1) TOSFOS DH d'Kometz Minchah ki'Shechitah Dami
úåñôåú ã"ä ã÷åîõ îðçä ëùçéèä ãîé
(SUMMARY: Tosfos questions the Havah Amina.)
úéîä äåà ùçåùá çéãåù äà ãìà çùáéðï ìéä ëùçéèä ìòðéï èåîàú àåëìéï
(a) Question: This is astounding, that he considers it a Chidush that we do not consider [Kemitzah] like Shechitah regarding Tum'as Ochlim! (A Minchah had Sha'as ha'Kosher before Kemitzah. A Zevach had no Sha'as ha'Kosher before Shechitah!)
2) TOSFOS DH Amar Rav Ashi Amrisah l'Shemaita Kamei d'Rav Kahana Garsinan
úåñôåú ã"ä àîø øá àùé àîøéúä ìùîòúà ÷îéä ãøá ëäðà âøñéðï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses whom Rav Ashi could have said this to.)
åäåà øá ëäðà àçøåï ùäéä áéîé øá àùé ëãàùëçï áëîä ãåëúé
(a) Explanation: This is the latter Rav Kahana who was in the days of Rav Ashi, like we find in several places;
àáì øá ðçîï ìà âøñéðï ãøáå ùì øáà äéä åðôèø î÷îé øáà ëãàéúà áîåòã ÷èï (ãó ëç.) åáéåí ùîú øáà ðåìã øá àùé (÷éãåùéï ãó òá:)
1. The text does not say Rav Nachman [in place of Rav Kahana], for he was the Rebbi of Rava, and he died before Rava, like it says in Mo'ed Katan (28a), and the day that Rava died, Rav Ashi was born (Kidushin 72b).
åàé âøñé' øá ðçîï áø éöç÷ ðéçà
2. It is fine if the text says Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak (a Talmid of Rava).
3) TOSFOS DH d'Iy Ba'i Zarik Lo Amar
úåñôåú ã"ä ãàé áòé æøé÷ ìà àîø
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses when Rav Ashi and others say so.)
åìéú ìéä äà ãàîøï ìòéì áô' äúåãä (ãó òè:) åáôø÷ ÷îà ãôñçéí (ãó éâ:) ìøáé àìòæø áø' ùîòåï äéëà ãðú÷áì äãí áëåñ åðùôê àîøéðï ëæøå÷ ãîé
(a) Explanation: He argues with what we said above (79b) and in Pesachim (13b) according to R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon, that when blood was received in a cup and it spilled, we say that it is as if it was thrown.
åäà ãúðï áîøåáä (á''÷ òã:) ÷ãùéí ùçééáéï áàçøéåúï îùìí àøáòä åçîùä åôøéê áâî' (ùí òå.) åäøé çæøä ÷øï ìáòìéí
(b) Implied question: a Mishnah in Bava Kama (74b) says that Kodshim for which one has Achrayus, [one who stole and slaughtered or sold it] pays four [times its value for a Seh] or five [for cattle], and the Gemara (76a) asks "the principal returned to the owner!" (Shechitah was Kosher; the owner can be Yotzei with it);
åîùðé øáé éåçðï áùåçè úîéîéí áôðéí ùìà ìùí áòìéäï åäåé ùçéèä äøàåéä îùåí ëì äòåîã ìéæø÷ ëæøå÷ ãîé
1. R. Yochanan answered that he discusses Shechitah of a Tam animal in [the Mikdash] Lo l'Shem the owner (so he is not Yotzei with it). It is a proper Shechitah, because anything destined to be thrown, it is as if it was thrown!
ääåà ùéðåéà ìà éúëï ìøá àùé àìà ñáø ìä ëø''ù áï ì÷éù ãîùðé ùåçè áòìé îåîéï áçåõ
(c) Answer #1: That answer cannot be like Rav Ashi. Rather, [Rav Ashi] holds like Reish Lakish, who answered that he slaughtered Ba'alei Mumim outside [the Mikdash].
àé ðîé äéëà ãðæø÷ (áçåõ) [ö"ì áñåó - âìéåï äù"ñ] îåãä øá àùé ãàîø îòé÷øà ëæøå÷ ãîé
(d) Answer #2: When it was thrown at the end, Rav Ashi agrees that we say from the beginning that it is as if it was thrown.
åëï ö''ì ãìà úé÷ùé ìø' éåçðï ãùîòðà ìéä áôø÷ ÷îà ãîòéìä (ãó ä.) äéúø àëéìä ùðéðå àáì äéúø æøé÷ä ìà îäðé
(e) Support: We must say so, lest it be difficult for R. Yochanan, for he said in Me'ilah (5a) "we learned [that Me'ilah does not apply] after there was a Heter to eat", but Heter to do Zerikah does not help [to uproot Me'ilah. In Bava Kama, he said that what is destined to be thrown, it is as if it was thrown! Malei ha'Ro'im asks that there, R. Yochanan said so only according to R. Shimon! Also, there is an opinion there that for Me'ilah, we do not say "it is as if it was thrown." R. Yochanan could hold like this!]
åàéï ìçì÷ áéï îòéìä ìùàø ãáøéí
(f) Implied question: Perhaps we can distinguish between Me'ilah and other matters!
ãàãøáä áñîåê îùîò ãàîøé' áîòéìä (â''æ ùí) ëæøå÷ èôé îáèåîàä
(g) Rejection: Just the contrary, below it connotes that we say about Me'ilah "it is as if it was thrown" more than for Tum'ah!
åáîøåáä (á''÷ òå:) îééúé øàééä îèåîàä
1. And in Bava Kama (76b) it brings a proof from Tum'ah [to payment of four or five. All the more so we can bring a proof from Me'ilah to four or five!]
4) TOSFOS DH Hachi Garsinan Lo Re'uyah Latzeis v'Re'uyah Litamei
úåñôåú ã"ä ä''â ìà øàåéä ìöàú åøàåéä ìéèîà
(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes like the text that Rashi rejected.)
åìà âøñéðï åøàåéä ììåï ìà ëâåï ùìðä áùòä ùøàåéä ìéôñì áéåöà åáèåîàä
(a) Explanation #1: The text does not say "and proper for Linah." [The Gemara] rejects "no, the case is, it was Lan at a time proper to become Pasul through Yotzei and Tum'ah";
åäééðå ìàçø ùðæø÷ äãí ùàéï áä ôñåì åîòúä øàåéä ìéôñì áéåöà åáèåîàä ùìà éäà áä ãáø ôñåì àìà äåà ãòãééï àéðä ôñåìä àáì øàåéä ìéôñì
1. This is after Zerikas Dam, that there is no Pesul in it, and from now it is proper to become Pasul through Yotzei and Tum'ah, that there is no other Pesul in it. It is still not Pasul, but it is proper to become Pasul;
ãàé ìï äãí úå ìà îé÷øé øàåéä ìéôñì ãäà ôñåìä îîù äéà åìòåìí àé áòé æøé÷ ìà àîø ëê ôéøù á÷åðèøñ
2. If the blood was Lan, it is not called proper to become Pasul. It is truly Pasul! And really, we do not say "if he wants, he can do Zerikah [so it is as if Zerikah was done]." So Rashi explained. (Birkas ha'Zevach - the Makshan held that we say "it is as if Zerikah was done" only if it is no longer possible to do Zerikah. The first Tartzan says that we say so after a Pesul in the meat, but not after a Pesul in the blood. Rav Ashi holds like the Makshan; however, once Me'ilah was uprooted, it does not return.)
å÷ùä îàé ôøéê ëì ùéù ìä äéúø îéáòé ìéä äà ëéåï ãìðä àéï ìä òëùéå äéúø
(b) Question #1: What was the question [against the first Tartzan 'if there was real Linah,] it should say "anything that has a Heter"!'? Since it was Lan, now it has no Heter!
åòåã îàé ÷àîø îòéìä îùåí ÷ãåùä äåà ìáúø ãô÷òä áîàé äãøà äéëé ô÷òä ëéåï ãìðä îîù
(c) Question #2: Why does [Rav Ashi] say "Me'ilah is due to Kedushah. After it was uprooted, how will it return?" How was it uprooted, since there was real Linah?
åðøàä ìôøù øàåéä ììåï øàåéä ìöàú åøàåéä ìèîà ëìåîø ùòãééï ìà ðàøò áä ùåí ôñåì ÷àîø ãàéï îåòìéï îùåí ãäùúà äåà òåîã ìéæø÷ ëæøå÷ ãîé
(d) Explanation #2: It seems that [the Gemara] means "proper for Linah, proper to leave, and proper to become Tamei." I.e. no Pesul occurred yet. There is no Me'ilah, for now it is destined for Zerikah, so it is as if it was thrown;
åìáñåó ðîé ëùäéä áä ôñåì ìéðä àå éåöà àå èåîàä àéï îåòìéï ëãîôøù èòîà áñîåê ãëéåï ãô÷òä ÷ãåùä úå ìà äãøà øëáà
1. Also at the end (that Rav Ashi distinguishes Tum'ah from Me'ilah, it is fine;) when there was a Pesul of Linah, Yotzei or Tum'ah, Me'ilah does not apply like he explains the reason below, for once Kedushah was uprooted, it does not return to rest on it.
åäùúà äà ãð÷è ùìðä åùðèîàú øáåúà ð÷è ãë''ù ÷åãí ìëï
2. Now (in the conclusion), it mentioned that there was Linah, or it became Tamei, for a bigger Chidush (still Me'ilah does not apply), and all the more so beforehand.
åìëê ôøéê ëì ùéù ìå äéúø îéáòé ìéä ùäèòí îùåí ã÷åãí ùéôñì àîø ëì äòåîã ìæøå÷ ëæøå÷ ãîé
3. Therefore (before Rav Ashi) it asks 'it should say "anything that has a Heter"!', since the reason is that before it became Pasul, we say "anything destined for Zerikah, it is as if it was thrown."
åîùðé øá àùé áîòéìä ëéåï ãô÷òä ÷åãí ôñåì úå ìà øëáà ìàçø ôñåì
4. Rav Ashi answers that for Me'ilah, since [Me'ilah] was uprooted before the Pesul, it does not rest on it after the Pesul;
àáì èåîàä îéãé ãçæé äùúà ìàëéìä ìà àùëçï (åîúáèì) [ö"ì ãîúáèì - çîãú ãðéàì] øàåé ãéãä
i. However, Tum'ah, we do not find that its level of proper (truly proper, without relying on whatever is destined...) is Batel.
åäà ãîùðé áîòéìä (ãó ä.) ãìï áùø
(e) Implied question: In Me'ilah (5a) it answers that the meat was Lan!
äééðå ìî''ã äéúø àëéìä àáì ìîàï ãàîø äéúø æøé÷ä äåé ìï ãí:
(f) Answer: That is according to the opinion that we learned [that Me'ilah depends on] a Heter to eat, but according to the opinion [that it depends on] Heter for Zerikah, the blood was Lan.
102b----------------------------------------102b
5) TOSFOS DH Ki ka'Amrinan mid'Rabanan
úåñôåú ã"ä ëé ÷àîøéðï ãøáðï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we do not say so in Pesachim.)
úéîä áôø÷ àåø ìé''ã (ôñçéí ë.) ã÷àîø äàé áùø ãàéúëùø áîàé ëå' àìà áçéáú ä÷åãù úôùåè ãáòé ø''ù [áï ì÷éù]
(a) Question: In Pesachim (20a), it says "how did this meat become Huchshar?... Rather, it was through Chibas ha'Kodesh. We should settle Reish Lakish's question!"
àîàé ìà îùðé ëé äëà ãø''ù áï ì÷éù îéáòé ìé' ãàåøééú' ëé ÷àîø äëà ãøáðï
1. Why don't we reject like here, that Reish Lakish asked about mid'Oraisa, and here it says [that it is Huchshar] mid'Rabanan!
åé''ì ãøåöä ìúøõ ùí àôé' ìøá éåñó ãàîø áô''á ãçåìéï (ãó ìå:) ìø''ù áï ì÷éù ðîé òùàåäå ëäëùø îéí ãøáðï
(b) Answer: There [in Pesachim, the Gemara] wants to answer even according to Rav Yosef, who says in Chulin (36b) that also according to Reish Lakish, mid'Rabanan they made it like Hechsher of water;
îùîò ã÷ñáø ãîéáòé' ìéä ãøáðï åìãéãéä ä''ð ãúéôùåè îäëà ëé äéëé ãôùéè ìé' äúí
1. Inference: [Rav Yosef] holds that [Reish Lakish] asks mid'Rabanan, and according to [Rav Yosef], indeed we can resolve from here, just like he resolves there.
6) TOSFOS DH ki'Shtei Menachos she'Nis'arvu
úåñôåú ã"ä ëùúé îðçåú ùðúòøáå
(SUMMARY: Tosfos gives two explanations of this.)
åàîøéðï áä÷åîõ øáä (ìòéì ëâ.) àí éëåì ì÷îåõ îæå áôðé òöîä åîæå áôðé òöîä ëùøåú åàí ìàå ôñåìåú
(a) Explanation #1: We say that above (23a) that [if two Menachos became mixed,] if one can take Kemitzah from this one by itself and from by itself, they are Kosher, and if not, they are Pesulos.
åäà ã÷úðé ðîé ìòéì àìå ìäáéà áùðé ëìéí åäáéà áëìé àçã ôñåìä ëâåï ãìà éëåì ì÷îåõ îëì àçú áôðé òöîä ëê ôé' á÷å'
1. It taught above [if one vowed] "to bring these in two Kelim and he brought in one, it is Pasul." This is when he cannot take Kemitzah from each one by itself. So Rashi explained.
åòåã é''ì ãäëà îééøé ëâåï ùàîøå ìå áùúé ëìéí ðãøú åä÷øéáï áùúé ëìéí åçæø åðúðï áëìé àçã
(b) Explanation #2: Here we discuss when they said to him "you vowed in two Kelim", and they brought them in two Kelim, and he returned and put them in one Kli;
å÷î''ì ãàó ò''ô ùîúçéìä äáéà áëìé àçã î''î äåéà ìä äùúà ëùúé îðçåú ùðúòøáå
1. The Chidush is, even though initially he brought in one Kli, in any case now it is like two Menachos that became mixed.
7) TOSFOS DH Ha Mani Beis Shamai Hi... (pertains to the coming Daf)
úåñôåú ã"ä äà îðé áéú ùîàé äéà... (ùééê ìãó äáà)
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the different ways to explain the argument.)
áô' ùðé ãðæéø (ãó è.) îôøù èòîéä ãá''ù (ãñáø) [ö"ì ãñáøé - ãôåñ åéðéöéä] ìä ëø''î ãàîø àéï àãí îåöéà ãáøéå ìáèìä åëéåï ãàîø äøéðé ðæéø äåä ðæéø ëé ÷àîø îï äâøåâøåú ìàéúùåìé ÷àúé
(a) Reference: In Nazir (9a) it explains Beis Shamai's reason. They hold like R. Meir, who says that one does not say vain words. Since he said "I am a Nazir", he is a Nazir. When he said "from figs", he comes to ask (annul his vow);
á''ù ìèòîééäå ãàîøé àéï ùàìä áä÷ãù åëéåï ãàéï ùàìä áä÷ãù àéï ùàìä áðæéøåú
1. Beis Shamai hold like they taught elsewhere, that She'elah does not apply to Hekdesh, and since there is no She'elah about Hekdesh, there is no She'elah about Nezirus (for they are equated to each other);
ôé' ëéåï ãàéï àãí îåöé' ãáøéå ìáèìä ìà úéîà îòé÷øà ëé àîø äøéðé ðæéø äéä áãòúå ìâîåø îï äâøåâøåú åîï äãáìä àìà (àîø) [ö"ì àîøéðï - éùø åèåá] ãðîìê äåà åäééðå ìàéúùåìé ùøåöä ìçæåø áå
2. Explanation: Since one does not say vain words, do not say that from the beginning when he said "I am a Nazir", he intended to finish "from dried figs and fig cakes." Rather, we say that he reconsidered, i.e. to ask, for he wants to retract;
åëéåï ãñáøé àéï ùàìä [ö"ì ìä÷ãù - öàï ÷ãùéí] ëãúðï (ùí ì:) áéú ùîàé àåîøéí ä÷ãù èòåú ä÷ãù äëé ðîé ìà îöé îäãø àó áúåê ëãé ãéáåø àò''â ãáòìîà ëãéáåø ãîé
i. And since they hold that there is no She'elah regarding Hekdesh, like a Mishnah (Nazir 30b) teaches "Beis Shamai say, mistaken Hekdesh is Hekdesh", likewise he cannot retract, even Toch Kedei Dibur, even though elsewhere Toch Kedei Dibur is like Dibur (one can retract);
åáéú äìì àåîøéí àéðå ðæéø ãñáøé ìä ëø''ù ãúðï ø' ùîòåï ôåèø ùìà äúðãá ëãøê äîúðãáéï
3. And Beis Hillel say that he is not a Nazir. They hold like R. Shimon. A Mishnah teaches that R. Shimon exempts, for he did not volunteer the way people volunteer.
ôé' á÷åðè' âáé äøé òìé îðçä îï äùòåøéí ã÷àîø úðà ÷îà éáéà îï äçéèéï ãúôåñ ìùåï øàùåï
4. Rashi explained regarding "it is Alai to bring a Minchah of barley" that the first Tana says that he brings from wheat, for his initial words are primary;
åø''ù ôåèø ãàéï æä ëãøê äîúðãáéï ãàéï îðçä áàä ùòåøéï àìà îðçú äòåîø åîðçú ÷ðàåú
i. R. Shimon exempts, for he did not volunteer the way people volunteer. A Minchah does not come from barley, except for Minchas ha'Omer and Minchas Kena'os;
åäëé ðîé áðæéøåú ìà äåé ðæéø ãîòé÷øà äéä áãòúå ìâîåø îï äâøåâøåú åàéï æä ëãøê äðåãøéí
ii. Similarly regarding Nezirus, he is not a Nazir, for from the beginning he intended to finish "from dried figs", and this is unlike the way people vow.
åàí úàîø åìéîà èòîà ãáéú äìì îùåí ãéù ùàìä ìä÷ãù åáéú äìì ìèòîééäå ãàîøé ä÷ãù èòåú ìà äåé (îëàï îãó äáà) ä÷ãù åìëê îöé ìîéäãø úåê ëãé ãéáåø
(b) Question: He should say that Beis Hillel's reason is because She'elah applies to Hekdesh! Beis Hillel hold like they taught elsewhere, that mistaken Hekdesh is not Hekdesh. Therefore, he can retract Toch Kedei Dibur!