1) TOSFOS DH Mai Ka Mashma Lan... Miskaper Adam bi'Shevach Hekdesh
úåñôåú ã"ä îàé ÷îùîò ìï... îúëôø àãí áùáç ä÷ãù
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses R. Yochanan's reasoning.)
îùîò äëà ãôùéèà ìï ãàéú ìéä ìøáé éåçðï äê ñáøà
(a) Inference: Here it connotes that it is obvious to us that R. Yochanan holds like this.
åëï îùîò ðîé áôø÷ áúøà ãëøéúåú (ãó ëæ.) ãáòé øáé àìòæø àãí îúëôø áùáç ä÷ãù àå ìà àîø øáé éåçðï ëîä ùðéí âãì æä áéðéðå åìà ùîò äìëä æå îîðå
(b) Support: It connotes like this also in Kerisus (27a). R. Elazar asked "can one get Kaparah through Shevach (increase to) Hekdesh, or not?" R. Yochanan said "how many years did [R. Elazar] grow up among us, and he did not hear this Halachah from us!"
îëìì ãàîøä ø' éåçðï àéï åòì äãà àîøä ãúðï ååìã úåãä åúîåøúä ëå' åîééúé äê ãùîòúéï
1. Citation: Does this imply that R. Yochanan said [this Halachah]? Yes, and he said it about this. A Mishnah teaches that Vlad Todah and its Temurah... and it brings this of our Sugya.
åúéîä ãáúîåøä áô' ëéöã îòøéîéï (ãó ëä.) àîø øáé éåçðï äôøéù çèàú îòåáøú åéìãä øöä áä îúëôø øöä áååìãä îúëôø
(c) Question: In Temurah (25a), R. Yochanan said that if one separated a pregnant Chatas and it gave birth, if he wants, he atones through it (the mother). If he wants, he atones through its child.
îàé èòîà ÷ñáø ø' éåçðï àí ùééøä îùåééø òåáø ìàå éøê àîå äåà åäåä ìéä ëîôøéù ùúé çèàåú ìàçøéåú øöä áä îúëôø øöä áçáøúä
1. What is the reason? R. Yochanan holds that if one was Meshayer (was Makdish a pregnant animal, and stipulated that the fetus remain Chulin), it works, for Ubar Lav Yerech Imo (a fetus is like an independent animal. Now that he was Makdish also the fetus,) it is as if he was Makdish two Chata'os for Acharayus. If he wants, he atones through it (the first). If he wants, he atones through the other.
åîåúéá äúí ø' àìòæø åîñé÷ ëúðàé
2. R. Elazar asked a question there, and it concludes that Tana'im argue about this (whether or not one can be Meshayer).
åôøéê øáà îîàé ãèòîà ãø' éåçðï ãàí ùééøå îùåééø ãìîà äééðå èòîà ãøáé éåçðï ãàãí îúëôø áùáç ä÷ãù
3. Rava asked, what is the source that R. Yochanan's reason is because if he was Meshayer, it works? Perhaps R. Yochanan holds that one may atone through Shevach Hekdesh!
à''ì øá äîðåðà îëãé øáé àìòæø úìîéãéä ãø' éåçðï åéúéá ÷îéä ãø' éåçðï åìà àäãø ìéä äàé ùéðåéà åàú àîøú èòîà ãø' éåçðï îùåí ãàãí îúëôø áùáç ä÷ãù
4. Rav Hamnuna answered him "R. Elazar was R. Yochanan's Talmid, and sat in front of him, and R. Yochanan did not give this answer. How can you say that R. Yochanan's reason is because one may atone through Shevach Hekdesh?!"
ðøàä ìôøù ããåå÷à áçèàú öøéê ìåîø èòîà îùåí ãàí ùééøå îùåééø ãàí àéúà ãàéðå îùåééø îùåí ãòåáø éøê àîå ìà äéä îúëôø áùáç ä÷ãù îùåí ã÷ééîà ìï (îòéìä ãó é:) çîù çèàåú îúåú åìã çèàú ëå'
(d) Assertion: It seems that only regarding Chatas, one must say that the reason is because if he was Meshayer, it works, If it were true that it is not Meshuyar, because Ubar Yerech Imo, he could not get Kaparah through Shevach Hekdesh, for we hold (Me'ilah 10b) that in five cases, a Chatas must die - the child of a Chatas...
àáì äùúà ãòåáø ìàå éøê àîå äåà îúëôø áåìã ëáùúé çèàåú ìàçøéåú ãîé
1. However, now that Ubar Yerech Imo, he can get Kaparah through the child. This is like two Chata'os for Acharayus.
åäà ã÷ééîà ìï åìã çèàú îúä
(e) Implied question: We hold that the child of a Chatas must die!
îéúå÷îà áäôøéùä åàç''ë ðúòáøä
(f) Answer: We establish this when he separated it for a Chatas, and afterwards it became pregnant.
àáì áåìã úåãä îúëôø àôé' äôøéùä åàç''ë ðúòáøä ãàãí îúëôø áùáç ä÷ãù ëãàéúà äëà åáëøéúåú (ãó ëæ.)
(g) Distinction: However, regarding the child of a Todah, even if he separated it and afterwards it became pregnant (he may offer the child for his Chiyuv), for one may get Kaparah through Shevach Hekdesh, like it says here and in Kerisus (27a).
åîúééùáú áëê ùîòúà ãáñîåê àîø ùîåàì ëì ùáçèàú îúä áúåãä àéï èòåï ìçí åîñé÷ ùîåàì ëø''ù ñáéøà ìéä ãàîø çîù çèàåú îúåú åøåòä ìø''ù ìéú ìéä ëìì
(h) Support: This resolves our Sugya, for below Shmuel said that any case in which a Chatas must die, a Todah does not need bread. We conclude that Shmuel holds like R. Shimon, who said that five Chata'os must die, and he holds that there is no case at all in which it is Ro'eh;
åùîåàì îàé ÷îùîò ìï ìàôå÷é îãøáé éåçðï
1. Citation: What is Shmuel's Chidush? He teaches unlike R. Yochanan.
äà ùôéø àéú ìéä ìøáé éåçðï ðîé äàé ëììà ãàí àãí îúëôø áùáç ä÷ãù áúåãä äëé ðîé îúëôø áùáç ä÷ãù áçèàú åàéðä îúä áçèàú åìëê èòåðä ìçí (ëúåãä) [ö"ì áúåãä - öàï ÷ãùéí]
2. Implied question: Also R. Yochanan holds like this Klal, for if one can atone through Shevach Hekdesh regarding a Todah, likewise he can atone through Shevach Hekdesh regarding a Chatas, and it does not die. Therefore, [the Vlad] requires bread in a case of Todah.
àìà åãàé áçèàú àéï îúëôø áùáç ä÷ãù
3. Answer: Rather, surely regarding Chatas one cannot atone through Shevach Hekdesh.
ãàé ëùäôøéù çèàú îòåáøú
4. Implied suggestion: [Perhaps he can] when he separated a pregnant Chatas!
ääåà ìà îé÷øé ùáç ä÷ãù ìø' éåçðï ëéåï ãìàå éøê àîå äåà ãàí ùééøå îùåééø (ãäåä) [ö"ì åäåä - öàï ÷ãùéí] ìéä ëîôøéù ùúé çèàåú ìàçøéåú
5. Rejection: That is not called Shevach Hekdesh according to R. Yochanan, for he holds that Ubar Lav Yerech Imo. Had he been Meshayer [the fetus], it would be left over (Chulin) and he would be like one who was Makdish two Chata'os for Acharayus.
åàé áäôøéùä åàçø ëê ðúòáøä
6. Implied suggestion: [Perhaps he can atone through Shevach Hekdesh] if he separated it and afterwards it became pregnant!
äåä ìéä åìã çèàú îúä åàéï îúëôø áä
7. Rejection: That is Vlad Chatas, which dies, and he may not atone through it
åëéåöà áä áúåãú çåáä èòåðä ìçí ãîúëôø áùáç ä÷ãù
i. Culmination of Support: And in a corresponding case of Todas Chovah, it requires bread, for one may atone with Shevach Hekdesh!
åîéäå ÷öú ÷ùä ãì÷îï âáé îôøéù çèàú îòåáøú îñé÷ ãìîà àí ùééøå [ö"ì àéðå - éùø åèåá] îùåééø åèòîà ãø' éåçðï ã÷ñáø àãí îúëôø áùáç ä÷ãù
(i) Question: However, the wording below (81a) is somewhat difficult. Regarding one who separated a pregnant Chatas, we conclude "perhaps if he was Meshayer, it is not left over, and R. Yochanan holds that one can atone through Shevach Hekdesh"!
2) TOSFOS DH Ro'eh l'Rebbi Heichi Mishkachas Lah
úåñôåú ã"ä øåòä ìøáé äéëé îùëçú ìä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we ask about Rebbi.)
ãøáé àåùòéà àìéáà ãøáé àîøä ëãàéúà áúîåøä áôø÷ ååìã çèàú (ãó ëã.)
(a) Explanation: This is because R. Oshaya said according to Rebbi, like it says in Temurah (24a).
3) TOSFOS DH Hifrish Shtei Chata'os l'Achrayus Miskaper b'Achas Mehen
úåñôåú ã"ä äôøéù ùúé çèàåú ìàçøéåú îúëôø áàçú îäï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that he stipulated that only one of them be Kadosh.)
ìà áäôøéù áæå àçø æå ãàí ëï àéï îúëôø áùðéä åîúëôø áàçú îäï îùîò áàéæä ùéøöä
(a) Explanation: This does not discuss when he separated one after the other, for if so, he cannot atone with the latter, and "he atones with one of them" connotes whichever he wants;
åáîôøéù ááú àçú ðîé ìà àééøé ãëì ùàéðå áæä àçø æä àôéìå ááú àçú àéðå ëãàéúà áô' äàéù î÷ãù (÷ãåùéï ãó ð:)
1. Also, he does not discuss when he separates at once, for whatever cannot be one after the other, also at once it is not, like it says in Kidushin (50b)!
àìà ëâåï ãàîø úé÷ãåù àçú îäï îúåê äùúéí ëé ääéà ãìé÷ãùå àøáòéí îúåê ùîåðéí ãìòéì
2. Rather, the case is, he said that one of the two should be Kadosh, like the case of "40 of the 80 [loaves] should be Kadosh" above (78b).
àáì öøéê ìã÷ã÷ ãìà úé÷ùé àí àéï áøéøä
(b) Question: One must be meticulous lest it be difficult, if Ein Bereirah [how he can atone with one of them;
ãâáé úåãä ùùçèä òì ô' çìåú ìà ÷ùéà îáøéøä ëãôøéùéú ìòéì [ãó òç: ã''ä ìé÷ãùå]:
1. Regarding Todah slaughtered on 80 loaves, it is not difficult from Bereirah, like I explained above (78b DH Likadshu).
80b----------------------------------------80b
4) TOSFOS DH Kulhu Chalipin d'Hadadei Ninhu
úåñôåú ã"ä ëåìäå çìéôéï ãäããé ðéðäå
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses whether this pertains to other teachings of Abaye.)
àáéé ìèòîéä ãàîø ëé äàé âååðà áä÷åîõ øáä (ìòéì ãó ëã:) âáé òùøåï åëï áôø÷ ëìì âãåì (ùáú òà.) âáé ÷öø åèçï ëâøåâøú áùââú ùáú åæãåï îìàëåú
(a) Opinion #1: Abaye teaches like he taught elsewhere in such a case, above (24b) regarding an Isaron (in two parts and one was lost...), and similarly in Shabbos (71a) regarding one who reaped and grinded a Grogeres, forgetting that it is Shabbos and aware that these are Melachos.
åùîà àéï ùééê (àìà ìãîåú) [ö"ì ìãîåú àìà - áàøåú äîéí] äðê úøúé ãîãîé ìäå äëà úåãä åçèàú
(b) Opinion #2: Perhaps it is appropriate to compare only these two that we compare here, i.e. Todah and Chatas.
5) TOSFOS DH v'Chi Machnisin Chulin l'Azarah
úåñôåú ã"ä åëé îëðéñéï çåìéï ìòæøä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses what is forbidden due to Chulin b'Azarah.)
îöéðå ìîéîø ãøáé ìèòîéä ãàéú ìéä äëé ì÷îï áôø÷ áúøà (ãó ÷å.) âáé ôéøùúé îðçä ùì òùøåðåú åàéðé éåãò îä ôéøùúé
(a) Opinion #1: Rebbi holds like he taught elsewhere. He holds like this below (106a) regarding "I specified a Minchah of Esronim, and I do not know what I specified." (Chachamim permit him to bring 60 Esronim. Part is his vow, and the rest is Chulin. Rebbi forbids Chulin b'Azarah. Rather, he must bring Menachos of every size. One is his vow, and the rest are Nedavos.
àé ðîé àôéìå ìøáðï äúí àôùø ãîçåééá ëåìä åàôéìå àéðå îçåééá ëåìä éù ùí î÷öú ùäåà îçåééá àáì ëàï ùîà ëì äìçí çåìéï
(b) Opinion #2: Even according to Rabanan there, it is possible that he is totally obligated (he specified 60). And even if he is not totally obligated, there is part that he is obligated. However, here, perhaps all the bread is Chulin.
åàó òì âá ãàãí ðëðñ áîìáåùé çåì ìòæøä åîáéà ëáùúå ìòæøä åî÷ãéùä àçø ëê
(c) Implied question: One may enter the Azarah with his weekday clothing, and he brings his lamb to the Azarah and is Makdish it afterwards!
ìà àñøéðï ìäëðéñ çåìéï ìòæøä àìà äéëà ãàéëà ëòéï òáåãä ëé äëà åáéëåøéí ãôø÷ äîåëø àú äñôéðä (á''á ãó ôà:) ãàéëà (äâùä åúðåôä)
(d) Answer #1: We forbid entering Chulin b'Azarah only when there is something like Avodah, like here, and Bikurim in Bava Basra (81b) that there is Hagashah (according to Rabanan) and Tenufah [according to R. Eliezer ben Yakov. The Rashash there says that "Hagashah" is Hanachah near the Mizbe'ach.]
åëï çæä åùå÷ ãôø÷ äæøåò åäìçééí (çåìéï ÷ì.) ùéù úðåôä
1. And similarly [we are concerned for Chulin b'Azarah regarding] Chazah v'Shok in Chulin (130a), that there is Tenufah;
åëï ääéà ãôéøùúé åàéðé éåãò îä ôéøùúé
2. And similarly [we are concerned] in the case of "I specified [a Minchah of Esronim], and I do not know what I specified";
ëããøùéðï îä ùìé áùìê àñåø àó ùìê áùìé àñåø ãäééðå ëòéï òáåãä ãåîéà ãùìé áùìê
i. This is like we expound "just like Mine (Kodshim) in yours (outside the Mikdash) is forbidden, also yours in Mine (Chulin b'Azarah) is forbidden", i.e. like Avodah, similar to Mine in yours.
åäà ãôøéê ìòéì áä÷åîõ øáä (ãó ëà:) çåìéï ôùéèà îàé áòé äúí åîùðé ãàò''â ãàîø îø (éàëìåä) [ö"ì éàëìå - äøù"ù] ùéàëìå òîä çåìéï åúøåîä ëãé ùúäà ðàëìú òì äùåáò àôéìå äëé îìç ã÷ãùéí ìà éäáéðà ìäå
(e) Implied question: Above (21b) the Gemara asks [does Shmuel discuss using Kodesh salt to eat] Chulin? What is it doing there (in the Azarah)?!, and answers that even though it was taught "Yochlu", that they may eat with [Kodshim] Chulin and Terumah, so [Kodshim] will be eaten when one is satiated, even so we do not give to them Kodesh salt;
åôéøù ùí á÷åðèøñ ãçåõ ìòæøä éàëìå çåìéï åúøåîä åéëðñå åéàëìåí òì äùåáò
1. Rashi explained there that outside the Azarah they eat Chulin and Terumah, and enter and eat [Kodshim] when they are satiated.
åòì çðí ôéøù ëï ãéëåì ìàëåì äçåìéï òîä áòæøä ãúðï áôø÷ ëì äúãéø (æáçéí ö:) åëåìí øùàéï äëäðéí ìúú ìúåëï úáìé çåìéï åúøåîä åãøéù ìä áâîøà îãëúéá ìîùçä ìâãåìä
(f) Answer: There was no need for him to explain so. They may eat Chulin with [Kodshim] in the Azarah, for a Mishnah (Zevachim 90b) teaches "all of them, Kohanim may put in them spices of Chulin and Terumah";
åîä (ùúàîø) [ö"ì ùúîä] úçéìä ëì ëê áôùéèåú çåìéï îàé áòé äúí áãéï ÷à îúîä ãîàé áòéà àëéìú çåìéï áôðé òöîä áòæøä ãàéöèøéê ìîéîø ãìà éäáéðï ìäå îìç
1. What it initially asked so simply "what is Chulin doing there?!", it properly asked. Why is one eating Chulin by itself in the Azarah, that we need to say that we do not give to them salt?
åà''ú îàé ÷ùéà ìï äëà åáëîä ãåëúé îçåìéï áòæøä é÷ãéùä åéàîø ãàé ìàå úåãä äéà éäå ìáã÷ äáéú ëùàø ä÷ãùåú ùîáéàéí áòæøä
(g) Question #1: What was the difficulty here and in several places from Chulin b'Azarah? He should be Makdish it, and say "if it is not a Todah, it is for Bedek ha'Bayis", like other Hekdeshos that they bring to the Azarah!
ùäéä ùí âôï ùì æäá ùëì äîúðãá âøâéø îáéà åúåìä áä åàéï çéìå÷ áéï àåëìéí ìùàø ãáøéí
1. There was a gold vine, that anyone who volunteers a grape brings it and hangs it on it. There is no difference between food and other matters.
åáäãéà àîøé' áôø÷ äîåëø àú äñôéðä (á''á ãó ôà:) âáé ÷åðä ùúé àéìðåú ãîñô÷à àé ÷ðä ÷ø÷ò åîáéà áéëåøéí îñô÷ åî÷ãéùï ãìà ìéäåé çåìéï áòæøä åëé áòé ìîéëì ôøé÷ ìäå
2. It says explicitly in Bava Basra (81b) regarding one who buys two trees, that it is a Safek whether he acquired land, he brings Bikurim amidst Safek and is Makdish them, lest they be Chulin b'Azarah, and when he wants to eat them, he redeems them.
åëîå ëï ÷ùä áääéà ãôéøùúé åàéðé éåãò îä ôéøùúé
(h) Question #2: Similarly, it is difficult from "I specified, and I do not know what I specified"!
åé''ì ãìà ùøéðï äëé àìà âáé áéëåøéí ãìà äåå ëåìé äàé ëòéï ÷øáï àò''â ãàéëà (äâùä åúðåôä) ìø' àìéòæø áï éò÷á àáì ëàï áàéï òí äæáç
(i) Answer: We permit here only regarding Bikurim, which is not so much like a Korban, even though there is Hagashah and Tenufah according to R. Eliezer ben Yakov. However, here they come with the Zevach;
åáîðçä ùì òùøåðåú ðîé éù òîäï îðçä âîåøä åìà ùøéðï òì éãé ä÷ãù ìáã÷ äáéú
1. And regarding a Minchah of [60] Esronim (when he is not sure what he vowed), there is with them a proper Minchah (the amount he vowed), and we do not permit through Hekdesh to Bedek ha'Bayis.
åà''ú åäà ëé äàé âååðà ùøéðï ìòéì áô' äúëìú (ãó îç.) âáé ùçè ùðé ëáùéí òì ã' çìåú ãîåùê ùðéí îäï åîðéôí åäùàø ðàëìåú áôãéåï ãçåìéï îîéìà äåå
(j) Question: In such a case we permit above (48a) regarding one who slaughtered two lambs (Kivsei Atzeres) on four Chalos. He takes two of them and waves them, and the rest is eaten through redemption, for they become Chulin automatically. (He did not bring Chulin to the Azarah.)
åäëà ðîé àîø àé äê ã÷ééîà úåãä äéà äà ìçîä åàé ìà (ðéô÷å) [ö"ì ìéôå÷ - éùø åèåá] ìçåìéï çåìéï îîéìà äåééï
1. Likewise here, he says "if this that is alive is Todah, this is its bread. If not, it should go out to be Chulin." It becomes Chulin automatically!
åéù ìåîø ãìà ùøéðï ìäëðéñ ìëúçéìä îñô÷
(k) Answer: We do not permit to enter l'Chatchilah amidst Safek.
åäà ãùøéðï âáé ñô÷ îöåøò ìäáéà àùîå åìåâå åùøéðï ìäëðéñ ìåâ ùîï ìëúçéìä îèòí ãçåìéï îîéìà äåééï
(l) Implied question: We permit a Safek Metzora to bring his Asham and Log, and we permit to enter [more to complete the Shi'ur of] a Log of oil l'Chatchilah because it becomes Chulin automatically! (He stipulated that if he is not a Metzora, the oil is Nedavah, and he took a Kometz. He must bring more to complete the Shi'ur of a Log before doing the Haza'os and Matan Behonos. He stipulates that if he is not a Metzora, he is Makdish it with Kedushas Damim, and redeems it before Kohanim eat the Shirayim.)
äúí áèéì ìéä áäãé àéãê ùîï
(m) Answer: There, it is Batel amidst the other oil [which is Kadosh].
åäà ãìà ùøéðï îèòí áéèåì âáé ôéøùúé åàéðé éåãò îä ôéøùúé
(n) Implied question: Why don't we permit due to Bitul regarding "I specified, and I do not know what I specified"?
ãäúí ùùéí òùøåï ìà áèìé áçã
(o) Answer: There, 60 (really, up to 59) Esronim [of Chulin] are not Batel in one [Kadosh Isaron].
àáì àéï ìåîø îèòí ú÷åðé âáøà ùøé èôé âáé îöåøò
(p) Implied suggestion: Due to fixing a person (to permit him to Kodshim) we permit more for a [Safek] Metzora.
ãìà îñé÷ àãòúéä äàé èòîà òã äîñ÷ðà
(q) Rejection: [The Gemara] did not think of this until the conclusion.
åòåã é''ì (ãäúí) [ö"ì ãäëà - éùø åèåá] âáé úåãä ìà áòé ìîéîø ãî÷ãéù åôøé÷ âæéøä ùìà éàîøå éù ôãéåï ììçîé úåãä ëãàùëçï ìòéì ãâæéøä ùîà éàîøå îåöéàéï îëìé ùøú ìçåìéï
(r) Answer #2 (to Question (c)): Here regarding Todah, he does not want to say that he is Makdish and redeems. This is a decree lest people say that there is Pidyon for Lachmei Todah, like we find above (79b), a decree lest people say that what was in a Kli Shares goes out to be Chulin.
åëï áääéà ãô' áúøà (ì÷îï ÷å.) ùéëåì ìäéåú îðçä àçú çééùéðï ùîà éàîøå îåöéàéï îëìé ùøú ìçåìéï
(s) Support: Also below (106a), that it can be one Minchah, we are concerned lest they say that what was in a Kli Shares goes out to Chulin;
àáì áìåâ ùîï ùì îöåøò ãìéëà ùéòåø éãòé ãäà ãéù ìå ôãéåï îùåí ãàéï ÷ãåù ÷ãåùú äâåó
1. However, regarding the Log of oil of a Metzora, that there is no Shi'ur, they know that it has Pidyon because it does not have Kedushas ha'Guf. (Yashar v'Tov - they know that it has no Kedushas ha'Guf, for a Kli Shares is Mekadesh only a full Shi'ur.)
åëï áéëåøéí éãòé ãîùåí ñôé÷à äåà ãàéï áéëåøéí ðéôãéï ëúøåîåú åîòùøåú
2. Similarly, Bikurim, people know that it is due to Safek, for Bikurim cannot be redeemed, like Terumos and Ma'aseros.
åëï ùçè ùðé ëáùéí òì ã' çìåú éãò ãìà ÷ãùé àìà ùúéí
3. Similarly, if one slaughtered two lambs on four Chalos, people know that only two are Kadosh.
6) TOSFOS DH Amar Lei Levi l'Rebbi
úåñôåú ã"ä àîø ìéä ìåé ìøáé
(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes that Levi did not ask the first question.)
ôéøù á÷åðè' ìåé äééðå ìîéãéï )ãø' ÷îééúà) [ö"ì ìôðé øáé àìà ÷îééúà - éùø åèåá] àîø ìéä áéùéáú ùàø úìîéãéí åæå áéðå ìáéï òöîå
(a) Explanation (Rashi): Levi is "those who learn in front of Rebbi", just initially he said to him in the presence of the other Talmidim, and this he said between the two of them (alone).
åòì çðí ãç÷ ãáñåó ô''÷ ãñðäãøéï (ãó éæ:) àîøéðï ìîéãéï ìôðé çëîéí äééðå ìåé àáì ìîéãéï ìôðé øáé çëí àçø äéä [åòé' äéèá úåñ' îòéìä è: ã''ä äìîéãéï]:
(b) Objection: There was no need to say so. In Sanhedrin (18b) we say that "those who learn in front of Chachamim" is Levi, but "those who learn in front of Rebbi" was another Chacham. (See Tosfos Me'ilah 9b DH ha'Lemeidin).