1)

TOSFOS DH CHAZANHU

úåñôåú ã"ä çæðäå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos gives two reasons why the demon did not pour off himself or tell the people to do so.)

åäà ãàéòëá åìà òùä áòöîå ëï àå ùìà äåãéòí

(a)

Implied Question: The demon stalled and did not pour off himself or inform them about this. (Why not?)

ìôé ùäéä éøà ùé÷ôéãå òìéå ùàø äùãéí àí äéä îåãéò

(b)

Answer #1: He was scared that the other demons would be upset at him for revealing (what he thought was) this secret.

àé ðîé àéï îåòéì àà"ë ùãé ìäå ääåà âáøà âåôéä ãùúé

(c)

Answer #2: Alternatively, it does not help unless the person who is going to drink pours off the water himself from the pitcher.

2)

TOSFOS DH CHAMEI HA'OR

úåñôåú ã"ä çîé äàåø

(SUMMARY: Rashi and Tosfos argue whether Chizkiyah is arguing with the Beraisa quoted earlier.)

åäà ãúðéà ìòéì (ãó ÷ä.) îéí øàùåðéí ðåèìéï áéï áçîéï áéï áöåðï

(a)

Implied Question: The Beraisa earlier (105a) says that Netilas Yadayim can be done both with hot water or cold water. (Isn't this unlike Chizkiyah?)

îå÷é çæ÷éä ëìéùðà ÷îà ãø' éðàé ãìòéì ëùàéï äéã ñåìãú åëàï àééøé ëùäéã ñåìãú áäï åøáé éåçðï ãùøé äëà áìùåï áúøà ãîå÷é ìä àò"ô ùäéã ñåìãú îåúø

(b)

Answer: Chizkiyah establishes that this is according to the first version of Rebbi Yanai earlier where the water was not Yad Soledes. Chizkiyah is referring to water that is Yad Soledes. Rebbi Yochanan in the second version here permits doing Netilas Yadayim even if the water is Yad Soledes.

åáçðí ôéøù á÷åðèøñ ãçæ÷éä úðà äåà åôìéâ àáøééúà ãìòéì

(c)

Observation: (Accordingly) Rashi did not have to say that Chizkiyah is a Tana who can argue on the Beraisa earlier.

3)

TOSFOS DH D'PASKINHU

úåñôåú ã"ä ãôñ÷éðäå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how a little Mikvah is valid.)

åäà ãàîøéðï áôø÷ â' îéðéï (ðæéø ìç.) ãøáéòéú ãî÷åä áèìé áèìåä

(a)

Implied Question: The Gemara in Nazir (38a) says that they nullified the law of a Revi'is serving as a Mikvah.

äééðå ìòðéï îçèéï åöéðåøåú àáì ùøé ìäèáéì áäï éãéå

(b)

Answer #1: This was specifically regarding immersing needles and tubes in it. However, it is permitted to immerse ones hands in it.

à"ð ìâîøé áèìåä àó ìéãéí åäëà áîçåáøéï ìî÷åä åëï ôéøù á÷åðèøñ

(c)

Answer #2: Alternatively, they indeed nullified it totally, even for immersing hands. However, our Gemara is referring to a Revi'is that is connected to a Mikvah. This is also Rashi's explanation.

4)

TOSFOS DH MAYIM

úåñôåú ã"ä îéí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why a Gemara in Zevachim does not contradict our Gemara.)

áô"á ãæáçéí (ãó ëá.) àîøéðï ëì äîùìéí ìîé î÷åä îùìéí ìîé áàø åìøáéòéú àéðå îùìéí

(a)

Observation: In Zevachim (22a), we say that whatever can help complete a Mikvah can help complete waters of a well (our text is the waters of the Kiyor). It cannot help complete a Revi'is (of water for Netilas Yadayim).

ìîòåèé îàé àéìéîà ìîòåèé èéè äðøå÷ äéëé ãîé àé ãôøä ùåçä åùåúä îîðå àôéìå ìøáéòéú ðîé îùìéí ôéøù ùí á÷åðèøñ åëùøéí äï ìéãéí ëãàîø áôø÷ ëì äáùø îéí ùðôñìå îùúééú áäîä áéï áëìéí áéï á÷ø÷ò ôñåìéï äà ìà ðôñìå ëùøéï åàâá øéäèà ìà òééï ëï

1.

Observation (cont.): What does this exclude? If it excludes plaster that is poured, which case of plaster is this? If a cow would bend down and drink from it (as it is very watery), it can even complete a Revi'is of Netilas Yadayim! Rashi explains that they are valid for Netilas Yadayim as stated in Chulin that water that is unfit for an animal, whether it is in a vessel or in the ground, is invalid. This implies that if it is not unfit for an animal to drink, it is valid.

åàí úàîø ãäúí ÷àîø åàé ãàéï ôøä ùåçä åùåúä îîðå àôéìå ìî÷åä ðîé ìà åäëà îùîò ãìë"ò èåáì áäï ëì âåôå

(b)

Question: The Gemara there (ibid.) says, if a cow would not bend down and drink from it, it is not even valid for a Mikvah. Our Gemara implies that according to everyone he can immerse his entire body in it!

åðøàä ìôøù ãäúí îééøé ùðôñìå îùúééú áäîä îçîú ùäèéè òá ëì ëê ùàéðä éëåìä ìùúåú ãàæ àéï ùí îéí òìéå àáì äëà àééøé áöìåìéï äøáä àìà ãîàéñ åîñøçé åîçîú ëê àéï äôøä éëåìä ìùúåú

(c)

Answer: The case there is where the animal cannot drink it because the plaster is so thick that it cannot be drunk. It therefore is no longer called water. However, here the case is where it is pretty clear, but it is somewhat disgusting and smelly. This is why the cow cannot drink it.

5)

TOSFOS DH MITZVAH

úåñôåú ã"ä îöåä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that the added aspect of "Mitzvah etc." is due to cleanliness.)

åà"ú åäìà îùåí ñøê úøåîä ú÷ðåä åà"ë îàé åòåã

(a)

Question: Didn't they institute this due to it being similar to eating Terumah? Why, then, do we need to say "and furthermore?"

åé"ì ãú÷ðå îùåí ð÷éåú

(b)

Answer: The additional reason was due to cleanliness.

6)

TOSFOS DH MITZVAH (2)

úåñôåú ã"ä îöåä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that the Pasuk is an Asmachta, not an actual derivation.)

ôéøåù ãàñîéê ìéä ÷øà ãìàå ãøùä âîåøä ãòé÷ø ÷øà àúà ìëããøùéðï áðãä (ãó îâ.) îä éãéå îàáøàé

(a)

Explanation: This means that he cited a Pasuk as an Asmachta. This is clearly not an actual derivation, as the main context of the Pasuk is as stated in Nidah (43a) "Just as one's hands are outside etc."

7)

TOSFOS DH U'SHEMA MINAH

úåñôåú ã"ä åùîò îéðä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the three proofs, and the difference between one person reciting for others a Berachah Rishonah or Berachah Acharonah.)

úéîä ìø"é îðà ìéä ãîöåä ìéçì÷ ãéìîà øùåú ëî"ã áøéù ô' ùìùä ùàëìå (áøëåú îä.) ãàí øöå ìæîï îæîðéï ãôìåâúà äéà ãøá åøáé éåçðï

(a)

Question #1: The Ri has difficulty with this. How does he know that it is a Mitzvah to split up (and recite Birkas ha'Mazon on their own)? Perhaps one is allowed to do so, like the opinion in Berachos (45a) that if they want to make a Mezuman they can? This is an argument between Rav and Rebbi Yochanan.

åòåã ÷ùä ãäúí ìà ôìéâé àìà áôú ùéù òìéå úåøú æîåï áâ' àáì ôéøåú ãàéï îæîðéï òìéäï ëìì ëãàîø ù"î ãàéï îæîðéï òì äôéøå' ôùéèà ãîöå' ìéçì÷

(b)

Question #2: There is an additional question. The Gemara there only argued regarding bread, where people make a Mezuman with three people. However, one does not make a Mezuman on fruit at all, as he states that we see from here that one does not make a Mezuman on fruit. In such a case, it is obvious that it is a Mitzvah for each person individually to recite the Berachah Acharonah!

106b----------------------------------------106b

åé"ì ãä"÷ ù"î àéï îæîðéï òì äôéøåú ôéøåù àéï çåáä ìæîï òì äôéøåú àôéìå ëùäï ùìùä îãìà ðúðå ìå åàéï çéìå÷ áôéøåú áéï â' ìá'

(c)

Answer: It is possible to say that this is what he means. We see from here that one does not do a Mezuman with fruit. This means that there is no obligation to make a Mezuman with fruit, even when three people eat fruit together. This is apparent from the fact that they did not give him fruit. There is no difference in fruit regarding whether two or three people are eating.

åàëúé ìà éãòéðï àí éëåì ìæîï áùðéí áôú àå áôéøåú àôéìå áâ' àå àñåø ëî"ã àí øöå ìæîï àéï îæîðéï àìà îãáøéê ëì çã åçã ìçåãéä ùîò îéðä ãîöåä ìéçì÷

1.

Answer (cont.): We still do not know if one can make a Mezuman when two people eat bread or if three people eat fruit, or if it is forbidden as there is an opinion that if they want to do so they may not. Rather, from the fact that each person said the Berachah Acharonah separately, the implication is that everyone must say it separately.

ãàí àéúà ãîåúø ìæîï ìà äéä îáøê ëì àçã ìòöîå àìà äéä îáøê àçã ìçáøå åàåîø ðáøê ùàëìðå îùìå ëãé ìäåñéó ùáç ìî÷åí

2.

Answer (cont.): If it is permitted to make a Mezuman each one would not have made the Berachah Acharonah privately, but rather would have made the Berachah for his friend and added first "Nevarech she'Achalnu mi'Shelo" in order to add praise to Hash-m.

åàëúé ìà éãòéðï àìà ùáùðéí àñåø ìåîø ðáøê ùàëìðå îùìå àáì áìà ðáøê ùîà éëåì àçã ìáøê åìôèåø çáøå àáì îãúðéà ùðéí ùéùáå îöåä ìéçì÷ áã"à ëå' àìîà ãáùðéäí éåãòéí ìáøê çééáéí ùðéäí ìáøê

3.

Answer (cont.): We still only know that it is forbidden for two people to say "Nevarech she'Achalnu mi'Shelo." However, without this introduction perhaps one can make the Berachah for his friend and cause him to be exempt. However, the Beraisa states that if two people ate it is a Mitzvah to separate. When is this said etc. This indicates that if both people know how to say the Berachah Acharonah, they must do so individually.

åà"ú åî"ù áøëä ãáñåó ãëì àçã îáøê ìòöîå îáøëä ãáúçìä ãàçã îáøê ìëåìï

(d)

Question: What is the difference between a Berachah Acharonah that everyone must make individually and a Berachah Rishonah where one person can make this Berachah for everyone?

ëãîåëç áëéöã îáøëéï (áøëåú ãó ìè.) âáé úìîéãé (ãøá) ãäåå éúáé ÷îéä ãáø ÷ôøà åàééúå ÷îééäå ôøâéåú ëøåá åãåøîñ÷éï åðúï áø ÷ôøà øùåú ìàçã îäï ìáøê

1.

Proof #1: This is apparent from the Gemara in Berachos (39a) regarding the students of Rav who say before Bar Kapara and brought before him fowl, cabbage, and a cooked vegetable. Bar Kapara gave permission for one of them to recite the Berachos for everyone.

åáñåó àìå ãáøéí (ùí ãó ðâ.) úðéà äéå éåùáéí ááéú äîãøù äáéàå îàåø ìôðéäí áéú äìì àåîøéí àçã îáøê ìëåìï

2.

Proof #2: In Berachos (53a), the Beraisa states that when they were sitting in the Beis Medrash a fire was brought before them. Beis Hillel says that one can make the blessing (Bore Meorei ha'Aish) for everyone.

åáôø÷ ëéöã îáøëéï (ùí îá:) úðï âáé îåâîø ãàçã îáøê ìëåìï

3.

Proof #3: In Berachos (42b) the Mishnah states that one person can make a Berachah on incense for everyone.

åéù ìåîø ãùàðé áøëä ãìëúçìä ùëì àçã îøåéç áàåúä áøëä ùò"é ëï îåúøéï ìàëåì åìéäðåú ìôéëê îöèøôéï ìä àáì áñåó ùëáø àëìå ìà îöèøôéï

(e)

Answer: A Berachah Rishonah is different in that every person benefits from the Berachah. Through this Berachah they are able to eat and benefit and they therefore can combine to be exempt with one person's Berachah. However, after they have eaten they cannot combine.

åäà ãàîøéðï áôø÷ ëéöã îáøëéï (ùí ãó ìæ.) øáï âîìéàì åæ÷ðéí ùäéå îñåáéí áòìéä áéøéçå åäáéàå ìôðéäí ëåúáåú åàëìåí åðúï ø"â øùåú ìø' ò÷éáà ìáøê å÷ôõ åáøê áøëä àçú îòéï â'

(f)

Implied Question: The Gemara states in Berachos (37a) that when Rabban Gamliel and the elders were eating in an attic in Yericho dates were brought before them. After they ate them, Rabban Gamliel gave permission for Rebbi Akiva to make a Berachah Acharonah. Rebbi Akiva jumped up and made a Berachah Acharonah of Al ha'Eitz. (This shows one person can cause others to be exempt from his Berachah Acharonah!)

äééðå îùåí ãø"â ìèòîéä ãçùéá ìäå ëôú ã÷àîø äúí ëì ùäåà îæ' äîéðéí øáï âîìéàì àåîø â' áøëåú

(g)

Answer: This is because Rabban Gamliel based himself on his opinion that this Berachah Acharonah is similar to that on bread. This is as the Mishnah states there that if a person ate something from the Shivas ha'Minim, Rabban Gamliel says that one must recite Birkas ha'Mazon.

åàò"â ãø' ò÷éáà ëøáðï ñáéøà ìéä ãàîøé áøëä àçú îòéï â'

1.

Implied Question: Rebbi Akiva holds like the Rabbanan who say that one recites Al ha'Eitz. (Why would he say his Berachah would make everyone exempt?)

ìà áùáéì ìäåöéà ëåìí áøê àìà áøê ìòöîå á÷åì øí ìäåãéò ìäí ãäìëä ëøáðï

2.

Answer: He did not do this in order to make everyone exempt. Rather, he made a Berachah to exempt himself out loud in order to show everyone that the Halachah was like the Rabbanan.

åîä ùàéï àðå ðåäâéï òëùéå ìáøê áúçìä àçã ìëåìï àìà áôú ìçåãéä

(h)

Implied Question: Our custom presently is that we only have one person recite the Berachah Rishonah for everyone when we are eating bread. (Why?)

ìôé ùàéï àðå ÷åáòéí òöîðå ìäñá òì äééï åòì äôéøåú åàôéìå âáé ôú úðï áëéöã îáøëéï (ùí ãó îá.) äéå éåùáéï ëì àçã îáøê ìòöîå äéñáå àçã îáøê ìëåìï

(i)

Answer: This is because we do not have a Kevius (i.e. sense of permanence) when we drink wine or eat fruit. Even regarding bread the Mishnah in Berachos states (42a) that if people were sitting together each person should make his own Berachah. However, if they reclined, one makes the Berachah for everyone.

åâáé ééï ôìéâé äúí áâîøà (ãó îâ.) øá åø' éåçðï ãøá ñáø ìà îäðéà ìéä äéñáä åàéëà ãàîøé ìà áòéà äéñáä åø' éåçðï àîø îäðéà ìéä äéñáä

1.

Answer (cont.): Regarding wine, the Gemara (43a) quotes an argument between Rav and Rebbi Yochanan. Rav holds that reclining does not help. Some say that it does not require reclining. Rebbi Yochanan holds that reclining does help.

åîéäå öøéê òéåï ãôùè äîùðä îùîò ãîééøé ááøëä ãìëúçìä åáâîøà îùîò ãîééøé ááøëä ãáñåó âáé úìîéãé ãøá ãàîøé ðéëåì ìçîà àðäø ãéð÷ áúø ãëøéëå éúáé å÷à îáòéà ìäå äéñáå àéï ìà äéñáå ìà àå ãìîà ëå' îùîò ãìë"ò ãáøëä ãìëúçìä äåä ôùéèà ìäå ãìà áòé äéñáä ãìà ðñúô÷å àìà ìáøëú äîæåï ìáúø ãëøéëå

(j)

Question: However, this requires study. The simple explanation of the Mishnah implies that it is referring to a Berachah Rishonah. The Gemara, however, implies that it is referring to a Berachah Acharonah when it discusses the students of Rav who said that to each other that they should eat bread together next to Dink River. After they broke bread, they sat and asked whether this only applied if they reclined together. This implies that according to everyone they did not need to ask this regarding their Berachah Acharonah, as it clearly does not require reclining. Their only question was regarding Birkas ha'Mazon after they finished eating.

åòåã ãàé ááøëä ãìëúçìä ôìéâé øá åøáé éåçðï ìøá î"ù ééï îîåâîø åàåø ãàçã îáøê ìëåìï

1.

Question (cont.): Additionally, if Rav and Rebbi Yochanan argue regarding a Berachah Rishonah, why according to Rav is wine different than incense and fire where one person makes the Berachah for everyone?

åé"ì îùåí ãîåâîø åàåø áà ìäí äðàä ááú àçú

(k)

Answer: Incense and fire are different, as everyone receives benefit from these things simultaneously.

àáì ÷ùä ãáäãéà úðï äúí áà ìäí ééï ìàçø äîæåï àçã îáøê ìëåìí

(l)

Question: However, there is a difficulty. The Mishnah explicitly states there that one person recites the Berachah for everyone on the wine that comes after the meal.

åàò"â ãàéëà ìîéîø ãùàðé äúí ãîâå ãîäðéà äéñáä ìôú îäðéà ðîé ìééï ãäëé ðîé îùðé äúí ëé ôøéê ìéä ìøá îáøééúà ãàåøçéï

1.

Answer: One can say that this is different, as since the reclining helped for the bread it should also help for the wine. This answer is indeed given there in order to answer a question asked on Rav from the Beraisa regarding guests.

î"î äåä ìéä ìà÷ùåéé èôé ìøá îîúðéúéï åìùðåéé äëé

2.

Question: Even so, the Gemara should have asked this question on Rav from the Mishnah itself and given this answer.

àìà ìäëé ìà ôøéê ìéä îîúðéúéï ãòì ëøçê àééøé ááøëä ãîúçìä ãåîéà ãééï ùáúåê äîæåï àáì áøééúà ò"ë àééøé ááøëä ãáñåó îãáòé äéñáä

(m)

Answer #1: Rather, the reason that the Gemara does not ask a question from the Mishnah is because the Mishnah must be referring to Berachah Rishonah, similar to the case of wine drunk during the meal. However, the Beraisa is referring to Berachah Acharonah, as it requires reclining.

åìôé æä ááøëä ãìëúçìä ìà áòé ìà÷áåòé ãåëúà ìà áôú åìà áùàø ãáøéí åááøëä ãáñåó áòé ìà÷áåòé ãåëúà áéï áôú áéï áùàø ãáøéí ãäìëä ëøáé éåçðï

1.

Answer #1 (cont.): According to this, one does not need to have a Kevius (permanent setting) regarding Berachah Rishonah whether it is for bread or anything else. Only regarding Berachah Acharonah is a permanent setting required, whether regarding bread or anything else, as the Halachah follows Rebbi Yochanan.

åîéäå éù ìééùá ëåìä îìúà ááøëä ãáúçìä åäà ãôøéê ìøá îáøééúà åìà îîúðéúéï îùåí ãîáøééúà ôøéê ìúøé ìéùðé ãøá

(n)

Answer #2: However, one can in fact answer that everything is referring to Berachah Rishonah. The reason that the Gemara asked a question on Rav from the Beraisa and not from the Mishnah is because the Beraisa is a question on both versions of Rav's statement.

åîä ùìà ðñúô÷å úìîéãé ãøá òã àçø äîæåï

1.

Implied Question: Rav's students did not have a doubt until after they ate bread. (Why?)

ìôé ùáúçìä ìà áàå ááú àçú ìðäø ãéð÷ àìà äéå îú÷áöéï ùí ìéñò îùí ááú àçú åëì àçã ùäéä îâéò ùí äéä éåùá åàåëì åäéä îáøê ìòöîå

2.

Answer: This is because they did not originally arrive together at Dink River. Rather, they gathered there in order to travel together from there. Each one who arrived there would sit and eat, and make his own Berachah Rishonah.

åäà ãîééúé ùí øàéä îîúðéúéï ãîééøé ááøëä ãìëúçìä àò"â ãáøëú äîæåï áùðéí îöåä ìéçì÷ åãáúçìä àçã îáøê ìçáéøå

3.

Implied Question: The Gemara there brings proof from the Mishnah that is discussing Berachah Rishonah, even though two people must split up in order to say Birkas ha'Mazon while one person may say a Berachah Rishonah for his friend.

î"î îééúé øàéä ãëé àîøé ðéæåì åðéëåì ðäîà áãåëúà ôìåðé ëäéñáä ãîéà åäåé ÷áéòåú åáëì î÷åí ùäàçã îáøê ìëåìí áéï áøëä øàùåðä áéï áøëä àçøåðä àéï îáøê àçã ìëåìí òã ã÷áéòé

4.

Answer: It still brings a proof that if people say, "Let us eat bread in a certain place" it is akin to reclining and is considered a Kevius. Whenever a person is saying a Berachah for everyone, whether it is a Berachah Rishonah or Berachah Acharonah, he may only do so when there is a Kevius.

8)

TOSFOS DH V'CHAL DAVAR

úåñôåú ã"ä åëì ãáø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses when one must be concerned about Chatzitzah.)

ä÷ùä äøá ø' àáøäí áï äøá ø' îùä ãáúåñôúà ãî÷ååàåú úðéà áôø÷ æ' ëì äçåöõ áëìéí çåöõ áðãä åáâø áùòú èáéìä åáçåìéï àéï çåööéï åäëà ÷àîø ãçåööéï

(a)

Question: Rav Avraham ben Rav Moshe asked that the Tosefta in Mikvaos (ch.7) states that whatever is considered a Chatzitzah regarding vessels is considered a Chatzitzah regarding Nidah and the immersion of a convert. Regarding Chulin, it is not considered a Chatzitzah. However, our Gemara says it is a Chatzitzah!

åé"ì ãäëà àééøé ìàëéìä ëãîåëç ëåìéä ùîòúà åäçîéøå áàëéìä ëîå áèáéìä åäúí áðâéòä åàééøé àó áçåìéï ùðòùå òì èäøú úøåîä ãìà äçîéøå

(b)

Answer: The Gemara here is discussing washing for the purpose of eating, as is apparent from the entire Gemara. They were as stringent regarding washing for eating as they were regarding immersion. The Tosefta is discussing washing for touching, and is saying that they were not stringent regarding Chatzitzah for touching even if it was Chulin whose level of purity was maintained as if it were Terumah.

åöøéê ìéæäø áùòú ðèéìä îèéè åáö÷ ùúçú äöôåøï ãçåööéï áèáéìä ëãúðï áîñëú î÷åàåú (ô"è î"á) åëì ãáø ùçåöõ áèáéìä öøéê ëîå ëï ìéæäø áðèéìä ìàëéìä àáì áîéòåè ùàéðå î÷ôéã àéï ìçåù ãáèáéìä ðîé àéðå çåöõ ëãàîøéðï áô"÷ ãòéøåáéï (ãó ã:)

(c)

Observation: One has to be careful while washing from plaster and dough that get under one's nails, as they cause a Chatzitzah while immersing as stated in the Mishnah in Mikvaos (9:2). If something is a Chatzitzah regarding immersion, one must be careful regarding that type of Chatzitzah for Netilas Yadayim for eating. However, regarding a small amount that he does not care about he does not have to be concerned, as it is not even a Chatzitzah for immersion as stated in Eiruvin (4b).

9)

TOSFOS DH AMAR RAV

úåñôåú ã"ä àîø øá

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the definition of "Ad ha'Perek" regarding Chulin, Terumah, and Kidush Yadayim.)

ëã÷úðé ááøééúà ìçåìéï òã äôø÷ ìúøåîä òã äôø÷ ëå' åäéä îøàä øá áéãéå

(a)

Explanation #1: This is as it says in the Beraisa that for Chulin one washes "until the Perek" and for Terumah one washes "until the Perek" (see below) etc. and Rav used to show the area with his hands.

åôéøù á÷åðèøñ ãòã äôø÷ ìçåìéï äåà ôø÷ á' ùáàîöò àöáòåú åìúøåîä òã äôø÷ ùáâá äéã åá÷ãåù éãéí òã äôø÷ äòìéåï î÷åí çáåø äéã åäæøåò

1.

Explanation #1 (cont.): Rashi explains that "until the Perek" regarding Chulin is until the second set of knuckles in the middle of the fingers. Regarding Terumah, "until the Perek" refers to the (third set of) knuckles on the back of the hand. Regarding Kidush Yadayim "until the Perek" refers to the wrist.

åìà øöä ìôøù á÷åðèøñ ãôø÷ ãçåìéï äåà ôø÷ øàùåï ùáøàù äàöáòåú ìôé ùàéðå ùåä áëì äàöáòåú ëîå áàâåãì àáì ôø÷ äàîöòé ùåä áëåìí

2.

Explanation #1 (cont.): Rashi did not want to explain that "Perek" regarding Chulin is the first set of knuckles towards the top of the fingers, as the thumb does not even have such a knuckle. However, the middle knuckles are equal (i.e. present) regarding all of the fingers.

åùîåàì àîø ãôø÷ ãçåìéï åãúøåîä ùåéï ìçåîøà åìà ôìéâ àáøééúà àìà îùåí ãëäï äåà åøâéì áúøåîä ìëê äçîéø òì òöîå ìäøâéì àó áçåìéï

3.

Explanation #1 (cont.): Shmuel says that "the Perek" regarding Chulin and Terumah are equal in their stringency. Shmuel is not arguing on the Beraisa. Rather, because he is a Kohen and is used to eating Terumah he was stringent upon himself so that he should be used to washing until his third set of knuckles even regarding Chulin.

àáì ìøá ùùú ÷ùä ãàîø òã ëàï áéï ìçåìéï áéï ìúøåîä ì÷åìà

(b)

Question: However, this presents a difficulty in the position of Rav Sheshes, as he says that the same amount applies to Chulin and Terumah even in a lenient fashion!

åé"ì ãøá ùùú îôøù äáøééúà áôø÷ äøàùåï ùáøàù àöáòåú ìçåìéï åùðé ìúøåîä ùäåà ôø÷ àîöòé åìà ìä÷ì òì äáøééúà ÷àîø àìà àãøá åùîåàì ãàîøé ãôø÷ ãúøåîä äåà î÷åí çáåø àöáòåú åúôéñú äéã

(c)

Answer: Rav Sheshes explains the Beraisa as meaning that for Chulin one must wash until the first set of knuckles, while one must wash for Terumah until the middle knuckles. He is not intending to be more lenient than the Beraisa, rather he is being more lenient than Rav and Shmuel who say that the Perek regarding Terumah is the place where the fingers connect to the palm.

åø"ú ôéøù ò"ë ìçåìéï ôø÷ øàùåï ëîå ùôéøù øá ùùú

(d)

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam explains that for Chulin one must wash until the first set of knuckles, as explained by Rav Sheshes.

åìôéøåù æä ÷ùä áøééúà ìøá ùùú ãìôéøåùå öøéê ìåîø ãìøá ùùú ãçåìéï åúøåîä áôø÷ øàùåï ì÷åìà

1.

Question: According to this explanation, the Beraisa is a question on Rav Sheshes. According to his explanation, one must say that both regarding Chulin and Terumah one must only wash until the first set of knuckles!

åîéäå éù ìãçåú ãìùîåàì ìçåîøà äééðå ôø÷ ùáâá äéã ëîå ÷ãåù éãéí åáà øá ùùú ìä÷ì îùîåàì

2.

Answer: However, it is possible to push aside that being stringent according to Shmuel would mean the knuckles on the back of the hand similar to Kidush Yadayim. Rav Sheshes is coming to be more lenient than Shmuel.

àáì àéï ìôøù ëîå ùôéøù äøá ø' àáøäí ãçåìéï òã ôø÷ ùìéùé ãàöáòåú åìúøåîä ëì ôéñú äéã ôéøåù òã ä÷ðä åì÷ãåù éãéí òã äòöéìä ù÷åøéï ÷åã"à áìò"æ

(e)

Explanation #3: However, do not explain as does Rav Avraham that one must wash for Chulin until the third set of knuckles and for Terumah one must wash the entire palm, meaning until the wrist. He also holds that for Kidush Yadayim one must wash until the Atzil (elbow) which is called the Koda.

åäáéà øàéä îñôø äæäéø ùëúåá ùí àîø ùîåàì ìçåìéï ëì äéã

1.

Proof: He brought a proof to this from the Sefer Hizhir who writes that Shmuel says that the entire hand must be washed for Chulin.

åàé àôùø ìåîø ëï îãúðéà áôø÷ äàåîø îù÷ìé òìé (òøëéï éè:) îù÷ì éãé åîù÷ì øâìé òìé ø' éäåãä àåîø îîìà àãí çáéú åîëðéñ éãå òã äòöéì åáøâì òã äàøëåáä

(f)

Question: This is impossible, as the Beraisa states in Erchin (19b) that if someone pledges to give the weight of his hand or foot, Rebbi Yehudah says that a person fills a barrel with water and puts his hand in until the Atzil and his foot until his knee (to see how much he must give based on the displacement of the water).

åôøéê åáéã òã äòöéì åøîéðäå ÷ãåù éãéí åøâìéí áî÷ãù òã äôø÷ åîùðé ãàåøééúà òã äôø÷ áðãøéí äìê àçø ìùåï áðé àãí àìîà àéï ÷ãåù éãéí òã äòöéì

1.

Question (cont.): The Gemara asks, does he put his hand in until the Atzil? Doesn't the Beraisa say that Kidush Yadayim is done in the Mikdash until the Perek? The Gemara answers that according to Torah law one only needs to put it in until the Perek. Regarding vows, we say that the way people talk determines his intent. This Gemara clearly indicates that Kidush Yadayim is not until the Atzil!

åîéäå éúëï ôéøåùå ìôé îä ùîôøù ùí ãòöéì äééðå àéùéì"à åäåà áéú äùçé î÷åí çáåø äæøåò åäëúó åëï ôéøù á÷åðèøñ áôø÷ äæøåò (ì÷îï ÷ìã:)

(g)

Answer: His explanation is possible according to the explanation there that Atzil means Ishila (as opposed to our Gemara where it means the elbow), which is the armpit where the arm and shoulder are connected. This is indeed how Rashi explains Atzil in Chulin (134b).

àáì ÷ùä ìø"ú ãàîø áæáçéí (ãó éç:) åìà éçâøå áéæò àéï çåâøéï áî÷åí ùîæéòéï ìà ìîèä îîúðéäí åìà ìîòìä îàöéìéäí àìà ëðâã àöéìé éãéäí åäééðå ëðâã ÷åã"à ùùí ãøê ìçâåø ãàé áî÷åí ùçé àãøáä äåà î÷åí æéòä éåúø

(h)

Question #1: However, there is a difficulty with the explanation of Rabeinu Tam. The Gemara in Zevachim (18b) states, "And they should not put on their belt b'Yaza" means that they should not put it where people sweat. It should not be lower than their thigh and not higher than their Atzil. Rather, it should be opposite their Atzil (elbow) called Koda, as it is normal to put one's belt there. If it would be referring to an armpit it seems inappropriate, as that is the place where one sweats the most!

åòåã ãîä ùééê ìåîø åìà ìîòìä ãìîòìä äåé öåàø åàéê éçâøå ùí

(i)

Question #2: Additionally, how is it possible to say, "And not higher?" Above the armpit is the neck. How would someone put a belt over there?

åòåã ãáòøëéï (ãó éè:) ÷àîø áéã òã äòöéì åáøâì òã äàøëåáä îùîò ãòöéì áàîöò äéã ëîå äàøëåáä áàîöò äøâì

(j)

Question #3: Additionally, in Erchin (19b) the Gemara says "the hand until the Atzil and the foot until the knee." This implies that the Atzil is in the middle of one's arm (the elbow), just as the knee is in the middle of one's leg.

åòåã ãáàäìåú (ô"à î"ç) ëùîåðä øî"ç àáøéí ÷úðé ì' áôéñú äéã ùùä áëì àöáò ùðéí á÷ðä åùðéí áîøô÷ àçã áæøåò åàøáòä áëúó îùîò ãîøô÷ äåà ÷åã"à ùëï äåà äñãø

(k)

Question #4: Additionally, when the Mishnah in Ohalos (1:8) counts two hundred and forty eight limbs, it says that there are thirty in the palm of the hand. Six are in each finger, two in the forearm, two in the Marpek, and four in the shoulder. This implies that Marpek is the Koda (elbow), as it is discussing the order of the limbs (going up from the fingers).

åîøô÷ åòöéì äëì àçã ãäà áòøëéï (ãó éè.) ÷úðé ø' éäåãä áîúðéúéï ãäúí îëðéñ éãå òã îøô÷å

1.

Question #4 (cont.): Marpek and Atzil are all considered one thing, as the Gemara in Erchin (19a) states that Rebbi Yehudah taught in the Mishnah that a person puts his hand in until the Marpek.

åúøâåí ëì àöéìé éãéí ãéçæ÷àì (éâ) ëì îøôå÷é éãéà

i.

Proof: Additionally, the Targum of the words "Kol Atzilei Yadayim" (Yechezkel 13:18) is "Kol Marpukei Yadaya" (further indicating that Atzil and Marpek are the same thing).

åàéï ìôøù ã÷éãåù éãéí äåà òã áéú äùçé ãäééðå òã äëúó

(l)

Implied Question: We cannot explain that Kidush Yadayim is until the armpit, meaning until the shoulder. (Why not?)

ãäà ôøéê áòøëéï åãàåøééúà òã äôø÷ åäà âáé úôéìéï ëúéá éãê åúðé ãáé îðùä éãê æå ÷éáåøú åîùðé ãàåøééúà ÷éáåøú ëå' ÷éãåù éãéí åøâìéí äìëúà âîéøé ìä îùîò ãôø÷ ã÷éãåù éãéí åøâìéí àéï îâéò òã ÷éáåøú

(m)

Answer: This is because the Gemara in Erchin asks, "Does the Torah require until the Perek (for Kidush Yadayim)? Regarding Tefilin the Torah says, "your hand." It was taught in the house of Menashe, "your hand - refers to the Kibores (bicep)." The Gemara answers, "According to Torah law, the Kibores...Kidush Yadayim v'Raglayim (the amount) is a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai." This implies that Perek referring to Kidush Yadayim v'Raglayim does not reach the Kibores.

å÷éáåøú îôøù øáéðå úí ÷áåöú áùø ùáæøåò ëîå (á"á ãó ä.) ÷éáåøà ãàäéðà ùäåà ìùåï ÷áåöú úîøéí

1.

Answer (cont.): Rabeinu Tam himself explains that Kibores refers to the bicep, as the Gemara in Bava Basra (5a) states "Kibora d'Ahina" which is a term used for a bunch of dates (the bicep is a place where the muscle is bunched up).

10)

TOSFOS DH NOTEL

úåñôåú ã"ä ðåèì

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses why our Gemara says Netilas Yadayim can last the whole day, seemingly unlike the Gemara in Pesachim.)

úéîä ãàîøéðï áòøáé ôñçéí (ãó ÷å:) äðåèì éãéå ìà é÷ãù îùåí ã÷éãåù îôñé÷ áéï ðèéìú éãéí ìñòåãä

(a)

Question: This is difficult, as we say in Pesachim (106b) that if someone washes his hands he should not make Kidush, as Kidush is an interruption between Netilas Yadayim and his meal.

åàîø áôø÷ àìå ãáøéí (áøëåú ðá:) á"ä àåîøéí îåæâéï ëåñ åàç"ë ðåèìéï îùåí ãúéëó ìðèéìú éãéí ñòåãä åäùúà äà îåòéì úðàé àôéìå ëì äéåí

1.

Question (cont.): The Gemara in Berachos (52b) says that Beis Hillel says that one pours the cup and the does Netilas Yadayim because immediately after Netilas Yadayim is the meal. Our Gemara says that the condition helps for the entire day!

åàåîø ø"ú ãäðé îéìé ëùîúðä ùçøéú

(b)

Answer #1: Rabeinu Tam says that this is when he makes a condition in the morning (meaning not for eating food but for Netilas Yadayim in the morning, see Maharam Shif).

åòåã é"ì ãàò"â ãîåòéì úðàé ìøá àó ùìà áùòú äãç÷ äééðå àí àéï îéí áñîåê ìå àé ðîé éù ìå åöøéê ìãáøéí àçøéí

(c)

Answer #2: Alternatively, it is possible that even though a condition helps according to Rav even when it is not a pressing situation, this is only if he does not have water near him or if he has it but he really needs it for something else.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF