1)

TOSFOS DH u'Mah Hen b'Achilah (pertains to the Mishnah, 5b)

úåñôåú ã"ä åîä äï áàëéìä (ùééê ìîùðä áãó ä:)

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out a shortcoming of our text.)

îä äåà îéåùá éåúø ùìà ãáø àìà áôøä ùéìãä îéï çîåø åìà çîåø (äéìã) [ö"ì ùéìãä îéï - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ôøä:

(a)

Observation: It would be better if it said "what is its (singular) law?", for it discusses only a cow that gave birth to a donkey, and not a donkey that gave birth to a kind of cow.

2)

TOSFOS DH Lamah Li Lemisni sheha'Yotzei

úåñôåú ã"ä ìîä ìé ìîéúðé ùäéåöà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos justifies another inference from this below.)

ì÷îï ãéé÷ îéðä îé øâìéí ùì çîåø àñåøéï åäëà ãéé÷ [ö"ì ãäåé ñéðîà - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã] îã÷úðé ùäéåöà ùðåúï èòí ìãáø (äåä) [ö"ì ãäåä - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã] ìéä ìîéúðé åäéåöà

(a)

Explanation: Below (7b, the Gemara) infers that urine of a donkey is forbidden, and here we infer that it is a Siman, since it taught sheha'Yotzei (because what exudes), that it gives the reason. [If not,] it should have taught veha'Yotzei (and what exudes).

3)

TOSFOS DH v''R. Shimon Nafka me'Es ha'Gamal (pertains to Amud B)

úåñôåú ã"ä åøáé ùîòåï ðô÷à îàú äâîì (ùééê ìòîåã á)

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses whether or not R. Shimon expounds "Es".)

äëà ãøéù ø''ù àú åáô' ÷îà ãîðçåú (ãó éà:) âáé ìáåðä àîø ø''ù àú ìà ãøéù

(a)

Implied question: Here R. Shimon expounds "Es", and in Menachos (11b) regarding Levonah, it says that R. Shimon does not expound "Es"!

åö''ì àú ìà ãøéù ìääéà ãøùà

(b)

Answer: We must say that [he expounds it, but] he does not expound it for that Drashah.

úãò îãìà îééúé òìä ääéà ãùîòåï äòîñåðé ëãîééúé äëà

(c)

Proof: We must say so, since here it does not bring [there] the case of Shimon ha'Amsoni (who used to expound every "Es" in the Torah, and retracted), like it brings here.

åà''ú ãîùîò äëà îàï ããøéù àú àñø ÷ìåè ëø''ù

(d)

Question: Here it implies that the one who expounds Es forbids a cloven [baby born to a Tamei animal], like R. Shimon;

åøáé éåñé äâìéìé ãøéù áô' àøáòä åçîùä (á''÷ îà:) ããøéù áòì äùåø ð÷é îãîé åìãåú åàú ìäðàú òåøå

1.

And R. Yosi ha'Gelili expounds "Es" in Bava Kama (41b), for he expounds [about an ox that killed] "Ba'al ha'Shor Naki" from Demei Vlados (compensation for causing a miscarriage), and "Es" [to forbid] benefit from its skin;

åáô' áäîä äî÷ùä (çåìéï ãó ò:) (ùøé ÷ìåè - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã îåç÷å) âáé áäîä ùîú òåáøä åàîø ø' éåñé äâìéìé áèîàä èîà áèäåøä èäåø ãëúéá åëì äåìê òì ëôéå îäìëé ëôéí (èîà) [ö"ì áçéä èîàúé - öàï ÷ãùéí] ìê

2.

And in Chulin (70b), regarding an animal whose fetus died, and R. Yosi ha'Gelili said that in a Tamei (mother) it is Tamei, and in a Tehorah it is Tahor, for it says "v'Chol Holech Al Kapav" - what walks on its soles (its hooves are uncloven, i.e. a Tamei) in a live animal is Tamei to you;

åôøéê ÷ìåè áîòé ÷ìåèä ìéèîà

3.

[The Gemara] asks, an uncloven [fetus] in a cloven's womb should be Tamei!

ù''î ôùéèà ìé' (ìø' éåñé áèäåøä) [ö"ì ãìø' éåñé äåé áëìì ãáèäåøä - äøù"ù] èäåø

4.

Inference: It was clear to [the Makshan] that according to R. Yosi ha'Gelili, we infer that in a Tahor animal it is Tahor!

åé''ì ðéçà ìééùá îéìúéä ãø' éåñé àôéìå ìî''ã ÷ìåè ùøé

(e)

Answer #1: [The Gemara] prefers to resolve R. Yosi even according to the opinion that a cloven [born to a Tamei] is permitted.

à''ð áøàùå åøåáå ãîé ìàîå àééøé ãîåãä ø' ùîòåï ãùøé

(f)

Answer #2: It discusses [there] when the head and majority resemble its mother. R. Shimon agrees that it is permitted.

åéù ìã÷ã÷ îäëà ãäëé äìëúà ãìà ãøùéðï àú ã÷ééîà ìï ëøáðï ãùøå ÷ìåè ëãîåëç ôø÷ áäîä äî÷ùä (ùí òä:)

(g)

Assertion: We can infer from here that this is the Halachah, that we do not expound Es, for we hold like Rabanan, who permit an uncloven [born to a Tahor] in Chulin (75b);

ãàîø äëì îåãéí á÷ìåè áï ÷ìåèä áï ô÷åòä ùîåúø úøúé úîéäé ãëéøé àéðùé

1.

Citation (75b): All agree that an uncloven Ben Peku'ah (fetus found inside a slaughtered animal), the son of an uncloven [mother] is permitted [without Shechitah, even if it stepped on the ground]. People remember doubly bizarre things. (They will not think that animals do not need Shechitah.)

ù''î ÷ìåè ùøé

2.

Inference: An uncloven [born to a Tahor] is permitted!

(åàéëà) [ö"ì åéù ìãçåú ãàéëà - öàï ÷ãùéí] ìàå÷îà áøàùå åøåáå ãîé ìàîå

(h)

Rejection #1: We can reject, that we can establish it when the head and majority resemble its mother.

(àí ëï ðúéø ÷ìåè îäà èòîà åàú éòîéã) [ö"ì à"ð ðúéø ÷ìåè îäåà èîà åàú ðòîéã - öàï ÷ãùéí] ìàñåø çìáå åâîì ðùðä îôðé ùñåòä ëîå ùôï åàøðáú ëãàîø ì÷îï åä''ð ðéîà ìø' éåñé äâìéìé

(i)

Rejection #2: We can permit an uncloven [born to a Tahor] from "Hu Tamei", and we establish "Es" to forbid [a Tamei animal's] milk, and "Gamal" was repeated due to the Shesu'ah (a species or mutation that has two backs and two spines), just like Shafan and Arneves were repeated for it, below (6b). We can say the same according to R. Yosi ha'Gelili.

àáì éù ìã÷ã÷ îãàîø ôø÷ áðåú ëåúéí (ðãä ãó ìæ.) ð÷èéðï àéï ÷åùé ñåúø áæéáä åàé îùëçú úðà ãàîø ñåúø ø' àìéòæø äéà åäúí (ãó ìä.) îôøù èòîà ãø' àìéòæø îùåí ããøéù àú

(j)

Inference: We can infer from Nidah (37a). We hold that [blood seen amidst] Koshi (prenatal pain) does not Soser [cancel clean days counted towards Taharah from] Zivah. If a Tana is found who says that it is, it is R. Eliezer, and there (35a) it explains that R. Eliezer's reason is because he expounds "Es".

åáëúåáåú ô' äðåùà (ãó ÷â.) ãàîø äæäøå áëáåã àîëí å÷àîø àùú àá äåàé åôøéê àùú àá ðîé ãàåøééúà äéà àú àáéê ìøáåú àùú àáéê

1.

Implied question: In Kesuvos (103a, Rebbi) said "be careful to honor your mother", and the Gemara says that he referred to the father's wife. It asks that also this is mid'Oraisa - "Es Avicha" includes your father's wife!

é''ì ðéçà ìé' ìééùá ãáøé øáé ëëåìé òìîà

2.

Answer: [The Gemara] prefers to resolve Rebbi according to everyone.

òåã ðøàä ãàéï æä øàéä îðãä ãîä äåà æ÷å÷ ìåîø àé îùëçú úðà ãàîø ñåúø ø' àìéòæø äéà äà àéëà ëì äðé úðàé ããøùé àú

(k)

Retraction: There is no proof from Nidah. Why did [the Gemara] need to say "if a Tana is found who says that it is, it is R. Eliezer"? There are all these Tana'im who expound "Es"! (Rather, only R. Eliezer expounds it for that Drashah. However, Tosfos (Nidah 37a DH Naktinan) says that the Gemara connotes that Rabanan do not expound Es at all. If so, we hold like the opinion that does not expound Es.)

4)

TOSFOS DH Piresh

úåñôåú ã"ä ôéøù (ùééê ìòîåã á)

(SUMMARY: Tosfos dispels a potential inclusion.)

åà''ú ìå÷îà (áëáåã àá åàí ãîùååä ëáåãï ìëáåã) [ö"ì îåøàú àá åàí ãîùååä îåøàúï ìîåøàú - öàï ÷ãùéí] äî÷åí ÷éãåùéï (ãó ì:) åìòáåø òìéå áùðé òùä

(a)

Question: Why didn't [Shimon ha'Amsoni] establish ["Es Hash-m Elokecha Sira"] to include fear of father and mother, for their fear is equated to fear of Hash-m (Kidushin 30b), and [the Drashah causes one who transgresses] to transgress two Lavim?

(ëãàîø úôéìä åùéçä òùä) [ö"ì ëãàîøé' âáé úôéìéï ùéù ç' - ùéèä î÷åáöú] òùä

1.

[This would be] like we say about Tefilin, that there are eight Mitzvos Aseh (four verses command about the hand Tefilin, and four about the head)!

é''ì ãîùîò ìéä ãåîéà îåøà ùì î÷åí åæä àé àôùø

(b)

Answer: It connotes to him that [we must include something] similar to fear of Hash-m, and this is impossible;

åøáé ò÷éáà îøáä úìîéãé çëîéí ãúðï (àáåú ô''ã îé''á) îåøà øáê ëîåøà ùîéí:

1.

R. Akiva includes Chachamim, for a Mishnah teaches that fear of your Rebbi should be like fear of Shamayim.

6b----------------------------------------6b

5)

TOSFOS DH ha'Temei'im Le'esor Tziran v'Rotvan

úåñôåú ã"ä äèîàéí ìàñåø öéøï åøåèáï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that there are several Drashos from this word.)

àé îäèîàéí [ö"ì ãùøöéí - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã] ãøéù ÷ùä ãáäòåø åäøåèá (çåìéï ÷ëá:) îå÷îéðï ìéä ìòåøå ëáùøå

(a)

Question #1: If he expounds from ha'Temei'im of Sheratzim, this is difficult, for in Chulin (122b) we establish it [to teach that] its skin is like its meat!

åáú''ë ìà ãøéù ìéä âáé ùøöéí àìà âáé áäîä èîàä ãëúé' èîàéí äí ìëí

(b)

Question #2: And in Toras Kohanim it does not expound it regarding Sheratzim, rather, regarding a Tamei animal, for it says "Temei'im Hem Lachem"!

åîéäå ò''ë îäèîàéí ãùøöéí ãøéù ëãîåëç ô' äòåø åäøåèá (ùí ÷ë. åùí) áùîòúéï ãäîçä çìá åâîòå

(c)

Observation: However, you are forced to say that he expounds from ha'Temei'im of Sheratzim, like is proven in Chulin (120a) in the Sugya of one who melted Chelev and swallowed it;

ãîééúé (òì) [ö"ì òìä - îäøù"à åàçøéí] äê ãøùà ãäèîàéí åôøéê ìëúåá øçîðà áùøöéí åìéúå äðê åìéâîøå îéðéä îùîò ãîéðä ãøéù

1.

It brings this Drashah of ha'Temei'im concerning that Sugya, and asks "the Torah should write about Sheratzim, and we will learn [liability for drinking Chelev, Chametz or Nevelah] from it!" This connotes that we expound from [ha'Temei'im of Sheratzim].

åö''ì ãîä''à éúéøà ãäèîàéí ãøéù òåøåú ùìäí ëáùøí ùìäï

(d)

Answer #1: We must say that from the extra Hei of ha'Temei'im he expounds that their skin is like their meat.

úãò ãâáé áäîä ãëúá (èîà åìà ëúá äèîà) [ö"ì èîàéí åìà ëúá äèîàéí - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã] ãøéù áú''ë ìàñåø öéøï åøåèáï [ö"ì åìà îøáé ùòåøåúéäí ëáùøí - ùéèä î÷åáöú]

(e)

Proof: Regarding an animal, about which it is written Temei'im, and not ha'Temei'im, it expounds in Toras Kohanim to forbid their brine and gravy, and we do not include that their skin is like their meat.

åîéäå àëúé ãøéù [ö"ì ãøùà àçøéúé - ùéèä î÷åáöú] îï äèîàéí ôø÷ äòåø åäøåèá (ùí ÷ëå:) ìàñåø áéöú äùøõ

(f)

Implied question: However, still it expounds another Drashah from ha'Temei'im in Chulin (126b) to forbid the egg of a Sheretz!

åìùí ô''ä ä' éúéøà ðãøùú [ö"ì ìëîä ãøùåú - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ìàñåø öéøå åøåèáå åìòåøå ëáùøå åìáéöú äùøõ

(g)

Answer #2: There Rashi explained that the extra Hei is expounded for several Drashos - to forbid their brine and gravy, and that its skin is like its meat, and for the egg of a Sheretz. (They are equal, so we can expound all of them. In Answer #1, we learn from the Hei only that their skin is like their meat.)

6)

TOSFOS DH Le'esor Tziran v'Rotvan

úåñôåú ã"ä ìàñåø öéøï åøåèáï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes that the Torah forbids brine of Sheratzim, but not of fish.)

îùîò äëà ãöéø ãàåøééúà îãôøéê îéðä îàé ùðà çìá îöéø ù''î ãøùä âîåøä äéà

(a)

Inference: Brine is [forbidden] mid'Oraisa, since the Gemara asks "why is milk different than brine?" This shows that it is an absolute Drashah.

åáôø÷ äòåø åäøåèá (ùí ÷ë.) ðîé àîø öøéëé

(b)

Support: Also in Chulin (120a) it says that [this, and also the Drashos to obligate one who drinks Chelev, Chametz or Nevelah,] are needed.

å÷ùä ãáôø÷ àéï îòîéãéï (ò''æ î.) âáé (ãâ èîà) [ö"ì ñô÷ ãâéí èîàéí - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã] îôìéâ áéï îèáì áöéøå ìâåôå

(c)

Question #1: In Avodah Zarah (40a), regarding Safek Tamei fish, it distinguishes between one who dips in its brine and [the fish] itself!

åôø÷ âéã äðùä (çåìéï öè:) à''ø éäåãä öéø ãâéí øáéòéú áñàúéí åôøéê åäà à''ø éäåãä îéï áîéðå ìà áèéì ùàðé öéø ãæéòä áòìîà äåà îùîò ùäåà îãøáðï

(d)

Question #2: In Chulin (99b), R. Yehudah says that brine of [Tamei] fish, one Revi'is [mixed] in two Sa'im [forbids the mixture]. It asks that R. Yehudah holds that Min b'Mino is never Batel, [and answers that] brine is an exception, for it is a mere Zei'ah (sweat). This implies that it is [forbidden only] mid'Rabanan!

åé''ì öéø ãâéí ãøáðï öéø ùøöéí ãàåøééúà

(e)

Answer: Brine of [Tamei] fish is mid'Rabanan. Brine of Sheratzim is mid'Oraisa.

åàò''â ãáúåøú ëäðéí ðîé ãøùé' (ù÷õ äåà ìëí âáé ãâéí) [ö"ì âáé ãâéí ù÷õ äåà ìëí ìàñåø öéøï åøåèáï å÷éôä ùìäí - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã]

(f)

Implied question: Also in Toras Kohanim we expound about fish "Sheketz Hu Lachem" to forbid their brine, gravy and Kipah (thick gravy with bits of flesh).

[ö"ì öéøï - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã] àñîëúà áòìîà äåà

(g)

Answer: "Their brine" is a mere Asmachta.

åà''ú áôø÷ ëì äáùø (çåìéï ÷éá:) âáé øá îøé ãàîìç áùø ùçåèä áäãé èøéôä åàñø ìéä øáà îäèîàéí åôøéê ìéä îãâ èäåø ùîìçå òí ãâ èîà äéëé ôøéê îãâ ìáùø

(h)

Implied question: In Chulin (112b), regarding Rav Mari, who salted Shechutah (Kosher meat) with Tereifah (it absorbs brine of the Tereifah), and Rava forbade due to ha'Temei'im. [The Gemara] challenges [Rava] from Tahor fish salted with Tamei fish (the Tahor is permitted). How can it ask from fish (whose brine is forbidden only mid'Rabanan) to meat?

åé''ì ã÷éí ìéä (ãàñåø) [ö"ì ãìëì äôéåú àéñåø - ùéèä î÷åáöú] öéø îãøáðï

(i)

Answer: [The Makshan] knew that [fish] brine is Asur at least mid'Rabanan.

åáîñ' úøåîåú (ô''é î''ç) ðîé úðï åáô' âéã äðùä (çåìéï öè:) îééúé ìä ãâ èîà öéøå àñåø ù''î äà ãùøéðï ìä [ö"ì ëùîìçï æä òí æä - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã] îùåí ãìà áìòå

(j)

Support: Also in Terumos (10:8) and in Chulin (99b) it brings that brine of Tamei fish is forbidden. This shows that we permit when they were salted together because they do not absorb [from each other];

åîä ùëúåá (áñôøéí) [ö"ì á÷öú ñôøéí - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã] ù''î öéø îåúø ìà âøñ ìéä

1.

It says in some Seforim "this shows that their brine is permitted." The [correct] text does not say so.

å÷öú úéîä ëéåï ãöøéê ÷øà áùøõ åááäîä èîàä åãâéí ãìéëà ÷øà ìà àñø îãàåøééúà äéëé îééúé øáà øàéä äúí îäèîàéí ìàñåø öéø èøéôä

(k)

Question: Since we need a verse for [brine of a] Sheretz and [of a] Tamei animal, and [of fish], for which there is no verse, is not forbidden mid'Oraisa, how can Rava bring a proof there from ha'Temei'im to forbid brine of a Tereifah?

7)

TOSFOS DH Rotev v'Kipah Shelahen

úåñôåú ã"ä øåèá å÷éôä ùìäï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses whether the verse truly teaches these.)

åà''ú úéôå÷ ìé' îîùøú ìéúï èòí ëòé÷ø îëàï àúä ãï ìëì àéñåøéï ùáúåøä (ôñçéí ã' îã.)

(a)

Question: I already know this from "Mishras", which teaches Ta'am k'Ikur (if one can taste Isur in a mixture, it is forbidden). From here you learn to all Isurim in the Torah (Pesachim 44a)!

é''ì òé÷ø ÷øà ìöéøï åàåøçà ãäù''ñ áäëé

(b)

Answer #1: The verse primarily comes for their brine. The Gemara is wont to do so (attribute other Drashos to a verse, even though it is not their real source).

åäúòìîú ôòîéí ùàúä îúòìí åòé÷ø ÷øà ìæ÷ï åàéðå ìôé ëáåãå (á''î ã' ì áøëåú ã' éè:)

1.

Source #1: [We expound] "v'His'alamta" - sometimes you ignore [an Aveidah], and the verse primarily teaches a Chacham for whom it is below his dignity [to carry the Aveidah. The Gemara attributes to it also that a Kohen ignores an Aveidah in a cemetery, or if returning it would cause him a loss more than the Aveidah's value - Bava Metzi'a 30a, Brachos 19b].

åáô''÷ ãçâéâä (ãó ã.) ðîé àîø øâìéí ôøè ìáòìé ÷áéï (åàîø ôøè ìçâø åñåîà åìà òé÷ø ÷øà) [ö"ì åòé÷ø ÷øà ìôøè ìçâø åñåîà åìà - îøàä ëäï] ìáòìé ÷áéï ãîôòîéí ãøéù ìéä äúí

2.

Source #2: Also in Chagigah (4a) it says "Regalim" excludes people who need a walking stick, and the verse primarily excludes a lame or blind person, and not people who need a cane, which we expound there from "Pa'amim".

åîéäå ëàï àéï öøéê ìåîø ëê ãàéöèøéê ìøåèá å÷éôä ìàùîåòé' (ãäåé) [ö"ì ãîéçåé - öàï ÷ãùéí] ëîîù àí äîçä äùøõ [ö"ì ãñã"à - ÷øáï àùí] ãäåé ëùúéä åàéðå áëìì àëéìä åàëéìä ëúéá áäåï ÷î''ì áëìì àëéìúå

(c)

Answer #2: Here we need not say so, for we need it for the gravy and Kipah, to teach that a dissolved [Sheretz] is like it itself, if he melted a Sheretz. One might have thought that it is like drinking, and it is not included in eating, and eating was written about [Sheratzim]. The verse teaches that it is included in eating it.

åäúí (çåìéï ÷ë.) îééúé ìä âáé äîçä çìá çîõ åðáìú òåó èäåø åâîòå

1.

There (Chulin 120a) we bring it regarding one who melted Chelev, Chametz or Nivlas Ohf Tahor and swallowed it.

îéäå ÷ùä ãîùîò äëà ãàéöèøéê ìöéø ìàùîåòéðï ãçùéá ëâåó äùøõ ãôøéê îéðä àçìá ãéúñø ëîå öéø

(d)

Question: It connotes here that it is needed for brine, to teach that it is considered like the Sheretz itself! It asks from it about milk, that it should be forbidden like brine!

åö''ì ãù÷åìéí äï

(e)

Answer: These (forbidding the brine, and to consider a dissolved Sheretz like a Sheretz) are equal (so we may learn both).

åîéäå îöéø ìçåãéä ìà äåä ùîòéðï ãìéäåé ùúéä ëàëéìä ãäåä îöé ìàå÷îà ëùä÷ôäå åàëìå

(f)

Observation: We could not learn from brine alone that drinking is like eating (since one is liable for the brine), for we could have established it when he solidified it and ate it.

8)

TOSFOS DH Kipah Shelahen

úåñôåú ã"ä ÷éôä ùìäï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses what this is.)

áô' äòåø åäøåèá (çåìéï ÷ë.) àîø îàé ÷éôä ôøîà åôøéê äåà òöîå ìèîà èåîàú àåëìéí àìà îàé ÷éôä úáìéï

(a)

Reference: In Chulin (120a, Rava) says that Kipah is dregs of meat. [Abaye] asked that dregs themselves have Tum'as Ochlim! (The Mishnah says that Kipah joins for Tum'as Ochlim. Rav Papa said that) rather, it is spices (cooked with the meat).

àáì äëà éëåì (ì÷øåú) [ö"ì ìäéåú - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã] áéï ôøîà áéï úáìéï ãìà àúà ìàùîåòéðï àìà (ùúéäï) [ö"ì ùúéä] ëàëéìä

(b)

Observation: Here [Kipah] can be either dregs or spices. It comes to teach only that drinking is like eating.

åëï îùîò áô''ä ùôéøù øñå÷é áùø å÷ôìåè ùáùåìé ÷ãéøä:

(c)

Support: Rashi connotes like this. He explained that it is shreds of meat and leeks at the bottom of the pot.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF