NIDAH 62 (3 Av) - dedicated l'Iluy Nishmas Reb Aharon Dovid ben Elimelech Shmuel Kornfeld (Muncasz/Israel/New York), who passed away on 3 Av 5761, by his daughter Diane Koenigsberg and her husband Dr. Andy Koenigsberg. May his love for Torah and for Eretz Yisrael continue in all of his descendants.

1)

TOSFOS DH Amar Rav Yehudah Zeh Ohel

úåñôåú ã"ä àîø øá éäåãä æä àäì

(SUMMARY: Tosfos brings an alternative text from Shabbos.)

áùáú ôø÷ øáé ò÷éáà (ãó ö.) àéëà ñôøéí ãâøñé æä äçåì åôøéê åäúðéà äáåøéú åäçåì

(a)

Citation: In Shabbos (90a), the text in some Seforim says "this is sand." The Gemara asks "a Beraisa says Boris and sand!"

åúéîä ãäúðï çåì áôø÷ äîåöéà (ùí ô:)

(b)

Question: A Mishnah (Shabbos 80b) teaches the Shi'ur of liability for [Hotza'ah of] sand. (The Shi'ur is what is useful for fertilizer or plaster. This implies that it is not used for checking blood!)

åé''ì ãúøé âååðé çåì çã ìáðéï åçã ìçôéôä åëáåñ

(c)

Answer: There are two kinds of sand. One is for building, and one is for shampooing and laundering.

åàúé ùôéø ìääéà âéøñà áîñ÷ðà ã÷àîø àìà îàé áåøéú àäì åìà ÷àîø àìà ìòåìí ëå':

(d)

Observation: According to that text, it is fine that the conclusion says "rather, what is Boris? It is Ohel" and it does not say "rather, really..." (like it should say according to our text, for we return to the first answer).

2)

TOSFOS DH veha'Tanya ha'Boris veha'Ohel

úåñôåú ã"ä åäúðéà äáåøéú åäàäì

(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with the text mentioned above in Shabbos.)

ôé' ìòðéï ùáéòéú ðùðéú

(a)

Explanation: This was taught regarding Shevi'is.

àáì ìôé âéøñú äñôøéí ãùáú ãâøñ äáåøéú åäçåì úéîä äéà ìòðéï îä ðùðéú

(b)

Question: According to the text of Seforim in Shabbos (90a), which says "Boris and sand", this is astounding. Regarding what was this taught?

åàé ìòðéï äåöàú ùáú

1.

Suggestion: It was taught regarding Hotza'ah on Shabbos.

äà ÷àîø øáé éäåãä ùéòåø áðúø åáåøéú ëãé ìäòáéø áå àú äëúí åäê ùéòåøà ìà ùééê ø÷ îäðé æ' îéðé ñîðéí

2.

Objection: R. Yehudah said that the Shi'ur for Neser and Boris is to pass over a Kesem. This Shi'ur applies only to these seven ingredients! (How can we say that sand has the same Shi'ur?)

åîéäå àôùø ãøáðï àéú ìäå ãáåøéú åçåì äøàåééï ìçôéôä åëáåñ àéú ìäå çã ùéòåøà ìòðéï ùáú

(c)

Answer: Perhaps Rabanan hold that the Boris and sand that are proper for shampooing and laundering have the same Shi'ur for Shabbos;

åøáé éäåãä ôìéâ àáåøéú ìçåã å÷àîø ëãé ìäòáéø áå àú äëúí

1.

R. Yehudah argues only about Boris, and says that it is the amount to pass over a Kesem.

3)

TOSFOS DH Kavrisa

úåñôåú ã"ä ëáøéúà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this is sulfur.)

ôéøù''é âôøéú åëï áòøåê àù åâôøéú úøâåí àùúà åëáøéúà (úäìéí éà)

(a)

Explanation: Rashi explained that this is Gafris (sulfur). Also the Aruch says that the Targum of "Esh u'Gafris" (Tehilim 11) is Eshasa v'Kavrisa.

åä÷ùä äø''ø éò÷á îàåøìééð''ù áùáú ëé ôøéê ëáøéúà îé àéú ìéä ùáéòéú ìôøåê îîúðé' ãùáú ãúðï áô' äîåöéà (ãó òç:) ùéòåø àçøéðà áâôøéú åæôú ëãé ìñúåí ð÷á

(b)

Question (Ri of Orlins): In Shabbos, we ask "does Shevi'is apply to Kavrisa?!" We should ask from our Mishnah in Shabbos (78b), which gives a different Shi'ur for Gafris and Zefes (pitch), i.e. to seal a hole [in a Kli for mercury]!

åîéäå ìà ÷ùä ãáëîä î÷åîåú îöé ìîôøê îîùðä åëùäôéøëà éåúø ôùåèä îï äáøééúà ôøéê îéðä

(c)

Answer #1: This is not difficult. In several places we could have asked from a Mishnah, and when the question is simpler from a Beraisa, we ask from it.

åòåã ëéåï ùñéãø äù''ñ äëà äåáàä ùí åäå÷áòä

(d)

Answer #2: Since the Gemara arranged here [the question from the Beraisa about Shevi'is], it was brought there and [the question was] fixed [from there].

4)

TOSFOS DH Kol she'Ein Lo Ikar

úåñôåú ã"ä ëì ùàéï ìå òé÷ø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that it does not have a root in the ground.)

ôéøù á÷åðèøñ áîñëú òáåãä æøä (ãó éã.) òé÷ø äîú÷ééí áàøõ áéîåú äçîä åáéîåú äâùîéí

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi, Avodah Zarah 14a): This refers to a root that lasts in the ground in summer and winter.

åæä ÷ùä ãà''ë úáåàä ìà éäà ðåäâ áä ùáéòéú ùàéðä îú÷ééîú áéîåú äâùîéí

(b)

Objection: If so, Shevi'is would not apply to grain, for it does not last in winter!

åðøàä ëîå ùôéøù äëà ùàéï ìå ùåøù áàøõ ëîå âôøéú

(c)

Explanation #2 (Rashi here): It does not have a root in the ground, like sulfur.

åâí îä ùôéøù ùí úåøðéúà îéï àøæ ëãàéúà áøàù äùðä (ãó ëâ.) ùéèä úåøðéúà

(d)

Explanation #1 (regarding Turanisa - Rashi, Avodah Zarah 14a): It is a kind of cedar, like it says in Rosh Hashanah (23a) that "Shitah" (one of the 10 kinds of cedars) is Turanisa.

æä àéðå ðøàä ãáîñëú ò''æ (ãó éã.) ôøéê ëé äëà åîé àéú ìéä ùáéòéú åäúðéà ëå' åäøé åãàé ìàøæ éù ìå ùåøù

(e)

Rebuttal: In Avodah Zarah (14a) it asks like here "does Shemitah apply to [Turanisa]?! A Beraisa says..." Surely, cedar has a root! (Aruch l'Ner - the Ramban says that we asked from a Mishnah that says "anything that is food for people, and has a root...")

òì ëï ðøàä ëîå ùôé' øù''é áëúåáåú (ãó òè:) (ëï öøéê ìäâéä) ùäåà ëòéï îçôåøú öøéó ù÷åøéï àìå''í åîéï ÷ø÷ò äåà åëîå âôøéú äåà ùàéðå ðùøù áàøõ

(f)

Explanation #2: In Kesuvos (79b), Rashi explained that it is like an ore of alum. It is a kind of ground, like sulfur, which is not rooted in the ground.

5)

TOSFOS DH Trei Gavnei Ahala

úåñôåú ã"ä úøé âååðé àäìà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we did not give such an answer regarding sand.)

úéîä ìñôøéí ãâøñé áùáú (ùí) åäúðéà äáåøéú åäçåì àîàé ìà îùðé îòé÷øà úøé âååðé çåì ëãîùðé áîñ÷ðà âáé àäì

(a)

Question: According to the text of Seforim in Shabbos (90a) that say "a Beraisa says Boris and sand!", why don't we answer from the beginning that there are two kinds of sand, like we answer in the conclusion regarding Ohel?

åé''ì ã÷éí ìéä ìäù''ñ ãìà äåå úøé âååðé çåì ìëáåñ

(b)

Answer: The Gemara knew that there are not two kinds of sand for laundering.

6)

TOSFOS DH Hitbilu v'Asah Al Gabav Taharos v'Chulei Harei Zeh Tzeva

úåñôåú ã"ä äèáéìå åòùä òì âáéå èäøåú ëå' äøé æä öáò

(SUMMARY: Tosfos prefers to explain this it is Safek dye.)

àéï ìôøù äøé æä åãàé öáò ëãôéøù á÷åðèøñ áôø÷ àøáò îéúåú (ñðäãøéï ãó îè:)

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi in Sanhedrin 49b): This is Vadai dye.

ãàí ëï ì÷îï àîàé ÷àîø àáì èäøåú ùàçø úëáåñú ùðéä èîàåú äìà ëéåï ùìà òáø îúçìä áæ' ñîîðéí åãàé öáò äåà

(b)

Rebuttal #1: If so, why does it say "but Taharos after the second laundering are Temei'os"? Since it did not go away initially through seven ingredients, Vadai it is dye!

åòåã ëé ôøéê ì÷îï ìø''ì ãàîø áìåò ùéëåì ìöàú ò''é äãç÷ ìà ùîéä áìåò îîúðéúéï ãäøé æä öáò

(c)

Rebuttal #2: Below (62b), we challenge Reish Lakish, who says that something swallowed that can leave with difficulty is not called swallowed, from our Mishnah "it is dye";

îàé ôéøëà äéà äøé äéà åãàé öáò åàéï ëàï èåîàä áìåòä ëìì

1.

What was the question? It is Vadai dye, so there is no swallowed Tum'ah at all!

åàîàé ð÷è ðîé åäèáéìå àôé' ìà äèáéìå ðîé

(d)

Rebuttal #3: Why does it say that he immersed it? Even if he did not immerse it (it is Tahor)!

òì ëï öøéê ìôøù äøé æä ñô÷ öáò ëìåîø éù ìðå ìúìåú áöáò

(e)

Explanation #2: We must explain that it is Safek dye. I.e. we can attribute that it is dye.

åàò''ô ãôòîéí ããí ðãä [àéðå] òåáø ò''é æ' ñîðéï

(f)

Implied question: (Why are we Metaher?) Sometimes Dam Nidah does not go away through seven ingredients!

äëà àéëà ñô÷ ñô÷à îìáã èòîà ãáèåì

(g)

Answer: Here it is a Sefek-Sefeka, aside from the reason of Bitul;

ãùîà öáò äåà ëéåï ãìà òáø åàí úîöé ìåîø ããí äåà àéîà îòìîà àúà äéìëê îèäøéðï àôéìå ìîôøò

1.

Perhaps it is dye, since it did not go away. And if you will say that it is blood, perhaps it came from elsewhere. Therefore, we are Metaher even retroactively.

àáì èòîà ãáèåì ìçåã ìà îäðé ãâáé ãí ðãä ã÷àîø îòáéø òìéå æ' ñîðéï åîáèìå àéðå àìà ìèäø îëàï åìäáà

(h)

Observation: The reason of Bitul does not help by itself, for regarding Dam Nidah, that we say that one passes the seven ingredients over it and is Mevatel it, this is only to be Metaher from now and onwards;

àáì ìîôøò èîà îãøáðï äåàéì åä÷ôéã ùñáåø ùéëåì ìöàú ò''é æ' ñîîðéï åàëúé ìà áèìå åàò''â ãîï äúåøä èäåø ãäåàéì åàéï ñåôå ìöàú ò''é æ' ñîîðéï ðúáèì

1.

Retroactively it is Tamei mid'Rabanan, since he was adamant. He thought that it will go away through seven ingredients, and it was not yet Batel, even though mid'Oraisa it is Tahor. Since in the end it will not go away through seven ingredients, it is Batel (mid'Oraisa).

àáì ëàï ëéåï ãàéëà ñô÷ ñô÷à åáèåì èäåø àó îãøáðï ìîôøò

2.

However, here there is a Sefek-Sefeka and Bitul. It is Tahor even mid'Rabanan, retroactively.

åîéäå îèòí ñô÷ ñô÷à ìçåã ìà äåä îèäøéðï ìéä àé ìàå èòîà ãáèåì îùåí ãøâéìåú ìáà ãí îâåôä

(i)

Observation: Due to the reason of Sefek-Sefeka alone we would not be Metaher, if not for the reason of Bitul, because blood normally comes from her body;

ëãàîøéðï áôø÷ ÷îà (ìòéì ãó â.) áöôåø ìà ðúòñ÷ä áùå÷ ùì èáçéí ìà òáøä äàé ãí îäéëà àúà

1.

This is like we said above (3a). She did not engage with a bird, or pass through a meat market. From where did the blood come?

ãòì ëøçê áìà èòîà ãáèåì ìà îèäøéðï ìéä îèòí ñô÷ ñô÷à îãð÷è äèáéìå àò''â ãî÷éìéðï áùàø ñô÷ ñô÷à

(j)

Proof: You are forced to say that without the reason of Bitul, we would not be Metaher it due to the Sefek-Sefeka, since it mentioned "he immersed it", even though we are lenient in other cases of Sefek-Sefeka;

åîùåí äëé ôøéê îéðä ìø''ì ãáèì àò''â ãéëåì ìöàú ò''é äãç÷ áöôåï

1.

And this is why we challenge Reish Lakish, for it is Batel, even though it can leave with difficulty through Tzafon (a potent cleaning agent).

åàí úàîø àëúé ìîä ìé äèáéìå ëéåï ãèäåø îèòí áèåì åñô÷ ñô÷à

(k)

Question: Still, why does it say that he immersed it, since it is Tahor due to Bitul and Sefek-Sefeka?

åé''ì ãðäé ãëùðúééáù äëúí (äâäú ø"ù îãòñåéà) ðúáèì îéäå áòåãå ìç ìà ðúáèì åáòåãå ìç ðâò áå äáâã åîùåí äëé öøéê ìäèáéì

(l)

Answer: Granted, when the Kesem is dry it is Batel. However, while it is still wet, it is not Batel, and while it was wet, the garment touched it. Therefore, he must immerse it.

åòåã éù ìåîø äøé æä öáò öáéòåú ãí áòìîà åðúáèì åìà ðöèøê ìèòí ãñô÷ ñô÷à

(m)

Explanation #3: It is Tzeva, i.e. a mere coloring from blood. We do not need the reason of Sefek-Sefeka;

åäùúà ðúôøù èòí áèåì áîùðä ãîéðä ôøéê ìøéù ì÷éù

(n)

Support: Now the reason of Bitul is explained in the Mishnah, from which we challenged Reish Lakish. (Even though it can leave with difficulty, it is Batel!)

åîéäå ôéøåù øàùåï ðøàä òé÷ø ãìùåï öáò ìà îùîò öáéòåú ãí àìà öáò îîù

(o)

Disclaimer: However, Explanation #2 seems primary, for "Tzeva" does not connote a [mere] coloring from blood, rather, actual dye.

7)

TOSFOS DH Tzafon Tzeva Nami Me'aver

úåñôåú ã"ä öôåï öáò ðîé îòáø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos justifies the question.)

åà''ú åîä áëê åäà ä÷ôéã òìéå ëéåï ùäòáéø öôåï àçø ùáòä ñîðéï åðéîà ãèäøåúéå èîàåú ã÷àîø ÷àé àúëáåñú ùðéä

(a)

Question: What was the question? He was adamant about it, since he passed Tzafon after the seven ingredients over it. We should say that "his Taharos are Temei'os" refers to [those made after] the second laundering!

åîäàé èòîà ðîé ÷àîøéðï ì÷îï ùðàï åòáø ãèäøåú ùðòùå àçø úëáåñú ùðéä èîàåú åäëà ðîé ìéèîà

1.

Also from this reason, we say below that if he passed the [seven ingredients over it] a second time, Taharos made after the second laundering are Temei'os. Also here it should be Tamei!

åìéëà ìîéîø ã÷ôéãà ìà îäðé àìà ëùòåáø áæ' ñîîðéï ùîòáéøéï á÷ì àáì öôåï ùîòáéø òì éãé äãç÷ àôéìå ä÷ôéã èäåøåú

2.

Suggestion: Adamancy helps only when it goes away through the seven ingredients, for they remove easily, but Tzafon removes with difficulty. Even if he was adamant, they are Tehoros. (Since it does not come out easily, it is swallowed and Batel.)

ãì÷îï îñé÷ øá ôôà éëåì ìöàú åä÷ôéã òìéå ãáøé äëì èîà àò''ô ùàéï éëåì ìöàú àìà ò''é äãç÷ åäééðå ùéëåì ìöàú òì éãé öôåï

3.

Rejection: Below, Rav Papa concludes that if it can come out and he was adamant, all agree that it is Tamei, even though it comes out only with difficulty, i.e. through Tzafon!

ãäà îîúðé' ôøéê øáé éåçðï ìøéù ì÷éù àîàé èäåøä ëé ìà òáø ò''é æ' ñîðéï äà éëåì ìöàú ò''é öôåï

4.

Support: R. Yochanan challenged Reish Lakish from our Mishnah. Why is it Tehorah when it did not go away through the seven ingredients? It can go away through Tzafon! (Rather, we must say that if it comes out only through Tzafon, this is called "with difficulty.")

åé''ì ãáøééúà ìà îééøé áèäøåú ãàçø úëáåñú ùðéä ãéåúø äéä øàåé ìàùîåòéðï èäøåúéå èäåøåú àèäøåú ãàçø úëáåñú øàùåðä ëã÷àîø ááøééúà ãì÷îï àìà àúëáåñú øàùåðä ðîé ÷àé

(b)

Answer: The Beraisa does not discuss [only] Taharos after the second laundering. [If it did,] it would be more proper to teach that his Taharos are Tehoros regarding [what he touched] after the first laundering, like it says in the Beraisa below! Rather, it refers also to [Taharos made after] the first laundering.

åäåä îöé ìîôøê îáøééúà ãáñîåê ã÷úðé ùðàï åòáø èäøåúéå èäåøåú

(c)

Implied question: [If so, the Gemara] could have challenged [this Beraisa] from the Beraisa below, which says "if he passed [the seven ingredients] over it a second time and [the Kesem] went away, his Taharos are Tehoros"!

àìà ãðéçà ìéä ìîéôøê îâåôä

(d)

Answer: [The Gemara] prefers to ask from [this Beraisa] itself.

8)

TOSFOS DH He'evir Alav Shishah Semanin v'Lo Avar He'evir Alav Tzafon...

úåñôåú ã"ä äòáéø òìéå ùùä ñîðéï åìà òáø äòáéø òìéå öôåï åòáø ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the Chidush of this.)

úéîä ôùéèà åäìà àéðå îæëéø áîùðúéðå öôåï áîðéï æ' ñîîðéï åîàé ÷à îùîò ìï åäà ôùéèà ãáùùä ìà ñâé

(a)

Question: This is obvious! Our Mishnah does not mention Tzafon among the seven ingredients. What is the Chidush? Obviously, six do not suffice!

åéù ìåîø ãàùîåòéðï ãàò''â ãìà òáø ëìì åìà ðùúðä ò''é å' ñîðéï àéëà ìîéîø îùåí äùáéòé ìà éòáåø

(b)

Answer: It teaches that even though it did not go away at all, and did not change through six ingredients, [and one might have thought that] we can say that it will not go away through the seventh...

÷à îùîò ìï ãéù ìäçîéø ãùîà áùáéòé àí äòáéø ÷åãí äöôåï äéä òåáø

1.

The Beraisa teaches that this is not so. We should be stringent. Perhaps had he passed the seventh over it before the Tzafon, it would have gone away.

9)

TOSFOS DH Shan'an v'Avar

úåñôåú ã"ä ùðàï åòáø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that it could be dye.)

ðøàä ìø''é ãò''é ùðàï öáò ðîé òåáø

(a)

Assertion (Ri): Through repeating them, also dye go away.

ãàé ìàå äëé àîàé èäåøåú àôéìå ìîôøò äà ìéëà äëà ñô÷ ñô÷à åéäéå èîàåú ìîôøò ëéåï ãìéëà àìà çãà ñô÷à ëãôøéùéú áîúðéúéï

(b)

Source: If not (rather, it is Vadai blood), why are [the Taharos] Tehoros even retroactively? There is not a Sefek-Sefeka. They should be Tamei retroactively, since there is only a single Safek (perhaps the blood came from elsewhere), like I explained in our Mishnah (DH Hitbilu).

10)

TOSFOS DH she'Harei Hikpid Alav

úåñôåú ã"ä ùäøé ä÷ôéã òìéå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why our Mishnah is Metaher.)

åà''ú àîúðé' ã÷úðé äøé æä öáò î''î ëùéëáñðå äøé î÷ôéã òìéå åìéèîà èäøåú ãàçø úëáåñú

(a)

Question: Our Mishnah, which taught "this is dye", in any case when he will launder it, he is adamant about it. Taharos after laundering should be Tamei!

åé''ì ãëáåñ àéðå ÷ôéãà ãàéðå àìà ììáðå

(b)

Answer: Laundering [without the seven ingredients] is not adamancy [about the Kesem]. He merely wants to whiten it.

åà''ú î''î ëùéëáñðå éèîà äáâã ùéöà äãí åàéðå áìåò åé''ì

(c)

Question: In any case, when he launders it, the garment should become Tamei, for the blood comes out and it is not swallowed!

ãáéöéàúå éáèì ðîé áúëáåñú

(d)

Answer: When it comes out, it is Batel also through laundering.

11)

TOSFOS DH she'Harei Hikpid Alav v'Avar

úåñôåú ã"ä ùäøé ä÷ôéã òìéå åòáø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why it needed to say both of these.)

åà''ú îä öøéê ìåîø åòáø

(a)

Question: Why does it need to say that it went away?

åëé úéîà îùåí ãðôìè åèîà äáâã

1.

Suggestion: This is because it was emitted, and the garment is Tamei.

à''ë àîàé ð÷è åä÷ôéã

2.

Rejection: If so, why does it mention that he was adamant?!

åé''ì ãð÷è åòáø ãàæ ÷ôéãúå ÷ôéãà äåàéì åäåòéìä îçùáúå ùòáø

(b)

Answer: It mentioned that it went away, for then his adamancy takes effect, since his intent helped, that it went away;

åîùåí äëé ðîé ÷úðé áîúðéúéï ãëé ìà òáø èäåø åàó òì âá ãä÷ôéã:

1.

Also, due to this our Mishnah taught that when it did not go away it is Tahor, even though he was adamant.

62b----------------------------------------62b

12)

TOSFOS DH Amar R. Aba Midi bi'Kpeida Talya Milsa

úåñôåú ã"ä àîø øáé àáà îéãé á÷ôéãà úìéà îéìúà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with the Mishnah.)

ãëéåï ãìà òáø áøàùåðä ðúáèì ááâã åëé òáø ðîé áùðéä ìà èîà äáâã áéöéàúå ìçåõ ìôé ùðúáèì áîé úëáåñú

(a)

Explanation: Since it did not go away the first time, it is Batel in the garment. Even though it went away the second time, the garment is not Tamei when [the blood] leaves, because it was Batel in the laundry water.

åà''ú åìø' àáà ú÷ùä àîàé ð÷è áîúðéúéï äøé æä öáò àôéìå ãí (ðãä) åãàé èäåø àó ìîôøò

(b)

Question: According to R. Aba, it is difficult why our Mishnah said "it is dye." Even Vadai blood is Tahor, even retroactively!

ãëéåï ãìà òáø àéâìàé îéìúà ìîôøò ùðúáèì ááâã àìà åãàé á÷ôéãà úìéà îéìúà

1.

Since it did not go away the first time, it is revealed retroactively that it was Batel in the garment. Rather, surely it depends on adamancy (unlike R. Aba)!

åé''ì ãìà àéâìàé îéìúà ìîôøò ùìà äéä øàåé ìòáåø îúçìä ò''é ùìà òáø òúä ùäøé ëì ùòä äåà îúééáù éåúø åéåúø åîòé÷øà ùîà äéä øàåé ìòáåø

(c)

Answer #1: It is not revealed retroactively that it was not proper to go away initially from the fact that it did not go away now, for it dries more and more. Perhaps initially it was [moist] and proper to go away!

àé ðîé äéä ñáåø ëøéù ì÷éù ãîèîà èåîàä áìåòä ìëê àöèøéê ìåîø ä''æ öáò

(d)

Answer #2: [R. Aba] held like Reish Lakish, that a swallowed Tum'ah is Metamei. Therefore, [the Mishnah] needed to say "it is dye."

13)

TOSFOS DH Alma bi'Kpeida Talya Milsa

úåñôåú ã"ä àìîà á÷ôéãà úìéà îéìúà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why he must also pass the ingredients over it.)

åà''ú àí ëï îä öåøê áäòáøú ñîðéí ëéåï ãîáèì áìáå ñâé

(a)

Question: If so, why must he pass the ingredients over it, since it suffices to be Mevatel in his heart?

åé''ì ãáèìä ãòúå àöì ëì àãí àí éáèìðå áìà ùáòä ñîîðéí

(b)

Answer: Batla Daito Etzel Kol Adam (we ignore his intent, since it is unlike that of normal people) if he is Mevatel it without the seven ingredients.

14)

TOSFOS DH Hanach l'Kesamim d'Rabanan

úåñôåú ã"ä äðç ìëúîéí ãøáðï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we needed to say "it is dye.")

îéäå ëéåï ãøâéìåú ìáà ëúí îâåôä ìà î÷éìéðï àé ìàå îùåí ãàéëà ìîúìé áöáò ëãôøùéú (äâäú äá"ç) áîúðéúéï

(a)

Explanation #1: However, since a Kesem normally comes from her body, we are not lenient unless we can attribute to dye, like I explained in our Mishnah (62a DH Hitbilu).

åìà ãîé ìãí úáåñä ãì÷îï ãî÷éìéðï îùåí ãäåé îãøáðï

1.

This is unlike Dam Tevusah below. We are lenient about it, for it is mid'Rabanan. (Rashash - even though a woman becomes Nidah only through blood that came with Hargashah, R. Yochanan holds that the place of the Makor is Tamei, so a Kesem is Metamei garments mid'Oraisa.)

àé ðîé ëãé ìèäø àôéìå ìîôøò ð÷è äøé æä öáò

(b)

Explanation #2: It says "this is dye" in order to be Metaher even retroactively.

àå ùîà îúçìä ùìà ðúééáù ëì ëê äéä éëåì ìöàú

(c)

Explanation #3: Perhaps initially, when [the Kesem] had not dried so much, it could have come out.

15)

TOSFOS DH R. Chiya Mina Lei

úåñôåú ã"ä øáé çééà îðà ìéä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that Reish Lakish does not say so in general.)

åà''ú àí ëï ìòåìí ìà ðéúéá úéåáúà îáøééúà ãîúðé áé ø' çééà åáé øáé àåùòéà

(a)

Question: If so (we may not rely on R. Chiya for something that Rebbi did not teach), we should never ask a question from a Beraisa taught in the academy of R. Chiya and R. Oshaya! (Chulin 141a-b says that we may refute Amora'im only from such Beraisos!)

åé''ì ãáëåìäå àéëà ìîéîø ëãàîø àéìôà áúòðéú (ãó ëà.) åáëúåáåú (ãó ñè:) ëì ãàîø îéìúà ãáé ø' çééà åø' àåùòéà åìà ôùéèðà ìéä îîúðé' ëå'

(b)

Answer #1: Regarding all of them, we can say like Ilfa said (Ta'anis 21a, Kesuvos 69b) "if anyone can say a matter taught in the academy of R. Chiya and R. Oshaya, and I will not show its source in our Mishnah [I will fall and die]";

åäê äåä ôùéèà ìéä ìø''ì ãìà øîéæà áîúðéúéï

1.

It was obvious to Reish Lakish that there is no hint to this [Beraisa] in the Mishnayos.

åòåã ãñáøà äåà îãð÷è îúðéúéï ëúí åìà ãí ðãä ùîò îéðä ããí ðãä åãàé ìà îöé ìáèì åìéú ìéä çéìå÷ áéï ìäáà áéï ìîôøò

(c)

Answer #2: It is logical that since our Mishnah mentioned a Kesem, and not Dam Nidah, this shows that one cannot be Mevatel Dam Nidah. [Reish Lakish] does not distinguish between for the future and retroactively.

16)

TOSFOS DH Im Miskaveses v'Yotzei Mimenah Revi'is Dam

úåñôåú ã"ä àí îúëáñú åéåöà îîðä øáéòéú ãí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how we determine this.)

ôøù''é áäâåæì (á''÷ ÷à:) ùéúðå îéí áîãä åàí ëùéñçèðå ìçåõ éîöàå øáéòéú éåúø à''ë åãàé äéä áå øáéòéú ãí

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi in Bava Kama 101b): They put in a measure of water. If when they squeeze the water out, they find a Revi'is more [than they put in], if so, surely there was a Revi'is of blood.

å÷ùä ãàôéìå ìà éîöàå øáéòéú éåúø î''î éëåì ìäéåú ùäéä áå øáéòéú ùäøé äëñåú áìåòä âí îï äîéí åâí îï äãí ùàéï äëì éëåì ìöàú

(b)

Objection: Even if they do not find a Revi'is more, it can be that there was a Revi'is of blood, for the garment absorbed water and blood, for not everything can leave.

åðøàä ëãúðéà áúåñôúà ãàäìåú (ô''ã) øáéòéú ãí ùáìåò áëñåú ëéöã îùòøéï àåúå îáéà îéí áîãä åîëáñ åîáéà îéí àçøéí åðåúï áúåëå øáéòéú ãí

(c)

Explanation #2: A Tosefta in Ohalos (4:5) teaches "how do we estimate a Revi'is of blood absorbed in a garment? We bring a measure of water and launder [it in it], and bring [the same measure of] other water and put a Revi'is of blood in it";

åàí äéä ùåä îøàéäï èîàä ùàí ëï âí îï äáâã éöà øáéòéú ãí ùäøé âí îï äîéí åîï äãí ðùàøå ááâã åìà éäéä îøàäå ùåä àí ìà äéä áå øáéòéú ãí îúçìä

1.

If they have the same appearance [or the latter is lighter, the garment] is Tamei [b'Ohel], for if so also a Revi'is of water came out from the garment, for also water and blood remained in the garment, and its appearance will not be the same unless there was a Revi'is of blood from the beginning.

i.

Note: E.g. if there is 45 times as much as water as blood, the garment retains blood and water based on this ratio, so the same ratio comes out. We assume that initially no water was absorbed in the garment.

åàí úàîø åîä öøéê îãä ìîéí äøàùåðéí ìà äéä öøéê àìà ùéúï îéí áîãä ùéöà îï äáâã ôçåú øáéòéú åéúï øáéòéú ãí ìúåëå åàí éùåä îøàéäï èîà

(d)

Question: Why do we need a measure for the first water? All we need is to put [to compare] the amount of water that came out from the garment, less a Revi'is, and put a Revi'is of blood in it, and if they have the same appearance, it is Tamei!

1.

Note: This question assumes that it is Tamei only if a Revi'is of blood leaves through laundering. Just above, Tosfos held that blood that remains absorbed join towards a Revi'is! Maharsha says that Tosfos should have elaborated. In Bava Kama (101b DH Ro'in), Tosfos asks why blood that remains absorbed joins to be Metamei. He answers that this is a stringency. Alternatively, the comparison is based on what came out. It mentioned the measure put in, for if we find that an extra Revi'is came out, we know that it is Tamei without comparing, like our Tosfos answers below.

åë''ú ùìà äæëéø îãä øàùåðä àìà ìúú îï äùðéä ëîãúä

2.

Suggestion: The measure for the first water was mentioned only to give the same amount for the second.

äìà òì ëøçê àéðå öøéê îï äùðééí ëùéòåø ùáìòä ëñåú îï äøàùåðéí

3.

Rejection: You are forced to say that we do not need in the second water the amount that the garment absorbed from the first [water]!

åéù ìåîø ãîùåí äëé ð÷è îãä áøàùåðä ùàí éîöà øáéòéú éåúø à''ö ìçæåø åìèøåç åìäáéà îéí ùðééí ëãôøù''é

(e)

Answer: It mentioned the first measure, for if we find that a Revi'is more [came out] than was put in, one need not toil to bring second water, like Rashi explained.

17)

TOSFOS DH v'Im Lav Tehorah

úåñôåú ã"ä åàí ìàå èäåøä.

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why absorbed blood does not join to be Metamei.)

àò''â ãëì äøáéòéú ðáìò ááâã

(a)

Explanation: [It is Tehorah] even though the entire Revi'is was absorbed in the garment [since it did not come out].

åà''ú îùòä ùðôì òìéä éçã ðèîà äëñåú

(b)

Question: From when [the blood] fell together on the garment, it became Tamei!

åé''ì ãîééøé ã÷åãí ùðôì øáéòéú ðáìò áëñåú îä ùàéðå éëåì ìöàú ò''é ñúí ëáåñ åðúáèì ááâã åìà äéä øáéòéú ùìí îòåìí

(c)

Answer: We discuss when before a Revi'is fell, the garment absorbed [the blood] that cannot leave through Stam laundering, and it was Batel in the garment, and there was never a full Revi'is.

18)

TOSFOS DH mi'Kulei Revi'iyos Shanu Kan

úåñôåú ã"ä î÷åìé øáéòéåú ùðå ëàï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves R. Yochanan with the Gemara in Bava Kama.)

úéîä ãáäâåæì ÷îà (á''÷ ãó ÷à.) ôøéê úðà áâã ùöáòå á÷ìéôé òøìä éãì÷ àìîà çæåúà îéìúà äéà åøîéðäé øáéòéú ãí ùðáìò ááâã ëå' åîùðé î÷åìé øáéòéåú ùðå ëàï

(a)

Question: Bava Kama (101a) brings a Beraisa that a garment died with peels of Orlah must be burned. This shows that appearance is significant. We ask a contradiction from the Mishnah of a Revi'is of blood absorbed in a garment, and answer "this is a leniency of a Revi'is";

åäà äê ùéðåéà ìà äåé àìà ìø''ì à''ë ú÷ùä ìø' éåçðï

1.

This answer is only according to Reish Lakish. If so, it is difficult for R. Yochanan!

åé''ì ãìø' éåçðï ìà ÷ùä îéãé èåîàä ìòøìä ãâáé èåîàä îùåí ÷ôéãà åëéåï ãàéðå éëåì ìöàú àìà ò''é äãç÷ áèì ãèåîàä áìåòä ìà îèîéà

(b)

Answer: It is not difficult for R. Yochanan the comparison of Tum'ah to Orlah. Tum'ah depends on adamancy. Since it can leave only with difficulty, it is Batel. Absorbed Tum'ah is not Metamei;

àáì âáé òøìä ðéçà ìéä áçæåúà åìà îáèì ìéä

1.

Regarding Orlah, he wants the appearance. He is not Mevatel it.

åäúí îùðé ùéðåééà ãîäðé ìø''ì åä''÷ àôéìå ìôé ãáøéê ùàúä îãîä èåîàä ìàéñåø ìà ÷ùä ããí úáåñä ãøáðï

2.

There we give an answer that helps according to Reish Lakish. It means as follows. According to your (the Makshan's) words, that you compare Tum'ah to Isur, it is not difficult, for Dam Tevusah is mid'Rabanan.

19)

TOSFOS DH Ha Yachol Latzeis Tamei

úåñôåú ã"ä äà éëåì ìöàú èîà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the basis of Reish Lakish's question.)

åàí úàîø åîàé ÷åùéà ãìîà äëé ôéøåùå ëì äáìåò ùàéðå éëåì ìöàú òì éãé ñúí úëáåñú èäåø àò''â ãéëåì ìöàú òì éãé äãç÷ áöôåï

(a)

Question: What was difficult? Perhaps it means as follows. Anything swallowed that cannot leave through Stam laundering is Tahor, even though it can leave with difficulty through Tzafon!

äà éëåì ìöàú ò''é ñúí úëáåñú èîà ãäà äê ãëì äáìåò ñéôà ãäê ãìòéì ùðáìò áëñåú åäàé áñúí úëáåñú àå÷îéðï

1.

Inference: If it can leave through Stam laundering, it is Tamei, for "everything swallowed" is the Seifa of [the Mishnah brought] above [of blood] swallowed in a garment, and we established it to discuss Stam laundering;

åôøéùðà åàí ìàå èäåøä àò''â ãéëåì ìöàú ò''é äãç÷ áöôåï åàãøáä ÷ùéà ìøéù ì÷éù

2.

I explained [the Reisha brought above] "if not, it is Tahor", even though it can leave with difficulty through Tzafon. Just the contrary, this is difficult for Reish Lakish!

åéù ìåîø ãäê ãëì äáìåò îùîò ùàéðå éëåì ìöàú ëìì ãñúîà ÷úðé åàôéìå äëé ÷ééîà ùôéø àøéùà

(b)

Answer: "Everything swallowed" connotes that it cannot leave at all, for it was taught Stam, and even so, it properly applies to the Reisha. (This Dibur continues on the next Daf.)

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF