1)

TOSFOS DH BARUCH

úåñôåú ã"ä áøåê

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the similarity between Ofanim and Chayos.)

àáì ÷ãåù àåîøéí ùøôéí ëãëúéá (éùòéä å) ùøôéí òåîãéí îîòì ìå åâå' åëúéá áúøéä å÷øà æä àì æä åàîø ÷ãåù ÷ãåù ÷ãåù åëå'

(a)

Observation: However, Kadosh is said by the Serafim. This is as the Pasuk says, "Serafim stand over Him etc." and after this the Pasuk states, "And this one calls to the other and says, Kadosh, Kadosh, Kadosh etc."

åîä ùàðå àåîøéí áúôìú éåöø åäàåôðéí åçéåú ä÷ãù ëå' ãçéåú ðîé àåîøéí áøåê ãòãéôé îùøôéí

(b)

Observation: Every day we say in the blessing of Yotzer (ha'Meoros), "And the Ofanim and Chayos ha'Kodesh etc." because the Chayos also say Baruch, as they are holier than the Serafim.

å÷øà ðîé îåëç ãçéåú åàåôðéí àåîøéí áøåê ãáúø ÷øà ãáøåê ëúéá å÷åì ëðôé äçéåú îùé÷åú àùä àì àçåúä å÷åì äàåôðéí ìòåîúí ÷åì øòù âãåì

1.

Proof: The fact that the Chayos and Ofanim say Baruch is also indicated by the Pasuk, as after the Pasuk of Baruch it states, "And the sound of the wings of the Chayos touching is like a woman to her sister, and the sound of the Ofanim in contrast sounds like a very loud sound" (Yechezkel 3:13).

åáëì ãåëúà îùîò ãäàåôðéí áúø çéåú âøéøé ãëúéá (éçæ÷àì à) åáìëú äçéåú éìëå äàåôðéí àöìí åáäðùà äçéåú îòì äàøõ éðùàå äàåôðéí åëúéá ðîé ëé øåç äçéä áàåôðéí

i.

Proof (cont.): Generally, it is always implied that the Ofanim go wherever the Chayos go, as the Pasuk states, "And when the Chayos go, the Ofanim will go next to them, and when the Chayos are raised off the ground the Ofanim will be raised" (Yechezkel 1:19). The Pasuk also states, "The spirit of the Chayah is in the Ofanim" (Yechezkel 1:20).

åàí úàîø ãéìôéðï äùúà ìôéøåù æä ãçéåú åùøôéí àéï äëì àçã åáôø÷ àéï ãåøùéï (çâéâä ãó éâ:) àåîø ôñå÷ àçã àåîø ùù ëðôéí ìàçã åôñå÷ àçã àåîø àøáò ëðôéí ìàçã åîàé ÷åùéà äà äàé ÷øà ãùù ëðôéí áùøôéí ëúéá åäàé áçéåú ëúéá

(c)

Question: We learn according to this explanation (above) that Chayos and Serafim is not the same thing. However, the Gemara in Chagigah (13b) asks that one Pasuk says, "six wings for one" while another Pasuk says, "four wings for one." What is the Gemara's question? The Pasuk about six wings is referring to Serafim, and the Pasuk regarding four wings is referring to Chayos!

åé"ì ãîñúáø ìéä ùàéï îùåðéí áëðôéäí

(d)

Answer: The Gemara understands that they should not have a different amount of wings.

åëä"â ôøéê áô' áà ìå (éåîà ãó òá:) ëúéá åòùéú ìê àøåï òõ åëúéá åòùå àøåï òöé ùèéí àò"ô ùäéä àøåï àçø îñúîà ëîå ùäéä æä ëê äéä æä

1.

Answer (cont.): We similarly find that the Gemara in Yoma (72b) asks that one Pasuk states, "And you should make for yourself an Aron from wood" while another Pasuk says, "And they will make an Aron out of Atzei Shitim." Despite the fact that the Pesukim are discussing two different Aronos, it would seem that each should be made by the same people (either "you" or "they").

åëï áäîåëø ôéøåú (á"á ãó öè.) ìî"ã ôðéäí àéù àì àçéå åäëúéá åôðéäí àì äáéú îëøåáéí ùì ùìîä àëøåáéí ùì îùä ôøéê ãîñúîà ìà ðùúðå æä îæä

2.

Answer (cont.): We similarly find in Bava Basra (99a) that according to the opinion that the Keruvim face each other, the Gemara asks that the Pasuk says, "And their faces were towards the house (i.e. wall)." The Gemara asks a question from the Keruvim of Shlomo on the Keruvim of Moshe since one would think that they should not be different in this regard.

92b----------------------------------------92b

2)

TOSFOS DH ILEIMA

úåñôåú ã"ä àéìéîà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why everyone agrees that the Cheilev of a fetus is permitted.)

åà"ú åîàé ùðà ãáâéã ãùìéì ôìéâé åáçìáå ãùìéì îåãå

(a)

Question: Why do they argue regarding the Gid of a fetus but admit regarding the Cheilev of the fetus?

åé"ì îùåí ãìà î÷øé çìá ëéåï ãàéðå áòîåã åä÷øá ëãàîø áô' áäîä äî÷ùä (ìòéì ãó òä.) îä çìá åùúé äëìéåú äàîåøéí áàùí îåöà îëìì ùìéì

(b)

Answer: This is because it is not called Cheilev, as it is not something that is supposed to be offered on the altar. This is as the Gemara stated earlier (75a), "Just as Cheilev and the two kidneys stated regarding an Asham are not included regarding a fetus etc."

3)

TOSFOS DH V'AMAR REBBI ELAZAR

úåñôåú ã"ä åàîø øáé àìòæø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara had to quote Rebbi Elazar.)

äåöøê ìàúåéé ãøáé àìòæø

(a)

Implied Question: The Gemara had to quote Rebbi Elazar's statement. (Why? Don't we see they argue without it?)

ãàé ìàå ãøáé àìòæø äåä àîéðà çìáå ã÷úðé ááøééúà äééðå çìáå ãâéã ãòìîà åìà çìáå ãùìéì

(b)

Answer #1: Without Rebbi Elazar, I would think that when the Beraisa said "its fat" it meant the fat of the Gid and not the Cheilev of the fetus.

ìëê îééúé ãø' àìòæø ãäìëå ìùéèúí îùîò ãàëåìä îéìúà ÷àîø áâéã åáçìá ãáúøåééäå ãôìéâé áäå äìëå ìùéèúí

1.

Answer #1 (cont.): It therefore quotes Rebbi Elazar to show that they each base this on their previous opinions. This indicates that they are basing their opinion on both Gid and Cheilev on their respective opinions (regarding whether or not it requires slaughtering).

åòåã ãàé àâéã ìçåãéä ÷àé àîúðé' äåä ìéä ìøáé àìòæø ìîéîø îéìúéä

(c)

Answer #2: Additionally, if Rebbi Elazar was only discussing the Gid, he should have said his statement on the Mishnah.

àò"â ãìà äåæëø áîúðéúéï øáé îàéø

1.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that Rebbi Meir's opinion is not mentioned in our Mishnah. (Why would we expect him to explain Rebbi Meir's opinion by commenting on a Mishnah where Rebbi Meir does not appear?)

îëì î÷åí ùîòéðï ø"î îø' éäåãä

2.

Answer: Even so, it is possible to understand Rebbi Meir's opinion from the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah (which does appear in our Mishnah).

àìà ìäëé àîøä àáøééúà ãàëì îéìúà ãôìéâé ÷àé ãáçìá ðîé äìëå ìùéèúí

3.

Answer #2 (cont.): Rather, he said it on the Beraisa in order to show that they argue regarding everything they are discussing, as regarding Cheilev as well they follow their opinion (regarding whether or not it requires slaughtering).

4)

TOSFOS DH GOMIMO

úåñôåú ã"ä âåîîå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains what exactly is being cut.)

ôé' ä÷åðè' çìá äâáåä åâéã äðøàä òì äùåôé âåîîå åîùìéëå îôðé îøàéú äòéï ùìà éøàä ëàåëì âéã àáì òé÷øå åùøùéå ùì ùåîï åùì âéã îåúøéï

(a)

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that the Cheilev that is high and the Gid that appears on the Shofi should be cut out and thrown away due to Maris Ayin, in order that he should not appear to be eating the Gid. However, the source and the roots of the permitted fat and the Gid are permitted.

åìôé æä ìà ôìéâé áçìáå ãáéï ìøáé îàéø åìø' éäåãä ëì î÷åí ùäâéã àñåø çìáå ðîé àñåø

1.

Explanation #1 (cont.): According to this, they are not arguing regarding its Cheilev. Both Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah hold that wherever the Gid is forbidden, the Cheilev is also forbidden.

åëì ùëï ãôøéê èôé ùôéø ìùîåàì ãàîø çìáå îåúø ìãáøé äëì ãäëà àôéìå øáé éäåãä ãîé÷ì ÷àñø çìáå

2.

Explanation #1 (cont.): Certainly this is a good question on Shmuel who says that everyone agrees its Cheilev is permitted. Here we see that even Rebbi Yehudah who is lenient forbids its Cheilev!

àáì äìùåï ÷ùä ã÷àîø àìà çìáå ãâéã åäà îéôìâ ôìéâé îùîò ãìøáé éäåãä àôéìå áî÷åí ùäâéã àñåø çìáå ùøé ëîå ùàîø ùîåàì àìà ãøáé îàéø ôìéâ

(b)

Question: However, the language is difficult. It says, "Rather, it refers to the Cheilev of the Gid. Don't they argue?" This implies that according to Rebbi Yehudah, even where the Gid is forbidden the Cheilev is permitted, as stated by Shmuel (unlike 1. above). Only Rebbi Meir argues (that it is forbidden).

åìëê ðøàä ãâåîîå àâéã ìçåãéä ÷àé åìà àçìáå

(c)

Explanation #2: It therefore appears that "cutting it out" refers only to the Gid, not to its fat.

[åìîàé] ãáòé ìàå÷åîé áøééúà ãðäâå áå àéñåø ëø' éäåãä îä ùìà à"ø éäåãä âåîîå àìà àâéã

1.

Implied Question: The Gemara later wants to establish that the Beraisa that says that the fat of the Gid is permitted but Bnei Yisrael, who are holy, have a custom to forbid it is according to Rebbi Yehudah. This is despite the fact that Rebbi Yehudah did not say "cut it out" regarding anything besides the Gid. (Why would he forbid the fat?)

îùåí ãçìáå úìåé áîðäâà äéëà ãàçîåø àçîåø ëãàîø (ðãä ãó ñå.) âáé çåîøà ãøáé æéøà ãùáòä ð÷ééí

2.

Answer: This is because the fat is dependent on the custom, and wherever they were stringent they kept this stringency. This is as the Gemara states in Nidah (66a) regarding the stringency of Rebbi Zeira to have seven clean days.

[àé] ðîé ðàîø ãâåîîå ãøáé éäåãä ðîé ÷àé àçìá ìîàé ãáòé ìîéîø ãäê áøééúà ëøáé éäåãä

(d)

Explanation #3: Alternatively, it is possible that when Rebbi Yehudah says, "cut it out" it is also referring to the fat. This fits well with the Gemara later that says the Beraisa is according to the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah.

àáì ìø"î ñì÷à ãòúê ãàñåø îãàåøééúà îãîçîéø ìçèèå åìùøù àçøéå ã÷àîø çåúê ùîðå îòé÷øå

1.

Explanation #3 (cont.): However, according to Rebbi Meir one would think it should be forbidden according to Torah law, as he says that one must cut it out and uproot it, as he says that one must cut the fat out from its origins.

åìáñåó îñé÷ áøééúà ëø"î åî"î ìà àñéø îãàåøééúà ìø"î àìà ãéùøàì ÷ãåùéí äí àáì ìøáé éäåãä ùøé ìâîøé

2.

Explanation #3 (cont.): The Gemara concludes that the Beraisa is according to Rebbi Meir. However, Rebbi Meir does not hold that it is forbidden according to Torah law, but rather it is a custom of Yisrael who are holy. Rebbi Yehudah holds it is completely permitted.

åäà ãúðï ðàîðéí òìéå åòì äçìá

(e)

Implied Question: The Mishnah states that the Chachamim hold he is believed about this and the Cheilev. (This implies that the Cheilev of the Gid is forbidden!)

äééðå áñúí çìá åìà áçìáå ùì âéã ãëéåï ãìøáé éäåãä ùøé ìâîøé ìà ùééê áéä ðàîðåú åì÷îï (ãó öâ:) àôøù áò"ä

(f)

Answer: This is referring to Cheilev in general, and not the Cheilev of the Gid. Since it is totally permitted according to Rebbi Yehudah, it is not possible to say it should require believability. I will explain this later (93b, DH "Ne'emanin") with Hash-m's help.

5)

TOSFOS DH ULA AMAR

úåñôåú ã"ä òåìà àîø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the argument between Rav and Ula.)

ôìåâúà ãéù áâéãéí áð"è åôìåâúà ãø"î åøáé éäåãä ãôìéâé áçèéèä ìà äåé ëôìåâúà ãøá åòåìà

(a)

Explanation: The argument regarding whether Gidim have positive taste and the argument between Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah regarding cutting out the Gid ha'Nasheh is unlike the argument between Rav and Ula.

àìà ÷ñáø øá ãäà ãôìéâé úðàé áéù áâéãéï áðåúï èòí á÷ðå÷ðåú äåà ãôìéâé àáì âéã ìë"ò òõ äåà

1.

Explanation (cont.): Rather, Rav holds that the argument among the Tanaim regarding whether Gidim have a positive taste is regarding the Kenokenos (offshoots of the Gid). However, everyone agrees that the Gid itself is like wood.

åøá åãàé ñáø ëîàï ãàîø ãéù áäï áð"è ãìî"ã àéï áâéãéï áð"è îä ìé âéã åîä ìé ÷ðå÷ðåú

2.

Explanation (cont.): Rav certainly holds like the opinion that the Kenokenos do have taste. According to the opinion that they don't, there would be no difference between the Gid and the Kenokenos.

åëï ôìåâúà ãø"î åøáé éäåãä ãôìéâé áçèéèä åääåà úðà ãôìéâ àøáé éäåãä åàéú ìéä ãìà àñøä úåøä àìà ùòì äëó áìáã ëì æä éòîéã øá á÷ðå÷ðåú

3.

Explanation (cont.): Similarly, the argument between Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah regarding cutting out the Gid, and the Tana who argues on Rebbi Yehudah by saying that the Torah only forbade what is on the femur, Rav will say that all of this is discussing the Kenokenos (not the Gid itself).

åòåìà ñáø ãëì äðê ôìåâúà áâéã òöîå åìà á÷ðå÷ðåú ã÷ðå÷ðåú ùøå ìëåìé òìîà ãâéã àîø øçîðà åìà ÷ðå÷ðåú åòåìà åãàé ñáø ëî"ã àéï áâéãéï áð"è îã÷àîø òõ äåà

4.

Explanation (cont.): Ula understands that all of these arguments are regarding the Gid itself and not the Kenokenos. Everyone agrees the Kenokenos are permitted, as the Torah said the Gid is forbidden, not the Kenokenos. Ula certainly holds like the opinion that there is no taste in Gidin, as he says it is like wood.

6)

TOSFOS DH KAVASEIH

úåñôåú ã"ä ëååúéä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos notes that the Kenokenos are permitted according to Ula.)

áùàìúåú ãøá àçàé áôøùú åéùìç ãàò"â ã÷àîø îñúáøà ëòåìà àñøéðï ÷ðå÷ðåú îãøáðï îùîò ãìòåìà àôéìå îãøáðï ùøé

(a)

Opinion: The Sheiltos of Rav Achai Gaon in Parshas Vayishlach says that even though the Gemara says Ula's opinion is logical, we forbid the Kenokenos according to Rabbinic law. This implies that according to Ula, they are even permitted according to Rabbinic law.

7)

TOSFOS DH AMAR ABAYE

úåñôåú ã"ä àîø àáéé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the Halachic status of the Cheilev in the kidney, fat covered by meat, and the fat on the diaphragm.)

îùîò ãäëé äìëúà ãìåáï ëåìéà ùøé åàéï öøéê ìâîåí àìà îä ùçåõ ìëåìéà åá÷åðèøñ ðîé ëúá ãäîé÷ì ìà äôñéã

(a)

Opinion #1: The Gemara implies that the law is that the fat in the groove in the kidney is permitted, and one only must cut out the fat outside the kidney. Rashi also writes that one who is lenient has not lost out.

åáùàìúåú ðîé áôøùú åéùìç äáéàå ãáøé äîúéø åìà ãáøé äàåñø åâøñ øáä îçèè ìéä åìà âøñéðï øáà ãà"ë äéä äìëä ëøáà ìâáé àáéé åáëì äñôøéí ëúéá øáä

1.

Opinion #1 (cont.): The Sheiltos in Vayishlach only quotes the lenient opinion, not the stringent opinion. His text is that Rabah cut it out, not Rava, as if it would be Rava the law would be like Rava, as the law is always like Rava when he argues with Abaye. In all of the Sefarim, the text indeed is Rabah.

åîéäå ëúá á÷åðèøñ ãáìåáï ëåìéà äìê àçø äîçîéø ìùøù àçøéå ëéåï ãìà àúîø äìëúà ëàáéé

(b)

Opinion #2: However, Rashi writes regarding the fat in the kidney that one should follow the stringent opinion to uproot it, as the Halachah was not established to follow Abaye.

åäîçîéø éçîéø åäîåðò ìà äôñéã

(c)

Opinion: One who is stringent should be stringent, and one who holds back from being stringent has not lost out.

åáçìá ùäáùø çåôä àåúå îùîò îúåê ôéøåù ä÷åðèøñ ùôùåè ìå ùäåà îåúø àó òì âá ùáìåáï ëåìéà ìà ôñ÷ áäãéà ùéäà îåúø

(d)

Implied Question: Regarding fat that the meat covers, Rashi implies that it is obviously permitted. This is despite the fact that regarding the fat in the groove in the kidney he did not clearly rule that it is permitted.

åùîà ñåáø ãëåìäå àéú ìäå ãùîåàì ãàîø çìá ùäáùø çåôä àåúå îåúø

(e)

Answer: Perhaps he understood that everyone holds like Shmuel who says that when meat covers the fat it is permitted.

åöøéê ìéúï èòí ãî"ù æä îæä

(f)

Implied Question: A reason is needed why the two cases (the fat in the groove and fat covered by the meat) should be different.

ãàé ãøùéðï ùòì äëñìéí àîø øçîðà åìà ùáúåê äëñìéí äëà ðîé àîø øçîðà ùòì äëìéåú åìà ùáúåê äëìéåú

1.

Implied Question (cont.): If we derive that the Torah said "on the walls" indicating that the fat in the walls is permitted, why don't we also derive that the Pasuk, "on the kidneys" excludes fat that is in the kidneys?

åàó òì âá ãçåèéï ùáçìá àñåøéí îãøáðï éù ìâæåø áäå èôé áçåèé çìá àèå çìá îáìåáï ëåìéà

2.

Implied Question: Even though the strings in the Cheilev are forbidden according to Rabbinic law, it is more understandable to decree they should be forbidden due to the Cheilev (they are in) than saying the Cheilev in the kidney should be forbidden.

åéù ìñúåø îëàï ãáøé ø"à îîé"õ ùäéä àåîø ãùåîï ùòì éåúøú äëáã àñåø àó ìàçø ùéèåì ä÷øåí îòìéå

(g)

Opinion #1: Our Gemara contradicts the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer from Metz who said that fat that is on the diaphragm is forbidden, even after the membrane is taken off of it.

îãúðéà áúåøú ëäðéí ëé ëì àåëì çìá îï äáäîä àùø é÷øéáå îîðä åâå' àéï ìé àìà çìá úîéîéí ùäí ëùøéí ìé÷øá çìá áòìé îåîéï îðéï úìîåã ìåîø îï äáäîä çìá çåìéï îðéï úìîåã ìåîø ëé ëì àåëì çìá

1.

Proof: This is apparent from the Beraisa in Toras Kohanim that says, "for whoever eats Cheilev from the animal that they will offer from it etc." This only teaches that Cheilev of animals without a blemish is forbidden, as they are fit to be offered on the altar. How do we know that the Cheilev of animals with a blemish is forbidden? The Pasuk teaches, "from the animal." How do we know the Cheilev of regular animals (not dedicated to be a sacrifice) is forbidden? The Pasuk says, "for whoever eats Cheilev."

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF