1)

TOSFOS DH Chatas ha'Of Pesulah Heichi Mazeh mi'Damah

úåñôåú ã"ä çèàú äòåó ôñåìä äéëé îæä îãîä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos proves that we do Zerikah l'Chatchilah.)

ôéøù á÷åðèøñ å÷é''ì áëì äôñåìéï (ìòéì ãó ôã.) ãàí òìå ìà éøãå åéæøå÷ (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú, öàï ÷ãùéí) äãí ìëúçéìä

(a)

Explanation (Rashi): We hold that all Pesulim, Im Alah Lo Yered, and he throws the blood l'Chatchilah.

åà''ú îðà ìéä äà ã÷åãí æøé÷ä ÷àîø ãìà éøãå ãéìîà äééðå ìàçø æøé÷ä

(b)

Question: What is his source that Lo Yered is before Zerikah? Perhaps it is after Zerikah!

åéù ÷öú øàéä îîìé÷ú çèàú äòåó ãàéï îèîà ááéú äáìéòä ùîúøú àú äàñåø

(c)

Answer: There is somewhat of a proof from Melikas Chatas ha'Of [Pesulah]. It is not Metam'ah b'Beis ha'Bli'ah, for it permits the Isur [of Neveilah];

åàí àéï éëåì ìæøå÷ ìëúçéìä áîä îúøú àú äàéñåø (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú)

1.

If one may not do Zerikah (i.e. Haza'ah) l'Chatchilah, how does it permit the Isur?

åòåã (äâäú ìùí æáç, ùìîé úåãä) ãìòðéï àí æø÷ àú äãí ìà é÷ðçðå ìà ÷àîø ãàôé' ìîàï ãàîø úøã ìà é÷ðçðå ëãôé' ìòéì (ãó ôæ: ã''ä ëìé)

2.

Also, [Lo Yered must means that he throws l'Chatchilah.] It was not said regarding "if he did Zerikah, he does not clean the blood [from the Mizbe'ach]", for even the one who says Yered holds that he does not clean it, like I explained above (87b DH Kli).

2)

TOSFOS DH Midos ha'Yavesh

úåñôåú ã"ä îãåú äéáù

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses why different words are used for wet and dry measures.)

ôéøù á÷åðèøñ ãìäëé ÷øé ìéä ìéáù îãä åììç ëìé ùàéï ùåí ëìé áî÷ãù (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) ìéáù àìà ùúé îãåú òùøåï åçöé òùøåï

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): A dry [measuring Kli] is called "Midah", and wet is called "Kli", because there were only two dry Kelim in the Mikdash - the Isaron and a half Isaron.

1.

Note: Tosfos (Menachos 8b DH Kli) points out that sometimes the Gemara and Mishnayos (Menachos 9:2, 9:5) call also wet measures "Midos"! This is difficult also for R. Tam below. He cites Rashi to say that there were Kelim for wet that were not measures, but the only Kelim for dry were measures.

åúéîä åäàéëà áéñà ôø÷ ä÷åîõ [øáä] (îðçåú ãó ëã.) åäàéëà îçúä ì÷èåøú åäàéëà ëó åäàéëà îëúùú áùáåòåú (ãó éà.) åäàéëà áæéëéï åùåìçï

(b)

Question: There is a Bisa (a Kli with separate compartments) in Menachos (24a), and an incense pan for Ketores, and there is a spoon [for Ketores], and there is the mortar, and there are the spoons [for Levonah], and the Shulchan!

åôé' ø''ú ãìäëé ÷øé ìé' ìéáù îãä åìà ëìé ìôé ùéáù éëåìéï ìîãåã îçå÷ àå âãåù áëì òðéï ùéøöä

(c)

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): A dry [measuring Kli] is called "Midah", and not "Kli", because one can measure dry things leveled off or heaping, however he wants;

àáì ãáø ìç ìà ùééê îãä âáéä ããáø ìç àéðå éëåì ìäéåú âãåù (äâäú çîãú ãðéàì)

1.

However, something wet, "Midah" does not apply to it, for something wet cannot be heaping (and every measurement must be heaping (Menachos 90a). Therefore, wet measures were not precise. They are bigger, to be able to hold a Godesh. It seems that this is the intent of Chemdas Daniel.)

åòåã ùäøé îãú ìç àéðä ùåä ãôòîéí (äâäú çîãú ãðéàì) ùîãú ìç æä éúéøä îæä ëîå îãú ééï éúéøä îîãú îéí ìôé ùééï òá éåúø åëï ùîï îééï ìäëé ìà ÷øé ìéä îãä

2.

Also, the measure of wet is not uniform, for this wet measure was bigger than this, e.g. the measure for wine was bigger than the measure for water, because wine is thicker (the Kli can be filled higher above the brim before it spills over), and similarly oil is thicker than wine. Therefore, it is not called Midah.

3)

TOSFOS DH Ela bi'Fnim

úåñôåú ã"ä àìà áôðéí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses what this excludes.)

ôé' á÷åðèøñ áòæøä

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This is in the Azarah.

åúéîä ìîä ùéðä ìùåï äîùðä äåä ìéä ìîéîø á÷ãù

(b)

Question: Why did [the Gemara] change the expression of the Mishnah? It should have said "b'Kodesh"!

åîô' øáéðå çééí ãîáôðéí ìëìé ÷àîø åìîòåèé îâáå

(c)

Explanation #2 (R. Chaim): This refers to inside the Kli, and to exclude the back.

åà"ú äééðå îúåëï

(d)

Question: This is [what we exclude from] "mi'Tochan"! (Why did Shmuel teach also bi'Fnim?)

é"ì ãàúé ìîòåèé (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) ç÷÷ îåùáå îáçåõ

(e)

Answer: [Mi'Tochan] excludes if one carved out [a receptacle in] the base of the Kli on the outside.

4)

TOSFOS DH Min ha'Meduma

úåñôåú ã"ä îï äîãåîò

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses what became mixed.)

ôéøù á÷åðèøñ îãåîò ãúøåîä

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This is a mixture of Terumah [and Chulin].

åøáéðå çééí ôéøù îòåøá áòøìä åëìàé äëøí àáì òøìä åëìàé äëøí ìà àéöèøéê ìîéúðé

(b)

Explanation #2 (R. Chaim): It is a mixture of [Heter and] Orlah or Kil'ai ha'Kerem. However, there was no need to teach Orlah and Kil'ai ha'Kerem (since even their mixture is invalid).

åôé' ä÷åðèøñ ö''ò àéê éúééùá îîù÷ä éùøàì ëéåï ãùøé ìëäðéí

(c)

Question: How can Rashi say [that we exclude a mixture of Terumah] due to "mi'Mashkeh Yisrael", since it is permitted to Kohanim?

åîääéà ãçâéâä (ãó ëã:) ã÷àîø àí àîø äôøùúé ìúåëä øáéòéú ÷ãù ðàîï òì äúøåîä

(d)

Implied question: It says in Chagigah (24b) 'if he says "I separated a Revi'is of Kodesh into [the barrel]", he is believed [even] about the Terumah.' (This implies that a mixture of Terumah is Kosher for Kodshim!)

ìà ùééëà ìëàï ãäúí ìàå îãåîò äåé ùäøé àéï î÷ãéù äøáéòéú åàéï ÷åøà ùí òì äúøåîä áòåã ùäéà áçáéú

(e)

Answer: That is not relevant to here. There it is not Meduma, for he is not Makdish the Revi'is, and he does not declare the Terumah while it is in the barrel;

àìà éçãä åùîøä áèäøä ìé÷ç îîðä øáéòéú àçø ùéúøåí åéòùø àåúä (äâäú úåñôú ÷ãåùä)

1.

Rather, he designated it and guards it in Taharah to take from it a Revi'is after he will take Terumah and tithe it.

5)

TOSFOS DH Nishmetah Ein Machazirin Osah

úåñôåú ã"ä ðùîèä àéï îçæéøéï àåúä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that we do not return the blade to the handle.)

ì÷úä ãàéï òðéåú áî÷åí òùéøåú:

(a)

Explanation: [We do not return it] to the handle, for there is not poverty in the place of wealth.

88b----------------------------------------88b

6)

TOSFOS DH k'Machlokes Kan Kach Machlokes b'Mar'os Nega'im

úåñôåú ã"ä ëîçìå÷ú ëàï ëê îçìå÷ú áîøàåú ðâòéí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we connect these arguments.)

ôø''ú ãúìé äàé áäàé ãîùåí ãîòéì áà ìëôø òì ìùåï äøò åëï ðâòéí áàéï òì ìùåï äøò ëãàîøéðï ôø÷ éù áòøëéï (òøëéï ãó èæ.)

(a)

Explanation (R. Tam): We attribute [the Me'il] to Nega'im because the Me'il comes to atone for Leshon ha'Ra, and similarly Tzara'as comes for Leshon ha'Ra, like we say in Erchin (16a).

7)

TOSFOS DH Shiv'im v'Shenayim

úåñôåú ã"ä ùáòéí åùðéí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with the Mishnah in Shevuos.)

ìà ôìéâ äúðà àîúðéúéï ãùáåòåú (ãó á.) ãúðï ùúéí ùäï àøáò

(a)

Implied question: [Our] Tana argues with the Mishnah in Shevuos (2a), which taught that there two [primary appearances of Tzara'as] that are four [in all]!

ãäúí îééøé áðâòéí ìáðéí åäëà îééøé áëì îéðé ðâòéí éø÷ø÷ åàãîãí åôúåëéí åéù ìäåñéó òåã ðâòé áúéí åðâòé áâãéí

(b)

Answer: (He does not argue.) There it discusses [different shades of] white Nega'im, and here we discuss all kinds of Nega'im - yellow, red and mixed, and we can add also Nega'im of houses and garments.

8)

TOSFOS DH Mechaprim Al Shefichus Damim

úåñôåú ã"ä îëôøéí òì ùôéëåú ãîéí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the Kaparah of Bigdei Kehunah.)

îä ùîôøùéí àäà ãàîøéðï (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) îéåí ùçøá áéú äî÷ãù àó òì ôé ùáèìå ã' îéúåú ãéï [àøáò] îéúåú ìà áèìå ãìäëé ìà ð÷è î' ùðä ÷åãí ùçøá áéú äî÷ãù ùâìúä ñðäãøéï

(a)

Implied question: Why does it say "from the day that the Beis ha'Mikdash was destroyed, even though the four Misos [of Beis Din] were Batel, the Din (punishment) of the four Misos was not Batel"? It should have said "40 years before the Churban, when the Sanhedrin was exiled"!

ãáääéà ùòúà àôé' ãéï àøáò îéúåú ìà äåä ãáâãé ëäåðä îëôøéï

(b)

Answer: At that time (from exile of the Sanhedrin until the Churban) there was not even the Din of the four Misos, because Bigdei Kehunah are Mechaper.

åìà ðäéøà ãâáé ùîòåï áï ùèç ôøéê ìéä áàçã ãéðé îîåðåú (ñðäãøéï ãó ìæ:) àó òì âá ãäåå áâãé ëäåðä

(c)

Objection: This is difficult. Regarding [the episode with] Shimon ben Shetach (Sanhedrin 37b - he saw conclusively that Ploni had just murdered Reuven. A snake bit Ploni and killed him. The Gemara) asked this (that after the Churban, the Din of the four Misos was not Batel. A murderer deserves death through a sword), even though there were Bigdei Kehunah! (This was long before exile of the Sanhedrin, but no witnesses saw the murder, so Beis Din could not kill Ploni.)

åîéäå äééúé éëåì ì÷ééí ôéøåù æä åìåîø ãìäëé ìà ð÷è î' ùðä îùåí ãàéëà ãéï îéúåú ãáèìå ëâåï òøéåú åòáåãú ëåëáéí ùîëôøéï òìéäí îëðñéí åàôåã

(d)

Defense (of Answer): I could say that it mentioned 40 years because there is a Din of Misos that was Batel, e.g. Arayos and idolatry. The Michnesayim and Efod atone for them;

àáì ãéï ùôéëåú ãîéí ìà áèì ãëúåðú ùîëôøú òì ùôéëåú ãîéí àéï îëôøú òì ääåøâ àìà òì éùøàì ùòøáéï æä áæä

1.

However, the Din of murder was not Batel, because the Kesones, which atones for murder, does not atone for the murderer, rather, for [the rest of] Yisrael, for they are guarantors (responsible) for each other;

ãåîéà ãòâìä òøåôä ãëúéá (ãáøéí ëà) ëôø ìòîê éùøàì åàöéáåø îëôøú åìà òì ääåøâ

2.

This is like Eglah Arufah, about which it says "Kaper l'Amcha Yisrael", and it atones for the Tzibur, but for the murderer.

åëï îùîò äëà ãëúðú ìà îëôøú àäåøâ ãàé îëôøú îàé ôøéê äëà îòâìä òøåôä åäà òâìä òøåôä àéùøàì îëôøä

(e)

Support #1: It connotes like this here that the Kesones does not atone for the murderer. If it atoned [for him], what was the question here from Eglah Arufah? Eglah Arufah atones for Yisrael!

åëï îùîò ô' éù áòøëéï (òøëéï ãó èæ.) ã÷àîø òì æ' ãáøéí ðâòéí áàéí å÷çùéá ùôéëåú ãîéí åìùåï äøò

(f)

Support #2: It connotes like this in Erchin (16a). It says that Nega'im come for seven matters, and it counts murder and Leshon ha'Ra;

åôøéê äúí îîòéì ùîëôø òì ìùåï äøò åîëúðú ùîëôø òì ùôéëåú ãîéí ìà ôøéê îéãé

1.

Implied question: It asks there from the Me'il, which is Mechaper for Leshon ha'Ra. It did not ask at all from the Kesones, which atones for murder!

îùåí ãìà îëôø àäåøâ àìà àéùøàì ëãôøéùéú

2.

Answer #1: This is because [the Kesones] does not atone for the murderer, rather, for Yisrael, like I explained (so it is fine that Nega'im come on the murderer);

àáì îìùåï äøò ãìà îöéðå ìùðåéé äëé ãîñúîà àéï öéáåø ðòðùéï òì ìùåï äøò ùì æä ëéåï ãùîà ìà éáà ìéãé ú÷ìä åëï ôéøù á÷åðè' äúí

i.

However, we could not answer like this for Leshon ha'Ra, for presumably, the Tzibur is not punished for this person's Leshon ha'Ra, since perhaps it will not come to calamity. (Ayeles ha'Shachar asks why they are not punished for the Leshon ha'Ra itself. Perhaps the Tzibur is punished only if someone dies. Leshon ha'Ra can cause death, but it is not certain (PF). Chidushei Basra says that Arvus applies at the time of the Aveirah. At the time one speaks Leshon ha'Ra perhaps there will be no Aveirah [Bein Adam l'Chavero], i.e. if the listeners will not accept it.) So Rashi explained there.

åòåã éù îôøùéí áääéà ãòøëéï (âæ''ù) ãìäëé ìà ôøéê îëúðú ãðäé ãîöìú îòåðù îéúä îðâòéí åéñåøéï ìà îöìú

3.

Answer #2: Some say that in Erchin, [the Gemara] did not ask from the Kesones, for granted it saves from a punishment of death, but it does not save from Nega'im and afflictions.

åàí úàîø äëà îùîò ãëúðú îëôøú òì ãéãéò îàï ÷èìéä åáùáåòåú (ãó ç.) îöøéê ÷øà ìîéîø ùàéï ùòéø äîùúìç îëôø òì ãéãéò îàï ÷èìéä

(g)

Question: Here it connotes that the Kesones atones when it is known who killed him. In Shevuos (8a) we need a verse to say that the Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach does not atone when it is known who killed him;

åàîàé öøéê ÷øà ôùéèà ãäà ëúðú îëôøú

1.

Why do we need a verse? This is obvious, for the Kesones atones [when it is known]!

åîéäå éù ìôøù ãéù çéìå÷ áéï öéáåø ìëì éùøàì ãëúðú îëôøú àöéáåø åùòéø äîùúìç òì ëì éùøàì:

(h)

Answer: We can distinguish between the Tzibur and all Yisrael. The Kesones atones for the Tzibur, and Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach for all of Yisrael. (Olas Shlomo asks what is the difference. Chidushei Basra suggests that "Tzibur" is those whom the Kohen knows. Daf Al ha'Daf suggests that it is those who give a half-Shekel every year, but not women, who do not help pay for the Kesones. With difficulty, one can explain why Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach, which also comes from the Shekalim, does atone for them.)

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF