1)

TOSFOS DH Chutz mi'Makom ha'Baduk Lah

úåñôåú ã"ä çåõ îî÷åí äáãå÷ ìä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses why he is exempt.)

÷ñáø ãáòé áãé÷ä îùåí ãéøã îáåì ìà''é

(a)

Explanation: He holds that checking is required because the flood came to Eretz Yisrael (and bodies could be buried anywhere).

úéîä åëé îãàåøééúà áòé áãé÷ä

(b)

Question: Does the Torah obligate checking?!

åé''ì ãàéöèøéê ÷øà (ùìà) ìùøôä áî÷åí èåîàä ãàñåø îãàåøééúà ãáòé' ùçéèä åùøéôä áî÷åí èäåø ëùøéôú ôøéí ãàéú÷åù àäããé ëãîùîò ìòéì áñåó èáåì éåí (ãó ÷ä:)

(c)

Answer: The verse is needed for if he burned it in a place of Tum'ah. The Torah forbids this. It mandates Shechitah and burning in a Tahor place, like the burning of Parim (inner Chata'os). They are equated to each other, like it connotes above (105b).

åàí úàîø àîàé ìà îéçééá îùåí çåõ ëùùçèä çåõ ìî÷åîä ëéåï ãúîéîä äéà åøàåéä ìùàø ÷øáðåú

(d)

Question: Why isn't he liable for [Shechutei] Chutz when he slaughtered it outside its place, since it is Tam, and proper for other Korbanos?

ëãàîøéðï áôø÷ ùðé ùòéøé (éåîà ãó ñá:) âáé ùòéøé éåí äëôåøéí ùùçèï áçåõ ãçééá òì ùðéäí äåàéì åøàåééï ìùòéø äðòùä áçåõ

1.

We say like this in Yoma (62b) regarding goats of Yom Kipur that were slaughtered outside [before the lottery]. He is liable for both of them (even though one was destined to go to Azazel), since they are proper [right now] for the goat done outside (the outer Chatas of Yom Kipur)!

åéù ìåîø ãìà ãîé ãéëåì ìùðåúí ãàéï òìéäí ÷øéàú ùí òã ùòú äâøìä

(e)

Answer #1: There is different. He can change them, for there was no designation until the lottery.

åòåã ãàéï ÷øáï ùúäà ôøä æå øàåéä ãàé ìùìîéí àéï ùìîéí áöéáåø

(f)

Answer #2: There is no Korban [Tzibur] for which Parah [Adumah] is proper. It cannot be a Shelamim, for the Tzibur does not bring females!

åòåã ãôøä ÷ãùé áã÷ äáéú äéà åàéï éëåì ìùðåúä á÷ãùé îæáç

(g)

Answer #3: Parah is Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis. One cannot change it to Kodshei Mizbe'ach.

2)

TOSFOS DH she'Ne'emar v'Shachat v'Hizah Mah Haza'ah k'Neged ha'Pesach...

úåñôåú ã"ä ùðàîø åùçè åäæä îä äæàä ëðâã äôúç åëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos brings another text.)

éù ñôøéí ãâøñé åùøó åäæä

(a)

Alternative text: Some texts say "v'Saraf v'Hizah."

åëï îùîò îãîééúé òìä îôìåâúà ãøáé éåçðï åø' àåùòéà

(b)

Support: [The Gemara] brings about this the argument of R. Yochanan and R. Oshaya (about where it must be burned).

åîéäå àôé' âøñéðï äëà åùçè åäæä ðéçà ãîùîò ìéä ãàé î÷ùéðï ùøéôä ìäæàä ä''ä ùçéèä

(c)

Retraction (of support): However, even if the text here is v'Shachat v'Hizah, this is fine, for [the Gemara] understands that if we equate burning to Haza'ah, the same applies to Shechitah.

3)

TOSFOS DH Aval Lifnim Min ha'Chomah d'Kruvei Karvah...

úåñôåú ã"ä àáì ìôðéí îï äçåîä ã÷øåáé ÷øáä...

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why it is Pasul.)

ãôñåìä îùåí ãáòéà çåõ ìùìù îçðåú

(a)

Explanation: It is Pasul because we require outside three Machanos.

4)

TOSFOS DH Lo Yarad Mavul l'Eretz Yisrael

úåñôåú ã"ä ìà éøã îáåì ìà''é

(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with a Midrash.)

úéîä åäëúéá (áøàùéú æ) åéëñå ëì ääøéí äâáåäéí àùø úçú ëì äùîéí åááøàùéú øáä àîøéðï ãø' éùîòàì á''ø éåñé åáäîé àçã äéå äåìëéï áãøê ôéøåù áäîé ùåîø áäîåú

(a)

Question: It is written "va'Ychusu Kol he'Harim ha'Gevohim Asher Tachas Kol ha'Shamayim", and in Bereishis Rabah we say that R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi and a Behemi were walking on the road. "Behemi" is one who guards animals;

àîø ìäåï ääåà ëåúàä àéúå öìåéé òì èåøà âøéæéí ãìà ðçéú òìéä èåôðà àîø àåúå áäîé ìôðé ø' éùîòàì áø' éåñé øáé úï ìé øùåú ìäùéá ìå úùåáä à''ì äùá

1.

A Kusi said to them "go pray on Mount Grizim (Kusim worship it). The flood did not descend on it!" The Behemi asked permission from R. Yishmael to answer him; R. Yishmael permitted him.

à''ì äø âøéæéí úçú ëì äùîéí äåà à''ì äï åìà ëúéá åéëñå ëì ääøéí äâáåäéí àùø úçú ëì äùîéí

2.

The Behemi asked [the Kusi] "is Mount Grizim under [a part of] the entire Shamayim?" The Kusi said that it is. The Behemi said, 'is it not written "all the tall mountains under the entire Shamayim were covered"?!'

÷øà òìéå åìà éäéä áê ò÷ø åò÷øä åááäîúê àôé' äáäîé ùáê ìà éúò÷ø îï äúùåáä

3.

R. Yishmael applied to the Behemi "v'Lo Yihyeh Becha Akar v'Akarah uvi'Vhemtecha" - even a Behemi among [Klal Yisrael] will not be barren from an answer! (Since R. Yishmael affirmed that it was a proper answer, how can R. Yochanan say that the flood did not come to Eretz Yisrael? Har Grizim is in Eretz Yisrael!)

åùîà é''ì ãåéëñå ëì ääøéí äééðå ùùìè äáì äîáåì áëì î÷åí ëãàîøéðï ì÷îï ãîúå áäáìà

(b)

Answer #1: Perhaps "va'Ychusu Kol he'Harim" means that the heat of the flood overpowered everywhere, like we say below (113b) that [those in Eretz Yisrael] died from the heat;

åàåúå ëåúé äéä ø''ì ùìà äéä ùí ìà äáì åìà ùåí ãáø

1.

The Kusi wanted to say that there was not heat or anything else [due to the flood] there (on Har Grizim).

àé ðîé ìàåúå ëåúé ðúëåðå ìãçåú á÷ù å÷øà (ìäëà) ì''÷ ãáî÷åí ùéøã îáåì äúí ÷àîø ùðúëñå ääøéí

(c)

Answer #2: [R. Yishmael] intended to dispel the Kusi with straw (an improper answer). The verse is not difficult. It says that in places where the flood descended, there the mountains were covered.

5)

TOSFOS DH u'Mevi'in Nashim Uvros v'Yoldos Sham

úåñôåú ã"ä åîáéàéï ðùéí òåáøåú åéåìãåú ùí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that the children did become Tamei.)

àó òì ôé ùäúéðå÷åú èîàéï áðãä åéåìãåú

(a)

Implied question: The children were Tamei due to [nursing, and birth itself, during which they touched] a Nidah or Yoledes!

ìà äéå çåùùéï àìà ìùîøí îèåîàú îú ãáòé äæàä åîèåîàä äéåöàä îâåôï ëâåï áòì ÷øé

(b)

Answer: [Chachamim] were concerned only to guard them from Tum'as Mes, which requires Haza'ah, and from Tum'ah that leaves their own body, e.g. a Ba'al Keri.

6)

TOSFOS DH v'Al Gabeihen Delasos

úåñôåú ã"ä åòì âáéäï ãìúåú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with the opinion that the doors are not an Ohel.)

îàï ãàîø áô' ÷îà ãâéèéï (ãó ç:) åáðæéø ôø÷ ë''â (ãó ðä.) åáô' áëì îòøáéï (òéøåáéï ãó ì:) åáô' áúøà ãçâéâä (ãó ëä.) àäì æøå÷ ìà ùîéä àäì

(a)

Implied question: [The doors do not help according to] the one who says in Gitin (8b), Nazir (55a), Eruvin (30b) and Chagigah (25a) that Ohel Zaruk is not considered an Ohel!

ñáø ëø' éäåãä ãàîø áøéù äéùï (ñåëä ãó ëà.) ìà äéå îáéàéï ãìúåú àìà ùååøéí ùëøéñï øçáä

(b)

Answer: He holds like R. Yehudah, who says in Sukah (21a) that they did not bring doors, rather, oxen with wide stomachs [so the child would not tower over the ground];

åäúí èòîà îùåí ãëúéá ÷øà (àéåá é) åáòöîåú åâéãéí úñåëëðé àò''â ãáòìîà àäì ùàéðå òùåé áéãé àãí ìà ùîéä àäì

1.

There, the reason (the bulls block Tum'ah) is due to "uva'Atzamos v'Gidim Tesochecheni" (the verse teaches that they are called Sechach, i.e. a covering), even though [normally] an Ohel not made by man is not considered an Ohel.

åîéäå øáé éäåãä åãàé ñáø ùîéä àäì ãäà ÷à àîø èòîà îôðé ùãòúå ùì úéðå÷ âñä òìéå

(c)

However, R. Yehudah surely holds that [Ohel Zaruk] is considered an Ohel, for he says that the reason [they did not use doors] is because a child is bold (he does not fear falling, and he would lean over past the door).

7)

TOSFOS DH u'Mal'u v'Alu v'Yashvu bi'Mkoman

úåñôåú ã"ä åîìàå åòìå åéùáå áî÷åîï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos questions why they toiled to raise boys in Taharah for Parah.)

÷öú úéîä îä îåòéì áúéðå÷åú ãñåó ñåó áòéðï àéù áùòú ÷éãåù ùðåúðéï äàôø áîéí àå áùòú äæàä ìøáé éäåãä àå ìøáðï ëãîåëç áôø÷ èøó á÷ìôé (éåîà ãó îâ.)

(a)

Question: How did it help to use boys [who never became Tamei through a Mes, or a Tum'ah that leaves their bodies]? Still, we need a man at the time of Kidush, that they put the ashes on the water, or at the time of Haza'ah, according to R. Yehudah or Rabanan, like is proven in Yoma (43a)!

8)

TOSFOS DH Mailah Asu b'Parah

úåñôåú ã"ä îòìä òùå áôøä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that Reish Lakish knew this.)

ø''ì ðîé éãò ãîòìä òùå àìà ãàé ìà éøã îáåì ìà''é àéï øàåé ìòùåú îòìä æå

(a)

Explanation: Also Reish Lakish knew they made a stringency for Parah, but if the flood did not descend to Eretz Yisrael, it is not proper to make this stringency.

åîéäå ÷öú ÷ùä ãäà îåãä øáé éåçðï ãîúå áäáìà ëãì÷îï

(b)

Question: It is slightly difficult, for R. Yochanan agrees that (those in Eretz Yisrael) died due to the heat, like it says below (113b)!

9)

TOSFOS DH mideka'Amar Aye Mesei Mabul mi'Chlal d'Lo Havu

úåñôåú ã"ä îã÷àîø àéä îúé îáåì îëìì ãìà äåå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks that this is difficult for R. Yochanan himself.)

úéîä ãìøáé éåçðï âåôéä ú÷ùé ìéä äëà ãîúå áäáìà:

(a)

Question: We should challenge R. Yochanan himself from here, for they died in the heat!

113b----------------------------------------113b

10)

TOSFOS DH Hainu d'Kam Reima Hasam

úåñôåú ã"ä äééðå ã÷í øéîà äúí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why it did not die due to the heat.)

åàò''â ãëì äùàø îúå áäáìà

(a)

Implied question: R. Yochanan agrees that everything else in Eretz Yisrael died, due to the heat! (Also the Re'em should have died.)

îçîú ùäéä âãåì åâáåø ìà äæé÷ ìå ääáì

(b)

Answer: Because it was big and strong, the heat did not harm it.

11)

TOSFOS DH Orzila d'Reima

úåñôåú ã"ä àåøæéìà ãøéîà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos proves that Re'em is not a fish, and not what we call Bufalos.)

âø' ø''ú ôé' òåôø ùì øàí ãòåôø äàéìéí îúøâîé' àåøæéìà ãàééìà (ùéø á) åøéîà äåà øàí

(a)

Version #1: This is R. Tam's text. "Orzila d'Reima" is a young Re'em. The Targum of "Ofer he'Ayalim" (Shir ha'Shirim 2:9) is Orzila d'Ayala, and Reima is Re'em (a giant animal).

åìà ëøáé ùîåàì ãâøñ áäîåëø àú äñôéðä (á''á ãó òâ:) àåøæéìà ãéîà åîôøù ãâ ùì éí

(b)

Version #2: This is unlike the Rashbam, whose text in Bava Basra (73b) is "Orzila d'Yama." He explains that it is a fish of the sea.

åàâá øéäèéä ìà ã÷ ãäà àîø äëà ìà ðâæøä âæøä òì ãâéí ùáéí

(c)

Rejection: He was not meticulous. It says here that there was no decree against fish of the sea!

åàåúí áåôì''ù ùàðå ÷åøéï øàí ìéúà åçìáí àñåø ãøàí åãàé îéï çéä äåà åçìáå îåúø ëãëúéá à÷å åãéùåï åîúøâîéðï åéòìà åøéîà åáåôì''ù ùáî÷åîéðå ÷èðéí

(d)

Pesak: Bufalos (buffaloes?) that we call Re'em, this is not correct, and their Chelev is forbidden. Surely the Re'em is a Chayah and its Chelev is permitted, like it is written (among the Kosher Chayos) "Ako v'Dishon", and the Targum is v'Ya'ala v'Rima. Our Bufalos are small.

ãàéï ìåîø ùäåà îéï øàí åéù áîéðå âãåì

(e)

Suggestion: Perhaps it is the species of Re'em, and others of the species are big!

ãà''ë îàé ÷ùéà ìéä äéëà ÷í äà ìà ÷ùéà ìéä àøéä ãáé òéìàé áôø÷ àìå èøôåú (çåìéï ãó ðè:) äéëà ÷í ùäéå àøéåú àçøéí ÷èðéí ùéëåì ìäëðéñ

(f)

Rejection #1: If so, what was difficult to [Reish Lakish] "where did [the Re'em] endure?" It was not difficult to him the lion of Bei Ilai, [which is mentioned] in Chulin (59b), where it endured, because there were other small lions that could enter [the ark].

åòåã äà ÷à çæéðï ãàåúï áåôì''ù áðé îìàëä ðéðäå åîåùëéï á÷øåï åçåøùéï áäï

(g)

Rejection #2: We see that those Bufalos work - people use them to pull wagons and plow;

åøàí ìàå áø îìàëä äåà ãëúéá äú÷ùø øéí (ëï öøéê ìäâéä) áúìí òáåúå àí éùãã òî÷éí àçøéê (àéåá ìè)

1.

The Re'em does not work, for it is written "ha'Sikshar Reim b'Selem Avoso Im Yesaded Amakim Acherecha."

12)

TOSFOS DH Yatz'u Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis

úåñôåú ã"ä éöàå ÷ãùé áã÷ äáéú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses why one is exempt even if they are Tam.)

áìùåï àçø ôé' á÷åðèøñ ãîîòè àôé' úîéîéí ãäà ôøú çèàú úîéîä åîîòèà îùåí ãàéðä øàåéä ìôúç àäì îåòã

(a)

Explanation (Rashi's second Perush): Even Tam animals are excluded, for Paras Chatas is Tam, and we exclude it, because it is not proper for Pesach Ohel Mo'ed.

åðøàä ãàéï æå øàéä ãôøú çèàú ìà ÷ééîà ìîæáç àáì îúôéñ úîéîéí ìáã÷ äáéú ÷ééîà ìîæáç (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí)

(b)

Rejection: This is not a proof, for Paras Chatas is not destined for the Mizbe'ach, but one who is Makdish a Tam for Bedek ha'Bayis, it is destined for the Mizbe'ach;

ëãàîøéðï (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí) áñåó úîåøä (ãó ìâ:) ãëì äøàåé ìîæáç àéðå éåöà îéãé îæáç ìòåìí åðîëøå ìöåøëé òåìåú åùìîéí

1.

This is like we say in Temurah (33b) that anything proper for the Mizbe'ach never evades [being offered on] the Mizbe'ach. It is sold to one who needs an Olah or Shelamim.

åà''ú îàé ùðà ÷ãùé áã÷ äáéú úîéîéí îùòéøé éåä''ë ãàîø áô' ùðé ùòéøé (éåîà ãó ñá:) ãçééá òì ùðéäí áçåõ äåàéì åøàåééí ìùòéø äðòùä áçåõ åë''ù äðê ãàéï éåöàéï îéãé îæáç

(c)

Question: Why are Tam Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis different than goats of Yom Kipur? It says in Yoma (62b) that one is liable for both of them outside, since they are proper for the goat offered outside. All the more so one should be liable for these are (Tam Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis), which will never evade the Mizbe'ach!

åé''ì ëéåï ãòãééï ìàå ÷ãùé îæáç ðéðäå ìà çùéáé øàåéï ìôúç àäì îåòã

(d)

Answer: Since they are not yet Kodshei Mizbe'ach, they are not considered proper for Pesach Ohel Mo'ed.

13)

TOSFOS DH Kan Kodem Hagralah v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä ëàï ÷åãí äâøìä ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that the Gemara in Yoma is like the conclusion here.)

áô' ùðé ùòéøé (éåîà ãó ñá:) àîøé' ãçééá òì ùðéäí

(a)

Implied question: In Yoma (62b) we say that he is liable for both of them!

åäééðå ìîñ÷ðà ãùîòúéï ãîùðé ëàï ÷åãí åéãåé åëå' àáì ÷åãí äâøìä çééá ãøàåé ìùòéø äðòùä áçåõ

(b)

Answer: That is like the conclusion of our Sugya, that we answer "this is before Viduy...", but before the lottery he is liable, for it is proper for the goat offered outside. (It is already proper for outside. It is not called proper for the goat offered inside until after the lottery, so for this it is Mechusar Ma'aseh.)

14)

TOSFOS DH Kan Kodem Viduy Kan Le'acher Viduy

úåñôåú ã"ä ëàï ÷åãí åéãåé ëàï ìàçø åéãåé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that we exempt Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach without "Pesach Ohel Mo'ed.")

åîãôèø ÷øà ÷åãí åéãåé ë''ù ìàçø åéãåé åëé àéöèøéê ôúç àäì îåòã îùåí ôøä åîùåí ÷ãùé áã÷ äáéú

(a)

Explanation: Since the verse exempts before Viduy, all the more so after Viduy! We need "Pesach Ohel Mo'ed" for Parah, and for [other] Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis.

åîéäå äéà âåôä úéîä àîàé ìà îîòèéðï îìä'

(b)

Question: This itself is astounding! Why don't we exclude them from "la'Shem"?

åáô''÷ ãúîåøä (ãó éâ.) âøñ áëì äñôøéí åìà àåöéà ôøú çèàú åùòéø äîùúìç ùäí øàåééï ìôúç àäì îåòã ú''ì ìä' ùîéåçãéí ìä' éöàå àìå ùàéï îéåçãéï ìä'

1.

In all Seforim in Temurah (13a), the text says "and I would not exclude Parah Adumah and Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach, which are proper for Pesach Ohel Mo'ed!" (Before the lottery, the goat is proper for Pesach Ohel Mo'ed.) It says "la'Shem" - what is special to Hash-m. This excludes these (Parah and the goat), which are not special to Hash-m.

åîéäå ÷ãùé áã÷ äáéú ùôéø îé÷øå îéåçãéï ìä' ãëåìí ìùîéí åò''ë ðîé ìà âøñ ôøú çèàú ááøééú' ãìà úé÷ùé îúðé'

(c)

Answer: However, (it does not mention there Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, for) Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis are properly called special to Hash-m, for they are totally to Shamayim. You are forced to say also that the text of the Beraisa does not say "Parah", lest our Mishnah contradict it. (Our Mishnah exempts due to Pesach Ohel Mo'ed. We cannot answer like we answered for Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach.)

åòåã àöèøéê àì ôúç àäì îåòã ìîòåèé ââå ëãàîøéðï ìòéì áô' äùåçè åäîòìä (ãó ÷æ:):

1.

Also, we need "El Pesach Ohel Mo'ed" to exclude its roof (exempt one who slaughters on the roof of the Heichal), like we said above (107b).

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF