1) TOSFOS DH Amar Rava ka'Savar R. Yehudah v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä àîø øáà ÷ñáø øáé éäåãä ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this is where Rava primarily taught this.)

äà ãàîø áô' ëì äáùø (çåìéï ÷ç.) áùîòúà ãèéôú çìá ãàîø øáà ÷ñáø øáé éäåãä ëì ùäåà îéï åîéðå ëå' äééðå äëà áùîòúéï ùäåà òé÷ø îéìúéä ãøáà

(a) Explanation #1: In Chulin (108a), in the Sugya of a drop of milk [that fell on a piece of meat in a pot], Rava said that R. Yehudah holds that whenever there is Min and Mino [and something else...], i.e. [R. Yehudah] holds like this in our Sugya, which is Rava's primary teaching [about this].

åìà ëîå ùôé' ùí á÷åðèøñ ãäééðå øáà ãôø÷ âéã äðùä (ùí ÷: åùí) ùàîø àôéìå ìà ÷ãí åñì÷å äåé îéï åîéðå åãáø àçø ëå'

(b) Explanation #2: This is unlike Rashi explained, that it is Rava's teaching in Chulin (100b), that he said "even if he did not remove [the Nevelah] before [some other pieces were put in], it is Min and Mino (other pieces of meat) and something else (the liquid and sediments).

ãäúí ìà ÷àîø áäàé ìéùðà ÷ñáø øáé éäåãä ëå'

(c) Rejection: There, he did not say in this expression "R. Yehudah holds that..."

2) TOSFOS DH Hu Atzmo Meshachshecho b'Shirei ha'Log

úåñôåú ã"ä äåà òöîå îùëùëå áùéøé äìåâ

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses how there can be oil left over.)

ôéøåù ìåâ ùì îðçåú ùðéúåúø

(a) Explanation: This refers to the Log [of oil brought with] Menachos that was left over (the entire amount was not mixed with the flour).

åà''ú äà úðï áôéø÷éï (ãó ëæ.) äùîï îéòåèå îòëá àú øåáå

(b) Implied question: A Mishnah below (27a) teaches that the minority of oil is Me'akev the majority (the entire Log must be mixed with the flour)!

åé''ì ùìà ðéúðä úåøä ìîìàëé äùøú åàé àôùø ùìà éùàø áìåâ îï äùîï

(c) Answer: The Torah was not given to angels. It is impossible that none of the oil will remain. (A small remnant does not disqualify.)

3) TOSFOS DH Charev she'Nis'arev b'Balul v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä äøá ùðúòøá ááìåì ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos justifies the question.)

éù úéîä îàé ÷à ôøéê ãìòåìí îåãä øáé ùîòåï áï ì÷éù ãàí äéå òåìéï îáèìéï åàôé' ìøáðï ìà é÷øá åìà îùåí çøá ùðùúîï àìà îùåí áìåì ùðçñø ãäåä ìéä çéñø ùîðä

(a) Question: What was the question? Really, Reish Lakish agrees that if Olin were Mevatel [Olin], and even according to Rabanan, it is not offered, and not because a Charev became oily, rather, because a Balul is lacking! It is lacking some of its oil;

ãäà ðúòøá ùîðå áçøá åáèì åä''ì ëëùø åôñåì ùðúòøáå æä áæä åöøéê òéåï àí äåä àîøéðï é÷øá àí ìàå

1. Its oil became mixed with the Charev, and it is Batel, and it turns out that a Kosher [Minchah] and Pasul are mixed with each other. This requires investigation, whether or not we would say that it is offered.

åé''ì ãìà çùéá çéñø ùîðä

(b) Answer: It is not considered to be lacking its oil.

ãàò''â ãîñô÷éð' ìéä ìøáà áñîåê âáé ÷åîõ ùîéöä ùîðå òì âáé òöéí àé çéáåøé òåìéï ëòåìéï

(c) Implied question: Rava was unsure below about a Kometz whose oil was squeezed onto wood, whether or not Chiburei (things connected to) Olin are considered like Olin!

äëà ôùéèà ãëòåìéï ãîéà ëùîéöä ùîðå áçøá ëéåï ãùðéäï ð÷èøéí

(d) Answer: Here it is obvious that they are like Olin when he squeezed the oil onto a Charev, since we are Maktir both of them.

åìôé æä ìà îéôñìå ìòåìí îùåí çéñø ùîðä àìà îùåí øéáä ùîðä

(e) Consequence: According to this, it would never be disqualified due to lacking oil, only due to excess oil.

4) TOSFOS DH Kometz she'Mitzah Shamno Al Gabei Etzim

úåñôåú ã"ä ÷åîõ ùîéöä ùîðå ò''â òöéí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains this unlike Rashi.)

ôé' ÷öú ðáìò îï äùîï áòöéí åî÷öúå áòéï òì âáé òöéí òí ä÷åîõ åîáòéà ìéä àéçùéá äðáìò ëàéìå äåà áòéï ò''â òöéí äåàéì åîçåáø ìîä ùáçåõ îçîú ãçéáåøé òåìéï ëòåìéï ãîå àå ìà

(a) Explanation: Some of the oil is absorbed in the wood, and some is intact on the wood with the Kometz. He asks whether what is absorbed is considered to be intact on the wood, since it is attached to what is outside, for Chiburei Olin are like Olin, or not.

åá÷åðè' ôéøù á' ìùåðåú åëîå ùôéøù' ðøàä

(b) Remark: Rashi explained two versions. (If the Kometz is next to the oil, do we consider it as if the oil is inside, or is it considered Chaser? Alternatively - must we burn the wood with the Kometz, for the oil is still part of the Kometz, and if it is not burned, the Kometz is Chaser, or not?) It seems that like I explained is correct.

5) TOSFOS DH Neveilah Beteilah bi'Shechutah

úåñôåú ã"ä ðáéìä áèéìä áùçåèä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that it is Batel only for Tum'as Maga.)

äééðå îìèîà áîâò àáì áîùà îèîà ëãàîøé' áôø÷ ùìéùé ãáëåøåú (ãó ëâ.)

(a) Explanation: [It is Batel] from being Metamei through touching, but it is Metamei through carrying it, like we say in Bechoros (23a).

6) TOSFOS DH Shechutah Einah Beteilah bi'Neveilah

úåñôåú ã"ä ùçåèä àéðä áèéìä áðáéìä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos gives a consequence for Tum'ah.)

åäéëà (ã÷áòé) [ö"ì ã÷áéòé - èäøú ä÷åãù] áøùåú äøáéí åàéðå éåãò áàéæå îäï ðâò ñôé÷å èäåø ãëì ÷áåò ëîçöä òì îçöä ãîé äéëà ãàôùø ìîéäåé ëååúéä

(a) Explanation: When they are Kevu'im in Reshus ha'Rabim (there are places known to be of Neveilos, and places known to be of Shechutos) and he does not know which he touched, the Safek is Tahor, for every Kavu'a [Safek] is like an even Safek, when it is possible to be like it. (Taharas ha'Kodesh - when the Batel can be like the Misbatel, or vice-versa, and there cannot be Bitul, even if the Isur is not known in its place, we cannot follow the majority. Therefore, the law of Kavu'a applies, so it is like an even Safek Tum'ah, which is Tahor in Reshus ha'Rabim);

åãí äôø åãí äùòéø ëéåï ùäéä îòåøá áå ëàçú åðúï îäï îúðä çùéá ãàôùø ìäéåú æä ëæä:

1. And blood of the bull and blood of the goat, since it was mixed in it at once and he put from [the mixture on the Mizbe'ach, they are considered like one entity], it is considered that it is possible for one to be like the other.

23b----------------------------------------23b

7) TOSFOS DH v'Lo Mevatlei Shirayim l'Tivla

úåñôåú ã"ä åìà îáèìé ùéøéí ìèéáìà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why it is Kosher.)

äùúà ðéçà ìéä äàé ãèéáìà ìà îáèìà ìùéøééí ãìéäåé ëøéáä ñåìúä åá÷åðèøñ ôéøù èòîà

(a) Explanation: Now it is fine that the Tevel is not Mevatel the Shirayim, that it should be like too much flour. Rashi explained the reason (what is Batel is as if it is not. Therefore it is not considered extra.)

àáì òãééï ÷ùä ãìéäåé ëùéøéí ùçñøå áéï ÷îéöä ìä÷èøä

(b) Question: Still, it is difficult. It should be like Shirayim that became Chaser between Kemitzah and Haktarah!

åé''ì ã÷ééîà ìï ëøáé éåçðï ãàîø áô''÷ (ìòéì è.) î÷èéø ÷åîõ òìéäí åø' ùîòåï áï ì÷éù çæø áå

(c) Answer: We hold like R. Yochanan, who said above (9a) that he is Maktir the Kometz for [such Shirayim], and Reish Lakish (who argued) retracted.

8) TOSFOS DH Leima d'Lo k'R. Chiya

úåñôåú ã"ä ìéîà ãìà ëøáé çééà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos questions the implication of this.)

îùîò îúåê äìùåï ãôùéèà ìéä (ãàéëà ãîôìéâ) [ö"ì ãìéëà ãôìéâ - áøëú äæáç, öàï ÷ãùéí] òì øáé çééà

(a) Inference: The wording connotes that it is obvious to [the Makshan] that no one argues with R. Chiya.

åìòéì (ôéøù) [ö"ì ôéøùúé ãàéëà - öàï ÷ãùéí] èåáà ãìà ëååúéä

(b) Implied question: Above (22b DH v'R. Yehudah) I explained that there are many [Tana'ic teachings] unlike him!

9) TOSFOS DH Hasam k'R. Zeira

úåñôåú ã"ä äúí ëø' æéøà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos tells where R. Zeira taught so.)

áñîåê àðúòøá ÷åîöä áùéøéä àîøä øáé æéøà ìòé÷ø îìúéä îùåí ãìà îéúøéõ ëìì áòðéï àçø

(a) Explanation: Below, regarding a Kometz that became mixed with its Shirayim, R. Zeira taught his teaching (just like Kamatzim are not Mevatel Kamatzim, also Shirayim are not Mevatel Kamatzim), for one cannot resolve it any other way.

åòåã áôø÷ äùåçè åäîòìä (æáçéí ÷é.) òì äà ãúðï ÷îöä åàçø ëê çæø ÷åîöä ìúåëä åä÷øéáä áçåõ çééá ôøéê åðáèìå ùéøééí ì÷åîõ åîùðé [ö"ì àîø - öàï ÷ãùéí] øáé æéøà ðàîøä ä÷èøä ëå' åìà îùðé ëãøáé æéøà

1. Also, in Zevachim (110a) regarding the Mishnah "if he took Kemitzah, and later the Kometz returned into it and he offered it outside, he is liable", [the Gemara] asks that the Shirayim should be Mevatel the Kometz, and answers 'R. Zeira said that it says "Haktarah" [about the Kometz and Shirayim - just like about Kamatzim...]'

(àìà) [ö"ì åìà - öàï ÷ãùéí] àäðê úøúé àéúîø òé÷ø îéìúéä

2. R. Zeira did not teach his teaching primarily about these [first] two cases [in our Sugya].

10) TOSFOS DH Tivlah b'Katzach v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä úéáìä á÷öç ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this discusses Matzah.)

(ëãúðéà) ìòðéï îöä îéúðéà ëã÷úðé îöä äéà àìà ùð÷øàú îöä îúåáìú

(a) Explanation: This was taught regarding Matzah, like it taught "it is Matzah, just it is called spiced Matzah."

åáúåñôúà ãôñçéí (ô''á) úðé ëä''â éåöàéï áîöä îúåáìú àáì áøééúà æå ìà àùëçï ìà áîðçåú åìà áôñçéí

(b) Remark: It is taught like this in the Tosefta in Pesachim (2:13) "one is Yotzei with spiced Matzah", but we do not find this Beraisa in Menachos and not in Pesachim.

11) TOSFOS DH ka'Salka Daitach d'Afish Lah Tavlin Tfei mi'Matzah

úåñôåú ã"ä ÷ñì÷à ãòúê ãàôéù ìä úáìéï èôé îîöä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that this is not common, but it occurs.)

àò''ô ùàéï ãøê ìòùåú ëï ôòîéí ùðàñôéï úáìéï áî÷åí àçã åàëì îàåúå öã ùéù áå øåá úáìéï

(a) Explanation: Even though it is not normal to do so, sometimes spices gather in one place, and he eats from that side that has mostly spices.

12) TOSFOS DH Ela l'Man d'Amar Basar Mevatel Azlinan...

úåñôåú ã"ä àìà ìî''ã áúø îáèì àæìéðï...

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that the Sugya in Zevachim disagrees.)

éù ìúîåä ãîãîé ääéà ãìòéì ùäèòí ùåä ìäê ãäëà ùàéï äèòí ùåä ãëéåï ùéù áúáìéï èòí îöä øàåé ìöàú éãé çåáúå

(a) Question: It compares the case above when the taste is the same, to the case here that the taste is not the same! Since there is a taste of Matzah in the spices, it is proper to be Yotzei his obligation!

ëãàîøéðï áô' äúòøåáåú (æáçéí òç. åùí) òùä òéñä îï çèéí åîï àåøæ (åîï ùòåøéí åàåøæ) àí éù áå èòí ãâï çééá áçìä åàãí éåöà áå éãé çåáúå áôñç

1. Source: This is like we say in Zevachim (78a) "if he made a dough from wheat and rice, if it has a taste of grain, it is obligated in Chalah, and one [who eats it] is Yotzei his obligation on Pesach"!

åö''ì ãäê ùîòúà ôìéâà àääéà ãäúí

(b) Answer: We must say that this Sugya argues with that one.

åàéï ìä÷ùåú àääéà ãúòøåáåú îäà ãàîøéðï áòøáé ôñçéí (ôñçéí ÷èå.) ìà ìéëøéê àéðéù îöä åîøåø áäãé äããé ãìîà àúé îøåø ãøáðï åîáèì ìîöä ãàåøééúà

(c) Implied question: We can challenge the Sugya there from what we say in Pesachim (115a) "one should not wrap Matzah and Maror together, lest Maror, which [nowadays without Korban Pesach is only a Mitzvah] mid'Rabanan, be Mevatel Matzah, which is mid'Oraisa!"

ãäúí çåæ÷ äîøéøåú äåà ãîáèì èòí äîöä àáì àåøæ ìà îáèì èòí ãâï

(d) Answer #1: There, the potency of the bitterness is Mevatel the taste of the Matzah. However, here the rice is not Mevatel the taste of the grain.

åòåã éù ìôøù ãäúí ëùàåëì ëæéú îöä ãëé îáèì ìéä îøåø ìéëà èòí ëæéú îöä

(e) Answer #2: There, it discusses when he eats a k'Zayis of Matzah. When the Maror is Mevatel [some Matzah], there is not a k'Zayis of Matzah;

àáì àí àåëì äøáä ùøé

1. However, if he eats much, it is permitted. (Even after Bitul, a k'Zayis remains.)

13) TOSFOS DH Ki Salik Rav Kahana Ashkechinhu li'Vnei R. Chiya

úåñôåú ã"ä ëé ñìé÷ øá ëäðà àùëçéðäå ìáðé øáé çééà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses when Rav Kahana came to Eretz Yisrael.)

îëàï éù ñééòúà ìôé' ä÷åðèøñ ùôéøù áôø÷ áúøà ãâéèéï (ãó ôã:) ãáéîé (øáé çééà) [ö"ì çæ÷éä - éùø åèåá, áàøåú äîéí] òìä øá ëäðà îááì âáé ëéöã éòùä éèìðå îîðä ëå'

(a) Inference: This supports what Rashi explained in Gitin (84b) that in the days of Chizkiyah, Rav Kahana ascended [to Eretz Yisrael] from Bavel, regarding [one who gave a Get and said 'you are permitted to any man, Ela (but not) to Ploni.'] What does he do [to properly divorce her]? He takes [the Get] from her...

ã÷àîø îàï úðà àîø çæ÷éä ø''ù áï àìòæø äéà åøáé éåçðï àîø ãéìëåï àîø äåàéì å÷ðàúå ìéôñì áå

1. It says like whom is our Tana? Chizkiyah said, it is R. Shimon ben Elazar. R. Yochanan said, yours (Rav Kahana, who was from Bavel) said that since she acquired it to become Pasul [to Kohanim, she already acquired it. It does not help to say now that she is permitted to all men, unless he takes it back and gives it again.]

åôé' ùí á÷åðèøñ ãìçæ÷éä øáå äéä àåîø ùøá ëäðà òìä îááì ëîå áðå ùì øáé çééà ùäéä îááì åøáé éåçðï ùàì äøáä ñôé÷åú ìøá ëäðà ëãàéúà áô' áúøà ãá''÷ (ãó ÷éæ:)

2. Rashi explained there that [R. Yochanan] said so to his Rebbi Chizkiyah. Rav Kahana, came from Bavel, just like [Chizkiyah] the son of R. Chiya. R. Yochanan asked many of his Sefekos to Rav Kahana, like it says in Bava Kama (117b).

åäéå î÷ùéí ìôé' ä÷åðèøñ ãîùîò ùëáø ùëéá )øáé çééà) [ö"ì çæ÷éä - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ëùòìä øá ëäðà îááì ãçæ÷éä øáå ùì øáé éåçðï äéä ëãîåëç áôø÷ àìå ÷ùøéí (ùáú ÷éá:)

(b) Question: [Meforshim] challenged Rashi's Perush. It connotes that Chizkiyah already died when Rav Kahana ascended from Bavel, for Chizkiyah was R. Yochanan's Rebbi, like is proven in Shabbos (112b)...

åëùòìä øá ëäðà äéä øáé éåçðï æ÷ï åéåùá áéùéáä ãîñøçé ìéä âáéðéä åäúìîéãéí éåùáéí ìôðéå ùåøåú ùåøåú åøáé ùîòåï áï ì÷éù ìåîã ìôðéå

1. And when Rav Kahana ascended, R. Yochanan was old and sat in (was Rosh) Yeshivah, for his eyebrows drooped\ down, and Talmidim sat in front of him in many rows, and Reish Lakish learned in front of him! (Presumably, R. Yochanan would not be Rosh Yeshivah in the lifetime of his Rebbi.)

åäùúà àéðä ÷åùéà ãòì ëøçê áéîé çæ÷éä òìä ëãîåëç ëàï

(c) Answer: Now this is not difficult. You are forced to say that in the days of Chizkiyah he ascended, like is proven here!

åùîà ëîä ôòîéí òìä ãàùëçï òãééï ùòìä áéîé øáé ùîòåï áø øáé ùäéä çáéøå ùì øáé çééà

(d) Implied question: Perhaps he ascended several times, for we find still that he ascended in the days of R. Shimon bar Rebbi, who was the colleague of R. Chiya. (If so, perhaps Chizkiyah died before Rav Kahana ascended to learn from R. Yochanan!)

1. Note: Tosfos assumes that R. Shimon bar Rebbi died before Chizkiyah, the son of Rebbi's colleague. I do not understand this. It seems that Rebbi died before R. Chiya (Kesuvos 103b). If so, Rebbi's son could die before R. Chiya's son!

ãàîøéðï áæáçéí áôø÷ (îëàï îãó äáà) ÷ãùé ÷ãùéí (ãó ðè.) ëé ñìé÷ øá ëäðà àùëçéä ìø''ù áøáé ãéúéá å÷àîø îùîéä ãø' éùîòàì áø' éåñé îæáç ùðôâí (ëåìå) [ðøàä ùö"ì åëå']

2. Source: We say in Zevachim (59a) that when Rav Kahana ascended, he found R. Shimon bar Rebbi sitting and saying in the name of R. Yishmael b'Ribi Yosi that a Mizbe'ach that was dented...

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES ON THIS DAF