ZEVACHIM 4 (2 Iyar) - Dedicated by Mrs. Libi Feinberg l'Iluy Nishmas her late mother, Rachel Leah bas Reb Yaakov Ha'Levi.

1)

TOSFOS DH Mah li'Zevichah she'Chen Posel she'Lo l'Shem Ochlin b'Pesach

úåñôåú ã"ä îä ìæáéçä ùëï ôåñì ùìà ìùí àåëìéï áôñç

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses why we do not learn to Zerikah.)

åà''ú æøé÷ä ðîé úôñåì î÷''å ãùçéèä ùàéðå ôåñì áùéðåé áòìéí àìà òì îðú ìæøå÷ åôåñìú òì îðú ùìà ìùí àåëìéï

(a)

Question: Also Zerikah should disqualify from a Kal v'Chomer. Shechitah disqualifies through Shinuy Ba'alim only with intent to throw [for a different owner], and it disqualifies with intent for people who cannot eat it;

÷''å æøé÷ä ùôåñìú áæåø÷ ùìà ìùí áòìéí ùúôñåì ùìà ìùí àåëìéï

1.

All the more so Zerikah, which disqualifies when he throws not for the owner, should disqualify with intent for people who cannot eat it!

åé''ì ãàéëà ìîéôøê îä ìæáéçä ùëï èòåðä öôåï åéùðä áçèàåú äôðéîéåú

(b)

Answer #1: We can challenge this. You cannot learn from Shechitah, for it requires the north (for Kodshei Kodoshim), and it applies to inner Chata'os [unlike Zerikah]!

îéäå àëúé ìà ÷îà ìéä äê ôéøëà òã áñîåê

(c)

Objection: We did not know this challenge until below!

ìëê é''ì ãäëà ìà ôøéê (äâäú øò"à) îæáéçä àìà ÷áìä åäåìëä. áøå''ê.

(d)

Answer #2 (R. Baruch): Here we ask [that we cannot learn] from Shechitah only Kabalah and Holachah. (Indeed, now we think that we learn Zerikah from the Kal v'Chomer.)

åòåã ðøàä ãáô' úîéã ðùçè (ôñçéí ãó ñà.) îîòè ùàø òáåãåú ùìà [ôñåì] ìùí àåëìéï

(e)

Answer #3: In Pesachim (61a) it excludes other Avodos in which intent for people who cannot eat does not disqualify.

1.

Note: I.e. our Sugya is like Rabah, who expounds there (61b) that she'Lo l'Ochlav does not disqualify Zerikah. Perhaps a Kal v'Chomer teaches that it does not disqualify Kabalah and Holachah. Rav Chisda argues there about Zerikah.

2)

TOSFOS DH li'Zerikah she'Chen Chayav Aleha Zar v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä ìæøé÷ä ùëï çééá òìéä æø ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we needed separate Drashos.)

åà''ú åðéìó ÷áìä åäåìëä îùçéèä åæøé÷ä

(a)

Question: We should learn from Kabalah and Holachah from Shechitah and Zerikah!

åé''ì îä ìäðê ùëï çééáéï áçåõ ëãì÷îï áùîòúéï

(b)

Answer: We cannot learn [from Shechitah and Zerikah], for one is liable for them outside the Mikdash, like below (4b) in our Sugya.

3)

TOSFOS DH d'Holachah Lo Tafka mi'Chlal Kabalah

úåñôåú ã"ä ãäåìëä ìà úô÷ä îëìì ÷áìä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we cannot derive Zerikah from the others.)

åæøé÷ä ìà àúéà îëåìäå ùéùðï áçèàåú äôðéîéåú

(a)

Observation: We cannot learn Zerikah from all of them, since [the other three] apply to inner Chata'os.

4)

TOSFOS DH Ba Lelamed Todah she'Shachtah l'Shem Shelamim Kesherah

úåñôåú ã"ä áà ììîã úåãä ùùçèä ìùí ùìîéí ëùøä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we are able to expound another law from this verse.)

úéîä ãáñåó ëì äôñåìéï (ì÷îï ãó ìå.) ãøùé' îéðéä îðéï ìøáåú ùìîé ðæéø åùìîé ôñç ú''ì ùìîéå ôé' ãðàëìéï ìéåí åìéìä

(a)

Question: Below (36a) we expound from this "what is the source to include Shalmei Nazir and Shalmei Pesach? It says Shelamav." I.e. [we learn that] they are eaten for one day and a night!

åé''ì ãäúí ãøéù îãëúáéä âáé àëéìä

(b)

Answer: There we expound from that it was written regarding eating.

5)

TOSFOS DH Shma Minah Tartei

úåñôåú ã"ä ù''î úøúé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos justifies why we learn both.)

åà''ú åàéîà ëåìéä [ìäëé] äåà ãàúà ùúäà æáéçä ìùí úåãä

(a)

Question: We should say that [the verse] comes only for this, that Shechitah must be l'Shem Todah!

åé''ì ãàéëà ìøáåéé çèàú åàùí îãëúéá âáé (äâää áâìéåï) àëéìä

(b)

Answer: We include Chatas and Asham, since it was written regarding eating.

6)

TOSFOS DH v'Yeshnan l'Acher Misah

úåñôåú ã"ä åéùðï ìàçø îéúä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses whether or not all agree that Shinuy Kodesh applies after death.)

àáì ùéðåé áòìéí àéðï ìàçø îéúä

(a)

Distinction: However, Shinuy Ba'alim is not after death.

áôñçéí (ãó ñà.) ä÷ùä øáéðå ãìîàï ãàîø (äâää áâìéåï) ãùéòáåãà ìàå ãàåøééúà ëîå ëï àéï ùéðåé ÷åãù ìàçø îéúä

(b)

Question (Rabbeinu, in Pesachim 61a DH v'Yeshno): According to the opinion that Shibud is not mid'Oraisa, likewise Shinuy Kodesh does not apply after death!

ãîàé ðô÷à îéðä ãìà òìå ìùí çåáä äà ìà îéçééáé éåøùéï ìäáéà àçø

1.

What is the relevance [of Shinuy Kodesh] - that the owner did not fulfill his obligation? The heirs are not obligated to bring another [Korban]!

ãôìåâúà äéà á÷ãåùéï áô''÷ (ãó éâ:) âáé äàùä ùäáéàä çèàúä åîúä éáéàå éåøùéï òåìúä

2.

This is an argument in Kidushin (13b) regarding a woman who brought her Chatas and died. Her heirs bring her Olah;

ã÷àîø ùîåàì åäåà ùäôøéùúä îçééí åøá àùé àîø àôé' ùìà äôøéùúä îçééí

3.

Shmuel said that this is only if she separated it in her lifetime. Rav Ashi said that it is even if she did not separate it in her lifetime;

åäì''ì äëà ìî''ã ùéòáåãà [ìàå] ãàåøééúà ùàéï ùðåé ÷åãù ìàçø îéúä úøúé îéäà ãåå÷à

4.

Summation of question: [The Gemara] should have said her "according to the opinion that Shibud is not mid'Oraisa, there is no Shinuy Kodesh after death! However, two [stringencies of Shinuy Kodesh over Shinuy Ba'alim] always apply."

åéù ìåîø ãðô÷à îéðä àí äôøéù ùúé ùìîéí àå ùúé òåìåú ìàçøéåú åôéøù ùàí àçú îúä àå àáåãä äùðéä úäéä ÷øéáä òåìä ëãéï äøàùåðä åàí ÷øáä äøàùåðä ëú÷åðä äùðéä úäéä çåìéï

(c)

Answer #1: It is relevant if he separated two Shelamim or two Olos for Achrayus, and stipulated that if one dies or is lost, the other will be offered for an Olah, like the law of the first, and if the first is offered properly, the second will be Chulin;

åëé îúå áòìéí åòùä éåøù àçú ùìà ìùîä äøé äéà ëàéìå ðàáãä å÷øáä ùðéä úçúéä åàí òùä äøàùåðä ëúé÷ðä àæ äùðéä çåìéï

1.

When the owner died and the heir offered one Lo Lishmah, it is as if it was lost, and the other is offered in place of it. If [the heir] offered the first properly, then the second is Chulin.

àáì àí ìà ôéøù ëìåí àìà ñúí äôøéù ùúéí ìàçøéåú àæ àôéìå ðòùéú äøàùåðä ëúé÷ðä äåé ùðéä øåòä åãîéä ÷øáé òåìä

(d)

Distinction: However, if he did not specify anything, just Stam he separated two for Achrayus, then even if the first was offered properly, the second is Ro'eh (grazes until it becomes blemished. We sell it,) and its [redemption] money is offered for an Olah;

ëîå âáé îôøéù ùúé çèàåú ìàçøéåú ëãàéúà ì÷îï (ãó éà:) îåúø çèàú ÷øá òåìä åäëé ðîé äåé áäôøéù ùúé ùìîéí àå ùúé òåìåú ìàçøéåú

1.

This is like one who separated two Chata'os for Achrayus, like it says below (11b) that Mosar (leftover) Chatas is offered for an Olah. The same applies to one who separates two Shelamim or two Olos for Achrayus.

åòé''ì ãìàçø îéúä äåé [àéñåø] áùéðåé ÷åãù ëùîùðäå àáì ìéëà àéñåøà áùéðåé áòìéí ëéåï ãìéëà áòìéí

(e)

Answer #2: After death there is an Isur of Shinuy Kodesh when he changes it, but there is no Isur of Shinuy Ba'alim, since there is no owner.

îéäå àëúé ìà éãò ãøùà ãîåöà ùôúéê ãîéðä ðô÷à àéñåø ìùéðåé ÷åãù îãîééúé ìä áñîåê . äâä''ä

(f)

Question: However, [the Gemara] did not yet know the Drashah of "Motza Sefasecha", from which we derive the Isur of Shinuy Kodesh, since we bring it below (4b). This is a comment.

7)

TOSFOS DH v'Yeshnan b'Tzibur

úåñôåú ã"ä åéùðï áöéáåø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why this does not apply to Shinuy Ba'alim.)

îùà''ë áùéðåé áòìéí ãàí ùçè ìùí äéçéã (äâää áâìéåï, îáøëú äæáç) äøé äåà áòìéå

(a)

Distinction: This does not apply to Shinuy Ba'alim. If he slaughtered [a Korban Tzibur] for an individual, he is the owner;

åàôé' ìùí òåáã ëåëáéí ìà îéôñéì ãáòéðï çáéøå ãåîéà ãéãéä îçåééá ëôøä ëîåúå. áøå''ê:

1.

And even l'Shem a Nochri it is not disqualified, for we require a colleague like himself, who needs a Kaparah like himself. This is from R. Baruch.

4b----------------------------------------4b

8)

TOSFOS DH Machshavah b'Alma

úåñôåú ã"ä îçùáä áòìîà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos distinguishes between different kinds of intent.)

åàôé' éäà öøéê ãéáåø ëéåï ãìéëà îòùä äåé ëîçùáä áòìîà

(a)

Explanation: Even if speech is required, since there is no action, it is like mere thought.

åéù úéîä ãäëà îùåé ìäå åáô' úîéã ðùçè (ôñçéí ñá:) îùîò ùéù çéìå÷

(b)

Question: Here we equate them, and in Pesachim (62b) it connotes that there is a difference!

ãîôøù îä áéï ìùîï ìùìà ìùîï ìàåëìéå åùìà ìàåëìéå æä ôñåìå áâåôå åæä àéï ôñåìå áâåôå

1.

It explains there "what is the difference between Lishmah and Lo Lishmah (both intents in one Korban Pesach, which is Pasul), and l'Ochlav and Lo l'Ochlav (he intended that it will be eaten by people permitted to eat it, and also people forbidden to eat it)? [The former] is a Pesul in the Korban itself. [The latter] is not a Pesul in the Korban itself;

åé''ì ãëéåï ãìà îéôñéì àìà îôðé ùàéï éëåì ìàëåì ëæéú ëâåï ìùí çåìä åæ÷ï çùéá èôé ôñåìå á÷åãù îçîú ãáø àçø ëéåï ãàí äéä éëåì ìàëåì äéä ëùø

(c)

Answer: Since [Lo l'Ochlav] disqualifies only because he cannot eat a k'Zayis, e.g. [intent] for a sick or old person, it is considered more Pesulo b'Kodesh due to another matter, since if he was able to eat it, it would be Kosher.

å÷ùä ãòì ëøçéï ùìà ìîðåéï åìòøìéí åìèîàéï öøéê ìåîø ãìà çùéáé ôñåìï áâåôå ëé äéëé ãìà úé÷ùé ìï ðîé îä áéï ìùîï åùìà ìùîï ìîðåéï åùìà ìîðåéï ìîåìéï åìòøìéí ìèîàéï åìèäåøéí

(d)

Question: You are forced to say that "Lo li'Mnuyav (for people who do not own a share), for Arelim and for Temei'im" is not considered a Pesul in the Korban itself, lest it be difficult "what is the difference between Lishmah v'Lo Lishmah, and li'Mnuyav v'Lo li'Mnuyav, for Mulim and Arelim, or for Temei'im and Tehorim?"

åé''ì ãùéðåé áòìéí çùáéðï ôñåìå áâåôå îùåí ãúìåé áæøé÷ä (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú)

(e)

Answer #1: Shinuy Ba'alim is considered a Pesul in the Korban itself because it depends on Zerikah;

àáì ùìà ìàåëìéï åùìà ìîðåééï úìåé áùçéèä åàéï ùí áòìéí òì äùçéèä

1.

However, Lo l'Ochlav and Lo li'Mnuyav depends on Shechitah, and the name of the owner is not on the Shechitah.

àé ðîé ùìà ìàåëìéï éëåì ì÷ééí îçùáúå áäéúø àí éäéå îðåééï òìéå îé ùàéðí (äâäú çîãú ãðéàì, åáèäøú ù÷åãù áùéðåé ÷ì) çåìéí åæ÷ðéí

(f)

Answer #2: Lo l'Ochlav, he can fulfill his intent b'Heter if will be appointed on it people who are not sick or old. (One may slaughter for a group even if some of them cannot eat. This shows that even though one may not slaughter just for those who cannot eat, this is not a Pesul in the Korban itself);

àáì ùìà ìùîä àéðå éëåì ì÷ééîå ìëê ÷øåé ôñåìå áâåôå

1.

However, Lo Lishmah he cannot fulfill. Therefore it is called a Pesul in the Korban itself.

9)

TOSFOS DH Hagahah

úåñôåú ã"ä äâä''ä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos cites the text in Megilah.)

ä''â áîâéìä (ãó ç.) îàé [îùîò] àîø øá éöç÷ áø àáãéîé

(a)

Reference: The text in Megilah (8a) is "how is this implied? Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi said..."

10)

TOSFOS DH Rav Ashi Amar miv'Nirtzeh Lo ka'Amar

úåñôåú ã"ä øá àùé (àîø) îåðøöä ìå ÷àîø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos questions the need for a verse.)

úéîä ìîä ìé ÷øà ìùéðåé áòìéí áæøé÷ä äà àôé' ùàø òáåãåú ìà îéôñìé àìà áùåçè òì îðú ìæøå÷ ë''ù æåø÷ òöîå ùìà ìùí (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú, áøëú äæáç) áòìéí

(a)

Question: Why do we need a verse for Shinuy Ba'alim in Zerikah? Even other Avodos, [Shinuy Ba'alim] disqualifies only if he slaughters (or does Kabalah or Holachah) with intent to throw (with Shinuy Ba'alim). All the more so in [Zerikah] itself not l'Shem Ba'alim [disqualifies]!

11)

TOSFOS DH she'Chen Avodah v'Chayavim

úåñôåú ã"ä ùëï òáåãä åçééáéí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this refers to Chiyuv outside the Mikdash.)

ôéøåù òáåãä ùçééáéï òìéä áçåõ

(a)

Explanation: It is Avodah for which one is liable outside.

12)

TOSFOS DH Shekulim Hem v'Yavo'u Shneihem

úåñôåú ã"ä ù÷åìéí äí åéáàå ùðéäí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with a case in which we do not learn Shekulim.)

àò''â ãäëà úøúé åäëà çãà çùéá ìäå ù÷åìéï

(a)

Observation: Even though here there are two (Avodos. We learn from Holachah with Kabalah), and here there is one, he considers them equal.

åä÷ùä äøá øáé çééí ãäùúà îùîò ãäéëà ãìà éãò äé îéðééäå ìøáåéé îøáé úøåééäå

(b)

Question (R. Chayim): Now it connotes that when we do not know which to include, we include both;

åëï áøéù á''÷ (ãó â.) ãîøáé îåùìç ùï åøâì îùåí ãù÷åìéï äï åëï áô''÷ ãòøëéï (ãó ã:) âáé ðôùåú

1.

Similarly in Bava Kama (3a), we include, from v'Shilach, Shen and Regel (damage through an animal eating or walking), for they are equal, and likewise in Erchin (4b) regarding Nefashos (we include a woman who was Ma'arich a man, and a Menuval and Mukas Shechin).

åàéìå áôø÷ ëì äàñåøéí (úîåøä ãó ëç:) åôø÷ ùåø ùðâç àøáòä åä' (á''÷ ãó î:) ãøùéðï îï äáäîä ìäåöéà àú äøåáò åîï äöàï ìäåöéà àú äðåâç

2.

Whereas in Temurah (28b) and in Bava Kama (40b), we expound "Min ha'Behemah" to exclude Rove'a (an animal that had Bi'ah with a person), and "Min ha'Tzon" to exclude Noge'ach (an animal that killed a person);

å÷àîø îôðé ùéù áøåáò îä ùàéï áðåâç åéù áðåâç îä ùàéï áøåáò äåöøê ìåîø øåáò åäåöøê ìåîø ðåâç

3.

[The Gemara] says that because there is [a stringency] in Rove'a not found in Noge'ach, and there is in Noge'ach [a stringency] not found in Rove'a, the Torah needed to write [Min ha'Behemah to exclude] Rove'a and [Min ha'Tzon to exclude] Noge'ach. (Had the Torah written one, we do not know which to include, and we would include both!)

åúéøõ ãäéëà ãàéëà îùîòåú áøéáåé îøáéðï ëì äù÷åìéí ëé äëà ãæáç îùîò ìøáåéé ëòéï æáéçä ëì ùäéà òáåãä åëï åùìç éù áîùîò øâì åùï åðôùåú ðîé îùîò äëì

(c)

Answer (R. Chayim): When there is a connotation for an inclusion, we include all matters that are equal, like here, that "Zevach" connotes to include like Shechitah everything that is an Avodah, and Shen and Regel are connoted in v'Shilach, and also Nefashos connotes everything;

àáì îï ìà îùîò ìîòåèé ùðéäí

1.

However, "Min" does not connote to exclude both [Rove'a and Noge'ach].

13)

TOSFOS DH Eima Heicha d'Shachit she'Lo Lishman Lifselu

úåñôåú ã"ä àéîà äéëà ãùçéè ùìà ìùîï ìéôñìå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the basis of the question.)

úéîä äà áëì ãåëúà áòéðï á÷ãùéí [ùéðä] ìòëá åäëà ìà ùéðä

(a)

Question: Everywhere, in Kodshim we require that something is written twice to teach that it is Me'akev. Here, it was not repeated!

åé''ì ãôøéê îùéðåé ÷åãù ãàéëà úøé ÷øàé åàîøé' ìòéì àí àéðå òðéï ìùéðåé ÷åãù úðäå òðéï ìùéðåé áòìéí

(b)

Answer #1: [The Makshan] asks from Shinuy Kodesh, for which there are two verses, and we said above "since we do not need this to teach about Shinuy Kodesh, we use it to teach about Shinuy Ba'alim";

åôøéê ãäùúà àéîø úøåééäå áùéðåé ÷åãù åìòëá

1.

Now he asks that we should say that both teach about Shinuy Kodesh, and to be Me'akev.

å÷ùä îàé îùðé àîø ÷øà îåöà ùôúéê ãìîà ääåà ÷øà àúà ìùéðåé áòìéí ãìà àùëçï ùùéðä áäï äëúåá

2.

Question: What was the answer 'the verse says "Motza Sefasecha..."?' Perhaps that verse comes for Shinuy Ba'alim, for we do not find that [Shinuy Ba'alim] was repeated!

åìà ÷ùä îéãé ãîåöà ùôúéê ìà îùîò ùéðåé áòìéí.

3.

Answer: This is not difficult at all. "Motza Sefasecha" does not connote Shinuy Ba'alim.

[äâ''ä] åðøàä ãôøéê îëç ñáøà ëòéï ÷åùéà ãø''ì ãì÷îéä ãàéîà ãìéôñìå ëéåï ãàîøú ãìà òìå ìùí çåáä àå ðéîà ãéòìå ãàí ëùøéï äï éøöå åàí àéï îøöéï ìîä áàéï

(c)

Answer #2: It seems that [the Makshan] asked based on reasoning, like Reish Lakish's question below (5a) "they should be Pasul, since you say that he did not fulfill his obligation, or we should say that they count [for his obligation], for if they are Kosher, they should be Meratzeh. If they are not Meratzeh, why do they come?!"

[åîéäå] ìà ãîé ãøéù ì÷éù ôøéê éäå ëùøéï âîåøéï ëîå ùàø ÷ãùéí ãìà ùðä ìòëá àå (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) ìéôñìå

(d)

Retraction: However, it is different. Reish Lakish asked that they should be totally Kosher, like other Kodshim for which [the Torah] did not repeat [the Isur] to make it be Me'akev, and to be Pasul. (Reish Lakish had no source to disqualify. He only said that since there is no source to disqualify, they should be totally Kosher. And if you have a source that he is not Yotzei through them, they should be Pasul.)

åäëà ìà äåä ìéä ìîéôøê ùìà ìùîä ìéôñìå àìà äåä ìéä ìîéîø åìéúëùøå åéòìå ìçåáä ëùàø (îëàï îãó äáà) ÷ãùéí ùìà ùðä ìòëá ëì ëîä ãàëúé ìà éãò ÷øà ãîåöà ùôúéê

1.

And here, [if the Makshan held like Reish Lakish] he should not have asked that Lo Lishmah should be Pasul. Rather, he should have said "they should be Kosher and count for his obligation, like other Kodshim for which [the Torah] did not repeat [the Isur] to make it be Me'akev, as long as he did not know [the Drashah from] the verse Motza Sefasecha.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF