1)

TOSFOS DH NIRIN

úåñôåú ã"ä ðøàéï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara did not explain Rebbi in a different manner.)

úéîä ìéîà ãë"ò îéï áîéðå ìà áèéì åä"÷ ðøàéï ãáøé ø' éäåãä ìçëîéí áùìà ðéòø áúçìä àìà áñåó ùçëîéí ìà ðçì÷å òìéå àìà ëùðéòø îúçìä åòã ñåó

(a)

Question: This is difficult. It should say that according to everyone Min b'Mino is not nullified. This is what Rebbi means to say. Rebbi Yehudah's words seem correct to the Chachamim when he originally did not stir, and only stirred afterwards. This is because the Chachamim only argued on him when he stirred from the beginning until the end.

ãëé äàé âååðà îùðé ìòéì áôø÷ ÷îà (ãó éá.) âáé àáãå ìå âãééå åúøðâåìéå åáôø÷ äîåëø àú äñôéðä (á"á ãó òè.) âáé áåø åùåáê åáëîä ãåëúéï

1.

Question (cont.): The Gemara gives a similar answer earlier (12a) in a case regarding a person who lost his goats and chickens. This answer is also found in Bava Basra (9a) regarding a pit and coop and in other places.

åéù ìåîø ãìà ÷àîø àìà äéëà ãìà àôùø ìéä ìîéîø áòðéï àçø

(b)

Answer: The Gemara only gives this type of answer when it is not possible to answer in a different fashion.

2)

TOSFOS DH HA'LEV

úåñôåú ã"ä äìá

(SUMMARY: Rashi and Tosfos argue regarding cooked blood and whether we say the flesh of the heart is smooth and does not absorb.)

ôéøù á÷åðèøñ áîñ' ëøéúåú (ãó ëá.) îå÷é ìä áìá òåó ãàéï áãîå ëæéú àáì ááäîä çééá ëøú àí ìà ÷øòå ìàçø áùåìå

(a)

Explanation: Rashi explains that in Kerisus (22a) the Gemara understands it is referring to the heart of a bird that does not have a Kzayis of blood. However, regarding an animal he is liable to receive Kares if he does not tear the heart after it is cooked.

åàé àôùø ìåîø ëï ãáäãéà àîøéðï áä÷åîõ øáä (îðçåú ãó ëà.) ããí ùáùìå àéðå òåáø òìéå àí àëìå

(b)

Question: It is impossible to say this, as the Gemara clearly states in Menachos (21a) that one does not transgress if he eats blood that was cooked.

åäà ãîå÷é ìä áô' ãí ùçéèä (ëøéúåú ãó ëá.) áìá òåó

1.

Implied Question: The Gemara in Kerisus (22a) indeed says it is discussing the heart of a bird. (How can this be?)

îùåí ãáëì òðéï ÷úðé îúðéúéï ãàéðå òåáø òìéå áéï çé áéï îáåùì

2.

Answer: This is because our Mishnah says that he does not transgress the prohibition in general, meaning whether it is raw (i.e. the heart of a bird) or cooked.

åîä ùôéøù á÷åðèøñ ãáùø äìá àéðå ðàñø ùäìá çì÷ äåà åàéðå áåìò ãäëé àîøéðï áôñçéí (ãó òã:) ùàðé ìá ãùéò

(c)

Opinion #1: Rashi explains further that the flesh of the heart is not forbidden as the heart is smooth and it does not absorb. This is as the Gemara says in Pesachim (74b) that the heart is different as it is smooth.

àåîø ø"ú ãàéï ìñîåê òì æä ìòùåú îòùä ããçééä áòìîà äåà áô' ëéöã öåìéï (ôñçéí ãó òã:)

(d)

Opinion #2: Rabeinu Tam says that one should not rely on this practically, as the Gemara is merely pushing aside a question with this answer in Pesachim (74b, not saying that this is the law).

ãäåä áòé ìîéôùè îéðéä ãàîøéðï ëáåìòå ëê ôåìèå îã÷úðé ÷åøòå ìàçø áùåìå åãçé ùàðé ìá ãùéò

1.

Opinion #2 (cont.): The Gemara wanted to extrapolate from the Mishnah that says that one can tear it after it is cooked that we say that just as something absorbs, so too it emits. The Gemara pushes this aside by saying that the heart is different as it is smooth.

àáì ìîàé ãîñé÷ ãëáåìòå ëê ôåìèå úå ìà àîøé' ãùéò åìà áìò å÷åøòå ìàçø áùåìå äééðå ìàçø öìééúå ãùééê áéä ëáåìòå ëê ôåìèå ùäãí ðåôì ìçåõ àáì á÷ãøä àñåø åìà àîøéðï ãùéò åìà áìò

2.

Opinion #2 (cont.): However, according to the Gemara's conclusion that we say just as something absorbs so too it emits, we no longer have to say that the heart is smooth and it does not absorb. When the Mishnah says he tears it after it is cooked, it means after it is roasted, as then it is possible to say that just as it absorbs so too it emits, as the blood falls aside. However, when it is cooked in a pot it is forbidden, and we do not say that it is smooth and does not absorb.

109b----------------------------------------109b

3)

TOSFOS DH AINO

úåñôåú ã"ä àéðå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains Rashi's understanding of cooking and roasting utters.)

ôéøù á÷åðèøñ ãîåúø àí áùìå îùåí ãçìá ùçåèä ãøáðï äåà åäàé ëéåï ãàáìò åìà ôéøù àôéìå àéñåøà ãøáðï ìéëà

(a)

Explanation: Rashi explains that it is permitted if he cooked it because the prohibition against slaughtered milk is Rabbinic. Since this milk is absorbed and it never left the utter, there is not even a Rabbinic prohibition.

îùîò ùøåöä ìäòîéã ëåìä ùîòúúà ãëçì ìöìé ãàé ì÷ãøä àîàé îåúø äà éöà çìá åçæø åðáìò

1.

Explanation (cont.): This implies that Rashi understands the entire discussion regarding utters is when they are roasted. If they are cooked, why is it permitted? The milk goes out when it is cooked, and then is absorbed back into the meat!

åëï ôéøù ì÷îï áäãéà âáé æåé÷å ìä ëçìé ãôøéê åäà áùìå ÷úðé áãéòáã

2.

Explanation (cont.): Rashi similarly explained this later regarding "give her utter on a spit." The Gemara there asks, "doesn't it say "if he cooked? This implies it is only permitted b'Dieved!"

åôéøù á÷åðèøñ åäà åãàé áöìé äåà îã÷úðé îåúø ãàé á÷ãøä àîàé îåúø äà éöà äçìá åçæø åðáìò

i.

Explanation (cont.): Rashi there explains that this is certainly regarding roasting since it says it is permitted. If it would be cooked, why is it permitted? The milk goes out and is absorbed again by the meat!

åì÷îï áúø ùîòúúà ãëáã ôé' á÷åðèøñ åäìëåú ëçì ëáø àîøðå ìîòìä ãìöìé áòé ÷øéòä ùúé àå òøá åàé ìà ÷øòå îåúø ëìéùðà ÷îà ãøá ãäà úðéà ëååúéä åì÷ãøä ÷åøòå ùúé åòøá åèçå áëåúì

(b)

Opinion: Later, after the discussion regarding liver, Rashi explains that we already stated the laws regarding utters earlier. They are that if it is roasted it requires tearing either vertically or horizontally. If he does not tear it, it is permitted as per the first version of Rav's statement, as there is a Beraisa that supports his position. If one wants to cook it, he must tear it vertically and horizontally and smash it against the wall.

åîä ùëúåá áñôøéí áô' âéã äðùä (ìòéì ãó öæ:) ëçì òöîå àñåø äéëà ãìà ÷øòéä åáùìéä áäãé áùøà ì"â ìéä

(c)

Observation: The text in the Gemara earlier (97b) that the utter itself is forbidden when it is not torn and cooked together with other meat is an incorrect text.

ãàôé' áùìéä ìçåãéä àñåø ìôéøåù ä÷åðèøñ ìôé ùôéøù åçæø åðáìò

1.

Observation (cont.): This is because even if someone would cook it by itself it is forbidden according to Rashi's explanation, as the milk leaves the utter and then is absorbed by its meat.

åîéäà âí ìôéøåù ä÷åðèøñ äéëà ãàéëà ñ' áîéí ùðúáùì áäï äëçì ìà äéä ðàñø äëçì äéëà ùáùìå ìçåãéä ìôé ùäçìá äðôìè ðúáèì áîéí àáì äéëà ãáùìå òí áùø àñåø îùåí èòí áùø äðáìò áçìá ùáëçì

2.

Observation (cont.): However, even according to Rashi the utter would be permitted if it would be cooked in sixty times more water. This is because the milk that leaves the utter would be nullified by the water. However, where it was cooked together with meat it is forbidden due to the taste of the meat that is absorbed in the milk of the utter.

åëï éù ñôøéí ãâøñé áñîåê ëçì ùáùìå áçìáå îåúø äéëà ãáùìéä ìçåãéä áìà áùø åéù ìäòîéãå ìôéøåù ä÷åðèøñ ùéù áîéí ùùéí ëãôøéùéú ùîúáèì áäï çìá äéåöà îï äëçì

3.

Observation (cont.): Similarly, there are Sefarim that have the text later that utter cooked in its own milk is permitted if is cooked without any other meat. This can be a correct text according to Rashi's explanation that there is sixty times more water (than milk), as we explained that the milk leaving the utter is nullified in the water.

4)

TOSFOS DH HA ISSURA

úåñôåú ã"ä äà àéñåøà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how Rashi knows that if an utter is cooked it not prohibited b'Dieved.)

åà"ú ìôéøåù ä÷åðèøñ ãìîà äà àéñåøà àéëà ì÷ãøä àáì ìöìé îåúø

(a)

Question: According to Rashi, perhaps it is forbidden to eat if it was cooked, and is only permitted if it is roasted?

åé"ì ãà"ë ä"ì ìîúðé ãàí ìà ÷øòå îåúø ãäåé çãåù åîîéìà äåä îå÷îéðï ìéä áöìé

(b)

Answer: If so, it should say, "If he didn't tear it, it is permitted" as that would be a novel law. We would automatically assume that is referring to roasting.

5)

TOSFOS DH LEV

úåñôåú ã"ä ìá

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that the Beraisa wanted to use the same terminology used by the Mishnah.)

åà"ú àãøáä ãå÷ îéðä àéôëà àéðå òåáø òìéå äà àéñåøà àéëà ëããéé÷ ìòéì ãäëà ìà ùééê ìîéîø àééãé ãáòé ìîéîø áñéôà ëã÷àîø ìòéì

(a)

Question: On the contrary, deduce the opposite that he does not receive lashes but it is prohibited to eat, as the Gemara deduced earlier! Here we cannot answer that since the second part of the Mishnah wanted to say etc. as we stated earlier in the Gemara.

åé"ì ããìîà àééãé ã÷úðé áîúðéúéï åàéðå òåáø òìéå ð÷è ðîé ááøééúà äëé

(b)

Answer: Perhaps the Beraisa used this terminology "he does not sin" because the Mishnah used this terminology.

6)

TOSFOS DH HA KECHAL

úåñôåú ã"ä äà ëçì

(SUMMARY: Tosfos clarifies the Gemara's proof to Rav's position.)

îãìà ÷úðé ÷åøòå ìàçø áùåìå åäåä îå÷îéðï ìä áöìé ëã÷úðé âáé ìá

(a)

Explanation: This is due to the fact that the Mishnah did not say, "he tears it after it is cooked." We would have said it is referring to roasting, as we do regarding the heart.

åà"ú åîàé ÷ñáø àé îäðéà áéä ÷øéòä àçø áùåì àîàé îåúø áìà ÷øéòä éåúø î÷åãí áùåì ãöøéê ÷øéòä åàé ìà îäðéà áéä ÷øéòä äéëé îééúé ñééòúà ìøá îäê áøééúà îãìà ÷úðé ÷åøòå ìàçø áùåìå äà àéï ÷øéòä îåòìú ìå ëìåí ìàçø ùðúáùì

(b)

Question: What is his logic? If tearing it after cooking helps, why is it permitted without tearing more than before it is cooked when it requires tearing? If tearing does not help, how can we bring a proof to Rav from this Beraisa because it did not say, "he tears it after it is cooked?" Tearing does not help it at all after it is cooked!

åé"ì ãåãàé ñ"ã ãîåòìú ìå ÷øéòä ìàçø áùåìå åäà ã÷àîø øá åàéðå òåáø òìéå åîåúø áìà ÷øéòä áîáåùì åáçé ÷åøòå äééðå îùåí ãëé ðúáùì ëáø ôìè áî÷öú àáì çé ùéù ìå øåá çìá áòé ÷øéòä

(c)

Answer: We certainly would think that tearing it after it is cooked helps. When Rav says that he does not transgress anything and it is permitted without tearing if it is cooked, and if it is raw he must tear it, this is because when it is cooked some of the milk has already been emitted. However, if it is raw and it still has most of its milk, it requires tearing.

7)

TOSFOS DH DILMA

úåñôåú ã"ä ãìîà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why it would be sufficient to tear a heart but not an utter.)

ôéøåù îùåí ãùéò åìà áìò àôéìå ì÷ãøä àå ìöìé îùåí ãëáåìòå ëê ôåìèå ëîñ÷ðà ãôñçéí (ãó òã:) àáì ëçì ìà ñâé ìéä á÷øéòä àôéìå ìöìé îùåí ãëáåìòå ëê ôåìèå ìà ùééê áùàø àéñåøéí àìà áãí ìçåãéä

(a)

Explanation: This is because it is smooth and does not absorb even from cooking or roasting, and the Gemara concludes in Pesachim (74b) that just as it absorbs so does it emit. However, it is not enough that an utter is torn even if it is roasted, because the rule "just as it absorbs so does it emit" is only applicable regarding blood, not other prohibitions.

8)

TOSFOS DH NIDAH

úåñôåú ã"ä ðãä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the Yotzros of Parshas Parah which have a similar theme to that of our Gemara.)

áñìå÷ ùì ôøùú ôøä éñã ø' àìéòæø ä÷ìéø îï äãí èçåì äãí îèåîàú ðãä (àùä) èäøú áúåìé àùä åîàùú àéù éôú úåàø ìàéù åëðâã ëåúéú ìà ôéøù åäëì òùä ò"ô äéøåùìîé

(a)

Observation: At the conclusion of the Yotzros composed by Rebbi Eliezer ha'Kalir he writes, "from the blood (He made) the spleen which is full of blood, from the impurity of Nidah (He made) the pure hymen of women, and from a married woman (He made) an Eishes Yefas Toar for a man." He did not comment on what Hash-m made from non Jewish women (that is permitted). Everything he said here was based on the Yerushalmi (the Maharsham explains that the Yerushalmi is of the opinion that a Yefas Toar is only permitted after she converts, which is why Rebbi Eliezer did not say, "from a non Jewish woman he made Yefas Toar").

9)

TOSFOS DH ZVIKU

úåñôåú ã"ä æåé÷å

(SUMMARY: Rashi and Tosfos argue regarding the definition of Zeviku.)

ôéøù áòøåê ëîå æé÷éí îìàéí åãîé ìæåé÷ðé ãàøîàé áô' ùðé ãîñëú ò"æ (ãó ìà:) ëìåîø ðôåçéï åëï äëà ëçì ëîå ðåã ðôåç îìà çìá åìà ð÷øò

(a)

Explanation: The Aruch explains that this is similar to the word, "Full skins" and it is similar to the term "swollen (i.e. old) Aramites" used in Avodah Zarah (31b). In other words, it means swollen. Here, as well, the utter is like a swollen skin full of milk that was not torn.

åá÷åðèøñ ôéøù ùôåãå úðå ìä ëçì áùôåã

1.

Explanation (cont.): Rashi explains that this means "stick on a spit," meaning "give her an utter on a spit."

10)

TOSFOS DH HA'HU

úåñôåú ã"ä ääåà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that Rav Nachman holds primarily like the second version of Rav.)

ôéøù á÷åðèøñ ãøá ðçîï ñ"ì ëìéùðà áúøà ãøá åáøééúà îå÷é ìä áöìé ëãëúéá åéáùìå (àú) äôñç áãáøé äéîéí

(a)

Explanation: Rashi explains that Rav Nachman holds like the second version of Rav, and that the Beraisa is referring to roasting, as the Pasuk says, "And they cooked (clearly meaning roasting, as it is forbidden to cook) the Pesach (Divrei ha'Yamim 2, 35:13)."

åàéï æä ãåç÷ ãä"ð îå÷îéðï áô' ëéöã öåìéï (ôñçéí ãó òã.) ÷åøòå ìàçø áùåìå äééðå àçø öìééúå

1.

Explanation (cont.): It is not difficult to say this, as we indeed say in Pesachim (74a) that "he tears it after it is cooked" means after it is roasted.

åàéðå øåöä ìåîø ãñáø ìâîøé ëìéùðà áúøà ãäà îé÷ì èôé àôéìå îìéùðà ÷îà ãùøé àôéìå ìëúçìä

2.

Explanation (cont.): This does not mean that he holds entirely like the second version, as he is even more lenient that the first version that permits this Lechatchilah.

àìà áôéøåù ãîúðéúéï ñáø ëìéùðà áúøà ãëéåï ãùøé øá ðçîï ìöìé ìëúçìä áìà ÷øéòä à"ë äà ã÷úðé ÷åøòå äééðå ì÷ãøä ëã÷àîø äëà åëé ÷úðé ìà ÷øòå àéðå òåáø òìéå ò"ë àéðå òåáø òìéå åàñåø ëéåï ãîééøé ì÷ãøä

3.

Explanation (cont.): Rather, he holds like the second version's explanation of our Mishnah. Since Rav Nachman permitted roasting Lechatchilah without having to tear it, it must be when the Mishnah said "he tears it" it means if he wants to cook it as stated here. When he says that he if he did not tear it he did not sin, it must be he means he did not sin but it is forbidden to eat since it was cooked.

åøáéðå úí ôéøù ãäà ãöøéê ÷øéòú ùúé åòøá åèçå áëåúì ì÷ãøä äééðå ÷ãøä òí áùø ãì÷ãøä îùîò òí áùø ëãúðà àí áðåúï èòí á÷ãøä àáì ì÷ãøä áìà áùø àå ìöìé ùøé ìëúçìä á÷øéòä ÷öú

(b)

Opinion: Rabeinu Tam explains that the requirement of tearing it vertically and horizontally and smashing it into the wall "in order to cook it" implies in order to cook it with meat. This is apparent from the Beraisa's statement, "If it gives a flavor in the pot. However, for a pot without meat or for roasting, it is permitted Lechatchilah if it is slightly torn."

åèòîà ãäçîéøå áä òí äáùø ìôé ãèòí äçìá ðëðñ ááùø åîùúðä èòí äáùø åéù áå èòí áùø áçìá åìëê âæøå çëîéí åëùàéï äáùø òí äëçì á÷ãøä àó òì ôé ùìà ÷øòå ùúé åòøá ëéåï ù÷øòå ÷öú ìëúçìä îåúø

1.

Opinion (cont.): The reason that they were stringent with the meat is because the taste of the milk goes into the meat and changes the taste of the meat, giving it a taste of Basar b'Chalav. This is why the Chachamim made this decree. When the meat is not with the utter in the pot, even if he did not tear it vertically and horizontally, as long as he tore it a little bit it is permitted.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF