Point By Point Summary Of TosfosDaf Series

1.

1) TOSFOS DH U'MAH NA'ARAH HA'ME'URASAH SHE'LO BA

+

1) TOSFOS DH U'MAH NA'ARAH HA'ME'URASAH SHE'LO BA

תוספות ד"ה ומה נערה המאורסה שלא בא ...

(SUMMARY: Tosfos maintain that the Torah is more concerned with the P'gam aspect of the pursuer than it is about the sin itself. They query this from cases that the Torah precludes but ultimately prove it a. from the very same source as the query, and b.from the Lashon of the Pasuk).

וא"ת, ההוא פגם חמור מרוצח - שזה בסקילה וזה בסייף?

(a) Question: That P'gam (defect), which is Chayav Sekilah, is more stringent than that of the murderer, which is only Chayav Sayaf?

לאו פירכא היא, דהכא לא קפיד קרא א'איסורא אלא אפגימ', דהא נעבדה בה עבירה או שאין מקפדת על פגמה, אין מצילין אותה בנפשו, כדמוכח שמעתין.

(b) Answer (Part 1): This is not a Kashya however, since the Pasuk is not concerned here with the Isur, but on the P'gam, since once the sin has already been performed or where the girl is not particular about the P'gam, one is not permitted to save her with the soul of the pursuer, as is evident from the Sugya.

ופשיטא דיש פגם גדול בנהרג מבנערה המאורסה שנאנסה.

(c) Answer (Part 2): And it is then obvious that the defect of a murdered person is more substantial than that of a Na'arah Me'urasah who has been raped.

וא"ת, ומנא לן דאפגימ' קפיד רחמנא, דילמא א'איסורא קפיד, מדאיצטריך למעוטי עובד עבודת כוכבים ומחלל שבת ובהמה?

(d) Question: From where do we know that the Torah is particular about the P'gam? Perhaps it is particular about the Isur, since it finds it necessary to preclude Oved Avodas-Kochavim, Mechalel Shabbos and Beheimah (see Maharsha)?

ובקונטרס פי' לקמן דאפגימ' קפיד, מדגלי בהני ולא בעבירות אחרות.

(e) Answer #1: Rashi explains later that the Torah is particular about P'gam, from the very fact that it precludes these Isurim (see Maharsha).

ועוד י"ל, ד"אין מושיע לה" משמע דא'בושתה קפיד קרא.

(f) Answer #2: One could also say that the fact that the Torah writes "and there is nobody to save her implies that the Torah is concerned about her shame

2.

2) TOSFOS DH HAREI ZEH BA LELAMED VE'NIMTZA LAMEID

+

2) TOSFOS DH HAREI ZEH BA LELAMED VE'NIMTZA LAMEID

תוספות ד"ה הרי זה בא ללמד ונמצא למד

(SUMMARY: Tosfos prove that 've'Nimtza Lameid' means 'Af Lameid. They bring a precedent from a Gemara in Perek Arba Misos, and learn another Gemara in Chulin in the same way).

פירוש - ונמצא אף למד ...

(a) Clarification (Part 1): And it turns out to be a Lameid as well ...

דהא ללמד נמי אתא, כדדרשינן לקמן 'מה רוצח יהרג ואל יעבור'

(b) Clarification (Part 2): since it comes to teach as well, as we will Darshen later 'Just as we say by a murderer "Yehareg ve'Al Ya'avor ... " '.

וכן בההוא דלעיל בפרק ד' מיתות (דף נד.) "משכבי אשה", 'מגיד לך הכתוב ששני משכבות באשה', וקאמר 'הרי זה בא ללמד ונמצא למד' - והיינו נמי אף למד ...

(c) Precedent #1: Similarly, the case that we learned in Perek Arba Misos ' "Mishkevei Ishah", that teaches us two locations of adultery by a woman', and where the Gemara also concludes 'Harei Zeh Ba Lelamed ve'Nimtza Lameid'. There too, it means 've'Nimtza *Af* Lameid' ...

דהא ילפינן מיניה העראה בזכור, בההיא שמעתין.

(d) Proof #1: Seeing as the Sugya there learns from there the Din of Ha'ara'ah by a male.

ולשמואל דמחייב א'זכר בבן ג' שנים.

(e) Proof #2: And according to Shmuel, that one is Chayav for relations with a male who is three years old.

והא דאמר בריש פ"ב דחולין (דף כח.) גבי "צבי ואיל", 'הרי זה בא ללמד ונמצא למד - מה פסולי המוקדשים בשחיטה ... ', התם נמי יש לפרש דאף למד קאמר, דללמד א'פסולי המוקדשין נמי קא אתי לפטור מן המתנות, כדדרשינן בפ"ק דבכורות (דף טו.).

(f) Precedent #2: Likewise, when the Gemara at the beginning of the second Perek of Chulin, states in connection with the Pasuk "Tzvi ve'Ayal" - 'Harei Zeh Ba Lelamed ve'Nimtza Lameid', one can also explain itin the same light ('Af Lameid'), since it comes to teach the exemption from Matanos by Pesulei ha'Mukdashin as well, as the Gemara Darshens in Bechoros.

3.

3) TOSFOS DH AF ROTZEI'ACH NITEN LEHATZILO BE'NAFSHO

+

4.

4) TOSFOS DH LEHATZILO BE'NAFSHO

+

4) TOSFOS DH LEHATZILO BE'NAFSHO

תוספות ד"ה להצילו בנפשו ...

(SUMMARY: Tosfos present two contradictory interpretations of 'Nitein Lehatzilo be'Nafsho'. They then query the need for a Pasuk which obligates saving someone who is drowning in a river or who is being dragged away by a wild animal, since this is a K'al va'Chomer from the obligation to kill the pursuer to save the pursued).

משמעות הלשון שמצילין הנרדף בנפשו של רודף

(a) Explanation #1: The Lashon implies that one saves the pursued with the life of the pursuer.

אבל לא יתכן לפרש כן ברודף אחר הבהמה וכיוצא בה.

(b) Refutation: It would not be correct however, to explain it in this way by someone who is pursuing an animal and in similar cases.

לפיכך נראה לפרש דמצילין את האדם מן העבירה בנפשו של עצמו.

(c) Explanation #2: The correct explanation therefore seems to be that one saves the person from sinning with his own life.

אבל קשה מנערה המאורסה, דקאמר 'שניתן להצילה בנפשו'?

(d) Problem: There is a Kashya on this however, from Na'arah Me'urasah, by whom the Gemara writes 'she'Nitein Lehatzilah be'Nafshah'?

וא"ת, וכיון דמהכא ילפינן דרוצח ניתן להצילו בנפשו, למה לי קרא בטובע בנהר וחיה גוררתו, השתא חברו הורג כדי להציל, התם לא כ"ש?

(e) Question: Seeing as we learn from here that one saves the victim from the pursuer, why do we need a Pasuk with regard to saving someone who is drowning in a river or who is being dragged away by a wild animal? If one is permitted to kill a fellow Yisrael to save the victim, how much more so is one obligated to save him there?

ולא מסתבר למימר דחבירו הורג מחויב טפי לאפרושי מאיסורא.

(f) Rejected Answer: Nor is it logical to say that the obligation is stronger when it is a matter of saving the pursuer from sinning.

אלא נראה דאי מהכא, ה"א עשה, קמ"ל התם דעובר בלאו ד"לא תעמוד על דם רעך".

(g) Answer: It therefore seems that from our Pasuk we can only learn an Asei, whereas from there one also transgresses the La'av of "Lo Sa'amod al Dam Re'echa".

5.

5) TOSFOS DH TALMUD LOMAR VAHASHEVOSO LO

+

6.

6) TOSFOS DH CHAYVEI K'RISUS VE'CHAYVEI MISOS BEIS-DIN

+

7.

7) TOSFOS DH NA'AR NA'ARAH

+

7) TOSFOS DH NA'AR NA'ARAH

תוספות ד"ה נער נערה

(SUMMARY: Tosfos cite Rashi's explanation that the Gemara is Darshening Mikra and Mesores, which they then reconcile with the Gemara in Kesuvos which states that the Torah always writes "Na'ar" to include a Ketanah. They subsequently suggest that the Gemara is referring to the many times "Na'arah" that are written in the Parshah, but they refute this suggestion).

פירש בקונטרס, "נער" כתיב וקרי "נערה", נדרש מקרא ומסורת.

(a) Explanation #1: Rashi explains that the Torah writes "Na'ar" (Mikra) though it is written "Na'arah" (Mesores, and we Darshen both Mikra and Mesores.

ואף על גב דאמרינן בפרק אלו נערות (כתובות דף מ: ושם) גבי קנס - 'כל מקום שנאמר "נער" אפילו קטנה במשמע'?

(b) Implied Question: Even though we say in Perek Eilu Na'aros with regard to K'nas - that wherever the Torah writes "Na'ar" it implies that a Ketanah is also included?

הכא הוי מצי למיכתב 'נערה', דעל כרחיך לאו בקטנה איירי, אלא בבת עונשין.

(c) Answer: Here it could well have written 'Na'arah', since it can anyway not be referring to a Ketanah, only to someone who is subject to punishment.

ועוד יש לפרש, דטובא "נערה" כתיבי בפרשה.

(d) Explanation #2: It is also possible that the Gemara is referring to the many times "Na'arah" that are written in the Parshah.

ומיהו בסמוך משמע דמחד דריש, דקאמר 'איידי דכתב "נער" כתב נמי "נערה".

(e) Refutation (Part 1): However, the Gemara will shortly imply that it Darshens from only one of them (like Rashi), when it says tha 'because it writes "Na'ar" it also writes "Na'arah".

פירוש - 'איידי דכתב "נער" למעוטי בהמה, כתב "נערה" - כלומר, כפשטיה דקרא, דעל כרחיך "נערה" קרינן, דהא בנערה מישתעי.

(f) Refutation (Part 2): This means that since the Pasuk wrote "Na'ar" to preclude Beheimah, it wrote "Na'arah", meaning simply that we are bound to read it "Na'arah" seeing as that is who we are talking about.

8.

8) TOSFOS DH MISHUM DE;HAI LA'AV URCHEIH VE'HAI KA PAGIM LAH

+

9.

9) TOSFOS DH LI'ME'UTEI OVED AVODAH-ZARAH VE'CHAD

+

9) TOSFOS DH LI'ME'UTEI OVED AVODAH-ZARAH VE'CHAD

תוספות ד"ה חד למעוטי עובד ע"ז וחד (למעוטי בהמה ושבת).

(SUMMARY: Tosfos first clarify which two cases we would exclude from the Pasuk. They then discuss the illogical reasoning behind any need to exclude the case of Shabbos, seeing as the person who is saving the sinner is himself Chayav Misah, in the process of which they explain why it is not a case of Mekalkel ba'Chaburah, which would be Patur).

אי לא כתיב אלא חד, הוה מוקמינן ליה למעוטי בהמה ושבת.

(a) Explanation #1: Had the Torah written only one of them, we would have used it to exclude Beheimah and Shabbos.

ותימה, דבהמה ושבת היכי ממעט מחד?

(b) Question: But how can one learn Beheimah and Shabbos from the same Pasuk?

וטפי היה נראה לומר דמחד ממעט ע"ז ושבת?

(c) Explanation #2: It therefore preferable to explain that from one Pasuk we would learn Avodah-Zarah and Shabbos.

וא"ת, ולמה לי קרא למעוטי שבת, הא מציל גופיה קא מחלל שבת, דחובל בחבירו, ואיך יחלל שבת להציל חבירו מחילול שבת?

(d) Question: Why do we need a Pasuk at all to exclude Shabbos, the person saving himself will profane Shabbos if he wounds (or kills the sinner), so what is the logic in allowing him to desecrate Shabbos in order to save someone else from desecrating it?

דאין זה מקלקל בחבורה ...

(e) Implied Answer: Nor can we consider this 'Mekalkel ba'Chaburah' (wounding in a way that is destructive, for which one is not Chayav on Shabbos) ...

דאיכא תקוני גברא, כיון דמיחייב מיתה, כדפריך ב'אחד דיני ממונות' (לעיל דף לה. ושם)?

(f) Refutation: Because, seeing as the sinner is Chayav Misah, this is considered 'Tikunei Gavra' (a constructive act of rectifying the sinner), as the Gemara asks in 'Echad Dinei Mamonos'.

וי"ל, דמ"מ ס"ד דגזירת הכתוב, כרבי אלעזר בר"ש.

(g) Answer: We would nevertheless have thought that it is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv (to save the sinner), like the opinion of Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon.

10.

10) TOSFOS DH CHILUL CHILUL ME'AVODAH-ZARAH

+

11.

11) TOSFOS DH MAMONA LO MESHALEM AD G'MAR BI'AH (1)

+

11) TOSFOS DH MAMONA LO MESHALEM AD G'MAR BI'AH (1)

תוספות ד"ה ממונא לא משלם עד גמר ביאה

(SUMMARY: Tosfos refute Rashi's explanation that a rapist is only Chayav K'nas for removing the Besulim, proving from Gemoros in Kidushin and Yevamos that his is not necessary. They therefore present another reason as to why in this case, he is not Chayav K'nas until G'mar Bi'ah. Tosfos offer a third explanation, [which they query and answer] that Ha'ara'ah is not considered G'mar Bi'ah with regard to K'nas. They point out however, that the Yerushalmi in Kesuvos does not concur with this opinion).

פי' בקונטרס, שהוא מוציא בתוליה.

(a) Explanation #1: Rashi explains when he removes her Besulim.

וקשה, דבלא השרת בתולים נמי משלם קנס, כדאמר בפ"ק דקדושין (דף ט:) 'באו עליה עשרה בני אדם ועדיין היא בתולה - רבי אומר, הראשון בסקילה וכולן בחנק'.

(b) Question #1 (Part 1): But he pays K'nas even without removing her Besulim, as we learned in the first Perek of Kidushin 'If ten men rape are intimate with a Na'arah Besulah and she is stil a Besulah, Rebbi maintains that the first one receives Sekilah and the rest, Chenek ...

ואמרינן מודה רבי לענין קנס דכולהו משלמי.

(c) Question #1 (Part 2): And we say there that Rebbi concedes that they all pay K'nas?

ובפרק הבא על יבמתו (יבמות דף נט. ושם) מוקמינן "ולו תהיה לאשה" באשה הראויה לו, פרט לאלמנה לכהן גדול, בבא עליה שלא כדרכה.

(d) Question#2: And in Perek ha'Ba al Yevimto we establish the Pasuk "ve'Lo Sih'yeh le'Ishah" (in connection with a Kohen Gadol who raped a girl) by a woman whom he is able to marry, to preclude an Almanah to a Kohen Gadol, where he had unnatural relations with her (so that her Besulim still remain), yet he is Chayav to pay K'nas?

אלא הכא היינו טעמא דלא משלם א'תחילת ביאה, משום ד'קם ליה בדרבה מיניה'; הלכך לא משלם הכא עד גמר ביאה, אבל בעלמא משלם קנס משעת העראה.

(e) Explanation #2: The reason that one does pay K'nas for the Techilas Bi'ah must therefore be because of 'Kam leih be'de'Rabah Mineih'; since he is Chayav Misah for Ha'ara'ah, therefore he cannot be Chayav K'nas until the G'mar Bi'ah. However, in a normal case of rape, one becomes obligated to pay K'nas already from the moment he performs Ha'ara'ah.

וי"מ דלא אתרבאי העראה כגמר ביאה [אלא] לענין עריות וחייבי לאוין ועשה ויבמה ואשה לבעלה בפ' הבא על יבמתו (שם ד' נה.) ...

(f) Explanation #3 (Part 1): Other commentaries explain that Ha'ara'ah is only considered like G'mar Bi'ah with regard to Arayos, Chayvei La'avin and Asei, Yevamah and man and wife ...

אבל לענין קנס, לא איתרבאי.

(g) Explanation #3 (Part 2): But not with regard to K'nas.

וא"ת, על כרחיך למ"ד העראה זו הכנסת העטרה, אי א'העראה לא מיחייב, הא בגמר ביאה לאו בתולה היא?

(h) Question: But according to the opinion that defines Ha'arah as Hachnasa Atarah, if the rapist is not is not Chayav for Ha'ara'ah, then seeing as at the G'mar Bi'ah she is not a Besulah, why will ever be Chayav?

הא לאו פירכא היא, דאהכי חייב רחמנא.

(i) Answer: This is not a problem, since we apply the principle that 'be'Hachi Chayveih Rachmana (This is how the Torah declares him Chayav)'.

תדע, מדלא ילפינן העראה מנערה המאורסה .

(j) Proof (Part 1): A proof for this is the fact that we do not learn Ha'ara'ah from Na'arah ha'Me'urasah ...

דאי א'העראה פטור, בגמר ביאה היכי מחייב, הא לאו בתולה היא?

(k) Proof (Part 2): Where we could ask that if Ha'ara'ah would be Patur, then how could he be Chayav for the G'mar Bi'ah, seeing as she is no longer a Besulah?

אלא בהכי חייב רחמנא.

(l) Proof (Part 3): We are therefore forced to say 'be'Hachi Chayveih Rachmana'.

ומיהו בירושלמי דכתובות משמע דא'העראה משלם קנס, דאמרינן 'הערו בה עשרה ועדיין היא בתולה, כולהו משלמין קנס.

(m) Yerushalmi: The Yerushalmi in Kesuvos however, rules that if ten men rape a Na'arah Me'urasah and she is still a Besulah, they must all pay K'nas, implying that one does pay K'nas for Ha'ara'ah.

12.

12) TOSFOS DH BE'MANICHASO SHE'LO YAHARGENAH VE'REBBI YEHUDAH HI.

+

13.

13) TOSFOS DH BI'MEFUTAH VE'DIVREI HA'KOL (This Tosfos belongs to 74a).

+

13) TOSFOS DH BI'MEFUTAH VE'DIVREI HA'KOL (This Tosfos belongs to 74a).

תוספות ד"ה במפותה ודברי הכל

(SUMMARY: Based on the ruling in the Seifa that 'Eishes Achiv is subject to K'nas', Tosfos prove that Tana cannot be speaking about a Mefutah. They initially refute the suggestion that the Tana holds like R. Akiva in the Beraisa, who holds that a Na'arah who was betrothed and divorced receives K'nas, and that the K'nas belongs to her father; And they refute the suggestion that the Tana needs to teach us there where she did not manage to go to Beis-Din before she became a Bogeres. They answer the Kashya, and cite a second explanation from the Yerushalmi, based on the first of the above suggestions. Tosfos now bring a lengthy proof that a Gemara in 'Eilu Na'aros' that the Bavli does not hold like the Yerushalmi's earlier explanation. Finally, they cite a Machlokes in the Yerushalmi, which offers a third answer to the initial Kashya).

תימה, היכי מוקמ' במפותה, הא קתני סיפא 'אשת אחיו דיש לה קנס', ועל כרחיך בנתארסה ונתגרשה, דאי בעודה תחתיו חייבי מיתות פטורין, כדתנן התם.

(a) Question (Part 1): How can the Gemara establish the case by Mefutah (a girl who was seduced), seeing as the Seifa rules that 'Eishes Achiv is subject to K'nas'. Now this must be speaking about a Na'arah who was betrothed and divorced (otherwise it would be a case of Chayvei Misos, who are Patur from K'nas, as we learned in the Mishnah in Kesuvos).

ונערה שנתארסה ונתגרשה קנסה לעצמה, כדקתני ר' עקיבא בסיפא.

(b) Question (Part 2): And the Knas of a Na'arah who was betrothed and divorced goes to the Na'arah herself, as R. Akiva rules in the Seifa.

ואי במפותה, הרי מחלה, כדמוכח בפ' אלו נערות (שם ד' לב.) דמוקי מתני' דאלו הן הלוקין ביתומה ומפותה?

(c) Question (Part 3): And if it is speaking about a Mefutah, a Mefutah is automatically Mochel (foregoes) the K'nas?

וכ"ת, דאתיא כרבי עקיבא דברייתא דאמר 'נערה שנתארסה ונתגרשה יש לה קנס, וקנסה לאביה.

(d) Suggested Answer: And the reason that our Mishnah cannot hold like R. Akiva in the Beraisa, who maintains that a Na'arah who was betrothed and divorced receives K'nas, and that the K'nas belongs to her father, is ...

הא קתני סיפא 'הבא על בתו פטור משום דמתחייב בנפשו' - ובנתארסה ונתגרשה איירי ...

(e) Refutation (Part 1): Because the Seifa rules that 'Someone who is intimate with his daughter, is Patur from K'nas, because he is Chayav Misah - and this too is speaking about a Na'arah who was betrothed and divorced.

ואי דאב, תיפוק ליה דאפילו בא עליה אחר, קנס ה לאביה ...

(f) Refutation (Part 2): And if the K'nas would go to her father even if someone else would have had relations with her, then even if he would not be Chayav Misah, he would not be Chayav to pay?

ואין לומר, דאיצטריך היכא דלא הספיקה לעמוד בדין עד שבגרה ...

(g) Suggested answer: Nor can one answer that the Tana needs to teach us there where she did not manage to go to Beis-Din before she became a Bogeres ...

דמה עמידה בדין שייך בדבר שהוא שלו?

(h) Refutation: Because how is going to Beis-Din applicable there where the K'nas belongs to the father?

ונראה לפרש, דלעולם לעצמה, ואפילו במפותה מיחייב, אי אמרה בשעה שבא עליה שאינה מוחלת הקנס.

(i) Answer (Explanation #1): It therefore appears that even by a Mefutah, he will be Chayav to pay the K'nas to her, there where she specifically states at the time that he was intimate with her that she is not Mochel the K'nas.

מיהו בירושלמי פריך לה, ומשני - כגון שלא הספיקה לעמוד בדין עד שמת האב.

(j) Yerushalmi (Explanation #2): The Yerushalmi however asks the Kashya. And it establishes the case where she did not manage to go to Beis-Din before her father died (See Maharam).

אבל יש להוכיח דעל כרחיך מתניתין לא מתוקמא כר' עקיבא דברייתא ...

(k) Proof (Part 1): One can however, prove that our Mishnah cannot hold like R. Akiva in the Beraisa (See Maharam).

דהא רב פפא אית ליה התם באלו נערות (ד' לד:) 'חידוש הוא שחידשה תורה בקנס ... '; והש"ס קאמר התם (ד' לח:) דמאן דאית ליה חידוש ... , על כרחך סבר לה כרבי עקיבא דמתני'.

(l) Proof (Part 2): This is because Rav Papa holds in 'Eilu Na'aros' that it is a Chidush that Torah has initiated by K'nas, and the Gemara there explains that those who hold that it is a Chidush holds like R. Akiva in the Mishnah ...

ובירושלמי בפרק אלו נערות א'מתניתין ד'יתומה שנתארסה ונתגרשה', איכא פלוגתא דאמוראי ...

(m) Yerushalmi (Explanation #3 [Part 1]): In theYerushalmi in Perek Na'aros, in connection with the Mishnah regarding a Yesomah who became betrothed and then divorced, there is a Machlokes Amora'im ...

דאיכא למאן דאמר 'המפתה פטור בבשת ופגם, אבל קנס אינה יכולה למחול'. ואיכא לאוקמי רב פפא דהכא כי ההוא;

(n) Yerushalmi (Part 2): One opinion holds that a Mefateh is Patur from Boshes and P'gam, but Chayav K'nas, because the girl cannot be Mochel. In which case it is possible to establish Rav Papa in our Sugya like that opinion.

ומאן דאמר התם 'פטור מן הכל', סבר כאידך שינויא דהכא.

(o) Yerushalmi (Part 3): And the opinion that holds there that the Mefateh is Patur from everything, will hold like one of the other answers in our Sugya.