ME'ILAH 7 - Dedicated l'Zechut Refu'ah Shleimah for Elisheva Chaya bat Leah. Dedicated by Michael Steinberg, David Steinberg, and Ethan Steinberg.

1)

TOSFOS DH Chishev l'Nishpachin l'Machar Mahu

úåñôåú ã"ä çéùá ìðùôëéï ìîçø îäå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains what case he asked about.)

àéï ìôøù ùçéùá áùòä ùùåôê ùéøééí ìéñåã ò''î ìàëåì îï äæáç ìîçø

(a)

Implied suggestion: He intended at the time of spilling Shirayim on the Yesod, in order to eat from the Korban tomorrow.

ãäà ôùéèà ãìà ôéâì ëãúðéà ô''÷ ãæáçéí (ãó éâ.) ã÷úðé éöàå ùôéëú ùéøééí åä÷èøú àéîåøéí ùàéï îòëáéï

(b)

Rejection: Obviously it is not Pigul, like a Beraisa teaches in Zevachim (13a). It teaches "this excludes spilling Shirayim and Haktaras Eimurim, which are not Me'akev [Kaparah]."

åâí ìà ÷áòé áîçùá áæøé÷ä ò''î ìùôåê ùéøééí ìîçø

(c)

Implied suggestion: He asks about one who intended during Zerikah, in order to spill the tomorrow.

ãäà ðîé ôùéèà ìéä ãôéâì ëã÷àîø ðîé äúí åèòîí îùåí ãáòéðï ùéçùá áàøáò òáåãåú áãáø ùäåà àëéìú àãí àå àëéìú îæáç åùôéëú ùéøééí àëéìú îæáç äéà àê ìà (ã') [ö"ì îã' - ùéèä î÷åáöú] òáåãåú äéà

(d)

Rejection: Also this is obvious to him that he was Mefagel, like it says also there. The reason is because we require that he intend in [at least one of] the four Avodos about consumption of man or of the Mizbe'ach, and spilling Shirayim is consumption of the Mizbe'ach, but it is not among the four Avodos.

àìà ðøàä ìø''é ã÷áòé áîçùá áùòú (æøé÷ä) [ö"ì äåìëä - öàï ÷ãùéí] òì îðú ìæøå÷ äãí ùðùôê îï äëìé ìîçø

(e)

Explanation (Ri): Rather, it seems that he asks about one who intended during Holachah, in order to throw tomorrow the blood that spilled from the Kli;

ãúðï æáçéí (ãó ëä. åãó ìá.) ðùôê (îï) [ö"ì òì] äøöôä åàñôå ôñåì îï äëìé åàñôå ëùø

1.

A Mishnah in Zevachim (25a, 32a) teaches that if [blood] spilled [from the animal's neck] on the floor and one gathered it, it is Pasul. If it spilled from the Kli and one gathered it, it is Kosher;

îé àîøéðï äà çæé ãàí éøöä éàñôðå åéæø÷ðå àå ãìîà äåàéì åàéï îöåä ìàåñôå äåä ìéä äåìê ìàéáåã

2.

Do we say that [the spilled blood] is proper, for if he wants, he can gather it and do Zerikah? Or, since there no Mitzvah to gather it, it [is like blood that] is wasted?

2)

TOSFOS DH Amar Lei R. Zeira l'Rav Asi Rebbi Kevar Shanisa Lanu Alal

úåñôåú ã"ä àîø ìéä øáé æéøà ìøá àñé øáé ëáø ùðéú ìðå àìì

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that he learns from the Gemara in Zevachim.)

áæáçéí ôø÷ ëì äôñåìéï (ãó ìä.) äùåçè àú äæáç ò''î ìàëåì îï äàìì àéï çééáéï òìéå îùåí ôâåì åàìì äåà âéã äöåàø ëãîôøù áäòåø åäøåèá (çåìéï ãó ÷ëà.)

(a)

Reference: In Zevachim (35a), it says that one who slaughters a Zevach in order to eat from the Alal, he is not liable for it for Pigul, and Alal is the sinew of the neck, like it explains in Chulin (121a);

àìîà äàé àìì ëéåï ãìéú áéä îùùà ìà îäðé áéä îçùáä ôéøåù ùàéðå çùåá åãáø ääåìê ìàéáåã äåà ìà îéôâì åàò''â ãàí øöä ìàåëìå àåëìå (äðê) [äðé ðùôëéï] ðîé åëå'

1.

Inference: Since Alal has no substance, intent for it does not help. I.e. it is not important and it goes to waste, so it does not become Pigul, even though if he wanted to eat it, he eats it. Also this [blood] that spilled...

åáøåá ñôøéí âøñéðï äàé àìì ëéåï ãìéú áéä îùùà ìà î÷áì èåîàä

(b)

Citation: In most texts [here], it says "this Alal, since it has no substance, it is not Mekabel Tum'ah."

åàí ëï îééúé îääéà ãäòåø åäøåèá åùéáåù ãèôé àéú ìéä ìàéúåéé îääéà ãôéâåì âåôéä îìàéúåéé (îôðé äèåîàä) [ö"ì îääéà ãèåîàä - ùéèä î÷åáöú]

(c)

Objection: If so, it brings from the case in Chulin. This is wrong, for we should rather bring [a proof] from the case of Pigul itself [and learn from Alal to blood that spilled], than to bring from that case of Tum'ah!

3)

TOSFOS DH Ela deka'Tani Al ha'Avud v'Al ha'Saruf Kashya

úåñôåú ã"ä àìà ã÷úðé òì äàáåã åòì äùøåó ÷ùéà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains Rava's answer.)

ôé' åà''ë ÷ùéà îøá àñé ìøá àñé ãìòéì ÷àîø îçùáéï åäëà ôùéèà ãàéï îçùáéï áðùôëéí ãëàáåã ãîé

(a)

Explanation: If so Rav Asi contradicts himself, for above he said that intent takes effect, and here it is obvious that intent does not take effect on blood that spilled, for it is as if it was lost!

àîø øáà àéîà òì äòåîã ìàéáåã ëå' ëìåîø äà ã÷àîø îçùáéï òì äàéáåã ìàå áàáåã ëáø ÷àîø

(b)

Citation: Rava said "I can say 'on what is destined to be lost'..." I.e. [Rav Asi] said that intent takes effect on what is lost, not that it was already lost;

àìà áòåîã ìàéáåã ëâåï ùîçùá áùòú ÷áìä òì ãáø äòåîã ìéùøó åìéàáã ÷åãí æøé÷ä åáùòú îçùáä òãééï ìà àáã ëâåï ùæø÷ [çúéëú áùø åçúéëú àéîåøéí] áôé ëìá åáôé ëáùï åòãééï ìà äâéò [áôé ëìá àå áôé ëáùï] áùòú îçùáä

1.

Rather, it is destined to be lost, e.g. he intends at the time of Kabalah for something destined to be burned or lost before Zerikah, and at the time of intent it was not lost yet, e.g. he threw it in the mouth of a dog or the opening of a furnace, and it still did not reach the mouth of the dog or the opening of the furnace;

åîëì î÷åí îãîé ìéä ìòéì ìéöà ëåìå ìâéøñà ãâøñé àîø ìéä øá àñé ìø''é ëéåï ãàáã åðùøó ÷åãí æøé÷ä

(c)

Remark: Even so, above [Rav Asi] compares it to what left totally, according to the text that says (above, 6b) "Rav Asi said to R. Yochanan", since it was lost or burned before Zerikah.

4)

TOSFOS DH Lo Amar R. Akiva Ela she'Shachat v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä ìà àîø ø''ò àìà ùùçè ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that it is even if he slaughtered one after the other.)

ëìåîø ìà àîø ø' ò÷éáà áääéà çèàú ùàáã ëå' ãæøé÷ä ùì àçú îäï ôåèøú áùø çáøúä îï äîòéìä àìà ùùçè ùúéäï ááú àçú

(a)

Explanation: R. Akiva said in that case of a Chatas that was lost... that Zerikah of one of them exempts meat of the other from Me'ilah, only when they were slaughtered at once.

(éù ìäñúô÷ àé ø''ì áñëéï àøåëä áîùîò àå) [ö"ì àéï ø''ì áñëéï àøåëä áîùîò àìà - öàï ÷ãùéí] àôéìå áæä àçø æä

1.

This does not connote with a long knife. Rather, it is even one after the other;

å÷øé ìä ááú àçú ãëùø ìéæø÷ ááú àçú ëâåï . ùçè æä àçø æä å÷éáì æä àçø æä ÷åãí ùéæøå÷ ëìì ãøöä îæä æåø÷ øöä îæä æåø÷

2.

It is called at once because they are Kosher for Zerikah at once, e.g. he slaughtered one after the other before he did Zerikah at all. If he wants he does Zerikah from this, if he wants he does Zerikah from this;

àáì áæä àçø æä ëâåï ù÷áì ãîä ùì æå åæø÷å òã ùìà ÷éáì àú äàçøú ìà àîø ø''ò åîåãä áëé ä''â ãàéðå ôåèø äãí äðæø÷ áùø äàçøú îï äîòéìä

3.

However, one after the other, e.g. he received the blood of this and did Zerikah before receiving the other, R. Akiva did not say [his law], and he agrees in such a case that the blood thrown does not exempt the meat of the other from Me'ilah.

5)

TOSFOS DH Aval Dam

úåñôåú ã"ä àáì ãí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that we discuss Zerikah of the blood that left.)

ôéøåù ùéöà ãí åæø÷ àåúå ãí òöîå ùéöà îåãä ø''ò ãàéï æøé÷ä îåòìú ìéåöà

(a)

Explanation: Blood left and he threw that blood itself that left. R. Akiva agrees that Zerikah does not help for Yotzei.

6)

TOSFOS DH li'Kefar Pani

úåñôåú ã"ä ìëôø ôàðé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos gives two versions of the dialogue.)

ùí î÷åí åàîø ìé àåîø äéä ø''ò æøé÷ä îåòìú ìéåöà úîéä äéä äæ÷ï òì ãáøé ø''ò àîø ìå äï

(a)

Explanation: It is the name of a place, and [the elder] said to me (R. Shimon) "did R. Akiva say that Zerikah helps for Yotzei?!" The elder was astounded at R. Akiva's words. [R. Shimon] said to him "yes";

åëùáàúé åäøöéúé ãáøéí ëìåîø ùäâãúé ìå úîéäú äæ÷ï àîø ìé åàúä àé àúä àåîø ëï áúîéä ëìåîø ëùàúä îøöä ìôðé ãáøé äæ÷ï ëîãåîä ùàúä îâîâí òì ãáøé

1.

When Hirtzeisei the words, i.e. I told [R. Akiva] the elder's astonishment, he said to me incredulously "do you not say so?!" I.e. when you told me the elder's words, it seems that you are doubtful about my words.

åéù ñôøéí âåøñéí àçø ùàîø ìå äï àîø ìå åäìà ôñåì äåà (àå) [ö"ì ôé' - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ùäùéá ìå ëê äæ÷ï

(b)

Alternative text: Some texts say after [R. Shimon] said to him "yes", he said to him "behold, it is Pasul!" I.e. the elder said so;

åäééðå äà ã÷àîø ãëùäøöéúé ãáøéí ìôðé ø''ò ùä÷ùä ìå äæ÷ï ëê à''ì ø''ò åàúä àé àúä àåîø ëï ëìåîø îãåò ùú÷úä ìå åëé àéðê àåîø ëîåúé

1.

This is what it says "when Hirtzeisei the words in front of R. Akiva", that the elder asked him so, R. Akiva said to [R. Shimon] "do you not say so?!" I.e. why were you silent to him? Do you not hold like me?!

7)

TOSFOS DH Teshuvah Genuvah (pertains to Amud B)

úåñôåú ã"ä úùåáä âðåáä (ùééê ìòîåã á)

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the question and the answer.)

ôé' òìåîä åîëåñä ëé éù ìäùéá òìéä

(a)

Explanation: It is hidden and covered, for one can challenge it.

åìà áà ìñúåø äúùåáä ùäùéá ø''ò ìø''ù ãåãàé éôä äùéáå àìà äìùåï àéðå îéåùá éôä ãð÷è ááú àçú

(b)

Remark: [Reish Lakish] does not come to refute R. Akiva's answer to R. Shimon, for surely he answered him properly. However, the wording is not resolved nicely, that he said "at once";

ãëéåï ãôñì äåà äùðé åàôéìå äëé ÷àîø ø''ò ãæøé÷ú äëùø ôåèøúå îéãé îòéìä à''ë ñáéøà ìéä ìø''ò ãçùáéðï ìéä ëæáç àçã [ö"ì åëâåó àçã - ùéèä î÷åáöú] åëéåï ãçùáéðï ëæáç àçã îä ìé [ö"ì ááú àçú îä ìé - ùéèä î÷åáöú, öàï ÷ãùéí] áæä àçø æä

1.

Since the second is Pasul, and even so R. Akiva says that Zerikah of the Kosher exempts [the other] from Me'ilah, if so R. Akiva holds that we consider it like one Korban and one body. Since we consider it like one Korban, what is the difference between at once, and one after the other?

àîø ìéä ø' éåçðï ìøéù ì÷éù åàúä àé àúä àåîø ëï áúîéä ëìåîø åäà åãàé ãááú àçú áòéðï ãëçã ìà çùéá ìäå

2.

R. Yochanan said to Reish Lakish "do you not say so?!", incredulously. I.e. surely we require at once, for he does not consider them like one [body];

ãäà àéìå äôøéù ùðé àùîåú ìàçøéåú åùçè ùúéäï å÷ãí åäòìä àéîåøéí ùì àçã îäí ÷åãí æøé÷ä àé àúä îåãä ùéøãå äëé âøñéðï

3.

If he separated two Ashamos for Achrayus (if the first is lost or blemished, he will offer the latter) and slaughtered both of them, and he offered the Eimurim of one of them before Zerikah, do you not agree that Yered? This is the text;

ä''ô ÷ãí åäòìä àéîåøéí ùì àçã îäí ÷åãí æøé÷ú çáéøå åàçø ëê æø÷ çáéøå ùìà äòìä àéîåøéí àé àúä îåãä ùéøãå äàéîåøéí ùì àåúå ùäòìä áìà æøé÷ú ãîå

4.

It means as follows. He offered the Eimurim of one of them before Zerikah of the other, and afterwards he did Zerikah of the other, whose Eimurim were not offered. Do you not agree that we take down the Eimurim of the one offered without Zerikah of its blood?!

åàé ñ''ã çã âåôà äåà àí ëï äåä ìàçùåáé äðé àéîåøéï ëàéìå äéå îàåúï ùæø÷ ãîï åìà äåä ìéä ìîéîø éøãå

5.

If you think that it is [like] one body, if so you should consider these Eimurim as if they are of the one whose blood was thrown, and he should not say Yered!

ãäàîø òåìà àéîåøé ÷ãùéí ÷ìéí ëå' åäà ãð÷è ÷ãùéí ÷ìéí ìøáåúà ð÷è åë''ù ÷ãùé ÷ãùéí ã÷ãùé èôé å÷ìéè ìäå îæáç

6.

Source: Ula said that if Eimurei Kodshim Kalim [were placed on the Mizbe'ach before Zerikah, Lo Yerdu]. He mentioned Kodshim Kalim for a bigger Chidush, and all the more so Kodshei Kodoshim, which are more Kadosh, and the Mizbe'ach absorbs them (they become the Mizbe'ach's food).

åëï ìòéì ãð÷è àùîåú ë''ù çèàåú:

i.

And similarly above that it mentioned Ashamos, all the more so Chata'os!

7b----------------------------------------7b

8)

TOSFOS DH Amar R. Yochanan Ketzatztinun Raglohi d'Yenuka

úåñôåú ã"ä àîø øáé éåçðï ÷ööúéðåï øâìåäé ãéðå÷à

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the refutation.)

ëìåîø ñúøúé ãáøé ø''ì ãåãàé ìàå èòîà ãø''ò îùåí ãçã âåôà äåà ãà''ë âáé îôøéù ùðé àùîåú åëå' ùäáàúé ìîòìä äåä ìï ìîéîø ìà éøãå ëãôøéùéú ãðòùå ìçîå ùì îæáç

(a)

Explanation: I refuted Reish Lakish's words, for surely R. Akiva's reason is not due to one body, for if so, regarding one who separated two Ashamos... that I brought above, we should say that Lo Yered, like I explained, that they became the Mizbe'ach's food;

àìà åãàé èòîéä ãø''ò îùåí áú àçú

1.

Rather, surely R. Akiva's reason is due to [Shechitah] at once.

åà''ú î''î ëéåï ãîäðé èòîà ãááú àçú ìòðéï ìôèåø äáùø îï äîòéìä ìîä ìà éåòéì áàéîåøéï ìòùåúï ìçîå ùì îæáç ëîå ãîãîä ìäå áèòîà ãçã âåôà äåà

(b)

Question: In any case, since the reason of [Shechitah] at once helps to exempt meat from Me'ilah, why doesn't it help for Eimurim, to make them the Mizbe'ach's food, like we compare them in the reason of one body?

é''ì ãìà ãîé (ãàîøéðï ãèòîà) [ö"ì ãàé àîøú áùìîà - ùéèä î÷åáöú] âáé ìôèåø áùø îï äîòéìä îùåí áú àçú ðéçà ãåãàé ëéåï ãøöä îæä æåø÷ øöä îæä æåø÷ ãéï äåà ùéôèåø îï äîòéìä àó áùø çáøúä ùìà ðæø÷ ãîä

(c)

Answer: They are different. Granted, if you will say that to exempt meat from Me'ilah is due to [Shechitah] at once, it is fine, for surely, since if he wants, he does Zerikah from this one, or if he wants, he does Zerikah from this one, it is proper that it exempt from Me'ilah even meat of the other, whose blood was not thrown. (Me'il Aharon, citing the Grach - R. Yochanan holds that since he received Kaparah, neither is called Kodshei Hash-m. However, this does not permit Eimurim to the Mizbe'ach. If the reason were due to one body, like Reish Lakish, this should permit also the Eimurim!)

àáì ìéòùåú ìçîå ùì îæáç åìåîø ãìà éøãå ìà çùéáà ëì ëê äàé èòîà

1.

However, to become the Mizbe'ach's food, and say Lo Yered, this reason is not so important.

àìà àé àîøú ãèòîà îùåí çã âåôà à''ë äåé èòí çùåá àó ìòðéï ùìà éøãå

2.

Distinction: However, if the reason is due to one body, if so this is an important reason even for Lo Yered!

9)

TOSFOS DH v'Al Zeh v'Zeh Chayavin Alav Mishum Pigul Nosar v'Tamei

úåñôåú ã"ä åòì æä åæä çééáéï òìéå îùåí ôéâåì ðåúø åèîà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains what are the two matters.)

ôéøåù òì æä åòì æä òì äáùø åòì äàéîåøéí

(a)

Explanation: "For this and for this" means for meat and for Eimurim.

10)

TOSFOS DH Nimtza Ma'ase Damim b'Kodshei Kodoshim Lehakel u'Lehachmir (This starts a new Dibur according to the Tzon Kodoshim)

úåñôåú ã"ä (á÷ãùé ÷ãùéí - öàï ÷ãùéí îåç÷å) ðîöà îòùä ãîéí [ö"ì á÷ãùé ÷ãùéí - öàï ÷ãùéí] ìä÷ì åìäçîéø (æä ãéáåø çãù ìôé öàï ÷ãùéí)

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the stringencies and leniencies.)

ôéøåù ìä÷ì ùò''é æøé÷ú äãîéí àéï îåòìéï ãìà îé÷øå úå ÷ãùé ä' åìäçîéø ìçééá òìéå îùåí ôéâåì ðåúø åèîà

(a)

Explanation: To be lenient is that through Zerikah there is no Me'ilah, for they are no longer called Kodshei Hash-m. To be stringent is to obligate for Pigul, Nosar and Tamei.

11)

TOSFOS DH Ha Isura Ika

úåñôåú ã"ä äà àéñåøà àéëà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how we know that it is permitted.)

ùàñåø ìàëåì åäà îîåðà ãëäï äåà ÷åùéà äéà ãáäãéà ëúéá á÷øà (åé÷øà æ) ãëäðéí àëìé ìäå

(a)

Explanation: It is forbidden to eat. "It is the Kohen's property!" is a question, for a verse explicitly says that Kohanim eat them.

12)

TOSFOS DH Ha Mamona d'Ba'alim Hu

úåñôåú ã"ä äà îîåðà ãáòìéí äåà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we cannot answer like above.)

åìà îùðé ëãìòéì ãàâá îåòìéï áàéîåøéí ÷úðé àéï îåòìéï ááùø

(a)

Implied question: Why does [the Gemara] not answer like above, that Agav "Me'ilah applies to the Eimurim" it taught that there no Me'ilah in the meat?

ãåãàé ìòéì îùðé ùôéø ãàééãé ãúðà øéùà îåòìéï áàéîåøéí åááùø âáé ìôðé æøé÷ú ãîéí úðà ðîé âáé àçø æøé÷ä åàéï îåòìéï ááùø àò''â ãàéñåøà ðîé ìéëà

(b)

Answer: Surely, above it answered properly, that since the Reisha taught that Me'ilah applies to the Eimurim and the meat before Zerikah, it taught also about after Zerikah "there is no Me'ilah in the meat", even though there is also not [even] an Isur;

àìà äëà âáé ÷ãùéí ÷ìéí ãìà ùééëà ùåí îòéìä ááùø àó ÷åãí æøé÷ä ìéú ìéä ìîéúðé àéï îåòìéï ááùø àâá îåòìéï áàéîåøéí

1.

However, here, regarding Kodshim Kalim, no Me'ilah applies to the meat even before Zerikah, he should not teach "there is no Me'ilah in the meat" Agav (along with) "Me'ilah applies to the Eimurim."

åðøàä ãìà ôøéê àìà ìî''ã äéúø àëéìä ùðéðå ãàé ìî''ã äéúø æøé÷ä àí ëï ìàçø æøé÷ä ø''ì ìàçø (ùðéúø) [ö"ì ùðøàä - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ìæøé÷ä åàó òì ôé ùìà ðæø÷

(c)

Assertion: It seems that we challenge only the opinion that we learned Heter Achilah, for according to the opinion that Heter Zerikah, if so "after Zerikah" means that after it was proper for Zerikah, even though it was not thrown;

åàí ëï îàé ôøéê äëà îîåðà ãáòìéí äåà åãàé ãàéñåøà ëéåï ùìà ðæø÷ äãí

1.

If so, what was the question here "it is the owner's property"? Surely it is forbidden, since the blood was not thrown!

13)

TOSFOS DH Ki Amar R. Akiva Mo'eles l'Yotzei l'Sarfah

úåñôåú ã"ä ëé àîø øáé ò÷éáà îåòìú ìéåöà ìùøôä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses how Zerikah affects burning.)

ôéøåù àéï äëé ðîé ãàéñåøà àéëà ãîééøé ááùø (ùéåöà) [ö"ì ùéöà - ùéèä î÷åáöú] òã ëàï ìà ÷àîø ø''ò ãæøé÷ä îåòìú ìéåöà àìà ìòðéï ìà÷áåòé áôéâåì åðåúø åèîà åöøéê òéáåø öåøä (ìùøôï) [ö"ì ìùøôå - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ùàéï æä ÷øåé ôñåìå áâåôå ãàîø áôñçéí (ãó ôá.) éùøó îéã

(a)

Explanation #1: Indeed, there an Isur, for we discuss meat that left. R. Akiva said that Zerikah helps for Yotzei only to fix Pigul, Nosar and Tamei, and it requires Ibur Tzurah (to become Nosar) to burn it, for this is not called Pesulo b'Gufo, which it says in Pesachim (82a) that it is burned immediately;

ãæøé÷ä îäðéà ìéä åîùåé ìéä ëàéìå ìà éöà åäåéà ìéä ôñåìå îçîú ãáø àçø ãàîøéðï áôñçéí (ùí) ùöøéê òéáåø öåøä

1.

Zerikah helps for it and makes it as if it did not leave, and it is Pasul due to something else, which we say in Pesachim (there) that it needs Ibur Tzurah. (This Dibur continues on the next Daf.)

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF