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.