1)

TOSFOS DH Amar Kra Yigvol Oso li'F'as Kedmah

úåñôåú ã"ä àîø ÷øà éâáåì àåúå ìôàú ÷ãîä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this is written regarding Binyamin's border.)

áâáåì áðéîéï ëúéá áñ' éäåùò åìà ëîå ùëúåá áñôøéí

(a)

Explanation: This is written in the border of Binyamin in Sefer Yehoshua, and not like it is written in Seforim [li'F'as Yam].

2)

TOSFOS DH She'ani Hasam d'Amar Kra Zos Tihyeh Lachem...

úåñôåú ã"ä ùàðé äúí ãàîø ÷øà æàú úäéä ìëí äàøõ ìâáåìåúéä ñáéá

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that the verses are not written in one place.)

áô' åàìä îñòé ëúéá äàé ÷øà å÷øàé ùì îòìä åúàø äâáåì åòìä äâáåì ëúéá áñôø éäåùò (ùí) ëì çéìå÷ ëì ùáè åùáè

(a)

Reference: This verse is written in Parshas Mas'ei. The verses above (i.e. in the question) "v'Sa'ar he'Gevul... v'Alah ha'Gevul" are written in Sefer Yehoshua, every division of every Shevet;

åàùîåòéðï äàé ÷øà ãàìä îñòé ãëì âáåì àøõ éùøàì àçã

1.

This verse [in Mas'ei] teaches that the entire border of Eretz Yisrael is one (but borders between Shevatim are not considered borders).

åìà ëîå ùôé' ä÷åðèøñ ãìàçø ùîðàï òùàä àøõ àçú

2.

This is unlike Rashi, who explained that after [the Torah] lists [the borders], it makes it one land.

ãîùîò ãùðéäí ëúåáéí áî÷åí àçã åàéðå ëï ãäàé ëúéá áàåøééúà åäàé ëúéá áðáéàéí

3.

Rebuttal: He connotes that both of them are written in one place. This is not so! This ("Zos Tihyeh Lachem...") is written in the Torah, and this ("v'Sa'ar he'Gevul...") is written in Nevi'im!

3)

TOSFOS DH me'Ever l'Yarden Yerecho Kedmah Mizrachah Kesiv...

úåñôåú ã"ä îòáø ìéøãï éøçå ÷ãîä îæøçä ëúéá îä éøéçå àøõ ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how he learns from the verse.)

åà''ú àé îéøãï éøéçå ÷ãøéù ãàéú÷åù æä ëúéá áëîä î÷åîåú

(a)

Question: If he expounds from "Yarden Yerecho" that they were equated [to each other], this is written in several places! (Why does he bring specifically this verse?)

åé''ì ããå÷à îééúé äàé ÷øà ãëúéá áàìä îñòé ìàçø ùîðä úçåîé àøõ éùøàì åëúéá (ùí) åéöå îùä åâå' òã ùðé äîèåú åçöé äîèä ì÷çå ðçìúí îòáø ìéøãï éøçå ÷ãîä îæøçä

(b)

Answer: He brings specifically this verse in Parshas Mas'ei written after the Torah listed the borders of Eretz Yisrael, and it says "va'Ytzav Moshe... Shnei ha'Matos v'Chetzi ha'Mateh Lakchu Nachalasam me'Ever l'Yarden Yerecho Kedmah Mizrachah";

ãîùîò ãéøãï äåä îòé÷ø àøõ éùøàì åìà áëìì âáåì ùðé äîèåú ëîå ùéøéçå ìàå áëìì âáåìí

1.

This connotes that the Yarden is part of the primary Eretz Yisrael, and not in the boundary of the two and a half Shevatim, just like Yerecho is not within their boundary.

4)

TOSFOS DH Ein Yarden Ela mi'Beis Yericho ul'Matah

úåñôåú ã"ä àéï éøãï àìà îáéú éøçå åìîèä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes that we learn this from a verse.)

ôéøù á÷åðèøñ àáì îä ãîùéê ìîòìä îéøéçå ìàå éøãï äåà ãáèì çùéáåúéä ùîúòøá áéîéí âãåìéí

(a)

Explanation (Rashi): However, what extends above (north of) Yericho is not the Yarden. Its importance is Batel, for it mixes with great seas.

å÷ùä ìôéøåùå ãàí ìîòìä áèì çùéáåúå ìôé ùîúòøá à''ë ìîèä ðîé ùäøé ëáø ðúòøá áéîéí ìîòìä

(b)

Question: If above its importance is Batel, for it mixes, if so also below, for it already mixed with seas above!

åé''ì àò''ô ùðúòøá ìîòìä áéîéí éëåì ìäéåú ùìîèä éåöà îï (äîéí) [ö"ì äéîéí] åäåìê áìà úòøåáú ëã÷àîø áñîåê ùîäìê áéîä ùì ñáëé åáéîä ùì èáøéà åáéîä ùì ñãåí åäåìê åðåôì ìéí äâãåì

(c)

Answer: Even though it mixed with lakes, it can be that below, it leaves the lake and goes without a mixture, like it says below, that it goes in the sea of Savchei and in the sea of Tiverya and in the sea of Sedom (Yam ha'Melach) and goes and falls into the great ocean;

îùîò ãðéëø ëùéåöà îëì àåúí äéîéí åäåìê åðåôì áéí äâãåì åëãàîøéðï ðîé áá''ø áô' áøàùéú ãäãéï éøãðà îäìê âå éîà ãîìçà åìà îúòøá

1.

Inference: It is recognized when it leaves each of those seas and falls into the great ocean, like we say also in Bereishis Rabah in Parshas Bereishis "the Yarden goes into the Yam ha'Melach, and does not mix [with it].

åîéäå ÷ùä ìôéøåù ä÷åðè' (ãäî''ì) [ö"ì ãî"î - ùéèä î÷åáöú] áèì çùéáåúå ìîèä îéøéçå éåúø îìîòìä ãàîú äåà ùìîèä îéøéçå îúøçá éåúø åäåìê ìéí äîìç

(d)

Question: Rashi's Perush is difficult, for even so, its importance is Batel below Yericho more than above, for the truth is, below Yericho it widens more and goes to Yam ha'Melach;

ãâáåì (ìîèä - äøù"ù îåç÷å) îèä áðéîéï äåä áéï áðé éäåãä åáéï áðé éåñó ëãëúéá áéäåùò (éç) åéäåãä äéä òåîã îðâá ùì àøõ éùøàì åáðé éåñó îöôåï åáðéîéï áàîöò

1.

The border of Shevet Binyamin was between Bnei Yehudah and Bnei Yosef, like it says in Yehoshua, and Yehudah was in the south of Eretz Yisrael, and Bnei Yosef was in the north, and Binyamin was in the middle;

åâáåì éäåãä äéä îçæé÷ ëì àåøê à''é îîæøç ìîòøá åéí äîìç äéä òåîã ìéäåãä áëì îæøçå åáî÷åí ùäéä ëìä äéøãï (ðåôì) [ö"ì åðåôì - öàï ÷ãùéí] ìúåëå ùí ëìä îæøçå ùì éäåãä ìöã öôåï

2.

The portion of Yehudah spanned the entire length if Eretz Yisrael from east to west, and Yam ha'Melach was on the entire eastern border of Yehudah, and where the Yarden finishes and falls into [Yam ha'Melach], there ends the eastern border of Yehudah in the north.

ëãëúéá áéäåùò (èå) âáé úçåí áðé éäåãä åâáåì ÷ãîä éí äîìç òã ÷öä äéøãï åäéøãï äéä âáåì îæøçå ùì áðéîéï ëãëúéá áñåó [ö"ì ôøùú áðéîéï - ùéèä î÷åáöú] åäéøãï éâáåì àåúå ìôàú ÷ãîä

i.

This is like it is written in Yehoshua regarding the border of Bnei Yehudah "u'Gevul Kedmah Yam ha'Melach Ad Ketze ha'Yarden", and the Yarden was the eastern border of Binyamin, like it says at the end of the Parshah [of Binyamin's border] "veha'Yarden Yigvol Oso li'F'as Kedmah";

åëùîðä âáåì öôåðé ùì áðéîéï îîæøç ìîòøá ëúéá ìäí âáåì öôåï îï äéøãï åòìä äâáåì àì ëúó éøçå åòìä áäø éîä

3.

And when it lists the northern border of Binyamin from east to west, it is written "Lahem ha'Gevul Tzafon[ah] Min ha'Yarden v'Alah ha'Gevul El Kesef Yericho [mi'Tzafon] v'Alah va'Har Yamah";

ôé' (îöã) [ö"ì îéöø - öàï ÷ãùéí, ò"ô øù"é áéäåùò] âáåì äöôåðé ùìäí îï äéøãï ùáîæøç îúçéì äîéöø åòìä àì òáø ëúó éøéçå îöôåï åòìä îùí àì äîòøá àì òáø (éøãï) [ö"ì éøéçå - ç÷ ðúï, ò"ô øù"é áéäåùò] åîåùê äçåè áöôåðå ùì éøéçå

i.

Explanation: From the side of their northern border, from the Yarden in the east the border begins, and it rises to past nearby Yericho in the north, and it rises from there to the west, past Yericho, and a string (a straight border) is stretched north of Yericho;

ðîöàú éøéçå ìôðéí îï äçåè áçì÷ áðéîéï åçåæø åîåðä âáåì îòøá îöôåï ìãøåí åàç''ë âáåì ãøåîéú îîòøá ìîæøç åáñåó âáåì ãøåîéú ìöã îæøç ëúéá åäéå úåöàåú äâáåì àì ìùåï éí äîìç öôåðä àì ÷öä äéøãï ðâáä æä âáåì ðâá

4.

It turns out that Yericho is within the string, in Binyamin's portion. [The verse] returns to recount the western border from north to south, and afterwards the southern border west to east, and at the end of the southern border, on the east side, it says "v'Hayu Totz'os ha'Gevul El Leshon Yam ha'Melach Tzafonah El Ketze ha'Yarden Negbah Zeh ha'Gevul Negev."

ôéøåù öôåðä ùì ìùåï ùëì (äéí) [ö"ì äìùåï - ùéèä î÷åáöú] áâáåì éäåãä

i.

Explanation: [The border] is north of the Lashon (a thin extension of the Dead Sea), for the entire Lashon is in Yehudah's portion.

äøé ëì äî÷øàåú îåëéçåú ùäéøãï äéä äåìê îöôåï ìãøåí åðåôì áéí äîìç áñåó âáåì áðéîéï ìöã ãøåí åéøéçå äéä ìáðéîéï îöã äöôåï

5.

Summation of question: Now, all the verses prove that the Yarden goes from north to south and falls into the Yam ha'Melach at the end of the border of Binyamin at the south side, and Yericho was in Binyamin's portion on the north side;

åìîä ìà äéä çùéáåú äéøãï îéøéçå åìîòìä åäìà ìà äéä ùí éîéí òã ñåó âáåì áðéîéï ùðåôì áéí äîìç

6.

Why wasn't the Yarden important from Yericho and above (to the north)? There were not seas there until the end of Binyamin's border, that [there] it falls into Yam ha'Melach!

åðøàä ìôøù ãî÷øà ÷à ãøéù ãàéï ÷øåé ìéøãï àìà îáéú éøéçå åìîèä ã÷øà åäéøãï éâáåì àåúå îùúòé îáéú éøéçå åìîèä:

(e)

Answer: It seems that he expounds a verse that it is called Yarden only from Beis Yericho and below, for the verse "veha'Yarden Yigvol Oso" discusses from Beis Yericho and below.

55b----------------------------------------55b

5)

TOSFOS DH Hu Pras d'Me'ikara

úåñôåú ã"ä äåà ôøú ãîòé÷øà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses what is special about the Pras.)

ôéøåù åìà îôðé ùäåà ÷èï ÷åøäå øáéòé (ãäåà) [ö"ì àìà äëé ÷àîø äåà - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ôøú ãîòé÷øà ùùîå ôøú î÷åãí ùîúçéì ìéôøã ìã' øàùéí

(a)

Explanation: It is not called fourth because it is small. Rather, it means as follows. It is Pras from the beginning. Initially its name is Pras before it separates into four ends;

åëùîúçéì ìéôøã éåöàéí äðäøéí æä ìöã æä [åæä ìöã æä] åôøú äåìê áéåùø (ìãøê äéìåëå) [ö"ì ëãøê äéìåëå åìëê òåîã áùîå - ùéèä î÷åáöú]

1.

When it begins to separate, the rivers come out, this on this side and this on this side, and the Pras goes straight in its course. Therefore, it keeps its name [and the rivers that come out have different names].

åáôøùú ù÷ìéí éñã øáé àìéòæø ä÷ìéø áñéìå÷ ãôøú úå÷ôå ëðâã ùðé ðäøåú

2.

[In a Piyut] for Parshas Shekalim, R. Eliezer ha'Kalir wrote when the Pras emerges, its might is equal to two rivers.

åëï îùîò ááøàùéú øáä ùäåà âãåì ùàåîøéí ìôøú îôðé îä àéï ÷åìê äåìê åäåà àåîø ôéøåúé îòéãéï òìé àåîøéí ìçã÷ì îôðé îä ÷åìê äåìê åäåà àåîø äìåàé àùîéò ÷åìé åàøàä îùîò ãçã÷ì ÷èï îôøú

(b)

Support: Bereishis Rabah connotes like this, that [the Pras] is big. They say to the Pras "why doesn't your voice go (it is not heard from a distance)?", and it says "my Peros testify about me." They say to Chidekel "why doesn't your voice go?", and it says "if only I would make my voice heard, and I would be seen"! This implies that Chidekel is smaller than the Pras.

å÷öú ÷ùä ãàîø áôø÷ ëì äðùáòéï (ùáåòåú ãó îæ:) òã äðäø äâãåì ðäø ôøú òáã îìê ëîìê ãîùîò ãå÷à îùåí à''é ÷åøäå âãåì

(c)

Question: It says in Shevuos (47b) "Ad ha'Nehar ha'Gadol Nehar Pras" - the slave of a king is like a king. This implies that due to Eretz Yisrael (Pras will be a border of Eretz Yisrael in the future) it is called big (but not because it is big)!

6)

TOSFOS DH Mesayei'a Lei li'Shmuel d'Amar Shmuel Nahara mi'Kipei Mivrich

úåñôåú ã"ä îñééò ìéä ìùîåàì ãàîø ùîåàì ðäøà îëéôéä îéáøéê

(SUMMARY: Tosfos justifies the support for Shmuel.)

àò''â ãùîåàì àééøé áëì äðäøåú åìø''î îùîò ãð÷è ôøú ãå÷à ãð÷øà ùîå ôøú ùîéîéå ôøéí åøáéí

(a)

Implied question: Shmuel discusses all rivers, and it connotes that R. Meir mentioned specifically the Pras, that it is called Pras because its waters Parim v'Rabim (increase, but other rivers do not. If so, he does not support Shmuel!)

àéðå (àìà îùåí ãôøú îúáøê éåúø) [ö"ì îùåí ãôøú îúáøê éåúø àìà - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ìôé ùäåà çùåá éåúø îï äàçøéí

(b)

Answer #1: [R. Meir] did not [specify Pras] because its waters increase more than other rivers, rather, because it is more important than the others.

àé ðîé ìôé ùäåà øàù ìëåìí ð÷øà ôøú ò''ù ùëåìí îúáøëé' [îëéôéä ãôøú]

(c)

Answer #2: Because it is the head of all [rivers], it is called Pras, since all are blessed from the Pras' source.

åëï ôé' ø''ú áúùåáä ìôé ùôøú äåà ìîòìä îëì äðäøåú åäåà (øîéà ùëì) [ö"ì îà"é åëì äðäøåú ùåúéï îîðå úìä äëúåá ôøéä åøáéä áå ãëùäåà øáä ëì äðäøåú øáéï

(d)

Support: So R. Tam explained in a Teshuvah, because the Pras is above all rivers, and it is from Eretz Yisrael, and all rivers drink from it, the verse attributes Piryah v'Rivyah to it (its name alludes to this), for when it is great, all rivers increase. (Perhaps he mentions that it is from Eretz Yisrael, for it is the highest land. - PF)

7)

TOSFOS DH mi'Kipei Mivrich

úåñôåú ã"ä îëéôéä îéáøéê

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this is its source.)

îñìò ùìå ëãîúøâí ñìò ëéôä

(a)

Explanation: This is from its source, like the Targum of Sela (Bamidbar 20:8, the rock that gave water after Moshe hit it) is Kipah.

8)

TOSFOS DH Mitra b'Ma'arava Sahada Rabah Pras

úåñôåú ã"ä îèøà áîòøáà ñäãà øáä ôøú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos infers that Gan Eden is in the west.)

ëàï îùîò ãôøú äåìê îà''é ìááì åëãôøéùéú ìòéì áô' îåîéï àìå (ãó îã:)

(a)

Inference: Here it connotes that the Pras flows from Eretz Yisrael to Bavel, and like I explained above (44b).

îùîò îúåê ëê ãâï òãï áîòøá äòåìí ãááì äåà áöôåðéú îæøçéú ùì à''é åìäëé ÷øé ìäå áðé ááì ìà''é îòøáà

(b)

Consequence: This connotes that Gan Eden is in the west of the world, for (a verse teaches that the Pras, the border of Eretz Yisrael, comes out of Eden, and) Bavel is northeast of Eretz Yisrael. Therefore people of Bavel call Eretz Yisrael "the west."

åàîøéðï áìà éçôåø (á''á ãó ëä:) ãááì áöôåðéú ùì à''é òåîãú ãëúéá îöôåï úôúç äøòä åâå' àìîà ôøú äåìê îîòøá ìîæøç

(c)

Support: We say in Bava Basra (25b) that Bavel is in the north of Eretz Yisrael, for it says "mi'Tzafon Tiftach ha'Ra'ah"... This shows that the Pras flows from west to east;

åîùîò ùëê äåà îúçìú éöéàúå ëãàîøéðï äåà ôøú ãîòé÷øà àìîà ãâï òãï áîòøá äòåìí

1.

And it connotes that it is so from the beginning of its emergence [from its source], like we say "it is Pras from the beginning." This shows that Gan Eden is in the west of the world.

åëï îùîò áá''ø ã÷àîø áëì î÷åí îöéðå øåç îæøçéú ÷åìèú

2.

Support: Bereishis Rabah says that everywhere, we find that the eastern direction absorbs (exiles);

[÷åìèú] àãä''ø ãëúéá åéâøù àú äàãí åéùëï î÷ãí ìâï òãï àú äëøåáéí [÷åìèú] ÷éï ãëúéá åéùá áàøõ ðåã ÷ãîú òãï åâáé îùä ðîé ãëúéá àæ éáãéì îùä ùìù òøéí îæøçä ùîù

3.

It absorbed Adam ha'Rishon (when he was exiled from Gan Eden), like it says "va'Ygaresh Es ha'Adam va'Yishkon mi'Kedem l'Gan Eden Es ha'Keruvim." It absorbed Kayin, like it says "va'Yeshev b'Eretz Nud Kidmas Eden." Also regarding [a Shogeg] murderer it says "Az Yavdil Moshe Shalosh Arim Mizrachah Shemesh;

îùîò ùäòåìí äæä ùðëðñ áå àãä''ø äåà áîæøçå ùì â''ò ù''î áîòøá äòåìí

i.

Inference: This world that Adam ha'Rishon entered was east of Gan Eden. This shows that [Gan Eden] is in the west of the world.

åúéîä ãáôø÷ äîåëø àú äñôéðä (á''á ãó ôã.) àîøéðï ãùîùà äàé ãñåî÷à öôøà åôðéà öôøà ãçìôà àååøãé ãâï òãï îùîò ãáîæøç äòåìí ÷àé ãáùçøéú çîä áîæøç

(d)

Question: In Bava Basra (84a) we say that the sun appears red in the morning and in the afternoon (end of the day). In the morning, it is because it passes over the roses of Gan Eden. This connotes that [Gan Eden] is in the east, for in the morning the sun is in the east!

åëï ôé' ùí øáéðå ùîåàì îãëúéá åéèò âï áòãï î÷ãí

1.

Strengthening of question: So the Rashbam explained there, since it says "va'Yita... Gan b'Eden mi'Kedem."

åàò''â ãîúøâîéðï îì÷ãîéï îëì î÷åí îùîò ðîé îæøç ãäëé ðîé ÷ãîú òãï î÷ãí ìâï òãï îùîò áá''ø ùäåà îæøç åîúøâí îì÷ãîéï

i.

Even though the Targum [of mi'Kedem] is mil'Kadmin (before), it connotes also the east, for also "Kidmas Eden mi'Kedem l'Gan Eden", it connotes in Bereishis Rabah that it is the east, and the Targum is mil'Kadmin!

åîéäå ÷øà àéëà ìãçåéé ùäåà îæøçå ùì òãï àáì òãï âåôéä áîòøá äòåìí

2.

Answer: We can reject [the proof from] the verse, that it is the east of Eden, but Eden itself is in the west of the world.

åääéà ãá''á àéëà ìôøåùé ãìà çìôà îîù ÷àîø àìà áùçøéú ëùçîä éåöà (îëç òîåã äàåø òì âáé çãøé ãâï òãï ùáîòøá åìòøá îëç) [ö"ì áîæøç îëä òîåã äàåø òì âáé ååøãé âï òãï ùáîòøá åìòøá îëä - ùéèä î÷åáöú] àåø ùì âéäðí ùáîæøç

(e)

Answer: We can explain the Gemara in Bava Basra, that [the sun's rays] do not truly pass [over the roses of Gan Eden]. Rather, in the morning, when the sun comes out in the east, the beam of light beats against [and reflects from] the roses of Gan Eden. In the afternoon, it beats against the fire of Gehinom in the east.

åàéï úéîä òì äèòí æä ãáëì òðéï (ëùðôøù) [ö"ì ùðôøù - áàøåú äîéí] öøéê ìàåîøå ã÷àîø äúí åàéëà ãàîøé àéôëà

(f)

Support: This reason is not astounding, for however we will explain, we must say so, for it says there "and some say oppositely";

åìà îñúáø ìåîø ãôìéâé áäëé ãîø ñáø âï òãï áîæøç åîø ñáø áîòøá

1.

It is unreasonable to say that they argue about this, that one holds that Gan Eden is in the east, and one holds that it is in the west.

9)

TOSFOS DH u'Maftzei b'Yomei Tishrei

úåñôåú ã"ä åîôöé áéåîé úùøé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos gives two explanations of this.)

ôéøù á÷åðèøñ ùðåúðåú äîôöéí úçú øâìéäí áîéí îôðé äèéè ùìà éçåõ

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): They put mats below their feet in the water, due to mud, lest it be a Chatzitzah.

åëï îùîò ôø÷ úéðå÷ú (ðãä ãó ñå:) ãàîø ùîåàì áø øá éöç÷ àùä ìà úèáåì áðîì åàò''â ãäùúà ìéëà èéè àéîø áãéãéåðé ðôì ôéøåù ò''é ãéãåé ùîããä àú òöîä

(b)

Support: It connotes like this in Nidah (66b). Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak said that a woman should not immerse in a port, and even though now [after she left the water] there is no mud [on her feet], I can say that through Diduy, that she shakes herself, it fell;

åáúøä îééúé äê ãàáåä ãùîåàì ãäëà åáúøä îééúé äà ãàîø øá âéãì àîø øá ðúðä úáùéì ìáðä åèáìä ìà òìúä ìä èáéìä åàò''â ãäùúà ìéëà àéîø áãéãéåðé ðôì

1.

After this, it brings Shmuel's father's teaching here, and afterwards it brings Rav Gidal's teaching in the name of Rav that if she gave a cooked food to her son and immersed, the Tevilah does not count for her. Even though now there is no [food on her], I can say that through Diduy, it fell.

åø''ú îôøù åîôöé îùåí öðéòåú ùäðäøåú ÷èðéí áéîé úùøé åôåøñ ìäå îôöéí ùìà éøàå àåúï ëãé ùìà úîäøðä ìèáåì îôðé äáåùú åìà èáìå ùôéø

(c)

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): He put mats for privacy, for the rivers are low in Tishrei (for there is little rain in summer). He spread mats so people will not see them, lest they rush Tevilah due to shame, and not immerse properly.

åäééðå èòîà ðîé ùìà úèáåì áðîì ìôé ùîöåééí ùí áðé àãí åîîäøú ìèáåì îùåí áéòúï ãàéðùé

1.

This is also the reason why she should not immerse in a port, because men are found there, and she rushes Tevilah due to fear of men.

ãåîéà ãääéà ã÷àîø äúí ìòéì àùä ìà úòîåã òì âáé ëìé çøñ åîôøù äúí îùåí ãáòéúà ãìîà ðôìä åìà èáìä ùôéø

2.

This is like it says there above that a woman should not stand on a Kli Cheres [while immersing], and it explains there that she fears lest she fall, and does not immerse properly.

åìà âøñéðï áääéà ãðîì åàò''â ãäùúà ìéëà

3.

In the case of a port, the text does not say "even though now there is no [Chatzitzah", for it is not due to Chatzitzah].

10)

TOSFOS DH Shema Yirbu Mei Notfin Al ha'Zochalin...

úåñôåú ã"ä ùîà éøáå îé ðåèôéï òì äæåçìéï åäåå ìäå îé âùîéí øåáà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos proves that a spring is Metaher even b'Ashboran.)

åëãôé' á÷åðè' (åîé) [ö"ì ãîé - ùéèä î÷åáöú] âùîéí àéï îèäøéï áæåçìéï ëã÷úðé áú''ë îòééï îèäø áæåçìéï åî÷åä áàùáåøï

(a)

Explanation #1: This is like Rashi explained, and rainwater is not Metaher b'Zochalin (when it flows), like it teaches in Toras Kohanim that a spring is Metaher b'Zochalin, and a Mikveh through Ashboran (contained water).

åàåø''ú ãàùáåøï ãî÷åä ãå÷à ìîòåèé æåçìéï àáì æåçìéï ãîòééï ìàå ãå÷à ìîòåèé àùáåøï

(b)

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): Ashboran for a Mikveh is precise. It excludes Zochalin. However, Zochalin of a spring is not precise. It does not exclude Ashboran;

àìà ä''÷ äîòééï îèäø àó áæåçìéï àáì î÷åä îèäø ãå÷à áàùáåøï

1.

Rather, it means as follows. A spring is Metaher even b'Zochalin, but a Mikveh is Metaher only b'Ashboran.

ãâáé äðé îééúé ìä äúí áú''ë ã÷úðé îä îòééï áéãé ùîéí àó î÷åä áéãé ùîéí éöà (òùä î÷åä ìëúçìä) [ö"ì äîîìà åòùä î÷åä áëúçìä - ùéèä î÷åáöú]

2.

Source: Regarding these it is brought there in Toras Kohanim. It teaches "just like a spring is bi'Ydei Shamayim, also a Mikveh is bi'Ydei Shamayim. This excludes one who filled (poured water from Kelim) and made a Mikveh from the beginning;

àé îä îòééï îèäø áëì ùäåà àó î÷åä îèäø áëì ùäåà ú''ì àê îòééï îòééï áëì ùäåà åäî÷åä áî' ñàä

3.

Perhaps just like a spring Kol she'Hu (of any size) is Metaher, also a Mikveh Kol she'Hu is Metaher! It says "Ach Mayan" - a spring Kol she'Hu is Metaher, but a Mikveh needs 40 Sa'im.

àé îä îòééï îèäø áæåçìéï àó î÷åä îèäø áæåçìéï ú''ì àê îòééï îòééï áæåçìéï åäî÷åä áàùáåøï

4.

Perhaps just like a spring is Metaher b'Zochalin, also a Mikveh is Metaher b'Zochalin! It says "Ach Mayan" - a spring is Metaher b'Zochalin, and a Mikveh b'Ashboran. (We learn from a spring to a Mikveh, but not vice-versa.)

åéù ìäáéà øàéä îéí ùòùä ùìîä ùäéå äëäðéí èåáìéï áå àò''ô (ùäîéí îëåðñéí ùí áî÷åä) ùäéå îé îòééï îúëðñéï áå - ùéèä î÷åáöú]

(c)

Proof: We can bring a proof from the Yam that Shlomo made. Kohanim immersed in it, even though spring water was gathered in it!

åîéäå éù ìãçåú ãáéøåùìîé ÷àîø )åäéä ìøçöä äëäðéí áå( [ö"ì åäéí ìøçöä ìëäðéí áå å÷àîø - ùéèä î÷åáöú] åìàå ëìé äåà åîôøù ãøâìé äùåøéí (ð÷åáéí ëîåöéà) [ö"ì äéå ð÷åáéí ëîåöéà øéîåï - ùéèä î÷åáöú] åà''ë àôùø ùéäå æåçìéï

(d)

Rejection: We can reject this. In the Yerushalmi it says "veha'Yam l'Rachtzah ha'Kohanim" (it was for them to immerse). It says "was it not a Kli?" (One may not immerse in a Kli!) It explains that the legs of the oxen had holes big enough for pomegranates to leave. If so, it is possible that [the water was considered] Zochalin.

åëï î÷åä ùòì [ö"ì âáé áéú - ùéèä î÷åáöú] äôøååä áô' àîø ìäí äîîåðä (éåîà ãó ìà.) ùäéä îòéï òéèí åäéä ëäï âãåì èåáì áå àôùø ùðëðñéï îöã àçã åéåöàéï îöã àçø

1.

Similarly, [we cannot bring a proof from] the Mikveh above Beis ha'Parvah in Yoma (31a), which was from Ein Eitam, and the Kohen Gadol immersed in it. It is possible that the water entered on one side, and left on the other side.

åîéäå æä ãáø ôùåè ãîé îòééï ùðôñ÷å îï äîòééï ùîèäøéï áàùáåøï îîä ðôùê ùäøé ðòùå î÷åä îàçø ùðôñ÷å îï äîòééï (ùîèäøéï - ùéèä î÷åáöú îåç÷å)

(e)

Remark: However, it is obvious that spring water that was cut off from the spring is Metaher b'Ashboran, no matter what you will say (about whether or not a spring is Metaher b'Ashboran), for it became a Mikveh, since it was cut off from the spring.

åáäãéà úðï áîñëú î÷ååàåú (ô''ä î''à) îòééï ùäòáéøå òì âáé áøéëä åäôñé÷å äøé äï ëî÷åä çæø åäîùéëï ëå'

1.

A Mishnah (Mikva'os 5:1) explicitly teaches that if they passed a spring over a pond and cut it off [from the spring], it is like a Mikveh. If he returned (reconnected it to the spring, so the water flows, it is considered Mayim Chayim only when he knows that the water that was there before reconnecting it, it left).

åîù÷ä áé îèáçéà ã÷àîø áô' ÷îà ãôñçéí (ãó éæ:) ãá÷ø÷ò çæå ìäèáéì îçèéï åöðåøåú åîùîò áàùáåøï ãåîéà ãëìé å÷àîø äúí îàîú äîéí ùáòæøä äéå

(f)

Support: Liquids of Bei Mitbechai (where Korbanos are rinsed, e.g. water) - it says (Pesachim 17b) that in the ground, it is proper to immerse needles and small forks in it (but not if it is in a Kli). It connotes that it is b'Ashboran, similar to a Kli, and it says there that [the water] was from the spring that went through the Azarah.

åðøàä ìäáéà øàéä àôéìå ìà ðôñ÷å îääéà ãúðï áîñëú î÷ååàåú (ô''ç î''ç) åîééúé ìä áôø÷ ùîðä ùøöéí (ùáú ãó ÷è.) ø' éåñé àåîø ëì äéîéí îèäøéï áæåçìéï åôñåìéï ìæáéí ëå'

(g)

Assertion: One can bring a proof [that spring water is Metaher b'Zochalin] even if it was not cut off] from the Mishnah in Mikva'os (8:8), brought in Shabbos (109a). R. Yosi says, all seas are Metaher b'Zochalin, and they are Pasul for Tevilas Zav (who needs Mayim Chayim)...

åôìéâ àú''÷ ãàîø ëì äéîéí ëî÷åä ùðàîø åìî÷åä äîéí ÷øà éîéí åîùîò ãàúà ø' éåñé ìîéîø ãàò''â ã÷åå å÷ééîé ëãàîø áøéù îëåú (ãó ã.) îèäøéï ðîé áæåçìéï ãìà áà äëúåá ìáèì îäï úåøú æçéìä

1.

He argues with the first Tana, who says that all seas are like a Mikveh, for it says "ul'Mikveh ha'Mayim Kara Yamim", and it connotes that R. Yosi comes to say that even though [the water] is contained and still, like it says in Makos (4a), they are Metaher also b'Zochalin. The verse does not come to annul from them the law of [Taharah through] Zochalin.

åôìéâé áäëé ãìú''÷ àéï îèäøéï áæåçìéï åìø' éåñé îèäøéï áæåçìéï àáì ìë''ò îèäøéï áàùáåøï

2.

They argue about the following. The first Tana holds that they are not Metaher b'Zochalin, and according to R. Yosi they are Metaher b'Zochalin, but all agree that they are Metaher b'Ashboran.

åâí îã÷àîø äëà àéï äîéí îèäøéí áæåçìéï àìà ôøú áéåîé úùøé áìáã îùîò áæåçìéï äåà ãìà îèäøé äà áàùáåøï (àò''â ãìéëà) [ö"ì îèäøé àò''â ããéìîà - ùéèä î÷åáöú] øåáà æåçìéï

(h)

Support: Also, since it says here "the only water (river) that is Metaher b'Zochalin is the Preas in Tishrei", this connotes that [other rivers], b'Zochalin they are not Metaher, but they are Metaher b'Ashboren, even though perhaps the majority is Zochalin.

11)

TOSFOS DH Ein ha'Mayim Metaherin b'Zochalin v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä àéï äîéí îèäøéï áæåçìéï ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos rules unlike this.)

ôø''ú áúùåáä äîúçìú îùøáå îôéìé çììéí ãàó òì âá ãùîåàì [ö"ì ãäëà - ùéèä î÷åáöú] åàáåä ãòáéã î÷ååàåú áéåîé ðéñï åøá ãàîø îéèøà áîòøáà ëå' ÷ééîé áçãà ùéèúà ìà ÷é''ì äëé

(a)

Explanation (R. Tam, in a Teshuvah that begins "from when increased murderers (unqualified people who give rulings))": Even though Shmuel here and his father, who made Mikva'os in the days of Nisan, and Rav, who said [that the Pras is a witness of] rain in Eretz Yisrael, they agree with each other, we do not hold like this;

àìà (îëàï îãó äáà) ëàéãê ãùîåàì ãàîø ðäøà îëéôéä îáøéê ãîñééòúà ìéä áøééúà [ö"ì ãø"î - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ãàîø éåáì ùîå

1.

Rather, [we hold like] the other teaching of Shmuel, who said that a river is blessed from its source, for the Beraisa of R. Meir supports him. He says that the real name [of Pras] is Yuval.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF