Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

כלה כמות שהיא — A bride as she actually is

OVERVIEW The ברייתא cites a מחלוקת between ב״ש and ב״ה concerning how we praise the כלה. ב״ש maintain that we praise her realistically according to her status and beauty. ב״ה maintain that we lavish praise on all the כלות, regardless if they merit it or not. תוספות discusses what ב״ש and ב״ה maintain concerning a כלה that is not only lacking in status etc., but is also somewhat blemished or disfigured.

ואם יש בה מום ישתקו ולא ישבחוה¹ – And if she has a blemish**, it is the opinion of ב״ש that** they should be silent and not praise her at all.

תוספות offers another interpretation of sב״ש׳ view: אי נמי ישבחוה בדבר נאה שיש בה כגון בעיניה או בידיה אם הם יפות – Or you may also say that they should praise her with any pleasant feature**** that she possesses; for instance with her eyes or with her hands if they are pretty.

תוספות anticipates the following question. If ב״ש also agree that even by a כלה with a מום, she is still praised for any positive attributes she may have, why do ב״ה disagree, and have them praise the כלה lavishly; beyond what she deserves. תוספות answers: ובית הלל אומרים ישבחוה לגמרי דכשמזכירין מה שיש בה לשבח מכלל דשאר לגנאי: ב״ה maintains that they should praise her completely; without reservations or mentioning specific details for if we only mention the praiseworthy attributes, there is the inference is that the rest of her attributes are shameful.

SUMMARY If a כלה has a blemish ב״ש maintain that you either not praise her at all, or find something (specific) about her that is praiseworthy. ב״ה maintain that in all instances we lavish (equal) praise to all כלות; in order that there be no negative inferences.

THINKING IT OVER Why do ב״ה challenge ב״ש by asking if one bought a flawed item, should the item be praised or degraded; when ב״ש maintain that even if she has a מום she is not degraded, we are merely silent (or she is praised for specific positive attributes).²

footnotes: ¹ ב״ש is of the opinion that one may not veer from the truth, even if the consequences are somewhat disconcerting. ² See מהר״ם שי״ף.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

ישבחנו בעיניו או יגננו בעיניו — Should he praise it in his presence or should he denigrate it in his presence

OVERVIEW ב״ש maintains that a כלה is not given undeserving praise. ב״ה challenges this assumption by asking rhetorically ‘if one made a bad purchase, should not another nevertheless praise his purchase and not denigrate it’! ב״ש did not respond to this challenge. תוספות will explain what is the opinion of ב״ש in that situation. ----------------–

ובית שמאי סברי דאף אף על גב דישבחנו בעיניו – And ב״ש is of the opinion that even though it is proper that he should praise it in the eyes of the purchaser (as ב״ה asserted), nevertheless we cannot derive from the conduct of an individual, how to institute a general requirement for the populace at large; therefore –

אין להם לחכמים לתקן להזקיק לומר שקר דהתורה אמרה¹ מדבר שקר תרחק: It is not fitting for the חכמים to institute a requirement by a כלה (that she be undeservingly praised in all instances) which will have the effect to cause the wedding guests to say a falsehood (in a case of an undeserving כלה), for the תורה states ‘one should distance himself from a false statement’.²

SUMMARY ב״ש maintain that there is a difference between politeness and a תקנת חכמים. The חכמים should not institute a requirement that causes one to utter a falsehood.

THINKING IT OVER How will ב״ה respond to the argument of ב״ש (as expressed in this תוספות)?³

footnotes: ¹ שמות (משפטים) כג,ז. ² It would seem that by an individual (when he is praising a purchase) it is understood that he is merely being polite. However, when the חכמים make a תקנה, it is of more serious nature. Even a semblance of a falsehood should be avoided. This is what is meant by the word ׳תרחק׳. ³ See יעב״ץ.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

שיטתיה לסבא — The (custom) [myrtle] was an aid for the elder

OVERVIEW When ר״ש בר ר״י passed away a pillar of fire separated him from the rest of the people. ר׳ זירא commented that this was due to his style of dancing before the כלה. There are three versions as to how ר׳ זירא actually expressed this thought. The last version was that אהני שיטתיה לסבא. רש״י explains the word שיטתיה to mean his שיטה; his style and approach. תוספות offers a different interpretation. -----------------–

פירש רבינו חננאל מלשון שטה והדס (ישעיה מ״א¹ ) – The ר״ח interpreted the word שיטתיה that it is from the expressionin a פסוק ‘a שטה tree and a myrtle tree’. He was referring to the הדס (myrtle) as a שטה. אף על גב דלא הוי ממש מין אחד מכל מקום שניהם מין ארז² – Even though the שטה and the הדס are not exactly one species, nevertheless they are both a type of ארז (cedar). Therefore it is appropriate to refer to the הדס as a שטה.

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר ומנא ליה דבשביל כן זכה³ – And if you will say; how did ר׳ זירא know that ר״ש בר״י merited the fire surrounding him on account of thedancing with the הדס?

תוספות answers: ויש לומר דעמוד דנורא היה כעין שיבשא דהדס – And one can say, that the pillar of fire that surrounded רב שמואל בר רב יצחק was similar in appearance to a myrtle branch –

כדאמרינן בבראשית רבה (פרשה סא⁴) נחת שיבשא דנורא ואיתעבידא כעין שיבשא דהדס – As it is stated in מדרש בראשית רבה (concerning the passing of רב שמואל ב״ר יצחק) a column of fire descended and it became similar in form to a myrtle branch –

ואפסקת בין דידיה לחברוהי – And it separated between רשבר״י and his peers –

אמרי חמית הדין סבא דקאי שישבא דנורא קומיה משום דעביד קמוהי דכלתא – The peers said, ‘see this elder that a pillar of fire is standing before him**. This is** because of what he did in front of the כלה’; that he danced before her with the myrtle branches.

SUMMARY The term שיטתיה refers to the שטה tree which is a type of ארז similar to the הדס tree. They knew that the pillar of fire that separated רשבר״י was on account of his dancing with הדסים, because the fire was shaped as a הדס branch.

THINKING IT OVER

1. How can one explain the dispute between רש״י and the ר״ח concerning the meaning of שיטתיה?
2. According to the ר״ח that שיטתיה refers to the הדס (which is similar to שטה) what is the difference between the first לשון of ר׳ זירא (which is אהני לו שוטיתיה, referring to the שוט של הדס [see רש״י ד״ה שוטיתיה]) and this לשון of שיטתיה (since they both refer to a הדס)?!⁵

footnotes: ¹ פסוק יט. The נביא is enumerating the various trees with which הקב״ה will populate the dessert. ² The גמרא in ר״ה (כג,א) states that there are ten types of ארז, including שטה והדס. ³ It would seem that תוספות question is appropriate according to all versions of sר׳ זירא׳ statement. ⁴ In our texts it is in נט,ד. ⁵ See שטמ״ק בשם הריטב״א.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

מלך שמחל על כבודו אין כבודו מחול — A king who renounced his honor, nevertheless, his honor is not renounced

OVERVIEW The גמרא asks how אגריפס was permitted to forgo his honor and give the right of way to a כלה, when there is a rule that מלך שמחל על כבודו אין כבודו מחול. ---------------–

תוספות anticipates a difficulty: אף על גב דלא היה מלך גמור¹ כדמשמע באלו נאמרין² (סוטה דף מא,א) – Even though אגריפס was not a valid king as is indicated in פרק אלו נאמרין. That is why we could have said that in this case his כבוד is מחול, since he is not a מלך גמור.

תוספות answers: מכל מקום היו נוהגין בו כבוד כמלך גמור – Nevertheless they conducted themselves towards him with an honor that is appropriate as if he were a valid king. Therefore since they treated him as royalty he cannot be מוחל on his כבוד.

SUMMARY The rule of מלך שמחל על כבודו אין כבודו מחול applies to any ‘king’ who is accorded the respect reserved for royalty.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות answered that אין כבודו מחול applies to אגריפס, since they honored him as a king. Would this apply to anyone that is honored as a king or only to someone who actually is an ‘active king’ (as אגריפס)?

footnotes: ¹ אגריפס המלך was a descendant of הורדוס who was a slave of the חשמונאים. ² The משנה there relates that אגריפס המלך read the תורה on הקהל. When he reached the פסוק of לא תוכל לתת עליך איש נכרי, which prohibits the Jews from appointing a king who descends from slaves (like אגריפס) [see also ב״ב ג,ב תוס׳ ד״ה מאן], his eyes were tearing. This proves that he was not a valid king. The משנה there continues that the חכמים (nevertheless) calmed him by responding אחינו אתה וכו׳.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

פרשת דרכים הואי — It was at a crossroads

OVERVIEW The גמרא questioned the conduct of אגריפס who yielded the right of way to a כלה; since מלך שמחל על כבודו אין כבודו מחול. The גמרא answered that it was not noticeable that he yielded, for it was at a crossroads. תוספות explains why the גמרא did not give another answer, which the גמרא utilizes elsewhere concerning this very issue. -----------------–

תוספות anticipates a difficulty: הכא לא מצי לשנויי מצוה שאני כדמשני באלו נאמרין (גם זה שם) גבי שקרא מעומד – Here, the גמרא could not have answered that by a מצוה it is different;by a מצוה the כבוד of a king is מחול if he so desires, as the גמרא answers in פרק אלו נאמרין concerning the issue, that אגריפס המלך read the תורה while he was standing.¹תוספות (anticipated) question is why can we not say the same thing here concerning honoring a כלה? It is a מצוה to honor the כלה; therefore אגריפס had the right to be מוחל his כבוד for the sake of a מצוה.

תוספות explains the difference between the two situations: דהתם מצוה הוא שיש למלך לחלוק כבוד לתורה החשובה ממנו – For there (by the תורה reading) it is indeed a מצוה, for it is proper for the king to bestow honor for the sake of the תורה which (the תורה) is more prominent than he (אגריפס). That is why the חכמים praised אגריפס for so honoring the תורה in public. –

אבל הכא ליכא מצוה דכבודו עדיף מכבוד הכלה – However here (by the כלה) there is no מצוה for the king to respect the כלה, for his (the king’s) honor is greater than the honor due to the כלה. The requirement for honoring a כלה does not apply to a king; therefore there is no מצוה at all.

SUMMARY There is no מצוה at all for a king to honor a כלה.

THINKING IT OVER

1. What would be the difference (להלכה) if the גמרא would have answered in the way תוספות suggested originally?
2. If the תורה is more חשוב than a king, then why does the king read it sitting?

footnotes: ¹ The משנה there (in מס׳ סוטה) states that the king reads פרשת המלך on הקהל while he is seated. The משנה then relates that אגריפס המלך read פרשת המלך while he was standing and the חכמים praised him. The גמרא there (ע״ב) asks why was אגריפס praised for reading standing, if the king should be seated; it is אין כבודו מחול?! The גמרא answers that מצוה שאני, for a מצוה a king can be מוחל his כבוד.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

מבטלין תלמוד תורה להוצאת המת — The teaching of תורה is disrupted in order to take out the dead for burial

OVERVIEW The ברייתא teaches us that we disrupt the learning of תורה in order to pay our respects at the funeral of a deceased person. This indicates that to partake in a funeral even as a spectator takes priority over ת״ת. Our תוספות resolves a contradictory ruling. ---------------–

תוספות asks a question: וקשה (דבהלכות) [דבמסכת] דרך ארץ [זוטא (פ״ח)] –¹ And there is a difficulty; for in [מסכת] דרך ארץ [זוטא] we have learnt that – אמר רבי עקיבא תחלת תשמישי לפני חכמים –² ר״ע said my initial training before the sages was in the following episode – פעם אחת הייתי מהלך בדרך ומצאתי מת מצוה ונטפלתי בו ד' מילין –³ one time I was traveling on a road and I found a dead person, on whom there was a מצוה to bury him⁴ and I was occupied with him, carrying him a distance of four מילין – עד שהבאתיו לבית הקברות וקברתיו – Until I brought him to a cemetery where I buried him – וכשבאתי והרציתי דברי לפני רבי אלעזר ורבי יהושע – And when I came and presented my story before ר״א ור״י (these were the רביים of ר״ע) – אמרו לי על כל פסיעה ופסיעה כאילו שפכת דם נקי – They said to me for every single footstep that you took in carrying this מת for ד' מילין it is as if you have spilled innocent blood (each time you took an additional footstep).

תוספות is presently assuming that ר״ע told them this story (perhaps) to explain his tardiness in coming to the בית המדרש. Seemingly their response was that this is no excuse. The מצוה of תלמוד תורה is greater than burying the dead (even a מת מצוה). Therefore for every step that you took in burying this מת, which caused ביטול תורה, you are מחויב מיתה.⁵ Based on this assumption תוספות raises the contradiction between our גמרא which states that מבטלין ת״ת להוצאת המת (even not for a מת מצוה) and the story in מסכת ד״א which seems to imply that ת״ת is far greater than even burying a מת מצוה (and certainly greater than the הוצאה of a 'regular' מת).

תוספות answers: ויש לומר דהתם לאו משום ביטול תורה – And one can say that there by the story of ר״ע it was not on account of ביטול תורה that ר״א ור״י admonished ר״ע, for as the גמרא states here on the contrary that מבטלין ת״ת להוצאת המת and certainly for the burial of a מת מצוה – אלא משום דמת מצוה קנה מקומו⁶ והיה לו לקוברו במקום שמצאו – But rather the reason they admonished him so harshly was because a מת מצוה acquired 'ownership' of his place where he died, and ר״ע should have buried this מת מצוה in the place where he found him; and not transport him four מיל to a בית הקברות. This is what they meant that for every step that you removed him from his proper burial place; it is considered as if you were שופך דם נקי.⁷

תוספות offers an additional proof to the previous interpretation of the story with ר״ע: וכן משמע במסכת שמחות⁸ (פרק ד') דקאמר⁹ מת מצוה קנה מקומו – And this is also indicated in מסכת שמחות where it is stated that a מת מצוה acquired his place – והעובר על דברי חכמים מחוייב מיתה¹⁰ וכן אמר רבי עקיבא תחלת תשמישי כולי – And he who transgresses the words of the sages (יהושע בן נון, who instituted this right for the מת מצוה) is liable for the death penalty. The פרק there concludes:¹¹ and so too said ר״ע; the beginning of my training, etc. It then cites the entire previous story. Since the story of ר״ע follows the הלכות of מת מצוה it is evident that the story is cited to prove the הלכות of מת מצוה. One; that a מת מצוה is קונה מקומו; and should be buried where he was found. In addition, if one does not fulfill this, he is מחוייב מיתה. Both these points are brought out in the story of ר״ע as explained in תוספות answer. If however ר״ע's wrongdoing was on account of ביטול תורה it would not have been cited in מסכת שמחות (in conjunction with the laws of a מת מצוה).

תוספות offers a different resolution to his original question: והרב רבי יהודה מקורבי״ל תירץ – And the ר״י מקורבי״ל answered that there is no contradiction between our גמרא which requires ביטול תורה for הוצאת המת, and the admonishment of ר״ע for his tarrying with the מת מצוה – דהתם משום דביטל עצמו משימוש תלמידי חכמים קאמר דגדול שימושה יותר מלימודה: For there the reason he was admonished was because he hindered himself from serving ת״ח; that is what they meant when they admonished him, for serving the ת״ח is greater than learning the תורה.¹² Therefore even though we are מבטל לימוד התורה on account of הוצאת המת; however שימוש ת״ח takes priority even over a מת מצוה.

SUMMARY A מת מצוה is to be buried in the place where he is found. If one moves him, every step taken away from his original resting place is considered שפיכת דם נקי. The ר״י מקורבי״ל maintains that for laxity in שימוש ת״ח one is מחוייב מיתה.

THINKING IT OVER

1. Why did תוספות originally assume that ר״ע was שופך דם נקי on account of ביטול תורה, and not because a מת מצוה is קונה מקומו (as תוספות concludes)?
2. What is the view of the ר״י מקורבי״ל concerning burying a מת מצוה in his place?¹³ If he agrees with תוספות, why is there a need for a different answer?

footnotes: ¹ The parenthesized word is omitted and the text reads according to the bracketed inserts. ² The following episode caused ר״ע to be more careful in שימוש ת״ח. ³ A מיל is two thousand אמות (approximately 3,000 feet). ⁴ A מת מצוה refers to anyone who dies and there are no people who are taking the responsibility to bury them. It is incumbent upon whoever comes in contact with this מת (even a כהן גדול) to bury him. ⁵ The punishment for ביטול תורה is כרת as indicated in סנהדרין צט,א (see לקו״א פ״א). ⁶ The ברייתא in ב״ק דף פא,א states that this is one of the ten conditions that יהושע בן נון instituted when he divided א״י for the שבטים. ⁷ The reason is explained shortly. ⁸ מסכת שמחות is one of the מסכתות קטנות and is usually found (together with מסכת דרך ארץ כו׳) after מסכת עבו״ז ומכות. It deals primarily with עניני אבלות and is euphemistically named מסכת שמחות. In our texts of מסכת שמחות it does not state (clearly) that מת מצוה קנה מקומו and certainly not that העובר על דברי חכמים חייב מיתה (See however מסכת ד״א זוטא פ״ח). It also does not state 'וכן' אמר ר״ע תחלת 'תשמישי', but rather (merely) אמר ר״ע תחלת 'זכותי'. ⁹ This may be derived from what is written there in הלכה לג. ¹⁰ This is stated in מסכת ברכות דף ד,ב. ¹¹ הלכה לד. ¹² ברכות ז,ב. He was מחויב מיתה since he has been lax in שימוש ת״ח. See מסכת ד״א זוטא ספ״ח. ¹³ See שיטה ישנה in the שטמ״ק and הפלאה.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

להוצאת המת — For taking out the dead for burial

OVERVIEW The ברייתא states that הוצאת המת takes precedence even over תלמוד תורה. The language of the ברייתא indicates that there are no qualifications for this rule. It applies to all מתים and to all people. תוספות will cite other sources which seem to limit the scope of this requirement, and reconcile them with our ברייתא. ---------------–

תוספות cautions; this ברייתא is– לא במת מצוה איירי אלא בכל המתים¹ – not discussing (only) a מת מצוה; that we are מבטל ת״ת only for a מת מצוה, but rather this rule applies to all מתים; we are מבטל ת״ת for all מתים. תוספות anticipates a difficulty with his assumption that מבטלין ת״ת להוצאת המת means for all מתים: ואף על גב דבפרק קמא דמגילה (דף ג,ב ושם) אומר – And even though the גמרא states in the first פרק of מסכת מגילה that – פשיטא דמת מצוה ותלמוד תורה מת מצוה עדיף דתניא מבטלין תלמוד תורה להצאת המת – It is certain that when מת מצוה and ת״ת coincide the מת מצוה takes precedence. The גמרא there continues to support this פשיטא by citing this same ברייתא for we have learnt in a ברייתא that we interrupt ת״ת for הוצאת המת. It seems that the גמרא there understood this ברייתא to be referring to a מת מצוה (only); otherwise the גמרא should have said מבטלין ת״ת להוצאת המת (or something similar). This seems to contradict תוספות assertion that הוצאת המת here refers to all מתים. תוספות responds that in truth the גמרא there also meant that הוצאת המת from (even) an ‘ordinary’ מת is also עדיף than ת״ת; however the reason the גמרא – נקט מת מצוה אגב מילי אחריני דהתם דהוי דוקא מת מצוה – mentioned מת מצוה, is on account of the other issues the גמרא was discussing there; in those other issues they apply specifically to a מת מצוה and not to all מתים. ² תוספות anticipates an additional difficulty: והא דאמר באלו מגלחין (מועד קטן דף כז,ב) מת בעיר כל בני העיר אסורין בעשיית מלאכה – And that which the גמרא states in פרק אלו מגלחין, that when there is a death in the city all inhabitants of the city are forbidden from doing work – ומוקי לה בדליכא חברותא³ אבל אי איכא חברותא השאר מותרין – And the גמרא establishes that this rule is valid only when there are no societies, however when there are societies, the rest of the city is permitted to work. תוספת explains what is meant by חברותא: פירוש חברותא שנחלקו בני העיר לחבורות שתתעסק כל אחת במת שלה בפני עצמה – The interpretation of חברותא is that the citizens of the city divided themselves into various societies that each society be involved in its own מת by itself. Therefore in such a case all the other בני העיר who are not part of this society are exempt from this prohibition to work. Our ברייתא (and גמרא), however, makes no distinction whether there are חבורות or not. It seems that under all situations we are מבטל (even) ת״ת for הוצאת המת and certainly it is אסור במלאכה. This would seem to contradict the גמרא in מועד קטן. תוספות answers that there is no contradiction; when the גמרא there permits work if there are חבורות – היינו שלא בשעת הוצאה – That is (only) not in the time when the מת is taken out for burial; but rather prior to the burial. Then there is no need for anyone outside the חברותא to cease from learning or even working, for the חברותא is making all the necessary arrangements – אבל בשעת הוצאה כולם צריכים לבא – However when the מת is taken out for burial, then all the people of the city are required to come; and show their respect for the מת. This requirement is based on respect and dignity for the נפטר and not merely for a utilitarian purpose.

SUMMARY We are מבטל ת״ת for הוצאה of all מתים. Even when there are חבורות all are required to attend the funeral (even if they are not needed beforehand).

THINKING IT OVER Can we prove whether מבטלין ת״ת להוצאת המת means that one is required to be מבטל ת״ת, or that merely one has the permission to be מבטל ת״ת?⁴

footnotes: ¹ This seems evident from the language of the ברייתא. It is necessary for תוספות to mention it on account of the apparent contradiction that תוספות cites shortly. ² Some of the issues there include that by עבודה (בביהמ״ק) ומת ומצוה and מקרא מגילה ומת מצוה, then מת מצוה עדיף. In those cases it applies only to a מת מצוה. ³ תוספות will shortly explain what is meant by חברותא. ⁴ See מהר״ם שי״ף.