1)

TOSFOS DH AVAL BE'KO'ACH SHEINI G'RAMA BE'ALMA HU

úåñ' ã"ä àáì áëç ùðé âøîà áòìîà äåà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why Ko'ach Sheini is always Patur).

åà'ëôéúä ìà îéçééá.

(a)

Clarification Part 1): Nor is he Chayav for trussing him up ...

ãìà îéáòéà äéä òåîã ùí åëôúå áî÷åîå, ãôèåø - àôéìå äéä ñåó îéí ìáà òìéå, ãìà øáéä øçîðà îöîöí àìà áî÷åí ùäúçéì ääéæ÷ ëáø, ëâåï 'ëáù òìéå ìúåê äàù àå ìúåê äîéí' - ëãúðï áäðùøôéï (ñðäãøéï òæ. åùí ã"ä ñåó). àáì ñåó çåí ìáà åñåó îéí ìáà, ôèåø - àôéìå ëôúå áî÷åí àçø åäáéàå ùí, ôèåø.

(b)

Clarification Part 2): Not only if he was standing there and tied him up on the spot - even if the water was coming in his direction, since the Torah only includes 'Metzamtzem' (holding someone down) there where the damage has already begun (such as where he held him down in the fire or under-water), as we learned in 'ha'Nisrafin (Sanhedrin 77a [see Tosfos there DH 'Sof'). But there where he did so in a location where the sun or the water would only arrive later, he is Patur - even if he tied him somewhere else and brought him there.

àò"â ãàí äéä ñåó îéí ìáà òìéå äéä çééá, ìîàï ãàîø 'àùå îùåí çöéå', ãîàé ùðà îàùå áøåç îöåéä ...

(c)

Implied Question: Even though he would be Chayav if the water was destined to arrive at that spot later, according to those who hold that 'Isho Mishum Chitzav' (the Chiyuv of Eish is because of fire), for how will this differ from one's fire in a regular wind ...

ãàéï çéìå÷ áéï î÷øá äàù àöì äãáø, ìî÷øá äãáø àöì äàù ...

(d)

Reason: ... seeing as there is no reason to differentiate between bringing the fire to the object and bringing the object to the fire.

ãäà ëåôó ÷åîúå ùì çáéøå ìôðé äãìé÷ä ùéëåìä ìáà áøåç îöåéä, çééá - ëãàîø áøéù äëåðñ (á"÷ ðå. åùí ã"ä àéìéîà) ...

(e)

Precedent: ... like we find in the case where someone bends the corn of his fellow-Jew into the path of an oncoming fire, which might have arrived anyway via a regular wind, he is Chayav, as we learned at the beginning of 'ha'Koneis' (Bava Kama 56a [see Tosfos there DH Ileima'])

î"î äëà ôèåø, ùáùòä ùäáéàå ùí ìà äéä ñåó îéí ìáà àé ìàå ãàù÷éì òìéä áã÷à ãîéà àçø ëê.

(f)

Answer: Nevertheless here he is Patur, since at the time when he brought the victim there, the water would not have arrived at that spot had he not diverted the stream in his direction afterwards.

åà'îä ãàù÷éì ìà îéçééá áëç ùðé ...

(g)

Implied Question: Now will he be Chayav because of Ko'ach Sheini for diverting the stream on to the victim? ...

åãåîä ì'æø÷ çõ åúøéñ áéãå å÷ãí áòöîå åñéì÷ àú äúøéñ', ãôèåø.

(h)

Answer: ... And it is comparable to Reuven who shoots an arrow at Shimon who is holding a shield, and who then removes the shield (who we know is Patur).

2)

TOSFOS DH MINAYIN LI'SHECHITAH SHE'HI BE'TALUSH SHENE'EMAR VAYIKACH ES HA'MA'ACHELES

úåñ' ã"ä îðéï ìùçéèä ùäéà áúìåù ùðàîø åé÷ç àú äîàëìú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses a number of discrepancies between this D'rashah and that of Kli [learned from "Vayikach" and "ha'Ma'acheles" respectively]).

åàí úàîø, åäà äàé ÷øà á÷ãùéí ëúéá ...

(a)

Question: But this Pasuk is written in connection with Kodshim ...

ãáôø÷ äúåãä (îðçåú ãó ôá: åùí ã"ä åé÷ç) åáñåó ô' ãí çèàú (æáçéí ãó öæ: åùí ã"ä åäúí) ðô÷à ìï îäëà ã'÷ãùéí èòåðéï ëìé'?

(b)

Source: ... as we see in Perek ha'Todah (Menachos 82b) and at the end of Perek Dam Chatas (Zevachim 97b), where the Gemara learns from it that Kodshim requires a K'li?

åàåîø ø"ú, ãìòðéï úìåù âîøéðï ðîé à'çåìéï, îãëúéá "ìùçåè àú áðå", åìà ëúéá 'ìùçåè àú äòåìä'.

(c)

Answer (Part 1): Rabeinu Tam explains that as far as Talush is concerned, we learn also matters concerning Chulin, since the Pasuk writes "Lish'chot es B'no", and not 'Lish'chot es ha'Olah'.

àáì ëìé ìà ùééê ìîéìó áçåìéï àìà á÷ãùéí, ëùàø òáåãåú ãáòå ëìé ùøú.

(d)

Answer (Part 2): Whereas we cannot learn the Din of K'li with regard to Chulin, only Kodshim, like other Avodos which require K'lei Shareis.

åîãëúéá "åé÷ç" åìà ëúéá 'åéëéï' - ãøùéðï úìåù áçåìéï.

(e)

Clarification: And since the Torah writes "Vayikach" and not "Vayachin" ('And he prepared'), we Darshen Talush by Chulin.

åîãëúéá "îàëìú" åìà ëúéá 'äîçúê' ãøùéðï ëìé á÷ãùéí.

(f)

Clarification: And we Darshen K'li by Kodshim from the fact that it writes "Ma'acheles" and not 'Hamechatech'?

åàò"â ãäëà ãçé øáé çééà ã'æøéæåúéä ãàáøäí ÷î"ì' ...

(g)

Implied Question: Even though here (regarding Talush) Rebbi Chiya rejects the proof in that 'the Torah is teaching us the keenness of Avraham ...

äúí ìà ùééê ìîãçé äëé.

(h)

Answer: ... there (with regard to K'li), we cannot say that (see Tosfos ha'Rosh).

3)

TOSFOS DH LE'INYAN AVODAS KOCHAVIM HAVI TALUSH DEAMAR RAV HA'MISHTACHAVEH LE'BAYIS ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä ìòðéï òáåãú ëåëáéí äåé úìåù ãàîø øá äîùúçåä ìáéú ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara declines to cite here two Sugyos in Avodah-Zarah that appear to touch on the same point).

ìà áòé ìàúåéé äëà ôìåâúà ãøáé éåñé åøáðï, ãôìéâé á'îùúçåä ìàéìï' áôø÷ ëì äöìîéí (ò"æ ãó îç.) ...

(a)

Implied Question: The Gemara does not want to cite in this connection the Machlokes in Perek Kol ha'Tzelamim (Avodah-Zarah 48a) between Rebbi Yossi and the Rabbanan, who argue over someone who prostrates himself before a tree ...

ãàôéìå øáðï ãùøå äúí, äééðå ãå÷à àéìï ùðùøù åéåð÷ îï ä÷ø÷ò, åçùéá ëîçåáø îòé÷øå, åìà ãîé ìáéú.

(b)

Answer: ... because even the Rabbanan, who permit it there only consider it initially Mechubar because a tree nurtures from the ground, which is not the case by a house.

åîúðéúéï ãëì äöìîéí (ùí ãó îæ.) ã'îé ùäéä ëåúìå ñîåê ìòáåãú ëåëáéí åðôì ... , àáðéå åòöéå åòôøå îèîàéï ëùøõ' ìà îöé ðîé ìàúåéé ...

(c)

Implied Question: Nor can it cite the Mishnah there (47a) regarding someone whose wall adjoining an Avodah-Zarah caved in, whose bricks, wood and dust are Metamei like a Sheretz ...

ãäúí ëùáðàå îúçìä ìùí òáåãú ëåëáéí àå äùúçåä î÷åãí ìëì àáï åàáï.

(d)

Answer: ... since it speaks there where he initially built it in the name of Avodah-Zarah, or where he first prostrated himself in front of each brick.

4)

TOSFOS DH AMAR REBBI ELAZAR TAVRA ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä ã"ä àîø øáé àìòæø úáøà ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos first explains why ''Bish'vil she'Yudach ha'Kosel' and 'K'dei she'Lo Yiskalkel ha'Kosel' are for two different reasons; then reconciles Rav Yosef's She'eilah in Bava Basra with our Sugya).

ìà ùééê ìùðåéé äëà 'äà áùáéì ùéåãç äëåúì, ðòùä ëîé ùìà éì÷ä äëåúì' ...

(a)

Implied Question: We cannot answer here that if it is in order for the wall to be washed, it is akin to protecting the wall from getting spoilt ...

ëéåï ãàéï ìå ìúìåú æä áæä, ãàéï äèòîéí ùåéï, ãäà ãìà äåé á'ëé éåúï' áùáéì ùéåãç, äééðå îùåí ãçùéá ëîçåáø; åáùáéì ùìà éì÷ä äåé îùåí ãìà ðéçà ìéä.

(b)

Answer (Part 1): ... because the two are not interdependent. This is because their reasons are different, since the reason that it is not 'b'Chi Yutan' when it is for the wall to be washed is because it is considered like Mechubar, whereas if it is in order that the wall does not get spoilt then it is because he does not want it.

åìà ãîé ì'ðúï äåà åàîøä äéà' ãáô"÷ ã÷ãåùéï (ãó ä:), ãîùðé äúí 'ðòùä ëîé ùðúðä äéà åàîøä äéà', ãçã èòîà äåà - îùåí ãëúéá (ãáøéí ëã) "ëé é÷ç àéù àùä", åìà ùú÷ç àú òöîä.

(c)

Answer (Part 2): And it is not comparable to 'Nasan Hu ve'Amrah Hi' in the first Perek of Kidushin (5b), where the Gemara answers that it becomes like 'Nasnah Hi ve'Amrah Hi', because there both cases are for the same reason - because the Torah writes "Ki Yikach Ish Ishah", precluding there where she takes herself to the man.

åàí úàîø, ãäëà îùîò ãôìéâé úðàé áúìåù åìáñåó çáøå ìòðéï äëùø æøòéí - åìøá ôôà äåé ìë"ò ëúìåù.

1.

Question (Part 1): The Gemara implies here that Tana'im argue over Talush ve'li'Besof Chibro, with regard to Hechsher Zera'im; and according to Rav Papa both agree that it is like Talush.

åà"ë, îàé ÷à îáòéà ìéä ìøá éåñó áô' äîåëø àú äáéú (á"á ãó ñå: åùí ã"ä áòé) 'îé âùîéí ùçùá òìéäí ìäãéç àú äàéöèøåáì îäå ìäëùéø áäï àú äæøòéí'?

2.

Question (Part 2): If so, why does Rav Yosef in Perek ha'Mocher es ha'Bayis (Bava Basra 66b [See there Tosfos DH 'Ba'I]) ask whether rain which one had in mind should wash the upper mill-stone is Machshir seeds?

åé"ì, ãìøáé àìòæø ãàîø 'úáøà' ... ìî"ã îçåáø äåé, îáòéà ìéä, ãùîà àéöèøåáì ìà äåé îçåáø ëîå áéú.

3.

Answer: The She'eilah goes according to Rebbi Elazar, who says 'Tavra ... ', according to the opinion that considers it Mechubar, because perhaps it is not considered as Mechubar as a house.

16b----------------------------------------16b

5)

TOSFOS DH TALUSH VE'LI'BESOF CHIBRO LE'INYAN SHECHITA MAI

úåñ' ã"ä úìåù åìáñåó çáøå ìòðéï ùçéèä îàé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the Gemara's She'eilah in light of the Machlokes between Rebbi and Rebbi Chiya that we discussed earlier).

úéîä, îàé ÷îéáòéà ìéä, äà àñé÷ðà ìòéì (ãó èå:) ãìøáé ãéòáã ëùø, åìøáé çééà ëùø ðîé ìëúçìä?

(a)

Question: What exactly is the Gemara asking, seeing as we concluded earlier (Daf 15b) that according to Rebbi it is Kasher Bedi'eved, whereas according to Rebbi Chiya it is Kasher even Lechatchilah?

åàé ìà éãò äðäå áøééúåú ...

(b)

Suggested Answer: And even if he did not know those Beraisos ...

îëì î÷åí òì ëøçê éù ìäåëéç îîúðéúéï ãúìåù åìáñåó çáøå áãéòáã ëùø åìà ìëúçìä ...

(c)

Refutation (Part 1): ... one can nevertheless extrapolate from our Mishnah that Talush ve'li'be'Sof Chibro is Kasher Bedi'eved but not Lechatchilah.

ãàôéìå îå÷é îúðéúéï áîçåáø îòé÷øå, åàñåø ìëúçìä ùîà éãøåñ, ä"ð úìåù åìáñåó çáøå éàñø ìëúçìä îäàé èòîà?

(d)

Refutation (Part 2): ... because even if we establish the Mishnah by Mechubar Me'ikaro, which is Asur Lechatchilah in case he is Doreis, Talush ve'li'be'Sof Chibro will be Asur Lechatchilah for the same reason.

åéù ìåîø, ãàìéáà ãøáé îáòéà ìéä, ããìîà äåé ëúìåù åëùøä, ëãàîøé' ìòéì;

(e)

Answer #1 (Part 1): The She'eilah goes according to Rebbi, according to whom it might perhaps be like Talush, in which case it will be Kasher ...

àå ùîà ìøáé àéï çéìå÷ áéï úìåù åìáñåó çáøå ìîçåáø îòé÷øå, åôñåìä; åîúðéúéï ãîëùéø ãéòáã, ëøáé çééà - åìëúçìä ìà - ùîà éãøåñ.

(f)

Answer #1 (Part 2): Or perhaps according to Rebbi there is no difference between Talush ve'li'be'Sof Chibro and Mechubar Me'ikaro, and it is Pasul, in which case the Mishnah, which declares it Kasher Bei'eved, will go according to Rebbi Chiya - but not Lechatchilah - in case he is Doreis.

åáøééúà ãîëùø ìëúçìä, áòåôà ã÷ìéì, ëãîùðé ì÷îï, àò"â ã÷úðé áä áäîä.

(g)

Answer #1 (Part 3): Whereas the Beraisa, which is Machshir Lechatchilah, speaks about a bird which is light (in which case we are not worried about Derisah), as the Gemara answers later, even though the Tana says 'Beheimah'.

àé ðîé, ëøá æáéã ãàîø ìöããéï ÷úðé, åáöåàø áäîä ìîèä, ùøé ìëúçìä àôéìå áîçåáø îòé÷øå, åëùöåàø áäîä ìîòìä àñåø ìëúçìä, ùîà éãøåñ; åáëì îçåáø àééøé.

(h)

Answer #2 (Part 1): Alternatively, it goes like Rav Z'vid, who says 'li'Tzedadin' - that when the neck of the animal is underneath, it is permitted even Lechatchilah, even by Mechubar me'Ikaro` whereas when it is on top, it is Asur Lechatchilah, in case he is Doreis; and it is speaking about all cases of Mechubar.

å÷à áòé ìîéôùè îáøééúà ã'äéä öåø éåöà îï äëåúì', ãùçéèúä ôñåìä, ò"ë øáé äéà.

(i)

Answer #2 (Part 2): ... and the Gemara wants to resolve the She'eilah from the Beraisa of 'Hayah Tzur Yotzei min ha'Kosel', whose Shechitah is Pasul - which clearly goes according to Rebbi.

àáì ÷ùä, ãäéëé îöé ìàå÷åîé îúðéúéï ëøáé çééà, äà ôñåì öôåøï áîçåáøú, ãîúðéúéï àôéìå ãéòáã, ãáîçåáøú îå÷é ìä ì÷îï?

(j)

Question: How can one possibly establish the Mishnah like Rebbi Chiya, seeing as the Mishnah declares Pasul a finger-nail that is still attached (even Bedi'eved, which is how we establish the Mishnah later)?

åà'îàé ãäåä áòé ìàå÷åîé ìòéì îúðéúéï ëøáé çééà, ìà ÷ùéà, ãìà ÷ééîà îñ÷ðà äëé.

(k)

Refuted Question: According to our earlier suggestion that the Mishnah goes like Rebbi Chiya however, the Kashya falls away, since we do not remain with that suggestion.

6)

TOSFOS DH AMAR SHMUEL LO SHANU ELA SHE'HA'SAKIN LEMA'ALAH ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä àîø ùîåàì ìà ùðå àìà ùäñëéï ìîòìä ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the ramifications of the implication that it is only Kasher Bedi'eved).

îùîò ãàôéìå áëé äàé âååðà, ìà îëùø àìà áãéòáã; ã'àáøééúà ã'ðòõ ñëéï' ÷àé, åìà àääéà ã'áëì ùåçèéï áéï áúìåù áéï áîçåáø' ...

(a)

Clarification: This implies that even in such a case, it is Kasher only Bedi'eved, seeing as it is referring to the Beraisa of 'Na'atz Sakin', and not to that of 'ba'Kol Shochtin bein be'Talush bein bi'Mechubar' ...

åàí ëï, áöåàø áäîä ìîòìä åñëéï ìîèä ÷à ôñåì àôéìå áãéòáã.

(b)

Inference: In which case, there where the neck of the animal is on top and the knife below, it is Pasul even Bedi'eved.

å÷ùä, ãàí ëï, äåä ìéä ìîéîø 'çééùéðï ùîà ãøñ', ëéåï ãàúà ìôñåì ãéòáã?

(c)

Question: If so, the Gemara ought to have said 'Shema Daras' (rather than 'Shema Yidros') seeing as it comes to declare it Pasul even Bedi'eved?

åéù ìåîø, ãàôéìå àîø 'áøé ìé ùìà ãøñúé', ôñåìä ùîà éãøåñ ôòí àçøú.

(d)

Answer: Even if the Shochet declares that he definitely did not make Derisah, it is Pasul because he may be Doreis the next time.

åëäàé âååðà àîøéðï âáé 'äùåçè áîâì ÷öéø ãøê äìéëúä, áéú äìì îëùéøéï' åàîø øáé éåçðï 'àó áéú äìì ìà äëùéøå àìà ìèäøä îéãé ðáìä' àáì áàëéìä àñåøä, àó òì âá ãìà ùçè àìà ãøê äìéëúä, ãâæøéðï æéîðà àçøéúé ùîà éåìéê åéáéà.

(e)

Precedent: In similar vein, Beis Hillel rule with regard to someone who Shechts with a sickle whilst it is walking, that his Shechitah is Kasher, which Rebbi Yochanan restricts to being Metaher from Tum'as Neveilah. It may not however, be eaten, even though he Shechted whilst it was walking (which is subject to Derisah), because we decree when it is walking on account of another time where he makes Holachah and Hova'ah (on the animal's neck).

7)

TOSFOS DH SHE'BI'TECHILAH NE'ESAR LAHEM BASAR TA'AVAH

úåñ' ã"ä ùáúçìä ðàñø ìäí áùø úàåä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos argues with Rashi over the source that forbids Basar Ta'avah until they entered Eretz Yisrael).

ôéøù á÷åðèøñ, îãëúéá (åé÷øà éæ) "àùø éùçè îçåõ ìîçðä åàì ôúç àäì îåòã ìà äáéàå".

(a)

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that we learn this from the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos " (Vayikra, 17) ... 'Someone who Shechts outside the camp and does not bring it to the entrance of the Ohel Mo'ed".

å÷ùä, ãääåà ÷øà ìà àééøé àìà á÷ãùéí åáùçåèé çåõ?

(b)

Question #1: But that Pasuk is talking about Shechting Kodshim outside the Azarah?

åì÷îï ðîé, ã÷àîø 'àìà ìøáé éùîòàì ãàîø áùø úàåä àéúñø ìäå', öáé åàéì âåôééäå îé äåé ùøé? äà ôùéèà ãääåà ÷øà ìà àééøé àìà á÷øáï áäîä?

(c)

Question #2: Later on too, when the Gemara asks whether, according to Rebbi Yishmael who says that Basar Ta'avah (ordinary Chulin meat) was forbidden to them (Yisrael in the Desert), Tzvi and Ayal were permitted, is it not obvious that this Pasuk is speaking specifically about an animal that is fit to be brought as a Korban (See Maharam)?

åðøàä ìôøù, îãàéöèøéê ÷øà ìäúéø ìäí áùø úàåä, ãéé÷ îëìì ãîòé÷øà àñåø.

(d)

Explanation #2 (Part 1): It therefore seems that the fact that the Torah later found it necessary to permit Basar Ta'avah implies that it must initially have been forbidden.

åîäàé èòîà ãéé÷ ðîé øáé ò÷éáà ùáúçìä äåúø ìäí áùø ðçéøä, îãàéöèøéê ÷øà ìàñåø.

(e)

Explanation #2 (Part 2): And by the same token, Rebbi Akiva extrapolates that Basar Nechirah (that is torn open without being Shechted) was permitted, since it required a Pasuk to forbid it.