אתו אומני ויתבי תותייהו‎—The blood drawers came and sat underneath them O VERVIEW The גמרא relates that רב יוסף owned date palms and the אומנים (those who draw blood) would sit under these trees and do their work there. Ravens would come there, on account of the blood and the ravens would then settle on the trees and ruin the dates. רב יוסף wanted to chase the אומנים away, so אביי asked him, ‘the אומנים are merely a גרמא’, so why should they be required to leave. תוספות clarifies the situation ---------------------------- בקרקע שלהן היו יושבין ולא בקרקע של רב יוסף מדפריך בתר הכי והא גרמא הוא: These אומנים were sitting on their own land, and not on sרב יוסף' land, since אביי subsequently challenged רב יוסף saying, ‘ but it is merely a גרמא’ so how can you be justified in sending them away. S UMMARY The אומנים did their work on their own land. T HINKING IT OVER The גמרא later argues that the אומנים should have a right to continue there since, והא אחזיק להו'; meaning they have a חזקה‎. Why therefore is it necessary to say that it was their land, we can say it was sרב יוסף' land, and nevertheless he could not remove them since והא אחזיק להו‎?!
והא אחזיקו להו‎—But they established themselves there Overview The גמרא asked even if we maintain גרמא בנזקין אסור, nevertheless רב יוסף would have no right to evict the אומנים, since they already have a חזקה to ply their craft there. תוספות discusses the nature of this חזקה‎. ------------------------------ פירש רבי יצחק בן רבי מרדכי כיון שלא בא להחזיק בקרקע של חבירו ולומר שלו הוא‎ – The ר"י ב"ר מרדכי explained, since the אומנים did not come to take possession of someone else’s property and say that it belongs to him – אלא לתשמיש בעלמא שנהנה ממנה מועלת חזקה שלא בטענה – Rather the חזקה was merely for general usage that the אומנים are deriving benefit from the land, in that case a חזקה without a claim is effective – The ר"י ב"ר מרדכי proves this distinction: דמסתמא לא היו אומרים שמכר להם רב יוסף תשמיש זה‎ – For presumably the אומנים were not claiming that רב יוסף sold them the rights to this usage, rather their claim seems to be that since he did not protest in the past, he implicitly conceded to them this right. The ר"י ב"ר מרדכי supports his view: והוו כי הנהו דלעיל (דף ו, א) דאחזוק להורדי דמועלת חזקה שלא בטענה‎ – And the case here is like the cases previously where one made a חזקה for הורדי, that we assume that the חזקה is effective without a claim, for we assume – דמדלא מיחה ג' שנים מחל לו‎ – That since the owner of the wall did not protest for three years, he conceded to him that right to place his beams on his wall. Similarly here, the fact the רב יוסף did not protest (for three years) indicates that he was מוחל the אומנים the right to practice there. תוספות disagrees that חזקת תשמשין does not require a טענה: ואין נראה דאם לא הקנה לו כי החזיק להורדי אמאי החזיק לכשורי – And this does not appear to be correct, for if (in the case of הורדי) the owner of the wall did not transfer the rights to him, so if he established the rights for the small beams why did he establish the rights for large beams – אלא על כרחך התם שטוען שהקנה לו ולהכי אחזיק לכשורי דאין אדם עושה קנין למחצה: Rather perforce you must say in that case there regarding the הורדי that he claims that the owner of the wall was מקנה to him the rights to place beams on the wall, so therefore even though he was only החזיק להורדי nevertheless he is also אחזיק לכשורי, for a person does not make half-a-transaction [and similarly here too it is a case where the אומנים claim that he was מקנה to them the rights to practice their trade there, so it is a חזקה שיש עמה טענה]. S UMMARY There is a dispute whether חזקת תשמישין requires a חזקה שיש עמה טענה‎. T HINKING IT OVER Does this תוספות agree with the previous תוספות that the אומנים were working on their own property?
אין חזקה לנזקין‎—There is no established presumption regarding damages Overview רב נחמן derived from the fact the רב יוסף wished to evict the אומנים, even though they had a חזקה to practice their craft there, that אין חזקה לנזקין‎. תוספות discusses what type of חזקה they had. ------------------------------ אומר רבינו תם דאפילו הקנה יכול לחזור בו דקנין בטעות הוא – The ר"ת states that even if the owner transferred the rights of the נזקין [to him in the presence of witnesses] nevertheless the owner is able to retract this קנין, for it is a קנין which was made mistakenly – דסבור היה שיכול לקבל ועכשיו אין יכול לקבל‎ – For the owner assumed that he is able to bear it, but now he is not able to bear it; therefore, the קנין is void. תוספות disagrees with the ר"ת: ואין נראה דמדקאמר אין חזקה לנזקין איכא למידק הא ראיה יש‎ – And this does not appear to be correct, for since רב נחמן stated there is no חזקה for נזקין; we can infer that if there is however proof that would allow a חזקת נזקין – תוספות proves that we make such an inference of אין חזקה הא ראיה יש: כדדייקינן בחזקת הבתים (לקמן דף מט, ב) גבי הא דתנן ולא (לאשה חזקה בנכסי בעלה): As the גמרא infers in פרק חזקת הבתים, regarding the משנה which taught, ‘ there is no חזקה (for a woman in her husband’s assets) [for a man in his wife’s assets’]. S UMMARY There is a dispute whether there is a ראיה בנזקין (the view of תוס') or not (ר"ת). T HINKING IT OVER Why indeed is it that regarding נזקין, we accept a ראיה but not a חזקה‎? Seemingly a חזקה supports the claim of the מוחזק that he granted them the right, otherwise why did he not protest the נזק‎?!
בקוטרא‎—By smoke Overview The גמרא previously asked, how did רב יוסף expect to evict the אומנים, since they had a חזקה, to which the גמרא responded אין חזקה לנזקין‎. The גמרא then asked that this ruling of אין חזקה לנזקין is limited to the damages caused by smoke (קוטרא) or an outhouse (בית הכסא). Our תוספות qualifies these two נזקין of קוטרא ובית הכסא‎. -------------------------------------- נראה לרבינו יצחק דדוקא בקוטרא דכבשן שהוא גדול ומזיק ביותר אין חזקה – It appears to the ר"י that it is only specifically the smoke of a furnace that we say there is no חזקה since that smoke is extensive and it damages excessively – כדאמר במרובה (בבא קמא דף פב, ב) אין עושין כבשונות בירושלים מאי טעמא משום קוטרא – As the גמרא states in פרק מרובה, ‘we do not allow furnaces in ירושלים’; what is the reason for this prohibition; ‘ because of the smoke’ – ודוקא נמי בית הכסא שלהן שהיה למעלה מן הקרקע והיה מסריח ביותר‎ – And also it is specifically regarding their outhouses (that there is no חזקה), since they were aboveground and it reeked excessively – אבל בשלנו שהוא מכוסה יש חזקה: However regarding our outhouses which are covered up, there is a חזקה‎. S UMMARY קוטרא ובית הכסא (where there is no חזקה לנזקין) is only by furnaces and above ground uncovered outhouses, which cause excessive damage. T HINKING IT OVER Was the ר"י more certain that only by עשן הכבשן there is no חזקה, or was he more certain that only ביהכ"ס שלהן there is no חזקה, or is there no difference.
לדידי דאנינא דעתאי‎—As for me that I am of a sensitive mindset Overview In response to the challenge that the rule of אין חזקה לנזקין applies only to קוטרא וביה"כ, but not to נזקין in general, רב יוסף stated that since he was from the אניני הדעת, therefore this נזק is considered for him as a קוטרא וביה"כ. --------------------------------- פירוש שהיה איסטניס כדאמרינן בערבי פסחים (פסחים דף קיג, ב ושם) – The explanation of אנינא דעתאי is that he was delicate, as the גמרא states in פרק ערבי פסחים‎ – שלשה חייהם אינן חיים הרחמנים והרתחנים ואניני הדעת אמר רב יוסף וכולהו איתנהו בי: Three types of people, their lives are not lives; those who are merciful, irritable, and overly sensitive. רב יוסף commented, ‘and I have all these’ three traits. S UMMARY רב יוסף was known to be an איסטניס (or אנין הדעת). T HINKING IT OVER It would seem that תוספות is citing the גמרא in ע"פ to prove his פירוש that אנין הדעת means איסטניס (and not something else). However how does the גמרא in ע"פ prove this?! What else can אנין הדעת mean besides איסטניס that we require proof?
כקוטרא ובית הכסא דמו‎—It is similar to smoke and an outhouse Overview In response to the challenge that the rule of אין חזקה לנזקין applies only to קוטרא וביה"כ, but not to נזקין in general, רב יוסף stated that since he was from the אניני הדעת, therefore this נזק is considered for him as a קוטרא וביה"כ. ------------------------------- תוספות anticipates a difficulty: והא דקאמר אפיקו קורקור מהכא משמע דמשום עורבים היה אומר – And this which רב יוסף said, ‘remove the crowing ravens from here; this indicates that it was on account of the ravens that he said to remove them, but not because of the blood of the אומנים‎ – תוספות replies: ודאי אם לא היו עורבים היה סובל אף על גב דאנינא דעתיה – רב יוסף would certainly be able to bear the blood from the אומנים (alone), if there were no עורבים, even though that רב יוסף was an איסטניס; however the combination of the two (אומנים and עורבים) made it unbearable – תוספות offers an alternate solution: אי נמי העורבים היו אוכלים הדם ופורחים ומקנחים בפירות: Or you may also say; the עורבים would eat the blood (from the bloodletting) and would fly on the date palms and would wipe their beaks on the dates and leave them covered with blood which was unbearable to רב יוסף who was an איסטניס‎. S UMMARY רב יוסף, being an איסטניס could not bear the combination of bloodletting and the monetary loss of the dates, or he could not bear the dates being drenched in blood. T HINKING IT OVER 1. It appears from תוספות (according to both answers) that רב יוסף was able to bear the sight of the bloodletting, but was not able to bear the bloodied dates. How can we explain that? 2. Why can’t we say that when רב יוסף said אפיקו קורקור he meant that since he was an איסטניס he could not bear the continued crowing of the ravens?
מרחיקין השובך מן העיר חמשים אמה‎—We distance the dovecote fifty cubits from the city O VERVIEW The משנה did not explain why we distance the שובך fifty אמות from the city. תוספות gives his reason and explains why it is not relevant in other cases. --------------------------------------- מפני התבואה הנשטחת בגגות העיר כדי לייבש – We distance the שובך fifty אמות from the city, on account of the grain which is spread out to dry on the roofs of the city – תוספות responds to an anticipated difficulty: אבל לתבואה שבשדות ליכא למיחש בקרוב לעיר לפי שהשדות רחוקין מן העיר אלף אמה – But there is no concern for the grain in the fields which are close to the city (within חמישים אמה of the שובך), since the fields are a thousand אמות away from the city – כדתנן (ערכין דף לג, ה) אין עושין מגרש שדה ולא שדה מגרש: As the משנה taught, ‘we do not make the open area (מגרש) into a field (for growing crops) and we do not make the field into a מגרש‎. S UMMARY If the שובך is placed fifty אמות from the city it will not eat the grain that is spread out to dry on the roofs, and not the grain in the fields which are a thousand אמות distance from the city. T HINKING IT OVER Why did not תוספות accept פרש"י‎?
ולא יעשה שובך תוך שלו‎—And a person should not make a dovecote within his own property O VERVIEW The משנה first taught us that one needs to distance a שובך fifty אמות from the city, and secondly that one should not make a שובך within his own property unless he distances it fifty אמות from all sides. תוספות clarifies the second ruling and explains why both rulings are necessary. --------------------------------- ברחוק מן העיר בין השדות – This ruling not to make a dovecote בתוך שלו unless there are fifty אמות clearances in all direction is referring to a שובך which is far from the city among the fields. ואצטריך למיתני תרוייהו‎ – And it is necessary to teach both rulings (near the city and out in the fields) – דאי תנא רישא להרחיק מן העיר התם דוקא מרחיק‎ – For if the משנה would only teach the first ruling, which is the requirement to distance the שובך from the city, we might assume that it is only necessary to distance from the city – מפני שתבואות העיר מגולות הן בחצר הן בגג – Since the produce which is found in the city is open and revealed, whether it is found in the courtyard or on the roof, therefore the birds will find them easily – אבל תבואה הנזרעת בשדה ומכוסה אין צריך להרחיק‎ – However regarding the grain which is planted in the field and is covered up, it is not necessary to distance the שובך; since the grain is not that accessible, presumably the birds will not eat them, therefore it was necessary to teach the סיפא, that distancing is necessary even in the field – ואי תנא סיפא משום דבשדות שכיחא תבואה אבל בעיר דלא שכיח כולי האי אימא לא: And if the משנה would just teach the סיפא (regarding a שובך in the field) we would think the reason a שובך is prohibited in the field is because grain is common in the field (therefore the birds will surely find (some of) the grain, however in the city where תבואה is not that common, I would say that no distancing is required, therefore the משנה taught us both cases. S UMMARY There is a need to teach us distancing both from the city (where תבואה is not common) and in the field (where it is covered). T HINKING IT OVER Why was it necessary for תוספות to explain that בתוך שלו refers to a שובך in the fields outside the city; why could not תוספות say that if a person wants to make a שובך on his property within the city he may do so provided the שובך is distanced fifty אמות from his neighbors?
בית ארבעת כורין כמלא שגר היונה‎—An area of four Koor, as is the full flight of a dove O VERVIEW The רבנן maintain that one may make a dovecote in his property if there is a radius of (at least) fifty אמות in all directions that are still within his property. However, רבי יהודה disagrees and requires that there be four בית כור of his property surrounding the שובך‎. Our תוספות explains the dispute. ------------------------------ ורבי יהודה ורבנן לא פליגי בשגר היונה כמה הוי‎ – And ר"י and the רבנן do not argue how much the flight of a dove is – דמודו רבנן דבית ארבעה כורין הוי שגר היונה‎ – For even the רבנן agree that the שגר היונה is the area of four כורין (on all sides) – אלא רבנן סברי כיון דבחמשים אמה מליא כריסייהו כדאמרינן בגמרא תו לא מזקי טפי‎ – Rather the רבנן maintains that since the doves fill up their stomachs with food within fifty אמות as the גמרא states, therefore they will not damage anymore outside the fifty אמות, even though they do fly further than fifty אמות‎ – ורבי יהודה סבר דכמלא שגר מזקי: However, ר"י maintains that they damage as far as they fly, for they eat even beyond the fifty אמות‎. S UMMARY All agree that the doves fly more than fifty אמות, however ר"י ורבנן argue whether they eat their fill within fifty אמות (the רבנן), or not (ר"י). T HINKING IT OVER Seemingly the reason תוספות assumes that there is no dispute regarding מלא שגר היונה, is because this is an observable fact, so it is not probable that they argue over a fact. However, if this is the reason, so similarly whether the birds eat their fill within fifty אמות (or not) is also a fact, so what have we gained, by exchanging one argument of fact for another?!
אלא אם כן הרחיק שלשים ריס‎—Unless he distanced himself thirty Ris O VERVIEW The גמרא cited a משנה which states that one may not set out traps for doves unless he distanced them thirty ריס from a settled area. תוספות discusses the various measurements used for distance. ----------------------------- היינו ד' מיל דהמיל ז' ריס ומחצה – Thirty ריס is the equivalent of four מיל, for a מיל is seven and a half ריס‎ – ופעמים שהגמרא נותן שיעור בריסין ופעמים במילין ופעמים בפרסה: And sometimes the גמרא expresses the distance in ריסין (30 in our case), and sometimes in מילין (four) and sometimes in a פרסה (1). S UMMARY Thirty ריס is four מיל (or one פרסה). The גמרא uses various modes of measuring distances. T HINKING IT OVER Is there any reason why the משנה there chose to measure it in ריסין instead of in מילין or a פרסה‎?
והתניא ביישוב אפילו מאה מיל—But the Braysoh taught that in a settled place [he should not spread out the nets] even for a hundred Mil O VERVIEW The גמרא cited a משנה that one may not set up traps for doves within thirty ריס of the ישוב‎. The גמרא asked that we learnt in a ברייתא that in a ישוב one should not set up traps for doves even for one hundred מיל‎. This (seemingly) contradicts the cited משנה which places a limit of (only) thirty ריס, not מאה מיל‎. Our תוספות discusses this question, considering that this ברייתא may be internally inconsistent. -------------------------------- תוספות asks: תימה דמאי סלקא דעתין דהוי פירוש וביישוב‎ – It is astounding! For what did we assume (in this question) is the meaning of the word 'וביישוב' in the ברייתא‎ – אי קרי העיר יישוב אם כן אפילו מאה מיל לאו דוקא כמו שמשמע – If the city is called a יישוב (and we are not permitted to put up traps אפילו מאה מיל from a city), so then if we assume that when the ברייתא stated אפילו מאה מיל, it was not definitive, for it seems that the number, ‘a hundred מיל’, is לאו דוקא‎ – אלא אפילו אלף מיל או יותר‎ – But rather the ברייתא when it said not to make traps within מאה מיל, it meant even a thousand מיל or more is also prohibited. If we make these assumptions – אם כן בשום מקום לא יפרוס אפילו במדבר ורחוק לאין סוף מן העיר – So therefore, one cannot spread out traps even in the desert and extremely far from the city; this seems incomprehensible – תוספות offers an alternate reading of the ברייתא that is more comprehensible: ואפילו אם נאמר דמאה מיל דוקא מכל מקום היאך יפרש את הברייתא‎ – And even if we say that מאה מיל is exact, nevertheless how can we explain the ברייתא‎ – דהכי תניא בתוספתא דמרובה אין פורסין נשבין ליונים‎ – For this is what the ברייתא, in the תוספתא of פרק מרובה, states; ‘we do not set out traps for doves – אלא אם כן הרחיק מן היישוב שלשים ריס – Unless he distanced them thirty ריס from the יישוב’. The ברייתא continues – במה דברים אמורים במדבר אבל ביישוב אפילו מאה מיל לא יפרוס כיון דעיר קרי יישוב – ‘When were these words said, in the desert, but in the יישוב one should not spread out his traps even for a distance of מאה מיל’, how can we reconcile the סיפא with the רישא if עיר is referred to as יישוב‎?! תוספות offers a third approach which would remove the contradiction in the ברייתא: ואי סלקא דעתין דהכי פירושו במה דברים אמורים במדבר פירוש שאין זרעים – And if we assumed that this is the explanation of the סיפא; ‘ when are these words said ( that thirty ריס is a sufficient distance from the city) if those thirty ריס which separated the traps from the city were in a desert’, meaning that there were no seeds to be found between the city and the traps – אבל ביישוב פירוש ביישוב זרעים אפילו מאה מיל לא יפרוס אם כן מאי קשיא ליה – ‘However, ביישוב’, meaning that if the space in between the שובך and the city is ‘settled’ with seeds, then the ברייתא maintains that even if it is a hundred מיל (from the city) לא יפרוס; since the birds have food along the way, there is no limit how far they can travel. We have now properly explained the ברייתא‎. However, if this is what the ברייתא means, so what therefore is the difficulty between the משנה and the ברייתא‎?! תוספות answers: ואומר רבינו יצחק בן אברהם דודאי סלקא דעתין דאיירי ביישוב זרעים – And the ריצב"א says that we certainly assumed that (in the [סיפא of the] ברייתא) we are discussing a יישוב זרעים‎ – ולהכי פריך ומישט שייטי שלשים ריס ותו לא אפילו ביישוב זרעים – So therefore the גמרא asks (on אביי); ‘ and indeed do they fly only thirty ריס and no more’, even by a יישוב זרעים‎ – והא מוכח דביישוב זרעים שייטי טובא ואין זה אלא משום אכילה‎ – But it is evident from the (סיפא of the) ברייתא that by יישוב זרעים they fly much more than thirty ריס, since the ברייתא prohibits up to a hundred מיל, and the only reason for this extension is because of the food – אלמא דלא מליא כריסייהו בחמשים אמה‎ – It is therefore evident that they do not fill up their stomachs in fifty אמה, like אביי maintained but rather they keep on eating as they continue to fly! תוספות cites the sגמרא' answer: ומשני דלא איירי ביישוב זרעים אלא ביישוב שובכין ויישוב כרמים – And the גמרא answers that the ברייתא is not discussing יישוב זרעים (for even with the זרעים they can travel at most thirty ריס), rather the ברייתא is discussing יישוב שובכין (dovecotes) or יישוב כרמים (vineyards) – תוספות responds to an anticipated difficulty: וקרי מדבר היכא דליכא שובכים וכרמים: And the ברייתא calls מדבר (where the limit is thirty ריס) a place where there is no שובכים וכרמים (even though there is זרעים, since the birds eat their fill in the first fifty אמות, and there is no שובכים וכרמים they cannot fly further). S UMMARY The גמרא is asking on אביי that since we see that birds can fly even a hundred מיל even though elsewhere it states they can fly only thirty ריס, this seemingly indicates that the reason for this difference is that when there is food on the way (יישוב זרעים) they continue to eat (beyond חמישים אמה) and to fly (beyond שלשים ריס). T HINKING IT OVER According to the מסקנא of the גמרא is the term 'מאה מיל' in the ברייתא precise, or is it לאו דוקא and it is אסור even more than מאה מיל by יישוב כרמים ושובכים‎?
יורש תנינא‎—We already learnt regarding an heir O VERVIEW רב פפא (or רב זביד) inferred from our משנה, which stated that if one bought a dovecote he may keep it there, that we (the בית דין) claim on behalf of a buyer or an heir. The גמרא asked, we already learnt this rule regarding a יורש in a משנה (so what is ר"פ (or ר"ז) teaching us? תוספות clarifies the sגמרא' question. ---------------------------------------- תוספות responds to an anticipated difficulty: וסלקא דעתיה המקשה דמתניתין אשמעינן ביורש והוא הדין בלוקח – And the questioner assumed that even though that the cited משנה is discussing a יורש, but presumably the same ruling applies to a לוקח (that he does not require a claim) – ומיהו רב זביד דנקט נמי יורש אמתניתין דלקמן סמיך‎ – However, ר"ז who also mentioned יורש (which does not appear in our משנה), he was depending on the משנה later, which the מקשן cited – אבל מתניתין דהכא לא שמעינן מינה יורש מדאיצטריך מתניתין דלקמן: However, from our משנה here we would not know that טוענין ל יורש, since there is a necessity for the later משנה (regarding a יורש). S UMMARY The מקשן assumed that יורש ולוקח are similar however the תרצן (ור"ז) disagree. T HINKING IT OVER Why indeed cannot we derive יורש from לוקח and vice versa?
וצריכי‎—And they are (both) needed O VERVIEW The גמרא explained that it was necessary for the משניות to teach us the rule of טוענין (ליורש וללוקח) both here in our משנה (regarding הלוקח שובך from an individual) and also in the other משנה (by לקח חצר regarding a רבים), because we could not derive one from the other. Our תוספות explains why there were not two משניות regarding טוענין ליורש, just as there are two משניות regarding טוענין ללוקח -------------------------------- תוספות asks: ואם תאמר ביורש נמי ליתני תרתי – And if you will say; let there also be two משניות regarding an heir? תוספות answers: ויש לומר דאשמעינן בלוקח והוא הדין ביורש: And one can say; that we were already informed regarding a לוקח that there is no difference between a יחיד and a רבים, so it is self-understood that the same ruling applies to a יורש that there is no difference between a יחיד and a רבים‎. S UMMARY We cannot derive the rules (of יורש ולוקח) one from the other, but once we know the rule exists by both, we can derive the details one from the other. T HINKING IT OVER How can we understand the difference between the question in תוספות (that יורש should require two teachings [and we cannot derive it from לוקח]), and the answer of תוספות that we can derive it from לוקח so there is no need for two teachings by יורש also?
אחולי אחילו גביה‎—They surely relinquished their claim against him O VERVIEW The גמרא explains that if the rule of טוענין ללוקח was taught only regarding the case of זיזין which extend into the רה"ר, I would say that only in that case do we say טוענין ללוקח for we assume that the בני רה"ר forgave him this trespass and allowed him to extend his זיזין into the רה"ר, however by a שובך which belonged to an individual perhaps we are not טוענין ללוקח‎. Our תוספות explains what is meant that the בני רה"ר are מוחל; who are these בני רה"ר that have the right to be מוחל‎? --------------------------------------- פירוש ז' טובי העיר במעמד אנשי העיר שהרשות בידם כדאמר פרק בתרא דמגילה (דף כו, א) – The explanation that the בני רה"ר were מוחל is that we are referring to the ז' טובי העיר, in the presence of all the people of the city, who were מוחל this person to extend his זיזים, for they have permission to do so, as the גמרא states in the last פרק of מסכת מגילה‎ – תוספות explains why we assume מחילה here more than by שובך: וכיון דליכא לכל חד בדרך אלא פורתא מחלי טפי מיחיד: And since each individual only owns a minute portion of the road, they are quicker to be מוחל their small share than one individual who is prone to a greater damage. S UMMARY The מחילה is done by all the people who, since they each have a minimal share, are willing to be מוחל, easier than one individual who carries the entire loss. T HINKING IT OVER Why does תוספות not accept פרש"י as to the reason why by a רבים there is more reason to assume that they were מוחל‎?
