12th Cycle Dedication

ERCHIN 10 (28 Teves) - Dedicated by Morris and Caroline Massel in loving memory of Morris' grandparents, Ezekiel and Sadie Massel z'l and Moses and Aziza Montefiore, all of whose Yahrzeits are in this season.

1)

TOSFOS DH MA'ASEH V'ASAH REBBI TISH'AH CHASERIM V'NIR'EH CHADASH BI'ZEMANO

úåñ' ã"ä îòùä åòùä øáé è' çñøéí åðøàä çãù áæîðå

(Summary: Tosfos continues to clarify the dialogue between Rebbi and his son Rebbi Shimon.)

åìëàåøä àùú÷ã ÷ãéí äîåìã îéåí â' å' ùòåú, ãëé ùãéú ä' ë"à ú÷ô"è, ðøàä äîåìã áéåí [à'] òöîå.

(a)

Observation: It seems that the year before the Molad actually occurred six hours before Tuesday, so that when adding 5/21/589, the following Molad would occur on Sunday.

åéù ìã÷ã÷, ëéåï ãàùú÷ã äîåìã äéä áéåí â', àéê òùä ç' îìàéí åàéçø ÷éáåò òã éåí ä', äìà ÷ãí äîåìã á' éîéí ì÷éáåò ...

(b)

Question: Seeing as last year the Molad occurred on Tuesday, how could Rebbi make eight full months, thereby delaying Rosh ha'Shanah until Thursday, seeing as the Molad then preceded it by two days ...

åìòéì àñ÷éðï ãìà òáãéðï ç' îìàéí àìà ëùàåúä ùðä îòåáøú, åîúàøò ëê ãìà î÷ãéí ëé àí çã éåîà ì÷éáåò ...

1.

Question (cont.): Whereas earlier, the Gemara concluded that one only makes eight full months when that year is a leap-year, so that it precedes it by only one day ...

åàí úôøù ìôéøåùå äéä äãáø àùú÷ã ùäîåìã äéä áéåí â' àçø é"ç ùòåú åìà ðøàéú òã éåí ã' -åìà ÷ãí øàééú äîåìã ì÷éáåò ø÷ çã éåîà

(c)

Refuted Answer: And if you want to explain that last year the Molad occurred on Tuesday after eighteen hours, and the new moon was not actually seen until wednesday - in which case the Molad preceded Rosh ha'Shanah by only one day ...

åàí ëï ÷ùä èåáà- ãëé ùãéðï ä' ë"à ú÷ô"è òì éåí â' é"ç, éäéä äùðä æå áéåí á' è"å ùòåú åä÷éáåò äéä áéåí àçã -åàéê ðøàä äçåãù áæîðå?

(d)

Refutation #1: The Kashya then remains - that if one adds 5/21/589 on to eighteen hours of Tuesday, The Molad this year will occur only after fifteen hours on Monday, whereas Rosh ha'Shanah fell on Sunday - so how did the Molad occur 'in its time'?

âí ìôé îä ãôé' ìòéì ãî÷ãéí ìà äåé àí àéðå ÷åãí é"ç ùòåú àçøåðåú ùáéåí, åéëåì ìäéåú ãàùú÷ã äîåìã áéåí â' ìùù ùòåú åìáðé ááì ìà ðøàéú òã éåí ã' ...

(e)

Refutation #2: Also according to what Tosfos explained above - that it is not considered Makdim if it does not occur before the last eighteen hours of the day, and it is therefore possible that last year the Molad occurred on Tuesday at six hours, and the B'nei Bavel did not see it until Wednesday ...

àëúé ãëé ùãéú ä' ë"à ú÷ô"è òì â' ùù ùòåú, äåé äîåìã äùúà áéåí á' åâ' ùòåú, åàëúé ìà äåé áæîðå?

1.

Refutation #2 (cont.): Nevertheless, if one adds 5/21/589 to six hours on Tuesday, the current Molad will occur at three hours on Tuesday, which is not 'in its time'?

åùîà 'ðøàä çåãù áæîðå' ìàå ãåå÷à ,ãáéåí ùàçø ÷éáåò ÷øé ìéä 'æîðå' ...

(f)

Answer: Perhaps 'It was seen in its time' is La'av Davka, and on the day after Rosh ha'Shanah it is also called 'its time' ...

ãáùáéì àéçåø éåí à' äîåìã ì÷éáåò àéï áëê ëìåí, ãìàå àãòúééäå ãàéðùé...

1.

Reason: Because on account of a delay of one day of the Molad from Rosh ha'Shanah, it doesn't really matter, since people do not notice it.

äìëê, ëùäîåìã ìîçøúå ã÷éáåò ëîå áéåîà ã÷éáåò.

(g)

Answer (cont.): Consequently, when the Molad occurs a day after Rosh ha'Shanah it is as if it occurred on the same day.

2)

TOSFOS DH YESH SEFARIM SHE'GORSIN

úåñ' ã"ä éù ...

(Summary: Tosfos cites two versions of the text.)

ñôøéí ùâåøñéï' áéú äôâøéñ' áñî"ê, åéù ùâåøñéï 'áéú äôâøéí/ áî"í.

(a)

Clarifying the Text: Some have the text 'Beis ha'Pagris' - with a 'Samech'; others, 'Beis ha'Pegarim' - with a Mem' ...

åëï ëúåá áúåñôúà (ô"à) ...

(b)

Support #1: And that is how it is written in the Tosefta (Perek 1).

åôñå÷ (éøîéä ìà) äòî÷ äôâøéí.

(c)

Support #2: And a Pasuk in Yirmiyaah (31:30) "ha'Eimek ha'Pegrim".

3)

TOSFOS DH HA'POSE'ACH LO YIFCHOS ME'SHEVA

úåñ' ã"ä äôåçú ìà éôçåú îæ'

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the authorship of this Sugya and the Sugya in Shabbos.)

ìøáé éäåãä ãàîø ìéëà ú÷éòåú ëé àí ùáòä, îùåí ã÷ø"÷ çùéá ú÷éòä àçú ...

(a)

Clarification: This goes according to Rebbi Yehudah, who says that there are only seven 'Teki'os', since he reckons 'Tarak' as one Teki'ah (See Avodah Berurah).

åäà ãàîø áùáú ôø÷ áîä îãìé÷éï (ãó ìä:) 'ùäéå úå÷òéï òøá ùáú ùùä ú÷éòåú ëãé ìáèì äòí îï äîìàëä' ,ìà äåé àìà úøúé àìéáà ãøáé éäåãä ...

(b)

Clarification (cont.): And when the Gemara says in Perek Bameh Madlikin (Shabbos, Daf 35b) that 'They would blow on Erev Shabbos six Teki'os in order to stop the people from working', according to Rebbi Yehudah that was really two Teki'os ...

ã÷çùéá ì÷ø"÷ ú÷éòä àçú ...

1.

Reason: Seeing as he considers 'Tarak' as one Teki'ah ...

àìà å' ð÷è àìéáà ãøáðï åçùáéðï ÷ø"÷ áùìùä ú÷éòåú.

2.

Clarification (concl.): And it mentions six according to the Rabbanan, who count 'Tarak' as three Teki'os.

4)

TOSFOS DH EIN BEIN TEKI'AH LI'TERU'AH V'LO K'LUM

úåñ' ã"ä àéï áéï ú÷éòä ìúøåòä åìà ëìåí

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the ramifications of this ruling even according to the Rabbanan and elaborates.)

åîñé÷ ãàúà ëøáé éäåãä ã÷àîø ÷ø"÷ çãà ú÷éòä ...

(a)

Clarification: The Gemara concludes that this goes according to Rebbi Yehudah, who says that 'Karak' is one Teki'ah.) ...

åä"ð ìøáðï ãàñåø ìäôñé÷ äú÷éòåú.

1.

Clarification (cont.): And so too according to the Rabbanan is it forbidden to interrupt between the Teki'os.,

åîëàï ðøàä ìø' ãàñåø ìäôñé÷ áéï ùáøéí ìúøåòä ...

(b)

Halachah #1: And from here Tosfos' Rebbe learns that one may not interrupt between Shevarim and Teru'ah ...

ãäà îñô÷à ìï [àé] âðåçé âðç åéìåìé éìéì áäãé äããé -åìëê àðå òåùéí ùáøéí åúøåòä áäãé äããé áúø ú÷éòä îñô÷ ...

1.

Reason: Because based on a doubt as to whether 'sighing and wailing (i.e. the sounds conveyed by Shevarim and Teru'ah, respectively ) are emitted together (without a break) - we blow them together mi'Safek, after Teki'ah ...

åîùå"ä àñåø ìäôñé÷ áéðéäï.

(c)

Halachah #1 (cont.): Consequently, interrupting between them is prohibitted.

åàí ðàðñ áúøåòä åìà éëåì ìòùåú îôðé ÷åöø øåçå àå îôðé ùåí àåðñ, éçæåø ìùáøéí -åäåãä ìå øáé.

(d)

Halachah #2: And (Consequently) if by the Teru'ah, one is an Oneis and is unable to blow it immediately due to a shortage of breath or for any other reason, one should go back to the Shevarim (And Rebbi submitted to this ruling - See Avodah Berurah).

îëàï îùîò ãàñåø ìäôñé÷ áéï ú÷éòä ìúøåòä...

(e)

Halachah #3: From the above it seems that one may not interrupt between Teki'ah and Teru'ah ...

åäà ãàîøéðï áùáú (ùí) ùäéå îôñé÷éï äú÷éòåú -[ãàîøéðï] äúí' äøàùåðä äéúä ëãé ìáèì äòí ùáùãåú, ùðééä ìäáèéì äòéø åçðåéåúéä ... ' ...

(f)

Implied Question: And although the Gemara says in Shabbos (Ibid.) that one does interrupt the Teki'os - when it rules that 'The first Teki'ah was to stop the people in the fields from working, whilst the second was to stop work in the town and its shops ...

ùàðé äúí ëéåï ãú÷ðåí ëï ëãé ìäéåú ëì àçú åàçú ñéîï ìãáø àçã ìàå äôñ÷ ÷çùéá ìéä.

1.

Answer:

5)

TOSFOS DH SHEMONAH ASAR YAMIM

úåñ' ã"ä ùîåðä òùø éîéí

(Summary: Tosfos explains why the Tama does not include Erev Pesach.)

äà ãìà çùéá òøá ôñç- ãàæ äåå ìäå é"è ...

(a)

Question: The Tana does not include Erev Pesach, which would bring the total up to nineteen ...

îùåí ãìà äåé àìà áî÷ãù ìà çùéá ìéä.

(b)

Answer: Because it is only recited in the Beis-ha' Mikdash.

6)

TOSFOS DH SHEMONAH ASAR YAMIM SHE'HA'YACHID GOMER BA'HEN ES HA'HALLEL

úåñ' ã"ä é"ç éîéí ùäéçéã âåîø áäï àú ääìì

(Summary: Tosfos discusses the ramifications of this statement and elaborates.)

ôé' åáùàø éîéí àéï àåîøéí àåúå ëìì...

(a)

Authentic Explanation: And on other days one does nt say it at all ...

ãìéëà ìôøåùé áùàø éîéí àéï âåîøéï àåúå àáì ÷åøéï àåúå áãéìåâ...

(b)

Refuted Explanation: One cannot explain that on other days one does not complete it but one does 'skip' (read Half-Hallel) ...

îã÷àîø 'ø"ç ãàé÷øé "îåòã" ,ìéîà? - 'îùîò ãñåáø ãàéï àåîøéï áø"ç ëìì.

1.

Refutation: Since the Gemara asks 'Rosh Chodesh that is called "Mo'ed" why not recite it?' - implying that on Rosh Chodesh, he holds, one does not recite it at all.

åëï äà ã÷àîø 'îàé ùðà áçâ ãàîøéðï, åáôñç ãìà àîøéðï- ' ? îùîò ãàéï çåáä ìàåîøå ëìì áø"ç åáôñç.

(c)

Proof #1: Similarly, when the Gemara asks 'Why is it that, on Sukkos we do recite it and on Pesach, we don't?' - it implies that on (Rosh Chodesh and on) Pesach we don't say it either.

åëï îùîò áäê ãîñëú úòðéú (ãó ëç:) 'øá àé÷ìò ìááì, çæéðäå ã÷øå äìéìà áø"ç; ÷ñáø ìàôñå÷éðäå, ëéåï ãùîò ã÷îãìâé àîø "îðäâ àáåúéäí áéãéäí" ... '

(d)

Proof #2: And so it implies in Maseches Ta'anis (Daf 28b), when it relates how 'Rav arrived in Bavel and he saw that they recited Hallel on Rosh Chodesh' he wanted to stop them, but when he heard them 'skip', he said that they were merely practicing the Minhag of their fathers' ...

îùîò ùøá äéä ñáåø ùìà äéå àåîøéí àåúå ëìì.

1.

Proof #2: Implying that initially, Rav thought that they would not recite it all.

åà"ë, åãàé îä ùàðå àåîøéí àåúå, àéðå àìà îðäâ áòìîà åàéðå çåáä ëîå áé"ç éîéí.

(e)

Conclusion: In that case, the fact that we recite it is merely a Minhag and not an obligation like the eighteen days.

åî"î àåîø ø"ú ãöøéê ìáøê òìéå...

(f)

Halachah: Nevertheless, says Rabeinu Tam, we are obligated to recite a B'rachah over it ...

ãëê îùîò äê ã'ñáø ìàôñå÷éðäå- ' ãçæéðäå ùîáøëéï òìéå ...

(g)

Proof #1: And this too, is implied in the fact that 'he wanted to stop them' - because he saw them reciting a B'rachah over it ...

ãàì"ë, îéã ùøàä øá ùìà áøëå ìôðéå, îéã äéä éëåì ìäáéï ùìà äéä çåáä...

1.

Proof #1 (cont.): Otherwise, as soon as he realized that they did not recite a B'rachah before it, he should have understood that it was not obligatory ...

]àìà îðäâ -àìà ù"î ùáøëå[

2.

Proof #1 (cont.): Only a Minhag - [a clear proof that they did recite a B'rachah].

10b----------------------------------------10b

)àìà îðäâ -àìà ù"î ùáøëå (åëï îùîò îäê ãøéù ô"á ãáøëåú (ãó éã:) ã÷àîø øáà 'äéìëúà ùîåðä òùø éîéí ùäéçéã âåîø áäï ääìì, áéï ôø÷ ìôø÷ ôåñ÷, áàîöò äôø÷ àéðå ôåñ÷...

(h)

Proof #2: And this is further implied by the Gemara at the beginning of the secnd Perek of B'rachos (Daf 14b) when Rava ruled that on the eighteen days on which a Yachid concludes Hallel - 'between the Perakim one may interrupt, but not in the middle of a Perek ...

éîéí ùàéï äéçéã âåîø áäï ääìì àôéìå áàîöò äôø÷, ôåñ÷ ... '

1.

Proof #2 (cont.): Whereas on the days that he does not one may interrupt even in the middle of a Perek'...

åàí àéï îáøëéï òìéå, îàé äôñ÷ä àéëà áãáø?

2.

Proof #2 (cont.): And what interruption is there if one did not recite a B'rachah?

åúå îôðé øùåú ðîé éôñé÷ -åòã ëàï ìà àéáòéà ìéä àìà îôðé äéøàä åîôðé äëáåã?

(i)

Proof #3: Moreover, one may even interrupt for something that is voluntary - and the She'eilah in the Gemara concerned interrupting for someone whom one fears of honors?

åìà ãîé ìäàé ã÷àîø ôø÷ ìåìá åòøáä (ñåëä ãó îã:) à'îðäâà ìà îáøëéðï ... '

(j)

Implied Question: Nor can one compare it to the Sugya in Lulav va'Aravah (Sukkah, Daf 44b) which states that 'One does not recite a B'rachah over a Minhag' ...

ä"î èìèåì, ãîðäâ ëîå òøáä, àáì à'÷øéàä ãîðäâ îáøëéï ùôéø.

(k)

Answer: Since that refers to Tiltul (moving)regarding the Aravah, whereas over the Minhag of reciting, it is fitting to recite a B'rachah (See Avodah Berurah).

åäà ã÷àîø äúí áô"ã ãúòðéú (ãó ëç:) úðà 'éçéã ìà éúçéì, åàí äúçéì, âåîø' ...

(l)

Implied Question: And when the Bereaisa says there in the fourth Perek of Ta'anis (Daf 28b) that 'A Yachid should not begin, and that if he does, he should finish' ...

ôé' éçéã àéï öøéê ìäúçéì, åàí äúçéì, âåîø- åáãéìåâ îùîò, ãöéáåø çééáéï ...

1.

Implied Question: Meaning that a Yachid does not need to begin, but that if he did, he should finish - implying 'skipping', which a Tzibur is obligated ...

äééðå îîðäâ áòìîà.

(m)

Answer #1: That is merely because of the Minhag.

å÷"÷, øá ãñáø ìàôñå÷éðäå- äúðéà äëà ãöéáåø çééáéï ì÷øåúå, åâí éçéã ðîé âåîø ëùäúçéì?

(n)

Question: Thatt poses a Kashya however, on Rav, who wanted to stop them - whereas the current Beraisa holds that a Tzibur is Chayav to recite it, and even a Yachid,

åø"ç ôé' 'éçéã ìà éúçéì' ááøëä, åàí äúçéì ááøëä, âåîø.

(o)

Answer #2: The Rach however, interprets 'Yachid Lo Yaschil' with regard to the B'rachah, and that if he began with a B'rachah, he concludes.

åî"î ð÷åè (ãøáéðå ùîùåï) [ãø"ú] áéãê, ãèåá ìáøê ìéçéã ðîé áúçéìä...

(p)

Ruling: Nevertheless, one should adopt the opinion of Rabeinu Tam, that it is correct for a Yachid to recite a B'rachah even Lechatchilah ...

ãðäé ãåãàé àéï îçåééá ìàîøå, î"î îàçø ùîæ÷é÷ òöîå ìëê, àéï æä áøëä ìáèìä...

1.

Reason: Because, granted one is not Chayav to recite Hallel in the first place, once one decides to recite it, it is not considered a B'rachah le'Vatalah ...

ëîå ùäðùéí îáøëåú òì ðèéìú ìåìá ùàéðå ìáèìä...

(q)

Precedent: Just as the B'rachah that women recite over the Lulav is not considered le'Vatalah

àò"ô ãôèåøåú, î"î äí øùàåú ìéèìå, åàéï æä áøëä ìáèìä, ôñ÷.

1.

Reason: Because even though they are Patur, they are nevertheless permitted to take it, and it is not therefore a B'rachah le'Vatalah (P'sak).

7)

TOSFOS DH AMRU MAL'ACHEI HA'SHAREIS MI'PNEI MAH EIN YISRAEL OMRIM SHIRAH L'FANECHA B'ROSH HA'SHANAH U'V'YOM HA'KIPURIM

úåñ' ã"ä àîøå îìàëé äùøú îôðé îä àéï éùøàì àåîøéí ùéøä ìôðéê áø"ä åáéåí äëéôåøéí

(Summary: Tosfos extrapolates from the wording of the statement.)

àáì ìà ÷àîø 'îôðé îä àéï àðå àåîøéí ùéøä' -îùîò ùîìàëé äùøú àåîøéí ùéøä .

(a)

Inference: The Gemara does not ask why they (the angels) do not recite Shirah - implying that they do in fact recite Shirah.

åìëê àåîø ø"é ãáø"ä åáéåí äëéôåøéí àéï ìãìâ 'åäçéåú éùåøøå åëøåáéí éôàøå .'

(b)

Ramification: Therefore, said the Ri, on Rosh ha'Shanah and Yom Kipur one should not skip 've'ha'Chayos Yeshor'ru u'Keruvin Yefa'aru'.

8)

TOSFOS DH EIN POSCHIN MI'ESRIM U'SHEMONAH TEKI'OS BA'MIKDASH B'CHOL YOM

úåñ' ã"ä àéï ôåçúéï îë"à ú÷éòåú áî÷ãù áëì éåí

(Summary: Tosfos, citing the Gemara in Sukkah, clarifies the statement.)

åîôøù áñåëä (ãó ðâ:) 'ùìùä ìôúéçú ùòøéí åúùò ìúîéã ùì ùçø -ùäéå äìåéí àåîøéí ùéøä áùòú ðñëéí...

(a)

Clarification: The Gemara in Pesachim (Daf 53b) explains - 'Three for the opening of the gates, nine for the Tamid shel Shachar - since the Levi'im would recite Shirah when the Nesachim were being poured ...

åäéä áå â' ôø÷éí -ìëì ôø÷ ú÷òå åäøéòå åú÷òå.

1.

Clarification (cont.): And it comprised three paragraphs - by each of which they blew Teki'ah, Teru'ah, Teki'ah.

9)

TOSFOS DH V'LO MOSIFIN AL SHISHAH (This Dibur belongs to the Mishnah).

úåñ' ã"ä åìà îåñéôéï òì ùùä

(Summary: Tosfos, citing Rashi, discusses the significance of the current statements.)

ôéøù"é ìà àéúôøéù èòîà.

(a)

No Source: Rashi explains that the reason for this is not given.

'àéï ôåçúéï îá' çìéìéí åìà îåñéôéï òì é"á' -ëðâã é"á éåí ùçìéì îëä.

(b)

Clarification: 'Not less than two flutes and not more than twelve' - corresponding to the twelve days (during theb year) on which they played the flute.

10)

TOSFOS DH EIN POCHSIN MI'SH'TEIM-ESREI LEVI'IM HA'OMDIN AL HA'DUCHAN (This Dibur belongs to the Mishnah on Daf 13b).

úåñ' ã"ä [àéï] ôåçúéï îé"á ìåéí äòåîãéï òì äãåëï

(Summary: Tosfos explains the statement and clarifies the Mishnah in Tamid.)

áëì éåí ëùàåîøéí ùéøä -ùðéí ìðáìéí åè' ëéðåøåú åöìöì äøé é"á.

(a)

Clarification: Every day, when they sang Shirah - two lyres, nine harps and one pair of cymbals, making twelve.

åùúé çöåöøåú ëäðéí úå÷òéí áäï åìà ìåéí.

(b)

Clarification (cont.): And as for the two trumpets the Kohanim blew them and not the Levi'im.

åäëé úðï ôø÷ áúøà ãúîéã (ãó ìâ:) 'åùðé ëäðéí òåîãéí òì ùåìçï äçìáéí åá' çöåöøåú áéãí' .

1.

Proof: So the Mishnah says in the last Perek of Tamid (Daf 33a) - 'And two Kohamim stood on the 'Table of the Chalavim', two trumpets in hand'.

åìà çù äúí ìîúðé ëéðåøéí åçìéìéí...

(c)

Implied Question: And by the same token it does not bother to mention there the harps and the flutes ...

ìôé ùìà äéå áëäðéí àìà áìåéí.

1.

Answer: since they were were played by the Levi'im and not the Kohanim.

å÷"÷, ã÷úðé äúí 'åä÷éù áï àøæà áöéìöì'?

(d)

Question: The Mishnah states there that 'ben Arza (a Levi) struck the cymbals?

åúéøõ 'ãçãà îéðééäå ð÷è.

(e)

Answer: The Tana mentions one of them.

11)

TOSFOS DH V'ALEIHEM AMAR DAVID NECHOSHES MEMURAT

úåñ' ã"ä åòìéäí àîø ãåã ðçåùú îîåøè

(Summary: Tosfos queries Rashi's explanation, and amends the text.)

ô"ä 'òì ëìé ðçåùú ùëéåöà áäí' .

(a)

Explanation: Rashi explains 'On copper vessels similar to them' (See Avodah Berurah, quoting the Cheishek Sh'lomoh).

îéäå ÷ùä ãäàé ÷øà áùìîä -áîìëéí ãëúéá "ðçùú îîåøè" åáãáøé äéîéí (á ã) ëúéá "ðçùú îøå÷"

(b)

Question: This Pasuk however, is written in connection with Sh'lomoh - in Melachim (1, 7) it says "Nechoshes Memorat", and in Divrei ha'Yamim (2, 4) "Nechoshes Maruk" ...

,åîàé ÷àîø 'åòìéäí àîø ãåã' ?

1.

Question (cont.): So how can the Gemara say 'And on them David said'?

åðøàä ìø"é ãä"â 'åòìéäí àîø ÷øà "ðçùú îîåøè" "ðçåùú îøå÷."

(c)

Answer: The Ri therefore amends the text to read 'And on them the Pasuk says "Nechoshes Memorat" "Nechoshes Maruk"

12)

TOSFOS DH HARDAVLIS

úåñ' ã"ä äøãååìéñ

(Summary: Tosfos disagrees with Rashi's version and elaborates.)

áñî"ê âøéñ øù"é.

(a)

Text #1: Rashi reads this with a 'Samech'.

åðøàä ìø' äøãååìéí áî"í.

(b)

Text #2: But the Ri reads it 'Hardavlim', with a 'Mem'.

åëï éù ááøàùéú øáä 'òøãåìéï áòéø åîãéðä ðäôëä' -ôéøåù òøãååìéï ëîå äøãååìéï- åäí îéðé ëìé æîø.

(c)

Proof: And that is how it appears in Bereishis Rabah 'Ardavlin be'Ir u'Medinah Nehefchah' - 'Ardavlin is like 'Hardavlin' - species of instruments.

'î"í' îúçìôú á'ðå"ï' .

(d)

Clarification: And the 'Mem' is interchangeable with a 'Nun'.

'äøãååìéí' æäå úøâåí ùì òåâá.

(e)

Conclusion: 'Hardavlim' is the Targum of "Ugav" (See Avodah Berurah).

13)

TOSFOS DH MAGREIFAH HAYSAH BA'MIKDASH

úåñ' ã"ä îâøéôä äéúä áî÷ãù

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

ôé' á÷åðèøñ 'ùâåøôéï áä äãùï' .

(a)

Refuted Explanation: Rashi explains (Shovels) with which they shoveled the ashes'.

å÷ùä, ãäà äéúä ëìé æîø?

(b)

Refutation: But surely what they played was a musical instrument?

àìà ðøàä ìôøù ãùðé îéðé îâøéôåú äéå -àçú ìãùï åàçú ùì ùéø.

(c)

Authentic Explanation: It therefore seems that there were two Magripos - one for the ashes, the other, for the Shir.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF