1)

TOSFOS DH Panuy mi'Kelim

úåñôåú ã"ä ôðåé îëìéí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that there were things in the north.)

àò''ô ùîæáç ùòùä îùä (àéðå ôðåé) [ëìé] äéä ëãàîø ãðéï ëìé îëìé åàéï ãðéï ëìé îáðéï

(a)

Implied question: The Mizbe'ach that Moshe made was a Kli, like it says "we learn a Kli from a Kli, and we do not learn from a Kli from Binyan"!

îùàø ëìéí ÷àîø ãöôåðä àîæáç ÷àé

(b)

Answer: That refers to other Kelim. "Tzafonah" refers to the Mizbe'ach.

åàò''ô ùäéä áöôåï ððñéï å÷ìåðñåú åùåìçðåú

(c)

Implied question: In the north there were pillars, planks (on the pillars, from which hooks hung) and tables!

îñúîà äà ãàîøä úåøä ôðåé îëìåí îùåí ùçéèä äåà åäðé öåøê ùçéèä ðéðäå

(d)

Answer: Presumably, the Torah said that it should be totally empty due to [enabling] Shechitah, and those are needs of Shechitah.

2)

TOSFOS DH she'Yehei Tzafon Panuy mi'Klum

úåñôåú ã"ä ùéäà öôåï ôðåé îëìåí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that even the Mizbe'ach may not be there.)

àôéìå îï äîæáç

(a)

Explanation: [It must be empty] even from the Mizbe'ach.

öøéê ìã÷ã÷ áîúðé' ãîãåú (â:å) ùìà ú÷ùä ãøáé àìéòæø áï éò÷á ñ''ì äëà ëåìéä îæáç áãøåí ÷àé åáô''÷ ãéåîà (ãó èæ.) îå÷îéðï îúðé' ãîãåú ëø''à áï éò÷á

(b)

Question: We must be meticulous in the Mishnah in Midos (3:6), lest it be difficult for R. Eliezer ben Yakov. Here he holds that the entire Mizbe'ach was in the south, and in Yoma (16a) we establish the Mishnah in Midos like R. Eliezer ben Yakov!

3)

TOSFOS DH v'Chi Alav Atah Zove'ach

úåñôåú ã"ä åëé òìéå àúä æåáç

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the question.)

àò''â ãìòéì ãøùéðï òìéå îîù

(a)

Implied question: Above (58a) we expounded [that you may slaughter] literally on it!

äëà ãéé÷ îùåí ãåæáçú òìéå îùîò ùîöåä ìæáåç òìéå

(b)

Answer: Here we infer because v'Zavachta Alav connotes that it is a Mitzvah to slaughter on it!

åëï ì÷îï (ãó ñ.) âáé åàëìåä îöåú àöì äîæáç îùîò ùîöåä àìà ëùäåà ùìí åìà ëùäåà çñø

(c)

Support: Similarly below (60a) regarding "v'Ichluha Matzvos Etzel ha'Mizbe'ach" connotes that it is a Mitzvah [to eat at the Mizbe'ach! Rather, [this teaches that they must be eaten] when [the Mizbe'ach] is intact, but not when it is deficient.

4)

TOSFOS DH Ad she'Lo Nivneh ha'Mizbe'ach

úåñôåú ã"ä òã ùìà ðáðä äîæáç

(SUMMARY: 1. Tosfos explains the question. 2. Tosfos discusses liability for offering outside nowadays.)

ãçåééï îòé÷øà äï àìà òã ùìà ðôâí åðôâí åîùðé ìà úøåöé îúøöú ìä.

(a)

Explanation: [We ask that this cannot be, for before the Mizbe'ach was built] they are Dichuy Me'ikara! Rather, it is before the Mizbe'ach was dented, and then it was dented. You needed to fix [the text of the Beraisa. Rav can correct it to say '... before the Mizbe'ach was dented'!]

åúéîä ãà''ë îùîò ãôéøëà ÷îééúà ãçåééï îòé÷øà äåå åàôéìå ìø' éåçðï åàîàé åäà ø' éåçðï ñáø âáé áäîä ùì á' ùåúôéï (÷ãåùéï ãó æ.) ãçåé îòé÷øà äåé ãçåé

(b)

Question #1: If so, it connotes that the first question was that they are Dichuy Me'ikara, and even according to R. Yochanan. What is the reason? R. Yochanan holds regarding an animal of two partners (Kidushin 7a) that Dichuy Me'ikara is Dichuy!

åòåã ú÷ùé ìéä îîúðé' ãîé ùäéä èîà (ôñçéí ãó öæ:) äîôøéù ð÷áä ìôñçå ã÷àîø ãçåé îòé÷øå äåé ãçåé

(c)

Question #2: He should ask from the Mishnah in Pesachim (97b) of one who separates a female for his Pesach. It says that Dichuy Me'ikara is Dichuy!

åéù ìåîø ãäúí àéï áéãå ìú÷ï îé÷øé ãçåé ëãôøéùéú ô''÷ (ìòéì ãó éá:)

(d)

Answer: There, it is not b'Yado to fix, so it is considered Dichuy, like I explained above (12b);

àáì äëà áéãå ìú÷ï äîæáç åìëê îùîò ìéä äëà ãë''ò ìà äåé ãçåé îéãé ãäåä àîçåñø æîï áâåôå åááòìéí ëâåï éåìãú æá åîöåøò ùäôøéùå ÷øáðí ÷åãí æîðí

1.

However, here it is b'Yado to fix it. Therefore, it connotes to [the Makshan] that all agree that it is not Dichuy, just like Mechusar Zman of the Korban (it is not old enough to offer it) or the owner, e.g. a Yoledes or Metzora who separated his or her Korban before the time [to offer it];

ä''ð îôøéù ÷øáðå ìä÷øéá ìëùéáðä áäî''÷ åäåé ëîçåñø æîï åìà çùéá ðãçä

2.

Similarly, one who separates his Korban to offer it when the Beis ha'Mikdash will be built, this is like Mechusar Zman, and it is not considered Nidcheh.

åëï îåëç ì÷îï ô''á (ãó ÷éã.) ãçåáåú ùä÷ãéùï áâìâì ìâáé ùéìä äéå îçåñø æîï å÷øáé áùéìä ãìà àîøéðï ãçåééï äï

(e)

Support: This is proven below (114a), that obligatory Korbanos that one was Makdish in Gilgal, regarding Shilo they were Mechusar Zman, and they were offered in Shilo. We do not say that they are Nidchim.

å÷ùä ìé ãáô''÷ (ìòéì ãó éá.) ôøéê ìáï áúéøà ôñç äéëé îùëçú ìä àé àôøùé' áöôøà ãçåé îòé÷øà äåà ùàéðå øàåé ìùìîéí ìáï áúéøà äåàéì åäåà (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) øàåé ìôñç áçöåú

(f)

Question: Above (12a, R. Avahu) challenged Ben Beseira. How is Pesach [Kosher]? If he separated (was Makdish it) in the morning [of Erev Pesach], it is Dichuy Me'ikara, for it is not proper for Shelamim, since it is proper for Pesach at midday;

îä áëê ëéåï ãáéãå ìäùäåúå òã çöåú ìîä ìà éäà ëùø ëîå î÷ãéù àåúå ìàçø ùçéèú áðå ùøàåé ìîçø

1.

Why is this [a problem]? Since he can delay it until midday, why is it not Kosher, just like one who was Makdish a [mother] after Shechitah of its son [that day]. It is proper [to offer] tomorrow!

åî÷ãéù áâìâì çåáåú ùëùøéï áùéìä. áøå''ê.

2.

[This is also like] one who was Makdish Chovos [when the Mishkan was] in Gilgal. They are Kosher in Shilo! This is from R. Baruch.

åà''ú àëúé ëéåï ãäåé ëîçåñø æîï ëé ìéëà îæáç ãôøéê ãçåééï îòé÷øà äï àîàé àîø ø' éåçðï áô' äùåçè åäîòìä (ì÷îï ãó ÷æ:) ãäîòìä áæîï äæä áçåõ çééá ã÷ãåùä øàùåðä ÷éãùä ìòúéã ìáà

(g)

Question #1: Still, since it is like Mechusar Zman when there is no Mizbe'ach, that we ask that this is Dichuy Me'ikara, why did R. Yochanan say below (107b) that one who offers nowadays is liable, for the first Kedushah was forever?

äà àéðå øàåé ìôúç àäì îåòã (äâää áîäãåøú òåæ åäãø) åúðï ðîé ôø÷ áúøà (ì÷îï ãó ÷éá:) àåúå åàú áðå åîçåñø æîï áçåõ àéðå àôéìå áìà úòùä ìøáðï åàí ëï ìøáé éåçðï àîàé îçééá îùåí ùçåèé çåõ

1.

It is not proper for Pesach Ohel Mo'ed, and a Mishnah below (112b) teaches that Oso v'Es Beno and Mechusar Zman, there is not even a Lav [for offering them] outside according to Rabanan. If so, according to R. Yochanan, why is one liable for them for Shechutei Chutz?

åúå äà òãéôà îéðä àîøéðï áéåîà ôø÷ ùðé ùòéøé (ãó ñâ.) ãùìîéí ùùçèï áçåõ (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí) ÷åãí ôúéçú ãìúåú (îëàï îòîåã á) ääéëì ôèåø ãàéðå øàåé ìôúç àäì îåòã ãîçåñøé îòùä åë''ù æä

(h)

Strengthening of question #1: We say more than this in Yoma (63a), that Shelamim slaughtered outside before the doors [of the Heichal] were opened, he is exempt, for it was not proper for Pesach Ohel Mo'ed, for an action was lacking (opening the door), and all the more so this (the Mizbe'ach needed to be fixed)!

59b----------------------------------------59b

åòåã àîøéðï áô''÷ ãîñ' ò''æ (ãó éâ:) ãàí ä÷ãéù åäçøéí åäòøéê áæîï äæä áäîä úò÷ø ãäééðå ðåòì ãìú áôðéä åäéà îúä îàìéä ëãàéúà äúí

(i)

Question #2: We said in Avodah Zarah (13b) that if one was Makdish, Macharim or Ma'arich nowadays, regarding an animal Te'aker, i.e. he locks the door in front of it and it dies by itself, like it says there;

åôøéê åðéùçèéðäå îéùçè åôé' á÷åðèøñ îùåí ùçåèé çåõ ìà îçééá ãîééøé á÷ãùé áã÷ äáéú ãàéï çééáéï îùåí ùçåèé çåõ ëãîåëç ì÷îï (ãó ÷éâ:) åáôø÷ ùðé ùòéøé (éåîà ãó ñâ:)

1.

Explanation #1: It asks "we should slaughter them!" Rashi explained that he is not liable for Shechutei Chutz, for we discuss Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, and one is not liable for them for Shechutei Chutz, like is proven below (113b) and in Yoma (63b).

å÷ùä ãàé á÷ãùé áã÷ äáéú îàé ôøéê åðéùåééä âéñèøà åîùðé îôðé ùðøàä ëîèéì îåí á÷ãùéí

2.

Objection: If they are Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, what was the question "we should cut it into two halves!" and [Rava] answered that it looks like blemishing Kodshim?

åìéëà ìîéîø ãéù àéñåø îèéì îåí àó ááäîä úîéîä ì÷ãùé áã÷ äáéú ëãàîø äîúôéñ úîéîéí ìáã÷ äáéú àéðï éåöàéï îéãé îæáç ìòåìí

i.

Suggestion: There is an Isur to blemish a Tam animal even if it is Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, like it says that one who is Makdish a Tam for Bedek ha'Bayis, it never leaves the Mizbe'ach (we sell it to one who will offer it).

ãäééðå îãøáðï îùåí ÷ðñ ëãîåëç ôø÷ äîðçåú åäðñëéí (îðçåú ÷à.) ã÷àîø îùåí ãìà ùëéçé úîéîéí ú÷ðå ùéäéå ìîæáç

ii.

Rejection: That is mid'Rabanan. It is a fine, like is proven in Menachos (101a). It says that because Tam animals are not common, they enacted that it be for the Mizbe'ach.

ìëê ðøàä ãîééøé á÷ãùé îæáç åìà îçééáé îùåí ùçåèé çåõ îùåí ãàéðå øàåé ìôúç àäì îåòã àå îùåí ãäåé ãçåé àå îùåí ãîçåñø æîï

3.

Explanation #2: Rather, it discusses [there] Kodshei Mizbe'ach. He is not liable for Shechutei Chutz because it is not proper for Pesach Ohel Mo'ed, or due to Dichuy, or due to Mechusar Zman.

åãåç÷ ìåîø ãääéà ãîñ' ò''æ ëî''ã äåúøå äáîåú

(j)

Poor answer (to Question #2): The Sugya in Avodah Zarah is like the opinion that Bamos were permitted.

ãäà ñúí îúðéúéï ì÷îï (ãó ÷éá:) ãéøåùìéí àéï àçøéä äéúø

(k)

Rejection: The Stam Mishnah below (112b) says that there was no Heter [Bamos] after [the Mikdash was built in] Yerushalayim;

åáô''÷ ãîâéìä (ãó é.) ôøéê îéðä ìø' éöç÷ (äâää áâìéåï) ãàîø ùîòúé ùî÷øéáéï ááéú çåðéå

1.

And in Megilah (10a) from this Mishnah [the Gemara] challenges R. Yitzchak, who said "I heard that we may offer in Beis Chonyo"! (We do not answer that he holds like the opinion that Bamos were permitted.)

åðøàä ìúøõ ãø' éåçðï ãîçééá ì÷îï îòìä áçåõ îééøé áäòìàú ÷èøú ãìà îçåñø îòùä ëãàîø áùîòúéï îæáç ùðò÷ø î÷èéøéï ÷èøú áî÷åîå

(l)

Answer #1 (to both questions): R. Yochanan, who obligates below one who offers outside, discusses Ha'alah of Ketores, which is not Mechusar Ma'aseh, like it says in our Sugya "if the Mizbe'ach was dislocated, we may burn Ketores in its place."

à''ð áäòìàú îðçä ù÷îöä áëìé ùøú áôðéí ãî÷øéáéï (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) àò''ô ùàéï áéú ãàæáçéí ãå÷à áòé îæáç ëãëúéá åæáçú òìéå

1.

Or, [R. Yochanan] discusses Ha'alah of a Minchah that had Kemitzah in a Kli Shares inside, for we may offer, even though [now] there is no Beis [ha'Mikdash]. Only Zevachim require a Mizbe'ach, like it is written v'Zavachta Alav.

åðéçà äùúà äà ãð÷è ø' éåçðï îòìä áæîï äæä åìà ð÷è ùåçè áæîï äæä

(m)

Support: Now it is fine that R. Yochanan mentioned offering nowadays, and did not mention Shechitah nowadays.

åàéï ìúøõ ãø' éåçðï ëøáé éäåãä ãùøé ìä÷èéø áøöôú äòæøä

1.

Suggestion: Perhaps R. Yochanan [holds] like R. Yehudah, who permits Haktarah on the floor of the Azarah!

ãìà îéñúáø ãìéùøé øáé éäåãä áùòä ùäîæáç ôâåí àìà áùòä ùäîæáç ëùø

2.

Rejection: It is unreasonable that R. Yehudah would permit when the Mizbe'ach is blemished. Rather, [he permits] only when the Mizbe'ach is Kosher.

åòåã éù ìúøõ ãì÷îï ø' éåçðï îééøé ëùáðä äîæáç áî÷åîå åäòìä áçåõ ëéåï ã÷ãùé ìòúéã ìáà

(n)

Answer #2: Below, R. Yochanan discusses when the Mizbe'ach was built in its place, and he offered outside, since [the place] received permanent Kedushah.

åääéà ãô''÷ ãò''æ (ãó éâ:) éù ìééùá ëôøù"é ãôøéê à÷ãùé á"ä åðùçèéä îùçè åìéùååééä âéñèøà åîùðé ðøàä ëîèéì îåí ãàñåø âæéøä àèå ÷ãùé îæáç (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí)

(o)

Defense (of Rashi's Perush in Avodah Zarah): The Gemara in Avodah Zarah we can resolve according to Rashi. It asks about Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, that we should slaughter them or cut them in half, and answers that it looks like making a Mum. It is forbidden due to a decree, due to Kodshei Mizbe'ach.

åëï ôéøù øáéðå ä÷ãåù ãîãøáðï àñåø ìäèéì áäí îåí âæéøä àèå ÷ãùé îæáç ëãàîø áøàùéú äâæ (çåìéï ãó ÷ìä.) ã÷ãùé áã÷ äáéú àñåøéï áâéæä åòáåãä âæéøä àèå ÷ãùé îæáç (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí)

(p)

Support: Also Rabbeinu ha'Kadosh explained that mid'Rabanan one may not make a Mum in them. This is a decree due to Kodshei Mizbe'ach, like it says in Chulin (135a) that Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis are forbidden to shear or work with them, due to Kodshei Mizbe'ach.

åà''ú îàé èòîà ôèøéðï ùìîéí ùùçèï ÷åãí ôúéçú ãìúåú ääéëì áçåõ (ìòéì ãó ðä:) åäìà áôðéí ëé äàé âååðà àí òìå ìà éøãå

(q)

Question: Why do we exempt Shelamim slaughtered outside before the doors of the Heichal were opened (above, 55b)? Inside, in such a case Im Alah Lo Yered;

ìôé îä ùôé' ä÷åðèøñ ì÷îï âáé (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) ÷åãí ùéòîéãå ìåéí àú äîùëï åìàçø ùôø÷å ìåéí àú äîùëï ãùìîéí ãå÷à áòé ôúéçú ãìúåú ääéëì åìà ùàø ÷ãùéí

1.

[This is difficult] according to what Rashi explained below (61a) regarding before Leviyim erected the Mishkan and after they dissembled the Mishkan, that only Shelamim requires that the doors be open, but other Kodshim do not...

åëéåï ãùàø ÷ãùéí ëùøéï à''ë ùìîéí ðîé àí òìå ìà éøãå åçééá áçåõ ëîå äìï åäéåöà åùðùçè çåõ ìæîðå åçåõ ìî÷åîå ãçééá òìéäï áçåõ äåàéì åîú÷áì áôðéí

2.

Since other Kodshim are Kosher, if so also Shelamim, Im Alah Lo Yered, and one is liable outside, just like [a Korban] after Linah or Yotzei, or it was slaughtered Chutz li'Zmano or Chutz li'Mkomo. One is liable for it outside, since it is accepted (Im Alah Lo Yered) inside (below, 109a)!

åé''ì ãäúí îééøé áäòìàä ãëéåï ùäùçéèä ðòùéú áôðéí ëäìëúä îéçééá áäòìàä ëéåï ãîú÷áì áôðéí

(r)

Answer: There we discuss offering. Since the Shechitah was done inside properly, he is liable for Ha'alah, since it is accepted inside;

àáì äëà ãàéï äùçéèä ëäìëúä ìà

1.

However, here that the Shechitah was not proper, no (he is exempt outside);

åàôéìå àí úéîöé ìåîø ãôñç åäçèàú ùùçèï ùìà ìùîï áçåõ çééá äáäîä øàåéä ìôðéí ìëúçéìä

2.

And even if you will say that Pesach and Chatas slaughtered outside Lo Lishmah, one is liable for them, [that is because] the animal is proper inside l'Chatchilah (i.e. it could have been slaughtered Lishmah);

àáì àìå ÷ãùéí àéðï øàåééï ìôðéí ìëúçéìä

i.

However, these Kodshim are not proper inside l'Chatchilah.

5)

TOSFOS DH Ha Azkinan Lehu (pertains to Amud A)

úåñôåú ã"ä äà àæ÷éðï ìäå (ùééê ìòîåã à)

(SUMMARY: Tosfos brings the source that this disqualifies.)

åâáé îåîéï úðï ááëåøåú (ãó îà.) äæ÷ï

(a)

Source: A Mishnah in Bechoros (41a) teaches an old animal among Mumim.

åäà ãàîø (áîãáø (äâää áâìéåï) øáä) çééí ëìëí äéåí ÷ì åçåîø îôøéí ùäúðãáå äðùéàéí ìùàú äòâìåú (äâäú ùìåí øá) áîãáø ùçéå òã ùìîä ùä÷øéáï ìâáåä

(b)

Implied question: It says in Bamidbar Rabah "you are all alive today" - this is a Kal v'Chomer from the bulls that the Nesi'im donated to carry the wagons. They lived until Shlomo offered them to Hash-m (almost 500 years later)!

äåøàú ùòä äéúä

(c)

Answer: That was a Hora'as Sha'ah (to permit offering old animals).

6)

TOSFOS DH veha'Lo Kevar Ne'emar Elef Olos Ya'aleh Shlomo

úåñôåú ã"ä åäìà ëáø ðàîø àìó òåìåú éòìä ùìîä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos justifies the question.)

åà''ú îðà ìéä ãàîæáç äðçùú ÷àîø äà â' îæáçåú äåå ëãàîø ì÷îï (ãó ñà:) åãéìîà ùì ðåá âáòåï âãåì (äâäú áàøåú äîéí) äéä

(a)

Question: What is [the Makshan's] source that [he offered them on] the copper Mizbe'ach? There were three Mizbechos, like it says below (61b). Perhaps [the Mizbe'ach] of Nov and of Giv'on was big!

åé''ì ãñîéê à÷øà (ãã''ä á à) ãëúéá áäãéà òì îæáç äðçùú ùòùä áöìàì

(b)

Answer: He relies on the verse that writes explicitly about the copper Mizbe'ach that Betzalel made.

7)

TOSFOS DH Mah Mishkan Eser Amos

úåñôåú ã"ä îä îùëï òùø àîåú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks why we need also a Gezeirah Shavah.)

úéîä ëéåï ãàéëà äé÷ùà âæéøä ùåä ãøáåò ìîä ìé

(a)

Question: Since there is a Hekesh, why do we need the Gezeirah Shavah "Ravu'a[- Ravu'a]"? (Tzon Kodoshim - we need the Hekesh to teach about the curtains around it, and the Gezeirah Shavah to teach about the height. Even though a Hekesh totally equates the matters, since the Torah said that the Mizbe'ach is three Amos tall, we would not expound otherwise if not for the Gezeirah Shavah - PF.)

8)

TOSFOS DH v'Omer Kela'im Tes Vav Amah El ha'Kasef

úåñôåú ã"ä åàåîø ÷ìòéí è''å àîä àì äëúó

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses this and the Sugya in Eruvin.)

ôé' á÷åðèøñ å÷ñáø (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí) áâåáä ÷àîø åä''ä ìëì äçöø

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): He holds that [15 Amos] is the height, and the same applies to the entire Chatzer.

å÷ùä ìø''ú äéëé îöé ìîéîø ãàâåáä ÷àé åäà îåëç ÷øà áäãéà ãáøçáä îééøé

(b)

Question #1 (R. Tam): How can he say that it refers to the height? It is explicitly proven from the verse that it discusses the width!

ã÷çùéá îòé÷øà øåçá äçöø ìôàú ÷ãîä îæøçä (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) çîùéí àîä åàçø ëê îôøù çîù òùøä àîä ÷ìòéí ìëúó ùàöì äùòø åìëúó äùðéú çîù òùøä ÷ìòéí åàçø ëê ìùòø äçöø îñê (îëàï îãó äáà) òùøéí àîä

1.

First it discusses the width of the eastern side 50 Amos, and afterwards it explains 15 Amos of Kela'im on the shoulder at the gate, and the second shoulder 15 Amos of Kela'im, and afterwards for the gate of the Chatzer a curtain 20 Amos [wide].

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF