1)

TOSFOS DH k'Shem sheha'Terumah Gedolah Niteles Me'umad (cont.)

úåñôåú ã"ä ëùí ùäúøåîä âãåìä ðéèìú îàåîã (äîùê)

ìéîà ãàéú÷ù îòùø áäîä ìîòùø ãâï îä îòùø ãâï àçã îòùøä àó îòùø áäîä àçã îòùøä áìà äòáøä úçú äùáè àìà ùéù òùø ìôðéå åðåèì àçã îäí

(a)

Summation of question: We should say that Ma'aser Behemah is equated to Ma'aser of grain. Just like Ma'aser of grain is one from 10, also Ma'aser Behemah is one from 10, without passing under the staff. Rather, there are 10 in front of him, and he takes one of them!

é''ì îééúé ãàáà àìòæø ìåîø ãéìôéðï úøåîú îòùø îúøåîä âãåìä ìòðéï àåîã àò''ô ùàéï ñáøà ììîã [ö"ì æä îæä - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ìâáé äëé

(b)

Answer #1: It brings Aba Elazar to say that we learn Terumas Ma'aser from Terumah Gedolah regarding estimation, even though it is illogical to learn one from the other for this;

ãúøåîä âãåìä àéï ìä ùéòåø åúøåîú îòùø éù ìä ùéòåø åî÷ùéðï ìäå àäããé àò''â ãäåé [ëòéï] àôùø (îàåîã àôùø) îùàé àôùø

1.

Terumah Gedolah has no Shi'ur, and Terumas Ma'aser has a Shi'ur, and we equate them to each other, even though it is like possible from impossible;

åäëé ðîé éìôéðï îòùø áäîä îîòùø ãâï [ö"ì àò"â - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ãîô÷éðï ÷øà îîùîòåúéä ãëúéá ëì àùø éòáåø

2.

Similarly, we learn Ma'aser Behemah from Ma'aser of grain, even though we uproot the verse from it simple meaning, that it says "Kol Asher Ya'avor."

åôé' æä àéðå îúééùá ììá

(c)

Rebuttal: The heart cannot accept this Perush.

åðøàä ìôøù ãìø''é áø' éäåãä [ö"ì áðèì àçã îòùøä - öàï ÷ãùéí] äåé îòùø àò''ô ùàéï ùåéï [ö"ì ëîå - öàï ÷ãùéí] áîëðéñ ìãéø ìäúòùø ãîñúîà àæ àéï ãøëí ìäéåú ùåéï

(d)

Answer #2: According to R. Yosi b'Ribi Yehudah, when he took one from 10 it is Ma'aser even though they are not equal, just like when he enters them in the pen to be tithed, for presumably, they are not normally equal;

äéìëê öøéëä ìàå÷åîä ëàáà àìòæø áï âåîì ãùøé îàåîã åìà çééù ìîøáä áîòùøåú ëãôøéùéú àå ìëì äôçåú ùøé áòéï éôä ëãàé' áäãéà áîðçåú (ãó ðã:)

1.

Therefore, we need to establish it like Aba Elazar ben Gomel, who permits through estimation, and he is not concerned for extra Ma'aser, like I explained, or at least he permits [tithing] generously, like it says explicitly in Menachos (54b);

åàé ìàå ãàáà àìòæø àîéðà àò''â ãáîòáéø ìà çééùéðï áùåéï áëé äàé âåðà ùðåèì àçã îòùøä ãéìôéðï îîòùø ãâï áòéðï ùåéï

2.

If not for Aba Elazar, one might have thought that even though when he passes [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 of grain, we require that they are equal.

åà''ú ëéåï ãàáà àìòæø ùøé àôéìå áîòùø àîàé àéöèøéê ìàå÷åîé áîðçåú (ùí) äà ãàîø ø' àìòæø áø' éåñé àáà äéä ðåèì òùøä âøåâøåú ùáî÷öåò òì úùòéí ùáëìëìä åäééðå áúøåîú îòùø ìå÷îä áîòùø âåôä

(e)

Question: Since Aba Elazar permits even for Ma'aser [Rishon], why did the Gemara in Menachos (54b) need to establish R. Elazar b'Rebbi Yosi's teaching "father used to take 10 [dry] figs in a Kli to exempt 90 [moist] figs in the basket" to discuss Terumas Ma'aser? It could establish it to discuss Ma'aser [Rishon] itself!

é''ì ðäé ãø' éåñé áøáé éäåãä ñáø îòùø ëéåöà áå (àîø - ùéèä î÷åáöú îåç÷å) ãéìîà àáà àìòæø ìéú ìéä ääåà ñáøà

(f)

Answer #1: Granted, R. Yosi b'Ribi Yehudah holds that Ma'aser [Rishon] is the same [as Ma'aser Sheni for this]. Perhaps Aba Elazar ben Gomel does not hold like this!

åòåã ðéçà ìéä ìàå÷îä áúøåîú îòùø îùåí ãîåëç øéùà ãáúøåîä àééøé îã÷úðé úåøîéï

(g)

Answer #2: The Gemara wants to establish it to discuss Terumas Ma'aser, for the Reisha proves that it discusses Terumah, since it taught "Tormin" (we take Terumah).

2)

TOSFOS DH Ach Terumas Ma'aser Niteles b'Omed uv'Machshavah

úåñôåú ã"ä àó úøåîú îòùø ðèìú áàåîã åáîçùáä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we need to learn from Terumah Gedolah.)

åà''ú åäà òé÷ø îçùáä áúøåîú îòùø ëúéá ãëúéá åðçùá ìëí úøåîúëí åäàé ÷øà áìåéí ëúéá

(a)

Question: The primary intent is written regarding Terumas Ma'aser! It says "v'Nechshav Lachem Terumaschem" - this verse is written about Leviyim!

é''ì )ëãëúéá( [ö"ì îùåí ãëúéá - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ëãâï îï äâåøï ãäééðå úøåîä âãåìä ãîùîò [ö"ì øàùéú - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ãâï ùéùøàì îôøéù îâåøðå

(b)

Answer #1: It is written "k'Degen Min ha'Goren", i.e. Terumah Gedolah, for it connotes the first grain that a Yisrael separates from his granary;

îùîò ùôùåè ìå éåúø áúøåîä âãåìä

1.

Inference: It is more obvious to him for Terumah Gedolah.

åáâéèéï (ãó ìà.) ô''ä äà ãéìéó úøåîú îòùø îúøåîä âãåìä ìòðéï àåîã äåà ãéìéó àáì îçùáä éìôéðï áúøåééäå îåðçùá

(c)

Answer #2 (Rashi in Gitin (31a): We learn Terumas Ma'aser from Terumah Gedolah regarding estimation, but intent, we learn both of them from "v'Nechshav".

åðøàä ãøáðï ìà ôìéâé ààáà àìòæø ìòðéï îçùáä àìà ìòðéï àåîã

(d)

Assertion: Rabanan do not argue with Aba Elazar about intent, only about estimation.

åàú''ì ãôìéâé ùîà éù áå ùåí èòí ãìà îå÷îé (îîùðä áúøåîú) [ö"ì îçùáä àúøåîú - öàï ÷ãùéí] îòùø àò''â ãëúéá áâåôéä ëãàùëçï ìòðéï îå÷ó

1.

And even if you will say that they argue, perhaps there is some reason why we do not establish [intent for] Terumas Ma'aser, even though it is written about it, like we find regarding Mukaf (the Chiyuv to take Terumah near the Peros that it exempts);

ëãàîø áéøåùìîé ôø÷ ùðé (ã÷øàåä ëì äúøåîä ëåìä îìîãä åìéîãä) [ö"ì ãúøåîåú ëì äúåøä ëåìä ìîéãä åîìîãú - öàï ÷ãùéí] çåõ îúøåîú îòùø ùîìîãú åàéðä ìîéãä

2.

This is like it says in the Yerushalmi in Terumos. The entire Torah, [a matter is learned [from its verse] and teaches [to elsewhere], except for Terumas Ma'aser, which teaches and is not learned;

ãáúøåîú îòùø ëúéá îîðå ìåîø ãáòéðï îå÷ó åîå÷îéðï ìéä áúøåîä âãåìä åìà áúøåîú îòùø

3.

Regarding Terumas Ma'aser it is written "Mimenu", to teach that we require Mukaf, and we establish it for Terumah Gedolah, and not for Terumas Ma'aser.

ãáîñ' áëåøéí (ô''á î''ä) úðï úøåîú îòùø ùåä ìáëåøéí áùúé ãøëéí ðèìú îï äèäåø òì äèîà åùìà îï äîå÷ó ëáëåøéí

i.

In Bikurim (2:5) a Mishnah teaches that Terumas Ma'aser is like Bikurim in two ways. One may take it from Tahor on Tamei, and Lo Min ha'Mukaf, like Bikurim.

åäà ãôøéê áô' ëì äâè (âéèéï ãó ì:) âáé úøåîú îòùø åëé ðçùãå çáøéí ìúøåí ùìà îï äîå÷ó

(e)

Implied question: In Gitin (30b), it asks about Terumas Ma'aser "are Chaverim suspected to tithe Lo Min ha'Mukaf?!"

îòîéã ø''ú îãáøéäí ãîãàåøééúà ìà áòé îå÷ó

(f)

Answer (R. Tam): That is mid'Rabanan. Mid'Oraisa it does not require Mukaf.

åîéäå ðøàä ãìòðéï îçùáä ìà ôìéâé

(g)

Support (of Assertion): It seems that they do not argue about intent.

îãôøéê áøéù äàéù î÷ãù (÷ãåùéï ãó îà:) âáé äà ãéìéó ùìéçåú îúøåîä îä ìúøåîä ùëï ðèìú áîçùáä îùîò ãìëåìé òìîà ôøéê åäééðå úøåîú îòùø ãëúéá áä àúí âí àúí

1.

Source: Since it asks in Kidushin (41b) regarding this that we learn Shelichus from Terumah, you cannot learn from Terumah, for it is taken through intent. It implies that it asks according to everyone. And it refers to Terumas Ma'aser, about which it is written [not just] "Atem", [rather,] "Gam Atem."

åîéäå ìôé îä ùôé' ä÷åðèøñ (áîçùáä ôìéâé) [ö"ì îùîò ãáîçùáä ôìéâé ãôé' - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ãîùåí îçùáä îå÷é ø' éåñé áø' éäåãä áùîòúéï ëàáà àìòæø áï âîìà

(h)

Rebuttal (of support): However, according to what Rashi explained, it connotes that they argue about intent, for he explained that due to intent, we establish R. Yosi b'Ribi Yehudah in our Sugya like Aba Elazar ben Gamla;

åîúåê ôéøåùå îùúîò [ö"ì ðîé - öàï ÷ãùéí] ãàôéìå áúøåîä âãåìä ìéú ìäå îçùáä ãàé àéú ìäå îçùáä ìà äåä öøéê ìîéîø ãñáø ëàáà àìòæø áï âîìà ãàôéìå ìøáðï ðîé îöéðå ìîéìó îçùáä áîòùø îã÷øééä øçîðà úøåîä

1.

His Perush connotes also that even for Terumah Gedolah, they do not hold that intent [works], for if they held that intent [works], we would not need to say that he holds like Aba Elazar ben Gamla, for even Rabanan could learn intent for Ma'aser, since the Torah called it Terumah.

åîéäå îöé ìîéîø ãîùåí úøåîú îòùø ùáå ÷øééä øçîðà úøåîä

(i)

Defense (of support): However, we can say that the Torah called it Terumah due to Terumas Ma'aser in it.

3)

TOSFOS DH b'Machshavah

úåñôåú ã"ä áîçùáä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes that even speech is not needed.)

ô''ä ðåúï òéðéå áöã æä ìùí úøåîä åàåëì áöã æä åàò''ô ùìà äôøéù

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): He puts his eyes on this side l'Shem Terumah, and eats from the other side, even though he did not [physically] separate.

îùîò ùøåöä ìåîø îùåí ãëúéá åðçùá ùøé ìàëåì áìà äôøùä åùøéðï ðîé áùúé÷ä òì éãé ðåúï òéðéå áöã æä åàåëì áöã æä åëì æä ãðô÷à ìå îåðçùá

1.

Inference: Because it is written "v'Nechshav", it is permitted to eat without separating. We permit also in silence, through putting his eyes on this side and eating from the other side. We learn all this from "v'Nechshav".

òåã ôéøù ìùåï àçø áîçùáä îçùá åàåîø á' ìåâéï ùàðé òúéã ìäôøéù åàò''ô ùòúä àéðå îôøéù ëìåí

(b)

Explanation #2 (Rashi): "B'Machshavah" means that he thinks and says "two Lugim that I will separate [will be Terumah]", even though now he does not separate anything.

åøåöä ìåîø ããéáåø öøéê åäà ãùøé áìà äôøùä ÷øé îçùáä

1.

Inference: He means that speech is needed. This that we permit without separating is called "Machshavah".

åàùëçï ðîé ã÷øé (ìîçùáä ãéáåø) [ö"ì ìãéáåø îçùáä - öàï ÷ãùéí] ãéáåø ëîå (á''î ãó îã.) òì ëì ãáø ôùò ãàîø ìçééá òì äîçùáä ëîòùä

2.

Support: We find also [elsewhere] that speech is called "Machshavah", e.g. "Al Kol Devar Pesha." It says that this obligates for intent [to make unauthorized use of a deposit] like for an action.

åðøàä ãáìà ãéáåø ðîé äåé úøåîä îãúðï áîñ' úøåîåú (ô''à î''å) çîùä ìà éúøåîå åàí úøîå úøåîúí úøåîä åçùéá àìí åáéøåùìîé îôøù èòîà îùåí áøëä

(c)

Decision: It seems that also without speech it is Terumah, like a Mishnah in Terumos (1:6) "there are five who may not take Terumah, and if they took, it is Terumah", and it lists a mute, and the Yerushalmi explains the reason [why he may not take l'Chatchilah] due to the Brachah (he cannot say it).

åáîñ' ùáåòåú ô''â (ãó ëå:) îîò áäãéà ãùøé ëùâîø áìáå àò''â ùìà äåöéà áùôúéå ãëúéá ëì ðãéá ìá å÷àîø úøåîä å÷ãùéí äåå ìäå ùðé ëúåáéí äáàéí ëàçã åìà éìôéðï îéðééäå ùáåòä

1.

In Shevuos (26b) it explicitly connotes that it is permitted when he resolved in his heart, even though he did not say with his lips, for it says "Kol Nediv Lev Olos", and 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); we do not learn Shevu'ah from them.

åáîä ùàåëì áìà äôøùä àéï ÷ôéãà ãìëåìé òìîà ùøé áë''î àò''ô ùàéï îôøéù òúä ëãîåëç ääåà ãäìå÷ç ééï îáéï äëåúéí ãùøé ìë''ò àé ìàå îùåí áøéøä àé îùåí ãçééùéðï ìá÷éòú äðåã

2.

We are not concerned that he eats without separating. Everyone permits this everywhere, even though he does not separate now, like is proven in the case of one who buys wine from Kusim. All agree that he is allowed, if not due to [Ein] Bereirah or concern lest the flask break (and he will never separate).

åéù î÷åîåú ãùøéðï [ö"ì ëùàåîø - öàï ÷ãùéí] îòùø ùðé ìöôåðå

3.

And there are places where we permit when he says "Ma'aser Sheni is in the north."

åà''ú ëéåï ãùøéðï úøåîä òì éãé ðåúï òéðéå áöã æä åàåëì áöã àçø àîàé àéï îâáéäéï úøåîåú åîòùøåú áé''è

(d)

Question: Since we permit through putting his eyes on this side and eating from the other side, why may we not separate Terumah or Ma'aser on Yom Tov?

äà úðï ô' ðåèì (ùáú ãó ÷îá.) îòìéï äîãåîò áàçã åîàä

1.

A Mishnah (Shabbos 142a) teaches that we permit Meduma (a mixture of Terumah) if there are 101 times [as much Chulin as Terumah. He separates the amount of Terumah that became mixed, and the rest is permitted to Zarim];

åôøéê åäà îú÷ï åùðé ø' àìòæø áø''ù äéà ãàîø ðåúï òéðéå áöã æä åàåëì áöã æä åìäëé ìà çùéá îú÷ï ëéåï ãàôùø áîçùáä

2.

[The Gemara] asks that 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, since it is possible through intent. (Also Tevel is permitted through intent!)

é''ì îãåîò ùàðé ùëáø ðú÷ï àáì úçìú úé÷åï ìà ùøéðï îèòí ãàôùø áîçùáä

(e)

Answer: Meduma is different, for it was already fixed. However, the reason that it is possible through intent does not permit initial fixing;

åàôéìå ãîàé àñåø ìú÷ï áùáú ëãîåëç ô' áîä îãìé÷éï (ùí ãó ìã.) åàò''â ãùøé ìéä áðåúï òéðéå áöã æä åàåëì áöã àçø ëãîåëç ô''÷ ãçåìéï (ãó å:) âáé ø''î ùàëì òìä ùì éø÷ ááéú ùàï

1.

Even Demai (Peros bought from an Am ha'Aretz. Most of them tithe, so mid'Oraisa it is permitted, but Chachamim obligated to tithe it) one may not fix on Shabbos, even though he 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 leaf of Yerek in Beis She'an!

4)

TOSFOS DH Itkash Ma'aser Behemah l'Ma'aser Degen

úåñôåú ã"ä àéú÷ù îòùø áäîä ìîòùø ãâï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses what the Hekesh equates.)

ô''ä îãëúéá òùø úòùø ëãàîøéðï áøéù ôéø÷éï

(a)

Explanation (Rashi): It says "Aser Ta'aser", like we said above (53b).

ö''ì ãìéú ìéä äà ãàîø [øáà] ìùðä ä÷ùúéå åìà ìãáø àçø

(b)

Consequence: [R. Yosi b'Ribi Yehudah] does not hold like Rava said, that it is equated for [tithing within] the year, and not for anything else.

åòåã áøéù ôéø÷éï ãøùéðï äé÷ùà àçøú åäáàúí ùîä îòùøåúéëí ìø' ò÷éáà

(c)

Implied question: Also, above (53a) we expound another Hekesh "v'Haveisem Shamah... Ma'aseroseichem [...u'Vchoros Bekarchem v'Tzonchem]" according to R. Akiva!

åùîà ìà àú÷ù àìà ìòðéï äáàä

(d)

Answer #1: Perhaps they are equated only for bringing [them to Yerushalayim].

îéäå ìøáà ÷ùä äéëé îôøù èòîà ãøáé éåñé áø' éäåãä

(e)

Question #1: It is difficult for Rava. How will he explain R. Yosi b'Ribi Yehudah's reason?

åëï áæáçéí ôø÷ á''ù (ãó îä.) ãøùéðï ÷ãùé òåáãé ëåëáéí àéï òåùéí úîåøä îãàéú÷ù úîåøä ìîòùø áäîä åîòùø áäîä ìîòùø ãâï åáîòùø ãâï ëúéá áðé éùøàì åìà òåáãé ëåëáéí

(f)

Question #2: Also in Zevachim (45a) we expound that Kodshei Nochrim do not make Temurah, because Temurah is equated to Ma'aser Behemah, and Ma'aser Behemah is equated to Ma'aser of grain, and it says about Ma'aser of grain "Bnei Yisrael", and not Nochrim. (The Hekesh is not limited to the year!)

åé''ì ìòðéï ìòùø îæä òì æä ëâåï îîéï òì ùàéðå îéðå ãäåé ëòéï çãù òì éùï ìâáé äëé ãå÷à àåîø ìùðä ä÷ùúéå åìà ìãáø àçø:

(g)

Answer #2: Regarding tithing from one on another, e.g. Min on Eino Mino, this is like new on old. Specifically for matters like this, we say that they are equated for the year [and similar matters], but not for anything else.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF