1) TOSFOS DH v'Oseh Revach mil'Ma'alah v'Revach mil'Matah

úåñôåú ã"ä åòåùä øéåç îìîòìä åøéåç îìîèä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why it did not teach the margin on the side.)

îï äöããéí ìà ôéøù

(a) Implied question: Why didn't it explain [the Shi'ur] from the side?

åùîà ëéåï ãëåøê îàçã ëìôé ùîò öøéê )ìëúçéìä) [ö"ì áúçéìä - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ëãé ìâåì áäé÷ó ëòéï ñ''ú. î''ø

(b) Answer: Since he rolled from "Echad' towards Shma, at the beginning he needs enough [blank parchment] to roll around [the writing], like a Sefer Torah. This is from my Rebbi. (Tosfos did not mention a margin on the side at the end. Presumably, he holds that none is required, like Rema YD 288:1.)

2) TOSFOS DH v'Ha'idna Nahug Alma bi'Stumos

úåñôåú ã"ä åäàéãðà ðäåâ òìîà áñúåîåú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses what is called Stumah and what is Petuchah.)

ôéøù á÷åðèøñ (ãëùéù ëúåá) [ö"ì ãëùëåúáéí - öàï ÷ãùéí] áúçéìú ùéèä åáñåó ùéèä åäøéåç áàîöò æå äéà ñúåîä

(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi): When they write at the beginning of a line and at the end of a line and there is room in the middle, this is Stumah;

åàðå ðåäâéï ìäðéç çì÷ îòè áúçéìú ùéèä åàçø ëê îúçéì åäéä àí ùîåò

(b) Implied question: Our custom is to leave a little blank at the beginning of a line, and afterwards he begins "v'Hayah Im Shamo'a"!

åùîà âí æä ÷øåé ñúåîä

(c) Answer: Perhaps also this is called Stumah.

åø''ú îôøù ãëùîñééí îñééí ôñå÷ áàîöò ùéèä åîðéç òã ñåó ùéèä ëùéòåø ìîùôçåúéëí æå äéà ôúåçä

(d) Explanation #2 (R. Tam): When he finishes, he finishes the verse in the middle of a line and leaves until the end of the line the amount to write l'Mishpechoseichem (10 letters). This is Petuchah;

åàí ìà ðùúééø áñåó ùéèä (ëùéòåø çì÷) [ö"ì çì÷ ëùéòåø - äøù"ù] ìîùôçåúéëí îðéç ùéèä ùðéä åîúçéì åëåúá áùìéùéú åæå äéà ôúåçä

1. If there does not remain at the end of a line blank parchment like the amount for l'Mishpechoseichem, he leaves the second line [blank] and writes in the third line, and this is Petuchah;

åñúåîä ëì ùëåúá áúçéìú ùéèä åñåó ùéèä åîðéç çì÷ áàîöò ëãé ìëúåá áå ùí ùúé àåúéåú àå éåúø åæå äéà ñúåîä

2. Stumah is when he writes at the beginning of a line and at the end of a line and leaves blank in the middle in order to write two letters or more. This is Stumah.

ñãåøä ëì ùëåúá åäåìê äùéèä òã çöéä àå òã ùìéùéúä åîðéçä åîúçéì ìëúåá áùéèä ùúçúéä ëðâã äðçä ùì ùéèä äòìéåðä åæå äéà ñãåøä æä îöà ø''ú áñéãåø ÷ãîåðéí

3. Sedurah is when he writes in the line until half or a third, and leaves it and begins to write in the line below, even with where he ceased in the line above. This is Sedurah. R. Tam found like this in the Sidur of early [Chachamim].

åáîñëú ñåôøéí îöà àéæå äéà ôúåçä ëì ùìà äúçéì áøàù äùéèä åàéæå äéà ñúåîä ëì ùäðéç áàîöò ùéèä åëîä éðéç áøàù ùéèä åéäà ð÷øàú ôúåçä ëãé ìëúåá ùí ùì â' àåúéåú

(e) Explanation #3: In Maseches Seforim (1:14, R. Tam) found "what is Petuchah? Whenever he did not begin at the beginning of a line. What is Stumah? Whenever he left [blank] in the middle of a line. How much must he leave at the beginning of a line and it is called Petuchah? It is in order to write a name of three letters;

âîø ëì äôøùä áñåó äãó (åùééø) [ö"ì éùééø - äøù"ù] ùéèä àçú îìîòìä åàí ùééø îìîèä ëãé ìëúåá ùí ùì â' àåúéåú îúçéì îìîòìä

1. If he finished the entire Parshah at the end of a Daf, he leaves one line above [blank at the top of the next Daf], and if he left below in order to write a name of three letters he begins [the next Daf] from above.

åòåã áéøåùìîé áô''÷ ãîâéìä ÷àîø áäãéà ãôúåçä îøàùä ôúåçä

2. Also in the Yerushalmi in Megilah it says explicitly that Petuchah from its beginning is Petuchah.

îúåê ëì äðé ÷ùä àîðäâ ãéãï ãùá÷éðï çì÷ áøàù ùéèä åàç''ë îúçéìéï åäéä àí ùîåò åäù''ñ ÷àîø ãäàéãðà ðäåâ òìîà áñúåîåú

(f) Question: From all these, our custom is difficult. We leave blank at the beginning of a line and afterwards we begin "v'Hayah Im Shamo'a", and the Gemara says that nowadays everyone's custom is to make Stumos!

åùîà ñîëéðï àääéà ãéøåùìîé ãôìéâ àù''ñ ãéãï ãîñ÷éðï äëà ëé àîø øá àøéåç åìà àôúåçåú åäúí ôñé÷ øá áäãéà ëî''ã ôúåçåú

(g) Answer: Perhaps we rely on the Yerushalmi which argues with our Talmud (Bavli), for we conclude here that Rav said [that the Halachah follows R. Shimon ben Elazar only] about the spaces, but not about Petuchos, and there Rav explicitly ruled like the opinion that says Petuchos;

åäëé àéúà äúí îæåæä àéú úðà úðé ôúåçåú åàéú úðà úðé ñúåîåú ùîåàì áø ùéìú áùí øá äìëä ëãáøé îé ùàåîø ôúåçä ùàéï æä î÷åîä

1. It says there as follows. Some teach Petuchos, and some teach Stumos. Shmuel bar Shilas in the name of Rav said that the Halachah follows the one who says Petuchah, for this is not its place (the second Parshah of a Mezuzah is not right after the first in a Sefer Torah).

ôúåçä îøàùä ôúåçä ôúåçä îñåôä ôúåçä ôúåçä îëàï åîëàï ñúåîä

2. If it is Petuchah at the beginning, it is Petuchah. If it is Petuchah at the end, it is Petuchah. If it is Petuchah in both places, it is Stumah.

åãáø úéîä äåà ãìôé äéøåùì' îùîò ìëàåøä ãàí îñééí ôøùä áàîöò ùéèä åàçø ëê îúçéì ìëúåá áàîöò ùéèä ùúçúéä ùæå äéà ð÷øàú ñúåîä

(h) Question: This is astounding! According to the Yerushalmi, it connotes that if he finishes a Parshah in the middle of a line, and afterwards begins writing in the middle of the line under it, this is called Stumah;

åàéê éúëï æä îé âøò îôúåçä îøàùä ìçåã àå ôúåçä îñåôä ìçåã

1. How is this possible? Is this worse than if it was open only at the beginning (the first line) or only at the end (the second line)?!

åðøàä ìôøù ã÷àé ìôøåùé îéìúéä ãøá ãäà ãàîø äìëä ëãáøé îé ùàîø ôúåçä ëâåï ùéòùä ôúåçä îøàùä àå ôúåçä îñåôä àå ôúåçä áàîöò åîëàï åîëàï ñúåîä

(i) Answer: It seems that this explains Rav's teaching. He said that the Halachah follows the one who says Petuchah, e.g. he makes it Petuchah at the beginning or Petuchah at the end or Petuchah in the middle, and from here and here (the beginning of the line and the end of the line) it is Stumah.

åäàé îëàï åîëàï ã÷àîø

(j) Implied question: Why does it say "from here and here"? (This implies that it is Petuchah in both places!)

àñúåîä ãáúø äëé ÷àé åìà àôúåçä ã÷îéä ãääéà ôúåçä áàîöò àé÷øé

(k) Answer: This refers to Stumah written afterwards (it is Stumah in both places), and not to Petuchah beforehand, for this is called Petuchah in the middle.

åàò''â ãáòìîà î÷øé ñúåîä

(l) Implied question: Normally, [such a case] is called Stumah!

ëé ä''â ìà çééùéðï âáé îæåæä ãëéåï ãèòí îùåí ãàéï æä î÷åîä

(m) Answer: Regarding a Mezuzah we are not concerned, since the reason is "this is not its place."

åîúééùá áëê ãìà ÷ùéà ääéà ãéøåùìîé àù''ñ ùìðå àìéáà ãøá. î''ø

(n) Support: This resolves that the Yerushalmi does not contradict the Bavli according to Rav. This is from my Rebbi.

3) TOSFOS DH Min'al l'Chatchilah Ika Beinaihu

úåñôåú ã"ä îðòì ìëúçéìä àéëà áéðééäå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves our custom to use a shoe.)

àò''â ã÷é''ì (á''á ãó ÷éã:) øáä åøá éåñó äìëä ëøáä áø îùãä òðéï åîçöä åìøáä àéï çåìöéï áîðòì ìëúçéìä òëùéå ðåäâéï ìçìåõ áîðòì

(a) Implied question: We hold (Bava Basra 114b) that when Rabah and Rav Yosef argue, the Halachah follows Rabah, except for [three Halachos, about] a field, [engaging in] a matter, and half. Rabah holds that we do not do Chalitzah with a shoe, and the custom now is with a shoe!

ìôé ùàéï àðå á÷éàéï áñðãì

(b) Answer #1: This is because we are not experts about [what is called] a Sandal [which is l'Chatchilah].

àé ðîé áîéìúà ã÷àîøé îùîéä ãàçøéðé àôùø ãäìëä ëøá éåñó. î''ø

(c) Answer #2: Regarding matters that they said in the name of others, it is possible that the Halachah follows Rav Yosef [in other Halachos]. This is from my Rebbi.

4) TOSFOS DH Dilma Lehashlim

úåñôåú ã"ä ãéìîà ìäùìéí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the Havah Amina to complete a Mezuzah from a Sefer Torah.)

ôéøù á÷åðèøñ ùàí çñøä îæåæä ùéèä àçú àé ìàå ãàéï îåøéãéï äéå ðåèìéï ùéèä àçú îñ''ú åúåôøéï áîæåæä

(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi): If a Mezuzah was missing one line, if not that one may not lower [Kedushah], one could take one line from a Sefer Torah and sew it into the Mezuzah.

åäà ãàîøéðï áéøåùìîé áô''÷ ãîâéìä ãúôéìéï åîæåæåú àéï ðëúáéï àìà òì òåø àçã

1. Implied question: We say in the Yerushalmi in Megilah that Tefilin and Mezuzos may be written only on one hide!

ääéà áùìà úôø äòåøåú æä áæä

2. Answer: That is when he did not sew the hides to each other.

åéù òåã ìôøù ìäùìéí ëâåï (ãôøùú) [ö"ì àí âîø ôøùú - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ùîò áñåó òîåã åäåñéó ôøùú åäéä àí ùîåò áâìéåï ùìîèä

(b) Explanation #2: "To complete" is in a case that he finished Parshas Shma at the end of a column, and he added "v'Hayah Im Shamo'a" in the margin below;

àå ôøùú åäéä àí ùîåò áúçìú òîåã åäåñéó ùîò áâéìéåï ùìîòìä î''ø

1. Or, "v'Hayah Im Shamo'a" was at the beginning of a column, and he added Shma in the margin above. This is from my Rebbi.

5) TOSFOS DH Ha Moridin Osin

úåñôåú ã"ä äà îåøéãéï òåùéï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos defends the Havah Amina to use a Tefilin parchment for a Mezuzah.)

àò''â ãðåäâéï áúôéìéï ùì éã (ã' ùéèéï åáùì øàù æ') [ö"ì æ' ùéèéï åáùì øàù ã' - öàï ÷ãùéí] ùéèéï åáîæåæä (ë''ä) [ö"ì ë"á - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã] ùéèéï

(a) Implied question: Our custom is to write hand Tefilin in seven lines, and head Tefilin in four lines, and a Mezuzah in 22 lines! (How could one use a Tefilin parchment for a Mezuzah?)

àí ùéðä ìà ôñåì. î''ø

(b) Answer: If he deviated, it is not Pasul. This is from my Rebbi.

6) TOSFOS DH Tefilin Al Klaf Mezuzah Al Duchsustus

úåñôåú ã"ä úôéìéï òì ä÷ìó îæåæä òì ãåëñåñèåñ

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that only a Sefer Torah is Kosher on Gevil.)

åùðéäï ôñåìéï àâåéì åñ''ú ëùéøä àâåéì ëãîåëç áôø÷ äîåöéà ééï (ùáú ãó òè:)

(a) Explanation: Both of them are Pasul on Gevil (both layers of the hide left intact) and a Sefer Torah is Kosher on Gevil, like is proven in Shabbos (79b).

åúéîä ãìà çùéá ìéä áäãé àéï áéï ñôøéí ìúôéìéï åîæåæåú áô''÷ ãîâéìä (ãó ç:)

(b) Question: Why doesn't it list this along with "the only difference between Seforim, Tefilin and Mezuzos" taught in Megilah (8b)?

åéù ìôøù ãìà àééøé áãáø ùëúåáéï áå ëãàùëçï (ùí ãó æ:) âáé àéï áéï ùáú ìéåí äëéôåøéí ãìà çùéá àëéìä åâáé àéï áéï éåí èåá ìùáú ãìà çùéá ñ÷éìä

(c) Answer #1: [There] it does not discuss the matter on which we write, like we find there (7b) regarding "the only difference between Shabbos and Yom Kipur", it does not count eating, and regarding "the only difference between Yom Tov and Shabbos", it does not count stoning (is only for Chilul Shabbos).

àé ðîé îùåí ãúôéìéï åîæåæåú ìàå îçã èòîà îéôñìï àâåéì åìà ãîå ìàùåøéú ãäåé îçã èòîà îùåí ãëúéá åäéå. î''ø

(d) Answer #2: Tefilin and Mezuzos on Gevil are not disqualified for the same reason. This is unlike Ashuris, for which there is one reason (why it is required for Tefilin and Mezuzah), because it is written "v'Hayu".

7) TOSFOS DH Idi v'Idi bi'Tefilin...

úåñôåú ã"ä àéãé åàéãé áúôéìéï...

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we could not say that both refer to Mezuzah.)

ôéøåù àó áî÷åí áùø åä''ä áî÷åí ùéòø ãìà äëùéø úôéìéï àìà òì ä÷ìó

(a) Explanation: [On Duchsustus one may not write] even on the place of the meat, and the same applies to the place of the hair. Only Klaf is Kosher for Tefilin.

å÷ùä ãìà îùðé àìà àéãé åàéãé áîæåæä åäåé äùúà ùéðä áæä åáæä îòðéï àçã ãîæåæä ëùéøä àùðéäí åìà îéôñì ëìì àìà îçîú ùéðåé î÷åí

(b) Question #1: Why didn't [the Gemara] answer "rather, both of them refer to Mezuzah", and now "if he deviated in either" would be in one way? Both are Kosher for a Mezuzah. It is disqualified only due to changing the place;

ãìîàé ãîå÷é ìä àúôéìéï îéôñìé àãåëñåñèåñ îúøé èòîé çãà ããéðí à÷ìó åçãà ããéï ãåëñåñèåñ àùéòø åäåà ùéðä åëúá áî÷åí áùø

1. Based on how we establish it for Tefilin, it is disqualified on Duchsustus for two reasons - first, [Tefilin] must be written on Klaf, and also, he deviated and wrote in the place of the meat!

åëòðéï æä ÷ùä áôø÷ äîåöéà ééï (ùáú ãó òè:) ãîùðé äúí àéôëà àéãé åàéãé àîæåæä âáé äà ãàîø (øáà) [ö"ì øá] äúí ãåëñåñèåñ äøé äåà ë÷ìó åëåúáéï òìéå úôéìéï

(c) Question #2: It is difficult like this in Shabbos (79b). It answers there oppositely, that both refer to a Mezuzah, regarding Rav's teaching there "Duchsustus is like Klaf, and we write Tefilin on it;

åäà úðéà úôéìéï òì ä÷ìó åîæåæä òì ãåëñåñèåñ ìîöåä åäà úðéà ùéðä áæä åáæä ôñåì àéãé åàéãé àîæåæä äà ãëúá à÷ìó áî÷åí ùéòø åäà ãëúá àãåëñåñèåñ áî÷åí áùø

1. Citation (79b): A Beraisa teaches that Tefilin are written on Klaf, and Mezuzah on Duchsustus! That is l'Chatchilah. A Beraisa teaches that if one deviated in this or this, it is Pasul! "This or this" both refer to a Mezuzah - here he wrote on Klaf in the place of the meat, and here he wrote on Duchsustus in the place of the hair.

åäùúà ÷ùéà ãä''ì ìùðåéé àéãé åàéãé àúôéìéï ãëùéøéï àùðéäí åäåé ùéðåééà îòðéï àçã ëòðéï (ùôéøù) [ö"ì ùôéøùúé - éùø åèåá] ëàï

2. This is difficult. It should have answered that both refer to Tefilin, which are Kosher on both (Klaf and Duchsustus, and both are Pasul when he wrote in the wrong side)! This answer would be from one reason, like I explained here!

åôéøù ùí äø''ø éåñó ãîãìà úéøõ ëï ðøàä ãúôéìéï àí ùéðä ìëúåá á÷ìó áî÷åí ùéòø ìà ôñì ëîå ùìà ôñì àí ùéðä îîöåúï åëúá àãåëñåñèåñ

(d) Answer #1 (to Question #2 - R. Yosef, there): Since it did not answer so, it seems that if one deviated in Tefilin, to write on Klaf in place of hair, it is not Pasul, just like it is not Pasul if he deviated from the Mitzvah and wrote on Duchsustus.

åáòðéï æä ðåëì ìúøõ áùîòúéï ãìëê ìà úéøõ àéãé åàéãé àîæåæä ãëéåï ãëùéøä ëùùéðä îöååúä åëúáä à÷ìó ä''ä ãëùéøä ëùëúáä àãåëñåñèåñ áî÷åí áùø

(e) Answer #1 (to Question #1): We can answer similarly here. The reason it did not answer "both of them refer to Mezuzah" is since it is Kosher when he deviated from its Mitzvah (l'Chatchilah) and wrote on Klaf, likewise it is Kosher when he wrote on Duchsustus in the place of the meat.

åòåã éù ìúøõ ãìà äåé îöé ìùðåéé äëà àéãé åàéãé àîæåæä ãëì ëîä ãìà àùîòéðï ãîæåæä ëùéøä îùðéäí ìà ùééê ìîéúðé ùéðä áæä åáæä ôñåì àáì ëì ãéï úôéìéï ëáø àùîòéðï

(f) Answer #2 (to Question #1): We could not answer here "both of them refer to Mezuzah", for as long as we did not learn that Mezuzah is Kosher from either [Klaf or Duchsustus], it is not appropriate to teach "if he deviated in either it is Pasul." However, we already taught the entire law of Tefilin (it is Kosher only on Klaf).

åáòðéï æä éù ìúøõ áôø÷ äîåöéà ééï (ùí). î''ø:

(g) Answer #2 (to Question #2): We can answer like this in Shabbos. This is from my Rebbi.

32b----------------------------------------32b

8) TOSFOS DH Ha Moridin Osin v'Ha Ba'i Sirtut

úåñôåú ã"ä äà îåøéãéï òåùéï åäà áòéà ùøèåè

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses what requires Sirtut.)

åà''ú ãéìîà áîùøèèé

(a) Question: Perhaps Sirtut was done!

åé''ì ãìà äéå øâéìéï ìùøèè ñôø úåøä åúôéìéï ëéåï ãìà áòå ùøèåè ëãàîøéðï áéøåùìîé áô''÷ ãùáú ëì äôèåø îï äãáø åòåùäå ð÷øà äãéåè åáñãø øá òîøí îáéàå

(b) Answer #1: It is not common to do Sirtut for a Sefer Torah or Tefilin, since it does not require Sirtut, like we say in the Yerushalmi that anyone who is exempt from something and does it is called a Hedyot (not a Chacham). Seder Rav Amram brings it.

åäà ãàîøéðï áñô''÷ ãîâéìä (ãó èæ:) ãáøé ùìåí åàîú îìîã ùöøéëä ùøèåè ëàîéúä ùì úåøä

(c) Implied question: We say in Megilah (16b) "Divrei Shalom v'Emes" teaches that [a Megilah] requires Sirtut like the Emes of Torah!

ìà ëîå ùôéøù ùí á÷åðèøñ ãîééøé áñ''ú îîù àìà áîæåæä ÷àîø ùäéà àîéúä ùì úåøä ùéù áä [ö"ì ÷áìú òåì - öàï ÷ãùéí] îìëåú ùîéí åëãîåëç äëà ãîæåæä áòéà ùéøèåè

(d) Answer: This is not like Rashi explained there, that it refers to an actual Sefer Torah. Rather, it refers to a Mezuzah, which is the Emes of Torah, for it has Kabalas Ol Malchus Shamayim, and like is proven here that a Mezuzah requires Sirtut.

åúãò ãàé áñôø úåøä ëôéøåù ä÷åðèøñ äéä ìå ìãøåù îãð÷øàú ñôø ëããøùéðï äúí ãøùà àçøéúé îãð÷øàú ñôø

(e) Proof: If it refers to a Sefer Torah, like Rashi explained, it should have expounded from this that it is called Sefer, like we expounded there another Drashah from this that it is called Sefer.

åîéäå é''ì ãàé îãð÷øàú ñôø äåä ìéä ìàùëåçé çã òðééðà ãìà ìéáòé ùøèåè ëéåï ãð÷øàú ëîå ëï àéâøú ëãàîøéðï ðîé (îâéìä ãó éè.) ìòðéï úôéøä ãìà öøéê ìúåôøä ëåìä áâéãéï

(f) Rebuttal: If it was from this that it is called Sefer, it should have found a way in which it does not require Sirtut, since it is also called Igeres (a letter), like we say also (Megilah 19a) about sewing, that one need not sew all of it with sinews.

åáéøåùìîé îùîò ëôéøåù ä÷åðèøñ ãîñôø úåøä òöîä éìéó ã÷àîø äúí ðàîø ëàï ãáøé ùìåí åàîú åðàîø ìäìï àîú ÷ðä åàì úîëåø îä ìäìï öøéê ùøèåè àó ëàï öøéê ùøèåè

1. The Yerushalmi connotes like Rashi explained, that we learn from the Sefer Torah itself. It says there 'it says here "Divrei Shalom v'Emes", and it says there "Emes Kenei v'Al Timkor" - just like there it requires Sirtut, also here [Megilah] requires Sirtut.

îùîò ãàééøé áëì äúåøä ëåìä ãàëì äúåøä ëåìä ëúéáà ÷øà

2. Inference: It refers to the entire Torah, for the verse "Emes Kenei..." is written about the entire Torah.

åàîø øáéðå úí ãñ''ú áòé ùøèåè îùåí (ùîåú èå) æä àìé åàðåäå àáì úôéìéï ãîëåñéï áòåø ìà áòå ùøèåè ãìà ùééê áäå ðåé

(g) Answer #2 (R. Tam): A Sefer Torah requires Sirtut due to Zeh Keli v'Anvehu. But Tefilin, which are covered with hide, do not require Sirtut, for beauty does not apply to them.

å÷öú úéîä ãáñîåê éìôéðï îæåæä îñ''ú áâ''ù ëúéáä ëúéáä ìòðéï ëúéáú àâøú åàîàé ìà éìôéðï îéðä ñ''ú îîæåæä ìòðéï ùéøèåè

(h) Question: Below, we learn Mezuzah from Sefer Torah through a Gezeirah Shavah "Kesivah-Kesivah" regarding writing an Igeres. Why don't we learn Sefer Torah from Mezuzah regarding Sirtut?

åë''ú ìòðéï ëúéáä ìà éìôéðï

1. Suggestion: We do not learn regarding writing.

äà ì÷îï áòé ìîéìó ìòðéï ëúéáä òì äàáðéí

2. Rejection: Below (34a), we wanted to learn regarding writing on the rocks!

åîäà ãàîøéðï áîñëú ñåôøéí (ô''à) îñøâìéï á÷ðéí åëåúáéï áãéå òåã ðîé àîøéðï äúí ãëì éøéòä ùàéðä îñåøâìú ôñåìä

(i) Implied suggestion: We say in Maseches Sofrim (1:1, regarding Seforim) "we are Mesargel (scratch Sirtut lines) with reeds, and we write with ink", and also we say there that any parchment that is not Mesurgeles is Pasul! (This shows that all Seforim require Sirtut!)

îùí àéï øàéä ããéìîà áùøèåè òìéåï àééøé (ãàé àôùø) [ö"ì ãàñåø - öàï ÷ãùéí] ìëúåá ùìù úéáåú àå àøáò áìà ùøèåè ëãúðéà áô''÷ ãâéèéï (ãó å:) àáì ùøèåè áéï ùéèä ìùéèä àôùø ãìà áòéà

(j) Rejection: There is no proof from there. Perhaps it refers to the top Sirtut, for one may not write three or four words [from a verse] without Sirtut, like a Beraisa in Gitin (6b) teaches. However, perhaps Sirtut between each line and the next is not needed.

(åîäà àîø) [ö"ì åîä - ùéèä î÷åáöú, öàï ÷ãùéí] ùðåäâéï ìëúåá áàâøåú ùìåîéí àøáò åçîù úéáåú îï äôñå÷ áìà ùøèåè

(k) Implied question: The custom is to write in friendly letters four or five words from a verse without Sirtut!

îùåí ãìà àñøå àìà ãå÷à ùëåúá äôñå÷ ìãøùà ëé ääåà òåáãà ãøáé àáéúø ãâéèéï àáì îä ùàãí ëåúá áàâøú îï äôñå÷ ìãáø öçåú ùøé áìà ùøèåè

(l) Answer: This is because [Chachamim] forbade [writing without Sirtut] only when he writes the verse for a Drashah, like the case with Rav Evyasar in Gitin. However, what one writes in a letter from a verse to speak in a clear language, it does not need Sirtut.

åîéäå îùîò áéøåùìîé ãàñåø áëì òðéï ùàôé' áàâøú ùìåîéí äéå îäôëéí äôñå÷ åìà äéå ëåúáéí àåúå ëëúáå

(m) Implied question: The Yerushalmi connotes that it is forbidden in every case! Even in friendly letters they used to change the order of words in a verse, and they did not write it properly!

ã÷àîøéðï áô''â ãîâéìä îäå (îéëúá) [ö"ì ìîéëúá - öàï ÷ãùéí] úøúéï úìú îéìéï îï äôñå÷ îø òå÷áà ùìç ìøéù âìåúà ãäåä ãîéê å÷àé áæéîøé éùøàì àì úùîç (éùøàì àì) áòîéí [àì] âéì

1. It says in Megilah "may one write two or three words from a verse [without Sirtut]? Mar Ukva sent to the Reish Galusa, who used to go to sleep and wake up with music "Yisrael Al Tismach ba'Amim El Gil" (the verse says "Al Tismach Yisrael El Gil ka'Amim". He deviated, in order to write it without Sirtut.)

åçåì÷ òì äù''ñ ùìðå ã÷àîø áâéèéï (ãó æ.) ãùéøèè åëúá ìéä

i. Observation: It argues with the Bavli, which says that he did Sirtut and wrote to him.

øáé æòéøà ëúá åìà æëø (éåàù äîìê åìà ëúá ëãëúéá äîìê éåàù) [ö"ì äîìê éåàù åìà ëúá ëãëúéá éåàù äîìê - äøù"ù]

2. [The Yerushalmi says also that] R. Ze'ira wrote 'v'Lo Zachar ha'Melech Yo'ash', and did not write like it is written "Yo'ash ha'Melech." (In our texts of the Yerushalmi, he wrote the verse properly.)

øáé éøîéä ùìç ëúá ìøáé éåãï ìùðåà àú àäåáéê åìàäåá àú ùåðàéê

3. R. Yirmeyah sent to R. Yudan 'Lisno Es Ohavecha v'Le'ehov Es Son'echa' [in place of "Le'ahavah Es Son'echa v'Lisno Es Ohavecha"]

ùìç øáé àáäå àáì úîø úîøåøéí áúîøåøéä äéà òåîãú åá÷ùðå ìîú÷ä åìùåà (öøó öøåó) [ö"ì öøåó öøó - îäøù"à] (éøîéä å)

4. R. Avahu sent 'Evel Tamar Tamrurim b'Tamruriya Hi Omedes u'Vikashnu Lemaskah ul'Shav Tzaruf Tzaraf' [in place of "Evel Yachid... Misped Tamrurim...; La'Shav Tzaraf Tzaruf";

øáé îðà ùìç ëúá ìøáé àåùòéà áø ùîàé øàùéúê îöòø (äéä åàçøéúê îàã úùâéà) [ö"ì îàã úùâéà åàçøéúê] (àéåá ç) î''ø

5. R. Mana sent writing to R. Oshaya bar Shamai 'Reishischa Mitz'ar Me'od Tasgi v'Acharischa' [in place of "v'Hayah Reishischa Mitz'ar v'Acharischa Yisgeh Me'od." This is from my Rebbi.

9) TOSFOS DH Asur Leishev Al Gabei Mitah she'Sefer Torah Munach Aleha

úåñôåú ã"ä àñåø ìéùá òì âáé îèä ùñôø úåøä îåðç òìéä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses related laws.)

áéøåùìîé áôø÷ îé ùîúå àîøéðï úéáä ùäéà îìéàä ñôøéí ðåúðä ìøàù äîèä åàéðå ðåúðä ìîøâìåú äîèä

(a) Citation (Yerushalmi): A box that is full of Seforim, one may put it [under] the head of the bed. One may not put it [under] the foot of the bed;

øáé àáéï áùí øá äåðà åäåà ùúäà îèä âáåää òùøä èôçéí åìà éäå (øâìé) [ö"ì çáìé] äîèä ðåâòéï áúéáä

1. R. Avin in the name of Rav Huna said "this is if the bed is 10 Tefachim tall, and the ropes of the bed do not touch the box." (If not, even under the head is forbidden.)

òåã ÷àîø ìà éùá àãí òì âáé ñôñì ùñ''ú îåðç òìéä åîòùä áøáé àìéòæø ëå' àí äéä ðúåï òì âáé ãáø àçø îåúø òã ëîä øáé àáà áùí øá äåðà èôç øáé éøîéä áùí øáé æéøà ëì ùäåà

(b) Citation (cont.): One may not sit on a bench on which a Sefer Torah rests. An episode occurred with R. Eliezer... if [the Sefer Torah] was on something else, it is permitted. How [tall] must [what it is on] be? R. Aba in the name of Rav Huna said, a Tefach. R. Yirmeyah in the name of R. Zeira said, any amount.

10) TOSFOS DH d'Amar Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar R. Yochanan Mutar Leshev...

úåñôåú ã"ä ãàîø øáä áø áø çðä à''ø éåçðï îåúø ìéùá...

(SUMMARY: Tosfos rules like this.)

ðøàä ãäìëä ëø' éåçðï ìâáé øá äåðà ãàôé' ìâáéä øá øáéä äìëä ëîåúå ëãàîø )áéöä) [ö"ì ááéöä - öàï ÷ãùéí] (ã.)

(a) Pesak: It seems that the Halachah follows R. Yochanan against Rav Huna, for even against Rav, [Rav Huna's] Rebbi, the Halachah follows [R. Yochanan], like it says in Beitzah (4a).

(åúìîéãé( [ö"ì åòåã ãàó úìîéãé - öàï ÷ãùéí] ãøá äåðà ìà ñáøé ëååúéä ãáòé ìàåúåáé ñ''ú àôåøééä áô' áúøà ãîåòã ÷èï (ãó ëä.) î''ø

(b) Support: Even Rav Huna's Talmidim do not hold like him, for they wanted to set a Sefer Torah on his bier, in Mo'ed Katan (25a). This is from my Rebbi.

11) TOSFOS DH Kasvah Igeres Pesulah Mai Taima Asya Kesivah Kesivah mi'Sefer

úåñôåú ã"ä ëúáä àâøú ôñåìä î''è àúéà ëúéáä ëúéáä îñôø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses what is like an Igeres, and where we learn from.)

ôéøù á÷åðèøñ àéâøú áìà ùøèåè

(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi): Igeres is without Sirtut.

å÷ùä ãìòéì àîøéðï ùøèåè ùì îæåæä äìëä ìîùä îñéðé åäëà éìéó ëúéáä ëúéáä

(b) Question: Above, we said that Sirtut of a Mezuzah is a tradition from Moshe from Sinai, and here we learn from Kesivah-Kesivah!

åîôøù ø''ú àâøú î÷øà åìà îñåøú ùìà ã÷ã÷ áçñéøåú åéúéøåú àìà ëàâøú áòìîà

(c) Explanation #2 (R. Tam): Igeres is [accurate for] Mikra (how words are pronounced), but not for Mesores (the tradition how they are written). He was not meticulous about Chaseros and Yeseiros (missing or extra Vovim and Yudim), rather, like a mere letter;

åäà ãéìéó ëúéáä ëúéáä ìà ëîå ùôéøù á÷åðèøñ îåëúá ìä ñôø ëøéúåú

(d) Opinion #1 (Rashi): We learn from Kesivah-Kesivah, i.e. from "v'Chasav Lah Sefer Kerisus."

ãëîä çñéøåú åéúéøåú éù áâè ãéúéäååéééï ãéúéöáéééï çîùä çîùä éåãéï åâí çñéøåú ëâåï ìîäê

(e) Rejection #1: There are several Chaseros and Yeseiros in a Get - d'Yisyahaviyein and d'Yisyatzviyein have five Yudim each, and there are also Chaseros, e.g. Limehach (and one must be precise about them - Gitin 85b);

åùøèåè ðîé [ö"ì ìà - öàï ÷ãùéí] àùëçï ãáòé áâè

(f) Rejection #2: Also, we do not find that Sirtut is needed in a Get.

åòåã îñôø äëúåá áâè ìàå ìîòåèé àâøú ãìñôéøú ãáøéí äåà ãàúà ëãàîøéðï áâéèéï (ãó ëà:)

(g) Rejection #3: "Sefer" written regarding a Get does not exclude an Igeres, for it comes to teach Sefiras Devarim (the Get relates that Ploni came and said to his wife...), like we say in Gitin (21b).

åîéäå áôø÷ ùðé ãâéèéï (ãó ë:) ãàîøéðï ãñôø ãâè àúà ìîòåèé ùðéí åâ' ñôøéí åä''ä ãðîòè ðîé ëúáå àâøú ëîå áôø÷ ùðé ãñåèä (ãó éæ:) ããøùéðï úøååééäå îñôø

(h) Rebuttal (of Rejection #3): However, in Gitin (20b) we say that "Sefer" of Get comes to exclude two or three Seforim. Likewise, we can exclude also Igeres, like in Sotah (17b) that we expound both from Sefer.

1. Note: Sefer Kerisus is written twice in the Torah. However, we also expound that only a Sefer divorces, so you are forced to say that we expound more than one law from one occurrence of the word.

åòåã éù ìôøù ãéìéó äëà îñåèä ãîîòèéðï áôø÷ ùðé ãñåèä ëúáä àéâøú îãëúéá áñôø

(i) Opinion #2: We can say that here we learn from Sotah. We exclude in Sotah when he wrote an Igeres, since it is written "Sefer".

åáôéøåù ä÷åðèøñ ìùåï àçø ãéìéó îëúåá æàú æëøåï

(j) Opinion #3 (Rashi's second Perush): He learns from "Kesov Zos Zikaron".

åö''ò àîàé ìà éìôéðï ìéä âè ëúéáä ëúéáä ãìéôñåì áäëé (àå) îãëúéá áéä ñôø

(k) Question: This requires investigation, why don't we learn Get from Kesivah-Kesivah to be disqualified through this (writing it like an Igeres), or since it is written about it "Sefer"? (Olas Shlomo - do not say that "Sefer" regarding Get teaches Sefiras Devarim, for we exclude from it two or three Seforim.)

åàéï ìôøù àâøú ø''ì áòîåãéí ÷öøéí ùàéðí øçáéí ëâ' ôòîéí ìîùôçåúéëí ëãàîø ìòéì (ãó ì.) åìà éøáä áãôéï ùðøàä ëàâøú

(l) Implied suggestion: Igeres means that the columns are narrow. They are not wide like three times l'Mishpechoseichem (30 letters), like it says above (30a) "he may not make too many Dapim, for it looks like an Igeres."

ãäà àîøéðï ìòéì îæåæä ùòùàä ùúéí ùìù åàçú ëùéøä

(m) Rejection: We said above (31b) that if one made a Mezuzah [and the number of words written on three consecutive lines were] two, three one, it is Kosher!

åàò''ô ùôéøùúé ùöøéê ìã÷ã÷ áçñéøåú åéúéøåú

(n) Implied question: I explained that one must be meticulous about Chaseros and Yeseiros. (If so, an expert must write it);

àéï ìä÷ùåú îäà ãúðï áôø÷ äùåàì (á''î ãó ÷à:) ãîùëéø çééá áëì ãáø ùäåà îòùä àåîï åîùîò áâîøà ãùåëø çééá áîæåæä ãçåáú äãø äéà

1. A Mishnah in Bava Metzi'a (101b) teaches that a landlord is liable in everything [needed in the house] that requires an expert craftsman, and the Gemara connotes that the tenant is obligated [to affix] a Mezuzah, for it is an obligation on the one who lives there!

ãäúí ìà îééøé àìà ááðééðé äáéú åî÷åí îæåæä ðîé ãäåé òì äùåëø ëãàîø äúí îùåí ãìà îòùä àåîï äåà ãàéôùø áâåáúà ã÷ðéà äééðå îòùä ùäåà áâåó äáéú òöîå. î''ø

(o) Answer: There we discuss only the building of the house, and also the place of the Mezuzah is incumbent on the tenant, like it says there because it does not need an expert, for it is possible through a reed case. This is an action which is in the house itself. (What needs an expert is not in the house itself.) This is from my Rebbi.

12) TOSFOS DH Sakanah v'Ein Bah Mitzvah

úåñôåú ã"ä ñëðä åàéï áä îöåä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes that the danger is lest he bang his head on it.)

ôé' á÷åðèøñ ëéåï ãòùàä ùìà ëäéìëúä àéï äáéú îùúîø îôðé äîæé÷éï

(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi): Since he made it improperly, the house is not guarded from Mazikim (damaging spirits).

å÷ùä ìøáéðå úí ãà''ë äå''ì ìîéîø äëé (àáì) [ö"ì áëì] äòùåéä ùìà ëäéìëúä

(b) Question (R. Tam): If so, it should have said as follows - "anything made improperly..."! (Why did it mention danger regarding hanging from a stick or in back of the door, more than for other Pesulim?)

åðøàä ãúìàä áî÷ì ðå÷ó áä øàùå ãìàå àãòúéä åëï àçåøé äãìú øâéìä ìäéåú áåìèú åîëä áä øàùå

(c) Explanation #2 (R. Tam): If it is hanging from a stick, he can bang his head on it, unaware. Similarly, in back of the door it is common to stick out and he hits his head on it (since it is not fixed in the doorway).

åäà ãàîø áô' äùåàì (á''î ã' ÷á.) àôùø áâåáúà ã÷ðéà åôéøù ùí á÷åðèøñ ãúìé ìéä áâåáúà ã÷ðéà çìåì

(d) Implied question: It says in Bava Metzi'a (102a) that it is possible through a reed case, and Rashi explained that he hangs it in a hollow tube of a reed!

ìà úìé îîù ÷àîø. î''ø:

(e) Answer: He does not literally mean that it hangs. This is from my Rebbi.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES ON THIS DAF