1)

TOSFOS DH HAINU REVISAIHU (cont. from previous Amud)

úåñôåú ã"ä äééðå øáéúééäå (äîùê îãó ä÷åãí)

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses whether or not every Sircha is the result of a hole.)

åàé äåä àîøéðï äà ãëñãøï ëùøä - äééðå áî÷åí ùñîåëåú äàåðåú æå ìæå, ãçáøúä îâéðä òì äð÷á ...

(a)

Suggested Answer #1: Now if we were to say that 'k'Sidran is Kasher' - refers to a case where the (cranial) lobes are right next to each other, since its neighbor covers the hole...

àí ëï áçðí äåä îçì÷ áéï ëñãøï ìùìà ëñãøï àí äéä çéìå÷ àôéìå ëñãøï ...

(b)

Refutation: ... there would be no reason to differentiate between the adjoining lobe and another lobe, since we will end up differentiating even in a case where it is the adjoining lobe.

åàí äééðå îôøùéí 'äééðå øáéúééäå' - ùæäå âéãåìä ùøâéìä äñéøëà ìáà ùí áìà ð÷á, äåä ðéçà ...

(c)

Opinion #2: And if we would explain that when the Gemara says, "Haynu Ribi'seihu" it means that this is natural, and a Sircha sometimes occurs between two adjoining lobes even without a hole being present (unlike Rashi's explanation), it would be understandable. (The Maharsha points out that the Ra'avad indeed holds that Sirchos occur in adjoining lobes without a hole, but when they connect lobes that are not adjoining, there is a hole).

àáì ø"ç ôéøù 'øáéúééäå' äåé ëîå îøáòéúééäå, ëìåîø äééðå ãøê øáéòúå.

(d)

Question: However, Rabeinu Chananel explains that "Ribi'sayhu" here is similar to the word "Marbi'sayhu," meaning that in this way the hole will be filled up (and heal). (The Maharsha explains that Tosfos is noting that Rashi's explanation fits well with the explanation of Rabeinu Chananel, unlike the Ra'avad.)

åäéä ðøàä ìôøù ãøâéìä äñéøëà ìáà áëì î÷åí áøéàä áìà ð÷á îúåê ùäéà ùåàáú ëì îéðé îù÷ä.

(e)

Opinion#3 (Part 1): It appears that the explanation is that these Sirchos can happen in any place on the lung, even without a puncture, due to the lung taking in all types of liquids.

åäà ãèøôä ùìà ëñãøï

(f)

Implied Question: The animal is considered a Treifah if the Sirchos are not on adjoining lobes. (If the Sirchos are generally not caused by punctures, why should there ever be a reason for an animal to be considered a Treifah, even if the Sircha connects lobes that are not next to each other?)

äééðå îùåí ùñåôä ìäúôø÷, åçùéá ëð÷åáä ëéåï ùñåôä ìð÷á.

(g)

Answer: The animal is considered a Treifah because the Sircha will end up breaking away from the lobes. It is therefore considered as if the lobes already have a hole, since they will eventually get a hole.

àáì ÷ùä îäà ãàîø ì÷îï (ãó îç.) âáé 'øéàä äñîåëä ìãåôï, ãøá ðçîéä áøéä ãøá éåñó áãé÷ ìä áôùåøé'. åîàé áãé÷ä ùééê, åäà ìòåìí ìà úáöáõ, ëéåï ãäñéøëà òåìä áìà ð÷á?

(h)

Question: However, there is a difficulty with this explanation from the Gemara later (48a). The Gemara states regarding a lung that is stuck to the rib-cage that Rav Nechemyah the son of Rav Yosef used to check it with water. How is it possible to check in this fashion? The water will never come through a hole, seeing as the Sircha grew without being caused by a hole!

åîéäå áìàå äëé ÷ùä, ãëé àîøéðï ðîé ãîçîú ð÷á äéà áàä, àéê äéä éåãò ò"é ùìà úáöáõ ùäñéøëä æå îçîú ãåôï, ëé ðîé ðé÷áä äøéàä, ìà úáöáõ - ùä÷øåí ñåúí àú äð÷á åèøôä äéà, ãñåôå ìéôñ÷ ëùàéðä ñøåëä áîéöø äçæä áî÷åí øáéúà ãàåðé ëãì÷îï

(i)

Counter-Question: Even without this, there is a difficulty. If we say that a Sircha occurs due to a hole, how did Rav Nechemyah know that if the water did not come through a hole in the lung, that the Sircha is due to the rib cage? Even if there would be a hole in the lung, the water would not necessarily come through the lung, as the membrane fills the hole. This causes it to be a Treifah, as eventually, the Sircha will fall off when it is no longer attached in the chest area where the lung and rib-cage meet, as stated later (in 48a).

àìà ùàðé äúí ãçåîøà áòìîà äåà ãòáéã, ãîï äãéï éù ìúìåú áãåôï, ãàéëà øéòåúà; åäåà äéä áåã÷ ìäçîéø, ãàé îúøîé ãäéà îáöáöà äåä èøéó.

(j)

Answer: It must therefore be that the case there is different, as it is a mere stringency that Rav Nechemyah checked in this fashion. According to the letter of the law, one can say that there is a problem with the rib-cage. Rav Nechemyah was stringent to check the lung as well in this fashion, as if the water would come out of the lung it would clearly indicate that the animal was a Treifah.

åîéäå ÷ùä, ã÷àîø îø æåèøà 'äà ãøá ðçîéä ãáãé÷ ìä áôùåøé'. àãøáà îúðéðï ìä à'úøé àåðé ãñøéëé ùìà ëñãøï, åääéà áãé÷ä äåéà ëãé ìäëùéø, àé ìà îáöáöà.

(k)

Question (Part 1): This is difficult owever, as Mar Zutra said (to Ravina), "Did you understand that the fact that Rav Nechemyah checked these lungs in water was said regarding a lung stuck to a rib cage? We understand Rav Nechemyah checked Rava's case of two lungs that were not next to each other that had a Sircha connecting them." This means that Rav Nechemyah checked these lungs in this fashion in order to rule them Kosher if the water did not come out, as opposed to the regular ruling that such lungs are a sign the animal is a Treifah.

åäùúà, åäìà ìòåìí ìà úáöáõ?

(l)

Question (Part 2): However, according to what we just said, the lungs will never have water coming out! (This effectively means that such a Sircha will always be ruled Kosher, as opposed to the simple explanation of our Gemara!)

åîéäå äééðå äà ãôøéê òìéä 'áùìîà äëà úìéðï áãåôï, àáì äúí àé äàé àéð÷á - èøôä, åàé äàé àéð÷á - èøôä?

(m)

Answer (Part 1): The Gemara (48a) indeed asks that it is understandable to say that the rib-cage must be the problem. However, if the case is a Sircha connecting lobes that are not next to each other, if either lobe has a hole it, is a Treifah!

åôéøù ùí á÷åðèøñ áùìîà äëà áãé÷ ìä, ãàé ìà îáöáöà, ìà àîøéðï ãðé÷áä åðñúîä, ãëéåï ãàéëà ìîéúìéä áãåôï, úìéðï áãåôï, åëùøä; àìà äëà âáé úøúé àåðé îëãé ñéøëà æå îçîú îëä äéúä, åäé îéðééäå ãàéð÷åá, èøôä, åäà ãìà îô÷à æé÷à, ÷øåí òìä áä åñúîä?

(n)

Answer (Part 2): Rashi (in 48a, DH "Bishlama" "Ela") explains that in the case of the rib-cage, if he checks the lung and the water does not come out, we do not assume that there was a hole which became filled. Being that we can say the problem is in the rib-cage, we do, and therefore it is a Kosher animal. However, in the case of the two lobes, it is clear that the Sircha was due to a wound. One of the lungs therefore had a hole, and renders the animal a Treifah. And the reason that wind does not come through the lung is because a membrane grew over it and plugged up the hole. (In other words, Tosfos is answering that the Gemara itself is bothered by a similar question).

åîéäå ìôéøåùå ùôéøù ù÷øåí òåìä áìà ð÷á ÷ùä äìùåï, ãìà äåä ìéä ìîéîø 'àé äàé àéð÷éá', àìà 'àé äàé îéð÷éá'.

(o)

Question: However, according to Rashi's explanation that a membrane can grow without a hole being present, the terminology is difficult. The Gemara should not have said, "Iy Hai Inkiv" -- "If this one is punctured" but rather, "Iy Hai Minkiv" -- "If this one will be punctured."

åùîà àéð÷éá äåé ëîå îéð÷éá.

(p)

Answer #1: Perhaps the term "Inkiv" is synonymous with "Minkiv."

åéù ìééùá ôéøåù ä÷åðèøñ àò"â ã÷øåí äòåìä îçîú îëä àéðå ÷øåí, äééðå ëùàéðå ñøåê áùåí î÷åí, àáì ëùäéà ñøåëä áî÷åí ùàéðä òåîãú ìäúôø÷, ñåúîúä åîâéðä éåúø, ùä÷øåí äåìê åçæ÷.

(q)

Answer #2: It is possible to explain that Rashi understands that even though a membrane that develops due to a wound is not a membrane, this is only when it is not attached well to any part of the animal. However, if it is attached well in a place where it is not going to come off, it closes off and protects the area as the membrane grows further and gets stronger.

åîéäå äà ãôøéê øá éåñó ìøáéðà âáé øéàä ùðé÷áä åãåôï ñåúîúä àé ìà ñáéê àîàé èøôä ëå' ä"ð äåä îöé ìà÷ùåéé àîàé ãîëùø øáà úøé àåðé ãñîéëé àäããé ëñãøï ëéåï ãðé÷áä àîàé ëùø ò"é ñúéîú äñøëà

(r)

Implied Question: However, Rav Yosef queried Ravina regarding a lung that was punctured and subsequently sealed off by the rib- cage. He asked, if the lung is not tangled with the meat of the rib cage, why is it forbidden? It is because it is a Treifah ... . He could have also asked regarding Rava's permitting an animal with a Sircha connecting two adjoining lobes. Being that they are punctured, why does it become Kosher if the Sircha seals off the hole? (Why didn't he ask his question on Rava's Din as well?)

àìà ãøá éåñó ùîò äà ãøáéðà áøéùà åôøéê òìä åàé äåä ùîéò ìéä îéìúà ãøáà äåä ðîé ôøéê òìä

(s)

Answer: We must say that Rav Yosef heard Ravina's Din, and therefore asked his question. If he would have heard Rava's Din, he would have queried that as well.

åîúåê äìëåú èøôåú ùì øáéðå âøùåí åúùåáú äâàåðéí ùëúá äøá ø' éåñó è"ò îùîò ðîé ùäñøëà îçîú ð÷á äéà áàä ùîöøéëéï ðôéçä ëùäàåðåú ñøåëåú æå ìæå ëñãøï àå ñîåëåú åñøåëåú áöìòåú àå ááùø ùáéï äöìòåú

(t)

Opinion#4: The implication of the laws of Treifos written by Rabeinu Gershom and the Teshuvos of the Gaonim written by Rav Yosef Tav Ilem is that a Sircha is due to a hole. We require blowing up the lung when the adjoining lobes are connected to each other with a Sircha, or they are close to a rib or the meat of a rib and connected to it with a Sircha.

åäùúà àí äñøëåú áàåú áìà ð÷á à"ë ëñãøï ìîä öøéê ðôéçä ëéåï ãìà úúôø÷ åëï áøéàä äñøåëä ìãåôï áî÷åí øáéúà ãàåðé

(u)

Implied Question: If Sirchos develop without a hole, why should we require blowing up the lungs when the adjoining lobes are connected, being that the Sircha will not come off? Similarly, when there is a lung that is attached with a Sircha to the rib-cage where the lobes press against it, why should we require blowing up the lung?

àí ìàå ãàîø ãàéï ñéøëà àìà îçîú ð÷á åàæ àúé ùôéø ãáã÷éðï ìä áðôéçä ùîà òãééï ìà ðñúí äð÷á

(v)

Answer: It must be that he holds that a Sircha must be the product of a hole. This then becomes understandable, as we check by blowing up the lung whether or not the hole has been sealed.

åàåðà äñøåëä ìàåîà åäéà àöìä ôéøù á÷åðèøñ îòùä áà ìéãé åùàìúé àú ôé øáéðå éò÷á á"ø é÷ø åäúéøä ìé ìàëåì åôéøù ìé èòîå åèòí äàåñøéï åðøàä ìå ãùøé

(w)

Opinion#1: If there is a Sircha from a cranial lobe to a caudal lobe that is immediately above it, Rashi states that when he received this question he asked Rabeinu Ya'akov ben Yakar who permitted the animal. Rashi continues that Rabeinu Ya'akov explained to him the reason why he permitted it, and the reason why there are those who forbid it. Rashi concludes that it seemed to him that it is permitted.

åø"ú ôñ÷ ìàéñåø åàîø ãëì äîàëéì àåðä ñøåëä áàåîà îàëéì èøôåú áéùøàì

(x)

Opinion#2: Rabeinu Tam ruled that it was forbidden, and that whoever allows an animal with such a Sircha to be eaten is feeding Treifos to Jews.

ãðøàä èòí äàåñøéï ãøáà ìà äëùéø àìà áúøé àåðé åàåîà àéï ùí àåðà òìéä àìà ùí øéàä ëãàîø øáà ä' àåðé éù ìä ìøéàä åàí àéúà ùáòä îáòé ìéä åìëê ÷øàåä øàùåðéí àåîà ìôé ùàéðä áëìì àåðåú ãùí øéàä òìéä ùæäå òé÷ø äøéàä åáàåðé äúéø øáà ëîå ùîôøù á÷åðèøñ ùòåîãú áîéöø äçæä ëãì÷îï åàéðä îúôø÷ú àáì áàåîà ãäééðå øéàä ìà äúéø åòì äîúéø ìäáéà øàéä

1.

Opinion#2 (cont.): It appears that the reason of those who forbid such an animal is that Rava only permitted a case where the Sircha is connected to two "Unos" (known as cranial lobes). An Uma (known as a caudal lobe) is not halachically classified as an Una, but is rather classified as part of the lung. This is as Rava states that there are five Unos in the lung. If the Umos have the same Din as the Unos, he should have said that there are seven! This is why the early sages gave the Umos a separate name, since they held they are not lobes, but rather they are a main part of the lung. Rava only permitted a Sircha between two Unos as it is in the area of the chest (and rib-cage) and will not fall apart, as Rashi explained. However, Rava did not permit a Sircha connected to an Uma, which is part of the lung itself. One who wants to permit this must prove that it is indeed permitted.

åëï áä"â åáúùåáú äâàåðéí åäø"ø îùä ãôåðèééæ"à åðæëø áòøåê òí äâàåðéí åëï ðåäâéí áëì î÷åí ìàéñåø

2.

Opinion#2 (cont.): The Bahag, Teshuvos Ha'Gaonim, Rabeinu Moshe from Fontaisa whose opinion is mentioned in the Aruch as being that of the Gaonim, and the custom in all places - is to forbid such an animal.

çåõ îî÷åîå ùì øáéðå ùìîä ùôùè äéúø åëì øáåúéå àåñøéï çåõ îøáå (ùì) äæ÷ï åàðå îî÷åí ùôùè äéúø ùì øù"é

3.

Opinion#2 (cont.): This is aside from the area of Rashi, where the custom is to be lenient. All of the teachers of Rashi forbade it, aside from his Rebbi (Rabeinu Ya'akov), and we live in a place where the leniency of Rashi is accepted.

åëúá äø"é æ"ì ùøáéðå âøùåí åøáéðå ðçùåï âàåï åø"ç åøáéðå ùîåàì åø"é áï øáéðå éäåãä ëåìí îúéøéí åáúåñôåú øáéðå éäåãä îöàúé ìäúéø áùí øéá"à ãàé ìà äåä àåîà áëìì àåðé ìà úîöà ùìà ëñãøï áùîàì åøáà àîø ñúí áéï áéîéï áéï áùîàì

4.

Opinion#2 (cont.): The Ri writes that Rabeinu Gershom, Rabeinu Nachshon Gaon, Rabeinu Chananel, Rabeinu Shmuel, and Rabeinu Yitzchak ben Rabeinu Yehudah all permit it. In Tosfos Rabeinu Yehudah, I found that he quotes this leniency in the name of the Riva. If an Uma was not included in an Una, you would not have a case where the Sircha is between two Unos on the left side of the lung - whereas Rava implies that this case can apply both on the right and left part of the lung. (This indicates that an Uma is an Una) ...

åäà ãìà àîø ùáòä àåðé àéú ìä ìøéàä

5.

Implied Question: ... and the reason that Rava did not say that there are seven lobes to the lung is ...

îùåí çñéø åçìéó ð÷è çîùä ãàåîà àéï ãøëå ìäéåú çñéø åçìéó àìà ìçîùä àåðé

6.

Answer#1: ... because he wanted this to apply to cases of missing lobes, or lobes that are on the wrong sides. (There are supposed to be three lobes on the right and two on the left. If there are three on the left and two on the right, it is T'reifah, see Rambam Hilchos Shechitah 8:3) - and it normal for Unos to be missing or switched (but not Umos).

åòåã ðîé ðøàä ãàôéìå àí àéï àåîà ùí àåðà òìéä îëì î÷åí ð÷è øáà àåðé ìàùîòéðï ãàôéìå áàåðé ùìà ëñãøï èøôä ëãîôøù á÷åðèøñ åàé äåä ð÷è àåðà äñøåëä ìàéîà äåä àîéðà ãàåðà áàåðà àôéìå ùìà ëñãøï ëùøä.

7.

Answer#2: It is also apparent that even if an Uma is not called an Una, Rava still said Unos to teach us that even if the Sircha connects two Unos that are not adjoining, the animal is a Treifah, as explained by Rashi, and If he would have discussed a case of an Una that is connected by a Sircha to an Uma, one would think that if two Unos are connected by a Sircha, even if they are not next to each other, the animal is Kosher.

2)

TOSFOS DH I SHAFCHI AHADADI CHADA HI U'KESHEIRAH

úåñôåú ã"ä àé ùôëé àäããé çãà äéà åëùøä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos searches for a reason why a blister on the tip of a lung should be T'reifah.)

ëúá áòì äìëåú âãåìåú - ãáåòåú áùéôåìé øéàä, ãäééðå áùéôåìé àåðåú àå àåîåú, èøôä.

(a)

Ruling: The Ba'al Halachos Gedolos writes that blisters on the extremity of the lung - on the extremity of the Unos (the upper- lobes) or the Umos (the lower-lobes), renders the animal T'reifah ...

åôéøù äèòí ã'ëì éúø ëðèåì ãîé'.

(b)

Reason: ... And he explains that this is due to the principle 'Kol Yeser ke'Natul Dami' (Whatever is excessive is as if it has been removed).

åúéîä, ãîä òðéï æä àöì æä ...

(c)

Question (Part 1): What has the one to do with the other?

åàé çùéá ìéä 'éúø' áñåó øéàä, äëé ðîé áàîöò?

(d)

Question (Part 2): If it is considered 'excessive' at the end of the lung, so too, is it excessive in the middle?

åàéï ìàñåø îôðé ùðøàä ëùúé áåòåú ...

(e)

Refuted Suggestion: Nor can we forbid it because it looks like two blisters ...

ãäà îëùøéðï äéëà ãùôëé àäããé?

(f)

Refutation: ... seeing as we declare Kasher there where two blisters pour into one another.

åùîà äèòí ãëùòåîã áñåó, ñåôå ìéôñ÷ åìéð÷á.

(g)

Answer: Maybe the reason is because when it is situated at the end, it stands to break and develop a hole.

åèåá ìéæäø, ùëì ãáøéäí ãáøé ÷áìä.

(h)

Conclusion (Part 1): It is correct to be stringent, since all the words of the B'hag are embedded in tradition.

åëï ôñ÷ øáéðå çððàì. åëúá ãàé îäãø ìä äãøðà áéùøà, ëùøä.

(i)

Conclusion (Part 2): ... and this is also the opinion of Rabeinu Chananel, who also writes that if it turns back into regular flesh, it is Kasher.

3)

TOSFOS DH VE'I LA'AV T'REIFAH

úåñôåú ã"ä åàé ìà úøúé ðéðäå åèøôä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses when two blisters next to each other renders the animal T'reifah and when it doesn't.)

ëúåá áäìëåú èøôåú ùì øáéðå âøùåí - ãàôéìå éù äôñ÷ áéðéäí ëçåè äùòøä, èøôä.

(a)

Clarification: It is written in Hilchos T'reifos of Rabeinu Gershom - that even if the space between them is as thin as a hair's-breadth, it is T'reifah.

îùîò ãàé àéëà áéðéäï ëùðé çåèéï, ìà çùéá ñîéëé àäããé, åëùøä.

(b)

Extrapolation: This implies that if the distance that separates them is as much as two hairs-breadth, they are not considered next to each other, and the animal is Kasher. And this is also the opinion of Rabeinu Shmuel.

åëúá øáéðå éäåãä - ãå÷à áåòåú ùéù áäï îåâìà, àáì öîçéí ÷ùéï àôéìå ñîéëé, ëùøä. åëï ôéøù øáéðå ùîåàì.

(c)

Qualification: Rabeinu Yehudah writes that the above is confined to where the blisters contain pus, but if they are hard scabs, even if they are next to one another, the animal remains Kasher.

4)

TOSFOS DH KOL HANI IZI BIRYASA HACHI IS L'HU

úåñôåú ã"ä ëì äðé òéæé áøééúà äëé àéú ìäå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses a Machlokes between Rashi and Rabeinu Efrayim regarding how to explain the Sugya.)

åäà ãàîø 'ãáéðé áéðé èøôä'?

(a)

Implied Question: Then why did the Gemara say earlier that in the middle is T'reifah?

äééðå äéëà ãâãåìä äøáä, åàéï ãåîä ìòðåðéúà ãåøãà.

(b)

Answer: That is where it is very large, and does not resemble the middle Una.

ôéøù á÷åðèøñ, ãëé îùúëçï úøúé, ãèøôä.

(c)

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that if one discovers two middle Unos, it is T'reifah ...

ãäà éúøú ãáéðé åáéðé ìàå àåøçä, ãçãà âåôä ìà àëùøéðï àìà îùåí ãëì äðé òéæé áøééúà äëé àéú ìäå.

(d)

Reason: ... because an extra Una in the middle is not common, and the only reason that we declare it Kasher is because all wild goats have them ...

åàí àéï ìä àôéìå àçú, ëùøä.

(e)

Ruling: ... and an animal that doesn't even have one is Kasher.

åøáéðå àôøéí àåîø ãòì àçú ìà äéä àåîø 'ëì äðé òéæé áøééúà äëé àéú ìäå', åìà äåä ñáåø øá àùé ìîèøôä, ãäà ëåìäå äëé àéú ìäå.

(f)

Explanation #2 (Part 1): Rabeinu Efrayim however, states that on one alone the Gemara would not have said that 'All wild goats have them'; nor would Rav Ashi have even thought that they are T'reifah, since all (our) animals have them.

àìà åãàé àôéìå òì äùðéä ÷àîø ãëùøä, îùåí ãäðé òéæé áøééúà äëé àéú ìäå.

(g)

Explanation #2 (Part 2): It is therefore clear that it is with regard to the second one that the Gemara declares them Kasher.

åìôéëê àí àéï ìå àôéìå àçú, èøôä.

(h)

Explanation #2 (Part 3): Consequently, if it does not possess even one, it is T'reifah.

åðøàä ãàéï øàéä îáäîåú ùìðå, ãùîà çìå÷åú îùìäí

(i)

Refutation: One cannot however, bring a proof from our animals, which are perhaps different than theirs ...

ëãàùëçï áôø÷ äìå÷ç áäîä (áëåøåú ãó éè:) ã'ôøä áú ùìùä ùéìãä åãàé, ìëäï. åáäîåú ùìðå éåìãåú ìôòîéí áùðä ùðéä.

(j)

Precedent: ... like we find in Perek ha'Loke'ach Beheimah (Bechoros 10b), which rules that if a cow in its third year gives birth, the baby definitely belongs to the Kohen.; whereas our cows sometimes give birth in their second year ...

àí ìà ùðàîø ãëùéåìãú áùðä ùðéä, úùù ëçä, åùåá ìà úìã òã ùðä øáéòéú.

(k)

Refutation: ... unless we say that a cow that gave birth in the second year is too weak to give birth again before the fourth year.

åòîà ãáø ëøù"é ...

(l)

Conclusion (Part 1): The accepted ruling however, is like Rashi ...

îã÷àîø 'å÷øå ìä èáçé "òéðåðéúà ãååøãà" '. îùîò ëôéøåùå - ãàéï ùí àìà äéà, ãìà îñúáø ëìì ìåîø ã÷àé à'ùðéä, åáëì î÷åí ùäéà ñøåëä, èøôä.

(m)

Proof: ... since the Gemara stated 'and the butchers called it "Inunisa de'Varda" ', implying that there was only one (like Rashi), since it is illogical to ascribe it to the second one. Which will be T'reifah wherever it is attached.

åàí çñø àçú îï äàåðåú, àéï äòéðåðéúà îöèøôú ìäùìéí.

(n)

Conclusion (Part 2): ... and in the event that one of the Unos is missing, the Inunisa will not make up for it.

47b----------------------------------------47b

5)

TOSFOS DH AVAL AGABAH AFILU KE'TAFAH D'ASA T'REIFAH

úåñôåú ã"ä àáì àâáä àôéìå ëèøôà ãàñà èøôä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discuses various aspects of the Inunisa [the small Una].)

åðøàä, ãàí ðîöàú äòéðåðéúà ìöã ùîàì, ëéåï ãìàå àåøçà áäëé, èøôä.

(a)

Clarification: It would seem that if the Inunissa is situated on the left side, where it is not normally found, it is T'reifah ...

ãäà îôøù èòîà îùåí ã'òéæé áøééúà äëé àéú ìäå'.

(b)

Source: ... seeing as the Gemara gives the reason as 'Wild goats usually have them'.

åäà ãîîòè à'âáä, åìà îîòè ìöã ùîàì ...

(c)

Implied Question: ... and the Gemara precludes 'on its back' (from the status of Kasher), and not 'on the left side' ...

ð÷è 'âáä' ìîòåèé àôéìå áéîéï.

(d)

Answer: ... becausee 'on its back' is T'reifah even if it is on the right side ...

åàí ùéðúä î÷åîä, äéä ðøàä ìäúéø, îãîîòè âáä ãå÷à.

(e)

Qualification Explanation #1: ... and if it changed its location it is apparently permitted, seeing as the Gemara precludes specifically its back.

åàó ëé øáéðå ùìîä îèøéó áúøé òéðåðéúà, àò"ô ùàçú àéðä òåîãú áî÷åîä ...

(f)

Implied Question: Even though Rashi declares T'reifah one with two small Unos, despite the fact that one of them is not in its correct location ...

ìà äéä àåñø àà"ë äåä úøúé.

(g)

Answer: ... he would not have forbidden if there hadn't been two of them.

àê îåøé äøá ãåãé æ"ì àîø ùäéä î÷åáì ìàñåø.

(h)

Explanation #2: The Ba'al Tosfos' uncle however, maintains that it is Asur.

åàôùø ãèòîà îùåí ãìàå àåøçéä áäëé.

(i)

Reason: Perhaps the reason for this is because it is unusual.

6)

TOSFOS DH AFILU KE'TARFA DE'ASA T'REIFAH

úåñôåú ã"äúåñôåú ã"äúåñôåú ã"ä àôéìå ëèøôà ãàñà èøôä

(SUMMARY: Citing his Rebbe, Tosfos qualifies this ruling and discusses the measurement of 'the size of a myrtle-leaf'.)

îùåí àáé äòæøé åä"ø àá"ï ëúá îåøé äø"ø éöç÷ áñôøå - ããå÷à áùàø àåðåú åâá äøéàä äåéà èøôä; àáì áàåðà ùáöã äéîéï äúçúåðä, ùäéà òìéåðä äñîåëä ìöåàø, ëùøä, ããøëä ìäúôöì.

(a)

Clarification #1: The Ba'al ha'Tosfos' Rebbe, ha'R. R. Yitzchak, quoting the Avi ha'Ezri and ha'R. Ibn writes in his Seifer that it is specifically by the other Unos and on the back of the lung that it is T'reifah; But on the lower Una on the right-hand side (which is the upper one that is closest to the neck), it is Kasher, since it is its way to split.

åëúá áúùåáä ãàôé' ìà äåéà ëèøôà ãàñà àìà òì éãé ðôéçä, èøôä.

(b)

Clarification #2: And in a Teshuvah he wrote that even if it only attains the size of a myrtle-leaf after it is blown up, it is T'reifah.

åàé ìà äåéà àôéìå áúø ðôéçä ëèøôà ãàñà, ðøàä ìàáé äòæøé ùäéà ëùøä.

(c)

Conclusion: Whereas if, even after it has been blown up it is not the size of a myrtle-leaf, it seems to the Avi ha'Ezri that it is Kasher.

7)

TOSFOS DH DE'SHIY'A KE'UFSA

úåñôåú ã"ä ãùéòà ëàåôúà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos clarifies the Gemara's statement.)

äééðå ùçì÷ä ìâîøé, àáì àí éù áä ùåí äéëø áòìîà, ëùøä.

(a)

Clarification: This means that it is completely smooth, but if there is the slightest recognition, the animal is Kasher,

8)

TOSFOS DH SH'LISHI HAVI'ASO LEFANAI

úåñôåú ã"ä ùìéùé äáéàúå ìôðé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos establishes Rebbi Nasan like Rebbi.)

ðøàä ãñáø ãáúøé æéîðé äåéà çæ÷ä ëøáé (éáîåú ãó ñã:), îãàîø ìä 'äîúéðé'.

(a)

Clarification: From the fact that he told her to wait, it seems that he holds that two times is already a Chazakah, like Rebbi in Yevamos.

9)

TOSFOS DH ELA YEROKAH ETC. HEICHI DAMYA, KE'KARSI

úåñôåú ã"ä àìà éøå÷ä åëå' ä"ã ëëøúé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos equates 'Karsi' and 'Karsan' and then discusses which color it is, dealing particularly with the Aruch's translation - 'Yerakrak'.)

åé"ñ ùëúåá áäï 'ëëøúï' - åäëì àçã.

(a)

Alternative Text: There are some who have the text 'ke'Karsan' - which is the same thing.

åëúá áòøåê ãäåà öáò éø÷ø÷. åúøâåí ùì "çöéø" äåà 'ëøúé' áùáéì ùäí éøå÷éí.

(b)

Explanation #1: The Aruch writes that it is a greenish color. Indeed, Unklus translates "Chatzir" (leek) as 'Karsan' because it is green.

åðøàä ãäåà öáò àéðãé"ù áìò"æ, ãäåà ãîé ìø÷éò, ãäà îùîò ùäåà ãåîä ÷öú ìúëìú

(c)

Explanation #2: It would appear however, that it is indigo (a dark shade of blue), which is similar to the color of the sky, since it implies that it resembles somewhat the color 'Techeiles' ...

ëãàîøéðï (áøëåú ãó è:) 'ëãé ùéëéø áéï úëìú ìëøúé'.

(d)

Source #1: ... like we say in B'rachos (9b) 'in order to distinguish between Techeiles and Karsi' ...

åàîø 'úëìú ãåîä ìéí, åéí ãåîä ìø÷éò'.

(e)

Source #2: ... and like the Gemara will say later (on Daf 89a) 'Techeiles resembles the sea, and the sea resembles the sky.'

åîúåê ëê àåîø ø"ú, ãäà ãôñìéðï áôø÷ ìåìá äâæåì (ñåëä ãó ìã:) 'àúøåâ äéøå÷ ëëøúï', ãå÷à áöáò àéðãé"ù.

(f)

Inference: Consequently, Rabeinu Tam says, when the Gemara in Perek Lulav ha'Gazul (Succah 34b) disqualifies an Esrog that is 'Yarok like Karsan', it refers specifically to blue.

åîéäå ðøàä ãîëç æä àéï ìäëùéø ùàø àúøåâéí äéøå÷éí, ãìà ð÷è 'ëëøúï' ìîòåèé ùàø òðéðé éø÷åú.

(g)

Reservation: It seems however, that on the basis of this alone, we cannot declare Kasher other Esrogim that are termed 'Yarok', since the Gemara did not say 'ke'Karsan' to preclude other shades of Yarok.

ãä"ð ìà äåé ãå÷à 'ëëøúï' ãìòéì âáé 'éøå÷ä ëùøä îãøáé ðúï' - ôéøù á÷åðèøñ 'éøå÷ä ëòùáéí'; àìîà ëëøúï ìàå ãå÷à.

(h)

Precedence: ... just like when we learned above 'ke'Karsan' (in connection with 'Yerokah Kesheirah mi'de'Rebbi Nasan') where Rashi explained 'green like grass'; So we see that 'ke'Karsan' is not exclusive.

åëï ðøàä - ãìà àúé ìîòåèé àìà ããîéà ìëùåúà åîåøé÷à åáéòúà. ãëì îéðé ÷øå"â éøå÷éí àé÷øé ...

(i)

Conclusion: And this is correct - that the Gemara is only coming to preclude those that resemble hops, crocuses and eggs (shades of yellow) ...

ëãàîø áîñëú ðâòéí (ô"à) 'éø÷ø÷ ëëðó èååñ'. åàéëà ìî"ã 'ëùòåä'.

(j)

Proof #1: ... like we learned in the first Perek of Maseches Nega'im "Yerakrak" 'like the wing of a peacock'; whereas others say 'like wax'.

åàîøéðï áôø÷ ã' ðãøéí (ãó ìá.) "åéø÷ àú çðéëéå" - ùäåøé÷ï (áàáðéí èåáåú åîøâìéåú) áæäá.

(k)

Proof #2: And the Gemara also states in Perek Arba'ah Nedarim (Daf 32a) "Vayarek es Chanichav" - 'she'Horikan be'Zahav' (that he gave them lots of yellow gold') ...

åëï "åàáøåúéä áéø÷ø÷ çøåõ".

(l)

Proof #3: And this is also evident in the Pasuk (regarding the wings of a dove) "ve'Evrosehah bi'Yerakrak Charutz" - (' ... and her pinions with a bright gold').

10)

TOSFOS DH AVAL NEKEV SHE'YESH BO CHESARON AFILU REBBI SHIMON MODEH

úåñôåú ã"ä àáì ð÷á ùéù áå çñøåï àôéìå øáé ùîòåï îåãä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses a lung that appears to be Chaser, but is complete when it is blown up.)

åéù ùøöå ìàñåø ëùðøàéú äøéàä çñøä ëùéù ÷îè åñã÷ åçñøåï òì äøéàä, àôéìå òåìä áðôéçä, åäòåø åäáùø ÷ééí.

(a)

Explanation #1: Some commentaries want to declare T'reifah a lung that appears to be Chaser (incorporating where there is a fold or a fissure), even if, when one blows it up, the skin and flesh remain intact.

åäùéá ìäí øéá"à ãèòåú äåà áéãí, ãà"ë äåä ìéä ìùðåéé äëà äëé - åëãáøé äëì; åìà äåä ìéä ìàå÷îà ëø"ù.

(b)

Refutation: The Riva however, pointed out to them that they erred, because if that was the case, the Gemara ought to have answered like that here, according to everybody, rather than establishing it like Rebbi Shimon.

àìà åãàé ëéåï ãòåìä áðôéçä, ëùøä.

(c)

Explanation #2: Clearly therefore, if it can be blown up, it is Kasher.

åëï ôñ÷ øáéðå ÷ìåðéîåñ äæ÷ï.

(d)

Conclusion: And this is also the opinion of Rebbi K'lonymus the elder.