1)

TOSFOS DH HA LO MATZIS AMRAT D'HA'KESIV LO SEKALEL CHERESH

úåñ' ã"ä äà ìà îöéú àîøú ãäëúéá ìà ú÷ìì çøù

(Summary: Tosfos explains why the Gemara establishes the Pasuk by Mekalel rather than by Motzi Shem Ra.)

åëéåï ãàùëçï àæäøä áî÷ìì, éù ìðå ìäòîéã äàé ÷øà ãîì÷åú áî÷ìì çáéøå áùí èôé îìäòîéã áîåöéà ùí ùîéí ìáèìä, ãìà àùëçðà áéä àæäøä îôåøùú.

(a)

Clarification: And since we find an Azharah by Mekalel, we establish the Pasuk of Malkos by someone who curses is friend, rather than by someone who pronounces Hash-m's Name in vain, by which we do not find a specific warning.

2)

TOSFOS DH MELE'ASCHA ZU BIKURIM

úåñ' ã"ä îìàúê æå áéëåøé

(Summary: Tosfos, citing Rashi, explains the term 'Mele'ah', but disagrees with his interpretation of 'Dema'.)

ôøù"é ìäëé ÷øé 'îìàä' îùåí ãìàìúø ùðúâãùú äúáåàä åðâîøä îìàëúä äå÷áò ìáéëåøéí ...

(a)

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that the Torah calls it "Mele'ah" because as soon as the produce is piled up and the Melachah is finished, it is fixed for Bikurim ...

"åãîòê", æå úøåîä (îä) - [ìôé] ùäéà îãîòú åòåìä, îôé÷ ìä ÷øà áìùåï 'ãéîåò'.

1.

Explanation #1 (cont.): Whereas "Dim'acha" refers to T'rumah since it is Medama'as (if it falls into Chulin), the Torah presents it with a Lashon 'Dimu'a'.

åìà ðäéøà - ùäøé æä àéðå àìà îãøáðï.

(b)

Refutation: This is not correct however - since this is only mi'de'Rabbanan.

åä"ø îùä îôåðèåéæ"à ôéøù ãìëê ÷øé ìúøåîä 'ãîò' ìôé ùðåäâú áìç, åáéëåøéí àéðï àìà áéáù ...

(c)

Explanation #2: Therefore Rav Moshe from Pontoize explains that the Torah calls T'rumah 'Dema' because it applies even to liquids, whereas Bikurim is confined to solids.

ùäøé àéï îáéàéï áéëåøéí àìà îôøé ...

(d)

Reason: Because one can only bring Bikurim from fruit ...

ëãàéúà ôø÷ äòåø åäøåèá (çåìéï ãó ÷ë:) 'ôøé àúä îáéà åàé àúä îáéà îù÷ä'.

1.

Source: As the Gemara say in 'ha'Or ve'ha'Rotev' (Chulin, Daf 120b) 'You must bring 'P'ri' and not liquid'.

3)

TOSFOS DH HAYU L'FANECHA SH'TEI KALKALOS SHEL TEVEL V'AMAR MA'ASER SHEL ZU B'ZU HA'RISHONAH ME'USERES

úåñ' ã"ä äéå ìôðéå ùúé ëìëìåú ùì èáì åàîø îòùø ùì æå áæå äøàùåðä îòåùøú

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the case,)

ëâåï àí áëì ëìëìä îàä úàðéí, åàåîø 'òùøä îï äùðéä éäéå îòùø øàùåï òì äøàùåðä', åàåîø ðîé 'úùòä îòùø ùðé'...

(a)

Clarification: It speaks where each basket contains a hundred figs, and he declared ten figs from the second basket Ma'aser Rishon on the first one, and nine Ma'aser Sheini ...

ëì äîàä ùì øàùåðä äï îúå÷ðéí ...

1.

Clarification (cont.): All hundred in the first basket are rectified.

åáãîàé îééøé ...

(b)

Case: And it is speaking about D'mai ...

îãìà ÷îôøéù úøåîä.

1.

Proof: Since it does not mention T'rumah.

åáîñëú ãîàé (ô"æ î"å) îéúðéà.

(c)

Source: This Mishnah is learned in Maseches D'mai (Perek 7, Mishnah 6).

4)

TOSFOS DH SHEL ZU B'ZU V'SHEL ZU B'ZU HA'RISHONAH ME'USERES

úåñ' ã"ä ùì æå áæå åùì æå áæå äøàùåðä îòåùøú

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the ruling.)

ãîéã ùàîø ,'ùì æå áæå', äéà îúå÷ðú åðòùä ôèåø ...

(a)

Clarification: Because as soon as he declares 'Shel Zu be'Zu', it is rectified and becomes Patur ...

ëé äãø àîø 'åùì æå áæå', ðîöà îòùø îï äôèåø òì äçéåá, åàéðå ëìåí.

1.

Clarification (cont.): Consequently, when he then says 've'shel Zu be'Zu', it transpires that he is Ma'asering from P'tur on to Chiyuv, and it is invalid.

5)

TOSFOS DH MA'ASROSEIHEM MA'ASER KALKALAH B'CHAVERTAH KARA HA'SHEM

úåñ' ã"ä îòùøåúéäí îòùø ëìëìä áçáéøúä ÷øà äùí

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the ruling and elaborates.)

ùäøé îúå÷ðéï äï éçã æä áæä.

(a)

Reason: Seeing as they are rectified simultaneously one on the other.

åàó òì âá ã÷é"ì 'ëì ùàéðå áæä àçø æä àôéìå ááú àçú àéðå' ...

(b)

Implied Question: And even though we Pasken that 'Whatever does not take effect one consecutively does not not take effect simultaneously either' ...

äëà ëéåï ããòúéä ìú÷åðé úøåééäå, äåé ëàåîø 'îòùø ùì øàùåðä úäà áùðéä çåõ îé' ùéùàøå èáì áøàùåðä ìú÷ï äùðéä' ...

1.

Answer: In this case, since he had in mind to rectify them both, it is as if he said 'The Ma'aser of the first basket shall take effect in the second one except for ten, which shall remain Tevel in the first one to rectify the second one.

åçì äîòùø ùì æå áæå åùì æå áæå.

(c)

Conclusion: And the Ma'aser then takes effect in the second basket on the first one and vice-versa.

6)

TOSFOS DH V'ITMAR ALAH REBBI ELIEZER OMER LOKEH MIPNEI SHE'HIKDIM MA'ASER SHEINI SHE'BAH L'MA'ASER RISHON SHE'B'CHAVERTAH

úåñ' ã"ä åàúîø òìä ø"à àåîø ìå÷ä îôðé ùä÷ãéí îòùø ùðé ùáä ìîòùø øàùåï ùáçáéøúä

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the ruling and cites a Yerushalmi and explains it.)

ùäøé îòùø øàùåï åùðé ùì øàùåðä äåå ëàéìå äï îåôøùéí, åòãééï îòùø øàùåï ùì ùðéä èáì áúåëä ...

(a)

Clarification: Since the Ma'aser Rishon and Sheini of the first basket are separated, and the Ma'aser Rishon of the second one remains Tevel inside it (See Shitah Mekubetzes, Hashmatos).

åà'øéùà ÷àé ãàîø 'îòùø ùì æå áæå, îòåùøåú'.

1.

Clarification (cont.): And it refers to the Reisha, which states 'Ma'aser shel Zu be'Zu, Me'useres'.

åâøñéðï áéøåùìîé 'òì äøàùåðä áòùä åòì äùðéä áìàå' ...

(b)

Yerushalmi (Text #1): 'On the first basket he transgresses an Asei, and on the second one, a La'av'.

åéù ìôøù 'òì äøàùåðä' - àí ÷áò îòùøåúéäï áúåëä, òåáø áòùä - ùäéä ìå ìä÷ãéí îòùø øàùåï ìùðé, åäøé ÷øà ùîí ááú àçú.

(c)

Explanation: 'On the first basket' - If he fixes his Ma'asros in it, he transgresses an Asei - because he should have given Ma'aser Rishon precedence over Ma'aser Sheini, whereas he declared them both simultaneously.

îéäå ìàå ìéëà - ëéåï ãìà ä÷ãéí ùðé ìøàùåï.

1.

Explanation (cont.): He does not transgress a La'av however - since he did not declare Ma'aser Sheini before Ma'aser Rishon.

'åòì äùðéä áìàå' ëùúé÷ï äøàùåðä áúåëä - ùäøé ä÷ãéí îòùø ùðé ùì øàùåðä ìîòùø øàùåï ùì ùðéä.

2.

Explanation (concl.): 'And on the second one, a La'av' when he rectifies the first one inside it - since he gave precedence to the Ma'aser Sheini of the first one over the Ma'aser Rishon of the of the second one.

åàéú ãâøñé àéôëà 'òì äøàùåðä áìàå åòì äùðéä áòùä'.

(d)

Yerushalmi (Text #2): An alternative text reads 'On the first one he transgresses a La'av and on the second one' an Asei' ...

åä"ô òì øéùà ùì îùðä ãäééðå ëé àîø 'îòùø ùì æå áæå, 'òåáø áìàå' - ùäøé î÷ãéí îòùø ùðé ìøàùåï ëãôøéùéú ...

(e)

Explanation: On the Reisha of the Mishnah - where he declares 'Ma'aser shel Zu be'Zu, 'he transgresses a La'av' - because he gave precedence to the Ma'aser Sheini of the first one, as Tosfos explained ...

'åòì äùðéä' ôé' òì ñéôà ãîúðéúéï - ãäééðå ëé àîø 'îòùøåúéäí îòùø ëìëìä áçáéøúä' ìéëà ìàå àìà òùä, ùäøé ááú àçú äï.

1.

Explanation (cont.): Whereas on the second one, with reference to the Seifa of the Mishnah - where he declared 'The Ma'asros of each basket shall take effect on the other one', there is only an Asei, since they take effect simultaneously.

7)

TOSFOS DH SHE'HIKDIM MA'ASER SHEINI SHE'BAH L'MA'ASER RISHON SHE'B'CHAVERTAH

úåñ' ã"ä ùä÷ãéí îòùø ùðé ùáä ìîòùø øàùåï ùáçáéøúä

(Summary: Tosfos explains the D'rashah regarding Ma'asros, despite the fact that the Pasuk only appears to be speaking abouyt T'rumah and Bikurim.)

åàó òì âá ã÷øà ìà ÷îééøé àìà îáéëåøéí åúøåîä...

(a)

Implied Question: Even though the Pasuk is only speaking about Bikurim and T'rumah ...

îéäå ôéøù ðîé áîòùø øàùåï ìúøåîä åîòùø ùðé ìîòùø øàùåï ...

1.

Answer: Nevertheless, it also refers to Ma'aser Rishon vis-?-vis T'rumah and Ma'aser Sheini vis-?-vis Ma'aser Rishon ...

îãëúéá "åãîòê ìà úàçø" - ëì ùéùðå áëìì ãéîåò ìà úàçø ...

2.

Source: Since it writes "ve'Dim'acha Lo Se'acher" - 'Do not delay whatever is subject to Dimu'a' ...

( åîôøù èòîà áîùðéåú [úøåîåú ôø÷ â î"æ])

(Continued on Amud Beis).

4b----------------------------------------4b

åîôøù èòîà áîùðéåú (úøåîåú ôø÷ â î"æ) - 'éå÷ãîå áëåøéí ìúøåîä - îùåí ãàé÷øå 'áëåøéí', åúøåîä ìîòùø øàùåï - îùåí ãàé÷øå 'úøåîä' 'åøàùéú' ...

(b)

Reason #1: The Tana explains this in T'rumos (3:7) - 'Bikurim precedes T'rumah - because it is called 'Bikurim' (first-fruits), T'rumah precedes Ma'aser - because it is called both 'T'rumah' and 'Reishis' ...

åîòùø øàùåï ìùðé - îùåí ãàéú áéä øàùéú ôéøåù ãàéú áéä úøåîú îòùø.

1.

Reason #1: (cont.): And Ma'aser Rishon precedes Ma'aser Sheini - because it contains Reishis (i.e. T'rumas Ma'aser).

åáîëéìúà ôéøù èòí àçø åøù"é ëúá åæä ìùåðå ...

(c)

Reason #2 (Mechilta): But the Mechilta gives a different reason, which Rashi explains as follows ...

"éå÷ãí áëåøéí ìúøåîä - îùåí ãàéú ìäå ã' ùîåú - 'øàùéú åîìàä åúøåîä åáëåøéí', åúøåîä ìéú ìä àìà ùìùä ùîåú - 'øàùéú åãîò åúøåîä' ...

1.

Mechilta (cont.): 'Bikurim precedes T'rumah - because it has four names ('Reishis', 'Mele'ah', T'rumah' and 'Bikurim'), whereas T'rumah has only three ('Reishis', Dema and T'rumah') ...

åéå÷ãí úøåîä ìîòùø øàùåï - ùàéï áä àìà á' ùîåú, ëâåï 'îòùø åúøåîú îòùø' ...

2.

Mechilta (cont.): T'rumah precedes Ma'aser Rishon - since it (the latter) has only has two names ('Ma'aser and 'T'rumas Ma'aser') ...

åéå÷ãí îòùø øàùåï ìùðé - ùàéï ìå àìà ùí àçã - îòùø ùðé' ...

3.

Mechilta (cont.): And Ma'aser Rishon precedes Ma'aser Sheini - since it (the latter) has only the one name ('Ma'aser Sheini' ...

îëàï àîøå 'äî÷ãéí úøåîä ìáëåøéí åîòùø øàùåï ìúøåîä åîòùø ùðé ìøàùåï, àò"ô ùäåà òåáø áìà úòùä, îä ùòùä òùåé ...

4.

Mechilta (concl.): From here they concluded that 'Someone who gives T'rumah before Bikurim, Ma'aser Rishon before T'rumah or Ma'aser Sheini before Ma'aser Rishon, although he has transgressed a La'av, what he did is valid ...

úìîåã ìåîø "îìàúê åãîòê ìà úàçø" - îùîò ãà'ëåìäå ÷à îùúòé, ùçîåø ùáäï ìà úàçø àìà ú÷ãéí äçîåø ì÷ì ...

(d)

Source: Because the Torah writes "Mele'ascha ve'Dim'acha Lo Se'acher" - implying that the Torah ia referring to all of them, not to delay the more stringent but to give it precedence over the one that is more lenient ...

åëé äéëé ã÷àîø ø' àìòæø ìå÷ä áî÷ãéí îòùø ùðé ìøàùåï, ä"ð áî÷ãéí îòùø øàùåï ìúøåîä åúøåîä ìáëåøéí òë"ì.

(e)

Conclusion: And just as Rebbi Elazar says that one receives Malkos for giving Ma'aser Sheini precedence over Ma'aser Rishon, so too, will one receive Malkos for giving precedence to Ma'aser Rishon over Trumah and to T'rumah over Bikurim.

8)

TOSFOS DH V'CHOL LA'AV HA'NITAK LA'ASEI LOKIN ALAV V'HAREI MEIMAR

úåñ' ã"ä åëì ìàå äðéú÷ ìòùä àéï ìå÷éï òìéå åäøé îéîø

(Summary: Tosfos explains why Abaye thinks that he will receive Malkos, even tough it is a La'av ha'Nitak la'Asei'.)

åà"ú, åëé úòìä òì ãòúéä ãàáéé ìåîø òì ìàå äðéú÷ ìòùä ãì÷é? ...

(a)

Question: Does Abaye really think that he will receive Malkos for a 'La'av ha'Nitak la'Asei'?

åäøé ùéìåç ä÷ï, ãîùðä ùìéîä äéà áîñëú çåìéï (ãó ÷îà:) ã'àí ì÷ç äàí òì äáðéí, îùìç åàéðå ìå÷ä' îùåí ãäåé ìàå äðéú÷ ìòùä?

(b)

Source #1: But we have Shilu'ach ha'Kein, about which the Mishnah says in Maseches Chulin (Daf 141a) that 'Someone who takes the mother and the babies does not receive Malkos - because it is a 'La'av ha'Nitak la'Asei'?

åëï âáé ðåúø ðîé àîø 'áà äëúåá ìéúï òùä àçø ìà úòùä, ìåîø ùàéï ìå÷éï òìéå?

(c)

Source #2: And similarly with regard to Nosar it says 'The Torah gives an Asei after a Lo Sa'aseh to teach us that he does not receive Malkos'?

åëï âáé àåðñ úðï ù'àí âéøù, îçæéø åàéðå ìå÷ä?

(d)

Source #3: And again regarding Oneis the Tana (later on Daf 5a) says that 'If he divorces her, he must take her back and does not receive Malkos'?

åàåø"é, ãôùéè ìéä ìàáéé áùéìåç ä÷ï åðåúø åàåðñ, ãñîéëé òùä ãéãäå à'ìàå, ãìà ì÷é ...

(e)

Answer: The Ri explains that it is obvious to Abaye that by Shilu'ach ha'Kein, Nosar and Oneis, where the Asei juxtaposes the La'av, there is no Malkos ...

àìà ùäéä úîéä à'ìàå ãîòùø ãìà ñîéê "îëì îúðåúéëí úøéîå" à'ìàå ã"ìà úàçø", åîùåí äëé ôøéê 'åäøé îéîø ... '

1.

Answer (cont.): But he wondered about Ma'aser, where "mi'Kol Matnoseichem Tarimu" is not next to the La'av of "Lo Se'acher", which is why he asks 'How about Meimar?' ...

åàó òì âá ãñîéê äòùä àçø äìàå ...

(f)

Implied Question: And even though there the Asei does follow the La'av ...

îéäå îãîä îéìúà ìîéìúà - ãëé äéëé ãâáé úîåøä ì÷é áìàå äðéú÷ ìòùä - îùåí ãàéðå î÷ééí äòùä áéãéí ...

1.

Answer: Nevertheless, it compares the two - since just as Temurah is subject to Malkos by a La'av a'Nitak la'Asei - because he one does not fulfill the Asei with one's hands ...

ä"ð äéä ìï ìîéîø "îëì îúðåúéëí úøéîå", àó òì âá ãî÷ééí äòùä áéãéí, îéäå ëéåï ãìà ñîéê, ìà äéä ìðå ìäçæé÷å ììàå äðéú÷ ìòùä ...

2.

Answer (cont.): So too, we ought to say that "mi'Kol Matnoseichem Tarimu", despite the fact that one does fulfill the Asei with one's hands, yet since is not juxtaposed to the La'av, we ought not to consider it a La'av ha'Nitak la'Asei ...

åàó òì âá ã"åäùéá àú äâæéìä àùø âæì" (åé÷øà ä) ìà ñîéê ììàå ...

(g)

Implied Question: And although 've'Heishiv es ha'Gezeilah asher Gazal" (Vayikra 5) is not juxtaposed to the La'av ...

î"î ðéú÷ âîåø äåà ...

(h)

Answer: Nevertheless it is a proper Nituk ...

ãàé àôùø ìòùåú äùáä àìà ìàçø äìàå ...

1.

Reason: Seeing as it is only possible to return the article after having transgressed the La'av ...

àáì "îëì îúðåúéëí" àôùø ì÷ééîå àôé' àí ìà òáø äìàå, åîù"ä îãîä ìéä ìîéîø.

(i)

Conclusion: Whereas "mi'Kol Matnoseichem ... " one can carry out even without having transgressed the La'av, which is why he compares it to Meimar.

9)

TOSFOS DH HAREI ONEIS D'CHAD ASEI V'LO ASI CHAD ASEI V'AKAR LA'AV

úåñ' ã"ä äøé àåðñ ãçã ìàå åçã òùä åìà àúé çã òùä åò÷ø ìàå

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the question.)

ôéøåù ìãéãê ãàîøú ã"îëì îúðåúéëí úøéîå" ãìà àééøé àìà áä÷ãîú úøåîä ìîòùø, åàôé' äëé äåé ðéúå÷ ìä÷ãîä ãáëåøéí ìúøåîä ...

(a)

Clarification: What he means to ask is 'according to you who learns that "mi'Kol Matnoseichem Tarimu" is speaking specifically about giving precedence to T'rumah over Ma'aser, yet it also renders Menatek giving precedence to Bikurim over T'rumah ...

àìîà àéú ìê ãìàå ùðéú÷ ìî÷öúå àîøé' ãðéú÷ ëåìå.

1.

Clarification (cont.): From which we see that if part of a La'av is Nitak, so too is the entire La'av.

åäøé àåðñ ãìàå ãéãéä ðéú÷ ìâáé éùøàì åìà àîøéðï ãðéú÷ ìâáé ëäï ...

2.

Clarification (concl.): But there is Oneis, the La'av of which has a Nituk with regard to a Yisrael, but not with regard to a Kohen ...

àìîà ãäéëà ãðéú÷ î÷öúå ìà ðéú÷ ëåìå.

(b)

Conclusion: So we see that if part of the La'av has a Nituk, it does not extend to the entire La'av.

10)

TOSFOS DH KOHANIM KA'AMRAT SHA'ANI KOHANIM D'RABI RACHMANA BA'HEN KEDUSHAH YESERTA

úåñ' ã"ä ëäðéí ÷àîøú ùàðé ëäðéí ãøáé øçîðà áäï ÷ãåùä éúéøúà

(Summary: Tosfos disagrees with Rashi's explanation as to the stringency.)

ôøù"é åàäëé àçîåø - ãìéì÷å àó òì âá ãäåé ìàå ùàéðå ùåä áëì.

(a)

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that they are more stringent in that they receive Malkos even on a La'av that does not pertain to everyone.

åìà ðäéøà!

(b)

Refutation: But this is not correct!

åëé îùåí ëï éì÷å òì ìàå äðéú÷?

(c)

Refutation: Because - is that a reason to sentence them to Malkos for a La'av that is Nitak to an Asei?

åø"é ôéøù ëéåï ùàñø äëúåá âøåùä ìâáééäå, àéðå ðéú÷ äìàå ìòùä ...

(d)

Explanation #2: The Ri therefore explains that it is due to the fact that, since the Torah forbids them to marry a Gerushah, it is not Nitak la'Asei ...

ãìà ãîé ìäà ãìòéì, ã"úøéîå" äåé ðéúå÷ âí îä÷ãîä ãáëåøéí ...

(e)

Clarification: It is not therefore comparable to the case above, where "Tarimu" is a Nituk also to where one gives precedence to T'rumah over Bikurim ...

ãîéðéä ùîòé' ùéëåì ìú÷ï àí òéåú åä÷ãéí úøåîä ìáëåøéí, ãëê ìé àí ä÷ãéí îòùø ìúøåîä ëàéìå ä÷ãéí úøåîä ìáëåøéí.

1.

Clarification (cont.): From which we learn that one is able to rectify in the event that he sinned by giving T'rumah precedence over Bikurim, because there is no difference between giving precedence to Ma'aser over T'rumah and giving precedence to T'rumah over Bikurim.

11)

TOSFOS DH KI'TENA'I

úåñ' ã"ä ëúðàé

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the context.):

ìà ÷àé à'äàé ñåâéà ã'ìàå äðéú÷ ìòùä' àìà à'ôìåâúà ã'ìàå ùàéï áå îòùä'.

(a)

Clarification: This does not refer to the current Sugya of 'L'a'av ha'Nitak la'Asei' (See Hagahos ha'G'ra), but to the Sugya of 'La'av she'Ein bo Ma'aseh'.

12)

TOSFOS DH V'REBBI YA'AKOV HAI VE'HA'NOSAR MAI AVID LEIH

úåñ' ã"ä åøáé éò÷á äàé åäðåúø îàé òáéã ìéä

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the question.)

åàí úàîø, äà àéöèøéê ìäåøåú ìðå ãéï ùøéôä?

(a)

Question: It is needed to teach us that it must be burned?

åéù ìåîø, ãîï äñîéëåú ÷ôøéê - ìîàé äìëúà ëúáéä äëà ñîåê ììàå, àé ìàå ìðúå÷é àúà ...

(b)

Answer #1: The Gemara is asking from the juxtaposition - Why it insert it here next to the La'av, if not to make it Nituk? ...

ìéëúáéä áî÷åí àçø?

1.

Answer #1 (cont.): Why not insert it somewhere else?

à"ð, ìà ìéëúáéä ëìì ...

(c)

Answer #2: Alternatively, it should not have inserted it at all ...

ãôùéèà ãëì ðåúø áùøéôä, î"åùøôú àú äðåúø áàù (ùîåú ëè ôñå÷ ìã) ...

1.

Reason: Seeing as it is obvious that all Nosar myust be burned, from the Pasuk "And you shall burn the Nosar in fire" (Sh'mos, 29:34).

åîùðé - ìäëé ñîéê "åäðåúø" àöì "ìà úåúéøå", ëãúðéà ìñîåê "á÷ø á÷ø", ìåîø ùàéï ùåøôéï ÷ãùéí áéå"è.

2.

Reason (cont.): And the Gemara answers that the Torah needs to insert it next to "Lo Sosiru", as the Beraisa will shortly explain "Boker Boker", to teach us that one may not burn Kodshim on Yom-Tov.

13)

TOSFOS DH RAVA AMAR LO MEHANI MIDI

úåñ' ã"ä øáà àîø ìà îäðé îéãé

(Summary: Tosfos discusses Rava's statement from all angles.)

÷ùä, àí ëï, ùåçè ôñç òì äçîõ, ìôñåì?

(a)

Question: If so, if someone Shechts a Pesach when he has Chametz, it ought to be Pasul?

åéù ìåîø, ãáéøåùìîé ãåøù ÷øà ãëúéá "ìà úùçè òì çîõ ãí æáçé" - àò"ô ùùçèå ... ð÷øà 'æáçé'.

(b)

Answer: The Yerushalmi Darshens from the Pasuk "Lo Sishchat al Chametz Dam Zivchi" that - even if he Shechted it, it is still called 'My Zevach' (See also Tosfos Pesachim 63a DH 'ha'Shochet').

å÷ùä, öøí àåæï áëåø, ìéúñø?

(c)

Question: If someone nicks the ear of a B'chor, it should become Asur?

åôùéèà ìï ãàéðå àñåø àìà îèòí ÷ðñ?

1.

Question (cont.): And we know for a fact that it is only Asur due to a K'nas?

åé"ì, ãìà âøò îàéìå ðôì áå îåí îòöîå, ãùøé.

(d)

Answer: It is not worse than if a blemish occurred to it by itself, in which case it is permitted.

åîæä ðéçà ìîä ìà ðàñø öøí àåæï î'ëì ùúòáúé ìê, äøé äåà ááì úàëì' ...

(e)

Question: And by the same token, the question as to why if someone nicks the ear of a B'chor why is it not Asur due to the principle 'Whatever the Torah forbids may not be eaten'

ëîå áùø áçìá? ...

1.

Precedent: Such as Basar be'Chalav? (See also Tosfos, Chulin, 115a DH 'Kol she'Ti'avti lach') ...

ãéù ìåîø, ããå÷à áùø áçìá ðôé÷ îéðéä, äåàéì åàôéìå ðôì îîéìà äáùø ìúåê äçìá, àñåø ...

(f)

Answer: Because it is specifically Basar be'Chalav which we learn from there, since, even if the met fell into the milk by itself, it would be Asur ...

àáì öøí àåæï, ãîîéìà îåúø, àéðå ááì úàëì àôéìå ðòùä áéãéí.

1.

Answer (cont.): Whereas if he nicked the ear, where, if it occurred by itself, it would be permitted, it is not forbidden to eat it, even if he did it with his hands.

åà"ú, çåøù áùåø åçîåø ìéúñø áçøéùä?

(g)

Question: Why, if one plows withy an ox and a donkey, is what he plowed not forbidden (See Tosfos, Chulin, 115a, DH 'Choresh').

åé"ì, îãâìé áëìàé äëøí ãàñéøé, ù"î ãùàø áìàéí îåúøéí (úåñôåú).

(h)

Answer: Since the Torah forbids K'lai ha'Kerem, we can extrapolate that other forms of Kil'ayim are permitted.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF