1) TOSFOS DH Mah l'Kil'ayim she'Chen Mitzvaso b'Kach
úåñôåú ã"ä îä ìëìàéí ùëï îöåúå áëê
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses why we cannot learn from Gid ha'Nasheh.)
åàò''â ãàôùø ì÷ééí áèìéú ùì öîø
(a) Implied question: It is possible to fulfill [the Mitzvah of Techeles without Sha'atnez], with a wool Talis! (Tzon Kodoshim rejected our text of Tosfos, for "Mitzvasah b'Kach" refers to Bigdei Kehunah. Olas Shlomo - above, we concluded that Tzitzis is a "need" of Hash-m. However, we cannot learn from it that Kil'ayim is forbidden to people and permitted for needs of Hash-m, for Mitzvasah b'Kach.)
î''î áñãéï ùì ôùúï ùçééá áöéöéú ìà àôùø ì÷ééí áëê
(b) Answer: In any case, with a linen garment, which is obligated in Tzitzis, it is impossible to fulfill [Techeles without Sha'atnez].
åà''ú åìéîà âéã äðùä áîçåáø éåëéç ãàéï îöåúå áëê åùøé ìâáåä ëãàîø áøéù â''ä (çåìéï ö:)
(c) Question: He should say that Gid ha'Nasheh, when it is attached (in the thigh), is Yochi'ach - it is not Mitzvaso b'Kach (one can remove it), and it is permitted [to offer it] to Hash-m, like it says in Chulin (90b)!
åëé úéîà îä ìâ''ä ùëï îçåáø
1. Suggestion: You cannot learn from Gid ha'Nasheh, for it is attached.
äðê éåëéçå
2. Rebuttal: These others (Chelev, blood, Ketores, Melikah) are Yochi'ach! (They are forbidden to people, and permitted to Hash-m even not attached!)
åé''ì ëéåï ãàéï ìå äéúø àìà òì éãé çéáåø ìà ùééê ìîéòáã îéðéä éåëéç:
(d) Answer: Since [Gid ha'Nasheh] is permitted only when it is attached, we cannot be Mochi'ach from it.
2) TOSFOS DH Ba'al Mum Nami Hutar b'Ofos
úåñôåú ã"ä áòì îåí ðîé äåúø áòåôåú
(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that we could have asked from Mechusar Ever.)
åð''ì ãäùúà îöé (ìîéìó îîçåñø àáø åéåöà ãåôï) [ö"ì ìîéôøê îîçåñø àáø - ç÷ ðúï]
(a) Implied question: It seems that now we could have asked from Mechusar Ever (missing a limb. This is not permitted in birds!)
åìáñåó ëùàîø ùëï îåîï ðéëø (àúé äëì) [ö"ì áìà"ä ôøéê - ç÷ ðúï] ùôéø
(b) Answer: (Indeed, we could have asked.) At the end, when it says [that we cannot learn from] an evident Mum, even without this we properly challenged [the Limud from the Tzad ha'Shavah].
3) TOSFOS DH she'Chen Muman Nikar
úåñôåú ã"ä ùëï îåîï ðéëø
(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out other matters that are even more evident.)
åàéï ìåîø ãîçåñø æîï åàåúå åàú áðå åîå÷öä åðòáã åøåáò åàúðï åîçéø éåëéçå
(a) Implied suggestion: Mechusar Zman, Oso v'Es Beno, Muktzeh and Ne'evad, Rove'a [surely, the same applies to Nirva], Esnan and Mechir [Kelev] should be Mochi'ach!
ãëì äðé éù ìäí ÷åì éåúø îèøéôä ááðé îòééí ùàéï éåãò ëìì
(b) Rejection: All of these have publicity more than a Tereifah in the intestines, which no one at all knows about it;
ëé äéëé ãçùéá éåöà ãåôï îåîå ðéëø îùåí ãéù ìå ÷åì
1. This is like Yotzei Dofen is considered an evident Mum, because it has publicity.
åîçéä ãùøéà ìäãéåè åàñåøä ìâáåä àéï ììîåã èøéôä
(c) Implied question: From a Chayah, which is permitted to people and forbidden to Hash-m, we should learn to a Tereifah (which is forbidden to people. All the more so it is forbidden to Hash-m!)
ãîä ìçéä ùëï àéï áîéðä ìâáåä åùëï îåîä ðéëø
(d) Answer: You cannot learn from a Chayah, for nothing from its species is [offered] to Hash-m, and its Mum is evident.
4) TOSFOS DH Dumiya d'Orlah v'Kil'ai ha'Kerem
úåñôåú ã"ä ãåîéà ãòøìä åëìàé äëøí
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why Kil'ai ha'Kerem did not have Sha'as ha'Kosher.)
åà''ú åäà àîøéðï ô' ëì ùòä (ôñçéí ãó ëä.) åáëì äáùø (çåìéï ãó ÷èæ.) æàú àåîøú ëìàé äëøí òé÷øï ðàñø äåàéì åäéúä ìäí ùòú äëåùø ÷åãí äùøùä
(a) Question: We say in Pesachim (25a) and in Chulin (116a) "this shows that Kil'ai ha'Kerem, the root (plant) itself is forbidden, since it was once permitted before it took root!"
åéù ìåîø ãëìàéí ãëúéáé áäàé ÷øà àééøé áòðáéí ùòåùéï îäí ééï ìðñëéí ëããøùéðï (ôñçéí ãó îç.) îï äîàúéí îîåúø á' îàåú ùðùúééøå ááåø äðäå ìà äéúä ìäí ùòú äëåùø
(b) Answer: Kil'ayim written in this verse discusses grapes from which they make wine for Nesachim, like we expound "Min ha'Ma'asayim" - from the remnant of 200 that remained in the pit. They did not have Sha'as ha'Kosher!
ããå÷à ãçøöï ùðæøò äåà ùäéúä ìå ùòú äëåùø ÷åãí äùøùä åîï äçøöï àéï òåùéï ðñëéí
1. Only regarding a grape seed that was planted, it had Sha'as ha'Kosher before it took root, and we do not make Nesachim from pits.
åà''ú àåúí òðáéí òöîï äéúä ìäí ùòú äëåùø ÷åãí ùäåñéôå îàúéí
(c) Question: Those grapes themselves had Sha'as ha'Kosher before they grew [in a situation of Kil'ayim] one part in 200 [of their size beforehand]!
åé''ì ãîä ùðúåñó áàéñåø àçø ùðòùä ëìàéí ùâãì àçøé ëï ìà äéä ìå îòåìí (àçøé ëï) ùòú äëåùø
(d) Answer: What was added b'Isur after they became Kil'ayim, i.e. what grew afterwards, never had Sha'as ha'Kosher;
åäàé ãîéúñø àó îä ùâãì ÷åãí ìëï ìôé ùà''à ìäáãéì æä îæä ìäôøéù úòøåáúí
1. The reason we forbid even what grew beforehand, is because it is impossible to separate the mixture.
5) TOSFOS DH Kesiv Rachmana Kol Asher Ya'avor
úåñôåú ã"ä ëúá øçîðà ëì àùø éòáåø
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that in the conclusion, we learn even what had Sha'as ha'Kosher.)
àò''â ãîåëç ãäéëà ùäéúä ìå ùòú äëåùø ìà éìôéðï îîù÷ä éùøàì àô''ä îééúé ìéä áëì ãåëúà (áô') [ö"ì åáôø÷ - éùø åèåá] ëì äàñåøéï (úîåøä ãó ëè.) âáé ðòáã
(a) Implied question: It is proven that when it had Sha'as ha'Kosher, we do not learn from mi'Mashkeh Yisrael. Why do we bring [the verse] everywhere, and in Temurah (29a) regarding Ne'evad?
îùåí ãò''é úìúà ÷øàé îñ÷éðï ãàéï ìçì÷
(b) Answer: Through three verses, we conclude that we do not distinguish.
6) TOSFOS DH she'Kamtzan Zar Onen v'Chulei
úåñôåú ã"ä ù÷îöï æø àåðï ëå'
(SUMMARY: Tosfos points two others that could have been taught.)
åäåà äãéï ùúåéé ééï åôøåòé øàù áîéúä åîçìé òáåãä ëãàîøéðï áôø÷ àìå äï äðùøôéï (ñðäãøéï ãó ôâ:) åúðà åùééø
(a) Explanation: The same applies to one who drank wine or grew his hair long. They are Chayav Misah [for serving] and disqualify the Avodah, like it says in Sanhedrin (83b). The Tana taught [some cases], and omitted [others].
7) TOSFOS DH Ben Beseira Omer Yachzor v'Yikmotz b'Yamin
úåñôåú ã"ä áï áúéøà àåîø éçæåø åé÷îåõ áéîéï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why this was not taught with the other Pesulim.)
ìîàé ãîåëç áâîøà ãäåà äãéï àëåìäå ôñåìé ãìòéì éù ìúîåä ãìà òøéá ôñåì ùîàì áäãé ôñåìé ãìòéì
(a) Question: According to what the Gemara proves that the same applies to all Pesulim above, this is astounding that [the Tana] did not teach the Pesul of the left hand together with the other Pesulim above!
åé''ì îùåí ãñ''ã ãùîàì ëéåï ãàéú ìéä äëùéøà áéåí äëéôåøéí ÷áåò òáåãä åìà úåòéì áä çæøä
(b) Answer: It is because one might have thought that the left hand, since it is Kosher on Yom Kipur, it was Kove'a (fixed) the Avodah, and it does not help to repeat (with the right hand).
8) TOSFOS DH Chaser she'Kamtzo b'Roshei Etzba'osav
úåñôåú ã"ä çñø ù÷îöå áøàùé àöáòåúéå
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Mishnah taught Chaser twice.)
àâá ãîôøù éúø çåæø åîôøù çñø ëéåöà áå àó òì âá ãöøåø åâøâéø å÷åøè îùåí çñø äåà:
(a) Explanation: Along with explaining Yeser (too much), it explains a similar case of Chaser, even though [also the Pesul of a Kometz containing] a pebble, grain [of salt] or stick [of Levonah] is due to Chaser.
6b----------------------------------------6b
9) TOSFOS DH she'Lo Yehei Chotei Niskar
úåñôåú ã"ä ùìà éäà çåèà ðùëø
(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks about how he profits.)
úéîä áîä ðùëø åäìà áéï éù òîå ðñëéí áéï àéï òîå ðñëéí äåé ëñìò åúðï ì÷îï áô' áúøà (ãó ÷æ:) äøé òìé ùåø éáéà äåà åðñëéå áîðä
(a) Question: How does [the sinner] profit? Whether or not he brings Nesachim with it, he must spend [in all] a Sela, and a Mishnah (below, 107b) teaches that if one said "it is Alai to bring an ox", he brings it and its Nesachim for a Maneh;
ëáù éáéà äåà åðñëéå áñìò åáçèàú ùì èåîàú î÷ãù ðîé áñìò àó òì ôé ùàéï òîä ðñëéí
1. [If he vowed to bring] a lamb, he brings it and its Nesachim for a Sela. Also the Chatas for Tum'as Mikdash is for a Sela, even though there are no Nesachim with it!
åìàå ôéøëà äåà
(b) Answer: This is not difficult. (Birkas ha'Zevach - if the cheapest animal he can find is at least a Sela, he would need to spend extra for the Nesachim! Also, it is only mid'Rabanan to require a Sela.)
10) TOSFOS DH Ho'il v'Ukminan Reisha d'Lo k'R. Shimon
úåñôåú ã"ä äåàéì åàå÷îéðï øéùà ãìà ëø''ù
(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that this does not answer for Rav Ashi.)
úéîä ìøá àùé ãøéù ôéø÷éï ãàúéà ëø''ù îàé àéëà ìîéîø
(a) Question: According to Rav Ashi, who said above (2b, that our Mishnah) is like R. Shimon, how can we answer? (Shitah Mekubetzes points out that all must agree that it is unlike R. Shimon, for it says that intent in Holachah disqualifies.)
11) TOSFOS DH Lo Yavi mi'Toch Beiso v'Yimla'enu
úåñôåú ã"ä ìà éáéà îúåê áéúå åéîìàðå
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that they argue about whether Kemitzas Pasul is Kove'a.)
ñåìú òùøåï ã÷ñáø ÷ãåùú ëìé ÷áòä ìùí îðçä ãùåá àéï îåñéôéï òìéä åîéôñìà áçñøåï ëãàîøéðï áäàé ôéø÷à (ãó è:) îï äîðçä ôøè ìùçñøä ëê ôé' á÷åðèøñ
(a) Explanation #1: [He may not bring from his house to complete the] Isaron of flour, for [the first Tana] holds that Kedushas Kli is Kove'a, and afterwards one may not add to it, and it is disqualified through Chisaron, like we say below (9b) "Min ha'Minchah", to exclude what became Chaser. So Rashi explained.
å÷ùä ãäà ø''ù áï ì÷éù àéúåúá ì÷îï ãàîø îðçä ùçñøä ÷åãí ÷îéöä ìà éáéà îúåê áéúå åéîìàðä
(b) Question #1: Reish Lakish was refuted below (a). He said that a Minchah that was Chaser before Kemitzah, he may not bring from his house to complete it!
åò''÷ ìîä ìé ÷øà ì÷îï ìáï áúéøà å÷îõ îùí )åéçæåø) [ö"ì ãéçæåø - öàï ÷ãùéí] åé÷îåõ îðà úéúé ìï ã÷ãåùú ëìé ÷áòä
(c) Question #2: Why do we need a verse below for Ben Beseira "v'Kamatz mi'Sham", that he returns to take Kemitzah? What is his source [to think not, i.e.] that Kedushas Kli is Kove'a?
åðøàä ìôøù ãëåìäå [ñ''ì] ëø' éåçðï ã÷ãåùú ëìé ìà ÷áòä àìà á÷îéöú ôñåìéí ôìéâé àé ÷áòä àé ìà ÷áòä
(d) Explanation #2: All hold like R. Yochanan that Kedushas Kli is not Kove'a. Rather, they argue about Kemitzah of a Pasul, whether or not it is Kove'a.
åîöé ìîéîø ãäëé ø''ì ôéøåù ä÷åðèøñ
(e) Remark: It is possible to say that this is Rashi's intent. (Tzon Kodoshim - Chachamim say that when a Pasul did Kemitzah, the Kli is Kove'a, and Ben Beseira disagrees.)
12) TOSFOS DH She'ani Parah d'Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis Hi
úåñôåú ã"ä ùàðé ôøä ã÷ãùé áã÷ äáéú äéà
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that everyone agrees about this.)
îùîò ãìéëà îàï ãôìéâ åáô''÷ ãçåìéï (ãó éà.) åáô''÷ ãùáåòåú (ãó éà:) ôéøùúé
(a) Inference: No one argues about this. In Chulin (11a) and Shevuos (11b) I explained this. (Even though the Torah called it Chatas, it is not considered like Kodshei Mizbe'ach to make Temurah, for this does not affect the Parah itself. After Pidyon one may shear or work with it, for it is no longer called Chatas, or Lev Beis Din stipulates about this. In Avodah Zarah (23b DH Ela), Tosfos cited many Sugyos that say that it is Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis. It is unreasonable to say that Chachamim argue with all of them.)
13) TOSFOS DH v'Chi Teima mi'Bamah Lo Yalfinan
úåñôåú ã"ä åëé úéîà îáîä ìà éìôéðï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos refutes Rashi's Perush.)
ôéøù á÷åðèøñ ÷åãí ùðáãì àäøï
(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi): [We do not learn from a Bamah] before Aharon [and his sons were chosen to be the Kohanim].
îùîò ùøåöä ìåîø ãìàçø àäøï ìà äåúø æø ááîä
(b) Inference: After Aharon [was chosen], a Zar is not permitted [to offer] on a Bamah.
åà''à ìåîø ëï ëãîåëç áô' áúøà ãæáçéí (ãó ÷éç.) ããøéù àéù (àéù) ìäëùéø àú äæø åäééðå ìàçø ùðáãì àäøï
(c) Rejection #1: One cannot say so, like is proven in Zevachim (118a). It expounds "Ish" to be Machshir a Zar, i.e. after Aharon was chosen!
åòåã îöéðå (ù''à éâ) ùàåì åùîåàì ùä÷øéáå ááîä
(d) Rejection #2: We find that Sha'ul and Shmuel offered on Bamos!
14) TOSFOS DH she'Harei Yotzei Kosher b'Bamah
úåñôåú ã"ä ùäøé éåöà ëùø ááîä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with the Gemara in Zevachim.)
åà''ú åäøé éåöà ããí ëùø ááîä åúðï áô' äîæáç î÷ãù (æáçéí ãó ôã.) åùéöà ãîä çåõ ì÷ìòéí ìøáé éäåãä àí òìúä úøã
(a) Question: Yotzei of blood is Kosher on a Bamah, and a Mishnah (Zevachim 84a) says that if the blood left the Kela'im (Azarah), Im Alah Yered according to R. Yehudah!
åé''ì ãäàáøéï åãàé éøãå àáì äãí àéðå îú÷ðç îëåúìé äîæáç
(b) Answer: Surely, limbs Yerdu, but blood is not scraped off the walls of the Mizbe'ach. (Olas Shlomo - there, Yered refers to limbs, for we do not take down blood after Zerikah, and the same applies before Zerikah, Im Alah Lo Yered. This is like R. Tam explained there, that one opinion holds that we scrape blood off the Mizbe'ach, and that opinion holds about blood that Im Alah Yered.)
15) TOSFOS DH Ela Taima d'Ashmo'inan
úåñôåú ã"ä àìà èòîà ãàùîåòéðï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we ask so only here.)
áùåí î÷åí ìà ôøéê áòðéï æä ã÷ùéà ìéä äëà àîàé àéöèøéê ìéä ìøá ìàùîåòéðï äà ãúðéà ááøééúà
(a) Question: No where is a question asked like this, that it is difficult to [the Makshan] why Rav needed to teach what is taught in a Beraisa!
åùîà ùâåøä äéúä áôé ëì
(b) Answer: Perhaps everyone knew the Beraisa.
16) TOSFOS DH mi'Makom she'Raglei ha'Zar Omdos
úåñôåú ã"ä îî÷åí ùøâìé äæø òåîãåú
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why this is needed.)
ì÷îï áôéø÷éï îôøù àöèøéê ñã''à äåàéì åëúéá åäâéùä å÷îõ îä äâùä á÷øï îòøáéú ãøåîéú àó ÷îéöä ëå'
(a) Explanation #1: Below (8b) it explains that we need this, for one might have thought that since it says "v'Higishah... v'Kamatz", just like Hagashah is in the southwest corner, also Kemitzah.
åá÷åðèøñ ìà ôéøù ëï
(b) Explanation #2: Rashi did not explain like this. (Rather, one might have thought that Kemitzah must be in the north. Meleches Yom Tov - this is like the Havah Amina below (8b). Tosfos explains like the conclusion there.)
17) TOSFOS DH v'Kivan d'Kra Stama Kesiv Mah Li Smol v'Chulei
úåñôåú ã"ä åëéåï ã÷øà ñúîà ëúéá îä ìé ùîàì ëå'
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why elsewhere we do not say so.)
åà''ú áôø÷ äîæáç î÷ãù (ùí) ãúðï ù÷éáìå ôñåìéï åæø÷å àú ãîï ùàí òìä ìà éøã åîå÷îéðï ìä áôñåìéï ãçæå ìòáåãú öáåø åîøáé ìä (äëà) [ö"ì äúí - öàï ÷ãùéí] îæàú äúåøä
(a) Question: In Zevachim (84a), a Mishnah teaches that if Pesulim did Kabalah and they did Zerikah, Im Alah Lo Yered, and we establish it to discuss Pesulim who are proper for Avodas Tzibur. We include them there from "Zos ha'Torah";
åàîàé ìà ôøéê ãëéåï ã÷øà ñúîà [ö"ì ëúéá - öàï ÷ãùéí] îä ìé çæå åîä ìé ìà çæå
1. Why don't we ask that since the verse is written Stam, what is the difference whether they are proper or not proper?
åéù ìåîø îùåí ããøùéðï æàú äéà äòåìä äøé àìå [â'] îéòåèéï:
(b) Answer: It is because we expound "Zos Hi ha'Olah" - these are three exclusions. (Therefore, they must be proper.)