1)

TOSFOS DH Hasam Chad Kra Kulei l'Gufei

úåñôåú ã"ä äúí çã ÷øà ëåìéä ìâåôéä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos questions why regarding Keranos we expound the first.)

ìà ãîé ì÷øðåú ããøùéðï úçéìåú

(a)

Implied question: Why is this unlike Keranos, in which we expound [also] the first?

ã÷øðåú îùîò îðééðà àáì ñåëåú ìà îùîò îðééï ãôðåú àìà îùîò ùúé ñåëåú äìëê àéï ìðå ìãøåù úçéìåú

(b)

Answer: "Keranos" connotes the number [of corners], but "Sukos" does not connote the number of walls, rather, two Sukos. Therefore, we should not expound the first.

åö''ò âáé àìäéí (ñðäãøéï ãó â:) ãîùîò ðîé îðééï åìà ãøùéðï úçéìåú

(c)

Question: This requires investigation regarding "Elohim" (judges). Also it connotes the number, and we do not expound the first!

2)

TOSFOS DH Arba'in v'Tartin

úåñôåú ã"ä àøáòéï åúøúéï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the source for this Havah Amina.)

çöé ùáòéí åçöé àøáòä òùø

(a)

Explanation: This is half of 70, and half of 14 (the two ways to read the word).

3)

TOSFOS DH di'Chsiv k'Nidasah

úåñôåú ã"ä ãëúéá ëðãúä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the Drashah.)

ôé' ëùéòåø ðãúä éù ìê ìäåñéó àð÷áä éåúø îï äæëø

(a)

Explanation: Like the Shi'ur of her [Tum'as] Nidah, you should add [to Tum'as Leidah for] a female more than for a male.

åáô' ÷îà ãñðäãøéï (ãó ã.) ìà îééúé ìéä ìäàé ëðãúä

(b)

Observation: In Sanhedrin (4a) we do not bring this [Drashah] k'Nidasah.

4)

TOSFOS DH Danin Chatas v'Arba Keranos

úåñôåú ã"ä ãðéï çèàú åàøáò ÷øðåú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks why we do not learn inner Chata'os from each other.)

úéîä ãàôéìå çåõ îôðéí áòé ìîéìó îùåí çèàú åàøáò ÷øðåú ëì ùëï ôðéí îáôðéí

(a)

Question: Even outside from inside we want to learn, because it is a Chatas and [blood is put on] four Keranos. All the more so we should learn inside from inside!

åì÷îï îöøéê ÷øà ìëì äôðéîéí ãîòëáé åìà éìôé îäããé

1.

And below (39a) we require a verse for each inner [Chatas] to teach [that all Matanos are] Me'akev]. We do not learn them from each other!

ããøéù ìôø æä ôø éåä"ë ëàùø òùä ìôø æä ôø ëäï äîùéç ìä÷éùå ìôø äòìí ãáø ùì öéáåø ìåîø ãîòëáå åìîä öøéê ÷øà (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí)

2.

[The Gemara] expounds "la'Par" - this is Par Yom Kipur. "Ka'Asher Asah la'Par" refers to the Par of a Mashu'ach (for transgressing through his own mistaken Hora'ah), to equate it to Par Helam Davar of the Tzibur, to teach [that every Matanah is] Me'akev. Why do we need a verse [for each, and not learn them from each other]?

5)

TOSFOS DH v'Chiper Af Al Pi she'Lo Nasan l'Ma'alah Ela l'Matah

úåñôåú ã"ä åëôø àò''ô ùìà ðúï ìîòìä àìà ìîèä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we omitted a case.)

úéîä àîàé àéôñé÷ îñãø ùäúçéì ìãøåù ãäåä ìéä ìîéîø åëôø àò''ô ùìà ðúï ìîòìä àìà àçú åùìù ìîèä

(a)

Question: Why did he interrupt from the order in which he began to expound? He should have said v'Chiper, even though he put above only once, and three below!

åé''ì ãìà îùîò ìéä ìãøåù ùéòùä ìîèä àìà áäëùø ãîéí äðéúðéï ìîèä

(b)

Answer: It connotes to him to expound that they will do below only like what is done l'Chatchilah with blood that should be put below;

åùúéí ìîòìä åá' ìîèä ã÷àîø äééðå ùéòùä ìîèä àçú ùäéà ùúéí åëï åëôø àò''ô ùðúï ëåìï ìîèä äééðå ëãéï ùàø ãîéí äðéúðéï ìîèä

1.

Two above and two below that it says, i.e. he does below one that is two [he throws at one edge, and the blood goes on two sides]. Similarly, "v'Chiper even though he put all of them below" means like other blood put below (two Matanos that are four);

àáì àé àîøú àçú ìîòìä åùìù ìîèä äåé ìîèä àçú ùäéà ùúéí åàçú ùäéà àçú

2.

However, if you will say one above and three below, below he does one that is two and one that is one.

úåñ' (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) åäééðå úøé ùéðåéé ùøåáä ìîèä åâí äàçú àéðå ëîùôè ãîéí ùì îèä àáì ùìù ìîòìä åàçú ìîèä àò''ô ùàåúä àçú àéðå ëîùôè àéï ÷ôéãà ëéåï ùäøåá ìîòìä ò''ë

(c)

Comment: These are two deviations - the majority is below, and also the one is not like the law of blood below. However, three above and one below, even though the one [below] is not like the law [of blood below], we are not concerned for this, since the majority is above. Until here is a comment.

åîùðé øáà àéæäå ãáø ùöøéê ùìù åëôø äåé àåîø æä ÷øðåú

(d)

Answer (cont.): Rava answers "which matter needs [the Torah to write] three [times] v'Chiper? This is the Keranos";

ôéøåù ãìãéãê áúøé åëôø ñâé ãëéåï ãìà áòéðï ÷øà ìàçú ìîòìä åùìù ìîèä ìôé ùàéðå ëãéï ãîéí äðéúðéï ìîèä

1.

Explanation: According to you (the Makshan), it suffices to write twice v'Chiper. Since we do not need a verse for one above and three below, since it is not like the law of blood put below...

àí ëï ùìù ìîòìä åàçú ìîèä ðîé àò''â ãøåáï ìîòìä ìà ìéáòé ÷øà ãàéï æä ëãéï äðéúðéï ìîèä ùëì äðéúðéï ìîèä îîúðåú àøáò äåéà àçú ùäéà ùúéí

i.

If so, also three above and one below, even though the majority is above, should not need a verse, since it is not like the law of blood below, for every [Matanah] below from what requires four [Matanos] is one that is two!

åôøéê åàéîà åëôø àò''ô ùìà ðúï àìà àçú ìîòìä åùìù ìîèä åìà ëåìï ìîèä åìà àçåù áñáøà æå ãèåá ìäëùéø àçú ìîòìä îëåìï ìîèä

(e)

Answer (cont.): [The Gemara] asks "we should say v'Chiper even though he put only one above and three below, and not all below", and not be concerned for this reasoning, for it is better to be Machshir one above than all below!

(äâä''ä úåñôú åãáøé øù''é éù ìôøù ãñáéøà ìéä ëéåï ãåëôø ùìéùé àúé ìùìù ìîèä ëéåï ãäøåá ìîèä ëùø äåà äãéï ëåìï ìîèä

(f)

Comment: We can explain that Rashi holds that [the Makshan holds that] since the third v'Chiper teaches about three below, since when the majority is below, it is Kosher, the same applies when all are below;

åîùðé àéæäå ãáø ùöøéê ùìù åëôø ëå' åìãáøéê àøáò åëôø äéä ìå ìéëúåá åäåà äãéï ùìê àéðå èåá

1.

[Rava] counters, for what matter did [the Torah] need [to write] v'Chiper three times...? According to you, it should have written v'Chiper four times! Also your [explanation] is not good.

åäãø ôøéê åãéìîà ùìù ìîèä ãå÷à ëùø åìà ëåìï

2.

After, [the Gemara] asks that perhaps only three below is Kosher, but not all of them.

îéäå ìéùðà ãöøéê ùìù ãîùîò åìãáøéê àéðå öøéê ùìù îùîò ëôé' äúåñ'. ò''ë äâä''ä)

(g)

Disclaimer: However, [Rava's words "what matter] needs three", which connotes "and according to you, it does not need three", connotes like Tosfos explained. Until here is a comment.

åöøéê ìã÷ã÷ àîàé ìà ãøùéðï ìäðé åëôø àò''ô ùìà ðúï ì÷øðåú ëìåîø áçåãä åëôø àò''ô ùìà ðúï áàöáò åëôø àò''ô ùìà ðúï àøáò îúðåú àìà ùúéí ùäï ã'

(h)

Question: Why don't we expound these occurrences of v'Chiper [to teach] even if he did not put on the Keranos, i.e. on the edge, v'Chiper even though he did not put with the finger, v'Chiper even though he did not put four Matanos, rather, two Matanos that are four? (Tosfos does not answer this.)

åæä àéï ìä÷ùåú ãäëà ãøùéðï åëôø ìâîøé åàôéìå áùø ùøé áàëéìä åìòéì áôø÷ ùðé (ãó ëå:) ãøùéðï ìëôøä ðúúéå åìà ìãáø àçø

(i)

Implied question: Why don't we ask that here we expound v'Chiper totally, and even the meat may be eaten, and above (26b) we expounded "I gave (was Machshir blood put in the wrong place) for Kaparah, but not for something else [to eat the meat]"?

ãéù ìçì÷ áéï ìëôø áéï ìåëôø

(j)

Answer: We can distinguish between "Lechaper" (which we expounded there) and "v'Chiper" (which we expound here).

6)

TOSFOS DH k'Matzlif

úåñôåú ã"ä ëîöìéó

(SUMMARY: Tosfos justifies the Havah Amina.)

úéîä åîàé ñ''ã ãî÷ùä äà áäãéà ÷úðé äëé áñéôà áéåîà ô' äåöéàå ìå (ãó ðâ:) ãúðï ìà äéä îúëåéï ìäæåú ìà ìîòìä åìà ìîèä àìà ëîöìéó

(a)

Question: What did the Makshan think? A Mishnah explicitly teaches this (Yoma 53b). He did not intend to sprinkle above or below, rather, like one who is Matzlif (flicks his hand)!

åé''ì ùáà ìúøõ ãäàé ëîöìéó ëîðâãðà åäëì áî÷åí àçã åëîå ùîôåøù áòøåê ëîðâãðà ùîøéí éãå åàéðå îëä òã ùéåøã

(b)

Answer: He comes to answer that k'Matzlif is like one who whips. Everything (both those above and below, goes) in one place, like the Aruch explains "like one who lifts his hand, but does not lash until he lowers it";

1.

Note: The Ritva (Yoma 15a) says that the Makshan understood the Mishnah simply, that one is above and seven are below; "he did not intend to sprinkle above or below" refers to the position of his hand. Tosfos ha'Rosh there says that he understood "... to sprinkle above", i.e. at the very top of the Paroches, "or below", at the very bottom.

éøåùìîé îöìéó ëîèáøø ôé' áòøåê ùîèä éãå òã èéáåøå

2.

The Yerushalmi says that k'Matzlif is k'Metavrer. The Aruch explains that he is like one who lifts his hand, but does not lash until he lowers it until the navel.

7)

TOSFOS DH Mai Lav a'Palgei d'Mizbe'ach

úåñôåú ã"ä îàé ìàå àôìâéä ãîæáç

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains this unlike Rashi.)

åàí ëï îöéðå ãîéí çöééï ìîòìä åçöééï ìîèä ãîúçìä ðúï à÷øðåú åàçø ëê ìçöé äîæáç. úåñôåú.

(a)

Explanation #1 (Tosfos): If so, we find blood that is half above and half below, for initially he put on the corners, and afterwards at half [the height of] the Mizbe'ach.

åøù''é îôøù áò''à:

(b)

Explanation #2: Rashi explained differently. (He cannot be exact, so some will be above half the height, and some will be below.)

38b----------------------------------------38b

8)

TOSFOS DH v'Lisnei Gabei Kulei Beis Shamai

úåñôåú ã"ä åìéúðééä âáé ÷åìé áéú ùîàé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses when Beis Shamai are more lenient.)

ôé' øù''é ãñáø ãùúé îúðåú îôâìåú åìà àçú ãàéï îôâìéí áçöé îúéø

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [Beis Shamai] hold that two Matanos are Mefagel, but not one, for we are not Mefagel in half a Matir.

åà''ú àéîà îôâìåú äééðå áàçú îäï åìáéú äìì áøàùåðä ãåå÷à åìëåìäå îôâìéï áçöé îúéø

(b)

Question: We should say that "Mefaglos" is in one [Matanah], and according to Beis Hillel only in the first, and all hold that we are Mefagel in half a Matir!

åà''ë àó áôéâåì æéîðéï ãäåé çåîøà ìá''ù àí ðúï øàùåðä ëúé÷ðä åùðéä çåõ ìæîðä äåé ôéâåì åìá''ä àéðå ôéâåì ëãàîø áîúðé'

1.

If so, even in Pigul sometimes there is a stringency according to Beis Shamai. If he put the first properly and the second Chutz li'Zmano, it is Pigul, and according to Beis Hillel it is not Pigul, like he says in our Mishnah.

åö''ì îã÷àîøé áéú äìì øàùåðä îôâìú îëìì ãìá''ù ìà îôâìà ãäåä ìéä ìîéîø áøàùåðä åìà áùðéä

(c)

Answer #1: We must say that since Beis Hillel say that the first [Matanah] is Mefagel, this implies that Beis Shamai hold that it is not Mefagel. [If not, Beis Hillel] should have said [that he is Mefagel] in the first, but not in the second.

åúå é''ì ãåîéà ãîúéøåú ãäééðå ãùúéäï ãåå÷à äåé îôâìåú

1.

Also, we can say that ["Mefaglos"] is like "they permit", i.e. only both of them are Mefaglos.

åä''ø éöç÷ ëúá ãëï îåëç áúåñôúà áäãéà à''ø àìéòæø (ëï ðøàä ìäâéä) áï éò÷á ãáø æä î÷åìé áéú ùîàé åîçåîøé áéú äìì ùúé îúðåú ùáçèàú îëùéøåú åîôâìåú

(d)

Answer #2 (R. Yitzchak): This is explicitly proven in the Tosefta. R. Eliezer ben Yakov said that this is a leniency of Beis Shamai and a stringency of Beis Hillel. Two Matanos of a Chatas are Machshir and Mefagel;

ëéöã àçú ùìà áæîðä åðùôê äãí ôñåì åàéï áå ëøú ãáøé á''ù åáéú äìì àåîøéí ôéâåì åéù áå ëøú

1.

Citation (Tosefta): What is the case? If one [Matanah] was Chutz li'Zmano and the blood spilled, it is Pasul and there is no Kares according to Beis Shamai. Beis Hillel say that it is Pasul and there is Kares;

àìîà áàçú àéï áå ôéâåì ìá''ù

2.

Inference: In one [Matanah] there is no Pigul according to Beis Shamai.

åîùîò îùåí ãðùôê äãí åìà ÷øáå ëì îúéøéå àáì àí ìà ðùôê äãí åðúï äùðéä ëúé÷ðä äåé ôéâåì ãîôâìé' áçöé îúéø åìà ëôé' øù''é

(e)

Possibility #1: It connotes that it is because the blood spilled and they did not offer all the Matirim, but if the blood did not spill and they put the second Matanah properly it is Pigul, for we are Mefagel in half a Matir, unlike Rashi explained.

åìáéú äìì ôéâì ã÷øáå ëì îúéøéå

1.

And according to Beis Hillel he was Mefagel, because all the Matirim were offered.

àå ùîà àôé' ìà ðùôê åðúï äùðé' ëúé÷ðä ðîé àéðå ôéâåì ìá''ù ãàéï îôâìéï áçöé îúéø

(f)

Possibility #2: Or, perhaps even if the blood did not spill and they put the second Matanah properly it is not Pigul according to Beis Shamai, for we are not Mefagel in half a Matir;

åðùôê ã÷úðé îùåí áéú äìì àùîåòéðï ãäééðå ÷øáå ëì îúéøéå

1.

It mentioned that the blood spilled due to Beis Hillel, to teach that this is [considered that] all the Matirim were offered.

äùúà îîä ðôùê àôé' (äâää áâìéåï) ñáøé áéú ùîàé îôâìéï áçöé îúéø äåå ì÷åìà

(g)

Observation: Now, no matter what you will say, even if Beis Shamai hold that we are Mefagel in half a Matir, they are [more] lenient.

àëúé ÷ùéà ìé ìîä úéøõ ëé àéúùéì áäúéøà àéúùì

(h)

Question: Still, it is difficult to me. Why did [Rava] answer [that this was taught to answer] the question about [how many Zerikos are needed] to permit?

àôé' ëé àéúùéì áôéâåì äåé áéú ùîàé ìçåîøà äéëà ãìà ðùôê åðúï øàùåðä ëúé÷ðä åäùðéä áôéâåì ãîôâìéï áçöé îúéø

1.

Even if it was asked about Pigul, Beis Shamai are more stringent when the blood did not spill, and he put the first properly and was Mefagel in the second, for we are Mefagel in half a Matir!

åìéîà ãðùôê ãåå÷à äåé î÷åìé á''ù åìîä (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí) ìéä ìîéîø áòãéåú ÷åìà ãðùôê ëéåï ãáìà ðùôê äåé çåîøà

2.

Question: [R. Oshaya] should say that only when it spilled it is a leniency of Beis Shamai. Why should it teach in Eduyos the leniency of when it spilled, since without spilling, it is a stringency?!

åéù ìåîø ãäàé âååðà àéðå ùðåé ìà áîùðä åìà ááøééúà áôéøåù àáì ìéùðà ãáøééúà áðùôê äåé ì÷åìà ìáéú ùîàé ìëê ôøéê ìéúðé' áòãéåú

3.

Answer: We should say that this case (without spilling) is not taught explicitly in a Mishnah or Beraisa. However, the Beraisa (Tosefta), when it spilled, is a leniency according to Beis Shamai. Therefore, he asks that it should be taught in Eduyos.

9)

TOSFOS DH Hagahah Ha Mani R. Nechemyah Hi d'Amar Shirayim

úåñôåú ã"ä äâä''ä äà îðé øáé ðçîéä äéà ãàîø ùéøéí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes that this is a support for Rav Papa.)

åìôéøåù ä÷åðèøñ ùðãçä ñééòúà ãøá ôôà ÷ùä ãäåä ìéä ìîéîø àìà

(a)

Question: According to Rashi, the support for Rav Papa is rejected. The Gemara should have said "Ela"!

åìôåí øéäèà ùéðåéà äåà àìéáà ãøá ôôà åäééðå èòîà ãëéåï ãàùëçï ìøáé ðçîéä ãèòåï ëéáåñ äéëà ãçééá áçåõ

(b)

Explanation: It seems that this is an answer for Rav Papa. The reason is because we find according to R. Nechemyah that it must be laundered when he is liable outside...

ìøáðï (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) ðîé ëéåï ãçééá áçåõ áâ' îúðåú ùáçèàú äåà äãéï ãèòåï ëéáåñ ãëéáåñ åçéåá çåõ çãà îéìúà äéà ãôùéèà ùòì æä ìà äåöøê øàééä

1.

Also according to Rabanan, since he is liable for the [last] three Matanos of a Chatas, likewise it requires laundering. Laundering and Chiyuv outside are the same. This is obvious. It does not need any proof! (Rabanan do not argue with R. Nechemyah about this.)

åôøéê àéîø ãùîòú ìéä ìø' ðçîéä ìòðéï äòìàä ëå' ìòðéï ëéáåñ îé ùîòú ìéä

2.

[The Gemara] asks "we heard R. Nechemyah say so about Ha'alah. Did we hear him say so about laundering?!"

åàí ëï ìà ãéé÷éðï äà îï äøàåé ìéñåã åäåà äãéï ãìà úéãå÷ äà îï äøàåé ì÷øï

i.

If so, we do not infer "[what splashed from the Yesod not,] but what is proper for the Yesod [obligates laundering]", and likewise we do not infer "but what is proper for the Keren [obligates laundering]"!

åîùðé àéï åäúðéà ëå' åëåìä ñåâéà ì÷éåîé ñééòúà ãøá ôôà òã ìáñåó ãîùðé àìà ëé úðéà ääéà áãîéí äôðéîéí ãðãçå ãáøéå (úåñôåú) åîéäå ëì æä àîø øá ôôà ì÷ééí ãáøéå

3.

It answers "yes (he said so about laundering)! A Beraisa teaches...", and the entire Sugya upholds the support for Rav Papa, until at the end it responds "rather, the Beraisa discusses inner blood", and [Rav Papa's support] is rejected. However, Rav Papa said all this to fulfill his words.

i.

Note: Mishmeros Kehunah says that the following begins a new Dibur that pertains to 39a.

áãîéí äôðéîéí (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú)

(c)

Citation (39a): [The Beraisa discusses the last three Matanos of] inner blood.

åìäëé îçùáä îåòìú áäï åîééøé áùéøéí ëãîùîò ìéùðà ãáøééúà èòåðéï éñåã (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) åìà áùìù îúðåú

(d)

Explanation: Therefore, intent takes effect on them. We discuss Shirayim, like the wording of the Beraisa connotes "it needs [to be poured on] the Yesod", and not the [last] three Matanos;

ãëéåï ãàééøé áôðéîéåú ëê ùåä ëîå îúðä øàùåðä ëéåï ãëì àøáò îòëáåú ìëåìé òìîà åìà äåé ÷øé ìäå èòåðéï éñåã (ëï ðøàä ìäâéä)

1.

Since we discuss inner [Chata'os, the last three Matanos] are like the first Matanah, since all four are Me'akev according to everyone. [The Tana] would not call this "what requires the Yesod"!

åáñéôà ìà îöé ìôìåâé áãîéí äçéöåðéí ãøáé ðçîéä äéà ãçééá áùéøéäí áçåõ åàí ëï ìà îöé ìîéúðé úìúà ôèåø

2.

In the Seifa they cannot argue about outer blood, for R. Nechemyah is the one who obligates for their Shirayim outside. If so, he cannot teach that he is exempt for three!

10)

TOSFOS DH Hagahah v'Yesh Mefaresh Ha Mani R. Nechemyah Hi v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä äâä''ä åéù îôøù äà îðé øáé ðçîéä äéà ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that different Tana'im taught the Reisha and Seifa.)

åàúéà ñéôà ãäà îï äøàåé ìéñåã ëîå øáé ðçîéä åøéùà ãäà îï äøàåé ì÷øï ëøáðï

(a)

Explanation: The Seifa [which obligates for] what is proper for the Yesod, is like R. Nechemyah. The Reisha [which obligates for] what is proper for the Keren, is like Rabanan.

åàùëçï ëé äàé âååðà áô' ùúé äìçí (îðçåú ãó öä.) ãúðà åàôééúå áôðéí àìîà úðåø î÷ãù åàéï ãåçåú àú äùáú àéôñìé ìäå áìéðä

(b)

Support #1: We find like this in Menachos (95a). A Beraisa teaches that [Shtei ha'Lechem] are baked inside [the Azarah]. This teaches that the oven is Mekadesh (if they were baked outside, they would be disqualified due to Yotzei. Baking them is not Docheh Shabbos, and Linah disqualifies them. (The last two clauses were taught by different Tana'im. If one must bake them before Shabbos, he must hold that Linah does not disqualify them!)

åëï áøééúà ãøéù èáåì éåí (ì÷îï ãó ÷:) ãéåí ùîåòä ëéåí ÷áåøä åëå'

(c)

Support #2: A Beraisa below (100b) teaches that the day one hears (that a close relative died) is like the day of burial [for Aveilus, and like the day of re-interment of the bones) for eating Pesach. For both of these, he immerses and eats Kodshim at night. The Reisha connotes that he may not eat Pesach on the night after Yom Kevurah, and the Seifa connotes that he may! Rav Chisda answers that different Tana'im taught the Reisha and Seifa.

. åù÷éì åèøé òã àìà ëé úðéà ääéà áùìù îúðåú ùáçèàú åâøñ àìà áñôøéí îãåéé÷éí åäåé ñééòúà ãøá ôôà îäê áúøééúà åìà î÷îééúà

(d)

Explanation (cont.): [The Gemara] discusses this, until it says "rather, the Beraisa discusses the [last] three Matanos of a Chatas." In accurate Seforim, the text says "Ela". The latter Beraisa supports Rav Papa, and not the former.

åìôé ùéèä æå éù ìééùá ëåìä ñåâéà åá÷åðèøñ ôéøù ëåìä ùîòúà áò''à:

(e)

Remark: According to this, we can explain the entire Sugya. Rashi explained our entire Sugya differently.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF