NIDAH 2 (2 Sivan) - This Daf has been dedicated in memory of Harry Bernard Zuckerman, Baruch Hersh ben Yitzchak (and Miryam Toba), by his children and sons-in-law.

1)

TOSFOS DH Masnisin me'Es la'Es

úåñôåú ã"ä îúðé' îòú ìòú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses why this is unlike other Sefekos.)

îôøù áâî' ãúåìéï ìà àåëìéï åìà ùåøôéï åãå÷à ì÷ãùéí àå ìúøåîä àáì ìçåìéï ìë''ò ãéä ùòúä ãàå÷îà ìä áçæ÷ú èäåøä

(a)

Explanation: The Gemara (6a) explains that we suspend [food that became Tamei due to me'Es la'Es]. We do not eat it, and we do not burn it. This is only regarding Kodshim and Terumah. For Chulin, all agree that Dayah Shaitah, for we establish her in Chezkas Taharah.

åà''ú îàé ùðà îëì ñô÷ èåîàä ãáøä''é èîà åãàé àó ìçåìéï åìà îå÷îéðï áçæ÷ú èäøä îùåí ãéìôé' (ì÷îï ãó â.) îñåèä

(b)

Question: Why is this different than every Safek Tum'ah in Reshus ha'Yachid, which is Tamei even for Chulin? We do not establish it in Chezkas Taharah, for we learn (below, 3a) from Sotah!

îãôøéê áâîøà ìø''ù àé îä ñåèä èîàä åãàé áøä''é àó äëà èîàä åãàé åîùðé ùàðé ñåèä ãàéëà øâìéí ìãáø

1.

Source: Below, the Gemara asks according to R. Shimon "just like a Sotah is considered Vadai Temei'ah in Reshus ha'Yachid, also here she should be considered Vadai Temei'ah!", and we answer that Sotah is different, for there are Raglayim l'Davar (circumstantial evidence. She was warned, yet she was secluded. Presumably, she is Temei'ah!)

îùîò ãìøáðï ãàîøé áøä''é èîàåú àúé ùôéø åèòí ãúøúé ìøéòåúà ìà äåöøê àìà ìèîà àôéìå áø''ä

2.

Inference: According to Rabanan, who say that in Reshus ha'Yachid, [food that she touched] is Tamei, it is fine. The reason that there are two ru9 (problems) is needed only to be Metamei even in Reshus ha'Yachid!

îãôøéê áâîøà ìø''ù àé îä ñåèä èîàä åãàé áøä''é àó äëà èîàä åãàé åîùðé ùàðé ñåèä ãàéëà øâìéí ìãáø

3.

Source: Below, the Gemara asks according to R. Shimon "just like a Sotah is considered Vadai Temei'ah in Reshus ha'Yachid, also here she should be considered Vadai Temei'ah!", and we answer that Sotah is different, for there are Raglayim l'Davar (circumstantial evidence. She was warned, yet she was secluded. Presumably, she is Temei'ah!)

åé''ì ãìà éìôéðï îñåèä ìèîàä ìîôøò åìëê áèåîàä ãîòú ìòú îå÷îéðï ìä àçæ÷úä

(c)

Answer: We do not learn from Sotah to be Metamei retroactively. Therefore, for Tum'ah of me'Es la'Es, we establish her on her Chazakah.

åà''ú áîòú ìòú ã÷éì èôé îùàø èåîàåú ëãôøéùéú àîàé äçîéøå áå ìèîàä àó áø''ä åáëì ùàø èåîàåú àîøéðï áø''ä ñô÷å èäåø

(d)

Question: Regarding me'Es la'Es, which is more lenient than other Tum'os, like I explained, why were they stringent to be Metamei even in Reshus ha'Rabim? For all other Tum'os, we say that Safek Tum'ah in Reshus ha'Rabim is Tahor!

ëãîåëç áùîòúéï ã÷àîø åäìì ëé ÷àîø àå÷é îéìúà àçæ÷úä ëâåï ñô÷ ðâò ñô÷ ìà ðâò àáì áîòì''ò ëå'

1.

Source #1: Our Sugya proves this. It says that Hillel holds that we establish a matter in its Chazakah, e.g. a Safek whether or not it touched. However, regarding me'Es la'Es...

åìà àîøéðï àå÷é îéìúà àçæ÷úä àìà áø''ä àìîà áîòú ìòú àó áø''ä èîà

i.

Inference: We say "we establish a matter in its Chazakah" only in Reshus ha'Rabim. This shows that me'Es la'Es is Tamei even in Reshus ha'Rabim!

åëï ì÷îï (ãó ä:) îå÷é îúðé' ëùðåùàéï àåúä çáøåúéä áîèä à''ë äåå ìäå úìúà åäåé ø''ä ëãîåëç áøéù ùðé ðæéøéí (ðæéø ðæ.) åàô''ä äîèä èîàä

2.

Source #2: Below (5b) we establish our Mishnah when her friends carry her on a bed. If so, there are three [people], and it is Reshus ha'Rabim, like is proven in Nazir (57a), and even so the bed is Tamei!

åàò''â ãéù ìãçåú ëâåï ùäëéìä îôñ÷ú áéï ðãä ìçáøåúéä

3.

Disclaimer: We can reject this proof, e.g. the canopy around the bed separates between the Nidah and her friends [so it is as if she is alone, and it is Reshus ha'Yachid. Without a canopy, this would be Reshus ha'Rabim, and Tum'ah of me'Es la'Es would not apply!]

àéï ðøàä ãáäãéà éù áéøåùì' ãîâòä áø''ä îèîà áîòú ìòú

4.

Source #3: One should not [reject the proof], for the Yerushalmi explicitly says that what she touched in Reshus ha'Rabim is Tamei [retroactively] me'Es la'Es.

åé''ì ãàó áø''ä ìà ðèäø á÷ãùéí îùåí çæ÷ú èäøä ëéåï ãàéëà øéòåúà îâåôä

(e)

Answer: Even in Reshus ha'Rabim, we do not rely on Chezkas Taharah to be Metaher Kodshim since there is a Re'usa from her body.

åàò''â ãîñåèä éìôéðï ìèäø áø''ä àôé' äéëà ãìéëà çæ÷ä ëîå ùàôøù ì÷îï

(f)

Question: We learn from Sotah to be Metaher Kodshim even when there is no Chazakah, like I will explain below!

äëà ìà éìôéðï îñåèä îùåí ùäàùä ùøàúä äùúà åãàé èîàä äéà åìà âîøéðï îñåèä ìèäø áø''ä àìà ëîå ñô÷ ðâò ñô÷ ìà ðâò ùâí òúä áñô÷ ãåîéà ãñåèä

(g)

Answer #1: Here we do not learn from Sotah, because the woman who saw [Dam Nidah] now is Vadai Temei'ah. We learn from Sotah to be Metaher in Reshus ha'Rabim only in cases like a Safek whether or not something touched, that also now it is a Safek, similar to Sotah.

åîéäå áãáø ùàéï áå ãòú ìéùàì èäåø áîòú ìòú

(h)

Distinction: However, a matter that Ein Bo Da'as Lish'ol (there was no one with intelligence in the place where the Safek arose) is Tahor regarding me'Es la'Es.

ãì÷îï î÷ùéðï àîúðé' ãáø ùàéï áå ãòú ìéùàì äåà åîå÷îéðï áùçáøåúéä ðåùàåú àåúä áîèä

(i)

Source: Below, we challenge our Mishnah "this is Davar she'Ein Bo Da'as Lish'ol!", and establish it when her friends carry her on a bed.

åäééðå îùåí ããáø ùàéï áå ãòú ìéùàì ìà âîøéðï îñåèä àìà âîøéðï ìèäø îãøá âéãì

(j)

Explanation: This is because we do not learn from Sotah Davar she'Ein Bo Da'as Lish'ol. Rather, we learn to be Metaher from Rav Gidal;

ãàîø øá âéãì (ñåèä ãó ëè.) ëúéá åäáùø àùø éâò áëì èîà ìà éàëì äà ñô÷ èäåø

1.

Citation (Sotah 29a - Rav Gidal): It says "veha'Basar Asher Yiga b'Chol Tamei Lo Ye'achel" - this implies that [it Vadai touched, but] if it is a Safek, it is Tahor;

åëúéá ëì èäåø éàëì áùø äà ñô÷ èîà

2.

Citation (cont.) Contradiction: It says "Kol Tahor Yochal Basar." This implies that [he is Vadai Tahor, but] if it is a Safek, he is Tamei!

àìà ëàï ùàéï áå ãòú ìéùàì ëàï ùéù áå ãòú ìéùàì

3.

Citation (cont.) Resolution: Here Ein Bo Da'as Lish'ol (a Safek is Tahor), and here Yesh Bo Da'as Lish'ol (a Safek is Tamei).

åáèåîàú áùø ÷ãù ùééê ìîôøò ëîå ìäáà

4.

Regarding Kodesh meat, retroactive [Tum'ah] applies, just like for the future.

åòåã é''ì ãìà âîøéðï îñåèä àìà èåîàú îâò åìà èåîàú øàééä ìëê îèîà àó áøä''ø

(k)

Answer #2: We learn from Sotah only Tum'ah of touching, but not Tum'ah of seeing [blood]. Therefore, it is Tamei even in Reshus ha'Rabim.

àáì ãáø ùàéï áå ãòú ìéùàì èäåø ãáèåîàú áùø ÷ãù ùééê èåîàä ò''é øàééú äæá àå äæáä àå äðãä ãàñåøéí (äâäú äá"ç) ìàëåì áùø ÷ãù åäåé áëìì ëì èäåø éàëì áùø (åé÷øà æ)

(l)

Distinction: However, a matter that Ein Bo Da'as Lish'ol is Tahor, for regarding Tum'ah of Kodesh meat, [retroactive] Tum'ah applies through sightings of a Zav, Zavah or Nidah, who are forbidden to eat Kodesh meat, and they are included in [the Isur inferred from] Kol Tahor Yochal Basar.

åà''ú îàé ùðà ãáðâò áàçã áìéìä (ì÷îï ãó ã.) ãîèîàéï øáðï àó áø''ä ëãîåëç áúåñôúà äéëà ãìà øàäå çé îáòøá îùåí ãëì äèåîàåú ëùòú îöéàúï

(m)

Question: What is different about one who touched someone at night? Rabanan are Metamei even in Reshus ha'Rabim, like is proven in the Tosefta, when he did not see him alive at night [and in the morning, he found that he is dead], because all Tum'os are [assumed to be] like they are at the time they are found?

åàùä ðîé àîøéðï (ì÷îï ãó ã.) ëéåï ãùëéçé áä ãîéí ëàéðä áãå÷ä ãîéà åàîàé îèäøéðï ìçåìéï àó áøä''é

1.

Also regarding a woman, we say (below, 4a) that since blood is common in her, it is as if she is not checked. Why are we Metaher Chulin [retroactively] in Reshus ha'Yachid?

åé''ì ãì÷îï [ðîé] áðâò áàçã áìéìä îééøé á÷ãùéí

(n)

Answer: Also below, one who touched someone at night, discusses Kodshim;

åëï ÷åôä (ì÷îï ãó â:) ãôøéê äìì ìùîàé àééøé á÷ãùéí ãàé ìàå äëé ú÷ùä ìéä ìðôùéä

1.

Similarly, the case of a box (below, 3b), which Hillel asked against Shamai, discusses Kodshim. If not, it is difficult for [Hillel] himself!

åëï ôìåâúà ãçæ÷éä åø' éåçðï (ùí) äîãìä é' ãìééí îéí îééøé áîéí ùðòùå òì èäøú ä÷ãù ììåù áäï òéñú îðçåú àå ìäãéç áäï áùø ÷ãù ãë÷ãù ãîå

2.

Similarly, the argument of Chizkiyah and R. Yochanan about one who fills 10 buckets of water [and found a Sheretz in the last] discusses water prepared Al Taharas ha'Kodesh (one guards it from Tum'ah as if it were Kodesh) for the sake of kneading a dough of Menachos, or to rinse Kodesh meat. [Chulin Al Taharas ha'Kodesh] is like Kodesh (regarding Tum'ah).

åà''ú åî''ù ãàîøéðï áðâò áàçã ìùøåó åáîòú ìòú àîøéðï úåìéï

(o)

Question: Why do we say regarding one who touched someone [at night] that we burn [Taharos due to this], but regarding me'Es la'Es, we suspend?

ãàùä ðîé îé÷øéà áî÷åí îöéàúä ãëì î÷åí ùäéà èåîàúä òîä

1.

Also a woman is called "the place where [the Tum'ah] is found", for whenever she is, her Tum'ah is with her.

ãàé ìàå äëé ú÷ùé àùä ìçæ÷éä ãîèäø á÷åôä îî÷åí ìî÷åí

2.

If not, we could challenge Chizkiyah from the case of a woman (a Nidah), for he is Metaher a box from place to place! (One corner of the box was used for Taharos, and a Sheretz was found later in a different corner.)

åé''ì îùåí ãìáå ðå÷ôå åéáèì îôøéä åøáéä ãñáåø ãùëéçà èåîàä ëéåï ùùåøôéï òìéä úøåîä åôøéù ãëä''â àîøéðï ì÷îï (ãó â:)

(p)

Answer: [Really, we should burn Taharos due to me'Es la'Es of Nidah. We do not,] for then [her husband] would be worried, and neglect Peru u'Rvu, for he thinks that [retroactive] Tum'ah is common, since we burn Terumah due to it, and he will refrain. We say like this below (3b).

åäà ãôøéê äìì ìùîàé

(q)

Implied question: Why did Hillel challenge Shamai? (Shamai is Metaher, lest her husband be worried!)

äééðå îùåí ãìáå ðå÷ôå ìà äéä ìå ìèäø ìâîøé

(r)

Answer: Concern lest her husband be worried is not a reason to be Metaher totally.

àê ÷ùä ìô''æ îàé ôøéê ìäìì îî÷åä ðéîà îùåí ãìáå ðå÷ôå

(s)

Question: According to this, what was the question against Hillel (2b) from a Mikveh? We should say [that here Hillel says that we are not Metamei Vadai] lest her husband be worried! (Tosfos leaves this difficult. Aruch l'Ner answers that the question was according to the first answer that Shamai's reason is because we establish her on her Chazakah.)

åà''ú àîàé îèäø ùîàé èôé áàùä îá÷åôä åðâò áàçã

(t)

Question: Why is Shamai Metaher a woman more than a box, and one who touched someone [at night]?

àò"â ãîùðé ùîàé ãàùä àéï ìä ùåìééí

1.

Suggestion: Shamai answered that a woman has no bottom to hold in the blood [so surely, it came only now]!

äééðå ìäàé ìéùðà ãàé äåä ãí îòé÷øà äåä àúé àáì ìùàø ìéùðé ìéú ìï äàé èòîà

2.

Rebuttal: This is only according to the version that if there was blood [earlier], it should have come beforehand. However, the other versions do not hold like this reason.

åé"ì ãèòîà ãùîàé îùåí ãàùä áãå÷ä äéà

(u)

Answer: Shamai's reason is because a woman is checked.

åäà ã÷àîø ëéåï ãùëéçé áä ãîéí ëàéðä áãå÷ä ãîéà

(v)

Question: We say that since blood is common in her, it is as if she is not checked!

äééðå ìäìì

(w)

Answer: That is according to Hillel.

åà''ú ìø''î àîàé îèäø áðâò áàçã åáàùä úåìéï

(x)

Question: Why is R. Meir Metaher one who touched someone [at night], and regarding a woman we suspend?

åé''ì îùåí ãîå÷îéä àçæ÷úéä (äâäú äá"ç) åàùä îùåí ãàéëà øéòåúà îâåôä:

(y)

Answer: We establish him (the person he touched) on his Chazakah (that he was alive. We suspend) regarding a woman, for there is a Re'usa from her body.

2)

TOSFOS DH v'Hillel Ki Amar d'Muki Milsa a'Chezkasei...

úåñôåú ã"ä åäìì ëé àîø ãîå÷é îéìúà àçæ÷úéä...

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses what we can learn from Sotah.)

äééðå áø''ä ëãôøéùéú àáì áøä''é ìà îå÷îéðï àçæ÷úéä åäåé èåîàä åãàé ãéìôé' (äâäú äá"ç) îñåèä

(a)

Explanation: This is in Reshus ha'Rabim, like I explained, but in Reshus ha'Yachid we do not establish it in its Chazakah, and it is Vadai Tamei, for we learn from Sotah.

åãå÷à ñô÷ ðâò ñô÷ ìà ðâò äåé åãàé èîà àáì èîà ùðâò áàçã îï äçáéåú åàéðå éåãò áàéæä îäí ðâò äåå ùðéäí èîàéí îñô÷

(b)

Limitation: Only a Safek about whether or not something touched is Vadai Tamei, but if a Tamei person touched one of the barrels, and we do not know which he touched, both of them are Tamei due to Safek;

åàéðï èîàéï ùðéäí áåãàé ãìà âîøéðï îñåèä àìà ãáø ùéëåì ìäéåú åäëà äàçã èäåø áåãàé

1.

They are not both Vadai Tamei, for we learn from Sotah only what is possible, and here, Vadai one is Tahor.

åëï îùîò áøéù ùðé ðæéøéí (ðæéø ðæ.) ã÷úðé àîø ìäí àçã øàéúé àçã îëí ùðèîà åàéðé éåãò àéæä îëí îáéàéï ÷øáï èåîàä å÷øáï èäøä

(c)

Support: In Nazir (57a), if one said [to two Nezirim] "I saw that one of you became Tamei, but I do not know which of you", they bring a Korban Tum'ah and a Korban Taharah;

åìà îééúé ëì àçã ÷øáï èåîàä îùåí ãìà âîøéðï îñåèä àìà ãáø ùéëåì ìäéåú

1.

We do not say that each brings a Korban Tum'ah, for we learn from Sotah only what is possible.

åäà ãôøéê äúí àîàé îééúå ÷øáï èåîàä ìééúå úøåééäå ÷øáï èäøä ãàçã ùàîø ìùðéí äåå ìäå â' åäåé ø''ä åñô÷å èäåø

(d)

Implied question #1: It asks there "why do they bring a Korban Tum'ah? Both should bring a Korban Taharah, for since one said to two people, there were three, so it is Reshus ha'Rabim, and a Safek is Tahor";

àò''â ãàéï éëåì ìäéåú ùéäå ùðéäí èäåøéï ãäàçã åãàé èîà

1.

This is impossible that both are Tehorim, for Vadai, one of them is Tamei!

åëï âáé ùðé ùáéìéí áô''÷ ãôñçéí (ãó é.) îèäøéðï ùðéäí ááàå ìéùàì æä àçø æä àò''â ùáåãàé ðèîà äàçã

(e)

Implied question #2: Regarding two paths (one of them has Tum'ah on it, so anyone who walks on the path will become Tamei, and Reuven walked on one, and Shimon walked on the other), in Pesachim (10a) we are Metaher both of them when they come to ask [about their status] one after the other, even though surely one of them became Tamei!

äúí ìà îñåèä âîøéðï àìà ãîå÷îéðï ëì àçã áçæ÷ú èäøä ëãàéúà äëà ãäåé èòîà îùåí ãîå÷îéðï îéìúà àçæ÷úéä

(f)

Answer: There we do not learn from Sotah. Rather, we establish each in Chezkas Taharah, like it says here that the reason is because we establish a matter in its Chazakah.

åîéäå äéëà ãìéëà çæ÷ä ìèäøä îèäøéï áø''ä îñåèä ëîå î÷åä ùðîãã åðîöà çñø

(g)

Distinction: However, when there is no Chezkas Taharah, we learn from Sotah to be Metaher in Reshus ha'Rabim, like a Mikveh that was measured and found to be deficient;

ãîèäø ø''ù áø''ä ãâîøéðï îñåèä àò''â ãìéëà ìîéîø äòîã î÷åä òì çæ÷úå ãàãøáä äòîã èîà òì çæ÷úå

1.

R. Shimon is Metaher in Reshus ha'Rabim, for we learn from Sotah, even though we cannot say "establish the Mikveh in its Chazakah." Just the contrary, we should establish the Tamei [person or Kli that immersed in the Mikveh] in his/its Chazakah!

åàí úàîø åäéëé éìôéðï îñåèä ìèäø áøùåú äøáéí àôéìå ìéëà çæ÷ä äà ñåèä àéú ìä çæ÷ú èäøä

(h)

Question: How can we learn from Sotah to be Metaher in Reshus ha'Rabim even when there is no Chazakah? Sotah has Chezkas Taharah! (We may infer that a Safek in Reshus ha'Rabim is Tahor only for similar matters, which also have Chezkas Taharah!)

åéù ìåîø ëéåï ã÷éðà ìä åðñúøä àéúøò çæ÷úä

(i)

Answer: Since he warned her and she was secluded, her Chazakah was weakened. (Therefore, from her we may learn matters without Chezkas Taharah.)

åàò''â ãàéï ñúéøä áø''ä

(j)

Implied question: There is no seclusion in Reshus ha'Rabim! (Regarding any such Safek, she retains her Chazakah!)

îëì î÷åí àéúøò çæ÷úä ãùééê ÷öú ñúéøä áàôéìä åáìéìä (îëàï îòîåã á) åáòú ùàéï áðé àãí îöåééï

(k)

Answer: In any case, her Chazakah was weakened, for there is some seclusion in the dark, and at night, and at a time when people are not found.

2b----------------------------------------2b

åà''ú à''ë äéëé éìôéðï îñåèä ãáøä''é ñô÷å èîà àôé' àéëà çæ÷ä äà áñåèä àéúøò çæ÷ä

(l)

Question: If so, how can we learn from Sotah that in Reshus ha'Yachid, a Safek is Tamei, even if there is a Chazakah? A Sotah's Chazakah was weakened!

å÷øà ãåðèîàä ãàééúø ìàâîåøé áòìîà èåîàä îñåèä

1.

Suggestion: The verse "v'Nitme'ah" is extra to teach in general Tum'ah from Sotah.

àéîà ãå÷à äéëà ãìéëà çæ÷ä åàéöèøéê ÷øà ìàùîåòéðï ãäåé èîà åãàé àò''â ùàéðå àìà ñô÷ åâí ìèäø áø''ä àò''â ãìéëà çæ÷ä

2.

Rejection: I can say that it is only when there is no Chazakah, and we need the verse to teach that it is [considered] Tamei Vadai [in Reshus ha'Yachid], even though [actually] it is only a Safek, and to be Metaher in Reshus ha'Rabim, even though there is no Chazakah!

åé''ì ãéìôéðï îñåèä ùòùàä äëúåá åãàé èîàä àò''â ãàéú ìä çæ÷ä ùàéðä èîàä åãàé åìà àéúøò àìà çæ÷ú èäøä åãàéú

(m)

Answer: We learn from Sotah. The Torah considers her Vadai Temei'ah, even though she has a Chazakah that she is not Vadai Temei'ah, just her Chezkas Vadai Tehorah was weakened.

3)

TOSFOS DH d'Ika Re'usa mi'Gufah

úåñôåú ã"ä ãàéëà øéòåúà îâåôä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that if not for this, we would rely on the initial Chazakah.)

àáì àé ìàå äàé èòîà äåä îå÷îéðï ìä àçæ÷ú èäøä àò''â ãäùúà åãàé èîàä

(a)

Explanation: If not for this reason, we would establish her on Chezkas Taharah, even though now she is Vadai Temei'ah;

ëîå áðâò áàçã ãîèäøéí øáðï áøàäå çé îáòøá àò''â ãäùúà äåà îú åìéëà òåã çæ÷ú çéåú

1.

This is like one who touched someone at night. Rabanan are Metaher when he saw him alive the previous day, even though now he is dead, and there is no longer a Chazakah of being alive.

åî''î àí òùå îáäîä âáéðåú åùçèåä åðîöàú èøôä àéï ìäúéø äâáéðåú îèòí àå÷é áäî' áçæ÷' ùìà äéúä èøôä îúçìä

(b)

Distinction: In any case, if one made cheeses from [milk of] an animal, and slaughtered it, and it found to be Tereifah, we do not establish the animal in its Chazakah that initially it was not Tereifah, and through this permit the cheese;

ëéåï ãîòåìí ìà äéúä àåúä ùòä îáåøøú ìà çùéáä çæ÷ä ëãîåëç áäëì ùåçèéï (çåìéï éà:)

1.

This is because the time [that the animal was Vadai not Tereifah] was never clarified. (Even if a Tereifah cannot live more than a year, so now we know that it was not Tereifah a year ago, we did not know this at the time.) Therefore, it is not considered a Chazakah, like is proven in Chulin (11b);

ã÷àîø àúéà îîëä àáéå åîôøä àãåîä ãàæìéðï áúø øåáà

2.

Citation (11b): We say there that we learn from [the Chiyuv Misah for] wounding a parent and Parah Adumah that we follow the majority;

åäéëé îåëç ãìîà îùåí ãîå÷é ìä áçæ÷ú ùàéðä èøôä

i.

Question: How is this proven? Perhaps there we establish [the Parah Adumah] in the Chazakah that it was not Tereifah!

àìà ìà çùéá àåúä çæ÷ä ëãôøéùéú åö''ò ìäúéø äâáéðåú

ii.

Answer: Rather, it is not considered a Chazakah, like I explained. This requires investigation to permit the cheeses.

4)

TOSFOS DH l'Hillel Kasheh Vadai

úåñôåú ã"ä ìäìì ÷ùä åãàé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how we know that there it is Vadai Tamei.)

ãîã÷àîø ø' ùîòåï áñéôà áøä''é úåìéï îëìì ãèîàåú ã÷àîøé øáðï áøéùà äééðå åãàé

(a)

Explanation: Since R. Shimon said in the Seifa "in Reshus ha'Yachid we suspend", this implies that when Rabanan say "Temei'os" in the Reisha, this is Vadai.

5)

TOSFOS DH Hashta Hu d'Chazai

úåñôåú ã"ä äùúà äåà ãçæàé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with Rav's teaching in Kidushin.)

åøá ãàîø áô' é' éåçñéï (÷éãåùéï òè.) äøé äéà áåâøú ìôðéðå âáé ÷ãùä àáé' áãøê å÷ãùä òöîä áòéø

(a)

Implied question: Rav said in Kidushin (79a) "she is a Bogeres in front of us" regarding one whose father was Mekadesh her on the road, and she was Mekadesh herself in the city. (I.e. we assume that also at the time of the Kidushin, she was a Bogeres, so her father's Kidushin is invalid and hers is valid);

åùðéäí áéåîà ãîùìéí å' çãùéí ùáéï ðòøåú ìáâøåú åìà ÷àîø äùúà äåà ãáâøä

1.

Both [acts of Kidushin] were on the day that completes the six months between Na'arus and Bagrus. We do not say "now she became a Bogeres (but she was a Na'arah at the time of Kidushin)!"

äééðå îùåí ãøâéìåú ùòøåú ìáà îöôøà

(b)

Answer: This is because it is common for hairs to come in the morning (so presumably, she was already a Bogeres before the first Kidushin. Chasam Sofer and Aruch l'Ner ask that hairs are not a sign of Bagrus! Chachmas Betzalel (here, and cited in Ohr Chodash Kidushin 79b) says that Tosfos holds that Bagrus begins six months after Na'arus, at the same hour of the day. We assume that hairs came in the morning, so also Bagrus begins in the morning, six months later).

åëé ôøéê äúí ìùîåàì îî÷åä åçáéú ä''ð îöé ìîéôøê ìøá ããå÷à áùòøåú ÷àîø øá

(c)

Implied question: Why did we challenge Shmuel there from a Mikveh and barrel? We could have challenged also Rav, for Rav said only regarding hairs ["she is a Bogeres in front of us"]!

àìà ãôøéê ìùîåàì èôé áôùéèåú

(d)

Answer: The question against Shmuel is simpler.

åäà ã÷àîø äúí ìéîà øá ãàîø ëø' ðúï ãàîø àí áøéà äåà òìéå ìäáéà øàéä ùùëéá îøò äéä àò''â ãøá ãå÷à áùòøåú ÷àîø

(e)

Implied question: It says there "let us say that Rav said like R. Nasan, who said [about one who gave a gift and wants to retract it] "if [now] he is healthy, he must bring a proof that [when he gave] he was a Shechiv Mera (dangerously ill. Such a person may retract whatever he gives.)" Rav said only regarding hairs [that we follow the current status. Why should we say that he holds like R. Nasan?]

äúí ðîé øåá äòåìí áøéàéí åàéú ìï ìîéîø ãáøéà äéä ëîå ùäåà òëùéå

(f)

Answer: Also there, most people are healthy, so we should say that he was healthy, like he is now.

6)

TOSFOS DH Hasam Tartei l'Re'usa

úåñôåú ã"ä äúí úøúé ìøéòåúà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos contrasts this to Shechitah and Tzara'as.)

úéîä ãáô''÷ ãçåìéï (ãó é. åùí) àîøéðï ùçèä åðîöà äñëéï ôâåí åùáø áå òöîåú àçøé ëï øá çñãà àîø ëùøä îùåí ãòöí åãàé ôåâí ëå'

(a)

Question: In Chulin (10a), we say that if one slaughtered an animal and found that the knife was nicked, and he broke bones with the knife [after Shechitah, before noticing the nick], Rav Chisda says that [the Shechitah] is Kosher, for bones surely nick [and it is a Safek whether cutting the skin before Shechitah dents];

åôøéê ìéä îèáì åòìä åðîöà òìéå ãáø çåöõ àò''ô ùðúòñ÷ áàåúå äîéï ëì äéåí ëåìå ìà òìúä ìå èáéìä

1.

We challenge him from one who immersed, came up, and found a Chatzitzah [on his body]. Even if he engaged the entire day with the same kind of substance [as the Chatzitzah], the Tevilah is invalid. (We do not say that the Chatzitzah came after he immersed!)

åîùðé ñëéï àéúøòé áäîä ìà àéúøòé

2.

We answer that there is a Re'usa in the knife, but not in the animal.

åäùúà äà àéëà úøúé ìøéòåúà ãäøé ôâåí ìôðéê åäòîã áäîä áçæ÷ú àéñåø ëãàîø äëà

3.

Summation of question: Now, [also there] there are two Re'usos! The knife is nicked in front of you, and we establish the animal in Chezkas Isur, similar to what it says here;

ãä''ð àéúøòé î÷åä åàãí ìà àéúøòé åàô''ä îèîàéðï

i.

Likewise [here], there is a Re'usa in the Mikveh, but not in the person [who immersed in it], and even so we are Metamei!

åé''ì ãäúí îùåí ãòöí åãàé ôåâí ëãàîø äúí

(b)

Answer #1: There, (Rav Chisda is lenient) because a bone Vadai dents, like it says there.

à''ð àéï ñáøà ìçì÷ áéï î÷åä àéúøòé ìàãí àéúøòé åäúí ä''ô ñëéï àéúøòé åàéëà ñôé÷é

(c)

Answer #2: It is unreasonable to distinguish between the Re'usa of a Mikveh and the Re'usa of a person. There, it means as follows. There is a Re'usa in the knife, and there are many Sefekos;

èåáà ùîà áòöí ðôâí åàôé' áòåø ðôâí ùîà ðôâí áîéòåè áúøà åàú''ì ðôâí áîéòåè ÷îà ùîà ìà ùçè ëðâã äôâéîä

1.

Perhaps it became nicked on a bone. And even if it became nicked through cutting skin, perhaps this was during the latter half of Shechitah (i.e. after the majority of the Simanim were cut, and the Shechitah was already Kosher). And even if you will say that it was during the first half of Shechitah, perhaps he did not slaughter with that part of the knife (the nick did not touch the Simanim)!

àê ÷ùä ãàîø äúí îðìï ãàæìéðï áúø çæ÷ä ãëúéá åéöà äëäï îï äáéú åãéìîà àãðôé÷ åàúé áöéø ìéä ùéòåøà àìà àå÷îé' àçæ÷ä

(d)

Question: It says there 'what is the source that we follow Chazakah? It says "v'Yatza ha'Kohen Min ha'Bayis (and he quarantines the house with Tzara'as)." Perhaps after he left (before declaring it to be Tamei), the size of the Nega became less than the Shi'ur! Rather, we establish it in its Chazakah.'

å÷ùä äúí îùåí ãìéëà øéòåúà åàëúé äéëà ãàéëà øéòåúà îðìï ãàæìéðï áúø çæ÷ä

1.

There (we follow the Chazakah) because there is no Re'usa. Still [we can ask], when there is a Re'usa, what is the source that we follow the Chazakah?!

åé''ì ãîåëç äéëà ãáà ëäï áñåó ùáåò åøàä åäðä ëää äðâò åàéúøò çæ÷ä îèîàéðï àãí äðëðñ ùí áàåúå ùáåò åçééá ÷øáï àí ðëðñ áòæøä

(e)

Answer: It is proven that [even] when the Kohen comes at the end of the week and sees that the Nega became weaker, and there is a Re'usa in the Chazakah, we are Metamei a man who enters [the house] in that week, and he must bring a Korban if he entered the Mikdash.

å÷ùä àãøáä ðéîà äúí äøé çñø äðâò ìôðéê åàå÷é âáøà áçæ÷ú èäøä ëãàîø äëà âáé î÷åä ìèîà áåãàé

(f)

Question: Just the contrary, we should say there that the Nega is deficient in front of you, and we should establish the man in Chezkas Taharah, like it says here regarding a Mikveh to be Metamei Vadai!

åé''ì ãâáé î÷åä øâéìåú ìäúçñø îòè îòè åìëê àéëà ìîéîø ãîòé÷øà çñø

(g)

Answer: Regarding a Mikveh, it is normal to decrease bit by bit. Therefore, we can say that it was deficient from the beginning;

àáì äðâò øâéìåú ìäúçñø ááú àçú ôçåú îëâøéñ ìëê àîøéðï äúí äùúà äåà ãçñø åàå÷é äðâò áçæ÷ú ùìí áéöéàú ëäï îï äáéú åëùèéîà äëäï àú äáéú

1.

However, a Nega normally decreases at once to less than a Gris (the Shi'ur, the size of a bean). Therefore, we say there that now it is deficient, and we leave the Nega in the Chazakah that it is a complete [Shi'ur] when the Kohen leaves the house and he declares the house Tamei;

àôé' ðúçñø äðâò àçøé ëï ÷åãí ùðëðñ æä âæéøú äëúåá äåà ùäáéú èîà òã ùéøàä äëäï áñåó ùáåò åéèäøðå

2.

Even if the Nega decreased afterwards, before he entered, it is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv that the house is Tamei until the Kohen sees it at the end of the week and declares it Tahor.

7)

TOSFOS DH Hayah Bodek Es ha'Chavis

úåñôåú ã"ä äéä áåã÷ àú äçáéú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this is even like Rabanan.)

àôé' ìøáðï ãàéú ìäå áäîåëø àú äñôéðä (á''á ôã.) ééï åçåîõ îéï àçã äåà

(a)

Implied question: According to Rabanan, who hold in Bava Basra (84a) that wine and vinegar are one species (in any case the Terumah should be valid)!

äééðå ëùîúëåéï ìúøåí îï äçåîõ åäëà îééøé ùðúëåéï ìúøåí îï äééï åðîöà çåîõ

(b)

Answer: That is only when he intended to tithe from vinegar. Here we discuss when he intended to tithe from wine, and it was found to be vinegar;

ãäåä ìéä úøåîä áèòåú ëãîùîò áúåñôúà ãúøåîåú ôø÷ äúåãä åäîòùø:

1.

This is mistaken Terumah, like it connotes in the Tosefta of Terumos (4:7).

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF