## Tosafot on Bava Batra Daf 3b

###### Tosafot on Bava Batra 3b:3:1
[Tosafot on Bava Batra 3b:3:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tosafot%20on%20Bava%20Batra/r/3b:3:1)

אמר אביי גמירי. השתא לא צריך לשנויא קמא:

**Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski:**
**אמר אביי גמירי— אביי said; there is a tradition**

OVERVIEW
The גמרא is discussing the feasibility of building an אמה טרקסין in the בית שני, which was higher than thirty אמות. Originally it was suggested to build the wall up to thirty אמות (as it was in the בית ראשון), and for the rest of the height a curtain would be used. The גמרא said this is not feasible; an אמה width cannot support such a height. In the בית ראשון it was able to be thirty אמות high only because it was braced by the ceiling and plaster. To which the גמרא responded; let us make it whatever height an אמה width will support, and the rest will be made of curtains. אביי stated that there is a מסורה that the separation be made either completely with a wall (as it was in בית ראשון) or completely with a curtain (as it was in the משכן).
------------------------------
**השתא לא צריך לשנויא קמא:¹**
**The first answer is not required anymore.** We need not say as we previously stated that a wall of thirty אמות high can be supported by a width of an אמה, only if in addition there is a bracing support from the weight of the roof/ceiling. That assumption is now irrelevant. In any case we could not build a partition consisting of both a wall and a curtain.

SUMMARY
The מסורה that אביי stated; either completely wall or completely curtain, is all that is necessary to explain why there was no wall/curtain combination in the בית שני

THINKING IT OVER
For what purpose is תוספות telling us that אגב תקרה ומעזיבה is now irrelevant?

footnotes:
¹ This would seem to contradict the previous שאני ה"ד (א,ג) תוספות which stated that when there is additional support from the roof/ceiling then an אמה width can hold more than the height allowed for in our משנה (i.e. four אמות high for (every) five טפחים width). In fact it can hold up to thirty אמות high (with a width of one אמה). Now תוספות seems to be saying that this statement (concerning תקרה ומעזיבה) is irrelevant. See ל"מהרש here who questions תוספות assumption that the גמרא is retracting its original statement, since the גמרא did not say 'אלא'. This may indeed be the answer to our question. תוספות is not saying that the גמרא retracts the previous assumption of ''אגב תקרה וכו'; this assumption remains. תוספות is merely stating that this assumption is not necessary to answer the question why did they not build (at least) a partial wall in the בית שני., Once אביי stated that it is a tradition etc., the assumption of אגב תקרה is irrelevant to our discussion, but it remains valid. Therefore תוספות previously stated that the גמרא could have answered 'אגב תקרה וכו.


###### Tosafot on Bava Batra 3b:7:1
[Tosafot on Bava Batra 3b:7:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tosafot%20on%20Bava%20Batra/r/3b:7:1)

מכלל דאיכא זוטרתי. וא"ת ודילמא מכלל דאיכא רברבתא ומה דיקא הוא זה ותירץ ר"י דאם אין פחות משלשה אבל גדולות יש א"כ בכדי נקט חצי לבינה של ג' טפחים דלא הוה צריך למתני אלא והאריח חצי לבינה ותו לא וממילא הייתי משער בקטנה הואיל ולא מפרש שיעורא:

**Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski:**
**מכלל דאיכא זוטרתי—This implies that there are smaller** bricks

OVERVIEW
The גמרא sought to resolve the query whether the three טפחים required for לבינים, included the plaster or not. A משנה in מסכת עירובין was cited, which stated that the width of the plank placed above the מבוי needs to be wide enough to support an אריח, which is half of a לבינה of three טפחים. This seems to prove that a לבינה itself without סיד is indeed three טפחים. The גמרא refuted this proof by maintaining that the לבינה mentioned in the משנה in עירובין may be a larger לבינה than the לבינה discussed in our משנה. The גמרא continued to bolster this assertion by referring to the text of the משנה wherein it said ‘a לבינה of three טפחים’. If all לבינים are three טפחים and no more, why does the משנה need to specify the size of the לבינה!? This is ample proof that the לבינה in מסכת עירובין is a larger לבינה; and there are smaller לבינים, which our משנה may be discussing. Thus the query remains. תוספות will challenge this assertion that since it mentions a size that proves that there are smaller ones.
------------------------------
תוספות asks:
**ואם תאמר ודילמא מכלל דאיכא רברבתא¹ ומה דיקא הוא זה –**
**And if you will say; perhaps** from the s'משנה statement ‘a half brick of three טפחים’ **it can be inferred that there are** bricks **larger** than three טפחים; **what sort of deduction is this?!** How are we inferring from the statement ‘a half brick of three טפחים’, that there are bricks that are less than three טפחים?² Perhaps the inference is that there are also bricks more than three טפחים; and that is the reason why the משנה in עירובין specifies a לבינה of (only) three טפחים?³
תוספות answers:
**ותירץ רבינו יצחק דאם אין פחות משלשה אבל גדולות יש –**
**And the** ר"י **answers; for if there are no** bricks **less than three** טפחים **however there are** bricks **larger** than three טפחים –
**אם כן בכדי נקט חצי לבינה של ג' טפחים –**
**Then it is purposeless** for the משנה to **mention a half brick of three** טפחים –
**דלא הוה צריך למתני אלא והאריח חצי לבינה ותו לא –**
**For the** משנה **should have only stated** that **‘and the אריח** **is a half brick’; and no more.** It should not have mentioned the size of a לבינה. If there are only לבינים larger than three טפחים and none smaller, then –
**וממילא הייתי משער בקטנה הואיל ולא מפרש שיעורא:**
**I would have automatically measured** the size of the plank **with the smaller** לבינה; the one of three טפחים. I would not have thought of measuring with the larger לבינה (than three טפחים), **since** the משנה **did not specify the measurement.** If the requirement for a plank is the larger לבינה, the משנה should have been specific, to assure that we do it properly.⁴ The fact that the משנה did state the size of a לבינה proves that there is indeed a smaller size לבינה, less than three טפחים. If the משנה would not have specified the size of the measuring לבינה, one would have assumed to use the smaller size. Therefore the משנה teaches us to use the larger לבינה (of three טפחים) for measurement and not the smaller לבינה.

SUMMARY
The גמרא inferred from the משנה in עירובין that there are also bricks smaller than three טפחים, from the fact that the משנה there specified the size of the brick as three טפחים. If there were no bricks less than three טפחים, and there were bricks larger than three טפחים, there would be no need for the משנה to specify the size of the bricks. It would be obvious that if the משנה does not specify the size, we use the smallest size, that of three טפחים. We may therefore infer that the משנה is teaching us that despite the fact that there are bricks less than three טפחים; nevertheless we are required to use a brick of three טפחים.

THINKING IT OVER
1. When תוספות asked that perhaps we can infer that there are larger bricks; was his intention that there are larger bricks only, or that we can infer that there are larger bricks as well as smaller bricks?⁵
2. What concept was introduced in תוספות answer, which resolved the question?

footnotes:
¹ If this would be the inference, then the איבעיא would be resolved; for a לבינה is (at least) three טפחים. There are others that are even larger.
² This assumption will prove, therefore that the query cannot be resolved.
³ If we follow this last assumption, the משנה in עירובין can (possibly) resolve the query.
⁴ One cannot argue that the משנה assumes that we will go לחומרא and use the larger size brick; for the requirement to place a plank on a מבוי is only a דרבנן. By a רבנן we generally are more lenient.
⁵ See (עד"ז) in בל"י אות נו.


###### Tosafot on Bava Batra 3b:9:1
[Tosafot on Bava Batra 3b:9:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tosafot%20on%20Bava%20Batra/r/3b:9:1)

הג"ה בי קייטא ובי סיתווא הוי כמו איכא תיוהא ושרי ואם שתי בתי כנסיות היו בב' מקומות של קייטא ושל סיתווא איירי כגון דחזו בה תיוהא ועוד נראה כיון דיש שם בהכ"נ אחר אין לחוש אם לא יבנו זאת והא דקאמר דאיכא דוכתא לצלויי היינו שאין בהכ"נ ועוד מחמת קור וחום אין לחוש שמא יפשעו או בזמן גדול כל כך אין לחוש. ע"כ הגה"ה:

**Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski:**
**הג"ה¹ – A gloss**

OVERVIEW
רב חסדא ruled that one may not dismantle a synagogue, before building a replacement synagogue. Two reasons were offered for this ruling. Either because (that for the duration) there will not be a place where to pray (לצלויי); or because they may be negligent in rebuilding the synagogue (פשיעותא).² The practical ramification of these reasons is if there is another place (or בית הכנסת)³ where to pray. If the concern is לצלויי then it is permitted to dismantle the ביכנ"ס; if however the concern is פשיעותא, then even when there is a דוכתא לצלויי (or another ביכנ"ס) it is forbidden to dismantle the current ביכנ"ס. The גמרא then relates that זוטרא ומר מרימר would dismantle and rebuild the summer ביכנ"ס in the winter, and the winter ביכנ"ס in the summer. It is not clear whether we are discussing one ביכנ"ס which was dismantled and rebuilt twice a year; or we are discussing two separate בתי כנסיות, of which each one was dismantled and rebuilt. It is also not clear why they were permitted to do so. It would seemingly be in violation of the abovementioned ruling. תוספות will be discussing these issues.
---------------------------
**בי קייטא ובי סיתווא הוי כמו איכא תיוהא ושרי –**
Dismantling and rebuilding **a summer** synagogue in the winter,⁴ and **a winter** synagogue in the summer, **is comparable to** a case where **there is a fissure** in the wall of the synagogue **and it is permitted** to dismantle (and rebuild) the synagogue in all these cases. When there is a fissure in the wall of the בית הכנסת which may cause it to collapse, it is certainly permissible to dismantle the ביכנ"ס and rebuild it (as the גמרא states shortly). Similarly during the winter season, the summer ביכנ"ס is considered faulty⁵ and may be dismantled and subsequently rebuilt as a winter ביכנ"ס; and vice versa with the winter ביכנ"ס during the summer. תוספות is now assuming that there was only one ביכנ"ס in this city. It was dismantled and rebuilt twice a year.
תוספות considers and discusses an alternate possibility:
**ואם שתי בתי כנסיות היו בב' מקומות של קייטא ושל סיתווא –**
**And if** we were to assume that in the case of the גמרא, **there were two** בתי כנסיות **in two** separate **places** in the city, **a summer** ביכנ"ס **and a** separate **winter** ביכנ"ס; this would raise the question why where they permitted to dismantle the summer ביכנ"ס in the winter. We cannot consider the summer ביכנ"ס as if it is faulty in the winter; since there was a separate winter ביכנ"ס. What right did they have to dismantle the summer ביכנ"ס in the winter and vice versa?!
תוספות answers: We must say that the גמרא –
**איירי כגון דחזו בה תיוהא⁶ –**
**is discussing a situation similar to finding a breach** in the wall; therefore they were permitted to dismantle it.
תוספות offers an alternate solution:
**ועוד נראה כיון דיש שם בית הכנסת אחר אין לחוש אם לא יבנו זאת⁷ –**
**And furthermore, it seems that since there is another** ביכנ"ס **there**, in that community (either the winter or summer ביכנ"ס) **there is no concern** even **if they do not rebuild this one** that they dismantled. The prohibition against dismantling a ביכנ"ס, is based on the concern that it will not be rebuilt (or that the people will not have a place to be מתפלל). In our situation however, these concerns are not valid. There is another ביכנ"ס where to be מתפלל.
תוספות challenges this previous answer:
**והא דקאמר דאיכא דוכתא לצלויי
And that which** the גמרא **states** concerning the difference between the two opinions why a ביכנ"ס may not be dismantled; whether it is because there is concern that it will not be rebuilt (פשיעותא), or whether we are concerned that in the duration of dismantling and rebuilding there will be no place to be מתפלל; the difference between these two reasons is in a situation **where there is a place to be מתפלל.** In such a situation we would not be permitted to dismantle a ביכנ"ס (only) according to the opinion that we are concerned for פשיעותא. In any event we see that even if there is a לצלויי דכותא we are not permitted to dismantle a ביכנ"ס according to the מ"ד פשיעותא. How then were they permitted to dismantle the בי קייטא וכו'?
תוספות responds: That answer that the difference between the two opinions is in a case of איכא דוכתא לצלויי –
**היינו שאין בית הכנסת⁸ –**
**That is** specifically where this לצלויי דוכתא **is not a ביכנ"ס.** In that situation we maintain that according to the מ"ד פשיעותא it is forbidden to dismantle the ביכנ"ס even though there is a לצלויי דוכתא. For since that לצלויי דוכתא is not designated as a ביכנ"ס it is merely a temporary meeting place, it does not fulfill the requirement that every community have a proper and permanent ביכנ"ס. In the case of 'וכו בי קייטא there are two כנסיות בתי. Therefore we may dismantle one of them (if necessary).
תוספות offers an additional explanation why they were permitted to dismantle the קייטא וכו' בי.
**ועוד⁹ מחמת קור וחום אין לחוש שמא יפשעו¹⁰ –
And furthermore on account of the cold** in the winter (where they have only the summer ביכנ"ס) **and the heat** in the summer (where they have only the winter ביכנ"ס) **there is no concern that perhaps they will be negligent** and not rebuild the ביכנ"ס during the off season. The circumstances of the (extreme) heat and cold (in the inferior ביכנ"ס) will force the community to rebuild the needed ביכנ"ס in time for the new season.
תוספות offers an alternate explanation why there will be no negligence:
**או בזמן גדול כל כך אין לחוש.¹¹**
**Or** one can argue **that for such an extended period there is no concern** that it will not be rebuilt.
**עד כאן הגה"ה:**
**The gloss is hereby concluded.**

SUMMARY
A community may dismantle a summer ביכנ"ס for a winter one (and vice versa). If there is both a summer and winter ביכנ"ס they may be dismantled out of season if there is a need for (minor) repairs. This is the first opinion of תוספות.
The other opinion(s) of תוספות is that they may be dismantled out of season regardless, whether it needs repair work or not. This case differs from the case of איכא דוכתא לצלויי where it is forbidden to dismantle a ביכנ"ס according to the מ"ד פשיעותא because there it is merely a דוכתא לצלויי, not a ביכנ"ס; however here there still remains a bona fide ביכנ"ס. Even if the מ"ד פשיעותא maintains that if there is another ביכנ"ס it is still prohibited to dismantle an existing ביכנ"ס, it is nevertheless permissible to dismantle the בי קייטא כו'. In the case of two בתי כנסיות, the people may become accustomed to using only one ביכנ"ס and be lax in rebuilding the other. By בי קייטא, however they will never be comfortable using the summer ביכנ"ס in the winter. Another reason is that the negligence of rebuilding the בי קייטא will never extend over the entire winter.

THINKING IT OVER
1. Do זוטרא ומר מרימר maintain the reason of צלויי, or פשיעותא?¹²
2. At what point in the winter is it permitted to dismantle the summer ביכנ"ס?¹³

footnotes:
¹ Seemingly this תוספות was not part of the original תוספות but was included as an addendum from (presumably) other בעלי תוספות.
² It would seem from this תוספות (especially from the last answer) that we are not concerned that they will be lax and not rebuild the ביכנ"ס at all. Rather the concern is that for the duration that they are lax in rebuilding the ביכנ"ס, it would be considered negligence on their part.
³ תוספות seems to favor this גירסא.
⁴ The summer ביכנ"ס was dismantled at the end of the summer and rebuilt immediately in time for the winter.
⁵ It is too cold there in the winter. Conversely, the winter ביכנ"ס, is too hot for the summer.
⁶ It would be difficult to say that they actually found a breach in the wall; for if that were the case, it would be permitted to dismantle the summer ביכנ"ס even in the summer. Therefore תוספות states 'כגון' something similar to a fault. In ordinary circumstances we would be reluctant to dismantle it; however since it was a summer ביכנ"ס in the winter, and was not being used, it was permissible to dismantle it (even according to the מ"ד פשיעותא) because it required repairs.
⁷ This phrase seems to indicate, that we are not concerned even if it is never rebuilt.
⁸ This would indicate that this תוספות is not 'אחריתי כנישתא בי' גורס, but rather 'לצלויי דוכתא'.
⁹ Even if we were to assume that (according to the מ"ד פשיעותא) one is not permitted to dismantle a ביכנ"ס even if there is another ביכנ"ס in the community (as our גירסא in the גמרא maintains), nevertheless this case is different.
¹⁰ When there are two ‘regular’ בתי כנסיות in a community, one is not permitted to dismantle one of them (according to the מ"ד פשיעותא) out of concern that the people will use the other ביכנ"ס. This may cause a laxity in the rebuilding of the dismantled ביכנ"ס. This is not acceptable. In our case however the circumstances will force the community to rebuild the 'וכו קייטא בי. See the following footnote.
¹¹ In the event when there is another ביכנ"ס, we are concerned that they may be lax in rebuilding the ביכנ"ס. The original ביכנ"ס was used (throughout the year), and now it is being neglected. [There is only concern for laxity; not that they will never rebuild it (see Overview)]. This laxity is considered a פשיעותא. In our case however, even if they are lax in rebuilding the summer ביכנ"ס during the winter (they do not rebuild it immediately at the beginning of the winter), it is not considered a פשיעותא, because the summer ביכנ"ס is never used during the winter. It can be considered a פשיעותא, only if they do not rebuild it by the time summer arrives. תוספות maintains that either the necessity to rebuild the ביכנ"ס before the new season (on account of cold/heat) will force then to build it in the proper time; or there is so much time during the winter to rebuild the summer ביכנ"ס, that we are not concerned that they will be that negligent. (This explains the 'לשון 'או instead of 'ועוד').
¹² See בל"י אות נט.
¹³ See נח"מ (בד"ה או).


###### Tosafot on Bava Batra 3b:11:1
[Tosafot on Bava Batra 3b:11:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tosafot%20on%20Bava%20Batra/r/3b:11:1)

אי הכי כי בנייה נמי. פירוש עד שיתפללו בה:

**Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski:**
**אי הכי כי בנייה נמי—If** it is **so, if they built it, also**

OVERVIEW
The גמרא was discussing the ruling of רב חסדא that one may not dismantle a ביכנ"ס until a new ביכנ"ס is built. The גמרא asserted that even if all the building materials are prepared for the new ביכנ"ס, nevertheless we are still not permitted to dismantle the old ביכנ"ס. We are concerned that perhaps they will be confronted with a case of פדיון שבויים and will have to sell the materials to raise money for the ransom. The גמרא then asks if this is a valid concern then even if the new ביכנ"ס was built, it should still be prohibited to dismantle the old ביכנ"ס, for we may be required to sell the (new) ביכנ"ס for פדיון שבויים. תוספות is troubled by this question. It seems to indicate that we should never be permitted to dismantle a ביכנ"ס, out of concern that we may be required to sell the new one for פדיון שבויים. However there should be no such concern. We are not permitted to sell a ביכנ"ס for פדיון שבויים.¹
--------------------
**פירוש עד שיתפללו בה:**
**The meaning** that we should be concerned not to dismantle the old ביכנ"ס even if the new ביכנ"ס was built; that concern is limited **until they begin praying in** the new ביכנ"ס.² Once they started praying in the new ביכנ"ס however, there was not even a הוה אמינא, that we should not be permitted to dismantle the old ביכנ"ס.

SUMMARY
The גמרא asked that even if the new ביכנ"ס was built, as long as they were not מתפלל there yet, it should be prohibited to dismantle to old ביכנ"ס.

THINKING IT OVER
1. Why is there a difference whether they started to be מתפלל in the new ביכנ"ס or not?³
2. How does the מסקנא of the גמרא differ from the הו"א concerning a built ביכנ"ס?⁴

footnotes:
¹ ע"פ נח"מ עיי"ש ועי' בבל"י.
² Only up to then is it permitted to sell the ביכנ"ס for פדיון שבויים. See previous footnote.
³ See נח"מ.
⁴ See בל"י אות סד.


###### Tosafot on Bava Batra 3b:12:1
[Tosafot on Bava Batra 3b:12:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tosafot%20on%20Bava%20Batra/r/3b:12:1)

ועייליה לפורייה להתם. ותימה והא אמרת בתי כנסיות אין ישנים בהם לא שינת קבע ולא שינת עראי ואין לתרץ משום דבבבל הוי ואמר רב אסי בפ' בתרא דמגילה (דף כח: ושם ד"ה בתי) בתי כנסיות של בבל על תנאי הן עשויות ופ"ה התם נפקא מינה לענין הא דקתני לעיל אין אוכלין בהן ואין שותים בהן ואין נכנסין בהן בחמה מפני החמה ובגשמים מפני הגשמים ובשל בבל מותר דהא קאמר התם בתר הכי רבינא ורב אדא הוו קיימי ושיילי שמעתא מרבא אתא זילחא דמטרא עלייהו ועיילי לבי כנישתא ולא משום מטרא אלא משום דשמעתא בעי' צילותא והשתא והלא בהכ"נ של בבל היה והיו יכולין ליכנס בה מפני המטר וי"ל דלאו ממש לבהכ"נ עיילה לפוריי' אלא בסמוך לבהכ"נ במקום שהאורחין רגילין לישן שם ולאכול כדאמרינן בע"פ (פסחים דף קא. ושם ד"ה דאכלי) ושמואל למה לי' לקדושי בבי כנישתא לאפוקי אורחים ידי חובתן דאכלו ושתו וגנו בבי כנישתא והא דאמר דעל תנאי הן עשויין מפרש ר"י לענין שאם יחרבו יעשו מהן מה שירצו לבד מקלות ראש כדאמרי' התם:

**Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski:**
**ועייליה לפורייה להתם—And he brought in his bed there**

OVERVIEW
רב אשי wanted to be sure that there would be no laxity in the rebuilding of the ביכנ"ס, so he placed his bed and slept in the ביכנ"ס until the entire construction (including the setting of the drain pipes) was completed. תוספות will be discussing whether it is permissible to sleep in a ביכנ"ס.
--------------------------
תוספות asks:
**ותימה והא אמרת¹ בתי כנסיות אין ישנים בהם לא שינת קבע ולא שינת עראי –**
**And it is astounding! For you** know that it is **stated** concerning **synagogues**, that **we do not sleep in them neither a (fixed) [normal] sleep nor a temporary sleep** (a nap)**.** How was רב אשי permitted to sleep in this ביכנ"ס (that they were building)?²
תוספות offers a possible answer and rejects it:
**ואין לתרץ משום דבבבל הוי ואמר רב אסי בפרק בתרא דמגילה (דף כח,ב ושם דיבור המתחיל בתי) –**
**And we cannot answer** that he was permitted to sleep in the ביכנ"ס, **since it was in בבל,** **and רב אסי said in the last פרק of**מסכת **מגילה –
בתי כנסיות של בבל על תנאי הן עשויות –**
**The בתי כנסת of בבל are made with** certain **stipulations.** These stipulations allow the בתי כנסיות of בבל to be used for purposes other than a ביכנ"ס.**
ופירש הקונטרס התם נפקא מינה לענין הא דקתני לעיל אין אוכלין בהן ואין שותים בהן –**
**And** רש"י **explained there** in מסכת מגילה that the fact the ביכנ"ס were made תנאי על **has a relevance concerning that which was previously taught** there in a ברייתא concerning a ביכנ"ס, namely that **one may neither eat nor drink in** a ביכנ"ס –
**ואין נכנסין בהן בחמה מפני החמה ובגשמים מפני הגשמים ובשל בבל מותר³ –**
**And one may not enter into them in the summer time to** protect himself **from the heat;** nor may he enter a ביכנ"ס **in the rainy** season to shelter himself from **the rain; however in** the ביכנ"ס **of בבל he is permitted** to do the aforementioned acts.
תוספות rejects this explanation:
**דהא קאמר התם בתר הכי רבינא ורב אדא הוו קיימי ושיילי שמעתא מרבא –**
**For** the גמרא in מגילה **subsequently relates that רבינא and רב אדא were standing and asking a הלכה question from רבא –
אתא זילחא דמטרא עלייהו ועיילי לבי כנישתא –**
**A downpour of rain fell upon them so they entered into the ביכנ"ס** to continue their discussion –
**ולא משום מטרא אלא משום דשמעתא בעיא צילותא⁴ –**
**However, they did not enter** the ביכנ"ס to protect themselves **from the rain rather they entered the ביכנ"ס because learning** תורה **requires a clear mind.** This concludes the story. תוספות continues –
**והשתא והלא בית הכנסת של בבל היה והיו יכולין ליכנס בה מפני המטר⁵ –**
**But now** let us see; **this was a ס"ביהכנ** **in בבל** and according to י"**רש they would be permitted to enter the** ביכנ"ס **on account of the rain**.
תוספות answers:
**ויש לומר דלאו ממש לבית הכנסת עיילה לפוריה –**
**And one can say that he did not bring his bed into the ס"ביהכנ** **proper –
אלא בסמוך לבית הכנסת במקום שהאורחין רגילין לישן שם ולאכול –**
**But rather** in a room **adjacent to the ביכנ"ס,** **in the place where the guests customarily sleep and eat there.** תוספות will now show that it was customary to have a room adjacent to the ביכנ"ס for guests –
**כדאמרינן בערבי פסחים (פסחים דף קא,א ושם דיבור המתחיל דאכלי) –**
**As** the גמרא **states in** פרק **ערבי פסחים –
ושמואל⁶ למה ליה לקדושי בבי כנישתא –**
**‘And** according **to** שמואל **why do they make** קידוש **in the ביכנ"ס?** The people go home to eat. There is no סעודה במקום קידוש. The גמרא answers קידוש is made in order that –
**לאפוקי אורחים ידי חובתן דאכלו ושתו וגנו בבי כנישתא⁷ –
The guests fulfill their obligation** to make קידוש. Since there are guests **who eat, drink and sleep in the ביכנ"ס.’**
תוספות deals now with the statement that בתי כנסיות שבבל על תנאי הם עשויין.
**והא דאמר דעל תנאי הן עשויין מפרש רבינו יצחק –**
**And** concerning **that** which the גמרא states that the בתי כנסיות שבבל **were made על תנאי,** **the ר"י explains** that it does not mean that one can arbitrarily make a provision permitting usage of the ביכנ"ס for personal needs; but rather the תנאי was made –
**לענין שאם יחרבו יעשו מהן מה שירצו לבד מקלות ראש⁸ כדאמרינן התם:**
**concerning that if** the בתכנ"ס **became destroyed they can utilize** the destroyed ביכנ"ס **as they see fit,** **except** that they cannot utilize it **for light headed purposes as the גמרא states there in** מסכת מגילה.****

SUMMARY
It is forbidden to do any secular activity in a ביכנ"ס even in בבל. The provisions that were made for the בכנ"ס of בבל was that one may make respectful use of them once they are destroyed, and no longer function as aביכנ"ס .רב אשי placed his bed and slept in a room adjoining the ביכנ"ס proper; not in the ביכנ"ס itself. [רש"י maintains, on account of the provisions – על תנאי הם עשוים, one may utilize an existing ביכנ"ס for personal needs.]

THINKING IT OVER
One would assume that the prohibition against sleeping, etc. in a ביכנ"ס is limited to a functioning ביכנ"ס. Here however רב אשי seemingly slept in a ביכנ"ס during construction⁹ when it was not in use.¹⁰ How can we justify תוספות question?¹¹

footnotes:
¹ See תוספתא מגילה יא,ב. It does not mention however 'שינת ארעי'. See מנחת בכורים there.
² See, ‘Thinking it over”.
³ The בתי כנסיות in בבל were built with the provision that one may conduct himself there in a manner prohibited in other בתכנ"ס. It would seem from רש"י that in the בתכנ"ס of בבל one is permitted to sleep there as well, since it was built with the provision that people may sleep there. This would seemingly explain why רב אשי was permitted to place his bed in the ביכנ"ס.
⁴ רבא would not be able to come to the right decision, since they are being distracted by the downpour.
⁵ The fact that the גמרא makes it clear that they did not enter the ביכנ"ס on account of the rain proves that even in בבל, one is not permitted to derive personal benefit from the ביכנ"ס. The question therefore remains; how was רב אשי permitted to sleep in the ביכנ"ס.
⁶ שמואל maintains that אין קידוש אלא במקום סעודה.
⁷ It seems obvious that these guests did these activities in the adjacent guest room provided for them, not in the ביכנ"ס proper. Similarly רב אשי placed his bed and slept in the adjoining room.
⁸ The גמרא there gives an example of קלות ראש to mean that it is forbidden to use the ביכנ"ס for חשבונות.
⁹ See footnote # 2.
¹⁰ This should be perhaps considered בחורבנן, where everything besides קלות ראש is permitted.
¹¹ See בל"י אות סח.


###### Tosafot on Bava Batra 3b:14:1
[Tosafot on Bava Batra 3b:14:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tosafot%20on%20Bava%20Batra/r/3b:14:1)

כל דאמר מבית חשמונאי אתינא עבדא הוא. וכן הוא דהכי נמי אמר שמואל בפרק עשרה יוחסין (קדושין דף ע:) ומכאן קשה על פ"ה באלו נאמרים (סוטה דף מא.) דאמר אמרו לו לאגריפס אחינו אתה ופ"ה התם שאמרו לו אחינו לפי שהיתה אמו מישראל דא"כ כיון דבני הורדוס נשאו ישראלית אמאי עבדא הוה הא שמואל גופיה אית ליה עובד כוכבים ועבד הבא על בת ישראל הולד כשר בהחולץ (יבמות דף מה.) וצ"ל שלא נשאו ישראלית וקראוהו אחינו אתה לפי שעבד אחינו [הוא] במצות: [וע"ע תוס' יבמות מה: ד"ה כיון דאמו]:

**Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski:**
**כל דאמר מבית חשמונאי אתינא עבדא הוא—Anyone who claims that he is a descendant from the house of the חשמונאים, is a slave**

OVERVIEW
An עבד כנעני is not permitted to marry a ישראלית (and a ישראל is not permitted to marry a שפחה כנענית). הודדוס was an עבד כנעני in the חשמונאי household. He killed the entire חשמונאי family, except for one girl. She committed suicide so that הורדוס would not marry her. Immediately preceding her death she exclaimed that whoever claims to be a descendant from the חשמונאי household, is really a descendant of הורדוס; and is therefore an עבד as well. תוספות will be discussing whether הורדוס or (some of) his descendants actually married Jewish women (illegally). Had they indeed (illegally) married Jewish women, then their descendants would be כשר Jews, according to some opinions.¹
----------------------
**וכן הוא דהכי נמי אמר שמואל בפרק עשרה יוחסין (קדושין דף ע,ב) –**
**And this is indeed so,² for** שמואל **said the same thing in יוחסין עשרה פרק.** That whoever claims to be a descendant from the חשמונאים is really an עבד.³
תוספות claims that this poses a difficulty with sי"רש explanation elsewhere:
**ומכאן⁴ קשה על פירוש הקונטרס באלו נאמרים (סוטה דף מא,א) –**
**And from this גמרא, there is a difficulty with the interpretation רש"י** offers **in** פרק **אלו נאמרים –
דאמר אמרו לו לאגריפס אחינו אתה –**
**Where** the גמרא **states** that the חכמים **said to אגריפס; ‘you are our brother’⁵ –**
**ופירש הקונטרס התם⁶ שאמרו לו אחינו לפי שהיתה אמו מישראל –**
**And** רש"י **explained there,** the reason **that** the חכמים **said to him ‘**you are **our brother’** (even though he was a descendant of הורדוס, the slave)**,** is **because his mother was Jewish.** This concludes s'י"רש interpretation on the גמרא. תוספות now poses the difficulty –
**דאם כן כיון דבני הורדוס נשאו ישראלית אמאי עבדא הוה הא שמואל גופיה אית ליה –**
**for if this is so** as רש"י asserts that the mother of אגריפס was Jewish, then since **הורדוס children** **married Jewish women why are** their descendants **considered as slaves, for** שמואל **himself maintains** that –
**עובד כוכבים ועבד הבא על בת ישראל הולד כשר בהחולץ (יבמות דף מה,א) –**
**A gentile or a slave that lives with a Jewess** (even though it is not permitted, nevertheless) **the** resultant **child is** a **כשר** Jew, as שמואל maintains **in** **החולץ** פרק. Why therefore does שמואל state than any descendants from the בית חשמונאי are עבדים?! According to רש"י they (may have) married Jewish women and the children are כשרים ישראלים.
**וצריך לומר שלא נשאו ישראלית –
And** therefore **it is necessary to maintain that** the descendants of הורדוס **did not** subsequently **marry Jewish women**. Rather they married other עבדים, etc. Therefore the resultant children retained their status as עבדים.
תוספות answers the anticipated question; Why then did the חכמים refer to אגריפס as 'אחינו', since he was a slave? תוספות explains:
**וקראוהו אחינו אתה לפי שעבד אחינו [הוא] במצות: [וע"ע תוס' יבמות מה: ד"ה כיון דאמו] :**
**And** the חכמים **referred to אגריפס as אחינו אתה, for** (even) **an עבד** is considered '**אחינו**' in regards to observing **the מצוות.** An עבד כנעני is obligated to perform all the מצוות that a woman is obligated to do. Therefore they considered him a ‘brother’; even though he was an עבד.

SUMMARY
An כוכבים עובד or an עבד כנעני who fathers a child from a ישראלית, the child is a ולד כשר according to שמואל.
רש"י maintains that the mother of אגריפס was Jewish; therefore the חכמים called him 'אתה אחינו'.
תוספות asks: according to רש"י why does שמואל maintain that the descendants of הורדוס are עבדים; perhaps their mothers’ were Jewish.
תוספות maintains that none of the descendants of הורדוס married Jewish women, including the father of אגריפס. Therefore they are all עבדים. The חכמים referred to אגריפס as 'אחינו', since as an עבד כנעני, he is מחוייב במצות כאשה.

THINKING IT OVER
What does תוספות refer to when he states 'מכאן קשה על פ"ה'?

footnotes:
¹ There is a dispute regarding an עבד כנעני who is בא על בת ישראל whether the child is a ממזר or if he is כשר.
² It is not merely a claim by this girl, but it is true.
³ It was assumed (or perhaps it was known) that none of them married Jewish women since it is אסור.
⁴ See: ‘Thinking it over’.
⁵ אגריפס was a king towards the end of בית שני, and a descendant of הורדוס. The גמרא there relates that אגריפס read the תורה on הקהל. When he reached the פסוק of לא תאכל לתת עליך איש נכרי (which prohibits a ‘stranger’ from becoming a מלך) his eyes flowed with tears. The חכמים responded; ‘have no fear אגריפס for אתה אחינו’.
⁶ ד"ה אחינו


###### Tosafot on Bava Batra 3b:16:1
[Tosafot on Bava Batra 3b:16:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tosafot%20on%20Bava%20Batra/r/3b:16:1)

מאן דריש מקרב אחיך רבנן. דפשטי' דקרא לא משמע למעוטי עבד שהוא אחיך במצות אלא עובד כוכבים ורבנן דרשו (ב"ק פח.) ממובחר שבאחיך:

**Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski:**
**מאן דריש מקרב אחיך —Who interprets מקרב אחיך; the רבנן**

OVERVIEW
הורדוס, who was an עבד כנעני, became the king of the בני ישראל. There were however many misgivings about his regal status since he was an עבד. The תורה states clearly מקרב אחיך תשים עליך מלך. The king must be appointed from the midst of the Jewish people. הורדוס as an עבד was not מקרב אחיך. תוספות anticipates the question, that seemingly הורדוס anger should not have been directed to the רבנן. The פסוק states מקרב אחיך. Why was he angry at the רבנן? They did not institute this ruling.
---------------------
תוספות explains:
**דפשטיה דקרא לא משמע למעוטי עבד שהוא אחיך במצות¹ אלא עובד כוכבים –**
**For the simple meaning of the** פסוק מקרב אחיך תשים עליך מלך **does not indicate that an עבד** **should be excluded** from becoming a king. The reason is **for** the עבד **is** indeed **your brother** in regards to observing the **מצות**. **Rather** the term מקרב אחיך would imply that a **gentile** be excluded from becoming a מלך. A gentile is not obligated in any מצוות; therefore he cannot be considered אחיך. This is how we would have interpreted this verse were it not for the רבנן, and הורדוס would then have been accepted as king.
**ורבנן דרשו (בבא קמא פח,א) ממובחר² שבאחיך:**
**However the** רבנן **interpreted** the מקרב אחיך פסוק to mean **from the choicest of your brothers.** A king has to appointed from the highest quality of the Jewish people. An עבד, obviously does not fulfill that criterion. This is the reason why הורדוס became enraged against the חכמים. For if not for the חכמים he would have been accepted fully as a proper king.

SUMMARY
The רבנן interpret the term מקרב אחיך to mean ממובחר שבאחיך; thus excluding even עבדים from becoming king. Without this דרשה, we may have thought that it comes to exclude עכו"ם.

THINKING IT OVER
Why would it have been necessary for the תורה to teach us that a gentile cannot be appointed as a מלך? Would someone have thought otherwise!

footnotes:
¹ See previous תוספות ד"ה כל. An עבד is obligated to perform the מצוות like a woman
² It would seem that the רבנן interpret the word מקרב ‘from the midst’, to mean those from the core; not from those on the periphery.


###### Tosafot on Bava Batra 3b:16:2
[Tosafot on Bava Batra 3b:16:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tosafot%20on%20Bava%20Batra/r/3b:16:2)

קטלינהו לכולהו רבנן. לאו דוקא לכולהו דהא הוו בני בתירא שהיו נשיאים כשעלה הלל מבבל כדאמרינן בפסחים בפרק אלו דברים (פסחים דף סו.) והלל היה בפני הבית מאה שנה כדאמרינן בפרק קמא דשבת (דף טו.) ומלכות הורדוס היה בפני הבית ק"ג שנה כדאמרינן בפרק קמא דע"ז (דף ט.):

**Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski:**
**קטלינהו לכולהו רבנן—He killed all of the רבנן**

OVERVIEW
תוספות examines the s’גמרא statement that הורדוס killed all the רבנן (besides בבא בן בוטא).
----------------------
**לאו דוקא לכולהו¹ דהא הוו בני בתירא שהיו נשיאים כשעלה הלל מבבל –**
**It is not precisely all of them.** הורדוס did not actually kill all the רבנן; others remained alive. תוספות will prove his point **for there were the בני בתירא** **who were princes** in א"י **when הלל** **ascended from בבל** to א"י. The בני בתירא were then the functioning נשיאים, so הורדוס did not kill them –
**כדאמרינן בפסחים בפרק אלו דברים (דף סו,א.) –**
**As** the גמרא **relates in**מסכת **פסחים** **in דברים אלו פרק.** תוספות will now go on to prove that הלל and the בני בתירא lived in the same time as הורדוס.
**והלל היה בפני הבית מאה שנה כדאמרינן בפרק קמא דשבת (דף טו,א) –**
**And הלל** **was** נשיא at the beginning of the last **hundred years that the** המקדש **בית** **existed. As** the גמרא **states in the first פרק** **of** מסכת **שבת –
ומלכות הורדוס היה בפני הבית ק"ג שנה כדאמרינן בפרק קמא דעבודה זרה (דף ט,א):**
**And the reign (the dynasty) of הורדוס was the last one hundred three years that the בית** המקדש **existed as** the גמרא **states in the first פרק** **of** מסכת**עבודה זרה** **.** The reign of הורדוס coincided with the era of הלל and the בני בתירא. That proves that there were רבנן in א"י during the (beginning of the) reign of הורדוס.² קטלינהו דכולא רבנן was in the very beginning of his reign. The fact that the בני בתירא were alive three years later, when הלל came to א"י and became נשיא, proves that some רבנן were left alive.

SUMMARY
The reign of הורדוס dynasty lasted the last one hundred three years of the בית שני. The נשיאות of הלל and his sons was during the last hundred years of the בית שני. The בני בתירה were נשיאים when הלל arrived from בבל and became the נשיא. הורדוס, therefore, did not kill all the רבנן.

THINKING IT OVER
Why did not תוספות prove that הורדוס did not kill all the רבנן from the fact that הלל was a נשיא? Why does he prove it from the בתירה בני (only)?³

footnotes:
¹ Perhaps he killed those that chose to emphasize and disseminate the ruling of מקרב אחיך.
² It is assumed that
³ See (עד"ז in) נח"מ.