1)

TOSFOS DH IY AMRIT

úåñôåú ã"ä àé àîøú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains Rebbi Yishmael's position.)

åà"ú åäà ø' éùîòàì áìà ëðñå ÷àîø åø' éäåãä áòé ëðåñ ëãàîø øá äåðà

(a)

Question: Rebbi Yishmael was referring to a case where he did not gather it, and Rebbi Yehudah requires gathering, as stated by Rav Huna!

åé"ì ãôìåâúééäå ãø' éùîòàì åø"ò áôìèúå çéä ìëê ìà áòé ø' éùîòàì ëðåñ àáì ôìèúå ñëéï àé ìà áèì ìøáé éùîòàì öøéê ðîé ëðéñä

(b)

Answer #1: The argument between Rebbi Yishmael and Rebbi Akiva is when an animal ripped off the skin. This is why Rebbi Yishmael does not require the meat to be gathered. However, if the meat was taken off due to the skinning, if it is not nullified to the skin according to Rebbi Yishmael it requires gathering.

åòåã ãøáé éùîòàì ðîé áëðñå àééøé åàéï æä ãåç÷ ëîå ãîôøù îéìúéä ãøáé éäåãä äëé

(c)

Answer #2: Additionally, it is possible to explain that Rebbi Yishmael is also referring to gathering. This is not difficult to say, as Rebbi Yehudah's words are also explained in this fashion.

2)

TOSFOS DH RAV HUNA

úåñôåú ã"ä øá äåðà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara did not ask who Rebbi Yehudah holds like according to an opinion quoted earlier.)

ìòéì (ãó ÷ëà.) ëé ÷àîø åçã àîø î÷öú ôìèúå çéä åî÷öú ôìèúå ñëéï ãáòé ìîéîø ãôìèúå ñëéï äåé ôìåâúà ãø' éäåãä åøáðï ãìø' éäåãä ìà áèì ìà îöé ìîôøê ãàîø ëîàï àé àîøú ìø' éùîòàì ãáèì ëãôøéê äëà

(a)

Implied Question: The Gemara earlier (121a) says that according to the opinion that says it was partially bit off by an animal and partially skinned, this opinion understands that the argument regarding a case where it was totally due to being skinned is an argument between Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabbanan. According to Rebbi Yehudah it is not nullified. Even so, one cannot ask according to this opinion, "Who does Rebbi Yehudah hold like" as we ask here, "If you say that according to Rebbi Yishmael it is nullified etc." (Why not?)

ãàéëà ìàå÷åîé ãø' éäåãä ãàéú áéä ëæéú éçã àáì ìøá äåðà ôøéê ùôéø ëãôé' á÷åðè'

(b)

Answer: This is because we can say Rebbi Yehudah holds that together there is a Kzayis. However, the question here is valid according to Rav Huna, as explained by Rashi. (See Maharam at length regarding the explanation and possible mistake in the text of this Tosfos.)

3)

TOSFOS DH D'AMAR

úåñôåú ã"ä ãàîø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we do not understand Rav Huna as discussing a case where the pieces are gathered together.)

åà"ú åãéìîà äà ãàîø øá äåðà á' çöàé æéúéí ùéùðï òì äòåø äòåø îáèìå îééøé áìà ëðñå àáì ëðñå îåãä ãìà áèì

(a)

Question: Perhaps when Rav Huna says that two half Kzaysim on the skin are nullified by the skin, he is referring to a case where they were not gathered together? However, if he gathered them together, he admits that they are not nullified.

åé"ì ãäà ôùéèà åìà àéöèøéê ìéä ìøá äåðà ìàùîåòéðï ãòåø îáèìï

(b)

Answer: This is obvious! Rav Huna does not have to say that the skin nullifies them (if they are not gathered together).

4)

TOSFOS DH OR ADAM

úåñôåú ã"ä òåø àãí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why skin is unlike bone regarding impurity.)

ëãîôøù èòîà áøéù ãí äðãä (ðãä ãó ðä.) ãìà äåé ãåîéà ãòöí àãí ãòåø âæòå îçìéó

(a)

Explanation: This is as the Gemara in Nidah (55a) explains that skin is not the same as human bone, as skin regenerates.

5)

TOSFOS DH OROS AVIV

úåñôåú ã"ä òåøåú àáéå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the reason is that he might make his parent's skins into carpets anymore than he might make any person's skin into carpets.)

åàò"â ãîú àñåø áäðàä åáëì àãí àñåø ìòùåú îòåøå ùèéçéï ëå'

(a)

Implied Question: The Gemara gives the reason as one possibly making the skin of his father and mother into carpets even though every dead person is forbidden from benefit, and one is not allowed to make carpets out of anyone's skin. (Why, then, did the Gemara specifically state the reason regarding the skin of his father and mother?)

î"î ìà äåå âæøé øáðï îùåí äê çùùà ùéäéä èîà àìà îùåí àáéå åàîå ãçîéø èåáà

(b)

Answer: The Rabbanan would not have decreed that skin is impure due to this suspicion if it were not for the fact that a person would come to do this to the skin of his father and mother, which would be a more stringent sin.

åà"ö ìåîø ãð÷è àáéå åàîå îùåí ãùëéçé âáéä

1.

Answer (cont.): One does not have to answer that it said the skin of his father and mother because these are the skins that he would normally have access to in order to make them into carpets.

6)

TOSFOS DH AVAL REISHA

úåñôåú ã"ä àáì øéùà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that skin can be deemed something that does not regenerate.)

åäùúà çùéá òåø àéï âæòå îçìéó îùåí ãî÷åîå ðòùä öì÷ú òì áùø ëãàîøéðï ôø÷ ãí äðãä (âæ"ù)

(a)

Explanation: This opinion deems skin as something that does not regenerate, as it turns into a scab on the flesh as stated in Nidah (ibid.).

122b----------------------------------------122b

7)

TOSFOS DH V'IM ISA

úåñôåú ã"ä åàí àéúà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara does not present a third possible understanding of the argument between Rebbi Yochanan and Ula.)

úéîä àëúé ä"î ìîáòé àå ãéìîà ä"÷ òåìà áï ùðúå áéï éåð÷ áéï ùàéï éåð÷ åàîø ìéä ø' éåçðï ëì æîï ùéåð÷ áéï áï ùðúå áéï ùàéï áï ùðúå

(a)

Question: This is difficult. The Gemara could still ask that it is possible that Ula says he must be one year old whether or not he nurses, and Rebbi Yochanan said to him that he has to be nursing, whether he is a year old or not!

åé"ì ãìà îñúáøà ãáòé ìàéôìåâé ëåìé äàé åìäëé ìà áòé äëé

(b)

Answer #1: It is not logical that there is such a vast difference between their opinions. This is why the Gemara does not entertain this possibility.

åä"ø éò÷á î÷åøáé"ì úéøõ ãëåìä ùîòúéï ñáøä ãéåúø ÷ùä àôéìå úåê ùðúå ëùàéï éåð÷ îéåð÷ àçø ùðúå

(c)

Answer #2: Rebbi Yaakov from Korvil answered that the Gemara understands that even if the animal is less than a year old but does not nurse, its skin is tougher than an animal that does not nurse and is over a year old. (This gives no room for the understanding suggested in the question.)

åìëê ëéåï ãø' éåçðï ëì æîï ùéåð÷ ÷àîø à"ë ôùéèà ãòåìà åäåà ùéåð÷ ÷àîø ãàé úåê ùðúå áéï éåð÷ áéï ùàéðå éåð÷ ÷àîø à"ë ë"ù ìàçø ùðúå àí äåà éåð÷ ãçùéá ìéä øê à"ë îä äåñéó ø' éåçðï ëì æîï ùéåð÷ äà òåìà îåãä ãëì ùëï äåà

1.

Answer #2 (cont.): Accordingly, since Rebbi Yochanan said, "as long as he nurses" it is obvious that Ula holds that he must be one year and nursing. If he would be saying that he must be less than a year whether he nurses or not, certainly if he would over a year and nursing his skin would be considered soft! If so, what would Rebbi Yochanan be adding by saying "as long as he nurses?" Ula admits that this is certainly true!

8)

TOSFOS DH OR HA'ROSH

úåñôåú ã"ä òåø äøàù

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the nature of Reish Lakish's question.)

òì îòùä äéä ùåàì äéàê äìëä ãîúðé' äåä éãò ëãôøéê îéðä ìøáé éåçðï áñîåê

(a)

Explanation: He was asking regarding an incident that took place. He clearly knew the Mishnah, as indicated by his question on Rebbi Yochanan later.

9)

TOSFOS DH L'MINEIHU (1)

úåñôåú ã"ä ìîéðäå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we differentiate in our Gemara's teaching, but not in an earlier teaching regarding the same topic.)

úéîä ãàîø ìòéì (ãó ÷éá:) ãäàé äèîàéí ìàñåø öéøï åøåèáï ãäúí ðîé ìîéðäå äôñé÷ äòðéï ãôñå÷ àçã äåà ìôéøåù ä÷åðè'

(a)

Question: This is difficult, as the Gemara earlier (112b) states that "that are impure" forbids their brine and gravy. However, there as well "according to its type" separated the Pasuk, as the words being referred to are all in the same Pasuk as explained by Rashi!

åé"ì ãäëà ëì äðäå ãîîòèéðï àéú ìäå âéùúà ñáøà äåà ìàå÷åîé àäðê ãëúéá áúø ìîéðäå

(b)

Answer: In our case, all of those who are excluded have skin that is felt (as a thick separate entity from its skin). It is therefore logical to establish that this refers to those who are named after the word "according to its type."

åàò"â ãëúéáà úðùîú áäãééäå ãéù ìä âéùúà åîøáéðï ìä

1.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that a Tinshames is listed amongst these Sheratzim and its skin is thick, yet we still include it in the previous list. (The Tosfos ha'Rosh suggests that perhaps its skin is not thick enough to be excluded.)

àáì öéøï åøåèáï ãìòéì ñáøà äåà ìàå÷åîé áëåìäå

2.

Answer (cont.): However, the brine and gravy mentioned earlier (12b) logically apply to all of them.

10)

TOSFOS DH L'MINEIHU (2)

úåñôåú ã"ä ìîéðäå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos has difficulty with the function of the word "these".)

÷öú úéîä ëéåï ãäôñé÷ äòðéï ìîä ìé àìä

(a)

Question: This is slightly difficult, as since there is a new topic, why is the word "these" necessary?

11)

TOSFOS DH K'REBBI YEHUDAH

úåñôåú ã"ä ëøáé éäåãä

(SUMMARY: Rashi and Tosfos argue whether everyone agrees to the derivation from "that are impure.")

ôéøù á÷åðèøñ ãìéú ìéä ãøùä ãäèîàéí

(a)

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that Rebbi Yehudah does not hold of the derivation of "that are impure."

åìôéøåùå ìà äåé úðà ãáøééúà ìà øáé éäåãä åìà áø ôìåâúéä

(b)

Observation: According to his explanation, the Tana of the Beraisa is neither Rebbi Yehudah nor the one who argues on him.

åáçðí ÷àîø øá úðà äåà åôìéâ ãäà úðà ãáøééúà ëååúéä

(c)

Implied Question: Rashi did not have to say that Rav is a Tana and therefore can argue, as the Tana of the Beraisa holds like him!

åéù ìôøù ãëåìäå àéú ìäå ãøùä ãäèîàéí åîå÷é îñáøà øáåéà áäðäå ãìéú ìäå âéùúà åîéòåèà áäðäå ãàéú ìäå âéùúà åìéú ìäå ìîéðäå äôñé÷ äòðéï àáì øá ãàéú ìéä ìîéðäå äôñé÷ äòðéï ò"ë ôìéâ òìééäå åçùéá úðùîú

(d)

Explanation #2: It is possible to explain that everyone holds of the derivation from "that are impure." Logic dictates that the inclusion is referring to those who skin does not feel separate (i.e. it is very thin) from its flesh, and the exclusion is referring to those whose skin is separate. This would not require "according to its type" to separate the two categories. However, according to Rav who does say that "according to its type" separates the two categories, it must be that he argues on these opinions and considers Tinshames as one of those whose skin is like its flesh.

12)

TOSFOS DH OZEN CHAMOR

úåñôåú ã"ä àåæï çîåø

(SUMMARY: Rashi and Tosfos argue regarding the Gemara's question.)

åðúáèì äáùø ùäéä áàæï

(a)

Explanation: The flesh that was in the ear was nullified.

ô"ä ãôøéê ãäëà ðîé áîúðé' ìäåé ñâé áäðçä ìôðé äãåøñï áìà äìåê

(b)

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that the Gemara is asking that the Mishnah should suffice with putting it down in front of the one who steps on it without him actually stepping on it.

åúéîä à"ë îàé îùðé èìàä àôéìå ãìà äéìê ãàëúé ú÷ùä ìéúðé áîúðé' äðçä ìôðé äãåøñ áìà äìåê

(c)

Question: This is difficult, as if this is the case, what is the answer that the Beraisa is referring to a case where he treated it as a skin but did not yet walk on it? The question remains that the Mishnah should say he put it before the one who steps on it without walking on it!

ò"ë ðøàä ãä"ô äéìê àéï èìàä ìà îãìà ÷úðé áîúðéúéï èìàä ãñ"ã ãèìàä âøò îäéìê åîùðé èìàä àó òì âá ãìà äéìê ëìåîø ëê ìé æä ëîå æä åàéï çãåù áæä éåúø îáæä

(d)

Explanation #2: It therefore must be that the explanation is that if he went with it, it is considered pure. If he treated it as a skin, it is not. This is apparent from the fact that the Mishnah did not say that he treated it as a skin. One might have thought that treating it as a skin is worse than walking on it. The Gemara answers that treating it as a skin is enough even if he did not walk on it, meaning that each is sufficient and there is no difference between the two. (This is why it is not difficult that the Mishnah did not mention treating it as a skin, as it did mention walking on it.)

13)

TOSFOS DH L'GABEL

úåñôåú ã"ä ìâáì

(SUMMARY: Tosfos quotes three different opinions regarding the definition of the cases cited by Rebbi Avahu.)

ô"ä îé ùéù ìå ìâáì òéñú çáéøå áèäøä öøéê ìèøåç òã ã' îéìéï ìäèáéì ëìéå

(a)

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that this is refers to someone who is supposed to mix his friend's dough while pure. He must walk four Mil in order to purify his vessels.

åìôé æä ìà ÷àé ìôðéå åìàçøéå àâáì ãàéï øâéìåú ìäùëéø àãí áãøê ìòùåú ìå òéñä

(b)

Implied Question: According to this explanation, Rebbi Yosi bar Chanina's comment (123a) regarding whether it is on his way or behind him cannot be discussing this case, as it is uncommon for a person to hire someone who is traveling to mix his dough. (Since the Gemara implies Rebbi Yosi is referring to this case as well, Rashi's explanation seems difficult.)

åðøàä ëôéøåù äòøåê ãôé' àí éù âáì äòåùä òéñä áèäøä áøçå÷ ã' îéìéï éîúéï òã ùéâéò ìàåúå âáì åîééøé áàãí ääåìê áãøê

(c)

Explanation #2: It appears that the Aruch's explanation is correct. He explains that if a person knows that there is someone who can make him his dough four Mil down the road, he should wait until he gets to that person to make his dough. Rebbi Yosi is discussing a person who is traveling. (The Maharam explains that "make him his dough" means that the person can buy bread from someone who does not make it while his vessels are pure, or four Mil later from someone who sells bread that he makes while pure.)

åîéäå îä ùôéøù áòøåê ìúôìä ìøçåõ éãéå ìúôìä

1.

Explanation #2 (cont.): The Aruch continues that when the Gemara says, "for Tefilah" it refers to washing one's hands before Davening.

àéï ðøàä ãäéëé ãîé àé ãîèà æîï öìåéé äà ìééè òìä àáéé ááøëåú (ãó èå.) àîàï ãîäãø àîéà áòéãï öìåúà ãëúéá àøçõ áð÷éåï ëôé ëì îéãé ãîð÷é åàé ìà îèà æîï úôìä îàé àéøéà ã' îéìéï àôéìå èåáà ðîé

(d)

Question: This seems difficult. What is the case? If the case is where it is time for him to Daven, Abaye in Berachos (15a) cursed someone who went to find water when it was already time to Daven. This is because the Pasuk says, "I will wash with cleanliness my hands" implying anything that cleanses is sufficient (and water is not required). If it was not yet time to Daven, why does he only have to walk four Mil? He should walk even further!

åðøàä ëôéøåù ä÷åðèøñ ãìòðéï ìäúôìì áòùøä àééøé

(e)

Explanation #1: It therefore appears that Rashi is correct, that this is referring to him having to travel to Daven with a Minyan.

åúéîä ãàîàé ìà çùéá òáåãä ãáñîåê

(f)

Question #1: It is difficult to understand why Rebbi Avahu did not include our Mishnah's case of working the skin on this list.

åòåã ìîàï ãçùéá òáåãä àîàé ìà çùéá ùìùéí øéñ ãôø÷ ìà éçôåø (á"á ãó ëâ.) ãîãú äîéì æ' åîçöä øéñ

(g)

Question #2: Additionally, according to the one who counts this on his list, why doesn't he include the case regarding thirty Ris mentioned in Bava Basra (23a), as the measurement of a Mil is seven and a half Ris?

åø"ç ôé' ìúôìä ìèáåì ìúôìúå

(h)

Explanation #3: Rabeinu Chananel explains that "Tefilah" here means to immerse in order that his Tefilah should be said while pure.

ãàò"â ã÷é"ì (ì÷îï ãó ÷ìå:) ëøáé éäåãä áï áúéøà áãáøé úåøä

1.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that we hold like Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah regarding learning (that one does not have to be pure to learn Torah). (Why, then, should he have to immerse?)

ä"î ììîåã åì÷"ù àáì ìúôìä ìà

2.

Answer #1: This is only regarding learning Torah and reciting Kriyas Shema, not regarding Davening.

àé ðîé ìà ñáéøà ìéä ãøáé éäåãä áï áúéøà

3.

Answer #2: Alternatively, it is possible that he does not hold like Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah (who would permit Davening without immersing).

åìôéøåù ø"ç ðéçà ãìà çùéá òáåãä ãìà çùéá àìà äðê úìúà ùäï òðéï èäøä îàï ãçùéá òáåãä ùäéà ëîå îòðéï èäøä ùîèäø äòåø îï äèåîàä åìäëé çùéá ìä åìà çùéá ääéà ãùìùéí øéñ

(i)

Answer: According to Rabeinu Chananel, it is understandable why working skins is not included, as only these three items were included by Rebbi Avahu since they are regarding purity. The opinion that added working the skins did so because it is also in a sense regarding a matter of purity, as it causes the skin to become pure and be unable to become impure. This is why we find this case was added, but nobody added the case of thirty Ris (which has to do with one deals with pigeons).

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF