Thurs Gitten 18

Tosfos asks: according to R' Yochanan that says the reason they enacted to write the date in Gitten in order to save his niece. (If he married her and she committed adultery, he writes her a Get without a date. Therefore Bais Din cannot kill her, for perhaps she was divorced when she did that act.) Nowadays where Bais Din doesn't give capitol punishment, why does he require writing the date?

Tosfos answers: either to save her children from being rendered Mamzeirim. Alternatively, to kill her when Mashiach comes, and Sanhedrin will reintroduce capitol punishment. Alternatively, to forbid her to her husband, so he can't claim they were divorced when the act took place.


This is the last week in the archives: If you want me to continue, please write me a line@ tosfosproject@gmail.com . If i get enough request I'll continue

Wed Gitten 17

R' Yochanan says the reason they enacted to write the date in Gitten in order to save his niece. (If he married her and she committed adultery, he writes her a Get without a date. Therefore Bais Din cannot kill her, for perhaps she was divorced when she did that act.)

Tosfos asks: why don't we kill her. Since she was married, so we should leave her on that Chazaka and assume she was married when she did the act?

Tosfos answers: on the contrary, since we know that now she's divorced, we should assume that she was in that condition all along. Furthermore, we should leave her on a Chezkas Kashrus (assume she was like most people, fine and wouldn't commit actual adultery.)




This is the last week in the archives: If you want me to continue, please write me a line@ tosfosproject@gmail.com . If i get enough request I'll continue

Tues Gitten 16

We say that a stream of water heading down hill doesn't combine the two pools (the one on top and the one on the bottom) not for Tumah (that if a Tumah touches one pool, the other one doesn't become Tamai), and not for Taharah (that they don't combine to forty Saah to become a Mikvah.

Tosfos asks: why don't we say, because of Gud Aches) that we view the top one lowering into the bottom one to make 40 Saah ?

Tosfos answers: we only say that when one of the pools are anyhow 40, and we need to combine the pool that's not forty to it. In that case, we say the non-forty pool is apart of the forty Saah pool to be a Mikvah. However, if neither pool is forty, so we don't say Gud Aches to combine them together that they'll be a Mikvah.

Alternatively, what the Gemara says that they don't combine for Tahara, doesn't refer to a Mikvah. rather, regarding Hashaka. (Where you take Tamai waster and open it to a Mikvah. It momentarily becomes part of the Mikvah and becomes tahor. Then you can seal the opening between them and you're left with tahor water.


This is the last week in the archives: If you want me to continue, please write me a line@ tosfosproject@gmail.com . If i get enough request I'll continue

Mon Gitten 15

The Gemara says that there is an argument whether we can combine a wall and a trench to make a ten T'faachim wall to make a Reshus hayachid.

Rashi explains that you surround the trench with walls, and now you have a hole ten T'fachim deep. Tosfos asks: that according to all is a Reshus Hayachid. The Mishna in Shabbos says that a well and its surrounding wall combine to make ten T'fachim for a reshus Hayachid.

Rather, Tosfos says, we refer that you made a wall five on the edge of the trench in order to surround the higher level. Since the inside of the Mechitzos is only surrounded by walls five T'fachim, they argue if you can combine the five T'fachim trench below the surface to a ten T'fachim wall.

Tosfos asks: we see a precedence by a post that's upper surface is full of nails (and you can't use the surface, which may make it loose its status of Reshus Hayachid) is still a Reshus Hayachid, since you may place a tray over it and carry. So why can't you say the same of this 5 T'fachim hill that surrounded by a five T'fachim wall, we should view it as a post ten T'fachim higvh, since you can put a tray over the walls?

Tosfos answers: we refer to a case where the walls are too far apart so you cannot put a tray over them.


This is the last week in the archives: If you want me to continue, please write me a line@ tosfosproject@gmail.com . If i get enough request I'll continue

Thurs Gitten 11

The Chachumim says, that once you gave the freeing-slave document to your messenger to give to the slave, he goes free right away. We say that the messenger can acquire it for the slave. From here the Gemara wants to prove that someone can grab something for a friend (that he's entitled to), even if it's detrimental to others that are also entitled to it. (For example, if a borrower died, and he only has enough money for one of his creditors, so a third person can acquire it for one of the creditors, although it will be detrimental to the second creditor, that cannot grab it for himself anymore.)

Tosfos explains why the slave is entitled to his freedom, although the master is never in obligation to free him. He also explains why, if we consider the slave entitled to his freedom, that it's considered detrimental to the master, since the slave is entitled to his freedom.

The explanation is: although the master is never obligated to free him, the very fact that he considers freeing him shows that the slave did him great favors to the point that the master feels morally obligated to free him. Even so, since he's not legally obligated to free him, we consider it as it's detrimental to the master.

Wed Gitten 10

The tana Kama holds that someone can be Yoitzeh eating Matzos from a Kusi, since Matzos are written in the Torah.

Tosfos explain two conditions to make this true. We have a Halacha that bread of a Kusi is forbidden. So to make these Matzos Kosher, we must say that the dough belong to a regular Jew and the Kusi just baked it. That's why it doesn't have the Halacha of Pas Kusi.

Another condition is, we must know that the Kusi hadn''t prepared any other Matzah for himself. If he did, then perhaps the other one he reserved for himself. This one, since he's not using it himself for the Mitzvah, so he maybe didn't make it L'Shma. Although he's causing others not to be Yoitzeh, that's not a problem for the Kusi, since he doesn't believe that's the explanation of the prohibition of Lifnai Ivar Lo Sitein Michshal.

Tues Gitten 9

The gemara says that we allow illiterate witnesses to sign. Although they can't sign their names , but we cut the parchment with their names, and they will trace it.

Rashi explains "cutting" that we scratch the parchment. Although their names are already etched there, it wouldn't be a problem of writing over writ (which we don't consider it as a writing) since etching is not in ink, so it's much weaker than the covering ink, so the writing in ink is considered as its own writing.

Tosfos doesn't believe that etching is a good definition of "cutting." Therefore, he explains that it means that they cut out stencils of their names. We must say that they cut out thick letters, so the witnesses can trace it in their own style, so that we can verify the signatures later, and it wouldn't be just a generic tracing of a stencil.

Mon gitten 8

The Gemara says we allow telling a Goy to write a sale document for a house bought in Eretz Yisrael.

Tosfos says: we only permit telling a Goy to do a Melacha from the Torah only by this Mitzvah, since it's so important to settle Eretz Yisrael. However, we don't permit for other Mitzvos, as we see that we don't allow telling a Goy to cook up water so that we can make a Bris on Shabbos.

Also, although we allow to tell a Goy to do a D'rabanan to able us to do Milah (like to carry hot water in a courtyard without an Eiruv.) However, it's no proof to other Mitzvos, since perhaps we're more lenient by Bris, since the actual Bris pushes away the prohibition of Shabbso (as we alow him to wound the child on Shabbos)

Thurs Gitten 4

The gemara says that R' elazar would Pasul a Get signed not L'Shma (although he holds a Get doesn't need to be signed in the first place) since R' Elazar agrees a Get is Pasul with forged witnesses.

Tosfs asks: how can we compare the two? He needs to pasul forged witnesses, for perhaps he cannot produce the handing-over witnesses, and Bais Din would rely on the signing witnesses to validate the document. However, this is not a problem if the witnesses sign not L'Shma. So why would R' Elazar Pasul?

Tosfos answers: by L'Shma, we have a different problem. we need to enact for teh witnesses to sign L'Shma, for if they don't, perhaps that may lead that they'll also write the Get not L'Shma.

Wed Gitten 3

One of the three Gitten that are not Kosher L'Chatchila if it doesn't have witnesses, but was written by the husband.

Tosfos explains the problem with it, because since there is no witnesses, so the date written on it is unreliable. Thus, it's tantamount to a Get without a date .

Tosfos asks: I can understand why this is a problem with those who say the reason for a date, so, if he married his niece, and she was Mizaneh, that he shouldn't write a Get without a date to save her, since we won't be able to verify if she was Mizaneh after the divorce. We can say that is a problem here too, with an unreliable date.

However, I don't understand the problem according to those that say they enacted a date so, if the husband sells the woman's fields that he owns the produce until they divorce, that the woman cannot come with an undated Get and take back fruits that the buyer harvested before the divorce. However, once there is an enactment of a date, if she shows up with a get with an unreliable Get, she won't be able to collect, so the buyers protected.

Tosfos answers: because the woman loses her fruit, which she was entitled from the time a proper Get was written. Therefore, the rabbis made this an improper Get, therefore, she's not entitled for the fruits until the actual divorce.

Alternatively, if the woman would grab the fruits from the buyer, we wouldn't have the power to remove it from her, since it's possible she was divorced and the fruits truly belong to her.

Tues Gitten 2

The gemara says that we only believe an individual witness for an issur if it' doesn't have a Chezkas Issur.

Tosfos explains this to be, only when it's not within your hands to make the Issur permitted. However, if it's your hand , then he's believed. If this is not true, nobody would believe that his meat was Shechted correctly, or his produce was already tithed. We even believe a woman that the meat is Kosher, even though she cannot Shecht. Either, because it's in her power to learn how to Shecht, or it's in her power to hire an expert to Shecht.

Mon Sotah 49: we'll explain Sotah 40

We ended up nobody should say anything while the Kohanim give the Bracha. Rather, they should concentrate on what they say.

Tosfos asks: we say thta if someone has a bad dream he should pray to make it good during Birchas Kohanim. However, how could he if he's obligated to be quiet and listen to the Brachos.

Tosfos answers: we allow him for perhaps there is danger. Sowe push off his obligation to listen in order that he can counter this possible danger. As we see, we even allow him to fast on Shabbos. So we see it's enough of a danger to push off Mitzvos for it.

Thurs Sotah 45: We'll explain Sotah 39

The Kohanim have to wait until the whole congregation finishes Amen to start the Bracha.

Tosfos asks, why does he need the whole congregation to finish? Why not only for most, as we see that the one who make s Hamoitzie for the whole table only needs to wait till most of them finish Amen to break bread.

Tosfos answers: since we need all to hear the Bracha, they need to wait. Even if we say those who finish the Amein can make out the Kohain's Bracha without confusing it with the other people's Amen finish (although we usually say someone cannot hear two voices, here by a Bracha that's special, he can discern, even if the two voices say different words.) However, they must wait until those who are finishing Amein can hear, since they cannot discern the Kohain's voice while they're talking.

Wed Sotah 44: we'll explain Sotah 38

R' yehoshua b. Levi says that an iron wall cannot separate one to his father in heaven.

Tosfos bring another Gemara that applies this statement to a Minyan, that someone can join even behind a wall.

Tosfos asks: that we see that one cannot combine to a Minyan if they’re' behind a wall?

Tosfos answers: that's only if there is no 10 people in one place, and he wants to combine to make a Minyan. Or, if the Shatz is in one place and wants to be Moitzie the Minyan in a second place. However, if the Minyan and Shatz is in one place, a person in the next room can be Yoitza from the Shatz. After all the gemara in Rosh Hashana says that the Shatz is Moitzie the people out in the field.

Tues Sotah 43

Since there is no more Tosfos on the Mesechta, we'll go back explaining earlier Sugyas in Birchos Kohanim while it's still fresh in our mind.

Sotah 38: we end up that even people behind an iron wall doesn't separate himself to the Bracha.

Tosfs asks: since they weren’t forced to be behind the wall, why is it any better than the people standing behind the Kohanim?

Tosfos answers: since the Toarh explicitly said that Birchos kohanim should resemble someone talking to his friend, therefore the Torah is Makpid that they should face each other. However, we don't see and Hakpada not being behind a wall.

Mon Sotah 42

The reason we say the Meshuach Milchama says the "Kohain's part" and not the Sgan, because we compare him to Shoter." Just as the Shoter is appointed, yet he has someone appointed above him, so toot he Kohain. The Sagan is not appointed.
'
Tosfos asks: that is Sanhedrin we call the Sagan the appointed one?

Tosfos answers: he was appointed to the office that theBais hamikdash's adminstration created. This is similar to many positions they made up to have there, like a treasurer. However, it wasn't a position that the Torah authorized.

I'm getting close to my reserves, give me Chizuk and drop me a line.

I'm getting close to the end of what I prepared. I really don't have a good idea of my audience. If you want me to continue, please give me Chizuk and drop me a line @ tosfosprogram@gmail.com

Thank you,

Rabbi Smulowitz

Thurs Sotah 38

We only say the Shem Hameforash by Birchas Kohanim in the Bais Hamikdash.

Tosfos bring Sifri that the reason is you can only say it where the Schina is exposed. As it says"the place where I come" refers to where He Himself comes, where the Schina is exposed.

Therefore Tosfos says, this is the reason they started refraining saying Birchas Hakohanim with the Shem Hamifurash after the death of Shimon Hatzadik. Afterwords, they didn't merit much exposed Shchina.

Wed Sotah 37

Binyamin jumped in first and Yehudah was throwing stones.

Tosfos quotes Michltin that gives a parable. This is similar to a king that gives instructions to his younger son to wake him at dawn. He then instructed his alder son to wake him three hours in the day. When the younger son came to wake his father, the older son protested, until the commotion woke the father. The father said since you both did this for my sake, I will reward you both.

(I assume that there was a basic argument between Binyamin and Yehudah when to jump in, and Yehudah was waiting for the more apt time and thus protested Binyamin for jumping in early.)

Tues Sotah 36

When Yosef returned to the house, he saw his father's image in the window.

Toafos quotes R' Moshe the Darshen: this Drasha was learned from the following implication. The Torah writes that there was no man from the household there. This implies that there was someone not from the household, which would be Yaakov.

However, Tosfos asks: where do we see that he was in the window?

Tosfos answers: perhaps because the Torah says there was no one etc. in the house, implies there was someone just out of the house.

Mon Sotah 35

The Gemara says that after they wrote the Toarh down for the nations to read, and they didn't accept it, it sealed their doom to gehenim.

Tosfos asks: didn't they earlier by Matan Torah refused to accept the Torah after Hashem went to offer it to all the nations. So why only here did it seal their doom?

Tosfos answers: this is worse, since it was all written in front of them and they refused to learn them.

However, Tosfos remains with a question from Mesechta Avodah Zara. There it says that the Goyim will claim by Moshiach that they cannot be blamed for not accepting the Torah since they weren't forced to accept it like the Jews were (by suspeneding the mointan over them.) (Over there Hashem will test them and they'll fail.) So why is their doom sealed when they went into Eretz Yisrael, since it seems that there excuses will still valid in the future?

Thurs Sotah 31

If a little birdie tells us he needs to divorce her but she receives her Kesuvah. R' Yehoshua says only if the yentas talk about her.

Rashi learns this refers to finding out she secluded. Although if the birdie (a slave) says they secluded you can bring her to drink the Mai Marim, we refer to where he doesn't want to. That's why he's still needs to give the kesuvah, since she had a way to show her innocence and he ruined it.

Tosfos asks: however, in R' Yehoshua's case, we say that it's too strong of evidence and she doesn't drink. So divorce is an order. Why does he needs to pay a Kesuvah? We must say that the Yenatas were not telling us that she secluded, but rather they just remark on her general Pritzos.

Tosfos argues with Rashi: that even the Tana Kama we can say the little birdie didn't say she secluded herself, but rather in her general Pritzos. Although it doesn't make her technically Assur, but after Kinoi combined with waht the birdie said, she's highly suspicious, so the right thing is to divorce her. Since it doesn't technically Assur her, she gets her Kesuvah.

Wed Sotah 30

The Gemara says that someone who eats tamai food becomes Tamai.

Tosfos quotes the reason for the rabbis to enact that for perhaps he'll be eating Trumah and he'll drink something Tumah. This would apply to even a Beitza. However, the Gemara in Eiruvim says that it's only by two Beitzim.

Also, we see that the gemara had a thought that it may be a Torah Tumah. But how can they have though that. This was part of the famous 18 gezairos of Bais Shamai that became accepted, and all knew what they were. So how can they thought it was a Torah law?

Tosfos answers: there was two steps of the gezairah. Originally they only worried that people would eat them one after the other, people will say they're touching in the stomach and is making the Trumah he ate afterwords Tamai. However, since all the food doesn't make it in the stomach (some is left in teeth and some is already digested) so it wasn't applicable if he ate an exact Baitza. Therefore they upped the Shiur to the next exact amount, to two Beitzim.

Afterwords, Bais Sahmi was worried that they might end up in the mouth together. This is applicable to a whole Beitza. Therefore they made the enactment more stringent and made him Tamai by eating one Baitza.

ues Sotah 29 (but I'll write on the end of 28)

Since we compare Safeik Tumah to Sotah, we're only stringent in Reshus haYachid.

Tosfos brings an argument if someone touches a Sheretz at night and in morning he finds that it is dead, R' Meir says he's Tahor. The Rabanan say that he's Tamia. Since we find it it dead, we can assume that was its status the whole night (Since we never established it to be alive.) However, they agree if you established that in the beginning of the night it was alive, then he's Thor.

Tosfos concludes that they says he's Tahor because tehy consider this to be a Safeik Tumah in Reshus Harabim. Tofos asks: this doesn't it well in the Mishna in Taharos that say that nighttime where all is dark, even in the streets where all is open, has a status of Safeik Tumah in Rushus Hayachid. This is confirmed by the Yerushalmi that says that a woman becomes a Sotah even in a street at night.

Mon Sotah 28

The Gemara learns Safeik Tumah in Reshus Hayachid is Tamai from Sotah.

Tosfos asks: what's the comparison? The reason we are stringent by Sotah, since there is what to suspect, since there is Kinoi and Stirah. However, Safeik Tumah there is no reason to suspect Tumah more than it remained Tahor.

We even find the gemara in Niddah that asks this as a question, how can we say that someone Toiveled in a Mikavah and afterwords found the Mikvah less than the Shiur (and the question is when did it lose it, before or after the Tevilah) remain Tamia because we compare it to Sotah? By Sotah the Kinoi creates suspicion, but by Tevial there is nothing suspicios?

Tosfos answes: just by Stirah itself (Yichud) doesn't even make it to a Safeik Issur, and we don't forbid a wife after Yichud. The Kinoi creates a suspicion to make the Yichud suspicious enough to say that it's a Safeik. Therefore it's compared to a real Safeik Tumah.

However, in Niddah, there was nothing to create a suspicion (to say it' a Safeik_) when the person Toveled. (That only came afterwords.) Therefore we shouldn't compare it to Sotah where it was suspicious at their seclusion.

Thurs Sotah 24

The Mishna says (according to rabanan) that you don't brings as a Sotah a wife "whose not fit to give birth." Rashi explains it refers to a woman who drank a potion that makes her barren.

Tosfos asks: this cannot be the definition, since in Kesuvos a Braisa lists "a woman who's not fit to give birth" with a woman who becomes barren. So they seem to be different people.

Tosfos answers: we refer to a woman that didn't marry until forty years old. Alternatively, a woman that didn't get married again after her first husband and didn't plan to either. The gemara says that in either case, she can no longer have children.

Wed Sotah 23

A Kohain's wife Minchas Sotah should get completely burnt for the husband's portion of it, however, since the wife has a part in it, then only the Kamitza should get burnt.

Tosfos asks: if it's a partnership, then a Mincha can't be brought. (only an individual can bring a Mincha.) If it's only her, then we should burn it in the way of her Minchos (i.e., only the Kemitza.)

Tosfos answers: We consider it a partnership only regarding how to burn it, since the husband doesn't release his ownership on it. (Not like when one donates a Korbon for someone else, the Temurah is made (by it's owner) the one who receives atonement, since the buyer gives over the whole Korbon to him.)

However, we consider it an individual Mincha, since only the wife receives atonement for it.

Tues Sotah 22

The Gemara says that someone should do Torah and Mitzvos even not for the right reason since he'll eventually do it for the right reasons

Tosfos asks: the Gemara in Brachos says that it's better that you didn't exist and in Taanis the gemara says that the Torah in such a case is poison.

Tosfos answers: our Gemara refers to learning Torah for fear of punishment or for receiving reward. This is good despite not doing it for fulfilling Hashem's will.

In Brachos and Taanis refers to someone who is not interested in actually doing Mitzvos. So his Torah study is worse than if he hadn't studied, since if he would be ignorant he would only not do Mitzvos B'Shogeg. Now, since he has knowledge, it would be Maizid.

Mon Sotah 21

If someone gives a present to Reuvain that should go to Shimon after Reuvain's death. R' Shimon b. Gamliel says if Reuvain sells it, Shimon cannot retrieve it after Revain's death. The Gemara calls someone a Rasha to give advice to Reuvain to sell it so Shimon won't receive it.

Tosfos asks: how do we reconcile that we hold like R' Shimon b. Gamliel, yet we hold like Reish Lakis that if someone only owns something for what it produce we don't consider him the true owner. Therefore, since Reuvain only has it for a limited time, we assume it's only his for the use he can have until his death. However, the object really belongs to Shimon, since he will eventually keep it. So since Reuvain is not the real owner, how can he sell the object for good?

Tosfos answers in the name of Rashbam: that it's not as we assumed, that Reuvain only owns what the object will produce until his death, but rather he receives the full item. Therefore it's his to sell. However, he has a limited ownership of it, until his death. Then the whole item reverts to Shimon.

Thurs Sotah 17

If one writes the Megila like a letter (without scratching lines) is passul.

Tosfos points out: even though one is never allowed to write P'sukim without lines, however, I might have thought that B'dieved it checks the woman if she committed adultery. So the Pasuk tells us that it won't take effect at all .

Tosfos is in doubt if the scratched lines can be added after it's written.

Tosfos asks: if you can't write scriptures without lines, why don't one need lines for T'fillin?

Tosfos answers: there is a Halacha L'moshe Misinai that exempts it

R' Tam answers: for writing P'sukim, all you need is to scratch four lines and the four sides of the parchment to make a border. This is needed for T'fillin too. However, Mezuzos and Megilas Sotah needs lines under each written line.

Wed Sotah 16

R' Yismael holds you need to put the bird's blood into a Revios, since you need to recognize the blood in the water.

Tosfos explains: it doesn't mean to recognize that the water is red, since even a much smaller amount is recognizable. However, this would be Batul (like the Rabanan that hold that something is Batul in its own kind.) So here we need enough that the thickness of the blood is recognizable. By that it wouldn't be Batul.

R' Akiva Eiger asks: if so, the Rabanan that argue on R' Yishmael (that you place it in more water and the thickness is not recognized) the blood is Batul? Furthermore, since the water is a different kind with the blood, the blood is not Batul and we would say if anyone drinks some of the water he's Chayiv for drinking blood.

Tues Sotah 15

The Gemara says the reason there is no Nisuchim by Nazir, since it's a sin to pain yourself by refraining from wine.

Tosfos points out that this Gemara holds that there is a sine to be a Nazir even by a Tahor. We find this Shita in many places. Not like Shnuel in the first Perek of Nazir that says he can hold his hair and say "I'll make this nice" to be a Nazir, and we can call it nice, since it's only a sin if the Nazir becomes Tamai.

Although Shmuel compares it to fasting, which the Gemara other places compares it to a Nazir Tahor (since both is initially forbidding himself to pleasures.) We must say that Shmuel only compares it to a Nazir Tamai. (It's not similar to a Tahor, although they're both initially prohibiting something on them) since fasting is much more stringent refraining from pleasures then nazir, since it prohibits all foods from himself. It's only similar to Nazir Tamai that extends extra prohibitions on himself.

Mon Sotah 14

The Gemara says the reason that the Sotah carries around her Mincha is to tire her out so she shouldn't resist admitting.

Tosfos points out that this fits also to those that don't hold that we Darshin the Torah's reason. That argument is only when the Torah says a Halacha which infers that it implied by all cases, and by Darshening the reason we limit the places to apply it. Like the prohibition of taking a collateral from a widow. The reason R' Shimon says is since you need to return it every day, your meetings will cause suspicion. Therefore if she's rich and you don't need to return the collateral, then there is no prohibition, although the Toarh doesn't differentiate and seems to reefer to all widows.

However, here where we don't limit the cases the Halacha applies to, we could give some reason for it.

Thurs Sotah 10

The Gemara says that it's better to have yourself thrown into a furnace rather than embarrassing someone.

Tosfos points out that this is one of the three things for someone to go to gehenim without ever coming up.

Tosfos asks: why do we don't consider this as one of the Aveiros that one needs to give his life for?

Tosfos answers: we only count those sins that the Torah explicitly mentions. The Torah never explicitly expounded on the sin of embarrassing someone in public.

Wed Sotah 9 (really end of 8)

We say that someone who is Chayiv Misah nowadays, that Hashem brings him a death that's similar to what he was Chayiv.

Tosfos asks: we know if someone kills willingly and another unwillingly, neither with the proper proof to Michayav them. Hashem brings them together, the unwillingly one mistakenly falls from a roof onto the murderer and kills him. Therefore the murderer dies and the other one now has witnesses to send him to Galus.

The question is: the punishment for murder is beheading, so why does he die by the person falling on him, similar to Skilla (stoning?)

Tosfos answers: it's still a fitting punishment, since usually someone kills by falling something on the person, so that's the way he also got killed. If the murderer kills by sword, then his punishment would be different, as appropriate for his deed.

Tues Sotah 8

The gemara gives the difference whether we Darshin the reason of the Pasuk is if the woman is naturally scared. We don't worry that she'll gain more confidence by her friend's confidence. However, if you don't hold of the Pasuk's reason, two Sotahs are forbidden in all cases.

Tosfos brings another difference. If the second woman is not a Sotah. She definitely not giving her confidence, however, the Pasuk implies that you cannot have a second woman along with her.

As we see the Gemara about taking out two Para Aduma, that the one that doesn't Darshin the Pasuk's reason forbids bringing two animals out together, even if the second one is a donkey (and not another cow.)

Mon Sotah 7

Rava says: If she admits that she strayed (and committed adultery) we cancel her Kesuvah by writing a receipt to the husband. Even to the Shita that we don't right a receipt (but the owner needs to produce the original document to rip up.) Here we refer to a town that doesn't write a Kesuva (therefore there is no other choice but to write a receipt, since there is no hardcopy Kesuva.)

Tosfos points out that we cannot say even if they write a Kesuva, perhaps the woman won't produce it to lose the money, so we have no choice but to write the receipt. In that case the husband can hold back the Get until she produce the Kesuva. Therefore she'll never be able to collect her Kesuva anyhow until she gets her Get.

Thurs Sotah 3

Tosfos quotes the Yerushalmi that there is an argument there if Kinoy is a permission or an obligation. R' Yehoshouh holds that he's permitted to Mikana but he's not obligated, while R' Eliezer holds he's obligated.

The Yerushalmi wants to say the argument depends on the argument what is grounds for divorce. R' Yehoshua holds like Bais Hillel that even burning his food is grounds for divorce. Therefore he's not obligated to Mikana her, since he has an option to just divorce her. However, R' Eliezer holds like Bais Shamai, the only grounds for divorce is that she definitely committed adultery (i.e., you have witnesses to the effect.) Here you don't have witnesses, so you don't have grounds for divorce, so you must Mikana her to permit her to you.

Tosfos asks: our Gemara says that R' Akiva holds it's an obligation to be Mikana, despite being the most lenient Shita about grounds for divorce. (He holds you may divorce a wife if you found a prettier woman.) So we see that the two arguments cannot be interdependent.

Wed Sotah 2

Tosfos quotes the Yerushalmi. The Pasuk says that a spirit of jealousy cam over him. (This implies that he's Mikane in a serious spirit) Therefore, someone is only Mikana with fear and not with lightheadedness or haughtiness. The Torah writes by these laws "Chuka" which implies that it's totally necessary (and any other type of Mekana doesn't take effect.)

Tues Nazir 66 (really on 65, which was yesterday)

If one found three dead in a field, we consider it a cemetery and you can't exhume them. If you knew that two existed and on e was found (or the other way around) as long as all three is not in the same category.

Tosfos asks why this should be so? Rashbam says, since this is all part of the Halacha L'Moshe Misinai and therefore it's not dictated by logic. Rather, it's just the Torah's decree that we don't deal with it as if it's an established cemetery.

However, Ri says it's very logical. if all know about the two buried there, if the third one was part of the original cemetery, we should have known about it too. Therefore, we need to assume that the one found was just a coincidence that it was buried next to the ones you know about. So either it's a cemetery you know completely about, or a completely ainchant rediscovered cemetery. However, it cannot be a hybrid between the two.

Mon Nazir 65 (really 64, from yesterday)

The Gemara has a few inquiries. First if the rodent is floating on dissolved Nevaila, if it's considered on food and is considered resting or on liquid and is considered floating. Even if that's considered food, how about floating on semen whcih we should really consider liquid (since it starts that way.) Or since it comes out of the solid body, we consider it a continuation. Even if we consider it solid, how about flowing on the waters of he Parah Aduma?

Tosfos explains the last query, since there is mixed ash, it's thicker than water, therefore I might say it's somewhat like a solid.

Tosfos thereby says: since the only only attribute that this water is different than other water, is because of its consistency, the Gemara could have the same inquiry of any water mixed with ashes.

Alternatively, it was specifically asked by Parah. Since it can make someone Tamai, we may consider it(together with the rodent) one big piece of Tumah. Thus that may be a reason to say that the whole Tumah is floating on the bottom water (that the Parah water is on top of.)

Thurs Nazir 61

The gemara ends by saying that a Nazir Tamai needs a razor from our case of the Safeik Nazir Tahor or Tamai

Tosfos asks, how is that a proof. Perhaps he needs to shave his hair for the chance he's a Nazir Tahor? Tosfos answers: since we don't allow him to drink wine and needs another period to act like a Nazir and bring other Korbonos (where he'll shave his head anyhow for his Nazir Tahor) So we wouldn't acquire him to do so the third period if not that even a Nazir Tamai needs a razor.

Wed Nazir 60

The gemara inquires if a Nazir Tamai needs to shave his hair with a razor or even by putting on some potion that will make his hair fall out.

Tosfos point out that this refers to when he shaved part of his hair and the rest with the potion. We would never have though he's allowed to do all his hair with a potion, since the Gemara in BK says this potion will cause the hair never to regrow, if he would put the potion on his hall hair, then he won't have hair to shave for when he becomes a Nazir Tahor.

Tues Nazir 59

The Gemara forbids someone to shave his armpit hair. He cannot have an excuse that it's uncomfortable, since it doesn't grow that long.

Tosfos proves that we forbid even trimming the armpits with scissors. If it would be permitted, even if the armpit grows very long, you won't have an excuse to shave it with a razor, since you can relieve yourself with scissors.

Also, it implies that if there was a valid excuse, you can cut the armpit hair as long as you don't do it for beauty. Thus you can look in the mirror (even if generally you consider that to be a woman's activity) to avoid hurting yourself when you shave.

Mon Nazir 58 (really 57, we'll say something from yesterday)

R' Huna held that there is an issur to shave the head of a minor, but a woman is permitted, since she's not warned not to cut the hair. R' Ada holds there is no Issur to cut a minor's hair, however, whoever it is Assur to cut their hair, a woman is also commanded not to cut their hair.

Tosfos proves that the Halacha follows R' Huna. Since the Gemara in Bava Metziah that explains usually you cannot make a Shliach for an Aveira. However, a courtyard, which acquires for you objects found in them as if they're your Shliach even for acquisitions that are an Aveira. There is an argument why. One Shita holds because it's forced to do it. We only say you can't have a Shliach that has a choice whether to do it or not. Another Shita holds because the courtyard is not commanded in Mitzvos. You can't make a Shliach that is also commanded in that Mitzvah.

One of the Nafka Minas are making a woman your Shliach to shave the hair of a child. She's not commanded not to shave, but she's doing it on her own will and nobody forced her. So we see that mean are commanded not to shave the child's hair (and we consider this a Shliach for an Aveira) however she's not commanded not to shave the child, despite the fact that men are Chayiv.

Thurs Nazir 54

The Gemara has a Drasha to include graves before Matan Torah also becomes Tamai by touching (but not by Ohel.)

Tosfos explains: this has nothing to do with the argument (between R' Shimon and Chachumim) whether a Goy's grave is Mitameh in an Ohel. Over here, without the Drasha, we would assume to all that there is no Tumah in such a grave. Since the Torah starts the Parsha of Tumah "if someone dies" which connotes only future deaths,and not ones before the Torah was given.

Tosfos asks: the gemara in BB says that R' Banah was marking the graves for the Maaras Hamachpeila. We only mark graves that are mitamai for Ohel. Since they died before Matan Torah, why was it needed to be marked?

Tosfos answers: they're the exception. The Torah says when an "Odom" dies." Therefore we would assume it includes Odom Harishon, since he's definitely included in the term "Odom." Even Avraham is called "Odom HAgadol."

Alternatively, he held that our Drasha to include the dead before Matan Torah is Mitamah even with an Ohel. Therefore they're more stringent than Goyim's graves (according to R' Shimon) after Matan Torah.

Wed Nazir 53

Tosfos brings the rules of how Tumah manifests itself in the grave. If the grave is not hollow a Tefech high, then Tumah only rises on top of the actual body. If it's hollow a Tefach, Then if it's completely closed, then Tumah rises through out the length and width of the grave, even in the portion that there is none of the body under that area. However, if the grave is not completely closed and there is an opening where the Tumah can escape, so there is Tumah above the grave.

Tues Nazir 52

The Gemara says, although the spine (with ribs) has a stronger Tumah than regular bones. However, if most of the ribs are broken or disconnected (even if all the pieces are lying there together) they no longer have the same Tumah, and receive the halcha as regular bones.

Tosfos points out: we see in the Gemara in Chulin that compares Treifos to Tumah of the spine. (Over there it compares how many vertebrates needs to be missing that the spine doesn't make Tumas Ohel also renders an animal missing that many to be a Treifa.) So too here breaking most of an animal's ribs render it a Treifa. We see a Gemara like this, that to render a Treifa it needs to break most of the ribs of both sides of the animal. If the ribs get dettached, then it's a Treifa if done to most of one side of the ribs.

Mon Nazir 51

The gemara says that if someone finds three dead bodies in a field within a certain distance that we can assume that there was a cemetery there, you can't exhume them. We assume that this was a old cemetery, which they have a right to remain there, and not just temporarily buried there and forgotten about.

The Gemara says: if one of the dead was found missing some limb, we don't count it as one of the three, and you may exhume them.

Tosfos asks: what difference does it make which shape you find the dead. As long as you find three in a row is a sign that there was a cemetery. So even if one is not complete should also show that?

Tosfos answers: If we say that this Halacha does not come from logic, but rather a Halacha L'moshe M'sinai. We only consider it to be a proper cemetery because the Torah decreed so, then we can say the certain disparage in the halcha, that we don't count the dead with missing limbs, are also part of this decree.

Thurs Nazir 47

The Gemara has a Shaila, which one comes first to bury a Mais Mitzvah,a Kohain Gadol that was anointed or one that was appointed afterwords after they hid the oil, by wearing all eight clothing.

Tosfos deals with the problem, later we say that when they have to appoint another Kohain gadol to serve in the first one's life (when the first Kohain gadol was not fit to serve), cannot do the Avodah when the Kohain gadol comes back. We say there it's simple that a non preforming Kohain gadol should bury first. So what is the question here?

Tosfos answers: we only retire him from doing Avodah in the first one's life time if he was a temporary substitution. We refer to a case where the first Kohain Gadol was exiled for many years. Since the second one was an established kohain gadol for years, we allow him to keep on practicing.the Avodah.

Wed Nazir 46

The Gemara says the Hava aminah of the Drasha to compare those without hand to people with hands regarding T'nufah, to tell us that if you don't do T'nufah, then you're not Yoitzeh

Tosfos explains: it's much more simpler to understand that people without hands are not Yoitzeh than people with hands but decided not to do it. We have the rule, any action that is not M'akeiv is only when you have the ability to do it. When you don't have the ability to do it, then it's M'akeiv and you're not Yoitzeh. Therefore, since someone without hands don't have the abilty to do T'nufah, so of course it's M'Akeiv, so too for people with hands T'nufah is M'akeiv.

Thurs Nazir 33

Abaya held the case of Bais Shammai that a mistaken Hekdish takes effect, if he made it after the day is over, and he is Mikadesh what he thinks comes out first.

Tosfos explains: then it's possible to gauge what he thinks come out first, because he recognized the footprints of the ox that came out first or that you saw which came out first an then forgot. However, if you make a guess on the future what will come out, it's not similar to Temurah where there is a reason to make a mistake, since you have not the slightest inkling which ox will leave first, for you're not prophet.

Mon Nazir 30

The gemara says that according o R' Yosi b. Yehudah it makes sense that the child making a condition that it mends all Sfeikos, even if he turns the age to make Nedarim in middle of the thirty days, but not according Rebbe.

Tosfos explains: the idea is, if the son gets his own identity within the Nazir of the father, then the father's Nazirus stop cold turkey, and then start his own Nazirus. Since it's stopped in the middle, he cannot bring Korbonos for it, and his own Nazir starts, since his father's hasn't finished, it's as his father's never started.

However, according to R' Yosi, since it's only the age of Nedarim, which is rabbinic, it's not strong enough to break the father's Nazir. Therefore the Nazirus finishes until the end. However, Rebbe refers to actual Simanim to become a gadol, which is from the TOrah. Therefore it has the power to stop the father's Neziros cold turkey. Therefore if he gets these Simonim in the middle of the Nazirus, it stops the fathers Nazirus, Thus you don't have a definite Chiyuv until sixty days after teh Father's Nazirus

Thurs Nazir 26

We conclude: we only say that the money of nazir falls to Nedava if the money for chatas is till mixed within. However, if it's not , then half of it goes for the Shlamim and half for an Olah.

Tosfos explains: we can understand this well to R' yochanan, since we can say this condition is included in the Halacha L'Moshe Misinai. However, according to Reish Lakis, that is' a Drashsa, why should we differentiate whether the Chatas money is there or not?

Tosfos answers: it's logical to assume that the Pasuk refers only when the Chatas money is included, since we know that the leftover of Chatas money (that was not needed in the Chatas purchase) falls to nedava. Thus we can assume that the Chatas money causes all the Nazir money to go to Nedava.

Blast your way into Elul Zman:

"Gemara and Tosfos"

Try First Amud of Perek Free

tosfos.ecwid.com

Wed Nazir 25

The rule is from a Halacha L' Moshe Misinai : all cases where a Chatas dies, an Ashum must go to pasture. The Pasuk of "Ashum should be" that only as is it's an Ashum. But once you bring it to pasture it's no longer an Ashum, and if B'Dieved you Shect it for an Olah it's kosher.

Tosfos brings the gemara in pesachim that going to pasture is only a rabbinic decree. Really you should make it an Oleh . However you might do so before a different Ashum was brought and is still meant to be an Ashum, so they enacted that he must bring it to graze first. However, the pasuk is to tell us that there needs to be a Hefsik and redesignation for an Olah so that it's a Kosher Olah.

And to those that hold you don't need to redesignate it, they must learn the Pasuk "the Ashum shall be" that it's only an Asum when it's still meant to be an Asum. However, after it's no longer meant to be an AShum, then it's really now an Olah with redesignating.

Blast your way into Elul Zman:

"Gemara and Tosfos"

Try First Amud of Perek Free

tosfos.ecwid.com

Tues Nazir 24

The gemara asks: how can the woman have her own money to buy her own Korbonos. So the Gemara answers: she had skimped from her allowance for food.

Tosfos asks: doesn't the Gemara in Kesuvos say that the leftover money from her food account return to the husband (and the wife is not privy to it?)

Tosfos answers: we refer to a man who told his wife that she use her own salary to buy her food. Since she's not getting support from her husband, she definitely allowed to keep what's leftover.

Alternatively, we only refer to a case where the husband put an allowance for her food, and the food went down in price. Thus all extra money that wasn't spent reverts to him. However, we refer to leftovers from her skimping on the food, then she's privy to keep the leftovers.

Blast your way into Elul Zman:

"Gemara and Tosfos"

Try First Amud of Perek Free

tosfos.ecwid.com

Mon Nazir 23

The Gemara says: it's better to do Torah and Mitzvos even if it's not L'Shma, since it will lead to L'Shma

Tosfos asks: the gemara in Brachos says it's better not to be borne than to do Mitzvos not L'Shma?

Over there refers to learning Torah for a bad purpose, to belittle others. However, we refer when you have an alternative purpose, like to receive fame.

Blast your way into Elul Zman:

"Gemara and Tosfos"

Try First Amud of Perek Free

tosfos.ecwid.com

Thurs Nazir 19

The Gemara says that if the husband Meifer the Neder, this Tana holds taht it's retroactively cut off, and can not bring the Olah but brings the chatas, since she sinned by holding herself back from the pleasure of wine.

The gemara explains this is like R' Yishmael. Tosfos explains that since R' Yishmael considers it part of the Kapara (and not just a gift) he cannot bring it for no reason. However, the Chatas he can bring, although at this point it's no longer Chayiv. However, since we see one can bring a bird Chatas for a Safeik, therefore it's apropos to bring it for any reason you can find, even if technically you're not Chayiv.

However, you cannot bring one if she doesn't become Tamai, although she still sinned, since we only allow this if there was once some kind of Chiyuv to bring, like when she was Tamai. However, for a Nazir tahor, we cannot create a new Korbon.

Blast your way into Elul Zman:

"Gemara and Tosfos"

Try First Amud of Perek Free

tosfos.ecwid.com

Wed Nazir 18

The Gemara says that the reason for the rabanan that says that when we say we can start a Nazir Tamai's count even if one of his Korbonos wan't brought, we must say it's the Asham. We cannot say that an Ashamm is included, but we exclude the Olah, since there is no reason that the Olah should hold back the count. Since it's not a Korban for kaparah but just a gift.

Tosfos asks: how can R' Yishmael say that we refer to the Olah? Why don't we say that it's simple that it can't hold back counting, since it's only a gift?

Tosfos answers: although usually we only consider it as a gift, by Nazirus it's part of the Kaparah. We see that from the Pasuk writing about the Olah and the Chatos in the same Pasuk and afterwords it refers to the kapara.

Now since we consider it one of the main pieces of the Kapara, this we don't say you must bring the Olah, but the Chatas doesn't stop you from counting? Even though the Olah is part of the Kapar, the Chatas is still the main Kapara. Thus, it makes sense to say that the Torah only excludes the minor part of the Kapara.

Blast your way into Elul Zman:

"Gemara and Tosfos"

Try First Amud of Perek Free

tosfos.ecwid.com

Tues Nazir 17

The Gemara inquires about the case a Nazir goes into a cemetery protected from the tumah by being in a box. If someone opens the box, is there a time limit to leave the cemetery before he's Chayiv.

Tosfos brings the gemara in Shvuos that the inquiry is only if it was an Onness (against hgis will.) So the question is only if someone exposed him against his will. However, if he exposed himself, or , someone else exposed him with his consent, of course he's Chayiv immediately.

Blast your way into Elul Zman:

"Gemara and Tosfos"

Try First Amud of Perek Free

tosfos.ecwid.com

Mon Nazir 16

The Gemara tries to find how does R' Yosi find three days strait of Ziva to make a Zava Gedolah, if we say that part of the day is like the whole day.

Rashi says we cannot say that she saw three days at night, because then we would say that her being clean part of the night is considered as if she was clean that day too.

Tosfos says , this cannot be. We see explicitly, that if she went to the Mikvah on the 11th day of Ziva at night, and have relations that night and sees bloods afterwords, she's Chayiv. We don't say that being clean part of the 11th night is if she was clean the whole 11th day.

Therefore, we must say that we don't consider being clean part of the night as if she was clean the whole day. That Halacha we only say when it starts daylight. However, even if she saw at night, when it becomes dawn, we consider her clean right away for that day. So you still cannot get three consecutive days.

Blast your way into Elul Zman:

"Gemara and Tosfos"

Try First Amud of Perek Free

tosfos.ecwid.com

Thurs Nazir 12

If someone sends a Shliach to Mikadesh any woman (and he doesn't come back to tell if he Mikadesh or who he was Mikadesh) we have a Chazaka the Shliach did his Shlichos. Therefore the one who sent him is forbidden to all woman, for perhaps they are relatives of the woman the Shliach is Mikadesh.

Tosfos asks: why then are not everyone is Assur to all the woman, since they may be the womon that the Shliach Mikadesh and therefore a married woman? Even if you say the woman are believed they never received Kiddushin, but someone who was a Ketana at the time and who's father's now dead (and perhaps he accepted for her kiddushin and she's not aware of it) how can anyone marry her?

Tosfos answers: from the Torah they can marry, since we can say they're from the majority of woman that did not receive Kiddushin in this manner. However, we don't allow the man that made a Shliach to rely on the majority as a penalty for sending such a Shliach that would end up in such a predicament.

Blast your way into Elul Zman:

"Gemara and Tosfos"

Try First Amud of Perek Free

tosfos.ecwid.com

Wed Nazir 11

If someone makes a Nazirus on condition that he can drink wine, even R' Shimon agrees the nazirus takes effect. Since it's a condition that's against the Torah (that says a Nazir is forbidden to wine), so the condition is illegal, and you're left with a complete Nazir.

Tosfos asks: why does the gemara need to discredit the condition because it's against the Torah? Say the reason the condition is illeagle because you need a condition to be only on something that you can send an agent to do it for you (Shliach.) If you can't make a Shliach, so you can't make a condition.

Tosfos answers: although you cannot make a Shliach to fulfil your Nazirus, you can make a Shliach to bring your Korbonos. So we consider Nazirus as a whole as an aspect that one can make a Shliach .

Rabbi Akiva Eiger asks: we see that someone can make a condition for an oath (which only he can keep and can't send a Shliach not to eat for him), although there is no Korbon to say there some aspect that applies Shlichos?

Blast your way into Elul Zman:

"Gemara and Tosfos"

Try First Amud of Perek Free

tosfos.ecwid.com

Tues Nazir 10

Rami b. Chama explains the Mishna that he made a Nazir from the cows meat if he stands up( and he adds the word) by itself.

Rava disagrees. The Mishna does not have the words "by itself," therefore you cannot add it in.

Tosfos asks: don't we always answer Mishnoyos that Chisurai Mechsara, that some of the words are missing (and you need to fill it in?) Why don't we answer that too here?

Tosfos answers: we only say that when it involves what the Tanayim argue with, since it's more obvious something is missing. However, here, it's only a side note (what the condition was) and didn't involve the argument (if a Nazir from meat makes him a Nazir) the Tana would never leave it out.

Blast your way into Elul Zman:

"Gemara and Tosfos"

Try First Amud of Perek Free

tosfos.ecwid.com

Mon Nazir 9

R' Yehuda says in the case he says" I'm a Nazir from figs": even Beis Shamai only forbids figs (and doesn't become a Nazir) as if he said the figs are a Korbon.

Tosfos asks: we see regularly that R' Yehudah holds we assume the first terms the person said. Therefore we should assume that the main words are "I'm a Nazir" and he should be a complete Nazir.

Tosfos answers: we only say that he assumes the first terms is only if the terms are contradictory. Like if he says that this animal is an exchange for an Olah, an exchange for a Shlomim. Therefore we assume his first term that it's an exchange for a Shlomim. However, here we can say the end of his words explain his original statement, that when he said I'm a Nazir, he means to make an oath and separate himself from figs. Therefore we can take the end term into account how to explain the original words.

Thurs Nazir 5

R' Masna says the reason why one shouldn't shave fro his Nazirus on the thirtieth day (which would be permitted, because he holds part of the day is like the complete day) because L'chatchila we don't rely on part of a day is likethe whole day (as we'll explain later.)

According to Bar Pada that says that the whole Nazirus is only 29 days (full days, since he doesn't hold that part of a day is like a full day.) that we don't L'chatchila shave on the 30th because a Gezaira if he would specifically say he's a Nazir for 30 full days.

Tosfos points out that Bar Pada doesn't need to say 30 full days so that he can't shave on the 30th day. As long as he says for 30 days, we know he cannot shave the whole thirtieth day, since he doesn't hold of part of a day is like a whole day. Only to R' Masna, the reason he can't shave on day 30 perhaps he'll say he's a Nazir a full 30 days. Without saying it's full, he would be able to shave on day 30, because he holds part of a day is like the whole day unless you specifically make a condition that the days are full.

Blast your way into Elul Zman:

"Gemara and Tosfos"

Try First Amud of Perek Free

tosfos.ecwid.com

Wed Nazir 4

The Gemara has a version, that how can you say that Nazir falls on Kiddush and havdalah, but they're chayiv from the Torah and you already swore to uphold it. Thereofre your Nazirus now cannot go against your original commitment.

However, Tosfos says it cannot be. Here the Drasha is that despite you have an earlier commitment the Torah says the nazirus transpires. (Like we say at the end, if someone swore to drink wine, although you already swore and need to uphold that commitment, the Nazirus takes effect.) Also, although there is a Drasha of Zachor, remember over wine, that is only an Asmachta. So although Kiddush is from the Torah, over wine is not from the Torah.

So Tosfos syas the versions should read as follows: how can you say that the Drasha is to say that Nazirus takes effect despite being in conflict with Kiddush. That cannot be. Since the wine is not from the Torah, the Torah doesn't need to make a Drasha that Niziros takes effect going against it. So the Gemara only finds the Torah to obligate drinking wine only if the person swore to do so.

Blast your way into Elul Zman:

"Gemara and Tosfos"

Try First Amud of Perek Free

tosfos.ecwid.com

Tues Nazir 3

The Gemara says that R' Yochanan holds if you says "birds that (are written) next hair" and a Nazir Tahor passes you want to be a Nazir (according to R' Meir.) However if a Nazir Tamai walks by, then we assume he only wants to pay for his Korbon Tamai (which is brought with birds.)

Tosfos explains: we assume that he wants to take the easy way out, so we 'll assume he only wants to pay for this Nazir's korban rather than taking upon himself a full Nazirus.

Tosfos asks: perhaps we should assume it even though the Nazir is Tahor, that all he wants to do is to pay for his korbonos if he becomes Tahor.

Tosfos answers: since the obligation to bring korbon Tamai has not materialized yet, we don't say that could be his intent. Therefore, we must assume he's taking on Nazirus, which is applicable to take effect immediately.

Blast your way into Elul Zman:

"Gemara and Tosfos"

Try First Amud of Perek Free

tosfos.ecwid.com

Mon Nazir 2

The Gemara says "let say Shmuel holds Yadayim that are not definitely implied doesn't work. That's why when someone says "I'll be" only works if a Nazir passes, so we know he refers to a Nazir. Otherwise we cannot say we definitively know what he's trying to be.

Tosfos explains: that if he holds that Yadayim don't need to be so definitive, than he would be a Nazir with this expression even if no Nazir passed by.

Tosfos explains: although everyone holds that an expression needs to imply one way more than the other, or else it's not a Yad at all. If so, why does the term "I'll be" imply more that he'll be a Nazir than he'll be fasting?

Tosfos explains: since the implication of "I'll be" seems to say that he'll be something immediately. This is more apropos by Nazir, that may start immediatly in middle of the day. despite if he drank wine that day. However, a fast cannot start in middle of a day that you already ate, therefore the term is not as apropos as by a Nazir

Blast your way into Elul Zman:

"Gemara and Tosfos"

Try First Amud of Perek Free

tosfos.ecwid.com

Thurs Nedarim 88

The Gemara says that if he made a Neder against his son-in law, and he wants to give something to his daughter. However, technically, anything given to the daughter belongs to her husband. So he needs to say that he's giving money on condition that her husband doesn't receive it and he gives it to her to eat.

Ran explains: since it's only given to her to eat, she only acquires it at the time that she's eating. At the point that she's swallowing it, it cannot revert to the husband, so it never got to the husband's pocket. However, this would not help by clothing, since she acquires it when she wears it, and then it would revert to the husband's property.

However, some explain: since he only gives it for one purpose and she cannot exchange it for another purpose, she never makes a complete acquisition on it. Since she never completely owns it, it never revert to the husband's property.

Blast your way into Elul Zman:

"Gemara and Tosfos"

Try First Amud of Perek Free

tosfos.ecwid.com

Wed Nedarim 87

The Gemara says that Toch Kdai Dibur one may retract from his words except by Avodah Zara and Kiddushin. The Ran asks: what's the difference?

He Brings R' Tam who says that really from the Torah there is no such concept of retracting Toch Kdai Dibur. However, the Rabanan gave this Shiur so that a student who's making a deal, if at the end of the deal he meets his Rebbi and needs to greet him, he should still be able to retract afterwords. Although this doesn't apply to most cases, but the Rabbis said to make this Halacha universal so that we shouldn't need to differentiate between different Halachos. However, they decided to keep Kiddushin and Avodah Zara on their Torah Din, that there is no retractions within Toch Kdai Dibur.

The Ran disagrees. If someone made a Neder and retracted Toch Kdai Dibur, it's a Neder form the Torah, so how can the rabbis allow you to actively transgress that Neder? (We have a rule that the rabbis can only allow one to transgress a Torah law passively)

So the Ran explains: that most laws people are not certain they mean it until after Toch Kdai Dibur. If they don't retract by then, we know that they must mean it and it takes effect. However, Kiddushin and Avodah Zara which are very serious matter, if they had not thought it through in the first place, they would never uttered it. So the very fact that he said it shows he means it completely as soon as it leaves his mouth.

Blast your way into Elul Zman:

"Gemara and Tosfos"

Try First Amud of Perek Free

tosfos.ecwid.com

Tues Nedarim 86

The Gemara is finding a case how can she Assur her work for after she gets divorced, since right now it's something that she doesn't have a power over. We cannot compare it to even selling a field he gave up for collateral, though it's not in his hands anymore, since he has the right to redeem it and it will be in his hands. Even if they stipulated that he can't redeem it up to ten years, but eventually it will be in his hands. However, a woman has no way to have herself divorced in order that her work may become her's.

Ran asks: the woman has the ability to say she doesn't want to work for the husband and she won't receive any food from the husband. So we see she has a way to force having her salary in her own hand.

Ran answers: that only works for what she needs to work (with making wool) for supplementary income. That the husband doesn't need to worry about, since it's simple for her to keep that money separate. However, the problem here is that she also Assurs the housework that she needs to do, which is a problem for the husband, therefore he needs to Matir it. However, the Gemara has a problem, since there is no way for a woman o get charge of that since she cannot opt out even if he doesn't feed her.

Blast your way into Elul Zman:

"Gemara and Tosfos"

Try First Amud of Perek Free

tosfos.ecwid.com

Mon Nedarim 85

Rava says that when the owner Assurs pleasure to all Kohanim and Leviyim, since there is no one he can give it to, he has nothing he can do with it, so it becomes hefker and the Kohanim and Leviyim may take it themselves.

The Rashba says: therefore, if someone Assurs his fruits on himself, so it's Hefker and anyone may take them. However, if he goes to a Chachum who Matir the Neder, since retroactively it was never Assur to him, so retroactively it was never Hefker. So the one who took it needs to pay for them. Even though here we allow the Kohanim and Leviyam to take it and we're not worried that they're stealing perhaps the owner will have a Chachum Matir his Neder, since it's not common to have a Neder Matir.

The proof that we're not concerned that he'll Matir a Neder hat we allow a woman who received Kiddushin on condition that she doesn't have any Nedarim on her to marry others (if she has Nedarim.) Why are we not afraid that she'll Matir the Neder and then retroactively she was a woman without Nedarim and the first Kiddushin takes effect, and now the second husband is living with a married woman. So we must conclude that it's very unlikely to Matir a Neder, so we don't worry it may happen.

The Ran disagrees. He holds that it's common to Matir Neder. We encourage people to Matir Neder, and for this reason we consider it a Davar Sheyesh Lo Matirim, since he really should be Matir it. Over there by the woman, we never allowed her to remarry. We only say that she's not Mikudeshes, since that's her status in the meanwhile. Even if we say that it is a licence for her to marry, that's only because we know she won't be Matir it forever and get herself in a lot of hot water by making her retroactively a married woman. However, when this reason doesn't apply we need to worry someone will Matir Neder.

So the Ran says, once he made a Neder and at this point he made it Hefker, so the Hefker can never be reversed, even if he's Matir Neder.

Blast your way into Elul Zman:

"Gemara and Tosfos"

Try First Amud of Perek Free

tosfos.ecwid.com

Thurs Nedarim 81

The Gemara says that if he she swears off working for their parents or to give straw to his cattle, he cannot be Meifer, since she is not obligated to do this for him However, he may Meifer if she swears off pouring him wine, wash him or spread his sheets on his bed, since she's obligated to him.

Ran asks: however, the Gemara in Kesuvos said she's also obligated to feed his cattle, so why can't he be Meifer?

Ran answers: we refer to after he hired four maids, which they do all of the wife's duties, so she's no longer obligated to do so. However, this exemption only applies to work. However, poring wine etc she's still obligated, because this is not regular work, but actions to create closeness between wife and husband.

Wed Nedarim 80

We say that someone cannot Maifer a Neder until it starts. So if there is a condition to be met before the Neder takes effect, hen he cannot be Maifer, because just make sure the condition is kept and there won't be any suffering on her part. Of course, if the condition contains something that causes her to suffer, he can Maifer it immediately.

Asks the Ran: if so, when a woman says she''s a Nazira when she gets divorced, the husband can be Maifer. Why? the condition of the Nazira didn't take place yet, and it's not suffering to remain married, so the husband shouldn't be able to Maifer?

Ran answers: only conditions that in her hands to not fulfill, where she can avoid suffering, we say it doesn't take effect until the Neder starts. However, since divorce is his decision, it's not in her hands not to get divorced and avoid suffering going through Naziros, therefore the husband can be Maifer.

Tues Nedarum 79

A husband can't be Maifer in his heart without explicitly saying so. However, he can be Maykim in his heart and doesn't need to say it.

The Ran explains the reason he doesn't need to explain by Hakam, since we see that Hakam takes effect despite not saying anything. We see this when he doesn't say anything until the next day. since a day passes without saying anything, we see in his heart he wants the Neder to stand. So we have a precedence for doing hakam by not saying anything.

R' Akiva eiger asks: there is no comparison between the two cases. By keeping quiet for a day, he reveals to all that his intent is to make the Neder stand. However, within that same day, just thinking of the Hakam doesn't reveal anything to anybody. So we should revert to the rule that things though in his heart is nothing and doesn't take effect.

Mon Nedarim 78

The Gemara says that a husband is only takes away a Neder if he uses the term "hafara." a Chachum only takes off a Neder with the term" Heter."

Ran explains: the term Heter means that it's permitted completely and there was never any Issur here. Therefore, since a Chachum removes the Neder retroactively, it's only appropriate to use the term "Heter". However, a husband only takes off the Neder from this time and on, but not retroactively. Therefore it's appropriate to use the term" Maifer" that implies that.

Thurs Nedarim 74

The Gemara explains that R' Yehoshua that says that if there is only one Yavum, he may be Maifer the Yevama's oaths, it's because he holds there is Zika (that they're connected to the point that we consider him to be her husband.)

Ran asks: the Gemara there says we don't find anyone that holds Zika is so strong that we already consider him to be her husband except r' Oshia explaining R' Shimon, and he was disproved?

The Ran answers: the Gemara there only means that we don't find anyone that explains R' Shimon that Zika makes him her husband, however, we can say that R' Yehoshua held that way.

Alternatively, we don't consider him to be her complete husband, rather just being on the same plane as Kiddushin, that he can Maifer her Neder in partnership with her father's Hafara.

Wed Nedarim 73

The Gemara has a Shaila if you can be Maifer the Nedarim of his two wives at thee same time. Or do we say that the Torah says "her Neder" and not her with someone else.

The Gemara brings a proof from a Sotah that you may not perform the ceremony on two Sotos at the same time. Tana Kama says for perhaps, one of them would admit to her sin, but gets more confidence to deny her sin when her friend is also denying. R' Yehuda says: this is not the reason, rather because the Pasuk says to take "her" out, and not "them" out.

The Ran brings those who explain: so we see it's a Machlokes if we make this Drasha, therefore the Halacha is like Tana kama who says that we don't, therefore he can maifer two wives at the same time.

However, the Ramban explains: everyone holds of this Drasha. The Gemara in Sotah explains Tana Kama as R' Shimon that explains the reasons of the Pasuk, why was the Torah care to take only her out. Similarly, we use this Drasha that one can't Shecht two Para Adumos at the same time, since the Torah says you Shecht "her." Also, we use this Drasha to say later, that the man needs to know which person's Neder he's Meifer. (he can't be in doubt if his wife or daughter made it.

Tues Nedarim 72

The Gemara has a Shaila if someone could be maifer before he hears. The Gemara wants to bring a proof that before the Nesuin, both the husband and the father Maifer all Nedarim until now, since they can't do it do it anymore for these Nedarim after the Nesuin. The Gemara rejects it that the father starts up with her so that she would reveal to him all the Nedarim she made (to show him how angry she is.)

The Ran says there are those that require the same from the husband. ALthough he may still be Maifer after the Nesuin, but not for Nedarim that she made before the Nesuin. So he needs to know about, and be Maifer before the nesuin. However, there are those that versions don't require that by the husband. He may just simply say I'm being Maifer your Neder to take effect after I hear about it. Although after the Nesuin he cannot be Maifer by himself Nedarim she made after Airusin. However, since he can Maifer at that time, and the father already Maifer before Nesuin, we can combine the two hafaros.

Mon Nedarim 71

If the father heard the neder and made hafara, while before the husband hears, he dies, if she receives Kiddushin that day, the second husband may do Hafara.

Ran explains that this may go according to Beis Hillel. Although he holds that the father's heter would weaken the Neder tot he point that it would be too weak to transfer the remainder to the father, still we say that the second husband may make Hafara. The reason is, the Neder is not transferring from the first husband's jurisdiction to the second husband's jurisdiction. Rather, the second husband is taking over the first husband's position and we consider him just a continuation of the first husband's jurisdiction.

Thurs Nedarim 67

If the husband makes Hafara and the father is Mikayim, so the Neder stands. However, if the father is Matir Neder for his Hakama and is Meifer, we do not combine it to the husband's earlier Hafara, since they weren't done at the same time.

Ran explains that it doesn't have to be done simultaneously, but it means it cannot combine with a Hakama in the middle. The Ramban holds that now the husband may Maifer a second time to combine with the father's. The Rambam holds that he lost his ability to be Maifer, since he already id it.

The Ran asks: Why don't we say that when he Matir Neder on the Hakama, it was if the Hakama never happened, so they should combine? We see a precedence to this: if a man marries a wife on condition she doesn't have Nedarim, Even if she had Nedarim, if she's Matir Neder we view that the Neder never happened and it's a good Kiddushin.

The Ran answers: over there, Kiddushin is an entity by itself. Therefore when she was Matir Neder, we say the kiddushin takes effect retroactively. However, here, the husband's Hafara is nothing by itself. Therefore we cannot say it takes effect retroactively, but you need to combine it with what happens after the whole Hakama and Heter. Therefore we cannot say they combine retroactively.

Wed Nedarim 66

The Tana Kama says that if he makes a Neder from this ugly woman and then finds out she was really beautiful, he made the Neder mistakenly so the Neder was never valid. However, if at that time she was ugly, but she developed later to become beautiful, she remains Assur to him.

Ran (before) asks, that we already said that if he makes a Neder on a woman because of his dastardly father, he's Muttur to her if her father dies or does T'shuva. We say that it's as if he made a condition, and as long as the reason is no longer valid, so the Neder is no longer in effect. Why dont' we say the same here?

The Rashba answers: over there, it's apt for the father to either die or do T'shuva, therefore we say he had in mind that the Neder should only last while the father is still a bum. However, it's not to often that the ugly turn beautiful, so we say he meant to Assur her completely.

However, R' Shmuel answers: that if he would say he makes a Neder from her because she's ugly, then when she becomes beautiful she's Muter, since it seems that it's a condition, since he gives it specifically as the reason she's Assur. However, our case is that he makes a neder from this ugly woman. So we don't see he's giving a reason, but rather just identifying the women. Therefore we assume he Assurs her forever.

Tues Nedarin 65

The Gemara says that if you made a neder from partaking any pleasure from someone, he should not Matir the Neder unless that person is also present.

The Ran inquires: what happens B'Dieved if he does Matir it when the other party isn't there. There was those who want to say that B'Dieved it's permitted. The proof is from Mesechta Gitten that they worried perhaps the widow, to prove she didn't collect her kesuva yet, makes a Neder on a food that it should be Assur to her if she already collected it, perhaps she'll go to a Chachum behind everyone's back and be Matir it. But doesn't she need to Matir it in front of the heirs (who she made the Neder for.) So, we must say that's B'Dieved it's Mutur.

Similarly, we see that Tzidkiyahu swore to Nevuchadnetzer not to reveal his secret. It bothered him so much to hold in the secret, he had the Sanhedrin Matir it. How can he do so, if it doesn't work? We must say that it's B'Dieved Matir.

(This that the Sanhedrin Matir it L'chatchila, was because the Mitzvah to listen to the king supersedes this prohibition to not Matir behind the other guy's back. Alternatively, it was interfering with Tzidkiyahu's learning and other duties, so it was Mutur to do so.)

However, Ravad held that it's B'Dieved not Matir. In the case of the widow, after the Neder was made, it was no more interest to the heirs whether she keeps her Neder or not (since what was done by collecting it twice was done), so therefore she has the right to Matir if they're not there. Or perhaps, although it doesn't work, she might do it because she might think it works. The same by Tzidkiyahu, perhaps they did do wrong. After all, Hashem punished them for it.

Mon Nedarim 64

There is a Machlokes between R Eliezer that hold that one may regret his Neder for Kavod Av (that it reflects bad on his parents) and the Chachumim disagree.

R' Tzadok says they would argue even regretting for Kavod Hashem (Ran in the name of Sifri: that it is like you made an oath in his name.) The Chachumim says that R' Eliezer would agree that you can't. Abaya says since you might say you regretted because of Kavod Hashem when you didn't, since you're embarrassed to say that you truly didn't care about his Kavod.)

Ran explains that the argument between the rabanan and R' Eliezer if you may lie for Kavod Av, or since it's not as bad as Kavod Hashem he doesn't care if he tells the truth.

Rava explains since all nedarim could be knocked off with such a claim, he might not go to get his Neder Matir, since he'll thinks it will be automatically Mutur.

Ran says but by Kivod Av they argue if it would automatically be a good regret for all Nedarim, or there are small Nedarim that wouldn't reflect too badly on the parents that he made it.

Alternatively, the Rava holds like Abaya by Kivod Hashem, that we're afraid that he'll lie. However, he disagrees completely that we would be worried for this by Kivod Av, since no one would be too embarrassed to say he doesn't care about their kavod. So therefore he needs a new reason why the rabanan says you cannot regret for their kavod. So we must say that the Chachamim has this new Chashas that all Nedarim could be Matir with this, so they won't bother having them Matir. R' Eliezer is not worried for that to happen.

Thurs Nedarim 60

The Gemara says that if someone made a Neder not to eat today, although really he should be permitted at night, However the Rabanan required him to eat only with Hataras Nedarim. R' Yosef explains: its' a gezaira so he shouldn't permit to eat at night when he makes a Neder for a day, which he needs to refrain fro 24 hours.

R' Yirmiya says it's a Kanos (fine) for making a Neder,since he did wrong by making a Neder in the first place.

Ran explains: although regularly we don't fine people to extend their Neder to fine them. However, here there is a reason to extend it because of R' Yosef's Gezaira. However, R' Yirmiya holds that in itself it's not enough to worry that he'll become confused between the two Nedarim. However, since he did wrong for making the Neder we'll impose this gezaira on him and make him to make sure there is no chance whatsoever to mix them up.

Wed Nedarim 59

Nedarim 59

The Gemara says that Tevel for Trumos Maaser that was planted and grow, one needs to take off for only the amount of the original Tevel (and we don't say that it's Batul to what grows) since we have a Pasuk (as the Ran explains) that says only Heter that's planted turns into the next crop, but not seeds that are Assur (because of Tevel.)

Ran points out this must be only an Asmachta. Since we refer to things that don't disappear when it starts growing. We know all things that are Chayiv from the Torah, its seed disappears when you plant it and grows. So, we must say the real reason they Assured it, since what you planted was Issur(Tevel) and what grows afterwards is also Issur (either Tevel or Shvious.) Therefore, just as we said (last week, by Davar Sheyesh Lo Matirin) that Heter cannot Mivatel Heter. So too, Issur cannot Mivatel Issur.

Tuesday Nedarim 58

At the end of last Blatt the Gemara brings a proof that what grows afterwords Mivatels what you planted. R' Yochanan says if you plant an onion that all the Trumas and Maasaros were removed, what grows afterwards is tevel and you must take off Trumos and Maaseros on the whole onion. So we see that even what was planted becomes tevel because it's batul to what grows.

The Gemara says that really it's not Batul, but the Rabanan were Machmir

Ran asks: Why don't we say that since really what you planted is not Tevel you might take off Trumah from what you planted on what grew which is obligated. Thus it would come out that it wasn't separated properly.

Ran answers: since what you planted doesn't become Batul that grows, ther reason for that is what grows becomes Batul to what you planted as it grows. Therefore, really none of theis onion is Tevel from the Torah.The whole onion is only Tevel Midarabanan, and has the same obligation. So you can separate for any part of the onion from any other part.

The Gemara wants to bring a proof from a sixth year onion that you plant on Shvious, we say that what grows Assurs the main part (especially before Biur, then even the smallest amount grows Assurs the planted part since its a Davar Sheyeish Lo Matirin, since you can eat it with the Hilchos Shvious.) So this proves that we don't say what grows is Batul to what you planted.

The Gemara also answers that it's only a Chumra.

Ran asks why does the Gemara ask this, if we already answered this in the first case. So why should we think this case is different to ask it again.

Ran answers: I would have thought that we wouldn't say that this Braisa is only a Chumra, since it already has a Chumra to say that even the smallest amount is not Batul to what's planted because of Davar Sheyesh Lo Matirin, i would assume they wouldn't impose another Chumra that the growth is not Batul to the original. Therefore i would assume that the reason it's not Batul because that;s the actual halacha. However, the Gemara answers that it's a Chumra.

Mon Nedarim 57

If one makes an oath on these fruit, he's forbidden to partake in what grows (if you plant them) and what it's exchanged for.

Ran explains since you specify the fruit by saying "these fruit." Therefore, your stating that they're like hekdish, thus we treat them so to forbid the growth and the exchange. However, if you just make an oath on the type of fruit in general, this won't apply.

However, Ran asks on this, since in an earlier Perek Rumi b. Chama inquired if this only applies to the one who makes the Neder, since he can Assur other people's property on him, so too they can Assur himself on what grows and is exchanged, despite that it's not his yet. Or any Issur Hannah has a Halacha of Hekdish and therefore this would apply to all. The second side obviously applies even if you don't specify the fruit, since it applies to all Issur hanah. Since Rami b. Chama doesn't explicitly ask if the Mishna specifying "these" is not exact and refers even when there is no specification, thus we must assume that he wasn't in doubt. So we must say that even his first side refers even when he doesn't specify. Thus we see that this applies even without specifications.

The Ran answers: really our Mishna needs specification for the one who made the Neder. Therefore he can Assur him not only what he exchanged the object for, but even what others exchanged it. Rami b. Chama only asks if we say that for others that didn't make the Neder, do we say that we permit all exchanges, since the Neder can't go on them. Or do we say the Halacha of Issur hanah that he's forbidden with what he exchanges the item for. However, we never had a Hava Amina that it should be forbidden to them what others exchanged it for.

Thurs Nedarim 53

The Tanna Kamma says that if one makes a Neder from dates, he's permitted to eat date honey.

Ran asks: why is this different from whey that is Assur to r' Yossi if you make a Neder from milk since it's called "milk's whey?" Even the Rabanan only argue because they called it regular whey. However, they would agree here where the product is called date honey.

The Ran brings the Rashba that answers: that whey is different since it doesn't change it's appearance as it was in the milk, so we consider it one and the same. Over here, the honey change its appearance as it was while it was part of the date.

The Ran answers: since there is many types of honey, we need to be specific which honey we refer to, so we call it date honey. Therefore, this doesn't make it its actual name, but a description. However, there is no other whey but what comes from milk. Therefore, there is no reason to call it milk's whey unless it's part of the actual name.

Wed Nedarin 52

If someone says "I make a Neder on meat or wine that I'll eat" if some fall into a stew, we prohibit the stew if you can taste it in the stew.

Ran asks: we see later that a Neder is a Davar Sheyesh Lo Matirin (it has a way to permit it by Hataras Nedarim.) We know the rule that if it has Matirim it' not Batul even in a thousand. If so, why don't we forbid it if you cannot taste it?

His Rebbis answered: since Davar Sheyesh Lo Matirim is only Batel if it's mixed in the same type of food. Here it's not applicable since it's mixed into a different food. Therefore they ask on the Rif that forbids bread baked with a small amount of milk (that doesn't give taste) with meat. Since it has a Matir to eat it without meat, he needs to. So the Ran's Rebbis asks: we already said that only if it's mixed with the same type of food is it not Batul. However, the milk is not the same type of food as the bread and should be Batul.

However, the Ran defends the Rif. he explains the reason that Davar Sheyesh Lo Matirin needs to be mixed with its own type of foo based on a Gemara. R' Yehudah holds That anything mixed with its own type is not Batul. We see this from Yom Kippur that the Kohain Gadol mixed the bull's and goat's blood together, and yet the Torah calls it a mixture of bull's and goat's blood. Although the bull's blood is more, we say the goat's blood is not Batul. The Rabanan explain that there is different since they're the same category, Kosher Olos. This is no proof to a mixture of Kosher and non-Kosher.

So the Ran theorizes that the Rabanan consider that being the same amount Kosher is more of a reason to say they're equal so that they're not Batul together, than the fact they're the same type of food. Therefore, if one is Kosher and one is not, we consider them so different that we say they are Batul despite being the same food. A Davar Sheyesh lo Matirin is somewhat similar. Although it's not permitted now, since it will be permitted, so we consider it somewhat similar. So if it has another aspect in common, that it's the same type of food, so we say it's also not Batul. However, if it's completely Kosher, we consider them completely similar that it's not Batul even if the foods are totally different types. Since the milk and the bread are both completely permitted, we say that the milk cannot be Batul in the bread and therefore cannot be eaten with milk.

Tuesday Nedarim 51

If someone makes a Neder from "the pickled" he refers only to pickled vegetables. If he makes it from "the cooked" or from "the roasted" he refers to meats only. If he says from "the salted" he refers only to fish"

However, if he makes a Neder from "pickled (or cooked or roasted or salted) that I will eat" he refers to any type in that category.

The Ran has two ways of explaining the difference between the first cases and the last. The first way he learns that since he prefaced the word with "the" he refers to a specific type, the most prevalent. The last case where he doesn't say "the" so he refers to general category which includes all.

Alternatively, the second case he says an extra phrase "that I'll eat" teaches us to add more than we originally assumed. Therefore we include all that's within its category.

Then the Gemara has a Shaila: how about if he says "D'Kavush"etc.

Ran learns the question according to his first explanation: is the inference of a "Daled" in the beginning of a word is the same as a "Hey" (to mean "the" and only mean a specific food) or not.

He then explains according to the second explanation: Is it exact that you need to add an extra phrase "I'll eat" to include all types of food in that category, or does it mean it even if he says the word "Kavush" by itself. (We only say it refers to the most usual case only if he says a "Hey" before it.)

Mon Nedarim 50

R ' Akiva offered a Pesach to his father-in-law: would you have made the Neder if your son-in-law would become a budding scholar. His father-in-law replied: I wouldn't have made it if he would learn one Perek or one Halacha.

Ran asks: we know that we cannot Matir Neder on a factor that was not present when he made the Neder. This is known as Nolad. One cannot say if he made a Neder on an ignoramus if I knew he would become a scholar I wouldn't have made the Neder, since he wasn't a scholar when he made the Neder. Therefore, how could R' Akiva make such a Pesach that's basid on Nolad?

Ran answers : since they already made up that he'll join the Yeshiva to become a scholar. Therefore it's not Nolad, because by such a person we can assume that he ought to learn at least a Perek or Halacha.

Thurs Nedarim 46

The Gemara says that even R' Eliezer b. Yaakov permits if the courtyard is too small to split up between the partners. However, if they could split up, then he cannot enter the courtyard.

Ran explains: that we cannot say he bought the whole courtyard for when he uses it, since his partner can force him to split, we say that he may not bought this part that he's entering, since it might fall out in his partner's half after the split.

The Rashba explains: it would be Assur after the split too. Since the split is a sale (each one buying out the other one's partnership in their half.) We have a rule that even if the oath maker sells his house, the Assur party cannot go in unless that there after the fist sale, but only after the buyer sells it to a third person. However, the Rambam permits it after the split. The Ran explains: we must say that it's an unstipulated condition in the original partnership that each side cannot make an oath to forbid the partner after the split. Therefore, he never owned it enough to be able to forbid it.

Wed Nedarim 45

Tana Kama says that the partner in the courtyard that swore off pleasure from the other cannot enter the courtyard. R' Eliezer b. Yaakov says that he may, since he's going into his portion.

Ran brings the Gemara in Bava Kama that says the argument is do we say Breira. When they bought the courtyard jointly, can we say that each one owns what he eventually uses. Therefore each one walks into his possession only, since it's revealed that he was the one who bought it for that moment. Or we don't say that. When they bought it jointly, at that moment we don't know when they're going to use it, so they both own the whole property always jointly, so he's always going into what his partner also owns.

However, the Ran asks: In Beitza we Paskin that for D'oiraisa cases we don't rely on Breira, so here we should Paskin like the Rabanan that says we can't say the future reveals what he bought. However, the Gemara Paskins like R' Eliezer b. Yaakov.

The Ran answers: we only don't say Breira if we need the future to decide the whole transaction. Like if someone puts an Eiruv T'chum that it should take effect if a rabbi comes on Shabbos there and he wants to walk there. If he doesn't come, he wants the Eruv not to take effect, so he should have the same T'chum as his fellow town dwellers. Therefore we rely on Breira to reveal to us during Shabbos was there an Eiruv at here at all before Shabbos.

However, our case the transaction definitely took place, they bought the courtyard jointly. We only need to say Breira to learn the details in the purchase, which specific times did each partner buy for. Therefore we may say Breira in this case.

Tues Nedarim 44

The Gemara tries to reconcile the beginning and the end of the braisa. The Raisha seems to say that once he made it Hefker, it leaves the owner's possession immediately, like Rabanan. The Seifa, where he made a time limit for when it will be Hefker, implies that he may renege on his Hefker, so it doesn't leave his possession until someone else takes it.

The first answer that it's like the Rabanan, however the Seifa is different, since it's not common to make such a Hefker.

The Ran explains: since he did something uncommon and did not do the regular type of hefker, forever, we see he's reluctant to mafkir it. Therefore, we assume his intent is not to release it from his possession until someone takes it. However, most people by regular Hefkir is not reluctant, so they release it from their possessions immediately.

Mon Nedarim 43

Someone took an oath not to take pleasure from a person, neither can lend to each other, nor borrow from each other nor buy from each other.

The Gemara asks, I understand why the oath maker can't borrow since he receives pleasure from him. However, why can't he lend?

Abaya's answers that we make a Gezeira that if he lends he'll come to borrow.

The Ran asks: that it seems all over that only the one who makes the oath can't have pleasure from the other person, but the second person may have pleasure from the oath maker, and we don't decree to forbid him?

The Ran answers: when dealing with regular pleasures, like eating from the second person, we know that it's included in the oath, so there is no reason someone will get mixed up. However, the pleasures listed in the Mishna are not such strong pleasures that one might mistake that it's not included in the oath. So if the second person will borrow from the oath maker, they'll make a mistake thinking that it's not included, and the oath maker may borrow. Therefore they enacted it in this situation.

Continuing a taste of Tosfos

I will Bezras Hashem start writing again a taste of Tosfos (or for Nedarim the Ran. Everyday Mon-Thurs we'll write a thought from Tosfos on the Daf Yomi. Serious learners only. We'll start July 6- Nedarim 43 This will be brought by the Gemara and Tosfos series. We have the first Perek of Sukkos and Perek Eilu Metzious. Coming soon the first Perek of Kiddushin.