1) TOSFOS DH HA BISRA TAMEI KATANI

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why its basic Tumah remains, even though its Tumah Chamurah has no longer applies.)

, , .

(a) Clarification: This implies that it is specifically the Basar that is Tamei, but not Adam and Keilim, because it is Pasul due to Hesech haDaas.

, , ...

(b) Question: Since the Tumah Chamurah has departed (the Mei Chatas), Tumah Kalah should not apply either ...

( .) ( .) , , .

1. Question (cont.): Like we say in Perek Ba Siman(Nidah 51.) and in Perek Tvul-Yom (Zevachim 105.) Whatever will eventually be Metamei Tumah Chamurah does not require a Hechsher Sheretz, but is considered as if it touched a Sheretz.

, , ...

2. (cont.): And that refers specifically to where it stands to be Metamei Tumah Chamurah, but where it is no longer fit to be Metamei Tumah Chamurah, it requires Hechsher?

( :) , , , ?

3. Proof: As we say in Perek Beheimah haMakshah (Chulin 73:) with regard toBasar that became detached from Eiver min haChai, where the fact that it was Metamei Tumah Chamurah when it was still attached to its source does not help to render it Muchshar, since once it separated, it no longer is?

, - . ( .).

(c) Answer: The case there is different, since its initial use was (not as a food, but) as if it was a piece of wood, like the Gemara explains in haOr vehaRotav (Ibid.129.) See also Maharam.

, .

1. Answer (cont.): Hence, once it separates from its source, it requires Hechsher.

, , .

2. Answer (cont.): Whereas Mei Chatas initially needs to be fit to drink, in which case its Tumah Chamurah is not merely like a piece of wood, but because it was actually fit for a person to drink.

, .

3. Answer (cont.): Consequently, even though it becomes Pasul, its Tumas Mashkin has not gone away.

2) TOSFOS DH BATLU BMEIEHAH

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Mei Nidah does not become Bateil in its mouth, despite the Mishnah in Parah, which says that it is.)

, .

(a) Clarification: But as long as it is in its mouth, the water is not Bateil.

( ) ?

(b) Implied Question: Even though we say in Maseches Parah (9:3) that All birds invalidate the Mei Chatas.

, , ( ) - , .

(c) Answer: The Ri explains that it speaks there before the Kidush, and it becomes Pasul because, as Rashi explains in haMegaresh (Gitin 86. [See Hagahos veTziyunim]) - either because it needs initially to be placed in a Kli or because work was done with it.

, , ...

1. Answer (cont.): Whereas her it speaks after the Kidush, since it considers them subject to Tumah Chamurah, and work does not disqualify it after the Kidush.

( ) .

2. Proof: As we learned in Maseches Parah (4:4) Work renders the Mei Chatas Pasul, until the ashes have been added.

, .

(d) Source: The Sifri learns this from the fact that the Torah writes leMei Nidah - which it already is.

- .

(e) Conclusion: And the reason that it becomes Bateil in the cows stomach is because of Hesech haDaas.

( ) , , .

(f) Alernative Reason: The Tosefta in Mikvaos (Perek 8) ascribes Rebbi Yehudahs ruling to the Pasuk leMishmeres - to preclude this water, which is no longer subject to leMishmeres, since a cow drank from it

3) TOSFOS DH LOMATZINU TUMAH OSEH K'YOTZEI BAH

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the source for this.)

, .

(a) Explanation #1: Rashi cites the source as the Drashah later (on Amud Beis) Yitma, that something that is Tamei cannot render Tamei its own equivalent.

.

(b) Alternative Text: Some texts do not read later.

; .

(c) Proof: Indeed, the words We do not find imply that we learn it from an external source, and not from the implication of the word Yitma.

, ( .) .

(d) Explanation #2: And the Ri gives the source for We do not find ... is based on the Drashah that we learned above (on Daf 14.) from Tamei Hu.

4) TOSFOS DH RAVINA OMER MIGUFEIH DIKERA LOMATZIS AMRAT

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how we learn this freom the Pasuk.)

, . ? .

(a) Clarification: Because if one would think that the Pasuk comes for Tumas Mashkin, the Torah ought to insert just one Yitma. Why does insert two? To preclude something that is Tamei from rendering Tamei its own equivalent.

5) TOSFOS DH UMAH KLI SHEMETAMEI MASHKIN

(SUMMARY: Tosfos reconciles with this ruling various other cases which appear similar but where the Halachah differs.)

, ? ?

(a) Question: By the same token, liquid that became Tamei via food ought not to be Metamei food; and food that became Tamei via liquid ought not to be Metamei liquid?

, , - , , .

(b) Answer: Because here the Kal vaChomer is justified, since the reason that a Kli is not Metamei a Kli, is because it is not an Av haTumah, and its Tumah is therefore less severe; indeed if it was an Av haTumah, it would be Metamei a Kli.

, .

1. Answer (cont.): Whereas the fact that a food is not Metamei a food is due to the principle that it cannot render Tamei its own equivalent.

, ...

(c) Question: From where do we know that liquid that became Tamei via a Kli that touched a Meis does not render another Kli Tamei ...

, ?

1. Question (cont.): We cannot learn it from the Kal vaChomer from Kli, seeing as a Kli that touched a Meis is Metamei a Kli.

, , .

(d) Answer: The current Pasuk is talking about a Sheretz, and does not incorporate liquid that touched a Kli that in turn, touched a Meis.

18b----------------------------------------18b

6) TOSFOS DH VLAV MIKAL VCHOMER KAASI UMAH MASHKIN HABAIN MACHMAS KLI

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we cannot learn the Kal vaChomer from food.)

, - , !

(a) Question: Letus learn from a Kal vaChomer from food - If food, which became Tamei via a Sheretz is Metamei liquid, a Sheretz itself should certainly do so!

?

1. Question (cont.): And then we will say that both liquid and food will be Metamei a Kli?

, ,

(b) Answer: Food cannot be Metamei a Kli, even if it it became Tamei via a Sheretz ...

... , ; [ ] .

1. Answer (cont.): From a Kal vaChomer from liquid that became Tamei via a Kli, which is Metami food but not a Kli; food which became Tamei via a Sheretz, which is not Metamei food (from the Pasuk Hu Tamei) will certainly not be Metamei a Kli!

7) TOSFOS DH DAYO LAVO MIN HADIN LI'HYOS KNIDON

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we cannot apply both the Kal vaChomer and Dayo, like we say in Bava Kama.)

, , , ; , ...

(a) Question: Rebbi Yaakov from Orleans asks that, if so, liquid that became Tamei via a Sheretz ought to be a Sheini, like liquid that became Tamei via a Kli; Let the Kal vaChomer render it Tamei, and from Dayo we will learn that it only becomes a Sheini?

( :) - , ?

(b) Source #1: Like we find in Keitzad haRegel (Bava Kama 25:) regarding to a mat by a Meis, where the Gemara says Let the Kal vaChomer take effect with regard to Tumas Erev, and from Dayo we will learn that it is not Tamei for seven days?

, ?

(c) Source #2: And in the same way, the Gemara says regarding to Keren in the courtyard of the Nizak, Let the Kal vaChomer take effect with regard to paying Nezek Shaleim, and from Dayo we will learn that the payment must come out of the body of the Mazik (ox)?

, , .

(d) Answer: This is not a Kashya, says the Ri. One cannot make such a distinction here, he explains, seeing as we do not find anything that touches a Sheretz that does not become a Rishon.

, , .

1. Answer (cont.): Whereas by a Meis, there are things that touch it that become a Rishon (and not an Av), such as food and earthenware vessels.

.

2. Answer (cont.): And (regarding the second source) Nezek Shaleim and paying from the body are two separate issues (which do not clash, unlike a Rishon and a Sheini, which do).

- , ?

(e) Refuted Answer: One cannot however answer by learning the Kal vaChomer like this And if Adam and Keilim, which do not become Tamei via the air of an earthenware vessel do become Tamei via a Sheretz, liquid, which does become Tamei via the air of an earthenware vessel should certainly become Tamei via a Sheretz ...

().

1. Refutation: Since there too, one can say Dayo, as is evident in Keitzad haRegel (Ibid.).

8) TOSFOS DH VCHI TEIMA OCHEL CHAMUR DMETAMEI MASHKIN

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how we could have learned from a Kal vaChomer that food is Metamei a Kli.)

- , .

(a) Alternative Explanation: It would be possible to learn that food is not Metamei a Kli from a Kal vaChomer - If a Kli that is Metamei food is not Metamei a Kli, food which is Metamei food should certainly be Metamei a Kli.

9) TOSFOS DH UMAHU ALILUSAN SHEMEKABLIN TUMAH BLO HECHSHER

(SUMMARY: Tosfos queries this refutation, and explains a number of other points in the Sugya.)

, - , , ?

(a) Question: The Ri asks that this is not a good Kal vaChomer - seeing as this susceptibility to Tumah is not effective with regard to receiving Tumah from liquids, whereas food does - a proof that food is more stringent after all?

, , .

(b) Refuted Explanation: And earlier in the Sugya, when we learned that a liquid is not Metamei a Kli, we cannot learn from a food which is Metamei a liquid, yet it is not Metamei a Kli, how much more so a liquid which is not Metamei another liquid.

?

1. Refutation #1: Since from where do we know that food is not Metamei a Kli?

, , .

(c) Refutation #2: Moreover, liquid is more stringent than food, seeing as it is Metamei food?

, , !

(d) Refuted Explanation: And here, we cannot learn a Kal vaChomer likewe did earlier that If a Kli which is Metamei food is not Metamei a Kli, how much more so food which becomes Tamei via a Kli!

, , ?

1. Refutation: Because in any cacse, from where will we know food that becomes Tamei via a Sheretz?

10) TOSFOS DH UMAH MECHUSAR KIPURIM

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how this goes even according to those who hold Dayo even if is means negating the Kal vaChomer.)

, ...

(a) Observation: Even the opinion that holds Dayo even if is means negating the Kal vaChomer, will concede here that we will learn a Shelishi from a Mechusar Kipurim with a Mah Matzinu.

- , . .

1. . Observation (cont.): Since a Mechusar Kipurim is like a Shelishi - since he does not affect Trumah at all, and only renders Kodesh, Pasul, and the same will apply to all cases of Shelishi.

, , , .

2. Conclusion: That explains why the Kal vaChomer here is more powerful than usual, and one cannot apply Dayo, and say that just as there a Shelishi and no more, also here, a Shelishi and no more!)

11) TOSFOS DH LAMADNU SHELISHI MIN HATORAH

(SUMMARY: Tosfos debates as to whether the Gemara really needs to to learn a Shelishi from a Pasuk or not.)

.

(a) Explanation #1: The Gemara prefers to cite a Pasuk.

, .

1. Explanation #1 (cont.): Although it could have learned a Shelishi laKodesh via a Kal vaChomer from a Tvul-Yom.

- .

(b) Explanation #2: Rashi however, explains that it had to learn a Shelishi from a Pasuk, in order to avoid having to say Dayo.

, .

1. Conclusion: But now that we learn Shelishi from the Torah, we can no longer apply Dayo, seeing as the Kal vaChomer would then be negated.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES ON THIS DAF