תוספות ד"ה של מציק

(SUMMARY: Tosfos presents two different texts and explanations for this word.)

פי' הקונטרוס, אנס


Opinion #1: Rashi explains this refers to a bandit.

ובתוספתא גרס מוסק פירוש מוסק זיתים


Opinion #2: The Tosefta has the text, "Mosek" (instead of "Motzek") referring to someone who gathers olives.



תוספות ד"ה ובא כהן

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this Kohen was a fool.)

אותו כהן שוטה היה דאפילו לקרובים אינו מטמא לנפלים דבעינן דומיא דאביו ואמו


Explanation: This Kohen was a fool, as he is not even allowed to become impure to relatives that are Nefalim, as for him to become impure it must be to someone who is like his father and mother (who are not Nefalim).



תוספות ד"ה לידע

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that a maidservant becomes impure.)

ושפחה מטמאה בלידה


Explanation: A maidservant becomes impure when giving birth.

וכן משמע בפרק רבי אליעזר דמילה (שבת דף קלה:) לקח שפחה ונתעברה אצלו וילדה זהו יליד בית נמול לשמונה


Proof: This is also implied in Shabbos (135b), as the Gemara states that if someone took a maidservant and she became pregnant with him and subsequently gave birth, this (child) is a person who is considered a "Yelid Bayis" who has a Milah at eight days.

וכללא דמלתא כל שאין אמו טמאה לידה אינו נמול לשמונה


Observation: The rule is that as long as one's mother is not impure due to a birth, he is not given a Bris at eight days.

רישא דברייתא בור שמטילין בו נפלים טהור פירוש שרגילין להטיל בו נפלים ועלה מייתי מעשה בשפחתו של מציק


Observation: The first part of the Beraisa is that a pit in which Nefalim are thrown is considered pure. This means that they are used to throwing Nefalim in this pit. Regarding this pit, the Beraisa continues to discuss the incident that occurred with the maidservant of the Meitzik (see Tosfos above, DH "Shel Meitzik").



תוספות ד"ה מפני

(SUMMARY: Tosfos gives three possible explanations of the Gemara's case.)

איבעית אימא הבור רה"ר וכגון שאינו עמוק עשרה ואפ"ה אין זה ספק טומאה ברה"ר אם לא גררוהו דמיירי בבור קצר שהיה ראשו ממלא פי הבור


Explanation #1: It is possible that the pit was a public domain if it was not ten Tefachim deep. Even so, this is not considered a doubt regarding impurity in the public domain (which is always ruled leniently) if the animals could not have dragged out the bodies, as the pit is narrow. Accordingly, his head would fill up the entire pit.

ואיבעית אימא דודאי בבור רה"י שהוא עמוק י'


Explanation #2: Alternatively, the case is where the pit was a private domain which was ten Tefachim deep.

ואין לתמוה אפי' ודאי גררוהו ניחוש שמא גררוהו תחת רגליו וטומאה רצוצה בוקעת ועולה


Implied Question: One cannot ask that even if they would have certainly dragged him out we should suspect that they did so under the legs of the Kohen, and that such impurity is considered to go up. (Why not?)

דסתם חור שרצים יש בהן פותח טפח


Answer: This is because most holes where Sheratzim are found have a hole that is a Tefach high (and the impurity is therefore contained there).

אי נמי י"ל דמיירי דבור קיימא ברשות היחיד ורגלי כהן ברה"ר


Explanation #3: Alternatively, it is possible to answer that the pit is in a private domain, while the feet of the Kohen are in a public domain.



תוספות ד"ה שהטילה

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we are not worried about other Nefalim that were thrown there.)

וצ"ל שנבדק הבור קודם שהטילתו לתוכו כיון שרגילין להטיל בו נפלים


Explanation: It must be that the case is where the pit was checked (the Maharsha explains this means that animals were there beforehand) before she threw it in there, being that it was normal for Nefalim to be thrown in there.



תוספות ד"ה עובד כוכבים

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that Reish Lakish apparently permits using parts of an idol that were broken off in an abnormal fashion.)

פי' וקשיא לרשב"ל


Explanation: This is difficult according to the opinion of Rebbi Shimon ben Lakish.

וצריך לומר מדלא משני שאני התם דעיקר עבודת כוכבים קיים ש"מ דרשב"ל שרי אפילו בעיקר עבודת כוכבים קיים בשלא כדרך גדילתה


Observation: The fact that the Gemara did not answer that this case is different because the main part of the idol is still extant indicates that Rebbi Shimon ben Lakish holds that even if the main part of the idol is extant, the pieces are still permitted when they are not taken off in a normal fashion.

וכן משמע בסמוך דאיהו גופיה מותיב לרבי יוחנן (לקמן ע"ב) מההיא דיתיז בקנה ואע"פ שעיקר עבודת כוכבים קיים


Observation (cont.): This is also implied later (42b), as he himself asks a question on Rebbi Yochanan from the case of hitting (the nest off) with a stick, even though the main part of the idol is extant in that case.



תוספות ד"ה הכא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos is unsure why the Gemara keeps asking questions when they can all clearly be answered using Rava's explanation.)

צ"ע בכל הני ודקארי לה מאי קארי לה פשיטא דלישני בהו כדרבא [ועי' היטב תוספות שבת מג. ד"ה כופה עליה ועוד שם קכג: ד"ה איתיביה אביי]


Question: All of these questions require study, as we can obviously answer all of them with Rava's explanation! (Why does the Gemara keep asking these questions?) [Study Tosfos in Shabbos 43a, DH "Kofeh Alehah" and 123b, DH "Eisivei Abaye."]



תוספות ד"ה ספק

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that the statue might not have been worshipped.)

פי' הקונטרס דתלינן בעובד כוכבים דהא ספק ספיקא הוא ושמא לא נעבדו מעולם


Explanation: Rashi explains that we assume that a Nochri did this, as it is a Sfei Sfeika. It is possible it was never even worshipped! (Even if it was worshipped, it is possible that a Nochri nullified it by cutting off its head.)

ויפה כוון דאי ס"ד דחשבינן להו ודאי נעבדין אם כן תקשי לרבי יוחנן גופיה אמאי מותר


Proof: His explanation is correct. If you would think that we assume this statue was clearly worshipped, we should ask a question on Rebbi Yochanan regarding how this can be permitted.

נהי נמי דליכא למיחש לנחתכה מאליה דלא שכיחא חתוכה מאליה כמו שבורה מאליה ואם כן אין רוב חתיכות לאיסור כי היכי דאיכא בעבודת כוכבים רוב שבירות לאיסור


Proof (cont.): Even if we do not suspect that it was cut off by itself, as this is more uncommon than being broken by itself, most of the cutting is not prohibited just as regarding idolatry we say that most breakings are prohibited.

אלא הכא פלגא ופלגא חשיב חתיכות עובד כוכבים להיתר וחתיכות ישראל לאיסור אפ"ה אין להתיר בכך דהא רבי יוחנן אית ליה דאפילו ספק היתר הרגיל אינו מוציא מידי ודאי איסור כ"ש הכא שאין רגילות כל כך בחתיכות דעובד כוכבים ואין כאן ספק היתר הרגיל ויש כאן ודאי איסור


Proof (cont.): Rather, here the chances are even. If it was cut by a Nochri it is permitted, and if it was cut by a Jew it is prohibited. Even so, it should not be permitted, as Rebbi Yochanan holds that even a common possible leniency does not take away from a status of certain prohibition. Certainly here, where it is uncommon that a Nochri will cut off the head of the idol and there is therefore not a common possible leniency to take away from a certain status of prohibition, he should be stringent.

וא"ת בספק נעבד נמי תקשי סיפא ישראל ודאי חתכו אסור ומאי שנא משברי צלמים דמודי רבי יוחנן דמותרין מטעם ספק ספיקא


Question: If there is only a possibility it was worshipped, the second part of the Beraisa which states that if a Jew definitely cut the head off it is prohibited should also prove difficult. Why is this different from broken pieces of statues which Rebbi Yochanan admits are permitted due to a Sfeik Sfeika? (The Rashash explains the Sfeik Sfeika. It is unclear if it was worshipped, and even if it was worshipped, when the Nochri sees that his idol had his head chopped off he will very possibly nullify it.)

ויש לומר דיש להתיר יותר בשברי צלמים לפי שיש לתלות שבירתם בעובד כוכבים יותר מבישראל שאם היה ישראל שוברה היה מבערה מן העולם וגם אם נשתברה מאליה שכיח טפי דעובד כוכבים מבטל לה כשמוצאה דמימר אמר איהי לא מצלה נפשה והשתא איכא תרי טעמא להיתירא


Answer: It is more understandable to be lenient regarding broken pieces of statues, as their breaking is more easily attributed to a Nochri than a Jew. If the Jew would have wanted to break it, he would have destroyed it. If it broke by itself, it is more common that the Nochri would nullify it when he finds it, as he will say that if it could not save itself, it will certainly not save him! These are two reasons to be lenient regarding broken pieces of statues.

אבל כשחתכו ישראל ליכא אלא חד טעמא להיתירא שיש לומר שמא כשימצאנה העובד כוכבים חתוכה יבטלנה ובהך טעמא לחודה אין להתיר לרבי יוחנן אף בספק נעבד


Answer (cont.): However, when the Jew cut off the head there is only one reason to be lenient. It is possible to say that when the Nochri finds the head cut off, he will nullify the idol. However, this reason itself is not enough for Rebbi Yochanan to be lenient, even if we are unclear if it was ever worshipped.




תוספות ד"ה והא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the Gemara's question.)

תימה מאי קא פריך דלמא שאני התם דשיפה עובד כוכבים ולהכי שרי אף בעיקר עבודת כוכבים קיימת אבל הכא דשיפה ישראל או נשתברה מאליה אימא לך דאסורין היכא (דאיכא) [דעיקר] עבודת כוכבים קיימת


Question: This is difficult. What is the question? Perhaps that case is different, as the Nochri shaved it down. This is why it is permitted even if the rest of the idol is extant. However, if a Jew shaved it down or it broke by itself , it is possible that it is forbidden because the main part of the idol is still extant.

וי"ל דהכי פריך והא שיפויין דעיקר עבודת כוכבים קיימת וקתני בשיפה עובד כוכבים דמותרין ואפי' שיפה ישראל נמי הוי שרי אי לאו גזרה דרבא כדמשני רשב"ל גופיה לעיל.


Answer: It is possible to answer that the Gemara's question is as follows. When the statue is shaved down the main part of the idol is extant, and we say that if the Nochri does this it is permitted. Even if a Jew would do this it should be permitted, were it not for Rava's decree, as Rebbi Shimon Lakish himself stated earlier.



תוספות ד"ה וקתני

(SUMMARY: Tosfos and Rashi argue regarding why the person should hit the nest off with a stick.)

אלמא עבודת כוכבים שנשתברה מאליה מותרת והקדש היינו טעמא דאין מועלין מן התורה כדמוקי לה בסמוך בגידולין הבאין לאחר מכאן וקסבר אין מעילה בגידולין


Explanation: This implies that an idol that broke by itself is permitted. The reason that one cannot usurp Hekdesh according to Torah law in this case, as we state later, is because the case is where he is using the growths of the tree/plant that grew after it had been dedicated to Hekdesh. This Beraisa holds that one cannot usurp these growths.

ופירש הקונטרס ולא יעלה על האשירה ויטלנו דא"כ נמצא משתמש באשירה


Opinion #1: Rashi explains that one should not go up on the Asheirah tree and take the nest, as this would mean he is using (i.e. benefiting from) the Asheirah tree.

ונראה דדוקא נקט יתיז בקנה שאפילו יכול ליטלו בידו בלא עליה על האשירה אסור כדי שלא יאמרו עכשיו הוא שוברן מן האשירה


Opinion #2: It seems that one should specifically hit the nest off with a stick, even if he can take it from the tree by merely reaching out his hand and not having to climb on the tree. This is order that people should not say that he is now breaking off branches from the Asheirah tree.



תוספות ד"ה ורבי אבהו

(SUMMARY: Tosfos reconciles Rashi's explanation of Rebbi Avahu here with a version of Rebbi Avahu in Me'ilah.)

פ"ה דמוקי לה בשברה ממנו עצים


Opinion: Rashi explains the case is where the bird broke off branches from the tree to make its nest.

ויפה פירש לפי שיטת הספר שבכאן דקאי לשנויי דלא תילף מיניה היתר עבודת כוכבים


Observation: This explanation is correct according to our Gemara's understanding that Rebbi Avahu is coming to answer that you should not learn from this a leniency regarding idolatry.

מיהו במעילה פרק ולד חטאת (דף יד.) גרס בדר' אבהו לעולם דאייתי עצים מעלמא וקינתה בהם ומאי יתיז באפרוחים וכל הקן מותר גם העצים


Implied Question: However, in Meilah (14a) the text of Rebbi Avahu's statement is that the bird brought wood from elsewhere to make its nest. When Rebbi Avahu says that he should hit the chicks and the entire nest is permitted, he means that the wood itself is permitted.

ובא להשמיענו שאם בא ליטול אפרוחים לא יטלם בידו שלא יעלה או יסמוך על האילן ויהנה ממנו


Implied Question (cont.): The novelty of his statement is that if he is coming to take the chicks he should not take them with his hands, meaning that he should not climb or lean on the tree, thereby having benefit from it. (This contradicts our understanding of Rebbi Avahu in our Gemara. What is the correct explanation of Rebbi Avahu?)

ואיכא למימר דלא קשיא מידי לפ"ה דהכא דאתי כלישנא אחרינא דהתם


Answer: It is possible to say that Rashi's explanation is not difficult, as there is another version of Rebbi Avahu in Me'ilah (ibid.) which agrees with Rashi's explanation.



תוספות ד"ה בביצים

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the eggs are forbidden.)

פירוש משום דצריכין לאילן וגזור בהו רבנן כעל האילן עצמו כפ"ה


Explanation #1: This is because they need the tree. Rashi explains that the Rabbanan therefore decreed that they are forbidden from benefit, just like the Asheirah tree itself.

א"נ י"ל דגזור בהו רבנן דחיישינן שמא יעלה על האילן דחייס עלייהו פן יפלו


Explanation #2: Alternatively, it is possible to say that the Rabbanan decreed that he should not take the eggs because we suspect that he will climb the tree in order to take the eggs, as he is worried that they might fall down (and break).



תוספות ד"ה המוצא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that one should not think that people are more likely to worship the image of a Darkon when it is on a vessel.)

ה"ה דאפילו צורת דרקון לבדה אסורה


Implied Question: It is also correct to say that even a statue of a Darkon is forbidden. (Why do we have to discuss vessels that have a Darkon on them?)

אלא נקט על הכלים לרבותא דאפילו הכי פלחו להו


Answer: Rather, the Mishnah gives a case where it is on vessels to teach us that even so (i.e. when they are on vessels) people bow down to them.



תוספות ד"ה יוליכם

(SUMMARY: Tosfos cites three different explanations of our Mishnah based upon the first Mishnah of the chapter.)

פ"ה ורבנן היא דאמרי (לעיל דף מ:) כל שאר צלמים מותרים


Opinion #1: Rashi explains that this is according to the Rabbanan (40b) who say that all other statues are permitted.

ולפי פירושו לא דק דהא אוקי רבי מאיר דאסר דוקא באנדרטי אבל שאר צלמים מותרים אם כן אפילו כרבי מאיר אתיא


Implied Question: According to Rashi's own opinion this is inaccurate. He himself explained that Rebbi Meir only forbids an Andreti, not other statues. If so, this is even according to Rebbi Meir.

וכן פי' רשב"ם


Opinion #2: This (the logic of the implied question) is indeed the explanation of the Rashbam.

ולפי' ר"ת דאוקי אנדרטי אשריותא דרבנן אבל שאר צלמים כולי עלמא אסירי צ"ל דשאר צלמים שהן אסורים בשאינם על הכלים אבל בכלים כולהו לנוי עבדי להו לבד מהנך


Opinion #3: According to Rabeinu Tam that an Andreti is referring to the leniency of the Rabbanan, but everyone agrees that other statues are forbidden, one must say that other statues are forbidden when they are not on vessels. However, when they are on vessels they are clearly decorative, besides for these.

ולהכי פריך בסמוך פרצוף אדם מי אסור כלומר על הכלים מי אסור דלחודייהו הא אסרינן צלמים במתני' לכ"ע


Opinion #3 (cont.): This is why the Gemara asks later, is the face of a man forbidden?! In other words, the question is that it is not forbidden on vessels, as a statue of a person in general was forbidden in the Mishnah according to all opinions.



תוספות ד"ה חומרי

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the definition of these words.).

פירש רשב"ם כללי דברייתא דהוי כמין חומר שקושר וכולל דברים הרבה בכלל אחד וניחא טפי מפרש"י


Explanation: The Rashbam explains that this means that Rav Sheshes took rules of Beraisos and used them like material to tie together and include many things in one rule. (The Avodah Berurah explains that the Beraisa quoted by Rav Sheshes was not taught as a Beraisa, but rather its terminology was put together based on Rav Sheshes understanding of many different Beraisos.) This is as better explanation than that of Rashi.