1)

TOSFOS DH Ma'aser Behemah v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä îòùø áäîä ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why Ma'aser Behemah was taught here.)

áëì î÷åí øâéì ìäæëéø áëåø åîòùø åôñç ùùåéï áîúðåúéäï ìäëé úðà îòùø àâá áëåø

(a)

Explanation: Everywhere, Bechor, Ma'aser and Pesach are mentioned [together], for their Matanos [of Dam] are the same. Therefore, Ma'aser Behemah was taught [here] along with Bechor;

åôñç ãðôéùé îéìéä úðà áôñçéí

1.

Since there are many laws of [Korban] Pesach, it was taught in Pesachim. (Perhaps Tosfos means that it was taught along with laws of Chag ha'Pesach in Pesachim. Alternatively, the entire Masechta pertains to Korban Pesach, since one must eradicate Chametz before Shechitas Pesach, and one must eat with it Matzah...)

2)

TOSFOS DH Noheg ba'Aretz uv'Chutzah la'Aretz

úåñôåú ã"ä ðåäâ áàøõ åáçåöä ìàøõ

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that the Klal in Chulin does not apply here.)

äà ãàîøé' áøéù ùéìåç ä÷ï (çåìéï ãó ÷ìç:) ãëì äéëà ãúðà áàøõ åáçåöä ìàøõ ùìà ìöåøê ìáã îøàùéú äâæ

(a)

Implied question: We say in Chulin (138b) that wherever it taught "ba'Aretz uv'Chutzah la'Aretz", this was not needed, except for Reishis ha'Gez! (Also here it is needed!)

äééðå áäðäå ãúðï áääéà îëéìúà àáì äëà ìöåøê äåà

(b)

Answer: That refers to Mishnayos in Chulin, but here it is needed.

3)

TOSFOS DH R. Akiva Omer Yachol Ya'aleh Adam v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä øáé ò÷éáà àåîø éëåì éòìä àãí îòùø ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that we say similarly in Temurah.)

áúîåøä áñåó àìå ÷ãùéí (ãó ëà:) ÷àîø ðîé øáé ò÷éáà äëé ãáëåø äáà îçåöä ìàøõ àéðå ÷øá

(a)

Explanation: Also in Temurah (21b), R. Akiva said so, that a Bechor that comes from Chutz la'Aretz is not offered;

(ãîå÷é) [ö"ì åîå÷é] äúí îúðé' ãîñ' çìä (ô''ã îé''à) ãáï àðèéâðåñ äòìä áëåøåú îááì åìà ÷áìåí îîðå ëø' ò÷éáà

1.

And we establish there the Mishnah in Chalah (4:11), that Ben Antigenos brought Bechoros from Bavel and they did not accept them, like R. Akiva.

4)

TOSFOS DH k'Rav Huna d'Amar Rav Huna Gezeirah Mishum Yasom

úåñôåú ã"ä ëøá äåðà ãàîø øá äåðà âæéøä îùåí éúåí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we say specifically due to Yasom.)

ãøá äåðà ì÷îï áôéø÷éï (ãó ðç:) ëéöã îòùøï åùí ìà ùééê ìîéâæø îùåí ëìàéí åèøéôä åéåöà ãåôï àáì ëàï ùééê ìîéâæø îùåí äðäå ëîå îùåí éúåí

(a)

Implied question: Rav Huna's teaching is below (58b, regarding the Mishnah) how do we tithe? There, it is not applicable to decree due to Kil'ayim, Tereifah or Yotzei Dofen. However, here, it is applicable to decree due to these, just like due to a Yasom! (Why do we say that it is only due to concern for a Yasom?)

àìà àééãé ãð÷è øá äåðà äúí ð÷èä äëà

(b)

Answer #1: Since there Rav Huna mentioned [only Yasom], also here.

åîéäå úéîä ãìà ð÷è ì÷åç åéúåí ëãð÷è äúí

(c)

Objection: Why didn't he say here a bought animal and a Yasom, like he said there?

ìëê ðøàä ìé ìôøù ãð÷è äëà ãå÷à éúåí ãèòå áéä èôé îáàçøéðé îùåí ãìà á÷éàé ãéúåí (ðîé ìà îùëçú ìéä) [ö"ì ãìà îùëçú ìä - ùéèä î÷åáöú] àìà áæä ôéøù ìîéúä åæä ôéøù ìçééí

(d)

Answer #2: It mentioned here specifically Yasom, for people err more about it than others, because they are not expert about it, for Yasom is found only when this (the mother) died, and this (the fetus) was born [at the same time].

5)

TOSFOS DH Ela Mishum Takalah

úåñôåú ã"ä àìà îùåí ú÷ìä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks that R. Elazar ben Azaryah tithed after the Churban.)

îùîò äëà ãàéï îòùø áäîä ðåäâ áæîï äæä îùåí ú÷ìä

(a)

Inference: Here it connotes that Ma'aser Behemah does not apply nowadays, due to Takalah.

åä÷ùä ø''ú áôø÷ áîä áäîä éåöàä (ùáú ðã:) [ö"ì àîøéðï - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ãøáé àìòæø áï òæøéä äåä îòùø úøéñø àìôé òâìé îòãøéä áëì ùúà åìàçø äçåøáï äéä

(b)

Question (R. Tam): In Shabbos (54b), we say that R. Elazar ben Azaryah used to tithe 13,000 calves from his herd every year, and this was after the Churban!

ãøáï éåçðï áï æëàé ùäåà ðùéà äéä ìàçø çåøáï åàçøéå øáï âîìéàì åáéîé øáï âîìéàì îðå àú ø' àìòæø áï òæøéä ðùéà ëãàé' áôø÷ úôìú äùçø (áøëåú ãó ëæ:) åáï é''ç ùðä äéä

1.

Source: R. Yochanan ben Zakai was Nasi after the Churban, and after him R. Gamliel, and in the days of R. Gamliel they appointed R. Elazar ben Azaryah to be Nasi, like it says in Brachos (27b), and [then] he was 18 years old.

i.

Note: In Shabbos (54b), Tosfos assumes that he was at least 13 when he tithed, and R. Yochanan ben Zakai was Nasi after the Churban one or two years. He shows that R. Gamliel was Nasi two or three two years before they appointed R. Elazar ben Azaryah, so at the time of the Churban, he was at most 14 or 15. There, Tosfos gives the three "answers" he mentions here, and does not reject any of them.)

åàéï ìôøù ëìì ãàééøé áòéùåø ùðåúðéï ìîìê ëîå àøðåðà

(c)

Unacceptable Answer #1: Do not explain that it refers to tithes they give to the king, like Arnona.

åãåç÷ ðîé ìôøù ãàôåèøåôåñ äéä ìå ëùäåà ÷èï ùäéä îòùø

(d)

Poor Answer #2: It is difficult to say that he had an overseer when he was a minor, and [the overseer] tithed [on behalf of him].

åùîà ìà áèìå îòùø áäîä ë''ë ñîåê ìçåøáï

(e)

Answer #3: Perhaps they were not Mevatel Ma'aser Behemah so soon after the Churban. (Even if it was only one or two years later, we can say that R. Elazar ben Azaryah tithed three or four years.)

6)

TOSFOS DH v'Ein Macharimin bi'Zman ha'Zeh

úåñôåú ã"ä åàéï îçøéîéï áæîï äæä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos distinguishes between land and Metaltelim.)

àôéìå ìî''ã (òøëéï ãó ëè.) ñúí çøîéí ìëäðéí àôé' áîôøù ìëäðéí

(a)

Implied question: According to the opinion that Stam Cherem is given to Kohanim, [especially] if he specifies that it is for Kohanim (there is no reason to decree)!

àéëà ìîéâæø îùåí ú÷ìä ãëì æîï ùäí áéã áòìéí äøé äï ä÷ãù ëãàéúà ìòéì áøéù ëì ôñåìé äîå÷ãùéï (ãó ìá.)

(b)

Answer: There is reason to decree due to Takalah, for as long as it is in the owner's hand, it is Hekdesh, like it says above (32a).

åáô''÷ ãò''æ (ãó éâ.) ôøù''é ã÷ñáø ñúí çøîéí ìáã÷ äáéú

(c)

Explanation: In Avodah Zarah (13a), Rashi explained that [the Tana] holds that Stam Cherem is to Bedek ha'Bayis.

(åàé ðîé) [ö"ì åàéï öøéê - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ëãôøé'

(d)

Rebuttal: One need not say so, like I explained. (In any case, there is reason to decree.)

åäà ãàîø òåìà áòøëéï áñåó ôø÷ äî÷ãéù ùãäå (ãó ëè.) àé äåàé äúí äåä éäéáðà ëåìäå ìëäï ã÷ñáø ñúí çøîéí ìëäðéí âáé ääåà âáøà ãàçøéîðäå ìðëñéä

(e)

Implied question: Ula said in Erchin (29a) "if I was there, I would have given all of them to a Kohen", for he holds that Stam Charamim are to Kohanim, regarding the man who made his property Cherem! (Tosfos said that all agree that we decree against any Hana'ah from Cherem!)

éù ìçì÷ ãäééðå áî÷ø÷òé

(f)

Answer: We can distinguish. That refers to land.

ãáìàå äëé î÷ùä ø''ú øá éäåãä ãñáø äúí ñúí çøîéí ìáã÷ äáéú äéëé ùøé äúí ò''é ôãééä ãìéù÷åì àøáò æåæé åùãé áðäøà

(g)

Support: Even without this [question from Ula], R. Tam asked that Rav Yehudah holds that Stam Cherem is to Bedek ha'Bayis. How did he permit there (the man who was Macharim his property) through Pidyon, that he casts four Zuz to the river? (The Beraisa decrees to forbid Hana'ah!)

åàåîø øáéðå úí ãäúí áî÷ø÷òåú ãàé àñøú ìäå àéñåø òåìí ë''ù ãàúé ìéãé ú÷ìä èôé

(h)

Answer (R. Tam): There (he was Macharim) land. If you will forbid it forever, all the more so people will come to Takalah more!

åîéäå ÷ùä ãîùîò äúí ãàééøé áîèìèìéï ãôøéê òìä îäà ãúðéà ãàéï ùãä çøîéí ðåäâ àìà áæîï ùäéåáì ðåäâ åîùðé äà áî÷ø÷òé äà áîèìèìé

(i)

Question: It connotes there that it was a case of Metaltelim, for it asks from a Beraisa "a Cherem field applies only when Yovel applies", and answers that [the Beraisa] discusses land, and here (the man was Macharim) Metaltelim!

åé''ì ãî÷ø÷òé çåöä ìàøõ ÷øé îèìèìé ëãîñé÷ äúí ãëîèìèìé ãîå

(j)

Answer: Land of Chutz la'Aretz it calls Metaltelim, like we conclude there, that it is like Metaltelim.

åàò''â ã÷àîø åäà îòùä ãôåîáãéúà áî÷ø÷òé ðîé äåä îùîò îã÷àîø ðîé ãäåä áî÷ø÷òé åáîèìèìé

(k)

Implied question: It says there "the case in Pumbedisa was also with land." Since it says "also", this connotes that it was with land and Metaltelim!

î''î ìà äúéø àìà äî÷ø÷òé ìáã

(l)

Answer: In any case, [Rav Yehudah] permitted only land.

åëì ùëï ãðéçà äùúà ãîëç æä ôùéèà ìéä ìäù''ñ ãá÷ø÷òé ðîé äåä òåáãà ãàé ìà äåä äúí àìà îèìèìé ìà äåä ùøé ìäå

(m)

Support: All the more so it is fine now that due to this, it was obvious to the Gemara that the episode was also with land, for if it were only with Metaltelim, he would not have permitted it.

7)

TOSFOS DH Ma'os u'Chlei Matchos Yolich Hana'ah l'Yam ha'Melach

úåñôåú ã"ä îòåú åëìé îúëåú éåìéê äðàä ìéí äîìç

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that we may cast Isurim intact only to Yam ha'Melach.)

îùîò ãå÷à ìéí äîìç åìà ñâé áùàø ðäøåú

(a)

Inference: [He must cast it] specifically to Yam ha'Melach, but not to other rivers.

åëï îùîò áôø÷ ëì ùòä (ôñçéí ãó ëç.) ãáùàø ðäøåú áòéà ùçé÷ä àáì ìéí äîìç îèéì áòéðéä

(b)

Support #1: It connotes like this in Pesachim (28a) that [if one casts Chametz] in other rivers, he must grind it up, but to the Yam ha'Melach he may cast it intact.

åëï (áòìîà äôøéù) [ö"ì áîòéìä (éà.) åáðæéø (ëã:) - ùéèä î÷åáöú âáé äîôøéù] îòåú ìðæéøåúå åîú àîøéðï éåìéê (äðàä - äøù"ù îåç÷å) ìéí äîìç

(c)

Support #2: Also in Me'ilah (11a) and Nazir (24b), regarding one who separated coins for his Nezirus and he died, we say that he casts [the coins for the Chatas] to the Yam ha'Melach (he may cast them intact).

åúéîä ãáääåà òåáãà ãòøëéï (ãó ëè.) ÷àîø ù÷éì àøáò æåæé åùãé áðäøà åëï áéåîà áôø÷ äåöéàå ìå (ãó ðä:) ÷àîø åðù÷åì àøáòä æåæé åðùãé áðäøà åàéãê ìéùúøå

(d)

Question: In the episode in Erchin (29a), it says that he takes four Zuz and casts them in the river! Also in Yoma (55b), it says that we should take four Zuz and cast them in the river, and the rest should be permitted!

åùîà äúí àééøé òì éãé ùçé÷ä

(e)

Answer: Perhaps there it discusses [casting to the river] through (i.e. after) grinding them up.

åòëùéå ëùàãí áà ìçìì ëøí øáòé àå ðèò øáòé öøéê ìùçå÷ äðäå æåæé )åîçìì) [ö"ì ãîçìì - ùéèä î÷åáöú] òìééäå åìùãé áðäøà

(f)

Consequence: Nowadays, when one comes to redeem Kerem Revai or Neta Revai (grapes or fruits of a vine or tree in its fourth year), he must grind the coins that he redeemed on them, and cast them in the river. (Rashash - perhaps we need not fix the text, for one opinion in YD 331:138 says that nowadays that Ma'aser Sheni is not eaten, the redemption money need not have a [minted] form.) (I think that if Tosfos held like this, he would have said so explicitly - PF!)

8)

TOSFOS DH v'Ei Zehu Ikur No'el Deles v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä åàé æäå òé÷åø ðåòì ãìú ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why this does not apply to Bechoros nowadays.)

ááëåø áæîï äæä ìà äåä ùøéðï ìîéòáã äëé

(a)

Explanation: We would not permit doing so with a Bechor nowadays;

ãìà îéáòéà éùøàì ùéù ìå ì÷ééí îöåú ðúéðä åìäîúéï ìëäï ùéøöä ì÷áìå àôé' éåúø îùìùéí éåí áã÷ä åçîùéí áâñä

1.

This is not only for a Yisrael, who should fulfill the Mitzvah of giving, and wait for a Kohen who wants to receive it, even more than 30 days for a small animal and 50 for a big animal;

ãäà ãúðï (ìòéì ãó ëå:) òã ëîä çééá ìéèôì äééðå àôé' áà ëäï ì÷áìå úåê äæîï äæä ëã÷úðé àîø ìå äëäï áúåê äæîï úðäå ìé äøé æä ìà éúï

i.

Source: A Mishnah (above 26b) teaches "how long must one care for [a Bechor]?" This is even if the Kohen comes during the time, like it teaches "if the Kohen told him within this time 'give it to me', he may not give it";

àìà àôé' ÷áìå äëäï ìà ùøé ìéä ëäï ìëåðñå ìëéôä ãìà îéùúîéè áùåí ãåëúà ìîúðé äëé âáé áëåø

2.

Rather, even if the Kohen received it, the Kohen may not enter it in a cell [to die], for [if this were permitted], it should have been taught somewhere regarding a Bechor!

åìòéì (ãó ìä.) úðï áæëø ùì øçìéí æ÷ï åùòøå îãåìãì îùîò ùäéå øâéìéï ìäîúéï òã ùéôåì áå îåí

3.

Above (35a), a Mishnah teaches "an old male ram and its hair hung down." This connotes that they used to wait until a Mum.

åéù ìçì÷ áéï áëåø ìî÷ãéù áæîï äæä ãáëåø ãùøé áðôéìú îåí áìà ôãééä àéëà äôñã ÷ãùéí àí äéä ëåðñå ìëéôä

(b)

Observation: We can distinguish between a Bechor and one who is Makdish nowadays. A Bechor is permitted when it gets a Mum without Pidyon. There is a loss to Kodshim if he enters it in a cell;

àáì î÷ãéù ãàôé' ðôì áå îåí ìà ùøé áìà ôãéåï åàé ôøé÷ ìéä îéáòé ìäùìéê äãîéí ìàéáåã äéìëê ëùëðñå òëùéå ìëéôä àéï ëàï äôñã ÷ãùéí:

1.

However, one who is Makdish [nowadays], even if it gets a Mum, it is not permitted without Pidyon, and if he redeems it, he must cast the money to be lost. Therefore, now that he enters it in a cell, there is no loss of Kodshim [more than if he waits for a Mum].

53b----------------------------------------53b

9)

TOSFOS DH Efshar kid'Rav Yehudah

úåñôåú ã"ä àôùø ëãøá éäåãä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explained why we do not say so nowadays.)

ìòéì áô''÷ (ãó â: ã''ä ã÷à) ôéøùúé ãìãéãï ùøé ìà÷ðåéé ìòåáã ëåëáéí ëéåï ãìà (ñ''ì) [ö"ì á÷éàé ìîéòáã - öàï ÷ãùéí, ç÷ ðúï] ëøá éäåãä

(a)

Reference: Above (3b) I explained that we permit to be Makneh to a Nochri, since we do not hold like Rav Yehudah.

10)

TOSFOS DH Hekdesh Iluy

úåñôåú ã"ä ä÷ãù òìåé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses two kinds of Tovas Hana'ah.)

ôé' á÷åðèøñ èåáú äðàä ùéù ìå î÷ãåùú îæáç éëåì ìéúï ìáã÷ äáéú åæå èåáú äðàä ãéëåì ìéèåì ñìò îéùøàì àçø òì îðú ùéúððä ìáï áúå ëäï ìä÷øéáä ëãàîø áô' òã ëîä (ìòéì ãó ëæ.) òã ëàï ìùåï ä÷åðèøñ

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This is Tovas Hana'ah that he has from Kedushas Mizbe'ach, he can give to Bedek ha'Bayis. He can take a Sela from another Yisrael [e.g.] on condition to give it to his daughter's son, who is a Kohen, to offer it, like it says above (20a). Until here is from Rashi.

åáîñ' òøëéï (ãó ëç:) îôøù áòðéï àçø ãúðï (áäî÷ãéù) [ö"ì áôø÷ äî÷ãéù ùãäå - ùéèä î÷åáöú] îçøéí àãí àú ÷ãùéå áéï ÷ãùé ÷ãùéí áéï ÷ãùéí ÷ìéí àí ðãø ðåúï ãîéí ôéøåù ùëì ãîéå ùåéï ìå ãçééá áàçøéåúå

(b)

Explanation #2: In Erchin (28b), Rashi explained differently. A Mishnah there teaches that one can be Macharim (Makdish to Bedek ha'Bayis) his Kodshim, both Kodshei Kodoshim and Kodshim Kalim. If [the Korban] is a Neder, he gives its value. I.e. it is worth its entire value to him, for he is obligated in Achrayus;

åàí ðãáä ðåúï èåáúä ùåø æä òåìä àåîãéí ëîä àãí øåöä áùåø æä ìäòìåúå òåìä ùàéðå çééá

1.

If it is a Nedavah, he gives its Tovas [Hana'ah]. [If one said] "this ox is an Olah", we estimate how much one would pay for this ox to offer it for an Olah that he is not obligated.

åèåáú äðàä ãô' òã ëîä (ìòéì ãó ëæ.) ìà ùééëà àìà áãáø äðàëì (ëå' ãâáé äðé) [ö"ì ãâáé úøåîä - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ÷àîø ìä äúí

(c)

Resolution #1: The Tovas Hana'ah above (27a) applies only to something eaten, for it was said about Terumah there.

åëé äàé âååðà ÷úðé áòøëéï (ãó ëç:) âáé áëåø ãúðï äáëåø áéï úí áéï áòì îåí îçøéîéï àåúå åáàéæä öã ôåãéï àåúå àåîãéí ëîä àãí øåöä ìéúï ááëåø æä ìéúðå ìáï áúå àå ìáï àçåúå

(d)

Support: It was taught like this in Erchin (28b) regarding a Bechor. A Mishnah teaches "a Bechor, whether Tam or Ba'al Mum, one can be Macharim it. How do we redeem it? We estimate how much one would pay for this Bechor to give it to his daughter's son or his sister's son (who is a Kohen);

àé ðîé âáé ãáø ùàéï ðéãá åðéãø ùééëà èåáú äðàä æå àáì áãáø äðéãø åðéãá ùééëà àéãê èåáú äðàä

(e)

Resolution #2: Alternatively, regarding something that is not brought for Neder or Nedavah, this Tovas Hana'ah (taught in Erchin) applies, but something brought for Neder or Nedavah, the other Tovas Hana'ah (taught above, 27a) applies.

11)

TOSFOS DH Talmud Lomar Aser Ta'aser

úåñôåú ã"ä úìîåã ìåîø òùø úòùø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that elsewhere, a Kal v'Chomer overrides a Hekesh.)

äëà àúéà äé÷éùà åîô÷à î÷''å åìòéì (âáé) [ö"ì áôø÷ - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ëì ôñåìé äîå÷ãùéï (ãó ìâ.) àúé ÷''å åîôé÷ îäé÷éùà âáé ôìåâúà ãáéú ùîàé åáéú äìì ãùøå áéú äìì àôé' ìæøéí

(a)

Implied question: Here, the Hekesh overrides the Kal v'Chomer. Above (33a), a Kal v'Chomer overrides a Hekesh, regarding the argument of Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel! Beis Hillel permit even to Zarim!

åùí (ã''ä åá''ä) ôéøùúé:

(b)

Answer: There, I explained (DH v'Beis Hillel. Here, the Kal v'Chomer cannot override the Hekesh, for we could not establish the Hekesh to teach anything else.)

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF