השתא בהמתן של צדיקים כולי—Now that even the animals of the righteous etc.

OVERVIEW The גמרא asks how can we say that ר' חנינא בן גמליאל was given to eat forbidden food, since we know that even בהמתן של צדיקים are protected from a mishap, then the צדיק will surely be protected from any mishap or transgression. תוספות will be discussing under what circumstances does this ‘rule’ apply. Is the צדיק always protected from mishap or only in limited circumstances? -------------- אמר רבינו תם דלא פריך אלא גבי מידי דאכילה דגנאי הוא לצדיק שאוכל דבר איסור – The ר"ת says that the גמרא does not asks this question; ‘how is it possible that a צדיק sinned’, only concerning matters of eating prohibited foods, for it is shameful for a צדיק that he eats forbidden food, more than transgressing other עבירות.¹ Therefore the גמרא will ask how is it possible that a צדיק ate a מאכל איסור, since even the animals of צדיקים are protected from such a ‘mishap’. תוספות will prove his point that by other עבירות this question is not asked. ולהכי לא פריך גבי רבי ישמעאל שקרא והטה בפרק קמא דשבת (דף יב,ב) – And therefore the גמרא does not ask this question concerning the story of ר' ישמעאל that he read by a lamplight² and he tilted the lamp so it would burn brighter, as the גמרא relates in the first פרק of מסכת שבת. Similarly the גמרא does not ask this question – וגבי יהודה בן טבאי שהרג עד זומם (חגיגה דף טז,ב) – concerning יהודה בן טבאי who killed a single impeached witness³. In both these cases of ר' ישמעאל and יהודה בן טבאי the גמרא did not ask how is this possible; השתא בהמתן של צדיקים וכו'! This proves that we ask this question only if it is an עבירה of eating a דבר האסור, and not by other עבירות (even חילול שבת ושפיכת דמים!). תוספות wishes to clarify his position: ובההיא דפרק ב' דכתובות (דף כח,ב) דהעלו עבד לכהונה על פיו – And concerning that incident in the second פרק of מסכת כתובות that they mistakenly elevated a slave to priesthood on the testimony of ⁴ר' אלעזר ברבי יוסי; in some texts the גמרא there asked this question 'השתא בהמתן וכו''.⁵ However – לא גריס ליה רבינו תם – The ר"ת does not include this question of השתא וכו' in his text – אף על פי שיש שם אכילת איסור תרומה לאשתו ולבניו שהם אסורין בתרומה – Even though that there is in that case, of העלו עבד לכהונה, a situation where forbidden תרומה was eaten by the wife and children of this עבד, for they ate forbidden to eat תרומה⁶. The reason we do not ask the question of 'השתא' in this case even though it is an איסור אכילה מכל מקום כיון שחכם עצמו אין נכשל באכילת איסור אין סברא להקשות -– Nevertheless since the ‘wise man’ himself (i.e. the testifying רב) was not transgressing an eating prohibition he only caused others to transgress an eating prohibition, therefore it is not logical to ask the question of 'השתא'. That question is pertinent only if the צדיק himself is נכשל באיסור אכילה, not if he was ‘just’ מכשיל others. תוספות anticipates a difficulty: ורב ירמיה בר אבא דאישתלי וטעים קודם הבדלה (פסחים דף קו,ב) – And concerning**** the episode with רב ירמיה בר אבא who forgot and tasted some food before הבדלה; which is not permitted – אף על גב דאמר התם (דף קה,א) דמיתתו באסכרה⁷ – even though the גמרא says there that the punishment for eating before הבדלה is death through choking⁸; we can surmise that it is a grave transgression; and nevertheless the גמרא does not ask 'השתא' even though this is a transgression of eating. And similarly – ובראש השנה (דף כא,א) בסים תבשילא דבבלאי בצומא רבא דמערבא – And in מסכת ראש השנה it states that the food of the Babylonians is tasty on the day of the great fast (יום הכיפורים) of those who live in the West⁹ (Israel)¹⁰. The בני בבל actually ate on יום כיפור. Nevertheless the גמרא does not ask the 'השתא' question.**** תוספות explains: אין דבר מגונה כל כך אכילה של היתרא בשעת האיסור: It is not such a reprehensible act if it is ‘merely’ a matter of eating something permissible in a forbidden time; as in eating before הבדלה or even on יום כיפור. If the item eaten is inherently כשר, only that it was eaten at a forbidden time, it is not as disgraceful as eating something which is intrinsically forbidden. Therefore the question of 'השתא' is limited to eating a דבר האסור, not to eating a דבר המותר in a זמן האסור.

SUMMARY הקב"ה will protect צדיקים from not being נכשל in eating a מאכל אסור even בשוגג, for it is a גנאי for a צדיק to eat a מאכל אסור. This protection does not extend to other עבירות as evidenced by the fact that ר' ישמעאל transgressed the שבת and יהודה בן טבאי was responsible for the unjustified death of an עד זומם. A צדיק may inadvertently cause others to eat a מאכל אסור, as evidenced by the fact that a family of an עבד ate תרומה illegally, based on the testimony of ר' ישמעאל ברבי יוסי. This protection against eating a מאכל אסור is limited to food that is intrinsically אסור, however protection against eating a מאכל המותר בזמן אסור is not guaranteed; as evidenced by ר' ירמי בר אבא who forgetfully ate before הבדלה and the בני בבל who mistakenly ate on יום כיפור.

THINKING IT OVER

1. How do we explain the significance of the גנאי of eating a מאכל אסור¹¹ as opposed to other עבירות?¹²
2. How can we justify the opinion of those who are גורס 'השתא' in the case of העלו עבד לכהונה,¹³ while still agreeing with the basic premise of תוספות?
3. Why was it necessary to add that eating before הבדלה מיתתו באסכרה?¹⁴
4. Can we derive from this תוספות that איסורי דרבנן can also be an איסור חפצא?¹⁵

footnotes: ¹ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ² One is not permitted to read by lamplight on שבת out of concern that he may tilt the oil towards the wick to improve the lighting. This would be considered a מלאכה דאורייתא, namely מבעיר – making a fire (stronger). ר' ישמעאל said; I will read by lamplight and will be sure not to be מטה – tilt the lamp. He went ahead and read, and in fact was מטה. He transgressed an איסור דאורייתא. ³ An עד זומם is witness who testified and was subsequently impeached by other witnesses who claim that he was with them at the time of his alleged testimony and he could not possibly have seen the incident he testified to, since he was somewhere else at that precise time. If the alleged testimony of the עדים זוממים was concerning a capital crime, and the עדים זוממים were impeached prior to meting out the punishment to the accused, then the עדים זוממים are put to death in the same manner they intended for the accused. This rule applies only if both עדים זוממים were impeached; not only one. יהודה בן טבאי ruled to kill a single עד זומם. The גמרא there chastises him that he spilled innocent blood. It seems יהודה בן טבאי was a party to איסור רציחה! ⁴ ר' אלעזר ברבי יוסי testified that he saw תרומה being distributed to a particular person. In certain places תרומה was distributed only to כהנים, not to עבדי כהנים, even though the עבדי כהנים may also eat תרומה. In those places if one receives תרומה we assume that he is a כהן. What actually transpired was that ראב"י saw תרומה being distributed to an עבד in a place where תרומה is given to עבדי כהנים; however this incident was reported to a place where עבדי כהנים are not given תרומה, so they mistakenly assumed that this עבד was actually a כהן. ⁵ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ⁶ The עבד himself that mistakenly, they were מעלה לכהונה is permitted to eat תרומה since as an עבד כהן he is considered מקנת כספו of a כהן who is permitted to eat תרומה. His wife and children however are אסור בתרומה. ⁷ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 3. ⁸ אסכרה is often translated as ‘the croup’; a coughing choking disease ⁹ ארץ ישראל is west of בבל, therefore in the גמרא it is referred to as 'מערבא'. ¹⁰ On that particular year they were מעבר אלול in א"י making it a 30 day month. The people in בבל were not aware of it and they fasted on what was actually the ninth of תשרי (they thought it was the tenth since אלול is [almost] always a חסר of 29 days). On the following day it was יום הכיפורים in א"י, while in בבל they were feasting. ¹¹ See footnote # 1. ¹² See לקו"א – תניא פ"ח (and אמ"ה # 110). ¹³ See footnote # 5. ¹⁴ See footnote # 7. ¹⁵ See סוכ"ד ס"ק ד' בסופו and בל"י.

הוא יפילם חללים—He will cause them to fall like corpses

OVERVIEW ר' אלעזר interpreted the פסוק of דום לה' והתחולל לו¹ to mean that if you will be השכם והעריב עליהם לביהמ"ד then your enemies will self-destruct. The word דום indicates either prayer or learning.² תוספות cites a different interpretation of the word דום.

בפרק בתרא דזבחים (דף קטו,ב) דרשינן דום בענין אחר גבי וידום אהרן (ויקרא י³) – In the last פרק of מסכת זבחים, regarding the פסוק of וידום אהרן, the גמרא interprets this same word דום in a different manner; the גמרא there explains our פסוק to mean that –

Even though ה' caused death to your dear ones, nevertheless you should be silent.

SUMMARY דום can mean to daven and study (which will defeat your enemies), or it may also mean that one should be silent and not question *Hashem’s *****justice.

THINKING IT OVER Why was it necessary for תוספות to cite the differing view of the גמרא in זבחים?⁵

footnotes: ¹ תהלים לז,ו. ² See following תוס' ד"ה השכם. ³ פסוק ג'. ⁴ The גמרא there is comparing the פסוק of וידום אהרן, where אהרן הכהן remained silent and did not question ה' when his two sons died, to a similar teaching of דוד in תהלים with the פסוק of דום לה' והתחולל לו. ⁵ See מר דרור (לר' מרדכי עטייה). Why was it necessary for ר"א to interpret the פסוק (of דום לה' וגו') when its meaning is seemingly evident? [Perhaps תוספות means to infer that it is possible by merely being silent (and not necessarily doing anything actively) and nevertheless your enemies will be thwarted.]

השכם והערב עליהן—Arise early and stay up late for them

OVERVIEW ר' אלעזר interpreted the פסוק of דום לה' והתחולל לו¹ to mean that if you will be השכם והערב עליהם לביהמ"ד then your enemies will self-destruct. תוספות explains the connection between דום and השכם והערב.

דריש דום כמו דמדומי חמה² (שבת דף קיח,ב) – He interpreted the word דום as in דמדומי חמה the redness of the sun. תוספות anticipates a difficulty³ אף על גב דאמר בבבא קמא (דף צג,א) המוסר דינו לשמים הוא נענש תחילה – Even though the גמרא in מסכת ב"ק sates, he who delivers his claim for justice to שמים, he is punished first, so how could have ר"א encouraged מר עוקבא to seek justice in שמים?! תוספות responds: הא אמר הני מילי דאית ליה דינא בארעא – But the גמרא states there, that the abovementioned constraint is only if he can find justice here in this world; however by מר עוקבא he could not find any means to protect himself by turning to the (civil)⁴ authorities. תוספות offers an alternate explanation of השכם והערב:

Or you may also say; that השכם והערב עליהם meant to go early**** and stay late in the ביהמ"ד to engage in תורה study, but not to daven for their downfall.

SUMMARY One may ask Hashem to punish his enemies only if there is no recourse on earth (as in the case of מר עוקבא). Alternately מר עוקבא added in his studies; he did not *daven *****for his enemies’ downfall.

THINKING IT OVER If השכם והערב is referring to learning,⁵ what connection is there between learning and השכם והערב?

footnotes: ¹ תהלים לז,ו. ² ר' יוסי there stated that he wished to have his lot with those who davened with the דמדומי חמה, when the sun is red (דמדומי [and דום] as in אדום –red); i.e. at sunrise and sunset (when the sun is red). The word דום here means (to daven when the sun is) red. This is the meaning of השכם והערב to daven at sunrise and sunset. ³ It is apparent that ר"א encouraged מר עוקבא to daven (at sunrise and sunset) for the destruction of his enemies. ⁴ See אמ"ה # 129 whether turning to the gentile authorities is considered that he has a דינא בארעא. ⁵ Regarding davening the גמרא there in שבת cites the פסוק (תהלים עב,ה) of ייראוך עם שמש ולפני ירח וגו'.

זמרא מנא לן דאסור—From where do we derive that song is forbidden

OVERVIEW מר עוקבא was asked from where do we derive the prohibition against זמרא. Our תוספות (seemingly) agrees with sרש"י' interpretation of זמרא.

פירש בקונטרס לשורר בבית המשתאות – רש"י explained that זמרא means to sing at party gatherings; תוספות continues – וכן משמע מדקאמר ולישלח ליה מהכא בשיר לא ישתו יין¹ – And so it seems as רש"י explains, since the גמרא asked, and why did he not sent them this פסוק which states, ‘they should not drink wine in song’, indicating that it is forbidden to sing in a בית המשתה. A support to this proof – ובפרק בתרא דסוטה (דף מח,א) תנן משבטלה סנהדרין בטל שיר בבית המשתאות – For in the last פרק of מסכת סוטה the משנה teaches that when the סנהדרין ceased to function, the שיר at the party houses also ceased – שנאמר² בשיר לא ישתו יין – As it is written בשיר לא ישתו יין. וראוי להחמיר בכיוצא³ דההוא בירושלמי⁴ דהוה קאים ודמיך בזמרא שמתענג ביותר – And it is fitting that one be stringent in similar situations as the one mentioned in תלמוד ירושלמי where he would arise and go to bed with song, which is a great indulgence, and one should refrain from this –

However, a song of a מצוה, for instance during the חופה, which people sing in order to rejoice with the חתן וכלה that is permitted.

SUMMARY One should refrain from songs of levity except for a שמחה של מצוה such as by a חופה.

THINKING IT OVER Does תוספות agree with רש"י or is he disputing him?⁵

footnotes: ¹ ישעיהו כד,ט. ² This indicates that the פסוק of בשיר לא ישתו יין is referring to singing in the בית המשתאות and since the גמרא suggested that מר עוקבא use this פסוק, this indicates that 'זמרא' is referring to singing בבית המשתאות. ³ תוספות (seems to be) saying that זמרא is אסור not only בבית המשתה but generally as well. ⁴ See תוספות previously ו,ב ד"ה א"ר יצחק. ⁵ See בית ישראל.

עטרות חתנים—Crowns for the grooms

OVERVIEW The גמרא states that כלילא, also known as עטרות חתנים are prohibited. תוספות will discuss what exactly כלילא is, and to what extent this איסור applies.

פירש בקונטרס עטרה ממש – רש"י interprets this to mean an actual crown. תוספות disagrees with רש"י. ואין נראה דאמר עלה בפרק בתרא דסוטה (דף מט,ב) – And it does not seem correct, for the גמרא says in the last פרק of מסכת סוטה concerning these עטרות – לא שנו אלא של ורד ושל הדס אבל של קנים ושל חילת מותר – ‘It was not taught that it is prohibited to have עטרות חתנים only if they are made from roses or myrtles, however those עטרות חתנים that are made from reeds or rushes are permitted’. This concludes the quote from the גמרא. Now תוספות resumes refuting רש"י. ואין דרך לעשות עטרה משל קנים – And it is not customary to make crowns from reeds. Crowns are normally made from more precious materials than simple reeds. תוספות offers his interpretation of עטרות חתנים: אלא עטרות שעושין כעין כיפה – Rather the term עטרות refers to a dome like structure that is placed**** over the heads of the חתנים תוספות anticipates a question and responds to it: ובראש כל אדם דקאמר לאו דווקא בראש ממש אלא למעלה מראש – The phrase that the גמרא uses to describe the עטרות חתנים; that they are placed ‘on the heads of all men’, should not be understood as being specifically on the head itself ; which would support sרש"י' interpretation, but rather it means above the head as a canopy of sorts. תוספות will support his view that עטרות may refer to canopies. ובמסכת מדות (סוף פרק ג'¹ דף לו,א) דתנן העטרות שבחלונות² – And in מסכת מדות we learnt in a משנה concerning the crowns of the windows of the היכל³ פירשו נמי הגאונים כעין כפות מזוהבות שעושין בחלונות – The גאונים also interpreted the term עטרות to be **similar to a golden dome made for windows (**i.e. a window awning). We see that the term עטרות need not refer to a crown worn on the head, but rather it can be a dome as well. The גמרא here refers to these עטרות חתנים as a כלילא. They are to be distinguished from other כלילא mentioned elsewhere in the גמרא. ולא הויא כלילא דדהבא⁴ כההיא דבמה אשה שבת דף נט,ב) – And the כלילא that we are discussing here are not the golden crowns as those which are discussed in פרק במה אשה – דקאמר נפק כמה כלילי בנהרדעי – Where the גמרא there says: many crowns appeared in נהרדעי once לוי gave permission to wear כלילא on שבת. The כלילא discussed there is obviously a type of hat. It cannot mean a canopy. That would surely be forbidden to go out with on שבת. However the term כלילא here used in conjunction with עטרות חתנים refers to a canopy. תוספות will now explain the scope of the prohibition against עטרות חתנים. ודוקא לחתנים אסור דומיא דעטרות כלות דמפרש בסוטה (דף מט,ב) דהיא עיר של זהב – This prohibition concerning עטרות חתנים is limited only to חתנים; similar to the prohibition concerning the עטרות of brides⁵ concerning which the גמרא explains in מסכת סוטה that עטרות כלות is another name for a ‘city of gold’. This was a certain type of hat which had the picture of a city engraved or drawn on it. This prohibition against עטרות כלות was only limited to כלות; as תוספות will now prove. ובפרק במה אשה (דף נז,א) אמר לא תצא אשה בעיר של זהב מכלל דבחול שרי – And in פרק במה אשה the משנה states: ‘A woman is not to go out on שבת wearing an עיר של זהב’; we can infer from this משנה that in the weekdays it is permitted to wear an עיר של זהב. However in סוטה we learnt in a משנה that they prohibited the everyday wearing of עטרות כלות, which the גמרא interprets to mean עיר של זהב. This is seemingly an open contradiction. אלא דוקא חתנים וכלות אסרו משום שמחה יתירה – However we can resolve this contradiction; they prohibited only חתנים וכלות to have these עטרות for that would be exhibiting excessive joy at a wedding which is prohibited –

As we also say elsewhere that the פסוק אעלה את ירושלים על ראש שמחתי, refers to the burnt ashes which are placed on the heads of חתנים; to somehow contain the שמחה within an appropriate level. This explains why only עטרות חתנים וכלות were prohibited to prevent excessive שמחה; however on other occasions where there is no concern of excessive שמחה then עטרות חתנים וכלות are permitted, as evidenced by the משנה in פרק במה אשה which prohibits a woman from wearing an עיר של זהב, i.e. עטרות כלות only on שבת, and not בחול. The same would apply to עטרות חתנים as well that it is אסור only for חתנים.

SUMMARY There is a dispute between רש"י and תוספות as to the meaning of עטרות חתנים. רש"י maintains that it is a crown, while תוספות maintains that it is a domed canopy. תוספות rejects sרש"י' opinion by quoting a גמרא that עטרות חתנים may be made from reeds. Crowns are not made from reeds; however canopies are. תוספות supports his position from the גאונים who interpret עטרות elsewhere to mean a canopy. This prohibition against עטרות חתנים as well as against עטרות כלות, are limited to חתנים וכלות themselves on their weddings, otherwise they are permitted. תוספות proves this from the fact that the גמרא describes עטרות כלות as עיר של זהב. The משנה prohibits a woman from wearing an עיר של זהב on שבת only. In the weekdays a woman, not a כלה, may wear an עיר של זהב, the same applies to a man concerning עטרות חתנים.

THINKING IT OVER

1. How can we reconcile what תוספות says that עטרות חתנים are permitted for all people (except חתנים) with the statement of the גמרא that says: נסתלקה וכו' נסתלקה עטרה מראש כל אדם?!⁶
2. Are עטרות חתנים permitted for כלות on their wedding day?⁷
3. What would תוספות ruling be regarding whether a חתן could wear עטרות חתנים as רש"י interprets it; i.e. a crown?⁸

footnotes: ¹ (פרק ג') משנה ח'. ² In our משניות the word שבחלונות does not appear. ³ The משנה there relates that there were chains dangling down from the roof of the אולם, through which the young כהנים would climb up to see the עטרות on the windows of the היכל which protruded into the אולם. ⁴ Others are גורס 'דהכא' instead of 'דדהבא'. According to this גירסא the translation would be: ‘and the crowns that are mentioned here are not’. ⁵ The חכמים prohibited עטרות כלות during the campaign of טיטוס. ⁶ See מהרש"א. ⁷ See נח"מ. ⁸ See בל"י אות קמח.

בזמן שמצנפת בראש כהן גדול—At the time when the מצנפת is on the head of the כה"ג

OVERVIEW רב חסדא interpreted the פסוק of הסר המצנפת והרם העטרה to mean that as long as the מצנפת is בראש כה"ג then there can be an עטרה בראש כל אדם; however once the מצנפת is removed from the ראש כה"ג (after the חורבן ביהמ"ק), then the עטרה must be removed מראש כל אדם. This is the source for prohibiting עטרות חתנים. It is not clear why the פסוק mentions the מצנפת specifically to indicate that after the חרבן it is prohibited to wear עטרות חתנים (and how do we know that the מצנפת is connected to the כה"ג).

תוספות explains that מצנפת refers to the hat of the כה"ג specifically: דאותה של כהן הדיוט קרויה מגבעת כדכתיב (שמות כח¹) ועשית להם אבנטים ומגבעות – For the hat of a כהן הדיוט (a regular כהן) is called a מגבעת, as it is written, ‘and you shall make for them belts and hats’; referring to the בני אהרן – תוספות will explain why the hats of the כה"ג and כהן הדיוט have different names: ומפרש רבינו יצחק בן אשר משום דלכהן הדיוט לא היה ציץ והיתה גדולה קרויה מגבעת – And the ריב"א explains that since the כהן הדיוט had no ציץ on his forehead, therefore² his hat was large and was called מגבעת³ – אבל של כהן גדול היתה קטנה קרויה מצנפת⁴ – However that hat of the כה"ג was small since he wore the ציץ and it was called מצנפת. This explains why רב חסדא stated here בזמן שמצנפת בראש כה"ג; for only the כה"ג wore a מצנפת. תוספות offers a differing view: מיהו אומר רבינו יצחק דאשכחן בלשון הגמרא דקרי נמי מצנפת לשל הדיוט – However, the ר"י says that we find in the גמרא that the hat of a כהן הדיוט is also referred to as a מצנפת; this is – בפרק בראשונה ביומא (דף כה,א) דאמר נוטל מצנפת של אחד מהן – in the פרק בראשונה in מסכת יומא, where the גמרא states; ‘he took the מצנפת from one of the כהנים’;⁵ indicating that the hats of regular כהנים were also called מצנפת. תוספות responds to an anticipated difficulty: ⁶ ואפילו היו שוות⁷ נקט הכא בראש כהן גדול לפי שאין אסור אלא לחתנים כדמפרש – But even if they were the same, nevertheless רב חסדא mentions here בראש כה"ג specifically, since the prohibition of עטרות is limited to חתנים only, as the גמרא⁸ clearly states; the חתן –

is similar⁹ to the כה"ג who was the head and a prince in ישראל.

SUMMARY The מצנפת was worn only by the כה"ג; or alternately he mentions כה"ג (even though the hats of all כהנים are [sometimes] referred to as מצנפת) since the prohibition against wearing עטרות applies only to חתנים who are similar in stature to the כה"ג.

THINKING IT OVER

1. What is the dispute (if any) between the ר"י and the ריב"א?
2. If we assume that היו שוות¹⁰, then why should the איסור of עטרות חתנים (which is based on הרם המצנפת), be only on חתנים (who are like the כה"ג), when it should be on everyone (like the כהנים הדיוטים), since all כהנים wear the מצנפת?!¹¹

footnotes: ¹ פסוק מ'. ² The hat could be large, for there was no concern that it may interfere with the ציץ. ³ The word מגבעת may be related to the word גבעה – a hill, perhaps due to the (large) size and shape of the hat. ⁴ The word מצנפת is closely associated with צניף meaning to wrap around. The מצנפת was like a turban; it consisted of a long piece of material which was wrapped around the head many times. ⁵ This is how they began making the פייס (lottery) to decide which כהנים would do the עבודה. ⁶ According to the ר"י that the hats of all כהנים were called מצנפת, why does רב חסדא mention the כה"ג specifically. ⁷ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ⁸ This can (perhaps) also mean, as תוספות previously explained (בד"ה עטרות) and the גירסא should be כדפרשתי (see תוה"ר and רש"י). ⁹ The חתן on the day of his חופה is also considered as a ראש ושר. ¹⁰ See footnote # 7. ¹¹ See אמ"ה # 163.