1)

TOSFOS DH Muteres Meimar Amar

úåñôåú ã"ä îåúøú îéîø àîø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why Reish Lakish permits.)

ôéøåù äòåáã ëåëáéí ùòåáã àåúä àåîø äéà âåôä ìà îöìä ìãéãé îöìä áúîéä åäìëê áéãåò ùáéèìä

(a)

Explanation: The Nochri who serves it says "it did not save itself. Will it save me?!" Therefore, it is known that he was Mevatel it.

2)

TOSFOS DH sheb'Asheirah Yatiz b'Kaneh Mai Lav d'Itbar mi'Gufah

úåñôåú ã"ä ùáàùøä éúéæ á÷ðä îàé ìàå ãàúáø îâåôä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses whether or not Hekdesh is different.)

(ùðùáøå ä÷ðéí ùðòùå äæå) [ö"ì ùùéáø ÷ðéí åòùä ä÷ï - öàï ÷ãùéí] îâåó äàùøä å÷àîø éúéæ á÷ðä åä÷ï òöîå îåúø àìîà òáåãú ëåëáéí ùðùúáøä îàìéä îåúøú

(a)

Explanation: [The bird] broke sticks and made the nest from the Asheirah itself, and [the Mishnah] says that he knocks it [down] with a stick, and the nest itself is permitted. This shows that idolatry that broke by itself is permitted!

åîùðé ìà ã÷îééúé îòìîà ëìåîø ùðòùéú ä÷ï î÷ðéí àçøéí åìà îâåó äàéìï

1.

It answers that no, [the bird] brought from elsewhere. I.e. the nest was made from other sticks, and not from the tree itself. (The Chidush is that we do not decree to forbid due to when it is from the tree itself.)

àé äëé ùì ä÷ãù àîàé ìà ðäðéï åìà îåòìéï (àìà ðäðéï ôøéê) [ö"ì åôøéê - äá"ç] ãëéåï ùàéï ä÷ï îàéìï ùì ä÷ãù àîàé ìà ðäðéï àìà îééøé áàéúáø îâåôä

2.

[It asks] if so, [for a tree] of Hekdesh, why "one may not benefit, but Me'ilah does not apply"? It asks that since the nest is not from the tree of Hekdesh, why may one not benefit? Rather, [sticks] were broken from the tree itself.

åë''ú àîàé ìà îåòìéï

3.

Question: Why is there no Me'ilah?

äëà îééøé áâéãåìéí å÷ñáø àéï îòéìä áâéãåìéí

4.

Answer: Here it discusses Gidulim, and he holds that Me'ilah does not apply to Gidulim.

ä''ð îñúáøà ôé' ãîééøé áàéúáø îâåôä ãàé ñ''ã ãàééúé îòìîà àîàé éúéæ á÷ðä ìéù÷ìéä îù÷ì ëìåîø éèåì ä÷ï áéãå áìà î÷ì

5.

[The Gemara says that] presumably this is correct, i.e. that it discusses when it broke from the tree itself, for if you will say that it brought from elsewhere, why does he knock with a stick? He should take it, i.e. take the nest with his hand, without a stick!

àìà ù''î ãîééøé ãàéúáøà îâåôä åìëê ìà ùøé ìéä ìéèåì (î÷ì - äá"ç, öàï ÷ãùéí îåç÷å) áéãå ãìîà àúé ìîéù÷ì îâåó äàùéøä ùìà ðùáø ãäà àåúí ÷ðéí ùðùáøå ãåîéí ìàåúí äîçåáøéï ìàùøä

6.

Conclusion: Rather, this shows that it discusses when it broke from [the tree] itself. Therefore he may not take it in his hand, lest he come to take from the Asheirah, which was not broken, for the sticks that were broken resemble those attached to the Asheirah;

àáì àé äåä îééøé (áàééúé) [ö"ì ãàúå - ùéèä î÷åáöú] îòìîà ãìà ãîé ìâåó äàùøä ìà ùééëà ìîéâæø àèå ãìîà ù÷éì îàùéøä òöîä àìà åãàé îééøé ãàéúáø îâåôä

7.

However, if it discussed when they came from elsewhere, which do not resemble the Asheirah itself, it is not applicable to decree lest he take from the Asheirah itself! Rather, surely it discusses when it broke from [the tree] itself.

åà''ú àîàé äåöøê ìåîø äåëçä æå ãàééøé áàéúáø îâåôä äà ëáø îåëçà ùôéø îã÷àîø âáé ùì ä÷ãù ìà ðäðéï

(b)

Question: Still, why did it need this proof that it discusses when it broke from [the tree] itself? It is already proven properly from what it says about [a tree of] Hekdesh that one may not benefit!

é''ì ãäåëçä øàùåðä àéðå àìà ò''é ãåîéà ãëé äéëé ãîééøé áùì ä÷ãù ùàéúáø îâåôä îã÷àîø ìà ðäðéï ëîå ëï îééøé áùì àùøä áàéúáø îâåôä

(c)

Answer: The first proof is only through comparison - just like [a tree] of Hekdesh discusses when it itself broke, since it says that one may not benefit, also the case of an Asheirah is when it itself broke;

àáì òëùéå îééúé îâåôä ãàùøä îã÷àîø éúéæ á÷ðä ãîééøé áàéúáø îâåôä å÷ùéà ìø' éåçðï ãàîø òáåãú ëåëáéí ùðùúáøä îàìéä àñåøä

1.

However, now we bring a proof from [the clause of] Asheirah itself, since it says that he knocks with a stick, that it discusses when it itself broke, and it is difficult for R. Yochanan, who says that idolatry that broke by itself is forbidden.

åîùðé à''ø àáà à''ø éåçðï ìòåìí ãàééúé îòìîà (éúéæ àôøåçéï) [ö"ì åîàé éúéæ éúéæ áàôøåçéï - ùéèä î÷åáöú]

2.

R. Aba answers in the name of R. Yochanan that really, it brought from elsewhere. What is "he knocks"? He knocks the chicks;

ëìåîø îúðé' (åàôé' ëãàééúà îòìîà ìéëà) [ö"ì îééøé áëì òðéï åàôé' ëãàééúà îòìîà åìéëà - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ìà÷ùåéé îéãé ãäà ã÷àîø éúéæ ìà ÷àé à÷ï ãåãàé ä÷ï àñåø áäðàä áéï âáé ä÷ãù áéï âáé àùéøä

i.

I.e. our Mishnah discusses every case, and even when it came from elsewhere, and we cannot ask anything, for this that it says that he knocks does not refer to the nest. Surely the nest is Asur b'Hana'ah, both regarding Hekdesh and an Asheirah;

åîàé éúéæ éúéæ àôøåçéí ùäàôøåçéí îåúøéí áäðàä áéï âáé ä÷ãù áéï âáé àùøä ëãàîø ì÷îéä

ii.

And what is "he knocks"? He knocks the chicks, for one may benefit from the chicks, both regarding Hekdesh and an Asheirah, like it says below.

åäùúà ðéçà äëì ãìéëà ìà÷ùåéé ãìéù÷ìéðäå áéã ãàéëà ìîéçù ùîà éòìä áàùøä

(d)

Support: Now everything is fine. One cannot ask that he should take it by hand, for there is concern lest he ascend on the Asheirah.

åà''ú åäà ëãñì÷à ãòúê ã÷àé éúéæ à÷ï òöîå äåé ÷ùéà ìéä àîàé ìà ù÷ì ìäå (åìà ÷àîø ùîà éòìä) [ö"ì áéã åìà ÷àîø ùîà éòìä åäëà çééù åîàé ùðé - ùéèä î÷åáöú]

(e)

Question: When we were thinking that "he knocks" refers to the nest itself, it was difficult to him, why doesn't he take them by hand, and it did not say lest he ascend, and here [in the conclusion] we are concerned. What is the difference?

åé''ì ãåãàé îòé÷øà ã÷àîø éúéæ ä÷ï òöîå ìéëà ìîéçù ùîà éòìä (ùéëåéï) [ö"ì ùéëåì - öàï ÷ãùéí] ìéèåì ä÷ï áéãå áìà òìééä òì âáé àùøä

(f)

Answer: Surely, initially that [we thought that] it says that he knocks the nest itself, there is no concern lest he ascend, for he can take the nest in his hand without ascending on the Asheirah;

àáì äùúà ã÷àé éúéæ ààôøåçéí ãåãàé àéëà ìîéçù ùîà éòìä ëé àéï ðåç ëì ëê ìéèåì äàôøåçéí áìà ä÷ï àí ìà éòìä ëé äí ðùîèéí ëàï åëàï åìëê öøéê ìäúéæ á÷ðä àú äàôøåçéí

1.

However, now that "he knocks" refers to the chicks, surely there is concern lest he ascend, for it is not so convenient to take the chicks without the nest, unless he ascends, for they evade here and here. Therefore he needs to knock the chicks with a stick;

ãëéåï ãîúéæ á÷ðä ìà éöèøê ìòìåú áàùøä ëãé ìäúéæ á÷ðä ëé äãáø ÷ì ìäúéæí á÷ðä àó ëùòåîã òì âáé ÷ø÷ò

2.

Since he knocks with a stick, he need not ascend on the Asheirah in order to knock with a stick, for it is easy to knock them with a stick even when he stands on the ground.

åà''ú àëúé àîàé ùì ä÷ãù ìà ðäðéï àó îï ä÷ï òöîå ëéåï ãîééøé áãàééúé îòìîà

(g)

Question: Still, why may one not benefit [when the tree is] of Hekdesh even from the nest, since we discuss when it brought from elsewhere?

éù ìåîø ãâæøéðï ãìîà àúå ìàéçìåôé á÷ðéí äîçåáøéí áàéìï

(h)

Answer: We decree lest he confuse this with sticks attached to the tree.

åà''ú ëéåï ãùééê ìîéâæø àó áãàééúé îòìîà àèå àåúí äîçåáøéí áàéìï à''ë îòé÷øà îàé äåä ôøéê àîàé ùì ä÷ãù ìà ðäðéï åäà ùééê ùôéø ìîâæø ëãôøéùéú

(i)

Question: Since it is applicable to decree even when it brought from elsewhere, due to those attached to the tree, if so, initially, what did he ask "of Hekdesh, why may he not benefit?" It is properly applicable to decree, like I explained!

éù ìåîø ìòåìí éãò ùôéø ãùééê ìîéâæø ëãôøéùéú åäëé äåä ôøéê îòé÷øà ùì ä÷ãù àîàé ìà ðäðéï ëîå âáé àùéøä (åìà) [ö"ì ãìà - áàøåú äîéí] âæøéðï

(j)

Answer: He properly knew that it is applicable to decree, like I explained. Initially, he asked "of Hekdesh, why may he not benefit?", just like regarding an Asheirah, that we do not decree;

ãäà îòé÷øà ñ''ã ãéúéæ á÷ðä ÷àé à÷ðéí ã÷ï (ãîåúø) [ö"ì ãîåúøéí - ùéèä î÷åáöú] áäðàä åìà âæøéðï áäå îéãé åìëê äåä ôøéê àîàé çééùéðï âáé ä÷ãù éåúø îùì àùøä

1.

Initially, he thought that "he knocks with a stick" refers to sticks of the nest, which are Mutar b'Hana'ah, and we do not decree about them at all. Therefore, he asked why we are concerned about Hekdesh more than about an Asheirah;

àáì äùúà ãàùøä åàéìï ùì ä÷ãù ùåéí äï ãä÷ï òöîå àñåø ëàï åëàï åàó äáéöéí ëãîôøù áñîåê àáì äàôøåçéí îåúøéí ëàï åëàï

2.

However, now that an Asheirah and a tree of Hekdesh are the same, for the nest itself is forbidden here and here, and even the eggs, like it explains below, but the chicks are permitted here and here;

(ãúðï éúéæ áàôøåçéí ãàùøä åä''ä) [ö"ì åäà ãúðï éúéæ áàôøåçéí ãàùøä ä''ä - áàøåú äîéí, åëòéï æä áîùðä ìîìê] áùì ä÷ãù ëîå ùàôøù áñîåê

3.

This that the Mishnah says that he knocks on chicks of the Asheirah, the same applies to [a tree] of Hekdesh, like I will explain below;

äìëê ìéëà ìîéôøê îéãé ãä÷ãù åàùøä ùåéí äí ãäëà åäëà âæøéðï ãìîà àúé ìàçìåôé á÷ðéí äîçåáøéí ìàéìï ëãôøéùéú ëê ðøàä ìîåøé øáéðå äøá øáé ôøõ ùé' ìôøù ñåâéà æå îøàùä åòã ñåôä:

4.

Therefore, there is nothing to ask, for Hekdesh and Asheirah are equal. Here and here we decree lest he come to confuse it with sticks attached to the tree, like I explained. So it seems to my Rebbi R. Peretz to explain this Sugya from the beginning to the end.

3)

TOSFOS DH Efrochin Kan v'Kan Mutarin

úåñôåú ã"ä àôøåçéï ëàï åëàï îåúøéï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Mishnah taught differently about Asheirah and Hekdesh.)

ôé' áéï áàùøä áéï áùì ä÷ãù ëéåï ãàéú áäï øåç çééí åàéï öøéëéï ìàîï ëãîôøù áñîåê

(a)

Explanation: [They are permitted] both in an Asheirah, and in Hekdesh, since they are alive, and they do not need their mother, like it explains below.

åäà ã÷àîø éúéæ á÷ðä ÷àé ààôøåçéí åä''ä âáé ä÷ãù

1.

This that [the Mishnah] says "he knocks with a stick" refers to chicks, and the same applies to [a tree] of Hekdesh;

àáì ìà ðäðéï ÷àé à÷ï åáéöéí åä''ä âáé àùøä

2.

However, "one may not benefit" applies to the nest and eggs, and the same applies to an Asheirah.

åà''ú åàîàé úðï ìäúéøà âáé àùøä å÷úðé ìàéñåøà âáé ä÷ãù

(b)

Question: Why does the Mishnah teach Heter regarding an Asheirah, and Isur regarding Hekdesh? (The law of both is the same!)

é''ì ãìäëé úðà ìà ðäðéï âáé ä÷ãù îùåí ãáòé ìîéúðé àéï îåòìéï

(c)

Answer: The reason it teaches "one may not benefit" regarding Hekdesh is because it needs to teach that Me'ilah does not apply to it;

åîúéæ á÷ðä ÷úðé âáé àùøä ãàó òì âá ãäåé ãáø îàåñ îàã ùäåà ùì òáåãú ëåëáéí àôéìå äëé ùøé (àôøåçéí áäðàä ëê ðøàä ìîåø''é) [ö"ì ìäúéæ áàôøåçéí ëê ðøàä ìîø''ó - ùéèä î÷åáöú]

1.

And "he knocks with a stick" was taught about an Asheirah, for even though it is very despised, for it is of idolatry, even so one may knock chicks. So it seems to my Rebbi, R. Peretz.

4)

TOSFOS DH Bonin b'Chol v'Achar Kach Makdishin

úåñôåú ã"ä áåðéï áçåì åàç''ë î÷ãéùéï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why they build when it is Chulin.)

ôéøåù ëùäéå áåðéï äéå (áåðéï) [ö"ì ÷åðéí - öàï ÷ãùéí] áä÷ôä åìà äéå ðåúðéï áäí îòåú ùì ä÷ãù ùðúðãáå ìòùåú áðéï òã ùðòùä ëì äáðéï [ö"ì åëï äéå àåîøéí ìòåìí ëùîúðãáéí àáðéí àì úúðãáí àìà ìàçø äáðéï - ùéèä î÷åáöú]

(a)

Explanation: When they built, they bought through credit. They did not give to them Hekdesh coins. They volunteered to make the building, until all the building was done.

îàé èòí ëìåîø ìîä ìà äéä î÷ãéù î÷îé áðéï äàáðéí

1.

What is the reason? I.e. why was he not Makdish beforehand the structure of rocks?

îàï ãîúðãá îòåú î÷ãéù ìäå åàîø úéçåì ÷ãåùú äîòåú àáðéï åéäéá ìäå ìàåîðéï áùëøí

2.

Answer: One who volunteers coins is Makdish them and says "the Kedushah of these coins should take effect on the building", and he gives [the coins] to the workers for their wages;

ëìåîø åàé äåä î÷ãéù ìäå ìàáðéí î÷îé áðéï àí ëï ìà äéä éëåì ìôøåò ùëø äàåîðéï îîòåú ùì ä÷ãù ùàéï ä÷ãù îúçìì òì äîìàëä

3.

I.e. and if he was Makdish the rocks before building, if so he could not pay the workers' wages from Hekdesh coins, for Hekdesh is not profaned onto work.

àáì òúä ùáåðä áçåì îçìì ÷ãåùú äîòåú òì ëì äáðéï åôåøòéí àçø ëê ùëø äàåîðéí îàåúï äîòåú ùðúçììå åéöàå ìçåìéï åôåøò îòåú ìîé ùîëø àáðéí ëîä ù÷ðå àåúí

4.

However, now that he builds with Chulin, he profanes the Kedushah of the coins onto the entire building, and afterwards they pay the workers' wages from those coins that were profaned and became Chulin, and he pays coins to one who sold rocks, like [the same price for which] they bought them.

åàí úàîø äà àîøéðï ôø÷ áúøà ãëúåáåú (ãó ÷å.) îâéäé ñôøéí ùáéøåùìéí ðåèìéï ùëøï îúøåîú äìùëä åîàé ùðà îùëø äàåîðéï ãäëà

(b)

Question: We say in Kesuvos (106a) that people who proofread Seforim in Yerushalayim are paid from Terumas ha'Lishkah. Why is this unlike workers' wages here? (Here we say that Hekdesh is not profaned onto work!)

é''ì ãùàðé úøåîú äìùëä ùáàä áðãáú öáåø åìá áéú ãéï îúðä òìéäí

(c)

Answer: Terumas ha'Lishkah is different, for it comes from the Tzibur's Nedavah, and Lev Beis Din stipulates about [the coins, that they may be profaned onto work];

àáì ìà ùééê ìåîø ìá áéú ãéï îúðä áä÷ãù ðãáú éçéã àôéìå ä÷ãéùí ìîåñøí ìöáåø:

1.

However, one cannot say that Lev Beis Din stipulates about an individual's Nedavah, even if he was Makdish it in order to hand it over to the Tzibur.

14b----------------------------------------14b

5)

TOSFOS DH Mosar ha'Ketores

úåñôåú ã"ä îåúø ä÷èøú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how they used leftover Ketores the next year.)

äéå îôèîéï ëàçú â' îàåú åùùéí åçîùä îðéï ëîðéï éîåú äçîä ìä÷èéø ÷èøú áëì éåí (çöéå áá÷ø åçöéå) [ö"ì çöé îðä áá÷ø åçöé îðä - ùéèä î÷åáöú] áòøá åòåã ùìùä îðéï ìöåøê éåä''ë

(a)

Explanation: They used to compose at once 365 Manos, like the number of days in a [solar] year, every day they burn half a Maneh of Ketores in the morning and half a Maneh in the afternoon, and another three Manos for the need of [an additional double handful on] Yom Kipur;

åäéä ðåúø îï ä÷èøú ëãàîø äúí (ëøéúåú ãó å:) ôòí ìùùéí ùðä àå ìùáòéí ùðä äéå (áà) [îôèîéï] çöàéí ëìåîø äéå òåìéï äùéøéí ìçöé ä÷èøú

1.

There was left over from the Ketores, like it says there (Kerisus 6b) that once in 60 or 70 years they would compose half. I.e. the leftovers amounted to half [a batch of 368, i.e. 184 Manos] of Ketores.

i.

Note: An average year is really 365 and a quarter days, so the excess in 60 years is 165 Manos less 60 double handfuls. (Calculations of the double handful range from a fifth of a Maneh to a half-Maneh; if a Kohen has abnormally small hands, this is a Mum! Even based on the first opinion, at most 153 Manos remained.) Due to this, the Rosh (in Shitah Mekubetzes Kerisus 6b) rejected this text. Some defend the text. (Normally there should be 22 or 23 leap years in 60 years between half-batches, with three days less or 27 days more than average. If there were only 21 leap years, there are 33 days less than average, so 186 Manos would remain. To allow for a bigger double-handful, we can say that there was a big excess after the last half batch. E.g. the previous year 218 Manos remained, but they made a full batch (lest it and the next year will be leap years of 385 days, we will need 771 Manos, and there are only 552 in one and a half batches), and it was a simple year, and almost 234 remained, and after making a half batch the next year, almost 64 remained. Perhaps 60 years later a smaller excess suffices to make a half batch, e.g. the next two years will be Yovel and Shemitah, which cannot be leap years. However, both of these are difficult to say if there were only 21 leap years in the 60 years. I prefer to say that the weight of a batch was really more than 368 due to ingredients whose weight the Gemara ignored (e.g. wine absorbed by the Tziporen, salt... ) and/or Hachra'os (we give slightly more of each ingredient to make its side of the balance scale go below the weight).

åòìä ÷àé äê ãùîòúéï îä äéå òåùéï îàåúå îåúø îôøéùéï ùëø äàåîðéï îîòåú äìùëä åîæëä àåúï ò''é àçøéí áùáéì äàåîðéï åîçììéí ä÷èøú òì àåúí äîòåú (ùæëä) [ö"ì ùæëå - ùéèä î÷åáöú] áäí áùáéì äàåîðéï

2.

Our Sugya refers to this - what did they do with that excess? They separated wages for the workers from coins of the Lishkah, and they are Mezakeh them through others for the workers, and they redeem the Ketores on those coins that they were Mezakeh for the workers;

åðëðñéï äîòåú á÷ãåùú ä÷èøú [ö"ì äééðå - ùéèä î÷åáöú] á÷ãåùú úøåîä éùðä åä÷èøú éåöà ìçåìéï åðåúðéï àåúå ä÷èøú ìàåîðéï áùëøí åçåæøéí åìå÷çéï àåúï îéã äàåîðéï (îúøåîú äìùëä) [ö"ì îúøåîä çãùä - öàï ÷ãùéí]

3.

The coins get Kedushah of the Ketores, i.e. Kedushah of the old Terumah (of the Lishkah), and the Ketores becomes Chulin, and they give the Ketores to the workers for their wages, and they buy it back from the workers from the new Terumah;

åìëê äéä öøéê ìòùåú ëï ìôé ùà''à ìä÷èéø ÷èåøú îúøåîä éùðä ìùðä äáàä

4.

It was needed to do so because one cannot burn Ketores from the old Terumah in the coming year.

åà''ú åìîä äåæ÷÷å ìòùåú ëï ùçéììå ä÷èøú òì îòåú äàåîðéï äéä ìäí ìçìì îòåú ùì úøåîä çãùä òì ä÷èøú ùéöà (ëáø - öàï ÷ãùéí îåç÷å) ìçåìéï

(b)

Question: Why did they need to do so, that they redeemed the Ketores on coins of the workers? They should have [given the Ketores directly to the workers for their wages,] and profaned coins of the new Terumah on the Ketores that became Chulin!

éù ìåîø ãáäëé òãéó èôé ìôé ùäåà ãøê î÷ç åîîëø îîù åäåé öðéò èôé

(c)

Answer #1: It is better like this, for it is truly like a sale, and it is more covert.

à''ð àí ìà äéå òåùéï ëï àúé ìàéúøùåìé (ùéù ëàï) [ö"ì ùéùëçå ùéù] ìçæåø ìçìì ÷ãåùú îòåú ùì úøåîä çãùä òì ä÷èøú

(d)

Answer #2: If they would not do so, they would come to be negligent, and forget that one must return to profane the Kedushah of coins of the old Terumah on the Ketores;

àáì òúä ùäåà îôøéù ìéã (ìéã) [ö"ì äàåîðéï - öàï ÷ãùéí] ìà àúé ìàéúøùåìé

1.

However, now that he separates [coins] for the workers, they will not come to be negligent.

6)

TOSFOS DH v'Amai Lichlei a'Binyan

úåñôåú ã"ä åàîàé ìéçìéä àáðéï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the question and the answer.)

ëìåîø àé (àéú ìéä) [ö"ì àéúà - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ìãùîåàì ãàîø áåðéï áçåì ìîä ìäï ìòùåú ëì àìä éçììå (àåúí - ùéèä î÷åáöú îåç÷å) ä÷èøú òì äáðéï åéöà ìçåìéï åéçæøå åéçììå îòåú ùì úøåîä çãùä òì àåúä ÷èøú åìîä äéå öøéëéï ìäôøéù ùëøí åìçìì (ëå' - ùéèä î÷åáöú îåç÷å)

(a)

Explanation: If Shmuel is correct, who said that we build when it is Chulin, why did they do all this? They should redeem the Ketores on the building, and it will become Chulin, and they can return and redeem coins of the new Terumah on that Ketores! Why did they need to separate their wages and redeem [on them]?

åîùðé ãìéëà áðéï

1.

It answered that there is no building [to redeem on].

åôøéê åäà îòåú äàåîðéï ÷úðé îùîò ùòñå÷éí ááðéï åîùðé ãìéëà áðéï ëùéòåø îòåú ùì ÷èøú

2.

It asks that the Beraisa taught "money of the Umnin (craftsmen)", which connotes that they engage in building, and answers that the value of the Binyan is less than that of the Ketores.

ôé' àéï äëé ðîé ãåãàé éù áðéï çåì îã÷úðé äàåîðéí àê àéï áðéï ëùéòåø îòåú (ùîï) ùì ÷èøú åìëê öøéê ìäôøéù îòåú îúøåîú äìùëä ëùéòåø ä÷èøú ìùëø äàåîðéí

3.

Explanation: Indeed, surely there is Chulin building, since it taught "the Umnin", but the Binyan is not [worth] the coins of the Ketores. Therefore, we must separate coins from Terumas ha'Lishkah like the [value of] the Ketores for the workers' wages.

åà''ú åëé àôùø ìäéåú ëê ùùëø äáðéï äåà îøåáä òì äáðéï

(b)

Question: Is it possible that the wages for the building is worth more than the building?!

éù ìåîø áàåîðåú öéåø ùéù ùëø ìàåîðéï éåúø îîòåú áðéï

(c)

Answer #1: We find this through the craft of making pictures. The craftsmen's wages are more than the money of the building. (Chidushei Basra - the picture is not worth anything until it is finished.)

àé ðîé äëé ôéøåùå ãìéëà áðéï ëùéòåø îòåú (äáðéï) [ö"ì ä÷èøú - øù"ù, îðçú ëäï, åëòéï æä áùéèä î÷åáöú åöàï ÷ãùéí] ìåìé ùëø äàåîðéï ùòí äáðéï åö''ò

(d)

Answer #2: There is not in the building the value of the coins of the Ketores, if not for the workers' wages together with the building. This requires investigation. (Esh Kodesh - this answer holds that they redeemed on the wages and the building. This requires investigation, for the Gemara connotes that they redeemed on the wages alone.)

åé''î ãîééøé áùëø ùçééáéí ìàåîðéï áùáéì îìàëä ùòãééï ìà ðòùéú àê ÷öú éù áðéï

(e)

Answer #3: Some say that we discuss wages that they owe the workers for work that was not yet done, but there is some building;

äìëê ëéåï ãìéëà áðéï òãééï áðåé ëùéòåø ä÷èøú áñåó äùðä ùøåöéí ì÷ãù ä÷èøú à''à ìçìì òìéå àáì îôøéùéí ëì ùëø äàåîðéï ùòúéã ìéúï ìäí ìòùåú äîìàëä àùø äúçéìå ëáø

1.

Therefore, since there is not yet built Binyan worth the value of the Ketores at the end of the year that they want to be Mekadesh, it is impossible to redeem on it. Rather, they separate the entire wages of the workers that they will give to them in the future to do the work that they already began;

åìäëé ð÷è [ö"ì áäàé - ùéèä î÷åáöú] îéìúà ãàéëà áðéï ÷öú ãàé ìéëà áðéï ëìì äéä âðàé ìäôøéù îòåú îúøåîú äìùëä òì ùëø äàåîðéï äòúéã

2.

Explanation #1: Therefore, it mentioned in this matter that there is some Binyan, for if there is no Binyan at all, it is disgraceful to separate coins from Terumas ha'Lishkah for future wages of workers;

àìà îúåê ùäåöøëå ìäôøéù ìöåøê äàåîðéï áùáéì ùëøï äîåòè àéðå âðàé ìäôøéù äøáä òì äòúéã

i.

Explanation #1: Rather, since they needed to separate for the sake of workers for their small wage [owed already], it is not disgraceful to separate much for the future.

åòåã àîø (øù''é ìôé ùîëàï äúçéìå) [ö"ì îäø''ó ìôé ùîëéåï ùäúçéìå - ùéèä î÷åáöú] áîìàëä ëîé ùâîøå ãîé ùäøé àéï éëåìéï ìçæåø áäí

ii.

Explanation #2 (R. Peretz): Since they began, it is as if they finished, for they cannot retract.

7)

TOSFOS DH veha'Amar Shmuel Hekdesh Shaveh Maneh she'Chilelo...

úåñôåú ã"ä åäàîø ùîåàì ä÷ãù ùåä îðä ùçéììå òì ùåä ôøåèä îçåìì

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses when this is l'Chatchilah.)

ëìåîø åîä áëê àé ìéëà áðéï ëùéòåø îòåú åîùðé äðé îéìé ãéòáã àáì ìëúçìä ìà îùåí ôñéãà ãä÷ãù

(a)

Explanation: What does it matter if the Binyan is not worth the coins [of the Ketores]? We answer that [Shmuel taught] b'Di'eved, but not l'Chatchilah, due to loss of Hekdesh.

åãå÷à áæîï ùáäî''÷ ÷ééí ãàéëà ôñéãà ìä÷ãù àáì áæîï ùàéï áéú äî÷ãù ÷ééí ãìéëà ôñéãà ìä÷ãù ìà åàôùø ìçìì ìëúçìä òì ùåä ôøåèä

(b)

Limitation: This is only at a time when the Mikdash stands, that there is a loss to Hekdesh. However, when the Mikdash does not stand, one may redeem l'Chatchilah [any amount] on a Perutah.

åà''ú äëà ðîé ìéëà ùåí ôñéãà ìä÷ãù ùäøé ùéøé ä÷èøú äììå çåæøéí ìä÷ãù

(c)

Question: Also here there is no loss to Hekdesh, for this leftover Ketores returns to Hekdesh!

åé''ì ãî''î ëéåï ãáéú äî÷ãù ÷ééí åàí äéå îçììéí òì ùåä ôøåèä áòìîà ãàéëà ôñéãà ìä÷ãù àò''â ãäëà ìéëà ôñéãà î''î àéðå îçåìì ãâæøéðï (ãìîà) àèå øåá î÷åîåú ãàéëà ôñéãà ìä÷ãù áëä''â

(d)

Answer: In any case, since the Mikdash stands, and if they would redeem on a Perutah elsewhere, that there is a loss to Hekdesh, even though here there is no loss, in any case it would not be redeemed, for we decree due to most places, that there is a loss to Hekdesh in such a case.

åìà ãîé ìääéà ãäúí ã÷àîø áæîï ùàéï áéú äî÷ãù ÷ééí àôùø ìçìì ãäúí ìà ùééê áùåí òðéï ôñéãà ìä÷ãù

1.

This is unlike the case there, that it says that while the Mikdash does not stand, one can redeem, for there it is not feasible in any way a loss to Hekdesh.

8)

TOSFOS DH Lo Nitnah Torah l'Mal'achei ha'Shares

úåñôåú ã"ä ìà ðéúðä úåøä ìîìàëé äùøú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains what Hana'ah is inevitable.)

åàé àôùø ìéæäø ùìà éäðå îï äçåîä ëé [ö"ì ìà] òáã áçåì ãìîà àúé ìîéæâà òìééäå ùôòîéí ùöøéëéí äôåòìéí ìñîåê òì äàáðéí åðîöà ùîåòìéï

(a)

Explanation: It is impossible to be careful not to benefit from the wall when it is not made b'Chulin, lest he come to lie on them, for sometimes the workers need to lean on the rocks, and it turns out that they transgress Me'ilah.

9)

TOSFOS DH Iy b'Etzim demi'Kan v'Eilach Hacha... b'Etzim d'Yomei

úåñôåú ã"ä àé áòöéí ãîëàï åàéìê ä''ð äá''ò áòöéí ãéåîéä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why it is different on the same day.)

ëìåîø òöéí ùì÷çå ìáðåúí áéåí äì÷éçä åáæîï îåòè éëåìéí ìéæäø îìñîåê òìéäí:

(a)

Explanation: [If we discuss] wood bought to build it on the day it was bought, in a small time, they can be careful not to lie on them.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF