1) TOSFOS DH ELA

תוספות ד"ה אלא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how we exclude Treifah "from all the living.")

פירוש ולדידיה אצטריך מכל החי למעט טריפה

(a) Explanation: This means that according to him, the Pasuk, "From all the living" is needed to exclude a Treifah.

וא"ת טריפה נמי היכי מימעט' מהאי קרא הא מאן דאית ליה טריפה יולדת כל שכן דאית ליה נמי טריפה חיה דאפילו למאן דאמר טריפה אינה יולדת אמר דיכול להיות דאית ליה דחיה וא"כ היכי ממעטת מקרא דמכל החי הרי ראויה היא לחיות

(b) Question: How do we exclude a Treifah from this Pasuk? The opinion that holds that a Treifah can give birth will certainly hold that a Treifah can live! Even the opinion that a Treifah does not give birth will say that it is possible that it may live. If so, how can this be excluded from the Pasuk, "From all the living?" It can live!

וי"ל דנפרש לקרא הכי מכל החי שיהא כולו בריא וזריז ולא חולה וטריפה אע"ג דהוא חי מ"מ אינה בריאה אלא חולה כל ימיה ומתמעטה והולכת וממעט שפיר מהאי קרא דמכל החי טפי ממחוסר אבר שכולו בריא וחי חוץ מאבר אחד

(c) Answer: It is possible that the Pasuk can be explained as follows. "From all the living" means that it should be completely healthy and thriving, as opposed to being sickly. A Treifah, even though it can live, is still not considered healthy. Rather, it is sick its entire life, and it continues to become sicker. It therefore can be excluded from this Pasuk, "From all the living" even more than an animal missing a limb that is totally healthy and alive besides for the fact that it is missing one limb.

וכן פירש רש"י לקמן פרק רבי ישמעאל (דף נא.)

1. Answer(cont.): Rashi also gives this explanation later (51a, DH "v'Dilma").

2) TOSFOS DH ITACH

תוספות ד"ה אתך

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how we exclude a Treifah from this Pasuk, and if a Treifah is better or worse than an animal missing a limb.)

ומ"מ ליכא למעט מהכא מחוסר אבר ובעל מום כיון שלא היה צריך אלא לקיום העולם

(a) Explanation: However, one cannot exclude from here both an animal that is missing a limb and an animal with a blemish (the latter which we conclude that we do not exclude at all), being that he only needed the animals to populate the world.

ומיהו קשיא דהא קיימינן אליבא דמ"ד טריפה יולדת וא"כ טריפה היכי ממעטינן

(b) Question: However, this is difficult. We hold according to the opinion that a Treifah gives birth. If so, how do we exclude a Treifah?

ושמא י"ל דמכל החי איצטריך למעט מחוסר אבר דאי לא כתיב אלא אתך הוה מוקמינן ליה למחוסר אבר ולא לטריפה דמסתבר טפי למעוטי מחוסר אבר דמאיס מטריפה דלא מאיסה שאין כאן חסרון וגם יש הרבה טריפות שאינן ניכר הר"י

(c) Answer: Perhaps we can answer that the Pasuk, "From all the living" is required to exclude an animal that is missing a limb. Indeed, if the Pasuk had only said, "Itach," I would think that it is referring to an animal with a missing limb, not a Treifah. This is because it is more logical to exclude an animal with a missing limb which is disgusting than a Treifah which is not disgusting, as is does not have any part of it missing. There are many Treifos where one cannot even tell that the animal is a Treifah! (However, being that we have two Pesukim, "Itach" and "mi'Kol ha'Chai" it must be that we exclude both.)

והא דאמר לעיל (דף ה:) האי מיבעי ליה למעוטי טריפה אם כן משמע דמסתבר טפי למעוטי טריפה

(d) Implied Question: The Gemara asked earlier (5b) that we require this Pasuk to exclude a Treifah (and not an animal missing a limb). If so, the Gemara implies that it is more reasonable to exclude a Treifah than an animal missing a limb. (This is unlike the reasoning we have just suggested.)

היינו ממיעוט דכל החי דמשמע בריא ולא טריפה אבל מחוסר אבר כגון אוזן וכיוצא בו בריא גמור הוא בשאר הגוף כדפרישית לעיל

(e) Answer: This is only regarding the exclusion of, "From all of the living," which implies an animal that is healthy and not a Treifah. However, an animal missing a limb, such as an ear, is considered totally healthy in the rest of his body, as I have explained earlier.

3) TOSFOS DH V'DILMA

תוספות ד"ה ודלמא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how Noach can possibly be a Treifah.)

ואע"ג שחי לאחר מכאן שנים רבות

(a) Implied Question: This is despite the fact that he lived for many years afterwards. (Why would we think he was a Treifah?)

מ"מ באותה שעה לא היה יודע אם היה טריפה או שלם שיניח מלהביא טריפה מטעם דומין לך

(b) Answer: Even so, as that time it was not known whether or not he was a Triefah. It is therefore unclear that he would not have brought a Treifah aboard due to the teaching that "they should be similar to you."

ולא נהירא תירוץ זה דע"כ לא הזהירו אלא מטרפות הגלוי וניכר דבטרפות שבסתר לא היה יכול להבחין

(c) Question: This answer seems difficult. Hash-m clearly only warned Noach not to take Treifos that were revealed and obvious, as he could not know whether an animal was a hidden Treifah (i.e. it had a problem with its internal organs that made it a Treifah).

אלא י"ל דהשתא קאי כמ"ד חיה דקסבר טריפה חיה

(d) Answer: However, it is possible to answer that the Gemara now holds like the opinion that a Treifah lives.

תדע דהא קיימין אליבא דמ"ד טריפה יולדת ולדידיה טריפה נמי חיה

(e) Proof: This is clearly true, as the Gemara is according to the opinion that a Treifah gives birth. According to that opinion, a Treifah can also live.

4) TOSFOS DH TAMIM

תוספות ד"ה תמים

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the word "Tamim" is not used to exclude a Treifah.)

וא"ת גבי קרבן (מנחות דף ה:) למה אנו מצריכין מן הבקר להוציא טריפה תיפוק לי' מתמים

(a) Question: Why does the Gemara in Menachos (5b) require the Pasuk, "from the cattle" to exclude a Treifah from being brought as a Korban? Why shouldn't this be derived from the fact that an animal must be "Tamim" -- "complete?" (The Pasuk reads, "If his Korban is an Olah from the cattle, a male complete animal should be brought" (Vayikra 1:3). Why not derive this from "complete" instead of "from the cattle?")

וי"ל דהתם סברא הוא למדרש תמים ולא בעל מום דמגונה לגבוה יותר מטרפות

(b) Answer#1: It is logical that the Pasuk should teach that "complete" excludes an animal with a blemish. This is because it is more disgusting to bring an animal with a blemish than a Treifah.

תדע דבעל מום מגונה הוא ביותר דכתיב גבי בעלי מומין לגבוה הקריבהו נא לפחתך הירצך והיינו טעמא דניכר אבל טרפות יש שאינו ניכר

(c) Proof: It is clear that offering an animal with a blemish is considered very denigrating, as the Pasuk says regarding such an offering, "Offer it to your officer. Will he be pleased with you?" This is because it is obviously injured. However, there are some Treifos that are not clearly injured.

ועוד דקרא גופיה בהדיא מעטיה תמים יהיה לרצון כל מום לא יהיה בו משמע הא אית ביה מום לא מיקרי תמים

(d) Answer#2: Additionally, the Pasuk itself clearly excludes an animal with a blemish from being called complete, as the Pasuk says, "It should be complete to be wanted, it should not have any blemish." This implies that if it has a blemish it is not called complete. (This is also a reason why I would think that "complete" excludes an animal with a blemish, but not a Treifah.)

5) TOSFOS DH V'HASHTA

תוספות ד"ה והשתא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains what is derived from "Itach" according to the opinion that a Treifah does not give birth.)

וא"ת למ"ד טריפה אינה יולדת ונפקא לן טריפה מלחיות זרע וא"כ אתך ל"ל

(a) Question: According to the opinion that a Treifah does not give birth, and we derive Treifah from the Pasuk, "to have seed live," why do we require the Pasuk of "Itach?"

ואין לדחות דאורחיה דקרא הוא דהא גבי משה דרשינן (סנהדרין דף לו:) אתך בדומין לך

1. Implied Question(cont.): One cannot push aside that the Pasuk would normally have stated "Itach" anyway (and it is not meant as an extra word to use to derive laws), as regarding Moshe we derive in Sanhedrin (36b), "Itach - (this teaches) that are similar to you."

וי"ל דדרשינן ה"נ אתך שיהו טפלין לך כדדרשינן (בב"מ דף סב.) וחי אחיך עמך חייך קודמין לחיי חבירך

(b) Answer: We would derive "Itach - (this teaches) that they should be secondary to you." This is similar to the derivation in Bava Metzia (62a), "And your brother should live with you - (this teaches) that your life takes priority over the life of your friend."

ובבראשית רבה דריש והיה לך ולהם לאכלה הם טפלים לך ואי אתה טפל להם

1. Answer: The Bereishis Rabah teaches, "And it will be for you and for them to eat" indicates that they should be secondary to you, and you should not be secondary to them.

6) TOSFOS DH V'EE

תוספות ד"ה ואי

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the Gemara's question and observes that there must have been at least two days between Kalanda and Satarnurya.)

פי' אא"ב דבשלשה ימים דקא חשיב תנא דמתני' אין ימי האיד בחשבונם אלא לפעמים שיום האיד אחד או שנים או כגון אלו ניחא דהשתא נקט דלעולם לפני האיד אסור לשאת ולתת עמהן שלשה ימים

(a) Explanation: This means, if you would say that the three days stated in the Mishnah do not include the actual holiday, but their holidays are sometimes one or two days long, or eight days long like these holidays mentioned in our Gemara, this is understandable. This is because the Mishnah merely said that it is forbidden to do business with them for three days.

אא"א דלעולם עם האיד מחשבים השלשה ימים היכי קתני בתר הכי אלו הן אידיהן קלנדא דמשמע שאז אסור לשאת ולתת עמהן שלשה ימים וליתא דעשרה הוו

1. Explanation(cont.): However, if you say that the holiday is part of the three days, how can the next Mishnah state that their holidays are Kalanda etc.? This implies that it would only be forbidden to deal with them for three days, when in fact it is forbidden to deal with them for ten days (eight of Kalanda and two more)!

וצ"ל שיש הפסק בין קלנדא לסטרנוריא לכל הפחות ב' ימים מדקאמר עשרה יומי הוו א"כ יש שני ימים לפני קלנדא שאין בו איד וסברא נמי הוא דאמרינן לקמן שח' ימים של קלנדא הם כנגד ח' ימים טובים שעשה אדם הראשון ומסתמא לא עשאם מיד אחר התקופה שהרי לא היה יכול להבין מיד אריכות הימים

(b) Observation: It must be that there is at least a two-day interruption between Kalanda and Satarnurya. Being that the Gemara says the Mishnah should say ten days, if so, it is clearly indicating that there are two days before Kalanda that do not involve any holiday. This is also logical, as we say later that the eight days of Kalanda are opposite the eight holidays instituted by Adam Ha'Rishon. He probably did not establish them right after the beginning of the next season, as he could not immediately tell that the days were getting longer.

7) TOSFOS DH ELA SHEMA MINAH

תוספות ד"ה אלא ש"מ

(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks why it isn't obvious to the Gemara that the three days do not include the holiday.)

תימה לי אמאי לא קאמר מתני' נמי דיקא דהן בלא אידיהן מדקתני תנא לפני אידיהן ג' ימים דאי ס"ד הן ואידיהן ליתני לפני אידיהן שני ימים

(a) Question: This is difficult. Why didn't the Gemara ask that our Mishnah also implies that the three days do not include the holiday itself? This is implied by the Tana's statement, "Three days before their holiday." If we would think the holiday is included, it should say, "Two days before their holiday."

וכי תימא דאכתי הוה מיבעי ליה אי הוה איד בכלל פשיטא דלא מדלא הוה תני לפני אידיהן יום אחד קל להבין וצ"ע

1. Question(cont.): If you would say that we would still have asked whether or not the holiday was included, this is clearly incorrect, as otherwise it should have said, "One day before the holiday." (One day before the holiday cannot be mistaken as the day of the holiday, because otherwise the Mishnah would have merely stated that it is forbidden from doing business with them on their holidays.) This question is easy to understand, and requires great study (to answer).

8) TOSFOS DH HEN B'LO

תוספות ד"ה הן בלא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks why Shmuel bothers to make what appears to be an obvious statement.)

והא דאיצטריך שמואל לאשמועינן לדברי ר' ישמעאל לעולם אסור

(a) Implied Question: Shmuel needed to say that according to Rebbi Yishmael it would always be forbidden to do business with idolaters. (Why? This is a simple calculation that we already know!)

דלא תימא כיון דאין לו היתר לעולם שבקינן ליה רווחא להתירו בשום פעם

(b) Answer#1: This is in order that one should not say that being that it is never permitted, there is no more room to ever permit this prohibition (as it was originally instituted that it should always be forbidden).

אי נמי ה"א דסבר רבי ישמעאל בהא כרבנן דלא אסרי לאחריו

(c) Answer#2: Alternatively, I would think that Rebbi Yishmael holds in this matter like the Rabbanan who do not forbid the days after the holiday (meaning it would be permitted for three out of seven days of the week).

אי נמי אשמעינן דחשיב יום איד פי' יום א' לאסור כשאר יום אידם

(d) Answer#3: Alternatively, he is teaching that Sunday is considered a significant holiday that would cause the days around it to be forbidden, just like their other significant holidays.

9) TOSFOS DH OH DILMA

תוספות ד"ה או דלמא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how buying from an idolater could be Lifnei Iver.)

יש מקשין מכאן לפ"ה דמתני' דפי' דלתת ולשאת היינו מקח וממכר תינח מכר אבל מקח מאי לפני עור איכא

(a) Question: Some ask that Rashi in the Mishnah seems to have a difficulty from our Gemara. Rashi explained that "Lases v'Lases" means to buy and sell. It is understandable that selling to them could be a problem of Lifnei Iver (as they could use these items for Avodah Zarah). However, how can buying from them be Lifnei Iver?

ושמא י"ל שממציא לו מעות לקנות צרכי עבודת כוכבים

(b) Answer: It is possible that Rashi understands that the money given to the idolater enables him to buy what is required for him to worship/sacrifice to his idol.

10) TOSFOS DH MINAYIN

תוספות ד"ה מנין

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Beraisa gave an example of a Nazir.)

נראה דה"ה בכל שאר איסורין

(a) Implied Question: It appears that this applies to all prohibitions. (Why, then, is the Beraisa only stated regarding a Nazir? It is understandable why Aiver Min ha'Chai is the example used for a gentile, as he generally has nothing else that he is forbidden to eat.)

אלא להכי נקט כוס יין לנזיר משום דמסתמא למישתי קא בעי ליה כיון דכ"ע חמרא שתו ושמא שכח נזירתו אבל ישראל שאמר הושיט לי נבלה או חזיר או שום איסור אין לחושדו מלהושיט לו

(b) Answer: Rather, the reason why the Beraisa gives the example of giving a cup of wine to a Nazir is because he probably wants to drink the wine, as this is what everyone does with wine. Perhaps he forgot he is a Nazir. However, if a Jew asks that someone should give him a piece of Neveilah, pig, or something else that is clearly prohibited, there is no reason to suspect that he will eat it and therefore refrain from handing it to him.

אבל אם ידוע לו שרוצה לאכלו אסור להושיט לו ואפי' הוא שלו מדקאמר אי לא יהיב ליה שקיל ליה איהו

1. Answer(cont.): However, if it is known to him that the person indeed wants to eat the Neveilah etc., it is forbidden for him to give this person the Neveilah, even if it belongs to him. This is apparent from the Gemara's question that if he will not give it to him, he will take it himself! (This implies that it should be forbidden to give it to him even if it is his.)

ולפי זה אסור להושיט למומרים לעבודת כוכבים דבר איסור אע"פ שהוא שלהם כי הדבר ידוע שיאכלוהו והוא נאסר להם דכישראל גמור חשבינן ליה

(c) Opinion: Accordingly, it is forbidden to give a person who always worships idols a forbidden thing (i.e. to eat), even if it is theirs. This is because it is known that they will eat it, and it is forbidden to them, as they are still considered a Jew.

ומיירי בדקאי במקום שלא יוכל ליקח אם לא יושיט לו זה וכדמסיק דקאי בתרי עברי נהרא

1. Opinion(cont.): The case is where the sinner is in a place where he cannot get to the object he will do the prohibition with unless this person hands it to him. This is as the Gemara concludes, that they are on two sides of the river (with the sinner being unable to cross to obtain the object).

11) TOSFOS DH TANYA

תוספות ד"ה תניא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how we know that we rule like Rebbi Yochanan.)

נראה לר"י דהלכה כרבי יוחנן אע"ג דתניא כוותיה דרשב"ל

(a) Opinion: It appears to the Ri that the law follows Rebbi Yochanan, even though the Beraisa follows the opinion of Rebbi Shimon ben Lakish.

ומייתי ראיה מההיא דהחולץ (יבמות לו.) דקא חשיב הני דהלכה כרשב"ל לגבי ר' יוחנן ולא חשיב הא

(b) Proof: The Ri proves this from the Gemara in Yevamos (36a) which lists the case where we rule like Rebbi Shimon ben Lakish when he argues with Rebbi Yochanan, and it does not consider this as one of those cases.

ואין לומר דהא דלא חשיב הא דהכא היינו משום דתניא כוותיה ולא איצטריך למחשבה

(c) Implied Question: One cannot say that the reason the argument here is not listed as one of these cases in Yevamos (ibid.) is because the Beraisa clearly supports Reish Lakish, and therefore it does not have to be listed. (Why not?)

דהא חשיב התם חליצת מעוברת אע"ג דתניא התם נמי כוותיה

(d) Answer#1: This is because the Gemara lists there the argument regarding Chalitzah done to a woman who is pregnant, even though there is a Beraisa in that Gemara that supports Rebbi Shimon ben Lakish.

ועוד דלקמן (דף ז:) מסיק נשא ונתן איכא בינייהו וקא מפרש דחכמים דמתני' אית להו נשא ונתן אסור כר' יוחנן ומתניתין עדיפא מברייתא

(e) Answer#2: Additionally, the Gemara later (7b) concludes that the difference between them is in a case of regular business dealings. The Gemara says that the Chachamim of our Mishnah hold that it is forbidden. This matches the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan. A Mishnah is better proof than a Beraisa (and is therefore a reason why it would not be obvious (at all) that we rule like Rebbi Shimon ben Lakish, as indeed we do not).

12) TOSFOS DH LO ASRU

תוספות ד"ה לא אסרו

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this Gemara is understandable according to Rabeinu Tam, and difficult according to Rashi.)

פירוש מכר דוקא דאילו לקנות ודאי אסור בדבר שאינו מתקיים יותר מדבר המתקיים

(a) Explanation: This specifically refers to selling. If it would be referring to buying, there is clearly more reason to forbid something that does not last more than something that does last.

אלא ודאי לא איירי הך ברייתא אלא במכר ואפ"ה קרי ליה בסיפא נשא ונתן כפר"ת

1. Explanation(cont.): Rather, this Beraisa is clearly only talking about selling. Even so, the second part of the Mishnah calls this "Nasa v'Nasan," as per the opinion of Rabeinu Tam (see Tosfos 2a, DH "Asur").

ולפי' הקונטרס קשה

(b) Question: This is difficult according to Rashi (see Tosfos 2a ibid.).

13) TOSFOS DH AVAL

תוספות ד"ה אבל

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how Rabeinu Tam understands this Beraisa.)

לפר"ת דלא אסור שום קניה

(a) Implied Question: Rabeinu Tam (see Tosfos 2a, DH "Asur") said that it is never forbidden to buy from an idolater at this time. (How does he understand the Beraisa that explicitly says one cannot take from them?)

צ"ל לוקחין קבלת דורון

(b) Answer: It must be that the Beraisa means one cannot take a gift from them.

וה"ה נמי בדבר המתקיים שאין מקבלין הימנו דורון ואין לדקדק הא דבר המתקיים לוקחין

(c) Implied Question: One cannot accepts a present that lasts as well. One cannot deduce (from the fact that the Beraisa states, "One can sell them something that does not last, but cannot take from them") that he can take something that lasts. (Why not? The Beraisa is specifically talking about things that do not last!)

דהא דינר קיסריינא דבר המתקיים הוא

(d) Answer: This is because a new Dinar lasts (and Rebbi Yehudah did not want to take it).

14) TOSFOS DH AMAR ABAYE

תוספות ד"ה אמר אביי

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why Abaye says this is a decree.)

תימה למה ליה לאביי למימר משום גזרה לימא טעמא משום דשמח הוא כדאמר במתני' אע"פ שהוא מיצר עכשיו שמח הוא לאחר זמן

(a) Question: This is difficult. Why did Abaye say the reason is a decree? Let us say that the reason is because he is happy, as the Mishnah states that even though he is pained now he is happy after awhile!

וי"ל דמשום האי טעמא דשמח לאחר זמן ליכא (למיגזר) כיון שאינו שמח ביום אידו

(b) Answer: It is possible to answer that the reason that he is happy after awhile is not a reason to make a decree, being that he will not be happy on his holiday.

ומיהו אי לאו דאיכא שום שמחה לא הוה שייך נמי למיגזר דהא דגזרינן בכולהו היינו משום דאיכא שום שמחה כדפריש בסמוך בצריכותא

(c) Observation: However, if there was no happiness at all there would be no reason to make a decree. The reason we make a decree regarding all of these cases is because there is some aspect of happiness, as stated nearby when the Gemara explains why all of these cases are needed.

והשתא ניחא דאצטריכו כולהו לאביי נמי כמו לרבא

1. Observation(cont.): It is now understandable why all of these cases in the Mishnah are required according to Abaye, just as it is understandable according to Rava.

15) TOSFOS DH ELA LILVOS

תוספות ד"ה אלא ללוות

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why his version of the text is proof to the opinion of Rabeinu Tam that this does not apply to a loan with interest.)

מכאן ראיה לפר"ת דמיירי בלא רבית דמאי קאמר מעוטי קא ממעט להו אם מלוה ברבית כדי להרויח

(a) Opinion: This is a proof to Rabeinu Tam's explanation that this is only if the loan is without interest. Why would the Gemara say, "He is making him (the idolater) lose money" if the idolater is purposely lending with interest (to a Jew) in order to make money?