12th Cycle Dedication

ERCHIN 5 - Dedicated in memory of Rivkah bas Reb Avraham Leib, who passed away on 15 Adar 5764, and her husband, Nachum ben Reb Shlomo Dovid (Mosenkis) Z"L, who passed away on 23 Teves 5700, by their son and daughter-in-law, Sid and Sylvia Mosenkis (of Queens, NY).

1)

TOSFOS DH YIMACHER L'TZORCHEI OLAH

úåñ' ã"ä éîëø ìöøëé òåìä

(Summary: Tosfos cites the Gemara in Temurah, which queries this ruling.)

åà"ú, åëé ìå÷ç æä î÷øéá òåìä çñéøä àáø- ùàéï àáø æä ùìå?

(a)

Question: How can the purchaser sacrifice an Olah that is missing a limb - seeing as the limb in question does not belong to him?

äà ôøëéðï ìä ô"÷ ãúîåøä (ãó éà:) -åîùðé 'ëâåï ãàîø "äøé òìé òåìä áçééä" -ëìåîø ëîå ùéëåì ìçéåú...

(b)

Answer: The Gemara in Temurah (Daf 11b) asks this question; it answers that it speaks in a case where he (the purchaser) declared 'I am going to bring an Olah in its life' - meaning an Olah that is able to live ...

åàò"ô ùðçúê øâìä îï äàøëåáä åìîèä, éëåìä ìçéåú.

1.

Answer (cont.): Because an even though an animal's leg below the knee has been severed , it is able to live.

åäà ãìà ÷à îùðé ëâåï ãàîø 'øâìä ùì æå òåìä ìôèåø òåìúå ùì ôìåðé ...

(c)

Implied Question: And the reason that it does not answer by establishing it where the owner initially declared 'this animal's leg is an Olah - to cover the Olah of P'loni (the purchaser)

ëãàîøéðï ô"÷ ãçåìéï (ãó ëâ:) 'ìà öøéëà ãàîø" äøé òìé çìä ìôèåø úåãúå ùì ôìåðé" ... '

1.

Precedent: As the Gemara says in the first Perek of Chulin (Daf 23b) 'We must establish the case where he said "I undertake to bring a Chalah to cover the Todah of P'loni" ' ...

é"ì, ãìà ð÷è ìä àìà òì ìùåï îéîøà ãàîåøà, àáì ìùåï äáøééúà ìà îéùúîò äëé.

(d)

Answer: That answer was said with regard to the statement of an Amora, but the current Beraisa is not talking about such a case.

2)

TOSFOS DH V'HA MAR HU D'AMAR HIKDISH ZACHAR L'DAMAV

úåñ' ã"ä åäà îø äåà ãàîø ä÷ãéù æëø ìãîéå

(Summary: Tosfos proves that the author must be Rabah and reconciles his proof with the Gemara inm Zevachim.)

îëàï îùîò ãâøñé' 'øáä' ...

(a)

Clarifying Text: his implies that the correct tet is 'Rabah' ...

ùìà éàîø àáéé 'îø' ìøáà çáéøå.

1.

Reason: As Abaye would not refer to his colleague Rava as 'Mar'.

àò"â ãàùëçðà ãàîø øá éåñó ìàáéé úìîéãå 'îø ãâáøà øáä äåà éãò îàé ÷àîéðà' áæáçéí ô' ÷ãùé ÷ãùéí (ãó ñá.) ...

(b)

Implied Question: And although we find in Perek Kodshei Kodshim (Zevachim, Daf 62a) that Rav Yosef said to his Talmid 'Mar who is a great man knows what I am saying' ...

äúí ùàðé ùäáéï àáéé îä ùìà äáéðå àçøéí.

1.

Answer: That is different - since Abaye understood something that nobody else did.

3)

TOSFOS DH D'BA'I RABAH D'MEI ROSHI L'GABEI MIZBE'ACH

úåñ' ã"ä ãáòé øáä ãîé øàùé ìâáé îæáç ëå' úé÷å

(Summary: Tosfos puts this conclusion in perspective.)

äééðå î÷îé ãìùîòéðï îúðé' ãìòéì, ëãîñ÷éðï.

(a)

Clarification: This is before he heard the above Beraisa, as the Gemara concludes.

4)

TOSFOS DH BA'I RABAH D'MEI ROSHI L'GABEI MIZBE'ACH

úåñ' ã"ä áòé øáä ãîé øàùé ìâáé îæáç

(Summary: Tosfos queries why the Gemara does not ask the She'eilah using the same format as in the next She'eilah.)

öøéê òéåï- àîàé ìà ð÷è 'òøê øàùé ìâáé îæáç' ,ëîå ááòéà ãáñîåê.

(a)

Question: we need to examine as to why Rabah did not ask from 'Erech Roshi Legabei Mizbe'ach' like he does in the following She'eilah.

5)

TOSFOS DH BA'I RAVA ERKI ALAI L'GABEI MIZBE'ACH

úåñ' ã"ä áòé øáà òøëé òìé ìâáé îæáç

(Summary: Tosfos explains the sequence of the She'eilos in the Sugya, assuming the text reads 'Rabah'.)

àé øáä âøñé' áëåìï, éù ìôøù á'àí úîöà ìåîø' ëãìòéì.

(a)

Observation: If the text in all the cases is Rabah, we can explain them with a Lashon of 'Im Timtzi Lomar' (in which case they are all inter-connected [See Sgitah Mekubetzes 18]).

6)

TOSFOS DH ADAM YODE'A SHE'EIN ERECH L'PACHOS MI'BEN CHODESH

úåñ' ã"ä àãí éåãò ùàéï òøê ìôçåú îáï çãù

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles the Sugya in Pesachim with this Sugya.)

åàôéìå àéðå éåãò, î"î ãòúå ò"ô ùú÷ðå çëîéí äìùåï.

(a)

Qualification: Even if he does not know, he nevertheless relies on the Lashon that the Chachamim fixed.

åà"ú, îàé ùðà îãàîø ôø÷ úîéã ðùçè (ôñçéí ãó ñâ.) 'äîúëåéï ìåîø "úøåîä" åàîø "îòùø" " ,îòùø" åàîø "úøåîä, " ìà àîø ëìåí?

(b)

Question: Why is this any different than the Gemara in Perek Tamid Nishchat (Pesachim, Daf 63a) - 'If someone intends to say 'T'rumah' but says 'Ma'aser' instead, or vice-versa, what he said is invalid?

åéù ìåîø, ã'ìà àîø ëìåí' îîä ùîåöéà áôéå, àáì îä ùáìáå äåé ÷ééí.

(c)

Answer #1: His words are invalid regarding what he said, but what he intended to say is valid.

åòåã éù ìåîø, ãäúí ùàðé ,ùîä ùàîø áôéå àéðå øåöä, åáîä ùçùá áìáå, èòä.

(d)

Answer #2: Alternatively, it is different there, since what he said he did not mean to say, and regarding what he had in mind to say, he erred (See Shitah Mekubetzes 19).

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

7)

TOSFOS DH YACHOL LO YIH'YU NE'ERACHIN TALMUD LOMAR ISH

úåñ' ã"ä éëåì ìà éäå ðòøëéï ú"ì àéù

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles this with the fact that "Ish" is written in connection with Ma'arich and elaborates.)

åàò"â ã"àéù" áîòøéê ëúéá...

(a)

Implied question: Even though "Ish" is written in connection with Ma'arich ...

úøúé "àéù" ëúéáé, åàí àéðå òðéï ìîòøéê, úðäå ìòðéï ðòøê.

1.

Answer: "Ish is written twice in the Parshah (See Shitah Mekubetzes 14), and since it is not needed for Ma'arich, we apply it to Ne'erach.

åà"ú, äà îîòèéðï î"àéù" ãäëà òåáãé ëåëáéí âáé úîåøä áô"÷ ãúîåøä (ãó â.)?

(b)

Question: In the first Perek of Temurah (Daf 3a) the Gemara learns from the current word "Ish" to preclude Nochrim from Temurah?

åé"ì, ãáôø÷ á"ù áîñëú æáçéí (ãó îä.) àéëà ãøùà àçøéúé ìîòåèé òåáãé ëåëáéí îúîåøä, åòìä ñîéê ...

(c)

Answer: In Perek Beis Shamai (Zevachim, Daf 45a) we preclude Nochrim from Temurah via a different Pasuk, and it is on that Pasuk that we rely ...

ãéìôéðï îîòùø áäîä ãäåé çåáä ùàéï ÷áåòä ìä æîï, åéùøàì îééúå åòåáãé ëåëáéí ìà îééúå.

1.

Answer (cont.): We learn it from Ma'aser Beheimah which is an obligation that is not bound by time, and Yisrael bring it but not Nochrim.

8)

TOSFOS DH SHA'ANI CHERESH SHOTEH V'KATAN D'LA'AV B'NEI DE'AH NINHU

úåñ' ã"ä ùàðé çøù ùåèä å÷èï ãìàå áðé ãòä ðéðäå

(Summary: Tosfos explains Rebbi Meir's opinion.)

åø"î ãéìéó îéðééäå, ñáéøà ìéä ÷öú äï ùåéï, äåàéì åðòøëéï, åàò"ô ùìà îòøéëéï ...

(a)

Explaining the Other Opinion: Rebbi Meir however, who learns from them, holds that, since they are both Ne'erachin, they are slightly similar, even though they cannot be Ma'arich ...

äëé ðîé àéú ìéä ìîéîø áòåáãé ëåëáéí.

1.

Explaining the Other Opinion (cont.): So we ought to say the same by Nochrim (See Avodah Berurah).

9)

TOSFOS DH ELA ME'ATAH LO YIM'ALU BO

úåñ' ã"ä àìà îòúä ìà éîòìå áå

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the answer and elaborates.)

ìøáé éäåãä -à'ìîä úðéà 'àáì á÷ãùé áã÷ äáéú îåòìéï áå' åà'îàï úøîééä? ...

(a)

Clarification: According to Rebbi Yehudah - Then why does the Beraisa say 'Aval be'Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, Mo'alin bo'? to which Tana will you ascribe it? ...

ãäà åãàé ëøáé îàéø ìà îéúå÷îà, ãäà ÷à ðñéá ìäìëúéä î"ìà ìëí åìðå" ,àìîà ãàéï òåáãé ëåëáéí î÷ãéùéï ìáã÷ äáéú ëìì?...

1.

Clarification (cont.): Because it certainly does not go like Rebbi Meir, who bases his opinion on "Lo lacdhem ve'Lanu", from which we see that Nochrim are not permitted to be Makdish to Bedek ha'Bayis under any circumstances? ...

åëø' éäåãä ðîé ìà àúéà?

2.

Clarification (concl.): Nor does it go like Rebbi Yehudah?

ãìéëà ìôøåùé ãìîñ÷ðà 'îùåí øôéåï éãéí' îéúå÷îà ùôéø ëøáé îàéø, ãäà ìéúà ...

(b)

Refuted Answer: Nor can one answer that according to the Maskana 'because of Rifyon Yadayim' it can go like Rebbi Meir; this is not the case ...

ãøáé îàéø ìà ñáø äàé èòîà, ãàí ëï, îðà ìéä äìëúà ãàéï äòåáãé ëåëáéí îòøéëéï î÷øà ã"ìà ìëí åìðå" ?

(c)

Refutation: Since Rebbi Meir does not hold of that reason, because if he did, from where does Rava know that his ruling that Nochrim cannot be Ma'arich is based on he Pasuk "Lo lachem ve'Lanu"? (See Avodah Berurah)

åö"ò, ëéåï ãìøáé îàéø àéï òåáãé ëåëáéí îúðãáéï ìáã÷ äáéú, äéëé úðï 'æä åæä îåãéí ùðåãøéí' ...

(d)

Question: This needs to be examined however, because, since Rebi Meir holds that Nochrim may not donate to Bedek ha'Bayis, how can the Mishnah state 'Zeh ve'Zeh Modim she'Nodrim' ...

äà òåáãé ëåëáéí ìà ðåãøéï ìáã÷ äáéú ìøáé îàéø?

1.

Question (cont.): Now that according to Rebbi Meir, Nochrim are not permitted to donate to Bedek ha'Bayis?

åãåç÷ ìôøù ãðåãøéï ÷àîø ìîæáç...

(e)

Refuted Answer: And to answer that 'Nodrin' means to the Mizbe'ach is a Dochek ...

ãìëàåøä îúðé' ãåîéà ãòøëéï ãîééøé ìáã÷ äáéú.

1.

Refutation: Since it seems obvious that, in line with Erchin, the Mishnah is referring to Bedek ha'Bayis (See Tosfos Yom-Tov).

åùîà èåá ìôøù ãøáà äãø áéä ìîñ÷ðà æå îäà ãàîø îòé÷øà ãäìëúà ëøáé îàéø î÷øà ã"ìà ìëí åìðå".

(f)

Answer: Perhaps it is correct to explain that, according to this Maskana, Rava retracts from what he initially said that the Halachah s like Rebbi Meir based on the Pasuk "Lo lachem ve'Lanu" (See Shitah Mekubetzes 18).

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF