1)

TOSFOS DH Man d'Amar Lo Hurtza k'R. Yehoshua

úåñôåú ã"ä îàï ãàîø ìà äåøöä ëøáé éäåùò

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that R. Yehoshua decrees due to when the meat is not intact.)

úéîä äéëé îöé ñáø ëååúéä äà ÷úðé åîåãä øáé éäåùò ãàí æø÷ äåøöä ëãáñîåê

(a)

Question: How can he hold like him? [A Beraisa] teaches that R. Yehoshua admits that if Zerikah was done, [the Korban] is accepted, like it says below!

åðøàä ìôøù (åî''ã) (ö"ì ñ"ã - ùéèä î÷åáöú) ìà äåøöä ëø' éäåùò ãâæø ðèîà áùø àå ðôñì ãìà éæøå÷ àèå àáåã åùøåó ãìéëà áùø ëìì ãäúí àôéìå áãéòáã ìà äåøöä

(b)

Answer: We are thinking that [this opinion says that] it was not accepted, like R. Yehoshua, who decrees that when the meat became Tamei or Pasul, we do not do Zerikah, due to when it is lost or burned, and there is no meat at all. Then, even b'Di'eved it was not accepted;

åäëà ðîé àéï äãí îøöä òì äòåø áôðé òöîå àôéìå áãéòáã áðèîà âæéøä àèå àáåã åùøåó åìà îééøé äëà áàáåã åùøåó àìà áðèîà àå ðôñì

1.

Also here, the blood is not Meratzeh for the hide by itself, even b'Di'eved, when [the meat] became Tamei. This is a decree due to when it is lost or burned. Here we do not discuss when it became lost or burned, rather, Tamei or Pasul;

åî''ã äåøöä ò''ë ìà ÷àîø øáé éäåùò ãâæø àèå àáåã åùøåó åìà éæøå÷ àìà âáé áòìéí ãìéëà ôñéãà ãëäðéí ùòãééï ìà æëå áòåøå

2.

The one who says that Hurtza holds that we find that R. Yehoshua decrees not do Zerikah due to when it is lost or burned, only regarding the owner, when there is no loss to Kohanim, for they did not yet acquire the hide;

àáì òåø ãàéëà ôñéãà [ãëäðéí] ãëáø æëå ëäðéí îùðæø÷ äãí äúí ìà âæøéðï àèå àáåã åùøåó îéãé ãäåä àãéòáã

i.

However, [regarding the] hide, that there is a loss to Kohanim, who already acquired [it, i.e.] after the blood was thrown, there we do not decree due to when it was lost or burned, like we find regarding b'Di'eved;

ôé' áôñåì éåöà åèåîàä ããéòáã àí æø÷ äåøöä åìà âæøéðï äëà ðîé îøöä äãí òì äòåø áôðé òöîå

ii.

Explanation: Regarding the Pesul of Yotzei and Tum'ah, b'Di'eved, if he did Zerikah, it was accepted, and we do not decree. Also here, the blood is Meratzeh for the hide.

åôéøåù ä÷åðèøñ ãçå÷

(c)

Remark: Rashi's Perush is difficult. (They argue about when the meat was lost or burned. If so, why does it say that Rebbi could hold like R. Yehoshua, for R. Yehoshua agrees b'Di'eved? Perhaps he agrees only when it became Tamei or Pasul, and it is still intact!)

2)

TOSFOS DH Amar R. Akiva mi'Devarav Lamadnu... (pertains to Mishnah 103b)

úåñôåú ã"ä à''ø ò÷éáà îãáøéå ìîãðå ëå' (ùééê ìîùðä ÷â:)

(SUMMARY: Tosfos makes inferences from our Gemara.)

îùîò ãå÷à áòåøå éàåúå äëäðéí àáì ááùøå ìà ãàôéìå ìòåáãé ëåëáéí àñåø

(a)

Inference: Kohanim may benefit only from the hide, but not from the meat. It is forbidden even to Nochrim.

åä÷ùä ä''ø àôøéí ãáôø÷ ëì ôñåìé äîå÷ãùéí (áëåøåú ãó ìá:) îúéø øáé ò÷éáà àôéìå ìòåáãé ëåëáéí

(b)

Question (R. Efrayim): In Bechoros (32b) R. Akiva permits [a blemished Bechor] even to Nochrim!

åìòéì ôé' áøéù ô' äúòøåáú (ãó òà:)

(c)

Answer: I explained this above (71b, DH uvi'Tereifah. Something not proper for Yisrael (e.g. a Bechor was found to be Tereifah), one may not feed it to a dog or Nochri, but something proper for Yisrael, e.g. a blemished Bechor, or a mixture with Kodshim, after the Kodshim were redeemed, one may give it to a dog or Nochri.

1.

Note: Shitah Mekubetzes Kesav Yad and Tzon Kodoshim say that following begins a new Dibur.

àáì ìà äúéøå îåîçä ìà

(d)

Citation: If an expert did not permit it, no (then the skin is burned).

îùîò ãå÷à îùåí èøéôåú äà ìàå äëé ìà åäééðå ãìà ëø''î ã÷ðéñ áô' (ëì ôñåìé äîå÷ãùéï (ãó ìâ)) (ö"ì òã ëîä (ãó ëç.) - öàï ÷ãùéí) ááëåø ùðùçè ùìà òì ôé îåîçä

(e)

Inference: This is only due to Tereifah. (Then we distinguish between whether or not an expert permitted it.) If not, no (it is permitted in every case). This is unlike R. Meir, who fines in Bechoros (28a) a Bechor slaughtered not based on an expert [who saw the Mum].

1.

Note: What is Tosfos' inference? Perhaps R. Akiva holds like R. Meir, and if it was slaughtered without an expert, he forbids in every case. When it was slaughtered based on an expert, he teaches that when it was found to be Tereifah, the hide is permitted! Perhaps he infers from the fact that R. Chiya bar Aba needed to say "if an expert did not permit it..." If the Halachah follows R. Meir, obviously anything slaughtered without an expert is totally forbidden.

îëàï ã÷ã÷ áäìëåú âãåìåú ãäà ã÷ééîà ìï ëøáé îàéø áâæéøåúéå ãå÷à áâæéøåúéå åìà á÷ðñéå:

(f)

Inference: Bahag derived from here that this that we hold like R. Meir's decrees, this is only for his decrees, but not his fines.

104b----------------------------------------104b

3)

TOSFOS DH Lo Machshavah Hu d'Lo Paslah Aval Linah Paslah

úåñôåú ã"ä ìà îçùáä äåà ãìà ôñìä àáì ìéðä ôñìä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos defends that it is possible to say so.)

úéîä ãáøéù äåöéàå ìå (éåîà ãó îç.) áòé øá ôôà çéùá áçôéðú ÷èøú îäå ú''ù äåñéó øáé ò÷éáà ä÷åîõ åä÷èøú ëå' îãôñéì èáåì éåí (ôñåìä ðîé îìéðä) (ö"ì ôñìä ðîé ìéðä - âìéåï) åîãôñìä ìéðä ôñìä ðîé îçùáä

(a)

Question: In Yoma (48a), Rav Papa asked "if [the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kipur] one had [improper] intent while taking a double handful of Ketores, what is the law?" We learn from the following. R. Akiva added, the Kometz, Ketores... since a Tevul Yom disqualifies, also Linah disqualifies. And since Linah disqualifies, also intent disqualifies;

åìà ãçé ëãäëà

1.

We do not reject like here (perhaps Linah disqualifies, but intent does not)!

åé''ì ãäúí ãáàëéìú îæáç îä ìé îçùáä îä ìé ìéðä àáì äëà ááùø ôøéí äðùøôéï [ö"ì ðäé ãìéðä ôñìä áäå ðîé ãìîà îçùáä ìà ôñìä áäå]

(b)

Answer: There, regarding consumption of the Mizbe'ach, there is no difference between intent and Linah. Here we discuss meat of Parim ha'Nisrafim. Granted, Linah disqualifies them. Perhaps intent does not disqualify them!

åà''ú äéëé ôñìä îçùáä á÷èøú äà úðï ìòéì áôø÷ á''ù (ãó îá:) ã÷èøú åìáåðä àéï áäï îùåí ôéâåì

(c)

Question: How does intent disqualify Ketores? A Mishnah above (42b) teaches that Pigul does not apply Ketores and Levonah!

åé''ì ãðäé ãëøú ìéëà îçùáä îéäà ôñìä îéãé ãäåä àçèàåú äôðéîéåú ìøáé ùîòåï ãàîø áô''÷ (ìòéì éã.) îåãä äéä øáé ùîòåï ìôñåì î÷''å îùìà ìùîå

(d)

Answer: There is no Kares, but intent disqualifies, like we find regarding inner Chata'os according to R. Shimon. It says above (14a) that R. Shimon [holds that Pigul does not apply, but he] agrees to disqualify from a Kal v'Chomer from Lo Lishmah;

åá÷èøú ðîé àäðé â''ù ãîìà îìà îîðçä

1.

Also for Ketores, the Gezeirah Shavah "Malei-Malei" from Minchah helps.

åäúí ä÷ùä á÷åðèøñ àîàé äåöøê ìã÷ã÷ îèáåì éåí äåä ìéä ìàúåéé îîúðé' ãîòéìä (ãó é.) ã÷úðé áäãéà äåëùøå ìéôñì áèáåì éåí åáîçåñø ëéôåøéí åáìéðä

(e)

Question: There, Rashi asked why [Rav Ashi] needs to infer from a Tevul Yom. He should bring from our Mishnah in Me'ilah (10a), which explicitly teaches that they are Huchshar to become Pasul through a Tevul Yom, Mechusar Kipurim or Linah!

åúéøõ øáéðå éá''à îùåí ãääéà îééøé á÷èøú ãëì äùðä ëã÷úðé ÷ãùå áëìé åääåà ãîé÷ãù áëìé ôñìä áéä ìéðä

(f)

Answer #1 (Riva): That [Mishnah] discusses Ketores of the entire year, like it teaches "it was Mekudash in a Kli." What is Mekudash in a Kli, Linah disqualifies it;

àáì äúí á÷èøú ãéåí äëéôåøéí ãòé÷øä àéðä áëìé àìà îùåí ãìà àôùø ëãàîø äúí ìòéì åäà (ö"ì åäåé - ùéèä î÷åáöú, öàï ÷ãùéí) àîøé' ãìà îéôñìä áìéðä

1.

However, there [Rav Ashi] discusses Ketores of Yom Kipur. Intrinsically, it does not need a Kli, just because it is impossible (to hold the double handful in one hand, and the Machtah (incense pan) in the other, he puts it in a Kli), like it says above there (47a), and we would say that it is not disqualified through Linah.

àáì ääéà ãøáé ò÷éáà îùîò ãîééøé áëì ÷èøú

2.

However, R. Akiva connotes that he discusses all Ketores.

åòåã é''ì ãääéà ãîòéìä àéëà ìãçåéé îãøáðï

(g)

Answer #2: We can reject the case in Me'ilah - it is mid'Rabanan.

åëï (îçééáéï) (ö"ì äà ã÷úðé ñéôà åçééáéï - âìéåï áùí öàï ÷ãùéí) òìéä îùåí ôéâåì åèîà äåä àîéðà îëú îøãåú

1.

And similarly, the Seifa teaches that one is liable for it for Pigul and Tamei, one might have thought that this is Makos Mardos (mid'Rabanan).

ëîå àëì àåëìéï èîàéï åùúä îù÷éï èîàéï åùúä øáéòéú ééï åðëðñ ìî÷ãù åùää ëãé àëéìú ôøñ çééá ãäééðå îãøáðï ãôñåì âåéä [äåé ãøáðï] ëãàîøéðï áôø÷ áúøà ãéåîà (ãó ô:)

2.

This is like one who ate Tamei food or drank Tamei liquids or drank a Revi'is of wine and entered the Mikdash and delayed Kedei Achilas Pras, he is liable - this is mid'Rabanan, for Pesul of the body (due to eating or drinking Tamei food or drink) is mid'Rabanan, like we say in Yoma (80b).

àáì ääéà ãø' ò÷éáà ôùéèà ãàåøééúà îãôñì èáåì éåí ò''é öéøåó ãàé îãøáðï ìà (äåä îçîéøéï ðîé äàé ôñåì) (ö"ì äåé îçîéøéðï ëåìé äàé ãìéèîà - âìéåï áùí öàï ÷ãùéí) òì éãé öéøåó

3.

However, the case of R. Akiva, obviously it is mid'Oraisa, since a Tevul Yom disqualifies it through Tziruf (even if he touched only part, we join everything in the Kli). If it were mid'Rabanan, we would not be so stringent that it becomes Tamei through Tziruf.

åà''ú åäéëé ãéé÷ îãôñéì èáåì éåí ôñìä ðîé ìéðä åäà îùðéúðä áîëúùú ðôñìú áèáåì éåí åìéðä ìà ôñìä òã ùúðúï áîçúä ëãàîø ôø÷ ÷îà ãùáåòåú (ãó éà.)

(h)

Question: How do we infer from the fact that a Tevul Yom disqualifies, also Linah disqualifies? From when he put it in the mortar, it is disqualified through a Tevul Yom, but Linah does not disqualify until it is put in the Machtah, like it says in Shevuos (11a)!

åé''ì ãäà ãðôñìú áèáåì éåí äééðå îãøáðï

(i)

Answer: [In Shevuos] it is disqualified through a Tevul Yom, i.e. mid'Rabanan. (We can learn to Linah only if a Tevul Yom disqualifies mid'Oraisa, like R. Akiva holds.)

4)

TOSFOS DH she'Yatza Rubo b'Mi'ut Ever

úåñôåú ã"ä ùéöà øåáå áîéòåè àáø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes that this is relevant to where it is burned.)

ôé' á÷åðèøñ ãîéáòéà ìéä ìòðéï (èîà) (ö"ì ìèîà - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã) äîúòñ÷ áäï

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): He asks about to be Metamei one who engages in it.

å÷ùä ãáñåó ëéöã öåìéï (ôñçéí ôä:) àîøéðï äîåöéà áùø ôñç îçáåøä ìçáåøä àéðå çééá òã ùéðéç äåöàä ëúéá áéä ëùáú

(b)

Question: In Pesachim (85b), we say that one who takes meat of Pesach from a group (eating a Pesach) to another group, he is not liable until he places it down. "Hotza'ah" is written, like regarding Shabbos;

åôøéê îîúðé' ãäëà ãäéå ñåáìéï àåúå áîåèåú ã÷úðé øàùåðéí îèîàéï áâãéí àçøåðéí àéï îèîàéï áâãéí òã ùéöàå åàó òì âá ãìà ðç åîùðé áðâøøéí

1.

The Gemara asks from here - if they were carrying it on sticks, it teaches that the first ones are Metamei Begadim, and the latter are not Metamei Begadim until they leave. This is even though [the Par] did not rest! It answers that they were dragging it (it is considered at rest).

åàí ëï øåáå áîéòåè àáø ãäëà (ìà) (ö"ì ãìà - áàøåú äîéí) îçééá ìòðéï ùáú ëéåï ãàâåãå áôðéí ìà éèîà áâãéí

2.

Consequence: If so, when the majority leaves through the minority of a limb, that [in such a case] one is not liable for Shabbos, since it is held from inside (Shabbos 91b), he should not be Metamei Begadim!

åðøàä ìôøù ãîáòéà ìéä ìòðéï ìùåøôå áôðéí:

(c)

Explanation #2: He asks about burning it inside. (If it became Pasul after it is considered to be outside, it is burned outside.)

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF