1)

TOSFOS DH Kan she'Nimtza b'Karka Prozdor

úåñôåú ã"ä ëàï ùðîöà á÷ø÷ò ôøåæãåø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why this cannot resolve R. Chiya with the version of concern.)

ô''ä ãìòéì àìéùðà ãáúø çùùà àæìéðï ã÷àîø ãôìéâà ãø' çééà ìà îöé ìùðåéé äëé ãëéåï ãúìé àáéé èòîà áçùùà àéëà ìîéçù àôéìå á÷ø÷ò ôøåæãåø ìãí òìééä

(a)

Explanation #1: Above (17b), in the version that we follow concern, Rashi explained that R. Chiya argues [with Abaye], for we cannot answer [like we do here], for since Abaye attributes the reason to concern, there is concern for blood of the Aliyah even on the floor of the Prozdor.

å÷ùä ìôéøåùå ãðîöà òì ùìä àå òì ùìå àîàé çééáéï á÷øáï îé òãéó îðîöà îï äìåì åìôðéí ãìà äåéà àìà ñô÷ àôé' á÷ø÷ò ôøåæãåø

(b)

Objection: When blood was found on her Ed or on his, why are they obligated a Korban? Is this better than blood found from the conduit and inside, which is only a Safek, even on the floor of the Prozdor?!

åðøàä ìôøù ãìàáéé ìéëà ìàå÷îé ãø' çééà á÷ø÷ò ôøåæãåø ãëéåï ãàôé' îï äìåì åìçåõ ãáà îï äòìééä ëãøëå å÷øåá çééù ìãí äî÷åø

(c)

Explanation #2: According to Abaye, we cannot establish R. Chiya to discuss the floor of the Prozdor, since even [when blood is found] from the conduit and outside, which can come normally from the Aliyah, and it is closer, [Abaye] is concerned for blood of the Makor...

àí ëï îï äìåì åìôðéí á÷ø÷ò ôøåæãåø îéìúà ãôùéèà äéà ãîï äçãø àúà åìà äåä öøéê øáé çééà ìàùîåòéðï

1.

If so, from the conduit and inside, on the floor of the Prozdor, obviously it came from the Makor. R. Chiya would not need to teach this (if he held like Abaye! Rather, R. Chiya must discuss the roof of the Prozdor.)

2)

TOSFOS DH Shilya b'Bayis v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä ùìéà ááéú ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that a minority of Shilos are dissolved.)

ô''ä ãøåá ùìéåú éù ìäí åìã

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Most Shilyos (fetal sacs) have a child inside.

å÷ùä ãúðï áô' áäîä äî÷ùä (çåìéï ãó òæ.) ùìéà ùéöúä î÷öúä àñåøä áàëéìä

(b)

Question: In Chulin (77a), it says that if a Shilya partially left [an animal's womb], one may not eat it;

åàé éù ùìéà áìà åìã äåä ìï ìîùøé îùåí ãñîåê îéòåèà ãàéï áä åìã ìôìâà ùìà éöà øåá äåìã åä''ì îçöä ùéù áä øåá åìã îéòåèà

1.

If there can be a Shilya without a child, we should permit, for we join the minority that do not have a child, to half the cases in which the majority of the fetus, so the half [of Shilyos that partially left] that have the majority of the fetus are the minority;

ãñúí ùìéà ùéöúä î÷öúä åéù áä åìã îçöä éù áäï øåá åìã åîçöä àéï áäï øåá åìã

2.

This is because a Stam Shilya that partially left, and it has a fetus, half of them have the majority of the fetus, and half of them do not have the majority of the fetus;

ëãîåëç áô''÷ ãá''÷ (ãó éà.) åëä''â àîø äúí ñîåê îéòåèà ãðãîä ìîçöä ãð÷áåú

3.

This is proven in Bava Kama (11a). We say like this there. We join the half [of firstborn animals] that are Nidmeh (do not resemble the mother) to the half that are females (so the majority do not have Kedushas Bechor).

åëï áô''÷ ãáëåøåú (ãó ë:) ñîåê îéòåèà ãîôéìåú ìîçöä ãð÷áåú

4.

Similarly, in Bechoros (20b) we join the minority of women who miscarry to the half [of babies] that are females (so a minority of women give birth to boys).

åéù ìéùá ô''ä ãäúí îééøé áùìéà ùéöúä î÷öúä åðîöà åìã úåê äùìéà

(c)

Answer: We can defend Rashi. There, we discuss a Shilya that left partially, and a child was found in the Shilya.

åðøàä ìôøù ãàéï ùìéà ëìì áìà åìã àê îéòåèà ðéîå÷ åøåáï àéï ðéîå÷éí òã ùéöà ìáéú äçéöåï ëãàîø áô' äîôìú (ì÷îï ëæ.)

(d)

Explanation #2: There is no Shilya at all without a child, but a minority [of fetuses] are dissolved [in the Shilya], and the majority are not dissolved until they are taken to a second house, like it says below (27a).

åà''ú åàîàé ìà îééúé äëà îøéùà ãúðï áäîôìú (ùí ãó ëã:) äîôìú ñðãì àå ùìéà úùá ìæëø åìð÷áä àìîà ãøåáï àéï ðéîå÷éï ÷åãí éöéàä

(e)

Question: (We asked from the Mishnah (26a) of a Shilya in the house.) Why don't we bring here the Reisha (24b) - "if one miscarried a Sandal or Shilya, she observes [the stringencies of Yoledes] Zachar and [Yoledes] Nekevah"? This shows that most are not dissolved before they leave!

åé''ì ãàôé' ðîå÷éï îöéðï ìîéîø ãèîàä ìéãä ã÷àîø ÷øà àùä ëé úæøéò àôé' ìà éìãä àìà ëòéï ùäæøéòä àîå èîàä ìéãä

(f)

Answer #1: Even though they are dissolved, we can say that she is Temei'ah Leidah (due to birth), for it says "Ishah Ki Sazri'a" - even if she gave birth only to something like she was Mazri'ah (her seed), its mother is Temei'ah Leidah.

åàò''â ãääéà ãøùà ëøáé ùîòåï áøéù éåöà ãåôï (ì÷îï ãó î.) åøáðï ãøùå ìä òã ùúìã îî÷åí ùîæøéò

1.

Implied question: That Drashah is like R. Shimon below (40a). Rabanan expound it to teach that [she is Temei'ah Leidah] only if she gave birth from where [the man] is Mazri'a, (to exclude a yzdc)!

é''ì ãúøúé ù''î

2.

Answer: We learn both Drashos from the verse.

à''ð é''ì îøéùà ìà îééúé ãäå''à ãèòîà ãøáðï îùåí ùàéï ùåí ùìéà áìà åìã åàéï ùåí åìã ðéîå÷ àôéìå îéòåè

(g)

Answer #2: We do not bring the Reisha, for one might have thought that Rabanan's reason is because there is no Shilya without a fetus, and no fetus is dissolved, even a minority;

ìëê îééúé ñéôà ãàîø ø' ùîòåï ðéîå÷ äåìã àò''ô ùìà éöà

1.

Therefore, we bring the Seifa, that R. Shimon said that the fetus was dissolved, even though it did not leave;

åëéåï ãñáø øáé ùîòåï ãøåáï ðéîå÷éï åìøáðï àéðí ðéîå÷éï àìà îéòåèï ãàéï ñáøà ìåîø ãìø''ù øåáï ðéîå÷éï åìøáðï àôéìå îéòåèï àéï ðéîå÷éï

2.

Since R. Shimon holds that most are dissolved, Rabanan hold that only a minority are dissolved, for it is unreasonable to say that R. Shimon holds that most are dissolved, and Rabanan hold that even a minority are not dissolved.

å÷öú ðøàä ãàãøáä àøéùà ñîéê åñéôà ìà îééúé àìà îùåí ãîéðä îåëéç ãèòîà ãøáðï îùåí øåáà ëãôøéùéú

(h)

Answer #3: It seems that just the contrary, the Makshan relies on the Reisha, and brings the Seifa only because from it he proves that Rabanan's reason is due to the majority, like I explained;

ãàé îùìéà ááéú âåôä îééúé îàé àéøéà îùåí øåá àôé' îçöä òì îçöä ùåøôéï ãäåä ìéä ñô÷ èåîàä áøä''é ãèîà

1.

If he brings from that case of a Shilya in a house, why do we need a majority? Even if half [had a Shilya], we would burn [Terumah], for Safek Tum'ah in Reshus ha'Yachid is Tamei!

3)

TOSFOS DH ha'Mapeles Yad Chatuchah

úåñôåú ã"ä äîôìú éã çúåëä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why he did not bring a Mishnah.)

äà ãìà îééúé îúðé' ãäîôìú (ì÷îï ãó ëç.) äîôìú åàéï éãåò îäå åáäîôìú çúéëä îééøé ëãîåëç äúí áâîøà ãùìéà ááéú

(a)

Implied question: Why didn't he bring our Mishnah below (28a) "one who miscarries, and does not know what", and it discusses one who miscarries a piece, like is proven there in the Gemara of a Shilya in the house?

