1)

TOSFOS DH YATZA

úåñôåú ã"ä éöà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos extrapolates from our Gemara that one cannot write a Get on a large strip of parchment and then cut it off.)

îëàï ðøàä ìôñåì âè ùðëúá òì ä÷ìó åàç"ë çúëå ãäúí ðîé ãøéù åëúá åðúï îé ùîçåñø ëúéáä åðúéðä éöà ëå'

(a)

Opinion: It seems from here that if a Get is written on (a large piece of) parchment, and it was then cut off from the rest of the parchment, it should be invalid. We similarly derive regarding Gitin from "And he wrote...and he gave" that only something that needs to be written on and given can be used as a Get excluding etc.

ãèôé ðøàä çáåø âè äîçåáø ì÷ìó âãåì îçáåø òôø ìòéø äðãçú ãçùéá äëà îçåñø úìéùä åùí áô"á ãâéèéï (ãó ëà:) ëúåá áàåøê ëì äöåøê

1.

Opinion (cont.): It is more understandable that a Get that is attached to a large Klaf should be considered attached than earth from an Ir ha'Nidachas should be considered attached to the ground, and yet the Gemara here says it is missing being pulled out of the ground. The Gemara in Gitin (21b, see Tosfos there DH "Yatza") writes at length regarding whatever needs to be known about this subject.

2)

TOSFOS DH V'HA'TANYA

úåñôåú ã"ä åäúðéà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains when one can fulfill a Mitzvah of he uses an idol to do so, and when he does not.)

ä"ì ìàúåéé îúðé' ãìåìá äâæåì (ñåëä ãó ëè:) ùì àùøä åùì òéø äðãçú ôñåì

(a)

Implied Question: Rav Rechumi should have asked on Rava from the Mishnah in Sukah (29b) that says that if one uses a Lulav from an Asheirah or Ir ha'Nidachas it is invalid. (Why didn't he use this Mishnah as a question on Rava?)

àìà ðéçà ìéä ìäáéà äê áøééúà ã÷úðé áä ùåôø åìåìá

(b)

Answer: Rather, it is better for him to quote a Beraisa that discusses both Shofar and Lulav.

åà"ú ãáôø÷ øàåäå á"ã (ø"ä ãó ëç.) àîø øá ùåôø ùì òáåãú ëåëáéí ìà éú÷ò áå åàí ú÷ò áå éöà åëï áô' îöåú çìéöä (éáîåú ãó ÷â:) àîø øáà äçåìöú áñðãì ùì òáåãú ëåëáéí çìéöúä ëùøä åìà àîøéðï ãîëúú ùòåøéä

(c)

Question: In Rosh Hashanah (28a), Rav says that a Shofar of idolatry should not be used. If he does use it, he has fulfilled the Mitzvah. Similarly, Rava says in Yevamos (103b) that if someone does Chalitzah with a Sandal of idolatry, the Chalitzah is valid, and we do not say that the size of the shoe is considered cut (i.e. burned) down. (This seems to go against our Gemara's conclusion!)

åé"ì ãäëà áòáåãú ëåëáéí ùì éùøàì ãàéï ìä áéèåì àáì ãòåáã ëåëáéí ãéù ìä áéèåì ìà îëúú ùéòåøéä

(d)

Answer #1: Our Gemara is referring to idolatry belonging to a Jew that cannot be nullified. However, idolatry belonging to a Nochri that can be nullified is not considered as if its size was cut down.

åëé äàé âååðà îùðé ôø÷ ìåìá äâæåì (ñåëä ãó ìà:) àäà ãàîø øáà ìåìá ùì òáåãú ëåëáéí àí ðèì éöà åôøéê îîúðéúéï ãìåìá ùì àùøä ôñåì åîùðé áàùøä ãîùä

1.

Proof: The Gemara in Sukah (31b) indeed answers in this fashion. Rava there says that if one used a Lulav of idolatry, he fulfills the Mitzvah. The Gemara asks from the Mishnah that says a Lulav of an Asheirah tree is invalid, and answers that the Mishnah is only referring to an Asheirah of Moshe (see Tosfos in Sukah at length regarding the definition of "Asheirah d'Moshe.")

åà"ú òáåãú ëåëáéí ãòåáã ëåëáéí îëé àâáää äåéà ãéùøàì ëãàîø áôø÷ ëì äöìîéí (ò"æ ãó îá.) âæéøä ãìîà îâáéä ìä åäãø îáèì ìä

(e)

Question: Once a Jew picks up the idol of a Nochri, it is considered to belong to him. This is as stated in Avodah Zarah (42a) that this is due to a decree that he might pick it up and then nullify it (which is not effective for an idol of a Jew). (Accordingly, once he picks it up it should not matter whether it belongs to a Jew or Nochri, as once he picks it up it can no longer be nullified!)

åé"ì ëâåï ùäâáéä äùåôø åäñðãì òì îðú ùìà ì÷ðåúå ãäà úðï áîðòì ùàéï ùìå çìéöúä ëùøä åìåìá àééøé áé"è ùðé

(f)

Answer: Since he picked up the Shofar and Sandal in order not to acquire it, it is valid. [Even if it is not his it is valid, as] The Mishnah states that if one does Chalitzah with someone else's shoe, it is valid. Similarly, the case of Lulav is on Yom Tov Sheini (when one does not need to own his Lulav).

åáñåëä äåä îöé ìùðåéé ãîúðéúéï áé"è øàùåï åìà äåä öøéê ìàå÷îä áàùøä ãîùä

(g)

Implied Question: The Gemara in Sukah (ibid.) could have answered that the Mishnah is referring to the first day of Yom Tov, and did not have to say it was referring to an Asheirah of Moshe. (Why did it have to say a case of Asheirah of Moshe?)

àìà îùåí ã÷úðé àùøä ãåîéà ãòéø äðãçú ãàôé' áé"è äùðé

(h)

Answer: Rather, because the case of Asheirah is alongside the case of Ir ha'Nidachas in the Mishnah (in Sukah 29b), it seems like it is even referring to the second day of Yom Tov (just as a Lulav of Ir ha'Nidachas is referring to every day of Sukos).

åø"ú îôøù ãëåìäå áòáåãú ëåëáéí ãòåáã ëåëáéí åëàï ÷åãí áéèåì åäúí ìàçø áéèåì åìàçø áéèåì ðîé ìëúçìä ìà éèåì åìà éú÷ò åìà éçìåõ ãîàéñ ìòðéï îöåä ìôé ùäéä òìéä ùí òáåãú ëåëáéí

(i)

Answer #2: Rabeinu Tam explains that both types of cases (where it is either valid or invalid) refer to the idol of a Nochri. When the idol is ruled to be invalid it is before it was nullified, and when it is ruled valid it is after it was nullified. Even after it was nullified it should not be taken, blown, or used in Chalitzah. This is because it is considered disgusting to use it for a Mitzvah, as it was at one point an idol.

àôé' àú"ì ãùøé ìëñåú áòôø òáåãú ëåëáéí ìëúçìä ëîå áùì òéø äðãçú ìà ãîé ëéñåé ìçìéöä

(j)

Implied Question: Even if you will say that it is permitted Lechatchilah to do Kisuy with the earth of idolatry, as is the case regarding an Ir ha'Nidachas, one cannot compare the Halachah regarding Kisuy to the Halachah regarding Chalitzah. (Why not?)

ãìòðéï ëñåé ìà çééùéðï îîàé ãîàéñ

(k)

Answer: Regarding Kisuy, we do not worry about something being disgusting (as it is used to cover blood).

åäà ãîùðé áñåëä áàùøä ãîùä åìà îùðé áãòåáã ëåëáéí å÷åãí áéèåì

(l)

Implied Question: The Gemara in Sukah (31b) answers that it is referring to an Asheirah of Moshe, and does not answer that it is referring to an idol of a Nochri before it is nullified. (Why doesn't it give this answer?)

îùåí ãîëé ð÷öõ äìåìá îï äã÷ì ðúáèì

(m)

Answer: This is because once the Lulav is cut off the palm tree it is nullified (and therefore there is no possible case of before nullification when one uses a Lulav on Sukos).

åáôø÷ îöåú çìéöä (éáîåú ÷â:) ãîôìéâ áéï ñðãì ùì òáåãú ëåëáéí ìñðãì ùì ú÷øåáú òáåãú ëåëáéí ãàéï ìå áéèåì åìà îôìéâ áðèì òáåãú ëåëáéí âåôéä áéï àçø áéèåì ì÷åãí áéèåì

(n)

Implied Question: In Yevamos (103b), the Gemara differentiates between a Sandal that is an idol and a Sandal that is offered to an idol, as the offering cannot be nullified. It does not differentiate between before and after an idol is nullified. (Why not?)

åéù ìåîø îéìúà àâá àåøçéä ÷à îùîò ìï ãú÷øåáú òáåãú ëåëáéí àéðä áèìä òåìîéú

(o)

Answer: It is teaching a side point that an offering to an idol can never be nullified.

åääåà ãøàåäå á"ã ÷ùä èôé ãîôìéâ äúí øáà áéï ùåôø ùì òáåãú ëåëáéí ìùì òéø äðãçú ãáùì òáåãú ëåëáéí âåôéä äéä éëåì ìçì÷ ìôéøåù øáéðå úí áéï àçø áéèåì ì÷åãí áéèåì

(p)

Implied Question: The Gemara in Rosh Hashanah (28a) is the most difficult to answer, as Rava differentiates there between a Shofar that is an idol and a Shofar of an Ir ha'Nidachas. It could have differentiated, according to the opinion of Rabeinu Tam, between after it was nullified and before it was nullified.

åîéäå òì ëøçê öøéê ìàå÷îä ìàçø áéèåì ëãáøé ø"ú ìñôøéí ãâøñé øá éäåãä ãàé ÷åãí áéèåì äà øá éäåãä àéú ìéä äúí ãáùåôø ùì ùìîéí ìà éöà îùåí ãîöåú ìéäðåú ðéúðå

(q)

Answer: However, it must be that both cases are after being nullified according to Rabeinu Tam and the Sefarim that have the text, "Rav Yehudah." If it would be before they were nullified, Rav Yehudah holds in the Gemara there that one does not fulfill the Mitzvah with a Shofar taken from a Korban Shelamim, as Mitzvos are considered a benefit. (He therefore would certainly say one cannot benefit from a Shofar of idolatry, as idols are forbidden from benefit, before nullifying it!)

àê ðøàä ãøáà âøñéðï åìà øá éäåãä

1.

Implied Question: However, it appears that the correct text there is "Rava," not "Rav Yehudah."

ãäà îôøù äúí èòîà ãáùåôø ùì òéø äðãçú ìà éöà îùåí ãëúåúé îëúú ùéòåøéä åìøá éäåãä äåä ìéä ìîéîø îùåí ãîöåú ìéäðåú ðéúðå

2.

Implied Question (cont.): This is because the Gemara there explains that the reason that one does not fulfill the Mitzvah with a Shofar of an Ir ha'Nidachas is because its size is cut (i.e. burned) down. According to Rav Yehudah, the reason given should be because a Mitzvah is a benefit.

89b----------------------------------------89b

3)

TOSFOS DH GID HA'NASHEH

úåñôåú ã"ä âéã äðùä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara picks on Mukdashin as being obvious when other details of the Mishnah are just as obvious.)

ëåìäå ðîé ôùéèà

(a)

Implied Question: All of these categories listed in the Mishnah are obvious. (Why single out Mukdashin?)

àìà ãöøéê ùéäà àçã ìöåøê åàâáéä úðé ëåìäå

(b)

Answer: However, we need to find one that is necessary to be written, and based on that we can say that all other categories stated were a side point to this detail.

4)

TOSFOS DH V'ASI

úåñôåú ã"ä åàúé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why Mukdashin might apply to Gid ha'Nasheh whereas the prohibition of Gid is not added to a non kosher animal.)

åàò"â ãúðï (ì÷îï ãó ÷:) åàéðå ðåäâ áèîàä ãàéï àéñåø âéã çééì òì àéñåø èåîàä

(a)

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that the Mishnah later (100b) states that it does not apply to a non kosher animal, as the prohibition of Gid ha'Nasheh cannot be added to the prohibition of a non kosher animal. (How can our Gemara say that the prohibition of Mukdashin will be added to the prohibition against Gid ha'Nasheh?)

àéñåø îå÷ãùéï ãçîéø ãàéú áäå ëøú àí àëìå áèåîàä ëãôøù"é ì÷îï (ãó ö.) çééì èôé ààéñåø âéã

(b)

Answer: It is more understandable that the prohibition of Mukdashin, which is punishable by Kares if he ate it while impure as explained by Rashi later (90a), will be added to the prohibition against Gid ha'Nasheh.

5)

TOSFOS DH ELA KA'SAVAR

úåñôåú ã"ä àìà ÷ñáø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses why the Gemara did not ask a question from a Mishnah later.)

åìà äéä éëåì ìä÷ùåú åäúðï (ì÷îï ãó ÷:) àéðå ðåäâ áèîàä ãîùîò àéï âéã äðùä ðåäâ áèîàä ãàéï àéñåø âéã çì òì àéñåø èåîàä àìîà ãéù áâéãéï áð"è

(a)

Implied Question: The Gemara could not have asked from the Mishnah later (100b) that says that Gid ha'Nasheh does not apply to a non kosher animal. This indicates that the reason why it does not apply is because the prohibition of Gid ha'Nasheh cannot be added to the prohibition of a non kosher animal. This indicates that there is a good taste given off by Gid ha'Nasheh! (Why didn't the Gemara ask this question?)

ãäåä îöé ìîéîø ãèòîà ëãàîø øáé ùîòåï áâîøà (ùí ãó ÷à.) îé ùâéãå àñåø åáùøå îåúø

(b)

Answer #1: The Gemara could have answered that the reasoning of the Mishnah (ibid.) is as stated by Rebbi Shimon later (101a), that only the Gid of an animal whose Gid is forbidden but its meat is permitted is in fact forbidden.

åîä ùî÷ùä øáé éäåãä åäìà àó ìáðé éò÷á ðàñø

1.

Implied Question: Rebbi Yehudah asks, wasn't Gid ha'Nasheh forbidden to the sons of Yaakov? (What is Rebbi Yehudah's question if we hold Gidin don't have a good taste?)

ùôéø ôøéê ãëéåï ãìáðé éò÷á ðàñø àó áèîàä ìà îñúáø ìîéîø ãàçøé ëï ëùðàñøå áèîàä ô÷ò îîðå àéñåø âéã äðùä

2.

Answer: This is a good question. Since the sons of Yaakov were forbidden to eat the Gid ha'Nasheh of any animal, kosher or non kosher, it is illogical to say that when it became forbidden for them to eat non kosher animals the prohibition against Gid ha'Nasheh no longer applied to non kosher animals.

à"ð àôéìå äéä éëåì ìã÷ã÷ îùí ãéù áâéãéï áðåúï èòí ðéçà ìéä ìîéôøê îéøê ùðúáùì áä âéã äðùä ùùðåéä ÷åãí

(c)

Answer #2: Alternatively, even if he could deduce from here that Gidin have a good taste, it is better to ask a question from a thigh that had a Gid ha'Nasheh cooked in it as this is stated first.

6)

TOSFOS DH ISSUR GID

úåñôåú ã"ä àéñåø âéã

(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks why certain explanations and questions were not asked by our Gemara.)

åäëé ôéøåùå àéñåø âéã äðùä ìáãå ðåäâ áîå÷ãùéï åìà àéñåø àçø

(a)

Explanation: This means that the prohibition against Gid ha'Nasheh alone applies to Mukdashin, but other prohibitions do not.

åà"ú åìéîà ã÷ñáø éù áâéãéï áðåúï èòí åàôéìå äëé ìà àúé àéñåø îå÷ãùéï åçééì ààéñåø âéã ãìéú ìéä àéñåø çì òì àéñåø àó áàéñåø çîåø åàéñåø ëåìì

(b)

Question: Why don't we say that Gidin have a good taste, and even so the prohibition of Mukdashin cannot be added on the prohibition of Gid ha'Nasheh? This is because he does not hold a prohibition can be added to another prohibition, even if the second prohibition is more stringent than the first and more inclusive.

åëé úéîà îùåí ãîúðéúéï ëø"î ãàîø ãðåäâ áùìéì åáñåó ôéø÷éï (ãó ÷à.) îçééá øáé îàéø ùúéí áàåëì âéã äðùä ùì ðáìä àìîà àéú ìéä àéñåø çì òì àéñåø

1.

Implied Question: Perhaps you will say this is due to the Mishnah that is like Rebbi Meir who holds that Gid ha'Nasheh applies to a fetus. Later (101a), Rebbi Meir says that one has transgressed two prohibitions if he eats the Gid ha'Nasheh of a Neveilah. This indicates that he holds a prohibition can be added on another prohibition!

ãäùúà ðîé ã÷àîø àéï áâéãéï áðåúï èòí ìà àúéà ëøáé îàéø ãäà øáé îàéø ñáø éù áâéãéï áðåúï èòí îãîçééá áàåëì âéã îùåí ðáìä

2.

Answer: Even now that we are saying that Gidin do not have a taste, it cannot be according to Rebbi Meir. This is because Rebbi Meir holds that Gidin have a good taste, as indicated by his saying that one is liable for transgressing Neveilah when eating a Gid (of a Neveilah).

åé"ì ãàéï ðøàä ìå ùúçìå÷ äê ñúîà ãîúðéúéï àñúîà ãëøéúåú ôø÷ àîøå ìå (ãó éâ:) ãéù àåëì àëéìä àçú åçééá òìéä ã' çèàåú åàùí àçã ãñáøä ãàéñåø çì òì àéñåø áàéñåø ëåìì

(c)

Answer #1: It does not appear that our Stam Mishnah will argue on the Stam Mishnah in Kerisus (13b). The Mishnah there states that a person can eat one eating and be liable to bring four Korbanos Chatas and an Asham. This indicates the Mishnah there holds that a prohibition can be added to another prohibition when the second prohibition is more inclusive.

àé ðîé ìà áòé ìùðåéé äëé îùåí ãàëúé ú÷ùä ìéä ãà"ë àéï îå÷ãùéï ðåäâ áâéã îáòé ìéä

(d)

Answer #2: Alternatively, it does not want to give this answer because one could still ask the Gemara's question that the Mishnah should have said, "Mukdashin does not apply to a Gid."

åäùúà ã÷àîø ã÷ñáø àéï áâéãéï áðåúï èòí äåä îöé ìîôøê àéï îå÷ãùéï ðåäâ áâéã îáòé ìéä

(e)

Implied Question: Now that the Gemara says he holds there is no taste in Gidin, one could ask the Gemara's question that the Mishnah should have said, "Mukdashin does not apply to a Gid."

àìà ãòãéôà îéðéä ôøéê

(f)

Answer: The Gemara instead asked a better question.

7)

TOSFOS DH IM YESH BAH

úåñôåú ã"ä àí éù áä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks why the Gemara does not say "Gid" refers to the fat of the Gid.)

úéîä ãéìîà àñåøä îùåí ùîðå ùì âéã àáì áâéãéï àéï áäï áðåúï èòí

(a)

Question: This is difficult. Perhaps it is forbidden due to the fat of the Gid, but the Gidin themselves do not have any flavor?

åìôéøåù äø' îàéø àúé ùôéø ãôéøù ãàéï ìäçîéø åìàñåø áùåîï ùáâéã ëéåï ùäâéã òöîå àéðå àåñø

(b)

Answer #1: According to Rabeinu Meir's explanation this is understandable, as he explained that one should not be stringent and forbid the fat of a Gid being that the Gid itself is not forbidden.

åø"ú îôøù ãìùîðå ùì âéã ìà äåä ÷øé âéã ñúîà

(c)

Answer #2: Rabeinu Tam explains that the fat of the Gid would not be called "Gid" (and therefore the Gemara is not discussing the fat of the Gid at all).

å÷ùä ìôéøåùå ãì÷îï (ãó öà.) âáé ääéà ãâéãéï éùøôå ìùùä òùø îå÷é ìä øá àùé áùåîï ùì âéã

(d)

Question: There is a difficulty according to his explanation. Later, (91a) regarding the Mishnah (in Pesachim 83a) that the Gidin should be burned on the sixteenth, Rav Ashi explains that it is referring to the fat of the Gid. (This is despite the fact that it only states "Gid!")

8)

TOSFOS DH B'VLADOS KODSHIM

úåñôåú ã"ä áåìãåú ÷ãùéí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the prohibitions arriving at the same time.)

ãáäãé äããé ÷àúå

(a)

Explanation: The prohibition of Gid and Mukdashin arrive at the same time.

åà"ú åäéëé àúå áäãé äããé äà àéñåø âéã àéðå çì òã ùéäà áï è' çãùéí ëãàîø ì÷îï áôø÷éï (ãó öá:) à"ø àåùòéà îçìå÷ú ááï è' çé åäìê øáé îàéø ìùéèúå ëå'

(b)

Question: How can they arrive at the same time? The prohibition of Gid arrives when the animal is nine months in the womb! This is as stated earlier (92b) that Rebbi Oshiya says that the argument is regarding an animal who has been alive for nine months in the womb (when the mother is slaughtered), and Rebbi Meir is according to his opinion etc.

åé"ì ãäà ãùøé ø"î áâéã áùìéì áï ç' äééðå ìàçø ùðùçèä äàí ãðéúø áùçéèú äàí àáì ëì æîï ùìà ðùçèä äàí àéëà àéñåø âéã áùìéì

(c)

Answer: Rebbi Meir permits the Gid of a fetus that was alive for eight months in the womb if its mother was slaughtered (when it was in the womb), as it is permitted due to the slaughtering of the mother. However, as long as the mother was not slaughtered there is a prohibition of Gid in the fetus (even at eight months).

åîéäå ÷ùä ãáôø÷ áäîä äî÷ùä (ìòéì ãó òä.) àéôìéâå øáé éåçðï åøéù ì÷éù áúåìù çìá îáï è' çé àáì îáï ç' çé îùîò ãìëåìé òìîà àéï áå àéñåø çìá åä"ð àéï àéñåø âéã ëé äéëé ãìéëà àéñåø çìá åà"ë àéñåø îå÷ãùéï ÷ãéí

(d)

Question: However, there is a difficulty. In Chulin (75a), Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue regarding a person who tears off some Cheilev from a live nine month old fetus. However, if the fetus was only eight months old everyone agrees that there is no prohibition of Cheilev. Just as there is no prohibition of Cheilev at eight months, so too there should not be a prohibition of Gid at eight months! If so, the prohibition of Mukdashin was before the prohibition of Gid.

åéù ìåîø ããå÷à àéñåø çìá àéï áå îùåí ãëúéá (åé÷øà æ) ëì çìá ùåø åëùá åáï ç' ìà îé÷øé ùåø åëùá àáì àéñåø âéã éù áå

(e)

Answer #1: It is possible to answer that specifically the prohibition of Cheilev does not apply at eight months, as the Pasuk states, "All Cheilev of an ox and sheep etc." An eight month old fetus is not called an ox or sheep. However, the prohibition of Gid does apply to it.

àé ðîé ðéçà ìéä ìîéôøê îîúðéúéï ãðæéø ãîùîò áäãéà ãìàå áäãé äããé àúå

(f)

Answer #2: Alternatively, it is better for the Gemara to ask a question from the Mishnah in Nazir that implies explicitly that the prohibition of Mukdashin and Gid do not arrive at the same time. (However, our question would also be a valid question.)

åà"ú åàîàé ìà ôøéê îîúðéúéï ãàéðå ðåäâ áèîàä àìîà ãàéñåø èåîàä ÷ãéí

(g)

Question: Why don't we ask from our Mishnah that says that Gid does not apply to a non kosher animal that we see from here that the prohibition of eating a non kosher animal comes before the prohibition of Gid?

åé"ì ãäî"ì ãèòîà îùåí ãáùøå àñåø ëã÷àîø øáé ùîòåï ëãôé' ìòéì

(h)

Answer: The Gemara could have answered that the reason for this is because its meat is forbidden as stated by Rebbi Shimon and as I explained earlier (see Tosfos #5 above).

9)

TOSFOS DH V'HA

úåñôåú ã"ä åäà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos has difficulty with both the question and answer of our Gemara.)

úéîä îàé ôøéê äà ñéôà áùìéì ùðùçèä àîå åøéùà áùìà ðùçèä

(a)

Question #1: This is difficult. What is the question? The second part of the Mishnah is regarding a fetus whose mother was slaughtered and the first part was regarding a fetus whose mother was not slaughtered.

åòåã ãîàé ÷à îùðé ãáø æä îçìå÷ú øáé éäåãä åøáðï åäìà àó øáé éäåãä îåãä ãàñåø ëé ìà ðùçèä äàí ããå÷à áðùçèä ôìéâé

(b)

Question #2: Additionally, what is the answer that this is an argument between Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabanan? Even Rebbi Yehudah admits that when the mother is not slaughtered there is a prohibition. They argue only when it is slaughtered.

ãäà øáé éåçðï àéú ìéä áôø÷ áäîä äî÷ùä (âí æä ùí) ãúìù çìá îáï è' çé ãçìáå ëçìá áäîä àò"ô ùàí ðùçèä äàí äëì îåúø àôéìå çìáå åâéãå îëì ááäîä úàëìå

1.

Proof: Rebbi Yochanan stated earlier (75a) that if one tears off Cheilev from a nine month old fetus that is alive, the Cheilev is considered like that of a regular animal. This is despite the fact that if the mother was slaughtered the animal would be permitted entirely, even the Cheilev and its Gid, due to the Pasuk, "Whatever is in the animal you should eat."

10)

TOSFOS DH V'AMAR

úåñôåú ã"ä åàîø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos tries to understand why the text in our Gemara is "And Rebbi Yochanan etc." while the text in Nazir is "As Rebbi Yochanan etc.")

úéîä ãáðæéø ôø÷ ëäï âãåì (ãó ð.) âøñéðï áëì äñôøéí ëãà"ø éåçðï ëå' îùîò ãøáé éåçðï ìà àîø àääéà ãðæéø

(a)

Question: This is difficult. In Nazir (50a), the text of all the Sefarim is "As Rebbi Yochanan states etc." This implies that Rebbi Yochanan did not say his statement regarding the Mishnah in Nazir (unlike what is implied by our Gemara).

åðøàä ãäëà ðîé âøñéðï ëãà"ø éåçðï åãø' éåçðï àôùø ãàéúîø àîúðéúéï ãàäìåú (ô"á î"à) ãúðï àìå îèîàéí áàäì äîú ëå'

(b)

Answer #1: It appears that in our Gemara as well the text should read, "As Rebbi Yochanan states." It is possible Rebbi Yochanan made his statement regarding a Mishnah in Ohalos (2:1) that states, "These cause impurity in a tent: A dead person etc."

åøáéðå ùîåàì îééùá âéøñú äñôøéí ãäúí âøñéðï ëãàîø åäëà âøñéðï åàîø

(c)

Answer #2: Rabeinu Shmuel answers the text of our Sefarim that have the text of "As Rebbi Yochanan says" there and "And Rebbi Yochanan says" here.

ãäúí òì ôéøëà ãòì ëæéú îâìç òì ëåìå ìà ëì ùëï àîø øá éåñó ìà ðöøëä àìà ìîú ùàéï òìéå àôéìå ëæéú áùø åäãø ôøéê åàëúé òì àáø îîðå îâìç òì ëåìå ìà ëì ùëï åîùðé ëãàîø ø' éåçðï ìà ðöøëä

1.

Answer #2 (cont.): The Gemara there asks, if a Nazir must shave due to a Kzayis, he certainly must shave due to an entire dead person! Rav Yosef says that this is only necessary regarding a dead person who does not have even a Kzayis of meat left. The Gemara then asks that if a Nazir must shave due to a limb of a dead person, he certainly should shave due to an entire dead person! The Gemara answers, this is as Rebbi Yochanan says this is only necessary etc.

ôéøåù ëãàîø øáé éåçðï òì ôéøëà ÷îééúà ãòì ëæéú ëå' ãëéåï ùìà ðú÷ùøå àéáøéå òãééï îñúîà àéï òìéå ëæéú äëà ðîé ëå'

2.

Answer #2 (cont.): This means as Rebbi Yochanan answered regarding the first question (posed to Rav Yosef above) that regarding a Kzayis etc. His answer was that being that the limbs were not formed, there probably was not a Kzayis of flesh on him. Similarly here (this answer can also be applied to the second question) etc.

åäëà ãìà îééúé àìà ôéøëà ÷îééúà ÷àîø åà"ø éåçðï îùåí ãàôéøëà ÷îééúà àéúîø îéìúéä ãøáé éåçðï

3.

Answer #2 (cont.): Our Gemara only quotes the first question, and therefore says, "And Rebbi Yochanan says" because Rebbi Yochanan originally said his remark regarding the first question.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF