1)

TOSFOS DH veha'Nasa Kesiv

úåñôåú ã"ä åäðùà ëúéá

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that this is unlike our Seforim.)

çñø åé"å,

(a)

Explanation: It is lacking a Vov.

úéîä ãáîñåøú äåà îìà

(b)

Question: Our tradition is that it is written full (with a Vov)!

îéäå îöéðå ùäîñåøú äåà çåì÷ òì äù"ñ áîñëú ùáú (ãó ðä:) âáé áðé òìé îòáéøí ëúéá åáî÷øàåú ùìðå ëúéá îòáéøéí îìà.

(c)

Answer: We find that our tradition argues with the Gemara, in Shabbos (55b) regarding Bnei Eli, it says it is written Ma'aviram, and in our Nevi'im it is written Ma'avirim, full (with a Yud).

2)

TOSFOS DH Mah Hi Metam'ah Adam v'Kli Cheres

úåñôåú ã"ä îä äéà îèîàä àãí åëìé çøñ

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why it mentions people and Klei Cheres.)

îùåí ãáäùåúôéï (á"á è:) âáé ðåùà ðáìä (äâäú äøù"ù) àò"â ãîèîà ùàø áâãéí ùòìéå àéðå îèîà àãí åëìé çøñ ìëê ð÷èéðäå äëà.

(a)

Explanation: Because in Bava Basra (9b), regarding one who carries a Neveilah, even though he is Metamei other garments on him, he is not Metamei people or Klei Cheres, therefore it mentions [people and Klei Cheres] here.

3)

TOSFOS DH Klal u'Frat ha'Meruchakin Zeh mi'Zeh

úåñôåú ã"ä ëìì åôøè äîøåç÷éï æä îæä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos expound a Klal u'Ferat distanced from each other in Bava Kama.)

îôåøù áô' äçåáì (á"÷ ôä.)

(a)

Reference: This is explained in Bava Kama (85a. There (DH Klal), Tosfos explained that Tana'im argue about whether or not we expound them only when they refer to one matter, but if they discuss different matters, all agree that we do not expound them.)

4)

TOSFOS DH Tanya Amar R. Meir v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä úðéà à"ø îàéø åëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that no Tana holds like the Kusim.)

ìøáé éåçðï ãàîø áô' ëì äéã (ìòéì éè:) éøã ø"î ìùéèú ò÷áéà áï îäììàì åèéîà ãí éøå÷ éôøù ãí éøå÷ ãäëà ìàå éøå÷ îîù ëé ääéà ãìòéì àìà ãéää îîðå

(a)

Assertion: R. Yochanan, who said above (19b) that R. Meir holds like Akavya ben Mehalalel, and is Metamei Yarok (yellow) blood, explains that "yellow" blood here is not truly yellow, like above. Rather, it is lighter;

åëï ìò÷áéà îèîàä ëåúéú ãí éøå÷ ãéää îãí éøå÷ ùäåà èîà åìòéì ôé' áò"à.

1.

Similarly, Akavya holds that a Kusis is Metamei yellow blood, that is lighter than the yellow blood that he is Metamei. Above, I explained differently (19b DH Yarad. R. Meir is Metamei mid'Rabanan. Alternatively, yellow is not precise. Rather, a color that is Tahor, they consider it Tamei. Alternatively, R. Meir's primary reason is that the day she finishes seeing, she counts it towards seven clean days.)

5)

TOSFOS DH Sofarto l'Minyan Zayin

úåñôåú ã"ä ñåôøúå ìîðéï æ'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that R. Yosi does not hold like the Kusim.)

åà"ú äà ãàîø ø' éåñé (äâäú îäø"á øðùáåøâ) áëéöã öåìéï [åáîñ' ðæéø] (ãó èå:) î÷öú äéåí ëëåìå

(a)

Question: It says in Pesachim (81a, and Nazir 15b) that Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo (part of the day counts like the whole day);

åæáä âãåìä àîø äúí ãîùëçú àìéáéä áøåàä áéï äùîùåú

1.

It says there that this opinion finds a Zavah Gedolah (she saw three consecutive days, without even a partial clean day interrupting) when she saw [two consecutive days] Bein ha'Shemashos;

åëé ëëåúéí ñåáø ãäëé ôøéê ì÷îï (ãó ñè.) ìøá ãàîø éåí ùôåñ÷ú áå òåìä ìîðéï ùáòä åøá ëëåúàé àîøä ìùîòúéä

2.

Does he hold like the Kusim?! The Gemara asks like this below (69a) according to Rav, who holds that the day she ceases to see counts towards seven clean days, "does Rav teach like the Kusim?!"

åé"ì ãø' éåñé ìéú ìéä î÷öú äéåí ëëåìå àìà áñåó ñôéøä ëîå ùåîøú éåí

(b)

Answer: R. Yosi holds that Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo only at the end of her count, just like a Shomeres Yom [k'Neged Yom];

àáì áúçìä ëîå ùàåîøéí ëåúéí îåãä ãìà àîøéðï

1.

However, at the beginning, like the Kusim say [that even then, Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo], he agrees that we do not say so.

åîä ù÷ùä îô"÷ ãø"ä (ãó é.) ðôøù áñåó îëéìúéï áò"ä.

(c)

Reference: What is difficult from Rosh Hashanah (10a) we will explain below (72a DH ha'Ro'eh. Rava made a Kal v'Chomer from Nidah. A Zavah disproves it, according to R. Yosi! Tosfos answers that Rava spoke according to Rabanan, and unlike R. Yosi. Alternatively, Zavah is different, for she needs clean days.)

6)

TOSFOS DH d'Ihu Dachik v'Muki a'Nafshei

úåñôåú ã"ä ãàéäå ãçé÷ åîå÷é àðôùéä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that really, he does not hold like this.)

àéï äàîú ëï îãôøéê áô' áúøà (ì÷îï ãó ñè.) åøá ëëåúàé àîøä ìùîòúéä.

(a)

Observation: This is not true, since we ask below (69a) "does Rav teach like the Kusim?!" (Aruch l'Ner - Rami bar Chama merely asked why we cannot say like the Kusim, but surely he does not hold like them.)

7)

TOSFOS DH Ro'eh Havya v'Sasrah

úåñôåú ã"ä øåàä äåéà åñúøä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that Rava retracted.)

àåø"é ãîùëçú áùîùä áäéúø ùúñúåø ò"é ôìéèä àçø øàééú â' éîéí øöåôéï

(a)

Implied question: Is it possible that the Bi'ah was permitted, and she is Soser (cancels her count of clean days) through emitting after [becoming a Zavah through] seeing [blood] three consecutive days? (After three days, semen putrefies and it is no longer considered semen!)

ã÷é"ì ëøáðï áô' ø' ò÷éáà (ùáú ôå:) ãáòéðï ùù òåðåú ùìîåú

(b)

Answer #1 (Ri): Yes, for we hold like R. Akiva, who requires six full Onos [for semen to putrefy. An Onah is day-time or night. If she had Bi'ah Shabbos morning, and saw blood in the afternoon on Shabbos, Sunday and Monday, the last sighting makes her a Zavah, if it is in the days of Zivah. Monday night began the seven clean days, and if she emits later that night, she is Soser this day that she began in cleanliness.)

à"ð àçø øàééä àçú åàçø úé÷åï øáé æéøà ãñåôøú ùáòä ð÷ééí òì èéôú ãí ëçøãì

(c)

Answer #2: [She emitted] after seeing once, after R. Zeira enacted that women count seven clean days for even one drop of blood the size of a mustard seed. (E.g. she had Bi'ah Shabbos night, and saw Shabbos morning. She started counting on Motza'ei Shabbos, and emitted on Sunday or Monday.)

ãîñúîà öøéê ðîé ð÷ééí îæøò ãëòéï ãàåøééúà ú÷åï

1.

Presumably, the days must be clean even from semen, for he enacted like Torah law.

åîëàï àùä ùùîùä åøàúä îéã àéï ìä ìäúçéì ìñôåø ð÷ééí òã àçø éåí ã' ãáòéðï å' òåðåú ùìîåú åëï ôñ÷ ø"ç

(d)

Pesak: If a woman had Bi'ah and saw [blood] immediately, she may not begin to count clean days until the fourth day, for we require six full Onos. Also R. Chananel ruled like this.

åàôéìå øáà ãôìéâ äëà àøîé áø çîà ðøàä ãçæø áå îãìà (îëàï îòîåã á) äùéáå

(e)

Support: It seems that even Rava, who argued here with Rami bar Chama, retracted, since he did not answer him.

33b----------------------------------------33b

åëåìäå àîåøàé ñáøé ôø÷ éåöà ãåôï (ì÷îï ãó îá.) ãøåàä äåéà åñúøä àó ìø"ù åë"ù ìøáðï

1.

All the Amora'im hold below (42a) that she is Ro'eh and is Soser, even according to R. Shimon, and all the more so according to Rabanan.

åäà ã÷àîø øáà ì÷îï (ãó ìæ.) åàçø úèäø ùìà úäà èåîàä îôñ÷ú áéðéäí àáéé àåîø ùìà úäà æéáä îôñ÷ú áéðéäí

(f)

Implied question: Below (37a), Rava said "v'Achar Tithar" - Tum'ah may not interrupt between them, and Abaye said that Zivah may not interrupt between them! (Rava still argues. He did not retract!)

îùí àéï ìäåëéç ãøáà ìà çæø áå ãäúí àééøé áèåîàú ìéãä ùèîàä æ' åòåùä îùëá åîåùá ëîå ðãä åìëê ÷àîø ùìà úäà îôñ÷ú

(g)

Answer: That does not prove that Rava did not retract. There they discuss Tum'as Leidah. She is Teme'ah for seven days and is Metamei Mishkav u'Moshav, like a Nidah. Therefore, he says that [Tum'as Leidah] may not interrupt;

àáì ÷øé ãìà ñåúø àìà éåí à' ìà îôñé÷.

1.

However, Keri, which is Soser only one day, does not interrupt.

8)

TOSFOS DH l'Taharaso Amar Rachmana

úåñôåú ã"ä ìèäøúå àîø øçîðà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why Rava disagrees.)

åøáà ñáø ãìà îùîò îìèäøúå ùìà úäà èåîàä îôñ÷ú.

(a)

Explanation: Rava holds that l'Taharaso does not connote that Tum'ah may not interrupt.

9)

TOSFOS DH u'Rminhu Al Vov Sefekos Sorfin Es ha'Terumah

úåñôåú ã"ä åøîéðäå òì å' ñô÷åú ùåøôéï àú äúøåîä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses for which Sefekos we burn Terumah.)

îùåí ãëåúé ãîúðé' ò"ä äåà ÷ôøéê îãîñô÷é' ìéä ááåòì ðãä åäà ÷úðé ãòì ñô÷ áâãé òí äàøõ ùåøôéï

(a)

Explanation: We ask because the Kusi of our Mishnah is an Am ha'Aretz, since we consider him to be a Safek Bo'el Nidah. It was taught that we burn Terumah due to garments of an Am ha'Aretz!

àáì ôùéèà ãàéëà ñô÷é èåáà ùàéï ùåøôéï òìéäí àú äúøåîä ëâåï èåîèåí áìåáï àå áàåãí åëéåöà áå

1.

Obviously, there are many Sefekos for which we do not burn Terumah, e.g. a Tumtum who saw white or red (Keri or blood) and similar cases.

åáîñ÷ðà ãàîø ñô÷ áåòì áøçå÷ ñô÷ áåòì á÷øåá åàôéìå áåòì á÷øåá ùîà ìà äùìéîúå ìãí éøå÷

(b)

Implied question: In the conclusion, he says that [the Kusi immersed now, and] it is a Safek if his last Bi'ah was a long time (more than a week) ago, and even if he was Bo'el recently, perhaps [the last time his wife truly became Nidah was] not within a week of yellow blood [so her Tevilah was valid, and she was Tehorah. I.e. we needed to show that it is a Sefek-Sefeka to explain why we do not burn Terumah!]

ìà äéä öøéê ìòùåú ñô÷ ñôé÷à ëãôéøùðå

(c)

Answer #1: There was no need to show that it is a Sefek-Sefeka, like we explained. (Sometimes we do not burn Terumah even due to a single Safek.)

àå ùîà ðøàä ìäçîéø áæä ëîå áñô÷ áâãé ò"ä ìëê îùëç áéä ñô÷ ñôé÷à

(d)

Answer #2: Perhaps it seemed proper to be stringent about this, like regarding Bigdei Am ha'Aretz. Therefore, we found a Sefek-Sefeka [to explain why we are lenient].

åîëàï ÷ùä òì îä ùôéøù"é áô"÷ ãùáú (ãó èå:) òì äê (áøééúà) ãòì å' ñô÷åú ëå' òì ñô÷ îé øâìé àãí ùëðâã îé øâìé áäîä

(e)

Question: Rashi explained in Shabbos (15b) regarding the Beraisa "for six Sefekos [we burn Terumah]... for a Safek of human urine next to an animal's urine;

åôéøù ãäùúà éù ìäñúô÷ ùîà ùì áäîä äï åàôéìå ùì àãí äï ùîà ùì çáø äï

1.

He explained that there is a Safek whether it is animal urine, and even if it is human urine, perhaps it is from a Chaver [who was Tahor].

åäëà îùîò ãòì ñô÷ ñôé÷à àéï ùåøôéï

2.

Our Gemara connotes that we do not burn due to a Sefek-Sefeka!

åîéäå àéï ìäùååú âæéøú çëîéí ãôòîéí ðøàä ìäí ìäçîéø àôéìå áñô÷ ñôé÷à

(f)

Answer: We do not equate decrees of Chachamim. Sometimes they saw reason to be stringent even about a Sefek-Sefeka.

åø"ú ôé' äúí ãëéåï ãäí ëðâã îé øâìé áäîä åãàé ãòåáã ëåëáéí äí ãéùøàì äéä ðôðä ìöããéï ëãàîø áñðäãøéï (ãó ÷ã:) (äâää áâìéåï)

(g)

Alternative explanation: R. Tam explained there that the [human] urine next to animal urine is surely of a Nochri. A Yisrael goes to the side [to urinate], like it says in Sanhedrin (104b).

å÷ùä ãàôéìå åãàé äí ãéùøàì ùåøôéï îùåí ãùîà ãò"ä äï ëãùøôéðï òì ñô÷ äøå÷éï äðîöàéí áääéà (áøééúà)

(h)

Question #1: Even if it is Vadai of a Yisrael, we burn, for perhaps it is of an Am ha'Aretz, like we burn for Safek spit that is found, in that Beraisa!

åòåã ãàèåîàä ãòåáã ëåëáéí ìà ùøôéðï úøåîä ëãàîø ì÷îï (ãó ìã.) òáãå øáðï äéëøà ãìà ìéùøåó òìéä úøåîä å÷ãùéí

(i)

Question #2: Also, we do not burn Terumah due to Tum'as Nochri, like it says below (34a), that Rabanan made an indication (they were Metaher a Nochris' blood), lest people burn Terumah and Kodshim due to it (Tum'as Nochrim).

åðøàä ìôøù ãìäëé ð÷è ëðâã îé øâìé áäîä ãàæ ðéëø ùàéðä ùì áäîä ùàéðï ãåîéï ìàåúï ùëðâãï åìéëà àìà ñôé÷à àçú

(j)

Answer: It mentioned that it is next to animal urine, for then it is evident that it is not of an animal, for it does not resemble [the urine] next to it, so there is only one Safek.

àáì àí äéä ìäñúô÷ áùì áäîä ìà äåé ùøôé ãäåé ìéä ñô÷ ñôé÷à úìîåã ááìé îñëú ùáú ãó ñæ òîåã à

1.

However, if we were unsure whether it was of an animal, we would not burn [Terumah], for it is a Sefek-Sefeka.

10)

TOSFOS DH she'Daras Al Bigdei Chaver

úåñôåú ã"ä ùãøñ òì áâãé çáø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that the garments later touched Terumah.)

åäí ðâòå áúøåîä

(a)

Explanation: [After this] they (the Chaver's garments) touched Terumah.

åäà ãìà àå÷é ëâåï ùðâò äëåúé áúøåîä

(b)

Implied question: Why don't we establish it when the Kusi touched Terumah?

îùåí ãîúðéúéï ìà àééøé áäëé.

(c)

Answer: It is because our Mishnah does not discuss this.

11)

TOSFOS DH b'Kusi Arum

úåñôåú ã"ä áëåúé òøåí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we established it like this.)

åäà ãìà àå÷é ëâåï ùãøñ áøâìå éçó

(a)

Implied question: Why didn't we establish it when he trampled on it barefoot?

îùåí ãàé äéä ìáåù áâãéí ùéùáä òìéäï àùúå ðãä àò"â ãèáì äåé àá äèåîàä ëãàîø áú"ë åäðåùà àú äîãøñ äøé äåà îèîà ùðéí åôåñì àçã

(b)

Answer: If he was wearing garments that his wife sat on when she was Nidah, even if he immersed, he is an Av ha'Tum'ah, like it says in Toras Kohanim, that one who carries a Midras is Metamei two [foods] and disqualifies one;

ìëê îå÷é áòøåí ãëùôéøù îï äîãøñ ìà äéä àìà øàùåï ëãàîøéðï áú"ë åàéðå îèîà ëìé

1.

Therefore we establish it when he was naked. When he separated from the Midras (his garments), he was only a Rishon, like it says in Toras Kohanim, and he is not Metamei a Kli.

åäåä îöé ìîéîø ëùäèáéì âí äáâãéí àå ùìáù áâãé çáø.

(c)

Observation: We could have said that [the case is that] he immersed also his garments, or he wore a Chaver's garments at the time.

12)

TOSFOS DH Bo'el Nidah Meshavis Lei (pertains above, before DH she'Daras)

úåñôåú ã"ä áåòì ðãä îùåéú ìéä (ùééê ìòéì ÷åãí ã"ä ùãøñ)

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains Rav Papa's opinion.)

åàéäå ñáø ùäåà çáø ìîéìé ãòìîà åáæàú ñáø ìòùåú áèåá

(a)

Explanation: He held that he is a Chaver for other matters. In this (he considers yellow blood to be Dam Nidah) he intended to do properly.

åëï àáéé ãñîåê.

(b)

Support: Also Abaye below [held like this].

13)

TOSFOS DH v'Teipuk Lei Mishum Tzinora d'Am ha'Aretz

úåñôåú ã"ä åúéôå÷ ìéä îùåí öéðåøà ãò"ä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos holds that Rabanan made an Am ha'Aretz like a Zav regarding his spit.)

ãå÷à ìòðéï öéðåøà òùàåäå ëæá ùàôùø ìéæäø åéëåìéï ìòîåã áä

(a)

Opinion #1: Only regarding spit they made him (an Am ha'Aretz) like a Zav, for it is possible to be careful and fulfill this;

àáì çåîøà éúéøà ëâåï îùëá åîåùá åäéñè ìà òùàåäå ëæá ãáùéìäé äðéæ÷éï (âéèéï ñà:) ôøéê åìéçåù ùîà úñéèí àùúå ðãä

1.

However, an excessive stringency, such as Mishkav, Moshav and Heset, they did not make him like a Zav, for in Gitin (61b) it asks "we should be concerned lest Ishto Nidah moved them;

àáì ìäéñè ãðôùéä ìà àéëôú ìï

2.

Inference: We are not concerned lest he himself moved them.

åùîòúéï ðîé îåëç ãàéï ìå èåîàú îãøñ

(b)

Support: Also our Sugya proves that he does not have Tum'as Midras;

ãàé àéú ìéä ìòéì ãôøéê òì å' ñôé÷åú ëå' ìîàé ãçùéá ëåúé ëò"ä äåä ìéä ìà÷ùåéé îúðé' âåôä

1.

If he had, above, when we asked about the six Sefekos, since we considered a Kusi to be an Am ha'Aretz, we should have asked from the Mishnah itself!

àîàé ÷úðé îèîà îùëá äúçúåï ëòìéåï äà úçúåðå ùì ò"ä äåé ëúçúåðå ùì æá àìà åãàé àéï ìå èåîàú îãøñ

i.

Why does it teach that [a Kusi] is Metamei a Mishkav below him like Elyon [of a Zav]? It should be like Tachtono (a Mishkav below a Zav)! Rather, surely he does not have Tum'as Midras.

åäà ãîùðé áëåúé ùèáì åòìä åãøñ ëå' ãàé îùåí èåîàú ò"ä äà èáéì ìéä

(c)

Implied question: Why does it answer that the Kusi immersed, emerged [from the water] and stepped..., so that Tum'as Am ha'Aretz does not apply, for he immersed from it? (If he has no Tum'as Midras, there was no need to say that he immersed!)

äééðå îùåí ãàé (îëàï îãó äáà) ìà èáéì äéä èîà îèòí îâòå ãäà îå÷é ìéä áëåúé òøåí

(d)

Answer: If he did not immerse, he is Metamei through touching, for we establish the case to be that he is naked. (His foot touched the Chaver's garment.)

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF