1)

TOSFOS DH DE'ILUYI ALYEIH LI'SHEMIRASO (cont. from Daf 11:)

úåñ' ã"ä ãòìåéé òìééä ìùîéøúå

(Summary: Tosfos concludes his explanation of the connection between Yesomim to Lekuchos, and explains the Shakla ve'Tarya of the Sugya.)

åáùìîà áì÷åçåú àéëà ìôìåâé áéï ò"ô ìáùèø, ãáîìåä áùèø âåáä îùåí ðòéìú ãìú, åáîìåä òì ôä ìà âáé îùåí ãìéëà ÷ìà, åáùèø àéú ìéä ÷ìà ...

(a)

Precedent (cont.): It is in order to differentiate by purchasers between an oral debt and one with a Sh'tar, in that by the latter one can claim due to Ne'ilas Deles, seeing as an oral debt one cannot claim, since there is no Kol, and when there is a Sh'tar, there is.

àáì îéúîé îä ìé îìåä ò"ô îä ìé îìåä áùèø?

1.

Precedent (cont.): ... whereas from Yesomim what is the difference between an oral debt and one with a Sh'tar?

àìà åãàé ëì äéëà ãâáé îì÷åçåú îùåí ðòéìú ãìú âáé ðîé îéúîé ...

(b)

Comparison between Yesomim and Lekuchos: We must therefore say that wherever one can claim from the Lekuchos on account of Ne'ilas Deles, one can also claim from the Yesomim ...

ëîå îìåä áùèø àå îìåä äëúåáä áúåøä - ìî"ã ëëúåáä áùèø ãîé, àå ëùòîã áãéï, âáé ðîé îéúîé.

1.

Examples: Such as a Milveh bi'Shetar or one that is written in the Torah, according to the opinion that it is as if it was written in a Sh'tar, or where Beis-Din already Paskened that the Loveh is Chayav to pay, he also claims from the Yesomim.

àáì áîìåä òì ôä, ëéåï ãìà çù ìòùåú ùèø ìâáåú îì÷åçåú, ëé ìà âáé ðîé îéúîé ìéëà ðòéìú ãìú.

(c)

A Milveh al Peh: ... but regarding an oral loan, seeing as he did not take the trouble to write a Sh'ar in order to claim from the Lekuchos, if he cannot claim from the Yesomim there is also no Ne'ilas Deles.

åä"ô - 'à"ø àìòæø àôé' îéúîé' - áìà àôåúé÷é, îùåí ãäåé ë÷ø÷ò? 'ìà îéðéä' - ôé' áìà àôåúé÷é ìà âáé àìà îéðéä.

(d)

Explanation: And this is how the Sugya runs: 'Did Rebbi Elazar say even from Yesomim?' - where it is not an Apotiki, since they (Avadim) are like Karka. 'No, from the debtor himself!' - because if they are not an Apotiki one can only claim from him ...

åôøéê 'îéðéä åëå' ... '? åîùðé 'áàôåúé÷é - åâáé ðîé îéúîé åîì÷åçåú.

1.

Explanation (cont.): ... And in answer to the question 'From him ... ?', the Gemara answers, 'where he made him an Apotiki', in which case he can claim even from Yesomim and Lekuchos.

à"ð, ã÷øé 'îéðéä', àò"â ãâáé ðîé îéúîé, ëéåï ãîëç äìåä ùòùàå àôåúé÷é ÷à âáé.

2.

Explanation (concl.): Alternatively, he calls it 'from him', even though the creditor can also claim from the Yesomim, seeing as he claims from them on account of the debtor, who made him an Apotiki.

2)

TOSFOS DH ZILU AHADORU

úåñ' ã"ä æéìå àäãåøå

(Summary: Tosfos presents the reason behind the ruling.)

çùéá ìäå ëèåòä áãáø îùðä.

(a)

Reason: He considers him as having erred in a D'var Mishnah.

3)

TOSFOS DH ANA MASNITA YADA'NA

úåñ' ã"ä àðà îúðéúà éãòðà

(Summary: Tosfos explains why we need the Beraisa and elaborates.)

àò"â ãáëîä ãåëúéï àùëçï ãëî÷ø÷òé ãîé ìòðéï àåðàä åùáåòä?

(a)

Implied Question: Even though we find many instances where he is compared to Karka - such as with regard to Ona'ah and a Shevu'ah ...

àåø"é ãäëà ìà àééøé àìà áîéìé ãøáðï, åìâáåú îéúîé åîì÷åçåú ñáø ùòáåãà ìàå ãàåøééúà, åìà âáé àìà îãøáðï.

(b)

Answer: The Ri explains that Rav Nachman is speaking about issues that are de'Rabbanan, and with regard to claiming from Yesomim and Lekuchos, he holds that Shibud is not d'Oraysa, and that one only claims mi'de'Rabbanan.

åìòðéï ôøåæáåì å÷ðéï àâá ãäåé ðîé îãøáðï, å÷øà ã"òøéí îöåøåú?" àñîëúà áòìîà äéà.

1.

Answer (cont.): And with regard to P'ruzbul and Kinyan Agav too, it is only mi'de'Rabbanan, and the Pasuk of "Arim Metzuros" is merely an Asmachta.

åì÷îï, ã÷àîø 'ìäê ìéùðà ãàîø 'òáãà ëî÷ø÷òé ãîé', ìîä ìé òåîãéí áúåëä?' ...

(c)

Implied Question: And later, when the Gemara says that 'According to the Lashon that holds 'Avdi k'Mekarka'i Dami'; why must they stand in the field?'

ìî"ã ðîé 'ëîèìèìé ãîé' äåä îöé ìîéôøê, ãäà ìà çùéá ëîèìèìé àìà ìòðéï îéìé ãøáðï.

1.

Implied Question (cont.): It could just as well have asked according to the opinion that holds 'ki'Metalt'li Dami', seeing as they only hold 'ki'Metalt'li Dami' regarding matters that are de'Rabbanan.

àìà ãáìàå äëé ôøéê ùôéø.

(d)

Answer: Only the Gemara refutes the suggestion adequately anyway.

åäà ãáòé ìîéã÷ áô' äîåëø àú äáéú (á"á ñç.) 'àé òáãà ëîèìèìé ãîé àå ëî÷ø÷òé ãîé, îîúðé' ã'äéå áä òáãéí åáäîä, ëåìï îëåøéï', åîééúé ìä ðîé áôø÷ îé ùîú (ùí ÷ð.) âáé 'îèìèìéï ìôìåðé', ìà ùééëà äëà ëìì ...

(e)

Implied Question: And when the Gemara in 'ha'Mocher es ha'Bayis' (Bava Basra, Daf 68.) tries to learn as to whether Avadim are like Metalt'lin or like Karka from the case of Metalt'lin li'Peloni' (and it is also cited in Perek Mi she'Meis (Ibid, Daf 150.), it has no connection with our Sugya ...

ãäúí áìùåï áðé àãí úìéðï.

(f)

Answer: ... since that is a matter concerning 'Lashon B'nei Adam' (the way people speak).

4)

TOSFOS DH P'RUZBUL CHAL AL HA'KARKA

úåñ' ã"ä ôøåæáåì çì òì ä÷ø÷ò

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the issue.)

àéï ëåúáéï ôøåæáåì àìà òì ãáø ùàé àôùø ìëìåúå.

(a)

Clarification: One only writes a P'ruzbul concerning something that cannot be destroyed (Karka).

åàò"â ùëåúáéï òì òöéõ ð÷åá (âéèéï ìæ.)?

(b)

Implied Question: And even though one can write it over a holed flower-pot? ...

ëéåï ãçùéá ÷ø÷ò ìà ôìåâ øáðï.

(c)

Answer: ... since it is considered Karka, the Rabbanan did not differentiate.

5)

TOSFOS DH MACHAR LO AVADIM U'KARKA'OS

úåñ' ã"ä îëø ìå òáãéí å÷ø÷òåú

(Summary: Tosfos explains why it must be referring to Kinyan Agav, and not to Kinyan Chatzer.)

á÷ðéï àâá àééøé ...

(a)

Clarification: It must be speaking about Kinyan Agav ...

ãàé îèòí çöø, àîàé îôìéâ áäçæé÷ á÷ø÷ò áéï òáãéí ìîèìèìéï?

1.

Reason: Because, if it was speaking about Kinyan Chatzer, why, where he makes a Kinyan on the Karka, does the Tana draw a distinction between Avadim and Metalt'lin ...

ãàé îùúîøú ìãòúå, áúøåééäå ÷ðé, åàé áàéï îùúîøú ìãòúå, áúøåééäå ìà ÷ðä.

2.

Reason (cont.): ... because, if it is guarded with his knowledge, he ought to acquire it either way, whereas if it is not, then either way, he will not acquire it.

6)

TOSFOS DH BA'INAN DUMYA DE'ARIM METZUROS

úåñ' ã"ä áòéðï ãåîéà ãòøéí îöåøåú

(Summary: Tosfos explains why one cannot acquire Avadim together with Karka.)

åäçæé÷ á÷ø÷ò ìà ÷ðä òáãéí, îùåí ãàéï ÷ø÷ò ð÷ðé' áàâá.

(a)

Clarification: If he made a Chazakah on the Karka, he will not acquire the Avadim, since Karka cannot be acquired with a Kinyan Agav.

7)

TOSFOS DH VE'HILCH'SA BE'CHAFUS

úåñ' ã"ä åäìëúà áëôåú

(Summary: Tosfos explains why the Eved needs to be both bound and asleep.)

åö"ì ðîé ãîééøé áéùï ...

(a)

Clarification: It must also be speaking where the Eved is also asleep (See Hagahos ha'G'ra) ...

ãëôåú îäðé ãìà äåé çöø îäìëú, åéùï îäðé ãäåé îùúîøú ìãòúå.

1.

Reason: Since then, 'Kafus' helps to negate the fact that the Eved is a walking Chatzer, and 'Yashein' renders him guarded with his (the purchaser's) knowledge.

ëãàîøéðï áâéèéï ôø÷ äæåø÷ (ãó òç.) âáé 'ëúá âè ìàùúå åðúðå áéã òáãä éùï åîùîøúå, ä"æ âè; ðéòåø, àéï âè, îùåí ãäåé çöø äîùúîøú ùìà ìãòúä.

(b)

Source: ... as the Gemara states in Perek ha'Zorek (Gitin, Daf 78.) in connection with where 'A man writes a Get and places it in the hand of her Eved who is sleeping and whom she is guarding ...

åôøéê 'éùï àîàé äåé âè, çöø îäìëú äåà? åë"ú éùï ùàðé, åäàîø øáà "ëì ùàéìå îäìê ìà ÷ðä, òåîã åéåùá ìà ÷ðä"? åäìëúà áëôåú.

1.

Source (cont.): The Gemara asks there, 'Why, even if he is sleeping, it is a Get, seeing as he is a walking Chatzer? And if you will answer that asleep is different, but did Rava not say that "Wherever walking does not acquire, neither does standing or sitting'? and it concludes that 'The Halachah is (that it speaks [i.e. it is a Get] where the Eved is bound.'

àìîà àò"â ãîå÷é ìä áëôåú, àô"ä ðéòåø àéðå âè.

2.

Source (concl.): So we see that even after establishing it by Kafus, it is nevertheless not a Get as long as he is awake.

åàéï ìôøù 'äìëúà áëôåú' - ëìåîø ìà çùéá îäìëú, åìà ãîé ìòåîã åéåùá, åëéåï ãëôåú îåòéì, éùï ðîé îåòéì ...

(c)

Refuted Explanation: One cannot explain 'Hilch'sa be'Kafus' to mean that it is therefore not considered 'walking' and is therefore not comparable to standing or sitting; and since Kafus is effective, so is Yashein'.

ãà"ë, ãáùàéï ëôåú àééøé øáà, àîàé ÷àîø øáà 'ðéòåø, àéï âè, îùåí ãäåé çöø äîùúîøú ùìà ìãòúä', úéôå÷ ìéä ãäåé çöø îäìëú?

1.

Refutation: ... because if Rava is speaking where the Eved is not bound, why does he say that 'If he is awake it is not a Get, since it is a Chatzer which is not guarded to her knowledge', why did he not say that it is a walking Chatzer?

åëï ô"ä ôø÷ äæåø÷ 'åäìëúà áëôåú'.

2.

Support: And this is also how Rashi explains 've'Hilch'sa be'Kafus', in Perek ha'Zorek ..

åáääåà ÷àîø øáà ã'ðéòåø àéï âè'.

3.

Refutation (cont.): And it is there that Rava says 'Ni'ur Ein Get'.

åëï ôñ÷å äìëåú âãåìåú ãëôåú åéùï áòéðï.

(d)

Support: And the Halachos Gedolos too, Paskens that both Kafus and Yashein are required.

8)

TOSFOS DH BE'OMDIN LE'SOCHAH

úåñ' ã"ä áòåîãéï ìúåëä

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies when the object needs to be in the field and when it doesn't.)

åäà ã÷àîø 'ìà ÷ðä', áàéï òåîãéï ìúåëä, åàô"ä áîèìèìéï ÷ðä ...

(a)

Clarification: And when he says 'Lo Kanah', it therefore speaks when they are not standing inside it; nevertheless, if it is Metalt'lin, he acquires them (even if they are not) ...

ãìà áòéðï öáåøéï áîèìèìéï ãìà ðééãé.

1.

Reason: ... because we do not require 'piled up inside it' by Metalt'lin that do not move.

åì÷îï ããéé÷éðï 'åäà ÷é"ì ãìà áòéðï öáåøéï', îâåôä äåä îöé ìîéã÷.

(b)

Observation: And later on, when the Gemara asks 'But we Pasken that we do not need Tziburin', it could have extrapolated that from the statement itself.

9)

TOSFOS DH LAMAH LI OMDIN BE'SOCHAH

úåñ' ã"ä ìîä ìé òåîãéï áúåëä

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the Kashya, and which Kinyan the Gemara is referring to.)

ôé' òì ëøçê ìà îèòí çöø ÷ðä, ãñúí ÷ø÷òåú àéï òáãéí îùúîøéï áäï ìãòúå, åàôé' òåîã áöã ùãäå ...

(a)

Refutation #1: It cannot be on account of (Kinyan) Chatzer that he acquires, it, since Avadim that are inside the Chatzer are not generally guarded with his knowledge, even assuming that he is standing beside his field ...

ãäåé òáã ëöáé øõ ëãøëå.

1.

Reason: ... because an Eved is comparable to a deer that is running free.

åîèòí 'àâá' ðîé ìà ÷ðä ...

(b)

Refutation #2: Neither does he acquire it on account of 'Agav' ...

ã÷ø÷ò àéï ð÷ðéú àâá ÷ø÷ò.

1.

Reason: ... since one cannot acquire Karka via Agav.

åàôé' àîø '÷ðé ÷ø÷ò äñîåëä ìúäåí åàâáä ú÷ðä äòìéåðä', ãäùúà äåé æå òì âá æå, ìà ÷ðé áàâá.

2.

Reason (cont.): And even if he says 'Acquire the ground that is close to the 'T'hom' (below the surface), and together with it the ground that is above it, in which case, the one is on top of the other, he will not acquire it by means of Agav.

àìà ò"ë äà ã÷ðé äééðå îçîú ãçùéá ëîçåáø, åà"ë àôé' àéï òåîãéï áúåëä ðîé ...

(c)

Conclusion: Consequently, the means by which he acquires it must be because it is considered attached, in which case, he will acquire it even if they are not standing inside it.

ãäåé ë'òùø ùãåú áòùø îãéðåú.

1.

Source: ... since it is comparable to 'Ten fields in ten countries'.

10)

TOSFOS DH KEIVAN SHE'HICHZIK BE'ACHAS MEIHEN KANAH KULAN

úåñ' ã"ä ëéåï ùäçæé÷ áàçú îäï ÷ðä ëåìï'.

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles this with two Sugyos in Bava Basra.)

åäà ã÷àîø ùîåàì áôø÷ çæ÷ú äáúéí (á"á ãó ðã.) 'ìà ÷ðä àìà î÷åí îëåùå áìáã'?

(a)

Implied Question: When Shmuel says in Perek Chezkas ha'Batim (Bava Basra, Daf 54.) that 'He only acquires the location where he hammered' ...

äééðå áðëñé äâø, ãäô÷ø, àáì àí ãòú àçøú î÷ðä àåúå, ÷ðä äëì.

(b)

Answer: ... he is speaking about the property of a Ger (who died), but there where a Yisrael is Makneh to him, he acquires the entire property.

åäà ã÷àîø äúí ã'îöø îôñé÷', äééðå ðîé áðëñé äâø, àå áîëø åìà ðúï ìäí ãîé ëåìí ...

(c)

Implied Question: And when it says there 'that the border divides, that too speaks about the property of a Ger, or about a case where the purchaser did not pay the entire price of all the fields.

ããîé ëåìí áòéðï, ëãîåëç áô"÷ ã÷ãåùéï (ãó ëæ:).

1.

Answer: ... since that is a prerequisite, as is evident in the first Perek of Kidushin (Daf 27:).

12b----------------------------------------12b

11)

TOSFOS DH SHA'ANI METALT'LI

úåñ' ã"ä ùàðé îèìèìé

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the answer.)

ôé', ùéù ìäí ãòú, àáì áäîåú ìà çùéáé îèìèìé ãðééãé, åð÷ðéï áàâá àôé' àéï öáåøéí ...

(a)

Clarification: Which have intelligence; whereas animals are not considered Metalt'lin that move around, in which case they can be acquired with 'Agav' even if they are not 'piled up' on the field.

ëãàîøéðï áô"÷ ã÷ãåùéï (ãó ëå:) 'èôç òì èôç ìôìåðé åòîå îàä öàï'.

1.

Source: ... as the Gemara stated in the first Perek of Kidushin (Daf 26:) "A Tefach by a Tefach for Peloni and with it a hundred sheep'.

12)

TOSFOS DH MA'AN TANA

úåñ' ã"ä ùàðé î÷ø÷òé ãðééãé

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles this with the Sugya in ha'Mocher es ha'Bayis.)

åà"ú, àôéìå ìà ðééãé, äà úøé úùîéùé ðéðäå ...

(a)

Question: Even if they do not move around, they serve two different purposes ...

åàôé' çåìñéú åîöåìä ãîçæé÷ áàçã îäï, ìà ÷ðä äàçø ...

1.

Source: Seeing as even a Chulsis and a Metzulah (a sand-mound and a shaft - for digging glass and metal, respectively) one cannot acquire the one by making a Chazakah on the other ...

ëãàîøéðï áô' äîåëø [àú] äáéú (á"á ñæ.) ìçã ìéùðà.

2.

Source: ... as the Gemara states in 'ha'Mocher es ha'Bayis (Bava Basra, Daf 67.) according to one Lashon.

åé"ì, ãòáã å÷ø÷ò çùéá çã úùîéù, ìôé ùäòáã øàåé ìòáåãú ÷ø÷ò.

(b)

Answer: An Eved and Karka are considered one usage, seeing as the Eved is fit to work in the field.

13)

TOSFOS DH MA'N TANA

úåñ' ã"ä îàï úðà

(Summary: Tosfos explains why the Beraisa cannot simply come to preclude Karka.)

ëìåîø - ôùéèà ìéä ãìà áà ìîòè ää÷ãùåú ãìéú áäå îòéìä ëâåï ÷ø÷ò ...

(a)

Clarification: Since it is obvious that it is not coming to preclude Hekdeishos that are not subject to Me'ilah, such as Karka ...

ãëéåï ãäí ðëñé âáåä, îòéìä ìà îòìä åìà îåøãú.

1.

Reason: ... because, seeing that they belong to Hash-m, Me'ilah by them is neither an advantage nor a disadvantage

14)

TOSFOS DH U'ME'CHAYIM MI AMAR

úåñ' ã"ä åîçééí îé àîø

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the Kashya and elaborates on the opinion of Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili.)

úéîä, îàé ÷ñ"ã, àé îçééí ìà àîø, ë"ù ìàçø ùçéèä?

(a)

Question: What does the Gemara think? If he (Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili) did not say it when it was alive, how much more so after it has been Shechted?

åàéï ìåîø ãä"ô 'åîçééí îé àîø' - àôéìå äéëà ãçæéà ìä÷øáä, îã÷îôìâú áéï îçééí ìàçø ùçéèä, îëìì ãîçééí àôéìå áçæé ìä÷øáä çùáú ìéä îîåðå, ãåîéà ãìàçø ùçéèä ...

(b)

Refuted Answer: Nor can one answer that what he means is that - even where it is fit to bring on the Mizbe'ach, seeing as you differentiate between when it is alive and after it has been Shechted, we see that even where it is fit to bring on the Mizbe'ach you consider it his Mamon, similar to where it has been Shechted ...

ãàí ëï, ëé ôøéê îáëåø, ìñééòéä îùìîéí?

(c)

Refutation: ... because if that is the case, then just as it queries him from B'chor, it can support him from Shelamim ...

ã÷àîø áï òæàé 'ìà áà äëúåá àìà ìøáåú ùìîéí'.

1.

Refutation (cont.): ... seeing as ben Azai says (on Daf 13.) that 'The Pasuk only comes to include Shelamim ...

åáï òæàé åàáà éåñé àúå ìôøåùé îéìúéä ãø"é äâìéìé ëãô"ä.

2.

Refutation (cont.): ... and ben Azai and Aba Yossi are both coming to explain the words pf Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili ...

åùìîéí çæå ìä÷øáä, åàôéìå ìëúçéìä é÷øáå?

3.

Refutation (concl.): And Shelamim are fit to bring on the Mizbe'ach even Lechatchilah?

åé"ì, ãä"ô 'åîçééí îé àîø' - áîúðåú ëäåðä áçì÷ ùéù ìëäðéí áùìîéí?

(d)

Answer: What the Gemara means when it says 'u'me'Chayim mi Amrinan' with regard to the Matnos Kehunah, it is referring to the part of the animal that the Kohanim own in the Shelamim.

îãìà ÷àîø 'îúðåú ëäåðä ùàðé' - ã'äî÷ãù áçì÷å' äééðå îúðåú ëäåðä, çì÷ ùéù ìëäðéí áùìîéí.

1.

Reason: ... because, since the Gemara did not say 'Matnos Kehunah Sha'ani', 'ha'Mekadesh be'Chelko' must be referring to that section of the animal.

àìà ÷àîø îùåí ã'ìàçø ùçéèä îùìçï âáåä æëå', îùîò àáì îçééí äåé îîåï áòìéí àò"â ãäåé îúðåú ëäåðä.

2.

Reason (cont.): ... and he is saying that the fact that after the Shechitah, 'they acquire from the Table of Hakadosh-Baruch-Hu implies that as long as the animal is still alive it belongs to the owner, even though it is Matnos Kehunah.

åà"ú, àé äåä îùðé 'îúðåú ëäåðä ùàðé', äåä îùîò ãçì÷ áòìéí àôé' ìàçø ùçéèä äåé îîåï áòìéí ...

(e)

Question: Had the Gemara answered 'Matnos Kehunah Sha'ani', it would have implied that the section belonging to the owner is Mamon Ba'alim, even after the Shechitah ...

åáô"á ãéå"è (áéöä ëà.) àîøé' ãáòìéí ðîé îùìçï âáåä ÷à æëå?

1.

Support: Whereas the Gemara in the second Perek of Beitzah (Daf 21.) states that the owner too, acquires from the Table of Hakadosh-Baruch-Hu?

åé"ì, ãä"î ìòðéï ðãøéí åðãáåú, ãàéðï ÷øéáéí áé"è, îùåí ãòé÷ø ùçéèä äåé áùáéì âáåä åìà îùåí àëéìú áòìéí, åäåé "ìëí", 'åìà ìâáåä' ...

(f)

Answer: That speaks specifically with reference to the Din that Nedarim and Nedavos cannot be brought on Yom-Tov ...

àáì ôùéèà ãçì÷ áòìéí àôé' ìàçø ùçéèä äåé îîåï áòìéí ì÷ãù áå àùä åìëì ãáø.

1.

Answer (cont.): ... but it is obvious that, even after the Shechitah, the section of the owner is Mamon Ba'alim, to betroth a woman and for any other purpose.

åëï îùîò, ã'äî÷ãù áçì÷å' áçì÷ ëäðéí àééøé, ãìùåï 'äî÷ãù áçì÷å', ìà ùééê àìà áçì÷ ëäðéí, ãááòìéí ìà ùééê áäï ìùåï çì÷, ãòé÷ø ä÷øáï ùìäï.

(g)

Support #1: Indeed, the Lashon 'ha'Mekadesh be'Chelko' implies the section belonging to the Kohanim, seeing as the Lashon is only applicable to the section of the Kohanim, since the term 'Cheilek' does not apply to the owner, who owns the majority of the animal.

å÷øà ðîé ãîééúé áô' äàéù î÷ãù (÷ãåùéï ãó ðá:) à'îúðé' ã'äî÷ãù áçì÷' - "åæä éäéä ìê î÷ãù ä÷ãùéí îï äàù" ìà ëúéá àìà áëäðéí.

(h)

Support #2: And also the Pasuk that the Gemara cites in Perek ha'Ish Mekadesh (Kidushin, Daf 52:) in connection with the Mishnah 'ha'Mekadesh be'Chelko' - "ve'Zeh Yih'yeh l'cha min ha'Eish" is written specifically with regard to Kohanim.

åäà ã÷àîø äúí 'ìéîà îúðé' ãìà ëø' éåñé', åîñé÷ 'ëé ÷àîø ø' éåñé îçééí; ãé÷à ðîé ã÷úðé "äî÷ãù áçì÷å", ãîùîò ìàçø ùçéèä?

(i)

Implied Question: And when the Gemara suggests there that the Mishnah does not go like Rebbi Yossi ... and it concludes that Rebbi Yossi is speaking specifically where the animal is still alive, and it proves this from the Lashon 'ha'Mekadesh be'Chelko', which implies specifically after Shechitah?

ìà äåé ìôé äîñ÷ðà ãäëà, àìà ìôé îä ãñì÷à ãòúéä îòé÷øà ...

1.

Answer: That does not conform to the Maskana in our Sugya, but goes according the Havah Amina.

ãìôé äîñ÷ðà, áîúðåú ëäåðä àôé' îçééí äåé îîåï âáåä.

2.

Conclusion: ... because according to the Maskana, Matnos Kehunah are considered Mamon Gavo'ah, even whilst the animal is still alive.

15)

TOSFOS DH TAM CHAI AVAL LO SHACHUT

úåñ' ã"ä úí çé àáì ìà ùçåè

(Summary: Tosfos explains exactly what the Beraisa is coming to teach us.)

äà ìà àéöèøéê ìàùîåòéðï ...

(a)

Comment: It is not necessary to teach us this ...

ãááëåø áæîï äæä îå÷îéðï ìä, ãàéï ùééê áå îëéøä ìàçø ùçéèä, ãîéúñø áäðàä.

1.

Reason: ... since we establish it by a B'chor nowadays, which cannot be sold after Shechitah because it is Asur be'Hana'ah.

àáì ÷î"ì ãîåëøéï àåúå çé, àò"â ãîòùø àéï ðîëø, ãðàîø áå "ìà éîëø åìà éâàì", åëï àéúà áô"÷ ãúîåøä (ãó ä:).

(b)

Conclusion: What it does teach us however, is that one may sell it whilst it is alive, even though Ma'aser cannot be sold, since the Torah says in connection with it that "It cannot be sold and it cannot be redeemed" - and so it states in the first Perek of Temurah, 5:

16)

TOSFOS DH VE'EISEVEIH RAVA LE'RAV NACHMANA

úåñ' ã"ä åàéúéáéä øáà ìø"ð

(Summary: Tosfos explains why the Beraisa must be speaking when the Beis-ha'Mikdash is standing.)

åáæîï ùáéú äî÷ãù ÷ééí îééøé, ãåîéà ãùìîéí, ëãàîøéðï áô"÷ ãúîåøä (ãó ç.).

(a)

Explanation #1: And it is speaking in the time of the Beis-ha'Mikdash, similar to Shelamim, as the Gemara says in the first Perek of Temurah (Daf 8.).

à"ð, ëãô"ä - ãìòðéï ìàúåéé ÷øáï îòéìä ÷ãøéù ÷øà, ãìà ùééê àìà áæîï ùáéú äî÷ãù ÷ééí.

(b)

Explanation #2: Alternatively, as Rashi explains - Because the Gemara Darshens the Pasuk in connection with bringing a Korban Me'ilah, which is only applicable at the time when the Beis-ha'Mikdash is standing.

17)

TOSFOS DH BI'VECHOR BE'CHUTZ LA'ARETZ

úåñ' ã"ä ááëåø áçå"ì

(Summary: Tosfos explains why Ravina/Abaye does not answer like Rav Nachman earlier, and vice-versa.)

äà ãìà úéøõ 'ááëåø áæîï äæä' ...

(a)

Implied Question: The reason that Ravina/Abaye did not answer by establishing it by a B'chor nowadays (like Rav Nachman earlier) ...

îùåí ããåîéà ãùìîéí ÷úðé, ëãôé' ìòéì.

(b)

Answer: ... is because it is compared to Shelamim (together with which it is written).

àáì ø"ð ãìòéì äî"ì 'ááëåø áçå"ì', àáì æä äåà ãåç÷; åðéçà ìéä ìäòîéã ááëåø áæîï äæä.

(c)

Conclusion: Whereas Rav Nachman could have established it by a B'chor in Chutz la'Aretz, only he considered that a Dochek, and therefore preferred to establish it by a B'chor nowadays.

18)

TOSFOS DH VE'ALIBA DE'REBBI SHIMON DE'AMAR IM BA'U TEMIMIM YIKAREIVU

úåñ' ã"ä åàìéáà ãø"ù ãàîø àí áàå úîéîéí é÷øáå

(Summary: After citing Rebbi Akiva in Temurah, who argues with Rebbi Shimon, Tosfos explains why the Gemara establishes the Beraisa like Rebbi Shimon and not like Rebbi Akiva.)

åø"ò ôìéâ òìéä áô' àìå ÷ãùéí áúîåøä (ãó ëà:) åàîø 'ìà é÷øáå' ...

(a)

Clarification: Rebbi Akiva, who argues with him in Perek Eilu Kodshim (in Temurah, Daf 21:) holds 'Li Yikareivu' ...

ããøéù îä÷éùà - 'ãîî÷åí ùàé àúä îáéà îòùø ùðé àé àúä îáéà áëåø.

1.

Source: ... which he Darshens from a Hekesh - 'From any location that one cannot bring Ma'aser Sheini, one cannot bring a B'chor either'.

åà"ú, åàîàé ÷àîø 'åàìéáà ãø"ù', ë"ù àìéáà ãø"ò, ãàîø 'ìà é÷øáå' ãäåé îîåðå?

(b)

Question: Why does Ravina say 'According to Rebbi Shimon', when it is all the more so (that they cannot be brought Lechatchilah), according to Rebbi Akiva, who says 'Lo Yikareivu'?

åé"ì, ãîå÷é ìä ëø"ù, îùåí ã'ãåîéà ãùìîéí ÷úðé', ã÷øéáéí.

(c)

Answer #1: He establishes it like Rebbi Shimon because the Beraisa is speaking similar to Shelamim, which can be brought.

åòåã é"ì, ãò"ë ìà îúå÷îà ëø"ò, îãîöøéê ÷øà ìøáåéé ùäåà îîåï áòìéí.

(d)

Answer #2: Moreover, it cannot go like Rebbi Akiva, since it requires a Pasuk to include that it is Mamon Ba'alim.

19)

TOSFOS DH LECHATCHILAH LO

úåñ' ã"ä ìëúçéìä ìà

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the statement and discusses who is the author of the Beraisa.)

ôé' - àéï öøéê ìäáéàí ...

(a)

Clarification: This means that he is not obligated to bring them ...

ëãîôøù áô' àìå ÷ãùéí (ùí) àîø ø"ù, 'îä èòí? ìôé ùëì ä÷ãùéí àéï ìäí ôøðñä áî÷åîï - ôé' àéï ìäí äúøä àìà áî÷ãù, çåõ îï äáëåø åîòùø ùéù ìäí ôøðñä áî÷åîï' - ôé' ùðàëìéï áîåîï

1.

Source: As the Gemara, citing Rebbi Shimon, explains in Perek Eilu Kodshim (Ibid.) 'Why is that? Because all Kodshim can only be sustained (only become permitted) in the Beis-ha'Mikdash with the exception of B'chor and Ma'aser, which can become permitted in their home location' - (when they obtain a blemish).

åìäëé úìé ìä áø"ù, ãëåìä ø"ù äéà.

(b)

Explanation #1: And that is why Ravina connects it with Rebbi Shimon, seeing as the entire Beraisa goes like him.

å÷öú äéä ðøàä ìâøåñ 'ø' éùîòàì' ...

(c)

Explanation #2: It seems likely however, that the correct text is 'Rebbi Yishmael' (and not Rebbi Shimon) ...

ãäúí ôøéê à'îúðé' ùàîø 'é÷øáå', îáï àðèåðéðåñ ùäáéà áëåøåú îááì, åìà ÷áìåí.

1.

Source: Based on the Gemara there, which queries the Mishnah which says 'Yikareivu' from ben Antignos who brought B'choros from Bavel and they did not accept them ...

åîùðé 'äà ëø' éùîòàì, äà ëø"ò'. åîåëç äúí ùäîùðä ëø' éùîòàì, åáøééúà ãáï àðèåðéðåñ ëø"ò.

2.

Source: It answers that one goes like Rebbi Yishmael and the other, like Rebbi Akiva; and it is evident there that the Mishnah goes like Rebbi Yishmael, and the Beraisa, like Rebbi Akiva.

20)

TOSFOS DH VE'IM ISA LISHNI LEIH

úåñ' ã"ä åàí àéúà ìéùðé ìéä

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies this statement, and refutes the implication of a Sugya in Perek ha'Parah based on his interpretation.)

ôé'- 'åàí àéúà' - ãîçééí äåé îîåðå ìø' éåñé äâìéìé, àôé' áîúðåú ëäåðä ãçæå ìä÷øáä, 'ìéùðé ìéä' - äà ãø"ð àîø øáä áø àáåä ëøáðï ...

(a)

Clarification: This means that if, according to Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili even Matnos Kehunah that are fit to bring on the Mizbe'ach would be his Mamon even whilst they are still alive, then what Rav Nachman says in the name of Rabah bar Avuhah would have to go like the Rabbanan ...

ãîîä ðôùê ìà äåé ëø"é äâìéìé.

1.

Reason: ... seeing as Mah Nafshach it cannot go like Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili.

åìôé ñáøà æå ìà éäéä àîú äà ãîùîò ì÷îï áñåó äôøä (ãó ðâ: åùí) ã'áëåø ìà äåé áëìì "øòäå" àôé' áæîï äæä' ...

(b)

Refutation: According to this S'vara, the inference later at the end of Perek ha'Parah (Daf 53: & 54.) that even nowadays, a B'chor is not included in "Re'eihu" ...

ãôìéâé àáéé åøáéðà áùåø åùåø ùì ôñåìé äîå÷ãùéï ùðâçå - åôé' øáéðå éäåãàé âàåï ááëåø ùåø ãìà ôøé÷ ìéä; åëôé' ö"ì ëîå ùàôøù ùí áò"ä ...

(c)

Sugya in ha'Parah: ... since Abaye and Ravina argue there over an ox (of Chulin) and an Ox of Pesulei ha'Mukdashin which gored - (and Rebbi Yehuda'i Ga'on explains that it is speaking where the latter was not yet redeemed - as is evident there (as Tosfos will explain) ...

åîñúîà áéîéäí ôìéâé, ãáæîï äæä, ìë"ò äåé îîåï äãéåè.

1.

Sugya in ha'Parah (cont.): Also, one can assume that the case over which they are arguing was relevant to their times, and nowadays, everyone agrees that it is Mamon Hedyot.

åîùðé 'àìà îúðåú ëäåðä ùàðé' - åä"â ø"ç. (åøù"é ì"â ëï).

2.

Sugya in ha'Parah (cont.): And the Gemara answers there 'Matnos Kehunah are different' - and this is the text according to Rabeinu Chananel (although Rashi has a different text).

åäùúà îìúéä ãø"ð ìà îéúå÷îà àìà ëø' éåñé äâìéìé, åôìåâúà ãàáéé åøáéðà ì÷îï ëøáðï.

(d)

Refutation (cont.): According to that, the answer of Rav Nachman will only go according to Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili, whereas the Machlokes Abaye and Ravina later goes according to the Rabbanan

åðøàä ããå÷à îçééí äåé ìøáðï îîåï âáåä, àôé' áòì îåí ãàñåø áâéæä åòáåãä

1.

Refutation (concl.): And it would seem that it is specifically during the animal's lifetime that the Rabbanan consider it Mamon Gavohah - even a Ba'al-Mum - since it is forbidden to shear and to work with ...

àáì ìàçø ùçéèä, ìîä éçùá îîåï âáåä, àôéìå áæîï ùáéú äî÷ãù ÷ééí, ãäà àôéìå ìðëøé ùøé ìäàëéì ...

2.

Refutation (concl.): But once it has been Shechted, on what grounds is it considered Mamon Gavohah, even when the Beis-ha'Mikdash was standing, seeing as one is permitted to feed it even to Nochrim.

ëãúðé' áôø÷ ëì ôñåìé äîå÷ãùéï (áëåøåú ãó ìâ.) ãàú÷ù ìöáé åàéì.

(e)

Source: ... as we learned in Perek Kol Pesulei ha'Mukdashin (Bechoros, Daf 33.), since it is compared to a deer and a gazelle.