12TH CYCLE DEDICATION

BECHOROS 7 (24 Cheshvan) - dedicated by Dr. Moshe and Rivkie Snow in memory of Rivkie's father, the Manostrishtcher Rebbi, Hagaon Rav Yitzchak Yoel ben Harav Gedaliah Aharon Rabinowitz Ztz"l, Rav of Kehilas Nachalas Yehoshua in Canarsie, NY. A personification of the Torah scholar of old, the Ukranian-born Rebbi lived most of his life in the United States where his warm ways changed many lives.

1)

TOSFOS DH Shma Minah l'Achilah Nami Ba'i R. Shimon Rosho v'Rubo

" ''

(SUMMARY: Tosfos justifies the inference.)

(a)

Explanation: It connotes that there are only two distinct laws, since it did not teach a third distinct law - if it has some Simanim, one may eat it, and then teach that if Rosho v'Rubo resemble its mother, Bechorah applies to it.

1.

Now the Reisha and Seifa teach a Chidush. The Reisha teaches that if it gave birth to a Tamei species it is forbidden even to eat. The Seifa teaches that if Rosho v'Rubo resemble its mother, even Bechorah applies to it.

2)

TOSFOS DH Zeh Iy Atah Ochel

"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this is what the verse explicitly says.)

() [" - , "]

(a)

Explanation: This refers to a camel and rabbit, which are written in the verse.

3)

TOSFOS DH Aval Atah Ochel ha'Ba b'Siman Echad (This starts a new Dibur according to the Tzon Kodoshim)

" ( )

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that "Siman" is resemblance to its mother.)

() [" ]

(a)

Explanation: This does not discuss Simanei Taharah, i.e. chewing the cud and split hooves. Rather, in some Simanim it resembles its mother - in the foreleg, hind leg or [even] in the wool. We do not require specifically Simanei Taharah.

4)

TOSFOS DH Ad she'Yehei Aviv v'Imo Kivsah

"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how both of them expound.)

' '

(a)

Source: Because it says "Kevasim" and "Izim" (plural), and it is not written Keves and Ez, R. Yehoshua expounds [that both parents must be Tahor]. And R. Eliezer holds that since it says "Seh" twice (it suffices for the mother to be a Seh).

() [" - "] ' ''

(b)

Consequence: The Drashah of R. Yehoshua to forbid is not [from the same word] as R. Eliezer's to permit.

'' '

(c)

Question: R. Eliezer's words "the verse comes only..." is somewhat awkward. The words connote that this verse that R. Yehoshua expounds a Tamei born from a Tahor that was impregnated from a Tahor...

''

1.

R. Eliezer says that [the same verse] comes to increase Heter and permit a Tamei born from a Tahor that was impregnated from a Tamei!

(d)

Answer #1: "The verse comes only..." is like "the Torah comes only..." (for he expounds a different verse).

'' ''

(e)

Answer #2: We can explain that R. Eliezer (learns from the same verse). He means as follows. We learn from "Seh-Seh" when it was impregnated from a Tahor. Therefore ["Ach Es] Zeh" is extra to increase Heter, even if it was impregnated from a Tamei.

5)

TOSFOS DH Chutz mid'R. Eliezer u'Machlukaso

"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that there is another exception.)

(a)

Implied question: Why doesn't he say "except for Dolfanim (mermaids)", which reproduce from (relations with) people, like it says below (8a)?

() [" - "]

(b)

Answer: This is not difficult at all. R. Yehoshua ben Levi discusses only Behemah and Chayah, but not people and these (Dolfanim), which inhabit the sea.

6)

TOSFOS DH u'Palig Alei b'Chada

"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara strives so much to reject.)

''

(a)

Explanation: [The Gemara] rejects what it can like this, for in the conclusion, also for eating we resolve that R. Shimon requires Rosho v'Rubo.

7)

TOSFOS DH v'Ha Ifcha Sham'inan Lehu Vlad Tereifah

"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that this is only according to one opinion.)

''

(a)

Observation: According to the opinion that a Tereifah can give birth, this is fine. They argue about Zeh v'Zeh Gorem;

'' ( .)

1.

However, according to the opinion that it cannot give birth, we establish their argument in Chulin (58a) to be about [whether or not we say that] Ubar Yerech Imo (a fetus is like a limb of its mother), and it became pregnant and afterwards Tereifah! (If so, the Gemara's question has no basis.)

' ('' .)

(b)

Implied question: We find elsewhere that R. Eliezer forbids Zeh v'Zeh Gorem, and Rabanan permit, regarding Se'or (sourdough) of Chulin and of Terumah, and in Avodah Zarah (49a) regarding one who took wood [from an Asheirah]! (If so, why did we bring from Vlad Tereifah, which is not a proof that R. Eliezer forbids Zeh v'Zeh Gorem?)

''

(c)

Answer: We brought it due to R. Yehoshua (to show that he permits Zeh v'Zeh Gorem), even though it is not according to everyone.

() [" ' - ] ( :)

(d)

Implied question: Why does it mention here Zeh v'Zeh Gorem, and in Chulin (79b) it mentions that we are concerned for the father's seed?

[ ]

(e)

Answer: Here we were discussing what comes from Heter and Isur. Zeh v'Zeh Gorem properly applies. (In Chulin it discusses Kil'ayim, in which both parents are permitted. Zeh v'Zeh Gorem does not apply, but concern for the father's seed applies.)

() [" ] :

(f)

Question: Since we are not concerned for the father's seed, for what reason should Vlad Tereifah be considered Zeh v'Zeh Gorem? The ox (father) should not be considered a Gorem, and [the only Gorem is Isur, so the child] should be forbidden!

7b----------------------------------------7b

8)

TOSFOS DH Tanituha ha'Yotzei Min ha'Tamei Tamei

"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with a Gemara that connotes that this is only a Siman.)

(a)

Implied question: Above (6a) it implies that that this is a [mere] Siman [to remember the law. Here it connotes that it is the reason to forbid!

' ( . '' )

(b)

Answer: this is not difficult at all, like I explained above (6a DH Lamah. Since it taught sheha'Yotzei (because what exudes), this implies that it gives the reason. If not, it should have taught veha'Yotzei (and what exudes).)

9)

TOSFOS DH ha'Gazin v'Tzir'in

"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos affirms our text.)

) ) [" " - ] ( .) ' ''

(a)

Assertion: This is text. The text does not say Chagavim. Gazim is the name of the bird, and the Hei is a prefix (the), like Gazi d'Kilsa (Nidah 17a), according to R. Tam's Perush.

10)

TOSFOS DH Ohr ha'Ba Neged Panav Shel Chamor

"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explained this above.)

(' ) [" - ]

(a)

Reference: I explained this above. (Shitah Mekubetzes 6b:1, b'Sof brings from Tosfos Kesav Yad that it comes from semen that hardened. It is permitted because it came from something putrid.)

11)

TOSFOS DH Mai Lav Bein Hu Chai v'Imo Hu Chayah Bein Hu Mes v'Imo Mesah

" [" - ]

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that we thought that it is from semen that hardened.)

(a)

Explanation: The skin is not from the child, and not from the mother. Rather, it is semen that hardened.

12)

TOSFOS DH Lo Bein Hu Chai v'Imo Mesah Bein Hu Mes v'Imo Chayah

"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the is Tahor until both of them die.)

(a)

Explanation: The skin comes from both of them, from the mother and from the child. Therefore it is Tahor until both of them die.

( ) [" - ] []

(b)

Alternative text: Rashi's text says "whether he (the child) lives and the mother lives, and whether he dies and the mother lives", but we always require that the mother lives.

'

(c)

Conclusion: Like I explained seems correct, for since Rav Chisda mentioned "whether he dies and the mother dies", this implies that his only support is from that we are Metaher when both of them die (for it is like a mere secretion), but if one of them is alive, there is no support.

13)

TOSFOS DH Dag Tahor she'Bala Dag Tamei Asur b'Achilah

"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with the Mishnah in Ohalos.)

( ('' '') ) [" - ]

(a)

Question: In Ohalos (11:7), it teaches that if a dog ate flesh of a Mes, how long does it delay in his innards? It is three days me'Es la'Es (72 hours), and regarding birds and fish, in order that it would fall into a fire and burn;

1.

Inference: [After this] it is considered digested. Also here, it should be permitted (for fish digest what they eat very quickly)!

2.

Implied suggestion: We can distinguish between flesh of a Mes and other matters.

( :) ''

3.

Rejection: Three days regarding a dog connotes for everything, since it is brought about this in Shabbos (155b) that Hash-m knows that a dog's food is scarce, therefore it delays what it eats in its innards for three days!

(b)

Answer: We can distinguish between Isur and Tum'ah. (Regarding Tum'ah it is considered digested after the time taught in Ohalos, but to eat Isur that was swallowed, it is not considered like part of what swallowed it as long as looks like the matter swallowed.)

(c)

Inference: Some want to permit, based on this Mishnah, wheat found in the innards of a chicken during Pesach (for birds digest their food very quickly).

(d)

Rejection #1: According to what I distinguished between Isur and Tum'ah, there is no proof.

() [" - ] '' '

(e)

Rejection #2 (R. Tam): Perhaps we should be stringent like R. Yehudah ben Beseira, who requires me'Es la'Es (for birds and fish, in the Mishnah in Ohalos).

'' ( ) [" - ]

(f)

Observation: If we want to say that there is no difference between Isur and Tum'ah, we must say that here we discuss when it did not delay the time for digestion.

'' '

(g)

Question: If it did not delay the time for digestion, how does it ask in the Gemara "also when we saw it swallow, we should say that this (what was swallowed) was digested, and this (found inside now) grew inside!"?

'' () [" - ] '

(h)

Answer: Sometimes it is digested quickly before [the time taught for fish and birds]. It is not like a dog, which is always three days.

14)

TOSFOS DH Rov Dagim b'Minam Mashritzim

"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos rules like this, and resolves it with Rav Sheshes.)

(a)

Pesak: The Halachah follows Rav Ashi, for he is Basra.

('' ) [" '' - ] '' ''

(b)

Consequence: We should permit fish called Hernash (herring) found inside a big Tamei fish called Blina (whale), and even if we did not see it swallow it.

'

(c)

Implied question: Our Mishnah, which permits a Tamei fish that swallowed a Tahor fish (to eat the fish inside), is difficult for Rav Sheshes, who forbids donkey urine!

'

(d)

Answer: Even according to the latter version of Rav Sheshes, which forbids even [urine] of horses and camels, these are different;

' ( ) [" - ]

1.

Difference #1: Our Mishnah discusses only when [a Tahor fish] was found inside a Tamei fish.

( ) [" - ]

2.

Difference #2: And even if it left, it is different, for a fish entered, and a fish left;

i.

However, water that an animal drinks, moisture of the body mixes with it [to make urine].

'' ''

(e)

Citation: In Toras Kohanim it is taught about fish "Tochlu" includes a Tahor fish in the innards of a Tamei fish. Perhaps I include even a Tamei fish in the innards of a Tahor fish! It says "Osam" [to exclude this].

( )

1.

Citation (cont.): Why do you say about animals, in the womb of a Tamei is Tamei, and in the womb of a Tahor is Tahor, and regarding fish it is not so?

(f)

Answer: This is because [regarding a fish, the inner] did not grow from [the outer].

(g)

Implied suggestion: We can prove from [Toras Kohanim] to forbid a Tahor fish that a Tamei fish swallowed, after it leaves (the Tamei fish excretes it, for it permits only when it is inside)!

( ) [" - ]

(h)

Rejection: What it mentioned "in the innards of the Tamei" is not precise. It was said due to the case of a Tamei in the innards of a Tahor (which is forbidden only when inside), for [in both cases] we permit it when it went outside, for it is considered digested [and it is like earth - Rosh].

15)

TOSFOS DH Dag Tamei Mashritz Dag Tahor Matil Beitzim

"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos brings that also Tamei fish come from eggs.)

'' ( .) :

(a)

Reference: In Avodah Zarah (40a) it explains that both of them produce eggs. Regarding this (Tahor, the eggs hatch and) the offspring grow outside, and regarding this (Tamei), they grow inside.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF