1)

TOSFOS DH v'Omer Kela'im Tes Vav Amah El ha'Kasef (cont.)

úåñôåú ã"ä åàåîø ÷ìòéí è''å àîä àì äëúó (äîùê)

åáùîòúà ÷îééúà ãòéøåáéï (ãó á:) ÷ùä èôé ãôøéê áéï ìøáðï áéï ìø' éäåãä ìéìôå îôúç ùòø äçöø

(a)

Question #2: It is more difficult in Eruvin (2b). It asks both according to Rabanan and R. Yehudah, they should learn from Pesach Sha'ar ha'Chatzer;

åôé' ùí á÷åðèøñ ùðé ìùåðåú åôé' áìùåï ùðé ãôøéê ùéçùá ôúç áøçá òùøéí åîùðé ôúç ùòø äçöø àé÷øé ôúç ñúîà ìà àé÷øé

1.

Rashi explained two versions there. He explained in the second version that it asks that a width of 20 should be considered a Pesach (opening), and answers that it is called Pesach Sha'ar ha'Chatzer, but it is not called Pesach Stam;

åàéáòéú àéîà ëé ëúéá çîù òùøä áâåáää ëúéá åäëúéá å÷åîä ä' àîåú ääåà îùôú îæáç åìîòìä åôé' ùí á÷åðèøñ ãäééðå ëø' éåñé ãùîòúéï

2.

Alternatively, 15 is written regarding the height. [We ask that] it is written that the height is five, [and answer that five] is from the top of the Mizbe'ach and above. Rashi explained there that this is like R. Yosi in our Sugya.

åæå äéà úéîä ãìà îöéðï ìîéîø çîù òùøä àîä áâåáä ëúéá àìà áøçáä ëãôøéùéú

(b)

Question #1: This is astounding! We cannot say that 15 Amos is written regarding the height, rather, the width, like I explained!

åòåã ÷ùä ãàé îøçáä ôøéê äúí äåä ìéä ìîéîø äëé àìà äà ãúðï äøçá îòùø àîåú éîòè ðéìó îôúç ùòø äçöø ëéåï ãòã äùúà àééøé áâåáää

(c)

Question #2: If we ask from the width there, it should have said "but the Mishnah teaches that [if the opening of the Mavuy is] wider than 10 Amos, he must diminish it. We should learn from Pesach Sha'ar ha'Chatzer", for until now we discussed the height!

åòåã ìø' éäåãä àîàé äåöøê ìä÷ùåú îôúç äçöø ôúç àåìí ã÷àé áéä äåä ìéä ìà÷ùåéé

(d)

Question #3: According to R. Yehudah, why did [the Makshan] need to ask from Pesach ha'Chatzer? He should have asked from Pesach ha'Ulam, which was the topic (we said that he learns from it that the height of the Korah may exceed 20 Amos)!

åòåã îàé ÷åùéà îôúç äçöø äúðï éù ìå öåøú äôúç à''ö ìîòè åçöø öåøú äôúç äåä ìéä ùäéå äòîåãéí îùðé öããéí åëìåðñåú òì âáéäï ùä÷ìòéí úìåééï áäï

(e)

Question #4: What was the question from Pesach ha'Chatzer? A Mishnah teaches that if [the opening] has Tzuras ha'Pesach, one need not diminish it [even if it is more than 10], and Pesach ha'Chatzer had Tzuras ha'Pesach, for there are pillars on both sides and beams on top of them from which the curtains hang!

åîéäå äà ìà ÷ùéà ãëéåï ãàìéáà ãøá ÷ééîà ãàéäå úðé áîúðéúéï öøéê ìîòè àò"â ]ãéù] ìå öåøú äôúç ëãàîø äúí (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí)

(f)

Answer #1 (to Question #4): However, this is not difficult, for we discuss according to Rav, and he taught in our Mishnah that one must diminish [the width] even if it has Tzuras ha'Pesach, like it says there (3b).

åîäàé èòîà ëé ôøéê áñîåê åø' éäåãä îôúçå ùì àåìí âîø åäúðï åëå' ìà îùðé ùàðé ôúçå ùì àåìí ãä''ì öåøú äôúç ëéåï ãàìéáà ãøá ÷ééîà ìà îùðé äëé (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí)

(g)

Support: For this reason, when it asks afterwards [there] "does R. Yehudah learn from Pesach ha'Ulam? A Mishnah teaches...", it does not answer that Pesach ha'Ulam is different, for it had Tzuras ha'Pesach. Since we discuss according to Rav, we did not answer so.

åòåã ãùòø çöø ìà ä''ì öåøú äôúç ùäëìåðñåú äéå òì äååéï ù÷áåòéï áòîåãéï îáçåõ åàîøéðï äúí áô''÷ (ãó éà.) öåøú äôúç ùòùàä îï äöã ìà òùä ëìåí

(h)

Answer #2: Sha'ar ha'Chatzer did not have Tzuras ha'Pesach, for the beams were on clasps fixed in the pillars from the outside, and we say there (11a) that Tzuras ha'Pesach made from the side does nothing.

åîôøù øáéðå ãîâåáää ôøéê äúí ãìà éçùá ôúç áéúø îä' àîåú åîñúáøà äéà ìï èôé ìîéìó îôúç äçöø îîàé ãðéìó îôúç ääéëì

(i)

Explanation #2 (Tosfos' Rebbi): [The Makshan] asks from the height there. It should not be considered an opening more than five Amos. Presumably, we should rather learn from Pesach ha'Chatzer than from Pesach ha'Heichal;

ãôúç àäì îåòã òì ëøçéï ùìà ëãéï àé÷øé ôúç åçéãåù (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) äåà ãìà äåå ìéä âéôåôé ùäéä ôøåõ ìôðéå áîìåàå

1.

Source: You are forced to say that Pesach Ohel Mo'ed is not properly called Pesach. It is a Chidush, for it did not have walls to the side. It was totally breached in front of it;

äìëê ôúç ääéëì ùäéä áî÷åîå ãìîà ùìà ëãéï ðîé àé÷øé ôúç

2.

Therefore, Pesach ha'Heichal, which was in place of [Pesach Ohel Mo'ed], perhaps [also] it is not properly called Pesach.

åáúø äëé âøñ àéáòéú àéîà ÷ìòéí è''å àîä âåáää (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) åëé ëúéá å÷åîä áøåçá ä' àîåú îùôú ÷ìòéí åìîòìä åääéà ùéðåéà ëøáé éåñé ãäëà

(j)

Explanation #2 (cont.): After this, the text says "alternatively, the Kela'im, 15 Amos was their height. It is written (about Masach Sha'ar ha'Chatzer - Shmos 38:18) "v'Komah b'Rochav Chamesh Amos" (it was five Amos) above the top of the Kela'im. That answer is like R. Yosi here (who says that the Mizbe'ach was 10 tall).

åì''â è''å àîä áâåáää äåà ãëúéá åâí ìà âøñ àì äëúó ãìà ÷àé àçîù òùøä ãëúéá á÷øà ãääåà ìà îéúå÷îà àìà áøçáä

(k)

Assertion: The text does not say "15 Amos was the height", and also it does not say 'El ha'Katef", for it does not refer to 15 written in the verse. That is established only regarding the width;

àìà ôéøåù äåà ëìåîø ä÷ìòéí äéå âáåäéï çîù òùøä ùìà éøàå òáåãä ùáéãå ëøáé éåñé ãàîø îæáç é' àîåú

1.

Rather, it is a Perush. I.e. the Kela'im were 15 tall lest people see the Avodah in [the Kohen's] hand. This is like R. Yosi, who says that the Mizbe'ach was 10 Amos tall.

åäàé ãëúéá á÷ìòéí å÷åîä ä' àîåú åãàé îùôú îæáç åìîòìä åäàé ÷øà ãîééúé å÷åîä áøåçá ä' àîåú (äééðå) ìäåëéç âåáä ôúç ë' àîä äééðå ääåà ãëúéá âáé îñê áñåó åé÷äì

(l)

Explanation #2 (cont.): It is written about the Kela'im (Shmos 28:17) "v'Komah Chamesh Amos" surely is from the top of the Mizbe'ach and above. The verse "v'Komah b'Rochav Chamesh Amos" is brought to prove that the height of an opening was 20 is written about Masach at the end of Vayakhel (38:18);

åîôøù ãîùôú ÷ìòéí åìîòìä ÷àîø ùä÷ìòéí äéå âáåäéï ñáéá äçöø öôåï åãøåí åîòøá åëï ìöã äîæøç

1.

[The Gemara] explains that it discusses from the top of the Kela'im and above. The Kela'im were high around the Chatzer in the north, south and west, and also in the east;

[ùëîå] ùä÷ìòéí äéå è''å øåçá îéîéï äôúç åëï îùîàì äôúç ëîå ëï äéå âáåäéï è''å àîä

2.

Just like the Kela'im were 15 wide to the right hand of the opening [of Ohel Mo'ed], and similarly to the left of the opening, so they were 15 Amos tall;

åòì îñê äôúç ëúéá ë' àîä àåøê å÷åîä áøåçá ä' àîåú (ëï ðøàä ìäâéä) ìòåîú ÷ìòé äçöø ôéøåù ùäîñê ëì øåçá ë' äéä âáåä ä' àîåú îùàø ÷ìòé äçöø

3.

Regarding Masach ha'Pesach it is written "Esrim Amos Orech v'Komah v'Rochav Chamesh Amos Le'umas Kal'ei he'Chatzer", i.e. the entire 20 Amos width of the Masach was five Amos higher than the rest of the curtains of the Chatzer;

àùúëç äîñê âáåä ë' åæå äéà îãú (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) âåáäå ùì ôúç

i.

It turns out that the Masach was 20 Amos tall. This is the height of the opening.

åääéà ùéðåéà áúøà ìéúéä àìà ìøáðï ãäà ìøáé éäåãä ìà îúå÷í ëìì

(m)

Observation: The latter answer is only according to Rabanan. We cannot establish it like R. Yehudah.

åàò''â ã÷àé äúí ìùðåéé ìøáðï åìøáé éäåãä

(n)

Implied question: There, we were answering for Rabanan and for R. Yehudah!

ùéðåéà ÷îà éúééùá ìøáé éäåãä ãùðéðï ôúç ñúîà ìà àé÷øé

(o)

Answer: The first answer applies [even] to R. Yehudah. We answer that [Pesach Sha'ar ha'Chatzer] is not called Stam Pesach.

ãäëé ðîé ìà îéúå÷í ääåà ùéðåéà ëøáé éåñé ãäëà àìà ëøáé éäåãä ãôìéâ òìéä

(p)

Support: That answer is unlike R. Yosi here. Rather, it is like R. Yehudah who argues with him. (Likewise, the second answer is not according to everyone.)

åäëà áùîòúéï âøñé' îä îùëï é' àîåú àó îæáç é' àîåú ÷ìòéí è''å

(q)

Assertion: Here in our Sugya, the text says "just like the Mishkan is 10 Amos, also the Mizbe'ach is 10 Amos. The Kela'im were 15";

åìà âøñéðï åàåîø åìà âøñéðï (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) ðîé àì äëúó ãìàå ÷øà îééúé

1.

The text does not say "and it says", and also the text does not say "El ha'Katef", for we do not bring a verse;

åááøééúà ãîìàëú äîùëï ìà âøñéðï ëìì ÷ìòéí è''å áîéìúà ãø' éåñé åôéøåùà áòìîà äåà ëìåîø ä÷ìòéí äéå âáåäéï è''å àîä ùìà éøàä ëäï åòáåãä áéãå åîä ú''ì ä' àîåú îùôú îæáç ëå'

2.

In the Beraisa of Meleches ha'Mishkan, the text does not say at all "Kela'im 15" in R. Yosi's opinion. It is a mere Perush. I.e. the Kela'im were 15 Amos tall, lest the Kohen be seen with Avodah in his hand. Why is it written "five Amos"? This is above the top of the Mizbe'ach.

åø''ú îôøù áñôø äéùø ãìùîåàì òöîå ôøéê ðéìó îôúç ùòø äçöø îðà ìéä ãåùçèå ôúç àäì îåòã àôúç äéëì ÷àé

(r)

Explanation #3 (R. Tam, in Sefer ha'Yashar): The question is against Shmuel (who says there that if Shelamim was slaughtered before the gate of the Heichal was opened, it is Pasul). What is his source that "u'Shachto Pesach Ohel Mo'ed" refers to Pesach ha'Heichal?

åàé àôùø ìåîø ëï ëìì ëãîåëçé ëîä ÷øàé áôøùú àìä ô÷åãé åáùàø î÷åîåú

(s)

Rebuttal: One cannot say so at all, like is proven from several verses in Parshas Pekudei and in other places (that Pesach Ohel Mo'ed refers to Pesach ha'Heichal).

å÷öú ÷ùä ìôéøåù øáéðå (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí) ãôøéê îâåáä çîù ãîàé îùðé ôúç ùòø àé÷øé ôúç ñúîà ìà àé÷øé ëéåï ãð÷øà ùòø ë''ù ãàé÷øé ôúç ãôúç ÷èï îùòø

(t)

Question #1 (against Explanation #2): Rabbeinu said that [the Makshan] asks from the height of five Amos. What was the answer "it is called Pesach Sha'ar. It is not called Stam Pesach"? Since it is called Sha'ar, all the more so it is called Pesach, for Pesach is smaller than a Sha'ar!

òåã ðéìó îôúç òæøä ùð÷øà ôúç (áéçæ÷àì îà) åäéä âåáäå òùøéí

(u)

Question #2: We should learn from Pesach ha'Azarah, which is called Pesach (in Yechezkel 41), and its height was 20!

2)

TOSFOS DH Hachi ka'Amar Mizbach Avanim she'Asah Shlomo...

úåñôåú ã"ä äëé ÷àîø îæáç àáðéí ùòùä ùìîä úçú îæáç äðçùú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we did not say so in Shabbos.)

úéîä ãáô' áîä áäîä (ùáú ãó ðä.) àîøéðï åéòîãå (ëï öøéê ìäâéä) àöì îæáç äðçùú îæáç äðçùú îé äåä àîø ìäï ä÷á''ä äúçéìå îî÷åí ùàåîøéí ùéøä ìôðé áëìé ðçùú

(a)

Question: In Shabbos (55a), we say "va'Ya'amdu Etzel Mizbach ha'Nechoshes" - was there a copper Mizbe'ach [in the Beis ha'Mikdash?! It answers that] Hash-m told them "start where they sing Shirah in front of Me with copper instruments."

åàîàé ìà àîø ëé äëà

1.

Why doesn't it answer like here (it means Shlomo's stone Mizbe'ach, which was in place of Moshe's copper Mizbe'ach)?

åé''ì ãäúí îä ìå ìäæëéø îæáç äðçùú ëìì

(b)

Answer: There, there was no reason to mention the copper Mizbe'ach at all.

3)

TOSFOS DH Modeh R. Yehudah b'Damim

úåñôåú ã"ä îåãä øáé éäåãä áãîéí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos questions this Havah Amina.)

úéîä îàé ÷ñ''ã îòé÷øà åäà ÷øï åëáù (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) åøáåò åéñåã îòëáéï

(a)

Question: What was the Havah Amina? Keren, a ramp, a Yesod, and squareness are Me'akev (62a)!

4)

TOSFOS DH Kodshim Kalim Minayin

úåñôåú ã"ä ÷ãùéí ÷ìéí îðéï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks why he cannot learn from the Hekesh.)

úéîä ãìà éìéó îäé÷ùà îæàú äúåøä

(a)

Question: Why doesn't he learn [from Shirei Menachos] from the Hekesh "Zos ha'Torah"?

5)

TOSFOS DH Asya mi'Drasha d'R. Yosi

úåñôåú ã"ä àúéà îãøùà ãøáé éåñé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks why we did not learn also Kodshei Kodoshim from here.)

úéîä ã÷ãùé ÷ãùéí âåôà (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí) ðéìó îîòùø

(a)

Question #1: Kodshei Kodoshim themselves we should learn from Ma'aser! (Why did we need a Gezeirah Shavah?)

åëé úéîà îä ìîòùø ùëï èòåï åéãåé åëñó åöåøä

1.

Suggestion: You cannot learn from Ma'aser, because it requires Viduy and Kesef Tzurah (minted coins to redeem it).

áëåø éåëéç

2.

Rejection: Bechor is Yochi'ach (these do not apply to it, and it requires an intact Mizbe'ach).

åòåã ãáäàé ÷øà ãîééúé ãî÷éù îòùø ìáëåø ðîé ëúéá çèàú åàùí

(b)

Question #2: The verse he brings that equates Ma'aser to Bechor, it says also Chatas and Asham! (If so, which Kodshei Kodoshim do we learn from the Gezeirah Shavah? Olah is never eaten!)

1.

Note: Even if "Shirei Menachos" includes Lechem ha'Panim, the Omer and Shtei ha'Lechem, the Gezeirah Shavah is needed for Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur, the remains of Log Shemen of Metzora, and Chatas ha'Of (we cannot learn it from "Bekarchem v'Tzonchem", which teaches Chata'os and Ashamos)! This requires investigation.

ãúðéà áñôøé ôøùú øàä àðëé á÷øëí åöàðëí àìå çèàåú åàùîåú

2.

Citation (Beraisa in Sifri Parshas Re'eh): "[V'Haveisem Shamah...] Bekarchem v'Tzonchem" - these are Chata'os and Ashamos.

åëï á÷øà ãìà úåëì ìàëåì áùòøéê ãøéù ôø÷ áúøà ãîëåú (ãó éæ.) á÷øê åöàðê àìå çèàåú åàùîåú:

3.

Also in the verse "Lo Suchal Le'echol bi'She'arecha", we expound in Makos (17a) "Bekarcha v'Tzonecha" - these are Chata'os and Ashamos.

60b----------------------------------------60b

6)

TOSFOS DH Mai ka'Savar Hai Tana

úåñôåú ã"ä îàé ÷ñáø äàé úðà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses whether or not the Tana holds that the Kedushah was permanent.)

ãôùéèà ìéä áëåø èôé îîòùø

(a)

Explanation: [We ask why] Bechor is more obvious [to the Tana] than Ma'aser;

àé ÷ñáø ÷ãùä ìòúéã ìáà ë÷ãåùú (äâää áâìéåï ÷äéìú éò÷á) äàøõ å÷îáòéà ìéä àé ÷øéðà áéä ìôðé ä' àé ìà

1.

Possibility #1: He holds that [Kedushas Beis ha'Mikdash] was permanent, like Kedushas Eretz Yisrael, and he asks whether or not this is called "Lifnei Hash-m".

àôé' áëåø ðîé é÷øá åéàëì ãîàï ãàéú ìéä ÷ãùä ÷ñáø ãî÷øéáéï àò''ô ùàéï áéú ëãàéúà ô''÷ ãîâéìä (ãó é.)

2.

Rejection: [If so], also Bechor should be offered and eaten, for the one who holds that the Kedushah was permanent, he holds that we may offer even without a Beis ha'Mikdash, like it says in Megilah (10a)!

åàé ÷ñáø ìà ÷ãùä ãáèìä ÷ãåùú äáéú (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú, öàï ÷ãùéí) åîáòéà ìéä áîòùø îùåí ãàéðå öøéê ìáéú àé îéúàëéì áéøåùìéí ã÷øéðà (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) áéä ìôðé ä' àé ìà

3.

Possibility #2: He holds that Kedushas ha'Bayis was Batel [after the Churban], and he asks about Ma'aser, because it does not need a Bayis. He asks whether it may be eaten in Yerushalayim, for this is called "Lifnei Hash-m", or not.

àôé' áëåø ðîé úéáòé äéëà ãäåé ëòéï îòùø ëâåï áëé ä''â ùàéðå öøéê ìáéú ù÷øáå ãîéå åàéîåøéå åçøá äáéú åáùøå ÷ééí îäå ùéàëìåäå

4.

Rejection: [If so], he should ask also about Bechor when it is like Ma'aser, i.e. in such a case that it does not need a Bayis, for the blood and Eimurim were already offered, and the meat is intact. May it be eaten?

åîñé÷ ã÷ñáø ìà ÷éãùä åäà ãôùéèà ìéä ááëåø îùåí ãàéú÷ù áùøå ìãîå åìà àëéì áùø àìà áùòä äøàåéä ìæøé÷ú ãí åìà îùðäøñ æå äéà âéøñú ä÷åðèøñ åôéøåùå

(b)

Explanation (cont.): He concludes that [the Tana] holds that the Kedushah was not permanent. Bechor is obvious to him because its meat is equated to its blood. One may eat its meat only at a time proper for Zerikas Dam, but not when [the Bayis] was destroyed. This is Rashi's text and Perush.

åàí úàîø àé ÷ñáø ìà ÷ãùä äéëé îùëçú îòùø ùðé ãàåøééúà ëéåï ãáèìä ÷ãåùú äàøõ

1.

Question: If he holds that the Kedushah was not permanent, how do we find Ma'aser Sheni mid'Oraisa, since Kedushas ha'Aretz was Batel?

åé''ì ãàé ÷ñáø ìà ÷éãùä îå÷îéðï ìéä ìîòùø ùâãì áôðé äáéú ëîå ùôéøù á÷åðèøñ [âáé] áëåø ù÷øáå ãîå åàéîåøéå åçøá äáéú åáùøå ÷ééí

2.

Answer #1: If he holds that the Kedushah was not permanent, we establish it to discuss Ma'aser that grew while the Mikdash stood, like Rashi explained about Bechor whose blood and Eimurim were already offered, and the Bayis was destroyed and the meat is intact.

à''ð àôé' ÷ñáø ìà ÷ãùä äðé îéìé ÷ãåùú äáéú àáì ÷ãåùú äàøõ ìà áèìä åðúçééáå áúøåîåú åîòùøåú

3.

Answer #2: Even if he holds that the Kedushah was not permanent, this is only Kedushas ha'Bayis, but Kedushas ha'Aretz was not Batel, and there is an obligation [to separate] Terumos and Ma'aseros;

ëãàùëçðà (ì÷îï ãó ÷éá:) ëùçøá ùéìä ùáèìä ÷ãåùú äáéú åìà áèìä ÷ãåùú äàøõ

i.

This is like we find that after Shilo was destroyed, Kedushas ha'Bayis was Batel, but Kedushas ha'Aretz was not Batel.

åà''ú ëéåï ãìà ÷éãùä åäåúøå äáîåú éäà ðàëì áëì òøé éùøàì ìñôøéí ãâøñé' ì÷îï áô' áúøà (ãó ÷éá:) áàå ìðåá åâáòåï äåúøå äáîåú îòùø ðàëì áëì òøé éùøàì

(c)

Question: Since the Kedushah was not permanent, and Bamos were permitted, [Ma'aser] is eaten in all cities of Yisrael, according to texts that say below (112b) when they came to Nov and Giv'on, Bamos were permitted, and Ma'aser was eaten in all cities of Yisrael!

åé''ì ãìôé àåúä âéøñà ìà îúå÷í äëà àìà áîòùø ùâãì ìôðé äáéú åäåæ÷÷ ìäáàú î÷åí åàéðå ðàëì áëì òøé éùøàì

(d)

Answer: According to that text we can establish here only regarding Ma'aser that grew while the Mikdash stood, and it needed to be brought to the place [to eat it, i.e. Yerushalayim]. It may not be eaten in all cities of Yisrael.

å÷ùä ìôéøåù ä÷åðèøñ îàé ãåç÷éä ãøáéðà ìåîø ìà ÷ãùä åôìéâ àëåìéä äù''ñ ã÷éí ìï éøåùìéí àéï àçøéä äéúø ëãúðï áôø÷ áúøà (âí æä ùí)

(e)

Question (against Explanation #1): What forced Ravina to say that the Kedushah was not permanent, and he argues with the entire Gemara? We hold that there is no Heter [Bamos] after Yerushalayim, like the Mishnah below (112b)!

ìéîà ãìòåìí ÷ñáø ÷ãùä åáëåø ùðæø÷ ãîå åðôâí äîæáç ãàéï áùøå ðàëì áôâéîú äîæáç

1.

He should say that really, he holds that the Kedushah was permanent. If blood of a Bechor was thrown and the Mizbe'ach was dented, its meat may not be eaten while the Mizbe'ach is dented!

åîéäå îöé ìîéîø ãìéùðà ãáøééúà ÷ùéúéä ã÷úðé îä áëåø àéðå àìà áôðé äáéú ãîùîò áéú îîù öøéê

(f)

Answer: We can say that the wording of the Beraisa was difficult for him. It teaches "just like Bechor is eaten only Bifnei ha'Bayis (while the Mikdash stands)", which connotes that an actual Bayis is required;

åàé ÷ãùä ìîä ìé áéú äìà î÷øéáéï àò''ô ùàéï áéú åàéï öøéê ø÷ îæáç îùåí ãàéú÷ù áùøå ìãîå

1.

Question: If the Kedushah was permanent, why do we need a Bayis? We may offer even without a Bayis! Only a Mizbe'ach is needed, because the meat is equated to the blood.

àáì ä''ä ãìòåìí îöé ñáø ÷ãùä ãëéåï ãðæø÷ ãîå åàç''ë çøá àéï àåëìéï áùøå îùåí ãàéú÷ù ìãîå åäàé (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí) áôðé äáéú äééðå áôðé îæáç åìàå áéú îîù ÷àîø

2.

Answer: However, really he could hold that the Kedushah was permanent. Since the blood was thrown and afterwards [the Bayis] was destroyed, one may not eat its meat, because its meat is equated to the blood. "Bifnei ha'Bayis" is [really] Bifnei Mizbe'ach, and not literally [Bifnei] ha'Bayis.

àáì ÷ùä îàé ÷àîø àôéìå áëåø ðîé îáòéà (äâää áâìéåï, îöàï ÷ãùéí) åìà úáòé îòùø àãøáä ëéåï ãìà ÷ãùä ôùéèà ìà ÷øéðà áéä ìôðé ä' ãîçéöä ìàëåì ãàåøééúà

(g)

Question #1: What was the question "he should ask also about Bechor, and not only about Ma'aser"? Just the contrary, since the Kedushah was not permanent, obviously we do not apply "Lifnei Hash-m", for a Mechitzah [around Yerushalayim is needed] to eat mid'Oraisa!

åòåã ãáëåø ôùéèà ãîôñéì áéåöà ëùçøá äáéú åðôìå îçéöåú ëéåï ãìà ÷ãùä åîä öøéê ëìì äé÷éùà ãáùø åãí

(h)

Question #2: Obviously, a Bechor is disqualified due to Yotzei when the Bayis was destroyed and the Mechitzos fell, since the Kedushah was not permanent. Why do we need the Hekesh of meat and blood?

åëé úéîà ëùçøá äáéú åðäøñ äîæáç àáì çåîåú éøåùìéí ÷ééîú åìà áèìä ÷ãåùúä ìòðéï ÷ãùéí ÷ìéí åîòùø ùðé

1.

Suggestion: [It is needed for] when the Bayis was destroyed and the Mizbe'ach was destroyed, but the walls of Yerushalayim were intact, and its Kedushah was not Batel regarding Kodshim Kalim and Ma'aser Sheni.

æäå úéîä ìåîø ãäà éøåùìéí ìà ðú÷ãùä àìà áùáéì äáéú åàéê éúëï ù÷ãåùú äáéú úáèì å÷ãåùú éøåùìéí ÷ééîà

2.

Rejection: This is astounding to say so, for Yerushalayim received Kedushah only due to the Bayis. How is it possible that Kedushas ha'Bayis is Batel, and Kedushas Yerushalayim endures?!

ìëê ðøàä ëîå âéøñú äñôøéí àé ÷ñáø ÷ãùä àôéìå áëåø ðîé åàé ÷ñáø ìà ÷ãùä àôéìå îòùø ðîé àîø øáéðà ìòåìí ÷ñáø ÷ãùä åëå'

(i)

Alternative text: Therefore, the text of Seforim [seems correct]. If he holds that the Kedushah was permanent, even Bechor also! If he holds that the Kedushah was not permanent, even Ma'aser also! Ravina said "really, he holds that the Kedushah was permanent..."

åäëé ôøéê àôéìå áëåø ðîé îùëçú ìä áìà çåîåú éøåùìéí åáìà çåîú òæøä ëîå ùôéøù á÷åðèøñ ãî÷øéáéí àò''ô ùàéï áéú ëìåîø éáðä äîæáç åéæøå÷ äãí åéàëì äáùø

1.

He asks as follows. Also Bechor we find without walls of Yerushalayim and without the wall of the Azarah, like Rashi explained, that we may offer even without a Beis ha'Mikdash. I.e. he will build a Mizbe'ach, throw the blood and eat the meat;

àáì áìà îæáç ôùéèà ìéä ãàéðå éëåì ìä÷øéá ëãàîøé' ìòéì (ãó ðè.) îåãä øá áãîéí àò''ô ùäáéú ÷ééí åëì ùëï áæîï äæä

i.

However, without a Mizbe'ach it is obvious to him that he cannot offer, like we said above (59a) that Rav agrees about blood even when the Bayis stands, and all the more so nowadays.

åàé ÷ñáø ìà ÷ãùä ÷ãåùú äáéú ìáðåú äîæáç åëì ùëï ÷ãåùú éøåùìéí àáì ÷ãåùú äàøõ ÷ééîú ìäúçééá áúøåîä åîòùø ëîå áðåá åâáòåï àôéìå îòùø éäà (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú, öàï ÷ãùéí) ôùéèà ãàéï ìå äéúø áéøåùìéí

2.

And if he holds that Kedushas ha'Bayis was not permanent to build a Mizbe'ach, and all the more so Kedushas Yerushalayim, but Kedushas ha'Aretz lasts to be obligated in Terumah and Ma'aser, e.g. in Nov and Giv'on, even Ma'aser should be obvious, for it has no Heter in Yerushalayim!

åìà âøñéðï ì÷îï ô' áúøà (ãó ÷éá:) îòùø ùðé ðàëì áëì òøé éùøàì

3.

And the text does not say below (112b) that Ma'aser Sheni is eaten in all cities of Yisrael;

åàé âøñéðï ìéä öøéê ìåîø ãäëé ôøéê àôéìå îòùø ùðé éäà ôùéèà ãàéï çééá ìäòìåúå åàîàé ÷àîøú éëåì éòìä àãí (îëàï îãó äáà) ãîùîò ãîñô÷à ìéä àé çééá ìäòìåúå ìéøåùìéí àå ìà

i.

If the text says so, we must say that we ask as follows. Even Ma'aser Sheni, it should be obvious that one need not bring it up [to Yerushalayim]. Why did you say "one might have thought that one takes it up", which implies that he is unsure whether or not he must bring it up to Yerushalayim?

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF