1)

TOSFOS DH ELA LA'AV B'CHAD V'KATANI KI EIN MAKCHICH MEHEIMAN SH'MA MINAH

úåñ' ã"ä àìà ìàå áçã å÷úðé ëé àéï îëçéù îäéîï ù"î

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the inference.)

àáì àé îëçéù, ìà îäéîï- åø"ì ò"ë ùàîø 'àéðé éåãò' ...

(a)

Clarification: But if he contradicts him, he is not believed - in other wards, he claims that he does not know ...

ãàé àîø áäãéà 'ìà àëìúé' ôùéèà ãôèåø, ãòã àçã àéðå ÷í ø÷ ìùáåòä, ëãôøéùéú áîúðéúéï.

1.

Reason: Since if he explicitly claims that he did not eat, it is obvious that he is Patur, since one witness is only believed to make the defendant swear, as Tosfos explained in the Mishnah.

2)

TOSFOS DH O DILMA TA'AMAIHU D'RABANAN MISHUM MIGU D'I BA'I AMAR MEIZID HAYISI ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä àå ãìîà èòîééäå ãøáðï îùåí îéâå ãàé áòé àîø îæéã äééúé åëå'

(Summary: Tosfos queries the implication that he is believed due to a Migu and elaborates.)

îùîò ìôåí øéäèà ùäåà ðàîï îèòí îéâå ùéëåì ìåîø 'îæéã (àðé) äééúé' .

(a)

Explanation #1: At first sight, this indicates that he is believed on a account of a Migu, since he could have claimed that he was Meizid.

å÷ùä, ùäøé 'îéâå áî÷åí òãéí äåà,' ãéù òãéí ùàëì, åäåà àîø 'ìà àëìúé' ,åà"ë ìà îäéîðà ìéä áî÷åí òãéí îëç îéâå...

(b)

Introduction to Question #1: But this is 'A Migu in place of witnesses', seeing as there are witnesses that he ate, and he claims that he didn't, in which case, we do not believe him against witnesses, with a Migu ...

åàîøéðï áá"î (ãó ôà:) 'îéâå áî÷åí òãéí ìà àîøéðï?' ...

1.

Question #1: And the Gemara says in Bava Metzi'a (Daf 81b) that 'We do not apply Migu against witnesses'? ...

âáé ääéà ã'ìà úéæéì áàåøçà ãðäø ô÷åã, æéì áàåøçà ãðøù... . '

2.

Source: In the case there - 'Do not go along the route of the River Pakud! Go along the route of Neiresh ... '.

åúå, àéï æä îéâå ãìà îùåé àéðéù ðôùéä øùéòà ...

(c)

Question #2: Moreover, this is not a Migu, since a person would make himself into a Rasha ...

ëãàîøéðï (÷ãåùéï ãó ð.) âáé "ääéà ã'äáà îï äçìåï' ,åäáéà ìå îï äãìåñ÷îà (åäáéà ìå)... àò"ô ùàåîø áòì äáéú ìà äéä áìáé îæä àìà îæä, áòì äáéú ...' ,ããáøéí ùáìá àéðï ãáøéí ) -åäúí îåëç ìéä... (

1.

Source: As the Gemara says in Kidushin (Daf 50a) in connection with the case - 'Bring me from the window, and he brought it from the chest ... even though the owner claims that he meant not the one, but the other, the owner is Mo'el, because 'Devsarim she'be'Leiv Einan Devarim' ...

åôøéê 'åãìîà ìîéôèø ðôùéä î÷øáï ÷àîø'? åîùðé ã'à"ë äåä àîø "îæéã äééúé" ... '

2.

Source (cont.): The Gemara then asks 'Perhaps he meant to exempt himself from a Korban?, to which it replies 'In that case, he ought to have claimed "Meizid Hayisi'.

åôøéê 'åäà ìà îùåé àéðéù ðôùéä øùéòà' ?'

3.

Source (concl.): And on that the Gemara asks that 'A person does not make himself a Rasha?'

ìëê éù ìåîø ãðàîï äëà îùåí ãîéúøéõ ãéáåøéä, ãàéëà ìîéîø äà ãàîø 'ìà àëìúé' øåöä ìåîø 'ìà àëìúé ùåââ àìà îæéã' ...

(d)

Explanation #2: We must therefore explain that he is believed here on account of Metaretz Dibureih, because we can say that by 'Lo Achalti' he meant 'Lo Achalti Shogeg Ela Meizid' ...

åäëé ôéøåùà -îéâå ãàé áòé àîø 'îæéã äééúé' ,ôèåø, äùúà ðîé îä ùàîø 'ìà àëìúé' ëê øöä ìåîø, åäëé îúøöéðï îéìúéä ãáäëé äéä ãòúå ...

1.

Explanation #2 (cont.): And what the Gemara means is - since had he claimed 'Meizid Hayisi', he would have been Patur, now too, when he said 'Lo Achalti', that is what he really meant to say, and that is how we interpret his words ...

åàó òì âá ã'ìà îùåé àéðéù ðôùéä øùéòà' ,ëãàîø (ñðäãøéï ãó è:) âáé 'ôìåðé øáòðé' -ãàéðå ðàîï îùåí ã'àéï àãí îùéí òöîå øùò' ...

(e)

Implied Question: And even though 'A person does not make himself a Rasha', as the Gemara says in Sanhedrin (Daf 9b) in connection with 'P'loni raped me' - who is not believed because 'A person does not make himself a Rasha'? ...

äééðå ìéôñì ðôùéä ìà îäéîï, àáì àé àîø 'îæéã àëìúé çìá' îäéîï -ãàãøáà îúëåéï ìèåáä ùàéðå øåöä ìäáéà çåìéï áòæøä.

1.

Answer: That is if it is simply to render himself Pasul, but where he said 'I ate Cheilev on purpose', where on the contrary, his intention is to avoid bringing Chulin into the Azarah, he is believed.

åà"ú, åðéùééìéä àí äéä ãòúå ìëê?

(f)

Question: Why don't we simply ask him if that is what he meant (See 'Chidushin' of the Shitah Mekubetzes)?

åéù ìåîø, ãàôé' äãø àîø )äëé( 'ìà àëìúé ùåââ àìà îæéã' ,ëéåï ùìà àîø ëê áàåúä ùòä, îçééá ø"î...

(g)

Answer: Even if he subsequently claims 'Lo Achalti Shogeg Ela Meizid', Rebbi Meir will declare him Chayav, seeing as he did not say so initially.

åäëé àéúà áúåøú ëäðéí ' -àåîø ø' îàéø ,àí áúçìä àåîø 'îæéã äééúé' ,ùåîòéï ìå...

(h)

Proof: And so the Toras Kohanim, quoting Rebbi Meir writes 'If he initially claims 'Meizid Achalti', we accept it ...

àáì àí äéä ãï òîäí ëì äéåí -ëìåîø ùàåîø' ìà àëìúé' åìà àîø éåúø, àôéìå àåîø àç"ë 'ìà àëìúé ùåââ àìà îæéã' ,çééá.

1.

Proof (cont.): But if he he was arguing with tem all day - i.e. he said 'Lo Achalti' and no more, then even if he then claims 'Lo Achalti Shogeg Ela Meizid', he is Chayav.

åà"ú, äéàê îçééá ø' îàéø, åäàîø 'ìà àëìúé' åáò"ë ìà éáéà çèàú ...

(i)

Question: How can Rebbi Meir declare him Chayav, seeing as he claims 'Lo Achalti, and a person is not forced to bring a Chatas against his will? ...

ëãàîø á"÷ (ãó î.) 'çééáé çèàåú àéï îîùëðéï àåúï .'

1.

Source: As the Gemara says in Bava Kama (Daf 40a) 'We do not take a security from Chata'os' (See Hagahos Mahari Landau).

åé"ì, ãäúí îééøé ëùàîø ãìà ðéçà ìéä áëôøä, àáì äàé ðéçà ìéä áëôøä àìà ùäåà ñáåø ìäéåú ôèåø, îîùëðéï àåúå.

(j)

Answer: That speaks where he does not want a Kaparah, whereas here where he wants a Kaparah, only he thinks he is Patur, we do take a Mashkon.

3)

TOSFOS DH NAFKA MINAH L'TUM'AH

úåñ' ã"ä ðô÷à îéðä ìèåîàä

(Summary: Tosfos offers an alternative distinction.)

åä"ð îöé ìîéîø ðô÷à îéðä äéëà ùàîø 'ìà àëìúé ìà ùåââ åìà îæéã'.

(a)

Alternative Distinction: It could also have answered that the difference lies in a case where he claims that he did not eat - neither Shogeg not Meizid (See Shitah Mekubetzes 45).

4)

TOSFOS DH U'MODIM CHACHAMIM L'REBBI YEHUDAH B'CHALAVIN U'B'VI'AS MIKDASH AVAL B'TUM'AH LO MODU D'PATUR

úåñ' ã"ä åîåãéí çëîéí ìø' éäåãä áçìáéï åááéàú î÷ãù àáì áèåîàä ìà îåãå ãôèåø

(Summary: Tosfos presents a third explanation, over and above the two of Rashi.)

øù"é ôéøù ùúé ìùåðåú ...

(a)

Rashi: Offers two explanations ...

åø"é ôéøù ùéèä àçøú ...

(b)

Third Explanation: The Ri has a third one (See 'Chidushin' of the Shitah Mekubetzes) ...

'åîåãéí çëîéí ìø' éäåãä ... ' ;àáì áèåîàä ìà îåãå ìéä -ëîå 'ðèîàú,' åäåà àîø 'ìà ðèîàúé' ...

1.

Third Explanation (cont.): 'And the Chachamim concede to Rebbi Yehudah ... ' - But regarding Tum'ah they do not concede - such as in the case of 'Nitmeisa', and he replies 'Lo Nitmeisi' ...

åîôøù äù"ñ 'áîàé? àéìéîà áèåîàä éùðä, î"ù äëà åî"ù äëà? ...

2.

Third Explanation (cont.): And the Gemara asks how it speaks - If it is an old Tum'ah, what is the difference between the two cases? ...

àìà ùîò îéðä áèåîàä çãùä...

3.

Third Explanation (cont.): So it establishes it by a new Tum'ah ...

åîùåí äëé ìà îåãå, ãìà ùééê îéâå, åèòîééäå ãøáðï îùåí îéâå...

4.

Third Explanation (cont.): And the reason the Rabanan do not concede is because Migu is not applicable - and their reason is due to Migu ...

åãåå÷à áçìáéí åááéàú î÷ãù îåãå îùåí ãùééê îéâå, àáì áèåîàä ìà îåãå ãìà ùééê îéâå.

5.

Third Explanation (cont.): And it is only by Chalavim and Bi'as Mikdash, that they concede, because Migu is applicable, but not by Tum'ah, where it is not.

àáì ìø' éäåãä, ãèòîà îùåí 'àãí ðàîï òì ... ' , ôèø äëà åäëà.

6.

Third Explanation (cont.): Whereas Rebbi Yehudah, whose reason is because 'Adam Ne'eman al Atzmo ... ', exempts in both cases.

åîéôùè áòéà, ãèòîééäå ãøáðï ãôìéâé òìéä ãø"î äåé îèòí 'îúøõ ãéáåøéä, ' ëãîùîò äëà...

(c)

Resolving the She'eilah: And the She'eilah is resolved, in that the reason that they argue with Rebbi Meir is on account of 'Metaretz Dibureih' (we interpret his words), as the Gemara implies here ...

åàé øáðï ãø"î äééðå øáé éäåãä, èòîéä îùåí ã'àãí ðàîï òì òöîå' ... .

1.

Resolving the She'eilah (cont.): But that if the Rabanan of Rebbi Meir is Rebbi Yehudah, then his reason is because 'A person is believed on himself ... '.

åãçé øáéðà 'ìòåìí àéîà ìê áèåîàä éùðä- ëìåîø îäëà ìà îåëç îéãé, ãîöéðå ìîéîø ãàôéìå ìø' éäåãä ìà îäéîðà ø÷ îèòí îéâå...

(d)

Refutation: However Ravina refutes the proof; he establishes it by Tum'ah Yeshanah, yet one cannot prove anything from here, because we can say that even according to Rebbi Yehudah he is only believed on account of the Migu ....

åäà ãôìéâé äëà áèåîàä éùðä å÷àîøé øáðï ãçééá -ëâåï ã÷àîøé òãéí 'àëìú ÷ãùéí áèåîàú äâåó' ,åäåà àîø 'ìà ðèîàúé' ...

1.

Refutation (cont.): And the reason that they argue here by Tum'ah Yeshanah, and the Rabanan say that he is Chayav - assuming the witnesses say that he ate Kodshim be'Tum'as ha'Guf, and he counters that he did not become Tamei ...

ãìà çùáé øáðï ãîéúøéõ ãéáåøéä áäà ãàîø -ãø"ì 'ìà òîãúé áèåîàúé àìà èáìúé' ...

(e)

Reason: Which, according to the Rabanan, is not considered Metaretz Dibureih - i.e. that he did not remain Tamei, only he Toveled ...

ãàé äåä àîø 'ìà àëìúé' ,îöéðï ìîéúøéõ ãéáåøéä ùø"ì 'ìà àëìúé áèåîàä àìà èáìúé úçìä' ...

1.

Reason (cont.): Because whereas had he said that he did not eat, we can explain his words to mean that he did not eat be'Tum'ah, but Toveled first ...

àáì ëùàåîø 'ìà ðèîàúé' ëáø àéúëçéù ìéä ãéáåøà ÷îà áèåîàú îâò- ùàîø 'ìà ðèîàúé' ãîùîò ìà ùåââ åìà îæéã...

2.

Reason (cont.): But where he claims 'Lo Nitmeisi' his first statement has already been contradicted - because 'Lo Nitmeisi' implies neither Shogeg nor Meizid

ëéåï ùìà äùéá ìäí òì äàëéìä ëîå ùàîøå ìå.

3.

Reason (concl.): Seeing as he did not answer them with regard to the eating of which they accused him.

12b----------------------------------------12b

åäê ñåâéà ãäëà ÷ùä ìäà- ãôø"÷ ãááà îöéòà (ãó â:) ã÷àîø 'ìà úäà äåãàú ôéå âãåìä îäòãàú òãéí, î÷"å...

(f)

Introduction to Question 1: There is a Kashya on the current Sugya from the Gemara in the first Perek of Bava Metzi'a (Daf 3b) which asks that - 'Self-admission ('Piv') should not be more effective than the admission caused by witnesses, from a Kal va'Chomer ...

å÷àîø ÷"å 'åîä ôéå ...' ;åôøéê 'îä ìôéå ùëï îçééáå ÷øáï, úàîø áòãéí ùàéï îçééáéï àåúå ÷øáï'?

1.

Introduction to Question #1 #1 (cont.): 'If already Piv ... ', which the Gemara queries 'Whereas Piv is Mechayev him a Korban, witnesses are not?'

åîàé ôøéê? -äà ãôéå îçééáå ÷øáï ,äééðå ëùàéï òãéí îëçéùéï àåúå...

(g)

Question #1: What is the Kashya, bearing in mind that Piv is only Mechayev him a Korban where the witnesses do not contradict him ...

ãàí àîø 'àëìúé çìá áùåââ' ,åäòãéí îòéãéí ùáàåúå äéåí ùàåîø ùàëì åáàåúä ùòä äúøå áå, àå ùîòéãéï ùäéä ùåîï, ìà îçééá ÷øáï ...

1.

Question #1 (cont.): Because if he were to claim that he ate Cheilev be'Shogeg, and the witnesses would say that on the same day and at the same time he ate Cheilev after they had warned him, or that he ate, not Cheilev, but Shuman, he would not be Chayav a Korban ...

åáòãéí ëùàéï ôéå îëçéùï ðîé çééá...

2.

Question #1 (concl.): And by witnesses, there where he does not contradict them, he is also Chayav ...

ãàôéìå áòã àçã çééá, ëãîùîò äëà?

3.

Proof: Seeing as even on the testimony of one witness he is Chayav, as is implied here?

åòåã, àãøáä òãéí çîéøé èôé îôéå, ùäøé òãéí îçééáéï àåúå àôéìå ôéå îëçéùï...

(h)

Question #2: Moreover, on the contrary, witnesses are more stringent than Piv, seeing as witnesses are Mechayev him even if he contradicts them ...

ãòã ëàï ìà ôèøé øáðï ø÷ îèòí îéâå, àáì àé îëçéù ìäå áäãéà, çééá ÷øáï?

1.

Proof: Because until now the Rabanan only exempt him on account of a Migu, but if he were to contradict them outright, he would be Chayav a Korban.

åúå, îàé îùðé 'ø' çééà ëø"î ñ"ì?' àôéìå ëøáðï ðîé, ùäøé îçééáéï äéëà ãìà îúøõ ãéáåøéä?

(i)

Question #3: Moreover, what does the Gemra mean when it answers 'Rebbi Chiya holds like Rebbi Meir? Why can he not hold even like the Rabanan, seeing as they too, are Mechayev him there where Metaretz Dibureih is not applicable? (See 'Chidushin' of the Shitah Mekubetzes)

5)

TOSFOS DH MI'D'SEIFA MIYN ECHAD U'SHENEI TAMCHUYIN ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä îãñéôà îéï àçã åùðé úîçåééï ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos explains why the Gemara declines to give the same answer earlier.)

àáì ìòéì ãàå÷é øéùà áîéï àçã åùðé úîçåééï, ìà ãéé÷ 'îëìì ãñéôà îùðé îéðéï -ùðé îéðéï îîù ëâåï çìá åãí...

(a)

Implied Question: But earlier, where the Gemara establishes the Reisha by one species and two dishes, the Gemara does not extrapolate 'So we see that the Seifa speaks by two species - real species such as Cheilev and Dam ...

ãàéëà ìîéîø 'úðà ñéôà àâá øéùà' .

(b)

Answer: Since we could answer that the Tasna learns the Seifa on account of the Reisha.

àáì 'øéùà àâá ñéôà' ìà ÷úðé.

1.

Answer (cont.): But we do not find 'the Reisha on account of the Seifa'.

6)

TOSFOS DH D'AMAR`EIN YEDI'AH L'CHATZI SHI'UR

úåñ' ã"ä ãàîø àéï éãéòä ìçöé ùéòåø

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the statement and explains why the Mishnah nevertheless sees fit to mention it.)

åäà ã÷øé ìéä 'äòìí àçã' ,ìø"â äåà, ãìà îçùá éãéòä ìçöé ùéòåø...

(a)

Clarification: And it refers to it as 'He'elam Rchad', according to Raban Gamliel, who does not consider Yedi'ah on half a Shi'ur, a Yedi'ah ...

åîëì î÷åí úðé ìéä...

(b)

Implied Question: Yet he nevertheless learns it ...

ìàùîåòéðï ãàôéìå áäòìí àçã îùðé îéðéï, ôèåø.

(c)

Answer: To teach us that even in one He'elam of two different species, he is Patur.

7)

TOSFOS DH MI'TECHILAH V'AD SOF K'DEI ACHILAS P'RAS

úåñ' ã"ä îúçìä åòã ñåó ëãé àëéìú ôøñ

(Summary: Tosfos explains the two cases of Shi'ur P'ras that one can extrapolate from here.)

îäëà îùîò ãìúøé âååðé îééøé ùéòåø ôøñ...

(a)

Inference: We can learn from here that the Shi'ur P'ras is speaking in two cases ...

çãà ìòðéï äôñ÷ä- ùàí äôñé÷ áéï àëéìä ìàëéìä ëùéòåø ôøñ, àéï îöèøó...

(b)

Case #1: One regarding making a break - that if one makes a break of a P'ras between one eating and another, they do not combine ...

åçãà ëãàîøé' áòìîà (ôñçéí ãó îã.) ùàí ðúï ëæéú úøåîä áùéòåø ôøñ ãçåìéï åàëìï, ùäåà çééá òìéä.

(c)

Case #2: The other, like the Gemara says elsewhere - that if one places a k'Zayis T'rumah in the Shi;ur of a P'ras of Chulin, that he is Chayav on it.

8)

TOSFOS DH OCHLIN TEME'IN ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä àåëìéï èîàéï ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies an alternative text and clarifies it.)

àéú ñôøéí ãâøñé 'ù÷öéí' ...

(a)

Text: Some texts read 'Shekatzim' ...

åáèîàéí îééøé.

1.

Clarification: It is speaking about Tamei Shekatzim.

åà"ú, úéôå÷ ìéä îëé ðâò áäå, èîà?

(b)

Question: Why is he not anyway Tamei when he touches them?

åéù ìåîø, ãúçá ìå çáéøå ááéú äáìéòä.

(c)

Answer: It speaks where where someone stuck it into his throat.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF