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.