1)

TOSFOS DH Shechitas Laylah Ika Beinaihu

úåñôåú ã"ä ùçéèú ìéìä àéëà áéðééäå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this is like R. Shimon, and unlike R. Yehudah.)

ìëàåøä øáé åøáé àìòæø áø''ù ñáøé ëø''ù ãàîø áôø÷ äîæáç î÷ãù (ìòéì ãó ôã.) ðùçèä áìéìä àí òìúä ìà úøã ãäùúà ÷ãù î÷áìå åìà äéúä ìå ùòú äëåùø

(a)

Inference: Seemingly, Rebbi and R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon hold like R. Shimon, who said above (84a) that if a Korban was slaughtered at night, Im Alah Lo Yered, for now Kodesh accepts it, and it did not have Sha'as ha'Kosher;

àáì ìøáé éäåãä ãàîø àí òìúä úøã áéï ìøáé áéï ìøáé àìòæø áø''ù ùçè áìéìä áôðéí åäòìä áçåõ ìà îáòéà (ìéä) ìøáé éåñé äâìéìé ãôèåø

1.

However, according to R. Yehudah, who says that Im Alah Yered, both according to Rebbi and R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon, if he slaughtered at night inside and offered outside, he is exempt not only according to R. Yosi ha'Gelili...

àìà àôéìå ìøáðï ðîé ôèåø ëãîåëç áñåó ôéø÷éï (ì÷îï ÷éà:) âáé äà ãúðï ø''ù àåîø ëì ùçééáéï òìéå áçåõ çééáéï òì ëéåöà áå áôðéí ùäòìä áçåõ

2.

Rather, even according to Rabanan he is exempt, like is proven below (111b) regarding the Mishnah "R. Shimon says, anything for which one is liable for it outside, one is liable if he did so inside and then offered it outside";

åîôøù æòéøé âåôéä ùçéèú áäîä áìéìä àéëà áéðééäå åä''÷ äùåçè áäîä áìéìä áôðéí åäòìä áçåõ ôèåø

3.

Ze'iri himself explains that they argue about an animal slaughtered at night. It means as follows. If one slaughters an animal at night inside and offered it outside, he is exempt;

ôéøåù ãàéï îú÷áì áôðéí ëø' éäåãä ãàîø àí òìä (ìà) éøã

i.

Explanation: This is because it is not accepted inside. This is like R. Yehudah, who says that Im Alah Yered.

ùçè áçåõ åäòìä áçåõ çééá àìîà ãàôéìå ìøáðï ãîçééáé ùåçè áçåõ åîòìä áçåõ îåãå áùåçè áìéìä áôðéí åîòìä áçåõ ãôèåø ìø' éäåãä

4.

If he slaughtered outside and offered outside, he is liable. This shows that even Rabanan who obligate for Shechitah outside and Ha'alah outside, they argue about one who slaughters at night inside and offered it outside, which R. Yehudah exempts.

å÷öú úéîä æòéøé åøáä àîàé ð÷èé äëà ùçéèú ìéìä å÷áìä áëìé çåì ãäééðå ëîå ðùôê ãîä ãìà äåé àìà ìø''ù ãìøáé éäåãä úøåééäå éøãå

(b)

Question: Why did Ze'iri and Rabah discuss Shechitah at night and Kabalah in a Chulin Kli, which is as if the blood spilled? This is only according to R. Shimon, for according to R. Yehudah, both of them Yerdu;

äåé ìäå ìîéîø àéëà áéðééäå ðùçèä çåõ ìæîðå åçåõ ìî÷åîå ãìëåìé òìîà ìà éøã ãäøé ÷ãù î÷áìå åìà äéúä ìå ùòú äëåùø

1.

They should have said that they argue about if it was slaughtered Chutz li'Zmano or Chutz li'Mkomo, for all agree that Lo Yered, for Kodesh accepts it, and it did not have Sha'as ha'Kosher!

åùîà àâá ãð÷èé øáä åæòéøé áñåó ôéø÷éï (ùí) âáé ôìåâúà ãø''ù åøáðï ùçéèú ìéìä å÷áìä áëìé çåì ð÷èé ðîé äëà

(c)

Answer: Perhaps since Rabah and Ze'iri below (111b), regarding the argument of R. Shimon and Rabanan, discuss Shechitah at night and Kabalah in a Chulin Kli, they discussed this also here.

åöøéê ìã÷ã÷ ìø' éäåãä ãàîø (ìòéì ãó ôã.) áéöà ãîä àí òìä éøã äøé æåø÷ î÷öú ãîéí áçåõ ãçééá àò''â ãàéï ÷ãù î÷áìå

(d)

Question: According to R. Yehudah, who said above (84a) that if the blood left, Im Alah Yered, if he threw some of the blood outside, he is liable, even though Kodesh does not accept it!

åùîà ìøáé éäåãä ìà äéä çééá

(e)

Answer #1: Perhaps according to R. Yehudah he would not be liable.

åäà ããøùéðï î÷øà ìøáåú äæåø÷

1.

Implied question: We expound the verse to include [liability outside for] Zerikah!

ãìîà áùçåèé çåõ åìà áùçåèé ôðéí îéãé ãäåä àùçéèú ìéìä áñåó ôéø÷éï

2.

Answer: Perhaps it refers only to what was slaughtered outside, but not to Shechutei Penim, like we find regarding Shechitah at night at the end of our Perek;

àáì ìøáé éåñé äâìéìé àìéáà ãøáé éäåãä åãàé ìà îùëçú ìä æåø÷ áçåõ ãçééá

i.

However, according to R. Yosi ha'Gelili, according to R. Yehudah, surely we do not find Zorek outside who is liable.

åòåã ðøàä ãäà ãîéôèø ìø' éäåãä îùåí ãàéï ÷ãù î÷áìå äééðå ëùàéï ÷ãù î÷áìå îçîú ôñåì àçø îìáã ôñåì æä ùéöà ìçåõ åäòìäå

(f)

Answer #2: According to R. Yehudah, he is exempt when Kodesh does not accept it, this is when Kodesh does not accept it due to another Pesul, other than this Pesul that it went outside and he offered it.

åðéçà ðîé ãîúðé' îçééá ä÷åîõ åäìáåðä åä÷èøú åîðçú ëäðéí ùäòìï áçåõ àó òì âá ãàîøéðï áøéù äîæáç (ìòéì ãó ôâ:) ãîðçåú ìø''é äâìéìé éøãå

(g)

Support: It is fine that our Mishnah obligates for Kometz, Levonah, Ketores and Minchas Kohanim offered outside, even though we said above (83b) that according to R. Yosi ha'Gelili, [Pasul] Menachos Yerdu;

åëï ðñëéí äáàéí òí äæáç ãàîøéðï ìãáøé ëåìï éøãå

1.

And similarly, Nesachim that accompany the Zevach, we say that all agree that Yerdu.

åáøééúà ãáñîåê (ãó ÷è.) ãîøáé ôñåìéï ìà çùéá ðùçèä áìéìä åðùôê ãîä ùîò îéðä ãøáé éäåãä äéà åìà îçééáé àäðé îùåí ãéøãå

2.

In the Beraisa below (109a) that we include Pesulim, it does not count what was slaughtered at night and the blood spilled. This shows that [the Tana] is R. Yehudah, and he does not obligate for these because Yerdu;

åàôéìå äëé îçééá à÷åîõ åîðçú ðñëéí åðéñåê äééï åäîéí åäééðå èòîà ëãôøéùéú

i.

Even so, he obligates for Kometz, Minchas Kohanim, and Nisuch of wine and water, like I explained (since their only Pesul is Yotzei).

å÷öú ÷ùä ãìøáé éäåãä àéï îúééùá îä ùäùéá ø' àìòæø áø''ù úçú ø''é äâìéìé ãàëúé úé÷ùé ìéä àó ä÷åîõ áôðéí åäòìä áçåõ ëéåï ùäåöéàå ôñìå

(h)

Question: According to R. Yehudah, R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon's answer does not resolve [the opinion of] R. Yosi ha'Gelili, for it is still difficult for him, even one who does Kemitzah inside and offers outside, since he took it out he disqualified it! (Yad Binyamin - Answer #2 above (if the only Pesul is Yotzei, he is liable outside) is not according to R. Yosi ha'Gelili. He disagrees! It only shows how R. Yehudah can explain how one is liable for Zerikah outside.)

2)

TOSFOS DH Rabanan Savrei Migo

úåñôåú ã"ä øáðï ñáøé îéâå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos brings from elsewhere that they argue about Isur Kolel.)

áàéñåø ëåìì ôìéâé ëãîôøù áñåó âéã äðùä (çåìéï ãó ÷à.):

(a)

Explanation: They argue about Isur Kolel, like it explains in Chulin (101a).

108b----------------------------------------108b

3)

TOSFOS DH Shogeg Anus u'Mut'eh

úåñôåú ã"ä ùåââ àðåñ åîåèòä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we need a verse for Ones and Shogeg.)

÷öú ÷ùä àðåñ ì''ì ÷øà ôùéèà ãàåðñ øçîðà ôèøéä

(a)

Question: Why do we need a verse to teach about Anus! This is obvious. The Torah exempts for Ones!

åùîà äàé àðåñ ôøè ìàåîø îåúø

(b)

Answer: Perhaps this Anus excludes Omer Mutar (he thinks that it is permitted).

åúéîä ì''ì ÷øà ìîéôèøéä îëøú ëùäåà ùåââ ôùéèà áø ÷øáï äåà

(c)

Question: Why do we need a verse to exempt from Kares when he is Shogeg? Obviously [he is exempt]. He brings a Korban!

é''ì ñ''ã àîéðà àé ìà îééúé ÷øáï ìéäåé áëøú ãäà ìàçø äáàú ÷øáï ãå÷à ëúéá åðñìç ìå

(d)

Answer: One might have thought that if he does not bring a Korban, he is Chayav Kares. Only after he brings a Korban it is written "v'Nislach Lo."

4)

TOSFOS DH veha'Maileh l'Hedyot Patur (pertains to Mishnah on Amud A)

úåñôåú ã"ä åäîòìä ìäãéåè ôèåø (ùééê ìîùðä áòîåã à)

(SUMMARY: Tosfos rejects Rashi's Perush that this is considered idolatry.)

ôé' á÷åðèøñ ôèåø îùåí äòìàú çåõ åçééá îùåí òåáã òáåãú ëåëáéí

(a)

Explanation (Rashi): He is exempt for Ha'alas Chutz, and liable for serving idolatry;

åàí äæéã áòáåãú ëåëáéí åùââ áäòìàú çåõ àéðå îáéà òì ùââúå çèàú

1.

If he was Mezid about idolatry and Shogeg about Ha'alas Chutz, he does not bring a Korban for his Shegagah.

åúéîä àîàé éúçééá îòìä ìçáéøå îùåí îòìä áçåõ ëéåï ãîæéã áòáåãú ëåëáéí ìàå ùá îéãéòúå äåà ãîåîø ìòáåãú ëåëáéí îåîø ìëì äúåøä ëåìä

(b)

Objection: Why should he be liable for offering to his colleague due to Ha'alah? Since he is Mezid about idolatry, he would not refrain from knowing (that this is Ha'alas Chutz), for a Mumar to idolatry (he wantonly transgresses) is a Mumar to the entire Torah! (Machshavas Chayim - Rashi explains our Tana like the opinion in Horiyos (11a) that a Mumar brings a Korban if he would have refrained had he known.)

åáçðí ãç÷ òöîå á÷åðèøñ ãîòìä ìçáéøå àéï ùééê ìçééáå îùåí òáåãú ëåëáéí ëéåï ãàéï îúëåéï ìùí òáåãú ëåëáéí

(c)

Remark: There was no need for Rashi to say so. For Ha'alah to his colleague, it is not applicable to obligate him for idolatry, since he does not intend for idolatry! (Ohr ha'Chamah - he merely intends to honor him. Rashi holds that one does not honor people like this. Surely he intends to worship him.)

5)

TOSFOS DH Lehotzi Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach

úåñôåú ã"ä ìäåöéà ùòéø äîùúìç

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that this is only after it was selected through the lottery.)

äééðå ìàçø äâøìä ã÷åãí äâøìä îéçééá àúøåééäå ëãîåëç ôø÷ ùðé ùòéøé (éåîà ãó ñá:)

(a)

Explanation: This is after the lottery. Before the lottery he is liable for both of them, like is proven in Yoma (62b).

6)

TOSFOS DH Dibrah Torah k'Leshon Bnei Adam

úåñôåú ã"ä ãáøä úåøä ëìùåï áðé àãí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explained this elsewhere.)

áôø÷ àìå îöéàåú (á''î ãó ìà:) ôéøùúé

(a)

Reference: I explained this in Bava Metzi'a (31b DH Dibrah. Tana'im say so only when there is a proof from the verse.)

7)

TOSFOS DH a'Kol Behemah Kesiv

úåñôåú ã"ä àëì áäîä ëúéá

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the argument unlike Rashi.)

ìôéëê äòìä ëîä àáøéí æä àçø æä àéðå çééá àìà àçú à÷îà îéçééá ãàééúéä ìëåìä áäîä åààçøéðé ôèåø ãëáø çñøä ãîä ùäòìä äøé äåà ëðàáã

(a)

Explanation #1: Therefore, if he offered several limbs, one after the other, he is liable only once. He is liable for the first, for the entire animal is intact (when it was offered), and exempt for the rest, since it was already Chaser. What was offered is as if it was lost;

åî''ñ àëì àáø åàáø àáì àáø àçã ùäòìä ìçöàéï ìë''ò ìà îéçééá àìà àçú åîéçééá àæéú ÷îà

1.

The other opinion holds that [he is liable] for every limb, but for a limb offered half at a time, all obligate only once, and he is liable for the first k'Zayis.

åøáé éåçðï àîø îçìå÷ú áàáø àçã ãîø ñáø îå÷èøé ôðéí ùçñøå åäòìï áçåõ çééá åëé ëúéá ìòùåú àåúå àùçåèé çåõ àáì ìà àùçåèé ôðéí ãäà îäãøéðï ôå÷òéï

2.

R. Yochanan says that they argue about one limb. One holds that Mukterei Penim that became Chaser, and he offered them outside, he is liable. "La'asos Oso" was written about Shechutei Chutz, but not about Shechutei Penim, for we return Pok'in;

åîø ñáø ôèåø ëø' éùîòàì ãìòéì å÷ñáø ãìà îäãøéðï ôå÷òéï

3.

The other holds that he is exempt, like R. Yishmael above, and he holds that we do not return Pok'in;

[àáì áã' åä' àáøéí çééá òì ëì àáø] ìë''ò

i.

However, [if he offers] four or five limbs, all agree that he is liable for each.

åà''ú îàé èòîà ìà îéçééá àëæéú ùðé ðäé ãìà îäãøéðï ôå÷òéï î''î àí îçúê àáø àçã ìëîä æéúéí çééá ìäòìåú àú ëåìï à''ë ä÷èøä äåà åàîàé ìà îéçééá òìä áçåõ

(b)

Question: Why is he not liable for the second k'Zayis? Granted, we do not return Pok'in. In any case, if he cuts a limb into several k'Zeisim, he is obligated to offer all of them. If so, this is Haktarah! Why is he not liable for it outside?

åé''ì ãäà îéçééá ìä÷èéø äëì ìàå îùåí ãúéäåé çùåáä ä÷èøä áçöé àáø àìà îùåí ãëåìä çãà ä÷èøä äéà åëéåï ùäúçéì áä âåîø

(c)

Answer: The reason he must offer all of them is not because Haktarah of half a limb is considered Haktarah. Rather, it is all one Haktarah. Once he began, he finishes;

àáì àé îäãøé ôå÷òéï ùçñøä åð÷èøä (ùàø) (ö"ì òí äùàø - öàï ÷ãùéí) îæä éù ììîåã ãçùéáà ä÷èøä áçöé àáø åë''ð ùéèä æå

1.

However, if we return Pok'in, that it is Chaser and it is Huktar with the rest, from this we can learn that Haktarah of half a limb is considered Haktarah. It seems that this is correct.

åá÷åðèøñ ôé' áò''à

(d)

Explanation #2: Rashi explained differently. (Reish Lakish says that all agree that one is liable only for the last limb. The Tana'im argue about if the last limb was offered half at a time, or it flew off the fire and he returned it. R. Yochanan says that the verse discusses every limb. The Tana'im argue about whether or not one is liable for offering outside Mukterei Penim that became Chaser.)

8)

TOSFOS DH Lo Nechleku Ela b'Mukterei Chutz she'Chasru...

úåñôåú ã"ä ìà ðçì÷å àìà áîå÷èøé çåõ ùçñøå...

(SUMMARY: Tosfos defends Rashi's Perush, that a verse excludes less than a k'Zayis.)

ôé' á÷åðèøñ åëé ëúéá àåúå ìîòåèé ôçåú îëæéú àúà ùàéï ä÷èøä ùìéîä åëããøéù ì÷îï

(a)

Explanation (Rashi): "Oso" excludes less than a k'Zayis, for it is not full Haktarah, like we expound below (109b).

åà''ú åîàé èòîà áòé ÷øà ìîòåèé ôçåú îëæéú äéëï îöéðå ùçééáä úåøä áçöé ùéòåø

(b)

Question: Why do we need a verse to exclude less than a k'Zayis? Where do we find that the Torah obligates for Chetzi Shi'ur?!

åçöé æéú çöé ùéòåø äåà ãìà îöéðå ä÷èøä ìäúçééá áôçåú îëæéú ìà ìòðéï îçùáä åùåí ãáø àìà ãå÷à âáé ùàåø åãáù ãçééá áôçåú îëæéú ìîàï ãàéú ìéä îëç ÷øàé

1.

Half a k'Zayis is Chetzi Shi'ur, for we do not find liability for Haktarah of less than a k'Zayis, not for intent, and not for anything, except for [Haktarah of] Se'or or honey, according to one opinion, due to verses.

åéù ìåîø ãùîà ëéåï ãîäãøé' ôå÷òéï ôçåú îëæéú äåä àîéðà ãîçééá áçåõ àé ìàå ãëúéá àåúå

(c)

Answer: Perhaps since we return Pok'in less than a k'Zayis, one might have thought that he is liable outside, if not that the Torah wrote "Oso".

9)

TOSFOS DH k'Man Mehadrinan Pok'in v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä ëîàï îäãøéðï ôå÷òéï ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with other Gemaros.)

äà ãîéçééáéðï áøéù ôéø÷éï (ãó ÷æ.) ìø''ò îå÷èøé ôðéí ùçñøå åä÷øéáï áçåõ

(a)

Implied question: Above (107a), R. Akiva obligates for Mukterei Penim that were Chaser and he offered them outside!

äééðå ãå÷à ëâåï àéîåøé àå àéáøé òåìä ùçñøå ãìà îôñìé áäëé

(b)

Answer: That is only a case like Eimurim or limbs of an Olah that were Chaser. They are not disqualified through this;

àáì îðçä ùçñøä å÷èøú åìáåðä ùçñøå ãîéôñìé îçîú çñøåï ôèåø ëãúðï ì÷îï (ãó ÷è:) åëåìï ùçñøå ëì ùäåà åä÷øéáï áçåõ ôèåø

1.

However, if a Minchah became Chaser, or Ketores or Levonah became Chaser, it is Pasul due to Chisaron. He is exempt (if he offered them outside), like the Mishnah below (109b) "if any of them became Chaser Mashehu, and he offered them outside, he is exempt";

åâáé òåìä ÷úðé äîòìä (òåìú ëæéú) (ö"ì ëæéú îï äòåìä åîï äàéîåøéï áçåõ - âìéåï) çééá åîöèøôéï ìëæéú ìäòìåúï áçåõ åìéçééá òìéäï îùåí ôéâåì ðåúø åèîà

2.

Regarding an Olah, it was taught (109a) that one is liable for Ha'alah of a k'Zayis of Olah and the Eimurim, and they join to a k'Zayis to offer them outside and to be liable for them for Pigul, Nosar and Tamei;

(åàéîåøéí åîï äàéîåøéï áçåõ çééá) åîùîò áâîøà ãáðéúåúøå îééøé ã÷úðé ááøééúà òåìä åàéîåøéï àéï ùìîéí åàéîåøéäï (îëàï îãó äáà) ìà åîå÷é ìä áðéúåúøå åëø' éäåùò

3.

Inference: The Gemara [there] connotes that we discuss when they were left over (the blood was not thrown), for the Beraisa teaches Olah and Eimurim, yes (one is liable), but Shelamim and its Eimurim, no, and we establish it when they were left over, like R. Yehoshua.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF