1)

TOSFOS DH Heter Shechitah Shaninu (cont.)

úåñôåú ã"ä äéúø ùçéèä ùðéðå (äîùê)

(åé''ì ìëåìé òìîà) [ö"ì ìëï ð"ì - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ãáéï ìø''ù åáéï ìøáðï ÷áòé ãìà ôìéâé àìà ìòðéï èåîàú àåëìéï àáì ìòðéï àëéìä ìà

(a)

Answer: It seems to me that he asks both according to R. Shimon and Rabanan. They argue only about Tum'as Ochlim, but not about eating;

åàéëà ìîéáòé àìéáà ãúøåééäå ãòã ëàï ìà ÷àîø ø''ù ëæøå÷ ãîé àìà ìòðéï èåîàú àåëìéï àáì ìà ô÷òé ÷ãùé (÷ãùéí) [ö"ì ä' - öàï ÷ãùéí] òã ìàçø æøé÷ä

1.

One can ask according to both of them. R. Shimon said that it is as if it was thrown only regarding Tum'as Ochlim, but they do not cease to be Kodshei Hash-m until after Zerikah;

àå ìàéãê âéñà ãò''ë ìà ÷àîøé øáðï ìàå ëæøå÷ ãîé àìà ìòðéï èåîàú àåëìéï îùåí ãìà ÷øéðï áä àùø éàëì (åé÷øà éà) àìà ìàçø æøé÷ä

2.

Or [one could say] the other way. Rabanan said that it is not as if it was thrown only regarding Tum'as Ochlim, because "Asher Yochal" applies only after Zerikah;

àáì äëà ëéåï ãòåîã ìéæø÷ îéã ô÷òé ÷ãùé ä' ãëæøå÷ ãîé

i.

However, here, since it is destined to be thrown, immediately they cease to be Kodshei Hash-m, for it is as if it was thrown.

åà''ú ëé äéëé ã÷àîø äéúø æøé÷ä [ùðéðå] ëé ðòùéú ä÷áìä áäëùø ëîå ëï äéä ìå ìåîø ëé ðòùéú äùçéèä áäéúø äéúø ÷áìä [ùðéðå] ëìåîø ùáà ìéãé [äéúø] ÷áìä

(b)

Question: Just like he says that we learned Heter Zerikah when Kosher Kabalah was done, similarly he should say that when Kosher Shechitah was done, we learned Heter Kabalah!

åé''ì ãìà ãîé ãâáé æøé÷ä ùééê ùôéø ìùåï äéúø æøé÷ä ìôé ùëùðú÷áì áäëùø àæ îåúø ìæøå÷ åàí ðú÷áì áôñåì àñåø ìæøå÷

(c)

Answer: It is different. Regarding Zerikah, the expression of Heter Zerikah properly applies, because when Kabalah was Kosher, then Zerikah is permitted, and when Kabalah was Pasul, then Zerikah is forbidden;

àáì ëé ðîé ðùçè áôñåì àéï àñåø ì÷áì äìëê ìà ùééê ìåîø äéúø ÷áìä àìà äéúø ùçéèä ëìåîø ùðòùä äùçéèä áäéúø å÷øé ìéä äéúø ìëäðéí ìôé ùäåà äéúø ìòáåãú ëäðéí

1.

However, even when Shechitah was Pasul, there is no Isur to do Kabalah. Therefore, it is not appropriate to say "Heter Kabalah", rather, Heter Shechitah, i.e. Shechitah was done b'Heter. It is called "Heter to Kohanim" because it is a Heter for Avodas Kohanim.

åà''ú ìî''ã äéúø ùçéèä ùðéðå ùçè áöôåï å÷áì áãøåí àîàé îåòìéï ëéåï ùðòùéú äùçéèä áäéúø

(d)

Question: According to the opinion that we learned Heter Shechitah, if he slaughtered in the north and Kabalah was in the south, why does Me'ilah apply, since Shechitah was b'Heter?

;é''ì ãîééøé ëâåï ù÷éáì ÷åãí âîø ùçéèä ãäùúà ìà ðâîøä äùçéèä áäëùø

(e)

Answer: We discuss when he received before Shechitah finished. Now, the Shechitah was not finished b'Hechsher.

(åà''ë) [ö"ì åà"ú] ëùùçè áéåí åæø÷ áìéìä îàé àéëà ìîéîø

(f)

Question: When he slaughtered during the day and did Zerikah at night, how can we answer?

é''ì äúí ðîé îééøé ëùùçè ëì ëê ñîåê ìù÷éòú äçîä òã ùäåöøê ìæøå÷ áìéìä åàí ëï ìà (äéúä ùçéèúå) [ö"ì äåéà äçéèúä - ùéèä î÷åáöú] äéúø ìòáåãú ëäðéí

(g)

Answer: Also there discusses when he slaughtered so close to Shki'ah that he needed to do Zerikah at night. If so, the Shechitah is not a Heter for Avodas Kohanim.

2)

TOSFOS DH Chizkiyah... Lo Daika Masnisin Lo k'Chizkiyah v'Lo k'R. Yochanan

úåñôåú ã"ä çæ÷éä àîø... øáé éåçðï... ìà ãéé÷à îúðé' ìà ëçæ÷éä åìà ëøáé éåçðï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that it is difficult R. Yochanan.)

ëìåîø (ëøáé éåçðï ã÷ùéà) [ö"ì ìøáé éåçðï ÷ùéà - ùéèä î÷åáöú] îîúðé' åëçæ÷éä ìà ãéé÷à

(a)

Explanation: According to R. Yochanan, our Mishnah is difficult. According to Chizkiyah, it is not precise.

3)

TOSFOS DH Lav d'Lan Dam... u'Shma Minah Heter Zerikah Shaninu

úåñôåú ã"ä ìàå ãìï ãí å÷úðé àéï îåòìéï åù''î äéúø æøé÷ä ùðéðå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why this is unlike R. Yochanan.)

ãàé äéúø àëéìä äéä ìå ìîòåì àôéìå ááùø òã ìàçø æøé÷ä ùàæ øàåé ìàëéìä å÷ùéà ìø' éåçðï

(a)

Explanation: If it were Heter Achilah, he should be Mo'el even in the meat until after Zerikah, for then it is proper to eat! This is difficult for R. Yochanan;

ëçæ÷éä ìà ãéé÷à îãð÷è ìï ãîä åìà ð÷è øáåúà èôé ëâåï ÷éáì áôñåì åàò''â ãìéëà àìà ùçéèä áäëùø î''î àéï îåòìéï ãäéúø ùçéèä ùðéðå

1.

According to Chizkiyah it is not precise, since he mentioned Linah of blood, and did not mention a bigger Chidush, e.g. a Pasul did Kabalah, and even though only Shechitah was Kosher, even so Me'ilah does not apply, for we learned Heter Shechitah!

åãéå÷ æä àéðå çùåá áòéðé äù''ñ åìà ä÷ôéã òìéå àìà òì ÷åùéà ã÷ùéà ìøáé éåçðï ãôøéê îéðä

(b)

Observation: This inference is not important to the Gemara. It was not adamant about it, only about the question it asked against R. Yochanan.

4)

TOSFOS DH Lo d'Lan Basar

úåñôåú ã"ä ìà ãìï áùø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses why the Makshan did not anticipate this answer.)

åî''î àéï îåòìéï ãàéëà äéúø àëéìä

(a)

Explanation: Even so, Me'ilah does not apply, for there is a Heter Achilah.

åà''ú åîàé ñ''ã ãî÷ùä åäà ôùéèà äåà ãîöé ìúøõ ëï

(b)

Question: What did the Makshan think? Obviously, one can answer this!

é''ì ãñáøà äåà ãîééøé áìï ãí ãåîéà ãñéôà ãìà äéúä ìå ùòú äéúø ìëäðéí ãçùéá ÷éáìå ôñåìéí åæø÷å ãîï

(c)

Answer: It is reasonable that it discusses Linah of blood, similar to the Seifa in which it did not have Heter to Kohanim. It lists when Pesulim did Kabalah and they did Zerikas Dam;

àìîà îééøé áôñåì ãí åøéùà ãåîéà ãñéôà ëê ðøàä ìîåøé ä''ø ôøõ ùé'

1.

Inference: It discusses a Pesul of blood, and the Reisha resembles the Seifa! So it seems to my Rebbi, R. Peretz.

5)

TOSFOS DH she'Kiblu Pesulin v'Zarku Es Damah

úåñôåú ã"ä ù÷éáìå ôñåìéï åæø÷å àú ãîä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains an alternative text.)

éñ''â ëï ä''ã àé ã÷áìå ôñåìéï àå æø÷å ôñåìéï ì''ì (òã ãàéëà - ùéèä î÷åáöú îåç÷å) úøúé àìà ìàå ã÷áìå ôñåìéï (ãå÷à - ùéèä î÷åáöú îåç÷å) åù''î äéúø æøé÷ä ùðéðå

(a)

Alternative text: Some texts say "what is the case? If Pesulim did Kabalah or Pesulim did Zerikah, why do we need both? Rather, Pesulim did Kabalah. This shows that we learned Heter Zerikah";

åä''ô ãñåâéà (àúéà ìåîø ãäéúø æøé÷ä) [ö"ì àí úîöà ìåîø ãäéúø àëéìä - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ùðéðå åäôé' ëê äåà àé [ã÷áìå] ôñåìéï [àå æø÷å ôñåìéï] ø''ì àå ã÷áìå ëùøéí åæø÷å ôñåìéï ãîåòìéï îùåí ãìéëà äéúø àëéìä

1.

The Sugya means as follows. If you will say that we learned Heter Achilah, and it means as follows - if Pesulim did Kabalah or Pesulim did Zerikah, i.e. or Kesherim did Kabalah and Pesulim did Zerikah, that there is Me'ilah because there was no Heter Achilah...

ì''ì (òã ãàéëà - ùéèä î÷åáöú îåç÷å) úøúé ëìåîø àîàé úðé ëìì [÷áìä] áôñåìéï ìéúðé æøé÷ä áôñåìéï ìçåã ãäåé îùîò ãàôéìå ðòùéú ä÷áìä áäëùø îåòìéï îùåí ãäéúø àëéìä ùðéðå

2.

[It asks] why do we need both? I.e. why did it teach at all that Pesulim did Kabalah? Let it teach only Zerikah of Pesulim, which connotes even if Kabalah was Kosher, Me'ilah applies, because we learned Heter Achilah!

åìà ðéçà ìîéîø ãìà æå àó æå ÷úðé áëä''â ã÷áìå (áôñåìéï åæø÷å áôñåìéï çã îéìúà äéà) [ö"ì ôñåìéï åæø÷å ôñåìéï çã îéìúà äéà ãçã èòîà äéà îùåí äéúø àëéìä - ùéèä î÷åáöú]

i.

[The Gemara] is not pleased to say that it taught "not only this, rather, even this" in such a case that Pesulim did Kabalah and Pesulim did Zerikah, for it is one matter, for it is one reason, due to Heter Achilah!

àìà ìàå ÷áìåäå ôñåìéï (ãå÷à äà ÷áìåäå ëùøéí ãàéëà) [ö"ì ëìåîø ãå÷à ÷áìåäå ôñåìéï îåòìéï àáì äà ÷áìåäå ëùøéí ãàéëà äùúà - ùéèä î÷åáöú] äéúø æøé÷ä àéï îåòìéï åù''î äéúø æøé÷ä ùðéðå

ii.

Rather, Pesulim did Kabalah, i.e. only if Pesulim did Kabalah, Me'ilah applies. However, if Kesherim did Kabalah, that now there is Heter Zerikah, Me'ilah does not apply. This shows that we learned Heter Zerikah!

åà''ú à''ë ì''ì ìîéúðé åæø÷å ôñåìéï ëìì ëéåï ã÷áìåäå ôñåìéï ãå÷à

(b)

Question: If so, why did it teach "and Pesulim did Zerikah" at all, since specifically Pesulim did Kabalah?

é''ì ãúðà åæø÷å ôñåìéï ìàùîåòéðï ã÷áìåäå ãå÷à åä''÷ àò''â ãæø÷åäå ôñåìéï àé ÷áìåäå ôñåìéï ðîé äåà ãîåòìéï ãìà äåä ìéä äéúø æøé÷ä

(c)

Answer: He taught "and Pesulim did Zerikah" to teach that [Pesulim] did Kabalah is precise. It means as follows. Even though Pesulim did Zerikah, if Pesulim did also Kabalah, then there is Me'ilah, for there was no Heter Zerikah;

äà ÷áìåäå ëùøéí àò''â ãæø÷åäå ôñåìéï àéï îåòìéï àò''â ãàéï ìå äéúø àëéìä ëéåï ãàéëà äéúø æøé÷ä

1.

Inference: If Kesherim did Kabalah, even though Pesulim did Zerikah, Me'ilah does not apply, even though there is no Heter Achilah, since there is Heter Zerikah.

î''î ÷ùä ãàé ðîé úðà ÷áìåäå (ìôñåì) [ôñåìéï] ìçåã ùôéø éãò ãäéúø æøé÷ä ùðéðå ãîùîò äà ÷éáìåäå ëùøéï (îéã - ùéèä î÷åáöú, öàï ÷ãùéí îåç÷éí æä) àéï îåòìéï

(d)

Question: Still, it is difficult. Also if it taught only that Pesulim did Kabalah, we would know that we learned Heter Zerikah, for it connotes that if Kesherim did Kabalah, Me'ilah does not apply!

(ëé äéëé ãäåä) [ö"ì ãàì"ë äåé ôøéê - öàï ÷ãùéí] ì''ì ìîéúðé ÷áìåäå ôñåìéï ëé àîøéðï ãäéúø àëéìä ùðéðå

1.

If not, (rather, there is Me'ilah even after a Kosher Kabalah, the Gemara) would have asked "why did it teach Pesulim did Kabalah?" for we would say that we learned Heter Achilah!

åàåîø îåøé ä''ø ôøõ ùé' ãàéöèøéê ùôéø ìîéúðé æø÷å ôñåìéï ãàé ìà úðà àìà ÷áìåäå ôñåìéï ñ''ã àîéðà ãä''ä ëé ðîé ÷áìåäå ëùøéï åæø÷å ôñåìéï ãîåòìéï îùåí ãäéúø àëéìä ùðéðå

(e)

Answer (R. Peretz): It properly needed to teach that Pesulim did Zerikah. Had it taught only that Pesulim did Kabalah, one might have thought that the same applies when Kesherim did Kabalah and Pesulim did Zerikah, that Me'ilah applies, for we learned Heter Achilah;

åäà ãð÷è ÷áìåäå ôñåìéï åìà ð÷è æø÷å ôñåìéï

1.

Implied question: If so, why did it teach that Pesulim did Kabalah, and did not say that Pesulim did Zerikah?

òáåãä ÷îééúà ð÷è ãî÷áìä åàéìê îöåú ëäåðä

2.

Answer: It mentioned the first Avodah, for from Kabalah and onwards, it is a Mitzvah that requires Kehunah.

÷î''ì äà ãúðé æø÷åäå ôñåìéï ãò''ë äéúø æøé÷ä ùðéðå ãàé äéúø àëéìä ùðéðå ì''ì ìîéúðé ÷áìåäå ôñåìéï àìà åãàé äéúø æøé÷ä ùðéðå

3.

Summation of answer: It taught [also] that Pesulim did Zerikah to teach that this is not so. You are forced to say that we learned Heter Zerikah, for if we learned Heter Achilah, why does it say that Pesulim did Kabalah? Rather, surely we learned Heter Zerikah;

åúðà æø÷åäå ìåîø ëé ðîé æø÷åäå ôñåìéï ãå÷à ÷áìåäå ôñåìéï äåà ãîåòìéï äà àí ÷áìåäå ëùøéí àéï îåòìéï ìàôå÷é îî''ã äéúø àëéìä ùðéðå

4.

It taught that [Pesulim] did Zerikah to say that even if Pesulim did Zerikah, Me'ilah applies only if Pesulim did Kabalah. However, if Kesherim did Kabalah, Me'ilah does not apply. This teaches unlike the opinion that we learned Heter Achilah;

åâí ãìà ëî''ã äéúø ùçéèä ùðéðå ãäà ëé ðîé ÷áìå ôñåìéï àéëà äéúø ùçéèä åàô''ä îåòìéï

i.

It is also unlike the opinion that we learned Heter Shechitah, for even when Pesulim did Kabalah, there is Heter Shechitah, and even so Me'ilah applies.

6)

TOSFOS DH Maskif Lah Rav Yosef Iy Salka Daitach Ika Liflugei Hachi

úåñôåú ã"ä îú÷éó ìä øá éåñó àé ñ''ã àéëà ìôìåâé äëé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains what it means to distinguish like this.)

ëìåîø ùîçì÷éï ëê ìåîø ã÷áìåäå ãå÷à (îëç ÷åùéà ãìîä) [ö"ì àí ëï ÷ùéà ìîä - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ìé ìîéúðé úøúé

(a)

Explanation: [If] we divide so, to say that [only] they did Kabalah is precise - if so, it is difficult, why must it teach both of them?

7)

TOSFOS DH Chatas Pesulah Ein Damah v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä çèàú ôñåìä àéï ãîä ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why it need not be laundered.)

ãëúéá åëì çèàú àùø éæä îãîä òì äáâã úëáñ åãøùéðï áøàåé ìäæåú ìàôå÷é çèàú ôñåìä

(a)

Explanation: For it says "v'Chol Chatas Asher Yazeh mi'Damah Al ha'Beged Techaves", and we expound "what is proper to sprinkle", to exclude a Pasul Chatas.

8)

TOSFOS DH Kiblu Pesulin v'Zarku Pesulin (This starts a new Dibur according to the Shitah Mekubetzes and Tzon Kodoshim)

úåñôåú ã"ä ÷áìå ôñåìéï åæø÷å ôñåìéï (æä ãéáåø çãù ìôé ùéèä î÷åáöú öàï ÷ãùéí)

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how we learn from laundering to Me'ilah.)

äåà ãàéï ãîä èòåï ëéáåñ äà ÷áìå ëùøéí åæø÷å ëùøéí ãîä èòåï ëéáåñ (ãìâáé îòéìä éù ìã÷ã÷ ëê ãá÷áìå) [ö"ì åìâáé îòéìä éù ìã÷ã÷ ëê ãëé ÷áìå - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ëùøéí åæø÷å ôñåìéï àéï îåòìéï

(a)

Explanation: [If Pesulim did Kabalah and Zerikah,] then its blood need not be laundered, but if Kesherim did Kabalah and Kesherim did Zerikah, its blood must be laundered. And regarding Me'ilah, we can infer that if Kesherim did Kabalah and Pesulim did Zerikah, Me'ilah does not apply;

åëéåï ùáàú ìåîø úøåééäå ãå÷à ëîå ëï éù ìã÷ã÷ ëàï åàîàé ÷øé ëàï àùø éæä îãîä åìà ùëáø äåæä

1.

Since you come to say that both of them are precise, you should similarly infer so here. What is the reason? We should apply here "Asher Yazeh mi'Damah", and not that it was already sprinkled!

àìà ìàå ãå÷à ëìåîø àìà ù''î ãàéï ìã÷ã÷ òì æä ãäà ã÷úðé æø÷å ôñåìéï ìàå ãå÷à åàâá ÷áìåäå ð÷è ìéä

2.

Rather, [both] are not precise. I.e. this teaches that one may not infer about this, for what was taught "and Pesulim did Zerikah" is not precise. It is mentioned Agav that they did Kabalah;

ä''ð âáé îòéìä úøåééäå ìàå ãå÷à åìòåìí äéúø àëéìä ùðéðå åäà ãð÷è ÷áìåäå àâá æø÷åäå ð÷è ìéä:

3.

Likewise, regarding Me'ilah both are not precise (only Zerikah is), and really, we learned Heter Achilah, and it mentioned that [Pesulim] did Kabalah, Agav that they did Zerikah.

5b----------------------------------------5b

9)

TOSFOS DH Amar Rav Asi Lamah Li Lemisni Tartei

úåñôåú ã"ä àîø øá àñé ìîä ìé ìîéúðé úøúé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the question.)

ëìåîø áùðé î÷åîåú äëà áîòéìä åäúí áôø÷ ãí çèàú (æáçéí ãó öá.)

(a)

Explanation: [Rav Asi asks] why was it taught [that Pesulim did Kabalah and Zerikah] in two places, here in Me'ilah and there in Zevachim (92a)?

ãìà ðéçà ìéä ìåîø ãáùðé î÷åîåú éäéä ùåðä (ëôåìåú) [ö"ì ìùåï áçðí - ùéèä î÷åáöú] àìà ìòåìí ãîòéìä ãå÷à

1.

He does not want to say that in two places, an expression was taught needlessly. Rather, in Me'ilah it is precise;

åîëì î÷åí ìà úôùåè ãäéúø æøé÷ä ùðéðå

2.

Implied suggestion: [Since it taught that Pesulim did Kabalah], we cannot resolve that we learned Heter Zerikah!

ããéìîà ìòåìí àéîà ìê ãäéúø àëéìä åòé÷ø îúðé' áã÷áìåäå åæø÷åäå ôñåìéï

3.

Rejection: Really, I can say to you that [we learned] Heter Achilah, and the primary [Chidush] of our Mishnah is when Pesulim did Kabalah and Zerikah.

åëé úéîà ì''ì òã ãàéëà úøúé ìîä öøéê ùéæø÷å ôñåìéï

(b)

Implied question: Why do we need both, that Pesulim did [also] Zerikah? (It is already Pasul from Kabalah!)

äà ÷î''ì ãôñåì òåùä ùéøééí ëìåîø ãå÷à îùåí ã÷éáìå ôñåìéï åæø÷å ôñåìéï ãîùîò ìéëà ìà äéúø àëéìä åìà äéúø æøé÷ä

(c)

Answer #1: This teaches that a Pasul makes Shirayim. I.e. [there is Me'ilah] only because Pesulim did Kabalah and Pesulim did Zerikah, which implies that there is no Heter Achilah and no Heter Zerikah;

ãëé ðîé éçæåø äëùø îãí ùáöåàø åé÷áì åéæøå÷ ìàå ëìåí äåà ëéåï ùæø÷ ôñåì

1.

Even if the Kosher will go back and receive blood from the neck and do Zerikah, it is nothing, since a Pasul did Zerikah (and all the more so if a Kosher did Zerikah);

àáì àé ìàå ãæø÷å ôñåìéï àìà ðùôê äãí äàîøú áæáçéí (ãó ìá.) àí éù ãí äðôù éçæåø äëùø åé÷áì

2.

However, if not that Pesulim did Zerikah, rather, the blood spilled, you said in Zevachim (32a) that if there is [still in the animal] Dam ha'Nefesh, a Kosher goes back and does Kabalah;

åääéà ããí çèàú ð÷è úøåééäå ÷áìå åæø÷å àâá ääéà ãäëà ãëéåï ãìéëà úøúé îùðéåú ùéù áäï ëôåìåú áçðí àéï ìä÷ôéã

3.

The case of Dam Chatas, it mentioned both of them, they did Kabalah and Zerikah, due to the case here. Since there are not two Mishnayos that have a doubling without need, one need not be adamant.

à''ð îöé ìîéîø äúí ëé äëà ã÷î''ì ãôñåì òåùä ùéøééí

(d)

Answer #2: We can say there like here. The Chidush is that a Pasul makes Shirayim;

åàó òì âá ãîäëà ùîòéðï îëì î÷åí àéï ìä÷ôéã áîùðä àçøú àí ùåðä áä ãáø ùàéðå öøéê

1.

Even though we hear from here, in any case one should not be adamant in another Mishnah if it teaches something that is not needed;

àáì îòé÷øà äåä ÷ùä ìéä îùåí ãäåä ëùúé îùðéåú ëôåìåú áçðí

2.

However, initially it was difficult to him, because it is like two Mishnayos repeated for no reason.

åäùúà ðéçà ãáîñ÷ðà ìà àéôùéè ìï îéãé îï äáòéà åìäëé îééúé ú''ù îëì äðé ãáñîåê

(e)

Support: Now it is fine that in the conclusion, we did not resolve anything from the question. Therefore, we [try to] bring a proof from all these below.

10)

TOSFOS DH Pasul Mahu she'Ya'aseh Shirayim

úåñôåú ã"ä ôñåì îäå ùéòùä ùéøééí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that he asks about the blood left in the neck.)

ôéøåù ùæø÷ îäå ùéòùä ëì îä ùðùàø áöåàø ùéøééí

(a)

Explanation: [If a Pasul] did Zerikah, does he make everything left in the neck Shirayim?

11)

TOSFOS DH Mai Lav Afilu Pasul

úåñôåú ã"ä ä''â îàé ìàå àôéìå ôñåì

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the Havah Amina and the rejection.)

ôéøåù àôéìå ôñåì áëìì àéï ìê ãáø ùòåùä ùéøééí åîùðé ìà ìáø îôñåì çåõ îàåúå ôñåì ã÷é''ì áéä ãäééðå èîà ëîå ùîôøù áñîåê

(a)

Explanation: Even a Pasul [who did Avodah without improper intent] is included in the general rule "there is no [Pasul] who makes Shirayim [other than Chutz li'Zmano and Chutz li'Mkomo]", and answers "no, aside from the Pesul, [i.e.] except for that Pesul that we were discussing, i.e. Tamei [who makes Shirayim], like it explains below. (Tosfos' text was unlike ours. Right after this Tosfos equates this to our text.)

åéñ''â àéôëà [ö"ì îàé - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ìàå áø îôñåì åäéà äéà åáø ÷àé àçåõ ìæîðå åçåõ ìî÷åîå

(b)

Alternative text: Some texts say oppositely - "it is not other than a Pasul?" It means the same. "Other than" refers to Chutz li'Zmano and Chutz li'Mkomo (nothing else makes Shirayim);

åîùðé ìà [àôéìå] ôñåì (ëå') [ëìåîø] [ö"ì àôéìå - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ôñåì äåà ëîå çåõ ìæîðå åçåõ ìî÷åîå

1.

It answers "no. Even Pasul..." I.e. even Pesul is like Chutz li'Zmano and Chutz li'Mkomo.

åäà àéï ìê ÷úðé ëìåîø ãîùîò áäãéà ãùåí ôñåì àéðå òåùä ùéøééí àìà çåõ ìæîðå åçåõ ìî÷åîå ãå÷à

(c)

Explanation (cont.): [The Gemara] asks "it taught that there is no [Pesul...]!" I.e. it explicitly connotes that no [other] Pesul makes Shirayim, only Chutz li'Zmano and Chutz li'Mkomo;

ä''÷ àéï ìê ùàéðå [îøöä] áöáåø åòåùä ùéøééí ëå' ëìåîø ëì ôñåì ùàéðå îøöä áöáåø àéðå òåùä ùéøééí àìà çåõ ìæîðå åçåõ ìî÷åîå

1.

It means that there is nothing that is not Meratzeh b'Tzibur and makes Shirayim... I.e. every Pesul that is not Meratzeh b'Tzibur does not make Shirayim, except for Chutz li'Zmano and Chutz li'Mkomo.

äàé èîà ãàéúéä áöáåø îùåé ùéøééí

(d)

Citation: This Tamei, who has [a Heter to serve] b'Tzibur, makes Shirayim.

ùäøé (æøé÷ä) [ö"ì æøé÷úå - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã] çùåáä ÷öú àçøé ùéù ìå äéúø áöéáåø ùàø ôñåìéï ãìéúðäå áöáåø ìà îùåå ùéøééí ìôé ùàéï æøé÷ä çùåáä åäøé äéà ëàéìå ìà æø÷å ëìì äéìëê ôñåì ãàîø òåùä ùéøééí îééøé áèîà

(e)

Explanation: His Zerikah is somewhat important, since he has a Heter b'Tzibur. Other Pesulim, who do not have [a Heter] b'Tzibur, do not make Shirayim, for it is not an important Zerikah, and it is as if they did not do Zerikah at all. Therefore, the Pesul that it says that he makes Shirayim, is a Tamei.

12)

TOSFOS DH Ta Shma ha'Pigul l'Olam Mo'alin Bo Lav d'Lo Zarak

úåñôåú ã"ä úà ùîò äôéâåì ìòåìí îåòìéï áå ìàå ãìà æø÷

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we must say that he was Mefagel.)

åìòåìí ã÷úðé ø''ì áéï ôéâì áùçéèä áéï ôéâì á÷áìä

(a)

Explanation: "Always" that was taught is whether he was Mefagel in Shechitah, or he was Mefagel in Kabalah;

åàôéìå ôéâì á÷áìä ãä''ì äéúø ùçéèä ÷úðé ãîåòìéï åèòîà ãôéâì äà ìà ôéâì àó òì âá ãìà æø÷ àéï îåòìéï åù''î äéúø æøé÷ä ùðéðå

1.

And even if he was Mefagel in Kabalah, that there was Heter Shechitah, it taught that Me'ilah applies, and the reason is because he was Mefagel, but if he was not Mefagel, even though he did not do Zerikah, Me'ilah would not apply, and we infer that Heter Zerikah was taught.

ìà ãæø÷ åìäëé ð÷è ôéâì ãàé ìàå ãôéâì àéï îåòìéï ãäéúø àëéìä [ö"ì àéëà åäéúø àëéìä - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ùðéðå

2.

[The Gemara rejects] no, he did Zerikah. Therefore it mentioned Pigul, for if he was not Mefagel, Me'ilah does not apply, for there is Heter Achilah, and Heter Achilah was taught.

13)

TOSFOS DH u'Mai l'Olam Ha Ka Mashma Lan

úåñôåú ã"ä åîàé ìòåìí äà ÷î''ì ëãøá âéãì

(SUMMARY: Tosfos justifies the question.)

úéîä îàé ôøéê îàé ìòåìí àãøáä ãðéçà èôé ëéåï ãîééøé áæø÷

(a)

Question: What was the question "why does it say 'always'?" Just the contrary, it is better, since we discuss when he did Zerikah!

åàãøáä ìîàé ãñì÷à ãòúê ãîééøé áìà æø÷ äåä ÷ùä èôé îàé ìòåìí ëéåï ãìéúà ìãøá âéãì

1.

Just the contrary, according to the Havah Amina that it is without Zerikah, it is more difficult "why does it say 'always'?", since Rav Gidal's law is not true!

ãäà ìòéì îééúé ñééòúà ìøá âéãì îãð÷è ìòåìí ãîééøé ò''ë áæø÷ ãàé áìà æø÷ îàé ìîéîøà

i.

Source: Above, it brings a support for Rav Gidal from that it mentioned "always", that you are forced to say that we discuss without Zerikah, for if he did Zerikah, what is the Chidush?

åîôøù äùø î÷åöé (ãàîø äëé) [ö"ì ãäëà - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ëé ñ''ã ðîé ãäéúø æøé÷ä ùðéðå [ö"ì î"î - ùéèä î÷åáöú] àéúà ìãøá âéãì

(b)

Answer (the Sar from Kutzi): Here, even if you think that Heter Zerikah was taught, still, Rav Gidal's law is true;

åäëé ôéøåùå îàé ìàå ãìà æø÷ [ö"ì ðîé - ùéèä î÷åáöú] îãð÷è ìòåìí îùîò ãîééøé áéï ÷åãí æøé÷ä áéï ìàçø æøé÷ä åàùîòéðï úøúé

1.

[Here] it means as follows. Is it not even when he did not do Zerikah? Since it mentioned "always", this connotes that it discusses both before Zerikah and after Zerikah, and it teaches two laws;

ãëé æø÷ (îåòìéï àìîà ù''î ëãøá âéãì ãìà àúéà æøé÷ä åîô÷ò) [ö"ì àùîåòéðï ãîåòìéï ëãøá âéãì ãìà àúéà æøé÷ú ôéâåì åîô÷à - ùéèä î÷åáöú] îéãé îòéìä

i.

When he did Zerikah, it teaches that Me'ilah applies, like Rav Gidal's teaching, that Zerikas Pigul does not uproot Me'ilah;

åëé ìà æø÷ àùîòéðï ãäéúø æøé÷ä ùðéðå ãîùîò ãå÷à ôéâì îåòìéï áå äà ìà ôéâì àéï îåòìéï áå

ii.

And when he did not do Zerikah, this teaches that we learned Heter of Zerikah, for it connotes that only if he was Mefagel, Me'ilah applies to it, but if he was not Mefagel, Me'ilah does not apply to it!

ìà ãæøé÷ åîàé ìòåìí ãäà ëéåï ãîééøé áæøé÷ä à''ë ìéëà øáåúà áãéå÷à ãäà ôùéèà ãäéúø àëéìä îô÷ò îéãé îòéìä

2.

[The Gemara rejects] no, he did Zerikah. Why does it say "always"? Since we discuss with Zerikah, if so there is no Chidush in the inference, for obviously, Heter Achilah uproots Me'ilah!

åîùðé äà ÷îùîò ìï ëãøá âéãì ëìåîø [ö"ì ëåìä øáåúà ìëãøá âéãì ìåîø - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ãìà àúéà æøé÷ú ôéâåì åîô÷ò îéãé îòéìä:

3.

It answers that the Chidush is like Rav Gidal. I.e. the entire Chidush is like Rav Gidal, to say that Zerikas Pigul does not uproot Me'ilah.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF