TOSFOS DH "Asham Taluy"

תוס' ד"ה "אשם תלוי"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why Rebbi Meir would not typically hold in this case that an Asham Taluy is brought.)

דלר"מ דאמר בעילתה תלויה לא מייתי אשם תלוי אלא הדבר תלוי ועומד אם מת מאותו חולי מגורשת משעת כתיבה ואם לא מת חייב חטאת


Explanation: According to Rebbi Meir who says the status of her relations with him (anybody else who has relations with her) during this time are "hanging," he (the other man) does not bring an Asham Taluy. Rather, the status of these relations are suspended. If he dies from this sickness, she was divorced from the time the divorce was written (the Rashash substitutes "given" for "written"). If he does not die, he is liable to bring a Korban Chatas.

ושמא אי הוה מספקא לן אם מת מאותו חולי אם לאו היה לר"מ מייתי נמי אשם תלוי.


Observation: Perhaps if we are unsure whether or not the husband died from that sickness, Rebbi Meir would also say that he (the other man) must bring an Asham Taluy. (Note: The Masharsha explains that Tosfos says "Perhaps" because he is unsure whether Rebbi Meir holds that to bring an Asham Taluy one must choose one out of two items, one being permitted and one being forbidden (which would not apply here). However, the Maharav Mei'Ranshburg points out that Rebbi Meir clearly holds in Krisus (18a) that this is not required. He therefore says this terminology (especially with the explanation of the Maharsha) is difficult to understand.)


TOSFOS DH "Rebbi Yosi"

תוס' ד"ה "רבי יוסי"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains Rebbi Yosi's opinion.)

ומביא אשם תלוי ולא בעי ר' יוסי חתיכה משתי חתיכות וה"נ סבר בס"פ דם שחיטה (כריתות דף כג.).


Explanation: He therefore must bring an Asham Taluy. Rebbi Yosi does not hold that to bring an Asham Taluy one must choose one out of two pieces (i.e. items, or in this case women) one being permitted and one being forbidden. This is indeed his opinion in Kerisus (23a).


TOSFOS DH "Rav Huna"

תוס' ד"ה "רב הונא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we rule like Rav Huna.)

וכן הלכה דקיי"ל כרבי דכל האומר ע"מ כאומר מעכשיו דמי


Opinion: This is the law, as we rule like Rebbi who says that whenever someone says, "On condition," it is as if he says, "from now."

דבפ' קמא דקידושין (דף ח.) פסקינן הלכתא כר"א דאמר התקדשי לי במנה ונתן לה מנה חסר דינר הרי זו מקודשת וישלים דכמאן דאמר ע"מ דמי כדרב הונא אמר רב דכל האומר ע"מ כאומר מעכשיו דמי.


This is evident from the Gemara in Kidushin (8a), where we rule that the law is likee Rebbi Elazar who says that if someone says to a woman that she should be Mekudeshes to him with a Manah and he gave her a Manah minus a Dinar, she is considered Mekudeshes although he must give her the Dinar. This is because it is like he said, "on condition" according to Rav Huna who says in the name of Rav that whenever someone says, "on condition" it is as if he said, "from now."


TOSFOS DH "Ika Beineihu"

תוס' ד"ה "איכא בינייהו"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains other possibilities that the Gemara could have used, and one it could not have used.)

ולעיל גבי גט הוה מצי למימר נמי שפשטה ידה כו' וה"נ הוה מצי למימר שנקרע שטר קידושין


Explanation: Earlier, regarding a Get, it could have also said, "that she stretched out her hand etc." It could also have said that the Kidushin document was torn.

אבל לא מצי למימר שנתאכלו מעות של קדושין דאע"ג דנתאכלו מקודשת דברשות' דידה קא מתאכלי כדאמרינן בריש האומר (קדושין דף נט.).


However, it could not have said that the Kidushin money had already been used. Even though they were used she would still be Mekudeshes, as they were used in her possession, as we state in Kidushin (59a).



TOSFOS DH "adi'Miflagi"

תוס' ד"ה "אדמיפלגי"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the Gemara's question.)

תימה דודאי אי הוה שמעינן מילתא דרבנן במהיום אי הוו פליגי בע"מ הוה פריך שפיר אבל אין ענין זה לזה כלום


Question: This is difficult. Certainly, if we would have heard that the Rabbanan's statement was regarding a person who said, "from today (and after I die)," if they would argue regarding, "on condition" the question would be understandable. However, the two cases do not have anything to do with each other logically.

דאפילו הוו אמרי רבנן בעל מנת גט ואינו גט דלמא במהיום הוו מודו דהוי גט גמור דתנאה הוי או שמא לא הוי גט כלל דחזרה הוי


Even if the Rabbanan would say regarding, "on condition" that it is a "Get and not a Get," perhaps they would agree in a case of "from today" that it is a valid Get, as this is a condition. On the other hand, perhaps they would hold it is not a Get at all, and that his words are considered a retraction. (Note: In other words, one cannot logically conclude based on the Rabbanan's opinion in a case of "on condition" what their opinion would be in a case of "from today.")

ועוד דמשמע ליפלגו בעל מנת דבעל מנת יאמרו חכמים גט ואינו גט הא סבר רב יהודה דבעל מנת לא הוי גט כלל אלא לכשיתן


Question#2: Additionally, the Gemara's question implies that they should argue in a case of "on condition," and that the Chachamim would hold in such a case that it is a "Get and not a Get." This cannot be, as Rav Yehudah holds that in a case of "on condition" the Get is only valid "when he will give."

ונראה לר"י דלרב יהודה לכשיתן הוי גט ודאי אבל עד שיתן הוי ספק והוי גט ואינו גט דמספקא ליה באומר על מנת אי כמעכשיו דמי


Answer: It appears to the Ri that according to Rav Yehudah if he says, "when he will give" the Get is certainly valid. However, before he gives it, it is considered a doubtful Get (like the presumed opinion of the Rabbanan), and the ruling is "Get and not a Get." This is because he is unsure whether or not when someone says, "on condition," it is considered like he said "from now." (Note: This answers question #2.)

ואין סברא לומר כלל דלרב יהודה עד שיתן ודאי לא הוי גט דפשיטא ליה דלרבנן דרבי ע"מ לאו כאומר מעכשיו דמי אע"ג דבמהיום ולאחר מיתה מספקא להו


It is illogical to say that according to Rav Yehudah until he gives it is not a Get at all (not even a doubtful Get). It is obvious to the Rabbanan who argue on Rebbi that "on condition" is unlike saying "from now." This is despite the fact that the ruling in a case of "from today and after death" is unclear.

דא"כ הוה אפכא מר' יוחנן דלרבי יוחנן בע"מ מודו רבנן לרבי דהוי כאומר מעכשיו דמי ובמהיום ולאחר מיתה אין מעשה נגמר מיד לרבנן א"כ ע"מ הוי טפי כאומר מעכשיו ממהיום ולאחר מיתה


If so, he would have the opposite opinion of Rebbi Yochanan. According to Rebbi Yochanan, in the case of "on condition" the Rabbanan admit to Rebbi that it is like he said "from now." In a case of "from today and after death" the action is not done right away according to the Rabbanan. If so, "on condition" is more like saying "from now" than "from today and after death."

ולהכי פריך וליפלגו בעל מנת וישמיענו דאפי' בעל מנת לרבנן גט ואינו גט כ"ש במהיום ולאחר מיתה


This is why the Gemara asks that they should argue regarding a case of "on condition," and it should tell us that even regarding "on condition" the Rabbanan hold that it is a "Get and not a Get." If this is true, we would certainly know that in a case of "from today and after death" the Get would be doubtful.

וליכא למימר דאי הוו פליגי בע"מ הוה אמינא מהיום ולאחר מיתה לא הוי גט כלל לרבנן


Implied Question: One cannot say that if they would argue regarding "on condition" I would still think that "from today and after death" is not a Get at all according to the Rabbanan. (Note: Why not? This was question#1.)

דא"כ מתני' דקתני מהיום ולאחר מיתה גט ואינו גט אמאן תרמייה


Answer#1: If so, our Mishnah which states, "from today and after death is a Get and not a Get," who is it quoting? (Note: This would appear to be the position of the Rabbanan. Once we know the Mishnah, we will certainly not assume they hold it is not a Get at all!)

ועוד יש לומר דהכי קאמר אדמיפלגי במהיום ולאחר מיתה ולא השמיענו בהך ברייתא אלא מילתא דרבי דמילתייהו דרבנן דאמרי גט ואינו גט תנא לה במתני' לפלוג בע"מ ולאשמועינן מילתא דתרוייהו דאינה שנויה בשום דוכתא


Answer#2: Additionally, we can answer that the Gemara is asking the following question. Instead of arguing in a case of "from today and after death," and having the Beraisa only tell us Rebbi's opinion, as we already knew the Rabbanan's opinion that it is a "Get and not a Get" from the Mishnah, why don't they argue in a case of "on condition?" This would teach us two opinions (Rebbi and the Rabbanan in a case of "on condition") that are not stated anywhere else!

ועוד הארכתי בפרק האומר בקידושין (דף ס.).


Additionally, I talked about this at length in Kidushin (60a).


TOSFOS DH "Chisurei Mechsara"

תוס' ד"ה "חיסורי מיחסרא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara had to say the Rabbanan argue on Rabban Shimon.)

וא"ת למה הוצרך להגיה דפליגי רבנן אדרבן שמעון בן גמליאל מנא ליה דפליגי עליה


Question: Why does the Gemara have to edit this and state that the Rabbanan argue on Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel? How does the Gemara know they argue?

ואומר ר"י דקבלה היתה בידו דפליגי רבנן


Answer: The Ri states that he had a tradition that the Rabbanan argue on Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.



תוס' ד"ה "רבה"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why this case is different than a regular worker who is hired to water a field and does not have to because it rained.)

וא"ת דבפרק האומנין (ב"מ דף עז. ושם) אמרי' שכר את הפועלים ואתא מטרא הפסד דפועלים


Question: In Bava Metzia (77a), we say that if he hired workers (to water his field tomorrow) and rain then fell, the workers lose (and he does not have to pay them anything). (Note: Why does Rabah in our Gemara say that a similar case is the loss of the employer?)

וי"ל דשאני התם שאינו אלא שכיר יום שלא שכרו בעל הבית אלא לדלות וכיון שלא הוצרך אינו שכירו


Answer: The case in Bava Metzia is different, as the worker is only a day laborer who the employer hired to water his field. Being that he does not need him to do this anymore, he is no longer his worker.

אבל הכא שהוא אריס ועושה כל מלאכות שבשדה ויש לו חלק בקרקע כמו בעל השדה ומיד כשהתנה עמו לדלות ארבעה זכה בשליש שדה ואפי' אתא מטרא ולא איצטריך כמו שאר אריסים דמשמע דנטלי רבעא ואפילו לא יצטרכו לדלות


However, in this case the worker is his sharecropper who does all of the work in the field. The sharecropper thereby acquires a portion of the land, just like the employer. Immediately, once they agreed that the sharecropper would water the field four times, the sharecropper acquired one third of the land. This is even if rain comes and the field does not need to be watered, just like other sharecroppers regarding whom it seems that they acquire one fourth of the land in this situation, even though they did not have to water the field.

ורב יוסף סבר כיון דמשנה עצמו משאר אריסות אמרינן הא לא דלה.


Rav Yosef understands that being that he distinguishes himself (i.e. his deal) from other sharecroppers, we say that he did not water (and therefore he should not receive the extra amount).



תוס' ד"ה "הא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos and others argue when we rule like Rabah over Rav Yosef.)

מכאן משמע דבכולי הש"ס הלכתא כרבה לגבי רב יוסף מדלא קאמר והא בהא קיי"ל כרבה כדקאמר ובהא לא קיי"ל כרשב"ג


Opinion#1: The Gemara implies that in all of the Gemara the law follows Rabah when he argues with Rav Yosef. This is evident from the fact that the Gemara does not ask, "And do we not rule in this case like Rabah?" like we often ask "And do we not rule in this case like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel?"

ודלא כאומר הא דקאמר הילכתא כרבה לגבי רב יוסף בר משדה ענין ומחצה היינו דוקא במילי דאיפלגו בבבא בתרא


Opinion#2: This is unlike the opinion that when we say the rule follows Rabah when he argues with Rav Yosef besides for the case of "field," "topic," and "half (short for three cases where we rule like Rav Yosef)," it is only regarding arguments that they have in Bava Basra.

והא דאיצטריך הש"ס לפסוק הלכה בקידושין בפרק קמא (דף ט.) כרבה גבי שיראי לא צריכי שומא


Implied Question: The Gemara felt it necessary to rule in Kidushin (9a) that the law follows Rabah that when silk items are given for Kidushin they require evaluation. (Note: Why would it be necessary for the Gemara to say this if we always rule like Rabah against Rav Yosef?)

פירשנו שם (ד"ה והילכתא).


Answer: This we have explained there (in Kidushin 9a, DH "v'Hilchasa" Tosfos gives many answers to this question, among them that Rav Yosef had brought many proofs to his position, and one would therefore think the law follows him in this matter).