12th Cycle dedication

CHULIN 44 (Tisha b'Av) - Dedicated by Mrs. Gitti Kornfeld in memory of her father, Reb Yisrael Shimon ben Shlomo ha'Levi Turkel, whose Yahrzeit is on 10 Av.

1)

TOSFOS DH V'REBBI YUEHOSHUA HI D'AMAR EIN MASHGICHIN B'VAS KOL

úåñôåú ã"ä åøáé éäåùò äéà ãàîø àéï îùâéçéï ááú ÷åì

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses Rebbi Yehoshua's statement both here and in Bava Metz'ia in connection with the episode of Rebbi Eliezer.)

úéîä, ã÷ééîà ìï ëáéú äìì îùåí áú ÷åì, å÷ééîà ìï ã'øáé àìéòæø ùîåúé äåà', åìà çééùéðï ááú ÷åì ùôñ÷ ëååúéä áôø÷ äæäá (á"î ãó ðè:)?

(a)

Question: On the one hand, we Pasken like Beis Hillel due to the Bas-Kol; whereas on the other, we Pasken that Rebbi Eliezer is a Shamuti, ignoring the Bas-Kol that rules like him, in Perek ha'Zahav (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 9b)

åéù ìåîø, ãùàðé äúí, ùìà éöúä àìà ìëáåãå ãøáé àìéòæø, ãàîø 'îï äùîéí éåëéçå'.

(b)

Answer #1: There (in Bava Metzi'a) it is different, since the Bas-Kol only Paskened like Rebbi Eliezer in deference to Rebbi Eliezer, who stated 'Let them prove it in Heaven!'

åòåã, ãáú ÷åì ãáéú äìì îñééò ÷øà, ãëúéá (ùîåú ëâ) "àçøé øáéí ìäèåú", ãáéú äìì øåáà äåå, àìà ãîòé÷øà îñô÷à ìï îùåí ãáéú ùîàé îçåããéï èôé. àáì áú ÷åì ãøáé àìéòæø øáðï ãôìéâé òìéä äåå øåáà.

(c)

Answer #2: Moreover, the Bas-Kol of Beis Hillel has the support of a Pasuk, which writes in Sh'mos (23) "Follow the majority to decide the Halachah!"

åàí úàîø, àîàé ÷àîø äëà 'äà îðé øáé éäåùò äéà, ãàîø "àéï îùâéçéï ááú ÷åì" ', äà àéäå ìà ÷àîø àìà à'òåáãà ãøáé àìéòæø, ãàðï ðîé ìà ÷ééîà ìï ëáú ÷åì ãøáé àìéòæø.

(d)

Question: Why does the Gemara then establish the author as Rebbi Yehoshua, who holds 'Ein Mashgichin be'Bas-Kol', seeing as he only says it with regard to the episode of Rebbi Eliezer, and we do not hold like the Bas-Kol of Rebbi Eliezer, either?

åé"ì, ãëéåï ã÷àîø 'ìà áùîéí äéà'. îùîò ãàéú ìéä ãáùåí ãåëúà àéï îùâéçéï ááú ÷åì.

(e)

Answer: Because the Lashon 'Lo ba'Shamayim Hi' implies that Rebbi holds that we never follow a Bas-Kol.

2)

TOSFOS DH KULAH K'REBBI AVDA

úåñôåú ã"ä ëåìä ëøá òáãà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos reconciles this with the Sugya earlier that established it like the Chumros of Rav and Shmuel and explains why the Gemara now establishes it like Rav and not like Shmuel.)

åäà ãàîøéðï ìòéì 'øîéðï òìéä çåîøé ãøá åçåîøé ãùîåàì' ...

(a)

Implied Question: When we said earlier that we place on him the Chumros of both Rav and of Shmuel ...

äééðå ìîàé ãñ"ã.

(b)

Answer: ... that was only according to what we initially thought.

åäåä îöé ìîéîø 'ëåìä ëùîåàì òáãà, ãìàå î÷åí ùçéèä äåà, åàñø ðîé áäâøéí ùìéù åùçè ùðé ùìéùé'.

(c)

Refuted Explanation: The Gemara could just as well have said that he did completely like Shmuel, since it was not the location of the Shechitah, and he also forbade a case of where one performed the first third with Hagramah, and the final two-thirds with a Kasher Shechitah ...

àìà ð÷è 'ëøá' îùåí ã÷é"ì ëøá áàéñåøé.

(d)

Refutation: ... and the reason that we established it like to Rav is because we Pasken like Rav in matters concerning Isur.

3)

TOSFOS DH MI'D'KA'AMAR

úåñôåú ã"ä îã÷àîø ðúðå áå çëîéí ùéòåø ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we do not answer that they gave it a Shi'ur at the bottom but not at the top.)

åìà áòé ìîéîø ãðúðå áå ùéòåø ìîèä ...

(a)

Refuted Answer: The Gemara does not want to say that they gave it a Shi'ur at the bottom exclusively ...

ãîãìà ôéøù ãáøéå, îñúîà áéï ìîòìä áéï ìîèä ÷àîø.

(b)

Refutation: ... because, since the Gemara did not specifically say so, we assume that they gave the Shi'ur at the top as well as at the bottom.

4)

TOSFOS DH K'DEI TEFISAS YAD

úåñôåú ã"ä ëãé úôéñú éã

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the Shi'ur of 'K'dei Tefisas Yad' and draws a distinction between it and 'K'dei Tefisah'.)

ôéøù á÷åðèøñ - àøáò àöáòåú.

(a)

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that this means 'four finger-breadths.

úéîä, ãáòåó îàé?

(b)

Question: Then what is the Shi'ur by a bird?

åôéøù øáéðå éöç÷ áï øáéðå îàéø - àøáò àöáòåú áøàîéí âãåìéí; îëàï åàéìê ëì çã åçã ìôé ÷åèðå.

(c)

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Yitzchak ben Rabeinu Meir therefore explains that four finger-breadths is the measurement of a large buffalo at the top of the scale, and that it decreases progressively as the animals get smaller.

åáä"â îôøù 'ëãé úôéñú éã' - ëãð÷éè àéðéù áùúé àöáòåúéå.

(d)

Explanation #3: According to the B'hag however, 'K'dei Tefisas Yad' means the minimum amount that a person can hold between his thumb and orefinger.

åãáøéäí ãáøé ÷áìä, åéù ìñîåê òìéäí.

(e)

Halachah: The words of the B'hag are considered words of tradition, and one can therefore rely on their opinion le'Halachah.

åäàé ã÷øé ì÷îï (ãó ð:) âáé çìçåìú 'ëãé úôéñä' - 'ëîìà áèãà ãúåøà', ãäééðå àøáò àöáòåú ...

(f)

Implied Question: ... And when the Gemara later (on Da 50b) with regard to the Chalcholes (a membrane that keeps the entrails in position) equates 'K'dei Tefisah' with 'Batda de'Tura', which is the equivalent of four finger-breadths ...

äúí ð÷è 'ëãé úôéñä' ñúí. àáì äëà 'ëãé úôéñú éã' ÷àîø, ãîùîò ëãé ùéåëì ìúôåñ áùúé àöáòåú åàôé' ëì ùäåà.

(g)

Answer: ... the Gemara there is referring to 'K'dei Tefisah' and not to 'K'dei Tefisas Yad.

5)

TOSFOS DH V'HA'IKA IKUR SIMANIM

úåñôåú ã"ä åäàéëà òé÷åø ñéîðéí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos queries the Kashya according to Rashi's interpretation of Ikur Simanim, and reconciles it with that of the B'hag.)

ìôéøåù ä÷åðèøñ ãô"÷ (ìòéì ë.) - ã'áòé÷åø ñéîðéí äåéà èøôä' úéîä, ãäéëé ôùéèà ìéä ãäåéà èøôä ...

(a)

Observation #1 (Part 1): According to Rashi, who explained in the first Perek (29a) that Ikur Simanim renders the animal a T'reifah, it is difficult to understand why it is obvious that it is a T'reifah ...

äà òì ëøçê àéðä ðèøôä áúåøáõ äååùè áð÷á áòìîà ëîå áååùè òöîå, àìà áøåáå; åëîå ëï ðéîà ãðéèì ëåìå ëùøä?

(b)

Observation #1 (Part 2): ... since the Turbatz ha'Veshet cannot possibly become T'reifah with just a hole, like the Veshet itself (see Maharam), only if it covers the majority. Similarly, if it is completely removed it ought to be Kasher, too?

åëé úéîà ãñáéøà ìéä ãìà âøò îùîåèú äâøâøú ùäéà èøôä ...

(c)

Suggestion: And to suggest that it is no worse than where the Gargeres has slipped out of place, rendering it a T'reifah ...

æäå ãåç÷ âãåì!

(d)

Refutation #1: ... is a Dochek (forced [See Tosfos ha'Rosh])!

åòåã, ã÷à îùðé ãáøåáå ëùøä, àó òì ôé ãôñå÷ú äâøâøú úðï áøåáå èøôä?

(e)

Refutation #2: And besides, the Gemara answers that a Rov is Kasher, even though if the majority of the Gargeres is broken, it is T'reifah.

åìôéøåù äìëåú âãåìåú ôøéê ùôéø 'åäà àéëà òé÷åø ñéîðéí?' àó ò"â ãìà äåéà èøôä áùîåèä æå, î"î áîä éëùø, ëéåï ãàéï ìå äéúø áùçéèä?

(f)

Observation #2: According to the explanation of the B'hag, on the other hand, the Gemara's Kashya ('But there is Ikur Simanim') is justified, since even if it is not a T'reifah, how will it become Kasher, seeing as it does not become Mutar through Shechitah?

åîéäå ÷ùä ìôé' ä"â ãîàé ôøéê 'åäàîø øáä áø áø çðä - "ñéîðéí ùðãìãìå áøåáï èøôä?" '

(g)

Question (Part 1): One can however, ask on the B'hag - When the Gemara asks 'But did Rabah bar bar Chanah not say that 'Simanim that have been moved out of place renders the animal a T'reifah' ...

ìôé äî÷ùï ú÷ùä ìéä à'øáä áø áø çðä âåôéä - ãàé èøôä äåéà áäëé, àí ëï îäå òé÷åø ã÷ééîà ìï ãìà äåéà èøôä. àìà ùàéï ùçéèä îåòìú áå?

(h)

Question (Part 2): Why does the Makshan (the questioner) not ask on Rabah bar bar Chanah directly - because if this makes the animal a T'reifah, what is then Ikur, on which Shechitah is not effective, but which we Pasken, is not a T'reifah?

åîéäå ñôøéí ãâøñé îòé÷øà ìà ÷ùéà (äà ãà÷ôì à÷ôåìé å) 'äà ãàãìãåì àãìãåìé'.

(i)

Answer (Part 1): According to the text that reads initially 'Ha de'Idaldal Idalduli ... ' however, there is no Kashya (see Maharam).

é"ì ùéåãò äî÷ùï ëãîñé÷ ìáñåó, ãøáä áø áø çðä àééøé ãàéôøå÷ àôøå÷é áëç ëàï îòè åëàï îòè ãìà äãøà áøéà, åäåé èøôä; åòé÷åø ñéîðéï ãìà äåé èøôä ãà÷ôåì à÷ôåìé áðçú îòì äáùø.

(j)

Answer (Part 2): The questioner knew at the outset what the Gemara concludes - that Rabah bar bar Chanah is speaking by 'Ifruk Ifruki' (where the Simanim were torn out by force, a little here and a little there, in which case they can no longer heal, and it is a T'reifah; whereas Ikur Simanim that is not a T'reifah speaks where they were peeled away from the flesh gently.

åî"î ôøéê î'ãìãåì' ãøáä áø áø çðä à'ìùåï ãìãåì ùäæëéø äîúøõ; åçåæø åîôøù ìå ããìãåì ùàîøúé àéðå ëùì øáä áø áø çðä.

(k)

Answer (Part 3): Nevertheless the Gemara asks from the 'Dildul' of Rabah bar bar Chanah on the Lashon 'Dildul' used by the initial Metaretz; So the Gemara explains to the Makshan once again that the 'Dildul' of which he spoke was not the same as the 'Dildul' of Rabah bar bar Chanah.

àáì ìñôøéí ãâøñé áúø 'åäà àîø ùîåàì áøåáå' - 'ìà ÷ùéà, äà ãàð÷åá àð÷åáé, äà ãà÷ôì à÷ôåìé' ÷ùä?

(l)

Question (Part 3): But according to the text that reads after the Kashya 've'Ha Amar Shmuel "be'Rubo" ' - Lo Kashya, Ha de'Inkuv Inkuvi, Ha de'Ikpal Ikpuli', the Kashya remains (See same Maharam).

åëï ÷ùä ìôéøåù øáéðå çððàì, ãîôøù 'ãàôøå÷ àéôøå÷é' - 'ùðôøãå äñéîðéï æä îæä', ìéëà ìîéîø ùäî÷ùï äéä éåãò äàîú, ãà"ë ìà äåä ôøéê îéãé.

(m)

Question (Part 4): And the same Kashya one can ask on Rabeinu Chananel, who interprets 'de'Ifruk Ifruki' to mean that the Simanim parted from one another. There too, one cannot say that the Makshan knew the truth, because if he did, he did not ask anything (See same Maharam).

åé"ì, ãëé ôøéê îøáä áø áø çðä, äåä îöé ìîéîø 'åìéèòîéê, ú÷ùä ìê ãøáä áø áø çðä âåôéä, àé èøôä äåéà, òé÷åø ñéîðéí äéëé îùëçú ìä.

(n)

Answer: When the Gemara asks from Rabah bar bar Chanah, it could indeed have asked 'And according to you (Makshan), why don't you ask on Rabah bar bar Chanah himself - seeing as if it is a T'reifah, then what is the case of Ikur Simanim (that is not a T'reifah)?

44b----------------------------------------44b

6)

TOSFOS DH HEICHI AVID HACHI V'HA TANYA CHACHAM SHE'TIMEI ETC.

úåñôåú ã"ä äéëé òáéã äëé åäà úðéà çëí ùèéîà ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos reconciles this with a number of other Sugyos, which seem to permit it.)

åà"ú, ãì÷îï (ãó îè.) âáé 'ääåà îçèà ãàéùúëç áñîôåðà ãëáãà' - 'äåðà áø áøéä ãøá àéãé èøéó; øá àãà áø îðéåîé îëùéø?

(a)

Question: The Gemara later (on Daf 49a) in connection with a needle that was found in the air-passage of the liver - cites Huna the grandson of Rav Idi who declared it T'reifah and Rav Ada bar Minyumi who declared it Kasher?

åé"ì, ãäúí à'âîøéä ñîéê ...

(b)

Answer #1: There Rav Ada bar Minyumi relied on what he had learned from his Rebbe ...

ëãàîøéðï áñåó ô"á ãðãä (ãó ë:) âáé 'éìúà ãàééúéú ãîà ì÷îéä ãøáä áø áø çðä, åèîé ìä, åàééúéú ÷îéä ãøá éöç÷ áø' éäåãä, åãëé ìä'.

1.

Precedent (Part 1): ... like we learned at the end of the second Perek of Nidah (20b) with regard to Yalsa, who brought blood for Rabah bar bar Chanah to inspect, which he declared Tamei and when she brought it to Rav Yitzchak b'Rebbi Yehudah, he declared it Tahor.

åôøéê òìéä î'çëí ùèéîà ... '. åîùðé ã'îòé÷øà èîåé èîé ìä, ëéåï ãàîøä "ëì éåîà äåä ãëé ìé øáä áá"ç ëä"â, åääåà éåîà äåä çù áòéðéä, åäãø ãëé ìä" ...

2.

Precedent (Part 2): In answer to the Kashya from 'Chacham she'Timei', the Gemara answers there that initially, Rav Yitzchak b'Rebbi Yehudah declared it Tamei, but when Yalsa explained to him that 'Rabah bar bar Chanah himself regularly Paskened that the same appearance of blood was Kasher, only on that day his eye-sight had not been so good, and that was when he declared it Tahor.

åáòé äúí 'ëæä äúéø ìé ôìåðé çëí, îäå? ôéøåù ðàîðú àå àéðä ðàîðú? åáòé ìîéôùè îòåáãà ãéìúà, ãðàîðú; åîùðé - 'øá éöç÷ áø' éäåãä à'âîøéä ñîê' ...

(c)

Precedent (Part 3): The Gemara then asks whether a woman who claims that so-and-so Rav permitted her this very same appearance of blood is believed or not. And it refutes the proof from the above case in Nidah on the grounds that - Rav Yitzchak b'Rebbi Yehudah relied on what he had learned (and not on Yalsa's statement).

åôéøù ùí á÷åðèø' ãäãø áéä îàéãê ùðåéà, ãùðé îòé÷øà 'èîåéé èîé ìä', ãëéåï ãà'âîøéä ñîê, øùàé ìäúéø îä ùàñø çáéøå ëéåï ùëê ÷éáì , åëé àîø ã'àéï çáéøå øùàé ìäúéø, äééðå îñáøà.

(d)

Explanation #1: Rashi explains there that the Gemara retracted from its initial answer 'that Rav Yitzchak b'Rebbi Yehudah initially declared the blood Tamei ... ' - because, seeing as he relied on what he had learned from his Rebbes, he was permitted to declare Mutar what his colleague had declared Asur; and what the Gemara forbids is to rule against his colleague on the basis of a S'vara.

åìôéøåùå - áùîòúéï ðîé ìîàé ãîñé÷ ãà'âîøéä ñîê, ìà öøéê ìîàé ãîùðé 'øá ìà àñø åìà îéãé', àìà ãäàîú îúøõ.

(e)

Observation: According to Rashi, in our Sugya too, which concludes that Rabah bar bar Chanah relied on what he had learned, it is no longer necessary to state that Rav did not forbid it; only that was the truth.

åìëàåøä äéä ðøàä ôùè ääìëä ãääéà ãðãä ã'à'âîøéä ñîê', åìëï äàîéï ìãáøéä; åìòåìí öøéëéï ìùðåééà ÷îà ã'îòé÷øà èîåéé èîé ìä'.

(f)

Explanation #2: It seems however, that when the Gemara in Nidah states that Rav Yitzchak b'Rebbi Yehudah relied on what he had learned, it means that this was why he relied on Yalsa's statement - that Rabah bar bar Chanah usually permitted the same appearance of blood, and that it was still necessary to abide by the first answer - that initially he too, had declared the blood Tamei.

åääéà òåáãà ãì÷îï (ãó îè.) ã'îçè ùðîöàú áñîôåðà ãëáãà, ùîà äéå ùðéäí ááéú äîãøù éçã, åðùàìä äùàìä ìôðéäí ìùðéäí.

(g)

Answer #2: And as for the case later (on Daf 49:) regarding the needle that was found in the air-passage of the liver, perhaps it speaks where they were both in the Beis-ha'Medrash together, and the She'eilah was asked of them both at the same time.

àé ðîé, ìà éãò ùàñø çáéøå.

(h)

Answer #3: ... or that Rav Yitzchak b'Rebbi Yehudah was not aware that Rabah bar bar Chanah had already forbidden it.

7)

TOSFOS DH V'CHEIN HA'AVADIM SHE'HE'IDU KULAM RASHA'IN LIKACH ETC.

úåñôåú ã"ä åëï äòãéí ùäòéãå ëåìí øùàéï ìé÷ç ëå'

(SUMMARY: After explaining why the witnesses are permitted to purchase the field, Tosfos draws a distinction between witnesses who have signed on a Sh'tar or who have concluded a deal via their oral testimony and witnesses who have merely been asked to act as agents.)

ã'ùðéí àéðí çùåãéí', ëãàîøéðï áô"á ãéáîåú (ãó ëä:).

(a)

Clarification: Because two witnesses are never suspect, like we learned in the second Perek of Yevamos (Daf 25b).

åî"î ìáòì ðôù èåá ìäøçé÷ îï äëéòåø.

(b)

Halachah: It is nevertheless befitting for someone on a higher level to distance himself from something which is 'ugly' (which looks wrong).

åàí úàîø, åòãéí äéàê øùàéï ìé÷ç?

(c)

Question #1 (Part 1): How can the witnesses be permitted to purchase the article (on which they testified)?

áùìîà çúåîéí òì âè àùä àå òì ùèø î÷ç ìà çùå çëîéí, ãîòùä ìà òáãé, àáì ãáåøà àîøé!

(d)

Question #1 (Part 2): One can understand that the Chachamim were not concerned about the signatories of a Get or of a document of sale, permitting them to marry the woman or to purchase the article, seeing as they will not perform an act (of signing on a document), but mere words they will say ...

ëãàîøéðï áôø÷ äú÷áì (âéèéï ãó ñæ.) 'àîø ìòãéí "àîøå ìñåôø ìëúåá, åìòãéí åéçúîå, ìà úòùä ëæàú áéùøàì, ãçééùéðï ùîà úùëéø òãéí'.

(e)

Precedent: ... like the Gemara states in Perek Hiskabel (Gitin 67b) 'If one says to witnesses "Tell the Sofer to write (a Get)! and to witnesses "Sign!", such a thing should not be done in Yisrael, since we suspect that the woman might hire witnesses'.

åëï îéàðä àå ùçìöä áôðéå, äéàê éùàðä, äà ìà òáãé äúí îòùä?

(f)

Question #2: Similarly, how are witnesses before whom a girl made Miy'un or a woman performed Chalitzah permitted to marry her, seeing as they do not perform an act?

åéù ìåîø, ãëì ãáø ùðâîø òì ôéäí, çùéá îòùä.

(g)

Answer (Part 1): Wherever the matter is concluded through them, it is considered an act.

àáì äúí ùàéðå àìà ãáåø áòìîà, ùàåîø îàú äáòì àì äñåôø ìëúåá, åìòãéí ìçúåí, åàôùø ùäí ìà éòùå, åìà úúâøù, åâí (àí) àéï âåîøéï äãáø, àéðí çåùùéï.

(h)

Answer (Part 2): ... whereas there (in Gitin) where it is merely words, where, in the name of the husband, he tells the Sofer to write and the witnesses to sign, something that they may well not do, in which case she won't be divorced; and in any event, they don't complete the matter, they will not mind lying.

åàí úàîø, 'ãï àú äãéï' ãäëà - äéàê øùàé ìé÷ç, åäìà éçéã äåä, îã÷úðé 'ãï' - ãîëç îúðé' ãáëåøåú (ãó ëç:) ãúðï 'ãï àú äãéï' îééúé áô"÷ ãñðäãøéï (ãó å.) ã'ùðéí ùãðå, ãéðéäí ãéï'. åìàå ãå÷à á' àìà ä"ä àçã?

(i)

Question: In the case of 'Dan es ha'Din' in our Sugya, on what basis is the Dayan permitted to purchase the article, seeing as, bearing in mind the Tana's use of the word 'Dan', he is an individual (and the lenient ruling is restricted to two people)?

åàéï ìåîø ããééï ìà çùéã ...

(j)

Refuted Answer: And we cannot answer that a Dayan is above suspicion ...

ãäà àîøéðï áô"á ãéáîåú (ãó ëä:) 'äçëí ùàñø àú äàùä áðãø, ãìà éùàðä'?

(k)

Refutation: ... since we have learned in the second Perek of Yevamos (Daf 25a) that a Chacham who forbids a woman (to her hisband) due to a Neder, is not allowed to marry her.

åùîà çééùéðï äúí èôé, ùîà òéðéå ðúï áä.

(l)

Reinstated Answer #1: Perhaps the case there is different, since we suspect that he has perhaps taken a fancy to her.

åòåã éù ìåîø, ãääéà ãáëåøåú îåëçà èôé ãáéçéã àééøé, ã÷úðé øéùà 'îé ùàéðå îåîçä åøàä àú äáëåø ... ' áôø÷ òã ëîä (áëåøåú ãó ëç:); åìäëé ãéé÷ îéðä áñðäãøéï.

(m)

Answer #2: Furthermore, we can answer that the Gemara in Bechoros (in Perek ad B'chor 28b) is more obviously speaking about a Yachid, since in the Reisha it talks about 'someone who is not an expert and who examines a B'chor, which is why the Gemara in Sanhedrin asks from it).

8)

TOSFOS DH EIZEHU TALMID CHACHAM

úåñôåú ã"ä àéæäå úìîéã çëí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos establishes the ramifications of the current statement.)

ãîäãøé ìéä àáéãúå áèáéòú òéï - 'æä äøåàä èøôä ìòöîå'.

(a)

Clarification: To whom one returns a lost article with recognition alone (without identification) - 'To someone who forbids his own Safek T'reifah.