Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

שמא ישחוט בן עוף — Perhaps he will Shecht a young bird

OVERVIEW The גמרא explains the reason we do not marry on מוצאי שבת, is out of concern that one may accidentally shecht a bird on שבת for the מוצאי שבת wedding meal. תוספות discusses the two גירסאות in the גמרא. -----------------------------–

יש גורסים בו עוף אף על גב דשבת לשון נקבה היא דכתיב (שמות לא¹) מחלליה מות יומת – **Some texts read; ‘**שמא ישחוט **

בו עוף’,** perhaps they will shecht a bird on him (on שבת)’, instead of שמא ישחוט

ן עוף; even though שבת is a feminine noun as it is written, ‘whoever desecrates HER (the שבת) will surely be put to death’, so how can the text read שמא ישחוט

ו עוף, since בו is a masculine form (it should have rather said בה עוף) –

תוספות replies that the word שבת –

הכי נמי הוי לשון זכר² כל העושה בו מלאכה (שם לה³) שומר שבת מחללו (ישעיה נו⁴) – Is also used in the masculine form as it is written, ‘whoever does work in HIM (שבת)’,**** and it is also written, ‘he who guards the שבת from desecrating HIM. This explains the גירסא of ישחוט

ו עוף, for שבת may be used in the masculine form.

תוספות discusses the other גירסא: ושפיר גרסינן נמי בן עוף דדרך בני אדם לשחוט הרכין והקטנים כדכתיב (ויקרא ה⁵) שני בני יונה – And it is also proper for the text to read, שמא ישחוט **

בן עוף (instead of שמא ישחוט עוף), for it is customary for people to shecht the tender and young** birds (and בן עוף means a young bird) as it is written, two young doves -

ובפרק קמא דקידושין (דף לו,ב ושם) אתיא⁶ מבן עוף מה לבן צאן שכן קבע לו כולי: And in the first פרק of מסכת קידושין it states, ‘we derive a young bird from a young sheep, if by a young sheep where a place was not established, etc.’ We find that they also use the term ׳בן׳ to designate a young bird or sheep which was commonly used.

SUMMARY The גירסא can be בו עוף for שבת is masculine (as well), and it can be בן עוף, for it is customary to use a young bird.

THINKING IT OVER

1. Those that are גורס ׳בו׳ עוף (as opposed to בן עוף); why did they choose בו עוף instead of בה עוף, since שבת is feminine as well?
2. תוספות brings proof from the פסוק of בני יונה that it is customary to refer to a young bird as a בן יונה or בן עוף and that people prefer them younger. It would seem from תוספות that the term בן יונה is merely a practical one (that people prefer בני יונה), however in truth the term בן יונה is a halachic one which limits our choice of יונים only to young ones,⁷ but not to older ones. What therefore is the proof from בני יונה?!
3. Why was it necessary for תוספות to bring two proofs that שבת is לשון זכר? And why did תוספות find it necessary to bring two proofs regarding בן עוף?

footnotes: ¹ [תשא] פסוק יד. ² See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ³ [ויקהל] פסוק ב. ⁴ פסוק ב. ⁵ פסוק ז. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ⁶ Our text there read: אלא הזאה דבן עוף דאתיא בק״ו מבן צאן ומה בן צאן שלא קבע לו כהן לשחיטתו וכו׳. The גמרא there explains that we derive the rule that only male כהנים can make the הזאה of the עוף, from the fact that only male כהנים can make the הזאה by צאן. ⁷ See רש״י ויקרא א, יד ד״ה בני יונה וד״ה מן התורים. It is also interesting why תוספות chose to cite the later פסוק of שני בני יונה (in ויקרא ה,ז) as opposed to the earlier פסוק (in ויקרא א,יד).

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

אלא מעתה יום הכפורים שחל להיות בשני כולי — But now; Yom Kippurim, which occurs on a Monday, etc.

OVERVIEW The גמרא asks, now that we have concluded that one may not marry on מוצ״ש out of concern that they may accidently shecht a bird on שבת for the wedding meal, it should also be the rule that if יו״כ falls on out Monday, it should be postponed to Tuesday, for otherwise there is the concern that one may accidently schecht on שבת, for the ערב יו״כ meal. תוספות explains why the גמרא is concerned only about the ערב יו״כ meal, and no other meals. ------------------------------–

תוספות asks: תימה אמאי נקט יום כפורים דלא הוי אלא לרבי יוסי הגלילי כדתנן (חולין דף פג,א) – **It is astounding! Why mention (**only) יוכ״פ which is generally not considered a day of excessive eating, except according to ריה״ג, as we learnt in a משנה –

בד׳ פרקים¹ בשנה המוכר בהמה לחבירו צריך להודיעו אמה מכרתי לשחוט² a mother cow and its offspring on the same day. Since during these פרקים, people make large feasts and if one purchased an animal on these days it is extremely likely that he will schecht it, therefore it is necessary for the seller to inform the buyer that this animal’s mother (or offspring) was already sold today and therefore the buyer should not schecht this animal until the next day. כולי – During four periods of the year, one who sells an animal to his friend is required to inform the buyer, ‘I sold the mother of this animal for slaughter, etc. –

וכדברי רבי יוסי הגלילי³ אף ערב יום הכפורים בגליל – And according to ריה״ג this rule applies also on עיוה״כ in the גליל. This concludes the משנה. The question is –

אמאי לא נקט חד מד׳ פרקים דהוי לכולי עלמא⁴ – Why did not the גמרא here mention one of these four פרקים, which according to everyone is a time of excessive meals, and so there is the concern of שמא ישחט בן עוף?

תוספות answers: ויש לומר דבערב יום הכפורים היו רגילין להרבות בעופות ובדגים⁵ – And one can say that on עיוה״כ it was customary to increase in the eating of fowl and fish –

כדמשמע בבראשית רבה (פרק י״א) גבי ההוא חייטא דזבן נונא⁶ כולי – As is indicated in ב״ר, regarding this tailor who purchased fish, etc. They would be מרבה בעופות ודגים –

משום דהוי יום סליחה וכפרה – Because יו״כ is a day of forgiveness and atonement; therefore since they would eat much fowl, there is the concern of שמא ישחוט בן עוף –

ובהנהו ד׳ פרקים היו מרבים בבהמות דליכא למגזר⁷ a bird than a cow. Therefore it is possible that one can forget for a moment that it is שבת and shecht a bird. However since shechting a cow is a long and more complicated process, he will remind himself that it is שבת before he actually schechts it. שמא ישחוט: However in the ד׳ פרקים they would eat more animal meat, where the גזירה of שמא ישחוט is not applicable.

SUMMARY On ערב יו״כ people eat (fish and) fowl and therefore there is the concern of שמא ישחוט בן עוף; however by the ד׳ פרקים they eat animal meat, where there is no concern of שמא ישחוט בהמה.

THINKING IT OVER

1. תוספות could have asked the following. The גמרא asked that if יו״כ falls out on Monday it should be postponed to Tuesday because of the concern of שמא ישחוט בן עוף. However if יו״כ would be postponed to Tuesday, ר״ה would occur on Sunday and we would have the concern of שמא ישחוט on שבת for ר״ה (for ר״ה is one of the ד׳ פרקים)!⁸
2. Why is it that on ערב יו״כ they ate fish and fowl and not (that much) animal meat?

footnotes: ¹ The four פרקים are; ערב שמע״צ (הושע״ר), ,ערב פסח ערב שבועות, and ערב ר״ה. The actual meals are for יו״ט. ² There is a prohibition to shecht ³ However according to the ת״ק (it seems) there was not that much excessive eating on עיו״כ. See footnote # 5. ⁴ The גמרא should have asked that if שבועות (for instance) occurs on Sunday it should be postponed; since on Sunday (שבועות) there are large feasts there is the concern of שמא ישחוט וכו׳, on the preceding שבת. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ⁵ This also explains why the ת״ק did not mention עיו״כ, since by fowl there is no restriction of אותו ואת בנו. See footnote # 3. However, in גליל (according to ריה״ג) they ate animal meat (also) on עיו״כ. ⁶ The tailor outbid the minister’s servant for the fish (twelve דינרים) and eventually explained to the minister that he agreed to pay so much for the fish since it was for the עיו״כ meal in which we are thankful to ה׳ for forgiving our sins. ⁷ It is much easier to shecht ⁸ See פנ״י.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

אי הכי אלמנה נמי תיבעל בחמישי — If so, a widow should also be נבעלת on Thursday

OVERVIEW בר קפרא cited a ברייתא that a בתולה is married on ד׳ and נבעלת on ה׳, because on ה׳ a blessing (of פרו ורבו) was given to the fish. A widow marries on ה׳ and is נבעלת on ו׳, since a ברכה was given to man on ו׳. The גמרא asked; a woman is נבעלת on ה׳ (not because of איקרורי דעתא) but because of ברכה לדגים, if so let an אלמנה also (marry on ד׳ and) be נבעלת on ה׳ (because of the ברכה לדגים) like a בתולה. Our תוספות explains why the question of אלמנה נמי תיבעל בה׳ is contingent on the fact that בתולה נשאת בד׳ is not because of איקרורי דעתא, but rather because of ברכה לדגים.¹ ------------------------------–

פירוש² בשלמא אי הוה תני בברייתא דבתולה נבעלת בחמישי משום איקרורי דעתא – The explanation of the א״ה is, everything would be understood if the ברייתא would have taught that a בתולה is נבעלת בה׳ because of the concern that otherwise his attitude would cool down and he will not go to בי״ד (unless it is the following morning) –

כדקמיבעיא לן ולא משום ברכה לדגים דלא חשיבא – As one side of the query indicated, but she is not נבעלת בה׳ because of the ברכה לדגים, since the ברכה לדגים is not important to man, then –

הוי ניחא לן באלמנה דנבעלת בששי משום ברכה – We would understand why אלמנה is נבעלת בו׳ because of the ברכה to man, which is important –

אבל השתא דטעמא דבתולה משום ברכה³ אלמנה נמי תיבעל בחמישי: However now that the reason a בתולה is נבעלת בה׳ is only because of ברכה לדגים, an אלמנה should also be נבעלת בה׳ for the same ברכה.

SUMMARY The question that an אלמנה should be נבעלת בה׳ like a בתולה is valid only if we assume that the only reason a בתולה is נבעלת בה׳ is because of ברכה; otherwise the concept of ברכה לדגים is insufficient to be נבעלת then.

THINKING IT OVER The term ׳אי הכי׳ is applied whenever we establish a certain משנה, ברייתא, etc. in a specific manner. Then we can ask, that according to the way you established the משנה, etc. there is a certain difficulty that would not have been there if we understood the משנה as we did initially. However here how can we use the term א״ה? No one established the ברייתא of בר קפרא in any manner. It states clearly that a בתולה is נבעלת בה׳ because of ברכה לדגים; what is the meaning of א״ה? The גמרא should have merely asked a question on the ברייתא, why is an אלמנה different from a בתולה?!⁴

footnotes: ¹ Seemingly regardless why a בתולה is נבעלת בה׳, the question can be asked why should not an אלמנה also be נבעלת בה׳. ² See footnote # 1. Why is the question dependent on the אי הכי (that by בתולה the [only] reason she is נבעלת בה׳ is because of ברכה לדגים). ³ This indicates that the ברכה לדגים is חשוב, it should also be חשוב for an אלמנה ⁴ See קיקיון דיונה.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

אי נמי משום שקדו — Or it is also because the Chachomim persevered

OVERVIEW The גמרא explained the reason an אלמנה is not נבעלת בה׳, but rather (she marries בה׳ and) is נבעלת בו׳, for the חכמים insisted that the husband should rejoice with his newly wedded אלמנה for three days. תוספות explains how this answer does not contradict the ברייתא. --------------------------–

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר והיכי מצי למימר משום שקדו הא בברייתא קתני בהדיא משום ברכה¹ – And if you will say; but how can the גמרא answer that an אלמנה is נבעלת בו׳ because of שקדו, but the ברייתא states explicitly that she is נבעלת בו׳ because of the ברכה לאדם (and does not mention שקדו)?!

תוספות answers: ויש לומר דלהאי שינויא הוי פירוש הברייתא הכי – And one can say; that according to this answer of שקדו, the explanation of the ברייתא is as follows –

אלמנה נשאת בחמישי ונבעלת בששי פירוש משום שקדו כמו שמפורש בברייתא אחרת² – ‘An אלמנה is married on ה׳ and נבעלת on ו׳’; the explanation for this ruling is because of שקדו as it states explicitly in the other ברייתא (quoted here in the גמרא) –

ואם תאמר משום ברכה דדגים היה להם להניח תקנת שקדו³ – And if you will ask that the חכמים should have set aside their enactment of שקדו in deference to the ברכה לדגים, which is בה׳, and the אלמנה should be נבעלת בה׳, the answer is that the חכמים –

לא חשו לכך הואיל ובששי נמי נאמרה ברכה לאדם: Were not concerned for the ברכה לדגים, since there is also the ברכה לאדם, which was said on ו׳, therefore the אלמנה is נבעלת בו׳.

SUMMARY The תקנה of שקדו for the אלמנה was well known (from other sources) and our ברייתא had no need to mention it, it mentioned ברכה לאדם, to explain why we are not concerned for ברכה לדגים.

THINKING IT OVER

1. תוספות asks how can the גמרא say the reason for נבעלת בו׳ is because of שקדו, when the ברייתא only mentions the reason of ברכה לאדם.⁴ Seemingly the same question applies to the בתולה; the ברייתא merely states the reason of ברכה לדגים, but there are also the reasons of טענת בתולים and שקדו (as mentioned previously). Why ask only regarding the אלמנה and not regarding the בתולה?!⁵
2. תוספות answers that by אלמנה the main reason is because of שקדו; however the ברייתא mentions ברכה לאדם, so one should not ask that we should set aside שקדו for ברכה לדגים.⁶ Why could not have תוספות answered in the opposite manner; the main reason she is נבעלת בו׳ is because of ברכה and we also need שקדו, so no one should argue and say נבעלת בה׳ because of ברכה לדגים?!⁷

footnotes: ¹ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ² See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ³ תוספות taught us previously (ב,א ד״ה ותנשא) as well as in the following תוס׳ (ד״ה מאי) that שקדו is a stronger תקנה than ברכה (therefore on account of שקדו one is considered an עבריינא if he does not comply, but not because of ברכה), nonetheless תוספות here means to say that (perhaps) they never should have instituted the תקנה of שקדו, and left it בה׳ because of ברכה לדגים. ⁴ See footnote # 1. ⁵ See מהר״ם. ⁶ See footnote # 2. ⁷ See מהרש״א.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

מאי איכא בין ברכה לשקדו — What difference is there between Brocho and Shokdu

OVERVIEW The גמרא offered two reasons why an אלמנה is נשאת בה׳ and נבעלת בו׳; one because on ו׳ there was a ברכה לאדם, and also because the חכמים were שקדו that when an אלמנה weds, her husband should rejoice with her for three days. The גמרא asks, is there a difference whether the reason is because of ברכה or because of שקדו. The גמרא answers this question. תוספות explains why the גמרא did not give another difference.

תוספות anticipates a difficulty: אף על גב דמשום ברכה לא מיקרי עבריינא¹ – And even though that on account of ברכה alone he will not be considered a ‘transgressor’ if she is not married בה׳ ונבעלת בו׳, so why did the גמרא asks, ‘what is the difference’ when there is an obvious difference –

תוספות responds: מכל מקום בעי למה לי טעמא דברכה² – Nevertheless the גמרא asks why the reason of ברכה is necessary;³ the תקנה of שקדו is sufficient to explain why אלמנה נישאת בה׳ ונבעלת בו׳ and he will be called an עבריינא if he does not comply. Seemingly the reason of ברכה does not add anything –

תוספות offers an alternate explanation of the question מאי איכא וכו׳: אי נמי⁴ בעי מאי איכא בין לישנא דמשני ברכה דאדם עדיפא ליה⁵ – Or you may also say; the גמרא asks what is the difference between the view which answered that the ברכה to אדם is preferable than the ברכה to דגים –

ובין לישנא דאי נמי משום שקדו – And the view of the א״נ (the second answer) that the reason is because of שקדו –

ומשני⁶ דאיכא בינייהו אדם בטל אי נמי יום טוב שחל להיות כולי – And the גמרא answered that the difference between them is regarding an idle person, or when יו״ט occurs on ערב שבת, etc.

דללישנא דטעמא דברייתא משום שקדו ולא משום ברכה⁷ – For according to the view that the reason the ברייתא rules נבעלת בו׳ is because of שקדו, but not because of ברכה (the second answer) –

הכא דליכא שקדו נבעלת אם ירצה בחמישי – Here in the cases of אדם בטל or יו״ט שחל בער״ש, where there is no concern of שקדו, she may be נבעלת בה׳ if he wants –

אבל ללישנא קמא דטעמא דברייתא משום ברכה כדמשמע פשטא דברייתא – However according to the first view that the reason of the ברייתא (why the אלמנה is נבעלת בו׳) is because of ברכה לאדם**, as the simple** reading of the ברייתא indicates, then –

אפילו באדם בטל או ביום טוב שחל להיות בערב שבת דליכא משום שקדו⁸ – Even by an אדם בטל or if יו״ט occurs on ער״ש where there is no שקדו –

מכל מקום משום ברכה תבעל בששי – Nevertheless she should be נבעלת בו׳ because of the ברכה לאדם.

תוספות concludes: ואפילו להאי לישנא אי לאו שתקנו משום שקדו – And even according to this latter view that the טעמא דברייתא is because of ברכה; nevertheless were it not that they instituted on account of שקדו that נבעלת בו׳ –

משום ברכה לחודה לא היו קובעים יום כדפרישית לעיל⁹ גבי ותנשא באחד בשבת: The חכמים would not have established a day when an אלמנה should be נבעלת, on account of ברכה alone, as I explained previously regarding the גמרא which asked, ‘and let her marry on Sunday’.

SUMMARY The question of מאי איכא is either why do we need the reason of ברכה, or what is the difference between the two answers of the גמרא (since both maintain both reasons of ברכה and שקדו). The חכמים would never enact a תקנה on the basis of ברכה alone.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות explained (in the first answer) that the question of the גמרא what is the difference, etc., means why is the reason of ברכה necessary.¹⁰ However תוספות said previously¹¹ that even if we maintain שקדו we need to the reason of ברכה to explain why she should not be נבעלת בה׳ like a בתולה, so how can תוס׳ here say that the question is why do we need the reason of ברכה?!¹²

footnotes: ¹ The reason of ברכה is merely good advice to marry then (which they may choose to ignore), but it is not an obligation, as opposed to שקדו which is an enactment which the חכמים imposed and must be followed. ² This indicates (as תוספות states later) that the one who maintains the reason of ברכה also maintains the reason of שקדו; otherwise what question is there why do we need ברכה, it is needed if we do not maintain שקדו. ³ See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁴ The second answer of תוס׳ is that the question of מאי איכא בין ברכה לשקדו is not what is the difference between the two תקנות (the תקנה of ברכה לאדם and the תקנה of שקדו), but rather what is the difference between the two answers which the גמרא gave to the question of why an אלמנה is not נבעלת בה׳ like a בתולה. ⁵ This answer (that ברכה דאדם עדיפא ליה) as well as the second answer (of שקדו) both agree that there are two causes why an אלמנה is נבעלת בו׳ (see previous תוס׳ ד״ה א״נ [that שקדו agrees with ברכה] and the end of this תוספות [that ברכה agrees to שקדו]), however they argue which is the main reason. The first answer maintains that ברכה לאדם is the main reason, while the second answer maintains that שקדו is the main reason. Since both maintain both reasons, the גמרא could not have answered עבריין איכא בינייהו, since according to both answers he will be considered an עבריין, for they both agree to the reason of שקדו. Therefore the גמרא offers a different answer. ⁶ The necessity for תוספות to explain the answer of the גמרא is more apparent if we assume the second answer of תוספות. According to the first answer that the question was why do we need the reason of ברכה, the answer is self-understood that it is necessary for אדם בטל וכו׳ since there is no שקדו. However according to the second explanation of תוספות that both answers agree that we need both reasons (of ברכה and שקדו [see footnote # 5]) it is not so clearly understood what the גמרא means that אדם בטל איכא בינייהו, since both agree to the סברא of ברכה, therefore it is necessary for תוספות to explain the answer. ⁷ Even though that according to the answer of שקדו they also agree that there is the reason of ברכה (see footnote # 5), however the purpose of ברכה לאדם was just to explain why the אלמנה should not be נבעלת בה׳ like the בתולה (and we should not enact שקדו [see previous תוס׳ ד״ה א״נ]), but not that ברכה is the main reason why נבעלת בו׳. Therefore if there is no reason of שקדו, she may be נבעלת בה׳. ⁸ He will not go to work on Friday either because he is an אדם בטל or because it is יו״ט. ⁹ לעיל ב,א (ד״ה ותנשא). The reason is that ברכה is merely an עצה טובה and we cannot base a תק״ח on an עצה טובה alone. See also ג,א תוס׳ ד״ה אשה. ¹⁰ See footnote # 3. ¹¹ ד״ה א״נ. ¹² See מהרש״ל.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

דאילו בשמים ובארץ כתיב אף ידי וגומר — For regarding heaven and earth it states; ‘my hand also’, etc.

OVERVIEW בר קפרא taught that the handiwork of the righteous is greater than handiwork of heaven and earth, for regarding מעשה שמים וארץ the פסוק (of אף ידי וגו׳) refers to it as one hand, however regarding מעשה צדיקים the פסוק (of כוננו ידיך) refers to it as two hands. תוספות discusses and explains the difference. -----------------------– The words אף ידי יסדה ארץ –

דמשמע חדא אף על גב דמסיים קרא וימיני טפחה שמים – Indicates one hand (ידי means my hand in the singular). Even though the verse concludes וימיני טפחה שמים (and my right hand measured the heavens) –

ואמר בשילהי הקומץ רבה (מנחות לו,ב ושם) דיד היינו שמאל¹ אם כן תרתי כתיב – And the ברייתא teaches in פרק הקומץ רבה that יד means the left hand, so therefore two hands are written in the פסוק, not just one hand.

תוספות responds: מכל מקום בחד מעשה ליכא אלא חד² – Nevertheless in each individual action there is but one hand –

אבל במעשה צדיקים בחד מעשה כמו בית המקדש כתיב תרתי ידים: However, regarding מעשה צדיקים even in one action, like building the ביהמ״ק, two hands are written מקדש אדנ-י כוננו ידיך.

SUMMARY By מעשה שמים וארץ each מעשה required only one hand, but by מעשה צדיקים even one מעשה requires two hands.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות begins saying דמשמע חדא referring to the word ידי;³ however ידי is only referring to מעשה ארץ, and the גמרא states גדולה וכו׳ יותר ממעשה שמים וארץ together?⁴

footnotes: ¹ The פסוק reads, ׳אף ידי יסדה ארץ וימיני טפחה שמים׳, since ימיני (which measured the שמים) refers to the right hand, it follows that ידי (which founded the ארץ) refers to the left hand. [The ברייתא uses this to prove that the word ידך by תפילין refers to the left hand.] ² Only the left hand was יסדה ארץ and only the right hand was טפחה שמים. ³ This is the ד״ה of תוס׳ and he first mentions וימיני וכו׳ as part of a question, not the explanation. ⁴ See הפלאה.