ZEVACHIM 48 (17 Sivan) - Today's Dayomi study is dedicated to the memory of Moshe Grun (Moshe Shlomo ben Michael z'l), by his friend Seymour in Yerushalayim.

1)

TOSFOS DH Aidi d'Asi mi'Drashah Chaviva Lei

úåñôåú ã"ä àééãé [ãàúé îãøùà] çáéáà ìéä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why it was not taught last.)

åàí úàîø àí ëï ìéúðé òåìä ìáñåó ëãôøéê áùîòúà ÷îééúà ãéáîåú (ãó â.) âáé àçåú àùä

(a)

Question: If so, it should teach Olah at the end, like it asks in Yevamos (3a) regarding Achos Ishah (for it is explicit in the Torah, and need not be expounded)!

åéù ìåîø àééãé ãàúéà òåìä áöéáåø úðéà áäãé çèàåú ãáàåú áöéáåø åäãø úðéà àùí ãàéðå àìà áéçéã

(b)

Answer: Since Olah is brought b'Tzibur, it is taught together with Chata'os, which come b'Tzibur, and later it teaches Asham, which only individuals bring.

2)

TOSFOS DH Ashkechan Ben Tzon Ben Bakar Minalan

úåñôåú ã"ä àùëçï áï öàï áï á÷ø îðìï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses why elsewhere we do not ask this.)

úéîä ãìòéì ôø÷ ëì äôñåìéï (ãó ìá:) ãøùéðï áï äá÷ø ìôðé ä' åàéï äùåçè ìôðé ä' åìà àîøéðï áï öàï îðéï

(a)

Question: Above (32b) we expound Ben Bakar Lifnei Hash-m, but the Shochet need not be Lifnei Hash-m. We did not ask what is the source for Ben Tzon?

åìëîä ãøùåú ìà îöøëéðï úøé ÷øàé ìáï á÷ø åìáï öàï

1.

Also for several Drashos we do not obligate two verses for Ben Bakar and Ben Tzon!

åùîà àäê ãøùà äåé''å îåñó ñîéê

(b)

Answer #1: Perhaps he relies on this Drashah of Vov Mosif [Al Inyan Rishon].

àé ðîé îùåí ãááï öàï ëúéá àåúå ìîòåèé àéöèøéê äëà ìøáåéé

(c)

Answer #2: Because it is written regarding Ben Tzon "Oso" to exclude, we need here to include (but elsewhere, there is no exclusion, so we do not need an inclusion);

îéäå áääéà ãáï äá÷ø ìôðé ä' åñîéëä åäôùè ðéçà ãìà ÷àîø áï öàï îðéï ãôùéèà ãéìôéðï úçúåï îòìéåï àáì òìéåï îúçúåï ñ''ã ãìà éìéó

1.

However, in the case of Ben Bakar Lifnei Hash-m, and Semichah and flaying, it is fine that it does not say "what is the source for Ben Tzon", for obviously we learn the latter Parshah from the former. However, the Havah Amina was that we do not learn the former from the latter.

3)

TOSFOS DH Mah Lehalan Davar she'Chayavin Al Zedono Kares

úåñôåú ã"ä îä ìäìï ãáø ùçééáéï òì æãåðå ëøú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos justifies learning through a Gezeirah Shavah.)

åàí úàîø äéëé éìéó îâæéøä ùåä îöåú îöåú äà çèàú çìá âåôä áäé÷éùà éìôà ëãàîø äå÷ùä ëì äúåøä ìòáåãú ëåëáéí

(a)

Question: How do we learn from a Gezeirah Shavah Mitzvos-Mitzvos? Chatas Chelev itself is learned from a Hekesh, like it says "the entire Torah is equated to Avodah Zarah"!

åé''ì ãëé äàé âååðà ìà çùéá ìîã áäé÷ù àéðå çåæø åîìîã áâæéøä ùåä (äâää áâìéåï) ëéåï ãàé ìàå äé÷ùà äåä îå÷îéðà ìéä áëì ãáø åìà àúà äé÷ùà àìà ìîéîø ãìà àééøé àìà áãáø ùéù áå ëøú

(b)

Answer: In such a case it is not considered something learned from a Hekesh which does not return to teach through a Gezeirah Shavah, since if not for the Hekesh, we would establish it for everything, and the Hekesh comes only to say that we discuss only [Aveiros] of Kares.

4)

TOSFOS DH d'Kuli Alma Heikesha Adifa

úåñôåú ã"ä ãëåìé òìîà äé÷ùà òãéôà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with the Gemara in Gitin.)

åà''ú åäàîøéðï ô' äùåìç (âéèéï ãó îà:) ãë''ò âæéøä ùåä òãéôà

(a)

Question: We say in Gitin (41b) that all agree that a Gezeirah Shavah is stronger [than a Hekesh]!

åé''ì äà ã÷àîø ãë''ò äé÷ù òãéó äééðå ìòðéï ãèåá ìðå ìòùåú äâæ''ù ìîçöä îîä ùðáèì ääé÷ù ìâîøé

(b)

Answer #1: We say [here] that all agree that a Hekesh is stronger, i.e. it is better that we make a Gezeirah Shavah half-way than to totally nullify the Hekesh;

àáì äúí ãî÷éù àå çåôùä ãäééðå ùèø ìäôãä ìà ðôãúä ãäééðå ëñó ìåîø îùçøø çöé òáãå áùèø îåòéì ëîå áëñó

1.

However, there we equate "Oh Chupashah", i.e. a document [of freedom] to "Hefdah Lo Nifdasah", i.e. [freedom through] money, to teach that one who half-frees an Eved [Kena'ani] through a document, it helps just like through money;

å÷àîø âæéøä ùåä ãìä ìä îàùä òãéôà îä àùä çöéä ìà îåòéì

2.

It says that the Gezeirah Shavah "Lah-Lah" from [divorce of] a woman is stronger. Just like for a woman, half [divorce] does not help (also for a slave).

åäúí ìà ðúáèì ääé÷ù ãùîà öøéê ìîéìé àåçøé

i.

There, the Hekesh is not totally nullified. Perhaps it is needed for other matters.

åòåã é''ì ãùèø áùôçä ëðòðéú ìà ÷éí ìï (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú, öàï ÷ãùéí) àìà áâæéøä ùåä ãìä ìä îàùä ìëê ÷àîø ãâæéøä ùåä òãéôà

(c)

Answer #2: We know a document [of freedom] for a Shifchah Kena'anis only through the Gezeirah Shavah "Lah-Lah" from a woman. Therefore, it says that the Gezeirah Shavah is stronger;

ãèåá ìòùåú âæéøä ùåä ãúäåé ùèø áùôçä ëîå âè ãàùä ùìà ìäåòéì çöéä îìòùåúå ëîå ëñó ùñîåê ìå åäôãä ãäà îâè àùä ðô÷à ùèø ùçøåø åòé÷ø. áøåê

1.

It is better to make the Gezeirah Shavah so that a document for a Shifchah will be like a Get of a woman, so halfway will not help, than to make it like money which is taught nearby [via a Hekesh] v'Hefdah, for we learn a document of freedom Get Ishah. This is primary. This is from R. Baruch.

5)

TOSFOS DH v'Chatas Bas Danka

úåñôåú ã"ä åçèàú áú ãð÷à

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this is not a Shi'ur.)

ôé' á÷åðèøñ ìàå ãåå÷à àìà ãîéí ÷ìéí ùìà ðéúï ÷öáä

(a)

Explanation (Rashi): Danka (a sixth of a Dinar) is not precise. Rather, it is cheap. The Torah did not fix an amount.

åäãéï òîå ãáäãéà àéúà áô' áúøà ãëøéúåú (ãó ëæ.) âáé îôðé îä ìà ðúðä úåøä ùéòåø áîçåñøé ëôøä åôøéê àìà îòúä çèàú çìá úäà ìä ÷öáä

(b)

Support: He is correct, for it says so explicitly in Kerisus (27a) regarding "why didn't the Torah give a Shi'ur for Mechusar Kipurim?" It asks "according to this, Chatas Chelev should have a Shi'ur!"

åà''ú äà áô' îçåñøé ëôøä (ëøéúåú ãó é:) îùîò ãäåé áñìò âáé äàåîø äøé òìé áñìò ìîæáç éáéà ëáù ùàéï ìê ãáø ù÷øá áñìò àìà ëáù

(c)

Question: In Kerisus (10b) it connotes that [the Shi'ur is] a Sela, regarding one who says "it is Alai (incumbent on me) to bring [a Korban] to the Mizbe'ach for a Sela, he brings a lamb, for only a lamb is offered for a Sela!

åäàé ñìò äééðå áìà ðñëéí ã÷àîø ãçñ øçîðà òìéä ìîéäåé [çã] îùéúñø áòùéøåú

1.

This Sela is without the Nesachim, for it says that the Torah had mercy on [an Oni] to bring [birds for a quarter Dinar,] one part in 16 of what an Ashir brings. (An Ashir does not bring Nesachim with his Chatas.)

åé''ì ãäúí ìîöåä îï äîåáçø

(d)

Answer: There it is the ideal Mitzvah [to bring for a Sela, but one may be Yotzei through a Korban of any value].

6)

TOSFOS DH Tinach l'Man d'Eis Lei Zos Toras

úåñôåú ã"ä úéðç ìîàï ãàéú ìéä æàú úåøú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that we could have asked also according to Rabanan.)

ôìåâúà áùîòúà ÷îééúà áîðçåú (ãó â:)

(a)

Explanation: This is an argument in Menachos (3b).

åäëé ðîé äåä îöé ìîéáòé ìøáðï îðà ìäå àùí áëñó ù÷ìéí áëì àùîåú ëéåï ãìéú ìäå æàú úåøú

(b)

Observation: We could have asked also according to Rabanan, what is their source that Asham must cost two Shekalim for all Ashamos, since they do not expound Zos Toras.

7)

TOSFOS DH Gamar b'Erkecha b'Erkecha

úåñôåú ã"ä âîø áòøëê áòøëê

(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes that also Rabanan learn this Gezeirah Shavah.)

åà''ú øáðï àé àéú ìäå âæéøä ùåä ãáòøëê áòøëê à''ë [åàí] ðôù ìîä ìé

(a)

Question: If Rabanan have the Gezeirah Shavah b'Erkecha-b'Erkecha, what do they learn from "v'Im Nefesh"?

åàé ìéú ìäå à''ë àùí âæéìåú áëñó ù÷ìéí îðà ìäå

1.

And if they do not have it, what is their source that Asham Gezeilos must cost two Shekalim?

åàåîø ø''ú ãàò''â ãàéú ìäå àéöèøéê åàí ðôù ùìà éäà ñôé÷å çîåø îåãàå

(b)

Answer (R. Tam): Even though they have the Gezeirah Shavah, they need "v'Im Nefesh" so the Safek will not be more stringent than the Vadai.

ãëé äàé âååðà àîø ô' ãí ùçéèä (ëøéúåú ëá:) åøáðï àò''â ãëúéá æàú úåøú àéöèøéê åàí ðôù ëå' ãàé îúåøä àçú äðé îéìé ìùàø àùîåú àáì àùí úìåé ìà éäà çîåø ñôé÷å îåãàå

(c)

Support: It says like this in Kerisus (22b). Rabanan [hold that] even though it is written Zos Toras, they need "v'Im Nefesh"... for if [we learned only from] Zos Toras, I would say that this is for other Ashamos, but Asham Taluy, the Safek should not be more stringent than the Vadai.

åà''ú ìøáðï îâæéøä ùåä ãáòøëê ðîé ðéìó àùí úìåé áñô÷ îòéìåú

(d)

Question: According to Rabanan, from the Gezeirah Shavah b'Erkecha they should learn also Asham Taluy for Safek Me'ilah!

åé''ì ãáòøëê ìà îùîò ìä÷éù àìà ìòðéï ëñó ù÷ìéí

(e)

Answer: B'Erkecha connotes to equate only regarding two Shekalim of silver.

åîäàé èòîà ðîé àéöèøéê ìø''ò åàí ðôù ìñô÷ îòéìåú

(f)

Support: For this reason, R. Akiva needs "v'Im Nefesh" for Safek Me'ilah.

8)

TOSFOS DH Asham Shifchah Charufah b'Ayil Ayil

úåñôåú ã"ä àùí ùôçä çøåôä áàéì àéì

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we do learn to Asham Nazir and Asham Metzora.)

åáúåøú ëäðéí éìéó àùí ùôçä ìëñó ù÷ìéí îâæéøä ùåä àùí àùí éëåì àó àùí ðæéø åîöåøò ëå' ú''ì äåà

(a)

Reference: In Toras Kohanim, it learns Asham Shifchah for two Shekalim from a Gezeirah Shavah Asham-Asham. [It continues] perhaps [we learn] even Asham Nazir and Asham Metzora...! It says "Hu".

åäééðå èòîà ãîîòè àùí ðæéø åîöåøò èôé îùàø àùîåú îùåí ãáàéï ëáù ùäåà áï ùðä ëãôéøù øù''é:

1.

The reason it excludes Asham Nazir and Metzora more than other Ashamos is because they are yearling lambs, like Rashi explained. (Others are second-year rams.)

48b----------------------------------------48b

9)

TOSFOS DH Hagahah Oso b'Tzafon v'Lo Shochet b'Tzafon

úåñôåú ã"ä äâä''ä àåúå áöôåï åìà ùåçè áöôåï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses why a verse is needed for this.)

úéîä ì''ì ÷øà äà àôéìå ìôðé ä' ìà áòé ëããøùéðï ìòéì áøéù ëì äôñåìéï (ãó ìá:) áï äá÷ø ìôðé ä' åìà ùåçè ìôðé ä'

(a)

Question: Why do we need a verse? [The Shochet] need not even be Lifnei Hash-m, like we expounded above (32b) "Ben ha'Bakar Lifnei Hash-m", and not the Shochet Lifnei Hash-m!

åéù ìåîø ãäëà ñåáø ëø''ù äúéîðé ããøéù äúí äàé ëúåá áòðéï àçø

(b)

Answer: Here he holds like R. Shimon ha'Temani, who expounds this verse ("Ben ha'Bakar Lifnei Hash-m") differently there.

10)

TOSFOS DH Mah l'Ben Tzon she'Chen Kava Lo Kli

úåñôåú ã"ä îä ìáï öàï ùëï ÷áò ìå ëìé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses why we cannot learn that Melikah must be in the north.)

åúéîä ãìà ôøéê äëé áô''÷ ã÷ãåùéï (ãó ìå:) ãéìéó ÷"å (äâää áâìéåï, îöàï ÷ãùéí) åîä áï öàï ùìà ÷áò ìå ëäï ìùçéèúå ÷áò ìå ëäï ìäæàúå áï òåó ù÷áò ìå ëäï áîìé÷úå àéðå ãéï ùé÷áò ìå ëäï áäæàúå

(a)

Question: Why don't we ask [this Pircha] in Kidushin (36b), which learns a Kal v'Chomer "the Torah did not require a Kohen for Shechitah of Ben Tzon, but it requires a Kohen for its Haza'ah. The Torah requires a Kohen for Melikah of a bird. All the more so it should require a Kohen for its Haza'ah!"

åéù ìåîø ãäúí ãëì ãéðå áëäï ìà ùééê ìîéôøê îëìé

(b)

Answer #1: There, the entire Kal v'Chomer is about [requiring] a Kohen. It is not applicable to ask from a Kli.

åì''ð ëéåï ãäãéï äåé îäæàä ìà ùééê ìîéôøê îëìé ãùçéèä

(c)

Answer #2: Since the Kal v'Chomer is from Haza'ah, it is not applicable to ask from a Kli for Shechitah.

åà''ú åìéòáéã äëà ÷ì åçåîø îî÷åí åîä áï öàï ùìà ÷áò ìå îæáç áùçéèúå ÷áò ìå î÷åí öôåï

(d)

Question: We should make a Kal v'Chomer from place! For Ben Tzon, [the Torah] did not fix [Shechitah] on the Mizbe'ach, but it fixed a place in the north;

áï òåó ù÷áò ìå îæáç áîìé÷úå ëããøùéðï (ì÷îï ãó ñä.) îä ä÷èøä áøàùå ùì îæáç àó îìé÷ä àéðå ãéï ùé÷áò ìå öôåï

1.

The Torah requires Melikah of a bird on the Mizbe'ach, like we expound (below, 65a) just like Haktarah is on top of the Mizbe'ach, also Melikah. All the more so it should require the north for Melikah!"

i.

Note: This refers to Olas ha'Of, for which Melikah and Haktarah are on top of the Mizbe'ach. Melikas Chatas ha'Of is not on top of the Mizbe'ach, and it has no Haktarah! The coming words of Tosfos refute a potential source for Chatas ha'Of, that its Melikah should be in the north.

åæä àéï ìä÷ùåú (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã) ãáï òåó ëéåï ãçèàú ÷øééä øçîðà ìéáòé öôåï ãæàú úåøú äçèàú

(e)

Implied question: A bird, since the Torah called it Chatas, should require the north, due to "Zos Toras ha'Chatas"!

ãùîà ãæàú úåøú ìà äåé àìà ìðùçèåú

(f)

Answer: Perhaps "Zos Toras" discusses only Korbanos that require Shechitah.

11)

TOSFOS DH Ela Ein Shochet b'Tzafon Aval Mekabel b'Tzafon

úåñôåú ã"ä àìà àéï ùåçè áöôåï àáì î÷áì áöôåï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we do not learn from Rav Achya.)

úéîä äà ðîé îãøáé àçéà ðô÷à îãàéöèøéê ìîòåèé ùåçè îëìì ãî÷áì áöôåï

(a)

Question: Also this we learn from Rav Achya! Since he needs to exclude Shochet, this implies that Kabalah in the north!

ãàé ìà ãî÷áì áöôåï ìîä ìé ÷øà ìîòåèé ùåçè ëã÷àîø øáé àçéà ìôé ùîöéðå ùî÷áì áöôåï éëåì àó æä ëï

1.

If Kabalah were not in the north, why would we need a verse to exclude Shochet, like Rav Achya says "since we find that Kabalah is in the north, perhaps also this (Shechitah)"?!

åùîà øáé àçéà ãøéù åì÷ç ìå é÷ç àáì àðï ìà ãøùéðï ìéä

(b)

Answer: Perhaps Rav Achya expounds "v'Lakach" - Lo Yikach" (he will take himself to the north), but we do not expound so.

12)

TOSFOS DH Kabalah Nami l'Mitzvah Ashkechan

úåñôåú ã"ä ÷áìä ðîé ìîöåä àùëçï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the source to require the north for Kabalah.)

ôé' á÷åðè' ëãàîø àáì î÷áì áöôåï

(a)

Explanation (Rashi): This is like he said "but the Mekabel is in the north."

å÷ùä ãîàåúå ãëúéá âáé òåìä ãøùéðï åìà ùåçè áöôåï åîàåúå ãëúéá âáé çèàú ãøùéðï àáì î÷áì áöôåï åà''ë î÷áì ìîöåä áòåìä îðà ìï

(b)

Question #1: We expound from "Oso" written regarding Olah "and not the Shochet in the north", and we expound from "Oso" written regarding Chatas "but the Mekabel is in the north." If so, what is the source that l'Chatchilah, for Olah the Mekabel is in the north? (Tosfos did not ask about Kabalah of Olah. Shitah Mekubetzes - the Torah taught that Chatas is slaughtered in the place of Olah, and it says v'Lakach, i.e. also Kabalah is in the same place. Alternatively, for Olah it says "v'Shachat... v'Hikrivu." V'Hikrivu teaches about Kabalah, we learn that Kabalah is in the place of Shechitah.)

åâáé àùí öøéëé úøé ÷øàé ìîöåä ì÷áìä åî÷áì

(c)

Question #2: Regarding Asham we need two verses for l'Chatchilah - for Kabalah and the Mekabel! (Even if we learn about the Mekabel, we cannot learn from it Kabalah.)

åòåã òéëåáà áî÷áì áçèàú îðà ìï ãìà îöéðå ùùðä àìà òì äùçéèä åòì ä÷áìä àáì ìà òì äî÷áì

(d)

Question #3: What is the source that Mekabel [in the north] is Me'akev for Chatas? We find that the Torah repeated only regarding Shechitah and Kabalah, but not for the Mekabel!

åé''ì îëéåï ãàùëçï ìîöåä áî÷áì (äâää áâìéåï îöàï ÷ãùéí) ä''ä ìòëá

(e)

Answer (to Question #3): Since we find that l'Chatchilah, Mekabel (is in the north), likewise it is Me'akev. (Tosfos does not answer his first two questions.)

åëé äàé âååðà àîøéðï áô''÷ (ìòéì ã.) ðàîøä æáéçä áùéðåé ÷åãù åðàîøä æáéçä áùéðåé áòìéí (äâäú ùìåí øá, éã áðéîéï) îä äúí ìà çì÷ú ëå':

(f)

Support: We say like this above (4a) "it says Zevichah regarding Shinuy Kodesh, and Zevichah regarding Shinuy Ba'alim. Just like you do not distinguish..."

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF