1)

TOSFOS DH VE'HITIR REBBI ES BEIS SHA'N KULAH AL YADO (continued)

úåñ' ã"ä åäúéø øáé àú áéú ùàï ëåìä òì éãå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos reconciles our Gemara, which implies that Chutz la'Aretz is not subject to Ma'asros, with the Sugya in Bechoros, which implies that it is. In the process, they discuss at length the Yerushalmi in D'mai, which initially suggests that one is Chayav. The discussion includes the question as to the status of Beis-Sha'n and Kisrin, which at one stage, Rebbi declared Chutz la'Aretz. Finally, Tosfos cites another Yerushalmi which presents various other ways of resolving the initial discrepancy).

åîéäå áî÷åí àçø, îöà ø"é áéøåùìîé áîñëú çìä ô' ùúé ðùéí, ãéø÷ áçåöä ìàøõ àéðå ðåäâ áå ìà îòùø åìà úøåîä, åáùàø ôéøåú ðåäâú úøåîä âãåìä, àáì ìà îòùø; àáì ãâï úéøåù åéöäø çééáéï ìâîøé áéï áúøåîä áéï áîòùø.

(a)

Explanation #2: The Ri however, found another Yerushalmi in Maseches Chalah (Perek Sh'tei Nashim), which holds that vegetables in Chutz la'Aretz are subject to neither Ma'aser nor Terumah; other fruits are subject to Terumah Gedolah but not to Ma'aser, whilst corn, wine and oil are subject to both Terumah and Ma'aser.

åäëé àéúà äúí 'àîø ø' éåçðï "øáåúéðå ùáâåìä äéå îôøéùéï úøåîåú åîòùøåú òã ùáàå äøåáéí åáèìåí". îàï ðéðäå äøåáéí, 'úøâîåðéà'. à"ø æòéøà - øá éäåãä áùí ùîåàì àåîø, "çìú çåöä ìàøõ åúøåîú çåöä ìàøõ àåëì åäåìê åàçø ëê îôøéù".ø' àáà áùí øáé ùîåàì àîø - "ìà çùå àìà ìúøåîú ãâï úéøåù åéöäø" ';

(b)

Source (Part 1): This is what the Yerushalmi says, quoting Rebbi Yochanan: 'Our Rebbes in the Golah used to separate Terumos and Ma'asros until the Rovim came and declared them exempt. And who are the Rovim? The translators (the sons of Rebbi Chiya). Rebbi Zeira, quoting Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel said that one may eat the produce of Chutz la'Aretz, and separate Chalah at the end; whereas according to Rebbi Aba in the name of Rebbi Shmuel "They were only concerned with the Terumah of corn, wine and oil" '.

åîùîò ã÷àé àø' éåçðï ãàîø ã'áâåìä äéå îôøéùéï úøåîåú'; åàúà øáé àáà ìàùîåòéðï ããå÷à áãâï úéøåù åéöäø äéå îôøéùéï úøåîåú åîòùøåú (åìàå ãå÷à ð÷è úøåîä, ãäåà äãéï îòùø); àáì ùàø ôéøåú ìà çùå ìòðéï îòùø àìà ìúøåîä âãåìä ...

(c)

Source (Part 2): Rebbi Aba it appears, is referring to the earlier ruling of Rebbi Yochanan (that in the Golah they used to separate Terumos and Ma'asros), and he is coming to teach us that this statement was confined to corn, wine and oil (and 'Terumah' is La'av Davka, but incorporates Ma'aser). But other fruits they were not concerned with Ma'aser, only Terumah Gedolah ...

ëîå ùîôøù øáé ùéìà áùí ø"ù àç"ë 'ø' ùéìà áùí ø"ù àîø "ìà çùå àìà ìúøåîä âãåìä, àáì ìéø÷åú àôéìå ìúøåîä âãåìä ìà çùå" - ãúðé àéñé áùí øáé ò÷éáà 'îòùøåú ìéø÷ îãáøéäí', ôéøåù ùàéï ìäí àñîëúà îï äôñå÷ ëîå ùéù ìùàø ôéøåú, ãàñîëå øáðï à'÷øà.

(d)

Source (Part 3): ... like Rebbi Shilo in the name of Rebbi Shimon afterwards, who says 'They were only concerned with Terumah Gedolah, but as far as vegetables are concerned, they were not even concerned with that!', as Isi quoting Rebbi Akiva stated in a Beraisa 'Ma'asros regarding vegetables are only mi'de'Rabbanan' (in Eretz Yisrael) - meaning that there is no support from a Pasuk as there is regarding other fruit (which the Rabbanan attached to a Pasuk).

åìôé æä ìà ÷ùéà îéãé îäê ãùîòúéï - 'ãøáé îàéø àëì òìä ùì éø÷', åääåà ãîñëú ò"æ ã'àëì ôéøé ãìà îòùøï', áùàø ôéøåú ÷àîø ùäåøîä îäï úøåîä âãåìä àáì ìà îòùø.

(e)

Conclusion: According to this, there is no Kashya whatsoever from our Sugya, where Rebbi Meir ate a leaf of a vegetable, and as for the Sugya in Maseches Avodah-Zarah, where he ate un'Ma'asered fruit, that speaks about 'other fruit', from which Terumah Gedolah had been taken, but not Ma'aser.

åááøëåú (ãó ìå.) ìà âøñéðï 'éø÷', ãáöìó àééøé åìàå éø÷ äåà. åì"â ðîé 'îòùø' àìà 'äðé îéìé âáé öìó', ãëì ùàø ôéøåú àéðå ðåäâ îòùø àìà úøåîä. åëï äåà áñôøéí îãåé÷éí.

1.

Side Explanation: And in B'rachos (quoted earlier) the text does not read 'vegetables (and Tz'laf)', since the Gemara is discussing 'Tz'laf' (the caper-bush), which is not a vegetable. Nor does it read 'Ma'aser' but 'that speaks specifically about Tz'laf', since all 'other fruits' are not subject to Ma'aser, only Terumah.

åà'ääéà ãáéøåùìîé ã÷àîø 'ùáàå äøåáéï åáèìåí' ñîëéðï òëùéå, ùàéï àðå îôøéùéï úøåîåú åîòùøåú.

(f)

Ruling: Nowadays, we rely on the statement 'The Rovim came and declared them exempt', since we do not separate Terumos and Ma'asros (in Chutz la'Aretz).

åø"ú îôøù ãàéï äùãåú çùåáåú ëîå ùìðå, ìôé ùðåúðéï îäï îñ.

(g)

Alternative: Rabeinu Tam explains that our fields are not considered our own , since we pay a tax on them.

åìôé æä, áéîéäí ìà äéå îôøéùéï àìà îäðäå ãìà éäáé èñ÷à, ãàéëà ãìà éäáé, ëãàîø áäî÷áì (á"î ÷é.) ""àøòà ãìéú ìä ëøâà åèñ÷à, îàé?'

1.

Observation: According to that, in those days they would only separate Ma'asros from those fields from which they did not pay taxes, since there were some that did not, as we learned in 'ha'Mekabel' (Bava Metzi'a 110a) 'What will be the Din regarding a field which is not subject to Karga and Taska (two kinds of taxes)?'

åòåã éù ìôøù, ùîà äøçå÷éí îàøõ éùøàì ëîåðå ìà ú÷ðå çëîéí.

(h)

Explanation #3: It is also possible that the Chachamim did not institute Ma'asros in lands as far away from Eretz Yisrael as ours.

åòåã éù îôøùéí, ùðîöà áéøåùìîé ãäà ã÷àîø ã'îëæéá åìäìï ôèåø îï äãîàé' ìàå ãå÷à ãîàé àìà àó îï äåãàé. åàäà ñîëéðï.

(i)

Explanation #4: Moreover, others, citing a Yerushalmi, explain that when the Gemara says that 'from K'ziv and beyond is exempt from D'mai', this refers not only to D'mai, but to Vaday as well.

2)

TOSFOS DH ELA MAKOM HINICHU LO AVOSAV LEHISGADER BO

úåñ' ã"ä àìà î÷åí äðéçå ìå àáåúéå ìäúâãø áå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara does not give the same explanation in Shabbos as to why the early kings did not destroy the Bamos).

úéîä, ãìà îùðé äëé áôø÷ áîä áäîä (ùáú ãó ðå:) ããøùéðï "åàú äáîåú àùø òì ôðé éøåùìéí àùø áðä ùìîä ... "; 'àôùø áà àñà ... ?' ' àìà î÷éù øàùåðéí ìàçøåðéí - îä àçøåðéí ìà òùå åúìä áäï, àó ... '.

(a)

Question (Part 1): Why does the Gemara not give the same answer in Perek Bameh Beheimah (Shabbos 56:), where we Darshen from "ve'es ha'Bamos asher al-Pnei Yerushalayim asher Banah Shlomoh" - 'Is it possible that Asa came (and failed to destroy them ... ?' We must therefore say that the Pasuk is comparing the first ones to the last ones, inasmuch as just as the last ones (kings) did not do it, yet the Navi blames them, so too the first ones ... '.

åàîàé ìà îùðé ã'î÷åí äðéçå ìå àáåúéå ìäúâãø áå', ëãîùðé äëà?

(b)

Question (Part 2): ... Why does the Gemara not answer, like it answers here - that 'his fathers left him the opportunity to take credit for doing it?

åéù ìåîø, ãáùìîà äëà âáé ðçù äðçåùú, ìôé ùðòùä òì ôé äãáåø, èòå áå äøàùåðéí, åäéå ñáåøéí ùäéä àñåø ìáòøå; àìà äúí áîä äéå èåòéï ùìà ìáòø àåúï äáîåú?

(c)

Answer: One can say that here by the Copper Snake, because it was made by Divine Command, which explains why the early Chachamim erred, thinking that it was forbidden to destroy it ... ; whereas there, to what can one possibly ascribe the mistake of not destroying the Bamos?

3)

TOSFOS DH VE'DILMA NASAN EINAV BE'TZAD ZEH VE'ACHAL BE'TZAD ACHER

úåñ' ã"ä åãéìîà ðúï òéðéå áöã æä åàëì áöã àçø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos when one may, and when one may not, use this concession to permit taking from D'mat once Shabbos is in).

åà"ú, ãúðï áôø÷ áîä îãìé÷éï (ùáú ãó ìã.) 'ñô÷ çùëä îòùøéï àú äãîàé' - äà åãàé çùëä, ìà.

(a)

Question (Part 1): We learned in Perek Bameh Madlikin (Shabbos 34.) 'During the period of Safek night, one is permitted to Ma'aser D'mai', implying that once it is Vaday night, it is forbidden.

àîàé, ëéåï ãàôùø ò"é ðåúï òéðéå áöã æä åàåëì áöã àçø; àí ëï éäà îåúø ìäôøéù áùáú, ëãîåëç áôø÷ ðåèì (ùí ãó ÷îà:) ãúðï 'øáé éäåãä àåîø "àó îòìéï àú äîãåîò áàçã åîàä". åôøéê áâîøà (ùí ãó ÷îá.) 'åäà îú÷ï äåà?' åîùðé 'äà îðé øáé ùîòåï áï àìòæø äéà, ãàîø "ðåúï òéðéå áöã æä åàåëì áöã àçø", åìäëé ìà çùéá ú÷åï áùáú, ëùîòìä?

(b)

Question (Part 2): Why is that, bearing in mind that it is possible to do so by looking at one side and eating from the other? It ought therefore to be permitted to separate Ma'asros on Shabbos in this way, as is evident in Perek Noteil (Shabbos 141:), where Rebbi Yehudah, in a Mishnah, declares that 'One is also permitted to render Meduma Bateil in a hundred and one'. And in answer to the question that this is surely considered a Tikun, the Gemara there (Daf 142.) states that 'the author is Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar, who permits looking at one side and eating from the other, and that consequently, being Mevatel it is not considered a Tikun (a rectification) on Shabbos.

åéù ìåîø, ãùàðé îãåîò ùëáø äéä ðú÷ï; àáì úçìúå ùì èáì ìà ùøé òì éãé ãàôùø ìéúï òéðéå áöã æä åìàëåì áöã àçø [åò"ò úåñôåú âéèéï ìà. åáîðçåú ðä. åááëåøåú ðè. ã"ä áîçùáä].

(c)

Answer: Meduma is different, in that it has already been Niskan (rectified); But to rectify Tevel initially because it is possible to look at one side ... is not permitted (See alo Tosfos, Gitin, 31a, Menachos, 55a and Bechoros, 59a DH 'be'Machshavah'.

4)

TOSFOS DH AMAR LEIH ATAH HOLECH LAS'ASOS R'TZON KONCHA ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä àîø ìéä àúä äåìê ìòùåú øöåï ÷åðê ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains what it might mean to quote what the sea said).

ùîà ùø ùì éí äùéá ìå ëê.

(a)

Explanation #1: Perhaps it was the Angel in charge of the sea (Neptune) who gave him this answer.

àé ðîé, øáé ôðçñ äéä îçùá áìáå ùìëê äéä îðéç îìçìå÷ ìå.

(b)

Explanation #2: Or perhaps it was Rebbi Pinchas who thought to himself that this was why the sea was refusing to split.

åëòðéï æä öøéê ìôøù áôø÷ ÷îà ãîñëú ò"æ (ãó éæ.) âáé øáé àìéòæø áï ãåøãééà ãàîø 'ùîéí á÷ùå òìé øçîéí!'

(c)

Precedent: ... and that is how we will have to explain the Gemara in the first Perek of Avodah-Zarah (17.) with regard to Rebbi Elazar ben Durdaya, who asked the Heaven to plead for mercy on his behalf.

7b----------------------------------------7b

5)

TOSFOS DH KERIRA HA AMAR ALAH REBBI YOCHANAN ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä ÷øéøà äà àúîø òìä àîø øáé éåçðï ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that in various other places in Shas, the Gemara does not give an answer).

áîñëú ù÷ìéí (ãó ç:) åáîñëú ãîàé áéøåùìîé åááøàùéú øáä (ô' ñ') ìà îùðé îéãé, àìà äùéá ìäí ãîçîøà àðôùä.

(a)

Observation: In Maseches Shekalim (8b). in Maseches D'mai in the Yerushalmi and in Bereishis Rabah, P. 60), the Gemara does not give an answer; only he answers them that he was Machmir on himself.

6)

TOSFOS DH VE'YESH SHEYESH LO VE'EINO ROTZEH

úåñ' ã"ä åéù ùéù ìå åàéðå øåöä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why they are called Kedoshim even though they do not really want to invite their guest).

åàô"ä àé÷øå ÷ãåùéí, ùîæîï àú çáéøå ìàëåì àöìå îôðé äáåùú.

(a)

Clarification: They are nevertheless called 'Kedoshim', since they invite their friends to eat by them out of embarrassment.

7)

TOSFOS DH MESARHAVNA

úåñ' ã"ä îñøäáðà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the word 'Mesarhavna').

'îîäø àðé' - ëãîúøâîéðï "åéîäøå ìùôåê ãí" - (éùòéä ðè) 'åéñøäáåï'.

(a)

Clarification: It means 'I am rushing', just as Onkelos translates the word in Yeshayah (59) "And they rushed to spill blood" as 'Vayesarhavun'.

8)

TOSFOS DH GEDOLIM TZADIKIM BE'MISASAN YOSER MI'BE'CHAYEIHEM ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä âãåìéí öãé÷éí áîéúúï éåúø îáçééäí ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses exactly which point in that episode gives rise to the Gemara's statement).

ôéøù á÷åðèøñ ããøéù îîä ùäçéä áðâéòä áòìîà, ëãëúéá "åéâò åéçé".

(a)

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that he learns it from the fact that he brought him back to life by merely touching him, as the Pasuk writes " ... and he touched him and he came back to life".

å÷ùä, ãà"ë îàé ôøéê 'åãéìîà ì÷éåîé áøëúà ãàìéäå'?, î"î äéä âãåì áîä ùèøç ìäçéåúå áçééå éåúø îáîåúå?

(b)

Question: In that case, why does the Gemara ask that perhaps it was only in order to effect the B'rachah of Eliyahu? The fact remains that he was greater (after his death) in that he took more trouble to bring him back to life in his lifetime than after his death?

åðøàä, ãðô÷à ìéä îîä ùáçéé äöãé÷éí ðåâòéí áäí ëîä øùòéí åéåùáéí àöìí, åùí ìà äéä ìå øùåú ìäúòëá àöìå.

(c)

Explanation #2: It therefore appears that he learns it from the fact that during the lifetime of Tzadikim many Resha'im touch them and sit beside them; whereas there he (the Rasha) was not allowed to remain beside Elisha for one moment.