1) TOSFOS DH v'Chi Mehader Lei l'Kometz k'Dichtei Likdosh
úåñôåú ã"ä åëé îäãø ìéä ì÷åîõ ìãåëúéä ìé÷ãåù
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Kometz need not touch the Kli.)
åàò''ô ùùéøéí îôñé÷éï áéï ÷åîõ ìëìé
(a) Implied question: The Shirayim interrupt between the Kometz and the Kli!
îéï áîéðå àéðå çåöõ
(b) Answer: Min b'Mino is not a Chatzitzah.
2) TOSFOS DH Amar R. Yochanan... Klei Shares Ein Mekadshin Ela mi'Da'as
úåñôåú ã"ä à''ø éåçðï æàú àåîøú ëìé ùøú àéï î÷ãùéï àìà îãòú
(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with other Sugyos.)
åäà ãôìéâé çæ÷éä åøáé éåçðï ì÷îï áôø÷ äúåãä (ãó òç:) [âáé úåãä] ùùçèä òì ùîåðéí çìåú å÷àîø [øá ôôà] ãëåìé òìîà ëìé ùøú î÷ãùéï ùìà îãòú
(a) Implied question: Chizkiyah and R. Yochanan argue below (78b) about a Todah slaughtered on 80 loaves, and Rav Papa said that all agree that Klei Shares are Mekadesh without intent!
ùàðé äúí ãîúåê ùî÷ãù [ö"ì àøáòéí îúåê ùîåðéí - öàï ÷ãùéí] îãòú î÷ãù ðîé ùìà îãòú
(b) Answer: There is different, for since he is Mekadesh 40 of the 80 with intent, he is Mekadesh also without intent. (Abaye explained that he intended to be Mekadesh all 80. This does not take effect. Chizkiyah and R. Yochanan argue below about whether or not the Klei Shares are Mekadesh 40.)
åäà ãîùîò áñåó ìåìá åòøáä (ñåëä ãó ð.) ãçæ÷éä ñáø ëìé ùøú àéï î÷ãùéï ùìà îãòú âáé äà ãúðï ëîòùäå áçåì ëê îòùäå áùáú åôøéê áâîøà åðééúé áî÷åãùú
(c) Implied question: It connotes that in Sukah (50a) that Chizkiyah holds that Klei Shares are not Mekadesh without intent, regarding the Mishnah (Sukah 45b) "like [Nisuch ha'Mayim] is done on a weekday, so it is done on Shabbos", and the Gemara asked "they should bring [the water] in a Kodesh Kli!" (Chizkiyah said there that Klei Shares are not Mekadesh without intent. It is a decree not to use a Kodesh Kli, lest people say that he intended.)
äúí àéï ëì äîéí øàåéï ìäú÷ãù àáì áäúåãä ëéåï ãøàåéï ì÷ãù î÷ãù ùìà îãòú
(d) Answer: There, not all the water is proper to become Kadosh, but below (78b), since [all 80 loaves] are proper to become Kadosh (if he would slaughter two Todos, Klei Shares) are Mekadesh without intent.
åö''ò ãëéåï ãàéï ùéòåø ìîéí äøé ëåìí øàåéï ìäú÷ãù
(e) Question: Since there is no Shi'ur for the water, all is proper to become Kadosh!
åðøàä ãëéåï ãùìà áæîðå äåà àò''â ãëìé ùøú î÷ãùéï ùìà áæîðå ëãîñ÷éðï áñåó ùúé äìçí (ì÷îï ãó ÷.) ùìà îãòú îéäà àéï î÷ãùéï åàò''â ãìéìä àéï îçåñø æîï
(f) Answer: Since it is not in the time [for Nisuch ha'Mayim], even though Klei Shares) are Mekadesh not in the time, like we conclude below (100a), in any case without intent they are not Mekadesh, and even though night is not Mechusar Zman, [for this, it is like Mechusar Zman].
3) TOSFOS DH Ein Mekadeshim Likarev
úåñôåú ã"ä àéï î÷ãùéí ìé÷øá
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses how R. Yochanan initially understood the question.)
ä÷ùä ä''ø ôèø ãìôé' ä÷åðèøñ áæáçéí ôø÷ äîæáç î÷ãù (ãó ôæ:) îùîò ùäùéáå ø' éåçðï ãî÷ãùéï ìëúçéìä ìé÷øá
(a) Question #1 (R. Peter): According to Rashi in Zevachim (87b), it connotes that R. Yochanan answered him that they are Mekadesh l'Chatchilah to offer;
ã÷àîø äúí áòé îéðéä ø''ù áï ì÷éù îø' éåçðï îäå ùé÷ãùå àú äôñåìéï åôé' ùí á÷åðèøñ ãìòðéï ôãéåï ÷à áòé ãàé î÷ãù äëìé àéï ìäí ôãéåï
1. It says there that Reish Lakish asked R. Yochanan whether they are Mekadesh Pesulim, and Rashi explained there that he asked about Pidyon. If the Kli is Mekadesh, there is no Pidyon.
à''ì úðéúåä ëùí ùîæáç åäëáù î÷ãùéï àú äøàåé ìäí ëê ëìé ùøú î÷ãùéï àú äøàåé ìäí
2. [R. Yochanan] said that a Mishnah teaches this. Just like the Mizbe'ach and the ramp are Mekadesh what is proper for them, so Klei Shares are Mekadesh what is proper for them.
åàò''â ãîæáç åëáù àééøé ìòðéï ãàí òìå ìà éøãå àééúé îéðä øàéä ìòðéï ôãéåï
i. Even though the Mizbe'ach and the ramp discuss [Kedushah] that Im Alah Lo Yered, he brought a proof from it to Pidyon.
à''ì ìëúçéìä ìé÷øá ÷à îéáòéà ìé
3. [Reish Lakish] said "I ask [if they are Mekadesh] to offer l'Chatchilah!
äà ðîé úðéðà ù÷éáìå ôñåìéï åæø÷å àú ãîï îàé ìàå ÷áìå ôñåìéï åæø÷å ôñåìéï
4. [R. Yochanan] said that a Mishnah teaches also this! If Pesulim did Kabalah and they threw the blood - does this not mean that Pesulim did Kabalah and Pesulim did Zerikah?!
ôé' äà æø÷å ëùøéï àó ìëúçéìä éòìå äàáøéí àìîà [ëìé ùøú - ùéèä î÷åáöú] î÷ãùé ìëúçéìä ìé÷øá
5. Explanation: This implies that [if Pesulim did Kabalah] and Kesherim did Zerikah, even l'Chatchilah we offer the limbs. This shows that Klei Shares are Mekadesh l'Chatchilah to offer!
åòåã ÷ùä îäà ãúðï äúí åàìå àí òìå ìà éøãå äìï åäéåöà åäèîà åäðùçè çåõ ìæîðå åçåõ ìî÷åîå åëåìäå àééøé áùðæø÷ äãí ëãîåëç áâî'
(b) Question #2: A Mishnah there (84a) teaches "the following, Im Alah Lo Yered - Lan, Yotzei, Tamei, what was slaughtered Chutz li'Zmano or Chutz li'Mkomo, and all of them discuss when Zerikas Dam was done, like is proven in the Gemara (85a);
ã÷àîø òåìà àéîåøé ÷ãùéí ÷ìéí ùäòìï ìôðé æøé÷ú ãîéí ìà éøãå ðòùå ìçîå ùì îæáç
1. Ula said that Eimurim of Kodshim Kalim that Alu before Zerikas Dam, Lo Yerdu, for they became the Mizbe'ach's food;
àîø ø' æéøà àó àðï ðîé úðéðà ùðùôê ãîä åùéöà ãîä çåõ ì÷ìòéí åîä äúí ãàí áà ìæøå÷ àéðå æåø÷ àîøú àí òìå ìà éøãå äëà ëå'
2. R. Zeira said that a Beraisa teaches this. If the blood spilled or the blood left the Kela'im... - just like there, if he comes to throw, he does not throw, and we say that Im Alah Lo Yered. Here...
åîãìà îééúé îëì äðé ù''î ãàçø æøé÷ä îééøé åàô''ä ìëúçéìä ìà éòìå àìîà àéï î÷ãùéï ìëúçéìä ìé÷øá äàáøéí
3. Summation of question: Since he did not bring from all these [of the Mishnah 84a], this shows that it discusses after Zerikah, and even so l'Chatchilah Lo Ya'alu. This shows that [Klei Shares] are not Mekadesh l'Chatchilah to offer limbs!
åîéäå éù ìãçåú ãàëåìäå ÷àé åæø÷å àú ãîí
(c) Rejection: We can reject this. "And they (Pesulim) threw the blood" refers to all of them (but if Kesherim did Zerikah, l'Chatchilah we offer the limbs)!
åòåã ÷ùä ãáëîä ãåëúé (ôñçéí ãó èæ:) àîøéðï ðèîà äãí ìà éæøå÷ åàí æø÷ äåøöä
(d) Question #3: In several places (Pesachim 16b) we say that if the blood became Tamei, he does not do Zerikah, and if he did Zerikah, it was Meratzeh;
åìîä ìà éæøå÷ äà ëìé ùøú î÷ãùéï ìëúçéìä ìé÷øá
1. Why should he not do Zerikah? [According to Rashi] Klei Shares are Mekadesh to offer l'Chatchilah!
åáô' ùðé ùòéøé (éåîà ãó ñá.) àîøéðï ðùôê äãí éîåú äîùúìç îú äîùúìç éùôê äãí ìîä éùôê åëï [äðúòøá - îöåø ãáù] áãí ôñåìéï éùôê ìàîä
(e) Question #4: In Yoma (62a) we say that if the blood [of the inner goat] spilled, Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach must die. If Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach died, the blood [of the inner goat] is spilled. Why do we spill it? And similarly, [why do] we spill to the Amah [blood that] became mixed with blood of Pesulim?
åáô' äîðçåú (ì÷îï ÷:) úðï ðèîàå îùäå÷ãùå áëìé àéï ìäí ôãéåï ãîùîò äà îé÷øá ìà ÷øá
(f) Question #5: A Mishnah below (100b) teaches that if [Menachos or Nesachim] became Tamei after Kidush in a Kli, they cannot be redeemed. This implies that we do not offer them!
åéù ìãçåú ëì äðé áùòéøä àçø ëê ìëìé çåì
(g) Answer: We can reject all of these, that they discuss after he poured [the Kodesh] into a Chulin Kli.
åäà ãùîòúéï ðîé éù ìééùá ìôé' ä÷åðèøñ ãäà ãîùîò ùäùéá ìå àéï î÷ãùéï äééðå ìôé ùãåçä ùí ìà ù÷éáìå ôñåìéí à''ð åæåø÷ï ]åæø÷å[ ôñåìéï
1. Also in our Sugya, we can resolve Rashi. It implies that [R. Yochanan] answered that they are not Mekadesh, i.e. according to the rejection there (Zevachim 87b) "no, Pesulim did Kabalah, or Pesulim did Zerikah."
åòåã ÷ùä ìôé' ä÷åðèøñ ãîã÷àîø ìëúçìä ìé÷øá ÷à îéáòéà ìéä îùîò ùâí øáé éåçðï äéä éåãò ãìé÷øá ÷îéáòéà ìéä àìà ùäéä ñáåø ãîáòéà ìéä áãéòáã åìà îééøé ëìì ìòðéï ôãéåï
(h) Question #6: According to Rashi, since he said that he asked about to offer l'Chatchilah, this implies that also R. Yochanan knew that he asked about to offer, just he thought that he asked about b'Di'eved, and he does not discuss Pidyon at all!
åìôø''ú [æä øàùé úéáåú åìëï ô' ø''ú - áàøåú äîéí] ãîáòéà ìéä àí î÷ãùéï äôñåìéï ìòðéï ãàí òìå ìà éøãå
(i) Explanation: Therefore, R. Tam explained that he asked whether Pesulim are Mekadesh regarding Im Alah Lo Yered;
ãàò''â ãàé ìàå ëìé äéä îæáç î÷ãùí
1. Implied question: Even if not for the Kli, the Mizbe'ach would be Mekadesh them!
äùúà ãàéëà ëìé âøò ùîôñé÷ áéï äôñåì ìîæáç
2. Answer: Now that there is a Kli, it is worse, for it interrupts between the Pesul and the Mizbe'ach.
åîñé÷ ãìëúçéìä ìé÷øá îéáòéà ìéä àí ÷éãùå ä÷åîõ ôñåì áëìé àí îòìéäå
(j) Explanation (cont.): We conclude that he asked to offer l'Chatchilah. If they were Mekadesh a Pasul Kometz in a Kli, does he bring it up (offer it on the Mizbe'ach)?
ããéìîà ëùí ùäîæáç î÷ãù ãìà éøã ëê ëìé î÷ãù ãéòìä
1. Perhaps just like the Mizbe'ach is Mekadesh, that [Im Alah] Lo Yered, so a Kli is Mekadesh to bring it up!
åôøéê ãäà ðîé úðéðà ù÷éáìå ôñåìéí åæø÷å ãîùîò æø÷å ãéòáã àáì ìëúçéìä ìà éæøå÷å
2. [R. Yochanan] asked that a Mishnah teaches also this! Pesulim did Kabalah and they threw. "They threw" connotes b'Di'eved, but l'Chatchilah they do not throw.
åäà ã÷àîø îàé ìàå ÷éáìå ôñåìéï åæø÷å ôñåìéï
(k) Implied question: [R. Yochanan] said "is it not that Pesulim did Kabalah and Pesulim threw?"! (According to R. Tam, the question is not who threw. He merely infers that l'Chatchilah one may not throw!)
ìàå îìùåï ôñåìéï ãéé÷ àìà äîùðä ÷à îñééí åôéøåùà ãîúðé' ëê äåà
(l) Answer: He does not infer from the word "Pesulim". Rather, he finishes his citation of the Mishnah, and this is its Perush (Pesulim also threw).
úãò ãäà ø''ù áï ì÷éù ããçé (áôñåìéï ðîé) [ðîé áôñåìéï - éùø åèåá, áàøåú äîéí] îå÷é ìä îëìì ùìà ã÷ã÷ øáé éåçðï áôñåìéï
(m) Proof: Reish Lakish, who rejects [the proof], also establishes it to discuss Pesulim. This connotes that R. Yochanan did not infer from "Pesulim".
4) TOSFOS DH Amar Lei mi'Kli Zeh
úåñôåú ã"ä àîø ìéä îëìé æä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the Chidush according to the conclusion.)
ìîàé ãîñé÷ ãîâáä ìéä ëäï éù ìúîåä îàé çéãåù äùéáå îëìé æä
(a) Question: According to the conclusion that the Kohen lifts it (but he may not leave it on the ground), this is astounding. What Chidush did he answer him "from this Kli"?
åùîà àùîòéðï àó òì ôé ùìà ðîùç ùòáåãúå îçðëú
(b) Answer #1: Perhaps he teaches that even though [the Kli] was not anointed, its Avodah inaugurates it.
à"ð ùì òõ äéä ëøáé éåñé áøáé éäåãä ãàîø áôø÷ äçìéì (ñåëä ãó ð:) ãòåùéï ëìé ùøú ùì òõ.
(c) Answer #2: It was a wooden Kli, like R. Yosi b'Ribi Yehudah, who says in Sukah (50b) that we may make Klei Shares of wood.
5) TOSFOS DH she'Chen Matzinu b'Siluk Bazichin
úåñôåú ã"ä ùëï îöéðå áñéìå÷ áæéëéï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that this is unlike R. Chanina.)
äà îéìúà ãìà ëøáé çðéðà ãàîø ì÷îï (ãó ç.) ìà æå ÷ãåùä áìà æå ãàéäå ìà éìéó îéìúà îîéìúà:
(a) Observation: This is unlike R. Chanina, who said below (8a-b, that a Minchah that needs oil and Levonah), is not Kadosh without this (it needs both), for he does not learn a matter from a matter (from a Minchah that requires only one of them).
7b----------------------------------------7b
6) TOSFOS DH mi'Dam Yalfinan Lah
úåñôåú ã"ä îãí éìôéðï ìä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we learn from blood.)
ã÷éãåù ÷åîõ (ëðâãå) [ëðâã - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ÷áìú ãí
(a) Explanation: Kidush of the Kometz corresponds to Kabalah of blood.
7) TOSFOS DH Hadar Bei Rava
úåñôåú ã"ä äãø áéä øáà
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains from which he retracted.)
îäê ñáøà ã÷í øáà áùéèúà ãøá ðçîï øáéä
(a) Explanation: He retracted from this reasoning, for Rava [concluded] like his Rebbi, Rav Nachman.
8) TOSFOS DH Gamar mi'Lehazos
úåñôåú ã"ä âîø îìäæåú
(SUMMARY: Tosfos tells where this was taught.)
îùðä äéà áîñëú ôøä
(a) Reference: This is a Mishnah in Parah (3:9).
9) TOSFOS DH Mekane'ach Yado b'Gufah Shel Parah
úåñôåú ã"ä î÷ðç éãå áâåôä ùì ôøä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses why we bring this verse.)
ùäøé ôøä ìôðéå ðùøôú ìàçø ùéåøã îï ääø ãëúéá åùøó àú äôøä ìòéðéå ëê ôé' øáéðå ùìîä
(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi): The Parah is burned in front of him after he descends from the mountain, for it is written "v'Saraf Es ha'Parah l'Einav."
åðøàä ãìà îééúé ÷øà àìà îùåí ãëúéá áñéôéä åàú ãîä éùøåó àìîà ãîä èòåï ùøéôä åìôéëê î÷ðç éãå áâåó äôøä åôé' ä÷åðèø' îâåîâí
(b) Objection (and Explanation #2): It seems that we bring the verse only because it is written at the end "v'Es Damah Yisrof" - this shows that the blood must be burned. Therefore, he cleans [the blood on] his hand on the body of the Parah. Rashi's Perush is difficult. (Tzon Kodoshim - the verse teaches that he sees it burned, but perhaps he was not near it!)
10) TOSFOS DH Ela Etzba'o b'Mai Mekane'ach
úåñôåú ã"ä àìà àöáòå áîàé î÷ðç
(SUMMARY: Tosfos gives two explanations of the question.)
ëàï ôé' ä÷åðèøñ ìôé ùäéä îæä îãîä áäø äîùçä àì ôðé àäì îåòã åôøä ìôðéå ðùøôú ìàçø ùéåøã îï ääø
(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi here): [We ask] because he sprinkled from its blood on Har ha'Mishchah towards Pnei Ohel Mo'ed, and the Parah was burned in front of him after he descends;
åäéàê äéä éåøã áéï ëì äæàä åäæàä îäø äîùçä ì÷ðç áâåó äôøä
1. How could he descend between every Haza'ah from Har ha'Mishchah to clean [his finger] on the Parah?!
åáæáçéí áô' ãí çèàú (ãó öâ:) ôéøù ùìà äéä éëåì ì÷ðç àöáòå áâåó äôøä ùìà éúìëìê àöáòå áðéîéï
(b) Explanation #2 (Rashi in Zevachim 93b): He could not clean his finger on the Parah itself, lest his finger get dirty with hairs;
ãäëé ðîé çééùéðï áðéîéï áô' ëì ëúáé (ùáú ÷èæ:) âáé îôùéè àú äôñç òã äçæä
1. Source: We are similarly concerned for hairs in Shabbos (116b) regarding flaying Pesach until the chest.
åìôé' ä÷åðèøñ ãäëà àéï ìä÷ùåú îäà ãàîøéðï áôø÷ áúøà ãæáçéí (ãó ÷éâ.) ãùçéèä åäæàä ëðâã ôúçå ùì äéëì
(c) Implied question: According to Rashi here, it is difficult what it says in Zevachim (113b) that [also] Shechitah was opposite the opening of the Heichal!
ãáùáéì ëê ìà äéå áî÷åí àçã àìà ùúéäï äéå îëååðåú ëðâã ôúçå ùì äéëì
(d) Answer: This does not mean that they were in one place. Rather, both were aligned opposite the opening of the Heichal.
11) TOSFOS DH v'Im Isa Leilaf mi'Dam (pertains to the coming Daf)
úåñôåú ã"ä åàí àéúà ìéìó îãí (ùééê ìãó äáà)
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses learning Kedushah l'Chatza'im from Chavitim.)
åà''ú åäà áãí ìéëà îúåê åäëà àéëà îúåê
(a) Question: Mitoch (since) does not apply to blood, and here (Chavitim) there is Mitoch (since they are offered l'Chatza'im, i.e. half in the morning and half in the evening, they become Kadosh l'Chatza'im)!
åáùàø îðçåú îùîò ãîåãä øáé àìòæø ãàéï ÷ãåùä ìçöàéï ëéåï ãìà ÷øáéï ìçöàéï
1. It connotes that R. Eliezer agrees about other Menachos, that they do not become Kadosh l'Chatza'im, since they are not offered l'Chatza'im!
åîéäå éù ìôøù ããí ðîé ÷øá ìçöàéï ùéù ã' îúðåú åæ' äæàåú (ãôøä) [ö"ì äôøåëú - éùø åèåá] ùëì àçú òáåãä áôðé òöîä
(b) Answer: We can explain that also blood is offered l'Chatza'im - there are four Matanos and seven Haza'os on the Paroches. Each is an Avodah by itself!
åùéòåø èáéìä ãìòéì ìàå ìîòåèé çöé äæàä àìà ùéäà áëìé ùéòåø æ' äæàåú
1. The Shi'ur of Tevilah above does not exclude half a Haza'ah, rather, that there is in the Kli the Shi'ur of seven Haza'os.
åäà ãàîøéðï (áñîåê) âáé äôøéù çöé òùøåï åãòúå ìäåñéó ãàîø øá àéðå ÷ãåù
(c) Implied question: We say below (8a) about one who separated half an Isaron and he intends to add, that Rav said that it is not Kadosh;
[åôøéê] åàé ëøáé àìòæø ñ''ì ìéìó îçáéúéï
1. [The Gemara] asked that if he holds like R. Elazar, that Chavitim become Mekudash l'Chatza'im, he should learn from Chavitim!
îöéðå ìôøù ãçùéá ìéä ãòúå ìäåñéó ëîå èòîà ãîúåê å÷ãåù ìçöàéï
(d) Answer #1: We can explain that [the Makshan] considers intent to add to be like the reason of Mitoch, and it is Kadosh l'Chatza'im.
åòåã ãàôéìå ìéëà îúåê áùàø îðçåú î''î ëéåï ã÷ãùé çáéúéï ìçöàéï îàéæä èòí ùéäéä éìôéðï ùàø îðçåú îéðééäå
(e) Answer #2: Even if there is no Mitoch in other Menachos, in any case since the Chavitim become Mekudash l'Chatza'im, for whatever reason, we learn other Menachos from them.
àé ðîé äà ãð÷è øáé àìòæø èòîà ãîúåê îùåí ãøáé éåçðï ð÷èéä ãàôéìå ôìâéúå áùàø îðçåú áçáéúéï àåãå ìé îéäú îèòí îúåê:
(f) Answer #3: R. Elazar gave the reason of Mitoch because R. Yochanan mentioned it. Even if you argue about other Menachos, admit to me about Chavitim at least, due to Mitoch.