1)

TOSFOS DH VE'KAMAH P'GIMAS HA'MIZBE'ACH K'DEI SHE'TACHGOR BAH TZIPOREN

úåñ' ã"ä åëîä ôâéîú äîæáç ëãé ùúçâåø áä öôåøï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses which kind of stones they could possibly have used to build the Mizbe'ach that fitted this criterion).

åà"ú, åäéàê áðå äîæáç, ãàðä éîöàå àáðéí áìà ôâéîä?

(a)

Question (Part 1): How did they build the Mizbe'ach? Where would they find stones without niches? ...

åàí éçìé÷å ááøæì, àéëà àéñåøà ã"ìà úðéó òìéäï áøæì"?

(b)

Question (Part 2): ... And if they would file them with metal, they would contravene the Isur of "waving metal on them"?

åìéëà ìîéîø ðîé ò"é ùîéø ...

(c)

Suggested Answer: Nor would it help to use the Shamir (worm)' ...

ãò"ë ò"é ùîéø ðîé ìà éäéå çì÷åú ùìà úçâåø áäï äöôåøï

(d)

Refutation: ... since the Shamir worm did not render the stones smooth in a way that the nail would not get caught in them ...

îãàîø áîñëú ò"æ ôø÷ øáé éùîòàì (ãó ðá:) âáé 'àáðé îæáç ùù÷öåí àðùé éåï åâðæåí áéú çùîåðàé' - 'äéëé ðòáéã, ðúáøéðäå? "àáðéí ùìéîåú" àîø øçîðà! ðéðñøéðäå?' - ôéøåù ìòùåú áìà ôâéîä "ìà úðéó òìéäï áøæì" àîø øçîðà!'

(e)

Reasoning (Part 1): ... since the Gemara states in Perek Rebbi Yishmael (Avodah-Zarah 52b) regarding the stones of the Mizbe'ach that the Greeks contaminated and that the Chashmona'im hid 'What should we do? If we fix them to the Mizbe'ach, the Torah said "complete stones"? Shall we saw them (to remove the niches)? The Torah writes "Do not wave metal over them?

åäùúà ìéòáãéðäå ò"é ùîéø? àìà åãàé ùîéø àéï òåùä àåúí çì÷åú, ùìà úçâåø áäï äöôåøï?

(f)

Reasoning (Part 2): ... Now why did they not use the Shamir? ... unless we say that the Shamir does not achieve that degree of smoothness, as we explained.

åéù ìåîø, ãáôø÷ àéæäå î÷åîï (æáçéí ãó ðã.) îùîò ùáðå àåúí áàáðéí ÷èðåú çì÷åú ùìà äéä áäí ùåí ôâéîä, ëâåï çìå÷é àáðéí ùì ðçì.

(g)

Answer: In Perek Eizehu Mekoman (Zevachim 54a) it is implied that they built it with small smooth stones, which contained no niches, such as pebbles from the brook.

åîéäà ÷ùä, ãâáé áéú äî÷ãù ðîé ëúéá "àáï ùìîä îñò ðáðä", å÷àîø ø' éäåãä áôø÷ òâìä òøåôä (ñåèä ãó îç:) ãáéú äî÷ãù ðáðä ò"é ùîéø?

(h)

Question: That is difficult however, since, regarding the Beis-Hamikdash the Torah also writes "complete quarried stones", and Rebbi Yehudah learns in Sotah (48b) that it was built by means of the Shamir?

2)

TOSFOS DH HA BI'TEKUSHAH HA BI'MECHUBERES

úåñ' ã"ä äà áúìåùä äà áîçåáøú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara did not give the same answer with regard to the Mishnah of 'Shein').

âáé ùï ä"î ìùðåéé äëé?

(a)

Implied Question: Why did the Gemara not give the same answer regarding the Mishnah of Shein (tooth)?

àìà îùåí ãáîúðé' úðé 'åäùéðéí' ãîùîò úøé - îùåí äëé ðîé îå÷é ìä áúìåùéí, åôñåìéï îôðé ùäí çåð÷éí.

(b)

Answer: Because the Mishnah mentions 'Shinayim' (in the plural), implying two teeth - which is why the Gemara establishes it by detached teeth, which are Pasul because they strangle the animal.

3)

TOSFOS DH VE'LO KATANI OSRIN U'MATIRIN

úåñ' ã"ä åìà ÷úðé àåñøéï åîúéøéï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara asks this question specifically here).

áëîä ãåëúé ÷úðé 'ëùø' åùøéà áàëéìä?

(a)

Implied Question: In a number of places, the Tana says 'Kasher', yet it is permitted to eat? ...

àìà äëà ùàðé, ãàéëà ìîéèòé.

(b)

Answer: ... But here it is different, since one could easily err.

4)

TOSFOS DH AVAL BE'SHA'AR TABA'OS LO

úåñ' ã"ä àáì áùàø èáòåú ìà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos elaborates on Rashi's interpretation of Rav and Shmuel's statement [with which they ultimately disagree] and on the Tosefta).

ôéøù á÷åðèøñ, ãàéï ùçéèä ëùéøä áäï ëìì, àìà áéï äèáòåú; åìà àîø ø' éåñé 'øåáå ëëåìå' àìà áî÷åí ùçéèä, àáì ìùååéé î÷åí ùçéèä, ìà àîø 'øåáå ëëåìå'.

(a)

Explanation #1 (Part 1): Rashi explains that the Shechitah is not Kasher at all inside the other Taba'os, only in between them; and Rebbi Yossi only said 'Rubo ke'Kulo' within the location of the Shechitah, but not with regard to rendering a location Kasher.

åäùúà ëì ùëï ìøáðï, ùàéï äùçéèä ëùøä áùàø äèáòåú ìôéøåùå.

(b)

Explanation #1 (Part 2): In that case, how much more so, according to his explanation, will the Rabbanan (who do not hold 'Rubo ke'Kulo') declare not Kasher a Shechitah inside the other Taba'os!

åîä ùàéï àðå ðæäøéï òëùéå ìùçåè áúåê äèáòåú?

(c)

Question: And the reason that we are not fussy about Shechting inside the other Taba'os is ...

îùåí ãàéï äìëä ëï, ëãôé' á÷åðèøñ.

(d)

Answer: ... because the above is not Halachah (as Rashi explains) ...

åáøééúà ãúåñôúà ùäáéà á÷åðèøñ ã÷úðé 'îöåú ùçéèä îï äèáòú òã äøéàä', öøéê ìàå÷åîé ëø' éåñé áøáé éäåãä, ãîñ÷éðï áñîåê ãáùàø èáòåú ðîé îëùéø.

1.

Clarifying Beraisa (Part 1): ... and the Beraisa in the Tosefta cited by Rashi, which describes the Mitzvah of Shechitah as being 'from the Taba'as down to the lung', we will have to establish it according to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, who validates the Shechitah even inside the other Taba'os, as we will conclude shortly.

àé ðîé, îèáòú äâãåìä òã (ëðôé) äøéàä áî÷åí ÷ðä ÷àîø, åáúåê ùàø èáòåú ìà àé÷øé ÷ðä, ëãôé' á÷åðèøñ.

2.

Clarifying Beraisa (Part 2): Alternatively, what the Tana means is from the large Taba'as until (the flaps of) the lungs which are in the location of the wind-pipe, and the other Taba'os are not called the wind-pipe, as Rashi himself explains.

åîñéôà ã÷úðé 'ùééø áä ëçåè ñîåê ìøàù îå÷ó àú ëåìä, ëùøä' - åîã÷ã÷ á÷åðèøñ îã÷úðé 'ñîåê ìøàù', ù"î ãìà çééù àé ðôé÷ îéðä åìîèä, àìà îîðä åìîòìä.

3.

Clarifying Beraisa (Part 2): Also, Rashi extrapolates from the Seifa of the Beraisa 'If he left over a thread all the way round close to the head', that the Tana is not concerned if it goes out below the Taba'as, only above it.

åîúåê ëê, ñúø ãáøé äîôøù ãáëì èáòåú çùéá äâøîä ìøáðï åìøáé éåñé, ãîëéåï ùäúçéì äùçéèä áúåê äèáòú öøéê ùéâîåø ëì äùçéèä áúåëä.

4.

Inference: As a result, Rashi rejects the opinion of those who maintain that according to both the Rabbanan and Rebbi Yossi, Hagramah extends to all the Taba'os, because once one begins to Shecht inside a Taba'as, one is obligated to complete it there.

åîéäå ìôéøåù ä÷åðèøñ àéï ÷ùä îùí, ãàò"â ãàôùø ãéôñì ðîé ìöã îèä, àí äéä éåöà îèáòú äâãåìä åäéä ðëðñ áùàø èáòåú, î"î àéï öøéê ìùééø îìà äçåè ëìôé îèä; ãàãøáä, èåá äåà ùìà éùçåè ëìì áúåê äèáòåú àìà áéï èáòú ìèáòú.

5.

Refutation #1: In fact however, there is no Kashya from there on Rashi's explanation, because, even though it is perhaps Pasul below too, had it left the large Taba'as and entered the other Taba'os, it is nevertheless not necessary to leave over a full-thread underneath, since to the contrary, it would be better not to Shecht at all inside the other Taba'os, only between one Taba'as and the next.

åî"î ãçå÷ äåà ìôé' ä÷åðèøñ.

(e)

Refutation #2: In any event, Rashi's explanation is a Dochek (forced).

åðøàä ìôøù ãäëé ÷àîø - ãàó øáé éåñé áøáé éäåãä ìà àîø ãîäðé ùéåø îìà äçåè òì ôðé øåáä àìà áèáòú äâãåìä, ãáøåáä éù øåá ÷ðä, ãäà î÷ôú ëì ä÷ðä ...

(f)

Explanation #2 (Part 1): It therefore seems that what the Gemara means is - that even Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah only says that 'Shiyer M'lo ha'Chut al-P'nei Rubo' only helps on the Taba'as ha'Gedolah, since, by virtue of the fact that it surrounds the entire Kaneh, a majority of it incorporates the majority of the Kaneh ...

àáì áùàø èáòåú ìà îäðé øåá èáòú, ãàéï áøåá ùìäí øåá ä÷ðä, ùäøé àéï î÷éôéï ëì ä÷ðä.

(g)

Explanation #2 (Part 2): Whereas by the other Taba'os, it does not help to leave Rov Taba'as, because, bearing in mind the fact that they do not surround the entire Kaneh, a majority of them does not incorporate the majority of the Kaneh.

18b----------------------------------------18b

5)

TOSFOS DH YOSEF BAR REBBI CHIYA MI'KULI ALMA GAMIR

úåñ' ã"ä éåñó áø øáé çééà îëåìé òìîà âîéø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains this statement, and discusses its ramifications).

ëìåîø ìà ùîòä îøá åùîåàì.

(a)

Clarification (Part 1): In other words, he did not hear it from Rav and Shmuel.

åîä ùàéï àåëìéï àåúå áî÷åîå, çåîøà áòìîà äéà, åìà òì ôé øá åùîåàì.

(b)

Clarification (Part 2): And it is not eaten in one's home city only as a Chumra, an added stringency, and not based on the ruling of Rav and Shmuel.

åôøéê 'åìéú ìéä ìøáé æéøà ... '? ãðäé ãìà àîø øá åùîåàì, î"î äéä àñåø, ëéåï ùðäâå áî÷åîå àéñåø.

(c)

Clarification (Part 3): The Gemara nevertheless asks whether Rebbi Zeira does not hold 'Nosnin Alav Chumrei Makom ... '?, because even if Rav and Shmuel did not forbid it, it was forbidden, since the Minhag in his town was to forbid it.

6)

TOSFOS DH KEIVAN DE'ANAN KAIFINAN L'HU ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä ëéåï ãàðï ëééôéðï ìäå ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves the discrepancy between our Sugya and the Sugya in the first Perek of Sanhedrin).

áô"÷ ãñðäãøéï (ãó ä.) îùîò àéôëà, ìòðéï ìéèåì øùåú ìãåï ìäéåú ôèåø îìùìí; ã÷àîø 'îäëà ìäúí îäðé, îäúí ìäëà îàé?'

(a)

Implied Question: In the first Perek of Sanhedrin (5a) the Gemara seems to say the reverse, regarding receiving permission to judge and being Patur from paying in the event that one errs - since it says there from here (Bavel) to there (Eretz Yisrael) it helps; What will be the Din from there to here?'

åàåîø ø"ú, ãìòðéï àéñåø åäéúø, áðé àøõ éùøàì òãéôé, ãçëéîé èôé; àáì ìòðéï äô÷òú îîåï, øàù äâåìä òãéó, ëãàîøéðï äúí - 'ãäëà ùáè åäúí îçå÷÷'.

(b)

Answer: Rabeinu Tam explains that regarding Isur ve'Heter (which is the case in our Sugya) the B'nei Eretz Yisrael are superior, since they are more knowledgeable; but when it comes to extracting money, the Resh Galusa (head of Bavel) is superior, as the Gemara there explains 'because here it is termed 'Sheivet' (a staff)', whereas there it is termed 'Mechokek' (legislator).

åàîøéðï ðîé "ìà éñåø ùáè îéäåãä" - 'àìå øàùé âìéåú ùáááì ùøåãéí àú äòí áî÷ì', "åîçå÷÷ îáéï øâìéå" - 'àìå áðé áðéå ùì äìì, ùîìîãéí úåøä áøáéí'.

(c)

Proof #1: We also say (to explain the Pasuk in Vayechi) "The 'Sheivet will not depart from Yehudah - these are the heads of the Galuyos in Bavel, who rule the people with their staff; "and the 'Mechokek' from between his legs" - these are the grandsons of Hillel, who taught Torah in public.

åàîøéðï áôø÷ á' ãäåøéåú (ãó éà:) 'ðùéà ùáà"é àéï îáéà ùòéø, îùåí ãàéëà áááì øàù âåìä, åòùéø îîðå'.

(d)

Proof #2: And we also say in the second Perek of Hori'os (11b) that the Nasi in Eretz Yisrael does not bring a goat, since there is the Resh Galusa in Bavel, and he was richer than he was.

7)

TOSFOS DH HANI MILI HICHA DE'DA'TO LACHZOR

úåñ' ã"ä äðé îéìé äéëà ããòúå ìçæåø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos cites Rav Ashi's ruling in Pesachim, which seems to clash with his answer here, and reconciles the two).

ìôé äàé ùéðåéà îùîò ãçåîøé î÷åí ùäìê ìùí ðåúðéï òìéå, àò"â ããòúå ìçæåø.

(a)

Implication: This answer implies that one places on him the Chumros of the place he has arrived at, even though it is his intention to return.

åàé àôùø ìåîø ëï, ãøá àùé âåôéä ãîùðé äëà, îå÷é ìä áôø÷ î÷åí ùðäâå (ôñçéí ãó ðà.) áàéï ãòúå ìçæåø, âáé 'øáä áø áø çðä ãàëì ãàééúøà'.

(b)

Refutation: It is impossible to say this however, since Rav Ashi himself, who answers the question here, in Perek Makom she'Nahagu (Pesachim 51a) establishes it where he has no intention of returning, in the case where Rabah bar bar Chanah ate d'Ayatra (the fat on the string section of an animal's stomach).

åàéï ìçåù áîàé ã÷úðé ìöããéï ...

(c)

Implied Question: Nor need one worry about establishing the Mishnah in two cases (the Reisha where he has in mind to return, and the Seifa, where he doesn't) ...

ãìòåìí ðåúðéï òìéå çåîøé î÷åí ùãòúå ìäéåú ùí.

(d)

Answer #1: ... since we always place on him the Chumros of the town where he intends to remain.

àé ðîé, îä ùîçì÷ áéï ãòúå ìçæåø ìàéï ãòúå, äðé îéìé îááì ìà"é åîàøõ éùøàì ìááì ùäåìëéí àçø î÷åí ùãòúå ìéùàø ùí ...

(e)

Answer #2 (Part 1): Alternatively, the distinction that he makes between whether one intends to return or not is confined to where one is traveling from Bavel to Eretz Yisrael or from Eretz Yisrael to Bavel ...

àáì îááì ìááì åîà"é ìà"é - ðåúðéï òìéå çåîøé î÷åí ùéöà îùí åçåîøé î÷åí ùäìê ìùí áéï ãòúå ìçæåø áéï àéï ãòúå ìçæåø.

(f)

Answer #2 (Part 2): ... but from Bavel to Bavel or from Eretz Yisrael to Eretz Yisrael - one places on him the Chumros of the place where he came from and those of the place where he is going to, irrespective of whether it is his intention to return or not.

8)

TOSFOS DH O DILMA PAGA VE'LO NAGA

úåñ' ã"ä àå ãìîà ôâò åìà ðâò

(SUMMARY: Tosfos queries Rashi's interpretation of this statement before presenting their own).

ôé' á÷åðèøñ ùçè ìîèä îï äçéèé

(a)

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that one Shechted below the Chiti (the vocal chords).

å÷ùä, ãà"ë, äåä ìéä ìîéîø 'úé÷å', ãäà øá ôôà ãàîø 'ùééø áçéèé ëùøä', îîä ðôùê ôìéâ à'ãøá ôôé ...

(b)

Question #1 (Part 1): In that case, the Gemara should have remained with a 'Teiku', seeing as Rav Papa, who validates the Shechitah if one left over some of the Chiti towards the head ...

ãäà àôé' ôâò åðâò îëùéø, åëì ùëï ôâò åìà ðâò?

(c)

Question #1 (Part 2): ... seeing as he validates even 'Paga ve'Naga', how much more so 'Paga ve'Lo Naga'?

åòåã, ëéåï ãàúà ìôìåâé, ìà äåä ìéä ìîéîø 'àéúîø' àìà ø' ôôà àîø?

(d)

Question #3: Moreover, since he (Rav Papa) is coming to argue, the Gemara should not have said 'Itmar', but 'Rav Papa says'? (cont.)