1) TOSFOS DH ha'Kometz Es ha'Minchah v'Chulei
úåñôåú ã"ä îúðé' ä÷åîõ àú äîðçä ëå'
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why this was taught.)
îùåí ãáòé ìîúðé' ø''à ôåñì àéöèøéê ãìâåôéä ìà àéöèøéê ãîîúðé' ãô''÷ (ìòéì éá.) ùîòéðï ã÷úðé ìàëåì ãáø ùãøëå ìàëåì åìä÷èéø ãáø ùãøëå ìä÷èéø çåõ ìî÷åîå ôñåì çåõ ìæîðå ôéâåì
(a) Explanation: [The Tana taught this Reisha] because he needed to teach that R. Eliezer disqualifies. [The Reisha] is not needed for the simple meaning, for from our Mishnah above (12a) we hear this, for it taught "to eat something that is normally eaten, and to be Maktir something that is normal to be Maktir, Chutz li'Mkomo it is Pasul, and Chutz li'Zmano it is Pigul";
äà ìàëåì ãáø ùàéï ãøëå ìàëåì åìä÷èéø ãáø ùàéï ãøëå ìä÷èéø ëùø
1. Inference: To eat something that is not normal to eat, and to be Maktir something that is not normal to be Maktir, it is Kosher.
ãìéëà ìîéîø îãéå÷à ìà ùîòéðï ëùø àìà ãìà äåé ôéâåì àáì ôñåì äåé
2. Implied question: Perhaps we cannot infer that it is Kosher, only that it is not Pigul, but it is Pasul!
ãáñåó ô''÷ (âæ''ù:) îùîò ãàôéìå ëùø ùîòéðï îéðä âáé äàé ããéé÷ èòîà ãìàëåì åìä÷èéø ëå' åòì ëøçê îãéå÷à ãçåõ ìî÷åîå ùîòéðï ãëùø
3. Rejection: Above (12b) it connotes that we learn from it even that it is Kosher, regarding what he infers "the reason [the intents do not disqualify] is because they are to eat and to be Maktir." You are forced to say that from the inference of Chutz li'Mkomo (which is only Pasul, and not Pigul), we hear that it is Kosher.
2) TOSFOS DH she'Ein Achilah v'Haktarah Mitztarfin
úåñôåú ã"ä ùàéï àëéìä åä÷èøä îöèøôéï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos cites an argument about who taught this.)
áñåó ô''÷ (â''æ ùí:) îå÷é ìä ø' éøîéä ëø''à åàáéé îå÷é ìä ëøáðï
(a) Reference: Above (12b), R. Yirmeyah establishes it like R. Eliezer, and Abaye establishes it like Rabanan.
3) TOSFOS DH mid'Afkinhu Rachmana bi'Leshon Achilah
úåñôåú ã"ä îãàô÷éðäå øçîðà áìùåï àëéìä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos justifies how R. Eliezer expounds.)
úéîä úéðç (ãàëéìú îæáç ìàãí àáì àëéìú) [ö"ì îàëéìú îæáç ìàãí àáì îëéìú - öàï ÷ãùéí] àãí ìàëéìú îæáç îðìï
(a) Question: Granted, [we learn] from consumption of the Mizbe'ach to a person. However, what is the source [to learn] from a person's eating to Achilas Mizbe'ach?
ããåîéà ãäëé àîø áä÷åîõ æåèà (ìòéì ãó èå.) ìçí àé÷øé úåãä úåãä ìà àé÷øé ìçí
1. Similar to this, it says above (15a) "Lechem (Lachmei Todah) is called Todah, but Todah is not called Lechem"!
åéù ìåîø ãáôùèé' ã÷øà ÷ééîé ùðé äàëéìåú àáùø æáç (úåãú - öàï ÷ãùéí îåç÷å) ùìîéå
(b) Answer: In the simple meaning of the verse, the two eatings refer to "Besar Zevach Shelamav."
å÷öú ÷ùä ãîæä ìà îùðå øáðï îéãé:
(c) Question: Rabanan do not answer this at all (why they disagree)!
17b----------------------------------------17b
4) TOSFOS DH d'Lo Shena Ki Mechashev bi'Leshon Achilah v'Chulei
úåñôåú ã"ä ãìà ùðà ëé îçùá áìùåï àëéìä ëå'
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we need a verse for this.)
úéîä ì''ì ÷øà ìäëé úéôå÷ ìéä îãàé÷øé àëéìú àù àëéìä ëîå çéùá ùéàëìåäå ëìáéí ìîçø ùúàëìäå àù ìîçø
(a) Question: Why do we need a verse for this? I should know from that consumption of fire is called Achilah! Like one who intended that dogs eat it tomorrow, [so is intent] that fire consume it tomorrow!
ãîñ÷éðï áñåó ôø÷ á' ãæáçéí (ãó ìà.) ãäåé ôéâåì îùåí ãëúéá åàú àéæáì éàëìå äëìáéí åëúéá úàëìäå àù ìà ðåôç
1. We conclude in Zevachim (31a) that it is Pigul, because it is written "v'Es Izezel Yochlu ha'Kelavim"! [Also regarding fire,] it is written "Te'achlehu Esh Lo Nufach"!
åîñé÷ äúí ãäà ãúðï ìàëåì ëçöé æéú åìä÷èéø ëçöé æéú ëùø ùàéï àëéìä åä÷èøä îöèøôéï àé çéùá áìùåï àëéìä îöèøôéï îùåí ãàé÷øé àëéìú àù àëéìä ëãëúéá úàëìäå àù ìà ðåôç
2. We conclude there that the Mishnah taught "to eat a half-k'Zayis and to be Maktir a half-k'Zayis, it is Kosher, for eating and Haktarah do not join", but if he intended with an expression of Achilah, they join, because consumption of fire is called Achilah, for it says "Te'achlehu Esh Lo Nufach"!
åé''ì ãàéöèøéê ìøáåéé äëà ùéàëìäå îæáç ìîçø àò''ô ùìà äæëéø àù ãî÷øà ãúàëìäå àù ìà ðôé÷ àà''ë äæëéø àù
(b) Answer #1: Here we need to include "that the Mizbe'ach will consume it tomorrow", even though he did not mention fire, for we learn from the verse Te'achlehu Esh only if he mentioned fire.
åòåã ðøàä ãäúí àééøé ááùø ãîçùá ìàëåì ãáø ùãøëå ìàëåì åäëà îééøé áàéîåøéí åàé ìà ãøáé ÷øà äëà ä''à ãîçùá áàéîåøéí ùúàëìí àù ìîçø äåé ëîçùá ìàëåì ãáø ùãøëå ìä÷èéø ãìà äåé ôéâåì
(c) Answer #2: There we discuss meat. He intends to eat something normally eaten. Here we discuss Eimurim. Had the verse not included here, one might have thought that one who intends for Eimurim, that fire consume them tomorrow, this is like intent to eat something that it is normal to be Maktir, which is not Pigul;
ãàôé' äùúà ðîé ãøáé ÷øà îçùá áìùåï àëéìä àé çéùá áàéîåøéí ùúàëìí àù ùì äãéåè ìîçø ìà äåé ôéâåì
1. Even now that the verse includes intent in an expression of Achilah, if he intended for Eimurim, that a person's fire consume them tomorrow, it is not Pigul;
àò''â )ãáùø([ö"ì ãááùø äåé ôéâåì ëãàîøéðï äúí ãîöèøôéï áìùåï àëéìä î"î áàéîåøéï ìà - öàï ÷ãùéí] äåé ôéâåì ãîçùá ìàëåì ãáø ùãøëå ìä÷èéø
2. Even though regarding meat it is Pigul, like we say there that they join in an expression of Achilah, in any case regarding Eimurim it is not Pigul, for he intends to eat something that it is normal to be Maktir;
ããå÷à àù ùì îæáç (ãîøáéðï) [ö"ì îøáéðï - öàï ÷ãùéí] áìùåï àëéìä ãäåé îçùá áìùåï (îæáç ìîæáç åäà ã÷àîø äúí ãîöèøôéï áìùåï àëéìä àé([ö"ì àëéìä ìîæáç åàé - öàï ÷ãùéí] ìàå ãøáé äëà îçùá áìùåï àëéìä ìà äåé ôéâåì áàéîåøéí àò''â ãàé÷øé àëéìä
i. Only fire of the Mizbe'ach we include in an expression of Achilah, for he intends with an expression of Achilah for the Mizbe'ach, and had [the Torah] not included intent in an expression of Achilah, it would not be Pigul in the Eimurim, even though it is called Achilah.
å÷öú ÷ùéà îàé ÷à ôøéê äúí àìà îòúä çéùá ùúàëìäå àù ëå' åëé úéîà ä''ð åäà úðï ìàëåì ëçöé æéú åìä÷èéø ëçöé æéú ëùø ùàéï àëéìä åä÷èøä îöèøôéï
(d) Question #1: What was the question there "according to this, if he intended that fire consume it... - if you will say that indeed (it is Pigul), a Mishnah teaches that to eat a half-k'Zayis and to be Maktir a half-k'Zayis is Kosher, for eating and Haktarah do not join!"
îàé ÷åùéà ãìîà çöé æéú áùø åçöé æéú àéîåøéí ìà îöèøôéï ùæä ìàãí åæä ìîæáç àáì çöé æéú áùø ìàãí åçöé æéú áùø ìîæáç îöèøôéï îùåí ãëúéá àëéìä âáé àù
1. What is difficult? Perhaps a half-k'Zayis of meat and a half-k'Zayis of Eimurim do not join, for one is for a person, and one is for the Mizbe'ach, but a half-k'Zayis of meat for a person, and a half-k'Zayis of meat for the Mizbe'ach join, because Achilah is written regarding fire!
åéåúø ÷ùä äà ãîùðé àé ãàô÷éä áìùåï àëéìä ä''ð ãîùîò ãîöèøôéï åàîàé îöèøôéï ëéåï ãàéï îçùáéï îàëéìú àãí ìîæáç åîîæáç ìàëéìú àãí
(e) Question #2: The answer is even more difficult - "if he said an expression of Achilah, indeed", which connotes that they join. Why do they join, since intent from [what is proper for] human consumption to the Mizbe'ach, and from the Mizbe'ach to consumption of people [does not take effect]?!
åö''ì ùëê äéà ñáøà ãîöèøôéï ëéåï ãàé÷øé àëéìä åàéúøáé äëà áìùåï àëéìä áàéîåøéí
(f) Answer: It is logical that they join, since it is called Achilah, and it is included here in an expression of Achilah regarding Eimurim.
å÷öú úéîä ãäúí ãàééúé øàéä ãëúéá àëéìä áàù îãëúéá úàëìäå àù ìà ðåôç ãä''ì ìàéúåéé ÷øà ãëúéá (åé÷øà å) àùø úàëì äàù àú äòåìä åëúéá (ùí è) åúàëì (äàù) àú äòåìä åàú äçìáéí
(g) Question: There, it brings a proof from that it is written Achilah regarding fire, since it is written "Te'achlehu Esh Lo Nufach." It should have brought the verse "Asher Tochal ha'Esh Es ha'Olah", and it is written "va'Tochal Es ha'Olah v'Es ha'Chalavim"!
åùîà ðéçà ìéä ìàéúåéé ÷øà ãàù ùì äãéåè
(h) Answer: Perhaps he prefers to bring a verse about a person's fire.
åîéäå âáé àù ãäãéåè ðîé ëúéá (ùîåú ëá) åðàëì âãéù
(i) Implied Question #1: Also regarding a person's fire [there is a verse from the Chumash;] it is written "v'Ne'echal Gadish"!
)åëé) [ö"ì åòåã ãëé - öàï ÷ãùéí] îééúé äúí ÷øà åàú àéæáì éàëìå äëìáéí äåä îöé ìàéúåéé åìáäîúê åìçéä àùø áàøöê úäéä ëì úáåàúä ìàëåì (åé÷øà ëä)
(j) Implied Question #2: When he brings the verse "v'Es Izezel Yochlu ha'Kelavim", he could have brought [from the Chumash] "veli'Vhemetecha vela'Chayah Asher b'Artzecha Tihyeh Kol Tevu'asah Le'echol"!
åùîà îùåí ãìà ëúéá äúí àëéìä òì áùø
(k) Answer (to both question): Perhaps [we did not] because there it does not discuss consumption of meat.
5) TOSFOS DH Lichtov Kra He'achel He'achel Oh Ye'achel Te'achel
úåñôåú ã"ä ìëúåá ÷øà äàëì äàëì àå éàëì éàëì
(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out another place where we expound like this, and a place where we do not.)
ëé äàé âååðà áôø÷ äçåáì (á''÷ ãó ôä:) âáé åøôà éøôà
(a) Reference: It says like this in Bava Kama (85b) regarding "v'Rapo Yerapei."
àáì áñðäãøéï áøéù äéå áåã÷éï (ãó î:) îùîò ãàé äåä ëúéá ãøù úãøù åç÷øú ìà äåä îöé ìîãøù èôé îéãé åìà àîøéðï îãìà ëúéá ãøù ãøù àå úãøù úãøù
(b) Implied question: In Sanhedrin (40b) it connotes that had [the Torah] written "Darosh Tidrosh v'Chakarta", we would not be able to expound more (the Shinuy would not make it considered free for a Gezeirah Shavah), and we do not say [that it would be considered free] since it did not write 'Darosh Darosh' or 'Tidrosh Tidrosh'!
6) TOSFOS DH Mai He'achel Ye'achel Shma Minah Tartei
úåñôåú ã"ä îàé äàëì éàëì ù''î úøúé
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the argument about Dibrah Torah k'Leshon Bnei Adam.)
îùîò ãìéú ìéä ìø''à ãáøä úåøä ëìùåï áðé àãí
(a) Inference: R. Eliezer does not hold that Dibrah Torah k'Leshon Bnei Adam (the Torah speaks like people do, so we need not expound the repetition.)
åúéîä ãáøéù äòøì (éáîåú ãó òà.) âáé àéù àéù ]ìà ãøù åñ''ì ããáøä ëå'[
(b) Question #1: In Yevamos (71a), regarding "Ish Ish" he does not expound [the repetition], and holds that Dibrah...!
åëï øáé éåñé ôø÷ àéï îòîéãéï (ò''æ ãó ëæ.) ãøéù äîåì éîåì åáñåèä ôø÷ àøåñä åùåîøú éáí (ãó ëæ.) ãøéù àéù àéù ìøáåú àùú çøù åàùú ùåèä
(c) Question #2: Similarly, in Avodah Zarah (27a) R. Yosi expounds "Himol Yimol", and in Sotah (27a) he expounds Ish Ish to include the wife of a deaf-mute or lunatic...
åáæáçéí ôø÷ äùåçè äîòìä (ã' ÷ç:) ìà ãøéù àéù àéù àìîà ÷ñáø ãáøä úåøä ëìùåï áðé àãí
1. And in Zevachim (108b) he does not expound Ish Ish. This shows that he holds that Dibrah Torah k'Leshon Bnei Adam!
åòåã áòìîà ìà àùëçï úðà ãôìéâ àäà ããøùéðï (çåìéï éâ:) àéù àéù ìøáåú àú äòåáãé ëåëáéí ùðåãøéï ðãøéí åðãáåú ëéùøàì
(d) Question #3: We do not find anywhere a Tana who argues with what we expound (Chulin 13b) Ish Ish to expound Nochrim, that they may vow Nedarim and Nedavos like Yisrael!
åòåã ÷ùä ãáäùåçè åäîòìä (ùí) ãøéù ø''ù àéù àéù åáô''÷ ã÷éãåùéï (ãó ë:) ãøéù ø''ù àí âàåì éâàì ùìåä åâåàì [ö"ì åâåàì - âîøà òåæ åäãø] ìçöàéï
(e) Question #4: In Zevachim (108b) R. Shimon expounds "Ish Ish", and in Kidushin (20b) R. Shimon expounds "Im Ga'ol Yiga'el" that one may borrow [in order] to redeem [a field that he was Makdish], and he may redeem partially;
åëï áôñçéí áôø÷ îé ùäéä èîà (ã' öâ.) àéù àéù ìçééá æáéï åîöåøòéï åáåòìé ðãåú áôñç ùðé åîå÷é ìä ëøáé éäåãä åø''ù ãôèøé ðùéí îôñç ùðé åìäëé ìà úðé æáåú åîöåøòåú
1. Also in Pesachim (93a) "Ish Ish" obligates [people who at the time of Pesach Rishon were] Zavim, Metzora'im or Bo'alei Nidah to offer Pesach Sheni, and we establish it like R. Yehudah and R. Shimon, who exempt women from Pesach Sheni, therefore it did not teach Zavos and Metzora'os;
åáôø÷ àìå îöéàåú (á''î ã' ìà:) åáëúåáåú (ã' ñæ.) âáé äòáè úòáéèðå ÷àîø ø''ù ãáøä úåøä ëìùåï áðé àãí
2. And in Bava Metzi'a (31b) and in Kesuvos (67a) regarding "Ha'avet Ta'avitenu", R. Shimon says that Dibrah Torah k'Leshon Bnei Adam!
åòåã ÷ùéà îø' éäåãä ããøéù àéù àéù áääéà ãôñçéí åëï áøéù áðåú ëåúéí (ðãä ã' ìá:) ãøéù ø' éäåãä àéù àéù âáé úéðå÷ áï éåîå ùîèîà áæéáä åâáé äîåì éîåì (ò''æ ëæ.) ñáø øáé éäåãä ãáøä úåøä ëìùåï áðé àãí
(f) Question #5: R. Yehudah expounds Ish Ish in Pesachim there, and also in Nidah (32b) R. Yehudah expounds Ish Ish to teach that a one day old boy can become Tamei through Zivah, and regarding Himol Yimol R. Yehudah holds that Dibrah Torah k'Leshon Bnei Adam!
åòåã áñåó àìå îöéàåú îùîò ããøéù ø''ù ä÷í ú÷éí åäùá úùéáðå åáô''÷ ãø''ä (ãó ç.) òùø úòùø áùúé îòùøåú
(g) Question #6: In Bava Metzi'a (31a) it connotes that R. Shimon expounds "Hakem Takim" and "Hashev Teshivenu", and in Rosh Hashanah (8a) he expounds "Aser Ta'aser" to discuss two Ma'aseros!
åòåã ÷ùéà îø''ò áô' àéï òåîãéï (áøëåú ã' ìà:) âáé (äðé) [ö"ì çðä - éùø åèåá] ããøéù ø' éùîòàì àí øàä úøàä åø''ò ÷àîø ãáøä úåøä ëìùåï áðé àãí
(h) Question #7: It is difficult from R. Akiva. In Brachos (31b) regarding Chanah, R. Yishmael expounds "Im Ra'o Tir'eh", and R. Akiva says Dibrah Torah k'Leshon Bnei Adam...
åáñðäãøéï áôø÷ ã' îéúåú (ãó ñã:) [ö"ì ãøéù - öàï ÷ãùéí] àéôëà âáé äëøú úëøú åëï áñåó ôø÷ ùðé ãëøéúåú (ã' éà.) âáé åäôãä ìà ðôãúä
1. And in Sanhedrin (64b) he expounds oppositely regarding "Hikares Tikares", and also in Kerisus (11a) regarding "v'Hefdah Lo Nifdasah"!
åòåã ÷ùéà îãàçøéí ãäééðå ø''î (âáé àéù àéù) ãàéú ìéä äúí áëøéúåú ãáøä úåøä ëìùåï áðé àãí åáô' ã' îéúåú (ñðäãøéï ã' ðæ.) îùîò ããøéù ø''î àéù àéù âáé áøëú äùí
(i) Question #8: Acherim is R. Meir, who holds there in Kerisus that Dibrah Torah k'Leshon Bnei Adam, and in Sanhedrin (57a) R. Meir expounds Ish Ish regarding Birkas (a euphemism for cursing) Hash-m!
åðøàä ìôøù ãîàï ãàéú ìéä ãáøä úåøä ëìùåï áðé àãí ìàå áëì ãåëúé àéú ìéä àìà ùåí äåëçä éù ìå áî÷åí ùàéðå ãåøù äëôéìåú
(j) Answer (to all questions): The one who holds that Dibrah Torah k'Leshon Bnei Adam does not say so everywhere. Rather, he has some proof in a place where he does not expound the double expression.
îãàîø àáéé áñåó àìå äï äâåìéï (îëåú ã' éá.) âáé åàí éöà éöà îñúáøà ëî''ã ãáøä úåøä ëìùåï áðé àãí ùìà éäà ñåôå çîåø îúçéìúå
(k) Source: Abaye said in Makos (12a) regarding "v'Im Yatzo Yetzei" - presumably, [we rule] like the opinion that Dibrah Torah k'Leshon Bnei Adam, for his end should not be more stringent than his beginning (if he killed b'Shogeg, only the Go'el ha'Dam may kill him outside an Ir Miklat. All the more so, if he left his Ir Miklat b'Shogeg, others may not kill him!)
îùîò ãìà áà àáéé ìäáéà øàéä àìà ùí åìà ùðàîø ëï áëì äî÷åîåú ãäà ìà îééúé ãàáéé âáé ùàø ôìåâúééäå
1. Inference: Abaye comes to bring a proof only there, but not that we should say in all places [Dibrah Torah], for Abaye did not bring so regarding their other arguments.
åàí úàîø à''ë îàé ÷à ôøéê áôø÷ äùåàì (á''î ã' öã:) âáé àí âðåá éâðá îòîå äðéçà ìîàï ãìéú ìéä ãáøä úåøä åëï áøéù ðãøéí (ãó â.) äðéçà ìî''ã ãáøä úåøä åäà ìàå áëì ãåëúé ôìéâé
(l) Question #1: If so, what was the question in Bava Metzi'a (94b) regarding "Im Ganov Yiganev me'Imo" - 'this is fine for the opinion that does not hold that Dibrah Torah', and in Nedarim (3a) 'this is fine for the opinion that holds that Dibrah Torah'? They do not argue everywhere!
åòåã ìî''ã ãáøä úåøä ðîé îé ðéçà îä èòí éù ùí ùìà ìãøåù ìðãåø ðãø ìøáåú éãåú ðãøéí ëîå âáé ðæéøåú ãëúéá ðæéø ìäæéø
(m) Question #2: Also according to the opinion that Dibrah Torah, this is not fine! What reason is there not to expound "Lindor Neder" to include Yados Nedarim (saying a partial Neder is as if he said the entire Neder), just like [we expound] regarding Nezirus, for it is written "Nazir Lehazir"?
7) TOSFOS DH Amar Lei Tanai Hi
úåñôåú ã"ä àîø ìéä úðàé äéà
(SUMMARY: Tosfos infers that in our Mishnah he disqualifies mid'Oraisa.)
îùîò ãìøáé éåçðï äà ãôñéì ø''à áîúðé' äééðå îãàåøééúà åàôé' ëøú àéëà îãôøéù èòîéä (ã÷øà) [ö"ì î÷øà - éùø åèåá, áàøåú äîéí]
(a) Inference: According to R. Yochanan R. Eliezer disqualifies in our Mishnah mid'Oraisa, and there is even Kares, since he explains [R. Eliezer's] reason from a verse.
úéîä ãìà äì''ì ø''à ôåñì àìà îôâì îéáòé ìéä ãäëé ãéé÷ áñåó ô''÷ ãæáçéí (ã' éâ.)
(b) Question: [If so, the Mishnah] should not say that R. Eliezer is Posel, rather, Mefagel! The Gemara in Zevachim (13a) infers like this.
åé''ì ãùàðé äëà ãàééøé ðîé áçåõ ìî÷åîå
(c) Answer: Here is different, for he discusses also Chutz li'Mkomo. (Therefore, it says Posel, which applies both to Chutz li'Zmano and Chutz li'Mkomo.)
8) TOSFOS DH d'Tana Kama Savar Lehani'ach Pesulah b'Alma...
úåñôåú ã"ä ãú''÷ ñáø ìäðéç ôñåìà áòìîà áäðê ëøú ðîé îéçééá
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that we are thinking that the first Tana is R. Yehudah.)
äàé ú''÷ äééðå ø''é å÷øé ìéä ú''÷ îùåí ãëåìä øéùà ø''é ãìéëà àìà á' îçìå÷ú
(a) Explanation: This Tana Kama is R. Yehudah. [The Gemara] calls him the first Tana because the entire Reisha is R. Yehudah, for there are only two arguments;
îã÷àîøéðï áúø äëé â' îçìå÷åú áãáø îëìì ãòã äùúà ñáéøà ìï ãìéëà àìà á' îçìå÷åú:
1. Source: Since it says afterwards "there is a three-way argument", this implies that until now, we hold that there are only two arguments.