1) TOSFOS DH Af Al Gav d'Nitme'u k'Tehorim Damu
úåñôåú ã"ä àò''â ãðèîàå ëèäåøéí ãîå
(SUMMARY: 1. Tosfos discusses the Tum'ah of wood. 2. Tosfos discusses when Hekdesh is profaned through usage and lending.)
îãìà ÷àîø èäåøéí ðéðäå îùîò ãî÷áìé èåîàä àìà ãìà çùéáà èåîàä
(a) Inference: Since it did not say that they are Tehorim, this implies that they receive Tum'ah, but it is not considered Tum'ah.
åúéîä ãáô' ëì äôñåìéï (æáçéí ãó ìã.) àîøéðï åäàîø îø åäáùø ìøáåú òöéí åìáåðä äëà áîàé òñ÷éðï ëâåï ù÷ãùå áëìé
(b) Question: In Zevachim (34a) we say 'it was taught that "veha'Basar" includes wood and Levonah [one is liable for them for Tum'ah]! The case [when they receive Tum'ah] is when they were Mekudash in a Kli';
åàò''â ãàìéáà ãøáà îñé÷ äëé àáéé ðîé ìà ôìéâ áäà
1. Even though it concludes so according to Rava, also Abaye did not argue about this!
åé''ì ãäúí îãàåøééúà åäëà îãøáðï
(c) Answer #1: There is mid'Oraisa, and here is mid'Rabanan.
åäëà ðîé äà ÷àîø òöéí ëîä ãìà îùôé ìäå ìâæéøéï (ãìà) [ö"ì ìà - éùø åèåá] îéúëùøé îùîò ãàæ î÷áìé èåîàä îãàåøééúà å÷ãåùú ëìé ãäúí äééðå ùéôåé âæéøéï ãäëà
(d) Support: Also here, it says that [pieces of] wood, as long as he did not smooth them into logs, they are not Huchshar. This implies that then (after smoothing), they receive Tum'ah mid'Oraisa. "Kedushas Kli" there is smoothing into logs here.
åá÷åðèøñ ôé' äúí ãîééøé áòöéí ùçúä áîçúú ëìé ùøú îòì äîæáç òí âçìéí
(e) Answer #2 (Rashi in Zevachim): We discuss wood that he scooped in a Machtah (incense pan) Kli Shares from the Mizbe'ach, with coals. (This is the Kidush Kli.)
åìôéëê ö''ì ãäëùø ùì ùéôåé âæéøéï ãäëà ãøáðï
1. Consequence: Therefore, he must say that Hechsher of smoothing for logs here is mid'Rabanan. (Before this, they do not receive Tum'ah at all.)
åìà éúëï ôéøåù æä ãáîñëú úîéã (ãó ëç:) îùîò ùäéä çåúä îï äîàåëìåú äôðéîéåú
(f) Rebuttal: This cannot be, for in Tamid (28b) it connotes that he scooped from inner consumed [coals. There would not be any wood there!]
åâí àéï ìôøù ãîééøé àìéáà ãøáé áä÷åîõ øáä (ìòéì ãó ë:) áîúðãá òöéí ãòöéí ÷øáï ðéðäå åáòå ëìé ùøú
(g) Implied suggestion: [Zevachim 34a] discusses according to Rebbi above (20b) regarding a Nedavah of wood. He says that wood is a Korban, and it needs a Kli Shares.
ãäà îñé÷ äúí ãðòùä ëîé ù÷øáå îúéøéï ãúðï ëì ùàéï ìå îúéøéï îùé÷ãù áëìé åìøáé äà àîøé' òöéí èòåðéï ÷îéöä àìîà éù ìäï îúéøéï
(h) Rejection: We conclude there (34a) that it is as if its Matirim were offered, for a Mishnah teaches that anything without Matirim, from when it has Kidush Kli (one is liable for eating it b'Tum'ah), and according to Rebbi, we say that wood requires Kemitzah. This shows that it has Matirim (so it does not depend on Kidush Kli)!
àò''â ãáôø÷ ä÷åîõ øáä (ùí) àîø ùä÷åîõ åäùéøéí äëì ìîæáç
1. Remark: Even though it says above (there) that the Kometz [of wood] and the Shirayim, all are for [Haktarah on] the Mizbe'ach (even so, the Kometz is considered a Matir. The Gemara did not say that the Shirayim are for the Mizbe'ach; Tosfos (20b DH l'Divrei) said so. R. Gershom (107a DH u'Te'unah) disagrees, and says that Kohanim get the Shirayim.)
(àìîà) [ö"ì àìà - áøëú äæáç] ÷ãåùú ëìé ãäúí äééðå ùéôåé âæéøéï ãäëà åáòöé äîòøëä
(i) Conclusion: Rather, [we must say that] Kedushas Kli [in Zevachim] is smoothing for logs here, and regarding wood for the Ma'arachah.
åîúåê ìùåï ä÷åðèøñ îùîò ãëîä ãìà îùôé ìäå ìâæéøéï èäåøéï ìâîøé åëèäåøéï ãîå ìàå ãå÷à àìà èäåøéï îîù
(j) Inference: Rashi connotes that as long as they did not smooth them for logs, they are totally Tahor. "They resemble Tehorim" is not precise. Rather, they are truly Tahor.
åà''ú åëé îùôé ìäå ìâæéøéï á÷åøãåí äéëé î÷ãùé åäà ÷åøãåí àéðå ëìé ùøú ëãîùîò áúåñôúà
(k) Question: When they smooth them for logs with an ax, how do they become Kadosh? The ax is not a Kli Shares, like the Tosefta connotes!
ãúðéà (äùåàì ÷åøãåí ùì ä÷ãù îçáéøå) [ö"ì ÷åøãåí ùì ä÷ãù - òåìú ùìîä] áé÷ò áå åáà çáéøå åáé÷ò áå ëåìï îòìå ðúðä ìçáéøå åçáéøå ìçáéøå äøàùåï îòì åäùðé ìà îòì
1. Source #1 - Citation (Tosefta Me'ilah 2:1): A Hekdesh ax - if one chopped with it, and his friend came and chopped with it, all of them transgressed Me'ilah. If he gave it to his friend, and his friend [gave it] to his friend, the first transgressed Me'ilah, and the second did not transgress Me'ilah. (If it were a Kli Shares, all would be Mo'el, like the case of an Olah right after this!)
åáòåìä àéðå ëï ðúðä ìçáéøå åçáéøå ìçáéøå ëåìï îòìå
i. Citation (cont.): An Olah is different. If he gave it to his friend, and his friend to his friend, all of them transgressed Me'ilah.
åàîø áô' äùåàì (á''î ãó öè.) äîùàéì ÷åøãåí ùì ä÷ãù îòì ìôé èåáú äðàä ùáå åçáéøå îåúø ìá÷ò áå áúçéìä
2. Source #2 - Citation (Bava Metzi'a 99a): If one lends an ax of Hekdesh, he was Mo'el the amount of Tovas Hana'ah (the value of enabling his friend to use it), and his friend (the borrower) may chop with it l'Chatchilah!
åéù ìôøù ã÷åøãåí ãäúí ìà áîéåçã ìòöé îòøëä îééøé àáì ëìé ùøú äéä ìäí îéåçã ìòöéí ùîùôï åîðñøï åîééôï ìòùåú á÷éòåú éôåú ãçæå ìîòøëä
(l) Answer: The ax there [in the Tosefta and in Bava Metzi'a] is not special for wood of the Ma'arachah. However, they had a Kli Shares special for wood [logs], that they smooth them and saw them and make them nice, to make nice logs proper for the Ma'arachah.
åàí úàîø åëéåï ã÷åøãåí ãúåñôúà ìàå ëìé ùøú äåà àîàé îòì äùðé äà îëéåï ãá÷ò äøàùåï åîòì áå éöà ìçåìéï ëãúðï áîñëú îòéìä (ãó éè:)
(m) Question: Since the ax of the Tosefta is not a Kli Shares, why was the second Mo'el? Once the first chopped, and was Mo'el, [the ax] became Chulin, like a Mishnah in Me'ilah (19b) teaches!
àéï îåòì àçø îåòì áîå÷ãùéï àìà áäîä åëìé ùøú áìáã ëéöã øëá òì âáé áäîä åáà çáéøå åøëá åáà çáéøå åøëá ëåìï îòìå ùúä áëåñ ùì æäá åáà çáéøå åùúä åáà çáéøå åùúä ëåìï îòìå
1. Citation (19b - Mishnah): There is no Me'ilah after Me'ilah, except for an animal or Kli Shares. What is the case? If one rode on an animal, and his friend came and rode and his friend came and rode, all of them were Mo'el. If one drank from a gold cup, and his friend came and drank and his friend came and drank, all were Mo'el;
îä ùàéï ëï á÷ãåùú ãîéí
2. Citation (cont.): This does not apply to Kedushas Damim. (Then, after the first benefits, it becomes totally Chulin.)
åé''ì ãääéà ãúåñôúà îééøé á÷åøãåí äîñåø ìéã âæáø ãåîéà ãðèì àáï àå ÷åøä ùì ä÷ãù (ìà îòì) [ö"ì åáðàå áúåê áéúå ìà îòì òã ùéãåø úçúéä ùåä ôøåèä - éùø åèåá] ã÷úðé äúí áúø ääéà ã÷åøãåí å÷úðé áä ðúðä ìçáéøå äåà îòì åçáéøå ìà îòì (òã ùéãåø úçúéä ùåä ôøåèä - éùø åèåá îåç÷å)
(n) Answer: That Tosefta discusses an ax entrusted to a Gizbar, similar to the case of "if he took a rock or beam of Hekdesh and built it into his house, he was not Mo'el until he lives under it (and benefits from it) the value of a Perutah" taught there (2:4) after the case of an ax, and it taught there "if he gave it to his friend, he was Mo'el, and his friend was not Mo'el";
1. Note: It seems that these last words of Tosfos cite the Tosefta (2:2) about an ax. He now cites the Gemara's question about the Mishnah in Me'ilah (20a) about a rock, for the same question and answer apply to the Tosefta.
åôøéê òìä äù''ñ áôø÷ áúøà ãîòéìä (ãó ë.) åáôø÷ ÷îà ãçâéâä (ãó é:) îëãé îéâæì âæìä îä ìé äåà îä ìé çáéøå
2. The Gemara challenges this in Me'ilah (20a) and in Chagigah (10a) "how is this? He stole it! What is the difference between him (he is not Mo'el for taking it for himself) and [he is Mo'el when he gives it to] his friend?"
åîùðé áâæáø äîñåøåú ìå àáðé áðéï òñ÷éðï åìëê éåöà ä÷åøãåí ëåìå ìçåìéï ëùðåúðå ìçáéøå ùäøé îåöéàå ëåìå îøùåú ä÷ãù
3. It answers that we discuss rocks for building entrusted to a Gizbar. Therefore, [in the corresponding case,] the ax becomes Chulin when he gives it to his friend, for he totally removes it from the Reshus of Hekdesh.
àáì ëùîá÷ò áå åäåà ñáåø ùäåà ùìå àéðå (îåöéàå) [ö"ì îåöéà - ãôåñ åéðéöéä] îøùåú ä÷ãù àìà äðàú äáé÷åò ëéåï ãâæáø äåà åòãééï áéãå àéðå éåöà îøùåú ä÷ãù
4. Distinction: However, when he chopped with it, and he thinks that it is his, he removes from the Reshus of Hekdesh only the Hana'ah of chopping. Since he is a Gizbar, and it is still in his hand, it does not leave the Reshus of Hekdesh;
åìëê îåòìéï ëåìï ùàéï ä÷åøãåí îúçìì òì éãé äáé÷åò
i. Therefore all were Mo'el, since the ax is not profaned through chopping. (In Bava Metzi'a 99a (DH v'Chavero), Tosfos explains that all those who chopped are Gizbarim. All were Mo'el, for they did not intend to remove it from its Reshus.)
àáì àéðéù áòìîà ùàéðå ñáåø ùäåà ùìå ëé îá÷ò áéä îéâæì âæìéä åîôé÷ ìéä îøùåú ä÷ãù åîúçììú ä÷ãåùú ãîéí áëê
5. Distinction: However, someone else, who does not think that it is his, when he chops with it, he steals it, and he removes it from the Reshus of Hekdesh, and Kedushas Damim is profaned through this.
åàôé' àéï îúëåéï ìâæåì àìà ãòúå ìäçæéø ìøùåú áòìéí ìàçø áé÷åò äà ÷ééîà ìï (á''á ãó ñç.) ùåàì ùìà îãòú âæìï äåé ìøáðï å÷í ìéä ëåìéä áøùåúéä ãàôéìå ðúëååï ìäéåú ùåàì ëàéìå ðúëååï ìâæåì ãîé
6. And even if he does not intend to steal, rather, he intends to return it to the Reshus of the owner after chopping, we hold that Sho'el she'Lo mi'Da'as (one who borrows without permission) is a Gazlan according to Rabanan, and it is totally in his Reshus. And even if he intended to be a borrower, it is as if he intended to steal.
åäà ãàîø áäùåàì (á''î ãó öè.) äîùàéì ÷åøãåí ùì ä÷ãù îòì ìôé èåáú äðàä ùáå åçáéøå îåúø ìá÷ò áå áúçìä
(o) Implied question: It says in Bava Metzi'a (99a) that if one lends an ax of Hekdesh, he was Mo'el the amount of Tovas Hana'ah in it, and his friend may chop with it l'Chatchilah...
(åñúí) [ö"ì åäúí - ç÷ ðúï] îùàéì ñáåø ùäåà ùìå îãìà îòì àìà ìôé èåáú äðàä ùáå (ùçáéøå) [ö"ì - å÷àîø - éùø åèåá] ùçáéøå îåúø ìá÷ò áå áúçìä [ö"ì îùîò - öàï ÷ãùéí] ãéöà ìçåìéï
1. And there, [we must say that] the lender thinks that it is his, since he is Mo'el only the amount of Tovas Hana'ah in it, and it says that his friend may chop with it l'Chatchilah. This connotes that it became Chulin! (One may not benefit from something is partially Hekdesh.)
åîéäå ðøàä [ö"ì àò"ô - öàï ÷ãùéí] ùòãééï ä÷ãù îòåøá áå ëéåï ùäåà ñáåø ùäåà ùìå åàéðå îúëåéï ìäåöéà ä÷åøãåí îøùåúå î''î ùøé ìá÷ò áå ùäøé äðàú äáé÷åò ëáø éöúä ìçåìéï ëéåï ùàéðä îñåøä ìå
(p) Answer: However, it seems that even though Hekdesh is still mixed with it, since [the lender] thinks that it is his, and he does not intend to remove it from his Reshus, even so [his friend] may chop with it, for the Hana'ah of chopping already became Chulin, since [the borrower] is not entrusted with it (he is not a Gizbar. Therefore, the lender intended to remove the Hana'ah of chopping from Hekdesh's Reshus.)
åäà ãàîøéðï âáé áéú áôø÷ äàåîø îù÷ìé (òøëéï ãó ëà.) ä÷ãéùå îùëéø äãø áå îòìä ùëø ìä÷ãù åôøéê ëéåï ãîòì ðôé÷ ìçåìéï
(q) Implied question: It says about a house, in Erchin (21a), that if the landlord was Makdish it, the tenant pays rent to Hekdesh, and [the Gemara] asks that since he was Mo'el, it becomes Chulin!
ìàå ëåìé áéú ÷àîø ãàôé' ÷åøãåí ëä''â ìà äéä éåöà ëåìå ìçåìéï àí äùëéø ìçáéøå ÷åøãåí ùì ä÷ãù îéãé ãäåä àîùàéì àìà äùëø ìáãå äåà ãéöà ìçåìéï
(r) Answer: It does not mean that the entire house [becomes Chulin]. Even an ax in such a case does not become totally Chulin, if one rented to his friend an ax of Hekdesh, like we find regarding a lender. Rather, only the rental became Chulin.
åáøåá ñôøéí ðîé ëúåá ðôé÷ ùëø ìçåìéï:
(s) Support: In most Seforim the text says "the rental became Chulin."
2) TOSFOS DH Pigel b'Minchah l'R. Shimon Ein Metamei Tum'as Ochlin
úåñôåú ã"ä ôéâì áîðçä ìøáé ùîòåï àéðå îèîà èåîàú àåëìéï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains what brings to Tum'as Ochlim according to R. Shimon.)
åîôøù èòîà îùåí ãàåëì ùàé àúä éëåì ìäàëéìå ìàçøéí àéï ÷øåé àåëì
(a) Explanation: It explains the reason, because a food that you cannot feed to others is not called a food;
åîå÷é ìä áîñ÷ðà ãà÷ãùä áîçåáø ùìà äéä ìä ùòú äëåùø ãèäåøéï àéï ðôãéï
1. In the conclusion we establish this when he was Makdish it [for a Minchah] while attached. It never had Sha'as ha'Kosher, for Tahor [Hekdesh] cannot be redeemed.
åà''ú à''ë (îëàï îòîåã á) òåìä ìøáé ùîòåï ìà úèîà èåîàú àåëìéï ãàåëì ùàé àúä éëåì ìäàëéìå ìàçøéí äåà
(b) Question: If so, according to R. Shimon an Olah should not have Tum'as Ochlim, for it is a food that you cannot feed to others!
101b----------------------------------------101b
ëîå îðçä ùôéâì ãìà î÷áìú èåîàä àí ä÷ãéùä áîçåáø åæä ðîé ìà äéúä ìä ùòú äëåùø
1. This is like a Minchah that he was Mefagel. It is not Mekabel Tum'ah if he was Makdish it while attached. Also this never had Sha'as ha'Kosher!
åé''ì ãàëéìú îæáç ùîä àëéìä [ö"ì åäåé àåëì ùàúä éëåì ìäàëéìå ìàçøéí - öàï ÷ãùéí]
(c) Answer: Consumption of the Mizbe'ach is called eating, so it is considered a food that you can feed to others;
ëãàùëçï áàåúå åàú áðå (çåìéï ãó ôà.) ìòðéï (àåëì ùàúä éëåì ìäàëéìå ìàçøéí - öàï ÷ãùéí îåç÷å) áäéà çåìéï åáðä òåìä ãçùéá òåìä ùçéèä äøàåéä
1. We find like this in Chulin (81a) regarding an animal that is Chulin, and its child is an Olah (regarding Oso v'Es Beno). Shechitah of the Olah is considered a proper Shechitah [since it is for consumption of the Mizbe'ach, according to R. Yakov];
åàôéìå ìøáà ãìà çùéá ìéä ùçéèä äøàåéä åôèø îùåí àåúå åàú áðå ìø''ù ìòðéï (àåëì ùàúä éëåì ìäàëéìå ìàçøéí îåãä ãùîä àëéìä) [ö"ì èåîàä îåãä ãùîä àëéìä åäåé àåëì ùàúä éëåì ìäàëéìå ìàçøéí - öàï ÷ãùéí]
2. And even according to Rava, who does not consider it a proper Shechitah, and exempts for Oso v'Es Beno according to R. Shimon, regarding Tum'ah he agrees that it is considered eating, and it is a food that you can feed it to others;
îéãé ãäåä àèøéôä ùðùçèä ãùçéèä ùàéðä øàåéä åäåéà àåëì ùàúä éëåì ìäàëéìå [ö"ì ìàçøéí - öàï ÷ãùéí]
i. This is like we find regarding Shechitah of a Tereifah. [R. Shimon exempts for Oso v'Es Beno, for] it is not a proper Shechitah, yet [it has Tum'as Ochlin, for] it is a food that you can feed it to others.
åúãò ãäà òöéí åìáåðä î÷áìéï èåîàä ìø''ù òì ëøçê îùåí àëéìú îæáç
(d) Proof: Wood and Levonah are Mekabel Tum'ah according to R. Shimon. You are forced to say that it is due to consumption of the Mizbe'ach;
ãàé îùåí çéáú ä÷åãù ìçåãéä äà ìà îäðéà çéáú ä÷åãù ìùåééä àåëì ùàúä éëåì ìäàëéìå ìàçøéí
1. It cannot be due to Chibas ha'Kodesh alone, for Chibas ha'Kodesh does not make something a food that you can feed it to others.
ãàé ìà ôéâì áîðçä éèîà ìø''ù èåîàú àåëìéï äåàéì åäéúä ìä ùòú äëåùø ÷åãí ôéâåì îéã ëùðú÷ãù áëìé ãçéáú ä÷åãù îëùøúä
i. If not [that this is so], a Minchah that he was Mefagel would have Tum'as Ochlim according to R. Shimon, since it had Sha'as ha'Kosher before Pigul, immediately from when it was Mekudash in a Kli, for Chibas ha'Kodesh is Machshir it!
åòåã ëîå ùîã÷ã÷ [ö"ì ø"é - éùø åèåá] îôøä
2. Also, [you must say so,] like the Ri deduces from Parah [Adumah, in Chulin 81a DH Olah. If Chibas ha'Kodesh alone made something a food that you can feed it to others, why did R. Shimon say that it has Tum'as Ochlim because it had Sha'as ha'Kosher?!]
3) TOSFOS DH v'Eglah Arufah
úåñôåú ã"ä åòâìä òøåôä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses whether this is when Arifah was done.)
ìàå ëùðòøôä ãà''ë úéôå÷ ìéä îùåí ðáéìä àìà áùùçèä å÷à ñáø éøéãúä ìðçì àéúï àåñøúä
(a) Explanation #1: This is not when it was beheaded, for if so [it is Tamei] because it is a Neveilah! Rather, [the Beraisa teaches that it receives Tum'as Ochlim] when it was slaughtered. He holds that taking it down to the valley forbids it.
åìîàï ãàîø òøéôúä àåñøúä ðîé îöéðï ìîéîø ã÷à ñáø ø''ù òâìä áùçéèä ëùéøä ëãàîøéðï áô''á ãëøéúåú (ãó ëä.)
1. And also according to the opinion that beheading forbids it, we can say that R. Shimon holds that Shechitah is Kosher for Eglah Arufah, like [Rava] says in Kerisus (25a. If so, after Shechitah it is forbidden, without Tum'as Neveilah.)
àé ðîé îùòøôä åòøéôúä îèäøúä îéãé ðáéìä ëãîåëç áñåó çèàú äòåó (æáçéí ãó ò:)
(b) Explanation #2: This is when it was beheaded. Beheading is Metaher from [Tum'as] Neveilah, like is proven in Zevachim (70b).
4) TOSFOS DH Ochel sha'Atah Yachol Leha'achilo l'Acherim
úåñôåú ã"ä àåëì ùàúä éëåì ìäàëéìå ìàçøéí
(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with how R. Shimon expounds about Kisuy ha'Dam.)
ä÷ùä ä''ø àìéòæø îîéõ ãäëà ìà îîòè ø''ù îãëúéá àùø éàëì àìà àéñåø äðàä åáôø÷ ëéñåé äãí (çåìéï ãó ôä. åùí) îîòè ø' ùîòåï àó èøéôä îëéñåé îùåí ãëúéá àùø éàëì åìà àîøé' àéñåøé äðàä ãåå÷à
(a) Question (R. Eliezer of Mitz): Here R. Shimon excludes from "Asher Ye'achel" only what is Asur b'Hana'ah, and in Chulin (85a) he excludes even a Tereifah from Kisuy ha'Dam, because it says "Asher Ye'achel", and we do not say that it is only Isurei Hana'ah!
åé''ì ãäëà ëúéá îëì äàåëì ãîùîò ëì ìøáåéé àôéìå àñåø áàëéìä äéìëê ìà îîòè àìà àéñåø äðàä
(b) Answer: Here it is written "mi'Kol ha'Ochel." It connotes that Kol comes to include even Isurei Achilah. Therefore, he excludes only Isur Hana'ah;
àáì äúí àùø éöåã öéã çéä àå òåó àùø éàëì ëúéá åìà ëúéá ëì äéìëê àîøéðï ääéà ãåå÷à ãùøé áàëéìä
1. However, there "Asher Yatzud Chayah Oh Ohf Asher Ye'achel" is written, and it does not say Kol. Therefore, we say that it is only what is permitted to eat [and he excludes even Isurei Achilah].
5) TOSFOS DH Basar b'Chalav Asur b'Achilah u'Mutar b'Hana'ah
úåñôåú ã"ä áùø áçìá àñåø áàëéìä åîåúø áäðàä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the argument of Isi and R. Shimon.)
áñåó ëì äáùø (çåìéï ãó ÷èå:) éìéó àéñé àéñåø àëéìä îäê â''ù åàéñåø äðàä î÷''å
(a) Implied question: In Chulin (115b), Isi learns from Isur Achilah from this Gezeirah Shavah, and Isur Hana'ah from a Kal v'Chomer!
åðøàä ãäééðå èòîééäå ãø''ù ñáø àéï â''ù ìîçöä åéìôéðï îéðä àó äéúø äðàä åàéñé ñáø àäðé â''ù åàäðé ÷''å
(b) Answer #1: It seems that their reasons are as follows. R. Shimon holds that a Gezeirah Shavah is not half-way, and we learn even Heter Hana'ah. Isi holds that the Gezeirah Shavah helps, and the Kal v'Chomer helps.
àé ðîé îùåí ãáääåà ÷øà ãèøéôä àééøé ðîé á÷ãùéí ùéöàå çåõ ìîçéöúï ëãàîø áôø÷ áäîä äî÷ùä (ùí ãó ñç:) ãàñéøé àó áäðàä åâìé ÷ì åçåîø ãéìôéðï îéðééäå
(c) Answer #2: The verse of Tereifah discusses also Kodshim that left their Mechitzah (within which they are permitted), like it says in Chulin (68b). They are forbidden even b'Hana'ah. The Kal v'Chomer reveals that we learn from them;
åøáé ùîòåï ãäëà ñáø ãôùèéä ã÷øà áèøéôä îééøé
1. R. Shimon here holds that the simple meaning of the verse discusses a Tereifah.
6) TOSFOS DH Ne'emar Kan Anshei Kodesh
úåñôåú ã"ä ðàîø ëàï àðùé ÷åãù
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we do not learn Isur Hana'ah from Kodshim.)
åà''ú åðéìó îá÷åãù áàù úùøó ãîééøé áôñåì ÷åãù ëãàîø áôø÷ ëì ùòä (ôñçéí ãó ëã.) åàñéøé áäðàä
(a) Question: We should learn from "ba'Kodesh ba'Esh Tisaref", which discusses a Pesul of Kodesh, like it says in Pesachim (24a), and they are Asur b'Hana'ah!
åéù ìåîø ãéìôéðï òí ÷åãù îàðùé ÷åãù
(b) Answer: We learn "Am Kadosh" from "Anshei Kodesh."
7) TOSFOS DH Pigel b'Minchah Metamei Tum'as Ochlim
úåñôåú ã"ä ôéâì áîðçä îèîà èåîàú àåëìéï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with the R. Shimon' opinion about meat and milk.)
å÷ùéà ìøáé àåùòéà
(a) Explanation: This is difficult for R. Oshaya.
úéîä ìîàé ãñ''ã äùúà ãàééøé øáé àåùòéà àôé' áäéä ìå ùòú äëåùø úé÷ùé ìéä îääéà ãìòéì ãîåãä øáé ùîòåï ááùø áçìá äåàéì åäéúä ìä ùòú äëåùø
(b) Question: According to the Havah Amina now that R. Oshaya discusses even when it had Sha'as ha'Kosher, it is difficult from the case above that R. Shimon agrees about meat and milk, because it had Sha'as ha'Kosher!
åéù ìåîø ãäåä àîéðà ùòú äëåùø ãáùø áçìá ëâåï ùðúòøáä ÷åãí áéùåì ëâåï ãúøé ìéä ëåìé éåîà áçìáà åàç''ë áéùì åëé äàé âååðà ìà äéúä ìîðçä ùòú äëåùø [ö"ì àìà - öàï ÷ãùéí] ÷åãí ùä÷ãéùä
(c) Answer: One might have thought that Sha'as ha'Kosher of meat and milk is that they were mixed before cooking, e.g. he soaked [meat] the entire day in milk, and afterwards cooked it. In such a case a Minchah had Sha'as ha'Kosher only before he was Makdish it.
8) TOSFOS DH ha'Hi d'Parah Metam'ah Tum'as Ochlin
úåñôåú ã"ä ääéà ãôøä îèîàä èåîàú àåëìéï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos tells where this is explained.)
îôåøù áááà ÷îà (ãó òæ.) éôä
(a) Reference: This is explained well in Bava Kama (77a. R. Shimon holds that it may be redeemed even after Shechitah, near the wood when it is about to be burned. Since it could have been redeemed, we consider it as if it was redeemed.)
9) TOSFOS DH v'Ha Lan Lifnei Zerikah d'Mitzvah Lemizrekei
úåñôåú ã"ä åäà ìï ìôðé æøé÷ä ãîöåä ìîéæø÷éä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that it is difficult only due to the answers we gave.)
àé ìàå äðê ùéðåéé ãàñé÷ðà ìøáé àåùòéà áøééúà âåôà ìà ÷ùéà ìéä îàé ùðà ôéâì áîðçä ãîèîà èåîàú àåëìéï åîàé ùðà ìï ìôðé æøé÷ä ãàéï îèîà
(a) Explanation: If not for these answers that we conclude according to R. Oshaya, the Beraisa itself would not be difficult for him "what is different about Mefagel in a Minchah, that it is Metamei Tum'as Ochlin, and what is different about Linah before Zerikah, that it is not Metamei?"
ãîðçä äéúä ìä ùòú äëåùø ÷åãí ùäå÷ãùä:
1. [This would not be difficult, for] a Minchah had Sha'as ha'Kosher before it was Hukdash.