1)

TOSFOS DH Modeh Hayah Lifsol mi'Kal v'Chomer

úåñôåú ã"ä îåãä äéä ìôñåì î÷ì åçåîø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves a difficulty in Gitin based on this.)

îëàï îúøöéí ääéà ãô' äðæ÷éï (âéèéï ãó ðã: åùí) ã÷àîø ø' éåñé ëäï âãåì áéåí äëôåøéí éåëéç ãëé àîø ôéâåì îäéîï

(a)

Reference: From here they answer the Gemara in Gitin (54b). R. Yosi said that the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kipur is Yochi'ach. When he says that he made Pigul (when he was alone in the Heichal) he is believed;

åø' éåñé ñáéøà ìéä ëø''ù áô' ä÷åîõ æåèà (îðçåú ãó éã.) ãàéï ôéâåì àìà áãáø äðòùä òì îæáç äçéöåï

1.

Implied question: In Menachos (14a), R. Yosi holds like R. Shimon, that Pigul applies only to what is done on the outer Mizbe'ach!

åìîàé ãàîø äëà ãîåãä äåà ìôñåì ðéçà ãôéâåì ìàå ãå÷à

2.

Answer #1: According to what it says here, that [R. Shimon] agrees that it is Pasul, this is fine. "Pigul" is not precise. (Also elsewhere, we find that Pigul is not precise - PF.)

åòåã éù ìôøù äééðå ùìà ìùîä

3.

Answer #2: [R. Yosi said Pigul, but] he refers to Lo Lishmah.

åìà ðäéøà

4.

Rebuttal: This is unreasonable.

2)

TOSFOS DH u'Mah she'Lo Lishman v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä åîä ùìà ìùîï ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that really, we learn from a Tzad ha'Shavah.)

úéîä îä ìùìà ìùîï ùëï ðåäâ áã' òáåãåú úàîø áçåõ ìæîðå ùàéðå ðåäâ àìà áæøé÷ä åëé äàé âååðà ôøéê ìòéì (ãó ã.) (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú, áøëú äæáç)

(a)

Question: We cannot learn from she'Lo Lishman, for it applies to [all] four Avodos. Chutz li'Zmano applies only to Zerikah! (Ayeles ha'Shachar - Chutz li'Zmano does not apply within one Avodah itself, except for Zerikah with intent to finish Zerikah Chutz li'Zmano.) We asked like this above (4a).

åéù ìåîø ãàé äåä ôøéê äëé äåä òáéã ÷''å îùðåé áòìéí ãäåé ëôéâåì (äâäú òåã éåñó çé, àîúçú áðéîéï) áæøé÷ä

(b)

Answer: Had he asked so, we would make a Kal v'Chomer from Shinuy Ba'alim, which is like Pigul, and applies only to Zerikah.

åîéäå ÷ùä îä ìùðåé áòìéí ùëï ôåñì áæáéçä áôñç àå áæøé÷ä ìçåãéä

(c)

Question: We cannot learn from Shinuy Ba'alim, for it disqualifies in Shechitah [alone] regarding Pesach, or in Zerikah alone!

åé''ì ãùìà ìùîï éåëéç åéìôéðï áîä äöã îùðåé ÷ãù åùðåé áòìéí

(d)

Answer: She'Lo Lishman (Shinuy Kodesh) Yochi'ach, and we learn from the Tzad ha'Shavah of Shinuy Kodesh and Shinuy Ba'alim.

3)

TOSFOS DH Toch Azarah Mekadesh

úåñôåú ã"ä äâ''ä úåê òæøä î÷ãù

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how "Im Yardu Lo Ya'alu" can apply according to this.)

èòîà ãøáé éäåãä ì÷îï áôø÷ ÷ãùé ÷ãùéí (ãó ðè.)

(a)

Explanation: R. Yehudah's reason is below (59a. He explains the verse simply.)

åöøéê ìã÷ã÷ ìø' éäåãä ëéåï ãòæøä î÷ãù äéëé îùëçú ìä áôñåìéï ãàí éøãå ìà éòìå

(b)

Question: According to R. Yehudah, since the Azarah is Mekadesh, how do we find that if Pesulim descended, they do not ascend? (It is as if they are still on the Mizbe'ach!)

åé''ì ãîùëçú ìä [áàåúí] ãéøãå áìùëä àå áàåìí

(c)

Answer #1: We find it if they descended to a chamber (around the Azarah) or in the Ulam.

àå òì âáé ãó ãìà (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí) åòãéó îàåéø ãàîø ô''á (ì÷îï ëå.) úìä åùçè ôñåì

(d)

Answer #2: They descended onto a board. It is no better than the airspace [above the Azarah], for it says below (26a) that if one suspended [the Korban in the airspace of the Azarah] and slaughtered, it is Pasul.

à''ð ùçè òì äøöôä åàç''ë ðúï òì äãó ãäùúà éøãå

(e)

Answer #3: He slaughtered on the floor [of the Azarah], and afterwards put [the Korban] on a board. Now, they descended.

åö''ò ãì÷îï (ãó ÷ë.) îáòéà ìäå éøãå îäå ùéòìå (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí)

(f)

Question (against Answer #3): Below (120a), we ask if [Kodshei Kodoshim were slaughtered in the south, and they descended, do we bring them up [offer them? Tzon Kodoshim - this is worse than other Pesulim. All the more so, since they already descended onto a board, we do not bring them up!]

åòåã éù ìåîø ãîåãä øáé éäåãä áãîéí ì÷îï ãáòé îæáç åäãí ìà òìä áøöôä

(g)

Answer #4: Below (60a), R. Yehudah agrees about blood, that it requires a Mizbe'ach, and the blood does not have the law of Alah (it ascended) while on the floor.

åúå ãìùåï àí òìå ãð÷è äééðå ìãéðà ã÷åãí ãàúà ãåã å÷ãéù øöôä å÷åãí áðéï ùìîä äâ''ä:

(h)

Answer #5: It says "if they ascended", i.e. according to letter of the law, before David came and was Mekadesh the floor, and before Shlomo built the Mikdash. (Keren Orah says that "David" is not precise. Only Shlomo was Mekadesh.)

14b----------------------------------------14b

4)

TOSFOS DH Shikor

úåñôåú ã"ä ùéëåø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses what intoxicated him.)

ôéøù á÷åðèøñ ùúåé ééï

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This is one who drank wine.

åìà îùîò ëï áôø÷ îåîéï àìå ôñåìéï áàãí (áëåøåú ãó îä:) àìà ùéëåø áùàø ãáøéí äîùëøéí åëø' (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí) éäåãä ãàîø îçìé òáåãä

(b)

Rebuttal (and Explanation #2): It connotes unlike this in Bechoros (45b)! Rather, Shikor is through other intoxicants, and this is like R. Yehudah, who says that he disqualifies Avodah.

îéäå éù ìåîø ãùéëåø (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã) ãúðï äúí åãàé ìà äåé ùúåé ééï ëãôøé' äúí áäãé îåîéï ãîçìé òáåãä áòé ìîéçùáä

(c)

Defense (of Explanation #1): However, we can say that surely, Shikor that was taught there is not one who drank wine, like it asks there "it should have been taught with Mumim that disqualify Avodah!";

àáì ùéëåø ãäëà ôùèéä îùîò ùúåé ééï åäà ëãàéúà åäà ëãàéúà åìëåìé òìîà îçìì ìòáåãä ëãôøéê äúí áôùéèåú àçåìé îéçì òáåãä äåà

1.

However, Shikor here, the simple meaning connotes that he drank wine. There [it refers to one who drank other intoxicants] like it means there, and here [it refers to one who drank wine] like it means here, and [here] all agree that he disqualifies Avodah, like it asks there simply "he disqualifies Avodah!"

5)

TOSFOS DH v'Ha Shechitah she'Iy Efshar Levatlah u'Kesherah

úåñôåú ã"ä åäà ùçéèä ùàé àôùø ìáèìä åëùøä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the question unlike Rashi.)

ôøù''é àìîà ìàå áàôùø ìáèìä úìé åàú àîøú ìøáðï ôñåì

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This shows that it does not depend on whether or not one can be Mevatel it. Do you say that according to Rabanan it is Pasul?!

åúéîä ãîàé ôéøëà ìøáðï åãàé ìà áäà úìé

(b)

Question: What was the question? According to Rabanan, surely it does not depend on this!

åäà ãôñìé áäåìëä îùåí ãî÷áìä åàéìê îöåú ëäåðä

1.

They disqualify [due to intent in] Holachah because from Kabalah and onwards is a Mitzvah of (i.e. requires) Kehunah!

àìà ôøéê ãîëùéø ìø' ùîòåï îùåí ãàôùø ìáèì äà ìà úìé áäà îãîëùø æø áùçéèä àò''â ãàé àôùø ìáèìä

(c)

Explanation #2: Rather, he asks that R. Shimon is Machshir because one can be Mevatel it. It does not depend on this, since a Zar is Kosher for Shechitah, even though one cannot be Mevatel it!

åáñîåê ãôøéê îäåìëú àáøéí ìøáé ùîòåï ôøéê

1.

Below, when it asks from Holachah of limbs, it asks according to R. Shimon.

åëï ðøàä ãîééúé àîø ø' àìòæø äåìëä áæø ôñåìä àôéìå (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) ìøáé ùîòåï

2.

Support: [The Gemara] brings R. Elazar's teaching that Holachah of a Zar is Pasul even according to R. Shimon.

6)

TOSFOS DH Hagahah Shechitah Lav Avodah Hi

úåñôåú ã"ä äâ''ä ùçéèä ìàå òáåãä äéà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the source of this.)

ôéøù á÷åðèøñ îãàúëùøå áä ëì äôñåìéí

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [Shechitah is not an Avodah] because all Pesulim are Kosher for it.

åàé àôùø ìåîø ëï ãàäëùø æø âåôä îééúé ìä [äëà] åáô''÷ ãîðçåú (ãó å:)

(b)

Rebuttal: This cannot be, for we bring [that Shechitah is not an Avodah] to explain why a Zar is Kosher, here and in Menachos (6b)!

åîéäå éù ìééùá ôéøåùå ãëéåï ãáùåí î÷åí ìà áòé ëäï áùçéèä ìàå òáåãä äéà åìäëé ôøéê òìä îôøä

(c)

Defense: We can say that since we do not require a Kohen for Shechitah in any place, it is not an Avodah. This is why [the Gemara] asks from [Shechitas] Parah [Adumah].

åä''ø éò÷á ãàåøìéð''ù îôøù ìàå òáåãä äéà ìôé ùùåä áçåìéï åá÷ãùéí à''ë ìàå îèòí òáåãä öåä äî÷åí ùçéèä

(d)

Explanation #2 (Ri of Orlins): It is not an Avodah because it is the same in Chulin and in Kodshim. If so, the Torah did not command Shechitah due to Avodah.

åìé ðøàä ìàå òáåãä äéà îãîëùøéðï ì÷îï áô' ùðé (ãó ëå.) òåîã áãøåí åäåùéè éãå ìöôåï åùçè á÷ãùé ÷ãùéí åáî÷áì ôñåì

(e)

Explanation #3: I say that it is not an Avodah, because below (26a) we are Machshir one who stands in the south and stretches his hand to the north and slaughters Kodshei Kodoshim. Regarding Kabalah it is Pasul [in such a case];

ããøùéðï àåúå áöôåï åìà ùåçè áöôåï àáì î÷áì áöôåï

1.

We expound "Oso (the Korban is) b'Tzafon", but the Shochet need not be in the north, but the Mekabel must be in the north;

åáùìîéí îëùéøéï òåîã áçåõ åäåùéè éãå ìôðéí åùçè åàí ÷áì ÷áìúå ôñåìä

2.

Regarding Shelamim we are Machshir one who stands outside [the Mikdash] and stretches his hand inside and slaughters. If he received [like this], the Kabalah is Pasul;

ããøùéðï áô' ëì äôñåìéï (ì÷îï ãó ìá:) áï äá÷ø ìôðé ä' åìà ùåçè ìôðé ä'

i.

We expound (32b) "Ben ha'Bakar Lifnei Hash-m", but the Shochet need not be Lifnei Hash-m;

àáì ÷áì ÷áìúå ôñåìä îùåí ãëúéá ìòîåã ìôðé ä' ìùøúå àìîà ëì ùéøåú ìôðé ä'

ii.

However, if he received, the Kabalah is Pasul, because it says "La'amod Lifnei Hash-m Lesharso." This shows that all service must be Lifnei Hash-m;

ù''î îãîëùéø øçîðà òåîã áçåõ åäåùéè éãå ìôðéí åùçè îëìì ãùçéèä ìàå òáåãä äéà

iii.

Inference: Since the Torah is Machshir one who stands outside and stretches his hand and slaughters, this implies that Shechitah is not an Avodah.

åòåã îãàîø áääéà ùîòúà áô''á (ãó ëå.) ðúìä åùçè ùçéèúå ëùøä ãùçéèä òì éøê àîø øçîðà åìà ùåçè òì éøê

(f)

Support: Also, it says below (26a) that that if one was suspended [in the airspace of the Azarah] and slaughtered, it is Kosher, for the Torah said that Shechitah (i.e. the Korban) must be "Al Yerech" (by the Mizbe'ach), but the Shochet need not be Al Yerech.

àìîà ãùçéèä ìàå òáåãä äéà ãàé òáåãä äéà ìà äåä îëùø øçîðà áëé äàé âååðà ãäà ðúìä å÷áì àîøéðï ã÷áìúå ôñåìä îùåí ãàéï ãøê ùéøåú áëê

1.

Inference: Shechitah is not an Avodah, for if it were an Avodah, the Torah would not be Machshir it in such a case, for we say (26a) that if one was suspended [in the air] and did Kabalah, it is Pasul, for this is not the way to serve.

åîãôøéê äëà åáô' çèàú äòåó (ì÷îï ãó ñç:) åáô''÷ ãîðçåú (ãó å:) îôøä ãàîø øá ùçéèú ôøä áæø ôñåìä îùîò ÷öú ëôé' ä÷åðèøñ

(g)

Support (for Explanation #1): Since it asks here and below (68b) and in Menachos (6b) from Parah, that Rav said that if a Zar did Shechitah of Parah, it is Pasul, this connotes a little like Rashi explained.

îéäå âí ìôé îä ùôéøùúé éù ìééùáå

(h)

Retraction of Support: However, also according to what I explained, we can resolve this.

àáì ÷ùä ìé ìôéøåùé (äâäú äøù"ù) ãà''ë ìùîòåï äúéîðé ãáòé ôø÷ ëì äôñåìéï (ì÷îï ãó ìá:) ùéäà éãéå ùì ùåçè ìôðéí îï äðùçè äåéà ùçéèä òáåãä

(i)

Question (against Explanation #3): If so, Shimon ha'Temani, who requires below (32b) that the Shochet's hand is further in [the Azarah] than the [Korban] slaughtered, Shechitah is an Avodah!

7)

TOSFOS DH She'ani Parah d'Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis Hi

úåñôåú ã"ä ùàðé ôøä ã÷ãùé áã÷ äáéú äéà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explained this elsewhere.)

áô''÷ ãçåìéï (ãó éà.) ôéøùúé

(a)

Reference: I explained this in Chulin (11a DH Chatas. It is Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, but because the Torah called it Chatas, in some ways it is like Kodshei Mizbe'ach.)

8)

TOSFOS DH Harei Holachas Evarim l'Kevesh d'Efshar Levatlah...

úåñôåú ã"ä åäøé äåìëú àáøéí ìëáù ãàôùø ìáèìä...

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses when we need a verse to teach to mandate a Kohen.)

ä÷ùä ä''ø àìéäå îàáøååé÷à ä÷ãåù ãáô''á ãéåîà (ãó ëæ.) àîøéðï îãàöèøéê ìîëúá ëäï áäåìëú àáøéí ìëáù

(a)

Question (R. Eliyahu of Avrvika ha'Kadosh): In Yoma (27a), we say that since [the Torah] needed to write "Kohen" regarding taking limbs to the ramp...

ôé' ìâåôéä ìà àöèøéê àìà ìâìåú ãäåìëú òöéí ìîæáç ìà áòé ëäï

1.

This is not needed for the law itself, rather, to reveal that taking wood to the Mizbe'ach does not require a Kohen;

åîãàöèøéê îòåè ìäåìëú òöéí à''ë ñéãåø á' âæøé òöéí áòé ëäåðä (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú, áøëú äæáç)

2.

Since we need an exclusion for taking wood, if so arranging two logs requires Kehunah;

åà''ë øáé ùîòåï ãáòé á' ëäðéí äúí (ãó ëå:) ìùðé âæøé òöéí îðà ìéä ãäà ëäï ãëúá âáé äåìëú àáøéí àöèøéê ìâåôéä îùåí ãàôùø ìáèìä

3.

If so, R. Shimon, who requires there (26b) two Kohanim for the two logs, what is his source? The "Kohen" written regarding taking limbs to the ramp is needed for the law itself, for one can [slaughter next to the Mizbe'ach and] be Mevatel this!

åé''ì ãøáé ùîòåï ìèòîéä ãàîø äúí (ãó îä.) äöúú àìéúà ìà öøéê ìîëúá áéä ëäï ãåëé úòìä òì ãòúê ùæø ÷øá ìîæáç åøáðï àôùø ãòáéã áîôåçà

(b)

Answer: R. Shimon holds like he taught elsewhere. He said there (45a) that the Torah did not need to write "Kohen" regarding lighting the small chips [of the Ma'arachah], for would it cross your mind that a Zar approaches the Mizbe'ach?! Rabanan [need "Kohen"], for [if not], it is possible [for a Zar to light it from afar] via a bellows.

åà''ë øáé ùîòåï ò''ë ùðé âæøé òöéí áòå ëäåðä áìà ÷øà îèòîà ãåëé úòìä òì ãòúê ëå' ãëîå ãìéú ìéä áîôåçà ìéú ìéä àôùø ìäå áæøé÷ä

1.

If so, you are forced to say that R. Shimon holds that the two logs require Kehunah without a verse, because "would it cross your mind...?!" Just like he does not hold [that it is possible] via a bellows, he does not hold that it is possible to throw [the two logs].

àáì ìøáðï àéú ìäå áæøé÷ä ëîå ãàéú ìäå áîôåçà

2.

However, Rabanan hold [that it is possible] through throwing, just like they hold that [it is possible] via a bellows.

åëäï ãâáé äåìëú àáøéí ìâåôéä ìà àöèøéê ãäà ìéú ìäå (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú, öàï ÷ãùéí) èòîà ãàôùø ìáèìä àìà ìâìåú òì ùðé âæøé òöéí ãáòé ëäåðä

3.

The "Kohen" written regarding taking limbs [to the ramp] is needed for the law itself, for [Chachamim] do not hold [that Holachah is not a proper Avodah] because one can be Mevatel it. Rather, it reveals about the two logs, that they require Kehunah.

åáô' ä÷åîõ øáä (îðçåú ãó ë.) ãàîø (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) ìà îìç ëäï àìà æø ôøéê åëé úòìä òì ãòúê ùæø ÷øá

(c)

Implied question: In Menachos (20a), it says that [the Mishnah is Machshir when] a Kohen did not salt [a Minchah], rather, a Zar [did]. It asks "would it cross your mind that a Zar approaches [the Mizbe'ach to salt it]?!" (Is this only like R. Shimon?)

éù ìåîø ãàôéìå ìøáðï ãàéú ìäå áîôåçà åæøé÷ä ôøéê ùàéï éëåìéï ìîìåç áèåá òì éãé æøé÷ä

(d)

Answer: It asks even according to Rabanan, who hold [that it is possible from afar] through a bellows or throwing. One cannot salt well through throwing.

9)

TOSFOS DH Iba'i Lehu Holachah she'Lo b'Regel Shma Holachah Oh Lo

úåñôåú ã"ä àéáòéà ìäå äåìëä ùìà áøâì ùîä äåìëä àå ìà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the consequences of this.)

ôøù''é ìôñåì áä îçùáä åâí áæø

(a)

Explanation (Rashi): [We ask whether or not it is called Holachah] to disqualify through intent, and also through a Zar.

ãàé ùîä äåìëä îçùáä ùìà ìùîå àå ôéâåì ôåñìú áä

(b)

Possibility #1: If it is called Holachah, intent Lo Lishmah or of Pigul disqualifies.

åàé ìà ùîä äåìëä àéðä ÷øåéä òáåãä åöøéê ìäçæéø äîæø÷ àçøéå åìòùåú äåìëä áøâì

(c)

Possibility #2: And if it is not called Holachah, it is not called Avodah, and one must return the bucket and do Holachah by foot;

åâí àí òùàä æø àå éåùá àéï áëê ëìåí åéëåì ìú÷ðä áëäï áäåùèú éã (âéøñà éùðä, åùì èäøú ä÷åãù) ãëäï

1.

Also, if a Zar did it, or one who was sitting, this is not a problem, and he can fix it through a Kohen extending his hand. (It must be returned to its place through a Kohen, but this can be by hand. Tosfos did not need to teach that afterwards, Holachah to the Mizbe'ach must be through a Kohen, by foot - Taharos ha'Kodesh).

àå àí æø îåìéê áäåùèú éã (âéøñà éùðä, åùì èäøú ä÷åãù) ôñåìä [åàéðå] éëåì ìú÷ðä áëäï ìäçæéøä åìäåìéëä ëäï

2.

Or [according to Possibility #1], if a Zar took it through extending his hand, it is Pasul, and he cannot fix it through a Kohen returning it, and a Kohen will take it.

å÷àîø ú''ù åëï éåùá ôñåì äà òåîã ãåîéà ãéåùá ùàéðå ææ îî÷åîå ëùø àìîà äåéà äåìëä åòùä òáåãä ëú÷ðä

(d)

Explanation (cont.): [The Gemara] learns from "and similarly, [Holachah while] sitting is Pasul." This implies that standing like sitting, that he does not move from his place, is Kosher. This shows that it is Holachah, and he did the Avodah properly;

åìëê ðîé ëé òùàä îéåùá ôñåì ãëúéá ìòîåã ìùøú

1.

Also, this is why when he did it sitting it is Pasul, for it is written "La'amod Leshares." (Because it is considered Holachah, and it was Pasul, it cannot be fixed.)

àáì îéåùá ôñåì ìà îöé îåëç ãäåéà äåìëä ùìà áøâì (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí, ç÷ ðúï) òáåãä áìàå ãéå÷à [îùåí] ããìîà ìàå òáåãä äéà

(e)

Observation: However, from "sitting is Pasul" one could not prove that Holachah not by foot is Avodah, for perhaps it is not Avodah;

åéåùá ôñåì äééðå ëé ìà ú÷ðä åìà äçæéø äãí ìàçåøéå ìòùåú äåìëä àçøú:

1.

Sitting is Pasul, i.e. when he did not fix it, and did not return the blood back to do another Halachah.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF