1)

TOSFOS DH Amar Shmuel Ha Mani R. Eliezer Hi

úåñôåú ã"ä àîø ùîåàì äà îðé ø' àìéòæø äéà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that this is unlike R. Yirmeyah.)

åñáø ìä ëääåà úðà ãàîø áøéù ä÷åîõ øáä (îðçåú ãó éæ.) ãìø' àìéòæø äåé áëøú

(a)

Explanation: [Shmuel] holds like the Tana who says in Menachos (17a) that according to R. Eliezer, there is Kares (for intent Chutz li'Zmano to eat something proper for the Mizbe'ach, or to burn on the Mizbe'ach something proper for people);

åìà ñáø ìä ëøáé éøîéä ãîå÷é áñåó ôéø÷éï (ãó ìà:) ñéôà ëøáé àìéòæø ãìà úé÷ùé øéùà åñéôà ëø' àìéòæø åîöéòúà ëøáðï

1.

He argues with R. Yirmeyah, who establishes below (31b) the Seifa like R. Eliezer, lest it be difficult that the Reisha and Seifa are like R. Eliezer, and the middle clause like Rabanan.

åà''ú ìøáé àìéòæø îàé àéøéà òåø äàìéä àôéìå àìéä ðîé

(b)

Question: According to R. Eliezer, why do we discuss [intent to eat] skin of the tail? [The same applies] even to the tail!

åàé ìàùîåòéðï òåø äàìéä ëáùø

1.

Suggestion: It is to teach that skin of the tail is like meat.

úðéðà åàìå ùòåøåúéäï ëáùøï ëãôøéê áñîåê

2.

Rejection: [Another] Mishnah teaches this! "Skin of the following is like their meat", like it asks below!

åé''ì ëéåï ãòé÷øä àúà ìàùîåòéðï ëø' àìéòæø àéï ìçåù àé àâá àåøçéä àùîåòéðï ãòåø ëáùø àò''â ãúðéðà

(c)

Answer: Since it primary comes to teach like R. Eliezer, we should not be concerned if in passing it teaches about skin of the tail, even though [another] Mishnah teaches this.

ãàùëçï áùîòúà ÷îééúà ãáøëåú (ãó á.) ãôøéê åìéúðé öàú äëåëáéí åîùðé îéìúà àâá àåøçéä ÷î''ì ãëôøä ìà îòëáà àò''â ãúðéðà áîñëú ðâòéí (ô' é''ã î''â) äòøéá ùîùå àåëì áúøåîä äáéà ëôøúå àåëì á÷ãùéí

(d)

Support: We find in Brachos (2a) that it asks "[the Tana] should teach 'Tzeis ha'Kochavim'!" (Why did he say 'when Kohanim eat Terumah'?) It answers that in passing, he teaches that (for a Mechusar Kipurim, bringing) Kaparah is not Me'akev [eating Terumah], even though [another] Mishnah teaches this in Nega'im (14:3) "after Ha'arev Shemesh, he may eat Terumah. After he brings his Kaparah, he may eat Kodshim."

2)

TOSFOS DH Tanina Elu she'Oroseihen ki'Vsaran

úåñôåú ã"ä úðéðà àìå ùòåøåúéäï ëáùøï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos questions why we call this obvious.)

ä÷ùä ä''ø éò÷á îàåøìééðù èåáà ÷î''ì

(a)

Question #1 (Ri of Orlins): [Our Mishnah] teaches very much!

ãáô' äòåø åäøåèá (çåìéï ãó ÷ëá:) àîøéðï àì ú÷ðéèðé ùáìùåï éçéã àðé ùåðä àåúä âáé òåø äøàù ùì òâì äøê ãôìéâé øáðï îùåí ãñåôå ìä÷ùåú åòåø äàìéä äåé ìë''ò ëáùø

1.

In Chulin (122b), we say "do not anger me. I learn that an individual taught [the Mishnah]" regarding the skin of the head of a young calf, for Rabanan argue, because in the end it will get hard. [Our Mishnah teaches that] all agree that skin of the tail is like meat!

åòåã ÷ùä äéëé ãéé÷ îòåø äøàù ãéçéãàä äéà îáøééúà ãàìòæø áï éäåãä

(b)

Question #2: How did [R. Yochanan, in Chulin 122b] infer from "skin of the head" that an individual taught [the Mishnah], from the Beraisa of Eliezer ben Yehudah?

äà ÷çùéá òåø äàìéä åôùéèà ìï îãôøéê úðéðà (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí) ãäåé ìëåìé òìîà ëáùø

1.

[That Beraisa] lists skin of the tail, and it is obvious to us that all agree that it is like meat, since [the Gemara] asks "[another] Mishnah teaches this!" (Just like Eliezer taught this, even though all agree to it, perhaps all agree also about skin of the head, which he taught! Tosfos equates skin of the tail taught here to skin under the tail taught there. Alternatively, his text was the same in both places.)

3)

TOSFOS DH Lehavi Ohr Shel Beis ha'Boshes

úåñôåú ã"ä ìäáéà òåø ùì áéú äáåùú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses whether this is the only matter included.)

ôé' á÷åðèøñ åæä ìáãå éù ìê òåã ìäáéà àöì ÷ãùéí îëì äùðåéí ùí

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): ["Everything that Chachamim listed"] includes only skin of Beis ha'Boshes (a female's Ervah) for Kodshim, from everything taught there.

åúéîä äà àéëà ðîé òåø äùìéì åôé' á÷åðèøñ áçåìéï (ãó ðå.) ãìà çùéá ùìéì îùåí ãàéðå ðåäâ áòåìä åúéîä åäøé çùéá (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí) áéú äáåùú ãàéï ðåäâ áòåìä

(b)

Question: There is also skin of a fetus, and Rashi explained in Chulin (56a) that it does not list a fetus because it does not apply to an Olah. This is astounding! It lists skin of Beis ha'Boshes for Kodshim, which does not apply to Olah!

åðøàä ãìà ÷úðé ùìéì îùåí ãàîø ôø÷ ëì äôñåìéï (ì÷îï ãó ìä.) ãôéâì áùìéì ìà ðúôâì äæáç

(c)

Explanation #2: It did not list a fetus because it says below (35a) that if one was Mefagel in the fetus, he was not Mefagel the Zevach (mother);

åìà ÷àîø ìäáéà àãáø ùàéðå ðåäâ ìâîøé àôéìå áùìîéí (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí) åîùåí ãîééøé áøééúà áòåìä ìà úðà áéú äáåùú áäãéà å÷àîø ìäáéà

1.

It says to include only something that totally does not apply even to Shelamim [in addition to Olah]. Because the Beraisa discusses an Olah, it did not teach explicitly skin of Beis ha'Boshes, and said "to include."

4)

TOSFOS DH Bishlama l'Rav Huna Hainu deka'Tani Olah

úåñôåú ã"ä áùìîà ìøá äåðà äééðå ã÷úðé òåìä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we do not challenge him from the Tosefta.)

úéîä ãáúåñôúà ÷úðé æáç

(a)

Question: The Tosefta teaches Zevach! (It is unlike Rav Huna.)

åé''ì ãøá äåðà äåä îå÷é ìä ëøáé àìéòæø ãàîø îçùáéï îàëéìú îæáç ìàãí

(b)

Answer: Rav Huna establishes it like R. Eliezer, who says that intent for a person [to eat] what the Mizbe'ach should consume takes effect.

5)

TOSFOS DH Ela l'Rav Chisda Mai Irya deka'Tani Olah Lisni Zevach

úåñôåú ã"ä àìà ìøá çñãà îàé àéøéà ã÷úðé òåìä ìéúðé æáç

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we challenge only Rav Chisda.)

ìùîåàì ìà î÷ùä ìîä ìé ìîéúðé òåìä ìéúðé æáç

(a)

Implied question: Why don't we challenge [also] Shmuel why it taught Olah, and not Zevach?

ãàé úðé æáç äåä îå÷îéðï ìéä ëøáé àìéòæø:

(b)

Answer: Had it taught Zevach, we would establish it like R. Eliezer.

28b----------------------------------------28b

6)

TOSFOS DH Mistabra Nosar Eis Lan Le'ukumi b'Kares...

úåñôåú ã"ä îñúáøà ðåúø àéú ìï ìàå÷åîé áëøú...

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses why it would be better to establish it like this.)

ôé' á÷åðèøñ àé îå÷îú ìéä ìäàé áðåúø àéëà ìîéìôéä ìâæéøä ùåä ùôéø ããîå àäããé áùðé ãáøéí äììå

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): If you establish [the short verse] regarding Nosar, we can properly learn [Chutz li'Zmano] from it through a Gezeirah Shavah, for they resemble each other in these two matters;

ùùðéäí ðôñìéí áæîï æä áæîï îîù åæä áîçùáú æîï åùðéäí ðåäâéï ááîä ëãúðï áô' áúøà (ì÷îï ãó ÷éâ.)

1.

Both of them are disqualified through time - [Nosar] truly through time, and [Chutz li'Zmano] through intent about [eating or Hakravah at an improper] time, and both of them apply to a Bamah, like it teaches below (113a).

åëé ôøëú åðéìó òåï òåï ãèåîàú áùø ãëúéá åðùà àäøï àú òåï ä÷ãùéí îä ìäìï ìàå åìà ëøú àó ëàï ìàå åìà ëøú

2.

Implied question: You can ask that we should learn [Chutz li'Zmano] "Avon-Avon" from eating Tamei [Kodesh] meat, that it is written "v'Nasa Aharon Es Avon ha'Kodoshim" - just like there it is a Lav without Kares, also here it is a Lav without Kares!

àîøéðï îðåúø äåä ìéä ìîéìó ããîé ìéä áæ''á

3.

Answer: We should learn from Nosar, which resembles [Chutz li'Zmano] regarding ZaV (an acronym for Zman (time) and Bamah);

àáì àé îå÷îú ìäàé ëøú ìçåõ ìî÷åîå ëé âîøú [ìéä] çåõ [ìæîðå] îéðéä áâæéøä ùåä åôøëú ìéä åðéìó òåï òåï îèåîàä

4.

However, if you establish this Kares for Chutz li'Mkomo, when you learn Chutz li'Zmano from it through a Gezeirah Shavah, and you challenge that we should learn "Avon-Avon" from Tum'ah (eating Tamei meat)...

ìéëà ìúøåöé îçåõ ìî÷åîå äåä ìéä ìîéìó ããîé [ìéä] áæ''á ãäà àéï ôñåìå (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) áæîï åàéðå ðåäâ ááîú éçéã ùàéï ùí îçéöåú (òã ëàï ìùåðå)

i.

We cannot answer that we should learn [Chutz li'Zmano] from Chutz li'Mkomo, for it resembles it regarding ZaV, for its (Chutz li'Mkomo's) Pesul is not through time, and it does not apply on an individual's Bamah, for there are no Mechitzos there!

åôéøåù æä úéîä âãåì ãîä ñáøà äéà æå åîðéï ìðå ãðå÷é ÷øà áðåúø ëãé ììîåã îîðå çåõ ìæîðå îòåï òåï åìà (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) ðìîåã îèåîàä

(b)

Objection #1: This Perush is greatly astounding! What is the logic? Why should we establish the verse to discuss Nosar, in order to learn from it Chutz li'Zmano through "Avon-Avon", and we will not learn from Tum'ah?!

åòåã äà ìòðéï áîä ùåä ðîé ðåúø ìèåîàú áùø ëãàîøéðï áñåó îëéìúéï (âí æä ùí) àáì äæîï (äâää áâìéåï) åäðåúø åäèîà ùåéï áæä åáæä (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú)

(c)

Objection #2: Regarding a Bamah, also Nosar is the same as Tum'ah of meat, like we say below (113a) "but time, Nosar and Tamei are the same on both of them."

åëï èîà ùùéîù ìéëà ìîéîø ãäåà ðîé ìà äåúø ááîä ëãàîø ìòéì îä ìäöã äùåä ùáäï ùëï ìà äåúøå ááîä

1.

Also a Tamei who served, we cannot say [that it is different regarding a Bamah], like it says above (16a) "you cannot learn from the Tzad ha'Shavah [of a Tamei and a Ba'al Mum], for they were not permitted on a Bamah."

åòåã ëùî÷ùä àãøáä çåõ ìî÷åîå äåä ìéä ìàå÷åîé ëå' ããîé áî÷ã''ù áìàå ãåîéà ãî÷ã''ù àéú ìï ìîéìó çåõ ìæîðå îçåõ ìî÷åîå èôé îèåîàä ëãàîøéðï áô' áéú ùîàé (ì÷îï ãó îä:) ùëï äåúø öéõ èäåø á÷øá (äâää áâìéåï)

(d)

Objection #3: When [the Gemara] asks "just the contrary, we should establish it to discuss Chutz li'Mkomo... which resembles [Chutz li'Zmano] regarding MiKDaSH", even without the resemblance of MiKDaSH, we should learn from Chutz li'Zmano from Chutz li'Mkomo more than from Tum'ah, like we say below (45b), due to Hutar, Tzitz, Tahor and b'Karev:

çåõ ìæîðå åçåõ ìî÷åîå ìà äåúøå îëììí åàéï öéõ îøöä åùðéäí èäåøéï åùðéäí [ìà] òùä ÷øá ëî÷øéá îä ùàéï ëï áèåîàä

1.

Chutz li'Zmano and Chutz li'Mkomo were not Hutru mi'Chlalam (these Isurim are never permitted). The Tzitz is not Meratzeh for them. Both of them are Tehorim, and we do not make the Karev (what is offered) like the Makriv (the one who offers it). These do not apply to Tum'ah;

ãîàé ãçåõ ìî÷åîå äåúø îëììå ááîä àéï æä ÷øåé äåúø îëììå

2.

This that Chutz li'Mkomo is totally permitted on a Bamah is not called Hutar mi'Chlalo (because the Isur does not apply there).

òì ëï ðøàä ìôøù ãâæéøä ùåä æå ðéúðä áñéðé ìîéìó òåï òåï äðê ÷øàé ãäëà æä îæä

(e)

Explanation #2: Therefore, we should explain that this Gezeirah Shavah was given at Sinai to learn from "Avon-Avon" between these two verses;

åìëê îñúáøà ìï ìàå÷åîé èôé áðåúø îáçåõ ìî÷åîå îùåí ããîé ìçåõ ìæîðå áæ''á

1.

Therefore, it is more reasonable for us to establish it to discuss Nosar than Chutz li'Mkomo, because it resembles Chutz li'Zmano regarding ZaV;

ãàéú ìï ìàå÷åîé ÷øà áîéìúà ùéäéå ãåîéï æä ìæä îä ùàðå ìîéãéï áâæéøä ùåä åìà îùåí ùìà ðìîåã îèåîàä ëãôéøù [øù''é]

i.

We should establish the verse for a matter so that what we learn from each other through the Gezeirah Shavah will resemble each other, and not so that we not learn from Tum'ah, like Rashi explained.

åôøéê àãøáä çåõ ìî÷åîå ãîé ìéä áî÷ã''ù

2.

[The Gemara] asks "just the contrary! Chutz li'Mkomo resembles [Chutz li'Zmano] regarding MiKDaSH."

åëé äàé âååðà äåéà ñåâéà ãìòéì áøéù ôéø÷éï (ãó éæ.) ãôñéì áúøåîä îçéì òáåãä ãìà ôñéì áúøåîä ìà îçéì òáåãä

i.

Support: The Sugya above (17a) is like this. One who disqualifies Terumah disqualifies Avodah, and one who does not disqualify Terumah does not disqualify Avodah.

ãîå÷îéðï ÷øà áããîé èôé ìâ''ù (ëï äåà áãôåñ éùï, ìùí æáç åáçæå"à)

3.

We establish the verse [to discuss] what resembles more [what we will learn from] the Gezeirah Shavah.

åà''ú (ëï äåà áãôåñ éùï, ìùí æáç åáçæå"à) èåîàú áùø úéäåé áëøú áâ''ù ãòåï òåï

(f)

Question: We should say that there is Kares for Tum'as Basar through the Gezeirah Shavah "Avon-Avon"!

åé''ì ãîîòè ìéä ÷øà îëøú ëãàîø ì÷îï ôø÷ á''ù (ãó îâ:) åèåîàúå òìéå îé ùèåîàúå ôåøçú îîðå (éåöà òìéå îâåôå) éöàú èåîàú áùø ùàéï èåîàä ôåøçú îîðå

(g)

Answer: The verse excludes it from Kares, like it says below (43b) "v'Tum'aso Alav" - one whose Tum'ah can leave him [through Tevilah]. This excludes Tum'as Basar, which does not leave it.

7)

TOSFOS DH v'Eifuch Ana

úåñôåú ã"ä åàéôåê àðà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos questions this Dichuy.)

úéîä äà ëúéá ÷øà ùìéùé åäà ãîå÷îéðï ìéä áçåõ ìî÷åîå áàí àéðå òðéï ìçåõ ìæîðå îå÷îéðï ìéä áçåõ ìî÷åîå

(a)

Question: The verse says "Shelishi", and we establish it to discuss Chutz li'Mkomo through Im Eino Inyan (if it need not teach) about Chutz li'Zmano, we establish it for Chutz li'Mkomo;

à''ë ÷øà ÷îà äééðå ÷øà àøéëà àéú ìï ìàå÷åîé áçåõ ìæîðå

1.

If so, the first verse, i.e. the long verse, we should establish for Chutz li'Zmano!

åãåç÷ ìåîø ãñáø äî÷ùä àéï îå÷ãí åîàåçø áúåøä

(b)

Poor answer: It is difficult to say that the Makshan holds that the Torah is not in order (we cannot say that one verse is before another).

8)

TOSFOS DH Mah Shelamim Mefaglin u'Mispaglin

úåñôåú ã"ä îä ùìîéí îôâìéï åîúôâìéï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that elsewhere we learn this from a different source.)

úéîä îäé÷éùà ãæàú äúåøä ðô÷à ìï ì÷îï áô' ãí çèàú (ãó öç.) åáîðçåú ôø÷ äúåãä (ãó ôâ.)

(a)

Question: Below (98a) and in Menachos (83a) we learn this from the Hekesh of Zos ha'Torah!

åëîä ãøùåú ãøùéðï îääåà äé÷éùà àò''â ãðô÷é î÷øàé àçøéðé:

(b)

Strengthening of question: We expound several Drashos from that Hekesh, even though we learn from other verses.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF