1) TOSFOS DH Kach Terumas Ma'aser Niteles b'Omed uv'Machshavah (cont.)
úåñôåú ã"ä ëê úøåîú îòùø ðéèìú áàåîã åáîçùáä (äîùê)
åäà ãôøéê áñåó ëì äâè (âéèéï ãó ì:) âáé úøåîú îòùø åëé ðçùãå çáøéí ìúøåí ùìà îï äîå÷ó
(a) Implied question: Why does it ask in Gitin (30b) about Terumas Ma'aser "are Chaverim suspected to take Terumah Lo Min ha'Mukaf?!"
îôøù ø''ú ãäééðå îãøáðï
(b) Answer (R. Tam): That is mid'Rabanan.
åîéäå ðøàä ãìòðéï îçùáä ìà ôìéâé îãôøéê áøéù äàéù î÷ãù (÷éãåùéï ãó îà:) ãéìéó ùìéçåú îúøåîä îä ìúøåîä ùëï ðèìú áîçùáä
(c) Support (for Opinion #1): It seems that they do not argue about intent, for it asks in Kidushin (41b) that we should learn Shelichus from Terumah. [It rejects this -] you cannot learn from Terumah, for it is taken through intent;
îùîò ãìëåìé òìîà ôøéê åäééðå úøåîú îòùø ãëúéá áä (áîãáø éç) àúí âí àúí
1. This connotes that it asks according to everyone. This refers to Terumas Ma'aser, about which it says "Atem" [and we expound] "Gam Atem."
åîúåê ôé' ä÷åðè' ãáëåøåú (ãó ðç: åùí) îùîò ãáîçùáä ôìéâé âáé äéå ìå îàä èìàéí åðèì òùøä òùøä åðèì àçã ø' éåñé áø øáé éäåãä àåîø îòùø ãñáø ìä ëàáà àìòæø áï âåîì åàéú÷ù îòùø áäîä ìîòùø ãâï åîòùø ãâï ÷øéé' øçîðà úøåîä
(d) Support (for Opinion #2): Rashi in Bechoros (58b) connotes that they argue about intent regarding "he had 100 lambs and took 10 [for Ma'aser], or he had 10 and took one. R. Yosi b'Ribi Yehudah says, it is Ma'aser, for he holds like Aba Elazar ben Gomel, and Ma'aser Behemah is equated to Ma'aser of grain, and Ma'aser of grain, the Torah called it Terumah";
åôé' á÷åðè' ãîùåí îçùáä îå÷é ìéä øáé éåñé áøáé éäåãä ëàáà àìòæø
1. Rashi explained that due to intent we establish it like Aba Elazar.
åîúåê ôéøåùå ðîé (äëé) îùîò ãàôéìå áúøåîä âãåìä ìéú (ìéä îçùáä ãàé àéú ìéä) [ö"ì ìäå îçùáä ãàé àéú ìäå - áàøåú äîéí] ìà äåä öøéê ìîéîø ãàáà àìòæø áï âåîì äéà ãàôéìå ìøáðï ðîé îöéðå ìîéìó îçùáä áîòùø îã÷øééä øçîðà úøåîä
(e) Inference: His Perush connotes also that even for Terumah Gedolah [Rabanan] do not hold that intent [works], for if they held [so, Rashi] would not need to say that it is like Aba Elazar ben Gomel, for even Rabanan could learn intent (that it helps) for Ma'aser, since the Torah called it Terumah.
åîéäå îöéðå ìîéîø ãîùåí úøåîú îòùø ùáå ÷øééä øçîðà úøåîä
(f) Rebuttal: However, we could say that the Torah called [Ma'aser Rishon] Terumah due to Terumas Ma'aser in it. (We cannot learn from Terumah Gedolah.)
åà''ú åìîä ìéä ìîéîø ãøáé éåñé áøáé éäåãä ñáø ìä ëàáà àìòæø áï âåîì
(g) Question: Why does [the Gemara] say that R. Yosi b'Ribi Yehudah holds like Aba Elazar ben Gomel?
äà ëéåï ãàéú÷ù îòùø áäîä ìîòùø ãâï îä îòùø ãâï ðåèì àçã îòùøä àó îòùø áäîä ëï åìà áòé äòáøä úçú äùáè àìà (ùéù òùøä ìôðéå åðåèì) [ö"ì àí éù òùøä ìôðéå ðåèì - öàï ÷ãùéí] àçã îäï
1. Since Ma'aser Behemah is equated to Ma'aser of grain, just like Ma'aser of grain, one takes one from 10, also Ma'aser Behemah, and one need not pass them [out of an opening and] under a staff. Rather, if there are 10 in front of him, he takes one of them!
åéù ìôøù ãîééúé ãàáà àìòæø ãéìôéðï úøåîú îòùø îúøåîä âãåìä ìòðéï àåîã àò''â ùìà äéä ñáøà ììîåã æä îæä ìâáé äëé ãúøåîä âãåìä àéï ìä ùéòåø åúøåîú îòùø éù ìå ùéòåø
(h) Answer #1: [The Gemara] brings Aba Elazar's teaching that we learn Terumas Ma'aser from Terumah Gedolah for estimation, even though it would not be logical to learn it from this for this, since Terumah Gedolah has no Shi'ur and Terumas Ma'aser has a Shi'ur;
àôéìå äëé î÷ùéðï ìäå ìòðéï æä àò''â ãäåé ëòéï àôùø îùàé àôùø ä''ð éìéó îòùø áäîä îîòùø ãâï àò''â ãîô÷é ÷øà îîùîòåúéä ãëúéá (åé÷øà ëæ) ëì àùø éòáåø
1. Even so, we equate them for this, even though it is like possible from impossible. Likewise, we should learn from Ma'aser Behemah from Ma'aser of grain, even though this uproots the verse from its connotation "Kol Asher Ya'avor."
åîéäå àéï îúééùá ììá ôéøåù æä
(i) Objection: This Perush is not acceptable to the heart.
åðøàä ìôøù ãîùîò ìéä ãìø' éåñé áøáé éäåãä äåé îòùø àò''â ùàéðí ùåéï ëâåï áîëðéñ ìãéø ìäúòùø ãñúîï àéï ãøëí ìäéåú ùåéï
(j) Answer #2: It connotes to [the Gemara] that according to R. Yosi b'Ribi Yehudah it is Ma'aser even if they are not equal, e.g. one who enters [animals] into the pen to tithe, for Stam they are not equal;
äìëê öøéê ìàå÷îé ëàáà àìòæø áï âåîì ãùøé îàåîã åìà (çééùéðï)[ö"ì çééù - ùéèä î÷åáöú] àí îøáä áîòùø ëãôøéùéú àå ìëì äôçåú ùøé áòéï éôä ëãàéúà áùîòúéï
1. Therefore, we must establish it like Aba Elazar ben Gomel who permits via estimation, and he is not concerned if he takes extra Ma'aser, like I explained (54b DH Niteles), or at least he permits generously, like it says in our Sugya.
åàé ìà ãàáà àìòæø ä''à ãàò''â ãìà çééùéðï áîòáéø ìùåéï ëä''â ùðåèì àçã îòùøä ãéìôéðï îîòùø ñã''à ãâí áòéðï ùåéï
2. If not for Aba Elazar, one might have thought that even though when he passes them [under the staff] we are not concerned that they be equal, in such a case that he takes one from 10, which we learn from Ma'aser, one might have thought that we also require that they are equal.
2) TOSFOS DH b'Machshavah
úåñôåú ã"ä áîçùáä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes that speech is not needed.)
ôé' á÷åðèøñ ëãàîø áòìîà ðåúï òéðéå áöã æä åàåëì áöã àçø
(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi): This is like we say elsewhere "he puts his eyes on this side (intends that the tithes be there), and eats from the other side."
îùîò ùø''ì îùåí ãëúéá åðçùá ùøé ìàëåì áìà äôøùä åùøé ðîé áùúé÷ä ò''é ùðåúï òéðéå áöã æä åàåëì áöã àçø ãëì æä ðô÷à îåðçùá
(b) Inference: Because it is written v'Nechshav, one may eat without [physical] separation [of the tithes], and it is permitted also in silence, through he puts his eyes on this side, and eats from the other side. We learn all this from v'Nechshav.
òåã ôé' ìùåï àçø áô' áúøà ãáëåøåú (ãó ðè.) áîçùáä ùîçùá åàåîø ùðé ìåâéï ùàðé òúéã ìäôøéù àò''ô ùòúä àéðå îôøéù ëìåí
(c) Explanation #2 (Rashi in Bechoros 59a): "Intent" is that he thinks and says "the two Lugim that I will separate [later are Terumah]", even though now he does not separate anything.
åø''ì ããéáåø öøéê åäà ãùøéà áìà äôøùä ÷øé îçùáä
1. Inference: [Rashi] means that speech is needed. This that it is permitted without [physical] separation is called intent.
åàùëçï ðîé ãåëúà ã÷øé (ìîçùáä ãéáåø) [ö"ì ìãéáåø îçùáä - öàï ÷ãùéí, ç÷ ðúï] ëîå òì ëì ãáø ôùò ãàîøéðï (á''î ãó îã.) ãçééá òì äîçùáä ëîòùä
(d) Support: We find also [other] places that speech is called intent, e.g. "Al Kol Devar Pesha", which we say (Bava Metzi'a 44a) that one is liable for intent like for action.
åðøàä ãáìà ãéáåø ðîé äåä úøåîä îãúðï áîñëú úøåîåú (ô''à î''à) çîùä ìà éúøåîå åàí úøîå àéï úøåîúï úøåîä çøù ùåèä å÷èï å÷úðé ñéôà çøù ùãáøå çëîéí ùàéðå ùåîò åàéðå îãáø
(e) Conclusion (like Explanation #1): It seems that also without speech it is Terumah, for a Mishnah in Terumos (1:1) says that there are five who may not take Terumah, and if they took Terumah, it is not Terumah - a Cheresh, lunatic or child [or it is not his, or a Nochri], and the Seifa teaches "the Cheresh that Chachamim discussed, he cannot hear and cannot speak";
îùîò äà ùåîò åàéðå îãáø úøåîúå úøåîä
1. Inference: If he can hear but cannot speak, his Terumah is Terumah!
(åîéäå áúåñôúà ãîñëú úøåîåú) [ö"ì åáúåñôúà ãîñëú úøåîåú ðîé - öàï ÷ãùéí] îöàúé îôðé îä àîøå àìí ìà éúøåí îôðé ùàéðå éëåì ìáøê
(f) Support #1: I found also in the Tosefta in Terumos (3:1) "why did they say that a mute cannot tithe? It is because he cannot bless";
îùîò ãàé îáøê àò''ô ùìà éãáø áäøîä ùôéø ãîé
1. Inference: If he could bless, even though he cannot speak, [physical] separation would be fine.
åô''â ãùáåòåú (ãó ëå:) ðîé îùîò áäãéà ëùâîø áìáå àò''ô ùìà äåöéà áùôúéå âáé ëì ðãéá ã÷àîø ãäåå úøåîä å÷ãùéí ùðé ëúåáéï äáàéï ëàçã åìà éìôé' îéðééäå ùáåòä
(g) Support #2: Also in Shevuos (26b) it explicitly connotes that when one resolved in his heart, even though he did not say with his lips (it takes effect), regarding "Kol Nediv." It says that Terumah and Kodshim are Shnei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im k'Echad (two verses, one of which teaches something that we could have learned from the other verse), and we do not learn from them Shevu'ah (that it takes effect without speech).
åáîä ùàåëì áìà äôøùä áæä àéï ÷ôéãà ãìëåìé òìîà ùøé áëì î÷åí àò''ô ùàéðå îôøéù òúä ëãîåëç ääéà ãäìå÷ç ééï îáéï äëåúéí (âéèéï ãó ëä:) ãùøé ìëåìé òìîà àé ìàå îùåí ãàéï áøéøä àå îùåí ãçééùéðï ìá÷éòú ðåã
(h) Remark: This that he eats without [physical] separation, there is no concern for this. All agree that it is permitted elsewhere, even though he does not separate now, like is proven from the case of one who buys wine from Kusim (25b). All would permit [to eat before separating], if not because Ein Bereirah or we are concerned lest the flask break [and he will never separate, so his verbal separation was invalid].
åéù î÷åîåú ãùøéðï ëùàåîø îòùø ùðé ìöôåðå àå ìãøåîå (ãîàé ô''ä î''à á)
(i) Observation: There are places where we permit when he says "Ma'aser Sheni is in the north or south" (Demai 5:1,2).
åà''ú åëéåï ãùøéðï úøåîä ò''é ùðåúï òéðéå áöã æä åàåëì áöã àçø àîàé àéï îâáéäéï úøåîåú åîòùøåú áéåí èåá
(j) Question: Since we permit [declaration of] Terumah through he puts his eyes on this side and eats from the other side, why don't we separate Terumos and Ma'aseros on Yom Tov? (Rashash (Gitin 31a DH b'Machshavah) says that "Ma'aseros" refers to Ma'aser Rishon, which is called Terumah, but Ma'aser Sheni and Ma'aser Oni require speech.)
äà úðï áîñëú ùáú ôø÷ ðåèì (ãó ÷îà:) ø' éäåãä àåîø àó îòìéï àú äîãåîò áàçã åîàä
1. A Mishnah (Shabbos 141b) teaches that R. Yehudah says, [on Shabbos] we are even Ma'aleh Meduma (if Terumah became mixed with Chulin, one separates the amount of Terumah to permit the mixture) if there are [at least] 101 [parts of mixture for each part of Terumah].
åôøéê áâîøà (ùí ãó ÷îá.) äà îú÷ï äåà åùðé ø' àìòæø áø''ù äéà ãàîø ðåúï òéðéå áöã æä åàåëì áöã àçø åìäëé ìà çùéá úé÷åï áùáú ëùîòìäå ëéåï ùàôùø áîçùáä
2. The Gemara (142a) asks "he fixes it!", and answers that it is like R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon, who says that he puts his eyes on this side and eats from the other side. Therefore it is not considered fixing on Shabbos when he separates, since it is possible through intent. Also here, it is possible through intent!
åé''ì ãùàðé îãåîò ùëáø ðéú÷ï àáì úçìú úé÷åðå ùì èáì ìà äåä ùøéðï îèòí ãàôùø áîçùáä
(k) Answer: Meduma is different, because it was already fixed, but due to "since it is possible through intent" we would not permit initial fixing of Tevel;
åàôé' ãîàé àñåø ìú÷ï áùáú ëãîåëç ááîä îãìé÷éï (ùáú ãó ìã.) àò''â ãùøé ìéúï òéðéå áöã æä åàåëì áöã àçø ëãîåëç áô''÷ ãçåìéï (ãó å:) âáé ø''î ùàëì òìä ùì éø÷ ááéú ùàï
1. Even Demai is forbidden to fix on Shabbos, like is proven in Shabbos (34a), even though one may put his eyes on this side and eat from the other side, like is proven in Chulin (6b) regarding R. Meir, who ate a vegetable leaf in Beis She'an.
3) TOSFOS DH v'Lo Mukminan b'Trei Tanai
úåñôåú ã"ä åìà îå÷îéðï áúøé úðàé
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how we could establish the Beraisa with one reason.)
ãäåä îöé ìàå÷îé áçã èòîà åáúøé úðàé ãëåìä ãìéëà ëäï åøéùà øáðï åñéôà ëøáé éäåãä ãôìéâ àãøáðï áôø÷ ùðé ãîñëú úøåîåú (î''å) å÷àîø ìòåìí úåøí îï äéôä
(a) Explanation: We could have established it with one reason and two Tana'im. It all discusses where there is no Kohen. The Reisha is Rabanan, and the Seifa is like R. Yehudah who argues with Rabanan in Terumos (2:6), and says that always, one is Torem from the nice.
4) TOSFOS DH Kol ha'Menachos Niloshos b'Poshrin
úåñôåú ã"ä ëì äîðçåú ðéìåùåú áôåùøéï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses why elsewhere we are more stringent.)
àò''â ãàîøéðï áô' ëì ùòä (ôñçéí ãó ìå.) çéèéï ùì îðçåú àéï ìåúúéï àåúï
(a) Implied question: We say in Pesachim (36a) that wheat for Menachos, one may not do Lesisah (soaking wheat before pounding to remove the bran, to make nice Soles, due to concern for Chimutz. We should forbid kneading with warm water for the same reason!)
äà îôøù äúí îùåí ãìúéúä ìéúà áî÷åí æøéæéï
(b) Answer: It explains there that Lesisah is not done in a place of Zerizim (Kohanim, who are zealous to guard from Chimutz);
àáì ìéùä ðäé ãìéúà áæøéæéï áî÷åí æøéæéï àéúà ãàîø îø áììä æø ëùøä çåõ ìçåîú òæøä ôñåìä
1. However, kneading, granted it is not done [exclusively] through Zerizim, it is done in the place of Zerizim, for it was taught that if a Zar mixed it is Kosher, but [if it was kneaded] outside the Azarah it is Pasul.
åîëàï ÷ùéà ãîùîò ëì äîðçåú àôéìå ìçí äôðéí ãäåé áëìì ëì äîðçåú åääéà ìàå áî÷åí æøéæéï äéà ãúðï ì÷îï áô' ùúé äìçí (ãó öä:) ãìçí äôðéí ìéùúï åòøéëúï áçåõ
(c) Question: It is difficult from here, for it connotes that all Menachos, even Lechem ha'Panim, is included in "all Menachos", and it is not done in the place of Zerizim! A Mishnah below (95b) teaches about Lechem ha'Panim that it is kneaded and arranged outside!
åéù ìåîø ãäà àîøéðï áô' ëì ùòä (ôñçéí ìå.) öéáåø ùàðé
(d) Answer: We say in Pesachim (36a) that a [Korban] Tzibur is different.
åîéäå ÷ùéà îîðçú îàôä ãéçéã äéà åìéùúï åòøéëúï áçåõ ëìçí äôðéí ãî''ù ëéåï ãìà áòéà ùîï òã ìàçø àôééä ëã÷àîø ì÷îï (ãó òã:) äçìåú áåììï à''ë ìà ÷ãùä òãééï åäåéà ìéùúä áçåõ
(e) Question: Minchas Ma'afe Tanur is a [Korban] Yachid, and it is kneaded and arranged outside like Lechem ha'Panim, for why should it be different, since it does not need oil until after baking, like it says below (74b) that he does Belilah to Chalos. If so, they are not yet Kadosh, and they are kneaded outside! (Yashar v'Tov - in other Menachos, we mix oil with flour in a Kli Shares. Afterwards, kneading is in a Kli Shares inside, for it would be disgraceful to put it in a Chulin Kli! Ma'afe Tanur is kneaded before mixing with oil, so this can be outside in a Chulin Kli.)
åé''ì ãáô' ùúé äìçí (ì÷îï öä:) ôøéê øéùà àñéôà åîùðé ìä øá àùé åîñé÷ ãáøåúà äéà
(f) Answer: Below (95b) [the Gemara] asks the Reisha (Lechem ha'Panim and Shtei ha'Lechem are kneaded and arranged outside) against the Seifa (they are baked inside), and Rav Ashi answers [that 'inside' does not mean 'in the Azarah', rather, in a place of Zerizim, i.e. Kohanim], and we concluded that this is wrong!
åö''ì îé ùùðä æå ìà ùðä æå ìî''ã îãú éáù ðú÷ãùä ìéùúï áôðéí ãòùøåï ðú÷ãù åáå äéä îåãã ìëì äîðçåú ëãúðï ô' ùúé îãåú (ì÷îï ôæ.) åúðà ãäëà ñáø îãú éáù ðú÷ãùä
1. We must say that the one who taught [the Reisha], did not teach [the Seifa]. According to the opinion that the dry measure was Niskadesh, they are kneaded inside, for the Isaron was Niskadesh, and it was used to measure all Menachos, like a Mishnah teaches below (87a). The Tana here holds that the dry measure was Niskadesh. (The Tana of the Seifa holds that it was not Niskadesh, and even baking is outside.)
å÷ùéà ÷öú ãìà îñé÷ äàé èòîà áô' ëì ùòä (ôñçéí ãó ìå.)
(g) Question: Why don't we conclude this reason in Pesachim (36a, and say that we may knead with warm water because the dry measure was Niskadesh)?
åùîà ð÷è ääåà èòîà ãäåé áëì äîðçåú ëâåï îðçú ñåìú åîçáú åîøçùú àôéìå ìî''ã îãú éáù ìà ðú÷ãùä:
(h) Answer: Perhaps it mentions that reason (kneading is in a place of Zerizim) that applies to all Menachos such as Minchas Soles, Machavas and Marcheshes (which are mixed with oil before kneading), even according to the opinion that the dry measure was not Niskadesh.
55b----------------------------------------55b
5) TOSFOS DH Af Ani Avi Lishasah va'Arichasah v'Chulei
úåñôåú ã"ä àó àðé àáéà ìéùúä åòøéëúä ëå'
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why this is a Chidush.)
åà''ú àé ãàúøå àëì çãà åçãà àôé' àôä åàôä ðîé ëîå àì úùúä àì úùúä ãðæéø (îëåú ãó ëà.)
(a) Question: If they warned him for each, even if he baked and baked (he is liable for each warning that he transgressed), like a Nazir who was warned "do not drink [wine], do not drink!" (Makos 21a);
åàé ãìà àúøå áéä àìà çãà äúøàä àîàé çééá ãëé ä''â ãéé÷ áôø÷ áúøà ãîëåú (ãó ë:) âáé ãçééá òì ëì ÷øçä å÷øçä åîå÷é ìä ãñê çîùà àöáòúéä ðùà
1. And if they warned him only once, why is he liable [for each step]? The Gemara asks like this in Makos (20b) regarding "he is liable for each Karachah (tearing out hair)", and we establish it when he anointed a potion (to make hair fall out) with his five fingers (the warning was for each one by itself).
åéù ìåîø ãäëà àôé' äúøå òì ëì àçú åàçú àéöèøéê ÷øà îùåí ãëáø ðôñìä åäåä àîéðà ãôèåø ëããøùéðï ì÷îï (ãó ðæ.) äîçîõ àú äëùøä çééá åàú äôñåìä ôèåø
(b) Answer: Here, even if they warned for each one, we need a verse because it was already disqualified, and one might have thought that he is exempt, like we expound below (57a) that one who is Mechametz a Kosher [Minchah] is liable, and [one who is Mechametz] a Pasul [Minchah] is exempt;
÷à îùîò ìï ãäëà çééá îàçø ãìéëà àìà ôñåì ùì çîåõ ãîøáéðï îäëà îçîõ àçø îçîõ ùäåà çééá
1. [The Beraisa] here teaches that he is liable, since there is only the Pesul of Chimutz, for we include here that Mechametz after Mechametz is liable.
6) TOSFOS DH Im Ken Lichtov Chelkam Lo Se'afeh Chametz
úåñôåú ã"ä àí ëï ìéëúåá çì÷í ìà úàôä çîõ
(SUMMARY: Tosfos justifies the question.)
úéîä ëé ëúá ðîé äëé äåä ãøùéðï ìçì÷ îãëúéá ìà úàôä ùäæëéø àôééä åìà ëúéá úéòùä
(a) Question: Even if it wrote so, we would expound to divide, since it says "Lo Se'afeh" - it mentioned baking, and not Sei'aseh (doing)!
ùëï îúøöéí àäà ããøùéðï âáé ùáú (ãó ò.) ìçì÷ îìà úáòøå åî÷ùéðï äà àéöèøéê ìäáòøú áú ëäï ãìà ãçéà ùáú îùåí ãëúéá áëì îåùáåúéëí ãîùîò áéú ãéï åàîø øçîðà ìà úáòøå
1. So we answer what we expound in Shabbos (70a) to divide (Chiyuv for each Melachah by itself) from "Lo Seva'aru", and we ask that this is needed for burning a Bas Kohen (i.e. someone Chayav Sereifah) that it is not Docheh Shabbos, for it says "b'Chol Moshvoseichem", which connotes Beis Din, and the Torah said "Lo Seva'aru";
åîúøöéðï ãàé ìáú ëäï ìçåãä ìëúåá ìà úòùå îìàëä áëì îåùáåúéëí åäåä éãòéðï ðîé ãîéúú áéú ãéï ìà ãçéé' ùáú
2. We answer that if [it came to teach] for a Bas Kohen alone, it should say Lo Sa'aseh Melachah b'Chol Moshvoseichem, and we would know also that Misas Beis Din is not Docheh Shabbos!
åé''ì ãìà ãîé ãäëà äåé àîøéðï ãàôééä ãàñø øçîðà àùéøééí ãäééðå çì÷í àáì ìà úéòùä à÷åîõ ëúéá ãàñø ëì òùéåú
(b) Answer: This is different. Here, [had it said Chelkam Lo Se'afeh Chametz] we would say that the baking that the Torah forbade is the Shirayim, i.e. Chelkam (the Kohanim's portion), but Lo Sei'aseh refers to the Kometz. It forbids all actions. (Rather, it says Lo Se'afeh Chametz before Chelkam, to teach that the Isur of all actions of fermenting applies to the entire Minchah.)
7) TOSFOS DH Klal u'Ferat ha'Meruchakin
úåñôåú ã"ä ëìì åôøè äîøåç÷éï æä îæä àéï ãðéï àåúå áëìì åôøè
(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with other Gemaros.)
úéîä ìøáà ãàîø ãðéï áô' áðåú ëåúéí (ðãä ìâ.) îàé àéëà ìîéîø
(a) Question: According to Rava, who says in Nidah (33a) that we expound them [like Klal u'Ferat], how can we answer?
åé''ì ãäúí ãåå÷à ãðéï ìôé ùäåà áçãà ôøùúà àáì äëà ãçã áåé÷øà åçã áöå àú àäøï äåå áúøé òðééðéí åîåãä ãàéï ãðéï
(b) Answer: Only there we expound, because it is one Parshah, but here one is in Parshas Vayikra and one is in Parshas Tzav. They are two Inyanim (matters). He agrees that we do not expound;
ëãàîø áô''÷ ãôñçéí (ãó å:) àôé' ìî''ã ãðéï ä''î áçã òðééðà àáì áúøé òðééðé àéï ãðéï
1. This is like it says in Pesachim (6b), that even according to the opinion that expounds [a Klal and Perat far from each other], this is only in one Inyan, but in two Inyanim, we do not expound.
åäà ãôé' ä÷åðèøñ áôñçéí ãî''ã ãðéï äééðå øá àãà áø àäáä ãùîòúéï
(c) Explanation #1: Rashi in Pesachim said that the opinion that expounds is Rav Ada bar Ahavah of our Sugya.
ìà ã÷ ãäëà àôé' áúøé òðééðé ÷àîø àìà àôìåâúà ãàáéé åøáà ÷àé
(d) Rejection (and Explanation #2): This is wrong. Here it says that even in two Inyanim [it says that he expounds]. Rather, it refers to the argument of Abaye and Rava.
åà''ú áôø÷ ðâîø äãéï (ñðäãøéï ãó îä:) ããøéù åäåîú åúìéú ëìì ëé ÷ììú ôøè àé äåé î÷øáé àéï áëìì àìà îä ùáôøè äùúà ãîøç÷é àúà ìøáåééï òò''à
(e) Question: In Sanhedrin (45b) it expounds "v'Humas v'Salisa" is a Klal. "Ki Kilelas" is a Prat. If they would be near each other, we would include only the Prat. Now that they are far apart, it comes to include one who serves idolatry;
ìøáà ãàîø ãðéï ìà äåä ìéä ìøáåéé îéãé ìàáéé ãàîø àéï ãðéï ìà äåä ìéä ìîéãï ëìì
1. According to Rava, who says that we expound [just like if they were near each other], we should not include anything. According to Abaye, who says that we do not expound, we should not expound them at all!
åé''ì ëéåï ãàéôñé÷ áãáø àçø ùàéðå îàåúå òðéï ãëúéá (ãáøéí ëà) ëé ÷áø ú÷áøðå äåä ìéä ëúøé òðééðé åàéï ãðéï
(f) Answer: Since something interrupts between them which is another matter, for it says "Ki Kavor Tikberenu", it is like two matters and we do not expound;
åäúí ãøéù îëç ãîâãó äéä áëìì åäåîú åéöà îï äëìì åøáé (àìòæø) [ö"ì àìéòæø - éùø åèåá, áàøåú äîéí] ðîé îëç æä äåà ãï
1. There he expounds because Megadef was included in "v'Humas", and it left the Klal. And also R. Eliezer expounds due to this.
åàéï ìä÷ôéã àäà ããøùéðï äëà ãáø ùäéä áëìì åéöà îï äëìì ììîã ìàéúåéé ìéùä åòøéëä å÷éèåó åëï áôø÷ ëìì âãåì (ùáú ãó ò.) âáé äáòøä ìçì÷
(g) Remark: It is not difficult that here we expound something that was in the Klal and left the Klal to include kneading, arranging and Kituf (Rashi - smoothing the surface of the dough with water), and similarly, in Shabbos (70a) regarding burning [was in the Klal "Lo Sa'aseh Kol Melachah", and it was written explicitly] to divide (to teach that one is liable for each Melachah by itself)...
åáô''÷ ãéáîåú (ãó æ.) ã÷àîø îãáø ùäéä áëìì åéöà îï äëìì ëéöã åäðôù àùø úàëì áùø îæáç äùìîéí åîîòè ÷ãùé áã÷ äáéú
1. And in Yevamos (7a) "what is the case of something that was in the Klal and left the Klal? "Veha'Nefesh Asher Tochal Besar mi'Zevach ha'Shelamim", and we exclude Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis. (Birkas ha'Zevach - according to the matter, sometimes we include, and sometimes we exclude.)
8) TOSFOS DH Oh Eino Ela she'Zeh Ta'un Tzafon
úåñôåú ã"ä àå àéðå àìà ùæä èòåï öôåï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos brings two explanations of the Havah Amina.)
ôéøù á÷åðèøñ å÷øà ãáî÷åí àùø úùçè äòåìä úùçè äçèàú áùòéø ðùéà ëúéá
(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi): The verse "bi'Mkom Asher Tishachet ha'Olah Tishachet ha'Chatas" (Vayikra 6:18) is written about Se'ir Nasi.
îùîò ãáòé ìîòåèé ëåìäå çèàåú
(b) Inference: [Rashi] comes to exclude all [other] Chata'os. (The verse seems to be a Klal for all Chata'os. However, we learned from "Oso" that only Se'ir Nasi requires the north.)
å÷ùä à''ë ìà öøéê ìëùäåà àåîø åùçè àú äçèàú æä áðä àá úéôå÷ ìéä [ãáâåôéä ëúéá áìà áðéï àá[
(c) Question: If so, we do not need 'when it says "v'Shachat Es ha'Chatas [bi'Mkom ha'Olah]" - this is a Binyan Av.' I already know this without a Binyan Av, for it is written [in the verse] itself! (This is in the Parshah of a female goat. It shows that that "Oso" does not exclude other Chata'os. If so, "bi'Mkom Asher..." is truly a Klal for all Chata'os!)
ìëê ðøàä (ëîå ùôéøù áàéæäå î÷åîï (æáçéí îç.) - öàï ÷ãùéí îåç÷å) ãîàåúå ãùòéø ðùéà ìà àîòèé àìà æëøéí ëîåúå ëâåï ùòéøé øâìéí øàù çãù åò''æ
(d) Explanation #2: From "Oso" of Se'ir Nasi we exclude only males like itself, e.g. goats of festivals, Rosh Chodesh and Avodah Zarah.
àê éù ìééùá ôéøåù ä÷åðè' ãæä áðä àá ìàå ãåå÷à àìà ëìåîø ëéåï ãàåúå çæéðï ãìàå ãå÷à äåà à''ë ìà îîòèéðï îéðéä îéãé åäééðå áðéï àá ã÷àîø
(e) Defense (of Explanation #1): 'This is a Binyan Av' is not precise. Rather, since we find that Oso is not precise, if so we do not exclude anything from it. This is the Binyan Av it mentioned.
(åáô' àéæäå î÷åîï (ùí) ôé' ä÷åðè' ãîäçèàú ÷à ãøéù ãîøáä (ëì) [ö"ì ùàø - öàï ÷ãùéí] ùàø çèàåú
(f) Answer #3 (Rashi, Zevachim 48a): We expound from "ha'Chatas", which includes other Chata'os.
9) TOSFOS DH Oh Eino... (2) (This is not a new Dibur according to Tzon Kodoshim)
úåñôåú ã"ä (àå àéðå... æä ìà ãéáåø çãù ìôé öàï ÷ãùéí)
(àå) [ö"ì åàå - öàï ÷ãùéí] àéðå àìà ùæä èòåï öôåï åàéï àçø èòåï öôåï ëâåï ùòéøé äøâìéí àå ùòéø äôðéîé
1. [The Gemara] asks that perhaps rather it teaches that this (Chatas Yachid) needs Tzafon, but another does not need Tzafon, e.g. goats of the festivals, or the inner goat!
10) TOSFOS DH Lav Mishum d'Havi Klal u'Ferat (This starts a new Dibur according to Tzon Kodoshim, Yashar v'Tov)
úåñôåú ã"ä ìàå îùåí ãäåé ëìì åôøè (æä ãéáåø çãù ìôé öàï ÷ãùé, éùø åèåá)
(SUMMARY: Tosfos justifies the Havah Amina.)
úéîä åäéëé îøáä îåùçè ãëúéá áçèàú éçéã àëúé àéîà áî÷åí àùø úùçè äòåìä úùçè äçèàú ëìì åäðê úøúé ãçèàú ðùéà åçèàú éçéã ôøè äðé àéï àçøéðà ìà
(a) Question: How can we include from "v'Shachat" written about Chatas Yachid? Still, I should say that bi'Mkom Asher Tishachet ha'Olah Tishachet ha'Chatas is a Klal, and these two, i.e. Chatas Nasi and Chatas Yachid are the Prat - only these, but no others!
åé''ì ãáéçéã ëúéá áëùáä åëúéá áùòéøä åàééúø ìéä çã ìáðéï àá
(b) Answer #1: Regarding [Chatas of] an individual, [the north] is written regarding a lamb, and regarding a goat. One is extra for a Binyan Av;
åìôé äîñ÷ðà ãàîøéðï àåúå ÷à ÷ùéà ìéä öøéëé úøåééäå ëãàîø áøéù àéæäå î÷åîï (æáçéí ãó îè:) ìîöåä åìòëá
1. According to the conclusion that we say that Oso was difficult for him, both are needed, like it says in Zevachim (49b) for a Mitzvah [in the north], and to be Me'akev.
åà''ú åã÷áòé ì÷îï äùúà ãð''ì îåùçè àåúå ìîòåèé îàé
(c) Question: Below, we ask 'now that we learn from "v'Shachat..." [that all Chata'os require the north], what does "Oso" exclude?'
úé÷ùé ìéä ìîä ìé ãëúá øçîðà öôåï ëìì áùòéø ðùéà ãðéìó îçèàú éçéã ëãéìôéðï îéðééäå ùàø çèàåú îæä áðä àá
1. [The Makshan] should ask why the Torah needed to write the north regarding Se'ir Nasi at all. We should learn from Chatas Yachid, just like we learn other Chata'os from this Binyan Av!
åö''ì ãä''ð
(d) Answer: We must say that indeed [he could have asked this. The answer given answers both questions.]
å÷öú ÷ùéà ìùåï äáøééúà ãîùîò ãìòåìí àéöèøéê ÷øà ãùòéø ðùéà ì÷áòå çåáä
(e) Question: The wording of the Beraisa is difficult. It connotes that really, we need the verse of Se'ir Nasi to teach that [Shechitah in the north] is obligatory!
11) TOSFOS DH Tana Oso Ka Kashya Lei (belongs before DH Oh Eino)
úåñôåú ã"ä úðà àåúå ÷à ÷ùéà ìéä (ùééê ìòéì ÷åãí ã"ä àå àéðå)
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the Havah Amina.)
åä''÷ àå àéðå ãìà áà ì÷åáòå çåáä åäà ãàéöèøéê ìîëúá áéä öôåï îùåí ãáòé ìîëúá àåúå ãáà ììîã æä ëå' åàéï àçø èòåï öôåï
(a) Explanation: He asks that perhaps [Oso] does not come to fix it for an obligation. It needed to write the north, for it wants to write Oso, to teach this (Se'ir Nasi...), but another [Chatas] does not require the north.
12) TOSFOS DH Ho'il v'Israbei bi'Semichah
úåñôåú ã"ä äåàéì åàéúøáé áñîéëä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why it does not suffice that it is called Chatas.)
äåàéì åàé÷øé çèàú ìà îöé ìîéîø (ùòä)
(a) Implied question: Why don't we say "because it is called Chatas"?
[ö"ì ãùòä - öàï ÷ãùéí] îãåøåú ìà éìôéðï
(b) Answer: We do not learn Doros (what applies for all generations) from Sha'ah.
åàò''â ãàéëà ëîä ÷øáðåú ãèòåðéï ñîéëä åìà áòå öôåï
(c) Implied question: There are many Korbanos that require Semichah, and do not require the north!
äåàéì åáäàé ÷øà âåôéä ãîøáéðï ìéä ìñîéëä ëúéá åùçè àåúå áî÷åí àùø éùçè àú äòåìä ãäééðå öôåï àé ìàå ãëúéá áéä àåúå äåä àîéðà ãäééúåøà ãäùòéø àñîéëä åöôåï ÷àé:
(d) Answer: Since in this verse itself that we include it for Semichah, it is written "v'Shachat Oso bi'Mkom Asher Yishchat Es ha'Olah", i.e. the north, had it not written Oso, one might have thought that the inclusion "ha'Sa'ir" refers to Semichah and the north.