1)

TOSFOS DH v'Beis Hillel Hani Mili Tam v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä åáéú äìì ä''î úí ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses when a Kal v'Chomer overrides other Drashos.)

àó òì âá ãäàé ÷øà îééøé ðîé ááòì îåí áéï ìøá áéï ìãáé øá ãìòéì áøéù òã ëîä (ãó ëç.) åáéï ìøáé éùîòàì áéï ìøáé ò÷éáà ãô' àéæäå î÷åîï áñåôå (æáçéí ãó ðæ.) åáéï ìøáé éùîòàì åáéï ìøáé éåñé äâìéìé ãáøéù á''ù (ùí ãó ìæ.)

(a)

Implied question: This verse discusses also a Ba'al Mum, both according to Rav and d'Vei Rav above (28a), and both according to R. Yishmael and R. Akiva in Zevachim (57a), and both according to R. Yishmael and R. Yosi ha'Gelili in Zevachim (37a)...

àå îáùøí ãîùîò àçã úí åàçã áòì îåí

1.

Source #1: We learn from "Besaram", which connotes both of a Tam, and of a Ba'al Mum.

àå îéäéä (ìå) [ö"ì ìê - öàï ÷ãùéí, äøù"ù] ããøéù ìéîã òì äáëåø áòì îåí ùðåúðå ìëäï

2.

Source #2: [We learn] from "Yihyeh Lecha." [The Tana] expounds this to teach about a Bechor Ba'al Mum, that one gives it to a Kohen.

î''î àúé ÷ì åçåîø åîôé÷ îäé÷ùà åðàëì ìæøéí îàçø ãîúå÷îà äé÷ùà ãëçæä äúðåôä áúí

(b)

Answer: In any case, the Kal v'Chomer overrides the Hekesh, and Zarim may eat it, since we establish the Hekesh "k'Chazeh ha'Tenufah" to discuss a Tam.

åáëé äàé âåðà àùëçï áô''÷ ãæáçéí (ãó é:) âáé àùí ùðëðñ ãîå [ö"ì ìôðéí - ùéèä î÷åáöú, öàï ÷ãùéí]

(c)

Support #1: We find like this in Zevachim (10b) regarding an Asham whose blood entered inside [the Heichal];

ôñåì ìà îöéú àîøú ÷ì åçåîø îòåìä àó òì âá ãøáðï àéú ìäå äé÷éùà (ãçèàú) [ö"ì ãëçèàú - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ëàùí ìîìúà àçøéúé ëãîåëç ñåâéà äúí

1.

You cannot say that it is Pasul, for a Kal v'Chomer from Olah [is Machshir], even though Rabanan have the Hekesh "ka'Chatas ka'Asham" for something else, like is proven in the Sugya there.

åáô''÷ ã÷ãåùéï (ãó éã.) àúé ÷ì åçåîø (åîô÷à îâæéøä ùåä áâîøà åáîéúú äéáí âáé åëì äéëà ãëúéá çå÷ä òéëåáà) [ö"ì åîô÷ä îòéëåáà áîéúú äéáí âáé åëì äéëà ãëúéá çå÷ä - ç÷ ðúï] ìà ãøùéðï ÷''å

(d)

Support #2: And in Kidushin (14a) a Kal v'Chomer uproots an Ikuv (regarding Chalitzah it says Kachah, and even so a Yevamah is permitted also) through death of the Yavam, in [the Sugya of] wherever it is written Chukah, we do not expound a Kal v'Chomer.

åáùîòúéï ãîöåú òùä ùäæîï âøîà âáé èôìéí çééáéï ðùéí ìà ëì ùëï [ö"ì àúé ÷ì åçåîø åîô÷à îâ"ù - ç÷ ðúï]

(e)

Support #3: And in the Sugya of Mitzvas Aseh sheha'Zman Gerama (Kidushin 34b) regarding "children are obligated [in Hakhel]. All the more so women are obligated", a Kal v'Chomer overrides a Gezeirah Shavah (Re'iyah-Re'iyah from Aliyah l'Regel, which would exempt women).

åäà ãì÷îï ãøéù ô' è' (ãó ðâ:) ããøùéðï îäé÷ùà ãòùø úòùø î÷éù [ö"ì îòùø - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã] áäîä ìîòùø ãâï îä îòùø ãâï îï äçãù òì äéùï ìà

(f)

Implied question: Below, at the beginning of the ninth Perek (53b) we expound from a Hekesh "Aser Ta'aser." It equates Ma'aser Behemah to Ma'aser of grain. Just like one may not tithe new grain (of this year) on old...

åîô÷à î÷''å ãëáùéí åòæéí ùäí ëìàéí æä áæä îúòùøéí îæä òì æä çãù åéùï ëå'

1.

This overrides a Kal v'Chomer of sheep and goats, which are Kil'ayim with each other, one may tithe them on each other - new and old (which are not Kil'ayim, all the more so one should be able to tithe them on each other)!

äúí ìà îéúå÷îà äé÷ùà àé àúéú ìîéãï ÷''å

(g)

Answer: There, we cannot establish the Hekesh [to teach anything] if we will learn from the Kal v'Chomer.

åàò''â ãìøáé éåñé áø' éäåãä öøéëé äé÷ùà ìëãàîø áääåà ôéø÷à ãîä îòùø ðéèì áàåîã åáîçùáä åëå'

(h)

Implied question: We need the Hekesh according to R. Yosi b'Ribi Yehudah, like he says there (59a), just like Ma'aser [of grain] is taken by estimation and through mere intent [also Ma'aser Behemah]!

åöøéëà ðîé ìëããøùé' áæáçéí áñåó ô' áéú ùîàé (ãó îä.) ÷ãùé òåáãé ëåëáéí àéï (çééáéï) [ö"ì òåùéï úîåøä - áàøåú äîéí]

1.

Strengthening of question: And it is needed also for what we expound in Zevachim (45a), that Kodshei Nochrim do not make Temurah!

î''î òé÷ø (àúéà äé÷ù) [ö"ì äé÷ùà ìà àúéà àìà - öàï ÷ãùéí] ìùðä ùðä

(i)

Answer: Even so, the Hekesh comes primarily only for Shanah-Shanah (each year must be tithed by itself).

åäà ãáëì äáùø (çåìéï ãó ÷èæ.) àéëà î''ã ãáùø áçìá àñåø áàëéìä åîåúø áäðàä îâæéøä ùåä ã÷ãù ÷ãù åàéëà ìîàï ãàñø àó áäðàä î÷''å

(j)

Implied question: In Chulin (116a) there is an opinion that meat and milk is forbidden to eat, but one may benefit from it, from a Gezeirah Shavah "Kodesh-Kodesh", and there is an opinion that forbids Hana'ah due to a Kal v'Chomer!

ìà ÷ùéà îéãé àääéà ã÷ãåùéï (ãó ðå) ëãôøùéðï )á÷ãåùéï) [ö"ì áçåìéï - ç÷ ðúï]

(k)

Answer: This is not difficult for the Gemara in Kidushin (34b, in which all agree that a Kal v'Chomer overrides a Gezeirah Shavah), like I explained in Chulin (116a DH Mah).

2)

TOSFOS DH Chad liched'R. Yitzchak v'R. Oshaya

úåñôåú ã"ä çã ìëãøáé éöç÷ åø' àåùòéà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that it teaches about Kil'ayim of Pesulei ha'Mukdashim.)

ôé' á÷åðèøñ ãìà àúôøù

(a)

Opinion #1 (Rashi): It was not explained (what they expounded).

åøáéðå çððàì îôøù ãäééðå ääéà ãô''á ãîëåú (ãó ëá.) äîøáéò ùåø ôñåìé äîå÷ãùéï åäîðäéâ ùåø ôñåìé äîå÷ãùéï ìå÷ä âåó àçã äï åòùàï äëúåá ùðé âåôéï

(b)

Opinion #2 (R. Chananel): It is what is brought in Makos (22a), that one who mates an ox of Pesulei ha'Mukdashim, or conducts (makes it lead a wagon) is lashed. It is one body, and the Torah made it two bodies.

ôéøåù ùäùåø áôðé òöîå ðçùá ëöáé åëàéì ãäééðå ùðé îéðéï

1.

Explanation: The ox itself is considered like Tzvi va'Ayal, i.e. two species.

åìà ëîå ùøâéìéï ìôøù ùí ù÷öú äåà ë÷ãùéí å÷öú äåà ëçåìéï àìà îöáé åàéì ðô÷à ëã÷àîø äëà

2.

Remark: This is unlike people usually explain there, that it is somewhat like Kodshim, and somewhat like Chulin. Rather, we learn from Tzvi va'Ayal, like it says here.

3)

TOSFOS DH Ein Ma'achilin Oso l'Nidos

úåñôåú ã"ä àéï îàëéìéï àåúå ìðãåú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that the same applies to Tum'os like Nidah.)

ä''ä ìáòì ÷øé ãìà ùøå ø÷ ìèåîàä ùäåúøä áôñç ëãîåëç áñîåê:

(a)

Explanation: The same applies to a Ba'al Keri. It is permitted only to a Tum'ah permitted for Pesach (when the majority of the Tzibur is Tamei), like is proven below.

4)

TOSFOS DH d'Tanya Hayu Lefanav Shtei Chata'os v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä ãúðéà äéå ìôðéå ùúé çèàåú ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Beraisa is unlike the Mishnah.)

áøééúà áúîåøä áô' åìã çèàú (ãó ëã.) åîééøé ëùäôøéù ùúé çèàåú ìàçøéåú åäøé òúä àçú úîéîä åàçú áòìú îåí

(a)

Reference: This is a Beraisa in Temurah (24a). It discusses when he separated two Chata'os for Achrayus, and now one is Tam and one is a Ba'al Mum.

(ùáîùðä ÷øáä ùðéä òã ùìà ðùçèä øàùåðä úîåú ùëáø ëôøå áòìéä - öàï ÷ãùéí, ç÷ ðúï îç÷åäå îëàï åâåøñéí àåúå ìîèä) åéù ìúîåä ãááøééúà àñøé øáðï áòìú îåí ëùðùçèä ìàçø æøé÷ú ãí ùì úîéîä åáîùðä ùøé

(b)

Question: In the Beraisa, Rabanan forbid a Ba'al Mum when it was slaughtered after Zerikas Dam of the Tam, and in the Mishnah it is permitted...

åøáé àìòæø áø' ùîòåï àñø ááøééúà áëì òðéï åáîùðä [ö"ì ãå÷à àí ÷øáä ùðéä òã ùìà ðùçèä øàùåðä úîåú ùëáø ëôøå áòìéí - öàï ÷ãùéí, ç÷ ðúï]

1.

And R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon forbids in the Beraisa in every case, and in the Mishnah, only if the second was offered before the first was slaughtered, [the first] dies, for the owner already atoned;

àáì (ëùðùçèä ìàçø æøé÷ú ãí ùì úîéîä åáîùðä ùøé åøáé àìòæø áø' ùîòåï àñø ááøééúà áëì òðéï åáùðä ùøé - öàï ÷ãùéí, ç÷ ðúï îç÷åäå) ëùðùçèä ÷åãí ìëï [ö"ì ùøé - öàï ÷ãùéí, ç÷ ðúï]

2.

However, if [the first] was slaughtered beforehand, it is permitted!

åàåîø ø' ãáîùðä îééøé (ùäôøéù ôøä áòìú) [ö"ì ùôãä äáòìú - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã] îåí åçéììä òì äúîéîä ùëì ÷ãåùä ùì áòìú îåí ðëðñä áúîéîä åúôñä ÷ãåùúä

(c)

Answer (Ri): The Mishnah discusses when he redeemed the Ba'al Mum and profaned it on the Tam. All the Kedushah of the Ba'al Mum entered the Tam, and its Kedushah takes hold on it;

åìëê îåúøú äáòìú îåí ìøáðï áëì òðéï ãìà ãîéà ìçèàú ùëéôøå áòìéä

1.

Therefore the Ba'al Mum is permitted according to Rabanan in every case. It is unlike a Chatas whose owner atoned.

åøáé àìòæø áøáé ùîòåï îçì÷ áéï ðùçèä ÷åãí æøé÷ä ìðùçèä ìàçø æøé÷ä

2.

And R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon distinguishes between when [the Ba'al Mum] was slaughtered before Zerikah, and when it was slaughtered after Zerikah.

àáì äëà îééøé ùäúîéîä áàä ò''é ÷ãåùú òöîä åìà çéìì äáòìú îåí òìéä ëé àí òì ãîéí åàéï ðøàä ëàéìå ô÷ò ÷ãåùä ùìä ëéåï ãàéï äúîéîä áàä îëçä

(d)

Distinction: However, here we discuss when the Tam comes through its own Kedushah, and he did not redeem the Ba'al Mum on it, rather, on money, and it does not look as if its Kedushah vanished, since the Tam does not come due to [the Ba'al Mum's] power;

äìëê ìøáðï ðæø÷ ãîä ìôðé ùçéèä äáòìú îåí àñåøä ããîéà ìçèàú ùëôøå áòìéä

1.

Therefore, according to Rabanan, if the blood was thrown before Shechitah of the Ba'al Mum, it is forbidden, for it is like a Chatas whose owner atoned;

åìøáé àìòæø áøáé ùîòåï àñåøä áëì òðéï ããîéà ìçèàú ùëôøå áòìéä:

2.

And according to R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon it is forbidden in every case, for it is like a Chatas whose owner atoned.

33b----------------------------------------33b

5)

TOSFOS DH Bechor she'Achzo Dam v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä áëåø ùàçæå ãí ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the argument below.)

(ðæ÷÷) [ö"ì áâîøà ðã÷ã÷ - ùéèä î÷åáöú] áîàé ôìéâé

(a)

Reference: In the Gemara (34a DH Ileima) we will be precise about their argument.

6)

TOSFOS DH Lehavi Nosek Achar Kores

úåñôåú ã"ä ìäáéà ðåú÷ àçø ëåøú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos questions Rashi's Perush here.)

ôé' á÷åðèøñ ãàí ëøú äàçã àú äáéöéí åòãééï äí áëéñ åáà çáéøå åðú÷ï îï äëéñ åäùìéëï ùðéäí çééáéí

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): If one cuts off the testicles, and they are still in the sac (Kores), and another came and uprooted them from the sac and cast them (Nosek), both of them are liable.

å÷ùéà ìøáé ãì÷îï áôø÷ òì àìå îåîéï (ãó ìè:) îùîò ãðúå÷ åëøåú àéúðäå ìáéöéí [ö"ì áëéñ - ùéèä î÷åáöú] áñåó âîøà ãçåèéï äçéöåðéåú ùðôâîå ã÷àîø ðúå÷ åëøåú ìà äåé îåîéï ãäà àéúðäå

(b)

Objection (Tosfos' Rebbi): Below (39b), it connotes that Nasuk and Karus, the testicles are in the sac, at the end of the Gemara of the outer Chutin (gums or teeth) that were chipped or cracked. It says that Nasuk and Karus are not Mumim, because [the Beitzim] are intact!

åáääéà ùîòúà ôé' øù''é ðúå÷ áéã ìâîøé àìà ùòãééï úìåéï áëéñ ëøåú áñëéï åòãééï úìåéï áëéñ åîòåøéï ÷öú ãëøåú äåé áöéø îðúå÷ ëãàîø áôéø÷éï ãìòéì ìäáéà ðåú÷ àçø ëåøú òë''ì

(c)

Explanation #2 (Rashi below): Nasuk is by hand. They are totally [cut off], but they are still hanging in the sac. Karus is through a knife, and they are still hanging in the sac and slightly connected, for Karus is less than Nasuk, like it says above "to include Nosek after Kores." Until here (Explanation #2) is from Rashi (there).

7)

TOSFOS DH Ba'al Mum Me'ikaro Peshita Dikla b'Alma Hu

úåñôåú ã"ä áòì îåí îòé÷øå ôùéèà ãé÷ìà áòìîà äåà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that we could have answered differently.)

úéîä ìéîà ãìáëåø àéöèøéê ùéù áå ÷ãåùú äâåó åàéï ìå ôãéåï

(a)

Question: He should say that [R. Meir] needs ["Tamim Yihyeh l'Ratzon" to forbid blemishing] Bechor, which has Kedushas ha'Guf, and it has no redemption!

åé''ì ãðéçà ìàùëåçé ãàéöèøéê ìëì ä÷ãùéí

(b)

Answer: He prefers to find that it is needed for all Kodshim.

ãäëé ðîé îöé ìîéîø ãàéöèøéê ìæîï äæä ãìà òáø îùåí îèéì îåí àôé' áúí

(c)

Support: Likewise, he could have said that it is needed for nowadays, that one does not transgress even for blemishing a Tam;

åàôéìå ìîàï ãîçééá ìîèéì îåí ááòì îåí áæîï äæä âøò ëã÷àîø áô''÷ ãò''æ (ãó éâ:) åìà ìãîéä çæé

1.

And even the one who obligates one who blemishes a Tam nowadays, it is worse (less severe than blemishing a Ba'al Mum at the time of the Mikdash), like it says in Avodah Zarah (13b, that nowadays) it is not proper for its value;

àìà îùëç ùôéø ãàéöèøéê àôé' áæîï áéú äî÷ãù

i.

However, it is properly found that [the verse] is needed even at the time of the Mikdash.

åîéäå àó òì âá ãôøéùéú ãáæîï äæä âøò îîèéì îåí ááòì îåí àéï ìúîåä îäà ãôñ÷éðï ì÷îï äìëä ëø''ù ãáøééúà ãùøé ìäèéì îåí ááòì îåí

(d)

Implied question: I explained that nowadays, [blemishing a Tam] is worse (less severe) than blemishing a Ba'al Mum (at the time of the Mikdash). Why do we rule below (34a) that the Halachah follows R. Shimon in the Beraisa, who permits blemishing a Ba'al Mum?

åäúí áîñ' ò''æ (âæ''ù) àñø øáà ì÷ãùéí áæîï äæä ìðùø ôøñåúéä îùåí ãðøàä ëîèéì îåí á÷ãùéí

1.

And there in Avodah Zarah, Rava forbids cutting off the feet of Kodshim nowadays, for it looks like blemishing Kodshim!

ãàò''â ãîèéì îåí ááòì îåí ùøé îãàåøééúà î''î îãøáðï îéäà àñåø åìà ùøéðï äëà àìà îùåí ä÷æä:

(e)

Answer: Even though the Torah permits blemishing a Ba'al Mum, in any case mid'Rabanan it is forbidden. Here we permit only to let blood.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF