1)

TOSFOS DH O MIBA'I LEIH LECHALEK

úåñ' ã"ä àå îáòé ìéä ìçì÷

(Summary: After establishing the Sugya like Rebbi Yashiyah, Tosfos queries both this Sugya and a Sugya in Chulin, based on the Sugya in Bava Metzi'a.)

äàé ñåâéà ëø' éàùéä ãîöøéê "àå" ìçì÷ áëì ãåëúéï ...

(a)

Clarification: This Sugya goes like Rebbi Yashiyah, who always requires "O" to divide ...

àáì ìøáé éåðúï àéï öøéê "àå" ìçì÷.

1.

Clarification (cont.): ... but according to Rebbi Yonasan, "O" is not required to divide.

åúéîä, à"ë, ñåâéà æå ãìà ëäìëúà ...

(b)

Question #1: In that case, this Sugya does not go according to the Halachah ...

ãáô' äùåàì (á"î ãó öä:) îå÷é àáéé ëøáé éàùéä åøáà ëøáé éåðúï, å÷é"ì ëøáà ìâáé ãàáéé?

1.

Question #1 (cont.): ... seeing as the Gemara in Perek ha'Sho'el (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 95b) establishes Abaye like Rebbi Yashiyah and Rava like Rebbi Yonasan, and we Pasken like Rava against Abaye?

åáô' àåúå åàú áðå (çåìéï ãó òç:) âáé ôìåâúà ã'çåùùéï ìæøò äàá', îùîò ãúìéà áôìåâúà ãøáé éåðúï åø' éàùéä ðîé éù ìúîåä, ìîä àéï àðå ôåñ÷éï ëî"ã ëø' éåðúï, îëç îéìúéä ãøáà áôø÷ äùåàì.

(c)

Question #2: And in Perek Oso ve'es B'no (Chulin, Daf 78b) too, in connection with Chosh'shin le'Zera ha'Av', where it implies that it hinges on the Machlokes between Rebbi Yoshiyah and Rebbi Yonasan, one can ask why we don't Pasken like those who hold like Rebbi Yonasan, based on the opinion of Rava in Perek ha'Sho'el?

2)

TOSFOS DH HAVAH AMINA KAREV LEGABEI MIZBE'ACH IN

úåñ' ã"ä äåä àîéðà ÷øá ìâáé îæáç àéï

(Summary: Tosfos explains why we do not learn here "Shor" "Shor" from Shabbos that one is Chayav 'Bor' on all animals), and elaborates.)

úéîä, ìîä ìà éìôéðï äëà "ùåø" "ùåø" îùáú?

(a)

Question #1: Why do we not learn "Shor" "Shor" from Shabbos?

åáîñ÷ðà ðîé ãîøáéðï òåôåú îãëúéá "éùéá ìáòìéå", 'ëì ãàéú ìéä áòìéí' ì"ì, ðéìó î"ùåø" "ùåø" àå "çîåø" "çîåø" îùáú ...

(b)

Question #2: The question also arises according to the Maskana, which includes birds from "Yashiv li'Be'alav", 'anything that has a master, why do we not learn "Shor" "Shor" or "Chamor" "Chamor" from Shabbos ...

ëîå çñéîä åôøé÷ä ì÷îï?

1.

Precedent: ... like we do in connection with 'Chasimah' and Perikah, later (on Amud Beis)?

åîîéìà àîòéè àãí, ãìéëà ìîéìó îùáú ...

(c)

Question #2 (cont.): And Adam will automatically be excluded, seeing as we cannot learn Adam from Shabbos ...

ëãàîøéðï ì÷îï (ò"á) âáé ëìàéí - 'ìäðçä ä÷ùúéå åìà ìãáø àçø'?

1.

Precedent: .. as the Gemara will say later (on Amud Beis) in connection with Kil'ayim - 'I compared him (Adam) regarding Hanachah (Shabbos) but not regarding anything else?

åëï âáé úùìåîé ëôì åäùáú àáéãä, îä öøéê øéáåé ì÷îï, ðéìó îùáú?

(d)

Question #3: And similarly (one can ask) in connection with the payment of double and with the returning of a lost article, why does one need a Ribuy (to include them), when we can learn them from Shabbos?

åîéäå ìäôøùä ãäø ñéðé ðéçà, ãìà ùééê ìîéìó îùáú ãòãééï ìà ðàîøå òùøú äãáøåú.

(e)

No Question: Regarding separating on Har Sinai however, there is no problem, seeing as one cannot learn from Shabbos, since the Aseres ha'Dibros (including Shabbos) had not yet been said.

åé"ì, ãáî÷åí ùùééê ìãøåù áëìì åôøè, ìà éìôéðï "ùåø" "ùåø" îùáú.

(f)

Answer: Wherever it is possible to Darshen via a 'K'lal u'Perat', we do not learn "Shor" "Shor" from Shabbos.

åëï ëì äðé ãäåä ãøùéðï áëìì åôøè - ãúùìåîé ëôì ãøùéðï ìéä áäãéà áîøåáä (ì÷îï ãó ñâ.), àé ìàå øáåéà ã"ëì" ...

1.

Answer (cont.): And so it is with all those cases where a 'K'lal u'Perat' are applicable - since 'the payment of double' we explicitly Darshen in Perek Merubeh (later on Daf 63a), were it not for the Ribuy of "ve'Chol" ...

åëï éù ìôøù áäùáú àáéãä.

2.

Answer (cont.): ... and one can offer the same explanation with regard to the returning of a lost article.

àáì áëì àçøéðé é"ì ãìà îãøéù áëìì åôøè åëìì.

(g)

Answer (concl.): Whereas by all the other cases (where we do learn from Shabbos) we must say that they are not subject to a 'K'lal u'Perat u'Kelal'.

3)

TOSFOS DH KAREV LEGABEI MIZBE'ACH

úåñ' ã"ä ÷øá ìâáé îæáç

(Summary: Tosfos asks why the Gemaros in Kidushin and in Chulin do not bring this S'vara.)

áô"÷ ã÷ãåùéï (ãó éæ.) âáé 'äòð÷ä', ãëúéá "öàï âåøï åé÷á", ìà îîòè ëì ãáø ùàéï ÷øá ìâáé îæáç ...

(a)

Implied Question: In the first Perek of Kidushin (Daf 17a) in connection with 'Ha'anakah', where the Torah writes "Tzon, Goren ve'Yekev", the Gemara does not preclude whatever does not go on the Mizbe'ach ...

îùåí ãáëìì âåøï äåé ëîä ãáøéí ùàéï ÷øéáéí ìâáé îæáç.

(b)

Answer: ... because "Goren" incorporates many items that are not brought on the Mizbe'ach.

àáì áô"÷ ãçåìéï (ãó ëä:) ö"ò, ãëúéá "ëì îòùä òæéí úúçèàå", ãàîø "òæéí", 'ìîòåèé òåôåú'. åàîàé ìà îîòèéðï ëì ãáø ùàéï ÷øá ìâáé îæáç?

(c)

Question: But in the first Perek of Chulin (Daf 25) one needs to look into the matter, since the Torah writes "Kol Ma'aseh Izim Tischata'u", which the Gemara Darshens to preclude birds. Why do we not preclude anything that does not go on the Mizbe'ach?

åîéäå ìääåà ìéùðà ãàîø ì÷îï ' "ëì" øéáåéà äåà', ìà ÷ùä îäúí.

(d)

Answer: However, according to the Lashon that learns later (on Amud Beis) that "Kol" is a Ribuy (and not a K'lal), the Kashya falls away.

4)

TOSFOS DH BEIN LE'REBBI YEHUDAH DE'MARBEH KEILIM KEILIM B'NEI MISAH NINHU

úåñ' ã"ä áéï ìøáé éäåãä ãîøáä ëìéí ëìéí áðé îéúä ðéðäå

(Summary: Tosfos explains the Kashya on Rebbi Yehudah.)

åà"ú, åîàé ôøéê, ë"ù îùåí ãìàå áðé îéúä ðéðäå, öøéëé øéáåéà ìøáé éäåãä?

(a)

Question: What is the Gemara asking? The fact that they are not subject to death is all the more reason to require a Ribuy?

åé"ì, ãìø' éäåãä ðîé äåä îîòè ëìéí î"çîåø" ...

(b)

Answer: Because, if not for the Ribuy, Rebbi Yehudah too, would preclude Keilim from "Chamor"...

àé ìàå øéáåéà, åìäëé ôøéê áéï ìøáðï ãîîòèé ìäå ëìéí î"çîåø", åáéï ìøáé éäåãä ãîøáä ìäå ëìéí î"àå", ìàôå÷é îîéòåè ã"çîåø" ...

1.

Answer (cont.): Consequently, the Gemara is asking both on the Rabanan, who preclude Keilim from "Chamor" and on Rebbi Yehudah, who includes Keilim from "O", to preclude from the Miy'ut of Chamor ...

'äà ìàå áðé îéúä ðéðäå?'

2.

Answer (concl.): ... 'But they are not subject to Misah?'

5)

TOSFOS DH BEIN LE'RABANAN BEIN LE'REBBI YEHUDAH KEILIM B'NEI HAVLA NINHU

úåñ' ã"ä áéï ìøáðï áéï ìø' éäåãä ëìéí áðé äáìà ðéðäå

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles this with the opinion in 'ha'Meni'ach that Rebbi Yehudah holds 'Mafkir Nezakav le'Achar Nefias Peshi'ah, Patur, and elaborates.)

àôéìå ìîàï ãàéú ìéä áô' äîðéç (ìòéì ãó ëè.) ãìøáé éäåãä 'îô÷éø ðæ÷éå ìàçø ðôéìú ôùéòä, ôèåø' ...

(a)

Implied Question: Even according to the opinion in Perek ha'Me'ni'ach (above, on Daf 29a) that Rebbi Yehudah holds 'ha'Mafkir Nezakav achar Nefilas Peshi'ah, Patur' ...

åà"ë ìà îçééá øáé éäåãä àìà ááåø áøùåúå, åááåø áøùåúå àöèøéê ùôéø ìîéôèø ëìéí áçáèä ...

1.

Implied Question (cont.): ... in which case, he will only declare it Chayav in a pit that is in his domain, and regarding a pit that is in his domain, we do indeed need to declare Patur Keilim from Chavatah ...

ãçáèä ãéãéä äåà?

(b)

Reason: ... seeing as it is his Chavatah?

î"î ôøéê ùôéø - ãáäéæ÷ äáì îùúòé ÷øà ...

(c)

Answer #1: The Gemara's Kashya is justified - seeing as the Pasuk is talking about the damage of Hevel ...

îããøéù øá "åðôì", 'òã ùéôåì ãøê ðôéìä' ...

1.

Source: ... since Rav Darshens "ve'Nafal", 'until it falls normally (face downwards)' ...

åçáèä äéëà ãäåé ãéãéä, àúéà á÷"å ...

(d)

Answer #1 (cont.): ... whereas Chavatah, where it belongs to him, we learn (only) from a Kal va'Chomer ...

åáäáì ãîùúòé áéä ÷øà, àéú ìï ìàùëåçé øéáåéà ãëìéí ìø"é.

1.

Answer #1 (concl.): And it is by Hevel, about which the Pasuk is speaking, that we now need to find a Ribuy for Keilim according to Rebbi Yehudah (Hence the Gemara's Kashya is valid).

åîéäå àéï ðøàä ùéãøåù ø' éäåãä, àôéìå ìøá, 'òã ùéôåì ãøê ðôéìä' ...

(e)

Answer #2: Rebbi Yehudah does not appear to Darshen 'until it falls normally', even according to Rav.

ãëéåï ãìà îçééá àìà ááåø áøùåúå, àéï ìå ìãåøùå ...

1.

Reason: ... because, since he only declares Chayav in a pit that is in his domain, he does not need to Darshen it

ëîå ùùîåàì àéï ãåøùå, îùåí ãáëì î÷åí ùéúçééá áäáì îúçééá áçáèä.

(f)

Precedent: ... just as Shmuel does not Darshen it, because (he holds that) wherever one is Chayav for Hevel, one is also Chayav for Chavatah.

6)

TOSFOS DH CHAMOR DE'BOR LE'REBBI YEHUDAH ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä çîåø ãáåø ìø' éäåãä ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles this with the Sugya in ha'Gozel Basra, and explains why we cannot learn that one is Patur on Sh'taros from Chamor.)

åäà ãìà ÷àîø ðîé "âí" ìá"ä ãáøéù äâåæì ÷îà ì÷îï (ãó öã.)?

(a)

Implied Question: The Gemara does not add "Gam" according to Beis Hillel at the beginning of 'ha'Gozel Kama' (Daf 94a)?

ãìà çùéá àìà äðê ããîå ãäåå áòìé çééí?

(b)

Answer: ... because it only reckons those things that fall under the category of Ba'alei Chayim.

ä÷ùä äø"ø îùä îôåðèééæ"à, åàéîà ã"çîåø" àúà ìîòè ùèøåú?

(c)

Question: Why does the Gemara not answer that "Chamor" comes to preclude Sh'taros?

åàåø"é, ãìîàï ãìà ãàéï ãéðà ãâøîé àôé' äåà òöîå ôèåø, åìîàï ããàéï ãéðà ãâøîé ðîé ìà îçééá àìà îãøáðï ...

(d)

Answer: Because, according to the opinion that does not declare 'Garmi' Chayav, even the person himself will be Patur; whereas the opinion that declares him Garmi Chayav, does so only mi'de'Rabanan ...

ëãîåëç áôø÷ äëåðñ (ì÷îï ãó ñá.) ãîéáòéà ìéä 'àé òùå ú÷ðú ðâæì áîñåø àå ìà?' åàé ãéðà ãâøîé ãàåøééúà, ìîä ìà òùå ú÷ðú ðâæì áîñåø ëîå áðâæì?

(e)

Source: ... as is evident in Perek ha'Koneis (later, on Daf 62a), where the Gemara asks as to whether they instituted a Takanas Nigzal by a Masur (whose objects someone handed over to a Nochri, or not?' Now if Diyna de'Garmi were d'Oraysa, why should they not have instituted Takanas Nigzal by a Masur, just like they did by the Nigzal?

7)

TOSFOS DH DA'AVEIDAH LE'DIVREI HA'KOL KASHYA

úåñ' ã"ä ùä ãàáéãä ìãáøé äëì ÷ùéà

(Summary: Tosfos explains why the Torah does not need to write "Seh" to create a 'K'lal Mosif al ha'P'erat'.)

åà"ú, ìâåôéä àöèøéê ìîäåé ôøè åëìì, åðòùä ëìì îåñéó òì äôøè, åàúøáå ëì îéìé ...

(a)

Question: It is needed for itself, for the P'rat u'Chelal, to make the K'lal one that adds to the P'rat, thereby including everything?

ã"ùåø åçîåø åùìîä" àöèøéê ëì çã åçã ìîéìúéä ëããøéù áô' àìå îöéàåú (á"î ãó ëæ.), åàé ìà "ùä" ãîééúø, äåä îùééøé çã îéðééäå ìôøè åëìì, åìà äåä ãøùéðï áéä îéãé?

1.

Question (cont.): This is because "Shor, Chamor and Salmah" are needed, each one for its own Chidush, as the Gemara explains in Perek Eilu Metzi'os (Bava Netzi'a, Daf 27a), and if not for the fact that "Seh" is superfluous, we would have had to relinquish one of them, and not Darshen it, in order to form that P'rat u'Chelal?

åé"ì, ãáëì î÷åí ùéù ôøè åëìì, øâéì øáéðå ùîåàì ìéúï èòí ìîä ìé ìôøè, ëéåï ãàúøáé ëì îéìé.

(b)

Introduction to Answer: Wherever we find a P'rat u'Chelal, Rabeinu Shmuel would give a reason why we need the P'rat, seeing as the Klal includes everything.

åîôøù ãùîà éù ãáøéí ùìà äéä îúøáé îäëìì àí ìà ù÷ãîå ôøè ìäéåú ëìì îåñéó òìéå åìøáåú ëì ãáø.

1.

Introduction to Answer (cont.): And he would explain that perhaps there are things that one would not include from the K'lal were it not for the P'rat that preceded it, turning it into a K'lal that adds to the P'rat, thereby including everything.

åäëà ÷éí ìéä ìáòì äù"ñ ãî"àáéãä" ñúí äåä ùîòéðï ùôéø ëì àáéãä ëàéìå éù 'ôøè åëìì', ùàéï ìîòè ùåí àáéãä îáðéï àá àå î÷"å àå áùåí òðéï ...

(c)

Answer #1: Here on the other hand, the Ba'al ha'Shas knew that "Aveidah" S'tam implies all lost articles, as if there had been a 'P'rat u'Chelal', in which one cannot preclude an Aveidah from a Binyan Av, a Kal va'Chomer or by any other method.

åà"ö ëàï ôøè ëãé ùìà ìîòè îï äëìì ùåí ãáø òì éãé ùåí ãéï.

(d)

Answer #1 (cont.): Consequently, a P'rat is not needed here to prevent precluding whatever it might be from the K'lal, in any way whatsoever.

à"ð "ìëì àáéãä" ëúéá - åäåé "ìëì" øéáåéà, ìøáåú ëì àáéãä ëàéìå éù ôøè åëìì.

(e)

Answer #2: Alternatively, the Torah writes "le'Chol Aveidas", which is a Ribuy, to include any Aveidah, as if it had inserted a 'P'rat u'Chelal'.

àó òì âá ããøùéðï îéðéä áò"æ (ãó ëå:) 'ìøáåú äîåîø' ...

(f)

Implied Question: Even though the Gemara in Avodah-Zarah (Daf 26b) learns from it 'to include a Mumar' ...

îëì î÷åí àéëà ìîãøù ðîé ëì àáéãä, ãà'úøåééäå ÷àé øéáåéà - à"àáéãä åà"àçéê" ...

(g)

Answer: ...nevertheless, one can also Darshen from it all lost articles, since the Ribuy goes on both - on both "Aveidah" and on "Achicha".

åîøáéðï ëì àáéãä ãëì àçã åìëàçéê.

1.

Conclusion: So we include both every Aveidah (from "le'Chol Aveidas") and the Aveidah of every person (from "Achicha"),

54b----------------------------------------54b

8)

TOSFOS DH BEHEMT'CHA DE'DIBROS HA'RISHONOS K'LAL

úåñ' ã"ä áäîúê ããáøåú äøàùåðåú ëìì

(Summary: Tosfos explains why this is a genuine 'K'lal u'Perat'.)

ìà çùéá ìéä 'ëìì åôøè äîøåç÷éí æä îæä' ...

(a)

Clarification: The Gemara does not consider this a 'K'lal u'Perat' that are far apart' ...

ãàçøåðåú åøàùåðåú çãà îéìúà äéà ...

(b)

Reason: ... since the first Luchos and the last Luchos are one and the same ...

ã"æëåø" "åùîåø" áãáåø àçã ðàîøå [ø"ä ëæ. ùáåòåú ë:].

1.

Reason: ... seeing as "Zachor" and "Shamor" were said simultaneously (Rosh ha'Shanah, 27a & Shevu'os, 20b).

9)

TOSFOS DH VE'EIMA MAH HA'PERAT MEFURASH DAVAR SHENIVLASO METAMEI

úåñ' ã"ä åàéîà îä äôøè îôåøù ãáø ùðáìúå îèîà

(Summary: Tosfos queries this question from two angles.)

úéîä, [à"ë] ôøè ì"ì, ãáëìì "áäîúê" ðîé ëúéá?

(a)

Question #1: In that case, why would the Torah see fit to insert the P'rat, seeing as "Behemt'cha" is already written in the K'lal?

åòåã, ëùàåîø 'îä äôøè îôåøù áòìé çééí, àó ëì áòìé çééí, åòåôåú áëìì ...

(b)

Question #2: Moreover, when the Tana says that just as the P'rat specifically says Ba'alei Chayim, so too, will we include all Ba'alei Chayim, including birds ...

äéëé ñ"ã ãàúøáå òåôåú; ìéîà ãëììà âåôéä îîòè ìäå?

1.

Question #2 (cont.): ... how can we even think to include birds? Why does the K'lal itself not preclude them?

10)

TOSFOS DH P'RI MI'PRI U'GIDULEI KARKA

úåñ' ã"ä ôøé îôøé åâãåìé ÷ø÷ò

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles this with the Gemara in Kidushin, which does not consider Bakar va'Tzon Gidulei Karka.)

äëà îùîò ãá÷ø åöàï à÷øé 'âéãåìé ÷ø÷ò'.

(a)

Implication: Here it implies that cattle and sheep are called 'Gidulei Karka'.

åúéîä, ãáô"÷ ã÷ãåùéï (ãó éæ.) âáé 'äòð÷ä' àîø ã'àé ëúá øçîðà "âåøï", ä"à âéãåìé ÷ø÷ò àéï, áòìé çééí, ìà', ëúá øçîðà "öàï"?

(b)

Question: But in the first Perek of Kidushin (Daf 17a) in connection with 'Ha'anakah', the Gemara says that 'Had the Torah written "Goren", we would have thought Gidulei Karka, yes, animals, no'. Therefore it added "Tzon" '?

åé"ì, ãìòðéï ãáø äéåöà îîù îï äàøõ, ìà çùéá áäîä âéãåìé ÷ø÷ò.

(c)

Answer: As far as things that actually grow from the ground, animals are not considered Gidulei Karka ...

åàéï ìäàøéê ëàï éåúø.

(d)

Conclusion: ... and this is not the place to elaborate further (See Masores ha'Shas).