1)

TOSFOS DH VE'HATABACH LOKEH VE'SHOHEH

úåñ' ã"ä åäèáç ìå÷ç åùåää

(Summary: Tosfos disagrees with Rashi's explanation.)

ôé' á÷åðèøñ 'òã éåí äùå÷' ' ,åáìáã ùìà éùää äòâåðä ùáäí ùìùéí éåí... àåúä ùì÷ç áàçøåðä, ìà éùìéí ìä ùìùéí éåí àçø äùå÷.

(a)

Explanation #1: Rashi explains 'until market day': Provided he does not leave the Agunah among them for thirty days - the one that he purchased last, he should not allow thirty days, market day, to pass.

å÷ùä, ãáúåñôúà (ô"ç) âøñ 'éåúø îì' éåí' ,åà"ë ìôé äúåñôúà éëåì ìäùäåú àçø éåí äùå÷?

(b)

Question #1: The Tosefta (Perek 8) has the text 'More than thirty days', in which case, he will be allowed to keep it even after market day?

åòåã ÷ùä, ãìòéì âáé 'øâì' ,÷øé ìä 'àçøåðä' ,åäëà ÷øé ìä 'òâåðä' ?

(c)

Question #2: A little earlier, in connection with 'Yom-Tov', it refers to it as 'Achronah, whereas here it calls it 'Agunah'?

åòåã, ùìà äæëéø äúðà éåí äùå÷ ëìì?

(d)

Question #3: The Tana does not mention 'market day' at all?

åðøàä ìø"é, ìôé ùäèáç øâéì ì÷ðåú ëîä áäîåú áéçã îåúø ìäùäåú, åáìáã ùàôé' äòâåðä ùáäï àåúä ùðùàøä éçéãä àçø çáøåúéä ìà éùää éåúø îì' éåí, àó òì ôé ùäéà éçéãä.

(e)

Explanation #2: The Ri therefore explains that it is because the butcher tends to purchase many animals at the same time that he is permitted to keep them, provided he does keep even the 'Agunah', the one that is left on its own after the others have been Shechted, for longer than thirty days, even though it is the only one left.

åîéäå áëì äñôøéí âøñéðï 'ùìùéí éåí' ,åìà âøñéðï 'éåúø '.

(f)

Conclusion: However, the text in all the Sefarim reads 'Thirty days', and not 'More than thirty days'.

2)

TOSFOS DH MAHU LEHASHHOS KABA'I MINEIH

úåñ' ã"ä îäå ìäùäåú ÷áòå îéðéä

(Summary: Tosfos disagrees with Rashi's explanation, that the Rabanan argue with Raban Gamliel.)

àéï ð"ì ãôìéâé øáðï òìéä ãø"â, ëãôé' á÷åðèøñ...

(a)

Refuted Explanation: Tosfos does not agree with Rashi, who explains that the Rabanan argue with Raban Gamliel ...

ã'îäå ìäùäåú ÷åãí äøâì' ÷áòå îéðéä, åàîø ìäï 'îåúø' .

(b)

Authentic Explanation #1: ... since they asked Raban Gamliel whether one is permitted to keep the animals before Yom-Tov, to which he replied in the affirmative ...

åìàå ãå÷à ð÷è '÷åùøä' àìà àåøçà ãîìúà ð÷è, ùãøëï äéä ì÷ùåø áäîä ã÷ä ìëøòé äîèä...

(c)

Authentic Explanation #1 (cont.): ... and he mentioned 'tying it' La'av Davka (not because it was necessary, but) because it was customary to tie a Beheimah Dakah to the bed-post ...

ëãàîø áàìå èøéôåú (çåìéï ãó ðã:) 'çáì äéåöà îï äîèä, òã çîùä èôçéí, èîà ... '

1.

Source (in the Mishnah): ... as the Gemara states in Eilu T'reifos (Chulin, Daf 54b) 'A rope that extends from a bed, up to five Tefachim is Tamei ...

åôéøù ùí á÷åðèøñ ùáëê äåà øàåé ì÷ùåø áäîä ã÷ä áëøòé äîèä...

2.

Source (cont.): ... and Rashi there, explains that the rope is fit to use to tie a Beheimah Dakah to the bed-post ...

ëãëúé' "àñøå çâ áòáåúéí òã ÷øðåú äîæáç" -ùäéå ÷åùøéï ä÷øáðåú áëøòé äîèä òã ùéáéàåäå ì÷øðåú äîæáç.

3.

Source (in the Torah): ... as the Torah writes "Isru Chag ba'Avosim ad Karnos ha'Mizbe'ach" - because they used to tie their Korbanos to the bedposts up to the time that they brought them to the 'corners' of the Mizbe'ach (Targum Yonasan there).

àé ðîé, ð÷è '÷åùøä' ,ìàùîåòéðï ãàôéìå á÷ùåøéí àñåø ìâãì ë"à ìäùäåú.

(d)

Authentic Explanation #2: Alternatively, he says 'tied it' to teach us that even if they are tied, it is forbidden to rear them, only to keep them (temporarily).

åáúåñôúà (ô"ç) ðîé îùîò ãàó ÷åãí äøâì ìà ùøé ìäùäåú àìà ááéú...

(e)

Support: ... and the Tosefta too, implies that even before Yom-Tov, one is only permitted to keep them in the house ...

ãäëé ÷úðé áäãéà 'àáì îâãìéí ÷åãí äøâì ì' éåí, åìà ùúäà éåöàä åøåòä áùå÷, àìà ÷åùøä áëøòé äîèä. ùàìå ìø"â ëå'.

1.

Support (cont.): ... as the Tana explicitly says 'But one may keep them thirty days before Yom-Tov, not that they go out and graze in the market, but that one ties them to the bed-post. They asked Raban Gamliel ... '.

3)

TOSFOS DH DI'KETINI DI'KETINI SHAKEIH

úåñ' ã"ä ã÷èéðé ù÷éä

(Summary: Tosfos explains the Sugya and a Mishnah in Ohalos accordingly.)

ôé' ùå÷éå ã÷éï. åìäëé ð÷øà 'çøöà' ,ùäçøöéï ðéëø áéï äùå÷éí îúåê ùäï ã÷éí åðøàéï âáåäéí.

(a)

Clarification: It means that its calves are thin. And it is called 'Chartza' because, due to the thinness of its calves, the spaces between them are discernable, seeing as the calves are so thin and give the appearance that it is tall.

åîùåí äëé úðï áô"à ãàäìåú 'çåìãú äñðàéí, øáé éåñé àåîø "á"ù îèîà ëæéú áîùà, åëòãùä áîâò' " ...

(b)

Mishnah in Ohalos: That is why the Mishnah in the first Perek of Ohalos states in connection with Chuldas ha'Sena'im, quoting Rebbi Yossi says that 'According to Beis Shamai, it is Metamei a Kezayis be'Masa, and k'Adashah be'Maga' ...

ãîúåê ùøâìéä âáåäéí åã÷éí, îñô÷à ìäï ùîà ìàå äééðå "äçìã" ã÷øà, åéù ìä úåøú ðáéìä, àå ùîà äééðå äéà, åéù ìä úåøú ùøõ.

1.

Mishnah in Ohalos: Because, since its legs are tall and thin, Beis Shamai has a Safek that perhaps it is not "the weasel" mentioned in the Pasuk, in which case it is subject to Tum'as Neveilah, or perhaps it is, and it has the Din of a Sheretz ...

åäàé ãîñééí 'åîàé ùøöà? ãîúúàé ù÷éä' -ä"÷, 'åîàé ùøöà, çåìãä ãëúéá á÷øà ùàéï ñô÷ ãîúúàé ù÷éä, ùäé' øâìéä ÷öøåú åùåøöú òì äàøõ. ëï ðøàä ìø"ú.

(c)

Clarification (cont.): ... and when the Gemara concludes 'u'Mai Shartza? de'Mitsa'i Shakeih' ('What is a Sheretz? One whose calves are short') - it is referring to the weasel in the Pasuk, of which it does not have a Safek, since its legs are short and it crawls along the ground. This is how Rabeinu Tam explains it.

4)

TOSFOS DH CHOVAH TIKB'RINHU LI'BENAH

úåñ' ã"ä çåáä ú÷áøéðäå ìáðä

(Summary: Tosfos presents two interpretations of the statement.)

ôø"ç 'áúîéä' ' -åëé ãøëä ì÷áåø áðéä, ùàéï òåñ÷ú ìâãìï àìà òåñ÷ú ìâãì öàï'? ...

(a)

Explanation #1: Rashi interprets this as a rhetorical question - 'Is it the way of Chovah to bury her children, that instead of occupying herself with their upbringing, she busies herself rearing sheep?'

åäåé 'ëùââä äéåöàú îìôðé äùìéè.'

1.

Explanation #1: 'And it turned out to be "An erroneous statement that is made before the ruler".

åîéäå áôø÷ ùðé ðæéøéí (ðæéø ãó ðæ: åùí) âáé 'ä÷ôú äøàù' àéï ùééê ìôøù ëï...

(b)

Sugya in Nazir: It is not possible however, to explain like this the Sugya in Perek Sh'nei Nezirim (in Nazir, Daf 57b & 58a) ...

ãàîø ìéä øá àãà áø àäáä ìøá äåðà 'ìãéãê îàï î÷éó ìäå? àîø ìéä, "çåáä" ;à"ì "çåáä ú÷áøéðäå ìáðä"! . ' åàéï ùééê ìôøù ùí àìà ìùåï ÷ììä.

1.

Sugya in Nazir (cont.): ... where Rav Ada bar Ahavah said to Rav Huna 'According to you, who cut off their hair?' And in response to Rav Huna's reply 'Chovah', he commented 'Chovah Tikberinhu li'Benah!' There is no way of explaining that other than as a curse.

àé ðîé éù ìåîø 'àéï éøàä ùúòðù á÷áåøú áðéä'.

(c)

Explanation #2: Alternatively, one can explain it (both Sugyos) to mean 'Is she not afraid that she will be punished by having to bury her children?'

5)

TOSFOS DH MI'CHI ASA RAV LE'BAVEL

úåñ' ã"ä îëé àúà øá ìááì

(Summary: Tosfos disagrees with Rashi's explanation.)

ôé' á÷åðèøñ, ùäéå îúéùáéï ùí îôðé éùéáúå, åäéå øåá ùãåúéäï îéùøàì.

(a)

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that the members of his Yeshivah settled there, and most of the fields there belonged to Jews.

åëòðéï æä ôé' áôø÷ ÷îà ãâéèéï (ãó å. åùí) 'òùéðå òöîðå áááì ëàøõ éùøàì ìâéèéï ,îëé àúà øá ìááì åðòùéðå á÷éàéï ìùîä, îúåê ùäøáä éùéáåú.

1.

Precedent: And in similar vein, he explained in the first Perek of Gitin (Daf 6a, Tosfos there DH 'mi'Chi') - 'We made ourselves in Bavel like Eretz Yisrael regarding Gitin, from the time that Rav came to Bavel and we became experts in li'Shemah', on account of the increase of Yeshivos'.

å÷ùä ìø"ú, ãà"ë, îàé ôøéê äúí îîúðé' ã'òëå ëàøõ éùøàì ìâéèéï' ,'àáì ááì ìà? ... '

(b)

Question: If so, asks Rabeinu Tam, how can the Gemara there query this from the Mishnah 'Acco is like Eretz Yisrael for Gitin' - 'Acco, but not Bavel?' ...

åäìà äîùðéåú ðùðå ÷åãí ãàúà øá ìááì?

1.

Question (cont.): ... bearing in mind that the Mishnayos were written before Rav arrived in Bavel?

åîôø"ú äúí 'îëé àúà øá ìááì' -åäåøä ìðå ùîéîåú éëðéä åäçøù åäîñâø ùâìå ìááì, ãéðä ìäéåú ëàøõ éùøàì ìâéèéï, ùá÷éàéï ìùîä.

(c)

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam therefore explains that 'When Rav came to Bavel' - and taught them that already from the time of Yechonyah, when the Cheresh and the Masger (the Talmidei-Chachamim) were exiled to Bavel (See Gitin, Daf 88a), regarding Gitin it had the Din of Eretz Yisrael, where they were experts in li'Shemah.

åëï ëàï ìòðéï áäîä ã÷ä -ùéù ùí øåá éùøàì.

1.

Explanation #2 (cont.): And likewise here regarding Beheimah Dakah, since there are a majority of Yisrael living there.

åëï éù ìåîø áøéù áëì îòøáéï (òéøåáéï ãó ëç.).

2.

Explanation #2 (concl.): And so it is possible to explain the Sugya at the beginning of 'ba'Kol Me'arvin' (Eruvin, Daf 28a).

6)

TOSFOS DH LE'BEI YESHU'A HA'BEN

úåñ' ã"ä ìáé éùåò äáï

(Summary: Tosfos disagrees with Rashi's explanation.)

ô"ä, ôãéåï äáï, åëï äòøåê.

(a)

Explnation #1: Rashi explains 'Pidyon ha'Ben', and so does the Aruch.

å÷ùä, ãàò"â ãîúøâîéðï "ôãéåï" 'ôåø÷ï' ,î"î àéï ùééê ìùåï éùåòä.

(b)

Question: ... even though Unklus translates "Pidyon" (Sh'mos 13:13) as 'Purkan', the term 'salvation' is not applicable to it.

åø"ú ôé' ùðåìã ùí áï...

(c)

Answer: Rabeinu Tam therefore explains that a son was born there (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim 'ù & 'ø ) ...

åòì ùí ùäåìã ðåùò åðîìè îîòé àîå -ëãëúéá "åäîìéèä æëø" (éùòéä ñå), ð÷è ìùåï 'éùåòä'.

1.

Reason: ... and because a baby is saved and rescued from its mother's womb - as the Pasuk writes in Yeshayah (66) 've'Himlitah Zachar", it uses the expression 'Yeshu'ah' ...

åäéå øâéìéï ìòùåú ñòåãä.

2.

Conclusion: ... and they were accustomed to prepare a Se'udah on that occasion.

80b----------------------------------------80b

7)

TOSFOS DH NAFAK RAV VE'DARASH

úåñ' ã"ä ðô÷ øá åãøù

(Summary: Tosfos points out the chronological significance of the statement.)

ìà òúä òì æä äîòùä úé÷ï...

(a)

Clarification: He did not institute it now on account of this incident ...

ãäà ôøéê òìä îáøééúà...

1.

Source: ... since the Gemara queries it from a Beraisa (which preceded it) ...

àìà ãøù ãî÷åãí ðú÷ï.

(b)

Clarification (cont.): ... only he Darshened that it had been instituted earlier.

8)

TOSFOS DH MUTAR LEHARGO VE'ASUR LEKAYMO

úåñ' ã"ä îåúø ìäåøâå åàñåø ì÷ééîå

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles this with Resh Lakish in Sanhedrin.)

åäà ãàîø ø"ì áô"÷ ãñðäãøéï (ãó èå: åùí) âáé 'àøé åðîø åãåá åæàá åáøãìñ åðçù' ãàôé' ø"à ãàîø 'ëì ä÷åãí ìäåøâï, æëä' ,äééðå ãå÷à ëùäîéúå, àáì ìà äîéúå, ìà...

(a)

Implied Question: When Resh Lakish, in the first Perek of Sanhedrin (Daf 15b & 16a), states, in connection with a lion, a leopard, a bear, a wolf and a Bard'las, that, even according to Rebbi Eliezer, who maintains that whoever kills them first, has merited a good deed, that applies exclusively to where they killed, but otherwise, not ...

äééðå á÷ùåøéï áùìùìú, ùëï ãøê ìâãìï; åäëà áçúåì ùàéï ÷ùåøä.

(b)

Answer #1: That speaks where they are tied by a chain, which was how they tended to be reared, whereas here it speaks about a cat that is not tied.

à"ð, îäðäå øâéìéí áðé àãí ìäæäø åìà àúé ìéãé äéæ÷, àáì îçúåì àéï ðæäøéï...

(c)

Answer #2: Alternatively, from the above listed animals people tend to be wary, in which case, we are not worried that they will cause harm, which is not the case by a cat ...

ùàéï éåãòéí àí äéà áø àåëîà àå áø çéåøà, ùàéï îëéøéí áàáåúéäí.

1.

Reason: ... because people do not know whether it is the son of a black cat or of a white one, since one is not acquainted with thei ancestry.

9)

TOSFOS DH AMAR RAVINA LE'ORO

úåñ' ã"ä àîø øáéðà ìòåøå

(Summary: Tosfos explains the ruling and elaborates.)

ùàí îöàï îú, àéï çééá áäùáú äòåø.

(a)

Clarification: Meaning that a person who finds it dead is not obligated to return its skin.

å÷öú úéîä, ëéåï ãàùîåòéðï ã'àéï áå îùåí âæì' ,ìîàé àéöèøéê äê ã'îåúø ìäåøâå' ?

(b)

Question: Now that Rav has taught us that it is not subject to theft, why does he need to add that one is permitted to kill it?

åé"ì, ãàéï ìçåù ëéåï ãîúçéìä ÷àîø ãîåúø ìäåøâå.

(c)

Answer: The question is irrelevant, seeing as he first mentioned than one is permitted to kill it.

10)

TOSFOS DH MASRI'IN AL HA'CHIKUCH BE'SHABBOS

úåñ' ã"ä îúøéòéï òì äçéëåê áùáú

(Summary: Tosfos explains the word 'Masri'in' and elaborates.)

ò"ë ìàå äééðå äúøòä áùåôø, ã'ùåôø áùáú îé àéëà? 'ëããéé÷ áñô"÷ ãúòðéú (ãó éã. åùí)...

(a)

Clarification: This cannot be referring to blowing the Shofar, because 'Since when does one blow the Shofat on Shabbos?', as the Gemara asks at the end of the first Perek of Ta'anis (Daf 14a & 14b) ...

àìà äúøòä áôä á'òððå' ,åñáø ëî"ã äúí ã'òððå' ÷øé ìéä 'äúøòä' .

1.

Clarification (cont.): It must therefore be referring to crying out with 'Aneinu', and he holds like the opinion there that 'Aneinu' is called 'Hasra'ah'.

åúéîä, ãîàé ôøéê îääéà ã'áùàø îéðé ôåøòðéåú, ' ã÷úðé 'ìà äéå îúøéòéï òì äçéëåê àìà öåò÷éí' ?

(b)

Question: In that case, what is the Gemara then asking from the case of 'other forms of punishment', about which the Tana says 'Lo Hayu Masri'in al ha'Chikuch (itching/boils) Ela Tzo'akin'?

ãéìîà ä"÷ 'ìà äéå îúøéòéï áùåôø àìà öåò÷éí áôä á'òððå' ?

(c)

Possible Answer: Perhaps what he means is that they did not blow the Shofar; they only cried out verbally, with 'Aneinu'?

åàéï ìåîø àò"â ãúøåééäå áôä, 'äúøòä' ìçåã å'öò÷ä' ìçåã...

1.

Refuted Question: Nor can one answer that, even though both expressions refer to verbally crying out, 'Hasra'ah' is one thing, and 'Tze'akah', another ...

ãäúí îùîò ãìî"ã 'òððå' ÷øé ìéä äúøòä, çãà äéà.

2.

Refutation: ... since the Gemara there implies that, according to the opinion that holds 'Aneinu' is called 'Hasra'ah', they are one and the same.

åé"ì, ãä"ô 'îã÷àîø ùáùáú îúøéòéï ìëì äôçåú á'òððå' , à"ë øàåé ìòùåú òì äçéëåê äúøòä àôé' áùåôø áçåì, ëéåï ùäåà ãáø âãåì ëì ëê ãáùáú öåò÷éí.

(d)

Answer: What the Gemara means is - Since the Tana says that on Shabbos one cries out at least with 'Aneinu', it stands to reason that for itching during the week, one should even blow the Shofar, seeing as it is such an important issue that it merits crying out on Shabbos.

11)

TOSFOS DH AL HE'CHAGAV

úåñ' ã"ä çâá

(Summary: Tosfos discusses whether to insert 'Guvai' or not.)

ì"â 'âåáàé' ...

(a)

Amendment of Text: We do have the text 'Guvai' ...

ãäà áîúðé' ãñãø úòðéåú äàìå (úòðéú éè.) úðï ù'îúøéòéï òì äàøáä åòì äçñéì åòì äâåáàé' .

1.

Reason: ... seeing as the Mishnah in 'Seider Ta'aniyos ha'Eilu' (Ta'anis, Daf 19a) states 'Masri'in al ha'Arbeh, ve'al he'Chasil ve'al ha'Guvai'.

åé"ì, ãäúí áôä.

(b)

Refutation #1: There it is referring to Masri'in verbally.

åòé"ì, ãùôéø âøñéðï ìéä, åäúí áâåáàé äîæé÷ ìùãåú, ãåîéà ãàøáä åçñéì ã÷úðé äúí...

(c)

Refutation #2: It is possible to insert it, because there it is speaking about a plague of Guvai that damages fields, similar to Arbeh and Chasil that the Tana mentions there ...

åâåáàé ãäëà áîæé÷ ìáðé àãí, ãåîéà ãöøòéí åùéìåç ðçùéí, ôéøåù ø"é.

1.

Reinstating Text (cont.): ... whereas the Guvai here refers to one that damages people, similar to hornets and a plague of snakes. So the Ri explained.

12)

TOSFOS DH LE'OLAM EIN MATIVIN LO

úåñ' ã"ä ìòåìí àéï îèéáéï ìå

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles this with a seemingly contradictory statement by Rav Acha mi'Difti himself in Bava Basra.)

åäà ã÷àîø àéäå âåôéä áòåáãà ãéãéä 'ìà áîäøä îèéáéï ìå' áôø÷ ÷îà ãááà áúøà (ãó éá:)...

(a)

Question: When Rav Acha mi'Difti himself stated in the first Perek of Bava Basra (on Daf 12b) regarding an incident that occurred with him 'Lo bi'Meheirah Mativin lo' ...

æä àîø áùòä ùäéä ñáåø òãééï ùéçæéøå åéîðå àåúå øàù éùéáä...

(b)

Answer: ... he said it at the time when he believed that they would reinstate him as the Rosh Yeshivah ...

àáì ìáñåó ùìà äçæéøåäå, àîø 'ìòåìí àéï îèéáéï ìå '.

1.

Answer (cont.): But ultimately, when they did not, he said 'le'Olam Ein Mativin lo!'

13)

TOSFOS DH OMER LE'NOCHRI VE'OSEH

úåñ' ã"ä àåîø ìðëøé åòåùä

(Summary: Tosfos discusses the Dinim of Amirah le'Nochri on Shabbos.)

ãå÷à îùåí îöåä æå ãéùåá ãà"é, àáì ìöåøê îöåä àçøú, ìà ùøé àîéøä ìðëøé...

(a)

Clarification #1: Specifically in connection with this Mitzvah of settling Eretz Yisrael, but in order to fulfill another Mitzvah, Amirah le'Nochri is not permitted ...

åàôé' ìöåøê îéìä îùîò áôø÷ äãø (òéøåáéï ãó ñç.) ãìà ùøé àîéøä ìðëøé áàéñåøà ãàåøééúà...

(b)

Clarification #1 (cont.): And even for the Mitzvah of Milah the Gemara in Perek Hadar (Eruvin, Daf 68b) implies that one may not ask a Nochri to perform an Isur d'Oraysa ...

âáé 'ääåà éðå÷à ãàéùúôéê çîéîéä' -ã÷àîø 'ðùééìéä ìàéîéä, àé öøéëä, ðçéí ìéä àâá àéîéä' ...

1.

Source: ... in the case of a baby whose hot water spilled, where the Gemara rules that one asks the mother whether she does not need hot water; and that, if she does, one may heat up water for the baby on account of his mother ...

...îùîò ãàé ìà öøéëä àéîéä, ìà ùøé àôéìå òì éãé ðëøé.

2.

Source (cont.): ... implying that, in the event that the mother would not need it, it would not be permitted even via a Nochri.

åé"ñ ùëúåá áäãéà 'ðçéí ìéä ðëøé àâá àéîéä! '

3.

Support: In fact, some commentaries have the text 'Let us heat up water via a Nochri on account of his mother'.

åìëàåøä îùîò ùìôðé äîéìä äéä, åäéå öøéëéï ìçîéîé ëãé ìîåìå, åìà ùøé àôéìå ò"é ðëøé àìà àâá àéîéä, ëãùøéà äëà.

(c)

Clarification #2: It appears that this episode occurred before the Milah, and they needed to heat the water in order to be able to perform the Milah, and this they did not permit even via a Nochri, as the Gemara does here, only on account of the mother.

åäúí áòåáãà ãìòéì ã÷àîø âáé éðå÷à àçøéðà 'ðéîà ìéä ìðëøé ãðéúé îâå áéúà' ...

(d)

Implied Question: And in the earlier case there, in connection with another baby, where the Gemara said to ask a Nochri to bring hot water from the house ...

ääåà ãìòéì àéñåøà ãøáðï äåä, ìäáéà ãøê çöø ùìà òéøá.

(e)

Answer: ... that was a matter of an Isur de'Rabanan, to bring it by way of a Chatzer which did not have an Eiruv.

åàôéìå àéñåøà ãøáðï àåø"é, ùàéï ìäúéø îùåí îöåä àçøú òì éãé ðëøé...

(f)

Opinion #1: And even an Isur de'Rabanan, says the Ri, one may not permit in the case of any other Isur via a Nochri ...

ëâåï ìäáéà ñôø ãøê ëøîìéú ëãé ììîåã áå...

1.

Example: ... such as bringing a Seifer through a Karm'lis in order to learn in it ...

ããå÷à îéìä ãäéà âåôà ãçé ùáú, ùøé òì éãé ðëøé àéñåø ãøáðï.

2.

Reason: ... because it is only Milah, which itself overrides Shabbos, that an Isur de'Rabanan is permitted via a Nochri.

åîéäå áä"â îùîò ãàôéìå àéñåøà ãàåøééúà ùøé òì éãé ðëøé ìöåøê îéìä...

(g)

Opinion #2: The B'hag however, implies that for the purpose of Milah, even an Isur d'Oraysa is permitted via a Nochri ...

ùôéøù ãàôé' ãðéúé ðëøé îúåê áéúå, ãäéà ãøê øùåú äøáéí ãäåé àéñåøà ãàåøééúà ùøé òì éãé ðëøé ìöåøê îéìä, ëîå äëà îùåí éùåá àøõ éùøàì.

1.

Opinion #2 (cont.): ... when he explains that it was permitted for the Nochri to bring the hot water even via the R'shus ha'Rabim, for the sake of the Milah, just as the Gemara here permits it for the sake of Yishuv Eretz Yisrael.

åìãáøéäí áòåáãà áúøà ã÷àîø 'ðçéí ìéä ðëøé àâá àéîéä' ...

(h)

Implied Question: According to him, the second episode, where the Gemara permitted a Nochri to heat the water only on account of the mother ...

ìàçø äîéìä äåä åìàçø ùìùä, ùëáø ðúøôà äåìã éôä.

(i)

Answer #1: ... occurred after three days after the Milah, where the baby had already fully recovered.

åìñôøéí ãì"â 'ðëøé' ,ðåëì ìåîø ãò"é éùøàì ÷àîø, åúåê ùáòä, ãîçììéï òìéä äùáú àí àîøä 'öøéëä àðé , 'ëãàîøéðï áôø÷ îôðéï (ùáú ãó ÷ëè. åùí).

(j)

Opinion #2 (cont.): According to the Sefarim that do not have the text 'Nochri', we can answer that it is speaking via a Yisrael, within seven days, where it is permitted to desecrate the Shabbos on behalf of the mother, should she need it, as the Gemara says in Perek Mefanin (Shabbos, Daf 129a & 129b).

àáì àéï ðøàä, ãòì éãé éùøàì, äåä àñåø ìäøáåú áùáéì äúéðå÷, ëãàîøéðï áô"÷ ãçåìéï (ãó èå:).

1.

Refutation: This is not correct however, since, via a Yisrael, it would not have been allowed to add water on behalf of the baby, as the Gemara rules in the first Perek of Chulin (Daf 15b).

åìôé ä"â èôé àéú ìï ìîéùøé òì éãé ðëøé àéñåøà ãàåøééúà, îàéñåøà ãøáðï òì éãé éùøàì...

(k)

Opinion #2 (cont.): According to the B'hag, it transpires that it is preferable to permit an Isur d'Oraysa via a Nochri than an Isur de'Rabanan via a Yisrael ...

ëãîñé÷ äúí à'äàé òåáãà - 'åìà ùðé ìê áéï ùáåú ãàéú áéä îòùä ìùáåú ãìéú áéä îòùä'

1.

Proof #1: ... as the Gemara concludes there on that case - 'And we do not draw a distinction between an Isur de'Rabanan with an act, and one without an act'.

åàîøéðï ðîé áôø÷ ø' àìéòæø ãîéìä (ùáú ãó ÷ì:) 'ëùí ùàéï îáéàéï ãøê øùåú äøáéí, ëê àéï îáéàéï ãøê ââåú çöéøåú å÷øôéôåú' .

2.

Proof #2: And the Gemara also says in Perek Rebbi Eliezer de'Milah (Shabbos, Daf 130b) that just as one may not bring (a knife) through the R'shus ha'Rabim, so too, may one not bring it by way of roofs, courtyards and enclosures.