1)

TOSFOS DH Amar R. Yosi Im l'Kach Niskaven mi'Tchilah

úåñôåú ã"ä àîø øáé éåñé àí ìëê ðúëååï îúçéìä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses in which case they argue.)

ôø÷ îøåáä (á''÷ ãó òâ:) àîøéðï úøé úåê ëãé ãéáåø äåå çã ëãé ùàéìú øá ìúìîéã ãæåèø åçã ëãé ùàéìú úìîéã ìøá ãðôéù

(a)

Explanation: In Bava Kama (73b), we say that there are two [Shi'urim] of Toch Kedei Dibur. One is the time for a Rebbi to greet a Talmid, which is smaller (the time to say two words, i.e. Shalom Alecha), and one is the time for a Talmid to greet his Rebbi, which is bigger (the time to say Shalom Alecha Rebbi u'Mori);

åúåê ëãé ãéáåø ÷èï îåãä øáé éåñé ãîåòéì ãéáåøå åäëé ÷àîø àí àîø úîåøú ùìîéí áúåê ëãé ãéáåø ÷èï ùì úîåøú òåìä ãäùúà ãåîä ãðúëååï îúçéìä ìëê

1.

R. Yosi agrees that his word helps [to retract or clarify what he said] Toch Kedei Dibur. He means as follows. If he said Temuras Shelamim within a small Toch Kedei Dibur of Temuras Olah, now it looks like he intended for this from the beginning;

åàôé' òåîã åöåç ùìà ðúëåéï äåàéì åàé àôùø ìäåöéà ùúé ùîåú ëàçú ãáøéå ÷ééîéï

i.

Even if he screams that he did not intend, since it is impossible to say two names at once, his words are fulfilled.

åðîìê ÷øé ìéä úåê ëãé ãéáåø âãåì ëùàîøå ìàçø ëãé ãéáåø ÷èï ùãåîä ìðîìê åàôé' àåîø ùðúëååï îúçìä ìùðéäí ìà àîø ëìåí

2.

"Reconsidered" is called [even] within a big Toch Kedei Dibur, when he said it after a small Toch Kedei Dibur, for it seems like he retracted. Even if he says that he intended for this from the beginning, his words have no effect.

2)

TOSFOS DH Devarav Kayamim

úåñôåú ã"ä ãáøéå ÷ééîéí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with the law of matters that cannot take affect one after the other.)

åà''ú åäà àîøéðï áô''á ã÷ãåùéï (ãó ð:) åáòéøåáéï ôø÷ îé ùäåöéàåäå (ãó ð.) åáô' ðòøä äîàåøñä (ðãøéí ñè:) ëì ùàéðå áæä àçø æä àôéìå (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) ááú àçú àéðå

(a)

Question: We say in Kidushin (50b) and in Eruvin (50a) and in Nedarim (69b) that whenever two matters cannot take affect one after the other, even if one did both at once, neither takes effect!

åé''ì ãëéåï ãîùëçú ìçöàéï (äâää áâìéåï, îöàï ÷ãùéí) áæä àçø æä ëâåï ãàîø çöéä ìãîé òåìä åçöéä ìãîé ùìîéí

(b)

Answer #1: [It takes affect here] because we find them half-way one after the other, e.g. he said "half is for Demei Olah, and half is for Demei Shelamim";

åàôéìå á÷ãåùú äâåó îùëçú ìä ëâåï ááäîä ùì ùðé ùåúôéï

1.

We find this even regarding Kedushas ha'Guf, e.g. the animal of two partners.

åòåã ãëì ùàéðå áæä àçø æä ááú àçú àéðå îééøé áãáø ùàé àúä éëåì ì÷ééí àú ùðéäí ùñåúøéí æä àú æä ëâåï î÷ãù àùä åáúä ãäé îéðééäå îô÷ú

(c)

Answer #2: "Anything that is not one after the other" discusses a matter that you cannot fulfill, because they contradict each other, e.g. one who is Mekadesh a woman and her daughter. Which will you exclude? (Why should you say that one is Mekudeshes, and the other is not?!)

åëï ÷ééí ìéëé åîåôø ìéëé ãðãøéí åëï àøáò àîåú ãòéøåáéï (ãó îè:) àáì äëà î÷ééîé úøååééäå

1.

Similarly, when one said [to his wife or daughter (a Na'arah)] "your vow is affirmed and annulled", and four Amos in Eruvin (49b - if one said that his Shevisah is under a tree, his Shevisah cannot include the four Amos on this side and the four Amos on the other side). However, here we fulfill both of them.

åëï áôø÷ äùåìç áâéèéï (ãó îá.) äëåúá ëì ðëñéå ìùðé òáãéå ÷ðå åîùçøøéï æä àú æä åìà àîøéðï ëì ùàéðå áæä àçø æä àôé' ááú àçú àéðå

(d)

Support: Similarly in Gitin (42a), one who writes all his property to his two slaves, they acquired, and they free each other, and we do not say that whatever cannot take effect one after the other, if one did both at once, neither takes effect!

îùåí ãäúí áæä àçø æä à''à ì÷ééí àú ùðéäí ãáæä àçø æä ÷îà ÷ðé ðôùéä å÷ðé çáøéä åáúøà ìà ÷ðé ëìì

1.

This is because there, we cannot fulfill both of them when it is one after the other, for the first acquired himself and acquired his fellow [slave], and the other does not acquire at all;

àáì ááú àçú àôùø ì÷ééí àú ùðéäí åàîøé' ÷ðå åîùçøøéï æä àú æä

2.

However, at once, we can fulfill both of them, and we say that they acquired, and they free each other.

åäà ãàîøéðï áô''÷ ã÷ãåùéï (ãó æ:) çöééê áçöé ôøåèä åçöééê áçöé ôøåèä ãàéðä î÷åãùú å÷îáòéà ìéä ùðé çöééê áôøåèä îäå ìà ùééê ìîéîø

(e)

Implied question: We say in Kidushin (7b) that if one said "half of you [is Mekudeshes to me] with half a Perutah, and [the other] half of you with [another] half a Perutah, she is not Mekudeshes, and ask "[if he said both halves of you for a Perutah, what is the law?"

úôùåè îãøáä ãàîø ëì ùàéðå áæä àçø æä àôé' ááú àçú àéðå

1.

We should resolve this from Rabah, who taught that whatever cannot take effect one after the other, even at once, neither takes effect!

ãëì ùàéðå áæä àçø æä îééøé áãáø ùàéï äùðé éëåì ìçåì îçîú ùçì äøàùåï úçìä ëâåï ùúé àçéåú åùúé úøåîåú åùúé îòùøåú äìëê ááú àçú àéðå îùåí ãäé îéðééäå îô÷ú

(f)

Answer: "Whatever cannot take effect one after the other" discusses when the latter cannot take effect because the first took affect first, e.g. [being Mekadesh] two sisters, or taking two Terumos or two Ma'aseros. Therefore, [if one did both] at once, neither takes effect, for "which will you exclude?";

àáì âáé ÷ãåùéï áæä àçø æä àéðå ìà æä åìà æä àáì ááú àçú úôñé úøååééäå

1.

However, regarding Kidushin [half at a time], one after the other, neither takes effect, but at once, both of them take effect.

åäà ãàîø áñåó ô''÷ ãîðçåú (ãó éà.) äéëé ãîé øéáä ùîðä ëâåï ùäôøéù ìä ùðé ìåâéï åîùîò ÷öú îúåê äñåâéà ùéù áäï ÷ãåùú äâåó

(g)

Implied question: It says in Menachos (11a) "what is the case of too much oil? He separated for it two Lugim", and the Sugya connotes somewhat that they have Kedushas ha'Guf;

åâáé çñø ìáåðúä ðîé ãéé÷ (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) äúí äà éúø ëùøä [åäúðéà éúø ôñåìä] åîôøùé ùí ëâåï ùäôøéù ìä ùðé ÷îöéí åàëùøä ÷àé ëãôøéùéú äúí

1.

Also when the Levonah is lacking, it infers there (11b) "if there was too much, it is Kosher. A Beraisa teaches that if there was too much, it is Pasul!", and [Rami bar Chama] explains there that he separated for it two Kamatzim. He explains [when too much is] Kosher, like I explained there.

åäùúà äéëé ÷ãùé äà àîøé' ëì ùàéðå áæä àçø æä ááú àçú àéðå

2.

Now, why are [both Kamatzim] Kadosh? We say that anything that is not one after the other, at once, neither takes effect!

åðøàä ìôøù ëâåï ãàîø é÷ãù ÷åîõ àçã îúåê ùðé ÷îöéí ëãàîø áôø÷ äúåãä (ùí òç:) åáô''á ã÷ãåùéï (ãó ðà.) âáé úåãä ùùçèä òì ùîåðéí çìåú äëì îåãéí äéëà ãàîø ìé÷ãùå î' îúåê ùîåðéí ã÷ãùé

(h)

Answer: The case is, he said "one Kometz among the two Kamatzim should be Kodesh', like it says in Menachos (78b) and in Kidushin (51a) regarding a Todah slaughtered for 80 loaves. All agree that when he said "40 should become Kadosh", that they become Kadosh.

3)

TOSFOS DH l'Chatzos Mahu

úåñôåú ã"ä ìçöåú îäå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos cites two explanations of this, and rejects a third.)

ôé' á÷åðè' ãàîø äøé áäîä æå ìçöåúä ìòåìä åùìîéí

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): He said "this animal is l'Chatzos Olah and Shelamim."

åàéï æä ãåîä ìçöéä òåìä åçöéä ùìîéí ãôìéâé áäãéà áúîåøä áôø÷ ëéöã îòøéîéï (ãó ëå.) (äâää áâìéåï)

1.

This is unlike half-Olah and half-Shelamim, about which they explicitly argue in Temurah (26a).

àáì áô' úîéã ðùçè (ôñçéí ôâ.) ìà ã÷ã÷ á÷åðèøñ ùäáéà äê ãùîòúéï åôé' ìçöåú ëâåï ãàîø çöéä úîåøú òåìä åçöéä úîåøú ùìîéí

(b)

Explanation #2: However, in Pesachim (83a), Rashi was not meticulous. He explained "l'Chatzos", e.g. he said half is Temuras Olah, and half is Temuras Shelamim.

åø''ç îôøù ìçöåú ëâåï ãàîø ìçöé äéåí úéäåé òåìä åùìîéí à''ð òåìä åùìîéí úäåé ìçöé äéåí

(c)

Explanation #3 (R. Chananel): "L'Chatzos" means that he said that at midday, it will be an Olah and Shelamim", or "it will be an Olah and Shelamim at midday."

4)

TOSFOS DH Amar Abaye b'Ha Vadai Modeh R. Meir

úåñôåú ã"ä àîø àáéé áäà åãàé îåãä ø''î

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains Rava's question.)

åôøéê åäøé ùçéèä ãëé ìçöåú ãîé ãëéåï ãàéðä ìùçéèä àìà ìáñåó äøé äåöéà ùðé äãéáåøéí ÷åãí ùéäà ñåó ùçéèä åäåé ëàéìå àîø ìñåó (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) ùçéèä éäà ëæéú çåõ ìæîðå åëæéú çåõ ìî÷åîå

(a)

Explanation: [Rava] asks that Shechitah is like "l'Chatzos", for since Shechitah is only at end, he said both utterances before the end of Shechitah. It is as if he said "at the end of Shechitah, a k'Zayis will be Chutz li'Zmano, and a k'Zayis Chutz li'Mkomo."

5)

TOSFOS DH Siman Rishon Chutz li'Zmano

úåñôåú ã"ä ñéîï øàùåï çåõ ìæîðå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses Rava's question and Abaye's answer.)

åãåå÷à ñéîï àçã ãäåé ãáø äîñåééí åîôâìéï áçöé îúéø

(a)

Explanation: This is only [if he said] one Siman, which is something specific, and one is Mefagel in half a Matir;

àáì àí àîø îùäå øàùåï çåõ ìæîðå åîùäå ùðé çåõ ìî÷åîå ìà äåé ôéâåì àò''â ãîôâìéï áçöé îúéø

1.

However, if he said that the first Mashehu is Chutz li'Zmano, and the second Mashehu is Chutz li'Mkomo, it is not Pigul, even though one can be Mefagel in half a Matir;

ëéåï ãìà äåé ãáø äîñåéí åìà ãîé ìôñéòåú

2.

Since it is not something specific, it is unlike steps.

åà''ú ãîùîò äëà ãøáà ñáéøà ìéä àéðä ìùçéèä àìà ìáñåó åäééðå ëøéù ì÷éù ãôø÷ ùðé ãçåìéï (ãó ëè:)

(b)

Question: It connotes here that Rava holds that Shechitah is only at the end. This is like Reish Lakish in Chulin (29b);

åùîòéðï ìéä ìøáà áôø÷ äçåìõ (éáîåú ìå.) ãáëåìé äù''ñ äìëúà ëøáé éåçðï ìâáé ø''ì áø îúìú

1.

We know that Rava holds in Yevamos (36a) that in the entire Gemara, the Halachah follows R. Yochanan against Reish Lakish, except for three laws (and this is not one of them)!

åéù ìåîø ãùàðé äëà îã÷àîø ìä ø''ì îùîéä ãìåé ñáà

(c)

Answer: Here is different, for Reish Lakish said so in the name of Levi the elder. (Rava does not count places in which Reish Lakish holds like others.)

åéù ìúîåä øáà ãôøéê ìéä ìàáéé åñ''ã ãñ''ì àéðä ìùçéèä àìà ìáñåó úé÷ùé ìéä îúðé' ãä÷ãéí îåìéí ìòøìéí ëùø òøìéí ìîåìéí ôñåì

(d)

Question: Rava challenged Abaye, and thought that [Abaye] holds that Shechitah is only at the end. He should challenge him from our Mishnah, that if he put [intent for] Mulim before Arelim, it is Kosher. If he put Arelim before Mulim, it is Pasul (Pesachim 62b);

äøé áñåó ùçéèä çì ãéáåø øàùåï åìà ùðé ãàé äåå çééìé úøååééäå äà ÷ééîà ìï ãî÷öú òøìä ìà ôñìä

1.

Inference: The first utterance takes effect at the end of Shechitah, and the second does not. If they both took effect, we hold that partial [intent for] Arelim does not disqualify (below, 65b)!

6)

TOSFOS DH v'Harei Kemitzah d'Chi l'Chatzos Dami u'Pligi

úåñôåú ã"ä åäøé ÷îéöä ãëé ìçöåú ãîé åôìéâé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why Rava did not ask from Melikas Chatas ha'Of.)

. úéîä ãìà ôøéê îîìé÷ä ãçèàú äòåó ãôìéâé ãçèàú äòåó äëùéøå áñéîï àçã åìéëà ùðé îúéøéï

(a)

Question: Why didn't he ask from Melikah of Chatas ha'Of, about which they argue? Chatas ha'Of requires only one Siman. There are not two Matirin!

åéù ìåîø ãàéëà ùúé îúéøéï ëâåï îôø÷ú åñéîï àçã:

(b)

Answer: We can say that there are two Matirin - the neckbone and one Siman (foodpipe or windpipe).

30b----------------------------------------30b

7)

TOSFOS DH Amar Lei Abaye veha'Amar Rabah bar bar Chanah v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä àîø ìéä àáéé åäàîø øáä áø áø çðä ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the answer, and questions Rava's challenge above.)

ìúøåééäå ìéú ìäå úôåñ ìùåï øàùåï ëãîôøù ì÷îï åäìëê øáé îàéø ãúîåøä áùçéèä ìà ëøáé éäåãä ñáéøà ìéä

(a)

Explanation: Both of them (R. Meir and R. Yosi) do not hold that we follow the first thing said, like it explains below. Therefore, R. Meir of Temurah, regarding Shechitah he does not hold like R. Yehudah.

(äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) åúéîä ãîàé î÷ùé ìéä øáà ìàáéé ìòéì åäøé ùçéèä ãëé ìçöåú ãîé åôìéâé äìà ø' éäåãä åãàé äåà ãàéú ìéä úôåñ ìùåï øàùåï àáì øáé îàéø ìà

(b)

Question: What was Rava's challenge to Abaye above (30a) "Shechitah is like l'Chatzos, and they argue!"? R. Yehudah surely holds that we follow the first thing said, but R. Meir does not!

ãìéú ìéä ìàáéé øáé îàéø áùéèú øáé éäåãä àìà îãàîø úîåøú òåìä úîåøú ùìîéí ëå' (äâää áâìéåï)

1.

Source: Abaye does not hold that R. Meir holds like R. Yehudah! Rather, since he said "Temuras Olah Temuras Shelamim" (R. Meir holds that he tried to retract).

i.

Note: Shitah Mekubetzes and others say that the following is a new Dibur.

ùîò îéðä îäãø ÷äãø áéä

(c)

Citation: This shows that he retracted.

åàôéìå àîø îúçìä ðúëååðúé ìåîø ùðéäí ìà îäéîðéðï ìéä

(d)

Explanation: Even if he says that from the beginning he intended to say both of them, we do not believe him.

8)

TOSFOS DH k'Zayis k'Zayis Tanan Aval k'Zayis uk'Zayis...

úåñôåú ã"ä ëæéú ëæéú úðï àáì ëæéú åëæéú...

(SUMMARY: Tosfos relies on this to correct the text in Shevuos.)

îëàï äâé''ä øáéðå úí äñôøéí ãâøñéðï áùáåòåú áñåó ùáåòú äô÷ãåï (ãó ìç.) ãìà ìê ìà ìê àéðå çééá àìà àçú ãëììà äåé åàéìå ìà ìê åìà ìê çééá òì ëì àçú åàçú ãäåé ôøèà

(a)

Correction: Based on this, R. Tam corrected texts in Shevuos (38a) that say [that if one swore falsely "I do not owe] "not to you, not to you", he is liable only once, for it is a Klal (one Shevu'ah), whereas "not to you, and not to you", he is liable for each one, since it is Perata (individual oaths);

åäëà îùîò àéôëà ãèôé äåé òéøåá îçùáåú ëæéú åëæéú îëæéú ëæéú

1.

Here it connotes oppositely, that k'Zayis uk'Zayis is more mixed intents than k'Zayis k'Zayis!

åëï îùîò äúí áéøåùìîé ãîãîé ùàéìú ùìåí áâè ììà ìê åìà ìê åâáé ùàéìú ùìåí àîøéðï áâéèéï (ãó ôæ.) ùàéìå ôñåì åùàéìå ëùø. áøåê

(b)

Support: It connotes like this in the Yerushalmi there. It compares She'elas Shalom in a Get (between the text and the signatures) to "not to you, and not to you", and regarding She'elas Shalom, we say in Gitin (87a) that if it says "greet [Ploni]", it is Pasul (it is an independent matter. Perhaps the witnesses signed only on the greeting, and do not testify about the Get), but if it says "and greet [Ploni]", it is Kosher (it is together with the Get. Surely the witnesses did not sign only on the greeting!) This is from R. Baruch.

1.

Note: Tzon Kodoshim says that the following begins a new Dibur.

òéøåá îçùáåú äåé (äâää áâìéåï, îöàï ÷ãùéí)

(c)

Citation: It is mixed intents.

÷ùä ìé ãëæéú ìîçø (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí) áçåõ ãàîø øáé îåãä øáé éäåãä áòéøåá îçùáåú åäééðå ëîå ìçöåú

(d)

Question #1: Rebbi said that R. Yehudah agrees that "a k'Zayis tomorrow outside" is mixed intents. This is like l'Chatzos;

åìòéì ãàîø øáà ãìçöåú ôìéâé åîééúé øàéä ìàáéé îùçéèä ãøáé éäåãä åîàé øàéä äà øáé éäåãä îåãä

1.

Above (30a), Rava said that they argue about l'Chatzos, and brought a proof against Abaye from R. Yehudah's opinion about Shechitah. What is the proof? R. Yehudah agrees!

åòåã ãñáø øáà àéðä ìùçéèä àìà ìáñåó åëéåï ãàéï äîçùáä çìä òã îùäå àçøåï ëê ùåä ëæéú ìîçø ëæéú áçåõ ëîå ëæéú ìîçø (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) áçåõ åôìéâé ìøáà

(e)

Question #2: Rava holds that Shechitah is only at the end. Since the intent takes effect only on the last Mashehu (that completes the majority of the Siman), "a k'Zayis tomorrow a k'Zayis outside" is the same as "a k'Zayis tomorrow outside", and according to Rava they argue! (Tzon Kodoshim - this answers Question #1. Rava holds that R. Yehudah argues about both of these. It is not difficult that Rava argues with Rebbi; Rav Papa (Chulin 36a) says that Rebbi holds that Shechitah is from the beginning to the end, and R. Chiya argues. Rava holds like R. Chiya! - PF)

åòåã úîåøú òåìä åùìîéí ãôìéâé ìøáà. áøå''ê

(f)

Question #3: According to Rava, they argue about "Temuras Olah u'Shelamim"! (Since he did not repeat "Temuras", this is like "a k'Zayis tomorrow outside", in which he did not repeat "k'Zayis", and Rava holds that they argue, unlike Rebbi - Yad Binyamin.) This is from R. Baruch.

9)

TOSFOS DH Im Ken Mirsach Rasach

úåñôåú ã"ä à''ë îøúç øúç

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why Rebbi would be angry.)

ùìà äéä ìå ìäðéç ëæéú åëæéú åìùàì îëæéú ìîçø áçåõ ãîùîò ãîãùá÷éä ãôùéèà ìéä ãôøèà äåà:

(a)

Explanation: He should not have abandoned [asking about] k'Zayis uk'Zayis, and rather ask from a k'Zayis tomorrow outside. Since he abandoned this, this connotes that it is obvious to him that it is Perata.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF