12th Cycle dedication

CHULIN 65 (30 Av) - Today's study material has been dedicated by Al and Sophie Ziegler of Har Nof, Yerushalayim, in honor of the Yahrzeit of Al's father Bernard B. Ziegler, Binyamin Baruch ben Avraham (and Miryam), which occurs on 30 Menachem Av.

1)

TOSFOS DH REBBI YOSSI OMER U'SHEMO CHAGAV

úåñôåú ã"ä øáé éåñé àåîø åùîå çâá

(SUMMARY: Tosfos establishes Rebbi Yossi like the Tana Kama, and discusses various aspects of the K'lal u'P'rat.)

àåîø äéä äøéá"í, ãøáé éåñé îôøù îéìúà ãúðà ÷îà, åìà ôìéâ ...

(a)

Clarification: The Rivam explains that Tebbi Yossi is explaining the words of the Tana Kama, and is not arguing with him ...

ëãîåëç áâîøà - ãúðà ãáé øáé éùîòàì ããøéù ëìì åôøè åëìì åîøáä ëòéï äôøè ëì ãàéú ìéä ã' ñéîðéï, åãøéù "çâá" 'ìùîå çâá';

(b)

Proof: As is evident from the Gemara - where Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael, who Darshens 'K'lal u'P'rat u'K'lal' and includes whatever is similar to the P'rat in that it has four Simanim, and he Darshens "Chagav" to include that it must be called 'Chagav'.

åúðà ãáé øá ìà ãøéù "çâá" 'ìùîå çâá, àìà ÷àîø "çâá" ' æä âãéàï' åìà îøáä îéãé îëòéï äôøè, åáòé ä' ñéîðéï - äðê àøáò åàéï øàùå àøåê, åôñéì øàùå àøåê.

1.

Proof (cont.): Whereas Tana de'bei Rav does not Darshen "Chagav" to require that it nis called 'Chagav', only the Torah writes Chagav, which is synonymous with 'Gadi'an', including nothing from what is similar to the 'P'rat', since he requires five Simanim, the four that are mentioned plus that it may not have a long head, invalidating it if it has.

åúðà ãîúðéúéï ã÷úðé àøáòä ñéîðéï, åìà ÷úðé 'àéï øàùå àøåê' - ù"î ãñáø ëúðà ãáé øáé éùîòàì, ãîëùéø àôéìå øàùå àøåê.

2.

Proof (cont.): And the Tana of our Mishnah requires four Simanim and does not require it not to have a long head - a proof that he hiolds like Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael, who validates even a locust with a long head.

åà"ú, ì"ì ãëúá øçîðà "çâá" 'ìùîå çâá', úéôå÷ ìé îëòéï äôøè, ëîå äðê ã' ñéîðéï?

(c)

Question: Why does the Torah need to write "Chagav" to teach us that it must be called 'Chagav', why can we not learn it from the P'rat, ike the other four Simanim?

åé"ì, ìôé ùàéï ñéîï æä ã'ùîå çâá' çùåá ëùàø ñéîðéï, åìà äåä îöøëéðï ìéä, ëé äéëé ãìà áòéðï 'àéï øàùå àøåê åîøáéðï àò"ô ãøàùå àøåê.

(d)

Answer: Because the Siman that 'It is called a Chagav' is not as Chashuv as the other four Simanim, and we not have required it, just as we don't require it not to have a long head, to include even those that do.

åîäàé èòîà ðîé àéöèøéê ìàùîåòéðï á÷øà "ëøòéí" áäãéà.

(e)

Answer to a Similar Question #1: And it is for exactly the same reason that the Torah needs to specifically insert "Kera'ayim" (jumping legs),

àé ðîé, "ëøòéí" àéöèøéê ìëããøùéðï áâîøà - 'àéï ìå òëùéå åòúéã ìâãì àçø æîï'.

(f)

Answer to a Similar Question #2: Alternatively, it needs to insert "Kera'ayim" for the D'rashah cited in the Gemara - that even if it does not have the jumping legs now, but it will grow them at a later stage ... .

à"ð, ìëìì åôøè ëã÷àîø áâîøà "àùø ìå ëøòéí" 'ëìì'.

(g)

Answer to Other Question 3#: Or for the 'K'lal u'P'rat', as the Gemara will say later "asher Lo Kera'ayim" - 'K'lal'.

àáì àéï ìôøù ùéù áàçã îîéðé àøáä àå îîéðé ñìòí åçøâåì ùàéï ùîå 'çâá' åàéï ìäí ëøòéí, åàé ìàå ãëúáéðäå ÷øà áäãéà, äåä îëùøéðï ìäå, ãáëìì àøáä åñìòí åçøâåì ðéðäå ...

(h)

Rejected Answer: One cannot however explain that there is a species of Arbeh, Sal'am or Chargol that is not called 'Chagav' or that does not have Kera'ayim, and that had the Torah therefore not inserted them, we would have validated it, since it is included in Arbeh, Sal'am or Chargol ...

ãà"ë, ëé ÷àîø áâîøà ãúðà ãáé ø"é åúðà ãáé øá àéëà áéðééäå 'øàùå àøåê', ìéîà ãàéëà áéðééäå ã'àéï ùîå çâá' - ãìúðà ãáé øá ùøé åìúðà ãáé ø"é àñåø?

(i)

Rejection: Because if that was the case, when the Gemara says that the difference between Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael and Tana de'bei Rav lies in Rosho Aruch, why did the Gemara not cite the difference between them as 'Ein Sh'mo Chagav' - which will be permitted according to Tana de'bei Rav, and forbidden according to Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael.

åëï î"ëøòéí" ÷ùä, ã÷àîø áâîøà "àùø ìå ëøòéí" ëìì, "àøáä ñìòí åçøâåì" ôøè.

(j)

Question: Similarly, when the Gemara says defines "asher Lo Kera'ayim" as a 'K'lal', and "Arbeh, Sal'am and Chargol" as 'P'rat' ...

àãøáä äðé ôøèé îøáä éåúø îï äëìì, ãëììà îîòè ëì àøáä ñìòí åçøâåì ùàéï ìäí ëøòéí, åôøèé îøáä ...

1.

Question (cont.): It emerges that the P'ratim incorporate more than the K'lal, since the 'K'lal' excludes all kinds of Arbeh, Sal'am and Chargol that do not have Kera'ayim, whereas the K'lal Includes them.

åëé äàé âååðà ìà àùëçï ãòáéã ëìì åôøè.

2.

Question (cont.): And nowhere do we find a 'K'lal u'P'rat' that works in this way?

2)

TOSFOS DH AF-AL-PI SHE'EIN LO ACHSHAV VE'ASID LEGADEIL ACHAR Z'MAN

úåñôåú ã"ä àò"ô ùàéï ìå òëùéå åòúéã ìâãì àçø æîï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the significance of all the cases where the Torah writes "asher Lo", and contrasts them to other locations where the Torah writes "Lo".)

îãëúéá "ìà" áàìó ÷ãøéù. åìà îöé ìîéîø "ìà" ùàéï ìå ëøòéí ëìì ÷àîø...

(a)

Clarification: He Darshens this from the fact that the Torah writes "Lo" (with an 'Alef'), which one cannot explains to mean that it has no jumping legs at all ...

ãàãøáä - ñìòí àøáä åçøâåì éù ìäí ÷øöåìéí, ëã÷úðé áäãéà á'äöã äùåä ùáäï ... '.

(b)

Proof: Because, to the contrary - Sal'am, Arbeh and Chargol all have jumping legs, as the Gemara specifically states in the 'Tzad ha'Shaveh'.

åëï "àùø ìà çåîä" ãâáé òøé çåîä ãøéù 'àò"ô ùàéï ìå òëùéå, åäéúä ìå ÷åãí ìëï' - áô' ÷îà ãîâéìä (ãó â:) ...

(c)

Precedent #1: Similarly, regarding the Pasuk "asher Lo Chomah" (in connection with Batei Arei Chomah), the Gemara in the first Perek of Megilah (Daf 3:) the Gemara Darshens 'even though it does not have a wall now, but it had one before'.

åìà îöé ìîéîø ùàéï ìå ëìì ÷àîø, ãáòøé çåîä îéùúòé ÷øà.

1.

Proof: There too, it cannot be speaking where it never had a wall, seeing as the Pasuk is speaking about a house in 'a walled city'.

åëï "àùø ìà éòãä åäôãä" åîúøâîéðï 'ã÷ééîé ìéä' - ôé' ùäéä ìå ì÷ééîä åìéòãä', ãîöåú éòéãä ÷åãîú.

(d)

Precedent #2: And likewise the Pasuk "asher Lo Ye'adah Vehefdah", which Unklus translates as 'de'Kayma lah' - meaning 'that he (the master) ought to have retained her (the Amah ha'Ivriyah) and betrothed her, since the Mitzvah of Yi'ud takes precedence.

åîäàé ÷øà ãøùé' ìéä áô"÷ ãáëåøåú (ãó éâ.) ã'îöåú éòéãä ÷åãîú ìîöåú ôãééä', ùðàîø "àùø ìà éòãä åäôãä".

1.

Proof: As a matter of fact, the Gemara in Bechoros (13.) learns from here that 'The Mitzvah of Yi'ud takes precedence over that of redemption', as the Torah writes "asher Lo Ye'adah ve'Hefdah".

åàò"â ãëúéá áàì"ó. ãøùéðï ëàéìå ëúéá áåé"å - ëìåîø ùäéä ìå ìéòãä, åàéðå øåöä "åäôãä".

2.

Proof (cont.): Because even though "Lo" is written with an 'Alef', we explain it as if it was written with a 'Vav' i.e. that "He should have performed Yi'ud with her (but didn't), so he must "enable her to be redeemed".

åäééðå èòîà - ãìîä ìéä ìîëúá "àùø ìà éòãä", ôùéèà? ãáìà éòãä îéùúòé ÷øà, ãàí éòãä äéúä öøéëä âè, åâí ìà äéúä öøéëä ôãééú àá, ùáùòú ééòåã ô÷ò ùòáåã ùôçåú îéðä.

3.

Precedent #2 (cont.): The basis for this is - because otherwise, why does the Torah need to write "asher Lo Ye'adah", since it is obvious that the Pasuk is talking about a case where he did not perform Yi'ud; because if he had, a. she would require a Get and b. she would not need her father to redeem her, seeing as once the master performs Yi'ud, his jurisdiction over her as a maidservant terminates.

åà"ú, áôø÷ ëùí (ñåèä ìà.) ãôøéê 'åëì äéëà ãëúéá "ìà" áàì"ó îîù äåà, åäà ëúéá "áëì öøúí ìà öø, åîìàê ôðéå äåùéòí?" åàîàé ìà îééúé îëì äðê ÷øàé?

(e)

Question: In Perek K'shem (Sotah 31.) the Gemara asks whether it is true that wherever the Torah writes "Lo" with an 'Alef' it is literal; But does the Pasuk not "be'Chol Tzarasam *Lo* Tzar, u'Mal'ach Hash-m Hoshi'am"? Why did the Gemara not cite all the above examples?

åéù ìåîø, ãáëì äðé àéëà äåëçà îâåôéä ã÷øà ùøåöä ìåîø "àùø ìå" áåé"å, àò"â ãëúéá áàì"ó - ãàøáä ñìòí åçøâåì éù ìäí ÷øöåìéí; å"òøé çåîä áéù ìäí çåîä îééøé, åâáé "éòãä" ëãôøéùéú, îãëúéá ëìì.

(f)

Answer: Because in all of those cases there is an indication from the Pasuk itself that it really means "asher Lo" with a 'Vav', even though it is written with an 'Alef' - since Arbeh, Sal'am and Chargol all have jumping legs; Arei Chomah is speaking about towns with walls, and Ya'adah, from the fact that it inserts it in the first place, as Tosfos explained earlier.

àáì "öøúí ìà öø" ìà îåëç îâåôéä ã÷øà ùä÷á"ä ëáéëåì îéöø áöøúí ùì éùøàì àìà î÷øà àçø, ãëúéá "òîå àðëé áöøä".

1.

Answer (cont.): Whereas from the Pasuk "Tzarasam Lo Tzar" itself there is no indication that Hash-m suffers with the suffering of Yisrael, only from the Pasuk "Imo Anochi be'Tzarah".

åà"ú, åäéëé ãøùéðï äëà åâáé òøé çåîä îãëúéá "ìà" áàìó, ãáòé ìîéîø ÷øà àò"ô ùàéï ìå òëùéå, åäà îñ÷éðï áôø÷ ëùí (âí æä ùí) ãàì"ó îùîò äëé åäëé, äï àå ìàå?

(g)

Question: How can the Gemara here and with regard to Batei Arei Chomah Darshen from the fact that it writes "Lo" with an 'Alef' that it wants to say 'even though it does not have them now', seeing as the Gemara in 'K'shem' (Ibid.) concludes that the letter 'Alef' has connotations of both 'yes' and 'no'?

åéù ìåîø, ãî"î ãøùéðï, îãùðé ìîëúá áàì"ó éåúø îëì àåúí "ìå" ùøåöéí ìåîø äï, ùëúåáéï áåé"å, ù"î ìãøùä.

(h)

Answer: We nevertheless Darshen it in this way, since the Torah chnges to write it with an 'Alef' more than all the places where it writes it with a 'Vav', where it wants to say 'Yes', indicating that here it means 'No'.

å"ìà öø" ðîé ãøùéðï áîãøù ãëúéá áàì"ó, ãëì öøä ùàéðä ìéùøàì îàåîåú àéðä öøä.

1.

Answer (cont.): In fact the Medrash too, Darshens from "Lo Tzar" - because it is written with an 'Alef' that 'Any Tzarah that does not come upon Yisrael from the nations of the world, is not a (genuine) Tzarah.

3)

TOSFOS DH EILU K'LALEI K'LALOS U'PERATEI P'RATOS

úåñôåú ã"ä àìå ëììé ëììåú åôøèé ôøèåú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discuses the various interpretations of 'K'lalei J'lalos and P'ratei P'ratos.)

ëããøùéðï áñîåê ã"àùø ìå ëøòéí" - ëìì, "àøáä ñìòí åçøâåì" - ôøè, "ìîéðäå" - çæø åëìì.

(a)

Clarification: As we will Darshen shortly "asher Lo Kera'ayim" is a K'lal, Arbeh Sal'am Chargol", a P'rat and "le'Mineihu", a K'lal.

åìàå ãå÷à ð÷è úðà ãáé ø' éùîòàì "ñìòí" ì'ëìì åôøè åëìì', ã"ñìòí" ÷øà éúéøà ìîéùøé øàùå àøåê, ëãîñ÷éðï áñîåê.

1.

Clarification (cont.): And it is La'av Davka that Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael includes "Sala'm" in the 'K'lal u'P'rat u'K'lal', since "Sal'am" is superfluous, and comes permit locust with a long head, as we will conclude shortly.

å"ìîéðäå" ã"ñìòí" îôøù äøéá"í ãàéöèøéê, ãàé ìà ëúéá "ìîéðäå", äåä àîéðà ãå÷à áîéï ñìòí ùøé øàùå àøåê, àáì áùàø ìà; ìäëé ëúéá "ìîéðäå" ìøáåéé áëåìäå.

2.

Clarification (cont.): And as for "le'Mineihu" of "Sal'am", the Rivam explains that the Torah needs to insert it, because had it omitted it, we would have thought that it is specifically in connection with the species of Sal'am that the Torah permits those with a long head, but not by the other species of locust. So the Torah wrote "le'Mineihu" to include them all .

à"ð, äåä àîéðà ã"ñìòí" àúà ìàñåø îéðå, ÷î"ì.

(b)

Alternative: We would have thought that "Sal'am" comes to forbid other species of Sal'am; Therefore "le'Mineihu" teaches us that they are permitted.

åìà ÷àîø 'ëììé ëììåú' ìîéîø ãëì àìå øàåééï ìãåðí á'ëìì åôøè åëìì', àìà ä"÷ - àìå ëììåú äáàéï àçø ëììåú åôøèåú äáàéï àçø ôøèåú, åöøéê ìãåøùí ëåìí ëôé äøàåé.

1.

Clarification (cont.): The Tana does not say 'K'lalei K'lalos' to learn that each of these is fit to teach us an individual 'K'lal u'P'rat u'K'lal'.What it does mean is - that they are K'lalos that come after K'lalos and P'ratos that come after P'ratos, and one therefore needs to Darshen them, each one as befits it.

å"àøáä åçøâåì" áìáã äí ãáàéí á'ëìì åôøè', ëãîåëç áùîòúà; å"ñìòí" ìîéùøé øàùå àøåê, ëãîñ÷éðï, å"çâá" ìäöøéê ùùîå çâá; å"ìîéðäå" ãçâá ìäöøéê ëì äñéîðéï äììå, ëãîôøù áäãéà ááøééúà.

2.

Clarification (cont.): In fact, "Arbeh" and "Chargol" alone come to teach a 'K'lal u'P'rat', as is evident from the Sugya, where "Sal'am" comes to permit locusts with a long head, as we conclude; "Chagav" to require that it must be called 'Chagav'. Whereas "le'Mineihu" of Chagav comes to require all the Simanim as the Beraisa specifically explains.

å"ìîéðäå" ã"ñìòí" ëãîôøù ìéä îñáøà ãðôùéä, ëãôøéùéú.

3.

Clarification (cont.): And "le'Mineihu" of Sal'am of "Sal'am" as the Tana Darshens, based on his own logic, as Tosfos just explained.

åà"ú, ìîä äåöøê ìëúåá "ìîéðäå" áëì àçã á"àøáä" å"ñìòí" å"çøâåì", ìëúåá 'ìîéðéäï' åéäéä ãé áëì àçã ìùìùúï áñåó?

(c)

Question: Why does the Torah need to write "le'Mineihu by each one ("Arbeh" "Sal'am" and "Chargol"). Why will it not suffice to write "le'Mineihen" at the end, with reference to all three?

åéù ìåîø, îùåí ã"àøáä" å"çøâåì" äí äí ìáãí ùáàéï á'ëìì åôøè åëìì', ëãôøéùéú, åøàåééï äéå ìéëúá æä àöì æä, åäôñé÷ á"ñìòí" åëúáå áàîöò áéï "àøáä" å"çøâåì" ìùåí ãøùä, ãìà òì çðí äåà ùëúáå ùìà áî÷åîå.

(d)

Answer: Because "Arbeh" and "Chargol" alone come as a 'K'lal u'P'rat u'K'lal', as Tosfos explained earlier, so that they ought to have been paced next to one another, and the Pasuk interrupted between them with "Sal'am", placing it in the middle for some D'rashah or other (since it insert it not in its right location for no reason).

åëéåï ùäåöøê ìëåúáå áàîöò áùáéì ùåí ãøùä, ùåá àéðå éëåì ìëúåá 'ìîéðéäï' ìáñåó ...

1.

Answer (cont): In any event, now that it found it necessary to place it in the middle for whatever reason, it is no longer possible to insert "le'Mineihen" at the end ...

ëé æä ìà éúëï ù'ìîéðéäï' éäéä òåîã òì "àøáä" å"çøâåì" ìäéåú ìäï ëìì àçøåï áôðé òöîí, åòì "ñìòí" ìà éäà òåîã ìëìì àìà ìãøùä àçøú, ëîå ùàðå ãåøùéí òëùéå "ìîéðäå" ãñìòí.

2.

Answer (cont): Since it would not be correct for "le'Mineihen" to act with regard to "Arbeh" and 'Chargol" as the last K'lal, and with regard to "Sal'am" to teach us some other D'rashah, as we are now Darshening it.

åìôé ùéù ìàøáä åçøâåì ìëì àçã ëìì áôðé òöîå, åàéï ùðéäí ðéãåðéí éçã áãéï àçã ùì 'ëìì åôøè åëìì', àìà áùðéí ùëì àçã åàçã ðéãåï ìáãå á'ëìì åôøè åëìì ', öøéê ìòùåú áðéï àá îùðéäí î"àøáä" å"çøâåì", åììîã îùðéäí áäöã äùåä áùðéäí.

(e)

Clarification: And because "Arbeh" and 'Chargol" each have its own K'lal, and they are not learned together in one Din of K'lal u'P'rat u'K'lal', only in two separate Dinim, where each is learned independently as a 'K'lal u'Prat u'Klal', it is necessary to make a Binyan Av from both of them (from "Arbeh" and 'Chargol") and from both of them from the Tzad ha'Shaveh that pertains to both of them.

åîä ùàåîø 'äøé àúä ãï áðéï àá îùìùúï?

(f)

Implied Question: And when the Tana says that one learns a Binyan Av from all three of them ...

æä ìôé ùìà ôéøù òãééï ã"ñìòí" ÷øà éúéøà äåà.

(g)

Answer: That is before he concludes that "Sal'am" is superfluous.

åäëé ôéøåùà ãáøééúà ìôé äîñ÷ðà - 'äøé àúä ãï áðéï àá îùìùúï áäöã äùåä, åäåàéì åëï äåà, ìà îöøéê ø÷ àøáòä ñéîðéï ...

(h)

Explanation: So what the Beraisa now means, according to its conclusion is: 'You can now learn a Binyan Av from all three with a Tzad ha'Shaveh. That being the case, one requires only four Simanim ...

åëé îòééðú áéä ùôéø á"àøáä" å"çøâåì", ñâé ìòùåú áðéï àá îùðéäí, åàééúø ìéä "ñìòí" ìøáåéé øàùå àøåê.

1.

Explanation (cont.): But if you examine "Arbeh" and "Chargol" carefully, it will suffice to make a Binyan Av from the two of them, rendering "Sal'am" superfluous, to include a locust with a long head.

65b----------------------------------------65b

åäà ãîøáéðï øàùå àøåê, åìà àîøéðï ãîøáéðï åàò"â ãìéú ìéä çã îäðê ã' ñéîðéï åàéï øàùå àøåê ðéáòé áäãé äðê ùìùä ñéîðéí?

(i)

Implied Question: Why do we include 'Rosho Aruch', rather than a locust that does not possess one of the four Simanim, and 'Ein Rosho Aruch will be required together with the remaining three Simanim?

îùåí ãñáøà äåà ìøáåéé ñéîï ãâøåò îëåìäå.

(j)

Answer: Because it is logical to include the Siman that is the weakest of them all.

åøéá"à îôøù ùàéï ùåí îéï çâá ùäåà çñø îäðê àøáòä ñéîðéí ãîúðé', ùìà éäà çñø ëîå ëï àå øàùå àøåê àå ñéîï àçø áäãéä ...

(k)

Explanation #2: The Riva however, explains that there is no species of Chagav that lacks any of the four Simanim of our Mishnah, unless it also lacks either Rosho Aruch or another Siman together with it.

àáì àôùø ùçñø ñéîï ùì øàùå àøåê åéäéä ìå àøáòä ñéîðéí ãîúðéúéï.

1.

Explanation #2 (cont.): But is it possible that it lacks the Siman of Rosho Aruch and it possesses the four Simanim of our Mishnah.

åà"ú, ãäùúà îùîò ãìúðà ãáé øáé éùîòàì åìúðà ãîúðéúéï ùøé øàùå àøåê. åáîñëú ùáú áùìäé ôø÷ øáé ò÷éáà (ãó ö:) ðîé àîøéðï 'ãøá ëäðà îòáø ùåùéôà àôåîà. à"ì øá "ù÷ìéä, ëé äéëé ãìà ðéîøå îéëì ÷à àëéì ìéä, å÷à òáø îùåí "àì úù÷öå àú ðôùåúéëí".

(l)

Question: It is now implied that according to Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael and the Tana of our Mishnah that Rosho Aruch is permitted. In Maseches Shabbos, Perek Rebbi Akiva (Daf 90:) too, we cite the incident where Rav Kahana was passing a Shushifa (a species of locust) past his mouth, where Rav said to him 'take it away, to avoid people saying that you ate it, thereby transgressing the prohibition of "Do not abominate yourselves" ' ...

îùîò ãìéëà àéñåø îùåí çâá èîà, åìà àñø ìéä àìà îôðé ùäåà çé;

1.

Question (cont.): Implying that there was no Isur of eating a Tamei Chagav - only because it was still alive.

åùåùéôà äåà øàùå àøåê, ëãàéúà ôø÷ àéï îòîéãéï (ãó ìæ.) âáé 'äòéã éåñé áï éåòæø òì àéì ÷îöà, ãëï' - ùîôøù øá ôôà ã'àéì ÷îöà äåà ùåùéôà' - åôìéâé éåñé áï éåòæø åøáðï áøàùå àøåê.

2.

Question (cont.): Now a Shushifa has a long head, as the Gemara explains in Perek Ein Ma'amidin, where Yossi ben Yo'ezer testified that 'Eil Kamtza is Tahor. And Rav Papa there equates 'Eil Kamtza' with 'Shushifa', and explains that Yossi ben Yo'ezer and the Rabbanan argue regarding Roshan Aruch.

åøá çééà áø àîé àîø 'ñåñáì' - åôìéâé áëðôéå çåôéï àú øåáå àé áòéðà øåáà ãîðëø, àáì áøàùå àøåê ãë"ò ìà ôìéâé ãàñåø.

3.

Question (cont.): Whereas Rav Chiya bar Ami equates it with a species called 'Susbal', in which case they are arguing over whether where the wings cover the majority of it, whether it needs to be a majority that is easily discernable ('Ruba de'Minkar') o not; but everyone agrees that 'Rosho Aruch' is forbidden.

åæäå úéîä, ãëéåï ã÷é"ì ãøàùå àøåê ùøé, àîàé ÷àîø äúí øá çééà áø àîé ãàñåø ìëåìé òìîà?

4.

Conclusion: Now this is very difficult to understand; because, seeing as we rule that Rosho Aruch is permitted, why does Rebbi Chiya bar Ami say there that it is unanimously forbidden?

åðøàä ìø"ú ãâøñ äúí 'ãëåìé òìîà ìà ôìéâé ãùøé', åëï îöà áñôø éùï.

(m)

Answer: It therefore seems to Rabeinu Tam that the correct wording there is 'Everyone agrees that it is permitted'. And so he found in an old text.

4)

TOSFOS DH LO RE'I ARBEH KI'RE'I CHARGOL VE'LO RE'I CHARGOL KI'RE'I ARBEH O RE'I SH'NEIHEM KI'RE'I SAL'AM VE'LO RE'I SAL'AM KI'RE'I SH'NEIHEM

úåñôåú ã"ä ìà øàé àøáä ëøàé çøâåì åìà øàé çøâåì ëøàé àøáä åìà øàé ùðéäí ëøàé ñìòí åìà øàé ñìòí ëøàé ùðéäí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Tana places Sal'am at the end, even though the Torah places it before Chargil.).

îä ùìå÷ç úçìä àøáä åçøâåì, åîðéç ñìòí òã ìáñåó, àó òì ôé ùäåà ëúåá úçìä áî÷øà ÷åãí çøâåì ...

(a)

Implied Question: The reason that the Beraisa first discusses "Arbeh" and "Chargol". Leaving "Sal'am" for the end, even though it precedes Chargol, is ...

æäå ìôé ùàøáä åçøâåì çìå÷éí æä îæä éåúø îîä ùçìå÷ ëì àçã îäí îñìòí.

(b)

Answer #1: Because the difference between Arbeh and Chargol is greater than the difference between each of them and Sal'am ...

ëé ëì àçã îäí àéï çìå÷ îñìòí àìà îãáø àçã àå îâáçú àå îæðá, àáì àøáä åçøâåì çìå÷éí æä îæä áùðé ãáøéí, ùàøáä àéï ìå âáçú åàéï ìå æðá, åçøâåì éù ìå ùðéäí

1.

Answer #1 (cont.): Since each of them is different than Sal'am only in one point - either in that it is bald in front (Yesh lo Gabachas) or that it has a tail (Zanav); whereas Arbeh and Chargol are different in two points - since Arbeh is neither bald in front, not does it have a tail, whereas Chargol is both bald in front as well as possessing a tail.

ëãîåëç áñåâéà - ãçøâåì éù ìå âí âáçú, ëùéáà ìôøù ãñìòí ÷øà éúéøà äåà

(c)

Proof: And it is clear in the Sugya - that Chargol also has a Gabachas, when it comes to explain that Sal'am is superfluous.

åòåã é"ì, ãìëê úôñ àøáä åçøâåì, ìôé ùäí òé÷ø äãøùä, ëãîåëç áñîåê - ãîñé÷ ã"ñìòí" ÷øà éúéøà äåà åàúà ìîùøé ãøàùå àøåê.

(d)

Answer #2: Another reason as to why the Gemara begins with "Arbeh" and "Chargol" is they are the main D'rashah, as is evident shortly, where the Gemara concludes that "Sal'am" is superfluous, and is mentioned to permit locusts with long heads.

5)

TOSFOS DH VE'CHI TEIMA KEIVAN DE'SHAVU BE'ARBA SIMANIN MAYSINAN VE'LO PARCHINAN

úåñôåú ã"ä åëé úéîà ëéåï ãùåå áàøáò ñéîðéï îééúéðï åìà ôøëéðï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses whether the first or second K'lal has the primary impact on a K'lal u'P'rat u'K'lal, and how that affects the explanation of our Gemara.)

ãñáéøà ìéä ëììà áúøà ãå÷à, ëîå ùôé' á÷åðèøñ.

(a)

Clarification: Because he holds that the last K'lal is specific (i.e. determines the nature of the general rule regarding what is included), as Rashi explains.

åìäëé ìà àéöèøéê ìäå ìëåìäå öããéï ...

1.

Clarification (cont.): That explains why it need not be similar in all respects (to the first K'lal, as the opinion that the last K'lal is specific understands what is included must only be somewhat similar to the first K'lal).

ëãàîø áô' áëì îòøáéï (òéøåáéï ëç.), ã'ìîàï ãàéú ìéä ëììà áúøà ãå÷à, îøáéðï ëì ããîé ìéä áùðé öããéï'.

(b)

Source: As the Gemara says in Perek ba'Kol Me'arvin (Eruvin 28.) that according to the opinion that considers the last K'lal specific, we include whatever is similar to the P'rat in two regards.

àáì îàï ãàéú ìéä ëììà ÷îà ãå÷à - ìà îøáéðï òã ããîé ìéä îùìù öããéï.

1.

Source (cont.): Whereas those who hold that the first K'lal is specific, will only include what is similar to the P'rat in three regards.

àé äëé, çøâåì ãàéú ìéä æðá ðîé ìà ìéëúåá ...

2.

Source (cont.): If so, Chargol that has a tail would not need to be written.

àìà òì ëøçê, îãàéöèøéê ìîëúá "çøâåì", îùåí ãìà äåä éìôéðï ìéä îàøáä åñìòí, ìôé ùéù ìå æðá, àí ëï ñáéøà ìéä ãëììà ÷îà ãå÷à.

(c)

Conclusion: One must therefore say that since it sees fit to write "Chargol", due to the fact that we would not otherwise learn it from Arbeh and Sal'am (because it has a tail), the Tana must therefore consider the first K'lal specific.

åìäëé îöøéê ùéäà ãåîä áëì äöããéï, äåàéì åáå âí öã ùàéï øàùå àøåê ðöøéê ùéäà áå.

1.

Conclusion (cont.): And that is why it needs to be similar in all respects. Being that it also has the characteristic that its head is not long, we should require that it be long (before we can include it in this teaching).

åà"ú, åàôéìå éñáåø ãëììà ÷îà ãå÷à, ìà éöøéê éåúø îùìùä ñéîðéï?

(d)

Question: Even if the Tana would hold that the first K'lal is specific, why should we require more than three similarities to the P'rat?

ãäà áôø÷ áëì îòøáéï (ùí ëç.) ìà îöøëéðï àìà ø÷ ùìùä öããéï, àôéìå ìîàï ãàéú ìéä ãëììà ÷îà ãå÷à?

(e)

Source: In Perek ba'Kol Me'arvin (Ibid. 28.) we only require a similarity in three respects, even according to the (more stringent) opinion that considers the first K'lal specific.

åäåä îöé ìùðåéé ãäëà ðîé ìà éìôéðï îôøè àìà ùðé ñéîðéí ãàøáòä ëðôéí åëðôéå çåôéï àú øåáå, àáì ñéîï ã÷øöåìéí åøâìéí ëúéá áäãéà "àùø ìå ëøòéí îîòì ìøâìéå", åìà àúå îôøèà.

(f)

Answer #1: One could answer that here too we only learn from the P'rat two characteristics - namely that it has four wings and that its wings cover most of it. However, the similarity of (two) jumping legs and (four) regular legs is written explicitly, as the Pasuk states, "which has Kera'ayim (jumping legs) above its legs" (Vayikra 11:21). These characteristics are not derived from the P'rat.

äìëê àé àîø ëììà ÷îà ãå÷à, îöøéëé ðîé àå æðá àå àéï øàùå àøåê.

1.

Answer #1 (cont.): Consequently, if he holds that the first K'lal is specific, we will need a third similarity (as per the Gemara in Eiruvin ibid.) which would either be that it has a tail or that its head is not long.

åäùúà ìà éìôéðï îï äôøèåú ø÷ ùìùä öããéï, ëîå áòéøåáéï (â"æ ùí).

(g)

Conclusion: It will then transpire that we only require three similarities due to the P'rat (although we require two more similarities due to the explicit Pasuk regarding the two types of legs), just as the Gemara does in Eruvin (Ibid.)

åîéäå ìà öøéëéðï ìùðåéé äëé, àìà àôé' éäéå ÷øöåìéï ëàï áçùáåï äâ' öããéï åðàîø ùìà ðëúáå ëãé ìäåñéó ...

(h)

Answer #2: It is not necessary to answer like this. Even if the jumping legs are counted here in the three similarities and we will say that that they are not written in order to add ... (cont. on next page)

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF