12th Cycle dedication

CHULIN 59 - Dedicated by Rabbi Dr. Eli Turkel of Raanana, l'Iluy Nishmas his mother, Golda bas Chaim Yitzchak Ozer (Mrs. Gisela Turkel) who passed away on 25 Av 5760. Mrs. Turkel accepted Hashem's Gezeiros with love; may she be a Melitzas Yosher for her offspring and for all of Klal Yisrael.

1)

TOSFOS DH IKRA DE'MERIRTA

úåñôåú ã"ä òé÷øà ãîøéøúà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos cites Rashi's two translations.)

ô"ä - úåø"à áìò"æ; åáôø÷ ëì ùòä (ôñçéí ãó ìè.) ôéøù îøøéúà 'àîøåôéé"ì' [åò"ò úåñ' ñåëä éâ. ã"ä îøøéúà].

(a)

Rashi's Two Translations: Here Rashi translates it as tore ('Tura' in O.F.); whereas in Perek Kol Sha'ah (Pesachim 39a) he translates Mar'risa as burdock ('Amarfeul' in O.F.). See also Tosfos Succah (13a DH 'Mar'risa').

2)

TOSFOS DH GAMAL NIVI IS LEIH

úåñôåú ã"ä âîì ðéáé àéú ìéä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks why the Gemara does not ask from the fact that a camel has teeth.)

úéîä, ãäùúà úé÷ùé àéôëà - 'äøé âîì éù ìå ùéðéí', ãäëé ôøéê áñåó î'ùôï åàøðáú.

(a)

Question: Why does the Gemara not now ask the opposite 'But the camel has teeth (in which case it ought to be Kasher)?', like it asks shortly from a rabbit and a hare?

3)

TOSFOS DH NIVI

úåñôåú ã"ä ðéáé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos supports Rashi's first translation of Nivi with various proofs.)

ôéøù á÷åðèøñ - ùðé ùéðéí éù ìå ìîòìä, àçú îëàï åàçú îëàï.

(a)

Translation #1: Rashi explains that a dog has two upper (canine) teeth, one on either side.

òåã ôéøù ìùåï àçø ðéáé ù÷åøéï ééðöéá"ù áìòæ, åáåìèéï åðéëø î÷åí áìéèúï æä àöì æä ëùéðéí.

(b)

Translation #2: Alternatively, he translates it as 'gums' (gencives in O.F.).

åøàùåï ðøàä ìé ...

(c)

The Correct Version: Tosfos prefers the first version however ...

ëîå 'ù÷éì ðéáéä åù÷éì èåôøéä' ãáôø÷ áîä àùä (ùáú ñâ:) âáé ëìá, ùäï ùéðéí âãåìåú ùéù ìå ìôðéí ùäåà ðåùê áäï.

(d)

Proof #1: ... as the Gemara states in Bameh Ishah (Shabbos 63b) in the case of a dog 'Its fangs and nails have been removed', with reference to the two large teeth which it has in front with which it bites ...

åáôø÷ ëéöã äøâì (á"÷ ëâ:) 'ãàô÷é ìðéáéä åñøèéä'.

(e)

Proof #2: ... and in Perek Keitzad ha'Regel (Bava Kama 23b) 'because it stuck out its canine teeth and bit him'.

4)

TOSFOS DH BE'YADU'A SHE'HI MA'ALAS GEIRAH U'MAFRESES PARSAH

úåñôåú ã"ä áéãåò ùäéà îòìú âøä åîôøñú ôøñä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the Gemara to conform to Rav Chisda.)

åëâåï ùäåà îëéø áï âîì, ëãàîø øá çñãà.

(a)

Clarification: Provided that is, that he recognizes a young camel, as Rav Chisda explains.

5)

TOSFOS DH EIN L'CHA MA'ALAH GEIRAH VE'TAMEI ELA GAMAL

úåñôåú ã"ä àéï ìê îòìä âøä åèîà àìà âîì

(SUMMARY: Tosfos incorporates the other species mentioned in the Torah together with it.)

ôéøåù - åùàø äëúåáéí òîå 'ùôï åàøðáú åùñåòä'.

(a)

Clarification: This includes the other three species mentioned in the Torah together with it - the rabbit, the hare and the Shesu'ah.

6)

TOSFOS DH EILU HEIN SIMNEI CHAYAH KOL SHE'YESH LAH KARNAYIM U'TELAFIM

úåñôåú ã"ä àìå äï ñéîðé çéä ëì ùéù ìä ÷øðéí åèìôéí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos cites three explanations of Rebbi Zeira's interpretation of the Beraisa, and elaborates.)

÷øðéí àúé ìàôå÷é îáäîä, ãëéåï ãéù ìä ÷øðéí çãå÷åú åëøåëåú ëãì÷îï, àí ëï ìàå áäîä äéà.

(a)

Explanation #1 (Part 1): The horns come to preclude it from a Beheimah, because, since it has horns that grow in layers and that are full of notches, as the Gemara will explain later, it cannot be a Beheimah.

àáì àëúé àéëà ìñôå÷é áçéä èîàä; ìëê áòéðï èìôéí ôøñåú äñãå÷åú, ãäùúà ìéëà ìñôå÷é ìà áçéä èîàä åìà ááäîä èäåøä, åçìáä îåúø.

(b)

Explanation #1 (Part 2): There is still room for doubt however, that it is a Chayah Temei'ah; That is why it must have split hooves, in which case one can no longer suspect that it is either a Chayah Temei'ah or a Beheimah Tehorah. Consequently, its Cheilev is permitted.

'øáé ãåñà àåîø, ëì ùéù ìä ÷øðéí ÷øðé çéä, àé àúä öøéê ìçæåø òì äèìôéí' ãñáø ãçéä èîàä àéï ìä ÷øðéí.

(c)

Explanation #1 (Part 3): Whereas Rebbi Dosa says that if it has the horns of a Chayah, it is not necessary to check its hooves, because in his opinion, a Chayah Temei'ah does not have horns.

åäùúà öøéê ìåîø äà ãúðï áôø÷ áà ñéîï (ðãä ðà:) 'ëì ùéù ìå ÷øðéí éù ìå èìôéí' øáé ãåñà äéà, ãàéìå øáðï äà àîøé ëé ðîé àéú ìä ÷øðéí, àëúé àéëà ìñôå÷é ãéìîà çéä èîàä äéà. ëê ôé' äøéá"í.

(d)

Consequently: ... It therefore emerges that the author of the Mishnah in Perek Ba Si'man (Nidah 51b) which rules that whatever has horns has hooves is Rebbi Dosa - since the Rabbanan hold that even if it has horns the possibility still exists that it is Chayah Temei'ah. This is how the Rivam explains it.

åø"ú ôéøù ã'éù ìå èìôéí' ã÷àîø ìà àúéà ìàåøåéé ùçéä èäåøä äéà, ùäøé äëà ìà àééøé àìà áñéîðéï ìäúéø çìáä, ìàôå÷é îáäîä èäåøä.

(e)

Explanation #2 (Part 1): Rabeinu Tam explains however, that the hooves are not to prove that it is a Chayah Tehorah, seeing as the Gemara is only concerned with permitting its Cheilev, to preclude a Beheimah Tehorah ...

åîôøù äëé 'ëì ùéù ìä ÷øðéí' ëãîôøù áñîåê - 'ëøåëåú ... ' åâí éù ìä èìôéí ëèìôé çéä, áéãåò ùäéà çéä èäåøä, åçìáä èäåø ...

(f)

Explanation #2 (Part 2): ... and he explains the Gemara like this: Whatever has horns (as the Gemara will explain shortly - 'that are full of notches ... ' and that also has hooves like the hooves of a Chayah, one can be sure that it is a Kasher Chayah and its Cheilev is permitted ...

ãéù îéï áäîä ùàéðï îöåééï áéðéðå ãéù ìä ÷øðéí ë÷øðé çéä àå éù ìä èìôéí ëèìôé çéä. ìëê áòéðï ùðé ñéîðéï, ãúøåééäå ìéúðäå áùåí áäîä.

(g)

Reason: ... Because there are some species of Beheimah - that do not exist among us - that have horns like the horns of a Chayah, or hooves like those of a Chayah. And that explains why two Simanim are required, since one will not find them both in any Beheimah.

åëé ôøéê 'åäøé ùåø ãëøåëåú, ìøáé ãåñà ôøéê, ãìà áòé àìà çã. ãìøáðï, ìéùðé ìéä 'ùåø ìéú ìéä èìôéí ëèìôé çéä'?

(h)

Consequently: And when the Gemara now asks 'But there is an ox, that has horns with notches?' it is querying Rebbi Nasan, who only requires one Si'man, since, according to the Rabbanan, the Gemara could have answered an ox does not have the hooves of a Chayah.

àê ÷öú ÷ùä - ãàîø ì÷îï (ãó ñâ:) 'âìåé åéãåò ... ùäáäîä èîàä îøåáä òì äèäåøä, ìôéëê îðä äëúåá áèäåøä'; îùîò ãàéï ùåí áäîä èäåøä ëé àí àåúí äîðåééï - ùåø åëùá åòæ, åàåúí ìéú ìäå ìà ÷øðéí ë÷øðé çéä åìà èìôéí ëèìôé çéä?

(i)

Question: This is slightly difficult however, since the Gemara states later (on Daf 63b) that, based on the fact that there are more species of Beheimah Teme'ah that of Beheimah Tehorah, the Torah listed the 'Tahor' animals'. implying that there are no species of Beheimah Tehorah other than those listed in the Torah. And none of those species have either horns or hooves like those of a Chayah? (Continued on following Amud)

59b----------------------------------------59b

7)

TOSFOS DH EILU HEIN SIMNEI CHAYAH KOL SHE'YESH LAH KARNAYIM U'TELAFIM (Continued from previous Amud)

úåñôåú ã"ä àìå äï ñéîðé çéä ëì ùéù ìä ÷øðéí åèìôéí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos cites three explanations of Rebbi Zeira's interpretation of the Beraisa, and elaborates.)

åé"ì äëé - 'ëì ùéù ìå ÷øðéí âøéãà ë÷øðé çéä, çìáå îåúø; àå ùéù ìå èìôéí ëèìôé çéä ëîå ëï àéï ìñôå÷é ááäîä'.

(a)

Explanation #3 (Part 1): One can therefore explain the Gemara like this - 'Whatever has just the horns of a Chayah, its Cheilev is permitted, and likewise whatever has just the hooves of a Chayah is certainly not a Beheimah, either.

øáé ãåñà àåîø, 'éù ìä ÷øðéí ë÷øðé çéä, çìáä îåúø, éù ìä èìôéí ëèìôé çéä, àëúé àéëà ìñôå÷é ááäîä, ãéù èìôé çéä ãåîåú ëèìôé áäîä'.

(b)

Explanation #3 (Part 2): Whereas according to Rebbi Dosa, as long as it has the horns of a Chayah, its Cheilev is permitted; but if it only has the hooves of a Chayah, it might still be a Beheimah, since the hooves of a Beheimah are similar to those of a Chayah.

åäùúà îúðé' ãô' áà ñéîï (ðãä ðà:) 'ãëì ùéù ìå ÷øðéí éù ìå èìôéí' îöé àúé ëëåìé òìîà - ãøáðï îåãå ëì ùéù ìå ÷øðéí éù ìå ôøñåú ñãå÷åú.

(c)

Consequently: The Mishnah in Perek Ba Si'man (Nidah 51b) 'Whatever has horns has hooves' - can go according to everybody, since the Rabbanan too, concede that whatever has horns has split hooves.

àê ÷ùä òì ôéøåù æä, ãëé ôøéê 'åäøé òæ ùéù ìå ÷øðéí åèìôéí', îñúîà äåé ääåà èìôéí ãîå ëèìôé ãçéä ëîå èìôéí ãáøééúà, åìîä ìéä ìîéîø úøúé ãàéëà áòæ ëéåï ãáçã ñâé ìäúéø çìáä?

(d)

Question: The problem with this explanation is that, when the Gemara asks 'But how about a goat, that has horns and hooves?', one can assume that those hooves resemble those of a Chayah (like the hooves in the Beraisa). In that case, why does the Gemara need to mention both (the horns and the hooves), seeing as one of them would suffice to permit its Cheilev?

8)

TOSFOS DH VE'HAREI EIZ DE'CHARUKOS

úåñôåú ã"ä åäøé òæ ãçøå÷åú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos cites three interpretations of 'Eiz' in this context.)

ôé' á÷åðèøñ, ãñì÷à ãòúéä ãäãø áéä î'ëøåëåú', åàå÷é ñéîðà à'çøå÷åú, åëøåëåú úå ìà áòéðï.

(a)

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that the Gemara thinks that we have retracted from 'K'ruchos' and that having established the Si'man as 'Charukos', we no longer need 'K'ruchos'.

åúéîä, åìéùðé ìéä ãúøåééäå áòéðï, çøå÷åú åëøåëåú?

(b)

Question #1: Why did the Gemara then not answer that we need both Charukos and K'ruchos?

åòåã, áñîåê ãáòéðï çøå÷åú åëøåëåú åçãåøåú, àîàé ìà ñâé áëøåëåú åçøå÷åú?

(c)

Question #2: Furthermore, a little later, where we require Charukos, K'ruchos and Chaduros, why will Charukos and K'ruchos alone not suffice?

åîôøù äøéá"í, ãäàé 'åäøé òæ', îòéæà ëøëåæ ôøéê, ãëøåëåú åçøå÷åú, çìáå àñåø, ìîàï ãàñø ìä áñîåê.

(d)

Explanation #2 (Part 1): The Rivam therefore explains that when the Gemara asks 've'Harei Eiz?', it is asking from Iza Karkoz, whose horns are K'ruchos and Charukos, and whose Cheilev is forbidden, according to the opinion that will shortly forbid it ...

åàò"â ãìéú äìëúà ëååúéä ...

(e)

Implied Question: And even though that opinion is not Halachah ...

ôøéê àìéáéä - äéëé îôøù ìä ìáøééúà.

(f)

Answer: ... the Gemara nevertheless asks according to him, to find out how he will explains the Beraisa.

åîùðé 'îôåöìåú áòéðï'. åôøéê - 'åäøé öáé ... òã 'äéëà ãìà îéôöìï áòéðï ëøåëåú çøå÷åú åçãåøåú, ãáëøåëåú åçøå÷åú ìáã ìà ñâéà, îùåí òéæà ãëøëåæ; åáçãåøåú åëøåëåú ðîé ìà ñâé, ãùì ùåø ðîé ëøåëåú åòâåìåú åçãåøåú, âí çãéï áøàùéäï.

(g)

Explanation #2 (Part 2): And the Gemara answers that we need 'Mefutzalos' (forked). It then asks 've'Harei Tz'vi ... and it answers that 'where they are not forked we need K'ruchos, Charukos and Chaduros. K'ruchos and Charukos lone will not suffice on account of Iza de'Karkoz; neither will Chaduros and K'ruchos, since the horns of an ox are also K'ruchos, Agulos (round) and Chaduros, and are also pointed at the ends.

åáçãåøåú åáçøå÷åú ðîé ìà ñâéà, îùåí òæ ñúí. äìëê áòéðï ëì úìúà.

(h)

Explanation #2 (Part 3): Nor will Chaduros and Charukos suffice, because of a regular goat ... which explains why we need all three.

åäàé 'äåà ãîáìò çéø÷ééäå' - ëìåîø áòðéï àçø àéï äçøé÷ä ñéîï.

(i)

Explanation #2 (Part 4): .. and 'Hu de'Mivla Chirkaihu' means that otherwise Charikah is not a sign that it is a Chayah.

'åäééðå ñôé÷à ãòæ ãëøëåæ' - ìàå à'îéáìò çéø÷ééäå ÷àé, àìà à'çãåøåú, ãìîàï ãàîø òæ ëøëåæ çéä äéà, ìà áòé ëìì çãåøåú.

(j)

Explanation #2 (Part 4): 've'Haynu S'feika de'Eiz de'Karkoz' does not refer to 'Mivla Chirkaihu', but to Chaduros, since according to those who consider an Eiz Karkoz a Chayah, it doesn't require Chaduros at all.

å÷ùä ÷öú, ãäåä ìéä ìôøù áäãéà 'åäøé òæ ãëøëåæ', ëéåï ãîòæ ëøëåæ ÷à ôøéê?

(k)

Question #1: The Gemara ought then to have specifically asked 've'Harei Eiz de'Karkoz', seeing as it is asking from an Eiz Karkoz?

åâí äìùåï îùîò ùáà ìôñå÷ äìëä äéëà ãìà îéôöìé?

(l)

Question #2: ... and also the Lashon implies that it is coming to issue a ruling there where the horns are not forked.

åé"ì, ãéù ùåí îéï òæ ã÷øðéä ëøåëåú åçøå÷åú, åîääéà ôøéê, åìà îòéæà ëøëåæ.

(m)

Explanation #3 (Part 1): We must therefore conclude that there is a certain species of goat whose horns are K'ruchos and Charukos, and it is from that goat that the Gemara is asking, and not from Iza Karkoz.

åäùúà ÷àé ùôéø 'ñôé÷à ãòéæà ëøëåæ' à'îéáìò çéø÷ééäå.

(n)

Explanation #3 (Part 2): That being the case, 'S'feika de'Iza Karkoz' does refer to 'Mivla Chirkaihu', after all.

9)

TOSFOS DH VE'HAREI TZVI SHE'EIN SHE'EIN MEFUTZALOS ETC.

úåñôåú ã"ä åäøé öáé ùàéï îôåöìåú ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos proves that 'Tz'vi' is a deer, as opposed to Rashi, who maintains that it isn't.)

ôéøù á÷åðèøñ - 'öáé' àéï æä ùàðå ÷åøéï 'öáé', ãäà åãàé îôåöìåú äï.

(a)

Explanation #1 (Part 1): Rashi explains that 'Tz'vi' in this context is not the animal that we call 'a deer', whose horns are definitely forked ...

àìà 'öáé' æäå àåúå ùàðå ÷åøéï àåúå 'àùèðáå"÷', ã÷øðéä ùìå àéðí îôåöìåú.

(b)

Explanation #1 (Part 2): ... but it must therefore be the animal that we refer to as a 'wild goat (or an ibex), whose horns are not forked.

åø"ú àåîø - ãæäå àåúå ùàðå ÷åøéï 'öáé' ...

(c)

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam however, maintains that it is the one that we call 'a deer ...'

ãäà çæéðï ùàéï òåøå îçæé÷ àú áùøå, åöáé ëï äåà, ëãàîø áîñëú ëúåáåú (ãó ÷éá.) áñåó.

(d)

Proof #1: ... since we see that its skin does not fit its flesh, which is the mark of a deer, as the Gemara explains at the end of Kesuvos (Daf 112a).

åçæéðï ðîé ãáùòä ùäåà éùï, òéðå àçú ôúåçä ...

(e)

Proof #2 (Part 1): We also see that when it sleeps, it keeps one eye open ...

åàîøéðï áîãøù ùéø äùéøéí "ãåîä ãåãé ìöáé" - 'îä öáé æä áùòä ùäåà éùï òéðå àçú ôúåçä, ëê ä÷á"ä, áùòú âìåúï åöøúï ùì éùøàì, ðåúï òéðå òìéäí ìùåîøí'.

(f)

Proof #2 (Part 2): Conforming to the Midrash in Shir ha'Shirim, which, commenting on the Pasuk "My Beloved is like a deer, explains 'Just as a deer keeps one eye open even as it sleeps, so too, Hakadosh-Baruch-Hu, at the time of the Galus and the suffering of Yisrael, keeps an Eye on them and guards them.

åä"â ø"ú 'îáåöìåú' - ëìåîø, æ÷åôåú åøàùéäí ëôåôåú, åùì öáé àéðí ëôåôåú ëìì.

(g)

Text (Part 1): And Rabeinu Tam has the text (not 'Mefutzalos', but) 'Mevutzalos', meaning erect and bent at the ends, whereas the horns of a deer are not bent at all.

å'îáåöìåú' ìùåï ëôéôä, ëãàîø á÷ãåùéï ôø÷ äàåîø (ãó ñá:) 'îàé îùîò ãäàé "àâí" ìéùðà ã,áåöìðà, äåà? ãëúéá "äìëåó ëàâîåï øàùå".

(h)

) Text (Part 2): And 'Mevutzalos' means bent, like the Gemara says in Kidushin, Perek ha'Omer (Daf 62b) 'We know that the word 'Agam' is a Lashon of 'Butzl'na' (bent) from the Pasuk "ha'Lachof ke'Agmon Rosho" ('Is it enough to bend one's head like a reed'?)

åàôéìå âøñéðï 'îôåöìåú', àéï ìçåù, ãëîå 'îáåöìåú' äåà ...

(i)

Text (Part 3): Even if we have the text 'Mefutzeles' however, there is no problem, because it has the same meaning as 'Mevutzlos' ...

ëãàùëçï ôø÷ áëì îòøáéï (òéøåáéï ëè:) 'ãàôöéì æéøúà' ãäåé ëîå 'ãàáöéì'.

(j)

Proof #1: ... like we find in Perek 'ba'Kol Me'arvin' (Eruvin 29b) 'de'Aftzil Zirta', which has the same meaning as 'de'Avtzil ... ').

åáîùðéåú éù áëîä î÷åîåú 'äá÷ø' áî÷åí 'äô÷ø' (ôàä ô"å îùðä à).

(k)

Proof #2): ... and we find many times in the Mishnah "Hevker', instead of 'Hefker' (See Pe'ah Perek 6, Mishnah 1).

10)

TOSFOS DH VE'KERESH AF-AL-PI SHE'EIN LO ELA KEREN ACHAS CHELBO MUTAR

úåñôåú ã"ä å÷øù àò"ô ùàéï ìå àìà ÷øï àçú çìáå îåúø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos reconciles the Sugya in Shabbos concerning the Tachash with our Sugya.)

åà"ú, áôø÷ áîä îãìé÷éï (ùáú ãó ëç:) àîø 'úçù ÷øï àçú äéä ìå áîöçå, åèäåø äéä' - îãàîø øá éäåãä, ãàîø 'ùåø ùä÷øéá àãí äøàùåï ÷øï àçú äéúä ìå áîöçå'.

(a)

Question (Part 1): The Gemara in Perek Bameh Madlikin (Shabbos 28b) states that the Tachash had one horn on its forehead, and that, based on the statement of Rav Yehudah - who said that 'The ox which Adam ha'Rishon sacrificed had one horn on its forehead', it was Kasher.

åäéëé ãéé÷ îãøá éäåãä ùäéä úçù èäåø, åäìà ëì àåúï ùéù ìäï ÷øï àçú àéðï ùåéï, ãäà àéëà ÷øù ùäåà çéä åùåø ùäåà áäîä?

(b)

Question (Part 2): How can the Gemara extrapolate from Rav Yehudah that the Tachash was Kasher, seeing as not all the animals with one horn share the same specifications - bearing in mind that the Keresh (a kind o antelope or a unicorn) is a Chayah, whereas the ox is a Beheimah?

åé"ì, ãñîéê à'îúðéúéï ãáà ñéîï (ðãä ãó ðà:) ãëì ùéù ìå ÷øðéí éù ìå èìôéí, åîñúîà àôéìå á÷øï àçú àééøé, îãàùëçï ùåø ùä÷øéá àãí äøàùåï ù÷øï àçú äéúä áîöçå, åèäåø.

(c)

Answer: The Gemara relied on the Mishnah in Perek Ba Si'man (Nidah 51b) that whatever has horns, has hooves, which presumably incorporates those with one horn. And this is because the ox that Adam sacrificed had one horn and was Kasher.

åîéäå ëîå ëï äéä éëåì ìã÷ã÷ î÷øù, ãäà çæéðï ùàéï ìå àìà ÷øï àçú åäåà îòìä âøä åîôøéñ ôøñä.

(d)

Observation: The Gemara however, could just as well have proved its point from Keresh, which has one horn, and which chews its cud and has cloven hooves.

11)

TOSFOS DH HACHI GARSINAN

úåñôåú ã"ä äëé âøñéðï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos proves that the correct text is 'Mashcha de'Tavya de'Bei Ila'i'.)

'ùéúñø àîäúà äåé îùëà ãèáéà ãáé òéìàé'.

(a)

Correct Text: The skin of a deer of Bei Ila'i measures sixteen Amos.

åìà âøñéðï 'àøéà' ...

(b)

Refuted Text: We do not have the text 'a lion of Bei Ila'i' ...

ãàôéìå áéï àåðà ìàåðà àéú ìéä úùò àîäúà; à"ë îùëéä èôé îùéúñø.

(c)

Reason for Refutation: Because even between one Una (lobe of the lung) and another there are nine Amos, in which case the skin will measure more than sixteen Amos.

12)

TOSFOS DH NASUR KACHI VE'SHINI

úåñôåú ã"ä ðúåø ëëé åùéðé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos proves that Kachi means teeth and not gums.)

îëàï îùîò ãëëé ìà äåé äçðéëééí ù÷åøéï ééðöéá"ù ...

(a)

Explanation (Part 1): We can extrapolate from here that 'Kachi' are not the gums that are called 'genzives' (in O.F.) ...

ùàåúï àéï ãøëï ìéôåì - åëãàùëçï áòøáé ôñçéí (ãó ÷éâ.) 'à"ì øá ìáøéä - "ìà úùúé ñîà åìà úò÷åø ëëé" '.

(b)

Reason: ... since they do not tend to fall out, as we find in Arvei Pesachim (Daf 113a), where Rav said to his son 'Don't drink drugs, so that your 'Kachi' will not fall out'.

àìà 'ëëé' äí äùéðéí äàçøåðéí äèåçðéí äîàëì, å'ùéðéí' äí äùéðéí ùìôðéí.

(c)

Explanation (Part 2): ... but 'Kachi' are the back teeth, with which one grinds ome's food, whereas 'Shinayim' are the front teeth.

åëï (àéåá éâ) "òì îä àùà áùøé, áùéðé" îúøâîéðï 'àèåì áñøé áëëé' [åò"ò úåñ' ò"æ ëç. ã"ä ëëé].

(d)

Precedent: Likewise in Iyov (13) where he said "Why should I carry my flesh with my teeth (be'Shinay), which Yonasan translates as "be'Kachi" (a proof that 'Kachi' means teeth and not gums).