1)

TOSFOS DH GIRSA RISHONAH MEISEIVEI ACHAS ZONAH V'ACHAS AVODAS KOCHAVIM (continued from previous Amud).

úåñ' ã"ä (âéøñà øàùåðä) îéúéáé àçú æåðä éùøàìéú åàçú æåðä òåáãú ëåëáéí

(Summary: Tosfos presents another explanation to that of Rashi and cites an alternative text and clarifies it.)

åøáéðå ðúðàì ôéøù äåàéì åáðéï àá äåà ãîùåé ãéï àúðï ìãéï àéñåøà ãëäï îæåðä, ëãàîøéðï ãëì áéàä ùäéà àñåøä ìëäï äåé àúðï, åàôé' îôðåé à'ôðåéä ...

(a)

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Nesanel therefore explains (See Shitah Mekubetzes Hashmatos) that since it is a Binyan Av that equates the Din of Esnan with the Isur of a Kohen and a Zonah - as the Gemara says 'Any Bi'ah that is Asur to a Kohen is subject to Esnan', even that of a Panuy and a Penuyah ...

ä"ð éìôéðï ãéï àúðï ãëäï îæåðä, ãåîéà ãæåðä áëäï äåé àúðï - ëìåîø ùàéï áä ùí àçø ...

1.

Explanation #2 (cont.): In the same way we would learn the Din of Esnan of a Kohen from Zonah - in that if it is similar to a Zonah and a Kohen it is subject to Esnan, i.e. if there is no other Isur ...

àáì áàìîðä ìë"â ãàéï áä àéñåø îùåí æåðä àìà ùí àçø éù áä, ìà äåéà àúðï ...

2.

Explanation #2 (concl.): But Almanah le'Kohen Gadol, which is not Asur because of Zonah but because of another Isur, ought not to be subject to Esnan ...

÷î"ì ãáäàé ðîé äéà àúðï.

(b)

Conclusion: Therefore it teaches us that it too, is subject to Esnan.

åòåã éù âéøñà àçøú áñôøéí - 'îéúéáé ... ' òã 'äà ã÷úðé áñéôà ... '; åîùðé 'äà îðé ø"ò äéà ãàîø "àéï ÷ãåùéï úåôñéï áçééáé ìàåéï", åäà ÷î"ì ãëì æåðä ãåîéà ãàìîðä ìë"â - ãìà úôñé áä ÷ãåùéï.'

(c)

Alternative Text: Another text cited in the Sefarim reads 'Meisveih ... ' until 'Ha de'Katani be'Seifa ... '; and it answers 'Ha Mani Rebbi Akiva hi, de'Amar "Ein Kidushin Tofsin be'Chayvei La'avin", ve'Ha ka'Mashma-Lan de'Chol Zonah Dumya de'Almanah le'Kohen Gadol - de'Lo Tafsi bah Kidushin'

åö"ò, îàé äåé ÷ùéà ìéä - åîàé äåöøê ìàâîåøé ìîéìúéä 'äà ÷î"ì', äà úéøõ ùôéø - ëéåï ãàîø 'äà îðé ø"ò äéà'?

(d)

Question: However, the question on this is - 'Why we need to conclude 'Ha ka'Mashma-Lan ...', seeing as the Gemara already gave a good answer, when it established it like Rebbi Akiva?

åé"ì, ãäåä ÷ùéà ìéä äà ã÷úðé ñéôà 'ëâåï àìîðä ìë"â' - àîàé àéöèøéê ìîéúðé äëé, åìàå÷åîé ëø"ò, ìà ìéúðé àìà øéùà 'àçú æåðä éùøàìéú', åúéúé ëë"ò? ...

(e)

Answer (Abaye): The Problem is why, in the Seifa, the Tana finds it necessary to mention 'K'gon Almanah le'Kohen Gadol' and to establish it like Rebbi Akiva, let what it writes in the Reisha 'Achas Zonah Yisre'eilis' suffice, and let it go according to everybody? ...

åáëì áéàä ãäåä áä æåðä äåéà àúðï - ìøáðï áçééáé ëøéúåú åìø"ò áçééáé ìàåéï ...

1.

Answer (Abaye [cont.]): Inasmuch as any Bi'ah that makes her a Zonah is subject to Esnan - Chayvei Kerisos according to the Rabbanan, and Chayvei La'avin, according to Rebbi Akiva ...

åìäëé àâîøéä ìîéìúéä 'äà ÷î"ì ãåîéà ãàìîðä ìë"â' - ãàé ìà äåä úðé àìà øéùà 'àçú æåðä éùøàìéú', àéëà ìîéèòé åìåîø ãäåéà æåðä ëáø ëâåï ùðáòìä ìçééáé ëøéúåú ...

2.

Answer (Abaye [cont.]): That is why the Gemara concludes 'It teaches us 'Similar to Almanah le'Kohen Gadol' - Because had it only said 'Achas Zonah Yisre'elis', one could have erred and said that a woman who is already a Zonah, such as where she had relations with Chayvei K'risos ...

à"ð æåðä îåô÷øú äåéà æåðä ìâáé àúðï, àôéìå äéà ðùëøú åðáòìú ìîåúø ìä ...

3.

Answer (Abaye [cont.]): Or a Zonah who is promiscuous - is a Zonah with regard to Esnan, even if she is hired out to a man to whom she is permitted ...

ìäëé úðà ñéôà 'ëâåï àìîðä ìë"â' - ìàùîåòéðï ãìà äåéà àúðï àìà îáéàä ãìà úôñé áä ÷ãåùéï, ãåîéà ãàìîðä ìëäï âãåì ìø"ò.

4.

Answer (Abaye [concl.]): That is why the Tana learns the Seifa 'K'gon Almanah le'Kohyen Gadol' - to teach us that she is only subject to Esnan via a Bi'ah on which Kidushin does not take effect, similar to an Almanah to a Kohen Gadol according to Rebbi Akiva.

'åìøáà' - ãàîø àôé' úôñé áä ÷ãåùéï äåéà àúðï, áéï ùäéúä æåðä ëáø ëâåï ùðáòìä ëáø ìçééáé ëøéúåú, àé ðîé ëâåï æåðä îåô÷øú - 'îàé ùðà ã÷úðé "ëâåï àìîðä ìëä"â"?' ...

(f)

Answer (Rava): And according to Rava, who declares it an Esnan even if Kidushin take effect, even if she was already a Zonah, such as where she had relations with Chayvei K'risos or because she was promiscuous - 'Why does the Tana say "K'gon Almanah le'Kohen Gadol"?'

åîùðé 'ãåîéà ãàìîðä, îä àìîðä ñúîà ìà ì÷é òã ãîúøå áä, àó æåðä òã ãàîø ìä "äéìéëé àúðï!" ' - åàæ äåé àúðï, ãæðåú äåà, ëéåï ùîæëéø ìä ìùåï àúðï, àáì áñúîà ìà äåéà àúðï ...

1.

Answer (Rava [cont.]): And the Gemara answers 'Similar to an Almanah - Just as an Almanah S'tam is not subject to Malkos until she is warned, so too, a Zonah, it is only an Esnan when if he says to her "Here is an Esnan!" ', because then, since he mentioned a Lashon Esnan, it is considered Z'nus, but not S'tam (if he did not) ...

'åìàôå÷é îãø' àìòæø ãàîø "ôðåé äáà òì äôðåéä òùàä æåðä" ' - åìãéãéä àôé' áçãà æéîðà àôé' áñúîà äåéà æåðä ...

2.

Answer (Rava [cont.]): 'And to preclude Rebbi Elazar, who says 'Panuy ha'Ba al ha'Penuyah As'ah Zonah" ' - because according to him, even just once, and even S'tam, she is a Zonah ...

àáì äéëà ãäåéà æåðä îòé÷øà, àúððä àñåø àôéìå áñúîà, ãîåô÷øú äéà åàúðï æåðä îé÷øé, ëôøù"é.

3.

Answer (Rava [concl.]): But where she was a Zonah initially, her Esnan is forbidden even by S'tam, since she is promiscuous, and it is called the Esnan of a Zonah, as Rashi explains.

åãåç÷ äåà ìôøù äéëà àùëçðà ãáñúîà ìà äåéà àúðï ìøáðï (äéà) ...

(g)

Question: It is a Dochek however, to explain how we find that by S'tam it is not an Esnan according to the Rabbanan ...

àé áôðåéä - äà ìéú ìäå ãäåéà àúðï ëìì, àôé' àîø ìä 'äéìê àúðï' ...

1.

Reason: Because regarding a Penuyah - they do not hold of Esnan at all, even where he said 'Here is an Esnan'? ...

åàé áæåðä ëáø, ëâåï ùðáòìä ìçééáé ëøéúåú àå îåô÷øú, äà àîøå ãàôé' áñúîà äåéà àúðï?

2.

Reason (cont.): Whereas as far as a woman who was already a Zonah is concerned, such as one who had relations with a Chayvei Kareis or a woman who is promiscuous, they say that even by S'tam it is an Esnan?

ìë"ð ìôøù 'àó æåðä òã ãàîø ìä äéìê àúðï' - ëìåîø àé ðúï àúðï ìæåðä ùðáòìä ëáø ìçééáé ëøéúåú àå ìæåðä ùäéà îåô÷øú, ìà äåéà àúðï àà"ë îôøù ìä áäãéà 'äéìê èìä æä áàúððê' ...

(h)

Explanation #2: What the Gemara therefore means when it says 'Af Zonah ad de'Amar lah Heilech Esnan' is - that if he gives an Esnan to a Zonah who previously had relations with a Chayvei K'risos or to one who is promiscuous, it is not an Esnan unless he specifically states 'Here is this lamb for your Esnan' ...

