1) TOSFOS DH v'R. Yochanan Hai Osam Mai Avid Lei
úåñôåú ã"ä åøáé éåçðï (àîø) äàé àåúí îàé òáéã ìéä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out another answer that we could have given.)
äåä îöé ìîéîø ãîéáòé ìéä ëé äà ããøùé øáðï áô' äúòøåáåú (æáçéí ãó òæ.) àåúí àé àúä îòìä ìøéç ðéçåç àáì àúä îòìä ìùí òöéí [ëå']
(a) Observation: He could have said that he needs it like Rabanan expound in Zevachim (77a) "Osam" you are not Ma'aleh (bring up on the Mizbe'ach) for Re'ach Nicho'ach, but you are Ma'aleh them l'Shem wood.
2) TOSFOS DH Miba'i Lei lechid'Tanya
úåñôåú ã"ä îéáòé ìéä ìëãúðéà
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why this is not difficult for R. Elazar.)
åîäê áøééúà ìà ÷ùéà ìøáé àìòæø
(a) Implied question: This Beraisa is difficult for R. Elazar (who says that Osam teaches that only for Se'or and Devash, the ramp is like the Mizbe'ach)!
ãúøúé ù''î ëãàîø áôø÷ äúòøåáåú (ùí)
(b) Answer: We learn both from [Osam], like it says in Zevachim (77a).
3) TOSFOS DH Aval Yehei Tzibur Mevi v'Chulei
úåñôåú ã"ä àáì éäà öéáåø îáéà ëå'
(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with a Beraisa in Toras Kohanim.)
åäà ãúðéà áú''ë àí æáç ùìîéí äåà î÷øéá äåà îáéà ðãáä åàéï äöéáåø òåùéí ðãáä
(a) Implied question: A Beraisa in Toras Kohanim teaches "Im Zevach Shelamim Hu Makriv" - [an individual] offers Nedavah, but the Tzibur does not offer Nedavah!
äééðå ùìîéí
(b) Answer: That is regarding Shelamim.
4) TOSFOS DH Log Shemen Shel Metzora Ika Beinaihu
úåñôåú ã"ä ìåâ ùîï ùì îöåøò àéëà áéðééäå
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why it is not called Mimenu l'Ishim.)
ãàé÷øé ÷øáï ëãàîø áàìå îðçåú ìëì ÷øáðí ìøáåú ìåâ ùîï ùì îöåøò
(a) Explanation: It is called Korban, like it says below (73a) "l'Chol Korbanam" includes the Log of oil of a Metzora. (This is in our text here, but Shitah Mekubetzes deletes it. Surely it was not in Tosfos' text, since he cites the Gemara below.)
åáâåôéä ðîé ëúéá åä÷øéá àåúå ìàùí åàú ìåâ äùîï åàéï îîðå ìàéùéí
1. In [Parshas Metzora] itself it is written "v'Hikriv Osah l'Asham v'Es Log ha'Shamen", and none of it is put on the fire.
åä÷ùä á÷åðèøñ äà ÷øá îîðå ìàéùéí ùäøé àùí îöåøò áà òîå åëä''â àîøéðï ìòéì îîðå ìàéùéí áùúé äìçí îùåí ëáùéí
(b) Question (Rashi): Some is put on the fire, for Asham Metzora comes with it, and in such a case we said above (57b) that [this is called] Mimenu l'Ishim regarding Shtei ha'Lechem, due to the lambs brought with it!
åàéï ìúøõ ãùàðé ùúé äìçí ùîðéôéí àåúï òí äëáùéí
1. Implied suggestion: Shtei ha'Lechem are different, for we wave them with the lambs.
ãìåâ ùîï ùì îöåøò ðîé îðéôéï àåúå òí äàùí îçééí ëããøùéðï ì÷îï áôéø÷éï îãëúéá åäðéó àåúí
2. Rejection: Also the Log of oil is waved with the Asham while it is alive, like we expound below (61a), since it says "v'Henif Osam."
åúéøõ á÷åðèøñ ãäà ìà ÷ùéà ãàùí ìà ùééê ìâáé ìåâ ìâîøé ãàãí îáéà àùîå òëùéå åìåâå òã òùøä éîéí ëãàîø áñåó ä÷åîõ æåèà (ìòéì ãó èå:)
(c) Answer (Rashi): This is not difficult, for the Asham does not pertain to the oil at all, for [a Metzora] may bring his Asham today and the oil 10 days later, like it says above (15b).
åàò''â ãùúé äìçí ðîé ôòîéí ùàéï ëáùéí òîäï ìîàï ãàîø ãëáùéí àéï îòëáéï àú äìçí
(d) Implied question: Also Shtei ha'Lechem, sometimes the lambs are not with them, according to the opinion that the lambs are not Me'akev the bread (above, 45b)!
äéëà ãàéú ìéä îéäà ìà îééúé æä áìà æä
(e) Answer #1: However, when he has both of them, one may not bring one without the other.
åòåã ãäéëà ãäå÷áòå àéï éëåì ìùðåú àáì ìåâ ùîï ìà äå÷áòå àìà ìø''î ãàîø äúí äå÷áòå áùçéèä
(f) Answer #2: When they were fixed [to be brought together, through Tenufah or Shechitah], he cannot deviate. However, the Log of oil is fixed only according to R. Meir, who says that they are fixed through Shechitah.
åà''ú åäà áôø÷ äúòøåáåú (æáçéí ãó òå:) ÷øé ìéä îîðå ìàéùéí
1. Question: In Zevachim (76b) it is called Mimenu l'Ishim!
åé''ì ãäúí áòé ìîéîø ëì ùùîå ÷øáï àìà ãð÷è ìùåï äùâåø áäù''ñ éåúø
2. Answer: There, [the Gemara] means to say anything that is called Korban, but it used the expression that is more fluent in the Gemara.
åàéï ìúøõ ãäëà ááà áôðé òöîå åäúí ááà òí äæáç ãàîø æä àùîå åæä ìåâå
(g) Suggested Answer #3: Here it discusses [oil] brought by itself, and there it discusses what comes with the Korban, i.e. he said that this is his Asham, and this is his oil.
ãà''ë ìéîà ìåâ äáà áôðé òöîå àéëà áéðééäå
(h) Rejection #1: If so, [Rav] should say that they argue about a Log that comes by itself!
åòåã ãáôø÷ á''ù (ùí ãó îã.) ìà ÷øé æáç îúéø ðñëéí äáàéï òîå ëéåï ãàúà òã é' éîéí
(i) Rejection #2: In Zevachim (44a), the Korban is not called a Matir for Nesachim that come with it, since they may be brought 10 days later. (If so, we cannot say that oil is called Mimenu l'Ishim due to the Korban.)
5) TOSFOS DH Chetzi Minayin Talmud Lomar Kol Eruvo Minayin...
úåñôåú ã"ä çöé îðéï ú''ì ëì òéøåáå îðéï...
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the Gemara in Pesachim unlike Rashi.)
îëàï ÷ùä òì ôé' ä÷åðèøñ ãôø÷ àìå òåáøéï (ôñçéí ãó îâ:) ãàîø ø''é ëì àéñåøéï ùáúåøä àéï äéúø îöèøó ìàéñåø çåõ îàéñåøé ðæéø ùäøé àîøä úåøä îùøú
(a) Citation (Pesachim 43b - R. Yochanan): Heter joins with Isur only for Isurei Nazir, for it says "Mishras". (A Nazir is liable for eating bread that absorbed wine. The bread joins to the Shi'ur);
æòéøé àîø àó ùàåø ááì ú÷èéøå ëîàï ëø' àìéòæø ããøéù ëì ëå' åìàôå÷é îãàáéé ãàîø éù ä÷èøä áôçåú îëæéú
1. Citation (cont. - Ze'iri): Also regarding the Isur of Haktaras Chametz, Heter joins to Isur. Like whom is this? It is like R. Eliezer, who expounds "Kol". [He taught about Haktarah] to show that he argues with Abaye, who says that even less than a k'Zayis is considered Haktarah.
åôé' ùí á÷åðèøñ ãæòéøé äåä ãøéù àéï ìé àìà ëåìå î÷öúå îðéï ëâåï çöé æéú îöä åçöé æéú çîõ ú''ì ëì
(b) Explanation #1 (Rashi in Pesachim): Ze'iri expounds 'I would know only all of it. What is the source for part, e.g. a half-k'Zayis of Matzah and a half-k'Zayis of Chametz? It says "Chol (Se'or...)".'
å÷ùä ãäà ëì ìà ëàáéé åìà ëøáà
(c) Objection #1: "Chol" is [expounded] unlike Abaye, and unlike Rava!
åòåã îàé ÷àîø äúí ëîàï ëø' àìéòæø äà àôéìå ëøáðï ðîé àúéà ãðäé ãëì ìà ãøùé ëé ëì ãøùé ìøáåú î÷öúå ãäééðå äéúø îöèøó ìàéñåø ìôé' ä÷åðèøñ
(d) Objection #2: Why does it say there "like whom is this? It is like R. Eliezer"? It is even like Rabanan, for granted, they do not expound "Kol", but they expound "Ki Chol" to include part, i.e. Heter joins with Isur, according to Rashi!
åðøàä ìôøù ãæòéøé ãñáø äéúø îöèøó ìàéñåø ãøéù ëøáà ãî÷öúå äééðå çöé ÷åîõ ùäåà æéú ùìí åîøáé ìéä îëì
(e) Explanation #2: Ze'iri, who holds that Heter joins with Isur, expounds like Rava. "Part of it" is half a Kometz, which is a full k'Zayis, and he includes it from "Kol";
åòéøåáå äééðå çöé æéú äéúø åçöé æéú àéñåø ãîöèøôéï åîøáé ìéä îëé ëì
1. A mixture is a half-k'Zayis of Heter and a half-k'Zayis of Isur, that they join. He includes this from "Ki Chol";
àáì ëàáéé ìà îöé ñáø ãëéåï ãîôøù î÷öúå çöé æéú ìà ùééê áéä öéøåó ãàôéìå áîùäå îéçééá
i. However, he cannot hold like Abaye, since [Abaye] explains that "part of it" is a half-k'Zayis. Joining does not apply, since one is liable for any amount!
åäàé ãîøáé òéøåáéï äééðå ëùðúòøá ìâîøé òí ääéúø ãìà àîøéðï ùéúáèì àéñåø àâá äéúø
2. [Abaye] includes mixtures, i.e. when they mixed totally with the Heter. We do not say that the Isur is Batel to the Heter;
àáì ìøáà ìà öøéê ÷øà ìäëé ãëéåï ãàéëà ëæéú ôùéèà ãìà áèéì
3. However, according to Rava no verse is needed for this. Since there is a k'Zayis, obviously it is not Batel!
åäà ã÷àîø ëîàï ëøáé àìéòæø ããøéù ëì
(f) Implied question: Why does it say there 'like whom is this? It is like R. Eliezer, who expounds "Kol"'?
äééðå îùåí ãìøáðï àò''â ãëé ëì ãøùé îéäå ìà äåä îå÷îéðï ëé ëì ìøáåú òéøåáå àìà ìøáåú î÷öúå
(g) Answer: It is because according to Rabanan, even though they expound "Ki Chol", they would not establish "Ki Chol" to include its mixture, rather, to include part of it.
6) TOSFOS DH Abaye Savar Yesh Kometz Pachos mi'Shnei Zeisim
úåñôåú ã"ä àáéé ñáø éù ÷åîõ ôçåú îùðé æéúéí
(SUMMARY: 1. Tosfos justifies Abaye's opinion. 2. Tosfos compares this to other cases of Haktarah less than a k'Zayis.)
ôéøåù ãàí ìà ëï îðà ìéä ìøáåú àôéìå çöé æéú ãäåä ìéä ìîéîø àéï ìé àìà ëì ä÷åîõ çöé ÷åîõ îðéï ãäà àéëà ëæéú àáì ôçåú îëùéòåø îðà äåä ìéä ìøáåéé
(a) Explanation: If not [that a Kometz can be less than two k'Zeisim], what is his source to include even a half-k'Zayis? He should have said "I would know only the entire Kometz. What is the source for half a Kometz?", for there is a k'Zayis [in half a Kometz]. However, what is his source to include less than a Shi'ur? !
åà''ú åàëúé îðà ìéä ìàáéé ìøáåú çöé (îëàï îòîåã á) æéú ãéìîà ëé àúà ÷øà ìøáåéé ëæéú åàò''ô ùàéï áå ëãé ÷åîõ
(b) Question: Still, what is Abaye's source to include a half-k'Zayis? Perhaps the verse comes to include a k'Zayis, even though it is less than the amount of a Kometz!
58b----------------------------------------58b
åé''ì ãñáøà äåà ãøéáåé ãëì àúà ìøáåú çöé ùéòåø (òì) [ö"ì åòì - ùéèä î÷åáöú, öàï ÷ãùéí] ëøçéï éù ä÷èøä ôçåú îëæéú ëéåï ãñáéøà ìéä ãéù ÷åîõ ôçåú îá' æéúéí
(c) Answer: It is logical that the inclusion "Kol" comes to include Chetzi Shi'ur, and we are forced to say that there is Haktarah less than a k'Zayis, since he holds that a Kometz can be less than two k'Zeisim;
(ìà îöé ìøáåéé) [ö"ì åìøáà ãàîø àéï ÷åîõ ôçåú îá' æéúéí ìà îöé ìøáåéé àìà - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ëæéú
1. And according to Rava, who holds that a Kometz cannot be less than two k'Zeisim, we can include only a k'Zayis.
åîäëà îô÷é èòîééäå ø' éäåùò áï ìåé åøáé éåçðï ãôìéâé áä÷èéø ÷åîöä [ö"ì ôòîéí - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã, öàï ÷ãùéí] ìòéì áä÷åîõ øáä (ãó ëå:)
(d) Observation: This is the source of the reasons of R. Yehoshua ben Levi and R. Yochanan, who argue about one who was Maktir the Kometz [several] times, above (26b. R. Yochanan is Machshir, even though it is less than a k'Zayis at a time.)
åàó òì âá ãàîøéðï áôø÷ äùåçè åäîòìä (æáçéí ãó ÷è:) åîééúé ìä ìòéì áô''÷ (ãó éá:) ä÷åîõ åä÷èåøú ùä÷øéá îàçú îäï ëæéú áçåõ çééá àáì ôçåú îëæéú ìà
(e) Implied question: We say in Zevachim (109b), and it is brought above (12b) that if one offered a k'Zayis of a Kometz or Ketores outside, he is liable, but not for less than a k'Zayis (and Abaye does not argue)!
ùàðé ùàåø ãøáé ÷øà
(f) Answer #1: Se'or is different, for the Torah included [liability for less than a k'Zayis].
åîéäå áääéà ãä÷èéø ÷åîöä ôòîéí ìéëà ÷øà åçùáéðï ìä ä÷èøä
1. Implied question: In the case of being Maktir the Kometz twice, there is no verse, and we consider it Haktarah!
åùîà ùàðé äúí ãä÷èéø äëì
2. Answer: Perhaps there is different, for he was Maktir everything.
åìôé èòí æä îàï ãàîø äúí éù ä÷èøä àôùø ãîåãä äëà ãàéï ä÷èøä
(g) Consequence: According to this reason, the one who says there that there is Haktarah [several times, i.e. even less than a k'Zayis at a time] would agree here that there is not Haktarah [less than a k'Zayis, like Rava].
åúãò ãäà ìä÷èéø ëçöé æéú úðï áô''÷ (ìòéì éá:) ãìà äåé ôéâåì
(h) Proof: [Intent] to be Maktir a half-k'Zayis [Chutz li'Zmano], a Mishnah above (12b) says that it is not Pigul.
åîéäå éù ìçì÷ îùåí ãâáé ôéâåì àéú÷ù àëéìú îæáç ìàëéìú àãí ëããøùéðï àí äàëì éàëì
(i) Rebuttal #1: We can distinguish, for regarding Pigul, consumption of the Mizbe'ach is equated to consumption of people [for which the Shi'ur is a k'Zayis], like we expound "Im He'achel Ye'achel." (Yashar v'Tov - this is also another answer to Question (e), for Haktaras Chutz is like intent for Haktaras Chutz.)
åòåã é''ì ãâáé ä÷èøú çåõ áòéðï ëæéú èôé ìëåìé òìîà
(j) Rebuttal #2 (and Answer #2 to Question (e)): Regarding Haktaras Chutz (or with intent Chutz), all agree that we require a k'Zayis more [than other cases of Haktarah].
7) TOSFOS DH ha'Ma'aleh mi'Se'or umi'Devash Al Gabei ha'Mizbe'ach v'Chulei
úåñôåú ã"ä äîòìä îùàåø åîãáù ò''â äîæáç ëå'
(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes that he offered each by itself, and a mixture of them.)
ôé' á÷åðèøñ ùòéøáï éçã ìå÷ä àøáò îì÷éåú
(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi): He mixed them together. He is lashed four times.
å÷ùä äéëé ì÷é îùåí ùàåø åîùåí ãáù ëéåï ãìàå áòéï ðéðäå åàí äí áòéï îàé òéøåáéï àéëà
(b) Question: How is he is lashed for Se'or and for honey, since they are not intact? And if they are intact, what mixture is there?
å÷öú äéä ðøàä ìôøù ùëì àçã ìáãå åàùàåø ìçåãéä ìå÷ä îùåí ùàåø åîùåí ëé ëì ùàåø åàãáù ìçåãéä ìå÷ä îùåí ãáù åëì ãáù ãàëåìäå ÷àé ìà ú÷èéøå
(c) Explanation #2: It seems that each one is by itself. He is lashed for Se'or alone due to Se'or, and "Ki Chol Se'or." For honey alone he is lashed for Devash and Chol Devash, for "Lo Saktiru" applies to all of them.
åàò''â ãîëé ëì ãøùéðï òéøåáéï
1. Implied question: We expound their mixture from "Ki Chol"!
î''î îùîò áéï îòåøáéï áéï ùàéðï îòåøáéï åìäëé ì÷é àùàåø úøé åàãáù úøé
2. Answer: Even so, it connotes both when they are mixed, and when they are not mixed. Therefore he is lashed twice for Se'or, and twice for honey.
åîéäå ìà éúëï ëìì ìôøù ëï îãìà ÷àîø äîòìä ùàåø òì âáé äîæáç ìå÷ä ùúéí ãáù ìå÷ä ùúéí ùàåø åãáù ìå÷ä ã'
(d) Rejection #1: We cannot explain so at all, since it does not say "one who brings Se'or on the Mizbe'ach is lashed twice. [One who brings] honey is lashed twice. [For] Se'or and Harei, he is lashed four times;
ëòéï ääéà ùéèä ãñåó äî÷áì (á''î ãó ÷èå:) åáñåó ëì ùòä (ôñçéí ãó îà:) ãðà åîáåùì åøçéí åøëá åëï âáé æâ åçøöï áðæéø áô' â' îéðéï (ãó ìç:)
1. [This would be] similar to [Rava's] opinion in Bava Metzi'a (115b) and in Pesachim (41b) regarding [eating Pesach] Na and Mevushal, and [taking for security] the upper and lower millstone, and also a Nazir eating grape pits and peels, in Nazir (38b).
åòåã ëéåï ãëé ëì àúà ìúòøåáú ìà ì÷é àùàåø ëãàîø áñåó äî÷áì (á''î ãó ÷èå:) ãàøçéí åøëá ìà ì÷é îùåí ëé ðôù äåà çåáì äåàéì åìãáøéí àçøéí äåà ãàúà
(e) Rejection #2: Since "Ki Chol" comes to teach about their mixture, he is not lashed for Se'or, like it says in Bava Metzi'a (115b) that for the upper and lower millstone he is not lashed for "Ki Nefesh Hu Chovel", since it comes for other matters;
åòã ëàï ìà ôìéâ øá äåðà àìà îùåí ãëé ðôù äåà çåáì îùîò ðîé øçéí ëîå ùàø ãáøéí àáì äëà ëé ëì ìà àúà àìà ìòéøåáéï ìçåãéä
1. We find that Rav Huna argues only because "Ki Nefesh Hu Chovel" connotes also a millstone, like other matters (used to prepare food), but here, "Ki Chol" comes only for their mixture!
åðøàä ìôøù ãîééøé ùîòìä ùàåø áôðé òöîå åãáù áôðé òöîå åùàåø åãáù îòåøáéï éçã åäòìä ùìùúï ááú àçú
(f) Explanation #3: We discuss when he brings up Se'or by itself, and honey by itself, and Se'or and honey mixed together. He brought up all three at once;
ãàùàåø åãáù ãáòéðééäå ìå÷ä ùúéí (åà''ú) [åòì] òéøåáéï ùúéí çãà îùåí òéøåáé ùàåø åçãà îùåí òéøåáé ãáù
1. For Se'or and honey by themselves, he is lashed twice, and for their mixture [he is lashed] twice - once for a mixture of Se'or, and once for a mixture of honey.
åàò''â ãìà ëúéá áãáù ëé ëì
(g) Implied question: Regarding honey, it is not written "Ki Chol" (it is written only v'Chol)!
åé''å ãåëì ãáù îåñéó ìòðéï øàùåï
(h) Answer: The prefix "Vov" in v'Chol is Mosif Al Inyan Rishon (it is as if "Ki Chol" written above about Se'or is repeated regarding honey).
8) TOSFOS DH Ein Lokin Al Lav shebi'Chlalos
úåñôåú ã"ä àéï ìå÷éï òì ìàå ùáëììåú
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses when one is liable for each kind written.)
òéøåáé ùàåø åòéøåáé ãáù ãðô÷é îëé ëì çùéá ìàå ùáëììåú
(a) Explanation: Mixtures of Se'or and mixtures of honey, which we learn from Ki Chol, is considered Lav shebi'Chlalos.
åëï ìàå ãëé àí öìé àù ãøáééä ëì ãáø ùàéðå öìé àù ëâåï ðà åîáåùì
1. Similarly, the Lav "Ki Im Tzli Esh", which includes anything that is not roasted, e.g. Na (semi-roasted) and Mevushal, [is Lav shebi'Chlalos];
åëï îëì àùø éòùä îâôï äééï ãâáé æâ åçøöï åëï ëé ðôù äåà çåáì ãâáé øéçééí åøëá
2. Similarly, "mi'Chol Asher Ya'aseh mi'Gefen ha'Yayin" regarding grape pits and peels, and "Ki Nefesh Hu Chovel" regarding the upper and lower millstone [are Lavim shebi'Chlalos regarding what is not written explicitly].
àáì ùàåø åãáù âåôééäå àò''â ãçã ìàå ëúéá àúøåééäå ìà çùéá ìàå ùáëììåú
(b) Distinction: However, Se'or and honey themselves, even though one Lav is written about both of them, it is not considered Lav shebi'Chlalos (for the Torah explicitly taught the Isurim).
åëï æâ åçøöï (áîãáø å) åðà åîáåùì (ùîåú éá) åøçéí åøëá (ãáøéí ëã) ãìàå ãéãäå àëì çã åçã ÷à îäãø
1. Similarly, grape pits and peels, and Na and Mevushal, and the upper and lower millstone, that their Lav applies to each one [are not considered Lav shebi'Chlalos].
åà''ú åìø' éàùéä ãáòé àå ìçì÷ (á''î ãó öã:) ìà ìéçééá áçã ìçåãéä òã ùéòùä ùðéäí
(c) Question: According to R. Yoshiyah, who requires "Oh" to distinguish, he should not be liable until he does both!
åé''ì ãùàåø åãáù åðà åîáåùì ëúéá áäå îîðå åðæéø ðîé îãëúéá îçøöðéí åòã æâ åìà ëúéá çøöðéí åæâ
(d) Answer: Regarding Se'or and honey, and Na and Mevushal, it is written Mimenu, and also regarding Nazir, since it says me'Chartzanim v'Ad Zag, and not Chartzanim v'Zag [this shows that one is liable for even one].
åîéäå ÷ùä îðà åîáåùì ãîîðå ãëúéá áäå àôñç ÷àé
(e) Question: Na and Mevushal is difficult. Mimenu written about them refers to Korban Pesach (do not eat from it Na and Mevushal)!
åøéçééí åøëá îãìà ÷øéðà åøëá áçèó
(f) Answer (cont.): And Reichayim v'Rechev, since we do not pronounce [the Vov of] v'Rechev with a Chataf (Sheva, rather with a Kamatz, this separates it and shows that one is liable for even one. Ya'avetz and Rashash in Bava Metzi'a ask that since the Trup for this word is an Asnachta (a pause), grammatically it must have a Kamatz! Perhaps Tosfos means that there could have been a tradition from Sinai to have a Sheva, without a pause, or the tradition would override grammatical law (see Rashi Bamidbar 32:42; Tiferes Yisrael (Reish Perek 66) calls this Mikra Sofrim. - PF)
åà''ú åàîàé îçééá úøé äà àîøéðï áñåó âéã äðùä (çåìéï ãó ÷á:) âáé áùø îï äçé åáùø îï äèøéôä ãìà îçééá àìà çãà îùåí ãîçã ìàå ðô÷é
(g) Question: Why is one liable twice? We say in Chulin (102b) about Basar Min ha'Chai and Basar Min ha'Tereifah, that one is liable only once, because they come from one Lav!
åé''ì ëéåï ùäàéñåøéí îôåøùéï áôñå÷ ÷àé äìàå òì ëì àçã åàçã òì æâ åòì çøöï åëï ëåìï
(h) Answer: Since the Isurim are explicit in the verse, the Lav applies to each one, to grape pits and peels, and similarly for all of them;
ëîå (åé÷øà ëà) àìîðä åâøåùä åçììä æåðä ùàí òùàï ëåìï çééá òì ëì àçú åàçú îùåí ãìà é÷ç ÷àé ìëì çã åçã
1. This is like [the Isur for a Kohen Gadol to marry] a widow, divorcee, Chalalah and Zonah. If he did all of them he is liable for each one, because "Lo Yikach" applies to each one;
åìà îöøéê ÷øà ìçì÷ áô' òùøä éåçñéï (÷ãåùéï ãó òæ:) àìà îùåí ãâåó àçã äåà
2. We require a verse to divide them, in Kidushin (77b) only because (i.e. in a case when) they are one body (one woman has all of these statuses).
åëï ôé' øù''é áô' áúøà ãîëåú (ãó éç.) ãîòùø ãâï úéøåù åéöäø åáëåø á÷ø åöàï åáéëåøéí àò''â ãëåìäå áçã ìàå ëúéáé ì÷é àëì çã åçã ãëéåï ãîôåøùéí åëúåáéí áôñå÷ ìà úåëì ìàëåì àëåìäå ÷àé
(i) Support: Rashi explained like this in Makos (18a) that Ma'aser of grain, wine and oil, and Bechor of Bakar and Tzon, and Bikurim, even though all of them are written in one Lav, one is lashed for each one, since they are explicit and written in the verse. "Lo Suchal Le'echol [bi'She'arecha Masar Degancha... u'Vechoros... u'Serumas Yadecha]" refers to all of them;
àáì áùø îï äçé åîï äèøéôä àéðí îôåøùéï áôñå÷ áäãéà ãðéîà ìà úàëìå ÷àé àëì çã åçã
1. However, Basar Min ha'Chai and Basar Min ha'Tereifah are not explicit in the verse, that we should say that "Lo Sochlu" refers to each one.
åà''ú åîä áéï æâ åçøöï ðà åîáåùì øéçééí åøëá ùàåø åãáù àìîðä åâøåùä åçììä æåðä ãçééá òì ëì àçú åàçú
(j) Question: What is different about grape pits and peels, and Na and Mevushal, and the upper and lower millstone, and Se'or and honey, and a widow, divorcee, Chalalah and Zonah, that one is liable for each one...
åàéìå çìá ùåø åëáù åòæ àéðå çééá àìà àçú ëãàé' áô''÷ ãëøéúåú (ãó ã.) àìîà îé÷øé ìàå ùáëììåú
1. Whereas Chelev of an ox, lamb and goat, one is liable only once, like it says in Kerisus (4a, according to Chachamim)? This shows that it is Lav she'Bichlalos (even though the Isurim are explicit in the verse)!
åëï ìçí ÷ìé åëøîì åëì îòùø ãâï úéøåù åéöäø ãìà ì÷é àìà çã àé ìàå îùåí éúåøà
2. Similarly, "Lechem Kali v'Charmel" (one may not eat from the five grains, not bread, parched grain or moist grain in the shell before the Omer), and also "Masar Degancha v'Siroshcha v'Yitzharecha", one would have been lashed only once if not for an extra verse!
åé''ì ãæâ åçøöï ùúé ùîåú ðéðäå åëï ùàåø åãáù åëï ëåìí
(k) Answer: Grape pits and peels are two Shemos (different Isurim), and similarly Se'or and honey, and likewise all of them (for which one is lashed for each without an extra verse).
úãò ãëé àúé ìàúøåéé áäï öøéê ìäæëéø ëì àçã áùîå
(l) Proof: When one comes to warn for them [in order to lash one who transgresses them], he must mention each by name.
àáì çìá ùåø åëáù åòæ ùí çìá äåà åëï ìçí ÷ìé åëøîì ùí çãù äåà åëï îòùø
1. However, Chelev of an ox, lamb and goat, the Isur of Chelev is one. The same applies to "Lechem Kali v'Charmel" - the Isur of Chadash is one, and similarly regarding Ma'aser.
9) TOSFOS DH Ika d'Amrei Chada Miha Laki
úåñôåú ã"ä àéëà ãàîøé çãà îéäà ì÷é
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the argument of Abaye and Rava.)
ëé äê ñåâéà àéëà áñåó äî÷áì (á''î ãó ÷èå:) åáñåó ëì ùòä (ôñçéí ãó îà:) àëì ðà ìå÷ä ùúéí îùåí ðà åîùåí ëé àí öìé àù îáåùì ìå÷ä ùúéí îùåí îáåùì åîùåí ëé àí öìé àù ðà åîáåùì ìå÷ä ùìù îùåí ðà åîùåí îáåùì åîùåí ëé àí öìé àù
(a) Reference: There is like this Sugya in Bava Metzi'a (115b) and in Pesachim (41b). [Rava says that] if one ate Na he is lashed twice, for Na and Ki Im Tzli Esh. If he ate Mevushal he is lashed twice, for Mevushal and Ki Im Tzli Esh. If he ate Na and Mevushal he is lashed three times, for Na, and for Mevushal, and for Ki Im Tzli Esh;
àáéé àîø àéï ìå÷éï òì ìàåéï ùáëììåú
1. Version #1: Abaye said, one is not lashed for Lav shebi'Chlalos.
àéëà ãàîøé çãà îéäà ì÷é
2. Version #2 (of Abaye): He is lashed once.
åôé' ùí á÷åðèøñ ëâåï çé åáçîé èáøéà (àé) çééá îùåí ëé àí öìé àù
(b) Explanation #1 (Rashi): E.g. if he ate [Pesach] raw, or cooked in hot springs of Tiverya, he is liable for Ki Im Tzli Esh.
å÷ùä ìø''ú ãäúí úðéà ìòéì éëåì àëì ëæéú çé éäà çééá ú''ì àì úàëìå îîðå ðà åáùì [ðà åáùì] àîøúé ìê åìà çé éëåì éäà îåúø ú''ì ëé àí öìé àù
(c) Question #1 (R. Tam): There, a Beraisa above taught "one might have thought that if he ate a k'Zayis raw he is liable. It says "Al Tochlu Mimenu Na u'Vashel..." - Na and Mevushal I told you, but not raw. One might have thought that it is permitted [raw]! It says Ki Im Tzli Esh;
àìîà îùîò ãàéñåøà àéëà îì÷åú ìéëà
1. Inference: There is an Isur [to eat it raw], but there are no lashes.
òåã àîøéðï áñåó äî÷áì (á''î ãó ÷èå:) âáé ôìåâúà ãøá äåðà åøá éäåãä ãçåáì øéçééí åøëá àîø ìê øáà àðà ãàîøé àôéìå (ìøáðï) [ìøá éäåãä] ãìà ì÷é àøéçééí åàøëá îùåí ëé ðôù äåà çåáì
(d) Question #2: It says in Bava Metzi'a (115b) regarding the argument of Rav Huna and Rav Yehudah that one who takes for security the upper and lower millstone, Rava can say "my opinion is even like Rav Yehudah, who holds that one is not lashed for Rechayim and Rechev due to "Ki Nefesh Hu Chovel";
òã ëàï ìà ÷àîø øá éäåãä äúí àìà ãëé ðôù äåà çåáì ìãáøéí àçøéí äåà ãàúà àáì äëà ëé àí öìé àù ìîàé àúà
1. Rav Yehudah said there only because "Ki Nefesh Hu Chovel" comes for other [Kelim used for food]. However, here, for what does Ki Im Tzli Esh come?!
åàé ëôé' ä÷åðèøñ äà àéöèøéê ìçé åìçîé èáøéà
2. According to Rashi, we need it for raw and [cooked in] hot springs of Tiverya!
åîôøù ø''ú äëé àëì ðà ìå÷ä ùúéí àí äúøå áå îùåí ðà åîùåí ëé àí öìé àù îáåùì ìå÷ä ùúéí àí äúøå áå îùåí îáåùì åîùåí ë''à öìé àù ðà åîáåùì ìå÷ä ùìù àí äúøå áå îùåí ùìùúï
(e) Explanation #2 (R. Tam): If he ate Na he is lashed twice if he was warned for Na and for Ki Im Tzli Esh. If he ate Mevushal he is lashed twice, if he was warned for Mevushal and for Ki Im Tzli Esh. If he ate Na and Mevushal he is lashed three times, if he was warned for all three;
åàáéé àîø ãúøúé ìà ì÷é àí äúøå áå îùåí ðà åîùåí ëé àí öìé àù àå îùåí îáåùì åîùåí [ö"ì ëé àí - éùø åèåá] öìé àù ìà ì÷é ëé àí îùåí [ö"ì ðà àå îùåí îáåùì - öàï ÷ãùéí]
1. Abaye says that he is not lashed twice if he was warned for Na and for Ki Im Tzli Esh, or for Mevushal and Ki Im Tzli Esh. He is lashed only for Na, or for Mevushal;
àáì àí ìà äúøå áå àìà îùåí ë''à öìé àù ì÷é çãà îùåí ë''à öìé àù àáì áçé åçîé èáøéà ìà ì÷é îùåí [ö"ì ëé àí - éùø åèåá] öìé àù ãìà ÷àé ëé àí öìé àù àìà àäðäå ãëúéáé á÷øà áäãéà
2. However, if he was warned only for Ki Im Tzli Esh he is lashed once, for Ki Im Tzli Esh, but he is not lashed for raw or [cooked in] Chamei Tiverya, for Ki Im Tzli Esh applies only to what is explicitly written in the verse.
åà''ú àîàé ìà ðå÷îà ìçé åçîé èáøéà ëîå ëé ðôù äåà çåáì ãîå÷îéðï ìùàø ãáøéí
(f) Question: Why don't we establish it for raw or [cooked in] Chamei Tiverya, like "Ki Nefesh Hu Chovel", which we establish for other matters?
åé''ì ãäúí àé äåä ëúéá ìà úçáåì øéçééí åøëá ëé àí ãáøéí ùàéï òåùéï áäï çéé ðôù äåä ãîé ìäàé ãäåä îùîò òé÷ø ëé àí ìà ðëúá àìà ìãáøéí ùìîòìä åìàå ìîéîø ã÷àé áàôé ðôùéä
(g) Answer: There, had it written 'Lo Sachavol Reichayim va'Rechev Ki Im Devarim she'Ein Osin Bahen Chayei Nefesh', it would resemble here. It would connote that "Ki Im" was written primarily only [to be a Lav] for what was written above, and not to say that it stands by itself [to forbid other matters];
àáì ëé ðôù äåà çåáì îùîò îéìúà áàôé ðôùä èôé åäìëê îå÷îéðï ìéä ìãáøéí àçøéí
1. However, "Ki Nefesh Hu Chovel" connotes a matter unto itself. Therefore, we establish it for other matters.
åäùúà äê ãùîòúéï ìà úúëï ìôøù áùéèú ø''ú ìâîøé ãäà áî÷èéø ùàåø åòéøåáéï ùàåø áôðé òöîå åòéøåáéï îééøé ëãôøéùéú ìòéì
(h) Observation: We cannot explain our Sugya totally like R. Tam, for "one who is Maktir Se'or and their mixture" refers to Se'or by itself and a mixture of [Se'or], like I explained above (DH ha'Ma'aleh);
åàí äúøå áå îùåí ùàåø åîùåí òéøåáé ùàåø àîàé ìà ì÷é úøúé ëé äéëé ãëé àúøå áéä îùåí òéøåáé ùàåø ìçåãéä ãì÷é
1. And if they warned him for Se'or and for a mixture of Se'or, why isn't he lashed twice, just like when they warned him for a mixture of Se'or alone, he is lashed?
àìà éù ìôøù ãúøúé ìà ì÷é ã÷àîø àòéøåáé ùàåø åòéøåáé ãáù ÷àé ãìà ì÷é àúøåééäå àìà çãà
(i) Explanation: It says "he is not lashed" refers to a mixture of Se'or and a mixture of honey. He is not lashed for both, only once.
àáì ÷ùä îääéà ãðæéø ô' â' îéðéí (ãó ìç:) ãäà àéöèøéê îëì àùø éòùä îâôï äééï ìùàø ãáøéí ëâåï òìéï åìåìáéï åáéï äáéðéí
(j) Question: The Sugya in Nazir (38b) is difficult. We need "mi'Chol Asher Ya'aseh mi'Gefen ha'Yayin" for other matters, such as [grape] leaves and sprigs and Bein ha'Beinim (the inside of the grape, or grapes that do not ripen properly because they are shadowed by other grapes);
åà''ë [àí] àéúà ãøáà ëøá éäåãä ëé äéëé ãìà ì÷é àøéçééí åàøëá îùåí ëé ðôù äåà çåáì äåàéì åìãáøéí àçøéí àúà ìà ìéì÷é ðîé àæâ åçøöï îùåí (ãëì) [ö"ì îëì - éùø åèåá] àùø éòùä îâôï äééï ãäà àúà ðîé ìùàø ãáøéí
1. If so, if it is true that Rava holds like Rav Yehudah, just like he is not lashed for the upper and lower millstone due to Ki Nefesh Hu Chovel, since it comes for other matters, he should not be lashed also for grape pits and peels due to mi'Chol Asher Ya'aseh mi'Gefen ha'Yayin, for also it comes for other matters!
10) TOSFOS DH v'Ika d'Amrei Chada Nami Lo Laki
úåñôåú ã"ä åàéëà ãàîøé çãà ðîé ìà ì÷é
(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that elsewhere the opinions are switched, and gives many such examples.)
ëàï åáô' äî÷áì (á''î ãó ÷èå:) åáôø÷ ëì ùòä (ôñçéí ãó îà:) (äùéèä) [ö"ì äùéèåú - éòá"ö] ùåéí àáì áðæéø ôø÷ â' îéðéï (ãó ìç:) àääéà ãæâ åçøöï ãîééúé áô' ëì ùòä (ôñçéí ãó îà:) àéúà äúí àéôëà
(a) Observation: Here, and in Bava Metzi'a (115b) and in Pesachim (41b), the opinions are the same, but in Nazir (38b) regarding grape pits and peels, and it is brought in Pesachim (41b), it says oppositely;
ãàáéé àîø ìå÷ä åøáà àîø àéðå ìå÷ä òì ìàå ùáëììåú åäåà ëîå àéëà ãàîøé (ãäëà ùàéðå ìå÷ä àôéìå àçú åéù) [ö"ì ùéù - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã) ëéåöà áä äøáä áäù''ñ ñåâéåú äôåëåú
1. Abaye says that he is lashed, and Rava says that he is not lashed. It is like a second version [of the argument]. There are many cases like this in the Gemara of opposite Sugyos;
áääåà ôéø÷à âåôéä áñåôå ääéà ãðæéø îîåøè (ðæéø ãó îå:) åääéà ãáåäï éã åáåäï øâì åúøåééäå àéôëà áéåîà áùéìäé äåöéàå ìå (ãó ñà:)
2. In Nazir (46b), regarding a Nazir whose hair fell out (if he has a Mitzvah or need to pass a razor over his head), and [a Metzora without a right] thumb or big toe (whether he can become Tahor), both of these [arguments] are opposite in Yoma (61b).
åëï áô' ÷îà ãáëåøåú (ãó â.) ôìåâúà (ãøáä) [ö"ì øáà] åøá çñãà áèøéôä çéä åàéôëà áô''÷ ãúîåøä (ãó éà:)
3. And similarly in Bechoros (3a) the argument of Rava and Rav Chisda about whether or not a Tereifah can live, and it is opposite in Temurah (11b);
åääéà ãàí àøçõ àí ìà àøçõ ãôìéâé øá äåðà åøá àãà áø àäáä áôø÷ äîãéø (ëúåáåú ãó òà:) åáôø÷ áúøà ãðãøéí (ãó ôà.) àéôëà
4. And the case of "if I will bathe, if I will not bathe", which Rav Huna and Rav Ada bar Ahavah argue (about whether or not her husband can annul it) in Kesuvos (71b), and in Nedarim (81a) it is opposite;
åääéà ãéãéí ùàéï îåëéçåú áô''÷ ãðãøéí (ãó ä:) åàéôëà áô' áúøà ãðæéø (ãó ñá. ò''ù)
5. And the case of Yadayim (partial expressions) that are not Mochi'ach (it is not clear how to complete his words, whether it is a Yad to make a vow) in Nedarim (5b), and it is opposite in Nazir (62a);
åääéà ãðøáòå åìáñåó (ðòáãå) [ðøàä ùö"ì äå÷ãùå] ãôø÷ àéï îòîéãéï (ò''æ ãó ëã.) åáúîåøä áô' ëì äàñåøéï (ãó ì: ò''ù)
6. And the case of animals used for bestiality, and later they were made Hekdesh (whether or not the offspring are forbidden) in Avodah Zarah (24a) and [oppositely] in Temurah (30b);
åääéà ãúðé àáåä ãø' àáéï áäðéæ÷éï (âéèéï ãó ðâ.) åáäâåæì áúøà (á''÷ ãó ÷éæ.)
7. And the Beraisa that R. Avin's father taught in Gitin (53a, that initially Chachamim obligated one who was Menasech (poured another's wine to idolatry, or mixed it with Yayin Nesech) to pay, and later they added even one who mixes Chulin with Terumah) and [oppositely] in Bava Kama (117a);
åòåã ëîä ñåâéåú äôåëåú ëé ääéà ãîúðä æå îáåèìú äéà úéáèì àé àôùé áä áô' áúøà ãëøéúåú (ãó ëã.) åáâéèéï áøéù äùåìç (ãó ìá.)
8. And there are several other opposite Sugyos, like "this gift is Mevuteles. It will be Batel. I do not want it" in Kerisus (24a, regarding which expressions work to invalidate the gift) and [oppositely] in Gitin (32a);
åääéà ãøá ôôà ãäìëúà îìåä òì ôä ãñåó âè ôùåè (á''á ãó ÷òå.) åáô''÷ ã÷éãåùéï (ãó éâ:)
9. And Rav Papa taught that the Halachah is, a Milveh Al Peh (a loan without a document, it is collected from heirs) in Bava Basra (176a) and [oppositely] in Kidushin (13b);
åääåà ãàëìä òøìä ùáéòéú åëìàéí äøé æå çæ÷ä áô' äàùä ùðôìå (ëúåáåú ãó ô.) åáçæ÷ú äáúéí (á''á ãó ìå.)
10. And if one ate [Peros of] Orlah, Shemitah or Kil'ayim, he gets a Chazakah [on the field] in Kesuvos (80a), and [oppositely] in Bava Basra (36a);
åääéà ãîçååøú ìå îä ãøê áâìåé áôø÷ áúøà ãðæéø (ãó ñâ.) åáô' ëéöã öåìéï (ôñçéí ãó ôà:)
11. And the case of [it is not Tum'as ha'Tehom if it is] clear to him - just like a road is exposed... in Nazir (63a), and [oppositely] in Pesachim (81b);
åääéà ãôéøåøéï ùàéï áäï ëæéú àñåø ìàáãï áéã áñåó ðåèì (ùáú ãó ÷îâ.) åááøëåú áøéù àìå ãáøéí (ãó ðá:) îåúø
12. And the case of crumbs that are less than a k'Zayis, one may not overtly ruin them, in Shabbos (143a), and in Brachos (52b) it is permitted;
åääéà ãâáé òåìä åàéîåøéï îöèøôéï áô' äùåçè åäîòìä (æáçéí ãó ÷è.) åáîòéìä áôø÷ ÷ãùé îæáç (ãó èå.):
13. And the case of Olah and Eimurim join, in Zevachim (109a), and in Me'ilah (15a, it says that they do not).