1)

TOSFOS DH Parshasvina

úåñôåú ã"ä ôøùúáéðà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes that this word denotes authority.)

ô"ä ùí àéù åëï áòøåê

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi, Aruch): This is a man's name.

åàéðå ëï ãàí ëï ä"ì ìîéîø îôåîáãéúà

(b)

Rebuttal: If so, it should have said "from Pumbedisa"!

àìà ôøùá"í ìùåï ôøðñåú åîîùìä.

(c)

Explanation #2 (Rashbam): It is an expression of leadership and authority.

2)

TOSFOS DH Malei Basar Mahu

úåñôåú ã"ä îìà áùø îäå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we cannot resolve this from our Mishnah.)

îîúðé' ã÷úðé îìà ãí åîìà îéí ìéëà ìîôùè

(a)

Implied question: We can resolve this from our Mishnah, which says [that there is no concern for a child if a Shefir] is full of blood or water. (This connotes that if it is full of flesh, there was a child!)

ããéìîà äà îìà áùø çåùùú àáì åãàé åìã ìà äåé

(b)

Answer #1: (We cannot resolve from it.) Perhaps if it is full of flesh, we are concerned lest there was a child, but it is not Vadai that there was a child.

à"ð äà ãìà çùéá îùåí ãáôìåâúà ìà îééøé.

(c)

Answer #2: The Tana did not mention [when it is full of flesh] because he does not discuss laws about which Tana'im argue.

3)

TOSFOS DH Shema k'R. Yehoshua

úåñôåú ã"ä ùîà ëø' éäåùò

(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves R. Yehoshua ben Levi's opinion with Rebbi's Safek.)

àò"â ãáòé ìîéîø áñîåê îçìå÷ú áöìåì àáì áòëåø ãáøé äëì åìã

(a)

Implied question: Below, we want to say that they argue about when it is clear, but if it is cloudy, all agree that there was a child!

øáé ðîé îñåô÷ äéä áäà ãäà ÷àîø ùîà.

(b)

Answer: Rebbi was unsure also about this, for he said "perhaps". (Chachmas Betzalel - since Rebbi said "I did not hear", you are forced to say that he did not know the argument. Reish Lakish and R. Yehoshua ben Levi were not concerned for this, for they or R. Yishmael heard.)

4)

TOSFOS DH k'Sumchus

úåñôåú ã"ä ëñåîëåñ

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why this is consistent with saying that she is Teme'ah Leidah for a Shefir full of flesh.)

åà"ú åàí ùôéø îìà ãí äåé ëçúéëä ùáúåëä ãí ùôéø îìà áùø ðîé ìäåé ëçúéëä ùì áùø

(a)

Question: If a Shefir full of blood is like a piece with blood inside, also a Shefir full of flesh should be like a piece of flesh;

ãàîø áôéø÷éï ãàéðä èîàä ìéãä ëùàéï áä òöí

1.

We say in our Perek that she is not Teme'ah Leidah [for a piece of flesh] if it has no bone!

åéù ìåîø ãùôéø ãîéà ìåìã èôé îçúéëä åèîà àôéìå àéï áä òöí àò"â ãáîìà ãí ùðéäí ùåéí.

(b)

Answer: A Shefir resembles a child more than a piece. She is Teme'ah [Leidah] even if it has no bone, even though they (a Shefir and a piece) are the same when they are full of blood.

5)

TOSFOS DH Machlokes b'Tzalul

úåñôåú ã"ä îçìå÷ú áöìåì

(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes that this refers to clear flesh.)

ô"ä îìà îéí åëï îùîò

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): ["Clear" means that] it is full of water. Also [the Gemara] connotes like this.

å÷ùä åëé òãéó îîìàä ãí ãàîø ìòéì ãèîàä ðãä åìà ìéãä àôé' ìøáé éäåùò

(b)

Objection: This is no better [reason to be Metamei] than when it is full of blood. We said above that [in such a case] she is Teme'ah Nidah, but not Leidah, even according to R. Yehoshua!

ìëê ðøàä ìôøù ãöìåì åòëåø äééðå áùø òëåø åáùø öìåì.

(c)

Explanation #2: Rather, it seems that "clear" and "cloudy" refer to clear flesh and cloudy flesh.

6)

TOSFOS DH she'Ein ha'Kadosh Baruch Hu Oseh Ohr v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä ùàéï ä÷á"ä òåùä òåø ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how we learn from the verse.)

ãëúðåú òåø áòåø àãí îééøé ëãîúøâîéðï òì îùê áùøéäåï.

(a)

Explanation: "Kosnos Ohr" refers to human skin, like the Targum "Al Meshech Bisreihon."

7)

TOSFOS DH Siman Vlad bi'Vehemah Dakah Tinuf

úåñôåú ã"ä ñéîï åìã ááäîä ã÷ä èéðåó

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this is not the Tinuf discussed below.)

äàé èéðåó äåà åìã òöîå åìà ãîé ìèéðåó ãì÷îï ãøåá áäîåú îèðôåú

(a)

Explanation: This "Tinuf" is a [dissolved] child itself. It is unlike Tinuf below (29a), when we say that most animals secrete Tinuf (fluids, before giving birth);

ãäúí èéðåó ùì àçø éöéøú äåìã

1.

There, it refers to Tinuf after the fetus was formed.

i.

Note: Perhaps the text must be amended. Rashi says that here, the Tinuf was after the fetus was formed! In the Venice printing, it says "Acher Yetzi'as ha'Vlad." However, on 29a we discuss Tinuf that came out before the fetus!

8)

TOSFOS DH Gabei Behemah l'Chumra

úåñôåú ã"ä âáé áäîä ìçåîøà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that there is also a leniency.)

åàò"â ã÷åìà äåà ùîåöéàéï îîåï îøùåú éùøàì

(a)

Implied question: This is a leniency! We remove the animal from the Yisrael's Reshus [and force him to give it to a Kohen]!

äééðå îùåí ãàé ìà éäéá ìëäï àúé ìîùøé áâéæä åòáåãä.

(b)

Answer: This is because if he would not give it to a Kohen, he would come to permit shearing it or working with it.

9)

TOSFOS DH Einah Chosheshes

úåñôåú ã"ä àéðä çåùùú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that Rav holds like Reish Lakish.)

å÷ñáø øá ãáòëåø îçìå÷ú [ø"é] åøáðï.

(a)

Explanation: Rav holds that when it is cloudy, R. Yehoshua and Rabanan argue.

10)

TOSFOS DH Techilas Beriyaso mi'Rosho

úåñôåú ã"ä úçìú áøééúå îøàùå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos says that the text should say k'Rashon.)

úéîä ãáô' áúøà ãñåèä (ãó îä:) ÷ñáø àáà ùàåì úçìú áøééúå îèéáåøå åîùìç ùøùéå àéìê åàéìê

(a)

Question: In Sotah (45b), Abaye holds that its initial creation is from its stomach, and it sends its roots in all directions!

åðøàä ìø"ú ãâøñ ëøùåï (äâää áâìéåï) åëï ôø"ç

(b)

Answer (R. Tam): The text says k'Rashon. Also R. Chananel explained so.

åáúåñôúà ôéøù ëòéï çâá ãñìòí îúøâîéðï øùåï

(c)

Explanation: The Tosefta explains "like a grasshopper". The Targum of Sal'am (a species of grasshopper) is Rashon.

åëï îùîò ãîééøé áùéòåø äàáøéí.

1.

Support: The Beraisa discusses the [initial] size of the limbs.

11)

TOSFOS DH Ohr v'Basar Talbisheni v'Atzamos v'Gidim Tesochecheni

úåñôåú ã"ä òåø åáùø úìáéùðé åòöîåú åâéãéí úñåëëðé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that Techiyas ha'Mesim is in the opposite order.)

áøéùà òåø åáùø åäãø òöîåú åâéãéí

(a)

Observation: First there is skin and flesh, and afterwards bones and sinews;

åáúçééú äîúéí ãéçæ÷àì (ñéîï ìæ) àéôëà âéãéï åäãø áùø

(b)

Distinction: Regarding Techiyas ha'Mesim in Yechezkeil, the order is opposite! [It mentions] sinews, and then flesh.

åîôøù áîãøù ìîä äãáø ãåîä ìàãí ùôåùè åçåæø åìåáù îä ùôåùè øàùåï ìåáù àçøåï

(c)

Explanation: The Midrash says that this is like one who removes his clothes, and then returns to wear what he removed. What he removed first, he puts on last;

àáì áúçìú áøééú äåìã òåø åáùø úçìä åàç"ë òöîåú åâéãéï.

1.

However, at the beginning of the creation of a fetus, skin and flesh are first, and afterwards bones and sinews.

25b----------------------------------------25b

12)

TOSFOS DH Leida Im Zachar Hu

úåñôåú ã"ä ìéãò àí æëø äåà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why a chip is needed.)

äà ãàîø âåéúå áëòãùä

(a)

Implied question: It says that its Ever is the size of a lentil! (One can see it. Why must one feel with a chip?)

ìà ùî÷åîå áåìè àìà ùî÷åîå ðéëø áëòãùä.

(b)

Answer: It does not stick out [the size of a lentil]. Rather, its place is recognizable [through a chip] like the size of a lentil.

13)

TOSFOS DH ha'Mapeles Sandal Oh Shilya Teshev l'Zachar ul'Nekevah (pertains to Mishnah 24b)

úåñôåú ã"ä äîôìú ñðãì àå ùìéà úùá ìæëø åìð÷áä (ùééê ìîùðä ëã:)

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses why the Mishnah did not mention Nidah.)

åà"ú áùìéà ìéúðé ðîé åìðãä ãàéîà äøçé÷ä ìéãúä åëáø ëìå éîé èåäø ëãàéúà ì÷îï áôéø÷éï (ãó ëç.) âáé äîôìú éã çúåëä

(a)

Question: Regarding a Shilya, it should say that she is also [stringent like] Nidah. Perhaps the birth was a long time ago, and Yemei Tohar already finished, like it says below (28a) about one who miscarried a cut hand!

àò"â ãàîø áñîåê àéï úåìéï äùìéà áåìã éåúø îâ' éîéí

1.

Suggestion: It says below that we do not attribute a Shilya to a child [born] more than three days ago!

ìäçîéø çåùùéï éåúø îâ' éîéí

2.

Rejection: To be stringent, we are concerned even more than three days!

åé"ì ãìà ãîå ãáäîôìú éã çúåëä àéëà ìîéîø ãäøàù àå øåá äâåó ëáø éìãä î÷åãí åëìå éîé èåäø

(b)

Answer #1: These are different. One who miscarried a cut hand, we can say that the head or the majority of the body was already born beforehand, and Yemei Tohar already ended;

àáì ùìéà àéîà äåìã áúåëä àå ùìí àå ðéîå÷

1.

However, regarding a Shilya, we can say that the fetus is inside it, either intact or dissolved.

åòåã é"ì ãàé äåä úðé åìðãä ä"à îáéàä ÷øáï åàéðå ðàëì ãñô÷ ìéãä äéà

(c)

Answer #2: Had it taught "and for Nidah", one might have thought that she brings a Korban and it may not be eaten, for it is a Safek birth;

÷î"ì îáéàä ÷øáï åðàëì åäëé ðîé ÷àîø ì÷îï.

1.

The Mishnah [omitted Nidah] to teach that this is not so. She brings a Korban and it is eaten. We say so below.

14)

TOSFOS DH Ka Mashma Lan Eima Sheneihem Hazri'u b'Vas Achas

úåñôåú ã"ä ÷à îùîò ìï àéîà ùðéäí äæøéòå ááú àçú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses why we needed to say so.)

ìø"ú ùôéøù ãàéï îúòáøú åçåæøú åîúòáøú åàôéìå ðôì àúé ùôéø åö"ì ùäæøéòå ááú àçú

(a)

Observation: According to R. Tam, who says that a pregnant woman cannot become pregnant with another fetus, even [a second fetus that will be] a Nefel, this is fine. We need to say that they were Mazri'a (gave off their seed) at once.

àáì ìôøù"é ùôéøù âáé â' ðùéí îùîùåú áîåê îòåáøú ùîà úòùä òåáøä ñðãì ùåìã àçøåï îîòê öåøä äøàùåðä

(b)

Question: However, Rashi (below, 45a) said regarding three women who have Bi'ah using a wad, that a pregnant woman does so lest the fetus become a Sandal, for the latter will mash the form of the first;

åäà ãàéï àùä çåæøú åîúòáøú

1.

Implied question: We say that a pregnant woman cannot become pregnant with another fetus!

äééðå áï ÷ééîà àáì (ëï äåà áãôåñ åðöéä) ðôì çåæøú åîúòáøú

2.

Answer: [She cannot become pregnant with another] viable fetus, but she can become pregnant with a Nefel.

ìà äåä ö"ì äëà àéîà ùðéäí äæøéòå ááú àçú åäì"ì ááéàä øàùåðä äæøéòä äéà úçìä åááéàä ùðéä äæøéò äåà úçìä

3.

Summation of question: There was no need to say that they were Mazri'a at once. We should have said that in the first Bi'ah, she was Mazri'a first, and in the second Bi'ah, he was Mazri'a first!

åîéäå é"ì ãáòðéï æä áá' áéàåú àéï çãåù ìîúðé úùá ìæëø åìð÷áä

(c)

Answer: We can say that in such a case of two Bi'os, it is no Chidush to teach that she must observe [stringencies of Yoledes] Zachar and Nekevah;

ãôùéèà ãôòîéí äåà îæøéò úçìä åôòîéí äéà åìà àîø îãäàé æëø äàé ðîé æëø

1.

Obviously, sometimes he is Mazri'a first, and sometimes she is, so we do not say that since this [fetus] is a male, also this (the Sandal) is a male;

àáì ááéàä àçú ñã"à îãäàé æëø äàé ðîé æëø ÷î"ì àéîà ùðéäí äæøéòå ááú àçú

2.

However, when they were from one Bi'ah, one might have thought that since this [fetus] is a male, also this (the Sandal) is a male. We learn that this is not so. Perhaps they were Mazri'a at once.

åîéäå ÷ùä îðìï ãìà àîøéðï ááéàä àçú îãäàé æëø äàé ðîé æëø

(d)

Question: What is the source that when they were from one Bi'ah, we do not say that since this is a male, also this is a male?

àéîà ìòåìí àîøé' åîúðé' áá' áéàåú åàùîåòéðï îúðé' ãñðãì äåé åìã àó áìà öåøú ôðéí åìàôå÷é îòãåúå ùì øáé ðçåðéà

1.

Perhaps we say so, and our Mishnah discusses two Bi'os. It teaches that a Sandal is a fetus, even without the form of a face. It teaches unlike R. Nechunya's testimony!

åàò"â ãëáø àùîòéðï ááëåøåú åáëøéúåú ãîééúé áñîåê ãñðãì äåà åìã

2.

Suggestion: We already learned in [Mishnayos in] Bechoros and Kerisus, brought below (26a), that a Sandal is a fetus.

î"î àéöèøéê ðîé ìàùîåòéðï ãäåé åìã ìòðéï ìéãä

3.

Rejection: We needed to teach that it is a fetus regarding [Tum'as] Leidah!

åé"ì ãäééðå ã÷îùðé áìùåï ùðé

(e)

Answer: This is what the Gemara answers in Version #2 (that Tum'as Sandal is relevant when one was born before Shki'ah, and the other after Shki'ah. We are not concerned for different genders when they came from one Bi'ah.)

åîéäå úéîä âí ìôø"ú ãì÷îï (ãó ëç.) âáé æëø åèåîèåí îùðé ðîé ùäæøéòå ùðéäí ááú àçú åúøúé ìîä ìé

(f)

Question: Also according to R. Tam's Perush, below (28a) regarding a male and a Tumtum, we answer that [perhaps] both were Mazri'a at once. Why must we teach this twice [in the Mishnayos]?

åàé àúà ìàùîåòéðï ãäåé åìã

1.

Suggestion: Perhaps [that Mishnah] teaches that [a Tumtum] is a child [regarding Tum'as Leidah].

åäà ëáø úðà áäãéà áøéùà èåîèåí àå àðãøåâéðåñ úùá ìæëø åìð÷áä.

2.

Rejection: The Reisha already teaches this explicitly! If she gave birth to a Tumtum or Androginus, she observes stringencies of [Yoledes] Zachar and Nekevah.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF