1)

TOSFOS DH BEHEIMAH

úåñôåú ã"ä áäîä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the limb that exited is forbidden to be eaten.)

ëéåï ùéöà áùø çåõ ìîçéöúå ðàñø ëããøéù ì÷îï ãåîéà ãèøôä ãàéï ìä äéúø

(a)

Explanation: Being that the meat (i.e. limb of the baby animal) went out of its walls (i.e. the body of the mother animal) it became forbidden, as the Gemara derives later that it becomes similar to a Treifah that has no way of being permitted (in its current status). (If it is slaughtered separately from the mother it can still be permitted.)

2)

TOSFOS DH SEIFA

úåñôåú ã"ä ñéôà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara did not give two alternate answers to its question.)

åà"ú åãéìîà àéöèøéê ìàùîåòéðï àò"â ãäçæéøå äåé ëéìåã ãîääéà ãáëåøåú ìà ùîòéðï àìà áìà äçæéøå

(a)

Question: Perhaps the Mishnah wants to teach us that even though it retracted its head it is considered as if it is born? We only know from the Mishnah in Bechoros (46a) that if it does not retract its head it is considered born!

åé"ì ãôùéèà ìéä ãëéåï ãáìà çæøä äåéà ìéãä ëé äçæéøå ðîé ìà ëìåí äåéà

(b)

Answer: It is obvious that being that without retracting its head it is considered born, even when it retracts its head nothing has changed.

åîéäå àé ìàå ääåà ãáëåøåú ìà äåéà ÷ùéà ìéä àîàé àéöèøéê ìéä ìîéúðé äçæéøå

1.

Answer (cont.): However, without the Mishnah in Bechoros (ibid.) there would not be a difficulty regarding why the Mishnah had to say it retracted its head.

ãëéåï ãàöèøéê ìàùîåòé' ãéöéàú øàù äåéà ìéãä àùîåòéðï ðîé àâá àåøçéä ãçæøä ìàå ëìåí äåà àáì ëåìéä ááà ìéú ìéä ìîéúðé îùåí äàé çéãåù ôåøúà

2.

Answer (cont.): Being that the Mishnah had to teach us that sticking out its head is considered birth, it also teaches us as an aside that retracting its head is insignificant. However, it is not logical to say that the Mishnah said the entire case again to teach this minor teaching.

åæä ðîé àéï ìä÷ùåú ãäëà àöèøéê ìàùîåòéðï ãàôé' îä ùáôðéí àñåø ãìøá éäåãä àñåø ÷àé àòåáø åäà ìà ùîòéðï îääéà ãáëåøåú

(c)

Implied Question: One also should not ask that we need our Mishnah to teach that even what is inside is forbidden, as according to Rebbi Yehudah the prohibition refers to the (entire) fetus, and this is not understood from the text of the Mishnah in Bechoros.

ãäà ðîé ôùéèà ãëéåï ãçùéá ëéìåã åàôé' îä ùáôðéí àñåø ëéåï ùäåìã ùìí åáðçúê äåà ãîéáòéà ìéä ì÷îï ëîå ùàôøù ì÷îï áòæøú äàì

(d)

Answer: This is also obvious being that it is considered born, and (accordingly) even what is inside is forbidden because the fetus is whole. When it is cut up there is a question later in the Gemara, as I will explain later with the help of Hash-m.

3)

TOSFOS DH TAIMA

úåñôåú ã"ä èòîà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara did not ask a more simple question from the Mishnah in Bechoros.)

úéîä ãäåä ìéä ìîôøê áôùéèåú îã÷úðé åàéï áëåø ìëäï à"ë îëé éöà øàùå äåé ëéìåã

(a)

Question: This is difficult. The Gemara should have asked in a more simple manner that being that the Mishnah states he is not a Bechor for a Kohen, it must be that once his head is out he is considered born! (Why instead does the Gemara differentiate between the head being alive and it being dead?)

åé"ì îùåí ãàéëà ìîãçé îàé øàùå øåáå ëããçé áô' éù áëåø (áëåøåú îå:)

(b)

Answer: It is possible to push this aside by saying "his head" really means most of his body. This is similar to the way the Gemara in Bechoros (46b) answers a different question.

ãàîø ùîåàì àéï äøàù ôåèø áðôìéí åôøéê ìéä îäà ãàéï áëåø ìëäï åîùðé îàé øàùå øåáå ôéøåù éöà øàùå åâí éöà øåáå àç"ë

1.

Answer (cont.): Shmuel says (ibid.) that the head does not exempt if it is a Neifel. The Gemara asks from the fact that the Mishnah says (that the following child) it is not a Bechor for a Kohen. The Gemara answers that "his head" in fact means most of his body. This means that his head came out first, and then most of his body came out.

åôøéê åðéúðé øåáå åîùðé ãð÷è øàùå ìîéã÷ äà øàùå çé áëåø ìðçìä ðîé ìà äåé äìëê òé÷ø ôøëéä îäàé ãéå÷à

2.

Answer (cont.): The Gemara asks, (if this is what the Mishnah means) why doesn't it explicitly state most of its body? The Gemara answers that it says "his head" in order that we should deduce that if his head is alive, the next child is not even a Bechor for inheritance. Accordingly, the main question is from this deduction.

åäåä îöé ìîéôøê äëà îîúðé' ãðãä ãúðï (ãó ëç.) éöà ëãøëå îùéöà øåá øàùå åàéæå øåá øàùå îùúöà ôãçúå

(c)

Observation: The Gemara also could have asked a question from the Mishnah in Nidah (28a) that says that if it went out normally, when most of its head goes out (it is considered born). What is "most of its head?" It is when the forehead comes out.

4)

TOSFOS DH ADAM

úåñôåú ã"ä àãí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that the word Prozdor has two different meanings.)

äàé ôøåæãåø ãäëà ìà äåé ëé ääåà ãéåöà ãåôï (ðãä ãó îá:) ãàîø ãîëé äåöéà åìã øàùå çåõ ìôøåæãåø äåé ëéìåã

(a)

Explanation: The term "Prozdor" - "hallway" used here does not mean the same thing that it means when the Gemara in Nidah (42b) says, "Being that the baby animal stuck its head out of the Prozdor, it is considered born."

ãàé ëôøåæãåø ãäúí àééøé äëà îä äéä éëåì äôøåæãåø ìòëá äìéãä ëéåï ùäøàù çåöä ìå

1.

Explanation (cont.): If our Gemara would mean what the Gemara there means, how could the corridor stop the baby from being considered born once the head is outside of it?

àìà ôøåæãåø ãäúí äåà áéú äçéöåï åãäëà äåà òåáé äéøëéí äîëñéí àú äøçí ùáéï äéøëéí ëãô"ä åîù"ä ìà çùéá ëéìåã áéöéàú øàù çåõ ìøçí

2.

Explanation (cont.): Rather, it must be that the Prozdor referred to there refers to the outer area (before the baby comes out), and Prozdor here refers to the thickness of the thighs that cover the uterus when it is between the thighs, as Rashi explains. This is why the baby is not considered born just because its head is outside of the uterus (as this thickness stops it from appearing to just yet).

åàéï úéîä òì ùäìùåï ùåä åäôéøåù îùúðä

(b)

Implied Question: There is not a difficulty in the fact that Prozdor means two different things. (Where else do we see the same word indicating two different things?)

ãëé äàé âååðà àùëçï áô' äìå÷ç áäîä (áëåøåú ãó ë.) ãàîø øáé [éäåùò] èéðåó ôåèø îáëåøä ãçùéá äèéðåó åìã åìà äåé ääéà èéðåó åìã ëé äàé ãô' äîôìú (ðãä ãó ëè.) ãøåá éåìãåú îèðôåú

(c)

Answer: We find a similar thing in Bechoros (20a), as Rebbi Yehoshua says there that "Tinuf" - "being dirty" is a clear sign of having a baby (animal). This is not similar to the Tinuf that is mentioned in Nidah (29a), where the Gemara says that most women who give birth have Tinuf.

5)

TOSFOS DH SHILYA

úåñôåú ã"ä ùìéà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why it is clear from the Mishnah that we suspect a birth happened if some of the placenta came out.)

àôé' îä ùäéä áôðéí áùòú ùçéèä

(a)

Explanation: This is even refers to the part that was inside the animal when it was slaughtered.

åà"ú äéëé îåëç îéðéä ãáøàù äåé ëéìåã ãìîà îùåí ãâæøéðï î÷öúä

(b)

Question: How do we see from the Mishnah later (77a) that when a head comes out it is considered born? Perhaps this is just a decree that if some of the placenta comes out it is forbidden lest we permit a case where most of it came out?

ãîäà ðîé ãçé ìä áô"÷ ãá"÷ (ãó éà.) ã÷àîø àîéìúà ãøáé àìòæø îàé ÷à îùîò ìï ãàéï î÷öú ùìéà áìà åìã úðéðà ùìéà ùéöúä î÷öúä ëå'

1.

Question (cont.): We find that we use to push aside an answer in Bava Kama (11a). The Gemara there says regarding Rebbi Elazar's statement, what is the novelty? (The Gemara attempts to answer) It seems that it is that there cannot be a small amount of placenta that comes out with a child being born. (The Gemara asks) We already learned this in the Mishnah that says that a small amount of placenta that comes out etc.

åé"ì ãàí àéúà ãáéöéàú äøàù ìà äåéà ìéãä ìà äéä øàåé ìâæåø ëéåï ãáî÷öúä àé àôùø áùåí ôòí ìáà ìéãé çùéáåú ìéãä

(c)

Answer: If the head coming out would not be considered giving birth there would be no reason to make a decree, being that it would never be possible in a case where a small amount of the placenta came out that there would be the significant status of a birth.

åîäëà ìéëà ìîôøê ìùîåàì ãàîø áô' éù áëåø (áëåøåú ãó îå:) ãàéï äøàù ôåèø áðôìéí ããéìîà äééðå ãå÷à ááäîä àáì áàãí ìà ùîòéðï îäëà

(d)

Implied Question: One cannot ask from here (the Mishnah on 77a) on Shmuel who says in Bechoros (46b) that the head of a Neifel does not exempt another child from being the Bechor. One would think that we only see from this Mishnah that this is true regarding an animal, not regarding a person (unlike Shmuel).

ãäà ã÷úðé ñéôà ëñéîï åìã áàùä ëê ñéîï åìã ááäîä äééðå ìòðéï ùìéà ãäåé ñéîï åìã

(e)

Answer: The second part of the Mishnah states that just as there is a sign of a child being born to a woman, there is a sign of a baby being born to an animal. This implies that it is referring to the placenta being the sign of a child.

6)

TOSFOS DH K'SIMAN

úåñôåú ã"ä ëñéîï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Mishnah must tell us that a woman and animal are the same regarding a placenta.)

åà"ú îàé ôùåè éåúø áæä îáæä

(a)

Question: What is more obvious by one than by the other (that the rule must be said that their signs are similar)?

åé"ì îùåí ãúðï áðãä (ãó ëä.) ãáàùä äåé ùôéø ñéîï åìã ìëê ÷àîø ãàò"â ãááäîä ìà äåé ùôéø ñéîï åìã î"î áùìéà ùåä ìàùä

(b)

Answer: The Mishnah says in Nidah (25a) that regarding a woman, a tiny fetus (that the woman passed, see the commentaries there for the parameters of such a thing) is a sign of a child. This is why our Mishnah points out that even though a small fetus is not a sign that applies by an animal, it is similar in the laws regarding a placenta to a woman. (See also Mishnah in Bechoros 19b.)

68b----------------------------------------68b

7)

TOSFOS DH V'ALIBA

úåñôåú ã"ä åàìéáà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that according to the Rabbanan it must be the extra Pasuk is used for a different teaching.)

àáì ìøáðï ãùøå âîì áîòé ôøä àôéìå ëùðåìã ìà öøéê ÷øà ìäúéøå áùçéèú àîå ãìà âøò áôðéí îáçåõ ãùøé åìäëé ð÷è åàìéáà ãø"ù åìøáðï àéöèøéê ìùåí ãøùä àçøéúé

(a)

Explanation: According to the Rabbanan who permit a camel in the womb of a cow even when it is born, they do not require a Pasuk to permit it with the slaughtering of its mother, as it is should not be worse inside the mother than when it is outside the mother. This is why the Gemara said this according to Rebbi Shimon. According to the Rabbanan, it is used for a different teaching.

åìéëà ìîéîø ãàéöèøéê ìàñåø ãîåú éåðä ëãàîø ì÷îï áòéðï ôøñåú åìéëà

(b)

Implied Question: One cannot say that this Pasuk is required to forbid an image of a pigeon, as the Gemara later says, "hooves are required, and this does not have hooves."

ãäà ìø"ù àò"â ãìà îééúø ìéä ÷øà ìäëé îùîò ì÷îï ãàåñø ðîé ãîåú éåðä

(c)

Answer: According to Rebbi Shimon, even though he does not have an extra Pasuk to teach this, the Gemara later implies that he also would forbid an image of a pigeon.

ãôøéê ãîåú éåðä úùúøé ôé' îëì ááäîä åîùðé áòéðï ôøñåú åìéëà

(d)

Proof: This is apparent from the Gemara later (69b). The Gemara asks, why isn't the image of a pigeon permitted? In other words, it should be permitted due to the verse, "From all in an animal." The Gemara answers, we require that the baby animal have hooves, and it does not.

åäãø ôøéê ÷ìåè áîòé ôøä ìéúñø åîùðé ôøñä ááäîä úàëìå

1.

Proof (cont.): The Gemara then asks, why don't we forbid an animal without split hooves if it is in the womb of a cow? The Gemara answers that the Pasuk says, "(any) hooves in an animal you should eat."

åäê ÷åùéà ìéúà àìà ìø"ù ãìøáðï ìà âøò áôðéí îáçåõ ãùøé ëãôøéùéú

2.

Proof (cont.): This question is only according to Rebbi Shimon. According to the Rabbanan, being inside (the animal) is not worse than being outside as we have explained.

àìîà ãîåú éåðä ìø"ù àò"â ãìéëà ÷øà îîéìà îéúñø ëéåï ãìéëà ìà ôøñä åìà ôøñåú àò"â ãôøñä åôøñåú àöèøéê çã ìî÷åí çúê åçã ì÷ìåè

3.

Proof (cont.): This indicates that the image of a pigeon according to Rebbi Shimon is forbidden, even without a special Pasuk stating so. This is because there is no hoof or hooves on this pigeon. This is despite the fact that we say in our Gemara (68b) that we require the Pasuk "hoof" and "hooves" for the teachings regarding the place that was cut and a baby animal that does not have split hooves.

ä"ä ãìøáðï ìà öøéê ÷øà ìàñåø ãîåú éåðä àìà ìùåí ãøùä àéöèøéê åî"î äê áøééúà ãôøñä äçæéø àëåì ìà àúéà àìà ëø"ù

4.

Proof (cont.): Similarly, according to the Rabbanan we do not a Pasuk to forbid the image of a pigeon. Rather, this extra Pasuk must be used for a different teaching. Even so, the Beraisa in our Gemara that says that if it retracted a hoof you could eat it must be only according to Rebbi Shimon.

8)

TOSFOS DH AMAR REBBI YOCHANAN

úåñôåú ã"ä àîø ø' éåçðï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara does ask a question on Rebbi Yochanan from the Beraisa.)

úéîä ãìø' éåçðï ú÷ùä ìéä áøééúà ãäçæéø ôøñä ãúøé ÷øàé ÷ðñéá åò"ë îå÷îéðï çã ìî÷åí [çúê] åçã ìàáø åø' éåçðï ðô÷à ìéä î÷øà àçøéðà

(a)

Question: This is difficult. According to (Ula's statement in the name of) Rebbi Yochanan, the Beraisa regarding it retracting its hoof should be difficult, as it quotes two Pesukim. One teaches us about the place that was cut, and one teaches about the limb itself. Rebbi Yochanan, however, derives this from a different Pasuk!

åé"ì ãôøéê ìéä ùôéø èôé îàéãê áøééúà

(b)

Answer: The Gemara proceeds to ask a better question on (Ula) Rebbi Yochanan than the question from this Beraisa.

9)

TOSFOS DH HAKOL

úåñôåú ã"ä äëì

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the teaching derived from the Pasuk of "Treifah.")

ãàñåø ëì îä ùéåöà çåõ ìîçéöä ëèøôä ãàéï ìä äéúø ëãàîø áñîåê

(a)

Explanation: Whatever went out of its walls (i.e. the body of the mother animal) becomes forbidden is similar to a Treifah that has no way of being permitted, as stated later.

åìîàé ãîñé÷ äà ëì îéìé ëéåï ãäãåø ùøé

(b)

Implied Question: We conclude that everything that goes back is permitted. (How, then, can we understand the Pasuk regarding a Treifah?)

îéúå÷îà äà ã÷øé ìéä èøôä ìîìúà àçøéúé

(c)

Answer: We establish the Pasuk regarding Treifah as teaching a different teaching.

10)

TOSFOS DH YACHOL

úåñôåú ã"ä éëåì

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Pasuk "Penimah" is necessary.)

åà"ú å÷øà ãçèàú ãëúéá ôðéîä äàé ùìà éöúä çåõ ìîçéöúä äà éöúä áú ùøéôä äéà

(a)

Question: The Pasuk regarding Chatas that says "Penimah" -- "inside" is referring to the fact that the Chatas did not go out of its walls. If it did, it must be burned.

ì"ì äà î÷øà ãáùø áùãä ðô÷à

1.

Question: Why is this Pasuk necessary? We derive this lesson from the Pasuk of "Basar ba'Sadeh" - "meat in a field!"

åé"ì ãñ"ã ìîéìó îîòùø ùðé åáëåøéí ãùøå ãäå÷ùå á÷øà ãìà úåëì ìàëåì áùòøéê

(b)

Answer: One would think to derive Chatas from Ma'aser Sheini and Bikurim that are permitted (when they leave their walls). This is because Chatas is compared to them in the Pasuk (discussing Ma'aser Sheini) of "Lo Suchal Lechol b'Sha'arecha" - "you cannot eat in your gates" (Devarim 12:17).

ëããøùé' áô"â ãîëåú (ãó éæ.) åðãáåúéê æå úåãä åùìîéí åáëåøåú æä áëåø á÷øê åöàðê æä çèàú åàùí åðãøéê æä òåìä

1.

Answer (cont.): This is as the Gemara states (regarding the rest of this Pasuk) in Makos (7a), "And your donations - this refers to a Todah and Shelamim. And your Bechoros- this refers to the firstborn of your cattle. And your sheep - this refers to a Chatas and Asham. And your pledges - this refers to an Olah." (The Pasuk "Penimah" teaches us specifically that Chatas is incomparable to Ma'aser Sheini in this regard.)

11)

TOSFOS DH AVAL

úåñôåú ã"ä àáì

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how we know that the Pasuk is referring to Ma'aser Sheini that had once been in Yerushalayim.)

åà"ú ãìîà äëé ÷àîø áùòøéê äåà ãìà úéëåì àìà éáéàí ìéøåùìéí ìàåëìï ùìà ðëðñå îòåìí àáì ìà îééøé îéãé áàåúï ùðëðñå åéöàå

(a)

Question: Perhaps the Pasuk means that you cannot eat them in your regular "gates" (i.e. cities), but rather you should bring them to Yerushalayim to eat them if they have never yet been brought to Yerushalayim? It is not necessarily discussing Ma'aser Sheini that had been brought to Yerushalayim and was then taken out!

åé"ì ãáàìå äï äìå÷éï (îëåú éè:) îùîò áäãéà ãàééøé áðëðñå åéöàå ãéìéó äúí ãàéï ìå÷éï òìéäí òã ùéøàå ôðé äáéú

(b)

Answer: In Makos (19b see at length), the Gemara clearly understands that the Pasuk is referring to Ma'aser that had went into Yerushalayim and then left. This is because the Gemara says that one does not receive lashes for eating Ma'aser Sheini out of Yerushalayim unless the Ma'aser sees the walls of Yerushalayim.

12)

TOSFOS DH HOTZI

úåñôåú ã"ä äåöéà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the question of our Gemara.)

åà"ú îúðé' äéà áôø÷ äîôìú (ðãä ëç.) éöà îçåúê àå îñåøñ òã ùéöà øåáå

(a)

Question: The Mishnah in Nidah (28a) says that if it came out cut up or feet first, most of it has to come out for it to be considered born. (Why is this asked by our Gemara? It is an explicit Mishnah!)

åé"ì ãåãàé àùä èîàä ìéãä áøåá åìãä àáì ìà ùîòéðï îäúí ãîéòåè ùáôðéí äøé äåà ëéìåã

(b)

Answer: A woman is certainly considered impure from childbirth if most of the child comes out. However, we do not know from the Mishnah in Nidah (ibid.) that the rest (i.e. less than half) of the child that is inside is considered born.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF