1)

TOSFOS DH Chomer Shenei Vlados

úåñôåú ã"ä çåîø ùðé åìãåú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we are not lenient due to a Sefek-Sefeka.)

ôé' ä÷åðèøñ ìø"î ãáçéä åòåó èîàä ìéãä äåé çåîø á' åìãåú

(a)

Explanation (Rashi): According to R. Meir, who says that one who miscarried a Chayah or bird is Teme'ah Leidah, there is the stringency of two children [of different genders];

àí çéä åòåó äí æëø éäáéðï ìä çåîø ùìéà ãîñô÷éðï áð÷áä ìèåîàä

1.

If the Chayah or bird is male, we impose on her the stringency of the Shilya. We are unsure whether it was a female regarding Tum'ah (she is Teme'ah for two weeks, like Yoledes Nekevah);

åçåîø çéä åòåó ìèäøä ãùîà àéï åìã áùìéà

2.

And we impose on her the stringency of Chayah or bird regarding Taharah. Perhaps there is no fetus in the Shilya (and Yemei Tohar end after 40 days).

å÷ùä ìø"î àé çéä åòåó æëø àîàé îñô÷à ùìéà áð÷áä äà äåé ñô÷ ñôé÷à ãùîà àéï áùìéà åìã åàôéìå éù ùîà æëø äåà

(b)

Question (Maharam): If the Chayah or bird is a male, why are we unsure lest the Shilya was a female? This is a Sefek-Sefeka. Perhaps there is no fetus in the Shilya. And even if there is a fetus in the Shilya, perhaps it is a male!

åìëê é"ì çåîø á' åìãåú ã÷àîø äééðå ìòðéï ùäôéìä ùìéà áùðé àçø çéä åòåó

(c)

Explanation #2: Rather, the stringency of two children applies to one who miscarried a Shilya on the second [day], after the Chayah or bird;

åìøáðï ãàîøé ãàéï èåîàú ìéãä áçéä åòåó ìéú ìä éîé èåäø ëìì ãùîà àéï åìã áùìéà åîùåí ùìéà ðåúðéï ìä çåîøà ãæëø åð÷áä

1.

According to Rabanan, who say that one who miscarried a Chayah or bird has no Tum'as Leidah, she has no Yemei Tohar at all, for perhaps there is no fetus in the Shilya. Due to the Shilya, we put on her the stringencies of Yoledes Zachar u'Nekevah. And even if there is a fetus in the Shilya, perhaps it is a male!

åà"ú ìøáðï ðéîà ùìà úùá ø÷ æ' ìèåîàú ìéãä ãàéîåø àéï åìã áùìéà åàôé' éù ùîà æëø äåà

(d)

Question: According to Rabanan, we should say that she observes only seven days for Tum'as Leidah [due to a Sefek-Sefeka]! Perhaps there is no fetus in the Shilya, and even if there is, perhaps it is a male!

åé"ì ãà"ë àí úøàä áéåí ì"ã åúçæåø åúøàä áéåí î"à àéëà ìîéîø ðîé

(e)

Answer: If so, if she will see [blood] on day 34, and see again on day 41, we can also say (that she need not guard seven days of Nidah, due to Sefek-Sefeka):

àéîåø ìà éìãä ëìì åäåéà áî"à ùåîøú éåí ëðâã éåí åàôé' àéëà åìã àéîåø ð÷áä äéà åùúé øàéåú ãí èåäø äåà

1.

Perhaps she did not give birth at all (so day 34 began Nidah, and she is only Shomeres Yom k'Neged Yom due to the blood on day 41). And even if there was a child, perhaps it was a female, and both sightings were Dam Tohar;

à"à áúøååééäå ìîéæì ì÷åìà ãñúøå àäããé àæìéðï áúøååééäå ìçåîøà

2.

We cannot be lenient about both of these, for they contradict each other! (If she observes only seven days of Tum'as Leidah because perhaps the fetus in the Shilya was a male, we cannot say that since perhaps it was a female, she can be lenient when she sees on days 34 and 41.) Therefore, we are stringent about both of these.

åëï ö"ì àîúðéúéï ã÷úðé äîôìú åàéï éãåò àí åìã äåà úùá ìæëø åìð÷áä åìðãä àò"â ãàéëà ñô÷ ñôé÷à

(f)

Support: We must say so say in our Mishnah of one who miscarried, and does not know whether or not there was a child. She observes [the stringencies of Yoledes] Zachar and Nekevah, and Nidah, even though there is a Sefek-Sefeka:

ùîà ìà éìãä åàôé' éìãä ùîà æëø äåà åàîàé úùá ìð÷áä àìà åãàé ëãôøéùéú.

1.

Perhaps she did not give birth. And even if she gave birth, perhaps it was a male. Why must she observe two weeks [of Tum'as Yoledes, lest she gave birth, and it was a female]? Rather, surely it is like I said.

2)

TOSFOS DH Ela l'Man d'Amar Einah Yoledes li'Mekuta'in Mai Ika Lemeimar

úåñôåú ã"ä àìà ìî"ã àéðä éåìãú ìî÷åèòéï îàé àéëà ìîéîø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we do not assume that the fetus delayed in the womb.)

åà"ú åðéîà ãðâîø öåøúå åàùúäé òã ùîéðé ãäëé àéú ìéä ìøáä úåñôàä áô' äòøì (éáîåú ãó ô:)

(a)

Question: We should say that its form was completed, and it delayed coming out until the eighth [month]! Rabah Tosfsah holds like this in Yevamos (80b);

ãòáã òåáãà áàùä ùäìê áòìä ìîãéðú äéí åéìãä ìé"á çãù åàëùøéä

1.

He did so in practice, regarding a woman whose husband went overseas, and she gave birth 12 months later. He was Machshir the child (we assume that the child delayed an extra three months).

åéù ìåîø ãøåá àîåøàéí ìéú ìäå ãøáä úåñôàä.

(b)

Answer: Most Amora'im argue with Rabah Tosfsah.

3)

TOSFOS DH Mai Taima d'R. Shimon

úåñôåú ã"ä î"è ãø"ù

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that R. Shimon is Metaher because there is not a complete Mes.)

îùåí ãáîúðéúéï àéðå îæëéø ëé àí ø"ù ÷àîø î"è ãø"ù

(a)

Explanation: Because the Mishnah mentions only R. Shimon, we ask what is his reason.

ô"ä ðäé ãðéîå÷ î"î ëì äâåó ùì äîú ëàï åä"ì ëø÷á ùì îú åëðöì

(b)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [We ask that] granted, it dissolved. In any case, the entire body of the Mes is here. This should be like Rekev (corrosion) of a Mes, and Netzel (fluid that exudes from a Mes), which are Metamei).

å÷ùä ãà"ë îàé îùðé ëì èåîàä ùðúòøá áä îéï àçø áèìä

(c)

Question: If so, what was the answer "any Tum'ah in which another species became mixed is Batel?"

åäéëé áòé ìîéîø ãáèì äåìã îùåí ããí äìéãä îáèì îùäå îï äåìã ëîå îìà úøåã ãîééúé

1.

How did we want to say that the child is Batel, because Dam Leidah is Mevatel Mashehu (a small amount) of the child, like [earth that fell in] a spoonful of Rekev, which we bring?

äúí åãàé ãùéòåøå îöåîöí ëé éúáèì îîðå îùäå áöéø ìéä ùéòåøà îï äúøåã

2.

There, surely the Shi'ur is exact. When any amount [of the Rekev] is Batel [in the earth], there is less than a Shi'ur of a spoon (a double handful; some say, one handful);

àáì ëé éúáèì îòè îï äåìã àëúé éùàø éåúø îëæéú àå îîìà úøåã

i.

However, when a little of the child is Batel, there is still more than a k'Zayis, or a spoonful!

ìëê ðøàä ìø"é ãðôì ùáùìéà àéï òìéå úåøú ðöì åø÷á ëéåï ùàéðå ðâîø åàéðå áùø ìèîà áëæéú àìà îèòí îú ùìí

(d)

Explanation #2 (Ri): The Nefel in the Shilya does not have the law of Netzel or Rekev, since it was not finished. It is not flesh, so that a k'Zayis would be Metamei. Rather, it is Metamei because it is a complete Mes;

åä"ô î"è ãø"ù äøé éù ëàï îú ùìí åîùðé ëì èåîàåú ùðúòøáä ëå'

1.

We ask "what is R. Shimon's reason? There is an entire Mes here!", and answer that any Tum'ah in which became mixed...

åîäàé èòîà ëé ðúáèì îîðå îùäå èäåø

2.

This is the reason -- because Mashehu of it is Batel, it is Tahor.

åäùúà îééúé ùôéø îîìà úøåã ø÷á

(e)

Support #1: Now, we properly bring [that R. Shimon holds like he taught regarding] a spoonful of Rekev.

åôøéê àãøáä ëå' åä"ð äùôéø îáèì îùäå ùì îéï àçø

(f)

Explanation #2 (cont.): [The Gemara] asks "just the contrary!..." Also here, the Shefir is Mevatel Mashehu of the other species!

åîùðé øáé éåçðï îùåí áèåì áøåá ðâòå áä ùãí äìéãä åäìéçä øáä òì ëì äùôéø åîúáèì ëåìå (äâäú äá"ç, åëï äåà áãôåñ åðöéä) àó ááéú øàùåï

1.

R. Yochanan answers that it is due to Bitul in the majority. Dam Leidah and fluid are the majority over the entire Shefir, and it is totally Batel, even in the first house;

åø"ì ñáø ãàôéìå áìà áèåì áøåá èäåø îùåí áìáåì öåøä ùðèøó áîéîéå åðúáìáì öåøúå ìø"ù àó ááéú äøàùåï

2.

Reish Lakish holds that even without Bitul in the majority, it is Tahor due to disorder of its form. It is torn in its waters and its form is disordered according to R. Shimon, even in the first house.

åîãø"ì ðîé éù ìäåëéç ãìà îèîà îùåí ø÷á åðöì ãà"ë ìà äåä îèäøéðï îùåí áìáåì

(g)

Support #2: Also from Reish Lakish we can prove that it is not Tamei due to Rekev or Netzel, for if so, we would not be Metaher due to disorder!

àìà åãàé èîà îèòí îú ùìí åáòé ðîé ø"ì ùìí áöåøúå

1.

Rather, surely it is Tamei due to a complete Mes. Reish Lakish requires that also its form is intact.

åùàø àîåøàé ôìéâé òìéä ááìáåì öåøä àê áòé ùéäà ùìí

2.

The other Amora'im argue with him about disorder of the form, but they require that it is whole.

åà"ú ìîàé ãñ"ã ãøáé ùîòåï îèäø àó ááéú äôðéîé îùåí áèåì îùäå äéëé ÷úðé ááøééúà ëùí ùàéðå ááéú äçéöåï ëê àéðå ááéú äôðéîé îùåí áèåì îùäå

(h)

Question: According to the Hava Amina that R. Shimon is Metaher even in the inner house due to Bitul of Mashehu, why did the Beraisa say "just like it is not in the outer house, it is not in the inner house" due to Bitul of Mashehu?

äìà âí ìøáé ùîòåï ìà ðúáèì ëåìå ááéú äôðéîé ëîå ááéú äçéöåï àìà ãîèäø îùåí áèåì îùäå

1.

Also according to R. Shimon, it is not totally Batel in the inner house like it is in the outer house. Rather, he is Metaher due to Bitul of Mashehu!

åéù ìåîø ãä"÷ ëùí ùàúä îåãä ááéú äçéöåï ùðéîå÷ ëê éù ìèäø ááéú äôðéîé îùåí áèåì îùäå ãàéï ëàï îú ùìí

(i)

Answer: It means as follows. Just like you agree in the outer house, for it is dissolved, we should be Metaher in the inner house, due to Bitul of Mashehu, for there is not a complete Mes.

åàí úàîø áðæéø ôø÷ ë"â (ãó ð.) ãôøéê òì äîú åòì ëæéú îï äîú ðæéø îâìç òì ëæéú îï äîú îâìç òì äîú ìà ë"ù

(j)

Question: In Nazir (50a), we ask "[why does the Mishnah teach that] a Nazir must shave [and begin Nezirus again from the beginning] due to [Tum'ah of] a Mes, or a k'Zayis of a Mes? If he must shave for a k'Zayis of a Mes, all the more so he must shave for a [full] Mes!"

åîùðé ìà ðöøëä àìà ìîú ùàéï áå ëæéú áùø åìà ðú÷ùøå àáøéå áâéãéï

1.

We answer this is needed only for a Mes (i.e. Nefel) that does not have a k'Zayis of flesh, and its limbs are not tied with sinews [so it is not Tamei due to Ever Min ha'Mes].

àîàé ìà îùðé áùìéà ùàéðä îèîà àìà ùìí

2.

Why didn't we say that it teaches about a Shilya? It is Metamei only if it is complete!

åé"ì ãùìéà ìà î÷øéà îú

(k)

Answer #1: A Shilya is not called a Mes.

à"ð äééðå äà ãîùðé äúí.

(l)

Answer #2: This is what the Gemara answered there (a Mes, i.e. Shilya without a k'Zayis of flesh...)

27b----------------------------------------27b

4)

TOSFOS DH Galgilon

úåñôåú ã"ä âìâéìåï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos brings the Aruch's Perush.)

ôéøù áòøåê ãáø äðâìì òîå.

(a)

Explanation (Aruch): This is something that goes along with it.

5)

TOSFOS DH Lemi'utei Harug

úåñôåú ã"ä ìîòåèé äøåâ

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why this inhibits the law of Rekev.)

ãîçåñø ãí

(a)

Explanation: He is lacking blood [due to the murder].

åäà ãàîø òåìà áô' ë"â (ðæéø ðà.) àéï ø÷á ìîú àìà ìáà îï äáùø îï äâéãéï åîï äòöîåú

(b)

Implied question: Ula taught in Nazir (51a) that there is Rekev of a Mes only if it came from the flesh, sinews and bones;

à"ë îùîò ãàéï ø÷á èîà àà"ë áà îùìùúï éçã àáì ø÷á îãí ìà áòé

1.

Inference: Rekev is Tamei only if it came from all three of them together. However, Rekev need not come from blood!

î"î àí çñø îãîå áùòä ùð÷áø àéï ìå ãéï ø÷á.

(c)

Answer: Even so, if some of the blood was lacking at the time of burial, the law of Rekev does not apply.

6)

TOSFOS DH Malei Tarvad v'Od

úåñôåú ã"ä îìà úøåã åòåã

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we need more than a spoonful.)

ô"ä ëâåï ùð÷áø áëñåúå

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): E.g. he was buried in his garment.

åàéï ðøàä ìøùá"í ãáúçìä îåãå ë"ò ããáø àçø ðòùä ìå âìâéìåï

(b)

Rebuttal (Rashbam): All agree that at the beginning, something else [that decays] is Galgilon (inhibits the law of Rekev)!

åðøàä ìøùá"í ãäëà îééøé áð÷áø òøåí åãøëï äéä ìèåç ëåëéï áñéã åîéã ùðúø÷á äéä äúøåã îîðå èîà

(c)

Explanation #2 (Rashbam): Here we discuss one who was buried naked. The practice was to plaster burial cavities with plaster, and once [the Mes] decayed, a spoonful of it was Tamei;

åàç"ë ðôì îï äñéã åðúòøáä òí äø÷á ùëáø äéä èîà

1.

Afterwards, some of the plaster fell and mixed with the Rekev, which was already Tamei.

åîäê ìà òáéã öøéëåúà

(d)

Implied question: Why didn't we make a Tzerichusa (show why each needed to be taught)?

ã÷î"ì îùåí ãà"à ùìà éäà úøåã îø÷á ÷åãí ùðúòøá áå òôø.

(e)

Answer: (Clearly, we needed this.) It teaches that it is impossible that there is not a spoonful of Rekev before the earth (plaster) became mixed with it.

7)

TOSFOS DH Kedei Lefarsemah she'Peturah

úåñôåú ã"ä ëãé ìôøñîä ùôèåøä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why elsewhere, we are not concerned for publicity.)

äà ãúðï áô' áäîä äî÷ùä (çåìéï ãó òæ.) îáëøú ùäôéìä ùìéà éùìéëðä ìëìáéí

(a)

Implied question: A Mishnah in Chulin (77a) says that if a Mevakeres (an animal that did not gave birth yet) miscarried a Shilya, we cast it to dogs. (Why don't we bury it, to publicize that the mother is exempt from Bechorah, like here?)

äúí à"ö ôøñåí ãäëì éåãòéí ùéù åìã áùìéà.

(b)

Answer: There, we do not need publicity. All know that there is a fetus in a Shilya.

8)

TOSFOS DH Mishum Bitul b'Rov Nag'u Bah

úåñôåú ã"ä îùåí áèåì áøåá ðâòå áä

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

åà"ú ãááëåøåú ôø÷ äìå÷ç áäîä (ëâ.) âáé ðáìä áèìä áùçåèä å÷àîø àéï îèîàä áîâò àáì îèîàä áîùà ãèåîàä ëîàï ãàéúà ãîéà

(a)

Question: In Bechoros (23a), regarding a Neveilah that is Batel in slaughtered animals, it says that it is not Metamei through touching, but it has Tum'as Masa (for one who moves it). It is as if the Tum'ah is there;

åôøéê îçøøú ãí ãàéðä îèîàä ìà áîâò åìà áîùà îùåí áèåì áøåá àìîà ãëîàï ãìéúéä ãîéà

1.

The Gemara asks from a cake of blood, which is not Metamei through touching or Masa, due to Bitul b'Rov. This shows that it is as if the Tum'ah is not there!

åîùðé îùåí ãä"ì èåîàä ñøåçä åôøéê äðéçà ìáø ôãà ããøéù òã ìâø àìà ìø' éåçðï (äâää áâìéåï) ããøéù òã ìëìá ÷ùéà

2.

The Gemara answers that it is a rotten Tum'ah. We ask that this is fine according to Bar Pada, who expounds "Ad l'Ger" (a Neveilah is Metamei as long as a Ger Toshav, i.e. a Nochri who observes his seven Mitzvos, would eat it). However, according to R. Yochanan, who expounds "Ad l'Kelev" (as long as a dog would eat it), this is difficult!

åàîàé ìà î÷ùä îäê ãùôéø ãàéðå îèîà áàäì îùåí áèåì áøåá àìîà ëîàï ãìéúéä ãîé

3.

Summation of question: Why don't we ask from [our Mishnah; Chachamim are Metamei because the Shilya contained] a Shefir? [R. Shimon holds that] it is not Metamei b'Ohel, due to Bitul b'Rov. This shows that it is as if the Tum'ah is not there!

åäùúà ìà îöé ìùðåéé îùåí ãäåé èåîàä ñøåçä ãàôéìå îú ñøåç îèîà

i.

We would not be able to answer that it is a rotten Tum'ah, for even a rotten Mes is Metamei!

åé"ì îùåí ãàéëà ìîãçé ãèòîà îùåí áéìáåì öåøä ëãø"ì åìà îùåí áèåì áøåá

(b)

Answer #1: The reason is due to disorder of the form, like Reish Lakish taught, and not due to Bitul b'Rov.

àé ðîé ëéåï ãèòîà ãùôéø îùåí îú ùìí àò"â ãèåîàä ëîàï ãàéúéä ãîé àéï ìäçùéáå ùìí ëéåï ùðúáèì áøåá ìâîøé.

(c)

Answer #2: Since the reason for a Shefir is due to a full Mes (like Tosfos said above, 27a DH Mai), even though it is as if the Tum'ah is there, we cannot consider it whole, since it was totally Batel in the majority.

9)

TOSFOS DH Mes she'Nisbalbelah Tzuraso Minalan d'Tahor

úåñôåú ã"ä îú ùðúáìáìä öåøúå îðìï ãèäåø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos gives two ways to explain R. Yochanan's question.)

å÷ùä îàé ôøéê ìéä ø' éåçðï äàîø áñîåê ãø' éåçðï ëø"à åà"ë ø"ì ðéçà èôé ã÷àé ëøáðï ã÷úðé áîñëú àäìåú åçëîéí îèäøéí

(a)

Question: What was R. Yochanan's question? It says below (28a) that R. Yochanan holds like R. Eliezer. It is better for Reish Lakish. He holds like Rabanan, for it says in Maseches Ohalos that Chachamim are Metaher!

åé"ì ãø"é åø"ì àìéáà ãøáðï ôìéâé ãø"ì ñáø ãìøáðï ãîèäøé áøåáò ä"ð ãîèäøé àôéìå áùìí áùàéï ùìãå ÷ééîú åðúáìáì öåøúå

(b)

Answer #1: R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue according to Rabanan. Reish Lakish holds that Rabanan are Metaher a Rova (quarter Kav of human ashes), and likewise they are Metaher even a whole [Mes] if the Sheled (spine and ribs; Rambam - skeleton) is not intact and the form was disordered;

àáì ùìãå ÷ééîú èîàä îãøáé éöç÷ ãàúéà ëøáðï

1.

However, if the Sheled is intact it is Tamei due to R. Yitzchak's teaching, which is like Rabanan;

ãàé ëø"à àôé' àéï ùìãå ÷ééîú èîà ãäà îèîà ø"à áøåáò ùì àôø

i.

It is not like R. Eliezer, for he holds that even if the Sheled is not intact it is Tamei, for R. Eliezer is Metamei a Rova of ashes!

åà"ì ìø' éåçðï îðìï äà ãøáðï îèäøå îùåí áìáåì öåøä ãìîà èòîà ãøáðï ãëùðùøó àéï òåã ùí îú òìéå àôéìå ëåìå ùìí åùìãå ÷ééîú

2.

R. Yochanan asked [Reish Lakish] what is his source that Rabanan are Metaher due to disorder of the form? Perhaps Rabanan's reason is because when it is burned, it is no longer called a Mes, even if it is whole and the Sheled is still there!

àáì ùôéø ùí îú òìéå åèîà àé ìàå îùåí ãáèì áøåá

i.

However, a Shefir is called a Mes and it is Metamei, if not due to Bitul b'Rov.

åîéìúà ãøáé éöç÷ ìà àúéà ëøáðï àìà ëø"à ãîèîà îú ùøåó åçñø

3.

R. Yitzchak's teaching is not like Rabanan, rather, like R. Eliezer, who is Metamei a burned, incomplete Mes.

åùìãå ÷ééîú ð÷è

i.

Implied question: Why does it mention that the Sheled is intact?

ìèäø ôúçéí ÷èðéí

ii.

Answer: This is [needed to] be Metaher small openings.

à"ð ÷ñáø ø' éåçðï ãøáðï ìà îèäøé àìà áøåáò ãçñø àáì àí äòôø ùìí àôé' àéï ùìãå ÷ééîú èîà

(c)

Answer #2: R. Yochanan holds that Rabanan are Metaher only a Rova that is deficient. If the ashes are intact, even if the Sheled is not intact, it is Tamei.

åäùúà àúé ùôéø ùà"ö ìçì÷ áéï ùôéø åùìéà ìîú ùðùøó åàéï ùìãå ÷ééîú ãùðéäí ùåéï ìø"ì åìø' éåçðï

(d)

Support: Now we need not distinguish between a Shefir or Shilya and a burned Mes in which the Sheled is not intact. Both are the same, according to Reish Lakish and R. Yochanan.

åáéøåùìîé àéëà ùôéø ùðúáìáì öåøúå îäå ø' éåçðï àîø èîà ø"ì àîø èäåø

(e)

Citation (Yerushalmi): If the form of a Shefir was disordered, what is the law? R. Yochanan says that it is Tamei, and Reish Lakish says that it is Tahor.

àéúéáéä ø"ì ìø' éåçðï îøáé éöç÷ îâãìàä åîùðé ãáø úåøä àôéìå ùìãå ÷ééîú èäåøä îôðé îä àîøå èîà îôðé ëáåãå

1.

Reish Lakish challenged R. Yochanan from R. Yitzchak Magdela'ah, and [R. Yochanan] answered that mid'Oraisa, even if the Sheled is intact, it is Tahor. Why did they say that it is Tamei? [It was] due to his honor.

ôéøåù îôðé ëáåãå ùì îú äåà ãìà áèì

2.

Explanation: [It was] due to the honor of the Mes, that it not be [considered] Batel.

åæäå ëôéøåù øàùåï ãàó áùìãå ÷ééîú èäåø ãáø úåøä

(f)

Observation: This is like Answer #1, that even when the Sheled is intact, it is Tahor mid'Oraisa;

åçåì÷ òì äâîøà ùìðå ãîå÷é ìä ëø"à îéìúà ãøáé éöç÷ åäúí îå÷é ìä ëøáðï.

1.

[However,] it argues with the Bavli, which establishes R. Yitzchak's teaching like R. Eliezer. There (the Yerushalmi) establishes it like Rabanan.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF