1) TOSFOS DH Shomrei Sefichim ba'Shevi'is
úåñôåú ã"ä ùåîøé ñôéçéí áùáéòéú
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses why we may offer the Omer from what was guarded.)
åà''ú äéàê òåîø áà îï äîùåîø äà áòéðï (éçæ÷àì îä) îîù÷ä éùøàì
(a) Question: How can the Omer come from Meshumar (what was guarded in Shemitah)? We require "mi'Mashkeh (what is permitted to) Yisrael"!
åáñåó éáîåú (ãó ÷ëá. åùí) îåëç ãàñåø âáé òåáã ëåëáéí ùäéä îåëø ôéøåú áùå÷ åàîø ôéøåú äììå ùì òøìä äï ùì òæ÷ä äï ùì ðèò øáòé äï ìà àîø ëìåí
1. And in Yevamos (122a) it is proven that [Meshumar] is forbidden, regarding a Nochri who was selling Peros in the market, and he said 'these Peros are Orlah, or of Azeka (a place where fruits were Meshumar), or it is Neta Revai (fourth year produce), his words have no effect;
åôé' á÷åðè' áùí øáåúéå ùì òøìä äï ôéøåú ðèéòåú äï åéùðï îùåáçéí îôéøåú àéìï æ÷ï ùì òæ÷ä äï îôøãñ îòåæ÷ åâãø ìå ñáéá åäéà ùðú ùáéòéú
2. Explanation #1 (Rashi citing his Rebbeyim): "Of Orlah" - they are Peros of young trees, and they are better than Peros of an old tree. "Of Azeka" is an orchard surrounded by a fence [to guard it], and it is the Shemitah year;
ìà àîø ëìåí ìàåñøí òì ëê àìà äìê àçø äøåá ùæä îù÷ø åìäùáéç î÷çå îúëåéï åëï áðèò øáòé ìäåãéò ùôéøåú ðèéòä äï
i. His words have no effect to forbid them due to this. Rather, we follow the majority. He lies; he intends to praise what he sells. And similarly, Neta Revai is to inform that they are Peros of a young tree.
åä÷ùä á÷åðèø' îä àéñåø éù ëàï àí òáø æîï äáéòåø ìà ùðà îï äîùåîø åìà ùðà îï äîåô÷ø àñåøéï å÷åãí äæîï àìå åàìå îåúøéï
3. Question (Rashi): What Isur [of Shemitah] is there? If the time of Bi'ur passed, there is no difference between Meshumar and Hefker. They are forbidden. And before the time, both are permitted!
åôé' ãäàé òæ÷ä ùí òéø ùáà''é ëãëúéá (éäåùò é) åéëí òã òæ÷ä åôéøåúéä îùåáçéí
4. Explanation #2 (Rashi): Azeka is the name of a city in Eretz Yisrael, like it says "va'Yakem Ad Azeka", and its fruits were good. (According to this, Tosfos' question is not a question. However, Tosfos does not hold like Rashi.)
åàí äéä òåáã ëåëáéí æä áçåöä ìàøõ åîùáç ìàîø îòæ÷ä äáàúéí àéï çåùùéï ìåîø àîú ãáøéå åùîà ìà ðúòùøå åéùøàì îëøí ìå àìà ìäùáéç î÷çå àåîø ëï
i. And if this Nochri was in Chutz la'Aretz and he praises [his Peros] to say "I brought them from Azeka", we are not concerned to say that his words are true and perhaps they were not tithed and a Yisrael sold them to him. Rather, he said so to praise what he sells.
åáòøåê ôéøù ùì òæ÷ä ôéøåú ùáéòéú ùðçøùå áùáéòéú ëìåîø ìà úäà ñáåø ùáùãä áåø âãìå àìà ðçøù éôä åðòæ÷ ëîå (éùòéä ä) åéòæ÷äå åëï òåæ÷ úçúéäï ùì æéúéí ãì÷îï (ãó ôä:) ôé' çåôø åîùìéê àáðéí
5. Explanation #3 (Aruch): "Of Azeka" is Peros Shemitah [of a field] that was plowed in Shemitah. I.e. do not think that they grew in a field left barren. Rather, it was plowed nicely and Niz'ak, like "va'Y'azkehu" and "he was Ozek underneath olive trees" below (85b). I.e. he digs and casts away rocks;
åòì åéòæ÷äå ã÷øà ôéøù ãéù îôøùéï äñáéáå âãø ëèáòú (úøâåí) [ö"ì ùúøâåí - öàï ÷ãùéí] òéæ÷à
i. Regarding va'Y'azkehu of the verse, he said that some explain that it was surrounded with a fence like a ring, for the Targum [of Taba'as] is Izka.
åøáéðå úí î÷ééí ôéøåù øáåúéå ãòæ÷ä ìùåï âãø ëîå åéòæ÷äå åéñ÷ìäå åëï áéú éòæ÷ äéúä ð÷øàú ãúðï áø''ä (ãó ëâ:) åáúåñôúà (ô''ä ããîàé) ðîé âøñéðï òæ÷ ëìåîø ôéøåú îùåîøéí åàñåøéï áùáéòéú
6. Support (for Explanation #1 - R. Tam): Azeka is an expression of a fence, like "va'Y'azkehu va'Ysakelehu." It was also called Beis Ya'azek, for a Mishnah (Rosh Hashanah 23b) and also a Tosefta (Demai 5:2) have the text Ezek, i.e. guarded Peros, and they are forbidden in Shemitah;
ëããøùéðï áúåøú ëäðéí àú òðáé ðæéøéê ìà úáöåø îï äîùåîø àé àúä áåöø àáì àúä áåöø îï äîåô÷ø
i. This is like we expound in Toras Kohanim "Es Invei Nezirecha Lo Sivtzor" - you do not harvest from Meshumar, but you harvest from what was made Hefker.
åàîøéðï áôø÷ ìåìá äâæåì (ñåëä ìè:) áîä ãáøéí àîåøéí áìå÷ç îï äîåô÷ø àáì áìå÷ç îï äîùåîø àôéìå áëçöé àéñø àñåø
ii. And we say in Sukah (39b) "what is the case? This refers to one who takes from what was made Hefker, but if one takes from Meshumar, even the size of a half Isar [coin], it is forbidden.
åá÷åðè' ôéøù ùí ëéåï ãçùåã ìùîåø çùåã ìäðéç ãîéí ìàçø äáéòåø
iii. Rashi explained there that since he is suspected to guard, he is suspected to leave money (received for Peros Shemitah) after the time for Bi'ur (of those Peros. Since Rashi permits Meshumar, he needed to find a reason to forbid.)
å÷ùä ìôé' ãàí äåä çùåã àôé' îï äîåô÷ø ðîé
iv. Question #1: If he was suspected, even from what was Hefker [should be forbidden! Eizehu Mekoman - we should not buy from him even what he says was Hefker. Maharsha Sukah 39b - "guarded" and "Hefker" refer to species that are normally guarded or Hefker. Yashar v'Tov - Tosfos asks why Rashi forbids only if there are two Rei'usos - he is suspected, and it was guarded.]
åòåã ÷úðé äúí äôéâí åäøéáåæéï ëåìí ðì÷çéï îëì àãí áùáéòéú ìôé ùàéï ëéåöà áäï ðùîø åàé èòîà îùåí ãçùåã ìäðéç ãîéí àçø äáéòåø àôé' äðé ðîé
v. Question #2: It was taught there that rue and sorrel (species of vegetables)..., all of them one may buy from anyone in Shevi'is, because such things are not guarded. If he suspected to leave money after Zman ha'Bi'ur, even these [should be forbidden]!
àìà åãàé îùåîø àñåø áàëéìä åà''ë äéëé ùøéà äëà ìäáéà òåîø îñôéçéí äîùåîøéí äà áòéðï îîù÷ä éùøàì îï äîåúø ìéùøàì
(b) Recap of question: Rather, surely Meshumar is forbidden to eat. If so, how is it permitted here to bring the Omer from Meshumar Sefichim? We require "mi'Mashkeh Yisrael" - what is permitted to Yisrael"!
åàéï ìåîø îùåí ãëúéá ìãåøåúéëí ëãáñîåê
1. Implied suggestion: "L'Doroseichem" (teaches that we bring it every year), like below.
ãäà éëåì ìäáéà îï äîåô÷ø
2. Rejection: One can bring from Hefker!
åéù ìåîø ãîãàåøééúà áöéøä ãåå÷à àñåø àáì áàëéìä ùøé ã÷øà áúåøú ëäðéí ááöéøä îééøé åìà áàëéìä
(c) Answer: Mid'Oraisa, only harvesting [Meshumar] is forbidden, but eating is permitted. The verse in Toras Kohanim discusses harvesting, and not eating;
åáôø÷ ÷îà ãîåòã ÷èï (ãó â.) ðîé àîøéðï îëãé æîéøä )úåìãä ãæøéòä äéà æîéøä ãëúá) [ö"ì áëìì ãæøéòä åáöéøä áëìì ÷öéøä ìîàé äìëúà ëúáéðäå - éùø åèåá] øçîðà ìîä ìé
(d) Support: Also in Mo'ed Katan (3a) we say "pruning is included in seeding, and harvesting grapes is included in harvesting. Why did the Torah write them?" (Yad Binyamin - R. Tam learned from the extra Isur that even abnormal harvesting is forbidden, i.e. for it is forbidden to eat. The Gemara connotes unlike this!)
åòåã éù ìôøù ãùåîøé ñôéçéí ãäëà ìà äéå îåðòéí áðé àãí îìé÷ç àáì äéå îåãéòéï ìäï åäí ôåøùéï îàìéäï
(e) Answer #2: Those who guarded Sefichim here, they did not stop people from taking. However, they informed them [that they were intended for the Omer], and people refrained by themselves.
àé ðîé ÷öéøê åðæéøê àîø øçîðà ãéãê àéï åìà ùì ä÷ãù
(f) Answer #3: The Torah said "Ketzircha... Nezirecha" - yours (Meshumar for your needs), yes (one may not eat or harvest), but not of Hekdesh.
åîäàé èòîà ùøéà ÷öéøä
(g) Explanation #1: This is why harvesting [for the Omer] is permitted.
àé ðîé ÷öéøä ùøé îùåí ãëúéá ìãåøåúéëí ãäà àôé' ùáú ãçé ìø' àìòæø áø' ùîòåï ãñåó ôø÷ ø' éùîòàì (ìòéì òá.)
(h) Explanation #2: The Torah permitted harvesting [normally, without a Shinuy], for it is written l'Doroseichem. Even on Shabbos is permitted according to R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon above (72a, i.e. normally, which the Torah forbids elsewhere on Shabbos. Taharas ha'Kodesh - above, Tosfos said that one could fulfill l'Doroseichem through Hefker. However, one may not harvest normally even from Hefker.)
åà''ú åìø''ò ãàîø (ôñçéí ãó ðà:) ñôéçéï àñåøéï äà áòéðï îîù÷ä éùøàì
(i) Question: According to R. Akiva, who said (Pesachim 51b) that Sefichim are forbidden, we require "mi'Mashkeh Yisrael" (and this is not fulfilled)!
ìàå ôéøëà äéà ãáùàø ùðéí ðîé ìàå îîù÷ä éùøàì äåà åùøééä øçîðà ãàîøé' áô''÷ (ìòéì ä:) îùåí ãîöååúä áëê ùàðé áùáéòéú ðîé ìø''ò äøé îöååúä áëê
(j) Answer: This is not difficult. Also in other years it is not "mi'Mashkeh Yisrael" (for it is Chadash), and the Torah permitted it, for we said above (5b) that when this is its Mitzvah, it is different ("mi'Mashkeh Yisrael" does not apply). Also in Shevi'is according to R. Akiva, this is the Mitzvah [to bring from Sefichim, even though it is not "mi'Mashkeh Yisrael".]
2) TOSFOS DH Rachmana Amar l'Doroseichem v'At Amrat Tivatel
úåñôåú ã"ä øçîðà àîø ìãåøåúéëí åàú àîøú úéáèì
(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with the Gemara in Bechoros.)
ä÷ùä øáéðå úí ãàîøéðï áñåó ô' ÷îà ãáëåøåú (ãó éá: åùí) áäîú ùáéòéú ôèåøä îï äáëåøä ìàëìä àîø øçîðà åìà ìùøéôä
(a) Question (R. Tam): We say in Bechoros (12b) that an animal of Shevi'is is exempt from Bechorah. The Torah said "Le'achlah", and not to burn (the Eimurim);
åôøéê îäàåëì îòéñú ùáéòéú ùìà äåøîä çìúä çééá îéúä àîàé ëéåï ãàéìå îéèîéà áú ùøéôä äéà åøçîðà àîø ìàëìä åìà ìùøéôä
1. [The Gemara] asks from [a Mishnah] one who eats from a Shemitah dough before separating Chalah is Chayav Misah (b'Yedei Shamayim). What is the reason? If [the dough] was Tamei, [the Chalah] would have to be burned. We should say that the Torah said "to eat", and not to burn!
åîùðé ùàðé äúí ãëúéá ìãåøåúéëí åôøéê åðéâîø îéðéä åîùðé äëà îòé÷øà ìàëéìä äëà îòé÷øà ìùøéôä
2. It answers that there (Chalah) is different, for it is written l'Doroseichem. It asks that we should learn from [Chalah to Bechorah] and answers that here (Chalah), l'Chatchilah it is for eating. Here (Bechor), l'Chatchilah [Eimurim] are to be burned.
åäùúà àëúé ðéìó îîðçú äòåîø ãîòé÷øà ìùøéôä
3. Summation of question: Still, we should learn from Minchas ha'Omer. Initially [the Kometz] is to be burned!
åé''ì îä ìòåîø ùëï öéáåø åãåçä ùáú åèåîàä
(b) Answer #1: One cannot learn from the Omer, for it is of the Tzibur, and it is Docheh Shabbos and Tum'ah.
åòåã ùàðé òåîø ãîöåúå áëê åìà îé÷ééîà îöåúå àìà áùì ùáéòéú
(c) Answer #2: The Omer is different, for this is its Mitzvah. One can fulfill its Mitzvah [in Shemitah] only through [Peros] Shemitah.
åðéçà ðîé ùúé äìçí äáàåú áôðé òöîï áùáéòéú ìîàï ãàîø ãìùøéôä ÷àúééï áôø÷ äúëìú (ìòéì ãó îå:)
(d) Support: This answers also for Shtei ha'Lechem brought by themselves (without Kivsei Atzeres) in Shevi'is, according to the opinion that they are burned (above, 46b).
3) TOSFOS DH Ba'ina Karmel v'Leika
úåñôåú ã"ä áòéðà ëøîì åìéëà
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this is unlike R. Yosi b'Ribi Yehudah.)
úéîä åìø' éåñé áø ø' éäåãä ðééúé îçåöä ìàøõ
(a) Question: According to R. Yosi b'Ribi Yehudah [who permits from Chutz la'Aretz, in Shemitah] we should bring from Chutz la'Aretz!
åùîà äê áøééúà ãìà ëååúéä
(b) Answer: Perhaps this Beraisa is unlike him.
4) TOSFOS DH Alma d'Shtei ha'Lechem Mishum Bikurim Hu
úåñôåú ã"ä àìîà ãùúé äìçí îùåí áëåøéí äåà
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses for whom this is difficult.)
ãáëåøéí áòéðï åä''ä ìòåîø ãäà áëåøéí ðîé ëúéá áéä åäééðå ëø''à å÷ùä ìøáé éåçðï ëê ôéøù á÷åðèøñ
(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi): We require [that Shtei ha'Lechem be] Bikurim (the first of their species). The same applies to the Omer, for Bikurim is written also about it. This is like R. Elazar, and unlike R. Yochanan.
åðøàä ãìúøåééäå ôøéê ãäà øáé àìòæø ôéøù èòîà îùåí ãëúéá øàùéú ÷öéøê åìà ñåó ÷öéøê
(b) Explanation #2: It seems that this challenges both of them, for R. Elazar explained the reason is due to "Reishis Ketzircha", and not the end of your harvest.
åàí úàîø åîàé èòîà äåé úéåáúà ìéîà ãçã ìîöåä åçã ìòëá
(c) Question: Why is this a refutation? He can say that one [verse] teaches a Mitzvah, and one teaches that it is Me'akev!
åéù ìåîø ãúøé áëåøéí ëúéá:
(d) Answer: It says "Bikurim" twice. (We can learn Ikuv without "Reishis Ketzircha.")
84b----------------------------------------84b
5) TOSFOS DH Shevach Eretz
úåñôåú ã"ä ùáç àøõ
(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes that this is the seven species.)
àéï ìôøù îîåáçø ùáôéøåú àôéìå ëåìí îáéú äáòì
(a) Implied suggestion: [One brings] from choice Peros, even if all of them are from Beis ha'Ba'al (a field that need not be irrigated; rain suffices for it.)
ãîîáçø ðãøéëí ðô÷à ëãúðé' áúåñôú' (ô''è)
(b) Rejection: We [exclude this] from Mivchar Nidreichem, like the Tosefta (9:2) teaches!
àìà ëîå ùôé' á÷åðè' ùáç àøõ ùáòú äîéðéí
(c) Explanation: Rather, it is like Rashi explained. "Shevach ha'Aretz" is the seven species.
6) TOSFOS DH Eretz me'Eretz Lo Mashma Lei
úåñôåú ã"ä àøõ îàøõ ìà îùîò ìéä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why above, all expound the prefix Mem.)
ãìà ãîé ìîàìä ããøùéðï ìòéì áôø÷ ëì äîðçåú áàåú îöä (ãó ñ:)
(a) Implied question: Why is this unlike "me'Eleh", which we expound above (60b)?
ãäëà ìà îöé ìîëúá àùø úáéà àøöê
(b) Answer: Here, it could not have written "Asher Tavi Artzecha." (Therefore, we need not expound the Mem. Above, it could have written "Eleh".)
7) TOSFOS DH Kan bi'Sefinah Shel Etz Kan bi'Sefinah Shel Cheres
úåñôåú ã"ä ëàï áñôéðä ùì òõ ëàï áñôéðä ùì çøñ
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses in which case one recites.)
ôé' á÷åðèøñ ñôéðä ùì çøñ îáéà å÷åøà
(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi): [If Bikurim grew in] a boat of Cheres (earthenware), one brings and recites.
åäà ãìà îùðé àéãé åàéãé áñôéðä ùì òõ ëàï áð÷åáä ëàï áùàéðä ð÷åáä
(b) Implied question: Why didn't he answer that both of them discuss a wooden boat - this has a hole (he brings and recites), and this has no hole (he only brings)?
îùåí ãàéï ãøê ñôéðä ìäéåú ð÷åáä ùìà éëðñå áä äîéí
(c) Answer: It is not normal for a boat to have a hole, lest water enter.
åäùúà ìà äåé ãåîéà ãàéðê ùéðåéé ãáëåìäå îæëéø áøéùà ääåà ãîáéà å÷åøà
(d) Question: This is unlike the other answers. In all of them, first it mentions the case in which he brings and recites!
åëîå ëï ôé' áô''÷ ãâéèéï (ãó æ:) âáé òôø çåöä ìàøõ äáà áñôéðä ìàøõ çééá áîòùø åáùáéòéú àîø øáé éäåãä àéîúé áæîï ùäñôéðä âåùùú
(e) Remark: Rashi explained like this also in Gitin (7b) regarding earth of Chutz la'Aretz that came to Eretz Yisrael in a boat. (What grows in it) is obligated in Ma'aser and Shemitah. R. Yehudah says, when is this? It is when the boat is Gosheshes (scrapes the bottom of the river);
àîø øáé æéøà òöéõ ð÷åá äîåðç òì âáé éúéãåú áàðå ìîçìå÷ú øáé éäåãä åøáðï
1. Citation (7b - R. Zeira): If a flowerpot is on pegs (e.g. a tripod), R. Yehudah and Chachamim argue about [what grows in it].
ôéøù ùí á÷åðèøñ ãñôéðä ãìòéì ùì çøñ äéà åàéðä öøéëä ìéð÷á àí äéúä îåðçú á÷ø÷ò ëãàîø áîðçåú
2. Explanation (Rashi in Gitin): The boat above is of Cheres, and it does not need a hole (to consider what grows inside to be growing from the ground), if it rests on the ground, like it says in Menachos.
åä÷ùä ø''ú ãáô''á ãâéèéï (ãó ëà:) àîøé' ëúáå òì çøñ ùì òöéõ ð÷åá îùîò ãçøñ áòé ð÷éáä
(f) Question #1 (R. Tam): In Gitin (21b), we say "if one wrote [a Get] on the Cheres of an Atzitz Nakuv..." This connotes that Cheres requires a hole!
åàîøéðï áñåó äîöðéò (ùáú ãó öä:) ä' îãåú áëìé çøñ ðé÷á ëùåøù ÷èï èäåø îìäëùéø àú äæøòéí
(g) Question #2: We say in Shabbos (95b) that there are five laws of Kli Cheres. If it was punctured like the size of a small root, it is Tahor from being Machshir Zera'im (what grows in it is considered to be growing from the ground, and it is not Mekabel Tum'ah)!
åòåã ãñúí òöéõ ùì çøñ äåà ëãîùîò áôø÷ ùîðä ùøöéí (ùí ãó ÷ç.) îàï ãúìù ôéèøà îàåðà ãçöáà ëå' åôøéê òìä îäúåìù îòöéõ ð÷åá åñúí çöáà ãçøñ äåà
(h) Question #3: A Stam Atzitz is of Cheres, like it connotes in Shabbos (108a. Abaye taught that) if one uproots mushrooms growing on the handle of a Chatzva (bucket, he is liable), and we challenge this from [a Mishnah] "if one detaches from an Atzitz Nakuv." A Stam Chatzva is of Cheres! (This Dibur continues on the next Daf.)