1) TOSFOS DH veha'Amar Rava Kol Davar sheb'Midah... Chozer
úåñôåú ã"ä åäàîø øáà ëì ãáø ùáîãä... çåæø
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this applies even to land.)
ìà ùéçæéø àåðàä ÷àîø àìà àôéìå áéèåì î÷ç äåé ëãîåëç ì÷îï áôø÷ äúåãä (ãó òæ.) åáôø÷ äîåëø àú äñôéðä (á''á ãó ö.)
(a) Explanation: He does not mean that he returns the Ona'ah (overcharge or undercharge). Rather, it is Bitul Mekach, like is proven below (77a) and in Bava Basra (90a).
åéù ìã÷ã÷ îëàï ãîéìúà ãøáà àéúîø àôéìå à÷ø÷òåú
(b) Opinion #1: From here we infer that Rava taught even about land.
åëï îùîò áô''á ã÷éãåùéï (ãó îá:) ã÷àîø àáì ôìâé áîùçúà ìà ëãøáà ëå'
(c) Support: It connotes like this also in Kidushin (42b). It says "but if they divided according to area [and erred], no (then Ona'ah applies even to land), like Rava taught..."
åøáéðå ùîåàì ìà ôé' ëï áôø÷ áéú ëåø (á''á ÷â:) [åùí ÷ã. ã''ä ôçåú] ãúðï áéú ëåø òôø àðé îåëø ìê îãä áçáì ôéçú ëì ùäåà éðëä äåúéø ëì ùäåà éçæéø
(d) Opinion #2: The Rashbam in Bava Basra (103b) explained otherwise. The Mishnah says that [if one said] "I sell to you a Beis Kor (an area in which one sows 30 Sa'im, i.e. 75,000 square Amos) measured by a rope", if it was any amount less, he deducts. If it was any amount more, he returns [the excess];
(îùîò ëé äî÷ç ÷ééí åôéøù øáéðå ùîåàì ëé î÷ç ÷ééí) [ö"ì åôéøù øáéðå ùîåàì éðëä äîåëø ëôé äôçú åäî÷ç ÷ééí - öàï ÷ãùéí] ãàò''ô ùèòå áîãä ìà àéúîø ãøáà àìà áîèìèìé
1. The Rashbam explained that the seller deducts according to the deficiency, and the sale stands. Even though they erred about measure, Rava's law was said only about Metaltelim.
åìà îùîò äëé ëãôøéùéú àìà äééðå èòîà äúí ùéåãò åîëéø áùãä ùäåà îåëø ìå åéåãò ùéù ùí àå ôçåú àå éåúø àìà ìôé îä ùéòìä ìôé çùáåï áéú ëåø îöåîöí (éôçåú åéðëä) [ö"ì äåúéø éçæéø åôéçú éðëä - áàøåú äîéí]
(e) Rejection: It does not connote like this, like I explained. Rather, the reason is because he knows and recognizes the field that he sells to him, and know that it has less or more, but since he sold according to the calculation of exactly a Beis Kor, if he gave more he returns, and if he gave less he deducts.
2) TOSFOS DH Shad'i Bah kid'Ba'i v'Asu Sahadei v'Chulei
úåñôåú ã"ä ùãàé áä ëãáòé åàúå ñäãé ëå'
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that they do not argue about the quantity seeded.)
àéï îëçéùéï àåúå áîä ùæøò àìà ùàåîøéí ùàéï ìä ãé áëé äàé ùéòåøà
(a) Explanation: They do not contradict him about what (how much) he seeded, but they say that this amount is not enough.
3) TOSFOS DH Pil she'Bala Kefifah Mitzris v'Chulei
úåñôåú ã"ä ôéì ùáìò ëôéôä îöøéú ëå'
(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with the Gemara in Bava Basra.)
äàé ãáòà îéðéä øá àãà áø àäáä îøá ãéîé îðäøãòà áô' ìà éçôåø (á''á ëá.) ôéì ùáìò ëôéôä îöøéú åä÷éàä ãøê áéú äøòé îäå
(a) Implied question: Rav Ada bar Ahavah asked Rav Dimi of Neharde'a [to test him] in Bava Basra (22a) if an elephant swallowed a wicker basket and excreted it, what is the law? (We know this from the Mishnah!)
ìàå áëôéôä îîù áòà îéðéä ãàí ëï àîàé ìà äåä áéãéä îúðé' äéà ãàéï òåìéï îèåîàúï àìà áùéðåé îòùä
(b) Answer: He did not ask him about an actual basket, for if so, why did he not know the answer? A Mishnah teaches this. [Kelim] leave their Tum'ah only through Shinuy Ma'aseh!
àìà áäåöéï åòáã ìäå ëôéôä áòà îéðéä
1. Rather, he asked about [if it swallowed and excreted] reeds, and he made a basket from them.
åäà ãèôç ìéä äúí áñðãìéä àò''â ãääéà ðîé ÷ééîà áúé÷å
(c) Implied question: Why did he [condescendingly] tap him with his sandal? Also this was not resolved!
î''î ä''ì ìîéã÷ òìä ëããéé÷é' äëà îääéà ãòåìà
(d) Answer: Still, [Rav Dimi] should have inferred like we inferred here from Ula's teaching (and concluded that we cannot learn from there).
4) TOSFOS DH d'Bala Hutzin v'Avdinhu Kefifah Mi Havi Ikul v'Chulei
úåñôåú ã"ä ãáìò äåöéï åòáãéðäå ëôéôä îé äåé òéëåì ëå'
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses when things are considered digested.)
úéîä îé âøò îçéèéï ùáâììé áäîä ãìòéì ãì÷èï ìàëéìä îèîàéï èåîàú àåëìéï åàé äåå òéëåì ìà ìéèîå èåîàú àåëìéï
(a) Question: Is this less than wheat in animal dung? Above, we said that if he gathered it to eat it, it has Tum'as Ochlim!
åéù ìåîø ùàðé èåîàú àåëìéï ãúìåé áøàåéä ìâø àå ìëìá åäúí äéà çæéà àôé' ìâø
(b) Answer: Tum'as Ochlim is different, for it depends on being proper for a convert or a dog, and there it is proper even for a convert;
àáì îæàáéí ùáìòå úéðå÷åú åèäøå àú äáùø åèîàå àú äòöîåú àúé ùôéø ãèåîàú îú ìà úìéà àìà áòéëåìé
1. However, from wolves that swallowed two babies and they were Metaher the flesh and they were Metamei the bones, it is a proper proof, for Tum'as Mes depends only on digestion.
åà''ú ãäëà îñ÷é' ãáùø ãøëéê äåé òéëåì åáô''÷ ãáëåøåú (ãó æ:) úðï ãâ èäåø ùáìò ãâ èîà àñåø áàëéìä åìà äåé òéëåì
(c) Question: Here we conclude that flesh is soft, so it is digested, and in Bechoros (7b) a Mishnah teaches that a Tahor fish that swallowed a Tamei fish, it is forbidden to eat [the swallowed fish], and it is not digested!
åúéøõ øá äàé ãùàðé èåîàä ãàôåùé èåîàä ìà îôùéðï
(d) Answer #1 (Rav Hai Gaon): Tum'ah is different, for we do not increase Tum'ah.
òåã é''ì ãäéëà ãéöà ãøê áéú äøòé äåé òéëåì èôé îäúí ãðîöà áîòéå
(e) Answer #2: When it left through the anus, this is digestion more than when it is found in the innards.
åà''ú ãáô' é''à ãàäìåú úðï åîééúé ìä áôø÷ áúøà ãùáú (ãó ÷ðä:) ëîä úùää áîòéå áòåôåú åáãâéí ëãé ùúôåì ìàåø åúùøó
(f) Question: A Mishnah in Ohalos (11:7), and it is brought in Shabbos (155b), says "how long can [Tum'as Mes] be in the innards [and it is still Metamei]? For birds and fish, it is the time it takes for them to burn after falling into a fire";
åáòåãå áîòéå ðîé ÷àîø ãäà îééúé ìä àëìá ùàëì áùø äîú åîú åîåèì òì äàñ÷åôä
1. And it discusses also while it is still in the innards, for it is brought regarding a dog that ate Tum'as Mes and died, and it is on the threshold!
åé''ì ãîúðéúéï ãáëåøåú ëøáé éäåãä áï áúéøà ãàîø äúí áòåôåú åáãâéí îòú ìòú åáìà ùää îééøé
(g) Answer #1: Our Mishnah in Bechoros is like R. Yehudah ben Beseira, who says there that for birds and fish, it is 24 hours, and it discusses when it did not delay [this time].
àé ðîé ãâéí äðáìòéí ÷ùé èôé
(h) Answer #2: Fish that are swallowed are harder [than Tum'as Mes].
à''ð ðäé ãàéôñéì îúåøú àåëì ìòðéï èåîàú àåëìéï î''î ìòðéï àéñåø ìà ìéäåé òéëåì
(i) Answer #3: Granted, it is disqualified from the status of a food regarding Tum'as Ochlim. In any case, regarding Isur it is not digestion;
îéãé ãäåä çìá (ùáëôøéí åðáìú òåó èäåø) [ö"ì åðáìú òåó èäåø ùáëôøéí åðáìú áäîä èîàä - öàï ÷ãùéí] áëì î÷åí (òå÷öéí ô''â î''â) ùöøéê îçùáä àò''â ãìòðéï àéñåøà ì÷é áìà ùåí îçùáä åæäå ëúéøåöå ùì øá äàé
1. This is like Chelev and Nivlas Ohf Tahor in villages and Neveilah of a Tamei Behemah everywhere. It requires intent [for Tum'as Ochlim], even though regarding Isur, one is lashed without any intent. This is like Rav Hai Gaon's answer.
îéäå àéï øàéä îæä ãàéï ìê îçùáä âãåìä îæå ùîùéí äçìá áôéå åàåëìå
(j) Disclaimer: However, there is no proof from here, for there is no greater intent than this, that he puts Chelev in his mouth and eats it.
åà''ú åäàîøéðï áô''á ãéåîà (ãó ôà.) æø ùáìò ùæôéï ùì úøåîä åä÷éà åáà àçø åáìòå äøàùåï îùìí ÷øï åçåîù åäùðé àéðå îùìí àìà ãîé òöéí ìøàùåï àìîà ìòðéï àéñåø çùéá òéëåì
(k) Question: We say in Yoma (81a) that if a Zar swallowed plums of Terumah and vomited them, and another swallowed it, the first pays principal and Chomesh, and the latter pays only their value as firewood to the first. This shows that regarding Isur, it is considered digestion!
åúéøõ ä''ø çééí ãäúí ìàå îùåí ãäåé òéëåì àìà ìôé ùëáø ðúçììä äúøåîä
(l) Answer (R. Chaim): There, it is not because it is digestion. Rather, the Terumah was already profaned;
ëãàùëçï áô''÷ ãëøéúåú (ãó æ.) ëäï ùñê úøåîä áï áúå éùøàì îúòâì áä åàéðå çåùù åîôøù äúí èòîà îùåí ãîçåììú ëáø
1. This is like we find in Kerisus (7a). If a Kohen anointed with Terumah [oil], his daughter's son [or any other] Yisrael may rub himself on him (and anoint himself) without concern. It explains the reason there because it was already profaned.
åèáòú ãìà çùéá òéëåì áô' áäîä äî÷ùä (çåìéï òà:)
(m) Implied question: A [swallowed] ring is not considered digested, in Chulin (71b)!
äúí îùåí ãà÷åùé èôé
(n) Answer: There, it is because it is very hard.
åðáéìä ãìà çùéá äúí òéëåì
(o) Implied question: Why is a Neveilah not considered digested there?
äééðå áãìà ùää ëãé òéëåì ëã÷àîø îé ìà òñ÷éðï ãàëì ñîåê ìù÷éòú äçîä
(p) Answer: That is when it did not delay the time for digestion, like it says "do we not discuss when he ate close to Shki'ah?"
åîúåê äñáøà äéä ðøàä áéï ìòðéï àéñåø áéï ìòðéï èåîàä ãëì ãáø ùäåà ùìí ùðéëø áùìéîåúå ùìà ðúòëì åìà ðìòñ áôéå ëâåï çéèéï ùìéîéí ùáâììé á÷ø åãâéí (îëàï îòîåã á) ùìéîéï ëâåï ãâ èäåø ùáìò ãâ èîà ãìäëé ð÷è áìò ãìà äåå òéëåì
(q) Assertion: From reasoning, it would seem that both regarding Isur and regarding Tum'ah, anything complete, that it is recognized when it is complete and it was not chewed in his mouth, such as whole wheat [kernels] in cattle feces and whole fish, e.g. a Tahor fish that swallowed a Tamei fish - this is why it said swallowed [and not "ate"], for there was not digestion;
69b----------------------------------------69b
åæø ùáìò ùæôéï ùì úøåîä àò''ô ùäï ùìéîéï åìà äåé òéëåì ôèåø äùðé ùëáø ðúçììä
1. And a Zar who swallowed plums of Terumah, even though they are whole and they were not digested, the second [to eat them] is exempt, for they were already profaned.
åæàáéí ùáìòå úéðå÷åú àò''â ãð÷è ùáìòå îñúáøà ùìà äéå ùìéîéï åàåúí
2. And wolves that swallowed babies, even though it mentioned "swallowed", presumably, they were not whole.
çéèéí ùðîöàå áîòé úøðâåìú áôñç àå áùàø òåôåú øàåé ìäçîéø òìéäí åìàñåø àí ðúáùìå àå ðöìå òîäï ãìà äåé òéëåì åéù áäï àéñåø çîõ
(r) Pesak: Wheat found in a chicken during Pesach or in other birds, it is proper to be stringent about them and forbid them if they were cooked or roasted with [the wheat], that it is not digestion, and there is an Isur of Chametz;
ãìà ãîéà ìääéà ãáòåôåú åáãâéí ëãé ùúôåì ìàåø åúùøó ãîééøé ááùø äðìòñ åìà ðëðñ ùìí áâåó
1. This is unlike the case of birds and fish, [for which the time for digestion is] in order to fall into a fire and burn, for [there] we discuss meat that was chewed, and it did not enter whole into the body;
àå îèòí ùôéøùúé ãçéèéï ÷ùéï äï
2. Or, it is due to the reason I explained, that wheat is hard.
5) TOSFOS DH Klei Gelalim
úåñôåú ã"ä ëìé âììéí
(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes that they are of feces.)
áîñ' ùáú (ãó ðç.) ôéøù á÷åðèøñ àáï âìì
(a) Explanation #1: In Shabbos (58a), Rashi explained that they are of marble.
åëàï îåëéç ùäí ëìéí ùì öôéòé á÷ø
(b) Rejection (and Explanation #2): Here it is proven that they are Kelim of cattle feces.
6) TOSFOS DH Klei Adamah
úåñôåú ã"ä ëìé àãîä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes that this is mud dried in the sun.)
ôé' á÷åðè' ùçé÷ú àáðéí ù÷åøéï ÷øåéé''è áì''à
(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi): They are of lime.
åáôø÷ áîä àùä (âí æä ùí) îùîò ùäí ëìé çøñ ùðúééáùå áçîä åìà ðöøôå áëáùï âáé ëáåì
(b) Explanation #2: In Shabbos (58a) it connotes that they are earthenware that dried in the sun, and were not fired in a kiln, regarding Kavul;
ãàîø àìà àé àîøú áùì èéè äðé äåà ãìà î÷áìé èåîàä äà ëìéí ãéãäå î÷áìéï èåîàä åäúðï ëìé âììéí ëìé àáðéí ëìé àãîä ëå'
1. It says "however, if you will say that they are of mud, these are not Mekabel Tum'ah, but Kelim of their [substance] are Mekabel Tum'ah?! A Mishnah teaches that Klei Gelalim, Klei Avanim, Klei Adamah..." (If they were fired in a kiln, they are regular Klei Cheres, which are Mekabel Tum'ah.)
åòåã úðï áîñëú ëìéí (ô''â î''á) ðø ùðéèì ôéå èäåø åùì àãîä ùäåñ÷ ôéå áôúéìä èäåø
2. Further, a Mishnah in Kelim (3:2) says that if the mouth of a lamp was removed, it is Tahor, and of Adamah that its mouth was fired through a wick, it is Tahor (because the rest of the Kli was not fired).
7) TOSFOS DH Chitin she'Yardu b'Avim
úåñôåú ã"ä çéèéï ùéøãå áòáéí
(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes that he asks about a miracle.)
ôéøù á÷åðèøñ ùùúå áàå÷ééðåñ åáìòå ñôéðä îìàä çéèéï
(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi): [The clouds absorbed from the ocean, and swallowed a boat full of wheat.
å÷ùä ìø''ú ãàé îçåöä ìàøõ åëé äåúøå ìùúé äìçí áùáéì ùäéå áòáéí î''î îîåùáåúéëí áòéðï åìéëà
(b) Question (R. Tam): If [the wheat] is from Chutz la'Aretz, is it permitted for Shtei ha'Lechem because it was in the clouds?! In any case we need "mi'Moshvoseichem", and this is not fulfilled!
åàé îàøõ éùøàì åëé ðàñøéï äï òì éãé ëê
1. And if [the wheat] is from Eretz Yisrael, is it forbidden through this (that it was swallowed in clouds)?!
àìà ðøàä ìé ãòì éãé ðñ éøãå áòáéí ëé äðäå àèîäúà ãôø÷ ã' îéúåú (ñðäãøéï ãó ðè:)
(c) Explanation #2: Through a miracle, [wheat] descended in clouds, like pieces of meat [that fell from Shamayim] in Sanhedrin (59b).
8) TOSFOS DH d'Amar R. Avahu... Yaldah she'Sivkah bi'Zekenah... Asur
úåñôåú ã"ä ãàîø ø' àáäå... éìãä ùñéáëä áæ÷ðä... àñåø
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses when a grafted branch is Batel.)
åäà ãà''ø àáäå à''ø éåçðï áô' îùåç îìçîä áñåèä (ãó îâ:) éìãä ùñéáëä áæ÷ðä áèìä
(a) Implied question: R. Avahu said in the name of R. Yochanan in Sotah (43b) that if one Sivkah (grafted) a young branch onto an old tree, it is Batel!
äúí áãìéëà ôéøåú áéìãä åäëà áãàéëà ôéøåú
(b) Answer: That is when there are no Peros on the young branch. Here it has Peros.
åîä ùâãì àç''ë îåëç ëàï ùäåà äéúø åäééðå ãø' éåçðï ìèòîéä ãàîø äúí áèìä
(c) Inference: What grows afterwards, here it is proven that it is Heter. This is like R. Yochanan taught elsewhere (in Sotah), for he said there that [the branch] is Batel. (Eizehu Mekoman - this is unlike the Ran (Nedarim 57b), who says that the additional growth is Isur, for it comes from Isur.)
åäëà ðéçà ãð÷è éìãä ìôé ùôéøåú ùáä ùì òøìä äï ãàéìå ééçåø ùì æ÷ðä åáä ôéøåú å÷ööä åñáëä áæ÷ðä úçéìúå åñåôå äéúø äåà
(d) Observation: Here it is fine that he mentioned a young branch, because the Peros on it are Orlah. If it was an old branch with Peros, and he cut it and grafted it onto an old tree, the beginning and end are Heter.
àáì áñåèä ÷ùéà àîàé ð÷è éìãä ãëê ùååä ééçåø ùì æ÷ðä ùñéáëä áæ÷ðä ãàé ìàå îùåí ãáèìä äéä úåøú òøìä òìéå åëï ôé' ùí á÷åðèøñ
(e) Question: However, in Sotah (43b) it is difficult. Why did it mention a young branch? The same applies to an old branch grafted onto an old tree. If not that it was Batel, [since it was detached] the law of Orlah would apply to it! Also Rashi explained like this there.
(àôéìå ìééçåø) [ö"ì åàôùø ìåîø ãàôéìå ééçåø - éùø åèåá] ùì æ÷ðä îëéåï ùðúìù åäøëéáå éìãä ÷øéðà ìé' åáèì áæ÷ðä
(f) Answer: We can say that even a branch of an old tree, since it was detached and grafted, it is called young, and it is Batel to the old.
åäà ãìà ð÷è ñúí ééçåø ùñáëå áæ÷ðä áèì
1. Implied question: [If any cut branch is considered young,] why didn't it say Stam that a branch grafted onto an old tree is Batel?
îùåí ãìà äåä éãòðà ìòðéï îä áèì àí ìà äéä îôøù áäãéà ìòðéï òøìä àáì äùúà ãð÷è éìãä îåëçà îéìúà ãìòðéï òøìä ÷àîø
2. Answer: It is because we would not know for what it is Batel, had it not explained explicitly regarding Orlah. However, now that it mentions a young branch, it is proven that it was said regarding Orlah.
i. Note: Seemingly, since it says that the tree is old, surely we discuss Orlah!
åäúí ôøéê îîúðé' ã÷úðé âáé çåæø îîòøëé äîìçîä àçã äðåèò åàçã äîáøéê åàçã äîøëéá ãîãçåæø ù''î ãùééê áä òøìä åçéìåì (ãáòé îéäãø - éùø åèåá îåç÷å) åäúí ÷àîø ø' éåçðï éìãä ùñáëä áæ÷ðä áèìä
3. And there it asks from our Mishnah, which taught regarding returning from the ranks of war "the same applies to one who planted, was Mavrich (inserted shoots into the ground, so they will come out and grow on the other side) or grated. Since he returns, this shows that Orlah and redemption [of Revai] apply to it, and there R. Yochanan said that a young branch grafted onto an old tree is Batel!
åîùðé ãîúðéúéï ãäúí ëâåï éìãä áéìãä
4. It answers that our Mishnah there discusses a young branch [grafted] onto a young [tree].
åëé úéîà úéôå÷ ìé ãáòé îéäãø îùåí éìãä øàùåðä
5. Implied question: I should already know that he must return due to the first young tree!
ëâåï ãðèò ÷îééúà ìñééâ åì÷åøåú
6. Answer: The case is, he planted the first for a border, or for wood. (Orlah and Revai do not apply, and he does not return due to it);
åàò''â ãéìãä áæ÷ðä áèìä ëä''â ìà áèìä îùåí ãàé îéîìéê òìä áú îéäãø äéà
i. Even though a young branch is Batel [when grafted] on an old tree, in such a case it is not Batel, for if he reconsiders [to eat the Peros of the first tree, Orlah and Revai apply, and] it causes him to return from war. (Since the first tree is not absolutely exempt, the branch is not Batel to it.)
åðøàä ãéìãä áéìãä àí ëìå ùðé òøìä ã÷îééúà î÷îé áúøééúà áèìä ìä áúøééúà àò''â ãäéúä äøëáúä áúåê ùðé ãòøìä
(g) Assertion: It seems that a young branch on a young tree, if the years of Orlah of the first finished before those of the latter, the latter is Batel, even though the grafting was within the years of Orlah;
ãàé ìà úéîà äëé äà ãôøéê áñåèä (âí æä ùí) äéëé ãîé àéìéîà éìãä áéìãä úéôå÷ ìé ãáòé îéäãø îùåí éìãä øàùåðä ìå÷îé ëâåï ùëìå ùðé òøìä ùì øàùåðä ìôðé ùðé äùðéä
1. If you would not say so, when it asks in Sotah (43b) "what is the case? If [he grafted] young onto young, I already know that he returns due to the first young [tree]!", we should establish it that the years of Orlah of the first finish before the years of the second!
åáéøåùìîé îùîò ãéìãä ùñéáëä áæ÷ðä îééøé áùðèò àéìï áôðé òöîå ëãøê äðåèòéï åðèòå àöì æ÷éðä (åñéëê) [ö"ì åñéáê - éùø åèåá] òðôéå áòðôé äæ÷ðä
(h) Explanation: The Yerushalmi connotes that young Sivkah onto old discusses when he planted a tree by itself, like the way of those who plant, and he planted it by an old tree, and entangled its branches in the branches of the old tree. (He did not cut the branches. Rather, he planted it so that the branches will be intertwined.)
ãàí ÷åãí ÷ìéèú ùøùéå áàøõ ðúàçæ æä áæä áèìä äéìãä áæ÷ðä àáì àí ÷ãîä ÷ìéèú äùøùéí ùì éìãä ôìéâé äúí àîåøàé
1. If before it took root in the ground, [the branches of the young and old] took hold of each other, the young is Batel in the old. However, if the young took root first, Amora'im argue there;
åæä ìùåï äéøåùìîé áô''÷ ãòøìä øáé æòéøà åøáé éåñé åøáé àìòæø åø' çðéðà áùí ø' çðéðà áï âîìéàì éìãä ùñô÷ä ìæ÷ðä èäåøä äéìãä
i. Citation (Yerushalmi in Orlah): R. Ze'ira, R. Yosi, R. Elazar and R. Chanina in the name of R. Chanina ben Gamliel say, if one did Sipuk (connected vines) of young onto old, the young is Tahor;
àîø øáé çðéðà áø àáà îúðéúà àîøä ëï ñéô÷ áâôðéí ñéôå÷ àçø ñéôå÷ àò''ô ùäáøéëï áàøõ îåúø
ii. Citation (cont. - R. Chanina bar Aba): Our Mishnah teaches this! Sipuk of vines - Sipuk after Sipuk, even if he was Mavrich into the ground, it is permitted.
åçù ìåîø ùîà äùøéùä äéìãä òã ùìà úúàçæ ìæ÷ðä
iii. Citation (cont.) Question: We should be concerned lest the young took root before it attached to the old!
àîø øáé çðéðà áøéä ãøáé äìì ãøáé éäåãä äéà ãøáé éäåãä àîø îúàçæ äåà òã ùìà äùøéù
iv. Citation (cont.) Answer #1 (R. Chanina brei d'Rebbi Hillel): Our Mishnah is R. Yehudah. R. Yehudah says that it attaches before it takes root.
øáé [ö"ì éåñé - ùéèä î÷åáöú] àåîø áùí øáé éåçðï ùøùéï àéï áäí îîù
v. Citation (cont.) Answer #2 (R. Yosi citing R. Yochanan): Roots have no significance.
9) TOSFOS DH Batzel she'Shaslo b'Kerem v'Chulei
úåñôåú ã"ä áöì ùùúìå áëøí ëå'
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses when growth is Mevatel the Ikar.)
áô' äðåãø îï äéø÷ (ðãøéí ðæ:) îéáòé ìï àé âãåìé äéúø îòìéï àú äàéñåø àå ìà åôùè øáé éöç÷ ðôçà îäà ãàîø øáé éðàé áöì ùì úøåîä ùðèòå åøáå âéãåìéï òì òé÷øå îåúø
(a) Citation: In Nedarim (57b), we ask whether or not Gidulei Heter are Mevatel Isur, and R. Yitzchak Nafcha resolved from this that R. Yanai taught, that a Terumah onion that was planted and the [added] growth is greater than the bulb (that he planted), it is permitted;
àîø ìéä øáé éøîéä ùá÷ îø úøúéï ãàîø øáé àáäå àîø øáé éåçðï ëå' åîééúé äê ãéìãä ùñéáëä áæ÷ðä åääéà ãáöì ùðèòå áëøí ãîåëç ãàæìéðï áúø òé÷ø
1. Citation (cont. - R. Yirmeyah): Why do you abandon two teachings (in which Isur is not Batel in added growth of Heter, and follow one)? R. Avahu cited R. Yochanan... and he brings this case of a young branch grafted onto an old tree, and the case of an onion planted in a vineyard. It is proven that we follow the Ikar.
åìäëé îééúé äëà äðê úøúé åìà îééúé ääéà ãø' éðàé ãôìéâ
2. Implied question: Why do we bring here those two, and not the case of R. Yanai, that argues?
ãùá÷éðï çãà î÷îé úøúé
3. Answer: We abandon one [teaching] due to two.
åà''ú åäúðï äîòáéø òöéõ ð÷åá áëøí àí äåñéó îàúéí àñåø àìîà ìà àæìéðï áúø òé÷ø àìà áúø úåñôú
(b) Question: A Mishnah teaches that if one passed a flowerpot with a hole through a vineyard, if [what grows in] it increased [one part in] 200 [of its previous size], it is forbidden. This shows that we do not follow the Ikar, rather, the addition!
åé''ì ãùàðé äúí ëããøùéðï áôø÷ ëì ùòä (ôñçéí ãó ëä.) ëúéá äîìàä åëúéá äæøò äà ëéöã æøåò îòé÷øå áäùøùä æøåò åáà äåñéó àéï ìà äåñéó ìà
(c) Answer: There is different, like we expound in Pesachim (25a). It is written "ha'Mele'ah", and it is written "ha'Zera". How do we fulfill them? If it was initially planted [in a situation of Kil'ayim, it is forbidden through] taking root. If it was planted [b'Heter, and then entered a situation of Kil'ayim, it is forbidden] if it increased, but not if it did not increase.
åà''ú îàé ÷îáòéà ìéä äëà àé øáé éåçðï åø' éåðúï ìçåîøà ãåå÷à àîøé àå àôé' ì÷å ìà ò''ë ìçåîøà ãàé ì÷åìà àîøé ÷ùéà ãø' éåçðï àãøáé éåçðï
(d) Question: What was [R. Shimon ben Pazi's] question here, if R. Yochanan and R. Yonason say only to be stringent, or even to be lenient? You are forced to say that it is to be stringent, for if they say to be lenient, R. Yochanan contradicts himself!
ãáñîåê ÷àîø ø' éåçðï ìéèøà áöì ùúé÷ðå åæøòå îúòùø ìôé ëåìå àìîà ìà àæìéðï áúø òé÷ø ìä÷ì
1. Below (70a), R. Yochanan said that if an onion was tithed and planted, Ma'aser must be taken on all of it. This shows that we do not follow the Ikar to be lenient!
åäúí ðîé áðãøéí îééúé ìä åôùéè î÷îééúà ãø' éåçðï ãéìãä ùñéáëä ãìà àúå âéãåìéï åîáèìé òé÷ø åäãø ôùéè îääéà ãø' éåçðï ãáöì ãàúå âéãåìéï åîáèìé òé÷ø åîùðé ãìîà ìçåîøà ùàðé
2. Strengthening of question: Also there in Nedarim (57b) it brings [the question here] and resolves from R. Yochanan's first teaching of a young branch grafted onto an old tree that growth is not Mevatel the Ikar, and then resolves from R. Yochanan's teaching of an onion that growth is Mevatel the Ikar, and answers that perhaps to be stringent is different!
åé''ì ãäà ã÷àîø ìçåîøà ùàðé äééðå ãåå÷à äúí îùåí ãäééðå æøéòúå ëã÷àîø áñîåê àáì äéëà ãìàå äééðå æøéòúå ãìîà àæìéðï áúø òé÷ø áéï ì÷åìà áéï ìçåîøà
(e) Answer: It says that to be stringent is different, i.e. only there, because this is its [normal way of] planting, like it says below, but when it is not its [normal way of] planting, perhaps we follow the Ikar, both to be lenient and to be stringent;
åäúí áðãøéí ôøéê àø' éåçðï åàøáé éåðúï ãäëà îäà ãúðéà âáé îðëù áçñéåú ãàí éùøàì çùåã òì äùáéòéú ìîåöàé ùáéòéú îåúø àìîà âéãåìé äéúø îòìéï àú äàéñåø
1. There in Nedarim it challenges R. Yochanan and R. Yonason from the Beraisa of one who weeds in Chasiyos. If a Yisrael is suspected about Shemitah, after Shemitah it is permitted. This shows that growth is Mevatel the Ikar!
åîùðé ùàðé ùáéòéú äåàéì åàéñåøä ò''é ÷ø÷ò áèéìúä ò''é ÷ø÷ò
2. It answers that Shemitah is different. Since the Isur is through land, it is Batel through land.
åöøéê ðçì÷ áãáø îàéæä èòí éçùá ùáéòéú àéñåø ò''é ÷ø÷ò åòøìä åëìàé äëøí ìà çùéáé àéñåø ò''é ÷ø÷ò
3. Question: We must distinguish. Why is Shemitah considered an Isur through land, and Orlah and Kil'ai ha'Kerem are not considered Isurim through land?
åàôé' îòùø îùîò äúí ãçùéá àéñåø ò''é ÷ø÷ò àé ìà îùåí ãîòùø ãéâåï äåà ã÷à âøéí ìä
i. And even Ma'aser, it connotes there that it would be considered an Isur through land, if not that Miru'ach causes [the obligation to separate] Ma'aser!
åâí çãù ãùîòúéï ö''ì ãìà çùéá àéñåøå ò''é ÷ø÷ò îãîãîé ìä äëà ìòøìä åëìàé äëøí:
4. Inference: Also Chadash in our Sugya, we must say that it is not considered Isur through land, since here it is compared to Orlah and Kil'ai ha'Kerem.