1)

TOSFOS DH Irah l'Socho Rose'ach Minayin... Asher Tevushal Bo Yishaver (cont.)

úåñôåú ã"ä òéøä ìúåëå øåúç îðéï... àùø úáåùì áå éùáø (äîùê)

å÷ùä ìøáéðå ùîåàì ðäé ãîäðé òéøåé øåúçéï îëìé øàùåï ìúåê ÷òøåú åùàø ëìéí ùãøê ìòøåú áäï

(a)

Question (Rashbam): Granted, Iruy of boiling water from a Kli Rishon helps for bowls and other Kelim that it is normal to pour into them;

äéàê éåòéì ìàåúï ÷òøåú åëìéí ùäåëðñå ëåìï ìúåê ëìé øàùåï (åîìåàï) (ö"ì åîìàéï - ùéèä î÷åáöú) àéñåøéï îëì öã áëì òåáé äëìé

1.

How does it help for those bowls and Kelim that were totally entered into a Kli Rishon, and they are full of Isurim on every side, in the entire thickness of the Kli...

ìòðéï ùéåëì ìçæåø åìäëðéñï áúåê àéìôñ å÷ãéøä îøåúçéï ùì äéúø ëéåï ã÷ééîà ìï ëùîåàì ãàîø úúàä âáø åàéðå îáùì àìà ëãé ÷ìéôä

2.

[How will this help] so that it will be permitted to return and enter them in a boiling pan or pot of Heter, since we hold like Shmuel, who says that Tatah Gavar, and [Iruy] cooks only Kedei Klipah?! (Likewise, it cannot Kasher more than Kedei Klipah!)

åàí äééðå îôøùéí ãòéøåé ëëìé øàùåï ìâîøé åîáùì éåúø îëãé ÷ìéôä åîàé ãàîø ùîåàì ãàéðå îáùì àìà áëãé ÷ìéôä æä ãå÷à áùðé ãáøéí éáùéí ùðåâòéï æä áæä

(b)

Answer: If we would explain that Iruy is totally like a Kli Rishon, and it cooks more than Kedei Klipah, and Shmuel's teaching that it cooks only Kedei Klipah is only regarding two dry matters that touch each other...

åàôéìå áãáø ìç ëâåï ðèó îøåèáå òì äñåìú ùàåúå øåèá àéðå ëîå òéøåé ùäøé ðôñ÷ä

1.

... And even a moist matter, e.g. the soup dripped on flour, that soup is not like Iruy, for it was interrupted [from the Kli Rishon]...

àáì òéøåé ùàéï ëç äëìé øàùåï ðôñ÷ îáùì ìâîøé ìôé æä éúééùá îä ùàåîø ø''ú ãùåôëéï øåúçéï òìéäï äåà äëùø âîåø àôéìå ì÷òøåú ùðåúðï áúåê äñéø åäàéìôñ

2.

... However, Iruy in which the power of the Kli Rishon is not interrupted totally cooks - according to this, we resolve R. Tam's words that pouring boiling water on them is total Hechsher, even for bowls that one puts them in a pot or pan.

åìà ú÷ùé ðîé îä (ùôéøùúé) (ö"ì ùä÷ùéúé - áàøåú äîéí) ìòéì ãîåâìùéï òì âáé ÷îç äéëé ôèåø îçìä åäìà àéðå îáùì àìà ëãé ÷ìéôä

(c)

Support - Question: Also, [if so] you cannot ask what I asked above that boiling water on flour, how is it exempt from Chalah? It cooks only Kedei Klipah!

ãàéëà ìîéîø ãîáùì ìâîøé ëãôéøùúé

1.

We can say that it cooks totally, like I explained!

îéäå ø''ú ìà äéä ñåáø ëï îãàéöèøéê ìéä ìîéîø ãòéøåé àéðå îáùì àìà ëãé ÷ìéôä îùåí ÷åùéà ãúúàä âáø

(d)

Disclaimer: However, R. Tam did not hold like this, since he needed to say that Iruy cooks only Kedei Klipah, due to the question from Tatah Gavar!

åà''ú äà ãúðï áô' çáéú (ùáú ãó ÷îä:) ëì ùáà áçîéï îìôðé äùáú ùåøéï àåúå áçîéï áùáú åëì ùìà áà áçîéï îìôðé äùáú îãéçéï àåúå áçîéï [áùáú] çåõ îîìéç äéùï å÷åìééñ äàéñôðéï

(e)

Question: A Mishnah in Shabbos (145b) teaches that anything that came in boiling water before Shabbos, one may soak it in hot water on Shabbos. Anything that did not come in boiling water before Shabbos, one may rinse it in hot water on Shabbos, except for old salted fish and Spanish tuna fish;

åàé òéøåé ëëìé øàùåï àîàé îãéçéï

1.

If Iruy is like a Kli Rishon, why may one rinse?!

åé''ì äúí áëìé ùðé îééøé åàôé' äëé îãéçéï àéï ùåøéï ìà îùåí ãîéçæé ëîáùì

(f)

Answer #1: There it discusses a Kli Sheni, and even so one may rinse [other foods from the Kli Sheni], but one may not soak [them in the Kli Sheni], for it looks like cooking;

åìà ãîé ìúáìéï ãùøé áôø÷ ëéøä (ùí îá:) ìéúï ìúåê ä÷òøä àå ìúåê äúîçåé ãòùåééï ìîú÷ àú ä÷ãéøä åìà îéçæé ëîáùì

1.

This is unlike spices, which we permit in Shabbos (42b) to put them in a bowl or plate, for they are made to sweeten the [food in] the pot (one is not interested in cooking the spices themselves), and it does not look like cooking.

àé ðîé ìøáåúà ð÷è îãéçéï ãàôé' äãçä àñåø áîìéç éùï å÷åìééñ äàéñôðéï:

(g)

Answer #2: [It discusses a Kli Sheni. Really, one may rinse and even soak other foods in the Kli Sheni. The Mishnah] taught rinsing for a bigger Chidush. Even rinsing is forbidden for salted fish and Spanish tuna fish.

2)

TOSFOS DH v'Im Tash Kol ha'Pas Kulah Asurah (pertains to Daf 95b)

úåñôåú ã"ä åàí èù ëì äôú ëåìä àñåøä (ùééê ìãó öä:)

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses when we permit Nat Bar Nat.)

åà''ú îàé ùðà îäà ãàîøéðï áô' ëì äáùø (çåìéï ÷éà:) ãâéí ùòìå á÷òøä îåúø ìàåëìí áëåúç ãðåúï èòí áø ðåúï èòí îåúø

(a)

Question: Why is this different than what we say in Chulin (111b), that fish that came in a [meaty] bowl (i.e. it was previously used for meat), one may eat them with Kutach (a dairy dip), for Nosen Ta'am Bar Nosen Ta'am is permitted? (The bowl merely received taste from the meat, and the fish merely received taste from the bowl.)

åáùí øù''é ôéøù ä''ø éäåãä çúðå ããå÷à òìå ùøå äà ðúáùìå àñåø

(b)

Answer #1 (Rashi citing his father-in-law Rabbeinu Yehudah): We permit only if they came in [the bowl], but if they were cooked in it, it is forbidden;

åáà îòùä ìôðéå ááéöéí ùðúáùìå á÷ãéøä ùáùìå áä çìá åàñø ìòùåú (îåìééúà òì âáé) (ö"ì îäí îåìééúà ùì - ùéèä î÷åáöú) áùø

1.

An episode came in front of him in which eggs were cooked in a pot in which milk was cooked, and he forbade making from them stuffing for meat.

åàéï ìäáéà øàéä ìãáøéå î÷ãéøä ùáéùì áä áùø ìà éáùì áä çìá åàí áéùì áðåúï èòí (ì÷îï ò''á)

(c)

Implied suggestion: A proof for him is from a pot in which meat was cooked. One may not cook milk in it. If he did, it is forbidden if there is taste [of meat in the milk - 96b]!

ãäúí ìàå ðåúï èòí áø ðåúï èòí äåà ùäèòí ùðé áàéñåø

(d)

Rejection: That is not Nosen Ta'am Bar Nosen Ta'am, for the secondary taste (meat in the milk) is forbidden;

àáì ëàï äèòí ùðé áäéúø å÷åãí ùéáà ìéãé àéñåø ðúáèì äèòí áãâéí ìôé ùäåà ùðé

1.

However, here the secondary taste (meat in the fish) is Heter. Before it comes to Isur, the taste is Batel in the fish, since it is a secondary [taste].

àáì éù ìã÷ã÷ îöðåï ùçúëå áñëéï ùì áùø ãàñåø ìàåëìå áëåúç (çåìéï ãó ÷éà:) ãàâá çåøôéä áìò èôé åçùéá ëçã èòîà

(e)

Support: We can learn from a radish cut with a meaty knife. One may not eat it with Kutach (Chulin 111b), for due to [the radish's] sharpness, it absorbs more, and it is considered like one (primary) taste;

åìà âøò ðúáùì îöðåï

1.

What was cooked (in a meaty Kli) is no less [forbidden with milk] than a radish cut with a meaty knife.

îéäå ìôé ìùåï àçø ùôéøù ùí á÷åðèøñ äééðå èòîà ùéù çéìå÷ áéï ÷òøä ìñëéï

(f)

Retraction: However, according to the other version that Rashi explained there, the reason [to forbid the radish with Kutach] is because a bowl is unlike a knife;

ãñúí ÷òøä î÷ðçéï àåúä îùåîï ä÷øåù òìéä îùåí îéàåñ àáì ñëéï (èòîà) (ö"ì ôòîéí - ùéèä î÷åáöú) ùäùåîï ÷øåù òìéå åàéðå ðéëø ëùçåúê äåé (ëöåðï) (ö"ì áöðåï - öàï ÷ãùéí) èòí äáà îï äîîù åìôé æä àéï øàéä îöðåï ùçúëå áñëéï

1.

A Stam bowl, people clean off the congealed lard on it, for it is repulsive, but a knife, sometimes lard is congealed on it and it is not noticed. When he cuts, there is in the radish taste that comes from real [lard, and not a mere absorbed taste]. According to this, there is no proof [to fish cooked in a meaty bowl] from a radish cut with a knife.

åäê ãúðåø ùèùå áàìéä ðîé îôøù ø''ú ãàé àôùø ìå ìúðåø ìäú÷ðç éôä åðãá÷ áå äùîðåðéú åäåé áòéï òã ùéåñ÷

(g)

Explanation (R. Tam): Also an oven smeared with lard of the tail, it is impossible to clean it well, and some grease sticks to it, and it is intact, until the oven is ignited.

åîéäå éù ìã÷ã÷ ãàôé' ðúáùìå ùøé îäà ãàîø ì÷îï (ãó öæ.) ãëì éåí åéåí ðòùä âéòåì ìçáéøå åîåúø ìáùì äàéãðà ùìîéí á÷ãéøä ùáéùì áä ùìîéí àúîåì

(h)

Rejection (of Answer #1): We can derive that even [fish] cooked [in a meaty bowl] is permitted [with Kutach] from what it says below (97a) that [Kodshim cooked in a pot] every day Kashers what was absorbed the previous day, and one may cook now [today's] Shelamim in a pot in which Shelamim was cooked yesterday;

åìà àîøéðï ã÷îîòè áàëéìú ùìîéí ãäàéãðà ãèòí ùðé äåà åðúáèì ÷åãí ùéáåà ìéãé àéñåø

1.

We do not say that he diminishes the [time to] eat today's Shelamim (for it absorbs taste from yesterday's), for it is a secondary taste, and it is Batel before it becomes Asur.

(åàôé' ìî''ã) (ö"ì åàéï ìåîø - öàï ÷ãùéí) ãùàðé äúí ùäåà èòí ùìéùé ùéù îéí á÷ãéøä ùîáùìéí áä ùìîéí

(i)

Implied suggestion: There is different, for [the taste of yesterday's Shelamim] is a third level taste, for there is water in the pot in which Shelamim is cooked! (The water received primary taste, and the pot received only secondary taste from yesterday's Shelamim, so today's Shelamim receives a third level taste.)

îèòí æä ðîé éäå îåúøéï äáéöéí ùðúáùìå á÷ãéøä äçåìáú ìòùåú îäí îåìééúà ááùø ùáúåê äîéí ðúáùìå

(j)

Rejection #1: For this reason also we should permit eggs cooked in a dairy pot, to make stuffing for meat from them, for [the eggs] were cooked in water! (Even if the pot received primary taste, eggs cooked in it get only a third level taste, i.e. from the water, which gets a secondary taste.)

åòåã ãâáé ùôåã åàñëìà îééúé áñåó ò''æ (ãó òå.) ääéà ãëì éåí åéåí ðòùä âéòåì ìçáéøå

(k)

Rejection #2: Regarding a spit and grate, they bring the teaching that every day Kashers [absorptions of] the previous day. (There is no water in the middle. The spit or grate received primary taste from yesterday's Shelamim, and today's Shelamim receives secondary taste!)

åîéäå òì ëøçéï àéï æå øàéä ãìòðéï çèàú àéï ùééê ìåîø ëï ãáñåó ò''æ (ùí) ÷ùøé ìáùì çèàú åäãø ùìîéí

(l)

Rejection #3: You are forced to say that this is not a proof, for regarding Chatas we cannot say so, for in Avodah Zarah (76a) we permit to cook Chatas and then Shelamim;

åäøé îîòè áàëéìúï ãîéúñøé ìæøéí ìðùéí åìòáãéí åàéï ðàëìéï àìà ìéåí åìéìä âí îéôñìé áéåöà ëçèàú

1.

He diminishes the [Shelamim's] edibility, for [due to the taste of Chatas] it becomes forbidden to Zarim, women (even Kohanos) and slaves (even of Kohanim), and it is eaten only one day and a night, and it is disqualified through leaving [the Azarah] like Chatas!

åàéï ùééê ëàï ìäúéø îëç ðåúï èòí áø ðåúï èòí ëé àí äéëà ùéù ùðé ðåúðé èòí ùì äéúø àáì äàçã ùì àéñåø ìà

2.

We cannot permit here due to Nosen Ta'am Bar Nosen Ta'am, only when there are two Nosen Ta'am's of Heter, but when one is forbidden, no. (Perhaps 'two Nosen Ta'am's of Heter" means that even after the secondary taste is absorbed, it is permitted.)

ãäåé ëîå ÷ãéøä ùáéùì áä áùø ìà éáùì áä çìá úøåîä ìà éáùì áä çåìéï

i.

This is like any pot in which meat was cooked. One may not cook milk in it. If Terumah was cooked in it, one may not cook Chulin in it.

åòì ëøçéï éù ìåîø ùí îùåí ãîéï áîéðå ãàåøééúà áøåáà áèì åáëìé äî÷ãù áøâì àå÷îéä àãàåøééúà

3.

You are forced to say that there it is because Min b'Mino is Batel mid'Oraisa in a majority. Regarding Kelim of the Mikdash during the festival, [Chachamim] left Torah law in place.

åàò''â ãàñøé ì÷îï (ãó öæ.) ø÷é÷ ùðâò áø÷é÷ åçúéëä áçúéëä

(m)

Implied question: Below (97a), they forbid a wafer that touched a wafer, and a piece that touched a piece!

âáé ëìéí à÷éìå øáðï èôé

(n)

Answer: Regarding Kelim they were more lenient.

åúéîä àé ðúáùìå ðîé îåúø àîàé àîøå øáðï îæîï àëéìä ùì øàùåï èòåï îøé÷ä åùèéôä ìâáé ùìîéí ãàúîåì åùìîéí ãäàéãðà ãùðéäí äéúø

(o)

Question: If even when they were cooked it is permitted, why did Rabanan say that it requires Merikah u'Shtifah from the time that the first may be eaten, regarding yesterday's Shelamim and today's Shelamim? Both of them are Heter! (Merikah u'Shtifah is needed after it becomes Nosar. Tosfos asks, since yesterday's taste is Batel, why must we do Merikah u'Shtifah based on yesterday's Korban? Chak Nasan question's Tosfos' question. Chachamim do not say that each day Kashers yesterday's absorptions!)

ãàéï ñáøà ìåîø âæéøú äëúåá äéà áãáø ùîåúø âîåø áçåìéï àôé' îãøáðï. áøå''ê:

1.

It is unreasonable to say that it is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv regarding something that is totally permitted in Chulin, even mid'Rabanan. This is from R. Baruch.

3)

TOSFOS DH Ela Kedeiros Shel Mikdash Amai Yishberu

úåñôåú ã"ä àìà ÷ãéøåú ùì î÷ãù àîàé éùáøå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the Havah Amina.)

úéîä îàé ÷ùéà ìéä äà èòîà ãùáéøä ìàå îùåí áìéòä äåéà àìà âæéøú äëúåá àé ñáéøà ìéä ãúìàå áàåéø úðåø èòåï ùáéøä àò''â ãìéëà àìà áéùåì áìà áìåò

(a)

Question: Why is it difficult why they must be broken? It is not due to absorptions, rather, it is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv, if he holds that something suspended in the airspace of an oven must be broken, even though there is only cooking without absorption!

åø''ú äéä àåîø ãëùäåñ÷å ðòùå ëëìéí çãùéí

(b)

Answer: R. Tam used to say that when they are Husak (heated, in order to bake in them), they become like new Kelim. (Therefore, they should be permitted through Hasakah.)

úãò ãàîøéðï áëåìä äù''ñ (ôñçéí ì: ò''æ ìâ:) äúåøä äòéãä òì ëìé çøñ ùàéðå éåöà îéãé ãåôéå ìòåìí åàîàé äøé éåöà îéãé ãåôéå ò''é äçæøú ëáùï

(c)

Proof - Question: We say in the entire Gemara that the Torah testified about a Kli Cheres, that the taste never leaves its walls. It leaves its walls through returning it to the kiln!

àìà åãàé ëùäåñ÷å ðòùå ëëìéí çãùéí åçùéáé ëìéí àçøéí ãôðéí çãùåú áàå ìëàï

1.

Rather, surely when they are Husak, they become like new Kelim, and they are considered new Kelim, for Panim Chadashos came. (As long as it is the initial Kli, the taste never leaves.)

åàò''â [ãìâáé] èåîàä ëìé çøñ èòåï ùáéøä åàîøéðï (ëìéí ô''ä î''æ) úðåø çåì÷å ìùìùä ëãëúéá úðåø åëéøéí éåúõ

(d)

Implied question #1: Regarding Tum'ah, a Kli Cheres must be broken, and we say (Kelim 5:7) that one divides an oven into three, like it says "Tanur v'Kirayim Yutatz";

åìà àîøéðï àîàé éåúõ åäìà ëùîñé÷å ìàôåú áå æå äéà èäøúå ãçùéá ëëìé àçø

1.

We do not say "why must it be broken? When it is ignited to bake in it, this is its Taharah, for it is considered a different Kli!"

åëï úðåø ùäñé÷å á÷ìéôé òøìä ãàîøéðï (ôñçéí ãó ëå:) çãù éåúõ àîàé ìà ãîé ëìé çøñ ìúðåø

(e)

Implied question #2: If an oven was Husak with peels of Orlah (which are Asur b'Hana'ah), if it is new, it must be broken (for the first Hasakah solidified it. We should suffice to heat it again, and it will be like a new Kli!) Why is a Kli Cheres unlike an oven?

ãëéåï ãúðåø úùîéùå ò''é äéñ÷ ìà çùéá ôðéí çãùåú

(f)

Answer #1: Since an oven is used through Hesek, it is not considered Panim Chadashos.

åùîà àó áúðåø àí äéä îñé÷å áôðéí åáçåõ ëòéï úçéìú òùééúå ëùäéåöø òåùäå ðåúðå áëáùï àôùø ùæä äéä îåòéì

(g)

Answer #2: Perhaps even in an oven, if he would heat it inside and out, like its initial construction when the potter makes it, and puts it in the oven, perhaps this would help.

îéäå ÷ùä îäà ãàîøé' áñåèä ôø÷ äéä îáéà (ãó èå:) âáé ôééìé ùì çøñ çãùä (åâáé ëìé çøñ ùì îöåøò) àîø øáà ìà ùðå àìà ùìà ðúàëîå àáì ðúàëîå ôñåìéï

(h)

Question #1: In Sotah (15b) regarding a new Cheres flask, Rava said "[Chachamim permit a used Kli] only if it has not blackened. If it blackened, it is Pasul';

î''è ãåîéà ãîéí îä îéí ùìà ðùúðå àó ëìé ùìà ðùúðä

1.

Citation (15b): What is the reason? Just like water is unchanged, the Kli must be unchanged.

áòé øáà ðúàëîå åäçæéøï ìëáùï åðúìáðå îäå îé àîøéðï ëéåï ãàéãçå àéãçå àå ãìîà ëéåï ãäãåø äãåø åìà ôùéè îéðä îéãé

2.

Rava asked "if it had blackened, and it was returned to a furnace and whitened, what is the law? Do we say, once it became invalid, it remains invalid? Or, do we say, since it is new again, it is valid?" He did not resolve this at all.

åîàé úéáòé ìéä äà àîøéðï ôðéí çãùåú áàå ìëàï åëëìé çøñ [çãù] ãîé åùôéø äåé äàé ëìé ãåîéà ãîéí ùìà ðùúðå

3.

What was his question? We say that Panim Chadashos came here, and it is like a new Kli Cheres. This Kli is properly like the water, which did not change!

åòåã ÷ùä äà àôé' áçåìéï ÷é''ì ôñçéí (ãó ì:) äúåøä äòéãä òì ëìé çøñ ùàéðå éåöà îéãé ãåôéå ìòåìí îðà ìï

(i)

Question #2: Even regarding Chulin, we say (Pesachim 30b) that the Torah testified about a Kli Cheres, that the taste never leaves its walls. What is the source of this?

ãîçèàú ìéëà ìîéìó ãäúí âæéøú äëúåá (ëãôéøù) (àåìé ö"ì ëãôøéùéú) àí úîöà ìåîø ãáéùåì áìà áìåò èòåï ùáéøä

1.

We cannot learn from Chatas, for it is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv, like I explained, if you will say that cooking without absorption obligates breaking!

åðøàä ìôøù ãîàçø ùäúéø äëúåá ëìé ðçùú áîøé÷ä åùèéôä åáëìé çøñ ìà äúéø ù''î ãèòí îùåí áìéòä äåà ãæä éåöà îéãé ãåôéå åæä àéðå éåöà îéãé ãåôéå

(j)

Answer: Since the Torah permitted copper Kelim through Merikah u'Shtifah, and it did not permit Klei Cheres, this teaches that the reason is due to absorption. The taste leaves the walls of [copper Kelim], but it does not leave the walls of [Klei Cheres];

åáéùåì áìà áìåò (èòåï) (ö"ì ãèòåï - ùéèä î÷åáöú) ùáéøä

(k)

Implied question: Why does cooking without absorption obligate breaking?

áæä ñáøà ìåîø ìôé ùäçîéø áå äëúåá ìçåùáå ëáìåò

(l)

Answer: For this, it is reasonable to say that it is because the Torah was stringent to consider it absorbed.

åãå÷à áäâòìä àéðå éåöà îéãé ãåôéå àáì áäçæøú ëáùåðåú éåöà

(m)

Limitation: Only through Hag'alah the taste never leaves it walls, but through returning it to the kiln it leaves.

åà''ú ìîä äöøéê äëúåá ùáéøä ãìà ùééê ìîéîø òì äëúåá ãìîà çééñ åìà ùàéï òåùéï ëáùåðåú áéøåùìéí

(n)

Question: Why did the Torah obligate breaking? You cannot say about the verse that it is lest one be concerned [for his Kli, and not heat it enough lest it break], nor because we do not make furnaces in Yerushalayim!

åéù ìåîø çéãåù äåà ùäúéøå äëúåá áùáéøä ãäåä àîéðà ãìà îäðéà ùáéøä ëéåï ãòãééï èòí çèàú áçøñ

(o)

Answer: This is a Chidush, that the Torah permitted through breaking it. One might have thought that breaking does not help, since the taste of Chatas is still absorbed in the Cheres;

ãöøéê ùéäà äèòí áèì îï äòåìí ëîå áëìé ðçùú ùòùå áå îøé÷ä åùèéôä àáì äà ôùéèà ãë''ù äçæøú ëáùåðåú ãîäðéà èôé

1.

[One might have thought that] the taste must be Batel from the world [in order to permit], similar to copper Kelim for which Merikah u'Shtifah were done. However, obviously returning to the kiln permits more.

åìà ëñôøéí ãâøñé äëà ÷ãéøåú ùì î÷ãù àîàé àîø øçîðà éùáøå ìéäãøå ìëáùåðåú ãîùîò ãôøéê à÷øà îã÷àîø àîàé àîø øçîðà

(p)

Remark: This is unlike Seforim in which the text says here "pots of the Mikdash, why did the Torah say to break them? They should return them to the kilns!" [This text] connotes that we question the verse, since it says "why did the Torah say...?"

4)

TOSFOS DH Hachi Garsinan Kivan d'Ika Shtei ha'Lechem...

úåñôåú ã"ä äëé âøñéðï ëéåï ãàéëà ùúé äìçí...

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why he did not answer from Minchas Ma'afeh Tanur.)

úéîä ãùá÷ îðçú îàôä ãëúéá áä úðåø áäãéà (åé÷øà á)

(a)

Question: Why did [the Tartzan] abandon Minchas Ma'afeh, about which it explicitly says "Tanur" (and mention Menachos about which the Torah did not write Tanur)?

åëé úéîà îùåí ãø''ù ìà áòé ä÷ãù áúðåø ëããøéù áñåó ëì äîðçåú áàåú îöä (îðçåú ñâ.) îãëúéá úðåø úðåø á' ôòîéí àìà ùéäà ä÷ãéùï ìùí úðåø

1.

Suggestion: It is because R. Shimon does not require Hekdesh in the oven [for Ma'afeh Tanur], like he expounds in Menachos (63a), since "Tanur" is written twice. Rather, he requires only that they were Hukdash for the sake of baking in an oven.

à''ë ùúé äìçí åìçí äôðéí ðîé ø''ù ìà îôìéâ ëãîåëç äúí

2.

Rejection: If so, also Shtei ha'Lechem and Lechem ha'Panim, [for] R. Shimon does not distinguish (also for those he does not require Hekdesh in the oven), like is proven there;

åãéé÷ ìä îãúðï áôø÷ ùúé äìçí (ùí öä:) ø''ù àåîø ìòåìí äåé øâéì ìåîø ùúé äìçí åìçí äôðéí ëùøåú áòæøä åëùøåú àáé ôàâé

3.

The Gemara infers this from what the Mishnah teaches (Menachos 95b) that R. Shimon says "you should be used to saying that Shtei ha'Lechem and Lechem ha'Panim are Kosher [if they were] baked in the Azarah, or in Beis Pagi (outside the Azarah).

åéù ìåîø ãìà ð÷è îðçú îàôä îùåí ãäéà âåôä ìà éãòéðï ìøáðï ãø''ù àìà îùúé äìçí åìçí äôðéîéú ùäï âîøà ëãàîø áøéù ùúé äìçí (ùí öå.) ãøáé éäåãä åø''ù áâîøà ôìéâé:

(b)

Answer: He did not mention Minchas Ma'afeh, because that itself Rabanan of R. Shimon know only from Shtei ha'Lechem and Lechem ha'Panim, which are a tradition, like it says in Menachos (96a) that R. Yehudah and R. Shimon argue about a tradition.

96b----------------------------------------96b

5)

TOSFOS DH Bishel b'Miktzas Kli Ta'un Merikah u'Shtifah...

úåñôåú ã"ä áéùì áî÷öú ëìé èòåï îøé÷ä åùèéôä...

(SUMMARY: Tosfos questions the question.)

úéîä îàé ÷îáòéà ìéä åîàé ñ''ã ãøá éöç÷

(a)

Question: What was the question, and what was Rav Yitzchak's Havah Amina?

àé ëùî÷öú ëìé òì äàù ùîáùì áå [çí] åùàø äëìé öåðï ÷îáòéà ìéä

1.

Suggestion: He asks when part of the Kli is on the fire with which he cooks is hot, and the rest of the Kli is cold.

àí ëï îàé ÷àîø áéùåì îôòôò äà ìà îôòôò áëåìéä ëìé

2.

Rejection: If so, why did he say "cooking [makes the absorptions] diffuse"? It does not diffuse in the entire Kli!

åàé áùëì äëìé çí ôùéèà ãîôòôò áëåìéä åáòé îøé÷ä åùèéôä

3.

If the entire Kli is hot, obviously [the absorptions] diffuse in all of it, and [all] needs Merikah u'Shtifah!

åàé ÷îáòéà ìéä àé îôòôò áëåìéä ëìé àå ìà àí ëï áùàø àéñåøéí ðîé úéáòé ìéä:

4.

If he asks whether or not [the absorptions] diffuse in the entire Kli, if so he should ask also about other Isurim!

6)

TOSFOS DH Chomer bi'Merikah u'Shtifah v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä çåîø áîøé÷ä åùèéôä ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that being after Zerikah is not a stringency.)

úéîä àîàé ìà ÷àîø ùäîøé÷ä åùèéôä äéà ìàçø æøé÷ä îä ùàéï ëï áäæàä

(a)

Question: Why doesn't it say that Merikah u'Shtifah are after Zerikah, unlike Haza'ah?

åé''ì ãìà çùéá çåîøà àìà îä ùìôðé æøé÷ä ÷åãí ëôøä ùúìåé áòáåãú äãí

(b)

Answer: We consider a stringency only what is before Zerikah, i.e. before Kaparah, which depends on Avodas ha'Dam.

7)

TOSFOS DH mid'Itztrich Osah Lemi'utei Terumah v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä îãàéöèøéê àåúä ìîòåèé úøåîä ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why this includes.)

ãî÷ãù ÷ãùéí äåä îîòèéðà ÷ãùéí ÷ìéí åëì ùëï úøåîä

(a)

Explanation: From "Kodesh Kodoshim" we would exclude Kodshim Kalim, and all the more so Terumah;

äìëê (ãøùéðï àåúä ìîòåèé úøåîä ãå÷à åãàé) (ö"ì ëé ãøùéðï àåúä ìîòåèé úøåîä ò"ë ãå÷à úøåîä åìà ÷ãùéí ÷ìéí - öàï ÷ãùéí) ãàéï îéòåè àçø îéòåè àìà ìøáåú

1.

Therefore, when we expound Osah to exclude Terumah, you are forced to say [that it excludes] only Terumah, and not Kodshim Kalim, for an exclusion after an exclusion is only to include (Yoma 43a).

8)

TOSFOS DH Lo Tzericha mid'Amar Mar Merikah u'Shtifah b'Tzonen

úåñôåú ã"ä ìà öøéëà (ìãàîø) [ö"ì îãàîø - ùéèä î÷åáöú] îø îøé÷ä åùèéôä áöåðï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how the two opinions explain.)

àçø äâòìä äà àôé' áçîéï ôéøåù úøåîä ñâé áäâòìä åìà áòéà îøé÷ä åùèéôä áöåðï

(a)

Explanation: [It was taught that Kodshim require Merikah u'Shtifah in cold water] after Hag'alah. This, even in hot water [alone suffices]. I.e. for Terumah, Hag'alah suffices, and Merikah u'Shtifah in cold water are not needed;

åôøéê äðéçà ìîàï ãàîø îøé÷ä åùèéôä áöåðï ôéøåù àçø äâòìä

1.

[The Gemara] asks this is fine for the opinion that Merikah u'Shtifah is in cold water, i.e. after Hag'alah;

àìà ìî''ã îøé÷ä áçîéï åùèéôä áöåðï ãîøé÷ä äééðå äâòìä îàé àéëà ìîéîø

i.

However, according to the opinion that Merikah is in hot water and Shtifah is in cold water, for Merikah is Hag'alah, how can we answer?

åîùðé ùèéôä éúéøúà ãöøéê ìòùåú á÷ãùéí ùèéôä éúéøúà àçø äâòìä îùà''ë áúøåîä

2.

It answers that this is an extra Shtifah. For Kodshim, one must do an extra rinsing after Hag'alah, unlike Terumah.

åéù ììîåã îëàï ãëìéí äàñåøéï ëùîâòéìï àéï öøéê ìùåèôï áöåðï àçøé ëï àó òì ôé ùðåäâéï òúä ìòùåú ëï:

(b)

Inference: We can learn from here that forbidden Kelim, when one Kashers them through Hag'alah, he need not rinse them in cold water afterwards, even though the custom is to do so.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF