1) TOSFOS DH Ein Machmitzin... b'Tapuchim (cont.)
úåñôåú ã"ä àéï îçîéöéï ìùúé äìçí åçìåú úåãä áúôåçéí (äîùê)
ëùùîøä ùìà úúçîõ îééøé ëãøáðï
(a) Answer: That is when he guarded it from Chimutz, like Rabanan.
åúéîä ãáñåó ëì ùòä (ôñçéí î.) îùîò ãîé ôéøåú àéï îçîéöéï ëìì ãàîø àáéé ìà ìéçøê àéðéù úøúé ùåáìé áäãé äããé åàîø àáéé äàé çöáà ãàáéùåðà æ÷éôà àñéøà åøáà ùøé áúøåééäå ãîé ôéøåú àéï îçîéöéï
(b) Question #1: In Pesachim (40a) it connotes that Mei Peros does not ferment at all, for Abaye said that one may not roast two ears of grain at the same time [lest juice leave one and be absorbed in the other, and it will become Chametz], and Abaye said that if grain was parched in a jug in an oven and the mouth faced up, it is forbidden [for the juice that exudes does not fall out], and Rava permits both of them, for Mei Peiros do not ferment!
åòåã ùøé äúí åúé÷à áîùçà åîìçà
(c) Question #2: We permit there (39b) Vatika (a tart) made with oil and salt!
åîôøù ø''ú ãëùðéìåùä áîé ôéøåú áôðé òöîï áìà úòøåáú îéí àéï îçîéöéï àáì ëé àéëà îéí áäãééäå îçîéöéï
(d) Answer (R. Tam): When [the flour] is kneaded with Mei Peros by themselves, without a mixture of water, they do not ferment. However, when there is water with them, they ferment.
åëï îåëç ì÷îï áîúðé' áôéø÷éï (ãó ðæ:) ãàîøéðï ìøáåú (îðçåú åðñëéí) [ö"ì îðçú ðñëéí - áøëú äæáç] ìçéîåõ åôøéê îðçú ðñëéí îé ôéøåú àéï îçîéöéï
(e) Proof: This is proven in the Mishnah below (57b). We say "to include Minchas Nesachim for [the Isur of] Chimutz", and [the Gemara] asks "Minchas Nesachim?! (It is flour and oil, without water.) Mei Peros do not ferment!"
àîø (ø''ù) [ö"ì ø"ì] àåîø äéä ø' éåñé äâìéìé îðçú ðñëéí îâáìä áîéí åëùøä ôéøåù åëéåï ãàéëà îéí áäãé ùîï éëåìä äéà ìäúçîõ
1. Citation (57b - Reish Lakish): R. Yosi ha'Gelili used to say that one may knead Minchas Nesachim with water, and it is Kosher. I.e. since there is water with the oil, it could ferment. (Without water, it could not ferment at all!)
åäà ãàîø ø''ù áï ì÷éù áô' ëì ùòä (ôñçéí ãó ìä. åùí) òéñä ùðéìåùä áééï åùîï åãáù àéï çééáéï òì çéîåöä ëøú ãîé ôéøåú àéï îçîéöéï
(f) Implied question: Reish Lakish said in Pesachim (35a) that if a dough was kneaded with wine, oil or honey, one is not Chayav Kares for its Chimutz, for Mei Peros do not ferment!
åîùîò ëøú äåà ãìéëà äà ìàå àéëà ãçîõ ðå÷ùä äåé åàîøéðï ðå÷ùä áòéðéä áìàå
1. Inference: It connotes that there is no Kares, but there is a Lav, for it is Chametz Nuksheh, and a Lav forbids Nuksheh by itself!
öøéê ìàå÷îà ãàéëà îéí áäãä ãáìà îéí àéï îúçîõ ìø''ù áï ì÷éù îããçé÷ ìùðåéé ì÷îï îâáìä áîéí åëùøä
(g) Answer: We must establish it when there is water with it, for without water, it does not ferment according to Reish Lakish, since he struggled to answer below (57b) "he kneads [Minchas Nesachim] with water, and it is Kosher";
åàé îçîéöéï åàôéìå ìà äåé àìà çîõ ðå÷ùä çùéá çîõ ìòðéï îðçåú ëãàîø ìòéì îãì÷é òìéä çîõ äåà
1. If Mei Peros [alone] ferment, even just Chametz Nuksheh, it is considered Chametz regarding Menachos, like it says above (53a) "since he is lashed for it, it is Chametz"!
àìà åãàé áúòøåáú îéí àééøé åàô''ä ìéëà ëøú ãðå÷ùä äåé áîçîöä áúôåçéí
2. Rather, surely it discusses a mixture with water, and even so there is no Kares, for it is Nuksheh when he fermented with apples.
åäà ãàîø áôø÷ àìå òåáøéï (ùí ãó îá.) çåîõ äàãåîé ãøîå áéä ùòøé
(h) Implied question: It says in Pesachim (42a) that Chometz of Edom in which one put barley [is forbidden due to Chimutz]!
ö''ì ùðúçîöå äùòåøéí áîéí úçéìä ãàé ìàå äëé úå ìà îçîéöéï
(i) Answer: We must say that the barley fermented in water beforehand, for if not, it would not ferment [after being put in vinegar].
åáéøåùìîé îùîò ãîé ôéøåú àôé' áôðé òöîï îçîéöéï ãàîø áéøåùìîé áôø÷ ëì ùòä ø' éåñé àåîø ùøä ùòåøéí áîéí àí ðúá÷òå äøé àìå àñåøåú ùøééï áçåîõ îåúø îôðé ùäçåîõ öåîúï
(j) Observation: The Yerushalmi connotes that Mei Peros ferment even by themselves, for it says in Pesachim that R. Yosi says that if one soaked barley in water, if it cleaved, it is forbidden. If he soaked [barley] in vinegar, it is permitted, because vinegar impedes Chimutz;
ø''ù áø øáé éöç÷ äéä ìå ééï ÷åññ éäá áâåééäå ùòåøéí áâéï ãçîò àúà ì÷îéä ãø' îðà àîø ìéä öøéê àúä ìáòø
1. R. Shimon bar R. Yitzchak had Koses wine (it was starting to sour). He put barley in it so it would ferment (become strong vinegar). He came in front of R. Mana, [who] told him "you must eradicate it";
çã îï àéìéï ãáéú áééøé äåä ìéä âøáà ãîùçà âå àåöøà çéèé ùàì (ìøáà àîø) [ö"ì ìøáðï àîøéï ìéä - ùéèä î÷åáöú] àéæéì âøåó îä ãúçåúéäï ò''ë éøåùìîé
2. A member of Beis Bairi had a barrel of oil in a storehouse of wheat, He asked Rabanan, [who] said "go sweep [and eradicate the wheat] underneath the barrels." Until here is from the Yerushalmi.
åùîà ëì äðé ñáøé ëàáéé ãàîø îçîéöéï àôéìå áôðé òöîï ãàñø çöáà ãàáéùåðà å÷é''ì ëøáà ãùøé
(k) Suggestion: Perhaps all of these hold like Abaye, who holds that Mei Peros ferment even by themselves, for he forbids grain parched in a jug, and we hold like Rava, who permits.
åìôéøåù æä îåúø ììåù òéñä ááéöéí áôñç åáìáã ùìà éòøá áîéí àáì îìç ùøé ëîå ååúé÷à ãàéëà îéùçà åîéìçà
(l) Consequence: According to this one may knead a dough during Pesach with eggs, as long as he does not mix with water. However, salt is permitted, like Vatika, which has oil and salt.
åîéäå éù ìðèåú åìäçîéø ãìòåìí àôéìå áìà îéí ðäé ãçîõ âîåø ìà äåé ðå÷ùä îéäà äåé
(m) Retraction: One should lean to be stringent even without water. Granted, it is not total Chametz. However, it is Nuksheh!
åäà ãùøé øáà çöáà ãàáéùåðà îùåí ãîé ôéøåú àéï îçîéöéï
(n) Implied question: Rava permits grain parched in a jug, for Mei Peros do not ferment!
÷ñáø ëéåï ãàéï îçîéöéï çîõ âîåø ìà âæåø ìäçîéø åìçåù ãéìîà ðô÷é îéà îäà åáìò àéãê îùåí ãîéìúà ãìà ùëéçà äåà
(o) Answer: He holds that since they do not become total Chametz, they did not decree to be stringent and be concerned lest juice leave this [piece] and another one will absorb it, for it is not common;
ãàí äéå îçîéöéï çîõ âîåø ëéåï ùéù áå ëøú äééðå çåùùéï àò''â ãìà ùëéçà
1. If they made total Chametz, since there is Kares, we would be concerned, even though it is not common.
åäà ããçé÷ ø''ù áï ì÷éù ìùðåéé îâáìä áîéí àò''â ãáìà îéí ðîé äåé çîõ ðå÷ùä
(p) Implied question: Why did Reish Lakish struggle to answer "he kneads [Minchas Nesachim] with water", even though also without water it is Chametz Nuksheh?
àéöèøéê ìùðåéé äëé îùåí øáé éäåãä ëãàîø ìòéì ãùéàåø ãøáé éäåãä ìø' éäåãä ìà çùéá çîõ ìòðéï îðçåú
(q) Answer: He needed to answer so due to R. Yehudah, like he said above (53a) that Sei'or of R. Yehudah according to R. Yehudah is not considered Chametz regarding Menachos.
åàôùø ãàôé' àéñåøà ãàåøééúà ìéëà ëãúðï áô' åàìå òåáøéï (ùí ãó îç:) ùéàåø éùøó åäàåëìå ôèåø ãáøé ø' éäåãä
1. Perhaps there is not even an Isur Torah, like the Mishnah in Pesachim (48b) says that Sei'or is burned, and one who eats it is exempt. R. Yehudah says so;
ìäëé ð÷è ø''ù áï ì÷éù âáé òéñä ùðéìåùä áééï åùîï åãáù àéï çééáéï òì çéîåöä ëøú äà àéñåøà àéëà ìø''î ëãàéú ìéä åìø' éäåãä ëãàéú ìéä
2. Therefore, Reish Lakish (Pesachim 35a) mentioned regarding a dough kneaded with wine, oil or honey that one is not Chayav Kares for its Chimutz, but there is an Isur, according to R. Meir like he holds, and according to R. Yehudah like he holds.
åîéäå îååúé÷à ÷ùéà ìôéøåù æä ãùøéðï ìéä àò''â ãìà ùîøåäå îçéîåõ îãàñø áîéà åîéìçà åùøé áîùçà åîìçà
(r) Question: Vatika is difficult for this Perush, for we permit it, even though they did not guard it from Chimutz, since we forbid with water and salt, and permit with oil and salt!
2) TOSFOS DH Tapu'ach she'Risko v'Nasno l'Isah v'Chimtzah Harei Zeh Asurah
úåñôåú ã"ä úôåç ùøéñ÷å åðúðå ìòéñä åçéîöä äøé æå àñåøä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos brings from the Yerushalmi that R. Yosi permits.)
îùðä äéà áîñëú úøåîåú ô''é (î''á) åàîøéðï òìä áâîøà áéøåùìîé úðé ø' éåñé îúéø
(a) Reference: This is a Mishnah in Terumos (10:2), and we say about it in the Yerushalmi that it should say that R. Yosi permits;
ø' àçà ø' àáäå áùí ø''é áø ø' çðéðà îä ôìéâà áîçîõ áîéîéå àáì áîçîõ áâåôå îåúø
1. Citation (Yerushalmi): R. Acha [cited] R. Avahu in the name of R. Yosi bar R. Chanina [to say], what do they argue about? They argue about one who ferments with [an apple's] juice, but if one ferments with [an apple] itself, it is permitted;
øáé éåñé áãòúéä ëîä ãå [ö"ì àîø - ùéèä î÷åáöú] úîï àéï úáùéìå áøåø ëï (àåîø) [ö"ì äåà àåîø äëà - ùéèä î÷åáöú] àéï çéîåöå çéîåõ áøåø
2. This is like R. Yosi says elsewhere. Just like there he said "his Tavshil is not clear", so he says here, its Chimutz is not clear Chametz (this will be explained).
ôéøåù ãùøé âáé ùáú áéùåì ùàéðå áøåø ãúðï ô' ëéøä (ùáú ãó ìç:) âáé áéöä ìà éô÷éòðä áñåãøéï åø' éåñé îúéø
3. Explanation: [R. Yosi] permits regarding Shabbos cooking that is not overt, for a Mishnah (Shabbos 38b) teaches that an egg, one may not crack it into a cloth [heated on a fire], and R. Yosi permits. (Likewise, he permits Chimutz of Mei Peros, which is only Nuksheh, and not overt Chametz.)
åëåìä ñåâéà àéúà ðîé äúí áô' ëéøä (ä''â) åáøéù îñëú çìä åáôñçéí áô' ëì ùòä (ä''ã) áñåôå
4. The entire Sugya is also there (in the Yerushalmi) in Shabbos (3:3), in Maseches Chalah (1:1), and in Pesachim (2:4).
3) TOSFOS DH Ein Lecha she'Kasheh li'Kemitzah Yoser mi'Minchas Chotei
úåñôåú ã"ä àéï ìê ù÷ùä ì÷îéöä éåúø îîðçú çåèà
(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks why this was not taught above.)
÷öú ÷ùéà ãìòéì áñåó ôø÷ ÷îà (ãó éà.) ä''ì ìîúðéà âáé îçáú åîøçùú æå äéà àçú îòáåãåú ÷ùåú ùáî÷ãù
(a) Question: This is somewhat difficult, for above (11a) it should have taught about Machavas and Marcheshes "this is one of the hard Avodos in the Mikdash"!
4) TOSFOS DH u'Mar Savar Chareivah mi'Kol Davar
úåñôåú ã"ä åîø ñáø çøéáä îëì ãáø
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this is even like Reish Lakish.)
åàôé' ø''ù áï ì÷éù ãàîø áä÷åîõ øáä (ìòéì ãó ëâ.) äåà òöîå îùëùëå áùéøé äìåâ
(a) Implied question: Reish Lakish said above (23a) that he rubs [the Kometz of a Minchas Chotei] itself with the leftover from the Log (brought for a regular Minchah)!
äééðå àçø ÷îéöä àáì ÷åãí ÷îéöä ìà ëããøéù äúí ùìà é÷áò ìä ùîï áòåã ùìà ð÷îöä
(b) Answer: That is after Kemitzah, but not before Kemitzah, like he expounds there that one may not [Griz - intentionally] put oil on it before Kemitzah.
5) TOSFOS DH Ta Shma Besar Zekenah v'Chulei
úåñôåú ã"ä ú''ù áùø æ÷ðä ëå'
(SUMMARY: Tosfos distinguishes this from the argument in our Mishnah.)
úéîä îàé ÷åùéà äà ôìåâúà äéà áîúðé' (ìòéì ðá:)
(a) Question: What was the question? This is an argument in the Mishnah (above, 52b)!
ãø''î àîø àó (àí) [äéà] äéúä çñéøä ëå' ñáø ìëîåú ùäï îùòøéï ëãàîøé øáä åøá éåñó ìòéì (ãó ðâ:) åøáé éäåãä ñáø ëîåú ùäåà îùòøéï
1. R. Meir says, even this (if one puts old Se'or in the Kli, and adds flour to complete the Isaron) is too little [or too much] holds that we gauge based on the initial size, like Rabah and Rav Yosef said above (53b. The Se'or is bigger or smaller than the flour used to make it.) And R. Yehudah holds that we gauge based on the current size.
åé''ì ãìà ãîé ãäúí èòîà ãø''î îùåí ãòùøåï ñåìú àîø øçîðà åìà òùøåï òéñä åø' éäåãä ñáø ãòùøåï ñåìú ÷øéðà áéä
(b) Answer: Here is different. There, R. Meir's reason is because the Torah said an Isaron of flour, and not an Isaron of dough, and R. Yehudah holds that this is called an Isaron of flour.
6) TOSFOS DH d'Me'ikara Lo Havah Bei v'Hashta Eis Bei mid'Rabanan
úåñôåú ã"ä ãîòé÷øà ìà äåä áéä åäùúà àéú áéä îãøáðï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos questions Rava's question in Shabbos.)
úéîä ãáøéù äîöðéò (ùáú öà.) áòé øáà äåöéà çöé âøåâøú ìæøéòä åúôçä åðîìê òìéä ìàëéìä îäå
(a) Question: In Shabbos (91a), Rava asked if one was Motzi (did Akirah) half a Grogeres for planting (this is more than the Shi'ur for planting), and it inflated (to a Grogeres, the Shi'ur for eating), and he intended to eat it [and then did Hanachah], what is the law?
îàé ÷à îáòéà ìéä äà ëéåï ãàéìå ìà úôçä åðîìê òìéä ìàëéìä ôèåø ãìéëà ùéòåøà áùòú äðçä ãîùåí ãúôçä ìà îçééá èôé
1. What was his question? Since had it not inflated, and he reconsidered and decided to eat it, he would be exempt, for there is not a Shi'ur at the time of Hanachah, he is no more liable because it inflated!
ãäà àôéìå òáã ò÷éøä åäðçä áçãà áîçùáä àôéìå ìáúø ãúôçä ôèåø ãìëîåú ùäï îùòøéðï îãàåøééúà:
2. Source: Even if he did Akirah and Hanachah with one intent, even after it inflated, he would be exempt, since mid'Oraisa we gauge based on the initial size!
54b----------------------------------------54b
7) TOSFOS DH Ela Hacha bi'Serumas Ma'aser Askinan
úåñôåú ã"ä àìà äëà áúøåîú îòùø òñ÷éðï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that the same applies to Ma'aser Rishon.)
îùåí ã÷úðé úåøîéï îå÷é ìä äëé àáì äåà äãéï áîòùø øàùåï ãî÷éù ðîé àáà àìòæø áï âåîì ëãàéúà áôø÷ îòùø áäîä (áëåøåú ãó ðç:)
(a) Explanation: [The Gemara] establishes it so (to discuss Terumas Ma'aser) because it taught "Tormin" (which connotes Terumah), but the same applies to Ma'aser Rishon, for Aba Elazar ben Gomel equates also Ma'aser Rishon [to Terumah], like it says in Bechoros (58b).
8) TOSFOS DH k'Shem she'Terumah Gedolah Niteles b'Omed
úåñôåú ã"ä ëùí ùúøåîä âãåìä ðéèìú áàåîã
(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that mid'Oraisa, estimation does not apply.)
îãàåøééúà àéï ùééê áä àåîã ãçéèä àçú ôåèøú àú äëøé ëãëúéá (ãáøéí éç) øàùéú ãâðê
(a) Implied question: Mid'Oraisa, estimation does not apply, for one wheat kernel exempts the entire stack, like it says "Reishis Deganecha"!
àìà ìôé ùðúðå áä çëîéí ùéòåø ùééê áä àåîã
(b) Answer: Because Chachamim gave a Shi'ur, estimation applies.
åúøåîú îòùø éù ìä ùéòåøà îãàåøééú' ëãëúéá (áîãáø éç) îòùø îï äîòùø ãìòðéï æä åãàé ìà î÷ùéðï ùúôèåø áä çéèä àçú àáì àí áîúëåéï îåñéó éìôéðï ùôéø îúøåîä âãåìä
(c) Distinction: Terumas Ma'aser has a Shi'ur mid'Oraisa, like it says "Ma'aser Min ha'Ma'aser." Regarding this, surely we do not equate, that one wheat kernel should exempt. However, if he intentionally adds, we properly learn from Terumah Gedolah (that this is fine).
9) TOSFOS DH Niteles b'Omed
úåñôåú ã"ä ðéèìú áàåîã
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses when it is permitted/l'Chatchilah to take through estimation.)
îöåä ìòùåú îàåîã ãîúåê ùéøà ùìà ìôçåú ðåèì áòéï éôä
(a) Explanation: The Mitzvah is to [separate] through estimation, for since he fears to take too little, he takes generously.
åáúåñôúà âøñéðï àìà îàåîã åëï ôé' ø''ú
(b) Supports #1,2: The text in the Tosefta is "only through estimation." (This is not in our text. The Tosefta in Terumos 3:4 is like the Mishnah that Tosfos brings below.) Also R. Tam explained like this.
åúðï áô''÷ ãúøåîåú (î''æ) àéï úåøîéï ìà áîãä åìà áîù÷ì åìà áîðéï åëï áúøåîú îòùø åàîøéðï òìä áéøåùìîé úðé àáà àìòæø áï âåîì îðéï ùàéï úåøîéï ìà áîãä ëå'
(c) Support #3: A Mishnah in Terumos (1:7) teaches that we do not separate Terumah via measure, weight or count. The same applies to Terumas Ma'aser (this is Tosfos' Perush), and we say about this in the Yerushalmi "Aba Elazar ben Gomel taught, what is the source that we do not separate Terumah via measure...?"
åà''ú áñåó ëì äâè (âéèéï ãó ì:) ãîôøù øá àùé áï éùøàì ùàîø ìáï ìåé ëê àîø ìé àáà îòùø éù ìê áéãé àå îòùø ìàáéê áéãé çåùùéï ìúøåîú îòùø ùáå ëéåï ãìà ÷ééõ ìà îú÷ï ìéä áòì äáéú
(d) Question: In Gitin (30b), Rav Ashi explains that a Yisrael who told a Levi "my father told me that I have your Ma'aser or your father's Ma'aser", we are concerned for Terumas Ma'aser in it. Since it is not Kayitz (a known amount), the Ba'al ha'Bayis did not fix (tithe) it;
ëåø îòùø éù ìê áéãé àå ëåø îòùø ìàáéê áéãé àéï çåùùéï ìúøåîú îòùø ùáå ëéåï ã÷ééõ ú÷åðé ú÷ðéä ëàáà àìòæø áï âåîì ãî÷éù úøåîú îòùø ìúøåîä âãåìä åéù ìáòä''á øùåú ìúøåí úøåîú îòùø ëîå ùéù ìå ìúøåí úøåîä âãåìä
1. If he said "I have a Kor of your Ma'aser or your father's Ma'aser", we are not concerned for Terumas Ma'aser in it. Since it is Kayitz, [the Yisrael's father] fixed it, like Aba Elazar ben Gomel, who equates Terumas Ma'aser to Terumah Gedolah, and the Ba'al ha'Bayis is allowed to separate Terumas Ma'aser, just like he may separate Terumas Gedolah.
åäùúà à''ë áøéùà ðîé àò''â ãìà ÷ééõ (àîàé) ìà ðéçåù ìúøåîú îòùø ùáå ãàîøéðï îàåîã úåøí ãîöåä îàåîã
2. Summation of question: If so, also in the Reisha, even though it is not Kayitz, we should not be concerned for Terumas Ma'aser in it, for we say that one tithes through estimation, for the Mitzvah is through estimation!
åéù ìåîø ãìàå àåøçéä ãáòä''á ìòùåú îàåîã úøåîú îòùø îôðé úøòåîú ëäï åìåé àí éèòä áàåîã ùìå
(e) Answer: It is not normal for the Ba'al ha'Bayis to separate Terumas Ma'aser through estimation, due to complaints of the Kohen or Levi if he will err through his estimation (and give too little or too much).
åà''ú äà úðï áîñëú úøåîåú ô''ã äîåðä îùåáç åäîåãã îùåáç îîðå åäùå÷ì îùåáç îùìùúï
(f) Question: A Mishnah in Terumos (4:6) teaches that one who counts is praiseworthy, one who measures is more praiseworthy, and one who weighs is most praiseworthy of all three of them...
åáéøåùìîé î÷ùé ìä áô''÷ ãúøåîåú åîùðé ëàï ìúøåîä âãåìä ëàï ìúøåîú îòùø åúðé àáà àìòæø áï âåîì àåîø îðéï ùàéï úåøîéï ìà áîãä åìà áîù÷ì åìà áîðéï ú''ì (áîãáø éç) åðçùá ìëí úøåîúëí åäøîåúí áîçùáä àúä úåøí åàé àúä úåøí áîãä áîù÷ì åáîðéï
1. The Yerushalmi asks (that this is unlike Mishnah 1:7), and answers that this refers to Terumah Gedolah, and this refers to Terumas Ma'aser, and Aba Elazar ben Gomel taught 'what is the source that we do not separate Terumah through measure, weight or count? It says "v'Nechshav Lachem Terumaschem" - you take Terumah through intent, and not through measure, weight or count';
ôéøåù ääéà ãàéï úåøîéï áúøåîä âãåìä ãìëåìé òìîà îöååúä áàåîã åääéà ãäîåðä îùåáç áúøåîú îòùø åëøáðï åäà ãîééúé áøééúà ãàáà àìòæø ìàùîåòéðï ãôìéâé áúøåîú îòùø
2. Explanation: The Mishnah that forbids [via measure...] refers to Terumah Gedolah. All agree that l'Chatchilah, it is through estimation. The one that says that counting is praiseworthy, it refers to Terumas Ma'aser, and like Rabanan. It brings the Beraisa of Aba Elazar ben Gomel to teach that they argue about Terumas Ma'aser.
åà''ú ãáéøåùìîé àîøé' àääéà ãäîåðä îùåáç îîé äåà îùåáç àîø øá äåðà îï äúåøí îàåîã
(g) Question #1: In the Yerushalmi, we say that [the Mishnah] of one who counts is praiseworthy - whom is he more praiseworthy than? Rav Huna said, [he is more praiseworthy] than one who takes Terumah via estimation;
îùîò ãîàåîã äåé úøåîä àìà ãäîåðä îùåáç
1. Inference: Via estimation is Terumah, just counting is better!
å÷àîø ðîé äúí à''ø äéìì îúðé' àîøä ëï åäùå÷ì îùåáç îùìùúï ôéøåù îëìì ãàéëà ùìùä áø îùå÷ì
(h) Question #2: Also, R. Hillel said there that our Mishnah teaches so. "One who weighs is more praiseworthy than all three of them." I.e. there are three [ways] other than weighing!
åáúø äëé ÷àîø ø' çðéðà úéôúø áùìùúï åìéú ù''î ëìåí
1. And after this, R. Chanina says you can answer that the Mishnah says of all three of them, and you cannot derive from it anything (whether or not it is permitted via estimation).
(åàé) [ö"ì åäùúà àé - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã] ìøáðï ìãéãäå àéï úøåîú îòùø îàåîã åàé ëàáà àìòæø áï âåîì äà àîøï ãîöåä ìòùåú îàåîã
2. Now, if it is like Rabanan, they hold that there is no Terumas Ma'aser via estimation. And if it is like Aba Elazar ben Gomel, he says that l'Chatchilah it is through estimation!
åðøàä ìôøù ãìàáà àìòæø áï âåîì ðîé ìà éìôé àìà ãîåòéì îàåîã åìà ùúäà îöåä îàåîã
(i) Answer #1: It seems that also according to Aba Elazar ben Gomel, we learn only that it works through estimation, but not that l'Chatchilah it is through estimation.
åäùúà äà ãîùðé áéøåùìîé ëàï áúøåîä âãåìä ëàï áúøåîú îòùø äééðå ëàáà àìòæø áï âåîì
(j) Consequence: The Yerushalmi answered "this refers to Terumah Gedolah, and this refers to Terumas Ma'aser", i.e. like Aba Elazar ben Gomel.
åðéçà äùúà äà ãîééúé òìä áøééúà ãàáà àìòæø áï âåîì
(k) Support: Now it is fine that it brings the Beraisa of Aba Elazar ben Gomel.
àé ðîé îåãå øáðï ìàáà àìòæø áï âåîì ãîàåîã äåéà úøåîä àáì àéï îöåä ìòùåú îàåîã
(l) Answer #2: Alternatively, Rabanan agree to Aba Elazar ben Gomel that through estimation is Terumah, but it is not a Mitzvah to do through estimation.
åà''ú åäéëé ùøé ìøáðï ìòùåú îàåîã à''ë äåä ìéä îøáä òì äîòùø
(m) Question: How do Rabanan permit through estimation? If so, he takes extra Ma'aser!
åé''ì ãäééðå ëùîøáä áîúëåéï àáì ëùîúëåéï ìàåîã éôä ìà çùéá îøáä
(n) Answer: This is when he intentionally adds, but when he intends to estimate well, it is not considered extra.
åîéäå îãùøéà äëà ìàáà àìòæø áï âåîì úàðéí òì äâøåâøåú áîðéï àò''â ãäåä ìéä îøáä îòùøåú áîúëåéï îùîò ãëì îä ùéøöä ìäøáåú ðçùá òéï éôä
(o) Retraction (from Answer #2): However, since here it permits according to Aba Elazar ben Gomel [to tithe] figs on dried figs through number, even though he intentionally takes extra Ma'aser, this connotes that as much as he intends to add is considered generous (and it is fine to do so);
åðøàä ãìéú ìéä ìàáà àìòæø áï âåîì îøáä îòùøåú ãäà îòùø øàùåï ðîé àéú÷ù ìúøåîä ëãàîøé' áôø÷ áúøà ãáëåøåú (ãó ðç:)
1. It seems that Aba Elazar ben Gomel does not hold that "one who takes extra Ma'aser [his Ma'aser is messed up, for the excess is not Ma'aser Rishon. Rather, it is Tevel to Ma'aser Sheni or Ma'aser Oni]", for also Ma'aser Rishon is equated to Terumah, like we say in Bechoros (58b);
åìà îùëçú ìä àìà áîòùø òðé àå áîòùø ùðé ãäðäå ìà àéú÷åù ãìà àééøé àìà áîòùø øàùåï
2. This [problem of too much Ma'aser] is found only in Ma'aser Oni and Ma'aser Sheni, for these are not equated [to Terumah], for [the verse] discusses only Ma'aser Rishon.
ëã÷àîøéðï äúí åîòùø ÷øééä øçîðà úøåîä ãëúéá (áîãáø éç) ëé àú îòùø áðé éùøàì àùø éøéîå ìä' úøåîä ðúúé ììåéí ìðçìä
i. Source: We say there "the Torah called Ma'aser "Terumah" - "Ki Es Masar Bnei Yisrael Asher Yarimu la'Shem Terumah Nasati la'Leviyim l'Nachalah."
10) TOSFOS DH Kach Terumas Ma'aser Niteles b'Omed uv'Machshavah
úåñôåú ã"ä ëê úøåîú îòùø ðéèìú áàåîã åáîçùáä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the argument of Rabanan and Aba Elazar.)
òé÷ø îçùáä áúøåîú îòùø ëúéáà
(a) Implied question: The primary intent is written regarding Terumas Ma'aser! (Why do we learn it from Terumah Gedolah?)
àìà ð÷è äëé îùåí ãôùèéä ã÷øà îùîò ãîúøåîä âãåìä éìéó ã÷øà áúøåîú îòùø ùì ìåéí ëúéá åäëé îùîò
(b) Answer: It says so because the simple meaning of the verse connotes that we learn from Terumah Gedolah, for the verse discusses Terumas Ma'aser of Leviyim. It means as follows;
åðçùá ìëí áîçùáä úðå ìå úøåîú îòùø îï äâåøï ëãâï îï äâåøï ëàåúä úøåîä ùðéèìú îï äâåøï ãäééðå úøåîä âãåìä
1. "V'Nechshav Lachem Terumaschem" - give to [the Kohen] Terumas Ma'aser from the granary, i.e. like grain from the granary, like the Terumah that is taken from the granary, i.e. Terumah Gedolah.
åðøàä ãøáðï ìà ôìéâé àîçùáä åáàåîã ãå÷à ôìéâé
(c) Opinion #1: It seems that Rabanan do not argue about intent. They argue only about estimation.
(àí) [ö"ì àåí - áàøåú äîéí] úîöà ìåîø ãôìéâé ùîà éù ùåí èòí ãìà îå÷îé îçùáä àúøåîú îòùø àò''â ãëúéá áâåôä
(d) Opinion #2: And if you will say that they argue, perhaps there is a reason why they do not establish intent for Terumas Ma'aser, even though it is written regarding Terumas Ma'aser itself.
ëãàùëçï ìòðéï îå÷ó áô''á ãúøåîåú ãàîø áéøåùìîé ãëì äúåøä ëåìä ìîéãä åîìîãú çåõ îúøåîú îòùø ùîìîãú åàéðä ìîéãä
(e) Support: We find this regarding Min ha'Mukaf (tithing near the Peros being exempted). It says in the Yerushalmi that the entire Torah learns [the matter discussed from the verse] and teaches to elsewhere, except for Terumas Ma'aser, which teaches and is not learned;
ãáúøåîú îòùø ëúéá îîðå îï (îëàï îãó äáà) äîå÷ó ìå åîå÷îéðï áúøåîä âãåìä åìà áúøåîú îòùø ëãúðï áîñëú áéëåøéí (ô''á î''ä) ãúøåîú îòùø ðéèìú ùìà îï äîå÷ó ëáéëåøéí
1. Source: Regarding Terumas Ma'aser it is written "Mimenu" - from what is Mukaf to it, and we establish it to discuss Terumah Gedolah, and not Terumas Ma'aser, like the Mishnah in Bikurim (2:5) teaches that Terumas Ma'aser [may be] taken Lo Min ha'Mukaf, like Bikurim.