1)

TOSFOS DH KODERES

úåñôåú ã"ä ëåãøú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses Rashi's reading and translation of the word.)

ôé' ä÷åðè' 'ëëãåø ôìåè"à áìòæ'.

(a)

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that it is (round) like an egg.

îùîò ãâøñ 'ëåãøú áøé"ù', ãëãåø ùäåà ôìåè"à àçøåðä áøé"ù, ëãàîø áçâéâä (ãó â) "ãáøé çëîéí ëãøáåðåú" - 'ëëãåø ùì áðåú'.

1.

Text: This implies that he reads the word 'Koderes' with a 'Reish', since the last letter of 'Kadur' meaning a ball, is a 'Reish'

åîäà ãëúéá (éùòéä ëá) "öðåó éöðôê [öðôä] ëãåø àì àøõ øçáú éãéí", åôé' ùí á÷åðèøñ 'ôìåè"à' ...

(b)

Suggested Proof: Rashi translates the Pasuk in Yeshayah (22) "Tzanfah *Kadur* el Eretz Rachavas Yadayim" as " ... he will ... hurl you *like a ball* to a spacious land".

àéï øàéä îùí, ãà"ë äåä ìéä ìîéîø 'ëëãåø'

1.

Refutation: But there is no proof from there, since the Pasuk ought then to have written 'ke'Kadur' (with an extra "Kaf").

àìà àåîø ø"ú ã'ëó' ùéîåù äåà - ëâø ùäåìê åâåìä àì àøõ øçáú éãéí áî÷åí ùàéï îëéøéí àåúå. "ãåø" ëîå (úäìéí ôã) âø - "î'ãåø áàäìé øùò".

(c)

Alternative Interpretation: Rabeinu Tam therefore explains that the "Kaf" there is a prefix ("ka'Dur") meaning like a Ger (a stranger) who is exiled to a spacious land where nobody knows him. "Dur" is like "Ger", as we find in Tehilim (84) "Mi Dur be'Ohalei Resha" - 'Who will live in the tents of the wicked?'

åáñåó ôø÷ àéï îòîéãéï (ò"æ ãó î.) âøéñ á÷åðè' 'ëåããú' - áãì"ú, åôéøù òâåìä ëëã.

(d)

Explanation #2: And at the end of Perek Ein Ma'amidin (Avodh-Zarah 40.) Rashi has the text 'Kodedes' (with a 'Daled'), which he explains as 'Round like a jar'.

2)

TOSFOS DH SIMANIN LA'AV D'ORAYSA

úåñôåú ã"ä ñéîðéï ìàå ãàåøééúà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos first goes into the question of whether the Simanim of Ubrei Dagim are d'Oraysa or not, and why we tend to rely on Simnei Beitzim nowadays. Then he discusses Bishul Akum with regard to eggs.)

àåîø ø"ú ããå÷à ñéîðé áéöéí, îùåí ãàéëà ãòåøá ããîå ìãéåðä; àáì ñéîðé òåáøé ãâéí ãàåøééúà, åéù ìñîåê òìéäí ...

(a)

Explanation #1: Rabeinu Tam confines this ruling to the Simanim of eggs, since the eggs of an Oreiv resemble those of a dove; But the Simanim of the fish's embryo are d'Oraysa, and one may rely on them.

ëãàîø ñåó ôø÷ àéï îòîéãéï (ò"æ ãó î. åùí) ãàîø øá, '÷øáé ãâéí àéï ð÷çéï àìà îï äîåîçä'. åôøéê 'ì"ì îåîçä'. ìáãå÷ áñéîðéï, ãúðéà - 'ëñéîðé áéöéí ... '? åîùðé, 'ùðéîåçå'.

(b)

Source: As we say at the end of 'Ein Ma'amidin' (Avodah-Zarah Daf 40. & 40:), where the Gemara queries Rav who said that the innards of fish may only be purchased from an expert, why one cannot simply examine them, since they are the same as the Simanim of eggs, as we learned in a Beraisa? To which the Gemara answers that it is speaking where they melted ...

åìà îùðé 'ñéîðéí ìàå ãàåøééúà'.

1.

Source (cont.): It does not answer that Simanim are not d'Oraysa.

åëé úéîà, îùåí ãîùîò ìéä ãáëì òðéï àéï ðé÷çéï àìà îï äîåîçä, àôéìå àîø ùì ãâ ôìåðé åèäåø, ãàæ äéä øàåé ìñîåê òìéå.

(c)

Implied Question: And if you want to say that this is because the Gemara understands that in any case, one may only purchase them from an expert, even if he says that they come from such and such a fish, which is Tahor, in which case one would be able to rely on him ...

ãòì ëøçê ìà àééøé áëì òðéï, ãáàåîø 'îìçúéí', ð÷çéí àó ùìà îï äîåîçä.

(d)

Answer: It cannot be speaking specifically in one case, because if he claims that he salted them, then they can be purchased even from someone who is not an expert.

åòì æä àðå ñåîëéí ìàëåì àåúï ãâéí ù÷åøéï áøáè"à áìò"æ.

(e)

Conclusion: And we rely on this (ruling) to eat the fish that is called 'Barb'ta' (in old French [which has no scales])

åàôéìå ìà éãòéðï àí ðùøå ä÷ù÷ùéï áùòä ùòåìä îï äîéí, ñîëéðï à'ñéîðé òåáøé ãâéí.

1.

Conclusion (cont.): Even though we do not know whether it sheds its scales when it comes out of the Sea. Nevertheless, we rely on the Simanim of the fish's embryo.

åîéäå áéøåùìîé îùîò ãàéï ìñîåê òì ñéîðé òåáøé ãâéí ...

(f)

Refutation: The Yerushalmi however implies that we cannot rely on the Simanim of the fish's embryo.

ãâøñé' äúí 'ðúï áø àáà ÷í ÷îéä ãùîåàì, àîø "éãòðà îôøùà áéï òåáøé ãâéí èäåøéí ìòåáøé ãâéí èîàéí; òåáøé ãâéí èîàéí òâåìéí, òåáøé ãâéí èäåøéí àøåëéí".

1.

Refutation (cont.): As the text there reads 'Nasan bar Aba stood before Shmuel and said 'I know how to distinguish between the embryo of Tahor fish and that of Tamei fish- The latter are round, the former elongated.

àçæé ìéä äãà ùìôåúà - àîø ìéä "ëæä îäå?" à"ì "èîà". àîø ìéä, "ìà áéù ìé ãàîøú òì èäåø, èîà, àìà ñåôê ìåîø òì èîà èäåø" '.

2.

Refutation (cont): When he (Shmuel) showed him the bladder of a fish and asked him about its Kashrus, he replied that it was Tamei. Shmuel retorted that although there was no harm per se in declaring something that is Tahor, Tamei, only that next he would rule that something that is Tamei is Tahor.

àìîà, àéï áåã÷éï áñéîðéï, ëãäãø ìéä ùîåàì ìðúï áø àáà.

3.

Refutation (cont): So we see that is not permitted to examine te Simanim, as Shmuel pointed out to Nasan bar Aba.

åîùîò àôé' òì ñéîðé äáøééúà àéï ìñîåê, îãìà àîø ìå ùéáãå÷ áñéîðé äáøééúà.

4.

Refutation (cont): And it implies that one cannot even rely on the Simanim that are listed in the Beraisa ...

åâí îä ùàîø ðúï áø àáà - äï ñéîðé äáøééúà.

(g)

Moreover: the Simanim mentioned by Nasan bar Aba are synonymous with those listed in the Beraisa.

åäù"ñ ãéãï äåä îöé ìùðåéé äëé, àìà ãùôéø ÷à îùðé.

(h)

Conclusion: The Gemara too (in Avodah-Zarah) could have given the same answer, but it answered the Kashya satisfactorily.

åîä ùàðå ìå÷çéï îï äòåáãé ëåëáéí áéöéí, àò"ô ùàéðí àåîøéí ùì òåó ôìåðé, åèäåøéí äí ...

(i)

Implied Question: And the reason that we purchase eggs from the Nochrim, even though they do specifically inform us that they come from such and such a bird, and are therefore Tahor?

àðå ñåîëéí òì øåá áéöéí ùîöåééï áéðéðå, ãùì òåôåú èäåøéí äí.

(j)

Answer: We rely on the fact that majority of eggs that are found among us are those of Tahor birds.

åîä ùàðå ìå÷çéí îï äòåáãé ëåëáéí àåáìéà"ù å÷ðèéà"ù ùðéìåùå ááéöéí, àò"â ãàñøé' äëà ìé÷ç îäí áéöéí èøåôåú á÷òøä?

(k)

Implied Question: And the reason that we purchase a sort of spiced dough that has been kneaded with eggs, even though our Sugya forbids purchasing from them eggs that have ben scrambled in a dish?

ìà ãîéà, ãäëà àéëà øéòåúà îãæáéï ìäå òåáã ëåëáéí èøåôåú á÷òøä, ù"î ãîåëçà îéìúà ãéùøàì îëøí ìå ìôé ùäéå ùì èøôä ...

(l)

Answer: They are not comparable. since in our case, seeing as the Nochri is selling them scrambled ... , it is evident that a Yisrael sold them to him because they are from a T'reifah bird ...

àáì òéñä ùðìåùä ááéöéí, ìà çééùéðï, åàæìéðï áúø øåá áéöéí ùàéðï ùì èøéôåú ...

1.

Answer (cont.): Which we need not suspect by a dough that is kneaded with eggs. Consequently, we go after the majority of eggs, which are not T'reifos.

åìà çééùéðï ùîà äéä áäí ãí, ãøåá áéöéí àéï áäí ãí.

(m)

Moreover: We do not suspect that perhaps the eggs contained blood, seeing as the majority of eggs do not contain blood.

åîòùéí áëì éåí ùàðå àåëìéï áéöéí îâåìâìåú, àò"ô ùàéï éëåìåú ìéáã÷.

1.

Conclusion: It is a daily occurrence that we eat scrambled eggs (of Nochrim) even though it is not possible to examine them.

åîéäå ø"ú äéä àåñø ìé÷ç îï äòåáãé ëåëáéí àåáìéà"ù å÷ðèéà"ù îùåí áùåìé òåáãé ëåëáéí ...

(n)

Another Opinion: Rabeinu Tam however, forbids purchasing a dough that is kneaded with eggs from a Nochri because of Bishul Nochri ...

àò"â ãàîø áéøåùìîé ãôú ðîðå òìéå åäúéøåäå ...

(o)

Implied Question: Even though the Yerushalmi rules that the Chachamim took a count and permitted bread ...

ùàðé äëà ùðéìåùå ááéöéí åðàñøå îèòí ùì÷åú, ùìà äéä áëìì ääéúø ...

(p)

Answer: Here is different, because since it was kneaded with eggs, it becomes Asur because of cooked foods, which were not included in the concession of bread.

ãùúé âæéøåú äéå, ãâæøä ãôú îé"ç ãáø ãâæåø úìîéãé ùîàé åäìì, àáì âæøä ãùì÷åú ÷ãîä äøáä.

1.

Answer (cont.): In fact, there were two separate decrees; the decree on bread was one of eighteen decrees which the Talmidim of Shamai and Hillel enacted, whereas that of cooked food was a much earlier decree.

úãò îãáòé ìîéîø áñåó ôø÷ àéï îòîéãéï (ò"æ ãó ìæ:) ãäåéà îãàåøééúà, îãëúéá "àåëì áëñó úùáéøðé åàëìúé, åîéí áëñó úúï ìé åùúéúé" - 'îä îéí ùìà ðùúðå àó àåëì ùìà ðùúðä'.

2.

Proof: Seeing as the Gemara in Perek Ein Ma'amidin (Avodah-Zarah 37:) initially considers the latter d'Oraysa, based on the Pasuk "Ochel ba'Kesef Tashbireini va'Achlti, u'Mayim ba'Kesef Titein li ve'Shasisi" - 'Just as water has not changed, so too, food that has not changed (to preclude cooked food).

åìáñåó îñé÷ ã÷øà àñîëúà áòìîà äåà. åàé îé"ç ãáøéí äéúä, ìà äéä èåòä áä äù"ñ, ùéãåòåú ìëì äéå, ëãàîø áôø÷ àéï îòîéãéï (ùí ãó ìå.) - ùôùè àéñåøï áëì éùøàì.

3.

Proof (cont.): But it concludes that the Pasuk is merely an Asmachta. Now, if cooked food was from the eighteen decrees, the Gemara would never have erred in the first place, since those decrees were well-known to them, as the Gemara says in Perek Ein Ma'amidin (Avodah-Zarah 36.)

åîéäå ðøàä ãàò"â ãàîøéðï äìëä ëîàï ãàñø áéöéí îùåí áéùåìé òåáãé ëåëáéí áô' àéï îòîéãéï, ãúðéà ëååúéä ...

(q)

Halachah: It seems however, that even though the Gemara in 'Ein M'amidin' rules like the those who forbid eggs on account of Bishulei Akum, since they have the support of a Beraisa ...

îëì î÷åí òéñä ùðìåùä ááéöéí àéï ìàñåø, îùåí ã÷îçà òé÷ø - ëéåï ãîáøëéï òìéä 'äîåöéà ìçí îï äàøõ', åàðå ñåîëéï òì äéúø ãéøåùìîé ãôú.

(r)

Halachah (cont.): Nevertheless, we cannot forbid a dough that has been kneaded with eggs. This is because, based on the fact that we recite the B'rachah of 'ha'Motzi' over it, the flour is the Ikar - and we rely on the Yerushalmi's Heter regarding bread.

åàîøéðï áôø÷ àéï îòîéãéï (ùí ìç.) âáé ãâéí ÷èðéí îìåçéí: 'ãâéí àéï áäí îùåí áéùåìé òåáãé ëåëáéí; åàé òáãéðäå òåáã ëåëáéí ëñà ãäøñðà, éù áäí îùåí áéùåìé òåáãé ëåëáéí'.

(s)

Source: And we say in Perek Ein Ma'amidin (Ibid. 38.), regarding small salted fish, that fish are not subject to Bishul Akum; but that if a Nochri prepared them in the form of 'Kasa de'Hars'na' (small fish fried in flour), then it is.

åôøéê 'ôùéèà?' åîùðé 'îäå ãúéîà äøñðà òé÷ø, ÷î"ì ÷éîçà òé÷ø'.

1.

Source (cont.): And in reply to the question 'P'shita?', the Gemara answers that we might have thought that the fish is the main ingredient of the dish, so the Gemara needs to teach us that the flour is in fact, the main ingredient.

îùîò, ãàé äåä äøñðà òé÷ø, äéä îåúø, åàò"ô ùä÷îç îòåøá áå.

2.

Source (cont.): This implies that if the fish was the major ingredient, it would be permitted, even though the flour is mixed in it.

åîèòí æä àéï ìäúéø òéñä ùì ôùèéã"à ùì ãâéí ùàôàå òåáã ëåëáéí, ùäùåîï ãâéí äåà áòéï òì äòéñä, åâí îúçéìúå äåà ðàñø îùåí áéùåìé òåáãé ëåëáéí.

(t)

Exception: Based on this however, we cannot permit the dough of a fish pie that a Nochri baked. This is because the fish fat is actually visible on the dough, and was therefore forbidden due to Bishul Akum right from the beginning.

åìà ãîé ìòéñä ùðìåùä ááéöéí, ùäáéöä ðúáèìä îúçìä, åìà ðàñø îòåìí.

(u)

Reason: Nor can it be compared to the dough that was kneaded with eggs, where the eggs became Bateil right at the beginning, and never became Asur.

3)

TOSFOS DH SHE'IM RIKMAH VE'NIKVAH METAMEI BI'CH'ADASHAH

úåñôåú ã"ä ùàí øé÷îä åðé÷áä îèîà áëòãùä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses 'Nikvah'.)

ãåå÷à ðé÷áä, ëãúðï áôø÷ äòåø åäøåèá (ì÷îï ÷ëå:) ,áéöú ùøõ 'äîøå÷îú, èäåøä; ðé÷áä ëì ùäåà èîàä'.

(a)

Clarification: 'Nikvah' (that it became perforated is specific, as we learned in the Mishnah in 'ha'Or ve'ha'Rotev' (Daf 126:) 'The egg of a Sheretz which developed an embryo is Tahor; If it is holed however slightly, it is Tamei'.

4)

TOSFOS DH SHE'IM RIKMAH VE'ACHLAH LOKEH ALEHAH MISHUM SHERETZ

úåñôåú ã"ä ùàí øé÷îä åàëìä ìå÷ä òìéä îùåí ùøõ ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses when we say 'Kol ha'Yotzei min ha'Tamei Tamei and when we don't.)

åà"ú, ìàëéìä åìîì÷åú ì"ì 'øé÷îä', äà ÷éé"ì 'ëì äéåöà îï äèîà, èîà', ëãúðï áô"÷ ãáëåøåú (ãó ä:)?

(a)

Question #1: Regarding eating and Malkos, why do we need 'Rikmah', seeing as we anyway rule that 'Whatever emerges from something that it Tamei, is Tamei' (as we learned in the Mishnah in the first Perek of Bechoros)?

åîäàé èòîà àñøéðï äúí îé øâìéí ùì çîåø.

1.

Proof: Which is the reason that we forbid there the urine o a donkey.

åëï áñîåê, ããøéù 'áéöú èîàä ãàñéøà', îãëúéá 'åàú áú äéòðä', ì"ì.

(b)

Question #2: Similarly, when the Gemara will shortly Darshen from the Pasuk "ve'es Bas ha'Ya'anah" that eggs of a Tamei bird are Tamei, why do we need a Pasuk?

(åáä"â áäìëåú âéã äðùä îùîò - ã÷øà ã"áú äéòðä" ìà àéöèøéê ìâåôéä àìà ìîéã÷ îðéä 'äà ãòåó èäåø ùøéà' ...

(c)

The B'hag's Explanation: In Hilchos Gid ha'Nasheh, the B'hag implies that the Pasuk "Bas ha'Ya'anah" is not needed for itself, but rather to extrapolate from it that the egg of a Tahor bird is permitted.

ãñ"ã àîéðà ãàñéøà, îùåí ãìà àùëç îéãé ãàúé îçé åùøéà ...

1.

The B'hag's Explanation (cont.): We would otherwise have thought that it is forbidden, since we do not find anything that comes from a living creature that is permitted ...

ëãàîø áô"÷ ãáëåøåú (ãó å:), âáé 'çìá ùì áäîä èäåøä', ãáòé äúí ÷øà ìîùøé.

2.

The B'hag's Explanation (cont.): As the Gemara says in the first Perek of Bechoros (6:) with regard to the milk of a Tahor animal, for which we require a Pasuk to permit.

åàéï äìùåï îùîò ëï; ã÷àîø 'îðéï ìáéöú èîàä ùàñåøä?', åìà ÷àîø 'îðéï ìáéöú èäåøä ùîåúøú?'.

(d)

Refutation: This is not however, the implication o the Gemara, which asks 'From where do we know that the egg of a Tamei bird is Tamei?', and not 'From where do we know that the egg of a Tahor bird is permitted?'

åðøàä ìôøù ãáéöú òåó èäåø ðô÷à ìï ãùøé îããøùéðï ì÷îï (ãó ÷î.) âáé ùìåç ä÷ï 'ú÷ç ìê´- 'åìà ìëìáéê', ãîîòèéðï îéðéä òåó èäåø øåáõ òì áéöé òåó èîà.

(e)

Alternative Explanation: It therefore seems that the Heter to eat the egg of a Tahor bird we learn from the D'rashah later (Daf 140.) in connection with Shilu'ach ha'Kein "You shall take for yourself" - 'but not for your dogs'. from which we preclude a Tahor bird that it sitting on the eggs o a Tamei one.

åìäëé 'àöèøéê "áú äéòðä" ìàñåø áéöé òåó èîà, ãñ"ã ãùøå - îùåí ãìéëà îéãé ãàúé îçé åùøéä øçîðà; åäê áéöä ëé àáø îï äçé äéà, åùøéä øçîðà. äìëê äåéà ùøéà àôéìå áòåó èîà.

1.

Alternative Explanation (cont.): And we now need "Bas ha'Ya'anah to forbid the eggs of a Tamei bird, which we would have thought are permitted - because whereas there is nothing that comes from a living animal that the Torah permits, yet we find that it permits an egg, even though it is like Eiver min ha'Chi. Consequently, it should be permitted even if it comes from a Tamei bird.

åãéå÷à ã"ìê" - 'åìà ìëìáéê' ...

2.

Implied Question: And as for the inference "Lach" - 've'Lo li'Kelavecha' ...

äåä àå÷îéðï à'àôøåçéí èîàéí, àáì áéöéí, ìéùúøå.

3.

Answer: We would have established that with regard to chicks of Tamei birds - to permit their eggs.

ãëä"â ÷àîø áô"÷ ãáëåøåú (ãó å:) âáé 'çìá áäîä èîàä'.

4.

Proof: Like we say in the first Perek of Bechoros (6:) regarding the milk of a Tamei animal.

åäùúà ðéçà äà ãð÷è áéöú ùøõ ãå÷à øé÷îä àñéøà; åàé ìà øé÷îä, ùøéà, îèòí çéãåù, ëîå ãòåó èäåø ùáòåôåú äåà ãëúá ÷øà ã"áú äéòðä" åìà áùøõ.

(f)

Conclusion: And this explains why the Gemara needs to state that the egg of a Sheretz is Asur specifically if it is Rikmah, but otherwise it is permitted. This is due to the Chidush, in the same way as, with regard to the Tamei birds, the Torah writes "bas ha'Ya'anah", and not by Sheretz.

åîéäå ÷ùä, ëéåï ãáéöú äùøõ ìà éìôé îáéöú òåó èîà, ëì ùëï áéöú èøôä?

(g)

Question: If we do not learn (the Isur of) the egg of a Sheretz from the egg of a Tamei bird, then how much more so that of a T'reifah bird ...

åáøéù îñëú áéöä (ãó â:) îùîò ãàñéøà îãàåøééúà (åé"ì ãîñáøà).

1.

Question (cont.): Whereas at the beginning of Beitzah (3:) it implies that it (the egg of a T'reifah bird) is Asur min ha'Torah?

64b----------------------------------------64b

åé"ì, ãîñáøà ãòåó îòåó éìôéðï, àò"ô ùæä îéï äéúø.

(h)

Answer: It is logical to learn a bird from a bird, even though it is a Tahor species (that we are learning from a Tamei one).

àáì áéöú äùøõ, àãøáä, îñúáøà ãéìôéðï îèåîàä, ëããøùéðï ôø÷ äòåø åäøåèá (ì÷îï ÷ëå:) 'ìèåîàä áòéðï øé÷åí' - ëãëúéá "äùøõ". îä ùøõ øé÷í, àó áéöú ùøõ, ùøé÷í.

1.

Answer (cont.): Whereas, as far as the egg of a Sheretz is concerned, on the contrary, it is more logical to learn it from Tum'ah, like we Darshen in Perek ha'Or ve'ha'Rotev (Daf 126:) - ' "for Tum'ah we need Rikum, as the Torah writes "ha'Sheretz", just as a Sheretz has reached the stage of Rikum, so too must the egg of the Sheretz have'.

åùôéø éìôéðï àéñåø îèåîàä ...

(i)

Implied Question: And there is no problem in learning Isur from Tum'ah ...

ëéåï ãàùëçï áîñëú îòéìä ôø÷ ÷ãùé îæáç (ãó èæ:) ãîùåå ìäå ìòðéï áëòãùä.

(j)

Answer: Seeing as we find, that, in Maseches Me'ilah, in Perek Kodshei Mizbe'ach (16:) the Gemara equates them with regard to the Shi'ur of a k'Adashah (a lentil).

åàò"â ãäùúà ãàéëà úøúé ãàúé îçé åùøå, ëîå çìá åáéöéí ...

(k)

Implied Question: And even though there are now two things that come from a living creature and are permitted - like milk and eggs ...

î"î çùéá ìäå çéãåù ùôéø, îùåí ãàéï ùðéäï áàéï îï äçé áòðéï àçã.

(l)

Answer #1: It is nevertheless considered a Chidush, seeing as they do not come from a Chai in the same way.

åëï éù ìôøù âáé ãáù ùì ãáåøéí ããøéù î÷øà áôø÷ ÷îà ãáëåøåú (ãó æ:) ãùøé, ãìà ãîé ìçìá.

1.

Precedent: And that is how we will explain the Gemara in the first Perek of Bechoros (Daf 7:), which permits bees' honey, because it is not similar to milk.

àé ðîé, ëéåï ãëì ùàø àáø îï äçé àñåø, î÷øé äðê çéãåù.

(m)

Answer #2: Alternatively, since all other 'limbs from an animal are forbidden, they are both considered a Chidush.

åòåã äééðå éëåìéí ìåîø ãëì áéöéí îåúøåú áéï ãèîà áéï ãèäåø, îääéà èòîà ãáô"÷ ãáëåøåú (ãó æ:) ãùøéðï 'äðé éàìé ãéçîåøúà' ìôé ùäåà æøò äàéì ùð÷øù.

(n)

New Explanation: It is also possible to explain that all eggs, both of Tamei birds and of Tahor ones, are permitted due to the reason stated in Bechoros (7:), which permits the Beitzei Zachar of a Yachmur (a species of deer), because it is merely the semen of the ram that congealed.

åëï 'òåø äáà ëðâã ôðéí ùì çîåø', ãîñúáøà ãäééðå èòîà ãùøé îùåí ãàúé îùëáú æøò ùì çîåø, åð÷øù îòöîå åðòùä òåø, åîåúø, åìà ùééê ìéöéøú äåìã îéãé, åìëê îåúø - ëéåï ãîúçìúå áà îçîú äùëáú æøò, ãäåéà ëðáìä îåñøçú, åùøé.

1.

New Explanation (cont.): Similarly, 'the skin that comes in front of a baby donkey' (Ibid.), which is probably permitted because it comes from the semen of the donkey, which automatically congealed and turned into skin. And it is permitted because it has nothing to do with the birth of the donkey, in which case it is permitted because it is formed from semen, which has the Din of Neveilah that has turned putrid, and which is permitted.

åìáñåó àò"ô ùð÷øù åðòùä òåø.

(o)

Implied Question: And in the end, even though it congeals and becomes skin ...

î"î îåúø äåà, ëîå àôøåç áéöú èøôä, ùäåà îåúø, ãëé âãéì, ôéøùà áòìîà äåà.

(p)

Answer: It is nevertheless permitted, like the chick of a T'reifah egg, which is permitted, because when it grows, it is merely dung.

åëåìäå áéòé ðîé îùëáú æøò ÷àúå, åùøå îäàé èòîà, çåõ îáéöú èîàä ùàñø äëúåá.

(q)

Conclusion: In fact, all eggs comes from semen, and are permitted for this reason, except for the egg of a Tamei bird which the Torah specifically forbids.

ìäëé àéöèøéê ÷øà.

(r)

Conclusion (cont.): Which explains why we need a Pasuk.

åáéöú èøéôä éìôéðï îéðéä, ëãôéøùðå.

(s)

Conclusion (cont.): And the egg of a T'reifah we learn from it, as we explained earlier.

åîéäå àéï îúééùá èòí æä âáé áéöéí, ãëåìäå îúçìúï îòåøåú áâéãéï, åçùåáéí ëáùø.

(t)

Reservation: This reason does not however, go down well with regard to eggs, all of which are initially joined to the nerves, and are therefore considered Basar!

5)

TOSFOS DH LERABOS EFROCHIM SHE'LO NIFT'CHU EINEIHEM

úåñôåú ã"ä ìøáåú àôøåçéí ùìà ðôúçå òéðéäí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos proves that the Beraisa cannot specifically mention Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov.)

ìà âøñéðï áéä 'ãáøé øáé àìéòæø áï éò÷á'.

(a)

Text: We do not have in our text 'the words of Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov' ...

ãòìä àîø áô"÷ ãáéöä (ãó å:) 'îðé, øàá"é äéà'.

(b)

Reason: Because in the first Perek of Beitzah, the Gemara establishes the author as Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov.

6)

TOSFOS DH GI'ULEI BEITZIM MUTAROS

úåñôåú ã"ä âéòåìé áéöéí îåúøåú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the definition of 'Gi'ulei Beitzim' - whether they are synonymous with boiled eggs or not.)

ôéøù á÷åðèøñ - áéöä èîàä ùðúáùìä òí äèäåøä, îåúøéï äèäåøéí, ãîéà áòìîà äåà åìà éäáé èòîà áàçøðééúà.

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Rashi explains that if a Tamei egg is cooked together with Tahor ones, since it (the Tamei egg) is merely (like water) and does not give taste to the others.

åì÷îï áôø÷ âéã äðùä (ãó öç.) åãàé àééøé ùí áäëé.

1.

Precedent: This definitely what the Gemara is talking about later in Perek Gid ha'Nasheh (Daf 98.).

åâí îçì÷ ùí áéï ùì÷å òí áéöéí ùéù ùí àôøåç ìùì÷å òí äèîàéí.

(b)

Explanation #1 (cont.): The Gemara also draws a distinction there between whether one cooked the Tahor eggs with eggs that contain a chick, or one cooked them with plain Tamei eggs.

àáì äëà, ìà îñúáøà ìø"ú ìàå÷îé áäëé - ãìà ùééê äàé ãéðà äëà.

(c)

Refutation: Here however, Rabeinu Tam does not consider it logical to establish the Gemara like that, since it does not fit into the Sugya.

åðøàä ìå, ëîå ùôéøù áòøåê - ùäëå äúøðâåìú òì áéú øçîä åîôìú áéöéí ùìà ðâîøå; åìà àééøé îéãé ááéùåì.

(d)

Explanation #2 (Rabeinu Tam): He therefore concurs with the Aruch, who explains - that they struck the chicken across its womb, and it lost its unfinished eggs. It is not speaking about cooking at all,

åìùåï âéòåì ùééê òìéä, ëîå (àéåá ëà) "ùåøå òéáø åìà éâòéì".

(e)

Proof #1: And the Lashon 'Gi'ul' is also more appropriate, like we find in Iyov (21:10) "His ox impregnates and (the cow) does not exude (the seed)".

åäåé äùúà îòéï 'áéöéí äîåæøåú' - ãîééøé äùúà áäéúø áéöéí âåôééäå ...

(f)

Proof #2: It is now similar to the case of 'Beitzim ha'Muzaros' (the eggs that are not from a male', which is speaking about the Heter of the eggs themselves.

åàúà ìàùîåòéðï ãìà çùéá àáø îï äçé, àò"ô ùìà ðâîøå ìâîøé.

(g)

Conclusion: And the Chidush is that they are not considered 'Eiver min ha'Chai', even though they are not yet fully developed.

åáéøåùìîé ãîñëú úøåîåú ìòðéï 'áéöéí ùùì÷ï åðîöà áäï àôøåç' ãàééøé áäå äúí - âøñéðï ìòéì îäà îéìúà 'ùîòåï áø àáà àîø øáé çðéðà - îòùä áà ìôðé øáï âîìéàì áøáé åàîø "àáà äåøä áàøáòéí åùáò, åàðà îåøéðà áî"ä".

(h)

Yerushalmi: The Yerushalmi in Maseches T'rumos, prior to the case of eggs that one boiled and in which one finds a chick, that is discussed there, citing Shimon bar Aba Amar Rebbi Chanina tells how 'Such a case came before Raban Gamliel the son of Rebbi, who said "My father did not even permit the eggs in forty-seven; Shall I permit them in forty-five?'

,åàîø øáé çééà áø çðéðà - "îòùä áà ìôðé øá äåðà, åàîø ÷ìéôé àéñåø îòìéï àú ääéúø; äãà ãúéîà - äåà ùùì÷ï á÷ìéôéäï; àáì ùì÷ áéöéí ÷ìåôåú á÷ìåôåú àå ÷ìåôåú áùàéðï ÷ìåôåú, öøéê ùéòåø àçø, îôðé âéòåìé áéöéí - "ùåøå òéáø åìà éâòéì".

1.

Yerushalmi (cont.): 'And Rebbi Chiya bar Chanina said - "An episode occurred where the same happened to Rav Huna, and he ruled that the shells of the Asur eggs helped the Heter eggs to be Mevatel. The above speaks where one cooked the eggs in their shells; but if one cooks shelled eggs together with shelled eggs, or shelled eggs together with eggs in their shells, a different Shi'ur is necessary, due to Gi'ulei Beitzim - as the Pasuk says in Iyov "Shoro Ibar ve'Lo Yag'il" '.

''áéöéí ùäø÷éîå, àñåøåú'.

2.

Yerushalmi (cont.): 'Eggs that have developed into an embryo are forbidden'.

'áéöéí îåæøåú, ðôù éôä úàëìí'.

3.

Yerushalmi (cont.): 'Eggs that are not from a male - someone who is not finicky may eat them'.

'îöà áäí ãí, ÷åìó î÷åí äãí'. òã ëàï ìùåï äéøåùìîé.

4.

Yerushalmi (cont.): 'If one finds a blood in them, one peels the location of the blood' (Up to here is the Lashon of the Yerushalmi).

îùîò ëôé' ä÷åðè', ãàééøé ááéöéí ùìå÷åú.

(i)

Proof (for Rashi): This suggests Rashi's explanation, that it is speaking about boiled eggs.

àáì úéîä, ãîééúé äúí ÷øà ã'ùåøå òéáø åìà éâòéì"?

(j)

Question: But how can the Yerushalmi quote the Pasuk "Shoro Ibar ... " (which supports the Aruch's explanation, as we explained earlier).

åãåîä ùàéðå îñåâéú äéøåùìîé - åùåí úìîéã äâéäå.

(k)

Answer/Refutation: It seems that it (the Pasuk) is not cited in the Yerushalmi, but rather that some disciple inserted it erroneously.

åáúåñôúà áîñëú úøåîä áô' ãâ èîà îùîò ëîå ùôéøù äòøåê ...

(l)

Tosefta: The Tosefta in Maseches T'rumos (Perek Dag Tamei) it implies like the explanation of the Aruch ...

åäëé úðéà äúí 'áéöéí [èäåøåú] ùùì÷ï òí áéöéí èîàéí, àí éù áäï áð"è, àñåøéï; åàí ìàå, îåúøåú.

1.

Tosefta (cont.): The Beraisa says there that Tahor eggs that one boiled together with Tamei eggs are forbidden if the latter give taste to the former; otherwise, they are permitted.

'âéòåìé áéöéí, îåúøéí áàëéìä; áéöéí ùùì÷ï, åîöà áà' îäí àôøåç - àí éù áäï áð"è, àñåøåú; åàí ìàå, îåúøåú'.

2.

Tosefta (cont.): 'Gi'ulei Beitzim may be eaten. However, if one finds a chick inside one of the eggs that one boiled, if it gives taste, they are forbidden; otherwise; they are permitted'.

'áéöéí îåæøåú, ðôù äéôä úàëìí; åàí îöà áà' îäï ãí, æåø÷ äãí åàåëì àú äùàø'.

3.

Tosefta (cont.): 'Eggs that are not from a male - someone who is not finicky may eat them'. If one finds blood inside one of them, one throws out the blood and eats the rest'.

'àåëì àãí ãí ãâéí àå çâáéí áéï çééí áéï îúéí åàéðå çåùù'.

4.

Tosefta (cont.): 'One is permitted to eat the blood of fish and of locusts alive or dead, and need not worry about it'.

îùîò áäãéà ãâéòåìé áéöéí åáéöéí ùùì÷ï úøé îéìé ðéðäå.

(m)

Proof for Rabeinu Tam: In any event, it is clear that Gi'ulei Beitzim and eggs that one boiled are two different issues.

7)

TOSFOS DH VE'HU SHE'NIMTZA BE'KESHER SHE'LAH

úåñôåú ã"ä åäåà ùðîöà á÷ùø ùìä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses when a blood-spot is forbidden and when it is permitted.)

ôéøù ä÷åðèøñ, ãëä"â àåëì äùàø, ëéåï ãðîöà òì ä÷ùø, åäåà æøò úøðâåì ä÷ùåø áøàù äëã ùì áéöéí, åîùí éöéøú äàôøåç îúçéì.

(a)

Rashi's Explanation: Rashi explains that in such a case one is permitted to eat the rest of the egg, since the blood was found on the 'knot', which comprises the semen of the rooster, which is attached to the round end of the egg, and it is from there that the chick is initially formed.

åëéåï ãòãééï äåà ùí åìà ðúôæø áëì äáéöä, äìëê àåëì äùàø.

1.

Rashi's Explanation (cont.): And because it is still there and has not spread to the entire egg that one may eat the rest of it.

àáì àí ðîöà òì çìîåï ùìä, äáéöä ëåìä àñåøä, ëãîôøù ì÷îï 'ãùãà úéëìà áëåìä' - ôé' ðúôùè ä÷ì÷åì áëåìä.

2.

Rashi's Explanation (cont.): Whereas if it is discovered in the yoke of the egg, the entire egg is forbidden, as the Gemara will explain later 'Shada Tichla be'Chuleih' (The decay has spread to the entire egg).

åäà ãìà ð÷è áìùåï 'ìà ùðå' - ëãð÷è àáåä ãøáé àôèåøé÷é, åìéîà äëé - 'ìà ùðå àìà ùðîöà òì ä÷ùø ùìä, àáì éöà çåõ ì÷ùø, ùãà úéëìà áëåìä'?

(b)

Implied Question: Why did the Gemara not say then use the Lashon "Lo Shanu... ", like Rebbi Apturiki's father did - and say 'That is only if it is found on the knot, but once it has spread beyond the knot, 'Shada Tichla be'Chuleih'?

îöéðï ìîéîø ãàéï ìùåï ëì çëîéí ùåéï áòðéï àçã.

(c)

Answer: We can say that not all the Chachamim have the same way of expressing themselves.

åîéäå ÷ùä ìôéøåùå, îãàîø áôø÷ ãí ùçéèä áëøéúåú (ãó ëà.) ã÷úðé ááøééúà 'éöà ãí áéöéí - ùàéðï îéï áùø; éöà ãí ãâéí çâáéí - ùëåìå äéúø.

(d)

Question: His explanation however, is difficult, from a Beraisa in Perek Dam Shechitah (K'risus 21.) which precludes the blood of eggs (from the Isur of Dam), since it is not a species of Basar, and the blood of fish and locusts, which are entirely permitted.

åîùîò ãëé äéëé ãùøé ãí çâáéí åãâéí ëì æîï ùéùðå òìéäí åðéëø ùäåà îäï, äåà äãéï ðîé ãí áéöéí?

(e)

Question (cont.): Implying that just as the blood of locusts and fish is permitted, as long as it is still joined to them and is recognizable as coming from them, so too is the case with eggs?

åé"ì, ãîãøáðï äçîéøå áãí áéöéí, âæéøä àèå ãí òåó, ùäáéöä áà îîðå, åîãàåøééúà ùøé ...

(f)

Answer #1: They were strict with the blood of eggs mi'de'Rabbanan, a decree on account of the blood of birds, from which the egg comes, but min ha'Torah, it is permitted ...

àò"ô ùäàôøåç ðåöø îùí - ãäééðå òì ÷ùø ùìä, åàò"â ãäåé àôøåç ìáñåó ...

(g)

Implied Question: Even though chicks are formed from there - i.e. the knot, which will eventually become a chick ...

äùúà îéäà ìà äåå îéï áùø, ùàéï ëàï òãééï áùø ëìì.

(h)

Answer: At this stage however, it is not a species of Basar, since no flesh has formed yet!

åòåã é"ì, ããí ùòì ä÷ùø àñåø îï äúåøä, ãçùéá îéï áùø, ëéåï ùäàôøåç ðåöø îîðå.

(i)

Answer #2: The blood on the knot is Asur min ha'Torah, because it is considered a species of Basar, seeing as the chick is formed from it.

åäà ãùøé áîñëú ëøéúåú (âí æä ùí) ãí áéöéí - äééðå ëùàéï ãí á÷ùø àìà áî÷åí àçø, ùîàåúå ãí àéï äàôøåç ðåöø, åìà çùéá îéï áùø.

1.

Answer #2 (cont.): And when the Gemara in K'risus (Ibid.) permits the blood of eggs - that speaks when the blood is not on the knot, but on another location, since a chick is not formed from that blood which is therefore not considered a species of Basar.

åîöåé äåà ôòîéí øáåú àôé' ìàìúø ñîåê ììéãú äáéöä. åàåúå ãí àéðå áà àìà îçîú ðùéëú úøðâåì ìúøðâåìú.

2.

Answer #2 (cont.): And that is commonly found even just before the egg is hatched. That blood is the result of the rooster biting the hen.

åîä ùôé' á÷åðèøñ 'ãí ùäåà çåõ ì÷ùø äëì àñåøä' - æäå ëùéùðå á÷ùø åðúôæø òã ùäåà çåõ ì÷ùø, àáì ëùàéï ãí ëìì òì ä÷ùø àìà áî÷åí àçø, îåúø ëãôøéùéú.

(j)

Clarification: And when Rashi explains that blood that is outside the knot is all Asur, he is referring to blood that is basically on the knot and that spread outside; but where there is no blood on the knot, but only on another location, it is permitted, as we explained.

åàéï ìä÷ùåú ìô"æ áúø äëé - ãîôìéâ àáåä ãø' àôèåøé÷é áéï çìáåï ìçìîåï, äåä ìéä ìàôìåâé áçìáåï âåôéä áéï òì ä÷ùø ìùàéï òì ä÷ùø - ëîå øáé éøîéä?

(k)

Implied Question: One cannot then ask from the Gemara that follows, where the father of Rebbi Apturiki differentiates between the white of an egg and the yellow, why did he not rather differentiate between blood that is on the knot and blood that is on the another location - like Rebbi Yirmiyah?

ãìàå ôéøëà äéà, ãäà îôìéâ áéï ðîöà òì ä÷ùø ùì çìáåï ìðîöà òì ä÷ùø ùì çìîåï.

(l)

Answer: This is not a question, since he distinguishes between blood that is discovered on the knot of the white and blood that is discovered on the knot of the yellow.

åòåã é"ì, äê ùîòúà ãäëà ùøé ãí áéöéí ìâîøé, ëé ääéà ãëøéúåú (âí æä ùí).

(m)

Explanation #3: The Gemara in our Sugya permits the blood of eggs completely, like the Gemara in K'risus (Ibid.)

åäëé ÷àîø 'åäåà ùðîöà òì ä÷ùø ùìä', àæ æåø÷ àú äãí åàåëì àú äùàø; àáì àí àéï äãí òì ä÷ùø àìà áî÷åí àçø, îåúø àôéìå äãí åàéï öøéê ìæåø÷å.

1.

Explanation #3 (cont.): And when the Gemara says 'Provided it is discovered on the knot', it means that one then throws away the blood and eats the rest; But if the blood is somewhere else and not on the knot, then one is even permitted to eat the blood and need not throw it away.

åëï îùîò áéøåùìîé ãúøåîåú, ã÷àîø áúø ääéà ùäáàúé ìòéì îáéöéí îåæøåú - 'îöà áäí ãí, ÷åìó äãí'.

(n)

Proof: And this is also implied by the Yerushalmi in T'rumos, which says (after the piece that Tosfos quoted earlier regarding Beitzim Muzaros) that 'If one discovers in them, one peels away the blood'.

(åáéøåùìîé àéðå îæëéø ëìì îàëéìú ùàø äáéöä, àìà îæøé÷ú äãí, îùîò ãëì äçéìå÷ ùàåîøéí àîåøàéí àçøé ëï òì äãí òöîå ...

1.

Note: (The Yerushalmi does not mention anything about eating the rest of the egg, only about throwing away the blood. This implies that the distinctions made by the Amora'im that follow, refer to the blood itself exclusively).

ëãôé' áùîòúéï - 'ø' æéøà ñìé÷ ìîá÷øà ìø' çééà áøéä ãø' éöç÷; àùëçéä ãéúéá å÷àîø "ìà ùðå àìà çìîåï, àáì çìáåï îåúø", åäåà ñáø ãäåà âîéø îï ãàáäúé').

2.

Note: As it explains there - 'Rebbi Zeira went to visit Rebbi Chiya the son of Rebbi Yitzchak; He found him sitting and saying that it is only in the yellow that it is forbidden, but in the white it is permitted. And he thought that he learned it from his fathers (traditionally).

àúà ø' àáäå áùí ø' éåçðï "áéï áçìáåï áéï áçìîåï, àñåø".

3.

Proof (cont.): Rebbi Avahu came and in the name of Rebbi Yochanan, ruled that both in the white and in the yellow, it is forbidden. However ...

úðé ø' çìôúà áø' ùàåì "çìîåï îåúø". àîø øáé æòéøà "äà ãàîø 'çìîåï àñåø' - áùðîöà áî÷åí æëøåúå ùì çìîåï, åàôéìå çìáåï - åäåà ùðîöà áî÷åí æëøåúå ùì îåçå, ùîîðå ðåìã" '. ò"ë ìùåï äéøåùìîé.

4.

Proof (cont.): Rebbi Chalafta b'Rebbi Shaul learned in a Beraisa that the white is permitted; on which Rebbi Ze'ira commented that when he said that the yellow is forbidden, he meant specifically on the 'male part' of the Mo'ach(?), and even of the white - provided it is discovered on the 'male part of the Mo'ach', from which it is born (up to here is the Lashon of the Yerushalmi).

îùîò ãà'îàé ã÷úðé ááøééúà '÷åìó î÷åí äãí' - ÷àîø áúø äëé 'ì"ù àìà çìîåï, àáì çìáåï, îåúø'.

(o)

Explanation of Yerushalmi: This implies that when the Yerushalmi says afterwards 'They only learned the yellow, buy the white is permitted' - it is referring to the Beraisa 'He peels the area of the blood' ...

åîùîò 'îåúø' - åà"ö ì÷ìåó.

1.

Explanation of Yerushalmi (cont.): And it implies that 'It (the white) is permitted' and that it is not necessary to peel it.

åáúø äëé îééúé ãø' éåçðï ãàîø 'áéï çìáåï åáéï çìîåï, àñåø'.

2.

Explanation of Yerushalmi (cont.): After that it cites Rebbi Yochanan, who says 'Both the white and the yellow are prohibitted'.

åáúø äëé îééúé áøééúà ãø' çìôúà áø' ùàåì ãàåîø 'çìîåï îåúø'. åãåîä áæä ùäåà èòåú ñåôø; åéù ìâøåñ 'çìîåï àñåø åçìáåï îåúø' ...

3.

Explanation of Yerushalmi (cont.): Following which it cites the Beraisa of Rebbi Chalafta b'Rebbi Shaul, who says that the yellow is permitted. This seems to be a printing error however; And the correct version is that 'The yellow is forbidden, whereas the white is permitted ...

åáãí âåôéä ÷àîø äëé, ëãôøéùéú. åòìä ÷àé - ãø' æòéøà ãàîø 'äà ãàîø "çìîåï àñåø", ëùðîöà áî÷åí æëøåúå ùì çìîåï' - ôéøåù æëøåúå ÷ùø ùìå, ëé âí áçìîåï éùðå ä÷ùø, àáì ùìà áî÷åí ä÷ùø, îåúø àôéìå äãí.

4.

Explanation of Yerushalmi (cont.): And it is referring exclusively to the blood itself, as Tosfos explained earlier - and Rebbi Ze'ira who confines the statement of 'the yellow is Asur' to where it is discovered on the 'male part' (i.e. the knot) of the yellow, since in fact, the knot can also exist on the white; But not on the knot, even the blood is permitted.

åáà ø' æòéøà ìñúåø îä ùàîø ááøééúà 'çìîåï àñåø, çìáåï îåúø', åìåîø ùâí çìîåï ùàñåø - æäå ãå÷à áî÷åí æëøåúå, ëé áî÷åí àçø ãí áéöéí îåúø, àôéìå áçìîåï.

5.

Explanation of Yerushalmi (cont.): Rebbi Ze'ira comes to counter what the Beraisa says 'The yellow is Asur, and the white is Mutar', to teach us that even when the yellow is forbidden - that is only on the knot, since anywhere else the blood of eggs is permitted, even in the yellow.

åëä"â àôéìå áçìáåï àñåø äãí.

6.

Explanation of Yerushalmi (cont.): And in such a case, even the white is forbidden.

å÷í ìéä ø' æòéøà áùéèúéä ãø' éåçðï ãìòéì îéðéä, åáøééúà ãø' çìôúà áøáé ùàåì ëùéèúéä ãøáé çééà áø' éöç÷.

(p)

Conclusion: It now transpires that Rebbi Ze'ira holds like Rebbi Yochanan, who spoke before him, whereas the Beraisa of Rebbi Chalafta b'Rebbi Sha'ul conforms with the opinion of Rebbi Chiya b'Rebbi Yitzchak.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF