1)

TOSFOS DH Mefirin Es ha'Neder

úåñôåú ã"ä îôéøéï àú äðãø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that Hafarah is the Torah's expression.)

ìéùðà ã÷øà ð÷è àáì âáé çëí ùééê ìùåï äúøä

(a)

Observation: This is the expression of the Torah, but regarding a Chacham, the expression of Hatarah applies.

1.

Note: The Torah mentioned Hafarah only regarding a father or husband. Tosfos connotes that the Gemara uses the expression that the Torah used for permitting vows and oaths, even though a Chacham must permit with an expression of Hatarah. If he said an expression of Hafarah, it is not permitted - Nedarim 77b.)

åëï áäîåëø àú äñôéðä (á''á ãó òã.) âáé áú ÷åì ã÷àîø åòëùéå ùðùáòúé îé îôø ìé

(b)

Support: Also in Bava Basra (74a) regarding the Bas Kol, it said "now that I (Hash-m) swore, who will be Mefer for Me?"

2)

TOSFOS DH R. Yehudah Omer Echad Mehem Chacham mi'Chlal d'Hanach...

úåñôåú ã"ä øáé éäåãä àåîø àçã îäí çëí îëìì ãäðê...

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses this inference.)

ë''ë áøåá äñôøéí åéù ñôøéí ãâøñé ëâåï îàï àîø øá ðçîï ëâåï àðà (îùîò) [ö"ì åîùîò - ùéèä î÷åáöú] îúåê ìùåï ä÷åðè' ùëê âøéñ

(a)

Alternative text: This is the text in most Seforim. In some Seforim the text says "like whom? Rav Nachman said, like me." Rashi's words connote that this is his text.

å÷ùä äéëé ôøéê òìä îëìì ãäðê ëì ãäå àéîà ìà àìà ùôçåúéí îãøá ðçîï

(b)

Question: How does [the Gemara] ask "may the others be anyone?" We can say no (not anyone is Kosher), but they can be less than Rav Nachman!

åà''ú ìàéãê âéøñà ðîé îðà ìéä ëì ãäå ãìîà îëìì ãäðê ôçåúéí îîåîçä àáì ëì ãäå ìà

(c)

Question: Also according to the other text, what is [the Makshan's] source to say anyone? Perhaps we infer that they are less than an expert, but not anyone!

åé''ì ãôùéèà ìéä ãçëí ãø' éäåãä ìàå ëçëí ãìòéì ãàééøé áîåîçä ãàôé' øáé éäåãä îåãä ãéçéã îåîçä îúéø àú äðãø

(d)

Answer: It is obvious to [the Makshan] that the Chacham that R. Yehudah [requires] is not the Chacham above, which discusses an expert, for even R. Yehudah agrees that a lone expert permits a vow;

åëàï ãìà àééøé áîåîçä [ö"ì ôøéê ùôéø] îä ùéòåø ðåúï ìàéðê

1.

Here that we do not discuss an expert, he properly asks what level is required for the others [with him].

åîéäå ÷ùä ãà''ë îðà ìéä ãàúé ìàôå÷é îãøáé éäåãä ëéåï ãøáé éäåãä ìà àééøé áîåîçä ãìîà øáé çééà áø àáà îåãä ãáòéðï àçã îäí ëçëí ãø' éäåãä

(e)

Question: If so, what is the source that [R. Chiya bar Aba] comes to teach unlike R. Yehudah? Since R. Yehudah does not discuss an expert, perhaps R. Chiya bar Aba agrees that we require one of them to be like the Chacham of R. Yehudah!

åãåç÷ ìåîø ãâ' îôéøéï àú äðãø îùîò ìéä ùìùúï ùåéï

(f)

Poor Answer: It is difficult to say that "three annul" connotes to [the Gemara] that all three are the same [required level of Chachmah].

3)

TOSFOS DH v'Yayin Nesech

úåñôåú ã"ä åééï ðñê

(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with the Gemara in Horiyos.)

àò''â ãáô' â' ãäåøéåú (ãó éà.) ÷àîø ãñúîå äåé àôé÷åøåñ áééï ðñê ëîå áðáéìåú

(a)

Implied question: In Horiyos (11a), we say that Stam, one is considered an Apikoros (Mumar) if he drinks Yayin Nesech, just like Neveilos!

î''î ìà çùéá ðôù ÷öä áå

(b)

Answer #1: Even so, it is not considered [physically] revolting to a person.

åòåã ãäëà îñ÷éðï òì éãé úòøåáåú:

(c)

Answer #2: Here we conclude that [the Yayin Nesech] was in a mixture. (One who drinks a mixture is not considered an Apikoros.)

4)

TOSFOS DH Min ha'Chaschus

úåñôåú ã"ä îï äçñçåñ

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this is the cartilage.)

ìùåï çðåê äåà ëîå øàùé ëðôéí (åäçñçéï) [ö"ì åäñçåñéï - ùéèä î÷åáöú] áôø÷ ëéöã öåìéï (ôñçéí ôã.)

(a)

Explanation: This is an expression of Tenuch (cartilage), like Roshei Kenafayim and ha'Sechusin, in Pesachim (84a).

(åáãì) [ö"ì àå áãì] äàåæï îúøâí çñçåñ ãàåãðà (òîåñ â)

(b)

Support: The Targum of "b'Dal ha'Ozen" is Chaschus d'Udna.

5)

TOSFOS DH Mah ha'Perat Mefurash Mumin sheb'Galuy v'Einan Chozrin

úåñôåú ã"ä îä äôøè îôåøù îåîéï ùáâìåé åàéðï çåæøéï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that slaves go free even for minor Mumim.)

ëä''â ãøùéðï áô''÷ ã÷ãåùéï (ãó ëã:) âáé ùï åòéï

(a)

Observation: We expound like this in Kidushin (24b) regarding [an Eved Kena'ani goes free if his master knocks out his] tooth or eye.

åà''ú åî''è ìà äåé äëà îåîà ëùðôìä ùéðå ëéåï ãçùéá îåí ùáâìåé åàéðå çåæø

(b)

Question: Why is it not a Mum here when its tooth fell, since it is considered an exposed Mum and it does not return (heal)?

ãì÷îï áôø÷ îåîéï àìå (ãó îã.) ìà ôñìéðï ðéèìå ùéðéå âáé àãí àìà îùåí îøàéú äòéï (ãàéðå ùåä áæøòå ùì àäøï - ç÷ ðúï îåç÷å) îëìì ãááäîä ëùø

1.

Below (44a) we disqualify when a person's teeth were removed only due to Mar'is ha'Ayin. This implies that regarding an animal, it is Kosher!

åàôé' âáé àãí ìà îéôñì áùï àçã åãå÷à áçåèéï äçéöåðåú ùðôâîå åùðâîîå åáôðéîéåú ùðò÷øå éðöéá''ù áìò''æ ëãôéøù á÷åðèøñ ÷àîø áñîåê âáé áäîä ãäåé îåí àáì ðéèìå ùéðéí ìà

2.

And even regarding people, he is not disqualified due to [loss of] one tooth, and only if the outer Chutin (teeth) were chipped or cracked, or if the inner ones were uprooted, it says below about an animal that it is a Mum, but if teeth were removed, no!

åé''ì ãùàðé âáé òáã ãâìé ÷øà àáì äëà ùëê ãøê ùäùéðéí ðåôìåú îçîú æ÷ðä ìà äåé ëòéï ôñç åòåø

(c)

Answer: It is different regarding a slave, for the Torah revealed [that he goes free due to a tooth]. Here, it is normal that teeth fall out due to old age. It is not like lame or blind.

åîéäå öøéê èòí àçø ãä''ð òéðéå [ö"ì ëäåú - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã] îçîú æ÷ðä

(d)

Question: We need another reason, for also eyes weaken due to age!

åà''ú îàé ùðà ãäëäå òì àæðå åçøùå çùéá îåí äúí åòáã éåöà ìçéøåú ãäåé îåí ùáâìåé åàéðå çåæø

(e)

Question: What is the difference when one hit him on the ear and deafened him? It is considered a Mum, and a slave goes free due to it, for it is an exposed Mum and it does not return;

åì÷îï áôø÷ àìå îåîéï (ãó îä:) úðï çøù ùåèä (å÷èï) ôñåìéï áàãí åëùøéï ááäîä

1.

And below (45b) a Mishnah teaches that deaf and lunatic are Pasul in people, and Kosher in animals!

[ö"ì åàôéìå] áàãí ìà îéôñìé àìà îùåí ãàéðå ùåä áæøòå ùì àäøï ëãîôøù ì÷îï [ö"ì åìà îôìéâ] áéï çøù áéãé àãí ìçøù áéãé ùîéí

2.

And even in people, it is Pasul only because he is unlike other descendants of Aharon, like it explains below, and it does not distinguish between deaf due to man or deaf due to Shamayim!

åé''ì ãâáé òáã âìé øçîðà ãáãáø ÷ì çùéá îåí ìöàú áå ìçéøåú ùîùúçøø áùéðå:

(f)

Answer: The Torah revealed about a slave that something minor is considered a Mum to go free due to it, that he is freed for his tooth.

37b----------------------------------------37b

6)

TOSFOS DH Ne'ekro Iyn Nifgemu v'Nigmemu Lo

úåñôåú ã"ä ðò÷øå àéï ðôâîå åðâîîå ìà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that a later Mishnah says so explicitly.)

äåé îöé ìàúåéé îääéà ãì÷îï ã÷à çùéá áäãéà âáé åàìå ùàéï ùåçèéï òìéäï ìà áî÷ãù åìà áîãéðä çåèéï äôðéîéåú ùðôâîå åðâîîå

(a)

Implied question: We could have brought from the [Mishnah] below (41a), which explicitly lists among those for which one may not slaughter [the animal], not in the Mikdash and not outside the Mikdash, inner Chutin that are chipped or cracked!

àìà ðéçà ìàúåéé îãéå÷à ãøéùà ãîåëç ãàò''â ãáçéöåðéåú äåé îåí ùáâìåé áôðéîéåú ìà äåé îåí

(b)

Answer: [The Gemara] prefers to bring from a proven inference from the Reisha. Even though regarding the outer Chutin it is an exposed Mum, regarding the inner Chutin it is not a Mum.

7)

TOSFOS DH Hashta Mifarek Lo Parkinan Iluyah v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä äùúà îéôø÷ ìà ôø÷éðï òéìåé' ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how this opinion expounds.)

åà''ú ìäàé ùðåééà ÷îà ãðôé÷ îåí òåáø î÷''å ôñç åòåø îàé àäðé ìéä

(a)

Question: According to the first answer, that learns a temporary Mum from a Kal v'Chomer, what do we learn from "Pise'ach v'Iver"?

åé''ì ã÷ñáø äùúà ãàé ìà ëúéá ôñç åòåø ÷îøáéðï îëì îåí øò îåí òåáø åäåä àîéðà ãàúà ìàôå÷é î÷''å åìà îîòèéðï ðîé îîåí øò îåîéï ùáñúø

(b)

Answer: Now [the Tartzan] holds that had the Torah not written Pise'ach v'Iver, we would include a temporary Mum from "Kol Mum Ra", and I would think that it comes to override the Kal v'Chomer, and also we do not exclude hidden Mumim from "Mum Ra."

8)

TOSFOS DH Lerabos Kol Davar she'Nilkach b'Yad

úåñôåú ã"ä ìøáåú ëì ãáø ùðì÷ç áéã

(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes that we learn this from Ribuy u'Mi'ut.)

áôø÷ ÷îà ã÷ãåùéï (ãó ëà:) îôøù îùåí ããøéù øéáåéé åîéòåèé åì÷çú øéáä îøöò îéòè åðúú áàæðå çæø åøéáä îàé øáé øáé ëì îéìé îàé îéòè îéòè ñí

(a)

Reference: In Kidushin (21b) it explains that this is because he expounds Ribuyim and Mi'utin. "V'Lakachta" is a Ribuy. "Martze'a" is a Mi'ut. "V'Nasata b'Ozen" is another Ribuy. What does this include? It includes everything. What is excluded? A potion is excluded.

åúéîä ãîåì÷çú îøáéðï ëì ãáø äðì÷ç áéã åàí ñí ìà î÷øé ðì÷ç áéã ìîä ìé øéáä åîéòè åøéáä îìùåï åì÷çú ìçåã ìà îúøáé àìà ãáø äðì÷ç áéã

(b)

Question: We include from "v'Lakachta" everything taken in the hand. If a potion is not considered to be taken in the hand, why do we need Ribuy u'Mi'ut v'Ribuy? From "v'Lakachta" alone we include only something taken in the hand!

åé''ì ãîìùåï åì÷çú ìà ãøéù àìà äëé ÷àîø ìøáåú ëì ãáø äðì÷ç áéã îùåí ããøùéðï øéáåéé åîéòåèé

(c)

Answer: He does not expound the expression "v'Lakachta". Rather, he says as follows. We include everything taken in the hand because we expound Ribuyim and Mi'utin.

9)

TOSFOS DH Kan Lishchot Kan Lifsol

úåñôåú ã"ä ëàï ìùçåè ëàï ìôñåì

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why one may not slaughter it outside the Mikdash.)

îãôñéì ëäï îùîò ãäåé îåí ãàåøééúà

(a)

Implied question: Since it disqualifies a Kohen, this shows that it is a Pesul mid'Oraisa!

åùîà äàé ãàéï ùåçèéï îùåí ãàéï ðéëø éôä åâæøéðï àèå îåîéï ùáñúø

(b)

Answer #1: Perhaps we do not slaughter because it is not recognized well, and we decree due to concealed Mumim.

àé ðîé äàé ãîôñéì ëäï îùåí ãàéðå ùåä áæøòå ùì àäøï

(c)

Answer #2: A Kohen is disqualified because he is unlike other descendants of Aharon.

à''ð îåí òåáø äåà åáòéðï ùìà éôñì àôéìå ìôé ùòä îùåí ãëúéá [åùá] àì îùôçúå ããøùé' á÷ãåùéï (ùí) ìîåúø ùáîùôçúå

(d)

Answer #3: It is a temporary Mum, and [we cannot do so to a Kohen, for] we require that he is not disqualified even temporarily, for it says "v'Shav El Mishpachto" - he returns to what his family is permitted (Avodah, if he is a Kohen).

10)

TOSFOS DH Kol she'Yinatel Min ha'Chai v'Yamos

úåñôåú ã"ä ëãé ùéðèì îï äçé åéîåú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that Beis Hillel hold that a smaller Shi'ur causes one to die.)

)åáëîìà î÷ãç åéîåú ìá''ù ëã÷àîø) [ö"ì áëîìà î÷ãç ðîé éîåú ìá''ù îã÷àîø - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã] áô''÷ ãòéøåáéï (ãó æ.) åëï ìèøôä åîùîò ãàúøåééäå ÷àé àùãøä åàâåìâåìú [ö"ì îã÷àîø äúí úøé çåîøà ãñúøé àäããé ëâåï ùãøä åâåìâåìú - ùéèä î÷åáöú]

(a)

Implied question: Also through a hole the size of a (standard) drill-hole it would die according to Beis Shamai, since it says in Eruvin (7a) "and similarly for a Tereifah." This implies that it refers to both the spine and skull, since it says there "two stringencies that contradict each other, like the spine and skull."

àìà á''ä àúå ìîéîø ãùéòåøå ëîìà î÷ãç äåé èôé îëãé ùéðèì îï äçé åéîåú ìãéãäå

(b)

Answer: Rather, Beis Hillel come to say that the Shi'ur of a drill-hole is more than enough to take from a live person and he would die, according to them.

(åøáéðå) [ö"ì åìøáéðå - ãôåñ åéðéöéä] úí ðîé ãîôøù ãìà ÷àé åëï ìèøôä àâåìâåìú

(c)

Assertion: Also according to R. Tam, who explained that "and similarly for a Tereifah" does not apply to the skull...

îãìà ôøéê áøéù àìå èøéôåú (çåìéï ãó îá:) åäàéëà (ëîä - äá"ç îåç÷å) çñøåï áâåìâåìú ëãôøéê îçñøåï áùãøä

1.

Source - Implied question: In Chulin (42b), why did [the Gemara] not ask "there is Chisaron in the skull!" (why did the Mishnah omit this Tereifah?), like it asks about Chisaron in the spine?

îùåí ãáð÷éáú ä÷øåí äåé èøéôä áìà çñøåï

2.

Answer #1: A puncture in the membrane [of the brain] is Tereifah without Chisaron.

åäà ã÷øé áòéøåáéï (ãó æ.) ùãøä åâåìâåìú úøé çåîøé ãñúøé àäããé

3.

Implied question: In Eruvin (7a), why does it call the spine and skull "two stringencies that contradict each other"?

îùåí ãäåå ôìéâé âáé èøéôåú ãàãí ãàéú ìéä îæìà åàéú ìéä èôé çéåú åìà îéèøó áð÷éáú ÷øåí áìà çñøåï òîå

4.

Answer #1: It is because they argue about Tereifos of a person, who has Mazal, and he has more life [than an animal], and he does not become Tereifah through a puncture in the membrane without Chisaron. (Only an animal is Tereifah due to a puncture alone.)

î''î ìôéøåùå ðîé ö''ì ëï ëîå ùôéøùðå ãáùéòåøà ãá''ù éîåú (ìá''ù) ëîå ìá''ä áùéòåøà ãéãäå

(d)

Assertion (cont.): Also according to [R. Tam] we must say like we explained, that in the Shi'ur of Beis Shamai, he dies according to Beis Shamai, just like Beis Hillel [hold that he dies due to Chisaron] of their Shi'ur.

åîéäå îä ùîã÷ã÷ ø''ú îãìà ôøéê áøéù àìå èøéôåú (çåìéï ãó îá:) îçñøåï ãâåìâåìú ìàå ôéøëà äåà ãîöéðï ìîéîø ãèøéôåú ùì çñøåï ìà äåé àìà îùåí ãñåôå ùì ÷øåí ìéð÷á ëîå øéàä ããîéà ìãéåúà åìëåçìà (ùí îæ:)

(e)

Objection #1 (and Answer #2 to Question c:1): R. Tam's inference, from this that in Chulin (42b) it did not ask from Chisaron in the skull, is not difficult. We can say that it is Tereifah due to Chisaron only because the membrane is destined to be punctured (and the Mishnah already taught a puncture in the membrane), just like lungs that are black or blue (Chulin 47b. The former is Tereifah, for it is destined to be punctured.)

åòåã ÷ùä ìôé ùîçì÷ áéï ãàãí ìèøôåú ãáäîåú ãáøéù àìå èøéôåú (ùí îâ.) îãîé ìäå ãôøéê ìäå îàéåá éùôåê ìàøõ îøéøúé åòãééï àéåá ÷ééí

(f)

Objection #2: R. Tam distinguished between Tereifus of people and animals. This is difficult, for in Chulin (43a) the Gemara compares them! It asks from Iyov, who said "my gall bladder spills to the ground", yet he lived!

åîéäå äåä éëåì ø''ú ìôøù ãìà îèòí îæìà çùéá èøéôä ááäîä èôé îàãí àìà ëâåï ãðé÷á ÷øåí ùì îåç äòìéåï åìà äúçúåï

(g)

Answer #2 (to Question c:3): R. Tam could explain that it is not due to Mazal that something is Tereifah in animals more than in people. It is only in a case like a puncture in the upper membrane of the brain, and there is puncture in the lower membrane;

åááäîä ÷øåí äúçúåï øê åàéï îâéï òì äîåç àáì áàãí äúçúåï ÷ùä åîâéï îùåí äëé áòé çñøåï òí ð÷éáú äòìéåï

1.

In an animal, the lower membrane is soft, and it does not protect the brain. However, in a person, the lower [membrane] is hard, and it protects. Therefore we require Chisaron with a puncture in the upper membrane;

àáì áãáø ùùåéï áæä åáæä àéï ìçì÷ áéðéäí ëìì:

2.

Distinction: However, in something that they are the same, we do not distinguish between them at all.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF