1)

TOSFOS DH Lamah Li Lemichtav Saviv b'Olah Saviv b'Chatas...

úåñôåú ã"ä ìîä ìé ìîëúá ñáéá áòåìä ñáéá áçèàú...

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses which is extra.)

ñáéá áòåìä àéöèøéê ìëãàîø ìòéì éëåì éæø÷ðå æøé÷ä àçú ú''ì ñáéá

(a)

Implied question: We needed Saviv regarding Olah, like it says above (53b) 'one might have thought that one throws [Dam Olah] once - it says "Saviv"!'

àìà ñáéá ãçèàú ÷àîø ì''ì ãàøáò ÷øðåú ëúéá áéä

(b)

Answer #1: Rather, it asks why we need Saviv of Chatas. Four corners are written regarding it!

åîéäå ìøáé éùîòàì ÷ùä ãàéöèøéê ìâæéøä ùåä ãéìéó îéðéä ôéñå÷ ã' îúðåú áòåìä ëãàîø ìòéì

(c)

Question #1: This is difficult according to R. Yishmael. He needs the Gezeirah Shavah [Saviv-Saviv] to teach that Olah has four separate Matanos [just like Chatas], like it says above (53b)!

åòåã ìî''ã ìòéì (ãó ðâ.) áçèàú ðåúï àîä àéìê åàîä àéìê àéöèøéê áçèàú ñáéá ìâåôéä ùìà úàîø ãñâé áùúé îúðåú áøåç (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí) àçú áùúé ÷øðåú

(d)

Question #2: According to the opinion above (53a) that one puts Dam Chatas within an Amah of the edge here or here (on one of the two outer faces of the Keren), we need Saviv regarding Chatas for it itself, lest you say that one may put two Matanos on one side on two Keranos (e.g. he puts on the east side of the southeast and northeast corners)!

åùîà ñáéá ãòåìä äåà ãîééúé ãèåáà ñáéá ëúéá áòåìä áôøùú åé÷øà

(e)

Answer #2: Perhaps we discuss Saviv written regarding Olah. Saviv is written many times regarding Olah in Parshas Vayikra;

åòåã ãòåìä àúéà æøé÷ä æøé÷ä îùìîéí

1.

Also, we could learn [two Matanos that are four] for Olah from Shelamim!

2)

TOSFOS DH va'Ani Makisho l'Chazah v'Shok Shel Todah

úåñôåú ã"ä åàðé î÷éùå ìçæä åùå÷ ùì úåãä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this is because it is more stringent.)

îùåí ãìçåîøà î÷ùéðï:

(a)

Explanation: This is because we make a Hekesh in the stringent way.

3)

TOSFOS DH v'Chi Davar ha'Lamed b'Hekesh Chozer uMelamed b'Hekesh

úåñôåú ã"ä åëé ãáø äìîã áäé÷ù çåæø åîìîã áäé÷ù

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we do not equate Bechor to Eil Nazir.)

úéîä åð÷ùéä ìçæä åùå÷ ùì àéì ðæéø ãëúéá áäãéà åðàëì ìéåí åìéìä ëãîøáéðï ìòéì áôø÷ (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú, öàï ÷ãùéí) ëì äôñåìéï (ãó ìå.)

(a)

Question: We should make a Hekesh [of Bechor] to Chazah v'Shok of Eil Nazir, about which it says explicitly that it is eaten for one day and a night, like we include above (36a)!

åë''ú ãäàé ãîøáéðï îáùø æáç úåãú ùìîéå çùéá ä÷éùà

1.

Suggestion: This that we include [Eil Nazir] from "Besar Zevach Todas Shelamav" is considered a Hekesh (so it cannot teach through a Hekesh).

à''ë äéëé éìéó ìä îçèàú åàùí ãéìôéðï ðîé (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí) îääåà ÷øà åìòéì (ãó ð.) àéáòéà ìï àé ãáø äìîã áäé÷ù çåæø åîìîã ááðéï àá åìà àéôùéèà

2.

Rejection: If so, how does [R. Yosi ha'Gelili] learn [Bechor] from Chatas and Asham? He learns also [them] from that verse, and above (50a) we asked whether something learned from a Hekesh returns to teach through a Binyan Av, and it was not resolved!

åéù ìåîø ãîñúáøà ìà÷åùé ìúåãä ùðåäâú áëì áäîä ëáëåø (äâää áâìéåï, îùéèä î÷åáöú åöàï ÷ãùéí) åìà ìàéì ðæéø ãàéðå ðåäâ àìà áàéì

(b)

Answer #1: It is reasonable to equate to Todah, which applies to all [Tahor] Behemos, like Bechor, and not to Eil Nazir, which applies only to a ram.

à''ð ëùå÷ äéîéï ëúéá ááëåø (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí) åúåãä éìôé' îùìîéí ãëúéá áäå éîéï àáì àéì ðæéø ìà ëúéá áéä éîéï:

(c)

Answer #2: It is written about Bechor "k'Shol ha'Yamin", and Todah we learn from Shelamim, about which it says Yamin, but Yamin is not written regarding Eil Nazir.

57b----------------------------------------57b

4)

TOSFOS DH v'Iba'is Eima Chutz mi'Panim b'Chada Zimna Gamir

úåñôåú ã"ä åàéáòéú àéîà çåõ îôðéí áçãà æéîðà âîéø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos brings three explanations of this.)

ôéøù á÷åðèøñ ãëåìä îéìúà ãäéëì áòé ìîéìó îôðéí åàééãé ãðéúï äé÷ù ìãøåù áãáøéí äîôåøùéí áôðéí ëâåï ìîèä áôø åìîòìä áùòéø ðãøåù åìîã ááú àçú àó äìîã áôðéí áäé÷ù òîå

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): The entire matter of the Heichal we need to learn from inside. Since the Hekesh was given to be expounded for matters explicit inside, e.g. [Matanos Dam] below of the Par and above of the Sa'ir, we expound and learn with it at once even what is learned inside from a Hekesh.

åâáé äé÷ù ãìòéì ðîé àí äééðå öøéëéï ììîåã ìáëåø úðåôú çæä åùå÷ åæîï àëéìä åäå÷ù áëåø ìúåãä òöîä ììîåã ùúéäï îîðä îúåê ùúåãä îìîãú òìéå æîï àëéìä ãëúéá áä îìîãú òìéå ðîé çæä åùå÷ ùìîãúå áäé÷ù îùìîéí

1.

Also regarding the Hekesh above, if we would need to learn to Bechor Tenufah of Chazah v'Shok and the time it may be eaten, and Bechor was equated to Todah itself to learn both of them from it, since Todah teaches about the time to eat it, which is written regarding it, it would teach also about Chazah v'Shok, which was learned from a Hekesh from Shelamim.

àáì òëùéå ùìà äå÷ù ìúåãä àìà ìçæä åùå÷ åììîåã îîðå æîï àëéìä ìáãå àí àúä àåîø ìçæä åùå÷ ùì úåãä ä÷éùå äëúåá åäåà (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) òöîå ìà ìîãå áúåãä àìà áäé÷ù ò''ë ìùåï ä÷åðè'

2.

However, now that Bechor is equated to Todah only for Chazah v'Shok, and to learn only the time to eat, if you will say that the verse equated [Bechor] to Chazah v'Shok of Todah, and this itself is learned in Todah only from a Hekesh [it cannot teach through a Hekesh]. Until here is from Rashi.

å÷ùä ìôéøåùå îäà ãàîø ìòéì (ãó îè:) ãéåúøú åùúé äëìéåú ãòáåãú ëåëáéí äåé ãáø äìîã áäé÷ù åàéðå çåæø åîìîã áäé÷ù àò''â ãëúéáà ääéà äé÷ùà ìãáøéí ãëúéáé áôø äòìí âåôéä ëâåï äæàåú åëîä ãáøéí åìà àîøé' áçã æéîðà âîéø

(b)

Question #1: It says above (49b) that Yoseres ha'Kaved and the two kidneys of [Se'ir] Avodah Zarah, which is something that is learned from a Hekesh, and it does not return to teach through a Hekesh, even though that Hekesh is written for matters written in Par Helam Davar itself, such as Haza'os and several things. We do not say that we learn at once!

åòåã àîøé' ìòéì (ãó ðä.) ãìà éìôéðï æáçé ùìîé öéáåø ìöôåï îçèàú îùåí ãäåé ãáø äáà áäé÷ù åàéðå çåæø åîìîã áäé÷ù àó òì âá ãöøéëà ääéà éìôåúà ìîéìó ùäï ÷ãùé ÷ãùéí åðàëìéí ìæëøé ëäåðä ãëúéá áâåôéä (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú)

(c)

Question #2: We said above (55a) that we do not learn the north for Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur from Chatas, because it is something learned from a Hekesh, and it does not return to teach through a Hekesh, even though we need that Limud to learn that they are Kodshei Kodoshim and male Kohanim eat it, which is written in [Chatas] itself!

åúé' ø''é ãîàçú ìîòìä ãëúéá áùòéø éìéó áçåõ áéï áôø áéï áùòéø (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú)

(d)

Explanation #2 (Ri): We learn from one [Matanah] above written regarding Se'ir [Yom Kipur] to outside, both regarding the Par and Sa'ir;

åëï îùáò (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú, öàï ÷ãùéí) ãìîèä ãëúéáé áôø áôðéí éìôéðï (áéï) áçåõ áéï áôø [áéï] áùòéø ëìåîø áëì äáäîåú

1.

Similarly, from the seven [Matanos] below written about the Par inside, we learn to outside, both regarding the Par and Sa'ir, i.e. to all animals.

åøáéðå çððàì ôéøù áôø÷ äåöéàå ìå (éåîà ðæ.) áçãà æéîðà âîéø ãäëé (äâäú ø' àééæé÷ èéøðà) âîøéðï ùéäéå ëì òùéåúéå ùååú áéï áôðéí áéï áçåõ ùëì äæàåú ùéòùå îäí áëì î÷åí ùéäéå ùååú

(e)

Explanation #3 (R. Chananel in Yoma 57a): We learn at once. We learn that all of the actions are the same, both inside and outside. All the Haza'os done from them everywhere are the same.

åàéú ñôøéí ãâøñé çåõ åôðéí áçã æéîðà âîø

(f)

Alternative text: Some texts say "outside from inside we learn at once."

5)

TOSFOS DH Hainu di'Chsiv mi'Moshvoseichem Tavi'u

úåñôåú ã"ä äééðå ãëúéá îîåùáåúéëí úáéàå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses how we learn Matzah of Lachmei Todah.)

âáé ùúé äìçí ëúéá åéìôéðï îéðä çìåú çîõ ìúåãä ãîä ëàï áùúé äìçí òùøåï ìçìä àó ëàï çîõ ùáúåãä òùøåï ìçìä

(a)

Explanation: This is written regarding Shtei ha'Lechem. We learn from it Chalos Chametz of Todah. Just like Shtei ha'Lechem is an Isaron for each loaf, also here, the Chametz [brought with] Todah is an Isaron for each loaf.

åîðéï çìåú ùáúåãä éìôéðï ãäåå òùø áâ''ù ãúøåîä úøåîä îúøåîú îòùø àìîà àéëà é' òùøåðåú ìé' çìåú ùì çîõ

1.

And the number of Chalos [Chametz] of Todah, we learn that they are 10 from a Gezeirah Shavah "Terumah-Terumah" from Terumas Ma'aser. This shows that there are 10 Esronim for 10 Chalos of Chametz;

åäãø éìôéðï îöä (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) îçîõ ãëðâã çîõ äáà îöä åäåå ìäå é' òùøåðåú ìâ' îéðéí ùì îöä ãäééðå â' òùøåï åùìéù ìëì îéï åîéï (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí) ùì îöä

2.

We later learn Matzah from Chametz. Corresponding to [the amount of Soles for] Chametz, bring [the same amount for] Matzah. There are 10 Esronim for three kinds of Matzah, i.e. three Esronim and a third for each kind of Matzah;

åàò''â ãîðéï ùì çìåú ìàå áâåôéä ãçîõ ëúéá

(b)

Implied question: The number of loaves is not written regarding Chametz itself! (How can we learn from it to Matzah?)

çùéá ëîàï ãëúéá áâåôéä ãçîõ (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí) ëãôéøù á÷åðèøñ îùåí ããáø äìîã áâ''ù çåæø åîìîã áäé÷ù

(c)

Answer #1 (Rashi): It is considered as if it were written about Chametz itself, because something learned from a Gezeirah Shavah returns to teach through a Hekesh.

à''ð îùåí ãúøåîú îòùø çåìéï äåà

(d)

Answer #2: It is because Terumas Ma'aser (the first Lamed) is Chulin (what is learned from it returns to teach through a Hekesh).

à''ð îùåí ãôøéê áô' äúåãä (îðçåú òæ:) åàéîà á' òùøåðåú åúå ìà ëùúé äìçí å÷àîø ú''ì úäééðä

(e)

Answer #3: It is because [the Gemara] asks in Menachos (77b) "I should say that there are two Esronim and no more, like Shtei ha'Lechem!", and answers that it says "Tihyenah";

åâøñé' äúí îàé úìîåãà àîø ø' éöç÷ áø àáãéîé úäééðä ëúéá åàéîà òùøä ÷ôéæé åîðé áòùøåðåú (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí) ãáø äëúåá åîøéáåé á' éåãéï ãøéù ãçã éå''ã (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) îùîò òùøä

1.

The text says there 'how do we learn this from the verse? R. Yitzchak bar Avdimi said, it is written "Tihyenah". I can say that it is 10 Kefizim (30 Lugim)!' It answers "the verse discusses Esronim." He expounds the inclusion of the two Yud'im. One Yud connotes 10.

åîñúáøà ãäàé éå''ã ãúäééðä àìçîé úåãä ÷àé ãàé àùúé äìçí ùúéí ùúé òùøåðéí ëúéá

2.

Assertion: Presumably, the Yud of "Tihyenah" refers to Lachmei Todah. If it referred to Shtei ha'Lechem, it is written "Shetayim Shtei Esronim" (there is nothing to learn that it is 10);

åäééðå äéîðå åãáø àçø ãé' òùøåðåú áãéãéä ëúéá ãúäééðä ãîùîò é' çìåú àúáéàå ÷àé (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú)

i.

This is [learning] from it (Shtei ha'Lechem) and another matter, for 10 Esronim is written regarding [Lachmei Todah] itself, for "Tihyenah", which connotes 10 Chalos, refers to Tavi'u (which we expounded there to teach about anything else brought from Chametz).

åëìùåï (äâäú ùìåí øá) àçøåï ôéøù á÷åðè' áîðçåú (âæ''ù)

(f)

Support: Rashi explained like this last Perush in Menachos (77b-78a).

åàéú ñôøéí ãâøñé äúí àîø øá éöç÷ áø àáãéîé úäééðä ëúéá åúå ìà åì''â òùø òùøåðåú ãáø äëúåá

(g)

Alternative text: Some texts say there 'R. Yitzchak bar Avdimi said, it is written "Tihyenah"', and no more. It does not say "the verse discusses 10 Esronim";

åãøéù îùåí ãúäééðä îéòåèà äåà ãîùîò äðé ãå÷à ùðé òùøåðéí åìà àçø ùðé òùøåðåú

1.

He expounds Tihyenah to be an exclusion. Only these (Shtei ha'Lechem) are two Esronim, but another is not two Esronim.

åë''ð ãéå''ã ìà îééúøà (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú, öàï ÷ãùéí) ìîéãøù ãëîå ùéàîø îúòùä ìùåï éçéã úòùéðä ìùåï øáéí ëê éàîø îúäéä úäééðä éå''ã àçú ùì òé÷ø åéå''ã àçú ùì ùéîåù

2.

Support: The Yud is not extra to expound, for just like the singular form "Ta'aseh" becomes "Ta'asenu" in the plural, (the singular form) "Tihyeh" becomes "Tihyenah." One Yud is part of the root of the word, and one denotes [the plural]!

åàí úàîø åîâ''ù ãúøåîú îòùø äéëé éìéó ìé' çìåú ãìîà òáéã çãà çìä àçú âãåìä åéèåì äéîðä ôøåñä ìúøåîä

(h)

Question: How can we learn, from the Gezeirah Shavah of Terumas Ma'aser, 10 Chalos? Perhaps he makes one big Chalah, and takes a piece from it for Terumah!

åé''ì ãäà àîøéðï (ôñçéí ãó ìæ:) àçã ùìà éèåì ôøåñä

(i)

Answer #1: We say in Pesachim (37b) "Echad" teaches that he does not take a piece [for Terumas Lachmei Todah. Rather, he takes a full loaf.]

åòåã ãøùéðï äúí ùéäå ëì ä÷øáðåú ùåéï àìîà ãáòé ìäðê çìåú ãìéäåå ëì çã (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí) ëçìåú ùì úøåîä

(j)

Answer #2: We expound there that all the Korbanos should be the same. This shows that the other Chalos, each must be like the Chalos of Terumah.

6)

TOSFOS DH Leharchik Min ha'Aveirah

úåñôåú ã"ä ìäøçé÷ îï äòáéøä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why Chachamim did not decree so for other Zevachim.)

ìðàëìéï ìùðé éîéí åìéìä àçã ìà òùå çëîéí äøç÷ä òã çöåú

(a)

Implied question: Why didn't Chachamim [enact] for Korbanos eaten for two days and a night [that one may eat them only] until midday, to distance [from transgression]?

ãðéëø äåà îúé éäéä ù÷éòú äçîä àáì áìéìä àéðå ðéëø

(b)

Answer: It is evident when Shki'as ha'Chamah will be, but at night it is not evident [when dawn will come].

7)

TOSFOS DH v'Iba'is Eima Ki Hasam v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä åàéáòéú àéîà ëé äúí ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains Rav Yosef's inference.)

á÷åðèøñ ìà âøñ åàéáòéú àéîà

(a)

Alternative text: Rashi's text does not say v'Iba'is Eima.

åéù ìôøù ããéé÷ îãìà ÷úðé òã çöåú ìáñåó åúðé ìéä áàîöò ù''î ãäåé ãàåøééúà ëîå ìéìä åîðåééå åöìé

(b)

Explanation: [Rav Yosef] infers from the fact that "until midnight" was not taught at the end (like regarding other Korbanos that are eaten), and it was taught in the middle. This shows that it is mid'Oraisa, just like "at night, and people who own a share, and roasted."

åéù ìã÷ã÷ ãäìëä ëø' àìòæø áï òæøéä ãñúí ìï úðà ëååúéä áîúðé' åáòøáé ôñçéí (ôñçéí ÷ë:) åáô''÷ ãáøëåú (ãó è.)

(c)

Pesak: The Halachah follows R. Elazar ben Azaryah, since our Tana taught Stam like him in our Mishnah, and in Pesachim (120b), and in Brachos (9a).

åöøéê ìéæäø àîöä îùåí ã÷àîø øáà áñåó òøáé ôñçéí àëì îöä àçø çöåú ìøáé àìòæø áï òæøéä ìà éöà éãé çåáúå [åòééï úåñôåú ôñçéí ÷ë: àîø øáà åúåñôåú îâéìä ëà. ã''ä ìàéúåéé]:

(d)

Consequence: One must be careful about Matzah (to eat it before midnight), because Rabah said at the end of Pesachim "according to R. Elazar ben Azaryah, one who eats Matzah after midnight was not Yotzei." (See Tosfos Pesachim 120b DH Amar, and Tosfos Megilah 21a DH Le'asuyei.)

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF