1)

TOSFOS DH MISHTA

úåñôåú ã"ä îùúà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos argues with Rabeinu Yom Tov regarding leaving a meal to Daven.)

îëàï äéä àåîø äø"ø éåí èåá ùàí òîã îàëéìúå åäúôìì ëùçåæø åáà ìàëåì öøéê ìáøê áøëú äîæåï åìéèåì éãéå åìáøê äîåöéà îùåí ãîéëì åöìåéé áäãé äããé ìà àôùø

(a)

Opinion: Based on our Gemara, Rabeinu Yom Tov that if a person stopped eating and went to Daven, when he comes back he must first recite Birkas ha'Mazon, wash Netilas Yadayim, and recite ha'Motzi (if he wants to continue eating). This is because it is not possible to eat and Daven at the same time.

åàéï ðøàä ãìà ãîé ëìì îùåí ãäëà äá åðáøéê äåé âîø ãáø åäåé äôñ÷ åëï ëñåé àé ìàå ãàôùø áäãé äããé

(b)

Question: This does not seem correct, as the two cases are incomparable. In our Gemara, saying "allow us and let us bless" is a sign that one is finished eating and is therefore considered an interruption. The same would apply to Kisuy, if not for the fact that it is possible to do both at the same time.

àáì úôìä ìà äåé âîø ìñòåãä ãàèå àí áéøê áñòåãä òì äøòîéí àå àôéìå áôä"â éöèøê ìéèåì éãéå åìáøê äîåöéà îùåí ãîéëì åáøåëé áäãé äããé ìà àôùø

1.

Question (cont.): However, Davening is not considered the end of the meal. According to this logic, if someone would recite the blessing on thunder or even on wine, he should have to wash Netilas Yadayim and recite ha'Motzi again because he cannot eat and bless at the same time!

åáäãéà àîøéðï áòøáé ôñçéí (ãó ÷á.) ãàí äðéçå î÷öú çáéøéí åò÷øå øâìéäï ìéìê ìáäë"ð ëùäí çåæøéï àéï èòåðéï áøëä ìà ìîôøò åìà ìëúçìä àó òì ôé ùäúôììå áðúééí

2.

Question (cont.): We explicitly state in Pesachim (102a) that if some people were left at the table and the others went to Daven, when they come back they do not need to recite Birkas ha'Mazon nor recite a Berachah Rishonah, even though they Davened during the meal!

2)

TOSFOS DH U'MICHSI

úåñôåú ã"ä åîëñé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses whether talking in between one slaughter and another mandates that another blessing be said on slaughtering.)

éù ìäñúô÷ àí ñç áéï ùçéèä ìùçéèä àí öøéê ìçæåø åìáøê

(a)

Question: It is unclear whether one must recite a new blessing if he talked between the performance of one Shechitah and another Shechitah.

ëîå âáé úôéìéï ãàí ñç áéï úôéìéï ìúôéìéï ãîáøê ùúéí ìøù"é ìäðéç òì ùì éã åòì îöåú òì ùì øàù åìãáøé ø"ú îáøê òì ùì øàù ùúéí

1.

Question (cont.): This could be like Tefilin. Someone who talks in between putting on his Tefilin Shel Yad and Tefilin Shel Rosh recites two blessing according to Rashi, namely "l'Haniach" on his Shel Yad and "Al Mitzvas" on his Shel Rosh. According to Rabeinu Tam, he recites two blessings on his Shel Rosh.

àå ùîà àéï öøéê ìçæåø åìáøê ëîå áàîöò ñòåãä ùéëåì ìãáø åà"ö ìçæåø åìáøê äîåöéà

2.

Question (cont.): Alternatively, perhaps he does not have to make another blessing just as someone who is in the middle of a meal does not have to make another blessing of ha'Motzi just because he talked during his meal.

åîéäå àí àåîø îòðéï ùçéèä ëîå úáéà òåó ìùçåè àå äñëéï ôùéèà ãàéï öøéê ìçæåø åìáøê ëîå (áøëåú ãó î.) èåì áøåê âáéì ìúåøé

(b)

Observation: If he said something that was relative to slaughtering, for example "bring a chicken/knife to be used for slaughter" it is obvious that he does not have to recite a new blessing. This is similar to saying, "Take from the piece upon which the blessing was recited" or "feed the oxen" (regarding which the Gemara in Berachos 40a states that they are not considered interruptions).

åàí öøéê ìçæåø åìáøê ëîå áúôéìéï àæ àñåø ìãáø áéï ùçéèä ìùçéèä ëîå áúôéìéï ëãàîø áä÷åîõ øáä (îðçåú ãó ìå.) ãòáéøä äéà áéãå åçåæø òìéä îòåøëé äîìçîä

(c)

Observation: If one does need to recite another blessing if he talks as is the law regarding Tefilin, it would be forbidden to talk between one slaughtering and the next slaughtering just as it is forbidden to talk in between putting on one's Tefilin. This is as the Gemara states in Menachos (36a) that it is a sin for a person to talk in between putting on his Tefilin, and he does not go to war due to this sin.

åàéï øàéä îúôéìéï ãäúí äéà îöåä àçú åàéï ìå ìäôñé÷ àáì áùçéèä àé áòé ùçéè àé áòé ùáé÷ ìéä

(d)

Observation: Tefilin is not a proof to our question, as Tefilin is one Mitzvah and therefore he should not interrupt while performing it. Slaughtering, on the other hand, is optional. If he wants he can continue to slaughter, and if he wants he can stop slaughtering.

åî"î ðøàä ãàéñåøà äåà ìäáéà òöîå ìéãé ìçæåø åìáøê

(e)

Observation: However, it seems that there is a prohibition against a person bringing himself to say another blessing.

ëãîåëç áôø÷ àìå ðàîøéï (ñåèä ãó îà.) ãúðï ðåèì ñ"ú å÷åøà áå àçøé îåú åàê áòùåø åáòùåø ùáçåîù äô÷åãéí ÷åøà òì ôä

1.

Proof: This is apparent from the Mishnah in Sotah (4ob) that says that the Kohen Gadol would take the Sefer Torah and read Acharei Mos and Ach be'Esor. The Parshah of be'Esor in Bamidbar he would read by heart.

åôøéê áâîøà åðééúé ñ"ú åðé÷øé áéä åîùðé ø"ì îùåí áøëä ùàéðä öøéëä

i.

Proof (cont.): The Gemara in Sotah (41a) asks, why don't we bring another Sefer Torah in order to read the Parshah of be'Esor? The Gemara answers that this would be an unnecessary blessing.

åðøàä äéëà ãöøéê ìçæåø åìáøê ëâåï ùäñéç ãòúå îìùçåè ùöøéê ìëñåú ÷åãí îä ùëáø ùçè

(f)

Opinion: It appears that if he does have to make another blessing, for example if he thought he would stop slaughtering, he must cover whatever he already slaughtered.

ãäà àùëçï ø' éäåãä ùîöøéê ìëñåú áéï çéä ìòåó àó òì ôé ùà"ö ìçæåø åìáøê

1.

Proof: This is apparent from Rebbi Yehudah's position that one must cover all blood when switching from slaughtering undomesticated animals to slaughtering birds, even though one does not have to recite another blessing on Shechitah. (Tosfos ha'Rosh: Certainly, then, if one does have to recite another blessing on Shechitah he must cover what he previously slaughtered.)

3)

TOSFOS DH V'CHAYVO

úåñôåú ã"ä åçééáå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that one cannot make up for a Mitzvah that he stole, and that we do not judge such cases nowadays.)

åìà äéä éëåì ìôèåø òöîå áîä ùäéä ðåúï ìå òåó àçø ìùçåè

(a)

Implied Question: He could not have gotten out of paying the ten gold pieces by giving him another bird to slaughter. (Why not?)

ãæàú îöåä àçøú äéà åîöåä øàùåðä äìëä ìä åäåé îòååú ìà éåëì ìú÷ï

(b)

Answer: Covering the blood of this bird would be a different Mitzvah. The first Mitzvah is gone, and it therefore is a "crooked thing that cannot be fixed."

åîéäå ìà ãééðéðï äùúà ìéçééá òùøä æäåáéí ãáîìúà ãìéú áä çñøåï ëéñ ìà òáãéðï ùìéçåúééäå ëãàîø áäçåáì (á"÷ ãó ôã:)

(c)

Observation: However, nowadays we do not judge cases where we would obligate paying ten gold pieces, as we do not consider ourselves the messengers of the Rabbis (with Semichah) regarding cases where one party did not lose any money, as stated in Bava Kama (84b).

åàçã ùòîã áî÷åí çáéøå ì÷øåà áúåøä ôèåø áìàå äàé èòîà åàôéìå úôñ îô÷éðï îéðéä îùåí ãëåìí çééáéí á÷øéàú äúåøä åëï ôéøù øéá"à

(d)

Opinion: A person who would take someone else's Aliyah to the Torah would be exempt from paying ten pieces even without this fact (c), and even if the victim would seize the ten gold pieces from him we would take them away, being that everyone is obligated to read the Torah. This was also explained by the Riva.

åàôéìå òîã áî÷åí ëäï ãäà ããøùéðï (ðãøéí ãó ñá.) å÷ãùúå ìëì ãáø ùá÷ãåùä ìôúåç øàùåï åìáøê øàùåï àñîëúà äéà

1.

Opinion (cont.): This is even if a Yisrael took the Aliyah of the Kohen. This is because the derivation in Nedarim (62a) from the Pasuk, "And you will make him holy" teaching that we should sanctify a Kohen in all things, including having him start first and bless first (i.e. receive the first Aliyah), is an Asmachta.

4)

TOSFOS DH OH ARBA'IM

úåñôåú ã"ä àå àøáòéí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains Rebbi's question, and says that Rebbi holds one does not make a blessing on the wine on which he recites Birkas ha'Mazon.)

ùúéä ìà ùééëà ìùëø áøëä àìà äéä øåöä ìñì÷å îáøëú äîæåï ìôé ùäéä öãå÷é

(a)

Explanation: Drinking the cup has nothing to do with the reward one receives for making the blessing. However, Rebbi wanted to stop him from reciting the Birkas ha'Mazon with them, as he was a Tzeduki.

åà"ú àå ð' æäåáéí ä"ì ìîéîø ãäà àéëà áøëú áôä"â ùìàçø áäî"æ

(b)

Question: Shouldn't Rebbi have said "fifty gold pieces," as there is also the blessing of Borei Pri ha'Gafen that is recited after Birkas ha'Mazon?

åé"ì ãñáø ëî"ã áòøáé ôñçéí (ãó ÷â: åùí ã"ä ìàå) ãàéï öøéê ìáøê àëñà ãáøëúà àìà àëñà ÷îà åúå ìà

(c)

Answer: Rebbi holds like the opinion in Pesachim (103b, see Tosfos there DH "Lav") that one does not have to recite Borei Pri ha'Gafen on the cup after Birkas ha'Mazon if he already recited the blessing on the first cup (of the four cups drunk on Pesach night, and so too if he already recited it during a regular meal).

5)

TOSFOS DH RO'IN

úåñôåú ã"ä øåàéï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the concept "Rishon Rishon Batel.")

áô' äúòøåáåú (æáçéí ãó òç:) àîø ãìàå øåàéï ìãí ÷ãùéí ÷àîø àìà øåàéï ìééï åìãí áäîä åçéä ÷àîø ãøåàéï ëàéìå äåà îéí ëãôéøù á÷åðèøñ

(a)

Explanation: The Gemara in Zevachim (78b) states that this does not mean that we view the blood of Kodshim in a certain way, but rather that we view the wine or blood of a regular domesticated or undomesticated animal as if it is water. This is the explanation of Rashi.

åä÷ùä äø"ø ùîåàì îååøãå"ï ãáô' ä÷åîõ øáä (îðçåú ãó ëá.) îôøù èòîà ãøáðï åø' éäåãä îãëúéá åì÷ç îãí äôø åîãí äùòéø

(b)

Question: Rabeinu Shmuel from Vardun asked that in Menachos (22a) the Gemara explains that the reasoning of the Rabbanan and Rebbi Yehudah is based on the Pasuk, "And he will take from the blood of the bull and the blood of the goat."

âìåé åéãåò ùãí äôø îøåáä îãí äùòéø îëàï ìòåìéï ùàéï îáèìéï æä àú æä åø' éäåãä àåîø îëàï ìîéï áîéðå ùàéðå áèì

1.

Question (cont.): It is known that the blood of the bull is more than the blood of the goat. This teaches that Korbanos do not nullify each other. Rebbi Yehudah says that we see from here that when two similar items are mixed together, they do not become nullified.

åäùúà äéëé îåëç ãàôéìå îáèìéï òåìéï æä àú æä åîéï áîéðå áèì äëà ìà áèéì ùàôéìå äéä ãí äôø äéä ðéëø àãîåîéú ãí äùòéø

2.

Question (cont.): How is this valid proof? Even if Korbanos did nullify each other and similar items mixed together did nullify each other, the blood of these Korbanos should not be considered nullified! Even if the blood of the bull would be water, the redness of the blood of the goat would still be apparent!

åé"ì ãàí ãí äôø äéä îéí ìà éäéä áãí äùòéø îøàéú ãí âîåø àìà éäéä ãéää îøàäå åáèì

(c)

Answer: If the blood of the bull was water, the blood of the goat would not look completely like blood, but rather it would appear much lighter and it would therefore be considered nullified.

ëãàîøé' áô' äúòøåáåú (æáçéí ãó òç:) ãìé ùéù áúåëå ééï ìáï åçìá ø' éäåãä àåîø øåàéï ìééï åçìá ëàéìå ééï àãåí åàí ãéää îøàéäï (ëùø àáì)

1.

Answer (cont.): This is as the Gemara states in Zevachim (ibid.) that if a bucket had white wine and milk in it (and it was dipped in a Mikvah), Rebbi Yehudah says that we look at the wine and milk as if they are red wine. If their color would appear much lighter due to the water of the Mikvah mixing with them, the Tevilah of the bucket would be valid.

ãí ìúåê îéí øàùåï øàùåï áèì

(d)

Observation: If blood goes into water, each first drop becomes nullified.

åä"ð àîøéðï áô"ä ãò"æ (ãó òâ.) ëé àúà øá ãéîé à"ø éåçðï äîòøä ééï ðñê îçáéú ìáåø àôéìå ëì äéåí ëåìå øàùåï øàùåï áèì

1.

Proof #1: We similarly say in Avodah Zarah (73a) that when Rav Dimi arrived he said in the name of Rebbi Yochanan that if someone pours Yayin Nesech from a barrel into a pit (of kosher wine), even if he does so all day each drop that falls in becomes nullified amongst the kosher wine.

åáôø÷ áúøà ãðãä (ãó òà:) âáé ãí úáåñä äéëà ãôñ÷ ùàéï äåìê áìà äôñ÷ àîøéðï øàùåï øàùåï áèì

2.

Proof #2: In Nidah (71b), regarding blood coming out of a mortally wounded person (in a case where a Revi'is came out when he was alive and more came out after he was already dead), that does not drip without stopping to drip first (as opposed to blood that constantly flows), we say that each drop is nullified. (The Chachamim there say that since the original blood flowed when the person was still alive, the blood that drips when he is already dead is nullified because it drips into the blood that came out when he was alive.)

å÷ùéà ãàîø áôø÷ äìå÷ç áäîä (áëåøåú ãó ëá.) äìå÷ç öéø îòí äàøõ îùé÷å áîéí åèäåø îîä ðôùê àé øåáà îéà ðéðäå ñì÷à åàé øåáà öéø ðéðäå öéø ìàå áø ÷áåìé èåîàä äåà åàé îùåí îéòåèà ãîéí ãáöéø áèìé áøåáà

(e)

Question: This is difficult. The Gemara in Bechoros (22a) says that someone who buys fish brine from an Am ha'Aretz can have it touch the water of a Mikvah and make it pure. If most of it is really water, it becomes pure when touching the waters of the Mikvah. If most of it is in fact brine, brine does not become impure (it is considered mere "sweat"). The small amount of water that is in the brine is considered nullified by the majority of the brine.

87b----------------------------------------87b

å÷àîø øá ãéîé áùí øéù ì÷éù ìà ùðå àìà ìèáì ôúå àáì ì÷ãøä çåæø åðéòåø àìîà ãàôéìå èäøä îòåøøú èåîàä ë"ù ãèåîàä îòåøøú èåîàä

1.

Question (cont.): Rav Dimi says in the name of Reish Lakish that this is only true regarding dipping one's bread in such brine. However, if he wants to use it for cooking, it becomes remixed. (The water in the pot combines with the water in the brine to cause the entire mixture to become impure.) This indicates that even a pure item (water in the pot) can stir up an impure item (water in the brine) to cause impurity (to a mixture). Certainly impurity can stir up impurity!

åàôéìå ìàáéé ã÷àîø åëé èåîàä ùáèìä çæøä åðéòåøä äééðå îçîú èäøä àáì áèåîàä ãîòåøøú èåîàä ìéëà îàï ãôìéâ

2.

Question (cont.): Even according to Abaye who asks, "it is possible that impurity that was nullified can come back to be remixed?" this is only because he does not agree it can be remixed due to something that is pure (i.e. the water in the pot). However, everyone agrees that impurity can stir up impurity.

åëì ùëï ãàéñåø îòåøø àéñåø ëãàîø ìòéì (ãó ôå:) àí àîøå ñô÷ èåîàä ìèäø ëå'

3.

Question (cont.): This is certainly so regarding a prohibited item stirring up another prohibited item, as stated earlier (86b), "Just because they said a doubtful impurity is pure etc. (does not mean they will say a doubtful prohibition is permitted!)."

åáäòøì (éáîåú ãó ôá:) ðîé àîøé' ðúï ñàä åðèì ñàä òã øåáå àìîà èôé îøåáå ìà àîøéðï ãøàùåï øàùåï áèì àò"â ãäåé áäôñ÷

4.

Question (cont.): The Gemara in Yevamos (82b) also says that if someone put in a Sa'ah (of regular water) and took a Sa'ah (of water from the Mikvah), the Mikvah is kosher until most of the water is replaced. This indicates that if more than the majority of the amount of the original water of the Mikvah was replaced, we do not say that each amount that is poured into the Mikvah is nullified, even though the water poured in was not poured in at once. (If an amount of water more than the majority was poured in at once, everyone would agree we do not say that the first drops are nullified.)

åé"ì ãáë"î àîøéðï ãçåæø åðéòåø àôéìå áäôñ÷

(f)

Answer: We always say that what is poured in is considered remixed, even when it is poured in a little at a time.

åáãí úáåñä ãîôìéâ áéï ôñ÷ ììà ôñ÷ îùåí ãáãí úáåñä ãøáðï ä÷éìå

1.

Answer (cont.): When we differentiate regarding blood coming out of a mortally wounded person (see d2 above), this is because the Chachamim were lenient regarding this law which is only Rabbinic in nature.

åäëà á÷ãùéí ãå÷à àîøéðï øàùåï øàùåï áèì ãëéåï ùðãçä á÷ãùéí ùåá àéðå çåæø åðøàä

2.

Answer (cont.): Specifically regarding Kodshim we say that each first drop is nullified. Since it has already been pushed aside from fulfilling its role as Kodshim, it is no longer fit (to be remixed and thereby regain its identity).

åääéà ãáôø÷ áúøà ãò"æ (ãó òâ.) îôøù ø"é ãøàùåï øàùåï áèì åàéï ðàñø áëì ùäåà òã ùéäà áå ðåúï èòí ëîå áùàø àéñåøéï

3.

Answer (cont.): Rebbi Yochanan explains in the Gemara in Avodah Zarah (73a) that each first drop is nullified and it (i.e. the wine in the pit) does not become forbidden until there is a taste of the Yayin Nesech in it, just like the law regarding other prohibitions (that they are only prohibited when there is a taste of the prohibited item present).

å÷àé àîúðéúéï ã÷àîø åàìå àñåøéï åàåñøéï áëì ùäåà ééï ðñê ëå' îôøù øá ãéîé ãäééðå ãå÷à ëé ðôì äéúøà ìâå àéñåøà ëã÷àîø áúø äëé àáì àéñåøà ìâå äéúøà àéðå àñåø áëì ùäåà ãøàùåï øàùåï áèì ëì æîï ùéù ùùéí áäéúø

4.

Answer (cont.): Rebbi Yochanan's statement is regarding the Mishnah that says, "These prohibit, and they prohibit with even a small amount: Yayin Nesech etc." Rav Dimi explains (in the name of Rebbi Yochanan) that this Halachah (that even a small amount of Yayin Nesech causes a mixture to be forbidden) is specifically regarding a permitted item that falls into a forbidden item, as he states afterwards. However, if a prohibited item falls into a permitted item, it does not prohibit the mixture. Each drop becomes nullified, as long as there are sixty times more of the permitted item than the forbidden item.

åôøéê úðï åàìå àñåøéï åàåñøéï áëì ùäåà ééï ðñê ëå' îàé ìàå àéñåøà ìâå äéúøà ìà äéúøà ìâå àéñåøà

5.

Answer (cont.): The Gemara (in Avodah Zarah ibid.) asks, the Mishnah itself states, "These prohibit and they prohibit even with a small amount: Yayin Nesech etc." This must be in a case where the prohibited item fell into the permitted item. The Gemara answers that this is incorrect. Rather, it refers to a case where the permitted item fell into the prohibited item.

ú"ù ééï áîéí áð"è îàé ìàå çîøà ãàéñåøà ìâå îéà ãäéúøà åîäê âåôä ìà ôøéê ãîåãä øáé éåçðï ãáðúéðú èòí çåæø åðéòåø

6.

Implied Question: The Gemara then asks that the Mishnah states that wine mixed with water prohibits the mixture if it gives it taste. This must mean that the prohibited wine fell into permitted water. However, this itself cannot be a question, as Rebbi Yochanan himself admits that once a prohibited item adds taste to a mixture, it remixes and can become prohibited. (What is the Gemara asking on Rebbi Yochanan?)

úãò ãäà èòí ëòé÷ø áîéï ùàéðå îéðå îï äúåøä ëãàîø áäúòøåáåú (æáçéí ãó òç:) åáàìå òåáøéï (ôñçéí ãó îã:) åáô' ùìùä îéðéï (ðæéø ãó ìæ.)

i.

Proof: This is obviously correct, as the concept, "taste is like the item itself" when there is a mixture of two different items is a Torah law. This is as stated in the Gemara in Zevachim (78b), Pesachim (44b), and Nazir (37a).

àìà ä"ô îãñéôà àéñåøà ìúåê äéúøà ä"ð øéùà ãééï áééï áëì ùäåà

7.

Answer (cont.): Rather, this is what the Gemara means to ask. Since the second part of the Mishnah (wine and water) is a case where a forbidden item fell into a permitted item, the first case of wine mixing with wine being forbidden with a small amount should also be where the forbidden item fell into the prohibited item (yet we stated above that in such a case it will be Batel b'Shishim!).

åîùðé ìà áðôì çîøà ãäéúøà ìâå îéà ãàéñåøà

8.

Answer (cont.): The Gemara answers that the case is where permitted wine fell into prohibited water.

åôøéê îãøéùà áîéà ãàéñåøà ñéôà ðîé áîéà ãàéñåøà å÷úðé îéí áééï áð"è

9.

Answer (cont.): The Gemara asks, since the first part of the Mishnah is referring to forbidden water, the second part must also be discussing forbidden water when it says that when water mixes with wine it is forbidden when there is a taste of the prohibited item.

ôéøåù åëé äéëé ãäê ñéôà áàéñåøà ìâå äéúøà ä"ä øéùà ãééï áééï áëì ùäåà åîùðé ãëåìä áäéúøà ìâå àéñåøà àééøé

i.

Answer (cont.): This means that just as the second part of the Mishnah is discussing a forbidden item falling into a permitted item, so too the first part of the Mishnah regarding wine mixing with wine being forbidden with a small amount is referring to a forbidden item falling into a permitted item. The Gemara answers that the entire Mishnah is discussing a case where a permitted item fell into a prohibited item.

åáð"è ã÷àîø ãîùîò ãëé ìéëà áðåúï èòí ãùøé äééðå ëâåï ùðôì äøáä îï ääéúø ááú àçú ìúåê äàéñåø ùðúáèì äàéñåø ááú àçú

ii.

Answer (cont.): When it says it is forbidden if it is gives a taste, implying that if it does not give a taste it is permitted, this is when a lot of the permitted item fell at once into the forbidden item causing the forbidden item to be nullified at once.

åà"ú àîàé ð÷è îçáéú ìáåø îùåí ãøàùåï øàùåï áèì áìàå äëé ùøé ëéåï ãìáñåó ðùàø ùùéí ùì äéúø

(g)

Question: Why does Rav Dimi say that the wine was poured from the barrel into the pit because each drop is nullified? Even if this was not the case the mixture would end up being permitted as there is sixty times more permitted wine than prohibited wine!

åé"ì ããå÷à ð÷è îçáéú ìáåø ãìà ðôéù òîåãéä ëåìé äàé àò"â ãðôéù èôé îöøöåø àáì äéëà ãðôéù òîåãéä èåáà ìà áèéì àôéìå éù ùùéí áäéúø

(h)

Answer: Rav Dimi specifically said that the wine is poured from the barrel into the pit because the stream of wine is not a large stream, even though it is bigger than that of a pitcher. However, if the vessel being used to pour created a large stream the wine would not be nullified, even if there was sixty times more permitted wine than forbidden wine.

6)

TOSFOS DH SHE'NISMADU

úåñôåú ã"ä ùðúîãå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos says that the Gemara could have given another answer.)

äåà äãéï ãäåé îöé ìîéîø ãúîãï áîé ôéøåú ãìà îëùøé

(a)

Observation: The Gemara also could have answered that the blood became mixed with fruit juice that does not cause something to become able to become impure.

7)

TOSFOS DH V'HU

úåñôåú ã"ä åäåà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that even the watery part of blood that hardens must look like blood in order to be considered blood.)

àöììúà ããîà ÷àé ëãôéøù á÷åðèøñ

(a)

Explanation: This refers to the water around the blood (when blood hardens, this is the liquid that is around the blood that still has an appearance of blood), as Rashi explains.

å÷î"ì ãàò"ô ùëåìå ãí ìà îçééá ëøú òã ãàéëà ëæéú ãí âîåø åìà îèîà áàäì òã ãàéëà øáéòéú ãí âîåø ãàé áãí ùòí îé âùîéí ôùéèà ãöøéê ëæéú åøáéòéú

1.

Explanation (cont.): This teaches that even though it is all blood, he is liable to receive Kares only if there is a Kzayis of actual blood. Similarly, it only causes Tumas Ohel if there is a Revi'is of actual blood. If this would be referring to blood mixed with rainwater, it would be obvious that one would require a Kzayis or Revi'is of actual blood.

8)

TOSFOS DH TENAN

úåñôåú ã"ä úðï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that our "Mishnah" is in fact a Beraisa.)

úéîä àé îùðä äéà äà ã÷àîø ìòéì (áîúðéúéï) úðà åîèîà áàäì å÷àîø òìä åäåà ãàéëà øáéòéú äå"ì ìàúåéé îúðéúéï ãäëà

(a)

Question: This is difficult. If this is a Mishnah, why did the Gemara earlier quote "it is Metamei b'Ohel" regarding which we said, "as long as there is a Rev'is" from a Beraisa? It should have quoted this Mishnah!

åðøàä ãáøééúà äéà

(b)

Answer: It appears that this is a Beraisa.

åä"ð àùëçï áäçåìõ (éáîåú ãó ìå:) ã÷àîø úðï øùá"â àåîø ëì ùùää ì' éåí ëå' åàéðä îùðä áùåí î÷åí

1.

Answer (cont.): We also find in Yevamos (36b) that the Gemara says, "The Mishnah" states that Raban Shimon ben Gamliel says that any (baby) who remained alive for thirty days etc. This is not a Mishnah.

åáôø÷ øáé àìéòæø ãîéìä (ùáú ãó ÷ìä:) âøñéðï áëì äñôøéí úðéà

2.

Answer (cont.): The Gemara in Shabos (135b) also quotes this statement of Raban Gamliel. The text in all of the Sefarim in Shabos (ibid.) is "The Beraisa."

9)

TOSFOS DH KOL

úåñôåú ã"ä ëì

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the amount of liquid that is required to cause impurity.)

ãìà âæøå òìéäï ëîå ùâæøå òì ùì äæá ëãîôøù áîñ÷ðà îùåí ãæá ìà áãéìé îéðéä

(a)

Explanation: They did not decree that they are impure as they did regarding the fluids of a Zav, as the Gemara explains in its conclusion that people do not stay away from the fluids of a Zav (but they do stay away from the fluids of a dead person).

åà"ú åäìà ëùéåöàéï îï äîú ðåâòéï áå åî÷áìéí èåîàä îîðå áîâò ãîãàåøééúà ãîòú òéðå åãí îâôúå åçìá äàùä çùéáé îù÷éï ëãéìéó áô' ãí äðãä (ðãä ãó ðä:) î÷øàé

(b)

Question #1: When the liquids exit the dead person, they touch him and end up becoming impure! This is because the tears of his eyes, blood of his wound, and milk of a woman are considered liquids according to Torah law (which become impure when coming in contact with a dead person), as the Gemara in Nidah (55b) derives from the Pesukim.

åòåã ÷ùä ã÷àîø äúí ãîèîà èåîàú îù÷éí áøáéòéú åäìà îù÷éï îèîàéï áëì ùäåà

(c)

Question #2: Additionally, the Gemara in Nidah (55b) states that impurity of liquids is only with a Revi'is. Isn't this impurity even with a small amount of liquid?

ëãîåëç áô"÷ ãôñçéí (ãó éã.) âáé îéîéäí ùì ëäðéí ìà ðîðòå ìùøåó àú äáùø ùðèîà áåìã äèåîàä òí áùø ùðèîà áàá äèåîàä àò"ô ùîåñéôéï òì èåîàúå ëå'

1.

Proof #1: This is apparent from the Gemara in Pesachim (14a) that says that Kohanim never refrained from burning the meat that was made impure with a Vlad ha'Tumah together with meat that was made impure by an Av ha'Tumah, even though this causes the meat made impure by the Vlad ha'Tumah to become even more impure.

ãîå÷é ìä ãàéëà îù÷ä áäãé áùø ã÷à îèîà áùø îçîú îù÷éï åîñúîà àéï áàåúí îù÷éí øáéòéú

2.

Proof #1 (cont.): The Gemara establishes that there is liquid together with the (Av ha'Tumah) meat that causes the meat (made impure by a Vlad ha'Tumah) to become more impure. One would assume that there is not a Revi'is of these liquids in the meat.

åàîøéðï ðîé áääåà ôéø÷à (ùí ãó éæ:) åîéí ðîé ìà àîøï àìà øáéòéú ãçæé ìäèáéì áäï îçèéï åöðåøåú àáì áöéø îøáéòéú èîàéí

3.

Proof #2: In that same chapter (17b), we say that this (that water in the ground is considered pure) is only referring to a Revi'is of water, as it is fit to dip needles and tubes in it (to make them pure). However, less than a Revi'is is impure.

åááøëåú áôø÷ àìå ãáøéí (ãó ðá.) ùîà éèîàå îù÷éï ùàçåøé äëåñ îçîú éãéí åéçæøå åéèîàå àú äëåñ

4.

Proof #3: The Gemara in Berachos (52a) says that we suspect that the water on the back of the cup (clearly less than a Revi'is) will become impure from his hands and they will go back and cause the cup to become impure.

åé"ì ãäëà îééøé ëùéöàå îîðå ãøê ùôåôøú åáòåãï áâåôå ìà î÷áìé èåîàä ãàéï úåøú îù÷éï òìéäí òã ùéöàå ìçåõ åëé ðô÷é ãøê ùôåôøú èäåøåú îä"ú ëéåï ùìà ðâòå áå

(d)

Answer #1: Our Gemara is discussing a case when the liquids came out through a tube. When they are in his body they are not impure because they are not considered liquids until they exit his body. When they leave through a tube they are pure according to Torah law, being that they did not touch the dead person himself on their way out.

àìà îãøáðï âæøå áéöàå îï äæá äéëà ãàéëà øáéòéú àò"â ãìà ðâòå áå

1.

Answer #1 (cont.): However, the Rabbanan decreed that when these liquids exit the body of a Zav they should be considered impure if there is a Revi'is of liquid, even though they did not touch the Zav (as they went through a tube).

àé ðîé äðäå ÷øàé ãðãä àñîëúà áòìîà ðéðäå åîï äúåøä àéï òìéäï úåøú îù÷éï åìëê ìà âæøå àìà áøáéòéú

(e)

Answer #2: Alternatively, the Pesukim quoted by the Gemara in Nidah (55b) are only an Asmachta. According to Torah law, they (see b above) are not considered liquids. This is why the only decree that was made was regarding a Revi'is.

åà"ú ãàîøéðï áôø÷ àîøå ìå (ëøéúåú ãó éâ.) äàùä ùðèó çìá îããéä ìúåê äúðåø èîà åôøéê áîàé îúëùø à"ø éåçðï áèéôä äîìåëìëú òì ôé äãã

(f)

Question: We say in Kerisus (13a) that if a woman's milk dripped from her into the oven, the oven is impure. The Gemara asks, how is the milk able to become impure? Rebbi Yochanan answers that this is through the drop of milk on the nipple.

åäùúà ëéåï ãöøéê äëùø àìîà çùéáà àåëì ìôé ùîéåçã ìàëéìú úéðå÷ àí ëï úðåø àîàé èîà äà àéï àåëì îèîà ëìéí

1.

Question (cont.): The fact that the Gemara says that the milk requires becoming able to receive impurity implies that it is generally called food, being that it is designated for the child to eat (i.e. drink) it. If so, why does the oven become impure? Food does not cause impurity to vessels!

àìà òì ëøçê îèîà îçîú äèéôä äîìåëìëú ò"ô äãã ùîúòøáú òí ùàø çìá ùðåèó áúðåø ùùí îù÷ä òìéä åîù÷éï îèîàéï ëìé âæéøä îùåí îù÷ä ãæá åæáä ëãàîø áôø÷ ÷îà ãùáú (ãó éã:) àìîà îèîàä äèéôä ìúðåø àò"â ãìéú áä øáéòéú

2.

Question (cont.): Rather, it must be that it becomes impure due to the drop of milk that is on the nipple that mixes with the rest of the milk that dripped into the oven. This drop is indeed called liquid, and liquid causes impurity to a vessel due to a decree that it could be confused with the liquids of a Zav or Zavah, as stated in Shabos (14b). This indicates that this one drop causes the oven to become impure, even though it does not have a Revi'is!

åëï áàéï ãåøùéï (çâéâä ãó ë.) áàùä ùáàúä ìôðé ø' éùîòàì åàîøä ìå îôä æå àøâúé áèäøä åîúåê äãáøéí ùáã÷ä àîøä ìå ðéîà ðôñ÷ä å÷ùøúéä áôä äøé àò"ô ùìà äéä áøå÷ ùáôéä øáéòéú ðèîà îéãéí ùäéå îñåàáåú åèéîà àú äîôä

3.

Proof: Similarly, in Chagigah (20a) the Gemara relates that a woman came to Rebbi Yishmael and told him that she sewed this sheet when she was pure. However, while he was questioning her story, she mentioned that a thread broke and she tied it together with her mouth (i.e. with help from the spittle from her mouth, causing it to become impure). This shows that even though there was not a Revi'is of spittle in her mouth, it became impure from impure hands and caused the sheet to become impure!

åé"ì ãúøåîä å÷ãùéí îèîå áôçåú îøáéòéú åãå÷à ìçåìéï äåà ãáòé øáéòéú

(g)

Answer: Terumah and Kodshim become impure through less than a Revi'is. Only Chulin requires a Revi'is of liquid to make it impure.

10)

TOSFOS DH MASHKEH

úåñôåú ã"ä îù÷ä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the nature of the liquids touched by the Tevul Yom.)

àåîø ø"ú ãäðé îù÷éï ùðâò áäï ã÷àîø ìà îéúå÷îà àìà áîù÷éï ãúøåîä

(a)

Opinion: Rabeinu Tam says that the liquids that the Tevul Yom is touching in our Gemara are Terumah liquids.

ãàéìå çåìéï ìà îéèîà åàôéìå áîòùø ðîé ùøé ëãàîøéðï (éáîåú ãó òã:) èáì åòìä àåëì áîòùø

(b)

Proof: If they would be Chulin liquids, they would not become impure. Even if they would be Ma'aser liquids they would be permitted, as the Gemara in Yevamos (74b) states, "If he immersed and rose up (from the Mikvah) he can eat Ma'aser."

åáîù÷éï ã÷ãù ðîé ìà ÷àîø ãúðï áô"é ãðãä (ãó òà:) áøàùåðä äéå àåîøéí äéåùáú òì ãí èåäø îòøä îéí ìôñç ôéøåù àáì ìà ðåâòú ãçåìéï ùðòùå òì èäøú ä÷ãù ë÷ãù ãîå ëãîôøù áâî'

1.

Proof (cont.): This is also not referring to liquids that are holy, as the Mishnah states in Nidah (71b) that originally they said that someone who sits on blood that is pure (i.e. a woman eight days after giving birth to a boy, see beginning of Parshas Tazria) can pour water (that will be used to clean) for the Korban Pesach. This means she cannot touch the water, as Chulin prepared with the sanctity of Kodesh is like Kodesh.

çæøå ìåîø äøé äéà ëîâò èîà îú ì÷ãùéí ôéøåù ãå÷à ì÷ãùéí åìà ìçåìéï ãìàå ë÷ãù ãîå

2.

Proof (cont.): [The Mishnah in Nidah (ibid.) continues] They retracted this statement, and returned to say that she is like contact of impurity by a dead person to Kodshim. This means that her contact specifically in regards to Kodshim, as opposed to Chulin which is unlike Kodesh, is considered like the impurity of a dead person.

àìîà èáåì éåí äåä øàùåï ì÷ãùéí ëàéìå ðâò ìèîà îú ãéåùáú òì ãí èåäø äéà èáåìú éåí àøåê

3.

Proof (cont.): This indicates that a Tevul Yom is a Rishon to Kodshim, and it is as if the Kodshim touched someone who was impure due to contact with a dead person. This is because a woman who is sitting on pure blood is like an extended Tevul Yom.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF