1)

TOSFOS DH ACHLAH S'MADAR REBBI YEHOSHUA OMER RO'IN OSAN KE'ILU HEIN ANAVIM OMDOS LIBATZER

úåñ' ã"ä àëìä ñîãø ø' éäåùò àåîø øåàéï àåúï ëàéìå äï òðáéí òåîãåú ìéáöø

(Summary: Tosfos discusses Rebbi Yehoshua's opinion in detail.)

åàôéìå àí ðú÷ì÷ì äîùåééøú, îùìí ëòðáéí äòåîãåú ìéáöø.

(a)

Clarification: Even if the remainder of the row is spoilt, he pays as if they were grapes that stand to be harvested.

åãå÷à áñîãø, ãòðáéí ôòîéí ùàìå îú÷ì÷ìéí åàìå ðéöåìéí, ìôéëê àéï ðéãåðéï áîùåééø.

(b)

Specifically Grapes: ... and this is confined to young grapes, since it is the way of grapes, that some get spoilt whilst others survive; therefore we do not go after the remaining grapes.

àáì úáåàä øâéìä ìäú÷ì÷ì ëåìä éçã.

1.

But Not Corn: ... as opposed to corn, which tends to all get spoilt together. Consequently ...

åáçæéæ îåãä ø' éäåùò, àå ëøáé éåñé äâìéìé àå ëøáðï.

(c)

Young Corn: Regarding Chaziz (grain in its earliest stages), Rebbi Yehoshua will concede, either to Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili or to the Rabanan.

åáúáåàä âãåìä ëîå ñîãø áòðáéí éñáåø 'ëîùåééø ùáå'.

(d)

Partially Grown Corn, Explanation #1: ... whereas corn that has grown to the stage that is equivalent to that of S'madar (budding) of grapes, he will hold 'that we go after the remainder of the crops'.

àé ðîé, áúáåàä ìà ÷ðñå ëì ëê ëîå áòðáéí, åìà éäà ðéãåï ëîùåééø ùáå ìøáé éäåùò.

1.

Partially Grown Corn, Explanation #2: Alternatively, Rebbi Yehoshua will hold that by corn the Chachamim did not punish the owner as severely as by grapes, in which case he will not have to pay according to the remainder of the crops.

åðøàä ãàò"â ãàîø ø' éäåùò 'øåàéï àåúï ëàéìå òåîãåú ìéáöø', î"î ùîéï àåúï àâá ÷ø÷ò.

(e)

Clarification (cont.): It seems that even though Rebbi Yehoshua says that we consider them as though they were grapes that are ready to be picked, he nevertheless holds that we assess them together with the land.

ãäà ø"ù ðîé ÷àîø äëé áôâéí àå áåñø, åò"ë àâá ÷ø÷ò ùîéï àåúï, ëéåï ãöøéëé ìùãä ...

1.

Proof: ... since we see that Rebbi Shimon who says the same as him with regard to young figs and young grapes, yet he definitely holds that one assesses them as part of the land, seeing as they still need the land ...

ãáôéøåú âîåøéí ãå÷à ÷àîø øáé ùîòåï ãîùìí ôéøåú âîåøéí áîùðúðå.

2.

Proof (cont.): ... because it is regarding fully-grown fruit exclusively that Rebbi Shimon, in our Mishnah, obligates him to pay complete fruit.

2)

TOSFOS DH U'MAI NIYHU, KI HE'ACH DE'SALIK

úåñ' ã"ä åîàé ðéäå ëé äéàê ãñìé÷

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles Abaye here with Abaye in Perek ha'Nizakin.)

äëà îùîò ãñáø àáéé ãôìéâé ã'ðéãåï áîùåééø ùáå'.

(a)

Inference: Here it implies that Abaye holds that that they are arguing over whether to assess the fruit according to the remaining fruit or not.

åä÷ùä ø"ú ãáøéù äðéæ÷éï (âéèéï ãó îç: åùí) ñ"ì ìàáéé ãôìéâé àé ùééîéðï áãðéæ÷ àå áãîæé÷?

(b)

Question: Rabeinu Tam queries this however, from the Gemara in ha'Nizakin (Gitin, Daf 48b), where Abaye explains the (same) Machlokes as to whether one assesses according to the field of the Nizak or of the Mazik

åé"ì, àò"â ãîùîò ãôìéâé àé áãîæé÷ àé áãðéæ÷ ...

(c)

Answer: Even though it implies (there) that they are arguing over whether one assesses according to the field of the Nizak or of the Mazik ...

ãäà úðéà ô"÷ (ãó å:) áäãéà "îéèá ùãäå ùì ðéæ÷ åîéèá ëøîå ùì ðéæ÷ ãáøé ø' éùîòàì; ø"ò àåîø ... " ...

1.

Proof: ... seeing as the Beraisa specifically says in the first Perek (Daf 6b) 'Meitav Sadeihu shel Nizak u'Meitav Karmo shel Nizak, Divrei Rebbi Yishmael; Rebbi Akiva Omer ... ' ...

î"î, îùîò ìéä ìàáéé ãá'îùåééø ðîé ôìéâé' ...

2.

Answer (cont.): ... nevertheless Abaye understands that they also arguing over 'the remainder of the field' ...

îã÷àîø ø"ò 'ìà áà äëúåá ... ', ãîùîò ùøåöä ìåîø ìà áà äëúåá ìäçîéø òì äîæé÷ ëîå ùàîøú, àìà ãå÷à ìâáåú ìðæ÷éï îï äòéãéú ìáã ...

3.

Proof: ... since Rebbi Akiva said 'Lo Ba ha'Kasuv ... ', implying that the Pasuk is not coming to be stringent on the Mazik, like Rebbi Yishmael says, but only in that he claims damages from the best ...

åàé á'òéãéú' ìçåãéä ôìéâé, à"ë ìà äéä ø' éùîòàì îçîéø òì äîæé÷ èôé îø"ò, àìà àãøáä äéä ø"ò îçîéø èôé ...

4.

Proof (cont.): ... and if their Machlokes was confined to 'Idis', then Rebbi Yishmael would not be more stringent on the Mazik than Rebbi Akiva; on the contrary, Rebbi Akiva would be more stringent than him ...

ãàéï çééá ì÷ðåú îòéãéú ãðéæ÷ àí àéï ìå, ëãôøéùéú áô"÷ (ãó å: åùí ã"ä ëâåï).

5.

Proof (concl.): ... seeing as (according to Rebbi Yishmael), the Mazik is not obligated to purchase the equivalent of the Nizak's Idis, in the event that he does not have it himself, as Tosfos explained in the first Perek (Daf 6b & 7a, DH 'K'gon).

3)

TOSFOS DH REBBI SHIMON BAR YEHUDAH HAYNU REBBI YEHOSHUA

úåñ' ã"ä ø' ùîòåï áø éäåãä äééðå øáé éäåùò

(Summary: Tosfos explains why we cannot answer 'K'roch ve'Tani' S'mader with Lulvei Gefanim.)

úéîä, àîàé ìà ÷àîø 'ëøåê åúðé "áã"à, áæîï ùàëìä ìåìáé âôðéí åñîãø" '?

(a)

Question: Why does the Gemara not explain 'K'roch u'Tani "ba'Meh Devarim Amurim, bi'Zeman she'Achlah Lulvei Gefanim u'Semadar" (in the Reisha)'?

åé"ì, îùåí ãàéï ùééê ìëìåì 'ñîãø' áäãé ìåìáéí, ãìà äåä ìéä ìäæëéø 'ìåìáéí', àìà äëé ä"ì ìîéîø 'áã"à áæîï ùàëìä ñîãø' ...

(b)

Answer: Because, it is not appropriate to include 'S'madar' together with Lulavin (palm-branches), and it ought not to have mentioned 'Lulavim', but just 'ba'Meh ... bi'Zeman she'Achlah S'madar'.

àáì áäãé 'ôâéí åáåñø' ùééê ìëåììå ùôéø, ãèòîà îùåí ãçùéá ëôâéï.

1.

Answer (cont.): ... whereas it is appropriate to include it together with Pagim (young figs) and Boser, since the reason is because it is similar to Pagin.

4)

TOSFOS DH IKA BEINAYHU K'CHASH GUFNA VE'LO MESAYMI

úåñ' ã"ä àéëà áéðééäå ëçù âåôðà åìà îñééîé

(Summary: Tosfos explains why we do not apply here the principle 'Tana Basra li'Tefuyei'.)

åà"ú, ìéîà úðà áúøà ìèôåéé åìäçîéø áúùìåîéï ÷àúé ...

(a)

Question: Why does the Gemara not say that the latter Tana comes to add and to be more Machmir with regard to payment? ...

ëãàîø áøéù äîåëø ôéøåú (á"á ãó öâ:)?

1.

Precedent: ... like it says at the beginning of 'ha'Mocher Peiros' (Bava Basra, Daf 93b)?

åé"ì, ãùàðé äëà ããìîà ìà áà ìèôåéé ëé àí òì çëîéí, ãà'îéìúééäå ãøáðï ÷àé.

(b)

Answer: It is different here, since it is possible that he is only coming to add on to the Chachamim, to whose opinion he is referring,

5)

TOSFOS DH MA'AN TANA DE'CHAYASH LI'KECHASH GUFNA REBBI SHIMON

úåñ' ã"ä îàï úðà ãçééù ìëçù âåôðà ø"ù äéà

(Summary: Tosfos explains in which point Abaye argues with Ravina.)

àáéé áà ìåîø ãîñééîé ùôéø, åìà ìàôå÷é øáðï ãôìéâé òìéä ãø"ù áàåðñ ÷àúé ...

(a)

Clarification: Abaye is coming to say that we do indeed know who says what, and that the latter Tana is not precluding from the Rabanan who argue with Rebbi Shimon by Oneis ...

ãàéðäå ðîé çééùé, åèòîééäå îùåí ãàéðå ãåîä ðáòìú áàåðñ ìðáòìú áøöåï, ëã÷àîøé.

1.

The Rabanan: ... seeing as they too, take into account 'K'chash Gufna', and their reason is because one cannot compare rape to being intimate with the girl's consent, as they explain.

6)

TOSFOS DH ONEIS MESHALEM ESS HA'TZA'AR

úåñ' ã"ä àåðñ àéðå îùìí àú äöòø

(Summary: Tosfos explains why the Gemara in Kesuvos asks 'Tza'ara de'Mai', even though it is obvious that a virgin suffers when her virginity is removed.)

áôø÷ àìå ðòøåú (ëúåáåú ãó ìè. åùí) âáé äà ãúðï 'äàåðñ ðåúï àú äöòø', áòé áâîøà 'öòø ãîàé?' ...

(a)

Implied Question: In Perek Eilu Na'aros (Kesuvos, Daf 39a and 39n) in connection with the Mishnah 'ha'Oneis Nosein es ha'Tza'ar', the Gemara asks 'Tza'ara de'Mai?'

àò"ô ããáø ôùåè äåà ùéù öòø âãåì ìáúåìä ùðáòìä îúçéìä, ëùîùéø áúåìéä, åøåá ÷èðåú çåìåú îæä?

1.

Implied Question (cont.): ... even though it is obvious that a virgin who is intimate for the first time suffers great pain when her virginity is removed; indeed, most virgins become ill as a result?

äééðå îùåí ãöòø ãäùøú áúåìéí ôùéèà ìéä ãìà îùìí ...

(b)

Answer: That is because the Gemara takes for granted that he does not pay for the pain caused by the removal of her virginity ...

ìôé ùñåôä ìäöèòø úçú áòìä.

1.

Reason: ... which, in turn, because eventually, she is anyway destined to suffer that pain when she marries.

ãúðà ãîúðéúéï ãäúí çééù ìëçù âåôðà îã÷úðé 'ùäàåðñ ðåúï àú äöòø åîôúä ôèåø'.

2.

Proof: ... since the Tana of that Mishnah takes into account 'the weakness of the vine', as he says there 'Because an Oneis pays for the pain whereas a Mefateh does not ...

åîãôèøéðï îôúä àìîà çééù ìëçù âåôðà, îä ùñåôä ìäöèòø úçú áòìä ...

3.

Proof (cont.): And since he declares a Mefateh Patur, we see that he takes into account 'the weakness of the vine' - that ultimately, she will suffer that pain at the hands of her husband anyway.

äìëê áòé öòø ãîàé?

4.

Proof (concl.): Hence the Gemara asks 'Which pain are we talking about?'

59b----------------------------------------59b

7)

TOSFOS DH HAVAH SAYEM MESA'ANI UCHMI

úåñ' ã"ä äåä ñééí îñàðé àåëîé

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles this Sugya and that of Ta'anis, with the Sugya in Beitzah, which implies that Yehudim used to wear black shoes.)

îùîò ùìà äéå øâéìéï áîðòìéí ùçåøéï.

(a)

Inference: This implies that they did not used to wear black shoes.

åëï îùîò áñãø úòðéåú àìå (úòðéú ëá. åùí) ã÷àîø 'à'ãäëé àúà ääåà âáøà ãñééí îñàðé àåëîé åìà øîé çåèé, ëãé ùìà éëéøå áå ùäåà éäåãé'.

1.

Support: And this is also implied in 'Seider Ta'aniyos Eilu' (Ta'anis, Daf 22a & 22b), where the Gemara says 'Meanwhile, a man came who was wearing black shoes without laces, so that they should not know that he was not a Yehudi'.

åúéîä, ãáô"÷ ãáéöä (ãó èå.) úðéà, 'àéï îùìçéï îðòì ìáï áéå"è îôðé ùöøéê áéöú äâéø ìäùçéøå'; îùîò ùìà äéå ðåòìéí àìà ùçåø?

(b)

Question: In the first Perek of Beitzah (Daf 15a), a Beraisa states that 'One may not send a white shoe on Yom-Tov, since it still requires a piece of black clay to blacken it', implying that they only wore black shoes?

åàåîø ø"ú, ãäîðòì åãàé äéä ùçåø, àáì äøöåòåú äéå ìáðåú ...

(c)

Answer: Rabeinu Tam therefore explains that the shoe itself was black, and it was the laces that were white ...

å'îñàðé àåëîé' ãäëà åãîñëú úòðéú äééðå äîðòì åäøöåòåú, äëì äéä ùçåø.

1.

Answer (cont.): And the black shoes mentioned here and in Maseches Ta'anis means the shoe and the laces, both of which were black.

åäééðå ãàîøéðï áôø÷ áï ñåøø (ñðäãøéï ãó òã: åùí) 'áùòú äùîã, àôé' ìùðåéé òø÷úà ãîñàðé àñåø, ùäøöåòåú äéå îùåðåú îùì ðëøéí.

2.

Proof: And that explains the Gemara in Perek ben Sorer u'Moreh (Sanhedrin, Daf 74b & 75a) which says that 'At the time of Sh'mad (forced conversions) one is forbidden to change even one's shoelaces, because the shoelaces were different than those of the Nochrim (See also Hagahos ha'Gra).

åàáéìåú ãàìéòæø äéä ëæä ùäéä ìáåù ùçåøéí åîúëñä ùçåøéí, åäéä øåöä ùàôé' äøöåòåú éäéå ùçåøéí, ùìà éäà òìéå ëìì öã ìáðåðéú, îôðé çéáúä ùì éøåùìéí.

(d)

Answer (concl.): And the Aveilus of Eliezer was such that he wore black clothes and covered himself in black, and he wanted that even his shoelaces to be black, so that, out of love of Yerushalayim, there should be no white on him at all.

8)

TOSFOS DH KASAV LE'RISHON VE'LO CHASMAH LO ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä ëúá ìøàùåï åìà çúîä ìå ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies this Sugya, before reconciling it with the Sugya in Gitin in various ways.)

áñåó 'îé ùäéä ðùåé' (ëúåáåú ãó öä. åùí) îôøù øá àùé ã'àôéìå ø"î ìà ÷àîø àìà áùðé ì÷åçåú, ãàí àéúà ãðçú øåç òáãä, ì÷îà àáòé ìä ìîòáã ...

(a)

Clarification: At the end of 'Mi she'Hayah Nasuy' (Kesuvos, Daf 95a & 95b) Rav Ashi explains that even Rebbi Meir only issues is ruling in a case of two purchasers, since, if she wanted to perform an act of goodwill (towards her husband), she ought to have done so by the first purchaser ...

àáì áìå÷ç àçã, àôéìå ø"î îåãä.

1.

Clarification (cont.): ... whereas where there is only one purchaser, even Rebbi Meir concedes ... .

åà"ú, ãáô' äðéæ÷éï (âéèéï ðç. åùí) âáé 'ì÷ç îï äàéù åçæø åì÷ç îï äàùä, î÷çå áèì', àîø øá, 'ìà ùðå àìà ãà"ì "ìê çæ÷ å÷ðé", àáì áùèø, ÷ðä.

(b)

Question: But in Perek ha'Nizakin (Gitin, Daf 58a & 58b) in the case where 'Someone bought first from the man, and then from the woman, his sale is invalid', Rav said that 'This speaks specifically where he said "Go, make a Chazakah and acquire!', but if he has a Sh'tar, he acquires it ...

åà'ì÷ç îï äàéù åçæø åì÷ç îäàùä ÷àé, ëãîåëç áñåâéà?

1.

Question (cont.): ... and this refers to where he purchased first from the man, and then from the woman, as is clear from the Sugya?

åàåø"é, ùéù ìçì÷ áéï ëúáä áùèø òöîå ùì áòì, ìëúáä ùèø áôðé òöîå.

(c)

Answer #1: The Ri explains that one can draw a distinction between whether the woman wrote in the Sh'tar of her husband or whether she wrote an independent Sh'tar.

åòåã àåîø ø"é, ãàôéìå áùèø ùì áòì àééøé äúí, àìà ùëúáä ùäéà òöîä îëøä ìì÷åçåú, àáì 'çúîä ìå' ãäëà äééðå ùîçìä ùòáåã ëúåáúä ùéù ìä òì ùãä æå.

(d)

Answer #2: Furthermore, he says, it can even speak there where she wrote in her husband's Sh'tar, only she wrote that she actually sold it to the purchasers, whereas the 'she signed' in our Sugya means that she foregoes the Shibud of her Kesubah that she had in that field.

åëï îùîò ìùåï 'çúîä' - ëìåîø ùðúøöéú áî÷ç åìà îçúä áå.

1.

Support: Indeed the Lashon 'Chasmah' means to say that she agrees to the sale without any objection.

åä"ø àìòæø îùð"õ ôé', ãèòîà ãøá äúí ãáùèø ÷åðä - îùåí ãñ"ì 'àçøéåú èòåú ñåôø äåà', åäåé ëàéìå ÷áìä òìéä àçøéåú ...

(e)

Answer #3: Whereas Rebbi Elazar from Shantz explains that the reason that Rav says there that with a Sh'tar he acquires it, is because he holds '(omitting) Achrayus (from a Sh'tar) is an error on the part of the Sofer', and it is as if she accepted Achrayus (even though it is not written).

àáì àí ôéøùä 'áìà àçøéåú', ìà ÷ðä àôé' áùèø ...

1.

Answer #3 (cont.): ... but had she specified 'without Achrayus', he would not acquire it even with a Sh'tar.

åùîåàì ãàîø 'òã ùúëúåá ìå àçøéåú', îùåí ã÷ñáø 'àçøéåú ìàå èòåú ñåôø äåà'.

2.

Answer #3 (concl.): Whereas Shmuel says 'until he writes Achrayus in the Sh'tar', because he holds that 'Achrayus is not an error on the part of the Sofer'.

ãôìéâé áäëé áô"÷ ãááà îöéòà (ãó éã.) ...

(f)

Source: ... and they are arguing over this principle in Bava Metzi'a (Daf 14a) ...

ãùîåàì ÷àîø áäãéà ã'ùòáåã öøéê ìéîìê', åøá ðîé àîø äúí 'ðîöàú ùàéðå ùìå, øá àîø éù ìå îòåú åéù ìå ùáç' ...

1.

Source (cont.): Where Shmuel specifically says that the Sofer needs to consult (the borrower) concerning Shibud', whereas according to Rav, he claims both the money the Sh'vach (the impovements) ...

åîùîò ãôùéèà ìéä ãàôé' ìà ôéøù ìå àú äùáç, ÷àîø øá ãéù ìå ùáç - åäééðå îùåí ãàéú ìéä ã'àçøéåú èòåú ñåôø äåà'.

2.

Source (concl.): ... implying that he takes for granted that he gets the Sh'vach even though he did not specify it - because he holds 'Achrayus Ta'us Sofer Hu'.

9)

TOSFOS DH U'PESAK HALACHAH KE'REBBI SHIMON DE'AMAR ACHLAH PEIROS GEMURIN ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä åôñ÷ äìëä ëø"ù ãàîø àëìä ôéøåú âîåøéï ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos explains that the Gemara in Kesuvos issues a ruling based on this P'sak Halachah and 'reconciles' it with a Gemara in Shevu'os.)

ôé' ø"ç ãîäëà ôùéèà ìï áôø÷ ðòøä áëúåáåú (ãó ðà. åùí) ã'ëì äòåîã ìéâææ, ëâæåæ ãîé', ìòðéï áòì çåá, ãìà èøéó ìäå.

(a)

Clarification: The RacRabeinu Chananel explains that, it is based on this ruling that, in the Gemara in Perek Na'arah in Kesuvos (Daf 51a & 51b) we take for granted that 'Whatever stands to be shorn is considered as if it has already been shorn', with regard to the fact that a creditor cannot claim from it ...

àò"â ãôìåâúà ìòðéï ùáåòä áôø÷ ùáåòú äãééðéï (ùáåòåú ãó îâ. åùí) á'òðáéí äòåîãéí ìéáöø', àé ëáöåøåú ãîééï àé ìà.

(b)

Clarification: ... even though regarding a Shevu'ah in Perek Shevu'as ha'Dayanim (Shevu'os, Daf 43a & 43b) there is a Machlokes as to whether 'Grapes that stand to be harvested are considered harvested' or not.

10)

TOSFOS DH HA'MAGDISH BE'SOCH S'DEH CHAVERO ETC

úåñ' ã"ä äîâãéù áúåê ùãä çáéøå åëå'

(Summary: Tosfos explains why the Tana sees fit to insert this case.)

àöèøéê ìîéúðééà - àå ìîñúîà ãìà ëøáé ...

(a)

Justification: The Tana needs to mention this case, either to present a S'tam Mishnah like Rebbi ...

àå ìàùîåòéðï ãàôéìå øáé îåãä áäà, ëãîôøù áâîøà.

(b)

Justification (cont.): Or to teach us that even Rebbi agrees in this case, as the Gemara will explain.

11)

TOSFOS DH LIBSAH HA'RU'ACH KULAN PETURIN

úåñ' ã"ä ìáúä äøåç ëåìï ôèåøéï

(Summary: Tosfos discusses the case and disagreesd with the Ri's explanation.)

ôø"é ãáøåç îöåéä àééøé, ëãîùîò áâî', ãñúí ìéáåé ãøåç îééøé áøåç îöåéä ...

(a)

Explanation #1: The Ri explains that it is speaking about a regular wind, as is implied by the Gemara, that S'tam 'Libuy Ru'ach' refers to a regular wind ...

îãôøéê òìä ãáøééúà 'åìéäåé ëæåøä åøåç îñééòú?', åàé áøåç ùàéï îöåéä, äà ìà äåä ìéä ìàñå÷é àãòúéä.

1.

Proof: ... since the Gemara asks on the Beraisa 'Why it is not like the case (in connection with Shabbos) where a person winnows and is helped by the wind? And if this referred to a storm wind, this is something that a person would not be expected to take into account.

åà"ú, ëéåï ãîúìáä áøåç îöåéä, éúçééá äàçøåï ùì äðçú òöéí [åàåø] ...

(b)

Question: Since the fire is fanned by a regular wind, the last one of those who placed the wood and the fire ought to be Chayav ...

ãáëì ãåëúé àùëçï ùîúçééá ìòðéï àù, áùéëåì ìäæé÷ áøåç îöåéä?

1.

Source: ... bearing in mind that we always find that one is Chayav by Eish, if one can cause damage by means of a regular wind ...

ëâåï 'àáðå åñëéðå åîùàå ùäðéçï áøàù ââå åðôìå áøåç îöåéä åäæé÷å' å'ëåôó ÷îú çáéøå áôðé äãìé÷ä ãîèéà ìéä áøåç îöåéä'.

2.

Examples: Such as 'One's stone, knife or load that one placed on top of one's roof and which falls in a regular wind and causes damage' (above, Daf 6a), or 'Someone who bends the standing corn of his friend towards a fire, which reaches it via a regular wind (above on Daf 56a)'.

åàéï ìçì÷ îùåí ãáäðäå àéï îçåñø àìà äåìëú äàù áòìîà ò"é øåç îöåéä, àáì ëàï îçåñø ìéáåé, åàéï ùí àù òìéå, åìà ÷øéðà áéä 'äîáòéø àú äáòøä' ...

(c)

Refuted Answer: Nor can one differentiate inasmuch as those cases lack only transporting the fire via a regular wind, whereas here it lacks fanning, in which case it is not considered Eish and it does not therefore fall under the heading of 'ha'Mav'ir es ha'Be'eirah' ...

ãäà áô"÷ (ãó è:) àîø 'âçìú ëîä ãùáé÷ ìéä, îòîéà òîéà åàæìà', àò"ô ùîúðãðãú áèìèåìå, îòîéà òîéà åàæìà; äà àí ãøëä ìäúìáåú ò"é ðãðåãå ùì çøù äîèìèìä, äéä äîåñø ìå çééá ...

(d)

Refutation: ... because in the first Perek (Daf 9b) the Gemara said that if one leaves a coal alone, it gradually goes out, and even though it moves around when the Cheresh carries it, it still tends to go out. But if the moving around of the Cheresh would cause it to flare up, the person who handed it to him would be Chayav ...

äëà ðîé éäéä äàçøåï çééá, àò"ô ùîçåñø ìéáåé?

1.

Refutation (cont.): Here too, the last one ought to be Chayav, even though it lacks fanning.

åé"ì, ã'ìáúå äøåç' ãîúðé' ÷àé à'áà àçø åìéáä', ãäùúà äåé 'ìéáä åìéáúä äøåç' ëáøééúà ãâî'.

(e)

Answer: 'Libso ha'Ru'ach' in the Mishnah refers to 'Ba Acher ve'Libah', in which case it is equivalent to 'Libah ve'Libsah ha'Ru'ach' in the Beraisa quoted in the Gemara.

åëï îùîò ìéùðà ã'ëåìï'.

1.

Proof: This is also implied by the Lashon 'Kulan'.

åáàéï áìéáåéå ëãé ììáåú åìà áøåç áôðé òöîå ëãé ììáåú, ëîå ùàôøù áâî'.

2.

Answer (cont.): And it speaks where there is not sufficient power to fan - either in his fanning on its own or in the wind on its own, as Tosfos will explain in the Gemara (See following Dibur).

åáçðí ãç÷ ìôøù ã'ìéáúå äøåç' äééðå ìéáä åìéáúå äøåç.

(f)

Refutation: What he (the Ri) pushed to explain that 'Libso ha'Ru'ach' means that both he and the wind fanned the flames is unnecessary.

àìà ðøàä ìôøù ã'ìéáúä äøåç' äééðå ùìéáúä äøåç áôðé òöîä áøåç ùàéï îöåéä ...

(g)

Explanation #2: But the explanation is that 'Libsah ha'Ru'ach' speaks where a storm-wind fanned it on its own ...

å'ìéáä åìéáúä äøåç' áâî' áéï îöåéä áéï àéï îöåéä - åëâåï ù÷åãí ìéáåéå ëáø áà äøåç ùìéáúå ìáñåó, àéæä øåç ùéäéä ...

1.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Whereas 'Libah ve'Libsah ha'Ru'ach' in the Gemara speaks about a wind, irrespective of whether it is a regular wind or a storm-wind - where the wind that fanned it at the end was already there before he fanned it, whichever wind it is ...

ãîàçø ùáà ëáø, ëê ìé ùàéðå îöåéä ëîöåéä.

2.

Reason: Because, seeing as it was there beforehand, a storm-wind has the same Din as a regular wind.

åëï îùîò îúåê úéøåöå ùì øáà, ùúéøõ 'ëâåï ùìéáä áøåç îöåéä, åìéáúå äøåç áøåç ùàéðä îöåéä ...

(h)

Proof #1: And this is also implied in the answer of Rava, who explains that 'Libah' speaks with a regular wind, whereas 'Libsah ha'Ru'ach' speaks by a storm-wind' ...

îëìì ãîòé÷øà ñ"ã ùîòé÷øà áà äøåç ùìáñåó ìéáä.

1.

Proof #1 (cont.): ... implying that the Gemara initially thought that the wind which fanned it in the end was blowing already before.

åëï îùîò áéøåùìîé - ãîúðéúéï àééøé áøåç ùàéðä îöåéä, ãâøñéðï äúí 'ìéáúå äøåç, ëåìï ôèåøéï'. 'úîï àîøéï áøåç ùì àåðñéí, àáì áøåç ùäòåìí îúðäâ áå, çééá.

(i)

Proof #2: And it is also implied in the Yerushalmi - that the Mishnah speaks by a storm-wind, since the text there reads 'Libso ha'Ru'ach, Kulan Peturin' - 'There they established the case by a storm-wind, but by a regular wind, he will be Chayav ...

ø' éåçðï åø"ì úøåééäå àîøé àôé' áøåç ùäòåìí îúðäâ áå ...

(j)

Second Opinion: Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish both say that he is Patur even by a regular wind ...

ùôòîéí äåà áà åôòîéí àéï áà'.

1.

Reason: ... because sometimes it blows and sometimes it doesn't.