TOSFOS DH "Haysah"

תוס' ד"ה "היתה"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how Rebbi Oshiya earlier (77b) would explain our Mishnah.)

לרבי אושעיא דאמר לעיל אפילו היא בטבריא וחצרה בציפורי


Implies Question: Rebbi Oshiya says earlier that this (the case of her being in her house) is even if she is in Teverya and her yard is in Tzipori. (Note: He explained that when the Mishnah (77b) there stated "in her house" it means "like she is in her house." How does he explain our Mishnah?)

האי עומדת היינו כמי שעומדת כלומר כגון שמשתמרת כדמשני לעיל אעומדת בתוך ביתה או בתוך חצרה


Answer#1: When our Mishnah states "standing," it means "as if she is standing." In other words, the area is guarded, as the Gemara answered earlier according to Rebbi Oshiya regarding the Mishnah's statement there that "she was standing in her house or her yard."

אי נמי נקט עומדת לאשמועינן דבגג דידה מיירי שעומדת ברשותה כדמוקי לה בגמרא.


Answer#2: Alternatively, our Mishnah states "standing" to teach us that she in on her roof and she is standing in her own domain, as stated in our Gemara.



תוס' ד"ה "כגון"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how walls are deemed to surround the object when there is no wall between the yard and the roof from where it was thrown.)

דמיד שיצא מרשות גג נכנס לרשות חצר


Explanation: Right after it left the domain of the roof, it went into the domain of the yard.

וא"ת ומה מועיל דעודפות מ"מ כשזרקו מעל המעקה לא מנטר כנגד הגג


Question: Why does it help that the walls are sticking out? In any event, when he throws it over the fence it is not guarded opposite the roof! (Note: When it left the airspace of the roof, it is enclosed by the walls of the yard that are on the other sides of the yard, but it is not enclosed on the side where it entered the yard!)

וי"ל דכיון דשלש מחיצות עודפות חשיב משתמר ואין לחוש למחיצה רביעית


Answer#1: Being that there are three walls that stick out on the sides of the yard, it is considered guarded. We do not have to be concerned that there is no fourth wall.

אי נמי כשהגג קצר וחצר רחב הרבה ועודפות המחיצות גם רביעית מצד זה ומצד זה וכנגד המעקה אינו כי אם פתח בעלמא


Answer#2: Alternatively, the case is where the roof is short (i.e. narrow) and the yard is wide, and the walls sticking up are on either side of the place where the Get entered the yard. Opposite the gate of the roof there is merely a small entrance where the Get can go. (Note: In other words, the Get is enclosed on the side of its point of entry, and there was only a small area on that side that was open that enabled the Get to be thrown into the yard.)

אי נמי כשהגג עומד באמצע החצר ולא מן הצד ומחיצות החצר מוקפות לו מכל צד


Answer#3: Alternatively, the case is where the roof is standing in the middle of the yard and not on the side, and the walls of the yard surround the rood on all sides.

וא"ת דאמרינן במרובה (ב"ק דף ע:) באומר זרוק גניבתך לחצרי ותיקני לי חצרי גניבתך דאיסור שבת ואיסור גניבה באין כאחד


Question: The Gemara says in Bava Metzia (70b) that if someone says, "Throw your stolen items into my yard, and my yard should acquire your stolen items" the prohibition of Shabbos (carrying) and stealing arrive at the same time.

והיכי באין כאחד והא לענין שבת מיחייב אפילו למעלה מן המחיצות עד שלא נכנס עדיין תוך המחיצות דרה"י עולה עד לרקיע ולענין קנין עד דמטי לתוך המחיצות


How do they arrive at the same time? Regarding Shabbos one is liable even if the item is above the walls, before it even goes into a place where it is surrounded by walls, as the walls of a private domain (regarding Shabbos) extends until the sky. However, regarding acquiring, he only acquires the item when it is within the walls of his domain. (Note: How, then, do these two prohibitions arrive at the same time?)

וי"ל דמיירי כשזורק דרך פתח ולא מעל המחיצות.


Answer: The case is where he threw the item through a doorway, not from above the walls.



תוס' ד"ה "כמאן"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why our Gemara assumes the Tana of our Mishnah is Rebbi instead of Rebbi Akiva.)

תימה דנקט רבי דלא איירי אלא ברשות היחיד מקורה משום דביתא כמאן דמליא דמיא כדאמרינן בריש שבת (דף ה.) ודר"ע הוה ליה למינקט דאית ליה קלוטה כמי שהונחה דמיא אפילו ברה"ר


Question: It is difficult that the Gemara chose to establish the Mishnah as being according to Rebbi. Rebbi (Shabbos 5a) is only discussing a case where there is a roof above the private domain, and therefore the house is as if it was filled, as we state in Shabbos (5a). Our Gemara seemingly should have stated that the Mishnah is according to Rebbi Akiva, who holds in general that when an object is in the air it is as if it has been placed down, even in the public domain.

ונראה דהשתא סלקא דעתין דטעמא דרבי לאו משום קירוי אלא משום מחיצה אית ליה דכמאן דמליא דמיא ולהכי קאמר כמאן כרבי


Answer: It appears that the Gemara at this stage thinks that Rebbi's reasoning is not due to the roof, but rather that it is considered to be full because there are walls there. This is why our Gemara establishes the Mishnah as being according to Rebbi.

דכר"ע לא מיתוקמא מדמצרכת מחיצות החיצונות עודפות ולר"ע אית ליה דכמי שהונחה דמיא אפילו ברה"ר


It did not establish the Mishnah as being according to Rebbi Akiva, as our Mishnah requires that there be walls sticking up, while Rebbi Akiva holds that the object is viewed as if it was placed down even in a public domain.

אלא ודאי כרבי מוקמת לה ומשני אפילו תימא רבנן כו' ולפי זה יכול להיות טעמא דרבי משום קירוי כדאמרינן בשבת.


Rather, it is certainly like Rebbi. The Gemara answers that it could even be according to the Rabbanan etc. According to the answer, Rebbi's reasoning could be because of the roof.


TOSFOS DH "Derech"

תוס' ד"ה "דרך"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why Rava's question in Bava Metzia is still valid in light of our Gemara.)

ולא דמי להא דבעי רבא בפ"ק דב"מ (דף יב.) זרק ארנקי בפתח זה ויצא בפתח אחרת מהו אויר שאין סופו לנוח כמונח דמי או לא


Question: This is unlike Rava's question in Bava Metzia (12a) that if one threw a wallet (and made it ownerless) from one doorway and it went out another, what is the law? Do we say that when something is in the air but it will end up falling to the ground in another domain that it is still as if it is placed on the floor, or not? (The difference is in a case where two people own these two different domains. Does the first person acquire the wallet due to the law that when something is in the air it is as if it is placed down, or do we say the second person acquires it because it came to rest in his domain?) (Note: What is the difference between this question and our Gemara's law that if it is not going to end up resting the Get is invalid?)

הכא דבדרך עלייה אין דומה כל כך שיהא עומד לנוח


Answer: In our case where it is going up, it is not very similar to something that should be considered about to rest (i.e placed down). (Note: Everyone would agree that it is not as if it is placed down.)

אי נמי התם בבית מקורה דומה יותר עומד לנוח.


Answer#2: Alternatively, in Bava Metzia the case is regarding a house with a roof, which makes it more understandable why the object is considered to be about to rest (i.e. placed down).



TOSFOS DH "v'Ha d'Amar"

תוס' ד"ה "והא דאמר"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that Shmuel's statement is according to both Rebbi Shimon and the Rabbanan.)

וא"ת והא שמואל פסיק כר"ש דאמר גגין רשות אחד הן בפ' כל גגות (עירובין דף צא.)


Question: Doesn't Shmuel rule according to the opinion of Rebbi Shimon in Eiruvin (91a) that all roofs are one domain?

וי"ל דהכא להוליך מגג לבית קאמר


Answer: Our Gemara is discussing carrying from the roof to the house (which Rebbi Shimon also forbids). (Note: Rebbi Shimon says roofs are one domain regarding vessels that were on the rooftops when Shabbos arrived. However, these items cannot be carried into a house. Additionally, items from a house cannot be carried onto a roof, and items from the roof cannot be carried into the house (unless these domains are all owned by only one person, and the items were there when Shabbos arrived).)

וא"ת א"כ אמאי נקט מגגו של חבירו אפי' מגג של עצמו לא יקלוט להוליך לביתו לפי שגגו נפרץ לגג של חבירו שהוא אסור לו


Question: If so, why does the Gemara say, "from his friend's roof?" Even from his own roof he should not catch rainwater to take into his house, as his roof is open to the roof of his friend where he cannot carry (making him unable to carry on his roof)!

וי"ל דשמואל סבר התם דאפי' במחיצות שאינן ניכרות אמרינן גוד אסיק מחיצות הבית למעלה ומותר לטלטל מגג לבית


Answer: Shmuel holds there that even when the walls are not noticeable (i.e. the building are attached to each other, and therefore the walls between the building are not noticeable) we say Gud Asik (that the walls are considered to go straight up) on the walls of the house. This enables one to carry from his roof to his house (as the walls separate the two roofs to the point that they are not considered like two yards that are open to each other, which would cause each to be forbidden to carry without an Eiruv).

ומיהו אנן כרב קי"ל דמצריך מחיצות ניכרות


Implied Question: However, we hold like Rav that the walls must be apparent to say Gud Asik. (Note: This answer therefore is not in accordance with Halachah. It is difficult to conclude that our Gemara is not according to the Halachah.)

ומיהו לישנא דכשם שדיורין חלוקין למטה כו' משמע דמגג לגג קאמר


However, the term, "Just like the inhabitants are split up underneath (i.e. under the roof) etc." implies he is carrying it from one roof to another. (Note: This implies that Shmuel is specifically discussing a case where one is carrying from one roof to another. Why does he do this?)

ושמא שמואל נמי נקט מילתיה ככולי עלמא לרבנן מגג לגג לר"ש מגג לבית


Answer: Perhaps Shmuel is saying his statement according to everyone. According to the Rabbanan the case is from one roof to another, while according to Rebbi Shimon it is from the roof to the house (as it would be permitted to carry from roof to roof).

וא"ת מאי קמ"ל שמואל מתני' היא בריש פ' כל גגות (שם דף פט:)


Question: What is Shmuel teaching us? All of this is stated in a Mishnah in Eiruvin (89b)!

וי"ל קמ"ל אפילו קליטת גשמים שלא נחו בגגו של חבירו ואפ"ה דיורין חלוקין למר כדאית ליה ולמר כדאית ליה


Answer: Shmuel is teaching us that this even applies to rainwater that never rested on his friend's roof. Even so the fact that they have separate domains applies, according to each Tana (as explained above in (f).

והכי הוה מצי לאיתויי מתני'


Question: Our Gemara could have quoted this from the Mishnah in Eiruvin (89b). (Note: Why didn't it?)

אלא דניחא ליה לאיתויי מילתא דשמואל.


Answer: It was easier for the Gemara to quote Shmuel (who explains the reasoning).


TOSFOS DH "Pnimis"

תוס' ד"ה "פנימית"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains what Rashi means when he says the walls are "Meshubad" to the inner yard.)

מה שפירש בקונט' שמחיצות החיצונות משועבדות לפנימיות לאו דוקא משועבדות


Explanation: Rashi's explanation that the outer walls are "Meshubad" -- "on lien" to the inner yard is not literal.

דא"כ אדמפליג בין חצרות לקופות ליפלוג בחצרות גופייהו בין משועבדות לשאינם משועבדות


Implied Question: If it would be, instead of differentiating between yards and boxes, the Gemara should differentiate between walls that are "on lien" and wall that are not.

אלא טעמא כיון שהמחיצות החיצונות קבועות ועתידות לישאר שם חשיבא פנימית מינטרא בהו


Answer#1: Rather, the reason is that since the outer walls are permanent and are intended to stay there, the inner yard is considered guarded by them.

ומיירי כשמחיצות החיצונות מפסיקות בין חיצונה לפנימית דאי אין מפסיקות כשהגיע הגט לאויר פנימית ולא נכנס תוך מחיצות אמאי מגורשת הא אינו משתמר מפני בני חיצונה וא"כ לא חשיב חצר המשתמרת


The case is where the walls of the outer yard separate between outer and inner yards. If they do not separate, when the Get reaches the airspace of the inner yard and did not yet go inside the walls, why should she be divorced? The Get is not being guarded from the people in the outer courtyard. If so, the inner yard is not deemed guarded (and cannot acquire the Get for her).

כדפריך גבי עובדא דר"ג וזקנים בב"מ (דף יא:) וכי בצד שדהו היו עומדין אע"פ שהתבואה היתה בביתו של ר"ג שהיה משתמר כדמוכח בירושלמי שכבר היה בבית מ"מ לא הויא משתמרת לגבי זקנים מפני בני ביתו של ר"ג


This is like the question asked in Bava Metzia (11a) regarding the incident involving Rabban Gamliel and the elders. The Gemara there asks, "were they standing next to his field?" This is despite the fact that the produce that was in Rabban Gamliel's house was guarded, as is apparent from the Yerushalmi that it was already in his house. Nevertheless, it was not guarded as far as the elders go due to the presence of the people of Rabban Gamliel's household (in Rabban Gamliel's house).

ועוד י"ל דמיירי שפיר באין מחיצות החיצונות מפסיקות ומיירי שהאשה עומדת בצד חצרה הלכך הוי חצר המשתמרת ע"י מחיצות החיצונות דלא לישדיא זיקא לרה"ר אבל גבי זקנים לא היו מועילין מחיצות בית של ר"ג כיון שהזקנים לא היו עומדין בצד הבית


Answer#2: Alternatively, it is possible to answer that the case is indeed when the outer walls are not separating (between the two yards). The case is where the woman is standing at the side of her yard. Therefore, it is considered that the yard is guarded because of the outer walls, as they ensure the Get will not be blown to the public domain (and she is physically guarding it by standing next to it). However, regarding the elders, the walls of Rabban Gamliel's house would not have helped, being that the elders did not stand next to the house.

והא דאמרינן בשלהי השואל (שם דף קב.) דהזבל של בעל הבית פי' של משכיר בתורי דאתו ליה מעלמא דקנתה לו חצרו אע"פ שאינה משתמרת מן השוכר


Implied Question: The Gemara says in Bava Metzia (102a) that the fertilizer belongs to the householder, meaning the landlord, if it is from oxen that come from outside the yard. His yard acquires the fertilizer, even though it is not guarded from the renter (who is currently renting the house and yard from him). (Note: Based on what was stated above, how can the landlord acquire when he is not standing next to the yard?)

י"ל דמיירי שיש גם למשכיר בית באותו חצר דהוי עומד בצד חצרו


Answer#1: The case is where the landlord also has a house in that yard. He is therefore standing next to his yard (and can acquire the fertlizer).

אי נמי שוכר הוי כמו שומר ושלוחו של משכיר.


Answer#2: Alternatively, a renter is akin to a watchman, and is considered the agent of the landlord. (Note: It is therefore considered that the landlord, through his agent, is standing next to his yard.)



תוס' ד"ה "דהא"

(SUMMARY: Rashi and Tosfos argue regarding whether or not the Get can be acquired in the airspace of the walls of the vessel.)

פי' בקונטרס ואין מחיצות של כלי עשויות אלא להניח בתוכן משמע מפירושו דאויר כלי אינו קונה


Opinion#1: Rashi explains that the walls of the vessel are only made to put something into them. This implies that the airspace of a vessel does not acquire.

ואין נראה דבפרק בתרא דע"ז (דף עא: אמר גבי יין נסך מכי מטא לאוירא דמנא קנייה יין נסך לא הוי עד דמטא לארעיה דמנא משמע דאויר כלי קונה


Question: This does not appear to be correct. In Avodah Zarah (71b), the Gemara says regarding "Yayin Nesech" -- "wine poured for Avodah Zarah" that when it (wine being sold by a Jew to a Nochri and being poured into the Nochri's vessel) reaches the airspace of the vessel he acquires it. However, it only becomes Yayin Nesech when it reaches the floor of the vessel. This implies that the airspace of the vessel does acquire.

אלא נראה דהכי פירושו דהא לא נח באויר כלי אבל גבי חצרות אע"ג דלא נח תוך מחיצות הפנימיות כיון שהוא תוך מחיצות החיצונה מגורשת כיון דמחיצות החיצונות הם קבועות כדפירשנו לעיל


Opinion#2: Rather, it appears that this is the explanation. The Get did not rest in the airspace of the vessel. However, regarding yards, even if it did not rest within the walls, being that it is within the walls of the outer yard she is still divorced. This is because the outer walls are permanent, as explained earlier (in the previous Tosfos).

וגרסי' גבי חצרות כיון שהגיע לאויר מחיצות הפנימית פירוש כנגד הפנימי למעלה ממחיצותיה ותוך מחיצות חיצונה


Our text regarding yards is, "because it reached the airspace of the walls of the inner courtyard." This means it is above the inner yard and over its walls, but it is inside the walls of the outer yard (the walls of the outer yard are taller than the walls of the inner yard).

וגבי קופות גרסי' אפילו הגיע לאויר פנימית פירוש ולמעלה ממחיצותיה דאי הוה בתוך חלל קופה הפנימית הויא מגורשת כדפרישית


Regarding boxes, our text is, "even if it reached the airspace of the inner." This means that it is above its walls. If it was inside the walls of the vessel she would be divorced, as I have explained.

ואית ספרים דגרסי גבי חצרות כיון שהגיע לאויר מחיצה חיצונה


Text: Some Sefarim have the text regarding the yards, "being that it reached the airspace of the outer wall."

ולפי גירסא זו כיון דגבי קופות נקט פנימית הוי משמע אפילו מונח בחלל פנימית אינה מגורשת עד שינוח בשוליו כדפי' בקונט'


According to this text, being that regarding boxes it discussed the inner one, the implication is that even if it is placed inside the walls of the inner box (but not resting in it), she is not divorced until it comes to rest on the bottom of the box, as Rashi maintains.

ולא יתכן דאויר כלי קונה כדפרישית.


Question: This cannot be correct, as the airspace (inside the walls) of a vessel acquire, as I have explained.


TOSFOS DH "Beis Shamai"

תוס' ד"ה "בית שמאי"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that the argument in our Mishnah is one of three arguments between Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai that hinge on the same point.)

בירושל' מפרש דאזלי לטעמייהו דב"ש אית להו בפ' המגרש (לקמן דף צ.) לא יגרש אדם את אשתו אא"כ מצא בה דבר ערוה הלכך מזוהמת היא בעיניו ואינו בא עליה


Explanation: The Yerushalmi explains that they are basing themselves on their reasoning (regarding Gitin in general). Beis Shamai understands (90a) that a person should not divorce his wife unless he finds that she has been promiscuous. Therefore, she is disgusting in his eyes, and he would not have relations with her. (Note: This is why they hold that there is no suspicion of reconciliation, even though the Get is old.)

וב"ה אית להו אפילו הקדיחתו תבשילו יכול לגרשה ואינה מזוהמת בעיניו ויאמרו כי בא עליה


Beis Hillel understands that one is allowed to divorce his wife even if she burned his food. She therefore is not disgusting in his eyes, and people will say that they had relations (after the Get was written).

וכי האי גוונא פליגי לקמן (דף פא.) במגרש ולנה עמו בפונדקי למאן דמוקי לה בלא ראוה שנבעלה.


They similarly argue later (81a) in a case where he divorced her and later slept together in a room with her at an inn, according to the opinion that the case is where she was not observed to have had relations with him. (Note: Beis Shamai holds he would not have done so as she is disgusting to him, while Beis Hillel says he would have.)



תוס' ד"ה "כתב"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Mishnah discussed an "inappropriate" kingdom.)

אומר רבינו אלחנן דלהכי קרי לה שאינה הוגנת


Implied Question: Rabeinu Elchanan says that it is called "inappropriate" for the following reason. (Note: What is the reason?)

לאשמועינן דאע"פ שאין לה לא כתב ולא לשון אף על פי כן מתקנאין בה.


Answer: This teaches us that even though it has no script nor language people will be jealous about it (being cited in the document).



תוס' ד"ה "ולא"

(SUMMARY: Rashi and Tosfos argue about what kind of clothes she does not receive.)

פירש בקונטרס בלאותיה קיימים


Opinion#1: Rashi explains that this refers to her old clothes that she has in her possession (that she brought into the marriage).

ואין נראה דבהדיא אמרינן בסוף פרק אלמנה ניזונית (כתובות דף קא.) זינתה לא הפסידה בלאותיה קיימין


Question: This does not appear to be correct, as the Gemara in Kesuvos (101a) explicitly states that if she was promiscuous she does not lose her present wardrobe.

אלא בשאין קיימין איירי הכא.


Opinion#2: Rather, the Gemara here is referring to him not having to pay her back for clothes that she brought into the marriage that are no longer present.


TOSFOS DH "u'Tzerichah"

תוס' ד"ה "וצריכה"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos argues that Rashi cannot be correct in applying a decree from Yevamos to our Gemara.)

פי' בקונטרס אע"פ שקדושי השני לא היו קדושין כדמפרש ביבמות (דף פח:) גזרה שמא יאמרו גירש ראשון גט גמור ונשא שני ונמצאת אשת איש יוצאה בלא גט


Explanation: Rashi explains that even though the Kidushin of the second person is not valid, she still requires a Get from him as well. The reason for this is as the Gemara explains in Yevamos (88b) that otherwise, we suspect people will say that the first Get was valid and she married the second person, meaning that a married woman is leaving a marriage (the second "marriage") without a Get.

ואינו נראה לה"ר יוסף דהתם ודאי היא אשת ראשון אינה מקודשת לשני אבל הכא מה"ת צריכה גט משני שהרי גט גמור היה אותו שגירש בו ראשון ואינו פסול אלא מדרבנן.


Question: This does not appear to be correct to Rabeinu Yosef. In Yevamos (ibid.), the case is where she is certainly the wife of the first husband and is not Mekudeshes to the second man. However, in our case, Torah law would dictate that she needs a Get from the second man, as the first Get was indeed a valid Get according to Torah law, and is only invalid according to Rabbinic law.