1) TOSFOS DH DE'I SALKA-DA'ATACH BAS NISU'IN HAVA'I ACHSEIH MI HAVAH SHARYA LEIH

תוס' ד"ה דאי ס"ד בת נישואין הואי אחתיה מי הוה שרייה ליה

(SUMMARY: Tosfos queries Rashi [who learns in Kidushin that the first Bi'ah of a Y'fas To'ar is forbidden] from our Gemara and from the Gemara in Kidushin, both of which, for different reasons, clearly hold that it is permitted. They then discuss a Yerushalmi, where Rav and Shmuel dispute this very point. And finally, they reconcile Shmuel in the Yerushalmi, with our Gemara, which seems to be based on a Pasuk], and resolve a problem with the Pasuk still remaining).

מכאן קשה לפ"ה שפירש בפ"ק דקידושין (דף כב.) "והבאתה אל תוך ביתך" - מלמד שלא ילחצנה במלחמה, 'פי' שלא יבא עליה במלחמה'; ומשמע מתוך פי' הקונטרס דאפילו ביאה ראשונה אסורה במלחמה עד לאחר כל המעשים כולן.

(a) Explanation#1: From here there is a Kashya on Rashi in the first Perek of Kidushin, where the Gemara, commenting on the Pasuk "Vahaveisah el Toch Beisecha" states that he is not permitted to afflict her (the captive woman) during the war. Rashi explains there that he is not permitted to be intimate with her for the duration of the war, implying that even the first Bi'ah is forbidden until after all the Torah's requirements have been fulfilled.

וא"כ, לא בא דוד על מעכה רק לאחר שנתגיירה, וא"כ בת נישואין היא, והיכי שריא תמר לאמנון, אחתיה היא?

(b) Question#1: If that is so, David was intimate with Ma'achah only after she had converted, in which case, she was subject to marriage. That being the case, how was Tamar permitted to Amnon, seeing as she was his sister?

ועוד, דהא אמרינן (שם דף כא:) 'דלא דברה תורה אלא כנגד יצר הרע' - משמע שבמלחמה ביאה ראשונה הואי?

(c) Question #2: And besides, we learned there in Kidushin that when the Torah permits a Y'fas Tohar, it does so in order to pacify the Yeitzer-ha'Ra, implying that the first Bi'ah takes place there and then, during the war?

לכך פירש ר"ת התם - 'שלא ילחצנה במלחמה' - לבא עליה ביאה שניה.

(d) Explanation #2: That is why Rabeinu Tam explains there that when the Gemara says there 'that he is not permitted to afflict her during the war', it is referring to the second Bi'ah.

ומחלוקת בירושלמי בין רב ושמואל מן זה הפי', דרב אמר 'אינה מותרת במלחמה אלא ביאה ראשונה'; ושמואל אמר 'אף לא ביאה ראשונה ולא ביאה שניה'.

(e) Yerushalmi #1: However, the Yerushalmi cites this very point as a Machlokes between Rav and Shmuel (see Tosfos ha'Rosh).

וזה לשון הירושלמי - 'תרתי מילין אתון אמרין משמיה דרב, וליתא; הכא אתון אמרין משמיה דרב אסור לבא עליה ביאה שניה, ואני אומר לא ביאה ראשונה ולא ביאה שניה'.

(f) Yerushalmi #2: In fact, this is the Lashon of the Yerushalmi (citing Shmuel) 'You said two things in the name of Rav; neither is correct. Here you said in his name that the second Bi'ah is forbidden; I say that neither the first Bi'ah nor the second Bi'ah is permitted'.

וא"כ קשיא לשמואל הך דהכא, כדפרישית?

(g) Repeat Question 1: The first Kashya that we asked on Rashi now applies to Shmuel?

על כן נראה למימר דתמר לא היתה בת דוד, שאמה כבר היתה מעוברת כשבאת למלחמה.

(h) Answer: It therefore appears that Tamar was not the daughter of David at all, only of Ma'achah, who was already pregnant with her when she arrived at the battlefield.

והא דכתיב (שמואל ב יג) "כי כן תלבשנה בנות המלכים מעילים"?

(i) Implied Question: Then how can the Pasuk in Shmuel write about her "because the princesses would wear cloaks such as the one that she wore"?

מתוך שגדלה בחיקו של דוד קרי לה 'בת מלך'.

(j) Answer: The Navi refers to her as a princess, because she grew up as a member of David ha'Melech close family.

2) TOSFOS DH SUSIM LAMAH LEIH

תוס' ד"ה סוסים למה לי

(SUMMARY: Tosfos clarifies the correct text in the Gemara, rejecting an alternative text, which explains the Kashya as why the Torah needs to insert the phrase "Lo Yarbeh lo Susim" at all).

פי' דמשמע תרי.

(a) Clarification: 'Susim" implies (at least) two.

הכי גרסינן - 'אי לא כתיב אלא "סוס", ה"א לכמה סוסים חד לאו הוא דאיכא, כתב רחמנא "סוסים" והדר "סוס" - לחלק על כל אחד';

(b) Text #1: 'If the Torah had written only "Sus", we would have thought that for many horses there is one La'av; Therefore it writes first "Sus" and then "Susim", to divide each one'.

פי' אי כתיב "סוס" גבי "לא ירבה", הוה אמינא על סוס אחד בטל הוא עובר כדמוכח קרא ד"הרבות סוס", ומ"מ לכמה סוסים ליכא אלא חד לאו .לכך שינה הכתוב לעבור על לא תעשה על כל סוס וסוס.

(c) Explanation: Had the Torah written "Sus" after "Lo Yarbeh lo ... ", we would have thought that the king is Chayav even on one idle horse (as is evident from the phrase "Lo Yarbeh lo Sus"). The same single La'av however, would apply even if he owned many (idle) horses. Therefore the Torah changed from "Sus" to "Susim", to make him Chayav a La'av for each and every horse.

ויש ספרים משובשים דגרסי 'לעבור בעשה ולא תעשה' פי' דמקשי "לא ירבה סוסים" למה לי כלל?

(d) Text #2: There are however, some erroneous texts which concludes 'to transgress an Asei and a Lo Sa'aseh (based on the fact that they interpret the question as 'Why do we need "Lo Yarbeh lo Susim" at all?'

ולא יתכן ד"למען הרבות סוס" לאו עשה הוא, אך קאי אלאו ד"ולא ישיב ... ".

(e) Refutation: This is incorrect however, since "Lema'an Harbos" (which follows shortly after "Lo Yarbeh lo Susim") is not an Asei, but a clause that pertains to "ve'Lo Yashiv ha'Am Mitzraymah" which precedes it.

3) TOSFOS DH K'SAV LIBUNA'AH

תוס' ד"ה כתב ליבונאה

(SUMMARY: Based on the Gemara in Gitin and the Pasuk in Daniel,Tosfos reject the explanation that this is the same script as the local one, only where they filled in the space surrounding the letter, leaving the letter blank, and ofers an alternative explanation)

י"מ כזה - שהאות נעשית מן הלבן, שממלאין החלק דיו והכתב נעשית מאיליו מנייר חלק.

(a) Explanation #1: Some commentaries explain that the writing is formed from the white, in that one fills in the empty parchment (surrounding the letter) with ink, so that the writing is formed by itself with what is now empty parchment.

ולא נהירא - דאין זה כתב - דהוי 'חק תוכות' דאמרינן בגיטין (דף כ.) אין כתב לגבי גט; וכי היכי דגבי גט אינו כתב, גבי ספר תורה נמי אינו כשר.

(b) Refutation #1: This is not correct however, since this is not considered 'K'sav' (writing), but 'Chok Tochos', which we have learned in Gitin, is not considered K'sav' regarding a Get and whatever is not considered K'sav' regarding a Get is not Kasher regarding a Seifer Torah either.

ועוד, אמאי "לא כהלין כתבא למקרי" (דניאל ה), הרי לא נשתנה כתיבת האותיות כלל?

(c) Refutation #2: Furthermore, why were the dignitaries of Bavel unable to read the writing on the wall (which was apparently ritten in K'sav Libuna'ah, seeing as it was no different than the K'sav that they were used to?

ור"ת פי' דשם מקום דשמיה ליבנן, וכותבין בו כתב משונה.

(d) Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam therefore explains that 'K'sav Libuna'ah' was the strange script used by people who resided in a place called Libnan.