1)

TOSFOS DH ha'Shochet veha'Maileh Kivan she'Naga Bo Timahu

úåñôåú ã"ä äùåçè åäîòìä: ëéåï ùðâò áå èéîàäå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that a Tamei can eat without being Metamei the food.)

àò''â ãîùëçú ìä ëùúçá ìå çáéøå ááéú äáìéòä

(a)

Implied question: We find this when his colleague inserted food in his gullet!

ñúîà ãîéìúà îééøé ÷øà àôéìå áðåúï ìúåê ôéå:

(b)

Answer: We assume that the verse discusses even when he puts in his [own] mouth.

2)

TOSFOS DH Azharah Minalan

úåñôåú ã"ä àæäøä îðìï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses how the Makshan knew that there is a Lav.)

ôé' á÷åðèøñ ã÷à îçééáé ìéä òìä [çèàú] ùàéï çèàú áàä àìà òì ìàå åëøú ëãúðï äôñç åäîéìä îöåú òùä åàéï çééáéï òìéäï çèàú áîñëú ëøéúåú (ãó á.)

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [There must be a Lav because] he is liable a Chatas. A Chatas comes only for a Lav with Kares, like the Mishnah (Kerisus 2a) says "Pesach and Milah are Mitzvos Aseh [with Kares], and there is no Chatas."

å÷ùä ìôé' ãáøéù àìå äï äìå÷éï (îëåú ãó éâ:) îùîò ã÷øáï ìà áòé àæäøä

(b)

Question: In Makos (13b) it connotes that Korban does not require a Lav!

ãôøéê äúí åãéìîà àæäøä ì÷øáï äåà ãäà ôñç åîéìä ãìéú áäå àæäøä ìà îééúé ÷øáï

1.

It asks there "perhaps the Lav is for Korban, for Pesach and Milah have no Lav, and there is no Korban for [transgressing] them!"

åîùðé äúí äééðå èòîà îùåí ãàéú÷åù ëì äúåøä ëåìä ìòáåãú ëåëáéí îä òáåãú ëåëáéí ùá åàì úòùä ìàôå÷é äðé ã÷åí òùä ðéðäå

2.

It answers there "the reason is because the entire Torah is equated to idolatry. Just like idolatry [the Torah commands to] be passive and not do, [Chatas is brought for such Aveiros], to exclude these (Pesach and Milah, in which the Torah commands) to do an action.

åðøàä ìôøù ãäàé ãáòé äëà àæäøä îðà ìï äééðå îùåí ãçùéá ìéä áôø÷ àìå äï äìå÷éï (ùí.) äùåçè åäîòìä áçåõ åìàå àîúðé' ÷àé

(c)

Explanation #2: Here we ask "what is the source for a Lav?" because Shochet and Maileh b'Chutz is listed in Makos (13b) among Aveiros for which one is lashed. The question) does not refer to our Mishnah (here. Perhaps he is liable Kares or Chatas, which do not require a Lav.)

åäàé ã÷úðé áëøéúåú (ãó á.) äôñç åäîéìä îöåú òùä

(d)

Implied question: Why does it say in Kerisus (2a) "Pesach and Milah are Mitzvos Aseh"? (This implies that there is no Korban because there is no Lav!)

äééðå ëìåîø ã÷åí òùä ðéðäå åìäëé ìéú áäå çèàú

(e)

Answer: I.e. they are Mitzvos to do an action, therefore there is no Chatas for them.

åîéäå ì÷îï áùîòúéï îùîò ãìàôå÷é ìàå ÷àúéà ãôøéê øáà äà ãúðï ôñç åîéìä îöåú òùä úéúé á÷''å îîåúéø åîä îåúéø ùìà òðù äæäéø ëå'

(f)

Question #1: Below in our Sugya (106b) it connotes that it comes to exclude a Lav, for Rava asked that a Mishnah teaches that Pesach and Milah are Mitzvos Aseh. We should learn [that a Lav forbids them] from a Kal va'Chomer from Mosir (not eating Korbanos within the allotted time)! For Mosir, the Torah did not punish, but it warned [with a Lav...]

åëï ô' äîåöà úôéìéï (òéøåáéï ãó öå.) éöà ôñç [åîéìä] ùäï îöåú òùä [åôøéê] äà ëúéá åùîøú àú äçå÷ä åà''ø àéìòàé ëì î÷åí ùðàîø äùîø ôï åàì äåé ìà úòùä

1.

Strengthening of question: And similarly in Eruvin (96a) "this excludes Pesach and Milah, which are Mitzvos Aseh", and it asks 'it is written "v'Shmarta Es ha'Chukah", and R. Ilai taught that whenever it says Hishamer, Pen, or Al, this is a Lav!'

àìîà äåé ôéøåùà éöà ôñç [åîéìä] (ùéù) (ö"ì ùäï - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã) áòùä äééðå ùàéï áäï ìàå åàæäøä

2.

Inference: [The Gemara understands that] "this excludes Pesach and Milah, which are Mitzvos Aseh" to means that they have no Lav and [therefore there is no] warning!

åàéï ìåîø ãñåâéà ãéãï ëøáéðà ãîùðé ùéðåéà àçøéðà áôø÷ àìå äï äìå÷éï (îëåú ãó éâ:) åîöé ìîéîø àìéáéä ã÷øáï ÷áòé àæäøä

3.

Suggestion: Our Sugya is like Ravina, who gives a different answer in Makos (13b). We can say according to him that Korban requires a Lav.

ãî''î ÷ùéà ãøáà àãøáà ãäééðå øáà áùîòúéï åääéà îñ÷ðà ãîëåú ã÷øáï ìà áòé àæäøä àìéáà ãøáà

4.

Rejection: In any case Rava contradicts himself, i.e. Rava in our Sugya and the conclusion in Makos that Korban does not require a Lav according to Rava.

åìôéøåù ä÷åðèøñ ðîé ÷ùä ÷öú ãàîàé úìé èòîà ãôñç åîéìä îùåí ãìéú áäå ìàå úéôå÷ ìéä îùåí ãìéú áäå îòùä

(g)

Question #2: Also according to Rashi it is a little difficult. Why does it attribute the reason for Pesach and Milah [to have no Chatas] because there is no Lav? I already know this because there is no action!

ãàôéìå ìø''ò ãàîø ìà áòé îòùä äà àîø øéù ì÷éù áøéù ëøéúåú (ãó â:) ðäé ãìà áòé ø''ò îòùä øáä îòùä æåèà áòé

1.

Even according to R. Akiva, who says that it does not require an action, Reish Lakish said in Kerisus (3b) "granted, R. Akiva does not require a big action, but he requires a small action!

îéäå àéëà ìàå÷îä ùîòúéï ëøáé éåçðï ãàîø ø''ò ìà áòé îòùä ëìì

(h)

Answer (to Question #2): We can establish our Sugya like R. Yochanan, who says that R. Akiva does not require an action at all.

åðøàä ìôøù ãìéùðà ãîúðé' ÷à ãéé÷ ã÷úðé ôñç åîéìä îöåú òùä äééðå ùäí á÷åí òùä åîùîò ðîé äìùåï ãìéú áäå àæäøä ëìì

(i)

Explanation #3: [The Makshan] infers from the wording of the Mishnah [in Kerisus], which taught "Pesach and Milah are Mitzvos Aseh", i.e. they have an action, and the wording connotes also that there is no Lav at all.

3)

TOSFOS DH Minayin l'Zove'ach Behemah l'Markulis she'Hu Chayav

úåñôåú ã"ä îðééï ìæåáç áäîä ìîø÷åìéñ ùäåà çééá

(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes that we equate idolatries served honorably and disgracefully.)

ôé' á÷åðèøñ àò''ô ùòáåãúå ãøê áæéåï ìñ÷ìå áàáðéí åæä òåáãå ãøê ëáåã åìà ÷øéðà áéä àéëä éòáãå äâåéí äàìä àú àìäéäí åàòùä ëï àô''ä îðééï ùçééá

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Even though it is served through disgrace, and this person serves it honorably (through Shechitah), and we do not apply "Eichah Ya'avdu ha'Goyim ha'Eleh Es Eloheihem v'E'eseh Ken", even so, he is liable. What is the source?

åðøàä ãëì äðäå ãìàå àåøçééäå áæáéçä àò''â ãîëåáãéí ðéðäå ìà ðô÷à îàéëä éòáãå ëãîåëç áôø÷ àøáò îéúåú (ñðäãøéï ãó ñâ.)

(b)

Explanation #2: It seems that all of these are not normally served through Shechitah, even though they are [served] honorably, we do not learn from "Eichah Ya'avdu", like is proven in Sanhedrin (63a);

ãàîø àáéé ùìù äùúçåàåú áòáåãú ëåëáéí [ìîä] àçú ìëãøëä åàçú ìùìà ëãøëä åàçú ìçì÷

1.

Abaye said "why are three [Lavim written about] bowing to idolatry? One is when this is k'Darkah (how it is normally served), one is for Lo k'Darkah, and one is to divide (to bring a Korban for each different Avodah did in one Helam (forgetting));

åôøéê ëãøëä (îëàï îòîåã á) îàéëä éòáãå ðô÷à àìà àçú ìùìà ëãøëä åàôéìå ìùìà ëãøëä ëìì ùòåáãéï àåúä ááæéåï ëâåï ôòåø åîø÷åìéñ åàçú ëãøëä åùìà ëãøëä

2.

[The Gemara] asks "we know k'Darkah from Eichah Ya'avdu! Rather, one is for Lo k'Darkah, and even totally Lo k'Darkah, that it is served through disgrace, e.g. [Ba'al] Pe'or and Markulis, and one is for k'Darkah and Lo k'Darkah...

106b----------------------------------------106b

ôé' ëãøëä áòáåãú ëáåã àìà ùàéï ãøëä áäùúçåàä

i.

Explanation: It is k'Darkah for it is served honorably, but bowing is Lo k'Darkah.

åàí úàîø îðìï äëà æåáç áäîä ìîø÷åìéñ àéîà ëé àúà ÷øà ìîëåáãéí ùàéï ãøëï áæáéçä àáì ìîáåæéï ëâåï ôòåø åîø÷åìéñ ìà

(c)

Question: What is the source here for slaughtering an animal to Markulis? Perhaps the verse discusses Mechubadim (idolatries served honorably), but not through Shechitah, but not Mevuzim (those served through disgrace), such as Pe'or and Markulis!

åé''ì ãâìé ìéä áäùúçåàä ãîëåáãéí åîáåæéï ùåéï äåà äãéï áæáéçä

(d)

Answer #1: [The Torah] revealed regarding bowing that Mechubadim and Mevuzim are the same. The same applies to Shechitah.

åø''ú îôøù ãúøé ÷øàé áæáéçä ëúéáé äàé ÷øà ãäëà åìà éæáçå åòåã ëúéá æåáç ìàìäéí éçøí

(e)

Explanation #3 (R. Tam): Two verses are written about Shechitah - the verse here "v'Lo Yizbechu Od", and it is written also "Zove'ach la'E-lohim Yacharam";

ããøùéðï áô' àøáò îéúåú (ñðäãøéï ãó ñà.) ãéöúä æáéçä ììîã òì äëìì ìçééá áëì òáåãú ôðéí àôéìå áùìà ëãøëä

1.

We expound [from the latter] in Sanhedrin (61a) that Shechitah was taught by itself to teach about the Klal, that one is liable for every Avodas Penim (Avodah done to Hash-m in the Mikdash), even Lo k'Darkah (of that idolatry).

å÷ùä ìôé' ãîäàé ÷øà ìà ùîòéðï àìà àæäøä àáì òåðù áîáåæéï îðà ìï

(f)

Question #1 (against Explanation #3): From [the former] verse we learn only a Lav. What is the source for punishment (Misah) for Mevuzim?

åòåã úøåééäå ìîëåáãéï öøéëé çã ìòåðù åçã ìàæäøä

(g)

Question #2: We need both for Mechubadim - one for a punishment, and one for a Lav!

åòåã ãìà ä''ì ìàéúåéé àéëä éòáãå àìà äåä ìéä ìîéîø àí àéðå òðéï ìëãøëä ùì îëåáãéï ãëúéá æåáç ìàìäéí éçøí úðäå òðéï ìùìà ëãøëä ëìåîø îáåæéï

(h)

Question #3: [The Gemara] should not have brought Eichah Ya'avdu. Rather, it should have said "if it need not teach about k'Darkah of Mechubadim, for it says Zove'ach la'E-lohim Yacharam, we use it to teach about Lo k'Darkah"!

àìà ëîå ùôéøùðå ðøàä ãøáé àìòæø àëì ùìà ëãøëä àúà ìàùîåòé' ãçééá

(i)

Conclusion: Explanation #2 is primary, for R. Elazar comes to teach about all Lo k'Darkah that he is liable;

àìà ãð÷è îø÷åìéñ ìøáåúà åîäùúçåàä ðô÷à ìï ãàéï çéìå÷ áéï îëåáãéï ìîáåæéï ëãôøé'

1.

He mentioned Markulis for a bigger Chidush, and we learn from bowing that there is no distinction between Mechubadim and Mevuzim, like I explained.

úãò ãäà àîø áôø÷ ã' îéúåú (ùí ãó ñã:) â' ëøéúåú áòáåãú ëåëáéí ìîä àçú ìëãøëä åàçú ìùìà ëãøëä åàçú ìîåìê

(j)

Proof: It says in Sanhedrin (64b) "why is Kares written three times regarding idolatry? One teaches k'Darkah, one teaches Lo k'Darkah, and one is for Molech" (this is like the opinion Molech is not idolatry. Tana'im argue about this.)

åìà îéáòéà ìï ÷øà àçøéðà çã ìîëåáãéï åçã ìîáåæéï

1.

Observation: We do not require another verse to teach that [one is liable both] for Mechubadim and Mevuzim!

å÷''÷ äà ãôøéê áô' ã' îéúåú àéîà éöúä äùúçåàä ììîã òì äëìì ëåìå åã÷àîøú æåáç ìîä ìé ìâåôéä ãîçùáéï îòáåãä ìòáåãä

(k)

Question: It asks in Sanhedrin (60b) "I should say that bowing was taught by itself to teach about the Klal! (One is liable for showing honor to idolatry, even if it is not Avodas Penim.) If so, what would we learn from "Zove'ach...."? It would teach that intent is projected from one Avodah to another. (If one did an Avodah in order to later pour the blood or burn the Chelev to idolatry, he is liable is as if he did this first Avodah for idolatry);

åîúîä òìéä äù''ñ àìà äà ã÷àîø øáé àìòæø îðééï ìæåáç áäîä ìîø÷åìéñ ëå' îäùúçåàä ðô÷à

1.

The Gemara asks from R. Elazar's teaching that if one slaughters an animal to Markulis, (he is liable due to "v'Lo Yizbechu Od"). He should know this from bowing!

îàé ÷åùéà ãéìîà àéöèøéê ìàæäøä áîçùá îòáåãä ìòáåãä ãäà ìòåìí äåà ëê ãìà éæáçå àæäøä ìòåðù ãæåáç ìàìäéí éçøí

2.

What was the question? Perhaps he needs a Lav for intent in one Avodah to [do] another Avodah [l'Shem idolatry]! It is always the case that v'Lo Yizbechu is the Lav for Zove'ach la'E-lohim Yacharam! (Since the latter verse teaches projection of intent from one Avodah to another, v'Lo Yizbechu is the Lav for it!)

åé''ì ãàí àéúà ãäùúçåàä ììîã òì äëìì à''ë ìà úòáãí ãàå÷îéðï (ñðäãøéï ãó ñ:) ìîâôó åîðù÷ äåä îééúø ìï ìàæäøä (àæáéçä) (ö"ì àîçùá îòáåãä ìòáåãä - öàï ÷ãùéí, øé"à çáø) ãîäùúçåàä äåä éìôéðï àôéìå çéåá îéúä áîâôó åîðù÷

(l)

Answer: If it were true that bowing teaches about the Klal, if so Lo Sa'avdem, which we establish (Sanhedrin 60b) for hugging and kissing, would be extra for a Lav for intent in one Avodah for another Avodah, for from bowing we would learn even Chiyuv Misah for hugging and kissing.

4)

TOSFOS DH Azharah Minayin... Hishamer Lecha Pen Ta'aleh Olosecha

úåñôåú ã"ä àæäøä îðééï ú''ì äùîø ìê ôï úòìä òåìåúéê

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that this is a Lav for Ha'alah.)

äà ãîééúé àæáéçä àæäøä ãäòìàä

(a)

Implied question: Why does [the Beraisa] bring for Shechitah a Lav for Ha'alah?

àîñ÷ðà ñîéê ãéìôé äáàä äáàä àå ùí ùí

(b)

Answer: It relies on the conclusion (at the end of this Amud), that learns from [a Gezeirah Shavah] "Hava'ah-Hava'ah" or "Sham-Sham."

àáì ìàáéé ãáñîåê ÷ùä ã÷''å äå''ì ìàúåéé

(c)

Question: However, according to Abaye below it is difficult. It should have brought the Kal v'Chomer!

5)

TOSFOS DH Makom she'Anash Eino Din she'Hizhir

úåñôåú ã"ä î÷åí ùòðù àéðå ãéï ùäæäéø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why Pesach and Milah do not refute this.)

åìà ùééê ìîéîø ôñç åîéìä éåëéçå

(a)

Implied question: We should say that Pesach and Milah disprove this (there is Kares without a Lav)!

ãàéëà ìîéôøê ùëï ÷åí òùä

(b)

Answer: We can challenge (the question from them), for they are Mitzvos to do an action. (Regarding Mitzvos to refrain, whenever there is Kares there is a Lav.)

6)

TOSFOS DH Mah l'Sheratzim Tehorim she'Chen Asurim b'Mashehu

úåñôåú ã"ä îä ìùøöéí èäåøéí ùëï àñåøéï áîùäå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes that this refers to a Beriyah of any size.)

ôé' á÷åðèøñ ãúðéà áîñëú îòéìä áôø÷ ÷ãùé îæáç (ãó èæ:) åìà úù÷öå àú ðôùåúéëí ááäîä åáòåó åâå'

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): A Beraisa in Me'ilah (16b) teaches "v'Lo Teshaktzu Es Nafshoseichem bi'Vehemah uv'Of..."

ôúç äëúåá áàëéìä åñééí áèåîàä ìåîø ëùéòåø èåîàúï ùì ùøöéí èîàéí ùéòåø àëéìúï ùì ëì äùøöéí ãäà ëåìäå ëééì ìäå áäàé ÷øà åáëì àùø úøîåù åâå'

1.

The verse began with eating and ended with Tum'ah, to teach that just like the Shi'ur of Tum'ah of Tamei Sheratzim (k'Adashah, the volume of a lentil) is the Shi'ur [to be liable] for eating all Sheratzim, for all are included in this verse "uv'Chol Asher Tirmosh...";

åùéòåø èåîàúï ðô÷à ìï áäëì çééáéï (çâéâä ãó éà:) ùëï çåîè úçéìú áøééúå áëòãùä òã ëàï ìùåï ä÷åðèøñ

2.

We learn the Shi'ur of Tum'ah in Chagigah (11b), for the initial creation of a Chomet (snail or chameleon?) is k'Adashah. Until here is from Rashi.

åàâá çåøôéä ìà òééï áä åáäãéà îñé÷ äúí ãå÷à áùøöéí èîàéí åìà áèäåøéí ãàîøéðï áîåáãìéï ãéáø äëúåá ãëúéá áñéôéä ã÷øà àùø äáãìúé ìëí ìèîà

(b)

Rebuttal: Amidst his sharpness, he did not investigate! It explicitly concludes there that this is only for Tamei Sheratzim, but not for Tehorim, for we say "the verse discusses those that are separated", for the verse ends "Asher Hivdalti Lachem Letamei"! (Tehorim are those that are not Metamei when they die. All are forbidden to eat.)

åö''ì ãëì ùäåà ãäëà ááøéä ÷îééøé ãáëì ùäåà îéçééá îùåí áøéä ëãàîøéðï áô''÷ ãçâéâä (ãó é.) åáô' ëäï âãåì åðæéø (ðæéø ãó ðá.) åáîëåú (ãó éæ.) åáô' âéã äðùä (çåìéï ãó öå:)

(c)

Explanation #2: We must say that "any amount" here discusses a Beriyah, that one is liable for any amount due to Beriyah, like we say in Chagigah (10a), in Nazir (52a), in Makos (17a) and in Chulin (96b).

7)

TOSFOS DH mi'Kulhu she'Chen Lo Hutar mi'Chlalan

úåñôåú ã"ä îëåìäå ùëï ìà äåúø îëììï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks why we do not learn Kares from Chelev.)

úéîä ðéìó áëåìäå ëøú á÷''å îçìá ùäåúø îëììå

(a)

Question: We should learn Kares for all of them from Chelev, which was totally permitted [in Chayos]! (Mishmeros Kehunah - above, the Havah Amina that after Bamos were forbidden, there is Kares for Korbanos Hukdeshu when Bamos were permitted, was from this Kal v'Chomer. "Zos" refuted this, and also refutes the Kal v'Chomer to learn Kares for all of these.)

8)

TOSFOS DH Teisi b'Kal v'Chomer mi'Mosir

úåñôåú ã"ä úéúé á÷''å îîåúéø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why it discusses specifically Mosir.)

äà ãð÷è îåúéø èôé îâæì åâðéáä åëîä ìàåéï ùáúåøä

(a)

Implied question: Why did it mention Mosir more than theft, robbery and several Lavim in the Torah?

îùåí ãîåúéø ìà òáéã îòùä ãåîéà ãôñç åîéìä

(b)

Answer: Mosir does not do an act, similar to Pesach and Milah.

åîù''ä ìà ð÷è ðîé äðê ãìòéì ãàéëà ìîéôøê ùëï éù áäï îòùä:

(c)

Support: This is why it did not mention also those above, for one can ask that they have an action.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF