CHULIN 31-43 - Two weeks of study material have been dedicated by Mrs. Estanne Abraham 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 HA D'AMAR L'HU

úåñôåú ã"ä äà ãàîø ìäø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos gives various explanation to explain why the worshipper is Chayav Misah even though the mountain does not become forbidden, incorporating the question as to whether it (the mountain) is in fact, a god or not. Later, they discuss the Din of Tikroves and Tzipuy of Ba'alei-Chayim.)

ùàéðå ðòùä òáåãú ëåëáéí, ëãôéøù á÷åðèøñ.

(a)

Clarification (Part 1): Which cannot adopt the status of an idolatry, as Rashi explains.

åàò"â ãìà çùéá àìåä ìàñåø äú÷øåáú, îëì î÷åí òåáãå áñééó - ëãúðéà áôø÷ ëì äöìîéí (ò"æ ãó îå.) 'äðëøéí äòåáãéí àú ääøéí, äí îåúøéí, åòåáãéäí áñééó'.

(b)

Clarification (Part 2): Nevertheless, whoever worships it is subject to Sayaf (death by the sword) - as we learned in a Beraisa in Perek Kol ha'Tzelamim (Avodah-Zarah 46.) 'If Nochrim worship mountains, the mountains remain permitted, whereas the worshippers are Chayav Sayaf'.

åàîøéðï ðîé áôø÷ àøáò îéúåú (ñðäãøéï ãó ñà.) 'îéãé ãäåä à'îùúçåä ìäø, ãäø îåúø åòåáãå áñééó'.

(c)

Precedent: Likewise we say in Perek Arba Misos (Sanhedrin 61.) 'It is similar to someone who prostrates himself before a mountain, where the mountain remains permitted, whereas the worshipper receives Sayaf'.

åàéï ìúîåä, ãëéåï ãìà îé÷øé àìåä, àîàé òåáãå áñééó?

(d)

Refuted Question: One cannot ask that since it is not called a god, why is the worshipper Chayav Sayaf.

ããå÷à ìòðéï 'àéáåã' ÷àîø ÷øà ãìà îé÷øé àìåä, îùåí ãâìé øçîðà (ãáøéí éá) "àáã úàáãåï ... ".

(e)

Refutation #1 (Part 1): Because it is specifically with regard to 'Ibud' (the obligation to destroy images) that the Torah does not consider it a god, as it is written in Devarim (12) "Abeid Te'abdun ... (es Eloheihem al he'Harim ... )".

à"ð, äåä îé÷øé àìåä, åä"ô "àìäéäí ùòì ääøéí úàáãåï", 'åìà ääøéí ùäí àìäéäí, åòåáãéí àåúí úàáãåï'.

(f)

Refutation #1 (Part 2): Alternatively, it is called a god, and we learn from the Pasuk that it is specifically with regard to 'Ibud' (the obligation to destroy images) that the Torah does not consider it a god, as it is written in Devarim (12) "Abeid Te'abdun ... es Eloheihem al he'Harim ... ", from which we now Darshen that one must destroy the gods that are on the mountains, but not the mountains that are their gods, and that they worship.

åîä ùú÷øåáú äø îåúø

(g)

Implied Question: Why are the sacrifices brought to the mountains then permitted ...

äééðå îùåí ãâîøéðï îëìéí, ãëúéá "àáã úàáãåï ... ".

(h)

Answer (Part 1): Because we learn it from Keilim, since the Torah writes "Abeid Te'abdun ...

åàîøéðï áô' øáé éùîòàì (ò"æ ãó ðà:) 'áëìéí ùðùúîùå áäï ìòáåãú ëåëáéí äëúåá îãáø'. åàîø øçîðà, ããå÷à "àìäéäí òì ääøéí", 'åìà ääøéí òöîï àìäéäí'.

(i)

Answer (Part 2): Which we establish in Perek Rebbi Yishmael (Avodah-Zarah, 51:) by vessels that were used to worship idols, and with regard to which the Torah specifically forbids the gods that are on the mountains, but not the mountains themselves (i.e. the Keilim that were used to worship them).

àé ðîé, îù"ä äòåáãï áñééó, àò"â ãìà îé÷øé àìåä - îùåí ãâìé øçîðà áòåáãé îæìåú ãîúçééá, ëãëúéá (ãáøéí ã) "åéìê åéòáã ... åìùîù àå ìéøç ... ". åàó òì ôé ùîçåáøéï áâìâì äø÷éò.

(j)

Refutation #2: Alternatively, the reason that the worshipper is Chayav Sayaf, even though it is not called a god is because the Torah reveals that it is, with regard to those who worship the Mazalos, when it writes in Parshas Shoftim "And he goes and worships ... the sun and the moon (where it concludes that he is Chayav Sekilah [Rashash]), even though the Mazalos are fixed to the sphere of the Heaven.

åäà ã÷úðé äëà 'ìùí çîä åìáðä ãäåé æáçé îúéí'?

(k)

Implied Question: Why does the Tana then rule here that if somebody worships the sun or the moon, it is considered Zivchei Meisim?

äééðå ìâãééäå ùäí úìåùéí - åäí îìàëéí äîðäéâéí àåúí, ëãàîøéðï áîãøù 'é"á îìàëéí (áîãøù øáä ÷äìú àé' ç') îðäéâéí àú äçîä'.

(l)

Answer: Because he is speaking where he worships the angels that lead the sun and the moon (as we have learned in the Medrash, that there are twelve angels (Medrash Koheles says there are eight) who lead the sun ... ), which are detached.

åîéäå á÷åðèøñ ìà ôéøù ëï; ãîå÷é äàé ÷øà ã"åøàéú àú äùîù ... " áúìåùéí.

(m)

Rashi Disagrees (Part 1): Rashi however, does not learn this way. He establishes the latter Pasuk with regard to Telushim ...

åîééúé øàéä îéðéä ãàò"â ãáòìé çééí ìà îéúñøé îùåí òáåãú ëåëáéí, îëì î÷åí îé÷øé àìåä åàñéøé ú÷øåáú ãéãäå.

(n)

Rashi Disagrees (Part 2): And according to him the Gemara is proving that even though animals do not become forbidden on account of Avodah-Zarah, they are nevertheless considered gods to forbid sacrifices that are brought to them.

åà"ú, åî"ù ú÷øåáú äø îöôåé äø ãôìéâé áä úðàé áôø÷ ëì äöìîéí (ò"æ ãó îä.) ...

(o)

Question (Part 1): On what grounds is Tikroves Har different than Tzipuy Har, which is a Machlokes Tana'im in Perek Kol ha'Tzelamim (Avodah-Zarah 45.) ...

ãúðï 'åîä ùòìéäï àñåø, ãëúéá "ìà úçîåã ëñó åæäá òìéäí"; øáé éåñé äâìéìé àåîø "òì ääøéí àìäéäí" 'åìà ääøéí àìäéäí'.

(p)

Question (Part 2): The Mishnah states there that what is on the mountains is forbidden, as the Pasuk writes "Do not covet the silver and gold that is on them"; Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili says "Their gods are on the mountains"; 'and not that the mountains are their gods!'

åàîø áâîøà ãôìéâé áöôåé äø ëäø?

(q)

Question (Part 3): And the Gemara establishes the Machlokes as to whether 'Tzipuy Har ke'Har' (Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili) or not (the Tana Kama).

åé"ì, ãäúí îééøé ëùòåáãéí àó àú äöôåé, åàô"ä ùøé ìøáé éåñé äâìéìé îùåí ãàéï òåáãéï àåúå àìà àâá äø, åáèéì ìâáéä, ãìà éäà èôì çîåø îï äòé÷ø.

(r)

Answer (Part 1): It speaks there where they also worshipped the Tzipuy, despite which Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili permits it, seeing as one only generally worships it together with the mountain, to which it is Bateil - and the Tafeil cannot be stricter than the Ikar.

åøáðï ðîé àé ìàå ÷øà ã"ìà úçîåã" äåå ùøå îäàé èòîà. àé ðîé, øáðï àñøé îùåí ùòåáãéí àåúå, å÷øà àñîëúà áòìîà.

(s)

Answer (Part 2): In fact, the Rabbanan would have allowed it for this reason, were it not for the Pasuk of "Lo Sachmod"; or because it has been worshipped, and the Pasuk is merely an Asmachta.

åà"ú, ãîùîò áøéù ôø÷ ëì äàñåøéï (úîåøä ãó ëç:) ãöôåé áòìé çééí îåúøéí ìäãéåè, åîå÷é "ìà úçîåã ëñó åæäá òìéäí" áãáø ùàéï áå øåç çééí, àáì áãáø ùéù áå øåç çééí, äåàéì åäåà îåúø, öôåéå ðîé îåúø ...

1.

Question (Part 1): The Gemara implies at the beginning of Perek Kol ha'Asurin (Temurah 28:) that the Tzipuy of animals is permitted to a Hedyot, and it establishes the Pasuk "Lo Sachmod Kesef ve'Zahav Aleihem" with regard to something that is not an animal; whereas the animal itself, since it is permitted, so too is the Tzipuy?

åàôéìå ìâáåä îùîò äúí ãäåä ùøé, àé ìàå ãëúéá áå "îï äá÷ø", åàôéìå îééøé ëùàéï òåáãéï àåúå, î"ù îú÷øåáú áòìé çééí, ãàñåø?

2.

Question (Part 2): In fact, it seems from the Gemara there that it would even be permitted to Gavohah as well, had the Torah not written "min ha'Bakar"? And even if it is speaking where they did not worship it, why should the Din be different than Tikroves of Ba'alei Chayim, which is Asur?

åé"ì, ãöôåé ùøé èôé, ãáèéì à'âáééäå, åäåä ëðòáã òöîå ãùøé, ìôé ùäåà á"ç.

3.

Answer: Tzipuy is different inasmuch as it is Bateil to the animal, and it is therefore as if one worshipped the animal itself, which is permitted because it is a Ba'al-Chai.

åîéäå ðøàä ãöôåé á"ç àñåø àôéìå ìäãéåè - îãôøéê äúí 'èòîà ãøáéðäå ÷øà, äà ìà øáéðäå ÷øà, öôåé îåúø'. åäà ëúéá (ãáøéí éá) "åàáãúí àú ùîí îï äî÷åí ääåà" - ëì äòùåé ìùîí.

4.

Conclusion: It seems however, that Tzipuy of Ba'alei Chayim is Asur even to a Hedyot, since the Gemara asks there 'The reason (that the Tzipuy is Asur) is because the Pasuk includes the m (when it writes "min ha'Bakar", 'Lehotzi es ha'Ne'evad'). Had it not, Tzipuy would be permitted. But does the Torah not write (in Re'ei) "And you shall destroy them from that place", 'whatever is made for their sake'?

åäùúà ìîä ìé ìîéã÷ 'èòîà ãøáéðäå ÷øà', äùúà ðîé ãøáéðäå ÷øà, ú÷ùä ìéä äéàê àñåø ìäãéåè, ã÷øà ã"îï äá÷ø" ìâáåä ëúéá?

5.

Question: Why do we need to extrapolate from the fact the Torah includes them? Even if it does, the question remains, why if it Asur to a Hedyot, since the Pasuk of "min ha'Bakar" is written in connection with Gavohah?

àìà åãàé àó ìäãéåè àñåø. åäééðå èòîà - ãëéåï ãàùîåòéðï ãàñåøéí ìâáåä åîé÷øé ðòáã ìëì äôçåú ìâáé âáåä, áà äëúåá ã"ìà úçîåã" ìàñåø öôåé, àôéìå ìà éçùá ðòáã àìà ìâáåä

6.

Answer: We are therefore forced to say that it is also forbidden to Hedyot, because since the Pasuk comes to teach us it is Asur at least to Gavohah, in which regard it is called Ne'evad, the Pasuk of "Lo Sachmod" comes to forbid Tzipuy to Gavohah (even though it is only Ne'evad with regard to Gavohah.

àò"â ãäø ðîé çùåá ðòáã ìòðéï âáåä, ëãîåëç áôø÷ ëì äöìîéí (ò"æ ãó îå:) ã'äîùúçåä ìäø, àáðéå àñåøéï ìîæáç', î"î öôåéå îåúø - ãéìôéðï îëìéí ãìà îéúñøé ... ëé äéëé ãéìôéðï ú÷øåáú îëìéí ëãôøéùéú. åàéï ìäàøéê ëàï éåúø.

7.

Question: Even though a mountain too is only considered Ne'evad regarding Gavohah, as is evident in Perek Kol ha'Tzelamim (Avodah-Zarah 46:) 'If someone prostrates himself to a mountain, its stones are forbidden to be used for the Mizbe'ach, yet its Tzipuy is permitted - as we learn from Keilim, which do not become forbidden ...

ëé äéëé ãéìôéðï ú÷øåáú îëìéí, ëãôøéùéú. åàéï ìäàøéê ëàï éåúø.

8.

Precedent: Just as we learn Tikroves from Keilim, as we explained earlier. And this is not the place to elaborate further in this matter.

2)

TOSFOS DH REVUTZAH LIFNEI AVODAS-KOCHAVIM

úåñôåú ã"ä øáåöä ìôðé òáåãú ëåëáéí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos disagrees with Rashi's reason as to why Rav Huna mentions 'Revutzah', and supplies his own.)'

ôéøù á÷åðèøñ, ìà îéáòéà òåîãú, ãëùäâáéää åäøáéöä ÷ðàä áäâáää åðòùéú ùìå.

(a)

Explanation #1: It is not necessary to mention a case where the animal is standing, Rashi explains, since then the moment he lifted it up in order to make it crouch down he would acquire it and it would become his.

åàéï ðøàä, ãëé äâáéää ðîé ìà ÷ðä ìä ìòðéï ùúçùá ùìå, àí àéï àãí àåñø ãáø ùàéï ùìå ...

(b)

Objection #1 (Part 1): This is not correct however, because if one could not forbid something that one does not own, then picking up the animal would not acquire it to make it his either.

ãäà âæì åìà ðúéàùå äáòìéí, ùðéäï àéðï éëåìéï ìä÷ãéù, æä ìôé ùàéðå ùìå åæä ìôé ùàéðå áøùåúå ... .

(c)

Objection #1 (Part 2): As we see in a case where somebody steals something and the owner has not yet given up hope, neither if them us able to declare the article Hekdesh, the Ganav because it is not his, and the owner, because it is not under his jurisdiction?

åì÷îï (ãó îà.) ðîé ãàîø øá ðçîï 'àéï àãí àåñø ãáø ùàéðå ùìå'. ôøéê ìéä î'äîðñê'. åîàé ôøéê îäîðñê, åäà îðñê îëé àâáäéä ÷ðééä, ëãàîø áäðéæ÷éï (âéèéï ãó ðá:)?

(d)

Objection #2: Furthermore, the Gemara later (on Daf 41.) queries Rav Nachman's ruling 'Ein Adam Oser Davar she'Eino she'Lo' from Menasech (which is effective). (According to Rashi) what is the Kashya from Menasech, seeing as he acquires the wine the moment he picks it up, as the Gemara explains in 'ha'Nizakin' (Gitin 52:)?

àìà åãàé áäëé ìà çùéá ùìå, åàéðå ÷ðåé ìå àìà ìäúçééá áàåðñéï.

(e)

Conclusion: Clearly then, with this (picking it up) it does not become his, and he (the Ganav) does not acquire it other than to become Chayav for Onsin?

àìà ðøàä ãð÷è 'øáåöä' ìøáåúà - ãàó òì âá ãìà äøáéöä åìà òùä áä îòùä âãåì ëì ëê, àñøä.

(f)

Explanation #2: It therefore seems that Rav Huna mentions 'Revutzah' to teach us that even though he did not make it crouch, and did not perform a major act on the animal, he nevertheless renders it Asur (See also end of following Dibur).

3)

TOSFOS DH LIFNEI AVODAS-KOCHAVIM

úåñôåú ã"ä ìôðé òáåãú ëåëáéí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos elaborates as to why Rav Huna needs to say this, concluding with another reason why he says 'Revutzah'.)

àéï ìôøù ãå÷à ìôðé òáåãú ëåëáéí, åëøáé éäåãä áï ááà ãàîø ì÷îï (ãó îà.) 'àéï îðñëéï ééï àìà ìôðé òáåãú ëåëáéí', åäåà äãéï ùàø òáåãåú.

(a)

Refuted Explanation: One cannot explain that this is Davka in front of the Avodas-Kochavim - like the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah ben Bava who says later (Daf 41.) that the Isur of Nisuch Yayin is confined to where it is performed in front of the Avodah-Zarah - and that this extends to other Avodos.

ãðøàä ããå÷à ìòðéï ðéñåê ÷àîø, ãáëì ãåëúà ãàééøé áùåçè ìà ð÷è 'ìôðé òáåãú ëåëáéí'.

(b)

Refutation #1: Because it would seem that Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira's ruling is confined to Nisuch, since nowhere do we find the term 'Lifnei Avodas-Kochavim' in connection with Shechitah (or any other Avodah).

åòåã, ãàîàé ôøéê áñîåê 'à'ùçåèé çåõ ìà ìéçééá, ãîçúê áòôø äåà?' äúí áùìà ùçè ìôðé òáåãú ëåëáéí åìà îúñøà, åî"î çééá äòåáã, îéãé ãäåä à'òåáã ìäø?

(c)

` Refutation #2: Furthermore, why does the Gemara ask shortly 'Let him not be Chayav for Shechutei Chutz, since he is merely cutting dust'? There it is speaking where he did not Shecht in front of the Avodah-Zarah, and the animal does not become Asur, yet he is Chayav just like one is Chayav for worshipping a mountain?

àìà åãàé àôéìå ùìà áôðé òáåãú ëåëáéí ðîé îúñøà ...

(d)

Explanation: Clearly then, one is Chayav even not in the presence of the Avodah-Zarah.

åäà ãð÷è äëà 'ìôðé òáåãú ëåëáéí' ...

(e)

Implied Question: So why does Rav Huna then mention 'in front of the Avodas-Kochavim'?

àåøçà ãîìúà ð÷è.

(f)

Answer #1: Because that is how it is normally done.

à"ð, ëéåï ãìôðé òáåãú ëåëáéí äåà, îñúîà ìùí òáåãú ëåëáéí îúëåéï, àò"ô ùìà ôéøù, åëâåï ùäåà éùøàì îåîø.

(g)

Answer #2: Alternatively, it is only because he is standing in front of the Avodas-Kochavim that we assume S'tam that he acted in the name of the Avodah-Zarah, even though he did not specifically say so; and we are speaking about a Mumar (an apostate)

åäùúà îöé ìîéîø ãð÷è 'øáåöä', ãìà îáòéà äøáéöä ìôðé òáåãú ëåëáéí, ãåãàé ìùí òáåãú ëåëáéí ðúëååï, àìà àôé' øáåöä ëáø, ëéåï ãéùøàì îåîø äåà åùåçè ìôðé òáåãú ëåëáéí, îñúîà îúëåéï ìòáåãú ëåëáéí.

1.

Clarification: It is now possible to explain that Rav Huna mentions 'Revutzah' inasmuch as it is not necessary to mention a case where he made the animal crouch down, where it is evident that he did what he did in the name of Avodah-Zarah; but even where it was already crouching, we assume that he Shechted in the name of Avodah-Zarah, seeing as we are speaking about a Mumar (as we explained).

4)

TOSFOS DH KI HAS D'AMAR ULA

úåñôåú ã"ä ëé äà ãàîø òåìà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos confines the Limud to the fact that Reuven is able to forbid Shimon's animal with an act, but not that a minor act will suffice - even though Rav Huna disagrees.)

ìà îééúé ñééòúà îòåìà àìà îäà ãîéúñøà áäîú çáéøå ò"é îòùä, àáì ãîéúñøà áîòùä æåèà àéï éëåì ìã÷ã÷ ...

(a)

Clarification: The Gemara only proves from Ula that Reuven can forbid Shimon's animal through an act, but not that a minor one will suffice ...

ããìîà òåìà îòùä øáä ÷àîø, ëãàîø áñîåê.

(b)

Reason: Since it may well be that Ula requires a major act, as the Gemara will explain shortly.

åäà ã÷àîø áñîåê 'åòåìà îòùä ëì ãäå ÷àîø' ...

(c)

Implied Question: But when the Gemara will shortly say that Ula is referring to a minor act ...

äééðå îùåí ãìøá äåðà ìà îöé ìôøåùé îòùä øáä, åà"ë òì ëøçê îòùä ëì ãäå ÷àîø ...

(d)

Answer: That is because according to Rav Huna, it cannot be major act; In his opinion, Ula must be talking about a minor act ...

ãàé ñéîï àçã áòé, à"ë äåä ìéä ìôøåùé.

(e)

Proof: Because if he required one Si'man, he should have said so (see Maharam).

5)

TOSFOS DH CHAYAV SHALOSH CHATA'OS

úåñôåú ã"ä çééá ùìù çèàåú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos first explains that the Tana only inserts cases that teach a Chidush, then why there is no problem with the fact that Shechutei Chutz does not fall under the category of 'Wino Miskabeil bi'Fenim, and finally, why Shabbos is not considered 'Mechusar Z'man'.)

ìà ðçú ìîðééðà, ãà"ë ìéúðé 'àøáòä' - åëâåï ùäåà éåä"ë.

(a)

Clarification (Part 1): The Tana is not concerned with the number, because if he was, he would have added a fourth case - namely, that it was also Yom-Kipur.

àìà áäðé àùîåòéðï çéãåù, ãìòðéï ùáú çééá, àò"ô ùìà úé÷ï àìà ìäåöéà îéãé àáø îï äçé, ëãàîø áôñçéí áôø÷ àìå ãáøéí (ãó òâ.) ...

(b)

Clarification (Part 2): But he only lists cases that are a Chidush: It teaches us that he is Chayav because of Shabbos, even though the only positive Tikun is that one takes it out of 'Eiver min ha'Chai' ...

åáçåõ ìòáåãú ëåëáéí äåé çéãåù - ëãîåëç áùîòúà.

(c)

Clarification (Part 3): Whereas Chutz to Avodas-Kochavim is a Chidush, as is evident in the Sugya.

åà"ú, åàîàé çééá îùåí ùçåèé çåõ, åäà àéðå îú÷áì áôðéí - ãçèàú äòåó ìéúà àìà áéçéã åàéï ÷øáï éçéã ÷øá áùáú?

(d)

Question: Why is he Chayav on account of Shechutei Chutz, seeing as it is not acceptable inside the Azarah. This is because a Chatas ha'Of can only be brought as a Korban Yachid, and a Korban Yachid cannot be brought on Shabbos.

åé"ì, ãëéåï ãàí æø÷ äåøöä, ëãàùëçï áô"á ãáéöä (ãó ë:) âáé 'ëáùé òöøú ùùçèï ùìà ìùîï àå ùìà ìæîðï, éù ìå ìäúçééá îùåí ùçåèé çåõ ...

(e)

Answer: Seeing as Bedi'eved in the event that the Kohen sprinkled the blood, it is accepted, as we find in the second Perek of Beitzah (20:), in connection with the case of 'the Lambs of Shavu'os that one Shechted not for their own sake or in the wrong time, one is indeed Chayav because of Shechutei Chutz.

ãáô' äùåçè åäîòìä (æáçéí ãó ÷è.) îøáéðï î÷øàé ìçééá áçåõ òì ëì äôñåìéï, ùàí òìå ìà éøãå.

(f)

Source: Because in 'ha'Shochet ve'ha'Ma'aleh' (Zevachim 109.) we learn from Pesukim to include le'Chiyuv all cases of Chutz which, had they been brought up on to the Mizbe'ach, would not need to be taken down.

åàó òì âá ã"àåúå åàú áðå" áçåõ ôèåø îùåí îçåñø æîï ...

(g)

Implied Question: Even though if one Shechts 'Oso ve'es B'no' ba'Chutz one is Patur, since it is considered Mechusar Z'man (premature) ...

ùáú ìà çùéá îçåñø æîï, ãàéï æä àìà îùåí ãàéï òùä ã÷øáï éçéã ãåçä ìà úòùä ãùáú.

(h)

Answer: Shabbos is not considered Mechusar Z'man, since it is only because the Asei of Korban Yachid cannot override the La'v of Shabbos that one cannot bring it on Shabbos.

40b----------------------------------------40b

6)

TOSFOS DH I HACHI MAI AYRI CHATAS L'ISHME'INAN ZEVAH

úåñôåú ã"ä àé äëé îàé àéøéà çèàú ìéùîòéðï æáç

(SUMMARY: Tosfos clarifies Rashi's second explanation, which he then queries from the Kashya that the Gemara asks shortly, and answers).

ìôéøåù ùðé ùá÷åðèøñ, ãìøá äåðà ôøéê, ãñ"ì 'àéï àãí àåñø ãáø ùàéðå ùìå', åà"ù ãð÷è 'çèàú' ìàôå÷é ùìîéí ùäí ùìå ...

(a)

Clarification (Part 1): According to the second explanation of Rashi, that the Gemara is asking on Rav Huna, who holds that a person cannot render Asur something that is not his, and that the Gemara therefore mentions 'Chatas', to preclude a Shelamim which does belong to him ...

ö"ì ãñáø äùúà ãàúéà ëøáé éåñé äâìéìé - ãàîø '÷ãùéí ÷ìéí îîåï áòìéí äï'

(b)

Clarification (Part 2): We will have to say that the Gemara now holds like Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili, who says that Kodshim Kalim belong to the owner.

ãìøáðï ìà çùéá ùåí æáç ùìå, ëãîåëç áæáçéí áô' áúøà (ãó ÷éã.) ãôøéê 'áùìîà øåáò ùä÷ãéùå åìáñåó øáòå, àìà îå÷öä åðòáã äéëé îùëçú ìä, äà 'àéï àãí àåñø ãáø ùàéðå ùìå'?

(c)

Clarification (Part 3): Because according to the Rabanan, no Korban is ever considered one's own, as is evident from the last Perek of Zevachim (Daf 114.) where the Gemara asks 'Granted Rove'a, where he declared the animal Hekdesh and then raped it; But what will be the case by Muktzah and Ne'evad, seeing as one cannot render Asur something that is not his?

åîùðé 'á÷ãùéí ÷ìéí åàìéáà ãøáé éåñé äâìéìé', îùîò ãìøáðï àéï àãí éëåì ìàñåø.

(d)

Clarification (Part 4): And the Gemara answers 'By Kodshim Kalim, according to Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili', implying that according to the Rabanan, there is no way that one render a Korban forbidden.

åîéäå ÷ùä ìôéøåù æä, ãáñîåê ôøéê îääéà áøééúà ìøá ðçîï, ãàîø 'àéï àãí àåñø ãáø ùàéðå ùìå', åãéé÷ îãàå÷îéðï áçèàú äòåó 'èòîà ãçèàú äòåó, àáì æáç àçø, ìà!'

(e)

Question (Part 1): This explanation is problematic however, since the Gemara will shortly ask from that Beraisa on Rebbi Nachman, who (also) holds that a person a person cannot render Asur something that is not his; And the Gemara subsequently extrapolates that, since we establish it by Chatas ha'Of - 'the reason (that he is Chayav three Chata'os) is because it is Chatas ha'Of; but any other Korban, this would not be the case!'.

åîàé ÷åùéà, äà îúå÷îà ùôéø áçèàú áäîä, åð÷è 'çèàú' ìàôå÷é ùìîéí?

(f)

Question (Part 2): What is the Kashya? Why can we not establish it by Chatas Beheimah, and the reason that the Tana mentions specifically Chatas is to preclude a Shelamim?

åùîà îúçìä ðéçà ìéä áçèàú áäîä, ëì ëîä ãìà àñé÷ àãòúéä ùéðåéà ãçèàú äòåó, åáçöé ÷ðä ôâåí ...

(g)

Answer (Part 1): Perhaps the Gemara is initially quite happy to establish it by Chatas Beheimah, as long as it has not thought of establishing it a Chatas ha'Of; where half the Kaneh (the wind-pipe) is Pagum ...

àáì ìñåó îñúáø ìéä ùéðåéà ãçèàú äòåó ...

(h)

Answer (Part 3): But ultimately, the Gemara prefers the answer of Chatas ha'Of ...

ãàé áçèàú áäîä åð÷è çèàú ìàôå÷é ùìîéí, ä"ì ìîð÷è òåìä ëãôé' á÷åðè'.

(i)

Answer (Part 4): Because, as Rashi explains, if it was talking about Chatas Beheimah, and it was coming to preclude a Shelamim, it ought rather to have have mentioned Olah, as Rashi explains.

7)

TOSFOS DH LO HAVYA CHATAS TIYUVTEIH D'MAI MA'ASEH MA'ASEH RABAH

úåñôåú ã"ä ìà äåéà çèàú úéåáúéä ãîàé îòùä îòùä øáä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos now queries Rashi's first explanation from the Gemara's Kashya, and answers.)

úéîä ìôé' øàùåï ùá÷åðèøñ - ùìà áà ìä÷ùåú òì øá äåðà 'ìàùîåòéðï æáç' ...

(a)

Question (Part 1): This poses a Kashya on Rashi's first explanation, that the Gemara is not coming to ask on Rav Huna, why it does not teach us 'Zevach' (including Shelamim)?

à"ë, äéëé îöé ìîéîø îòùä øáä? äà ò"ë îãð÷è 'çèàú', ãéé÷éðï îéðéä ñééòúà ìøá äåðà ãîòùä ëì ãäå?

(b)

Question (Part 2): In that case, how can the Gemara establish it by a major act? Surely, from the fact that it mentions 'Chatas', we infer that this is a proof for Rav Huna, who holds that even a minor act will suffice?

åùîà éù ìåîø, ãäà ãð÷è 'çèàú', ìàùîåòéðï ãàò"â ã÷ðéà ìéä ìëôøä, àô"ä ìà çùéá ëãéãéä ìàåñøä áîòùä ëì ãäå.

(c)

Answer: Perhaps we can answer that it mentions Chatas to teach us that even though he acquired it as an atonement, it is considered his to render it forbidden even via a minor act.

8)

TOSFOS DH RAV NACHMAN V'RAV AMRAM V'RAV YITZCHAK AMRI EIN ADAM OSER DAVAR SHE'EINO SHE'LO

úåñôåú ã"ä øá ðçîï åøá òîøí åøá éöç÷ àîøé àéï àãí àåñø ãáø ùàéðå ùìå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos clarifies one Sugya in Avodah-Zarah, before querying another Sugya in the same Masechta.)

åáîñ' ò"æ ôø÷ øáé éùîòàì (ãó ðã.) à'îéìúéä ãòåìà ãìòéì, ãàîø ìäå øá ðçîï 'àîøå ìéä ìòåìà "ëáø úøâîà øá äåðà ìùîòúéê áááì"! '?

(a)

Clarification (Part 1): In Maseches Avodah-Zarah in Perek Rebbi Yishmael (Daf 54.) with regard to the words of Ula mentioned earlier, where Rav Nachman said to them 'Tell Ula that Rav Huna already preempted your statement in Bavel!'

ìàå îùåí ãñáø ëøá äåðà, àìà ëìåîø ìà äåãòúðå ùåí çéãåù, ùëáø äùîéòðå æä øá äåðà.

(b)

Clarification (Part 2): This is not to say that he holds like Rav Huna, but rather he (Ula) was not teaching them anything new, since Rav Huna had already taught it to them.

åàí úàîø, áòåáãà (ò"æ ãó ðæ:) ã'òì òåáã ëåëáéí ìçðåúà, åäåä çîøà áãååìà, ùãà áéä òåáã ëåëáéí éãà åùéëùê áéä, åàúà îøéä ãçîøà åù÷ìéä áøéúçéä åùãééä ìãðà'.

(c)

Question (Part 1): In the case in Avodah-Zarah (Daf 57:) where a Nochri came into the store, and there was wine in the bucket, into which the Nochri placed his hand and stirred it, and the owner arrived and in a fit of anger, emptied the bucket into a barrel ...

åâøñéðï äúí 'àé÷ìò øá ðçîï ìîçåæà åàñøéä áäðàä'.

(d)

Question (Part 2): And the text there reads 'Rav Nachmen came to Mechuza and forbade the wine be'Hana'ah.

àîàé àñøéä, åäà àéï àãí àåñø ãáø ùàéï ùìå?

(e)

Question (Part 3): Why did he forbid it, seeing as one person cannot render forbidden somebody else's article?

åìîñ÷ðà ã÷àîø àôéìå ìî"ã àåñø àãí ãáø ùàéðå ùìå, äðé îéìé òåáã ëåëáéí, åøá ðçîï îöé ñáø ëúðà ÷îà, ðéçà.

(f)

Answer: According to the conclusion here, that even those who hold that one person can render forbidden somebody else's article confines this to a Nochri, and Rav Nachman holds like the Tana Kama, the problem is solved ...

àáì ìîàé ãñì÷à ãòúê, ãàúé øá ðçîï ëø"é àáï ááà åìà ëúðà ÷îà, ÷ùä?

(g)

Question (Part 4): But according to what the Gemara currently thinks, that Rav Nachman holds like Rebbi Yehudah Bava and not like the Tana Kama, the Kashya stands.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF