TOSFOS DH B'SHE'HICHMITZ MACHLOKES
úåñ' ã"ä áùäçîéõ îçìå÷ú
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains Rebbi Yehudah's opinion in detail.)
ìàå ãå÷à áùäçîéõ, àìà ëéåï ùñåôå ìäçîéõ àò"â ãìà äçîéõ, ëãàîø áñîåê.
Clarification (Part 1): It does not need to have actually turned sour, as long as it stands to turn sour, as the Gemara will say shortly.
åáåãàé ééï çùéá ìø' éäåãä, îãð÷ç áëñó îòùø ...
Clarification (Part 3): Rebbi Yehudah considers it Vaday wine, since it can be purchased with Ma'aser-Sheini money ...
åàôéìå éù áå â' ìåâéï îéí îìáã äééï, àéðå ôåñì àú äî÷åä, ãëé äéëé ãðçùáéï äîéí ëôøé ìäéåú ð÷çéí áëñó îòùø, ìòðéï î÷åä ðîé ðçùáéí ëôøé, åìà ôñìé ìéä.
Clarification (Part 4): .. and even if it contains three Lugin of water apart from the wine, it does still not invalidate the Mikvah; because, just as it is considered a fruit with regard to purchasing it with Ma'aser-Sheini money, so too is it a fruit with regard to not invalidating the Mikvah.
åàéï ìåîø äà ãð÷çéï îùåí ãäåå ë÷ð÷ï ùð÷ç àâá äééï ...
Refuted Suggestion: We cannot attribute the concession to purchase it with Ma'aser Sheini money by giving it the same Din as the jar containing the wine, which one may purchase together with the wine ...
ìà ãîé, ãòì éãé ä÷ð÷ï îùúîø äééï; àáì îéí ùáúîã àéï ð÷çéï àìà îùåí ãçùéáé ëééï, ìôé ùéù áäí èòí ëîå ééï îæåâ.
Refutation: ... because the two are simply not comparable, since, whereas the jar serves to safeguard the wine, this cannot be said about the water in the Temed, which can only be purchased because, due to the fact that it tastes like diluted wine, it is considered wine.
åàôéìå ìîàï ãúðà 'çñø ÷åøèåá' áøéùà áîùðä ãîééúé áñîåê, äà ùìù ìåâéï ùìîéí ôñìé ìéä?
Implied Question: And even according to the version that reads 'Chaser Kurtuv' in the Reisha of the Mishnah that the Gemara will cite shortly, implying that three complete Lugin would invalidate the Mikvah ...
ìà ãîé, ãäúí ìéëà èòîà ãçîøà àìà çæåúà ìáã, åìà çééùéðï áçæåúà ëéåï ãìéëà èòîà ...
Answer (Part 1): ... they are different, because whereas there it doess not taste like wine, but only looks like it, and we do not go after looks since it does not taste like wine too ...
àáì äëà ãàéëà èòîà, çîøà îæâà àé÷øé.
Answer (Part 2): ... here, where it tastes like wine, it falls under the category of diluted wine ...
åäéëà ãìà äçîéõ, çùéá ìéä ëåãàé îéí, îãôåñìéï àú äî÷åä, ãñô÷ îéí ùàåáéï ìî÷åä ëùø.
Answer (Part 3): ... and there where the wine has not turned sour, Rebbi Yehudah considers it like Vaday water, seeing as it invalidates the Mikvah, since Safek Mayim She'uvin is Kasher for a Mikvah.
TOSFOS DH REBBI YEHUDAH HI
úåñ' ã"ä åîúðé' øáé éäåãä äéà
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara did not establish it like the Rabbanan, where it did not turn sour.)
åäà ãìà îå÷é ôìåâúééäå áùìà äçîéõ, åîúðéúéï ëøáðï?
Implied Question: And the reason that the Gemara does not establish the Machlokes where the wine did not turn sour, and our Mishnah goes like the Rabbanan is ...
îùåí ãàó øáé éäåãä äéä ôåèø áìà äçîéõ.
Answer: ... because even Rebbi Yehudah will concede that there where it did not turn sour, one is Patur from Ma'asros.
TOSFOS DH DILMA I SHAVKEIH HAVAH MACHMITZ
úåñ' ã"ä ãìîà àé ùá÷éä äåä îçîéõ
(SUMMARY: Tosfos places this question in the right perspective.)
ìàå à'àéï ð÷çéï áëñó îòùø' ôøéê, ãáãéï äåà ãàéï ð÷çéï îñô÷
Clarification: The Gemara is not querying the Din of 'Ein Nikchin be'Kesef Ma'aser', since the ruling forbidding purchasing a Safek with Ma'aser money is perfectly justified.
àìà à'ôåñì àú äî÷åä' ôøéê, ãîñô÷ àéï ìôñåì ...
Reason: It is querying the Din of 'Posel es ha'Mikvah', since one cannot invalidate a Mikvah on the basis of a Safek ...
ëãúðéà áúåñôúà 'î÷åä ùäðéçå øé÷ï åáà åîöàå îìà, ëùø, îôðé ùäåà 'ñô÷ îéí ùàåáéï ìî÷åä'. åëï îåëç áëîä îùðéåú.
Source: ... as we learned in the Tosefta 'A Mikvah that one left empty and subsequently discovered full is Kasher, because it is 'Safek Mayim She'uvin', And this is also evident in many Mishnayos.
TOSFOS DH RAVA AMAR HA MANI REBBI YOCHANAN BEN NURI HI
úåñ' ã"ä øáà àîø äà îðé øáé éåçðï áï ðåøé äéà
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains Rava's statement in detail.)
øáà áà ìåîø ùàôéìå ùééø îîðå áëåñ åäçîéõ, çùéá îéí ëì æîï ùìà äçîéõ, ìôñåì àú äî÷åä ...
Clarification (Part 1): Rava is coming to teach us that even if a small amount of wine that is placed in a glass turned sour, it is considered water to invalidate the Mikvah as long as the bulk has not turned sour ...
ëøáé éåçðï áï ðåøé, ãàîø 'ùìùä ìåâéï îéí çñø ÷åøèåá ùðôì ìúåëï ÷åøèåá çìá, çùéá ëîéí ìôñåì àú äî÷åä' - ëéåï ãèòîà åçæåúà îéà. åäëà ðîé èòîà åçæåúà îéà.
Clarification (Part 2): ... like Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri, who rules that three Lugin of water minus a Kortov into which a Kortov of milk fell is considered water to invalidate a Mikvah, since it resembles water in both taste and appearance, which is also the case here.
åàó ò"â ãìà ãîé ìâîøé, ãäúí àåúå îéí àéï ñåôï ìäéåú áäï èòí çìá, åâí ìà äéä ð÷ç áëñó îòùø; àáì äëà ñåôå ùéäéä áå èòí ééï ëùéçîéõ, åäîéí òöîí ðçùáéí ééï ìäéåú ð÷çéí áëñó îòùø, ëãàîø áòéøåáéï (ãó ëæ:) "áùëø", 'ìøáåú úîã îùéçîéõ'?
Query: Even though the two cases are not exactly the same, seeing as the water there is not going to taste like milk, nor can it be purchased with Ma'aser money; whereas here a. the juice stands to taste like wine when it turns sour, and b. the water itself will be considered wine inasmuch a it will be eligible to be purchased with Ma'aser money, as the Gemara explains in Eruvin (27b) - "ba'Sheichar", 'to include Temed from the time it turns sour.
î"î îã÷ã÷ øáà, ëéåï ãàôéìå çìá òöîå ðçùá ëîéí ìäùìéí ùéòåø ùìùä ìåâéï ìôñåì àú äî÷åä, ä"ä ãäëà, äåä ôåñì àú äî÷åä àò"â ãñåôå ìäçîéõ, ëéåï ãäùúà îéäà èòîà åçæåúà îéà.
Answer: Nevertheless, Rava maintains that, seeing as even actual milk is considered like water to complete the Shi'ur of three Lugin to invalidate the Mikvah, here too, it will invalidate the Mikvah, despite the fact that it stands to become sour, since now it both tastes and looks like water.
TOSFOS DH VE'TA'AMA VE'CHAZUTA D'HAI MAYA NINHU
úåñ' ã"ä åèòîà åçæåúà ãäàé îéà ðéðäå
(SUMMARY: Tosfos reconciles Rava with Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri's statement, which omits 'taste'.)
àò"ô ùìà äæëéø øáé éåçðï áï ðåøé àìà çæåúà?
Clarification (Part 1): Even though Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri mentions only the appearance ....
î"î öøéê ùìà éäà áå èòí ééï.
Clarification (Part 2): ... he nevertheless requires that it tastes like wine too.
åìëê ð÷è øáà 'èòîà åçæåúà' - ãôùéèà ãééï ìáï ùäéä ãåîä ìîéí ìà äéä ôåñì àú äî÷åä, åàôéìå îæåâ áâ' ìåâéí îéí.
Proof: The reason that Rava adds 'taste' is because it is obvious that white wine that looks like water will not invalidate a Mikvah, even it is mixed with three Lugin of water.
åäà ãìà ð÷è øáé éåçðï áï ðåøé 'äëì äåìê àçø äèòí åäîøàä' ...
Question: Then why does Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri not mention taste?
ìîàï ãâøéñ áøéù îëåú (ãó â:) 'çñø ÷åøèåá', ãîùîò äà éù áå â' ìåâéï ôåñì àú äî÷åä, åàó ò"â ãîøàéäï ééï. åáà øáé éåçðï áï ðåøé ìçìå÷ âí òì øéùà åìåîø ãàéï ôåñì, ëéåï ùéù áå îøàä ééï, àò"ô ùéù áå èòí îéí.
Answer #1 (Part 1): According to the text at the beginning of Makos (3b) that reads 'Chaser Kortov', implying that three full Lugin will invalidate the Mikvah, even though it looks like wine, in which case Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri argues in the Reisha too and says that it will not, since it has the appearance of wine, even though it tastes like water ...
ìëê ìà äæëéø èòîà àìà îøàä.
Answer #1 (Part 2): Hence he only mentions the appearance ...
åìîàï ãìà âøéñ áøéùà 'çñø ÷åøèåá' - ãäùúà ìà ÷àé ø' éåçðï áï ðåøé àìà à'ñéôà?
Answer #2 (Part 1): ... whereas according to the text there that omits 'Chaser Kortov', and Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri only argues in the Seifa ...
ð÷è îøàä, ìîéîø ãáéï áøéùà áéï áñéôà äåìê àçø äîøàä - ëìåîø 'ëé äéëé ãîåãéúå ìé áøéùà ãàæìéðï àçø äîøàä, àåãé ìé ðîé áñéôà ãàæìéðï áúø èòîà åîøàä'.
Answer #2 (Part 2): ... he nevertheless mentions specifically appearance, to teach us that both in the Reisha and in the Seifa, he goes after the appearance; and what he is saying to the Chachamim is 'Just as you concede in the Reisha that we go after the appearance, won't you concede in the Seifa that we go after the taste as well as the appearance?'
TOSFOS DH U'PLIGA D'REBBI ELAZAR D'AMAR REBBI ELAZAR HA'KOL MODIM ETC.
úåñ' ã"ä åôìéâà ãø' àìòæø ãàîø ø' àìòæø äëì îåãéí ëå'
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why R. Elazar cannot hold like Rav Nachman.)
åà"ú, àîàé ôìéâ, äà àúé ùôéø ëøá ðçîï ...
Question (Part 1): Why must we say that he argues with Rav Nachman? Why can he not hold like him ...
ãäëé ÷àîø - àò"â ãø' éäåãä îçééá áîòùø îùäçîéõ àå ùñåôå ìäçîéõ, îåãä ãàéï îôøéùéï òìéå îúîã àçø àìà à"ë äçîéõ æä åæä, îùåí 'ããéìîà æä ñåôå ìäçîéõ åæä àéï ñåôå ìäçîéõ, åäåä ìéä ... '?
Question (Part 2): Perhaps he holds that even though Rebbi Yehudah renders Chayav Ma'aser once it turns sour or if it stands to turn sour, he nevertheless concedes that one cannot separate on it from another barrel of Temed unless both have turned sour, in case one of them stands to turn sour, whilst the other one doesn't, in which case it will be 'min ha'Chayav al ha'Petur' or vice-versa)?
åé"ì, ãìëê ÷àîø ãôìéâé, ãîùîò äìùåï ãîåãå áéï øáðï áéï øáé éäåãä, ùàôéìå øáðï éàîøå æä äìùåï, ùàéï îôøéùéï òìéå îî÷åí àçø àìà à"ë äçîéõ, àáì äçîéõ, îôøéùéï.
Answer (Part 1): The reason that the Gemara says that they (Rav Nachman and Rebbi Elazar) argue is due to the Lashon of Rebbi Elazar, which implies that both the Rabbanan and Rebbi Yehudah agree that one cannot separate Ma'aser to cover it unless it has turned sour, but that if it has, one can . ...
åøá ðçîï ãîå÷é ôìåâúééäå áäçîéõ, ñáø ôèøé øáðï àôé' äçîéõ.
Answer (Part 2): ... whereas according to Rav Nachman, who establishes the Machlokes by Hichmitz, the Rabbanan maintain that he is Patur even if it has turned sour.
TOSFOS DH HA'TEMED AD SHE'LO HICHMITZ MASHIKO B'MAYIM V'TAHOR MI'SHE'HICHMITZ EIN MASHIKO B'MAYIM
úåñ' ã"ä äúîã òã ùìà äçîéõ îùé÷å áîéí åèäåø îùäçîéõ àéï îùé÷å áîéí
(SUMMARY: Tosfos reconciles Rav Nachman with the Beraisa.)
åà"ú, ìøá ðçîï ãçùéá ìéä ôéøé áùñåôå ìäçîéõ, àò"â ãìà äçîéõ, ëîàï - ìà ëøáé éäåãä åìà ëøáðï?
Question: Like whom does Rav Nachman, who considers it a P'ri, as long as it stands to turn sour, even though it has not yet done so, really hold? Not like Rebbi Yehudah and not like the Rabbanan?
åé"ì, ùéôøù 'òã ùìà äçîéõ' ãäëà, àéï ñåôå ìäçîéõ, ùùééø îîðå áëåñ åìà äçîéõ ëãôéøù ìòéì 'òã ùìà äçîéõ' ãîúðéúéï.
Answer: He will explain 'ad she'Lo Hichmitz' here to mean that it is not going to turn sour, where one left some in a glass and it did not become sour, just as he explained our Mishnah earlier.
26b----------------------------------------26b
TOSFOS DH HACHA NAMI MIVALB'LI
úåñ' ã"ä äëà ðîé îáìáìé
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains what Rava thought and why, according to Rav Ashi, the two liquids need to be mixed.)
åøáà ñì÷à ãòúê, ãëé ðèîàå îòé÷øà áôðé òöîï, àéðå îåòéì ìäï äù÷ä àìà áôðé òöîï.
Clarification: Whereas Rava thought that if the water initially became Tamei by itself, then the Hashakah too, is only effective when it is by itself.
ä÷ùä ä"ø àìéòæø îîéõ, ìîä ìé èòîà ã'îáìáìé', ëé ðîé ÷ôé ôøé îìòéì ñì÷à ìäå äù÷ä ...
Question: Rebbi Eliezer from Metz asks why we need to say that the two mixed? Why will the Hashakah not be effective even if the P'ri is floating on top ...
ëãàùëçï áôø÷ äúòøåáú (æáçéí òç:) âáé 'ééï åçìá ìçéï àéï çåööéï - ùãøê äééï òåáøéí äîéí àì âåó äàãí, åòìúä ìå èáéìä?
Source: Like we find in Perek Ta'aroves (Zevachim 78b) where the Gemara rules that wet wine and milk are not Chotzetz, since water tends to pass through wine to the person's body, in which case he has been Yotzei the Mitzvah of Tevilah?
åðøàä ãìà ÷ùä îéãé, ãìà ãîé, ãåãàé à'âáà ãâáøà àå à'âáà ãîðà îçìçìé áäå îéà; àáì ãøê äù÷ä ìà.
Answer: It would seem however, that there is no Kashya, since the two cases are simply not comparable. This is because whereas on the back of a person or of a vessel the water penetrates through the wine, it does not do so by way of Hashakah (where there is only liquid).
TOSFOS DH AVAL CHACHAMIM OMRIM YESH MIY'UN B'MAKOM CHALITZAH D'SANYA
úåñ' ã"ä àáì çëîéí àåîøéí éù îéàåï áî÷åí çìéöä ãúðéà
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara cites a Beraisa rather than the Mishnah in Nidah.)
îúðé' ãáà ñéîï, äåä îöé ìàúåéé?
Implied Question: Why did the Gemara not rather cite the Mishnah in Ba Si'man (Nidah 52a)?
àáì îééúé áøééúà, îùåí ãîôåøù áä ø' îàéø.
Answer: Because the Beraisa specifically mentions Rebbi Meir?
TOSFOS DH AD SHEYIRBEH HA'SHACHOR AL HA'LAVAN
úåñ' ã"ä òã ùéøáä äùçåø òì äìáï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how this statement cannot be taken literally.)
ôéøåù - äáùø ìáï äåà, å÷àîø ø' éäåãä ãáòé ùéùçéø àåúå äî÷åí îï äùòøåú; åáùúé ùòøåú ñâé ...
Clarification (Part 1): This means that, on the one hand, the flesh is white, whilst on the other, Rebbi Yehudah requires the hairs to turn their location in the flesh, black ... for which purpose two hairs will suffice ...
ëãîôåøù áôø÷ áà ñéîï,
Source (Part 1): As the Gemara there explains ...
åìà ùéøáä îîù àìà ùéäå ùúé ùòøåú ùåëáåú, åðøàä ëîå ùøéáä äùçåø ...
Clarification (Part 2): Not that the black really needs to exceed the white, but that when the two hairs are lying flat, they give the impression that the black exceeds the white ...
ëìåîø ãåîä ëîå ùéù ùí ùòøåú äøáä.
Clarification (Part 3): ... meaning that it looks as if there are a lot of hairs there.
åùí ôéøù á÷åðèøñ ãìà âøñéðï 'òì äìáï'.
Alternative Text: Rashi there erases 'al ha'Lavan from the text' (thereby circumventing the need for the above explanation).