1)

TOSFOS DH "v'ka'Meshalem"

תוס' ד"ה "וקמשלם"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos further explains the Gemara.)

פירוש קודם שישלם אבל לאחר ששילם נעשה תרומה ולא חזי ליה.

(a)

Explanation: This is correct before he pays. However, after he pays, it becomes Terumah (that is impure) and he cannot eat it at all. (Note: Rashi (DH "v'ka'Meshalem") explains that the Gemara's point is that at least he had good intent to pay him with something that was more useful than what he ate.)

2)

TOSFOS DH "Achal Terumah"

תוס' ד"ה "אכל תרומה"

(SUMMARY: Rashi and Tosfos argue whether or not paying by measurement can be used leniently.)

לא כמו שפירש בקונטרס דקסבר דלפי מדה משלם

(a)

Opinion: This is unlike Rashi's explanation that he pays according to the measurement (not the value).

דאפי' את"ל דלפי מדה משלם לא מיפטר אלא אם כן ישלם שיהו שוין להסיקה כשיעור תרומה טהורה שאכל דלא גרע מגזלן

(b)

Implied Question: Even if you will say that he pays according to the measurement, he will not be exempt unless he will pay their value for burning which will equal the amount of pure Terumah that he ate. This is because he is not worse than a thief.

כדאמר התם כל היכא דמעיקרא שויא ד' ולבסוף שויא זוזא לא תבעי לך דלפי דמים משלם כי תיבעי לך דמעיקרא לא שויא אלא זוזא ולבסוף שויא ד' מ"מ במזיד אין תשלומיו תשלומין דאכל מידי דקפצי עליה זבינא ומשלם מידי דלא קפצי עליה זבינא.

1.

This is as stated there (Pesachim 32a) that whenever it was worth four Zuz and in the end it was worth a Zuz, it is clear that he pays according to the value. The question is only when originally it was worth a Zuz and then became worth four Zuz. In any event, if he did so on purpose his payment is not valid. This is because he ate something that people buy quickly and paid back something that people do not buy quickly. (Note: Tosfos' point is that unlike Rashi who seems to use paying according to measurement as a leniency, it is actually a stringency. This is evident from the question in the Gemara in Pesachim (ibid.).)

3)

TOSFOS DH "Hacha"

תוס' ד"ה "הכא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos adds another layer of explanation found in Yevamos.)

בהאשה רבה (יבמות דף צ.) מעיקרא ס"ד דאין תשלומיו תשלומין כלל קא"ר מאיר ופריך מינה למאן דאמר אין כח ביד חכמים לעקור דבר מן התורה

(a)

Explanation: In Yevamos (90a), the Gemara originally thinks that Rebbi Meir must mean that the payment is totally invalid. The Gemara therefore asks that the Chachamim do not have the ability to uproot something from Torah law. (Note: As according to Torah law the payment is valid.)

ומסיק דאין תשלומיו תשלומין וחוזר ומשלם חולין טהורים כדרבנן ולא פליגי אלא בקנסו שוגג אטו מזיד כו'.

1.

The Gemara concludes that Rebbi Meir means that his payment is not considered payment (though it belongs to the Kohen), and therefore he must go back and pay pure Chulin, as stated by the Rabbanan (that his payment is a payment, yet he must pay again). The Rabbanan and Rebbi Meir only argue whether or not we fine someone who does so accidentally because of someone who pays on purpose (with impure Chulin).

4)

TOSFOS DH "Dam she'Nitma"

תוס' ד"ה "דם שנטמא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the question of our Gemara.)

וא"ת מאי קשיא ליה לר"מ והא לאו סתם מתני' היא דברייתא היא בהקומץ רבה (מנחות דף כה.)

(a)

Question: What is difficult according to Rebbi Meir? This is not a general Mishnah (which is supposed to be according to Rebbi Meir), but rather a Beraisa in Menachos (25a)!

וי"ל דסמיך אסתם מתני' דכיצד צולין (פסחים דף פ:) דתנן הפסח שנזרק דמו ואח"כ נודע שהוא טמא הציץ מרצה ודייק בגמ' טעמא דאח"כ נודע הא נודע ואח"כ נזרק לא

(b)

Answer: The Gemara relies on the general Mishnah in Pesachim (80b). The Mishnah there states that if the blood of a Korban Pesach was sprinkled and afterwards it became known that it was impure, the Tzitz atones. The Gemara deduces that the reason it atones is that it became known after the sprinkling. If it was known that it was impure and afterwards the blood was sprinkled, the Tzitz would not atone.

ומייתי ברייתא דמפרשא בהדיא והך קושיא לרבינא דמפרש (Note: בפ' כיצד צולין) (שם) דשוגג קאי אזריקה דלרב שילא דמפרש דקאי אטומאה לא קשה מידי דטומאה דאורייתא.

1.

The Gemara quotes a Beraisa that explains this clearly. This question is on Ravina, who explains there that the accidental aspect of the case is that it was sprinkled. (Note: This is the same as our Beraisa that has a case of sprinkling accidentally, and is why the Gemara can ask its question.) According to Rav Shilo who explains that it accidentally became impure there is no question, as impurity is a Torah concept. (Note: See the Gemara in Pesachim ibid. at length.)

5)

TOSFOS DH "ha'Mi'aser b'Shabbos"

תוס' ד"ה "המעשר בשבת"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos cites the source of the Gemara's questions, but does not understand why they are presented in the order in which they are presented.)

משנה היא בפרק שני דתרומות (משנה ג) וכן ההיא דהמטביל כלים ופריך מינייהו משום דסתם משנה ר"מ היא

(a)

Explanation: This is a Mishnah in Terumos (2:3), as is the Mishnah regarding one who immerses vessels (quoted in our Gemara). The Gemara asks questions from these Mishnayos because general Mishnayos are based on the opinion of Rebbi Meir.

ותימה דפריך ברישא מההיא דמעשר והיא שנויה שם בסוף.

(b)

Question: This is difficult. The Gemara asks first from Ma'aser, even though it is stated later (in the very same Mishnah after the case of the immersed vessels). (Note: Why didn't it first ask from immersing vessels, which is the first case of the Mishnah?)

6)

TOSFOS DH "Naflu"

תוס' ד"ה "נפלו"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks that the Yerushalmi has a contradictory version of our Beraisa.)

תימה דתניא בירושלמי בפרק בתרא דערלה נפלו ואח"כ נתפצעו בין בשוגג בין במזיד לא יעלו דברי ר"מ ורבי יהודה אומר בין בשוגג בין במזיד יעלו ורבי יוסי אומר שוגג יעלו מזיד לא יעלו

(a)

Question: This is difficult. The Yerushalmi in the last chapter of Orlah quotes a braisa that states the following. If they (expensive nuts of Orlah) fell (into nuts that were permitted to eat) and were afterwards smashed (and there was enough permitted nuts to technically permit the mixture), whether this happened accidentally or on purpose, they should not be ruled permitted. These are the words of Rebbi Meir. Rebbi Yehudah says that whether this happened accidentally or on purpose, they can be ruled permitted. Rebbi Yosi says that if this happened accidentally they can be ruled permitted, but if this happened on purpose they should not.

טעמא דר"מ דקניס שוגג אטו מזיד טעמא דרבי יוסי כדאמר רבי אבהו בשם ר' יוחנן כל האיסורין שריבה עליהם שוגג מותר מזיד אסור טעמא דרבי יהודה מפרש משום דכבר קנסו בידו פירוש כבר נתקלקלו פירותיו בשעת פציעה.

1.

Rebbi Meir's reasoning is that he says that a fine should be applied to accidental circumstances, lest people do so on purpose. Rebbi Yosi's reasoning is as stated by Rebbi Avahu in the name of Rebbi Yochanan. He says that any forbidden things that now have more permitted items mixed with them (in order that the forbidden part can be nullified and the mixture ruled permitted) are indeed permitted if they were mixed accidentally, but not if they were mixed on purpose. Rebbi Yehudah's reasoning is "that his fine is already in his hand." This means that his fruit already became ruined when the nut was smashed. (Note: The question is that the Yerushalmi's version is clearly different than the version quoted in our Gemara.)

54b----------------------------------------54b

7)

TOSFOS DH "Amar Abaye"

תוס' ד"ה "אמר אביי"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the difference between the Gemaros in Kidushin and Yevamos and this Gemara.)

הקשה ר"ת דהכא אפי' לרבא לא מהימן אלא משום שהיה בידו תחילה

(a)

Question: Rabeinu Tam asks that here, even according to Rava he is only believed because it was originally in his hands.

ובפ' האומר (קידושין דף סו.) פליגי אביי ורבא באשתו זינתה בעד אחד והלה שותק ומשמע התם דתרוייהו מודו בא"ל עד אחד נטמאו טהרותיך והלה שותק נאמן וכן א"ל עד אחד אכלת חלב ואע"ג דאין בידו

1.

In Kidushin (66a), Abaye and Rava argue regarding a case where a witness testifies that someone's wife was unfaithful, and the husband remains quiet. The Gemara there implies that they both agree that if a witness said that your Taharos became impure and he remained quiet, that the witness would be believed. Similarly, if a witness stated that someone ate forbidden fat and the person remained quiet, he would be believed even though it is not in the witnesses' hands to ascertain that this is true.

ואומר ר"ת דהכא במכחישו או אומר איני יודע אבל התם דשותק הוי כהודאה

(b)

Answer: Rabeinu Tam answers that here the case is where the person contradicts him or says that he does not know whether or not this is true. However, the cases in Kidushin are referring to cases where the person remained quiet, which is like admitting.

וכן משמע בהאשה רבה (יבמות דף פז:) דבעי למיפשט מיניה דעד אחד נאמן באיסורין ודחי דלמא שאני הכא משום דאשתיק ושתיקה כהודאה דמיא

1.

This is also implied in Yevamos (87b), where the Gemara wants to deduce that a single witness is believed in matters of prohibition (from the case of a witness testifying he ate forbidden fat). The Gemara rejects this as proof because there it is possible because he was quiet, which is like admission.

וגבי אשתו זינתה פליגי נמי בשותק ומהני לאביי בעד אחד כשר דלאו גזלנא

2.

In the case where his wife was unfaithful, as well, the argument is regarding when the husband was quiet. Abaye therefore holds that when there is a single kosher witness who is not a thief, he is believed.

אף ע"ג דאין דבר שבערוה פחות משנים או בקינוי וסתירה בעד אחד

(c)

Implied Question: We usually say that a matter of Arayos is not resolved with less than two witnesses or if there is Kinuy and Stirah with one witness (the process of making a woman into a Sotah). (Note: Why do we allow one witness here?)

הכא דשותק שאני

(d)

Answer#1: Being that the husband here is quiet, the law is that the witness is believed.

אי נמי מדרבנן

(e)

Answer#2: Alternatively, this is only according to Rabbinic law (that she is forbidden).

ורבא אפי' שותק לא אסר אלא אם כן מהימן עליה כבי תרי

1.

According to Rava, even if he is quiet she does not become forbidden, unless the witness is believed to him like two witnesses.

ומתוך כך אומר ר"ת דאדם המטהר יין לחברו אי אשכחיה ואמר ליה בזימנא קמייתא מהימן כרבא ואפילו מכחישו כיון דהיה בידו אבל אחר לא מהימן אי מכחישו או אומר איני יודע ואי שתיק מהימן וכן פסק רבינו משולם בן רבינו קלונימוס

(f)

Observation: Based on this Rabeinu Tam said that if a person is making his friend's wine pure, if he finds his friend and tells him at the first possible opportunity (that he made the wine impure), he is believed even if his friend contradicts him, being that it is within his ability. However, nobody else is believed if he contradicts him or says that he does not know. If he is quiet, the other person is believed. This is also the ruling of Rabeinu Meshulam ben Rabeinu Kelonimus.

ואי מהימן עליה כבי תרי אסור כדאשכחן בהוא סמיא (קדושין דף סו.) לרבא ואפי' היכא דלא מהימן מכל מקום לדידיה אסור דשויא אנפשיה חתיכה דאיסורא ונראה דאם שותק מחמת שאינו יודע דלא הויא שתיקה כהודאה

1.

If he believes him like two witnesses then she is forbidden, as in the case of the blind man in Kidushin (66a) according to Rava. Even when the witness is not believed, if the husband believes it is true she is forbidden to him due to the principle that a person can create for himself a "forbidden piece" (even though it is not otherwise halachically forbidden). It seems that if he is quiet because he does not know whether or not the witness is telling the truth, it is not called being quiet.

וכל הסוגיא דקידושין יש לפרש באומר לו נטמאו טהרותיך בפניך או ידעת תדע דקתני דומיא דאכלת חלב והתם דוקא הויא שתיקה כהודאה.

2.

The entire Gemara in Kidushin (ibid.) can be explained where the person says, "Your Taharos became impure before you" or "You knew they were impure." This is clearly correct, as it is like the case where the witness states, "You ate forbidden fat," where being silent is like admittance. (Note: Being silent in these cases is definitely like admittance as he is being accused of knowing, and is still silent.)

8)

TOSFOS DH "d'Chi"

תוס' ד"ה "דכי"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that our Gemara does not literally mean Pigul.)

ותימה הא רבי יוסי גופיה בזבחים פרק בית שמאי (דף מד:) אית ליה דאין פיגול בדבר הנעשה בפנים דיליף משלמים

(a)

Question: This is difficult. Rebbi Yosi himself says in Zevachim (45b) that there is no such thing as Pigul in Korbanos that are done inside (the Heichal), as we derive this from a Korban Shelamim!

וי"ל נהי דפיגול לא הוי פסול מיהא הוי

(b)

Answer: It is not Pigul, but it does become invalid.

ופיגול דהכא לאו דוקא כדאשכחן בסוף פ"ק דזבחים (דף יד.) לרבי (Note: שמעון) דאמר כל שאינו על מזבח החיצון כשלמים אין חייבין עליו משום פיגול ואמר רבי יוסי בר' חנינא מודה רבי (Note: שמעון) דפסול מקל וחומר

1.

When the Gemara here states Pigul, it doesn't specifically mean Pigul. This is like the Gemara in Zevachim (14a). The Gemara states that Rebbi Shimon says that whatever is not placed on the outer Mizbei'ach like a Shelamim does not make one liable for eating Pigul. Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina says that Rebbi Shimon admits that the Korban is nonetheless invalid, based on a Kal v'Chomer.

ואין לתמוה מנא ליה דמהימן

(c)

Implied Question: One cannot ask, "How do we know he is believed?" (Note: Why not?)

דפשיטא דבכל הקרבנות שייך פיגול בכל ד' עבודות.

(d)

Answer: It is obvious that in all Korbanos it is possible to have Pigul by all of the four main Avodos.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF