1)

TOSFOS DH HA'MEVASHEL BE'SHABBOS BE'SHOGEG YO'CHAL

úåñ' ã"ä äîáùì áùáú áùåââ éàëì

(SUMMARY: Tosfos clarifies the respective opinions of Rebbi Meir, Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Yochanan ha'Sandlar).

àôéìå áå áéåí, ãø"î ìà ÷ðéñ ëìì ùåââ àèå îæéã, ëãîåëç áäðéæ÷éï (âéèéï ðâ:). åáô' ëéøä (ùáú ãó ìç.) ðîé îùîò ãùøé áå áéåí, âáé äà ã'áòé îøáé çééà áø àáà, ùëç ÷ãéøä ò"â ëéøä ... '.

(a)

Clarification: Even on the same day. Since Rebbi Meir does not penalize Shogeg on account of Meizid at all, as is evident in 'ha'Nizakin' (Gitin 53b). In Perek Kirah (Shabbos 38a) too it is implied that it is permitted on the same day, in connection with the She'eilah that they asked Rebbi Chiya b'Rebbi Aba about the pot that was left on the oven ... .

'áîæéã ìà éàëì' - ìà äåà åìà àçøéí áå áéåí, àáì áîåö"ù, ùøé àôé' ìãéãéä, îãáòé ìàå÷îé îúðéúéï ø"î åáîæéã.

(b)

Clarification (Part 1): 'be'Meizid Lo Ye'acheil' - neither by him nor by anybody else on the same day; On Motza'ei Shabbos however, even he is permitted to eat it - which is evident from the fact that the Gemara tries to establish our Mishnah like Rebbi Meir, and be'Meizid ...

åîúðéúéï ãåîéà ãéåä"ë ÷úðé, ãàñåø áå áéåí áéï ìå áéï ìàçøéí, åùçéèúå ëùøä ÷úðé, ìà ùðà ìå åìà ùðà ìàçøéí, ëãàîøéðï áñîåê.

(c)

Proof #1: ... and our Mishnah compares Shabbos to Yom Kipur, which is Asur during the day both for him and for others, yet his Shechitah is Kasher for him as well as for others, as the Gemara will state shortly.

åòåã, àé áîæéã ìà éàëì òåìîéú ìø"î, à"ë äééðå îæéã ãøáé éäåãä! ëîå ùàôøù.

(d)

Proof #2: And besides, if Meizid would be forbidden forever, that would be the same as Rebbi Yehudah, as Tosfos will shortly explain.

åëï ùåââ ãøáé éäåãä - ãäà îå÷é îúðéúéï áùåââ åøáé éäåãä...

(e)

Clarification (Part 2): And the same applies to Shogeg of Rebbi Yehudah, since the Gemara establishes the Mishnah be'Shogeg like Rebbi Yehudah.

'åáîæéã ìà éàëì òåìîéú' - äåà, àáì àçøéí àåëìéí ìîåöàé ùáú, ãàé ìà éàëìå òåìîéú, à"ë äééðå îæéã ãøáé éåçðï äñðãìø?

(f)

Proof #1: ... but be'Meizid, he is never permitted to eat it' - but others may eat it on Motza'ei Shabbos - because if even they would never be permitted to eat it, then that would be the same as the Meizid of Rebbi Yochanan ha'Sandlar.

åòåã, ãáîøåáä (á"÷ ãó òà.) îå÷é ãøáðï ãôèøå áèáç áùáú îúùìåîé ã' åä' ëøáé éåçðï äñðãìø, åìà îå÷é ìä ëø' éäåãä.

(g)

Proof #2: Morover, the Gemara in Merubah (Bava Kama 71a) establishes the Rabbanan there, who exempt someone who Shechts on Shabbos from paying four or five times, like Rebbi Yochanan ha'Sandlar, but not like Rebbi Yehudah.

åáòé ðîé äúí 'îàé èòîà ãø' éåçðï äñðãìø?', åìà áòé 'î"è ãø' éäåãä?'

(h)

Proof #3: Furthermore, the Gemara there asks what is Rebbi Yochanan ha'Sandlar's reason but not what is Rebbi Yehudah's reason.

ëììà ãîéìúà - îæéã ãø"î ùåââ ãø' éäåãä, îæéã ãøáé éäåãä ùåââ ãøáé éåçðï äñðãìø.

(i)

Conclusion: The outcome of all this is that the Meizid of Rebbi Meir is equivalent to the Shogeg of Rebbi Yehudah, and the Meizid of Rebbi Yehudah is equivalent to the Shogeg of Rebbi Yochanan ha'Sandlar.

2)

TOSFOS DH MORI L'HU KE'REBBI MEIR

úåñ ã"ä îåøé ìäå ëø"î

(SUMMARY: Tosfos reconciles Rashi in Beitzah, who seems to hold like Rebbi Yochanan ha'Sandlar, with our Sugya, which rules like Rebbi Meir.

îùîò ùëï äìëä. åëï ãøù øáà áô' ëéøä (ùáú ãó ìç. ò"ù) ëø"î.

(a)

Clarification: This implies that it is Halachah, and indeed, Rava in Perek Kirah (Shabbos 38a) rules like Rebbi Meir.

å÷ùä îëàï ìôé' ä÷åðèøñ ãáøéù àéï öãéï (áéöä ãó ëã:) âáé 'òåáã ëåëáéí ùäáéà ãåøåï ìéùøàì, àí éù îàåúå äîéï áîçåáø àñåøéï, åìòøá ðîé àñåøéï áëãé ùéòùå. åôéøù ä÷åðè' ãèòîà ãàñåøéï áëãé ùéòùå 'ëãé ùìà éäðä îîìàëú é"è'

(b)

Question (Part 1): This poses a Kashya on Ra4shi at the beginning of Perek Ein Tzadin (Beitzah 2b), where the Gemara rules that if a Nochri brought a gift for a Yisrael, if there is more of that species still attached to the ground, then the Yisrael is forbidden to benefit from the gift for as long as it would take to pick it and bring it; and Rashi attributes this to the prohibition of deriving benefit from a Melachah that has been performed on Yom-Tov ...

åäøé 'îáùì áùáú', ãáùåââ éàëì, àò"â ãðäðä îîìàëú ùáú?

(c)

Question (Part 2): ... But in the case of 'Mevashel be'Shogeg', we just ruled that be'Shogeg, it is permitted on the Shabbos, even though one derives benefit from it.

åîéäå é"ì ãàéï ðäðä ë"ë ëéåï ãáìàå áéùåì øàåé ìëåñ.

(d)

Answer: One could however answer that in our case, one does not derive so much benefit, seeing as even without cooking, one could have eaten it raw.

àáì ÷ùä, î'ùåçè áùáú áùåââ, ãéàëì ìø"î' äéëà ãäéä ìå çåìä îáòåã éåí åäáøéà, ëãàîøéðï áñîåê - îùåí ãìà äåé îå÷öä, åìà àñø îèòí ùðäðä îîìàëú ùáú?

(e)

Question: The Kashya on Rashi remains however, on the case of 'ha'Shochet be'Shabbos be'Shogeg', which one may eat according to Rebbi Meir, there where one had a sick person in the house on Erev Shabbos, who recovered, as the Gemara will explain shortly, seeing as it is not Muktzah, and the Gemara did not forbid it because one benefited from it on Shabbos?

åé"ì, ãáîéìúà ãìà ùëéç ìà âæøå áéä øáðï.

(f)

Answer: The Rabbanan did not decree on something that is unusual.

3)

TOSFOS DH KI SHARI REBBI MEIR K'GON SHE'HAYAH LO CHOLEH MI'B'OD YOM

úåñ ã"ä ëé ùøé ø"î ëâåï ùäéä ìå çåìä îáòåã éåí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses where we say 'Shabbos Dumyah le'Yom Kipur' and where we don't).

åà"ú, åðå÷é îúðéúéï áùåââ åø"î, åìà äéä ìå çåìä ëìì?

(a)

Question: Why does the Gemara not establish our Mishnah be'Shogeg according to Rebbi Meir, even where there was no sick person in the house?

åé"ì, ããåîéà ãéåä"ë ÷úðé, ãàñåø àó òì âá ãäéä ìå çåìä.

(b)

Answer: The Mishnah learns Shabbos, similar to Yom-Kipur, where it is Asur to eat it on that day even where there is a sick person in the house.

åà"ú, åäà òì ëøçéê ìà äåä ìâîøé ãåîéà ãéåä"ë, ãáùáú àí ìà äáøéà îåúø àôé' ìøáé éäåãä?

(c)

Question: In any event, it cannot be exactly the same as Yom-Kipur, seeing as on Shabbos, there where he did not recover, it is permitted even according to Rebbi Yehudah (but not on Yom Kipur)?

åé"ì, ãáî÷åí ùùééê çéåá ÷à îãîä ùáú ìéåä"ë, ëãúðé 'àò"ô ùîúçééá áðôùå'.

(d)

Answer: There where 'Chiyuv' is applicable, it compares Shabbos to Yom-Kipur, as the Tana states "even though he is Chayav Misah".

15b----------------------------------------15b

4)

TOSFOS DH K'GON SHEHAYAH LO CHOLEH VE'HIVRI

úåñ 'ã"ä ëâåï ùäéä ìå çåìä åäáøéà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara does not contend with the possibility of 'Yesh Muktzah le'Chatzi Shabbos').

åà"ú, àí éù îå÷öä ìçöé ùáú, àîàé ùøé ìø"î áùåçè ìçåìä åäáøéà?

(a)

Question #1: If we hold that something can be Muktzah for half of Shabbos, then why does Rebbi Meir permit by Shochet be'Shabbos, where the sick person recovered?

åø' éäåãä ðîé, àîàé ìà àñø îùåí îå÷öä, ãìà àñø àìà îùåí ã÷ðéñ ùåââ àèå îæéã, ëãàîøéðï áäðéæ÷éï (âéèéï ðâ:).

(b)

Question #2: And why does Rebbi Yehudah only forbid because he penalizes Shogeg because of Meizid, as the Gemara explains in 'ha'Nizakin' (Gitin 53:), and not because of Muktzah?

ãáòéà äéà áùéìäé àéï öãéï (áéöä ãó ëå:) àí éù îå÷öä ìçöé ùáú àí ìàå

(c)

Source: ... because whether there is Muktzah for half of Shabbos or not, is a She'eilah in 'Ein Tzadin' (Beitzah 26b).

åé"ì, ëéåï ùøâéìåú äåà ùçåæø ìçåìéå ìà äåé îå÷öä, ëîå 'âîøå áéãé àãí' ãùøé äúí.

(d)

Answer #1: Since it is common for the sickness to return, it is not Muktzah, much in the same way as 'Gamro bi'Yedei Adam' (where the Muktzah was completed by a person), which the Gemara there permits.

àé ðîé, øá âåôéä îñô÷à ìéä ãùîà àéï îå÷öä ìçöé ùáú, åìäëé ìà àå÷îéä ëø"î àìà ëø' éäåãä ãàñø îùåí ã÷ðéñ ùåââ àèå îæéã.

(e)

Answer #2: Rav himself is not certain and holds that perhaps there is no Muktzah for half of Shabbos, which is why he does not establish it like Rebbi Meir, only like Rebbi Yehudah, who forbids it because of 'Koneis Shogeg Atu Meizid.

5)

TOSFOS DH K'GON SHE'KATZATZ LO DALA'AS

úåñ' ã"ä ëâåï ù÷öõ ìå ãìòú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the word 'Katzatz' is applicable, even though it is talking about a pumpkin that is detached).

ôéøù á÷åðèøñ, îãð÷è '÷öõ' îùîò ãàééøé îï äîçåáø.

(a)

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that the fact that the Gemara mentions 'Katzatz', implies that it is speaking about 'Mechubar'.

å÷ùä, ãà"ë, îàé àéøéà 'îáùì', àôéìå ëé ìà ðúáùì ðîé àñåø?

(b)

Question: If that is so, then why does the Gemara need to then mention 'Mevashel', seeing as it is Asur even if was not cooked?

åàåîø ø"ú, ãáúìåùä àééøé; åùééê ðîé áúìåùä ìùåï '÷öéöä' ...

(c)

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam therefore explains that it is speaking about 'Talush'; nevertheless the Lashon 'Ketzitzah' is applicable ...

ëîå 'ëàï ÷éöõ áï òæàé úåøîåñé úøåîä' áô' áîä îãìé÷éï (ùáú ãó ìã.), åáøéù ôø÷ àçã ãéðé îîåðåú (ñðäãøéï ãó ìâ:) 'à'ãîå÷ãê é÷åã, ÷åõ ÷øê åöìé', ãáúìåùä àééøé.

(d)

Source: ... just like we find in 'Bameh Madlikin' (Shabbos 34a) 'Here ben Azai cut (Kitzetz) Turmus beans of Terumah; and in Perek Echad Dinei Mamonos (Sanhedrin 33b) 'As long as the fire is still burning, cut (Kotz) your pumpkin and roast it!'

åäà ãìà ð÷è ìùåï 'çúéëä', ëãúðï (ùáú ãó ÷ðå:) 'îçúëéï àú äãéìåòéï'?

(e)

Question: So why did the Gemara not use the word 'Chatichah', like we learned in the Mishnah in Shabbos (156b) 'Mechatchin es ha'Delu'in'?

ìôé ùãøê ì÷åööï áçúéëåú ÷èðåú ëùáàéï ìáùì, ùééê áå ìùåï ÷öéöä.

(f)

Answer: Because when one comes to cook, one tends to cut it into small pieces, the word 'Kotz' is fully applicable.

,åîáùì àñåø ... ,

(g)

Implied Question: ... and Mevashel is Asur ... ?

îùåí ããìòú ìà çæéà ìëåñ, ëãàîøéðï áîñ' úîéã (ãó ëæ:) 'ëì îéãé ìà úôìè ÷îé øáê áø î÷øà çééà, ãëôúéìä ùì àáø ãîéà'.

(h)

Answer: ... because pumpkin is not fit to chew raw, like we learned in Maseches Tamid (27b) 'One should avoid spitting out anything in the presence of one's Rebbe, with the sole exception of raw pumpkin, which is as dangerous as a thread of lead.

åà"ú, åäà çæéà ìáäîä - 'åîåëï ìëìáéí äåé îåëï ìàãí', ëãîñé÷ áô"÷ ãáéöä (ãó å:) âáé 'àôøåç ùðåìãä áé"è'?

(i)

Question: But it is fit to feed one's animals, and whatever is fit for animals is fit for humans, as the Gemara concludes in the first Perek of Beitzah (Daf 6b), in the case of a chick that is born on Yom-Tov.

åé"ì, ëéåï ããìòú òåîãú ìàãí åàéðä øàåéä ìàãí, äåé îå÷öä àò"â ãçæéà ìáäîä.

(j)

Answer: Since a pumpkin stands to be eaten by man, but it is not fit for him to eat, it is Muktzah even though it is fit for animals.

6)

TOSFOS DH ELA TZUR VE'KANAH LECHATCHILAH LO

úåñ ã"ä àìà öåø å÷ðä ìëúçìä ìà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos reconciles this with other Sugyos, where the Tana lists Lechatchilah and Bedi'eved, whereas the Gemara declines to explain our Mishnah in this way).

åà"ú, åãìîà ð÷è ìùåï ãéòáã îùåí îâì éã ...

(a)

Question: Perhaps the Tana mentioned a Lashon of Bedi'eved because of a hand-scythe ...

ëãàùëçï áøéù 'ëì äôñåìéï' (æáçéí ãó ìá.) ãð÷è 'ùùçè' îùåí 'èîà', àò"â ãæøéí åðùéí åòáãéí ùåçèéï ìëúçìä?

(b)

Precedent: ... like we find at the beginning of 'Kol ha'Pesulin' (Zevachim 32a), where it mentions 'she'Shachat' (Bedi'eved) because of 'Tamei', even though Zarim, women and Avadim may Shecht even Lechatchilah.

åé"ì, ãäúí ðéçà ìéä ìîéð÷è ëì äôñåìéï áòáåãä éçã, ãùçéèä ëùøä.

(c)

Answer (Part 1): The Tana there is content to mention all those who are Pasul to do the Avodah together, to teach us that their Shechitah is nevertheless Kasher - some of them Lechatchilah, some of them Bedi'eved ...

àáì ëàï, îä ìå ìùðåú éçã ëùøéí ìëúçìä òí ëùøéí áãéòáã.

(d)

Answer (Part 2): ... but here, what is the point of bunching together those that are Kasher Lechatchilah together with those that are Kasher Bedi'eved?

åà"ú, ãáô' çáéú (ùáú ÷îæ.) ÷úðé 'äøåçõ' ãéòáã, îùåí 'îé îòøä', àò"â ã'çîé èáøéà' àôé' ìëúçìä?

(e)

Question: In Perek Chavis (Shabbos 147a) the Tana mentions 'ha'Rochetz' Bedi'eved, because of Mei Me'arah (cave-water), even though bathing in the Chamei Teveryah (the Hot Springs of Teverya) is permitted even Lechatchilah?

åé"ì, ãîù"ä ÷úðé 'çîé èáøéà' áäãé 'îé îòøä', ìîéã÷ ðîé ã'îé îòøä' çîéï ãåîéà ã'îé èáøéà', ëãàîø äúí.

(f)

Answer: The Tana deliberately mentions 'Chamei Teverya' together with 'Mei Me'arah', to teach us that 'Mei Me'arah' is speaking about hot water, just like 'Chamei Teverya' is.

7)

TOSFOS DH U'REMINHI BEKOL SHOCHTIM BEIN BE'TZUR

úåñ' ã"ä åøîéðäé áëì ùåçèéï áéï áöåø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos suggests how the Gemara might one might have thought answered part of the Kashya).

äåä îöé ìîéîø áùìîà ÷ðä à'÷ðä ìà ÷ùéà, äà áñéîåðéà ãàâîà, äà áùàø ÷ðä, ëîå ùîçì÷ ì÷îï (ãó èæ:), àìà 'öåø' à'öåø' ÷ùéà.

(a)

Clarification: The Gemara could have answered that 'Kaneh' and 'Kaneh' do not clash, since one of them is referring to 'Simunya de'Agma' (a specific kind of cane known as 'sedge'), the other, to other kinds of cane (as the Gemara will differentiate later [16:]), but 'Tzur' on 'Tzur' remains difficult.

8)

TOSFOS DH LEHODI'ACHA KOCHO DE'REBBI

úåñ' ã"ä ìäåãéòê ëçå ãøáé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why it is more important to teach the stringency of Rebbi than the leniency of Rebbi Chiya)

åìà çééù ìàùîåòé' ëç ãäéúéøà ãøáé çééà ...

(a)

Implied Question: Why did the Gemara not take the trouble to teach us the extent of Rebbi Chiya's leniency?

ãëáø àùîåòéðï ááøééúà ã'áëì ùåçèéï, áéï áúìåù áéï áîçåáø'.

(b)

Answer: Because the Beraisa has already taught us that one may Shecht with anything, both with Talush and with Mechubar.

9)

TOSFOS DH KA'N BI'MECHUBAR ME'I'KARO

úåñ ã"ä ëàï áîçåáø îòé÷øå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara did not give the same answer earlier in connection with Rebbi Chiya's case).

ìòéì âáé øáé çééà, ìà äåä îöé ìùðåéé äëé ...

(a)

Implied Question: Earlier regarding the case of Rebbi Chiya, why did the Gemara not give this answer?

ãëéåï ãîçåáø îòé÷øå ëùø áãéòáã, ìîä éàñåø ìëúçìä? ãàé îùåí ùîà éãøåñ, à"ë úìåù åìáñåó çéáøå ðîé?

(b)

Answer: Because, since what is initially attached, is Kasher Bedi'eved, why should he forbid it Lechatchilah? If it is because we are afraid that he may be Doreis (press the neck on to the knife), then the same ought to apply even to what is first detached and then became attached?

10)

TOSFOS DH O SHE'HAYAH KANEH OMEID ME'EILAV

úåñ ã"ä àå ùäéä ÷ðä òåîã îàìéå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Tana sees fit to describe the Kanah as 'Omeid me'Eilav').

ìàå ìîòåèé 'ðèòå àãí' ÷àúé, ãääåà ðîé çùéá îçåáø îòé÷øå ...

(a)

Refutation: It is not coming to preclude a cane that a person planted, since that too, is considered 'initially attached' ...

ãàôé' ìîàï ãàîø 'äîùúçåä ìáéú, àñøå', äîùúçåä ìàéìï ìà àñøå àìà úåñôú ãå÷à

(b)

Proof: ... since we see that even those who forbid the house to which somebody prostrated himself, permit the tree to which somebody prostrated himself, forbidding only what grows afterwards.

åìà ð÷è äëà 'òåìä îàìéå' àìà ìâìåú òì 'öåø äéåöà îï äëåúì' ãàééøé áëåúì îòøä ãåîéà ã'÷ðä äòåîã îàìéå'.

(c)

Explanation: And the reason that the Tana mentions 'Oleh me'Eilav' is to indicate that 'Tzur ha'Yotzei min ha'Kosel' is speaking about the wall of a cave just like 'Kanah ha'Omeid me'Eilav'.