1)

TOSFOS DH LEHAVI OR SHEL BEIS HA'BOSHES

úåñôåú ã"ä ìäáéà òåø ùì áéú äáåùú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses why the Tana does not specifically insert it, and why it does, or doesn't insert other things.)

ì÷îï áäòåø åäøåèá (ãó ÷ëá.) ôéøù øù"é äà ãìà çùéá ìéä áäãéà áäãé àéðê ááøééúà, îùåí ãáòåìä îééøé ùäåà æëø.

(a)

Explanation #1: Later on, in Perek ha'Or ve'ha'Rotev (Daf 122a) Rashi explains that the Tana declines to mention it specifically together with the other cases in the Beraisa, because it is talking about an Olah, which is a male.

åîéäå àéëà îàï ãúðé 'æáç' áôø÷ ëì äæáçéí ù÷éáìå (æáçéí ëç. åùí), åìà ÷úðé 'òåìä'?

(b)

Explanation #2: Implied Question: There are some texts however, which read 'Zevach' in Perek Kol ha'Zevachim she'Kiblu (Zevachim 28a & 28b), and not 'Olah' (in which case the Kashya remains)

åéù ìåîø, ãìà çùéá àìà îéãé ãäåä áëì ä÷øáðåú.

(c)

Answer: The Beraisa only mentions things that apply to all Korbanos.

åòåø ùúçú äàìéä, àò"â ãàéðä ÷øáä àìà áëáù ...

(d)

Implied Question: And even though it reckons the skin underneath the fat-tail, even though it is only one of a lamb that is brought on the Mizbe'ach ...

î"î àéúéä àå áàëéìú àãí àå áàëéìú îæáç.

(e)

Answer: ... nevertheless it is subject to eating, either by a person or by the Mizbe'ach.

åà"ú, àîàé ìà ÷àîø ðîé 'ìäáéà òåø äùìéì', ãçùéá ì÷îï áîúðéúéï áäòåø åäøåèá (ãó ÷ëá.) áäãé àìå ùòåøåúéäí ëáùøï?

(f)

Question: Why does the Tana not also insert the skin of a Sh'lil (an embryo), which the Mishnah in 'ha'Or ve'ha'Rotev' (Daf 122a) reckons together with those whose skin is like their flesh?

åàåîø ø"ú, îùåí ãàéï îôâìéí áùìéì, ëãàéúà ôø÷ ëì äôñåìéï (æáçéí ìä.) 'ôéâì áùìéì ìà ðúôâì äæáç, åàó äùìéì ìà ðúôâì'.

(g)

Answer: Rabeinu Tam answers that it is because a Sh'lil is not subject to Pigul, as the Gemara states in Perek Kol ha'Pesulin (Zevachim 38a) 'If the Kohen was Mefagel on a Sh'lil, the Korban does not become Pigul, and neither does the Sh'lil.

2)

TOSFOS DH VE'REBBI YOCHANAN AMAR AF BE MASMER

úåñôåú ã"ä åøáé éåçðï àîø àó áîñîø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains Rebbi Yochanan's statement and qualifies the statement 'bi'Pelugta'.)

åìéëà îùåí îëìä îîåðï ùì éùøàì.

(a)

Clarification (Part 1): And there is no Isur of destroying the money of a Yisrael ...

å'áôìåâúà' ìàå ãå÷à, ãøáé éåçðï ãàîø 'àó áîñîø', ìà ëøáé éäåãä åìà ëøáé ðçîéä.

(b)

Clarification (Part 2): ... and when the says 'bi'Pelugta', it is La'av Davka, seeing as Rebbi Yochanan, who says 'also with a nail', holds neither like Rebbi Yehudah nor like Rebbi Nechemyah.

3)

TOSFOS DH NEVEILOS VE'HA SHECHUTAH HI

úåñôåú ã"ä ðáìåú åäà ùçåèä äéà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos reconciles this with Rebbi Yehudah, who holds that the Shechitah of a T'reifah bird is indeed a Neveilah.)

åà"ú, åäà ùîòéðï ìéä ìøáé éäåãä ãàîø ôø÷ çèàú äòåó (æáçéí ñè: åùí) ãùçéèú äòåó àéðä îèäøú èøéôúä îèåîàúä, ã÷àîø "ðáìä åèøôä ìà éàëì ìèîàä áä" - "èøôä" ìîä ðàîøä, ìäáéà èøôä ùùçèä, ùîèîàä?

(a)

Question #1: Does Rebbi Yehudah not say in Perek Chatas ha'Of (Zevachim) 69b and 70a) that the Shechitah of a bird is not Metaher its T'reifus from its Tum'ah (Neveilah), since the Torah says "Neveilah u'T'reifah Lo Yochal le'Tam'ah bah", and the Torah writes "T'reifah" to include a T'reifah that one Shechted in the Din of Tum'ah?

åëï øéù îñëú èäøåú âáé 'é"â ãáøéí ðàîøå áðáìú òåó èäåø: ùçéèúä åîìé÷úä îèäøú èøôúä îéãé ðáìä. øáé éäåãä àåîø, àéðä îèäøú?

(b)

Question #2: Similarly, at the beginning of Maseches Taharos, in connection with the thirteen things that are said in connection with the Neveilah of a Tahor bird, the Tana Kama says that its Shechitah and its Melikah are Metaher its T'reifus from Tum'as Neveilah, Whereas Rebbi Yehudah rules 'Einah Metaheres'?

åé"ì, ãî"î ëéåï ãìø' ðçîéä îèäøú, ìà äåä ìéä ìîéîø ùäéä îàëéì ðáéìåú.

(c)

Answer #1: Nevertheless, seeing as Rebbi Nechemyah is Metaher it, Rebbi Yehudah ought not to have made the statement that he was feeding the people Neveilos.

åòåã, ãìà îñé÷ àãòúéä 'úñúééí ãøáé éäåãä äåà ãáãé÷ áéãà'.

(d)

Answer #2: And besides, we do not yet know the Gemara's conclusion that Rebbi Yehudah is the one who examined with the hand.

4)

TOSFOS DH MAR AMAR SHMUEL BADIK BE'YADA VE'CHEIN RAV

úåñôåú ã"ä îø àîø ùîåàì áãé÷ áéãà åëï øá

(SUMMARY: Tosfos reconciles this with the Sugya earlier, which already taught us their opinion in this matter.)

åàó òì âá ãëáø àîøéðï ìòéì 'øá åùîåàì åìåé ãàîøé "îëðéñ éãå ìôðéí åáåã÷" '?

(a)

Implied Question: Even though we already learned earlier that 'Rav, Shumel and Levi all said 'Machnis Yado li'Fenim u'Bodeik'?

î"î àùîåòéðï äëà ãîòùä ðîé òáã.

(b)

Answer: ... it is informing us here that they also ruled accordingly le'Ma'aseh.

5)

TOSFOS DH VE'HA TANI LEVI T'REIFOS SHE'MANU CHACHAMIM ETC.

úåñôåú ã"ä åäà úðé ìåé èøôåú ùîðå çëîéí åëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that to ask specifically on Rav and Shmuel is not justifiable.)

áçðí î÷ùä î'áøééúà à'øá åùîåàì ...

(a)

Observation: The Gemara's question from the Beraisa specifically on Rav and Shmuel is 'not justifiable' ...

ãà'ìåé âåôéä äåä îöé ìîôøê, ãàîø ìòéì 'îëðéñ éãå ìôðéí åáåã÷'.

(b)

Reason: ... seeing as it could just as well have asked on Levi himself, who said earlier 'Machnis Yado li'Fenim u'Bodeik'?

56b----------------------------------------56b

6)

TOSFOS DH BE'EILU B'NEI ME'AYIM AMRU KURK'VAN BE'LEV U'VE'KAVEID

úåñôåú ã"ä áàìå áðé îòééí àîøå á÷åø÷áï áìá åáëáã

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Tana omits the lungs.)

àáì øéàä ìà çùéá, ëãàîøéðï ì÷îï (ãó ðæ.) ã'àéï øéàä ìòåó, ìà ìéðôì åìà ìéçîø'.

(a)

Clarification: The Tana does not reckon the lungs, conforming to what we will learn later (on Daf 57a) that a bird does not have lungs as regards either falling or being burned.

åàó òì âá ãîñé÷ ãçæ÷éä ìâîøé äéä àåîø ãàéï ìå øéàä, ùìà äéä á÷é áúøðâåìéí?

(b)

Implied Question: ... because even though Chizkiyah concludes that they do not have lungs at all, that is only because he was not conversant with chickens.

îëì î÷åí äåà àîú, ëãàîø øá çâà 'äåàéì åøåá öìòåú îâéðåú òìéä'.

(c)

Answer: It is nevertheless true, as Rav Chaga said 'since most of the ribs protect it'.

7)

TOSFOS DH IBA'I L'HU HORU BE'TARPACHAS LE'ISUR U'CHEREBBI BE'ZEFEK LE'HETERA O DILMA HORU BE'TARPACHAS LE'HETERA KE'REEBI BE'ZEFEK AVAL KE'REBBI BE'ZEFEK LO S'VIRA L'HU

úåñôåú ã"ä àéáòéà ìäå äåøå áèøôçú ìàéñåøà åëøáé áæô÷ ìäéúøà àå ãìîà äåøå áèøôçú ìäéúøà ëøáé áæô÷ àáì ëøáé áæô÷ ìà ñáéøà ìäå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos cites two versions of the text and discusses them.)

ëï âøéñ øù"é; åôéøù - ãîñô÷à ìéä àí äåøå áèøôçú ìàéñåøà, ëøáé èøôåï ãñðäãøéï (ãó ìâ.) ãäàëéìä ìëìáéí.

(a)

Text #1 (Part 1): This is Rashi's text; and he explains that the Safek is whether they ruled le'Isur by Tarpachas (the mouth of the womb), like Rebbi Tarfon in Sanhedrin, Daf 33a) where he fed it to the dogs.

åëï ôéøù ø"ç. åôñ÷ áèøôçú ìçåîøà îãîñô÷éðà ìäàé 'äåøå' ìçåîøà.

(b)

Text #1 (Part 2): Rabeinu Chananel concurs with this explanation, and he rules le'Chumra, due to the Safek that perhaps 'Horu' means le'Chumra.

åæäå úéîä, ãäúí çùéá ìéä èåòä áãáø îùðä; åø"è ðîé çæø áå?

(c)

Question: The Gemara there (in Sanhedrin) considers Rebbi Tarfon as having erred in a 'D'var Mishnah? Indeed, Rebbi Tarfon himself retracted?

åîéäå, ùîà éù ìçì÷ áéï áäîä ìòåó, ãîöé ìîéîø ãäëà îééøé áèøôçú ùì òåó, ãîéèøéó èôé.

(d)

Answer: It is possible however, to differentiate between an animal and a bird, in that here the Gemara is speaking about the Tarpachas of a bird, which is more likely to be considered T'reifah.

åìéëà ìîéôùè îãúðé ìåé, ãìà çùéá èøôçú áäãé 'éúø òìéäï áòåó'?

(e)

Implied Question: And we cannot then resolve the She'eilah from the Beraisa cited by Levi (on the previous Amud), which does not list Tarpachas together with 'the extra T'reifos that pertain to a bird' ...

îùåí ãìà îééøé áôìåâúà, ëé äéëé ãìà çùéá 'ðéèìä äðåöä' ìø' éäåãä.

(f)

Answer: ... because the Tana does not include whatever is a Machlokes in the list, just as he does not include 'a bird whose feathers have been removed' according to Rebbi Yehudah.

åîéäå éù ìúîåä - àîàé ìà îáòéà ìï äëà 'àí äåøå áèøôçú åáæô÷ áúøåééäå ìäéúøà'?

(g)

Question: Why do they not ask here whether they did not rule leniently both by Tarpachas and by Zefek?

ãëé äàé âååðà îéáòéà ìï ôø÷ ëéøä (ùáú îå.) âáé 'äåøä áîðåøä ëø' ùîòåï áðø'. ãàéáòéà ìäå 'äåøä áîðåøä ìäéúøà åëøáé ùîòåï áðø ìäéúøà, àå ãìîà äåøä áîðåøä ìàéñåøà åëøáé ùîòåï áðø ìäéúøà'?

(h)

Precedent: In the way that the Gemara asks in Perek Kirah (Shabbos 46a) regarding 'He ruled by a candelabra like Rebbi Shimon by a lamp', where they asked whether he ruled leniently by a candelabra, and leniently like Rebbi Shimon by a lamp; or whether he ruled strictly by a candelabra and leniently by a lamp, like Rebbi Shimon?'

åðøàä ãâøñéðï áñôøéí äëà 'äåøå áèøôçú ìäéúøà, åëøáé áæô÷ ìäéúøà, àå ãìîà äåøå áèøôçú ìäéúøà ëøáé áæô÷', àáì ëøáé áæô÷ ìà ñáéøà ìäå.

(i)

Text #2: It therefore seems that the correct text here is 'Did they rule leniently by Tarpachas, and leniently by Zefek, like Rebbi'; or perhaps they ruled leniently by Tarpachas like Rebbi by Zefek'; they do not however, hold like Rebbi by Zefek.

åäùúà ðéçà ãìà îñô÷à ìéä äëà àí äåøå áèøôçú ìàéñåøà, ãîéìúà ãôùéèà äéà ãùøéà - ëãîåëç áîñëú ñðäãøéï (ãó ìâ.), ãàôéìå ø' èøôåï çæø áå, åèåòä áãáø îùðä çùéá ìéä.

(j)

Support: Now it makes good sense as to why they did not have doubts in our Sugya as to whether they ruled strictly by Tarpachas. This is because they took it for granted that it is permitted, as is evident in the above-mentioned Gemara in Sanhedrin (Daf 33a), seeing that Rebbi Tarfon retracted, and that they considered him as having erred in a D'var Mishnah.

åäà ãìà îéáòéà ìï äúí àí äåøä áîðåøä ìäéúøà, ëâåï ùìà äãìé÷å áä áàåúä ùáú, äúéø ìèìèìä ëø' ùîòåï ãîúéø äúí ðø ùäãìé÷å áå áàåúä ùáú. àáì ëø' ùîòåï ãðø ìà ñáéøà ìéä, îùåí ããçééä áéãéí ...

(k)

Implied Question: The Gemara in Shabbos did not ask whether he permitted moving a candelabra which was not lit that Shabbos, like Rebbi Shimon permitted moving a lamp which was lit that Shabbos (though he did not hold like Rebbi Shimon by a lamp, which the owner had rejected with his hands) ...

ãìà ùééê äúí ìúìåú äéúø ùì îðåøä áäéúø ùì ðø ...

(l)

Answer (Part 1): ... since it is not possible to connect the Heter of a candelabra to that of a lamp ...

ãîðåøä ùìà äãìé÷å áä áàåúä ùáú ìà ùééê ìàñåø îèòí îå÷öä àìà îèòí áðéï, ëãàîø äúí, ãàéú ìéä çéã÷é, åâæøéðï àèå ãçåìéåú. åðø ùäãìé÷å áä áàåúä ùáú îùåí îå÷öä.

(m)

Answer (Part 2): ... because, if a candelabra that was not lit that Shabbos is forbidden, it is not because it is Muktzah, but rather because of Binyan, as the Gemara explains there - that it has parts that are not detachable, and we decree on account of one whose parts are detachable; whereas if a lamp that one lit that Shabbos is forbidden, it is on account of Muktzah ...

àáì äëà, ùééê ìúìåú æä áæä, ãëé äéëé ãøáé ìéú ìéä èøôåú áæô÷, ëê ìéú ìäå èøôåú áèøôçú.

(n)

Answer (Part 2): ... whereas here, it is possible to link the two; since just as Rebbi does not hold of T'reifus by a Zefek, so too, does he not hold of T'reifus by a Tarpachas.

åîéäå äúí ô"ä ãîéáòéà ìï 'çãà äåøàä äéà', åä"÷: 'äåøä áîðåøä ìäéúøà, ëãøê ùäéä øáé ùîòåï îúéø ðø éùï; àå ãìîà úøé äåøàåú äåå: äåøä áîðåøä ìàéñåøà ëãàîø áôéø÷éï. åâæø àèå çåìéåú; åëøáé ùîòåï äåøä áðø ìäéúøà. åôéøåùå îâåîâí.

(o)

Rashi's Explanation: Rashi however, explains there that the She'eilah is whether it was one ruling, and what the Gemara means is that he rules by a candelabra leniently, like Rebbi Shimon rules leniently by an old lamp; or whether they were two rulings - He ruled strictly by a candelabra, like he said in our Perek, and he decreed on account of the detachable parts. And leniently by a lamp, like Rebbi Shimon. But his explanation is confusing.

8)

TOSFOS DH AVAL HIPECH BAHEN T'REIFAH

úåñôåú ã"ä àáì äéôê áäí èøôä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Tana does not mention this case.)

áëìì ð÷åáé ãîúðéúéï äåà, ãèòîà îùåí ãñåôå ìéð÷á åìéø÷á.

(a)

Clarification: This is included in 'Nekuvi' of our Mishnah, since the reason for the ruling is due to the fact that it will eventually become holed and rotten.