1)

TOSFOS DH Mah Lehalan Asur b'Achilah u'Mutar b'Hana'ah v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä îä ìäìï àñåø áàëéìä åîåúø áäðàä ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses why only some Tana'im learn from a Kal v'Chomer.)

úéîä ãáôø÷ ëì ùòä (ôñçéí ëã:) ãøéù àéñé áï éäåãä àéñåø áàëéìä îäëà åàéñåø äðàä éìéó î÷''å ãòøìä åäùúà áîàé ôìéâé

(a)

Question: In Pesachim (24b), Isi bar Yehudah expounds Isur Achilah from here, and he learns Isur Hana'ah from a Kal v'Chomer from Orlah. What do they argue about?

åé''ì ÷ñáø úðà ãäúí ëéåï ãîöé ì÷éåîé úøåééäå äâæøä ùåä å÷''å î÷ééîé

(b)

Answer #1: The Tana there holds that since one can fulfill both of them, the Gezeirah Shavah and the Kal v'Chomer, he fulfills [both of] them.

åîéäå ÷ùä ãáëîä î÷åîåú àúéà â''ù (åîô÷éðï) [ö"ì åîô÷à - ùéèä î÷åáöú] î÷''å ëãàîø áëîä ãåëúé ùéëåì åòåùä ÷''å åäãø (úìîåã ìåîø àìîà àúéà âæøä ùåä àìîà àúéà âæøä ùåä) [ö"ì ÷àîø úìîåã ìåîø âæøä ùåä àìîà àúéà âæøä ùåä åîô÷à - ùéèä î÷åáöú] î÷ì åçåîø

(c)

Question: In several places a Gezeirah Shavah uproots a Kal v'Chomer, like it says in several places "perhaps..." and it makes a Kal v'Chomer, and responds "it says [...] for a Gezeirah Shavah." This shows that a Gezeirah Shavah uproots a Kal v'Chomer!

åôéøù ø''ú ÷øà àééøé áîéãé ãàñåø áäðàä ëâåï ÷ãùéí ùéöàå çåõ ìîçéöúï ããøéù áôø÷ áäîä äî÷ùä (çåìéï ñç.) îáùø áùãä ëéåï ùéöà çåõ ìîçéöä ðàñø

(d)

Answer #2 (R. Tam): The verse discusses something Asur b'Hana'ah, e.g. Kodshim that left their Mechitzah (where they are permitted). [The Gemara] expounds in Chulin (68a) from "v'Vasar ba'Sadeh [Tereifah]" - once [meat] left its Mechitzah, it is forbidden.

åàò''â ãôùèéä ã÷øà áäéúø äðàä ëãëúéá ìëìá úùìéëåï àåúå

(e)

Implied question: The simple meaning of the verse discusses Heter Hana'ah, like it is written "la'Kelev Tashlichun Oso"!

÷ñáø úðà ãäúí ìäëé àäðé ÷''å ãéìôéðï î÷ãùéí ãàééøé áäå ðîé ÷øà

(f)

Answer: The Tana there holds that the Kal v'Chomer helps for this, that we learn from Kodshim, which the verse was also discussing;

åúðà ãäëà ñáø îèøéôä ãùøéà áäðàä éìôéðï ëôùèä åìéú ìéä ÷ì åçåîø

1.

And the Tana here holds that we learn from Tereifah, which is Mutar b'Hana'ah, like the simple meaning. He does not hold that there is a Kal v'Chomer.

ãäëé ðîé îàï ããøéù àéñåø äðàä îâ' ìà úáùì ìéú ìéä ÷ì åçåîø

2.

Support: Likewise, the one who expounds Isur Hana'ah from the three times it is written "Lo Sevashel", he does not hold that there is a Kal v'Chomer.

(åà''ú îàï ããøéù ìéä î÷åãù àéú ìéä ÷''å) úéôå÷ ìéä àéñåø äðàä îëì á÷åãù áàù úùøó ëãéìôéðï îéðéä ôø÷ ëì ùòä (ôñçéí ëã.) ôñåìé ÷ãùéí

(g)

Question: The one who expounds from [a Gezeirah Shavah from] Kodesh holds that there is a Kal v'Chomer. He should learn Isur Hana'ah from "b'Chol Kodesh ba'Esh Tisaref", like we learn [Isur Hana'ah of] Pasul Kodshim from it in Pesachim (24a)!

é''ì òí ÷ãù åàðùé ÷ãù îòðéï àçã åãîå àäããé

(h)

Answer #1: "Am Kadosh" and "Anshei Kodesh" pertains to the same matter (they discuss people), and they resemble each other (so we learn a Gezeirah Shavah between them. "B'Chol Kodesh" discusses Kodesh meat.)

à''ð ãðéï çåìéï îçåìéï åàéï ãðéï çåìéï î÷ãùéí ëãàîø ôø÷ ëéñåé äãí (çåìéï ôä.)

(i)

Answer #2: We learn Chulin from Chulin, and we do not learn Chulin from Kodshim, like it says in Chulin (85a).

2)

TOSFOS DH Nivlas Behemah Temei'ah... v'Einah Tzerichah Hechsher

úåñôåú ã"ä ðáìú áäîä èîàä... åàéðä öøéëä äëùø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos proves that the text does not include Chelev.)

åäçìá ìà âøñéðï ãìéëà ìîéîø ãàéï öøéê äëùø

(a)

Assertion: The text does not say "and Chelev", for one cannot say that it does not need Hechsher;

ãàé áçìá ðáìä äà àéðä îèîàä èåîàä çîåøä ãëúéá (åé÷øà æ) éòùä ìëì îìàëä åàîàé ìà ðáòé äëùø

1.

If it is Chelev of a Neveilah, it does not have severe Tum'ah, for it says "Ye'aseh l'Chol Melachah." Why should it not need Hechsher?!

åàé áùçåèä [ö"ì åîùåí ùëáø äåëùø - ùéèä î÷åáöú]

2.

Suggestion: Perhaps it is of a Shechutah, and [it does not need Hechsher] because it already was Huchshar [through Shechitah].

äøé ùðéðå áôø÷ äòåø åäøåèá (çåìéï ÷ëç.) çæø øáé ò÷éáà ìäéåú ùåðä ëøáé éäåãä ãäëùø ùçéèä ìà îäðéà ìçìá îùåí ãàëúé ìàå àåëì äåà ãäà áëôøéí ìàå áø àëéìä äéà òã ãçùéá òìéä åáîñëú èäøåú ìà âøñéðï ìéä òëì''ä

3.

Rejection: We learned in Chulin (128a) that R. Akiva retracted to teach like R. Yehudah, that Hechsher of Shechitah does not help for Chelev, for it is not yet a food, for in villages it is not eaten, until he intends [to eat] it! The text does not say in Taharos. Until here is from Rashi.

(ìôé ùéù ôé' ùàéï ëúá áäï åùîà îàçøéí) [ö"ì åëúáúéå ìôé ùéù ôéøåùéí ùàéï ëúá áäï åùîà àçøé ëï - ùéèä î÷åáöú] äåâä

(b)

Remark: I wrote this because there are Perushim [versions of Perush Rashi] in which this was not written. Perhaps afterwards it was corrected.

åàò''â ãøá ôôà îå÷é äúí áäòåø åäøåèá (ùí) ôìåâúà ãúðàé (áäéúø) [ö"ì áäëùø ÷åãí - ùéèä î÷åáöú] îçùáä

(c)

Implied question: Rav Papa establishes there in Chulin (128a) an argument of Tana'im about Hechsher before intent!

î''î îñúáø (ãäëé ñúí îùðä ãîñëú èäøåú ñáøä ëé çæøä) [ö"ì ãäê ñúí îùðä ãîñëú èäøåú ñáøä ãçæøä - ùéèä î÷åáöú]

(d)

Answer: Even so, it is reasonable that that Stam Mishnah of Maseches Taharos holds that he retracted.

åáñéôà âøñéðï ìä ùôéø äçìá áùåå÷éí àéï öøéê ìà îçùáä åìà äëùø åáçìá ùçåèä (àîøéðï) [ö"ì àééøé - ùéèä î÷åáöú] åëï ôéøù ä÷åðèøñ

(e)

Distinction: In the Seifa, the text properly says "Chelev in markets does not need intent or Hechsher", and it discusses Chelev of a Shechutah. Also Rashi explained so.

3)

TOSFOS DH v'Nivlas Ohf Tahor bi'Kefarim

úåñôåú ã"ä åðáìú òåó èäåø áëôøéí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why villages are different.)

ôéøù ä÷åðèøñ òðééí äí åàéï øâéìéï ìàëåì òåôåú

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [Villagers] are poor, and they do not regularly eat birds.

åðøàä ìôøù èòí àçø áùåå÷éï éù àåëìéï îøåáéí å÷åðéï ëì ãáø áëôøéí àåëìéí îåòèéï åìà æáðé àìà îéãé îòìéà

(b)

Explanation #2: It seems that in markets there are many eaters, and they buy everything. In villages there are few eaters, and they buy only good things.

4)

TOSFOS DH Nivlas Behemah Tehorah b'Chol Makom

úåñôåú ã"ä ðáìú áäîä èäåøä áëì î÷åí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we distinguish different species of Neveilah.)

îä ùéù çéìå÷ áéï èîàä ìèäåøä åàò''â ãúøåééäå ìà îæáéï àìà ìòåáã ëåëáéí åçôöéí äí áçæéø éåúø

(a)

Implied question: Why is there a difference between [Neveilah] of Tamei and Tahor [species]? Both of them are sold only to Nochrim, and they prefer pork!

ëãàîøéðï äúí çåìéï (ã' éæ.) åáúéí îìàéí ëì èåá (ëåúìé) [÷ãìé] ãçæéøé åàîøé' áîâéìä (ãó éâ.) åéùðä ìèåá ëúìé ãçæéøé

1.

Sources: It says in Chulin (17a, in Eretz Yisrael you will find) "u'Vatim Mele'im Kol Tuv" - sides of pork. And we say in Megilah (13a) "va'Yshaneha l'Tov" - [Esther was fed] sides of pork.

îë''î îä ùäéà èäåøä îùåé àåëì áøàåéä îòè äåàéì åëùàéðä ðáéìä àåëì âîåø äåà ìéùøàì

(b)

Answer: In any case, being Tahor makes it a food when it is slightly proper, since when it is not a Neveilah, it is a fully-fledged food for Yisrael.

åîäàé èòîà îäðé ìøáé ùîòåï áâîì åàøðáú ùôï åçæéø ñéîðé èäøä ìùååéé àåëì ëãàîø áñîåê

(c)

Support #1: And for this reason Simanei Taharah help according to R. Shimon for a camel, hare and hyrax and pig, to make it a food, like it says below.

åá÷åðè' ðîé ôéøù ëàï ðáìú áäîä èîàä ë''î ùäéà ñúîà ìàå ìàëéìä ÷ééîà ãîàéñä

(d)

Support #2: Also Rashi explained here that Nivlas Behemah Temei'ah, wherever it is, Stam it is not destined to be eaten, for it is despised;

åòåã éù òìéä ùðé ãçåééï àçã ùìà ðùçèä åòåã ãèîàä äéà

1.

Also, it is rejected for two reasons. Firstly, it was not slaughtered. And also, it is Tamei.

åâáé ðáìú áäîä èäåøä ôéøù ñúîà ìàëéìú òåáã ëåëáéí ãìà îàéñä åòåã ìâáé éùøàì àéï áäï àìà ãçåé àçã äéìëê àéðä öøéëä îçùáä

2.

Regarding Nivlas Behemah Tehorah, he explained that Stam, it is destined for Nochrim to eat it, for it is not despised. Also, regarding Yisrael it is rejected for only one reason. Therefore, it does not need intent.

5)

TOSFOS DH veha'Chelev ba'Shevakim

úåñôåú ã"ä åäçìá áùåå÷éí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that that this is not specifically forbidden Chelev.)

ô''ä øâéìéí ìàëåì òåôåú åùåîï

(a)

Explanation (Rashi): [In the market, people] regularly eat birds and lard.

îùîò ùø''ì ãëì ùåîï ÷øåé çìá åìà îééøé ãå÷à îçìá äàñåø ëâåï úåúá ÷øåí åð÷ìó (çåìéï ãó îè:):

(b)

Inference: All lard is called Chelev. We do not discuss only Chelev that is forbidden, e.g. a membrane covering [the Kerev] that can be peeled off (Chulin 49b).

10b----------------------------------------10b

6)

TOSFOS DH sheha'Shochet Orev Lehislamed Damo Machshir

úåñôåú ã"ä ùäùåçè òåøá ìäúìîã ãîå îëùéø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses Hechsher of Dam Shechitah and Dam Nechirah.)

ôéøù ä÷åðè' àí ðôì òì äæøòéí åë''ù àí ùçèå ùçéèä âîåøä ãîå îëùéø àôéìå ìâåôéä ãùçéèúå îçùáúå

(a)

Explanation (Rashi): [If the blood] fell on [detached] vegetation, it was Machshir it, and all the more so if he did a proper Shechitah, the blood is Machshir even [the raven] itself, for its Shechitah is intent [to eat it];

åàí ðçøå åìà ùçèå úå ìà ôìéâ ø' àìéòæø ãåãàé ìòìîà îëùéø ãîå åìà ìâåôéä ãàéäå âåôéä ìà î÷áì èåîàä áìà îçùáä òëì''ä

1.

If he killed it through Nechirah (tore the Simanim), R. Eliezer would not argue. Surely its blood is Machshir others, but not itself, for it itself does not receive Tum'ah without intent. Until here is from Rashi.

åúéîä ôéøù ããí ðçéøä îëùéø ìòìîà ãîä èòí éëùéø ëéåï ãìà äåé ãí ùçéèä åãí çììéí ìà ùééê ááäîä àìà áàãí

(b)

Objection: What he explained is astounding, that blood of Nechirah is Machshir others. Why is it Machshir, since it is not Dam Shechitah? "Dam Chalalim" does not apply to animals, only to people!

7)

TOSFOS DH She'ani Orev Ho'il y'Yesh Bo Simanei Taharah

úåñôåú ã"ä ùàðé òåøá äåàéì åéù áå ñéîðé èäøä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that the same applies to almost all Tamei species of birds.)

äåà äãéï ë''ã òåôåú çåõ îðùø ëãîåëç ôø÷ àìå èøôåú (çåìéï ñà:)

(a)

Observation: The same applies to all 24 [Tamei species of] birds, except for the Nesher (vulture or eagle), like is proven in Chulin (61b).

8)

TOSFOS DH Mai Airi Lehislamed Afilu Lehis'asek

úåñôåú ã"ä îàé àéøéà ìäúìîã àôé' ìäúòñ÷

(SUMMARY: Tosfos justifies the question.)

ôéøåù åàôé' ðçøå ðîé ãìäúòñ÷ ðîé ìàå ùçéèä äéà åëðçøå ãîé

(a)

Explanation: And even if he did Nechirah (the blood should be Machshir), for also Lehis'asek (he was not engaged in Shechitah) is not Shechitah, and it is as if he did Nechirah to it.

åàò''â ãàæ ìà äéä äåëùø áãí ùçéèä

(b)

Implied question: [If he was Mis'asek, the bird] would not be Huchzak through Dam Shechitah!

î''î ôøéê ëéåï ãìà àúé ìàùîåòéðï ããí ùçéèä îëùéø ãäà ëáø àùîåòéðï åìà áà ìàùîåòéðï àìà ãàéï öøéê îäùáä äåàéì åéù áå ñéîðé èäøä

(c)

Answer: Even so he asks, since [the Beraisa] does not comes to teach that Dam Shechitah is Machshir, for we already know this, and it comes to teach only that intent is not required, since it has Simanei Taharah...

æä äéä éëåì ìàùîåòéðï áìà ùçéèä:

1.

It could have taught this without [discussing] Shechitah!

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF