1) TOSFOS DH R. Yosi ha'Chorem
úåñôåú ã"ä øáé éåñé äçåøí
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses why he was called so.)
ôé' á÷åðèøñ çåèîå äéä ù÷åò ëòéï çøåí ãáëåøåú (ãó îâ:)
(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi): His nose was recessed, like [the Mum] Charom in Bechoros.
åúéîä äåà ìåîø ùëéðäå áìùåï âðàé
(b) Objection: It is astounding to say that he is called by a derogatory name!
àìà òì ùí î÷åîå ð÷øà ëï. î''ø
(c) Explanation #2: Rather, he was called [ha'Chorem] based on his locale.
2) TOSFOS DH Yad Yemino Ikri
úåñôåú ã"ä éã éîéðå àé÷øé
(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves a question from later in the same verse.)
åîãëúéá (áøàùéú îç) åéúîåê éã àáéå
(a) Implied question: It is written "va'Yismoch Yad Aviv" (the right is called Stam Yad)!
ìà ÷ùéà îéãé ëéåï ùëáø ôéøù éã éîéðå
(b) Answer: That is not difficult at all, for it already explained "Yad Yemino."
åðøàä ãø' éåñé ðîé àääåà ÷à ñîéê åîùåí äëé ìà îééúé îéãå äéîðéú ãîöåøò. î''ø
(c) Assertion: It seems that also R. Yosi relies on this (to challenge the first Tana). Therefore he does not bring from "Yado ha'Yemanis" of Metzora (for there it does not say Yad Stam). This is from my Rebbi.
3) TOSFOS DH Mah Kesivah b'Yamin Af Keshirah b'Yamin
úåñôåú ã"ä îä ëúéáä áéîéï àó ÷ùéøä áéîéï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks whether it depends solely on writing.)
áñîåê àîøé' ãàéèø îðéç úôéìéï áéîéðå ùäéà ùîàìå
(a) Observation: Below, we say that a lefty puts Tefilin on his right hand, which is his Smol (weak hand).
åäùúà àãí äëåúá áéîéðå åùàø øåá îòùéå áùîàìå éù ìäñúô÷ áàéæä îäï îðéç úôéìéï
(b) Question: If a person writes with his right hand, and does all other actions with his left, it is not clear on which hand he puts Tefilin!
åùîà éù ìãîåúå ëùåìè áùúé éãéå. î''ø
(c) Suggestion: Perhaps we compare him to one who is ambidextrous (he puts Tefilin on the left hand). This is from my Rebbi.
4) TOSFOS DH Ein Lo Zero'a Patur Min ha'Tefilin Acherim Omerim Yadcha...
úåñôåú ã"ä àéï ìå æøåò ôèåø îï äúôéìéï àçøéí àåîøéí éãëä ëå'
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that there is no argument.)
îø àîø çãà åîø àîø çãà åìà ôìéâé. î''ø
(a) Explanation: One said one law, and the other said [another] law, and they do not argue. This is from my Rebbi. (Magen Avraham 27:3 - we can say that Acharonim discuss a Gidem who has an upper arm. However, this is unlike the Sifri.)
5) TOSFOS DH Kibores
úåñôåú ã"ä ÷éáåøú
(SUMMARY: Tosfos proves that this is on the upper arm.)
ôéøù á÷åðèøñ áãøå''ï å÷éáåøú äåà ìùåï ÷áåöú áùø ëîå (á''á ãó ä.) ÷éáåøà ãàäéðé
(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi): This is Bradon (in old French, the fleshy part of the arm). Kibores is an expression of a gathering of flesh, like Kibura (a cluster) of dates (Bava Basra 5a)
åàåø''ú ãäåà âåáä äáùø ùáæøåò ùáéï áéú äùçé ìîøô÷ ù÷åøéï ÷åãà (åàåø''ú)
(b) Explanation #2 (R. Tam): It is the bulge of flesh on the arm between the underarm and the elbow;
ìà ëãáøé äîôøùéí âåáä áùø ùáàåúå òöí ùáéï äéã ìîøô÷ ãäà îùîò áëì ãåëúé ãîöåú úôéìéï áæøåò
1. It is unlike those who explain the bulge of flesh on the bone between the hand and the elbow, for it connotes everywhere that the Mitzvah of Tefilin is on the Zero'a (upper arm).
ëãàîøéðï ì÷îï (ãó îâ:) çáéáéï éùøàì ùñéááï ä÷á''ä áîöåú úôéìéï áøàùéäï åáæøåòåúéäï
2. Source #1: We say below (43b) that Yisrael are dear. Hash-m surrounded them with Mitzvos - Tefilin on their heads and Zero'os.
åáô' áúøà ãòéøåáéï (ãó öä:) å÷åùø áæøåòå áî÷åí úôéìéï
3. Source #2: In Eruvin (95b) it says that [in pressed circumstances] one ties [the head Tefilin] on the Zero'a, in the place of Tefilin.
åàîøéðï ðîé àéï ìå æøåò ôèåø îï äúôéìéï åàåúå òöí ùáéï éã ì÷åãà àéðå ÷øåé æøåò àìà ÷ðä ëãúðï áîñ' àäìåú (ô''à î''ç)
4. Source #3: We say that if one does not have a Zero'a, he is exempt from Tefilin. The bone between the hand and the elbow is not called Zero'a, rather, Kaneh, like the Mishnah in Ohalos (1:8) teaches;
ã÷çùéá øî''ç àéáøéí ì' áôéñú éã [å' áëì àöáò] ùðéí á÷ðä ùðéí áîøô÷ àçã áæøåò åã' áëúó
5. It counts 248 limbs - 30 in the palm (six in each finger), two in the Kaneh, two in the elbow, one in the Zero'a, and four in the shoulder;
åîùîò áäãéà ãääåà ãñîåê ìëúó äåà æøåò ùáéï äëúó ìîøô÷ åîøô÷ äåà ÷åãà ëãîùîò áîñëú òøëéï (ãó éè:) áô' äàåîø îù÷ìé
6. It connotes explicitly that the [bone] next to the shoulder is the Zero'a, which is between the shoulder and the Marpek, and the Marpek is the elbow, like it connotes in Erchin (19b);
ã÷úðé îëðéñ áéã òã äàöéì åáøâì òã äàøëåáä (÷øé) [ö"ì å÷øé - öàï ÷ãùéí] ìàöéì îøô÷ áîúðé' åëúéá ðîé òì ëì àöéìé éãé åîúøâí îøôé÷é éãé
i. It teaches that [to measure the weight of the Yad or Regel,] he enters the Yad until the Atzil and the Regel until the knee [in a full Kli of water, and weighs what spills out] and the Atzil is called Marpek in our Mishnah ("he enters Yado until Marpiko"), and it is also written "Al Kol Atzilei Yadai", and the Targum is Marpikei Yadai;
åîùîò ãîøô÷ áéã ëðâã àøëåáä áøâì åâí áëì ãåëúé îùîò ãàöéì äåà ÷åãà åìà ëôéøåù ä÷åðèøñ ãôéøù [ö"ì ëîå - èäøú ä÷åãù] âáé àåá åéãòåðé àééùéì
ii. It connotes that Marpek of the Yad corresponds to the knee of the Regel. Also, everywhere it connotes that Atzil is the elbow, unlike Rashi, who explained like regarding Ov and Yid'oni, that it is the underarm. (Taharas ha'Kodesh - Rashi holds like the Rashba, that the entire bone from the elbow to the shoulder is called Marpek and Atzil - Ohalos uses different names to distinguish bones in the elbow.)
åáîñëú ñåôøéí (ô''â) úðéà ìà éùéí ùðé àöéìéå òì äñôø åæäå ä÷åãà ùãøê ìäùòï òìéå
iii. And in Maseches Sofrim (3:11) it teaches that one may not put his two Atzilav on a Sefer. This is the elbow, which it is normal to lean on it.
òåã àîøé' áô''á ãæáçéí (ãó éè.) åìà éçâøå áéæò ùàéï çåâøéï áî÷åí ùîæéòéï åìà ìîèä îîúðéäï åìà ìîòìä îàöéìéäï àìà ëðâã àöéìé éãéäï åäééðå ëðâã ä÷åãà ùùí ãøê ìçâåø åìà ëðâã àééùéì ãàãøáä ùí î÷åí æéòä éåúø
iv. Also, we say in Zevachim (19a) "Lo Yachgeru ba'Yaza" - [Kohanim] do not gird themselves [with the Avnet] in a place where people are Mezi'ah (sweat), and not below the loins or above the Atzileihen, rather, even with Atzilei Yedeihen, i.e. opposite the elbows, for there it is normally to gird, and not opposite the underarm. Just the contrary, there is more a place of sweat!
åáôø÷ äîôìú (ðãä ãó ì:) (ãàîøéðï) [ö"ì àîøéðï ðîé - öàï ÷ãùéí] âáé åìã áîòé àîå åùðé àöéìéå òì áøëéå
v. And in Nidah (30b) we say about a fetus in its mother's womb "its two Atzilav are on its knees."
åîäà ãëúéá áéøîéä (ìç) ùéí ðà )áìåéé) [ðøàä ùö"ì áìåàé] äñçáåú úçú (àöéìé) [ö"ì àöéìåú] éãéê
(c) Implied question: It says in Yirmeyah "Sim Na Belo'ei ha'Sechavos... Tachas Atzilei Yadecha"! (When he was lifted out of the pit, he put rags under his underarms, to cushion them from the ropes!)
ìà ÷ùéà îéãé (åìôé) [ö"ì ìôé] ùäéä àåçæ áçáìéí áéãéå åîùéí úçú ä÷åãà áìåéé äñçáéí ùìà éæé÷å ìå
(d) Answer: This is not difficult at all, because he was holding ropes in his hands, and he put under the elbow worn out rags, so they would not harm him.
åäà ãúðï âáé ùáú äîåöéà áôéå åáîøôé÷å
(e) Implied question: A Mishnah regarding Shabbos (92a) says "one who takes out [to Reshus ha'Rabim] in his mouth or elbow"! (How can one carry in his elbow?)
àôùø ùéúï àãí âøåâøú ëðâã àåúå ôø÷ ùì ÷åãà îáôðéí åëåôó éãå òì ëúéôå ùìà úôåì äâøåâøú åéåöéàðä
(f) Answer: A person can put a fig opposite the elbow, (i.e. on the) inside, and bend his hand to his shoulder, so the fig will not fall, and take it out.
åäà ãúðï áô' ã' îéúåú (ñðäãøéï ãó ñä.) áòì àåá æä ôéúåí äîãáø áùçéå åáâî' úðéà áòì àåá æä äîãáø áéï äôø÷éí åáéï àöéìé éãéå îùîò ãàöéì äåà áéú äùçé
(g) Implied question: A Mishnah (Sanhedrin 65a) teaches that a Ba'al Ov is a witch who [conjures up a Mes, and it] speaks from [the witch's] underarm, and a Beraisa (65b) says that a Ba'al Ov is one who [causes a Mes to] speak from Bein ha'Perakim (his joints) or between Atzilei Yadav. This implies that Atzil is the underarm!
öøéê ìåîø ãîàé ãùééø áîúðé' ôéøù ááøééúà åëîå ùäåñéôå áéï äôø÷éí äééðå ôéø÷é àöáòåú ëê äåñéôå àöéìé éãéå ùäåà îøô÷ ÷åãà áìò''æ ëãôøéùéú
(h) Answer: We must say that what the Mishnah omitted, the Beraisa explained. Just like [the Beraisa] added Bein ha'Perakim, i.e. the joints of the fingers, it added also Atzilei Yadav, i.e. the elbow, like I explained.
åîã÷ã÷ ø''ú îääéà ãòøëéï (ãó éè:) ãîùîò äúí ãîãàåøééúà éãê æå ÷éáåøú àáì áðãøéí äìê àçø ìùåï áðé àãí åòã îøôé÷å äåà ãîé÷øéà éã îùåí ã÷éáåøú ìà äåé áëìì
(i) Inference (R. Tam): The Gemara in Erchin (19b) connotes that mid'Oraisa, "Yadcha" is Kibores, but vows depends on Leshon Bnei Adam (how people speak), and until the elbow is called Yad, because Kibores is not included.
åòåã îãàîøéðï áùîòúéï ùúäà ùéîä ëðâã äìá åäééðå ëðâã äããéí ëãàîøéðï áîåòã ÷èï (ãó ëæ:) äñôã òì äìá ëãëúéá òì ùãéí ñåôãéí
(j) Support: In our Sugya (37b), we say that Simah (putting the hand Tefilin) is opposite the heart, i.e. even with the nipples, like we say in Mo'ed Katan (27b) that eulogy is on the heart, like it is written "Al Shadayim Sofdim."
åîääéà ãòøëéï ÷ùä ìãáøé äîôøùéí áô' ëì äáùø (çåìéï ãó ÷å:) ìçåìéï òã äôø÷ äåà ôø÷ ùìéùé ùì äàöáòåú òã çéáåøï ìôéñú éãéí åìúøåîä ëì äéã åì÷éãåù éãéí åøâìéí òã äôø÷ ãäééðå ÷åãà åäëé àéúà áñôø äæäéø
(k) Observation: The Gemara in Erchin is difficult for those who explain in Chulin (106b) "for Chulin [one must wash his hands] until the Perek", is the third knuckle of the fingers, until where they connect to the palm, for Terumah the entire hand, and for Kidush of hands and feet until the Perek, i.e. the elbow. It says so in Sefer ha'Zahir.
åìà éúëï ëãîåëç ääéà ãòøëéï (ãó éè:) ã÷åãà äééðå ùéòåøà ãðãøéí
(l) Rejection #1: This cannot be, like is proven from the Gemara in Erchin, that the elbow is the Shi'ur for Nedarim!
òåã øàéä îãúðï áô' äæøåò (çåìéï ãó ÷ìã.) àéæäå æøåò îï äôø÷ ùì àøëåáä òã äëó ùì éã åäåà ùì ðæéø
(m) Rejection #2: A Mishnah in Chulin (134a) says "which is the Zero'a? It is from the [lower] knee joint until Kaf (shoulder) of the foreleg, and it is of [Eil] Nazir (the Kohen receives it. Animals have two knees and three bones in each leg);
åëðâãå áøâì ùå÷ äàîåø áùìîéí îï äàøëåáä [ö"ì îï - öàï ÷ãùéí] äôø÷ ùì äàøëåáä òã áå÷à ãàèîà (òã äéøê ãäééðå ùðé òöîåú áòöí) [ö"ì ãäééðå ëì äéøê åäåé ùðé òöîåú òöí - éã áðéîéï] äàîöòé åòöí ùì ÷åìéú
1. Corresponding to it in the hind leg is the Shok mentioned regarding Shelamim, from the [lower] knee joint until the hip, i.e. the entire thigh. It is two bones - the middle bone and the Kulis (femur).
ø' éäåãä àåîø îï äôø÷ ùì äàøëåáä òã ñåáê ùì øâì åäåà òöí äàîöòé äîçåáø ì÷åìéú åìàåúå ôø÷ ÷øé ñåáê ùì øâì ëê ôéøù ùí á÷åðèøñ
2. R. Yehudah says, from the [lower] knee joint until the Sovech of the leg. It is the middle bone connected to the Kulis. That joint is called the Sovech of the leg. So Rashi explained there.
åîéäå àéï øàéä îæøåò ãáäîä ìæøåò ãàãí ãäà ùå÷ ãàãí ðîé ìà äåé ëùå÷ ãáäîåú ãúðï áàäìåú á' áùå÷ çîùä áàøëåáä åà' áéøê
(n) Rebuttal (of Rejection #2): We cannot bring a proof from the Zero'a of an animal to a human Zero'a, for also a human Shok is unlike an animal Shok, for the Mishnah in Ohalos says that there are two bones in the Shok, five in the knee, and one in the Yerech.
àìîà ÷øé ùå÷ òöí äîçåáø ìøâì
1. This shows that the bone next to the foot is called Shok!
åéúëï ìø' éäåãä ðîé äééðå ùå÷ ãáäîä (åéù) [ö"ì ãéù - îäøù"à] îôøùéí ãñåáê ùì øâì ã÷àîø ø' éäåãä äééðå ôø÷ äñîåê ìøâì ãäééðå àéñúåéøà ÷áéìé''à áìò''æ
(o) Remark: It is possible that according to R. Yehudah, also Shok of an animal [is the bone next to the foot], for some explain that the Sovech of the leg that R. Yehudah said is the joint next to the foot, i.e. the ankle.
åëï îùîò áúåñôúà ãîñëú éãéí ã÷úðé ùéòåø ùá÷éãåù éãéí òã äôø÷ åáøâìéí òã äñåáê åäééðå òã äôø÷ ã÷àîø áîñëú òøëéï
(p) Support #1: The Tosefta in Yadayim (2:1) teaches that the Shi'ur for Kidush of hands is until the Perek, and for feet until the Sovech. This is "until the Perek" that it says in Erchin.
åáéøåùìîé ãîöåú çìéöä ðîé îåëéç ëï ã÷àîø âáé çìéöä ëéðé îúðé' á÷ùåø îï äàøëåáä åìîèä ëùéøä àáì îï äàøëåáä åìîòìä ôñåìä
(q) Support #2: Also the Yerushalmi in Yevamos proves like this. It says regarding Chalitzah "our Mishnah holds that if [a shoe] is tied from the knee and below, [the Chalitzah] is Kosher. From the knee and above, it is Pasul;
åôøéê åäëúéá (ùîåú ì) åøçöå áðé àäøï àú éãéäí åàú øâìéäí åúðï òìä áéã òã äôø÷ åáøâì òã äñåáê åäéëé àîø ëê
1. It asks that it is written "v'Rachatzu Bnei Aharon Es Yedeihem v'Es Ragleihem", and a Mishnah teaches about this "the hands until the Perek, and the feet until the Sovech." How can it say (that until the knee is Kosher for Chalitzah? Regel is only until the Sovech!)
ùðééä ãëúéá (ãáøéí ëä) îòì øâìå
2. It answers that it says [about Chalitzah] "me'Al Raglo" (what is above the Regel).
îòúä àôéìå îï äàøëåáä åìîòìä úäà ëùéøä ùðééä (äéà) ãëúéá îòì øâìå åìà îòì ãîòì øâìå
3. It asks that if so, even above the knee should be Kosher! It answers that it written "me'Al Raglo", and not me'Al of me'Al Raglo.
îùîò ã÷øé ñåáê ìôø÷ äñîåê ìøâì. î''ø
4. Inference: It calls the Sovech the joint next to the foot. This is from my Rebbi.
6) TOSFOS DH Mekom she'Mocho Shel Tinok Rofes
úåñôåú ã"ä î÷åí ùîåçå ùì úéðå÷ øåôñ
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that from there until the forehead is Kosher.)
äåà äãéï äñîåê ìîöç ëãîåëç ì÷îï î÷åí äøàåé ìèîà áðâò à' åàîøéðï áòéøåáéï (ãó öä:) î÷åí éù áøàù ùøàåé ìäðéç ùí ùðé úôéìéï. î''ø
(a) Explanation: The same applies to what is next to the forehead, like is proven below (37b), a place proper to become Tamei through one Nega, and we say in Eruvin (95b) that there is place on the head to wear two Tefilin. (I.e. it is from where hairs grow until where a baby's head is soft.)
7) TOSFOS DH Oh Kum Gali v'Chulei
úåñôåú ã"ä àå ÷åí âìé ëå'
(SUMMARY: Tosfos brings from a Midrash that such a case occurred.)
áòåìí äæä ìéëà àáì éù áîãøù àùîãàé äåöéà îúçú ÷ø÷ò àãí à' ùéù ìå ùðé øàùéí ìôðé ùìîä äîìê
(a) Explanation: In this world there is not [such a case], but there is in the Midrash. Ashmedai (the king of the Shedim) brought from under the ground a man with two heads in front of Shlomo ha'Melech;
1. Note: Tosfos says that there is no such case in this world, i.e. nowadays. Even though a man asked Rebbi about Pidyon ha'Ben of such a baby, it is Tereifah, and it would not live to the age of wearing Tefilin or fathering children.
åðùà àùä åäåìéã áðéí ëéåöà áå áùðé øàùéí åëéåöà áàùúå áøàù àçã åëùáàå ìçìå÷ áðëñé àáéäí îé ùéù ìå ùðé øàùéí ùàì ùðé çì÷éí åáàå ìãéï ìôðé ùìîä. î''ø
2. He married a woman and fathered [some] children like himself, with two heads, and [others] like his wife, with one head. When [he died] and they cane to divide their father's property, one with two heads required two shares. They came for judgment in front of Shlomo. This is from my Rebbi.
8) TOSFOS DH Shome'a Ani Afilu Nitraf b'Soch Lamed Yom
úåñôåú ã"ä ùåîò àðé àôé' ðèøó áúåê ì' éåí
(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes that this means that it became Tereifah.)
ôéøù á÷åðèøñ ðèøó ðäøâ
(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi): "Nitraf" means that it was killed.
å÷ùä ìø''ú ãîîúðé' äåä ìéä ìà÷ùåéé ãúðï ááëåøåú (ãó îè.) îú äáï áúåê ì' éåí äàá ôèåø îçîù ñìòéí
(b) Question #1 (R. Tam): [The Gemara] should have asked from a Mishnah in Bechoros (49a). It teaches that if the son died within 30 days, the father is exempt from five Sela'im! (Why did it ask from a Beraisa?)
åòåã ÷ùä ãáô''÷ ãááà ÷îà (ãó éà:) ãàîø òåìà à''ø àìòæø áëåø ùðèøó áúåê ì' éåí àéï ôåãéï àåúå îàé ÷î''ì îúðé' äéà
(c) Question #2: In Bava Kama (11b), Ula said in the name of R. Elazar that if a Bechor was "Nitraf" within 30 days, we do not redeem him. What is the Chidush? A Mishnah teaches this! (This Dibur continues on Amud B.)
37b----------------------------------------37b
åîéäå ääéà àéëà ìùðåéé ãðäøâ àéöèøéëà ìéä ãäåä àîéðà ãåå÷à îú îòöîå ãîåëç îéìúà ãðôì äåà
(d) Answer (to Question #2): We can answer that [Ula] needed to teach when it was killed. One might have thought that [he is exempt] only when it died by itself, that it is proven that it is a Nefel (stillborn).
åëï ôéøù ùí á÷åðèøñ ãîú îòöîå ìà àéöèøéëà ìéä ãàéï ôåãéï ãäà ëúéá (áîãáø éç) åôãåéå îáï çãù úôãä
(e) Support: Rashi explained there that [Ula] did not need to teach about when it died by itself, that we do not redeem it, for it is written "u'Fduyav mi'Ben Chodesh Tifdeh";
àáì ðäøâ àéöèøéëà ìéä ìàùîåòéðï ãìà àîøéðï ãàé ìà ÷èìéä äåé çéé åìàå ðôì äåà åìôø÷éä
1. However, he needed to teach about when it was killed, that we do not say that had it not been killed, it would have lived, and it is not a Nefel, and [the father] redeems it.
å÷ùä ìôéøåùå ãåôãåéå îáï çåãù âæéøú äëúåá äåà åìà ìàôå÷éä îúåøú ðôì àìà àôéìå ÷éí ìéä áâåéä ùëìå ìå çãùéå
(f) Question #1: "U'Fduyav mi'Ben Chodesh" is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv (the Torah decreed that Pidyon is only after 30 days). It is not to remove it from the law of [Safek] Nefel! Rather, even if we know that it had [nine] full months [of pregnancy, he is exempt].
àò''â ãîäëà ðô÷à ãëì ùùää ì' éåí áàãí àéðå ðôì
1. Implied question: We learn from here that any human who lived 30 days is not a Nefel! (I.e. Pidyon is after 30 days, for then it is not a Safek Nefel.)
îéãé ãäåä àáï ùîðä éîéí ãáäîä ãéìôéðï îéðä ãàéðå ðôì àò''â ãâæéøú äëúåá
2. Answer: [No,] it is just like an animal that lived eight days. (From then one may offer it for a Korban.) We learn from this that it is not a Nefel, even though it is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv;
ëé ÷éí ìï áâååéä ùëìå ìå çãùéå ëãîåëç áô''÷ ãøàù äùðä (ãó å:) ãàéï îåðéï ìå àìà îùòú äøöàä
i. Source: [Even] when we know that it had the full months [of pregnancy, one may not offer it before eight days], like is proven in Rosh Hashanah (6b) that we count [its year] only from when it was proper to offer it (after eight days. This shows that it is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv.)
åòåã àîøé' áôø÷ éù áëåø (áëåøåú ãó îè.) âáé ôåãä àú áðå áúåê ùìùéí éåí åðúàëìå äîòåú áúåê ì' éåí àéï áðå ôãåé
(g) Question #2: We say in Bechoros (49a) regarding one who redeems his son within 30 days and the coins were consumed within 30 days, his son is not redeemed.
òåã àîøé' áéøåùìîé áô''÷ ã÷ãåùéï âîøà áäîä âñä ðé÷ðéú áîñéøä øáé éäåãä (àîø ùàì) [ö"ì ùàì àú] øáé àìòæø áëåø ùðèøó áúåê ì' éåí à''ì ãåîä ìå ëîé ùîú åôèåø îçîù ñìòéí ùì áï
(h) Question #3: We say in the Yerushalmi in Kidushin, in the Gemara about a big (i.e. work) animal is acquired through Mesirah, R. Yehudah asked about R. Elazar if a Bechor was Nitraf within 30 days, and he said "he is like one who died, and [the father] is exempt from five Sela'im of [Pidyon ha']Ben";
åàé áðäøâ îàé ùééê ìîéîø ëîé ùîú
1. If [Nitraf] means that he was killed, why does it say "he is like one who died"?!
åîôøù ø''ú ãðèøó äééðå ãðòùä èøéôä àò''ô ùçéä éåúø îì' éåí
(i) Explanation #2 (R. Tam): Nitraf means that he became Tereifah, and even if he lived more than 30 days;
åëéåï ùéù ìå ùðé øàùéí äééðå èøéôä ãëì éúø ëðèåì ãîé. î''ø
1. Since [this baby] has two heads, he is Tereifah, for anything extra is as if was removed (it is as if it does not have a head). This is from my Rebbi.
9) TOSFOS DH Mah Lehalan b'Makom ha'Ra'uy Litamei b'Nega Echad v'Chulei
úåñôåú ã"ä îä ìäìï áî÷åí äøàåé ìéèîà áðâò àçã ëå'
(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks why we do not learn that it must be in a place of flesh.)
åà''ú àé îä ìäìï áî÷åí áùø àó ëàï áî÷åí áùø ëâåï ôãçúå. î''ø
(a) Question: If [we learn from there, we should say that] just like there it is in a place of flesh (not hair), also here in a place of flesh, e.g. his forehead! This is from my Rebbi.
10) TOSFOS DH Hai Man d'Chaitei li'Glimei...
úåñôåú ã"ä äàé îàï ãçééèéä ìâìéîéä...
(SUMMARY: Tosfos rejects Rashi's first Perush.)
ôéøù á÷åðèøñ áìùåï (àçø) [ö"ì øàùåï - îäøù"à, öàï ÷ãùéí] ùðëôì èìéúå åúôøä ùìà úùåá ìàéúðä àô''ä ìà òáã ëìåí
(a) Explanation (Rashi, first Perush): He folded his Talis and sewed it, so it will not return to its former state. Even so, he did nothing (it has no affect. Rashi's second Perush is on 38a.)
åìà äéä ìå ìôøù ëï ãì÷îï áô' äúëìú (ãó îà.) úðéà èìéú ëôåìä çééáú áöéöéú åøáé ùîòåï ôåèø åùåéï ùàí ëôìä åúôøä ùçééáú
(b) Objection: He should not have explained so, for below (41a) a Beraisa teaches that a folded Talis is obligated in Tzitzis, and R. Shimon exempts. They agree that if he folded it and sewed it, it is obligated;
àìîà ùçééáú áî÷åí äëôéìåú ìäèéì ùí öéöéú åìà àîøéðï ëîàï ãùøééä ãîé åéåòéìä öéöéú ùá÷øðåúéä:
1. Inference: It is obligated to attach Tzitzis in place of the folds. We do not say that it is as if it is untied, and the Tzitzis on its corners help!