KERISUS 17 (7 Elul) - Dedicated in memory of Esther Miryam bas Harav Chaim Zev and her husband Harav Refael Yisrael ben Harav Moshe (Snow), whose Yahrzeits are 7 Elul and 8 Elul respectively. Sponsored by their son and daughter in law, Moshe and Rivka Snow.

1)

TOSFOS DH RABAN GAMLIEL K'TANA KAMA

' " "

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the statement.)

' ' " ' " ...

(a)

Clarification: This means that the Gemara is comparing two Ha'alamos of Raban Gamliel to two Reshuyos of the Tana Kama ...

" , '' .

1.

Clarification (cont.): Inasmuch as the Tama Kama holds that Reshuyos do not divide to render Patur someone who carries out a G'rogeres, so too do Ha'alamos not divide according to Raban Gamliel.

2)

TOSFOS DH AMAR LO HA'BA AL BEHEIMAH YOCHI'ACH SHE'EIN GUFIN

' "

(Summary: Tosfos explains why the Gemara does not bring the proof from Nidah.)

" ' , " '

(a)

Implied Question: The Gemara could just as well have said 'Nidah Yochi'ach' - seeing as Rebbi Eliezer declares one Chayav for each one ...

'' , .

1.

Answer: But he mentions 'Beheimah' because that is what he heard from his Rebbes.

HADRAN ALACH 'AMRU LO'
PEREK SAFEK ACHAL
3)

TOSFOS DH SAFEK ACHAL ETC.

' " '

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the case.)

...

(a)

Clarification: It speaks where at the time that he ate it he thought it was Shuman ...

, - ?

1.

Reason: Because if he knew that it was Safek Cheilev, how could he bring a Korban, seeing as he did not relent from what he originally thought?

17b----------------------------------------17b

4)

TOSFOS DH MI'D'SEIFA BI'SH'TEI CHATICHOS REISHA NAMI BI'SH'TEI CHATICHOS

' "

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the statement.)

' ... .

(a)

Clarification: And that case too, even if he ate 'Safek whether it was a Shi'ur or not, must be speaking where there were two pieces in front of him, each of which contained a Shi'ur.

" - ' , , ' ...

(b)

Reason: That is how it must be speaking - seeing as the Gemara will later say that 'The difference between them is where there is one and a half k'Zeisim, where according to the opinion that requires 'Ikba Isura' (See Shitah Mekubetzes 24), this is not the case (See Olas Shlomoh).

, , ...

1.

Reason (cont.): From which we see that there are two pieces, and he is nevertheless in doubt from which olive he ate, and even if he ate the one that is Asur, he is not sure that he ate a k'Zayis ...

.

(c)

Conclusion: And it teaches us that one brings an Asham Taluy even on a S'fek S'feika.

- ...

(d)

Clarification (cont.): And regarding Shabbos and weekday too, we can find a case of 'two pieces' - where he performed a Melachah during Bein ha'Shemashos, which is a Safek whether it was day or night

...

1.

Clarification (cont.): And it is 'Ikba Isura' as well - if he performed it Bein ha'Shemashos close to Motza'ei Shabbos, where the Isur was fixed throughout the day ...

, - ...

(e)

Clarification (cont.): And it is also possible to clarify the Isur, since one can ascertain how much work he did on Shabbos by how far into the night it is ...

) (, " .

1.

Clarification (conc.): Since if only a short time has passed and he performed a lot of work, then he must have performed some of it in the day.

5)

TOSFOS DH AMAR RAV YEHUDAH AMAR RAV ETC. CHATICHAH ACHAS PATUR ETC.

' " ' '

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles this with the Sugya in Kesuvos and elaborates.)

, ( :) ' ... ' ...

(a)

Introduction to Question: In the second Perek of Kesuvos (Daf 22b) in the case where 'Two witnesses testify that he is dead, and two, that he is not ... '

' ... '?

1.

Introduction to Question: The Gemara asks 'Whoever has relations with her is Chayav an Asham Taluy?'

, "?"

(b)

Question: What is the Kashya, bearing in mind that one needs "Mitzvos" (two pieces)?

, .

(c)

Answer: The Gemara there is asking according to the opinion that does not require one of two pieces.

" ' - ' ' ...

(d)

Introduction to Question: Rabeinu Tam however, asks from Rav on to Rav - since here he Rav Yehudah quotes Rav ...

( .) ' , ... '...

1.

Introduction to Question (cont.): And in Perek ha'Ishah Rabah (Yevamos (Daf 88a) Rabah quoting Rav says that it speaks there where she married with one witness

" ' ... ?'

2.

Introduction to Question (concl.): On which the Gemara asks that 'Whoever has relation with her is Chayav an Asham Taluy?'

?

3.

Question: What is the Kashya?

, ' ?

(e)

Answer #1: And he answers that the Gemara is asking 'Whoever has relations with her is subject to an Isur which is subject to an Asham Taluy?'

...

(f)

Answer #2: One can also answer by establishing the Kashya according to Rav Nachman here, who ascribes Rav's reasoning to 'Ikba Isura'.

, .

1.

Answer #2 (cont.): And where the Nochri ate the first one, he (the Yisrael) is Chayav on the second one due to Ikba Isura.

, - .

(g)

Answer (concl.): In which case, the Gemara's Kashya there is justified, seeing as, bearing in mind that she was married, the Isur is fixed.

6)

TOSFOS DH V'TANI ALAH V'CHAYAVIM B'ASHAM TALUY

' "

(Summary: Tosfos queries the connection.)

, ' ' ...

(a)

Question #1: It implies here the the Beraisa comes to explain the Mishnah ...

( :) ...

1.

Question #1 (cont.): Whereas there in Perek Kol ha'Yad, it does not seem to be the case ...

' ' ' ' -, ...

2.

Question #1 (cont.): Since, in connection with the Mishnah ' "And they are Patur from a Korban', it cites the Beraisa 'And they are Chayav an Asham Taluy" ...

.

3.

Question #1 (concl.): Whereas our Tana holds that one requires one of two pieces'.

, ( :) ' ' -" - ?

(b)

Question #2: It is also a little difficult as to why the Gemara does not bring the proof from the Mishnah in Horiyos (Daf 8b) 'And one brings an Asham Taluy on the Asei and the Lo Sa'aseh of Nidah' - in spite of the fact that there are no two pieces there, since 'Nidah' is one piece (See Tosfos in Horiyos)?

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF