1)

TOSFOS DH Mechashvin me'Avodah l'Avodah (cont.)

úåñôåú ã"ä îçùáéï îòáåãä ìòáåãä (äîùê)

åúéîä ãì÷îï (ãó éâ.) ãôøéê å÷áìä îé ôñìä ëå' åîùðé ëàï áîçùáú ùìà ìùîï ëàï áîçùáú ôéâåì

(a)

Question: Below (13a), it asks "does Kabalah disqualify?!..." and answers "this refers to intent Lo Lishmah, and this refers to intent of Pigul";

àîàé ìà îùðé àéãé åàéãé áîçùáú ùìà ìùîï å÷áìä ìà òùä áä îçùáä ëîòùä ëâåï áùåçè òì îðú ì÷áì ùìà ìùîï åáæøé÷ä (ìà) òùä áä îçùáä ëîòùä

1.

Why doesn't it answer that both of them refer to intent Lo Lishmah, and Kabalah does not make intent like action, e.g. Shechitah with intent to do Kabalah Lo Lishmah, and Zerikah makes intent like action?

åðøàä ìé ãì÷îï îééøé ùçéùá áòáåãä òöîä àí ÷áì [ìâîåø ä÷áìä] ùìà ìùîï ôñåì åàí ÷áì [ìâîåø] çåõ ìæîðå ëùø

(b)

Answer: Below, we discuss when he intended in the Avodah itself - if he received in order to finish the Kabalah Lo Lishmah, it is Pasul. If he received in order to finish Chutz li'Zmano, it is Kosher;

åàí æø÷ ìâîåø äæøé÷ä çåõ ìæîðå ôñåì

1.

If he did Zerikah in order to finish the Zerikah Chutz li'Zmano, it is Pasul;

åëï î÷èéø ìâîåø ää÷èøä ìîçø ãäåä ôñåì àé ìàå ãîòèéä ÷øà ì÷îï îùåí ãàéï îòëáú ëôøä

2.

Similarly, Haktarah in order to finish the Haktarah tomorrow, it would be Pasul, had a verse not excluded this below, because [Haktarah] is not Me'akev Kaparah.

àáì ìéëà ìôøåùé ì÷îï îçùáú ôéâåì ãìà ôñìä á÷áìä ëâåï ùåçè òì îðú ì÷áì ãîï çåõ ìæîðå ãáùìà ìùîï ðîé ìà ôñìä

(c)

Implied suggestion: Below it says that intent for Pigul does not disqualify in Kabalah, e.g. Shechitah with intent to receive the blood Chutz li'Zmano, and also Lo Lishmah does not disqualify.

ãîòáåãä ìòáåãä éìôéðï îôéâåì (äâäú çéìåôé âøñàåú, áâìéåï îöèèå)

(d)

Rejection: We learn from Pigul [that intent disqualifies] from Avodah to Avodah.

àìà ëãôøùéðï áçéùá áòáåãä òöîä. áøå''ê

(e)

Conclusion (R. Baruch): Rather, it is like I explained. He had intent in the Avodah itself.

åáìàå äëé úéîä ãäåé îöé ìîéîø ÷áìä ìà òùä áä îçùáä ëîòùä ìòðéï ùéðåé áòìéí

(f)

Question: Even without this, this is astounding. It could have said that for Kabalah, intent is not like action regarding Shinuy Ba'alim!

2)

TOSFOS DH Reish Lakish Amar Muteres

úåñôåú ã"ä øéù ì÷éù àîø îåúøú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that he agrees that the person is executed.)

îåãä ø''ì ãçééá îéúä ëãàîøéðï áôø÷ àøáò îéúåú (ñðäãøéï ñà.) îéãé ãäåä àîùúçåä ìäø ãäø îåúø åòåáãå áñééó

(a)

Explanation: Reish Lakish agrees that he is Chayav Misah, like we say in Sanhedrin (61a), like we find regarding one who bowed to a mountain. The mountain is permitted and the one who served it is killed by the sword [if he is a Nochri. A Yisrael is stoned for idolatry];

åùçéèú îåîø ìà çùéá ëãôé' áô''÷ ãçåìéï (ãó éã.) âáé ùåçè áùáú

1.

[Even so, the meat is permitted. It] is not considered Shechitah of a Mumar, like I explained in Chulin (14a DH ha'Shochet) regarding one who slaughtered on Shabbos (that one does not become a Mumar the first time he transgresses).

åàéï ìúîåä åäéàê ðäøâ ãéìîà îéîìê åìà æøé÷ ìòáåãú ëåëáéí ëãàîø áôø÷ ã' îéúåú (ñðäãøéï ñà.) ãðéñú ùàîø àìê àòáåã ôèåø ãîéîìê åìà òáéã

(b)

Question: How is he killed? Perhaps he will reconsider, and not do Zerikah for idolatry, like it says in Sanhedrin (61a) that if one was enticed [to do idolatry] and said "I will go and serve", he is exempt, for he will reconsider and not serve!

ãäëà åãàé ìà îéîìê ëéåï ãòáã îòùä ùùçè òì îðú ìæøå÷

(c)

Answer #1: Here surely he will not reconsider, since he did an act and slaughtered with intent to throw.

åòåã äëà àôéìå éãåò åãàé ùìà éæøå÷ çùéá òåáã òáåãú ëåëáéí áùçéèä [ [æå] ëùùåçè ò''î ìæøå÷

(d)

Answer #2: Here, even if we knew surely that he will not throw, he is considered one who serves idolater through Shechitah, when he slaughtered with intent to throw.

3)

TOSFOS DH Makom she'Im Amar Hareini Shochet she'Lo Lishman v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä î÷åí ùàí àîø äøéðé ùåçè ùìà ìùîï ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks from Pesach she'Lo l'Shem Ochlin, and answers.)

åà''ú ùåçè ùìà ìùí àåëìéï áôñç éåëéç ãùåçè ùìà ìùí àåëìéï ôñåì åùåçè ò''î ìæøå÷ ùìà ìùí àåëìéï ëùø

(a)

Question: One who slaughtered Pesach she'Lo l'Shem Ochlin disproves this. One who slaughters she'Lo l'Shem Ochlin is Pasul, but Shechitah in order to do Zerikah she'Lo l'Shem Ochlin is Kosher!

åéù ìåîø ãìà ãîé äúí ãæåø÷ òöîå ùìà ìùí àåëìéï ëùø

(b)

Answer: There is different, for one who does Zerikah itself she'Lo l'Shem Ochlin, it is Kosher.

4)

TOSFOS DH Lo Somar bi'Zerikah v'Teisi b'Kal v'Chomer mi'Shechitah v'Kabalah

úåñôåú ã"ä ìà úàîø áæøé÷ä åúéúé á÷''å îùçéèä å÷áìä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes that this opinion has an exclusion for Zerikah.)

úéîä îàï ãìà ôøéê ùëï èòåðåú öôåï åéùðï áçèàåú äôðéîéåú îùåí ãáùìîéí ÷ééîà (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) îàé öøéê ìîéìó îáéðééà

(a)

Question #1: The one who does not ask that [Shechitah and Kabalah] require the north, and they apply to inner Chata'os, because we discuss Shelamim, why do we need to learn from both of them?

ðéìéó á÷''å î÷áìä ùàéï çééáéï òìéä áçåõ åàôéìå äëé ôñìä áä îçùáä

1.

We should learn from a Kal v'Chomer from Kabalah, for which one is not liable outside [the Mikdash], and even so, intent disqualifies in it!

åòåã ìîä ìé ÷øà áæøé÷ä ìùéðåé áòìéí ããøùé' ìëôø òìéå úéúé îáéðééà îùçéèä å÷áìä

(b)

Question #2: [And according to him,] why do we need a verse for Zerikah with Shinuy Ba'alim, which we expound (4b) from "Lechaper Alav"? We should learn from the Tzad ha'Shavah of Shechitah and Kabalah!

åòåã ÷ùä àîàé àéï îçùáú àåëìéï áôñç áæøé÷ä úéúé á÷''å îùçéèä ùëùéøä áæø ëéåï ãìà ôøëéðï îöôåï åçèàåú äôðéîéåú

(c)

Question #3: [And according to him,] why is there no intent of eaters in Pesach in Zerikah? We should learn from a Kal v'Chomer from Shechitah, which is Kosher through a Zar, since we do not ask from the north and inner Chata'os!

åîéäå ãéìîà úðà (äâäú ôðéí îàéøåú) îéòåèà äåà

(d)

Answer: Perhaps the Tana [expounds] an exclusion [to exclude Zerikah].

åàò''â ãùìà ìîðåééï ãäééðå ùéðåé áòìéí ëúéá ðîé (äâäú ôðéí îàéøåú) åìà îîòèé æøé÷ä

(e)

Implied question: She'Lo li'Mnuyav (for people who do not own a share of it), i.e. Shinuy Ba'alim, is also written in the verse (there is a Hekesh to Lo l'Ochlav), and we do not exclude Zerikah!

ìà ãîé (òééï ôñçéí ãó ñà.)

(f)

Answer: It is different. (Shinuy Ba'alim applies to all Korbanos.)

5)

TOSFOS DH v'Hadar Bei Rabah Legabei Rav Nachman mi'Kal v'Chomer d'Rav Ashi

úåñôåú ã"ä åäãø áéä øáä ìâáé ãøá ðçîï î÷ì åçåîø ãøá àùé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that this is only according to Rabanan.)

[äééðå] ìøáðï ãàìéáà ãø' ùîòåï ìéëà ÷ì åçåîø

(a)

Explanation: This is according to Rabanan, for according to R. Shimon, there is no Kal v'Chomer;

ãàéëà ìîéôøê îä ìùéðåé áòìéí ùëï ðåäâ áîðçåú úàîø áùéðåé ÷åãù ùàéðå ðåäâ áîðçåú ìøáé ùîòåï (îðçåú ãó á:):

1.

We can challenge it. You cannot learn from Shinuy Ba'alim, which applies to Menachos, to Shinuy Kodesh, which does not apply to Menachos according to R. Shimon (Menachos 2b).

10b----------------------------------------10b

6)

TOSFOS DH Chatas Ne'emar Bah Hi

úåñôåú ã"ä çèàú ðàîø áä äéà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that there are also other sources for Ikuva.)

áëîä î÷åîåú îùîò ãîãëúéá äéà ðô÷à ìï òëåáà

(a)

Observation: In several places, it connotes that since it says "Hi", we learn Ikuva.

åúéîä ãìòéì ðô÷à ìï î÷øàé àçøéðà

(b)

Question: Above, we learn from other verses!

åìòéì (ãó ä:) ôéøùúé

(c)

Answer: I explained above (5b DH Mi'et. We need additional verses because we cannot learn all Chata'os from each other.)

7)

TOSFOS DH Harei Hu Omer k'Chatas k'Asham

úåñôåú ã"ä äøé äåà àåîø ëçèàú ëàùí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gezeirah Shavah did not suffice.)

áàùí (äâää áâìéåï) ëúéá åäåä îöé ìîéìó àùí îçèàú áâæéøä ùåä ãòåï òåï îçèàú ãùîéòú ÷åì ãäà ìîåúøå (âéøñú øò"à) ðãáä âîéøé åàéï â''ù ìîçöä (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú)

(a)

Implied question: This is written regarding Asham. We could have learned Asham from Chatas from a Gezeirah Shavah "Avon-Avon" from Chatas Shevu'as ha'Edus, for we learn [from this Gezeirah Shavah] that Mosar [of Asham] is Nedavah, and a Gezeirah Shavah is not partial (we learn everything possible from it)!

àìà àé ìàå äé÷ùà äåä îîòè àùí îàåúä

(b)

Answer: If not for this Hekesh, we would have excluded Asham from "Osah".

8)

TOSFOS DH Mah leha'Tzad ha'Shavah she'Bahen she'Chen Tzad Kares

úåñôåú ã"ä îä ìäöã äùåä ùáäï ùëï öã ëøú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos justifies this Pircha, and gives another Pircha.)

åàò''â ãàùí úìåé ðîé áà òì ëøú

(a)

Implied question: Also Asham Taluy comes for [a Safek about] Kares!

àéðå áà ìëôø àìà ìäâï åìëé îúééãò îééúé çèàú

(b)

Answer: It does not come to atone, rather to protect [from punishment], and when he finds out [that he truly sinned] he will bring a Chatas.

åä''ð äåä îöé ìîéîø ùëï áàéï áöáåø

(c)

Observation: We could have said [that we cannot learn from Chatas and Pesach] because they come b'Tzibur.

9)

TOSFOS DH mi'Chatas di'Shemi'as ha'Kol

úåñôåú ã"ä îçèàú ãùîéòú ä÷åì

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we do not reject this due to Kares.)

åìéëà ìîéôøê îä ìùí çèàú ùëï ëøú

(a)

Implied question: We should ask that we cannot learn from Chatas, for it pertains to Kares!

ãçãà îçãà ìà ôøëéðï ëì ãäå

(b)

Answer: When we learn from one source, we do not ask flimsy Pirchos.

10)

TOSFOS DH u'Mah Olah she'Hi Kalil v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä åîä òåìä ùäéà ëìéì ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we do not disqualify Olah Lo Lishmah.)

úéîä ëéåï ãàúé äàé ÷''å åîôé÷ îäé÷éùà àí ëï úäà òåìä ôñåìä ùìà ìùîä ÷''å îçèàú ùàéðä ëìéì

(a)

Question: Since this Kal v'Chomer overrides the Hekesh, if so an Olah should be Pasul Lo Lishmah, from a Kal v'Chomer from Chatas, which is not Kalil (totally burned).

åëé úéîà îä ìçèàú ùëï îëôøú

1.

Suggestion: You cannot learn from Chatas, for it atones!

ôñç éåëéç

2.

Rejection: Pesach Yochi'ach (proves that the law does not depend on this).

åîéäå ëéåï ãëúéá àåúä áçèàú ìà ÷ùä

(b)

Answer: Since it says Osah regarding Chatas (this excludes other Korbanos), this is not difficult.

åúéîä ìñáøúå ãòáéã ÷ì åçåîø îòåìä ùäéà ëìéì ùìà ìùîå ðîé ìéëùø áàùí

(c)

Question: According to [Abaye's] reasoning, that he makes a Kal v'Chomer from Olah, which is Kalil, Lo Lishmah should be Kosher also for Asham!

åé"ì ãúå ìéëà ìîéîø çèàú äòåó (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) éåëéç

(d)

Answer: [Olah does not atone, so Abaye needed Chatas ha'Of to be Yochi'ach that it does not depend on this. If we seek to be Machshir Lo Lishmah,] now Chatas ha'Of cannot be Yochi'ach [for it is Pasul Lo Lishmah].

11)

TOSFOS DH Hagahah Kol Damim she'Nichnesu l'Heichal Lechaper Pesulim

úåñôåú ã"ä äâ''ä ëì ãîéí ùðëðñå ìäéëì ìëôø ôñåìéí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with the Gemara below and in Menachos.)

ìà ãîé ìäà ãàîø (ì÷îï ãó ñâ. åîðçåú ãó ç. åùí) [ùìîéí ùùçèï] áäéëì ëùéøåú ìà éäà èôì çîåø îï äòé÷ø

(a)

Implied question: Why is this unlike what we say (below 63a, Menachos 8a) that a Shelamim slaughtered in the Heichal is Kosher. What is secondary (the Azarah) should not be greater than what is primary (the Heichal)!

ãäðé îéìé äéëà ãëúéá àì ôúç àäì îåòã ùúìä äëùéøå áäéëì:

(b)

Answer: That is only when it says Pesach Ohel Mo'ed, for it attributes the Hechsher to the Heichal.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF