1)

TOSFOS DH EIZEHU KLI SHE'TUM'ASO KODEMES L'PISCHO HEVEI OMER ZEH KLI CHERES

úåñ' ã"ä àéæäå ëìé ùèåîàúå ÷åãîú ìôúçå äåé àåîø æä ëìé çøñ

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains what would have been had the Torah not written "Pasu'ach").

àáì àé ìà ëúéá "ôúåç", ò"ë äåä îå÷îéðï ìéä áëì äëìéí, åìà äåä éãòéðï îàé ìîéãøù î"äåà".

(a)

Clarification: Had it not written "Pasu'ach", we would have had to establish the Pasuk by all vessels, in which case we would not have known what to learn from "Hu".

2)

TOSFOS DH U'MAH KOL HA'KEILIM SHE'EIN MITAM'IN ME'AVIRAN ETC (belongs before previous Dibur).

úåñ' ã"ä åîä ëì äëìéí ùàéï îéèîàéï îàåéøï ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos presents the problems of learning K'lei Cheres and other Keilim from one another).

åà"ú, îä ìëì äëìéí ùëï ðòùéï àá äèåîàä!

(a)

Question (Part 1): But surely all vessels are different, inasmuch as they can become an Av ha'Tum'ah?

åáñîåê ðîé ãòáã ÷"å àéôëà, ùéäå ëì äëìéí îéèîàéï îàåéø - àéëà ìîéôøê 'îä ìëìé çøñ ùëï àéï ìå èäøä áî÷åä'?

(b)

Question (Part 2): And when the Gemara shortly learns the reverse Kal va'Chomer - that all vessels ought to receive Tum'ah via their air, we can likewise ask that earthenware vessels are different inasmuch as they are not subject to Taharah in a Mikvah.

åé"ì, ãìàå îëç ëìé òáéã ÷"å, àìà îëç âá åàåéø.

(c)

Answer: The Kal va'Chomer is not regarding learning one type of K'li from another, but of learning the Dinim of the outside and the air from one another.

åîéäå ìîàé ãôøéùéú ìòéì, ãäàé ÷"å äåé ëîå îä îöéðå, ãìà ú÷ùä ëì çã åçã úé÷åí àãåëúéä ÷ùä ...

(d)

Reservation (Part 1): But according to what Tosfos wrote above however, that this Kal va'Chomer is really more like a Mah Matzinu - to avoid asking that one should leave each one as it is and decline to learn one from the other, there is a Kashya ...

ãáîä îöéðå ìéëà ìîéìó ìéúï äàîåø ùì æä áæä - ãàéëà ìîéôøê ëãôøéùéú?

(e)

Reservation (Part 2): ... in that we cannot apply a Mah Matzinu here, to apply what is written by one to the other - since there is a Pircha (as we just explained).

åéù ìåîø, ëãôøéùéú ìòéì, ùéù ëàï ùåí ñáøà ìòùåú ÷"å àçã éåúø îàçø.

(f)

Answer #1: As we answered above, we must say that there is a S'vara to learn the Kal va'Chomer one way more than the other (see Tosfos 23b, end of DH 'u'Sehei').

åòåã, äàé ÷"å ãäëà ìà ð÷èéä ëìì àìà ìøååçà ãîéìúà, ãáñúí ëìéí ëúéá èåîàú îâò àó îâáï, "åëì äëìé àùø éâò áå äæá éèîà", ãîäéëà ðîòè ëìé çøñ?

(g)

Answer #2 (Part 1): ... and besides, the Gemara only mentioned the current Kal va'Chomer as an extra, seeing as by S'tam Keilim the Torah specifically writes Tum'as Maga, even from the outside, as it states "And every vessel that a Zav touches shall become Tamei" (see Mesoras ha'Shas); and from where will we preclude K'lei Cheres? ...

åìùàø ëìéí ãéìôéðï èåîàú àåéø î÷"å, äééðå îëç âá åàåéø; åìäëé àéöèøéê 'úåëå ùì æä åìà úåëå ùì àçø'.

(h)

Answer #2 (Part 2): ... and as for other Keilim, whose Tum'as Avir we learn from a Kal va'Chomer, that we learn by means of the outside and the air from one another, which is why we need the D'rashah 'Tocho shel Zeh ve'Lo Tocho shel Acher'.

3)

TOSFOS DH V'YIH'YU KOL HA'KEILIM MITAM'IN ME'AVIRAN MI'KAL V'CHOMER

úåñ' ã"ä åéäéå ëì äëìéí îéèîàéï îàåéøï î÷"å

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Pasuk "ve'Chol K'li Pasu'ach" is confined to K'lei Cheres exclusively).

åàí úàîø, àí ëï ìà ìéèîà îâáï; ãäùúà îéúå÷îà áëåìäå ÷øà ã"ëì ëìé ôúåç", ãáëåìí èåîàä ÷åãîú ìôúçï?

(a)

Question: In that case, they will not become Tamei from the outside, since then the Pasuk of "Kol K'li Pasu'ach" will be talking about all Keilim, seeing as they too, now belong to the category of 'Tum'ah Kodemes le'Pischeihem'.

åé"ì, ãî"î ìà îå÷îéðï ìéä àìà áëìé çøñ, ãëúéá áéä èåîàú àåéø áäãéà.

(b)

Answer: We will nevertheless, establish the Pasuk by K'lei Cheres exclusively, where the Torah writes Tum'as Avir explicitly.

4)

TOSFOS DH V'CHAD L'GEZEIRAH SHAVAH

úåñ' ã"ä åçã ìâæéøä ùåä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how "Tocho" is Mufneh).

îåôðéú äéà, ãäåä îöé ìîëúá "åëì àùø éôåì îäí áå, ëì àùø áå".

(a)

Clarification: It is Mufneh, because it could have written "ve'Chol asher Yipol meihem bo, kol asher bo".

5)

TOSFOS DH V'AFILU K'LI SHETEF MATZIL

úåñ' ã"ä åàôéìå ëìé ùèó îöéì

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the significance of 'even').

ôéøù á÷åðèøñ ãìà îéáòéà ëìé çøñ, ãàéï îéèîà îâáå, àìà àôéìå ëìé ùèó ãîéèîà îâáå, îöéì ...

(a)

Explanation #1 (Part 1): Rashi explains that it is unnecessary to mention K'lei Cheres which are not subject to Tum'ah from the outside, but even other Keilim which are ... save from Tum'ah, too ...

ùâí ëìé ùèó àéðå î÷áì èåîàä îàåéø ëìé çøñ, ëãàîøéðï áôñçéí (ãó ë.).

(b)

Explanation #1 (Part 2): ... since other Keilim do not receive Tum'ah from the air of a K'li Cheres either, like we learned in Pesachim (Daf 20a).

å÷ùä ìôéøåùå, ãàí ëï îä çéãåù éù áëìé ùèó éåúø îáëìé çøñ?

(c)

Question #1: In that case, what is the Chidush by other Keilim more than by K'lei Cheres?

åòåã, ãàéëà çéãåù éåúø áëìé çøñ îáëìé ùèó - ëâåï àí ùøõ áàåéø ëìé çøñ ôðéîé, åàåëìéï áëìé çøñ çéöåï, ãèäåø, àó ò"ô ùäôðéîé èîà, ãäåé øáåúà èôé îáëìé ùèó, ãàéðå î÷áì èåîàä îàåéø.

(d)

Question #2: Moreover, there is a bigger Chidush by K'lei Cheres more than by other Keilim - where for example, there is a Sheretz inside the air of the inner K'li Cheres, and there is food in the outer one, that food is Tahor even though the inner K'li is Tamei; which is a bigger Chidush than other Keilim, which do not receive Tum'ah from the air of a K'li Cheres?

åðøàä ìôøù, ã÷øà àöèøéê ìëìé ùèó àó òì âá ãìàå îéðéä äåà, îçøéá áéä, àáì ëìé çøñ ãîéðéä äåà, áìàå ÷øà éãòéðï ãçåöõ, åîçøéá áéä.

(e)

Explanation #2: It therefore seems that we need a Pasuk for other Keilim, to teach us that even though it is not the same species, it nevertheless stops the Tum'ah; whereas K'lei Cheres, which is the same species, we would know anyway that it interrupts and stops the Tum'ah.

åëï îåëç áùîòúà ÷îééúà ãæáçéí (ãó â:) - ãôøéê 'åîé àîø øáà çèàú ùùçèä òì îé ùîçåééá çèàú ôñåìä, òì îé ùîçåééá òåìä ëùøä?' àìîà, ãîéðä îçøéá áä, ãìà îéðä ìà îçøéá áä.

(f)

Proof (Part 1): And this is evident in the first Sugya in Zevachim (3b) where the Gemara asks 'And did Rava say that a Chatas that one Shechted on behalf of someone who is Chayav to bring ... a Chatas is Pasul, ... an Olah, is Kasher? So we see that the same species does stop it; but that a different species, doesn't.

åäúðéà 'àôéìå ëìé ùèó îöéì?'

(g)

Proof (Part 2): And, in answer to the Kashya from the Beraisa 'that even other vessels save from Tum'ah' ...

åîùðé, 'äúí âìé ÷øàé, ãàøáòä "úåëå" ëúéáé.

(h)

Proof (Part 3): ... it answers that for that we have a Pasuk, since the Torah writes four times "Tocho" (one of them to teach us "Tocho", 've'Lo Toch Tocho", which teaches us even other vessels).

6)

TOSFOS DH L'HATIACH B'TUNES

úåñ' ã"ä ìäèéç áèåðñ

(SUMMARY: Tosfos reconciles this Beraisa with the Sugya in Sanhedrin, which gives the stage of Kabalas Tum'ah as when they have been smoothened with fish-skin).

ä÷ùä ø"ú, ãáô' ùðé ãñðäãøéï (ã' ë:) àîø 'ëìé òõ îàéîúé î÷áìéí èåîàä? äòøéñä åäîèä îùéùåôí áòåø äãâ'?

(a)

Question: In the second Perek of Sanhedrin (Daf 20b) the Gemara asks from when wooden vessels are subject to Tum'ah, and it answers 'a cot and a bed from the time that one smoothens them with a fish-skin'?

åúéøõ, ãùéôä ãäúí äééðå ìäñéø àú ä÷ñîéí äâãåìéí ùîæé÷éï ìéùá òìéä; àáì ùôééä ãäëà àéðä àìà ìðåé áòìîà ,ìäçìé÷å åìöçöçå.

(b)

Answer: The smoothening there is to remove the large splinters that can wound or hurt a person who sits on them; whereas the smoothening in our Sugya is merely for looks, to make it smooth and shiny.

25b----------------------------------------25b

7)

TOSFOS DH MAI SH'NA HANI ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä îàé ùðà äðé ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Kashya must refer to 'Golmei K'lei Eitz and not to P'shutei K'lei Eitz).

à'âåìîééäå ÷àé ...

(a)

Clarification (Part 1): This refers to 'Gulmei K'lei Eitz' (that are not yet completed) ...

ãôùåèééäå ôùéèà ãëìé òõ äåà ãàéú÷ù ìù÷.

(b)

Clarification (Part 2): ... because as far as Peshutei K'lei Eitz are concerned, it is obvious that they are Tahor, since they are compared to a sack (which is a receptacle).

8)

TOSFOS DH MI'CHLAL D'CHLI ETZEM MEKABEL TUM'AH

úåñ' ã"ä îëìì ãëìé òöí î÷áìé èåîàä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos establishes this by Tum'ah d'Oraysa).

îãàåøééúà ÷à áòé ìàúåéé, ãäà ôùéèà ùéù áäï èåîàä îãøáðï ...

(a)

Clarification: The Gemara is trying to incorporate them into Tum'ah d'Oraysa, because it is obvious that they are subject to Tum'ah de'Rabbanan ...

ãîúðéúéï äéà áîñëú ëìéí (ô"á î"à), åîééúé ìä áô"÷ ãùáú (ãó èæ.) 'ëìé òõ åëìé æëåëéú åëìé òöí ôùåèéäï èäåøéï åî÷áìéäï èîàéï'.

(b)

Source: ... as we learned in the Mishnah in the second Perek in Keilim (Mishnah 1), which is cited by the Gemara in the first Perek of Shabbos (16a) 'Flat vessels made of wood, glass and bone are Tahor; receptacles are Tamei'.

9)

TOSFOS DH SH'AR BEHEIMAH V'CHAYAH MINAYIN TALMUD LOMAR VECHOL MA'ASEH

úåñ' ã"ä ùàø áäîä åçéä îðéï ú"ì åëì îòùä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara needs two Pesukim, one here and one in Shabbos [regarding objects made of hair).

åàí úàîø, ãáôø÷ áîä àùä (ùáú ãó ñã.) ãøéù ãáø äáà îæðá äñåñ åîæðá äôøä î"áâã åòåø". úéôå÷ ìéä î"åëì"?

(a)

Question: In Perek Bamah Ishah (Shabbos 64a), the Gemara learns something that is made from the tail of a horse or a cow from "Beged ve'Or". How come that we do not already know that from "ve'Chol"?

åé"ì, ãàéï ìøáåú î"åëì" àìà òöîåú ùãåîéï æä ìæä - ùì òæéí åùì áäîä, àáì áùòø ìà ãîå.

(b)

Answer: From "ve'Chol", we can only include bones and the like, which are similar to each other - the bones of goats and of other animals, but not hair, which bears no resemblance to them).

åàí úàîø, åäëà úéôå÷ ìéä îäúí - î"áâã åòåø"?

(c)

Question: Why here do we not learn from "Beged ve'Or", like we do there?

åé"ì, ãìà éãòéðï àìà ãåîéà ãáâã åòåø.

(d)

Answer: We only know things that are similar to "Beged ve'Or".

10)

TOSFOS DH ZEH V'ZEH L'PETUR

úåñ' ã"ä æä åæä ìôèåø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos queries Rashi's explanation of 'Zeh va'Zeh li'Petur' and ' ... le'Chiyuv' and interprets it differently).

ôéøåù - 'îøéí áéï âãåìéí åáéï ÷èðéí': 'âãåìéí', îôðé ùîøéí áéåúø, å'÷èðéí' îôðé ùìà ðâîøå.

(a)

Explanation #1 (Part 1): This refers to 'Marim, bein Gedolim u'bein Ketanim': 'the large ones', because they are particularly bitter; 'the small ones', because they are not yet ripe.

'åàîøé ìä æä åæä ìçéåá' - âãåìéí, îôðé ùðâîøå, ÷èðéí ìôé ùèåáéí éåúø.

(b)

Explanation #1 (Part 2): 'Others say both are Chayav' - 'the large ones', because they are ripe; 'the small ones, because they are exceptionally good-tasting.

åôéøåù ä÷åðèøñ ãçå÷ - ãôéøù 'æä åæä ìôèåø', ÷èðéí îøéí åîúå÷éí, 'æä åæä ìçéåá'; âãåìéí îøéí åîúå÷éí.

(c)

Refutation of Explanation #2: Rashi's explanation (that 'both are Patur' refers to the small ones, both bitter and sweet - and 'both are Chayav' - to the large ones, both bitter and sweet), is forced

åäùúà ìà äåéà îòðéï àçã.

(d)

Reason #1: Since, firstly, they (the two Leshonos) are not speaking about the same thing?

åòåã, ãëé áòé 'âãåìéí ìîàé çæå?' äåé ìéä ìôøåùé 'âãåìéí îøéí', ëéåï ãàééøé ðîé áîúå÷éí.

(e)

Reason #2: And secondly, when the Gemara asks what purpose the large ones serve, it should have specified 'the large bitter ones, seeing as it is speaking about sweet ones too?

11)

TOSFOS DH HA'TEMED

úåñ' ã"ä äúîã ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos queries Rashi's translation of Temed and translates it differently).

ôéøù á÷åðèøñ, îéí äðúðéí áçøöðéí.

(a)

Explanation #1: Rashi translates 'Temed' as water that has been added to the grape-pits.

åðøàä ãîééøé áîéí äðúðéí áùîøéí ...

(b)

Explanation #2: It seems however, that it refers to water that has been added to the dregs ...

ãåîéà ã'äîúîã åðúï îéí áîãä', ãîééúé òìä áâîøà, ãîééøé ãðúðéí áùîøéí, ëãîùîò áôø÷ äîåëø ôéøåú (á"á öæ.).

(c)

Reason: Similar to the case that the Gemara cites in connection with it 'ha'Metamed, ve'Nasan Mayim be'Midah', which is speaking about adding water to the dregs, as the Gemara implies in Perek ha'Mocher Peiros (Bava Basra 97a) ...

åàéðí ùåéí ìâîøé, ëãîùîò áô' àìå òåáøéï (ôñçéí îá:).

(d)

Conclusion: ... and the two are not the same, as is implied in Perek Eilu Ovrin (Pesachim 42b).

12)

TOSFOS DH U'POSEL ES HA'MIKVEH

úåñ' ã"ä åôåñì àú äî÷åä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why this can only be speaking about a Mikvah that is lacking).

äééðå î÷åä çñø ...

(a)

Clarification (Part 1): This is speaking about a Mikvah that is lacking (forty Sa'ah) ...

àáì ùìí àéðå ðôñì áùåí òðéï ...

(b)

Clarification (Part 2): Because a complete Mikvah does not become Pasul under any circumstances ...

ëãôéøùðå áôø÷ äîåëø àú äáéú (á"á ãó ñå: ã"ä îëìì).

(c)

Source: As we explained in 'ha'Mocher es ha'Bayis' (Bava Basra 66: DH mi'Chelal').

13)

TOSFOS DH HA'MITAMED V'NASAN MAYIM B'MIDAH

úåñ' ã"ä äîúîã åðúï îéí áîãä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos elaborates on the opinion of the Chachamim).

åàí úàîø, åìå÷îéä áøîå úìúà åàúà àøáòä?

(a)

Question: Why does the Gemara not establish the Beraisa where he added three Lugin and four emerged?

åéù ìåîø, ãìëåìé òìîà çééá, àôéìå ìà äçîéõ.

(b)

Answer: Because then, everybody would agree that it is Chayav (Ma'aser), even if it did not turn sour.

åàí úàîø, åîàé èòîà ãøáðï ãôèøé ùîøéí ùéù áäí èòí ééï, åàó òì âá ùìà äçîéõ; åäìà ëì àéñåø ùáúåøä ùìà áîéðå áðåúï èòí, åèáì çîåø ìòðéï îéðå?

(c)

Question #1: Why do the Rabbanan exempt the dregs which taste like wine, even though it did not turn sour, bearing in mind that all Isurim in the Torah which are of a different species render forbidden when they give taste, and Tevel is more stringent regarding 'be'Mino')?

åòåã ùàôéìå áäçîéõ ôåèøéï çëîéí - ìîàï ãàîø 'áäçîéõ îçìå÷ú', åàôéìå áèáì åãàé àééøé ...

(d)

Question #2: Furthermore, according to the opinion that they are arguing over a case of 'Hichmitz', the Chachamim exempt even there, and the Beraisa is talking even about Tevel Vaday ...

ëãîùîò áô' äîåëø ôéøåú (á"á ãó öæ.)?

(e)

Source: ... as is implied in Perek ha'Mocher Peiros (Bava Basra 97a)?

åéù ìåîø, ãééï áîéí àôéìå áôçåú îùùéí, àôéìå øîà úìúà åàúà úìúà åôìâà, ìà çùéá èòí âîåø ìøáðï, ëáùàø àéñåøéï, ãäëà ìà äåé àìà ÷éåäà áòìîà.

(f)

Answer: According to the Rabbanan, when wine is mixed with water, even in less than sixty, and even if one added three Lugin and three and a half emerged, it is not considered a proper taste, as it is by other Isurin; rather they consider it mere Kiyuha (fruit-acid).

14)

TOSFOS DH I REBBI YEHUDAH AF AL GAV D'LO HICHMITZ

úåñ' ã"ä àé øáé éäåãä àó òì âá ãìà äçîéõ

(SUMMARY: Tosfos elaborates on the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah, and reconciles it with the Gemara in Bava Basra).

àó òì âá ãøáé éäåãä ìäçîéø àééøé - ìäúçééá áîòùø; åäëà ìä÷ì äåà - ãðé÷ç áëñó îòùø åàéï ôåñì àú äî÷åä?

(a)

Implied Question: Even though Rebbi Yehudah is stringent there - to obligate taking Ma'aser, whereas here he is the one who is lenient - to permit purchasing it with the money of Ma'aser, and that it does not render the Mikvah Pasul ...

÷ñáø äù"ñ ãìà ùðà.

(b)

Answer: ... the Gemara holds that there is no reason to differentiate.

å÷ùéà ìôéøåù øùá"í - ãáäîåëø ôéøåú (ãó öå:) âáé ôìåâúà ãàçøéí åøáðï á'áåøà ôøé äâôï' ...

1.

Question (Introduction): There is a Kashya on the explanation of the Rashbam in 'ha'Mocher Peiros (Bava Basra 96:), regarding the Machlokes between Acherim and the Rabbanan in connection with the B'rachah of 'Borei P'ri ha'Gafen'.

ã÷àîø äù"ñ ã'áøîà úìúà åàúà úìúà ìà ôìéâé àìà áøîà úìúà åàúà úìúà åôìâà' ...

2.

Sugya Bava Basra [Part 1]): The Gemara states there that if one places three Lugin and three emerge (K'dei Midaso) there is no Machlokes; and that they argue where one places three, and three and a half emerge.

åôøéê ìéä îäà ãôìéâé áëãé îãúå åìà éåúø; åîùðé, áéúø ðîé ôìéâé, å'ëãé îãúå' ãð÷è ìäåãéòê ëçå ãøáé éäåãä.

3.

Sugya Bava Basra [Part 2]): The Gemara then asks from our Beraisa, where they argue by K'dei Midaso, and it answers that in fact they argue by more than K'dei Midaso as well, and the reason that the Tana mentions 'K'dei Midaso is in order to teach us how far Rebbi Yehudah goes.

åäùúà ÷ùéà, ãîàé îùðé? ú÷ùé àîàé ìà îå÷é ðîé ôìåâúééäå ãøáðï åàçøéí áëãé îãúå, ëé äéëé ãôìéâé ø' éäåãä åøáðï?

4.

Question (Conclusion): The Kashya now is what exactly is the Gemara's answer? We can still ask why the Gemara does not establish the Machlokes between the Rabbanan and Acherim by K'dei Midaso, just like it establishes the Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabbanan?

åúéøõ ùí øùá"í, ãøáé éäåãä ãîçééá áëãé îãúå, äééðå ìçåîøà.

5.

Refuted Answer: The Rashbam answers there that when Rebbi Yehudah is Mechayev by K'dei Midaso, that is only because he goes le'Chumra.

åàé àôùø ìåîø ëï, ëãîùîò äëà?

6.

Refutation: But it is impossible to say that, as we just explained.

åöøéê ìôøù ãâîøà ñ"ì ëøáðï, ãôèøé áëãé îãúå, åîå÷é àçøéí åøáðï ëøáðï ãøáé éäåãä.

7.

Answer #2: We must therefore say that the Gemara there holds like the Rabbanan, who rule leniently by K'dei Midaso, and it establishes both Ahcerim and the Rabbanan like the Rabbanan of Rebbi Yehudah.

àé ðîé, îùîò ìéä ãøáé éäåãä îçééá îãàåøééúà áøîà úìúà åàúà úìúà åôìâà, ìëê îçîéø îãøáðï áëãé îãúå.

8.

Answer #3 (Part 1): Alternatively, the Gemara understands that Rebbi Yehudah considers where one added three Lugin and three and a half emerged Chayav mi'd'Oraysa; consequently, he is Machmir mi'de'Rabbanan by K'dei Midaso.

åîúðéúéï áøîà úìúà åàúà úìúà åôìâà.

9.

Answer #3 (Part 2): ... whereas our Mishnah is speaking where he added three and three and a half emerged (where it is subject to Ma'asros mi'd'Oraysa).