BAVA KAMA 66 - Two weeks of study material have been dedicated by Ms. Estanne Fawer to honor the Yahrzeit of her father, Rav Mordechai ben Eliezer Zvi (Rabbi Morton Weiner) Z'L, who passed away on 18 Teves 5760. May the merit of supporting and advancing Dafyomi study -- which was so important to him -- during the weeks of his Yahrzeit serve as an Iluy for his Neshamah.

1)

TOSFOS DH HEIM VE'LO V'LADOSEIHEM

úåñ' ã"ä äí åìà åìãåúéäí

(Summary: Tosfos discusses a discrepancy in the order of priorities between this Sugya and a Sugya in Avodah-Zarah.)

îùîò äëà ãèôé îñúáø ìàñåø 'çèéï åòùàï ñåìú' éåúø î'åìãåúéäí'.

(a)

Clarification: It implies here that it is more logical to declare Asur wheat that one makes into flour more than the animals' babies.

åúéîä, ãáô' ëì äöìîéí (ò"æ ãó îæ. åùí ã"ä 'äëà') îùîò àéôëà- âáé 'éù ùéðåé áðòáã àå ìà' , ãáòé ìîéîø ã'îùúçåä ìçèéï, ÷îçï îåúø ìîðçåú' ...

(b)

Question: In Perek Kol ha'Tzelamim (Avodah-Zarah, Daf 47a; See Tosfos DH 'Hacha'), it implies the opposite - when, in connection with 'Yesh Shinuy be'Ne'evad O Lo', the Gemara wants to say that if someone bows down to wheat, the flour is permitted to be used for a Minchah-offering' ...

åàò"â ãàîøéðï á'òéáøå åìáñåó ðøáòå, ãáøé äëì àñåøéí ?'

1.

Question (cont.): ... even though we say 'Ibru ve'li'Besof Nirve'u, Divrei ha'Kol Asurim'?

ãäúí îòé÷øà áäîä åäùúà áäîä, åãùà äåà ãàçéãä áàôä, äëà îòé÷øà çèéï åäùúà ÷îç.

2.

Reason: ... since there it was originally an animal and that is what it still is, only the door is closed in front of it (as it were); whereas here it was initially wheat and it has now become flour.

åàéï ìåîø ãäà ãùøéðï åìã àúðï äééðå áðåúï ìä åàç"ë òéáøä ...

(c)

Refuted Answer: And one cannot answer that the reason that we permit the baby of the Esnan speaks where he gave it to her and it became pregnant only afterwards ...

ãäà îùîò áô' ëì äàñåøéï (úîåøä ãó ì: åùí ã"ä ãðéçà) ããåîéà ãåìã ãðøáòú ùøéðï åìã ãàúðï.

(d)

Refutation: Because in Perek Kol ha'Asurin (Temurah, Daf 30b, See Tosfos there DH 'de'Nicha') it implies that we permit the baby of the Esnan under the same circumstances as the baby of the animal that was raped (mentioned there).

åé"ì, ãäúí åãàé éù ìäúéø éåúø çèéï ùðùúðå ùðòùå ñåìú îåìã ðøáòú...

(e)

Answer: There to be sure, there is more reason to permit wheat that has been turned into flour than the baby of the animal that was raped ...

ãäéà ååìãä ðøáòå, åãùà áòìîà äåà ãàçéãä áàôä;

1.

Reason: ... since the animal and its baby were raped, only it is as if the door was closed in front of it ...

àáì âáé àúðï, òé÷ø ãòúä îùåí ÷îç, åâáé áäîä òé÷ø ãòúä à'ôøä åìà à'åìã.

2.

Answer (cont.): ... whereas in the case of Esnan, she really wants flour, but as far as the animal is concerned, she wants the cow, and not the baby.

2)

TOSFOS DH TELA'IM KE'DE'MEIKARA

úåñ' ã"ä èìàéí ëãîòé÷øà

(Summary: Tosfos discusses the meaning of 'Tela'im ke'de'Me'ikara, Damim ke'Sha'as Ha'amadah be'Din'.)

ðøàä ìø"é ãä"ô -ãìòðéï 'èìä' åðòùä àéì àå ëçåùä åðúôèîä àå àéôëà îùìí ëôì ðîé, åëï ã' åä' ëãîòé÷øà ëîå ÷øï ...

(a)

Explanation #1: The Ri explains that - concerning 'T'leh' that became a ram or a weak animal that one fattened, or vice-versa, one pays double or four or five times according to the original price, like the Keren (the principle) ...

àáì 'ãîéí ,' ãäééðå éå÷øà åæåìà, ëùì òëùéå

1.

Explanation #1 (cont.): ... whereas 'Damim' - where the price went up or went down, one pays according to its current value;

ùùîéï àåúå *èìä* ùì ùòú âðéáä ìôé âãìåúå àå ÷èðåúå ùäéä áùòú âðéáä; ìôé éå÷øà åæåìà ãäùúà.

2.

Explanation #1 (concl.): In other words, one assesses the value of the lamb at the time of the theft, according to how large or small it was when it was stolen, but according to how expensive or cheap it has become now (when they go to Beis-Din).

åèòîà ã'èìàéí' îùåí ãà"ì 'úåøà âðáé îîê?' åäåà äãéï ëçåùä åäùîéðä- ãà"ì 'ùîéðä âðáé îîê? '

(b)

Reason of 'Tela'im': The reason of 'Tela'im' is because he can say to the owner 'Was it an ox that I stole from you?' and in the case where he fattened it 'Did I steal a fat ox from you?'

àáì ìâáé 'ãîéí' , àéï ùééê ìîéîø 'éå÷øà âðáé îéðê'?

1.

Reason of 'Tela'im' (cont.): ... whereas by 'Damim', he cannot say to him "Did I steal an expensive ox from you?'

åáìéùðà ã÷øà ðîé âåó "öàï åá÷ø" ðæëøéí áôñå÷, åãøùé' îéðä (ì÷îï ãó ñæ:) ùàí âðá ùåø ùåä îðä, ìà éùìí úçúéå ä' ðâéãéí, ãëúéá "úçúéå" ãîùîò úçú âåó äùåø.

(c)

Reason ... Extension: Also the Pasuk mentions the body of "Tzon u'Bakar", and the Gemara later (on Daf 67b) learns from this that someone who steals an ox worth a Manah should not pay five weak oxen, since the Torah writes "Instead of it", implying instead of the body of the ox.

åîùåí ãìùåï âåó äùåø ðæëø áôñå÷, îùåí äëé àîøéðï 'èìàéí ëãîòé÷øà' ...

1.

Reason ... Extension: And (by the same token) because the body of the ox is mentioned in the Pasuk, the Gemara says 'Tela'im ke'de'Me'ikara' ...

åàò"ô ùòì ùòú èáéçä áà ã' åä'?

(d)

Implied Question: Even though the Arba'ah va'Chamishah only comes into effect from the time of the Shechitah (or the Mechirah)?

î"î, ëîå ëï ùòú âðéáä âøîä ìå, ùàí àéï âðéáä àéï èáéçä åîëéøä.'

1.

Answer: Nevertheless, the theft caused it too, since 'If there would be no Geneivah there would be no Shechitah or sale either'.

àáì 'ãîéí', ùëì òé÷øí úìåéí áùåîú á"ã, åâí àéï ðæëøéï áôñå÷, ñáøà äåà ãîå÷îéðï áäå 'àçééä ì÷øï ãå÷à ëòéï ùâðá' ...

(e)

Reason of 'Damim': 'Damim' on the other hand, which is dependent on the assessment of Beis-Din, and is also not mentioned in the Torah, it is a logical to confine 'Revivng the Keren like it was when it was stolen' to the Keren exclusively ...

åìà ã' åä'- àìà 'ëùòú äòîãä áãéï', ùá"ã ùîéï àåúä áàåúä ùòä.

1.

Reason of 'Damim' (cont.): ... and not to the Arba'ah va'Chamishah - which he pays according to its value at the time when they go to Beis-Din - when the Beis-Din assess it.

åø"ú îôøù ãàéï çéìå÷ áéï 'èìàéí' ì'éå÷øà åæåìà', åä"ô: 'èìàéí' -ùãáø áäï äáøééúà, ãäééðå èìä åðòùä àéì, ùðùúðå ìîòìéåúà- ' ëãîòé÷øà' ...

(f)

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam however, who maintains that there is no difference between 'Tela'im' (per se)' and 'Yukra ve'Zula', interprets 'Tela'im' as the lambs mentioned in the Beraisa - a lamb that became a ram, which changed for the better; that is where he pays according to the original price ...

åä"ä áéå÷øà åæåìà, ãîòé÷øà ùåéï æåæà åìáñåó àøáòä, ãäåé ëãîòé÷øà...

1.

Explanation #2 (cont.): And the same applies to 'Yukra ve'Zula, where the animal was originally worth one Zuz and then went up to four; there too, he pays according to the original price ...

ãìäçîéø òì ã' åä' ìà àîø øá.

2.

Reason: ... seeing as Rav did not say that one should be strict with regard to Arba'ah va'Chamishah.

'ãîéí' -ôé' ãîéí ãàééøé áäå øá, ëâåï ãîòé÷øà ùåéí àøáòä åìáñåó ùåéí æåæà ãðùúðå ìâøéòåúà, áääéà ÷àîø øá 'ëùì òëùéå'.

(g)

Explanation #2 (cont.): ... whereas 'Damim' is referring to the 'Damim' about which Rav speaks - where the animal was originally worth four Zuz and then went down to one - a change for the worse. That is where Rav said that 'he pays according to what it is worth now.

åä"ä áèìàéí ëâåï ùîéðä åäëçéùä, ãäåé ëùì òëùéå.

1.

Explanation #2 (concl.): ... and the same with 'Tela'im', if they were fat and they became weak, there too, he pays according to their current value.

åäà ãàîø ìòéì 'ùîéðä åäëçéùä, ëòéï ùâðá' ...

(h)

Implied Question: ... and when the Gemara said earlier (on Daf 65a) 'Shemeinah ve'Hikchishah, Ke'ein she'Ganav' ...

ö"ì ãå÷à áäëçéùä áéãéí.

(i)

Answer: ... it speaks exclusively where he weakened it with his hands.

3)

TOSFOS DH LO HISPIK LITNO AD SHE'TZAV'O PATUR

úåñ' ã"ä ìà äñôé÷ ìéúðå òã ùöáòå ôèåø

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the statement and reconciles it with the Gemara in 'ha'Gozel Kama'.)

àôé' ëùâææ ùéòåø çîùä øçéìåú éçã, ùçì òìéå çéåá øàùéú äâæ, ôèåø ëùöáòå ...

(a)

Clarification: Even if one shore the Shi'ur of five lambs together, in which case the obligation of Reishis ha'Gez comes into effect, he is Patur should he dye it ...

ëãàùëçï áøéù äâåæì ÷îà (ì÷îï ãó öã. åùí) âáé ôéàä, ãîöåúä á÷îä, åëùðùúðéú ìî"ã ùéðåé ÷åðä, ôèåø.

1.

Precedent: ... like we find at the beginning of 'ha'Gozel Kamah (later, on Daf 94a and 94b) with regard to Pe'ah, where the Mitzvah is confined to standing corn, and if he changes it, according to the opinion that 'Shinuy acquires', he is Patur.

åà"ú, äà ãîééúé äúí 'âææ øàùåï øàùåï åöáòå, ôèåø' ...

(b)

Question: What the Gemara cites there, that 'If he shears it bit by bit and dyes it, he is Patur' ...

îàé àøéà 'øàùåï øàùåï,' àôé' äëì éçã ðîé?

1.

Question (cont.): ... why does it say 'bit by bit', when even if he shears it all in one go and dyes it, he is Patur?

åé"ì, ãäúí àôé' öáò î÷öú åäðéç î÷öú, ôèåø àôé' îä ùìà öáò. ùìà çì òìéå çéåá øàùéú äâæ, ëéåï ùàéï îöèøó ...

(c)

Answer: Because there even if he dyed some of it and left some of it, he is Patur even on the part that he did not dye, because the Chiyuv of Reishis ha'Gez did not take effect on him, since they do not combine ...

àáì äëà, ùâææ ëùéòåø úçéìä åðúçééá ìëäï, ãå÷à öáòå ëåìå ôèåø, àáì äðéç î÷öú, îä ùäðéç çééá, àò"ô ùàéï áå ùéòåø ...

1.

Answer (cont.): ... whereas in our case, where he shore a full Shi'ur to begin with, and became Chayav to give it to the Kohen, he is only Patur if he dyes all of it, but if he left some of it, that what he left is subject to Reishis ha'Gez, even if it is less than the Shi'ur ...

ùëáø ðúçééá.

(d)

Reason: ... since it had already become Chayav,

4)

TOSFOS DH AD SHE'TZAV'O

úåñ' ã"ä òã ùöáòå

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the ruling.)

àéï ìôøù ùöáò çì÷å ùì ëäï îä ùäôøéù ìå îï äâéæä ...

(a)

Refuted Explanation: One cannot explain that he dyed the portion of the Kohen that he set aside for him from the shearing ...

ãìà ùééëà áéä äôøùä ëîå âáé úøåîä ãäôøùä ùééëà áéä ...

1.

Refutation: ... because 'setting aside' is not applicable as it is by T'rumah, by which it is ...

[àáì] äôøùú øàùéú äâæ àéï ëìåí îä ùîôøéù ìöã àçã, åëàéìå ìà äôøéùå.

2.

Refutation (cont.): ... whereas setting aside of wool of Reishis ha'Gez is futile, and it is as if he did not set it aside.

5)

TOSFOS DH MOTZEI AVEIDAH LA'AV KEIVAN DE'MEYA'ESH MARAH MINAH ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä îåöà àáéãä ìàå ëéåï ãàééàù îøä îéðä ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos presents the source of 'Yi'ush Koneh ba'Aveidah', and poses a problem according to the opinion that holds 'Simanim La'av d'Oraysa'.)

àåø"é, ãðô÷à ìï ã'éàåù ÷åðä' áàáéãä îäà ãàîø áàìå îöéàåú (á"î ãó ëæ. åùí) 'îä ùîìä îéåçãú ùéù ìä ñéîðéï åéù ìä úåáòéí' ...

(a)

Explanation: The Ri says that we learn that Yi'ush acquires by Aveidah from what the Gemara says in 'Eilu Metzi'os' (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 27a & 27b) 'Just as a garment is special in that it has Simanim and claimants' ...

ôé' ò"é ùéù ìä ñéîðéï éù ìä úåáòéí, ùàéï äáòìéí îúééàùéï ëéåï ùéù áä ñéîï.

1.

Explanation (cont.): ... meaning that because it has Simanim it has claimants, since, due to the fact that it has a Siman, the owner does not give up on it.

åìà ëîå ùô"ä ùí' ,ùéù ìä úåáòéï - 'ùàéðä ùì äô÷ø, ãùîìä ãáø äðòùä áéãé àãí äåà...

(b)

Refuted Explanation: And not as Rashi explains there 'it has claimants' to mean that it is not Hefker, since a garment is something that is manufactured by man ...

ãäà ì"ì ÷øà ìäëé, ôùéèà ãùì äô÷ø, ôèåø ...

(c)

Refutation: Because that would not require a Pasuk, since it is obvious that one is Patur from returning something that is Hefker ...

ãìîé éùéá?

(d)

Reason: ... since who will return it to?

å÷ùä ìø"ú, ìî"ã 'ñéîðéï ìàå ãàåøééúà', à"ë áéï áãáø ùéù áå ñéîï áéï áãáø ùàéï áå ñéîï, àéï îçæéø ìáòìéí îï äúåøä àìà ò"é òãéí ...

(e)

Question: Rabeinu Tam asks that, according to the opinion (in Bava Metzi'a, Daf 27a) that holds 'Simanim are not min ha'Torah', irrespective of whether an article has a Si'man or not, one may only return it via witnesses ...

åàé îúééàù îãáø ùàéï áå ñéîï, ëê îúééàù îãáø ùéù áå ñéîï, ãæä åæä àéï îçæéø ìáòìéí àìà ò"é òãéí ...

1.

Question (cont.): ... in that case, just as a person gives up hope on an article that does not have a Si'man, so too will he give up hope on an article which does, seeing as either way, one only returns it via witnesses ...

åà"ë, ìà éçæéø àáéãä ìòåìí?

2.

Question (concl.): ... in which case, one will never return a lost article?

åúéøõ, ãàò"â ãñéîï ìàå ãàåøééúà åàéï îçæéø ë"à áòãéí, î"î àéï îúééàù îãáø ùéù áå ñéîï, ùùåàì ìáðé àãí 'øàéúí èìéú ùìé ùàáãúé ùäéä áå ëê åëê ñéîðéï'?

(f)

Answer: Even though Simanim are not mi'd'Oraysa, and one only returns an article via witnesses, nevertheless, the owner does not give up hope on an article that has a Si'man, because he asks people whether they have seen the Talis that he lost, that has such and such Simanim.

àáì ëùàéï áä ñéîðéï îúééàù, ùàéï éåãò îä ìùàåì, åàéï ñáåø ìîöåà òãéí ìòåìí.

1.

Answer (cont.): ... and it is only when there are no Simanim that he gives up hope, because he does not know what to ask them, and he does not expect to find witnesses any time soon.

åà"ú, à"ë, îä ãåç÷ ìùðåéé äúí ìî"ã 'ñéîðéï ìàå ãàåøééúà' 'ñéîðéï ëãé ðñáà', äà àéëà ìîéîø ãìà ð÷è ñéîï àìà ìåîø ãò"é ëê éù ìä úåáòéï?

(g)

Question: Why does the Gemara there on Amud Beis) then push to answer, according to the opinion that Simanim are not mid'Oraysa, that it mentions Simanim just by the way'? Why can one not say that it mentions them since it is because the article has Simanim that the owner does not give up hope?

åé"ì, ãàé ìàå ãñéîðéï ãàåøééúà, ìà äéä ìå ëìì ìäæëéøí.

(h)

Answer: Because if not for the fact that Simanim are mi'd'Oraysa, it should not have mentioned them at all ...

åìà äåä ìéä ìîéîø èôé àìà 'îä ùîìä îéåçãú ùéù ìä úåáòéí' -åîîéìà éãòéðï ãîùåí ñéîðéí äåà.

1.

Reason: ... and all it needed to say was 'Just as a garment is special in that it has claimants, and we would have automatically understood that that is on account of Simanim.

6)

TOSFOS DH HACHA NAMI KEIVAN DI'MEYA'ESH

úåñ' ã"ä äëà ðîé ëéåï ãîééàù ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos discusses the difference between Yi'ush with regard to Aveidah and Yi'ush with regard to Gezel.)

àò"ô ùàéï éàåù îåòéì áàáéãä áúø ãàúé ìéãéä...

(a)

Implied Question: Even though Yi'ush is not effective by a lost article, once it comes into his hands ...

ëã÷àîø 'ìàå ëéåï ãîééàù îøä îéðä î÷îé ãàúé ìéãéä, ÷ðé ìéä'?

1.

Source #1: ... as the Gemara states 'Isn't it a fact that, since the owner was Meya'esh from the article before it came to the hands of the finder, the latter acquires it?'

åëãàîø áàìå îöéàåú (á"î ãó ëà:) áäãéà.

2.

Source #2: ... and as the Gemara says explicitly in 'Eilu Metzi'os' (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 21b).

î"î áòé ìîéìó ùôéø ãéàåù ÷ðé áâæì áúø ãàúé ìéãéä...

(b)

Answer: Nevertheless, the Gemara it is justified in learning that Yi'ush does acquire by Gezel even after it comes to his hands ...

ãáîöéàä ðîé -ðäé ùìà äéä ÷åðä ìòðéï æä ùìà éöèøê ìäùéá åìäôèø ìâîøé äåàéì åëáø ðúçééá áäùáä ...

(c)

Reason: ... because by a Mtzi'ah too, granted he would not acquire the article completely - to the extent that he would not need to return it at all, seeing as he was already obligated to return it ...

î"î äéä ÷åðä ìòðéï æä ùìà éúçééá ìùìí ëé àí ãîéí ëîå ìâáé âæì.

1.

Reason (cont.): ... he would nevertheless acquire it with regard to only being Chayav to pay the article's value (and not the article itself), just like by Gezel.

7)

TOSFOS DH KEIVAN DE'BE'ISURA ASI LI'YEDEIH

úåñ' ã"ä ëéåï ãáàéñåøà àúé ìéãéä

(Summary: Tosfos proves that Yi'ush is not like Hefker and elaborates.)

îëàï îùîò ùéàåù àéï ëäô÷ø âîåø...

(a)

Inference: From here it is implied that Yi'ush is not completely like Hefker ...

ãà"ë, àôé' áúø ãàúà ìéãéä áàéñåøà, éåëì ì÷ðåú îï ääô÷ø.

1.

Proof: ... because if it was, even after it comes to his hand be'Isur he ought to acquire it from Hefker.

åäà ãàîø áäùåìç (âéèéï ãó ìè:) 'ðúééàùúé îôìåðé òáãé' ãìà áòé âè ùçøåø àé àîøé' 'äîô÷éø òáãå, éöà ìçéøåú, åàéï öøéê âè ùçøå ...

(b)

Clarification: And when the Gemara says in 'ha'Shole'ach' (Gitin, Daf 39b) that, assuming someone who declares his Eved, need not give him a Get Shichrur, if he is Meya'esh from his Eved, he does not require a Get Shichrur either ...

ìà îùåí ãëé îúééàù äøé äåà îô÷éøå...

1.

Refuted Reason: ... it is not because Yi'ush is Hefker ...

ãàé éàåù äåé äô÷ø, à"ë àôé' àúà ìéãéä áàéñåøà, ëéåï ùîô÷éø æëä áäï.

2.

Refutation: ... because, if it was, one ought to acquire the object, even if the owner is Meya'esh after it came to the finder's hand.

àìà äúí äééðå èòîà -ãëé äéëé ãáäô÷ø àéï öøéê âè ùçøåø ìôé ùàéï øùåú ìøáå òìéå, ä"ð ëùðúééàù àéï ìøáå øùåú òìéå.

(c)

Authentic Reason: The reason therefore is - because just as Hefker does not require a Get Shichrur since the master has no more jurisdiction over him, so too, does he have no jurisdiction over him once he is Meya'esh.

66b----------------------------------------66b

8)

TOSFOS DH ILEIMA LIFNEI YI'USH LAMAH LI K'RA P'SHITA

úåñ' ã"ä àéìéîà ìôðé éàåù ì"ì ÷øà ôùéèà

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the question.)

ãàôéìå ÷ãùéðäå àéðå ÷ãåù ...

(a)

Clarification: Because it is not Kadosh, even if he sanctified it.

ã'âæì åìà ðúééàùå äáòìéí, ùðéäï àéï éëåìéï ìä÷ãéù'.

1.

Source: ... due to the principle that 'If someone steals something and the owner has not given up hope, neither the owner nor the Ganav are able to declare it Hekdesh' (as the Gemara will say latter on Daf 69a).

9)

TOSFOS DH SH'MA MINAH DE'YI'USH LO KANI

úåñ' ã"ä ùîò îéðä ãéàåù ìà ÷ðé

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the Gemara's proof.)

ãàé ÷ðé, à"ë çùéá ùôéø "÷øáðå," åìà îéôñéì îùåí 'îöåä äáàä áòáéøä' ...

(a)

Explanation: Because if it was Koneh, it would be considered "his Korban" and would not be Pasul on account of a Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah ba'Aveirah' ...

äåàéì åäåà ÷ðåé ìå ÷åãí ùä÷ãéùå, ëîå ùàôøù ì÷îï (ãó ñæ. ã"ä 'àîø òåìà') áò"ä.

1.

Reason: ... since he acquired it before he declared it Heekdesh, as Tosfos will explain later (on Daf 67a, DH 'Amar Ula').

àáì àé ìà ÷ðé áéàåù, îéôñéì.

2.

Explanation (cont.): But if he would not acquire it, it would be Pasul ...

åî"î ÷ãåù äåà ...

(b)

Conclusion: ... although it would nevertheless be Kadosh (See Mesores ha'Shas) ...

àò"â ãàëúé ìà éãò èòîà ãùéðåé äùí, ã÷àîø ì÷îï 'îòé÷øà çåìéï åäùúà ä÷ãù' ...

(c)

Implied Question: Even though the Gemara does not yet know the reason of 'Shinuy ha'Shem, as the Gemara says (only) later 'Initially it was Chulin and now it is Hekdesh'.

î"î éù ëàï éàåù åùéðåé øùåú áàåúï ÷øáðåú ãàéï [äâæìï] çééá áàçøéåúï.

(d)

Answer: ... nevertheless, there is Yi'ush and Shinuy R'shus (at least) regarding those Korbanos for which the Gazlan is not responsible (See Hagahos ha'Bach & Hagahos ve'Tziyunim).

10)

TOSFOS DH MI IKA LE'MA'AN DE'AMAR SHINUY MA'ASEH LO KANI

úåñ' ã"ä îé àéëà ìî"ã ùéðåé îòùä ìà ÷ðé

(Summary: Tosfos explains why the Gemara declines to establish the Beraisa like Beis Shamai and those who concur with them.)

åìà áòé ìàå÷îéä ëá"ù ãàîøé 'ùéðåé áî÷åîå òåîã' ...

(a)

Refuted Answer #1: The Gemara does not want to establish the Beraisa like Beis Shamai who says that the Shinuy remains in its place (is not Koneh) ...

àó òì âá ãàéëà ðîé úðàé ãñáøé äëé áäâåæì ÷îà (ì÷îï ãó öâ:) ...

(b)

Implied Question: ... even though there are other Tana'im who concur with them, in 'ha'Gozel Kama (later, Daf 93a) ...

î"î äìëä ëá"ä ã'ùéðåé ÷åðä'.

(c)

Refutation: ... nevertheless, the Halachah is like Beis Hillel that 'Shinuy aquires'.

åäúí ðîé ãçé øáà' ãëåìäå úðàé îöå ñáøé ëá"ä ,åáëì äâîøà ñåáø ëï.

(d)

Support: In fact there too, Rava concludes that all the Tana'im there concur with Beis Hillel, and the Gemara throughout Shas holds like that.

åìà áòé ìàå÷îé áùéðåé äçåæø ìáøééúå, ãàéëà ìî"ã ãìà ÷ðé ...

1.

Refuted Answer #2: Nor does the Gemara want to establish the case by a Shinuy that is retractable, which some say is not Koneh ...

ãøá éåñó ìà ôìéâ òìéä ãøáä àìà áéàåù ìçåãéä, àáì áùéðåé îòùä, àôé' áçåæø ìáøééúå ãàééøé áéä øáä, ëãôøéùéú ìòéì, ìà ôìéâ òìéä.

2.

Refutation: ... because even Rav Yosef who argues with Rabah, only argues with him in connection with Yi'ush on its own, but as far as Shinuy Ma'aseh is concerned, even if it is a retractable one - about which Rabah is speaking, as Tosfos explained above (on Daf 65b DH 'Hein'), he dos not argue.

11)

TOSFOS DH DE'GAZAL MISHKAV DE'CHAVREIH

úåñ' ã"ä ãâæì îùëá ãçáøéä

(Summary: Tosfos disagrees with Rashi's explanation.)

îùîò îúåê ô"ä ùø"ì îùëá âîåø ùì çáéøå àí âæìå àéï îèîà îùëá ãâæéøú äëúåá äåà.

(a)

Explanation: Rashi implies that what the Gemara means is that he stole the complete bed of his friend, it is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv that it is not Metamei Mishkav.

åæäå úéîä?

(b)

Question #1: This is very difficult to understand?

åòåã ÷ùä ìøùá"í, ãáèäøåú (ô"æ î"å) âáé 'âðáéí ùðëðñå ìáéú' úðï 'äîùëáåú åîåùáåú èäåøéí; åàí éù òîäí âåé àå àùä, äëì èîà ... '

(c)

Question #2: Furthermore, asks the Rashbam, the Mishnah in Taharos (7:6) states, in connection with 'Ganavim who enter a house', that 'The Mishkavos and the Mishavos (in the house) are Tahor; but if they are accompanied by a Nochri or a woman, everything is Tamei' ...

ëé ùîà ðãä äéà åâåé ëæá ìëì ãáøéå...

1.

Reason: ... since the woman may be a Nidah and a Nochri is Metamei like a Zav in all circumstances ...

îùîò ùîèîà îùëá åîåùá ùàéï ùìå?

2.

Question #2 (cont.): ... implying that one is Metamei Mishkav and Moshav even if something that belongs to somebody else?

åîéäå éù ìãçåú ãäúí îãøáðï.

(d)

Answer: Though (regarding this question) one can answer that that is only mi'de'Rabanan.

åòåã ÷ùä, ãáúåøú ëäðéí )ôøùú îöåøò) îééúé òìä ôìåâúà ãø"ù åøáðï ã'âðá åâæìï' ãáñîåê ...

(e)

Question #3: And it is also difficult from the Toras Kohanim (in Parshas Metzora), which cites the following Machlokes between Rebbi Shimon and the Rabanan, regarding 'Ganav and Gazlan' mentioned shortly.

åäëé àéúà äúí "îùëáå," 'åìà äâæåì.' éëåì ùàðé îåöéà àó äâðåá, ú"ì "èîà."

1.

The Tana Kama: "Mishkavo", 've'Lo ha'Gazul'; "Yitma", 'to preclude one that is stolen'.

[ø' ùîòåï àåîø "îùëáå," 'åìà äâðåá.' éëåì ùàðé îåöéà àú äâæåì, ú"ì "èîà"].

2.

Rebbi Shimon: Rebbi Shimon says "Mishkavo", 've'Lo ha'Ganuv'; "Yitma", 'to preclude one that is Gazul'.

àîøå ìå 'åîä øàéú ìøáåú àú æä åìäåöéà àú æä? àçø ùøéáä äëúåá åîéòè, îøáä àðé àú àìå ùðúééàùå äáòìéí îîðå . ...'

3.

Question #3 (cont.): ... They said to him 'On what grounds did you include theone and exclude the other'? And he replied that he includes articles that the owner has despaired of retrieving ... '.

åîãîééúé òìä ôìåâúà ãø"ù åøáðï, îùîò ãäåé èòí îùåí ãàéï îçùáä îèîàúå, ëé ääéà ãáñîåê...

4.

Question #3 (concl.): Now since the Gemara cites the Machlokes Rebbi Shimon and the Rabanan, it implies that the reason is because Machshavah does not render it Tamei, like the case cite shortly ...

ãàéï éçåã ùì âæìï éçåã?

5.

Reason: ... because the designation of a Gazlan is not considered designation.

åîôøù ø"é' 'ãâæì îùëá ãçáøéä' -ùâæì òåøåú ùì áòì äáéú, ùàéðï îçåñøéï àìà éçåã' åàéï öøéê ùåí úé÷åï, åàéï çñø ø÷ îçùáä ...

(f)

Explanation #2: The Ri therefore explains 'de'Gazal Mishkav de'Chavreih' to mean that he stole skins belonging to the owner which lack only designation and no other preparation; so all they need is Machshavah ...

åäåé ùôéø ãåîéà ã'âæì ÷øáï ãçáøéä' ...

1.

Explanation #2 (cont.): ... in which case they are similar to the case of 'someone who steals his friend's Korban' ...

ùàí äéä âåæì áäîä ùì çåìéï ùîçåñøú ÷ãåùä, æä äéä ëîå îçåñø îòùä âîåø, ëòéï 'òîøà åòáãéä îùëá;'

2.

Reason: ... because if he were to steal his friend's animal that still required sanctifying, it would be considered lacking an act, similar to 'wool which one makes into a bed'.

àáì âæì àå âðá îùëá âîåø ãçáøéä, îèîà îùëá ìë"ò.

3.

Explanation #2 (concl.): ... whereas if he stole (whether Gazal or Ganav) his friend's complete bed, it would be Metamai Mishkav according to all opinions.

åàò"â ãäê "îùëáå", 'åìà äâæåì' àééøé ÷åãí éàåù, åäê ã"÷øáðå", 'åìà äâæåì' àééøé àó áúø éàåù?

(g)

Implied Question: And even though the case of "Mishkavo", 've'Lo ha'Gazul' is speaking before Yi'ush, and "Korbano", 've'Lo ha'Gazul', after Yi'ush ...

àéï ìä÷ôéã àò"â ãàéï ãåîä æä ìæä.

(h)

Answer: ... one doesn't need to worry if the two cases are not (totally) compatible.

12)

TOSFOS DH DE'GAZAL KORBAN DE'CHAVREIH

úåñ' ã"ä ãâæì ÷øáï ãçáøéä

(Summary: Tosfos discusses the case that justifies the need of a Pasuk.)

úéîä, ì"ì ÷øà? ãàé áçèàú, äà àôé' äåà òöîå àí àëì çìá àúîåì åäôøéù ÷øáï, àéï îúëôø áàåúå ÷øáï òì çìá ùàëì äéåí?

(a)

Question: Why does one need a Pasuk? Because if it is speaking about a Chatas, then even if he himself ate Cheilev yesterday and set aside a Korban, he cannot attain atonement with that Korban for Cheilev that he ate today? ...

åàé áòåìä åùìîéí, äà àîøé' áôñçéí (ãó ôè:) 'äîåëø òåìúå åùìîéå, ìà òùä åìà ëìåí'?

1.

Question (cont.): ... whereas if it speaking about an Olah or a Shelamim, the Gemara says in Pesachim (Daf 89b) that if someone sells his Olah or his Shelamim, his sale is invalid?

åäéä ðøàä ìàå÷îé áôñç, ùéëåì ìîðåú àçøéí òîå òì ôñçå åìîåëøå , ëãîåëç äúí.

(b)

Answer: It would therefore seem correct to establish the case by a Korban Pesach, which the owner is able to appoint others to share with him and to sell, as is evident there ...

àáì ÷ùä, ãäàé ÷øà áòåìä ëúéá?

(c)

Question: But the Pasuk under discussion is talking about an Olah?

àí ìà ùðòîéã áôñç á'àí àéðå òðéï'.

(d)

Answer: Unless we establish the Pasuk by a Pesach, by means of the principle 'Im Eino Inyan' (If the Pasuk is not needed for itself, apply it to where it is needed).

åàéï ìåîø ùáà äëúåá ìôñåì ä÷øáï ...

(e)

Refuted Answer: And we cannot answer that the Pasuk is coming to invalidate the Korban ...

ãäà àîøéðï ì÷îï (ãó òå.) âáé âðá - ù'àí ùçè úîéîéí ìôðéí ìùí áòìéí, çæøä ÷øï ìáòìéí.

(f)

Refutation: ... since the Gemara says later (on Daf 76a) in connection with a Ganav - that if one Shechts un-blemished animals inside the Azarah) in the name of the owner, the animal has been returned (the owner is Yotzei).

13)

TOSFOS DH K'GON SHE'KITZ'AN

úåñ' ã"ä ëâåï ù÷éöòï

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the Gemara's answer.)

åîåòéì òí äéàåù, àáì ìçåãéä ìà ÷ðé

(a)

Clarification: And it is effective combined with Yi'ush, but not on its own ...

ãìàå ùéðåé îòùä äåà.

1.

Reason: ... since it is not a Shinuy Ma'aseh.

14)

TOSFOS DH VE'ITZBA TZ'RICHA KITZU'A

úåñ' ã"ä åòéöáà àéðä öøéëä ÷éöåò

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles this Sugya with the Sugya in Zevachim.)

åîéäå äéëà ãçùéá òìéä ì÷åöòä, àîøéðï áô' ãí çèàú (æáçéí ãó öã.) ã'èäåøä òã ùé÷öéòðä'.

(a)

Qualification: However, there where he had initially in mind to cut it, the Gemara says in Perek Dam Chatas (Zevachim, Daf 94a) that it remains Tahor until he actually cuts it.

åî"î ãéé÷ äëà ùôéø ãëéåï ãøàåéä ìäùúîù áìà ÷éöåò, àéï ÷éöåò ùìä çùåá ùéðåé îòùä ëìì.

(b)

Conclusion: Nevertheless, the Gemara extrapolates here that since it is fit to use without cutting it, cutting it is not considered a Shinuy Ma'aseh at all.

15)

TOSFOS DH KOL SHE'EIN BO CHESARON MELACHAH MACHSHAVAH METAM'ASAH

úåñ' ã"ä ëì ùàéï áå çñøåï îìàëä îçùáä îèîàúå

(Summary: Tosfos explains why, if not for the case of Itzba, the Gemara could not prove from here that Yi'ush is Koneh.)

åà"ú, áìàå ääåà ãòéöáà', àîàé ìà ôøéê ìéä îäëà ã'îçùáä îåòìú' ,àìîà éàåù ÷ðé?

(a)

Question: Even without the case of 'Itzba', why does the Gemara not ask from here, from the fact that Machshavah is effective, a proof that Yi'ush is Koneh?

åé"ì, ãìîà äê ãäëà àééøé ááòì äáéú.

(b)

Answer: Perhaps the Gemara is speaking here about the owner himself (and not about the Ganav).

16)

TOSFOS DH SHINUY HASH-M KE'SHINUY MA'ASEH DAMI

úåñ' ã"ä ùéðåé äùí ëùéðåé îòùä ãîé

(Summary: Tosfos qualifies the statement.)

ìàå ëùéðåé îòùä îîù - ãùéðåé îòùä ìçåãéä ÷ðé...

(a)

Clarification: It is not completely like Shinuy Ma'aseh - since Shinuy Ma'aseh acquires by itself ...

ëãîåëç ìòéì åì÷îï (ãó ñç.) âáé 'âðá åèáç åáà àçø åâðáå' ...

(b)

Source: ... as is evident above and later (on Daf 68a) in connection with 'Ganav ve'Tavach u'Ba Acher ve'Ganvo?' ...

ãôøéê 'åùéðåé îòùä îé àéëà ìî"ã ãìà ÷ðé.'

1.

Source (cont.): ... where the Gemara asks 'Is there anyone who holds that Shinuy is not Koneh?' ...

àáì ùéðåé äùí âøéãà ìà ÷ðé áìà éàåù àå ùéðåé îòùä.

(c)

Clarification (concl.): ... whereas Shinuy ha'Shem on its own is not Koneh without Yi'ush or Shinuy Ma'aseh.