ZEVACHIM 74 (13 Tamuz) - Today's Dafyomi study is dedicated to the blessed memory of U.S. Army Staff Sgt. Seymour Ira Gottlieb (Yitzchak Shimon ben Chaim Shlomo Yosef ha'Levi, Z"L), who died in World War II on the 13th of Tamuz 5704 in the battle of St. Lo, France, fighting the Nazis to save his Jewish brethren in Europe.

1)

TOSFOS DH v'Tanan R. Eliezer Omer v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä åúðï ø''à àåîø ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we do not support Rava from Rabanan.)

ìà ùééê ìîéîø àãôøéê îø' àìéòæø ìñééòéä îãøáðï ãàîøå àôéìå ÷øáå ëåìï çåõ îàçã îäï éöàå ìáéú äùøéôä åâáé ëåñåú éùôê ìàîä

(a)

Implied question: Rather than challenging him from R. Eliezer, we should support him from Rabanan who say that even if all of them were offered except for one of them, all of them go to Beis ha'Sereifah, and regarding cups of blood, they are spilled to the Amah!

ãìîà ãøáðï ìàå îùåí ãçééä ôñìé àìà îèòí àçøéðà

(b)

Answer: Perhaps Rabanan do not disqualify due to Dichuy, rather, for another reason.

2)

TOSFOS DH v'Naflah Achas Mehen l'Yam ha'Gadol Hutru Kulan

úåñôåú ã"ä åðôìä àçú îäï ìéí äâãåì äåúøå ëåìï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the reason for this Heter, and when it applies.)

îùåí ãîãàåøééúà áøåáà áèéì ëãôéøùðå [îù''ä] ä÷éìå ëàï

(a)

Explanation: This is because mid'Oraisa it is Batel in a majority, like we explained. Therefore they were lenient here.

åãå÷à ðôìä îîéìà àáì äôéìä àôéìå ùåââ ÷ðñéðï àèå îæéã

(b)

Limitation: This is only if it fell by itself, but if he made it fall, even b'Shogeg, we fine him due to Mezid.

åãå÷à ìéí äâãåì ùàéðä áòéï àáì ôéøùä ìà ëãîåëç áääéà ãáñîåê ôøùå (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) àøáòéí ìî÷åí àçã ãìà îäðéà ôøéùúä ìäúéø äùàø

(c)

Limitation: This is only if it fell to Yam ha'Gadol, that it is not intact, but not if it separate, like is proven in the case below of 40 that separated to one place. Its separation does not help to permit the others.

åëï îåëç ã÷àîø øá ãàîø ëø''à

1.

This is proven also from [the Gemara], which says that Rav taught like R. Eliezer. (We conclude that he permits only two at a time, lest the Isur is still there).

åâáé àéï äîãåîò îãîò àìà ìôé äçùáåï ùîòéðï ìéä ìø''à áô''ä (ëï ðøàä ìäâéä) ãúøåîåú ãàîø äéà ñàä ùðôìä äéà ñàä ùòìúä àáì äàçøéí ìà ðú÷ðå

2.

And regarding Meduma [Terumah mixed with Chulin. Chachamim say that it] forbids a mixture only according to the calculation [of Terumah in it - Terumos 5:5,6], we know that R. Eliezer [is stringent, and] says that the Se'ah [of Terumah] that fell [into Chulin] is the [same] that was removed, but the others (what remains in the mixture) were not fixed (permitted).

3)

TOSFOS DH Rav d'Amar k'R. Eliezer

úåñôåú ã"ä øá ãàîø ëø''à

(SUMMARY: Tosfos justifies this assertion.)

úéîä äà èòîà ãø''à îùåí ãëúéá (åé÷øà ëá) îåí áí äåà ãìà éøöå äà ò''é úòøåáú éøöå ëãîôøù áéåîà ô' ùðé ùòéøéí (ãó ñã.) àáì áòìîà ìà

(a)

Question: R. Eliezer's reason is because it says "Mum Bam" - then (Vadai Ba'alei Mumim) they are not accepted, but amidst a mixture they are accepted, like it explains in Yoma (64a), but normally, not!

åé''ì ãäà ãàéöèøéê ìï ÷øà ìà ìçã áúøé àöèøéê ãáìàå ÷øà áøåáà áèéì àìà ìçã áçã àöèøéê

(b)

Answer: We need the verse not to offer one [Ba'al Mum] mixed with two [Tam animals], for without the verse it is Batel in a majority, rather, it is needed to offer one mixed with one;

åäù''ñ îééúé ìéä ì÷øà îùåí ãëéåï ãëì ëê äúéø äëúåá àéï øàåé ìäçîéø îãøáðï ìâáåä

1.

The Gemara brings the verse because since the Torah permitted so much, it is not proper to be stringent mid'Rabanan to [offer to] Hash-m.

4)

TOSFOS DH Piresh Echad Mehen l'Ribo umi'Ribo l'Ribo Mutarin

úåñôåú ã"ä ôéøù àçã îäï ìøéáåà åîøéáåà ìøéáåà îåúøéï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses why it mentions a second 10,000.)

ìà àöèøéê îøéáåà ìøéáåà àìà ìîéîø îàï ãàñø àñø áëåìäå ëãôøéùéú ìòéì

(a)

Explanation #1: We need "from 10,000 to 10,000" only to say that the one who forbids, forbids all of them, like I explained above.

à''ð îùåí ãéù çéìå÷ áéï øéáåà øàùåï ìøéáåà ùðé ãøéáåà øàùåï àé îúäðé îëåìäå ááú àçú àñåø ã÷îúäðé áçãà ñôé÷à ëéåï ãááú àçú îúäðé

(b)

Explanation #2: It is because there is a distinction between the first 10,000 and the second 10,000. The first 10,000, if he benefits from all of them at once, it is forbidden, for he benefits from one Safek, since he benefits at once;

àáì øéáåà ùðé àôéìå ðäðä îëåìí ááú à' ñô÷ ñôé÷à äåà åùøé

1.

However, the second 10,000, even if he benefits from all of them at once, it is a Sefek-Sefeka, and it is permitted.

åëï îøéáåà ìâ' åîâ' ìâ' îåúø àáì àñåø ìéäðåú îâ' äøàùåðéí ááú àçú åîï äùðééí ùøé îäàé èòîà ãôéøùúé (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí)

2.

Similarly, if [one] separated from 10,000 to three, and from three to three, it is permitted, but one may not benefit from the first three at once, but from the second three is permitted from this reason that I explained.

åá÷åðèøñ ìà ôéøù ëï:

(c)

Explanation #3: Rashi did not explain like this. (He said that the first 10,000 to which the Isur fell are forbidden. However, if one of the 10,000 separated to three, and from the three one separated to elsewhere, even the three in the middle are permitted, for a Sefek-Sefeka is Batel.)

74b----------------------------------------74b

5)

TOSFOS DH v'Iba'is Eima Savar Lah k'R. Eliezer

úåñôåú ã"ä åàé áòéú àéîà ñáø ìä ëø' àìéòæø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes like the second version of Rashi.)

ôé' á÷åðèøñ áìùåï øàùåï ùîåàì ãàîø ìòéì ñô÷ òáåãú ëåëáéí åñô÷ ñôé÷à àñåøéï åáùàø àñåøéï ì''ì

(a)

Version #1 (Rashi): Shmuel, who said above (74a) that Safek idolatry and a Sefek-Sefeka are forbidden, and in other Isurim he does not [forbid a Sefek-Sefeka]...

ãàîø ëø''à ãàéú ìéä ñô÷ ñôé÷à áòáåãú ëåëáéí àñåøéï

1.

He said like R. Eliezer, who forbids a Sefek-Sefeka about idolatry.

ãúðï ðèì äéîðä òöéí àñåøéï áäðàä äñé÷ áäï àú äúðåø çãù éåúõ éùï éåöï àôä áå àú äôú àñåøä áäðàä ðúòøáä áàçøåú åàçøåú áàçøåú ãä''ì ñô÷ ñôé÷à ëåìï àñåøéï áäðàä

2.

Source: A Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 49b) teaches that if he took wood from [an Asheirah], it is Asur b'Hana'ah. If he ignited an oven with it, [if the oven is] new, it must be broken. If it is old, he must let it cool (before baking in it. If he did not, and) baked bread in it, the bread is Asur b'Hana'ah. If it became mixed with other [loaves], and the others with others, which is a Sefek-Sefeka, all are Asur b'Hana'ah.

ø''à àåîø éåìéê äðàä ìéí äîìç

3.

R. Eliezer says, he casts the benefit to the Dead Sea.

àìîà àéú ìéä ìø''à ñô÷ ñôé÷à áòáåãú ëåëáéí îãáòé ôãéåï

4.

Inference: R. Eliezer holds that a Sefek-Sefeka about idolatry [is forbidden], since he requires redemption!

å÷ùä ìø''ú çãà îàé ñáø ìä ëø''à äà øáðï ðîé àñøé

(b)

Question #1 (R. Tam): Why does [Rav Nachman] say that [Rav] holds like R. Eliezer? Also Rabanan forbid!

åãåç÷ ìôøù ãáøé ø''à åîçì÷åúå ÷àîø

(c)

Poor answer: He means that [Rav] holds like R. Eliezer and the Tana who argues with him.

åòåã ãø''à áùàø àéñåøéï ðîé àñø äúí

(d)

Question #2: R. Eliezer forbids there (Pesachim 27a) also regarding other Isurim!

åòåã ãäì''ì ãúðï åìàúåéé îúðé' ãäúí ãëéåï ùìà äåæëøä áëåìä ùîòúà

(e)

Question #3: He should have said "d'Tanan" and brought the Mishnah there, since [that Mishnah] was not brought in our entire Sugya!

åòåã ãìòéì ôéøù ãìà âøñéðï äúí åàçøåú áàçøåú

(f)

Question #4: Above [R. Tam] explained that the text does not say "and others in others"!

åòåã ùëúåá áëì äñôøéí ñáø ìä ëø''à àìéáà ãø''à

(g)

Question #5: It is written in all Seforim "he holds like R. Eliezer according to R. Elazar"! (R. Elazar did not explain R. Eliezer's opinion in the Mishnah in Avodah Zarah.)

åðøàä ëìùåï àçøåï ùôéøù á÷åðèøñ ãø''ù ñáø ìä ëø''à ãàîø úåìéï àú äàéñåø ìä÷ì åìåîø äàéñåø äìê ìå

(h)

Version #2: Rashi's latter version is correct. R. Shimon holds like R. Eliezer (in our Mishnah on 77b, which the Gemara cited at the top of Amud A), who says that we attribute about the Isur to be lenient, and say that the Isur went away;

ãàîø àí ÷øá äøàù ùì àçã îäï (äâää áâìéåï, îöàï ÷ãùéí) é÷øáå ëì äøàùéí åà''ø àìòæø ìà äúéø ø''à àìà ùðéí ùðéí

1.

[R. Eliezer] said that if the head of one of them was offered, we offer all the heads, and R. Elazar said that R. Eliezer permitted only two at a time.

äëà ðôì àéñåø ìøéáåà àñåøéï ùæä ñô÷ øàùåï åøéîåðé áàãï ìà áèìé

2.

Here, the Isur fell into 10,000. They are forbidden, for this is the first Safek, and pomegranates of Badan are not Batel;

îøéáåà ìâ' ãä''ì ñô÷ ñôé÷à àîøéðï (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) àéñåøà áøéáåà àéúéä

3.

[When one fell] from the 10,000 into three, it is a Sefek-Sefeka. We say that the Isur is in the 10,000.

åàéìå àøáòä îåúøéï åàøáòä áòéðï ëãé ùéîëøå ùðéí ùðéí

4.

Whereas [if it fell into] four, it is permitted, and we require four in order to sell two at a time;

ãàé ðôì ìá' (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) åäåà ùìéùé ðîöà äàçã áàéñåøå ëùéîëøå äùðéí åìéäðåú îëåìï ááú àçú ôùéèà ãàñåø ëãôøéùéú ìòéì

5.

If it fell into two, and it is the third, it turns out that one remains in its Isur when he sells the two (for R. Eliezer permits only two at a time). Obviously, one may not benefit from all of them at once, like I explained above (74a DH Piresh).

åëï ø' àìéòæø ãàîø é÷øáå äøàùéí ëåìï ìà ìä÷øéá ááú àçú îúéø àìà ùðéí ùðéí

6.

And similarly R. Eliezer, who said that they offer all the heads, does not permit to offer one at a time, rather, two at a time.

åðøàä ãàéï äìëä ëùîåàì ãàîø àôéìå ñô÷ (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) ñôé÷à áòáåãú ëåëáéí ã÷ééîà ìï ëøá áàéñåøé

(i)

Pesak: The Halachah does not follow Shmuel, who forbids even a Sefek-Sefeka about idolatry, for we hold like Rav in Isurim (Bechoros 49a);

åàôéìå ñô÷ øàùåï ðøàä ãùøé áäåìëú äðàä ìéí äîìç ã÷é''ì ëø''à áô' ëì äöìîéí (ò''æ ãó îè:)

1.

Even the first Safek, it seems that it is permitted through casting the benefit to the Dead Sea, for we hold like R. Eliezer in Avodah Zarah (49b).

åàôéìå ìùàø àéñåøéï äéä àåîø øáéðå ùîåàì ùéù ìäí ôãéåï ëãôøéùéú ìòéì

2.

Even for other Isurim, the Rashbam said that they can be redeemed, like I explained above (72b DH Kulan).

6)

TOSFOS DH d'I'arev bi'Vlad Tereifah v'R. Eliezer Hi

úåñôåú ã"ä ãàéòøá áåìã èøéôä åøáé àìéòæø äéà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that he does not consider the fetus to be a Tereifah.)

àôéìå ìî''ã äéà ååìãä ðøáòå ìà àîøéðï äéà ååìãä ðèøôå

(a)

Explanation: Even according to the opinion that [when a pregnant animal was Nirva,] it and its fetus were Nirva (both are forbidden to be offered), we do not say that if [if the mother became Tereifah,] it and its fetus became Tereifah;

ãòåáø éù ìå çéåú áôðé òöîå åàéðå ðèøó òí äàí

1.

This is because the fetus has its own life, and it does not become Tereifah with the mother.

7)

TOSFOS DH Hai Mashuch v'Hai Agul

úåñôåú ã"ä äàé îùåê åäàé òâåì

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses when Drusah is recognized.)

åà''ú äà ãàîø áô' àìå èøéôåú (çåìéï ãó ðâ:) ñô÷ ùåðøà ñô÷ ÷ðéà àéîø ÷ðéà äà àôùø ìáøø äàé îùåê åäàé òâåì

(a)

Question: It says in Chulin (53b) that if it is a Safek if [a goose was Nidras through] a cat or [wounded] through a stick, I say that it was through a stick. We can clarify! [The former] is long, and [the latter] is round!

åé''ì ãä''î îï äæàá åìîòìä àáì áùåðøà ìà éãéò

(b)

Answer: This is only for [Drusah] through a wolf or above (bigger animals), but [through] a cat is not recognized.

åà''ú à''ë ìéùðé ãàéòøá ð÷åáú ä÷åõ áãøåñú çúåì åáâãééí åáèìàéí

(c)

Question: If so, we should answer that [an animal] wounded through a thorn became mixed with [Drusah] through a cat, and regarding kids and lambs! (A cat would not make bigger animals Tereifah.)

åé''ì ãðéçà ìäå ìùðåéé áëì áäîåú

(d)

Answer: They prefer to answer for all animals.

åäà ãìà îùðé ãàéòøá ãøåñú äëìá áãøåñú äæàá

(e)

Implied question: Why didn't we answer that [an animal] Drusah through a dog became mixed with Drusah through a wolf.

ãìîà àôùø ìáøø

(f)

Answer: Perhaps it is possible to clarify (which is which).

8)

TOSFOS DH v'Ha Ba'i Semichah

úåñôåú ã"ä åäà áòé ñîéëä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses when we may omit Semichah.)

ìà îöé ìùðåéé áòåó ëãîùðé áôø÷ ëì äâè (âéèéï ãó ëç:) âáé ùåìç çèàúå îîãéðú äéí ãôøéê åäà áòé ñîéëä åîùðé áçèàú äòåó

(a)

Implied question: Why couldn't we answer that it refers to a bird, like it answers in Gitin (28b) regarding one who sent his Chatas from overseas? [The Gemara] asks that it requires Semichah, and answers that it refers to Chatas ha'Of.

ãäëà áæáçéí îééøé

(b)

Answer #1: Here we discuss Zevachim (animal Korbanos).

åòåã ãòåôåú ìàå áðé øòééä åôãééä ðéðäå

(c)

Answer #2: Grazing and redemption do not apply to birds.

åìéëà ðîé ìîéîø îéï áîéðå ëâåï áëåø ááëåø åîòùø áîòùø ãîùîò

(d)

Implied question: Why couldn't we answer that Min b'Mino refers to [Korbanos that do not require Semichah,] e.g. Bechor with Bechor, or Ma'aser with Ma'aser?

ãîééøé áëì ÷ãùéí

(e)

Answer: We discuss all Kodshim.

åà''ú åìå÷îä áéåøù åëøáé éäåãä (òøëéï ãó á.) ãàîø éåøù àéðå ñåîê

(f)

Question: We should establish it to discuss an heir, and like R. Yehudah (Erchin 2a), who says that an heir does not do Semichah!

åéù ìåîø ã÷úðé ãåîéà ãçèàú åàùí ãàéï áàéï ìàçø îéúä

(g)

Answer: It taught similar to Chatas and Asham, which are not brought after death.

åà''ú åìå÷îä áòøì åèîà ãîùìçéï ÷øáðåúéäï ëãàîøéðï áôø÷ úîéã ðùçè (ôñçéí ãó ñá.)

(h)

Question #1: We should establish it to discuss an Arel or Tamei, who send their Korbanos (in any case they cannot do Semichah), like we say in Pesachim (62a)!

åë''ú áòåó àééøé

1.

Suggestion: That discusses only birds (which do not require Semichah, but they may not send Zevachim, which require Semichah)!

äà ÷àîøéðï äúí ãëì äæáçéí òøì åèîà îùìçéï ëå' åòåó ìàå æáç äåà

2.

Rejection: We say there that an Arel or Tamei may send all Zevachim... A bird is not a Zevach.

åë''ú ááëåø åîòùø

3.

Suggestion: It refers to Bechor and Ma'aser.

äà ëì äæáçéí ÷àîø

4.

Rejection: It says "all Zevachim"!

åëï ÷ùä áô' ëì äâè (âéèéï ãó ëç:) âáé ùåìç çèàúå îîãéðú äéí ãôøéê åäà áòé ñîéëä

(i)

Question #2: It is difficult in Gitin (28b) about one who sent his Chatas from overseas? [The Gemara] asks that it requires Semichah;

îàé ÷åùéà åäà òøì åèîà îùìçéï ÷øáðåúéäï áìà ñîéëä

1.

What was the question? An Arel or Tamei send their Zevachim without Semichah. (Perhaps the same applies to one who is overseas!)

åé''ì ääéà ãâéèéï ëéåï ùéù òãééï ñô÷ áãáø ùöøéê ìä÷øéá áçæ÷ú ùäåà ÷ééí ìà äéä ìðå ìäúéø îàçø ãà''à ðîé ì÷ééí îöåú ñîéëä

(j)

Partial Answer: In the case in Gitin, since there is still a Safek in the matter, that we must offer based on the Chazakah that [the owner] is alive, we should not offer, since also we cannot fulfill the Mitzvah of Semichah;

åîéäå äëà ìà éúëï ìúøõ ëï

1.

However, here we cannot answer like this. (This Dibur continues on the next Daf.)

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF