ZEVACHIM 45 (14 Sivan) - Dedicated by Doug Rabin in memory of his mother, Leah Miriam bat Yisroel (Lucy) Rabin, in honor of her Yahrzeit.

1)

TOSFOS DH Hilchesa li'Meshicha

úåñôåú ã"ä äìëúà ìîùéçà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with places where we seem to give such rulings.)

ëé äàé âååðà ôøéê áøéù ã' îéúåú (ñðäãøéï ðà:)

(a)

Observation: We ask like this in Sanhedrin (51b).

åúéîä ãáøéù òùøä éåçñéï (÷ãåùéï òá:) à''ø éäåãä àîø øá äìëä ëøáé éåñé ãòúéãéï îîæøéï ìéèäø

(b)

Question: In Kidushin (72b), Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav that the Halachah follows R. Yosi, that Mamzerim will be permitted in the future [and we did not ask that this is not relevant now]!

åùîà ðô÷à îéðä òëùéå ùìà ìäøçé÷ îùôçåú ùàéðï éãåòåú

(c)

Answer #1: Perhaps it is relevant now, that we should not distance families that it is not known (whether their lineage is Kosher).

åá÷ãåùéï (ùí) ôéøùúé áîàé ôìéâé øáé éåñé åøáðï áîîæø éãåò àå áùàéï éãåò

1.

In Kidushin I explained whether R. Yosi and Rabanan argue about a known Mamzer or an unknown Mamzer. (This is not in our Tosfos there.)

åáô''÷ ãéåîà (ãó éâ.) ãôñé÷ ëø' éåñé øàùåï çåæø ìòáåãúå åùðé àéðå øàåé ëå'

(d)

Implied question: In Yoma (13a), we rule like R. Yosi, that (if a Kohen Gadol could not serve on Yom Kipur, and another substituted for him), the first returns to his Avodah, and the latter may not serve...!

ðô÷à îéðä òëùéå áðùéà àå øàù éùéáä àå ôøðñ ùðúîðä òì äöéáåø åòáø îçîú àåðñ åòáø äàåðñ

(e)

Answer #1: This is relevant now, to a Nasi, Rosh Yeshivah or leader that the Tzibur appointed, and he passed [from his position] due to Ones, and the Ones passed.

åáôø÷ àìå ãáøéí (ôñçéí ñè:) ãôñé÷ äìëä ëø''ò ãëì îìàëä ùàôùø ìòùåúä îòøá ùáú àéðä ãåçä àú äùáú ìòðéï ôñç

(f)

Implied question: In Pesachim (69b) we rule like R. Akiva regarding Korban Pesach that any Melachah that could be done before Shabbos does not override Shabbos!

ðô÷à îéðä áæîï äæä ìòðéï îéìä

(g)

Answer #1: This is relevant nowadays regarding Bris Milah.

åàò''â ãâáé îéìä ðîé ôñé÷ äëé áäãéà (áùáú ÷ìâ.)

1.

Implied question: Also regarding Milah, it explicitly rules like this in Shabbos (133a! Why must we rule about Pesach as well?)

î''î ìàìåîé ôñ÷à ãîéìä ôñ÷ ðîé âáé ôñç äëé

2.

Answer: To strengthen the ruling about Milah, we rule so also about Pesach.

åáô''÷ ãúòðéú (ãó ã:) ãôñé÷ øáé àìòæø äìëä ëø''â ãàîø áùáòä áîøçùåï åîå÷é ìä äúí áæîï ùáéú äî÷ãù ÷ééí

(h)

Implied question: In Ta'anis (4b), R. Elazar rules like R. Gamliel, who says that [we do not request rain until] the seventh of Cheshvan, and there we establish this while the Mikdash stands! (We wait two weeks after Sukos ends to allow Olei Regalim to return home before the rain.)

ðô÷à îéðä âí áæîï äæä ìáðé ááì ãàéú ìäå ôéøé áãáøà ëã÷àîø äúí äà ìï åäà ìäå

(i)

Answer #1: It is relevant also nowadays, for people in Bavel who have Peros in the field [until then, and rain would harm them], like it says there "this is for us (Bnei Bavel), and this is for them (Bnei Eretz Yisrael)."

åîéäå áñåó äúëìú (îðçåú ðá:) ÷ùä ãôñé÷ øáé éåçðï ëàáà éåñé áï ãåñúàé âáé çáéúé ë''â

(j)

Question: In Menachos (52b), R. Yochanan rules like Aba Yosi ben Dostai regarding Chavitei Kohen Gadol!

åðøàä ãøá éåñó ãå÷à ãàéú ìéä äëà åáñðäãøéï (ãó ðà:) ãàéï ìôñå÷ äìëúà ìîùéçà

(k)

Answer #1 (and Answer #2 to all of these questions): Only Rav Yosef holds here and in Sanhedrin (51b) that we should not rule about Halachos that will be relevant only in the days of Mashi'ach.

åä''ø çééí îôøù ãìà ôøéê äìëúà ìîùéçà àìà äéëà ãàéëà úøúé ùäåà ìîùéçà åâí òåùä àéñåø

(l)

Answer #2 (and Answer #3 to all of these questions): We ask [why do you rule about] Halachos [that will not apply until the days] of Mashi'ach only when there are two [shortcomings] - [it is not until] Mashi'ach, and also he transgresses;

ãìéëà ðô÷åúà áäìëúà àìà òì éãé àéñåø ìà ùééê ìôñå÷ ìîùéçà

1.

There is no relevance for such Halachos only through Isur. It is not applicable to rule about [such Halachos for the days of] Mashi'ach (for everyone will be Tzadikim then - Tosfos Yeshanim Yoma 13a.)

2)

TOSFOS DH veha'Shochtan b'Chutz Patur Divrei R. Shimon

úåñôåú ã"ä åäùåçèï áçåõ ôèåø ãáøé ø' ùîòåï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses why he needed to exempt them from Pigul, Nosar and Tamei.)

áâîøà ìà úðé ááøééúà ùåçè áçåõ åäëà ìà úðé úîåøä åðñëéí ãúðé ááøééúà åæä úéîä

(a)

Question: In the Gemara, in the Beraisa it does not teach Shechitah outside, and here it does not teach Temurah and Nesachim, which are taught in the Beraisa. This is astounding!

åà''ú àé ø''ù ñ''ì ëøáé àìéòæø ãàîø ôø÷ åàìå îðçåú (ãó òâ:) ãàéï òåáãé ëåëáéí îáéàéï àìà òåìåú à''ë îàé àéøéà ÷ãùé òåáãé ëåëáéí ãàéï çééáéï òìéäí îùåí ôéâåì ðåúø åèîà

(b)

Question: If R. Shimon holds like R. Eliezer, who says in Menachos (73b) that Nochrim offer only Olos, if so, why does it say that Kodshei Nochrim, one is not liable for them due to Pigul, Nosar and Tamei?

àôé' ãéùøàì ðîé ãäà ùîòéðï ìéä ìø''ù áñåó ãí ùçéèä (ëøéúåú ëâ:) ãàéï ôéâåì áòåìéï åàéï ðåúø áòåìéï

1.

The same applies to [such] Kodshim of Yisrael, for we know that R. Shimon holds in Kerisus (23b) that Pigul and Nosar do not apply to Olin (what should be offered on the Mizbe'ach)!

åö''ì ãñáø ìä ëø' éåñé äâìéìé ãîáéàéï àôéìå ùìîéí

(c)

Answer #1: We must say that he holds like R. Yosi ha'Gelili, that [Nochrim] may offer even Shelamim.

åòåã é''ì ãáëøéúåú (ãó éâ: åãó ëâ:) îåëç ãèòîà ãø''ù îùåí ãàéï àéñåø çì òì àéñåø

(d)

Answer #2: In Kerisus it is proven that R. Shimon's reason [why Pigul and Nosar do not apply to Olin] is because Ein Isur Chal Al Isur;

å÷ãùé òåáãé ëåëáéí ùøå îãàåøééúà ëãúðéà áâîøà ìà ðäðéï îãøáðï åìà îåòìéï ãâîø çè çè îúøåîä

1.

[One might have thought that they apply to Kodshei Nochrim, for] mid'Oraisa, Kodshei Nochrim are permitted, like a Beraisa in [our] Gemara teaches "one may not benefit mid'Rabanan, and Me'ilah does not apply", for we learn from a Gezeirah Shavah "Chet-Chet" from Terumah.

3)

TOSFOS DH Ro'eh Ani b'Chulan Lehachmir she'Ne'emar Bahen la'Shem

úåñôåú ã"ä øåàä àðé áëåìï ìäçîéø ùðàîø áäï ìä'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses whether Me'ilah of Kodshei Mizbe'ach is mid'Oraisa.)

ôé' á÷øà ãàéù àéù ãîøáéðï òåáãé ëåëáéí ùðåãøéï ëúéá ìä' ìîéîø ù÷ãùé (äâää áâìéåï) òåáãé ëåëáéí äí áëìì ÷ãùé ä'

(a)

Explanation: In the verse "Ish Ish", from which we include Nochrim, that they may vow [Korbanos], it is written "la'Shem" to teach that Kodshei Nochrim are included in "Kodshei Hash-m."

îùîò äëà ãàéëà îòéìä ãàåøééúà á÷ãùé îæáç

(b)

Inference: Here it connotes that mid'Oraisa, Me'ilah applies to Kodshei Mizbe'ach.

å÷ùä ãìà àéôøéê îäëà ìø' éðàé ãàîø áô' ÷ãùé îæáç (ãó èå.) áîòéìä ãàéï çééáéï îòéìä àìà òì ÷ãùé áã÷ äáéú ëãôøéê äúí åîùðé ëåìäå îãøáðï

(c)

Question #1: Why don't we ask from here against R. Yanai, who says in Me'ilah (15a) that one is liable for Me'ilah only for Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, like it asks there, and answers that in all [the places where it says that Me'ilah applies to Kodshei Mizbe'ach], it is mid'Rabanan?

åòåã úðï ô' àîøå ìå (ëøéúåú éâ:) éù àåëì àëéìä àçú åçééá òìéä àøáò çèàåú åàùí àçã

(d)

Question #2: A Mishnah in Kerisus (13b) says that for one act of eating [Kodshei Mizbe'ach], one can be liable four Chata'os and one Asham! (The Asham is for Me'ilah mid'Oraisa.)

åúå ãùéìäé ëì äáùø (çåìéï ãó ÷éæ.) àîø ø' éðàé âåôéä ëàùø éåøí åâå' îä ôø ëäï îùéç éù áå îòéìä àó ùìîéí éù áäï îòéìä

(e)

Question #3: In Chulin (117a), R. Yanai himself said "Ka'asher Yuram..." - just like Me'ilah applies to Par Kohen Mashi'ach, also Me'ilah applies to Shelamim!

åúå ãùéìäé úîåøä (ãó ìá:) à''ø éðàé âåôéä àéï îòéìä îôåøùú îï äúåøä àìà áòåìä áìáã ùðàîø ìä' ÷ãùéí äîéåçãéí ìä'

(f)

Question #4: In Temurah (32b), R. Yanai himself said that Me'ilah is explicit in the Torah only in Olah, for it says "la'Shem" - Kodshim special for Hash-m.

åé''ì àñîëúà ðéðäå

(g)

Answer #1: It is a mere Asmachta.

åòåã é''ì ãø' éðàé ìà àééøé àìà áãáø äðéúø ìèäåøéí àáì áàéîåøéí åòåìä ãäîòéìä ìà ô÷òä ôùéèà ãàéëà îòéìä ãàåøééúà

(h)

Answer #2: R. Yanai discusses only something permitted to Tehorim, but Eimurim and Olah, the Me'ilah is not uprooted [from them], obviously there is Me'ilah mid'Oraisa.

å÷ùä ìé òì æä àîàé ìà îùðé áîòéìä äëé ãëé ôøéê îèåáà ìéùðé (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) áàéîåøéí

(i)

Question: Why didn't it answer so in Me'ilah? When it asked many questions, it should have answered [that there is Me'ilah mid'Oraisa in the] Eimurim!

4)

TOSFOS DH v'Ein Osin Temurah d'Itkash l'Ma'aser Behemah

úåñôåú ã"ä åàéï òåùéï úîåøä ãàéú÷ù ìîòùø áäîä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos gives the source of the Hekesh.)

áôø÷ ÷îà ãúîåøä (ãó â.) ãøéù îãëúéá áøéù òðééðà ãáø àì áðé éùøàì àéù ëé éôìéà åâå'

(a)

Citation: In Temurah (3a) we expound from what it says at the beginning of the Parshah "Daber El Bnei Yisrael Ish Ki Yafli..."

5)

TOSFOS DH u'Ma'aser Behemah l'Ma'aser Degen

úåñôåú ã"ä åîòùø áäîä ìîòùø ãâï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that the Hekesh is only for one law.)

ááëåøåú (ãó ðâ:) àîøéðï ìà àéú÷ù àìà ìòðéï ùðä

(a)

Citation: In Bechoros (53b), we say that it is equated only regarding a year (each year is tithed by itself).

6)

TOSFOS DH Dumiya d'Terumah d'Kedisha Kedushas ha'Guf

úåñôåú ã"ä ãåîéà ãúøåîä ã÷ãéùà ÷ãåùú äâåó

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses whether or not we require Kedushas ha'Guf in other places.)

åà''ú àæäøä ìðäðä î÷ãùé áã÷ äáéú îðéï

(a)

Question: What is the source for a Lav against one who benefits from Kodshim of Bedek ha'Bayis?

ãúðï àìå äï äìå÷éï (îëåú éâ.) åçùéá ä÷ãù ùìà ðôãä îùîò ãáø ùéù ìå ôãéåï åäééðå ÷ãùé áãä''á

1.

A Mishnah in Makos (13a, about Aveiros for which one is lashed) lists Hekdesh that was not redeemed. This implies that Pidyon applies, i.e. Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis;

äà ìà éãòéðï àæäøä áîòéìä àìà îâæéøä ùåä ãçè çè îúøåîä ô' äðùøôéï (ñðäãøéï ôã.) åäàé úðà ìà éìéó àìà ãåîéà ãúøåîä

2.

We know a Lav for Me'ilah only from a Gezeirah Shavah "Chet-Chet" from Terumah, in Sanhedrin (84a), and this Tana learns only what resembles Terumah (Kedushas ha'Guf)!

åé''ì ãä÷ãù ùìà ðôãä ìà îééøé ááã÷ äáéú àìà á÷ãùé äîæáç ùäåîîå ãëéåï ãîòé÷øà äåä áäå îòéìä áùáéì ùäåîîå ìà ô÷òä äîòéìä

(b)

Answer: Hekdesh that was not redeemed does not discuss Bedek ha'Bayis, rather, Kodshei Mizbe'ach that became blemished. Since initially there was Me'ilah, Me'ilah is not uprooted due to the blemish.

åàëúé (îëàï îòîåã á) ÷ùä îäà ãéìôéðï áôø÷ çîéùé (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) ãîòéìä (ãó éç:) çè çè îúøåîä ìòðéï ôâí åðäðä áîòéìä åîîòèéðï (äâäú äøù"ù) áîçåáø ì÷ø÷ò åîçåáø äééðå ÷ãåùú ãîéí åìà âîøé îúøåîä

(c)

Question: Still, it is difficult from what we learn in Me'ilah (18b) "Chet-Chet" from Terumah regarding Pegam (decreasing the value) and benefit in Me'ilah, and we exclude what is attached to the ground. What is attached is [only] Kedushas Damim, and we do not learn from Terumah!

45b----------------------------------------45b

åé''ì ãäëà ãå÷à äåà ãáòéðï ãåîéà ãúøåîä îùåí ãëúéá ìä' ìøáåéé ãìà âîøéðï àìà ãåîéà ãúøåîä ã÷ãåùú äâåó

(d)

Answer #1: Only here we require similar to Terumah, because it says la'Shem to include, and we learn only similar to Terumah, which has Kedushas ha'Guf.

òåã éù ìåîø ãìøáðï àôé' áã÷ äáéú âîøéðï îúøåîä ìîòè òåáãé ëåëáéí áã''à ø' éåñé ÷àîø ìéä åìà âîø áã÷ äáéú îúøåîä

(e)

Answer #2: According to Rabanan, we learn even Bedek ha'Bayis from Terumah, to exclude [Kodshei] Nochrim. R. Yosi said "what is the case?", and he does not learn Bedek ha'Bayis from Terumah.

åëï ðøàä îãîééúé äù''ñ ø' éåñé àåîø áëåìï àðé øåàä ìäçîéø åëå' åîôøù î''è ãåîéà ãúøåîä ã÷ãåùú äâåó

(f)

Support: The Gemara brings "R. Yosi says, I see to be stringent about all of them..." and he explains "what is the reason? [We exclude Nochrim only regarding what is] similar to Terumah, which is Kedushas ha'Guf;

åä''÷ ùëì ÷ãùé òåáãé ëåëáéí àðé øåàä ìäçîéø îùåí ôéâåì ðåúø åèîà

1.

He means as follows. All Kodshei Nochrim, I see to be stringent about Pigul, Nosar and Tamei;

àáì îàé ãàîøéúå àéï îåòìéï äðé îéìé á÷ãùé äîæáç ãâîøéðï îúøåîä åàäðé ìä' (äâää áâìéåï îùéèä î÷åáöú) ãìà âîøéðï îúøåîä àìà îéãé ããîéà ìä àáì áã÷ äáéú ãìà ãîé ìä îåòìéï ëê ôéøù øáéðå

i.

However, what you say that Me'ilah does not apply - this is only for Kodshei Mizbe'ach, for we learn from Terumah, and "la'Shem" helps so that we learn from Terumah only what is similar to it, but Bedek ha'Bayis, which does not resemble it, Me'ilah applies. So Rabbeinu explained.

åä÷ùä ìå áðå ä''ø àìçðï ãáô''÷ ãòøëéï (ãó ä:) àîø àáéîé (äâää áâìéåï) åòøëå ðâðæ åôøéê à''ë ìà éîòìå áå àìîä úðéà àáì ÷ãùé áã÷ äáéú îåòìéï

(g)

Question (Rabbeinu's son, R. Elchanan): In Erchin (5b), Avimi said "[a Nochri's] Erech is buried", and [the Gemara] asks that if so, Me'ilah should not apply. Why does a Beraisa teach "but Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, Me'ilah applies"?

åìéùðé ääéà ø' éåñé àáì ìøáðï àéï îåòìéï

1.

It should answer that [the Beraisa] is R. Yosi, but Rabanan say that Me'ilah does not apply!

åé''ì ãùôéø îùðé äúí åë''æ äâéä øáéðå

(h)

Answer: [Rava] answered properly there. (Mid'Oraisa, a Nochri can be Ma'arich. Ezra decreed not to take their money, lest Yisraelim rely on Nochrim and slacken from contributing.) All this Rabbeinu corrected the text.

7)

TOSFOS DH Aval ha'Etzim veha'Levonah veha'Ketores Ein Bahem Mishum Tum'ah

úåñôåú ã"ä àáì äòöéí åäìáåðä åä÷èøú àéï áäí îùåí èåîàä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with R. Shimon's opinion that Ein Isur Chal Al Isur.)

åàí úàîø îàé àéøéà îùåí ãàéï ðàëìéï úéôå÷ ìéä ãàéï àéñåø èåîàä çì òìéäí ãäà éù áäï îòéìä

(a)

Question #1: Why must [R. Shimon] say because they are not eaten? He should know that the Isur of Tum'ah does not take effect on them, for Me'ilah applies to them;

åøáé ùîòåï äéà ãàîø (ëøéúåú ëâ:) àéï ôéâåì áòåìéï åàéï ðåúø áòåìéï ìôé ùàéï àéñåø çì òì àéñåø

1.

It is R. Shimon who said (Kerisus 23b) that Pigul and Nosar do not apply to Olin, because Ein Isur Chal Al Isur! (Likewise, the Isur Tum'ah does not take effect, since there is already Me'ilah.)

åòåã çèàåú äôðéîéåú àîàé öøéê ìîòåèéðäå îôéâåì ìø' ùîòåï åàîàé çééáéï òìéäí îùåí ðåúø åèîà åäà àéú áäå îòéìä åàéï àéñåø çì òì àéñåø

(b)

Question #2: According to R. Shimon, why must he exclude inner Chata'os from Pigul (above, 43a), and why is one liable for them for Nosar and Tamei? Me'ilah applies to them, and Ein Isur Chal Al Isur!

åîéäå áæä éù ìåîø ãîùëçú ìä ìàçø ùðéúê äáùø åòãééï øàåéä ìàëéìä

(c)

Answer #1: We can say that we find this after the meat melted, and it is still proper to eat;

ãúðï áîòéìä (ãó è.) ãîåòìéï áäï òã ùéúåê äáùø

1.

A Mishnah in Me'ilah teaches that Me'ilah applies until the meat melts.

åî''î ÷ùä îôéâåì ùäøé ô÷ò ôéâåìå îëé îùìä áå äàåø

(d)

Rebuttal #1: In any case Pigul is difficult (why does he need an exclusion), for Pigul was uprooted from when it caught fire!

åîòöéí (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) ÷ùä ãéù áäï îòéìä ìòåìí

(e)

Rebuttal #2: And it is difficult from wood, for Me'ilah always applies to it!

åé''ì ãúðà ãø' ùîòåï ãäëà ñáø ìéä ëääåà úðà ãøáé ùîòåï ãàîø äúí éù ôéâåì áòåìéï åéù ðåúø áòåìéï

(f)

Answer #2: The Tana (i.e. who taught the opinion) of R. Shimon here, he holds like the Tana of R. Shimon who said there that Pigul and Nosar apply to Olin.

åòåã é''ì ãîùëçú ìä ááú àçú ëâåï ùäáéà ùúé ùòøåú àçø ëê ëãàùëçï áéáîåú ôø÷ ã' àçéï (ãó ìâ.)

(g)

Answer #3: We find [that both Isurim could take effect] b'Bas Achas (when they came at once), e.g. he brought two hairs (became Bar Mitzvah) after (he became Tamei, or the Korban became Pigul or Nosar), like we find in Yevamos (33a, that Isurim that came one after the other, one who became Bar Mitzvah afterwards is liable for both, even according to the opinion that Ein Isur Chal Al Isur).

å÷ùä ÷öú äà ãàîø ô' ãí ùçéèä (ëøéúåú ëâ:) ìîàï ãàîø àéï àéñåø çì òì àéñåø ëì çìá îàé òáéã ìéä åîå÷é ìä áååìãé ÷ãùéí

(h)

Question: It says in Kerisus (23b), according to the opinion that Ein Isur Chal Al Isur, what does he learns from "Kol Chelev"? We establish it to discuss Vlados Kodshim;

ìå÷îé áäáéà ùúé ùòøåú àçø ëê ãäåä ìéä áú àçú

1.

We should establish it when he brought two hairs afterwards, for then the Isurim are b'Bas Achas!

åîéäå áìàå äëé ùôéø ÷îùðé

(i)

Answer: Without this answer, it answered properly.

åæä àéï ìä÷ùåú ìî''ã àéï àéñåø çì òì àéñåø á÷ãùéí ì''ì ÷øà áãí ìîòåèé îðåúø åèîà

(j)

Implied question: According to the opinion that Ein Isur Chal Al Isur in Kodshim, why do we need a verse about blood, to exclude it from Nosar and Tamei?

ãäà àéöèøéê ìäáéà ùúé ùòøåú àçø ëê ãäåé ëáú àçú ëãôøéùðà

(k)

Answer: We need it for when he brought two hairs afterwards, for then the Isurim are b'Bas Achas, like I explained.

åîéäå ìîàé ãáòé ìîéîøà áô' ã' àçéï (éáîåú ìâ.) ãø' ùîòåï àôé' áú àçú ìéú ìéä ÷ùä

(l)

Question: However, according to what the Gemara wanted to say in Yevamos (33a) that R. Shimon does not hold [that Isur Chal Al Isur] even b'Bas Achas, this is difficult.

8)

TOSFOS DH Talmud Lomar Asher Hem Makdishim Li

úåñôåú ã"ä úìîåã ìåîø àùø äí î÷ãéùéí ìé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with the Beraisa above.)

âáé èîà ëúéá åîøáé äëà îéðéä ëì ãáø

(a)

Explanation: This is written regarding a Tamei, and here we include from it everything.

åäà ãîééúé ìéä ááøééúà ãìòéì âáé ôéâåì

(b)

Implied question: This [verse] is brought in the Beraisa above (44a) regarding Pigul!

äééðå ãùééê èåîàä áòåôåú åîðçåú åäãø àúé ðåúø çéìåì çéìåì îèåîàä åôéâåì òåï òåï îðåúø

(c)

Answer: It teaches that Tum'ah (i.e. Chiyuv Kares for eating b'Tum'as ha'Guf) applies to birds and Menachos, and then we learn Nosar from Tum'ah through "Chilul-Chilul', and Pigul from Nosar through "Avon-Avon";

åìàçø ùøéáä äëúåá ëì ãáø îèåîàä çåæø åîîòè áôéâåì îëìì åôøè åëìì

1.

After the Torah included everything from Tum'ah, it returns to exclude Pigul from the Klal u'Ferat u'Chlal.

9)

TOSFOS DH Yesh Lo Matirin mishe'Yikrevu Matirin

úåñôåú ã"ä éù ìå îúéøéï îùé÷øáå îúéøéï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos brings the source for this.)

îëì èäåø éàëì áùø ãøùéðï ìéä áä÷åîõ øáä (îðçåú ëä:) åáñîåê àôøù (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú, öàï ÷ãùéí)

(a)

Explanation: We expound this from "Kol Tahor Yochal Basar" in Menachos (25b). I will explain this below (46b DH Achas).

10)

TOSFOS DH she'Chen Gezel

úåñôåú ã"ä ùëï âæì

(SUMMARY: Tosfos brings two opinions about this acronym.)

ôéøù''é ìî''ã äééðå çéìåì çéìåì

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): "Lamed" alludes to [the Gezeirah Shavah] "Chilul-Chilul."

å÷ùä òì æä áúø äëé ãôøéê àãøáä îôéâåì ðéìó ùëï äåúø åëå' àîàé ìà àîø âí ëï ùëï òåï îòåï

(b)

Question: After this, [the Gemara] asks "just the contrary, we should learn from Pigul, for [it is never] permitted..." Why didn't we say also [there is a Gezeirah Shavah] "Avon -Avon"?

åôø''ç ìî''ã ãâæì äééðå ëåìå ôéâåì ùééê áëì ä÷øáï àáì ðåúø åèåîàä ùééëé áçúéëä àçú:

(c)

Explanation #2 (R. Chananel): The "Lamed" of "Gezel" alludes to "Kulo". Pigul applies to the entire Korban, but Nosar and Tum'ah apply [even] to a piece.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF