1) TOSFOS DH Kotzrin Beis ha'Shelachin
úåñôåú ã"ä ÷åöøéï áéú äùìçéï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explained this above.)
ôéøùúé ìòéì:
(a) Reference: I explained this above (68a DH Kotzrin).
2) TOSFOS DH Markivin Dekalim Kol ha'Yom
úåñôåú ã"ä îøëéáéï ã÷ìéí ëì äéåí
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses what they grafted, and why.)
áôø÷ î÷åí ùðäâå (ôñçéí ãó ðå.) îôøù ãîðçé ëåôøà ãéëøà áâå ð÷åáúà
(a) Explanation #1: In Pesachim (56a) it explains that they would graft male branches onto female trees. (Rashi explained that males do not produce fruits.)
åúéîä ãäúí ìòéì (ãó ðâ.) àîøéðï âáé øáé àéìòé ÷õ ëôðééúà áùáéòéú áãðéñçðé ÷õ åôéøù á÷åðèøñ ùí ã÷ìéí æëøéí ùàéï ðåùàéï ôéøåú
(b) Question: Above there (53a) we say that R. Ilai cut Kafniyos in Shemitah, i.e. Nischani, and Rashi explained there [that these are] male date trees that do not produce fruits!
ìëê ðøàä àéôëà ãðéñçðé äí äð÷áåú àáì äæëøéí òåùéí ôéøåú
(c) Explanation #2: It seems oppositely, that Nischani are females, but males produce fruits!
åáòøåê ôé' áòøê ðéñçï ãðéñçðé äí äúîøéí ÷èðéí ùá÷èðåúï äí îúå÷éï åëùâãéìéï ðòùéï îøéí ëòéï ù÷ãéí îøéí ãñåó ô''÷ ãçåìéï (ãó ëä:) åìëê îåúø ì÷åööï ôï éåôñãå
(d) Explanation #3: The Aruch, Erech Nischan, says that Nischani are small dates. When they are small they are sweet, and when they get big they are bitter, like bitter almonds, in Chulin (25b). Therefore, it is permitted to cut them, lest there be a loss;
åîøëéáéï ã÷ìéí ôé' áòøåê ùäí ã÷ìéí ð÷áåú ùîúàåéí ìæëø åîùéø ôéøåúéå òã ùîáéàéï æëø åëåøëéï áå åîùúîøéï ôéøåúéå
1. The Aruch explained that "they graft date trees", i.e. female date trees that desire a male, and they cast down their Peros until they bring a male and wrap it around it, and its Peros are guarded.
åùîà ãå÷à ã÷ìéí ãðåçéí ìéàáã éåúø ãàîø áîãøù îä úîø æå éù ìä úàåä àó éùøàì éù ìäí úàåä ìòùåú øöåï àáéäí ùáùîéí
(e) Suggestion: Perhaps only date trees, which are easier to lose, for it says in the Midrash "just like a date tree has desire, also Yisrael have desire to do the will of their Father in Shamayim";
åàîø (áã÷ì éøéçå îòùä áàçã ùøàä ã÷ì àçã àîø) [ö"ì îòùä áã÷ìé àçã ùøàä ã÷ì àçã ùìà äéä òåùä ôéøåú åàîø - éùø åèåá] ìäí ìã÷ìéí ùáéøéçå îúàåä åäáéà ééçåø îã÷ì àçã îéøéçå åäøëéá áå åèòï ôéøåú ëáúçéìä
1. And it recounts an episode with a date tree specialist who saw a date tree that did not bear fruits, and he told them "it desires date trees of Yericho", and they brought a branch from a date tree of Yericho and grafted it onto it, and it bore fruits like initially.
3) TOSFOS DH v'Korchin Es Shema
úåñôåú ã"ä åëåøëéï àú ùîò
(SUMMARY: Tosfos brings opinions about where they neglected to pause.)
áôø÷ î÷åí ùðäâå (ôñçéí ðå.) îôøù äéëé òáãé àîø øá éäåãä àîø ùîåàì åìà äéå îôñé÷éí
(a) Citation: In Pesachim (56a) it explains how they were Korech Shma. Rav Yehudah said in the name of Shmuel that they did not pause.
åðøàä ìôøù ãìà äéå îôñé÷éï áéï éùøàì ìùí ùìà éäà ðøàä ëàåîø ìéùøàì ùéùîò àú äùí åôùèéä ã÷øà äééðå ùîò éùøàì ëé ä' àìäéðå ä' àçã
(b) Explanation: It seems that they did not pause between "Yisrael" and "Hash-m." [One should pause,] lest it seem that he says that Yisrael should hear Hash-m. The simple meaning is that Yisrael should hear that Hash-m our G-d, Hash-m is one.
åáéøåùìîé àîøéðï ùìà äéå îôñé÷éï áéï úéáä ìúéáä åéù îé ùàåîø ùìà äéå îôñé÷éï áéï àçã ìáøåê
(c) Citation: In the Yerushalmi we say that they did not pause between one word and another. And some say that they did not pause between "Echad" and "Baruch".
4) TOSFOS DH v'Kotzrin Lifnei ha'Omer
úåñôåú ã"ä å÷åöøéï ìôðé äòåîø
(SUMMARY: Tosfos rejects a text that adds that they made piles.)
éù ñôøéí ùëúåá áäï áãáøé øáé îàéø ÷åöøéï åâåãùéï åëï áúåñôúà åáùìà áøöåï çëîéí úðå (îëàï îòîåã á) åðåúðéï ôàä ìéø÷
(a) Alternative text: Some texts say in R. Meir's words "they reap and pile", and so it says in the Tosefta (our version of the Tosefta (Pesachim 3:16) does not say so), and it teaches that they gave Pe'ah for Yerek (vegetables) without Chachamim's desire.
71b----------------------------------------71b
åìà éúëï ëìì çãà îãìà ôøéê òìä ùùä ùáòä äåå
(b) Rebuttal #1: This cannot be at all! Firstly, the Gemara does not ask "[why was it taught] six [matters]? There were seven!"
åòåã ëé ãéé÷ îàï ùîòú ìéä ãàîø îéçå åìà îéçå äåä ìéä ìîéã÷ îàï ùîòú ìéä ãàîø âåãùéï ìôðé äòåîø ùìà áøöåï çëîéí øáé éäåãä
(c) Rebuttal #2: When [the Gemara] is meticulous "whom do we know that he holds that [about some matters] they protested, and [about some] they did not protest?", it should have asked "whom do we know that he holds that they made piles before the Omer, and Chachamim disapproved? It is R. Yehudah"!
5) TOSFOS DH u'Matirin Gamziyos Shel Hekdesh
úåñôåú ã"ä åîúéøéï âîæéåú ùì ä÷ãù
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why they could not redeem them for a Perutah.)
åà''ú åéçììå ùåä îðä òì ùåä ôøåèä ãáæîï äæä ùøé àôéìå ìëúçéìä ëãîåëç áñåó äî÷ãéù ùãäå (òøëéï ãó ëè.)
(a) Implied question: They should redeem [them, for one can redeem even] the value of 10,000 Zuz on Shaveh Perutah, for nowadays it is permitted even l'Chatchilah, like is proven in Erchin (29a)!
åé''ì ãàñøåí á÷åðí
(b) Answer #1: They forbade them through Konam (a vow. Acharonim ask that one cannot redeem a Konam Klali (it forbids to everyone). The case of a bathhouse that Tosfos brings below connotes that it was Klali! Chazon Ish (Me'ilah 38:4) - one cannot redeem Konam for less than its value (or perhaps at all) against the owner's will.)
åëï éù ìôøù îñåúà ãùðéí àåçæéï (á''î ãó å:)
(c) Support: So we can explain the bathhouse in Bava Metzi'a (6b. Two people were fighting about it. One of them was Makdish it, and all the Chachamim stopped using it. They did not redeem it for a Perutah.)
àé ðîé ãå÷à áòìéí äåà ãéëåì ìôãåú ùåä îðä òì ùåä ôøåèä ãàéï ñáøà ùéåëì ëì àçã ìôãåú ä÷ãù çáéøå ùåä îðä òì ùåä ôøåèä åé÷çðå ìòöîå
(d) Answer #2: The owner (who was Makdish) can redeem the value of 10,000 Zuz on Shaveh Perutah. It is unreasonable that anyone can redeem another's Hekdesh the value of 10,000 Zuz on Shaveh Perutah, and keep it for himself.
6) TOSFOS DH v'Nosnim Pe'ah l'Yerek u'Michu b'Yadam Chachamim
úåñôåú ã"ä åðåúðéï ôàä ìéø÷ åîéçå áéãí çëîéí
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why Chachamim objected.)
ìôé ùäéå îô÷éòéï äôàä îîòùø ëãôéøù á÷åðè'
(a) Explanation: [They objected] because they uprooted the Pe'ah from Ma'aser (Aniyim would not tithe it, and really, it was obligated), like Rashi explained.
åà''ú åäà ëéåï ãäåé äô÷ø. ôèåø îîä ðôùê
(b) Question: Since it is Hefker, in any case it is exempt [from Ma'aser]!
åé''ì ãäúðï (ôàä ô''å î''à) á''ä àåîøéí òã ùéäéä äô÷ø áéï ìòðééí áéï ìòùéøéí ëùîéèä
(c) Answer: In a Mishnah (Pe'ah 6:1), Beis Hillel say that [it is not Hefker,] unless it is Hefker for rich and poor, like Shemitah!
åàôé' ìá''ù ãàîøé äô÷ø ìòðééí äåé äô÷ø äëà äô÷ø áèòåú äåà
1. And even according to Beis Hillel, who says that Hefker for the poor is Hefker, here it is mistaken Hefker.
åôàä ãôèåø ìá''ä
(d) Implied question: According to Beis Hillel, why is Pe'ah exempt [from Ma'aser? It is not Hefker, for it is only for the poor!]
ëããøùéðï áñôøé åáà äìåé ëé àéï ìå çì÷ åðçìä òîê éöà æä ùéù ìå çì÷ åðçìä òîê
1. This is like we expound in the Sifri "u'Va ha'Levi Ki Ein Lo Chelek v'Nachalah Imach" - this excludes [Pe'ah], in which he has a portion with (rights to take it, like) you.
7) TOSFOS DH ha'Nachal veha'Shelulis
úåñôåú ã"ä äðçì åäùìåìéú
(SUMMARY: Tosfos brings from the Yerushalmi on this Mishnah.)
îùðä æå áîñëú ôàä ôø÷ ùðé åîôøù áéøåùìîé áâîøà ùìåìéú ëì ùäéà îåùëú ðçì àò''ô ùàéðå îåùê
(a) Reference: This Mishnah is in Pe'ah (2:1). The Gemara in the Yerushalmi explains that a Shelulis (pond, or irrigation ditch), as long as it flows [it interrupts]. A river [interrupts] even if it does not flow (e.g. it dried up).
åôøéê äúí îëéåï ãúðéðï ãøê äéçéã ãøê äøáéí îä öøéëà àúà ìîéîø ìê àôéìå ãøê äøáéí àéðå îôñé÷ ìàéìï àìà âãø
1. It asks there, since we learned Derech (a road) for individuals, why must it teach Derech ha'Rabim (that it interrupts? It answers) this teaches that even Derech ha'Rabim does not interrupt for trees, rather, a fence;
ôéøåù ã÷úðé áúø äê ááà äëì îôñé÷ ìæøòéí åàéðå îôñé÷ ìàéìï àìà âãø
2. Explanation: It teaches after this clause "everything interrupts for Zera'im, but only a fence interrupts for trees."
åäãø ôøéê îëéåï ãúðéðï ùáéì äøáéí (åùáéì) [ö"ì ùáéì - éùø åèåá] äéçéã îä öåøëä
3. Then it asks "since it was taught Shevil (a path) ha'Rabim, why must it teach Shevil ha'Yachid?"
åðøàä ãâøñéðï àéôëà ãæå àéðä ÷åùéà ãäà àéöèøéê ìàùîåòéðï ãàôéìå ùáéì äéçéã îôñé÷ àáì àéôëà ôøéê ùôéø ãëéåï ãúðà ùáéì äéçéã ùáéì äøáéí îä öøéëà
4. Correction: It seems that the text says oppositely, for [according to our text] this is not difficult. It needs to teach that even Shevil ha'Yachid interrupts! However, [if the text says] oppositely it is a proper question. Since he taught Shevil ha'Yachid, why must he teach Shevil ha'Rabim?
ãàé îùåí àéìï ãñéôà àôé' ãøê äøáéí ìà îôñé÷
i. If [you will say that] it is due to the Seifa, [to teach that even Shevil ha'Rabim does not interrupt] for trees, even Derech ha'Rabim does not interrupt [for trees]!
åîùðé ìäåöéà ä÷áåò áéîåú äçîä åàéðå ÷áåò áéîåú äâùîéí
5. It answers that this excludes [even Shevil ha'Rabim] that is Kavu'a in summer, but not in winter.
8) TOSFOS DH Derech ha'Rabim v'Derech ha'Yachid
úåñôåú ã"ä ãøê äøáéí åãøê äéçéã
(SUMMARY: Tosfos cites the minimal widths of different kinds of roads.)
áñåó äîåëø ôéøåú (á''á ÷:) úðéà ãøê äéçéã ã' àîåú ãøê äøáéí è''æ àîä ãøê îòéø ìòéø ùîðä àîåú ãøê òøé î÷ìè ùìùéí åùðéí àîåú
(a) Reference: In Bava Basra (100b) a Beraisa teaches that Derech ha'Yachid is four Amos. Derech ha'Rabim is 16 Amos. An intercity road is eight Amos. The road to an Ir Miklat is 32 Amos.
9) TOSFOS DH Ela Iy Amrat Idi v'Idi b'Hava'as Shelish v'Chulei
úåñôåú ã"ä àìà àé àîøú àéãé åàéãé áäáàú ùìéù ëå'
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we did not answer differently.)
åàí úàîø åìéîà îúðé' áäáàú ùìéù åáøééúà áúáåàä äòåîãú ìé÷öø
(a) Question: We should say that the Mishnah discusses when it grew a third, and the Beraisa discusses grain ready to be reaped!
åéù ìåîø ãäúí àôé' çøù ìà îäðé
(b) Answer #1: There (grain ready to be reaped), even plowing does not help. (The Griz did not understand this. Cutting of ants does not obligate Pe'ah, and does not make it a Sedei Nir (a field left fallow, which interrupts), since it is called a harvest, but plowing makes it like a Nir, for it ends the harvest [and even if the grain grew fully, it helps]! Chidushei Basra - when it was a third grown and ants cut it, it was ruined and it will not grow again. Plowing helps to start again, so it interrupts. If the grain is ready, plowing does nothing (it just makes it easier to reap), so it does not interrupt.)
à''ð àäà ìà äåä öøéê ìàùîåòéðï ãáòé çøù
(c) Answer #2: In such a case, it would not need to teach that plowing is needed.
à''ð àéï ìçì÷ áéï äáéà ùìéù ìòåîãú ìé÷öø
(d) Answer #3: We should not distinguish between a third grown and ready to harvest.
10) TOSFOS DH Eimur d'Sham'at Lei l'R. Yehudah li'Behemah l'Adam Mi Sham'at Lei
úåñôåú ã"ä àéîåø ãùîòú ìéä ìøáé éäåãä ìáäîä ìàãí îé ùîòú ìéä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves our Sugya with the Gemara in Pesachim.)
áôø÷ ëì ùòä (ôñçéí ãó ëâ.) âáé ìà úàëìå àçã àéñåø àëéìä åàçã àéñåø äðàä îùîò åôøéê åäøé çãù ãøçîðà àîø ìà úàëìå åúðï ÷åöø ìùçú åîàëéì ìáäîä
(a) Citation: In Pesachim (23a), regarding "Lo Sochelu" forbids eating and Hana'ah, [the Gemara] asks that regarding Chadash, the Torah says Lo Sochelu, and a Mishnah teaches that one may reap fodder and feed his animal!
åôé' ùí á÷åðèøñ ÷åöø ìùçú ìäàëéì ìàãí åîàëéì ìáäîä çèéï âîåøéï
1. Rashi explained there that he reaps fodder to feed people, and feeds finished wheat to animals. (Tosfos understands that Chadash applies only after a third growth. If the Mishnah teaches different Heterim for people and animals, surely the Heter for animals is even after a third growth.)
åä÷ùä ä''ø éò÷á ãàåøìééð''ù ãäëà îùîò áäãéà ãìáäîä àééøé åëåìä çãà îéìúà ÷úðé
(b) Question (Ri of Orlins): Here it connotes explicitly that it discusses for animals, and one matter was taught! (This is difficult for Rashi, and also the Gemara there. If it is all one matter, perhaps we permit only before a third growth!)
(åäà) [ö"ì åé"ì ãäà - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ããéé÷ äúí îäëà ãùøé àñéôà ñîéê ã÷àîø øáé éäåãä àéîúé áæîï ùäúçéì òã ùìà äáéà ùìéù àìîà ùøé àôéìå îùäáéàä ùìéù
(c) Answer: We can say that there we infer from here that it is permitted, i.e. from the Seifa, that R. Yehudah says "when is this? It is when he began before it grew a third." This shows that it is permitted even after it grew a third.
11) TOSFOS DH l'Adam Mi Sham'at Lei
úåñôåú ã"ä ìàãí îé ùîòú ìéä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we did not ask like this above.)
äà ãìà ôøéê ëä''â ìòéì ã÷àîø ø''î áùéèú ø''ù ãàéîø ãùîòú ìéä ìø''ù ìáäîä ìàãí îé ùîòú ìéä
(a) Implied question: Why didn't it ask like this above, when it said that R. Meir holds like R. Shimon? [We should have asked] "we know that R. Shimon [permits] for animals. Do we know that he [permits] for people?!"
îùåí ãäëà ìà ôøéê àìà îëç ãà''ë äåé ìäå úìúà úðàé
(b) Answer: Here we ask only due to if so (he permits for people), there is a three-way argument among the Tana'im.
12) TOSFOS DH bi'Menamer li'Klayos
úåñôåú ã"ä áîðîø ì÷ìéåú
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this is before it is a third grown.)
äééðå ìà äáéàä ùìéù ãäà ìø''î áìà äáéà ùìéù àééøé ëãàîøï ìòéì
(a) Explanation: This means that it was not a third grown, for according to R. Meir, we discuss when it was not a third grown, like it says above (and we say that R. Meir holds like R. Akiva).
åîðîø ìàåöø äééðå äáéàä ùìéù:
(b) Distinction: Menamer (reaping scattered patches) to store, this is after it is a third grown.