1)

TOSFOS DH VE'IDACH HANI SHECHICHAN

úåñ' ã"ä åàéãê äðé ùëéçï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos cites the Machlokes R. Tam and R. Wliyahu as to whether one is obligated to tie the knot of one's Tefilin every day or not).

ëãàîø (á"î ãó ëè:) úôéìéï áé áø çáå îùëç ùëéçé.

(a)

Source: As the Gemara states in Bava Metzi'a (Daf 29:) 'Tefilin are readily available in the house of bar Chavu'.

îëàï îã÷ã÷ øáéðå úí ãàéï öøéê ì÷ùåø áëì éåí úôéìéï ëùîðéçï.

1.

Halachah (Opinion #1): Rabeinu Tam learned from here that it is not necessary to tie one's Tefilin each day when putting them on.

ùøáéðå àìéäå äéä îöøéê ì÷åùøï ...

2.

Halachah (Opinion #2): ... as opposed to Rabeinu Eliyahu, who rules that one is obligated to ...

îã÷àîø áä÷åîõ øáä (îðçåú ìä: ò"ù áúåñ' ã"ä îùòú') 'úôéìéï îàéîúé îáøê òìéäï, îùòú äðçä åòã ùòú ÷ùéøä'.

3.

Source: ... based on the Gemara in 'ha'Kometz Rabah (Menachos 35b [See Tosfos there DH 'mi'Sha'as]) 'At which point does one recite the B'rachah over Tefilin? From the time that one lays them until the time of tying'.

åìøáéðå úí ðøàä ãääéà ÷ùéøä äééðå äéãå÷, ùîäã÷å ñáéá øàùå ...

4.

Refutation: Rabeinu Tam however, interprets 'Keshirah' as 'tightening' - that one tightens the shel Rosh around the head.

ëîå (ðãä ãó ëå:) 'ùìéà ÷ùåøä áå', åëîå (ò"æ ãó ä.) '÷ùåøä áå ëëìá'.

5.

Precedent: ... like the Gemara in Nidah (26b) 'There is a placenta attached (fitted tightly) to it ...

ãàé ÷ùéøä îîù, åëé áëì éåí éìê àöì áø çáå?

6.

Proof #1: ... Because if it meant literally tying, is a person supposed to go each day to house bar Chavu?

åòåã, ãáøéù äîåöà úôéìéï (òéøåáéï ãó öæ. åùí) îùîò ãàñåø ì÷ùåø ÷ùø ùì úôéìéï áùáú, îùåí ãäåé ÷ùø ùì ÷ééîà, ã÷àîøéðï 'éùðåú îëðéñï æåâ æåâ', àáì çãùåú ìà'.åîôøù áâîøà ãçãùåú ÷øé ùàéðï î÷åùøåú.

7.

Proof #2 (Part 1): Furthermore, at the beginning of 'ha'Motzei Tefilin' (Daf 97a) it is implied that tying one's Tefilin on Shabbos is forbidden, since it is a permanent knot; since the Gemara says there that one may bring old Tefilin into one's house pair by pair; but not new ones' (which the Gemara there interprets as Tefilin that have not been tied).

åàí äéä òùåé ì÷ùåø åìäúéø áëì éåí, à"ë ìà äåé ÷ùø ùì ÷ééîà.

8.

Proof #2 (Part 2): ... and if one had to tie and untie them every day, they would not fall under the category of 'a permanent knot'.

2)

TOSFOS DH KULHU TENINHU

úåñ' ã"ä ëåìäå úðéðäå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the problems concerning the definition of 'Ikur' according to Rashi and according to the Halachos Gedolos).

ôéøù á÷åðèøñ 'ò÷åø' - ãúðï 'ùçè àú äåùè åôñ÷ àú äâøâøú'.

(a)

Explanation #1: Rashi explains 'Ikur' - as we learned in the Mishnah 'If one Shechted the esophagus and broke the wind-pipe.

åúéîä, ãàéï æä ùééê ìäìëåú ùçéèä? ãæä ôñåì îôðé ùìà ùçèå, åìà ãîé ìùàø äìëåú ùçéèä?

(b)

Question: But this has nothing to do with the Dinim of Shechitah? It is Pasul because he did not Shecht the animal, and is not comparable to the other Hilchos Shechitah"?

åéù ìåîø, ãàééøé ùùçè áñëéï ôâåîä àå áîâì, åæä ð÷øà 'ôñ÷ àú äâøâøú', åôñåìä äåé îùåí ãàéï ùåçèéï àìà çåð÷éï, ëãúðï áôéø÷éï (ì÷îï ãó èå:) 'çåõ îï äîâì åäîâéøä ... '.

(c)

Answer: It speaks where one Shechted with a defective knife or with a scythe; and it is referred to as 'Broke the wind-pipe, which is Pasul because it is not called 'Shechitah', but 'strangulation', as we learned in the Mishnah later (in 15b) ' ... except for a scythe and a saw ... '.

åáäìëåú âãåìåú ôéøù 'ò÷åø' - ùðò÷ø äñéîï åðùçè çåõ îî÷åîå.

(d)

Explanation #2: The Halachos Gedolos defines 'Ikur' as - 'Where the Siman was torn out and Shechted outside its locaton.

åúéîä, ãîä òðéï æä ìäìëåú ùçéèä, åäìà ìà òùä ëìåí àìà ùäñéîï ðùîè îàìéå? åàôéìå ùçèå áñëéï, úéôå÷ ìéä îèòí äâøîä?

(e)

Question: What does this have to do with Hilchos Shechitah, seeing as he didn't do anything, and it was the Siman that moved by itself? And even if he Shechted it there, it is already Pasul because of 'Hagramah'?

åéù ìåîø, ãàééøé ëùðùîè äñéîï åàçø ëê ùçèå.

(f)

Answer (Explanation #2 [Part 1]): It is speaking where one Shechted the Simon after it moved from its place.

`åëåìäå úðéðäå' ã÷àîø, äééðå îãúðï áôø÷ ëñåé äãí (ì÷îï ãó ôä.) 'äðåçø åäîò÷ø ôèåø îìëñåú'.

(g)

Explanation #2 (Part 2): ... and 've'Chulhu Teninhu' refers to the Mishnah in Perek Kisuy ha'Dam (85a) 'Someone who cuts open the animal or or who teras out the Siman is Patur from Kisuy ha'Dam'.

åàí úàîø, ôùéèà ãìà îäðéà áéä ùçéèä, ùëáø ðèøó?

(h)

Question: Is it not obvious that the Shechitah is not effective, seeing as it has already become a T'reifah?

åéù ìåîø, ìãáøé äìëåú âãåìåú ìàå èøôä äéà, àìà ùëï äìëä ìîùä îñéðé, ãàéï ùçéèä îåòìú áñéîï ùîåè äðùîè çåõ ìî÷åí çéáåøå, áéï áåùè áéï á÷ðä.

(i)

Answer (Part 1): According to the Halachos Gedolos it is not a T'reifah; rather it is 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai' that Shechitah is not effective on a Siman outside the location where it is attached to the neck ...

åàôéìå òåó ùäëùøå áñéîï àçã, àí ðùîè äàçã, àéï ùçéèä îåòìú áùðé.

(j)

Answer (Part 2): ... and even a bird; which is permitted with the Shechitah of one Siman, if either of the Simanim moves from its place, Shechitah of the other Simon is ineffective.

åàí úàîø, åìîä àéðå îåðä áäìëåú ùçéèä 'ôñ÷ äâøâøú áñëéï ôâåîä', ëîå ùîåðä ìôéøåù ä÷åðèøñ?

(k)

Queston: Why, according to the Halachos Gedolos, does the Gemara not list 'Someone who broke the wind-pipe with a defective knife' among the Dinim of Shechitah, like it does according to Rashi?

åéù ìåîø, ãäúí àéï ëàï ùçéèä ùàéðå àìà çåð÷.

(l)

Answer #1: Because that is not Shechitah, only strangling.

åìôéøåù ä÷åðèøñ ðéçà, ùàéðå îåðä ùîåèä ãäìëåú âãåìåú, ãäåé èøôä ùùçèä, åàéï öøéê ìäæëéøå.

(m)

Answer #2: According to Rashi, the Gemara does not mention the case of Shemutah (of the Halachos Gedolos), because he considers it a T'reifah, in which case it is not necessary to mention it.

åîéäå ìà äåé äùúà ò÷åø ìôéøåù äìëåú âãåìåú îòéï ùàø äìëåú ùçéèä, ùäï áâåó äùçéèä, åò÷åø àéðå áâåó äùçéèä àìà ùùåçè ñéîï ùðò÷ø?

(n)

Question #1: It transpires however, that 'Ikur' of the Halachos Gedolos is not equivalent to the other Hilchos Shechitah, which concern the actual Shechitah, whereas it merely concerns Shechting a Siman that has moved from its place.

åâí ÷öú ÷ùä ìùåï 'ðåçø åîò÷ø' - îùîò ùàéðå àìà îò÷ø äñéîï åàéï òåùä ùçéèä àçøú ø÷ ùîéúúå áòé÷åø ëîå áðçéøä, åàéðå ëï, ùáëê ìà äéä îú?

(o)

Question #2: Also a little difficult is the Lashon 'Nocher u'Me'aker', which implies that no other Shechitah is involved, and that (like 'Nocher') it dies directly via the 'Ikur'.

åîä ù÷ùä îì÷îï ìôéøåù ä÷åðèøñ åîôø÷ àìå èøôåú, åìééùá äìëåú âãåìåú - àôøù ëì àçã áî÷åîå áòæøú äùí éúáøê.

(p)

Statement: The problems with Rashi's explanation from later (Daf 20a & 20b) and from Perek Eilu T'reifos (Daf 44a), and resolving the explanation of the Halachos Gedolos - Tosfos will explain each point in its place be'Ezras Hash-m.

3)

TOSFOS DH K'DEI BIKUR TABACH CHACHAM

úåñ' ã"ä ëãé áé÷åø èáç çëí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explain the corollary between the length of the knife and the size of the animal).

åàó òì ôé ùéù ñëéï âãåìä åñëéï ÷èðä, îùòøéðï ìëì áäîä áñëéï ùéù áä ëîìà öåàø åçåõ ìöåàø ëîìà öåàø.

(a)

Clarification: Even though there are large knives and small knives, we assess the knife with regard to each animal, that it should be two kneck-breadths long.

4)

TOSFOS DH VE'ASURAH BA'ACHILAH

úåñ' ã"ä åàñåøä áàëéìä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Chachamim mi'd'Oraisa not declare it a Neveilah).

îùåí ãøåá ôòîéí ùåçè ùôéø åùøéà îãàåøééúà, ìà äçîéøå ìòùåú ðáìä.

(a)

Clarification: Because, since most times one Shechts correctly, in which case it is permitted min ha'Torah, the Chachamim were not stringent to declare it a Neveilah.

5)

TOSFOS DH AMAR LEIH EIN CHOSHESHIN SHEMA BE'MAKOM NEKEV NIKAV

úåñ' ã"ä àîø ìéä àéï çåùùéï ùîà áî÷åí ð÷á ð÷á

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Chachamim are lenient in this case, even where there are reasons to suspect that it is T'reifah).

åàôéìå éù ùí ð÷áéí äøáä ùìà áî÷åí ùéðéå' ,îñúáøà ãúìéðï ëåìäå áæàá, ëé äéëé ãîëùøéðï (ì÷îï îè.) äéëà ãîîùîùà éãà ãèáçà.

(a)

Clarification: Even if there many holes there not in the location of the teeth, it is logical to attribute them all to a wolf, in the same way as we declare Kasher later wherever the hand of the Shochet reaches.

9b----------------------------------------9b

6)

TOSFOS DH HASAM HILCH'SA KEMIRI LAH MI'SOTAH

úåñ' ã"ä äúí äìëúà âîéøé ìä îñåèä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos clarifies when we learn 'Safek Tum'ah bi'Reshus ha'Rabim Tahor' from Sotah and when we don't, and the ramifications of the difference).

úéîä, ãîùîò äëà ãäà ãîèäøéï ñô÷ èåîàä áøä"ø îñåèä âîøéðï ìä ...

(a)

Inference: It implies here that we learn 'Safek Tum'ah bi'Reshus ha'Rabim Tahor' from Sotah.

å÷ùä, ãáôø÷ á' ðæéøéí (ðæéø ðæ. åùí) úðï 'àîø ìäí àçã "øàéúé à' îëí ùðèîà, åàéðé éåãò àéæä îëí", ùðéäí îáéàéï ÷øáï èåîàä å÷øáï èäøä'.

(b)

Gemara Nazir (Part 1): The Mishnah in Perek Sh'nei Nezirim (Nazir 57a) however, states that 'If a person said to two Nezirim "I saw one of you becoming Tamei, but I don't which one", they are both obligated to bring a Korban Tum'ah and a Korban Taharah'.

åôøéê áâîøà ã'äðé á' ðæéøéí åäê ã÷àé âáééäå, äøé úìúà, åäåä ìéä 'ñô÷ èåîàä áøä"ø åñô÷å èäåø', åìà äéä ìäí ìäáéà ëìì ÷øáï èåîàä àìà ÷øáï èäøä?' åîùðé 'áàåîø "øàéúé èåîàä ùðæø÷ä áéðéëí" '.

(c)

Gemara Nazir (Part 2): ... The Gemara asks that seeing as the two Nezirim plus the person who is standing with them makes three, it falls under the category of 'Safek Tum'ah bi'Reshus-ha'Rabim Tahor', in which case they ought not to bring a Korban Tum'ah at all, only Korban Tahor? To which the Gemara answers that the third person says that he saw a Tamei object being thrown into their midst (though he was standing in a different domain).

åàëúé îàé úéøõ? ãäùúà äåä ìéä ñô÷ èåîàä áøä"é åäåä ìéä åãàé èîà, ëãîåëç áøéù ðãä (ãó á: åùí) âáé 'î÷åä ùðîãã åðîöà çñø' - ã÷àîø ø' ùîòåï 'áøä"é úåìéï'. åôøéê äù"ñ - 'åàé îñåèä âîøéðï ìä, àîàé úåìéï?'

(d)

Gemara Nazir (Part 3): What is the Gemara answering? Now that it is a case of 'Safek Tum'ah bi'Reshus ha'Yachid, which is Vaday Tamei, as is evident at the beginning of Nidah, 2b, in the case of 'a Mikvah which was measured and found to be lacking' - where the Gemara queries Rebbi Shimon, who rules that in the R'shus-ha'Yachid 'Tolin' (Safek Tamei) - that if we learn it from Sotah, why 'Tolin', and not Tamei Vaday?

åàí ëï, úøåééäå ìééúé ÷øáï èåîàä åìà ÷øáï èäøä, ëîå îòé÷øà ãñ"ã ãäåé øä"ø, ãôøéê ã'ìééúé ÷øáï èäøä'?

(e)

Gemara Nazir (Part 4): ... in which case both Nezirim ought to bring a Korban Tum'ah, and not a Korban Taharah, like at first, when we thought that it was a R'shus ha'Rabim, and where we asked 'Let them bring a Korban Taharah (only)?

àìà åãàé äééðå èòîà ãìà îééúå ÷øáï èåîàä âøéãà ëé äåé øä"é, îùåí ãìà éìôéðï îñåèä àìà ãáø ùéëåì ìäéåú ëîå ñåèä, åæä åãàé ùìà ðèîàå ùðéäí!

(f)

Question (Part 1): The reason that they do not bring a Korban Tum'ah only if it is a R'shus-ha'Yachid, must therefore be because we only learn from Sotah something that is possible (like Sotah); And there is no doubt that they did not both become Tamei ...

àáì îòé÷øà ãñ"ã ãäåé øä"ø ðéçà ãîééúå ùðéäí ÷øáï èäøä, àò"â ùåãàé äàçã îäï ðèîà, ãìàå îñåèä âîøéðï ìäå àìà îèäøéï ìäå îëç ãîå÷îéðï ëì çã åçã áçæ÷ú èäøä?

(g)

Question (Part 2): ... whereas initially, when we thought that it is a R'shus ha'Rabim. there was no problem if both of them brought a Korban Taharah, even though one of them is definitely Tamei, since we do not learn 'Safek Tum'ah' bi'Reshus ha'Rabim from Sotah, only from the fact that we place each one on a Chezkas Taharah?

åé"ì, ãîñåèä âîøéðï ìèäø áøä"ø äéëà ãìéëà çæ÷ä ìèäøä, ëé ääéà ãî÷åä ùðîãã åðîöà çñø, ãìéëà çæ÷ä ìèäøä...

(h)

Answer (Part 1): We learn from Sotah to declare Tahor in a R'shus ha'Rabim, wherever there is no Chezkas Taharah, such as the case of a Mikvah that was measured and found to be lacking, where there is no Chazakah ...

ãàé îùåí äòîã äî÷åä áçæ÷ú ùìí, àãøáä äòîã èîà òì çæ÷úå, åîèäø ø' ùîòåï áøä"ø îùåí ãâîøéðï îñåèä.

(i)

Answer (Part 2): ... because if we try to place the Mikvah on a Chezkas Shaleim (seeing as it was originally full), on the contrary, place whoever Toveled in it on a Chezkas Tum'ah. And that is when Rebbi Shimon declares it Tamei because we learn it from Sotah.

åäùúà ãáòé ìîéîø ãìà îå÷îéðï áàéñåø à'çæ÷úéä ëîå áñëðúà, àôéìå äéëà ãàéëà çæ÷ä, éìôéðï îñåèä; åäéëà ãìà àôùø ìîéìó îñåèä, ëé ääéà ãùðé ðæéøéí (ãó ðæ.), ìà ðèäø îñô÷ îëç çæ÷ä.

(j)

Answer (Part 3): ... and now that we are trying to say that, regarding Isur we do not place on a Chazakah like we do regarding Sakanah, even where there is a Chazakah we learn from Sotah, and wherever this is not possible (such as by the case of two Nezirim on Daf 57a) they are not Tahor because of Chazakah.

åääéà ôøëà ãäúí äåé ìôé äîñ÷ðà ãäëà, ãàæìéðï áúø çæ÷ä.

(k)

Answer (Part 4): And the Gemara's query there (that we cited earlier) goes according to the Gemara's conclusion here - that we do go after Chazakah.

åëï ãáø ùàéï áå ãòú ìéùàì ãäåé ñô÷å èäåø, ãéìôéðï îñåèä, äééðå äéëà ãìéëà çæ÷ä, ëé ääéà (èäøåú ô"â î"ç) ã'úéðå÷ ùðîöà áöã äòéñä', ãîèäø øáé îàéø îùåí ãàéï áå ãòú ìéùàì, îèòí "ñîåê îéòåèà ìçæ÷ä", åäåéà ìéä ôìâà åôìâà, ëãàîøéðï áéáîåú (ãó ÷éè:).

1.

Clarification: Similarly, something that does not have the ability to ask, where we rule 'S'feiko Tahor', and which we learn from Sotah, that is specifically where there is no Chazakah, like the case in Taharos (Perek 3, Mishnah 8) of a baby who was found playing next to a dough, whom Rebbi Meir declares Tahor, because he does not have the sense to ask, and based on the principle 'S'moch Mi'uta le'Chazakah' (add the minority to the Chazakah ... ), turning into 'Palga u'Palga' (half-half), like we learned in Kesuvos 119b).

åàí úàîø, åîñåèä äéëé îöé ìîéìó, åäà ñåèä àéú ìä çæ÷ú èäøä?

(l)

Question: How can we learn from Sotah, who has a Chezkas Taharah?

åé"ì, ëéåï ã÷éðà ìä åðñúøä, éù øâìéí ìãáø, åàúøò ìä çæ÷úä.

(m)

Answer: Since her husband warned her, and she nevertheless concealed herself with another man, the strong likelihood exists that she sinned, which weakens her Chazakah.

åàí úàîø, ëì ñô÷ èåîàä áøä"é îðà ìï ãèîà, äéëà ãàéëà çæ÷ú èäøä? àé îñåèä, äà àúøò ìä çæ÷ä?

(n)

Question: On what basis do we then declare Tamei every Safek Tum'ah bi'Reshus ha'Yachid, even where there is a Chezkas Taharah? If it is from Sotah, but did we not just explain that a Sotah's Chazakah has been weakened

åé"ì, ãâîøéðï ùôéø îñåèä ãòùàä äëúåá ëåãàé, åìà îå÷îéðï ìä àçæ÷úéä; ãàò"â ãàéúøò ìä çæ÷úä, î"î àé îå÷îéðï ìä àçæ÷úä, ìà äéä ìä ìäéåú åãàé èîàä.

(o)

Answer: We do indeed learn it from Sotah, whom the Pasuk gave the Din of a Vaday, by not placing her on a Chazakah; because if we were to contend with her Chazakah (weakened though it may be), she ought not to be Vaday Tamei ...

åäà ã÷àîøéðï áôø÷ ëùí (ñåèä ëè. åùí) ãàéöèøéê ñåèä ìèäø áøä"ø, ãàé îãøá âéãì, ä"à ãáø ùéù áå ãòú ìéùàì, àôéìå áøä"ø ñô÷å èîà ...

1.

Clarification (Part 1): ... and that what we say in Perek ke'Shem (Sotah 29a) that we need Sotah to teach us the Din of Tahor bi'Reshus ha'Rabim, because as far as Rav Gidal is concerned, we would have thought that Safek of a Davar she'Ein bo Da'as Lisha'el is Tamei even in the R'shus ha'Rabim ...

ä"î ìîéîø ãàéöèøéê ìèåîàä áøä"é àôéìå äéëà ãàéëà çæ÷ä ãèäøä; ãàé îãøá âéãì, ãéìîà äééðå äéëà ãìéëà çæ÷ä ãèäøä.

2.

Clarification (Part 2): ... the Gemara might just as well have said we need it to teach us that Tum'ah bi'Reshus ha'Yachid is Tamei even where there is a Chezkas Taharah, because as far as Rav Gidal is concerned, perhaps it would only be Tamei there where there is no Chezkas Taharah.

7)

TOSFOS DH TEME'AH SHE'ANI OMER ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä èîàä ùàðé àåîø ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses as to when specifically vessels that are not subject to Tum'ah must be used for the preparation of the Parah Adumah, and when all vessels are eligible).

ôéøåù, âí äöìåçéú.

(a)

Clarification: This refers even to the flask ...

ãàò"â ùëì îòùä ôøä áëìé âììéí, ëìé àáðéí, ëìé àãîä, ëãàéúà áøéù éåîà (ãó á.) åáøéù ôø÷ äéùï (ñåëä ëà.) ...

(b)

Implied Question: ... since, even though all the vessels connected with the Parah Adumah were made of either marble, stone or earth (which are not subject to Tum'ah, as we learned at the beginning of Yoma (2a) and in Perek ha'Yashein (Succah, 21a).

äééðå ÷åãí ùøéôú äôøä - ëãúðï áîñëú ôøä (ô"â î"à á) æ' éîéí ÷åãí ùøéôú äôøä äéå îáéàéï ... , ìôé ùëì îòùéä áëìé âììéí, ëìé àáðéí, ëìé àãîä.

(c)

Answer (Part 1): ... that refers specifically to the period before the burning of the cow, as we learned in the Mishnah in Parah (Perek1, Mishnah 1&2) 'Seven days prior to the burning of the cow they would bring ... , because all its preparations required vessels made of marble, stone or earth.

àáì ìàçø ùøéôú äôøä, äéå î÷ãùéí áëì äëìéí, ëãúðï áîñëú ôøä, ôø÷ äîáéà ëìé çøñ ìçèàú (î"ä) 'áëì î÷ãùéï, åàôéìå áëìé âììéí, ëìé àáðéí, ëìé àãîä' îùîò ãë"ù áùàø ëìéí.

(d)

Answer (Part 2): ... but once the cow has been burned, one may 'sanctify' it in whichever vessel one fancies, as we learned in Maseches Parah, Perek ha'Meivi K'lei Cheres (Mishnah 5) 'Anything is eligible for sanctifying, even vessels made of marble, stone or earth', implying that other vessels are certainly eligible.

åäðê àéöèøéê; ñã"à ìàå ëìéí ðéðäå, ëãàîøéðï áô"÷ ãùáú (ãó èæ:).

(e)

Answer (Part 3): And the reason that the Tana mentions those three, is because we would otherwise have thought that they are not considered Keilim, as the Gemara states in the first Perek of Shabbos (16b).

8)

TOSFOS DH SHE'ANI OMER ADAM ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä ùàðé àåîø àãí åëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why in some Sugyos the Gemara attributes the current ruling to the fact that a Tamei person handled and handed over a certain object, yet elsewhere it attributes it to a Tahor having done so).

åà"ú, ãäëà úìéðï áàãí èîà; åëï áô"÷ ãôñçéí (ãó é:) âáé '÷øãåí ùàáã ááéú'.

(a)

Question (Part1): In this Sugya, we attribute it to a Tamei person, as does the Gemara in the first Perek of Pesachim (Daf 10b) regarding a spade that became lost in the house' ...

åàéìå âáé ëëø äðúåðä òì âáé äãó, úìéðï áàãí èäåø áô"÷ ãðãä (ãó ã.)

(b)

Question (Part 2): ... whereas the Gemara in the first Perek of Nidah (4a) regarding a loaf that is placed on a board, attributes it to a Tahor person?

åàåîø ø"ú, ãäééðå èòîà ãäëà åãôñçéí - îùåí ãâæøå òì ñô÷ ëìéí äðîöàéí, àáì òì ñô÷ àåëìéí ìà âæøå.

(c)

Answer #1: Rabeinu Tam explains that the reason here and in Pesachim is because the Chachamim issued a decree on all Safek vessels that are found, whereas on Safek food they did not.

åòåã é"ì, ãääéà ãðãä, ùîãó èîà îåðç úçúéä, åàé àôùø ìëëø ìéôåì àìà àí ëï ðâò ìîãó èîà, ùééê ìúìåú áàãí èäåø ùðèìä áîúëåéï ùìà úèîà äëëø; àáì àãí èîà ìîä äéä ðåèìä?

(d)

Answer #2: Furthermore, one could answer that it is specifically in the case in Nidah, where there was a Tamei board underneath the loaf, and it was impossible for the latter to fall without touching the board, that we attribute it to a Tahor person who deliberately removed the loaf to prevent it from becoming Tamei; whereas there would be no reason for a Tamei person to have removed it.

åëï áääéà ãëñåé äãí (ì÷îï ôå.) ã'øåá úéðå÷åú îèôçéï', ìôé îä ùîôøù ø"ú, 'îèôçéï áòéñä, åîéòåè àéï îèôçéï', åúìéðï áàãí èäåø ùðúï ìå, ìôé ùäéä çåùù ùìà éèîà äúéðå÷ àú äòéñä.

1.

Clarification: Similarly, in the case cited in Perek Kisuy ha'Dam (86a) regarding 'The majority of children play ... ', according to Rabeinu Tam's explanation there, that the majority of children play with the dough, and a minority don't, the Gemara attributes the ruling there to a Tahor person having handed him a piece of the dough, because he was afraid that the child might render the dough Tamei.

9)

TOSFOS DH IM YECHOLAH CHULDAH LISH'TOS

úåñ' ã"ä àí éëåìä çåìãä ìùúåú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos present a variety of reasons as to why a weasel drinking from it renders it Pasul).

ôéøåù á÷åðèøñ áìùåï äøàùåï, ã'ëì äî÷éà ôåñì', äåàéì åäôøéù îäï ìùúåú, äøé ðòùéú áäï îìàëä - åðôñìå. åëùî÷éàä, ôåñìú äøàùåðåú.

(a)

Explanation #1: In the first Lashon, Rashi explains that 'Any creature that "sicks up" the water invalidates it' because, having removed water in order to drink, it is considered as if work has been performed with it - which renders it (the water that it separated) Pasul. Consequently, when it 'sicks it up', it renders the original water Pasul.

å÷ùä ìôéøåù æä, åëé îä îìàëä ùééëà áùúééä?

(b)

Question: What has 'work' got to do with drinking?

åðøàä ìôøù ãàé ÷åãí ÷éãåù àééøé, îôñìé îùåí ãìà äåé "îéí çééí àì ëìé", 'ùéäà çéåúï áëìé' - ùìà éîìà ëìé æä åéòøä áëìé àçø ÷åãí ÷éãåù, ëãôéøù á÷åðèøñ áìùåï àçø;

(c)

Explanation #2 (Part 1): It therefore seems that if it is speaking prior to the Kidush, it is Pasul because it does not conform to "Spring water into the vessel" - 'that the spring water must be poured directly into the vessel, and not to fill one vessel and then pour it into another vessel, before the Kidush - like Rashi actually explains in the second Lashon.

åàé àçø ÷éãåù àééøé, åð÷è èîàä îùåí ëìé, àå ëîå ùàôøù àçø ëê îéôñìé îùåí øå÷ ùáôéäï äîòåøá áîéí, å÷ñáø 'éù áéìä', åäæàä öøéëä ùéòåø (åãìà ëø' àìéòæø ãôø÷ äúòøåáú (æáçéí ô.) ãàîø 'éæä ùúé äæéåú'

(d)

Explanation #2 (Part 2): Whereas if it is speaking after the Kidush (in which case it mentions 'Teme'ah' on account of the vessel), or as Tosfos will explain later - that it is Pasul because of the spit in their mouths which is now mixed with water, and the Tana holds a. 'Yesh Bilah' and b. the Haza'ah (sprinkling) requires a certain Shi'ur (as opposed to Rebbi Eliezer in Perek ha'Ta'aroves (Zevachim 80a who holds. [in connection with a flask of Mei Chatas into which water fell] that one must sprinkle two Haza'os).

àé ðîé, ôñåìä áäæàä àçú ÷àîø ëîå ìø' àìéòæø, ãø' àìéòæø ðîé àééøé áä, ùäåà îåñéó 'àó äòëáø'.

(e)

Explanation #3: Alternatively, the Tana means that it is Pasul with one Haza'ah, like Rebbi Eliezer, who also speaks in this Mishnah - since he specifically adds 'also the mouse!'

ä"ð îôøù áúåñôúà èòîà ãø' éäåùò, ãàîø ã'àó áîéí î÷åãùéï ìà ôñì ëùéèä, ëîå ùàîø ø' àìéòæø, àìà ëùéùúä, îùåí îù÷ä ôéå äîòåøá áîéí.

(f)

Proof: And this is how the Tosefta explains the reason of Rebbi Yehoshua, who says that 'also the sanctified water does not become Pasul through tipping, only through drinking, just as Rebbi Eliezer said, because of the liquid in his mouth that is mixed with water.

åìëê àí âéøâø, ëùø - äééðå ùùåôê äîéí úåê âøåðå, ùàéï ùí îù÷ä ôéå.

1.

Ruling: ... and that explains why, if the weasel first made 'Girgur' (it poured the water into its throat, so that nothing remains in its mouth, it is Kasher.

åäùúà äåé ãåîéà ã'éøã áä èì áìéìä' - ãîôñìé îèòí úòøåáú.

2.

Observation: According to this explanation, it is similar to dew that fell on it during the night, which the Tana juxtaposes to it.

10)

TOSFOS DH O NACHASH LE'DIVREI RABAN GAMLIEL

úåñ' ã"ä àå ðçù ìãáøé ø"â

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explain why the Gemara declines to mention also the mouse, according to Rebbi Eliezer [in the Mishnah in Parah]).

îùðä äéà áîñëú ôøä (ô"è î"â) 'ëì äùøöéí àéï ôåñìéï áîé çèàú çåõ îï äçåìãä, îôðé ùäéà î÷éàä; ø"â àåîø- àó äðçù, îôðé ùäåà î÷éà; ø"à àåîø - àó äòëáø'.

(a)

Clarification: It is a Mishnah in Maseches Parah (9:3) "The only Sheretz to invalidate Mei Chatas is the weasel, because it 'sicks up' the water. Raban Gamliel adds the snake, since it too, 'sicks up' what it drinks. Rebbi Eliezer adds the mouse'.

åäà ãìà úðà äëà 'àó äòëáø ìãáøé ø"à'?

(b)

Implied Question: ... and the Gemara here does not also mention 'Rebbi Eliezer adds the mouse'?

îùåí ãø' àìéòæø ùîåúé äåà.

(c)

Answer: .. because Rebbi Eliezer is a 'Shamuti' (meaning either that he is from Beis Shamai or that he was in Cherem).

11)

TOSFOS DH O SHE'YARAD BAH TAL BA'LAYLAH PESULAH

úåñ' ã"ä àå ùéøã áä èì áìéìä ôñåìä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses a. why the Gemara cites the Beraisa rather than the Mishnah, and b. why the Beraisa, as opposed to the Mishnah, uses the word 'Teme'ah' in the Reisha and 'Pesulah' in the Seifa).

áøééúà äéà æå, ãáîùðä áîñëú ôøä áøéùà ðîé ÷úðé 'ôñåìä'.

(a)

Clarification: This is a Beraisa, although the Mishnah in Maseches Parah also says 'Pesulah'.

åúéîä, ùìà äáéà ëàï äîùðä?

(b)

Question: Then why did the Gemara not cite the Mishnah?

åùîà ðéçà ìéä ìäáéà äáøééúà, ùîôåøù áä 'ùàðé àåîø àãí èîà ðëðñ ìùí', åáîùðä àéðå ëï.

(c)

Answer: Perhaps he prefers to cite the Beraisa, which adds' Because I say that a Tamei person entered', which the Mishnah does not.

åàò"â ãáîùðä úðé áøéùà ðîé 'ôñåìä', åááøééúà ÷úðé áøéùà 'èîàä'?

(d)

Implied Question: Even though the Reisha of the Mishnah also says 'Pesulah', whereas the Reisha of the Beraisa uses the word 'Teme'ah' ...

îùåí ãàéëà ìî"ã áôø÷ ãí çèàú (æáçéí öâ.) 'îé çèàú ùðèîàå îèäøéï'.

(e)

Answer #1: That is due to the opinion in Perek Dam Chatas (Daf 93:) which rules that 'Mei Chatas she'Nitm'u, Mitaharin'.

àé ðîé, ìôé ùäôñåì áà îçîú èåîàä, ÷úðé áøéùà 'èîàä'.

(f)

Answer #2: ... or because the P'sul is the result of Tum'ah, the Beraisa says 'Teme'ah'.

åòåã, îùåí ãâí äöìåçéú òöîä èîàä, ëéåï ãúìéðï áàãí èîà.

(g)

Answer #3 (Part 1): Moreover, because also the flask itself is Tamei, seeing as we attribute it to a Tamei person.

àáì áñéôà äöìåçéú èäåøä.

(h)

Answer #3 (Part 2): ... whereas in the Seifa, the flask is Tahor (therefore the Tana says 'Pesulah').

åòåã éù çéìå÷ áéï îé çèàú ùðèîàå ìîé çèàú ùðôñìå, ëãúðï áîñëú ôøä ôø÷ úùéòé (î"ç).

1.

Observation: There is also another difference between Mei Chatas which became Tamei and Nei Chatas which became Pasul, as we learned in the ninth Perek of Maseches Parah (Mishnah 8).