1)

TOSFOS DH HU ATZMO

úåñôåú ã"ä äåà òöîå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos notes two other questions that could have been asked.)

äåä îöé ìîéîø éèîà èåîàú ðáìåú

(a)

Observation #1: Abaye could have said it can become impure from Neveilah.

à"ð èåîàú ðáìåú ìà îèîà ãàéëà îéìé èåáà ãîèîà èåîàú àåëìéï åìà îèîà èåîàú ðáìåú ëãúðï (ìòéì ãó ÷éæ:) äùåçè áäîä ìòåáã ëåëáéí åîôøëñú ëå'

(b)

Observation #2: Alternatively, it is possible that it is not impure due to Neveilah, as there are many things that become impure due to being food but not due to Neveilah. This is as the Mishnah (117b) states that if someone slaughters an animal for a Nochri and it is in its death throes etc.

2)

TOSFOS DH HIKFEH HA'DAM

úåñôåú ã"ä ä÷ôä äãí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos notes that the case is where he exposed the blood to sun, not fire, in order to harden it.)

ä÷ôäå áçîä îééøé ëãôøùéðï áä÷åîõ øáä (îðçåú ãó ëà.) àáì áàåø ìà ããí ùáùìå àéðå òåáø òìéå

(a)

Explanation: The case is where he caused the blood to harden by exposing it to the sun, as we explained in Menachos (21a). However, the case is not where he did so through heating it with fire, as we say that one is not liable for cooked blood.

3)

TOSFOS DH L'RABOS

úåñôåú ã"ä ìøáåú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why it is not clear that we include drinking in eating in our Gemara.)

åà"ú åìîä ìé ÷øà äà ùúéä äåéà áëìì àëéìä

(a)

Question: Why do we need a Pasuk for this? Isn't drinking included in eating?

ëããøùé' áô"â ãùáåòåú (ãó ëâ.) îãëúéá åàëìú ìôðé åâå' îòùø ãâðê úéøåùê å÷øé úéøåù àëéìä

1.

Proof: This is as we derive in Shevuos (23a) from the Pasuk, "And you will eat before Hash-m...Ma'aser of your grain, wine etc." This indicates that consuming wine is deemed eating!

åé"ì ãäúí áîéìé ãùúéä ëâåï ééï åùîï åäëà áîéãé ãáø àëéìä ãîîçé ìäå åùúé ìäå

(b)

Answer: The Gemara in Shevuos (ibid.) is referring to items normally consumed through drinking, for example wine and oil, whereas our Gemara is discussing things normally eaten that happen to be turned into liquids and drunk.

4)

TOSFOS DH LECHEM ONI

úåñôåú ã"ä ìçí òåðé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos notes an additional reason.)

äåä îöé ìîéîø ðîé àëéìä ëúéá áéä

(a)

Observation: The Gemara also could have said that the Torah states that the Mitzvah of Matzah requires eating.

5)

TOSFOS DH ELA IM CHAMETZ HU

úåñôåú ã"ä àìà àí çîõ äåà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that having benefit from Chametz does not make one liable to receive Kares.)

àò"â ãäåà àñåø áäðàä

(a)

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that it is forbidden from benefit. (Why isn't this enough a reason for him to be liable for Kares?)

äðàú çîõ ìéú áéä ëøú àìà ìàå

(b)

Answer: Having benefit from Chametz is not punished with Kares, but is rather a regular negative prohibition.

6)

TOSFOS DH CHAMETZ

úåñôåú ã"ä çîõ

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why Cheilev is not considered to have had a significant time when it was permitted.)

åà"ú çìá ðîé äåé ìå ùòú äëåùø ëùäéä áîòé àîå

(a)

Question: Cheilev also had a time when it was permitted when the animal was in its mother's womb.

ãàôéìå øáé éåçðï ãàîø (ìòéì ãó òä.) úìù çìá îáï è' çé ãçãùéí âøîé ááï ç' îåãä

1.

Proof: Even Rebbi Yochanan who states earlier (75a) that if someone detached Cheilev from a live nine month old animal in its mother's womb it is forbidden because its maturity causes the Cheilev to become forbidden will admit that if it was only eight months old the Cheilev is permitted.

åéù ìåîø ãçîõ ëîå ùäåà òúä äéúä ìå ùòú äëåùø åùåá ìà ðùúðä àáì çìá àçø ùéöà ìàåéø äòåìí ìà äéúä ìå ùòú äëåùø ìäéúø

(b)

Answer: The Chametz, as it is now, was once permitted and never changed afterwards. However, the Cheilev never became permitted again after it entered the world.

7)

TOSFOS DH CHEILEV

úåñôåú ã"ä çìá

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that our teaching is not according to Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili.)

ä÷ùä äø"ø ùîåàì îååøãå"ï ìø' éåñé ãìà çééù ìäà ôéøëà áôñçéí (ãó ëâ:) åçùéá çìá ìà äåúø îëììå ã÷àîø åøáé éåñé äâìéìé àðï ááäîä ÷àîøéðï ááäîä îéäà ìà àùúøé

(a)

Question: Rabeinu Shmuel from Vardun asks that Rebbi Yosi does not worry about this question in Pesachim (23b), and he considers Cheilev not permitted from its usual status of being forbidden. This is as the Gemara states there that Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili holds we are discussing an animal, and animal Cheilev is not permitted.

åìéëà ìîéôøê ðîé îä ìçîõ ùëï àñåø áäðàä ãäà ìø' éåñé äâìéìé çîõ îåúø áäðàä ëãàîø äúí

1.

Question (cont.): One cannot say that the question according to him would be that Chametz is different as it is forbidden from benefit, as Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili holds that Chametz is permitted for benefit as stated there in Pesachim (ibid.).

åé"ì ãìøáé éåñé [äâìéìé] åãàé àúà ðôù ìãøùä àçøéúé

(b)

Answer: According to Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili it is clear that "Nefesh" teaches us something else.

8)

TOSFOS DH MAH L'HANACH

úåñôåú ã"ä îä ìäðê

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why Neveilah is considered to never have been fit.)

ãðáìä ëîå ùäéà òúä îúä ìà äéä ìä ùòú äëåùø

(a)

Explanation #1: This is because Neveilah, as it is now, never had a time when it was permitted.

à"ð îçééí äéä áä àéñåø àáø îï äçé åàôéìå ìî"ã (ìàå) ìàéáøéí òåîãú äéä áä àéñåø ùàéðä æáåçä

(b)

Explanation #2: Alternatively, when it was alive it was forbidden due to Aiver Min ha'Chai. Even according to the opinion that it was made to be cut into limbs (and therefore there is no prohibition of Aiver Min ha'Chai on the animal until a limb is cut off), there is a prohibition (while it is alive) due the fact that it was not slaughtered.

9)

TOSFOS DH SHE'KEIN

úåñôåú ã"ä ùëï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos does not understand why our Gemara states that even a minute amount of a Sheretz causes impurity.)

úéîä ãáëì î÷åí îæëéø ëòãùä åëàï ð÷è îùäå

(a)

Question #1: This is difficult, as everywhere else it says that the impurity of Sheratzim is when it is the size of a lentil, and here it says it is even a minute amount!

åëï áôø÷ äùåçè åäîòìä (æáçéí ãó ÷å:) ãôøéê ìàå áçìá ìîä ìé ëå' úéúé îùøöéí èîàéï îä ìùøöéí èîàéï ùëï îèîà áëì ùäåà

1.

Question #2: Similarly, in Zevachim (106b) the Gemara asks why we need a negative prohibition regarding Cheilev...we should derive it from Sheratzim that are impure! The Gemara asks, impure Sheratzim are impure with even a minute amount (as stated by our Gemara, unlike all other sources that discuss Sheratzim).

åîéäå áìàå äëé äúí ðøàä ãìà âøñéðï ìéä ãìà àöèøéê ìäæëéø îùäå âáé çìá ãäà çìá ìà îèîà ëìì

2.

Answer: In any event, it seems that the correct text in Zevachim (ibid.) should not have "a minute amount." This is because it is unnecessary to state a minute amount regarding Cheilev, as Cheilev is not impure at all.

åñåôøéí ùáùå îùåí ãáúø äëé ÷àîø åàé îùøöéí èäåøéí îä ìùøöéí èäåøéí ùëï àéñåøï áîùäå ôéøåù îùåí áøéä åëúáå ëîå ëï âáé èîàéí

i.

Answer (cont.): Scribes caused mistakes to the Sefarim, as afterwards the Gemara says, "And if we want to derive from Sheratzim that are pure we can ask that they are different, as they are forbidden with a minute amount," meaning because they are a Beryah (whole creation). They therefore wrote this regarding impure Sheratzim as well (that are forbidden with a minute amount, meaning because they are a whole creation, not that a small amount that is only part of a single Sheretz would make one fully liable).

10)

TOSFOS DH V'HA D'TNAN

úåñôåú ã"ä åäà ãúðï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos observes that the text should be "d'Tanya."

ãúðéà âøñéðï ãàéðä îùðä

(a)

Text: The text should read, "d'Tanya" as this is not a Mishnah.

120b----------------------------------------120b

11)

TOSFOS DH LICHTOV

úåñôåú ã"ä ìéëúåá

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we do not derive Neveilah using a Mah ha'Tzad.)

åáîä äöã çã îëåìäå ìà àúé ãçîõ îëåìäå ìà àúé ùìà äéä ìäí ùòú äëåùø åçìá ðîé ìà àúé îëåìäå ùëï ìà äåúøå îëììï

(a)

Explanation: We cannot derive one of these topics from the others using a Mah ha'Tzad, as Chametz cannot be derived from the others because they did not have a time when they were permitted. Cheilev cannot be derived from the others because it was never permitted.

àê ÷ùä ãúéúé ðáìä îëåìäå

(b)

Question: However, there is a difficulty. We should derive Neveilah from the other topics (using a Mah ha'Tzad from Chametz, Cheilev, and Sheratzim)!

åùîà ìà äééúé àåîø àìà ìòðéï àéñåø àëéìä àáì ìòðéï èåîàú ðáìú òåó èäåø ìà åàò"â ãàô÷éä áìùåï àëéìä ìà éàëì ìèîàä áä

(c)

Answer: Perhaps I would only say this regarding the prohibition against eating Neveilah. However, regarding the impurity of a Neveilah bird that is from a kosher species it is possible that we would not say this, despite the fact that it is stated as prohibited using the term "eating" as the verse states, "It should not be eaten to become impure with it."

12)

TOSFOS DH HEICHA

úåñôåú ã"ä äéëà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains which of the prohibitions is being discussed by the Gemara.)

åà"ú áäé îáòéà ìéä ãçãù åùáéòéú àéñåø äáà îàìéå åàé èáì äà éìéó çìåì çìåì îúøåîä áñåó àìå äï äðùøôéï (ñðäãøéï ãó ôã.) åúøåîä éìôéðï îáëåøéí åáñîåê îùîò ãöøéê ìîéìó áîä äöã

(a)

Question: Which topic is the Gemara discussing? Chadash and Shevi'is are clearly prohibitions that occur by themselves. If it is discussing Tevel, we derive a Gezeirah Shaveh of "Chilul - Chilul" from Terumah in Sanhedrin (84a), and Terumah is derived from Bikurim. The Gemara later implies that Tevel ends up being derived using a Mah ha'Tzad from Terumah and Bikurim.

åàé ëìàéí äà ìà ëúéá áäå àëéìä åä÷ãù ðîé ìà ëúéá áéä àëéìä åòåã ãàéëà ìîéìó çèà çèà îúøåîä

1.

Question (cont.): It is difficult to say our Gemara is discussing Kilayim, as there is no prohibition of eating Kilayim stated in the Torah. The same applies to Hekdesh. Additionally, we could technically derive Hekdesh using a Gezeirah Shaveh of "Chet - Chet" from Terumah.

åö"ì ãàëìàéí áòé ãàò"â ãìà ëúéá áäå àëéìä ñáøà äéà ãìà àñøä úåøä àìà ëùäàéñåø áòéï

(b)

Answer: It must be that the Gemara is asking regarding Kilayim. Even though the Torah does not use the term "eating" when it prohibits Kilayim, it is logical that the Torah only forbade the prohibited item when it is extant.

åìòéì ãôøéê àìà çìá àëéìä ëúéá áéä

(c)

Implied Question: The Gemara earlier asks that the Torah says, "eating" regarding Cheilev (and implies that this is why one must only be liable if it is in its original form, even though we just said that even if it did not say "eating" it still should have to be in its original form).

áìàå äëé ä"î ìîéôøê àìà ëéåï ãëúá áä áäãéà àëéìä ôøéê îéðä

(d)

Answer #1: The Gemara could have asked this question even if the Torah did not mention eating. However, since the Torah did explicitly mention eating the Gemara mentioned it in its question.

åä"ø ùîåàì äéä àåîø ãâáé çìá ùäîçäå àé ìà äåä ëúéá áéä àëéìä äåä îçééáéï ëéåï ùäåà âåó äçìá åëï äçîõ àìà ùðîåç

(e)

Answer #2: Rabeinu Shmuel says that regarding Cheilev that was melted, if it would not say "eating" we would still say he is liable, as this liquid is made up of the actual Cheilev. The same applies to Chametz that was turned into liquid.

àáì îù÷ä äéåöà îëìàéí àôéìå ìà ëúéá áäå àëéìä ëîàï ãëúéá áäå ãîé ùàéï æä âåó äôøé

1.

Answer #2 (cont.): However, regarding liquid that comes out of Kilayim, even though the Torah did not mention "eating" it is as if it did mention it regarding Kilayim. (One therefore would not be liable as) The juice is not considered the fruit itself.

åîä ùôéøù á÷åðèøñ ãëåìäå ÷øé àéñåø äáà îàìéå ìáø îä÷ãù

(f)

Explanation #1: Rashi says that all of these prohibitions are deemed prohibitions that happen by themselves besides for Hekdesh.

àé àôùø ìåîø ëï àìà àëìàéí ÷àîø ëãôéøùúé ùàéï æä àéñåø äáà îàìéå ùò"é îòùä ùì æøéòä ðàñøéï äëìàéí åâí äòáéøä äéä áùòú æøéòä

(g)

Explanation #2: This is impossible. Rather, as I explained, the Gemara means that Kilayim is not a prohibition that occurs by itself, as only due to the planting does the Kilayim become prohibited. The sin, as well, was only during planting.

åà"ú åùáéòéú äéëé àúé îëåìäå ãàéú áäå ìàå åáùáéòéú òùä ëìä ìçéä îï äùãä ëå'

(h)

Question: How can Shevi'is be derived from all of these negative prohibitions when it only has a positive commandment, "When there is no more for the animal in the field etc.?"

åé"ì ãéìôéðï îèåîàú ùøöéí ãìà ùééê áäå ìàå

(i)

Answer: It must be it is derived from impurity of Sheratzim that also does not entail a negative commandment.

13)

TOSFOS DH HAIVI

úåñôåú ã"ä äáéà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we need a special Pasuk that wine and oil should be included in Bikurim.)

àò"â ãùúéä áëìì àëéìä áòðáéí åæéúéí

(a)

Implied Question: We see that drinking is included in eating regarding grapes and olives. (Why shouldn't it automatically be included in Bikurim without requiring a special teaching?)

ìòðéï äáàú áëåøéí ìà ëúéáà àëéìä ãúäåé ùúéä áëìì ôøé

(b)

Answer: Since the Pasuk does not state the word "eating" regarding Bikurim to cause drinking to be included in eating, a special Pasuk is needed.

14)

TOSFOS DH MAH L'TERUMAH

úåñôåú ã"ä îä ìúøåîä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that Rashi understands the Gemara's question is not according to Rebbi.)

ìøáé ãàîø áñðäãøéï (ãó ôâ.) äæéã áîòéìä áîéúä ò"ë ìàå àä÷ãù áòé ìòéì ëãôé' á÷åðè' ãäà áä÷ãù ðîé àéëà îéúä åçåîù ìøáé

(a)

Explanation: According to Rebbi who says in Sanhedrin (83a) that if one purposely transgresses Me'ilah he is liable to be put to death, the question earlier must not be regarding Hekdesh as explained by Rashi (unlike the previous Tosfos that said the question is regarding Kilayim). This is because Me'ilah in Hekdesh causes someone to be liable for death and to pay a fifth extra according to Rebbi (just as this applies to Terumah according to everyone).

15)

TOSFOS DH ELA

úåñôåú ã"ä àìà

(SUMMARY: Rashi and Tosfos argue what the Gemara is referring to.)

ôé' îðáìä åáëåøéí àå úøåîä àå îùøöéí åáëåøéí àå úøåîä

(a)

Explanation #1: This means from Neveilah and either Bikurim or Terumah, or from Sheratzim and either Bikurim or Terumah.

àáì ìà ëîå ùôé' á÷åðèøñ çîõ åáëåøéí àå úøåîä

(b)

Explanation #2: This is unlike the explanation of Rashi that it refers to Chametz and either Bikurim or Terumah.

ãîä ìäðê ùëï éù áäï ðèéìú ðùîä îéúä åëøú åëï îçìá åúøåîä àå áëåøéí ìà àúé îäàé èòîà

(c)

Question: This is because all of these involve a punishment of either death or Kares. Similarly, one cannot learn from Cheilev and either Terumah or Bikurim for this reason.

16)

TOSFOS DH DON MINAH

úåñôåú ã"ä ãåï îéðä

(SUMMARY: Rashi and Tosfos argue whether the Don Minah u'Minah is literal.)

ôé' á÷åðèøñ ãìàå ãå÷à

(a)

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that this Don Minah u'Minah is not literal.

åîéäå àôùø ãäåé ãå÷à îùåí ãâï ùäîçäå ãúøåîú ãâï ãàåøééúà ãøáé àìéòæø îçééá ãâï îãàåøééúà åùàø îéðéï îãøáðï

(b)

Explanation #2: However, it is possible that it is literal due to grain that would be liquefied. This is because Rebbi Eliezer understands that Terumah must be taken from grain according to Torah law, and from other produce according to Rabbinic law.

åøáé éäåùò ôåèø áãâï ùäîçäå ããåï îéðä åàå÷é áàúøä úéøåù åéöäø àéï ùàø îéðéï ìà åàôéìå ãâï åìäëé ôèø ðîé áùàø îéðéï ùàéï ìäçîéø áäï éåúø îãâï

1.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Rebbi Yehoshua says that liquefied grain is exempt, as Don Minah v'Uki b'Asrah. We can only derive that this applies to wine and olive oil, not to anything else, even grain. This is why Rebbi Yehoshua holds that other types are exempt, as they should not be more stringent than grain.

17)

TOSFOS DH AF TERUMAH

úåñôåú ã"ä àó úøåîä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why apple wine is included.)

åàí úàîø àëúé àéîà ãå÷à ùáòä îéðéí ùäáëåøéí ðåäâéí áäï åééï úôåçéí îðìï

(a)

Question: One still might say that perhaps this only applies to the seven species, as Bikurim applies to them, as opposed to apple wine!

åé"ì ëéåï ãäåéà àôéìå áîéìé ãøáðï äåéà áëåìäå

(b)

Answer: Since it even applies to Rabbinic items, it applies to everything.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF