BAVA KAMA 64 - Two weeks of study material have been dedicated by Ms. Estanne Fawer to honor the Yahrzeit of her father, Rav Mordechai ben Eliezer Zvi (Rabbi Morton Weiner) Z'L, who passed away on 18 Teves 5760. May the merit of supporting and advancing Dafyomi study -- which was so important to him -- during the weeks of his Yahrzeit serve as an Iluy for his Neshamah.

1)

TOSFOS DH KE'SHE'HU OMER SEH ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä ëùäåà àåîø ùä ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos explains why the Tana Darshens the items in the Pasuk in an inverted order.)

àó òì âá ã"çîåø" ëúéá áøéùà...

(a)

Implied Question: Even though "Chamor" is written first ...

ð÷è ëé äàé âååðà îùåí ãäëé îñé÷ îéìúéä ùôéø.

(b)

Answer: The Tana discusses them in this order, because it works out better.

2)

TOSFOS DH YOMAR GENEIVAH VE'SHOR VE'CHAYIM VE'HA'KOL BI'CHELAL

úåñ' ã"ä éàîø âðéáä åùåø åçééí åäëì áëìì

(Summary: Tosfos discusses a variaty of questions that R. Asher from Lunil asked the Ri on the Sugya and discusses the answers in detail.)

ùàì äø"ø àùø îìåðé"ì àú ø"é - äéëé ñ"ã ãî"âðéáä ùåø åçééí" îøáéðï ëì ãáø?

(a)

Question: ha'Rav Asher from Lunil asked the Ri how the Tana can possibly think that from Geneivah, Shor and Seh we can include everything?

åìà éäà àìà ôøè åëìì, ãìà äåä îøáéðï îéðéä àìà á"ç, åäùúà áòé ìøáåéé áëìì åôøè åëìì èôé îîàé ãîùîò ëììà áúøà?

1.

Question (cont.): ... if it would be a P'rat u'Kelal, we would only include living creatures; How can we now include via a K'lal u'P'rat u'Kelal more than what is implied in the latter K'lal?

åäùéá ìå ø"é, ëéåï ãìà îñé÷ àëúé à'ãòúéä öã ã÷ãåù ááëåøåú å÷øá ìâáé îæáç, à"ë, àí ðàîø îä äôøè îôåøù áòìé çééí, ðîöà ùàéï ëìåí áëìì áúøà ã"çééí" éåúø îëòéï äôøè.

(b)

Answer: And the Ri answered him that, since the Gemara has not yet taken into account the aspects of 'Kadosh bi'Bechoros' and 'Kareiv le'Gabei Mizbe'ach', if we will now say 'Just as the P'rat is living creature ... ', it will transpire that the latter K'lal - "Chayim" - is not telling us anything more than what is similar to the P'rat.

åäåàéì åëï äåà, àéú ìï ìîéîø ã"çééí" ëìì äåà ìäéåú îùîò ëì ãáø ëîå "âðéáä," ãàí àéðå òðéï ìçééí îîù, úðéäå ìòðéï ìëì ãáø.

1.

Answer (cont.): ... and that being the case, we must say that "Chayim" is a K'lal which implies everything, like "Geneivah", because since it is not needed for 'Chayim' Mamash, we will use it to include everything.

àå ðôøù "çééí" ìùåï çùéáåú...

2.

Alternative: Or we will translate "Chayim" as an expression of Chashivus ...

ëîå 'àçééä ì÷øï ëòéï ùâðá' ãì÷îï.

3.

Precedent: ... like 'Achyeih le'Keren K'ein She'Ganav' in the Gemara later (on Daf 85a).

åäëé ÷àîø 'åäëì áëìì' , ãàí ìà áà ìøáåú îëòéï äôøè àìà áòìé çééí, ìà éëúåá ùåí ôøè àìà "âðéáä åçééí - " åìéäåé "âðéáä" ëìì "åçééí" ôøè, åð"î áòìé çééí.

(c)

Conclusion: And when it says 've'ha'Kol bi'Chelal', it means that if it came only to include what is similar to the P'rat (living creatures), then it would need to write only "Geneivah" and "Chayim", in which case, "Geneivah" would be the K'lal and "Chayim", the P'rat, from which we would learn living creatures.

åäà ãôøéê 'äà ìà ãîéà ëììà áúøà ìëììà ÷îà'? àò"â [ãôøéùéú] ã"çééí" îùîò ëì ãáø, ëîå ëìì ã"âðéáä"?

(d)

Implied Question: And when the Gemara asks that the latter K'lal is not equivalent to the former one - even though we just explained that "Chayim" implies everything, just like the K'lal 'Geneivah' ...

î"î, äåàéì åîùîòåú ôùè ùìäï àéï ùåä, àéï ìòùåú ëìì åôøè åëìì îäí.

(e)

Answer: ... nevertheless, since their simple interpretations are not equal, one cannot make them into a K'lal u'P'rat u'K'lal.

åîùðé' - ä"à ÷øá ìâáé îæáç àéï.' åëìì "çééí" ëîùîòåúéä, åîëòéï äôøè àðå îîòèéí ùàø á"ç ùàéï ÷øéáéï ìâáé îæáç.

1.

Answer: And the Gemara answers - 'We would otherwise have thought that whatever goes on the Mizbe'ach, yes ... '. The K'lal "Chayim" is as it implies, and from what is similar to the P'rat we preclude other animals that are not fit to go on the Mizbe'ach ...

ëîå áëì î÷åí, ãëòéï äôøè àúà ìîòåèé îëììà áúøà.

2.

Answer (cont.): .. this is like other cases, where what is similar to the P'rat comes to preclude from the latter K'lal.

åäëì îúééùá ìôé' ø"é.

3.

Conclusion: So everything fits nicely into place according to the explanation of the Ri.

àê äàçøåï ã÷àîø' - éàîø "âðéáä ùåø åùä åçîåø åçééí" åäëì áëìì;'? ëéåï ãîëç ôøèé áòé ìîéîø ùéäéä äëì áëìì "çééí ... "

(f)

Question: Except for the last D'rashah, which states - 'Let it say "G'neivah, Shor, Seh, Chamor and Chayim", and everything will be included?'; Seeing as the Gemara wants to say that everything is included in "Chayim" ...

îàé ÷îùðé 'àéìå ëï, äééúé àåîø "îä äôøè îôåøù áòìé çééí" ... ? 'åäà îëç ôøèåú áà ìøáåú áëìì" çééí" àôé' ìàå áòìé çééí?

1.

Question (cont.): ... what does the Gemara answer when it says 'If so, we would have said that "Just as the P'rat explicitly refers to living creatures ... " '?, when from the P'rat we are including in the K'lal of "Chayim" even things that are not living creatures?

åàåø"é, ãäîúøõ ìà äáéï ãáøé äî÷ùï, åçåæø åî÷ùä ìå àåúä ÷åùéà òöîä åîôøù ãáøéå.

(g)

Answer #1: The Ri answers that the Metaretz did not understand the words of the Makshan, and so he simply reiterates the question itself and explains it.

åàéï ðøàä, ãàéï æå ñåâééú äâî' -àìà úðà àçã äåà ùùåàì åîùéá ìòöîå.

(h)

Refutation: This is not correct however, as it is not the way of the Gemara - but rather that it is the same Tana who asks and who answers his own Kashya.

ìëê ðøàä ìôøù ãäúðà ìøååçà ãîéìúà áà ìôøù...

(i)

Answer #2: The answer therefore is that the Tana is coming to elaborate ...

ãàôéìå úàîø ùàéï çéìå÷ áéï á"ç ìùàéï áòìé çééí, åìà îîòèéðï î"çééí" ãìàå á"ç, àô"ä îôøèà ã"ùåø" ìà úøáä ëì ãáø äîèìèì åâåôå îîåï...

1.

Answer #2 (cont.): ... in that, even if you say there is no difference between Ba'alei-Chayim and non Ba'alei-Chayim, and if we don't preclude from "Chayim" things that are not Ba'alei-Chayim, nevertheless, from the P'rat of "Shor" we will not include whatever is movable and has intrinsic value ...

åú÷ùä ìê' " äîöà úîöà" ì"ì'?

2.

Answer #2 (concl.): And you will then ask why we need "Himatzei Timatzei"?

ãäà ìà îøáéðï îôøèà ã"ùåø" àìà ãáø ä÷øá ìâáé îæáç.

3.

Reason: ... seeing as from the P'rat of "Shor" we only include things that go on the Mizbe'ach.

åîñé÷ ' - åéàîø "âðéáä åùåø åçîåø ùä åçééí" åäëì áëìì'? åà"ë "äîöà úîöà" ìîä ìé?

(j)

Continuation of Answer #2: The Gemara concludes - 'Let it then say "Geneivah, ve'Shor, va'Chamor, Seh ve'Chayim", and everything will be included?'

åîùðé 'àéìå ëï, äééúé àåîø "îä äôøè îôåøù á"ç."

1.

Continuation of Answer #2 (cont.): And it answers that, if so, we would have thought that 'Just as the P'rat is intrinsically Ba'alei-Chayim ... '.

òúä ùàéï îåöà èòí àçø, îçì÷ áéï áòìé çééí ìùàéï áòìé çééí; àáì áúçìä ùäéå ìå èòîéí àçøéí, ìà çåùù àí ìà ðçì÷.

(k)

Explanation (cont.): Now that it cannot find any other distinction, it differentiates between Ba'alei-Chayim and non Ba'alei-Chayim - whereas initially, when there were other differences, it was not worried when the Gemara did not differentiate between them ...

åäùúà àéöèøéê "äîöà úîöà" ìøáåú ùàéï áòìé çééí.

1.

Explanation (cont.): ... and it now requires "Himatzei Timatzei" to include objects that are not Ba'alei-Chayim.

åôøéê 'îä éù ìê ìäáéà- áòìé çééí? ëùäåà àåîø "çééí," äøé çééí àîåø, åìîä ìé ëì äðé ôøèé?

2.

Explanation (cont.): The Gemara then asks 'What are you coming to include - Ba'alei-Chayim? When it says "Chayim", that refers to Ba'alei-Chayim, so why do we need all those P'ratim?

äà îä àðé î÷ééí "âðéáä - "ôéøåù ëìì åôøè åëìì ìøáåú ëì ãáø.

3.

Explanation (concl.): 'How will we explain "Geneivah" ' - in other words the K'lal u'Prat must be coming to include everything (in which case, the question remains 'Why do we need "Himatzei Timatzei" '?

åòåã ùàìå - ãàîàé äåöøê ìåîø 'îä äôøè îôåøù á"ç' ? ä"ì ìîéîø 'àéìå ëï, äééúé àåîø 'îä äôøè îôåøù ãáø ùðáìúå îèîà ... ìàúåéé òåôåú èäåøéí' .

(l)

Question: Furthermore he asked him - Why the Gemara needs to say 'Mah ha'Perat Mefurash Ba'alei- Chayim? It should have said 'If so, we would have thought that just as the P'rat specifies something whose carcass renders Tamei' - to preclude Tahor birds?

åìà äåé îöé ìà÷ùåéé úå 'ëùäåà àåîø "çééí" ,äøé çééí àîåø ? ... ' åùôéø àéöèøéê "äîöà úîöà" ?

1.

Question (cont.): .. in which case, it would not have been able to then ask 'When it says "Chayim", live animals have been said?', and the Torah then justifiably needs to write "Himatzei Timatzei"?

åàåø"é, ãñåáø æä äúðà ùàéï ìðå ìúìåú æä äãáø áöã èåîàä ...

(m)

Answer: This Tana holds that we cannot connect this to the issue of Tum'ah ...

ëéåï ùèåîàä çìå÷ä éåúø îãàé- ùæä áîâò åáîùà åæä ááéú äáìéòä ãå÷à.

1.

Reason: ... because the Tum'os involved are so different - The one concerns the Tum'ah of touching and carrying, the other, Tum'ah of the throat (when eating it).

åòåã ùàìå, ìîä ìéä ìøáà ìîéîø ã"àí äîöà úîöà" ÷à ÷ùéà ìéä, åöøéê ìäôåê ãáøé äáøééúà åìåîø "âðéáä" å"ùåø?"

(n)

Question: And furthermore he asked him - Why Rava maintains that the Tana's problem is with "Himatzei Timatzei", and he therefore finds it necessary to change the wording of the Beraisa, and to say "Geneivah" and "Shor"?

ìéîà ãçæ÷éä àúà ìôøåùé ìîä ëì äðé ôøèé, åà"àí äîöà úîöà" ñîéê ...

1.

Question (cont.): ... why not say that Chizkiyah is coming to explain why we need all the P'ratim, and that we actually rely on "Himatzei Timatzei" ...

åëáðé îòøáà ñ"ì, ãàîøé 'áùðé ëììåú äñîåëé' æä ìæä, äèì ôøè áéðéäí åãåðí áëìì åôøè' ...

2.

Question (cont.): ... and that he concurs with the B'nei Ma'arva, who say that when two K'lalos are juxtaposed, one places the P'rat between them and Darshens them like a K'lal u'Perat (u'Kelal)' ...

åä"÷ - éàîø "äîöà åùåø åâðéáä" åäëì áëìì. àáì "äîöà úîöà" ìà çùéá ìäå ùðé ëììåú, ã'ãáøä úåøä ëìùåï áðé àãí? '

3.

Question (cont.): And what the Tana means is - 'Let it say "Himatzei, Shor and Geneivah", and that will include everything; but "Himatzei Timatzei" is not considered two K'lalos, since the Torah speaks in the vernacular'?

åîùðé, ãîùåø ìçåãéä åòí ùðé ëììåú ìà àúé. åîñé÷ 'åéàîø "äîöà åùåø åçîåø åùä åâðéáä" åäëì áëìì? àéìå ëï äééúé àåîø 'îä äôøè îôåøù á"ç'

4.

Question (cont.): The Gemara answers that from Shor plus two K'lalos alone we would not have able to learn this, and it concludes that it ought then to say "Himatzei (Timatzei)" plus "Shor, Chamor, Seh and Geneivah", which will include everything? And it answers - 'In that case we would say that 'Just as the P'rat explicitly comprises Ba'alei-Chayim ... '.

åäùúà îñééí ùôéø 'ëùäåà àåîø "çééí" äøé çééí àîåø; äà îä àðé î÷ééí ëìì åôøè ìøáåú ëì ãáø. åäåé àúé îñ÷ðà ãáøééúà ùôéø.

5.

Question (cont.): If we learn like this, then the Gemara concludes nicely - 'Since, when it says "Chayim", Ba'alei-Chayim have been said, how will we then explain the K'lal u'Perat (u'K'lal) to include everything, in which case the conclusion of the Berfaisa fits well ...

ãìôé îä ùîôøù øáà ã"äîöà úîöà" ÷à ÷ùéà ìéä, àéï îúøõ ááøééúà òöîä ëìåí?

(o)

Conclusion: ... because according to Rava's explanation, that the Tana's problem is with "Himatzei Timatzei", the Beraisa itself does not answer anything?

åâí îä ùîæëéø "ùåø" ÷åãí ì"âðéáä" äåä àúé ðîé ùôéø.

1.

Conclusion (cont.): And also the fact that the Tana mentions "Shor" before "Geneivah" would fit well (according to the suggested explanation).

åäùéá ìå ø"é, çãà ãàéï ìåîø 'ãáøä úåøä ëìùåï áðé àãí' àìà áî÷åí ùàé àôùø ìåîø áò"à. åàéï ìäàøéê ëàï áæä.

(p)

Answer #1: And the Ri answered him that firstly, one can only apply the principle 'The Torah speaks in the vernacular' there where it is impossible to find another explanation.

åòåã ãà"ë, äéàê äéä éëåì ìåîø 'àéìå ëï, äééúé àåîø "îä äôøè îôåøù ÷øá ìâáé îæáç å÷ãåù ááëåøä" ...

(q)

Answer #2: ... and secondly, How could the Tana then say that if so, we would have said that 'Just as the P'rat specifically mentions things that go on the Mizbe'ach and that are subject to Kedushas Bechorah' ...

äà ò"ë, ëéåï ãñáø äàé úðà ãùðé ëììåú äñîåëéí æä ìæä, áøéáä åîéòè åøéáä ãééðéðï ìéä, à"ë îùðé ëììåú äåä îøáéðï ëì ãáø, ãäà ìéëà ìîéîø 'äèì ôøè áéðéäí' ëáðé îòøáà ...

1.

Answer #2 (cont.): ... seeing as this Tana holds that when two K'lalos are juxtaposed, we treat them as a Ribuy, Miy'ut and Ribuy, we are forced to say that from the two K'lalos, we learn everything, since we cannot say 'Place the P'rat in between them - like the B'nei Ma'arva ...

ãà"ë ú÷ùä ìéä " 'ùä" ìîä ìé? 'ëãôøéê áñîåê.

2.

Reason: ... because then, we would be faced with the Kashya 'Why do we need "Seh" ?', as the Gemara will ask shortly.

64b----------------------------------------64b

3)

TOSFOS DH I HACHI SHAPIR KASHYA LEIH

úåñ' ã"ä àé äëé ùôéø ÷ùéà ìéä

(Summary: Tosfos points out that the Pircha is not mentioned in the Beraisa.)

åîùðé îùåí ãàéú ìéä ôéøëà.

(a)

Introduction to Question: And the Gemara answers 'Because he has a Pircha on it (the initial D'rashah).

àò"â ãäàé ôéøëà ìéúà ááøééúà ...

(b)

Implied Question: ... even though the Pircha is not mentioned in the Beraisa ...

äééðå îùåí ãìà çù ìôøùä.

(c)

Answer: ... that is because the Tana did not bother to mention it.

4)

TOSFOS DH ME'HEICHA KAMAYSI LEIH MI'CHELALA BASRA K'LALA GUFEIH CHAYIM K'SIV BEIH

úåñ' ã"ä îäéëà ÷îééúé ìéä îëììà áúøà ëììà âåôé' çééí ëúéá áéä

(Summary: Tosfos elaborates on why we cannot still ask why we need "Himatzei Timatzei".)

âí æä ùàì ä"ø àùø îìåðé"ì àú ø"é- ãàëúé ú÷ùä "äîöà úîöà" ì"ì?

(a)

Question: Ha'Rav Asher from Lunil also asked the Ri why we cannot still ask why the Torah needs to write "Himatzei Timatzei"? ...

ãäà ëéåï ãìà îöé ìøáåéé áëìì åôøè åëìì èôé àìà áòìé çééí- îùåí ãëììà âåôéä "çééí" ëúéá áéä ...

(b)

Source of Question: ... because, since we cannot include in the P'rat u'K'lal u'P'rat anything other than living creatures - since the Torah writes "Chayim" in the K'lal itself ...

à"ë ò"ë "çééí" ìëììà ìà àúéà, ãàé ëììà, àîàé àéöèøéê ëì äðäå ôøèé? ìà ìëúåá àìà "âðéáä" å"çééí," åäåä îøáéðï ðîé ëì áòìé çééí?

1.

Source of Question (cont.): ... in that case, in no way can "Chayim" be written as a K'lal, because if it would be a K'lal, why would we need all the listed P'ratim? Let the Torah only write "Geneivah" And "Chayim", in which case we will also include all living creatures? ...

àìîà ìàå ëììà äåà àìà ôøèà, åîôøè ã"çééí" ìçåã ðøáä ëì á"ç, åîëì äðé ôøèé ðøáä ëì ãáø...

2.

Source of Question (concl.): . so we see that "Chayim" cannot be a K'lal, only a P'rat - in which case from "Chayim" we will include all living creatures, and from all the other P'ratim, everything else.

åäëé àéúà áñîåê 'àé ìàúåéé áòìé çééí, î"çééí" ðô÷à?

(c)

Support: And so the Gemara will say shortly - "If it comes to include living creatures, we can learn that from "Chayim"?

åäùéá ø"é, ãì÷îï åãàé ãàéëà ëììà åôøèà åëììà ëãàîø 'ùãé ùåø áéï "äîöà úîöà , ÷àîø ùôéø ãîëòéï äôøè ãùåø îøáéðï àôéìå ãìàå á"ç, ãëì á"ç îôøèà ã"çééí" ðô÷à...

(d)

Answer: And the Ri answered - that later to be sure, where there is a K'lal u'P'rat u'K'lal, as the Gemara says 'Place Shor in between "Himatzei" and "Timatzei", the Gemara rightfully says that similar to the P'rat of Shor we include even things that are not living creatures ...

àáì äëà áìà "äîöà úîöà," àé "çééí" ìà äåé ëìì, äéëé îúøáå ãìàå á"ç îôøèé ...

1.

Answer (cont.): ... whereas here, without "Himatzei Simatzei", if "Chayim" is not a Klal, how can we learn things that are not living creatures ...

ëéåï ãìéëà ëìì áúøà ìøáåéé îéðéä ëòéï äôøè?

2.

Reason: ... seeing as there is no final K'lal to include things that are similar to the P'rat?

åäåàéì ùàéï ìøáåú îäï ëìåí àí ðòùä "çééí" ôøè, ò"ë öøéëéï àðå ìòùåú î"çééí" ëìì, åéáåàå äôøèåú ìîòè îï äëìì ...

3.

Answer (cont.): Consequently, since we cannot include anything if "Chayim" is a P'rat, we will have to say that it is a K'lal, from which the P'ratim will preclude ...

åðàîø 'îä äôøè îôåøù ãáø ùðáìúå îèîàä' ,åðîòè îäí òåôåú èîàéí.

4.

Answer (cont.): ... and we will say that just as the P'rat is specifically something whose carcass renders Tamei ... ' - to preclude Tamei birds.

åàò"â ãäàé úðà àéï ðøàä ìå ìúôåñ öã èåîàä?

(e)

Implied Question: And although this Tana does not want to bring in the aspect of Tum'ah ...

äééðå ãå÷à ìôé îä ùäéä éëåì ìúôåñ öã á"ç, åøåöä ìòùåú ëìì ã"çééí" ëîå ëìì ã"âðéáä" ...

(f)

Answer to Implied Question: ... that is specifically where it was possible to bring in the aspect of living creatures, when it wanted to place the K'lal of "Chayim" on a par with the K'lal of "Geneivah".

àáì äùúà ãîñé÷ ãî"çééí" ìà îùîò àìà á"ç, åàéï éëåì ìúôåñ öã á"ç, ãà"ë ôøèé ìîä ìé?

(g)

Answer (cont.): ... but now that the Gemara concludes that "Chayim" implies only living creatures, and it is not able to bring in the aspect of living creatures - because if it did, why would we need the P'ratim? ...

ò"ë äéä öøéê ìúôåñ öã èåîàä.

1.

Answer (concl.): ... it needs to bring in the aspect of Tum'ah.

ìäëé àéöèøéê "äîöà úîöà" ìøáåú ëì ãáø, ëãîñé÷.

(h)

Answer: And that is why it needs "Himatzi Simatzei" to include everything, as the Gemara concludes.

5)

TOSFOS DH LI'ME'UTI DAVAR SHE'EIN MESUYAM

úåñ' ã"ä ìîòåèé ãáø ùàéï îñåéí

(Summary: Tosfos refers to what he said on the previous Daf.)

àéú ñôøéí ãâøñé 'ìàúåéé'

(a)

Alternative Text: There are some Sefarim that have the text 'la'Asuyei' (to include).

. åìòéì (ãó ñâ. ã"ä ãáø) îôåøù.

(b)

See Above: Tosfos dealt with this on the previous Daf (Amud 'Alef', DH 'Davar').

6)

TOSFOS DH I HACHI SEH LAMAH LI

úåñ' ã"ä àé äëé ùä ì"ì

(Summary: Tosfos explains why the Gemara does not also query "Shor".

ä"î ìà÷ùåéé 'ùåø åùä ì"ì'? ...

(a)

Implied Question: The Gemara could have asked 'Shor va'Seh Lamah li?' ...

ãîëòéï äôøè ã"çééí" ìçåã îøáéðï ëì ãáø, àôéìå ãìàå á"ç.

1.

Reason: ... seeing as the P'rat of "Chayim" on its own comes to include everything, even if it is not a living creature.

åìôé ùäâîøà äúçéì ãáøéå á"ùåø" ùäåà øàùåï, ð÷è äëé; àáì áàîú äåà ùùðéäí îéåúøéí.

2.

Answer: And because the Gemara began the D'rashah with "Shor", since it is the first P'rat, it mentions only "Seh", though in reality, both of them are superfluous.