GITIN 41 - dedicated by Rav Gedalya Weinberger of Brooklyn, N.Y., in memory of his father, Reb Chaim Tzvi ben Reb Shlomo Weinberger, whose Yahrzeit is 18 Adar. Reb Chaim Tzvi, who miraculously survived the holocaust, raised his children with a strong dedication to Torah and its study.


TOSFOS DH "b'Mazik"

תוס' ד"ה "במזיק"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the case, and why the Gemara did not say they argue regarding Garmi.)

וכגון דא"ל אין לך פרעון אלא מזה דלא גבי משאר נכסים דאי לאו הכי אמאי פטור הרי עדיין חייב לו חובו


Explanation: For example, the case could be where he said to him, "you will only receive payment from this slave." In such as case, he cannot collect from other possessions of the borrower. Otherwise, why would he be exempt? He still owes him money!

והא דלא מוקי פלוגתייהו בדינא דגרמי


Implied Question: The Gemara does not explain that their argument is regarding whether or not payment is required for the law of Garmi (damage that is somewhat direct). (Note: Why not?)

משום דאפי' מאן דפטר בדינא דגרמי אפשר דמחייב במזיק שעבוד חברו כדמוכח בפ' המניח (ב"ק דף לג:).


Answer: Even the opinion that holds one does not have to pay when damaging through Garmi will possibly hold that one has to pay when damaging the lien of his friend, as is apparent in Bava Kama (33b).


TOSFOS DH "b'Hezek"

תוס' ד"ה "בהיזק"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos differentiates between the unrecognizable damage discussed here and that discussed later).

לרב דמוקי לה בשחררו רבו ראשון חשיב שפיר היזק ניכר אבל שחרור דרבו שני דלא הוי אלא מדרבנן חשיב היזק שאינו ניכר


Explanation: According to Rav who says that his first master freed him, this is clearly a recognizable damage. However, the freeing of his second master which is only Rabbinic in nature is considered an unrecognizable damage.

וצ"ל דהאי היזק שאינו ניכר חשיב ניכר טפי מההוא דפ' הניזקין (לקמן דף נג.) דהתם קי"ל דלא שמיה היזק והכא קיי"ל כרשב"ג דמשנתנו דשמיה היזק.


It must be that the unrecognizable damage discussed here is more recognizable than the damage discussed later (53a). This is because the Gemara there concludes that the damage is not considered damage, while the Gemara here concludes like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel of our Mishnah that it is damage.



תוס' ד"ה "גובין"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains this opinion.)

כלומר אם רצה מוכר את אלו והן גובין מן השאר.


Explanation: This means that if he wants he can sell these, and they collect from the rest.



תוס' ד"ה "אשה"

(SUMMARY: Rashi and Rabeinu Tam argue regarding whether or not the husband can retract his own sale of Nichsei Tzoan Barzel.)

פי' בקונט' דווקא הטילה אחריות על שדה זו וע"מ כן ניסת ולא שיהיו כל נכסיו אחראין לה ולא תדע על איזה לחזור מי קנה ראשון ומי אחרון ותצטרך לדון עם כל אחד ואחד


Explanation: Rashi explains that she specifically put the lien on this field, and married him on this condition, not on condition that his other possessions will have a line on them to her. She did this because she did not want to have to be in doubt regarding who was the first one to buy the field who was the last one, which would cause her to go to Beis Din with each person.

ונראה דאם מכר מכרו בטל לגמרי דאפילו בעל עצמו שמכר יכול לחזור ולבטל המכירה דהכי אמרינן ביבמות בפ' אלמנה (דף סו:) גבי מכנסת שום לבעלה דתניא מכרו שניהם לפרנסה זה היה מעשה לפני רשב"ג ואמר הבעל מוציא מיד הלקוחות


It appears that in such a case, if he sold the field the sale is invalid. Even if the owner himself sold it, he can go back and invalidate the sale. This is what we say in Yevamos (66b) regarding a woman who brings possessions into a marriage. The Beraisa states that there was an incident where one of them (husband or wife) sold these possessions for food, and he ruled that the husband can take the possessions back from the buyers.

ופי' שם בקונט' מכרו שניהם או זה או זה דאם מכר הבעל האשה מוציאה ואם מכרה האשה הבעל מוציא


Opinion#1: Rashi explains there that the case is where one of them sold it. If the husband sold it, the woman could take it back, and if the woman sold it the husband could take it back.

ור"ת פי' דאפילו אם מוכר הבעל הוא עצמו מוציא דתקון רבנן שלא יתקיים המקח כלל ובטל לאלתר שלא תטרח האשה לטרוף מהם דרשב"ג לטעמיה דאמר הכא שאין דרכה של אשה לחזר אחר בתי דינים


Opinion#2: Rabeinu Tam understands that even if the husband himself sold it, he himself can take it back from the buyer. The Rabbanan instituted that the sale should be invalid immediately, and that the woman should not have to bother to take it away from them. This is Rabbanan Shimon ben Gamliel reasoning, as he states here that a woman does not usually seek appointments with a Beis Din.

ולא דמי לשאר נכסים של בעל שהמקח קיים עד שתבא האשה ותטרוף


Implied Question: This is unlike other possessions of the husband, where the sale is valid until the woman comes and takes it out of the buyer's hand.

דהתם אין כתובתה מיוחדת עליהן יותר משאר נכסים ואי איכא בני חרי לא גביא ממשעבדי אבל הכא אפילו איכא בני חרי יכולה היא לומר לא שקילנא אלא הני שנתייחדו לי על כן הפקיעו חכמים כח המוכר לאלתר שלא תהא צריכה לחזר אחר בתי דינין


Answer: In that case, her Kesuvah is not specifically on those possessions more than any other possessions. If there are other possessions without a lien, she collects from those (before the ones with a lien). However, here, even if there are possessions without a lien she can claim that she will only take the specific property that was earmarked for her. This is why the Chachamim uprooted the power of the seller immediately, in order that she should not have to go chase after a Batei Din.

וכן מוכח בירושלמי דפליג ר' יוחנן ור"א בנכסי צאן ברזל ר' יוחנן אמר מכרו אינן מכורין א"ל ר"א אוכלין בתרומה מכחו ואת אמרת אינן מכורין


This is also apparent from the Yerushalmi. Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Eliezer argue there regarding (slaves that were) Nichsei Tzoan Barzel. Rebbi Yochanan says that if he sells them they are not sold. Rebbi Eliezer said to him: They (his slaves) eat Terumah because of him, and you say they are not sold?!

והדר קאמר במאי פליגון במכרן לעולם או במכרן לשעה ומסיק דאתיא דר"א כרבנן דאמרי הכא גובין משאר נכסים ור' יוחנן כרשב"ג הוי כשמכרן לשעה אינון קיימין אבל מכרן לעולם דברי הכל אינן קיימין ומתיישב בהך פי' הקונטרס דהאשה שנפלו (כתובות דף פא.).


It then says, what is their argument? Is it when they are selling permanently or temporarily (i.e. until the woman collects them, see Pnei Moshe in Yevamos 7:1)? The Gemara concludes that Rebbi Eliezer holds like the Rabbanan who say here that one can collect from other possessions. Rebbi Yochanan holds like Rabbanan Shimon ben Gamliel who holds that if they are sold temporarily, the sale is valid. If they are sold permanently, everyone agrees the sale is invalid. Based on this, we can understand Rashi's explanation in Kesuvos (81a, DH "Megarshah b'Get," see at length with Tosfos there DH "Megarshah").


TOSFOS DH "Lisa Shifchah"

תוס' ד"ה "לישא שפחה"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why there are no other solutions for this half-slave.)

וא"ת אפי' יכול לישא שפחה הא אינו מקיים בכך פריה ורביה כדמוכח בפ' הבא על יבמתו (יבמות סב.) גבי היו לו בנים קודם שנתגייר ונתגייר דאמר הכל מודין בעבד שאין לו חייס


Question: Even if he could marry a Kenanis maidservant, he would not fulfill the Mitzvah of Pru u'Revu. This is apparent from the Gemara in Yevamos (62a) that states that if someone had children while he was a Nochri before he converted (he must marry again and have children in order to perform Pru u'Revu). This is apparent from the statement there that everyone agrees that a slave is not considered to have descendants (that he is considered to be their father, even if he is their biological father).

וי"ל דאם היה יכול לקיים שבת כל דהו משום מצות פרו ורבו לחודיה לא הוה כפינן לרבו דלא מיחייב בה כיון דאנוס הוא


Answer: As long as he could perform the Mitzvah of Sheves (populating the world) in some way, we would not force his master to free him so that he could fulfill the Mitzvah of Pru u'Revu. He is not obligated in this Mitzvah, as he is an Oness (under forced circumstances he is not permitted to have relations with anyone who can help him fulfill this Mitzvah).

וא"ת וליתי עשה דפרו ורבו ולידחי לאו דלא יהיה קדש (דברים כג)


Question: Why doesn't the positive commandment of Pru u'Revu push aside the negative prohibition of "Lo Yihyeh Kadesh" (which effectively prohibits the slave from having relations with a Jewish woman)?

וי"ל דהכא אפשר לקיים שניהם על ידי כפייה


Answer#1: In this case, both can be upheld at the same time through forcing the master to free him.

ועוד דכי מיעקרא לאו לא מקיים עשה אלא בגמר ביאה דחזיא להתעבר


Answer#2: Additionally, when the negative prohibition is transgressed the positive commandment has not yet been upheld, as this only happens at the end of the relations when there is a possibility she will become pregnant.

ועוד דבדידה ליכא עשה דאפי' מיפקדא אפשר לה בכיוצא בה


Answer#3: Additionally, she does not have a positive commandment of Pru u'Revu. Even if she would, she can marry a regular Jew and fulfill the Mitzvah (and does not have to transgress this negative commandment).

וא"ת וימכור עצמו בעבד עברי דע"ע שרי בשפחה ואפי' אין לו אשה ובנים הא איכא למ"ד דרבו מוסר לו שפחה כנענית


Question: Why doesn't he sell himself as an Eved Ivri, as an Eved Ivri is permitted to a Kenanis maidservant. Even if he does not have a wife and children, there is an opinion that his master may still give him a Kenanis maidservant.

וי"ל דאמר באיזהו נשך (ב"מ עא. ע"ש) גר ומשוחרר אין נמכרין בע"ע משום דבעינן ושב אל משפחתו


Answer: The Gemara says in Bava Metzia (71a) that a convert and freed slave cannot be sold as an Eved Ivri. This is because the possibility that the Pasuk mentions, "And he will return to his family," must exist. (Note: Being that he has no family to go back to, he cannot be sold.)

וא"ת וישא חציה שפחה וחציה בת חורין כדאמרינן בפ' אותו ואת בנו (חולין דף עט.) דפרדה שתבעה אין מרביעין עליה אלא מינה


Question: Why doesn't he marry a half-maidservant and half-freed woman (like himself)? This would be similar to the Gemara in Chulin (79a), which states that if a female mule is in heat, we only cause a mule to be with her.

וי"ל דגבי כלאים לא אסר אלא תרי מיני והנהו הוו חד מינא אבל הכא אתי צד עבדות ומשתמש בצד חירות


Answer: Regarding the prohibition of Kilayim, there is only a prohibition against putting together two separate types of animals. These are the same species. However, here the half servant is also having relations with the half free woman.

וא"ת וישא ממזרת דצד עבדות שרי בה כדתנן בפרק האומר (קידושין סט.) יכולין ממזרים ליטהר כיצד ממזר נושא שפחה


Question: Why doesn't he marry a Mamzeres? His half-slave side is permitted to marry a Mamzeres. This is evident from the Mishnah in Kidushin (69a) that states that Mamzerim can have pure descendants. How is this possible? If a Mamzer marries a Kenanis maidservant. (Note: He then has children with her and frees them, making them full fledged Jews without his flawed ancestry, as he had them from a Kenanis slave who is not considered Jewish, meaning that he is not Halachically considered their father despite the fact that he is their biological father.)

וצד חירות נמי שרי בה כדתנן פרק י' יוחסין (שם סט.) חרורי וממזרי מותרין לבא זה בזה וכ"ת דאתי צד עבדות ומשתמש בא"א ישאנה באיסור בלא קדושין כמו שממזר נושא שפחה וכמו לישא שפחה אינו יכול


His half-free side can also be with her, as the Mishnah states (ibid.) that freed slaves and Mamzerim are permitted to be with each other. If you will say that the problem is that his slave half will be having relations with a married woman (who is married to his free half), let him marry her without Kidushin. We see this is permitted for a Mamzer who marries a Kenanis maidservant. It should similarly be permitted in this situation (because there is no other way for him to fulfill Pru u'Revu).

ואומר ר"ת דאין זו תקנה להרבות ממזרים בישראל


Answer: Rabeinu Tam says that this is not deemed a "solution," as it will create more Mamzerim in Bnei Yisrael.

וא"ת וישא נתינה דחרורי ונתיני מותרין לבא זה בזה בפרק י' יוחסין (שם) ועבד נמי מותר בה דאמרי' בפ' יש מותרות (יבמות פה:) ממזרת ונתינה לישראל איכא בינייהו למ"ד מפני שהוא מרגילה וזו היא מרגילתו פי' שיוכל בנה ליטהר על ידי שישא שפחה


Question: Let him marry a Nesinah, as a freed slave and a Nesinah are allowed to marry each other, as stated in Kidushin (ibid.). A slave is also permitted to marry her, as is stated in Yevamos (85b, regarding the illegal marriage of a Mamzeres or Nesinah and a regular Jew) that according to the opinion that "he is familiar with her and she encourages this familiarity," a Mamzeres or Nesinah wants to marry a regular Jew, as her children's children can become regular Jews through marrying a Kenanis maidservant.

וי"ל דאע"ג דאסור בנה בשפחה אינה חוששת רק שיש לו טהרה דסבורה שלא יחשב איסור כמו שהיא אינה חוששת דהא מינסבא לישראל


Answer: Even though the Nesinah's son is forbidden to a Kenanis maidservant, she does not worry about this. The only thing she is concerned about is the fact that he can eventually have his descendants become regular Jews. She understands that their marriages are not really forbidden, as is apparent from the fact that she married a regular Jew. (Note: However, in fact a Nesinah cannot marry a slave.)

והא דאסור נתין בשפחה טפי מממזר אע"ג דשניהם פסולי קהל דנתין אית ביה לאו דלא תתחתן


Implied Question: The fact is that a Nasin is more forbidden to marry a Kenanis maidservant than a Mamzer, even though they both cannot marry regular Jews. A Nasin also cannot marry regular Jews based on the prohibition of "Lo Sischaten." (Note: Why, then, do we permit a Mamzer to marry a Kenanis maidservant but not a Nasin? Why don't we allow the half slave to marry a Nesinah?)

אור"ת משום דבממזר לא שייך לא יהיה קדש דכולי מקדשות קאתי מאיסור דלא תפסי קדושין


Answer: Rabeinu Tam says that a Mamzer does not have the prohibition of "Lo Yihyeh Kadesh," as he himself is from a "Kadesh" type of relationship, as his parents could not have had a valid Kidushin.

ואף על גב דאסור בזכר ובבהמה דנפקי נמי מלא יהיה קדש


Implied Question: A Mamzer is forbidden to have relations with a male or animal, which are also derived from "Lo Yihyeh Kadesh." (Note: Why should he prohibited if we just said he does not have the prohibition of "Lo Yihyeh Kadesh?")

ובפרק ד' מיתות (סנהדרין דף נד:) לא שרינן אלא קדשות דאתי מיניה


Answer: In Sanhedrin (54b), we only permit to him a "Kadesh" that he came from (meaning a female, see Maharam).

והא דשרי חרורי בנתיני ואסירי בשפחה אע"ג דבתרווייהו איכא לאו


Implied Question: A freed slave is permitted to a Nesinah and forbidden to a Kenanis maidservant, even though there is a negative prohibition regarding both of them. (Note: Why?)

אור"ת דנתיני ילפינן משאר פסולי קהל כגון עמוני ומואבי ומצרי ואדומי דשרו בקהל גרים דלא אקרי קהל אבל עבדות דלאו בני קדושין נינהו לא ילפינן מינייהו.


Answer: Rabeinu Tam says that we derive the prohibition about the Nesinim from other people unfit to marry regular Jews, like a person (man) from Amon, Moav, Egypt, and Edom who are permitted to marry converts, as they are not called "the congregation." However, we cannot derive the law of slaves from them, as slaves cannot effect Kidushin. (Note: Accordingly, a freed slave, who is essentially a convert, can marry a Nesinah but not a Kenanis maidservant.)




תוס' ד"ה "לא תוהו"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara quotes the Pasuk of Sheves but not the Torah Pasuk of Pru u'Revu.)

הא דלא נקט קרא דפרו ורבו


Implied Question: The Gemara does not quote the Pasuk of "Pru u'Revu" (instead quoting the Pasuk in Navi about Sheves). (Note: Why?)

משום דאי הוה יכול לקיים שבת כל דהו משום מצות פרו ורבו לא הוה כפינן ליה והכא כפינן ליה כדפירשנו


Answer#1: If he could fulfill the Mitzvah of Sheves in anyway, we would not force his master to free him. We force him to free him, as we explained (because he cannot even fulfill Sheves in his current state).

אי נמי נקט האי קרא משום דמוכחא דמצוה רבה היא וכן בפ' בתרא דמגילה (דף כז.) מייתי לה גבי מוכר ספר תורה ללמוד תורה ולישא אשה דקאמר שאני תלמוד תורה דאמר מר גדול תלמוד תורה כו' אשה נמי לא תוהו בראה


Answer#2: Alternatively, the Gemara quotes this Pasuk because the context of the Pasuk shows how important of a Mitzvah this is. (Note: The Pasuk states, "He created it to be (populated and) settled.") Similarly, the Gemara in Megilah (27a) quotes this Pasuk regarding someone who sells a Sefer Torah in order to learn Torah or to marry a woman. The Gemara there explains that Talmud Torah is an exceptional case (for which one is allowed to sell a Sefer Torah), as Mar states Talmud Torah etc. Marrying a woman as well is an exceptional case, as the Pasuk states, "He did not create it to be empty (He created it to be settled)."

וה"ר יצחק ברבי מרדכי מפרש דנקט לשבת יצרה משום דשייך אף בצד עבדות אבל פרו ורבו לא שייך אלא בצד חירות


Answer#3: Rebbi Yitzchak b'Rebbi Mordechai explains that the Gemara quotes the Pasuk of Sheves because it is even applicable to his slave half. However, Pru u'Revu is only applicable to his freed half.

וכן משמע קצת בירושל' דפרקין ודפ"ק דמ"ק דאמר תמן תנן אין נושאין נשים במועד שמעון בר אבא בשם ר' יוחנן אומר מפני ביטול פריה ורביה פירוש שלא ימתין מלישא עד המועד שהוא זמן שמחה ופנוי מכלום בעון קומי רבי אסי העבד מהו שישא במועד אמר להון נשמענה מן הדא יבטל והלא לא נברא העולם אלא לפריה ורביה


This is also implied somewhat by the Yerushalmi in our chapter, and in the first chapter of Moed Katan. It says there that the Mishnah states one should not marry women during the Mo'ed. Shimon bar Aba says in the name of Rebbi Yochanan, "Because of stopping Pru u'Revu." This means that one should not wait to marry until the Mo'ed, which is a time of happiness and free time. (Note: The Yerushalmi continues.) They asked before Rebbi Asi: Can a slave get married during the Mo'ed? He said to them: We can derive the answer from the following. Should he stop (from trying to fulfill Pru u'Revu)? The world was created for Pru u'Revu!

ואמר שמעון בר אבא בשם רבי יוחנן כל שהוא מצווה על פריה ורביה אסור לו לישא במועד פירוש כל שהוא מצווה על פריה ורביה משום לשבת יצרה כגון עבד אבל אפרו ורבו ודאי לא מיחייב ולפי זה בשפחה נמי שייך בה שבת


Rebbi Shimon bar Aba says in the name of Rebbi Yochanan that anyone who is commanded in Pru u'Revu cannot marry women during the Mo'ed. He means anyone who is commanded in having children solely because of Sheves, like a slave. However, he is certainly not commanded in Pru u'Revu. According to this, a maidservant is also commanded in Sheves.

והא דלא כפינן בחציה שפחה וחציה בת חורין אלא היכא דנהגו בה מנהג הפקר


Implied Question: We do not force an owner of someone who is a half free woman and half maidservant to free the maidservant half of her, unless people are starting to be promiscuous with her. (Note: Why not?)

היינו משום כיון דלא מיפקדא אפרו ורבו שמא גם לאחר שתשתחרר לא תקיים.


Answer: This is because being that she is not commanded in Pru u'Revu, she may also choose not to fulfill this Mitzvah when she is freed.



תוס' ד"ה "כופין"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses when we sin in order to save someone else from committing a bigger sin.)

וא"ת וכי אומרים לאדם חטא כדי שיזכה חבירך דהכי אמר בפ"ק דשבת (דף ד.) גבי הדביק פת בתנור


Question: Do we say to a person to sin in order that his friend should merit? We say in the Gemara in Shabbos (4a) regarding a person who observes someone stick dough to bake into bread in an oven on Shabbos should not do a Rabbinic sin by taking away the bread, even though his friend will end up transgressing Shabbos according to Torah law.

וי"ל דדוקא התם אמרינן הכי משום דפשע שהדביק סמוך לחשיכה אבל הכא דלא פשע לא


Answer: We only say this there because the first person was negligent, as he put the bread in close to nightfall. However, here that the slave did not sin, there is no reason to do so.

וכן בפ' בתרא דערובין (דף קג:) אמר כהן שעלתה לו יבלת חברו חותכה לו בשיניו דקעביד שבות כדי שיזכה חברו בעבודה


The Gemara says in Eiruvin (103b) that a Kohen who grew a wart on his face can have his friend cut it off for him with his teeth. He can do a Rabbinic prohibition in order to allow his friend to perform the Avodah.

וכן בריש תמיד נשחט (פסחים דף נט.) אמר מחוסר כפרה בערבי פסחים שמביא כפרתו אחר תמיד של בין הערבים דעשה דפסח שיש בו כרת דחי עשה דהשלמה אלמא קא עברי כהני בעשה דהשלמה כדי שיזכה זה בפסח


Similarly, in Pesachim (59a) it says that someone who is lacking atonement on Erev Pesach (and without bringing these Korbanos he cannot eat the Korban Pesach) can have his Korbanos brought after the afternoon Korban Tamid. (Note: This is despite the law that it is normally forbidden to offer any Korbanos after the afternoon Korban Tamid is brought.) This is because the positive commandment of Pesach, whose transgression makes one liable for Kares, pushes aside the positive commandment to have the afternoon Tamid as the last Korban of the day. This implies that the Kohanim who offer his Korban transgress this commandment in order to allow him to eat the Korban Pesach.

וחציה שפחה וחציה בת חורין דכפו את רבה (לעיל לח:) משום דנהגו בה מנהג הפקר אע"ג דהם פושעים


Implied Question: The master of a half maidservant and half free woman is also forced to free her, as stated earlier (38b), if people are acting loosely with her. This is despite the fact that the people sinning with her are being negligent. (Note: Why should we free her to ensure they do not sin? They are being negligent!)

כיון שהיתה מחזרת אחריהם ומשדלתן לזנות חשיבי כאונסים


Answer#1: Being that she is chasing after them and seducing them that they should be promiscuous with her, they are considered a victim of forced circumstances.

ועוד דמצוה דרבים שאני.


Answer#2: Additionally, stopping the public from sinning is more important (and we commit a smaller sin to stop them even if they are being negligent).


TOSFOS DH "d'Kulei Alma"

תוס' ד"ה "דכולי עלמא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara here does not contradict the Gemara in Kerisus.)

בריש איזהו מקומן (זבחים דף מח.) ובפ' דם שחיטה (כריתות דף כב:) פליגי ר"ע ורבנן בספק מעילות ומשמע דלכ"ע הקישא עדיפא


Implied Question: In Zevachim (48a) and Kerisus (22b) Rebbi Akiva and the Rabbanan argue regarding doubtful Meilah. The Gemara there implies that everyone agrees that a Hekesh is better. (Note: Why does the Gemara here say a Gezeirah Shaveh is better?)

הכא שאני משום דעיקר שטר מג"ש נפקא לן.


Answer: Our Gemara is different, because the essence of using a document to free a slave is learned from a Gezeirah Shaveh.


TOSFOS DH "Mah l'Ishah"

תוס' ד"ה "מה לאשה"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks why this question makes the Gemara learn from the Hekesh.)

אע"ג דג"ש מופנה היא דילפינן מינה מילי טובא


Implied Question: This is a Gezeirah Shaveh that is open for Derashah, as is apparent from the fact that we derive many laws from this Gezeirah Shaveh. (Note: Why, then, do we ask a question on it? Questions such as these will not show the Gezeirah Shaveh is incorrect!)

מ"מ כיון דאיכא למיפרך שבקינן לה משום הקישא.


Answer: Being that we can ask this question, we prefer to leave it and use the Hekesh as the source of the teaching.