1) TOSFOS DH Amar Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi Tihyenah Kesiv

úåñôåú ã"ä àîø øá éöç÷ áø àáãéîé úäééðä ëúéá

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses how we expound Tihyenah.)

ôéøåù éå''ã éúéøà ãøéù ãîùîò àúáéàå ÷àé ùãøùðå ìòéì ùëì ùàúä îáéà îî÷åí àçø ëæä

(a) Version #1: He expounds an extra Yud, which connotes that it refers to Tavi'u, which we explained above (77b) that whatever you bring from elsewhere is like this;

ãàé àùúé äìçí ÷àé ìà îöé ìîëúá éå''ã ãäà ùúéí ùðé òùøåðéí ëúéá

1. If it referred to Shtei ha'Lechem, it could not write Yud, for (this cannot be the Shi'ur, for) it is written "Shetayim Shnei Esronim"!

åôøéê åàéîà òùøä ÷ôéæé åîùðé àîø øáà áòùøåðåú ãáø äëúåá ôé' ëããøùé' îä [ö"ì ìäìï òùøåï ìçìä àó - éùø åèåá] ëàï òùøåï ìçìä

(b) Version #1 (cont.): [The Gemara] asks "I should say that it is 10 Kefizim (each is three Lugim)!" Rava answers that the verse discusses Esronim. This is like we expound (77b) "just like there it is an Isaron per Chalah, also here it is an Isaron per Chalah."

åá÷åðè' ëúá áñôø îåâä ùìå ìà âøñé' ÷ôéæé àîø øáà åä''â àîø øá éöç÷ úäééðä òùøä [ö"ì òùøåðåú - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã] ãáø äëúåá

(c) Version #2: Rashi wrote that in his corrected Sefer the text does not say "Kefizi. Amar Rava..." Rather, the text says "Rav Yitzchak said Tihyenah - the verse discusses 10 Esronim."

åé''ñ ãìà ëúéá áäå ëìì é' òùøåðåú ãéáø äëúåá åâøñé' àîø øá éöç÷ áø àáãéîé úäééðä ëúéá åúå ìà

(d) Version #3: In some texts, it is not written at all "the verse discusses 10 Esronim." the text says only 'Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi said, it is written "Tihyenah".'

ôé' ãîùîò ãàúà ìîòåèé åìîéîø àìå ãå÷à ùðé òùøåðéí åàéï äììå ùðé òùøåðéí

1. Explanation: This implies that it comes to exclude, and say that only these (Shtei ha'Lechem) are two Esronim, and these (Chametz in Lachmei Todah) are not two Esronim.

åîéäå ÷ùä ëéåï ãàé ìà ëúéá úäééðä ìà äééúé éåãò ìòðéï îä àîø äëúåá ëì ùàúä îáéà îî÷åí àçø ëæä

(e) Question: Since had it not written Tihyenah, I would not know regarding what the Torah said "whatever you bring from elsewhere is like this"...

àé ìòðéï ùéäà òùøåï ìçìä ëáùúé äìçí åäåé ìäå é' òùøåðåú ãîä ðôùê àéëà (òùøåï ìçìåú) [ö"ì òùø çìåú - öàï ÷ãùéí] îùåí úøåîä

1. If it is for an Isaron per Chalah, like Shtei ha'Lechem, and there are 10 Esronim, for no matter what you will say, there are 10 Chalos, due to Terumah...

àå ìòðéï ìîéîø ãîä àìå ùðé òùøåðéí àó ìäìï ùðé òùøåðéí ìéå''ã çìåú

2. Or, if it is to say that just like these are two Esronim, also there it is two Esronim for 10 Chalos...

àí ëï äùúà ãëúéá úäééðä îä øàéú ããøùú ìîéîø àìå ãåå÷à ùðé òùøåðéí àéîà àìå ãåå÷à (á' òùøåðéí) òùøåï ìçìä

3. [Since I would not know which,] now that it is written Tihyenah, why do you expound it to say that only these are two Esronim? Say that only these are one Isaron per Chalah!

åìâéøñú ä÷åðè' ðîé ÷ùä ãéå''ã ìà îééúøà ìãøùà ãëîå ùéàîø îúòùä ìùåï éçéã úòùéðä ìùåï øáéí ëîå ëï éàîø îúäéä úäééðä áùðé éåãéï éå''ã àçú ùì òé÷ø åéå''ã àçú ùì ùéîåù

(f) Question #1: Also Rashi's text is difficult, for the Yud is not extra for a Drashah, for just like one says from the singular "Ta'aseh", the plural is Ta'asenah, likewise from [the singular] "Tihyeh" [the plural is] Tihyenah, with two Yud's - one Yud is for the root, and one Yud is for the use (to make it plural)!

åòåã àé îéå''ã éìôéðï òùø (çìåú) [ö"ì òùøåðåú - öàï ÷ãùéí] ìîä ìï â''ù ãúøåîú îòùø äà ëéåï ãàîø øçîðà àçã îëì ÷øáï åãøùéðï (ìòéì ãó òæ.) àçã ùìà éèåì ôøåñä åìîãðå òùøåï ìçìä òì ëøçéï àçã îé' ðåèì

(g) Question #2: Also, if we learn from 10 Esronim from the Yud, why do we need the Gezeirah Shavah of Terumas Ma'aser? Since the Torah said one from every Korban, and we expound (above, 77a) "one", that he does not take a piece, and we learned an Isaron per Chalah, you are forced to say that he takes one from 10!

2) TOSFOS DH Heimenu v'Davar Acher

úåñôåú ã"ä äéîðå åãáø àçø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos gives three explanations of this.)

ôé' á÷åðè' ëìåîø áéï îä ùëúá áâåôå áéï îä ùìîã îãáø àçø ðô÷à ìéä ãòùø òùøåðåú äåà

(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi): Both what is written about [Chametz in Todah] itself, and what is learned from elsewhere, we learn 10 Esronim;

ãáãéãéä ëúéá úäééðä ãîùîò òùø çìåú ãäà (àúáéàå) [ö"ì àúåãä - éùø åèåá] ÷àé åìäëé âîø (àùúé) [ö"ì îùúé - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã, - öàï ÷ãùéí] äìçí ãòùøåï éäà áëì çìä äìëê ìàå äé÷ù äåà åéëåì ìçæåø åììîã òì äîöä ãòùø òùøåðåú äåà

1. It is written about [Chametz in Todah] itself Tihyenah, which connotes 10 Chalos, for [Tihyenah] refers to Todah. Therefore we learn from Shtei ha'Lechem that there is an Isaron in each Chalah. Therefore, it is not a Hekesh, and it can return to teach about Matzah, that it is 10 Esronim.

åäéëé ãîé äé÷ù âîåø ëâåï àé ìàå äåä ëúéá áúåãä òùø ìâîøé åáùúé äìçí äåå òùøä òùøåðåú åéìôé îäããé ääåà äåé äé÷ù âîåø

2. What is the case of a pure Hekesh? E.g. had it written about Todah 10 absolutely, and in Shtei ha'Lechem there were 10 Esronim, and we learn them from each other, this is a full Hekesh.

åôé' æä éúééùá ìôé âéøñà ãìòéì àáì ìàéãê âéøñà ãìà ãøùéðï éå''ã ãúäééðä ìà éúëï

(b) Observation: This Perush is resolved according to the text above (Versions #1,2 in the previous Dibur). However, according to the other text (Version #3), that we do not expound the Yud in Tihyenah, this cannot be!

åáñåó àéæäå î÷åîï (æáçéí ðæ.) ôé' á÷åðè' ãçùéá äéîðå îä ùàðå ìîãéï îúøåîú îòùø áâ''ù îðéï äçìåú ããáø äìîã áâ''ù çùéá ëëúåá áâåôéä îùåí ã÷é''ì ãáø äìîã áâ''ù çåæø åîìîã áäé÷ù

(c) Explanation #2 (Rashi in Zevachim 57a): It is considered "from it and another matter" that we learn from Terumas Ma'aser, through a Gezeirah Shavah, the number of Chalos, for something learned from a Gezeirah Shavah is considered written in the matter itself, for we hold that something learned from a Gezeirah Shavah returns to teach through a Hekesh;

ò''é ëê àðå éåãòéí ùéù é' òùøåðåú ëãéìôéðï îäé÷ùà ãùúé äìçí ãäåé òùøåï ìçìä

1. Through this we know 10 Esronim, like we learn from the Hekesh of Shtei ha'Lechem, which is an Isaron per Chalah.

åòåã éù ìôøù îùåí ãúøåîú îòùø çåìéï äåà çùéá ëëúéáä áâåôééäå

(d) Explanation #3: Because Terumas Ma'aser is Chulin, it is considered like something written in the matter itself (for it can return to teach through a Hekesh).

3) TOSFOS DH Achas l'Himashcho l'Chavitim v'Achas l'Chinucho l'Avodas Kohen Gadol

úåñôåú ã"ä àçú ìäîùçå ìçáéúéí åàçú ìçðåëå ìòáåãú ëäï âãåì

(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes that we do not discuss on Yom Kipur.)

îø áø çééà àîø ùìù ëãîñé÷ áùìà òáã òáåãä ëùäåà äãéåè ãàéëà àçú ìçðåëå ìòáåãú ëäï äãéåè åàçú ìçðåëå ìòáåãú ë''â åàçú ìçáéúéï

(a) Explanation #1: Mar bar Chiya said three, like we conclude, when he did not do Avodah when he is a commoner, for there is one for his inauguration for Avodas Kohen Hedyot, and one for his Chinuch for Avodas Kohen Gadol, and one for Chavitim.

åéù îôøùéí ëâåï ùòîã áéåí äëéôåøéí ãàéëà òáåãú éåí äëéôåøéí áëäï âãåì

(b) Explanation #2: The case is that he began [to serve] on Yom Kipur, that there is Avodas Yom Kipur through the Kohen Gadol.

åìà îéìúà äéà ãäà ÷øáï éçéã àéï ÷øá áéåí äëéôåøéí

(c) Rebuttal: A Korban Yachid is not offered on Yom Kipur!

åáôø÷ ÷îà ãéåîà (ãó éá.) áòé àí àéøò ôñåì áëäï âãåì áîä îçðëéï àú äùðé áéåí äëéôåøéí

(d) Support (for Rebuttal): In Yoma (12a) it asks, if a Pesul occurred to the Kohen Gadol, how do we inaugurate the second (who substitutes for him) on Yom Kipur. (If one may bring Chavitim for Chinuch on Yom Kipur, there is no question!)

4) TOSFOS DH Ein bi'Chlal Ela Mah shebi'Frat

úåñôåú ã"ä àéï áëìì àìà îä ùáôøè

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Torah wrote the Klal.)

áëì î÷åí ùéù ëìì åôøè øâéì øáéðå ùîåàì ìôøù ãàéöèøéê øçîðà ìîëúá äëìì ùìà ðøáä ãáø äãåîä ìôøè

(a) Explanation: Wherever there is Klal u'Ferat, the Rashbam used to explain that the Torah needed to write the Klal, lest we include something that resembles the Prat.

åëï îåëéç ëàï ãàé ìàå ãäåä ëìì åôøè îùîò äëà ãäåä éìôéðï øáåëä îìçîé úåãä:

(b) Support: So it is proven here. If not that it were a Klal u'Ferat, it connotes that we would have learned Revuchah from Lachmei Todah.

78b----------------------------------------78b

5) TOSFOS DH v'Lo Ba'inan Al b'Samuch

úåñôåú ã"ä åìà áòéðï òì áñîåê

(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with the Gemara above.)

úéîä äà òã ëàï ìà ôìéâé øáé åøáðï áñåó ëì äîðçåú [áàåú îöä] (ìòéì ãó ñá.) àìà àé áòéðï òì áñîåê àå òì

(a) Question: We find that Rebbi and Rabanan argue (above, 62a) only about whether we require "Al" close, or literally on!

åé''ì ãäëà ìà ãîé ìääéà [ãäúí] ãúðåôä ãùúé äìçí ëòéï ä÷øáúï

(b) Answer: Here is different. There, Tenufah of Shtei ha'Lechem is like their Hakravah (no other Avodah is done with them, just Kohanim eat them. Shitah Mekubetzes fixes the text to say "we require like their Hakravah", i.e. of Kivsei Atzeres that accompany it);

àáì äëà áùçéèä ãìî÷ãù ìçí áòìîà [àúé] ìéëà ìîéçù àìà ùéäà äìçí ÷ééí åëï ùåçè òì çîõ ëã÷àîø áñîåê ãëì äéëà ãàéúéä áàéñåøéä ÷àé

1. However, here, in Shechitah, it comes merely to be Mekadesh the bread. There is no concern, only that the bread is intact. And similarly Shechitah Al Chametz, like we say below, that wherever it is, it is in its Isur.

6) TOSFOS DH l'Echad mi'Bnei Chaburah

úåñôåú ã"ä àå ìàçã îáðé çáåøä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this is one of the group who will eat Korban Pesach.)

àôñç ÷àé àáì (ñúîéä) [ö"ì àúîéã - ùéèä î÷åáöú, öàï ÷ãùéí] ôùéèà ãìà îéçééá îùåí àçã ùáéùøàì

(a) Explanation: This refers to Pesach, but for the Tamid, obviously he is not lashed for someone in Yisrael (who has Chametz).

7) TOSFOS DH Porsah v'Ein Chutin Nimshachin Heimenah

úåñôåú ã"ä ôåøñä åàéï çåèéï ðîùëéï äéîðä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos equates this to another Shi'ur taught elsewhere.)

ðøàä ãëé äàé âååðà òã ùé÷øîå ôðéä ãô''÷ ãùáú (ãó éè:)

(a) Assertion: It seems that this is the same Shi'ur as "until its faces formed a crust" in Shabbos (19b).

8) TOSFOS DH Likadshu Arba'im mi'Toch Shemonim

úåñôåú ã"ä ìé÷ãùå àøáòéí îúåê ùîåðé'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with R. Yochanan's opinion in Gitin.)

àò''â ãøáé éåçðï ìéú ìéä áøéøä áøéù ëì äâè (âéèéï ëä.)

(a) Implied question: R. Yochanan holds that Ein Bereirah, in Gitin (25a)!

äééðå äéëà ëùîúáøø ìáñåó ãìàå ëìåí òáéã àáì äëà ÷ãùé ëì äéëà ãàéúðäå

(b) Answer: That is when it is clarified at the end that he did not do anything. However, here they are Kadosh wherever they are. (Yashar v'Tov, based on Tosfos Eruvin 50b DH u'Mar - here, it is not a problem even if we say that one cannot clarify later which he was Mekadesh);

åëùáà ìäôøéù ã' çìåú ùì úøåîä öøéê ìäôøéù é''à çìåú îëì îéï åîéï ãàé ìàå äëé ëéåï ãàéï áøéøä ãìîà ãçåìéï ÷à ù÷éì:

1. And when he comes to separate four loaves of Terumah, he must separate 11 Chalos from each kind. If not, since Ein Bereirah, perhaps he takes [only] Chulin!

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES ON THIS DAF