## Tosafot on Bava Batra Daf 4a

###### Tosafot on Bava Batra 4a:9:1
[Tosafot on Bava Batra 4a:9:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tosafot%20on%20Bava%20Batra/r/4a:9:1)

שכל דברי מלכות נחתכין על פיו. לפי תרגום [של] אחשורוש נענש הרבה שנהרג דכתיב ויגידו למרדכי את דברי אסתר ולא כתב התם התך לפי שהרגו המן על שהיה משיב דברים בין אסתר למרדכי ומיהו גמ' שלנו אין תופס כן דדרשינן במגילה (דף טו.) והתך להיכן הלך ומפרש לפי שאין משיבין על הקלקלה:

**Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski:**
**שכל דברי מלכות נחתכין על פיו—For all the royal matters were decided by his word.**

OVERVIEW
The גמרא is discussing what punishment דניאל incurred for offering נבוכדנצר advice. The גמרא offers two opinions; either his stature was diminished (therefore his name was changed to התך), or he was thrown to the lions (which he ultimately survived unscathed). תוספות will argue that we find that he suffered a more sinister fate.
--------------------------
**לפי תרגום [של] אחשורוש¹ נענש הרבה שנהרג –**
**According to the תרגום of** דניאל **** מגילת **אחשורוש** **was greatly punished**; **for he was killed** –
**דכתיב ויגידו למרדכי את דברי אסתר ולא כתב התם התך –**
**As it is written** in the מגילת אסתר; **they related to מרדכי** **the words of אסתר; however it does not say** in **that** פסוק, that **התך** told מרדכי. After the מגילה relates that אסתר told התך to explain to מרדכי why she cannot go to אחשורוש on behalf of the Jews; the פסוק merely states that מרדכי was told what אסתר said, but it did not say that התך himself actually told מרדכי. The reason that התך did not tell מרדכי is –
**לפי שהרגו המן על שהיה משיב דברים בין אסתר למרדכי –**
**For המן** **killed** התך (before he was able to tell מרדכי what אסתר said), **for he was the liaison between אסתר** **and מרדכי.** We see from the תרגום that (דניאל) התך paid with his life. This would seem to contradict our גמרא that the extent of his punishment was to have his stature diminished or to be thrown into the lion’s den.
תוספות explains why our גמרא does not mention the punishment of death:
**ומיהו גמרא שלנו אין תופס כן –**
**However, our** גמרא **does not maintain this;** that המן killed התך (therefore they mention other punishments for דניאל) –
**דדרשינן במגילה (דף טו,א) והתך להיכן הלך ומפרש לפי שאין משיבין על הקלקלה:**
**For** the גמרא **offers a דרשה** **in מגילה** מסכת**,** concerning this very issue. The גמרא there asks **and where did התך** **go?** Why did he not deliver s'אסתר message to מרדכי (that she cannot seek an audience with the king)? **And** the גמרא **explains;** the reason התך did not carry this message to מרדכי, was **because we do not respond for a disastrous** matter. Since אסתר refused to go to אחשורוש, and this was detrimental for the Jews, התך did not want to be the bearer of bad tidings

SUMMARY
There are two opinions why (דניאל) התך did not deliver s'אסתר message (of refusal to seek an audience with אחשורוש) to מרדכי; and consequently the punishment דניאל received for advising נבוכדנצר. According to the גמרא it is because התך did not want to bring a disturbing message to מרדכי. The punishment he received was that his stature was diminished or that he was thrown into the lion’s den. According to the תרגום, however, התך was killed by המן for being the intermediary between מרדכי and אסתר.

THINKING IT OVER
Would it not have been more appropriate that the המתחיל דיבור of this תוספות should have been either 'ודניאל מנלן דאיענש', or 'איכא למימר מאי'; why choose שכל דברי מלכות פיו על נחתכין for the ד"ה? It seemingly has no connection to the issue at hand.²

footnotes:
¹ See תרגום אסתר ד,יב.
² It may be pointed out that the time that דניאל was called התך was after the time that he was thrown לגוב אריות. It also seems that the answer of אריות לגוב is not so convincing; otherwise it should have been offered first, before מגדולתו חתכוהו; since this is written clearly in דניאל. It was also much closer in time to the misdeed he performed. The גמרא may be arguing thus: You do not consider אריות גוב a punishment, since he was not harmed. He was also called התך because his prestige did not diminish at all. In fact; פיו על שכל דברי מלכות נחתכין. It carried through all these years into אחשורוש מלכות. There certainly was no punishment!  תוספות may be saying on the contrary! דניאל was elevated to such prominence in order to punish him severely!


###### Tosafot on Bava Batra 4a:14:1
[Tosafot on Bava Batra 4a:14:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tosafot%20on%20Bava%20Batra/r/4a:14:1)

הכי קתני וכן בגינה סתם כו'. וסיפא נמי יש לפרש כן אבל סתם בקעה ומקום שלא נהגו לגדור בגינה אין מחייבין אותו:

**Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski:**
**הכי קתני וכן בגינה סתם כולי—This is what the משנה is teaching; ‘And similarly in an unclassified garden’, etc.**

OVERVIEW
אביי attempted to resolve the apparent contradiction in the משנה as follows: That when the משנה stated ‘וכן בגינה מקום שנהגו לגדור מחייבין אותו’, it meant that in a גינה סתם and a מקום שנהגו לגדור בבקעה one is obligated to build a wall. תוספות anticipates the following question. How would we then understand the סיפא of the משנה which states ‘אבל בבקעה מקום שנהגו שלא לגדור אין מחייבין אותו’? Seemingly it is telling us that by a בקעה in a מקום שנהגו לא לגדור one is not obligate to build a wall.¹ This implies, however, that by a בקעה סתם one is obligated to build a wall. However from the רישא we imply that a בקעה requires a wall only by a מקום שנהגו לגדור and not by a בקעה סתם. The original contradiction remains (as far as a בקעה is concerned).
----------------------
תוספות resolves this problem:
**וסיפא נמי יש לפרש כן² אבל סתם בקעה ומקום שלא נהגו לגדור בגינה אין מחייבין אותו:³**
**And we can similarly interpret the סיפא** **likewise.** תוספות now quotes and interprets the סיפא of the משנה according to אביי: **however an unclassified valley and** in **a place where it is not customary to fence in the gardens we do not obligate him** to build a dividing wall.

SUMMARY
When אביי interpreted the רישא, the same applies to the סיפא that by a סתם בקעה and מקום שלא נהגו לגדור בגינה he is not obligated to build a wall.

THINKING IT OVER
How did we understand s'רבא question; 'א"כ מאי אבל' originally, and how do we understand it according to תוספות?⁴

footnotes:
¹ אביי only reinterpreted the רישא of the משנה that states 'וכן בגינה'; giving the impression that the סיפא should be read literally that by a בקעה במקום שלא נהגו לגדור אין מחייבין אותו.
² אביי did not intend to reinterpret only the רישא of 'וכן בגינה. In fact the same reinterpretation applies to the סיפא of 'אבל בבקעה' as well.
³ If the סיפא were not written as such, one may have entertained the idea that by a גינה there is always a requirement to build a כותל even by a מקום שלא נהגו לגדור (especially and indeed truthfully according to the מ"ד מחיצה גודא if it was רצו). When the סיפא teaches us that אבל בבקעה and in a מקום שלא נהגו לגדור בגינה אין מחייבין אותו, this forces us to conclude that וכן בגינה refers only to סתם גינה and not מקום שלא נהגו לגדור.
⁴ See מהרש"א.


###### Tosafot on Bava Batra 4a:16:1
[Tosafot on Bava Batra 4a:16:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tosafot%20on%20Bava%20Batra/r/4a:16:1)

והא מבחוץ קתני קשיא. ותיובתא אינה דמצינן למימר היינו שבולט חוץ לחומה מ"מ קשיא היא דא"כ מחוץ הוה ליה למיתני:

**Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski:**
**והא מבחוץ קתני קשיא—But** the **משנה teaches, ‘from the outside’; this is a difficulty**

OVERVIEW
There is a difference between the terms 'קשיא' (a difficulty) and 'תיובתא' (a refutation). תיובתא means that we cannot accept this opinion, it is completely refuted. קשיא, however, means that there is a difficulty in accepting this opinion. However it can be justified, albeit with some difficulty. תוספות explains why the term קשיא is used here and not the term תיובתא.
-----------------------
**ותיובתא אינה דמצינן למימר היינו שבולט חוץ לחומה –**
**It is not,** however, **a** complete **refutation** of the 'איכא דאמרי', who maintain the חזית is placed on the builder’s side **for** the איכא דאמרי **can say** that the word 'מבחוץ' does not mean that the builder places the חזית on the other side (the side of his partner), rather **it means that** the חזית **protrudes outside of the wall.** It is indeed placed on the builder’s side but the חזית protrudes. The term מבחוץ does not necessarily (only) mean ‘from the other side’; it can also mean (protruding from) ‘outside’ (the regular wall). This prevents the question from being a refutation.
תוספות explains that even though it is not a תיובתא, it is still a קשיא:
**מכל מקום קשיא היא דאם כן מחוץ הוה ליה למיתני:**
**Nonetheless it is a difficult** to interpret 'מבחוץ' to mean the ‘outside’, as opposed to the ‘other side’ for if that is true (that we mean the outside) the משנה should have stated 'מחוץ'. It would have been clear that it means the ‘outside’. The fact that the משנה wrote 'מבחוץ' indicates that it means the ‘other side’.¹

SUMMARY
We can, with difficulty, answer the question of 'מבחוץ קתני'. We can say that it means the חזית protrudes outside from the face of the wall. However the משנה then should have stated clearly 'מחוץ' – from the outside.

THINKING IT OVER
If the משנה means merely (protruding) ‘outside’. Why mention 'מבחוץ' at all? It is seemingly obvious that a חזית will protrude from the wall!

footnotes:
¹ In reference to a wall the term מחוץ means on the face of the wall as opposed to being imbedded within the wall. The term מבחוץ in reference to the wall presumably means the side facing away from the owner of the wall; the opposite of מבפנים.