îùåí ãäëà îôøù áäãéà àéï çåùùéï ùîà îâåó àèåí áàä ãîùîò ãäåé îèòí ãäåìëéí áúø øåáà

(b)

Answer: It is because here it explicitly explains that we are not concerned lest it came from a formless body. This connotes that the reason is because we follow the majority.

4)

TOSFOS DH v'Su Leika

úåñôåú ã"ä åúå ìéëà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why he did not count others.)

åà''ú åäà àéëà äà ãúðï ì÷îï áô' äàùä (ãó ðè:) àéù åàùä ùòùå öøëéäí áñôì åðîöà áå ãí øáé ùîòåï îèîà ùçæ÷ú ãîéí îï äàùä

(a)

Question: There is the Mishnah below (59b) of a man and woman who urinated into a basin, and blood was found. R. Shimon is Metamei, for the Chazakah of blood is that it came from the woman!

åàé îùåí ãøáé ùîòåï ÷úðé ìä

1.

Suggestion: [We did not bring it] because R. Shimon taught it.

äà ÷àîø ùìéà àò''â ãøáé îàéø ÷úðé ìä ëãàîø áäîôìú (ì÷îï ãó ëæ.)

2.

Rejection: It says Shilya, even though R. Meir taught it, like it says below (27a)!

åë''ú ãàéï ùåøôéï òì àåúå øåá úøåîä

3.

Suggestion: We do not burn Terumah based on that majority.

à''ë ì÷îï ããçé÷ ìàùëåçé ìîòåèé îàé ìéîà ìîòåèé øåáà ãø' ùîòåï

4.

Rejection: If so, below, when we struggle to find what "three" excludes, we should say that it excludes the majority of R. Shimon!

åé''ì ãäúí îñééò çæ÷ú äàãí ìøåá

(b)

Answer: There, the Chazakah of the person helps the majority.

åà''ú åìéçùåá ðîé äà ãúðï áäøåàä (ì÷îï ãó ðæ:) ðîöàú àúä àåîø ùìù ñô÷åú áàùä åáîâòåú åáäñéèåú äìê àçø øåá

(c)

Question: We should list also the Mishnah below (57b) "it turns out that there are three Sefekos about a woman, and regarding touching and moving, we follow the majority";

åàé àéï ùåøôéï òìéå úøåîä ìéîà ìîòåèé äà

1.

If we do not burn Terumah based on [that majority], we should say that [three] excludes it!

åéù ìåîø ãùåøôéï åäåé èòîà îùåí ãøåá ãîéí áàéï îï äî÷åø ãçùéá áâ' ãáøéí

(d)

Answer: We burn, and the reason is because most blood comes from the Makor, which was counted among the three matters.

5)

TOSFOS DH Sefeko Asur

úåñôåú ã"ä ñô÷å àñåø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the source for this.)

áùéìäé ô''÷ ãëúåáåú (ãó èå.) ðô÷à ìï ÷áåò îåàøá ìå

(a)

Source: In Kesuvos (15a), we learn kvu (it is considered an even Safek) from "v'Arav Lo."

åà''ú ìø''ù ããøéù îåàøá ìå òã ùéúëåéï ìå ÷áåò îðà ìéä

(b)

Question: According to R. Shimon, who expounds "v'Arav Lo" to teach that he must intent for him [in order to be executed for murder], what is his source for kvu?

åé''ì ãîñ÷éðï áô' äðùøôéï (ñðäãøéï ãó òè.) ãñáø øáé ùîòåï ëøáé ãåðúúä (ëï öøéê ìåîø) ðôù úçú ðôù îîåï à''ë îäúí ùîòéðï òã ùéúëåéï ìå åàééúø åàøá ìå ì÷áåò

(c)

Answer: We conclude in Sanhedrin (79a) that R. Shimon holds like Rebbi, that "v'Nasatah Nefesh Tachas Nafesh" refers to money. If so, we learn from there that [he is not killed] until he intends for him, and "v'Arav Lo" is extra to teach kvu;

àê ìúðà ãáé çæ÷éä ããøéù îëä àãí åîëä áäîä ãùàéðå îúëåéï ôèåø îîéúä åîîåï åìà ãøéù åðúúä ðôù úçú ðôù ìîîåï åò''ë òã ùéúëåéï ìå ðô÷à ìéä îåàøá ìå ÷ùä ÷áåò îðà ìéä

(d)

Question: However, according to Tana d'Vei Chizkiyah, who expounds "Makeh Adam u'Makeh Behemah" to teach that one who does not intend is exempt from death and money, and he does not expound "v'Nasatah Nefesh Tachas Nafesh" for money, you are forced to say that he learns "until he intends for him" from "v'Arav Lo", it is difficult. What is his source for kvu?

6)

TOSFOS DH Halech Acher ha'Rov

úåñôåú ã"ä äìê àçø äøåá

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that this is even if it is close to the minority store.)

îùîò àôé' ðîöà ÷øåá ìçðåú äîåëøú ðáìä

(a)

Inference: [We follow the majority] even if it is found near a store that sells Neveilah.

åà''ú à''ë îàé ÷î''ì ø' çðéðà ãøåá å÷øåá äìê àçø äøåá

(b)

Question: If so, what is R. Chanina's Chidush (Bava Basra 23b) that if [one possible source is] the majority, and [another possible source is] closer, we attribute to the majority?

åé''ì ã÷î''ì àôé' á÷åøáä ãîåëçà

(c)

Answer: The Chidush is that this is even for a closeness that is Muchach.

îéäå ÷ùä î÷åùéà ãøáé æéøà ãäúí ú÷ùé ìéä îúðé' ãè' çðåéåú

(d)

Question: R. Zeira's question there ("ha'Ir ha'Kerovah" teaches that we attribute an unknown murderer to the closest city, even though other cities have more people) he should can ask against the Mishnah of nine stores!

7)

TOSFOS DH Acher ha'Rov

úåñôåú ã"ä àçø äøåá

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that there is a Chazakah against the majority.)

äëà àéëà çæ÷ä ëðâã äøåá ãáäîä áçæ÷ú àéñåø òåîãú åâáé è' öôøãòéí ðîé ÷àîø äìê àçø äøåá åàí øåá ùøöéí èîà (äâäú äá"ç) àò''â ãàéëà çæ÷ú èäøä

(a)

Explanation: Here there is a Chazakah against the majority, for an animal is Chezkas Isur. Also regarding nine frogs, it says that we follow the majority, and if most are Sheratzim, it is Tamei, even if there is Chezkas Taharah;

ãàé ìà äåé çæ÷ä ëðâã äøåá ìà äåä ôøéê îéãé ãîöéðï ìîéîø ãøáé éåçðï ìà çùéá àìà äéëà ãàéëà çæ÷ä ëðâã äøåá:

(b)

Proof: If the Chazakah were not against the majority, he has no question at all, for we could say that R. Yochanan counts only when there is a Chazakah against the majority.

18b----------------------------------------18b

8)

TOSFOS DH Ela Siyata

úåñôåú ã"ä àìà ñééòúà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how we tried to bring a support from this.)

ã÷úðé äúí ëùäáéàä â' ùáåòåú èäåøéí åòùøä ùáåòåú àçã èîà åàçã èäåø å÷àîø ãìà îùîùú òã àåø ì''ä

(a)

Explanation: It teaches there that if [one is unsure whether and what she miscarried, and when, and] she had three Tahor weeks and 10 weeks alternating, one week Tamei (she saw blood every day) and one Tahor... and it says that she does not have Bi'ah until the night before day 35;

åàé ìéúà ìãøáé éäåùò àîàé åäà ñô÷ ñôé÷à äåà àéîø øåç äôéìä åàú''ì ðôì äôéìä àéîà äøçé÷ä ìéãúä

1.

If R. Yehoshua [ben Levi] is wrong (there is no majority that most woman give birth to something for which there is a Korban, and Tum'as Leidah), what is the reason? This is a sff. I can say that she miscarried Ru'ach. And if you will say that she miscarried a Nefel, perhaps the birth was a long time ago [and Yemei Tum'as Leidah finished]!

åàò''â ãáìàå äëé àéëà ëîä ñô÷åú àéîà æëø åàú''ì ð÷áä àéîà ìà éìãä áæåá åàôéìå éåìãú ð÷áä áæåá àéîà äøçé÷ä ìéãúä

2.

Implied question: Even without [saying that perhaps she miscarried Ru'ach], there are several s9f! Perhaps she miscarried a male [and there is only one week of Tum'as Leidah]. And if you will say that she miscarried a female, perhaps she was not Yoledes b'Zov [so she is permitted immediately after two weeks of Yemei Tum'as Leidah]. And if you will say that she miscarried a female b'Zov, perhaps the birth was a long time ago!

î''î àé ìéúà ìãøáé éäåùò àéëà ñô÷ àçø éåúø ãàéîà ìà éìãä ëìì åäåä ìï ìîéùøé

3.

Answer: Even so, if not for R. Yehoshua, there is another Safek, that perhaps she did not give birth at all, and we should have permitted [Bi'ah before night 35].

åîùðé ìà ãìîà ìà úéåáúà åìà ñééòúà ãáìàå äëé àéëà ñôé÷é èåáà åàñøéðï ä''ä àé ìéúà ãø' éäåùò ðîé àñøéðï

(b)

Explanation (cont.): We answer that perhaps it is not a refutation, and not a support. Even without [a Safek that she miscarried Ru'ach], there are many s9f, and we forbid. The same applies if the Halachah does not follow R. Yehoshua ben Levi, also we forbid.

9)

TOSFOS DH Leme'utei Ruva d'Ika Chazakah Bahadei

úåñôåú ã"ä ìîòåèé øåáà ãàéëà çæ÷ä áäãéä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses whether we discuss an absolute majority.)

ôéøåù ëðâã äøåá

(a)

Explanation: There is a Chazakah against the majority.

åàí úàîø äìà âí áäðé ùìùä ãáøéí àéëà çæ÷ä ãèäøä åùåøôéï îùåí øåá

(b)

Question: Also these three matters, there is Chezkas Taharah, yet we burn due to the majority!

åéù ìåîø ãøåá úéðå÷åú îèôçéï àéðå øåá âîåø ëîå ùàôøù åáäðé â' ãáøéí äåé øåá âîåø

(c)

Answer #1: This that most children play [with dough] is not an absolute majority, like I will explain. In these three matters there is an absolute majority.

àé ðîé áäðé ùìùä ðîé ìà äåé øåá âîåø åàùîåòéðï øáé éåçðï ãàôéìå äëé ùåøôéï ëéåï ãäøéòåúà áàä îâåôä åùìéà ðîé ÷øé ìä èåîàú àùä îùåí ùò''é àùä èåîàä áàä ìáéú

(d)

Answer #2: Also regarding these three, there is not an absolute majority. R. Yochanan teaches that even so, we burn, since the Re'usa comes from her body, and also the Shilya is called Tum'ah of the woman, because through the woman, Tum'ah comes to the house.

åìôé æä àôé' àùëçðà âáé àùä ùåí îúðé' ãùåøôéï òì äøåá àú äúøåîä äà ãìà çùéá ìä øáé éåçðï îùåí ãäúí ùîà äåà øåá çùåá åìà äåé ùåí çãåù

(e)

Consequence: According to this, even if we find regarding a woman a Mishnah that we burn Terumah based on a majority, R. Yochanan did not count it because there, it is an important majority, and it is not a Chidush.

åîéäå ìôéøåù æä ìà îééúé ìòéì àìà îñéôà îùìéà ááéú ãàéëà ìîéîø ãøåá ãàéðí ðéîå÷éï àéðå øåá âîåø

1.

However, according to this Perush, above we bring only from the Seifa, from a Shilya in the house, for we can say that the majority that are not dissolved is not an absolute majority;

ãáøéùà ãîôìú ùìéà úùá ìæëø åìð÷áä òì ëøçê äåé øåá çùåá îãìà ÷úðé ðîé åìðãä ëããéé÷ áäîôìú (ì÷îï ãó ëç.)

2.

In the Reisha of "one who miscarried a Shilya, she observes [Yoledes] Zachar and Nekevah", you are forced to say that it is an important majority, since it does not teach also [she observes] Nidah, like we infer below (28a);

i.

Note: "Most give birth to something for which there is a Korban", is an important majority. We cannot derive that most are not dissolved, for R. Shimon is Metamei even if she gave birth to something like she was Mazri'ah.

åàí øåá àéðï ðéîå÷éï àéðå øåá âîåø äà ã÷úðé ìòéì îáéàä ÷øáï åðàëì àéðå îèòí øåá àìà àôé' ðéîå÷ äåéà èîàä ìéãä

ii.

If "the majority are not dissolved" is not an absolute majority, this that was taught above "she brings a Korban and it is eaten" is not due to the majority. Rather, even if it was dissolved, she is Temei'ah Leidah.

10)

TOSFOS DH ha'Amar R. Yochanan Chada Zimna

úåñôåú ã"ä äàîø ø' éåçðï çãà æéîðà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos justifies the Havah Amina that he excludes the case of a child.)

úéîä àôé' ìà àîø äéëé îöéðï ìîòåèé äà äà (äâäú äá"ç) èåîàú àùä ãå÷à ÷àîø

(a)

Question: Even if he did not say so, how could we exclude this? He discussed only Tum'ah of a woman!

åîéäå ìø''ú ãîôøù ãäà ãúéðå÷ èîà îùåí ãðùéí ðãåú îâôôåú àåúå ðéçà ÷öú ãâí úéðå÷ äåé èåîàú àùä:

(b)

Answer: According to R. Tam, who explains that a child is Tamei because Nidos hug him, we can answer that also a child is [based on] Tum'ah of a woman.

11)

TOSFOS DH Rov Tinokos Metapchin

úåñôåú ã"ä øåá úéðå÷åú îèôçéï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos gives two explanations of this.)

ô''ä îèôçéï áàùôä ùéù áä ùøöéí àáì åãàé ðâò áòéñä ùäøé áö÷ áéãå

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [Most children] touch in the wasteheap, which has in it Sheratzim. However, he Vadai touched the dough, for there is [a small piece of] dough in his hand.

åø''ú îôøù øåá úéðå÷åú îèôçéï áòéñä ãèéôåç ùééê áàåëì åîù÷ä ëãàîø áô' øáé éùîòàì (ò''æ ãó ñ:) àå ùäéä îèôç òì ôé äçáéú îøåúçú

(b)

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): Most children touch dough. "Tipu'ach" applies to food and drink, like it says in Avodah Zarah (60b) "or he was Metape'ach on top of a foaming barrel (of fermenting wine)."

åáéøåùìîé àéëà îôðé ùãøëå ùì úéðå÷ ìèôç áòéñä

(c)

Support #1: The Yerushalmi says "because it is normal for a child to touch dough."

åáúåñôúà (ô''â ãèäøåú) ðîé îùîò ùàéï éãåò àí äúéðå÷ ðâò áòéñä ã÷úðé àääéà ãúéðå÷ à''ø éåñé àí éëåì ìôùåè éãå åìé÷ç èîà åàí ìàå èäåø

(d)

Support #2: The Tosefta (Taharos 3:12) connotes that it is not known whether the child touched the dough, for it says about the case of a child "R. Yosi says, if he can stretch his hand and take, it is Tamei. If not, it is Tahor."

àáì äúéðå÷ àåîø ø''ú ãåãàé èîà ëã÷úðé áúåñôúà (ùí) ìôé ùðùéí ðãåú îâôôåú åîðù÷åú àåúå

(e)

Explanation (R. Tam): The child is Vadai Tamei, like the Tosefta (Taharos 3:8) teaches "because Nidos hug and kiss him."

åäà ãàîø áô''â ãèäøåú (î''æ) úéðå÷ áöã ä÷áøåú åùåùðéí áéãå àò''ô ùàéï äùåùðéí àìà îî÷åí èåîàä äúéðå÷ èäåø ùàðé àåîø àãí èäåø ëå'

(f)

Implied question: A Mishnah (Taharos 3:7) teaches that if a child is next to a cem, and roses are in his hand, even though the roses are [growing] only in a place of Tum'ah, the child is Tahor, for I can say that a Tahor person [gave to him]!

äééðå èäåø îèåîàú îú ùàéðå öøéê äæàä â' åæ' àáì èåîàú òøá èîà ëãéï ðåâò áðãä

(g)

Answer #1: It means that the child is Tahor from Tum'as Mes. One need not s37. However, he is Tamei Tum'as Erev (he can immerse, and at night he is totally Tahor), like the law of one who touched a Nidah.

à''ð áéãåò ùäåà áåãàé èäåø

(h)

Answer #2: It discusses when the child was Vadai Tahor [before coming near the cem].

à''ð ëùäúéðå÷ îìåëìê ëã÷úðé áúåñôúà (ùí) úéðå÷ ùäðéçúå àîå åîöàúå ëîå ùäåà èäåø áã''à ùäðéçúå îìåëìê àáì äðéçúå ð÷é èîà îôðé ùðùéí ðãåú îâôôåú àåúå

(i)

Answer #3: [We assume that a child is Vadai Tamei] when the child is dirty, like the Tosefta (Taharos 3:8) teaches "if a mother left her child and found him the same way, he is Tahor. This is when she left him dirty, but if left him clean, he is Tamei, because Nidos hug him."

12)

TOSFOS DH Semoch Mi'uta l'Chazakah v'Isra Lei Ruba

úåñôåú ã"ä ñîåê îéòåèà ìçæ÷ä åàéúøò ìéä øåáà

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

÷ùä ãáô' áúøà ãéáîåú (ãó ÷éè:) àîø ñîåê îéòåèà ìçæ÷ä åäåä ìéä ôìâà åôìâà

(a)

Question: In Yevamos (119b), it says "we join the minority to the Chazakah, and it is like an even Safek"!

åéù ìåîø ãìäëé àéúøò äëà øåáà îùåí ãúéðå÷ äåé ãáø ùàéï áå ãòú ìéùàì [ëîå áô' é' éåçñéï åìà âîøéðï îñåèä àìà áéù áå ãòú ìéùàì] åìäëé ëé äåé ôìâà åôìâà èäåø îãøá âéãì

(b)

Answer: Here, the majority is weakened, because the child is Ein Bo Da'as Lish'ol [like in Kidushin (80b), and we learn from Sotah only when Yesh Bo Da'as Lish'ol]. Therefore, when it is an even Safek, it is Tahor, due to Rav Gidal's teaching.

åà''ù îäàé èòîà äà ãàîø ñô÷ ðâò áøä''é èîà

(c)

Support: This explains why it says that a Safek touching in Reshus ha'Yachid is Tamei;

åìà àîø ñîåê ôìâà ãìà ðâò ìçæ÷ú èäøä åàéúøò ìä ôìâà ãðâò ãàôéìå øáðï ãìéú ìäå ñîåê îéòåèà ìçæ÷ä îåãå ãñîëéðï ôìâà ìçæ÷ä

1.

Implied question: We should say "join the half [chance] that he (or it) did not touch to Chezkas Taharah, and the half [chance] that he (or it) touched is weakened, for even Rabanan, who do not say "join the minority to the Chazakah", agree that we join half to a Chazakah!

àìà ëéåï ùéù áå ãòú ìéùàì âæøú äëúåá äåà ãâîøéðï îñåèä ìèîà áøä''é àôé' àéëà çæ÷ú èäøä

2.

Answer: Rather, since Yesh Bo Da'as Lish'ol, the Torah decreed that we learn from Sotah to be Metamei in Reshus ha'Yachid, even if there is Chezkas Taharah;

àáì áùàéï áå ãòú ìéùàì àæìéðï áúø øåáà åáôìâà åôìâà èäåø îãøá âéãì

i.

However, if Ein Bo Da'as Lish'ol, we follow the majority, and when it is half-half, it is Tahor due to Rav Gidal's teaching.

13)

TOSFOS DH Mi'uta k'Man d'Leisa Dami

úåñôåú ã"ä îéòåèà ëîàï ãìéúà ãîé

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

àò''â ãàîøéðï áô' é' éåçñéï (÷ãåùéï ô:) ãòùå äúéðå÷ ëîé ùéù áå ãòú ìéùàì

(a)

Implied question: it says in Kidushin (80b) that they made a child as if Yesh Bo Da'as Lish'ol! (Why must we say that it is as if the minority does not exist?)

àéöèøéê äëà ìîéîø ìøáðï îéòåèà ëîàï ãìéúéä ãîé ìèîà àó áøä''ø

(b)

Answer: Here we need to say that according to Rabanan, it is as if the minority does not exist, to be Metamei even in Reshus ha'Rabim.

àê ÷ùä ëéåï ãîéòåèà ëîàï ãìéúéä ãîé åøåáà åçæ÷ä øåáà òãéó àîàé òùàåäå ëîé ùéù áå ãòú ìéùàì àôéìå àéï áå ãòú ìéùàì èîà áøä''ø

(c)

Question #1: Since it is as if the minority does not exist, and when a majority opposes a Chazakah, the majority is stronger, why did they make him as if Yesh Bo Da'as Lish'ol? Even if Ein Bo Da'as Lish'ol, it is Tamei [even] in Reshus ha'Rabim!

åòåã ãàîàé àéï ùåøôéï òìéå àú äúøåîä

(d)

Question #2: Why don't we burn Terumah based on this?

åàåîø ø''ú ãøåá úéðå÷åú àéðå øåá âîåø åìà äåé ëðâã çæ÷ä àìà ëôìâà åôìâà åîï äúåøä èäåø àó áøä''é ëéåï ãàéï áå ãòú ìéùàì

(e)

Answer (R. Tam): The majority of children is not an absolute majority. Against the Chazakah, it is only like an even Safek. Mid'Oraisa it is Tahor even in Reshus ha'Yachid, since Ein Bo Da'as Lish'ol.

åäà ã÷àîø äúí òùàåäå ëàéìå éù áå ãòú ìéùàì

(f)

Implied question: It says that they made him as if Yesh Bo Da'as Lish'ol!

äééðå ëìåîø òùàåäå ëàéìå äåà øåá âîåø ìôé ùðøàä ìòåìí ùäåà øåá àò''ô ùàéðå øåá âîåø åìëê àéï ùåøôéï òìéå àú äúøåîä

(g)

Answer: This means that they made it as if it is an absolute majority, because it seems to everyone that it is a majority, even though it is not an absolute majority. Therefore, we do not burn Terumah due to it.

àáì ìéëà ìîéîø ëéù áå ãòú ìéùàì îîù

(h)

Suggestion: Perhaps they literally made him as if Yesh Bo Da'as Lish'ol!

ãàîàé òùàåäå èôé äëà îáçåìãä äîäìëú ò''â ëëøåú ãèäåø

(i)

Rejection: Why should they do so here more than in the case of a weasel walking among loaves, which is Tahor?

åàôé' àí úîöé ìåîø ãâæøå àèå úéðå÷ âãåì ùéù áå ãòú ìéùàì

1.

Suggestion: They decreed about a big child, who has Da'as Lish'ol!

àëúé î''î áøä''ø àîàé èîà

2.

Rejection: Still, why is it Tamei in Reshus ha'Rabim?

àìà ðøàä ãòùàåäå ëàéìå äåà øåá âîåø ëãôøéùéú

(j)

Conclusion: Rather, they made it as if it is an absolute majority, like I explained;

åìø''î èäåø åàò''ô ùòùàåäå ëøåá âîåø îùåí ñîåê îéòåèà ìçæ÷ä åàéúøò ìéä øåáà

1.

According to R. Meir, it is Tahor, even though they made it like an absolute majority, because we join the minority to the Chazakah, and the majority is weakened.

åà''ú ìø''î ì''ì ñîåê îéòåèà ìçæ÷ä àôé' áìà çæ÷ä éèäø ëéåï ãçééù ìîéòåèà äåé ñô÷ åàéï áå ãòú ìéùàì èäåø îãøá âéãì

(k)

Question: According to R. Meir, why must we join the minority to the Chazakah? Even without a Chazakah, he should be Metaher. Since he is concerned for the Mi'ut, it is a Safek, and Ein Bo Da'as Lish'ol is Tahor due to Rav Gidal's teaching!

åàåîø ø''é ãð÷è çæ÷ä áäãé îéòåèà ìàùîåòéðï ãäçæ÷ä àéðä îñééòä ìøåá

(l)

Answer (Ri): He mentioned the Chazakah with the minority to teach that the Chazakah does not support the majority;

ãàé äåä çæ÷ä îñééòä ìøåá äåé ëîå îéòåèà ãîéòåèà ãìà çééù ø''î

1.

If the Chazakah supported the majority, [the minority] would be like a miniscule minority, which [even] R. Meir is not concerned for.

[åäà ãø''î ãçééù ìîéòåèà àé äåä ãàåøééúà àå ãøáðï àéï ìäàøéê ëàï]

(m)

Remark: This that R. Meir is concerned for the minority, whether this is mid'Oraisa or mid'Rabanan, it is not proper to elaborate here.

14)

TOSFOS DH Lemi'utei Rov d'R. Yehudah

úåñôåú ã"ä ìîòåèé øåá ãøáé éäåãä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out a question that we could have asked.)

äåé îöé ìîéôøê äðéçà ììéùðà ãîôøù øáé éåçðï èòîà ãøáé éäåãä îùåí ãøåá çúéëåú ùì ã' îéðé ãîéí äï

(a)

Implied question: We could have asked that this is fine according to the version that R. Yochanan explains that R. Yehudah's reason is because most pieces are of the four kinds (colors) of blood...

àìà ììéùðà àçøéðà ãäîôìú (ì÷îï ãó ëà:) ãàîø øáé éåçðï èòîà ãøáé éäåãä ãàé àôùø ìôúéçú ä÷áø áìà ãí åìà îùåí øåá ìîòåèé îàé ãëòéï æä ôøéê ì÷îï (ëá:) áâî' ãäîôìú îéï ãâéí

1.

However, according to the version below (21b) that R. Yochanan said that R. Yehudah's reason is because the womb cannot open without blood, and not due to a majority, what does ["three"] exclude? We ask like this below (21b) in the Gemara of one who miscarries a kind of fish.

ãìéëà ìîéîø ãä''÷ øåá ôúéçú ä÷áø àéðå áìà ãí åìà ùåøôéï òìéä úøåîä

2.

Suggestion: [R. Yochanan] means that most of the time, the womb does not open without blood, and we do not burn Terumah due to this.

ãäà ÷àîø äúí ìøáé éäåùò ãàîø àé àôùø ìôúéçú ÷áø áìà ãí ãîáéàä ÷øáï åðàëì àí ëï èîà åãàé äåà åùåøôéï òìéå àú äúøåîä:

3.

Rejection: It says there according to R. Yehoshua, who says that the womb cannot open without blood, she brings a Korban and it is eaten. If so, it is Tamei Vadai, and we burn Terumah due to this! (Rashash, Aruch l'Ner -the other version there must say that R. Yochanan did not teach "in three places...")

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF