1)

TOSFOS DH Mistabra d'Noge'a Havya

úåñôåú ã"ä îñúáøà ãðåâò äåéà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we do not learn from Sinai.)

åîñéðé ìà âîøéðï ãçãåù äåà

(a)

Explanation: We do not learn from Sinai, for it was a Chidush.

åìäëé ìøáðï ðîé àéöèøéê éäéä ãìà âîøéðï îñéðé àò"â ãáñîåê áòé ìîéîø ãàó ìø"ù øåàä äåéà åñúøä.

(b)

Support: This is why Rabanan need Yihyeh. They do not learn from Sinai, even though below we want to say that even according to R. Shimon, she is Ro'ah, and she is Soser.

2)

TOSFOS DH mid'Achmir Rachmana a'Ba'alei Keryin b'Sinai

úåñôåú ã"ä îãàçîéø øçîðà àáòìé ÷øééï áñéðé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains we learn only about women.)

îàéù ìà îåëç ãôùéèà ãøåàä äåé

(a)

Explanation: We did not learn from a man, for it is obvious that he is Ro'eh;

àìà îàùä ãîùåí ôåìèú äæäéø øçîðà â' éîéí àì úâùå àì àùä.

1.

Rather, we learn from a woman. Because she emits [semen], the Torah warned to refrain from [Bi'ah with] a woman for three days.

3)

TOSFOS DH d'Ha Zavin u'Metzora'im d'Chamiri

úåñôåú ã"ä ãäà æáéï åîöåøòéí ãçîéøé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that their stringencies had not yet been given.)

àó ò"â ãàëúé ìà ðàîøä ôøùú èåîàä åùéìåç èîàéí

(a)

Implied question: [At the time of Matan Torah,] Parshas Tum'ah and expelling Teme'im [from the Machanos] was not yet said!

î"î øàåé ìäçîéø áäï éåúø îáôåìèú.

(b)

Answer: In any case it is proper to be stringent about them more than Poletes.

4)

TOSFOS DH Ad Kan Lo ka'Amar R. Shimon v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä òã ëàï ìà ÷àîø ø' ùîòåï ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that R. Shimon holds that there is a Shi'ur.)

àáì ìèîà áîùäå øåàä äåéà

(a)

Explanation: However, regarding that any amount is Metamei, she is Ro'eh.

åà"ú åäà àîø áôñçéí ôø÷ àìå ãáøéí (ãó ñæ:) ãø' ùîòåï ñáø ëø' ðúï ãæá áòé ùéòåø ëçúéîú ôé äàîä åéìéó áòì ÷øé îæá

(b)

Question: It says in Pesachim (67b) that R. Shimon holds like R. Noson, that a Zav requires the Shi'ur Chasimas Pi ha'Amah, and he learns a Ba'al Keri from a Zav;

åà"ë àîàé îèîà áîùäå ðéîà ãéä ëáåòìä

1.

If so, why is any amount Metamei? We should say that it suffices to be like the man with whom she had Bi'ah!

åé"ì ãøáé ùîòåï åãàé ìà îèîà áîùäå

(c)

Answer: Surely, R. Shimon is not Metamei b'Mashehu;

åäëà ä"÷ àôé' ìîàï ãàéú ìéä ëø' ùîòåï ãôåìèú ìà (äâäú äøù"ù) îèîàä áôðéí ëáçåõ î"î îèîàä áîùäå àé ñáø ãàéù îèîà áîùäå.

1.

Here we say that even according to the opinion that one who emits does not become Teme'ah internally like externally, in any case Mashehu is Metamei, if he holds that a man is Metamei b'Mashehu.

5)

TOSFOS DH b'Yeridah Teme'ah

úåñôåú ã"ä áéøéãä èîàä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that she is Teme'ah due to touching the blood.)

äãí èîà ãáéåîé åèáéìä úìéà øçîðà åèîàä äàùä îùåí ðåâò èåîàú òøá.

(a)

Explanation: The blood is Tamei, for the Torah said that [Dam Tohar] depends on days and Tevilah (and it was uprooted before she immersed). She is Teme'ah Tum'as Erev due to touching it.

6)

TOSFOS DH Amai Tum'ah Belu'ah Hi

úåñôåú ã"ä àîàé èåîàä áìåòä äéà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains according to Abaye and Rava.)

ìàáéé ãàîø áñîåê àåúå î÷åí ùì àùä áìåò äåé ðéçà ã÷øé ìéä èåîàä áìåòä

(a)

Observation: According to Abaye, who says below that this place in a woman is Belu'ah (enveloped), it is fine that he calls it Tum'ah Belu'ah;

åìøáà ðîé ãàîø áéú äñúøéí äåé é"ì ãîééøé áùðò÷ø äãí îï äî÷åø åìà éöà ìáéú äçéöåï

1.

Also according to Rava, who says that it is Beis ha'Setarim, we can say that we discuss when blood was uprooted from the Makor, and did not go out to Beis ha'Chitzon.

åäà ãîñé÷ ùéöà ìçåõ

(b)

Implied question: We conclude that it must go outside!

ìøáà ìà öøéê ùéöà ìçåõ ìâîøé àìà ùéöà ìáéú äçéöåï ãäåé áéú äñúøéí åèîà áîùà

(c)

Answer: According to Rava, it need not go outside totally. Rather, it must go to Beis ha'Chitzon, which is Beis ha'Setarim, and it is Metamei [her] through carrying [the blood].

åîéäå òùàåä ëðáìú òåó èäåø îùîò ãñáø ëàáéé ãìøáà àîø ì÷îï ãî÷åí ðáìú òåó èäåø áéú äñúøéí äåé.

1.

However, "they made it like Neveilah of a Tahor bird" connotes that he holds like Abaye, for Rava said below that the place of Nivlas Ohf Tahor (i.e. Beis ha'Bli'ah, where one swallows) is Beis ha'Setarim. (This would not answer why we are Metamei what is Belu'ah in a woman!)

7)

TOSFOS DH Asa'uha k'Nivlas Ohf Tahor

úåñôåú ã"ä òùàåä ëðáìú òåó èäåø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains R. Avin's answer.)

àò"â ãáòìîà ìà äçîéøå áèåîàä áìåòä

(a)

Implied question: Normally, Chachamim were not stringent about Tum'ah Belu'ah!

äëà âæøå øáðï èôé ëãé ùìà éáà ìèòåú åìèäøå òì éãé èáéìä àôéìå ëùéöà ìçåõ

(b)

Answer: Here they decreed more, lest people come to err and be Metaher her through Tevilah even when the blood goes outside;

åëé îùðé äëà ðîé ëùéöà ìçåõ ñáø ãìà âæøå.

1.

When he answers "also here, when it wet outside", he holds that they did not decree.

42b----------------------------------------42b

8)

TOSFOS DH she'Hotzi Vlad Rosho Chutz la'Prozdor

úåñôåú ã"ä ùäåöéà åìã øàùå çåõ ìôøåæãåø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with a Gemara that connotes that the Prozdor is considered outside.)

àáì áôøåæãåø òöîå èäåøä ãìà çùåá ëáçåõ

(a)

Explanation: However, while it is in the Prozdor itself she is Tahor, for it is not considered outside.

åàí úàîø åäà àîø ìòéì áô"÷ (ãó éæ:) ãí äðîöà áôøåæãåø ñô÷å èîà

(b)

Question: It says above (17b) that if blood is found in the Prozdor, it is a Safek and we are Metamei!

åéù ìåîø äúí ñô÷å èîà ëùéöà ìçåõ

(c)

Answer #1: There, we are Metamei the Safek when it went outside.

åòåã éù ìçì÷ áéï (ãí) ìéãä ìãí ðãä

(d)

Answer #2: We can distinguish between birth and Dam Nidah. (It is considered outside only regarding Dam Nidah.)

åà"ú ãáøéù áäîä äî÷ùä (çåìéï ãó ñç.) åáôø÷ éù áëåø (áëåøåú ãó îå:) òáéã öøéëåúà äà ãúðéà ãøàùå ëéìåã áàãí åááäîä

(e)

Question: In Chulin (68a) and Bechoros (46b), we make a Tzerichusa (show why both are needed) for the Beraisos that say that [emergence of] the head is like birth regarding people, and regarding animals;

ãàé úðà áäîä îùåí ãìéú ìä ôøåæãåø àáì àùä ãàéú ìä ôøåæãåø àéîà ìà

1.

Citation (68a): Had it taught only regarding animals, we would have said that this is because they have no Prozdor.

åîàé ðô÷à îéðä áîàé ãàéú ìä ôøåæãåø ëéåï ãáòéðï ùéåöéà åìã øàùå çåõ ìôøåæãåø ëãîùîò äëà

i.

What difference does it make because they have no Prozdor? We require that the head leave the Prozdor, like it says here!

åéù ìåîø ãôøåæãåø ãäúí ìà äåé ëé äàé ãäëà ãäúí ÷øé ôøåæãåø ìòåáé äéøëéí ùîúëñä áäï øàùå ùì åìã

(f)

Answer: There, "Prozdor" is not like here. There, "Prozdor" refers to the thickness of the thighs, which cover the baby's head;

åä"à ãìà çùéá ëéìåã åëï ôéøù ùí á÷åðèøñ.

1.

One might have thought that it is not considered born. Also Rashi explained so there.

9)

TOSFOS DH uchid'Rav Oshaya v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä åëãøá àåùòéà ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why he is not Metamei until the head leaves.)

ãéöà øàùå çåõ ìôøåæãåø äåé ëéìåã åîìúéä

(a)

Explanation: [He taught that] when the head left the Prozdor, he is considered born.

ãøá àåùòéà àéúîø àäà ãôøéê ááäîä äî÷ùä (çåìéï òá. åùí) âáé àùä ùîú òåáøä áúåê îòéä åðâòä çéä áòåáø èîàä

1.

Rav Oshaya taught his teaching regarding the question in Chulin (72a) about a woman whose fetus died inside her womb. If a midwife touched the fetus, she is Teme'ah.

åàîàé èîàä äà èåîàä áìåòä äéà åîùðé øá àåùòéà ëå'

2.

Citation (72a): What is the reason? It is Tum'ah Belu'ah! Rav Oshaya answered [that once the head left the Prozdor, he is considered born].

úéîä àîàé ð÷è øàùå ìîùåí ãäåé ëéìåã ëãîùîò äëà àôéìå äåöéà éãå ðîé èîàä äçéä ùðâòä áå àå äñéèúå ãäà úå ìàå èåîàä áìåòä äéà

(b)

Question: Why does it mention his head? If it is because [once it leaves] he is considered born, like it connotes here, even if he stuck out his hand, the midwife is Teme'ah, for she touched [the hand] or moved it, for now [that he stuck out] it is not Tum'ah Belu'ah!

åéù ìåîø ãâæøú äëúåá äåà ãìà îèîà òã ùéäà ëéìåã ëããøéù äúí øáé éùîòàì òì ôðé äùãä ìäåöéà òåáø ùáîòé àîå

(c)

Answer: It is a Gezeras ha'Kasuv that it is not Metamei until it is considered born, like R. Yishmael expounds there "Al Pnei ha'Sadeh" to exclude a fetus in his mother's womb;

åäùúà ðéçà ãáòé äúí îàé èòîà ãøáé éùîòàì àò"ô ùèòîå ôùåè ãäà èåîàä áìåòä äéà

1.

Now it is fine that we asked there "what is R. Yishmael's reason?", even though the reason is obvious, for it is Tum'ah Belu'ah;

àìà ÷éí ìéä ãîèäø òã ùéöà ëì ëê ãî÷øé ìéãä.

i.

He knew that he is Metaher until it leaves so much that it is called born. (If the reason was Tum'ah Belu'ah, he should be Metamei once it is not Belu'ah, even before it is called born.)

10)

TOSFOS DH Yatzsah Zo she'Metam'ah v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä éöúä æå ùèîàä ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why a Kal va'Chomer would override this.)

ìàå îéòåèà äåà ãà"ë îàé ÷àîø ãúéúé á÷"å

(a)

Explanation: This is not an exclusion. If it were, why did we say "we should learn from a Kal va'Chomer!"?

àìà éöúä æå äééðå ùàéðå áëìì ôñå÷ æä

1.

Rather, "this is excluded" because it is not included in this verse.

åà"ú åîàé éúøõ øáà îï äáøééúà

(b)

Question: How will Rava answer the Beraisa?

åé"ì ãîééøé ëâåï ùáéú äáìéòä øçá ë"ë ùìà éñéè ðáìä ùúçá ìå çáéøå.

(c)

Answer: It discusses when Beis ha'Bli'ah (the gullet, where one swallows) is so wide that he (Ploni) does not move the Neveilah that his friend inserted. (Tosfos (Chulin 7a DH Mi) says that his friend removed it, so Ploni never moved it. Tosfos Chachmei Angliyah - it fell from Beis ha'Bli'ah to the stomach, before Ploni moved. Then it is Belulah, so it is not Metamei b'Masa.)

11)

TOSFOS DH Mah Talmud Lomar veha'Ochel Liten Shi'ur Achilah l'Noge'a vela'Nosei

úåñôåú ã"ä îä ú"ì åäàåëì ìéúï ùéòåø àëéìä ìðåâò åìðåùà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses why we learn both touching and carrying.)

úéîä ëéåï ãáàëéìä ëúéá ëáåñ áâãéí åáðåâò ìà ëúéá ìéú ìï ìàå÷îà ùéòåø àëéìä ìðåâò àìà áðåùà ãëúéá áéä ëáåñ áâãéí

(a)

Question: Since regarding eating, it is written that he must wash his clothes, and this is not written regarding touching, we should not establish a Shi'ur of eating to touching, rather, to moving, about which it is written washing clothes!

ëãàùëçï ìòéì áô"÷ (ãó è.) åáô"÷ ãéåîà (ãó éã.) ãàîø åîæä îé äðãä éëáñ áâãéå äééðå ðåùà

1.

Above (9a) and in Yoma (14a), it says that "u'Mazeh Mei ha'Nidah Yechaves Begadav" refers to one who carries (water on which ashes of Parah Adumah were put);

åàô÷ä øçîðà áìùåï äæàä ìéúï ùéòåø äæàä ëðåùà åìà ëðåâò îùåí ãìà ëúéá áéä ëáåñ áâãéí

i.

The Torah used an expression of sprinkling, to give the Shi'ur of Haza'ah [to be Metamei] one who carries it [without need], and not for touching, for washing clothes is not written regarding touching.

åéù ìåîø ãäúí ìà ëúéá ðåùà áäãéà

(b)

Answer: There, carrying is not written explicitly;

àáì äëà àé ìà ÷àé åäàåëì àìà àðåùà âøéãà à"ë ìà ðëúåá ðåùà åîîéìà ðéîà ãîàé àåëì ðåùà ëîå äúí ãìà ëúéá ðåùà åàîøéðï îàé îæä ðåùà

1.

However, here, if ha'Ochel refers only to one who carries, the Torah should not write carrying, and automatically we would say that "Ochel" refers to carrying, just like there, where carrying is not written, and we say that Mazeh refers to one who carries.

åîéäå úéîä ëáåñ áâãéí ãëúá øçîðà áàåëì ìîä ìé

(c)

Question: Why did the Torah write washing clothes regarding one who eats?

åë"ú ãàé ìà äåä ëúéá áéä ëáåñ áâãéí äåä îå÷îéðï ìéä áðåâò åìà áðåùà ãáòé ëáåñ áâãéí

1.

Suggestion: Had the Torah not written washing clothes regarding this, we would have established it to discuss touching, and not carrying, which obligates washing clothes.

à"ë ìà ìëúåá ðåâò ëìì

(d)

Question: If so, the Torah should not have written touching at all!

åùîà ìùåí ãøùà àéöèøéê

(e)

Answer: Perhaps it is needed for some Drashah.

åàí úàîø ãáôø÷ áäîä äî÷ùä (çåìéï ãó òà.) îôé÷ èåîàä áìåòä îäàé ÷øà ãåäàåëì îðáìúä éëáñ áâãéå åèîà òã äòøá

(f)

Question: In Chulin (71a), we learn Tum'ah Belu'ah from this verse "veha'Ochel mi'Nivlasah Yechaves Begadav v'Tamei Ad ha'Arev";

îé ìà òñ÷éðï ãàëì ñîåê ìù÷éòú äçîä

1.

Citation (71a): Is it not the case that he ate just before Shki'ah (and if he immerses immediately, he is Tahor at night, even though the Neveilah is in his stomach and he moves it?! This shows that the verse truly discusses eating.)

åäùúà äà ã÷àîø äëà äàé àåëì ìà àëéìä îîù äåà àìà ìéúï ùéòåø àëéìä ìðåâò åìðåùà

2.

We say here that eating is not precise. It is [only] to teach that we apply to the Shi'ur of [liability for] eating (a k'Zayis) to [Tum'ah for] touching and carrying!

åéù ìåîø ãäúí îôé÷ îùåí ãàéï î÷øà éåöà îéãé ôùåèå.

(g)

Answer: There, we derive [Tum'ah Belu'ah] because the verse does not leave its simple meaning.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF