1)

TOSFOS DH MINAYIN L'MUKTZAH MIN HA'TORAH

úåñ' ã"ä îðéï ìîå÷öä (ùàñåø) îï äúåøä

(Summary: Tosfos presents the Havah Amina and the Maskana and elaborates.)

÷à ñì÷à ãòúê ãäëé ÷àîø - îðéï ùöøéê ìä÷öåú ä÷øáï ìùí ä÷øáä ìâáåä ÷åãí ää÷øáä ...

(a)

Clarification: The Gemara initially thinks that the question is from where we know that it is necessary to designate a Korban to bring to Gavohah (Hash-m) before actually offering it ...

åîñé÷ ã÷àîø îðéï ãàñåø ìä÷øéá àåúå ùäå÷öä ìòáåãú ëåëáéí.

1.

Clarification: But it concludes that what it means to ask is from where we know that it is forbidden to offer an animal that has been designated for Avodah Zarah.

å÷öú ÷ùä, ãäà ãøùéðï î÷øàé àçøéðé èåáà, åäéä ìå ìåîø 'äê úðà îééúé ìéä îäëà'.

(b)

Question: Since the Gemara has already learnt it from various other Pesukim, the Gemara ought to have stated that 'This Tana learns it from here'.

2)

TOSFOS DH ELA AD SHE'YA'AVDU

úåñ' ã"ä àìà òã ùéòáãå ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos cites two ways to explain this ruling, and discards the first.)

ôøù"é 'ùéòáãå áå ùåí òáåãä ìùí òáåãú ëåëáéí - àå îùéëú ÷øåï àå ùåí ãáø äàéñåø; àáì î÷îé äëé ìà îéúñøé.

(a)

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that 'they must perform with it some act for the sake of idolatry - either to pull a wagon or some other forbidden act; otherwise it is not Asur.

ì"à, òã ùéòáãå áå ùåí òáåãä ìöåøê äëåîøéí, àáì (àí) îùéòáãå áå ùåí òáåãä ìöåøê äëåîøéí ìà îéúñø ...

(b)

Explanation #2: Alternatively, it is only Asur until they perform with it some act on behalf of the priests, but once it does, it is no longer forbidden ...

ãúå ìà îé÷øáé. ëê ùîòúé.

1.

Reason: Because then, they no longer offer it. So I heard ...

åìùåï æä ðøàä ìé òé÷ø ...

(c)

Conclusion: And this explanation is the correct one ...

îãúðé 'àìà òã ùéòáãå áå ... ', åàé ëìéùðà ÷îà (ìà) äåä ìéä ìîéúðé 'àéï îå÷öä àñåø (àìà) òã ùéòáãå'.

1.

Proof: Since the Tana says 'Only until they work with it ... ', whereas according to the first explanation, he should rather have said 'Muktzah is not Asur until they work with it'.

åìùåï øàùåï ìà ùîòúé'. ì' øù"é.

2.

Proof (cont.): I did not hear the first explanation (from my Rebbes) - the above is the wording of Rashi.

3)

TOSFOS DH BASAH MI'KA'AN U'MI'KA'AN

úåñ' ã"ä áàúä îëàï åîëàï

(Summary: Tosfos explains the statement.)

ôéøåù áàúä îàøõ éùøàì åîááì äéä úìîéã çëí, åìà îäðéà æëåúà ãàøõ éùøàì.

(a)

Clarification: Basah became a Talmid-Chacham from Eretz Yisrael and from Bavel, and the merit of Eretz Yisrael did not help him.

4)

TOSFOS DH MINA HANI MILI SHE'MOSAR MUKTZAH V'NE'EVAD L'HEDYOT

úåñ' ã"ä îðà ä"î ùîåúø îå÷öä åðòáã ìäãéåè

(Summary: Tosfos explains the source of the Hava Amina and elaborates.)

úéîä, îäéëà úéúé ìàñåø ìäãéåè, ãäà àôé' ìâáåä ìà îéúñø àé ìàå äðé ÷øàé ãìòéì - ìäãéåè îäéëà úéúé ìàñåø?

(a)

Question: Why would we have thought that it is forbidden to a Hedyot, seeing as, were it not for the above-mentioned Pesukim, it would not even be forbidden to Gavohah - so why should it be forbidden to a Hedyot?

åàåîø ø"é, ãëéåï ãîôé÷ î÷øà ãàñåø ìâáåä, àó ìäãéåè ðéìó îéðä ãàñåø.

(b)

Answer: The Ri says that once we learn from a Pasuk that it is Asur to Gavohah, we will also learn from it that it is forbidden to a Hedyot.

åàé ÷ùéà, à"ë, îàé ÷à îùðé 'àé ñì÷à ãòúê àñåøéï ìäãéåè, ìîä ìé ÷øà ìîòåèé ìâáåä?' - äà ìà îéúñø ìäãéåè àìà î÷øà ãâáåä?

(c)

Question: In that case, how can the Gemara answer 'If you would have thought that they are Asur to a Hedyot, why do we need a Pasuk to preclude them from Gavohah?' - since they are only Asur to a Hedyot due the Pesukim by Gavohah?

åéù ìåîø, ãäëé ÷àîø - àé ñ"ã ãâîøéðï àéñåø ìäãéåè î÷øà ãùîòéðï îéðéä àéñåø ìâáåä, ìîä ìé ìîéëúáéä ìàéñåø âáé ÷øáðåú? ...

(d)

Answer: What the Gemara means is - If you would have thought that we learn the Isur by Hedyot from the Pasuk from which we learn the Isur of Gavohah, then why write the Isur by Korbanos? ...

ìëúáéä âáé äãéåè, åîîéìà éãòéðï ãàñåø ìâáåä ...

1.

Answer (cont.): Why not rather write it by Hedyot, and we will automatically know that it is Asur for Gavohah ...

"îîù÷ä éùøàì", 'îï äîåúø ìéùøàì'.

2.

Source: From "mi'Mashkeh Yisrael" - 'min ha'Mutar le'Yisrael'.

5)

TOSFOS DH ITZRICH

úåñ' ã"ä àéöèøéê

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the Tzerichusa and disagrees with Rashi's subsequent explanation.)

ëìåîø ìòåìí ùîòéðï "îîù÷ä éùøàì" àñåø ìâáåä, åàô"ä àéöèøéê ÷øà ìîòåèé èøôä - ìäéëà ãä÷ãéùä åàçø ëê ðèøôä.

(a)

Clarification: This means that, really we learn from "mi'Mashkeh Yisrael" that it is forbidden to Gavoha; nevertheless, we need a Pasuk to preclude a T'reifah - where one was Makdish it and then it became a T'reifah.

åôéøù øù"é 'àáì îå÷öä åðòáã úøé ÷øàé ìîä ìé, äøé ä÷ãéù åàç"ë ä÷öäå àå òáãå ìà îéúñø, ãìàå ãéãéä äåà, å"àéï àãí àåñø ãáø ùàéðå ùìå" '. òë"ì.

(b)

Refuted Explanation: Rashi explains 'Why do we need two Pesukim for 'Muktzah and Ne'evad? - seeing as if one was Makdish the animal and was then Makdish it or worshipped it, it does not become Asur, since it does not belong to him, and "One cannot render Asur something that is not his" (Until here are the words of Rashi).

åìà ðäéøà, ãäà áôø÷ éåöà ãåôï (ðãä îà.) âáé 'øåáò åðøáò', îöøéê ùúé ÷øàé, çã ìáäîú ÷ãùéí åçã ìáäîú çåìéï ...

(c)

Refutation: This is not correct however, because in Perek Yotzei Dofen (Nidah 41a), with regard to (prohibiting) a Rove'a and Nirva', the Gemara requires two Pesukim, one for an animal that is Kodshim, the other, for one that is Chulin ...

åîùëçú ìä á÷ãùéí ÷ìéí åàìéáà ãø' éåñé äâìéìé?

(d)

The case: And we find this by Kodshim Kalim, according to Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili.

ìëï ðøàä ìôøù ãëé ðîé ùééê ìåîø ëäàé âååðà áîå÷öä åðòáã, ðéçà - ãñåó ñåó îäàé ÷øà ã"îï äá÷ø" 'ìäåöéà äðòáã', ìà ùîòéðï îéòåèà ëé àí áçã âååðà ìäéëà ãðòáãä åàçø ëê ä÷ãéùä ...

(e)

Authentic Explanation: Even if it would be possible to apply the same thing to Muktzah and Ne'evad, there would e no problem - since when all's said and done, from the Pasuk "min ha'Bakar" 'to preclude 'Ne'evad' we would only preclude the one case where it was worshipped and he was then Makdish it ...

åàé ñ"ã ãàó ìäãéåè àñéøé, ðëúáéä âáé äãéåè, åìâáåä ùîòéðï ìéä ù"îîù÷ä éùøàì" ãàñåø áäê âååðà ...

1.

Authentic Explanation (cont.): And if one would think that it is also Asur to a Hedyot, it ought to write it by Hedyot, and it would automatically be forbidden by Gavohah from "mi'Mashkeh Yisrael" under the same circumstances ...

ãä"ð àîøé' áèøôä - ã"îîù÷ä éùøàì" ùîòéðï àéñåø áðèøôä åàç"ë ä÷ãéùä ìâáåä ...

(f)

Precedent: In the same way as we find regarding T'reifah - that from "mi'Mashkeh Yisrael" we learn the Isur by Gavohah where it became T'reifah and one was then Makdish it to Gavohah.

àìà ù"î îãëúéá áô' ÷øáðåú, ãìäãéåè ùøé.

(g)

Authentic Explanation (concl.): We therefore conclude that, since it writes it in the Parshah of Korbanos, it must be permitted to a Hedyot.

åáôø÷ éåöà ãåôï (ùí îà.) îöøéê ÷øà àçøéðà ìðòáã âåôéä ìâáåä, ìäéëà ãä÷ãéùå åàçø ëê ðòáã - ùàí òìä, éøã.

(h)

Conclusion: In Perek Yotzei Dofen (Ibid, 41a) the Gemara requires another Pasuk for Ne'evad la'Gavohah itself, to where one was Makdish it and then worshipped it - that if one brought it on the Mizbe'ach, one myust take it down again.

29b----------------------------------------29b

6)

TOSFOS DH K'GON D'KA'I B'CHATZEIRAH

úåñ' ã"ä ëâåï ã÷àé áçöéøä

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles this with the Sugya in Bava Kama and elaborates.)

äëà îùîò ãìà îöéðå àúðï ááà òìéä åàç"ë ðúï ìä àìà áëä"â ã÷àé áçöéøä, ùúäà çöéøä ÷åðä ìä áùòú áéàä ...

(a)

Implication: Here it implies that there we cannot find a case of Esnan where he has relations with her and then gives it to her, unless it is already standing in her Chatzer, in which case the Chatzer will acquire it on her behalf during the Bi'ah ...

åà"ë ÷ùéà äà ãàîø áîøåáä (á"÷ ò:) âáé 'àúðï àñøä úåøä åàôé' áà òì àîå' ...

(b)

Introduction to Question: In that case, there is a Kashya on the Sugya in 'Merubeh' (Bava Kama, Daf 70b), concerning 'the Torah forbade Esnan, even if one has relations with one's mother' ...

ã÷àîø òìä àò"â ãàé úáòà ìéä ÷îï ìãéðà, ìà à"ì "æéì äá ìä" - ùäøé îúçééá áðôùå äåà, î"î àé éäéá ìä, äåé àúðï ...

1.

Introduction to Question (cont.): On which the Gemara states that, even though if he were to claim it in Beis-Din, they would state 'Go and give it to her' - seeing as he is Chayav Misah, nevertheless in the event that he gives it to her, it is an Esnan ...

åëéåï ãìà îöéðå àúðï àìà ã÷àé áçöøä, åäéëé ùééê ìîéîø 'æéì äá ìä', äà úôñä áä?

(c)

Question: But since there is no case of Esnan unless it is standing in her Chatzer, how is it possible to say 'Go and give it to her', seeing as she already has it?

åôø"é ãëéåï ãàé ìà äåä îåçæ÷ áä, ìà àîø 'æéì äá ìä', àó òì âá [ãäùúà] ãîèòí çöøä äéà æåëä áä, ìà ÷øéðà ìéä àúðï àé ìàå èòîà ãîôøù äúí - 'ëéåï ã÷éäéá ìä îùåí ìöàú éãé ùîéí, äåé àúðï'.

(d)

Answer #1 The Ri therefore explains that since, if he would be Muchzak in the Esnan, we would not tell him to go and give it to her, even though she now acquires it via her Chatzer, we would not call it an Esnan, were it not on account of the reason the Gemara gives there - namely, 'Since he gives it to her in order to fulfill his moral obligation, it is an Esnan'.

åîåøé äøî"ø ôé' ãàéï àðå öøéëéï ìåîø ãáø æä - ãäà ãîå÷é ìéä äëà ã÷àé áçöéøä, äééðå îùåí ããçé÷ ìîöåà áà òìéä åàç"ë ðúï ìä ...

(e)

Refutation: Tosfos' Rebbe, ha'Rav Mordechai however, considers that answer superfluous - since the reason the Gemara here establishes it where it is standing in her Chatzer, is because it is seeking to find a case where he has relations with her before giving it to her ...

àáì ä÷ðä ìä ÷ðéï ñåãø 'ëùúéáòìé ìé, úé÷ðé ìéê èìä æä', áëì î÷åí ùäåà ÷ðåé.

(f)

Answer #2: But where he is Makneh to her with a Kinyan Sudar and states 'When you will have relations with me, you will acquire this lamb', wherever it is, she acquires it.

åáäëé, ðéçà ääéà ãîøåáä (âæ"ù) ã'àé úáòà ìéä ÷îï ìãéðà, ìà àîøéðï ìéä 'æéì äá ìä'.

(g)

Conclusion: And with this explanation, the Gemara in Merubeh (Ibid.) fits nicely, when it says that 'If she calls him to Beis-Din, we do not order him to go and give it to her'.

7)

TOSFOS DH V'RAVA AMAR ACHAS ZU V'ACHAS ZU ETNENAH ASUR V'KOHEN HA'BA ALEHAH LOKEH MISHUM ZONAH

úåñ' ã"ä åøáà àîø àçú æå åàçú æå àúððä àñåø åëäï äáà òìéä ìå÷ä îùåí æåðä

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles Rava with the Gemara in Sanhedrin and Abaye with the Mishnah in Yevamos.)

å÷ùéà, à"ë îä âæøå á"ã ùì çùîåðàé ãâæøå 'äáà òì äòåáãú ëåëáéí, çééá îùåí ðùâ"æ', äà àîø äëà ãòåáãú ëåëáéí æåðä ãàåøééúà äéà?

(a)

Question: If so, how will we explain the decree of the Beis-Din of the Chashmona'im, that 'Whoever has relations with a Nochris is guilty of 'Nashgaz' (Nidah, Shifchah, Goyah, Zonah), when it says here that a Nochris is a Zonah d'Oraysa?

åé"ì, ãøáà ñáéøà ìéä ëî"ã 'ðùâ"à', àáì îùåí æåðä ì÷é ãàåøééúà.

(b)

Answer: Rava concurs with the opinion that holds 'Nashga' (Nidah, Shifchah, Goyah, Ishus), but that he receives Malkos d'Oraysa because of Zonah.

åà"ú, ìàáéé ãàîø ëäï äáà òì äòåáãú ëåëáéí àéðå ìå÷ä îùåí æåðä, äà úðï áôø÷ äáà òì éáîúå (éáîåú ðè: åñà:) 'àéï æåðä àìà âéåøú åùðáòìä áòéìú æðåú', àìîà ãòåáãú ëåëáéí äéà æåðä?

(c)

Question: How will Abaye, who says that a Kohen who has relations with a Nochris does not receive Maloks because of Zonah, explain the Mishnah in Perek ha'Ba al Yevimto (Yevamos, Daf 59b & 61b) - 'Ein Zonah Ela Giyores ve'she'Niv'alah Be'ilas Z'nus', from which we see that a Nochris is a Zonah?

åé"ì, ãáðúâééøä åãàé äéà æåðä, àáì áòåãä òåáãú ëåëáéí ìà äåé æåðä.

(d)

Answer: When she has converted, she is definitely a Zonah, but not as long as she is a Nochris.

8)

TOSFOS DH GIRSA RISHONAH MEISEIVEI ACHAS ZONAH V'ACHYAS AVODAS KOCHAVIM

úåñ' ã"ä (âéøñà øàùåðä) îéúéáé àçú æåðä éùøàìéú åàçú æåðä òåáãú ëåëáéí

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the Sugya.)

÷ñ"ã ãä"÷ - 'àçú æåðä éùøàìéú' ëâåï ùðáòìä ìàçã îçééáé ëøéúåú ùäéúä æåðä ëáø, äåé àúðï ìëì àãí àôé' äéà ðùëøú òúä ìîåúø ìä ...

(a)

Explanation #1: The Gemara thinks that 'Achas Zonah Yisre'elis' means that a woman who had relations with one of the Chayvei K'risos, and was therefore already a Zonah, is now subject to Esnan even she is subsequently hire out to a man who is permitted to her ...

àé ðîé', æåðä ùäéúä îåô÷øú äåéà àúðï - åäééðå ëøáà åúéåáúà ãàáéé, ãéìéó "úåòáä" "úåòáä" ãàéï àúðï àìà ìòøéåú ùàéï ÷ãåùéï úåôñéï áä? ...

(b)

Explanation #2: Alternatively a Zonah who was Hefker is subject ah"to Esnan - which is like Rava, and a Kashya on Abaye, who learns from "To'evah" "To'evah" that Esnan only applies to Arayos on whom Kidushin does not take effect?

åîùðé 'ëé ÷úðé äà, áòøéåú ùàéï ÷ãåùéï úåôñéï áä', åôøéê 'äà ÷úðé ñéôà 'ëâåï àìîðä ìë"â ... , åäðé ÷ãåùéï úåôñéï áä', åîùðé 'äà îðé ø' àìòæø äéà ãàîø "ôðåé äáà òì äôðåéä òùàä æåðä" ' ...

(c)

Text of Sugya: And the Gemara answers that the Tana is indeed speaking about Arayos on whom Kidushin does not take effect; which it queries from the Seifa - 'Such as an Almanah to a Kohen Gadol ... ', on which Kidushin is effective', and it answers by establishing the Seifa like Rebbi Elazar, who says that 'Panuy ha'Ba al ha'Penuyah As'ah Zonah' ...

åìãéãéä äåé àúðï áëì äáòéìåú ùàéðå ìàùúå âîåøä - àáì ìøáðï ìòåìí àéîà ìê ãìà äåéà àúðï àìà îáéàä ãìà úôñé áä ÷ãåùéï.

(d)

Clarification: And according to him, Esnan is applicable to all Be'ilos that are performed not on one's wife - whereas the Rabbanan will hold that it is confined to a Bi'ah on which Kidushin does not take effect.

åö"ò îðà ìéä ìàáéé äà' ãìà éìéó øáé àìòæø "úåòáä" "úåòáä" - ìåîø ãìà äåéà àúðï àìà ìàåúï ùàéï ÷ãåùéï úåôñéï áä, ëîå ìøáðï?

(e)

Question: One needs to examine however, from where Abaye takes it that Rebbi Elazar does not learn "To'evah" "To'evah" - which teaches us that Esnan only applies to a Bi'ah on which Kidushin does not take effect - like the Rabbanan?

åéù ìåîø, ãëéåï ãàéú ìéä ìø' àìòæø ãëì áéàä äåéà æåðä, àìîà îçîéø äåà áæåðä éåúø îùàø úðàéí, äëà ðîé àîø ìâáé àúðï ãîçîéø éåúø îùàø úðàéí - åäåéà àúðï áëì áéàä åàôé' îôðåé ìôðåéä.

(f)

Answer: Since Rebbi Elazar maintains that every Bi'ah makes her a Zonah,from which we see that he is more Machmir on a Zonah than all the other Tana'im, so too, is he more Machmir than them regarding Esnan - and Esnan applies to any Bi'ah, even to a Panuy with a Penuyah.

åôøéê 'àé ø' àìòæø, îàé àéøéà àìîðä, ðéúðé ôðåéä?' åîùðé 'ñì÷à ãòúê àîéðà äåàéì åáðéï àá äåà, ìà ìéúñøå' ...

(g)

Text of Sugya: The Gemara then asks 'If it goes like Rebbi Elazar, then why mention an Almanah, why not a Penuyah?' And it answers 'We would otherwise have thought since it is a Binyan Av, it ought not to be Asur' ...

åôéøù øù"é 'äåàéì åáðéï àá äåà ììîåã ùàéï àúðï àñåø àìà áôðåé åôðåéä, àáì îàìîðä ìëäï âãåì ãàñåøä ìéä ëáø, ìà äåéà àúðï, ÷îùîò ìï'. æä ì' øù"é.

(h)

Refuted Explanation: Which Rashi explains to mean - that since we learn from a Binyan Av that the Isuris confined to a Panuy and a Penuyah, but to an Almanah, who is already forbidden to a Kohen Gadol beforehand, it will not be an Esnan (Until here are the words of Rashi).

å÷ùä ìäáéï.

(i)

Refutation: But this is difficult to understand. (continued on Daf 30a).

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF