1)

TOSFOS DH Echad Mum v'Echad Kol Mum

úåñôåú ã"ä àçã îåí åàçã ëì îåí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that everyone could expound this.)

åàôé' äðé úðàé ãìà ãøùé ëì áôø÷ àìå òåáøéï (ôñçéí îâ:) àôùø ãäëà ãøùé ùéù (òðéï) [ö"ì ñáøà ìøáåú - öàï ÷ãùéí] ëãôé' äúí

(a)

Remark: Even the Tana'im who do not expound "Kol" in Pesachim (43b), it is possible that here they expound, for there is a reason to include, like I explained there (DH Man).

2)

TOSFOS DH Achas Terumah Tehorah v'Achas Terumah Teluyah

úåñôåú ã"ä àçú úøåîä èäåøä åàçú úøåîä úìåéä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how we expound from here also about Tamei Terumah.)

åà''ú ãáô' áîä îãìé÷éï (ùáú ëä. åùí) àîøé' [ö"ì àçú úøåîä èäåøä - ùéèä î÷åáöú] åàçú èîàä åàîø øçîðà [ö"ì ìê - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã] ùìê úäà ìäñ÷ä úçú úáùéìê

(a)

Question: In Shabbos (25a) we say that Tahor Terumah and Tamei Terumah have the same law. The Torah said "Lecha" - [Tamei Terumah] is yours [to benefit from it, e.g.] to burn under the food you cook;

åäéëé ðô÷é î÷øà ùìù úøåîåú èäåøä åèîàä åúìåéä

1.

How can we learn from the verse three Terumos - Tahor, Tamei and Taluy?

åé''ì îùåí ãëúéá ðúúé ìê îùîøú úøåîúé ã÷àé úøåîúé àìê åàîùîøú ãìê ùééê àèîàä ìøáåééä ìäéúø äðàä åîùîøú ùééê áúìåéä ãáòéà ùéîåø

(b)

Answer: It is because it says "Nasati Lecha Mishmeres Terumosai" - Terumosai refers to Lecha and to Mishmeres, for Lecha applies to Tamei, to include a Heter to benefit from it, and Mishmeres applies to Teluyah, that it must be guarded.

3)

TOSFOS DH v'R. Yehoshua Terumosai

úåñôåú ã"ä åøáé éäåùò úøåîúé ëúéá

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how he learns that one may benefit from Tamei Terumah.)

åà''ú ìø' éäåùò ëéåï ãìà àééøé ÷øà áùúé úøåîåú îðìéä ãèîàä ùøéà áäðàä

(a)

Question: According to R. Yehudah, since the verse does not discuss two Terumos, what is the source that one may benefit from Tamei?

åé''ì ãðô÷ îùàø ãøùåú ãäúí áôø÷ áîä îãìé÷éï (â''æ ùí) îîðå àé àúä îáòéø ëå' àå îìå åìà ìàåøå îëìì ãáú àåøå äåà

(b)

Answer: He learns from other Drashos there in Shabbos (25a) - Mimenu (from Tamei Ma'aser) you may not burn (but you may burn Tamei Terumah), or from "Lo" (give Tahor Terumah, that the Kohen himself can consume) and not [Tamei, which is proper only] for his fire. This implies that he may burn it.

4)

TOSFOS DH u'Rminhu b'Vigdo Bah v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä åøîéðäé ááâãå áä ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos favors R. Tam's text.)

ôé' á÷åðèøñ ãâøñ ëéåï ùôéøù èìéúå òìéä ùåá àéðå øùàé ìîåëøä ãáøé ø''ò ø''à àåîø ëéåï ùáâã áä ëå'

(a)

Version #1 (Rashi): The text says "once he spread his Talis over her, he may not sell her. R. Akiva says so. R. Eliezer says, since he betrayed her..."

åáô''÷ ã÷ãåùéï (ãó éç:) äáéà øàé' îï äîëéìúà ãâøñ áãáøé ø''ò ëéåï ùôéøù èìéúå åãø' àìéòæø ìéúà äúí

1.

In Kidushin (18b, Rashi) brought a proof from the Mechilta, that the text in R. Akiva's words is "once he spread his Talis", and R. Eliezer's opinion is not there.

)åáøåá( [ö"ì å÷ùä ãáøåá - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ñôøéí éùðéí âøñéðï àéôëà ëàï åá÷ãåùéï (â''æ ùí)

(b)

Question #1: In most old Seforim, the text says oppositely here and in Kidushin.

åòåã ãìâéøñú ä÷åðèøñ î÷ãéí ãáøé ø''ò ìãáøé ø''à ùäéä øáå

(c)

Question #2: According to Rashi's text, R. Akiva's opinion is brought before that of R. Eliezer, who was his Rebbi.

åòåã ëúåá áøåá ñôøéí ááâãå áä ááâãå áä úøé æéîðé ëéåï ùôéøù èìéúå

(d)

Question #3: It is written in most Seforim "b'Vigdo Bah b'Vigdo Bah" twice - once he spread his Talis...

åòåã äéëé îùîò ìéä ìø''à äîñåøú ìùåï áâéãä îùåí ãëúéá ááâãå áìà éå''ã ä''ð ìà ëúéá [ö"ì ááåâãå - ùéèä î÷åáöú] áåé''å

(e)

Question #4: How does R. Eliezer infer that the Mesores (tradition for how the word is pronounced) is an expression of betrayal, because it is written without a Yud? Likewise it is not written b'Vogdo with a Vov!

åàò''â ãáìà åé''å [ö"ì ðîé - ùéèä î÷åáöú] àúä ÷åøà çèó ÷îõ ëãôéøù á÷åðèøñ [ö"ì ëîå - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ëùîòå ëùîòí (áøàùéú ìã) áàîøí (àñúø æ) ëòáøí (îìëéí á á)

1.

Implied suggestion: Also without a Vov you [can] read Chataf Kamatz like Rashi explained, like "k'Sham'o", "k'Sham'am", "b'Amram" (we read it k'Amram), "k'Avram".

ä''ð ëé äåé ìùåï áâã åèìéú

2.

Rejection #1: Likewise it is an expression of a Beged (garment) or Talis!

(àéï) [ö"ì åòåã ãàéï - öàï ÷ãùéí] øâéìåú ìëúåá éå''ã áàîöò [ö"ì àåúéåú - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ùì ôòåìä

3.

Rejection #2: [The Torah] does not normally write a Yud in the middle of the [root] letters of a verb (to show that there is a Chirik).

åòåã áääéà ùîòúéï á÷ãåùéï áñîåê ëúåá áëì äñôøéí éùðéí åìø''ð áø éöç÷ ãàîø [ö"ì àôéìå ìø' éåñé á"ø éäåãä - äá"ç] îòåú äøàùåðåú ì÷ãåùéï ðúðå áîàé îå÷éí ìä ëø''ò ãàîø ìùôçåú àçø ùôçåú äåà ãìà îöé ìîæáï àáì ìùôçåú àçø àéùåú îöé (îéæáï ìéä) [ðøàä ùö"ì îæáï ìä]

(f)

Question #5: In that Sugya in Kidushin, afterwards it is written in all old Seforim "and according to Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, who says that even according to R. Yosi b'Ribi Yehudah, the initial coins [paid for an Amah Ivriyah] are for Kidushin (if he will later do Yi'ud), how can he establish it like R. Akiva, who says that [her father] cannot sell her for slavery after slavery, but he can sell her for slavery after Kidushin?"

åìôé' ä÷åðèøñ öøéê ìäâéä ø''à

1.

According to Rashi, he must correct the text to say "R. Eliezer"!

åðøàä ìø''ú ãâøñéðï ëéåï ùôéøù èìéúå ëå' ãáøé ø''à

(g)

Version #2 (R. Tam): The text says "once he spread his Talis... R. Eliezer says so;

ø' ò÷éáà àåîø ëéåï ùáâã (åäùúà) [ö"ì åãéé÷ ãäî÷øà - ùéèä î÷åáöú] äåé ìùåï áâéãä ãàé ìùåï áâã åèìéú äåé ìï ìî÷øé ááâãå (áöéøé) [ö"ì áñâåì - äá"ç]

1.

R. Akiva says, since he betrayed...", and he infers from the pronunciation that it is an expression of betrayal, for if it were an expression of a Beged or Talis, we should pronounce it b'Vegdo with a Segol;

åàò''â ã÷øéðï åúúôùäå ááâãå (áøàùéú ìè)

2.

Implied question: We read "va'Tispesehu b'Vigdo" (regarding his garment)!

ãùàðé äëà ãàéëà ìîéèòé

3.

Answer: Here is different, for one could err.

åäîñåøú îùîò èôé ìùåï áâã åèìéú îìùåï áâéãä îãëúéá ááâãå áìà éå''ã

(h)

Explanation: [R. Eliezer argues, for] the Mesores connotes more an expression of a garment and Talis than an expression of betrayal, since it is written b'Vigdo without a Yud;

åìëê àåîø äáøééúà úøé æéîðé ááâãå ëéåï ùôéøù èìéúå ëå' (äéä ìê) [ö"ì ôé' äéä ìå - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ìëúåá ááéâãå áéå''ã ãìà ìéúé ìîéèòé åëúéá ááâãå áìà éå''ã ìåîø ëéåï ùôéøù ëå'

1.

Therefore the Beraisa says twice b'Vigdo "once he spread his Talis..." i.e. it should have written b'Vigdo with a Yud, lest people err, and it wrote b'Vigdo without a Yud, to teach that once he spread... (Maharsha Kidushin 18b - a Yud is never added in the middle of a noun. It is not common to add it in the middle of a verb, but here it should have done so if it refers to betrayal, lest people err. The Torah wrote without a Yud to connote that it is Beged, with a Segol.)

åáîëéìúà ùâåøñ ùôéøù èìéúå ãáøé ø''ò

(i)

Implied question: In the Mechilta, the text says "[once] he spread his Talis... these are the words of R. Akiva!"

äñåôø çéñø åãéìâ ø''à åâí ëì îéìúéä ãø''ò

(j)

Answer: The scribe [mistakenly] omitted "R. Eliezer", and the entire teaching of R. Akiva. (The text should say "[once] he spread his Talis... these are these are the words of R. Eliezer. R. Akiva says...")

åáãø''ð áø éöç÷ âøñéðï îå÷é ìä ëø''ò ëîå ùëúåá áëì äñôøéí éùðéí

(k)

Version #2 (cont.): In Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, the text says "he establishes it like R. Akiva", like is written in all old Seforim.

å÷öú ÷ùéà äà ãôøéê äúí á÷ãåùéï àìà ã÷éãùä àáéä îé îöé îæáéï ìä åäà àéï àãí îåëø áúå ìùôçåú àçø àéùåú (áäê) [ö"ì ãäê - ùéèä î÷åáöú, á"ç] ÷åùéà àìéáéä ãø''à ãùîåúé äåà

(l)

Question: It asks there in Kidushin "rather, her father was Mekadesh her. Can he sell her [afterwards]?! One cannot sell his daughter to slavery after Kidushin!" This question is according to R. Eliezer, who is Shemuti (from Beis Shamai. Presumably, the Halachah does not follow him!)

åé''ì ãôùéèà (ìï) [ö"ì ìå - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ùëï äìëä îùåí ãøáðï ãø''ù åø''ù âåôéä ãäúí ã÷ééîé ëååúéä åàîøé àáì ìà ìùôçåú àçø àéùåú

(m)

Answer: It is obvious to [the Makshan] that the Halachah follows him, because Rabanan of R. Shimon, and R. Shimon himself, hold like him, and say "but not to slavery after Kidushin."

5)

TOSFOS DH Ileima R. Shimon d'Masnisin...

úåñôåú ã"ä àéìéîà ø''ù ãîúðé' òã äùúà ìà àùîòéðï ùîåàì ãáø ùàéï îúëåéï îåúø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the argument in the Beraisa and in the Mishnah.)

úéîä àèå îé ùøé ø''ù îùåí ãàéï îúëåéï äà àôé' áî÷åí ùà''à ùìà éòùä îåí ðîé ùøé [ö"ì àò"â - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ãòåùä îåí áîúëåéï

(a)

Question: Does R. Shimon permit because it is Davar she'Eino Miskaven?! Even when it is impossible [to let blood] without making a Mum, he permits, even though he intentionally makes a Mum!

ëãàîø ìòéì ãá÷øàé ôìéâé åùøé îùåí ãëúéá (åé÷øà ëá) úîéí éäéä ìøöåï àáì îèéì [ö"ì îåí - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ááòì îåí ùøé

1.

This is like it said above, that they argue about [how to expound] verses, and [R. Shimon] permits, because it says "Tamim Yihyeh l'Ratzon", but one may blemish a Ba'al Mum.

åáô' ëì äîðçåú áàåú îöä (îðçåú ðå:) îôøù ðîé èòîééäå î÷øàé

2.

And also in Menachos (56b) it explains their reasons due to verses.

åìôé' ä÷åð' ãìòéì áôø÷ äìå÷ç áäîä (ãó ëä.) âáé ùúé ùòøåú ùì ôøä ùòé÷øï îàãéí åøàùï îùçéø (å÷àîø) [ö"ì ã÷àîø - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ø' éåñé áï äîùåìí âåææ áîñôøéí åàéðå çåùù

(b)

Answer #1: According to Rashi above (25a) regarding two hairs on Parah [Adumah] that are red at their roots and their ends are black, R. Yosi ben ha'Meshulam says that he cuts them with a scissors without concern...

åôé' á÷åðè' ãçùéá àéï îúëåéï îùåí ãàéï îúëåéï ìâéæä àìà ìú÷ï àú äôøä

1.

And Rashi explained that this is considered Ein Miskaven, for he does not intend for shearing, rather, to fix the Parah...

ðéçà ðîé äëà ãàéï îúëåéï îùåí äèìú îåí àìà îùåí øôåàä

2.

It is fine also here. He does not intend to make a Mum, rather, for the sake of Refu'ah.

åìäëé ôøéê àîàé àéöèøéê ìéä ìùîåàì ìôñå÷ ëø''ù ãàôé' äåä àñø îèéì îåí ááòì îåí äåé ùøé äëà îùåí ãàéï [ö"ì îúëåéï - ùéèä î÷åáöú] àìà ìøôåàä åùîåàì àéú ìéä ãáø ùàéï îúëåéï îåúø

3.

This is why [the Gemara] asks "why did Shmuel need to rule like R. Shimon? Even if he would forbid blemishing a Ba'al Mum, it would be permitted here, for he intends only for Refu'ah, and Shmuel permits Davar she'Eino Miskaven!

åîéäå à''à ì÷ééí ôé' ä÷åð' ëãôøéùéú ìòéì áô' äìå÷ç áäîä (â''æ ùí.)

(c)

Rebuttal: One cannot sustain Rashi's Perush, like I explained above (25a DH Gozez).

åðøàä ìôøù äëà ãáúøúé ôìéâé ãááøééúà ôìéâé áîèéì îåí ááòì îåí ùàçæå ãí áéåúø åà''à ìå ìäúøôàåú áìà ä÷æä ùìà éîåú ëãàîø ìòéì ãàé ùáé÷ ìéä îééú

(d)

Answer #2: They argue about two matters. In the Beraisa they argue about one who blemishes a Ba'al Mum, that it is very sick due to Achuzas (excess) blood, and it cannot heal without letting blood, lest it die, like he said above "if he leaves it, it will die";

ãàæ çùéá îåí åàôé' ìà îééú ðîé ëéåï ùìòåìí ìà éöà îàçåæú ãí àí ìà é÷éæðå áî÷åí ùòåùä îåí çùéá ëáòì îåí

1.

Then it is considered a Mum even if it will not die. Since it will never leave Achuzas Dam unless he lets blood in a place that makes a Mum, this is considered a Mum.

åäùúà ø''î àñø áî÷åí ùòåùä îåí ã÷ñáø (ëå') [ö"ì ëì îåí - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ìà éäéä áå àôé' ááòì îåí

2.

Now, R. Meir forbids in a place that makes a Mum. He holds that "Kol Mum Lo Yihyeh Bo" applies even to a Ba'al Mum.

åçëîéí ùøå îùåí ãëúéá úîéí éäéä ìøöåï åáìáã ùìà éùçè òì àåúå îåí ãâæø àèå äéëà ãìà îééú áìà òùééú îåí ãçùéá ëúí àå àèå äéëà ãéëåì ìäúøôàåú áä÷æä áî÷åí ùàéï (àúä - ùéèä î÷åáöú îåç÷å) òåùä îåí

3.

Chachamim permit because it says "Tamim Yihyeh l'Ratzon", just one may not slaughter it based on that Mum. They decree due to when it would not die without making a Mum, for it is considered Tam, or due to when it can heal through letting blood in a place that does not make a Mum;

åø''ù ùøé àó ìùçåè ãìà âæø

4.

R. Shimon permits even to slaughter. He does not decree.

åø' éäåãä àñø àó áî÷åí ùàéï òåùä îåí ëãîôøù áô''÷ ãôñçéí (ãó éà:) ãîúåê ùàãí áäåì òì îîåðå àé ùøéú áî÷åí ùàéï òåùä îåí àúé ìîéòáã áî÷åí ùòåùä îåí

5.

R. Yehudah forbids even in a place that does not make a Mum, like it says in Pesachim (11b). Since a person is frantic about his money (lest he suffer a loss), if you permit in a place that will not make a Mum, he will come to do so in a place that makes a Mum;

åáîúðéúéï äéà ôìåâúà àçøú [ö"ì åîééøé ùàçæå ãí áòðéï æä ùìà éîåú àí ìà é÷éæå ìå äìëê ìà çùéá áòì îåí åàéï ëàï îèéì îåí ááòì îåí åôìéâé áàéï îúëåéï - ùéèä î÷åáöú]

(e)

Answer #2 (cont.): Our Mishnah is a different argument. It discusses when Achzo Dam in a way that it will not die if they do not let blood. Therefore, it is not considered a Ba'al Mum, and this is not making a Mum in a Ba'al Mum. They argue about one who does not intend [to make a Mum];

ãø' éäåãä ÷àîø áëåø ùàçæå ãí àôé' îú àéï î÷éæéï áùåí òðéï ëãôøéùéú

1.

R. Yehudah says that if a Bechor Achzo Dam, even if it will die, we do not let blood in any way, like I explained;

åçë''à é÷éæ ôé' áéï îú áéï ìà îú åáìáã ùìà éòùä áå îåí ëìåîø ùéæäø áä÷æúå ùìà éåëì ìáà ìéãé îåí ëùé÷éæ ñîåê ìàåæï àå ìðéá ùôúéí àå ìçåèí (ã÷ñáø) [ö"ì ã÷ñáøé - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã] ãáø ùàéï îúëåéï àñåø (åäéëà ãìà îééú ãìà çùéá áòì îåí àñåø - ùéèä î÷åáöú îåç÷å)

2.

And Chachamim say that he lets blood, i.e. whether or not it will die (without letting blood), as long as he does not make a Mum. I.e. he is careful when letting blood that it cannot come to a Mum when he lets blood close to the ear or the upper lip or the nose. They forbid Davar she'Eino Miskaven.

ø''ù àåîø é÷éæ (àò''ô ùäåà òåùä îåí) [ö"ì àôéìå áî÷åí ùäåà òåùä áå îåí ëìåîø - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ùäåà éëåì ìáà ìéãé òùééú îåí ããáø ùàéï îúëåéï îåúø

3.

R. Shimon says that he lets blood, even in a place that he makes a Mum, i.e. he can come to making a Mum, for Davar she'Eino Miskaven is permitted;

åìùåï äîùðä îùîò (ìéä) [ö"ì ìé - äøù"ù] ëîå ùôéøùðå îãìà ð÷è î÷åí ùòåùä áå îåí åî÷åí ùàéï òåùä áå îåí ëãð÷éè ááøééúà

(f)

Support: The wording of our Mishnah connotes to me like I explained, since it did not say "a place that he makes a Mum" and "a place that he does not make a Mum" like the Beraisa said.

åà''ú åëéåï ãàçåæú ãí çùéá ëîåí ùàéï éëåì ìäúøôàåú áìà òùééú îåí à''ë ìùçåè òéìåéä

(g)

Question: Since Achzo Dam is considered a Mum, since it cannot heal without making a Mum, if so one may slaughter it [outside the Mikdash] based on this!

åé''ì ãîãøáðï àñåø ãàúé ìàéçìåôé áúí

(h)

Answer #1: Mid'Rabanan it is forbidden, lest it be confused with a Tam.

à''ð çùéá ëîå [îåí] òåáø ùéù ìå øôåàä

(i)

Answer #2: It is considered like a temporary Mum, since it can be healed.

6)

TOSFOS DH u'Mi Kanis R. Eliezer l'Olam u'Rminhu Mi she'Haysah Lo v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä åîé ÷ðéñ ø''à ìòåìí åøîéðäé îé ùäéúä ìå [ö"ì ëå' - ùéèä î÷åáöú]

(SUMMARY: Tosfos justifies the question.)

(ëîä) [ö"ì ëåìéä - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ùîòúúà îåëçà ãöåøí àåæï ùì áëåø [ö"ì å÷åöõ áäøú - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ÷ðñà äåà

(a)

Observation: Our entire Sugya proves that one who cuts the ear of a Bechor, or cuts off Tzara'as, it is a fine (to forbid Shechitah and to be Metamei him).

åáñîåê ðîé ÷àîø áäàé îåîà ÷ðñåä øáðï [ö"ì áäàé ÷öéöä ÷ðñåä øáðï - ùéèä î÷åáöú]

1.

Also below, it says "for this Mum Rabanan fined. For this cutting Rabanan fined."

åàôé' ìøáà ãàîø áô''÷ ãúîåøä (ãó ã:) îéìúà ãàîø øçîðà ìà úòáéã àé òáéã ìà îäðé îëì î÷åí äëà ùøé äàé áëåø îãàåøééúà ãäàé éù áå îåí åäàé âáøà èäåø ãäà àéï áå ðâò ëìì

2.

And even according to Rava, who says in Temurah (4b) that when the Torah forbade an action, Iy Avid Lo Mehani (if one did it, it did not take effect), in any case here the Bechor is permitted mid'Oraisa, for it has a Mum, and this person is Tahor, for he does not have Tzara'as at all.

åà''ú ãáñôøé áôøùä øàä àðëé úðéà øáé àìéòæø àåîø ëå' äîèéì îåí ááëåø åàåëìå òåáø ùðàîø ìà úàëì ëì úåòáä àìîà ãîãàåøééúà àñåø

(b)

Question: In the Sifri in Parshas Re'eh, R. Eliezer says... one who makes a Mum in a Bechor and eats it, he transgresses, for it says "Lo Sochal Kol To'evah." This shows that the Torah forbids it!

åé''ì ãáñîåê (àùëçï( [ö"ì çùáéðï - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ìéä ÷ðñà (îëàï îòîåã á) ìøáðï ãñáøé ëàçøéí ããøùé äúí áôñåìé äîå÷ãùéï äëúåá îãáø àå ááéùåì áùø áçìá ëã÷àîø áô' ëì äáùø (çåìéï ÷éã:)

(c)

Answer #1: Below we consider it a fine according to Rabanan who hold like Acherim who expound there that the verse discusses Pesulei ha'Mukdashim or meat and milk, like it says in Chulin (114b. R. Eliezer holds that the Torah forbids; it is not a fine.)

34b----------------------------------------34b

åàéï ìàñåø ùçéèä òì àåúå îåí îìà úàëì ëì úåòáä ëîå áùø áçìá åëìàé æøòéí åîòùä ùáú

(d)

Implied suggestion: We should forbid Shechitah based on that Mum due to "Lo Sochal Kol To'evah", just like meat and milk, Kil'ai Zera'im and Ma'aseh Shabbos (food prepared through Melachah, e.g. cooking)!

ùéù ìçì÷

(e)

Rejection: We can distinguish them.

åà''ú åìø''à ãìà îôìéâ îàé ôøéê òìéä îáäøú ãâáé öåøí àåæï ááëåø ãàñåø îãàåøééúà òã ùéåìã îåí àçø éù ìðå ì÷ðñå ëùðåìã áå îåí

(f)

Question: According to R. Eliezer who does not distinguish, what was the question against him from Tzara'as? Regarding one who cuts the ear of a Bechor, it is forbidden mid'Oraisa until another Mum develops. We should fine him when a Mum develops;

àáì ÷åöõ áäøú ãîãàåøééúà èäåø îéã ùð÷öõ [ö"ì ãééðå ùð÷ðåñ - ùéèä î÷åáöú] òã ùéååìã ðâò àçø

1.

However, one who cuts Tzara'as, mid'Oraisa he is Tahor once he cut it. It should suffice to fine him until another Nega develops!

åé''ì ãàô''ä ìà äéä ìðå ì÷ðåñ áîåí òåìîéú àìà òã îåí ùìéùé àå øáéòé

(g)

Answer #1: Even so, we should not fine permanently about a Mum, rather, only until a third or fourth Mum [develops].

à''ð ðäé ãàé éúéø ø''à ìùçåè áîåí àçø àéï ëàï ÷ðñ î''î ìà äéä ìðå ì÷ðåñ áîåí ùìà òùä áå òáéøä ëé äéëé ãìà ÷ðéñ áðâò àçø

(h)

Answer #2: Granted, if R. Eliezer would permit to slaughter on another Mum, there is no fine, in any case we should not fine about a Mum in which no Aveirah was done, just like he does not fine about another Nega.

à''ð ãñôøé àñîëúà áòìîà äåà

(i)

Answer #2 (to Question (b)): The Sifri is a mere Asmachta.

7)

TOSFOS DH Ad she'Tifrach b'Kulo

úåñôåú ã"ä òã ùúôøç áëåìå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos defends an alternative text.)

áëì äñôøéí (ëúåá) [ö"ì âøñ' äëà àå - ùéèä î÷åáöú] òã ùúúîòè áäøúå îëâøéñ

(a)

Version #1: In all Seforim the text says here "or until the Baheres (Tzara'as) diminishes to less than k'Gris (the area of a bean)."

àáì áîñ' ðâòéí ìéúéä ëãôé' á÷åðè'

(b)

Version #2: This is not in [the Mishnah in] Nega'im, like Rashi explained.

åàåîø øáé ãàé âøñéðï ìé' ä''ô ùàí ÷ööä (åðòùä áëâøéñ) [ö"ì åîéòèä îëâøéñ - ùéèä î÷åáöú, öàï ÷ãùéí] åîä ùùééø ðúøôà î÷öúå îòöîå ùàôé' äéä áå îä ùð÷ööä ìà äéä áå ëâøéñ [ö"ì èäåø - ç÷ ðúï]

(c)

Explanation (Tosfos' Rebbi): If the text says so, it means as follows. If it was cut and diminished from k'Gris, and what remained healed partially by itself, that even if what was cut off [had not been cut off, and] was with it, it would not be [in all] k'Gris, he is Tahor.

8)

TOSFOS DH mi'Kamaisa Tahar Lei l'Basraisa Natrinan Lei...

úåñôåú ã"ä î÷îééúà èäø ìé' ìáúøééúà ðèøé' ìéä æ' éîé äîùúä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why he is considered Tahor.)

åà''ú åäà áòé úâìçú åöôøéí åàñåø áúùîéù äîèä ëì éîé ñôåøå

(a)

Question: He needs to shave, and [bring] birds, and he is forbidden Bi'ah all Yemei Sifro (the seven days a Metzora counts between the two times he shaves!)

åé''ì ëâåï ùìà äéä àìà îöåøò îåñâø

(b)

Answer #1: The case is, he was only a Metzora Musgar. (Shaving, birds and Yemei Sifro apply only to one who was Muchlat.)

à''ð àôéìå îåçìè ðäé ãëé ÷öõ èîà îãøáðï î''î ùøé ìòùåú úâìçú åöôøéí åìîðåú éîé ñôåøå åìéèäø îï äúåøä

(c)

Answer #2: Even a Muchlat - granted, when he cut it, he is Tamei mid'Rabanan, but in any case he may shave, bring birds and count Yemei Sifro and become Tahor mid'Oraisa;

åîéäå ëôøúå à''à ìäáéà ãàéðå éëåì ìäëðéñ éãéå ìáäåðåú ëì æîï ãèîà îãøáðï ëãàîø (ôñçéí ãó öá.) àò''ô ùàéï èáåì éåí àçø ðëðñ æä ðëðñ ãìà äúéøå àìà îùåí ôñç

1.

However, he cannot bring his Kaparah (Asham Metzora), for he cannot enter his hands [in the Azarah] for [putting blood and oil] on the Behonos as long as he is Tamei mid'Rabanan, like it says (Pesachim 92a) "even though another Tevul Yom may not enter (Machaneh Levi), this (a Metzora who is a Tevul Yom due to Keri) may enter, for they permitted only due to (enabling him to become Tahor and fulfill Korban) Pesach."

9)

TOSFOS DH Ba'i Minei R. Yirmeyah mi'R. Zeira Tzorem Ozen Bechor...

úåñôåú ã"ä áòà îéðéä ø' éøîéä îø' æéøà öåøí àåæï áëåø åîú îäå ùé÷ðñå áðå àçøéå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that elsewhere, he suggested learning oppositely.)

áôø÷ äùåìç (âéèéï îã.) ð÷è úçìä äáòéà ãîåëø òáãå åáîå''÷ áôø÷ îé ùäôê (ãó éá:) ð÷è áëååï îìàëúå åáëì ãåëúé òáéã àí úéîöé ìåîø îàéãê

(a)

Implied question: In Gitin (44a) it mentions first the question of one who sells his slave [to a Nochri], and in Mo'ed Katan (12b) it mentioned [first] Mekaven (intentionally leaving) his work [to do on Chol ha'Mo'ed], and in every place it makes [a partially contingency, i.e. it says] "if you will say [there... did they fine the son here?]" from the other (previous)!

åàëåìäå ôùéè úðéúåä îùãä ùðú÷ååöä

1.

And for all of them it resolves "a Mishnah taught that if one removed thorns from a field [in Shemitah... but if he fertilized it, or he kept animals there to fertilize it, he may not sow it the next year", and R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina taught that if he died, his son may sow it the next year]!

åàåîø øáé ãùìùúí ùàì ááú àçú åäù''ñ ÷áò ëì àçú áî÷åîä ëôé îä ùùééëà

(b)

Answer #1 (Tosfos' Rebbi): All three of them were asked at once, and the Gemara fixed each in its place, according to what is relevant.

åéù ñôøéí ùëúåá áî''÷ (ùí) áòà îéðéä øáà îø''ð

(c)

Partial Answer #2: In some texts in Mo'ed Katan it is written "Rava asked Rav Nachman." (We can say that he was unsure only about the case of a field, unlike R. Yirmeyah.)

àáì áøåá äñôøéí âøñéðï ø' éøîéä îøáé æéøà ëîå ëàï åáâéèéï

(d)

Disclaimer: However, in most Seforim the text says that R. Yirmeyah asked R. Zeira, like here and in Gitin.

10)

TOSFOS DH Im Timtzi Lomar Mocher Avdo l'Ovdei Kochavim u'Mes...

úåñôåú ã"ä àí úîöà ìåîø îåëø òáãå ìòåáãé ëåëáéí åîú ÷ðñå áðå àçøéå ãëì éåîà îô÷ò ìéä îîöåú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that we could have given one reason why we cannot learn.)

àëúé äî''ì ãàôéìå úéîöé ìåîø äúí ìà ÷ðñå (ããìîà - ùéèä î÷åáöú, öàï ÷ãùéí îåç÷åäå) äëà ÷ðñå îùåí ãàéëà àéñåøà ãàåøééúà

(a)

Observation #1: It still could have said that even if you will say that there (one who sold his slave) they did not fine, here they fined, for it is an Isur mid'Oraisa!

ãëé äàé âååðà àéëà áô' äùåìç âáé áòéà ãîåëø òáãå åáî''÷ âáé áòéà ãëååï îìàëúå áîåòã

1.

We ask like this in Gitin (44a) regarding the question of one who sells his slave, and in Mo'ed Katan (12b) regarding the question of Mekaven his work for [Chol] ha'Mo'ed;

ã÷àîø àí úéîöé ìåîø áöåøí ÷ðñå îùåí ãàéëà àñåøà ãàåøééúà

2.

It says "if you will say that regarding Tzorem, they fined [the son], for it is an Isur mid'Oraisa..."

åáâéèéï ðîé äåä îöé ìîéð÷è àí úéîöé ìåîø [ö"ì äúí - îäøù"à, öàï ÷ãùéí] ìà ÷ðñå äëà ÷ðñå îùåí äô÷òú îöåú ãëì éåîà åéåîà (ëîå) áòáã

(b)

Observation #2: Also in Gitin, it could have said "if you will say that there (regarding Tzorem) they did not fine, here they fined, for Mitzvos are uprooted every day regarding a slave!

åáî''÷ ðîé ð÷è çã èòîà áöåøí åèòîà àçøéðà áîåëø òáãå åäåä îöé ìîéîø çã èòîà áúøåééäå ãàí úéîöé ìåîø áöåøí åáîåëø ã÷ðñåä îùåí ãòáãéä ìàéñåøà àáì ëååï îìàëúå ìà òáã ìàéñåøà

(c)

Observation #3: Also in Mo'ed Katan it mentioned one reason for Tzorem, and another reason for one who sells his slave, and it could have said one reason for both of them, that if you will say that for Tzorem and Mocher, they fined, this is because he did an Isur, but Mekaven his work [for the Mo'ed] did not do an Isur.

11)

TOSFOS DH she'Niskavtzah

úåñôåú ã"ä ùðú÷ååöä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that he removed detached thorns from the field.)

ôé' á÷åðè' ùðèì ÷åöéí îîðä ùäéå úìåùéï åîôåæøéï áä

(a)

Explanation (Rashi): He removed thorns from it. They were detached and scattered in it.

åäãéï òîå ãà''à ìåîø á÷åöéí ùäéå îçåáøéí ãà''ë ìà úæøò ãàéëà àéñåøà ãàåøééúà áðèéìúí ùîééôä àú ä÷ø÷ò

(b)

Affirmation: He is correct. You cannot say that the thorns were attached, for if so, one may not sow it [the next year], for there is an Isur mid'Oraisa to take them, for he improves the land!

ëãàîø ùáú ôø÷ äáåðä (ãó ÷â.) âáé [äúåìù òåìùéï åäîæøã æøãéí] ãáàøòà ãéìéä çééá (áëì ãéìéä çééá) áëì ùäåà îùåí ãàéëà éôåé ä÷ø÷ò (ãàôé') [ö"ì åàôéìå - ùéèä î÷åáöú] îúëåéï ìöåøê ãáø àçø

1.

Source: It says in Shabbos (103a) regarding one who detached endives or pruned [moist, edible] reeds, if it was in his land, he is liable for any amount, because it improves the land, and even if he intended for something else;

åä''ð àéëà éôåé ÷ø÷ò ëùúåìù ÷åöéí ìçåøùä (ìæøéòä) [ö"ì åìæøéòä - ùéèä î÷åáöú]

2.

Also here it improves the land when he detaches thorns for [the need of] plowing or sowing!

åëï îùîò áéøåùìîé òì (äîùðä úîï àñåøéí) [ö"ì äê îùðä ã÷àîø úîï àîøéï - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ëùðèìå ÷åöéä îùîò ãîå÷é ìä áúìåùéï

3.

Support: The Yerushalmi on this Mishnah connotes like this. It says "there (in Bavel) they said keshe'Natlu (when they took) its thorns." This connotes that we establish it to discuss detached [thorns].

12)

TOSFOS DH Nitaiva

úåñôåú ã"ä ðéèééáä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos brings the Yerushalmi's Perush of this.)

áéøåùìîé îôøù àéæäå èéåá ëì äòí ôòí àçú çåøùéï åäåà çåøù ùúé ôòîéí

(a)

Reference: The Yerushalmi explains "what is Tiyuv (improving)? Everyone else plows once, and he plows twice."

13)

TOSFOS DH Hetivah u'Mes Beno Zor'ah

úåñôåú ã"ä äèéáä åîú áðå æåøòä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos defends how we learned from here to Tzorem and Mocher.)

àí äàé èéåá îãøáðï ÷ùä äéëé ôùéè öåøí àåæï áëåø ãàåøééúà

(a)

Question: If this Tiyuv is mid'Rabanan, how can we learn from it cutting a Bechor's ear, which is [an Isur] mid'Oraisa?

åàí äåà ðîé ãàåøééúà ÷ùä áâéèéï (ãó îã:) ãôùéè îéðéä âáé òáã (òáøé) ìéîà ùàðé äëà ãçîéø îùåí ãîô÷ò ìéä îîöåú

1.

And even if Tiyuv is mid'Oraisa, the Gemara in Gitin (44b) is difficult, for it resolves from [a field] to a slave. It should say that [selling a slave to a Nochri] is different, for it is stringent, for he uproots him from Mitzvos!?

åé''ì ã÷ñáø ùøàåé ìäçîéø áùáéòéú éåúø îëåìí ëãàîø á÷ãåùéï (ãó ë.) ëîä ÷ùä àá÷ä ùì ùáéòéú:

(b)

Answer: He holds that it is proper to be more stringent about Shemitah than all of them (Tzorem, Mocher and Mekaven), like it says in Kidushin (20a) "how severe is the dust (minor transgressions of) Shemitah!..."

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF