1)

TOSFOS DH SHOMER

תוספות ד"ה שומר

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how we know that a Shomer combines to both bring and give impurity to other items.)

וא"ת לפי' ר"ת ורבינו שמואל דבעו כביצה לקבל טומאה מנלן צירוף בשומר להכניס דאימא קרא אתא להוציא

(a)

Question: According to Rabeinu Tam and Rabeinu Shmuel who require a size of an egg to accept impurity, how do we know that the Pasuk is teaching that the Shomer combines to bring impurity to the object? Perhaps the Pasuk is saying that it combines only to give impurity to other items (but not to bring it to the object itself)!

וי"ל כיון דיד מכניס ומוציא ושומר מכניס ומוציא לענין צירוף שומר נמי לא שנא

(b)

Answer: Since a Yad brings impurity to the object and gives it to other objects, as does a Shomer, regarding combining to do this it should also be the same as a Yad (which combines both to bring and to give impurity).

118b----------------------------------------118b

2)

TOSFOS DH MEI'IKARA

תוספות ד"ה מעיקרא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the source for the concept of Yados in vessels.)

הקשה רבי אליהו מנלן ידות בכלים דעלמא דמיד דזרעים ותנור ונבלה לא אתו דמה להנך שאין להם טהרה במקוה

(a)

Question: Rebbi Eliyahu asked, how do we know that there is a concept of Yados regarding vessels? One cannot derive this from the concept of Yados found by seeds, earthenware ovens, and Neveilos, as these cannot become pure in a Mikvah!

ונראה משום דדרשינן בתורת כהנים והנוגע בהן לרבות את הידות וההוא אפשר דלשאר כלים איצטריך ואי לא כתיב אלא ההוא קרא לחודיה הוה מוקמינן ליה בדמסתבר טפי

(b)

Answer: It appears that this is from the derivation in Toras Kohanim, "And the one who touches them - including Yados." This possibly teaches that other vessels have Yados. If only this Pasuk were stated, I would think that it is referring to the items most similar to the context of that Pasuk. (This is why both this Pasuk and the Pasuk mentioned in the Gemara are required to derive all Yados.)

3)

TOSFOS DH U'K'SHEM

תוספות ד"ה וכשם

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the Beraisa's statement that seems to put becoming impure before the ability to become impure.)

וא"ת אדרבה יותר ראוי לתלות טומאה בהכשר דמה שאין מטמא זה תלוי בהכשר דמעיקרא לא הוכשרו

(a)

Question: On the contrary, it is more appropriate to compare impurity from its ability to become impure, as the fact that it cannot become impure is do the fact that it never had the ability to become impure in the first place!

וכ"ת דאפשר באילן מלא פירות שנתלש והוכשר וחזר ונטעו

1.

Answer: One might say that the case is regarding a tree full of fruit that became detached from the tree, became able to become impure, and then was replanted.

אי אפשר לומר כן דהא כשחזר ונטעו בטל ליה הכשר כשהשריש שאפילו טומאה בטלה כדאמרינן (תרומות פ"ט מ"ז) גבי גידולי תרומה

2.

Question: It is impossible to say that this is the case, as when a person would replant this fruit the original ability to become impure is nullified when it takes root. Even impurity is nullified in such a case, as the Mishnah in Terumos (9:7) says regarding growths of Terumah.

וי"ל דפשיטא ליה שאין מקבלין טומאה אלא לכשיתלשו כדפי' בקונטרס שאם אומר מחוברין טמאין טימאת [את] הכל

(b)

Answer: It is obvious to the Beraisa that they only become impure when they become detached, as Rashi explains that if one says that fruit that are attached are impure, he has made everything impure!

וקאמר דה"נ אין מקבלין הכשר אלא לכשיתלשו אפילו לקבל טומאה אחר התלישה

1.

Answer (cont.): The Beraisa means that they cannot make the fruit able to become impure before they are detached, even regarding the fruit only becoming impure after they become detached.

וא"ת מההוא טעמא דפשוט לו בטומאה תפשוט לו בהכשר שאם אתה אומר כן הכשרת הכל במחובר

(c)

Question: For the same reason that it is obvious regarding impurity (otherwise all produce would be impure when it is still attached) it should be obvious regarding the ability to become impure! We should say that if you say this, everything is already able to become impure when it is attached to the ground (and it is possible that it touched dead Sheratzim etc.)!

וי"ל דאין זה תימה כל כך אם נאמר דהוכשר הכל במחובר ע"י גשמים שנופלין על הזרעים

(d)

Answer: It is not so difficult if we will say that everything became able to become impure through rain that fell on the seeds (as the real issue is their impurity, not their being able to become impure, see Tosfos ha'Rosh).

4)

TOSFOS DH AIN YAD

תוספות ד"ה אין יד

(SUMMARY: Rashi and Tosfos argue regarding the case of Rav.)

פי' בקונטרס כגון פול או חצי זית בשר ולו יד והרי הוא עם כביצה אוכלין

(a)

Explanation #1: Rashi explains this is referring to an amount of meat the size of a bean or half an olive that has a Yad, and is together with an amount of food the size of an egg.

ואין נראה דאפילו היה נוגע בחצי זית עצמו לא היה טמא

(b)

Question: This does not appear correct, as even if the food touched the half an olive (of meat) itself it would not become impure!

מדאמרי' בפ"ק (לעיל דף כד:) התורה העידה על כלי חרס אפילו הוא מלא חרדל

1.

Proof #1: This is apparent from the Gemara earlier (24b) that says that the Torah testified regarding an earthenware vessel that even if it is full of mustard seeds, all of the seeds are impure (because they are in the airspace of the impure earthenware vessel).

אלמא אי לאו אויר כלי חרס לא הוי כמו במחובר אע"פ שנוגעין יחד

i.

Proof #1 (cont.): This implies that if it were not for the fact that the airspace of the earthenware vessel causes impurity, the mustard seeds would not become impure even though they are touching each other. (In other words, if the seeds would be in a regular vessel, the seeds would become impure through their contact with the vessel. However, the seeds in the middle of the vessel that are not touching any part of the vessel would remain pure!)

ותנן נמי בפרק בתרא דחגיגה (דף כ:) הכלי מצרף כל מה שבתוכו לקדש אבל לא לתרומה

2.

Proof #2 (cont.): The Mishnah in Chagigah (20b) states that a vessel combines whatever is inside it regarding Kodesh, but not regarding Terumah (and certainly Ma'aser and Chuin).

ומבעיא לן בהקומץ רבה (מנחות דף כד.) אי דוקא דנגעי אהדדי או לא ואי נגיעה חשיב כמחובר א"כ פשיטא דבלא נגיעה איירי דבנגיעה לא היה צריך צירוף כלי

i.

Proof #2 (cont.): The Gemara asks in Menachos (24a) if this law regarding the vessel combining its contents is specifically when the items are touching each other or not. If touching is considered to combine, it would seem obvious that the Mishnah in Chagigah (ibid.) is discussing a case where they are not touching, as if they were there would be no need for a special law regarding a vessel combining!

ונראה לפרש שזה חצי זית מחובר עם כביצה אוכלין אבל אינו מחובר כל כך ואם היה מגביה אותו היה ניתק אותו כביצה אוכלין מאותו פחות מכזית דלא הוי יד לשאר אוכל אלא לפחות מכזית

(c)

Explanation #2: It appears that meat the size of half an olive is connected to the food the size of an egg. However, it is not connected very strongly. If he would pick up the meat, the food would detach from the meat. Therefore, the Yad is only a Yad to the meat and not to the food.

ולפי' הקונטרס שמפרש בעלמא דאוכל כל שהוא מקבל טומאה א"צ לומר שהוא מחובר עם שאר אוכלין אלא בעי אם מכניס טומאה לאותו חצי זית אבל להוציא אפילו היה זית שלם ונגע בו לא היה טמא דצריך כביצה

(d)

Observation: According to Rashi who explains that any size food can become impure, it is unnecessary to say that it was connected to other food. Rather, the question is if it brings impurity to the meat (that is the size of half of an olive). However, regarding it making other items impure, even if one touched meat the size of an entire olive it would not cause impurity, as this would only be true if it was meat the size of an egg.

ואפילו אם אין מקבל טומאה בכל שהוא מדאורייתא איכא למימר דמבעיא ליה אי מקבל טומאה מדרבנן דמדרבנן מקבל טומאה בכל שהוא

1.

Observation (cont.): Even if it does not become impure if it is very small according to Torah law, one can say that the question is if it becomes impure according to Rabbinic law, as according to Rabbinic law even a small amount can become impure.

5)

TOSFOS DH V'HA'BAYIS

תוספות ד"ה והבית

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how we derive Yad regarding a dead person, and why we do not say Dayo.)

ויד למת נפקא לן במה הצד מנבלה ותנור

(a)

Explanation: The concept of Yad regarding impurity of the dead is derived from a Mah ha'Tzad from Neveilah and an earthenware oven.

דמה נבלה שאין מטמא באהל כו' ואי פרכת מה לנבלה שכן אוכל תאמר במת שאין אוכל כדאמרינן בפרק דם שחיטה תנור יוכיח

1.

Explanation (cont.): Just as a Neveilah does not cause impurity of an Ohel etc. If you will ask that a Neveilah is food, and therefore one should not be able to derive a dead person from food (as stated in Kerisus 21b), we can derive this anyway from an earthenware oven.

מה לתנור שכן מטמא מאוירו נבלה תוכיח הצד השוה שבהם שמטמא וידיהם כיוצא בהם כו'

2.

Explanation (cont.): However, one could ask that an eartheware oven is different as it becomes impure due to what is in its airspace (as opposed to a dead person or other kinds of impurity). The Tzad ha'Shaven (common ground) between Neveilah and an earthenware oven is that they make things impure and their Yad is like them etc.

וא"ת לענין אהל נימא דיו

(b)

Question: Why don't we see Dayo regarding Tumas Ohel? (In other words, both Neveilah and an earthenware ovens have nothing to do with Tumas Ohel. How can we derive that Yad applies to Tumas Ohel as well, if the sources of this law are items that do not show this applies regarding Tumas Ohel?)

וי"ל דמעיקרא ודאי לא אשכחן בטומאה חמורה ידות הוה פרכינן על נבילה דיו אבל השתא דאשכחן יד בטומאה חמורה דהוי כגוף לענין מת נמי משוינן יד כגוף

(c)

Answer: Originally, we did not find Yad regarding serious impurity, and we therefore asked Dayo on Neveilah. (The Gemara earlier (118a) asked that we should not be able to derive Yad regarding Neveilah from other Yados, as a Neveilah can make people impure as opposed to other items where Yad applies. It ended up deriving Yad regarding Neveilah from a separate source.) However, now that we find Yad applies regarding serious impurity (i.e. Neveilah), as it is like the item itself, regarding a dead person a Yad should also be considered like the item (i.e. dead person) itself.