1)

TOSFOS DH KI P'LIGI D'AYT'RA

úåñôåú ã"ä ëé ôìéâé ãàééúøà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos establishes a Sugya in Pesachim like this Lashon.)

ääéà ãôñçéí ôø÷ î÷åí ùðäâå (ãó ðà.) ëé ñìé÷ øáä áø áø çðä àëì ãàééúøà îéúå÷í ëé äàé ìéùðà.

(a)

Clarification: The case in Perek Makom she'Nahagu (Pesachim 51a) - When Rabah bar bar Chanah came from Eretz Yisrael) he ate 'D'ayt'ra' - goes according to this Lashon.

2)

TOSFOS DH D'AYT'RA KULI ALMA LO P'LIGI DE'SHARI

úåñôåú ã"ä ãàééúøà ëåìé òìîà ìà ôìéâé ãùøé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos reconciles Rav Nachman with this Lashon.)

åìäàé ìéùðà îôøù îéìúà ãøá ðçîï áðéçåúà 'àéðäå îéëì ÷à àëìé ìéä, äùúà ìãéãï ãìà àëìéðï, àôé' ñåúí àéðå'.

(a)

Clarification: According to this Lashon, we will explain the statement of Rav Nachman straight (not in the form of a Kashya) - 'They eat it; but according to us, who do not, it does not even stop up the hole!'

åìà ëôéøåù ä÷åðèøñ ãôéøù ãìäàé ìéùðà áúøà, ìà îúå÷îà îéìúéä ãøá ðçîï.

(b)

Refutation: ... not like Rashi, who explains that according to this latter Lashon, we cannot establish Rav Nachman's statement.

3)

TOSFOS DH AFILY BE'YOM SHEVI'I BA MI'MAKOM KAROV MONEH IMAHEM

úåñôåú ã"ä àôéìå áéåí ùáéòé áà îî÷åí ÷øåá îåðä òîäí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses whether the seventh day is Davka or not.)

ìëàåøä äéä ðøàä ãéåí ùáéòé ìàå ãå÷à, àìà áìéìä ùì ùáéòé - ãàëúé ìà ôñ÷ àáìåú îéðééäå.

(a)

Explanation #1: Initially it would seem that the seventh day is La'av Davka, but rather the night of the seventh - seeing as the Aveilus has not yet ceased ...

ãàé áéåí äùáéòé, äà î÷öú äéåí ëëåìå åàéï ùééê ìåîø 'îåðä òîäí'.

(b)

Proof: ... because, if it meant the seventh day, we rule that 'a part of the day is like the day!', and we cannot say that he counts together with them?

åîéäå àôéìå áéåí ùáéòé îîù àééøé, ãáîåòã ÷èï (ãó ëá.) îå÷é ìä ëùòãééï äîðçîéí àöìå, ãàëúé ÷àé áàáìåúéä òã ùéìëå ìäí.

(c)

Explanation #2: However it may well be speaking on the seventh day itself, bearing in mind the Gemara in Mo'ed Katan (22a) which establishes the Mishnah where the people who came to comfort him are still there, in which case, the Aveilus still remains intact until they have left.

4)

TOSFOS DH MI'DAKAH LE'DAKAH U'MI'GASAH LE'GASAH

úåñôåú ã"ä îã÷ä ìã÷ä åîâñä ìâñä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos, citing Rabeinu Chananel, explains what 'Dakah' and 'Gasah' means here.)

ôéøù øáéðå çððàì - î'áäîä ã÷ä ìáäîä ã÷ä ìä÷ì'.

(a)

Clarification: Rabeinu Chananel explains 'from one small animal to another small animal to be lenient ...

ãàé áàåðà åàåîà - äåä ìéä ìîéîø '÷èðä åâãåìä', ëãàîø øáé éäåãä âáé 'ëøñ'.

(b)

Proof: ... because if it (Dakah and Gasah respectively) were referring to an Una and an Uma, then the Gemara ought to have rather said 'small and large', as Rebbi Yehudah says with regard to 'Keres'.

50b----------------------------------------50b

5)

TOSFOS DH SHADRAH VE'EIZEHU KERES CHITZONAH BASAR HA'CHOFEH ES ROV HA'KERES

úåñôåú ã"ä åàéæäå ëøñ äçéöåðä áùø äçåôä àú øåá äëøñ

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that this statement appears to detract from the eighteen established T'reifos.)

åà"ú, àí ëï çñø ìäå îé"ç èøôåú, ã'áùø äçåôä àú øåá äëøñ' äåà îùá ùîòúà ãáøéù ôéø÷éï.

(a)

Question: In that case, we will be short of the eighteen T'reifos, since 'Flesh that covers the majority of the stomach' is one of the Shev Sh'ma'ta' listed at the beginning of the Perek.

åáøéù ôéø÷éï (ãó îâ.) ôéøùúé.

(b)

See Earlier: However, Tosfos has already dealt with this problem earlier in the Perek (on Daf 43a DH 'Hanach ... '.)

6)

TOSFOS DH RUBA VE'LO HAVI TEFACH P'SHITA

úåñôåú ã"ä øåáà åìà äåé èôç ôùéèà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses two explanations in the Gemara's answer based on two different texts, and their respective ramifications.)

ôé' - ôùéèà ãøåá îåòéì ìëåìé òìîà?

(a)

Explanation #1: It is obvious that the majority is effective according to everybody?

å÷öú úéîä, îàé ÷à îùðé 'ìà öøéëà ãàéëà èôç áîùäå; îäå ãúéîà òã ãîé÷øò áä èôç ìà äåä èøôä'.

(b)

Question (Part 1): What does the Gemara mean when it answers that it is talking where it is a Mashehu less than a Tefach, and that we would otherwise have thought that until it tears up to the length of a Tefach it is not a T'reifah'.

åàîàé ñ"ã ìîéîø äëé?

(c)

Question (Part 2): Why would we have thought that?

åøáéðå çððàì âøéñ - 'ãàéëà èôç åîùäå'.

(d)

Explanation #2 (Part 1): Rabeinu Chananel therefore has the text 'that there is a Tefach plus a Mashehu' ...

åøåöä ìôøù 'øåáà ãìà äåé èôç' - äééðå ëùàéï áëì äëøñ èôç. åìëê ôøéê ùôéø 'ôùéèà ãìà áòé èôç' ùäøé àéï áëåìä èôç?

(e)

Explanation #2 (Part 2): ... and what the Gemara means is that speaks about a majority that is less that a Tefach, meaning that the entire stomach (rumen) measures less than a Tefach, which explains why the Gemara asks 'It is obvious that one does not need a Tefach', seeing there is not a Tefach in the entire stomach?'

åîùðé 'ëâåï ãàéëà èôç åîùäå', îäå ãúéîà ëéåï ãàéëà áëåìä èôé îèôç, ìà îéèøôà òã ãî÷øò èôç.

(f)

Explanation #2 (Part 3): And it answers that it is speaking where it measures a Tefach plus a Mashehu, and where one might have thought that since there is in total, more than a Tefach, it does not become a T'reifah until at least a Tefach is torn.

7)

TOSFOS DH LE'CHE'SHE'TIMASHECH TA'AMOD AL TEFACH

úåñôåú ã"ä ìëùúîúç úòîåã òì èôç

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains exactly what this means.)

ëùú÷éó äñìò áçåè åéîúç äçåè, éäéä áàøëå èôç.

(a)

Clarification: When one stretches the thread with which one surrounds the Sela-gap with a thread and it measures a Tefach in length.

8)

TOSFOS DH MACHAT SHE'NIMTZEIS BE'UVI BEIS HA'KOSOS BE'TZAD ECHAD KESHEIRAH

úåñôåú ã"ä îçè ùðîöàú áòåáé áéú äëåñåú áöã àçã ëùøä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses in detail the Machlokes between Rashi and Rabeinu Tam as to whether a hole that goes only half way through the Messes is T'reifah or not and the various problems to which the respective opinions give rise.)

àáì áäîññ àôéìå îöã àçã ùìà ð÷á îòáø ìòáø, èøôä. ëê ôéøù øù"é áî÷åí àçø.

(a)

Explanation #1: Rashi elsewhere (in Kesuvos 76a) maintains that the Messes, on the other hand, is T'reifah, even if the hole is only on one side, and did not pierce from one side to the other.

åàôéìå àí úîöà ìåîø ãàéï ñáøà ùéäà èøôä, äåàéì åìà ðé÷á àìà çöé òåø ...

(b)

Implied Question: And even if one argues that it is illogical to declare the animal T'reifah, seeing as only half of one skin is pierced?

îöéðå ìîéîø ãëåìéä ðé÷á, ãçééùéðï ùîà äáøéà ...

(c)

Answer: ... it is possible to say that in reality, the entire skin has been pierced, only we suspect that it healed ...

ëé äéëé ãçééùé' [âáé åùè] áøéù ôéø÷éï (ãó îâ.) - ìîàï ãçééù ìñô÷ ãøåñä.

(d)

Precedent: ... just as we say with regard to the Veshet, at the beginning of the Perek (43a) - according to those who suspects that by Safek D'rusah.

åäà ã÷úðé áîúðéúéï 'äîññ åáéú äëåñåú ùð÷áå ìçåõ ... ', ãîùîò ãáòéðï ð÷á îôåìù ...

(e)

Implied Question: ... and when our Mishnah speaks about 'the Messes and the Beis ha'Kosos which have been holed to the outside', implying that the hole needs to pierce all the way through?

ìàå ãå÷à ìçåõ ùéäà îôåìù àìà ëìåîø ìçåõ ëìôé çåõ, åìàôå÷é ð÷áå æä ìúåê æä.

(f)

Answer: ... it does not mean specifically that the hole pierced all the way through, but that it went towards the outside (to preclude where it merely went from one skin into the other ...

åäà ã÷àîø 'îöã àçã ëùøä, áòåáé áéú äëåñåú' ...

(g)

Implied Question: ... and when it says with regard to the thickness of the Beis-ha'Kosos - 'on one side only, it is Kasher' ...

öøéê ìôøù ìàåúå öã ùáôðéí ëìôé äøéòé ...

(h)

Answer: ... we are forced to explain that this means - on the side that is on the inside, towards the dung ...

ãàé öã ùáçåõ ëìôé çìì äâåó, àôéìå ìà ðé÷á ëìì àìà ùðîöà îçè áçìì äâåó, èøôä, ãàîø 'ð÷åáé ð÷éá åàúàé'.

(i)

Proof: ... because if it meant on the outside, towards the body cavity, it would be T'reifah even if the needle was actually found in the body cavity, since we would say that it must have arrived there via the hole that it made through the Beis-ha'Kosos.

åàéï ðøàä ìø"ú ìåîø ùéäà èøôä ëùìà ðé÷á àìà çöé äòåø ùì äîññ; åðøàä ìå ãäîññ ðîé îöã àçã ëùøä

(j)

Explanation #2: According to Rabeinu Tam however, it is not correct to declare it T'reifah when the needle only pierced half the skin of the Messes ...

åäà ãð÷è 'áòåáé áéú äëåñåú îöã àçã, ëùøä' ...

(k)

Implied Question: ... and the Tana states that a hole on one side of the Uvei Beis-ha'Kosos is Kasher ...

øáåúà ÷îùîò ìï - ìôé ùéù ìå ùðé òåøåú, å÷îùîò ìï ãàò"â ùðé÷á òåø àçã ùìí, àôéìå äëé ëùøä, òã ùðé÷áå ùðéäí.

(l)

Answer #1 (Part 1): ... to teach us a Chidush - that even if one of its two skins is entirely pierced, it is still Kasher, until both of them have been pierced ...

åàâá ãð÷è 'îöã àçã ëùøä', ð÷è ðîé 'îùðé öããéï èøôä', àò"â ãîéìúà ãôùéèà äéà.

(m)

Answer #1 (Part 2): And it is because he needs to say 'mi'Tzad Echad Kesheirah', that he also adds 'mi'Shenei Tzedadim, T'reifah', even though that is obvious.

åòåã àåîø ø"ú ãäàé ðîé çãåù äåà, ãñ"ã àîéðà àôéìå îùðé öããéï, ëâåï ùðé÷áå ùðé äòåøåú, ëùøä, ìôé ùùåëá ò"â äîññ, åîãåá÷ ùí áùåîï; åäå'à ãàåúå ãá÷åú îâéï ùìà éöà äøéòé ...

(n)

Answer #2: Alternatively however, Rabeinu Tam learns that this ('mi'Shenei Tzedadim, T'reifah') is a Chidush, too - since we might otherwise have thought that even on both sides, the Beis ha'Kosos is Kasher too (if both skins are pierced), because it is lying on top of the Messes, and it is stuck there with fat. So we might have thought that that fusion prevents the dung from oozing out ...

îéãé ãäåä à'çìçåìú ùðé÷áä åéøëéí îòîéãéï àåúä, ãëùøä,

(o)

Precedent: ... similar to where the rectum is holed, which is nevertheless Kasher because the thighs block it up.

÷à îùîò ìï äëà ãèøôä.

(p)

Conclusion: Therefore the Tana needs to teach us that it is in fact T'reifah.

åà"ú, äà àîøéðï á'áîä îãìé÷éï' (ùáú ãó ìå.) âáé 'äðäå úìú îéìé ãàéùúðå ùîééäå - äåáìéìà áé ëñé åáé ëñé äåáìéìà; ìîàé ðô÷à îéðä? ìîçè ùðîöàú áòåáé áéú äëåñåú'.

(q)

Question (Part 1): We learned in 'Bameh Madlikin' (Shabbos 36a) regarding the three things whose names were changed - "Huvlila" became "bei Kasi" and "Bei Kasi", "Huvlila". And the ramifications are a needle that is found in the wall of the Beis ha'Kosos'.

åäùúà îàé ðô÷åúà àéúà, äà áúøåééäå àîøéðï 'îöã àçã ëùøä, îùðé öããéí èøôä', âí áäåáìéìà?

(r)

Question (Part 2): The question now remains - What difference does it make, seeing as in both cases we say that 'on one side, it is Kasher, and on two sides, it is T'reifah (also by Huvlila)?

åé"ì, ãðô÷à îéðä ùìà úèòä ìôøù îä ùàîø 'îöã àçã ëùøä' æäå áäåáìéìà, ãäééðå äîññ, ùòúä ÷åøéï 'áéú äëåñåú' ...

(s)

Answer #1 (Part 1): The difference is that one should not make the mistake of establishing 'one side is Kasher' by Huvlila (the Messes, which they now call 'Beis ha'Kosos') ...

àáì áîä ù÷åøéï òëùéå 'äåáìéìà' - äééðå îä ùäéå øâéìéí ì÷øåú' áéú äëåñåú'. àôéìå îöã àçã èøôä, äåàéì åðé÷á òåø ùìí.

(t)

Answer #1 (Part 2): ... but what they now call 'Huvlila' - which they used to call 'Beis ha'Kosos' - even on one side it is T'reifah, since one entire skin has been pierced.

àé ðîé, ùìà ðèòä ðîé á'îùðé öããéí èøôä', ãäåé áîä ù÷åøéï àåúå òëùéå 'áéú äëåñåú' (ãäåà äîññ).

(u)

Answer #2 (Part 1): Alternatively, we should also not make the mistake of explaining 'On two sides, it is T'reifah' with reference to what they now call 'Beis ha'Kosos' (which is the Messes) ...

àáì áîä ù÷åøéï òëùéå 'äåáìéìà' ãäåà îä ùäéå ÷åøéï îúçìä 'áéú äëåñåú', àôéìå îùðé öããéï, ëùøä - ãäåéà ëîå 'çìçåìú ùðé÷áä, åéøëéí îòîéãéï àåúä'.

(v)

Answer #2 (Part 2): ... but regarding what they now call 'Huvlila' (which was initially called 'Beis ha'Kosos', it is Kasher even on both sides - like 'the Chalcholes which is holed, and the thighs block it up'.