1) TOSFOS DH Sheidah d'Tanan Beis Shamai Omerim Nimdedes Bifnim v'Chulei
úåñôåú ã"ä ùéãä ãúðï áéú ùîàé àåîøéí ðîããú áôðéí ëå'
(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes that a Sheidah is made to hold Kelim.)
áô' ëéøä (ùáú ãó îã:) åùí ôé' á÷åðèøñ ãùéãä äéà îøëáú ðùéí
(a) Explanation #1: This is in Shabbos (44b), and there Rashi explained that Sheidah is a carriage for women.
å÷ùä ãà''ë ìîä ìé îãéãä ãáîéåçãéí ìîãøñ ìà áòéðï îéèìèì îìà åøé÷ï
(b) Question #1: If so, why do we measure? Something special for Midras (special to sit or lie on) need not be moved full and empty! (Even if it is 40 Sa'im, and cannot be carried when full, it is Mekabel Tum'ah.)
ãàôé' ôùåèé ëìé òõ äîéåçãéí ìîãøñ îéèîà îãøñ ëãîåëç ááëåøåú áô' òì àìå îåîéï (ãó ìç.) ãàîøéðï áäðê ãçæå ìîãøñåú ãìà àéú÷åù ìù÷
1. Even a Pashut Kli Etz (it has no interior) special for Midras is Mekabel Tum'ah, like is proven in Bechoros (38a)! We say "it refers to those proper for Midras. They are not equated to Sak (there is no source to require an interior, and that they can be moved full and empty)."
åòåã ÷ùä ëéåï ãîéèîà îãøñ îéèîà èîà îú ëãúðéà áô' áà ñéîï (ðãä ãó îè.) ëì äîéèîà îãøñ îéèîà èîà îú
(c) Question #2: Since it receives Tum'as Midras, it receives Tum'as Mes, like a Beraisa in Nidah (49a) teaches "anything that receives Tum'as Midras, it receives Tum'as Mes";
àìîä úðï áîñ' ëìéí (ôé''ç î''á) ãùéãä îöìú áàäì äîú åáô' ëéøä (ùáú ãó îã:) îééúé ìä áâîøà (åàéï ðéàåúéï)
1. Why does a Mishnah (Kelim 18:2) teach that a Sheidah saves (its contents from becoming Tamei) in Ohel ha'Mes, and it is brought in the Gemara in Shabbos (44b)?
åëï îåëç áðæéø áôø÷ ëäï âãåì (ãó ðä.) ãàéðä òùåéä ìîøëáú àãí ãàîøéðï äðëðñ ìàøõ äòîéí áùéãä úéáä åîâãì ëå' å÷àîø äúí ëéåï ãìà ùëéçà ìà âæøå áéä øáðï îùîò ãìà ùëéçà ìéëðñ áä
(d) Question #3: Also it is proven in Nazir (55a) that it is not made for people to ride in it, for we say that one who enters Chutz la'Aretz in a Sheidah, box or tower... and it says there "since it is not common, Chachamim did not decree." This implies that it is not common to enter in it!
åðøàä ìôøù ãòùåéä ìäðéç áä ëìéí
(e) Explanation #2: It seems that [a Sheidah is a chest] made to put Kelim in it.
åîéäå ÷ùä îñôéðä ôø÷ ø''ò áîñëú ùáú (ãó ôâ:) ãúðéà øáé çðéðà àåîø ðìîãðä îù÷ îä ù÷ îéèìèì îìà åøé÷ï ëå'
(f) Question: It is difficult from a boat Shabbos (83b). In a Beraisa, R. Chanina says "it is learned from a Sak. Just like a Sak is moved full and empty... (A boat is not, so it is Tahor.)"
åàîàé äà òùåéä ìîãøñ ùðëðñéí áä áðé àãí
1. Why is this? It is made for Midras, for people enter it!
åé''ì ãàééøé áñôéðåú âãåìåú ùòé÷øï òùåéåú ìúú ìúåëï ôø÷îèéà åìà ãîéà ìîãøñ
(g) Answer #1: It discusses big boats. They are made to put merchandise in them. They are unlike a Midras.
åòåã ðøàä ãàôé' òé÷øå àúé ìäòáéø áðé àãí îòéø ìòéø åëï ùéãä ìîøëáú ðùéí ìà çùéá îãøñ ëéåï ãìà òáéãà ìäéåú ðùòï òìéä àìà ììëú îî÷åí ìî÷åí
(h) Answer #2: Even if [a boat] is primarily for transporting people from city to city, and similarly a Sheidah [is primarily] for women to ride in it, it is not considered Midras, since it is not common to lean on it, rather, to go from place to place.
îéãé ãäåä àìå÷èîéï èäåøéï áô' áîä àùä éåöàä (ùáú ãó ñå:) ôéøù àù÷éð''ù áìòæ ùäåìëéí òìéäï áéîåú äâùîéí
(i) Support: This is like "Luktamin is Tahor" in Shabbos (66b), i.e. stilts that people walk with in winter [when the ground is muddy].
åìà ãîé ìòâìä ùì ÷èï [áñåó ôø÷ ùðé] ãáéöä (ãó ëâ:) ãèîàä îãøñ
(j) Distinction: This is unlike a child's wagon in Beitzah (23b), which is Tamei Midras.
åîéäå ø''ç ôéøù àìå÷èîéí î÷é''ðù âãåìåú ùäåìëéï òìéäï äìéöðéí ìçéãåù åàéï èîàéï îãøñ ëéåï ãàéï òùåéåú ìäðàú îãøñ
(k) Rejection of Support: However, R. Chananel explained that Luktamin are big stilts that jesters walk on to be bizarre. They are not Tamei Midras, for they are not made for Hana'ah of Midras;
îéãé ãäåä àñåìí ãîîòè [ö"ì áúåøú ëäðéí - áàøåú äîéí] áôøùú åéäé áéåí äùîéðé ñåìí å÷åìá åðéçåúéä åîðåøä îãëúé' (åé÷øà éà) îëì ëìé òõ åìà ëúéá ëì ëìé òõ
1. This is like a ladder. We exclude in Toras Kohanim in Parshas Shemini a ladder, hanger, a Kli put under Kelim, and a Menorah, since it says "mi'Kol Kli Etz", and it does not say 'Kol Kli Etz';
åîãàéðä îèîà áîú àéðä îèîà îãøñ ãëì äîèîà áîãøñ îèîà èîà îú ëãúðï áô' áà ñéîï (ðãä îè.)
2. Since it is not Metamei through Mes, it is not Metamei Midras, for anything that receives Tum'as Midras, it receives Tum'as Mes, like a Mishnah in Nidah (49a).
åäééðå èòîà îùåí ãàéðå òùåé ìäðàú îãøñ àìà ìéøã áå åìòìåú. î''ø:
3. Explanation: The reason is because it is not made for Hana'ah of Midras, rather, to ascend and descend.
2) TOSFOS DH Eima R. Shimon Shezuri Omer Yayin
úåñôåú ã"ä àéîà ø''ù ùæåøé àåîø ééï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes that the Tana'im discuss congealed liquids.)
ôé' ééï ãåå÷à åìà ùîï åãáù
(a) Explanation #1: Only wine (is always a Rishon l'Tum'ah), but not oil and honey.
åä÷ùä ø''ú ãäëà ôñ÷éðï ëø''ù ùæåøé åáëì ãåëúà îùîò ñúîà ãäù''ñ ãùîï çùéá îù÷ä
(b) Question (R. Tam): Here we rule like R. Shimon Shezuri, and everywhere the Stam Gemara connotes that oil is considered a liquid!
áô''÷ ãùáú (ãó éæ.) âáé îôðé îä áåöøéï áèäøä åàéï îåñ÷éï áèäøä
1. Source #1: In Shabbos (17a) regarding "why do we harvest grapes in Taharah, and we do not harvest olives in Taharah?" (We should be concerned lest the oil that exudes from them is Machshir them!)
åáîñëú îëùéøéï (ô''å î''ã) (ø''ò) ãçùéá áùáòä îù÷éï ééï åùîï
2. Source #2: And in Machshirin (6:4) it lists seven liquids - wine, oil...
åáô' çáéú (ùáú ãó ÷îã:) âáé îåäì äùîï
3. Source #3: And in Shabbos (144b) regarding Mohel of oil (juice from olives, it seems that both Tana'im agree that proper oil is a liquid).
åáô''÷ ãôñçéí (ãó éã: åùí) âáé äåñéó ø''ò îéîéäï ùì ëäðéí ìà ðîðòå îìäãìé÷ ùîï ùðôñì áèáåì éåí áðø ùðèîà áèîà îú åîå÷é ìä áðø ùì îúëú ãäåéà àá äèåîàä ãçøá äøé äåà ëçìì
4. Source #4: And in Pesachim (14b) regarding "R. Akiva added, all the days of Kohanim, they did not refrain from burning oil that was disqualified through a Tevul Yom in a Ner that became Tamei through a Tamei Mes", and we establish it to discuss a metal Ner, which is an Av ha'Tum'ah, for a sword is like a corpse;
åãéé÷ ÷ñáø ø''ò èåîàú îù÷éï ìèîà àçøéí ãàåøééúà ëå' îàé àéøéà áèîà îú àôé' áøàùåï åùðé ðîé úçéìä äåé ãúðï ëì äôåñì àú äúøåîä îèîà îù÷éï ìäéåú úçéìä
i. And [the Gemara] infers that R. Akiva holds that the Tum'ah of liquids to be Metamei others is mid'Oraisa... Why does it discuss a Tamei Mes? Even a Rishon and Sheni is a Rishon, for a Mishnah teaches "whatever disqualifies Terumah is Metamei liquids to be a Rishon";
åäùúà îàé ÷åùéà ìéîà ãø''ò ñáø ëø''ù ùæåøé ãìà çùéá ùîï îù÷ä àìà àåëì
ii. What was the question? We should say that R. Akiva holds like R. Shimon Shezuri, and he does not consider oil to be a liquid, rather, a food! (Rather, it is obvious to the Gemara that oil is a liquid.)
åîéäå îø''ò àéðä ÷åùéà ãùîòéðï ìéä ãçùéá ùîï îù÷ä áîñëú îëùéøéï åîééúé ìéä áîñ' ùáú áøéù ôø÷ çáéú (ãó ÷îâ:) çìá äàùä îèîà ìøöåï åùìà ìøöåï ëå' å÷àîø ñìé æéúéí åòðáéí éåëéçå ëå'
5. Rebuttal (of Source #4): There is no question from R. Akiva. We know that he considers oil to be a liquid in Machshirin, and it is brought in Shabbos (143b) "a woman's milk is Metamei [whether it left her] willingly or unwillingly... [R. Akiva says that all the more so an animal's milk, which is even for adults, is Tamei l'Ratzon and Lo l'Ratzon! Chachamim] say that baskets of olives and grapes disprove this" (liquid that comes out Lo l'Ratzon is Tahor).
i. Note: Tosfos (144a DH Salei) says that in Machshirin, R. Akiva rejected this, for [olives and grapes] are initially a food, and at the end a liquid. Seemingly, this is not an absolute proof. Perhaps R. Akiva addresses Chachamim according to their opinion, but he himself holds that oil is a solid!
àáì îñúîà ãäù''ñ ÷ùä ëîå ùôéøùúé
6. Summation of question: However, from the Stam Gemara it is difficult like I explained!
åúéøõ ø''ú ãäëà îééøé á÷øåù ëã÷úðé øéùà (äùîï åäçìá ùì âøéñéï áæîï ùäí ìçéí äøé äï øàùåðéí) [ö"ì äøåèá åäçìá åäâøéñéï áæîï ùäí îù÷ä èåôç äøé äï úçéìä - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ôé' ãäåå îù÷éï ÷øùå äøé äï ùðééí
(c) Answer (R. Tam): Here we discuss congealed oil, like the Reisha teaches "gravy, milk and grits - when they are Tofe'ach (wet enough to wet what touches them), they are Rishonim", i.e. for they are liquids. If they congealed, they are Sheniyim!
åéù ñôøéí ùøéùà æå ëúåáä áäï åäãø ÷úðé ø''î àåîø ùîï úçéìä ìòåìí àôé' ÷øåù
(d) Alternative text: In some texts, this Reisha is taught, and afterwards it teaches "R. Meir says, oil is always a Rishon, even if it congealed."
åäùúà ðéçà äà ãð÷è ìòåìí åëï ãáù ãçëîéí åééï ãø''ù ùæåøé ëåìä á÷øåù àééøé î''ø
(e) Support: Now it is fine why it says "always". And similarly, honey of Chachamim and wine of R. Shimon Shezuri all discuss when they congealed.
3) TOSFOS DH ka'Savar Ein Kinyan u'Mechayev
úåñôåú ã"ä ÷ñáø àéï ÷ðéï (îçééá) [ö"ì åîçééá - öàï ÷ãùéí]
(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that anything bought from a Nochri is exempt mid'Oraisa.)
åà''ú åäà îéôèø îùòú îéøåç äòåáã ëåëáéí
(a) Question: It is exempt from the time of Miru'ach (final processing) of the Nochri!
åàéï ìåîø ã÷ñáø àéðå ôåèø
1. Implied suggestion: He holds that [Miru'ach Nochri] does not exempt.
ãìà àùëçï úðà ãàéú ìéä úøúé îéøåç äòåáã ëåëáéí àéðå ôåèø åàéï ÷ðéï ãà''ë ãâðê áîàé îå÷éí ìéä
2. Rejection: We do not find a Tana who holds both that Miru'ach Nochri does not exempt, and Ein Kinyan, for if so how does he establish "Deganecha"? (Either it obligates your (Yisrael's) grain, and exempts a Nochri's, or we read it "Digunecha" to obligate your Miru'ach, and exempt a Nochri's! To support this, Tosfos now shows that both Tana'im who hold below that Miru'ach Nochri does not exempt, they hold that Yesh Kinyan.)
ãø''î àùëçï ãàéú ìéä îéøåç äòåáã ëåëáéí ãàéðå ôåèø (åñáø éù ÷ðéï ìòåáã ëåëáéí ãàéðå ôåèø) ì÷îï áôø÷ øáé éùîòàì (ãó ñå:) )àáì ÷ñáø éù) [ö"ì åéù - öàï ÷ãùéí] ÷ðéï áñô''÷ ãò''æ (ãó ëà.)
3. We find that R. Meir holds that Miru'ach Nochri does not exempt, below (66b), and Yesh Kinyan in Avodah Zarah (21a);
åøáé éäåãä àéú ìéä éù ÷ðéï áô' äùåàì (á''î ãó ÷à.) åàéú ìéä ðîé îéøåç äòåáã ëåëáéí [àéðå] ôåèø ì÷îï áô' ø' éùîòàì
4. And R. Yehudah holds that Yesh Kinyan (Bava Metzi'a 101a), and he holds also that Miru'ach Nochri does not exempt, below (66b)!
åé''ì ãî''î ãîé ìçéåá ëé äéëé ãìà à''ì ÷ç îòöéõ ùàéðå ð÷åá àå îúáåàú çåöä ìàøõ
(b) Answer: In any case [Tevu'as Nochri] resembles a Chiyuv, just like [R. Tarfon] did not say "take from a flowerpot without a hole, or from grain of Chutz la'Aretz." (Also these are liable only mid'Rabanan, but they resemble what is liable mid'Oraisa.)
åòåã ëì ì÷åç ãøáðï äåà ëããøùéðï úáåàú æøòê åìà ì÷åç áô' äùåëø àú äôåòìéí (á''î ãó ôç.)
(c) Support: Everything bought [is obligated only] mid'Rabanan, like we expound "Tevu'as Zar'echa", and not what was bought, in Bava Metzi'a (88a)! (Rather, R. Tarfon specified to buy Demai because it does not resemble what is liable mid'Oraisa.)
åîéäå äø''ø éöç÷ áäø''ø îàéø îôøù äðé îéìé áùì÷çå òã ùìà ðúîøç åàôùø ùìà äéä îöåé
(d) Rebuttal (of Support): Rivam explains that [this exemption] is only for what was bought before Miru'ach, and perhaps it was not common [to find Peros sold before Miru'ach].
åîéäå ø''ú îôøù ãàãøáä áîîåøç äåà ãîéôèø ì÷åç
(e) Defense (of Support): R. Tam explains just the contrary! The exemption for what was bought refers to after Miru'ach (Stam Peros sold are after Miru'ach).
åöøéê òéåï àé îéøåç äòåáã ëåëáéí ôåèø àôéìå îãøáðï áúáåàä ãòåáã ëåëáéí
(f) Question: This requires investigation, whether Miru'ach Nochri exempts even mid'Rabanan Tevu'as Nochri. (Shalmei Todah - presumably, just like according to the opinion that Yesh Kinyan, his grain is obligated mid'Rabanan, the same applies to the one who holds that Miru'ach Nochri exempts. However...)
ãàîøéðï áô''÷ ãáëåøåú (ãó éà:) äìå÷ç èáìéí îîåøçéí îï äòåáã ëåëáéí ëå' ãîøçéðäå îàï àéìéîà ãîøçéðäå òåáã ëåëáéí ëå'
1. We say in Bechoros (11b) that if one buys Tevel after Miru'ach from a Nochri [it is exempt]... who did Miru'ach? If you will say that the Nochri did Miru'ach [it is totally exempt]!
åäà ãâæøéðï îùåí áòìé ëéñéï
2. Implied question: [If it is totally exempt, what was] the decree [to obligate tithing] due to rich people (lest they do Miru'ach via a Nochri to be exempt from Ma'aser)?
áòåáã ëåëáéí ùì÷ç îéùøàì. î''ø:
3. Answer: It applies to a Nochri who bought from a Yisrael. This is from my Rebbi.
31b----------------------------------------31b
4) TOSFOS DH Mi ka'Amar b'Mishnaseinu v'Chulei
úåñôåú ã"ä îé ÷àîø áîùðúéðå ëå'
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why elsewhere we do not say so.)
ëé äàé âååðà ãéé÷ áô' áúøà ãëúåáåú (ãó ÷è.) âáé ëì î÷åí ùàîø øáï âîìéàì øåàä àðé àú ãáøé àãîåï
(a) Observation: We infer like this in Kesuvos (109a) regarding "wherever R. Gamliel said 'I agree with Admon' [the Halachah follows him]."
åúéîä ãáô' ëéøä (ùáú ãó ìè:) âáé ëì î÷åí ùàúä îåöà ùðéí çåì÷éí åàçã îëøéò äìëä ëãáøé äîëøéò çåõ î÷åìé îèìðéåú å÷à ôøéê àéîà ä''î áîúðéúéï àáì ááøééúà ìà
(b) Question: In Shabbos (39b) regarding "wherever you find that two argue and a third is Machri'a (arbitrates), the Halachah follows the Machri'a, except for leniencies of rags", and it asks "I can say that this is only in a Mishnah, but not in a Beraisa"!
åéù ìåîø ëéåï ãàîø çåõ î÷åìé îèìðéåú ùäéà îùðä äåé ëàéìå ôéøù áîùðúéðå
(c) Answer: Since he said "except for leniencies of rags", which is a Mishnah, it is as if he specified "in our Mishnah."
åîéäå ÷ùä áäðé ëììåú ãáô' îé ùäåöéàåäå (òéøåáéï îå:) ã÷àîø øáé îàéø åøáé éäåãä äìëä ëø' éäåãä ø' éäåãä åø' éåñé äìëä ëø' éåñé àîøé' ñã''à äðé îéìé áîúðé' àáì ááøééúà ìà àò''â ãìà ÷àîø áîùðúéðå
(d) Question: The general rules in Eruvin (46b) are difficult. It says that when R. Meir and R. Yehudah argue, the Halachah follows R. Yehudah, and when R. Yehudah and R. Yosi argue, the Halachah follows R. Yosi, and we say that "one might have thought that this is only in a Mishnah, but not in a Beraisa", even though it did not say "in our Mishnah"!
åùîà ùàðé äúí ãìà ÷àîø ëì î÷åí. î''ø
(e) Answer: There is different, for it did not say "everywhere".
5) TOSFOS DH Ha d'Afitzan Ha d'Lo Afitzan
úåñôåú ã"ä äà ãàôéöï äà ãìà àôéöï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses why our parchments are Kesherim.)
îùîò ãñ''ú ëùø áìà àôéöï
(a) Inference: A Sefer Torah is Kosher without Afitzan (applying gallnuts to the parchment).
åä÷ùä ø''ú îäà ãàîøé' ôø÷ äîåöéà ééï (ùáú ãó òè: åùí) âáé ñ''ú òì äâåéì åòì äãåëñåñèåñ ëùéøä îùîò àáì ãéôúøà ãîìéç å÷îéç åìà òôéõ ìà (îé÷øé ñôø)
(b) Question #1 (R. Tam): It says in Shabbos (79b) regarding a Sefer Torah "on Gvil or on Duchsustus (hide has two layers that can be peeled apart. Gevil is the double layer left intact. Duchsustus is the layer closer to the flesh. Both were fully tanned) is Kosher. This implies that on Diftera, which was salted and Kami'ach (treated with flour) but not Afitz, no;
åáô' ùðé ãñåèä (ãó éæ.) àîøé' àéï ëåúáéï ôøùú ñåèä ìà òì äìåç åìà òì äðééø åìà òì äãôúøà àìà òì äîâéìä ùðà' áñôø åë''ù ñ''ú ãð÷øà ñôø èôé (ëãàîøé') [ö"ì åàîøé' - èäøú ä÷åãù] áîñ' ñåôøéí àéï ëåúáéï ìà òì äðééø åìà òì äãôúøà
1. And in Sotah (17a) we say that we do not write Parshas Sotah on a tablet or paper or Diftera, only on a Megilah, for it says "Sefer". All the more so a Sefer Torah, which is called Sefer more [than Parshas Sotah], and we say in Maseches Sofrim (1:5) "we may not write it on paper or Diftera!"
åîéäå îçå÷ ìà âøñ ãäà áôø÷ äîåöéà ééï (ùáú ãó òè:) ÷úðé òì äðééø åòì äîèìéú ôñåìä åìà ÷úðé îçå÷
2. Disclaimer: The text [in Maseches Sofrim] should not say [that we do not write on] Machuk (erased parchment), for in Shabbos (79b) it teaches "on paper or a rag is Pasul", and it did not teach Machuk. (Since the text in Maseches Sofrim is mistaken about Machuk, it could be mistaken also about Diftera, so Tosfos did not ask directly from it. He merely adds it to his question - Taharas ha'Kodesh.)
åòåã ÷ùä äéàê àðå ëåúáéï ñ''ú òì ä÷ìôéí ùìðå äà àéðí îòåôöéï
(c) Question #2: How may we write a Sefer Torah on our parchments? They are not Afutzim!
åëï âéèéï ùàðå ëåúáéï á÷ìôéï ùìðå åáô' [ùðé] ãâèéï (ãó éè.) îùîò ãåå÷à áãàôéöï ëåúáéï àáì ìà àôéöï ìà ãéëåì ìäæãééó
(d) Question #3: Also Gitin we write on our parchments, and in Gitin (19a) it connotes that we write only on what is Afutz, but not if it was not Afutz, for it can be forged (an erasure would not be evident)!
åîôøù ø''ú ãúé÷åï ùìðå çùéá ëàôéöï
(e) Answer #1 (R. Tam): Our treatment is considered like Afitzan.
úãò ãäà ÷îï ãàéï éëåì ìäæãééó
(f) Proof: We see that one cannot forge them!
åäà ãîùîò áâéèéï áãìà àôéöï éëåì ìäæãééó
(g) Implied question: It says in Gitin that if it was not Afutz, it can be forged!
äééðå á÷ìôéí ùìäí ùäéå òåùéí áäí úé÷åï ùì òéôåõ ã÷åãí òéôåõ éëåì ìäæãééó åð÷øà ãéôúøà åôñåì
(h) Answer #1: This refers to their parchments, which they treated with Ifutz. Before Ifutz it can be forged, and it is called Diftera, and it is Pasul.
åúãò ùâí áéîéäí ëåúáéï ùèøåú á÷ìó ùàéðå îòåôõ ëãàîøé' áô' ùðé ãâéèéï (ùí) ëúáå áîé èøéà åòôöà ëùø åîå÷é ìä áãìà àôéöï
(i) Proof Also in their days they wrote documents on parchments that were not Afutz, like it says in Gitin (19a) "if [a Get] was written with water in which gall-nuts were soaked or with gall-nuts, it is Kosher", and we establish it when it was not Afutz!
åîéäå àéëà ìàå÷åîé áðééø ùì òùáéí ãìà îéú÷ðé ìéä áòôöéí ëîå ùôé' ùí á÷åðèøñ âáé çééùéðï ùîà áîé îéìéï ëúáå
(j) Rebuttal (of proof): We can establish it to discuss paper from herbs, which is not treated with Afatzim, like Rashi explained there regarding "are we concerned lest he wrote it with water in which gall-nuts were soaked?" (It cannot be seen on paper treated with Afatzim, since they are virtually the same color, but it is considered writing on paper not treated with Afatzim.)
à''ð áòãé îñéøä åøáé àìòæø. î''ø
(k) Answer #2 (to Question #3): [We are Machshir Gitin on paper that was not Afutz, even though it cannot be forged], with Edei Mesirah (witnesses who saw it given), according to R. Elazar [who says that they empower a document. He is Machshir a document that can be forged, but in such a case one cannot rely on the signatures.]
6) TOSFOS DH Asa'ah k'Shirah
úåñôåú ã"ä òùàä ëùéøä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves contradictions about what is considered a proper Sefer.)
îëàï îùîò äà ãúðéà áô' äáåðä (ùáú ãó ÷â:) ëúáä ëùéøä àå ùëúá äùéøä ëéåöà áä àå ùëúá ùìà áãéå àå ùëúá äàæëøåú áæäá äøé àìå éâðæå áñ''ú îééøé ãäà îå÷îéðà ìä äëà áñ''ú
(a) Inference: Here it connotes that the Beraisa taught in Shabbos (103b) "if he wrote [regular text] like a Shirah, or he wrote a Shirah like [regular text], or he wrote not with ink, or if he wrote Shemos Hash-m in gold, it must be buried" discusses a Sefer Torah, for here we establish it to discuss a Sefer Torah.
åúéîä ãáô' ëì ëúáé (ùáú ãó ÷èå:) áúçéìúå úðéà àéï áéï ñôøéí ìîâéìä àìà ùñôøéí ðëúáéï áëì ìùåï åîâéìä òã ùúäà ëúåáä àùåøéú òì äñôø åáãéå
(b) Question: In Shabbos (115b), a Beraisa teaches "the only difference between Seforim and Megilah is that Seforim may be written in any language, and Megilah must be written in Ashuris, on a Sefer, in ink"!
åúéøõ äøá øáé éåñó ãääéà ãëì ëúáé áùàø ñôøéí ãìàå ñ''ú
(c) Answer (R. Yosef): The case in Kol Kisvei refers to other Seforim, and not a Sefer Torah.
åàëúé ÷ùä ãáô''÷ ãîâéìä (ãó ç:) úðéà î÷øà ùëúáå úøâåí åúøâåí ùëúáå î÷øà åëúá òáøé àéðå îèîà àú äéãéí òã ùéëúáðå áëúá àùåøéú òì äñôø åáãéå
(d) Question: In Megilah (8b), a Beraisa teaches that if Mikra (verses in Leshon ha'Kodesh) were written Targum (in Arame'ic), or Targum (verses in Arame'ic) were written [like] Mikra (in Leshon ha'Kodesh), or Kesav Ivri (an old character set for Leshon ha'Kodesh resembling Rashi script), it is not Metamei the hands (there was a decree that Kisvei ha'Kodesh are Metamei hands), unless it is written in Kesav Ashuris, in a Sefer, with ink;
åîå÷é ìä øá àùé áùàø ñôøéí åø' éäåãä äéà
1. Rav Ashi establishes it to discuss other Seforim, and it is R. Yehudah.
àìîà ùàø ñôøéí áòé ãéå åìà àùëçï ãôìéâé òìéä ãøáé éäåãä àìà ìâáé äà ãùøé áëì ìùåï àáì áãéå ìà àùëçï ãôìéâé
2. Inference: Other Seforim require ink! And we find that others argue with R. Yehudah only regarding permitting any language, but we do not find that they argue about ink!
åðøàä ìôøù ãääéà ãëì ëúáé ìòðéï ìäöéì îôðé äãìé÷ä ãåå÷à îééøé åìà ìòðéï ì÷øåú áäí åìôé ùéù áäï àæëøåú îöéìéï àåúï àò''ô ùìà ðëúáå ëäìëúï àáì îâéìä òã ùúäà ëúåáä ëäìëúä
(e) Answer: The Gemara in Shabbos refers only to saving from a fire, but not to reading from them. Because they have names of Hash-m, we save them, even though they were not written properly. However, Megilah (which has no Shemos, we do not save it) unless it is written properly;
úãò ãáòéà ãøéù âìåúà äúí ìòðéï äöìä àáì äà ìà îéáòéà ìéä àí ðéúðå ìé÷øåú áäí àå ìà
(f) Proof: The Reish Galusa's question there was about saving. He had no question about reading in them.
åà''ú úé÷ùé äê áøééúà ìøá äåðà ãàîø áøéù âîøà ãëì ëúáé (ùáú ãó ÷èå.) äéå ëúåáéï úøâåí åáëì ìùåï àéï îöéìéï ìî''ã àéï ðéúðéï ì÷øåú áäï
(g) Question: We should challenge Rav Huna from this Beraisa! He said in Shabbos (115a) that if they were written in Targum or any language, we do not save them, according to the opinion that one may not read in them!
åéù ìåîø ãäàîø äúí úðàé äéà
(h) Answer: It says there that Tana'im argue about this.
7) TOSFOS DH she'Lo Ya'asenah ki'Zenav
úåñôåú ã"ä ùìà éòùðä ëæðá
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses whether this is like the tail of a vineyard.)
ëòéï ùôéøù á÷åðèøñ ëàï éù ìôøù äà ãàîø áááà áúøà (ãó éã.) âáé ëøí ùúéí ëðâã ùúéí åàçã éåöà æðá
(a) Explanation #1: Like Rashi explained here, we can explain what it says in Bava Basra (14a) regarding a vineyard - two [vines] are opposite two and one comes out as a tail.
[ö"ì åäø"ù îôøù - éùø åèåá] ùàçã áùåøåú ùúéí åìà ëðâã àåéø ùáéï ùúé äùåøåú ùúéí ùúéí. î''ø
(b) Explanation #2: R. Shimshon explains that one (the tail) is in [one of] the rows of two, and not opposite the empty space between the two rows of two. This is from my Rebbi.
8) TOSFOS DH v'Oseh Parshiyoseha Setumos
úåñôåú ã"ä åòåùä ôøùéåúéä ñúåîåú
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses why the plural is used.)
÷öú ÷ùä ãð÷è ìùåï øáéí åàéï ùí ëé àí ôøùä àçú
(a) Question: Why does it use the plural? There is only one [break due to a new] Parshah! (Tzon Kodoshim - we cannot explain that he did so in every Mezuzah, for it says that he rolled it.)
åùîà îùåí òì äàøõ ãáñåó ùéèä àò''ô ùàéï ëúåá ëìåí àç''ë. î''ø
(b) Answer: Perhaps it is due to "Al ha'Aretz" at the end of the line, even though nothing is written afterwards. (Yashar v'Tov - the Mordechai says that this is closed, because the entire line is filled.) This is from my Rebbi.
9) TOSFOS DH R. Shimon ben Elazar Omer R. Meir Hayah Kosvah...
úåñôåú ã"ä øáé ùîòåï áï àìòæø àåîø ø''î äéä ëåúáä...
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses whether R. Shimon ben Elazar was R. Meir's Talmid.)
îùîò ãúìîéãå ùì ø''î äéä ùàîø ãáøéí äøáä îùîå áùàø î÷åîåú ëãàùëçï ðîé ìòéì (ì:) ã÷àîø ø''ù áï àìòæø îùåí ø''î àéï ëåúáéï àú äùí ìà òì (äðééø) [ö"ì âøø] åìà òì äîç÷
(a) Inference: [R. Shimon ben Elazar] was a Talmid of R. Meir. He said many things in his name, like we find above (30b) R. Shimon ben Elazar said in the name of R. Meir "we do not write Hash-m's name on what was erased, whether dry or wet;
åëï áô''÷ ã÷ãåùéï (ãó ëã.) âîøà åáìáã ùéäà äëñó îùì àçøéí ã÷àîø ø''ù áï àìòæø îùåí ø''î àùä ôåãä îòùø ùðé áìà çåîù
1. Also in Kidushin (24a), in the Gemara [about the citation from the Mishnah that an Eved Kena'ani can redeem himself] "as long as the money is of others", R. Shimon ben Elazar said in the name of R. Meir that a woman can redeem Ma'aser Sheni without [adding] a Chomesh.
åúéîä ãáô' äîåöéà ééï (ùáú ãó òè:) ëúåá áëì äñôøéí àîø øáé ùîòåï [ö"ì áï àìòæø òåæ åäãø] îàéø äéä ëåúáä òì ä÷ìó îôðé ùäéúä îùúîøú
(b) Question: In Shabbos (79b) it is written in all Seforim "R. Shimon ben Elazar said, Meir used to write it on Klaf (the outer layer of hide), because it lasts";
îùîò ùäéä çáéøå ã÷àîø îàéø åìà ÷àîø ø''î
1. Inference: He was his colleague, for he said "Meir", and not R. Meir!
åùîà èòåú ñåôø éù áëì äñôøéí
(c) Answer #1: Perhaps there is a mistake in all Seforim. (Our text there says "R. Meir.")
åàé äåä àîøé' ãúøé øùá''à äåä ðéçà
(d) Answer #2: If we would say that there were two R. Shimon ben Elazar's, it would be fine.
åîéúøöà áäëé ôéøëà àçøéúé ãäëà ÷úðé àãåëñåñèåñ åäúí úðé à÷ìó åäéä ðøàä ìåîø ãúøé úðàé àìéáà ãø''î
1. Support: This would answer another question. Here [R. Shimon ben Elazar] taught [that R. Meir wrote] on Duchsustus, and there he taught on Klaf! It seems that two Tana'im argue about R. Meir's opinion.
àáì àé àôùø ìåîø ëï ãáô' îøåáä (á''÷ ãó òç:) âáé îëøä çåõ îâéæåúéä îùðé úøé úðàé àìéáà ãøùá''à åìà îùðé ãúøé äéå
(e) Rebuttal: One cannot say so, for in Bava Kama (78b) regarding if [one stole a sheep and] sold it "except for its shearings", it answers that two Tana'im argue about R. Shimon ben Elazar's opinion. It does not say that there were two [Tana'im with this name]!
åîéäå éù ìãçå÷ îùåí ãäðäå ãàéôìâé òìéä áçãà àéôìâé òìéä áàéãê áøééúà
(f) Defense: With difficulty, we can say that it is because the same ones who argued with him in one, argued with him in the other Beraisa.
åéù ìúøõ ãòì äãåëñåñèåñ ã÷úðé äëà äééðå àó äãåëñåñèåñ ëãîôøùéðï ðîé àó ôúåçåú åë''ù ðîé à÷ìó ãîùúîø
(g) Answer: Duchsustus taught here means "even Duchsustus", like we explain also "even open [Parshiyos]", and all the more so [it is Kosher] on Klaf, which lasts.
åìôé îä ùø''ì áñîåê ãåëñåñèåñ ãåå÷à åìà ÷ìó äåé úéîä ãìîø ãåëñåñèåñ òãéó ìîæåæä åìîø ÷ìó òãéó. î''ø:
(h) Question: According to what [the Gemara] wanted to say below that only Duchsustus [is Kosher], and not Klaf, it is astounding, that one holds that Duchsustus is better for a Mezuzah, and one holds that Klaf is better!