1)

TOSFOS DH k'Man Mehadrinan Pok'in v'Chulei (cont.)

úåñôåú ã"ä ëîàï îäãøéðï ôå÷òéï ëå' (äîùê)

å÷öú úéîä ÷åîõ åìáåðä àîàé ìà îéçééá òìééäå áçåõ ëùçñøå ðäé ãîéôñìé ìëúçéìä î''î îú÷áìéï äí áôðéí ãàí òìå ìà éøãå

(a)

Question: Why is one not liable for Kometz and Levonah outside when they are Chaser? Granted, they are Pasul l'Chatchilah. In any case, they are accepted inside, for Im Alah Lo Yered!

ãäåä ìéä ôñåìå á÷ãù ëùçñø áéï ÷îéöä ìä÷èøä

1.

Source: This is Pesulo b'Kodesh when they became Chaser between Kemitzah and Haktarah.

åìîàï ãçùéá áîðçåú ô' ÷îà (ãó è:) çñøåï ëáòì îåí ðéçà

(b)

Answer #1: According to the opinion in Menachos (9b) that Chisaron is like a Ba'al Mum, this is fine. (It is not accepted inside.)

åé''ì ãàôéìå úîöà ìåîø ãàí òìä ìà éøã î''î ñáøà äåà ìîòåèéä îãëúéá àåúå òì äùìí äåà çééá åàéðå çééá òì äçñø ëéåï ãìëúçéìä ìà éòìä

(c)

Answer #2: Even if you will say that Im Alah Lo Yered, in any case it is reasonable to exclude them, since it says "Oso" - he is liable for what is complete, but not for what is Chaser, since l'Chatchilah Lo Ya'aleh.

åöøéê ìã÷ã÷ àé îäãøéðï ôå÷òéï [ö"ì èòîà - ç÷ ðúï, òåìú ùìîä] ãéãäå åáôø÷ äîæáç î÷ãù (ìòéì ãó ôâ:) àéëà ëîä ÷øàé ìøáï âîìéàì îäéà äòåìä òì îå÷ãä åìàéãê îàùø úàëì äàù

(d)

Question: This requires investigation if [the argument of R. Yosi and R. Shimon] is due to returning Pok'in, for above (83b) there are several verses (teaching that we return) - according to R. Gamliel "Hi ha'Olah Al Mokdah", and according to the other opinion "Asher Tochal ha'Esh";

åòåã ããøùéðï ìòéì (ãó ôå.) åòùéú òåìåúéê äáùø åäãí òéëåìé òåìä àúä îçæéø åàé àúä îçæéø òéëåìé âéãéï åòöîåú

1.

Also, we expound above (86a) "v'Asisa Olosecha ha'Basar veha'Dam" - you return [partially] consumed [meat of an] Olah, but you do not return [partially] consumed sinews and bones.

îùîò äà áùø ãåîéà ãâéãéí åòöîåú îäãøéðï àôéìå áî÷öú åúéîä àé ôìéâ òìéä øáé éåñé

2.

Inference: We return meat similar to the case of sinews and bones, even partial (limbs). It would be astounding if R. Yosi argues (with all these Drashos, and the Gemara did not mention this, or explain how he expounds the verses.)

2)

TOSFOS DH u'Minchas Kohanim u'Minchas Kohen Mashi'ach

úåñôåú ã"ä åîðçú ëäðéí åîðçú ëäï îùéç

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why these were taught separately.)

äà ãôìâéðäå

(a)

Implied question: Why were these taught separately?

îùåí ãîðçú ëäðéí áàä òùøåï åîðçú ëäï îùéç çöé òùøåï

(b)

Answer: It is because Minchas Kohanim is brought as an Isaron, and Minchas Kohen Mashi'ach (Chavitim) is brought half an Isaron [at a time].

åúéîä ãìà úðé îðçú ðñëéí

(c)

Question: Why didn't it teach Minchas Nesachim? (Tzon Kodoshim - perhaps since it is brought with a Zevach, it is included in "Oh Zavach.")

3)

TOSFOS DH Olah v'Eimurim Mitztarfin lik'Zayis Leha'alosan b'Chutz...

úåñôåú ã"ä òåìä åàéîåøéï îöèøôéï ìëæéú ìäòìåúï áçåõ...

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses a Mishnah that teaches about other matters that join.)

áîñëú îòéìä ôø÷ ÷ãùé îæáç (ãó èå:) úðï çîùä ãáøéí áòåìä îöèøôéï æä òí æä äáùø åäçìá åäñìú åäééï åäùîï åùùä áúåãä ãàéëà ìçí

(a)

Citation (Me'ilah 15b - Mishnah): Five matters in an Olah join with each other - the meat, Chelev, flour, wine and oil. Six matters in a Todah [join - these five, and also] there is bread.

åúéîä ìòðéï îàé ÷àîø

(b)

Question: Regarding what was this taught?

àé ìòðéï îòéìä

1.

Suggestion: It is regarding Me'ilah.

äà úðà ìéä øéùà (ùí.) ÷ãùé îæáç îöèøôéï æä òí æä ìîòéìä ëå'

2.

Rejection #1: The Reisha taught this - Kodshei Mizbe'ach join with each other for Me'ilah...!

åòåã ãúåãä àéï áä îòéìä ëé àí ìàçø æøé÷ä áàéîåøéï àáì áìçí ìà

3.

Rejection #2: Me'ilah does not apply to Todah, except for the Eimurim after Zerikah, but not to the bread!

åàé (ìà éúçééá) (ö"ì ìäúçééá - öàï ÷ãùéí) áçåõ

4.

Suggestion: It is to be liable [for Ha'alah] outside.

äà ìà úðé áùîòúéï àìà òåìä åàéîåøéï àáì çîùä ãáøéí ìà

5.

Rejection #1: Our Sugya taught only that Olah and Eimurim join, but not five matters;

ãàó òì âá ãîéçééáé áçåõ ëããøéù ìòéì î÷øà äðé îéìé áôðé òöîï àáì àéöèøåôé ìà

i.

Even though one is liable outside [for the five matters], like we expounded above from a verse, this is only by themselves, but not to join.

åòåã ãìà îéçééá áçåõ àìçí ùáúåãä

6.

Rejection #2: One is not liable outside for bread in Todah!

åòåã çìá åééï äéàê îöèøôéï åäà àéï ùéòåøï ùåä ùæä áëæéú åæä áùìùä ìåâéï

7.

Rejection #3: How do Chelev and wine join? Their Shi'urim are not the same! This (the Shi'ur for Chelev) is a k'Zayis, and this (for wine) is three Lugim!

åàé ìòðéï ìæøå÷ òìéäï äãí

8.

Suggestion: They join to throw the blood due to them.

äà àîø åáîðçä àôéìå ëåìä ÷ééîú ìà éæøå÷

9.

Rejection: Regarding a Minchah, it says that even if it is totally intact, we do not throw the blood [due to it]!

åàé ìòðéï îçùáú ôéâåì

10.

Suggestion: They join for intent of Pigul (Chutz li'Zmano or Chutz li'Mkomo).

àéï àëéìä åä÷èøä îöèøôéï

11.

Rejection: [Intent for people] eating and Haktarah do not join!

åðøàä ãîééøé ìòðéï àëéìä ãîéçééá äàåëì îùåí ôéâåì ðåúø åèîà

(c)

Answer: We discuss regarding eating, for one who eats to be liable for Pigul, Nosar and Tamei;

åàé îøéùà ã÷úðé ÷ãùé îæáç îöèøôéï

(d)

Implied question: We can learn from the Reisha, which taught "Kodshei Mizbe'ach join"!

äåä àîéðà áîéï àçã ÷î''ì àôéìå áëîä îéðéï

(e)

Answer #1: One might have thought that this is only within one Min (e.g. meat and meat, wine and wine...). The Seifa teaches that this is not so. Even several Minim join.

åòåã úðéðäå ìîòåèé (ãàéï ãí) (ö"ì ãí ãàéï - öàï ÷ãùéí) çééáéï òìéå îùåí ôéâåì

(f)

Answer #2: Also, [the five matters] were taught [in the Seifa] to exclude blood, that one is not liable for it for Pigul (above, 45b).

åòåã àùîòéðï ãçì ôéâåì àäðê ãáøéí çîùä åùùä

(g)

Answer #3: [The Seifa] teaches that Pigul applies to these five and six matters.

åöøéê ìåîø ãàúéà ëø''î ãúðï ìòéì áôø÷ á''ù (ãó îâ:) [åàìå] ãáøéí ùàéï çééáéï òìéäï îùåí ôéâåì îðçú ðñëéí åäðñëéí äáàéï áôðé òöîï ãáøé ø''î åçë''à àó äáàéí òí äáäîä

(h)

Consequence: We must say that it is like R. Meir, for a Mishnah above (43b) teaches "one is not liable for the following for Pigul - Minchas Nesachim, and Nesachim that come by themselves. R. Meir says so. Chachamim say, even what comes with the animal";

åáä÷åîõ æåèà (îðçåú ãó èå:) úðï ðîé äæáç îôâì àú äðñëéí îù÷ãù áëìé ãáøé ø''î

1.

And also in Menachos (15b), a Mishnah teaches that the Zevach is Mefagel the Nesachim from when it was Mekudash in a Kli. R. Meir says so.

åäà ãçìá åééï îöèøôéï àò''â ãçìá áëæéú åîù÷éï áøáéòéú

(i)

Implied question: Why do Chelev and wine join? The Shi'ur for Chelev [or any other food] is a k'Zayis, and [the Shi'ur] for liquids is a Revi'is!

ä''î áùúéä àáì ãøê àëéìä ùùøä ôúå áééï ùéòåøå áëæéú

(j)

Answer: [The Shi'ur for liquids is a Revi'is] only when he drinks them, but in the way of eating, e.g. he soaked his bread in wine, the Shi'ur is a k'Zayis.

å÷öú úéîä îàé àéøéà ãð÷è çîùä ãáøéí áòåìä äà áùìîéí ðîé îöèøôéï ìçééá îùåí ôéâåì

(k)

Question: Why did it mention five matters in an Olah? Also in a Shelamim they join to obligate for Pigul!

åéù ìåîø ãð÷è òåìä îùåí ãàééøé ðîé áîòéìä àó òì âá ãáúåãä ìà àééøé áîòéìä

(l)

Answer: It mentioned Olah because also Me'ilah applies to it (even though this is not the Chidush of the Mishnah), and even though Me'ilah does not apply to [Todah, Todah was taught to teach that Pigul applies to its bread].

4)

TOSFOS DH Kol ha'Pigulin Mitztarfin

úåñôåú ã"ä ëì äôéâåìéï îöèøôéï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we did not bring an earlier Mishnah there.)

úéîä ãìà îééúé îøéùà ã÷úðé (îòéìä ãó èå.) ÷ãùé îæáç îöèøôéï ìôéâåì

(a)

Question: Why didn't it bring the Reisha (a previous Mishnah in Me'ilah, 15b) "Kodshei Mizbe'ach join for Pigul"?

åéù ìåîø ãäåä îå÷îéðï ìä áòåìä ãäà úðé ðîé îòéìä àáì äê îùîò èôé

(b)

Answer: We would have established it to discuss [only] an Olah, for [the Reisha] teaches also Me'ilah, but this [Mishnah] connotes that more [matters join].

5)

TOSFOS DH v'Chol ha'Nosaros Mitztarfin

úåñôåú ã"ä åëì äðåúøåú îöèøôéï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why there is no such Mishnah about Tum'ah.)

úéîä ãìà úðé ëì äèåîàåú îöèøôéï

(a)

Question: Why didn't it teach that all Tum'os join?

åéù ìåîø ãäåä îùîò àôéìå ùøõ åðáìä åáùø äîú åäðäå ìà îöèøôéï ëãúðï äúí (ãó éæ:):

(b)

Answer: This would connote even a Sheretz and a Neveilah and flesh of a Mes, and these do not join, like the Mishnah teaches there (17b).

109b----------------------------------------109b

6)

TOSFOS DH Kan beshe'Nisvatru Ad she'Lo Nizrak ha'Dam... (pertains to Amud A)

úåñôåú ã"ä ëàï áùðéúåúøå [òã] ùìà ðæø÷ äãí... (ùééê ìòîåã à)

(SUMMARY: Tosfos favors the text in Me'ilah.)

ä''â ìä áîòéìä áô' ÷ãùé îæáç (ãó èå:) àìà àéîà òåìä åàéîåøéí îöèøôéï æä òí æä ìëæéú ìæøå÷ òìéäí àú äãí åîàï ÷úðé ìä øáé éäåùò

(a)

Version #2: The text in Me'ilah (15b) says "rather, say that Olah and Eimurim join with each other to a k'Zayis, to throw the blood for them. Who taught this? It is R. Yehoshua."

åâéøñà ãùîòúéï ðîé éù ìééùá ãäëé ðîé ÷àîø

(b)

Remark: We can resolve also the text in our Sugya to mean the same.

å÷ùä ìéùðà ãáøééúà ã÷úðé åìçééá òìéäí îùåí ôéâåì ðåúø åèîà

(c)

Question: The wording of the Beraisa, which teaches "to be liable for them for Pigul, Nosar and Tamei", is difficult!

åéù ìôøù ãëùðéúåúøå ëæéú îòåìä åàéîåøéï àùîòéðï ãæøé÷ä îòìééúà äéà ìàéçéåáé îùåí ôéâåì ðåúø åèîà ã÷øáå îúéøéå ÷øéðà áéä

(d)

Answer: We can explain when a k'Zayis was left over from an Olah and Eimurim, it teaches that it is a fully proper Zerikah, to obligate for Pigul, Nosar and Tamei. This is called "its Matirim were offered."

åäùúà ìà öøéëé ìäà ã÷àîø äëà ôéâåì àôéâåì ìà ÷ùéà ëàï áôéâåì ëàï áîçùáú ôéâåì ãáùéðåééà ãðéúåúøå îúøöé úøåééäå ôéâåì åðåúø åáîñëú îòéìä ìà âøñéðï ìéä

(e)

Consequence: Now, we do not need what it says here "Pigul against Pigul is not difficult. This refers to Pigul, and this refers to intent of Pigul", for through the answer of "they were left over", this answers both Pigul and Nosar. In Me'ilah, the text does not say so (Pigul against Pigul...)

åéù îåç÷éï èîà îï äáøééúà îùåí ãîèîà ìà îùðé îéãé

(f)

Version #3: Some delete "Tamei" from the Beraisa, because no answer at all is given for Tamei.

àáì ìôé îä ùôéøùúé ðéçà ãëåìäå îéúøöé

(g)

Remark: According to what I explained, it is fine, for the answer answers for all (Pigul, Nosar and Tamei).

åò''ë âøñéðï ìéä ãàé ìà âøñéðï ìéä äà ã÷àîø äúí áîòéìä úðéðà ìäà ãúðå øáðï îðà ìéä )äà ã÷úðé ááøééúà ãîöèøôéï ìòðéï àëéìä( (ö"ì ãäà ã÷úðé ááøééúà ãîöèøôéï ìòðéï àëéìä ÷àîø - öàï ÷ãùéí)

(h)

Rebuttal (of Version #3): You are forced to say that the text says so, for if it is not in the text, what it says there in Me'ilah "[our Mishnah] teaches what a Beraisa teaches", what is his source to say that the Beraisa taught that they join, i.e. regarding eating?

åàéîà ôéâåì àôéâåì ìà ÷ùéà ëàï áôéâåì ëàï áîçùáú ôéâåì åðåúø àðåúø ìà ÷ùéà ëàï áðåúø ëàï áùðéúåúøå (ãìîà - òåìú ùìîä îåç÷å) àééøé ìäöèøó ìòðéï ìäëùéø ä÷øáï åìæøå÷ òìéäí àú äãí àáì ìàëéìä ìà îöèøôéï

1.

I can say that "Pigul against Pigul is not difficult - this refers to Pigul, and this refers to intent for Pigul. Nosar against Nosar is not difficult - this refers to Nosar, and this refers to when they were left over (the blood was not thrown)" discusses to join to be Machshir the Korban and throw the blood for them, but for eating, they do not join!

àáì îëéåï ãúðé èîà òì ëøçéï ìòðéï àëéìä ÷àîø ãîöèøôéï ãäééðå úðéðà ìäà ãúðå øáðï

2.

However, since it taught Tamei, you are forced to say that it was said regarding eating that they join. (Liability for eating is when the person is Tamei. There is no connotation that the Kodshim are Tamei.) This is why it says "[our Mishnah] teaches what a Beraisa teaches."

7)

TOSFOS DH u'Mar Savar Malei Chafnav Lav Davka

úåñôåú ã"ä åîø ñáø îìà çôðéå ìàå ãå÷à

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the source to say so.)

úéîä ìîä ìé ìîéîø ìàå ãå÷à àôéìå éäà ãå÷à äåå îçééáé øáðï àëæéú îîðå áçåõ îéãé ãäåä à÷åîõ

(a)

Question #1: Why must we say that is not precise? Even if it is precise, Rabanan obligate for a k'Zayis of it outside, just like for a Kometz!

åëîå ëï ÷ùä áñîåê ìîä ìé ìîéîø ãñáøé øáðï ÷áéòåú ãîðà ìàå ëìåí äéà

(b)

Question #2: Similarly, it is difficult below. Why must I say that Rabanan hold that Kevi'us of a Kli means nothing (i.e. even if Ketores was put in a Kli Shares, one may offer part of it, so one is liable for offering part outside)?

åéù ìåîø ãòã ëàï ìà îçééáé øáðï á÷åîõ àìà îùåí ãçùéá ìäúôâì òì îðú ìä÷èéø ëæéú î÷åîöä áçåõ äìëê çùéáà ðîé ä÷èøä ìçééá àëæéú îîðå áçåõ

(c)

Answer: We can say that Rabanan obligate for [a k'Zayis of] a Kometz only because it is important to become Pigul (with the entire Minchah) through intent to be Maktir a Zayis of the Kometz outside. Therefore it is considered Haktarah also to obligate for a k'Zayis outside. (Ayeles ha'Shachar - Tosfos refers to absolute Pigul, which requires that everything was offered properly, except for intent Chutz li'Zmano. If so, intent for a k'Zayis must be intent for a proper Haktarah. Tosfos distinguishes this below from matters to which Pigul does not apply, even though intent disqualifies them.)

åîðçú ëäðéí åîðçú ëäï îùéç àò''â ãìà ùééê áäí ôéâåì ëéåï ãîðçä ðéðäå åîöéðå áîðçä ãëæéú ðîé çùéáà ä÷èøä ùí îðçä àçã äåà

1.

And Minchas Kohanim and Minchas Kohen Mashi'ach, even though Pigul does not apply to them, since they are Menachos, and we find regarding a Minchah that also a k'Zayis is considered Haktarah, all Menachos are considered one (one is liable for a k'Zayis outside for any Minchah).

àáì ÷èøú ìà àùëçï ãçùéá ä÷èøä áëæéú ãìà ùééê áéä ôéâåì

i.

However, we do not find that Haktarah of a k'Zayis of Ketores is considered Haktarah, for Pigul does not apply to it.

åòåã ãäà à''ø éåñé ãàéï ôéâåì àìà áãáø ùäåà òì îæáç äçéöåï äìëê äà ãîçééáé øáðï á÷èøú áëæéú òì ëøçéï îùåí ãîìà çôðéå ìàå ãå÷à å÷áéòåú îðà ìàå ëìåí äéà

2.

Also, R. Yosi said that Pigul applies only to something of the outer Mizbe'ach. Therefore, the reason why Rabanan obligate for a k'Zayis of Ketores, you are forced to say that it is because Malei Chafnav is not precise, and Kevi'us of a Kli means nothing.

8)

TOSFOS DH d'Kav'inhu b'Mana

úåñôåú ã"ä ã÷áòéðäå áîðà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains according to the conclusion.)

ìîàé ãàñé÷ðà (ìîàé) ã÷áòéðäå áîðà äåé ìáåðä ãîúðéúéï ùéòåø ùìí åôèåø áçåõ ìøáé àìéòæø äåàéì å÷áòéðäå áîðà:

(a)

Explanation: According to the conclusion that the Kli is Kove'a them, Levonah of our Mishnah refers to a full Shi'ur, and he is exempt outside according to R. Eliezer since the Kli was Kove'a it.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF