1)

TOSFOS DH Kometz Pigul (cont.)

" ()

(a)

Answer: It is the conclusion of the matter above, to give a reason why [we must say that] Pigul was uprooted;

' '' ( .) () [" - ] '' () [" - ]

1.

In Zevachim (43a) it asks "what does [Ula] mean?", and answers "if it is not accepted inside, how does it bring others to Pigul?" I.e. you are forced to say that Pigul was uprooted.

'' ''

2.

If it were [still] Pigul when it is brought on the Mizbe'ach, if so it is like [mere] earth, and not a Korban. How can it bring to Pigul? We require like Ritzuy of Kosher!

3.

Inference: It connotes that Pigul took affect from the time of Kemitzah, and likewise in a Zevach it takes effect from the time of Shechitah;

''

4.

If you think that [Pigul] does not take affect until the time of Zerikah, and similarly in Menachos until the time of Haktarah, if so how did Ula prove that it is mere earth if the Pigul was not uprooted?

''

i.

Perhaps really, it was not uprooted, and even so, it is not mere earth, for Pigul does not take affect until the time of Zerikah, and similarly in Menachos at the time of Haktaras ha'Kometz, which then it permits the Shirayim, and both of them take effect together - Heter of the Shirayim and Pigul!

5.

It answers that also this is an Isur that leads to Pigul. I.e. really, Pigul does not take effect until the time of Zerikah. Even so, Ula properly proves that its Pigul was uprooted;

i.

Since it is an Isur that brings to Pigul from the beginning, from the time of Kemitzah, which corresponds to Shechitah, if not that Pigul was uprooted, it should have considered it earth, and the Matirim were not offered.

2)

TOSFOS DH v'Ha Amar Ilfa Machlokes bi'Shtei Avodos v'Chulei

" '

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the question.)

'' ( :) '' ''

(a)

Reference: This is in Zevachim (29b), regarding the Mishnah in which R. Yehudah says "if intent of Zman (Chutz li'Zmano) preceded intent of Makom, it is Pigul and one is Chayav Kares [for eating it]. If not, it is Pasul. Chachamim say, both of these are Pasul";

'

1.

And Ilfa said that they argue about two Avodos, e.g. he said that [he slaughters] the first Siman Chutz li'Zmano and the second Siman Chutz li'Mkomo, and R. Yehudah and Rabanan argue about one who is Mefagel in half a Matir. R. Yehudah holds that it is Mefagel. Rabanan hold that it is not Mefagel;

''

2.

However, in one Avodah all agree that it is mixed intents, and it is not Pigul.

() [" - ] ''

3.

Inference: Pigul takes effect from the time of Shechitah. If you would think that it does not take effect until Zerikah, if so, also in two Avodos it should be mixed intents, for it is not Pigul in the first Siman until the time of Zerikah, and intent for Makom preceded (Pigul)!

'

4.

[Rav Ashi] answered that when he does Zerikah, it is revealed retroactively... I.e. we say at the time of Zerikah that it is revealed retroactively that Pigul took effect from the time of the first Siman. Therefore, intent of Zman was first.

(b)

Citation: If in one Avodah, if in two Avodos.

'

(c)

Explanation: Our Mishnah discusses in every case, either like R. Yochanan explains in one Avodah, or like Ilfa explains in two Avodos.

3)

TOSFOS DH Iy Hachi Gabei Todah Nami

"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that we ask that Zerikas Pigul should bring to Me'ilah.)

''

(a)

Explanation: We should say also that when he does Zerikah, it is revealed retroactively that Pigul took effect from the time of Shechitah. If so, why doesn't Zerikas Pigul bring to Me'ilah, just like we say that the bread becomes Kadosh?

4)

TOSFOS DH Ela Mai Kidesh ha'Lechem Lav l'Chiyuvei bi'Me'ilah

"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the Havah Amina.)

''

(a)

Explanation: He does not want to say regarding Me'ilah of the bread, for I explained above (3b DH Alma) that Me'ilah does not apply to it;

''

1.

Rather, it means as follows. Do not say like [R. Aba] answered above (3b) "bi'Zerikah". (Tosfos explained that Me'ilah takes effect on Eimurim of Kodshim Kalim through Zerikah, through which Pigul is finalized. We cannot learn from Shechitas Pigul, for Pigul is not finalized then);

()

2.

Rather, due to Shechitas Pigul, the bread becomes Kadosh to become Pasul through a Tevul Yom or Mechusar Kipurim, or through Linah. Even so, [in a case of Shechitas Pigul] Zerikah does not help obligate Me'ilah for Kodshim Kalim.

i.

Note: I.e. even if Avodas Pigul is Mekadesh to become Pasul, we cannot learn that Avodas Pigul brings to Me'ilah. We need not distinguish Zerikah from Shechitah.

5)

TOSFOS DH Leima Mesaye'a Lei ha'Pigul l'Olam Mo'alin Bo...

" ''

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how this supports Rav Gidal.)

(a)

Explanation: This shows that since he was Mefagel, Zerikah does not uproot Me'ilah. It discusses Kodshei Kodoshim, and this supports Rav Gidal.

6)

TOSFOS DH Iy Lo Zarik Mai l'Meimra Peshita d'Mo'alin

"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos justifies the question.)

'' '' '

(a)

Question: Perhaps the Chidush is that we do not say that it is as if he choked them, and [therefore] we do not call them Kodshei Hash-m!

''

(b)

Answer: It says as follows. What is the Chidush? Why was it taught "always"? It should say only "Me'ilah applies to Pigul", and no more!

7)

TOSFOS DH Iy b'Olah Mai l'Meimra

"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that Zerikah never uproots Me'ilah from an Olah.)

( .)

(a)

Explanation: It is obvious that Me'ilah applies to it! Even if did not become Pigul, Me'ilah applies to it until it [is burned to ashes, and] goes to Beis ha'Deshen, like it says below (9a)!

8)

TOSFOS DH v'Od Tanya (This starts a new Dibur according to the Tzon Kodoshim)

" ' ( )

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses which part of the Beraisa supports Rav Gidal.)

[]

(a)

Explanation: However, if you will say that it is an Olah, need it teach this? I.e. obviously, Zerikah does not help to uproot Me'ilah, even if the blood was not Lan!

''

1.

Rather, surely it discusses a Chatas. Even though when the blood was not Lan, Zerikah uproots Me'ilah, in any case when it was Lan, then the Zerikah is Pasul, the Zerikah does not help to uproot Me'ilah, and I would have thought that the same applies to Zerikas Pigul.

2.

The Seifa surely supports him. Surely it discusses a Chatas, and even so, it says that a Pasul Zerikah does not help to uproot Me'ilah.

'

3.

[The Gemara said] what about the Reisha? I.e. since the Seifa discusses a Chatas, also the Reisha discusses a Chatas. Now it is an explicit support, for the Reisha discusses Zerikas Pigul!

'

(b)

Explanation (cont.): [The Gemara says] does the Seifa Vadai support him? I.e. perhaps Zerikah after Linah is different than Zerikah after Pigul. It asks what is the difference, and answers that Linah, which he did overtly...

( ) [" - ] '' '

1.

"Overtly" is not precise. Rather, it came through lack of an action. Zerikah does not help to uproot Me'ilah.

''

(c)

Question: Why does it matter if the Seifa does not support him? In any case the Reisha supports him, for you are forced to say that it discusses a Chatas, and after Zerikah, for if it is an Olah, what is the Chidush?!

( ) [" ( ) - ]

(d)

Answer (R. Peretz): Surely we can reject the Reisha, that it does not support him, for really, it discusses Chatas, and before Zerikah;

4b----------------------------------------4b

'' '' '' ( .)

1.

The Chidush is that even though the Shechitah was done properly, and he was not Mefagel until the time of Kabalah, even so Me'ilah applies to it. This teaches unlike the opinion that says below (5a) that we learned Heter Shechitah (i.e. from the time of Shechitah it is considered permitted to Kohanim).

9)

TOSFOS DH ha'Pigul... Lav Af Al Gav d'Zarak u'Mesaye'a Lei

" ... () [" " - ]

(SUMMARY: Tosfos gives the reasoning to say so.)

(a)

Explanation: This is because Zerikas Pigul does not uproot Me'ilah from Kodshei Kodoshim.

10)

TOSFOS DH Lo d'Lo Zarak

"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why it mentioned Pigul according to this.)

''

(a)

Question: If so, why does it discuss Pigul? Even if it is not Pigul [Me'ilah applies to it]!

''

(b)

Answer: This is only for Pigul, but if it is not Pigul, Me'ilah does not apply to it, since there is Heter Zerikah or Heter Shechitah, and we do not require Heter Achilah to uproot Me'ilah.

11)

TOSFOS DH Amai ka'Tani Seifa... (This starts a new Dibur according to the Tzon Kodoshim)

" )( [" - ] ( )

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the support for Rav Gidal.)

(a)

Explanation: This is a support for Rav Gidal, from this that it says that Zerikas Pigul does not bring to Me'ilah in Kodshim Kalim;

1.

Surely we discuss after Zerikah, for if Zerikah was not done, why does it discuss Pigul? Even if it is not Pigul [Me'ilah does not apply]!

2.

Also, since it does not distinguish between before and after Zerikah. [If it were only before Zerikah,] it should distinguish in the Reisha and teach that before Zerikah, Me'ilah applies to it!

() [" - ]

(b)

Conclusion: Rather, surely the Reisha discusses after Zerikah, and it supports Rav Gidal from removing Me'ilah from Kodshei Kodoshim (i.e. Zerikas Pigul does not uproot Me'ilah);

() [" - ]

1.

If it is only before Zerikah, why does it distinguish between Kodshei Kodoshim and Kodshim Kalim? It should distinguish between Kodshei Kodoshim themselves!

'

2.

[The Gemara] says that surely it supports him. I.e. surely the Seifa supports Rav Gidal, that Zerikas Pigul does not bring to Me'ilah in Kodshim Kalim, for you are forced to say that the Seifa discusses after Zerikah;

3.

Say that since the Seifa supports him, also the Reisha [discusses after Zerikah, and it] supports him, that it does not remove Me'ilah from Kodshei Kodoshim!

'

4.

[The Gemara] rejects this. Kodshim Kalim is uniform... I.e. really, the Reisha discusses only before Zerikah;

5.

Implied question: [If so] why does it not distinguish between after Zerikah and before Zerikah, within Kodshei Kodoshim themselves?

( - )

6.

Answer #1: There are Kodshei Kodoshim for which it is not uniform that after Zerikah there is no Me'ilah, e.g. Olah, even if Rav Gidal's law is not true;

() [ " ]

7.

Answer #2: This is a more uniform matter, for Me'ilah does not apply to Kodshim Kalim both after Zerikah and before Zerikah, but this (Kodshei Kodoshim) is not uniform. It is only after Zerikah that Me'ilah does not apply.

(c)

Inference: In the conclusion, there is a support for Rav Gidal from what it taught "Zerikas Pigul does not bring to Me'ilah in Kodshim Kalim", but from this that it does not uproot Me'ilah from Kodshei Kodoshim, there is no support.

(d)

Question: What is the difference? It is one reason, because it is Zerikah for Pigul!

'' '

(e)

Answer (R. Peretz): They are very different. To uproot Me'ilah from Kodshei Kodoshim, we require that they are proper for man to eat;

'' )( [" " - ] ''

1.

Therefore, since the Torah finalized Pigul, even though it requires Ritzuy for Pasul like Ritzuy of Kosher, i.e. that it is accepted to eat b'Heter from it, and even so the Torah considered Zerikas Pigul to be in the category of Ritzuy for eating - if so, it is proper that for Kodshei Kodoshim, [Zerikas Pigul] uproots Me'ilah;

[" - ]

i.

However, regarding bringing Kodshim Kalim to Me'ilah, that Zerikah should be considered that Hash-m's portion is clarified, we do not find that it is considered [proper Zerikah] for this.

12)

TOSFOS DH Ben Achoso Re'eh Mah Atah Sho'aleni l'Machar v'Chulei

" '

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that he told him to prepare to learn Halachah.)

(a)

Explanation: Tomorrow, both of us will engage in Halachah. Ask me in order to clarify the matter and be meticulous about the matter, so we will deliberate it tomorrow.

13)

TOSFOS DH Heter Shechitah Shaninu

"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the question.)

(a)

Explanation: [If we learned Heter Shechitah,] once Kosher Shechitah was done, Me'ilah does not apply. Or, [we learned] Heter Zerikah, that we require that it is proper for Zerikah before Me'ilah is uprooted, e.g. Kosher Kabalah was done.

(b)

Question: Granted, if you will say that we learned Heter Achilah, this is why it is called Heter to Kohanim, i.e. after Zerikah, for then it is permitted to eat;

1.

However, if [we learned] Heter Zerikah, what Heter to Kohanim is there?

(c)

Answer: Also before Zerikah is called Heter to Kohanim, for since it is destined to be thrown, it is as if it was thrown.

( :) ''

(d)

Question: If so, he should ask whether the Halachah follows R. Shimon or Rabanan, who argue about this! R. Shimon holds that it is as if it was thrown, and Rabanan do not hold that it is as if it was thrown!

(') [" - ]

1.

Suggestion: Perhaps indeed, he asks this!

''

2.

Rejection #1: If so, what [proof] does he bring from below that we learned Heter Zerikah? We should say that it is R. Shimon!

( ) ''

3.

Rejection #2: He brings also below from R. Shimon himself. This shows that he asks even according to R. Shimon!

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF