BAVA KAMA 71 - Two weeks of study material have been dedicated by Ms. Estanne Fawer to honor the Yahrzeit of her father, Rav Mordechai ben Eliezer Zvi (Rabbi Morton Weiner) Z'L, who passed away on 18 Teves 5760. May the merit of supporting and advancing Dafyomi study -- which was so important to him -- during the weeks of his Yahrzeit serve as an Iluy for his Neshamah.

1)

TOSFOS DH ILU TAV'AH LEIH ... (cont. from previous Daf)

úåñ' ã"ä àéìå úáòä ìéä ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos discusses why an Esnan that a man gives his mother is considered an Esnan and not a gift.)

åòé÷ø èòîà ãàúðï ëãîñé÷ äëà îùåí ã÷à éäéá ìä äåé àúðï

(a)

Conclusion: And the main reason that it (the Esnan that he gives his mother) is an Esnan is as the Gemara concludes here - because he is obligated to give it to her [not because it is in her Chatzer).

ôé' ëéåï ùöøéê ìúú ìä ìöàú éãé ùîéí, àôé' ìà äéä òåîã áçöéøä, çùéá àúðï åìà îúðä...

(b)

Clarification: In other words, since he is obligated to give it to her in order to fulfill his moral obligation, it would be considered an Esnan and not a gift, even if it was not standing in her Chatzer ...

ä"ð äåéà îëéøä.

1.

Conclusion: By the same token the sale is valid in the current case.

åëï îùîò áäùåëø àú äôåòìéí (á"î ãó öà. åùí) ãçééá ìéúï ìöàú éãé ùîéí...

(c)

Support: And it is also implied in 'ha'Socher es ha'Po'alim' (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 91a & 91b) that one is obligated to pay the money (in similar circumstances) in order to fulfill one's moral obligation ...

ãàîø äúí 'äçåñí àú äôøä åãù áä, ìå÷ä åîùìí ã' ÷áéí ìôøä åâ' ÷áéí ìçîåø.' åôøéê 'åäà ÷ééîà ìï ãàéï ìå÷ä åîùìí?' åîùðé øáà 'àúðï àñøä úåøä, àôé' áà òì àîå.'

1.

Support (cont.): When the Gemara states there, in a case where one muzzles a cow and threshes with it, that one receives Malkos and has to pay four Kabin for a cow and three Kabin for a donkey'. And, in answer to the question 'Ha Ein Lokeh u'Meshalem?', the Gemara answers 'The Torah forbids Esnan, even if he had relations with his mother!'

åà"ú, ãáôø÷ áï ñåøø åîåøä (ñðäãøéï ãó òá. åùí) àîøéðï 'øáà àéâðéáå ìéä [ãéëøé] áîçúøú; àäãøéðäå ðéäìéä åìà ÷áìéðäå...

(d)

Question: In Perek Ben Sorer u'Moreh (Sanhedrin, Daf 72a, See Tosfos there DH 've'Lo') the Gemara relates that thieves stole rams from a Machteres (a tunnel) that they had dug whilst breaking into Rava's house, and that Rava refused to accept them when they came to return them ...

äåàéì åðô÷ îôåîéä ãøá ã'áãîéí ÷ðéðäå ... '

1.

Reason: Based on a statement of Rav that he (the thief) 'acquires them with his life' ...

åàí äéå çééáéï ìöàú éãé ùîéí, àîàé ìà ÷áìéðäå?

(e)

Question (cont.): Now if a thief is obligated to return articles that he stole in a Macchteres (albeit in order to fulfill his moral obligation), why did Rava refuse to accept them?

åé"ì, ùäí ìà äéå îçæéøéí àìà îùåí ùäéå ñáåøéí ùçééáéï ìäçæéø îï äãéï.

(f)

Answer: Because he thieves were returning the rams (not on account of any moral obligation, but) because they thought that they were obligated to do so min ha'Din.

2)

TOSFOS DH VE'HA KAYMA LAN EIN LOKEH U'MESHALEM

úåñ' ã"ä åäà ÷é"ì ãàéï ìå÷ä åîùìí

(Summary: Tosfos queries this from the Gemara in Makos, which appears to confine it to Mamon [but not to K'nas].)

äëé ðîé ôøéê à'îúðéúéï ã'àìå ðòøåú' (ëúåáåú ãó ìá. åùí).

(a)

Precedent: The Gemara asks the same Kashya on the Mishnah in 'Eilu Na'aros' (Kesuvos, Daf 32a, See Tosfos there DH 'de'Ein').

åúéîä, ãäà á÷ðñ îùîò ãîåãå ëåìé òìîà ã'ìå÷ä åîùìí... '

(b)

Question: It is implied that by K'nas, everyone agrees that 'One receives Malkos and pays' ...

ãéìôéðï îîåöéà ùí øò, ëãîåëç áô"÷ ãîëåú (ãó ã. åùí) ãäåé âîøéðï áëì ãåëúéï îîåöéà ùí øò, àé ìàå ãàéëà ìîôøê 'îä ìîåöéà ùí øò ùëï ÷ðñ' ... ?

1.

Source: ... since we learn it from Motzi Shem Ra, as is evident in the first Perek of Makos (Daf 4a & 4b) - that we would learn all other cases from Motzi Shem Ra, if not for the Pircha 'Mah le'Motzi Shem Ra, she'Kein K'nas'?

å"ëãé øùòúå" ðå÷é áùàø îîåï ãìàå ÷ðñ.

2.

Source (cont.): Whereas "K'dei Risha'so" (from which we learn 'Ein Lokeh u'Meshalem') we will establish by cases of Mamon which are not K'nas.

åãåç÷ ìåîø ãøáðï ôìéâé à'ãøáé îàéø åñáøé òãéí æåîîéí ÷ðñà äåà å"ëãé øùòúå" áòãéí æåîîéí ëúéá...

(c)

Refuted Answer: And it would be a Dochek to explain that the Rabbanan disagree with Rebbi Meir and hold a. that Eidem Zom'min are considered a K'nas and b. that "K'dei Rish'aso" is written in connection with them.

ìîéîøà ãàôé' á÷ðñ 'îùåí øùòä àçú àúä îçééáå, åàé àúä îçééáå îùåí ùúé øùòéåú' .

1.

Refuted Answer (cont.): ... in which case, we would Darshen that 'One can only declare a defendant Chayav for one transgression, but not for two' even regarding cases of K'nas.

åé"ì, ãåãàé àé ìàå ãàéëà ìîôøê 'îä ìîåöéà ùí øò ùëï ÷ðñ' ,äåä éìôéðï áëì ãåëúà ã'ìå÷ä åîùìí,' åäåä ãøùéðï "ëãé øùòúå" ìãøùä àçøú, ëããøùéðï á'àìå ðòøåú' .

(d)

Answer: To be sure, were it not for the Kashya 'Mah le'Motzi Shem Ra she'kein K'nas?', we would apply 'Lokeh u'Meshalem' to all cases, and learned something else from "K'dei Rish'aso", as the Gemara Darshens in 'Eilu Na'aros' (Daf 36a & 36b) ...

àáì äùúà ãàéëà ìîôøê åîå÷îé "ëãé øùòúå" ã'àéï ìå÷ä åîùìí' ,îäùúà éìôéðï áëì ãåëúéï îäúí, ãàéï òãéí æåîîéí ìå÷éï åîùìîéï, àôéìå á÷ðñ...

1.

Answer (cont.): But now that one can ask and establish "K'dei Rish'aso" to teach us 'Ein Lokeh u'Meshalem', we learn from there regarding all cases that 'Eidim Zom'min cannot both receive Malkos and pay' ...

ãáëì òðéï àîøä úåøä ã'àéï òãéí æåîîéí ìå÷éï åîùìîéï' àôé' áùòä ùäòéãå ù÷ø 'èáçå åîëøå, ' ãäåé ÷ðñ.

2.

Answer (cont.): ... because in all cases the Torah says that they cannot be Chayav both, even if they testify falsely with regard to 'T'vacho u'Mecharo', which is a K'nas.

åîòãéí æåîîéï éìôéðï èôé îîåöéà ù"ø...

(e)

Implied Question: And the reason that we learn from Eidim Zom'min and not from Motzi Shem Ra is ...

ãòé÷ø îì÷åú ëúéá áäï...

1..

Answer: ... because the basic Din of Malkos is written by them ...

åîìàå ãçñéîä ãñîéê ìéä éìôéðï ìëì äîì÷éåú.

2.

Answer (cont.): And we learn all the other cases of Malkos from the La'av of 'Chasimah' which is written next to it (the Pasuk concerning Malkos).

3)

TOSFOS DH BE'TOVE'ACH AL-Y'DEI ACHER

úåñ' ã"ä áèåáç ò"é àçø

(Summary: Tosfos explains how Rebbi Meir according to Rabah, will explain the Mishnah.)

åàí úàîø, åìøáä ãàîø áôø÷ àìå ðòøåú (ëúåáåú ãó ìã: åùí) ãìøáé îàéø, çéãåù äåà ùçãùä úåøä á÷ðñ -ãàó ò"â ãî÷èì, îùìí, äéëé äåä îùðé îúðé'...

(a)

Question: How will Rabah, who says in Perek Eilu Na'aros (Kesuvos, Daf 34b [See Tosfos, there DH ve'Rebbi Meir']) that, according to Rebbi Meir, it is a Chidush that the Torah instituted by K'nas - that 'Even though he is sentenced to death, he nevertheless has to pay' - explain the Mishnah ...

ãàé ëø"î, àôé' èåáç áùáú ðîé?

1.

Question (cont.): Because if the author is Rebbi Meir, he ought to be Chayav (to pay) even if he Shechted it on Shabbos?

åé"ì, ãäåä îå÷éí îúðé' áãìà àúøå áéä...

(b)

Answer: Rabah will establish the Mishnah (like the Rabanan, but) where they did not warn him ...

åëøáé éåçðï ãàîø 'çééáé îì÷éåú ùåââéï, çééáéï áúùìåîéï' .

1.

Answer (cont.): .. and according to Rebbi Yochanan, who holds that Chayvei Malkiyos Shog'gin are Chayav to pay.

åäëé îùðé øáä äúí îúðéúéï ãàìå ðòøåú.

(c)

Precedent: And that is how Rabah answers the Mishnah there in Eilu Na'aros (on Daf 35b).

4)

TOSFOS DH O LERABOS ES HA'SHALI'ACH

úåñ' ã"ä àå ìøáåú àú äùìéç

(Summary: Tosfos explains the source of 'Shali'ach' according to those who learn that "O" comes to divide.)

åîàï ãîöøéê "àå" ìçì÷...

(a)

Implied Question: The opinion that requires "O" to divide ...

ãøéù î"úçú" ìøáåú àú äùìéç.

(b)

Answer: ... Darshens to include a Shali'ach from "Tachas".

5)

TOSFOS DH BI'SHELAMA AVODAH-ZARAH VE'SHOR HAS'NISKAL SHECITAH SH'EIN RE'UYAH HI

úåñ' ã"ä áùìîà ò"æ åùåø äðñ÷ì ùçéèä ùàéï øàåéä äéà

(Summary: Tosfos establishes this according to the opinion in Chulin that a person can render Asur something that does not belong to him by means of an act.)

äê ñåâéà àúéà ëî"ã áäùåçè (çåìéï ãó î.) 'àãí àåñø ãáø ùàéï ùìå áòùä áä îòùä, ãôìåâúà ãúðàé äéà.

(a)

Clarification: This Sugya concurs with the opinion in 'ha'Shochet' (Chulin, Daf 40a) that 'A person can render Asur something that is not his, via an act', though this is a Machlokes Tana'im.

åà"ú, åäà àîø äúí ãàôéìå ìî"ã àãí àåñø, äðé îéìé òåáã ëåëáéí, àáì éùøàì, ìöòåøé ÷îëåéï, åàëúé ùçéèä øàåéä äéà?

(b)

Question: The Gemara says there that even the opinion that declares it Asur, that is specifically as far as a Nochri is concerned, but a Yisrael merely has in mind to 'pull his leg', in which case it remains a Shechitah that is fit?

åé"ì, ëùðúï øùåú ìùìéç ìùçåè ëøöåðå åàôé' ìò"æ...

(c)

Answer: It speaks where he permitted the Shali'ach to Shecht as he sees fit, even to Avodah-Zarah ...

ãàéï ùééê ìåîø ìöòåøé áòìéí ÷îëåéï, ùäùìéç ñáåø ùäåà ùì âðá.

(d)

Answer (cont.): ... in which case it is not feasible to say that he is pulling the owner's leg, seeing as the Shali'ach believes the Ganav to be the owner.

6)

TOSFOS DH HA'MEVASHEL BE'SHABBOS

úåñ' ã"ä äîáùì áùáú

(Summary: Tosfos refers to the Gemara in Gitin.)

îôåøù áôø÷ äðéæ÷éï (âéèéï ãó ðâ: åùí).

(a)

Reference: This is explained in Perek ha'Nizakin (Gitin, Daf 53b [See Tosfos DH 'Hi']).

7)

TOSFOS DH MAH KODESH ASUR AF MA'ASEH SHABBOS ASURIM

úåñ' ã"ä îä ÷ãù àñåø àó îòùä ùáú àñåøéí

(Summary: Tosfos explains why it would not suffice to simply omit "Kodesh" and "Lachem".)

åà"ú, åìà ìéëúåá ìà "÷ãù" åìà "ìëí," åàðà éãòðà ãàñéøé î"ìà úàëì ëì úåòáä" ' -ëì ùúòáúé ìê, äøé äåà ááì úàëì' ?

(a)

Question: Let the Torah write neither "Kodesh" nor "Lachem", and we will know that it is Asur, based on the Pasuk "Lo Sochal Kol To'evah" - 'Whatever I declared abominable for you, is subject to 'Bal Tochal'?

åé"ì, ãàé îäúí, ä"à àôé' ùåââ...

(b)

Answer: From there we would have thought that it incorporates 'Shogeg'.

ìäëé àéöèøéê ìîéëúá äëà, åìñîëéä ì"îçììéä" ìåîø áîæéã àîøúé ìê, åìà áùåââ.

1.

Answer (cont.): Hence the Torah needs to write the current Pasuk, and to juxtapose it to "Mechalelehah", to teach us that it is confined to Meizid, but does not apply to Shogeg.

8)

TOSFOS DH HI KODESH VE'EIN MA'ASEHAH KODEDSH

úåñ' ã"ä äéà ÷ãù åàéï îòùéä ÷ãù

(Summary: Tosfos explains why it would not suffice to simply omit "Hi" and "Kodesh".)

åìà ñâé ãìà ìéëúåá ìà "äéà" åìà "÷ãù" ...

(a)

Implied Question: It will not suffice to omit both "Hi" and "Kodesh" ...

ãî'ëì ùúòáúé ìê' ... äåä àñøéðï áàëéìä .

(b)

Answer: ... because we would then have prohibited eating it from the principle 'Whatever I declared abominable (may not be eaten)'.

åäëé àéúà áäãéà áôø÷ ëì äáùø (çåìéï ãó ÷èå. åùí).

(c)

Precedent: ... and so the Gemara says explicitly in Perek Kol ha'Basar (Chulin, Daf 115 [See Tosfos there, DH 'Hi']).

9)

TOSFOS DH ELA LE'MA'AN DE'AMAR DE'RABANAN AMAI PATRI RABANAN (This Dibur belongs to Amud Beis)

úåñ' ã"ä àìà ìî"ã ãøáðï àîàé ôèøé øáðï

(Summary: Tosfos explains why the Gemara did no answer that it is because they do not Darshen "O" or "Tachas" and queries the question from a Sugya later in the Perek.)

äåä îöé ìîéîø ãìà ãøùé "àå" å"úçú" ìøáåú àú äùìéç...

(a)

Implied Question: The Gemara could have answered that they Darshen neither "O" or "Tachas" ...

àìà ãìà ðéçà ìéä ìîéîø ãôìéâé áùìéç.

(b)

Answer: ... only it wants to avoid explaining that they are arguing over a Shali'ach.

åàí úàîø, åäà îùîò ì÷îï ãàôé' áãøáðï ôèøéðï ùçéèä ùàéï øàåéä...

(c)

Question: It is implied later (Daf 72a) that we exempt a Shechitah that is not fit, even if it is only mi'De'Rabanan ...

ãäà áòé ìîéîø àìéáà ãîúðé' ã÷ñáø ø' éåçðï ã'çåìéï ùðùçèå áòæøä ìàå ãàåøééúà' ,å÷úðé 'øáé ùîòåï ôåèø áùðé àìå' ?

1.

Source: ... since the Gemara suggests, that, according to the Mishnah, Rebbi Yochanan holds 'Chulin that are Shechted in the Azarah are not d'Oraysa', yet the Mishnah (on Amud Alef) states that Rebbi Shimon exempts these two?

åé"ì, ãòì ëøçê ìà áòé ìîéîø ãìàå ãàåøééúà àìà ìú"÷...

(d)

Answer: The Gemara can only be saying that it is not d'Oraysa according to the Tana Kama ...

ãáôø÷ ëéñåé äãí (çåìéï ãó ôä: åùí) ãéé÷éðï áäãéà ãñáø øáé ùîòåï 'çåìéï ùðùçèå áòæøä ãàåøééúà ?'

1.

Reason: ... since in Perek Kisuy ha'Dam (Chulin, Daf 85b & 86a) the Gemara specifically states that Rebbi Shimon holds holds 'Chulin she'Nishchatu ba'Azarah are d'Oraysa' ...

îãúðï áôø÷ áúøà ãúîåøä (ãó ìâ:) øáé ùîòåï àåîø 'çåìéï ùðùçèå áòæøä éùøôå, åëï çéä' .

2.

Source: ... from the fact that, in the Mishnah in the last Perek in Temurah (Daf 33b) he requires them to be burned - and the same applies to a Chayah.

åëé ãéé÷ äúí îîúðéúéï ãúîåøä, äåà äãéï ãäåä îöé ìîéã÷ îîúðéúéï ã÷úðé 'øáé ùîòåï ôåèø áùðé àìå'.

(e)

Observation: And when the Gemara there (in Chulin) extrapolates there from the Mishnah in Temurah (that 'Chulin ... ' is d'Oraysa), it could just as well have learned it from our Mishnah, from 'Rebbi Shimon Poter bi'Shnei Eilu'.

71b----------------------------------------71b

10)

TOSFOS DH KEIVAN SHE'SHACHAT BAH PURTA ASRAH

úåñ' ã"ä ëéåï ùùçè áä ôåøúà àñøä

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the statement and elaborates.)

åàôéìå ìî"ã 'àéï ìùçéèä àìà áñåó,' ðàñøú áôåøúà ÷îà...

(a)

Clarification: Even according to the opinion that holds 'Einah li'Shechitah Ela li'be'Sof', it becomes forbidden with the first bit of the Shechitah ...

ùäàéñåø úìåé áîòùä åìà áùçéèä...

1.

Reason: ... seeing as the Isur hinges on the act and not on the (fact that it is a) Shechitah.

ëã÷àîøéðï áäùåçè (çåìéï ãó î.) ' -àò"â ùàîø äîùúçåä ìáäîú çáéøå ìà àñøä, òùä áä îòùä, àñøä' .

2.

Source: ... as the Gemara states in 'ha'Shochet' (Chulin, Daf 40a) - 'Even though 'Someone who bows down to his friend's animal does not render it Asur, if he performs an act, he does'.

åà'ääåà ôåøúà ìà îçééá áúùìåîé ã' åä', åàôéìå ìî"ã 'éùðä ìùçéèä îúçéìä åòã ñåó... '

(b)

Clarification (cont.): Yet on that bit he is not Chayav Arba'ah va'Chamishah, even according to the opinion that holds 'Yeshnah li'Shechitah mi'Techilah ve'ad Sof' ...

ëãàîøéðï ì÷îï 'ãáòéðï "åèáçå" ëåìéä áàéñåøà '.

1.

Source: ... as the Gemara says later (Daf 72a) that 'The entire Shechitah needs to be performed be'Iusr'.

11)

TOSFOS DH ISUREI HANA'AH VE'LO DE'MAREIH KA'SHACHIT

úåñ' ã"ä àéñåøé äðàä åìà ãîøéä ÷ùçéè

(Summary: Tosfos explains why we cannot simply say that it is not considered a Shechitah and elaborates.)

åà"ú, åìîä ìé èòîà ã'ìà ãîøéä ÷ùçéè' ?úéôå÷ ìéä ãàéï æä èáéçä, ãîçúê áòôø áòìîà äåà ... ?

(a)

Question: Why do we need the reason that 'He is not Shechting what belongs to the owner?' Why not simply say that this is not considered a Shechitah, but rather that it is merely cutting a piece of earth? ...

ëãàîøéðï áäùåçè (ùí) âáé 'äùåçè çèàú áùáú áçåõ ìò"æ, çééá ùìùä çèàåú.' åôøéê 'à'ùçåèé çåõ ìà ìéçééá, îçúê áòôø äåà, ãàñøä áùçéèä ôåøúà ìò"æ? ? '

1.

Source: ... as the Gemara states in 'ha'Shochet' (Ibid.) in connection with 'Someone who Shechts a Chatas on Shabbos outside the Azarah to Avodah-Zarah is Chayav three Chata'os', on which it asks 'Why is he Chayav on Shechutei Chutz, since he is merely cutting a piece of earth, seeing as with the first bit of the Shechitah to Avodah-Zarah, he renders it Asur?'?

åéù ìåîø, ãäúí ðîé ìà ôøéê àìà îùåí ãáòé øàåéä ìôúç àäì îåòã, åëéåï ãðàñøä áùçéèä ôåøúà, úå ìà çæé ìôúç àäì îåòã.

(b)

Answer: The Gemara there bases its Kashya on the fact that the animal must be fit to come to the entrance of the Ohel Mo'ed, which, since he renders it forbidden with the first bit of the Shechitah, it is not.

åàí úàîø, åîä áëê, ãìàå ãîøä ÷èáç, äà ëì èåáç ðîé ìàå ãîøéä ÷èáç, ãîëé ùçè áä ôåøúà, ÷ðééä áùéðåé îòùä?

(c)

Question: So what if he does not Shecht what belongs to the owner, is it not a fact that every Shechitah (of a stolen animal) does not belong to the owner, seeing as the moment he Shechts the first bit, he acquires it with Shinuy?

åéù ìåîø, ãìà çùéá ùéðåé îòùä ì÷ðåú áëê .

(d)

Answer: This is not considered a Shinuy Ma'aseh by which one acquires the animal (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim)

åàí úàîø, åî"è ãøáé îàéø ãîçééá äëà, åäà áôø÷ ëéñåé äãí (çåìéï ãó ôä. åùí) îôøù èòîà ãø' îàéø ãìà áòé ùçéèä øàåéä îùåí ãâîø ùçéèä îùçåèé çåõ...

(e)

Question: On what grounds does Rebbi Meir declare him Chayav in this case, bearing in mind the Gemara in Perek Kisuy ha'Dam (Daf 85a, Tosfos DH 'Danin'), which gives the reason why Rebbi Meir does not require a Shechitah Re'uyah - 'because he learns Shechitah from Shechutei Chutz' ...

ããðéï 'ùçéèä' 'îùçéèä' ,åàéï ãðéï 'ùçéèä' î'èáéçä' - î"èáåç èáç åäëï" ...

1.

Question (cont.): ... since he learns 'Shechitah' from 'Shechitah' rather than from 'Tevichah' - from "Tavo'ach Tevach ve'Hachein" ...

àáì äëà ãëúéá "åèáçå" ,àãøáä, àéú ìï ìîéìó èôé 'èáéçä' î'èáéçä' îîàé ãðéìó èáéçä î'ùçéèä' ?

(f)

Question (concl.): Whereas here where the Torah writes "u'Tevacho", to the contrary, it is preferable to learn 'Tevichah' from 'Tevichah' than from 'Shechitah'?

åé"ì, ãäëà àéëà ìîéîø ãðéï ùçéèä ãòáéøä -ùàñåø ìå ìâðåá åìùçåè, îùçéèä ãòáéøä - îùçåèé çåõ, åàéï ãðéï èáéçä î"èáåç èáç åäëï" ùäéà ùçéèú äéúø.

(g)

Answer #1: Because here one can answer that we learn a Shechitah of Aveirah - since it is forbidden to steal and Shecht, from a Shechitah of Aveirah - from Shechutei Chutz, rather than Tevichah from "Tavo'ach Tevach ve'Hachein", which is a Shechitah of Heter.

åäà ãìà îùðé äëé áôø÷ ëéñåé äãí (ùí)...

(h)

Implied Question: And the reason that the Gemara did not give this answer in Perek Kisuy ha'Dam (Ibid.) is ...

îùåí ãáùåçè àåúå åàú áðå, ôòîéí ùùåçè àú äèøéôä ÷åãí ùäåà (ùåçè äùðéú) ùçéèú äéúø.

(i)

Answer: ... because, when someone Shechts 'Oso ve'es B'no', he sometimes Shechts the T'reifah animal before he Shechts the one that is permitted (See Maharsha).

åòé"ì, ããðéï ãáø äðàîø áñéðé îãáø äðàîø áñéðé, àáì "åèáåç èáç" ìà ðàîø áñéðé.

(j)

Answer #2: We learn something that was said on Sinai from something that was said on Sinai, whereas "Tavo'ach Tevach" was not said at Sinai.

åäà ãìà îùðé äúí äëé...

(k)

Implied Question: And the reason that the Gemara did not give this answer there is ...

îùåí ãàéú ìéä ùéðåéé àçøéðé.

(l)

Answer: ... because it has other answers.

åîéäå ÷ùä, áøéù ô"á ãéáîåú (ãó éæ:) àîø 'ãðéï "àçéí" î"àçéí" åàéï ãðéï "àçéí" "îàçéê", àò"â ã"ùðéí òùø òáãéê àçéí àðçðå" ìà ðàîø áñéðé?

(m)

Question: At the beginning of the second Perek of Yevamos (Daf 17b) the Gemara states that 'We learn "Achim" from "Achim" rather than "Achim" from "Achicha", even though "Sh'neim-Asar Achim Anachnu" was not said at Sinai?

åé"ì, ëéåï ãéìôéðï ëáø áçã ãåëúà ãùîä ùçéèä- ëâåï á'àåúå åàú áðå' , îùåí ãäåé 'ùçéèä' î'ùçéèä' , ÷ñáø øáé îàéø éù ìðå ìåîø ëï áëì î÷åí...

(n)

Answer: ... since we have already learned in one place that it is considered a Shechitah - such as by 'Oso ve'es B'no', since it is 'Shechitah' from 'Shechitah', Rebbi Meir holds that we should apply it everywhere ...

åìäëé áúùìåîé àøáòä åçîùä ðîé ùîä ùçéèä.

(o)

Conclusion: That is why by Tashlumei Arba'ah va'Chamnishah too, it is considered a Shechitah.

åìéëà ìîéîø ãàãøáä, ðéìó áúùìåîé àøáòä åçîùä 'èáéçä' 'îèáéçä' ,ã'ùçéèä ùàéï øàåéä ìà ùîä ùçéèä' ,åðéîà äåà äãéï áàåúå åàú áðå... ?

(p)

Refuted Question: And we cannot ask that, to the contrary, let us learn in connection with Tashlumei Arba'ah va'Chamishah 'Tevichah' from 'Tevichah' that 'Shechitah she'Einah Re'uyah Lo Sh'mah Shechitah', and apply it to 'Oso ve'es B'no'? ...

ãäà ëéåï ãàéëà ìîéîø äëé åäëé, ñáøà ããðéï ãáø äðàîø áñéðé îãáø äðàîø áñéðé.

(q)

Refutation: ... because, since it is possible to learn either way, it is a S'vara to learn something that was said on Sinai from something that was said on Sinai.

12)

TOSFOS DH VE'SAVAR LAH KE'REBBI SHIMON DE'AMAR DAVAR HA'GOREM LE'MAMON KE'MAMON DAMI

úåñ' ã"ä åñáø ìä ëøáé ùîòåï ãàîø ãáø äâåøí ìîîåï ëîîåï ãîé

(Summary: Tosfos explains why the Gemara does not simply say that Rebbi Meir follows his reasoning with regard to Diyna de'Garmi.)

úéîä, ãì"ì ìîéîø ãñáø ëøáé ùîòåï? ìéîà ãø' îàéø ìèòîéä, ããàéï ãéðà ãâøîé, ãëì ùëï ãîçééá á'ãáø äâåøí ìîîåï'...

(a)

Question: Why do we need to say that Rebbi Meir holds like Rebbi Shimon? Why can we not simply say that he follows his reasoning, since he holds of 'Diyna de'Garmi', and how much more so is one Chayav by a 'Davar ha'Gorem le'Mamon' ...

ãäà àîø áäâåæì ÷îà (ì÷îï ãó öç:) 'àéîåø ãàîø ø' ùîòåï ãëîîåï ãîé, ãáø ùòé÷øå îîåï; ãáø ùàéï òé÷øå îîåï- ëâåï ùåøó ùèøåúéå ùì çáéøå, îé ùîòú ìéä? ... '

1.

Source: ... seeing as the Gemara in ha'Gozel Kama (later, on Daf 98b) asks 'Let us say that Rebbi Shimon says 'ke'Mamon Dami' by something that is intrinsically Mamon, but by something that is not, such as 'If someone burns his friend's Sh'taros, will he also say that?' ...

àí ëï øáé îàéø, ãîçééá á'ùåøó ùèøåúéå'...

(b)

Question (cont.): In that case, Rebbi Meir, who declares Chayav someone who burns his friend's Sh'taros ...

ëãàîøéðï äúí (ì÷îï ãó öç: åùí) ã'îàï ããàéï ãéðà ãâøîé, îâáé áéä ãîé ùèøà îòìéà... '

1.

Source: ... as we learned there (later, Daf 98b & 99a) 'The one who holds of Diyna de'Garmi, obligates him to pay the full value of the Sh'tar ...

ë"ù ãîçééá á'ãáø äâåøí ìîîåï? '

(c)

Question (concl.): ... will certainly declare him Chayav in a case of 'Davar ha'Gorem le'Mamon'.

åé"ì, ãàéëà ðîé ñáøà ìîéîø àéôëà, ãò"ë ìà îçééá øáé îàéø àìà á'ãéðà ãâøîé... '

(d)

Answer #1: It is also possible to apply reverse logic, and to say that Rebbi Meir only obligates him to pay by 'Diyna de'Garmi' ...

ëâåï áùåøó ùèøåú ùì çáéøå åëéåöà áå, ùøàåé äùèø ìëì äòåìí ìîëåø åìâáåú áå...

1.

Example #1: ... where he burns his friend's Sh'taros and the like, where the Sh'tar is valuable to one and all to sell and to claim with ...

åëï áîñëê âôðå òì âáé úáåàúå ùì çáéøå, øàåéä äúáåàä ìëì äòåìí...

2.

Example #2: And similarly where one bends one's vine over one's friend's produce, where the produce is of value to one and all ...

àáì 'ãáø äâåøí ìîîåï- ' ëîå ùåø äðñ÷ì å÷ãùéí ùçééá áàçøéåúï, àéðå øàåé àìà ìæä ùéôèø áå òöîå, ìà éçééá øáé îàéø.

(e)

Answer #1 (cont.): ... whereas 'Davar ha'Gorem le'Mamon' - such as an ox that is Chayav S'kilah or Kodshim for which one is responsible, which is only of value to the one who can use it to exempt himself from payment, Rebbi Meir will not declare him Chayav.

ìäëé ÷àîø ãñáø ìä ëøáé ùîòåï.

1.

Answer #1 (concl.): That is why the Gemara says that he holds like Rebbi Shimon.

åé"î, ãìäëé ÷àîø ãñáø ìä ëøáé ùîòåï, îùåí ãøáé ùîòåï ÷àîø áäãéà ãçééá àøáòä åçîùä áãáø äâåøí ìîîåï...

(f)

Answer #2: Others explain that the Gemara establishes Rebbi Meir like Rebbi Shimon because the latter says explicitly that Davar ha'Gorem le'Mamon is Chayav Arba'ah va'Chamishah ...

àáì îîàé ãîçééá øáé îàéø áãéðà ãâøîé àéï ìäåëéç ùéçééá àøáòä åçîùä áãáø äâåøí ìîîåï.

1.

Answer #2 (cont.): ... whereas from the fact that Rebbi Meir declares Chayav Diyna de'Garmi we cannot extrapolate that he will also be Mechayev Davar ha'Gorem le'Mamon Arba'ah va'Chamishah.

åøéá"à îôøù ãáãéðà ãâøîé ìà îçééá øáé îàéø àìà îãøáðï...

(g)

Answer #3: The Riva however explains that Rebbi Meir only declares Diyna de'Garmi Chayav mi'de'Rabanan ...

ëãîåëç áñåó äëåðñ (ìòéì ãó ñá.) [ò' úåñ' ìòéì ðã. ã"ä çîåø].

1.

Source: ... as is evident at the end of 'ha'Koneis' 54a DH 'Chamor']).

13)

TOSFOS DH MI'CHELAL DE'VE'KULAH MASNISIN MODEH

úåñ' ã"ä îëìì ãáëåìä îúðéúéï îåãä

(Summary: Tosfos queries the Diyuk.)

÷öú ÷ùä, ãîä ãéå÷ äåà æä.

(a)

Question: It is a little difficult to understand how the Gemara learns this from there.

14)

TOSFOS DH TAVACH VEHODEH LE'ECHAD MEIHEM MAHU

úåñ' ã"ä èáç åäåãä ìàçã îäí îäå

(Summary: Tosfos establishes the opinion upon which this She'eilah is built.)

àìéáà ãî"ã (ì÷îï ãó òä.) 'îåãä á÷ðñ åàçø ëê áàå òãéí, ôèåø' îéáòé ìéä...

(a)

Clarification: The She'eilah goes according to the opinion that holds 'Modeh bi'Kenas ve'Achar-kach Ba'u Eidim, Patur' (later, on Daf 75a).

ãò"ë ëùéù òãéí áãáø îééøé...

1.

Basis: Since it must be speaking where there are witnesses ...

ãàé áàéï òãéí, áäåãàä ìà éúçééá áùåí òðéï.

2.

Proof: ... because otherwise, he would not be Chayav for his admission under any circumstances.