ZEVACHIM 78 (17 Tamuz) - Dedicated in honor of the birthday of Mairav Linzer.

1)

TOSFOS DH R. Yehudah Omer Ein Dam Mevatel Dam

úåñôåú ã"ä øáé éäåãä àåîø àéï ãí îáèì ãí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that some say that this is unlike R. Chiya.)

áä÷åîõ øáä (îðçåú ãó ëá.) ôé' á÷åðèøñ ãìøá çñãà ãàæéì áúø îáèì äåéà ãìà ëøáé çééà

(a)

Explanation: In Menachos (22a), Rashi explained that according to Rav Chisda, who says that it depends on the Mevatel (if it could become like the Batel), this is unlike R. Chiya.

åìòéì ôé' áøéù ôéø÷éï ãàôéìå ìø' çðéðà ãàæéì áúø áèì ãàéëà ëîä îùðéåú åáøééúåú ãìà ëø''ç

(b)

Remark: Above (73a DH R. Yehudah), I explained that even according to R. Chanina, who says that it depends on the Batel, there are several Mishnayos and Beraisos unlike R. Chiya.

2)

TOSFOS DH ha'Pigul veha'Nosar k'Zayis mi'Zeh uk'Zayis mi'Zeh

úåñôåú ã"ä äôéâåì åäðåúø ëæéú îæä åëæéú îæä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses why this depends on Hasra'as Safek.)

ëùäåà ìåòñ àåúï ìúåê ôéå ðáìì îéï ìúåê çáéøå îéòåèå ùì æä áøåáå ùì æä åáèì äîéòåè áøåáå

(a)

Explanation #1: When he chews them in his mouth, one is mixed in the other. The minority of this is in the majority of this, and the minority is Batel in the majority;

åäáèì áëì îéï ðåñó òì äîáèì åðäéä ëîåäå åð÷øà áùîå åðâøò îîéðå åà''à ìëåéï ùìà éäà îîéï äàçã áèì áçáéøå éåúø îîä ùáèì îîéï çáéøå áå

1.

What is Batel in each kind (of Isur, i.e. Pigul or Nosar) is added to the Mevatel, and it becomes like it and is called on its name, and it is detracted from it. It is impossible to arrange that there will not be more of one kind Batel in the other, than the amount of the other Batel in it;

åðîöà ùàéï áàåúå [îéï] ëùéòåø ãáöø ìéä ùéòåøéä åàðï ìà éãòéðï äé îéðéäå ãáöø ìéä åëé îúøéðï áéä ìà éãòéðï îùåí îàé ðúøé áéä åöøéê ìäúøåú îùåí äàéñåø

2.

It turns out that in that kind (that more of it was Batel, than the amount of the other that was Batel in it) is less than its Shi'ur (since initially it was a k'Zayis), and we do not know which was decreased. When we warn him, we do not know for which to warn him, and one must warn him for the Isur (which has a Shi'ur, in order to lash him);

äéìëê ëé îúøå áéä îùåí ôéâåì äåéà äúøàú ñô÷ ãìîà ìàå áãéãéä äåé çéåáà åëï áðåúø

3.

Therefore, when they warn him for Pigul, it is Hasra'as Safek, for perhaps there is no Chiyuv for it (if it was decreased). The same applies to [warning for] Nosar.

åàò''â ãîñ÷ðà àçã îéðééäå òáø áùòú äúøàä îéäà ñô÷ äåà áëì àçã àí éòáåø òìéå åàí ìàå åäúøàú ñô÷ ìàå äúøàä äéà ò''ë ìùåï ä÷åðèøñ

4.

Even though at the end he transgressed one of them, at the time of warning it is a Safek about each whether or not he will transgress it, and Hasra'as Safek is not Hasra'ah. This is from Rashi.

å÷ùä ãàí äúøä áùìùúï ôùéèà ãìå÷ä àôéìå ìî''ã (îëåú ãó èæ.) ìàå ùîä äúøàä

(b)

Question #1: If they warned him about all three of them, obviously he is lashed, even according to the opinion (Makos 16a) that Hasra'as Safek is not Hasra'ah!

1.

Note: It seems that Rashi's text mentioned only Pigul and Nosar, and likewise Explanation #2 of Tosfos below.

äéëï îöéðå äúøàú ñô÷ ëä''â ãåãàé òáø àìà ãìà éãòéðï àäé îäðé úìú ãôéâåì åðåúø åèîà

2.

Where do we find Hasra'as Safek like this, that he Vadai transgressed, just we do not know which of the three - Pigul, Nosar and Tamei?

åàé ìà äúøå àìà òì äàçã ôùéèà ãôèåø àôéìå ìî''ã äúøàú ñô÷ ùîä äúøàä ãàôéìå ìáñåó ùîà àåúå ùäúøä áå ëáø ðúáèì

3.

And if they warned him only for one, obviously he is exempt, even according to the opinion that Hasra'as Safek is Hasra'ah, for even at the end, perhaps the one they warned him for was already Batel!

ãäéëé ãîé äúøàú ñô÷ ëâåï ãìàçø âîø äãáø åãàé ùòáø òì îä ùäúøä àìà ãìà éãòéðï áùòú äúøàä àí òåáø òáéøä áääéà ùòúà àí ìàå

4.

What is the case of Hasra'as Safek? E.g. after the matter is finished, he Vadai transgressed what they warned him about, just we do not know at the time of the Hasra'ah whether or not he transgresses at the time;

ëâåï äëä àú æä åçæø åäëä àú æä (éáîåú ãó ÷à.) åëï âéã äðùä ãìà éãòéðï àé ãéîéï àé ãùîàì

i.

E.g. (if we are unsure which of two men is Ploni's father, and) he hit this one and afterwards hit this one (Yevamos 101a), and similarly Gid ha'Nasheh, that we do not know whether the left or right Gid is forbidden (Chulin 91a, and he ate one, and afterwards the other).

åòåã ÷ùä äéëé îéçééá ëìì îùåí çã îéðééäå ãîéòåè äáèì áøåá ìà îöèøó òí äøåá ìäùìéîå ìëùéòåø

(c)

Question #2: How is he liable at all due to one of them? The minority that is Batel in the majority does not join with the majority to complete the Shi'ur;

ãàôéìå äéúø ìà îöèøó ìàéñåø ë''ù àéñåø ìà îöèøó ìàéñåø

1.

Even Heter does not join with Isur [to complete the Shi'ur - Pesachim 43b]. All the more so Isur does not join with [another] Isur!

åà''ë àôéìå àí úéîöà ìåîø ãäúøàú ñô÷ ùîä äúøàä äëà ôèåø ãà''à ùìà éúòøá îëì àçã åàçã îùäå áçáéøå åáöø ìéä ùéòåøà

2.

If so, even if you will say that Hasra'as Safek is Hasra'ah, here he is exempt, for it is impossible that each will not mix somewhat with the other, and it is less than the Shi'ur.

åòåã ÷ùä àí ðôøù ôéâåì åðåúø åèîà ùìùúï éçã ìîä ìé ìîéîø à''à ùìà éøáä îéï òì çáéøå äà åãàé éù ëàï ùðéí äîáèìéï àú äùìéùé åàëåìäå ìéôèø ãëì àçã äåé áèì åîáèì

(d)

Question #3: If we will explain Pigul, Nosar and Tamei, all three together, why must we say that it is impossible for one not to be the majority over another? Surely, here there are two that are Mevatel the third! He is exempt for all of them, for each is Batel and is Mevatel [the others]!

åð''ì ìôøù ãîééøé ëâåï ãàéëà á' æéúé ôéâåì åæéú ðåúø éçã áçúéëä àçú åòåã éù á' æéúé ðåúø åæéú ôéâåì áçúéëä àçøú éçã

(e)

Explanation #2: We discuss when there are two k'Zeisim of Pigul and one k'Zayis of Nosar together in one piece, and there are two k'Zeisim of Nosar and one k'Zayis of Pigul together in another piece, [and they were mixed] together;

åàëì àçú îï äçúéëåú åäúøå áå àì úàëì ôéâåì ùîà æå äéà çúéëä ùéù áä øåá ðåúø

1.

He ate one of the pieces, and they warned him "do not eat Pigul." [He is exempt, for] perhaps this is the piece that has a majority of Nosar;

åàçøé ëï ìàçø ëãé àëéìú ôøñ àå àôéìå áúåê ëãé àëéìú ôøñ àëì çúéëä ùðéä åäúøå áå àì úàëì ôéâåì ëáøàùåðä ùîà æå äéà àåúä ùéù áä øåá ðåúø ùàåëì áàçøåðä

2.

Afterwards, after Kedei Achilas Pras, or even within Kedei Achilas Pras, he ate the second piece, and they warned him "do not eat Pigul", like the first time. [He is exempt, for] perhaps this is the piece that has a majority of Nosar that he eats now at the end.

òúä äåé îîù ëîå äëä æä åçæø åäëä æä ãìî''ã ìàå ùîä äúøàä ôèåø

(f)

Support: Now, this is just like he hit this one and afterwards hit this one. According to the opinion that Hasra'as Safek is not Hasra'ah, he is exempt.

.áøå''ê. ðøàä ìôøù ãáúøé îéðééäå ÷àîø ãù÷ì úøé îäðé úìú åáììï æá''æ åàëìï åëâåï ãù÷ì ã' æéúéí îùðé îéðé àéñåøéí (äâäú áéú îàéø) åáììï á÷òøä àçú åàëìï åà''à ùìà éäà øåá îï äàçã åîáèì àú çáéøå

(g)

Explanation #3 (R. Baruch): It seems that it discusses two of them. He took two of these three [Isurim] and mixed them together and ate them, e.g. he took four k'Zeisim of from two kinds of Isur and mixed them in one bowl and ate them. It is impossible that there will not be a majority from one, and it is Mevatel the other;

äéìëê ìà éãòéðï áäàé àéñåøà àí éù òìéå ùí ôéâåì àå ùí ðåúø ãàéñåøéï îáèìéï æä àú æä åôèåø (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) îèòí äúøàú ñô÷

1.

Therefore, we do not know which Isur, if it is considered Pigul or Nosar, for Isurim are Mevatel each other, and he is exempt due to Hasra'as Safek;

ëâåï ãàëì áùúé ôòîéí áëãé àëéìú ôøñ åáàëéìä øàùåðä äúøå áå îùåí ôéâåì åáùðéä îùåí ðåúø

2.

E.g. he ate two times within Kedei Achilas Pras, and the first time they warned him for Pigul, and the second time for Nosar.

à''ð àôéìå ôçåú îëãé àëéìú ôøñ ôèåø ëùàëì áùúé ôòîéí ãëùäúøä áøàùåðä îùåí ôéâåì ùîà ðåúø øáä åìà ùôéø îúøé áéä

3.

Alternatively, even in less than Kedei Achilas Pras he is exempt when he ate in two times, for when they warned him the first time for Pigul, perhaps Nosar was the majority, and they did not warn him properly;

åáùðéä ëùäúøä îùåí ðåúø ùîà ôéâåì øáä åìà ùôéø îúøé áéä

4.

And the second time, when they warned him for Nosar, perhaps Pigul was the majority, and they did not warn him properly.

åàé îùåí ãëáø äúøä áå îùåí ôéâåì îàëéìä øàùåðä åàîøéðï á÷ãåùéï (ãó òæ.) ãáòì çîù àìîðåú çééá îùåí àìîðú øàåáï åàìîðú ùîòåï

(h)

Implied question: They already warned him for Pigul at the first eating, and we say in Kidushin (77a) that if [a Kohen Gadol] had Bi'ah with five widows, he is liable for Reuven's widow, and Shimon's widow....

åáçãà äúøàä îééøé ãàé áùúé äúøàåú àôéìå áàìîðä àçú ðîé çééá ãäúøàåú îçì÷åú

1.

It discusses one Hasra'ah, for if there were two Hasra'os, even for one widow he is liable [for each Bi'ah], for the Hasra'aos divide!

àìîà ëéåï ãòñé÷ ááéàä åîúøä áå áúçéìä äåä äúøàä ìëì àçú åàçú åä''ð äøé òñå÷ ëì ùòä áàëéìä åúåòéì ìå äúøàä øàùåðä

2.

Inference: Since he is engaged in Bi'ah, and they warned him at the beginning, it is warning for each. Also here, the entire time he is engaged in eating. The first Hasra'ah should help!

ìà ãîé ùàðé äëà ãðøàä ëçåæø áå îäúøàä øàùåðä ëùçåæø åîúøä áå îùåí ðåúø åëàéìå àîø ìå ìà òì ôéâåì àúä ùá àìà òì ðåúø

(i)

Answer: These are different. Here, it seems that [the one who warned] retracted from his initial Hasra'ah when he later warned about Nosar. It is as if he said to him "you need not refrain from Pigul, rather, from Nosar."

åàí úàîø åäà úðï áîòéìä áô' ÷ãùé îæáç (ãó éæ:) äôéâåì åäðåúø àéðï îöèøôéï æä òí æä îôðé ùäí á' ùîåú åàîø áâîøà ì''ù àìà ìèåîàú éãéí ãîãøáðï àáì ìòðéï àëéìä îöèøôéï

(j)

Question: A Mishnah in Me'ilah (17b) says that Pigul and Nosar do not join with each other because they are two Shemos (different Isurim), and it says in the Gemara that this is only for Tum'as Yadayim mid'Rabanan, but regarding eating, they join;

ãúðéà ø''à àåîø ìà éàëì ëé ÷ãù äí ëì ùá÷ãù ôñåì áà äëúåá ìéúï ìà úòùä òì àëéìúå

1.

Citation (17b - Beraisa - R. Eliezer): "Lo Yochal Ki Kodesh Hem" puts a Lav on eating any Pasul Kodshim!

åé''ì ãäúí áãìà îòøá àáì äëà ãîòøá áèì ãàéñåøéï îáèìéï æä àú æä

(k)

Answer #1: That is when they are not mixed. Here that they are mixed, they are Batel, for Isurim are Mevatel each other.

à''ð äëà ìì÷åú îùåí ôéâåì àå ðåúø ÷àé àáì äúí îééøé ìòáåø òìéå îùåí ëì ùá÷ãù ôñåì

(l)

Answer #2: Here we discuss lashes for Pigul or Nosar. There it discusses transgressing eating Pasul Kodshim.

åòåã äúí ðäé ãàéñåøà àéëà îì÷åú ìéëà îùåí ãäåé ìàå ùáëììåú ëãàé' áôñçéí (ãó ëã.)

(m)

Answer #3: There, granted there is an Isur, but there are no lashes, for it is Lav shebi'Chlalos (one Lav that forbids different Isurim), like it says in Pesachim (24a).

3)

TOSFOS DH Mesiv Rava Asah Isah Min ha'Chitin

úåñôåú ã"ä îúéá øáà òùä òéñä îï äçèéï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks why Rava did not ask more generally.)

úéîä ãìà î÷ùä ìéä îëì äúåøä ëåìä ã÷é''ì èòí ëòé÷ø

(a)

Question: Why didn't he ask from the entire Torah? We hold that Ta'am k'Ikur (if one can taste Isur is a mixture, it is forbidden to eat it - below, 79a)!

4)

TOSFOS DH Ela Min beshe'Eino Mino b'Taima... (pertains to the coming Daf)

úåñôåú ã"ä àìà îéï áùàéðå îéðå áèòîà ëå' (ùééê ìãó äáà)

(SUMMARY: Tosfos questions the Gemara in Menachos.)

úéîä ãáä÷åîõ øáä (îðçåú ãó ëâ:) ôøéê îääéà ãúáìä á÷öç ìî''ã áúø îáèì àæìéðï

(a)

Question: In Menachos (23b) it asks from the case of one who seasoned [Matzah] with black cumin against the opinion that it depends on the Mevatel;

îàé ÷à îãîé àääéà ãáúø áèì àå áúø îáèì àæìéðï ùäèòí ùåä àääéà ãúáìä á÷öç ùàéï äèòí ùåä

1.

What is the comparison to whether it depends on the Batel or on the Mevatel, in which the taste is the same, to the case of one who seasoned with black cumin, in which the taste is not the same?

ëéåï ùéù áúáìéï èòí îöä øàåé ìöàú áå éãé çåáúå ëãàîøéðï äëà àí éù áå èòí ãâï çééá áçìä åàãí éåöà áä éãé çåáúå áôñç åáëì äúåøä ëåìä ÷é''ì ãèòí ëòé÷ø

2.

Since the spices have (received) the taste of Matzah, it is proper to fulfill the Matzah with them, like we say here "if it has the taste of grain, Chalah must be separated, and one is Yotzei through it on Pesach"! In the entire Torah, we hold that Ta'am k'Ikur!

åàéï ìä÷ùåú àäê ãùîòúéï îäà ãàîø áòøáé ôñçéí (ôñçéí ãó ÷èå.) ìà ìëøåê àéðéù îöä åîøåø áäãé [äããé] ãìîà àúé îøåø ãøáðï åîáèì îöä ãàåøééúà

(b)

Implied question: We can challenge also our Sugya from what it says in Pesachim (115a) that one should not wrap Matzah and Maror together, lest Maror, which is mid'Rabanan, be Mevatel Matzah, which is mid'Oraisa!

ãäúí çåæ÷ äîøéøåú äåà ãîáèì èòí îöä àáì àåøæ ìà îáèì èòí ãâï

(c)

Answer #1: There, the strength of the bitterness is Mevatel the taste of Matzah. However, rice is not Mevatel the taste of grain.

åòåã ãäúí ëùàåëì ëæéú îöä ãëé îáèì ìéä îøåø ìéëà èòí ëæéú îöä àáì àí àåëì äøáä ùøé:

(d)

Answer #2: There is when he eats a k'Zayis of Matzah. When Maror is Mevatel [even a little] Matzah, there is not the taste of a k'Zayis of Matzah. However, if he eats much, it is permitted.

78b----------------------------------------78b

5)

TOSFOS DH v'Nesha'er Min b'Mino k'Min beshe'Eino Mino

úåñôåú ã"ä åðùòø îéï áîéðå ëîéï áùàéðå îéðå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos gives the reason for this.)

ôé' á÷åðèøñ ëéåï ãäéëà ã÷ééîéðï àèòîà ëì ëîä ãéäéá èòîà ìà áèì ëé ìéëà ìîé÷í ðîé àîàé îæìæìé áàéñåøà ìîéäãø ìáèìï

(a)

Explanation (Rashi): Since when we can taste it, as long as it gives taste, it is not Batel, also when we cannot taste it (e.g. Min b'Mino), why do we belittle Isurim to be quick to be Mevatel them [in a majority]?

ðéîà øåàéï àéìå äéä îéï åùàéðå îéðå äà éù áå äéëø èòîà äùúà ðîé ìà áèéì åàú àîøú îéï áîéðå áèì îï äúåøä áøåáà (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) àò''â ãàéìå äéä àéðå îéðå äéä ðåúï èòí

1.

We should view that if it were Min b'Eino Mino, the taste would be recognized, and it would not be Batel. [Why do] you say that Min b'Mino is Batel mid'Oraisa in a majority, even though if it were Eino Mino, it would give taste?!

äâ''ä. åàò''ô ùìà äæëéø á÷åðèøñ àéï (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí) ìôøù ùî÷ùä îãøáðï ãäà îúðéúéï ãàåøééúà äéà åëåìä ùîòúéï ëï

(b)

Comment: Even though Rashi did not mention [mid'Oraisa], do not explain that he asks [that it should not be Batel] mid'Rabanan, for the Mishnah discusses mid'Oraisa, and so does the entire Sugya.

6)

TOSFOS DH Lo Ro'in l'Dam k'Ilu Hu Mayim

úåñôåú ã"ä ìà øåàéï ìãí ëàéìå äåà îéí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that therefore it is Pasul for Zerikah.)

ëìåîø äãí ôñåì ãîéï áîéðå áèéì áøåáà ëîå (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí) ùäîéí ôñåìéï ìæøé÷ä

(a)

Explanation: I.e. the blood is Pasul, for Min b'Mino is Batel in a majority, just like water is Pasul for Zerikah.

7)

TOSFOS DH Hachi Garsinan Dli she'Yesh Bo Yayin Lavan...

úåñôåú ã"ä ä''â ãìé ùéù áå ééï ìáï...

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses why it depends on the Mevatel.)

ìà ãîé ìäà ãúðéà (ëï öøéê ìäâéä) (ùáú ãó ÷ë:) äãéå åäçìá ìçéï àéï çåööéï

(a)

Implied question: Why is this unlike the Beraisa in Shabbos (120b)? Wet ink and milk are not a Chatzitzah!

ãäëà ëéåï ãäàé ãìé éù áå çìá òã øåáå ìà îçìçìé îéà

(b)

Answer: Here, since that the majority of the bucket is [full] of milk, the water does not penetrate [to reach the walls of the bucket];

åìà ãîé ìçìá ãîðç àâáà ãîðà àå àâáà ãâáøà åðçéú åèáéì

1.

This is unlike milk resting on a Kli or on a person, and he immersed [it or himself. The water of the Mikveh is the majority, so it penetrates, and the Tevilah is valid.]

i.

Note: Shitah Mekubetzes Kesav Yad and Tzon Kodoshim say that the following begins a new Dibur.

äåìëéï àçø äøåá

(c)

Citation: We follow the majority.

åàí ìà äéä çöéå ëéåï ùäèáéìå åðúîìà îîé î÷åä åøáå äîéí òì äééï èäåø

(d)

Explanation: If [the wine or milk] was not half, once he immersed it and it filled with the water of the Mikveh, the water became the majority over the wine, so [the bucket] is Tahor.

åàí úàîø åäà àîøéðï (ùí ãó òæ.) ëì çîøà ãìà ãøé òì çã úìúà îéà ìàå çîøà äåà

(e)

Question: We say (Shabbos 77a) that any wine that does not tolerate dilution with three parts of water is not [proper] wine. (I.e. even when a quarter is wine, the mixture is considered wine);

åë''ù äëà ãàéëà çîøà èåáà ìà áèì îîðå ùí ééï åìà îäðé ìéä äù÷ä ãçîøà îæéâà îé÷øé ëãàîøéðï áô''÷ ãîëåú (ãó â.)

1.

All the more so here that there is more wine (than a quarter, i.e. up to half), it does not lose the status of wine, and Hashakah should not help, for it is called mixed wine, like we say in Makos (3a)!

i.

Note: Hashakah, i.e. touching water to a Mikveh, is Metaher the water, for then it is considered attached, like the Mikveh itself. It helps only for water.

åé''ì ãäëà îééøé áçîøà îæéâà

(f)

Answer #1: Here we discuss diluted wine. (When it is mixed with a majority of water, it loses the status of wine, and is considered water.)

àé ðîé áçîøà ãøôé åàéï éëåì ì÷áì øåá îéí ùàéï ëì äééðåú ùåéï ëãàîøéðï áôø÷ äîåöéà ééï (ùáú ãó òæ.) ééï äùøåï ìçåã ãøôé

(g)

Answer #2: We discuss weak wine. It cannot tolerate dilution with a majority of water. (It becomes so weak that it loses the status of wine.) Not all wines are the same, like we say in Shabbos (77a) that Sharoni wine is different, for it is weak.

åëï éù ìôøù áñåó äòøì (éáîåú ãó ôá:) ãàîø ðúï ñàä åðèì ñàä ëùø òã øåáå åôé' á÷åðèøñ ãîééøé áîé ôéøåú

(h)

Support: So we can explain in Yevamos (82b). It says that if one added a Se'ah [of liquid] to a Mikveh and removed a Se'ah, until the majority, it is Kosher. Rashi explained that we discuss Mei Peros.

åäùúà àé áééï îééøé àîàé ëùø åäìà ééï âîåø äåà ìáøê áåøà ôøé äâôï åìëì ãáø åáééï äåà èåáì

1.

Implied question: If it discusses wine, why is it Kosher (when the Mikveh is half wine)? It is absolute wine to bless Borei Peri ha'Gefen on it and for every law [of wine. One who immerses in the Mikveh,] he immerses in wine!

àìà îééøé áçîøà ãøôé

2.

Answer #1: Rather, it discusses weak wine.

åîéäå àéëà ìîéîø áùàø îé ôéøåú áø îééï

(i)

Rejection (of Support, and Answer #2): We can say that it discusses Mei Peros other than wine.

åáô''æ ãîñ' î÷åàåú úðéðï ìä å÷àé àùàø îù÷éï åîé ôéøåú åäöéø åäîåøééñ åäúîã îùäçîéõ (äâää áâìéåï, åùéèä î÷åáöú)

(j)

Reference: [The Mishnah] is taught in Mikva'os (7:2). It refers to other liquids, Mei Peros, brine, fish oil and Temed (water that absorbed taste from grape seeds or skins) from when it fermented.

8)

TOSFOS DH Dli she'Hu Malei Rokin Garsinan k'Ilu Lo Taval

úåñôåú ã"ä ãìé ùäåà îìà øå÷éï âøñéðï ëàéìå ìà èáì

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the laws of urine and Mei Chatas.)

ùäøå÷ òá äåà åçåöõ áôðé äîéí åàéðå áèì áîéí

(a)

Explanation: It is thick, and it blocks the water [from getting to the bucket].

åîìà ìàå ãå÷à àìà àééãé ãáòé ìîéúðé îìà îé øâìéí ããå÷à äåà ìàùîåòéðï øáåúà ãìà áòé ìáèåìéðäå

(b)

Observation: "Full" is not precise. Rather, since he needed to teach "full of urine", which is precise, to teach the Chidush that there is no need to be Mevatel [the urine]...

ãëéåï ùòáøå îé äî÷åä òì ôéå åðù÷å ìàåúï ùáúåëå ðòùå çáåø ìäï åèäø ãîé øâìéí îéï (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) îéí äåà úðà ðîé îìà øå÷éï

1.

Since the Mikveh water passed over the mouth [of the bucket] and touched [the urine] inside, it became connected to it, and it is Tahor (due to Hashakah), for urine is a kind of water. [Therefore,] he taught "full" also regarding saliva.

øåàéï àåúå ëàéìå äí îéí

(c)

Citation: We view [the urine] as if it is water.

ëìåîø àò''ô ùîøàéäï çìå÷ áî÷öú îîøàä ùàø îéí àô''ä ëéåï ãîéï îéí äí ìà áòé øåáà ìáèåìé àìà øåàéï àåúï ëå'

(d)

Explanation: Even though its appearance is slightly different than the appearance of other water, even so, since it is a kind of water, we do not require a majority to be Mevatel it. Rather, we view it [like water].

îìà îé çèàú äåàéì åäï àá äèåîàä åçùéáé îùåí ÷ãåùúééäå ìà áèìé àìà áøåáà

1.

If it is full of Mei Chatas, since [Mei Chatas] is an Av ha'Tum'ah, and it is important due to its Kedushah, it is Batel only in a majority;

îàï ùîòú ìéä ãàéú ìéä øåàéï ø' éäåãä å÷àîø ãäéëà ãùåä îøàä äáèì ìîøàä äîáèì ëâåï îé çèàú ùàéï îøàéäï çìå÷ ãñâé ìîéáèì áøåáà åìà àîø øåàéï àåúï ëàéìå äï ééï àãåí ìäçîéø

2.

Whom do we know that he says Ro'in? It is R. Yehudah, and he says that when the appearance of the Batel is the same as the appearance of the Mevatel, e.g. Mei Chatas, whose appearance is not different [than water], it suffices to be Mevatel in a majority. We do not view it as if it was red wine to be stringent.

9)

TOSFOS DH Ha d'Rabei (pertains to the coming Daf)

úåñôåú ã"ä äà ãøáéä (ùééê ìãó äáà)

(SUMMARY: Tosfos gives two versions of what the question was.)

äà ãúðï ìòéì øåàéï àåúï ëàéìå äï ééï àãåí ãøáéä äåà ãîçîéø ááèåì ëé äéëé ãîçîéø áîéï áîéðå ëê ôéøù á÷åðèøñ

(a)

Explanation #1: The Mishnah above, which says "Ro'in [the blood] as if it were red wine", is from his Rebbi, who is stringent about Bitul, just like he is stringent about Min b'Mino. So Rashi explained.

å÷ùä ìôéøåùå çãà ãîä òðéï äàé øåàéï ãîé øâìéí ìééï åçìá ãìòéì ùàéðå îéðå ìà ùééê áäå äù÷ä àáì îé øâìéí ìãáøé øù''é ùäí îéí âîåøéí åñì÷à ìäå äù÷ä

(b)

Question #1: How does Ro'in regarding urine relate to wine and milk above, which are not Mino (kinds of water)? Hashakah does not apply to them. However, Rashi holds that urine is absolute water, so Hashakah helps for it;

àí ëï îàé øåàéï ùééê áäå åëé îùåí ãðùúðå ÷öú ìà éäà ùí îéí òìéäí åìà úåòéì ìäí äù÷ä

1.

If so, how does Ro'in apply to [urine]? Because it changed a little, is it not considered water, and Hashakah does not help for it?!

ããîå ìîé öáò ãìà áèì (äâäú òåìú ùìîä) îäí úåøú îéí áôø÷ ÷îà ãîëåú (ãó â:)

2.

It is like dye water, which did not lose the status of water, in Makos (3b)!

åòåã áìàå ñåâéà ãìòéì ú÷ùé ìéä øéùà ìñéôà

(c)

Question #2: Without the Sugya above, one can ask the Reisha against the Seifa!

åòåã îàé ÷à îùðé äà ãéãéä äà ãøáéä àëúé äê ãîé çèàú ÷ùéà øéùà ìñéôà ìñáøú äù''ñ

(d)

Question #3: What was the answer "this [R. Yehudah] taught himself, and this was from his Rebbi"? Still, in the Mishnah of Mei Chatas, the Reisha is unlike the Seifa, according to the Gemara's reasoning!

ãàîø ãúðà ãúðé îé øâìéí øåàéï àåúå (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) ëàéìå äï îéí ñåáø ðîé áééï åçìá øåàéï ëàéìå äï ééï àãåí åòì æä ôøéê àîàé îëùøéðï áîé çèàú òì éãé øåá îé î÷åä

1.

It said that the Tana who taught "we view urine like water" holds that also wine and milk, we view them like red wine. On this it asks why we are Machshir Mei Chatas through a majority of Mikveh water;

ãáîéòåè îé çèàú ðîé äåä ìï ìîéîø øåàéï ëàéìå äï ééï àãåí ò''æ ìà úéøõ ëìåí ãàëúé îé øâìéí ìîé çèàú ÷ùå àäããé

2.

Also a minority of Mei Chatas, we should say that we view them like red wine. He did not answer anything about this, for still urine and Mei Chatas are contradictory.

äâ''ä. åòåã àé ääéà ãééï ìáï åçìá äåéà ãøáéä ëé ãéää îøàéäï àîàé ëùø äà îéï áîéðå ìà áèì åîéï áîéðå çùéá ìéä ëéåï ãùåéï áçæåúà

(e)

Comment - Question #4: If the case of white wine and milk is like his Rebbi, when their appearance is weak, why is it Kosher? Min b'Mino is not Batel, and it is considered Min b'Mino, since they have the same appearance!

åòåã ãáäãéà äåä ìéä ìà÷ùåéé îäê áøééúà àîúðéúéï ã÷àîø øáé éäåãä àéï ãí îáèì ãí ãîéï áîéðå ìà áèì åäà áèìé îé çèàú áîéí

(f)

Question #5: He should have asked from this Beraisa against our Mishnah, that R. Yehudah said that blood is not Mevatel blood, for Min b'Mino is not Batel. Mei Chatas are Batel in water!

åòåã ãîé øâìéí îé÷øå àéðå îéðå ìâáé îéí ëãàîøéðï áñîåê âáé çøñï ùì æá

1.

Also, urine is called Eino Mino regarding water, like we say below (79b) regarding a urinal of a Zav.

äâ''ä åðøàä ãâøñéðï îé øâìéí øåàéï àåúï ëàéìå äï ééï

(g)

Comment - alternative text: It seems that the text says "urine - we view it as if it is wine."

åëé äàé âååðà úðéà áúåñôúà ãîñëú èäøåú áôø÷ ùîúçéì ãí èîà îé øâìéí ùðúòøáå áééï øåàéï àåúï ëàéìå äï îéí

(h)

Support: It teaches like this in the Tosefta of Taharos, Perek Dam Tamei (5:2). If urine became mixed with wine, we view it as if it is water...

ðúòøáå áîé øâìéí àçøéí (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí) øåàéï àåúï ëàéìå äï ééï áîéí àí áèì îøàéäï èäåøéí åàí ìàå èîàéí

1.

Citation (5:2): If [Tamei urine] it became mixed with other [Tahor] urine, we view it as if it is wine in water. If the appearance [of the wine] would be Batel [in the water, the mixture of urine] is Tahor. If not, it is Tamei.

åäàé åøîéðäå ãäëà àîúðéúéï ÷àé ã÷àîø øáé éäåãä àéï ãí îáèì ãí

(i)

Explanation #2: The contradiction asked here is against our Mishnah, in which R. Yehudah said that blood is not Mevatel blood.

åäëé ôéøåùå ãìé ùäåà îìà øå÷éï åäèáéìå ëàéìå ìà èáì îìà îé øâìéí øåàéï àåúï ëàéìå äï ééï åìà áèìé áøåáà

1.

[The Sugya] means as follows. If a bucket full of saliva was immersed, it is as if it was not immersed. If it is full of urine, we view it like wine, and it is not Batel in a majority;

îìà îé çèàú òã ùéøáå äîéí òì îé çèàú ùéùôåê øåáå åìëùéúîìà èäåø

2.

If it is full of Mei Chatas, [the Tevilah is valid] only if the water [in the bucket] will be more than the Mei Chatas, i.e. he will pour out the majority, and when it will fill, it will be Tahor.

ãìà îäðéà ìäå äù÷ä ìèäøí ëîå ùôéøù á÷åðèøñ

i.

Possibility #1: Hashakah does not help to be Metaher [the Mei Chatas], like Rashi explained (since it is an Av ha'Tum'ah, and it is important due to its Kedushah).

åàé ðîé çåîøà áòìîà îùåí ãàéï æøéòä ìä÷ãù ëãàîøé' áôø÷ ëì ùòä (ôñçéí ãó ìã:) åë''ù ìîé çèàú ãàôéìå áâãé àåëìé ÷åãù (äâää ÷äéìú éò÷á) îãøñ ìçèàú (çâéâä ãó éç:) (ëï ðøàä ìäâéä)

ii.

Possibility #2: It is a mere stringency (that Hashakah is not Metaher Mei Chatas), because Zeri'ah (being connected to water in the ground) does not apply to Hekdesh, like we say in Pesachim (34b), and all the more so Mei Chatas, for even clothes of people who eat Kodshim are Midras (considered Tamei regarding anything connected with) Parah Adumah (Chagigah 18b. I.e. we are more stringent about Mei Chatas than about Kodshim.)

àáì äéëà ãøáå áèìé îäí úåøú îé çèàú åðòùå îé î÷åä

3.

However, when there is more water, Mei Chatas are Batel, and they become Mikveh water.

îàï ùîòú ìéä ãàéú ìéä øåàéï áîéï áùàéðå (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) îéðå äùåéï áçæåúà øáé éäåãä ã÷úðé áääéà ãééï ìáï øåàéï àåúå ëàéìå äåà ééï àãåí

(j)

Explanation #2 (cont.): [The Gemara asks] who says Ro'in for Min b'Eino Mino that have the same appearance? It is R. Yehudah, who taught regarding white wine "we view it as if it were red wine";

åäëé îé øâìéí ðîé äåé îéï áùàéðå îéðå ëãîåëç áñîåê âáé çøñï ùì æá åâí (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí) ùåéï áçæåúà

1.

And also urine is Min b'Eino Mino, like is proven below (79b) regarding a urinal of a Zav and it has the same appearance.

å÷úðé ãñâé ìäå áøåáà áîé çèàú àìîà ãîéï áîéðå áèì ìøáé éäåãä

2.

And he taught that a majority [of water] suffices for Mei Chatas. This shows that Min b'Mino is Batel according to R. Yehudah!

åîùðé äà ãéãéä äà ãøáéä îúðéúéï ãøáéä ãîéï áîéðå ìà áèì åáøééúà ãéãéä

(k)

Explanation #2 (cont.): [Abaye] answers "this is his opinion, and this is his Rebbi's. Our Mishnah is his Rebbi's opinion that Min b'Mino is not Batel, and the Beraisa is his own opinion;

åîáøééúà ãìòéì øåàéï àåúï ëàéìå äï ééï àãåí àí ãéää îøàäå ëùø ìà äåä îöé ìà÷ùåéé àîúðéúéï àìîà (îëàï îãó äáà) ãîéï áîéðå áèì ìøáé éäåãä

(l)

Implied question: We could have asked from the Beraisa above "we view it as if it were red wine. If the appearance would weaken, it is Kosher" against our Mishnah. [The Beraisa] shows that Min b'Mino is Batel according to R. Yehudah!

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF