1) TOSFOS DH Talmud Lomar Ish k'Achiv v'Im Al Todah
úåñôåú ã"ä úìîåã ìåîø àéù ëàçéå åàí òì úåãä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that R. Yehudah expounds Semuchin here.)
ëø' éäåãä îå÷îéðï äê áøééúà áô''á ã÷éãåùéï (ãó ðá: åðâ.) åâøñéðï äúí åñîéê ìéä úåãä îùîò ãîñîåëéï ãøéù
(a) Inference: We establish this Beraisa like R. Yehudah in Kidushin (52b, 53a), and the text there says "and Todah is written near it." This connotes that we expound Semuchin.
å÷ùéà ãø' éäåãä ìà ãøéù ñîåëéï áôø÷ ÷îà ãéáîåú (ãó ã.) åäúí ôéøùúé
(b) Question: R. Yehudah does not expound Semuchin (outside of Sefer Devarim), in Yevamos (4a)! I explained there (DH v'Chi. R. Yehudah expounds Semuchin wherever it is Muchach (proven that they were written for a Drashah) or Mufneh (extra). In Devarim he knows that all of them are Muchach or Mufneh. In Kidushin (53a DH v'Samich), Tosfos said that here he expounds Vov Mosif Al Inyan Rishon.)
2) TOSFOS DH Ish Cholek Afilu Ba'al Mum
úåñôåú ã"ä àéù çåì÷ àôéìå áòì îåí
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses in what cases Kohanim divide Menachos.)
ìùåï çåì÷ ìàå ãåå÷à ãäà ÷àîø àéï çåì÷éï àìà ëìåîø àéï î÷ôéãéï áå àáì çìå÷ä âîåøä ìà òáãé ìéèåì áùåä
(a) Explanation #1: The word "Cholek (he divides)" is not precise, for we say that they do not divide! Rather, it means that they are not adamant. (Shitah Mekubetzes, citing the Rosh - if a Kohen is adamant, another who takes his portion is called a Chamtzan (robber), but if he is not adamant, another may take his portion.) However, they do not do a proper division, to take equally.
åëï äà ãúðï áùéìäé áëåøéí åäï îúçì÷éï áéðéäí ë÷ãùé äî÷ãù åëï äðé ãáøéù èáåì éåí (æáçéí ãó öè.) ìùåï çìå÷ä ìàå ãåå÷à
(b) Assertion: Similarly, the Mishnah in Bikurim (3:12) "they divide among them, like Kodshei ha'Mikdash", and [in the cases] in Zevachim (98b, 99a), the expression "Chalukah" is not precise.
å÷öú ÷ùä îäà ãúðï áô' ùåàì (ùáú ãó ÷îç:) åîèéìéï çìùéí òì ä÷ãùéí áéåí èåá
1. Question: A Mishnah in Shabbos (148b) teaches "and we cast lots on Kodshim on Yom Tov." (This connotes that they do a proper division!)
åùîà îôðé ãøëé ùìåí áòìîà äéå òåùéï
2. Answer: Perhaps they did so merely due to Darchei Shalom (to avoid quarrels).
åòåã ðøàä ããåå÷à ÷àîø àéï çåì÷éï ìòðéï ùéäà ùìå ì÷ãù áå àú äàùä ãàäëé îééúé ìéä áô''á ã÷éãåùéï (ãó ðâ.)
(c) Explanation #2: (They do a proper division.) "Ein Cholkim" means that it is not the Kohen's property to be Mekadesh a woman. (He is merely permitted to eat his share.) It is brought regarding this in Kidushin (53a).
àé ðîé é''ì ãìà îîòèéðï äëà àìà ùàéï îçì÷éï îðçä çøéáä æå ëðâã îðçä çøéáä àçøú àáì îðçä àçú áôðé òöîä îçì÷éï åëï æáç àçã
(d) Explanation #3: Here [Ein Cholkim] excludes only that they do not trade a Minchah Chareivah corresponding to another Minchah Chareivah, but one Minchah by itself they divide, and similarly one Zevach. (Yashar v'Tov - the Halachah is the same as in Explanation #2, just now we explain the Beraisa to discuss two Menachos of the same kind, and "Ein Cholkim" refers to trading shares. Explanation #2 holds that it discusses one Minchah, so Ein Cholkim must mean that it is not his property. The coming question and answer apply to both of them.)
åäà ãôøéê äúí áôø÷ äàéù î÷ãù (âí æä ùí) îäà ãúðà äöðåòéí îåùëéï éãéäï åäâøâøðéï çåì÷éï åìà îùðé áîðçä àçú ùàðé
(e) Implied question: It asks in Kidushin (53a) from the Beraisa that teaches that the pious [Kohanim] refrain from taking [Lechem ha'Panim], and the gluttons divide, and we do not answer that within one Minchah is different!
îùåí ãäúí ìàå îìùåï çåì÷éï âøéãà ãéé÷ îãìà îééúé îîúðé' ãèáåì éåí åîîúðéúéï ãáéëåøéí [àìà] ëãôé' äúí á÷åðèøñ
(f) Answer: There, the question was not based on the expression Cholkim, for it did not bring the Mishnayos in Zevachim and Bikurim. Rather, it is like Rashi explained there;
ãñ''ã ãäàé çåì÷éï ìàå ìéèåì çì÷å äîâéòå ÷àîø ãâáé ìçí äôðéí (éåîà ìè.) úðéà àøáòéí ùðä ùùéîù ùîòåï äöãé÷ äéúä áøëä îöåéä áìçí äôðéí (åëì ëäï ùîâéòå ëæéú - éùø åèåá îåç÷å) éù àåëì åùáò åéù ùáò åîåúéø
1. [The Makshan] thought that "Cholkim" is not to receive his portion ha'Magi'o (through equal division), for regarding Lechem ha'Panim, a Beraisa teaches that the 40 years that Shimon ha'Tzadik served [as Kohen Gadol], there was a Brachah in the Lechem ha'Panim. Some ate and were satiated, and some were satiated and left over;
îëàï åàéìê ðùúìçä îàéøä áìçí äôðéí åëì ëäï îâéòå ëôåì ëå' åëéåï ãäåé ëôåì ìîàé çæé àìà ãøê òéìåé çåì÷éï îðéç çì÷å ìçáéøå åðåèì ëðâãå áî÷åí àçø àìîà àéú áäå ãéï çìå÷ä
i. From [after his death] and onwards, there was a curse in the Lechem ha'Panim, and every Kohen, Magi'o the size of a bean. Since it was like a bean, for what is it proper? Rather, they divide via trading. He leaves his portion for his friend, and takes corresponding to it elsewhere. This shows that there is a law of [equal] division!
åîùðé çì÷å äîâéòå ÷àîø åëùàéðå ùåä ìå çåèó çì÷ çáéøå åàåëìå
2. It answers that it refers to his portion ha'Magi'o, and when it is not worth anything for him, he grabs his friend's portion and eats [also] it.
åäà ãúðï áîñëú ñåëä (ãó ðå.) äðëðñéï çåì÷éï áöôåï
(g) Implied question: A Mishnah in Sukah (56a) teaches that the entering [Kohanim, i.e. they will serve in the Mikdash in the coming week] divide [Lechem ha'Panim] in the north!
çì÷å äîâéòå ÷àîø åáòåã ùäéúä áå áøëä
(h) Answer: It refers to his portion ha'Magi'o, and when there was a Brachah in it.
3) TOSFOS DH v'Ha Afiktei lechid'R. Yosi b'Ribi Yehudah
úåñôåú ã"ä åäà àôé÷úéä ìëãø' éåñé áøáé éäåãä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the question unlike the simple meaning.)
åà''ú åäà îñ÷éðï ëåìä äê ñåâéà ìø' ùîòåï åàéäå ôìéâ òìéä áñåó ëì äîðçåú áàåú îöä (ìòéì ñâ:)
(a) Question #1: We conclude that this entire Sugya is according to R. Shimon, and he argues with [R. Yosi b'Ribi Yehudah's teaching] above (63b)!
åòåã ãîå÷îéðï ìäê áøééúà á÷éãåùéï (ãó ðâ.) ëøáé éäåãä åàéäå ðîé ôìéâ òìéä
(b) Question #2: We establish this Beraisa in Kidushin (53a) like R. Yehudah, and also he argues with [R. Yosi b'Ribi Yehudah's teaching]!
åé''ì ããéé÷ äëà àí àéúà ãøáé éåñé áøáé éäåãä àéú ìéä äê áøééúà äéëé ãøéù
(c) Answer: Here we ask, if R. Yosi b'Ribi Yehudah holds like this Beraisa, how does he expound?
4) TOSFOS DH Min ha'Esh Kesiv
úåñôåú ã"ä îï äàù ëúéá
(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks why the Torah wrote an exclusion and an inclusion.)
úéîä ìà ìëúåá îï äàù åìà áòé ìëì
(a) Question: It should not write "Min ha'Esh", and we would not need "l'Chol"!
5) TOSFOS DH Zeh Gezel ha'Ger
úåñôåú ã"ä æä âæì äâø
(SUMMARY: Tosfos defends the text of old Seforim in Zevachim.)
åàúà ÷øà ìàùîåòéðï ëããøùéðï áäâåæì ÷îà (ááà ÷îà ãó ÷é.) äàùí äîåùá ìä' ìëäï
(a) Explanation: The verse comes to teach like we expound in Bava Kama (110a) "ha'Asham ha'Mushav la'Shem la'Kohen."
åáñôøéí éùðéí âøñéðï áô' á''ù áæáçéí (ãó îã:) âæì äâø áäãéà ëúéá áéä ãëúéá áôøùú ðùà ìå éäéä
(b) Citation: In old Seforim, the text says in Zevachim (44b) 'Gezel ha'Ger is written explicitly! It says in Parshas Nasa (5:9) "Lo Yihyeh"!'
åôé' ùí á÷åðèøñ ãìà âøñéðï ìéä îùåí ãçèàåú åàùîåú åùàø äàîåøéí áôøùä áäãéà ëúéáé ëì àçã åàçã áî÷åîå åñéãøå ìå äëúåá ìàäøï ëàï îôðé îçìå÷úå ùì ÷øç
(c) Opinion #1 (Rashi): The text does not say so, for Chata'os and Ashamos and other matters written in the Parshah (Korach, "Kol Korbanam...") are explicitly written, each in its place, and here the Torah arranges [and teaches that they are] to Aharon, due to Korach's rebellion.
å÷ùä ìôéøåùå ãà''ë îàé ÷à ôøéê àùí îöåøò áäãéà ëúéáé áéä
(d) Objection: If so, what was the question "Asham Metzora is explicitly written!"?
àìà ëì äðé ãàúà ÷øà ìøáåéé ìäå ìà ëúéáé áùåí î÷åí ëâåï ìåâ ùîï ùì îöåøò åîðçú äòåîø åîðçú ÷ðàåú åçèàú äòåó åàùí ðæéø
(e) Opinion #2: Rather, all of these that the verse comes to include are not written anywhere [that Kohanim get them], e.g. [the remainder of] the Log of oil of a Metzora, Minchas ha'Omer, Minchas Kena'os, Chatas ha'Of and Asham Nazir.
îéäå öøéê ìã÷ã÷ àîàé öøéê ìëì áëì äðé ìøáåéðäå îãëúéá ÷øáðí åîðçúí çèàúí åàùîí äåä ùîòéðï ìäå ëéåï ãùàø ëúéáé ëåìäå áäãéà åäðé ìà ëúéáé
(f) Question: Why do we need all of these inclusions? Since it says "Korbanam" and "Minchasam", "Chatasam" and "Ashamam" we would know them, since all the rest are written explicitly, and these are not written!
ãîæàú úåøú äîðçä åæàú úåøú äçèàú åæàú úåøú äàùí ìà äåä éãòéðï äðé ëãîôøù èòîà áëì çã åçã
1. We would not know these from "Zos Toras ha'Minchah", "Zos Toras ha'Chatas", and "Zos Toras ha'Asham", like it explains the reason for each one!
6) TOSFOS DH v'Afilu Lekadesh Bo Es ha'Ishah
úåñôåú ã"ä åàôé' ì÷ãù áå àú äàùä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with sources that connote oppositely.)
äà ããøùéðï áñåó äâåæì ÷îà (ááà ÷îà ã' ÷è:) åáîñ' òøëéï áñåó äî÷ãéù (ãó ëç:) âáé âæì äâø äàùí äîåùá ìä' ìëäï ÷ðàå äùí åðúðå ìëäï ùáàåúå îùîø
(a) Reference: We expound in Bava Kama (109b) and in Erchin (28b) regarding Gezel ha'Ger "ha'Asham ha'Mushav la'Shem la'Kohen" - Hash-m acquired it and gave it to the Kohen in that Mishmar (who was serving when the person brought it).
òì ëøçéï àéú ìï ìîéîø ãìàå îùåìçï âáåä ÷à æëå ãàí ìà ëï äéàê î÷ãùéï áå àú äàùä äà àîøéðï áôø÷ äàéù î÷ãù (÷éãåùéï ãó ðá:) äî÷ãù (îëàï îòîåã á) áçì÷å áéï á÷ãùé ÷ãùéí áéï á÷ãùéí ÷ìéí àéðä î÷åãùú ãîùåìçï âáåä ÷à æëå
(b) Assertion: We are forced to say that [the Kohanim] do not acquire from Hash-m's table, for if so, how can they be Mekadesh a woman with it? We say in Kidushin (52b) that one who is Mekadesh with his portion, whether of Kodshei Kodoshim or Kodshim Kalim, she is not Mekudeshes, for they acquire from Hash-m's table;
73b----------------------------------------73b
àìà ìòðéï àçø ÷àîø ãàéï éëåì ìéúðå ìëì ëäï ùéøöä
1. Rather, it says about another matter [that Hash-m acquired it and gave it to the Kohen in that Mishmar], that [the one who returns Gezel ha'Ger] cannot give it to any Kohen he wants.
åîéäå äà îéìúà ãøéù äúí îãëúéá îìáã àéì äëéôåøéí
(c) Implied question: This (that he cannot give it to any Kohen he wants) we expound there from "Milvad Eil ha'Kipurim"!
åùîà àúà ÷øà ìàùîåòéðï ãîåòìéï áå òã ùéáà ìéã ëäï
(d) Answer: Perhaps ["ha'Asham ha'Mushav la'Shem la'Kohen"] comes to teach that Me'ilah applies to it until it comes to the Kohen's hand;
ëãàîø âáé çøîéí áñåó äî÷ãéù (òøëéï ãó ëè.) ëì æîï ùäí áéã áòìéí äøé äï ëä÷ãù ìëì ãáøéäí ðúðï ìëäï äøé äï ëçåìéï
1. This is like it says about Cherem in Erchin (29a). As long as it is in the owner's hand, it is like Hekdesh in every way. Once he gave it to the Kohen, it is like Chulin;
åîã÷øééä øçîðà àùí ìà äåä éãòðà äê îéìúà ãìà äåä îñúáø ìàå÷îé äëé
2. From the fact that the Torah called it Asham (which also has Me'ilah until it is permitted to the Kohen), I would not know this matter (Me'ilah), since it would not be reasonable to establish it like this.
åà''ú åäéàê î÷ãùéï áå àú äàùä äà ìàå îîåï ëäï äåà ëãîùîò áñåó äâåæì ÷îà (ááà ÷îà ãó ÷é.) (ãîçæéøéï) [ö"ì ãàí åäçæéøä - öàï ÷ãùéí] áìéìä åäçæéøä çöàéï ìà éöà ãàùí ÷øééä øçîðà
(e) Question: How can one be Mekadesh a woman with it? It is not the Kohen's money, like it connotes in Bava Kama (110a) that if he returned at night, or returned half at a time, he was not Yotzei, for the Torah called it Asham!
åòåã îñé÷ äúí (ãó ÷é:) ãàéï çåì÷éï âæì äâø ëðâã âæì äâø îùåí ãàùí ÷øéé' øçîðà
1. Also, we conclude there (110b) that we do not trade Gezel ha'Ger for [another] Gezel ha'Ger, for the Torah called it Asham!
åé''ì ãäð''î ÷åãí çìå÷ä àáì ìàçø ùéâéò ìëì àçã çì÷å ðòùä îîåï ëäï
(f) Answer: That is before division, but after everyone gets his share, it becomes the Kohen's property.
7) TOSFOS DH Ish Ish Lerabos ha'Ovdei Kochavim she'Nodrim Nedarim v'Chulei
úåñôåú ã"ä àéù àéù ìøáåú äòåáãé ëåëáéí ùðåãøéí ðãøéí ëå'
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we cannot learn this from elsewhere.)
úéîä ãúéôå÷ ìé' îãëúéá âáé áòìé îåîéï (åé÷øà ëá) åîéã áï ðëø ìà ú÷øéáå îëì àìä äà úîéîéí ú÷øéáå
(a) Question: I should already know this, for it is written regarding Ba'alei Mumim "umi'Yad Ben Nechar Lo Sakrivu mi'Kol Eleh." This implies that we may offer Tam [Korbanos of Nochrim]!
åàéï ìåîø ãäééðå éùøàì îåîø ëîå áï ðëø ãôñç
1. Implied suggestion: [The verse] refers to a Yisrael Mumar, like Ben Nechar written about Pesach.
ãäà àîøéðï áô''÷ ãúîåøä (ãó æ. åùí) åîéã áï ðëø ìà ú÷øéáå ìîä ìé ãñã''à äåàéì åìà ðöèåå áðé ðç àìà òì îçåñøé àáøéí ìà ùðà áîæáç ãéãäå åìà ùðà áîæáç ãéãï ÷î''ì
2. Rejection: We say in Temurah (7a) why do we need "umi'Yad Ben Nechar Lo Sakrivu"? One might have thought that since Bnei Noach were not commanded about Mechusar Ever, there is no difference whether [it is offered] on their Mizbe'ach (a Bamah) or ours. [The verse] teaches that this is not so.
åé''ì ãàé ìàå àéù àéù äåä àîéðà ááòìé îåîéï äåà ã÷àé áìàå àáì úîéîéí ðäé ãìéëà ìàå àéñåøà îéäà àéëà
(b) Answer #1: If not for Ish Ish, one might have thought that there is a Lav for a Ba'al Mum, but for a Tam, granted, there is no Lav, but there is an Isur [to offer it].
åòåã é''ì ãäàé ÷øà á÷øáï öéáåø îå÷îéðï ìéä áú''ë
(c) Answer #2: In Toras Kohanim we establish this verse to discuss a Korban Tzibur;
ãäëé úðéà äúí îðéï ùàéï î÷áìéï ù÷ìéí îï äòåáãé ëåëáéí ú''ì åîéã áï ðëø ìà ú÷øéáå àú ìçí àéï ìé àìà úîéãéï ùð÷øàå ìçí ùàø ÷øáðåú öéáåø îðéï ú''ì îëì àìä
1. Citation (Toras Kohanim): What is the source that we do not accept Shekalim from Nochrim? It says "umi'Yad Ben Nechar Lo Sakrivu Es Lechem." I would know only Temidim, which are called Lechem. What is the source for other Korbanos Tzibur? It says "mi'Kol Eleh";
å÷î''ì ÷øà ãàôéìå áà äòåáã ëåëáéí åîåñø ìöéáåø àéï î÷áìéï îîðå åë''ù ùàéï î÷áìéï îîðå ÷øáðåú ùì òöîå
2. The verse teaches that even if a Nochri comes and hands over to the Tzibur, we do not accept from him, and [we should say that] all the more so we do not accept from him his own Korbanos;
åîéäå äùúà ãàùîòéðï àéù àéù ãî÷áìéï îäï ðãøéí åðãáåú îå÷îéðï ðîé ÷øà ááòìé îåîéï ëãàéúà áúîåøä (âí æä ùí)
3. However, now that Ish Ish teaches that we receive from them Nedarim and Nedavos, we establish also the verse of Ba'al Mum like it says in Temurah.
8) TOSFOS DH Iy l'R. Yosi ha'Gelili Afilu Yayin Nami
úåñôåú ã"ä àé ìøáé éåñé äâìéìé àôéìå ééï ðîé
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we cannot say that he permits only with a Zevach.)
åìà îöé ìîéîø ãééï ðîé ãàîø øáé éåñé äâìéìé ááà òí äæáç
(a) Implied question: Why can't we say that also wine that R. Yosi ha'Gelili said is with a Zevach?
çãà ãäëà îøáé ìéä îãëúéá ëëä åàéäå îøáé ìéä îìëì
(b) Answer #1: Here we include [Nesachim with a Zevach] from Kachah, and he includes [wine] from "l'Chol [Nidreihem ul'Chol Nidvosam]."
åòåã îãçùéá ìéä áäãé òåôåú åîðçåú ãáàéï áôðé òöîï
(c) Answer #2: He lists it with birds and Menachos, which are offered by themselves.
åòåã ãîøáéðï áøéùà úåãä åùìîéí
(d) Answer #3: We include first Todah and Shelamim. (If R. Yosi ha'Gelili includes wine with a Zevach, he should first include wine with an Olah, before other Korbanos!)
åáøéù úîåøä (ãó â.) îùîò [ãäà] ãàéï òåáã ëåëáéí îáéà ðñëéí îééøé ááàéï òí äæáç ãâøñéðï äúí ÷ãùé òåáãé ëåëáéí ìà ðäðéï åìà îåòìéï åàéï îáéàéï òìéäí ðñëéí
(e) Observation: In Temurah (3a), it connotes that "a Nochri does not bring Nesachim" refers to with a Zevach, for the text there says "Kodshei Nochrim - one may not benefit, but Me'ilah does not apply to them, and [we or they] do not bring Nesachim Aleihem (for them);
å÷àîø îðäðé îéìé åîééúé îáøééúà ãäëà
1. [The Gemara] says "what is the source of this?", and brings the Beraisa here! (Yashar v'Tov - it explains the Beraisa of "ha'Ezrach" excludes a Nochri from bringing Nesachim with his Zevach, and "Kachah" obligates Nesachim from the Tzibur. Our Sugya explains the Beraisa to discuss Nesachim without a Zevach.)
îéäå áøåá ñôøéí ìà âøñé' òìéäí àáì áñôø øáéðå âøùí ëúåá òìéäí
(f) Remark: However, in most Seforim the text does not say "Aleihem." (Rather, in Temurah it teaches that Nochrim do not bring Nesachim by themselves, but they must bring with their Korbanos.) However, in R. Gershom's Sefer it says "Aleihem".
åá÷åðè' ôé' ëàï åàéï äòåáã ëåëáéí îáéà ðñëéí áìà ÷øáï:
(g) Observation: Rashi explained here that a Nochri does not bring Nesachim without a Korban.