1) TOSFOS DH Aval Yeseiros Leis Lan Bah
úåñôåú ã"ä àáì éúéøåú ìéú ìï áä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos rejects those who learn from here that extra letters do not disqualify.)
éù èåòéí ëùîñåô÷éï áúéáä àí îìéàä àí çñéøä ùòåùéï àåúä îìéàä îùåí ãéúéøåú ìéú ìï áä
(a) Remark: Some err that when they are unsure whether a word is full or Chaser, they make it full, because what is extra, it is as if it is not.
åìàå îéìúà äéà ãäëà îééøé áéúéøåú ùâøøï ãìà àîøéðï ãîéçæé ëîðåîø. î''ø
(b) Rejection: This is wrong. Here we discuss extra [letters] that were erased. We do not say that it looks like it is spotted. This is from my Rebbi.
2) TOSFOS DH Shemoneh Pesukim sheb'Torah Yachid Korei Osan
úåñôåú ã"ä ùîðä ôñå÷éí ùáúåøä éçéã ÷åøà àåúï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes that one Oleh reads all of them.)
ä''ø îùåìí äéä îôøù ìîòåèé ùìà é÷øà ù''ö òîå
(a) Explanation #1: R. Meshulam used to explain that this excludes that the Shali'ach Tzibur does not read with [the Oleh l'Torah].
å÷ùä ìø''ú ãáéîé äçëîéí ìà äéä øâéìåú ùéñééò ùìéç öéáåø ì÷åøà áúåøä ëãîåëç áô' ùðé ãîâéìä (ãó ëà: åùí)
(b) Question (R. Tam): In the days of Chachamim, it was not normal for the Shali'ach Tzibur to help the one reading in the Torah, like is proven in Megilah (21b);
ãàîøéðï ÷øàåä ùðéí éöàå îùà''ë áúåøä
1. We say that if two read [the Megilah] they were Yotzei, unlike Torah!
àìà ëï òé÷ø ëîå ùôéøù á÷åðèøñ ìàôå÷é ùìà é÷øàå æä àçø æä àåúí ç' ôñå÷éï ëâåï æä ã' åæä ã' àå æä ä' åæä â'
(c) Explanation #2: The primary explanation is like Rashi explained. It excludes that those eight verse,s one may not read after the other, e.g. this one will read four and this four, or this one five and this three.
åîä ùðåäâéï òëùéå ùîñééò ù''ö ì÷åøà áúåøä ëã ùìà ìáééù àú îé ùàéðå éåãò ì÷øåú
(d) Remark: The custom nowadays is that the Shali'ach Tzibur helps the one reading in the Torah, in order not to embarrass one who does not know how to read.
ëòðéï ùîöéðå áîñ' áéëåøéí (ô''â î''æ) ùäú÷éðå ùî÷øéï àú äëì
1. This is like we find in Bikurim (3:7) that they enacted that they are Makreh (recite Viduy Bikurim, and the one bringing them repeats it) for everyone.
åëé ääéà ãáô' áúøà ãðãä (ãó òà.) ùäú÷éðå ùîèáéìéï ëìéí òì âáé ëì äðùéí. î''ø
2. And it is like what it says in Nidah (71a) that they enacted to immerse Kelim (touched shortly before death) of all woman (lest Nidos feel shamed that they are different even in death). This is from my Rebbi.
3) TOSFOS DH mi'Kan v'Eilach Kasav Yehoshua
úåñôåú ã"ä îëàï åàéìê ëúá éäåùò
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses whether or not Moshe died on Shabbos.)
îä ùðåäâéï ìåîø öéãå÷ äãéï áùáú áîðçä ôéøù øá ùø ùìåí âàåï òì ùðôèø îùä øáéðå áàåúä ùòä
(a) Explanation: The custom is to say Tziduk ha'Din on Shabbos at Minchah. Rav Sar Shalom Gaon says that it is because Moshe died on Shabbos at that time.
ìôéëê ðîðòå îìòñå÷ áúåøä îùåí ãàîøé' çëí ùîú ëì áúé îãøùåú ùáòéø áèéìéï
1. Therefore, people refrained from engaging in Torah [at that time], because we say that when a Chacham died, all Batei Midrash in the city are idle. (It seems that this was the custom in the days of Tosfos. The Rema (OC 292:2) brings that we do not fix a Drashah at this time.)
å÷ùä ãäà ëúéá áï îàä åòùøéí ùðä àðëé äéåí åãøùéðï äéåí îìàå éîé åùðåúé åàí áùáú îú à''ë ëúá äéåí îòøá ùáú åéù ìúîåä ãëúá òì äòúéã
(b) Question: It is written "I am 120 years old today", and we expound "today my days and years and were finished." If he died on Shabbos, he wrote "today" on Erev Shabbos (he could not write on Shabbos). This is astounding that he wrote for the future!
åìø''ù ìà áòé ìîéîø ãäôñå÷ ðàîø òì äòúéã îã÷ùéà ìéä îäà ãëúéá ì÷åç àú ñôø äúåøä äæä ùîà òì ùí ùòúéã éäåùò ìäùìéîå
1. According to R. Shimon, he does not want to say that the verse was said for the future, for he considered it difficult what is written "take this Sefer Torah." [If verses can be written for the future,] perhaps it is because in the future Yehoshua will complete it!
[ö"ì àáì ìøáé éäåãä ðàîø äôñå÷ òì ùòúéã - ùéèä î÷åáöú]
(c) Observation: However, according to R. Yehudah, the verse was said for the future.
(åòåã) [ö"ì åîéäå - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ÷ùä ãáñãø òåìí îùîò ãáùáòä áàãø ùîú îùä áå òøá ùáú äéä
(d) Question: In Seder Olam it connotes that Adar 7, on which Moshe died, was Erev Shabbos!
ã÷úðé åàçø äôñç áòùøéí åùðéí [ö"ì áðéñï] ñááå àú äòéø ëì àðùé äîìçîä ä÷ó ôòí àçú åéäé áéåí äùáéòé åéùëéîå ááå÷ø åâå' øáé éåñé àåîø éåí ùáú äéä
1. It teaches "after Pesach, on the 22nd of Nisan, all the men of war surrounded the city (Yericho) and circled it once. On the seventh day, they rose early in the morning... R. Yosi says, [the seventh day] was Shabbos."
åäùúà îùäúçéìå ìñáá ìå áë''á áðéñï à''ë éåí ùáéòé ùäéä ùáú ë''ç áðéñï äéä åîãë''ç áðéñï ùáú ùáòä áàãø òøá ùáú. î''ø
2. Consequence: Now, since they started to circle it on Nisan 22, if so the seventh day, which was Shabbos, was Nisan 28. Since Nisan 28 was Shabbos, Adar 7 was Erev Shabbos! (This is like Targum Yonason on Devarim 34:8, that Moshe did not die in Adar Rishon (e.g. the year was not Me'uberes), and Adar had 29 days. If we would say that Adar had 30 days, Moshe died on Thursday. If we would say that he died in Adar Rishon, like Midrash Sechel Tov Beshalach 16:35, Moshe died on Wednesday.)
4) TOSFOS DH u'Moshe Kosev
úåñôåú ã"ä åîùä ëåúá
(SUMMARY: Tosfos brings a text that says that Moshe said each word before writing it.)
éù ñôøéí ãâøñé åîùä àåîø åëåúá åçåîøà äéà ìëåúáé ñ''ú åîæåæä åúôéìéï
(a) Alternative text: Some texts say 'and Moshe says and writes.' This is a stringency for people who write a Sefer Torah, Tefilin or Mezuzah (they must say each word before writing it).
àò''â ãîééúé øàéä îáøåê
1. Implied question: [R. Shimon] brought a proof from Baruch (it connotes that only Yirmeyahu said the verses, and Baruch wrote them)!
ùîà âí äåà äéä òåùä ëï î''ø
2. Answer: Perhaps also Baruch did so (repeated each verse before writing it). This is from my Rebbi.
åá÷åðèøñ ðîé âøéñ àåîø åëåúá åôéøù èòí (ááøåê) åæä ìùåðå ä÷á''ä äéä àåîø åîùä àåîø (åëåúá) àçøéå ëãé ùìà éèòä áëúá åëåúá
(b) Support: Also Rashi's text says '[Moshe] says and writes', and he explains the reason. His words are "Hash-m says and Moshe says after Him, lest he err about what must be written, and writes";
îëàï åàéìê îùä ëåúá áãîò åìà äéä àåîø àçøéå îøåá öòøå ëîä ùðàîø ìäìï îôéå é÷øà åâå' ùìà äéä àåîø àçøéå îùåí ã÷éðåú äåå. î''ø
1. From here and onwards (for the last eight verses), Moshe writes b'Dema, and he did not say [the words after Hash-m] due to his great pain, like it says below "mi'Piv Yikra..." - [Baruch] did not say the verses [after Yirmeyah], for they were Kinos (lamentations). This is from my Rebbi.
5) TOSFOS DH Im Higi'ah Bo Afilu Os Achas
úåñôåú ã"ä àí äâéä áå àôé' àåú àçú
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that then, he properly did the Mitzvah.)
ôéøåù áñ''ú ùì÷ç îï äùå÷ ìà ðçùá òåã ëçåèó îöåä ùäéä àöì çáéøå áòáéøä ùäéä îùää ñôø ùàéðå îåâä åîòìéï òì æä ëàéìå ëúáå. î''ø
(a) Explanation: [If he corrected even one letter] in the Sefer Torah that he bought in the market, it is not considered like seizing a Mitzvah, for it was forbidden for the other (the seller) to have a Sefer that is not corrected, and the verse attributes to [the buyer] as if he wrote it. This is from my Rebbi.
6) TOSFOS DH Kegon l'Mishpechoseichem Gimel Pa'amim
úåñôåú ã"ä ëâåï ìîùôçåúéëí â''ô
(SUMMARY: Tosfos limits when this applies.)
ø''ú ôé' áúé÷åï ñ''ú ùìå áùí øáéðå çððàì ùàîø áùí äâàåï ãäééðå ëùäëúéáä ã÷ä àáì ëùäëúéáä âñä äëì ìôé äðåé
(a) Explanation (R. Tam, in his Hilchos Sefer Torah, citing R. Chananel, citing a Gaon): This (30 letters in a line) is when the writing is fine, but when the writing is big, everything is according to the beauty;
åéëåì ìòùåú ãôéï áùéèéï àøåëéï ãàéï òéðéå îùåèèåú ëéåï ùäëúéáä âñä. î''ø
1. He can make columns with long lines, for the eyes do not stray [to the wrong line], since the writing is big. This is from my Rebbi.
7) TOSFOS DH Pasuk Echad b'Daf Echad
úåñôåú ã"ä ôñå÷ àçã áãó àçã
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that the last Daf does not require 60 lines.)
åàó òì âá ãìéëà ñ' ùéèéï àå ùéòåøéï àçøéðé ãîñëú ñåôøéí ìéëà ìîéçù áãó àçøåï
(a) Explanation: Even though there are not 60 lines or other Shi'urim of Maseches Sofrim (2:6), there is no concern on the last Daf.
(àó òì ôé ùàé àôùø ìå ìñééí äãó áôñå÷ àçã ëéåï ùéù áãôéï àçøéí ñ' ùéèéï àìà àí ëï éòùä áãó àçøåï ùéèéï) [ö"ì ëéåï ùéù áãôéï àçøéí ñ' ùéèéï àó òì ôé ùàé àôùø ìå ìñééí äãó áôñå÷ àçã éòùä áãó àçøåï àåúéåú - öàï ÷ãùéí] àøåëåú. î''ø:
1. Since there are 60 lines in other Dapim, even though it is impossible to finish the last Daf with one verse (he cannot make 60 lines from the 12 words), he makes in the last Daf long letters (the height of each word can span as much as a few lines of other Dapim, so the verse will span the entire height of the Daf). This is from my Rebbi.
30b----------------------------------------30b
8) TOSFOS DH Sheloshah b'Soch ha'Daf u'Veis Chutz la'Daf
úåñôåú ã"ä ùìùä áúåê äãó åá' çåõ ìãó
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that Hash-m's name is different.)
àåîø ø''ú ãùí öøéê ùéäà ëåìå áúåê äãó. î''ø
(a) Pesak (R. Tam): A Shem must be totally inside the Daf. This is from my Rebbi.
9) TOSFOS DH R. Yosi Omer Af Tolin Es ha'Shem R. Yitzchak Omer...
úåñôåú ã"ä øáé éåñé àåîø àó úåìéï àú äùí ø' éöç÷ àåîø àó îåç÷ åëåúá
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses which ways of fixing mistake are better.)
âåøø äééðå ìàçø ùðúééáùä äëúéáä åîåç÷ äééðå áòåã ìçä åàéðå äãåø ëì ëê
(a) Explanation #1: Gorer (scratching off the letters) is erases after the writing dried. Mochek (erasing) is when [the writing] is still wet, and it is not so beautiful;
åîã÷úðé ø' éåñé àåîø àó úåìéï ø' éöç÷ àåîø àó îåç÷ îùîò ìëàåøä ãâåøø òãéó îëåìäå åúåìä âøò îéðéä åîåç÷ âøò îúåìä
(b) Inference: Since it taught 'R. Yosi says "we even suspend." R. Yitzchak says, he may even be Mochek', this implies that Gorer is better than all of them, and suspending is worse than it, and Mochek is worse than suspending.
àáì à''à ìåîø ëï àìà ø' éöç÷ àãø' éäåãä ÷àé åìà àãø' éåñé ãúåìä âøò îîåç÷ ëãàîøéðï áéøåùìîé ô''÷ ãîâéìä
(c) Rejection: One cannot say so. Rather, R. Yitzchak refers to R. Yehudah, and not to R. Yehudah, for suspending is worse than Mochek, like we say in the Yerushalmi in Megilah;
ãà''ø æòéøà áø' çððàì áùí øá äìëä ëîå ùäåà àåîø îåç÷ àú äçåì åëåúá àú äùí åúåìä àú äçåì
1. Citation (Yerushalmi): Ze'ira b'Ribi Chananel said in the name of Rav that the Halachah is like he says. He is Mochek the Chol and writes the Shem and suspends the Chol;
)åîéáòéà ìéä äúí áâ' úéáåú ùéù áäí ùí àé ùøé ìúìåú ããìîà ãå÷à ëùéù áäï úéáåú ùì çåì ìà îéçæé ëé èôì ìîä ùáôðéí) [ö"ì åàðé àì÷éëí àîú îåúø ìúìåú åîéáòéà ìéä îàéæä èòí îåúø àé îùåí ùäí â' úéáåú àéï âðàé ëì ëê ìúìåú äùí àé îùåí ãàéëà úéáåú çåì áäãééäå]
2. It is permitted to suspend va'Ani Elokeichem Emes, and it asks why this is permitted, if it is because there are three words, it is not so disgraceful so suspend Hash-m's name, or because there are Chulin words with it;
(åàéáòéà ìéä àôé' áâ' úéáåú ùëåìí ùí ëâåï ([ö"ì îàé ð"î ìúìåú â' ùîåú] àì àì÷éí éé' ãëúéá áñôø úäìéí àé ùøé ìúìåú àå ìà
3. What difference does this make? It affects three Shemos, e.g. Kel Elokim Hash-m, written in Sefer Tehilim (50:1), whether or not it one may suspend [them].
åø''ú ôé' ãúåìéï òãéó îëåìäå ìø' éåñé åìà âøéñ àó úåìéï
(d) Explanation #2 (R. Tam): Suspending is better than all of them according to R. Yosi. The text does not say "we even suspend";
åîàï ãôñé÷ äìëä úåìéï ÷ñáø ãå÷à úåìéï åìà îåç÷ åëåúá åëï ôåñ÷ ø''ú
1. The one who rules that we suspend holds that specifically we suspend, and one may not be Mochek and write. R. Tam rules like this.
àáì à''à ìåîø ëï ëãîåëç áéøåùìîé ãúåìéï âøò
(e) Rebuttal: One cannot say so, like is proven in the Yerushalmi, that suspending is worse.
åîéäå ÷ùä àé âøñé' áîéìúéä ãø' éåñé àó úåìéï ãäà ø''é ðîé îåãä ãúåìéï ëãàé' áîñ' ñåôøéí )ô''á) [ö"ì äæ:ã] ã÷úðé èòä àú ëì äùí éúìðå áéï äùéèéï ãáøé ø''é
(f) Question: If the text in R. Yosi's words says "we even suspend", for also R. Yehudah agrees, like it says in Maseches Sofrim (5:4). It teaches that if he erred about the entire Shem, he suspends it between the lines. R. Yehudah says so;
ø''î àåîø îåç÷ îùìôðéå åëåúá àú äùí òì îä ùîç÷
1. R. Meir says, he is Mochek what is in front, and writes the name on what he erased.
åäéä ðøàä ìåîø ãáäà ôìéâé ãîø ñáø úåìéï òãéó åîø ñáø îåç÷ òãéó
2. It seems that they argue about the following. [R. Yehudah] holds that suspending is better, and R. Meir holds that Mochek is better.
åîéäå àéï ìçåù àé ôìéâà áøééúà ãîñëú ñåôøéí àäà ãùîòúéï ãòì ëøçéï àìéáà ãø''î ôìéâé
(g) Answer: We need not be concerned if a Beraisa in Maseches Sofrim argues with our Sugya, for you are forced to say that according to R. Meir they argue;
ã÷úðé äëà ø''ù áï àìòæø àåîø îùåí ø''î àéï ëåúáéï àú äùí ìà òì î÷åí äâøø åìà òì î÷åí äîç÷ åàéï úåìéï àú äùí ëéöã òåùä îñì÷ àú äéøéòä ëåìä åâåðæä. î''ø
1. It taught here "R. Shimon ben Elazar says in the name of R. Meir, we do not write ha'Shem on a place that was Nigrar or Nimchak, and we do not suspend ha'Shem. What does he do? He removes the entire parchment and buries it." This is from my Rebbi.
10) TOSFOS DH v'Leima Mar Halachah k'Mar
úåñôåú ã"ä åìéîà îø äìëä ëîø
(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks why we ask like this only in some places.)
áôø÷ ëì äâè (âéèéï ãó ëç.) åáñåó îâéìä (ãó ìà:) áúøé ãåëúé åá÷éãåùéï ô' äàåîø (ãó ðè:) ôøéê ëé äàé âååðà åöøéê ìéúï èòí áùàø ãåëúé ãìà ôøéê. î''ø
(a) Question: In Gitin (28a) and in Megilah (31b) in two places, and in Kidushin (59b) it asks like this. We must give a reason why in other places it does not ask. This is from my Rebbi.
11) TOSFOS DH Terumas Ma'aser Shel Demai she'Chazrah li'Mkomah
úåñôåú ã"ä úøåîú îòùø ùì ãîàé ùçæøä ìî÷åîä ëå'
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the reasons to believe an Am ha'Aretz.)
îùðä äéà áîñ' ãîàé (ô''ã î''à) å÷úðé øéùà äìå÷ç ôéøåú îîé ùàéðå ðàîï òì äîòùøåú åùëç åìà òéùøï (ãîàé) ùåàìå áùáú åàåëìï òì ôéå åìîåöàé ùáú ìà éàëì òã ùéòùø
(a) Explanation: This is a Mishnah in Demai (4:1). The Reisha taught "one who buys Peros from one who is not trustworthy about Ma'aseros, and [the buyer] forgot and did not tithe them, he asks [the seller] on Shabbos and eats according to his word (if he says that he tithed them), and on Motza'ei Shabbos he may not eat until he tithes.
úøåîú îòùø ùì ãîàé ùçæøä ìî÷åîä ëå'
1. If Terumas Ma'aser of Demai returned to its place (became mixed with the Peros from which it was separated)...
åôé' á÷åðèøñ áùáú ä÷éìå îùåí ëáåã ùáú äåàéì åãîàé ãøáðï äåà ãøåá ò''ä îòùøéï äï åèòí æä äåà áéøåùìîé áîñ' ãîàé
2. Explanation #1 (Rashi): On Shabbos [Chachamim] we are lenient due to Kevod Shabbos, since Demai is mid'Rabanan, since most Amei ha'Aretz tithe. This reason is in the Yerushalmi in Maseches Demai.
åòåã îôøù ùí èòí àçø àéîú ùáú òì òí äàøõ
3. Explanation #2: The Yerushalmi there explains another reason. Fear of Shabbos is on an Am ha'Aretz.
åæä ìùåï äéøåùìîé çáøééà îùîéä ãø' çðéðà îôðé ëáåã äùáú äúéøå åàí îôðé ëáåã äùáú ìîä ìé ùåàìå ò''é òéìä
4. Citation (Yerushalmi): Bnei Yeshivah in the name of R. Chanina say, they permitted due to Kevod Shabbos. If it is due to Kevod Shabbos, why does he ask him? [They permitted] through a pretext.
øá áéáé áùí ø' çðéðà àéîú ùáú òì ò''ä åäåà àåîø àîú ôé' îùåí ãùáú ÷åáòú ìîòùø
5. Citation (cont.): Rav Bivi in the name of R. Chanina says, fear of Shabbos is on an Am ha'Aretz, and he says the truth. I.e. it is because Shabbos is Kove'a for Ma'aser (once Shabbos comes, one may not eat Arai without tithing).
(àéîú ùáú òìéå åôøéê) [ö"ì åàí àéîú ùáú òìéå - ùéèä î÷åáöú] áãà úðéðï çùëä îåö''ù ìà éàëì òã ùéòùø îôðé àçø ùàéï ùáú òìéå áàéîä
6. Citation - Question: If the fear of Shabbos is on him, why was it taught "when it gets dark on Motza'ei Shabbos, he may not eat until he tithes"? It is due to another, who does not have fear of Shabbos on him. (If after Shabbos one may rely on what an Am ha'Aretz said on Shabbos, one might come to rely on what he says on a weekday.)
úðé ùàìå áçåì ìà éàëì áùáú î''ã àéîú ùáú òìéå ðéçà î''ã îùåí ëáåã ùáú àôé' ùàìå áçåì éàëì áùáú
(b) Citation (Yerushalmi - Beraisa): If he asked him during the week, he may not eat on Shabbos. This is fine for the one who says that [they permitted because] the fear of Shabbos is on him. However, the one who says that it is due to Kevod Shabbos, even if he asked him during the week, he should [be permitted to] eat on Shabbos!
åîùðé ìà àîøå àìà áùåââ åìà áîæéã åèòîà ãø''ù ùæåøé îôøù äúí îùåí ãàéîú ãéîåò òìéå åäåà àåîø àîú ôé' îàçø ùäåôøùä. î''ø
1. It answers that they said only b'Shogeg, but not b'Mezid. It explains R. Shimon Shezuri's reason there because fear of Dimu'a is on him, and he says the truth, i.e. after [Terumas Ma'aser of Demai] was separated [and became mixed, he fears to lie]. This is from my Rebbi.
12) TOSFOS DH Ha Itmar Alah R. Yochanan Halachah k'R. Shimon Shezuri...
úåñôåú ã"ä äà àéúîø òìä à''ø éåçðï äìëä ëø''ù ùæåøé...
(SUMMARY: Tosfos corrects the text to say R. Yonason.)
áøåá ñôøéí âøñ ø' éåðúï åìà ø' éåçðï ëàï åáô' áäîä äî÷ùä (çåìéï ãó òä:) åáô' àò''ô (ëúåáåú ãó ðä.)
(a) The text: In most Seforim the text says R. Yonason, and not R. Yochanan, here, and in Chulin (75b) and in Kesuvos (55a).
åëï îåëç ùí áô' àò''ô ãîééúé ìä àôìåâúà ãøá åø' éåðúï ãàåîãðà
(b) Support: It is proven [that the text says R. Yonason] there in Kesuvos, for it is brought regarding the argument of Rav and R. Yonason about assessment.
å÷ùä ãáñîåê âáé ääéà ãôåì äîöøé ÷à ôñé÷ øáé ùîåàì áø ðçîðé à''ø éåðúï äìëä ëø''ù ùæåøé
(c) Question: Below, regarding Mitzri beans, R. Shmuel bar Nachmeni ruled in the name of R. Yonason that the Halachah follows R. Shimon Shezuri;
åáô' áäîä äî÷ùä (ùí:) îåëç ããå÷à áîñåëï åáúøåîú îòùø ùì ãîàé äåà ã÷àîø y
1. And in Chulin (75b) it is proven that only regarding a Shechiv Mera and Terumas Ma'aser of Demai he said that the Halachah follows him, but not regarding the others!
âáé ääéà áï ô÷åòä ãøá àãà áø çðï ãà''ì øá àùé æéì ùçèéä åôøéê åäà''ø çðéðà äìëä ëøáé ùîòåï ùæåøé åìà òåã àìà ëì î÷åí ùùðä ø''ù ùæåøé ëå'
i. Source: Regarding the Ben Paku'a (a fetus found inside a slaughtered animal) of Rav Ada bar Chanan, Rav Ashi told him "go slaughter it", and [the Gemara] asks that R. Chanina said that the Halachah follows R. Shimon Shezuri, And further, everywhere that R. Shimon Shezuri taught, the Halachah follows him!
åîùðé àðà ëé äà ñáéøà ìé ãàîø øáé éåðúï äìëä ëø''ù ùæåøé áîñåëï åáúøåîú îòùø ùì ãîàé àáì áàçøéðé ìà
ii. And it answers "I hold like the following, that R. Yonason said that the Halachah follows R. Shimon Shezuri regarding a Shechiv Mera and Terumas Ma'aser of Demai, but not regarding the others!"
åéù ìãçåú
(d) Answer #1: We can reject this. (Yashar v'Tov - we may infer only that R. Yonason does not hold that the Halachah follows R. Shimon Shezuri everywhere, but he can agree that in other places where it was taught that the Halachah follows him, it follows him.)
åáñôø øáéðå âøùåí ëúéá áääéà ãôåì äîöøé ø' éöç÷ áø ðçîðé àîø ùîåàì åëï áñôøéí éùðéí. î''ø:
(e) Answer #2: In the Sefer of R. Gershom it is written regarding Mitzri bean "R. Yitzchak bar Nachmeni said in the name of Shmuel", and similarly in old Seforim. This is from my Rebbi.