1)

TOSFOS DH MAH NESHER MEYUCHAD ETC. AF KOL KA'YOTZEI BO TAMEI (This DH belongs later on the mud before DH Lo Ne'emar)

úåñôåú ã"ä îä ðùø îéåçã ëå' àó ëì ëéåöà áå èîà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos disagrees with Rashi, who maintains that the only species of Tamei birds are the twenty-four species listed in the Torah).

ôéøù øù"é ãäàé 'àó ëì' ìà îøáé àìà îéï ðùø, ùàéï òåó èîà áòåìí àìà ë"ã äàîåøéï áúåøä, ëã÷úðé ì÷îï (ñâ:) 'ìôéëê îðä äëúåá áèîàéï'.

(a)

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that 'Af Kol' only comes to include different types of eagle, seeing as there are no Tamei birds other than the twenty-four species mentioned in the Torah, as the Beraisa cited later (on 63b) states 'That is why the Torah lists the Tamei birds ... '.

åäðê ë"ã àîøéðï ãàéëà áëåìäå ñéîï èäøä çåõ îï äðùø.

1.

Explanation #1 (cont.): And all of those twenty-four that are listed have (at least) one Si'man Taharah, with the exception of an eagle.

åàéï æä øàéä.

(b)

Refutation: This is no proof however ...

ããéìîà ä"÷ 'ìôéëê îðä äëúåá áèîàéí', îùåí ãòì éãé ë"ã àìå åñéîðéäåï ðåëì ìäëéø ëì äèîà ùáòåìí. àáì àí äéä áà ìîðåú áèäåøéí äéä öøéê ìîðåú éåúø.

(c)

Explanation #2: ... because perhaps what the Gemara means is that the reason that the Torah lists the Teme'im is because, via these twenty-four birds and their Simanim one can discern all Tamei birds in the world. Whereas had the Torah wanted to list the Tahor birds, it would have had to increase the list.

åëï ëé ÷àîø 'åìòåôåú àéï îñôø'. åôøéê 'òåôåú èîàéï ë"ã ðéðäå? àìà ìòåôåú èäåøéï àéï îñôø' - äúí áòé ìîéîø 'àéï îñôø' ùðåëì ìäëéø òì éãéäí ëì äàçøéí. åîùðé ã'àéï îñôø ìèäåøéí ÷àîø'õ

1.

Explanation #2 (cont.): And similarly, when the Gemara queries the statement 'And the birds are numberless - But the Tamei birds are (only) twenty-four?' and it answers that it is the Tahor birds that are numberless' - what it means to say (at first) is that 'There is no number by which we can discern through them all the other birds. And it answers that 'It is the Tahor birds that are numberless'.

åùôéø ÷à îøáä äëà àôéìå ùàø îéðéï ùàéðï îéï ðùø.

(d)

Conclusion: Consequently, the Gemara is perfectly justified in including here even other species that are not species of eagles.

2)

TOSFOS DH KOL OF HA'DOREIS TAMEI (This DH belongs to the Mishnah on Daf 59.)

úåñôåú ã"ä ëì òåó äãåøñ èîà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how the Chachamim could possibly know that no Tahor bird is Doreis.)

åà"ú, åäéëé ÷éí ìäå ìøáðï äê îéìúà? åëé ÷ðéâé àå áìéñèøé äéå, ùáã÷å ëì äòåôåú èäåøéí, åàéï ùåí òåó èäåø ãåøñ?

(a)

Question: How do the Rabbanan know this? Were they hunters or archers (who hunted birds), that they examined all the Tahor birds, till they discovered that no Tahor bird is Doreis ...

äà àîø ì÷îï (ãó ñâ:) ã'ìòåôåú èäåøéí àéï îñôø'?

1.

Question (cont): Bearing in mind what the Gemara says later (Daf 63b) that 'Tahor birds are numberless'?

åàé äìëä ìîùä îñéðé äåà!

(b)

Suggested Answer: Perhaps it is a Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai!

à"ë, ì"ì ãëúá øçîðà "ôøñ åòæðéä" úøåééäå - ìà ìëúåá àåúå ùãåøñ, ãîîä ðôùê çã îéðééäå ãåøñ, ùàéï áëì àçã àìà çã ñéîï ùì èäøä, åàåúå ùáæä àéðå áæä, ëãîåëç áâîøà?

(c)

Refutation: ... in which case why does the Torah need to mention both "Peres and Ozniyah"? Let it omit the one that is Doreis, since Mah Nafshach, one of them is Doreis, seeing as each one has one Si'man Taharah, and the one that one of them has, the other one doesn't, as is clear in the Gemara?

åé"ì, ãùîà ÷áìä äéúä îéîåú ðç ùä÷øéá îëì òåó èäåø åáã÷ àú ëåìí, åîñø ìãåøåú ùàéï òåó èäåø ãåøñ.

(d)

Answer: Perhaps they had a tradition from the days of No'ach, who sacrificed (seven pairs) from every species of Tahor bird. After examining them all, he handed down his conclusion to future generations that no Tahor bird is Doreis.

àáì áùñåòä ìà ùééê ìîéîø äëé, ãàéï æä îéï áôðé òöîå, àìà åìã áäîä, ëãàéúà áäîôìú (ðãä ãó ëã.).

1.

Answer (cont.): It is not possible to say this with regard to a Shesu'ah however, seeing as it is not an individual species, only the child of any animal, as the Gemara explains in 'ha'Mapeles (Nidah, 2a).

3)

TOSFOS DH HA'DOREIS (This DH belongs to the Mishnah on Daf 59.)

úåñôåú ã"ä äãåøñ

(SUMMARY: Tosfos disagrees with Rashi's interpretation of 'Doreis'.)

ôé' á÷åðèøñ - ùàåçæ áöôåøðéå åîâáéä îï ä÷ø÷ò îä ùàåëì.

(a)

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that it grips what it eats in its claws and lifts it from the ground.

å÷ùä ìø"ú, ãäà àôéìå úøðâåìú òåùä ëï?

(b)

Question: Rabeinu Tam asks however, that even a chicken does that?

åîôøù ø"ú, ãåøñ åàåëì îçééí, åàéðå îîúéï ìä òã ùúîåú ...

(c)

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tm therefore explains that it holds down its prey whilst it is still alive, without waiting until it dies.

ëé ääéà ãôø÷ àìå òåáøéï (ôñçéí îè:) 'äîùéà àú áúå ìò"ä, ëàéìå ëåôúä ìôðé àøé; îä àøé ãåøñ åàåëì, åàéðå îîúéï òã ùúîåú, àó ò"ä îëä åáåòì åàéðå îîúéï òã ùúúôééñ'.

(d)

Proof #1: ... like the Gemara says in Perek Eilu Ovrin (Pesachim 49b 'If someone who marries of his daughter to an Am ha'Aretz, it is as if he has bound her in front of a lion; For just as a lion holds down its prey and eats it without waiting until it dies, so too, does an Am-ha'Aretz 'strike and is intimate, without first appeasing his wife'.

åëï áñåó ô"÷ ãá"÷ (ãó èæ:) 'àøé áø"ä ãøñ åàëì, ôèåø' - ôéøåù îçééí, ãäééðå àåøçéä, åäåé ùï.

(e)

Proof #2: Similarly, we learned in the first Perek of Bava Kama (Daf 16:) 'If a lion holds down his prey and eats it in the R'shus ha'Rabim, the owner is Patur, since that is its way, in which cse it is Shein (which is Patur in the R'shus ha'Rabim) ...

'èøó åàëì, çééá' - ôéøåù ìàçø îéúä, ãìàå äééðå àåøçéä, åäåé ìéä ÷øï.

1.

Proof #2 (cont.): Whereas if it tore it apart and ate it (after it is dead), that is not its way and it is Keren (which is Chayav in the R'shus ha'Rabim).

åôøéê 'åäà ëúéá "àøé èåøó áãé âåøåúéå"? åîùðé 'áùáéì âåøåúéå' - ùäï ÷èðéí, ãøëå ìäîéú.' "åîçð÷ ììáàåúéå"? - 'áùáéì ìáàåúéå'.

(f)

Proof #2 (cont.): And the Gemara asks there from the Pasuk "A lion tears up its prey enough for the food of its cubs"? And it answers ' ... on behalf of its cubs' (it kills its prey because his cubs are still very small); "And it strangles enough for its lionesses"? ... 'On behalf of its lionesses'.

4)

TOSFOS DH KOL SHE'YESH LO ETZBA YESEIRAH VE'ZEFEK VE'KURK'VANO NIKLAF (This DH belongs to the Mishnah on Daf 59.)

úåñôåú ã"ä ëì ùéù ìå àöáò éúéøä åæô÷ å÷åø÷áðå ð÷ìó èäåø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the implications of this statement, and reconciles it with the various seemingly contradictory statements in the Gemara.)

áâîøà ÷úðé ááøééúà 'ø"â àåîø, ëì ùéù ìå àöáò éúøä, åæô÷, å÷åø÷áðå ð÷ìó, áéãåò ùäåà èäåø'.

(a)

Explanation #1: We learned in a Beraisa cited in the Gemara - 'Raban Gamliel says that whatever possesses an extra claw and a crop, and its gizzard can be peeled, is certainly Tahor'.

åôé' ùí á÷åðèøñ ãà'øéùà ñîéê, ãúðé 'ëì òåó äãåøñ èîàá; åàí àéðå ãåøñ, èäåø'. åàúà ìîéîø øáï âîìéàì åàí àéðå ãåøñ åéù ìå òåã ùìùä ñéîðéï, áéãåò ùäåà èäåø.

1.

Explanation #1 (cont.): Rashi explains there that it refers to the Reisha - which states that 'Any bird that is Doreis is Tamei, and any bird that doesn't, is Tahor'. And Raban Gamliel is now coming to teach us that, if in addition to not being Doreis, it has the three Simanim, one can be sure that it is Tahor.

åàéï ìùåï äáøééúà îùîò ëï.

(b)

Question: The wording of the Beraisa however, does not imply this.

åîôøù ø"ú, ëéåï ùéù ìå â' ñéîðéï äììå ùì èäøä áéãåò ùàéðå ãåøñ, åèäåø; åà"ö ìáãå÷ áñéîï ùì ãøéñä.

(c)

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam therefore explains that if it possesses these three Simanim of Taharah, then it is definitely Tahor, and it is not necessary to examine it for the Simon D'risah.

åéù ììîåã îúåê ëê ãäà ãàîø ì÷îï áâîøà ã'â' ñéîðéï äãøé áëåìäå' - ôé' áé"è òåôåú, ò"ë çã îéðééäå àéðå ãåøñ, ãàé éù ìäí àöáò éúøä åæô÷ å÷åø÷áï ð÷ìó, à"ë àéðï ãåøñéï, åéù ìäí àøáò ñéîðé èäøä.

(d)

Inference #1: One can learn from this that when the Gemara says later - that the three Simanim apply to all of them (the nineteen birds), one of them has to be that it is not Doreis, because if they possess an extra claw, a crop and its gizzard can be peeled, and in addition, they are not Doreis, then they will have four Simanim (and not just three) ...

àìà àéðå ãåøñ çã îéðééäå îäúìú.

(e)

Conclusion: Consequently, the fact that it is not Doreis must be one of the three Simanim.

åëï éù ìã÷ã÷ îã÷àîø áâîøà 'òåó äáà áá' ñéîðéï, èäåø, åäåà ùéëéø òåøá', åòì ëøçê çã îàåúï ùðé ñéîðéí àéðå ãåøñ, ãëì òåó äãåøñ, èîà!

(f)

Inference #2: Similarly, when the Gemara says that 'a bird that possesses two Simanim is Tahor, provided one recognizes a raven ...

åîãöøéê ìäëéø òåøá, àìîà òåøá ìàå ãåøñ, åùðé ñéîðé èäøä ùì òåøá äãøé áëåìäå é"è òåôåú.

1.

Inference #2 (cont.): ... now since one needs to recognize a raven, we see that a raven is not Doreis, and the two Simanim of Taharah of a raven that are to be found by all of the nineteen birds.

ãñéîï äøáéòé ãìéúéä áé"è òåôåú ìéúéä àìà àå áôøñ àå áòæðéä, ëãîåëç áâîøà.

(g)

Reason: This is because the fourth Si'man that is not found with the nineteen birds is found either by the Peres or by the Ozniyah exclusively, as is clearly stated in the Gemara.

åà"ú, åìîä ìéä ìîð÷è äëà ëì â' ñéîðé èäøä, áúøé îéðééäå äéä éëåì ìåîø áéãåò ùäåà èäåø - ëâåï áàåúå ñéîï ãìéúéä áé"è òåôåú, åñéîï àçø òîå, ãúå ìéëà ìñôå÷é áùåí òåó èîà ...

(h)

Question: Why does the Gemara then find it necessary to mention all three Simanim of Taharah; It could just as well have that if it has just two of them, we know it is Tahor - assuming that it is one of the Simanim that is not found by the nineteen birds, plus any other Si'man, in which case there is no Tamei bird that it can possibly be ...

ãðùø ìéú ìéä ùåí ñéîï èäøä, åôøñ åòæðéä ìéú ìäå àìà çã, åòåøá åé"è òåôåú ìéú áäå àåúï úøé ñéîðé èäøä, àìà çã îéðééäå?

1.

Question (cont.): Since it can be neither an eagle, which has no Si'man Taharah at all, nor a Peres or Ozniyah, which have only one Si'man Taharah, not a raven or any of the nineteen birds, which do not have both of those Simanim, just one of them at most?

åëé úéîà ãìà äåå éãòé îàé ðéðäå àåúå ñéîï èäøä ãìéúéä áé"è òåôåú?

(i)

Suggested Answer: And if you want to say that they did not know the Siman Taharah that is not to be found among the nineteen birds.

åäìà äéå îëéøéï ùìê, ëãàîø øáé éåçðï 'ìãéãé çæé ìé ùìê ... , ìãéãé çæé ìé øçí, åòáéã ùø÷ø÷!' åëï äúðùîú ùäéà áàåú ùáòåôåú.

(j)

Refutation #1: But they recognized the Shalach, as Rebbi Yochanan said 'I saw a Shalach ... I saw a Racham, and it went "Shrakrak" '. And likewise the bat, which is a sign among the birds'.

åáôø÷ äîôìú (ðãä ãó ëâ:) '÷øéà å÷éôåôà ãòéðéäí äåìëåú ìôðéäí ëùì àãí' - åäééðå "ëåñ åéðùåó".

(k)

Refutation #2: And in Perek ha'Mapeles (Nidah 23b) Karya and Kifufa (two species of owl) whose eyes look ahead; like those of a human-being - and they are synonymous with the Kos and the Yanshuf.

åäåàéì åîëéøéï àåúï, ìéáã÷å áäï; åäéå éëåìéï ìäúéø òåó äáà ìôðéðå áàåúå ñéîï øáéòé ùàéï áëåìï åñéîï àçø òîå ...

(l)

Conclusion: Seeing as they recognized them, why could they not examine them; And they would then be able to permit a bird that came before them with the fourth Si'man that none of the others have, plus another Si'man together with it.

ãäùúà ìéëà ìñôå÷é áùåí òåó èîà?

1.

Conclusion (cont.): ... in which case it is no longer possible to suspect that it may be a Tamei bird.

åëï òåøá äéå îëéøéï - ëãàîø áô' îôðéï (ùáú ÷ëç.) 'îèìèìéï àú äìåó îôðé ùäåà îàëì ìòåøáéí'. åîôøù äúí ã'ëì éùøàì áðé îìëéí äí!'

(m)

Refutation #3: And a raven too, they recognized, as the Gemara states in Perek Mefanin (Shabbos 128b) 'One may handle Luf (a species of onion) because it is the food of ravens'. And the Gemara explains there that 'All Yisrael are princes' (and are therefore eligible to keep ravens).

åì÷îï - 'ìà ìçðí äìê æøæéø àöì òåøá, àìà îôðé ùäåà îéðå'.

1.

Refutation #3 (cont.): And the Gemara will say later 'It is not in vain that the starling went to the raven - but because it is the same species'.

åáôø÷ äùåìç (âéèéï ãó îä.) àîøéðï ãàúà òåøá åàîø - 'òéìéù áøç!' åáñåó ôø÷ áîä àùä (ùáú ãó ñæ:) 'äàåîø ìòåøá öøç!'

2.

Refutation #3 (cont.): And in Perek ha'Shole'ach too (Gitin 45a) the Gemara relates how 'a raven came and announced 'Ilish, flee!' and likewise at the end of Bamah Ishah (Shabbos 67b), where the Gemara says 'Someone who says to a raven "Scream!" '.

åà"ë ìáã÷å ùðé ñéîðé èäøä ãòåøá, åáàåúï ùðé ñéîðé èäøä ãìéúðäå áòåøá, ìéúëùøå ëåìäå òåôåú?

(n)

Conclusion: That being the case, why not simply examine the two Simanei Taharah of a raven, and then by means of the two Simanei Taharah that the raven does not possess, let them declare Kasher all other birds.

åâí îúåê ääìëä éù ÷öú ìáøø, îã÷àîø áâîøà 'åäìà àðùé ëôø úîøúà àåëìéï àåúä îôðé ùéù ìä æô÷' ...

(o)

Proof #1: It is also possible to clarify this from the Halachah, from what the Gemara says (on the following Daf) 'But do the men of Tamarta not eat it, (the starling) because it has a crop?'

åâáé ñðåðéú ìáðä ÷àîø 'åäìà àðùé âìéì àåëìéï àåúä îôðé ù÷åø÷áðå ð÷ìó' ...

(p)

Proof #2: And regarding a white-bellied swallow the Gemara says there 'But do the men of the Galil not eat it because it's gizzard can be peeled?' ...

àìîà äðäå á' ìéúðäå áòåøá?

(q)

Conclusion: ... so we see that the raven does not possess these two Simanim?

åëé úéîà ãîúðéúéï ìàå ëì ùìùä ñéîðé èäøä áòéà àìà 'àå àå' ÷úðé, åà'øéùà ÷àé, ã÷úðé 'ëì òåó äãåøñ èîà'; åàí àéðå ãåøñ, åéù ìå àöáò éúéøä àå æô÷ àå ÷åø÷áðå ð÷ìó, èäåø.

(r)

Suggested Answer: Perhaps our Mishnah does not require all three Simanei Taharah (the basis of our Kashya), but what it means is 'either or' - with reference to the Reisha 'Kol Of ha'Doreis Tamei' it now adds that if in addition to not being Doreis, it either possesses an extra claw or a crop, or its gizzard can be peeled, it is Tahor.

àé àôùø ìåîø ëï ëìì, ùäøé äåëçúé ãçã îùðé ñéîðé èäøä ùì òåøá äééðå àéðå ãåøñ, à"ë áàéðå ãåøñ åáàéãê çã ñéîï ãáòåøá äéëé àëìé ìäå, ðéçåù ãìîà òåøá äåà?

(s)

Refutation: It is impossible to say that however, because, based on what we proved earlier that one of the Simanim of a raven is the fact that it is not Doreis, how can we eat a bird on the basis of its not being Doreis plus one other Si'man, seeing as it may be a raven?

åðøàä ìôøù ãëì òé÷ø îùðúðå ìà áàú àìà ìàùîåòéðï ã' ñéîðéï ùì èäøä, åîîéìà éãòéðï ãáäðê ñéîðé èäøä ãìéúðäå áòåøá îçæ÷éðï ìéä áèäåøä.

(t)

Conclusion: It therefore seems that our Mishnah is coming to teach us that there are four Simanim of Taharah. And we will automatically know that that the two Simanim that the Raven does not possess will identify a bird as being Tahor.

5)

TOSFOS DH LO NE'EMAR PIRUSHAN MI'DEIVREI TORAH ELA MI'DIVTREI SOFRIM

úåñôåú ã"ä ìà ðàîø ôéøåùï îãáøé úåøä àìà îãáøé ñåôøéí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos disputes Rashi's explanation of the Gemara.)

ôé' á÷åðèøñ - îãîðä "úåøéï" áèäåøéï åäðäå àéúðäå áäå, åîðä "ðùø" áèîàéï, åáàøáòä ñéîðéï äììå äí çìå÷éï, ù"î äï äí ñéîðé èäøä.

(a)

Explanation: Rashi explains that, since the Torah lists "pigeons" among the Tahor species, and they do possess those Simanim, and it lists "eagle" among the Tamei species, and it is these four Simanim that divide them, it is clear that they are the Simanim of Taharah.

å÷ùä ìôé', ã÷àîø áñîåê 'åðéìó îôøñ åòæðéä'? à"ë, "ðùø" ãëúá øçîðà ìîä ìé, äùúà ãàéú ìéä çã ìà àëìéðï, ãìéú ìéä ëìì îáòéà?

(b)

Question: The Gemara will shortly answer the Kashya why we do not learn from "Peres and Ozniyah" - 'If so, why does the Torah need to insert "Nesher"; Because if we are forbidden to eat birds which possess only one Si'man, how much more so birds that have no Simanim at all?

äà àéöèøéê 'ðùø' ìàåøåéé ìï ñéîðé èäøä?

1.

Question (cont.): (According to Rashi) we need "Nesher" to teach us the Simanim of Taharah?

åîéäå îôøñ åîòæðéä ìçåãééäå äåä éãòé; ãáëì îä ùôøñ çìå÷ îúåøéï äééúé òåùä ñéîï èäøä; åëì îä ùòæðéä çìå÷ îúåøéï äééúé òåùä ñéîï èäøä; åáéï ùðéäí äí çìå÷éï îúåøéï îëì ã' ñéîðéï.

(c)

Answer: We could learn them from Peres and Ozniyah however; since in whatever Peres differs from Torin we would consider a Si'man Taharah, amd likewise, in whatever way Ozniyah differs from Torin we would consider a Si'man Taharah, and between the two of them we would end up with all four Simanim.

àáì ÷ùä î'úåøéï' ã÷àîø 'ãìà àöèøéê ìîëúá àìà ì÷øáï', äà öøéëé ìîëúá îùåí ãîéðééäå éìôéðï ñéîï èäøä?

(d)

Question #1: There is a Kashya from Torin however - when the Gemara states the the Torah only mentions it with regard to a Korban. According to Rashi however, the Torah needs to write it, since it is from Torin that we learn the Simanim of Taharah?

åòåã, àé ìà ëúéáé 'úåøéï', ä"à àéôëà - ãã' ñéîðé èäøä; ãäùúà â' îäí éäå ñéîðé èåîàä, ùéäå áé"è òåôåú ã' ñéîðé èåîàä, åáðùø çã?

(e)

Question #2: Furthermore, had the Torah not inserted Torin, we would have learned the opposite, namely that three of the Simnei Taharah are in fact Simnei Tum'ah, that the nineteen birds each have four Simnei Tum'ah, and the eagle, one?

åîéäå, äëé ìà äåä îöé ìîéîø, ãäà ôøñ åòæðéä, ääåà ãàéú áéä ñéîðà ãìà äãø áëåìäå, ìà éäà áå ùåí ñéîï èåîàä, ùäåà îîù àéôëà îé"è òåôåú,

(f)

Refuting Second Question: It would not have been possible to say this however, seeing as regarding Peres and Ozniyah, the one that has the Si'man that none of the others have, would not have a Si'man Tum'ah at all, which is exactly the opposite of the nineteen birds.

àáì äééðå éëåìéï ìòùåú ëì ñéîðé òåøá ñéîðé èåîàä.

(g)

Alternative explanation: We could however, have made all the Simanim of the raven Simnei Tum'ah.

åðøàä ìôøù, ãñ"ã ùéù ùåí "úåøéï" îéåúø, ìàåøåéé ìï ñéîðé èäøä; ìëê ôøéê 'ääåà úåøéï ìîä ìé?' ãìàåøåéé ìï ñéîðé èäøä, æä äééúé éåãò î"úåøéï" ãàúà ìâåôéä åî"ðùø"?

(h)

Answer: The correct explanation therefore is that we initially think that there must be a spare "Torin" that is superfluous, to teach us Simnei Taharah. That is why the Gemara asks 'Why we need that "Torin"? Since, if it is to teach the Simanim of Taharah, that we would already know from the "Torin" that comes for the basic ruling and from "Nesher".

åîùðé, ãàéï ùåí úåøéï îéåúø, åëåìäå àúå ì÷øáï.

1.

Answer (cont.): In fact, there is no superfluous "Torin".

6)

TOSFOS DH MAH HASAM T'LASA VE'LO ACHLINAN ETC.

úåñôåú ã"ä îä äúí úìúà åìà àëìéðï ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses why we would not have already known this from "Torin".)

ä"î ìùðåéé ãäåå ìéä é"è ëúåáéí äáàéí ëàçã.

(a)

Implied Question: The Gemara could have answered that it is nineteen Pesukim that are all teaching us the same thing ...

àìà ãòãéôà ÷à îùðé.

(b)

Answer: ... but it gives a better answer.

åîéäå ÷ùä, ãæä äãáø òöîå äéä øåöä ììîåã îúåøéï - ãáúìúà ìà àëìéðï òã ãàéëà ëåìäå.

(c)

Question: But this is the very thing that we wanted to learn from Torin - that one cannot eat them with three Simanim, until there are all four.

åëéåï ãîùðé 'àí ëï, ùàø òåôåú èîàéí ãëúá øçîðà ìîä ìé?', à"ë îàé äãø ôøéê 'åðéìó îäúí, îä äúí úìúà åìà àëìéðï ... ?

1.

Question (cont.): ... and Having answered 'If so, why does the Torah insert all the other Tamei birds?', why does the Gemara now ask again 'Let us learn from there, just as there, they have three Simanim and we do not eat them ... '?

åé"ì, ãôøéê 'åðéìó îéðééäå' - ãáàåúï â' ñéîðéï ìà ðéëåì, àìà áúøé îéðééäå åáçã ãìéú áäå, àëìéðï ãäééðå úìúà, ãäà ìà äåä éãòéðï î"úåøéï" òã ãàéëà ëåìäå?

(d)

Answer (Part 1): What the Gemara is asking is that with those three Simanim we should not eat, only with two of them, plus the one that they don't have - making three; Whereas from "Torin" we would have learned that one has to have all four.

åîùðé, à"ë "òåøá" ãëúá øçîðà ìîä ìé? ãëéåï ùàéðê îèäø àìà áùðé ñéîðéï åàçø ãìéúéä áé"è òåôåú, à"ë, ìòåøá ãìéú áéä àìà úøé ìîä ìé?

1.

Answer (cont.): ... and the Gemara answers 'If so, why does the Torah need to insert "Oreiv"? Because since we only permit a bird with two Simanim plus the one that the nineteen birds don't have, it is not necessary to insert "Oreiv", which only has two Simanim'?

61b----------------------------------------61b

7)

TOSFOS DH VE'NEILAF ME'OREIV

úåñôåú ã"ä åðéìó îòåøá

(SUMMARY: Tosfos quoted an answer that the Gemara might well have given.)

äåé îöé ìîéîø 'àí ëï, 'ìîéðå' ìîä ìé?'.

(a)

Alternative Answer: The Gemara could then have asked 'If so, why does the Torah need to add "le'Miyno" (to its species)?

8)

TOSFOS DH MICH'DI 24 OFOS TEME'IM HEIM

úåñôåú ã"ä îëãé ë"ã òåôåú èîàéí äí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses various ways of learning the Sugya.)

åáëåìäå àéëà â' ñéîðé èäøä áø îòåøá. åàé àôùø ãäàé ãàéúéä áôøñ ìéúéä áçã îäðé, åäàé ãàéúà áòæðéä ðîé ìéúéä áäðé.

(a)

Explanation #1: All of them possess three Simanei Taharah with the exception of the raven. And it is impossible for the Siman that the Peres possesses not to be found by at least of them, and likewise, the one that is possessed by the Ozniyah.

åëúá ìï úøé æéîðéï ëì çã åçã ãìà úéëìéä áäàé ñéîðà, åäåä ìéä á' ëúåáéí äáàéí ëàçã, åàéï îìîãéï ìùàø òåôåú äáàéï ìôðéðå ãìà úéëìéä áçã îäðé úøé ñéîðéí, åëéåï ãàéï îìîãéï, îðà ìï àéñåøà, ãàéöèøéê ðùø ìîùøééä. ëê ôéøù á÷åðèøñ

(b)

Explanation #1 (cont.): In fact, the Torah inserts each one twice not to eat each bird with that Si'man, turning it into a case of two Pesukim which teach us the same thing. Consequently, we cannot learn from there the prohibition not to eat other birds that come before us with either of those two Simanim. And since we cannot learn from there, from where do we know that it is forbidden, that we require Nesher to permit it. So Rashi explains.

åà"ú, åäà àëúé àéöèøéê "ðùø" ìäúéø àåúå ñéîï ùìéùé, ãìéúéä ìà áôøñ åìà áòæðéä àìà áé"è ìçåãééäå. ãä"à ãàñåø, ãäà äùúà áúìúà ìà àëìéðï, áàåúå ñéîï ìçåãéä îéáòéà!

(c)

Question: The Torah still needs to write "Nesher", to permit it with the third Si'man, that neither the Peres nor the Ozniyah possess - only the nineteen birds. Otherwise we would have thought that it is forbidden, because now that one cannot eat a bird with three Simanim, how much more so one with only one Si'man!

ðäé ãìà äåä àñøéðï áçã îäðé úøé ñéîðéí ãàéúðäå áôøñ åòæðéä, îùåí ãäåå á' ëúåáéï äáàéï ëàçã, ëéåï ãàéúðäå áé"è òåôåú, î"î áàåúå ñéîï ùìéùé äééúé àåñø?

1.

Question (cont.): Granted, we would not have forbidden one of those two Simanim that the Peres and the Ozniyah possess, since it is a matter of 'Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'Echad', seeing as the nineteen birds possess them too; nevertheless, with that third Si'man we ought to have forbidden it?

åàé ä"à ãàåúå ùìéùé äåà áòåøá, äåä ðéçà - ãäùúà ðîé äåå á' ëúåáéí - òåøá åé"è òåôåú.

(d)

Answer #1: Now if we were to say that that third Si'man is possessed by the raven, the question would be answered, since it too, would then be a matter of two Pesukim ... by the raven and by the nineteen birds.

åîéäå áìàå äëé ìà ÷ùä îéãé, ãîðéï äéä ìé ìàñåø áàåúå ñéîï ùìéùé - ãîé"è òåôåú ìà éìôéðï ëìì ìà áîä îöéðå åìà á÷"å, ãäåå ìäå é"è ëúåáéï äáàéï ëàçã, åàéï îìîãéï?

(e)

Answer #2: The Kashya is anyway nonexistent however, because on what grounds would we have forbidden a bird with that third Si'man? From the nineteen birds we could not learn it, neither via a 'Mah Matzinu' nor with a 'Kal va'Chomer', since it constitutes nineteen Pesukim that teach us the same thing, from which we can therefore not learn it.

åîñé÷ - ãçã îäðê úìúà ãäãøé áëåìäå àéúéä àå áôøñ àå áòæðéä, åäøáéòé éùðå áçáéøå. ðîöà ùñéîï æä ìà ðàîø àìà ôòí àçú.

(f)

Explanation: Rashi concludes that one of these three Simanim that exists by all of them, is also to be found either by the Peres or by the Ozniyah, and the fourth Si'man is o be found by the other one. It therefore transpires that that Si'man is only said once.

îäå ãúéîà ðéìó îéðéä ìàñåø òåó äáà áñéîï àçã áàéæä îëì äñéîðéï, ãäà ìà éãòéðï îàé ðéäå ääåà ñéîï ãàéëúéá ìçåãéä ìîéìó îéðéä.

1.

Explanation (cont.): Consequently, we would have learned from there to forbid any bird that comes before us with one Si'man, whichever one it may be (seeing as we don't know which Si'man that solitary Si'man is, that we should learn from it).

ìäëé àúà ðùø ìîéîø äàé äåà ãìéú ìéä ëìì èîà, äà áòåó äáà áñéîï àçã èäåø. ëê ôéøù á÷åðèøñ.

(g)

Conclusion: And so "Nesher" comes to teach us that an eagle, which has no Si'man Taharah is forbidden, but any bird that comes before us with one Si'man, is Kasher. So Rashi explains.

åáçðí ôé' 'ãìà éãòéðï îàé ðéäå ääåà ñéîï ãàéëúéá ìçåãéä ìîéìó îéðéä', ãàôéìå éãòéðï ìéä ëãôøéùéú, ùäéå îëéøéí ùìê åúðùîú åëåñ åéðùåó, î"î àéöèøéê 'ðùø' ìîéîø ãìà éìôéðï îéðéä ìàñåø áääåà ñéîï.

(h)

Refutation: It was unnecessary however, for Rashi to explain that we don't know which Si'man that solitary Si'man is. because even if we would (as we explained earlier - that they recognized the Shalach, the Tinshemes, the Kos and the Yanshuf', we would nevertheless need "Nesher" to teach us that we will not forbid a bird that has that particular Si'man.

åà"ú, åäéëé äåä îöé ìîéìó îäàé ãàéú áéä ñéîï äçãù ìàñåø áñéîï àçã ëæä, à"ë ìîä ìé ãëúá øçîðà ääåà ãàéú áéä çã îäðé â' ñéîðéï ãäãøé áëåìäå, äùúà áúìúà ìà àëìéðï áçã îéáòéà?

(i)

Question: How could we learn from the one with the new Si'man to forbid a bird with one Si'man like that? If so, why does the Torah find it necessary to insert the one (Peres or Ozniyah) that possesses the Si'man that all the nineteen possess - If one cannot eat a bird with three Simanim, how much more so one with only one Si'man?

àìà åãàé ìäëé ëúéá ñéîï äéùï áçã îäðê, ìåîø ãìà úéìó âí îï äçãù, åìòùåú ùðé ëúåáéï, ãìâåôéä ìà àéöèøéê, ãàúé î÷"å îé"è òåôåú?

1.

Question (cont.): We must therefore say that the Torah writes the old Si'man by one of them to teach us that one cannot learn from the new Si'man either, seeing as for itself, it is not necessary to insert it, since, as we just explained, we would learn it from a 'Kal va'Chomer from the nineteen birds?

ìàå ôéøëà äéà - ãîäðäå ìà éìôéðï ëìì, ãëåìäå çùéáé îé"è ëúåáéí äáàéí ëàçã ëãôøéùéú, åìäëé ôøèéä øçîðà ìääåà ãàéú áéä çã ñéîï îäðê â' ñéîðéï ùì é"è òåôåú.

(j)

Answer: This is not a Kashya, because from them (the nineteen birds) we cannot learn at all, since they are considered nineteen Pesukim that teach us the same thing. And that is why the Torah specified the one of the three Simanim that is shared by all of them (See Maharsha).

åìäëé ðîé ôøè ìòåøá, ãìà éìôéðï îéðééäå ëìì, åàëìéðï áëì çã îäðê â' ñéîðéï.

1.

Answer (cont.): And it is for the same reason that the Torah specified the raven, since we do not learn from them at all, and we may eat a bird with any of those three Simanim.

åà"ú, åîàçø ãîé"è òåôåú ìà âîøéðï, åìëê öøéê ìîéëúá çã ãàéú áéä çã îñéîðééäå, à"ë ðéìó îéðéä îääåà àçã ãöøéê ìîéëúáéä áéä, ãòúä àéðï á' ëúåáéí, ëéåï ãöøéê ìîéëúáéä?

(k)

Question: Since we don't learn from the nineteen birds, as a result of which the Torah needs to mention one bird that possesses one of their Simanim, why do we not then learn from that one, because, since the Torah needs to mention it, it is no longer 'Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'Echad'?

åé"ì, ãìà ùééê ìîéìó îéðéä ëìì, ãäà ìà âîøéðï îé"è òåôåú îëì àåúï äéúøéí òì ùðéí äøàùåðéí äëúåáéí, îùåí ãàöèøéê ÷øà ìîëúáéðäå, ãìà îöéðå ìîéìôéðäå îùðéí äøàùåðéí ãäåå á' ëúåáéí äáàéí ëàçã.

(l)

Answer: It is not possible to learn from it at all. Why is that? Because just as we don't learn from the nineteen birds (from all those beyond the first two, that is, which the Torah needs to mention, since we cannot learn them from the first two, which is 'Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'Echad'.

äëé ðîé ìéëà ìîéìó îéðéä, åäøé äï äùúà á' ëúåáéí äáàéí ëàçã, ùàåúå ñéîï ëúåá òùøéí æéîðéï.

1.

Answer (cont.): By the same token, we cannot learn from it, since it remains 'Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'Echad', because that Si'man is written twenty times.

åòåã éù ìåîø ëì äñåâéà áòðéï àçø: ãîúçìä çéùá "ôøñ åòæðéä" á' ëúåáéí äáàéí ëàçã, ëìåîø - îùåí ãàé îéðééäå éìôéðï ìèîà áñéîï àçã, à"ë ìéùúå÷ àå î"ôøñ" àå î"òæðéä", åîçã äåä éìôéðï ãòåó äáà áñéîï àçã èîà, åä"ä ìçáéøå?

(m)

Explanation #2 (Part 1): It is possible to explain the Sugya in a different manner. That the Gemara initially considers "Peres and Ozniyah" 'Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'Echad". In other words, if the Torah wanted us to learn from them that a bird with one Si'man is Tamei, then it ought to have omitted either "Peres" or "Ozniyah", as from one of them we would have known that a bird that comes before us with only one Si'man of Taharah is Tamei?

åëé úéîà àé ìà ëúéá àìà "ôøñ", äåä àîéðà áàåúå ñéîï ùéùðå áôøñ, èîà; àáì áòæðéä ùéù áå ñéîï àçø, àéîà ãàåúå ñéîï äåé ñéîï çùåá, åèäåø áàåúå ñéîï âøéãà ...

(n)

Question: And if you want to answer that, had the Torah mentioned only "Peres", then we would have thought that it is only with that specific Si'man that the Peres has that a bird is Tamei, but the Siman that the Ozniyah has is Chashuv, and a bird that possesses that Si'man only is Tahor.

äà ëéåï ãàåúå ñéîï äåé áùàø é"è òåôåú, à"ë àéðå çùåá ìèäø áôðé òöîå, ãëé àéëà úøé áäãéä (äããé) äåé èîà, ëì ùëï äåà áôðé òöîå, åìà äéä öøéê ìîëúá "òæðéä", åéìôéðï ìä î"ôøñ".

(o)

Answer: But since that Si'man is also shared by the nineteen birds, it cannot be Chashuv to render Tahor by itself, because, seeing as even a bird that has two other Simanim together with it, is Tamei, how much more so if it is on its own! In which case, the Torah would not need to write Ozniyah, and we would learn it from Peres.

àìà ìäëé ëúáéä ìîéîø ãäåå 'á' ëúåáéí äáàéí ëàçã', åàéï îìîãéï.

1.

Answer (cont.): And the reason that the Torah nevertheless added "Ozniyah" is to turn it into 'Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'Echad' - and 'Ein Melamdin'.

åîùðé, ãàéëà ñéîï àçã áôøñ àå áòæðéä ãìéúéä áé"è òåôåú.

2.

Explanation #2 (Part 2)): And the Gemara answers that there is a Si'man either by "Peres" or by "Ozniyah" which is not to be found by the nineteen birds.

åäùúà ìà äåå á' ëúåáéí, ãëé éìôú ìèîà áñéîï àçã îàåúå ñéîï ùéù áé"è òåôåú, ìà îöé ìîéîø àéãê ãëúá øçîðà ìîä ìé? ãàéöèøéê îùåí àåúå ñéîï çãù, ãä"à ùäåà ñéîï çùåá éåúø ìèäø, ãìéúéä áùåí òåó èîà;

(p)

Clarification: Consequently, it is no longer 'Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'Echad' - because if we render Tamei with one Si'man from the one with the Si'man that is not found among the nineteen birds, we can no longer ask why we need the other one. Because in fact we need it to counter the argument that the new Si'man is Chashuv (since it is not found by any other bird) to render a bird which has it, Tahor.

àáì îääåà åãàé ùéù áå ñéîï äçãù ìà äåä éìôéðï ìèîà áñéîï àçã, ãà"ë, àåúå ùéù áå ñéîï ùáé"è òåôåú ìîä ìé, ãàåúå àéðå çùåá éåúø ìèäø?

1.

Clarification (cont.): However, from the one with the new Si'man we would not have learned that a bird that comes before us with one Si'man is Tamei, because if so, why would we need the one with the Si'man that it shares with the nineteen birds, which is certainly not more Chashuv to render Tahor?

åîéäå ÷ùä, ãàé îàåúå ùéù áå ñéîï àçã ùì é"è òåôåú éìôú ìèîà òåó äáà áñéîï àçã, ìà ìéëúåá ëìì àìà ñéîï äçãù, åäåä éìôéðï îéðéä ãëì òåó äáà áàåúå ñéîï èîà, åë"ù áàçã îùàø â' ñéîðéï ãìà îäðé áùàø òåôåú?

(q)

Question: If one is able to learn from the one which has the Si'man that it shares with the nineteen birds, that a bird that has only one Si'man Taharah is Tamei, let the Torah insert only the one with the new Si'man, and we will learn that any bird that comes before us with that Si'man is Tamei, and how much more so with one of the other three Simanim, that do not help to render it Tahor by the nineteen birds (even together with two other Simnim)?

åôé' ä÷åðèøñ òé÷ø!

(r)

Conclusion: Rashi's explanation is therefore the correct one!

åîéäå ÷ùä ìôé' ä÷åðèøñ, ãìîä çùéá 'á' ëúåáéí' àåúå ùñéîï èäøä ùìå îé"è òåôåú åùáçã îäðê, åîä áëê, ãéìîà àúé ììîã òì òöîå åòì ëéåöà áå ùéù ìå àçã îâ' ñéîðé èäøä, ãèîàéí?

(s)

Question: There is however, a Kashya on Rashi - Why does it consider the Si'man Taharah that is shared by the nineteen birds and one of these ('Peres and Ozniyah') 'Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'Echad'? So what if it is written by both, Perhaps it is needed to teach us on itself and on similar birds that have any one of the three Simnei Taharah that they are Tamei?

ãîé"è òåôåú ìà äåä àúé, ãëåìäå ëé"è ëúåáéí äáàéí ëàçã, åìà ãîå ëìì ìàåúï äéúøéí òì ùðéí äøàùåðéí ùì é"è òåôåú.

1.

Question (cont.): ...because this is not something that we would have known from the nineteen birds, seeing as they are nineteen Pesukim that teach us the same thing. Nor can they be compared to those of the nineteen birds that the Torah lists after the first two ...

ãàò"â ãöøéëé ìâåôééäå, ìà éìôéðï îéðééäå ãäééðå îùåí ãàí àéúà ãéìôéðï îéðééäå ìà ìéëúåá àìà çã, åîùàø ëåìäå ìéùúå÷.

2.

Question (cont.): ... seeing as, although they are needed for themselves, we cannot learn from them, because, if that is what the Torah wanted, then it would have sufficed to insert just one of them, and to omit the rest.

àáì äëà îîàï ìéùúå÷, àé ìà ëúéá çã ãàéúéä áôøñ àå áòæðéä, ìà éìéó îé"è îùåí ãäåå é"è ëúåáéï äáàéï ëàçã?

3.

Question (cont.): But here what should it omit? If it did not write the one that is written by the Peres or the Ozniyah, we would not learn it from the nineteen birds, since they are nineteen Pesukim ... .

åàé ëúéá çã ãàéúéä áôøñ àå áòæðéä åìà ëúéá äðé é"è, à"ë äåä àîéðà ãå÷à áçã ñéîï àñéøà, àáì ùðéí àå ùìùä ùøå; åìäëé öøéëé úøåééäå?

4.

Question (cont.): Whereas if it inserted the one that is by the Peres or the Ozniyah and not mentioned the nineteen birds, we would have thought that it is only a bird with one Si'man that is forbidden, but with two or three it is permitted; and that explains why both are necessary.

åìòåìí ðéìó îñéîï äéçéãé ãàéúéä áôøñ àå áòæðéä, åìà ãîé ëìì ìàåúí é"è âåôééäå äéúøéí òì äùðéí ãäí ùåéí ëåìí?

(t)

Conclusion: So we will therefore learn from the single Si'man that exists by either the Peres or the Ozniyah, and (as we explained) it is not comparable to those nineteen birds - that is to say, those that are listed after the first two, which are all equal.

åàí àéúà ãéìôéðï îéðééäå, ìéùúå÷ îëåìäå åìà ìéëúåá àìà çã?

1.

Conclusion (cont.): ... and if we do learn from it, let the Torah omit all the others and just mention that one.