1)

TOSFOS DH Nolad Lah Safek Tum'ah Ad she'Lo Gilgelah (cont.)

úåñôåú ã"ä ðåìã ìä ñô÷ èåîàä òã ùìà âìâìä (äîùê)

åòåã ãàôéìå ìà ðåìã ìä ñô÷ ùøé ìèîàåúä åìéëà äôñã ëäï ãçáø äåà åéôøéù òìéä îî÷åí àçø àáì äúí àééøé áòí äàøõ ùìà éôøéù îî÷åí àçø

(a)

Answer #2 (cont.): Also, even if a Safek did not yet arise, it is permitted to be Metamei it and there is no loss to the Kohen, for he is a Chaver (trustworthy about tithes), and he will separate on it from elsewhere. There we discuss an Am ha'Aretz, who will not separate on it from elsewhere.

åà''ú ãáôø÷ äðéæ÷éï (âéèéï ãó ñà.) úðï îùàìú àùä ìçáøúä äçùåãä òì äùáéòéú ðôä åëáøä ëå' àáì ìà úáåø åúèçåï òîä

(b)

Question - Citation (Gitin 61a - Mishnah): A woman may lend to her friend, who is suspected about [transgressing] Shemitah, a sifter... but she may not sift or grind with her;

îùàìú àùú çáø ìàùú ò''ä ðôä åëáøä åáåøøú åèåçðú òîä àáì îùúèéì ìîéí ìà úâò áäí

1.

Citation (cont.): Sarah, the wife of a Chaver may lend to Leah (an Am ha'Aretz' wife) a sifter, and she may sift and grind with her, but once she adds water, Sarah may not touch [to help];

åáòé áâîøà î''ù øéùà åî''ù ñéôà

2.

Citation (cont.) Question: What is the difference between the Reisha and Seifa?

àîø àáéé áãîàé ä÷éìå åîùúèéì ìîéí ãäåëùøå ìà úâò áäí àó ÷åãí ìéùä

3.

Citation (cont.) Answer #1 (Abaye): [Chachamim] were lenient about Demai (Safek Tevel), but once she adds water, she may not touch, even before kneading;

øáà àîø áòí äàøõ ãø''î åèåîàä åèäøä ãøáðï

4.

Citation (cont.) Answer #2 (Rava): We discuss an Am ha'Aretz of R. Meir, and Tum'ah and Taharah mid'Rabanan.

åôøéê åäà îã÷úðé ñéôà îùúèéì ìîéí îëìì ãøéùà îééøé áìà äëùø åîàé èåîàä åèäøä àéëà

5.

Citation (cont.) Question: Since the Seifa teaches "once she adds water", this implies that the Reisha discusses without Hechsher. What Tum'ah and Taharah is there?!

åîùðé àéãé åàéãé áäåëùø åøéùà áèåîàú çåìéï åñéôà áèåîàú çìä åîùúèéì ìîéí äééðå ìéùä åâìâåì

6.

Citation (cont.) Answer: In both clauses there was Hechsher. The Reisha discusses Tum'ah of Chulin, and the Seifa discusses Tum'ah of Chalah. "Once she adds water" refers to kneading.

àìîà àåñø àáéé ìéâò ëé äåëùø ãäééðå (äâäú áàøåú äîéí) ìáøåø åìèçåï àó ÷åãí âìâåì åìéùä àò''â ãàí äôøéù ÷åãí ìéùä åâìâåì ìà òùä åìà ëìåí

7.

Summation of question - Inference: Abaye forbids touching when it was Huchshar, i.e. to sift or grind, even before kneading, even though if he separated [Chalah] before kneading, it has no effect!

åìãéãéä ðîé öøéê ìúøõ ãäúí àñåø îùåí äôñã ëäï åáùîòúéï ìéëà äôñã ëäï ëãôøéùéú

(c)

Answer: Also [Abaye] must answer that there it is forbidden due to loss to the Kohen, and in our Sugya there is no loss to the Kohen, like I explained.

åìøáà ãùøé ìâøåí èåîàä ÷åãí âìâåì àò''â ãàéëà äôñã ëäï

(d)

Question: Rava permits to cause Tum'ah before kneading, even though there is loss to the Kohen!

öøéê ìúøõ àääéà ãôø÷ øáé éùîòàì (ò''æ ãó ðå.) ëúéøåõ øàùåï ãäúí àñåø îùåí îùîøú úøåîåúé

(e)

Answer #1: [Rava] must explain what was taught in Avodah Zarah (56a, that one may not harvest grapes with a Yisrael who processes his Peros in Tum'ah) like the first answer, that there it is forbidden due to "Mishmeres Terumosai";

àáì áòéñä ÷åãí âìâåì ìà îé÷øéà èáìä ìçìä ëéåï ãàí äôøéù çìú ÷îç ìà òùä åìà ëìåí

1.

However, a dough before kneading is not called Tevulah to Chalah, since if one separated flour to be Chalah, it has no effect.

àé ðîé ëîå ùúéøõ ø''ú ùí ãäúí áâéèéï ìéëà ëé àí çùãà áòìîà àáì ääéà ãàéï áåöøéï îééøé áåãàé òåùä ôéøåúéå áèåîàä åùí éù ìäàøéê

(f)

Answer #2 (R. Tam): There in Gitin, there is mere suspicion. The case of "one may not harvest grapes..." discusses one who Vadai processes his Peros in Tum'ah. There it is proper to elaborate.

2)

TOSFOS DH she'Lo Tomar b'Hochachos Shaninu

úåñôåú ã"ä ùìà úàîø áäåëçåú ùðéðå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos brings two explanations of this.)

ôéøù''é ëâåï ùðé ùáéìéí ñô÷ äìê áèäåø

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This is a case like two paths. It is a Safek whether he walked on the Tahor path.

åìãáøéå öøéê ìåîø ùáàå ìùàåì ááú àçú ãàé áæä àçø æä èäåøéï

(b)

Consequence: He must say that [a second person walked on the other path, and] they came to ask at once. If they came to ask one after the other, both are Tehorim.

åðøàä ìôøù ëé ääéà ãúðéà áúåñôúà ãèäøåú (ô''å) á' ùáéìéï àçã èîà åàçã èäåø åäìê áàçã îäí åòùä èäøåú åäìê áùðé åòùä èäøåú àìå åàìå îåëéçéí

(c)

Explanation #2: [Hochachos] is a case like the Tosefta in Taharos (6:4). There are two paths - one is Tamei and one is Tahor. He walked on one path, made Taharos, walked on the other path, and made Taharos. Both of them prove. (He received Haza'os for Taharah before walking on the second path. If not, the latter Taharos are Vadai Tamei!)

ôéøåù îåëéçéí ìèåîàä ãàéæä îäí ðèäø åîùåí ìéùðà ãîåëéçéí ÷àîø äëà áäåëçåú ùðéðå

1.

This means that they prove Tum'ah, for which of them can we be Metaher? Due to the expression "Mochichim" [in the Tosefta], it says here that we discuss Hochachos.

3)

TOSFOS DH v'Chulan Tehorim li'Vnei ha'Keneses

úåñôåú ã"ä åëåìï èäåøéí ìáðé äëðñú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this is only a light load.)

ôøù''é ã÷àé àîùàï ëáã

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This refers [even] to a heavy load. (It is Tahor for people who eat Chulin in Taharah.)

åàéï ðøàä ãáîùàï ëáã ðøàä ãèîà àó ìçåìéï ãàé àôùø ùìà éñåè æä àú æä

(b)

Rebuttal: It seems that a heavy load is Tamei even for Chulin, for it is impossible not to move one another!

àìà àîùàï ÷ì ÷àé

(c)

Explanation #2: It refers to a light load.

åëï îùîò áîñ' æáéï (ô''â î''á) ã÷úðé äúí îùàï ÷ì èäåøéï ìáðé äëðñú åèîàéï ìúøåîä

(d)

Support: In Zavin (3:2), it teaches that if the load was light, they are Tehorim for Bnei ha'Keneses, and Tamei for Terumah;

åäà ã÷úðé äëà ëåìï èäåøéï ìáðé äëðñú àëì òðéðà ãèäøä ãäúí ÷àé

1.

This that it teaches here "all are Tehorim for Bnei ha'Keneses" refers to all matters of Taharah there (e.g. a Zav and a Tahor pull ropes in opposite directions. It does not mean whether the load is heavy or light.)

åà''ú ãäëà ÷øé ìéä áðé äëðñú ìçáøéí äàåëìéï çåìéï áèäøä åáôø÷ ôñåìé äîå÷ãùéï (áëåøåú ìå:) âáé îåîé áëåø ÷àîø ãäúøúí òì ôé â' áðé äëðñú åäúí àôéìå â' äãéåèåú ëùøéí

(e)

Question: Here, Chaverim who eat Chulin in Taharah, we call them "Bnei ha'Keneses", and in Bechoros (36b), regarding blemishes of a Bechor, it says that we [rule that they are proper Mumim, and] permit them [to be eaten like Chulin] through three Bnei ha'Keneses. There, even three commoners are Kosher!

åé''ì ãäëà ðîé îæëéø áðé äëðñú ìâøéòåúà ëìåîø ùàéðí àåëìéï úøåîä

(f)

Answer: Also here, "Bnei ha'Keneses" alludes to inferiority, i.e. they do not eat Terumah.

4)

TOSFOS DH u'Makefes v'Korei Lah Shem

úåñôåú ã"ä åî÷ôú å÷åøà ìä ùí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses what level of Min ha'Mukaf is required.)

äëà îùîò ãàôéìå áùòú ÷øéàú ùí öøéê ä÷ôä

(a)

Inference: Here it connotes that even at the time of Kri'as Shem (declaring it to be Chalah), Hakafah (bringing them together) is required.

å÷ùä ãàîø áñåèä ôø÷ ëùí (ãó ì.) øáé àìéòæø àåîø çìä ðéèìú îï äîå÷ó îï äèäåø òì äèîà

(b)

Question - Citation (Sotah 30a - Beraisa - R. Eliezer): Chalah may be taken Min ha'Mukaf (near the dough it exempts), from Tahor on Tamei;

ëéöã á' òéñåú àçú èîàä åàçú èäåøä ðåèì ùéòåø çìä îòéñä ùìà äåøîä çìúä åðåúï ôçåú îëáéöä îòéñä èäåøä áàîöò áéï ùéòåø çìä ìòéñä èîàä ëãé ìéèåì îï äîå÷ó

1.

Citation (cont.): What is the case? There are two doughs. One is Tamei and one is Tahor. He takes a Shi'ur of Chalah from a dough from which Chalah was not taken, and outs less than a k'Beitzah of a Tahor dough in the middle, between the Shi'ur of Chalah and the Tamei dough, in order to take Min ha'Mukaf;

åäúðéà ëáéöä åîùðé äê áøééúà ñáøä çåìéï äèáåìéï ìçìä ìàå ëçìä ãîå åìäëé ìà àúé ëáéöä ãäåé ùðé åîèîà ìùéòåø çìä

2.

We ask from a Beraisa that teaches [that he puts in the middle a full] k'Beitzah, and answer that this Beraisa holds that Chulin Tevulim to Chalah are not like Chalah. Therefore, the k'Beitzah is not Metamei the Shi'ur Chalah.

åäùúà î''î ÷ùä ëùé÷øà ìä ùí çìä éäéä ùìéùé

3.

Question: Now, in any case (whether or not Chulin Tevulim to Chalah are like Chalah) it is difficult! When he calls it Chalah, it will be a Shelishi!

àìà îùîò ãáùòú ÷øéàú ùí éøçé÷ îòè ùéòåø çìä ùìà éâò áëáéöä åçùéá ùôéø îå÷ó ëéåï ãìôðé ÷øéàú ùí äéúä îçåáøú

4.

Answer: It connotes that at the time he calls it Chalah, he distances the Shi'ur Chalah a little so it will not touch the k'Beitzah. It is properly considered Mukaf, since before calling it Chalah it was touching.

åé''ì ãäúí îééøé ëùéù äøáä îòéñä èäåøä åìà ùéòåø çìä âøéãà ëã÷úðé á' òéñåú àçú èäåøä åàçú èîàä åøåöä ìäôøéù ÷öú îï äèäåøä ëãé ìú÷ï òöîä åàó äèîàä

(c)

Answer: There we discuss when there is much Tahor dough, and not only the Shi'ur Chalah, like it teaches "there are two doughs. One is Tamei and one is Tahor." He wants to separate a little from the Tahor dough in order to fix itself and even the Tamei dough;

äìëê ëéåï ãçåìéï äèáåìéï ìçìä ìàå ëçìä ãîå ìàå äàé áéöä ãäåà ùðé îèîà äòéñä äèäåøä åëé éôøéù îîðä çìä åé÷éó ìä àéï áëê ëìåí

1.

Therefore, since Chulin Tevulim to Chalah are not like Chalah - if not, the k'Beitzah, which is a Sheni, would be Metamei the Tahor dough - and when he separates Chalah from it and brings them together, it has no effect [to be Metamei the Tahor dough].

åäà ãôñ÷éðï ì÷îï ëø' àìéòæø ãàîø äñì îöøôï ìçìä åìà áòé ðâéòä

(d)

Implied question: Below (8a), we rule like R. Eliezer, who says that the basket joins for Chalah, and they need not touch!

äééðå ìäúçééá áçìä àí ìù ôçåú îëùéòåø

(e)

Answer: That is to become obligated in Chalah, if he kneaded less than a Shi'ur.

ãäëé úðà áîñëú çìä (ô''á î''ã) äòåùä òéñúå ÷áéí (äâäú îìàëú ùìîä) åðâòå æä áæä ôèåøéï îï äçìä òã ùéùåëå

1.

Source #1 (Chalah 2:4 - Mishnah): If one makes each dough the volume of a Kav, and they touched each other, they are exempt from Chalah, unless they bite (if one separates them, part of one will stick to the other);

ø''à àåîø àó äøåãä åðåúï ìñì äñì îöøôï

i.

Citation (cont.): R. Eliezer says, even one who takes bread off the walls of the oven and puts it in a basket, the basket joins them.

åëï îùîò áàìå òåáøéï (ôñçéí îç:)

2.

Source #2: Also Pesachim 48b connotes like this.

åäùúà àúé ùôéø ãø''à âåôéä îöøéê ðâéòä áùòú ÷øéàú ùí áôø÷ ëùí (ñåèä ãó ì.)

(f)

Support: Now it is fine that R. Eliezer himself requires that they touch at the time of Keri'as Shem (Sotah 30a).

åðëåï áôñç ìäâéò ëì äîöåú (áñì) ëùîôøéùéï àçú òì ëåìï ãàéï äñì îöøôï ìëê

(g)

Consequence: When making Matzos for Pesach, it is proper that they all touch when he separates one [to be Chalah] for all of them, for the basket does not join them for this.

åàò''â ãàîøéðï áô''÷ ãáéöä (ãó è.) åááëåøåú áôø÷ òã ëîä (ãó ëæ.) ðîé (äâäú äá"ç) àîøéðï úøåîú çåöä ìàøõ àåëì åäåìê åàç''ë îôøéù àò''â ãàéï îå÷ó ìîä ùàëì ëáø

(h)

Implied question: We say in Beitzah (9a) [that in Chutz la'Aretz, if Chalah was not yet separated] and also in Bechoros (27a) we say about Terumah of Chutz la'Aretz, that one may eat [Tevel] and separate afterwards, even though it is not Mukaf (the Chalah or Terumah is not next to what it exempts, i.e.) to what he already ate!

äééðå áòéñä ùðéìåùä éçã åäéúä ëáø îçåáøú ä÷éìå áúøåîú çåöä ìàøõ

(i)

Answer: This refers to a dough that was kneaded together, and it was already connected, [Chachamim] were lenient about Terumah [and Chalah] of Chutz la'Aretz.

åö''ò àé çùåá îå÷ó áðâéòä âøéãà áìà öéøåó äëìé àå áìà ðùéëä

(j)

Question: This requires investigation, whether it is considered Mukaf through mere touching, without being in one Kli, or without biting;

ãðåúï ôçåú îëáéöä áàîöò îöéðï ìîéîø ãäééðå ðùéëä:

1.

When he puts less than k'Beitzah in the middle, we could say that it must bite.

5)

TOSFOS DH v'Hai Tevul Yom Kivan d'Vadai Lo Metamei Chulin...

úåñôåú ã"ä åäàé èáåì éåí ëéåï ãåãàé ìà îèîà çåìéï...

(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with the Gemara in Chulin.)

åúéîä ãäëà îùîò ãàéï ùðé ôåñì áçåìéï äèáåìéï ìçìä

(a)

Inference: Here it connotes that a Sheni is not Posel Chulin Tevulin to Chalah.

åáîúðéúéï (äâäú îøàä ëäï) ðîé ÷úðé åùìéùé (äâäú äá"ç) èäåø áçåìéï îùîò ãë''ù ãàéï ùðé ôåñì áçåìéï ùðòùå òì èäøú úøåîä ëãàîø áñîåê ãîùîò ã÷éìé îçåìéï äèáåìéï ìçìä

(b)

Support: Also the Mishnah teaches that a Shelishi is Tahor in Chulin. This connotes that all the more so, a Sheni does not disqualify Chulin made Al Taharas Terumah, for below it connotes that [such Chulin] are more lenient that Chulin Tevulin to Chalah.

åáôø÷ ùðé ãçåìéï (ãó ìâ:) àîøéðï ãùìéùé ðåäâ áçåìéï ùðòùå òì èäøú úøåîä

(c)

Question: In Chulin (33b), we say that a Shelishi applies to Chulin made Al Taharas Terumah;

åáôø÷ ëùí (ñåèä ãó ì.) ùäáàúé ìòéì îåëç ãùðé òåùä ùìéùé áçåìéï äèáåìéï ìçìä ìî''ã ëçìä ãîå

1.

In the Gemara in Sotah (30a) that I brought above, it is proven that a Sheni makes a Shelishi in Chulin Tevulin to Chalah, according to the opinion that [such Chulin] is like Chalah!

åé''ì ãèáåì éåí ÷éì èôé ãàéï öøéê ø÷ äòøá ùîù

(d)

Answer: A Tevul Yom is more lenient [than a Sheni]. He needs only Ha'arev Shemesh [and then he is totally Tahor].

åäà ãúðï åáîúðéúéï (äâäú îøàä ëäï) ãùìéùé èäåø áçåìéï

(e)

Implied question: The Mishnah teaches that a Shelishi is Tahor in Chulin!

äééðå ùìéùé ãèáåì éåí

(f)

Answer #1: It refers to a Shelishi of a Tevul Yom (something that he touched, for he is like a Sheni).

àé ðîé ä''ô ëéåï ãùìéùé èäåø áçåìéï ãòìîà ìà âæøå çëîéí áçåìéï äèáåìéï ìçìä ìéèîà îèáåì éåí

(g)

Answer #2: It means that since a Shelishi is Tahor in regular Chulin, [Chachamim] did not decree about Chulin Tevulin to Chalah to become Tamei through a Tevul Yom.

åìëê ôøéê îéðéä èôé àðùòï åìà ôøéê îéðéä àëì ùìéùé ãðåäâ áçåìéï äèáåìéï ìçìä îùåí ãðùòï ðîé èåîàä ÷ìéùà äåà åîèîà àôéìå îùà ÷ì ëãôøéùéú ìòéì

(h)

Support: This is why we asked it against the case of Nish'an (a Tahor leaned on a Zav, or vice-versa), and we did not ask against every Shelishi that applies to Chulin Tevulin to Chalah, because also Nish'an is a weak Tum'ah, and it is Metamei even regarding a light load, like I explained above (DH v'Chulan).

6)

TOSFOS DH Hanach me'Es la'Es d'Rabanan

úåñôåú ã"ä äðç îòú ìòú ãøáðï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why it is more lenient than Nish'an.)

àò''â ãðùòï ðîé ãøáðï

(a)

Implied question: Also Nish'an is mid'Rabanan!

èåîàú îòú ìòú ÷éì èôé ùàéï ùåí ñô÷ èåîàä áùòä ùòåñ÷ú áèäøåú:

(b)

Answer: Me'Es la'Es is more lenient, for there is no Safek Tum'ah at the time she engages in Taharos.

7b----------------------------------------7b

7)

TOSFOS DH Shemuti Hu

úåñôåú ã"ä ùîåúé äåà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that he was a Talmid of Shamai, unlike Rashi.)

ôéøù''é ùáøëåäå

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): They excommunicated [R. Eliezer].

å÷ùä ãîñúîà ìà äéä îæëéø ìùåï ùîúà åáîòùä âåôéä ãôø÷ äæäá (á''î ãó ðè:) àéðå îæëéø àìà ìùåï áøëä

(b)

Objection: Presumably, he would not mention an expression of Shamta (Niduy). In the episode itself in Bava Metzi'a (59b, in which they excommunicated him) it mentions only Brachah (a euphemism for excommunication)!

åôéøù ø''ú åøùá''í ãùîåúé äåà äééðå ãäåä îúìîéãé ùîàé

(c)

Explanation #2 (R. Tam and Rashbam): [R. Eliezer] is Shemuti, i.e. from Talmidim of Shamai.

åëï àéúà áéøåùìîé ôø÷ ÷îà ãúøåîåú ãúðï ñàä ùì úøåîä èîàä ùðôìä ìúåê îàä ùì úøåîä èäåøä á''ù àåñøéï åáéú äìì îúéøéï

(d)

Support #1 - Citation (Yerushalmi - Mishnah): If a Se'ah of Tamei Terumah fell into 100 Sa'im of Tahor Terumah, Beis Shamai forbidden and Beis Hillel permit;

ìàçø ùäåãå à''ø àìéòæø úéøåí åúùøó

1.

Citation (cont.): After [Beis Shamai] admitted, R. Eliezer says that we lift off [a Se'ah] and burn it (we say that this is the Tamei Se'ah that fell in).

îé äåãä ìîé å÷àîø á''ù ìá''ä à''ø àñé îúðéúéï àîøä ëï ìàçø ùäåãå àîø ø' àìéòæø éúøåí åúøåí åúùøó åøáé àìéòæø ìàå ùîåúé äåä áúîéä

2.

We ask who admitted to whom, and say that Beis Shamai admitted to Beis Hillel. Rav Asi supports this from our Mishnah. After they admitted, R. Eliezer says that we lift off and burn it. Isn't R. Eliezer Shemuti?!

åëï îôøù áàìôà áéúà ãøáé îëéø

(e)

Support #2: Also the Alpha Beisa of Rebbi Machir explains like this.

8)

TOSFOS DH R. Eliezer Omer Harei Hi b'Chezkas Taharah

úåñôåú ã"ä øáé àìéòæø àåîø äøé äéà áçæ÷ú èäøä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos infers that this suffices b'Di'eved.)

îëàï îùîò àùä ùñôøä æ' ð÷ééí åáã÷ä éåí øàùåï åéåí æ' åîöàä èäåøä ãçùéá ñôéøä ø÷ ùáã÷ä òöîä éåí ùôñ÷ä áå ìòøá åäôñé÷ä áèäøä

(a)

Inference: If a woman counted seven clean days, and checked herself on days one and seven and found that she is Tehorah, this is considered counting, as long as she checked herself on the day she ceased [to see blood], and finished [that day] in Taharah (she did a Bedikah at the end of the day).

åãå÷à éåí æ' àáì éåí ç' ìà

(b)

Limitation: This is only if [the latter checking] was on day seven, but not if it was on day eight.

åîéäå ìëúçìä [ìà îåòéì] åöøéëä ìáãå÷ áëì éåí

1.

However, l'Chatchilah it does not help, and she must check every day.

9)

TOSFOS DH Mishum d'Kili

úåñôåú ã"ä îùåí ã÷éìé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this refers only to the outside of Kelim.)

àáì úåê ëìé ôåñì àåëìéï ãúøåîä îùåí ãäåé îé''ç ãáø (ùáú éâ:) äàåëìéï åäëìéí ùðèîàå áîù÷éï:

(a)

Explanation: However, the inside of a Kli disqualifies Terumah foods, for this is among the 18 decrees [made on the day that they voted, and Beis Shamai outnumbered Beis Hillel], that food and Kelim that became Tamei through liquids [disqualify Terumah].

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF