KESUVOS 106-110 - Dedicated in memory of Max (Meir Menachem ben Shlomo ha'Levi) Turkel, by his children Eddie and Lawrence and his wife Jean Turkel/Rafalowicz. Max was a warm and loving husband and father and is missed dearly by his family and friends. His Yahrzeit is 5 Teves.


Tosfos DH "v'Hainu"

תוס' ד"ה "והיינו"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why they were not combined into one volume.)

א"ר לפי שהפסיק בלמודו לרב ענן חלקו לשני סדרים ובפעם ראשון למד ממנו יותר מן הארבע ידות קרי לראשון סדר אליהו רבה ולבתרא קרי זוטא.


Implied Question: [Why are there two volumes of teachings, one called "Seder Eliyahu Rabah" and the other called "Seder Eliyahu Zuta?" Shouldn't they be compiled in one volume and called "Seder Eliyahu?"] Rebbi says that because Eliyahu made a split of two different time periods when he taught Rav Anan, the teachings were split into two different orders. The first time period he learned with him most of the "four hands" (referring to the material covered) he called the first "Seder Eliyahu Rabah" - "The Greater Order of (Teachings from) Eliyahu." He called the second one ""Seder Eliyahu Zuta" - "The Smaller Order of (Teachings from) Eliyahu."


Tosfos DH "Mevakrei"

תוס' ד"ה "מבקרי מומין"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos clarifies how to explain this Gemara in light of the Gemara in Bechoros.)

תימה דהתנן בבכורות פרק עד כמה (דף כט: ושם) הנוטל שכר להיות רואה בכורות אין שוחטין אותן על פיו


Question: This is difficult. Doesn't the Mishnah state in Bechoros (29b) that the ruling of someone who takes payment to analyze a Bechor (to see whether or not it has a blemish) cannot permit the animal to be slaughtered?

וי"ל כמו שתרצתי למעלה


Answer (#1): It is possible to give the same answer as I gave earlier. [Tosfos (105a, DH "Gozrei Gezeiros") explained that those who were permanent judges were allowed to be take a salary for judging, as they were always available to hear cases and had no other livelihood. However, someone who does so once in awhile would not be allowed to take money. Here, too, the people who were constantly available to check Bechoros for blemishes could take a salary and be considered reliable, as opposed to those who did so once in awhile for money (see another answer there in the name of Rabeinu Tam).]

ועוד דהתם דוקא בבכורות שיש לחוש שמא משום שכר יתירנו


Answer (#2): Alternatively, specifically regarding there is more of a suspicion that a person (checking blemishes) will permit the animal because he is getting paid.

אבל הכא מיירי בבדיקת מומי שאר קדשים


However, our Gemara is discussing people who used to check for blemishes in other Kodshim (Korbanos).

והכי איתא בשילהי פרק התרומה בשקלי' (דף ז.) דאמר מבקרי מומי קדשים נוטלים שכרן מתרומת הלשכה.


Proof: This (concept that there were people paid to check for blemishes in regular Korbanos) is indeed at the end of the first chapter of Shekalim (7a). The Gemara there says that the ones who checked for blemishes in Korbanos would take their payment from the public funds for the Beis Hamikdash.


Tosfos DH "Melamdin"

תוס' ד"ה "מלמדין"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara does not mention the laws of Melikah.)

והא דלא חשיב הלכות מליקה


Implied Question: It does not mention the laws of Melikah (which one would think would be mentioned as one of the Avodos that had to be taught to the Kohanim). [Why not?]

שבכלל הלכות שחיטה הן.


Answer: This is because they are included in the Gemara's statement regarding the laws of Shechitah.


Tosfos DH "Shivah"

תוס' ד"ה "שבעה"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the number of gates that there were in the Azarah.)

לשבעה שערי עזרה קאמר


Implied Question: [What are the seven gates this is referring to?] It is referring to the seven gates of the Azarah ("courtyard" of the Beis Hamikdash).

אומר רבי דס"ל כתנא דמתני' דמס' מדות בפ"ק (משנה ד) דתנן ז' שערים היו בעזרה ג' בצפון וג' בדרום ואחד במזרח


Observation: Rebbi says that this Tana holds like the Tana in Midos (1:4) who states that there were seven gates in the Azarah: three in the north, three in the south, and one in the east.

והא דתנן התם לעיל בשלשה מקומות הכהנים שומרים כו' על חמשה שערי העזרה כו'


Implied Question: The Mishnah there stated previously that there were three places that the Kohanim guarded etc. (Tamid 1:1), [and the Levi'im guarded in twenty-one places, among them] the five gates of the Azarah (see Tamid 27b).

במס' תמיד בפ"ק (דף כז.) פריך להו ומשני אביי תרי מנייהו לא בעי שימור


Answer: In Tamid (27a), the Gemara itself asks this question (five or seven gates?). Abaye answers that (while there were five gates that were guarded) two of these (seven) gates did not need to be guarded.

ורבא משני תנאי היא דתניא אין פוחתין [מג' גזברין וז' אמרכלין רבי נתן אומר אין פוחתין] מי"ג גזברים כנגד י"ג שערים דל חמשה דהר הבית פשו להו תמניא אלו ח' דעזרה


Rava answers that this is an argument among the Tanaim. The Beraisa states, "There is never supposed to be less than [three caretakers and seven head caretakers. Rebbi Nasan says that there is never supposed to be less than] thirteen caretakers opposite the thirteen gates. Taking away the five gates of Har ha'Bayis, that means that there are eight left, which would all be in the Azarah (according to this opinion).

אלמא איכא תנא דאמר תמניא הוו ואיכא תנא דאמר חמשה הוו


We see that there is one Tana who says that there are eight gates, and one who says that there are five.

תימה אמאי מייתי רבא הנך תנאי ממתניתין דמדות היה יכול להביא דתנן התם בפ' שני (משנה ו) שלש עשרה השתחוואות היו שם אבא יוסף בן חנן אומר כנגד י"ג שערים


Question (#1): This is difficult. Why does Rava say that there is an argument among Tanaim by citing this Beraisa? He could have brought this opinion from a Mishnah in the second chapter of Midos (2:6) that states that there were thirteen places that people bowed in the Mikdash. Aba Yosi ben Chanan says that this was opposite the thirteen gates.

ועוד תימה דהרי כאן מחלוקת רביעי דעל כרחין לההוא תנא דס"ל די"ג שערים היו בעזרה לא מצי למימר דקסבר ח' ודל חמשה דהר הבית


Question (#2): There is an additional difficulty. There is in fact a fourth argument (meaning that there are four opinions of the number of gates, which have so far been five, seven, or eight, and now thirteen). It must be that the Tana who holds that there were thirteen gates in the Azarah cannot hold that there were actually eight after subtracting the five gates of the Har ha'Bayis.

דהא מפרש התם שמם של אותן שערים ואין מזכירין אפי' אחד מאותן שערים דהר הבית המפורש בפ"ק דמדות שני שערי חולדה מן הדרום וקיפונוס מן המערב וטדי מן הצפון שער מזרחי שושן הבירה עליו צורה


This is evident from the fact that the names of the gates are mentioned, and not one of them is that of the named gates of Har ha'Bayis, which are named in the first chapter of Midos. They are called the two gates of Chuldah in the south, Kipunus in the west, Teddy in the north, and the eastern gate is called the Shushan ha'Birah gate which has a picture on it of (the city of) Shushan.

ואומר ר"ת דלעולם ס"ל לההוא תנא דז' שערים היו בעזרה והא דחשיב י"ג היינו עם השערים הקטנים דהכל חשיב


Answer: Rabeinu Tam says that really this Tana agrees that the Azarah had seven gates. When the Tana says thirteen, he merely means that including the small gates there were thirteen. He took all of the gates into account.

תדע דהא חשיב פישפשין שהיו לשער נקנור אבל גדולים לא היו בעזרה אלא ז' והן אותן המפורשים בפ"ק


This is clear from the fact that the small openings of the gate of Nikanor are mentioned. However, there were only seven large gates in the Azarah, and those are explicitly named in the first chapter (of Midos).

והמעיין שם ימצא דשער הקרבן דפ"ק הוא שער הבכורות דפ"ב ואותן י"ג שערים דמדות שנויים נמי במסכת שקלים כל אותה משנה ממש בפ' י"ג שופרות אבל אין שנוי בה אבא יוסף בן חנן כמו ששנוי במס' מדות


One who looks into this principle will find that the Korban gate in the first chapter (of Midos, 1:5) is the same as the Bechoros gate in the second chapter (2:6). The thirteen gates in Midos are also taught in Shekalim (6:3), where the entire Mishnah is stated over. [Additionally,] Aba Yosef ben Chanan's opinion is the same as that in our Mishnah (in Midos).

ובגמרא דירושלמי קאמר מתני' אבא יוסף בן חנן דקאמר כנגד י"ג שערים דלרבנן ז' שערים הוו בעזרה


The Yerushalmi in Shekalim says that the Mishnah there is according to the opinion of Aba Yosef ben Chanan, who says that there were thirteen places to bow down opposite the thirteen gates. According to the Rabbanan, there were (only) seven gates in the Azarah.

דעתייהו דרבנן היכן היו השתחוואות האלו כי ההיא דתנינן תמן י"ג פרצות היו בה שפרצו מלכי יון וחזרו וגדרום וגזרו כנגדם י"ג השתחוואות


According to the Rabbanan, where were the places that they bowed down? This is like the Mishnah that states that there were thirteen openings that the kings of Greece made in the walls of the Azarah, and they (Bnei Yisrael) went back and sealed them. Opposite these thirteen openings they decreed thirteen bowings.

ואם תאמר לרבנן נמי דתני שבעה שערים מאי קמתמה כנגד מי הוו השתחוואות אינהו נמי מודו דעם הקטנים היו שלשה עשר כדפרישית


Question: If you will ask, according to the Rabbanan who understood there were seven gates, why does the Gemara ask what was their significance? The Rabbanan also held there were thirteen gates together with the smaller gates, as (Rabeinu Tam) explained above.

ואומר רבינו תם כיון דלא חשיבי בעינייהו כל כך שיקראו אותם שערים אין נראה שיהא השתחוואות כנגדם אבל אבא יוסף בן חנן קרא אותם שערים


Answer: Rabeinu Tam answered that because they were not important enough in their eyes that they should be called gates, it is not so logical to say that they would decree that people should bow down because of them. However, according to Aba Yosef ben Chanan who did call them gates this is obviously logical.



Tosfos DH "v'Chi Gavu"

תוס' ד"ה "וכי גבו"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos differentiates between the salaries paid to Beis Garmo and Beis Avtinas and making Klei Shares from the Terumas ha'Lishkah.)

אבל אהנך דלעיל לא פריך בית גרמו ובית אבטינס


Implied Question: However, regarding Beis Garmo and Beis Avitinas' (who taught how to make the Lechem ha'Panim and Ketores respectively, see 106a) the Gemara did not ask (how they could have taken their wages from the "Terumas ha'Lishkah" - "public coffers for matters regarding Korbanos").

דבכל הנהו היו בית ישראל מקדישין אותן לצורך כך כמו לצורך קרבנות שכל אותן דברים רגילות הן


Answer: This is because all of those (monies) Bnei Yisrael made Hekdesh for these needs as well, just as they dedicated their money for the purpose of buying the public Korbanos. This is because these were all anticipated (expenses).

והיינו דקתני דבאין מתרומת הלשכה עצמה ולא קתני מותר היינו משום דלאו מחמת לב ב"ד מישתרו אלא מחמת ישראל


This is why it says that their salaries came from the Terumas ha'Lishkah itself, and not from the extra money of the Terumas ha'Lishkah. This is because these monies are not (available for their salaries) because of a condition of Beis Din that permits them to be used for salaries, but rather because of the mindset of Bnei Yisrael (when they donated the monies).

אבל להך תירוצא פריך דמסיק היכא דלא הותירו אסירי והיכא דהותירו שרי פריך מאי שנא דהא פשיטא שלא לדעת כן מקדישין כיון דלא שרית ליה כי לא הותירו


However, according to this answer (that the mindset of the donors determines the monies possible uses) the Gemara is asking its question. The Gemara concludes that where there is no left over monies it is forbidden to use the money for Klei Shares, and where there is leftover money it is permitted. The Gemara therefore asks, what is the difference whether there is leftover money or not? The people obviously did not have the purpose of making Klei Shares in mind when they donated the money, as it is not permitted to make Klei Shares with the money if there is no money leftover.

ומשני לב ב"ד מתנה עליהן והן מקדישין לדעת ב"ד.


The Gemara therefore answers that Beis Din makes a condition regarding this money that the leftover money can be used for Klei Shares, and the people give the money as per the mindset of Beis Din (whatever Beis Din deems an appropriate usage for the money).


Tosfos DH "Tana"

תוס' ד"ה "תנא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara did not give a seemingly more simple and straightforward answer to the Gemara's question.)

הא תרומת הלשכה היינו מותר תרומת הלשכה כדמוכח במתני' דפליג אר"ע דקתני מותר תרומה לכלי שרת


Explanation: This reference to Terumas ha'Lishkah actually refers to the leftovers of the Terumas ha'Lishkah, as is apparent from the Mishnah (in Shekalim 4:2 quoted by the Gemara later). Rebbi Yishmael there argues on Rebbi Akiva, as it states that (Rebbi Yishmael's opinion was) that the extra monies from the Terumas ha'Lishkah can be used to make Klei Shares.

וא"ת כי פריך הש"ס ואימא שיריים גופייהו והיינו משום דכתיב שאר ולישני דהא שאר הכסף היינו מותר תרומה


Question: If you will ask, when the Gemara asks, "and let us say it comes from the Sheyarei ha'Lishkah itself (see next entry)" because the Pasuk states "the rest," why doesn't the Gemara simply answer that "the rest" refers to the leftover money in the Terumas ha'Lishkah?


Note: The Terumas ha'Lishkah, as the name implies, is money that was taken from the Lishkah three times a year in order to pay for the Korbanos (see Shekalim 3:1). Accordingly, there was not always leftover money in the Terumas ha'Lishkah, but there would almost certainly be leftover money in the Lishkah itself. This is called the Shiyarei ha'Lishkah. The leftover money would have to be taken away from the Lishkah before Rosh Chodesh Nisan, when the public Korbanos already had to be brought from money that was given for the new year (see Yavetz on our Tosfos).

י"ל דבמילתא דפסיקא ליה בעי לאוקמי קרא דהיינו שיריים דבכל שנה איתנהו אבל במותר דלא פסיקא ליה לא ניחא ליה לאוקמי לקרא.


Answer: It is possible to answer that the Gemara is trying to establish the Pasuk as discussing the leftover amount in the Lishkah every year. However, there was not always leftover money in the Terumas ha'Lishkah. The Gemara would rather establish the Pasuk as discussing something that was constantly applicable, instead of something that only applied sometimes.


Tosfos DH "k'da'Amar"

תוס' ד"ה "כדאמר"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos tries to clarify why our Gemara seemingly ignores an explicit teaching in a Mishnah in Zevachim (89a) and instead quotes a teaching of Rava.)

תימה אמאי איצטריך האי דרשא דרבא תיפוק ליה מהיכא דמפקא מתניתין דזבחים בפרק כל התדיר (דף פט. ושם)


Question: This is difficult. Why is the teaching of Rava ("and he will set up on it the Olah," (Vayikra 6:5) "the Olah" teaches that nothing should be brought before the Korban Tamid of the morning) needed? It could be learned from the same source used by the Mishnah in Zevachim (89a)!

דקתני כל התדיר מחבירו קודם לחברו התמידים קודמין למוספים כו' וקא בעי בגמרא מנ"ל ומתמה מנא לן כדקתני טעמא מלבד עולת הבקר אשר לעולת התמיד


The Mishnah there states, "whatever is more common than its friend comes before its friend. (Therefore) Korban Tamidin come before a Korban Musaf (etc.)." The Gemara asks, how do we know this? The Gemara replies, what do you mean how do we know this? The Mishnah (ibid.) itself explicitly states that this is derived from the Pasuk "besides the Olah of the morning that is for the Olas ha'Tamid" (Bamidbar 28:23).

וכ"ת דהתם איצטריך היכא דליכא אלא חד דאשמעינן קרא דעקרינן לגמרי מוספין מקמי תמידין


You might suggest that the Pasuk there is needed to teach that where only one out of two possibilities can be fulfilled, that the Musaf is uprooted before the Korban Tamid.

לא היא דמהתם נפקא לן בכ"מ דתדיר ושאינו תדיר תדיר קודם כדמפיק התם מכאלה תעשו שיהו כל עשיות שוות ואי בכי האי גוונא מיירי מהתם לא נפקא לן


This is incorrect. This teaching is the source for the entire concept that when something is common and another thing is uncommon, the common thing is done first. This is learned from "like these you should do," (ibid. 28:24) teaching that in every instance where there are multiple things to be done, their order should follow this rule. If the Pasuk would be discussing what nullifies the other, this rule could not be learned by the Pasuk "like these you should do" (ibid.).

ועוד מסברא רישא דכל התדיר מחבירו קודם לחבירו מיתניא דומיא דבבא שאחריה דקתני כל המקודש מחבירו קודם לחבירו דם חטאת קודם לדם עולה מפני שהוא מרצה כו' וכל הנך בקדימה ממש מיירי


Additionally, the first case there is stating a logical concept, that when something is common and another thing is uncommon, the common thing is done first. This is similar to the next concept stated there that when something is holier than something else, the holier thing is done first. For example, the blood of a Korban Chatas is sprinkled before that of a Korban Olah, because the blood of the Chatas causes atonement etc. All of these cases clearly discuss what is first (not what is done if only one out of two things can possibly be done).

והא נמי ליכא לתרוצי דאי מהתם דמלבד עולת הבקר הוה אמינא דווקא עולה דקדמה למוספין משום דתדירא ומוספין לא תדירי אבל תמידין לעולת נדבה דהויא ליה נמי תדירא לעולם אימא לך לא תקדום להכי איצטריך קרא דהעולה עולה ראשונה


It also cannot be answered that if the Pasuk there, "besides the Olah of the morning," was the only teaching, I would think that an Olah is brought before a Korban Musaf because it is more common. However, perhaps a Korban Tamid does not come before a donated Olah that is also quite common. This is why the Pasuk needs to state (Rava's teaching of) "ha'Olah" as well, teaching us that this Olah (Korban Tamid) is always first.

דבמנחות פרק התכלת (דף מט. ושם) מייתי לקרא דרבא אקדימה דעולה למוספין דאמרי' התם בעא מיניה רב חייא בר אבא מרב חסדא צבור שאין להם תמידין ומוספין אי זה מהם קודם כו'


This is because in Menachos (49a) the teaching of Rava ("ha'Olah") is quoted regarding an Olah being offered before a Korban Musaf. The Gemara there states that Rav Chiya bar Aba asked Rav Chisda, if a public does not have a (animal to offer for both the) Tamid and Musaf, which should they bring?

ומסיק אמר ליה תניתוה התמידין אין מעכבין את המוספין ולא המוספין את התמידים ה"ד אילימא דאית ליה וליקדם והתניא מנין שלא יהא דבר קודם לתמיד של שחר ת"ל וערך עליה העולה ואמר רבא כו' אלא בדלית ליה


The Gemara concludes that Rav Chisda responded that the lack of Korban Tamid does not hold back the Musaf, and the lack of Korban Musaf does not hold back the Korban Tamid. What is Rav Chisda'a case? If Rav Chisda was referring to a case where the person had both and merely had the wrong one go first, don't we learn in a Beraisa, "how do we know that nothing should be offered before the Korban Tamid in the morning? The Pasuk teaches us, "and he will set up on it the Olah," (Vayikra 6:5) and Rava teaches etc. ("the Olah" refers to the first Olah). Rav Chisda therefore must be talking about a case where he does not have the ability to do both.

ואי בתמידין ומוספין דהיום פשיטא שתדיר קודם אלא במוספין דהיום ותמידין דלמחר אלמא אקדימה דעולה למוספין מייתי לה


If Rav Chisda is talking about the Korban Tamid and Musaf of today, it is obvious that the more common Korban (Tamid) should be first. It therefore must mean that the two choices are either to bring the Korban Musaf of today or the Korban Tamid of the next day. This implies that this is relative to the Olah coming before the Musaf (not negating it completely, as suggested).

ותימה דרשת המשנה הוה ליה לאיתויי דקתני בהדיא מלבד עולת הבקר


This is difficult, as the Gemara should have brought the explicit teaching of our Mishnah from the Pasuk of "besides the Olah of the morning" (Bamidbar 28:23).

ובההיא דשילהי הגוזל קמא (ב"ק דף קיא. ושם) קשה יותר דקתני הביא אשמו עד שלא הביא גזילו לא יצא ומפרש בגמ' מלבד איל הכפורים מכלל דכסף קדים


The Gemara in Bava Kama (111a) is more difficult. It states that if someone brought a Korban Asham but did not return what he stole he has not fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara derives this from the Pasuk "besides the ram of atonement" (Bamidbar 5:8) implying that the returning of the money must be first (in order for the Korban to achieve atonement).

ופריך אלא מעתה מלבד עולת הבקר ה"נ דמוספין ברישא והא תניא מנין שלא יהא דבר כו' ואמר רבא העולה עולה ראשונה


The Gemara asks, according to this (way of interpreting the Pesukim) the Pasuk "besides the Olah of the morning" (Bamidbar 28:23) should similarly mean that the Musaf is before the Tamid (just as the returning of the money mentioned before "besides the ram of atonement" must be first). However, doesn't the Beraisa states how do we know that nothing etc., and Rava explains we see from the Pasuk of "ha'Olah" that the Korban Tamid is first?

והשתא הוה ליה לאתויי מתני' דכל התדיר דאדרבה מדכתי' מלבד מכלל דעולה קדמה


The Gemara should have brought the Mishnah in Zevachim (89a) as on the contrary, the Mishnah there explicitly states that the fact that the Pasuk says, "besides the Olah of the morning" (ibid.) implies that the Olah is first, not the Musaf!

ונרא' לפרש דודאי מדכתי' העולה נפקא דהקטרת תמיד קדמה להקטרת מוספין דגבי הקטרה הוא דכתי' מלבד עולת הבקר אשר לעולת התמיד תעשו את אלה התם עשוי דדם נינהו


Answer: It appears that the explanation is that the word "ha'Olah" teaches us that the burning of the Korban Tamid is before that of the Korban Musaf. This is because the Pasuk states regarding the burning of the limbs of the Korban "besides the Olah of the morning that is for the Olah of the Korban Tamid." "You should do these," refers to the dealing with the blood (Shechitah through Zerikah), that these Avodos should also be done first before other Korbanos.

והשתא בב"ק לא הוה מצי לאתויי מתני' דכל התדיר דודאי גבי איל הכפורים משמע לשון מלבד דכסף קדים כיון דהוא כתוב תחלה בפרשה והדר כתיב איל הכפורים


Accordingly, the Gemara in Bava Kama could not have quoted the Mishnah in Zevachim. There is no question that the term "besides" means that (returning) the money is a necessary first step to atonement. This is because returning the money is stated first in the Pasuk, and only afterwards it discusses the ram for atonement.

אבל גבי עשיות ליכא למידק דמוספין קדמי כיון דכתיב עולה ברישא והדר עשיה דדם דמוספין אבל הקטרה דמוספין כתיב ברישא להכי פריך שפיר מההוא דרבא ומיהו בההוא דמנחות ודאי הוה מצי לאתויי ההיא דכל התדיר.


However, regarding the Avodos of the Korbanos we cannot deduce that the Musaf should be first, being that the Pasuk first mentions the Korban Olah, and only then does it mention the Avodah of the Korban Musaf (and then it says "besides" etc.). However, the burning of the Korban Musaf is actually mentioned first. This is why the Gemara in Bava Kama asks from Rava's statement (to show that even though the burning of the Korban Olah is not mentioned first, Rava teaches us that it is still burned first before other Korbanos). However, the Gemara in Menachos (49a) indeed could have brought the Mishnah in Zevachim (89a).