1) TOSFOS DH v'Avik Lehu Meivak
úåñôåú ã"ä åàáé÷ ìäå îéá÷
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that he left one outside to tie with it.)
ð''ì ùìà äéä îòáéø ãøê ð÷á äàá÷ àìà ùáòä çåèéï ìëì äéåúø åäùîéðé îðéç å÷åùø áå
(a) Assertion: It seems that he passed through the hole of the loop at most seven threads, and he left the eighth to tie with it;
ãàì''ë äéä éëåì ìäòáéø äöéöéú îï äèìéú ãøê äàá÷ àçø òùééúï åìà îùëçú ëìàéí áöéöéú
(b) Proof: If not (rather, he passed all eight through and did not make a knot), he could have removed the Tzitzis from the Talis through the loop after making them, and it turns out that there is no Kil'ayim in Tzitzis!
2) TOSFOS DH Timniya bi'Glima
úåñôåú ã"ä úîðéà áâìéîà
(SUMMARY: Tosfos learns from here to R. Yirmeyah.)
ãøéù âãéìéí àøáòä åëï îúëìú ùáùòú ðúéðúï áèìéú éäå ùîåðä
(a) Explanation: He expounds "Gedilim" - four, and similarly from Techeles, that at the time he puts them in the Talis, they are eight;
åøáé éøîéä îãôúé ñåáø ëï åàí ëï äåå ìäå ùéúñø ãìéú ìéä àá÷
1. R. Yirmeyah mi'Difti holds like this. If so, there were 16, for he does not hold that we put them through the Talis folded in two. (Rather, we put eight threads through, so there are eight on each side, i.e. 16 ends.)
3) TOSFOS DH Minayin l'Tzitzis b'Oved Kochavim she'Hi Pesulah
úåñôåú ã"ä îðéï ìöéöéú áòåáã ëåëáéí ùäéà ôñåìä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos infers that a woman may make Tzitzis.)
îùîò äà àùä ëùéøä åìà àîø ëì ùàéðå áìáéùä àéðå áòùééä ãäà ìà ëúéá áâåôä ìáéùä àìà áëìàéí åîéìúà àçøéúé äéà
(a) Inference: A woman is Kosher [to make Tzitzis], and we do not say that whoever does not have [a Mitzvah of] wearing may not make them, for wearing is not written regarding [Tzitzis] itself, only regarding Kil'ayim, and [Kil'ayim] is a different matter.
åâáé úôéìéï )ãøùé( [ö"ì ãøùéðï - öàï ÷ãùéí] ëé äàé âååðà
(b) Distinction: We expound like this [only] regarding Tefilin (42b, that whoever does not have a Mitzvah to wear Tefilin may not write them).
4) TOSFOS DH b'Yisrael Eino Tzarich Levarech
úåñôåú ã"ä áéùøàì àéðå öøéê ìáøê
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why one does not bless on Mitzvos that a Nochri can do.)
ãîùîò öåðå åìà ìàçøéí
(a) Explanation: [This is because] "Tzivanu" connotes that He commanded us, and not others.
5) TOSFOS DH v'Al Yimol Kusi
úåñôåú ã"ä åàì éîåì ëåúé
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses whether Nochrim are Kosher for certain Mitzvos.)
ìàçø )ùäîéø ãúå) [ö"ì ùäîéøå ãúï - âîøà òåæ åäãø] ãñúîééäå ìùí äø âøéæéí àò''â ãâéøé àîú äï
(a) Explanation: This is after [the Kusim] became apostates, for Stam they intend l'Shem Har Grizim (their idolatry), even though they are (were) true converts.
åòåáã ëåëáéí àò''â ãáô' äîáéà úðééï (âéèéï ãó ëâ.) ÷à àîø âáé âè òåáã ëåëáéí àãòúà ãðôùéä òáéã
(b) Implied suggestion: A Nochri [cannot circumcise], for in Gitin (23a) it says about a Get that a Nochri does on his own accord (and it is not Lishmah)!
ùàðé äúí ãñúí àùä ìàå ìâéøåùéï ÷ééîà àáì ñúí îéìä ìùîä ÷ééîà
(c) Rejection: There is different, for a Stam woman is not destined to be divorced. However, Stam Milah is Lishmah (people circumcise only for the Mitzvah).
åäëé îùðé âáé æáçéí (ãó á:)
(d) Support #1: We answer like this regarding Zevachim (Zevachim 2b).
åîúåê ëê ðéçà áñîåê ãîëùø öéöéú áòåáã ëåëáéí îãëúéá åòùå ìäí ãîùîò àçøéí éòùå ìäí
(e) Support #2: According to this, it is fine what it says below (42b) that a Nochri is Kosher [to make] Tzitzis, since it says "v'Asu Lahem", which connotes that others make for [Yisrael];
åáúø äëé îëùø øá èåééä ùìà ìùîä åîééúé úðàé îúôéìéï
1. And afterwards Rav is Machshir spinning Lo Lishmah, and [the Gemara says that he and Shmuel argue about this, and] brings Tana'im from Tefilin (who argue about whether the hide must be tanned Lishmah, and equates the arguments).
îùîò ãáöéöéú ðîé áòé ìùîä àò''â ãòåáã ëåëáéí ëùø
2. Inference: Also Tzitzis require Lishmah, even though a Nochri is Kosher! (Yad Binyamin - there are arguments only about spinning and tanning, whether they are mere preparations, but all require Lishmah for making Tzitzis and Tefilin.)
åúéîä ëéåï ãñúîà ìùîå ÷àé àîàé àéöèøéê ìøáåú òåáã ëåëáéí
(f) Question: Since Stam is Lishmah, why do we need [a Drashah] to include a Nochri?
åé''ì ëé äéëé ãìà ðéîòèé îáðé éùøàì
(g) Answer: It is lest we exclude him from "Bnei Yisrael" (like Rav Chisda expounded in the name of Rav).
åúéîä åâáé ñôøéí åúôéìéï åîæåæåú ìîä ìé ìîòåèé òåáã ëåëáéí îå÷ùøúí åëúáúí úéôå÷ ìé ãñúîà ìàå ìùîå ÷àé
(h) Question: Regarding Seforim, Tefilin and Mezuzos, why do we need to exclude a Nochri from "u'Kshartam... u'Chsavtam" (whoever does not have a Mitzvah to wear, may not write)? I already know this, for Stam it is not Lishmah!
ãáôø÷ äðéæ÷éï (âéèéï ãó ðã:) ôñì àæëøåú ùìà ëúá ìùîï ãàîøéðï äúí ñ''ú ùëúáúé àæëøåú ùáä ìà ëúáúé ìùîï îùîò àìà ñúîï ëúáï ãàéáòé ìîéîø ùëúáúé ùìà ìùîï
1. Source: In Gitin (54b) it disqualifies Azkaros (names of Hash-m) that he did not write Lishmah. It says there "the Sefer Torah that I wrote, I did not write the Azkaros Lishmah." This implies that he wrote them Stam. [If he intended Lo Lishmah,] he should have said "I wrote them Lo Lishmah"!
åé''ì (ãàéöèøéê îùåí) [ö"ì ãàâá ãúðé - öàï ÷ãùéí] òáã åàùä öãå÷é åîñåø åîåîø (àò''â ãúðé( [ö"ì úðé ðîé - öàï ÷ãùéí] òåáã ëåëáéí
(i) Answer #1: Agav (along with) teaching an Eved [Kena'ani], woman, Tzeduki, Masor (informer) and Mumar, it taught also Nochri;
)äëé) [ö"ì ãäëé - öàï ÷ãùéí] ðîé úðé ëåúé àò''â ãñúîéä ìùí äø âøéæéí åìà àéöèøéê ìéä ÷øà
1. Support: Likewise, it taught Kusi, even though Stam he does l'Shem Har Grizim, and we do not need a verse [to disqualify] him.
àé ðîé ìà ã÷ åáòé ìîéîø ùìà ìùîï
(j) Answer #2: [In Gitin 54b] he was not precise, and means that [he wrote] Lo Lishmah;
ãô' ëì äâè (ùí ãó ëã.) úðï ëì äâè ùðëúá ùìà ìùí àùä ôñåì åàò''â ãñúîà ðîé ôñåì àìîà ìà ãéé÷
1. Source: In Gitin (24a) a Mishnah teaches that any Get written not l'Shem a woman is Pasul, even though also Stam is Pasul! This shows that [the Tana] is not precise.
àé ðîé ðøàä ãàæëøåú ìáã áòéðï ëåìé äàé åàéöèøéê ìîòåèé àé ëúá áìà àæëøä:
(k) Answer #3: Only the Azkaros Lo Lishmah require so much (explicitly Lishmah. For the rest of a Sefer Torah, Stam suffices.) We need [a verse] to exclude a Nochri if he wrote [part of a Sefer Torah] without Azkaros.
42b----------------------------------------42b
6) TOSFOS DH v'Ilu La'asos Tefilin Lo Mevarech
úåñôåú ã"ä åàéìå ìòùåú úôéìéï ìà îáøê
(SUMMARY: Tosfos justifies the inference.)
åéåãò äéä (ùìà ìáøê ìòùåú úôéìéï - èäøú ä÷åãù îåç÷å) ùùàìå ëì òðééðé áøëåú
(a) Explanation: [The Gemara] knew that [R. Chiya brei d'Rav Huna] asked [R. Yochanan] about all Brachos. (Therefore, since he did not teach a Berachah for writing Tefilin, this shows that there is no Brachah for it.)
åô' äøåàä éøåùìîé îöøéê ìáøê àòùééú öéöéú ñåëä åúôéìéï åáòøåê äáéàå áòøê öõ â' åçåì÷ òì äù''ñ ùìðå
(b) Reference: The Yerushalmi in Brachos obligates blessing on making Tzitzis, Sukah and Tefilin. The Aruch, in Erech Tzatz (3) brings it. It argues with the Bavli.
åáúåñôúà ãáøëåú (ô''å) úðé äòåùä öéöéú ìòöîå îáøê ùäçééðå
(c) Citation (Tosefta Brachos 6:15): One who makes Tzitzis for himself blesses she'Hecheyanu.
åáô' äøåàä (áøëåú ãó ðã.) ðîé àîø ãàëìéí çãùéí îáøê ùäçééðå åë''ë øá ùøéøà âàåï
(d) Support: Also in Brachos (54a) it says that one blesses she'Hecheyanu for new Kelim. Also Rav Sherira Gaon wrote so.
7) TOSFOS DH ha'Kotzim v'Chulei
úåñôåú ã"ä ä÷åöéí ëå'
(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes that it is Pasul due to Lo Lishmah.)
ôéøù á÷åðèøñ îùåí úòùä åìà îï äòùåé
(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi, 40b): [It is Pasul] due to "Ta'aseh", v'Lo Min ha'Asuy.
åìé ðøàä ãîä ãòáéã àçø ëê äééðå äòùééä
(b) Rebuttal: I say that what he did afterwards, this is the Asiyah (making)!
ãàîø øá âåôéä úìàï åàçø ëê ôñ÷ øàùé çåèéï ùìäï ëùø ãæå äéà òùééúï
1. Source #1: Rav himself said (Sukah 11a) that if one inserted (a long folded thread) in a garment and afterwards cut the ends (to make the required number of threads), it is Kosher, for this is the Asiyah.
åëï ôø÷ ÷îà ãñåëä (ãó éà.) âáé äãìä òìéä àú äâôï åàú äãìòú ã÷öéöúï æå äéà òùééúï
2. Source #2: Also in Sukah (11a), regarding one who draped a vine or pumpkin vine over [a Sukah, Rav Huna said in the name of Rav that] cutting it is the Asiyah (covering with Sechach).
àìà èòîà îùåí ãáòéðï úìééä ìùîä
(c) Explanation #2: Rather, [it is Pasul] because he must put it through the corner Lishmah.
åäà ãúðï ôø÷ ÷îà ãñåëä (ãó è) ñåëä äéùðä áéú äìì îëùéøéï åôøéê áâî' åáéú äìì ìéú ìäå ãøá éäåãä àîø øá òùàä îï ä÷åöéí åëå' ëé àîøéúä ÷îéä ãùîåàì àîø àó îï äñéñéï ôñåìä
(d) Implied question: A Mishnah (Sukah 9a) teaches that Beis Hillel are Machshir an old Sukah, and the Gemara asks "does Beis Hillel disagree with what Rav Yehudah taught in the name of Rav, that if one made [Tzitzis] from Kotzim (excess strands on the end of the garment, it is Pasul)... and [Rav Yehudah] said that when he said this in front of Shmuel, he said that even from Sisin (a certain plant) is Pasul";
àìîà áòéðï èåééä ìùîä äëà ðîé áòéðï òùééä ìùîä
1. This shows that the spinning must be Lishmah. Likewise, the Asiyah [of Sukah] must be Lishmah! (Taharas ha'Kodesh - this is like Rashi, that the Pesul of Kotzim is not due to Lishmah, rather, due to "Ta'aseh", v'Lo Min ha'Asuy.)
ìôé àåúä âéøñà (àãùîåàì) [ö"ì îùîåàì - öàï ÷ãùéí] ôøéê åìà îøá åîøá ðîé îöé ìîôøê
(e) Answer: According to that text, [the Gemara] asks from Shmuel, and not from Rav. It could have asked also from Rav (also he forbids due to Lishmah).
8) TOSFOS DH k'Tanai Tzipan Zahav
úåñôåú ã"ä ëúðàé öéôï æäá
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we do not distinguish Tefilin from Tzitzis.)
úéîä ãéìîà öéöéú ùàðé ãô''÷ ãñåëä (ãó è.) ãøéù âãéìéí úòùä ìê ìùí çåáê
(a) Question: Perhaps Tzitzis are different, because in Sukah (9a) it expounds "Gedilim Ta'aseh Lecha" - l'Shem your obligation!
åàé îùåí ãëúéá ìê ìàåú
1. Suggestion #1: [Tefilin are the same, for also about them] it is written "Lecha l'Os".
äà ãøùéðï ìéä ìòéì (ãó ìæ:) ìê ìàåú åìà ìàçøéí
2. Rejection: We expound this above (37b) "they are an Os for you, and not for others" (they should be covered)!
åäúí âáé ñåëä ôøéê ëé äàé âååðà îçâ äñåëåú úòùä ìê [åîùðé] ãàéöèøéê ìîòåèé âæåìä åìà ãøùé úå îéðéä ìùí çåáê
i. Support: There regarding Sukah we ask like this from "Chag ha'Sukos Ta'aseh Lecha", and answers that it is needed to exclude a stolen [Sukah], so we do not expound from it "l'Shem your obligation."
åàé îùåí ãúôéìéï àéú÷åù ìîæåæä åîæåæä åñôø úåøä éìéó (ìòéì ãó ìã.) ëúéáä ëúéáä îâè
3. Suggestion #2: Tefilin [require Lishmah], because they are equated to Mezuzah, and we learn Mezuzah and Sefer Torah (above, 34a) from a Gezeirah Shavah "Kesivah-Kesivah" from Get.
äà áâè âåôéä ìà áòéðï òùééä ìùîå
4. Rejection: [The parchment of] a Get itself need not be made Lishmah. (Only the writing must be Lishmah.)
9) TOSFOS DH Ad she'Ye'avdan Lishmah
úåñôåú ã"ä òã ùéòáãï ìùîï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos rules like this.)
àåîø ø''ú ãäéìëúà ëøùá''â
(a) Pesak (R. Tam): The Halachah follows R. Shimon ben Gamliel.
ãàò''â ãäéìëúà ëøá áàéñåøé
(b) Implied question: The Halachah follows Rav [against Shmuel] in Isurim!
ãñåâééï ãäðéæ÷éï (âéèéï ãó ðã:) ãâåéìéï ùìå ìà òéáãúéí ìùîï ëååúéä àæìà
(c) Answer: The Sugya in Gitin (54b) of "I did not tan the parchments Lishmah" is like [R. Shimon ben Gamliel].
åäà ãôø÷ ðâîø äãéï (ñðäãøéï ãó îç:) ãàéôìéâå àáéé åøáà áäæîðä àé îéìúà äéà àé ìà åîééúé äðé úðàé åôé' á÷åðèøñ ãøáà ëøáðï ãìà áòå òéáåã [ö"ì ìùîä - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ãäæîðä ìàå îéìúà äéà
(d) Implied question: In Sanhedrin (48b) Abaye and Rava argue about Hazmanah (preparation), whether or not it is significant, and it brings these Tana'im, and Rashi explained that Rava holds like Rabanan, who do not require tanning the parchments Lishmah", for Hazmanah is not significant! (The Halachah always follows Rava against Abaye except for six places, and this is not one of them.)
îéäå ø''ú åø''ç ôéøùå ãøáà ëøùá''â ãëéåï ãáòé òéáåã ìùîå à''ë äæîðä ìàå îéìúà äéà
(e) Answer: R. Tam and R. Chananel explained that Rava holds like R. Shimon ben Gamliel. Since he requires tanning Lishmah, if so he holds that Hazmanah is not significant;
ãàé îéìúà äéà àôùø áçéúåê äòåø åáúé÷åðéí ÷èðéí ñâé ìùåéé ìùîä
1. If it were significant, it would be possible to make it Lishmah through cutting the hide and through small improvements.
åäà ãáòà àáéé îøá ùîåàì áø' éäåãä áñîåê äéëé öáòéúå ìéä åàäãø ëøùá''â
(f) Implied question: Abaye asked Rav Shmuel b'Ribi Yehudah below "how do you dye it', and he answered like R. Shimon ben Gamliel! (According to R. Tam and R. Chananel, Abaye holds like Rabanan!)
ìà ÷éáìä îéðéä
(g) Answer: [Abaye] did not accept the answer.
åé''î ãääéà ãäðéæ÷éï àôéìå ëøáðï ãìà ôìéâé àìà áòåø úôéìéï ãúùîéù îöåä
(h) Rebuttal (of Answer (c) above): Some say that the Sugya in Gitin (54b) is even like Rabanan. They argue only about hide for Tefilin, for it is Tashmish (something used for a) Mitzvah. (If so, it is no source to rule like Shmuel against Rav!)
åìéúà ãäà àéëà ùé''ï ùì úôéìéï åòé÷ø ÷ãåùä éù áä ëãîåëç ô' áîä îãìé÷éï (ùáú ãó ëç:) åô' áîä àùä (ùí ãó ñá.)
(i) Rejection (of Rebuttal): There is the Shin of Tefilin (a letter of Hash-m's name which is made from the hide). It has primary Kedushah, like is proven in Shabbos (28b, 62a)!
10) TOSFOS DH v'Simemanim
úåñôåú ã"ä åñîîðéí
(SUMMARY: Tosfos questions why this is permitted.)
ãáø úéîä äåà äéàê îòøá ùåí ãáø áäãé úëìú
(a) Question: How may he mix anything with Techeles?!
åùîà òí äñîîðéï ð÷øà úëìú
(b) Answer #1: Perhaps with the ingredients it is called Techeles.
åá÷åðèøñ ôé' ìùøåú áäï ëãøê äöåáòéï ùùåøéï àåúå áöøéó
(c) Answer #2 (Rashi): [The ingredients are] to soak [the garment] in them, like dyers do. They soak it in Alum.
11) TOSFOS DH Mah Ta'am Te'imah Pesulah
úåñôåú ã"ä îä èòí èòéîä ôñåìä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this is even if he also intended for the Mitzvah.)
åàôéìå ìùí öéöéú î''î ìùí ðñéåï ðîé òáéãà åäåé ëîðçä ù÷îöä ìùîä åùìà ìùîä
(a) Assertion: Even [if he tests] l'Shem Tzitzis (to use the thread for Tzitzis if it is found that the dye is proper), in any case it was also for the sake of testing. This is like a Minchah for which Kemitzah was taken Lishmah and Lo Lishmah (it is considered Lo Lishmah).
åäùúà äðê úìú úøé ðéðäå
(b) Conclusion: Now, these three [laws that we learn] are really [only] two.
12) TOSFOS DH Mishum she'Ne'emar Kalil Techeles
úåñôåú ã"ä îùåí ùðàîø ëìéì úëìú
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses why testing disqualifies.)
ôé' á÷åðèøñ ùìà éäà ãáø àçø öáåò áä îúçéìä åàôéìå öîø åäåà ù÷øåé îøàä ùðé ùáä
(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi): Nothing else may be dyed with it first, and even wool. This is called "second appearance in it."
îùîò ãàí öáò áä ùðé ôòîéí æä àçø æä ôñåì àôéìå ìùîå
(b) Inference: If he dyed with it twice, one after the other, it is Pasul, and even Lishmah.
åìòéì îùîò ãìà ôñìé' àìà èòéîä îùåí ãäåéà ùìà ìùîä
(c) Question: Above it connotes that only testing disqualifies, because it is Lo Lishmah (but dying Lishmah would not disqualify the remaining dye);
åîùîò ãìà îééúé úðàé àìà îèòîä ôñìä àáì ìë''ò (äèòéîä) [ö"ì äèòí - öàï ÷ãùéí] ëãìòéì
1. And it connotes that we bring an argument of Tana'im only regarding "if he tested it, he disqualified it ", but all agree that the reason is like above;
à''ë ìà àúéà ëçã úðà (îéìúà ãä÷åðèøñ) [ö"ì ñåâéà ãäëà ìôé' ä÷åðèøñ - öàï ÷ãùéí]
2. If so, the Sugya here is not like any Tana according to Rashi's Perush!
ìëê ö''ì ãàôéìå îàä ôòîéí ìùîå (îùîò ãëùø) [ö"ì ëùø - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ãäà ëìéì úëìú ÷øéðï áéä
(d) Explanation #2: Therefore, we must say that [dying] even 100 times Lishmah is Kosher, for it is called Kalil Techeles;
àáì ëùèòí äøé éù öáò ùàéðå øàåé ìúëìú åìëê ÷øåé îøàä ùðé
1. However, when he tested it, there is dye that is not proper for Techeles. Therefore it is called "second appearance."
åàò''â ãäàé ÷øà ááâãé ëäåðä ëúéá
(e) Implied question: This verse is written regarding Bigdei Kehunah!
éìôéðï úëìú îáâãé ëäåðä (åô') [ðøàä ùö"ì åáô'] áà ìå (éåîà ãó òá.) ãøéù ìéä ìãøùà àçøéðà
(f) Answer: We learn Techeles from Bigdei Kehunah. In Yoma (72a) it expounds a different Drashah from [this verse].
13) TOSFOS DH v'Ein Nikchim Ela Min ha'Mumcheh
úåñôåú ã"ä åàéï ðé÷çéí àìà îï äîåîçä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with the law of one who finds Techeles.)
ùéù øéòåúà ùîà äåà öáòí åàéðå á÷é
(a) Explanation: [If the seller is not a n expert,] there is a Rei'usa - perhaps he dyed them, and he is not an expert.
àáì àí ðîöàå áùå÷ øåá îöåééï àöì úëìú îåîçéï äï åìëê îëùéøéï äîåöà çåèé úëìú ô' äîåöà úôéìéï (òéøåáéï öå:)
(b) Distinction: However, if they were found in the market, most who [make] Techeles are experts, therefore we are Machshir if one found Techeles threads, in Eruvin (96b).
åëä''â àîø áçåìéï âáé ùçéèä (ãó éá.)
(c) Support: We say like this in Chulin (12a) regarding Shechitah.
14) TOSFOS DH Tefilin Yesh Lahen Bedikah
úåñôåú ã"ä úôéìéï éù ìäï áãé÷ä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses whether or not one must check Tefilin.)
ôé' á÷åðè' áçñéøåú åéúøåú åàôé' äëé àéï ð÷çéï àìà îï äîåîçä ìòáãï ìùîï
(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi): One can check for extra or missing letters. Even so, one may buy them only from one who is expert to tan them Lishmah.
àáì ñôøéí åîæåæåú ìà áòé òéáåã ìùîï
(b) Distinction: However, Seforim and Mezuzos do not require tanning Lishmah.
åëï ôé' ä''ø îùä áø îééîåï ãîæåæä ìà áòéà ìùîä åìà ôéøù îðà ìéä åùîà îäëà
(c) Support: So explained the Rambam, that a Mezuzah does not require Lishmah. He did not explain his source. Perhaps it is from here.
å÷ùä ãô' äðéæ÷éï (âéèéï ãó ðã:) îùîò ãñôø (îëàï îãó äáà) úåøä áòé òéáåã [ö"ì ìùîä - ùéèä î÷åáöú, öàï ÷ãùéí]
(d) Question: In Gitin (54b) it connotes that a Sefer Torah needs tanning Lishmah!