1)

TOSFOS DH MIKA'N VA'EILECH HAVAH LEIH ZEH VE'ZEH GOREM U'MUTAR

úåñôåú ã"ä îëàï åàéìê äåä ìéä æä åæä âåøí åîåúø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos reconciles our Gemara with the Sugya in Kesuvos, which rules like Rebbi Yehudah regarding 'Chosh'shin le'Zera ha'Av'.)

àò"â ãáñåó ëúåáåú (ãó ÷éà:) ôñ÷éðï ëø' éäåãä áôøãåú, ãîñô÷à ìéä áôø÷ àåúå åàú áðå (ì÷îï ãó òè.) àé çåùùéï ìæøò äàá àå ìà ...

(a)

Implied Question: Even though at the end of Kesuvos (Daf 111b) regarding mules, we rule like Rebbi Yehudah, who has a Safek in Perrek Oso ve'es B'no (later on Daf 79a) whether we take into account the seed of the father or not ...

äééðå áîéìúà ãùøé ëì çã áàôé ðôùéä, åìà ùééê 'æä åæä âåøí'.

(b)

Answer (Part 1): ... that is only in a case where each one is permitted on its own, in which case, 'Zeh ve'Zeh Gorem' is not applicable ...

àáì äëà ãçã àñåø åçã ùøé, äåé ìéä 'æä åæä âåøí'.

(c)

Answer (Part 2): ... whereas in our case, where one is Asur and one is Mutar, we can apply 'Zeh ve'Zeh Gorem'.

2)

TOSFOS DH VESHAVIN BE'BEITZAS T'REIFAH SHE'HI ASURAH

úåñôåú ã"ä åùåéï ááéöú èøôä ùäéà àñåøä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos dismisses Rashi's explanation of Shavin and establishes it with regard to Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel in Iduyos.)

ìà ëîå ùôéøù ä÷åðèøñ - ã÷àé à'ôìåâúà ãøáé àìéòæø åøáé éäåùò ...

(a)

Refutation of Rashi: Not like Rashi who explains that it refers to the Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua ...

àìà ÷àé à'ôìåâúà ãáéú ùîàé åáéú äìì ãôìéâé áîúðéúéï áîñëú òãéåú (ô"ä î"à), ãúðï äúí 'áéöú ðáìä ùëîåúä ðîëøú áùå÷ - á"ù îúéøéï, åáéú äìì àåñøéï. åîåãéí ááéöú èøôä ùàñåøä îôðé ùâéãåìä áàéñåø.

(b)

Alternative Explanation: ... but rather that it refers to the Machlokes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel in the Mishnah in Iduyos (5:1), where we learned, in the case of the egg of a Neveilah the likes of which is sold in the shops - 'Beis Shamai permit it, whereas Beis Hillel forbid it'. And they (Beis Shamai) agree that the egg of a T'reifah is forbidden, since it grew be'Isur'.

åàí úàîø, ãäùúà çùáé áéú äìì áéöú ðáìä ëáùø, ãàñøé àôéìå ëîåúä ðîëøú áùå÷; åáôø÷ ÷îà ãáéöä (ãó å:) àîøéðï 'äùåçè àú äúøðâåìú åîöà áä áéöéí âîåøåú, îåúøåú ìàëìï áçìá'?

(c)

Question (Part 1): It transpires that Beis Hillel considers the egg of a Neveilah, even if the likes of it are sold in the shops; whereas in the first Perek of Beitzah (Daf 6b) the Gemara states that someone who Shechts a chicken and finds inside it completed eggs, they may be eaten with milk?

åàôéìå øáé éò÷á ìà ôìéâ; àìà ã÷àîø 'àí äéå îòåøåú áâéãéí, àñåøåú; àáì áùàéðï îòåøåú, îåúø?

(d)

Question (Part 2): ... and even Rebbi Ya'akov does not argue; it's just that he qualifies the ruling, and says that if they are joined to the nerves, they are forbidden; But if they are not, they are permitted.

åúéøõ áäìëåú âãåìåú ãâáé àéñåø ðáìä ãàåøééúà äçîéøå; àáì áùø òåó áçìá ãøáðï, ä÷éìå.

(e)

Answer #1: The Ba'al Halachos Gedolos answers that by Isur Neveilah, which is d'Oraysa, the Chachamim were more strict; but by the Isur Basar Of be'Chalav, which is only mi'de'Rabbanan, they were lenient.

åøáéðå úí úéøõ ãááéöú ðáìä äçîéøå îùåí ãðáìä äåé ãáø äàñåø, àáì áùø òåó áçìá ãäåé äéúø - ãëì çã åçã áàôé ðôùéä ùøé.

(f)

Answer #2: Whereas Rabeinu Tam answers that they were stringent by the egg of a Neveilah, since Neveilah is a Davar ha'Asur, whereas the meat of Basar in milk they were lenient, since bearing in mind that each item is permitted, it is considered a Davar Heter.

åìôéøåùå, îúééùá îä ùîôøù áòøåê ãäà ãàîø áøéù ôø÷ äãø òí äðëøé (òéøåáéï ãó ñá:) ã'àôéìå áéòúà áëåúçà ìà ìéùøé àéðéù ÷îé øáéä' ...

(g)

Clarification (Part 1): Rabeinu Tam's explanation fits nicely with the Aruch, who explains at the beginning of Perek ha'Dar im ha'Nochri (Eruvin 62b) that one is even forbidden to rule that an egg is permitted in a milk-stew in front of one's Rebbe'.

ãäééðå ëâåï ùùçè äúøðâåìú åîöà áä áéöéí âîåøåú; ãàé áñúí áéöéí, àåúï àéï öøéëéï äéúø, ãàéï ìê ò"ä ùìà éãò ùîåúø áçìá.

(h)

Clarification (Part 2: Clearly, this is speaking about where one Shechted a chicken and found inside it fully-developed eggs; because if it was referring to S'tam eggs, every Am-ha'Aretz knows that one may eat a regular chicken's egg together with milk.

åìôé úéøåõ äìëåú âãåìåú ÷ùéà, îàé 'àôéìå' ã÷àîø 'àôéìå áéòúà áëåúçà', àèå îé ôùåè äéúø æä ëì ëê èôé îùàø îéìé; äà ôìåâúà äéà, ãìîàï ãàîø áùø òåó áçìá ãàåøééúà, àñéøà, îéãé ãäåä à'áéöú ðáìä?

(i)

Question on Answer #1: Now according to the answer of the Halachos Gedolos, the question arises why does the Gemara say 'Even an egg in a milk stew', why is that Heter so much more obvious than other Heterim, seeing as it is a Machlokes - because those who hold that 'Basar Of be'Chalav is d'Oraysa', it is in fact, Asur, just like the egg of a Neveilah?

åéù ìåîø, ãìäëé ÷àîø 'àôéìå' ùëì äòåìí äéå ðåäâéï áå äéúø.

(j)

Answer #1: The reason the Gemar says 'Afilu' is because the Heter as universally accepted.

åáôø÷ ÷îà ãáéöä (ãó å:) ðîé ôùéèà ìéä ìù"ñ ãùøé - âáé äà ãàîø øá 'áéöä òí éöéàú øåáä ðâîøä'. ã÷àîø 'ìîàé, àéìéîà ãùøé ìàåëìä áçìá, äà áîòé àîä àñéøà; åäúðéà "äùåçè äúøðâåìú ... ?"; îùîò ãôùéèà ìéä ãìà äåä ôìéâ øá.

(k)

Precedent: Likewise in the first Perek of Bava Kama (Daf 6b), the Gemara takes for granted that Rav's statement that an egg becomes permitted the moment the majority of it has emerged; when the Gemara there asks 'In which regard? If it is with regard to eating it with milk, implying that whilst it is still in its mother's stomach it is forbidden - But did we not learn in a Beraisa that someone who Shechts a chicken ... ?' - implying that it is obvious that Rav does not argue with that.

åòåã é"ì, ãäééðå èòîà ãàñøé á"ä áéöú ðáìä - âæéøä àèå áéöú èøôä; åáéöú èøôä àñåøä îùåí ãâîøä áàéñåø.

(l)

Answer #2: Furthermore, one can answer that Beis Hillel forbid the egg of a Neveilah due to a decree on account of the egg of a T'reifah, which in turn, is forbidden because it has been completed be'Isur.

åîéäå àéï ðøàä úéøåõ æä, ãäà ìà âæøéðï äëà áéòé ãùéçìà áúøà àèå áéòé ãùéçìà ÷îà åàèå áéòé ãñôðà îàøòà!

(m)

Refutation: This answer does not seem right however, since, in our Sugya, we do not forbid the eggs of the last batch on account of the eggs of the first batch or on account of the eggs that were hatched from the ground (and not from a rooster).

3)

TOSFOS DH ELA HA DE'SANYA V'LAD T'REIFAH ETC.

úåñôåú ã"ä àìà äà ãúðéà åìã èøôä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara preferred to cite a Beraisa rather than a Mishnah.)

áøééúà äéà.

(a)

Source: It is a Beraisa.

åäåé îöé ìàúåéé îúðéúéï ãúîåøä (ãó ì:) 'ëì äàñåøéí ìâáé äîæáç, åìãåúéäï îåúøéï'. øáé àìéòæø àåîø 'åìã èøôä ìà é÷øá ìâáé îæáç'.

(b)

Implied Question: The Gemara could have cited the Mishnah in Temurah (Daf 30b), which states that 'Whatever is Asur to go on the Mizbe'ach, their babies are nevertheless permitted'. Rebbi Eliezer says 'the baby of a T'reifah should not approach the Mizbe'ach'.

àìà ðéçà ìéä ìàúåéé áøééúà, ìôé ùøáé éäåùò äåæëø áä.

(c)

Answer: ... and the reason that it chose to cite a Beraisa is because Rebbi Yehoshua is mentioned there by name.

4)

TOSFOS DH BE'MAI KAMIFL'GI BE'NITR'FAH

úåñôåú ã"ä áîàé ÷à îéôìâé áðèøôä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara confines the Kashya to the opinion of Ameimar.)

ìùåï äâîøà îùîò ãàé ìàå ãàîéîø, ìà äåä ÷ùä 'áîàé ÷à îéôìâé'?

(a)

Implied Question: The Lashon of the Gemara implies that, if not for Ameimar, there would be no problem of what they are arguing about.

àìà éù ìåîø îùåí ãàñø àîéîø ãùéçìà ÷îà, ìà îéúå÷í ìéä ôìåâúééäå á'òåáø éøê àîå', åáòéáøä åìáñåó ðèøôä, ãàí ëï, ÷í ìéä àîéîø ëøáé àìéòæø ãùîåúé äåà?

(b)

Answer #1: It is only because Ameimar forbids the first batch, that we can no longer establish their Machlokes by 'Ubar Yerech Imo', and by where the mother became pregnant before it became a T'reifah - because if so, Ameimar will hold Rebbi Eliezer, who is a Shamuti (and the Halachah is therefore not like him)?

åìàéãê ìéùðà ãì÷îï, éù ìôøù îùåí ã÷ñáø 'èøôä àéðä éåìãú' ÷à ÷ùä ìéä 'áîàé ÷à îéôìâé'- ãìà îéúå÷îà ôìåâúééäå á'æä åæä âåøí àñåø'.

(c)

Answer #2: And according to the second Lashon that the Gemara will cite shortly, one can explains - that, because he holds 'T'reifah Einah Yoledes', the Gemara asks 'What is the source of their Machlokes?' - since we cannot then establish the Machlokes with regard to 'Zeh ve'Zeh Gorem'.

åàí úàîø, åàîàé ìà ðéçà ìéä ìøá àùé äùúà ìàå÷åîé ôìåâúééäå á'æä åæä âåøí', äà ùîòéðï ìéä ìøáé àìéòæø áäãéà áôø÷ ëì ùòä (ôñçéí ãó ëæ.) ãàñø - ã÷úðé 'åëï äéä øáé àìéòæø àåñø áëì àéñåøéï ùáúåøä'?

(d)

Question: Why does Rav Ashi not want to establish the Machlokes by 'Zeh ve'zeh Gorem', seeing as in Perek Kol Sha'ah (Pesachim 27a) Rebbi Eliezer specifically forbids it, as the Gemra states there 'And so Rebbi Eliezer forbids it (Zeh ve'Zeh Gorem) with regard to all Isurim in the Torah.

åéù ìåîø, ãùîà ìà ùîéò ìéä ìøá àùé ääéà áøééúà.

(e)

Answer: Perhaps Rav Ashi was not aware of that Beraisa.

5)

TOSFOS DH VE'REBBI ELIEZER SAVAR ZEH VE'ZEH GOREM ASUR

úåñôåú ã"ä åøáé àìéòæø ñáø æä åæä âåøí àñåø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos equates the text in a Sugya in Temurah with our text here, and rejects an alternative one.)

ëîå ùäâéøñà ëàï ëê éù ìä ìäéåú áôø÷ ëì äàñåøéï (úîåøä ãó ìà.)

(a)

Text 1: The text in Perek Kol ha'Asurin (Temurah 31a) should tally with the text here.

åéù ñôøéí ãâøñé äúí 'ìîàï ãàîø èøôä éåìãú, ôìéâé ëùðèøôä åìáñåó òéáøä, ãøáé àìéòæø ñåáø "òåáø éøê àîå äåà" '.

(b)

Text 2: Some texts read there 'According to those who hold that a T'reifah can give birth, they argue over a case where the animal became a T'reifah and then became pregnant, and Rebbi Eliezer holds 'Ubar Yerech Imo Hu' ... .

åìéúà.

(c)

Refutation: But this text is incorrect.

6)

TOSFOS DH I HACHI A'DE'MIFL'GI LE'GAVOHAH LIFL'GI LE'HEDYOT

úåñôåú ã"ä àé äëé à'ãîéôìâé ìâáåä ìéôìâå ìäãéåè

(SUMMARY: Tosfos queries the Lashon 'I Hachi', and discusses the Gemara's Kashya according to both Leshonos of the Gemara.)

ìùåï 'àé äëé' ÷ùä, ãáëì òðéï éëåì ìä÷ùåú ëï.

(a)

Question (Part 1): The Lashon 'I Hachi' is difficult, since the Gemara could ask this Kashya irrespective of the circumstances.

åöøéê ìîöåà èòí ìîä äéä îúééùá äà ãîéôìâé ìâáåä, àé äåä îôøù ôìåâúééäå á'òåáø éøê àîå äåà' éåúø îäùúà, ãîå÷é ìä á'æä åæä âåøí'.

(b)

Question (Part 2): One also needs to understand why there would be no problem with arguing by Gavohah if we were to explain the Machlokes with regard to 'Ubar Yerech Imo hu' any more than now, where we establish the Machlokes by 'Zeh ve'Zeh Gorem'?

åìàéãê ìéùðà. àéôëà.

(c)

Question (Part 3): ... and according to the second Lashon, we can ask the same Kashya in the reverse.

7)

TOSFOS DH VE'HILCH'SA BE'ZACHAR KOL SH'NEIM-ASAR CHODESH

úåñôåú ã"ä åäìëúà áæëø ëì ùðéí òùø çãù

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains a discrepancy between the status of an egg before it is laid by a chicken and a fetus carried by a cow in our Gemara regarding the Halachah of Tereifah, and their status in the Gemara in Bava Kama regarding the laws of Nezikin.)

ìîàé ãîñ÷éðï äùúà 'äìëúà ãèøôä àéðä éåìãú' - ìà îéúå÷îà ôìåâúééäå ãøáé àìéòæø åøáé éäåùò àìà á'òåáø éøê àîå'; åøáé éäåùò ñåáø 'ìàå éøê àîå äåà' ...

(a)

Clarification (Part 1): According to the current conclusion - that a T'reifah cannot give birth - we can only establish the Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua with regard to 'Ubar Yerech Imo hu', and Rebbi Yehoshua holds 'La'av Yerech Imo hu'.

åâáé áéöä îåãä, ëéåï ãàâéãà áâåôä, ëâåôä ãîéà ...

(b)

Clarification (Part 2): ... only by the case of 'Beitzah' he concedes (that 'Yerech Imo hu') because, since it is joined to the body, it is considered part of the body'.

åúéîä, ãáøéù ùåø ùðâç àú äôøä (á"÷ ãó îæ.) îùîò àéôëà - ã'àîø øáà "ôøä ùäæé÷ä, âåáä îåìãä". îàé èòîà, âåôä äéà; "úøðâåìú ùäæé÷ä, àéðå âåáä îáéöúä". îàé èòîà, ôéøùà áòìîà äéà" '.

(c)

Question #1 (Part 1): At the beginning of 'Shor she'Nagach es ha'Parah' (Bava Kama 47a) it implies the opposite, since, on Rava's statement there, that if a cow does damage, one can claim from its baby; because, the Gemara explains, 'it is part of its body'. Whereas if a chicken damages, one cannot claim from its egg, because 'it is no more than dung'.

åîùîò ãàôéìå ìéúà ìôøä, âåáä äëì î'åìãä. åàîàé, äà àôéìå àé ñééò äåìã áðâéçä, ãäéà ååìãä ðâçå, ìà äéä éëåì ìâáåú îï äåìã ëì äðæ÷ äéëà ãìéúà ìôøä, ëéåï ã'ìàå éøê àîå äåà'?

(d)

Question #1 (Part 2): ... and this implies that even if the cow would not be available, one could claim everything from the baby. But why, even assuming that the baby assisted with the goring, and it and its baby gored together, one ought not to be able to claim the full damages from the baby, there were the cow is not available, seeing as we hold 'Ubar La'av Yerech hu'?

åâáé úøðâåìú, àîàé àéðå âåáä îáéöúä?

(e)

Question #2: ... and in the case of the chicken, why can one not claim from the egg?

åéù ìåîø, ãäúí îééøé ááéöéí âîåøåú, ãìà àâéãé áâåôä.

(f)

Answer (Part 1): It speaks there with regard to eggs that are fully complete, which are not attached to the chicken's body.

åâáé îæé÷ àîø ìéä 'àééúé øàéä ãääéà ùòúà äåú àâéãà áâåôä, åù÷åì'. åâáé èøôåú îñôé÷à àñåø.

(g)

Answer (Part 2): ... Consequently, with regard to damages, the Mazik can say to the Nizak 'Prove that at that moment the egg was attached to the chicken's body and take it!' Whereas regarding T'reifus, since it is a Safek (as to whether it was attached at that moment or not) we go to the strict side forbid it.

åìòðéï åìã äééðå èòîà, àó òì âá ãáòìîà 'òåáø éøê àîå äåà', ìòðéï èøôåú ùàðé, ãúìåé áçéåú áäîä, åìòåáø éù ìå çéåú áôðé òöîå.

(h)

Answer (Part 3): ... whereas as far as the baby (animal) is concerned, even though we generally say 'Ubar Yerech Imo hu', when it comes to T'reifus, it is different, since it is linked with the life of the animal, and a fetus has life of its own.

åáááà ÷îà (ãó îæ. ã"ä îàé) äàøëúé áå.

(i)

Conclusion: In Bava Kama, Tosfos elaborated on this point.

58b----------------------------------------58b

8)

TOSFOS DH HANI TAMRI DE'KADA LEBASAR T'REISDAR YARCHEI SHATA

úåñôåú ã"ä äðé úîøé ãëãà ìáúø úøéñø éøçé ùúà ùøé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the two alternative texts 'Tamri de'Kada' and 'Tamri di'Kerum'.)

øáéðå ùîåàì âøéñ 'ãëøåí' - ôéøåù ùäúìéòå ...

(a)

Alternative Text: Rabeinu Shmuel has the text '(Tamri) di'Kerum', meaning 'that it became wormy' ...

ëîå 'òðáé ãëøåí åùãä ùì÷úä áòîøéí' áôø÷ äî÷áì (á"î ãó ÷å: ò"ù)

(b)

Precedent #1: ... like 'Invei di'Kerum ve'Sadeh she'Laksah be'Amarim', in Perek ha'Mekabel (Bava Metzi'a Daf 106b. See there) ...

åáðæéø, áøéù âîøà ôø÷ ùìùä îéðéí (ãó ìã:) 'ìàúåéé òðáéí ãëøåí'.

(c)

Precedent #2: ,,, and in Nazir, at the beginning of the Sugya in Perek Sheloshah Minim (Daf 34b) 'To include Anavim di'Kerum'.

åáàîöò äôø÷ æä (ãó ìç:) 'åäà ùééø òðáéí ãëøåí'

(d)

Precedent #3: ... and in the middle of this Perek (Daf 38b - 'But did it not leave over Anavim di'Kerum?'

ùäøé àéï ãøê ôéøåú ìäðéç áëã.

(e)

Refutation of Original Text #1: ... since it is not the done thing to leave fruit in a jar.

åòåã, ãäåä ìéä ìîéîø 'ùäúìéòå'?

(f)

Refutation of Original Text #2: Moreover, it ought to have then said ' ... which turned wormy'.

åø"ú îôøù ùãøê ìäðéç ëì ãáø áëã, ëãàéúà áô' çæ÷ú äáúéí (á"á ãó ðä.) 'äðé ùòøé ãëãà îùúòáãé ìëøâà'.

(g)

Support of Original Text #1: Rabeinu Tam however, explains that it is the done thing to place just about everything in a jar, like we find in Perek Chezkas ha'Batim (Bava Basra, 55a) 'Those barley-grains in a jar are Meshu'bad (pledged) to the head-tax'.

åáäîô÷éã (á"î ãó î.) 'äåä òåáãà åô÷ò ëãà'.

(h)

Support of Original Text #2: ... and in 'ha'Mafkid' (Bava Metzi'a 40a) 'There was a case, and the jar (containing grain) broke'.

åáô' äæäá (ùí ãó ðè.) 'áîùìí ùòøé îëãà, ð÷éè åàúé úéâøà'.

(i)

Support of Original Text #3: ... and in Perek ha'Zahav (Ibid 59a) 'When the barley is finished from the jar, a merchant arrives'.

9)

TOSFOS DH HA'NOTZAH MITZTAREFES

úåñôåú ã"ä äðåöä îöèøôú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the Machlokes between Rashi and Rabeinu Tam regarding the context of this statement.)

ô"ä - ìòðéï ôâåì.

(a)

Explanation #1: Rashi interprets this with regard to Pigul.

åâøéñ 'àáì ìòðéï ôâåì ëøáðï ñáéøà ìéä'.

(b)

Text #1: And he has the text 'But with regard to Pigul, he (Rebbi Yehudah) holds like the Rabbanan'.

åø"ú àåîø ùäåà îùðä áèäøåú (ô"à î"á) 'äëðôéí åäðåöä îèîàåú åîéèîàåú, åìà îöèøôéï. øáé éùîòàì àåîø, äðåöä îöèøôú'; ôéøåù - îöèøôú ìëáéöä, ãùåîø äåà, åúðï áîñëú òå÷öéï (ô"à î"à) 'ëì ùäåà éã åàéðå ùåîø, èîà åîèîà åìà îöèøó. ùåîø, àôéìå ùàéðå éã, èîà åîèîà åîöèøó.

(c)

Explanation #2: But Rabeinu Tam maintains that it is a Mishnah in Taharos (Perek 1, Mishnah 2) 'The thick feathers and the thin feathers are both Metamei and subject to Tum'ah, but they do not combine. Rebbi Yishmael says that thin feathers combine' - to make up a k'Beitzah, since they are a Shomer, and we learned in Maseches Uktzin (Perek 1, Mishnah 1) that whatever is a Yad but not a Shomer, is Metamei and subject to Tum'ah, but does not combine; but if it is a Shomer and not a Yad, it is Metamei, subject to Tum'ah and also combines.

åäùúà îééúé øàéä îãçùéá ìéä ëùåîø ìáùø, àìîà äåé ëîå òåø, åëùðéèìä, ëàéìå ðéèì äòåø - ãäåé âìåãä, åèøôä.

(d)

Explaining the Sugya (Part 1): And the Gemara now proves that, seeing as it is considered a Shomer for the Basar, it is similar to skin. Consequently, if it is removed, it is as if the skin has been removed, in which case it falls under the category of 'G'ludah' and is T'reifah.

åøáà ãçé 'òã ëàï ìà ÷àîø øáé éäåãä àìà ìòðéï àâåðé, àáì ùåîø ìáùø ìà çùéá' ...

(e)

Explaining the Sugya (Part 2): But Rava refutes the proof, because 'Rebbi Yehudah only says that the feathers protect the meat, but not to the extent that they become a Shomer ... ' ...

ùàéï øâéìåú ìäöðéò äòåó òí äðåöä ùìà éúìëìê.

(f)

Explaining the Sugya (Part 3): ... since it is not common to put away a bird together with its feathers to prevent it from getting dirty.

'åòã ëàï ìà ÷àîø ø' éùîòàì àìà ìòðéï èåîàä, ãçùéá ùåîø', àáì ìòðéï àâåðé ìà îâéï.

(g)

Explaining the Sugya (Part 4): 'Whereas Rebbi Yishmael only says that it becomes a Shomer with regard to Tum'ah, but as far as protecting it is concerned, it does not protect it.