1)

TOSFOS DH HA'MOTZI ME'CHAVERO ALAV HA'RE'AYAH

úåñôåú ã"ä äîåöéà îçáéøå òìéå äøàéä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains at length who is the Motzi and why that is, and resolves Kashyos from other Sugyos.)

ôéøåù - òì äìå÷ç ìäáéà øàéä ùáøùåú îåëø ðèøôä.

(a)

Clarification: This means that the onus lies on the purchaser to prove that it became a T'reifah in the domain of the seller.

åàò"ô ùìà ðúï îòåú òãééï ...

(b)

Implied Question: ... and even though he has not yet paid ...

'ëàï ðîöàå åëàï äéå', ëãàîø áñåó ôø÷ äîãéø (ëúåáåú ãó òå:).

(c)

Answer: ... we apply the principle 'Since they were found here, this is where it happened', as the Gemara says at the end of Perek ha'Madir (Kesuvos 76b).

åäà ã÷øé ìéä 'îåöéà' ...

(d)

Implied Question: ... and he refers to him as the Motzi?

îùåí ãîñúîà ëì ëîä ãìà éäéá æåæé, ìà éäéá ìéä çéåúà.

(e)

Answer: ... because presumably, as long as he has not paid, they will not give him the animal.

åä÷ùä ä"ø é"è, ãáðãä ôø÷ äøåàä ëúí (ãó ðç.) úðéà 'áã÷ä òöîä åçìå÷ä, åäùàéìúä ìçáøúä, äéà èäåøä åçáøúä úåìä'.

(f)

Question (Part 1): Rebbi Yom-Tov asks from a Beraisa in Perek ha'Ro'eh Kesem (Nidah 58a) 'If a woman examined herself and her gown, which she then lent to her friend, she is Tahor, and her friend can attribute it to her (the owner) ...

åîôøù øá ùùú ãìòðéï ãéðà úðï, ãìà îéçééáà çáøúä ìëáñ äáâã.

(g)

Question (Part 2): Rav Sheishes explains there that the Tana is speaking regarding the Halachah - that her friend is not obligated to wash the gown.

åàîàé ìà àîøéðï 'ëàï ðîöàå åëàï äéå', ëîå âáé áäîä ãäëà, åâáé îåîéï ãñåó äîãéø?

(h)

Question (Part 4): Why do we not apply the principle 'Since they were found here, this is where it happened', like we do by the animal here and by 'blemishes' at the end of Perek ha'Madir?

åé"ì, ãìà ãîé, ãåãàé ëãé ì÷ééí äîëø àå á÷ãåùéï, ñáøà äåà ãàîøéðï äëé - ùàåîø äîåëø ììå÷ç '÷ç ôøúê, ùáøùåúê ðèøôä!'; åäàá àåîø ìáòì '÷ç àùúê, ùáøùåúê ðåìã äîåí!'

(i)

Answer (Part 1): One cannot compare the cases. To be sure, in order to establish the sale and by Kidushin, it is a S'vara to apply it, since the seller can say to the purchaser 'Take your cow, since it became a T'reifah under your jurisdiction!, and the father can say to the husband 'Take your wife, since the blemish occurred in your domain!' ...

åàéï ìðå ìáèì äîòùä äæä.

(j)

Answer (Part 2): ... and we are not going to negate the transaction ...

àáì âáé çìå÷ ìéëà ìîéîø äëé.

(k)

Answer (Part 3): ... a c claim that does not apply with regard to the gown.

åòåã, âáé çìå÷ ìòåìí äåà áøùåú äøàùåðä áòìú çìå÷, ùìà áà ìéã äùðéä áúåøú îëø àìà áúåøú ùàéìä, åìà ùééê ìîéîø áøùåú ùåàìä ðîöàú, åìà áøùåú áòìú çìå÷.

(l)

Alternative Answer: Moreover, the gown is in the domain of the first woman (the owner of the gown) all the time, since it only entered the domain of the second one in the form of a loan. Consequently, we cannot say that the stain appeared in the domain of the second woman and not in the domain of the owner.

2)

TOSFOS DH KEIVAN DE;IKA MACHAT MESARECH HAVAH SARICH

úåñôåú ã"ä ëéåï ãàéëà îçè îñøê äåä ñøéê

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why a needle is La'av Davka.)

ä"ä ÷åõ åëì ãáø.

(a)

Clarification: The same will apply if there is a thorn or anything else that with a sharp point.

úãò îã÷àîø 'äúí ìéëà îéãé ìîéñøê'.

(b)

Proof: Proof of this lies in the fact that the Gemara then goes on to say 'There there is nothing on which to stick.

3)

TOSFOS DH DAGAR VE'NAFAL

úåñôåú ã"ä ãâø åðôì

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why it must speak where the animal did not walk.)

åìà äìê.

(a)

Clarification: And it did not walk ...

ãì÷îï ôñ÷éðï - ãäìëä, àôéìå áãé÷ä ìà áòé.

(b)

Proof: ... because later we conclude that once the animal walks, it does not even require an examination.

4)

TOSFOS DH DEHAVY SHAGRAN KAR'EIH BASRAISA

úåñôåú ã"ä ãäåå ùãøï ëøòéä áúøééúà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos establishes it where the animal did not fall.)

ìà áðôéìä îééøé.

(a)

Clarification: It is not speaking where the animal fell.

5)

TOSFOS DH NAFAL LE'AR'A COSH'SHIN

úåñôåú ã"ä ðôì ìàøòà çåùùéï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos reconciles our Gemara with the Gemara in Bava Kama.)

àó òì âá ãáðôéìä áòéðï òã ùéôåì îòùøä èôçéí ...

(a)

Implied Question (Part 1: Even though in the case of Nefilah, the animal must fall from a height of at least ten Tefachim ...

ëãàéúà áôø÷ ùåø ùðâç àú äôøä (á"÷ ãó ð:).

(b)

Proof: ... as we have learned in Perek Shor she'Nagach es ha'Parah (Bava Kama Daf 50b),

åîëøéñà ãúåøà òã àøòà ìéëà àìà àøáòä èôçéí, ëãàîø äúí (ãó ðà.) ...

(c)

Implied Question (Part 2): ... whereas the space between the belly of the ox and the ground is only four Tefachim, as the Gemara implies there?

î"î, çééùéðï äëà, îùåí ãðôéì îçîú ääëàä, ùîðâçéï æä àú æä.

(d)

Answer: Nevertheless, we suspect here (that it is a T'reifah) since it fell as the result of a stroke, seeing as the oxen were goring each other.

6)

TOSFOS DH BEIS HA'RECHEM EIN BO MISHUM ISUK EIVARIM

úåñôåú ã"ä áéú äøçí àéï áå îùåí øéñå÷ àáøéí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara finds it necessary to tell us this, and explains the proof from the Zivus of a newborn baby.)

îùåí ãàéëà øéòåúà - ãàéðå äåìê, àéöèøéê ìéä ìàùîåòéðï.

(a)

Clarification: The Gemara needs to tell us this, because there is a Re'usa (a cause for suspicion) - inasmuch as the animal did not walk ...

ãàé ìàå äëé, ôùéèà ãàæìéðï áúø øåá åìãåú.

(b)

Reason: ... otherwise, it is obvious that we go after the majority of babies.

åà"ú, à"ë îàé ÷à îñééò ìéä îáï éåí àçã, ãîèîà áæéáä; äúí ìéëà øéòåúà?

(c)

Question (Part 1): In that case, how can the Gemara support its statement from a one-day old baby who is Metamei with Zivus, seeing as there is no Re'usa there?

à"ð ëùçéä äøáä àçøé ëï

(d)

Question (Part 2): ... or where it continued to live long after that.

åé"ì, ãàí àéúà ãàúøîé øéñå÷ àáøéí îçîú áéú äøçí, à"ë äéä ìðå ìçåùáå ìàåðñ ìòðéï æéáä.

(e)

Answer #1: If it would sometimes occur that its limbs would be crushed on account of the (tightness of the) womb, then we ought to have considered it an Oneis with regard to Zivus (in which case it would be Tahor).

åòåã, ãæåáå îåëéç ùðúøñ÷å àáøéå ááéú äøçí, åëòéï øéòåúà äåà, ãîñúîà îçîú ëê áà äæåá.

(f)

Answer #2: Moreover, the Zivus itself would indicate that its limbs were crushed, and it would be considered a Re'usa, since we can assume that the Zivus came about because of that.

àìà åãàé ìòåìí àéï áå øéñå÷ àáøéí.

(g)

Conclusion: It is therefore clear that it is not subject to Risuk Eivarim.

51b----------------------------------------51b

7)

TOSFOS DH MODEH REBBI SHIMON LE'INYAN KODSHIM

úåñôåú ã"ä îåãä øáé ùîòåï ìòðéï ÷ãùéí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discuses why the Gemara needs to mention Rebbi Yochanan at all.)

ìà äåä öøéê ëàï ìãáøé øáé éåçðï, ãááëåø òñ÷éðï, ãúìé øçîðà 'áôèø øçí' ...

(a)

Implied Question: It was not really necessary to quote Rebbi Yochanan here, seeing as the Tana is talking about a B'chor, which the Torah ascribes to 'Peter Rechem' ...

å÷ãùéí âåôééäå ìà éìéó ø"ù àìà îáëåø "ìéãä" "ìéãä", ëãàîø áøéù éåöà ãåôï (ðãä ãó î.).

(b)

Reason: ... and Kodshim themselves Rebbi Shimon only learns with a Gezeirah-Shavah "Leidah" "Leidah" from B'chor, as the Gemara explains at the beginning of 'Yotzei Dofen' (Nidah Daf 40.).

åìøáåúà ð÷è äëà ëì ÷ãùéí.

(c)

Conclusion: In fact, it only mentions other Kodshim as an additional Chidush.

8)

TOSFOS DH AMDAH EINAH TZERICHA ME'EIS LE'EIS AVAL BEDIKAH VADAI BA'I

úåñôåú ã"ä òîãä àéðä öøéëä îòú ìòú àáì áãé÷ä åãàé áòéà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the three possible cases and reconciles the Sugya in Zevachim with our Sugya.)

àáì ìà òîãä, áòéà åãàé îòú ìòú, åáòéà ðîé áãé÷ä - ëãúðï ì÷îï (ãó ðå.) 'ãøñä åèøôä áëåúì, àå ùøéööúä áäîä, öøéê îòú ìòú', åàîø áâîøà îùåí ø"à áø' éðàé 'àçú æå åàçú æå öøéëä áãé÷ä'.

(a)

Clarification: But if it did not even stand, then it needs Me'eis Le'eis to survive as well as examination, as we will learn in the Mishnah later (on Daf 46a [regarding a bird]) 'If someone trampled on it or struck it against a wall or if an animal crushed it, it needs to survive for twenty-four hours. And the Gemara, quoting Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Yanai comments 'Both cases require examination!'

åà"ú, åäà úðéà áô' äúòøåáú (áæáçéí ãó ò:) 'ðúòøáä áùåø ùðòáãä áå òáéøä áëìàéí åáèøôä' ...

(b)

Question (Sugya in Zevachim [Part 1]): But did we not learn in the Mishnah in Perek Ta'aroves (Zevachim 70b) that if an ox became mixed up with an ox with which an Aveirah was performed - with a Kil'ayim or with a T'reifah ... '.

åáâîøà (ãó òã:) ôøéê 'äàé èøôä äéëé ãîé? àé ãéãò ìéä ìù÷ìä, àé ãìà éãò ìéä, îðà éãò?

(c)

Question (Sugya in Zevachim [Part 2]): And the Gemara (on Daf 74a) asks there how T'reifah speaks; If he recognizes it, then let him remove it, whereas if he doesn't, then how does he know that it is a T'reifah? ...

åîùðé ø"ì, 'ãàéòøá áðôåìä'.

(d)

Question (Sugya in Zevachim [Part 3]): ... to which Resh Lakish replies that the ox became mixed up with a Nefulah.

åôøéê 'áðôåìä! ìáã÷éä?' åîùðé, '÷ñáø òîãä, öøéëä îòú ìòú; äìëä, öøéëä áãé÷ä.

(e)

Question (Sugya in Zevachim [Part 4]): And the Gemara asks further, why one cannot therefore inspect it? And it answers that the Tana holds that even if it stands up, it still needs to survive twenty-four hours, and that if it walks, it still needs inspection.

åäùúà òì ëøçê òé÷ø ùéðåéà ìà äåé î'òîãä, öøéëä îòú ìòú', ãàëúé ìéáã÷éä áäéìåê?

(f)

Establishing Answer #1: Now we have to say that the basic answer is not from 'Amdah, Tzerichah Me'eis Le'eis', since one still needs to ascertain whether it walks or not?

åòåã, ãëéåï ãîòú ìòú ñâé, àîàé ÷úðé 'éøòå òã ùéñúàáå'?

(g)

Establishing Answer #2: Furthermore, since 'Me'eis Le'eis' is sufficient, why does the Mishnah require 'Yir'u ad she'Yista'avu'/

àìà òé÷ø ùéðåéà î'äìëä, öøéëä áãé÷ä'.

(h)

Conclusion: It is therefore clear that the answer is from 'Halchah, Tzerichah Bedikah'.

åëéåï ãàéï îøåéç ùåí ãáø áîä ùàåîø 'òîãä, öøéëä îòú ìòú', ì"ì ìîéîø äëé, äà ë"ò îåãå äëà ã'òîãä, àéðä öøéëä îòú ìòú'?

(i)

Actual Question: Now since the Gemara gains nothing by adding 'Amdah Tzerichah Me'eis Le'eis'; it is not even possible to say it, seeing as everyone in our Sugya holds 'Amdah, Einah Tzerichah Me'eis Le'eis'?

åðøàä ãâøñé' äúí 'òîãä àéðä öøéëä îòú ìòú'.

(j)

Answer: It therefore seems that the correct text there is 'Amdah, Einah Tzerichah Me'eis Le'eis' ...

àò"â ãìà öøéê ìéä äúí ...

(k)

Implied Question: ... even though there is no need to mention it there ...

ð÷èéä àâá 'äìëä áòéà áãé÷ä'.

(l)

Answer: ... it only mentions it to balance 'Halchah, Ba'i Bedikah'.

9)

TOSFOS DH VE'HILCH'SA HEICHA DE'NAFLAH MIN HA'GAG ETC.

úåñôåú ã"ä åäìëúà äéëà ãðôìä îï äââ ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara declines to Pasken like Rav Yehudah.)

äà ãìà ÷àîø 'äìëä ëøá éäåãä áøéñå÷ àáøéí' ...

(a)

Implied Question: The reason why the Gemara did not specifically rule like Rav Yehudah regarding Risuk Eivarim is ...

îùåí ãáòé ìàùîåòéðï ãå÷à 'òîãä', ìîòåèé 'ôùèä éãä ìòîåã', å'ððòøä ìòîåã'.

(b)

Answer: ... because it wants to teach us Davka where it stood still, to preclude where it stretched out a foot in order to stand, or where it shuddered in an attempt to stand up (which Rav Yehudah does not mention).