1)

TOSFOS DH HA BE'ASRA DI'SHECHICHI PERES VE'OZNIYAH

úåñôåú ã"ä äà áàúøà ãùëéçé ôøñ åòæðéä

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

ôéøù ä÷åðèøñ - ãáàúøà ãùëéçé çééùéðï, îùåí ããîå ìôøñ åòæðéä, ùîà îéðí äåà.

(a)

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that in a place where they (the Peres and the Ozniyah) are common, we suspect, because, since they resemble Peres and Ozniyah, perhaps they are a species of Peres and Ozniyh.

å÷ùä, ãàí ëï, áëì ãåëúà ìéúñøé?

(b)

Question: In that case, they ought to be forbidden everywhere?

àìà ðøàä ìôøù ãåãàé ìàå îîéðééäå äí, àìà áàúøà ãùëéçé, çééùéðï îùåí ããîå ìôøñ åòæðéä, åîéçìôà áäí, àáì áàúøà ãìà ùëéçé, ìéëà ìîéçù ìîéãé åùøå.

(c)

Explanation #2: It therefore seems that they do definitely not belong to the species of Peres and Ozniyah. However, in a place where they (the Peres and the Ozniyah) are common, we are strict, because, seeing as they resemble them, people will confuse one with the other; whereas in a place where they are not common, there is nothing to worry about, and they are permitted.

2)

TOSFOS DH BA'OS SHE'BE'OFOS KIFUF

úåñôåú ã"ä áàåú ùáòåôåú ÷éôåó

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the group of birds to which "Kifuf" belongs.)

ùìùä îéðé '÷éôåó' äí - äàé ùäåà 'áàåú ùáòåôåú', æäå "úðùîú", ëã÷àîø ã'úðùîú' äåà áàåú ùáòåôåú.

(a)

Clarification: There are three kinds of 'Kifuf'- this one, which is described as 'Ba'os she'be'Ofos'; That is the Tinshemes (owl), as the Gemara states - 'The Tinshemes is Ba'os she'be'Ofos'.

åòåã éù "ëåñ åéðùåó" ãîúøâîéðï '÷øéà å÷éôåôà', åäåà ðéäå ãàîøéðï áäîôìú (ðãä ãó ëâ.) ã'òéðéäí äåìëåú ìôðéäí ëùì àãí, ëîå ÷øéà å÷éôåôà'.

1.

Clarification (cont.): Then there is the "Kos" and the "Yanshuf" which Onkelos translates as 'Karya' and 'Kifufa'. And it is about them that the Gemara says in 'ha'Mapeles' (Nidah 23a) that their eyes are in front of their face, like those of human-beings, like Karya and Kifufan ...

åááøëåú ôø÷ äøåàä (ãó ðæ:) àîøéðï 'ëì îéðé òåôåú éôéí ìçìåí çåõ î÷øéà å÷éôåôà'.

2.

Clarification (cont.): And in B'rachos, Perek ha'Ro'ah (Daf 57b) we say that 'All species of birds are good in dreams, except for Karya and Kifufa'.

åòåã éù "÷éôåó" àçø ùäåà çéä, ëãàîøé' ðîé áôø÷ äøåàä (â"æ ùí ò"ù) 'ëì îéðé çéåú éôéï ìçìåí çåõ îï äôéì åä÷åó åä÷éôåó.

3.

Clarification (cont.): However, there is another kind of "Kifuf" which is a Chayah, as the Gemara states in Perek ha'Ro'eh (Ibid.) 'All kinds of Chayos are good in dreams, except for an elephant, a monkey and a Kifuf' (an ape).

åëï áô"÷ ãáëåøåú (ãó ç.) 'äàøé åäãåá äðîø åä÷åó åä÷éôåó, ìùìù ùðéí'.

4.

Clarification (cont.): Similarly, in the first Perek of Bechoros (8a) 'A lion, a bear, a leopard, a monkey and a Kifuf - give birth after three years'.

3)

TOSFOS DH HA'NETZ ZEH HA'NETZ

úåñôåú ã"ä äðõ æä äðõ

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara does not ask 'Atu Kaman Ka'i?' - like it asked on the previous Beraisa.)

äëà ìà ùééê ìîéôøê 'àèå ÷îï ÷àé?' ã÷àîø 'æä äðõ?'

(a)

Implied Question: Here we cannot ask 'Is it in front of us?' that the Tana sees fit to say 'This is the Netz'? ...

ãäëé ÷àîø 'æä äðõ'- æäå àåúï ù÷åøéï 'ðõ'.

(b)

Answer: ... since, when he says 'Zeh ha'Netz', he means to say that this is the species that one calls 'Netz' ...

àáì ìòéì ãòåøá äòî÷é ðîé ÷øåé 'òåøá', ùééê ìîôøê îä æä îôåøù éåúø îæä.

1.

Answer (cont.): ... whereas above, where 'Oreiv ha'Amaki' is also called 'Oreiv', the Gemara is justified in asking in what way the one is more explicit than the other?

4)

TOSFOS DH NETZ

úåñôåú ã"ä ðõ

(SUMMARY: Tosfos queries the common translation of "Netz", "Nesher" and "Korei".)

ôéøù á÷åðè' 'àùôøåé"ø'.

(a)

Explanation: Rashi translates this as 'a sparrow-hawk'.

åàé àôùø ìåîø ëï, ãäà 'ðõ' äåà îé"è òåôåú åàéðï ãåøñéï ëãôéøù ìòéì, åçæéðï ìéä ãàùôøåé"ø ãøéñ, áéï ìôéøåù ä÷åðèøñ áéï ìôéøåù ø"ú - ùìåëã äòåó åàåëìå îçééí?

(b)

Refutation: But it is impossible to say that, seeing as a "Netz" is one of the nineteen birds, which are not Doreis, as we explained above, and we see for a fact that a sparrow-hawk is Doreis, according to both Rashi's interpretation of Doreis and that of Rabeinu Tam - seeing as it catches the bird and eats it alive?

åëîå ëï èåòéï âáé "ðùø" ù÷åøéï 'àééâì"à'.

(c)

Explanation: Similarly, they err with regard to a "Nesher", which they call 'an eagle'.

åàéðå, ãðùø éù ìå ã' ñéîðé èåîàä - åàééâì"à éù ìå àöáò éúéøä.

(d)

Refutation: And this too, is incorrect, seeing as a Nesher possesses the four Simanim of Tum'ah - whereas an eagle has an extra claw.

åëï àîø ã"÷åøà" äåà ,÷å÷"å, áìòæ.

(e)

Explanation: And they also say that "Korei" is a cuckoo.

åàéðå, ãàåúå '÷å÷"å' áçæ÷ú èîà îçæ÷éðï, å"÷åøà" èäåø äåà, ëãîåëç áô' ùéìåç ä÷ï (ì÷îï ÷ìç: ÷î:) ã'ø' àìéòæø îçééá áùéìåç îôðé ùäåà èäåø'.

(f)

Refutation: And this is not correct either, since we establish a cuckoo as a Tamei bird, whereas "Korei" is Tahor, as is evident in Perek Shilu'ach ha'Kein (later, Daf 140b), where Rebbi Eliezer renders it subject to Shilu'ach ha'Kein because it is Tahor.

åøáðï ìà ôìéâé àìà îôðé ãøåáõ òì áéöéí ùàéðï ùìå, àáì ëåìäå îåãå ãâåôå èäåø.

1.

Refutation (cont.): ... and the Rabbanan disagree with Rebbi Eliezer only because it sits on eggs that are not its own; but everyone agrees that it is intrinsically Tahor.

63b----------------------------------------63b

5)

TOSFOS DH LAMAH LEIH LE'MICHTAV AYAH VE'DAYAH

úåñôåú ã"ä ìîä ìéä ìîéëúá àéä åãéä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos first comments on the fact that the Gemara did not ask the same about "Ra'ah" and "Da'ah", and explains why it didn't. Then they discuss a discrepancy in the Torah's presentation of "Ayah" and "Dayah" on the one hand, and "Ra'ah" and "Da'ah", on the other.)

äëé ðîé äåä îöé ìîð÷è î"øàä" å"ãàä" ...

(a)

Implied Question: The Gemara could equally well have mentioned "Ra'ah" and "Da'ah" ...

àìà çãà ð÷è.

(b)

Answer: ... only it mentioned only one of them.

åöøéê ìã÷ã÷ - åîàé ùðà ãëúéá áåé÷øà "ãàä", åáîùðä úåøä ëúéá "øàä", åìà ëúéá úøåééäå áçã ãåëúà; åâáé "àéä" ëúéá áåé÷øà "àéä", åáîùðä úåøä ëúéá úøåééäå "àéä" å"ãéä"?

(c)

Question: Why, on the one hand, does the Torah write in Vayikra "Da'ah" and in Mishnah Torah "Ra'ah", and not both of them in one place; whilst on the other, it mentions "Ayah" in Vayikra, and both "Ayah" and "Dayah" in Devarim?

åé"ì, ãäééðå èòîà - ãáùìîà "ãàä" å"øàä", ìà øöä ìëúåá ùðéäí áîùðä úåøä, àò"ô ùîï äãéï äéä ìå ìëúåá áîùðä úåøä ëì äùîåú ãàúà ìàåñåôé åìôøåùé

(d)

Answer: Because the Torah did not want to mention both "Da'ah" and "Ra'ah" in Mishnah Torah ...

îùåí ãà"ë, äåä àîéðà ã"ãàä" å"øàä" úøúé ðéðäå, åìàåñåôé ÷à àúé.

1.

Answer (cont.): ... because, had it done so, we would have thought that "Da'ah" and "Ra'ah" are two different species of bird, and the Torah is coming to add a species ...

àáì á"àéä" å"ãéä" àéï ìèòåú, àò"ô ùëúåá ùðéäí, ãîãëúéá "ìîéðä" à"àéä" åáîùðä úåøä ëúéá "ìîéðä" à"ãéä", ù"î çãà äéà.

2.

Answer (cont.): ... whereas by "Ayah" and "Dayah" we cannot make such a mistake, since the Torah writes "le'Miynah" by "Ayah" and in Mishnah Torah it writes "le'Miynah" with regard to "Dayah", indicating that the two are one and the same.

6)

TOSFOS DH OFOS ESRIM VE'ARBA HAVYAN

úåñôåú ã"ä òåôåú òùøéí åàøáò äåééï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos clarifies the Gemara's Kashya and answer, based on whether the Seifa, like the Reisha, speaks about Tamei species or Tahor ones.)

ëîä îéðéí éù, ëãôéø' ìòéì, ãéìôéðï îðùø, ëôùåèä ùì áøééúà.

(a)

Clarifying the Sugya: There are many species, as we explained earlier (at the beginning of 60a), as we learn from Nesher, according to the simple P'shat of the Beraisa.

åëàï äéä ñåáø äî÷ùä ããåîéà ãøéùà ÷úðé - ã'æ' îàåú îéðé ãâéí åç' îàåú îéðé çâáéí' îééøé áèîà, åä"ä ðîé äëà áòåôåú èîàéí.

(b)

Clarifying the Sugya (cont.): And here, the questioner thought that the Beraisa is speaking similar to the Reisha - that 'There the seven hundred species of fish and eight hundred of locusts' is speaking about Tamei species, and here too, it is referring to Tamei species.

ãøéùà åãàé áèîàéí àééøé, àôéìå ìôé ñôøéí ãìà ëúéá 'áèîàéí' ááøééúà.

(c)

Clarifying the Sugya (cont.): Since the Reisha is certainly referring to Tamei species, even according to the version that does not mention the word 'bi'Teme'im in the Beraisa.

ãàéìå áèäåøéí, ìà ðôé÷ îéðéä îéãé ìäàé çåùáðà ...

(d)

Proof: Because if it was talking about Tehorim, the numbers there would be of no practical relevance ...

àáì áèîàé', ÷î"ì ùäøåöä ìàëåì ãâ áìà ÷ù÷ùú, àò"ô ùàéï á÷é àí òúéã ìâãì àçø æîï, àå îùéøï áùòä ùòåìä îï äîéí àí ìàå, àí îëéø æ' îàåú îéðé ãâéí èîàéí åéåãò ùàéï æä îäí, éëåì ìäúéøå, ëé àéï áèîàéí éåúø îæ' îàåú îéðéï.

(e)

Proof (cont.): ... whereas if it is referring to Teme'im, it teaches us that if somebody wants to eat a fish without scales, even assuming that he does not know whether the species in question is destined to grow them later, or whether it sheds them when it leaves the water, or not, as long as he recognizes the seven hundred species of Tamei fish and that this is not one of them, he is permitted to eat it, seeing as there no more than seven hundred Tamei species.

åëîå ëï áà ìäùîéòðå âáé çâáéí ìäúéø áìà ÷øñåìéí, ëé áëê éúáøø ùòúéã ìâãì ìàçø æîï.

(f)

In Similar Vein: ... and similarly, the Tana is coming to permit locusts even if they have no jumping legs (as long as one is conversant with the eight hundred species of Tamei locusts ... ).

åìôéëê äéä ñáåø äî÷ùä ùâí áòåôåú áà ìåîø ùàí éëéø ëì àåúï äðëúáéí áôøùä, ìà éëåì ìäúéø ùàø òåôåú äáàéí áñéîï à', àå áá' àå áâ' - ëéåï ùàìå ñéîðéí îöåééï ëîå ëï áèîàéí.

(g)

Conclusion: And that explains why the questioner thought that by birds too, even if one recognizes all the species of Tamei birds written in the Parshah, this does not permit one to eat other birds that possess one, two or three Si'manim - seeing as these Simanim are found by other Tamei birds as well ...

åàéï îñôø ìàåúï ùöøéê ìäëéø ëãé ìäúéø äùàø.

(h)

Conclusion (cont.): ... and there is no end to the number of birds that one needs to recognize in order to permit the rest!

åìëê ôøéê 'äà ë"ã äååééï', åúå ìà, ùòì éãéäí àðå îëéøéí äàçøéí?

(i)

Clarifying the Sugya (cont.): Hence the Gemara asks 'That there are twenty-four and no more, by which we are able to determine the other (Kasher) species.

åîùðé, 'ëé ÷àîø 'àéï îñôø' à'èäåøåú ÷àé, åìà äåé ëòéï øéùà ãîééøé áèîàéí.

(j)

Clarifying the Sugya (cont.): ... And the Gemara answers - that when the Tana says 'without number', he is referring to the Tahor species - not like the Reisha, which refers to the Tamei ones.

7)

TOSFOS DH VE'DILMA DE'OF TAHOR NINHU

úåñôåú ã"ä åãéìîà ãòåó èîà ðéðäå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we cannot simply go after the natural majority of Tahor birds.)

åà"ú, ëéåï ãòåôåú èäåøéí äåå øåáà, ðæéì áúø øåáà?

(a)

Question: Seeing as the Tahor birds are the majority, why do we not simply go after the majority?

åìôé îä ùôéøùúé ãîøáä ëîä îéðéí, ðéçà.

(b)

Answer #1: According to what Tosfos explained earlier (on 60b) that the Torah includes many species, the Kashya is answered.

åàó ìô"ä ãìà îøáéðï àìà îéï ðùø, é"ì î"î äà àîøé' ìòéì 'îàä òåôåú èîàéí ùäï áîæøç åëåìï îéï àéä äï; äìëê àôùø ãéù áèîàéí îéðéï äøáä'.

(c)

Answer #2: And even according to Rashi, who maintains that it only includes species of Nesher, the Kashya is nevertheless answered, as the Gemara explained above 'There are a hundred species of Tamei birds in the east, all of them various species of Ayah. Consequently, it is possible that among the Tamei birds, there are many Tamei species.