כיון

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the difference between something only fit for the poor and Terumah.)

אע"ג דאמר בשילהי כירה (לעיל דף מז.) דבגדי עניים לעשירים לא

(a) Implied Question: This is despite the fact that the Gemara says earlier (47a) that clothes of the poor are not fitting for the rich. (How can our Gemara say that Terumah of a Yisrael is fitting for a Kohen?)

הכא לכ"ע חזיא אלא איסורא הוא דרביע עליה אבל התם לא חזו מחמת גריעותא

(b) Answer: In our Gemara this grain is fitting for everyone, and it is only the prohibition that stops them from eating it. However, the Gemara earlier (47a) is discussing a case where the clothing is not fitting for the rich person because it is poor quality.

ומהאי טעמא נמי לא אמרינן התם טעמא דבסמוך דאי בעי מפקר לנכסיה

1. Answer (cont.): This is also the reason why we do not say there (47a) the reason that we say later in our Gemara that he could make his possessions ownerless (and eat Dmai).

והא דאמר בפרק כל הכלים (לעיל דף קכה.) שירי פרוזמיות שאין בהן ג' על ג' אין מטלטלין אותן משמע הא יש בהן שלש על שלש מטלטלים

(c) Implied Question: The Gemara earlier (125a) says that pieces of cloaks that are not three by three fingers cannot be carried. This implies that if they were the size of three by three they could be carried (by anyone)!

היינו לעניים

(d) Answer #1: This is specifically regarding the poor.

א"נ אפילו לעשירים בבית עניים

(e) Answer #2: Alternatively, it could be referring to the rich in the house of the poor.


תוספות ד"ה דאי בעי

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara did not use the reason given previously regarding Terumah.)

הוה מצי למימר כדלעיל כיון דחזי

(a) Implied Question: It could have said the logic stated earlier, “Since it is fit etc.” (Why didn’t it do so?)

אלא כיון דמשכח טעמא דאפי' לדידיה מצי חזי אמר

(b) Answer: Rather, since this is a reason that can even make it fitting for him, it is a better reason.

ובפרק כל שעה (פסחים דף לה:) ובפרק שלשה שאכלו (ברכות ד' מז.) איצטריך להאי טעמא

(c) Observation: In Pesachim (35b) and Berachos (47a) the Gemara requires this reason.


תוספות ד"ה האי אידגן

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains whether it being gathered includes that it “saw the house.”)

מדנקט אידגן משמע אפילו לא ראה פני הבית

(a) Observation: Since the Gemara says it was gathered, it implies that this is even if it did not yet see the house (the Levi must take off Terumas Ma’aser from Ma’aser Rishon taken before Terumah).

תימה אכתי אפילו הקדימו בכרי נמי לא לחייב אלא באידגן וראה פני הבית

(b) Question: This is difficult. Even if he took it off in the silo he should not be liable unless it was gathered together and saw his house (as it is as if he took off Ma’aser when it was growing from the ground)!

וי"ל דאי לא כתב והרמותם ה"א דכולם חייבין אפילו לא אידגן השתא דכתי' קרא מוקמי ליה במסתבר דהיינו לא אידגן שאפילו ראה פני הבית לא היה חייב

(c) Answer #1: If the Pasuk did not say, “And you will take” I would think that one is liable for all of these even if he did not gather the grain. Now that this Pasuk is stated, we should establish it regarding the most logical case which is that it had not yet been gathered. Accordingly, even if it saw the house he would not be liable (but if it did see the house he is liable).

א"נ י"ל הא דנקט אידגן היינו ככל דינו שראה פני הבית אלא דמילתא דפסיקא נקט דאיכא למאן דאמר בבא מציעא (דף פח:) דלא בעינן ראיית פני הבית אלא בזיתים וענבים דלאו בני גורן נינהו

(d) Answer #2: Alternatively, when the Gemara says it was gathered it means that it also saw the house if needed, and it just said it is obligated in a shorter fashion. This is because there is an opinion in Bava Metzia (88b) that we only require seeing the house for olives and grapes that are not crops that are gathered. (Since it does not apply to all crops, it did not have to explicitly state it saw the house.)


תוספות ד"ה הא קמ"ל

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why our Gemara is not used to answer a question in Bava Metzia.)

ואף על גב דמבעיא לן בפרק הזהב (שם דף נד.) אי מעכב אי לא ולא פשיט מהכא

(a) Implied Question: This is despite the fact that the Gemara asks in Bava Metzia (54a) whether not giving an extra fifth affects the validity of the redemption, and it does not answer its question from our Gemara. (Why not?)

משום דהוה מצי למידחי דאגב אחרינא תנייה

(b) Answer: This is because it could have pushed aside this answer by saying that it was stated as an aside with the other topics (and it is not meant to teach this lesson).


Dafyomi Advancement Forum homepage
D.A.F. Homepage

Insights to
the Daf
to the Daf
Point by

on the Daf

Other Masechtos  •  Join Mailing Lists  •  Ask the Kollel
Dafyomi Calendar  •  חומר בעברית
Donations  •  Feedback  •  Links