12th CYCLE DEDICATION
KESUVOS 104-105 (5 Teves) - Dedicated in memory of Max (Meir Menachem ben Shlomo ha'Levi) Turkel, by his children Eddie and Lawrence and his wife Jean Turkel/Rafalowicz. Max was a warm and loving husband and father and is missed dearly by his family and friends. His Yahrzeit is 5 Teves.

1)

Tosfos DH "Kasha"

תוס' ד"ה "קשיא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara did not answer that the positions of the judges merely overlapped.)

וא"ת אדרבה אי גזילה וגזירה תרי מילי נינהו תלתא אתרי לא קשיא דדייני גזילה הוו תלתא דייני גזירות לא הוו אלא תרי

(a)

Question: If you will say that, on the contrary, if stealing and decrees are two different things than there is no question of "three versus two." This would be because the judges of stealing would be three, while the judges who made decrees were two.

ואמר רבי חדא דאינו סברא שתהא לדיין א' שתי שררות דכמה אנשים חשובים היו בירושלים שהיו יכולין לעמוד לכל שררה ושררה

(b)

Answer (#1): Rebbi answers that it is illogical that one judge had two different special positions of authority. There were so many important (and scholarly) people in Yerushalayim that they certainly could afford to appoint one individual per position (and not have one person holding two positions).

ועוד אי לאחד מהם הוו שתי שררות לחנן המצרי היה לו להיות שהיה חשוב יותר מחנן בן אבישלום כמו שפי' ר"ת

(c)

Proof: Additionaly, if one person were to have two positions, it would have been sensible to appoint Chanan ha'Mitzri to two positions, as he was greater than Chanan ben Avishalom, as explained by Rabeinu Tam. [Therefore, the fact that he is not listed as having two positions proves that they did not appoint one person to more than one special position.]

2)

Tosfos DH "d'Chashiv Ley"

תוס' ד"ה "דחשיב ליה"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos quotes two different ways to explain this answer, and discusses them.)

ואין לפרש דחשיב ליה יותר דהא מוכח בברייתא דחנן המצרי היה חשוב יותר מחנן בן אבישלום מדקתני ליה ברישא

(a)

Implied Question: [What does the Gemara mean when it answers "it stated the ones who were important?"] Do not say that it means that the Mishnah only listed the judges who were important. It is apparent from the Beraisa that Chanan ha'Mitzri was more important than Chanan ben Avishalom, as Chanan ha'Mitzri is listed first in the Beraisa (and he is not listed in our Mishnah).

אלא ה"פ דחשיב ליה בתר הכי דאיירי בהו מתני' חנן אומר שני דברים אדמון אומר שבעה קתני דלא חשיב ליה כגון חנן המצרי שלא דבר כלום לא קתני

(b)

Answer (#1): Rather, this is what it means. The one's whose laws are discussed later by the Mishnah, Chanan who said two things and Admon who said seven things, are listed in the Mishnah. The one whose laws are not discussed, as he did not enact any laws (that were going to be discussed), it did not list.

ולי נראה דחשיב ליה החשוב יותר

(c)

Answer (#2): It appears to me that the Mishnah is indeed listing the most important of the judges.

ואף על גב דקתני חנן המצרי ברישא הכי נמי אשכחן מעשה ברבי אליעזר ור' יהושע ורבי אלעזר בן עזריה ור"ע אע"פ שר"ע היה חשוב מרבי אלעזר בן עזריה שהוא היה ראש לחכמים

1.

Despite the fact that Chanan ha'Mitzri is listed first by the Beraisa, we find a similar listing in the (Beraisa that states that a) story that happened with "Rebbi Eliezer, Rebbi Yehoshua, Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah, and Rebbi Akiva." The listing is in this order even though Rebbi Akiva was a more important Tana than Rebbi Eliezer ben Azaryah, as Rebbi Akiva was the head of the scholars.

ובכל דוכתי אמרינן (פסחים נ.) כגון ר"ע וחבריו

i.

Everywhere it is said (i.e. Pesachim 50a), "like Rebbi Akiva and his friends." [Rebbi Akiva is clearly given the most prominence in this phrase.]

ובשילהי פ"ק דיבמות (דף טז.) גבי מעשה דרבי דוסא בן הרכינס דאמר להם רבי יהושע אני אלך ואחריו מי רבי אלעזר בן עזריה ואחריו מי ר"ע

ii.

At the end of the first Perek of Yevamos (16a), regarding the story of Rebbi Dosa ben Herkinus where Rebbi Yehoshua told them, "I will go." Who went after him? Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah. Who went after him? Rebbi Akiva.

וכשנכנסו אצלו אמר לר' יהושע יש בן לעזריה חברינו הרי לא היה יודע שר' אלעזר בעולם ולר' עקיבא אמר אתה הוא ששמך הולך מסוף העולם ועד סופו ואפ"ה מזכיר ר' אלעזר ברישא והיינו טעמא שהיה ממשפחה מיוחסת יותר מר"ע שהיה עשירי לעזרא וגם בשביל נשיאותו

iii.

When they went in to visit Rebbi Dosa, Rebbi Dosa said to Rebbi Yehoshua, "Does Azaryah our friend indeed have a son?" This implies that he did not even know that Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah existed! To Rebbi Akiva, however, he said "So you are the one whose name goes from one end of the world to the other!" Even so, we see that the Beraisa earlier listed Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah first before Rebbi Akiva. The reason why is because he was from a family of prominent lineage, much more so than Rebbi Akiva, as he was a tenth generation descendant from Ezra (ha'Sofer). Additionally, Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah was appointed Nasi (giving him more prominence).

הכא נמי דקתני חנן המצרי ברישא לא בשביל שהיה חשוב יותר אלא מפני שהוא ממשפחה מיוחסת יותר מחנן בן אבישלום

iv.

Here too, when Chanan ha'Mitzri is listed first in the Beraisa it was not because he was more important, but rather because he was from a more prominent family than Chanan ben Avishalom.

ואומר רבי דמ"מ תקשי לן אמאי לא משני כדמשני ר"ת

(d)

Implied Question: Rebbi asked, we should still ask ourselves why we do not give the same answer of Rabeinu Tam.

ולאו פירכא היא דאי תנא להו לפי שדברו במשנתנו הוה ליה למיתני שני דייני גזירות שהיו בירושלים אבל מדקתני היו בירושלים משמע שנים היו ותו לא

(e)

Answer (#1): This is not a question. If these judges were only listed because they said laws discussed in the Mishnah, it should have stated "two judges of decrees that were in Yerushalayim." Being that it said "(two judges of decrees) were in Yerushalayim," this implies that there were only two such judges in Yerushalayim.

ועוד מדתניא בסמוך רבי נתן אומר אף נחום המדי אחד מדייני גזירות שבירושלים היה

(f)

Answer (#2): Additionally, the Beraisa states close by that Rebbi Nasan says that Nachum ha'Madi was also one of the judges of decrees in Yerushalayim.

ועל כרחך אברייתא לא קאי דא"כ לר' נתן ארבע הוו ואנן מוקמינן דההיא דקתני שלשה אדמון וחנן ונחום המדי לרבי נתן

1.

He must not be taking the Beraisa into account, as if he would be this would mean that Rebbi Nasan holds there were four such judges in Yerushalayim. However, we understand that when the Beraisa says three it means Admon, Chanan, and Nachum ha'Madi, according to Rebbi Nasan (perhaps he even had such a text in the Beraisa).

אלא ודאי דחשיב ליה החשובין יותר משום הכי קאמר אף נחום המדי היה אחד מגוזרי גזירות והיה חשוב כמותם

2.

It must certainly have listed thee most important people first. This would be why Rebbi Nasan said that even Nachum ha'Madi was one of the people who issued decrees, meaning that he was important like them.

3)

Tosfos DH "Gozrei Gezeiros"

תוס' ד"ה "גוזרי גזירות"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why these judges were able to take money, and Karna was not.)

הא דלא פריך הכא והיכי עבדי הכי והכתיב ושוחד לא תקח כדפריך עליה דקרנא

(a)

Implied Question: The Gemara here does not ask, "How could he have done this? Doesn't the Pasuk say, "and do not take bribes (Shemos 23:8)?" This is despite the fact that the Gemara asked a similar question on Karna.

אומר ר"ת משום דלא אסור אלא מבעלי דינים אבל הכא משל צבור

(b)

Answer (#1): Rabeinu Tam answers that this is because it is only prohibited to take bribes from people involved in a case (that comes before Beis Din). Here they were simply taking money from the general public.

ורבי מפרש דהכא לאו בתורת שכר היו נוטלין אלא הכא כל שעה היו יושבין בדין ולא היו עוסקין בשום מלאכה ולא היה להם במה להתפרנס והיה מוטל על הצבור לפרנסן

(c)

Answer (#2): Rebbi explains that here they were not taking wages. They were always sitting in judgement and not working, and therefore did not have anyway to make money. It was therefore incumbent upon the public to support them.

אבל קרנא אקראי בעלמא היה יושב ולא היה לו ליטול שכר

1.

However, Karna was only sitting as a judge temporarily, and he therefore should not have taken payment for judging.

ומהאי טעמא נמי אתי שפיר הא דקאמר לקמן (דף קו.) מלמדי הלכות שחיטה והלכות קמיצה היו נוטלין שכרן מתרומת הלשכה אף על פי ששכר תלמוד תורה אסור כדאיתא בפרק אין בין המודר (נדרים דף לז.)

2.

For this same reason the Gemara later (106a) is understandable. The Gemara later states that the people who taught the laws of Shechitah and Kemitzah would take their wages from the general funds of the Beis Hamikdash. This is despite the fact that receiving money in order to teach Torah is forbidden, as stated in Nedarim (37a).

105b----------------------------------------105b

4)

Tosfos DH "Afilu"

תוס' ד"ה "אפילו"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how the Gemara's cryptic answer indeed answers the question posed.)

והיינו ק"ו לרשעים שכבר נטל שוחד בפעם ראשונה

(a)

Implied Question: [How does the Gemara's answer, telling us how even sages and the righteous are adversely affected by bribery, address the question of why the Beraisa applied this command of not taking bribes to evildoers and fools who do not pass judgement?] This is a Kal v'Chomer to the evildoers who have already taken bribery once before.

דבפעם ראשונה כשנוטל אכתי צדיק הוי שעדיין לא נטלו וק"ו לטפשים בפעם שניה שנוטל שוחד שכבר נעשה טפש מפעם ראשונה שנטלו

1.

The first time that the judge takes a bribe he can still be called a complete Tzadik (if he is one), as he has not yet taken the bribe. Certainly a fool who is taking a bribe a second time, that he is already called a fool because of the first time he took a bribe.

ורשב"ם פי' דהאי קל וחומר לטפשים אינו מן הברייתא אלא מדתניא חכמים וצדיקים משמע שרוצה לומר ק"ו לטפשים

(b)

Answer (#2): The Rashbam explains that this Kal v'Chomer for fools is not the actual teaching of the Beraisa, but is derived from the fact that the Beraisa uses the terminology of "sages" and "righteous." This implies that this is certainly so for fools.

ולכך מתמה וכי הם בני דינא ומשני הכי קאמר ולא נידוק כמו שאמר

1.

This is why when the Gemara asks, "And are they people who do judgement?" It answers, "this is what it means to say." The Gemara is telling us we should not deduce its content from the literal meaning of the Beraisa. [The Maharsha explains that the Rashbam means that the Beraisa seems to be implying something, and is obviously not coming to tell us that certainly evildoers and fools are blinded by bribes. It must be that it's main message is something that can be derived from its statement, not the statement itself.]

והכי נמי אמרינן בהמקבל בסופו (ב"מ דף קיד:) ת"ר אם איש עני הוא לא תשכב בעבוטו ומשמע הא עשיר שכב ומשני הכי קאמר.

2.

A similar style is evident in Bava Metzia (114b). The Beraisa there quotes the Pasuk "if he is a poor person, do not sleep with his collateral" (Devarim 24:12). The Gemara asks, this must imply that if he is a rich person you could! The Gemara answers this is what the Beraisa means to say etc.

i.

Note: The Pnei Yehoshua explains that the Rashbam understood that the entire Beraisa was just a quote of the Pasuk. This, like our Beraisa, indicates that a Beraisa may something obvious that is merely meant to indicate a certain teaching, although it would not say it outright. However, it should be noted that many commentaries understand that the statement "This must imply that if he is a rich person you could!" is actually part of the Beraisa. This means that the Rashbam's proof would not apply.

5)

Tosfos DH "Mai di'Chsiv"

תוס' ד"ה "מאי דכתיב"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how our Gemara and the Gemara in Sanhedrin (7b) can use the same teaching in different ways.)

הכא משמע דצריכות ממון קאמר משום שוחד מדמסיק עליה האי דיינא דשאיל שאילתא ולעיל נמי ממילי דשוחד איירי

(a)

Implied Question: Here the Gemara implies that the judges who would need money would be susceptible to bribery. This is apparent from the Gemara's conclusion that if a judge needs to borrow things from people he shouldn't be a judge, and from the previous statements regarding bribery.

ובסנהדרין בפ"ק (דף ז: ושם) מייתי הך דרשא גופה דרב נחמן בר כהן אדיין שאינו בקי וצריך לשאול הוראות ודינין

1.

The Gemara in Sanhedrin (7b) quotes this teaching of Rav Nachman bar Kohen regarding a judge who is not an expert, and he needs to ask advice for rulings and judgements.

דמסיק התם דרש רב נחמן בר כהן מאי דכתיב מלך במשפט יעמיד ארץ

2.

The Gemara there concludes with this teaching of Rav Nachman bar Kohen: What does the Pasuk mean when it says "a King with judgement will make the land stand (etc.)?"

ובתר הכי מסיק דבי נשיאה אוקמו דיינא דלא גמיר וכולה שמעתא דהתם מיירי בדיינא שאינו הגון מחמת שאינו בקי

3.

Afterwards, the Gemara relates that the house of the Nasi appointed a judge who was not learned. The rest of the entire Gemara there discusses judges who are not appropriate for their position because they are not learned.

ואומר ר"ת דמהאי קרא איכא למידק שאינו צריך לא לממון ולא לדברי תורה

(b)

Answer: Rabeinu Tam answers that this Pasuk indeed implies both that a judge should not need money and that he should not be lacking in Torah wisdom.

6)

Tosfos DH "Lo l'Ma'an"

תוס' ד"ה "לא למאן"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos proves and clarifies that this has nothing to do with the law of "friends" and "enemies" regarding witnesses.)

לאו באוהב ושונא דאיירי ביה רבי יהודה ורבנן גבי עדות איירי

(a)

Refutation of Possible Explanation: This is not talking about the same category of "friend" and "enemy" that Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabbanan discuss regarding witnesses (who are friends or enemies of one of the parties involved in a judgement).

דלגבי דיין אפי' רבנן מודו דפסול כדמסיק מקרא בפ' זה בורר (סנהדרין דף כט.)

1.

Regarding a judge, even the Rabbanan agree that he is unfit (if he is a "friend" or "enemy"), as the Gemara concludes in Sanhedrin (29a).

דא"כ הוה ליה לאתויי הכא קרא דהתם

(b)

Proof: If they would be talking about the same categories (of friends and enemies), the Gemara here should have brought the Pesukim discussed there in Sanhedrin (29a).

אלא התם באוהב כגון שושבינו ושונא שלא דיבר עמו שלשה ימים

(c)

New Explanation: It must be that there the Gemara is discussing a "friend" as meaning someone who participates in his friend's wedding celebrations, and an "enemy" is someone who he has not spoken with (due to their bad relationship) for three days.

אבל הכא באוהב כי הנך דפרח גדפא ארישא אתא ההוא גברא שקליה דאינו אלא חומרא בעלמא שהיו מחמירין על עצמן כדאשכחן בכמה דברים אבל פסולין לא הוו

(d)

However, our Gemara is referring to someone who is a "friend," defined as someone in the following case (quoted in our Gemara regarding Ameimar). A judge had a feather fly on to his head, and a person came and took it off. [The person who took the feather off is now considered a friend of the judge, though this was the extent of their relationship.] This is clearly only a stringency, that they (judges) kept to be stringent on themselves, like we find in many cases that that they were stringent regarding their behavior. However, this did not render them unfit to judge by the letter of the law. [This therefore does not have much to do with the parameters of "friend" and "enemy" regarding witnesses.]

7)

Tosfos DH "v'Chi Elisha"

תוס' ד"ה "וכי אלישע"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why Elisha indeed could not have eaten Bikurim.)

אין צריך לדחוק כפי' הקונטרס

(a)

Observation: There is no need to say a difficult explanation, like that given by Rashi (that Elisha was not a Kohen and therefore did not eat Bikurim).

דהכי פי' וכי אלישע אוכל בכורים היה והלא בשומרון היה ואין בכורים נאכלין חוץ לחומה כדמוכח בריש אלו הן הלוקין (מכות יז.) ובפ' בהמה המקשה (חולין דף סח: ושם)

(b)

Opinion: This is the explanation (of the Gemara). Was Elisha able to eat Bikurim? Wasn't he in Shomron at the time, and Bikurim cannot be eaten outside of the walls of Yerushalayim, as is apparent in Makos (17a) and Chulin (68b)?

והכי איתא בהדיא בסדר אליהו זוטא דתלמידי חכמים כפרה להם לישראל בכל מקום מושבותיהם שנא' תקריב מנחת בכורים ואומר ואיש בא מבעל שלישה וגו'

(c)

Proof: The following is said in Eliyahu Zuta (and supports Tosfos' explanation that the problem was the place, not that Elisha was not a Kohen). Torah scholars are an atonement for Bnei Yisrael wherever they live, as the Pasuk states "you will bring an offering of Bikurim," (Vayikra 2:14) and it says, "and a man came from Ba'al Shalishah" (Melachim Beis, 4:42).

וכי אלישע אוכל בכורים היה והלא אין שם מקדש ולא מזבח ולא כהן גדול אלא אלישע ותלמידיו יושבין לפניו מכאן אמרו וכו'.

1.

"Did Elisha eat Bikurim there? There was not a Beis Hamikdash, a Mizbe'ach, nor a Kohen Gadol there (in Shomron). Only Elisha and his students who were sitting before him (were there). From here they said (that whoever brings gifts to a Talmid Chacham) etc."

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF