1)

TOSFOS DH V'TUMAS

úåñôåú ã"ä åèåîàú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos notes this was explained earlier.)

ôéøåùä áôø÷ áäîä äî÷ùä (ìòéì òá: ã"ä áùòú)

(a)

Explanation: This was explained earlier (72b, DH "b'Sha'as").

2)

TOSFOS DH V'LO SHANI LEY

úåñôåú ã"ä åìà ùðé ìéä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos does not understand the Gemara's phraseology.)

äìùåï àéï îéåùá ãìà ä"ì ìîéîø èôé àìà äëà ìà äåëùø

(a)

Implied Question: The phraseology here does not seem accurate, as it should not have said more than "here it is not able to accept impurity" (see Maharam).

3)

TOSFOS DH LAMAH

úåñôåú ã"ä ìîä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks why the Gemara does not ask that the Beraisa does not have to be according to Rebbi Meir.)

úéîä àîàé ìà ôøéê ìîä ìéä ìàå÷åîéä ëø"î äà îèîà èåîàä çîåøä àâá àáéå åàéï öøéê ìà äëùø îéí åìà äëùø ùøõ ëãàîø ôø÷ áà ñéîï (ðãä ãó ð:)

(a)

Question: This is difficult. Why doesn't the Gemara ask that we do not have to say the Beraisa is like Rebbi Meir because it should have stringent impurity due to its "father?" It does not require coming in contact with water or a Sheretz, as stated in Nidah (50b).

4)

TOSFOS DH K'SHESHEE'MESH

úåñôåú ã"ä ëùùéîù

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why being like wood makes a difference.)

ôéøåù îàåúå ùí ùäéä îèîà èåîàä çîåøä ãäééðå îùåí àáø îï äçé òúä àéï àáø îï äçé ùàéï áå àìà áùø åàéï ÷øåé àáø

(a)

Explanation: This means that while it was given the name of a stringent impurity, meaning Aiver Min ha'Chai, it is no longer Aiver Min ha'Chai as it only has flesh which means it is no longer called a limb.

åì"ã ìðáìú òåó èäåø åôøéí äðùøôéí

(b)

Implied Question: It is incomparable to the Neveilah of a kosher bird and the Parim ha'Nisrafim.

ùëùèéîà èåîàä çîåøä äéä îùåí ùåøó ôøéí åäùúà ðîé äí ôøéí åä"ô ëùùéîù îòùä òõ ùéîù ìà îúåøú àåëì ëîå ùäåà òúä àìà îúåøú òõ áòìîà

(c)

Answer: This is because when the Parim have stringent impurity it is because they were burned as bulls and they are still meat of a bull. This what the Gemara means. When it was used, it was used like a piece of wood, and not as its current status of food.

åà"ú àò"â ãîòùä òõ ùéîù ìéèîà ãðâîø îæøòéí ùàéï ñåôï ìèîà èåîàä çîåøä áùåí òðéï

(d)

Question: Even though it acted like wood, it should still be deemed impure, as we should derive from seeds that are not supposed to be stringently impure!

åé"ì ãæøòéí ðîé ñåôï ìèîà èåîàä çîåøä ò"é ùîåù òõ ëãàîø áñîåê ëåôú ùàåø ùéçãä ìéùá òìéä áèìä åîèîàä èåîàú îãøñ

(e)

Answer: Seeds also end up having stringent impurity through being used like wood, as stated later that a person who designated a bunch of yeast as a chair has indeed nullified it (as a chair), and makes it capable to become impure through sitting on it.

5)

TOSFOS DH TUMASAH

úåñôåú ã"ä èåîàúä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks why it is permitted to keep it in his house.)

úéîä ãàé ìàå îãàåøééúà áèìä àîàé îåúø ìäðéçä ááéúå

(a)

Question: This is difficult, as if it is not nullified according to Torah law, why is it permitted to put it in his house?

6)

TOSFOS DH BAYIS

úåñôåú ã"ä áéú

(SUMMARY: Based on our Gemara, Tosfos prefers the explanation of Rashi in Sukah to that of Rabeinu Shmuel.)

îëàï ÷ùä òì ôéøåù øáéðå ùîåàì áô"÷ ãñåëä (ãó éâ:) ãàîø éø÷åú ùàãí éåöà áäï éãé çåáúå áôñç àéï çåööéï áôðé äèåîàä àáì îáéàéï äèåîàä åôåñìéï äñåëä îùåí àåéø ôéøåù åìà îùåí ñëê ôñåì ãñëê ôñåì áàøáòä åàåéø áùìùä

(a)

Question: There is a question from our Gemara on Rabeinu Shmuel's explanation in Sukah (13b). The Gemara there says that vegetables that a person can fulfill his obligation of Maror with on Pesach do not stop impurity. However, they do bring impurity and cause a Sukah to be invalid because of the air. This means that it is not invalid because it is unfit Sechach, as this would mean there would have to be four Tefachim of unfit Sechach, while we know that for there to be too much airspace only three Tefachim are necessary.

åàîø äúí îàé èòîà ëéåï ãëé éáùé ðôìé ëîàï ãîôøùé ãîå

1.

Question (cont.): The Gemara asks, what is the reason? It answers that since when it dries it falls, it is as if it has already fallen away.

åôéøù øáéðå ùîåàì ãäà ã÷àîø îàé èòîà ìàå ààéï çåööéï áôðé äèåîàä ÷àé îùåí ãäåé àåëì åî÷áì èåîàä åàéï çåöõ áôðé äèåîàä àìà àôåñìéí àú äñåëä ÷àé

2.

Question (cont.): Rabeinu Shmuel explains that when the Gemara asks for the reason it is not regarding it not stopping impurity, since it is food and therefore it only accepts impurity and does not stop impurity. Rather, it is asking why it makes a Sukah unfit.

å÷ùä ìôéøåùå ãäëà îùîò ãáèìé ìâáé áéú åìà î÷áìé èåîàä

3.

Question (cont.): There is difficulty with his explanation. Our Gemara implies that it is nullified to the house and it no longer becomes impure! (This conflicts with Rabeinu Shmuel's explanation that it is still considered food.)

åîéäå éù ìåîø ìôéøåùå ãîéìé îéìé ÷úðé åàéï çåööéï ìàå ëùñëê áäí ÷àîø

(b)

Answer: However, it is possible to answer according to Rabeinu Shmuel that the part of the statement that "it does not stop impurity" was not referring to when they are Sechach, but rather in general (when they are still considered food).

àáì îëì î÷åí ìà äéä öøéê ìôøù ëï ãàéëà ìôøåùé ëùñéëê áäï åìà î÷áìé èåîàä åäàé ãàéï çåööéï ëãîôøù äúí îùåí ãëé éáùé ðôìé åëï ôéøù á÷åðèøñ ùí

(c)

Observation: However, he still should not have given this explanation, as it is possible to explain that the case is when he used them as Sechach and they did not accept impurity. The reason they do not interrupt impurity is because when they dry out they fall down. This is indeed the explanation of Rashi in Sukah (ibid.).

129b----------------------------------------129b

7)

TOSFOS DH KEZAYIS

úåñôåú ã"ä ëæéú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how we know that a limb from a live person is impure.)

ìëàåøä ðøàä ãàáø äàãí îï äçé îáðéï àá ãùøöéí åáäîä àúé

(a)

Explanation: It seemingly appears that a limb from a live person is derived from a Binyan Av from Sheratzim and animals.

àáì áîùðä ìà îùîò ëï îãàîøå ìéä ìø' àìéòæø äùåä îãåúéê å÷à éäéá èòîà àîàé îøáä áùø åîîòè òöí

(b)

Implied Question: However, the Mishnah does not imply this, as they told Rebbi Eliezer that he should rule the same regarding both. He gave his reasoning regarding why he included flesh and excluded bone (implying this is not due to a Binyan Av). (What is the source that a limb from a live person is impure?)

åöøéê ìåîø î÷øà àçã ãøùéðï îø îå÷é ìéä ááùø åîø îå÷é ìéä áòöí ëãéäéá èòîà åîø ãøéù ìãøùà àçøéðà àáì àé îáðééðà ãùøöéí åãáäîä àúé àîàé àîøå ìéä ìø' àìéòæø îàé èòîà îøáä áùø åîîòè òöí

(c)

Answer: It must be that this law is derived from one Pasuk, which one opinion says is referring to flesh and one says it is referring to bone, with each giving his reasoning. A third opinion uses the Pasuk for a different teaching entirely. However, if we would derive this from a Binyan Av using Sheratzim and animals, why did they ask Rebbi Eliezer why he included meat and excluded bone?

8)

TOSFOS DH BEIN TANA KAMA

úåñôåú ã"ä áéï úðà ÷îà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that the Tana Kama holds that the Gemara means "or a barley.")

ôéøåù àå òöí ëùòåøä ãäà úøåééäå ìéëà ìîéîø ìú"÷ èîà ãàí ëï îàé àéëà áéï àáø îï äîú ìàáø îï äçé

(a)

Explanation: This means that "or" a bone the size of a barley. This is because we cannot say that both are impure according to the Tana Kama. If they would be, what would be the difference between a limb from a dead person and a limb from a live person?

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF