TEMURAH 23 (10 Av) - Dedicated by Mrs. Gitti Kornfeld in memory of her father, Reb Yisrael Shimon ben Shlomo ha'Levi Turkel, whose Yahrzeit is on 10 Av.

1)

TOSFOS DH REISHA REBBI V'SEIFA RABBANAN (This Dibur belongs at the end of the previous Amud).

úåñ' ã"ä øéùà øáðï åñéôà øáé

(Summary: Tosfos explains why we cannot answer Rebbi Aba by explaining 'Hikriv' to mean Hikriv li'Shechitah.)

åàé ÷ùéà ìéùðé ìä ðîé ìø' àáà - îàé ä÷øéá, ìùçéèä, å÷åãí ùçéèä (øàùåðä) ðîöàú øàùåðä, úîåú ...

(a)

Question: Why can we ot also Rebbi Aba by establishing 'Hikriv' to mean in order to Shecht, and the first one was found before it was Shachted, and must therefore die ...

åøáé äéà ãàîø 'àáåãä áùòú äôøùä, îúä' ... åøéùà åñéôà øáé äéà?

1.

Question (cont.): And the author is Rebbi, who says 'Avudah be'Sha'as Hafrashah, Meisah' ... and both the Reisha and Seifa go according to Rebbi?

ìàå ôéøëà äéà, ãà"ë àîàé ð÷è 'ä÷øéá' ëìì - ìéúðé 'äôøéù' ñúîà?

(b)

Answer: This is not a Kashya, because if so, why does the Tana mention 'Hikriv' at all, let him just say 'Hifrish' (he set aside)?

ãáùìîà ìøá äåðà ð÷è 'ä÷øéá' ìàùîåòéðï îãòúå - ãàí îùê îãòúå åìà ðîìê, ìùåï øù"é.

1.

Answer (cont.): Because according to Rav Huna, he justifiably mentions 'Hikriv' to teach us that he did so of his own accord - that he drew it without asking first. (Rashi's wording).

2)

TOSFOS DH HA'KOL MODIM SHE'IM MASHACAH ACHAS MEI'HEN V'HIKRIVA SHE'HA'SHENIYAH MEISAH

úåñ' ã"ä äëì îåãéí ùàí îùê àçú îäï åä÷øéáä ùäùðéä îúä

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the statement and reconciles Rav Huna with the Mishnah.)

ìà ðçì÷å àìà ááà ìéîìê.

(a)

Clarification: And they only argue where he initially comes to ask.

åà"ú, äéëé ðééùá ìøá äåðà ìéùðà ãîúðéúéï - ãúðï 'åçëîéí àåîøéí àéï çèàú îúä àìà ùðîöàú àçø ùëôøå' ...

(b)

Question: How will we explain the Lashon of the Mishnah according to Rav Huna - when, citing the Chachamim, it says 'Ein Chatas Meisah Ela she'Nimtzeis Achar she'Kipru' ...

ãìãéãéä àôéìå ðîöàú ÷åãí ëôøä îùëçú ìä, ëâåï ëùëéôø áùàéðä àáåãä, ãàæ àéï ìä ú÷ðä ...

1.

Question (cont.): Since, according to him, even if it is found before the Kaparah, such as where the Kaparah took place on the one that was not lost, since then it does not have a Takanah ... (Note, this piece appears in the Shitah Mekubetzes [note 17] after (c), but it clearly belongs here).

åé"ì, ãä"÷ - 'àéï çèàú îúä' - ãìà ðåëì ìîöåà ìä ú÷ðä àìà ùðîöàú àçø ùëôøå ...

(c)

Answer: What it means is 'Ein Chatas Meisah' - that we cannot find a Takanah unless it is found after the Kaparah ...

åìø' àáà ðîé öøéê ìôøù ìéùðà ãîúðé' ëï.

(d)

Conclusion: According to Rebbi Aba as well, we will have to explain the Mishnah like that.

3)

TOSFOS DH D'REBBI SAVAR LO ASU TAKANAH B'KODSHIM

úåñ' ã"ä ãøáé ñáø ìà òùå ú÷ðä á÷ãùéí

(Summary: Tosfos explains why the Chachamim allowed it.)

úéîä, ìî"å äøî"ø, îàé èòîà - åëé îàáãéï ÷ãùéí áéãéí, ëéåï ãáéãéðå ìú÷ï?

(a)

Question: Tosfos' Rebbe, ha'Rav Mordechai asks why this is - Why should one destroy Kodshim seeing as it is possible to remedy the problem?

åúéøõ, ëâåï ùéù øéåç áãáø ëâåï ãàáåãä ëçåùä åùàéðä àáåãä ùîéðä, ãà"ì äúëôø áèåáä ...

(b)

Answer: And he answers that it is speaking where there is an advantage, where the lost animal was weak and the one that was not lost, healthy, and it is therefore preferable to atone with the good one ...

ãëúéá "åîáçø ðãøéê" - åëçåùä úîåú

(c)

Answer: As the Torah writes "And the choice of your Nedarim (offerings)" - and the weak one dies.

åøáðï ñáøé ëé ðîé áùàéðä àáåãä îöåä îï äîåáçø, î"î èåá ìðå ìú÷ï ùìà éáåàå ÷ãùéí ìéãé îéúä.

(d)

Answer (cont.): Whereas the Rabbanan hold that, despite the fact that the one that was not lost is a bigger Mitzvah, it is nevertheless better to institute that Kodshim should not die.

4)

TOSFOS DH OCHLIN IMAH CHULIN U'TERUMAH

úåñ' ã"ä àåëìéï òîä çåìéï åúøåîä

(Summary: Tosfos, citing Rashi, explains why there is no problem with 'Chulin ba'Azarah'.)

åàé ÷ùéà äà àéï îëðéñéï çåìéï áòæøä ...

(a)

Implied Question: But one is not allowed to bring Chulin into the Azarah?

äà ìà ÷ùéà - éàëìåä îáçåõ åàçø ëê éëðñ åéàëì äîðçä. ìùåï øù"é

(b)

Answer #1: That is not a problem - since they can eat it outside and then go in and eat the Minchah (Rashi's words).

åòé"ì, ãàéï àéñåø ìäëðéñ çåìéï áòæøä àìà ëùòåùä ùåí òáåãä îäï, àáì áçðí àéï ìçåù ...

(c)

Answer #2: Alternatively, it is not forbidden to take Chulin into the Azarah unless it is perform some form of Avodah with them, but otherwise, it is permitted ...

ãäà ÷îï ãàãí ðëðñ òí áâãéí çåìéï áòæøä.

(d)

Proof: For we see that people enter the Azarah wearing their Chulin clothes.

5)

TOSFOS DH V'TA'AMA D'TZIBUR HA D'YACHID MEISAH MAI LA'AV L'RABBANAN

úåñ' ã"ä åèòîà ãöéáåø äà ãéçéã îúä îàé ìàå ìøáðï

(Summary: Tosfos explains why the Gemara cannot ask from the Mishnah, and clarifies Rav Huna and Rebbi Aba's respective opinions.)

úéîä ìîåøé äø"ø àìçðï, àîàé ìà ôøéê áäãéà îîúðé' ã÷úðé 'åçë"à, "àéï çèàú îúä àìà ùðîöàú ìàçø ùëôøå" ' ...

(a)

Question: Tosfos' Rebbe ha'Rav R. Elchanan asked why the Gemara does not ask directly from the Mishnah, which, citing the Chachamim, states that 'A Chatas does not die unless it is found after the owner has attained his atonement'.

åäà äëà ãùðéäï áòéï ÷åãí ëôøä, å÷àîø 'äà ãéçéã, îúä'?

1.

Question (cont.): And here, where both animals are there before the atonement, yet it says that 'That of a Yachid must die'?

åàåîø äøø"é ãà'îúðéúéï ìà îöé ìîéôøê, ãàéëà ìîéîø îúðéúéï äëé ÷àîø - àéï çèàú îúä àìà áùðîöàú àçø ùëôøå ...

(b)

Answer: ha'Rav R. Yitzchak explains that it could not ask from the Mishnah, since that what the Mishnah means is - that a Chatas does not die unless it is found after the Kaparah ...

àáì ðîöàú ÷åãí ëôøä, éøòå ùðéäí òã ùéñúàáå åéîëøå åéáéà îàìå åîàìå çèàú, àáì âáé ùòéøéí ìà ùééê ìîéîø äëé, ãìà àôùø ìòùåú ú÷ðä àçøú ...

1.

Answer (cont.): But if it is found before the Kaparah, they both graze until they obtain a blemish; they are then sold and with the proceeds of each one, they purchase a Chatas. Whereas by the goats one cannot say that, since it is not possible to make any other Takanah ...

ãìéëà ìîéîø ùéøòå ùðéäï åéáéà îàìå åîàìå - ùäøé áå áéåí äåà öøéê ìäúëôø áàçú îäï, åàéðå éëåì ìäîúéï òáåãú äéåí ...

(c)

Reason: One cannot say that they both graze until they obtain a blemish; they are then sold and with the proceeds of each one ... , because on that day (Yom Kipur) one needs to atone with one of them and they cannot postpone the Avodah of the day ...

îéäå àôùø ãñ"ì ìøáðï ãîúðéúéï ãàí ðúëôø áàçã îäï, àôé' áàáåãä, ùðéä úîåú - ëé äëà âáé ùòéøéí.

1.

Answer (cont.): On the other hand, the Rabbanan in the Mishnah may also hold that if one atoned with one of them, even if it is the one that was lost, the second one must die - like the Din is here regarding the two goats.

23b----------------------------------------23b

6)

TOSFOS DH V'TA'AMA D'TZIBUR HA D'YACHID MEISAH MAI LA'AV L'RABBANAN

úåñ' ã"ä åèòîà ãöéáåø äà ãéçéã îúä îàé ìàå ìøáðï

(Summary: Tosfos continues to clarify the respective opinions of Rebbi Aba and Rav Huna.)

àáì ìøáé àáà ãàîø àìéáà ãøáðï ã'îôøéù ìàáåã ìàå ëàáåã', åàí ðúëôø áàáåãä, ùàéðä àáåãä øåòä - ôøéê ùôéø ...

(a)

Answer (cont.): Whereas according to Rebbi Aba, who says that, according to the Rabbanan - 'Mafrish le'Ibud La'av ke'Ibud' ('Something that one designate s to be destroyed is not considered destroyed') and if he therefore atones with the one that is lost, the one that is not lost grazes - the Gemara is justified in asking ...

ãäà äëà ãðúëôø áøàùåï, åàôéìå äëé ãéçéã úîåú - àìîà 'îôøéù ìàáåã ëàáåã ãîé'? ...

1.

Answer (cont.): Because here where he was atoned for with the first one, yet that of a Yachid must die - so we see that 'Mafrish le'Ibud ke'Ibud Dami'?

àáì ìøá äåðà ìà ôøéê îéãé ...

2.

Answer (concl.): But on Rav Huna the Gemara is not asking anything ...

ãàéëà ìîéîø ãäåé ëé îùê àçú îäï áìà äîìëä, åáãéï ùðéä ìîéúä àæìà áéçéã, åàôéìå ìøáðï.

(b)

Reason: Since it is possible to say that it is akin to drawing one of them without asking permission, in which case min ha'Din if it belongs to a Yachid it must die, even according to the Rabbanan.

7)

TOSFOS DH HA ME'ECHAD MEI'HEN YOLICHEM LA'YAM HA'MELACH

úåñ' ã"ä äà îàçã îäï éåìéëí ìéí äîìç ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos discusses the fact that Gemara ignores its previous answers to the same question.)

úéåáúà ãúøåééäå.

(a)

Clarification: This is a Kashya on both of them (Rav Huna & Rebbi Aba).

úéîä, ãìòéì ôøéê îéðä å÷àîø 'äðéçà ìøá äåðà ... ' ...

(b)

Question: Above the Gemara asked from the Mishnah and answered 'Alright according to Rav Huna ... ' ...

åìøáé àáà ðîé îùðé ìä ëøáé - åäëà ôøéê îéðä ìúøåééäå?

1.

Question (cont.): And according to Rebbi Aba, it established it like Rebbi - whereas here the Gemara queries them both from it?

åö"ì ãìéú ìéä äùúà ëñåâéà ãìòéì - àìà îñúáøà ìéä ìî÷ùä ãäëà ãàúéà ðîé ëøáðï åîééøé áëì òðéï.

(c)

Answer: We must say that the Gemara here does not concur with the earlier Sugya - and that the questioner holds that the Mishnah goes according to the Rabbanan and speaks in all circumstances.

åëï ãøê äù"ñ ìäôê ÷åùééúå áëì òðéï, ôòîéí ëëä åôòîéí ëëä.

(d)

Precedent: Indeed, it is the way of the Gemara to approach its question in different ways, sometimes like this and sometimes like that.

8)

TOSFOS DH HA'MAFRISH SH'NEI TZIBUREI MA'OS L'ACHRAYUS ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä äîôøéù ùðé öéáåøé îòåú ìàçøéåú ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles this with a similar Sugya later, which does not ask 'P'shita?')

àé àìéáà ãøáé ôùéèà - åì÷îï âáé 'îôøéù ùúé çèàåú ìàçøéåú' îå÷é ìä ëøáé åìà ôøéê 'ôùéèà?' ...

(a)

Implied Question: If this goes according to Rebbi, it is obvious - and the Gemara later, in connection with 'Someone who sets aside two Chata'os for Achrayus' does indeed establish it like Rebbi, but does not ask 'P'shita?' ...

ãéù ìçì÷ áéï îôøéù îòåú ìàçøéåú ìîôøéù áäîåú ìàçøéåú.

1.

Answer: Since one can draw a distinction between setting aside money for Achrayus and setting aside animals for Achrayus ...

ãäà ÷îï ìøáé ùîòåï ðîé ãàîø âáé áäîåú ãîúä, âáé öéáåøé îòåú îåãä ãîúëôø áàçú îäï åäùðé øåòä.

(b)

Source: Because later too, Rebbi Shimon, who says by animals 'Meisah', concedes that by piles of money, one of them is 'Miskaper', and the other 'Ro'eh'.

9)

TOSFOS DH V'SHISHAH LI'NEDAVAH

úåñ' ã"ä åùùä ìðãáä

(Summary: Tosfos cites a Machlokes Amora'im and elaborates.)

áôø÷ áúøà ãîðçåú (ãó ÷æ:) ôìéâé áä àîåøàé äðé ùùä ëðâã îé ...

(a)

Machlokes: In the last Perek of Menachos (Daf 107b) Amora'im argue over what these six things represent ...

çæ÷éä àîø ëðâã ùùä áúé àáåú ùéäéä ìäí ùìåí æä ëðâã æä ...

(b)

Opinion #1: Chizkiyah holds that they correspond to the six families of Kohanim (that comprise the Mishmar), to maintain peace between them ...

ìôéëê úé÷ðå ùùä ëðâã å' éîé äçåì - ùéäà ìëì áéú àá ìéåîå.

1.

Opinion #1 (cont.): So they instituted six boxes for the six days of the week - so that on each day of the week, one family should have his box.

åæòéøé àîø ëðâã ôø åòâì åëáù àéì âãé åùòéø ...

(c)

Opinion #2: Whereas according to Ze'iri, they corresponded to bull, calf, lamb, ram, kid-goat and goat ...

åëì ëê ìîä? (ëãé) ùìà äéå øåöéï ìòùåú îîåúø ãîé äôø àìà ìôø áìáã, åëï ìëì àçã.

(d)

Reason: Why did they do that? Because they wanted to confine the leftovers of the proceeds of a bull exclusively towards (purchasing) a bull - and likewise for each one.

åàó òì âá ãàéëà [î"ã] áô"÷ ãùáåòåú (ãó éá(: ã'î÷éöéí áòåìú äòåó' ...

(e)

Implied Question: And even though there is an opinion in the first Perek of Shevu'os (Daf 12b) that holds 'Mekitzin (one purchases for the Olas Kayitz ha'Mizbe'ach) even a bird' ...

äðé îéìé ãéòáã, àáì ìëúçéìä ìà, ãèåá ìòùåú îäï ìîä ùäåôøùå úçéìä.

1.

Answer: That is only Bedi'eved, but Lechatchilah not, because it is preferable to use the money for the purpose that it was initially designated.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF