1)

TOSFOS DH Mesucharya di'Nezaisa

úåñôåú ã"ä îñåëøéà ãðæééúà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explained this elsewhere.)

ôéøùðå áô''÷ ãëúåáåú (ã' å. ã''ä äàé) åáñåó (ëì ëúáé) (ùáú ÷éà. ã''ä äàé)

(a)

Reference: I explained this in Kesuvos (6a) and in Shabbos (111a. Some say that it is forbidden lest he squeeze water from it. R. Tam challenged this, for squeezing of laundering applies only to water. Others forbid lest he be Mevatel (leave the cloth there permanently), and he made a Kli on Shabbos, or due to Mefarek.)

2)

TOSFOS DH d'Havah Lei Oker Davar mi'Gidulo ki'Le'acher Yad

úåñôåú ã"ä ãäåä ìéä òå÷ø ãáø îâéãåìå ëìàçø éã

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why plucking feathers could be more stringent.)

àéï ììîåã îëàï ùéäà îåúø ìúìåù ðåöä îöåàø ùì òåó ëãé ìùçåè áé''è

(a)

Implied suggestion: We can learn from here that one may detach feathers from a bird's neck in order to slaughter on Yom Tov!

ãäà ìòéì (ôøéù) [ö"ì ôéøùúé - öàï ÷ãùéí] ãäà ãùøé äëà îùåí ùàéï îúëåéï

(b)

Rejection: Above (24b DH v'Hainu, Explanation #2) I explained that it is permitted because he does not intend [to detach. Here he intends.]

åììùåï ðîé (ùôéøù ãàôé' áîúëåéï) [ö"ì ùôéøùúé ãàôé' áîúëåéï ùøé - ùéèä î÷åáöú]

(c)

Implied question: According to the version that I explained (there, i.e. Explanation #1) that it is permitted even if he intends (also here we should permit)!

[ö"ì äééðå áöîø àáì - ùéèä î÷åáöú] áðåöä ìà äåé ëìàçø éã ëã÷úðé áñîåê áúåìù àú (äòåó) [ö"ì äëðó ãäééðå àåøçéä - ùéèä î÷åáöú]

(d)

Answer: That is only for wool, but for feathers it is not ki'Le'acher Yad, like it teaches below about one who plucks [a feather from] a bird's wing, that it is normal.

åàò''â ãàéï öøéê ëàï ðåöä åäåé îìàëä ùàéðä öøéëä ìâåôä

(e)

Implied question: He does not need the feathers. It is Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah! (We rule like R. Shimon, that it is forbidden only mid'Rabanan. It should be permitted for the sake of Shechitah, just like uprooting something from where it grows ki'Le'acher Yad!)

àéï ììîåã îìàëä ùàéðä öøéëä ìâåôä îëìàçø éã

(f)

Answer: We cannot learn Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah from ki'Le'acher Yad.

3)

TOSFOS DH v'Amar Reish Lakish Hainu Mishum Gozez

úåñôåú ã"ä åàîø ø''ì çééá îùåí âåææ

(SUMMARY: Tosfos questions the question.)

úéîä îä äåà î÷ùä àò''â ãìòðéï áëåø ìà îçééá áéä îùåí ìà úâåæ ìòðéï ùáú éù ìçééá îùåí úåìãä ãâåææ ëëì òå÷ø ãáø îâéãåìå ááòìé çééí

(a)

Question: What was the question? Even though regarding Bechor he is not liable due to Lo Sagoz, regarding Shabbos we can obligate for a Toldah of Gozez, like anyone who uproots something from where it grows on an animal!

ëîå (çåìéï ãó òâ.) [ö"ì ùáú ÷æ: - äøù"ù] äåùéè éãå ìîòé áäîä åãéìãì òåáø ùáîòéä ìòðéï ùáú [çééá] åáîå÷ãùéï ìà îçééá îùåí âåææ

1.

This is like one who stuck his hand into an animal's womb and uprooted the fetus in its womb. Regarding Shabbos he is liable, and one who did so to Kodshim is not liable for Gozez.

åëï ÷éèåó çééá áùáú îùåí úåìãä ã÷åöø (åëï) [ö"ì åëì - ùéèä î÷åáöú] úåìù îï äîçåáø àò''â ã÷éèåó ìòðéï ÷öéøä ÷åãí ìòåîø ìà îçééá (ôñçéí éà.) åìòðéï ì÷è áô' øàùéú äâæ (çåìéï ÷ìæ.)

2.

And similarly Kituf (harvesting by hand) is liable on Shabbos for a Toldah of Kotzer, and everyone who detaches from what is attached, even though one is not liable for Kituf for harvesting before the Omer (Pesachim 11a), and regarding Leket, in Chulin (137a).

åàé äåä îôøùéðï äëà ãôøéê àäà ãàîøéðï ãúåìù çùåá ëìàçø éã äåä ðéçà ãîééúé øàéä îäëà ãìà ëìàçø éã

(b)

Answer: If we would explain here that he challenges what we said that Tolesh is considered ki'Le'acher Yad, it would be fine that he brings a proof from here that it is not ki'Le'acher Yad.

åàéï äìùåï îùîò ëï îã÷àîø åúåìù ìàå äééðå âåææ åäà úðéà äúåìù àú (äòåó) [ö"ì äëðó - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ëå' îùîò ãôøéê àäà ãàîøï ãúåìù ìàå äééðå âåææ

(c)

Objection: The wording does not connote like this, since it says "is Tolesh not Gozez?! A Beraisa teaches that one who is Tolesh from a wing..." This connotes that he challenges what we said that Tolesh is not Gozez.

4)

TOSFOS DH mid'Rav Savar Lah k'R. Yosi... R. Yosi Savar Lah k'Rav

úåñôåú ã"ä îãøá ñáø ìä ëø' éåñé áï äîùåìí ø' éåñé ñáø ìä ëøá

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the source to say so.)

ãàîø ãáø ùàéï îúëåéï àñåø

(a)

Explanation: [R. Yosi holds like Rav,] who forbids Davar she'Eino Miskaven;

ùàí äéä ñåáø ããáø ùàéï îúëåéï îåúø îðà ìéä ìøá ùéäà äìëä ëîåúå îùåí ãúåìù ìàå äééðå ëâåææ ãéìîà ëé ùøé ø' éåñé îùåí ãáø ùàéï îúëåéï îåúø åúåìù äééðå âåææ

1.

If he permitted Davar she'Eino Miskaven, what is Rav's source that the Halachah follows him because Tolesh is not Gozez? Perhaps R. Yosi permits because Davar she'Eino Miskaven is permitted, but Tolesh is Gozez!

àìà ÷éí ìéä ìøá (îùåí) ãàéú ìéä ìø' éåñé ãáø ùàéï îúëåéï àñåø

2.

Rather, Rav knew that R. Yosi forbids Davar she'Ein Miskaven.

5)

TOSFOS DH Ikaro Mashchir v'Rosho Ma'adim

úåñôåú ã"ä òé÷øï îùçéø åøàùï îàãéí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains our text, and an opposite text.)

ëê äéä ëúåá áñôøéí åéù ìôøù ãð÷è øàùï îàãéí ìøáåúà àò''â ùëåìä àãåîä îáçåõ èòåðä âæéæä

(a)

Explanation: This is written in most Seforim. We can explain that it mentioned that the end reddens for a bigger Chidush, that even though it is all red outside, it must be sheared [to be Machshir it for Parah Adumah].

åá÷åðè' âøéñ àéôëà îúåê úåñôúà ãôøä

(b)

Alternative text: Rashi's text says oppositely (it is red at the root and black at the end), based on the Tosefta in Parah (2:7).

6)

TOSFOS DH Gozez b'Misperayim v'Eino Choshesh

úåñôåú ã"ä âåææ áîñôøéí åàéðå çåùù

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses how we derive that he permits Davar she'Eino Miskaven.)

ëìåîø àôé' éâæåæ îùàø äùòøåú (áìà îúëåéï àó àìå òöîå éâæåæ éåúø îï äöåøê ìâéøñú ä÷åðè' øàùï îùçéø åäéä) [ö"ì òîäï áìà îúëåéï àå àó àìå òöîï éâæåæ éåúø îï äöåøê ìâéøñú ä÷åðè' ãøàùï îùçéø - ùéèä î÷åáöú]

(a)

Explanation #1: [He need not be concerned] even if he cuts other hairs with [the black hairs] without intent, or even these [black hairs] themselves he cuts more than is needed, according to Rashi's text that the end is black (it would have sufficed to cut the black part, and he cut also the red).

[ö"ì åîæä - ùéèä î÷åáöú] îã÷ã÷ ã÷ñáø ãáø ùàéï îúëåéï îåúø

1.

From this [the Gemara] infers that he permits Davar she'Eino Miskaven.

åá÷åðè' ôé' ããéé÷ îäà ãùøé îùåí ãàéï îúëåéï ìùåí âæéæä àìà ìú÷ï

(b)

Explanation #2 (Rashi): It infers from this that he permits because he does not intend for shearing and working, rather, to fix (be Machshir).

(ãàéï æä ëùàø ìùåï àéï îúëåéï áòìîà ãëéåï ãáëååðä) [ö"ì åàéï æä ãåîä ìùàø ìùåï àéï îúëåéï ãòìîà ãëàï áëååðä - ùéèä î÷åáöú] âåææ áîñôøéí

(c)

Question: This is unlike other expressions of Ein Miskaven elsewhere, for here he intentionally shears with scissors!

åéù ìééùá ìôé' ä÷åðèøñ ãäëé ôøéê åñáø ø' éåñé áï äîùåìí ãáø ùàéï îúëåéï àñåø åùøé îèòí ãúåìù ìàå äééðå âåææ

(d)

Answer: According to Rashi, we can say that it asks as follows. Does R. Yosi ben ha'Meshulam forbid Davar she'Eino Miskaven, and he permits because Tolesh is not Gozez?

äà àùëçï âáé ôøä ãàôé' áîñôøéí ãäåé âåææ îùåí ãòåùä ëãé ìäëùéø äôøä ùøé âáé áëåø ðîé äåä ìéä ìîéùøé áëì òðéï ëéåï ãòåùä ìöåøê úé÷åï ùçéèä ãàéï æä çùåá âåææ

1.

We find regarding Parah that even with scissors, which is Gozez, because he does so in order to be Machshir the Parah, it is permitted. Also regarding Bechor, he should permit in every case! Since he does so for the sake of a proper Shechitah, this is not considered Gozez!

åîéäå àéï ôé' æä ðøàä ëìì ãáëì òðéï éëåì ìä÷ùåú áéï äåé èòîéä îùåí ãáø ùàéï îúëåéï îåúø áéï äåé èòîéä îùåí ãúåìù ìàå äééðå âåææ

(e)

Objection: This is wrong, for in any case one can ask [this], whether the reason is due to Davar she'Eino Miskaven or because Tolesh is not Gozez!

7)

TOSFOS DH Sa'ar Bechor Ba'al Mum she'Nashar v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä ùòø áëåø áòì îåí ùðùø ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the Isur of shearings of Pesulei ha'Mukdashim.)

ëåìä äê ùîòúà îåëçà ãâéæú ôñåìé äîå÷ãùéï ùøé îãàåøééúà

(a)

Inference: This entire Sugya proves that shearings of Pesulei ha'Mukdashim are permitted mid'Oraisa;

åàôé' øáðï ãàñøé îôøù áâî' âæéøä ãìîà àúé ìàùäåéä

1.

Even Rabanan, who forbid, the Gemara explains that it is a decree lest one delay [Shechitah, in order to get more shearings].

åäà ããøùéðï ìòéì (ãó å:) úæáç åìà âéæä

(b)

Implied question: We expound above (6b) "Tizbach" (slaughter Pesulei ha'Mukdashim), and not shearings!

äééðå úæáç åìà úâåæ

(c)

Answer: It means "Tizbach", but do not shear.

åúéîä ìøáé ãàîøé' áôø÷ ùðé ãçåìéï (ãó )ìå:) [ðøàä ùö"ì ìä:]) âáé òì äàøõ úùôëðå ëîéí ääåà ìîùøé ãîï ùì ôñåìé äîå÷ãùéí äåà ãàúà ãñ''ã äåàéì åàñéøé áâéæä åòáåãä ãîï ðîé ìéáòé ÷áåøä ÷à îùîò ìï

(d)

Question #1: According to Rebbi, who says in Chulin (35b) regarding "Al ha'Aretz Tishpechenu ka'Mayim", that it comes to permit blood of Pesulei ha'Mukdashim, for one might have thought that since shearing and working them are forbidden, also their blood must be buried. The verse teaches that this is not so;

åäéëé úéñ÷ àãòúéï ìàñåø ãîï [áäðàä] îùåí ãàñéøé áâéæä åòáåãä äà àôé' äâéæä òöîä îåúøú

1.

How could one think to forbid Hana'ah from their blood, because shearing and working are forbidden? Even the shearings themselves are permitted!

åë''ú äà ãùøéà îãàåøééúà äééðå áðùø àáì âåææ ãîúëåéï àñåø

2.

Suggestion: It is permitted mid'Oraisa when it fell [by itself], but if he intentionally sheared, it is forbidden.

(çãà ãîúëåéï ããí ëðùø âéæä) [ö"ì ìéúà ãáäà ìà îúøöà ôéøëéï ãîúëåéï ããí ëðùø ãâéæä ãàéðå òåùä áùáéì äãí àìà ìäúéø äáùø - ùéèä î÷åáöú] [ö"ì ìàëéìä - âîøà òåæ åäãø]

3.

Rejection #1: This does not answer our question, for intent for blood is like shearings that fell. He does not [slaughter] for the sake of blood, rather, to permit eating the meat!

åòåã (àôéìå) [ö"ì ãàôéìå - ùéèä î÷åáöú] (îëàï îòîåã á) áúåìù ôìéâé ëãîåëç áñåó ôéø÷éï (ãó ëå.) (ãùøé ø''ò îëìì ëé àñøé øáðï îãøáðï) [ö"ì åùøé ò÷áéà îëìì ëé àñøé øáðï îãøáðï ãå÷à - ùéèä î÷åáöú]

4.

Rejection #2: They argue even about one who detaches, like is proven below (26a), that Akavya permits. This implies that Rabanan forbid only mid'Rabanan (for they argue about whether or not we decree. Even though there they argue about what fell by itself, Tosfos at the end of Amud B says that we conclude that the laws of Tolesh and Nitlash are the same.)

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

(åàôé') [ö"ì åòåã ãàôé' - ùéèä î÷åáöú] áòåìä úîéîä ìà îéúñøà äâéæä àìà îãøáðï ëãîåëç ì÷îï âáé úåìù öîø îòåìä úîéîä

5.

Rejection #3: Also, even regarding a Tam Olah, the shearings are forbidden only mid'Rabanan, like is proven below (26a) regarding one who was Tolesh wool of a Tam Olah.

åäà ãôøéê úåìù îé àéëà ìîàï ãùøé

6.

Implied question: [The Gemara] asks "[if he was] Tolesh, does anyone permit [the shearings]?!"

äééðå îãøáðï ëãôé' ùí á÷åðèøñ îùåí ãøùò äåà

7.

Answer: That is mid'Rabanan, like Rashi explained there, because he is a Rasha.

åòåã ÷ùä áääåà ãçåìéï ìîä ìé ÷øà ãí ôñåìé äîå÷ãùéï ãùøé áäðàä åäìà àó á÷ãùéí ãí îåúø áäðàä îùðòùéú îöåúå åäúí ãìéëà îöåä ìîä éäà àñåø

(e)

Question #2: In Chulin there, why do we need a verse to permit benefit from blood of Pesulei ha'Mukdashim? Even Kodshim, the blood is Mutar b'Hana'ah from when its Mitzvah was done, and there (Pesulei ha'Mukdashim) there is no Mitzvah. Why should it be forbidden?!

åòåã îàé ÷àîø äåàéì åàñéøé áâéæä åòáåãä åäà ìàçø ùçéèä îåúø ìâæåæ åìòáåã ãîæáéçä åàéìê äëì îåúø åäúí áãí ùçéèä àééøé

(f)

Question #3: Why does it say "since shearing and working are forbidden for them"? After Shechitah one may shear them and work with them, for from Shechitah and onwards everything is permitted. There it discusses blood of Shechitah!

1.

Note: What work can one do with them after Shechitah, i.e. while they are quivering? Perhaps Tosfos holds that milking is considered Avodah with the animal, like R. Gershom (above 6b DH Ela mid'Gali) and Hagahos Mordechai (Shabbos Perek 16, Remez 464 (p.82 in a standard Gemara) DH u'Matzasi); it applies even after death. Below Tosfos says that '"Basar", and not milk' is not an Isur to milk. He did not say that we already know milking due to Avodah. Perhaps the Havah Amina was to learn Avodah from "Basar", like the Ran (Mo'ed Katan 12a DH ka'Yotzei). R. Gershom (above 12a DH Pesulei) learns the Avodah of milking from "Basar"!

åçìá ðîé ìà àñøéðï (îãëúéá áùø àìà îçééí åìà ìàçø ùçéèä ëîå) [ö"ì îçééí åìà ìàçø ùçéèä - öàï ÷ãùéí] ìîàï ããøéù ìòéì áô' ùðé (ãó èå:) àéï ìê áäí äéúø àëéìä àìà îùòú æáéçä åàéìê [ö"ì åìà îãëúéá áùø - öàï ÷ãùéí]

2.

Also milk we forbid [only] in its lifetime, but not after Shechitah, according to the opinion that expounds above (15b) "you have a Heter to eat it only from Shechitah and onwards", and not because it says "Basar"!

åòåã ãùøé ìëåìé òìîà îãáòé ìîéìó äéúø çìá áôø÷ ÷îà (ìòéì å:) îãàñø øçîðà çìá ùì ôñåìé äîå÷ãùéï åìà ÷àîø ãàéöèøéê îùåí ääåà ãìàçø ùçéèä

3.

Further, all permit [milk after Shechitah], since we wanted to learn a Heter for [Chulin] milk above (6b), since the Torah forbade milk of Pesulei ha'Mukdashim, and it did not say that we need the verse for [milk] after Shechitah! (I.e. perhaps all milk is forbidden in the animal's lifetime; we need a verse to forbid milk of Pesulei ha'Mukdashim even after Shechitah, for such milk of Chulin is permitted.)

åîéäå îöéðå ìîéîø ãàéöèøéê ÷øà úùôëðå ëîéí îùåí ãí ùéöà ÷åãí ùçéèú øåá

(g)

Answer (to Question #3): However, we can say that we need "Tishpechenu ka'Mayim" due to blood that came out before the majority [of the Simanim] were cut.

àáì î''î ÷ùä îäà ãùîòúéï

(h)

Question: However, in any case it is difficult from our Sugya (Question #1. Why do we need Tishpechenu ka'Mayim, lest we learn from shearing and working to forbid blood? Even the shearings themselves are permitted!)

åàåîø øáé ãñ''ã ìîéñø (ëîå çìá åäåå áùø) [ö"ì ãí ëîå çìá îùåí ããøùéðï áùø åìà çìá - ùéèä î÷åáöú] åä''ä áùø åìà ãí

(i)

Answer (Tosfos' Rebbi): One might have thought to forbid blood like milk, because we expound "Basar", and not milk, and likewise "Basar", and not blood;

åìà ãîé ìâéæä (ãùîà) [ö"ì ãùøéà - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ãâéæä îúæáç ðô÷à ãîùîò úæáç åìà úâåæ

1.

It is unlike shearings, which are permitted, for we learn shearing from "Tizbach", which connotes slaughter, and do not shear (the act of shearing is forbidden, but not the shearings);

àáì ëàï åàëìú áùø ëúéá (ãáøéí éá) îùîò áùø úàëì åìà çìá åãí åìàñåø (àôé' áäðàä) [ö"ì äãí àôé' áäðàä àúà ãìàëéìä ìà àéöèøéê - ùéèä î÷åáöú]

2.

However, here it is written v'Achalta Basar, which connotes that you eat meat, but not milk and blood, and it comes to forbid blood even b'Hana'ah, for [the verse] is not needed to forbid eating [blood].

àò''ô ùäãøùä àéðä îéåùáú òì äãí ëîå çìá ãùøé áàëéìä

3.

Implied question: The Drashah is not resolved regarding blood like it is for milk, which is permitted to eat!

i.

Note: I.e. the verse permits the meat, but not other parts of the animal. Since it is needed to forbid milk, what is the source to say that it comes to forbid also Hana'ah from blood? And if so, it should likewise forbid Hana'ah from Chelev and Gid ha'Nasheh, and there is no verse to permit them!

[ö"ì î"î ãí ðîé áø àëéìä - ùéèä î÷åáöú, öàï ÷ãùéí] äåà

4.

Answer: In any case, also blood is edible (so the Drashah applies also to it. Perhaps Tosfos means that one may eat it, i.e. after it is cooked. Even so, there was a Havah Amina to forbid Hana'ah, since one may not eat Stam (uncooked) blood.)

åäà ãìà îééúé äúí áùø åìà çìá àìà úæáç åìà âéæä

(j)

Implied question: Why does it not bring there [that we thought to forbid blood due to] "Basar", and not milk', rather, '"Tizbach", and not shearing'?

øéù îéìúà ð÷è

(k)

Answer #1: It mentioned the beginning of the [Drashah].

åòåã ðéçà ìéä ìàúåéé àéñåø âéæä (àôé' ìòðéï îì÷å' ëîå îúçìä ÷åãí ùðôìå) [ö"ì ãçîéø àôé' ìòðéï îì÷å' ëîå îúçìä ÷åãí ùðôñìå - ùéèä î÷åáöú] (ãúðï) [ö"ì ëãúðéà] äâåææ åäòåáã ñåôâ àøáòéí

(l)

Answer #2: [The Gemara] prefers to bring the Isur of shearing, which is stringent even for lashes, like initially, before it became Pasul, like a Beraisa teaches "one who shears or works [with it] receives 40 lashes";

åëéåï ùäçîéøä áå úåøä ëì ëê ä''à ìãøåù ÷øàé ìçåîøà áùø åìà çìá åãí àé ìàå ëîéí

1.

Since the Torah was so stringent, one might have thought to expound the verses to be stringent - '"Basar", and not milk or blood', if not for ["Tishpechenu] ka'Mayim."

åëï îåëç áôø÷ ÷îà (ìòéì å:) ãäà ããøùéðï áùø åìà çìá ìà ùéäà àñåø ìçìåá

(m)

Support: It is proven like this above (6b) that what we expound '"Basar", and not milk' is not an Isur to milk. (Rather, it forbids the milk);

ãáòå ìîéã÷ îéðä äéúø çìá îãâìé øçîðà âáé ôñåìé äîå÷ãùéï áùø åìà çìá äà ãçåìéï ùøé ùîò îéðä ãìàñåø äçìá ùðçìá àúà ÷øà

1.

Source: We wanted to infer from it a Heter for [Chulin] milk. Since the Torah revealed about Pesulei ha'Mukdashim "Basar", but not milk, this implies that [Chulin] milk is permitted. This shows that the verse comes to forbid milk that was milked.

8)

TOSFOS DH ha'Tolesh Tzemer mi'Bechor Tam

úåñôåú ã"ä äúåìù öîø îáëåø úí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that in the conclusion, Tolesh is not precise.)

áîñ÷ðà ãùîòúéï îôøù ãìàå ãå÷à úåìù ãä''ä ðúìù

(a)

Observation: In the conclusion of our Sugya, it explains that this is not only Tolesh. The same applies to what became detached [by itself];

åìà ð÷è úåìù àìà îùåí ñéôà ã÷úðé áä úåìù îùåí øáåúà ãò÷áéà:

1.

It mentioned Tolesh only due to the Seifa, which taught Tolesh due to the Chidush of Akavya (he permits even if one detached).

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF