1) TOSFOS DH Ki Ka Miba'i Li Le'akev
úåñôåú ã"ä ëé ÷à îáòéà ìé ìòëá
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why this was a proper question.)
úéîä îàçø ãëúéá æàú úåøú àééúøå ìéä îöä ãëúéá áîçáú åîàôä ìòëá
(a) Question: (This is obvious!) Since it is written "Zos Toras [ha'Minchah]", Matzah written regarding Machavas and Ma'afe [Tanur] are extra to be Me'akev! (Also, why do the Amora'im bring different sources?)
åéù ìåîø ããéìîà ä''î áãéãäå àáì áñìú åîøçùú ìà
(b) Answer: Perhaps this is only for them (Machavas and Ma'afe), but not for Soles and Marcheshes;
åëé îñé÷ òéëåáà îãëúéá úäéä áîçáú àí àéðå òðéï ìâåôä úðéäå òðéï ìùàø îðçåú
1. When we conclude Ikuv from "Tihyeh" written about Machavas, if [Matzah] written about [Machavas] is not needed for it itself, we use it to teach about other Menachos.
åãåç÷ äåà (ùéëåì) [ö"ì ùäéä ìå - ùéèä î÷åáöú, öàï ÷ãùéí] ìôøù ëì æä
(c) Objection #1: [The Gemara] should have explained all this.
åòåã ìéùðà ã÷úðé ááøééúà îöä éëåì îöåä ú''ì úäéä äëúåá ÷áòä çåáä îùîò ãáâåôä ðîé àé ìà ëúéá úäéä äåä àîéðà îöåä
(d) Objection #2: The wording of the Beraisa '"Matzah" - perhaps this is a Mitzvah [l'Chatchilah]! It says "Tihyeh" to make it obligatory' connotes that for [Machavas] itself, if not for Tihyeh, one might have thought that it is [only] l'Chatchilah!
åòåã ãîöä áîçáú åîàôä ìîä ìé ãáîöä úäéä ãîçáú ñâé
(e) Objection #3: Why does it say "Matzah" regarding Machavas and Ma'afe? "Matzah Tihyeh" regarding Machavas suffices!
åðøàä ìôøù ãìùåí ãøùà öøéëé åàò''â ãëúéá áîçáú îöä úäéä éìôéðï áëì äîðçåú îæàú úåøú ãëì äéëà ãàéëà îöåä áîöä àéëà ðîé òéëåáà
(f) Answer: It seems that ["Matzah" regarding Machavas and Ma'afe] are needed for some Drashah. Even though it is written [only] about Machavas "Matzah Tihyeh", we learn to all Menachos from Zos Toras, that wherever there is a Mitzvah of Matzah, there is also Ikuv.
2) TOSFOS DH Iy Sei'or d'R. Meir l'R. Yehudah Matzah Ma'alyasa
úåñôåú ã"ä àé ùéàåø ãøáé îàéø ìø' éäåãä îöä îòìééúà
(SUMMARY: Tosfos brings the Gemara that explains what these are.)
ãáôø÷ àìå òåáøéï (ôñçéí ãó îç:) ÷úðé øáé éäåãä ùéàåø ãôèåø á÷øðé çâáéí åñéãå÷ ãçééá ëøú ùðúòøáå ñã÷éå æä áæä
(a) Citation (Pesachim 48b - Mishnah - R. Yehudah): Sei'or, for which one is exempt [for eating it on Pesach] is [when there are cracks in the dough] like grasshoppers' antenna. Siduk, for Isur one is Chayav Kares, is when the cracks mix one with another;
àáì ôçåú îëï ùøé ëâåï ùäëñéôå ôðéå
1. However, less than [Sei'or] is permitted, e.g. the face (outside) of the dough whitened.
åøáðï ôìéâé òìéä ãäééðå øáé îàéø ëãîåëç áâîøà åîôøùéðï àéæäå ùéàåø ëì ùäëñéôå ôðéå
2. Rabanan argue with him, i.e. R. Meir, like is proven in the Gemara. They explain what is Sei'or? It is any whitening of the face [due to fermenting].
åà''ú áôø÷ àìå òåáøéï (ùí îâ.) úðéà ùéàåø éùøó åðåúðå ìôðé ëìáå åîôøù åðåúðå ìôðé ëìáå ãø''î ìøáé éäåãä îùîò àáì áàëéìä àñåø
(b) Question: In Pesachim (43a), a Beraisa teaches "Sei'or must be burned, and one may put it in front of his dog, and it explains that one puts in front of his dog [Sei'or of] R. Meir according to R. Yehudah. This implies that one may not eat it! (In the Mishnah, R. Yehudah permitted Sei'or of R. Meir!)
åéù ìåîø ãîãøáðï áòìîà äåà ãàñåø åîãùøé ìéä ìëìáå ù''î îöä îòìééúà äéà
(c) Answer: It is merely mid'Rabanan that it is forbidden [to eat it]. Since he casts it to his dog, this shows that it is proper Matzah. (If not, it would be Asur b'Hana'ah.)
3) TOSFOS DH Ela d'R. Meir l'R. Meir mid'Laki Alei Chametz Hu
úåñôåú ã"ä àìà ãøáé îàéø ìøáé îàéø îãì÷é òìéä çîõ äåà
(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves the Gemara in Chulin with the Sugyos here and below.)
ëé äàé âååðà ãéé÷éðï áôø÷ ÷îà ãçåìéï (ãó ëâ:) âáé äøé òìé ìçîé úåãä îï äçîõ àå îï äîöä åäáéà ùéàåø îäå
(a) Observation: We infer like this in Chulin (23b) regarding "it is Alai to bring Lachmei Todah from Chametz or from Matzah" [for one who will bring a Todah], and he brought Sei'or. What is the law?
å÷àîø ùéàåø ãîàï àé ãø''î ìø' îàéø îãì÷é òìéä çîõ äåà
1. It says "whose [definition of] Sei'or? If it is Sei'or of R. Meir according to R. Yehudah, since he is lashed for it, it is Chametz!"
åúéîä òì ãäëà åäúí ãéìîà ùàðé ìâáé ôñç ãîøáéðï ìéä îãëúéá (ùîåú éá) ëì îçîöú
(b) Question: This is astounding here and there! Perhaps [Sei'or] is different regarding Pesach, for it says "Kol Machmetzes" [to include it]!
åîäúí ìà éìôéðï ãäà ìòðéï ôñç ðîé ìà çùéá çîõ âîåø ìäúçééá ëøú åàãøáä ðéìó îçîõ âîåø
1. And we do not learn from there, for also regarding Pesach, it is not considered total Chametz to be Chayav Kares for it! Just the contrary, we should learn from total Chametz (that one is liable for Menachos only for total Chametz, and it is required for Chametz in Todah)!
åîéäå áääéà ãçåìéï éù ìôøù ãìòðéï îöä ãúåãä ÷àîøéðï ãéìôà îôñç åìà éöà áå éãé îöä ãúåãä
(c) Partial Answer #1: We can explain the Gemara in Chulin, that regarding Matzah of Todah, we say that we learn from Pesach, and he is not Yotzei Matzah in Todah.
àáì áùîòúéï ìéëà ìùðåéé äëé
(d) Question: However, we cannot answer like this for our Sugya!
åùîà éù ùåí ééúåø áúåãä åáîðçåú ãçîõ ðå÷ùä çùåá çîõ âáééäå
(e) Answer #2: Perhaps there is a Yitur (something extra written about) Todah and Menachos to teach that Chametz Nuksheh (partially fermented) is considered total Chametz for them.
åì÷îï (ãó ðã.) ôìéâé øáé çðéðà áï âîìéàì åøáðï áîçîéöéï áúôåçéí å÷øé ìéä çîõ ðå÷ùä
(f) Citation: Below (54a), R. Chanina ben Gamliel and Rabanan argue about whether or not we may ferment (Shtei ha'Lechem or Lachmei Todah) with apples. It calls it Chametz Nuksheh.
åìîàé ãáòé ìàå÷åîé äàé ãúôåç ùøéñ÷å ëøáé çðéðà áï âîìéàì ôé' úôåç ùì úøåîä ùðúðå áòéñä åçéîöä äéä éëåì ìåîø ãìøáðï çùéá ìéä îöä åùøé
(g) Observation: According to what we wanted to establish that [the Mishnah of] a Terumah apple that was minced like R. Chanina ben Gamliel, i.e. a Terumah apple that he put in a dough and it fermented, it could have said that according to Rabanan, it is considered Matzah and it is permitted [to Zarim if one cannot taste the apple. It can be Batel, since it did not ferment it];
àáì áîñ÷ðà ã÷àîøé ìøáðï ãäåé ðå÷ùä åàô''ä à''ø çðéðà áï âîìéàì ãîçîéöéï ôìéâé áäëé àé çùéá çîõ ðå÷ùä ëçîõ âîåø ìòðéï ìçîé úåãä åùúé äìçí àå ìà
(h) Distinction: However, according to the conclusion, that it says that according to Rabanan it is Chametz Nuksheh, and even so R. Chanina ben Gamliel says that we ferment with it, they argue about whether or not Chametz Nuksheh is considered total Chametz regarding Lachmei Todah and Shtei ha'Lechem.
å÷ùéà àääéà ãçåìéï ãîùîò ãìëåìé òìîà çùéáà çîõ
(i) Question: This is difficult for the Gemara in Chulin, which connotes that all agree that it is Chametz!
åùîà àôé' ìøáðï ìà àîøéðï àìà ìëúçéìä ãàéï îçîéöéï
(j) Answer #1: Perhaps even Rabanan say only l'Chatchilah that we do not ferment [with apples].
àé ðîé ìëåìé òìîà àéï îçîéöéï áçîõ ðå÷ùä ìëúçéìä àìà øáé çðéðà áï âîìéàì ÷ñáø ãçîõ âîåø äåà
(k) Answer #2: All agree that we do not ferment with Chametz Nuksheh l'Chatchilah, but R. Chanina ben Gamliel holds that [through apples] it is total Chametz.
4) TOSFOS DH Talmud Lomar Tihyeh ha'Kasuv Kav'ah Chovah
úåñôåú ã"ä ú''ì úäéä äëúåá ÷áòä çåáä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with the Gemara in Yevamos.)
äà ããøùéðï áô' äçåìõ (éáîåú ãó î.) îöåú úàëì áî÷åí ÷ãåù ãìäëé úðà áéä ÷øà ìòëá ãàéðå àåëìä çìåèä àó òì âá ãîöä äéà
(a) Implied question: We expound in Yevamos (40a) "Matzos Te'achel bi'Makom Kadosh" - the verse repeated it to make it Me'akev, that one may not eat it Chalut, even though it is Matzah!
ääåà ìòëá ìà äåé ëîå ùðä äëúåá ìòëá áòìîà ãîäúí ìà ðô÷à ìï àìà îúäéä ãäëà
(b) Answer #1: That "to make it Me'akev" is not like "the verse repeated it to make it Me'akev" elsewhere. We do not learn from there Ikuv, rather, from Tihyeh here.
åòåã ãäà îùîò äúí ãîçã îöä ìà îîòèéðï çìåè ãçìåè îöä äåà åîãëúéá úøúé îîòè ìéä åàí ëï àéîà ìîöåä
(c) Answer #2: Also, it connotes there that from one "Matzah" we do not exclude Chalut, for Chalut is Matzah. Since it is written twice [Matzah], we exclude it. If so, I could say that [proper Matzah, and not Chalut] is only l'Mitzvah (l'Chatchilah. Therefore, we need Tihyeh to teach Ikuv.)
åäà ãîùîò äëà ãàé ìàå úäéä äåä àîéðà àé áòé øáåëä ìééúé àé áòé îöä ìééúé
(d) Implied question: It connotes here that if not for Tihyeh, one might have thought that if he wants, he brings Revuchah, and if he wants, he brings Matzah!
ìàå ìëúçéìä ãäà îîòè áéáîåú çìåè ìîöåä:
(e) Answer: This would not be l'Chatchilah, for in Yevamos we exclude Chalut [that it is not l'Chatchilah] for the Mitzvah.
53b----------------------------------------53b
5) TOSFOS DH Ben Yedid
úåñôåú ã"ä áï éãéã
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that Yedid is Avraham.)
áï àáøäí ãëúéá áéä îä ìéãéãé ááéúé
(a) Explanation: He is the son of Avraham, about whom it says "Mah li'Yedidi b'Veisi";
ôùèéä ã÷øà áéøîéä ùäéä îúôìì ááéú äî÷ãù òì éùøàì ãîòé÷øà ëúéá åàúä àì úúôìì áòã äòí äæä åëúéá áúøéä îä ìéãéãé ááéúé
1. The simple meaning of the verse discusses Yirmeyah, who was praying in the Beis ha'Mikdash for Yisrael, for initially it says "do not pray for this nation", and afterwards it says "Mah li'Yedidi b'Veisi";
åëàï ãåøùå áàáøäí ëãàîøé' áñîåê ùîöàå ä÷á''ä ìàáøäí ùäéä òåîã ááéú äî÷ãù
2. Here we expound it regarding Avraham, like we say below that Hash-m found Avraham standing in the Beis ha'Mikdash.
åîä ùàåîø ááøëä ùì îéìä àùø ÷éãù éãéã îáèï àåîø ø''ú ãäééðå àáøäí ùð÷øà éãéã ëãàîøéðï . äëà å÷ãùå ä÷á''ä îï äáèï
(b) Explanation #1 (R. Tam): We say in the Brachah [after] Bris Milah "Asher Kidesh Yedid mi'Beten." This refers to Avraham, who is called Yedid, like we say here, and Hash-m sanctified him from the womb;
ùãåøù áîãøù ãëúéá áàáøäí ëé éãòúéå åëúéá áéøîéä áèøí àöøê ááèï éãòúéê
1. The Midrash expounds that it says about Avraham "Ki Yadativ", and it says about Yirmeyah "b'Terem Eztarcha va'Beten Yedaticha";
çå÷ áùàøå ùí æä éöç÷ ù÷øàå ä÷á''ä éöç÷ òã ùìà ðåìã
2. [The Brachah after Milah continues] "Chok bi'Sh'ero Sam" - this is Yitzchak, whom Hash-m called his name Yitzchak before he was born;
åöàöàéå çúí áàåú áøéú ÷åãù æä éò÷á ëãëúéá (éùòéä ëá) äöàöàéí åäöôéòåú åîúøâîéðï áðéà åáðé áðéà
3. "v'Tze'etza'av Chasam b'Os Bris Kodesh" is Yakov, like it says in Yeshayahu "ha'Tze'etza'im veha'Tzefi'os", and the Targum is children and grandchildren.
åéù îôøùéí éãéã æä éöç÷ ùàø æä éò÷á åöàöàéå àìå äùáèéí
(c) Explanation #2: Some explain that Yedid is Yitzchak, She'er is Yakov, and v'Tze'etza'av are the Shevatim.
6) TOSFOS DH v'Lishkol Pursa Minei
úåñôåú ã"ä åìéù÷åì ôåøúà îéðéä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos brings two opinions about when we remove some flour.)
ôé' éîãåã òùøåï ÷îç åðéù÷åì ôåøúà åéòùðå òéñä åéëøåê äòéñä áîèìéú åéèîððä áùàåø áòìîà òã ùú÷ìåè äøéç åéòùä ùàåø åéçîõ àú äòùøåï
(a) Explanation #1: He should measure an Isaron of flour, and take a little, and make a dough, and wrap the dough in a cloth and envelop it in Se'or from elsewhere, until it absorbs the smell [from the Se'or] and it becomes Se'or, and it will ferment the Isaron.
âæéøä ãéìîà àúé ìàéúåéé îòìîà àé ùøéú ìéä ìçîöå îáçåõ åìäçæéøå ëàï äøåàä ùäåà îáéàå îáçåõ åìùå áëàï åàéðå îåãã òëùéå äòùøåï ñáåø ùäåà îåñéó òì òùøåï åàúé ìàéúåéé [ùàåø îòìîà] ìáã äòùøåï
1. [We do not do so.] This is a decree lest people take from elsewhere. If you permit to ferment [a little] outside and return it to here, one who sees that he brings from outside and kneads it here and does not measure the Isaron now, he thinks that he adds [the Se'or] to the Isaron, and he will come to bring Se'or from elsewhere in addition to the Isaron;
äéìëê ìø''î áåãä îúåëå òãéó åìø' éäåãä [îáéà îáéúå] ÷åãí îãéãä òãéó
2. Therefore, according to R. Meir it is better to remove from it (and ferment it here, even though it does not ferment so much), and according to R. Yehudah it is better to bring from his house before measuring [the Isaron].
åìùåï ùðé ùá÷åðèøñ äåà òé÷ø
(b) Explanation #2: Rashi's second Perush is primary. (We suggest to put old Se'or in the Isaron, fill the rest with flour, take some flour out, knead it with the same amount of water as the Se'or, return it and measure the difference? Surely, its volume changed like the Se'or, so we know how much flour to add or take away!)
7) TOSFOS DH Ein Machmitzin li'Shtei ha'Lechem v'Chalos Todah b'Tapuchim
úåñôåú ã"ä àéï îçîéöéï ìùúé äìçí åçìåú úåãä áúôåçéí
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses whether or not Mei Peros ferment.)
ãìà äåé çîõ îòìéà ãîé ôéøåú àéï îçîéöéï ëê ôé' á÷åðèøñ
(a) Explanation: It is not proper Chametz, for Mei Peros (fruit juice) do not ferment. So Rashi explained.
åîñ÷éðï äëà ãìëåìé òìîà äåé çîõ ðå÷ùä ìëì äôçåú
1. We conclude here that all agree that it is Chametz Nuksheh at least.
åäà ãôìéâé áôø÷ ëì ùòä (ôñçéí ãó ìå.) áòéñä ùðéìåùä áééï åùîï åãáù øáï âîìéàì àåîø úéùøó îéã ôéøåù ùàéï àãí éëåì ìùîøä ùìà úçîéõ åçë''à úàëì (îéã) ãéëåì ìéæäø îçéîåõ
(b) Implied question: [Tana'im] argue in Pesachim (36a) about a dough kneaded with wine, oil or honey. R. Gamliel says that it must be burned immediately, i.e. for one cannot guard it from Chimutz, and Chachamim say that he eats it, for he can guard it from Chimutz, and Chachamim say that he eats it, for he can guard it from Chimutz!
äééðå ëé äê ãäëà
(c) Answer: [They discuss guarding it from Chametz] like here (i.e. Nuksheh).
åã÷àîø ìäå øáé éäåùò áï ìåé ìáðéä éåîà ÷îà ìà úìåùå ìé áçìáà àå (îëàï îãó äáà) áãåáùà îëàï åàéìê ìåùå ìé áçìáà åáãåáùà
(d) Implied question: R. Yehoshua ben Levi told his children [there] "the first day, do not knead for me with milk or honey. After this, knead for me with milk or honey"!