1)

TOSFOS DH YESH D'RUSAH LE'CHASUL O LA'AV ETC.

úåñôåú ã"ä éù ãøåñä ìçúåì àå ìàå ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos presents two different ways of explaining the sequence of Rav Kahana's She'eilos (both here and in Shabbos.)

äøá ø' éöç÷ áø"î îôøù - ãëì äðê áòéåú äåé áëîä æéîðéï, ãôòí øàùåðä äéä òåñ÷ áòåôåú - åùàìå àí éù ãøåñä ìçúåì, åäùéá ìå øá 'àôéìå ìçåìãä éù ãøåñä'; åùåá äéä òåñ÷ áàéîøé øáøáé - åùàìå àí éù ãøåñä ìçåìãä àí ìàå, åäùéá ìå 'àôéìå ìçúåì àéï ãøåñä'; åùåá äéä òåñ÷ áâãééí åèìàéí - åùàìå çåìãä åçúåì éù ìäí ãøåñä àå ìà, åà"ì 'ìçúåì éù ãøåñä åìà ìçåìãä'.

(a)

Explanation #1: The Rivam explains that Rav Kahana asked Rav all the current She'eilos on different occasions; first he was studying birds, so he asked him whether D'rusah pertains to a cat, to which Rav replied 'It even pertains to a weasel!'; Then he was studying large sheep, so he asked him if D'rusah pertains to a weasel, to which he replied 'It does not even pertain to a cat!', Finally, he was studying kid-goats and lambs, so he asked him whether D'rusah pertains to both a weasel and a cat, and he replied 'To a cat yes, but to a weasel, no!'

åëï äéä îôøù ääéà òåáãà ãùáú ô' úåìéï (ãó ÷ìç. åùí ã"ä áòà) âáé 'ëéìä îäå?' àîø ìå 'àó îèä àñåøä'; 'îèä îäå?' à"ì 'àó ëéìä îåúøú'; 'ëéìä åîèä îäå?' à"ì 'ëéìä àñåøä åîèä îåúøú', åìà ÷ùéà ... '.

(b)

Precedent: And that is how he explained the Gemar in Perek Tolin (Shabbos 138. And there DH Ba'a) where Rav Kahana asked Rav (regarding spreading a temporary Ohel) 'Kilah (a canopy) Mahu', to which the latter replied 'Even a bed is forbidden!', Then he asked him about a bed, to which he replied 'Even a Kilah is permitted'; and when he finally asked him about a Kilah and a bed, he replied 'Kilah Asurah, Mitah Muteres!', and there is no Kashya ... .

åòåã é"ì, ãëì äðê äåå áôòí àçú; áúçìä ùàìå 'éù ãøåñä ìçúåì àå ìàå?' à"ì 'àúä ùåàì ñúí, éù ãáø ùàó ìçåìãä éù ãøåñä'; åäãø áòé îéðéä 'àí ìçåìãä éù ãøåñä áëì î÷åí', åà"ì 'àó ìçúåì ôòîéí ùàéï ãøåñä'; åäãø áòé îéðéä ëéåï ãæä åæä ôòîéí éù ãøåñä åôòîéí ùàéï ãøåñä, ùåéí äï àå ìàå? àîø ìå 'éù ãáø ãìçúåì éù ãøåñä åìçåìãä àéï ãøåñä'.

(c)

Explanation #2: Alternatively, Rav Kahana asked Rav all the above She'eilos in one sitting. First he asked him whether s cat is subject to D'rusah or not, to which he replied 'You ask S'tam'; there is a case where even a weasel is!' Then he asked him whether a weasel is always subject to D'rusah, to which he replied that sometimes even a cat is not. Finally, he asked him whether, since there are occasions where both a cat and a weasel are subject to D'rusah, and sometimes are not, the two are equal, and he answered that there are cases where a cat is subject to D'rusah, but a weasel is not.

åëòðéï æä éù ìôøù ääéà ãùáú.

(d)

Precedent: And it is possible to explain the Gemara in Shabbos in the same way.

2)

TOSFOS DH SHA'AR OFOS TEME'IM YESH LAHEM D'RUSAH O EIN LAHEM D'RUSAH

úåñôåú ã"ä ùàø òåôåú èîàéí éù ìäï ãøåñä àå àéï ìäï ãøåñä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos differentiates between D'rusah here and the Doreis that is the hallmark of T'amei birds.)

äê ãøåñä äééðå ãùãé æéäøéä ëé ùìéó.

(a)

Clarification (Part 1): This D'rusah refers to where the bird injects its venom as it withdraws its claws.

åàéï æä ëé ääéà ãì÷îï (ðè.) ã'ëì òåó äãåøñ èîà', ãäåé îñéîðé èåîàä.

(b)

Clarification (Part 2): And it is therefore unconnected to the Gemara later (on Daf 59.) where it states that every bird that is Doreis is Tamei, which is one of the Simnei Tum'ah of a bird.

åìà îáòéà ìéä äëà àìà áòåôåú èîàéï, àáì ôùéèà ãàéï ãøåñä ìèäåøéí.

(c)

Clarification (Part 3): And the Gemara's She;eilah is restricted to Tamei birds; It is obvious that Tahor ones are not Doreis.

3)

TOSFOS DH U'VA MA'ASEH LIFNEI CHACHAMIM VE'AMRU YESH D'RUSAH

úåñôåú ã"ä åáà îòùä ìôðé çëîéí åàîøå éù ãøåñä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we cannot establish the Beraisa by a small lamb and Rav Kahana by a large one.)

åà"ú, åìéùðé ìéä - ãäëà øçì ÷èðä äéúä, åøá ëäðà àééøé áàéîøé øáøáé?

(a)

Question: Why does the Gemara not answer that here it is speaking about a small sheep, whereas Rav Kahana is referring about to ones?

åé"ì, ãà"ë, îàé àéøéà ãð÷è øá ëäðà 'ùåòì', àôéìå çúåì ðîé?

(b)

Answer: Because if he was, why does he mention a fox, when he could just as well have mentioned a cat?

4)

TOSFOS DH U'VA MA'ASEH LIFNEI CHACHAMIM VE'AMRU EIN D'RUSAH

úåñôåú ã"ä åáà îòùä ìôðé çëîéí åàîøå àéï ãøåñä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why cannot answer by establishing the case by a large sheep.)

åà"ú, åìéùðé ìéä - ãäëà øçì âãåìä äéúä; åëï îùîò, îãìà ð÷è èìä?

(a)

Question: Why does he not answer that this case involved a large sheep, And so it would seem, seeing as it mentions a sheep and not a lamb.

åé"ì, ãà"ë ìà äåä øá ãéîé îùîéòðå ùåí çãåù áäàé îòùä, ãàôéìå ìçúåì àéï ãøåñä áøáøáé.

(b)

Answer: Because then Rav Dimi would not be teaching us any Chidush with this story, since even a cat is not subject to D'rusah by large sheep.

5)

TOSFOS DH KA MASHMA LAN DE'VEHADI DE'SHALIF SHADI ZIHAREIH

úåñôåú ã"ä ÷à îùîò ìï ãáäãé ãùìéó ùãé æéäøéä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos corrects an erroneous ruling regarding D'risah.)

éù ùèåòéï ìäúéø ìùçåè ëùäðõ ùåëá ò"â äòåó åìà äñéø øâìéå òãééï, ãàëúé ìà ùìéó åìà ùãé áéä æéäøéä.

(a)

Refutation: There are some who err inasmuch as they permit Shechting a bird on which a hawk is lying, as long as it has not removed its claws from it, since it has therefore not yet injected it with its venom.

åàñåø ìòùåú ëï, ãëùäðõ øåãó àçø äòåó åìåëãå, îëäå ëîä ôòîéí áøâìéå, åãøéñ åùìéó ëîä æéîðéï.

(b)

Reason: This is forbidden however, since when a hawk chases and captures its prey, it strikes it with its claws repeatedly, in which case it is Doreis and withdraws a number of times.

6)

TOSFOS DH ROV ARAYOS DORSIM

úåñôåú ã"ä øåá àøéåú ãåøñéí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the entire Shakla ve'Tarya according in Rav.)

åà"ú, àôéìå àí úîöà ìåîø ãöôåøï æä îçîú çéëåê àúà, î"î àôéìå áùàø ùååøéí ùàéï áäí öôåøï äéä ìðå ìçåù, ëéåï ãøåá àøéåú ùáéï äùååøéí ãåøñéï?

(a)

Question #1: Even if we assume that this claw is the result of scratching, bearing in mind that most lions are Doreis when they enter a herd of oxen, we ought to suspect (D'risah) even with regard to the other oxen which do not have a claw?

åáñîåê ðîé ã÷àîø àáéé 'àáì î÷åí öôåøï çééùéðï', ìîä ìé 'î÷åí öôåøï' ëìì?

(b)

Question #2: And by the same token, when Abaye says shortly ' ... but the location of the claw we suspect (D'risah)'. Why does he need to mention 'the location of the claw at all'?

åàåîø ø"ú ãäëé ôéøåùå 'øåá àøéåú ãåøñéï' - ëìåîø øàåééï ìãøåñ, ùäï áøéàéí åãåøñéí åîòåèï çåìéï åàéï ãåøñéí.

(c)

Answer/Explanation (Part 1): Rabeinu Tam explains as follows: 'The majority of lions are Doreis (i.e. are fit to be Doreis, seeing as they are healthy and are able to do do); whereas a minority are sick and are therefore not able to be Doreis.

åøåá àøéåú äãåøñéí ùäí áøéàéí àéï öôåøï ðùîèú îäï, åæå äåàéì åöôåøï éåùáú ìå òì âáå, îñúîà äàé àøé çåìä äåà, åìà îçîú ãøåñä áà öôåøï æä ìëàï àìà áëåúì ðúçëê, åäéä äàøé ùåëá àöì äëåúì, åîçîú ùðúçëê äùåø áëåúì åáøâìå ùì àøé ðùîèä îîðå äöôåøï åéùáä ìå òì âáå.

(d)

Answer/Explanation (Part 2): Now the claws of healthy lions that are Doreis do not usually become detached. Consequently, this lion, whose claw whose claw settled on the ox's back, was probably sick, and the claw did not come on the ox's back due to D'risah, but rather when the ox scratched itself against the wall and the lion's foot that was lying next to it. That was when the claw detached itself and settled on the ox's back.

åôøéê 'àãøáä, àò"â ãøåá ùååøéí îúçëëéï, î"î øåá ùååøéí àéï îúçëëéï áî÷åí ùøâì àøé îåðçú ùí, ùúùá ìå öôåøï òì âáå, åéù ìúìåú äöôåøï áãøéñú äàøé.

(e)

Answer/Explanation (Part 3): The Gemara then asks 'On the contrary, even though most oxen scratch themselves, most oxen tend not to do so in the vicinity of a lion's foot, in which case, we ought rather to attribute the claw in its back to the lion's D'risah?

åàò"â ãøåá äáøéàéí äãåøñéí, àéï öôåøï ðùîèú.

(f)

Answer/Explanation (Part 4): Despite the fact that the claws of the majority of healthy lions that are Doreis do not generally becomes detached.

åîñé÷ ãàéëà ìîéîø äëé åäëé - åøá ìèòîéä ãìà çééù ìñô÷ ãøåñä, ãàå÷îä à'çæ÷úä ÷îééúà áçæ÷ú ùìà ðãøñ.

(g)

Answer/Explanation (Part 5): And the Gemara therefore concludes that since we can learn either way, Rav follows his opinion which does not contend with Safeik D'rusah, since we place the ox on its Chazakah of not being a D'rusah.

7)

TOSFOS DH KOL HA'DOREIS EIN HA'TZIPOREN NISHMETES

úåñôåú ã"ä ëì äãåøñ àéï äöôåøï ðùîèú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that 'all' in this case and in the case that the Gemara will cite shortly are La'av Davka.)

äàé 'ëì' ìàå ãå÷à; åëï 'ëì äîúçëê' ãáñîåê

(a)

Clarification (Part 1): The word 'Kol' is La'av Davka', as it is in the Gemara that we will learn shortly 'Every ox that scratches ... '.

àìà ëìåîø 'øåá äãåøñéï', 'øåá äîúçëëéï'.

(b)

Clarification (Part 2): What it really means is 'the majority of lions that are Doreis', and 'the majority of oxen that scratch'.

53b----------------------------------------53b

8)

TOSFOS DH SHARK'FA

úåñôåú ã"ä ùø÷ôà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos presents two translations of the word.)

'÷ï ùì òåôåú'. "åãøåø ÷ï ìä" (úäìéí ôã) îúøâîéðï "ùéø÷ôà".

(a)

Explanation #1: 'A bird's-nest'. The Targum of the Pasuk in Tehilim (84) is 'Shirk'fa'.

åá÷åðèøñ ôéøù - 'ñì îìà òåôåú'.

(b)

Explanation #2: Rashi however, translates it as 'a basket full of birds'.

9)

TOSFOS DH ASI BAH LI'YEDEI TAKALAH

úåñôåú ã"ä àúé áäå ìéãé ú÷ìä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos reconciles this Sugya with the Sugya later in the Perek, which is not worried about Takalah).

åäà ãàîø ì÷îï áôéø÷éï (ãó ðç.) âáé áéöé ñô÷ èøôä, 'ùéçìà ÷îà îùäéðï ìä, àé äãøà èòðä, ùøéà, åìà çééùéðï ìú÷ìä'?

(a)

Implied Question: Then why does the Gemara say later in the Perek (58.), in connection with eggs of a Sefek T'reifah that 'the first batch we put aside; if it lays any more eggs, they are permitted? Why are we not worried there too, about Takalah?

åé"ì, ãäà àîø ô"÷ ãôñçéí (ãó ë:) ã'ú÷ìä òöîä úðàé äéà'.

(b)

Answer #1: However, the Gemara says in the first Perek of Pesachim (Daf 20:) that whether we are concerned about 'Takalah' or not is a Machlokes Tana'im.

åòåã, äúí àé ñåôä ìèòåï îîäøú ìèòåï.

(c)

Answer #2: Moreover, if the Safek T'reifah is going to lay more eggs, it will do so very quickly (in which case the fear of Takalah is not so applicable).

åòåã, ãìîàé ãîñé÷ äëà, ã'ìôøñåîé îéìúà òáéã äëé', ðéçà.

(d)

Answer #3: And thirdly, according to the conclusion here, that what Shmuel did, he did in order to publicize the fact that they were Asur (and not because of Takalah), there is no problem.

10)

TOSFOS DH SAFEK SHUNRA SAFEK KANYA EIMAR KANYA

úåñôåú ã"ä ñô÷ ùåðøà ñô÷ ÷ðéà àéîø ÷ðéà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos reconciles this Sugya with the Gemara in Perek Ta'aroves.)

ìòéì áô"á (ãó ëç. ã"ä àúà) ôéøùúé.

(a)

Reference: Tosfos already explained this earlier on Daf 28. DH Asa).

åà"ú, ãáôø÷ ëì äæáçéí (æáçéí ãó òã:) àîøéðï âáé ðúòøáä áèøôä - 'äàé èøôä ä"ã, àé ãéãò ìéä, ðéù÷ìéä? åàé ãìà éãò ìéä, îäéëï éãò?

(b)

Question (Part 1): At the beginning of 'Ta'aroves (Zevachim 74:) the Gemara asks, with regard to where an animal became mixed up with a T'reifah 'How is this T'reifah speaking? If he recognizes it, let him remove it, and if not, how he does he know that it is a T'reifah?'

à"ø éðàé 'ãàéòøá ð÷åáú ä÷åõ áãøåñú äæàá'; åø"ì àîø ã'àéòøá áðôåìä'; åøáé éøîéä àîø ã'àéòøá áåìã èøôä, åøáé àìòæø äéà'.

(c)

Question (Part 2): To which Rebbi Yanai answers that 'An animal that was pierced by a thorn became mixed up with a D'rusas ha'Ze'ev'; Resh Lakish ... 'with a Nefulah', and Rebbi Yirmiyah ... 'with the child of a T'reifah', and the author is Rebbi Elazar.

åîôøù ã'ëåìäå ëø' éðàé ìà àîøé, áéï ð÷åáú ä÷åõ ìãøåñú äæàá îéãò éãéò, äàé îùéê åäàé òâéì'.

(d)

Question (Part 3): The Gemara then goes on to explain that the other two opinions decline to learn like Rebbi Yanai, because one can discern the difference between a Nekuvas ha'Kotz and a D'rusas ha'Ze'ev, in that the latter is elongated whereas the former is round.

åà"ë, àôùø ìáøø ëàï àé ùåðøà àé ÷ðéà?

(e)

Question (Part 4): In that case, by the same token, it should also be possible in our case to discern as to whether it was a cat (elongated) or a cane?

åé"ì, ããå÷à äúí îï äæàá åìîòìä, àáì áùåðøà ìà éãéò.

(f)

Answer: The Gemara's distinction applies there from a wolf and upwards, but the claw-mark of a cat is not discernable.

åàí úàîø, à"ë, ìéùðé äúí ã'àéòøåá ð÷åáú ä÷åõ áãøåñú çúåì', åáâãééí åèìàéí?

(g)

Question: Then why did the Gemara there not answer that it is speaking about kid-goats and lambs, where a Nekuvas ha'Kotz became mixed up with the D'rusah of a cat.

åé"ì, ãðéçà ìéä ìàå÷åîé áëì äáäîåú.

(h)

Answer: The Gemara preferred to establish the case by all animals.

åäàé ãìà îùðé ã'àéòøåá ãøåñú äëìá áãøåñú äæàá'?

(i)

Implied Question: Why did it not then differentiate between a D'rusas ha'Kelev and a D'rusas ha'Ze'ev?

ãìîà àôùø ìáøø.

(j)

Answer: Perhaps it is possible to discern between them.

11)

TOSFOS DH DD'RUSAH SHE'AMRU TZ'RICHA BEDIKAH ETC

úåñôåú ã"ä ãøåñä ùàîøå öøéëä áãé÷ä ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses whether the Gemara is talking about Safek D'rusah or Vaday D'rusah.)

ô"ä ëâåï ñô÷ ãøåñú àøé àå ùãøñä åàéï î÷åí äãøéñä ðéëø îáçåõ.

(a)

Explanation #1: Rashi establishes the Gemara with regard to a Safek that a lion performed D'risah on it, where it did, only the location of the D'risah is not discernable from the outside.

îùîò ãåãàé ãøåñä ìà îäðéà áãé÷ä; åëï ôéøù äøá øáé éöç÷ áø' îàéø æ"ì ãåãàé ãøåñä àéï ìä áãé÷ä, ùôòîéí ùîàãéí äáùø åàéï éëåì ìëåéï éôä

(b)

Inference: This implies that Bedikah does not help by Vaday D'risah; and that is also the opinion of the Rivam, z.l., who explains that Vaday D'risah is not subject to Bedikah, since sometimes the flesh turns red, making it difficult to assess accurately.

åðøàä ãéù áãé÷ä àôéìå ìåãàé ãøåñä.

(c)

Explanation #2: It would seem however, that Bedikah is effective, even by Vaday D'rusah ...

îãàîø áñîåê 'áãøåñä òã ùéàãéí äáùø ëðâã áðé îòéí, åáñéîðéí òã ùéàãéîå äñéîðéí òöîí, àáì àí äàãéí äáùø ùëðâã äñéîðéí åìà äàãéîå äñéîðéí, ëùøä, àò"â ãåãàé ðãøñä; ùäøé äàãéí äáùø, åà"ë àéëà åãàé æéäøà

(d)

Proof #1: Since the Gemara says shortly that 'by a D'rusah, until the flesh beside the intestines turns red, whereas with regard to the Simanim, only if they themselves turn red, but if it is merely the flesh next to them that is red, the animal is Kasher, even though the fact that it turned red (the result of the venom) indicates that it is a Vaday D'rusah.

åòåãó ã÷àîø áñîåê ã'îåøé áéä øá îëôà òã àèîà' - åäééðå ò"ë åãàé ãøåñä, ãøá ìà çééù ìñô÷ ãøåñä, ãìà äãø áéä - ëãôéøù á÷åðèøñ ìòéì îääéà ãëì ââåú (òéøåáéï öã.)

(e)

Proof #2: Furthermore, the Gemara will also say shortly that 'Rav required Bedikah from the pan of the scull till the thigh' - which can only refer to a Vaday D'rusah, seeing as he did not retract (from his position exempting Safek D'rusah from Bedikah) - as Rashi explained above, based on the Gemara in 'Kol Gagos' (Eruvin 94.).

åäà ãàîø áøéù ôéø÷éï (îâ.) 'ðô÷à îéðä ìñô÷ ãøåñä', åìà àîø ìåãàé ãøåñä ...

(f)

Implied Question: Then why did the Gemara say at the beginning of the Perek (43.) 'Nafka Minah le'Safek D'rusah', and not 'Vaday D'rusah'?

îùåí ãàó ìñô÷ ãøåñä ÷ééîà ìï ãçééùéðï.

(g)

Answer #1: Because le'Halachah, we are also concerned about Safek D'rusah.

åòåã, îãáòé áñîåê 'ååùè ð÷åáúå áîùäå, ãøåñúå ðîé áîùäå; ÷ðä ð÷åáúå áëàéñø, ãøåñúå áëîä?'

(h)

Answer #2 (Part 1): Moreover, since the Gemara will shortly ask that 'Since a Mashehu hole in the Veshet is T'reifah, so too, is a Mashehu D'rusah. But what is the Shi'ur D'risah of a Kaneh, whose Shi'ur for a hole is the size of an Isar?'

àìîà àò"â ãîàãéí áîùäå åðãøñ åãàé, áòé ìîéîø ãëùø òã ùéäà áå áëàéñø.

(i)

Answer #2 (Part 2): From which we see that even though the smallest amount may well turn red, it may not be considered D'risah until it has affected the Shi'ur of an Isar.

åðøàä ùâí á÷åðèøñ ìà ð÷è ñô÷ ãøåñä àìà îùåí ãàæ öøéê ìáãå÷ áëì î÷åí - âáä åëøéñä åöãä, åëì îä ùëðâã áðé äîòééí.

(j)

Conclusion (Part 1): It therefore appears that also Rashi only mentions Safek D'rusah, because then one is required to examine everywhere - the animal's back, its stomach and sides, and the entire area that borders the intestines.

àáì àí äéä ðéëø îáçåõ î÷åí äãøéñä, ìà äéä öøéê ìáãå÷ àìà ëðâã àåúå î÷åí.

(k)

Conclusion (Part 2): Whereas if it was discernable from the outside, it would need to be examined at that spot.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF