1)

TOSFOS DH YACHOL SHE'ANI MARBEH AFILU MINCHAH

úåñ' ã"ä éëåì ùàðé îøáä àôé' îðçä

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the statement.)

àåîø ø''é äééðå îðçú ðñëéí ùäéà ëåìä ìàéùéí.

(a)

Clarification: The Ri explains that this is the MInchas Nesachim which is entirely burned on the Mizbeach.

2)

TOSFOS DH TALMUD LOMAR KACHEM KA'GER

úåñ' ã"ä ú"ì ëëí ëâø

(Summary: Tosfos presents an alternative answer.)

îöé ìîéîø ëãìòéì 'äùúà ìòåó àéúøáàé ,ìòåìú áäîä ìà ë''ù!'

(a)

Alternative Answer: The Gemara could answer like it explained above 'Now that the Pasuk includes a bird, how much more so an Olas Beheimah!'

3)

TOSFOS DH DI'CHESIV KI MULIM HAYU KAL HA'AM

úåñ' ã"ä ãëúéá ëé îåìéí äéå ëì äòí

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the answer and elaborates.)

ôéøåù ùîìå òöîí áéöéàúí îîöøéí.

(a)

Clarification: Since they performed B'ris Milah when they left Egypt.

åàò"ô ùàåúï ùäéå ðéîåìéí áéîé àáøäí ìà îìå àåúí áéöéàú îöøéí ...

(b)

Implied Question: And although those who were circumcised from the time of Avraham did not do so when they left Egypt ...

î"î îòé÷øà ëùîìå òöîï îìå ìéëðñ ááøéú äî÷åí åìéáãì îùàø àåîåú, åâí ëé òúä èáìå.

(c)

Answer: Nevertheless, initially, when they performed the Milah, they did so in order to enter the covenant of Hash-m and to separate from the other nations, even though they Toveled only now.

4)

TOSFOS DH VAYISHLACH ES NA'AREI B'NEI YISRAEL VA'YA'ALU OLOS

úåñ' ã"ä åéùìç àú ðòøé áðé éùøàì åéòìå òåìåú

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles this with the Sugya in Zevachim.)

åàò"â ãôìéâé äúí áôø÷ ôøú çèàú (æáçéí ÷èå) -àéëà ãàîøé òåìú øàééä äåàé åàéëà ãàîøé òåìú úîéã [äåàé]...

(a)

Implied Question: Even though there is a Machlokes there in Perek Paras Chatas (Zevachim, 115) - where one opinion holds that they brought an Olas Re'iyah, the other, that it was an Olas Tamid ...

é"ì, ùä÷øéáå äøáä òåìåú.

(b)

Answer: They brought many Olos.

5)

TOSFOS DH GER TOSHAV OSEH MELACHAH

úåñ' ã"ä âø úåùá òåùä îìàëä

(Summary: Tosfos disagrees with Rashi's definition of Ger Toshav.)

îëàï ÷ùä ìô"ä ãôø÷ äçåìõ (éáîåú îç:) ã÷àîø "åéðôù áï àîúê åäâø" ,'æä âø úåùá' -ôé' á÷åðè' ù÷éáì òìéå ùìà ìòáåã òáåãú ëåëáéí... åîçìì ùáú ëòåáã ëåëáéí...

(a)

Question: From here one can ask on Rashi who explains in Perek ha'Choletz (Yevamos, Daf 48b), where the Gemara explains "Veyinafesh ben Amasecha ve'ha'Ger" - 'Zeh Ger Toshav' - that he undertook not to worship idols ... and Chilul Shabbos is akin to idolatry.

åäëà ÷àîø 'âø úåùá òåùä îìàëä?'

1.

Question (cont.): Whereas here the Gemara sttes that he does work on Shabbos?

ìëï é"ì ãääéà îééøé ìòðéï ùìà ìòùåú îìàëä òáåø øáå, àáì ìòöîå ùøé. (ôñ÷)

(b)

Answer: The explanation therefore is that the Gemara there is speaking about not doing Melachah on behalf of his master, but for himself, it is permitted.

îëàï ôñ÷ ø"é ùîåúø ìäðéç ìòåáã ëåëáéí ìòùåú îìàëúå áùáú ááéú éùøàì òáåø òöîå.

(c)

Inference: From here the Ri Paskened that one is permitted to allow a Nochri to work on Shabbos in the house of a Yisrael, on behalf of himself (See Mayim Kedoshim).

9b----------------------------------------9b

6)

TOSFOS DH V'HI SHIFCHAH L'CHALEK AL KOL SHIFCHAH V'SHIFCHAH

úåñ' ã"ä åäéà ùôçä ìçì÷ òì ëì ùôçä åùôçä

(Summary: Tosfos queries the need for a Pasuk from two sources.)

úéîä, ãäëà áòéðà ìçì÷ àò"â ãâåôéï îåçì÷éï...

(a)

Question: Here we require a Pasuk to divide even different entities ...

åäúí ôø÷ àåúå åàú áðå (çåìéï ôá:) "ìà úùçèå áéåí àçã" îùîò ãôùéèà ãçééá âáé ùçèä åàç"ë ùçè áðéä, îùåí ãâåôéï îåçì÷éï, àò"â ãìéëà ÷øà ...

1.

Source #1: Whereas the Gemara there in Perek Oso ve'es B'no (Chulin, Daf 82b) implies that, since they are separate entities, it is obvious if one Shechted the animal and then its babies, one is Chayav (two sets of Malkos), even though there is no Pasuk ...

åëï ì÷îï áôø÷ àîøå ìå (ãó éæ.) ãàîøé 'ùáúåú ëé âåôéï ãîééï.'

2.

Source #2: And similarly later, in Perek Amru lo (Daf 17a), When the Gemara says 'Shabbasos are like separate entities'.

7)

TOSFOS DH TORAH ACHAS LI'METZORA'IM HARBEH

úåñ' ã"ä úåøä àçú ìîöåøòéí äøáä

(Summary: Tosfos cites the Toras Kohanim, which Darhens the Pasuk differently than the Gemara.)

åáúåøú ëäðéí îôé÷ ìéä îãëúéá "åëáùä àçú" ,'îìîã ùîáéà àçú òì ðâòéí äøáä ...

(a)

Toras Kohanim: The Toras Kohanim learns it from the Pasuk "ve'Chavsah Achas" - 'to teach us that one brings one lamb for many plagues' ...

åî"åæàú úäéä úåøú" ãøéù 'úåøä àçú ìëì îöåøòéï' ...

(b)

Toras Kohanim (cont.): Whereas from "ve'Zos Tih'yeh Toras" it Darshens 'One law for all Metzora'in' ...

ìôé ùîöéðå ùçì÷ äëúåá áèåîàåúéäí åáùáåòåúéäí.

1.

Reason: Seeing as the Torah distinguishes their Tum'os and their time-periods.

8)

TOSFOS DH MAPALAS TE'OMIM ITZRICHA LEIH

úåñ' ã"ä îôìú úàåîéí àéöèøéëà ìéä

(Summary: Tosfos explains the Chidush and queries the Mishnah.)

ñã"à áîôìú úàåîéí îåãä øáé éäåãä ìøáðï.

(a)

Clarification: We would otherwise have thought that regarding 'Mapalas Te'omim', Rebbi Yehudah concedes to the Rabanan.

å÷ùä, ãà"ë îôìú úàåîé' ìîàï ÷úðé ìä- àé øáðï ôùéèà, åàé ìø' éäåãä äà îåãä ìøáðï...

(b)

Question: In that case, who would be the author of 'Mapalas Te'omim' - If it was the Rabanan, it would be obvious, and if was Rebbi Yehudah, he agrees with the Rabanan?

ö"ò.

1.

Conclusion: Tzarich Iyun (One needs to search for an answer).

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF