1)

TOSFOS DH HACHI GARSINAN HANICHA L'MA'AN D'AMAR LO ZEHU AVNEITO

úåñôåú ã"ä äëé âøñéðï äðéçà ìîàï ãàîø ìà æäå àáðèå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos states the correct text and why it is so.)

ëãîåëç áô"÷ ãéåîà (ãó éá.)

(a)

Text: This is as is apparent from the Gemara in Yoma (12a).

138b----------------------------------------138b

2)

TOSFOS DH ALMA

úåñôåú ã"ä àìîà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the Mishnah, but is unsure how the Gemara's conclusion fits with his explanation.)

ôéøåù ìà îæáðé ëîå ìà æáðé ãëé äéëé ãëùì÷ç îîðå áîù÷ì îðëä ìå îùåí ãëùàîø ìéä îëåø ìé ìéèøà áùø ìà øöä ì÷ðåú îúðåú ä"ð îúðé'

(a)

Explanation: The words "they do not sell" is as if it says "they do not buy." Just as when the customer made a purchase from the butcher based on weight he can deduct the weight of the Matnos Kehunah from what he has to pay, as when he asked for a Litra of meat he had not intention to buy Matanos he would have to give to the Kohen, so too is the case in our Mishnah.

ùééø àöì îåëø äåé ëìå÷ç äéîðå áîù÷ì åìà æáéï îúðä ãëäï àáì áùìà ùééø ëìåí ìà ùééê ìåîø ìà æáéï ùäøé ÷ðä äëì

1.

Explanation (cont.): If he left it by the seller it is as if he bought by weight, and he did not buy the Matanah of the Kohen. However, if he did not leave anything by the seller it is impossible to say he did not buy it, as he bought everything!

åîéäå äà ã÷àîø ãà"ì îåëø îúðä ãëäï ìà æáðé ìê ìà à"ù

(b)

Implied Question: However, the Gemara's conclusion "that this is when the seller says he is not selling the Matanos" does not fit with what we have stated.

3)

TOSFOS DH SHILUACH HA'KEN

úåñôåú ã"ä ùéìåç ä÷ï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that the Gemara could have said Matanos instead of Reishis ha'Gez.)

åä"ä ìáã îîúðåú åçãà îéðééäå ð÷è

(a)

Explanation: It is also applicable to Matanos. The Gemara chose one of the two (when it stated Reishis ha'Gez).

4)

TOSFOS DH KOL HEICHA

úåñôåú ã"ä ëì äéëà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara stated a rule that excluded Gid ha'Nasheh instead of making a different rule excluding Oso v'Es Beno.)

úéîä ëéåï ãàéï çéìå÷ áéï çåìéï åîå÷ãùéí àìà áâéã äðùä åáàåúå åàú áðå à"ë äëé ðîé äåä îöé ìîéîø àéôëà ùìà ìöåøê ìáã îàåúå åàú áðå

(a)

Question: This is difficult. Since there is no difference between Chulin and Mukdashim (in all of the Mitzvos discussed in our Mesechta) aside from Gid ha'Nasheh and Oso v'Es Beno, they also could have said that this statement is never required in the Mishnah besides for the exception of Oso v'Es Beno!

åé"ì ãëéåï ãçãåù äåà áàåúå ùäåà ùìà ìöåøê ëãîôøù åàæéì åìàå îé àå÷éîðà ëå' ðéçà èôé ìåîø ìáã îàåúå ãáø ùäééúé ñáåø ùäåà ìöåøê åäåà ùìà ìöåøê

(b)

Answer: Since it is a novel teaching regarding Gid ha'Nasheh that it is not required, as explained later in the Gemara when it says, "And don't we establish etc." it is better to exclude Gid ha'Nasheh that I would have thought needed to be said but truthfully it does not need to be said.

5)

TOSFOS DH MAI TAIMA

úåñôåú ã"ä îàé èòîà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how the Mishnah included a novel teaching since it followed the pattern of the other Mishnayos in Chulin.)

ãäà ãàùîåòéðï ãåìãåú ÷ãùéí áîòé àîï àå áäåééúï äï ÷ãåùéï äåä îöé ìàùîåòéðï áòìîà áìà âéã äðùä

(a)

Explanation: When the Mishnah (89b) teaches that offspring of Kodshim is either holy in the womb or only when it comes out of its mother, it could have taught this without discussing Gid ha'Nasheh.

àìà àééãé ãúðà ìöåøê úðà ðîé ùìà ìöåøê åî"î îå÷îéðï ìä áåìãåú ÷ãùéí ëéåï ãîöéðï ìôøåùé ãàùîåòéðï çãåù ÷öú

1.

Explanation (cont.): However, once the Mishnayos had to state "regarding Chulin and Mukdashim" in most of the Mishnayos in our Mesechet, it also stated this regarding Gid ha'Nasheh where it did not need to be stated. Even so, we say that it must be referring to offspring of Kodshim, since we can explain that it is teaching us a somewhat novel lesson.

6)

TOSFOS DH YATZA

úåñôåú ã"ä éöà

(SUMMARY: Rashi and Tosfos argue regarding the explanation of the Gemara's derivation.)

ô"ä ãèòîà îùåí ãìà àîøä úåøä ùìç ìú÷ìä

(a)

Opinion #1: Rashi explains that the reason is because the Torah would not say that you should send away the bird if it is forbidden to eat (and someone else may eat it).

å÷ùä çãà ãìéùðà ìà îùîò äëé

(b)

Question #1: This is difficult, as the Gemara's terminology does not imply that this understanding is correct.

åòåã ãîñé÷ åîå÷é ìä áìà ðâîø ãéðå åà"ë àéï áå ú÷ìä

(c)

Question #2: Additionally, the Gemara concludes and establishes the case (regarding the killer bird) as where its ruling was not yet handed down. If so, it is not forbidden to eat and cannot cause one who does so to transgress!

åðøàä ãôùèéä ã÷øà ãøéù ãîùîò ãáîéãé ùéëåì ìùìçå îùúòé àáì ä÷ãù îöåä ìäáéàå ìéã âæáø

(d)

Opinion #2: It seems that the Gemara is explaining the simple meaning of the Pasuk. The Pasuk implies that Shiluach ha'Ken only applies to something one can send away, not to a bird which a person is supposed to bring to the caretaker of Kodshim birds.

åôéøù á÷åðèøñ îú÷ç ìê ìà îöé ìàúåéé ãäà áéöé úåøéí ìà îåòìéí åìà ðäðéí

(e)

Explanation: Rashi explains that from "you should take for yourself" one cannot derive this, as one cannot transgress Meilah nor have benefit from Hekdesh eggs of turtledoves.

åàò"â ãá÷ãùé áã÷ äáéú îåòìéí îúðéúéï àééøé á÷ãùé îæáç ìë"ò åìà ôìéâé áñîåê àìà á÷ãùé áã÷ äáéú åìäëé ìà îöé îîòè îú÷ç ìê

1.

Explanation (cont.): Despite the fact that one could transgress Meilah if these eggs were regular Hekdesh items, everyone holds that our Mishnah is referring to Kodshei Mizbe'ach. The argument later is regarding regular Hekdesh. This is why we could not exclude Hekdesh from "take for yourself."

åîéäå ìùåï ìäáéàå ìéã âæáø àéï îéåùá ëì ëê ãâæáø ìà ùééê àìà á÷ãùé áã÷ äáéú

2.

Implied Question: However, the terminology "to bring it to the caretaker" does not seem very accurate here, as a caretaker is only relative when discussing regular Hekdesh.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF