1) TOSFOS DH R. Yosi v'R. Shimon Omerim (cont.)
úåñôåú ã"ä øáé éåñé åø''ù àåîøéí ëå' (äîùê)
åääéà ãáðåú ëåúéí îå÷îéðï áîñ' ðãä (ãó ìá.) ëøáé îàéø ãàîø âéøé àîú äï åîùåí ãìà ãøùé àùä åàùä ìøáåú ÷èðä áú éåí àçã
(a) Summation of question: The case of Kusi girls, we establish it in Nidah (32a) like R. Meir, who says that Kusim are Gerei Emes (proper converts), and [they decreed] because [Kusim] do not expound [the difference between] Ishah and "v'Ishah" to include a newborn girl!
åé''ì ãòì ëøçéï àôé' ìîàï ãàîø âéøé àøéåú äï àéú ìéä ðîé ääéà âæéøä ãëåìäå úðàé îåãå áùîåðä òùø ãáø
(b) Answer: You are forced to say that even according to the opinion that they are Gerei Arayos, he holds that they made that decree, for all Tana'im agree about the 18 decrees.
åàò''â ãááðåú òåáãé ëåëáéí ìà âæøå îòøéñúï àìà áú ùìù ãçæéà ìáéàä ëîå áúéðå÷ òåáã ëåëáéí ááï úùò ùðéí åéåí àçã ëãàéúà áôø÷ àéï îòîéãéï (ò''æ ãó ìæ.)
(c) Implied question: They did not decree about Nochri girls from birth, only from three years old, when she is proper for Bi'ah, just like [they decreed Tum'ah Zav on] a Nochri boy (when he is proper for Bi'ah, i.e.) from nine years and a day, like it says in Avodah Zarah (37a)!
äçîéøå òì ëåúéí ùìà éèîòå áäí îùåí ããîå ÷öú ìéùøàì åðåäâéï áîöåú áî÷öú åìäëé çùéáé ùúé âæéøåú ãàéðï ùååú
(d) Answer: [Chachamim] were [more] stringent about Kusim, lest [Yisraelim] mingle with them, for they resemble Yisrael somewhat, and observe some Mitzvos. Therefore they are considered two [decrees, because they are for different reasons];
åàôé' ìîàï ãáòé ìîéîø îòé÷øà áï éåí àçã çùéáé ùúé âæéøåú îùåí ãàé äåå âæøå àòåáãé ëåëáéí ìà äåä éãòéðï ëåúéí ìôé ùàéï äëåúéí àãå÷éí ëòåáãé ëåëáéí
1. And even according to the one who wanted to say initially [in Avodah Zarah, that they decreed Tum'as Zav on a Nochri] baby boy one day old (and likewise that a Nochri girl is Nidah from birth), they are considered two decrees, for had they decreed about Nochrim, we would not know Kusim, because Kusim are not avid [idolaters] like Nochrim;
åàé äåå âæøå àëåúéí äåä àîéðà îùåí ããîå ìéùøàì çééùéðï ìàéèîåòé èôé
2. And had they decreed about Kusim, one might have thought that because they resemble Yisrael, we are more concerned for mingling.
åäà ãîå÷é ìä áðãä ëø''î
(e) Implied question: In Nidah, why do we establish [the Mishnah] like R. Meir?
îùåí ñéôà ã÷úðé åäëåúéí îèîàéí îùëá úçúåï ëòìéåï ìôé ùäí áåòìé ðãåú
(f) Answer: It is due to the Seifa, which teaches "and Kusim are Metamei a Mishkav (something special to lie on) underneath like one on top (i.e. a Rishon l'Tum'ah)", because they are Bo'alei Nidos. (This shows that the concern is Tum'ah, and not mingling. Alternatively, this shows that Kusim are not Nochrim, for Nochrim are like Zavim, and they are Metamei underneath to be an Av ha'Tum'ah.)
åäà ã÷àîø øáé éåñé áâî' (ðãä ãó ìá.) îòùä äéä åäèáéìåä ÷åãí ìàîä ìàå îùåí ãèòîéä îùåí ðãåú
(g) Implied question: Why did R. Yosi say in the Gemara (Nidah 32a) that a case occurred in which they immersed [a baby girl from Nidah] before her mother [could become Tahor from Tum'as Yoledes]? This suggests that they decreed due to Tum'as Nidah!
àìà îùåí ãìà ìéäåé ëé çåëà åàéèìåìà àé äåå âæøé ãìéäåé èîàä åìà çæéà
(h) Answer: (According to R. Yosi, it is not due to Tum'as Nidah.) Rather, it is Pasul lest it be ludicrous if they decree that she is Temei'ah, and she is not proper to see [blood].
åà''ú åìø''î äéëé äåé îé''ç ãáø äà áëì ãåëúà äëé ãéðà åàôéìå îãàåøééúà ãäà øáé îàéø çééù ìîéòåèà
(i) Question: According to R. Meir, how is it from the 18 decrees? Every place (not only Kusim) this is the law, and even mid'Oraisa, for R. Meir is concerned for the minority (who see blood immediately)!
åé''ì ãîéòåèà ãìà ùëéç äåà åäåé ëîå îéòåèà ãîéòåèà åìà çééù ø''î
(j) Answer: This is a Mi'ut that is not common. It is like a minority of a minority. R. Meir is not concerned for it.
2) TOSFOS DH di'Chsiv Degancha Degancha Yeseira
úåñôåú ã"ä ãëúéá ãâðê ãâðê éúéøà
(SUMMARY: Tosfos gives two opinions about what is extra.)
ôé' á÷åðèøñ ãúøé ëúéáé çã áøàä àðëé åçã áùåôèéí
(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi): [Degancha] is written twice - in Parshas Re'eh, and in Shoftim.
åðøàä ãàéï öøéê ãúéøåùê åéöäøê äåé ëîå ãâðê åçùé' ëîå îéòåè àçø îéòåè ëãîåëç áô' øàùéú äâæ (çåìéï ÷ìä.)
(b) Explanation #2: We do not need this! Siroshcha v'Yitzharecha are like Degancha, and it is considered Mi'ut after Mi'ut, like is proven in Chulin (135a);
1. Note: It is written Degancha v'Siroshcha v'Yitzharecha twice regarding Ma'aser, and once regarding Terumah. According to Explanation #2, there are six Mi'utim. Above (66b DH Miru'ach), Tosfos explained how we expound three Mi'utim! Perhaps we need separate Drashos for Terumah and for Ma'aser; the fourth Drashah about Ma'aser is not needed for Ma'aser, so we use it to teach about Terumah. Tosfos means that we need not use the verse in Shoftim, about Terumah, to teach the second Mi'ut for Ma'aser. I do not know why Siroshcha v'Yitzharecha count as only one Mi'ut.
ãîîòè øáé àéìòàé ùåúôåú îãëúéá öàðê åøáðï îå÷îé ìéä ìùåúôåú òåáã ëåëáéí åø' àéìòàé ðô÷à ìéä îøàùéú ãâðê åøáðï øàùéú äôñé÷ äòðéï
2. R. Ilai excludes partnership, since it says Tzoncha, and Rabanan establish it for partnership with a Nochri, and R. Ilai learns from "Reishis Degancha", and Rabanan say that "Reishis" interrupted the matter.
àìîà ãàé ìàå ãàôñé÷ áøàùéú äåä àîéðà ããâðê ÷àé àâæ öàðê àò''â ãìàå áãéãéä ëúéá ëì ùëï ã÷àé àúéøåù åéöäø ãëåìäå áîòùø [ëúéáé]
3. Inference: If not for the interruption of Reishis, I would say that Degancha refers to Gez Tzoncha, even though it is not written about it. All the more so [the Mi'ut of Degancha] refers to [the Mi'utim of] wine and oil (so it is considered Mi'ut after Mi'ut), for all of them are written about Ma'aser!
åôéøåù ä÷åðè' òé÷ø:
(c) Conclusion: Rashi's Perush is primary. (Perhaps this is because the Torah needed to write separate Mi'utim for wine and oil, like we expound that they are different.)
3) TOSFOS DH Chad Arisoseichem v'Lo Isas Oved Kochavim...
úåñôåú ã"ä çã òøéñåúéëí åìà òéñú òåáã ëåëáéí åçã òøéñåúéëí åìà òéñú ä÷ãù
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses how we expound the exclusions.)
ìà ã÷ ãîòé÷øà äåä ìéä ìîòåèé òéñú ä÷ãù ãîñúáø èôé
(a) Observation: This is not precise. Initially, he should have excluded a dough of Hekdesh, which is more reasonable to exclude.
åàò''â ãîîòèéðï ðîé òéñú îòùø ùðé ìø''î áô' ëì ùòä (ôñçéí ãó ìç.) åáô' ìåìá äâæåì (ñåëä ìä: åùí)
(b) Implied question: We exclude also a dough of Ma'aser Sheni according to R. Meir in Pesachim (38a) and Sukah (35b)! (What is the source?)
äééðå îùåí ãäåé ëòéñú ä÷ãù ãñáø îîåï âáåä äåà
(c) Answer: This is because it is like a dough of Hekdesh, for he holds that [Ma'aser Sheni] is Hash-m's property (just people are allowed to eat it).
åîéäå ÷öú ÷ùä ãäúí îñé÷ îùåí ãëúéá úøé æéîðé òøéñåúéëí
(d) Question #1: There it concludes that [he excludes it] because it is written twice Arisoseichem!
åòåã ãøéù ìéä áô' øàùéú äâæ (çåìéï ãó ÷ìä:) ìëãé òéñåúéëí ôéøåù ëùéòåø òéñú îãáø åîòøéñåúéëí ãøéù îãáòé ìàå÷åîé îòé÷øà ìøáåú ùì ùåúôéï
(e) Question #2: We expound it in Chulin (135b) for the Shi'ur of Isoseichem, i.e. the size of the dough (that people made from the manna) in the Midbar, and we expound from Arisoseichem, since initially we wanted to expound it to include [dough] of partners!
åùîà ëåìäå ù''î
(f) Answer: Perhaps we learn all of them from it.
åà''ú ãäëà áòé úøé ÷øàé çã ìòåáã ëåëáéí åçã ìä÷ãù åëï ìâáé îéøåç ëãôéøù á÷åðèøñ
(g) Question: Here we need two verses, one for [a dough of] a Nochri, and one for Hekdesh, and similarly regarding Miru'ach, like Rashi explained;
åëï áôø÷ ùðé ãáëåøåú (ãó éâ:) ìâáé àåðàä áòé úøé (òîéúê) [ö"ì îéòåèé - ùéèä î÷åáöú] çã ìîòåèé òåáã ëåëáéí åçã ìîòåèé ä÷ãù
1. And similarly in Bechoros (13b) regarding Ona'ah (deception about the value of a sale item), we need two exclusions (Amisecha and Achiv), one to exclude a Nochri, and one to exclude Hekdesh, and similarly regarding Miru'ach, like Rashi explained;
åáô''÷ ãôñçéí (ãó ä: åùí) îîòèéðï îçã ìê ùì àçøéí åùì âáåä
2. And in Pesachim (5b) we exclude from one "Lecha" [Chametz] of others (Nochrim) and of Hash-m (Hekdesh)!
åâáé ðæ÷éï ðîé ãøùéðï áá''÷ (ãó ìæ:) øòäå åìà òåáã ëåëáéí åä÷ãù
3. And also regarding damages, we expound in Bava Kama (37b) "Re'ehu", and not a Nochri or Hekdesh!
åé''ì ãëéåï ãâìé ìï äëà âáé çìä ãä÷ãù åòåáã ëåëáéí ùåéï äåà äãéï áëì ãåëúà
(h) Answer: Since the Torah revealed here regarding Chalah that Hekdesh and Nochri are the same, the same applies elsewhere.
åäà ãîéáòéà ìï úøé ÷øàé âáé àåðàä
(i) Implied question: [If so] why do we need two verses regarding Ona'ah?
ùàðé äúí ãñ''ã ëéåï ãîåñéó çåîù áä÷ãù ë''ù ãàéú áéä àåðàä åàò''â ãä÷ãù ùåä îðä ùçéììå òì ùåä ôøåèä îçåìì
(j) Answer: There is different. One might have thought that since one adds a Chomesh for [redemption of] Hekdesh, all the more so Ona'ah applies to it, and even though if one redeemed Hekdesh worth 100 Zuz on a Perutah, it is redeemed. (Chemdas Daniel - one might have thought that this is only when the Makdish redeems it, but Ona'ah applies when someone else redeems it. A Mi'ut teaches that this is not so.)
åéù ñôøéí ãâøñé äëà çã ëãé òéñåúéëí ëããøùéðï áøàùéú äâæ (çåìéï ÷ìä:) åìà âøñéðï åìà òéñú òåáã ëåëáéí
(k) Alternative text: The text in some Seforim says here "one teaches the Shi'ur of your dough", like we expound in Chulin (135b), and the text does not say "and not dough of a Nochri."
åìâéøñà æå ä÷ãù åòåáã ëåëáéí îçã ÷øà ðô÷à
(l) Explanation: According to this text, we learn Hekdesh and Nochri from one verse.
4) TOSFOS DH Oved Kochavim she'Hifrish Peter Chamor
úåñôåú ã"ä òåáã ëåëáéí ùäôøéù ôèø çîåø
(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes that this refers to the donkey itself.)
ôéøù á÷åðèøñ ùäôøéù ùä
(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi): He separated a Seh [to redeem a firstborn donkey].
å÷ùä àôé' áùì éùøàì ìéëà îùåí ÷ãåùä ãçåìéï âîåøéï äåà åúðï áô' ÷îà ãáëåøåú (ãó è.) åàí îú ðäðéï áå
(b) Question: Even if a Yisrael did so, it has no Kedushah, for it is absolute Chulin. A Mishnah (Bechoros 9a) teaches that if it died, we may benefit from it!
àìà åãàé áôèø çîåø âåôéä îééøé ëøáé éäåãä
(c) Explanation #2: Rather, surely we discuss a firstborn donkey itself, like R. Yehudah;
ãúðéà áôø÷ ÷îà ãáëåøåú (âí æä ùí:) ôèø çîåø àñåø áäðàä ãáøé ø' éäåãä
1. Citation (Bechoros 9b - Beraisa - R. Yehudah): It is forbidden to benefit from a firstborn donkey.
5) TOSFOS DH u'Terumaso Einah Medama'as
úåñôåú ã"ä åúøåîúå àéðä îãîòú
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses Terumas Chutz la'Aretz of a Yisrael.)
îùîò äà úøåîú çåöä ìàøõ ãéùøàì îãîòú
(a) Inference: Terumah of Chutz la'Aretz of a Yisrael is Medame'a (if it was mixed with Chulin, it forbids the mixture).
åäà ãàîø áô' òã ëîä (áëåøåú ëæ. åùí) âáé úøåîú çåöä ìàøõ îáèìä áøåá øáä îáèì ìä áøåá åàëéì ìä' (àééøé) áéîé èåîàúå ìà ëãáøé ôøù''é ãàí ðúáèì áøåá ùøéà àôé' ìæø
(b) Implied question: It says in Bechoros (27a) about Terumah of Chutz la'Aretz "one may be Mevatel it in a majority. Rabah was Mevatel it in a majority, and ate it in the days of his Tum'ah." Rashi says that if it was Batel in a majority, it is permitted even to a Zar!
(åäëà( [ö"ì ãäëà - ùéèä î÷åáöú] îùîò áäãéà ãîãîòú åàñåø àìà ìëäï áéîé èåîàúå ãå÷à äåà ãùøéà ãøáä ëäï äåä åîãáéú òìé ÷àúé
(c) Answer: [This is wrong,] for here it explicitly connotes that it is Medama'a and [the mixture] is forbidden! It is permitted only to a Kohen in the days of his Tum'ah, for Rabah was a Kohen. He was from Beis Eli.
åîéäå àåúí ùúé çìåú ùòåùéï àçú ìàåø åàçú ìëäï ëãúðï áîñëú çìä ôø÷ áúøà (î''ç) àí ðúòøáä àåúä ùì ëäï àéðä îãîòú åùøé àôé' ìæø ëãîåëç áéøåùìîé [ô''ã ãçìä]
(d) Distinction: The two Chalos that they [separate from dough in Chutz la'Aretz] - one is burned and one is [given] to a Kohen, like the Mishnah teaches in Chalah (4:8), if the one of the Kohen became mixed, it is not Medame'a, and it is permitted even to a Zar, like is proven in the Yerushalmi in Chalah;
ãàîø òìä äåøä øáé àáäå ááöøä ùäéà öøéëä øåá àîø øáé éåðä îìîã ùäéà òåìä áôçåú (îàçã) îîàä åàéðä ðàñøú (áàçã åîàä - éùø åèåá îåç÷å)
1. It says about it that R. Avahu ruled in Batzrah that it needs a majority. R. Yonah said that this teaches that it is Batel in less than 100, and does not forbid;
à''ø æòéøé îúðé' àîøä ëï àôé' àçã áàçã ãúðéà åðàëìú òí äæø òì äùåìçï åîùîò ìéä ìôé äîñ÷ðà ãàôéìå àçã áàçã ùøé
2. R. Ze'iri said, a Beraisa teaches that even one [mixed] in one (it is Batel, even without a majority)! A Beraisa says that it is eaten with a Zar on the table. It connotes to him according to the conclusion that even one in one is permitted.
åùîà äéëà ãàåúä çìä ùäéä ùì ëäï ëëø âãåì ùðúòøá àéï ìä÷ì ëãàùëçï (áéöä ãó â:) âáé àú ùãøëå [ìéîðåú] ãøáé ò÷éáà îåñéó àó ëëøåú ùì áòì äáéú ãçùéáé åìà áèìé
(e) Suggestion: Perhaps when the Chalah of the Kohen is a big loaf that became mixed, one may not be lenient, like we find (Beitzah 3b) regarding "we learned that Es she'Darko Limnos [is never Batel]", R. Akiva adds loaves of a Ba'al ha'Bayis. They are important, and they are not Batel.
åîéäå îãä÷éìå ëì ëê ãîñé÷ áéøåùìîé ãàôé' àçã áàçã ùøé îñúáøà ãìà ùðà
(f) Rejection: However, since we are so lenient - the Yerushalmi concludes that even one in one is permitted - presumably, we do not distinguish.
6) TOSFOS DH Gezeirah Mishum Ba'alei Kisin
úåñôåú ã"ä âæéøä îùåí áòìé ëéñéï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos tries to resolve this with other Sugyos.)
àìéáà ãø''ù ãôèø ìòéì îéøåç òåáã ëåëáéí îñ÷éðï äëé ãçééá îãøáðï åîãîòú áàøõ
(a) Explanation: According to R. Shimon, who exempts above Miru'ach Nochri, we conclude like this, that it is obligated mid'Rabanan, and it is Medame'a in Eretz Yisrael.
åúéîä ãàîøéðï áøéù ôø÷ ùðé ã÷ãåùéï (ãó îà:) úøåîú òåáã ëåëáéí îãîòú åçééáéï òìéä çåîù åø''ù ôåèø
(b) Question: We say in Kidushin (41b) that Terumah of a Nochri is Medame'a, and [a Zar who eats it] must pay a Chomesh, and R. Shimon exempts!
åé''ì ãäúí îãàåøééúà ôìéâé
(c) Answer #1: There they argue about mid'Oraisa.
à''ð àçåîù äåà ãôìéâ åîåãä ãîãîòú
(d) Answer #2: He argues about the Chomesh, and agrees that it is Medame'a.
åàí úàîø (îëàï îòîåã á) ìøá ôôà åìøáéðà ãìà îùîò ìäå ãîéçééá îãøáðï ú÷ùé ìäå ãø''ù àãøáé ùîòåï áñåó ô''÷ ãáëåøåú (ãó éà:)
(e) Question: According to Rav Papa and Ravina, who hold that [the Beraisos] do not connote that he is obligated mid'Rabanan, it is difficult for them. R. Shimon contradicts what he said in Bechoros (11b)!
67b----------------------------------------67b
ãîééúé äúí îúðéúéï ãúðï áîñëú ãîàé ôø÷ ùìéùé (î''ã) äîô÷éã ôéøåúéå àöì äëåúé åàöì òí äàøõ áçæ÷úï ìîòùø åìùáéòéú àöì äòåáã ëåëáéí ëôéøåúéå ø''ù àåîø ãîàé
1. [The Gemara] brings there the Mishnah in Demai (3:4) of one who deposits his Peros with a Kusi or with an Am ha'Aretz. They keep their Chazakah for Ma'aser and Shemitah. [If he deposits] with a Nochri, they are like [the Nochri's] Peros. R. Shimon says, they are Demai (Safek Tevel);
àìîà àé åãàé çìôéðäå òåáã ëåëáéí çééá ìø''ù
2. Inference: If [the Nochri] Vadai switched them [with his own Peros], he is obligated according to R. Shimon [like Tevel Vadai]!
åéù ìåîø ãäðê ãäëà îùîò ìäå îãàåøééúà îùåí ãàé îãøáðï àôéìå çìä ðîé ãìà îñ÷é àãòúééäå (äðê ùéðåéé) [ö"ì äê ùéðåéà - éùø åèåá]
(f) Answer: [The Beraisos] here connote to [Rav Papa and Ravina] that it is mid'Oraisa, for if it were mid'Rabanan, also Chalah [should be obligated], for this answer [to distinguish Chalah from Terumah] did not cross their minds.
åà''ú äà ãàîøéðï áñô''÷ ãáëåøåú (ãó éà: åùí) äìå÷ç èáìéí îîåøçéï îï äòåáã ëåëáéí îòùøï åäï ùìå
(g) Question: We say in Bechoros (11b) that one who buys Tevel from a Nochri after Miru'ach, he tithes them and the tithes are his;
åôøéê ãîøçéðäå îàï àéìéîà ãîøçéðäå òåáã ëåëáéí ãéâåðê àîø øçîðà åìà ãéâåï òåáã ëåëáéí
1. [The Gemara] asks, who did Miru'ach? If the Nochri did Miru'ach [it should be exempt, for] the Torah said "Digunecha", and not Digun Nochri!
åîàé ÷åùéà äà îñ÷éðï ãçééá îãøáðï âæéøä îùåí áòìé ëéñéï
2. What was the question? We conclude here that he is obligated [to tithe them] mid'Rabanan. This is a decree due to rich people!
åàéï ìåîø ãä''î ëùäéä îúçéìúå ùì éùøàì åîëøå ìòåáã ëåëáéí åîéøçå òåáã ëåëáéí ãìà îéôèø àáì áàåúå ùäéä îúçéìúå ùì òåáã ëåëáéí äúí ìà ùééëà âæéøä îùåí áòìé ëéñéï
3. Implied suggestion: [The decree due to rich people] is only when initially it was a Yisrael's, and he sold it to a Nochri, and the Nochri did Miru'ach. It is not exempted. However, what was initially the Nochri's, there a decree due to rich people does not apply.
ìàå îéìúà äéà ãàôé' áâø îñ÷éðï äê âæéøä ãìà îéôèø áîä ùîîøç ÷åãí ùðúâééø
4. Rejection: This is wrong, for even a convert, we conclude this decree, and it is not exempted through Miru'ach before he converted! (Sefas Emes - Tosfos explains the Beraisa of a Peter Chamor like Rashi, that it discusses a Nochri who converted. His Terumah is forbidden!)
åàéï ìåîø ãàé îãøáðï âæøä îùåí áòìé ëéñéï ìà [ö"ì äåä - ùéèä î÷åáöú] àîø ãäï ùìå îäàé èòîà âåôéä
5. Implied suggestion: If it were mid'Rabanan, i.e. a decree due to rich people, it would not say that the Ma'aser is his, for this reason itself [lest he avoid giving Ma'aser].
à''ë äà ãà''ø àìòæø äúí äà åãàé çìôéðäå ãë''ò áòé ìîéúáéðäå ìëäï åôøéê òìä îäà ãîòùøï åäï ùìå
6. Rejection: R. Elazar said there that if [the Nochri] Vadai switched [the Yisrael's Peros with his own], all agree that one must [tithe and] give [the Terumah] to a Kohen. The Gemara asks from [the Mishnah] "he tithes, and the tithes are his";
îàé ÷åùéà ääéà ãø' àìòæø îãøáðï
i. What was the question? [If the suggestion is true,] R. Elazar's law is only mid'Rabanan!
7) TOSFOS DH Kedei she'Tehei Behemto Ocheles u'Peturah Min ha'Ma'aser
úåñôåú ã"ä ëãé ùúäà áäîúå àåëìú åôèåøä îï äîòùø
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses how the decree due to Ba'alei Kisin helped.)
áðãä ôø÷ ëì äéã (ãó èå:) ôéøù á÷åðèøñ ããå÷à áäîúå ùäåà àëéìú òøàé àáì àëéìú ÷áò (ìà äééðå) [ö"ì àñåø - öàï ÷ãùéí] îãøáðï
(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi, Nidah 15b): This refers only to his animal, which is Achilas Arai (haphazard), but Achilas Keva is forbidden mid'Rabanan.
å÷ùä îäà ãôøéê äúí åàéï ñô÷ îåöéà îéãé åãàé åäúðéà çáø ùîú åäðéç îâåøä ëå' åîùðé ãñô÷ åñô÷ äåà îùåí ãùîà òáéã ëø' àåùòé'
(b) Question: What was the question there "does Safek not uproot Vadai [Isur]? A Beraisa teaches that if a Chaver died and left a granary [even if it was harvested that day, we assume that he tithed it!]" It answers that it is a Safek [if there was an Isur], for perhaps he did like R. Oshaya, and a Safek [if it was fixed];
åàé áäîúå ãå÷à àëúé úé÷ùé ìéä ãìàãí åãàé èáåì ìàëéìú ÷áò
1. If it is permitted only for his animal, this is difficult, for it is Vadai Tevel (i.e. forbidden) for a person to eat Achilas Keva!
îéäå ääåà àéëà ìùðåéé ãñô÷ îåöéà îéãé åãàé áãøáðï
(c) Answer: However, we can answer that a Safek uproots Vadai for mid'Rabanan Isurim.
åáô''÷ ãôñçéí (ãó è.) ãîééúé ìä àáãé÷ú çîõ ãøáðï âáé àéï çåùùéï ùîà âéøøä çåìãä
(d) Implied question: In Pesachim (9a) this [question] is brought regarding Bedikas Chametz mid'Rabanan!
âáé çîõ äçîéøå ëåãàé ãàåøééúà
(e) Answer: Regarding Chametz, [Chachamim] were stringent like a Vadai Torah [Isur].
àáì ÷ùä îäê ãùîòúéï ãàé áäîúå ãå÷à àëúé ìà ìéôèø îéøåç òåáã ëåëáéí îàëéìú àãí ãìà àôùø ìîéôèø ðôùéä ëø' àåùòéà ìòðéï àëéìú òöîå åùééê ìîéâæø áéä îùåí áòìé ëéñéï
(f) Question #1: Our Sugya is difficult! If [the Heter] is only for his animal, still, Miru'ach Nochri does not exempt for people to eat. He cannot exempt himself like R. Oshaya for his own eating, and it is applicable to decree due to rich people!
åäéä îôøù ä''ø àôøéí îúåê ëê ãìàãí òöîå ðîé ùøé åáäîúå ãð÷è ìôé ùãøëå ìäòøéí áìùåï æä ùìöåøê áäîúå îëðéñ ùîúáééù ìåîø ìöåøê òöîå
(g) Answer (R. Efrayim): Due to this [question, it seems that R. Oshaya's scheme] permits also for the person himself. It mentioned his animal because it is normal to scheme in these words, that he enters it for the need of his animal, for he is embarrassed to say that it is for his own need.
åàò''â ãàëéìú ÷áò àñåø ÷åãí øàééú ôðé äáéú
1. Implied question: (How can it help for him himself?) Achilas Keva is forbidden [even] before it enters the house!
äééðå äéëà ãéëåì ìáà ìéãé çéåá ëùéøàä ôðé äáéú àáì äéëà ùäëðéñä áîåõ ùìä åîéøçä ááéú ùåá àéðå éëåì ìáà ìéãé çéåá
2. Answer: This is when it can come to a Chiyuv when it will enter the house. However, when he entered it in its chaff and did Miru'ach in the house, it cannot come to a Chiyuv.
òåã å÷ùä ãáô''÷ ãáéöä (ãó éâ:) úðéà äëðéñ ùáìéï ìòùåú îäï òéñä àåëì îäï òøàé åôèåø
(h) Question #2: In Beitzah (13b), a Beraisa teaches that if he entered sheaves to make a dough, he eats Arai and he is exempt;
åáúåñôúà ÷úðé áäãéà (îëðéñ) [ö"ì äëðéñ - éã áðéîéï, ò"ô äúåñôúà] ìáéú å÷úðé ãå÷à òøàé àáì ÷áò ìà àò''â ãäëðéñï áîåõ ãäà ùáìéï ÷úðé
1. And the Tosefta explicitly teaches that he entered it in the house, and it teaches only Arai, but not Keva, and even though he entered it in its chaff, for it taught sheaves!
åòåã ÷ùä (àëúé éëåì ìáà ìéãé çéåá ìî''ã) [ö"ì ãàëúé éëåì ìáà ìéãé çéåá ãäà ìîàé ãîúøõ - éùø åèåá] áäùåëø àú äôåòìéí (á''î ôç:) ãçéèéï åùòåøéï áðé âåøï ðéðäå áâåøï úìéðäå øçîðà (ãìà) [ö"ì ìà - éùø åèåá] âøò òùàï âåøï ááéú îòùàï âåøï áùãä (ãçééá) [ö"ì ãäà çééá - éùø åèåá] áìà øàééú ôðé äáéú
(i) Question #3: Still, it can come to a Chiyuv, for according to the answer in Bava Metzi'a (88b) that a granary applies to wheat and barley, the Torah made them dependent [solely] on a granary. It is no worse if a made a granary in his house than if he made a granary in the field, for it is obligated without seeing the opening of the house! (Therefore, also according to the answer that it depends on a granary and seeing Pnei ha'Bayis, it helps to take them out after Miru'ach and enter them again, for the answers do not argue about what is considered a granary.)
åðøàä ìôøù ãäà ãôøéê äëà àé äëé úøåîä ðîé òáéã ìéä ëøáé àåùòéà (ãîéãé) [ö"ì áîéãé - äø öáé] ãîàëì áäîä ÷ùéà ìéä îä äåòéìå çëîéí áú÷ðúï ëâåï ùòåøéï åùáìú ùåòì ùäåà îàëì ìñåñéí åìøëù
(j) Explanation #2: We ask here "if so, also for Terumah, he can do like R. Oshaya!" regarding animal food, e.g. barley and oats, which are food for horses and Rechesh (mules?). How did Chachamim's enactment help?
åòåã éù ìôøù ãäëé ôøéê úøåîä ðîé òáéã ìä ëø' àåùòéà åàò''â ãø' àåùòéà ìà îäðé àìà ìàëéìú òøàé ìòðéï àëéìú òøàé (àîàé) [ö"ì îéäå - èäøú ä÷åãù] ìà ðâæåø îùåí áòìé ëéñéï ëéåï ãéëåì ìôèåø òöîå îòøàé ëãø' àåùòéà
(k) Explanation #3: We ask here "also for Terumah, he can do like R. Oshaya!" Even though R. Oshaya's [leniency] helps only for Achilas Arai, regarding Achilas Arai in any case they should not decree due to rich people, since he can exempt himself from [tithing for Achilas] Arai, like R. Oshaya!
åò''ë ëé âæåø îùåí áòìé ëéñéï ààëéìú òøàé âæåø
1. Assertion: You are forced to say that when they decreed due to rich people, they decreed about Achilas Arai;
ãàé ààëéìú ÷áò îòé÷øà ðîé áìàå äëé ìà àëéì (ãäúí) [ö"ì ãäà - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã] âí îéøåç äòåáã ëåëáéí ðîé ìà äéä ôåèø àìà îòøàé àôé' ëé ìà âæøå îùåí áòìé ëéñéï
i. Proof: If it were for Achilas Keva, also initially (before the decree) one may not eat [without tithing], for also Miru'ach Nochri exempts only for Arai, even if they did not decree due to rich people;
ãðäé ãâìâåì òåáã ëåëáéí ôåèø ìâîøé äééðå îùåí ãëé îùåéú ìéä ë÷åãí âìâåì ùøé ìâîøé
ii. Granted, kneading of a Nochri totally exempts, i.e. because if you consider [the dough] like before kneading, it is totally permitted;
àáì îéøåç òåáã ëåëáéí ëé îùåéú ìéä ðîé ëìà ðúîøç îéúñøà îéäà àëéìú ÷áò
iii. However, Miru'ach Nochri, when you consider [the Peros] as if Miru'ach was not done, in any case Achilas Keva is forbidden.
åäà ã÷àîø ìòéì çìú òåáã ëåëáéí áàøõ åúøåîúå áçåöä ìàøõ îåãéòéï àåúå ùäåà ôèåø çìúå ðàëìú ìæøéí åúøåîúå àéðä îãîòú äà áà''é îãîòú
(l) Implied question: Above (67a) it says that Chalah of a Nochri in Eretz Yisrael, and his Terumah in Chutz la'Aretz, we inform him that he is exempt. Zarim may eat his Chalah, and his Terumah is not Medame'a. This implies that in Eretz Yisrael, it is Medame'a;
åãéé÷ îéðä ãñáø âìâåì äòåáã ëåëáéí ôåèø îéøåç äòåáã ëåëáéí àéðå ôåèø
1. [The Gemara] infers that he holds that kneading of a Nochri exempts, and Miru'ach Nochri does not exempt;
îùîò äà àí äéä îéøåç òåáã ëåëáéí ôåèø äéúä úøåîúå ðàëìú ìæøéí ëîå çìä
2. Inference: If Miru'ach Nochri exempted, Zarim could eat his Terumah, just like Chalah!
äééðå äúí ãúáåàä ùì òåáã ëåëáéí ùìà äéúä òåîãú ìäúçééá áîòùø îéôèøà ðîé ìâîøé
(m) Answer: That refers to the Nochri's grain, which was not destined to be obligated in Ma'aser. Also it is totally exempted (just like his Chalah);
àáì àåúä ùúçéìúä ùì éùøàì åîëø ìòåáã ëåëáéí ìà îéôèø îéøåçå àìà îòøàé
1. However, what was initially a Yisrael's, and he sold it to a Nochri, [the Nochri's] Miru'ach exempts only for Arai.
åîéäå ìâîøé îñ÷éðï îùåí áòìé ëéñéï àôéìå úçéìúä ãòåáã ëåëáéí åîëø ìéùøàì çééá ëãôéøù' ìòéì îãìà îéôèø òåáã ëåëáéí ùîøç ÷åãí ùðúâééø
(n) Remark: However, we conclude that [they obligated Miru'ach Nochri] totally, due to rich people. Even if initially it was a Nochri's and he sold to a Yisrael, it is obligated, like I explained above (DH Gezeirah), since we do not exempt a Nochri who did Miru'ach before he converted. (Even though the reason for the decree does not apply there, we must say that Chachamim decreed in every case.)
åà''ú åî''ù îîéøåç ä÷ãù ìòéì ãôèø ìâîøé
(o) Question: Why is [Miru'ach Nochri] different than Miru'ach Hekdesh above, which totally exempts?
åúðï ðîé áô''÷ ãîñ' ôàä (î''å) äî÷ãéù (åäôåãä) [ö"ì åôåãä - éùø åèåá] çééá áîòùø òã ùéîøç äâæáø
1. Also a Mishnah (Pe'ah 1:6) teaches that one who is Makdish and redeems, he is obligated in Ma'aser, unless the Gizbar did Miru'ach!
åé''ì ãäúí îùåí ôñéãà ãä÷ãù àå÷îåä øáðï àãàåøééúà
(p) Answer: There, due to [avoiding] a loss to Hekdesh, Chachamim left Torah law in effect.
å÷öú éù ãåç÷ ìôéøåù æä ã÷åãí âæéøä ãáòìé ëéñéï îä ùééê ìçì÷ áéï äéä îúçéìúå ùì òåáã ëåëáéí ìàåúå ùäéä ùì éùøàì åîëøå ìòåáã ëåëáéí
(q) Question: Explanation #3 is difficult. Before the decree due to rich people, how can you distinguish if it was initially a Nochri's, from what was initially a Yisrael's, and he sold it to a Nochri? (Yashar v'Tov - above, Tosfos said that the latter was destined to be obligated. However, since in the decree due to rich people we do not distinguish, and decreed in every case, also before the decree we should not distinguish, and obligate every Achilas Keva.)
åàí ùééê ìçì÷ áå à''ë àçø ùâæøå îùåí áòìé ëéñéï àîàé âæøå òì àåúå ùäéä îúçìúå ùì òåáã ëåëáéí
1. And if it is possible to distinguish, if so after they decreed due to rich people, why did they decree about what was initially a Nochri's?
åî''î ìà éúëï ôé' æä ãáîñ' (ôàä) [úøåîåú] ôø÷ úùéòé (î''æ) îùîò ãîéøåç äòåáã ëåëáéí ôåèø îàëéìú òøàé ãúðï äîðëù òí äòåáã ëåëáéí áçñéåú àò''ô ùôéøåúéå èáì àåëì îäï òøàé
(r) Rebuttal (of Explanation #3): This cannot be, for in Terumos (9:7) it connotes that Miru'ach of a Nochri exempts from Achilas Arai [even after the decree], for the Mishnah says "one who weeds with a Nochri in Chasiyos (this will be explained shortly), even though his Peros are Tevel, he eats from them Arai";
ëìåîø ùèáì äéå ëùæøòí ãîï äîîåøç æøò )ãâéãåìé) [ö"ì åâéãåìé - éùø åèåá] èáì àñåø áãáø ùàéï æøòå ëìä ëãúðï äúí åçñéåú ãáø ùàéï æøòå ëìä äí ëãúðéà áñåó äðåãø îï äéø÷ (ðãøéí ðç:)
1. Explanation: They were Tevel when he planted them, for he planted from what had Miru'ach, and Gidulei (what grows from) Tevel is forbidden in something whose seed does not decompose, and Chasiyos are something whose seed does not decompose, like a Beraisa teaches in Nedarim (58b).
åäà ãùøé òøàé òì ëøçéï ìàå ëîàï ãàîø äëà àéðå ôåèø ãàåøééúà ãìãéãéä àôé' òøàé àñåø
2. This that it permits Arai, you are forced to say that it is unlike the opinion that does not exempt here mid'Oraisa, for according to him, even Arai is forbidden;
àìà ëî''ã ôåèø åëé âæåø îùåí áòìé ëéñéï á÷áò àáì áàëéìú òøàé ìà âæåø
3. Rather, it is like the opinion that exempts, and when they decreed due to rich people, they decreed about Keva, but they did not decree about Achilas Arai.
8) TOSFOS DH Kedei she'Tehei Behemto Ocheles
úåñôåú ã"ä ëãé ùúäà áäîúå àåëìú
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why one may not feed Tevel to his animal.)
åà''ú äéëï îöéðå ãèáì àñåø áäðàä
(a) Question: Where do we find that Tevel is Asur b'Hana'ah?
åé''ì ãðô÷à ìï ëããøùéðï áô' áîä îãìé÷éï (ùáú ëå.) àéï îãìé÷éï áèáì èîà îùåí îùîøú úøåîåúé áùúé úøåîåú äëúåá îãáø
(b) Answer: We learn from what we expound in Shabbos (26a) one may not light with Tamei Tevel [oil] due to "Mishmeres Terumosai" - the verse discusses two Terumos;
îä úøåîä èäåøä àéï ìê áä àìà îùòú äøîä åàéìê ôé' àëéìúä àó úøåîä èîàä ëï ãäééðå äãì÷ä
1. Just like you may have [benefit from] Tahor Terumah only after separation, i.e. eating it, also Tamei Terumah, i.e. burning it.
åäãø âîøéðï èäåøä îèîàä ãîéúñø áäãì÷ä ÷åãí äøîä [ö"ì àó èäåøä - öàï ÷ãùéí] åëï ìäàëéìä ìáäîúå (ëì) [ö"ì åëì - éùø åèåá] äðàåú ùì ëéìåé ãäåé ëòéï äãì÷ä
2. Afterwards we learn Tahor from Tamei, which is forbidden to light before separation, also Tahor. The same applies to feeding it to his animal and all benefits that consume it, which are like burning.
åìà ëîå ùôé' á÷åð' ãåå÷à èáì èîà àáì áèáì èäåø îãìé÷éï àìà ð÷è èîà åë''ù èäåø
3. This is unlike Rashi explained, that only Tevel Tamei [is forbidden], but one may burn Tahor Tevel. Rather, it mentioned Tamei, and all the more so Tahor.
åîääéà ãøùà âåôà éãòéðï ãàéï éùøàì îàëéì ìáäîúå ëøùéðé úøåîä
(c) Inference: We learn from this Drashah itself that a Yisrael may not feed his animal vetch (horsebean) of Terumah. (It is primarily for animals, but people can eat it.)
9) TOSFOS DH (Yatzak) Nasan Shamno u'Levonaso Yatzak v'Balal
úåñôåú ã"ä (éö÷ ðúï úçéìä ùîï åìáåðúå) [ö"ì ðúï ùîðå åìáåðúå éö÷ åáìì - éùø åèåá]
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that oil is put three times.)
(éö÷) [ö"ì ôé' ä÷åðèøñ - éùø åèåá] ðúï úçéìä ùîï åìáåðúå ÷åãí äñåìú éö÷ ìàçø ðúéðú ñåìú åáìì ùëï ãøê ëì äîðçåú ùðåúï ùîï úçéìä áëìé åàç''ë ðåúï ñåìú åçåæø åéåö÷ òìéä ùîï åáåìì
(a) Explanation (Rashi): He put the oil and Levonah before the flour. He poured [oil] after putting the flour and mixed, for this is the way of all Menachos. First he puts oil in the Kli, and afterwards he puts flour, and returns and pours oil on it and mixes;
åòåã éù ðúéðú ùîï ùìéùéú ùìà äæëéø á÷åðèøñ ãúðï ì÷îï áô' àìå îðçåú (ãó òã:) ëì äîðçåú äðòùåú áëìé èòåðåú ùìùä îúðåú ùîï éöé÷ä åáìéìä åîúï ùîï áëìé ÷åãí ìòùééúï
(b) Observation: Further, there is a third putting of oil that Rashi did not mention. A Mishnah below (74b) teaches that all Menachos made in a Kli require three Matanos of oil - pouring, mixing and putting oil in the Kli before making them;
åðøàä ãëåìäå úðé ìäå äëà ãðúï ùîðå äåà ðúéðú ùîï úçéìä áëìé åéö÷ åáìì äéà éöé÷ä åáìéìä ãì÷îï
1. It seems that all of them are taught here. "He put its oil" is putting oil in the Kli initially. "He poured and mixed" is Yetzikah and Belilah below.
åáéï äëà åáéï äúí äåä ìéä ìîéúðé áìéìä áøéùà ãéö÷ äéà éöé÷ä àçøåðä ãîøáéðï ëì äîðçåú ìéöé÷ä áø îîðçú îàôä ì÷îï áôø÷ àìå îðçåú (ãó òã:)
(c) Observation: Both here and there, he should have taught Belilah first, for "Yatzak" is the final Yetzikah. We include all Menachos for Yetzikah, except for Minchas Ma'afe [Tanur], below (74b);
ùëê äåà äñãø úçéìä ðåúï äùîï áëìé åðåúï äñåìú åìù áôåùøéí åðåúï ùîï òìéå áåìì åçåæø åðåúï ùîï ì÷ééí îöåú éöé÷ä å÷åîõ
1. This is the order. First he puts oil in the Kli initially. He puts the flour and kneads with lukewarm water. He puts oil on it and mixes, and returns to put oil to fulfill the Mitzvah of Yetzikah, and [then] takes a Kometz.
10) TOSFOS DH Yatzak v'Balal
úåñôåú ã"ä éö÷ åáìì
(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks why salting was omitted.)
úéîä ãìà úðé îìç ëã÷úðé áä÷åîõ øáä (ìòéì éç.) ìà éö÷ ìà áìì ìà îìç
(a) Question: Why does it not teach salting, like it taught above (18a) "[if] he did not do Yetzikah or Belilah or salting"?
11) TOSFOS DH uv'Sha'as ha'Bi'ur
úåñôåú ã"ä åáùòú äáéòåø
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why they argue about after the time of Bi'ur.)
áùòä ùùéú àáì îëàï åàéìê ìà éáãå÷ åàôéìå ìà áã÷ áæîðå îùåí ããéìîà àúé ìîéëì îéðéä ëùîåöàå áôñç
(a) Explanation #1: This is in the sixth hour. However, from now and onwards he does not check, and even if he did not check in its time, lest he come to eat from it when he finds it during Pesach;
åøáðï ôìéâé òìéä ãàîøé ìà áã÷ áúåê (äôñç) [äîåòã] ëìåîø áîåòã ùøéôúå ãäééðå áùù éáãå÷ ìàçø äîåòã áúåê äôñç òöîå åìà âæøéðï ãìîà àúé ìîéëì îéðéä ëê ôéøù (îëàï îãó äáà) á÷åðèøñ
1. Rabanan argue with him. They say that if he did not check during the Mo'ed, i.e. the time to burn it, i.e. at six hours, he checks after the Mo'ed, during Pesach itself. We do not decree lest he come to eat from it. So explained Rashi.