1)

TOSFOS DH AL-PI HA'DIBUR SHA'NI

úåñ' ã"ä òì ôé äãáåø ùàðé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos raises a related difficulty concerning the meat brought by the ravens to Eliahu haNavi).

åà"ú, åìîàé ãñ"ã ãìà äåé ò"ô äãáåø, ú÷ùé ãäà àîø øá 'áùø ùðúòìí îï äòéï àñåø' (ì÷îï ãó öä.)?

(a)

Question: According to what we initially think, that it was not by the Divine Word, we can ask from Rav later (in Perek Gid ha'Nasheh 95.) who maintains that any meat that has been 'hidden from the eye' is forbidden?

åéù ìåîø, ãæä äéä éåãò ùäéä ñåîê ò"ô äãáåø, ãìàå îùì òåáã ëåëáéí ÷à îééúé, àáì ìà ñ"ã ùáà äãáåø ìäúéø äàéñåø ùçéèú èáçéí ãàçàá.

(b)

Answer: The Gemara knew in any case that he (Eliyahu) relied on the Divine Word, in that the meat did not come from Nochrim; It did not however think that Hash-m would have permitted the Isur of the Shechitah that was performed by Achav's Shochtim.

2)

TOSFOS DH KARI LAH NA'ARAH VE'KARI LAH KETANAH

úåñ' ã"ä ÷øé ìä ðòøä å÷øé ìä ÷èðä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that an interpretation of the word Na'arah elsewhere in the Gemara is not applicable in our Sugya).

áôø÷ áúøà ãñåèä (ãó îå:) ãøéù "ðòøéí", 'ùäéå îðåòøéí îï äîöåú'.

(a)

Implied Question: In the last Perek of Sotah (Daf 46b) we Darshen "Ne'arim", 'that they were empty of Mitzvos' (So why does the Gemara have a problem here)?

åäëà ìà ùééê ìîãøù äëé.

(b)

Answer: Because the D'rashah that the Gemara makes there is not appropriate here.

3)

TOSFOS DH D'MIN NE'URAN

úåñ' ã"ä ãîï ðòåøï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the meaning of this word.)

ùí î÷åí, ãëúéá (áã"ä à æ) "ìîæøç ðòøï åìîòøá âæø".

(a)

Clarificaion: This is a place-name, as we find in Divrei ha'Yamim (1, Chapter 7) "To the east, Ne'aran and to the west, Gezer").

4)

TOSFOS DH ORVI'IM MIBA'I LEIH

úåñ' ã"ä òåøáééí îáòé ìéä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the extra 'Yud is significant here'.)

åàó òì âá ãëúéá "òáøéí" "îöøéí", åìà ëúéá 'òáøééí' 'îöøééí'?

(a)

Implied Question: Even though the Torah sometimes writes "Ivrim" and "Mitzrim" (and not 'Ivri'im' and 'Mitzri'im'?)

äúí ìéëà ìîéèòé.

(b)

Answer: ... that is only because there, there is no room for error.

5)

TOSFOS DH MIKEM VE'LO KULCHEM LEHOTZI ES HA'MUMAR

úåñ' ã"ä îëí åìà ëåìëí ìäåöéà àú äîåîø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves the apparent discrepancy between this Gemara and the Gemara in 'Lulav ha'Gazul', where the Gemara learns the same thing from "Beiso").

úéîä, ãäà àéöèøéê, ìëããøùéðï áøéù ìåìá äâæåì (ñåëä ãó ì.) 'àé ìôðé éàåù, "àãí ëé é÷øéá îëí" àîø øçîðà, åäàé ìàå ãéãéä äåà?

(a)

Question: We need it ("Mikem"), as we Darshen in 'Lulav ha'Gazul' (Succah 30.) 'If it is speaking before Yi'ush, the Torah writes "Adam ki Yakriv Mikem" - and this is not his!'

åé"ì, ãäúí ìàå îùåí ãúéôå÷ ìï îäàé ÷øà 'âæåì ìôðé éàåù', ãäàé î"áéúå" ðô÷à, ëãàîøéðï áîøåáä (á"÷ ãó ñæ:) ' "÷øáðå" åìà äâæåì; àéîú? àéìéîà ìôðé éàåù, ì"ì ÷øà' ëìåîø - åëé éëåì ìä÷ãéù - "áéúå" àîø øçîðà!

(b)

Answer #1 (Part 1): The Gemara there is not learning Gazul before Yi'ush, since that we already know from "Beiso", as the Gemara states in Merubeh (Bava Kama 67:) "Korbano", 'and not a stolen animal'. When are we speaking? If it is before Yi'ush, Why do we need a Pasuk for that? (meaning 'How is it possible to declare it Hekdesh') seeing as the Torah writes "Beiso" ...

åìà îééúé äúí ÷øà ã"ëé é÷øéá ... " àìà ìåîø ã'÷øáï àîø øçîðà', åäàé ìàå ÷øáï äåà, ùàéï áéãå ìä÷ãéùå ìôðé éàåù.

(c)

Answer #1 (Part 2): ... and the reason that the Gemara there cites the Pasuk "Ki Yakriv ... " is because the Torah writes "Korban", and this is not a Korban, seeing as he does not have the right to declare it Hekdesh before Yi'ush.

åòåã é"ì, ãúøúé ùîòéðï î"îëí", åìâæéìä î÷åãùú àéöèøéê ùìà òìúä ìáòìéí ìùí çåáä ...

(d)

Answer #2 (Part 1): We actually learn two things from "Mikem", and 'Gezeilah Mekudeshes' is needed to teach us that a stolen animal that one declared Hekdesh does not render the owner Yotzei ...

åî"áéúå" ìà ðô÷à àìà ùàéðå éëåì ìä÷ãéù.

(e)

Answer #2 (Part 2): ... whereas from "Beiso" we only learn that one is forbidden to declare it Hekdesh (See Tif'eres Shmuel on the Maharsha).

6)

TOSFOS DH K'DEI SHE'YACHZ'RU BAHEM BI'TESHUVAH

úåñ' ã"ä ëãé ùéçæøå áäí áúùåáä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Beraisa understands that the Pasuk refers to a Mumar for one thing.)

ìàå èòîà ã÷øà ÷à ãøéù ...

(a)

Implied Question: The Tana is not Darshening the reason of the Pasuk (which only Rebbi Shimon holds of, but not the Chachamim) ...

àìà ðåúï èòí ìãáø àäà ãîøáéðï îäà îåîø ìãáø àçã èôé îîåîø ìëì äúåøä ëåìä, åìà îå÷îéðï ÷øà áîéìúà àçøéúé ...

(b)

Answer (Part 1): ... rather it is giving a reason as to why we include a Mumar for one thing and not a Mumar for the entire Torah ...

å÷àîø ãîåîø ìãáø àçã á÷ì éçæåø áúùåáä; åìëê î÷áìéï îäí ëãé ùéçæøå.

(c)

Answer (Part 2): ... because a Mumar for one thing will more easily do Teshuvah; so we accept his Korban ti encourage him to do so.

5b----------------------------------------5b

7)

TOSFOS DH ME'AM HA'ARETZ P'RAT LE'MUMAR

úåñ' ã"ä îòí äàøõ ôøè ìîåîø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos presents two ways of explaining how the Gemara can equate a Mumar Le'echol Cheilev with a Mumar le'Chol ha'Torah Kulah).

úéîä, ãîàé ÷àîø 'äà îäëà ðô÷à, îäúí ðô÷à, àãøáä, äê ôìéâà, ãàôéìå îåîø ìãáø àçã ÷àîø ú"÷ ãàéï î÷áìéï?

(a)

Question (Part 1): How can the Gemara ask 'Ha me'Hacha Nafka, me'Hasam Nafka?' On the contrary, that D'rashah contradicts the current one, since the Tana there maintains that one cannot accept a Korban even from a Mumar for one thing ...

ãäà îå÷îéðï ìä ãôìéâé áàåëì çìá åäôøéù ÷øáï òì äãí?

(b)

Question (Part 2): ... seeing as we establish the Machlokes by someone who eats Cheilev and separates a Korban for having 'eaten' blood?

åãåç÷ ìåîø ãôøéê îãø"ù.

(c)

Rejected Answer: And to say that the Gemara is asking from Rebbi Shimon is a Dochek (a forced answer).

åîôøù ø"ú, ãîåîø ìàëåì çìá äééðå îåîø ìëì äúåøä çåõ îãí ...

(d)

Answer #1: Rabeinu Tam explains that by Mumar Le'echol Cheilev the Tana means a Mumar le'Chol ha'Torah Kulah with the exception of blood ...

ëãàùëçï - ùëåìì ëì äçèàåú áëìì çèàú çìá, áô"÷ ãîðçåú (ãó å.) åáôø÷ äéä îáéà (ñåèä ãó èå.) ãàîø 'áãéï ùúäà çèàú çìá èòåðä ðñëéí'.

1.

Precedent: Indeed, we find that the Gemara both in the first Perek of Menachos and in Perek Hayah Meivi (Sotah 15.) includes all the Chata'os in 'Chatas Cheilev', when it says that in reality, a Chatas Cheilev ought to require Nesachim'.

åäùúà ÷àîø ãìú"÷ ëùäåà îåîø ìëì äúåøä ëåìä çåõ îãí, àéðå îáéà ÷øáï òì äãí; åìø"ù îáéà, ëéåï ùäåà ùá îéãéòúå îãí.

(e)

Conclusion (Part 1): ... and what the Gemara is therefore now saying is, that according to the Tana Kama, a Mumar le'Chol ha'Torah Kulah except for blood, does not bring a Korban for 'eating' blood; whereas according to Rebbi Shimon, he does, seeing as he knowledgeably retracts from blood.

àáì îåîø ìãáø àçã ãáøé äëì îáéà.

(f)

Conclusion (Part 2): They unanimously agree however, that a Mumar for one thing only, does bring a Korban.

åòåé"ì, ããå÷à áçìá åãí ôìéâé, ìôé ùäí ùåéï ùéù ëøú áùðéäï åòåìéï ìâáåä, åðàîøå áìàå àçã "ëì çìá åëì ãí ìà úàëìå" ...

(g)

Answer #2: Alternatively, they argue by Cheilev and Dam, since they share the same punishment of Kareis, they both go up to Hash-m (in the form of a Korban), and they are both mentioned in one La'av "Kol Cheilev ve'Chol Dam Lo Socheilu" ...

ãìú"÷ çùéá ìéä îåîø ìàåúå ãáø ëàéìå äåà îåîø ìãí òöîå, åàéðå îðéç áùáéì äàéñåø àìà îùåí ãðôùå ÷öä ìàëåì ãí; àáì îåîø ìàçã îùàø àéñåøéí ôùéèà ãîáéà ÷øáï òì äãí

1.

Conclusionl (Part 1): Consequently, according to the Tana Kama, he is considered a Mumar for that thing (as if he was a Mumar for blood itself) and it is not on account of the Isur that he will desist, but rather because he abhors 'eating' blood. But when it comes to a Mumar for any other Isur (other than Cheilev), it is obvious that he brings a Korban for 'eating' blood ...

åìø"ù àôéìå îåîø ìàëåì çìá îáéà ÷øáï òì äãí.

2.

Conclusionl (Part 2): ... whereas according to Rebbi Shimon, even a Mumar for eating Cheilev brings a Korban for having 'eaten' blood.

8)

TOSFOS DH EINO SHAV MI'YE'DI'ASO EINO MEIVI KORBAN AL SHEI'GEGASO

úåñ' ã"ä àéðå ùá îéãéòúå àéðå îáéà ÷øáï òì ùââúå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we need a Pasuk to preclude 'Eino Shav mi'Yedi'aso').

úéîä, îä öøéê ÷øà ìîòè ìàéðå ùá îéãéòúå åòåîã áøùòå, äà äåé "æáç øùòéí", åäéëé úéñ÷ àãòúéï ìåîø ãîáéà?

(a)

Question: Why do we need a Pasuk to preclude 'Eino Shav mi'Yedi'aso' (who remains a Rasha by not bringing his Korban)? How can we even think that he can, bearing in mind the Pasuk in Mishlei "Zevach Resha'im To'evah (the Korban of a Rasha is an abomination)!"

åéù ìåîø, ãàéöèøéê ìäéëà ãçæø áúùåáä àç"ë, åáùòä ùàëì ìà äéä ùá îéãéòúå.

(b)

Answer: We need the Pasuk for a case where he did Teshuvah afterwards, and at the time when the Korban was eaten he was not Shav mi'Yedi'aso.

9)

TOSFOS DH RABAN GAMLIEL U'BEIS-DINO NIMNU AL SHECHITAS KUTI VE'ASRUHAH

úåñ' ã"ä ø"â åáéú ãéðå ðîðå òì ùçéèú ëåúé åàñøåä

(SUMMARY: After proving that Raban Gamliel must be Raban Gamliel of Yavneh, Tosfos discusses what status he attributes to the Kutim, resolving various problems that arise in the process).

ôéøù á÷åðèøñ, ø"â áðå ùì ø' éäåãä äðùéàú ùäéä àçøåï.

(a)

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that this refers to Raban Gamliel the son of Rebbi Yehudah ha'Nasi, the last of the Raban Gamliels.

åëï îùîò ÷öú, ã÷àîø áñîåê 'ø"â åáéú ãéðå ëø"î ñ"ì, ãçééù ìîéòåèà' - îùîò ùäåà ø"â àçøåï ùäéä àçø ø"î.

(b)

Proof: And so it would seem from the Gemara shortly, which equates the opinion of Raban Gamliel with that of Rebbi Meir, who holds 'Chaishinan le'Mi'uta' (We take the minority into account), implying that we are speaking about the Raban Gamliel who lived after Rebbi Meir.

åîéäå ÷ùä, ãà"ë äåéà ìéä ìôøåùé áäãéà ø"â áðå ùì ø"é äðùéà, ëãúðï áîñ' àáåú (ô"á î"á) 'ø"â áðå ùì ø' éäåãä äðùéà àåîø "éôä úìîåã úåøä òí ãøê àøõ" '?

(c)

Question #1: If that is so however, the Gemara ought to have referred to him as Raban Gamliel, the son of Rebbi Yehudah ha'Nasi, like the Mishnah does in Pirkei Avos ('Raban Gamliel, the son of Rebbi Yehudah ha'Nasi says "Torah-study is ideal when it is accompanied by Derech Eretz" ')?

åòåã úéîä, ãâæø ø"î òì ñúí ééðí åìà âæø òì ùçéèä ãàåøééúà?

(d)

Question #2: And furthermore, why did Rebbi Meir decree on S'tam Yeinam (which is de'Rabbanan) and not on Shechitah (which is d'Oraysa)?

àáì àí äåà ø"â ãéáðä, ðéçà.

(e)

Explanation #2: But if we were to assume that we are referring to Raban Gamliel of Yavneh, these questions would be answered.

åäà ã÷àîø 'ëø"î ñáéøà ìäå'?

(f)

Implied Question: Only why would the Gemara then say that he holds like Rebbi Meir (who lived after him)?

îùåí ãø"î ñ"ì äëé áäãéà.

(g)

Answer: Because Rebbi Meir issued his ruling specifically holds like that.

àáì ÷ùä, ãà"ë ñáø ø"â ãéáðä ãëåúéí âøé àîú äï - ëéåï ãùçéèúï äåéà ùøéà ÷åãí âæéøä; åáøéù äãø (òéøåáéï ñà.) úðï 'äãø òí äòåáã ëåëáéí àå òí îé ùàéðå îåãä áòéøåá, ä"æ àñåø' ...

(h)

Question (Part 1): If however, Raban Gamliel of Yavneh holds that the Kutim were true converts - based on his ruling that their Shechitah was permitted up until the decree forbidding it, then how come that at the beginning of Perek ha'Dar (Eruvin 61.) he forbids the Eruv of someone who lives with a Nochri or with a person who does not hold of the Dinim of Eruv ...

ôéøåù 'àéðå îåãä áòéøåá äééðå ëåúé, ëãàîø áôø÷ áëì îòøáéï (ùí ìà:) 'ø"à á"ø éò÷á àåîø "òã ùéäéå ùðé éùøàìéí àåñøéí æä òì æä"; ø"â àåîø, "öãå÷é àéðå ëòåáã ëåëáéí", åôéøù á÷åðèøñ 'àáì ëåúé äåé ëòåáã ëåëáéí', ã÷ñáø ëåúéí âøé àøéåú äï?

(i)

Question (Part 2): ... which refers to a Kuti, as the Gemara explains in 'ba'Kol Me'arvin' (Eruvin 31:), where Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov permits an Eruv 'until there are two Yisre'eilim forbidding each other'; whereas Raban Gamliel says that 'a Tzedoki is not like a Nochri' - from which Rashi extrapolates that a Kuti is, because he holds "Kutim Geirei Arayos Hein"?

îéäå ò"ë à"à ìåîø ëôéøåù ä÷åðèøñ, ãäà ø"â ãéáðä àéú ìéä áäãéà áô"÷ ãâéèéï (ãó é.) ãâøé àîú äï, ùäëùéø âè ùòãéå òãé ëåúéí.

(j)

Refutation: In any event, it is impossible to accommodate Rashi's explanation, since Raban Gamliel of Yavneh specifically holds in the first Perek of Gitin (10a) that the Kutim were genuine Geirim, seeing as he validates a Get whose witnesses are Kutim.

åäééðå éëåìéï ìôøù 'àáì ëåúé äåé ëòåáã ëåëáéí' - îùåí ãàéðå îåãä áòéøåá, ãäééðå ðîé èòîà ãú"÷ ãàñø - ùäåà ø"î, ëãîåëç äúí áâîøà, åø"î àéú ìéä äúí áá"÷ (ìç:) ã'ëåúéí âøé àîú äï'.

(k)

Suggested Alternative Interpretation: We could extrapolate (from the Gemara in 'ba'Kol Me'arvin') that a Kuti is like a Nochri - because he does not hold of the Eruv, which is also the reason that the Tana Kama (Rebbi Me'ir) who forbids it, as is evident there in the Gemara, and Rebbi Meir holds there in the first Perek (38:) that 'Kutim are genuine Geirim'.

àáì ÷ùä, ëéåï ãìë"ò ëåúé àåñø, àò"â ãâøé àîú äï, à"ë îä áàå ìçãù ø' àîé åø' àñé ù'òùàåí òåáãé ëåëáéí âîåøéï ìáèì øùåú åìéúï øùåú', äà îòé÷øà ðîé äëé äåä ìë"ò?

(l)

Refutation: The problem with this however is that, since it is unanimously agreed upon that a Kuti forbids, despite the fact that they are genuine Geirim, what did Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Asi achieve when they declared them complete Nochrim with regard to negating their ownership and giving permission (concerning the Dinim of Eruv), seeing as, according to all opinions, this was already the case beforehand.

àìà é"ì, ãìø"â ëåúé ðîé àéðå ëòåáã ëåëáéí - åúðï 'öãå÷é àéðå ëòåáã ëåëáéí', åä"ä ìëåúéí, ãâøé àîú äï.

(m)

Alternative Interpretation (Part 1): We must therefore say that Raban Gamliel holds that a Kuti too, is not like a Nochri, and that when the Mishnah states 'Tzedoki Eino Eino ke'Akum', it means to include Kutim, whom he considered genuine Geirim.

åäéå ñáåøéï ãâøé àîú äï ëø"â òã ùòùàåí ø' àîé åø' àñé òåáãé ëåëáéí âîåøéï .

(n)

Alternative Interpretation (Part 2): ... and that is how they were considered until Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Asi came and declared them total Nochrim.

àò"â ãøáé éåçðï ôñ÷ ëø' àìéòæø áø' éò÷á, åø' àìéòæø áø' éò÷á ìà ôìéâ

(o)

Implied Question: Even though Rebbi Yochanan rules like Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, who in turn does not disagree with the Tana Kama who forbids the Eiruv of a Kuti.

ø' éåçðï ìà áà ìôñå÷ ëîåúå àìà áîä ùöøéê ùéäå ùðé éùøàìéí àåñøéí æä òì æä.

(p)

Answer: ... in fact, he only rules like Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov with regard to his ruling that requires two Yisre'eilim to forbid each other.

10)

TOSFOS DH TZADIKIM ATZMAN LO KOL-SHE'KEIN

úåñ' ã"ä öãé÷éí òöîï ìà ë"ù

(SUMMARY: Citing a number of Chazal that clash with this principle, Tosfos qualifies it in various ways).

úéîä, ãäà àùëçï éäåãä áï èáàé ùäøâ òã æåîí áô"÷ ãîëåú (ãó ä:), åø' éùîòàì ù÷øà åäèä áô"÷ ãùáú (ãó éá:)?

(a)

Question: How will we then justify the fact that in the first Perek of Makos (5b), Yehudah ben Tabai killed an Eid Zomem and in the first Perek of Shabbos (12b) Rebbi Yishmael was reading by the light of a lamp (on Shabbos) and turned up the wick?

åàåø"é, ããå÷à áîéãé ãàëéìä àéï ä÷á"ä îáéà ú÷ìä òì éãï, ùâðàé äåà ìöãé÷ ùàåëì ãáø àéñåø.

(b)

Answer: The Ri explains that it is regarding sins to do with eating that Hash-m protects Tzadikim from a Takalah, since it is particularly shameful for a Tzadik to eat something that is forbidden.

åìñôøéí ãâøñé áô"á ãëúåáåú (ãó ëç:) âáé 'äòìä òáã ìëäåðä òì ôéå' - "äùúà áäîúï ùì öãé÷éí ... "?

(c)

Implied Question: In that case, why, according to one text, does the Gemara in the second Perek of Kesuvos (28b) cite this statement ('Hashta Behemtan shel Tzadikim ... ') in connection with a case where the Beis-Din raised an Eved to the level of a Kohen through the evidence of Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Yossi (What does this have to do with eating)?

îùåí ãàúé ìéãé àëéìú àéñåø - ùîàëéì áú éùøàì ùðùàú ìå áúøåîä, åäåà òáã åàéï ìå áä ÷ãåùéï.

(d)

Answer: Because it led to a forbidden Achilah, in that he fed the bas Yisrael who was ultimately married to him Terumah, when in fact, he was an Eved, rendering the Kidushin to her null and void.

åîéäå áøåá ñôøéí ìà âøñéðï ìéä ...

1.

Reservation: Most texts however, do not include the final section of the Gemara there ...

åäééðå îùåí ãìéëà ìîôøê àìà ëùäöãé÷ òöîå àåëì äàéñåø.

2.

Reason: ... because one can only ask 'Hashta Behemtan shel Tzadikim ... ', there where the Tzadik himself ate the Isur.

åáø"ä (ãó ëà.) ãàîø 'ëîä áñéí úáùéìà ãááìàé áöåîà øáà ãîòøáà!' åáòøáé ôñçéí (ãó ÷å:) 'ø' éøîéä áø àáà àé÷ìò ìáé øá àñé åàùúìé åèòí ÷åãí äáãìä, àò"â ãîéúúå áàñëøä ...

(e)

Implied Question: How will we then explain the Gemara in Rosh Hashanah (21.), where Levi stated 'How tasty is the Babylonian dish on the Yom Kipur of Eretz Yisrael!' and the Gemara in Arvei Pesachim (106b), where Rebbi Yirmiyah bar Aba arrived by Ra Asi, and forgot and ate before Havdalah (even though this is punishable by Askara (croup [Why did Hash-m not protect the Tzadikim from eating what is forbidden])?

äúí àëéìú äéúø äåà, àìà ùàåëì áùòä äàñåøä.

(f)

Answer: There the food itself was permitted, and the Isur lay in the time that they ate it.

åááøàùéú øáä âøñ 'ø' éøîéä ãùãø ìø' æéøà ëìëìä ãôéøé, áéï ãéï ìãéï àúàëéì ôéøé áèáìééäå

(g)

Implied Question: The text in the Bereishis Rabah reads that 'Rebbi Yirmiyah sent Rebbi Zeira a basket of fruit ... between the two of them, the fruit was eaten when it was still Tevel (Why did Hash-m not protect them there)?

åîéäå ääåà òåáãà àéúà áîñëúà ù÷ìéí (ãó ç.), å÷àîø òìä ø' æéøà 'àí äøàùåðéí ëîìàëéí, àðå ëáø àéðù; åàí äøàùåðéí ëáðé àéðù. àðå ëçîåøéí - åìà ëçîåøå ãø' ôðçñ áï éàéø'.

(h)

Answer: That incident however, is cited in Maseches Shekalim (8a) and Rebbi Zeira himself comments there 'If the early generations were like angels, then we are like human-beings; whereas if they were like humans, then we are like donkeys - though not like the donkey of Rebbi Pinchas ben Ya'ir!' (meaning that if the earlier generation deserved Divine protection in these matters, we no longer do!)

[òééï òåã úåñ' ùáú ãó éá: ã"ä 'øáé ðúï'; åúåñôåú ôñçéí ÷å: ã"ä 'àéùúìé'; åúåñôåú éáîåú öè: ã"ä 'ñ"ã'; åúåñôåú âéèéï æ. ã"ä 'äùúà'.

1.

References: See also Tosfos Shabbos (12b) DH 'Rebbi Nasan'; Tosfos Pesachim (106b) DH 'Ishtali'; Tosfos Yevamos (99b) DH 'Salka Da'atach' and Tosfos Gitin (7a) DH 'Hashta'.