1) TOSFOS DH Lerabos Se'irei Avodas Kochavim li'Semichah
úåñôåú ã"ä ìøáåú ùòéøé òáåãú ëåëáéí ìñîéëä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we do not know them from a Hekesh.)
úéîä úéôå÷ ìéä îãàéú÷åù ìôø äòìí ãáø ùì öéáåø ëãàîøé' áôø÷ á''ù (æáçéí ãó îà.) äçèàú àìå ùòéøé òáåãú ëåëáéí åäúí îåëç ãìøáé ùîòåï ðîé àúéà
(a) Question: We should already know this, for they are equated to Par Helam Davar of the Tzibur, like we say in Zevachim (31a) "ha'Chatas" - these are Se'irei Avodas Kochavim. And there it is proven that it is also like R. Shimon!
åé''ì ãääåà äé÷éùà ìéúà àìà ìâáé äæàä ãåå÷à
(b) Answer #1: That Hekesh is only for Haza'ah.
àé ðîé îäé÷éùà ìà äåä éãòéðï îùåí ãëúéá äçé åäåä îå÷îéðï ìîòåèé ùòéøé òáåãú ëåëáéí
(c) Answer #2: We would not know from the Hekesh, because it is written "ha'Chai", and we would establish it to exclude Se'irei Avodas Kochavim.
åëï îåëç ì÷îï ôø÷ ùúé îãåú (ãó öá.):
(d) Support: It is proven like this below (92a).
2) TOSFOS DH l'R. Shimon Mai Ika Lemeimar
úåñôåú ã"ä ìø' ùîòåï îàé àéëà ìîéîø
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we do not exclude Se'irei Avodas Kochavim.)
ãìîòè ùòéøé òáåãú ëåëáéí ìà îñúáø ìàå÷îé ëéåï ùäí ëùàø çèàåú ãòìîà
(a) Explanation: It is unreasonable to establish it to exclude Se'irei Avodas Kochavim, since they are like other Chata'os [that atone].
3) TOSFOS DH Ela Sha'ah mi'Doros Lo Yalfinan
úåñôåú ã"ä àìà ùòä îãåøåú ìà éìôéðï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why elsewhere the Gemara was unsure about this.)
åäà ãîéáòéà ìï áô''÷ ãñðäãøéï (ãó èå:) ùåø ñéðé áëîä îé âîøéðï ùòä îãåøåú àå ìà
(a) Implied question: In Sanhedrin (15b) we asked how many judges are needed to convict an ox [that alighted on] Har Sinai. Do we learn from Sha'ah from Doros, or not?
äúí âìåéé îéìúà áòìîà äåà
(b) Answer: There it is a mere Giluy Milsa.
4) TOSFOS DH Shochet mid'R. Achiya Nafka
úåñôåú ã"ä ùåçè îãøáé àçééä ðô÷à
(SUMMARY: Tosfos justifies learning from Olah.)
úéîä ääéà áòåìä ëúéá åäëà áçèàú
(a) Question: That is written regarding Olah, and here it is Chatas!
åàò''â ãúìà øçîðà çèàú áòåìä
1. Suggestion: The Torah made Chatas dependent on Olah.
î''î ìà âîøé' ãàéöèøéê áô' àéæäå î÷åîï (æáçéí ã' îç:) òéëåáà áòåìä åìà âîøéðï îçèàú
2. Rejection: In any case, we do not learn [Chatas from Olah], for in Zevachim (48b) we require an Ikuv for Olah, and we do not learn from Chatas.
åîéäå ìëåìé èòîé ãäúí ðéçà ãìîàé ãîôøù äúí èòîà ùìà éäà èôì çîåø îï äòé÷ø ä''ð îäàé èòîà ìà éäà ùåçè (çèàú) áöôåï
(b) Answer #1: According to all the reasons there it is fine, for according to what [Rava] explains there that the reason is we never find Tafel Chamur Min ha'Ikar (what is secondary is more stringent than what is primary), for the same reason one who slaughters Chatas need not be in the north. (We learn Chatas from Olah regarding the north, and for Olah the Shochet need not be in the north (and not even Lifnei Hash-m, like we expound in Zevachim 32b).)
åìîàé ãîôøù ðîé îùåí ãëúéá äòåìä áî÷åîä úäà îäàé èòîà ðîé ìà éäà ùåçè áöôåï
(c) Answer #2: Also according to what it explains [that Shechitah and Kabalah of an Olah in the north are Me'akev] because it is written "ha'Olah" - bi'Mkomah Tehei (it will be in its place), also for this reason the Shochet need not be in the north. (Perhaps Tosfos explains that we move the initial Hei of ha'Olah to the end of previous word, and we read bi'Mkom ha'Olah like bi'Mkomah Olah. The simple reading of the verse teaches that Chatas is in the place of Olah, and this Drashah teaches that Olah is in the place of Chatas - PF. I.e. they are totally equated regarding what requires the north, and also for Ikuv - Yashar v'Tov.)
5) TOSFOS DH Mah l'Ben Tzon she'Chen Kava Lo Kli
úåñôåú ã"ä îä ìáï öàï ùëï ÷áò ìå ëìé
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why elsewhere we do not ask this.)
åëï ôøéê áøéù àéæäå î÷åîï (âí æä ùí)
(a) Observation: We ask this also in Zevachim there.
åúéîä ãìà ôøéê äëé áô''÷ ã÷ãåùéï (ã' ìå:) ãéìéó áï òåó î÷ì åçåîø îáï öàï ùìà ÷áò ìå ëäï ìùçéèúå å÷áò ìå ëäï ìäæàúå
(b) Question: It does not ask this in Kidushin (36b), that it learns a bird from a Kal v'Chomer from a Seh, which the Torah did not obligate a Kohen to slaughter it, and it obligated a Kohen for its Haza'ah!
åé''ì ãâáé öôåï ùééëà äê ôéøëà ãëìé àáì äúí ãáòé ìîéìó ëäåðä ìà ãùîòéðï ùäöøéê äëúåá ááï òåó éåúø îáï öàï
(c) Answer: Regarding the north, this question [that the Torah obligated] a Kli applies, but there that we want to learn Kehunah, we do not learn that the Torah obligated a bird more than a Seh.
6) TOSFOS DH mi'Chatas she'Chen Mechaperes v'Chulei
úåñôåú ã"ä îçèàú ùëï îëôøú ëå'
(SUMMARY: Tosfos justifies the Dichuy.)
çèàú âåôä îäé÷éùà ãòåìä àúéà åáòéà äéà áøéù àéæäå î÷åîï (æáçéí ãó ð.) àé ãáø äìîã áäé÷ù ùçåæø åîìîã ááðéï àá
(a) Explanation: Chatas itself we learn from a Hekesh to Olah, and it is a question in Zevachim (50a) whether something learned from a Hekesh returns to teach through a Binyan Av. (Therefore, it suffices to refute the Kal v'Chomer. Do not ask that we can learn from a Binyan Av, for if so, we would have resolved the question in Zevachim!)
7) TOSFOS DH Ela Ein ha'Shochet b'Tzafon Aval ha'Mekabel b'Tzafon
úåñôåú ã"ä àìà àéï äùåçè áöôåï àáì äî÷áì áöôåï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses whether it is more reasonable to expound about the Shochet or the Mekabel.)
äùúà îùîò ãìà îöé ìîãøù àáì î÷áì áöôåï àìà îùåí ãìà àéöèøéê ìîòåèé ùåçè ãðô÷à îãø' àçééä à''ë úçéìä àéú ìï ìîéãøù àéï äùåçè áöôåï î÷îé ãðéãøåù àáì î÷áì áöôåï
(a) Inference: Now it connotes that we can expound "but the Mekabel is in the north" only because we do not need to exclude the Shochet, for we learn from R. Achiya. If so, first we should expound the Shochet is not in the north before we expound "but the Mekabel is in the north." (Taharos ha'Kodesh and others - Tosfos' text did not say "R. Achiya does not come to exclude that the Shochet in Tzafon, rather... but the Mekabel must be in the north.")
åúéîä ãîùîò ìòéì ááøééúà ãìà àéöèøéê ÷øà ìîòåèé ùåçè îöôåï àìà ìôé ùîöéðå áî÷áì ùòåîã áöôåï åà''ë ìà ìéëúåá àìà çã ÷øà åàðà éãòðà ãììîã òì î÷áì àúé ãìùåçè ìà àéöèøéê
(b) Question: It connotes in the Beraisa above that we need the verse to exclude the Shochet (he need not be) in the north only because we find that the Mekabel stands in the north. If so, it should write only one verse, and I would know that it comes to teach about the Mekabel (that he stands in the north), for I do not need for the Shochet!
åé''ì ãìéú ìéä äùúà ääéà ñáøà àìà ìòåìí àéöèøéê ÷øà ìùåçè
(c) Answer: Now he does not hold like that reasoning. Rather, really, he needs the verse for the Shochet;
åááøééúà ðîé îöéðå ìîéîø ãìôé ùîöéðå ìàå ãåå÷à ãîñáøà àéú ìï ìîéîø ëéåï ùäùçéèä áöôåï äåà äãéï ùåçè åëï äî÷áì ãîàé ùðà
1. Also in the Beraisa we can say that "because we find" is not precise, for from reasoning we should say that since Shechitah is in the north, the same applies to the Shochet, and also the Mekabel, for why should they be different?
8) TOSFOS DH Af'ah Lokeh Shetayim
úåñôåú ã"ä àôàä ìå÷ä ùúéí
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the following question and answer unlike Rashi.)
ôéøù á÷åðèøñ ãàôééä âîø òøéëä äéà åôøéê åäàîøú îòùä éçéãé
(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi): Baking is the completion of arranging. [The Gemara] asks "you said an individual action!"
åúéîä îàé ÷îùðé äà ãòøê äåà åàôàä äåà äà ãòøê çáøéä åàôàä äåà àëúé îòùä éçéãé îéäà ìà äåé ãàéëà òøéëä áäãä
(b) Question: What was the answer "this is when he arranged and baked, and this is when his friend arranged and he baked"? Still, it is not a lone action, for there is arranging with it!
åðøàä ìôøù ãçééá ùúéí îùåí òøéëä îåòèú ùòåùä äàåôä áùòú àôééä åàéðä âîø òøéëä
(c) Explanation #2: It seems that he is liable twice due to a small amount of arranging that the baker does at the time of baking, and it is not the completion of arranging;
åôøéê îîòùä éçéãé ãîùîò ùàéï îìàëä àçøú òîä åàéï çééáéï òìéä àìà àçú åîùðé ãòøê äåà åàôä äåà ëìåîø ùòùä âîø äòøéëä ùáùòú äàôééä
1. It asks from a lone action, for it connotes that there is no other action with it, and he is liable only once, and it answers that he arranged and baked. I.e. he did the final arranging, which is at the time of baking;
åäà ã÷øé ìä îòùä éçéãé (îùîò) [ö"ì ãîùîò - áàøåú äîéí, âìéåðåú ÷äéìú éò÷á] ãìà îéçééá àìà àçú
(d) Implied question: Why is it called a lone action, which connotes that he is liable only once?
áùòøê çáéøå ùâîø äëì àôéìå òøéëä ãáäãé àôééä ãäùúà ìéëà ùåí òùééä áäãé àôééä àìà îòùä éçéãé äåà
(e) Answer: This is when his friend arranged, that he finished everything, even arranging that is with baking. Now there is no action with the baking. It is a lone action.
å÷öú ÷ùéà ìô''æ ãçðí ð÷è äà ãòøê çáøéä ëå' ãäëé äåä ìéä ìîéîø äà ãòáéã âîø òøéëä äà ãìà òáéã âîø òøéëä
(f) Question: According to this, there was no need to say that his friend arranged... it should have said that this is when he did final arranging, and this is when he did not do final arranging!
9) TOSFOS DH R. Shimon Omer Af Nishchat Al Oso Mum
úåñôåú ã"ä øáé ùîòåï àåîø àó ðùçè òì àåúå îåí
(SUMMARY: Tosfos contrasts the argument in the Mishnah and in the Beraisa.)
ôéøù á÷åðèøñ øáé ùîòåï ìèòîéä ãàîø ãáø ùàéï îúëåéï îåúø åæä ìà ðúëåéï ìäèéì áå îåí òì îðú ìùçåè òìéå
(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi): R. Shimon holds like he taught elsewhere, that Davar she'Eino Miskaven is permitted. He did not intend to blemish it in order to slaughter it.
å÷ùéà ãúðï áîñëú áëåøåú áô' ëì ôñåìé äîå÷ãùéï (ãó ìâ:) áëåø ùàçæå ãí àôé' îú àéï î÷éæéï ìå ãí ãáøé øáé éäåãä
(b) Question: A Mishnah in Bechoros (33b) says that if a Bechor is sick due to excess blood, even if it will die, one may not let blood. R. Yehudah says so;
åçë''à é÷éæ åáìáã ùìà éòùä ìå îåí åàí òùä áå îåí äøé æä ìà éùçåè òìéå ø' ùîòåï àåîø é÷éæ àò''ô ùòåùä áå îåí
1. Chachamim say, he may let blood, as long as he does not make a Mum. If he made a Mum, he may not slaughter due to it. R. Shimon says, he may let blood, even if he makes a Mum.
åîééúé áâî' áøééúà ãùîòúéï åîñ÷éðï áñåó äñåâéà àîø øá éäåãä àîø ùîåàì äìëä ëø' ùîòåï
2. The Gemara brings the Beraisa of our Sugya, and concludes at the end of the Sugya (34a) that Rav Yehudah said in the name of Shmuel that the Halachah follows R. Shimon;
åôøéê äé ø' ùîòåï àéìéîà ø' ùîòåï ãîúðé' òã äùúà ìà (ùîòéðï) [ö"ì àùîòéðï - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã] ùîåàì ãáø ùàéï îúëåéï îåúø àìà äìëä ëø' ùîòåï ãáøééúà
3. [The Gemara] asks, like which [teaching] of R. Shimon [does he rule]? If it is R. Shimon of our Mishnah, until now, did Shmuel not teach that Davar she'Eino Miskaven is permitted?! Rather, the Halachah follows R. Shimon of the Beraisa.
àìîà ìà ùøé ø' ùîòåï ááøééúà îèòí ãáø ùàéï îúëåéï àìà àôé' áîúëåéï ðîé ùøé
i. Inference: In the Beraisa, R. Shimon does not permit due to Davar she'Eino Miskaven. Rather, even if he intends it is permitted! (This Dibur continues on the next Amud.)
56b----------------------------------------56b
åúãò ãäà îôøù áùîòúéï ãôìéâé áîèéì îåí ááòì îåí ãøáé îàéø àñø åøáðï ùøå ëãàîøéðï é÷éæ àò''ô ùòåùä áå îåí ãúîéí éäéä ìøöåï ëúéá åáìáã ùìà éùçåè òìéå ãâæøéðï ãìîà àúé ìàòøåîé åìä÷éæ àôé' áìà àçæå ãí
(c) Support: In our Sugya it explains that they argue about one who blemishes a Ba'al Mum. R. Meir forbids and Chachamim permit, like we say "he may let blood, even if he makes a Mum", for it says "Tamim Yihyeh l'Ratzon", as long as he does not slaughter due to it. We decree lest he come to scheme and let blood even if is not sick due to excess blood;
åøáé ùîòåï îé÷ì èôé ãìà âæø åùøé àó ìùçåè òìéå àò''ô ùòùä îåí áîúëåéï
1. R. Shimon is more lenient and does not decree, and permits even to slaughter due to it, even though he intentionally makes a Mum.
åäà ãîôøùéðï èòîà ãø' ùîòåï áîúðéúéï îùåí ãáø ùàéï îúëåéï äééðå èòîà
(d) Implied question: Why do we explain R. Shimon's reason in our Mishnah due to Davar she'Eino Miskaven? (We can say that also in our Mishnah they argue about the Drashah, and whether or not we decree!)
îùåí ãòì ëøçéê îúðé' ìà àééøé ëòéï áøééúà ãáîúðé' úðï åçë''à é÷éæ åáìáã ùìà éòùä áå îåí åááøééúà ÷úðé åçë''à é÷éæ àó ò''ô ùòåùä áå îåí
(e) Answer: You are forced to say that our Mishnah is unlike the Beraisa. In our Mishnah it teaches "and Chachamim say, he lets blood as long as he does not make a Mum", and the Beraisa teaches "and Chachamim say, he lets blood even though he makes a Mum";
àìà äééðå èòîà îùåí ãáøééúà îééøé áùàéï ìå øôåàä àà''ë é÷éæ áî÷åí ùéòùä áå îåí ëîå áàåæï àå áðéá ùôúéí
1. Rather, the reason is because the Beraisa discusses when it has no cure unless he lets blood in a place that makes a Mum, e.g. in the ear or the upper lip;
äìëê çùéá äê àçéæú ãí ëîåí åäåä ìéä ëîèéì îåí ááòì îåí åàôéìå áîúëåéï ðîé ùøé îàçø ãàéï ìå øôåàä àìà àí éòùä ìå îåí
2. Therefore, being sick due to excess blood is like a Mum, and [letting blood in a place that makes a Mum] is like blemishing a Ba'al Mum, which is permitted, and even intentionally it is permitted, since it has no cure unless he makes a Mum;
àìà ãâæøéðï ìùçåè òìéå ãìîà àúé ìòùåú áå îåí ëùéù ìå øôåàä áòðéï àçø åøáé ùîòåï ìà âæø
i. However, we decree not to slaughter based on it, lest people come to make a Mum when there is a cure in another way. R. Shimon does not decree.
àáì áîúðé' ëùéù ìå øôåàä áä÷æú äâåó ùàéï òåùä îåí åàôé' äëé àñø ø' éäåãä ãâæø î÷åí ùàéï òåùä áå îåí àèå î÷åí ùòåùä áå îåí
(f) Distinction: However, in our Mishnah, when it has a cure through letting blood from the body [in a place] that does not make a Mum, and even so R. Yehudah forbids. He decrees a place that does not make a Mum due to a place that makes a Mum;
åøáðï ùøå áî÷åí ùàéï òåùä áå îåí ãìà âæåø
1. Rabanan permit in a place that does not make a Mum. They do not decree.
øáé ùîòåï àåîø é÷éæ àò''ô ùòåùä áå îåí ëìåîø àó áî÷åí ùéëåì ìáà ìéãé îåí åìà ùéäà ôñé÷ øéùéä åùøé ãø' ùîòåï ìèòîéä ãàîø ãáø ùàéï îúëåéï îåúø
2. R. Shimon says, he lets blood even though he makes a Mum. I.e. even in a place that can come to a Mum, but not that it is a Pesik Reishei (inevitable consequence), and it is permitted. This is like he taught elsewhere, for R. Shimon permits Davar she'Eino Miskaven.
åäùúà ðéçà ääéà ãô''÷ ãôñçéí (ãó éà.) ãîééúé äúí îúðé' ãáëåøåú åîôøù èòîà ãø' éäåãä îúåê ùàãí áäåì òì îîåðå àé ùøéú ìéä áî÷åí ùàéï òåùéï áå îåí àúé ìîéòáã áî÷åí ùòåùéï áå îåí
(g) Support: Now it is fine in Pesachim (11a). It brings there our Mishnah in Bechoros and explains R. Yehudah's reason because a person is frantic about his money. If you permit to him a place that does not make a Mum, he will come to do in a place that makes a Mum;
åøáðï ëì ùëï ãàé ìà ùøéú ìéä àúé ìîéòáã
1. Rabanan say that all the more so, if you do not permit him, he will come to do [in a place that makes a Mum].
åäùúà îä öøéê ìèòîà ãøáðï äåì''ì ãøáðï ùøå îùåí ãàôéìå îèéì îåí áîúëåéï ìéëà àéñåøà ãàåøééúà ëããøùéðï úîéí éäéä ìøöåï
2. Question: Why do we need to teach this reason for Rabanan? We should say that Rabanan permit because even one who intentionally blemishes a Ba'al Mum, there is no Isur Torah, like we expound "Tamim Yihyeh l'Ratzon"!
àìà äééðå èòîà ëãôøéùéú ãäúí îééøé áùéù ìå øôåàä ò''é ä÷æú äâåó ùàéï òåùä áå îåí
3. Answer: Rather, the reason is like I explained. There we discuss when it has a cure through letting blood from the body that does not make a Mum.
å÷öú ÷ùéà îúåøú ëäðéí ããøéù äúí ÷øàé åîééúé òìä ôìåâúà ãîúðé' ãäåä ìéä ìàéúåéé ôìåâúà ãáøééúà
(h) Question: Toras Kohanim expounds the verses there and brings the argument of our Mishnah. It should have brought the argument of the Beraisa!
åäëé àéúà áôøùú àîåø àì äëäðéí úîéí éäéä ìøöåï àéï ìé àìà òùä ìà úòùä îðéï ú''ì ëì îåí ìà éäéä áå
1. Citation (Toras Kohanim in Parshas Emor): "Tamim Yihyeh l'Ratzon" is an Aseh. What is the source for a Lav? "Kol Mum Lo Yihyeh Vo";
éëåì ðôì îï äââ (àå ðùáø) [ö"ì åðùúáø - öàï ÷ãùéí] éäà òåáø òìéå ú''ì ìà éäéä áå îåí àì úúï áå îåí îëàï àîøå áëåø ùàçæå ãí ëå' ëãàéúà ááëåøåú (ãó ìã.)
2. Citation (cont.): If it fell from the roof and became broken, perhaps one transgresses for it! It says "Lo Yihyeh Vo" - do not put a Mum in it. From here they said that if a Bechor is sick due to excess blood... like it says in Bechoros (34a).
10) TOSFOS DH ha'Kol Modim b'Mechametz Acher Mechametz she'Hu Chayav
úåñôåú ã"ä äëì îåãéí áîçîõ àçø îçîõ ùäåà çééá
(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with the Gemara in Avodah Zarah.)
ä÷ùä äøá øáéðå éò÷á îàåøìééð''ù îäà ãàîøéðï ô''÷ ãò''æ (ãó éâ:) (âîøà òéø) [ö"ì áâîøà ãòéø - áàøåú äîéí] ùéù áä òáåãú ëåëáéí âáé î÷ãéù áæîï äæä ã÷àîøéðï ðåòì ãìú áôðéä åäéà îúä îàìéä
(a) Question (Ri of Orlins): We say in Avodah Zarah (13b) in the Gemara [on the Mishnah of] an city that has idolatry in it, regarding one who is Makdish [an animal] nowadays, that he locks a door in front of it and it dies by itself;
åôøéê åðéùåééä âéñèøà åîùðé øáà ùðøàä ëîèéì îåí á÷ãùéí åôøéê ðøàä îèéì îåí îòìééà äåà åîùðé ëàï áæîï ùáéú äî÷ãù ÷ééí ëå'
1. The Gemara asks that we should cut it into two halves, and Rava answered that this would look like blemishing Kodshim. [The Gemara] asked that it does not merely appear so. It is truly blemishing!, and answers [that is] when the Mikdash stands [but nowadays that the animal cannot be offered, it merely looks like blemishing Kodshim].
åôøéê åìéäåé ëîèéì îåí ááòì îåí ãàò''â ãìà çæé ìä÷øáä àñåø åîùðé áòì îåí àò''â ãìà çæé ìâåôéä ìãîéä çæé ìàôå÷é äëà ãìà çæé ìà ìâåôéä åìà ìãîéä
2. [The Gemara] asks that this should be like blemishing a Ba'al Mum. Even though it cannot be offered, one may not blemish it further, and answers that a Ba'al Mum, even though it itself cannot be offered, its [redemption] money can be offered. Here (nowadays), we cannot offer the animal or its value.
åäùúà äøé îçîõ àçø îçîõ ãìà çæé ìà ìâåôéä åìà ìãîéä åçééá
3. Summation of question: Now, we find that Mechametz after Mechametz, [even though] it (the Minchah) cannot be offered, and not its value (there is no Pidyon for a Minchah after Kedushas Kli - below, 100b), and one is liable!
åé''ì ãáæîï äæä éù ìôèåø éåúø
(b) Answer #1: Nowadays there is more reason to exempt.
åòåã ãáîçîõ îéçééáé èôé ëãàîø äëà ãàôéìå îàï ãôèø îèéì îåí ááòì îåí îåãä áîçîõ àçø îçîõ ãçééá
(c) Answer #2: One is liable more for Chimutz, like it says here, for even the one who exempts one who blemishes a Ba'al Mum, he agrees that Mechametz after Mechametz is liable.
11) TOSFOS DH Lehavi Nosek Acher Kores
úåñôåú ã"ä ìäáéà ðåú÷ àçø ëåøú
(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes that even after Nosek, they are still in the sac.)
ôé' á÷åðèøñ áà àçã åëøú àú äáéöéí åäðéçí úìåééí áëéñ åáà àçø åðú÷ï ìâîøé
(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi): Someone came and cut the Beitzim (Kores), and left them hanging in the sac, and another came and totally cut them (Nosek).
åàé àôùø ìåîø ëï ãááëåøåú ôø÷ òì àìå îåîéï (ãó ìè:) àîøéðï ãðúå÷ åëøåú ìà äåå îåîéï ôéøåù îùåí ãàéúðäå áëéñ
(b) Rebuttal: One cannot say so, for in Bechoros (39b) we say that Nosek and Kores are not Mumim, i.e. because [the Beitzim] are in the sac!
åðøàä ãëåøú äééðå ùëøúå îî÷åí çéáåøå åìà ùðëøúå ìâîøé
(c) Explanation #2: It seems that Kores is when they are cut from where they are connected, but they are not totally cut off. (Nosek totally cuts them off, but they are still in the sac.)
12) TOSFOS DH Ela Lemi'utei Pesulei ha'Mukdashim Le'acher Pidyonam
úåñôåú ã"ä àìà ìîòåèé ôñåìé äîå÷ãùéï ìàçø ôãéåðí
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we did not answer differently.)
äåä îöé ìîéîø ìîòåèé áæîï äæä ãçùéá ìéä áô''÷ ãò''æ (ãó éâ:) ðøàä áòìîà
(a) Implied question: He could have said to exclude [blemishing a Korban] nowadays, which is considered in Avodah Zarah (13b) to merely look like [blemishing a Korban]!
åùîà ìà öøéê ÷øà ìäëé
(b) Answer: Perhaps we do not need a verse for this.
13) TOSFOS DH Amar Mum v'Amar Kol Mum
úåñôåú ã"ä àîø îåí åàîø ëì îåí
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the argument about expounding "Kol".)
äùúà ãøùé ëåìäå úðàé ëì
(a) Explanation #1: Now, all the Tana'im expound "Kol".
åúéîä ãáøéù àìå òåáøéï (ôñçéí îâ:) ãôøéê åøáé àìéòæø àéîà ëì ìøáåú àú äðùéí ëé ëì ìøáåú òéøåáå
(b) Question: In Pesachim (43b, the Makshan) asks that R. Eliezer should say that "Kol" includes women, and "Ki Kol" includes a mixture [of Chametz];
åëé úéîà øáé àìéòæø ìà ãøéù ëé ëì åäúðéà ëå' îàï ùîòú ìéä ããøéù ëì ø' àìéòæø
1. Citation (43b): Perhaps R. Eliezer does not expound "Ki Kol"! (This cannot be, for) a Beraisa teaches... who expounds "Kol"? It is R. Eliezer;
îàé ÷åùéà äà àéëà úðàé èåáà ããøùé ëì åëï ø' ò÷éáà áôø÷ äúòøåáåú (æáçéí ãó ôá.) âáé ëì çèàú
2. What was the difficulty (i.e. proof that it must be R. Eliezer)? Many Tana'im expound Kol, and similarly R. Akiva in Zevachim (82a) regarding "Kol Chatas"!
åé''ì ãî''î ÷ùéà ìéä äúí ãìà îùúîéè úðà áùåí ãåëúà [ùéñáåø] ãúòøåáú çîõ áëøú
(c) Answer #1: In any case it is difficult for [the Makshan] there, for we never find a Tana anywhere who holds that there is Kares for a mixture of Chametz.
åòåã àò''â ãìà ãøùé øáðï äúí ëì éù î÷åîåú ããøùéðï ëâåï áîøåáä (á''÷ ãó ñâ.) ãàîø ëì øáåéà äåà
(d) Answer #2: Even though Rabanan do not expound there Kol, there are places where they expound, e.g. in Bava Kama (63a). It says "Kol" is a Ribuy (inclusion);
åáôø÷ á' ãñåëä (ãó ëæ:) ãøéù ëì äàæøç áéùøàì éùáå áñåëåú îìîã ùëì éùøàì éåùáéï áñåëä àçú
1. And in Sukah (27b, Chachamim) expound "Kol ha'Ezrach b'Yisrael Yeshvu ba'Sukos" teaches that all of Yisrael can sit in one Sukah (even though not everyone owns a Perutah of it).
åø' éäåãä ãøéù äëà ëì îåí ìîèéì îåí ááòì îåí ìà ãøéù äúí ëì áøéù àìå òåáøéï (ôñçéí ãó îâ:) åáôø÷ ÷îà ãëøéúåú (ãó ã:) ðîé ãøéù ø' éäåãä ëì ãí
(e) Support: And R. Yehudah expounds here "Kol Mum" for one who blemishes a Ba'al Mum. He does not expound there Kol in Pesachim (43b). And also in Kerisus (4b), R. Yehudah expounds "Kol Dam"!
ìëê ðøàä ãäúí ëåìä áãáø ùàéï ñáøà ìøáåú ëâåï òéøåáå åëâåï ðùéí îùåí äé÷ù åëâåï î÷öúå ãáì ú÷èéøå
(f) Explanation #2: There (in Pesachim), the entire [question] is about something unreasonable to include, such as a mixture [of Chametz], or women, due to the Hekesh (to eating Matzah; normally, women are exempt from a Mitzvas Aseh sheha'Zman Gerama), or partial Haktarah (of Se'or).
äðé ãå÷à ùééê ìãîåú åòì æä ÷àîø ëîàï ëø' àìéòæø ããøéù ëì ìøáåú ãáø ùàéï ñáøà ìøáåú
1. Only these it is feasible to compare. Regarding this it says 'like whom is this? It is R. Eliezer, who expounds "Kol"', i.e. to include something unreasonable to include;
åòì æä ðîé ÷àîø åøáðï ëì ìà ãøùé ìøáåú ãáø ùàéï ñáøà ìøáåú
2. Also about this it says that Rabanan do not expound Kol, to include something unreasonable to include.
14) TOSFOS DH Hini'ach Se'or Al Gabei Isah... v'Nischamtzah me'Eleha
úåñôåú ã"ä äðéç ùàåø òì âáé òéñä åäìê åéùá ìå åðúçîöä îàìéä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why one is liable.)
åàò''â ãëúéá á÷øà ìà úòùä åìà úàôä îùîò îéãé ãòùééä ëâåï ìéùä åòøéëä åàôééä å÷éèåó
(a) Implied question: It is written Lo Sa'aseh and Lo Se'afeh, which connote action, e.g. kneading, arranging, baking and Kituf (smoothing the surface of the dough with water, or taking pieces for individual loaves from the big dough)!
äëé ðîé ìà úòùä ÷øéðï áéä
(b) Answer: We pronounce it Lo Sei'aseh (it will not become Chametz, i.e. even passively).
15) TOSFOS DH u'Ma'aseh Shabbos Ki Hai Gavna Mi Michayev v'Chulei
úåñôåú ã"ä åîòùä ùáú ëé äàé âååðà îé îéçééá ëå'
(SUMMARY: Tosfos justifies the comparison to Shabbos.)
àò''â ãäãáé÷ ôú áúðåø îéçééá
(a) Implied question: One who stuck bread on [the wall of] an oven is liable (on Shabbos, even though it bakes by itself)!
äúí îùåí ããøëå ìàôåú (ëåìå) [ö"ì áëê - ùéèä î÷åáöú]
(b) Answer: There it is because it is normal to bake like this;
àáì ëàï ëùàãí îðéç (ìôú ùàåø ùìí) [ö"ì ùàåø] ò''â òéñä àéï ãøëä ìäúçîõ ëåìä àìà àåúå öã ìçåãéä ùðåâò áùàåø åàåúå öã òöîå àéï ãøëå ìäúçîõ çéîåõ âîåø (ãëé ä''â ìà áòéðà) [ö"ì áëé ä''â àìà ëòéï - öàï ÷ãùéí, ç÷ ðúï] çîõ ðå÷ùä ããîé ìîàëì áï ãøåñàé
1. However, here, when a person puts Se'or on a dough, it does not normally ferment all of it, only the side that touches the Se'or, and that side itself does not normally become total Chametz in such a case, rather, like Chametz Nuksheh, which is k'Ma'achal Ben Drusai (partially cooked);
ìôéëê îãîé ìä îòùä öìé ùì ùáú ãäéôê áå çééá ìà äéôê áå ôèåø ãëì áöã àçã ëîàëì áï ãøåñàé ìàå ëìåí äåà:
2. Therefore, it compares it to an act of roasting on Shabbos, if he flipped [over the meat] he is liable. If he did not flip he is exempt, for anything [that cooks] on one side k'Ma'achal Ben Drusai has no significance.