1) TOSFOS DH Ki Salik Rav Kahana Ashkechinhu li'Vnei R. Chiya (cont.)
úåñôåú ã"ä ëé ñìé÷ øá ëäðà àùëçéðäå ìáðé øáé çééà (äîùê)
àáì åãàé äà ãùàì ìå øáé éåçðï ñôé÷åúéå äéä áñåó éîéå ëùäéä ø' éåçðï øàù éùéáä ëãîåëç áñåó á''÷ (ãó ÷éæ:)
(a) Answer: However, surely R. Yochanan asked him his Sefekos at the end of [R. Yochanan's] life, when R. Yochanan was Rosh Yeshivah, like is proven in Bava Kama (117b).
åø''ú ôé' ääéà ãâéèéï (ãó ôã:) øáé éåçðï ìúìîéãéå ùîááì äéä àåîø ëîå ùîôøù äà ìï åäà ìäå á÷éãåùéï (ãó ëè:)
(b) Alternative explanation (R. Tam): In Gitin (84b), R. Yochanan said so to his Talmidim from Bavel (he called Rav Kahana "yours"), like he explains "this is for us, and this is for them" in Kidushin (29b. Sometimes Amora'im of Eretz Yisrael addressed their Talmidim from Bavel, and vice-versa. If so, this could be after Chizkiyah died.)
2) TOSFOS DH she'Ein Tzarich li'Chli Ein Kli Metzarfo
úåñôåú ã"ä ùàéï öøéê ìëìé àéï ëìé îöøôå
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how Rav Kahana could be sure about this.)
áôø÷ áúøà ãçâéâä (ãó ëâ:) áâîøà äëìé îöøó îãëúéá ëó àçú åîåúéá øá ëäðà îääéà ãîåñéó ø''ò åãéé÷ îéðä ùäåà îãøáðï
(a) Citation: The Gemara in Chagigah (23b) about a Kli joins (its contents), because it is written "Kaf Achas", and Rav Kahana asked from "R. Akiva added", and infers from it that it is mid'Rabanan;
åîùðé ø''ù áï ì÷éù îùåí áø ÷ôøà ìà ðöøëà [ö"ì àìà] ìùéøé îðçä ãàåøééúà àú ùöøéê ìëìé äëìé îöøôå åùàéï öøéê ìëìé àéï äëìé îöøôå åàúå øáðï åâæåø àôé' àéï öøéê ìëìé ëìé îöøôå
1. Reish Lakish answered in the name of Bar Kapara "this is needed only for Shrirei Minchah. Mid'Oraisa, what needs a Kli, the Kli joins it. What does not need a Kli, the Kli does not join it. Rabanan decreed that even what does not need a Kli, the Kli joins it."
åæäå úéîä ùôùåè ìøá ëäðà ëì ëê ãàéï ëìé îöøó îä ùàéï öøéê ìëìé ãìà îùîò ãôìéâ àääéà ùéðåéà
(b) Question: This is astounding, that it was so obvious to Rav Kahana that a Kli does not join what does not need a Kli, for it does not connote that he argues with the answer!
åùîà ñáø ìä ëääéà ùéðåéà ãøáä áø àáåä ãîùðé äúí ëùöáøå ò''â ÷èáìéà
(c) Answer #1: Perhaps he holds like the answer of Rabah bar Avuha, who answers there "when he piled it on a cooked hide." (It has no interior, so it does not join it.)
à''ð ãå÷à áùéøé îðçä ùäéä ëáø öøéê ìëìé îöøó ëìé îãøáðï ùìà éöà î÷ãåùúå ã÷åãí ÷îéöä åìà ãîé ìäëà ãìà äéä îòåìí öøéê ìëìé
(d) Answer #2: Only remnants of a Minchah, which already needed a Kli, a Kli joins it mid'Rabanan, for it does not leave its previous Kedushah of before Kemitzah. It is unlike here, that it never needed a Kli.
3) TOSFOS DH Tziruf d'Oraisa Oh d'Rabanan
úåñôåú ã"ä öéøåó ãàåøééúà àå ãøáðï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves a contradiction in Rav Kahana.)
åà''ú åäà øá ëäðà âåôéä îã÷ã÷ áôø÷ áúøà ãçâéâä (â''æ ùí) ùäåà ãøáðï îääéà ãäåñéó ø''ò
(a) Question: Rav Kahana himself inferred in Chagigah (23b) that [Tziruf Kli] is mid'Rabanan, from [the Beraisa] "R. Akiva added"!
åéù ìåîø ãùîà îñô÷à ìéä îùåí ùéðåéà ãäúí
(b) Answer: Perhaps he was unsure due to the answers there (R. Akiva discusses what never needed a Kli, or a Kli without an interior.)
4) TOSFOS DH Tziruf Kli v'Chibur Mayim Mahu
úåñôåú ã"ä öéøåó ëìé åçéáåø îéí îäå
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses what are connections for Tum'ah.)
ôé' á÷åðèøñ ëìåîø çöé òùøåï ùðèîà áöéøåó ëìé îäå ùéèîà áçéáåø îéí
(a) Explanation (Rashi): Half an Isaron became Tamei through Tziruf Kli. Is it Metamei through a connection of water?
ëâåï àí éù ùðé çöàé òùøåï áëìé åàéï ðåâòéï åçöé òùøåï éù çåõ ìëìé åçéáåø îéí ëâåï ðöå÷ àå öéðåø îçáø àú àùø çåõ ìëìé ìîä ùáúåê äëìé
1. E.g. if there are two half-Esronim in a Kli, and they do not touch, and there is a half-Isaron outside the Kli and a connection of water, e.g. Nitzuk (falling water) or a pipe connects what is outside the Kli to what is inside the Kli;
åðâò èåîàä áæä ùáëìé ùàéðå ðåâò áîéí åðèîà çáéøå îùåí öéøåó ëìé îäå ùéèîà àú æä ùáçåõ áçéáåø îéí
2. Tum'ah touched [the half] in the Kli that does not touch the water, it the other [half in the Kli] became Tamei due to Tziruf Kli. Is it Metamei what is outside the Kli due to connection of water?
åãáø úéîä äåà ìåîø ùîù÷éï îçáøéï àåëìéï ì÷áì èåîàä åìèîà àçøéí
(b) Question #1: This is astounding to say that liquids join food to receive Tum'ah and be Metamei others!
åòåã ùôéøù ùîúçáøéï ò''é ðöå÷ åäìà àôé' ìîéí òöîï ÷ééîà ìï áîëùéøéï (ô''ä î''è) ãàéï ðöå÷ çéáåø ìèåîàä
(c) Question #2: He explained that they are connected through Nitzuk. Even water itself, we hold (Machshirin 5:9) that Nitzuk is not a connection for Tum'ah!
åëòéï ôé' ä÷åðèøñ éù îùðä àçú áîñëú èäøåú ôø÷ ùîéðé (î''ç) òøéáä ùäéä ÷èôøñ (åðöå÷) [ö"ì åäáö÷] îìîòìï åîù÷ä èåôç îìîèï (åâ') [ö"ì â' - âîøà òåæ åäãø] çúéëåú ëáéöä àéðï îöèøôåú åùúéí îöèøôåú
(d) Support (for Rashi): There is a Mishnah similar to Rashi in Taharos (8:8). If [the bottom of] a trough is inclined, and [a Tamei] dough is above, and a liquid Tofe'ach (enough to wet what touches it) under them, three pieces that are [in all] the size of an egg do not join [to be Metamei the liquid, that the liquid will be Metamei the Kli]. Two join;
åø' éåñé àåîø àôé' ùúéí àéðí îöèøôåú àà''ë äéå øåööåú îù÷ä åàí äéä îù÷ä òåîã àôé' ëòéï äçøãì îöèøó
1. R. Yosi says, even two do not join unless they [are very close together and] compress the liquid [between them, so it is not considered Nitzuk]. If the liquid was stationary, even [pieces] the size of mustard [seeds] join;
ø' ãåñà àåîø äàåëì ôøåø àéðå îöèøó
2. R. Dosa says, a crumbed food does not join.
åáúåñôúà úðéà àúøåâ ùðôøõ åúçáå áëåù àå á÷éñí äøé æä àéï çéáåø ùàéï çéáåøé àãí çéáåø
(e) Citation (Tosefta Uktzin 1:4): An Esrog that was cut and connected through a spindle or chip, it is not considered connected, for connection through man is not connection;
òéñä ùìùä áîé ôéøåú èäåøä ùàéï ìê ãáø ùîçáø àú äàåëìéï àìà ùáòä îù÷éï
1. A dough kneaded with fruit juice is Tahor, for nothing joins foods except for the seven liquids [that are Machshir].
åãáø úéîä äåà àí ìéùú îé ôéøåú àéðä îåòìú ìçáø àú ä÷îç
(f) Question: This is astounding, if kneading with fruit juice does not help to connect the dough!
åùîà ìùä ìàå ãå÷à àìà àåøçà ãîéìúà ð÷è (ãáø ùàãí) [ö"ì ãëùàãí - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ìù áîé ôéøåú ôòîéí ùîé ôéøåú îçáøéï á' çöàé æéúéí òéñä áîù÷éï äáàéï îæä ìæä:
(g) Answer: Perhaps "kneaded" is not precise. (If a whole k'Zayis was kneaded together, it is connected.) Rather, it discusses a common case, for when a person kneads with fruit juice, sometimes the fruit juice connects two half-k'Zeisim of dough in liquid that comes from one to the other.
24b----------------------------------------24b
5) TOSFOS DH v'Asa'o Vilon Tahor Min ha'Midras
úåñôåú ã"ä åòùàå åéìåï èäåø îï äîãøñ
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that Taharah is only through Shinuy Ma'aseh.)
åëâåï ãòáã áéä ùéðåé îòùä ëãàîø áôø÷ áîä àùä (ùáú ã' ðç:) ãàéï òåìéï îèåîàúï àìà áùéðåé îòùä
(a) Explanation: The case is, he changed it through an action, like it says in Shabbos (58b) that [Kelim] leave their [ability to receive] Tum'ah only through Shinuy Ma'aseh;
åáîñëú ëìéí áôø÷ äëøéí (î''å) t rîôøù àéæå äéà ùéðåé îòùä ãúðï ñãéï ùäåà èîà îãøñ òùàä åéìåï èäåø îï äîãøñ àáì èîàä èîà îú
1. In Kelim (20:6) it explains what is considered Shinuy Ma'aseh. The Mishnah says that if a sheet was Tamei Midras, and he made it a curtain, it is Tahor from Midras, but [can become] Tamei Mes;
îàéîúé èäøúä á''ù àåîøéí îùéúôø åá''ä àåîøéí îùé÷ùø ø''ò àåîø îùé÷áò
2. From when is it Tahor? Beis Shamai say, from when he sews. Beis Hillel say, from when he ties. R. Akiva says, from when he fixes it [in place].
6) TOSFOS DH v'Chi b'Eizeh Midras Naga Zeh
úåñôåú ã"ä åëé áàéæä îãøñ ðâò æä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how Abaye must establish the Mishnah.)
ìôé îä ùäåà ø''ì ãìà àîøéðï ùáò ìéä èåîàä ö''ì ãàééøé ááâã ùìà ð÷ôì îùãøñ òìéå äæá
(a) Observation: According to [Abaye's] Havah Amina that we do not say Sava Lah Tum'ah, we must say that we discuss a garment that was not folded from when the Zav stepped on it. (If it was folded, it receives Maga Midras due to touching itself!)
åòåã ö''ì ãìà îééøé áùãøñ òìéå áøâìå òøåí àå ðòåì àå áãáø ùîèîà îãøñ (ãà''ë) [ö"ì ãàí ìà ëï] àúéà ìéä îãøñ åîâò ááú àçú åááú àçú ìà àîøéðï ùáò ìéä èåîàä ëãîñ÷é'
1. Also, he must say that we do not discuss when he stepped on it with his bare foot, and not while wearing a shoe or something that can became Tamei Midras, for if not, [the sheet] received [Tum'as] Midras and Maga b'Bas Achas (at once), and b'Bas Achas we do not say Sava Lah Tum'ah, like we conclude;
àìà ëâåï ùéù ôùåèé ëìé òõ îôñé÷éï àå ãáøéí ùàéï îèîàéï îãøñ
i. Rather, the case is, a Pashut Kli Etz (it has no interior, so it is not Mekabel Tum'ah) interrupted, or [other] matters that do not receive Tum'as Midras.
7) TOSFOS DH Ki Naga Bo ha'Zav Miha Tamei v'Afilu liv'Sof v'Chulei
úåñôåú ã"ä ëé ðâò áå äæá îéäà èîà åàôéìå ìáñåó ëå'
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses receiving Tum'ah from the source from which it separated.)
ìôé îä ãñ''ì ìàáéé ùàéï çéìå÷ áéï áú àçú ìæä àçø æä ëãîåëç áñîåê ëùáà ìã÷ã÷ îñéôà éù ìúîåä ãîúðà ÷îà äéä ìå ìã÷ã÷ ãìà àîøéðï ùáò ìéä èåîàä
(a) Question: According to Abaye's opinion that there is no difference between Bas Achas and one after the other, like is proven below, when he comes to infer from the Seifa, this is astounding. He should infer from the first Tana that we do not say Sava Lah Tum'ah!
ã÷àîø àáì èîà îâò îãøñ åôéøåùå ááú àçú áàúä ìå èåîàú îãøñ åèåîàú îâò ìôé ùðåâò áòöîå
1. [The first Tana] said "but it is Tamei Maga Midras", and its explanation is that Tum'as Midras and Tum'as Maga came b'Bas Achas, because it touches itself.
ãú''÷ ãøáé éåñé äåà ø''î ã÷ñáø èåîàú áéú äñúøéí îèîà ëãàùëçï áô' áäîä äî÷ùä (çåìéï ãó òá:) ãôìéâé ëé äàé âååðà áùìùä òì ùìùä ùðçì÷
2. Source: The first Tana of (i.e. who argues with) R. Yosi is R. Meir, who holds that Tum'ah Beis ha'Setarim is Metamei, like we find in Chulin (72b) that they argue in such a case about [a garment] three by three [Tefachim] that was split.
åé''ì ãìëê ãéé÷ îø' éåñé ùìà úàîø äà ãôìéâ òìéä ø' éåñé å÷àîø áàéæä îãøñ ðâò æä äééðå îùåí ãñ''ì ãàîøéðï ùáò ìéä èåîàä
(b) Answer: [Abaye] infers from R. Yosi, lest you say that R. Yosi argues with him and says "which Midras did this touch?!", i.e. because he holds that we say Sava Lah Tum'ah.
åà''ú áñ''ô äòåø åäøåèá (ùí ãó ÷ëç:) âáé (çúéëú ëæéú àáø) [ö"ì äçåúê ëæéú áùø îàáø] îï äçé ãàîø çéùá òìéå åàç''ë çúëå èîà ìôé ùéøã òìéå úåøú èåîàú àåëìéï ëùçéùá òìéå
(c) Question: In Chulin (128b) regarding one who cuts a k'Zayis of flesh from Ever Min ha'Chai, it says that if he intended [to eat it] and afterwards cut, it is Tamei, because it received the law of Tum'as Ochlim when he intended for it;
åàîàé ðéîà ùáò ìéä èåîàä ùäåà èîà èåîàú àáø îï äçé äçîåøä
1. What is the reason? We should say Sava Lah Tum'ah, for it has Tum'as Ever Min ha'Chai, which is more stringent!
åé''ì ãàéëà ðîé çåîøà áèåîàú àåëìéï ùîåòéì ìèîà èåîàä áôçåú îëáéöä àåëìéï åæä îùìéîå ìëáéöä
(d) Answer: There is also a stringency of Tum'as Ochlim, that it helps to be Metamei less than k'Beitzah of food, and this [meat from Ever Min ha'Chai] completes it to k'Beitzah (the Shi'ur for Tum'as Ochlim).
åàéï ìúøõ ãäàé ãçéùá òìéå åàç''ë çúëå èîà îùåí (ãèåîàú áéú äñúøéí ìà îèîéà ãäúí àîøé' ãîèîéà) [ö"ì ãî÷áì èåîàä áùòú ôøéùúå îàáéå- ç÷ ðúï]
(e) Implied suggestion: We could answer that when he intended and afterwards cut, it is Tamei, because it receives Tum'ah at the time it separates from its source!
[ö"ì ãäà èîà îùåí ãèåîàú áééú äñúøéí îèîéà - ç÷ ðúï] ãîå÷é ìä ëø''î
(f) Rejection: It is Tamei because Tum'ah of Beis ha'Setarim is Metamei, for we establish it like R. Meir [who says so].
åîéäå äéà âåôà úéîä åàîàé ìà àúéà ëøáé éåñé åðéîà ãèîà îùåí ãî÷áì èåîàä îùòú ôøéùúå ëãàîøéðï áôø÷ áäîä äî÷ùä (ùí ãó òá:) áùìù òì ùìù (äáâã) äáàåú îáâã âãåì ãáùòú ôøéùúï îàáéäï î÷áìåú èåîàä îàáéäï
(g) Question: This itself is difficult! Why is it not [also] like R. Yosi, and say that it is Tamei, because it receives Tum'ah at the time it separates, like we say in Chulin (72b) about three by three [fingers] that come from a large garment? At the time they separate from their source, they receive Tum'ah from their source!
åé''ì ãáäòåø åäøåèá (ùí ãó ÷ëç:) îééøé àôéìå àéï ðùàø áàáø ëãé ìäòìåú àøåëä ëùçåúëå ãìà îèîéà
(h) Answer: In Chulin (128b) it discusses even if there does not remain in the Ever [Min ha'Chai] enough to heal when one cuts off flesh. [The Ever] is not Metamei.
åîéäå ÷ùä áñåó ëéöã öåìéï (ôñçéí ãó ôä:) âáé éåöà âæøå áéä èåîàä àå ìà âæøå ã÷àîø ú''ù àáø ùéöà î÷öúå çåúê ëå'
(i) Question: In Pesachim (85b) regarding did they decree Tum'ah on Yotzei or not, the Gemara wants to bring a proof from a limb that left partially. One cuts [off the part that left];
åàé àîøú âæøå áéä øáðï èåîàä ëé çúéê ìéä îàé äåé äà ÷à îèîà ìéä åîùðé èåîàú áéú äñúøéí äéà åìà îèîà
1. If you will say that they decreed Tum'ah, how does cutting help? [What left] is Metamei [what it still inside]! It answers that it is Tum'as Beis ha'Setarim, and it is not Metamei.
åàëúé äà ÷à îèîà áùòú ôøéùúå
2. Summation of question: Still, it is Metamei at the time it separates!
åàéï ìåîø ãìéëà ëùéòåø áîä ùáçåõ
3. Suggestion: There is not a Shi'ur in what is outside [to be Metamei what is inside].
ãà''ë ìà äåä öøéê ìèòîà áéú äñúøéí åàìéáà ãøáéðà äåà ãîùðé äëé àçø ëê
4. Rejection: If so, there was no need for the reason of Beis ha'Setarim, and according to Ravina (Pesachim 85a) it answers so afterwards! (This shows that the first answer, because Beis ha'Setarim is not Metamei, is even when there is a Shi'ur outside.)
åéù ìåîø ãîééøé áôñçéí (ãó ôä.) åáäòåø åäøåèá (çåìéï ãó ÷ëç:) áðéúæéí (áòì ëøçå) [ö"ì áëì ëåçå - äá"ç]
(j) Answer #1: We discuss in Pesachim (85a) and in Chulin (128b) when they are cut off with all his strength;
ãäà áëøéúåú áôø÷ àîøå ìå (ãó èå:) îåëç ãìà î÷áì èåîàä áùòú ôøéùúå âáé àáø äîãåìãì áàãí
1. Source: In Kerisus (15b) it is proven that [in such a case] it is not Mekabel Tum'ah at the time it separates, regarding a dangling limb in a person.
åîéäå ìà îñúáøà ãîéúå÷í ääéà ãôñçéí áðéúæéï áòì ëøçå ãäà ÷úðé çåúê òã ùîâéò ìòöí å÷åìó òã ùîâéò ìôø÷ åçåúê
(k) Objection: This is unreasonable to establish the case in Pesachim when it is cut off with all his strength, for it says "he cuts until he reaches the bone and peels off, until he reaches a joint, and cuts [at the joint between bones]!
åùîà ëùçåúê áñëéï ìà î÷áì èåîàä áùòú ôøéùúå ìôé ùäñëéï îôøéù áéï æä ìæä
(l) Answer #2: Perhaps when he cuts with a knife, it is not Mekabel Tum'ah at the time it separates, because the knife separates between [the parts cut off from each other].
à''ð îçúê áñëéï îòè åîùìéê åçåæø åîçúê îòè [åîùìéê] òã ùîçúê àú ëåìå ùàéðå ðåâò òëùéå ááú àçú
(m) Answer #3: He cuts a little with a knife and casts off [what he cut], and returns to cut a little and casts off, until he cuts everything. Now it does not touch b'Bas Achas.
åëï îôøù áäãéà áéøåùìîé áîçúê ëì ùäåà åîùìéê
(n) Support: The Yerushalmi explicitly explains like this. He cuts Mashehu and casts off.
åàí úàîø àîàé àéöèøéê ìùðåéé áäòåø åäøåèá (ùí ãó ÷ëè.) ãàúéà ëø''î ìéîà ãçéáåøé àåëìéï ëîàï ãîéôøúé ãîå ëã÷àîø øáéðà áôø÷ áäîä äî÷ùä (çåìéï ãó òá:) åáôø÷ ëéöã öåìéï (ôñçéí ãó ôä.)
(o) Question: Why did [R. Aba bar Mamal] need to answer in Chulin (129a) that it is like R. Meir (who says that Tum'as Beis ha'Setarim is Metamei)? He should say that connected foods are as if they were separated, like Ravina said in Chulin (72b) and in Pesachim (85a)!
åéù ìåîø ãääéà ñåâéà ãìà ëøáéðà
(p) Answer #1: The Sugya [in Chulin 129a] is unlike Ravina.
à''ð ìà àîøéðï çéáåøé àåëìéï ëîàï ãîéôøúé ãîå àìà áãáø äòåîã ìéçúê ëé ääéà (ãáùø ùéöà) [ö"ì ãàáø ùéöà î÷öúå - äá"ç] åäåöéà òåáø àú éãå åãåîéà ãéãåú äëìéí ùòúéã ì÷ööï
(q) Answer #2: We say that connected foods are as if they were separated only regarding something destined to be cut, like the case of meat that left, and a fetus that stuck out its foreleg, similar to the case of handles of Kelim that [are too long, and] are destined to be cut.
åàí úàîø áôø÷ åàìå ÷ùøéí (ùáú ãó ÷éá:) åáôø÷ á' ãòéøåáéï (ãó ëã.) ãàîøéðï ñðãì ùðôñ÷ä àçú îàæðéå åúé÷ðä èîà îãøñ ðôñ÷ä ùðéä åúé÷ðä èäåø îï äîãøñ àáì èîà îâò îãøñ
(r) Question: In Shabbos (112b) and in Eruvin (24a) we say that if one flap of a sandal snapped, and he fixed it, it is Tamei Midras. If the other [flap] snapped, and he fixed it, it is Tahor from Midras, but Tamei Maga Midras;
åôøéê îàé ùðà øàùåðä ãäà (îëàï îãó äáà) ÷ééîà ùðéä ùðéä ðîé äà îéú÷ðà øàùåðä åîùðé ôðéí çãùåú áàå
1. [The Gemara] asks what is the difference when the first [snapped, that the sandal is still Tamei Midras] because the second is intact? Also the second [when it snapped, the sandal should still be Tamei Midras] because the first was fixed! [Chizkiyah] answered that Panim Chadashos came.