1)

TOSFOS DH Kubyustus

úåñôåú ã"ä ÷åáéåñèåñ

(SUMMARY: Tosfos gives two explanations of this.)

áî÷åí àçø çåìéï (ãó öà:) ôøù''é âåðá ðôùåú

(a)

Explanation #1: Elsewhere (Chulin 91b), Rashi explained that this is a kidnapper.

åàéï òðééðå ëàï âáé âáééú ëñó åáôø÷ äîåëø ôéøåú (á''á ãó öá:) âáé òáãéí åñúí òáãéí àéðï âåðáé ðôùåú

(b)

Remark: This is not applicable here regarding collecting money, and [not] in Bava Basra (92b) regarding slaves. Stam slaves are not kidnappers!

åø''ç ôéøù îùç÷ á÷åáéà

(c)

Explanation #2 (R. Chananel): It is a diceplayer (gambler).

åäà ãàîø ááøàùéú øáä ùìçðé ðà ëé òìä äùçø åëé âðá àå ÷åáéåñèåñ àúä ùàúä îúééøà îï äùçø

(d)

Implied question: It says in Bereishis Rabah [that at the end of the fight, the Sar of Esav told Yakov] "send me, for dawn came" [and Yakov asked] "are you a thief or Kubyustus, that you fear morning?"! (Why would a gambler fear morning?)

ãøê îùç÷ á÷åáéà ìäèîéï òöîå ìôé ùîôñéã îîåï áùçå÷ åîúçééá áä÷ôä

(e)

Answer: A diceplayer often hides himself, for he loses money in the game, and he owes money.

2)

TOSFOS DH u'Mechetzah Shalem Lo Hichzir

úåñôåú ã"ä åîçöä ùìí ìà äçæéø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that he knew that more than half was returned.)

ìà äæëéø ìå ôñå÷ åàú äàìó åùáò îàåú åçîùä åùáòéí òùä ååéí ìòîåãéí (äùø) [ö"ì ãäâîåï - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã] ì÷ðèøå ðúëååï

(a)

Observation: [The officer] did not mention the verse "the 1775 [remaining Shekalim] he made hooks for the pillars" for the officer intended to antagonize him.

3)

TOSFOS DH Mina Lei

úåñôåú ã"ä îðà ìéä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that we assume that he had a different source to say so.)

ôéøåù éù (ìå ìã÷ã÷ ãáø æä îúåê îä àîøä) [ö"ì ìã÷ã÷ îúåê îä àîøä ãáø æä - öàï ÷ãùéí] îìáã ÷åùéà æå

(a)

Explanation: We should be meticulous to infer [R. Yochanan ben Zakai's] source to say [that the Maneh Kodesh was double], other than this question.

4)

TOSFOS DH Harei Kan Shiv'im v'Echad Maneh

úåñôåú ã"ä äøé ëàï ùáòéí åàçã îðä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that the Maneh was double, but the Shekel was not.)

åìà îðàï äëúåá àìà áôøåèøåè [ö"ì ù"î ãîðä ùì ÷ãù ëôåì äéä - öàï ÷ãùéí]

(a)

Explanation: The verse did not count [another whole Kikar], rather, just a remainder (1775 Shekalim). This shows that the Kodesh Maneh [and also the Kikar, which is 60 Manos] was double. (If the Maneh was like Chulin (25 Shekalim), 1775 Shekalim would be a Kikar and 11 Manos. Rather, it was double, so the excess was only 35 and a half Kodesh Manim, less than a Kodesh Kikar.).

5)

TOSFOS DH u'Maneh... (this is all one Dibur according to Shitah Mekubetzes and Tzon Kodoshim)

úåñôåú ã"ä åîðä... (äëì ãéáåø àçã ìôé ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã, öàï ÷ãùéí)

àáì ù÷ìéí ùì çåì åùì ÷ãù ùåéï äéå

(a)

Distinction: However, the Shekalim of Chulin and Kodesh were the same.

åà''ú îëì î÷åí ìîðéðäå áîðéï åìéîà ì''ä îðéí åçöé

(b)

Question: In any case [the verse] should count them in [Kodesh] Manim, and say that there were 35 and a half Manim!

åëï áñîåê ã÷àîø ùäøé ëàï ö''å îðéí äéä ìå ìîðåú áîðä åìéîà àøáòéí åùîðä îðéí åäåé (äîðéí) [ö"ì äîðéï - ãôåñ åéðéöéä] èôé ùìí

1.

Similarly, below [the Gemara] says "there are 96 Manim" [of copper. The Torah] should have counted them in [Kodesh] Manim, and say 48 Manim, and the count would be more complete.

é''ì ãîù÷ì ùì îðä ìà äéä òãééï áéîé îùä (åìà) [ö"ì ãìà - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã] îùúîéè ÷øà áàåøééúà ãìëúåá îðä

(c)

Answer: The weight "Maneh" was not in the days of Moshe. [If it were,] the Torah would not have avoided writing it. (The Griz points out that if so, the Gemara should have said that the Kikar Kodesh was double!)

úãò ãáô''÷ ãëúåáåú (ãó é:) âáé àìîðä àîøé' ð÷øàú àìîðä òì ùí îðä ãòúéãé øáðï ãîéú÷ðé ìä ëúåáä îðä [ö"ì åôøéê - öàï ÷ãùéí] åîé ëúá ÷øà ìòúéã

(d)

Proof: In Kesuvos (10b), regarding an Almanah, it says that [a widow] is called Almanah because in the future, Chachamim would enact a Maneh for her [Kesuvah]. It asks does the verse write for the future!?

åàîàé ìà ãéé÷é' ëúåáú àìîðä ãàåøééúà àìà åãàé ìôé ùìà äéä îðä áéîé îùä

1.

Why don't we infer that [it was not written for the future. Rather,] the Kesuvah of a widow is mid'Oraisa? Rather, surely [we could not say so, for] there was no Maneh in the days of Moshe.

6)

TOSFOS DH veha'Shekel Esrim Gerah

úåñôåú ã"ä åäù÷ì òùøéí âøä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this was before they increased the weights.)

äééðå îòéï ëãîúøâí ë' îòéï ñìò

(a)

Explanation: These are Ma'in, like the Targum [of Shmos 30:13 "Esrim Gerah ha'Shekel" is] "20 Ma'in is the Sela."

åúéîä äàîø ñìò ã' ãéðø åùù îòä ëñó ãéðø àìîà àéëà ë''ã îòéï áñìò

(b)

Question: A Sela is four Dinarim, and six Ma'ah Kesef is a Dinar. This shows that there are 24 Ma'in in a Sela!

åôø''ú ùúé ôòîéí äåñéôå òì äîù÷ì áéîé éçæ÷àì äéä ù÷ì òùøéí âøä (äåñéôå ùúåú òì îðä ùì ÷ãù ùáúçìä äéä áå ð' ñìòéí òùàåäå ùì ÷ãù) [ö"ì åîðä çåì ë"ä ñìòéí å÷ãù ð' ñìòéí åäåñéôå ùúåú òì îðä ùì ÷ãù åòùàåäå ùì ùùéí - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã] àáì òì äù÷ì ìà äåñéôå

(c)

Answer #1 (R. Tam): They added to the weights twice - in the days of Yechezkel the Shekel was 20 Gerah and the Chulin Maneh was 25 Sela'im and the Kodesh Maneh 50 Sela'im. They added a sixth to the Maneh Kodesh, and made it 60. However, they did not add to the Shekel;

åáéîé çëîéí çæøå åäåñéôå òì äù÷ì ùúåú îìáã úåñôú ùáúçìä ùäéä ùì òùøéí åòùàåäå ùì ë''ã

1.

In the days of Chachamim they added a sixth to the Shekel, aside from the initial addition, and made it 24.

åäùúà ìôø''ú ëùðúåñó áéîé éçæ÷àì ðòùä îðä ùì ÷ãù âãåì éåúø îëôìéí îùì çåì ãùì çåì ìòåìí ë''ä ñìòéí åäí òùå ùì ÷ãù ñ' ñìòéí

(d)

Consequence: Now, according to R. Tam, when it increased in the days of Yechezkel, the Maneh Kodesh because more than twice the Chulin Maneh. The Chulin was always 25 Sela'im, and they made the Kodesh 60 Sela'im;

åáéîé çëîéí ëùäåñéôå òì ñìòéí îîéìà ðúåñó îðä ùì ÷ãù åùì çåì

1.

In the days of Chachamim when they added to the Sela'im, automatically the Maneh of Kodesh and of Chulin increased.

[ö"ì åø"é ôéøù ãúåñôú àçú äéúä áéîé éçæ÷àì äåñéôå òì äñìò åòùàåäå ùì ë"ã åîîéìà ðúåñó ùì çåì åùì ÷ãù - öàï ÷ãùéí]

(e)

Answer #2 (Ri): There was one addition [to the weights]. In the days of Yechezkel they added to the Sela and made it 24 [Gera], and automatically [the Maneh] of Chulin and of Kodesh increased.

åä''ô ÷øà ãéçæ÷àì åäù÷ì òùøéí âøä ëìåîø îàåúí ù÷ìéí ùäéå áúçìä òùøéí âøä éù áîðä ùì òëùéå ùùéí àáì îù÷ìéí ùì òëùéå ùðòùå ë''ã ìéú áéä àìà çîùéí áùì ÷ãù åë''ä ùì çåì

1.

The verse of Yechezkel means as follows. The Shekel is 20 Gera, i.e. of the Shekalim that were initially 20 Gerah, the current Maneh [Kodesh] has 60. However, in the current Shekalim, which were made 24 [Gerah], there are only 50 in the Maneh Kodesh and 25 in the Chulin [Maneh].

7)

TOSFOS DH Esrim Shekalim...

úåñôåú ã"ä òùøéí ù÷ìéí...

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the verse.)

îä ùìà îðä äëúåá ááú àçú ùùéí ù÷ìéí äîðä (åëï ìçì÷å) [ö"ì àìà çéì÷ï - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã] áòðéï æä

(a)

Implied question: Why didn't the verse count at once "60 Shekalim ha'Maneh", rather, it divided it like this (20, 25 and 15)?

éù ìôøù ìôé (ãàîøú ùòðééðé) [ö"ì ùùìùä òðééðé - ùéèä î÷åáöú, öàï ÷ãùéí] îù÷ìåú äéå áî÷ãù îù÷ì àçã äéä áî÷ãù ùì òùøéí ù÷ìéí áä ùå÷ìéí ùìéù îðä ùì ÷ãù àçø ùðúåñó (ùì ÷ãù) àçã îùúåú

(b)

Answer: There were three weights in the Mikdash - one weight in the Mikdash was 20 Shekalim. With it they weighed of a third of a Maneh Kodesh after it increased a sixth. (This Dibur continues on the next Amud);

5b----------------------------------------5b

åîù÷ì àçã ùì ë''ä ùéòåø îðä ùì çåì (øáéò îðä ùì ÷ãù ÷åãí ùðúåñó ÷ãù åîù÷ìå ùì è''å) [ö"ì ÷åãí ùðúåñó åîù÷ì àçã ùì è'å øáéò îðä ùì ÷ãù àçø ùðúåñó - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã] åùìùúï îçæé÷åú ùéòåø îðä ùì ÷ãù

1.

One weight was of 25, the amount of a Chulin Maneh before it increased, and one weight of 15, a quarter Maneh of Kodesh after it increased. All three of them (in all) hold the Shi'ur of a Maneh of Kodesh.

åëï îåëç äúøâåí ãîúøâí åñìòà òùøéï îòéï úìúåú îðä òùøéï ñìòéï îðä ãëñôà òùøéï åçîù ñìòéí øáòåú îðä çîù åòùøä ñìòéí ëåìäåï ùéúéï îðä øáà îðä ã÷åãùà éäà ìëåï

(c)

Support: The Targum [of the verse] proves so. It translates v'Sal'a Asrin Ma'in Tilsus Maneh Asrin Sal'in Maneh d'Kaspa Asrin va'Chamesh Sal'im Riv'us Maneh Chamesh v'Asarah Sal'im Kulhon Shitin Maneh Raba Maneh d'Kudsha Yehei Lechon.

åìôé (ô''á) [ö"ì ôéøåù áúøà - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã] àéï îúééùá ëì ëê (úìúåú îðä øáòåú îðä) [ö"ì ãúìúåú îðä åøáòåú îðä àééøé - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã, öàï ÷ãùéí] áîðä ùì ÷åãù àçø ùðúåñó åîðä ãëñôà ë''ä ñìòéí àééøé áîðä ùì çåì åìà áùì çåì àçø ùðúåñó àìà áîðä ùì çåì î÷îé ãàéúåñó àééøé

(d)

Question: According to the latter Perush (the Ri, in the previous Tosfos) it is somewhat difficult. A third of a Maneh and a quarter Maneh discuss a Maneh of Kodesh after it increased, and a silver Maneh of 25 Sela'im discusses a Chulin Maneh, and not a Chulin Maneh after it increased, rather, it discusses a Chulin Maneh before it increased!

8)

TOSFOS DH u'Shma Minah Mosifin Al ha'Midos (This starts a new Dibur according to the Shitah Mekubetzes Kesav Yad)

úåñôåú ã"ä [ö"ì åù''î îåñéôéï òì äîãåú - æä ãéáåø çãù ìôé äùéèä î÷åáöú]

(SUMMARY: Tosfos shows how we know that they increased the weights.)

åà''ú åîðà ìï ùäåñéó éçæ÷àì ëìåí ãéìîà îúçìä äéä îðä ùì ÷ãù ñ'

(a)

Question: What is the source that Yechezkel added anything? Perhaps from the beginning the Maneh of Kodesh was 60!

é''ì ãîàú ëëø ùì îùä îåëéç ãúçìúå ùì ÷ãù ìà äéä àìà (ëçåì) [ö"ì ëôåì - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã]

(b)

Answer: The 100 Kikarim of Moshe (used to make the Adanim) prove that initially, the Maneh of Kodesh was only double [that of Chulin. Shmos 38:25,26 prove that the 100 Kikarim were from 300,000 Shekalim. Each Kikar (60 Manim) is 3000 Shekalim, so each Maneh was 50 Shekalim!]

9)

TOSFOS DH Tish'im Chamorim Luvim

úåñôåú ã"ä úùòéí çîåøéí ìåáéí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that they are from Luv.)

ò''ù (ðçåí â) ôåè åìåáéí äéå áòæøúê åìåáéí åëåùé' áîöòãéå

(a)

Explanation: [They are called so] based on (their origin -) "Poot v'Luvim Hayu b'Ezrasecha", and "Luvim v'Chushim b'Mitz'adav" (Daniel 11:43. This is unlike Rashi, who connotes that Luvim means "high quality.")

çîøà ìåáàä ø''ô áîä áäîä (ùáú ãó ðà:) ôéøù áòøåê çîåø îöøé

(b)

Support #1: Shabbos 51b discusses a Luva'ah donkey. The Aruch explains that it is from Mitzrayim.

åáéøåùìîé [âøéñ] âøéí äáàéí îôåè åìåá îäå ìäîúéï â' ãåøåú

(c)

Support #2: The text in the Yerushalmi says "converts from Poot and Luv - must they wait three generations [before marrying into Yisrael, like the law of Mitzri converts]?"

10)

TOSFOS DH Talmud Lomar Ach Chalak

úåñôåú ã"ä úìîåã ìåîø àê çì÷

(SUMMARY: Tosfos arouses a difficulty, whether or not the Mishnayos argue.)

úéîä úðà ãéãï ãìéú ìéä äê ãøùà î÷öú (ñéîï çééá) [ö"ì ñéîðéí ãçééá - öàï ÷ãùéí] îðà ìéä

(a)

Question: Our Tana, who does not expound so, what is his source that it is obligated [in Bechorah] due to some Simanim?

åîúðé' äéà ô''á (ì÷îï ãó èæ:) åìà îéñúáø ãôìéâ àäà ãôéø÷éï

1.

It is a Mishnah below (16b). It is unreasonable to say that it argues with [the Mishnah here in] our Perek!

åîéäå àé ìà ôìéâé ÷ùä ãîééúé òìä (ãúðà ëøá éäåãä) [ö"ì ãúðï ãøá éäåãä - äøù"ù] åëé ÷àîø îä''î äåä ìéä ìàéúåéé ÷øà ãîúðé' åîéäå àé ìà ôìéâé ÷ùä )ãîééúé òìä ãúðà ëøá éäåãä åëé ÷àîø îä''î äåä) [ö"ì ãëé ÷àîø îä''î îééúé òìä øá éäåãä ãúðà åäåä - àéæäå î÷åîï, åëòéï æä áøù"ù] ìéä ìàéúåéé ÷øà ãîúðé'

(b)

Counter-question: If they do not argue, it is difficult, for when it said "what is the source of this (the other Mishnah)?", it brings Rav Yehudah [who taught] like the Beraisa. It should have brought the verse of our Mishnah!

11)

TOSFOS DH v'Ha Tana Peter Peter Nasiv Lah l'Parah

úåñôåú ã"ä åäà úðà ôèø ôèø ðñéá ìä ìôøä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses how we learn about the species from each other.)

åàéï ìåîø î''î àéöèøéê ÷øà ãîúðé' ìôèåø î÷ãåùú ôèø çîåø å÷øà ãäëà ìôèåø îãéï ùåø

(a)

Implied suggestion: In any case we need the verse of our Mishnah to exempt from Kedushas Peter Chamor, and the verse here to exempt from the law of an ox!

ãôèåø îï äáëåøä ã÷úðé áîúðé' îùîò ãìâîøé ôèø ìä ìôøä îëìì ãôèø ôèø ãéìôé' îäããé ëãì÷îï

(b)

Rejection: "It is exempt from Bechorah" in our Mishnah connotes that it totally exempts the cow. This implies that we learn Peter-Peter from each other, like below.

åà''ú ðäé ãùîòéðï îôèø ôèø ôøä ùéìãä îéï (ñåñ) [ö"ì çîåø - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã, ç÷ ðúï, äøù"ù] ãéìîà ä''î äéëà ãàùúðé ìãáø ùàéðå ÷ãåù ÷ãåùú äâåó àáì ëâåï øçì ùéìãä îéï òæ ã÷ãåù ÷ãåùú äâåó äåä àîéðà ã÷ãùà

(c)

Question: Granted, we learn from Peter-Peter a cow that gave birth to a kind of donkey. Perhaps this is only when it changed [to give birth] to something that does not [ever] have Kedushas ha'Guf, but if a ewe give birth to a kind of goat, which [sometimes] has Kedushas ha'Guf, one might have thought that it is Kadosh!

åé''ì ãîñúáø (ìâîøé îùîò ãéìôéðï) [ö"ì ãìâîøé éìôéðï - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã] îäããé ÷ãåùú ãîéí (î÷ãåùú) [ö"ì å÷ãåùú - ç÷ ðúï] äâåó ëãàîø áñîåê

(d)

Answer: Presumably, we totally learn Kedushas Damim and Kedushas ha'Guf from each other, like it says below.

å÷ùä ãäà (àîø - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã îåç÷å) àôéìå ÷ãåùú äâåó î÷ãåùú äâåó ìà éìôé' ãäà ìùåø åëùá åòæ öøéê ÷øà ìëì çã åçã

(e)

Question: Even Kedushas ha'Guf we do not learn from Kedushas ha'Guf, for we need a verse for each of an ox, lamb and goat!

12)

TOSFOS DH v'R. Yosi ha'Gelili Im Ken Lichtov Kra Ach Bechor Shor k'Kesev v'Ez

úåñôåú ã"ä åøáé éåñé äâìéìé àí ëï ìéëúåá ÷øà àê áëåø ùåø åëùá åòæ

(SUMMARY: Tosfos justifies how R. Yosi ha'Gelili expounds.)

åäà ããøùéðï (îéðä) [ö"ì ðîé îáëåø ùåø - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã] òã ùéäà ùåø åáëåøå ùåø àò''â ãàéöèøéê ìëãø' éåñé áø çðéðà

(a)

Implied question: We expound also from "Bechor Shor" that [the mother] must be [the species of] an ox, and its Bechor an ox, even though we need it to teach like R. Yosi bar Chanina (that we are Maktir the Chelev of a Bechor ox. The Torah needed to write Bechor regarding each. How can R. Yosi ha'Gelili say that it did not need to write regarding each?)

îùåí ãëòéï áëåø ùðé åùìéùé éù ìðå ìãøåù îï äøàùåï:

(b)

Answer: It is because we should expound from the first "Bechor" like the second and third. (They reveal about the first, even though the first is not extra.)

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF