1)

TOSFOS DH D'ASU

úåñôåú ã"ä ãàúå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara does not answer that the Beraisa holds Matanos that were not taken are not as if they were already taken.)

åîùòú äøîä åàéìê äééðå îëé àúå ìéãéä àôéìå áèáìééäå

(a)

Explanation: "When he tithes it and on" means when it came to his hand, even when it is not yet tithed.

åà"ú àîàé ìà îùðé ãôùèà ãáøééúà ã÷úðé ôèåø îï äúùìåîéï äééðå ãàúå ìéã ëäï áèáìééäå å÷ñáø äàé úðà îúðåú ùìà äåøîå ìàå ëîé ùäåøîå ãîééï åîù"ä ôèåø ãàéï ìå ìëäï àìà îùòú äøîä îîù åäåä ðéçà èôé ãäåé ìùåï äøîä ãå÷à

(b)

Question: Why doesn't the Gemara answer that the simple explanation of the Beraisa that says he is exempt from payment means that the Kohen received it when it was not yet tithed? This Tana could hold that Matanos that were not yet taken are not as if they were already taken and this is why he is exempt, as the Kohen only has his Matanos from when they are actually taken. This would be a better answer, as the term "taken" would be literal.

åé"ì ãàé äåä îå÷é ìä äëé àæ ìà äéä çãåù äãéå÷ ëìì äà îùòú äøîä åàéìê îùìí ãäà ôùéèà ãîùìí ëéåï ãàúå ìéã ëäï åäåøîå àáì äùúà òé÷ø äáøééúà îùîéòðå ãîæé÷ îúðåú ëäåðä àå ùàëìï ôèåø åãéå÷à ÷î"ì ãàò"â ãàúå ìéãéä áèáìééäå çééá ãëîé ùäåøîå ãîééï

(c)

Answer: If we would establish that this is the meaning of the Beraisa, there would be no novelty in saying that if one would actually take the Matanos he would be liable. He would obviously pay, since the Kohen received it and it was tithed. However, now the main point of the Beraisa is that if someone damages Matnos Kehunah or eats them he is exempt. It is making us deduce that even though the Kohen got it when it was not yet tithed he is liable, since it is as if it was tithed.

2)

TOSFOS DH SHANI HASAM

úåñôåú ã"ä ùàðé äúí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the difference between a king raiding one's silo and eating Matnos Kehunah.)

ãáî÷åí æä äðéç ìå äîìê ùàø îîåï

(a)

Explanation: In the place of the tithes, the king let him keep other monies.

åàí úàîø îúðåú ëäåðä ëùàëìí îùúøùé ìéä ùáî÷åí æä ìà àëì ãáø àçø åàîàé ôèåø

(b)

Question: When a person eats Matnos Kehunah he similarly benefits, as instead of this he did not eat other food in his possession. Why, then, is he exempt?

åé"ì ãìà ãîé ìàðñå áéú äîìê âøðå ãúçúéäï ìà ì÷ç îùìå àáì áàëìå àôùø ãìà îùúøùé ìéä ùäéä îúòðä

(c)

Answer: This is unlike the king forcing him to give him from his silo, as the landowner did not take something instead from his own grain. However, when he eats Matnos Kehunah, it is possible he would not have eaten something else in its place, as he might have fasted.

3)

TOSFOS DH HACHI GARSINAN

úåñôåú ã"ä äëé âøñé'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the reason behind the Beraisa's partial list of Matnos Kehunah.)

åìà çùéá äëà ëì ë"ã îúðåú ëäåðä ãçùéá ì÷îï áôéø÷éï (ãó ÷ìâ:)

(a)

Implied Question: The Beraisa did not list all twenty four Matanos of Kehunah that are stated later (133b). (Why not?)

ãìà çùéá äëà àìà äðê ãàñåøéí ìæøéí åäí îîåï ëäï

(b)

Answer: It only listed the Matanos that are forbidden to non Kohanim and that are considered the money of the Kohen.

åäà ãçùéá îúðåú àò"ô ùîåúøåú ìæøéí îùåí ãèáìé åãîå ìúøåîä ëãàîø ì÷îï (÷ìá:) àò"â ãìéú äìëúà äëé

(c)

Implied Question: The Beraisa mentioned Matanos even though they are permitted to non Kohanim because they cause Tevel and they are compared to Terumah as stated later (132b). This is despite the fact that this is not the Halachah. (Why are they mentioned?)

äééðå ãìà äåé ëàåëì èáìéí àáì î"î àéñåøà àéëà ìàëåì îáäîä ùìà äåøîä îúðåúéä

(d)

Answer #1: We do not rule like this insofar as they do not cause one who eats from the animal to be like someone who is eating Tevel. However, it is still forbidden to eat from an animal that did not have Matanos taken.

à"ð ìà çùéá àìà îéãé ãáø àëéìä

(e)

Answer #2: Alternatively, the Beraisa is only listing Matanos that are eaten.

åäà ãìà çùéá áëåø

1.

Implied Question: Why, then, isn't Bechor included in this list?

îùåí ãàëúé ìàå áø àëéìä äåà ùöøéê ùçéèä

2.

Answer: This is because it is not yet edible when it is given, as it requires slaughtering.

4)

TOSFOS DH MA'ASER ANI

úåñôåú ã"ä îòùø òðé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the difference between the tithes taken in the silo and the tithes taken in the home.)

ãå÷à ð÷è äîúçì÷ áúåê äáéú ãùðé ãéðé îòùø äí àçã îúçì÷ úåê äáéú åàçã îúçì÷ áúåê äâøðåú ëãîùîò áô"á ãðãøéí (ãó ôã:) åàåúå äîúçì÷ úåê äâøðåú àéï ìáòìéí áå èåáú äðàä àìà áàåúå äîúçì÷ áúåê äáéú

(a)

Observation: The Gemara specifically said that it is divided in the house, as there are two different laws of Ma'aser. One set of laws is for Ma'aser divided in the house, and one set of laws for what is divided by the silo, as implied in Nedarim (84b). The owners cannot choose to whom they would like to give the Ma'aser taken in the silos. However, they can choose to whom they would like to give the Ma'aser taken in their house.

åáñôøé îôøù ìäå î÷øàé ëúåá àçã àåîø î÷öä ùìù ùðéí úåöéà àú ëì îòùø úáåàúê åäðçú àìîà öøéê ìäðéçå áâåøï åáàéï òðééí åðåèìéï àåúå

1.

Observation (cont.): The Sifri explains that this law comes from the Pesukim. One Pasuk says, "At the end of three years you should bring out all of the Ma'aser of your produce and you will put etc." This implies that you have to put it in the silo, at which time poor people come and take it.

åëúåá àçã àåîø ëé úëìä ìòùø åâå' åðúú ììåé åâå' àìîà áúåê äáéú îçì÷å îãëúéá åäðçú äà ëéöã òã äôñç ùäåà æîï âùîéí åàí îðéçå áçåõ ðôñã îçì÷å áúåê áéúå åæä îòùø òðé äîúçì÷ áúåê äáéú îëàï åàéìê ùäåà éîé ä÷éõ îðéçå áçåõ áâøðåú åòðééí áàéí åðåèìéï àåúå

2.

Observation (cont.): Another Pasuk states, "When you will finish taking Ma'aser...and you will give to the Levi etc." This implies dividing the tithes in the house, as the Pasuk states, "And you will put down." How can we reconcile both Pesukim? It must be that until Pesach it is a time of rain, and if he puts it outside it will get ruined. Therefore, until Pesach he puts it down in his house. This is the Ma'aser Ani that is being divided in the house. Afterwards it is summer, at which time he puts the produce outside the house and the poor people come and take the Ma'aser Ani.

5)

TOSFOS DH YESH

úåñôåú ã"ä éù

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that a person never has to give his tithes to a person upon demand.)

ðøàä ããáø ùéù áå èåáú äðàä ìáòìéí àôéìå áà òðé åì÷çå îåöéàéï îéãå åãáø ùàéï áå èåáú äðàä ìáòìéí ì÷çå àéï îåöéàéï îéãå

(a)

Explanation: It seems that if the owner has the right to decide who receives this tithe, even if a different poor person takes it we will take it out of his hand. If he does not have the right to decide who receives it, we do not take it out of the hand of whoever took it.

åîéäå àí ìà ì÷çå åáà òðé åùàìå îîðå àí éøöä ìà éúï ìå ã÷øé ìéä ìòéì îîåï ùàéï ìå úåáòéï åàí äéä öøéê ìéúðå ìúåáòå à"ë äåé éù ìå úåáòéï

1.

Explanation (cont.): However, if nobody took it yet and a poor person asked him for it, he does not have to give it to him if he does not want to. This is because it is called money that does not have claimants. If he would have to give it to whoever asked him for it, it would be called money that does have claimants.

6)

TOSFOS DH GAMAR

úåñôåú ã"ä âîø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how we can use the Gezeirah Shaveh.)

åàò"â ãàöèøéëå ìîëúá åìà äåé îåôðä

(a)

Implied Question: This Gezeirah Shaveh is derived, despite the fact that the words had to be stated and they are not open for derivation. (How can we derive from these words if they are not open for derivation?)

âìåé îéìúà áòìîà äåà ãëîå ùéù áæä àçøéê ôàä ä"ð éù áæä àçøéê ôàä åìàå â"ù îîù äéà

(b)

Answer #1: This is just informing us that just like Pe'ah applies to olives, it also applies to grapes. It is not an actual Gezeirah Shaveh.

àé ðîé îãëúéá ùëçä áìùåï àçøéê ù"î ìâ"ù àúà

(c)

Answer #2: Alternatively, since Shichichah is referred to by the word "Acharecha" - "after you," it must mean that it should be used in a Gezeirah Shaveh (with another "Acharecha," as otherwise the Torah would have merely stated "Shichichah").

åö"ò ìîä ìà âîøéðï áâ"ù ãàçøéê ãìäåé ôøè áæéú ëîå áëøí

(d)

Question: It requires study to understand why we do not derive from the word "Acharecha" that Peret should apply to olives just as it applies to grapes.

åðäé ãìòðéï òåììåú ìà àôùø ìîéìó áàéìï ãìà ùééê áéä àéæäå òåììåú ëì ùàéï ìå ìà ëúó åìà ðèó

1.

Observation: There is no question regarding deriving that Olalos applies to fruit from trees, as Olalos is inapplicable to anything that does not have a bunch of fruit coming out of a small branch or a branch that is not covered by fruit (character traits that are specific to grapes, as opposed to other fruits).

131b----------------------------------------131b

7)

TOSFOS DH K'GON

úåñôåú ã"ä ëâåï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Beraisa said "like the Zeroa" when it does not apply to the Zeroa.)

ãàé æøåò îîù ìîä ìé ìîéîø ëâåï ìéîà åùàø îúðåú ëäåðä äæøåò ëå' àìà îã÷àîø ëâåï ìàå áæøåò îééøé àìà áãëååúéä ãäééðå îòùø øàùåï

(a)

Explanation: If it would truly be discussing the Zeroa, why would it say "like (the Zeroa)?" It should merely say, "And the other Matnos Kehunah are the Zeroa etc." Rather, since it said, "like" it is not discussing a Zeroa, but rather something similar, namely Ma'aser Rishon.

åàöèøéê ìéä ìîéîø ëâåï æøåò

1.

Implied Question: The Beraisa still had to say, "like the Zeroa." (Why did it say this when it really meant Ma'aser Rishon?)

ãàé äåä àîø áäãéà îòùø øàùåï äåä àîéðà ãä"ä îúðåú ëäåðä ìäëé úðà ëâåï äæøåò åäëé ÷àîø åùàø îúðåú ëäåðä ùäï ãåâîú æøåò ëâåï îòùø øàùåï îåöéàéï àáì æøåò òöîä ìà ãîñô÷à ìï ëøá

2.

Answer: If it would explicitly state Ma'aser Rishon, I would think that the same would apply regarding Matnos Kehunah. This is why it said, "like the Zeroa." This is what it means to say: "Other Matnos Kehunah that are similar to the Zeroa, like Ma'aser Rishon, can be taken away. However, the Zeroa itself cannot be taken due to the doubt of Rav."

8)

TOSFOS DH TA SHEMA

úåñôåú ã"ä úà ùîò

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains Rav's understanding of the Tana of the Beraisa.)

úéîä îàé ôøéê ìéä ìøá îäëà ãéìîà îùåí äëé àéï îåöéàéï îùåí ãîñô÷à ìéä ìúðà àé àé÷øå òí àå ìà

(a)

Question: This is difficult. What is the question on Rav from here? Perhaps the reason one cannot taken it away is because the Tana is unsure whether or not they are called a nation!

åé"ì ãìà îùîò ìéä ùéäéä ñô÷ ìúðà

(b)

Answer: He does not understand that the Tana has this doubt.

åáôé' ø"ç âøñ ìéîà îñééò ìéä ëì ãáø ùá÷ãåùä ëå'

(c)

Text: Rabeinu Chananel's text is, "Let us support his position (from the following Beraisa). Anything that is holy (cannot be eaten by a non Kohen) etc."

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF