1)

TOSFOS DH Kegon she'Pigel bi'Shechitah d'Havi Matir Echad

úåñôåú ã"ä ëâåï ùôéâì áùçéèä ãäåé îúéø àçã

(SUMMARY: Tosfos rejects the Rashbam's Perush.)

ôéøù øáéðå ùîåàì áùòú ùçéèä çéùá ò''î ìéúï îúðåú ùáôðéí çåõ ìæîðå àå îúðåú ääéëì àå îúðåú ãîæáç

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashbam): At the time of Shechitah, he intended to put the Matanos inside Chutz li'Zmano, either the Matanos of the Heichal or the Matanos of the Mizbe'ach;

åäééðå ôéâì áéï áøàùåðä áéï áùðéä áéï áùìéùéú ëîå ùåçè ùìîéí ò''î ìæøå÷ çåõ ìæîðå àå ò''î ìä÷èéø âøéãà ãäåé ôéâåì ìë''ò ëéåï ãëì äùçéèä äåéà áôéâåì

1.

This is "he was Mefagel, whether in the first [Matanos] or second or third", like one who slaughtered a Shelamim with intent to do Chutz li'Zmano just Zerikah or just Haktarah. All agree that it is Pigul, since the entire Shechitah was with Pigul [intent. He need not intend to do all the Avodos Chutz li'Zmano.]

[åôøéê] à''ä îàé èòîà ãøáðï ãàôéìå ìùôåê ùéøéí ìîçø ÷ééîà ìï (ìòéì ãó éâ: (äâää áâìéåï)) ãäåé ôéâåì

2.

[The Gemara] asks if so, what is Rabanan's reason? Even to spill Shirayim tomorrow, we hold (below, 13b) that it is Pigul!

îàï çëîéí ø' àìéòæø äéà ãëéåï ãìø' àìéòæø ìà îéçééá áëæéú (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí) àçú áçåõ äëé ðîé àé ôéâì ìà äåé ôéâåì

3.

[It answers] who are Chachamim? They are R. Eliezer. Since R. Eliezer does not obligate for one [offering] k'Zayis outside, likewise if he was Mefagel [in only one set of Matanos], it is not Pigul.

åîéäå ìà éúëï ìôøù ëï ãìôéøåù æä àé àôùø ìééùá ëìì áîä ãáøéí àîåøéí áãîéí äðúðéï òì äîæáç

(b)

Rebuttal: We cannot explain so. According to this, we cannot resolve at all "what is the case? This refers to blood put on the Mizbe'ach."

åôéøåù ä÷åðèøñ òé÷ø:

(c)

Explanation #2: Rashi's Perush is primary. ("In the second or third" discusses when the blood spilled after one or two sets of Matanos, and he was Mefagel in Shechitah of an animal brought to complete the Matanos.)

2)

TOSFOS DH Man Chachamim R. Eliezer Hi

úåñôåú ã"ä îàï çëîéí øáé àìéòæø äéà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes that this is rejected in the end.)

åî÷éìéðï èôé ìòðéï ôéâåì ãäà àôéìå ìî''ã ãîçééá àëæéú (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí) ÷åîõ áçåõ åàéìå ôéâåì àôéìå á÷åîõ ùìí ìà äåé ôéâåì àí ìà ôéâì áìáåðä

(a)

Explanation: We are more lenient about Pigul, for even according to the opinion that one is liable for offering a k'Zayis of a Kometz outside, for Pigul, even [if he intended Chutz li'Zmano] for an entire Kometz, it is not Pigul if he was not Mefagel in the Levonah.

åîãøáé àìéòæø ìçåãéä îééúé øàéä [ãôåèø] âáé çåõ ë''ù ãìà äåé ôéâåì

1.

He brings a proof from R. Eliezer alone. He exempts for [offering] outside. All the more so it is not Pigul!

åìîàé ãîñé÷ ãîåãä ø' àìéòæø áãîéí ìà ëîå ùôé' á÷åðèøñ ãîçééá áî÷öú ãîéí áçåõ îëìì ãäåé ôéâåì

(b)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): According to the conclusion, R. Eliezer agrees about blood. I.e. he obligates for some of the blood outside. This implies that it is Pigul!

ãàéï æä øàéä ëãôøéùéú åìà àúé àìà ìãçåú äà ãùðéðå äà îðé øáé àìéòæø äéà:

(c)

Rejection (and Explanation #2): This is not a proof, like I explained (that we are more lenient about Pigul). Rather, [the conclusion] comes only to reject what we answered "it is R. Eliezer."

3)

TOSFOS DH Kegon she'Pigel b'Rishonah uv'Sheniyah uv'Shelishis

úåñôåú ã"ä ëâåï ùôéâì áøàùåðä åáùðéä åáùìéùéú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos brings two ways that Rashi explained this.)

ôéøù á÷åðèøñ åáøáéòéú ìà ôéâì

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): He was not Mefagel in the fourth.

å÷ùä øáéòéú îàï ãëø ùîéä

(b)

Question: No one mentioned the fourth!

åáô' ùðé ãîðçåú (ãó èæ:) ôé' á÷åðèøñ ùôéâì áøàùåðä åáùðéä åùú÷ áùìéùéú

(c)

Explanation #2 (Rashi, in Menachos 16b): He was Mefagel in the first and second, and he was silent in the third.

åà''ú à''ë ÷ùéà îéãé ùú÷ ÷úðé ëãà÷ùé ìòéì

(d)

Question: If so, this is difficult. Did it teach "he was silent", like we asked above?

åùîà ìòéì ãùú÷ áàîöòéú äåä ìéä ìôøåùé èôé ëéåï ãøàùåðä åùìéùéú áîçùáä åùðéä áùúé÷ä

(e)

Answer: Perhaps above, that he was silent in the middle, there was more need to explain, since the first and third were with [Pigul] intent, and the second was in silence.

åìäàé ôéøåùà çùéá ëì äæàåú ãîæáç äæäá àçú ùáò ãèäøå åàøáò ã÷øðåú

(f)

Consequence: According to this Perush, all Haza'os of the gold Mizbe'ach are one - the seven on Tiharo and the four of the Keranos.

åëï îùîò áôø÷ äåöéàå ìå (éåîà ãó ñà.) ãúðéà åëôø àú î÷ãù (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) ä÷åãù æå ìôðé åìôðéí åàú àäì îåòã æä äéëì åàú äîæáç ëîùîòå

(g)

Support: It connotes like this in Yoma (61a). A Beraisa teaches "v'Chiper Es Mikdash ha'Kodesh" - this is inside [the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim]. "V'Es Ohel Mo'ed" - this is the Heichal. "V'Es ha'Mizbe'ach" is like it connotes;

åìà ÷úðé ëìì òì èäøå îùîò ãçùéá ãîæáç ëôøä àçú

1.

Inference: It did not teach at all "on Tiharo." This connotes that [all Matanos on] the Mizbe'ach are considered one Kaparah.

òåã ÷àîø äúí îéëï àîøå ëå' òã âîø îúðåú ùáäéëì åðùôê äãí éáéà àçø åéúçéì áîúðåú äîæáç ðúï î÷öú îúðåú äîæáç åðùôê äãí éáéà àçø åéúçéì áúçéìä (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú)

(h)

Support #2: It says there (61a) also "before the end of the Matanos in the Heichal and the blood spilled, he brings another [Korban] and starts with Matanos of the Mizbe'ach. If he put some Matanos of the Mizbe'ach and the blood spilled, he brings another [Korban] and starts from the beginning";

àáì ìà ÷úðé âîø ì÷øðåú åðùôê äãí ùéáéà àçøéå åéúçéì áèäøå ãëåìäå çùéáé ëàçú

1.

However, it did not teach "if he finished the Keranos and the blood spilled", he brings another and starts from Tiharo", for all [Matanos of the Mizbe'ach] are considered one.

å÷ùä ãì÷îï [÷àîø] îùëçú ìä áã' ôøéí åã' ùòéøéí ôéøåù çã àäæàåú ãáéï äáãéí åçã àäæàåú ãôøëú åçã àäæàåú ã÷øðåú åçã àèäøå àìîà ìà çùéáé ëçãà äæàåú ã÷øðåú åãèäøå

(i)

Question: Below (42b), it says that we find the case with four Parim and four Se'irim. I.e. one is for Haza'os Bein ha'Badim (between the staves of the Aron), one is for Haza'os [towards] the Paroches, one is for Haza'os of the Keranos, and one is on Tiharo. This shows that Haza'os of the Keranos and Tiharo are not considered one!

åùîà ôø øáéòé ãì÷îï ìàå îùåí ãòì èäøå àìà ñáéøà ìéä ãùéøéí îòëáéï åäåé çã áùáéì ùéøéí

(j)

Answer: Perhaps the fourth Par below is not for Tiharo. Rather, he holds that Shirayim are Me'akev, and one is for Shirayim.

åìôéøåù æä ðåëì ìâøåñ ëâåï ùôéâì áøàùåðä åáùðéä åáùìéùéú åëï áñôø øáéðå âøùåí ëàï åáä÷åîõ æåèà (îðçåú ãó èæ.)

(k)

Consequence: According to this, the text [here] can say "the case is, he was Mefagel in the first, second and third." And so is the text in Rabbeinu Gershom here, and in Menachos (16a);

çùéá çöé îúéø îùåí ãàéëà òãééï ùéøééí ãîòëáé

1.

It is considered Mefagel in half a Matir because there are still the Shirayim, which are Me'akev (and he was not Mefagel in them).

åà''ú åäà áòì ëøçéï ñáø äàé úðà ùéøééí ìà îòëáé îãìà çùéá àìà î''â ãääåà ãñáø ùéøééí îòëáé çùéá çãà èôé ëãîåëç áñîåê

(l)

Question: You are forced to say that this Tana holds that Shirayim are not Me'akev, since he counts only 43. The one who holds that they are Me'akev, he counts one more, like is proven below (42b)!

åé''ì ãàò''â ãùéøééí îòëáé ìà çùéá äàé úðà àìà äæàåú:

(m)

Answer: Even though Shirayim are Me'akev, this Tana counts only Haza'os.

42b----------------------------------------42b

4)

TOSFOS DH Ki Madi b'Heichal Maya b'Alma ka'Madi

úåñôåú ã"ä ëé îãé áäéëì îéà áòìîà ÷îãé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses when we say so.)

ä÷ùä á÷åðèøñ áä÷åîõ [ö"ì æåèà á÷åîõ - âîøà òåæ åäãø] åùåçè àå î÷áì ðîé ðéîà ãìà îéôâì ãëé çùéá áùçéèä àå (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí) á÷áìä àéôñéì åëé æøé÷ îéà áòìîà æøé÷

(a)

Question (Rashi in Menachos 16a): Also Kometz, Shochet or Mekabel, we should say that it does not become Pigul. When he had intent in Shechitah or Kabalah, it became Pasul. When he does Zerikah, he throws mere water!

åúéøõ ãäúí âæéøú äëúåá äåà

(b)

Answer #1 (Rashi here): There, it is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv. (Rashi here asked only about Shechitah.)

åáä÷åîõ æåèà (îðçåú ãó èæ:) úéøõ ãàåúä òáåãä ùôéâì áä ðòùéú ëåìä á÷ãåùúä ùåçè ò''î ìæøå÷ àå ìä÷èéø åëï î÷áì ò''î ìæøå÷ àå ìä÷èéø

(c)

Answer #2 (Rashi in Menachos 16b): That Avodah in which he was Mefagel was done totally in its Kedushah - Shechitah with intent for Zerikah or Haktarah, and similarly Kabalah with intent for Zerikah or Haktarah;

àáì äðê äæàåú ëåìäå çãà òáåãä äéà åìà ÷øáå îúéøéï äòáåãä á÷ãåùúï

1.

However, the other Haza'os are one Avodah, and the Matirim of the Avodah were not offered in their Kedushah.

i.

Note: Shitah Mekubetzes says that the following is a comment, which asks like Tosfos asks in the coming Dibur. We do not explain like this, rather, like Tzon Kodoshim.

å÷ùä ãëé ôéâì áäæàåú ùì áéï äáãéí àéðê ãäéëì îéí ðéðäå

(d)

Explanation #1: [The Gemara] asks that when he was Mefagel in Haza'os of Bein ha'Badim, the other [Haza'os] of the Heichal are mere water!

àáì áäæàä øàùåðä ùì áãéí ìà ôøéê ãùàø äæàåú ùì áãéí îéà

(e)

Implied question: It could ask also about the first Haza'ah Bein ha'Badim! [If it was with Pasul intent,] the other Haza'os Bein ha'Badim are mere water!

ãéù ìåîø éôâì áàçøåðä

(f)

Answer #1: We can say that he was Mefagel in the last Haza'ah.

àå ëéåï ãçã î÷åí äåé àéï áëê ëìåí [ëîå ùàôøù] áñîåê

(g)

Answer #2: Since it is one place, this is not a problem, like I will explain below.

àé ðîé é''ì ãðéçà ìéä ãìà äåå ùì áéï äáãéí îéà îùåí ãìà ðâîø äôéâåì òã ùéæøå÷ ëì äæàåú ùì áéï äáãéí

(h)

Answer #3: [The Makshan] understands why [the other Haza'os] of Bein ha'Badim are not [like] water, because Pigul is not completed until he throws all the Haza'os of Bein ha'Badim. (Tzon Kodoshim explains "[the Kohen who sprinkles] does not want [the other Haza'os] of Bein ha'Badim to be [like] water...");

àáì àåúï ùì äéëì ìà úìéà áäå âîø äôéâåì ëéåï ùàí ðùôê äãí îáéà ôø àçø åéúçéì áäéëì åìà áéï äáãéí

1.

However, [Haza'os] of Bein ha'Badim, completion of Pigul does not depend on them, since if the blood spilled, he brings another Par and begins in the Heichal, and not Bein ha'Badim;

åëï ääæàåú ùì îæáç äæäá ìà úìå áäæàåú ùì äéëì ìîéâîø áäå ôéâåì ùì äéëì

2.

Similarly, Haza'os of the gold Mizbe'ach do not depend on Haza'os of the Heichal, to complete the Pigul of the Heichal.

åìøáðï ìà ôøéê ãëéåï ãàéï îôâìéï áçöé îúéø åöøéê ìôâì ëì ääæàåú àí ëï ìà ðâîø äôéâåì òã ùôéâì áëåìï îúçéìú áéï äáãéí òã âîø ùì èäøå

(i)

Remark: There is no question against Rabanan. Since Ein Mefaglin in half a Matir, and he needs to be Mefagel in all the Haza'os, if so Pigul is not finished until he is Mefagel in all of them, from the beginning of Bein ha'Badim until finishing Al Tiharo.

åîùðé áã' ôøéí ëãé ìçùá åìôâì áëì äî÷åîåú ÷àîø àøáòä åä''ä áôø øàùåï ùì áéï äáãéí åðùôê äãí åäáéà ôø ùðé åòùä (ôø ùðé) îîðå ùì äéëì åùì îæáç áùúé÷ä ãäåé ôéâåì ìø' îàéø. áøåê.

(j)

Explanation #1 (cont.): [Rabah] answers with four Parim. He said four in order to have intent and be Mefagel in all the places. The same applies to the first Par Bein ha'Badim, and the blood spilled, and he brought a second Par and did from it Haza'os of the Heichal and Mizbe'ach in silence. It is Pigul according to R. Meir. This is from R. Baruch.

å÷ùä ãàí ëï ôéâì á÷åîõ åìà áìáåðä ìøáé îàéø ìéôøåê àîàé äåé ôéâåì áçöé îúéø

(k)

Question: If so, if he was Mefagel in the Kometz but not in the Levonah, we should ask according to R. Meir, why is it Pigul in half a Matir?

åäê òáåãä ìà ðòùéú á÷ãåùúä åëé î÷èø ììáåðä òôøà áòìîà î÷èø

1.

This Avodah was not done in its Kedushah. When he is Maktir the Levonah, he burns mere earth!

åëé úéîà îùåí ãäåå ùðé îéðéí

2.

Suggestion: It is because they are two species.

àëúé ÷ùä îùðé áæéëéï àí ìà ðçì÷ ëéåï ãáòå ùðé ëìéí ãäåå ëùðé îéðéí åäåé ôéâåì

3.

Rejection: Still it is difficult from two spoons [of Levonah of Lechem ha'Panim], unless we distinguish - since they are two Kelim, it is like two species, and it is Pigul.

åøáéðå úí îôøù ãáçã î÷åí ôùéèà ìéä ãìà àîøéðï îéà áòìîà äåà

(l)

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): In one place it is obvious that we do not say that it is mere water;

ã÷îãé úçéìú òáåãä áâîø òáåãä åäëé âæéøú äëúåá àáì áùðé î÷åîåú áäëé ìà àééøé ÷øà åîéà áòìîà ÷îãé:

1.

He compares initial Avodah to final Avodah. It is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv. However, the verse does not discuss in two places, and he throws mere water;

5)

TOSFOS DH Mishkachas Lah b'Dalet Parim

úåñôåú ã"ä îùëçú ìä áã' ôøéí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how he can be Mefagel inside.)

åà''ú àëúé äæàåú ùáôðéí äéëé îùëçú ìéä ôéâåì áôø àçã îëéåï ùäæä áøàùåðä áîçùáä àéãê îéà áòìîà ÷îãé

(a)

Question: Still, how do we find Pigul in the Haza'os inside in one Par? Since he sprinkled the first time with [Pasul] intent, the other [Haza'os] are mere water! (Tzon Kodoshim - in the previous Dibur, Tosfos brought that the Makshan asked this only regarding the Heichal. Tosfos asks according to the truth. Rabah cannot hold like the third answer above, for if so, he would not need to establish the case with four Parim.)

åìøáéðå úí àúé ùôéø ãçã î÷åí äåà

(b)

Answer #1: According to R. Tam this is fine, for it is one place.

åéù ìåîø ëâåï ùôéâì áäæàä àçøåðä ùì áéï äáãéí

(c)

Answer #2: The case is, he was Mefagel in the last Haza'ah of Bein ha'Badim.

6)

TOSFOS DH Ha k'Man d'Amar Shirayim Me'akvin

úåñôåú ã"ä äà ëîàï ãàîø ùéøééí îòëáéï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks why below, Rami bar Chama did not support himself from here.)

ö''ò ô' àéæäå î÷åîï (ì÷îï ãó ðá:) ã÷àîø øîé áø çîà äàé úðà ñáø ùéøééí îòëáé åîééúé îáøééúà åãçé ìä åäåä îöé ìàúåéé äê

(a)

Question #1: Below (52b), Rami bar Chama said "this Tana holds that Shirayim are Me'akev", and he brings [a proof] from the Beraisa, and rejects it. He could have brought from this!

åòåã îáøééúà ãìòéì (ãó ìè.) ããîéí äèòåðéï éñåã èòåðéï ëéáåñ åîçùáä ôåñìú áäï åîå÷îéðï ìä áùéøéí åëîàï ãàîø ãîòëáé

(b)

Question #2: He could have brought from the Beraisa above (39a) that blood that needs [to be put on the Yesod] must be laundered, and intent disqualifies it. We establish it to discuss Shirayim, and like the opinion that it is Me'akev!

7)

TOSFOS DH ha'Kometz

úåñôåú ã"ä ä÷åîõ

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses why Pigul does not apply to it.)

ä÷ùä á÷åðèøñ áä÷åîõ æåèà (îðçåú ãó éã.) ìîä ìé ãàéï ìå îúéøéï àìà äåà òöîå îúéø àçøéí ëãàéúà áâî'

(a)

Question (Rashi in Menachos 14a): Why must we say that it has no Matirim, rather, it permits others, like it says in the Gemara?

úéôå÷ ìé ãáìàå äëé ðîé ôùéèà ã÷åîõ ìà îéçééá òìéä îùåí ôéâåì ãäà àé àëéì îéðéä ô÷ò ôéâåìå îîðå ùäøé ìà ÷øá îúéø ëîöåúå

1.

Even without this, obviously one is not liable for Pigul for the Kometz, for if he ate it the Pigul is uprooted, for the Matir was not offered properly!

åúéøõ ëâåï ùäåöúä äàåø áøåáå ãçùéá ëîàï ã÷øá äîúéø ëã÷àîø áä÷åîõ øáä (ùí ãó ëå:) îàéîúé îúéø ùéøéí áàëéìä îùäåöú äàåø áøåáå

(b)

Answer #1 (Rashi): The case is, most of it caught fire. It is considered as if the Matir was offered, like it says in Menachos (26b) "when does [the Kometz] permit eating the Shirayim? It is from when the majority catches fire."

å÷ùä ìôéøåùå ãàé äåöú äàåø áøåáå à''ë ô÷ò ôéâåìå îîðå ëãàîø òåìà áâî' (ãó îâ.) ãàí éøãå ðîé éòìå åäåà äãéï àôéìå îàëéìä ëãîùîò áëøéúåú ôø÷ àîøå ìå (ãó éã. åùí)

(c)

Question: If the majority caught fire, if so Pigul was uprooted from it, like Ula said in the Gemara (43a) that even if Im Yarad Ya'aleh, and likewise even eating it [is permitted], like it connotes in Kerisus (14a! Our Mishnah says that one is not liable for it, i.e. but one may not eat it!)

åé''ì ãîééøé ùçöéå äòìä ò''â îæáç åçöéå ìà äòìä ãòì ääåà ãààøòà ìà ô÷ò ôéâåìå îîðå åçééá òìéå àé ìàå îùåí ãäåà âåôéä îúéø äåà

(d)

Answer: We discuss when half was brought up on the Mizbe'ach, and half was not brought up. Pigul was not uprooted from what is on the ground, and one would be liable for it, if not that it itself is a Matir;

ãäà ãàîø áâî' ìâáé ÷åîõ ãôéâåì (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) ãôìâà îçéú ààøòà åôìâéä îñ÷éä àîòøëä åîùìä áå äàåø ô÷ò ôéâåìå åîñ÷éðï ìéä ìëúçéìä åáô' àîøå ìå (âí æä ùí) îúéøå ìéä ìàëéìä

(e)

Implied question: It says in the Gemara (43b) about a Pigul Kometz, that half was on the ground and half was put on the marh, and it caught fire, its Pigul was uprooted, and we bring up [the other half, on the Mizbe'ach] l'Chatchilah, and in Kerisus (14a) we permit eating it...

îééøé ëùäéä ëáø òì äîæáç ääåà ôìâà ãîçéú ààøòà àáì äéëé ãìà òìä ìîæáç îòåìí ìà

(f)

Answer #1: That discusses when the half on the ground was already on the Mizbe'ach. However, if it was never on the Mizbe'ach, no;

ëãîåëç áëøéúåú (âí æä ùí) ãàåúå ÷öú àáø ãçåõ ìîæáç ìà îñ÷éðï ìéä åäåä ìéä ôéâåì àò''â ãøåáà ãàáø àîæáç àí àéúà ãìà äìëå áàáøéí àçø äøåá åëì ùëï ÷åîõ ãîéôøú ãìà îñ÷éðï ìéä (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú)

1.

This is proven in Kerisus (14a), that the part of a limb that is outside the Mizbe'ach, we do not bring it up, and it is Pigul, even though most of the limb is on the Mizbe'ach, if it is true that for limbs, we do not follow the majority, and all the more so a Kometz, which is not [considered] connected, we do not bring up [what was on the ground].

åîéäå îúåê ôé' ä÷åðèøñ (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) ãáâîøà îùîò ãàôéìå ìà òìä àîæáç îñ÷éðï ìéä ìëúçéìä

(g)

Answer #2: Rashi (43b) connotes that even if [the remainder] had not gone up on the Mizbe'ach, we bring it up l'Chatchilah;

åìà ãîéà ìääéà ãëøéúåú ëîå ùîôøù ø''ú ùä÷åîõ ëåìå çùåá àæëøä àçú îéòåèä îòëá àú øåáä (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) åääåà ôìâà ãòì äîæáç îùéê ìéä ìôìâà ãààøòà

1.

This is unlike the case in Kerisus, like R. Tam explains, for the entire Kometz is considered one Azkarah (regarding Haktarah, the Torah calls the Kometz "Azkarasah", its remembrance), and the half on the Mizbe'ach draws the half on the ground [to be like it, and it is offered];

ãàé ìàå äëé äåä ääåà ãòì äîæáç ÷åîõ ùçñø åéøã åà''ë ëéåï ãîùéê ìéä ô÷ò ôéâåìå îîðå

2.

If not [that the entire Kometz is considered one], the part on the Mizbe'ach would be a deficient Kometz, and it would be brought down. If so, since it draws it, the Pigul is uprooted from it;

àáì ôìâà ãàáø ìà îùéê àéãê ôìâà ãäåà òöîå ùìà äå÷èøå àéîåøéå ëùø àò''â ãîòé÷øà ñì÷à ãòúê ã÷åîõ âøò îùåí ãîéôøú

(h)

Distinction: However, half a limb does not draw the other half, for [a Korban itself] whose Eimurim were not offered is Kosher, even though initially we thought that a Kometz is worse (there is less reason to say that one part draws the other), because it is disconnected (and now we say that a Kometz is better).

åîôøù ø''ú ãèòîà ã÷åîõ ìàå îùåí ãäåà îúéø àìà îùåí ãìà ùééê áéä äøöàä

(i)

Explanation (R. Tam): The reason [why Pigul does not apply to] a Kometz is not because it is a Matir, rather, because Ritzuy does not apply to it;

ãàé àëìå åìà äòìäå àí ëï ìà ÷øáå îúéøéå åàé äòìä çöéå ô÷ò ôéâåìå îëåìéä àôéìå îääåà ãààøòà

1.

If he ate it and did not offer it, its Matirim were not offered. If he offered half, Pigul was uprooted from all of it, even from the part on the ground.

åäà ã÷àîø áâîøà åîåöéà àðé àú ä÷åîõ áäãé (îëàï îãó äáà) äðäå ãàéï ìå îúéøéï

(j)

Implied question: Why does it say in [a Beraisa in] the Gemara (44a) 'I exclude Kometz" with these others that have no Matirim?

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF