1)

TOSFOS DH HA'NODER

úåñôåú ã"ä äðåãø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that two different Gemaros argue regarding how to reconcile the fact that people do consider fish an alternative to meat with our Mishnah.)

áâîøà îå÷é ìä ëø"ò ãëì îéìé ãîéîìéê òìéä ùìéç áø îéðéä äåà

(a)

Explanation: The Gemara establishes that this is according to the opinion of Rebbi Akiva who holds that anything that a messenger would decide fits the general description of the item he was supposed to obtain, even though it is not exactly what was ordered, is considered to be of the same type as that item.

åáô' äðåãø îï äéø÷ (ðãøéí ãó ðã:) ôøéê ãááùø ãâéí ðîé îéîìê åîå÷é îúðéúéï ãäëà áîàï ãëàéá ìéä òéðéä åáéåîà ãä÷æä ãìà àëéì àéðéù ãâéí àáì òåó àëéì áùì÷à

1.

Explanation (cont.): The Gemara in Nedarim (54b) asks that one would change and purchase fish instead! The Gemara answers that our Mishnah is referring to someone whose eyes hurt, and on a day when he did bloodletting, which is a day where he would not eat fish. However, he would eat cooked chicken.

åîéäå áôø÷ áúøà ãîòéìä (ãó ë.) ìà ÷ééîà ùéðåéà ãä÷æä àìà îñé÷ áîàï ãëàéá ìéä òéðéä àáì áùàø éîéí äðåãø îï äáùø àñåø ðîé áãâéí

(b)

Observation: However, in Meilah (20a) the answer regarding bloodletting does not stand. Rather, it just states that it is referring to someone whose eyes hurt him. However, on other days, someone who vows not to eat meat is also not allowed to eat fish.

2)

TOSFOS DH HA OF

úåñôåú ã"ä äà òåó

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains what makes the Gemara deduce that even fowl should be a Torah prohibition.)

ä"ð ä"î ìîéð÷è çéä

(a)

Observation: The Gemara also could have asked that the Mishnah implies that the meat of an undomesticated animal should also be forbidden to cook with milk according to Torah law.

åðøàä ãäà ãñ"ã ùäåà ãàåøééúà

(b)

Implied Question: It appears that there is a reason why the Gemara understood it therefore must be prohibited according to Torah law. (Perhaps the Mishnah is discussing Rabbinic law?)

îùåí ãñîéê àñéôà ãâæø äòìàä àèå àëéìä ëããéé÷ øá éåñó áñîåê

(c)

Answer: This is because it relied on the second part of the Mishnah which decreed that one cannot even put it on the same table as meat do to the suspicion it will be eaten together, as deduced by Rav Yosef later.

àáì àéï ìåîø ããéé÷ îã÷úðé ëì äáùø ãîùîò ìéä ùëì äáùø ùåä æä ëæä áùø òåó ëáùø áäîä

1.

Implied Question: However, one should not say that this is deduced from the phrase "all of the meat" that implies that all meat, whether from fowl or domesticated animal, is equal to each other. (Why not?)

ãäà äðåãø îï äáùø àéï ëì äáùø ùåä ãàôéìå ø"ò îåãä ãìà îéúñø ááùø òåó îãàåøééúà ëãàîø áôø÷ äðåãø îï äéø÷ (ðãøéí ãó ðã.) ãîåãä ø"ò ãìà ì÷é

2.

Answer: This is because when one vows not to have meat, not all meat is equal. Even Rebbi Akiva admits that one is not prohibited from eating fowl according to Torah law (when he vows to abstain from meat), as (Abaye) stated in Nedarim (54a) that Rebbi Akiva admits he would not receive lashes.

3)

TOSFOS DH U'MENA TEIMRA

úåñôåú ã"ä åîðà úéîøà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that one cannot compare Rabbinic decrees to each other unless the Gemara compares them to each other.)

áëîä î÷åîåú àîø äéà âåôä âæéøä åàðï ðé÷åí åðâæåø âæéøä ìâæéøä áô"÷ ãùáú (ãó éà:) åáô' áîä îãìé÷éï (ùí ãó ëà.) åáøéù áéöä (ãó â.)

(a)

Observation: In many places, such as in Shabbos (11b,21a) and Beitzah (3a), the Gemara simply states (without having to prove this concept is valid), "This itself is a decree, and we should establish a decree for a decree?!"

åäëà áòéðï ìàúåéé øàéä ìòðéï âæéøä ãäòìàä àèå àëéìä

1.

Observation (cont.): In our Gemara we are required to bring proof that we do not make a decree to protect another decree regarding bringing them onto the table together due to eating them together (which without cooking is also a Rabbinic decree).

åéù î÷åîåú ðîé ãâæøéðï âæéøä ìâæéøä åìà çééùéðï

(b)

Implied Question: There are some places where we do make a decree to protect another decree, and this does not bother us. (Why in some places do we apply this rule, while in others we do not?)

àéï ìãîåú âæéøåú çëîéí æå ìæå àìà áî÷åîåú ùäù"ñ îãîä

(c)

Answer: One cannot compare the decrees of the Chachamim to each other unless the Gemara compares them.

4)

TOSFOS DH CHALAS

úåñôåú ã"ä çìú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the Mishnah in Chalah quoted in our Gemara at great length.)

àéï äîùðä ùðåéä ëï àìà äâîøà îáéàä á÷éöåø

(a)

Explanation: This is not how the Mishnah is written. Rather, the Gemara is quoting it in short.

åëï äéà ùðåéä áô' áúøà ãîñ' çìä (îùðä ç) àîø ø"â ùìù àøöåú ìçìä îàøõ éùøàì òã ëæéá çìä àçú îëæéá òã äðäø åòã àîðä ùúé çìåú àçú ìàåø åàçú ìëäï ùì àåø éù ìä ùéòåø åùì ëäï àéï ìä ùéòåø

1.

Explanation (cont.): The Mishnah in Chalah (4:8) in fact reads as follows. Rabban Gamliel says that there are three different lands regarding Chalah. In the area from Eretz Yisrael to Keziv, one takes one Chalah. In the area from Keziv to the river and until Amanah, one takes two Chalos. One is burned, and one is given to the Kohen. The one that is burned has a certain amount, while the one given to the Kohen does not have to be a specific amount.

îðäø åòã àîðä åìôðéí ùúé çìåú àçú ìàåø åàçú ìëäï ùì àåø àéï ìä ùéòåø åùì ëäï éù ìä ùéòåø åèáåì éåí àåëìä

2.

Explanation (cont.): In the area from the river until Amanah there are two Chalos, one is burned and one is given to the Kohen. The one that is burned does not have a certain amount, while the one given to the Kohen does have to be a specific amount, and it can be eaten by a Tevul Yom.

øáé éåñé àåîø àéï öøéê èáéìä åàñåøä ìæáéí åìæáåú åìðãåú åìéåìãåú åðàëìú òí äæø òì äùìçï åðéúðú ìëì ëäï ùéøöä

3.

Explanation (cont.): Rebbi Yosi says that he does not require immersion to eat it. It is forbidden to Zavim, Zavos, Nidos, and Yoldos. It can be eaten on the same table with a non Kohen who is eating regular food, and it can be given to any Kohen who he wants to give it to.

åäëé ôéøåùå îëæéá òã äðäø åòã àîðä ùäéå ñîåëéí ìàøõ äòîéí åàéï éëåìéï ìùîåø òöîí åôéøåúéäí áèäøä åäéå çìåúéäí èîàåú åèòåðåú ùøôä åìëê öøéëéï ìäôøéù ùúé çìåú àçú ìàåø ùäéà çìä ãàåøééúà ãôéøåúéäï âãìéï áàøõ éùøàì åìëê ðîé éù ìä ùéòåø ëãîôøù áéøåùìîé îôðé ùäéà îãáøé úåøä

4.

Explanation (cont.): This is what the Mishnah means. "Keziv until the river until Amanah" were places close to Chutz la'Aretz, and they could not guard themselves and their fruits in purity. Their Chalos were impure and required burning. This is why they needed to separate two Chalos. One was to be burned, as there was an obligation to take Chalah due to Torah law since their produce grew in Eretz Yisrael. This is also why it has a specific amount, as explained in the Yerushalmi.

åàçú ìëäï îãáøé ñåôøéí ùìà úùúëç úåøú çìä åìôé ùäéà îãáøé ñåôøéí àéï ìä ùéòåø

5.

Explanation (cont.): One Chalah was taken and given to the Kohanim due to Rabbinic law, in order that they should not forget the laws of Chalah. Since it is a Rabbinic law, it does not have to be a specific amount.

îðäø åòã àîðä åìôðéí ùäåà çåöä ìàøõ ùúé çìåú åùúéäï îãáøé ñåôøéí

6.

Explanation (cont.): "From the river until Amanah and inside that area" is Chutz la'Aretz, where one must take two Chalos with both being according to Rabbinic law.

àçú ìàåø îùåí ãñîåëéï ìàøõ éùøàì åîúçæéà çìä ãéãäå ëçìú àøõ éùøàì âæøå òìéä ùìà ìàåëìä ëìì àôéìå ëäï èäåø âîåø ëîå áçìú àåø ãà"é

7.

Explanation (cont.): One is burned because this area is close to Eretz Yisrael, and its Chalah appears to be similar to that of Eretz Yisrael. They therefore decreed that it should not be eaten at all, even by a totally pure Kohen. This is similar to the Chalos of Eretz Yisrael that were burned.

åàçú ìëäï ùìà úùúëç åéù ìä ùéòåø ìôé ùäéà ðàëìú åèáåì éåí àåëìä åàéï öøéê äòøá ùîù ùìà äçîéøå áä ëîå áúøåîä ãàåøééúà

8.

Explanation (cont.): One Chalah goes to the Kohen in order that they should not forget the laws of Chalah. It must be a specific amount because it is eaten. A Tevul Yom may eat it, and he does not need to wait for nightfall. This is because they were not stringent with it as they were with Terumah taken according to Torah law.

øáé éåñé àåîø àéï öøéê èáéìä åàôéìå áèåîàä ã÷øé ãáèåîàä äéåöà îâåôå ùøé øáé éåñé îãìà çùéá áòì ÷øé áàéñåøà ãæáéï åæáåú

9.

Explanation (cont.): Rebbi Yosi says that even immersion is not required. This is even for a Ba'al Keri, as Rebbi Yosi allows a person who became impure due to an excretion to eat this Chalah. This is apparent from the fact that Rebbi Yosi does not list Ba'al Keri among those who are prohibited such as Zavim and Zavos.

åàñåøä ìæáéï åæáåú ëå' áìà èáéìä àééøé îã÷àîø òìä áéøåùìîé ãìøáé éåñé ðöøëä

10.

Explanation (cont.): When Rebbi Yosi said, "It is prohibited to Zavin and Zavos etc." he meant without (i.e. regardless of) immersion. This is apparent from the Yerushalmi's statement that this was needed according to the opinion of Rebbi Yosi.

åðøàä ãìøáðï ðîé ãáòå èáéìä ãå÷à ìáòì ÷øé ùèåîàä éåöàä ìå îâåôå àáì èîà îú ùøé áìà èáéìä ëøáé éåñé

11.

Explanation (cont.): It appears that the Rabbanan who also require immersion only do so for someone like a Ba'al Keri who had the impurity come from his body. However, if a person was Tamei Mes he is allowed to eat it without immersion, as is the opinion of Rebbi Yosi.

ãàé îöøëé ðîé èáéìä áèîà îú ú÷ùä ìäå ëãî÷ùä âî' áô' òã ëîä (áëåøåú ãó ëæ:) åëé äæàä éù ìðå åîä úåòéì èáéìä áèîà îú åîñúîà èîàé îúéí äéå ëîä ôòîéí ëé àé àôùø ìäí ìéæäø îèåîàú îú

12.

Explanation (cont.): If Tevilah is required for a Tamei Mes, we should have the same question asked by the Gemara in Bechoros (27b), "Do we have the sprinkling (of the ashes of the red heifer)?" Why will immersion help a Tamei Mes? Presumably they were Tamei Mes many times over, as it would have been difficult for them to be careful from Tumas Mes.

ãðäé ãîèåîàú îú òöîå öøéëéï ìéæäø îçîú ëäåðúí îèåîàú çøá äøé äåà ëçìì àéï éëåìéí ëìì ìéæäø ãáùåí áéú ùäéä áå îú îòåìí ðòùä ëçìì ëì äîúëåú ùáúåëå åäåé ëîàäéì òì äîú ëãàîøéðï áðæéø áô' ë"â (ãó ðâ:)

13.

Explanation (cont.): Even though they have to be careful not to become Tamei Mes due to their being Kohanim, from the impurity of the sword which is like a dead person they could not be careful. This is because in any house where anyone ever died, all of the metal objects became like the dead person itself. This means the house is like a tent over a dead person as stated in Nazir (53b).

åâí ìà äéå öøéëéï ìéæäø îèåîàú çøá äøé äåà ëçìì ëéåï ùàéï äðæéø îâìç òìéä ëãîåëç áøéù úåñôúà ãàäìåú åà"ë ëåìï öøéëéï äæàä

14.

Explanation (cont.): Additionally, they did not have to be careful from the impurity of a sword being like a dead person, since a Nazir does not shave due o this metal as implied by the Tosefta in Ohalos (1:1). If so, they all need sprinkling (with the ashes of the red heifer).

åàéï ñáøà ëìì ùú÷ðå çëîéí çìú çå"ì ùìà éàëìåä àà"ë éìê åéæä áà"é åìäëé îñúáø ùáìà äæàä åèáéìä äéå àåëìéï àåúä àôéìå ìøáðï ãøáé éåñé åáááì

15.

Explanation (cont.): There is no logic at all that the Chachamim decreed that the Chalah of Chutz la'Aretz should not be eaten unless one goes and is sprinkled in Eretz Yisrael. This is why it is logical that they would eat this Chalah without sprinkling and immersion in Bavel, even according to the Rabbanan who argue on Rebbi Yosi.

åëï ìãéãï ùøçå÷éï îà"é à"ö ùúé çìåú àìà àçú ëãàîøéðï áô' òã ëîä (áëåøåú ãó ëæ.) åðåúðä ìëäï ÷èï åàëéì ìä

16.

Explanation (cont.): Similarly, we who are far from Eretz Yisrael do not need two Chalos taken. One is enough, as stated in Bechoros (27a) that he gives it to a Kohen who is a minor and eats it.

ãëé ìéëà ëäï ÷èï ãå÷à ÷àîø äúí ãîôøéù àçøú åðåúðä ìëäï âãåì åøàùåðä ùåøôä

17.

Explanation (cont.): The Gemara is specifically saying that when there is no Kohen who is a minor one has to separate another Chalah and give it to an adult Kohen. He burns the first one.

åçìä ùì àåø îðäø åòã àîðåï åìôðéí àéðä îåúøú ìëäï ÷èï àìà ìòåìí ðùøôú ãåîéà ãçìú àåø à"é îùåí ãñîåëéï ìà"é åîúçæéà ëçìú à"é ëãôøéùéú åîù"ä öøéê ìòåìí ùúéí

18.

Explanation (cont.): The Chalah that is burned from the river until Amnon and inside is not permitted to a minor Kohen. Rather, it is always burned similar to the Chalah that is burned in Eretz Yisrael. This is because it is close to Eretz Yisrael and looks like Chalah of Eretz Yisrael, as we have explained (above). This is why two are always needed (in this area).

àáì áøçå÷éí ëâåï ãááì åãéãï ãìà îúçæéà çìä ãéãäå ëçìú äàøõ èîàä ðåúï ìëäï ÷èï

19.

Explanation (cont.): However, in far away places such as Bavel and where we live that our Chalah does not even appear to be like Chalah in Eretz Yisrael, we can give our impure Chalah to a Kohen who is a minor.

åîñúáø ãàó ìëäï âãåì ùèáì ì÷øéå åìà áòéðï äòøá ùîù ãàéï ìäçîéø áä îáçìä ùì ëäï áñîåëéï ìà"é

i.

Explanation (cont.): It is logical that one could even give this Chalah to an adult Kohen who immersed after being a Ba'al Keri and he does not need to wait for the sun to go down. This is because one does not need to be more stringent with this Chalah than the Chalah given to a Kohen in an area that is close to Eretz Yisrael.

åë"ë áä"â áäìëåú çìä àîø øáéðà äìëä ðãä ÷åöä ìä çìä åàëéì ìä ëäï ÷èï àå îàï ãèáéì ì÷øéå

(b)

Opinion: This is written by the Bahag who says in his Hilchos Chalah, "Ravina says that the law is that a Nidah can take off Chalah and feed it to a Kohen who is a minor (the Bahag adds the following) or one who immersed for his being a Ba'al Keri."

åéù ÷öú úéîä àîàé ÷àîø ãðåúðä ìëäï ÷èï ëéåï ãàôéìå ëäï âãåì éëåì ìàåëìä àçø ùèáì àå ìáèìä áøåá ëîå úøåîä ãàîøéðï áô' òã ëîä (ùí) øáä äåä îáèì ìä áøåá åàëéì ìä áéîé èåîàä

(c)

Question: This is slightly difficult. Why does the Gemara say she can give it to a Kohen who is a minor? Even an adult Kohen can eat it after immersing! Alternatively, it can be nullified using Rov (i.e. in a mixture where most of the mixture is not Chalah) just like Terumah taken outside of Eretz Yisrael. This is like the Gemara says in Bechoros (27a), "Rabah used to nullify it (Terumas Chutz la'Aretz) through Rov and eat it when he was impure."

åðøàä ããå÷à çìú çå"ì ìôé ùàéï ìä ùéòåø åãáø îåòè äåà ÷àîø ãéëåì ìéúðä ìëäï ÷èï ë"ù àí éù ëäï âãåì ùèáì àå øåöä ìáèìä ùéëåì ìéúðä ìå

(d)

Answer: It appears that specifically Chalas Chutz la'Aretz, because it has no specific amount and it is therefore very little, can be given to a Kohen that is a minor. Certainly it can be given to a Kohen who is an adult that immersed or he wants to nullify it!

åëï îùîò ããáø îåòè äåà ã÷àîø äúí ãù÷ì ìä áøéù îñéà àáì úøåîä ùäéà îúáåàä àå îééï åùîï àéï ìéúï ìëäï ÷èï ìôé ùäåà îàáãä

1.

Answer (cont.): It is also implied that the Gemara is dealing with a small amount, as the Gemara (ibid.) states "take it with the head of a spit." However, Terumah from produce or wine and oil is not given to a Kohen who is a minor because he will lose it.

åòåã éù ìä ùéòåø ëîå áúøåîú îòùø åìëê àéï ìéúðä ì÷èï àìà ìëäï âãåì ùèáì àå øåöä ìáèìä áøåá

2.

Answer (cont.): Additionally, it has a set amount as there is a taking of Terumas Ma'aser. Therefore, it should not be given to a minor, rather to an adult Kohen who immersed or who wants to nullify it through Rov.

åà"ö ìäôøéù ùðéä ãìà úùúëç ëéåï ãîôøéùéï àçú ëîå áçìä äéëà ãàéëà ëäï ÷èï

3.

Implied Question: One does not have to take two separate "takings" of Terumah in order not to forget (similar to Chalah), as we find that we take one amount of Terumos similar to Chalah where there is a Kohen who is a minor. that we should take two takings of Ma'aseros. (Why shouldn't it be like Chalah?)

ùìà îöéðå áëì äù"ñ ùäéä öøéê ìôøù ùúé úøåîåú

4.

Answer: We do not find a concept of needing to take Terumah twice in all of the Talmud.

àìà ãå÷à çìä ëé ìéëà ëäï ÷èï àå âãåì ùèáì ùàæ äéà ðùøôú åìëê öøéê ìäôøéù çìä ùðéä ùìà úùúëç úåøú çìä àáì úøåîä ãàéï ðåúðéï àåúä àìà ìëäï âãåì ùèáì àå øåöä ìáèìä áøåá à"ö ìäôøéù ùðéä ãìà úùúëç ëéåï ùîôøéùéï àçú

i.

Answer (cont.): Rather, only regarding Chalah when there is no Kohen who is a minor or an adult who immersed do we find two takings of Chalah, with the second being burned so that we should not forget how to really take Chalah. However, Terumah that is only given to an adult Kohen who immersed or who wants to nullify it through Rov does not have to be taken twice in order not to forget how it is really taken, since it is taken once.

åîéäå ðøàä ãâí áñîåëéí ìà"é ùîôøéùéï ìòåìí ùúé çìåú ìà äéå îôøéùéï àìà úøåîä àçú

5.

Implied Question: However, it appears that even in areas close to Eretz Yisrael where two Chalos are always taken, they only used to separate one Terumah. (Why shouldn't two Terumos be taken in this area?)

ìëê ðøàä ùáçìä éù ìçåù éåúø ùìà úùúëç îùåí ãùééëà áëì àãí äîâìâì òéñúå àáì úøåîä àéï øâéìéï áä àìà áòìé ÷ø÷òåú åîîøéçé úáåàåú

6.

Answer: It therefore appears that there is more reason to suspect that we will forget about the taking of Chalah because it is relative to every person who kneads dough. However, only landowners and people who stockpile produce are used to taking Terumah.

104b----------------------------------------104b

åäéëà ãìéëà ëäï ÷èï ùùåøôä åîôøéù ùðéä ðåúðä ìëäï èîà àôéìå äåà æá ãìà îôìéâ äúí áùåí èåîàä

(e)

Explanation: Where there is not a Kohen who is a minor and he therefore burns the Chalah and takes a second one, he can give it to an impure Kohen even if he is a Zav. There is no difference there regarding how impure he is.

åìà ãîéà ìçìä ùðéä áñîåëéï ìà"é

1.

Implied Question: This is incomparable to the second Chalah taken in areas close to Eretz Yisrael. (Why?)

ãäúí ìòåìí öøéê ìäôøéù àáì áøçå÷éí àé àéëà ëäï ÷èï àå âãåì ùèáì ì÷øéå àéï öøéê ìäôøéù çìä ùðéä ëìì åäéà ÷ìä áéåúø àìà ùàñåøä ìæøéí ãìà àùëçï ãùøé ìä àìà ìëäðéí

2.

Answer: In areas close to Eretz Yisrael one must always take a second Chalah. However, in the areas far from Eretz Yisrael one does not have to take a second Chalah at all as long as there is a Kohen who is a minor who is present or an adult Kohen who has immersed from being a Ba'al Keri. The laws of this Chalah are very lenient, as it is merely forbidden to non Kohanim, as we only know it is permitted to Kohanim.

åðøàä ùàéðä èåáìú ùäøé éù ëîä î÷åîåú ãìà îôøùé ìä ëìì åàôéìå ìéëà ëäï ÷èï

(f)

Opinion: It seems that this (second taking of) Chalah does not even cause dough to be Tevel (i.e. as if it is untithed and therefore forbidden). This is because there are many places that do not even take it off at all, even if there is no Kohen who is a minor.

åòì àåúï î÷åîåú éù ÷öú úéîä

1.

Question: There is a slight difficulty with this custom practiced in some places.

àìà ìôé ùàéðä èåáìú åöøéê ìùåîøä îìäàëéìä ìæøéí ðîðòå îìäôøéù åùîà àôéìå àéðä îãîòú

2.

Answer: Rather, because it does not make dough Tevel and one must guard it from being eaten by non Kohanim, these places refrained from taking it at all. It is possible that it does not even give a mixture (of it and regular dough) the status of a mixture (which is normally treated differently than Chulin).

åàó òì ôé ùäøàùåðä ðøàä ÷öú ãîãîòú

3.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that the first taking of Chalah does seem to have this status.

îãúðéà áôø÷ øáé éùîòàì (îðçåú ãó ñæ.) úøåîú òåáã ëåëáéí áçå"ì àéðä îãîòú ãîùîò äà ãéùøàì îãîòú

i.

Proof: This is apparent from the Beraisa in Menachos (67a) that states that Terumah of a Nochri in Chutz la'Aretz does not cause this status of a mixture. This implies that if it would belong to a Jew it would cause a status of a mixture.

î"î äùðéä ùäéà ÷ìä áéåúø ùîà àéðä îãîòú åëîå ùìà âæøå òì úòøåáåú ãîàé ëîå ëï ùîà ìà âæøå áä ëéåï ùäéà ÷ìä ëì ëê

4.

Answer: Even so, since the second taking of Chalah is more lenient, it is possible it does not have the status of a mixture. Just as they did not decree that there is a status of mixture regarding Dmai, it is similarly possible that they did not decree regarding the second taking of Chalah that it is considered a mixture, as it is treated so leniently.

5)

TOSFOS DH V'NITENES

úåñôåú ã"ä åðéúðú

(SUMMARY: Rashi and Tosfos argue regarding giving Chalas Chutz la'Aretz to an irreligious Kohen.)

ôéøù á÷åðèøñ ãàôéìå àéðå îçæé÷ áúåøú ä' éúðå ìå çìú çåöä ìàøõ

(a)

Opinion #1: Rashi explains that even if he is not "holding on to the Torah of Hash-m" he can be given Chalas Chutz la'Aretz.

åàéï ðøàä ìø"é ãäà äåå ãåîéà ãäðäå ùùåðä àçø îùðä æàú åàìå ðéúðéï ìëì ëäï ùéøöä ëå' åçùéá áäãééäå äæøåò åäìçééí åä÷áä åàîøéðï ì÷îï áôø÷ äæøåò (ãó ÷ì:) ùàéðï ðéúðåú ìîé ùàéðå îçæé÷ áúåøú ä'

(b)

Question: This does not seem correct to the Ri. It is similar to the cases stated after this Mishnah such as, "And these are given to any Kohen he wants etc." The foreleg, cheeks, and abomasum are included in these. We say later (130b) that they are not given to Kohanim who are not holding on to the Torah of Hash-m.

ìëê ðøàä ìøáéðå éöç÷ ãäëà îééøé áãìéëà ëäï çáø àé ðîé àéëà ëäï çáø ùäåà òùéø åàéðå øåöä ì÷áì åàôéìå øåöä ì÷áì ëéåï ãàéï öøéê åæä ò"ä òðé åöøéê ùîöååéí ìäçéåúå ùàí ìà éúðå ìå éöèøëå ìúú ìå çåìéï å÷î"ì ãéëåì ìéúï àò"ô ùàéï á÷é áèåîàä åèäøä åìà çééùéðï ùîà éàëìðå áéîé èåîàúå

(c)

Opinion: It therefore appears to Rabeinu Yitzchak that the case here is where there are no Kohanim who are Chaveirim. Alternatively, it is where there is a Kohen Chaver who is wealthy, and he does not want to take it. Even if he would want to take it, he has no need for it. The other Kohen is a poor Am ha'Aretz who does need it, and we are commanded to ensure he survives. If we do not give it to him, he will have to be given Chulin. Our Gemara teaches that we can give it to him even though he is not well versed in the laws of purity and impurity. We do not suspect that he will eat it when he is impure.

àáì çìú äàøõ àéðä ðéúðú àìà ìëäï çáø ùéùîøðä áèäøä àôé' ìéëà òúä ëäï çáø àì éúððä ìëäï ò"ä àìà éîúéï òã ùéæãîï ìå ëäï çáø

1.

Opinion (cont.): However, the Chalah of Eretz Yisrael is only given to a Kohen Chaver who will ensure it is pure. Even if there currently is no Kohen Chaver present, one should not give Chalah of Eretz Yisrael to a Kohen Am ha'Aretz. Rather, he should wait until he meets with a Kohen Chaver.

6)

TOSFOS DH MASKIF

úåñôåú ã"ä îú÷éó

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that the question is on Rav Yosef.)

ìà ààáéé ÷à ôøéê àìà àøá éåñó çáéøå ôøéê ëãôé' á÷åðèøñ

(a)

Explanation: The question is not on Abaye, rather it is on Rav Yosef who is the friend of Rav Sheses, as explained by Rashi.

7)

TOSFOS DH REBBI YOSI

úåñôåú ã"ä øáé éåñé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we do not ask that Beis Hillel's opinion was already stated in our Mishnah, and why this is not a Stam v'Achar Kach Machlokes.)

àáéú äìì ìà ôøéê äééðå ú"÷

(a)

Implied Question: We do not ask that Beis Hillel's opinion seems to be the same as the Tana Kama (in the Mishnah on 103b). (Why not?)

ãäëé ÷àîø ãáø æä îçìå÷ú á"ù åá"ä

(b)

Answer: This is because our Mishnah is explaining that the topic of the first Mishnah is in fact an argument between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel.

åàéï æä ñúîà åàç"ë îçìå÷ú

(c)

Implied Question: This is not considered a Stam Mishnah that is followed by an argument. (The Maharam explains that if it is, this should mean that we rule like Beis Shamai, which we know we almost never do.)

ãá"ù áî÷åí áéú äìì àéðä îùðä

(d)

Answer: This is because Beis Shamai arguing with Beis Hillel is not considered an argument (as we almost never rule like Beis Shamai).

8)

TOSFOS DH OF U'GEVINAH

úåñôåú ã"ä òåó åâáéðä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses if one has to wait to eat cheese after eating fowl or meat.)

úéîä ãäéëé ôøéê îâáéðä àçø áùø àáùø àçø âáéðä ãøá éöç÷ âáéðä åàç"ë áùø àëéì åìà ãîé ëãàîø áñîåê

(a)

Question: This is difficult. How can we ask from a case of cheese after meat to a case of meat after cheese? Rav Yitzchak ate cheese and afterwards ate meat. The cases are incomparable, as stated later.

åéù ìåîø ãäëé ôøéê ãáøééúà ãàâøà îùîò òåó åâáéðä ðàëìéï áàôé÷åøï áìé ðèéìú éãéí åáìà ÷éðåç äôä àáì ùàø áùø áòé ðèéìä å÷éðåç äôä åäéëé ãîé àé áùø úçìä àôéìå áðèéìä å÷éðåç ìà ñâé òã ñòåãä àçøéúé ëãàîø áñîåê àìà ìàå àâáéðä úçìä

(b)

Answer: The Gemara is asking that the Beraisa taught by Igra implies that chicken and cheese can be eaten without concern, meaning without washing hands in between them and without cleaning out one's mouth. However, other meat requires washing hands and cleaning one's mouth. What is the case? If one first eats meat, even washing hands and cleaning one's mouth is not enough. Rather, he must wait until the next meal as stated later. It must therefore be that he is discussing eating cheese first.

åäà ãð÷è äëà áùø åâáéðä ìà ã÷ àìà âáéðä åáùø ìà

1.

Answer (cont): When the Gemara here says meat and cheese it does not literally mean meat and cheese. Rather, it means he may not first ate cheese and then eat meat without concern.

åàâá ãîæëéø ááøééúà òåó úçìä ð÷è ðîé äëà áùø úçìä åáøééúà ð÷è òåó úçìä ãàôéìå òåó úçìä ðàëì áàôé÷åøï

2.

Answer (cont.): Since the Beraisa first stated chicken, the Gemara states meat first (even though it really means that he first eats cheese). The Beraisa stated fowl first because indeed, one can eat fowl first and then eat cheese without concern.

åø"ú îôøù åëï äìëåú âãåìåú ãàëì áùø àñåø ìàëåì âáéðä äééðå áìà ðèéìä å÷éðåç àáì áðèéìä å÷éðåç ùøé àëì âáéðä îåúø ìàëåì áùø àó áìà ðèéìä å÷éðåç

(c)

Opinion: Rabeinu Tam explains, as does the Bahag, that if he eats meat he cannot eat cheese means that he cannot do so without washing and cleaning his mouth. However, if he washes his hands and cleans his mouth it is permitted. If he eats cheese, he is allowed to eat meat afterwards without washing his hands and cleaning his mouth.

åîø òå÷áà ãìà àëéì òã ñòåãä àçøéúé

1.

Implied Question: Mar Ukva did not eat meat until his next meal. (Doesn't this show one must wait between meat and cheese?)

äééðå áìà ðèéìä å÷éðåç

2.

Answer #1: This means he waited if he did not wash his hands and clean his mouth.

àé ðîé îçîéø òì òöîå äéä

3.

Answer #2: Alternatively, he was stringent for himself (but one does not have to do so).

åìôéøåùå ÷ùä îàé ôøéê äëà àøá éöç÷

(d)

Question: According to Rabeinu Tam's explanation there is a difficulty. Why is our Gemara asking a question on Rav Yitzchak?

åö"ì ìôéøåùå ãìòðéï ðèéìú éãéí àéï çéìå÷ áéï áùø úçìä ìâáéðä úçìä åìâáé ÷éðåç ãåå÷à éù çéìå÷

(e)

Answer: One must say according to the explanation of Rabeinu Tam that regarding washing hands there is no difference between having meat first or having cheese first. Specifically regarding cleaning one's mouth there is a difference.

åäòåìí ðäâå ùìà ìàëåì âáéðä àçø áùø ëìì åàôéìå àçø òåó

(f)

Observation: The custom is not to eat cheese after meat at all, even after eating chicken.

åàò"â ãúðé àâøà òåó åâáéðä ðàëìéï áàôé÷åøï ãîùîò òåó úçìä

1.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that Igra taught that fowl and cheese can be eaten without concern, implying even if one eats fowl first. (Why, then, isn't this the custom?)

ãéìîà îùåí ãñáø áùø òåó áçìá ìàå ãàåøééúà åìà ÷ééîà ìï äëé

2.

Answer: Perhaps this is because he holds that cooking fowl with milk is not a Torah prohibition, and we do not hold this way.

åîéäå ÷ùä áøééúà ãàâøà ëîàï àé ëøáé éåñé äâìéìé äà àó ìëúçìä ùøé ìáùì åìàëåì æä òí æä ëãàîø ì÷îï (ãó ÷èæ.) ãáî÷åîå ùì øáé éåñé äâìéìé äéå àåëìéï áùø òåó áçìá

(g)

Question: However, this presents a difficulty. Whose opinion does the Beraisa of Igra follow? If it is according to the opinion of Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili, he holds that one may even Lechatchilah cook fowl and milk together. This is as the Gemara states later (116a) that in the area of Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili they would eat fowl together with milk.

åàé ëø"ò äåä ìéä ìîéúðé çéä áäãé òåó åãåç÷ ìäòîéãä ëá"ù ãàîøé äòåó òåìä åàéðå ðàëì

1.

Question (cont.): If it is according to the opinion of Rebbi Akiva, it should have discussed undomesticated animals together with fowl. It is difficult to say that the Beraisa is according to Beis Shamai who says that fowl can be placed on the same table as cheese, but cannot be eaten together with cheese.

åîéäå àùëçï ðîé ìøáé àìòæø áø' öãå÷ ãúðéà áúåñôúà ëá"ù

(h)

Answer #1: However, we find that Rebbi Elazar ben Rebbi Tzadok is recorded in the Tosefta as having the same opinion as Beis Shamai. (Perhaps Igra holds like his opinion.)

àé ðîé ëø"ò åð÷è òåó îùåí ãùëéç åäåà äãéï çéä

(i)

Answer #2: Alternatively, Igra indeed holds like Rebbi Akiva. The only reason he discussed fowl (and not undomesticated animals) alone was because it is more commonly eaten. The same would indeed apply to undomesticated animals.

ãäëé ðîé ÷àîø ìòéì äà òåó àñåø îãàåøééúà ëîàï ãìà ëø"ò åäåä ìéä ìîéð÷è ðîé çéä

1.

Answer (cont.): The Gemara says earlier that fowl with milk must be forbidden according to Torah law. The Gemara asks, who is this like? It answers that this is unlike Rebbi Akiva. It could have also have included undomesticated animals.

åø"ú îôøù èòîà ãàâøà îùåí ãòåó àéðå ðãá÷ áéãéí åáùéðéí åçðéëéí

(j)

Opinion: Rabeinu Tam explains that Igra's reasoning was specifically regarding fowl, as fowl does not get stuck in one's hands, teeth, and gums (as does the meat of undomesticated animals).

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF