1)

TOSFOS DH v'Yalfinan mi'Mufneh mi'Shenei Tzedadin

úåñôåú ã"ä åéìôéðï îîåôðä îùðé öããéï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks why the Torah made the Gezeirah Shavah free regarding man.)

úéîä åìùúå÷ îäôðàä ãàãí ãäùúà úðéï ìà îåôðä ëìì åáäîä îåôðä áöã àçã åàéï îùéáéï.

(a)

Question: [According to R. Yishmael] the Torah did not need to make ["Yetzirah"] extra regarding man, for Tanin is not extra at all, and Behemah is extra from one side (so surely we will learn from it, and not from Tanin), and we do not challenge [even though it is extra only from one side]!

2)

TOSFOS DH Yotzer Harim

úåñôåú ã"ä éåöø äøéí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this is Mufneh.)

åîåôðä äåà ëã÷àîø áñîåê.

(a)

Explanation: This is Mufneh, like it says below [since the Torah added "v'Borei"].

3)

TOSFOS DH Lisni Nachash

úåñôåú ã"ä ìéúðé ðçù

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why our Mishnah does not include the form of a snake.)

åàò"â ã÷úðé çéä åðçù áëìì çéä ëãëúéá (áøàùéú â) åäðçù äéä òøåí îëì çéú äùãä

(a)

Implied question: It taught Chayah, and a snake is included in Chayah, like it says "veha'Nachash Hayah Arum mi'Kol Chayas ha'Sadeh"!

ìàçø ùð÷ööå øâìéå ìà îé÷øé çéä ñúí àìà çéä äøåîùú åìà äåé áëìì çéä ãîúðéúéï.

(b)

Answer: After its legs were cut off, it is not called Stam Chayah. It is called Chayah ha'Romeses. It is not included in Chayah of our Mishnah.

4)

TOSFOS DH Karya v'Kifufa

úåñôåú ã"ä ÷øéà å÷éôåôà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos shows that there are two birds and a Chayah that are called Kifuf.)

â' îéðé ÷éôåó éù

(a)

Explanation: There are three kinds of Kifuf:

äëåñ åäéðùåó (åé÷øà éà) îúøâîéðï ÷øéà å÷éôåôà

1.

The Targum of "ha'Kos veha'Yanshuf" (two of the Tamei birds that the Torah lists. They are kinds of owls) is Karya v'Kifufa;

åäúðùîú ðîé àîø áàìå èøéôåú (çåìéï ãó ñâ.) æä áàåú ùáòåôåú åàîø àáéé áàåú ùáòåôåú ÷éôåó

2.

Also Tinshames (another Tamei bird listed, the bat), it says in Chulin (63a) that this is the [most] repulsive of the birds, and Abaye said that the [most] repulsive of the birds is Kifuf! (This shows that also Tinshames is a kind of Kifuf.)

åòåã ÷éôåó îéï çéä ëãàîø áäøåàä (áøëåú ðæ:) ëì îéðé çéä éôéï ìçìåí çåõ îï ä÷åó åä÷éôåó.

3.

There is another Kifuf that is a Chayah, like it says in Berachos (57b) any Chayah that one sees in a dream is a good sign, except for a monkey or Kifuf.

5)

TOSFOS DH Le'isurei b'Achosah

úåñôåú ã"ä ìàéúñåøé áàçåúä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses other questions that we could have asked.)

ìòðéï âåôä ìà áòé àí äáà òìéä çééá îùåí àùú àéù àå àí çééá ääåøâä

(a)

Implied question: Why didn't he ask about her (the baby with the form of an animal) herself, if one who has Bi'ah with her is liable for Eshes Ish, or if one who kills her is liable?

ãôùéèà ìéä ãàéðä çéä â' ùðéí ùúäà áú áéàä åìà ùðä ùìà úäà èøôä

(b)

Answer: It was obvious to him that she will not live three years for Bi'ah to apply to her, and not even a year, [which would show] that she is not a Tereifah. (One who kills a Tereifah is exempt.)

åîéäå äåä îöé ìîáòé àí äøåáò çééá ñ÷éìä ëãéï äáà òì äáäîä.

(c)

Observation: However, we could have asked about if one who has Bi'ah with the baby is stoned, like one who has Bi'ah with an animal. (Mitzpas Eisan says to see Sanhedrin 54b and 78a. There, all agree that Bi'ah with a boy less than three years old is not called Bi'ah, and that one who is Rove'a a Treifah is liable. It is not considered like Bi'ah with a Mes.)

1.

Note: Perhaps he could have asked about a Treifah who killed the baby in front of a Sanhedrin. If the baby is merely considered Treifah, and not a Nefel, we kill the murderer.

6)

TOSFOS DH Ho'il uv'Mino Miskayem

úåñôåú ã"ä äåàéì åáîéðå îú÷ééí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we must say that others of its species live.)

àò"ô ããøéù â"ù ãéöéøä áòé èòîà äåàéì åáîéðå îú÷ééí

(a)

Implied question: Since we expound the Gezeirah Shavah of Yetzirah, why do we need the reason that others of its species live?

ãàôéìå áåìã âîåø áòéðï îú÷ééí ìîòåèé ðåìã çúéëä àå çñøä

(b)

Answer: Even a total baby must [be a kind that can] survive [to be considered a child]. This excludes one who was born cut up or lacking.

åà"ú åäà âåôå úééù åôðéå àãí ãàéðå îú÷ééí åàîøéðï áñîåê ãë"ò àãí äåé

(c)

Question: If the body [of a baby] is a goat, and he has a human face, he does not survive, and we say below that all agree that he is a human!

åé"ì ãàò"â ãìà çéé ìà ááäîä åìà áàùä î"î âåôå úééù ëúé÷åðå åôðéå àãí ëúé÷åðå åàéðå çñø îàåîä.

(d)

Answer: Even though he does not live, whether he was born to an animal or a woman, in any case his body is a proper goat, and his face is a proper human, and he is not missing anything.

23b----------------------------------------23b

7)

TOSFOS DH u'Matza Bah Demus Yonah

úåñôåú ã"ä åîöà áä ãîåú éåðä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos justifies the resolution from R. Yochanan's teaching.)

åà"ú åãéìîà ìøáðï åìà ìø"î

(a)

Question: Perhaps this is like Rabanan, and unlike R. Meir!

åé"ì ãà"ë ä"ì ìø' éåçðï ìîéîø ìøáðï îöà áä ãîåú éåðä ëå'

(b)

Answer #1: If so, R. Yochanan should have said "according to Rabanan, if he found the form of a dove..." (Since he taught Stam, it is according to everyone.)

à"ð é"ì ãìà îéáòéà ìéä àìà ìø"î ãáãáø ÷ì òåùäå åìã áäîä áîòé àãí åàãí áîòé áäîä ðîé ÷øåé åìã àå ìà

(c)

Answer #2: The question was only according to R. Meir, who very easily considers an animal form in a human womb to be a [human] child. Does he also call a human form in an animal's womb a [human] child, or not?

àáì ìøáðï ôùéèà ìéä ãùøé ãìà îé÷øé åìã àìà àãí áîòé àùä

1.

However, according to Rabanan, obviously it is permitted, since they hold that only a human form in a woman is called a [human] child. (Anything else is an animal.)

åîééúé øàéä îø' éåçðï ãàîø àñåøä àôéìå ìøáðï åë"ù ìøáé îàéø.

2.

He brings a proof from R. Yochanan, who forbids even according to Rabanan (since he taught Stam, surely it is not only according to R. Meir), and all the more so according to R. Meir.

8)

TOSFOS DH she'R. Meir Omer mi'Tzuras

úåñôåú ã"ä ùø"î àåîø îöåøú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that they argue about a partial human form.)

ôé' á÷åðèøñ î÷öú ëì öåøú òéï åìñú åâáú åæ÷ï åçë"à ëì öåøú îùðé öããéí á' òéðéí ëå'

(a)

Explanation (Rashi): [It suffices to have] part of the entire form, i.e. an eye, jaw, eyebrow and chin. Chachamim require the entire form from both sides, i.e. two eyes...

åàò"â ãìø' îàéø ëé ìà ãîé ëìì ìàãí èîàä ìéãä îùåí ãëúéá áäí éöéøä

(b)

Implied question: According to R. Meir, even when [a baby has an animal form, and] he does not resemble a person at all, she has Tum'as Leidah! (Why does he require one entire side like a person?)

ëé ãîé ìàãí áòé ùéäà ãåîä ìå áî÷öú ëì äöåøä (äâäú äøù"ù)

(c)

Answer: [Even so,] when he [partially] resembles a person, we require resemblance in all [features of] the form.

åäà ôìåâúà ãéé÷ îãúðï åçë"à ëì ùàéï áå îöåøú àãí åìà ÷úðé åçë"à àéðå åìã

(d)

Source: We infer this argument from our Mishnah (21a) "anything that does not have mi'Tzuras Adam (from a human form, i.e. at least partially)." They did not say "it is not a child";

îëìì ãôìéâé ðîé áåìã ùî÷öúå àãí åî÷öúå áäîä ãìø"î áî÷öú ëì öåøúå ÷øåé åìã åìøáðï áòéà ëì äöåøä

1.

Inference: They argue also about a child that is partially human and partially animal. R. Meir holds that due to part of his form, he is called a child. Rabanan require the entire form.

i.

Note: Chachamim's words connote that a partially human form is a child! However, since R. Meir considers even a totally animal form to be a child, all the more so a partially human form is a child! Since Chachamim argue, they must hold that it is not a child.)

åäà ã÷úðé áîúðé' îöåøú

(e)

Implied question: Why does it say in the Mishnah "mi'Tzuras"? (Chachamim really require a fully human form!)

ìø"î ÷àîø ìãéãï áòéðï ëì öåøú ìãéãê àåãé ìï îéäà ãî÷öú öåøä áòéðï.

(f)

Answer: They address R. Meir. We require a full [human] form. You should admit to us that at least part of a [human] form is required!

9)

TOSFOS DH veha'Tanya Ifcha R. Meir Omer Kol Tzurah

úåñôåú ã"ä åäúðéà àéôëà ø"î àåîø ëì öåøä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that Rav holds totally opposite the Beraisa, unlike Rashi.)

ô"ä ëì ùäåà àôéìå òéï àçã áìà ìñú åâáéðéï åçë"à îöåøú ëì çöé äöåøä

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Any amount [of a human form], even one eye without the jaw and eyebrows [suffices for R. Meir]. Chachamim say mi'Tzuras - half the entire form.

å÷ùä ìôéøåùå ãëì öåøä ãøá åãáøééúà àéðï ùåéï

(b)

Objection #1: "The entire form" of Rav and the Beraisa are not the same! (This refers to the Beraisa in which R. Meir requires Kol Tzurah and Chachamim require mi'Tzurah. We will call this Beraisa #1.)

åòåã ãáäà úðéà àéôëà ìà äåä àéôëà îîù

(c)

Objection #2: [The Gemara says that] Beraisa #1 teaches oppositely [to Rav]. It is not totally opposite!

åòåã ãøá åø' éåçðï ãáñîåê ôìéâé àáøééúà

(d)

Objection #3: Rav and R. Yochanan below argue with Beraisa #1.

åàøáé éåçðï ìéëà ìîéîø úðà äåà åôìéâ ëîå àøá

1.

Suggestion: We can say that R. Yochanan is a Tana and argues with it, like we can say for Rav!

ëãîùîò ô"÷ ãëúåáåú (ãó ç.) âáé áøëú çúðéí (äâäú ø"ù îãòñåé) çúðéí îï äîðéï

2.

Rejection: It connotes in Kesuvos (8a) regarding Birkas Chasanim, that Chasanim count towards the count [of 10, that R. Yochanan is not considered a Tana. Tosfos there says that R. Yochanan cannot say that he holds like Rav, who is a Tana, for he did not consider Rav to be a Tana.]

åòåã ÷ùä ìôéøåùå ãøáà àîø çñà ëøáðï ãáøééúà

(e)

Objection #4: According to Rashi, Rava's teaching in the name of Chasa is like Rabanan of Beraisa #1;

åà"ë ëé ôøéê ìéä îáøééúà ãöåøú ôðéí ùàîøå àôéìå ôøöåó àçã ìéùðé ìéä ãàúà ëø"î ãáøééúà ëéåï ãñ"ì ëáøééúà

1.

If so, when we ask from the Beraisa (#2) that says that even one Partzuf (feature of the face) fulfills "Tzuras Panim" (the form of the face), he should answer that Beraisa #2 is like R. Meir of Beraisa #1, since he holds like Beraisa #1 (unlike Rav, who argues with Beraisa #1)!

ãäùúà ëé îùðé ìéä àáéé ëé úðéà ääéà ìòëá îå÷é ìä ëøá åäåà ìà ñ"ì äëé

2.

Now that Abaye answers that Beraisa #2 teaches what is Me'akev (any feature like an animal, except for ear, causes that it is not a child), he establishes it like Rav [who says that Chachamim require a totally human form], and he (Rava) disagrees [with Rav, and holds like Beraisa #1. If so, Rava cannot give Abaye's answer!]

åðøàä ìôøù åäúðéà àéôëà îîù ùø"î àåîø ëì öåøä ãáòéà á' òéðéí åìñúåú ãâøåò îëåìä áäîä ãäúí éöéøä ëúéá

(f)

Explanation #2: Beraisa #1 is totally opposite [to Rav]. R. Meir says "the entire form." He requires two eyes and jaws [to be called a child]. This (a partially human, partially animal form) is worse than a totally animal form. Regarding the latter, it says Yetzirah;

åøáðï àîøé îöåøú çöé öåøä

1.

Rabanan say mi'Tzuras - half the form [suffices].

åäùúà øáé éåçðï ãàîø äîöç åäâáéðéí åäòéðéí ëø"î ãáøééúà åøáà àîø çñà ëøáðï

(g)

Consequence: R. Yochanan, who says that "the forehead, eyebrows and eyes" holds like R. Meir of Beraisa #1. Rava's teaching in the name of Chasa is like Rabanan;

åôøéê ìéä îáøééúà åàå÷é ìä ëø"î

1.

We challenge [Rava] from Beraisa #2, and [to answer, Abaye] establishes [Beraisa #2] like R. Meir.

åø"ç âøéñ áãáøé øá ø"î àåîø ëì öåøú åçë"à îöåøú ëîå áîúðéúéï åááøééúà àéôëà.

(h)

Alternate text: In R. Chananel's text, Rav says "R. Meir says, the entire form. Chachamim say, mi'Tzuras", like in our Mishnah, and Beraisa #1 says oppositely.

10)

TOSFOS DH Amar Rava Veshto Nakuv Imo Teme'ah Leidah

úåñôåú ã"ä àîø øáà åùèå ð÷åá àîå èîàä ìéãä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos references another Gemara like this, and one that says oppositely.)

÷ñáø èøôä çéä

(a)

Explanation: He holds that a Tereifah can live.

åëï áô"÷ ãúîåøä (ãó éà:) âáé øâì ùì æå òåìä (àå) ëåìä òåìä ã÷àîø øá çñãà ãáãáø ùòåùä àåúä èøôä ëåìä òåìä ãèøôä àéðä çéä

(b)

Support: Also in Temurah (11b), regarding '[if one said] "the leg of this is an Olah", it is totally an Olah', Rav Chisda said that [if he was Makdish] something that [its removal] makes it a Tereifah, it is totally an Olah, for a Tereifah cannot live;

åøáà àîø ãå÷à ãáø ùòåùä àåúä ðáìä ëåìä òåìä ãèøôä çéä

1.

Rava said that only [if he was Makdish] something that [its removal] makes it a Neveilah, it is totally an Olah, for a Tereifah can live;

åáô"÷ ãáëåøåú (ãó â.) ôìåâúà àéôëà âáé î÷ðä (äâää áâìéåï) ìòåáã ëåëáéí î÷öúä ìäô÷éò îï äáëåøä

(c)

Implied question: In Bechoros (3a), they argue oppositely about being Makneh part [of an animal] to a Nochri to uproot [Kedushas] Bechorah!

ãøá çñãà àîø ãáø ùòåùä àåúä ðáìä ãèøôä çéä åøáà àîø ãáø ùòåùä àåúä ðîé èøéôä ãèøôä àéðä çéä

1.

Rav Chisda said [that he must be Makneh] something that [its removal] makes it a Neveilah, for a Tereifah can live. Rava said [it suffices to be Makneh] something that [its removal] makes it a Tereifah, for a Tereifah cannot live.

åàåîø ø"ú ãäåé ëàéëà ãàîøé.

(d)

Answer (R. Tam): This is like another version. (The version in Bechoros holds oppositely to the Sugya in Temurah. We find Sugyos in which elsewhere, the opinions are switched.)

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF