1)

TOSFOS DH Akshei Rachmana li'Terumah di'Chsiv Ki Yochal Prat l'Mazik

úåñôåú ã"ä à÷ùéä øçîðà ìúøåîä ãëúéá ëé éàëì ôøè ìîæé÷

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why this is unlike the Hekesh to Sotah.)

ôéøåù [ö"ì ìîòåèé - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ôåâí ãìà ðäðä ãàé ìà [äé÷ùà] ãúøåîä äåä îçééáéðï ëã÷àîø áúçìú äáøééúà ã÷àîø éëåì ôâí åìà ðäðä åëå' îùåí ãéìôéðï ìéä îòáåãú ëåëáéí ëãôéøùðå ìòéì

(a)

Explanation: This excludes Pogem, for he does not benefit. If not for the Hekesh to Terumah, we would obligate him, like it says at the beginning of the Beraisa - it said "one might have thought that Pegam without Hana'ah..." because we learn from idolatry, like we explained above.

àéï ìä÷ùåú îàé ùðà ãä÷éùà ãñåèä ð÷èéä ìçéåáà åäé÷ù ãúøåîä ìôèåø

(b)

Implied question: Why is the Hekesh to Sotah different, that it obligates, and the Hekesh to Terumah exempts?

ãäà ëãàéú' åäà ëãàéúà ä÷éùà ãñåèä àúéà ìçééá ðäðä áìà ôâí áãáø ùàéï áå ôâí ìåìé ä÷éùà ãñåèä äåä ôèøéðï ëì ðäðä [ö"ì åìà ôâí îúøåîä ëãôé' ìòéì - ùéèä î÷åáöú]

(c)

Answer: This is like is proper for it, and this is like is proper for it. The Hekesh to Sotah comes to obligate Neheneh without Pegam in something that has no Pegam. If not for the Hekesh to Sotah, we would have exempted every Neheneh without Pegam, from Terumah, like I explained above;

(àéìîìà) [ö"ì åäé÷éùà ãúøåîä àúéà ìôèåø ôâí åìà ðäðä ãàéìîìà - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ä÷éùà ãúøåîä äåä îúçééá ôâí áìà ðäðä îòáåãú ëåëáéí ëãô''ì

1.

And the Hekesh to Terumah exempts Pegam without Hana'ah, for if not for the Hekesh to Terumah, Pegam without Hana'ah would be liable, from idolatry, like we explained above.

åà''ú îãåò ìà äæëéø âí ôèåø ãðäðä áìà ôâí âáé úøåîä ãäà ðîé îúøåîä [ö"ì ðô÷à - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ëãàéúà ìòéì éëåì ðäðä åìà ôâí ëãô''ì

(d)

Question: Why didn't [the Gemara] mention also the exemption of Hana'ah without Pegam regarding Terumah, for also this we derive from Terumah, like it says above (18b) "one might have thought that Neheneh without Pegam..." like I explained above?

åé''ì îùåí ãìà (ôñ÷éðï) [ö"ì ôñé÷à - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ìéä ãäà àéëà ðäðä áìà ôâí ãçééá ëâåï áãáø ùàéï áå ôâí ãéìôéðï ìéä îñåèä

(e)

Answer: It is because it is not uniform (always true), for there is Neheneh without Pegam that is liable, e.g. in a matter without Pegam, for we learn from Sotah.

àìà àé ÷ùéà äà ÷ùéà âáé òáåãú ëåëáéí ãð÷è ä÷éùà ìôèåø òã ãð÷è ìôèåø äéä ìå ìäæëéø ìòðéï çéåá ãäà îòáåãú ëåëáé' ðô÷à ìï çéåá îòéìä áäåöàä îøùåú ä÷ãù ìøùåú äãéåè ëâåï îëéøä åîúðä åùàìä âí áìà äðàä

(f)

Question: The following is difficult! Regarding idolatry, it learns the Hekesh to exempt. Rather than learning to exempt, it should have learned it for Chiyuv, for from idolatry we learn the Chiyuv of Me'ilah for removing from Reshus Hekdesh to Reshus Hedyot, e.g. selling, a gift or lending, also without Hana'ah!

ãäà ìà ùîòéðï ìà îñåèä åìà îúøåîä ãáúøåéäåï àéëà äðàä

1.

[We must learn this from idolatry,] for we do not learn it from Sotah, and not from Terumah, for both of them have Hana'ah!

åé''ì ãäëé ðîé ÷àîø à÷ùéä ìòáåãú ëåëáéí åòã ãàéëà ùéðåé ëìåîø îòáåãú ëåëáéí [ö"ì ðô÷à - öàï ÷ãùéí] ãáùéðåé øùåú îçééá áìà ùåí äðàä

(g)

Answer: Indeed, this is what it means. The Torah equated [Me'ilah] to idolatry [that one is not liable] until there is Shinuy. I.e. from idolatry we derive that one is liable for Shinuy Reshus without any Hana'ah;

åàâá àåøçà àùîåòéðï ãàéðå ÷øåé ùéðåé áäåöàä îøùåú ä÷ãù ìçåã òã ùéëðñ ìøùåú äãéåè åéæëä áå ääãéåè òì éãé á÷åò åëãôéøùðå ìòéì (ãàùîòéðï) [ö"ì åàùîòéðï - öàï ÷ãùéí] øáåúà àìéáà ãøá äåðà

1.

By the way, it teaches that it is not called Shinuy through removing from Reshus Hekdesh alone, until it enters Reshus Hedyot and the person acquires it, like I explained above, and it teaches a Chidush according to Rav Huna [who says in Bava Metzi'a (99a) that a lender can take back the item before the borrower used it. Meshichah alone is not Shinuy Reshus until he uses it - Tosfos R. Peretz.]

2)

TOSFOS DH Akshei Rachmana li'Terumah

úåñôåú ã"ä à÷ùéä øçîðà ìúøåîä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why it taught the exemption of damaging Hekdesh regarding food.)

ëé éàëì ôøè ìîæé÷ àó ä÷ãù îéãé ãáø àëéìä ëé îæé÷ ìéä ôèåø

(a)

Explanation: "Ki Yochal" excludes one who damages. Also Hekdesh, something edible, if one damages it, he is exempt.

úéîä (îùîò ãå÷à) [ö"ì ãîùîò äëà ããå÷à - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ãîéãé [ö"ì ãáø - öàï ÷ãùéí] àëéìä äåé îæé÷ ôèåø

(b)

Question: Here it connotes that only something edible, one who damages it is exempt;

å÷ùéà ãáô''÷ ãá''÷ (ãó è:) áîùðä úðï ðëñéí ùàéï áäï îòéìä äà éù áäï îòéìä ãäééðå (÷ãùéí) [ö"ì ÷ãùé áã÷ äáéú] àå ÷ãùé ÷ãùéí ôèåø

1.

In Bava Kama (9b), a Mishnah teaches [that one is liable for damaging] "property without Me'ilah." This implies that if there is Me'ilah, i.e. Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis or Kodshei Kodoshim, he is exempt!

å÷àé ààøáòä àáåú ðæé÷éï ãøéùà (ã÷úðé) [ö"ì ìåîø ùáàåúï ðëñéí ôèåøéí äîæé÷éí å÷úðé - ùéèä î÷åáöú] áäå äîáòä ãäééðå àãí äîæé÷

2.

This applies to the four Avos (primary) damagers of the Reisha, to teach that in those properties damagers are exempt, and it taught among [the four] ha'Mav'eh, which is a person who damages;

åàôéìå ìî''ã îáòä æä äùï (ãìà ôìéâé áæä) [ö"ì î"î ìà àùëçï ãôìéâé áæä - ùéèä î÷åáöú]

3.

And even according to the opinion that ha'Mav'eh is Shen (animals eating), in any case we do not find that they argue about this (liability for damaging Hekdesh)!

(åôé' ä''ø ø''é ãúðà ãð÷è ãëé éàëì ìãòúå) [ö"ì åôé' ä÷' ø' ðúðàì ãð÷è îéãé àëéìä - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ìàùîåòéðï ãëé ðîé àëéì ãøê äéæ÷ ëâåï àëéìä âñä ôèåø (åéù ìäåñéó ëâåï) [ö"ì åùåúä - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ùîï ùì úøåîä ãôèåø ëãàéúà ôø÷ ëéöã îáøëéï [áøëåú ãó ìä: åòé' úåñ' á''î öè: ã''ä ôøè åëå']

(c)

Answer (ha'Kadosh R. Nesanel): It mentioned something edible to teach that also when he eats in a damaging way, e.g. Achilah Gasah, or drinks Terumah oil, he is exempt, like it says in Brachos (35b).

3)

TOSFOS DH v'Dehava Lav Bar Ifgumi Hu

úåñôåú ã"ä åãäáà ìàå áø àéôâåîé äåà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the question.)

áúîéä àîúðé' ãëåñ ùì æäá ã÷øé ìéä ãáø ùàéï áå ôâí

(a)

Explanation: This is said in astonishment, regarding our Mishnah of a gold cup. It calls it a matter without Pegam.

4)

TOSFOS DH Dehava d'Kalasei d'Nun Heichan Azal

úåñôåú ã"ä ãäáà ãëìúéä ãðåï äéëï àæì

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this completes the question.)

îñ÷ðà ã÷åùéà äåà ëìåîø àé ãáø ùàéï áå ôâí äåà ãäáà ãëìúéä ãðåï ôéøåù æäá ëìúå ùì àåúå òùéø äð÷øà ðåï äéëï àæì

(a)

Explanation: This is the culmination of the question. I.e. if [gold] is a matter without Pegam, the gold of the Kalah of Nun, i.e. the gold of the daughter-in-law of that rich man named Nun, where did it go?!

åîäãø ìéä ãìîà äàé ãäáà äéëé ãøîééï ëìúéê ëìåîø ùîà òùúä îæäáä ëîä ùòùå ëìåú ùìê ãäéå îùìéëåú àåúå áçìåðåú àå áî÷åí àçø ùàéðå ðùîø åäéä ôåâí äøáä. ãøîééï îùìéëåú

1.

[Rav Zevid] answers, perhaps the gold went [to the same place] d'Ramyan your daughters-in-law! I.e. perhaps she did with her gold like your daughters-in-law did - they cast it in windows or other places where it is not guarded properly, and it decreased much. D'Ramyan means "they threw."

5)

TOSFOS DH Michdi Iy b'Behemah Temimah Hainu Kos Shel Zahav

úåñôåú ã"ä îëãé àé ááäîä úîéîä äééðå ëåñ ùì æäá

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why there is Pegam only if it has a Mum.)

ôéøåù ëéåï ùäéå úîéîéí ãáø ùàéï áå ôâí äåà ãàôéìå ëçùä àéï ðôñã áëê ëìåí ùäøé î÷øéáéí àåúä åéåöà áä

(a)

Explanation: Since they were Temimim, there is no Pegam, for even if they weakened, there is no loss, for we offer them and one is Yotzei;

ãìà ùééê ôâí àìà áãáø äòåîã ìãîéå ùàí áà ìîåëøå ãîéå ðôçúéí àáì áãáø äòåîã ìé÷øá åàéðå ðôñã áëê ìé÷øá àéï æä ãáø ùéù áå ôâí

1.

Pegam applies only to something destined [to be sold] for its value, that if he comes to sell it, its value decreases. However, something destined to be offered, and it is not lost through this from Hakravah, this is not a matter with Pegam.

åîùðé ááòìú îåí ãäùúà òåîãú ìéîëø (ããîéä ôçåúéí) [ö"ì åãîéä ôçåú îçîú ôâéîä - ùéèä î÷åáöú]

2.

It answers that it discusses a Ba'al Mum. Now it is destined to be sold, and its value decreases due to the Pegam.

19b----------------------------------------19b

6)

TOSFOS DH Hachi Garsinan... Lo Ma'al Ad she'Yehaneh Shaveh Perutah v'Yifgom...

úåñôåú ã"ä äëé âøñé'... ìà îòì òã ùéäðä ùåä ôøåèä åéôâåí ù''ô áãáø àçã

(SUMMARY: Tosfos brings that we learn from Terumah.)

åáâî' îôøù èòîà ãéìôé' îúøåîä ãáãáø ùôâí áå ðäðä

(a)

Explanation: And in the Gemara it explains the reason, that we learn from Terumah, that in the matter in which there is Pegam, he benefits.

7)

TOSFOS DH Ein Mo'el Acher Mo'el Ela Behemah u'Kli Shares Bilvad

úåñôåú ã"ä àéï îåòì àçø îåòì àìà áäîä åëìé ùøú áìáã

(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with a Tosefta.)

úéîä ãúðéà áúåñôúà [á÷ò] á÷øãåí ùì ä÷ãù [åáà çáøå] åá÷ò áå åáà çáøå åá÷ò áå ëåìí îòìå

(a)

Question: A Tosefta teaches that if one chopped with a Hekdesh ax, and his friend came and chopped, and his friend came and chopped, all of them were Mo'el!

åìéëà ìîéîø ãá÷øãåí ëìé ùøú îééøé

1.

Suggestion: Perhaps we discuss an ax that is a Kli Shares.

ãäà úðé äúí áñéôà ðúðä ìçáøå åçáøå ìçáøå äøàùåï îòì åäùðé ìà îòì åáòåìä ëåìí îòìå

2.

Rejection: It teaches there in the Seifa "if he gave it to his friend, and his friend to his friend, the first was Mo'el and the second was not Mo'el, and regarding an Olah, all of them were Mo'el!

åîôøù [ö"ì îåøé - îöåø ãáù] ãäúí áîàé òñ÷éðï ëâåï ìàçø ùá÷ò äçæéøå ãîä ùäçæéøå äøé äåà ùì ä÷ãù ëàéìå ìà îòìå

(b)

Answer #1 (Tosfos' Rebbi): There, what is the case? After he chopped, he returned it. What he returned, it is of Hekdesh, as if they were not Mo'el.

åøáéðå éöç÷ îôøù ãäúí áâæáøéï òñ÷éðï ãìòåìí ìà éöàå ìçåìéï áùåí îòéìä òã ùéåöéàðä îøùåúå

(c)

Answer #2 (Ri): There it discusses Gizbarim. They never become Chulin through any Me'ilah, until he takes it out of his Reshus.

8)

TOSFOS DH Rebbi Omer Kol Davar she'Ein Lo Pidyon Yesh Bo Mishum Mo'el Acher Mo'el

úåñôåú ã"ä øáé àåîø ëì ãáø (ùéù áå ôâí) [ùàéï ìå ôãéåï] éù áå îùåí îåòì àçø îåòì

(SUMMARY: Tosfos says that the Gemara will explain this.)

îôøù ìéä áâî'

(a)

Remark: The Gemara explains this.

9)

TOSFOS DH Mai Taima d'Tana Kama ka'Savar b'Inyana d'Behemah Kesiv b'Eil ha'Asham

úåñôåú ã"ä îàé èòîà ãú''÷ ÷ñáø áòðééðà ãáäîä ëúéá [ãëúéá] áàéì äàùí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the argument about how to expound.)

ôéøåù ãëúéá (åé÷øà ä) (àùø) éëôø òìéå áàéì äàùí åîéåúø (ãäëúé' ÷øà) [ö"ì äåà ãäà àéëà ëúåá - ùéèä î÷åáöú] àçøéðà åäåä îöé ìîéëúá àùø éëôø òìéå

(a)

Explanation: It is written "Asher Yechaper Alav b'Eil ha'Asham", and this is extra, for another verse is written, and it could have written [only] Asher Yechaper Alav;

àìà ù''î ìãøùà àúé ìîéîø ãåå÷à áàéì àùí àéëà îòéìä àçø îòéìä àáì ìà áëìé ùøú

1.

Rather, this shows that [b'Eil ha'Asham] comes for a Drashah, that there is Me'ilah only with the Asham ram, but not with Kli Shares.

ðøàä ìø' ãöøéê ìôøù ãñáøé øáðï ùäåà éåöà ìçåìéï ò''é îòéìä åà''ë éù ìå ôãéåï ãàí àéï ôãéåï à''ë ìà éöà ìçåìéï åàîàé ìà éîòìå áå îàçø ùîòì àçã åàéï ñáøà ìåîø áæä ãâìé ÷øà

(b)

Explanation (Tosfos' Rebbi): We must explain that Rabanan hold that it becomes Chulin through Me'ilah, and if so it has Pidyon, for if there is no Pidyon, it does not become Chulin. Why are they not Mo'el in it after one was Mo'el? It is unreasonable to say "the Torah revealed about this" (only the first, that he was Mo'el)!

10)

TOSFOS DH v'R. Nechemyah... Kal v'Chomer Im l'Acherim Mevi li'Ydei Kedushah

úåñôåú ã"ä åø' ðçîéä àîø ìê ÷''å àí ìàçøéí îáéà ìéãé ÷ãåùä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses to what the Kal v'Chomer applies.)

ôéøåù ùäëìé ùøú î÷ãù áîä ùáúåëå äåà òöîå ìà ëì ùëï

(a)

Explanation: The Kli Shares is Mekadesh what is in it. It itself, all the more so!

ôéøåù ùìà éöà ìçåìéï ò''é îòéìä àáì î''î îåãä ãéù ìå ôãéåï àìà âáé îòéìä ùàðé îùåí ÷''å

1.

Explanation: [It itself] should not become Chulin through Me'ilah, but in any case he agrees that it has Pidyon! However, Me'ilah is different, due to the Kal v'Chomer.

åìòðéï ôãéåï ùîà ìà ùééê äàé ÷''å åáàéì äàùí îéáòéà ìéä ìãøùà àçøéúà

2.

Regarding Pidyon, perhaps this Kal v'Chomer does not apply, and he needs "b'Eil ha'Asham" for a different Drashah.

11)

TOSFOS DH ha'Omer Harei Alai Etzim Lo Yifchos mi'Shnei Gezirim...

úåñôåú ã"ä äàåîø äøé òìé òöéí ìà éôçåú îùðé âæéøéï åèòåðéï îìç åèòåðéï úðåôä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the argument in our Mishnah.)

åîôøù äúí ôø÷ ä÷åîõ øáä (îðçåú ãó ë:) ãìãáøé øáé òöéí öøéëéí ÷îéöä ëîå îðçä åöøéê òöéí ìòùåú îòøëä åìä÷èéøí áä

(a)

Reference: It explains there in Menachos (20b) that according to Rebbi, wood needs Kemitzah, like a Minchah, and it needs wood to make a Ma'arachah and burn [the wood] on [the Ma'arachah];

åäùúà ôìéâé ëï øáé åøáðï áîúðé' ãøáé ñáø ëì ãáø ùàéï áå ôâí ëâåï òöéí éù áäï îåòì àçø îåòì ëîå áäîä åëìé ùøú ãòöéí ÷øáï âîåø äåà

1.

Now, Rebbi and Rabanan argue in our Mishnah as follows. Rebbi holds that anything without Pegam, such as wood, it has Mo'el Acher Mo'el, just like an animal or Kli Shares, for wood is a full Korban;

åøáðï ñáøé ãìàå ÷øáï äåà åàéï áäí îåòì àçø îåòì

2.

Rabanan hold that it is not a Korban, and it does not have Mo'el Acher Mo'el.

12)

TOSFOS DH Kodshei Mizbe'ach Temimim v'Na'asu Ba'alei Mumim Ika Beinaihu veha'Tanya

úåñôåú ã"ä ÷ãùé îæáç úîéîéí åðòùå áòìé îåîéï àéëà áéðééäå åäúðéà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the source of the argument.)

áðéçåúà øáé àåîø é÷áøå ã÷ñáø áòéðï äòîãä åäòøëä åçë''à éôãå ã÷ñáøé ìà áòéðï äòîãä åäòøëä

(a)

Explanation: This is said b'Nichusa (not in astonishment). Rebbi says that they are buried, for he holds that they need Ha'amadah and Ha'arachah. Rabanan say that they are redeemed, for they hold that they do not need Ha'amadah and Ha'arachah.

äùúà ôìéâé (áéï øáé åøáðï) [ö"ì ëï øáé åøáðï áîúðéúéï - öàï ÷ãùéí] ãàìéáà ãøáé ãàîø áòéðï äòîãä åäòøëä àí ëï àìéîà ÷ãåùúééäå ùäøé àéðí ðôãéí á÷ì äìëê éù áäí îåòì àçø îåòì

1.

Now Rebbi and Rabanan argue like this in our Mishnah. According to Rebbi, who says that they need Ha'amadah and Ha'arachah, if so their Kedushah is strong, for they are not redeemed easily. Therefore, they have Mo'el after Mo'el;

åãáø ùàéï áå ôâí ÷øé ìéä ìôé ëùîúçìä ëùäéå úîéîéí äéå ãáø ùàéï áå ôâí

i.

It is called something without Pegam, for from the beginning, when they were Temimim, they did not have Pegam.

åøáðï ñáøé àéï îåòì àçø îåòì ãìà àìéí ÷ãåùúééäå ùäøé äí ðôãéí îáìé äòîãä åäòøëä

2.

Rabanan hold that Ein Mo'el after Mo'el, for their Kedushah is not strong, for they are redeemed without Ha'amadah and Ha'arachah.

13)

TOSFOS DH Natal Even Oh Korah Shel Hekdesh Harei Zeh Lo Ma'al

úåñôåú ã"ä ðèì àáï àå ÷åøä ùì ä÷ãù äøé æä ìà îòì

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that we establish this to discuss a Gizbar.)

áâîøà îå÷é ìä áàáðéí äîñåøåú ìå ìâæáø òñ÷éðï ùàéðï éåöàéï ìçåìéï áðèéìú äâæáø ìôé ùàéðå îåöéà îøùåú ä÷ãù áðèéìúå ùëì æîï ùäéà áøùåú äâæáø äøé äéà áøùåú ä÷ãù òã ùéåöéàä îøùåúå:

(a)

Reference: In the Gemara we establish this to discuss rocks handed over to the Gizbar, because he does not remove them from Reshus Hekdesh through taking them, for as long as they are in the Gizbar's Reshus, they are in Reshus Hekdesh, until he removes them from his Reshus.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF