1)

TOSFOS DH V'LEIMA

úåñôåú ã"ä åìéîà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the Gemara's question and answer.)

àò"â ãáøééúà òãéôà

(a)

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that the Beraisa is a stronger source. (Why, then, does the Gemara ask that Rava should have asked from Shmuel instead?)

ááøééúà ìçåã ìà ñâé àìà îëç îéìúéä ãùîåàì ãîééúé áäãä àáì áãùîåàì ìçåã ñâé

(b)

Answer: The Beraisa itself is only a source due to Shmuel's statement quoted together with it. However, (the Gemara asks that) Shmuel's statement alone should be sufficient.

åîùðé äåä àîéðà äðé îéìé ãîï åëàï àéï ùééê ìàñåø îùåí ãîùø÷ ùøé÷ àå ëáåìòå ëê ôåìèå

(c)

Explanation: The Gemara answers that I would think that Shmuel's statement is only regarding the blood. This is not a problem here, as it is possible that the blood either fell away or just as it was absorbed so too it was emitted.

2)

TOSFOS DH MAI LAV

úåñôåú ã"ä îàé ìàå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos notes that we do not have the text "and we see from here that their brine is permitted" as it is in fact prohibited.)

àìîà ìà áìò

(a)

Explanation: This implies that it does not absorb.

åìà âøñéðï åù"î ãöéøï îåúø ãäà îùðä ùìîä äéà áîñëú ò"æ (ãó ìä) ããâ èîà öéøå àñåø åáñéôà ãäê áøééúà ðîé ÷úðé èîà îìéç åèäåø úôì àñåø

(b)

Text: We do not have the text, "And we see from here that their brine is permitted." This is because the Mishnah in Avodah Zarah (35b) clearly states that the brine of a non kosher fish is prohibited. The end of the Beraisa here also states that if a non kosher fish was salty and a kosher fish was bland, it becomes forbidden.

3)

TOSFOS DH TAHOR

úåñôåú ã"ä èäåø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos notes that k'Dei Kelipah does not apply to Meli'ach k'Rosei'ach.)

âáé îìéç ëøåúç ìà ùééê ìà òéìàä âáø åìà úúàä âáø åàôéìå ÷ìéôä ìà áòé àò"â ãàîøéðï (ôñçéí ãó òå.) âáé òéìàä åúúàä àãîé÷ø ìéä áìò

(a)

Explanation: Regarding salting being like boiling, it is irrelevant whether the top or bottom item is stronger. Even a layer does not have to be taken off in this case, even though we say regarding a case when the top or bottom is stronger that (even if the hot item was weaker) by the time it cools it causes (a layer of) absorption.

åéù ììîåã îëàï ãà"ö ìäâòéì ãôåñé âáéðåú äòåáãé ëåëáéí åîåúø ìòùåú áäí âáéðåú ìéùøàì åìîåìçï áúåëï ãäåé ëîå èäåø îìéç åèîà úôì ãàéï ùééê îìéçä áòõ åìà ðòùä òõ øåúç ò"é îìéçä

(b)

Opinion: One can derive from here that it is unnecessary to scald cheese molds of Nochrim before making and salting kosher cheese in them. This is because it is like a case of a kosher fish that was salted that was mixed with a bland non kosher fish. Salting does not apply to wood, and wood does not become boiled up through salting.

åîòùéí áëì éåí ãîìç á÷òøä ùîùúîùéï áä áùø ìå÷çéí îîðå ìúú îîðå áçìá åäîçîéø úáà òìéå áøëä

1.

Opinion (cont.): It is common practice that people take salt from a bowl that is generally used for meat and put it in milk.

4)

TOSFOS DH AIN MACHZIKIN

úåñôåú ã"ä àéï îçæé÷éï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses two practices and whether they are permitted or forbidden.)

(àéï) ìàñåø îèòí æä ìîìåç áðé îòééí òí ùàø áùø îùåí ãìà èøéãé ìôìåè ãáìòé ãí ëîå ãâéí

(a)

Implied Question: One cannot forbid, due to this reasoning, salting intestines together with other meat because they are not bothered to emit, and they absorb blood like fish. (Why not?)

ãäëà ãí îùø÷ ùøé÷ àáì ãâéí øôå ÷øîééäå ëãôé' ìòéì (ãó ÷éá: ã"ä åãâéí)

(b)

Answer: This is because here the blood falls away, but regarding fish their membrane is soft (and it therefore retains the blood), as I have stated earlier (112b, DH "v'Dagim").

åàéï ìäúéø îèòí ùøé÷ä àí äéå ùåôëéï ãí òì äáùø áùòú öìéä

(c)

Implied Question: One cannot permit due to the blood falling away if they poured blood on the meat when it was roasting.

ããå÷à ãí äðôìè ðåôì òí äöéø ò"é öìéä àå ò"é îìéçä ëãàîø ìòéì (ãó ÷éà.) ãùøé÷ àáì äéëà ãäåé äãí áòéðéä ìà àùëçï

(d)

Answer: Only blood that was emitted falls together with the brine through roasting or through salting, as stated earlier (111a). However, where the blood is extant it does not fall away.

5)

TOSFOS DH ELA LO SHENA

úåñôåú ã"ä àìà ì"ù

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that the Gemara means it is permitted in any case.)

åîåúø áëì òðéï àò"ô ùîðéç äùðéä òì àåúä ùðîìçä úçìä ëãôøéùéú ìòéì

(a)

Explanation: It is permitted in anyway, even if he puts the second piece of meat on top of the piece that was already salted, as I explained earlier.

6)

TOSFOS DH BASAR BEHEIMAH

úåñôåú ã"ä áùø áäîä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that Rabbanan hold it is forbidden to cook fowl with milk according to Torah law.)

äåà äãéï áùø òåó ìøáðï ãàñåø îï äúåøä ããå÷à ø"ò äåà ãàîø çéä åòåó àéðí îï äúåøä

(a)

Explanation: Similarly, fowl is forbidden (to cook with milk) according to Torah law. Rebbi Akiva is the only one who says that undomesticated animal and fowl is not prohibited (to be cook with milk) according to Torah law.

åðô÷à ìï îããøéù ì÷îï àú ùàñåø îùåí ðáìä àñåø ìáùìå áçìá

1.

Explanation (cont.): They derive this later from the derivation that whatever is forbidden to be eaten due to Neveilah is forbidden to cook with milk.

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

7)

TOSFOS DH ELA

úåñôåú ã"ä àìà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how so many Pesukim can be called Shnei Kesuvim.)

èåáà ëúéáé

(a)

Implied Question: There are many such Pesukim. (Why, then, are these Pesukim called Sheni Kesuvim?)

àìà ëì äðäå ãøá÷ä çùéá ìäå ëçã åëï äðäå ãéäåãä ëçã

(b)

Answer: Rather, all of the Pesukim regarding Rivkah are considered one Pasuk, and all of the Pesukim regarding Yehudah are called one Pasuk.

8)

TOSFOS DH IZIM

úåñôåú ã"ä òæéí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks why multiple exclusions are needed.)

úéîä ãáçã îéòåèà ñâé åëï ì÷îï áñåó ôø÷éï (ãó ÷éæ:) âáé úøåîú äãùï

(a)

Question: This is difficult, as it would seem that one Miut (exclusion) should be enough. The same applies to the Gemara later (117b) regarding the Terumas ha'Deshen.

9)

TOSFOS DH KA'SAVAR

úåñôåú ã"ä ÷ñáø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos defends the text "Shmuel holds Issur Chal Al Issur.")

áçðí îåç÷ á÷åðèøñ æàú äâéøñà

(a)

Opinion #1: Rashi did not have to erase this text.

ãìäëé ÷àîø ã÷ñáø ùîåàì àéñåø çì òì àéñåø ãàé äåä ñ"ì áòìîà ãàéï àéñåø çì òì àéñåø àìà äåä éìéó îäëà ìà äåä îôé÷ çìá åîúä úøåééäå îçã ÷øà àìà äåä îå÷é ÷øà áããîé

(b)

Opinion #2: This is why the Gemara says that Shmuel holds Issur Chal Al Issur. If he generally held Ain Issur Chal Al Issur and still derived the derivations of our Gemara, he would not have derived Cheilev and Neveilah from one Pasuk. Rather, he would have derived that the Pasuk is teaching that only one prohibition similar to Basar b'Chalav applies. (The Maharam explains that if Shmuel generally held Ain Issur Chal Al Issur, he would only derive one exception to this rule from the one extra Pasuk. The Maharsha has a different text in Tosfos.)

åìîàé ãîùðé áñîåê ãáòìîà ÷ñáø àéï àéñåø çì òì àéñåø ðô÷é úøåééäå îçã ÷øà ëãôéøù á÷åðè'

(c)

Implied Question: The Gemara later answers that Shmuel indeed holds Ain Issur Chal Al Issur, and yet Shmuel still derives that both of these prohibitions can apply to Basar b'Chalav as explained by Rashi. (This is contrary to the logic above.)

îùåí ãúøåééäå îéï âãé äí

(d)

Answer: This is because both teaching apply to a young goat.

10)

TOSFOS DH DAM

úåñôåú ã"ä ãí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that blood would have been excluded without the Pasuk stating "Gedi.")

åàí úàîø îëì î÷åí ìà àîòéè àìà îâãé

(a)

Question: Even so, it is only excluded due to the Pasuk, "Gedi!"

åé"ì ãàôéìå ìà äåä ëúéá àìà ìà úáùì áùø áçìá àîå äåä îîòèéðï ãí ãìà àé÷øé áùø

(b)

Answer: Even if the Torah would only have written, "Lo Sevashel Basar b'Chaleiv Emo" I would have excluded blood, as it is not called meat.

ëãàîø áô' ëì ùòä (ôñçéí ãó ëâ:) ëùäåúøä ðáìä äéà åçìáä åâéãä äåúøä àáì ãîä ìà ÷àîø ùäåúøä ãìàå áëìì ðáìä äéà

(c)

Proof: This is as the Gemara states in Pesachim (23b) that when the Torah permitted one to benefit from Neveilah, it permitted the animal, its fat, and its Gid. However, it does not say that the Torah permitted its blood, as it is not included in Neveilah.

11)

TOSFOS DH V'SHANI

úåñôåú ã"ä åùàðé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that Gedi is needed.)

àé ìàå âãé ìà äåä éìôéðï ùéçåì àéñåø áùø áçìá òì àéñåø çìá îãàîøéðï ñåó ôø÷ âéã äðùä (ìòéì ãó ÷â.) éáà àéñåø ðáìä åàéñåø èøôä åéçåì òì àéñåø çìá ãùàðé ðáìä ãîèîàä åèøôä ðîé îùåí ãîçééí

(a)

Observation: Without the Pasuk of "Gedi" we would not have derived that the prohibition of Basar b'Chalav should apply to the prohibition against Cheilev. This is as we stated earlier (103a) that the prohibition against Neveilah and Treifah should take effect on the prohibition of Cheilev, as Neveilah causes impurity and Treifah even applies when the animal is alive.

ãëä"â àîøéðï áæáçéí ôø÷ çèàú äòåó (ãó ò.)

1.

Proof: We indeed say this in the Gemara in Zevachim (70a).

åäà ãàîø áô' âéã äðùä (ìòéì ãó ÷â.) ãàéñåø èøôä çì òì àéñåø àáø îéãé ãäåä ààéñåø çìá àò"â ãàáø îï äçé îèîà

(b)

Implied Question: The Gemara earlier (103a) stated that the prohibition of Treifah takes effect on the prohibition against Aiver Min ha'Chai, just like Treifah takes effect on Cheilev. This is despite the fact that Aiver Min ha'Chai also causes impurity.

î"î ëéåï ãçìá áëøú åàô"ä çééì òìéä ëì ùëï ààáø îï äçé

(c)

Answer: Even so, since Cheilev is punished with Kares and Treifah takes effect on it, certainly Treifah will take effect on Aiver Min ha'Chai.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF