1) TOSFOS DH veha'Shekel Esrim Gerah

"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with the Targum.)

( ) ' ''

(a) Question: It is 24, for Gerah is Ma'ah, like it says "Esrim Gerah", and the Targum is Esrim Ma'in, and we hold that a Sela is four Dinarim, and six Ma'ah of silver is a Dinar. Behold, [a Shekel] is 24 [Gerah]!

'' '

(b) Answer #1 (R. Tam): They added [to the measures] twice. Once was in the days of Yechezkel. They added to the Maneh of Kodesh alone. It was 50 Sela'im, and they made it 60;

''

1. And later in the days of Chachamim, they added to the Sela. It was 20 Gerah, and they made it 24, and automatically the Maneh changed, both of Chulin and of Kodesh.

'' ' ''

(c) Answer #2: There was only one addition, which they added in the days of Yechezkel. And really, the Maneh of Chol is 25 Sela'im, and that of Kodesh is 30, but they increased the Sela by a sixth, and made it 24 Ma'os. The Maneh of Kodesh and Chol increased with it;

[" - ] '

1. The 60 Shekalim that the verse calculates are a Maneh Kodesh with the first Shekalim. The verse comes to teach that they increased the Maneh, until it contained of the first Shekalim...

('' ) [" - ] ' '' ''

2. The verse says as follows. The Kelim, which was initially 20 Gerah, of those Shekalim, 20, 25 and 15 (i.e. 60) will be the Maneh Kodesh for you.

(d) Implied question: Why did the Torah divide it - 20 Shekalim, 25 Shekalim, and 15 Shekalim, and did not write "60 Shekalim the Maneh will be for you"?

(e) Answer (R. Tam): It is because they had three weights - one of a third of a Maneh of Kodesh after it increased, one of a Maneh of Chol, and one of a quarter Maneh of Kodesh;

( ) [" - ]

(f) Proof: The Targum proves like this. It says "Sela is, 20 Ma'in. A third of a Maneh [Kodesh] is 20 Sela'im. A Maneh of Chol is 25 Sela'im. A quarter Maneh [Kodesh] is 15 Sela'im. All of them are 60; so will be the big Maneh Kodesh for you.

'

(g) Question: The last Perush is not so good, for a third of a Maneh and a quarter Maneh discuss a Maneh Kodesh, after it was increased, and Maneh Kaspa 25 Sela'im discusses a Chol Maneh - it is not a Chol Maneh after it was increased, rather, the original Chol Maneh!

:

(h) Remark: However, Rashi explained so in his Perush on Yechezkel.

77b----------------------------------------77b

2) TOSFOS DH v'Hikriv Mimenu Min ha'Mechubar

"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses what is considered connected.)

(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi): All of them are in one Kli when he takes Terumah.

( )

(b) Explanation #2: It seems that it only needs to be Mukaf (nearby), like Mimenu written regarding Terumah.

( .) '

(c) Support (for Explanation #1): Above (24a) it connotes like Rashi. We expound regarding a Minchah "v'Herim Mimenu b'Kumtzo" - from what is connected. He may not bring an Isaron in two Kelim and take Kemitzah.

'

(d) Observation: However, there we require also touching, like it says in that Sugya itself, that even in one Kli, if it did not touch, we ask there about an Isaron divided in a Bisa - may one take Kemitzah from this [part] on this. Is Tziruf mid'Oraisa or mid'Rabanan?

3) TOSFOS DH v'Al Yochichu Bikurim she'Yesh Achereihem Terumah

"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that likewise we cannot learn from Terumah Gedolah.)

(a) Observation: From this reason, also from Terumah Gedolah we cannot learn.

4) TOSFOS DH Mai Mechubar Ika

"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes that he asks why a verse is needed.)

''

(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi): The one who asked thought that first he dissects the meat, and afterwards he removes the Eimurim.

(b) Question: Still, he can bring them close, or in one Kli, like Rashi explained above!

:

(c) Explanation #2: He asks why a verse is needed. Obviously, it is attached!

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES ON THIS DAF