12th Cycle dedication

CHULIN 60 (25 Av) - Dedicated by Mrs. G. Kornfeld for the eleventh Yahrzeit of her mother, Mrs. Gisela Turkel (Golda bas Chaim Yitzchak Ozer), an exceptional woman with an iron will who loved and respected the study of Torah.

1)

TOSFOS DH BE'KOMASAN NIVR'U

úåñôåú ã"ä á÷åîúï ðáøàå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the meaning of 'Komasan'.)

ìà áòé ìîéîø ùðáøàå áòîéãä ...

(a)

Refuted Explanation: The Gemara does not want to say that they were created in a standing position ...

ãäà àîøéðï áôø÷ àçã ãéðé îîåðåú (ñðäãøéï ãó ìç:) âáé àãí äøàùåï - 'øáéòéú ðæø÷ä áå ðùîä; çîéùéú òîã òì øâìéå'.

(b)

Reason: Since the Gemara says in Perek Echad Dinei Mamonos (Sanhedrin 38b) in connection with Adam ha'Rishon 'In the fourth hour a Neshamah was cast into him; in the fifth hour he stood up on his feet'.

àìà 'á÷åîúï' äééðå ùðâîøä ëì ÷åîúï îúçìúï.

(c)

Correct Explanation: What be'Komasan therefore means is that they were created fully grown from the first moment.

2)

TOSFOS DH AL TIKRI TZ'VA'AM ELA TZIVYANOM

úåñôåú ã"ä àì úé÷øé öáàí àìà öáéåðí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the Aruch's interpretation of Tzivyonam'.)

ôéøù áòøåê - ãëåìäå ðô÷é î'öáéåðí' ùäåà ìùåï éåôé, ëîå (éùòéä ã) "ìöáé åìúôàøú". åîàçø ùäï áéåôééï, æäå á÷åîúï åìãòúï, ùäéåôé ìà éáà àìà àí ëï ðúâãì ëì äöåøê.

(a)

Explanation #1: The Aruch explains that we learn all the items from 'Tzivyonam', which is a Lashon of beauty, like we find in Yeshayah (4) " ... for beauty and for glory". And since they were in full beauty, they were also fully-developed in body and un mind, eauty only comes when something is fully grown.

åòåã éù ìåîø ã'÷åîúï' ðôé÷ îìùåï äöáä.

(b)

Explanation #2: One can also explain that "Komasan" is a derivative of 'Hatzavah' (though it is unclear what Tosfos means by that).

3)

TOSFOS DH PASUK ZEH SAR HA'OLAM AMRO

úåñôåú ã"ä ôñå÷ æä ùø äòåìí àîøå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos reconciles our Gemara, which seems to hold that Chanoch, alias Matatron was the Sar ha'Olam, with the Gemara in Yevamos, which implies otherwise.)

ìôé îä ùîôøùéï ãçðåê æä îèèøåï, ëîå ùéñã äôééè 'ú÷éó îèèøåï ùø äðäôê ìàù îáùø', åàåîø ãäåà ùø äòåìí, ëîå ùéñã äôééè 'ùø äîùøú 'ðòø' ð÷øà, äåà îèèøåï äðëáã åäðåøà.

(a)

Introduction to Question (Part 1): According to what the commentaries say that Chanoch was Matatron, as the Paytan wrote 'The mighty Angel Matatron turned into fire from flesh'. And they describe him further as the 'Sar ha'Olam', as the Paytan wrote 'The administering Angel who is called 'Na'ar' is the honored and awesome Matatron'.

åàîøéðï áôø÷ ÷îà ãéáîåú (ãó èæ: åùí) ' "ðòø äééúé âí æ÷ðúé åìà øàéúé ... " - ôñå÷ æä ùø äòåìí àîøå'.

(b)

Introduction to Question (Part 2): ... and the Gemara states in the first Perek of Yevamos (Daf 16b & 17a) that the Pasuk "Na'ar Hayisi ve'Gam Zakanti ... " was said by the 'Sar ha'Olam'.

÷ùä îëàï, ãîùîò ãùø äòåìí äéä áùùú éîé áøàùéú?

(c)

Question: There is a Kashya on that from here, where it is implied in the Gemara that the 'Sar ha'Olam' existed already during the six days of the creation?

åùîà àâãåú äí ùçìå÷åú æå òì æå; åîé ùñåáø ãîèèøåï äåà ùø äòåìí ìéú ìéä ãçðåê æä îèèøåï.

(d)

Answer #1: Perhaps they are conflicting Medrashim; The one that considers Matatron to be Sar ha'Olam does not hold that Chanoch was Matatron.

à"ð, îä ù÷øà äôééè ìîèèøåï 'ðòø', ìà áùáéì äôñå÷ ùì "ðòø äééúé", àìà ìôé ùëúåá áñôø éåñéôåï ãìîèèøåï éù ìå ùáò ùîåú, åçùéá 'ðòø'.

(e)

Answer #2 (Part 1): Alternatively, the Paytan calls Matatron 'Sar ha'Olam', not on account of the Pasuk "Na'ar Hayisi", but because of Seifer Yosifun, where it is written that Matatron had seven (some say seventy) names, one of which was 'Na'ar' ...

åâí îöéðå ã'ðòø' ùí îìàê äåà ëãëúéá (æëøéä á) "øåõ àì äðòø äìæ".

(f)

Answer #2 (Part 2): ... and we also find that 'Na'ar' is the name of an angel, as the Pasuk writes in Zecharyah (2) "Run to that Na'ar!").

4)

TOSFOS DH HIRKIV SH'NEI DESHA'IN ZEH AL GAV ZEH MAHU

úåñôåú ã"ä äøëéá ùðé ãùàéï æä òì âá æä îäå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the Kashya in various ways and elaborates.)

åàí úàîø, îúðéúéï äéà áîñëú ëìàéí áôø÷ ÷îà (îùðä æ) 'àéï ðåèòéï àéìï áàéìï åìà éø÷ áéø÷'

(a)

Question #1: It is an explicit Mishnah in the first Perek of Maseches Kil'ayim (Mishnah 7) 'One may not plant one tree in another or one vegetable in another'?

åòåã úðï (ùí îùðä ç) 'àéï ðåúðéï æøò ãìòú áúåê äçìîéú îôðé ùäåà éø÷ áéø÷'

(b)

Question #2: And the following Mishnah too, states 'One may not place a pumpkin seed inside a 'Chalamis' (a type of vegetable) because it is one vegetable inside another'?

åé"ì, ãîáòéà ìéä áçåöä ìàøõ, ãùøå ëìàé æøòéí åàñéøé äøëáú äàéìï, ëãàéúà áñåó ôø÷ ÷îà ã÷ãåùéï (ãó ìè.) ããøéù "ùãê", 'ìîòåèé ëìàé æøòéí ùáçåöä ìàøõ'.

(c)

Answer #1 (Part 1): The Gemara's She'eilah concerns Chutz la'Aretz, where K'lai Zera'im is permitted but grafting (in a tree) is prohibited, as we learned at the end of the first Perek of Kidushin (Daf 39a), where the Gemara Darshens "Sadcha" - to preclude K'lai Zera'im in Chutz la'Aretz ...

åäøëáú äàéìï àñåøä - îãëúéá (åé÷øà éè) "àú ... áäîúê ìà úøáéò ëìàéí, ùãê ìà úæøò ëìàéí" - îä áäîä áäøáòä, àó ùãê áäøëáä; åîä áäîä áéï áàøõ áéï áçåöä ìàøõ, àó ùãê áéï áàøõ áéï áçåöä ìàøõ.

(d)

Answer #1 (Part 2): ... whereas Harkavas ha'Ilan is forbidden, since the Torah writes in Vayikra (19) "es ... Behemt'cha Lo Sarbi'a Kil'ayim, Sad'ch Lo Sizra Kil'ayim" - 'Just as Beheimah refers to interbreeding, so too, does Sadeh; and just as Beheimah is forbidden both in Eretz Yisrael and in Chutz l'Aretz, so too, is Sadeh ...

åîáòéà ìéä àé çùéáà ìéä äøëáú æøòéí ëäøëáú àéìï îùåí ãëúéá áäï "ìîéðäå" áòùéä, àå ìà.

(e)

Answer #1 (Part 3): ... and the Gemara is now asking whether, since the Torah wrote "le'Miyneihu" by their creation, mixing seeds is compared to Harkavas ha'Ilan or not.

àé ðîé, àôéìå áàøõ îéáòéà ìéä - ìø' éàùéä ãàîø 'òã ùéæøò çèä åùòåøä åçøöï áîôåìú éã', ããéìîà îúðéúéï ãëìàéí ëøáðï.

(f)

Answer #2: Alternatively, the She'eilah pertains even in Eretz Yisrael - according to Rebbi Yashiyah, who states that (it is permitted) until one sows wheat barley and grape-seeds in one throw, in which case the Mishnah in Kil'ayim may well go like the Rabbanan.

àé ðîé, áùàø ëìàé æøòéí, åàìéáà ãøáðï àééøé äëà, ãàîø áä÷åîõ æåèà (îðçåú ãó èå:) '÷ðáåñ åìåó àñøä úåøä, ùàø æøòéí ìà'.

(g)

Answer #3: Alternatively, it is speaking here about K'lai Zera'im according to the Rabbanan, who say in ha'Kometz Zuta (Menachos 15b) that 'The Torah forbids Canvas and Luf (a species of bean plant), but not other kinds of seeds.

àé ðîé, ìáðé ðç ÷îéáòéà ìéä - ãùøå áëìàé æøòéí, åàñéøé áäøëáú äàéìï, ëãàéúà ôø÷ àøáò îéúåú (ñðäãøéï ñ.).

(h)

Answer #4 (Part 1): Another alternative is that the She'eilah goes according to the B'nei No'ach, to whom K'lai Zera'im is permitted, but Harkavas ha'Ilan is forbidden, as we have learned in Perek Arba Misos (Sanhedrin 60a)

åðô÷à ìï îãëúéá (ùí) "àú çå÷åúé úùîåøå" - 'çå÷éí ùç÷÷úé ìê ëáø, "áäîúê ìà úøáéò ëìàéí, ùãê ìà úæøò ëìàéí", åäééðå áäøëáä ãåîéà ãáäîä, 'åùç÷÷úé ìê ëáø' äééðå ìáðé ðç, ãëúéá áäå "ìîéðäå" áàéìðåú åááäîä ...

(i)

Answer #4 (Part 2): And we learn it from the Pasuk there "es Chukosai Tishmoru" - 'the statutes that I carved out for you already' "You shall not interbreed your animals Kil'ayim; you shall not sow your field Kil'ayim" ...

åäééðå áäøëáä ãåîéà ãáäîä, 'åùç÷÷úé ìê ëáø' äééðå ìáðé ðç, ãëúéá áäå "ìîéðäå" áàéìðåú åááäîä ...

(j)

Answer #4 (Part 3): ... with reference to refers to grafting, similar to animals (as Tosfos explained earlier), and 'that I carved out for you already' refers to the B'nei No'ach, by whom the Torah writes "le'Miyneihu" with regard to both trees and animals.

ã"ìîéðäå" àéñåø ëìàéí îùîò, ëãîåëç áñåó ùåø ùðâç àú äôøä (á"÷ ðä.) ãáòé äúí 'äøáéò ùðé îéðéí ùáéí îäå? îé âîøé "ìîéðäå" "ìîéðäå" îéáùä àå ìà?

(k)

Answer #4 (Part 3): Since "le'Miyneihu" implies an Isur Kil'ayim, as is evident at the end of 'Shor she'Nagach es ha'Parah' (Bava Kama 55a) where the Gemara asks what the Din will be if one interbreeds two species of sea-creatures, whether we learn a Gezeirah-Shavah "le'Miyneihu" "le'Miyneihu" from the dry land or not.

åîáòéà ìï àé äåé äøëáú éø÷ áéø÷ ëîå äøëáú àéìï áàéìï, åäåé áëìì "ùãê".

(l)

Answer #4 (Part 4): The question now is whether Harkavas Yerek is considered like Harkavas Ilan, in which case it is included in "Sadcha"...

åàò"â ãëúéá "ìîéðäå", àéöèøéê "àú çå÷åúé" - 'ùç÷÷úé ìê ëáø'.

(m)

Implied Question (Part 1): ... and even though the Torah wrote "le'Miyneihu", it nevertheless needs to write "es Chukosai", 'she'Chakakti l'ch K'var' ...

ãìà äåä éãòéðï ã"ìîéðäå" àúà ìàéñåø ëìàéí, àé ìà ëúéá "çå÷åúé".

(n)

Answer: ... because had it not done so, we would not have known that "le'Miyneihu" refers to the Isur of Kil'ayim

åàé ìà "ìîéðäå", î"àú çå÷åúé" ìçåã ìà äåä ðô÷à ìï ...

(o)

Implied Question (Part 2): And had it not written le'Mineihu", we would not have known it from "es Chukosai" alone either ...

ãä"à "çå÷åúé" - 'ùç÷÷úé ìê ëáø - áîøä'.

(p)

Answer: ... since we would have explained "Chukosai", 'she'Chakakti L'cha K'var' - with reference to (the Mitzvos taught at) Marah.

åà"ú, äà ôøéê äúí 'àìà îòúä, "åùîøúí àú çå÷åúé" îàé çå÷åú ùç÷÷úé ìê ëáø àéëà'?

(q)

Question (Part 1): The Gemara asks there 'But in that case, when the Torah writes "u'Shemartem es Chukosai", which 'Chukos that I carved out for you' can it possibly be referring to?'

åîàé ÷ùéà, äà ìà îå÷îéðï äàé à'áðé ðç àìà îùåí ãàùëçï ðîé ãëúéá "ìîéðäå" áîòùä áøàùéú?

(r)

Question (Part 2): What is the Kashya? We only establish "es Chukosai" by the B'nei No'ach because the Torah also writes "le'Miyneihu" at the Creation (as we just explained)?

åé"ì, ãî"î ôøéê ùôéø, ãëé äéëé ãäàé ìà ÷àé à'áðé ðç, äàé ðîé ìà ÷àé à'áðé ðç?

(s)

Answer (Part 1): Nevertheles the Gemara's Kashya is justified, since just as the one refers to B'nei No'ach, so ought the other.

åîùðé, ãäúí ëúéá "çå÷åúé" áúø "åùîøúí", àáì äëà ëúéá "çå÷åúé" ÷åãí "úùîøå".

(t)

Answer (Part 1): ... to which the Gemara answers that, whereas there (in the latter case), the Torah writes "Chukosai" after "u'Shemartem", here (in the former case), it writes "Chukosai" before "Tishm'ru".

60b----------------------------------------60b

5)

TOSFOS DH AMRAH YERACH

úåñôåú ã"ä àîøä éøç

(SUMMARY: Tosfos comments that whereas the Chachamim consider "Yare'ach" a feminine word, the Torah considers it masculine.)

áìùåï úåøä ìùåï æëø äåà, ãëúéá (éäåùò é ôé"â) "åéøç òîã".

(a)

Observation: In the Torah-language, "Yare'ach" is masculine, as the Torah writes in Yehoshua (Perek 10:13) "ve'Yare'ach Amad".

6)

TOSFOS DH V'CHI MOSHE KENIGI HAYAH O B'LISTRI HAYAH

úåñôåú ã"ä åëé îùä ÷ðéâé äéä àå áìéñèøé äéä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara assumes that.)

ùäéä éåãò ìäëéø äùñåòä.

(a)

Explanation: This is because he recognized the Shesu'ah.

åà"ú, åäà àîøéðï áäîôìú (ðãä ëã.) ã'ùñåòä áàä îáäîä èäåøä', åìéëà îàï ãôìéâ.

(b)

Question (Part 1): The Gemara says in 'ha'Mapeles (Nidah 24a) that the Shesu'ah comes from a Kasher animal, and nobody argues with that ...

åàí ëï, éëåì ìäéåú ùáäîä èäåøä äéä ìå ìîùä åéìãä ìå ùñåòä; åìà àöèøéê ìîäåé ÷ðéâé?

(c)

Question (Part 2): ... that being the case, it may well be that Moshe had a Kasher animal, which bore him a Shesu'ah; in which case it is no longer necessary to say that Moshe was a K'nigni (an animal hunter)?

åé"ì, ãùîà ùñåòä àéðä áàä àìà îáäîä ùàéðä îöåéä áéðéðå.

(d)

Answer: Perhaps a Shesu'ah came from an animal that is not found among us.

7)

TOSFOS DH AVIM MI'TEIMAN BA'U ETC.

úåñôåú ã"ä òåéí îúéîï áàå ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains exactly what Rav is coming to teach us.)

á' î÷øàåú ñîåëéï äí áñôø éäåùò (éâ). åäëé ëúéá "çîùú ñøðé ôìùúéí, äòæúé åäàùãåãé äàù÷ìåðé äâúé åäò÷øåðé åäòåéí"; åäãø ëúéá "îúéîï ëì àøõ äëðòðé, åîòøä àùø ìöéãåðéí òã àô÷ä òã âáåì äàîåøé".

(a)

Clarification (Part 1): There are two consecutive Pesukim in Seifer Yehoshu'a (13) Firstly - "The five princes of the P'lishtim, the Azasi, the Ashdodi, the Ashk'loni, the Gitti the Ekroni and the Avim" and then it writes "From the south, all the land of the Cana'ani, Me'arah that belongs to the Tzidonim to Afeikah until the border of the Emori".

åäùúà îôøùä øá - "åäòåéí" ãëúéá áñåó ÷øà ÷îà ÷àé à"úéîï" ãáøàù ÷øà ãáúøéä.

(b)

Clarification (Part 2): Rav now explains that the word "ve'ha'Avim" that is written at the end of the first Pasuk actually refers to the word "Teiman", the first word in the following Pasuk.