1)

TOSFOS DH Mai ka'Savar Hai Tana (cont.)

úåñôåú ã"ä îàé ÷ñáø äàé úðà (äîùê)

ëéåï ãìà ÷éãùä éäà ðàëì áëì òøé éùøàì ëãúðï ì÷îï (ùí)

(a)

Explanation: Since the Kedushah was not permanent, it should be eaten in all cities of Yisrael, like the Mishnah teaches below (112b);

åàîàé öøéê ìà÷åùé ìáëåø ãîä áëåø àéðå îòìäå àó îòùø àéðå îòìäå

1.

Why must we make a Hekesh to Bechor - just like Bechor, one does not bring it up, also Ma'aser one does not bring up?

àîø øáéðà ìòåìí ÷ñáø ÷ãùä åìà îééøé ëìì áçåáú äòìàä àìà àí éëåì ìàåëìå áæîï äæä àå ìà

2.

Ravina answered that really, he holds that the Kedushah was permanent. We do not discuss the obligation to bring it up, rather, whether or not one may eat it nowadays;

åéìôéðï àëéìú îòùø îàëéìú áëåø ãîä àëéìú áëåø áòéà îæáç îùåí ãàéú÷ù áùøå ìãîå àó àëéìú îòùø áòéà îæáç åàéï ùåí îòùø ðàëì áæîï äæä

3.

We learn eating Ma'aser from eating Bechor. Just like a Mizbe'ach is needed to eat Bechor, because its meat is equated to the blood, also eating Ma'aser needs a Mizbe'ach, and no Ma'aser may be eaten nowadays.

åàéú ñôøéí ãâøñé àé ìà ÷ãùä àôéìå îòùø ðîé ìà åä''ô àôéìå îòùø ðîé ìà éäà ðàëì ëìåîø ãîã÷áòéú áîòùø áæîï äæä àí äåæ÷÷ ìäáàú î÷åí îàé ÷áòéú (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí)

(b)

Alternative text: Some texts say "if the Kedushah was not permanent, also Ma'aser no." I.e. also Ma'aser may not be eaten. I.e. since you asked about Ma'aser nowadays, whether it needs to be brought to the place, what do you ask about?

àé ãâãì (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí) ìàçø çåøáï ääåà ùîà ìà ðúçééá ëìì áîòùø ëéåï ãìà ÷ãùä

1.

If it grew after the Churban, perhaps it was never obligated at all in Ma'aser, since the Kedushah was not permanent;

åàôéìå ðúçééá áîòùø ëîå áðåá åâáòåï î''î ôùéèà ãðàëì áëì òøé éùøàì ìôé äâéøñà ãì÷îï ëãôøéùéú

i.

And even if it was obligated in Ma'aser, e.g. in Nov and Giv'on, in any case obviously it is eaten in all cities of Yisrael according to the text below, like I explained!

àìà ëé ÷áòé áàåúå ùâãì áôðé äáéú åçøá äáéú åäåà ôùéèà ãàéðå ðàëì

2.

Rather, he asked about what grew Bifnei ha'Bayis, and the Bayis was destroyed. Obviously it is not eaten!

àîø øáéðà ìòåìí ÷ñáø ÷ãùä åááëåø ùðæø÷ ãîå ÷åãí çåøáï äáéú òñ÷éðï åçøá äáéú åòãééï áùøå ÷ééí åàéú÷ù áùøå ìãîå

3.

Ravina said that really, he holds that the Kedushah was permanent. We discuss a Bechor whose blood was thrown before Churban ha'Bayis. The Bayis was destroyed, and the meat is intact, and its meat is equated to its blood.

åà''ú åäà ëúéá (áîãáø éç) åàú ãîí úæøå÷ åàú çìáí ú÷èéø àìîà àéú÷ù áääåà ÷øà ìä÷èøú çìá

(c)

Question: It says "v'Es Damam Tizrok v'Es Chelbam Taktir" - in this verse [its meat] is Hukash (equated) to Haktaras Chelev;

1.

Note: It seems that blood is equated to Chelev. However, if so how can we explain Tosfos' words below "if we can make a Hekesh to be lenient or stringent, we make it stringently, and equate its meat to its blood"?! Rather, meat is equated to Haktaras Chelev. R. Yosef Engel edits the text to include "u'Vsaram Yihyeh Lach", which is the beginning of the next verse. Technically, this is Semichus. Hekesh is only within one verse.

åàîøé' ìòéì ãîæáç ùðò÷ø î÷èéøéï ÷èåøú áî÷åîå åä''ä àéîåøéï

2.

And we said above (59a) that if the Mizbe'ach was dislocated, we may burn Ketores in its place, and the same applies to Eimurim (which includes Chelev)!

åé''ì ã÷åìà åçåîøà ìçåîøà î÷ùéðï åî÷ùéðï áùøå ìãîå

(d)

Answer: If we can make a Hekesh to be lenient or stringent, we make it stringently, and equate its meat to its blood (to require a Mizbe'ach. We do not equate meat to Eimurim, to permit without a Mizbe'ach.)

i.

Note: There must be an absolute source to forbid blood when the Mizbe'ach is not in its place. (If not, the above verse should equate blood to Chelev, to permit without a Mizbe'ach!) If so, we should forbid Haktaras Chelev without a Mitzvah, from the Hekesh to blood, rather than permitting from a Binyan Av from Ketores! This requires investigation - PF.

åäùúà îäê ãøùà éìéó ìëì ä÷ãùéí ãàí ðôâí äîæáç àéï ðàëìéï

(e)

Consequence: Now we learn from this Drashah that all Kodshim, if the Mizbe'ach was blemished, they are not eaten.

åà''ú ìôé âéøñà æå ãâøñ ÷ãùä ÷ùéà ãø' éùîòàì àãø' éùîòàì ãì÷îï ô' áúøà (ãó ÷éè.) úðéà øáé éùîòàì àåîø æä åæä îðåçä åðçìä ùéìä

(f)

Question #1: According to this text that says "the Kedushah was permanent" (regarding R. Yosi's teaching in the name of R. Yishmael), R. Yishmael contradicts himself! Below (119a), a Beraisa teaches that R. Yishmael says that both of these, i.e. "Menuchah" and "Nachalah", refer to Shilo;

åôé' á÷åðèøñ ãá÷ãåùú éøåùìéí âåôä ñ''ì ãìà ÷ãùä åéù àçøéä äéúø îãìà ÷øé ìéä ðçìä ëãàéúà áô''÷ ãîâéìä (ãó é.) ùîòúé ùî÷øéáéï ááéú çåðéå áæîï äæä åàå÷îéðï ëøáé éùîòàì

1.

Rashi explained that he holds that Yerushalayim itself, its Kedushah was not permanent, and there is a Heter after it, since it is not called Nachalah, like it says in Megilah (10a) "I heard that we may offer in Beis Chonyo nowadays", and we establish it like R. Yishmael.

îéäå áæä ìà ã÷ áôéøåùå ãääéà ãîâéìä (âæ''ù) øáé éùîòàì áøáé éåñé åääéà ãì÷îï øáé éùîòàì áï àìéùò áø ôìåâúéä ãø''ò

2.

Remark: [Rashi] erred about this. The teaching in Megilah is R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi, and the teaching below is [Stam R. Yishmael, i.e.] R. Yishmael ben Elisha, who argues with R. Akiva.

àáì î''î òì ëøçéï ÷ñáø ìà ÷ãùä îãìà ÷øé ìéä ðçìä (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí)

3.

Summation of question: However, in any case you are forced to say that [R. Yishmael] holds that the Kedushah was not permanent, since he does not call [Yerushalayim] "Nachalah"!

åòåã (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí) ãëéåï ãîå÷é ÷øà ãðçìä áùéìä à''ë îðà ìéä ãéøåùìéí àéï àçøéä äéúø

(g)

Question #2: Since [R. Yishmael] establishes "Nachalah" to refer to Shilo, if so what is his source that there is no Heter after Yerushalayim?

åé''ì ãùîà ðô÷à ìéä î÷øà àçøéðà

(h)

Answer #1: Perhaps he learns from another verse.

åäøá øáé çééí îôøù ãøáé éùîòàì ñáø ÷ãùä åäàé ã÷àîø æä åæä ùéìä àúà ìàùîåòéðï ãùéìä àéï àçøéä äéúø ãìà ëî''ã éù àçøéä äéúø

(i)

Answer #2 (R. Chaim): R. Yishmael holds that the Kedushah was permanent. He said that both of these refer to Shilo to teach that there is no Heter after Shilo, unlike the opinion that there is a Heter after it;

åäééðå îùåí ããøéù îðåçä æå ùéìä ðçìä æå éøåùìéí åîãçì÷å ÷ãøéù ìéúï äéúø áéï æå ìæå

1.

This is because [the other opinion] expounds "Menuchah" - this is Shilo. "Nachalah" - this is Yerushalayim. Since [the Torah] divided them, he expounds to give to a Heter in between them;

åôìéâ àîúðé' ã÷úðé ùéìä éù àçøéä äéúø ãúðï (ì÷îï ãó ÷éá:) áàå ìðåá åâáòåï ëå'

2.

[R. Yishmael] argues with our Mishnah, which taught "Shilo has a Heter after it", for our Mishnah (112b) taught "when they came to Nov and Giv'on [Bamos were permitted]."

åàéï ðøàä ëìì ùäøé ÷øàé (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) îåëéçéí ãáðåá åâáòåï äåúøå äáîåú âáé ùîåàì åäåà éáøê àú äæáç (ùîåàì à è) åâí ÷øé ìéä áôñå÷ áîä

(j)

Rebuttal: Verses prove that in Nov and Giv'on, Bamos were permitted regarding Shmuel "v'Hu Yevarech Es ha'Zevach", and also the verse calls it a Bamah!

àáì àçø éøåùìéí ìëåìé òìîà ìà äåúøå äáîåú åàôé' îàï ãàéú ìéä ìà ÷ãùä îöé ñáø ãàéï àçøéä äéúø

1.

However, after Yerushalayim all agree that Bamos were not permitted. Even the one who says that the Kedushah was not permanent can hold that there is no Heter after [Yerushalayim].

åëï îùîò ô''÷ ãîâéìä (âæ''ù) à''ø éöç÷ ùîòúé ùî÷øéáéï ááéú çåðéå áæîï äæä å÷àîø ãäãø áéä îäà ãúðï (ëï ðøàä ìäâéä) éøåùìéí àéï àçøéä äéúø

(k)

Support: It connotes like this in Megilah (10a). R. Yitzchak said "I heard that we may offer in Beis Chonyo nowadays", and it says that he retracted due to the Mishnah "there is no Heter after Yerushalayim";

åàîàé äãø áéä äà ÷àîø äúí ëúðàé àé ÷ãùä ìòúéã ìáà àé ìà ÷ãùä åîòé÷øà îàé ñáø åìáñåó îàé ñáø

1.

Question: Why did he retract? It says there "Tana'im argue like this, about whether or not the Kedushah was permanent." What did he think initially, and what did he think at the end?

àìà åãàé îòé÷øà ñáø ãìî''ã ìà ÷ãùä äåúøå äáîåú åäãø áéä îîúðéúéï ãîâéìä åîîúðéúéï ãì÷îï áô' áúøà (ãó ÷éá:) ãéøåùìéí àéï àçøéä äéúø

2.

Answer: Rather, surely initially he thought that according to the opinion that the Kedushah was not permanent, Bamos were permitted, and he retracted due to the Mishnah below (112b) that there is no Heter after Yerushalayim;

ãîùîò ìëåìé òìîà àôéìå ìî''ã ìà ÷ãùä

3.

Inference: All agree, even the one who holds that the Kedushah was not permanent;

åúðàé ãîééúé äúí á÷ãùä åìà ÷ãùä ìà ÷àé àãøáé éöç÷ àìà øéäèà ãäù''ñ äåà îùåí ãàééãé ãð÷è ÷ãåùä øàùåðä ÷ãùä ìùòúä åìà ÷ãùä ìòúéã ìáà ð÷éè ëúðàé

4.

The Tana'im who argue there about whether or not the Kedushah was permanent, it does not refer to R. Yitzchak's teaching. Rather, this is the flow of the Gemara. Because it mentioned "the initial Kedushah was for its time, but not forever", it said that Tana'im argue like this.

åîééúé ôìåâúà ãáúé òøé çåîä åìàå îùåí ããîéà ìéä ãéù çéìå÷ áéï áéï ÷ãåùú áéú ìáúé òøé çåîä

i.

It brings the argument about Batei Ir Chomah, but not because it resembles it, for there is a distinction between Kedushas ha'Bayis and Batei Ir Chomah;

àáì åãàé ÷ãåùú áúé òøé çåîä ããîéà (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) ì÷ãåùú äàøõ ãîùååé ìäå àäããé áô''á (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí) ãòøëéï (ãó ìá:) âáé î÷éù áéàúí áéîé òæøà ìáéàúí áéîé éäåùò

ii.

However, surely Kedushas Batei Ir Chomah resembles Kedushas ha'Aretz, for [the Gemara] equates them in Erchin (32b), regarding "it equates entering [Eretz Yisrael] in the days of Ezra to entering in the days of Yehoshua";

åëîä úðàé äéä éëåì ìäáéà ãàéëà ãàéú ìéä ÷ãùä åàéëà ãàéú ìéä ìà ÷ãùä

5.

It could have brought several Tana'im, for some hold that the Kedushah was permanent, and some hold that it was not permanent;

åø''î áô''÷ ãçåìéï (ãó å:) ÷ñáø ìà ÷ãùä âáé áéú ùàï åøáé éùîòàì ãäëà åøáé éåñé ãñãø òåìí áôø÷ äòøì (éáîåú ãó ôá:) ñáøé ÷ãùä (äâäú ç÷ ðúï)

6.

In Chulin (6b), R. Meir holds that the Kedushah was not permanent regarding Beis She'an (he ate Yerek there without tithing it), and R. Yishmael and R. Yosi of Seder Olam in Yevamos (82b) hold that it is permanent.

åà''ú åîðà ìéä ì÷îï ãøáé éåçðï ñáø ÷ãùä îùåí ãîçééá îòìä áæîï äæä ìòåìí àéîà ìê ãñáø ìà ÷ãùä àô''ä àéï àçøéä äéúø ëãôé'

(l)

Question: What is the source below (107b) that R. Yochanan holds that the Kedushah was permanent, since he obligates one who offers [outside] nowadays? Really I can say that he holds that the Kedushah was not permanent. Even so, there is no Heter after [Yerushalayim], like I explained!

åé''ì ãàé ìà ÷ãùä ìà îçééá ãàéðå øàåé ìôúç àäì îåòã ãðãçå ìâîøé

(m)

Answer: If the Kedushah was not permanent, he would not be liable, for it is not proper for Pesach Ohel Mo'ed, for it was totally Nidcheh;

àáì àé ÷ãùä ìà ðãçå ãéëåì ìáðåú îæáç áî÷åîå åé÷øéá òìéå àå îééøé ø' éåçðï á÷èøú ãìà áòé îæáç ëãôé' ìòéì

1.

However, if the Kedushah was permanent, it was not Nidcheh, for he can build the Mizbe'ach and offer on it. Or, R. Yochanan discusses Ketores, which does not require a Mizbe'ach, like I explained above (59b Sof DH Ad).

åàéï ìä÷ùåú ìôé' ä÷åðèøñ ãâøñ äëà ìà ÷ãùä åáñåó äòøì (âæ''ù) ùîòéðï ìøáé éåñé ã÷ãùä ááøééúà ãñãø òåìí

(n)

Implied question: Rashi's text here says that the Kedushah was not permanent (regarding R. Yosi's teaching in the name of R. Yishmael). In Yevamos (82b), we heard R. Yosi say that the Kedushah was permanent in a Beraisa of Seder Olam!

ãéù (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) çéìå÷ ëãôé' ìòéì ãàôéìå áèìä ÷ãåùú äáéú ÷ãåùú äàøõ ìà áèìä ëãàùëçï áðåá åâáòåï

(o)

Answer #1: There is a distinction, like I explained above, that even the one who says that Kedushas ha'Bayis was Batel, Kedushas ha'Aretz was not Batel, like we find in Nov and Giv'on.

à''ð úðé åìà ñáø ìéä ëãáòé ìîéîø ôø÷ éåöà ãåôï (ðãä ãó îå:)

(p)

Answer #2: [R. Yosi] taught [in Seder Olam that the Kedushah was permanent], but he does not hold like this, like we wanted to say in Nidah (46b).

à''ð äà ãéãéä äà ãøáéä ãäëà îùîéä ãøáé éùîòàì

(q)

Answer #3: [R. Yosi taught] one of these (i.e. in Yevamos) according to his own opinion, and one according to his Rebbi. Here he taught in the name of R. Yishmael.

åà''ú ìîàé ãâøñ ÷ãùä äà ø''ì ñ''ì àìéáà ãøáé éåñé (éáîåú ãó ôà.) úøåîä áæîï äæä ãøáðï

(r)

Question: According to the text that the Kedushah was permanent, this is difficult, for Reish Lakish holds according to R. Yosi (Yevamos 81a) that Terumah nowadays is mid'Rabanan!

åé''ì ëãôøéùéú ìòéì ãàôùø àôéìå ìà áèìä ÷ãåùú äáéú ÷ãåùú äàøõ áèìä

(s)

Answer: This is like I explained above. It is possible that even if Kedushas ha'Bayis was not Batel, Kedushas ha'Aretz was Batel. (Likewise, we can say vice-versa.)

åúãò ãøáé éäåùò ùîòé' ìéä òéâåì áòéâåìéï òåìä áô''÷ ãáéöä (ãó ã.) åáñåó äòøì (éáîåú ãó ôà.) îåëç ìø''ì ãî''ã (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) òåìä ÷ñáø úøåîä áæîï äæä ãøáðï

(t)

Proof: We know that R. Yehoshua holds that a ring [of pressed figs of Terumah] is Batel in rings [of Chulin], in Beitzah (4a), and in Yevamos (81a) it is proven according to Reish Lakish that the one who says that it is Batel holds that Terumah nowadays is mid'Rabanan;

åùîòéðï ìéä ìøáé éäåùò áëîä ãåëúé ãàîø ùîòúé ùî÷øéáéí àò''ô ùàéï áéú

1.

And we know that R. Yehoshua holds in many places that we may offer even without a Bayis.

åúéîä äåà ìåîø ù÷ãåùú äáéú ÷ééîú ìä÷øéá ÷øáï áìà áéú äî÷ãù (äâäú çîãú ãðéàì) åìà éúçééá áúøåîä

(u)

Question: It is astounding to say [according to R. Yosi and R. Yehoshua] that Kedushas ha'Bayis endures to offer a Korban without a Beis ha'Mikdash, but [Kedushas ha'Aretz does not endure] to be obligated in Terumah!

àáì ìòéì ãàîø àéôëà àúé ùôéø ëîå áðåá åâáòåï

1.

Distinction: However, above that [we] said oppositely (Kedushas ha'Bayis is Batel, but Kedushas ha'Aretz endures to be obligated in Terumah), it is fine, like in Nov and Giv'on.

åäëà é''ì ãøáé éåñé îùåí øáé éùîòàì ÷àîø åìà ñ''ì

(v)

Answer - part 1: Here we can say that R. Yosi taught in the name of R. Yishmael, but he himself disagrees.

åîø' éäåùò é''ì ãñáø ãàéðå î÷ãù àìà å' ãáøéí áìáã ìëï éòìå äòéâåìéï

(w)

Answer - part 2: We can say that R. Yehoshua holds that only six matters are Mekadesh (are never Batel). Therefore, the rings are Batel.

åø''à ãîñô÷à ìéä áôø÷ éãéòåú äèåîàä (ùáåòåú ãó èæ.) åáô''÷ ãîâéìä (ãó é.) àé ñáø ÷ãùä àå ìà ÷ãùä

(x)

Implied question: R. Eliezer is unsure in Shevuos (16a) and Megilah (10a), whether he holds that Kedushas [ha'Bayis] was permanent or not...

åùîòé' ìéä áô''÷ ãçâéâä (ãó â:) âáé òîåï åîåàá îòùøéï îòùø òðé áùáéòéú ã÷ñáø ìà ÷ãùä

1.

And we know that he holds in Chagigah (3b), regarding Amon and Mo'av tithe [mid'Rabanan] Ma'aser Oni in Shemitah, that he holds that Kedushas [ha'Aretz] was not permanent!

åîéäå àéï øàéä îùåí ãäøáä ëøëéí ìàå îãáøé ø''à ëãôøéùéú ô''÷ ãéáîåú (ãó èæ. ã''ä òîåï) åìéúéä áîéìúéä (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) áîñëú éãéí (ô''ã î''â):

(y)

Answer: There is no proof from there (what he holds about Kedushas ha'Bayis), for "many cities [Olei Mitzrayim were Mekadesh them, and Olei Bavel were not Mekadesh them]" was not from R. Eliezer's words, like I explained in Yevamos (16a). It is not in his words in Maseches Yadayim (in Mishnah 4:3, which teaches the argument about Amon and Mo'av).

2)

TOSFOS DH Kodshim Nifsalin (pertains to Daf 60b)

úåñôåú ã"ä ÷ãùéí ðôñìéï (ùééê ìãó ñ:)

(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes that Kodshei Kodoshim become Pasul due to Yotzei.)

ôé' á÷åðèøñ ÷ñ''ã îôðé ñéìå÷ äîæáç äåà

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): We are thinking that [Kodshim are disqualified] because the Mizbe'ach was removed.

îã÷úðé æáéï åîöåøòéï îùúìçéï ùàéï îöåøò ðëðñ ìãâìé äùáèéí åìà æá ìîçðä äìåéí ðåùàé àøåï ëãàîø ì÷îï àò''ô ùðñò àäì îåòã

1.

Source: It taught "Zavim and Metzora'im are expelled", that a Metzora may not enter the encampments of the Shevatim, and a Zav may not enter the Machaneh of the Leviyim, who carry the Aron, like it says below (61b) - even though it traveled, it is Ohel Mo'ed.

àìîà ðôñìéï ã÷àîø ìàå îùåí ãîôñìé áéåöà äåà ãäà àäì îåòã çùéá ìéä

2.

Inference: Their Pesul is not due to Yotzei, for it is considered Ohel Mo'ed.

åà''à ãìîàé ãîå÷é ìä äùúà á÷ãùé ÷ãùéí àôéìå áìà ñéìå÷ îæáç àìà ñéìå÷ ÷ìòé äçöø ìçåã ðôñìéï ÷ãùé ÷ãùéí áéåöà

(b)

Rejection: It is impossible [to say so], for according to how we now establish it now to discuss Kodshei Kodoshim, even without removal of the Mizbe'ach, just through removal of Kal'ei ha'Chatzer, Kodshei Kodoshim are disqualified due to Yotzei!

ãáäãéà îåëç áô' ùúé äìçí (îðçåú ãó öä.) ãáùòú îñòåú àéï ÷øåé îçðä ùëéðä ÷ééí åìçí äôðéí åùàø ÷ãùé ÷ãùéí îéôñìé áéåöà ãðñò àäì îåòã äåà ìàå ãå÷à ìòðéï îçðä ùëéðä

1.

This is proven explicitly in Menachos (95a) that at the time of Masa'os (traveling in the Midbar), we do not say that Machaneh Shechinah is intact, and Lechem ha'Panim and other Kodshei Kodoshim because Pasul through Yotzei. "Nasa Ohel Mo'ed" (even though it traveled, it is Ohel Mo'ed) is not precise regarding Machaneh Shechinah.

àáì ìâáé ÷ãùéí ÷ìéí åãàé ìà îéôñìé áéåöà îùåí îñò äîçðåú ãìòðéï îçðä éùøàì åîçðä ìåéä àò''ô ùðñò àäì îåòã äåà ãîçðéäí ÷ééîéí áãâìé äùáèéí ëãîåëç ì÷îï ô' áúøà (ãó ÷èæ:)

2.

However, regarding Kodshim Kalim surely they are not disqualified due to Yotzei due to the Machanos traveling. Regarding Machaneh Yisrael and Machaneh Levi, even though it traveled, it is Ohel Mo'ed, for their Machanos persist through the Degalim of the Shevatim, like is proven below (116b);

åìëê æáéï åîöåøòéï îùúìçéï å÷ãùéí ÷ìéí àéï ðôñìéï áéåöà

i.

Therefore, Zavim and Metzora'im are expelled, and Kodshim Kalim are not disqualified through Yotzei.

åàú÷ôúà äåé îã÷úðé ðàëìéï áùðé î÷åîåú ãîééøé á÷ãùéí ÷ìéí åàò''ô ùàéï îæáç áî÷åîå

(c)

Explanation #2: The question is because it taught "they are eaten in two places", which discusses Kodshim Kalim, even though the Mizbe'ach is not in its place.

3)

TOSFOS DH Ha R. Yishmael v'Ha Rabanan

úåñôåú ã"ä äà ø' éùîòàì åäà øáðï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that we find these Rabanan in Temurah.)

äééðå úðàé ãôìéâé òìéä ãø' éùîòàì áúîåøä ôø÷ åàìå ÷ãùéí (ãó ëà.) åãøùé' ìéä ì÷øà áò''à

(a)

Explanation: These are the Tana'im who argues with R. Yishmael in Temurah (21a), and explain the verse differently.

4)

TOSFOS DH Kodem she'Ya'amidu ha'Mishkan

úåñôåú ã"ä ÷åãí ùéòîéãå äîùëï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that "before" is not precise.)

ôøù''é ìàå ãå÷à ÷åãí àìà ìàçø ùäòîéãå äëì äîùëï åäîæáç

(a)

Explanation (Rashi): "Before" is not precise. Rather, it is after they erected everything - the Mishkan and the Mizbe'ach.

ãàéï ìôøù îîù ÷åãí ùäòîéãå äîùëï ëéåï ùëáø äòîéãå äîæáç áî÷åîå àåëìéï ÷ãùé ÷ãùéí

(b)

Implied suggestion: Perhaps it is truly before they erected the Mishkan. Since they set up the Mizbe'ach in its place, they may [slaughter and] eat Kodshei Kodoshim!

äìà úçéìä ðåñòéï áðé âøùåï åîòîéãéï äîùëï åàç''ë áðé ÷äú îòîéãéï äîæáç

(c)

Rejection: First Bnei Gerson traveled and set up the Mishkan, and afterwards Bnei Kehas set up the Mizbe'ach.

åàí ùéðå äñãø åäòîéãå äîæáç úçéìä

1.

Implied suggestion: Perhaps they changed the order and set up the Mizbe'ach first!

äéàê ùçèå ÷ãùéí ÷åãí äòîãú äîùëï äà àîøï (éåîà ãó ñá:) ùìîéí ùùçèï ÷åãí ôúéçú ääéëì ôñåìéï

2.

Rejection: If so, how could they slaughter Kodshim before erecting the Mishkan? We say (Yoma 62b) that Shelamim slaughtered before opening [the doors of] the Heichal is Pasul!

åé''ì ùìîéí ãå÷à ëúéá áäå åùçèå ôúç àäì îåòã ëì æä ôé' øù''é

(d)

Defense (of suggestions): We can say that only regarding Shelamim it is written "u'Shachto Pesach Ohel Mo'ed." (Other Kodshim do not require that the Heichal is open.) All this is from Rashi.

å÷''ì (áøå''ê) äà úðï âáé úîéã (úîéã ãó ì:) ìà äéä ùåçè òã ùùîò ùòø äâãåì ùðôúç àìîà éìôéðï ùàø ÷øáðåú ùàéï ùåçèéï îùìîéí

(e)

Question (R. Baruch): A Mishnah about the Tamid (Tamid 30b) says that they did not slaughter it until they heard the great gate open. This shows that we learn other Kodshim from Shelamim, that we do not slaughter [them before the Heichal is open].

åàéï ðøàä ìåîø ãäééðå îãøáðï

(f)

Poor answer #1: That is mid'Rabanan. (Mid'Oraisa, only Shelamim needs the Heichal to be open.)

ãäà áäé÷ùà ãæàú äúåøä ðéìó ìôñåìà îùìîéí

(g)

Rejection: We learn from the Hekesh "Zos ha'Torah" to disqualify, from Shelamim.

åâí àéï ìåîø áùìîéí âåôééäå àéðå ôåñì ø÷ îãøáðï ãìà ùðä äëúåá ìòëá

(h)

Suggestion: Shelamim itself (slaughtered before the Heichal was opened) is Pasul only mid'Rabanan, for this was not repeated to teach that it is Me'akev.

ãäà àîøé' ô' ùðé ùòéøé (éåîà ãó ñá:) ãùìîéí ùùçèï áçåõ ÷åãí ôúéçú ãìúåú ääéëì ôèåø

(i)

Rejection: We say in Yoma (62b) that if one slaughtered Shelamim outside before the doors of the Heichal were opened, he is exempt;

àìîà îï äúåøä àéðå øàåé ìôúç àäì îåòã ãôñåì ãøáðï çééá áçåõ

1.

Inference: Mid'Oraisa it is not proper for Pesach Ohel Mo'ed, for something Pasul only mid'Rabanan, one is liable for slaughtering it outside;

åàôéìå áôñåì ãàåøééúà çééá áçåõ äéëà ãàí òìå ìà éøãå ëãîåëç ôø÷ äùåçè åäîòìä (ì÷îï ÷è.)

2.

And even for a Pesul mid'Oraisa, one is liable for it outside when Im Alah Lo Yered, like is proven below (109a).

åæäå äåëçä ãùàã ÷ãùéí ðîé ôñåìéï áôðéñ ÷åãí ôúéçú ãìúåú ääéëì ãàé ëùéøéï à''ë áùìîéí àí òìå ìà éøãå ã÷øåé ôñåìå á÷åãù äéëà ãàéú ìéä äëùéøà áòìîà

(j)

Conclusion: This is a proof that also other Kodshim are Pesulim inside [if slaughtered] before the doors of the Heichal were opened. If they were Kosher, if so regarding Shelamim, Im Alah Lo Yered, for it is called Pesulo b'Kodesh when there is a Hechsher elsewhere (e.g. other Korbanos);

à''ë äåà ãáùìîéí àí òìå ìà éøãå àîàé ôèåø áçåõ àìà åãàé áùàø ÷ãùéí ðîé ôñåìéï

1.

If so, that regarding Shelamim, Im Alah Lo Yered, why is he exempt outside? Rather, surely also other Kodshim are Pesulim.

àí ìà úàîø ëéåï ãìà ðôúçå ÷åãí äùçéèä ãìúåú ääéëì çùéá ùåçè ùìîéí ùìà áî÷åîï åéøãå àò''â ãùàø ÷ãùéí àéï ðôñìéï îï äúåøä

(k)

Rebuttal: One could say that since the doors of the Heichal were not opened before Shechitah, it is considered Shechitas Shelamim not in its place, and [Im Alah] Yered, even though other Kodshim are disqualified mid'Oraisa.

åãîé ì÷ãùé ÷ãùéí ùùçèï áãøåí áô''÷ ãîòéìä (ãó á.) ãëîàï ãçð÷éðåï ãîå åéøãå [ìøáé éäåãä] àò''â ã÷ãùéí ÷ìéí ùçéèúï áãøåí ëùéøéï

1.

This is like Kodshei Kodoshim slaughtered in the south, in Me'ilah (2a). It is as if he choked them, and [Im Alah] Yered according to R. Yehudah, even though Kodshim Kalim slaughtered in the south are Kosher.

àáì ìø''ù ìà éøãå ëãàéúà äúí

2.

Distinction: However, according to R. Shimon, they do not descend, like it says there.

à''ë ääéà ãùðé ùòéøé ãôèø áçåõ ëøáé éäåãä

3.

Consequence: If so, what it says in Yoma (62b), that one is exempt outside [for Shechitas Shelamim before the doors of the Heichal were opened] is like R. Yehudah.

åâí àéï ìåîø ã÷åãí ùôéø÷å äîùëï ëìì ùçèå åæø÷å àú äãí åàçøé ëï ôéø÷äå åùéðå äñãø áùòú çðééä åäòîéãå äîæáç å÷ìòé äçöø úçéìä

(l)

Implied suggestion: Before they dissembled the Mishkan at all, they did Shechitah and Zerikah, and afterwards dissembled it, and switched the order when they camped and set up the Mizbe'ach and Kal'ei ha'Chatzer first...

å÷àîø áùîòúà ã÷åãí ùéòîéãå ÷øùé äîùëï éàëìå ÷ãùé ÷ãùéí

1.

And it says in the Sugya that before they set up the boards of the Mishkan, they can eat Kodshei Kodoshim.

äìà îéã ùôéø÷åäå ðôñìå áéåöà ä÷ãùé ÷ãùéí åìà àîøéðï ðñò àäì îåòã äåà ìâáé îçðä ùëéðä

(m)

Rejection: Immediately when they dissembled it, Kodshei Kodoshim were disqualified through Yotzei. We do not say "Nasa Ohel Mo'ed" (even though it traveled, it is Ohel Mo'ed) regarding Machaneh Shechinah!

àìà åãàé ÷åãí ùäòîéãå ìàå ãå÷à àìà äòîéãå äëì

(n)

Conclusion: Rather, surely "before they erected" is not precise [like Rashi explained]. Rather, they erected everything;

åçéãåùà äåé àìàçø ùéôø÷å ëã÷àîø ÷î''ì àò''ô ãðñò àäì îåòã äåà åàò''ô ùðôø÷ äîùëï ëéåï ù÷ìòé äçöø åäîæáç áî÷åîï. áøå''ê:

1.

The Chidush is after they dissembled, like it says "this teaches that even though it traveled, it is Ohel Mo'ed", even though the Mishkan was dissembled, since Kal'ei ha'Chatzer and the Mizbe'ach are in their places. This is from R. Baruch.

61b----------------------------------------61b

5)

TOSFOS DH ul'Acher she'Yifreku ha'Leviyim Es ha'Mishkan

úåñôåú ã"ä åìàçø ùéôø÷å äìåéí àú äîùëï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this is before everything was removed.)

àáì äîæáç å÷ìòé äçöø áî÷åîï

(a)

Explanation: However, the Mizbe'ach and Kal'ei ha'Chatzer are in their places.

àáì ðñò îëì åëì àéï îçðä ùëéðä ÷ééí ìâáé ÷ãùé ÷ãùéí ëãôøé' åìçí äôðéí ðôñì áéåöà ëãàîø äúí áîñåì÷ îñéãåø äùìçï ãë''ò ìà ôìéâé ãðôñì áéåöà

(b)

Distinction: However, if it totally traveled, Machaneh Shechinah is not intact regarding Kodshei Kodoshim, like I explained (61a DH Kodshim), and Lechem ha'Panim is disqualified due to Yotzei, like it says there (Menachos 95a) "if it was removed from its Sidur (arrangement) on the Shulchan, all agree that it is disqualified due to Yotzei";

åòåã ãàé ðôø÷ îëì åëì úéôå÷ ìé ãîéôñì îèòí ôâéîú äîæáç

1.

Also, if it was totally dissembled, I already know that it is Pasul due to Pegimas ha'Mizbe'ach (this includes when it is not in its place)!

åà''ú åáîðçåú (ãó öä.) àîàé úìé èòîà áéåöà áìçí äôðéí úéôå÷ ìé îùåí ôâéîú äîæáç

(c)

Question: In Menachos (95a), why do we attribute the reason for [Pesul of] Lechem ha'Panim due to Yotzei? It is already Pasul due to Pegimas ha'Mizbe'ach!

åàé çæø åäòîéãå áå áéåí åàæ éàëìåäå

1.

Suggestion: [We attribute the Pesul to Yotzei to disqualify even] if they returned and set up the Mizbe'ach the same day. Then [if the Pesul were due only to Pegimas ha'Mizbe'ach] they could eat [the Lechem ha'Panim]!

äà ëéå ùðãçä àéðå çåæø åðøàä ìàëåì

2.

Rejection: Since it was Nidcheh, it does not return to be eaten.

åë''ú çã îúøé èòîé ð÷è

3.

Suggestion: [The Gemara] gave one of two reasons [why it is Pasul].

à''ë äéëé ãéé÷ äúí ù''î éù ñéìå÷ îñòåú áìéìä ãàé ñ''ã áéåí îàé àéøéà îùåí éåöà úéôå÷ ìé ãàéôñåì ìéä áìéðä

4.

Rejection: If so, how did the Gemara infer there that they traveled at night, for if it was only during the day, why [do we attribute the Pesul to] Yotzei? It is already Pasul due to Linah! (Perhaps the Gemara gave only one of the reasons!)

åé''ì ãåãàé ñéìå÷ îñòåú ôåñì àå îùåí éåöà àå îùåí ôâéîú äîæáç

(d)

Answer: Surely, removal (of the Mishkan) disqualifies, due to Yotzei or Pegimas ha'Mizbe'ach (either suffices to disqualify);

åäúí ãéé÷ àí äéä ðôñì îùåí ìéðä ÷åãí ñéìå÷ ðîöà ãìà äéä äîñò ôåñì

1.

There, [the Gemara] infers that if it was disqualified due to Linah before they uprooted to travel, it turns out that traveling did not disqualify.

6)

TOSFOS DH Af Al Pi she'Nasa Ohel Mo'ed Hu

úåñôåú ã"ä àò''ô ùðñò àäì îåòã äåà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses alternative Drashos from this verse.)

åà''ú áô' ùúé äìçí (îðçåú ãó öä.) ãîòé÷øà ôìéâé áìçí äôðéí áîñåì÷ àí ðôñì áîñòåú

(a)

Question: In Menachos (95a), initially they argue about Lechem ha'Panim when it is removed, if it is disqualified through traveling.

ãî''ã àéðå ðôñì ãøù îãëúéá åðñò àäì îåòã àò''ô ùðñò àäì îåòã äåà àôéìå ìîçðä ùëéðä åàéãê ääåà ìãâìéí àúà

1.

The one who says that it is not disqualified learns from "v'Nasa Ohel Mo'ed." Even when it traveled, it is Ohel Mo'ed, even regarding Machaneh Shechinah. The other holds that the verse teaches about the order of traveling. (They carry the Mishkan after Degel Reuven starts traveling, and before Degel Efrayim.)

àîàé ìà îùðé ãàéöèøéê ìãøùà ãäëà àå ìîçðä éùøàì åì÷ãùéí ÷ìéí (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí) ëãàîø ô' áúøà (ì÷îï ÷éæ:)

2.

Why doesn't it answer that it is needed for the Drashah here, or for Machaneh Yisrael and Kodshim Kalim, like it says below (117b)?

åúéøõ ä''ø çééí ãìôé ñáøúå ÷îäãø ìéä ãñ''ì ãìà öøéê ÷øà ìãøùà ãäëà åìãøùà ãô' áúøà

(b)

Answer (R. Chaim): [There] he counters him according to his reasoning. [The one who says that it is not disqualified] holds that we do not need a verse for the Drashah here, or for the Drashah below (117b);

ëéåï ãàéú ìéä ãàôé' ëé ìéëà ìà îæáç åìà ÷ìòéí àôé' ìçí äôðéí ùäåà ÷ãùé ÷ãùéí ìà îéôñéì ã÷øéðà áéä îçðä ùëéðä ÷ééí

1.

This is because he holds that even when there is no Mizbe'ach and no Kela'im, even Lechem ha'Panim, which is Kodshei Kodoshim, is not disqualified, for it is called that Machaneh Shechinah is intact.

åìëê îùðé ãìãâìéí äåà ãàúà

2.

Therefore, he answers that the verse teaches about the order of the Degalim.

åà''ú äéëé úéñ÷ àãòúà ìîéîø äúí ãîñåì÷ ëùø áéåöà î''î äà îñåì÷ îéôñéì áôâéîú îæáç

(c)

Question: How did he think to say there that when it is removed, it is Kosher [even though it is] Yotzei? When it is removed it is disqualified due to Pegimas ha'Mizbe'ach!

åëé úéîà ëùçæøå åäòîéãå äîùëï áå áéåí

1.

Suggestion: [It is Kosher] when they returned and set up the Mizbe'ach the same day.

åàéê éàëìåäå äà ëéåï ãðãçä ùåá àéðå çåæø åðøàä

2.

Rejection: How can they eat it? Since it was Nidcheh, it does not return [to be permitted]!

åé''ì ãìà ÷ééîà ääéà îñ÷ðà

(d)

Answer #1: That is not the conclusion. (Rather, when it is removed, it is Pasul.)

à''ð àôé' áùòú ùðùàå áëúó îæáç äåà ëîàï (äâää áâìéåï) ãàîø àò''ô ùðñò àäì îåòã äåà

(e)

Answer #2: Even when it is carried on the shoulder, it is the Mizbe'ach (it is not considered Pagum), like the one who says that even when it traveled, it is Ohel Mo'ed.

7)

TOSFOS DH Arba Amos Min ha'Darom v'Arba Amos Min ha'Ma'arav

úåñôåú ã"ä àøáò àîåú îï äãøåí åã' àîåú îï äîòøá

(SUMMARY: Tosfos questions this text, but concludes like it.)

ëê âéøñú ä÷åðèøñ

(a)

Version #1: This is Rashi' text.

å÷ùä ìø''ú ãà''ë äéä äîæáç ã' àîåú áçì÷å ùì éäåãä ãîñúîà ááéú øàùåï ìà äéä éñåã ì÷øï ãøåîéú îæøçéú ìôé ùìà äéä áçì÷å ùì èåøó ëãàîø ô' àéæäå î÷åîï (ìòéì ðâ:)

(b)

Question (R. Tam): If so, four Amos of the Mizbe'ach were in Yehudah's portion, for presumably, in Bayis Rishon there was no Yesod in the southeast corner because it was not in the portion of Toref (Binyamin), like it says above (53b);

åàí ááéú ùðé äåñéôå áãøåí à''ë áðå áçì÷å ùì éäåãä

1.

If in Bayis Sheni they added in the south, if so they built in Yehudah's portion!

åâøñ ø''ú îï äöôåï îï äîòøá åäëé úðï áîñ' îãåú (ô''â î''à)

(c)

Version #2 (R. Tam): [The text says that] they added from the north and west. So says the Mishnah in Midos (3:1).

å÷ùä ãäà îñ÷é' äëà ãîùåí ùéúéï äåñéôå ùéäà äáåø ÷åìè áúåê (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) äîæáç åùéúéï áãøåí äéå ëãúðï áôéø÷éï (ì÷îï ñâ.)

(d)

Question #1: We conclude here that they added due to Shisim, so the pit will absorb [Nesachim] within (under) the Mizbe'ach. The Shisim were in the south, like a Mishnah below (63a) teaches;

áâ' ãáøéí äéúä ÷øï îòøáéú ãøåîéú îùîùú ìîòìä ðéñåê äîéí åäééï åúðï áîñëú îãåú (ô''â î''â) ìîèä áøöôä áàåúå ÷øï (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí) î÷åí äéä ùí àîä òì àîä åèáìà ùì ùéù òìéä ùáä éåøãéï ìùéúéï

1.

The southwest corner served three matters above - Nisuch ha'Mayim veha'Yayin..., and a Mishnah in Midos (3:3) teaches that there was a place there (the southwest corner) an Amah by an Amah, and a marble block on it. Through it they descended to the Shitin.

åîöéðå ìîéãç÷ áøåç îòøáéú äéä ìöã ÷øï ãøåîéú

(e)

Poor answer #1: [The Shisin] was on the western side, towards the southern corner (i.e. closer to the south than to the north, but it was not at the south end).

àáì ÷ùä òåã úðéà áîòéìä ôø÷ åìã çèàú (ãó éà:) åîééúé ìä áñåëä ôø÷ ìåìá (ãó îè.) ìåì ÷èï äéä áöã îòøáå ùì ëáù àçã ìùáòéí ùðä ôøçé ëäåðä éåøãéï ìùí åîáéàéï îùí ééï ÷øåù

(f)

Question #2: A Beraisa in Me'ilah (11b), brought in Sukah (49a), teaches that there was a small window in the west side of the ramp. Once in 70 years, young Kohanim descend there and bring from there congealed wine! (The ramp was in the south.)

ìëê ðøàä ëâéøñú äñôøéí ãâøñé ãøåí åîòøá

(g)

Support (for Version #1): The text of Seforim, which says "south and west", is correct;

åááéú øàùåï äéä ìäí éñåã ìãøåí ùäéä îùåê áçì÷å ùì èåøó çåõ îøåç îæøçéú ùìà ðùúðä ùäéä áìà éñåã (òã) çì÷å ùì éäåãä ëîå ááéú ùðé

1.

In Bayis Rishon there was a Yesod in the south, for it was within the portion of Toref, except for the eastern side, which did not change. It was without a Yesod [for it was in] the portion of Yehudah, like in Bayis Sheni.

å÷øàé ãîîòèé áôø÷ àéæäå î÷åîï (ìòéì ãó ðà.) ÷øï ùàéï ìä éñåã

(h)

Implied question: There are verses that exclude a Keren without a Yesod (above, 51a)! (If there was a Yesod in the entire south, even the southeast corner had a Yesod!)

îùåí áéú ùðé ðàîøå

(i)

Answer #1: They were said due to Bayis Sheni.

àé ðîé àó ááéú øàùåï ìà çùéá ÷øï ãøåîéú ÷øï ëéåï ãìà äåä ìéä éñåã îùðé öããéï ëâåï áöã îæøç

(j)

Answer #2: Even in Bayis Rishon, the south[east] corner was not considered a Keren, since it did not have a Yesod on both sides, i.e. on the east (it had no Yesod. Since the northeast corner was considered a Keren, we must say that it had a Yesod also on the eastern side - PF.)

àé ðîé ìôé ùäéä òúéã ìäéåú áìà éñåã ááéú ùðé ìà äéå ðåúðéï ãîéí áå ëîå áîæáç ùì îùä ìôé ùäéä òúéã ìäéåú áìà éñåã ááéú òåìîéí:

(k)

Answer #3: Since in the future, in Bayis Sheni, it would not have a Yesod, they did not put blood on it, just like on Moshe's Mizbe'ach, because in the future it would be without a Yesod in the Beis ha'Mikdash.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF