תוספות ד"ה שאין

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains when the Mishnah in Sanhedrin must and must not discuss more than an amount of judges.)

ואם תאמר דבפ"ק דסנהדרין (דף ב.) לא חשיב אלא ע"א

(a) Question: In Sanhedrin (2a), the Mishnah only says that seventy-one judges are required. (It does not list these other requirements. Why?)

וי"ל דהתם לא חשיב אלא מילי דסנהדרין

(b) Answer: The Mishnah there only discusses the amounts of judges (required for all of the topics in the Mishnah).

ותדע דתנן נמי התם אין מוציאין למלחמת הרשות אלא בב"ד של ע"א ולא תני מלך ויועץ ואורים ותומים אע"ג דבעינן להו כדמסיק התם בגמרא (דף טז.) מקרא

(c) Proof: This is evident from the statement of the Mishnah in Sanhedrin (20b) that we do not go out to wage a Milchamas ha'Reshus without a Beis Din of seventy-one judges. The Mishnah does not say a king, adviser, and Urim v'Tumim are required even though they indeed are, as the Gemara concludes there (16a) by deducing so from a Pasuk. (Here, too, it is just mentioning an amount of judges.)

ואם תאמר הדתנן התם אין דנין לא את השבט כו' ומוקי לה עולא בגמ' (שם) בבאין על עסקי נחלות כתחלתו מה תחלתו בע"א כו' אי מה תחלתו בקלפי ואורים ותומים וכל ישראל וכו' ומאי קושיא אה"נ דניבעי אורים ותומים וכל ישראל והא דלא חשיב להו התם במתני' (דף ב.) משום דלא איירי אלא במילי דסנהדרין

(d) Question: The Mishnah states there that we do not judge a tribe etc. Ula explains in the Gemara there (16a) that the case is when they are complaining about their portion of inheritance in Eretz Yisrael. Just as the original division of Eretz Yisrael was done with a lottery, Urim v'Tumim, and all of Bnei Yisrae, so too etc. What is Ula's question? Perhaps we indeed require the Urim v'Tumim and all of Bnei Yisrael! Perhaps the Mishnah merely omits this fact because it is only discussing an amount of judges (not everything needed for the case, as we have explained above).

ויש לומר מדכייל להו בהדי נביא השקר וכהן גדול משמע ליה דלא בעינן אלא ע"א דומיא דידהו

(e) Answer: It is possible that being that the Mishnah includes this case with cases such as judging a false prophet and a Kohen Gadol (who sins), the implication is that only seventy-one judges are required like these other cases.

מאי אמרת דשבק למיתני אורים ותומים משום דלא איירי אלא במילי דסנהדרין אם כן ליתנינהו באפי נפשייהו דלא אתו למיטעי לשוינהו כנביא השקר

1. Will you say that the Mishnah did not say anything about the Urim v'Tumim because it is only saying an amount of judges? If so, it should be stated on its own, in order that people should not mistakenly think that it has the exact same law as judging a false prophet (and that the Urim v'Tumim is not necessary in this case).


תוספות ד"ה וכן

(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks more questions about having seventy-one judges.)

פירש בקונטרס ובימי משה דהוא מלך ונביא ואחיו כהן גדול ואורים ותומים

(a) Explanation: Rashi explains that in the time of Moshe Rabeinu, he had the law of being a king and a prophet, his brother was a Kohen Gadol, and he had the Urim v'Tumim.

ותימה אם כן בפ"ק דסנהדרין (דף טז:) בהעמדת סנהדרין לשבטים דילפינן ממשה דבמקום ע"א הוה קאי ליבעי נמי מלך ונביא

(b) Question #1: If so, in Sanhedrin (16b) when the Gemara discusses making a Sanhedrin (of seventy-one) for the tribes, derived from the fact that Moshe is in place of seventy-one judges, we should also require a king and prophet!

ועוד אע"ג דאהרן היה בבנין משכן וכי נשאלו באורים ותומים לעשות משכן הלא קודם שנתכהן אהרן על ידי המלואים נעשה המשכן

(c) Question #2: Additionally, even though Aharon was involved in the building of the Mishkan, did they ask the Urim v'Tumim whether or not they should build the Mishkan? The Mishkan was commanded to be made before Aharon became the Kohen during the days of the inauguration of the Mishkan!

וקושיא ראשונה יש לתרץ דהכא מרבינן טפי משום דכתיב וכן תעשו דמשמע דאתא לרבויי כל הנך

(d) Answer: We can answer the first question by saying that we include more regarding the building of the Mishkan than regarding a Beis Din for the tribes because the Pasuk says, "And so you should do," implying that it includes all of these things (Urim v'Tumim etc.).

וא"ת כלים נמי ניבעו ע"א וכי תימא הכתוב תלאן בשירות דאין צריך אלא שירות הא בסמוך משמע דאי לאו אותם הוה אמינא דבעי משיחה ועבודה ואם כן השתא דכתב אותם למעוטי משיחה ע"א מיהא לא נימעוט

(e) Question: Vessels should also require seventy-one judges! If you will say that the Pasuk states that all they need is to be used for service and they automatically become holy, the Gemara later implies that without the Pasuk, "Osam" I would think that they require both anointing and service. (This does not have to do with including or excluding seventy-one judges.) If so, the Pasuk only excludes anointing. However, seventy-one judges should still be necessary!

וי"ל דאתא אותם לגלויי דוכן תעשו לא קאי אכלים ולא בעינן בהן לדורות דומיא דמשה

(f) Answer: It is possible to answer that "Osam" reveals that "And so they should do" is not referring to vessels, and we therefore do not require in the future that vessels used in the service of the Beis Hamikdash should be made holy like those of the Mishkan.


תוספות ד"ה מתיב

(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks why Rava did not ask from the Mishkan itself.)

תימה ממשכן גופיה ה"ל למיפרך שיהא צריך משיחה לדורות כמו שנמשח בימי משה כדכתיב בקרא [ו]כדאמר לקמן (דף טז:) גבי משכן ומקדש

(a) Question: This is difficult. It should have asked that the Mishkan itself should always require anointing just as it was anointed in the time of Moshe Rabeinu. This is as stated in the Pasuk, and as is mentioned later (16b) regarding the Mishkan and Beis Hamikdash!


תוספות ד"ה

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara does not ask that in the future anointing and service should be required.)

הכא לא בעי למיפרך לדורות במשיחה ובעבודה כדקאמר בסמוך דאותם משמע למעוטי משיחה לדורות

(a) Explanation: The Gemara here does not want to ask that for future generations anointing and service should be required, as the Gemara says later that "Osam" implies that we exclude anointing for future generations. (See Tosfos ha'Rosh for added explanation.)


תוספות ד"ה

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that bigger is better, but unnecessary.)

אע"ג דאמר (יומא דף לד:) האחד המיוחד שבעדרו וגבי פרה אדומה נמי אמרינן (לעיל דף יא:) שאם מצא נאה הימנה מצוה לפדות

(a) Implied Question: This is despite the fact that the Gemara in Yoma (37b) says "ha'Echad" implying "the special one in his flock." The Gemara similarly says earlier (11b) regarding the Parah Adumah that if a nicer one is found, he should redeem the one that was previously designated to be the Parah Adumah. (How does this fit with our Gemara's rule of Echad ha'Marbeh etc.?)

מ"מ לא היה לו להתפאר בכך כיון שמצוה בזה כמו בזה אם מתכוין לשם שמים

(b) Answer: Even so, they should not be praised for being so big, being that the Mitzvah can be fulfilled with something small as well as something big as long as the intent of the Mitzvah is for the sake of Heaven.


תוספות ד"ה אין

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how this can be a requirement if there is not yet an Azarah.)

תימה למאן דאמר בפ"ב [דזבחים] (דף קיג. ושם) דאין מנחה בבמה היאך מתקדשת בשלמא בימי עזרא איכא למימר דסבר כמ"ד קדושה ראשונה קידשה לשעתה וקידשה לעתיד לבא ועזרא זכר בעלמא הוא דעבד אבל בימי שלמה ויהושע קשיא

(a) Question: This is difficult. According to the opinion in Zevachim (113a) that there is no Minchah brought on a Bamah, how can the Azarah become holy? It is understandable that this opinion understands that Ezra held like the opinion that the original holiness is present forever. Therefore, Ezra only made a rememberance (when he helped rebuild and sanctify the Beis Hamikdash). However, in the days of Shelomo and Yehoshua, this is difficult. (How did they sanctify the Azarah without being able to bring a Minchah?)

וכ"ת דקדשה במנחת העומר והא בסוכות היה הקידוש בימי שלמה כדאמר במועד קטן (דף ט.) וכדמוכחי קראי

1. If you will say that they sanctified it through the Minchas ha'Omer (brought on Pesach), this cannot be, as Shelomo sanctified the Beis Hamikdash during Sukos. This is clearly stated in Moed Katan (9a) and is apparent from the Pesukim!

ויש לומר כיון שהכל בא בבת אחת הקידוש ועשיית מנחה לא חשבינן מנחה בבמה ובקמיצה ובהקטרה היתה מקומה מתקדש וכל העבודה היתה מחנכתה ומתקדש מקומה

(b) Answer #1: It is possible to answer that being that everything happens at once, the sanctification and bringing of the Korban Minchah, it is not considered that the Minchah is brought on a Bamah. When the Kemitzah and burning are done, the place where it is done becomes holy. All of this service would inaugurate the Azarah and make the place holy.

א"נ כיון דלא אפשר לא צריך והא דקאמר הכא דאין מתקדשת היינו היכא דאפשר כגון שבאין להוסיף על העזרה

(c) Answer #2: Alternatively, being that it is not possible, it is not necessary. Our Mishnah only says that it is not holy without this in a case where it is possible to do this, meaning in a case where one is coming to add to the already existing Azarah.


תוספות ד"ה ויוצא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that these criteria do not apply to Har ha'Bayis or Batei Arei Chomah.)

ואם תאמר הר הבית היכי קדיש שאין דבר נאכל בו שיוצא ממנו נפסל ויש לו קדושה בפני עצמו שהוא מחנה לויה

(a) Question: How, then, can Har ha'Bayis become holy? There is nothing that is eaten in it that becomes invalid if it leaves Har ha'Bayis! However, it has its own holiness, as it is the camp of the Levi'im.

וכן בתי ערי חומה דמוכח לקמן (דף טז.) שנתקדשו והא אין דבר שנפסל ביוצא

1. Similarly, it is clear from the Gemara later (16a) that Batei Arei Chomah are made holy. However, nothing becomes invalid if it leaves the Batei Arei Chomah. (Accordingly, how can this be the criteria for making areas holy?)

ויש לומר היכא דלא אפשר לא אפשר כדמוכח בשמעתא

(b) Answer: It is possible to answer that wherever this does not apply, these must not be the criteria, as is apparent from our Gemara.


תוספות ד"ה בשחיטת

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that there would even be a difficulty according to the opinion that they become holy by being baked.)

ולמאן דאמר תנור מקדש נמי לא מצי אפי להו מאתמול דלא ליפסלו בלינה ופלוגתא היא בפרק שתי הלחם (מנחות דף צה:)

(a) Observation: According to the opinion that the oven makes the bread holy he still cannot bake the bread the day before, in order that it should not become invalid through Linah. This is an argument in Menachos (95b).



תוספות ד"ה אין בנין

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that people cannot build the Beis Hamikdash at night or on Yom Tov.)

וכן אינו דוחה יום טוב

(a) Explanation: Similarly, building the Beis Hamikdash does not push aside Yom Tov.

ואם תאמר בר"ה פרק יום טוב (דף ל.) גבי הדתנן יום הנף כולו אסור קאמר התם דאיבני בלילה דאיבני בחמיסר

(b) Question: In Rosh Hashanah (30a), regarding the Mishnah that says that one is forbidden to eat grain the entire day that the Omer is supposed to be brought, the Gemara says that it could be built at night or on the fifteenth (of Nisan, meaning Yom Tov). (This is seemingly unlike our Gemara!)

ויש לומר דהיינו בית המקדש דלעתיד שהוא עשוי מאליו בידי שמים כדכתיב (שמות טו) מקדש ה' כוננו ידיך וכן מפרש במדרש תנחומא

(c) Answer: It is possible to answer that this is referring to the Beis Hamikdash that in the future will be built on its own by Hash-m. This is as the Pasuk says, "The Mikdash of Hash-m, Your hands have built." This is also explained in the Medrash Tanchuma.


תוספות ד"ה עד כי

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the last Pasuk said is "Ki Atah etc.")

דכתיב לעיל מיניה ושלומת רשעים תראה דמשתעי באויבים שהיו מצירין להם בשעת הבנין אבל משם ואילך לא משתעי בהכי

(a) Explanation: Earlier, the Pasuk states, "And you will see the payback for the evildoers." This is referring to the enemies that would bother them when they were trying to build the Beis Hamikdash. However, the Pesukim after this Pasuk ("Ki Atah etc.") do not talk about this anymore. (This is why it is only until "Ki Atah Hash-m.")


תוספות ד"ה אסור

(SUMMARY: Tosfos says that one may do so if his life is in danger.)

והדאמר במסכת שבת (דף סז.) לאישתא בת יומא לימא הכי וירא מלאך ה' אליו וגו'

(a) Implied Question: The Gemara says in Shabbos that to cure a persistent fever one should say, "And the Malach of Hash-m appeared before him etc." (This shows that we do allow people to cure themselves with Divrei Torah!)

סכנתא שאני

(b) Answer: If one's life is in danger, the law is different.


תוספות ד"ה אמטו להכי

(SUMMARY: Rashi and Tosfos argue whether the animals walked inside or outside the walls of the Azarah.)

לעיל פירש בקונטרס ואעמידה שתי תודות גדולות אצל החומה מבחוץ

(a) Opinion #1: Earlier (15a), Rashi explained that the Pasuk, "And I will place two large Todos" is talking about placing them outside [near] the wall.

וקשיא אם כן פנימית אמאי נאכלת והא נפסלה ביוצא דלא מצינו שיהא קדוש חוץ לחומה ובפרק בתרא דמכות (דף יט:) נמי אמר במעשר שני טהור שפודין אותו בפסיעה אחת חוץ לחומה

(b) Question: This is difficult. If so, why is the inner Todah eaten? It should be invalid because it is outside the wall, as we have never found a Korban that is holy outside the walls of the Beis Hamikdash! In Makos (19b), the Gemara also discusses Ma'aser Sheini that is pure, and is redeemed one step outside of the wall (once it is in Yerushalayim, it cannot be redeemed).

ונראה דבפנים היו מהלכין

(c) Opinion #2: It appears that they would go inside the walls.

ואע"ג דקרי פנימה להך דלהדי חומה ולפי זה היא יותר חיצונה שהיא כלפי חוץ לעיר

(d) Implied Question: This is despite the fact that the animal close to the wall was called the inner Todah, while it was actually closer to being outside towards the city. (How, then, can this be called the inner Todah?)

מכל מקום קרי לה פנימה לפי שיש דבר אצלה

(e) Answer: Even so it was called the inner Todah, as there was something else next to it (and the wall was on the other side).

והדתנן בפ' כיצד צולין (פסחים פה: ושם) החלונות ועובי החומה כלפנים

(f) Implied Question: The Mishnah says in Pesachim (85b) that the windows and the thickness of the walls are considered like the inside. (According to Tosfos that the animals walked inside, and the windows and walls were already holy, how did this create a new holy area? According to Rashi that they walked outside the walls this is clearly not difficult, as they walked where they established the new holiness.)

אע"פ שהלכו מבפנים היה מתקדש כל מה שהיה בלבם לקדש דלא אפשר לילך בענין אחר

(g) Answer #1: Even though they walked inside, whatever area they wanted to become holy became holy, as it is not possible to have the animals walk outside (as they would become unfit to be brought as Korbanos according to Tosfos).

ועוד דמסקינן התם דוקא בשוה לקרקע ולשם היה אפשר להלך

(h) Answer #2: Additionally, the Gemara concludes there that only the area that was on ground level (of the Beis Hamikdash) was holy. It was therefore possible for the animals to make areas that were not on the same level holy. (The Gemara in Pesachim (86a) discusses roofs of underground chambers that were not on the same ground level as the Azarah, and were therefore not holy despite the fact that they were within the confines of the Azarah.)


תוספות ד"ה דקדשה

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the animal is considered out of the Azarah.)

ואם תאמר אדרבה ראשונה נמי תאכל דכל זמן שלא קידשה העיר אף על פי שקדשה העזרה נאכלין קדשים בכל הרואה כדתנן בפרק בתרא דזבחים (דף קיב:) בשילה ונוב וגבעון שנאכלין בכל הרואה לפי שאין חומת העיר קדושה

(a) Question: On the contrary, the first one should also be eaten! As long as the city did not become holy, even though the Azarah became holy, Kodshim can be eaten as far as one can see the Mishkan! This is as stated in Zevachim (112b) that in Shiloh, Nov, and Givon the Korbanos can be eaten as long as one can see the Mishkan, as the wall of the city is not holy. (Accordingly, the only amount that currently exists is seeing the Mishkan.)

ויש לומר דמכיון שהלכה התודה כל שהוא הויא לה יוצא במקום שמהלכת

(b) Answer: It is possible to answer that once the Todah walks a little bit it is considered to have left the area that was now made holy.