1) TOSFOS DH Kegon she'Hifrish Lah Shnei Kamatzim (cont.)
úåñôåú ã"ä ëâåï ùäôøéù ìä ùðé ÷îöéï (äîùê)
åäùúà ëéåï ãáìà àáã ôñåìä àîàé ð÷è àáã
(a) Summation of Rebuttal #2: Now, since without being lost it is Pasul, why did it mention [below] that [one was] lost?!
òì ëï ðøàä ãáìà àáã ëùøä ãúøåééäå çæå ìä åàáã ìàçø ÷îéöä [ö"ì ôñåìä - ùéèä î÷åáöú, öàï ÷ãùéí]
(b) Explanation #2: Rather, if it was not lost it is Kosher, for both are proper for it, and [when one] was lost after Kemitzah it is Pasul.
2) TOSFOS DH v'Chachamim Omrim Echad Zeh v'Echad Zeh Pasul v'Ein Bo Kares
úåñôåú ã"ä åçë''à àçã æä åàçã æä ôñåì åàéï áå ëøú
(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that this is like the first Tana.)
åà''ú äééðå ú''÷
(a) Question: This is just like the first Tana!
åé''ì ãàúà ìîñúí ëååúéä
(b) Answer: [Rebbi] comes to teach a Stam Mishnah like [the first Tana].
ãëé äàé âååðà îùðé áô' äîôìú (ðãä ì:)
(c) Support: We find like this in Nidah (30b).
3) TOSFOS DH Hani Mili Yotzei d'Eisei b'Einei v'Chulei
úåñôåú ã"ä ä''î éåöà ãàéúéä áòéðéä ëå'
(SUMMARY: Tosfos distinguish between when part left and all left.)
äåä îöé ìîéîø ä''î éåöà î÷öúå àáì éåöà ëåìå ìà ëãàîøéðï áô''÷ ãîòéìä (ãó å:) åäëà ëéöà ëåìå ãîé ëéåï ãàñåøéï áàëéìä
(a) Implied question: He could have said that this is only when part left, but not if all left, like we say in Me'ilah (6b), and here it is as if all left, since they are forbidden to eat!
åîéäå ôìåâúà äéà äúí
(b) Answer: [Amora'im] argue about this there.
åà''ú ìî''ã éöà ëåìå ìà äà ãúðéà ôø÷ ëì ùòä (ôñçéí ìã:) ðèîà áùø àå ðôñì àå ùéöà çåõ ì÷ìòé' ø''à àåîø éæøå÷ ôé' ãéù ãí àò''ô ùàéï áùø
(c) Question: According to the opinion that if all left, no, a Beraisa in Pesachim (34b) teaches that if the meat became Tamei or Pasul or left the Kela'im, R. Eliezer says that he throws the blood. I.e. there is [Zerikas] Dam, even without meat;
ø' éäåùò àåîø ìà éæøå÷ ôé' ãàí àéï áùø àéï ãí åîåãä ø' éäåùò ãàí æø÷ äåøöä
1. R. Yehoshua says, he does not throw the blood. I.e. if there is no meat, there is no [Zerikas] Dam. R. Yehoshua agrees that if he did Zerikah, it was Meratzeh;
òì ëøçê áéöà ëåìå ãàé ðùúééø ëæéú æåø÷ ìëúçéìä åîã÷àîø àí æø÷ äåøöä ù''î ãæøé÷ä îåòìú ìéöà ëåìå
2. You are forced to say that was Yotzei, for if a k'Zayis remained, he throws l'Chatchilah! Since [R. Yehoshua] said that if he did Zerikah, it was Meratzeh, this shows that Zerikah helps for what was totally Yotzei.
åùîà ãøáé éäåùò òãéôà îãø''ò
(d) Answer #1: Perhaps R. Yehoshua is better (more lenient) than R. Akiva.
à''ð ìòðéï äøöàä ùàðé ìøáé éäåùò áéï ìëúçéìä áéï ìãéòáã àôé' áéöà ëåìå ëãàîø áô' ëéöã öåìéï (ùí òæ:)
(e) Answer #2: Regarding Ritzuy, R. Yehoshua distinguishes between l'Chatchilah and b'Di'eved, even when all left, like he said in Pesachim (77b);
àáì ìòåìí ìà îé÷áò áôéâåì åìà ðôé÷ îéãé îòéìä äéëà ãéöà ëåìå îéãé ãäåä àçñøåï ìøá äåðà
1. However, it cannot become Pigul, and Me'ilah is not uprooted, when all left, like we find regarding Chisaron according to Rav Huna.
4) TOSFOS DH v'Tani R. Chiya v'Chulei
úåñôåú ã"ä åúðé øáé çééà ëå'
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why he did not teach "or a k'Zayis.")
åìà úðé àå ëæéú øáé çééà úðé ááøééúà ãéãéä áùéèú îùðúéðå àìà ãìà úðé àå ëæéú
(a) Explanation: He did not teach "or a k'Zayis." R. Chiya taught in his Beraisa like our Mishnah, but he did not teach "or a k'Zayis";
åäëé úðé ä÷åîõ àú äîðçä ìàëåì ùéøéä ëå' æä äëìì ëì ä÷åîõ åðåúï áëìé åäîåìéê åäî÷èéø ëå'
1. And so he taught "one who takes Kometz from a Minchah, to eat its Shirayim... the general rule is, anyone who does Kemitzah, puts it in a Kli, does Holachah or Haktarah...";
åòì ëøçéï äà ãîùîò ìéä ìøáé çééà àå ëæéú (îééøé) [ö"ì ãîééøé - ùéèä î÷åáöú] áùçñøå ùéøééí åòîãå òì (ëê) [ö"ì ëæéú - éùø åèåá]
2. And you are forced to say that it connotes to R. Chiya "or a k'Zayis" discusses when the Shirayim became Chaser, and this remains from them;
ìàå äééðå àå ëæéú îùéøéí ãøéùà ëãôé' á÷åðèøñ ãà''ë äåä ìéä îðçä ùçñøä ÷åãí ÷îéöä åôñåìä (á÷åîõ - éùø åèåá - îåç÷å) åúå ìà îé÷áò áôéâåì
i. This is unlike "or a k'Zayis of the Shirayim" of the Reisha, like Rashi explained, for if so, it is a Minchah that became Chaser before Kemitzah, which is Pasul, and then it is not fixed for Pigul.
àìà îùåí ãæä äëìì ãñéôà ÷àé àëì îä ãúðà áøéùà åáøéùà úðà àå ëæéú à''ë ðåúï áëìé åîåìéê åî÷èéø òìéä ðîé ÷àé åáëæéú îùéøéí îéúå÷í ùôéø áùçñøå ùéøééí ãäà î÷èéø ÷åîõ òìéäï
3. Rather, because "this is the general rule" of the Seifa refers to everything taught in the Reisha, and the Reisha taught "or a k'Zayis", if so, "he puts in a Kli, does Holachah or Haktarah" refers also to it, and "a k'Zayis of the Shirayim" is properly established when the Shirayim became Chaser, for he is Maktir the Kometz for them;
àáì ëæéú (î÷èéø ÷åîöä) [ö"ì î÷åîöä - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã, - öàï ÷ãùéí] ìà îéúå÷í ëùçñø ÷åîõ åòîã òì ëæéú ãàé çñø ÷åîõ áùòú îçùáä ëáø ðôñìä äîðçä åúå ìà îéôâìà
4. However, "a k'Zayis of its Kometz" cannot be established when the Kometz became Chaser and a k'Zayis remained, for if the Kometz was Chaser at the time of intent, the Minchah was already disqualified, and it cannot become Pigul.
)åîùîò ìéä ìøáé çééà ãîàé ãîéúå÷í) [ö"ì åîùåí ãîùîò ìéä ìøáé çééà ãîàé ãîúðé - îìàëú éå"è] ëæéú îùéøéä îééøé áçñø åòîã òì ëæéú
5. Because it connotes to R. Chiya that what was taught "a k'Zayis of its Shirayim" discusses when they became Chaser, and a k'Zayis remains from them... (This Dibur continues on Amud B.)
12b----------------------------------------12b
îù''ä ìà úðé øáé çééà àå ëæéú áøéùà îùåí ãáñéôà áîúï ëìé åäéìåê åä÷èøä ìà îéúðé ìéä (àå ëæéú á÷åîöä - éùø åèåá îåç÷å) àå ëæéú áùéøéä
6. Therefore, R. Chiya did not teach "or a k'Zayis" in the Reisha, because in the Seifa, regarding putting in a Kli, Holachah and Haktarah", one cannot teach "or a k'Zayis of the Shirayim";
ôéøåù àôé' áùéøéí ìà îéúðé ìéä àå ëæéú îùåí ãìà îéúðé à÷åîõ ìà úðé ìéä ëæéú áøéùà
i. I.e. even regarding Shirayim he did not teach "or a k'Zayis." Because it cannot be taught about a Kometz, he did not teach a k'Zayis in the Reisha.
åîä ùëúåá áñôøéí áùéøéí ðîé ìà âøñ ðîé àáì úðà ãîúðé' ìà çééù åúðé ìéä áøéùà àò''â ãáñéôà ìà (äåé áùéøéä) [ö"ì úðé áùéøéí]
(b) Remark: It is written in Seforim "also for Shirayim." The text should not say "also". However, the Tana of our Mishnah was not concerned [for consistency], and taught ["or a k'Zayis"] in the Reisha, even though he did not teach it regarding Shirayim.
5) TOSFOS DH Hu she'Im Nifresah Achas v'Chulei
úåñôåú ã"ä äåà ùàí ðôøñä àçú ëå'
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why Rava inferred like he did.)
ôé' á÷åðèøñ áìçí äôðéí (ãëúéá) [ö"ì ëúéá - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ëé ÷ãù ÷ãùéí äåà ìå
(a) Explanation (Rashi): Regarding Lechem ha'Panim it is written "Ki Kodesh Kodoshim Hu Lo."
åðøàä ãò''ë ëùðôøñä îùôéø÷ä àééøé àå îùøàåéä ìôø÷ ãàé òã ùìà ôéø÷ä îàé ÷ùéà ìéä ìøáà îäëà
(b) Assertion: You are forced to say that [the Beraisa] discusses when it became Chaser after it was removed, or after it was proper to be removed, for if it was before it was [even proper to be] removed, what was difficult to Rava from here?
äà ëé àîø øáà ãîäðéà áéä ä÷èøä äðé îéìé áùçñøå áéï ÷îéöä ìä÷èøä åäëà ä''ì ëîðçä ùçñøä ÷åãí ÷îéöä ãôñåìä äéà åàéï î÷èéø òìéä àú ä÷åîõ
1. Rava said that Haktarah helps for it - this is when it became Chaser between Kemitzah and Haktarah, and here this is like a Minchah that became Chaser before Kemitzah! It is Pasul, and he is not Maktir the Kometz for it;
ëãàîø ìòéì (ãó ç.) òã ùìà ôéø÷ä ðôøñ ìçîä äìçí ôñåì åàéï î÷èéø òìéå àú äáæéëéï
2. This is like [a Beraisa] says above (8a) "if the bread became Chaser before it was removed, the bread is Pasul, and he is not Maktir the Bazichin for it.
åòåã ããéé÷ îéðä äà éöàú àå ðèîàú åäééðå ìàçø ùôéø÷ä åãåîéà ãäëé îééøé ðôøñä àçú îçìåúéä ìàçø ùôéø÷ä ãî÷èéø òìéå àú äáæéëéï ëãàîøéðï ìòéì
(c) Support: Also, [Rava and Abaye, respectively] inferred "but had it left or became Tamei [Haktarah would help for it]", i.e. after it was removed. Similarly to this, we discuss when one of the loaves became Chaser after it was removed. He is Maktir the Bazichin for it, like we said above (8a).
åúéîä äéëé ãéé÷ îäëà ãìà îäðéà ä÷èøä ìîé÷áòéä áôéâåì åìàôå÷é îéãé îòéìä
(d) Question: How did he infer from here that Haktarah does not help to fix it for Pigul and uproot from Me'ilah?
åãåç÷ ìåîø ãîã÷úðé ìùåï ôñåìåú ãéé÷ ãäåä ìéä ìîéîø àéï ðàëìåú
(e) Poor answer: It is difficult to say that he inferred from what was taught "Pesulos." (If Haktarah helps, it should have taught "they are not eaten.")
)åòåã àí) [ö"ì ãàí - öàï ÷ãùéí] ëï ìéãå÷ ðîé îääéà ãìòéì ã÷úðé äìçí ôñåì åî÷èéø òìéå àú äáæéëéï
(f) Rejection: If so, he should infer also from what was taught above (8a) "the bread is Pasul, and he is not Maktir the Bazichin for it"!
åùîà (äëà) [ö"ì äàé ãìòéì - öàï ÷ãùéí] àéëà ìãçåéé ãäà îðé øáé àìéòæø äéà ãàîø àéï æøé÷ä îåòìú ìéåöà
(g) Answer: Perhaps we could reject that [the Beraisa] above is R. Eliezer, who says that Zerikah does not help for Yotzei;
àáì îäê ãéé÷ åàôéìå ìøáé ò÷éáà
1. However, from here he infers [that Haktarah does not help], and even according to R. Akiva.
åàí úàîø ìîä ìé ìîéã÷ øáé ò÷éáà äéà îùåí ãîùîò äà éöàú äðê ãàéëà âååàé ëùøä
(h) Question: Why must I infer that it is R. Akiva, because it connotes that if it left, what remained inside is Kosher?
äåä ìéä ìîéã÷ äà éöàú àéï (ùåí ôñåì òìéäí åîäðéà ìäå) [ö"ì ùí ôñåì òìéä åîäðéà ìä - éùø åèåá] ä÷èøä ìôéâåì åîòéìä àìîà øáé ò÷éáà äéà
1. [Rava] should infer that if it left, it is not called Pasul, and Haktarah helps for [it to fix] Pigul and [remove] Me'ilah. This shows that it is R. Akiva!
åëé äàé âååðà äåé îöé ìîéã÷ îääéà ãìòéì ãøáé ò÷éáà äéà
2. And like this, he could have inferred from [the Beraisa] above that it is R. Akiva!
åùîà ìà îùîò ìéä ìîéã÷ äà éöàú îìùåï ôñåìåú ëîå )àäà) [ö"ì îäà - öàï ÷ãùéí] ã÷úðé ëåìï ëå'
(i) Answer #1: Perhaps [Rava] holds that we cannot infer that had it left [Haktarah would help for it] from the expression "Pesulos" like from this that was taught "all of them..."
åòåã ðøàä ìôøù ããéé÷ äëì îããøù ìéä ÷øà îãëúéá äåà ùîò îéðä ìà îäðéà ìäå ä÷èøä ëìì
(j) Answer #2: He infers everything from the fact that [the Tana] expounds the verse, since it is written "Hu", this teaches that Haktarah does not help for them at all.
àé ðîé ãéé÷ îãàçîéø ëåìé äàé ãëé ðôøñä äàçú ëåìï ôñåìåú ùîò îéðä ãìà îäðéà ìéä ä÷èøä ìôéâåì åîòéìä
(k) Answer #3: Since [the Tana] is so stringent, that when one was Chaser, all are Pasul, this shows that Haktarah does not help for Pigul and Me'ilah.
6) TOSFOS DH she'Im Nifresah Achas mi'Chaloseha Kulan Pesulos
úåñôåú ã"ä ùàí ðôøñä àçú îçìåúéä ëåìï ôñåìåú
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why this is unlike a Chalah missing from Machavas or Marcheshes.)
ìîàé ãîñé÷ ãàúéà ëøáé àìéòæø àáì ìøáé ò÷éáà äàçøåú ëåìï ëùøåú éù ìúîåä
(a) Question: According to the conclusion that it is like R. Eliezer, but according to R. Akiva, all the others are Kosher, this is astounding!
ãîàï ãéìéó îéìúà îîéìúà é' çìåú ùáîðçä ùì îçáú àå ùì îøçùú ëùçñøä àçú àîàé ëåìï ôñåìåú ëããøùéðï ìòéì (ãó è:) ôøè ìîðçä ùçñøä ðéìó îäëà ãëùøåú
1. The one who learns a matter from a matter, the 10 Chalos in Minchas Machavas or Marcheshes, when one is missing, why are all Pasul, like we expound above (9b) "this excludes a Minchah that became Chaser"? We should learn from here that they are Kosher!
åùîà äúí çùéáé ëåìäå èôé ëçìä àçú
(b) Answer: Perhaps there, they are all considered one more [than here].
7) TOSFOS DH Ela Eima Ha Le'echol v'Le'echol Davar she'Darko Le'echol
úåñôåú ã"ä àìà àéîà äà ìàëåì åìàëåì ãáø ùãøëå ìàëåì
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that the text should say like in Zevachim.)
îëàï åàéìê ëúåáä áñôøéí áùéáåù åöøéê ìäâéä ëàï ëîå ùäéà ëúåáä áñåó ô''á ãæáçéí (ãó ìà:):
(a) Remark: From here and onwards is written errantly in Seforim. We must correct the text here like is written in Zevachim (31b).