1)

TOSFOS DH Amar Rav Lo Shanu Ela l'Inyan Tum'ah (cont.)

úåñôåú ã"ä àîø øá ìà ùðå àìà ìòðéï èåîàä (äîùê)

åðøàä ìôøù ãåãàé ëåìäå àééøé ìî''ã àéï àéñåø çì òì àéñåø

(a)

Answer: Surely, all of them discuss according to the opinion that Ein Isur Chal Al Isur;

åìåé àîø ìê àò''â ãáòìîà àéï àéñåø çì òì àéñåø äëà îåãä ãàéñåø çì òì àéñåø ãâìé ÷øà áðáìä

1.

Levi can tell you that even though elsewhere, Ein Isur Chal Al Isur, here he agrees that Isur Chal Al Isur, for the Torah revealed about Neveilah;

ãëúéá (åé÷øà æ) åçìá ðáéìä [åâå'] åàëåì ìà úàëìåäå äúåøä àîøä éáà àéñåø ðáéìä åéçåì òì àéñåø çìá åä''ä ãçééì ðîé àéñåø ðáéìä àèîàä

i.

It says "v'Chelev Neveilah... v'Achol Lo Sochluhu" - the Torah said that the Isur of Neveilah takes effect on the Isur of Chelev. Likewise, the Isur of Neveilah takes effect on Tum'ah.

åøá àñé àåîø èäåøéí áôðé òöîï åèîàéï áôðé òöîï

2.

Rav Asi says that Tehorim are by themselves, and Temei'im are by themselves.

àéëà ãàîøé ôìéâà àãøá å÷ñáø ãìòðéï èåîàä ðîé ìà îöèøôé

3.

Explanation #1: Some say that he argues with Rav, and holds that also regarding Tum'ah, [Tahor and Tamei] do not join.

åà''ú åîàé èòîà ãäúéðç ìòðéï àëéìä ëãôéøùðå ìòéì ãùðé àéñåøéí äí àìà ìòðéï èåîàä àîàé ìà îöèøôé åäà àéñåø (èäåøä åèîàä) [ö"ì ãèäåøä åèîàä ùðéäí] îùåí èåîàä

4.

Question: What is the reason? Granted, for eating [they do not join], for they are two Isurim. However, for Tum'ah, why don't they join? The Isur of Tehorah and Temei'ah are both due to Tum'ah!

éù ìåîø ã÷ñáø ëéåï ãìòðéï àëéìä ìà îöèøôé ìòðéï èåîàä ðîé ìà îöèøôé

5.

Answer: He holds that since for eating they do not join, also for Tum'ah they do not join.

åà''ú åäà ÷úðé áîúðé' ëì äðáéìåú ãîùîò ãîöèøôé ìëì äôçåú ìòðéï èåîàä

(b)

Question: Our Mishnah teaches "all Neveilos." This implies that they join, at least for Tum'ah!

é''ì ãîééøé áèäåøä åèäåøä ëâåï òæ åôøä àå áèîàä åèîàä ëâåï âîì åçîåø

(c)

Answer: It discusses Tehorah and Tehorah, e.g. a goat and a cow, or Temei'ah and Temei'ah, e.g. a camel and a donkey.

åà''ú åäà ÷úðé áîúðé' ëì ùùéòåøå åèåîàúå ùåä îöèøôéï åëì äðáéìåú áéï ùì èåîàä áéï ùì èäåøä èåîàúå åùéòåøå ùåä

(d)

Question: Our Mishnah teaches, any case in which the Shi'ur and the Tum'ah are the same, they join. All Neveilos, whether of a Tamei or Tahor [species], the Tum'ah and Shi'ur are the same!

é''ì ãìà ÷àîø îöèøôéï àìà áùøöéí ùàéï çìå÷éí ìòðéï àëéìä [àáì ááäîä ãçìå÷ä ìòðéï àëéìä] ëâåï èäåøä àå èîàä áäà ìà ÷àîø ãîöèøôé:

(e)

Answer: It says that they join only for Sheratzim, which are not divided regarding eating. However, animals, which are divided regarding eating, e.g. Tahor or Tamei, it did not say that they join.

2)

TOSFOS DH v'Ika d'Amrei Lo Palig ad'Rav

úåñôåú ã"ä åàéëà ãàîøé ìà ôìéâ àãøá

(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves Rav Asi with Rav.)

åäà ã÷àîø èäåøéí áôðé òöîï åèîàéï áôðé òöîï

(a)

Implied question: Why did he say that Tehorim are by themselves, and Temei'im are by themselves?

ìòðéï àëéìä ÷àîø àáì ìòðéï èåîàä îåãä ìøá

(b)

Answer: That is regarding eating, but regarding Tum'ah, he agrees with Rav.

3)

TOSFOS DH Meisivei Misas Parah v'Chayei Gamal Ein Mitztarfin...

úåñôåú ã"ä îéúéáé îéúú ôøä åçéé âîì àéï îöèøôéï æä òí æä äà îéúú ùðéäí îöèøôéï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes that the question was also against Rav.)

å÷ùä ìøá àñé ììéùðà ã÷àîø ãôìéâ àãøá

(a)

Explanation #1: This is difficult for Rav Asi, according to the opinion that he argues with Rav;

àáì ìà ôøéê ìøá îùåí ãøá îå÷é ìä ìòðéï èåîàä

1.

However, we do not challenge Rav, for Rav establishes this regarding Tum'ah.

åëï îùîò ìëàåøä îã÷àîø áñîåê àîø ìê øá àñé àìîà ìøá àñé ãå÷à ÷ôøéê

(b)

Support: It connotes like this below, since it says "Rav Asi can tell you..." This implies that we challenge Rav Asi.

(åúå) [ö"ì åúéîä - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ãäéëé îöé îå÷é ìä øá ìòðéï èåîàä åäà òì ëøçê äà ã÷àîø îéúú ôøä åçéé âîì àéï îöèøôéï ìòðéï àëéìä ÷àîø ùàí àëì çöé æéú îôøä îúä åçöé æéú îâîì çé àéï îöèøôéï ìäúçééá ìà îùåí ðáìä åìà îùåí èåîàä

(c)

Question: How can Rav establish it regarding Tum'ah? You are forced to say that what it says "a dead cow and a live camel do not join" is regarding eating, that if he ate a half-k'Zayis of a dead cow and a half-k'Zayis of a live camel they do not join to be liable, not for Neveilah and not for Tum'ah (a Tamei species);

ãìòðéï èåîàä ìà îééøé ãáçéé âîì ìà ùééëà ùåí èåîàä ëãàîø áôø÷ äòåø åäøåèá (çåìéï ãó ÷ëç:) ãáùø äôåøù îï äçé àéðå îèîà

1.

It does not discuss Tum'ah, for no Tum'ah applies to a live camel, like it says in Chulin (128b), that flesh that separates from a living [animal] is not Metamei!

åéù ìåîø ãçéé âîì ãäëà äééðå àáø îï äçé ãùééëà áéä èåîàä ëãàîø äúí (áúåøú) [ö"ì åáúåøú ëäðéí - äøù"ù] ìôé ùàéï ìå çìéôéï åäåéà ãåîéà ãðáìä

(d)

Answer: Here, a live camel is Ever Min ha'Chai, to which Tum'ah applies, like it says there and in Toras Kohanim, because it does not regenerate, and it is like a Neveilah.

åà''ú à''ë ì''ì öéøåó äà àîøéðï äúí ãàéï ìå ùéòåø

(e)

Question: If so, why do we need to join? It says there that it has no Shi'ur (any amount is Metamei)!

é''ì ãî''î áòéðï ùéäà áùø âéãéï åòöîåú åäëà îééøé áãàéúà âéãéï åòöîåú àáì áùø ìéëà åìëê öøéê öéøåó ÷åãí ùéèîà

(f)

Answer: In any case, we require that it has flesh, sinews and bones. Here we discuss when it has sinews and bones, but no flesh, and therefore it must join before it is Metamei.

åî''î ÷ùéà äéëé ÷à ãçé äà çéé ùðéäï îöèøôéï åäà àîøéðï áñåó ôø÷ âéã äðùä (ùí ãó ÷â:) ãàó áàáø ùìí àí çì÷å îáçåõ àéðå òåáø òìéå

(g)

Question: In any case, how do we reject "if it was alive, both would join"? We say in Chulin (103b) that even a full limb, if one divided it outside [his mouth, and then ate it], he does not transgress for it;

àìîà ãàí çì÷ äàáø ìùðéí åàëìå ëåìå ôèåø åë''ù ëæéú îùðé àáøéí çöé àáø îæä åçöé àáø îæä ãôèåø

1.

Inference: If he divided the limb into two, and ate all of it, he is exempt, and all the more so a k'Zayis from two limbs, half from this limb and half from this, he is exempt!

àìà ù''î ãòì ëøçê îééøé äëà ìòðéï àëéìä åà''ë àîàé ìà ôøéê ìøá ëîå ãôøéê ìøá àñé

2.

Conclusion: This shows that you are forced to say that here we discuss regarding eating. If so, why don't we ask according to Rav, like according to Rav Asi?

åé''ì ãàéï äëé ðîé ãôøéê àôé' ìøá

(h)

Explanation #2: Indeed, he challenges even Rav.

åäà ã÷àîø àîø ìê øá àñé

(i)

Implied question: Why does it say "Rav Asi can tell you..."? (It should say "Rav and Rav Asi can tell you..."!)

îùåí ãñ''ì ìáòì äù''ñ ãìà ôìéâ àãøá åëé äéëé ãðéçà ìøá àñé îäàé èòîà ðîé ðéçà ìéä ìøá

(j)

Answer #1: The Gemara holds that he does not argue with Rav. Just like it is fine for Rav Asi, for this reason it is fine for Rav.

åòåã àåîø îåøé ùéçé' ãìôé äìùåï ãìà ôìéâà àãøá à''ë øá åøá àñé äëì àçã åøá àñé îùîéä ãøá ÷àîø ùäåà äéä úìîéãå

(k)

Answer #2 (Tosfos' Rebbi): According to the version that he does not argue with Rav, Rav and Rav Asi are one [opinion]. Rav Asi said in the name of Rav, for he was his Talmid.

4)

TOSFOS DH v'R. Yehudah Hi

úåñôåú ã"ä åøáé éäåãä äéà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that they join for Basar Min ha'Chai.)

ôéøåù ã÷àîø áôø÷ âéã äðùä (çåìéï ãó ÷à:) ãàáø îï äçé ðåäâ áèîàä åáèäåøä åä''ä ìáùø îï äçé ãðåäâ áèîàä åáèäåøä

(a)

Explanation: It says in Chulin (101b) that Ever Min ha'Chai applies to Tamei and Tahor [species], and likewise Basar Min ha'Chai applies to Tamei and Tahor animals;

åìëê îöèøôéï çéé ùðéäí ìäúçééá áàëéìä åîùåí (àáø) [ö"ì áùø - öàï ÷ãùéí] îï äçé

1.

Therefore, they join in the life of both of them to be liable for eating, and due to Basar Min ha'Chai.

5)

TOSFOS DH Mai Iriya d'Rahit v'Tani Misas Parah v'Chayei Gamal

úåñôåú ã"ä îàé àéøéà ãøäéè åúðé îéúú ôøä åçéé âîì

(SUMMARY: Tosfos clarifies the question.)

ëìåîø îàé àéøéà ãð÷è îéúú ôøä åçéé âîì åìùåï (øáðå îùä î÷åöé) [ö"ì îñëú - ùéèä î÷åáöú] îòéìä îùåðä äåà îùàø î÷åîåú

(a)

Explanation: [We ask,] why does it discuss a dead cow and a live camel? The wording in Maseches Me'ilah is different than elsewhere.

6)

TOSFOS DH v'Od Tanya Chetzi Zayis v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä åòåã úðéà çöé æéú ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos justifies the question.)

àáì çöé æéú îôøä ëå' îöèøôéï ÷ùéà øéùà àñéôà (àìîà) [ö"ì àìà - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ù''î ãîéúú ùðéäí îöèøôéï

(a)

Citation: However, a half-k'Zayis of a cow [and a half-k'Zayis of a camel, if both are dead or both are alive,] join. The Reisha contradicts the Seifa! This shows that if both are dead, they join.

ôéøåù àó äà ã÷àîø áñéôà ãäê áøééúà áéï áîéúúí áéï áçééäí øåöä ìåîø ëâåï çéé âîì åîéúú ôøä àå àéôëà ãîöèøôéï à''ë ú÷ùä øéùà àñéôà àìà (ù''î áîéúú ùðéäí îöèøôéï åé''ì áéï áîéúú ùðéäí áéï áçééäí) [ö"ì ø"ì áéï áîéúú ùðéäí áéï áçééäí åù"î ãîéúú ùðéäí îöèøôéï]

(b)

Explanation: Even if what the Seifa of this Beraisa says "both in their death and in their lifetimes" means in the life of the camel and the cow is dead, or vice-versa, that they join, [even] if so, the Reisha contradicts the Seifa! Rather, it means that both are dead or both are alive. This shows that when both are dead, they join.

åäà ã÷àîø äëé àéï æä ø÷ ëãé ìééùá äáøééúà ãìà úé÷ùé ãúéäåé îùáùúà ãäà àé äåä äà áéï áîéúúí áéï áçééäï ø''ì àçã çé åàçã îú î''î îåëç ùôéø îéúú ùðéäí [ö"ì ãëì ãëï - ùéèä î÷åáöú] äåà

(c)

Observation: We do not say so merely to resolve the Beraisa, and we will not ask that the text is mistaken, for if "whether they are dead or alive" means that one is alive and one is dead, in any case it is proven properly [that they join] when both are dead.

àîø ìê øá àñé ÷ñáø äàé úðà àéñåø çì òì àéñåø åàðà ÷àîéðà ìî''ã àéï àéñåø çì òì àéñåø ëãôéøùðå ìòéì ãëåìäå àîåøàé ôìéâé àìéáà ãî''ã àéï àéñåø çì òì àéñåø:

(d)

Explanation: Rav Asi can tell you that this Tana holds that Isur Chal Al Isur, and I hold like the opinion that Ein Isur Chal Al Isur, like we explained above, that all the Amora'im argue according to the opinion that Ein Isur Chal Al Isur.

16b----------------------------------------16b

7)

TOSFOS DH Mai Taima Achilah Kesiv Behu

úåñôåú ã"ä îàé èòîà àëéìä ëúéá áäå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains this answer.)

åñúí àëéìä áëæéú

(a)

Explanation: Stam Achilah is a k'Zayis.

8)

TOSFOS DH Pasach b'Achilah v'Siyem b'Tum'ah

úåñôåú ã"ä ôúç áàëéìä åñééí áèåîàä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the Drashah.)

ãëúéá åäáãìúí (àúí) áéï äáäîä (äèîàä ìèäåøä) åìà úù÷öå [àú] ðôùåúéëí ááäîä åáòåó åáëì àùø úøîåù äàãîä äøé ìê ôúç äëúåá áàëéìä ãùé÷åõ ðôù ùééê áàëéìä

(a)

Explanation: It says "v'Hivdaltem Bein ha'Behemah ha'Tehorah la'Temei'ah... v'Lo Teshaktzu Es Nafshoseichem ba'Behemah uva'Of uv'Chol Asher Tirmosh ha'Adamah" - the verse began with eating, for making the Nefesh repulsive applies to eating...

åëúéá àùø äáãìúé (àåúí) [ìëí] ìèîà ãäééðå ìèîà àçøéí áðâéòä åäééðå ñééí áèåîàä ìåîø îä èåîàä áëòãùä ëå' ëìåîø ìäëé ôúç äëúåá áàëéìä åñééí áèåîàä

1.

And it says "Asher Hivdalti Lachem Letamei", i.e. to be Metamei others through touching, i.e. it concluded with Tum'ah, to teach that just like Tum'ah is k'Adashah (the size of a lentil)...

ìåîø ìê ùéòåø àëéìä ëùéòåø èåîàä îä èåîàä áëòãùä ëããøùéðï (çâéâä ãó éà.) îäí . áäí åùéòøå çëîéí çåîè úçìú áøééúå áëòãùä

2.

This teaches that the Shi'ur for Achilah is like the Shi'ur for Tum'ah, like we expound in Chagigah (11a. It says) "Mehem" (which connotes a partial Sheretz), and it says "Bahem" (which connotes full Sheratzim). Chachamim gauged that the initial creation of a Chomet (snail or chameleon) is k'Adashah.

9)

TOSFOS DH v'Kalsei R. Yochanan

úåñôåú ã"ä å÷ìñéä ø' éåçðï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos justifies the question against Rav.)

ìøáé éåñé áø øáé çðéðà ùñéãø äáøééúà ìôðéå åà''ë ÷ùéà ìøá ãàîø áëæéú

(a)

Explanation: He praised R. Yosi ben Chaninah, who arranged the Beraisa in front of him. If so, it is difficult for Rav, who said that the Shi'ur is k'Zayis.

(åìà âáøà àâáøà ãîñúáøà èòîà ãøá) [ö"ì åàéï ìåîø âáøà àâáøà ãîñúáøà èòîà ãø' éåçðï - ùéèä î÷åáöú] îùåí ãìéëà îàï ãôìéâ åâí îôé÷ îéìúà î÷øàé

1.

We do not say "do you challenge a person (Amora) from [another] person?!", for R. Yochanan's reason is plausible, for no one argues with him, and also, he derives his matter from a verse.

10)

TOSFOS DH Kan b'Misasan Kan b'Chayeihem

úåñôåú ã"ä ëàï áîéúúï ëàï áçééäí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the argument of Abaye and Rav Yosef.)

ëìåîø áîéúúï ãàéëà èåîàä áëòãùä àîøé àéñåø àëéìä ùéòåøå ëùéòåø èåîàä àáì áçééí ìéëà èåîàä àîøé ãìå÷ä òì àëéìúå áëæéú

(a)

Explanation: In their death, there is Tum'ah for k'Adashah. We say that its Shi'ur is like the Shi'ur of Tum'ah. However, in their lives, there is no Tum'ah. We say that he is lashed for eating for a k'Zayis.

àîø ìéä àáéé åäà øá àîúðé' ÷àé ëìåîø åäìà øá àîøä ìîéìúéä òì îùðúéðå ãëì äùøöéí ãîééøé áéï áîéúúí áéï áçééäí

1.

Abaye told him "Rav discusses our Mishnah!" I.e. Rav said his teaching about our Mishnah of all Sheratzim, which discusses dead and alive.

àîø [ìéä øá éåñó] ääåà ãéìê äåà ìùåï ÷ðèåø äåà ëìåîø ãéå÷ æä ùìê éäéä åàéï ìé òñ÷ áå øá ùîòúà áòìîà ÷àîø ëìåîø îéìúà áàôé ðôùéä åìà àîúðé' ÷àé

2.

Rav Yosef said to him "that is yours." This is an expression of provoking, i.e. this inference is yours, and I have nothing to do with it. Rav taught a Stam teaching, i.e. a teaching by itself. He does not refer to our Mishnah.

åàáéé ñì÷à ãòúéä ã÷àé àîúðé' ãåîéà ãääéà ãìòéì ãìà ùðå àìà ìòðéï èåîàä

3.

Abaye thought that he refers to our Mishnah, similar to the case above, which was learned only for Tum'ah.

11)

TOSFOS DH v'Kalsei R. Yochanan

úåñôåú ã"ä å÷ìñéä ø' éåçðï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this is said in astonishment.)

áúîéä îéúéáé äàáøéí åëå' ëìåîø åëé ÷éìñ ø' éåçðï åäìà éù úùåáä òì æä ã÷ùéà ãø' éåçðï àãø' éåçðï

(a)

Explanation: This is said in astonishment. We challenge this [from a Mishnah] "limbs [have no Shi'ur...]" I.e. did R. Yochanan praise this? There is a rebuttal of this, for R. Yochanan contradicts himself!

äàáøéí àéï ìäí ùéòåø àò''â ãáòéðï áðáìä ëæéú åáùøõ áëòãùä î''î áàáøéí ìà áòéðï ùåí ùéòåø åà''ø éåçðï àéï ìå÷éï òìéäï àìà áëæéú åìòéì ÷àîø áëòãùä ñâé

1.

Limbs have no Shi'ur. Even though we require k'Zayis of a Neveilah for lashes, and k'Adashah of a Sheretz, in any case for limbs we do not require any Shi'ur, and R. Yochanan said that one is lashed for them only for a k'Zayis. Above he said that k'Adashah suffices!

åà''ú ìéùðé ëàï áîéúúï ëàï áçééäï

(b)

Question: We should answer here "this is when they are dead, and this is when they are alive"!

åé''ì (ãëåìé òìîà) [ö"ì ãò"ë] äëà ðîé îééøé áîéúúï ãàáøééúà ãàáøéí ÷àé (äà) ãîééøé áîéúä îã÷àîø îèîàéï

(c)

Answer: You are forced to say that also here we discuss when they are dead, for it refers to the Beraisa of limbs, which discusses in death, since it says that they are Metamei.

12)

TOSFOS DH Amar Rava b'Muvdalin Diber ha'Kasuv

úåñôåú ã"ä àîø øáà áîåáãìéï ãáø äëúåá

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses what we wanted to learn from the Hekesh.)

ëìåîø äà ãàîø ø' éåçðï àéñåøå ëèåîàä äééðå îåáãìéí ùáôøùä ëìåîø ç' ùøöéí ãèåîàúï áëòãùä

(a)

Explanation #1: R. Yochanan said that the Isur is like the Tum'ah, i.e. the separated ones in the Parshah, i.e. the eight Sheratzim whose Tum'ah is k'Adashah;

åäà ã÷àîø ø' éåçðï àéï ìå÷éï òìéäí àìà áëæéú áùàø ùøöéí îééøé ùäí èäåøéí îìèîà åìà ùééê áäï ìåîø àéñåøå ëèåîàä

1.

And R. Yochanan said that one is lashed only for a k'Zayis - he discusses other Sheratzim, which are Tahor from being Metamei, and it is not applicable to say "the Isur is like the Tum'ah." (They are called "Tamei" only because one may not eat them.)

åà''ú ëé ùðé ìòéì ëàï áçééäí ëàï áîéúúï ìéùðé ëàï áîåáãìéï ëàï áùàéðï îåáãìéï ëé äëà

(b)

Question: When we answered above "this is when they are alive, and this is when they are dead", we should [rather] answer "these are the separated ones, and these are not the separated ones", like here!

é''ì ãàé îééøé äà ãøá ãìòéì áàéï îåáãìéï îàé øáåúéä ã÷î''ì øá ôùéèà ãáòé ëæéú îéãé ãäåä àëì àéñåøéï ùáúåøä

(c)

Answer: If Rav's teaching above discusses the not separated ones, what is Rav's Chidush? Obviously we require a k'Zayis, just like all Isurei Achilah in the Torah!

îéäå ÷ùéà ãà''ë ø' éåçðï ðîé îàé ÷î''ì ëéåï ãîééøé áùàø ùøöéí ãìà ùééê èåîàä

(d)

Question #1: If so, also R. Yochanan, what is his Chidush, since he discusses other Sheratzim, to which Tum'ah does not apply?

åòåã ÷ùéà ãà''ë ãîééøé äê ãø' éåçðï ãäëà áùàø ùøöéí à''ë ìà ÷àé àîàé ãîééøé ááøééúà áç' ùøöéí äîåáãìéï îã÷úðé îèîàéï

(e)

Question #2: If so, that this teaching of R. Yochanan discusses other Sheratzim, if so he does not refer to what the Beraisa discusses, i.e. the eight Sheratzim that are separated, since it taught that they are Metamei!

ìëê ðøàä ãä''ô áîåáãìéï ãáø äëúåá ëìåîø ìà ä÷éù äëúåá àëéìä ìèåîàä àìà âáé ùøöéí ãùééê áäå äáãìä ëâåï ç' ùøöéí ùîåáãìéï îï äàçøéí

(f)

Explanation #2: "The Torah discusses separated", i.e. the verse equated eating to Tum'ah only regarding Sheratzim, in which separation applies, i.e. the eight Sheratzim separated from the others;

àáì áäîä ìà (äå÷ùä) [ö"ì äå÷ù - ùéèä î÷åáöú] àëéìúä ìèåîàúä åááäîä äåà ã÷àîø ø' éåçðï ãáòéðï ëæéú åìà ÷àé àëì îéìé ãáøééúà (ìà) [ö"ì åìà - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ÷àé àôçåú îëòãùä îï äùøõ àìà [ö"ì ÷àé - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ààáøéí ãðáìä

1.

However, an animal, eating it is not equated to its Tum'ah, and in an animal R. Yochanan said that we require a k'Zayis. He does not refer to all matters in the Beraisa, and he does not refer to less than k'Adashah of a Sheretz, rather, to limbs of a Neveilah;

å÷î''ì ãàò''â ãìòðéï èåîàä îäðé (àôéìå) [ö"ì àáø - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ôçåú îëæéú î''î ìòðéï àëéìä áòéðï ëæéú

2.

His Chidush is that even though regarding Tum'ah, a limb less than a k'Zayis helps (is Metamei), in any case for eating, we require a k'Zayis [to be liable].

åòì æä ôøéê áäîä ðîé ìôìåâ áéï îåáãìú ìùàéðä îåáãìú ëé äéëé ãâáé ùøöéí îôìâéï áéï îåáãìéï ìàéðï îåáãìéï åâáé îåáãìéï î÷ùé àëéìä ìèåîàä

3.

On this the Gemara asks that also an animal, we should distinguish between separated and not separated, just like regarding Sheratzim we distinguish between separated and not separated, and regarding separated we equate eating to Tum'ah...

äëé ðîé âáé áäîä äåä ìï ìà÷åùé àëéìä ìèåîàä ãäà áäîä àéú÷ù ìùøöéí áäàé ÷øà [ö"ì ãëúéá áäîä åîééøé ááäîä èîàä ãäééðå áäîä îåáãìú - ùéèä î÷åáöú]

4.

Likewise regarding an animal, we should equate eating to Tum'ah, for an animal is equated to Sheratzim in this verse, for it is written "Behemah", and it refers to a Tamei Behemah, i.e. a separated Behemah;

(åðô÷à îéðä ìòðéï àáø ðáìú) [ö"ì åð÷éù áä àëéìä ìèåîàä ìéçééá àåëì àáø îï äçé àò"â ãìéëà ëæéú - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ùéäà àéñåøå ëèåîàúå ãäééðå áëì ùäåà ëã÷úðé äàáøéí àéï ìäí ùéòåø

5.

We should equate eating to Tum'ah, to be liable for Ever Min ha'Chai, even though there is not a k'Zayis, that its Isur should be like its Tum'ah, i.e. for any amount, like it taught "there is no Shi'ur for limbs";

(åäà ã÷úðé áéï îåáãìåú ìùàéðï îåáãìåú ìùàéðï îåáãìåú ì''ã àìà ëìåîø ãìâáé áäîä ìà úéáòé (àáø) ëæéú åîùðé) [ö"ì åìà àùëçðà ãì÷é àáø îï äçé âáé àëéìä àó ááäîä èîàä ëùàéï ëæéú - ùéèä î÷åáöú]

i.

We do not find that one is lashed for Ever Min ha'Chai for eating it, even in a Tamei animal, when there is not a k'Zayis.

ëé î÷éù ìäå øçîðà ìáì úù÷öå ëìåîø äà ãî÷ùéðï àëéìä ìèåîàä äééðå áùøöéí ãòìééäå ÷àé àùø äáãìúé ìëí ìèîà

6.

The Torah equated them for Bal Teshaktzu. I.e. we equate eating to Tum'ah for Sheratzim, about which it says "Asher Hivdalti Lachem Letamei";

àáì áäîä ìà îééøé ÷øà ãàùø äáãìúé ãìéëà ìôìåâé áéï îåáãìéï ìùàéðï îåáãìéï ùäøé ëì äáäîåú áéï èäåøåú áéï èîàåú îèîàåú [ö"ì áîéúúï]

7.

However, the verse Asher Hivdalti does not discuss an animal, for we cannot distinguish between separated and not separated, for all animals, both Taharos and Temei'os, are Metamei in their death;

äìëê ëéåï ãìà ùééëà áäå äáãìä ìà ÷àé ñéôà ã÷øà àáäîåú åàí ëï ìéëà ìà÷ùåéé àëéìä ìèåîàä âáé áäîä åëé àéú÷åù áäîä ìùøöéí äééðå ãåå÷à ìáì úù÷öå

8.

Therefore, since distinction does not apply to them, the end of the verse does not discuss animals. If so, we cannot equate eating to Tum'ah for animals. Behemah is equated to Sheratzim for Bal Teshaktzu.

åôéøåù æä ãçå÷ îàã ãîòé÷øà îàé ñì÷à ãòúê åëé ìà éãò ùôéø ãìéëà ìà÷åùé àëéìä ìèåîàä àìà áùøöéí ãùééê áäå äáãìä

(g)

Objection: This Perush is very difficult. What was the Havah Amina? Did he not know that we can equate eating to Tum'ah only for Sheratzim, to which distinction applies?!

ìëê ðøàä ãîòé÷øà [ö"ì ðîé - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ä''ô áäîä ðîé ìéôìåâ áéï îåáãìéï ìùàéðï îåáãìéï

(h)

Explanation #3: It seems that also from the beginning, it means as follows. Also animals, we should distinguish between separated and not separated;

ëìåîø äà åãàé ãìéëà ìà÷åùé àëéìä ìèåîàä (áäé÷ùà ãðøàä) [ö"ì áäé÷ùà ãùøöéí - öàï ÷ãùéí] ãâáé áäîä ìà ùééê áä äáãìä

1.

I.e. surely we cannot equate Achilah to Tum'ah through the Hekesh of Sheratzim, for regarding animals separation does not apply;

àìà î''î ëéåï ãâáé ùøöéí àéú÷ù àëéìä ìèåîàä îùåí ãùééê áäå äáãìä âáé áäîä ðîé äåä ìï ìîéîø ãàéñåø àëéìúä (ëèåîàä) [ö"ì ëèåîàúä] åâáé àáøéí ìà úáòé ëæéú ãäà áäîä åùøöéí àéú÷ùå ìäããé áäàé ÷øà

i.

However, in any case, since regarding Sheratzim, eating is equated to Tum'ah, because separation applies to them, also regarding animals, we should say that the Isur of eating it is like its Tum'ah, and for limbs, we should not require a k'Zayis, for animals and Sheratzim are equated to each other in this verse.

åîùðé ëé ä÷éù ìäå øçîðà ìáäîä åùøöéí äééðå ãåå÷à ìáì úù÷öå ùéù áùðéäí ìàå ãáì úù÷öå àáì ìòðéï ìòùåú àëéìä ëèåîàä ìà äåé áäîä ëùøõ:

2.

It answers that the Torah equated Behemah to Sheratzim only for Bal Teshaktzu, that both of them have the Lav of Bal Teshaktzu, but to make eating like Tum'ah, an animal is not like a Sheretz.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF