Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

אחד חדשות ואחד ישנות — Whetherthey arenew or whetherthey areold

OVERVIEW The גמרא cited a משנה that hillocks that are close to a city or a road are טמא; whether they are new or old. A new hill should not be that suspect of harboring טומאה for since it is relatively new, the people would be aware if someone was buried there. Nevertheless the תנא teaches us that even חדשות are also טמאות. The order seems somewhat puzzling, why mention חדשות which is more novel, before ישנות which is more understandable.----footnote1---- There are also (numerous) other משניות where indeed the פשוט is mentioned first. Why the change here?! תוספות will answer this question.

תוספות asks: תימה דהכא מזכיר שאינו פשוט קודם – It is astounding! For the תנא mentions here in this משנה, the case (חדשות) in whichthe ruling is not so simplethat it is טמא, before the case (ישנות) where the ruling is more obvious that it is טמא.

תוספות offers another example where the אינו פשוט precedes the פשוט: וכן בהחולץ (יבמות דף מא,א) לא יתארסו ולא ינשאו עד שיהיו להן ג׳ חדשים – And similarly in פרק החולץthe משנה states concerning women who were previously married or betrothed that the should not become betrothed, nor should they marry until three months passed from the end of their previous relationship; this rule applies –

אחד בתולות ואחד בעולות----footnote2---- – Whether these women are virgins or whether they are בעולות. ----footnote3----In this משנה as well, the תנא –

מזכיר אירוסין קודם נישואין ובתולות קודם בעולות דהיינו שאינו פשוט תחלה – mentions אירוסין (which is not so פשוט) before נישואין which is more פשוט, and he mentions בתולות before בעולות; meaning that he mentions first the case which is not (so) פשוט. ----footnote4---–

תוספות will now contrast this with other instances, where the פשוט is mentioned first: ובראש השנה (דף כט,ב) תנן אחד יבנה ואחד כל מקום שיש בו בית דין – ****However in מסכת ר״ה the משנה states ‘whether it is in יבנה or whether it is in any place where there is a בי״ד’;----footnote5---- the שופר is blown on שבת. ****התם נקט דבר פשוט ברישא – ****There the משנה mentions the simpler and more obvious ruling first; יבנה was the seat of the סנהדרין. It is more obvious that one can be תוקע בשופר in יבנה more readily than in other בתי דינים.

תוספות offers another example where the פשוט is mentioned first: וכן בבבא קמא (דף נ,ב) אחד החופר בור שיח ומערה – And similarly in מסכת ב״ק the משנה states that one is obligated to pay for the damages caused whether he dug a pit**,** a שיח, or a מערה. The בור is the more obvious one, for that is written clearly in the תורה, ----footnote6---- as opposed to שיח ומערה which are not written in the תורה.

תוספות offers an additional example where the פשוט is mentioned first: ובמסכת סוטה (דך מג,א) אחד הבונה ואחד הלוקח כולי גבי מערכי מלחמה – And in מסכת סוטה concerning those who are required to leave the battlefield, the משנה states ‘whether he built a new house or whether he bought a new house, etc.,he should leave. In that case as well he mentions the פשוט (בונה) first, for that it what is clearly written in the תורה;----footnote7---- as opposed to לוקח.

תוספות brings a final example that the תנא mentions הפשוט קודם: ורש״י נמי גריס----footnote8---- בפרק קמא דסוכה (דף כ,א ושם) גבי מחצלת גדולה שעשאה לשכיבה – And רש״י also is גורס in the first פרק of מסכת סוכה concerning the status of a large mat that was made for lyingon it, the rule is that it is susceptible to become – טמאה ואין מסככין בה----footnote9---- רבי אליעזר אומר אחת קטנה ואחת גדולה –

טמא and therefore it cannot be used for סכך. ר״א states whether it is a small mat or whether it is a large mat there is no difference.----footnote10---- This concludes the citation from the משנה there (on (דף יט,ב. ופריך א׳ גדולה וא׳ קטנה מבעי ליה והיה כתוב בספרים להפך ורש״י מהפך הגירסא – And the גמרא there challenges that ר״א should have said whether it is large or whether it is small; not ׳אחת קטנה ואחת גדולה׳ as it says in the משנה. However, in the texts it was written (in the משנה and in the גמרא) in the reverse.The ספרים were גורס in the משנה ׳א׳ גדולה וא׳ קטנה׳ and the sגמרא׳ question was that the משנה should have said א׳ קטנה וא׳ גדולה. However רש״י reversed the גירסא both in the משנה and in the גמרא to read as תוספות has just quoted above. The reason why רש״י reversed the גירסא is –

משום דדרך התנאים להזכיר הפשוט קודם – Because it is the manner of the תנאים to mention the פשוט first; it is more פשוט that a גדולה is כשר than that a קטנה is כשר.----footnote11---- We have therefore conflicting משניות; in some the אינו פשוט is mentioned first (here and in יבמות), and other places the פשוט is mentioned first (ר״ה, ב״ק, סוטה, וסוכה).

תוספות answers: ואומר רבינו יצחק----footnote12---- דהיכא דקאי אפלוגתא או אקרא מזכיר הפשוט קודם – And the ר״י answers that wherever the dual statement is referring to a dispute or to a פסוק**, then the תנא** mentions the פשוט first.

תוספות continues to enumerate and begins with the פלוגתא factor: כי ההיא דפליג רבי אליעזר אתנא קמא בסוכה – As in that case where ר״א argues with the ת״ק concerning a סוכה; where the גמרא asked (according to the amended version of רש״י) –

והוה ליה למימר אחת גדולה שאתה מודה לי כך תודה בקטנה – That ר״א should have stated the order in the reverse; a מחצלת is כשר ‘whether it is a גדולה (that is the case) which you (the ת״ק)**** agree with me, so too should you (the ת״ק) agree with me that a קטנה is also כשר. It is therefore understood why in a פלוגתא the פשוט is first, for the second מ״ד is saying to the first מ״ד, just as you agree with me in the פשוט, you should also agree with me in the אינו פשוט.

תוספות continues with the other case of פלוגתא: וכן אחד יבנה פליג אדרבי אליעזר – And similarly in the case where the רבנן stated whether in יבנה, etc.; there these רבנן argue on ר״א –

דאמר לא התקין רבן יוחנן בן זכאי שיהו תוקעין אלא ביבנה בלבד – Who maintainedpreviously in the משנה that ריב״ז only instituted that they should sound the שופר on שבת, only in יבנה exclusively. It follows therefore that the רבנן respond that not only in יבנה but rather anywhere where there is a בי״ד, one may be תוקע בר״ה שחל להיות בשבת.

תוספות continues with the last two examples of mentioning the פשוט first: ובבא קמא (נ,ב) ובסוטה (מג,א) קאי אקרא – And in מסכת ב״ק (concerning the בור ושיח) and in מסכת סוטה (concerning a בונה ולוקח בית חדש) those cases are referencing the פסוק, where the first is mentioned clearly in the תורה,----footnote13---- therefore the תנא gives it priority. This concludes the explanation where the תנא mentions the פשוט first.

תוספות concludes concerning where the אינו פשוט mentioned first: אבל הכא ובהחולץ לא קאי אמידי אין להקפיד איזה נשנה תחלה: However, here and in פרק החולץ, the dual statement is not referencing anythingin particular; neither a פלוגתא, nor a פסוק, therefore there is no need to be particular which of the two is mentioned first. [ועיין תוספות שבת כ,ב ד״ה אחד מבושל פסחים פה,א קח,ב סוכה כ,א זבחים צב,ב ד״ה אי הכי ומנחות סג,ב ד״ה אחד שבת ועין תוספות קדושין יג,א ד״ה כשם]:----footnote14---–

SUMMARY When a dual statement is made; if it is referencing a dispute or a פסוק, the פשוט is mentioned first. In all other cases there is no concern which is mentioned first.

THINKING IT OVER----FOOTNOTE15---- Can there be some explanation why in our case (and in יבמות) the אינו פשוט is mentioned first?

APPENDIX----FOOTNOTE16---- The תוספות ישנים (in the margin of the גמרא) states as follows: [ויש מפרשים----footnote17---- הכא נקט אחד חדשות לפי שכל דבר חדש הוא תחלה ואחר כך ישן----footnote18---- – And some explain that he mentions here אחד חדשות first, because anything is first new and later it becomes old Therefore it is appropriate to mention ‘new’ first, even though it is אינו פשוט – וכמו כן באירוסין קודם נישואין ובתולות שהם קודם בעולות – And similarly by אירוסין, it is mentioned first (even though נישואין is more פשוט), since אירוסין is before נישואין just as בתולות is before בעולות. ומכל מקום קשה דבפרק כיצד צולין (דף פה,א) קאמר – However there is a difficulty for in פרק כיצד צולין the גמרא cites a ברייתא which states, that the prohibition of ועצם לא תשברו בו (not to break a bone of the קרבן פסח) applies – אחד עצם שיש בו מוח ואחד עצם שאין בו מוח – Whether it is a bone which contains marrow, or whether it is a bone which has no marrow – אף על גב שאין בו מוח פשוט יותר שיש בו משום ועצם לא תשברו בו – Even though that regarding a bone שאין בו מוח it is obvious that the prohibition of ועצם לא תשברו בו applies to it more readily than to an עצם שיש בו בשר – והתם לא שייך האי טעמא וצריך לפרש כדפירש רבינו יצחק----footnote19----. תוספות ישנים על הגליון] And there this explanation (of following a chronological order) does not apply; therefore it is necessary to explain the differences as the ר״י explained. The above was a תוספות ישנים found on the margin of a text.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

They are טמא טמאות –

OVERVIEW The משנה states that תלוליות (hillocks) that are close to a city or a road are presumed to be טמא, whether the תלוליות are recent or old. There is a concern that a fetus, etc. was buried there. However if they are far from the city then the recent ones are טהור and the old are טמא. The גמרא explains the difference [between קרובות and רחוקות (by חדשות)] and states that when it is close to the city, a woman can go herself and bury the fetus; however when it is far, then she has a man accompany her and goes to the cemetery. There is a dispute between רש״י and תוספות how to interpret this ruling. -------------– **פירש בקונטרס דבקרובות אפילו¹ חדשות טמאות –

רש״י explained that** if the hillocks are close to the city or the roads then even new תלוליות are טמא. The reason is – משום דאזלא איהי לחודה ואין ידוע אם קברה שם² – Because since it is close to the city she goes there alone and therefore it is not known if she buried a body there in the תלוליות. There is the possibility that she did bury someone there – אבל רחוקה דדברא איניש בהדה ואלמלי קברה איניש דאזיל בהדה היה מגלה³ – However if the תלוליות are far from the city or road, then the woman will not venture there alone, but rather she will take a man along with her. Therefore, if she buried a body there, the person who accompanied her would reveal it, and it would be known. Since it is not known it is assumed that no one was buried there. ולפיכך ישנות טמאות דאף על פי דדברא איניש בהדה נשתכח הדבר⁴ – And therefore⁵ old תלוליות, are טמא (even if they are far); for even though she had a man accompany her if it was far (who would ostensibly reveal any burial that took place), nevertheless [even if we are not aware of any body being buried there, the תלוליות are טמא, for] even if she did bury a body it was forgotten since it took place in the distant past. This concludes sרש״י׳ explanation. תוספות has a difficulty with sרש״י׳ explanation: וקשה [לרבינו יצחק] דאם כן אמאי צריך לומר בסמוך – And [the ר״י] has a difficulty with this explanation; for if it is so as רש״י states,⁶ then why was it necessary for the גמרא **to state shortly –

דדברא איניש בהדה ולבית הקברות אזלא – ‘That a person accompanied her and she went to the cemetery’⁷ –** לא הוה לי למימר אלא דברא איניש בהדה ותו לא – It was not necessary for the גמרא to state ולבית הקברות אזלא; but rather to only say that a man accompanies her; and say no more – ולכך טפי חדשות טהורות דאם איתא דקברה שם היה הדבר ידוע⁸ – And therefore (since דברא איניש בהדה), if the תלוליות are**** distanced more than the prescribed amount, the new תלוליות are טהורות; for if she buried a body there it would have been known. [There is no relevance (according to רש״י) in saying that ולבית הקברות אזלא.] תוספות has an additional question on רש״י: ועוד⁹ אי לבית הקברות אזלא ישנות אמאי טמאות – And furthermore if she goes to the cemetery when she is accompanied**; why are the old** תלוליות טמא?! She went to the בית הקברות to do the burial, not to the תלוליות! תוספות offers his interpretation: ונראה לרבינו יצחק כרבינו חננאל דפירש דישנות טמאות אפילו רחוקות – And the ר״י prefers the interpretation of the ר״ח who explained that the reason ישנות are טמא even if they are רחוקות is (not because she went with an escort and it was forgotten¹⁰, but rather) – דחיישינן שמא קרובות היו שהיה העיר אצלה וחרב – Because we are concerned that these תלוליות were once close to a city**; for there was a city nearby and** the city was destroyed. At that time it was close and the woman went there alone **–

ולפי זה לא נאמר משום דדברא איניש בהדה היה ידוע יותר – And according to this** interpretation of the ר״ח, we do not assume that since a man accompanied her it would have been better publicized, had she buried someone**.¹¹** The escort is no cause to assume that there was no burial (for otherwise he would have made it known). We do not assume this at all **–

ולהכי איצטריך לומר ולבית הקברות אזלא – Therefore,** in order to explain why חדשות רחוקות are טהור, it is necessary to state that she went to the cemetery with the escort, and did not bury in the תלוליות (it has no connection to the lack of publicity).

SUMMARY רש״י maintains that קרובות are always טמא, since she can bury by herself. רחוקות require an escort. Therefore חדשות (רחוקות) are טהור for the escort would inform us of any burial; however by ישנות (רחוקות) any report from the escort was forgotten. תוספות difficulty with רש״י is based on the גמרא which states that by רחוקות she takes an escort and goes to the cemetery. A. why mention going to a cemetery? An escort is sufficient reason to make it טהור by חדשות רחוקות. B. if she goes to the cemetery with an escort why is ישנות רחוקות טמא?! תוספות agrees with רש״י concerning קרובות. However, רחוקות ישנות are טמא because we are concerned that they were once קרובות and the woman buried by herself without an escort. רחוקות חדשות are טהור for an escorted woman buries in the cemetery.

THINKING IT OVER רש״י is of the opinion that an escort should cause publicity. It follows that ישנות are more liable to be טמא because things were forgotten (even if there was an escort). Nevertheless חדשות קרובות are also טמא (despite the fact that an escort causes publicity), for by קרובות there may have been no escort. תוספות is of the opinion that an escort does not add to the publicity. It would therefore seem that by קרובות there is no difference between ישנות and חדשות. They are both equally טמא. Why then did תוספות assume previously¹² that the טומאה status of ישנות is more פשוט than חדשות?¹³

footnotes: ¹ Seemingly we should assume that חדשות should always be טהור; for if someone was buried there, people would be aware of it. ² See רש״י ד״ה אחד חדשות (בסופו). ³ See רש״י ד״ה חדשות טהורות who writes דאם איתא דנקבר ביה הוו ידעי ליה. ⁴ See רש״י ד״ה ישנות טמאות. ⁵ Since the only reason why חדשות רחוקות are טהור is because the איניש דדברא בהדה would tell, this reasoning does not apply by ישנות. ⁶ According to רש״י, the חדשות רחוקות are טהור because the accompanying person would make it known. ⁷ This reason indicates that the reason חדשות רחוקות are טהור is because she goes with her escort to the cemetery (not because the escort would make it known). However, according to רש״י, this is not the reason. ⁸ See תוספות ישנים in the margin who attempts to answer this question, writing; ומצי למימר דתרי טעמי לטיבותא נקט, and it is possible to say that the גמרא mentions two reasons to permit these תלוליות. ⁹ Not only is ואזלא לבית הקברות not relevant (to חדשות רחוקות); it contradicts the ruling by ישנות רחוקות. ¹⁰ This cannot be the reason; for the גמרא states that with the escort she goes to the cemetery, as תוספות previously asked in the second question. ¹¹ Alternately; תוספות is proving that דברא איניש בהדה is not a reason for publicity (as רש״י maintains). According to רש״י the גמרא should have said ׳טפי דברא איניש בהדה והיה ידוע יותר׳. Instead the גמרא states טפי דברה איניש בהדה ולבית הקברות אזלא. That being escorted lends us to assume that she goes to the cemetery. ¹² תוספות ד״ה אחד. ¹³ See פנ״י ואליהו רבה וח״ב אות שב בד״ה אחד.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

עילה מצאו — They found a pretext

OVERVIEW The גמרא states that in doubtful situations there is no presumption of טומאה in א״י. The גמרא supports this assertion by citing ר״ל who said (concerning טומאה) that עילה מצאו וטהרו את ארץ ישראל. Our רש״י here¹ interprets the word עילה to mean an excuse; a pretext. A minimal excuse was sufficient cause to neutralize the ספק טומאה and declare the area to be a מקום טהור. Our תוספות offers an alternate explanation. ----------------------------–

פירש רבינו חננאל צלע ותלו הטומאה באותה צלע והשאר טהרו: The ר״ח explained that the word עילה here means: ribs (of a skeleton).² They found ribs of a skeleton and they**** attributed the טומאה to that skeleton only; and the restof the area was proclaimed to be טהור.³

SUMMARY רש״י interprets עילה מצאו that they found an excuse. The ר״ח interprets it that they found a rib (of a skeleton).

THINKING IT OVER What are the respective merits of the two interpretation of עילה מצאו?

footnotes: ¹ ד״ה עילה. ² In מסכת נזיר סה,ב the text reads ׳עילא מצאו׳ with an אל״ף instead of a ה״א. In בראשית ב,כב the תרגום of (ויבן את) הצלע is עלעא (עלעה in other תרגומים). The word עילא refers to the ribs or side of a person (or animal). ³ This is referring to the laws of שכונת קברים (in נזיר סה,ב) where one has to check that there are no other graves in the vicinity. ריש לקיש stated (there) that we can presume that this עילא or צלע is the only טומאה in this vicinity. The חכמים did not want to cause difficulties for the כהנים in א״י; so they minimized the חששות of טומאה.