1) TOSFOS DH keshe'Hu Omer Mezuzaos b'Parshah Sheniyah...
úåñôåú ã"ä ëùäåà àåîø îæåæåú áôøùä ùðéä...
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses whether or not we may infer that Mezuzos is written full.)
îùîò ÷öú ãëúéáé îæåæåú îìà áá' ååé''ï åìà îæåæú çñø
(a) Inference: Mezuzos is written full, with two Vovim, and not Chaser, like Mezuzas.
ãäà øáé éùîòàì àéú ìéä éù àí ìîñåøú áøéù ñðäãøéï (ãó ã:) âáé ìèèôú
1. Source: R. Yishmael holds that Yesh Em l'Mesores (we expound primarily based on how the word is written) in Sanhedrin (4b) regarding l'Totafos.
åîéäå àéï øàéä îæä ãä''ð àùëçï ø''ò ãàéú ìéä éù àí ìî÷øà áääéà ãìèèôú åáôø÷ ëì ùòä (ôñçéí ãó ìå.) àéú ìéä éù àí ìîñåøú
(b) Rebuttal: There is no proof from here, for we find also that R. Akiva holds that Yesh Em l'Mikra in that Sugya of l'Totafos, and in Pesachim (36a) he holds that Yesh Em l'Mesores!
2) TOSFOS DH Ne'emar Kan Kesivah v'Ne'emar Lehalan Kesivah
úåñôåú ã"ä ðàîø ëàï ëúéáä åðàîø ìäìï ëúéáä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses which Sefer we learn from.)
åôéøù á÷åðèøñ âáé âè ãëúéá åëúá ìä ñôø ëøéúåú
(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi): (We learn from a Get.) Regarding a Get it is written "v'Kasav Lah Sefer Kerisus."
å÷ùéà ãäà úðï (âéèéï ãó éè.) òì òìä ùì æéú åòì ÷øï ùì ôøä ëåúáéï åã÷àîø ñôø ìñôéøú ãáøéí
(b) Question: A Mishnah (19a) teaches that we may write [a Get] on an olive leaf or a cow's horn, and it says Sefer to teach about Sefiras Devarim (the Get relates that Ploni came and said to his wife...- Gitin 21b. This shows that we do not need a Sefer!)
åðøàä ìôøù ããøéù îëúéáä ãôøùú ñåèä àå îëúéáä ãîùðä úåøä ùäîìê ëåúá ãëúéá (ãáøéí éæ) åëúá ìå àú îùðä äúåøä äæàú òì ñôø åäééðå ðåäâ ìãåøåú
(c) Explanations #2,3: He expounds from Kesivah of Parshas Sotah, or Kesivah of Mishneh Torah that the king writes, for it says "v'Kasav Lo Es Mishneh ha'Torah ha'Zos Al Sefer." These apply to all generations.
åàí úàîø àãøáä ðéìó îâè
(d) Question: We should rather learn from Get!
åé''ì ãîæåæä åñ''ú çåáú ãåøåú åîöåú. î''ø
(e) Answer: [It is better to Mezuzah and Sefer Torah from each other, for] Mezuzah and Sefer Torah are obligations for all generations, and they are Mitzvos. This is from my Rebbi. (Acharonim - this is like Tosfos wrote in Zevachim 2b (DH Stam), that there is never a Mitzvah to divorce one's wife. Even if she is forbidden to him due to Zenus, it suffices to separate from her.)
3) TOSFOS DH k'Mah she'Ne'emar Lehalan v'Chulei
úåñôåú ã"ä ëîä ùðàîø ìäìï ëå'
(SUMMARY: Tosfos rejects Rashi' Perush.)
ôéøù á÷åðèøñ ëìåîø åöøéëä ìéëúá áãéå áéï îæåæä áéï âè ëîä ùðàîø ìäìï
(a) Explanation (Rashi): I.e. one must write with ink regarding both Mezuzah and Get, like it says there (what Baruch wrote).
åúéîä âãåìä ôéøåùå ãäà îëùéøéï âè áñé÷øà åáñí (âéèéï ãó éè.). î''ø
(b) Question: His Perush is very astounding, for we are Machshir for a Get with yellow dye and red lead (Gitin 19a)! This is from my Rebbi. (Chidushei Basra - Rashi does not mean specifically ink. Rather, he says ink to exclude engraving into stone.)
4) TOSFOS DH u'Chsavtam Amar Kra Kesivah Tamah v'Hadar Al Mezuzos
úåñôåú ã"ä åëúáúí àîø ÷øà ëúéáä úîä åäãø òì îæåæåú
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why this Drashah is needed.)
öøéê äåà ìãøùä ãëúéáä úîä ãìà îöéðå ìîéîø àîø ÷øà åëúáúí åäãø òì îæåæåú
(a) Implied question: Why does he need the Drashah of Kesivah Tamah? We can say that the Torah said u'Chsavtam, and afterwards Al Mezuzos!
ãä''ð ëúéáä ãäúí åëúáú òì äàáðéí åìà àîøéðï åëúáú åäãø òì äàáðéí
(b) Rejection: Likewise it is written there "v'Kasavta Al ha'Avanim", and we do not say "you will write [the Torah]... and later [affix it] on the rocks"!
àìà îëúéáä úîä ãøéù ëãôéøù ä÷åðèø' ãëúéáä úîä ìà ùééëà òì äàáðéí ìôé ùàéðä îú÷ééîú. î''ø:
(c) Answer: Rather, he expounds from Kesivah Tamah, like Rashi explained. Kesivah Tamah does not apply to rocks, for it does not last. This is from my Rebbi.
34b----------------------------------------34b
5) TOSFOS DH l'Totafos l'Totafos l'Totafos
úåñôåú ã"ä ìèèôú ìèèôú ìèåèôú
(SUMMARY: Tosfos questions how we expound two from one of these.)
áùîò åäéä àí ùîåò ëúéá ìèèôú áåäéä ëé éáéàê ëúéá åìèåèôú áñôøéí îãåé÷éí àáì áéï ô''à ìúé''å ìà ëúéá åé''å
(a) Explanation: In "v'Hayah Im Shamo'a" it is written l'Totafos (Chaser, without any Vov), in "v'Hayah Ki Yevi'acha" it is written l'Totafos (with a Vov after the first Tes) in precise Seforim, but there is no Vov written between the Pei and the Sov.
åúéîä äéëé îùîò úøé
(b) Question: How does it connote two?
åàé äåä àîøéðï âåøòéï åîåñéôéï åãåøùéï ðéçà
1. Suggestion: If we would say that we detract and add and expound, this would be fine (we consider the Vov after the first Tes as if it were written between the Pei and the Sov, to denote plural).
àáì ìà àùëçï àìà áúçéìú úéáä åáñåó úéáä
2. Rejection: We find [that we detract and add and expound] only at the beginning of a word and at the end of a word!
áô' ùðé ãæáçéí (ãó ëä. åò''ù) âáé åì÷ç îãí äôø ããøùéðï ãí îäôø é÷áìðå
i. Source #1: [We find this] in Zevachim (25a) regarding "v'Lakach mi'Dam ha'Par." We expound that he receives Dam meha'Par (we move the Mem from the beginning of mi'Dam to the beginning of ha'Par).
åëï åðúúí àú ðçìúå ìùàøå ããøùéðï áôø÷ é''ð (á''á ãó ÷éà:) åðúúí ðçìú ùàøå ìå
ii. Source #2: Similarly, ["u'Nesatem Es Nachalaso li'Sh'eiro" (we take the Lamed from the beginning of li'Sh'eiro and the Vov at the end of Nachalaso, and expound) u'Nesatem Nachalas Sh'eiro Lo.
åîôøù ø''ú ãåé''å ÷îà ãåìèåèôú îå÷îéðï áñåó ëàéìå ëúéá ìèåèôåú
(c) Answer (R. Tam): We take the first Vov in ul'Totafos (the prefix) and establish it at the end, it is as if was written l'Totafos (full with two Vovim. Maharsha - even though Tosfos said that we do not we detract and add only at the beginning or end, since we detracted at the beginning, we may add in the middle);
ëãàùëçï áô' äæäá (á''î ãó ðã:) ù÷ìéä ìåé''å ãåéñó ä''ì )çîéùéúå) [ö"ì çîéùéúéå - æøò éöç÷] åäùúà îå÷îéðï ìéä áàîöò úéáä åäåä ìéä (çîéùéåúå) [ö"ì çîéùéúéå - æøò éöç÷] åîå÷îéðï ìéä áî÷åí éå''ã áàîöò úéáä
1. Source: We find like this in Bava Metzi'a (54b). "Take the Vov of va'Yasaf and it is Chamishisav." Now, we establish [the Vov] in the middle of a word, and it becomes Chamishisav (to teach that sometimes one adds several Chomeshim to Ma'aser). We establish it in place of (i.e. as if it were) a Yud in the middle of a word.
å÷' ìôé' ãôøéê áúø äëé à''ä âáé ä÷ãù ðîé ãëúá åéñó çîéùéú ëå' åîùðé ãëé ù÷ìú ìåé''å ãåéñó ä''ì çîéùéúå
(d) Question: It asks after this "if so, also regarding Hekdesh, that it is written va'Yasaf Chamishis..." and answers that if you take the Vov of va'Yasaf, it becomes Chamishiso (its Chomesh, i.e. singular);
åäùúà ìå÷îéä áàîöò úéáä ãìéäåé çîéùéåú
1. Now (according to R. Tam) we can establish it in the middle of a word, so it can become Chamishiyos!
äéìëê ðøàä ãáùåí ôòí ìà îå÷îéðï ìéä àìà áñåó úéáä ëëì äðé ùäáàúé. î''ø
(e) Conclusion: Therefore it seems that always we establish it only at the end of a word, like all those that I brought. This is from my Rebbi. (Tosfos did not answer his question. In Zevachim (37b DH Gor'in, Tosfos said in the name of R. Tam that we remove and add only at the beginning or at the end of a word, like we find regarding "v'Chamishiso". It seems that he holds that we can add it at the end, so the word ends with two Vovim, and we read it v'Chamishisav. - PF)
6) TOSFOS DH l'Totafos
úåñôåú ã"ä ìèåèôú
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the source of this and other words.)
ðøàä (ãìùåï èåèôú äåà) [ö"ì ãèåèôú äåà ìùåï úëùéè òì] äøàù àöì äîöç ëîå èåèôú åñøáéèéí ãôø÷ áîä àùä (ùáú ã' ðæ.) ãäééðå ëìéìà ùî÷ôú ëì äîöç
(a) Explanation #1: It seems that l'Totafos is an expression of an ornament on the head, by the forehead, like Totefes and Sarbitim (head ornaments) in Shabbos (57a), which is Kalila, which surrounds the entire forehead.
à''ð ð÷øàå èåèôåú òì ùí ùäí áøàù áéï äòéðéí ìùåï äáèä ëîå (îâéìä ãó éã:) ùôéì åàæéì áø àååæà åòéðåäé îèééôéï
(b) Explanation #2: They are called Totafos because they are on the head between the eyes. It is an expression of looking, like "a goose walks lowly, but its eyes are Metaifin (look far ahead)."
åëï öéõ ìùåï äáèä òì ùí ùäåà ìîòìä îáéï ùúé øéñé òéðéå
1. Similarly Tzitz is an expression of looking, for it is above [on the Kohen Gadol's forehead], between the two eyelashes;
åúôéìéï ðøàä ìùåï åéëåç ëîå (ñðäãøéï ãó îã.) åéôìì ùòùä ôìéìåú òí ÷åðå òì ùí ùäí òãåú åäåëçä ùäùí ð÷øà òìéå åéøàéí îîðå
(c) Explanation: It seems that Tefilin is an expression of argument, like "va'Yfalel" - [Pinchas] made accusations with his Maker. [Tefilin are called so] because they are a testimony and proof that [Hash-m's] name is called on him, and [those who see him] fear Him;
(ëâåï) [ö"ì ëîå - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ãàîøéðï ì÷îï (ãó ìä:) åøàå ëì òîé äàøõ ëé ùí ä' ð÷øà òìéê åâå' àìå úôéìéï ùáøàù. î''ø
1. This is like we say below (35b) "v'Ra'u Kol Amei ha'Aretz Ki Shem Hash-m Nikra Alecha..." - these are the head Tefilin. This is from my Rebbi.
7) TOSFOS DH Tat b'Katfei Shetayim
úåñôåú ã"ä èè áëúôé ùúéí
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we do not learn from each occurrence of this word.)
ìäàé úðà ìà àîøéðï ãìéáòé é''á áúéí
(a) Implied question: Why doesn't this Tana require 12 Batim (since it says l'Totafos three times, and each alludes to four)?
ãîñúáø ìéä ùëúåá äëì (áôñå÷ àçã) [ö"ì áúéáä àçú - öàï ÷ãùéí]
(b) Answer #1: He holds that presumably, [the total number] is written in one word.
[ö"ì àé ðîé - öàï ÷ãùéí] ãìà àùëçï áúåøä )ùìà äåæëøå( [ö"ì ùäåæëøå - ùéèä î÷åáöú, öàï ÷ãùéí] úôéìéï àìà áã' ôøùéåú
(c) Answer #2: We find Tefilin mentioned in the Torah only in four Parshiyos.
éù âåøñéï èåè åîôøùéï ëé äàé ãàîøéðï áîå''÷ (ãó èæ.) èåè àñø èåè ùøé âáé ùîúà äééðå ùðé ú''ç àåñøéï åá' àçøéí éëåìéï ìäúéø
(d) Alternative text: Some have the text "Tut", and explain like it says in Mo'ed Katan (16a) Tut forbids and Tut permits, regarding Niduy. I.e. two Chachamim forbid, and two others can permit.
åàéï ðøàä ãúøé ìàå á''ã ðéðäå àìà áú÷éòú ùåôø àééøé ëãàîø äúí áàøáòä îàä ùéôåøé ùîúéä áø÷ ìîøåæ àôé÷ ùéôåøà åùîúéä. î''ø
(e) Rebuttal: This is wrong. Two are not a Beis Din! Rather, it refers to blowing the Shofar, like it says there, that with 400 Shofaros Barak excommunicated Meruz "he took out a Shofar and excommunicated him."
8) TOSFOS DH v'Shavin she'Nosen Chut Oh Meshichah Bein Kol Achas
úåñôåú ã"ä åùåéï ùðåúï çåè àå îùéçä áéï ëì àçú
(SUMMARY: Tosfos brings two opinions about when one may do so.)
äééðå ãå÷à áëúåáåú áòåø àçã àáì áã' òåøåú ìà
(a) Opinion #1: This is only when they are written on one hide, but on four parchments, no.
åéù ðåäâéï àôé' áã' òåøåú. î''ø
(b) Opinion #2: Some have the custom to do so even on four parchments. This is from my Rebbi.
9) TOSFOS DH veha'Korei Korei k'Sidran
úåñôåú ã"ä åä÷åøà ÷åøà ëñãøï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses two opinions about the order.)
ôéøù á÷åðèøñ ëñãø ùäï ëúåáéï áúåøä îå÷ãí îå÷ãí îàåçø îàåçø
(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi): [He reads] like the order in which they are written in the Torah - the first first, and the last last.
äéìëê äà ã÷úðé ìòéì ÷ãù åäéä ëé éáéàê îéîéï îéîéðå ùì ÷åøà ÷àîø åäùúà ëùäåà ÷åøà ëãøëå îéîéðå ìùîàìå ðîöà ÷åøà ÷åøà ëñéãøï
(b) Consequence: Therefore, what was taught above [that the order from the right] is "Kadesh Li" and "v'Hayah Ki Yevi'acha", this is from the right of the reader (the perspective of someone facing the wearer). Now, when he reads normally from right to left, it turns out that he reads them in order.
å÷ùä ìø''ú ãàîàé ôìâéðäå ù÷åøà (ùúéäï äøàùåðåú îéîéï åëì) [ö"ì ùúéí äøàùåðåú îéîéï åùúéí - öàï ÷ãùéí] äàçøåðåú îùîàì
(c) Question (R. Tam): Why did [the Tana] divide them, that he reads the first two from the right, and the last two from the left?
äéä ìå ìåîø øàùåðä îéîéï åëì àçøåú îùîàì àå àéôëà ãâ' øàùåðåú îéîéï åøáéòéú îùîàì ëîå âáé ðø îòøáé ãôø÷ ùúé äìçí (ì÷îï ãó öç:)
1. He should have said the first from the right, and all the others from the left, or oppositely, the first three from the right, and the fourth from the left, like regarding the Ner Ma'aravi below (98b)!
ãéìéó ãðøåú ùì îðåøä îæøç åîòøá îåðçéí îãëúéá áðø îòøáé ìôðé ä' îëìì ãëåìäå ìàå ìôðé ä'
2. [The Gemara] learns that the Neros of the Menorah were aligned east and west, since it is written about the Ner Ma'aravi Lifnei Hash-m. This implies that all [the others] are not Lifnei Hash-m!
åìà àîøéðï çöé äðøåú ìôðé ä' åçöé äàçø ìàå ìôðé ä'
i. Observation: We do not say that half the Neros are Lifnei Hash-m, and the other half are not Lifnei Hash-m!
åîôøù ø''ú ÷ãù åäéä ëé éáéàê îéîéï ùì ÷åøà åîùîàì ùì ÷åøà äåé ùîò îáçåõ åàçøéä åäéä àí ùîåò îáôðéí
(d) Explanation #2 (R. Tam): "Kadesh" and "v'Hayah Ki Yevi'acha" are to the right of the reader, and from the left of the reader are "Shma" outside, and after it "v'Hayah Im Shamo'a" inside.
åðéçà äùúà îä ùçì÷å
(e) Support #1: Now it is fine that they were divided (into two groups of two).
åëï ôéøù øáéðå çððàì áñðäãøéï (ãó ôè.) ëì áéú äçéöåï ùàéðå øåàä àú äàåéø ôñåì ëâåï ÷ãù åùîò
(f) Support #2: Also R. Chananel explained in Sanhedrin (89b) "any outer box that does not see air is Pasul", e.g. "Kadesh" and "Shma".
åëï øá äàé âàåï åäéä îðéç ñéîï äåéåú ìäããé ôé' åäéä ëé éáéàê åäéä àí ùîåò ôðéîéåú æå àöì æå åëï áúùåáú äâàåðéí ùëúá ä''ø éåñó èåá òìí
(g) Support #3: Also Rav Hai Gaon [holds like this]. He gave a Siman - the Havayos ("v'Hayah Ki Yevi'acha" and "v'Hayah Im Shamo'a") are together are inside, one next to the other. Also a Teshuvah of Ge'onim that R. Yom Tov Elem wrote says so.
åäàé ã÷àîø ä÷åøà ÷åøà ëñãøï ìàå ëîå ùôéøù á÷åðèøñ ëñãø ùëúåáåú áúåøä
(h) Implied question: It says that one who reads, he reads in order - this is like Rashi explained, like the order in which they are written in the Torah!
àìà îôøù ø''ú ãäåà ñéåí äáøééúà ãëéöã ñãøï å÷àîø ù÷åøà ëñãø ùîåðçéï áúôéìéï îéîéðå ìùîàìå ãäééðå ÷ãù åäéä ëé éáéàê åäéä àí ùîåò ùîò
(i) Answer: No. R. Tam explained that it is the conclusion of the Beraisa of how they are ordered. It says that he reads like the order in which they are placed in Tefilin from right to left, i.e. "Kadesh" "v'Hayah Ki Yevi'acha", "v'Hayah Im Shamo'a", "Shma".
åàôéìå ìà éäà îï áøééúà àéï ÷ùä ëìåí
1. And even if it is not from the Beraisa, it is not difficult at all.
åáîëéìúà îùîò ëôéøåù ä÷åðèøñ áôøùú åäéä ëé éáéàê ã÷úðé äúí áã' î÷åîåú îæëéø ôøùú úôéìéï ÷ãù åäéä ëé éáéàê ùîò åäéä àí ùîåò îëàï àîøå îöåú úôéìéï àøáò ôøùéåú ëå'
(j) Support #1 (for Explanation #1): The Mechilta in Parshas v'Hayah Ki Yevi'acha connotes like Rashi explained. It teaches there that Parshas Tefilin is mentioned in four places - Kadesh, v'Hayah Ki Yevi'acha, Shma and v'Hayah Im Shamo'a. From here [Chachamim] said that the Mitzvah of Tefilin is four Parshiyos...
åäãø ÷úðé ëåúáï ëñãøï åàí ëúáï ùìà ëñéãøï éâðæå îùîò ëñãø ùùðàï áøéùà
1. Later it teaches that he writes them in order. If he wrote them out of order, he puts them in Genizah. This connotes the order taught in the Reisha!
åéù ìãçåú ãáëúéáú äñåôø ÷àîø àáì àéï ÷åáòéï áúôéìéï ëñãø æä
(k) Rebuttal: It discusses the scribe's writing. However, one does not fix them in Tefilin in this order.
åàéï ðøàä ëìì
(l) Rejection (of Rebuttal): This does not seem correct at all.
åáùéîåùà øáà úé÷åï äúôéìéï îùîò ëôéøåù ä÷åðèøñ åæ''ì åîùåé ôøùúà ã÷ãù îéîéï ááéúà ÷îà åôøùúà ãáñîåê ìéä ááéúà úðééðà åäéä ëé éáéàê åôøùúà ãùîò áùìéùéú åôøùä ãåäéä àí ùîåò áøáéòéú. î''ø:
(m) Support #2 (for Explanation #1): Shimusha Raba (Hilchos Tefilin) connotes like Rashi explained. It says that Parshas Kadesh is on the right in the first box. Next to it in the second box is v'Hayah Ki Yevi'acha. Parshas Shma is in the third, and Parshas v'Hayah Im Shamo'a is in the fourth. This is from my Rebbi.