1)

TOSFOS DH U'V'HA KAMIFL'GI

úåñ' ã"ä åáäà ÷îéôìâé

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the statement and explains how Ra Yosef can argue with a Beraisa.)

úéîä, îðìéä ãôìéâé, ãìîà øîé áø éçæ÷àì áãàééòã, åàîøé áé øá áãìà àééòã?

(a)

Question: How do we know that they argue? Perhaps Rami bar Yechezkel speaks where they wer4e warned, and Amri bei Rav where they were not?

åé"ì, ãà"ë, îàé ÷î"ì àîøé áé øá?

(b)

Answer: In that case, what is Amri bei Rav coming to teach us?

åàéï ìúîåä, äéëé ôìéâ à'áøééúà?

(c)

Refuted Question: And one cannot ask hoe he can argue with a Beraisa?

ãñúí àîøé áé øá îùîéä ãøá, åøá úðà åôìéâ.

(d)

Answer #1: Since S'tam Amri bei Rav is said in the name of Rav, and Rav was a Tana who has the authority to argue with Tana'im.

à"ð, îùåí ãìà îéúðé áé ø' çééà åø' àåùòéà, ìà îåúáéðï îéðéä úéåáúà.

(e)

Answer #2: Alternatively, because, since the Beraisa was not learned in the Beis-ha'Medrash of Rebbi Chiya and Rebbi Oshaya, one cannot question an Amora from it.

2)

TOSFOS DH V'CHI TEIMA RISHON L'HATAZAH

úåñ' ã"ä åëé úéîà øàùåï ìäúæä

(Summary: Tosfos queries this from a Beraisa that the Gemara will cite shortly.)

åàò"â ãìà ùééê ìôøù äëé áøééúà ãì÷îï - ãúðé òìä 'áã"à, áøùåú äðéæ÷, àáì áøä"ø, òì äøàùåï ôèåø åòì äàçøåï çééá' ...

(a)

Implied Question: Even though it is not possible to explain the Beraisa later, which states with regard to the Mishnah 'That speak in the domain of te Nizak, but in the R'shus ha'Rabim, he is Patur on the former and Chayav on the latter' ..

åàé øàùåï ìäúæä, ëê éëåì ìäéåú øàùåï ìäúæä àå áøùåú ðéæ÷ àå áøä"ø ëîå ùðé ìäúæä?

1.

Implied Question (cont.): And if it speaks where the first one damaged via Hatazah (the object shooting up), this could happen in the domain of the Nizak as in the R'shus ha'Rabim, just as the Hatazah of the second one?

îëì î÷åí îúðéúéï îöé ùôéø îéôøùà äëé.

(b)

Answer: Nevertheless, one can explain the Mishnah on this way.

3)

TOSFOS DH RAV ASHI K'RABANAN MUKI LAH U'BA'I LAH HACHI

úåñ' ã"ä øá àùé ëøáðï îå÷é ìä åáòé ìä äëé

(Summary: Tosfos first explains why the Gemara chooses this explanation rather than an alternative one, then explains the Sugya in detail.)

äåä îöé ìîéîø ã'àú"ì ÷àîø' - 'àú"ì ìàå ëëçå ãîé, îúðéúéï øáðï äéà àå ñåîëåñ äéà'.

(a)

Implied Question: The Gemara could have said in a Lashon of 'If you will say' - 'If you will say that it (Ko'ach Kocho) is not like Kocho, is the author of our Mishnah the Rabanan or Sumchus?'

àìà òãéôà ìéä ìîéáòé áéù ùðåé åàéï ùðåé.

1.

Answer: But the Gemara prefers to ask the She'eilah as to whether there is Shinuy (with regard to a quarter payment) or not.

åðøàä ãáòéà ãìòéì ìà äéúä àìà àé îúðéúéï àééøé áöøåøåú ëé àåøçéä àå ò"é ùðåé, åúå ìà.

(b)

Clarification: And it appears that the previous She'eilah was merely as to whether the Mishnah is speaking by conventional Tzeroros or by unconventional Tzeroros, and no more.

åäù"ñ äåñéó îãòúå 'øáðï äéà àå ñåîëåñ äéà', åøá àùé îôøù ãàéáòéà ìäå àé éù ùðåé ìøáéò àå àéï ùðåé.

1.

Clarification (cont.): And the Gemara of its own accord added whether it goes like the Rabanan or Sumchus, and Rav Ashi explains that the She'eilah is whether there is Shinuy with regard to a quarter payment or not.

åëä"â àéëà ô' äî÷áì (á"î ãó ÷éá. åùí ã"ä àåîï) âáé áòéà ãøá ùùú ã'÷áìï òåáø ááì úìéï àå àéï òåáø'.

(c)

Precedent: And a similar format is to be found in Perek ha'Mekabel (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 112a and 112b DH 'Uman') in connection with the She'eilah of Rav Sheishes whether 'a Kablan transgresses bal Talin or not').

ùäåñéó äù"ñ ìåîø 'àåîï ÷åðä áùáç ëìé ... ', åøá ùùú ùàìå ñúí ...

1.

Precedent (cont.): There too, the Gemara of its own adds 'whether a worker acquires the improvement of the K'li that he is working on', even though Rav Sheishes asked the She'eilah S'tam.

åáäâåæì ÷îà (ì÷îï ãó öè. åùí ã"ä áùìéçà) îå÷é ìä áùìéçà ãàâøúà.

2.

Precedent (concl.): Whereas in 'ha'Gozel Kama' (later on Daf 99a and and 99b DH bi'Shelicha', it establishes it by a Shali'ach who is delivering a letter (See Mesores ha'Shas 6).

4)

TOSFOS DH B'MAKOM SHE'I EFSHAR LAH ELA IM KEIN ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä áî÷åí ùàé àôùø ìä àìà à"ë åëå'

(Summary: Tosfos explains why Rashi's P'shat is the correct one.)

àéï ìôøù ãàééøé áøä"ø, åîéáòéà ìéä ãàí àåøçéä ôèåø, îéãé ãäåä à'øâì ...

(a)

Refuted Explanation: One cannot explain that it speaks in the R'shus ha'Rabim, and the She'eilah is whether he is Patur if it damaged in the conventional manner, similar to 'Regel' ...

îãìà ÷àîø 'äéúä îäìëú áøùåú äøáéí' ëîå ááòéà ãáñîåê.

(b)

Refutation: Since the Beraisa does not say that it was walking in the R'shus ha'Rabim, as it did in the She'eilah that follows.

åô"ä òé÷ø.

(c)

Authentic Explanation: Rashi's explanation is therefore the correct one.

19b----------------------------------------19b

5)

TOSFOS DH AVAL KASHRO ADAM KASHER

úåñ' ã"ä àáì ÷ùøå àãí çééá

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the case.)

ôé' áúø ãðééç åîùåí áåø.

(a)

Clarification: It speaks after the object has landed, and he is Chayav because of 'Bor'.

åìàå ãå÷à '÷ùøå', àìà ëì äéëà ãìà àöðòéä, ë÷ùøå ãîé, ëã÷àîø 'àé ãìà àöðòéä, ôåùò äåà'.

(b)

Clarification (cont.): 'Kashro' is La'av Davka, because wherever one places the object in an guarded location, it is as if he tied it, as the Gemara states 'If he did not place it in a guarded place, he is negligent'.

6)

TOSFOS DH ELA MASNISIN B'D'ADYEIH ADUYEI

úåñ' ã"ä àìà îúðé' áãàãééä àãåéé

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the case.)

åàééøé áãìéì äô÷ø, àå ãçáøéä åàöðòéä.

(a)

Clarification: It speaks in a case of an object that is Hefker, or where the owner tied it and placed it in a guarded location.

7)

TOSFOS DH V'CHI ITMAR D'RAV HUNA B'ALMA ITMAR

úåñ' ã"ä åëé àúîø ãøá äåðà áòìîà àúîø

(Summary: Tosfos explains why Rav Huna cannot be referring to the Mishnah.)

ãìà îúå÷îà à'îúðé', ã'÷ùøå àãí çééá' îùîò äëì, åáãàãééä àãåéé ðîé çééá áòì úøðâåì.

(a)

Reason: It cannot refer to our Mishnah, because 'Kashro Adam' implies that he pays full damages, and where the chicken kicked the object, the owner of the chicken is also liable.

åá÷åðèøñ ôé' ãìà îúå÷îà à'îúðéúéï, îùåí ùä÷åùø äéä ôèåø, ëéåï ãàãééä àãåéé, ùìà ðú÷ì àãí ááåøå.

(b)

Refuted Reason: Rashi explains that it cannot refer to our Mishnah, since the one who tied it would be Patur because the chicken kicked it, and the person who fell because of it, did not trip over his 'Bor'.

å÷ùä ìôé', î"î ìéçééá îùåí àùå, ãäåé ëàáðå åñëéðå åîùàå ùäðéçï áøàù ââå åðôìå áøåç îöåéä åäæé÷å áäãé ãàæìé ...

(c)

Refutation: Why is he not then Chayav because it is his fire, like the case of 'A stone, knife or load which one placed or top of a roof, and which fell on account of a regular wind ...

ãäàé úøðâåì äåé ëøåç îöåéä, îãôøéê 'àé ãìà àöðòéä, ôåùò äåà?'

1.

Refutation (cont.): Because the chicken is like a regular wind, since the Gemara asks 'If he did not place it in a guarded spot, he is negligent?'

8)

TOSFOS DH NIKSHAR ME'EILAV PATUR

úåñ' ã"ä ð÷ùø îàìéå ôèåø

(Summary: Tosfos cites the source of this ruling.)

ã"àéù áåø", 'åìà ùåø áåø'.

(a)

Clarification: On account of the D'rashah "Ish Bor", 've'Lo Shor Bor'.

9)

TOSFOS DH KASHRO ADAM CHAYAV

úåñ' ã"ä ÷ùøå àãí çééá

(Summary: Tosfos, disagreeing with Rashi, explains why this is speaking even where the person did not acquire the object.)

ìàå ãå÷à ÷ùøå, ãä"ä àí äéä áî÷åí äîåöðò åäðéçå áî÷åí äúåøôä, ùôùò áå, åàôé' ìà äâáéäå åìà ÷ðàå.

(a)

Clarification: 'Kashro' is La'av Davka, and the same Din will apply where he moved it from a guarded location to one that is unguarded, which is an act of negligence.

åãìà ëîå ùôéøù ä÷åðèøñ, ã÷ðé' áäâáää ëù÷ùøå, åéù ìå ìäàé ãìéì áòìéí ...

(b)

Refuted Explanation: Not like Rashi, who explains that he acquired it by picking it up, in which case the object has an owner ...

ãëì ú÷ìä ùäðéçä áøä"ø îéçééá áéä îùåí áåø, àò"â ùìà æëä áä.

1.

Reason: Since any stumbling-block that one places in the R'shus ha'Rabim renders one Chayav because of 'Bor', even though one has not acquired it.

ãòã ëàï ìà ôìéâé øá åùîåàì (ì÷îï ã' ëç:) àìà áãìà àô÷øé', àáì áãàô÷øé', áéï ìøá áéï ìùîåàì äééðå áåø.

2.

Conclusion: And Rav and Shmuel only argue later (on Daf 28:) where the owner did not declare his object Hefker, but there where he did, both agree that it is a 'Bor'.

10)

TOSFOS DH V'CAHZIR SHE'ACHAL CHATICHAH SHEL BASAR

úåñ' ã"ä åçæéø ùàëì çúéëä ùì áùø

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles this with the Mishnah in Ohalos.)

àëéìä ò"é äãç÷ äéà, ëãîñé÷.

(a)

Clarification: It is 'eating in an emergency', as the Gemara concludes.

åäà ãúðï âáé 'îãåøåú äðëøéí' åîééúé ìä áôø÷ ÷îà ãôñçéí (ãó è.) 'ëì î÷åí ùçæéø åçåìãä éëåìéï ìäìê, àéï öøéëéï áãé÷ä?

(b)

Implied Question: And when the Mishnah states (in Ohalos, 18:8) in connection with 'the dwellings of Nochrim' (which the Gemara cites in Pesachim, Daf 9a) 'Any location where a Chazir and a weasel is able to walk, does not require searching (with regard to Tum'as Meis)?

àåîø ø"ú ãùàðé ðôìéí ãøëéëé.

(c)

Answer: Rabeinu Tam explains that stillborn babies are different, inasmuch as they are soft.