KERISUS 11 (1 Elul) - Dedicated l'Iluy Nishmas Esther Chaya Rayzel (Friedman) bas Gershon Eliezer (Yahrzeit: 30 Av, Yom Kevurah: 1 Elul) by her son-in-law, Dr. Eli Turkel of Raanana, Israel. Esther Friedman was a woman of valor who was devoted to her family and gave of herself unstintingly, inspiring all those around her.

1)

TOSFOS DH EIN HA'ISHAH LOKAH

úåñ' ã"ä àéï äàùä ìå÷ä

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the statement and elaborates.)

ëâåï ùäéà ùåââú àå ÷èðä- àéï äàéù îáéà ÷øáï.

(a)

Clarification: Where she is Shogeg or a Ketanah - the man does not bring a Korban.

åäà ãàîøéðï ìòéì 'ìøáåú ùåââ ëîæéã' ...

(b)

Implied Question: And when the Gemara said earlier (on Daf 9a) 'to include Shogeg like Meizid' ...

äééðå ùåââ ãàéù ëîæéã, àáì äàùä öøéê ùúäà îæéãä.

1.

Answer: It refers to the Shogeg of the man like his Meizid, but the woman must be Meizid (See Shitah Mekubetzes 34).

2)

TOSFOS DH D'HA MAKSHU L'HADADI

úåñ' ã"ä ãäà î÷ùå ìäããé

(Summary: Tosfos queries the Gemara's Lashon.)

äìùåï àéðå îëååï, ãäàéù äå÷ù ìàùä åìà àùä ìàéù ...

(a)

Question: The Lashon is not accurate, seeing as although the man is compared to the woman, the woman is not compared to the man ...

ãäà ëé äàéù ðîé ôèåø, äàùä çééáú, ëãàéúà áú"ë "åàéù," 'ôøè ì÷èï' ;éëåì ùàðé îåöéà áï úùò ùðéí åéåí àçã? ú"ì "åàéù" ...

(b)

Proof: Since we see that, even where the man is Patur, the woman is Chayav, as the Toras Kohanim states - "ve'Ish", 'to preclude a Katan; Will we also preclude a n inr year old boy? Therefore the Torah writes "ve'Ish".

à"ë àùä ìà àéú÷ùä ìàéù.

(c)

Conclusion: IN that case, a woman is not compared to a man.

3)

TOSFOS DH B'EIN MISKAVEN PATUR

úåñ' ã"ä áàéï îúëåéï (ãëãøëä) ôèåø

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

ôéøù ä÷åðè' îùåí ã"ù"æ" ëúéá, åáàéï îúëåéï àéðå øàåé ìäæøéò...

(a)

Refuted Reason: Rashi explains that it is because the Torah writes "Shichvas Zera", and when he does not do it intentionally, it is not fit to take root ...

ëâåï ðôì îï äââ åðú÷ò.

1.

Example: Such as where he fell off the roof on tophe of t the woman.

å÷ùä, îàï ìéîà ìï ãàéðå øàåé ìäæøéò?

(b)

Refutation: Who says that it is not fit to take root?

àìà äåé èòîà îùåí ùàðåñ äåà.

(c)

Authentic Reason: But the reason is because he is an Oneis.

11b----------------------------------------11b

4)

TOSFOS DH HACHI KATANI ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä äëé ÷úðé òùå ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the answer and queries the Beraisa.)

åäëé ôéøåù ãáøééúà- 'òùå âåîø ëîòøä åîúëååï ëùàéðå îúëååï' -åäàé ãéðà äåé áëãøëä åùìà ëãøëä, ëãîôøù äù"ñ

(a)

Clarification: What the Beraisa therefore means is 'They made the end of Bi'ah like Ha'ara'ah, and Miskaven like she'Eino Miskaven' - with reference to ke'Darkah and she'Lo ke'Darkah, as the Gemara explains (See Shitah Mekubetzes 17).

åîëì î÷åí ÷öú ÷ùä, àîàé ìà úðà 'ðéòåø ëéùï' áäãééäå, åúðà ìéä áúøéä ãëãøëä åùìà ëãøëä.

(b)

Question: Why does the Tana not insert 'NI'er ke'Yashen together with them (See Shitah Mekubetzes 18), instead of after 'ke'Darkah ve'she'Lo ke'Darkah' (See Shitah Mekubetzes 19)

5)

TOSFOS DH NIMTZA MISKAVEN ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä ðîöà îúëåéï ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos queries the Gemara's excessive Lashon.)

÷ùä, àîàé äàøéê äù"ñ áìéùðéä ...

(a)

Question: Why does the Gemara use excessive language ...

ãäàé ìàå ôéøåù ãáøééúà äåà, ãëáø àñé÷ðà ìéä ùôéø.

1.

Reason: Seeing as this does not explain the Beraisa, which it has already done admirably.

6)

TOSFOS DH K'SHE'EIN MISKAVEN D'ARAYOS

úåñ' ã"ä ëùàéï îúëåéï ãòøéåú

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

ôéøù ä÷åðèøñ ëâåï ùàùúå åàçåúå áîèä ,åëñáåø ìáà òì àùúå åðîöà àçåúå ...

(a)

Refuted Explanation: Rashi (We do not have this Rashi in our text) explains that it speaks where his wife and his sister were with him in the same bed, and where he intended to be with his wife, but then discovered that it was his sister ...

ãôèåø îîì÷åú åçééá çèàú, äåàéì åðäðä - ãîúòñ÷ äåà.

1.

Refuted Explanation (cont.): In which case he is Patur from Malkos though he is Chayav Chatas since he derived benefit - because he was Mis'asek.

å÷ùä, ùäøé áùôçä ðîé çééá çèàú áëé äàé âååðà àí ðúëåéï ìàùúå åðîöà ùôçä ,ùäøé îáéàéï òì äæãåï ëùåââ...

(b)

Refutation: A Shifchah is also Chayav Chatas in the equivalent case where he has his wife in mind but then discovers that it was a Shifchah, seeing as she is Chayav for both Meizid and Shogeg ...

åà"ë îàé ÷àîø 'ðîöà îúëåéï áùôçä ëùàéï îúëåéï ìòøéåú' - áëä"â ùåå úøååééäå?

1.

Refutation (cont.): So what does the Beraisa then mean when it says 'Nimtza Miskaven be'Shifchah ke'she'Ein Miskaven la'Arayos' - since the Din is the same by both?

ìëê éù ìåîø áùàéï îúëåéï ãòøéåú ëâåï ðôì îï äââ åðú÷ò, ãôèåø ìâîøé àó îçèàúú ãàðåñ äåà.

(c)

Authentic Explanation: The explanation of 'Ein Miskaven by Arayos must therefore be where he fell off the roof on top of the Ervah, where he is completely Patur even from a Chatas, seeing as he is an Oneis.

HADRAN ALACH 'ARBA'AH MECHUSREI KAPARAH'
PEREK AMRU LO
7)

TOSFOS DH AMRU LO ACHALTA CHEILEV EID OMER ACHAL ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä àîøå ìå àëìú çìá òã àåîø àëì ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the Sugya.)

ö"ì ãîééøé ùäòéãåäå ùðéí ááú àçú...

(a)

Clarification: This must be speaking where the two witnesses testified at the same time ...

ãàé áæä àçø æä, äà àîø òåìà' ë"î ùäàîéðä úåøä òã àçã, äøé ëàï ùðéí' ...

1.

Reason: Because if they testified one after the other, Ula said (in Yevamos, 88b) that 'Wherever the Torah believes one witness, he is like two witnesses' ...

åëéåï ùðú÷áì òãåúå, úå ìà ÷ôãéðï áòãåú äùðé ùàåîø 'ìà àëì' .

2.

Reason (cont.): And since his testimony was accepted, we would no longer accept that of the second witness, who says 'Lo Achal'.

åö"ì ãîééøé ùäàéù ùîòéãéï áå ùåú÷, ãàé àîø 'àéðé éåãò' ôèåø, ëãðô÷à áâîøà "àå äåãò àìéå " ...

(b)

Clarification (cont.): And this must be speaking where the defendant is silent (See Shitah Mekubetzes 25), because if he would say 'I don't know', he would be Patur, as the Gemara learns from "O Hoda eilav" (See Birchas ha'Zevach).

åîñé÷ ãîééøé áòã àçã, ùàéðå éëåì ìçééáå ÷øáï ,åò"ë îééøé ùàçø ùäòéã òìéå àåîø 'àéðé éåãò' ...

(c)

Maskanah: The Gemara concludes that it is speaking where there is only one witness, who cannot be Mechayev him a Korban, and it must be speaking where after he testified in him, the defendant said 'Eini Yode'a' ...

ãàé àîø 'ìà àëìúé' ,ôùéèà ãòã àçã ìà îäéîï...

1.

Maskanah (cont.): Because if he would have said 'Lo Achalti', it is obvious that one witness is not believed ...

ëãëúéá (ãáøéí éè) "ìà é÷åí òã àçã áàéù" ,ãðøàä ùàéï òã àçã ÷í ø÷ ìùáåòä.

2.

Source: As the Torah writes (n Devarim 9) "Lo Yakum Eid Echad be'Ish", implying that one witness can only testify against a person to be Mechayev him a Shevu'ah.

8)

TOSFOS DH V'ISHAH OMERES LO ACHAL

úåñ' ã"ä åàùä àåîøú ìà àëì

(Summary: Tosfos proves that a woman is believed more than a Gazlan.)

äà ìà äåéà àåúä ùàåîøú ìà àëì, äåé îçééá òì àåúä ùàîøä àëìúú, åáùúé÷úå.

(a)

Clarification: If not for the woman who says 'Lo Achal', he would be Chayav on account of the one who said 'Achal', and to whom he was silent.

îëàï îùîò ãàùä îäéîðà èôé îâæìï...

(b)

Inference: It therefore seems that a woman is believed more a Gazlan ...

ùäøé âáé âæìï îùîò ãìà àîøé' 'ùúé÷ä ëäåãàä ,'ëãàîøéðï áô' äàåîø (÷ãåùéï ãó ñå.) 'àé îäéîðà ìê ãìà âæìðà äåà, æéì àô÷ä'! ...

(c)

Introduction to Proof: Since in the case of a Gazlan it implies that we do not say 'Shetikah ke'Hoda'ah', as the Gemara says in Perek ha'Omer (Kidushin, Daf 66a) - 'If you believe that he is not a Gazlan, go and give her a Get!' ...

îùîò äà àé äåä âæìï, ìà äåä àîø 'æéì àô÷ä' -åàò"â ãñáø ãùú÷ ...

1.

Introduction to Proof (cont.): This implies that if he was a Gazlan, he would not have said 'Go and divorce her, even though he thought that he (her husband) had been silent.

àìîà ìà àîøéðï 'ùúé÷ä ëäåãàä ãîéà' ...

2.

Proof: So we see that wew do not say 'Shetikah ke'Hoda'ah Damya' ...

'åòåáãà äåä áääåà ñîéà ãäåä îñãø îúðééúà ÷îé ãîø ùîåàì; àúà çã âáøà åàîø ùàùúå æéðúä, å÷à àîø 'àé îäéîðà ìê ãìàå âæìðà äåà, æéì àô÷ä' ...

3.

The Case: The case there concerned a blind man who arranged Beraisos in front of Mar Shmuel, when a man came and claimed that his wife had committed adultery. That was when Shmuel said to him 'If you believe that the man is not a Gazlan, then go and divorce her!' ...

åäëà àé ùúé÷ îäéîðà äàùä.

(d)

Conclusion: Whereas here the woman is believed simply if the defendant is silent.

9)

TOSFOS DH EID OMER ACHAL V'HU OMER LO ACHALTI PATUR

úåñ' ã"ä òã àåîø àëì åäåà àåîø ìà àëìúé ôèåø

(Summary: Tosfos refers to a ruling he gave earlier.)

åäåà äãéï àí àîø 'àéðé éåãò' ëîå ùôéøùúé.

(a)

Clarification: The same will apply if he says 'Eini Yode'a', as Tosfos explained earlier.

10)

TOSFOS DH SHE'IM ACHAL CHATZI ZAYIS V'CHAZAR V'ACHAL CHATZI ZAYIS MI'MIYN ECHAD CHAYAV MI'SHENEI MIYNIM PATUR

úåñ' ã"ä ùàí àëì ëçöé æéú åçæø åàëì ëçöé æéú îîéï àçã çééá îùðé îéðéï ôèåø

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the case and reconciles it with the Sugya in Me'ilah.)

à'ôéâåì åà'ðåúø ðîé ÷àé.

(a)

Clarification: This refers to Pigul and Nosar as well.

åà"ú, åäà àîøéðï áô' ÷ãùé îæáç (îòéìä éæ:) 'äôéâåì åäðåúø àéï îöèøôéï' ,å÷à àîø áâîøà 'ìà ùðå àìà áèåîàú éãéí, àáì ìàëéìä, îöèøôéï?

(b)

Question: The Gemara says in Perek Kodshei Mizbe'ach (Me'ilah, Daf 17b) 'Pigul and Nosar do not combine', and the Gemara explains that this refers specifically to Tum'as Yadayim, but with regard to eating, they do combine?

åé"ì, ãäúí îééøé ìòðéï îì÷åú...

(c)

Answer #1: That Gemara is speaking about Malkos ...

àé ðîé ìòðéï ùàí éôìå ì÷ãéøä àçú îöèøôéï ìúú èòí ...

(d)

Answer #2: Or with regard to where they both fall into a pot, where they combine to give taste (to the ingredients of the pot) ...

ãäà ùí àçã äåà -ãìéëà àìà çã ìàå à'úøååééäå ...

1.

Reason: Seeing as they one 'Shem' - since they only have one La'av between them ...

àáì äëà îééøé ìãéï çéåá ÷øáï.

(e)

Conclusion: Whereas here it is speaking in connection with the Chiyuv of Korban.

11)

TOSFOS DH EIMA METZI'ASA EID OMER ACHAL V'HU AMAR LO ACHALTI ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä àéîà îöéòúà òã àåîø àëì åäåà àåîø ìà àëìúé ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos presents an alternative way of asking the Kashya.)

åäåà äãéï ãîöé îééúé îøéùà 'òã àåîø "àëì" åòã àåîø "ìà àëì" -åîáéà àùí úìåé' ...

(a)

Alternative Question: The Gemara could just as well have asked from the Reisha - 'Eid Omer "Achal" ,ve'Eid Omer "Lo Achal" - and he brings an Asham Taluy ...

èòîà ãàîø òã àçã 'ìà àëì ;'äà ìàå äëé, çééá çèàú, ã'ùúé÷ä ëäåãàä ãîéà' ...

1.

Alternative Question (cont.): Only because one Eid said 'Lo Achal'; otherwise, he would be Chayav a Chatas, since 'Silence is akin to admission' ...

ãò"ë îééøé ãùú÷...

(b)

Clarification: And it can only be speaking where he was silent ...

ãàé îëçéù ìéä, ôèåø ìâîøé ...

1.

Proof: Because if he contradicted him (the Eid), he would be completely Patur

åàôéìå àåîø àéðé éåãò, ëîå ùôéøùúé.

2.

Proof (cont.): And this would be the case even if he said 'Eini Yode'a', as Tosfos explained earlier.

12)

TOSFOS DH ELA D'KA MAKCHISH L'HU U'MANI REBBI MEIR HI

úåñ' ã"ä àìà ã÷à îëçéù ìäå åîðé ø"î äéà

(Summary: Tosfos ecxplains why the Gemara cannot establish the case where he says 'Eini Yode'a'.)

ãìéëà ìîéîø ãîééøé ëùàîø 'àéðé éåãò' ...

(a)

Implied Question: One cannot answer that it speaks where he says 'Eini Yode'a' (See Birchas ha'Zevach) ...

ãôùéèà ãçééá...

(b)

Answer: Because it is obvious that he would then be Chayav ...

ãàéðé éåãò âáé úøé òãéí äåéà ëùúé÷ä.

1.

Reason: Since 'I don't know' where there are two witnesses is equivalent to silence.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF