Yevamos 47

R' Yehuda told a Ger that claimed he didn't have a proper Geirus, that he's only believed about himself but is not believed about his children Tosfos explains that he's not actually believed on himself either, because if it's true he's a gentile who is Pasul to be a witness, Therefore, he's only prohibited to marry a Jewess, not because we assume he's a gentile, but because we prohibit anything that a person believes he's prohibited in. However, regarding other people we don't believe him to be a gentile. Therefore if he has relations with a Jewess, we don't prohibit her to a Kohain the same way we would prohibit someone who had relations with a gentile. Tosfos asks: what difference does it make to the child if the father was a Goy, since the mother was a Jewess, so the child is a regular Jew. Tosfos answers : R' Yehuda must hold like the Shita that if a Jewess has relations with a gentile, this would render the child to be a Mamzer. Therefore the father is not believed to make the child a Mamzer. Rabbi Chaim Smulowitz. Have you been disappointed in your level of learning? Do you think your intellectually qualified to learn Tosfos but you don't have the time or skills to learn them properly? So try my English E-Sefer " Gemara in Tosfos" Sukka series. Only 2.49 a piece. Who says quality Torah publications cannot be affordable? Available at tosfos.ecwid.com

Yevamos 39

In the Get Chalitza it says that she spat on the floor. Tosfos says this couldn't be the correct Girsa. The spit doesn't need to land on the floor. We see this from a Gemara in Perek Hacholetz. If the woman was taller than the Yavam and the spit was carried away by the wind before if fell to his height, you're not Yoitza. But if it did fall to his height before it was blown away, then we consider as it was spat before him and she was Yoitze her spitting. (If she was shorter, as soon as the spit comes out of her mouth is considered before the Yavam and even if the wind blows it away immediately, she's Yoitze.) Rabbi Chaim Smulowitz If you ever though that Tosfos was beyond you. Think again. A few more free copies of Gemara and Tosfos: Sukka 2a-11a is still available at https://www.tosfos.ecwid.com

Yevamos 38

A Yavum and the Sufaik kid are coming to inherit the grandfather. We say the Yavam collects the whole thing since he's definitely inheriting while the kid is only a Safeik (because if he's the Yuvam's kid he doesn't get an inheritance from the grandfather. Rashi seems to learn that since the Yavum gets at least half, so that's why he's considered a definite heir. Tosfos asks from many places that just because someone has half does not mean that he's entitled to all. One such place is the first Mishna in Bava Metzia. If two jointly hold onto a cloak. One claims he found it first and is completely his while the other claims they found it together and he has half. The Halacha is that the second half that is in dispute gets divided. We do not say just because he definitely is entitled to half the cloak he's a definite owner and is entitled for the whole thing. Rather, Tosfos explains that since the Yuvam is a definite heir of the grandfather while the kid is only a Safeik whether he is a heir, so we cannot take away from a definite heir to split it with someone who hasn't established himself as a heir. Rabbi Chaim Smulowitz If you ever though that Tosfos was beyond you. Think again. A few more free copies of Gemara and Tosfos: Sukka 2a-11a is still available at https://www.tosfos.ecwid.com

Yevamos 37

The case: the brother did Yibum too early. The woman afterwards gave birth. We have a Safaik if the child born was a nine-monther from the original husband or a seven-monther from his brother, the child is definitely Kosher regardless if the Yibum was valid or not. If they're Kohain, the child is eligable to be the Kohain gadol. Tosfos asks: another Gemara says that if there was a room of ten Kohanim and one seperated himselfs to have relations with a woman. The child from the relations cannot do Avodah. We need the Kohain to be able to trace his linage. So, here too, the child can't know his linage, since he doesn't know which brother he comes from. Tosfos answers: The Gemara later asks the question. The Gemara answers that it's only a K'nass (a penalty) and they only penalize by Z'nus. here, the father was legally married, so there is no penalty. Rabbi Chaim Smulowitz If you ever though that Tosfos was beyond you. Think again. A few more free copies of Gemara and Tosfos: Sukka 2a-11a is still available at https://www.tosfos.ecwid.com

Yevamos 36

R' Yochanan holds that the one the owns the produce of a field is the real owner of the field. Tosfos asks : how does this fit into takanaos Usha that they decreed that a woman cannot sell her "Melug" fields. Although she holds the title of the field, but the husband keeps all the produce. So, according to R' Yochanan the woman anyhow doesn't have the main ownership to be able to sell the fields. Tosfos answers: that we could say that Takanus Usha was only said for the Shita of Reish lakish, that the one who holds the title is the main owner and not the one who owns the produce. Alternatively, the man's ownership is weaker than other ownership over the produce, because his whole ownership comes from being married to her. So we consider it somewhat more belonging to her. Alternatively, we consider his ownership weaker because it's only his because the rabbis decreed it to be. Another answer: they only decreed Takanas Usha in the case where the husband declines to receive the produce (but still would inherit her.) Rabbi Chaim Smulowitz If you ever though that Tosfos was beyond you. Think again. A few more free copies of Gemara and Tosfos: Sukka 2a-11a is still available at https://www.tosfos.ecwid.com

Yevamos 34

R' Meir says that one can also transgress the Issur of carrying on Shabbos (while eating all those Issurim) by walking out on Shabbos and swallow it in a Reshus Harabim. Tosfos asks why should he be Chayiv? The Gemara exempt people who carry out objects in their mouths, since it's a Shinoi (since most people carry thing in their hands. Tosfos answers: though most objects are that way, however, food is different, since it's the regular way to carry food in your mouth when you're eating. Rabbi Chaim Smulowitz If you ever though that Tosfos was beyond you. Think again. A few more free copies of Gemara and Tosfos: Sukka 2a-11a is still available at https://www.tosfos.ecwid.com

Yevamos 33

The Gemara gives the case that a Kohain becomes Tamia and becomes blemished at the same time is when he cuts his finger off with a Tamai knife. Tosfos deals with the problem that both doesn't happen at the same time. The knife makes him Tamai at contact and he's not blemish until he cuts off the whole finger. So Tosfos explains that we refer to a case where the finger was already cut and was hanging on by the smallest amount. Therefore the contact of the knife also immediately severs the finger, rendering him a blemished Kohain. Rabbi Chaim Smulowitz If you ever though that Tosfos was beyond you. Think again. A few more free copies of Gemara and Tosfos: Sukka 2a-11a is still available at https://www.tosfos.ecwid.com

Yevamos 32

R' Shimon holds that one Issur doesn't compile on a different Issur. Hence if Reuvain marries a woman (and she is now Ussur to Shimon because she's his brother's wife.) Then Shimon married her her sister, she doesn't have the Issur of being his wife's sister. It cannot take effect since the original Issur of being his brother's wife is upon her. The Gemara asks: If so,if Reuvain dies, why can't Shimon do Yibum to his wife? (After all, she is only Usser for being his brother's wife just like all Yevamos.) The Gemara answers that the Issur of being his wife's sister hovers over her waiting if the other Issur falls off it will take effect. So even if the Issur of being his brother's wife would fall off he cannot do Yibum since another Issur would take effect, therefore the original Issur remains. Tosfos asks: if so, it comes out that the wife only has the Issur of being the wife's brother on her. Therefore we should allow Shimon to do Yibum on her Tzara since the first wife has no more Issur on her than any other wife, the Issur of a brother's wife. In order to exempt a Tzura she needs to have another Issur Ervah on her. Tosfos answers : the only time that the Issur of a brotehr's wife doesn't exempt from Yibum is only one that would fall off to permit Yibum. Since this Issur doesn't fall of, therefore it remains an Ervah that exempts the Tzara. Rabbi Chaim Smulowitz If you ever though that Tosfos was beyond you. Think again. A few more free copies of Gemara and Tosfos: Sukka 2a-11a is still available at https://www.tosfos.ecwid.com

Yevamos 31

The Gemara said they decreed to write the date on a slave's document. Rashi explains this to mean a slave's sale document. Tosfos asks, if so, the could have asked from a document for selling land. Furthermore, the nrabbis never made a decree to date those documents. So Tosfos explains that the Gemara refers to documents of freeing slaves. You need to have a date to know when he had a Halacha of a slave and when he had a Halacha of a regular Yisrael regarding when he was permitted to marry a Jewish woman. Rabbi Chaim Smulowitz If you ever though that Tosfos was beyond you. Think again. A few more free copies of Gemara and Tosfos: Sukka 2a-11a is still available at tosfos.ecwid.com

Yevamos 30

The Gemara says that if a man was married to an Ervah to his brother and a regular woman and Safeik divorce the Ervah, when he dies the regular woman is exempt from Yibum. Since the Ervah has a Chazuka that she's married to the brother, her Tzara has a Chazaka that she's exempt from Yibum. Tosfos points out that even if the Safeik divorce happened before he married the other woman, where I might say that she was never definitely married along with the Ervah so she never had a Chazuka to be a Tzuras Ervah, yet she's exempt from Yibum. Since the Ervah has a Chazuka that she's married to the brother, therefore we extend that Chazuka to her that we consider her a TZuras Ervah. Rabbi Chaim Smulowitz If you ever though that Tosfos was beyond you. Think again. A few more free copies of Gemara and Tosfos: Sukka 2a-11a is still available at tosfos.ecwid.com

Yevamos 29

The Gemara concludes that R' Eliezer doesn't necessary hold that Maamar acquires the Yevama completely. (In the second answer) The reason he holds that he can annuls the Yevama's oath is because we refer to a case where the time that he needs to do Yibum arrived. Although he didn't do it yet, Beis Din obligates him to feed the Yevama. Since she's receiving her support from the Yuvam, when she makes an oath, she relies on the Yuvam to approve it, so it was only made on condition that the Yuvam consents.

Tosfos says that R' Yehusha that argues (and says that anytime there is more than one Yuvam no one can annul her oath) holds even if one gave Maamer, since the other brother can ruin it for him by giving a Get or having relations with her, the Yevama is not confident that he'll eventually marrying her, so she doesn't  make her oath on condition that the Yuvam consents.

R' Akiva (that holds that a Yuvam never can annul an oath) we don't necessary have to explain him like Rashi, that he holds there is no Zika so he's a complete stranger to her since there is no connection. We can says there is really a connection (Zika.) However, since the connection is a lot weaker than an actual wife (as proof, we see that if someone else has relations with the Yevama there is no death penalty)  therefore he's not enough of a husband that the Parsha of Hafaras Nedarim should apply to him

Rabbi Chaim Smulowitz 

If you ever though that Tosfos was beyond you. Think again. A few more free copies of Gemara and Tosfos: Sukka 2a-11a is still available 
at 
tosfos.ecwid.com

Yevamos 27

We say that the proof that a Get is no better than Maamar and Maamar is no better than Get is from the Shita of R' Gamliel. Although he holds that once a Get is given to one Yevama then a second Get to a different one does not take effect (and doesn't disqualify her to marry the brother's relatives.) The same thing applies with giving Maamar after a Maamar. However, he allows a Maamar to take effect after a Get and a Get after a Maamar. So we must say they're even.

Tosfos asks: This last Halacha is true even to the Rabanan (that hold that there is Get after Get and Maamar after Maamar), so why does the Gemara only bring a proof from R' Gamlilel?

Tosfos answers the Rabanan that hold a second Get take effect after the first Get despite that it must be weaker (since the first Get was the one that "divorced" her and the second is "divorcing" someone who is already "divorced".) Therefore, even if Maamar or Get is stronger than the other, it will still take effect.

However, R' Gamliel who holds the second Get or Maamar doesn't take effect after the first, because he holds that a weaker transaction can't take effect on a stronger transaction. Therefore, since a Get takes effect on a Maamar and a Maamar takes effect on Get, we must conclude that one is not weaker than the other and therefore they're even.

Rabbi Chaim Smulowitz 

If you ever though that Tosfos was beyond you. Think again. A few more free copies of Gemara and Tosfos: Sukka 2a-11a is still available 
at 
tosfos.ecwid.com

Yevamos 26

According to those that don't hold of Zika, the problem why two brothers can't do Yibum to two sisters (one brother to each sister) is: we're afraid after one does Yibum to one sister the second brother would die. Therefore the Mitzvah of Yibum will fall off the second sister (since now she's an Ervah, your wife's sister.) So better do Chalitzah on both. Even if the second brother dies before he does Chalitza to the second sister, the first brother can still do the Mitzvah of Chalitza. However if there are three brothers we don't need to be concerned that two of them will die, and one may do Yibum on one of them.

Tosfos asks: here it seems that one needs to be concerned about one person dying and not two.  However, in the beginning of Yuma, the Mishna implies that if you need to be concerned of the death of one you need to be concerned of the death of two. The Chachumim say that though a Kohain Gadol needs to have a wife for Yom Kippur, he doesn't need to marry a second wife in the event that his first wife dies. If you need to be concerned, then two wives wouldn't be enough since you'll need to worry that both of them will die.

Tosfos answers : Over there refers to the concern that the person will die in a small space of time, that day of Yom Kipur. If you're going to be that paranoid, then you'll have to worry about two deaths on that day. Over here, since it might be weeks or months between the first brothers Yibum and the second brothers then it's not so far out  that the second brother might die. Therefore it's a big concern that one might die, however, even over that space of time, we don't need to be concerned that both brothers will die.

Rabbi Chaim Smulowitz
Tosfos Project

Still some free copies left of ENGLISH Sukka with TOSFOS available at
tosfos.ecwid.com

Yevamos 25

R' Yosef says that someone is only believed to says that Ploni did Mishkav Zachor to him against his will, but not if he did it on purpose. If he did it on purpose he's a Rasha and is Pasul to say witness.

However, Rava says that he's not believed about his involvement, since one is not believed on a relative, and a person is his own relative. So we split his words and only believe the part that Ploni did that action, but not that it was done to you.

Tosfos asks why is this different to what Rava said in Kesuvos? Over there Rava says that if witnesses on a document said that they signed the documents but they were forced to on the threat of losing their money, they are not believed that they were forced and the owner of the document can collect. Since he has no right to sign falsely for loss of money, we can't believe him. Why don't we believe him part way, that he was forced, but we don't believe through loss of money, but because their very life was threatened.  So we should believed that they were forced and the loan is no good.

Tosfos answers that since the whole institute of having to verify the witnesses' signatures are only rabbinic, from the Torah we assume all documents are valid, we don't invalidate a document unless he specifically says a good reason why it's invalid and not if he we need to split his words.

Alternatively, since most times someone is forced to sign falsely on a document is not through threat of his life, we assume that his life was never in danger unless he specifically says so.

 

Rabbi Chaim Smulowitz

If you ever though that Tosfos was beyond you. Think again. A few more free copies of Gemara and Tosfos: Sukka 2a-11a is still available
at
tosfos.ecwid.com

Limud Torah e-S'farim tosfos.ecwid.com

Limud Torah e-Sefarim

Daf Yomi: Yevamos 24

We don't accept Geirim in the days of Dovid and Shlomo or in the days of Mashiach. Since those were the days of plenty for the Jews, we need to be concerned that the converts motive is for financial gain.

Tosfos says we cannot ask from Itti Hagiti and Bas Pharoh who converted in the days of Dovid and Shlomo. They were independently wealthy and didn't need any welfare.

Tosfos asks: how could Hillel convert the non-Jew who wanted to convert on condition that he'll be the Kohain Gadol and wear his magnificent clothing? Is he not converting for an alternative reason?

Tosfos answers: that Hillel was confident that after he'll show him the right way, he'll convert for the right reasons.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Check out my English E-Sefer- Gemara and Tosfos: Sukka 2a-11a.
Learn Tosfos like you never learned before.
Still giving away free copies @ tosfos.ecwid.com

Yevamos 23

The Gemara brings an argument about the Torah's prohibition on intermarriage. R' Shimon holds we Darshin the reason of the Pasuk. All the Torah needs to say by the seven nations they can't marry and I would know that they are prohibited exclusively. The reason of intermarriage so that the wife will convince him to go off the Torah's path. I would assume it only applies to the seven nations who were totally against the Torah's way of life. So the Torah says"because she'll lead him off" to include all Goyim who'll remove him from the Torah's way of life at one degree or another.

The Rabanan doesn't Darshen the reason of the Pasuk. When the Pasuk says that it's forbidden to intermarry I would assume any Goy. So the Torah says "because she'll lead him off" to tell us only the seven nations are prohibited from the Torah. The other nations are prohibited from the Rabanan.

Tosfos points out, that though in Yevamos we Darshin that you cannot marry someone from the seven nations even after Geirus. (Since the simple meaning of marriage is only after she converts and can have Kiddushin.) Although after conversion we cannot say there is a reason to exclude the seven nations more than the others, because after conversion she is for the Torah's way of life and would not mislead him. However, Chazal says it only applies to the seven nations.

The reasoning for that is that we see the Torah forbade a Mitzri and Adomi and Moabi and Amoni, it implies that the other converts are permitted.

Rabbi Chaim Smulowitz
Tosfos Project
tosfos.ecwid.com

Still some free copies left of ENGLISH Sukka with TOSFOS available at
tosfos.ecwid.com