àáì ðúï ìä áñúîà åìà ôéøù, ìà äåéà àúðï ...

1.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Byut if he gave it to her S'tam without a statement, it is not an Esnan ...

'åìàôå÷é îãø' àìòæø' - ãìãéãéä ãîçîéø áæåðä ëì ëê ãàôéìå ôðåé äáà òì äôðåéä òùàä æåðä, àôé' áñúîà ðîé äåé àúðï ...

2.

Explanation #2 (cont.): 'To preclude Rebbi Elazar' - according to whom, since he is so stringent as to declare even a Panuy ha'Ba al ha'Penuyah a Zonah, even by S'tam it is an Esnan ...

'àáì äéëà ãæåðä äéà îòé÷øà' - ôéøåù ìøáðï ðîé, äéëà ãäåéà æåðä áääéà áéàä ùäåà ðåúï ìä äàúðï, ëâåï àí äåà ðåúï ìàçåúå àå ìàçã îçééáé ëøéúåú, àôé' áñúîà äåéà àúðï ...

3.

Explanation #2 (cont.): 'But where she was a Zonah beforehand' - even according to the Rabbanan, there where she becomes a Zonah with the Bi'ah by which he gives her the Esnan - i.e. if he gives it to his sister or to one of the Chayvei K'risos, even bi'S'tam, it is an Esnan ...

ëéåï ãáàåúä áéàä äåéà æåðä ...

(i)

Reason: Seeing as through that Bi'ah she becomes a Zonah ...

ëãàîø ìø' àìòæø - ãîùåí ãîùåé ìä æåðä àôé' áôðåé äáà òì äôðåéä, äåéà àúðï, ä"ð àôé' áñúîà, äéëà ãäéà ðòùéú æåðä áàåúä áéàä ...

1.

Precedent: As the Gemara says according to Rebbi Elazar - that because he makes her a Zonah - even though it is a Panuy who has relations with a Penuyah, it is an Esnan, So too (according to the Rabbanan) it is an Esnan even bi'S'tam, there where she becomes a Zonah with that Bi'ah ...

àáì äéëà ãðòùéú æåðä ëáø, åáà àçø ãúôéñ áä ÷éãåùéï åðúï ìä àúðï, ìà äåéà àúðï áñúîà, àà"ë ôéøù áäãéà 'äéìê èìä æä áàúððê'.

(j)

Conclusion: But there where she was a Zonah already, and along comes a man with whom Kidushin is effective and gives her an Esnan, it is not an Esnan bi'S'tam, unless he specifically states 'Here is this lamb as your Esnan!'

2)

TOSFOS DH V'IDACH LISHT'RU

úåñ' ã"ä åàéãê ìéùúøå

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the reason behind the question and, after elaborating, answers a number of questions regarding B'reirah.)

ôéøåù îèòí áøéøä ...

(a)

Reason: Because of B'reirah ...

åäùúà ðéçà ìôø"é ãôñ÷ äéìëúà áëåìé äù"ñ ã'éù áøéøä'.

1.

Clarification: Which ggoes well with the Ri, who Paskens throughout Shas 'Yeshy B'reirah'.

àáì ìø"ú ãôñ÷ äéìëúà ã'àéï áøéøä', äéëé ôøéê ë"ë áôùéèåú 'åàéãê ìéùúøå?'?

(b)

Question: According to Rabeinu Tam, whoever, who Paskens 'Ein B'reirah', how can the Gemara simply ask that 'The rest should be permitted?'?

åé"ì, îùåí ãàéëà úðàé èåáà ãàéú ìäå áøéøä, ôøéê ìéä îîúðé' ãìà ëååúééäå îéúå÷îà.

(c)

Answer: Since there are many Tana'im who hold of B'reirah, the Gemara asks deom the Mishnah, which cannot go like them?

åéù ìúîåä, ãäëà îùîò ùàí àéñåø îòåøá áäéúø, ðåèì äàéñåø, åñåîëéï òì áøéøä ìåîø ùæäå äàéñåø ùðñúì÷.

(d)

Introduction #1 to Questions: It implies here that if Isur is mixed with Heter, one removes the Isur, relying on B'reirah to say that it is the Isur that was removed.

åëï áääéà ã'äìå÷ç ééï îáéï äëåúéí (ãîàé ô"æ î"ã) "ùðé ìåâéï ùàðé òúéã ìäôøéù äøé äï úøåîä, åñåîê òì áøéøä åìåîø ùæäå äçåìéï ùäåà ùåúä.

1.

Introduction #2 to Questions: Similarly, in the case in D'mai (7:4) of 'Someone who purchases wine from among the Kutim, and declares "The two Lugin that I am going to separate are T'rumah", and who relies on B'reirah to ascertain that what he subsequently drank was Chulin.

åëï ääéà ã'â' ùì÷çå ÷éðéäï áùåúôåú, åîúä àçú îäï' - ãôøéê äù"ñ áôùéèåú áîñ' éåîà (ãó ðä:) 'åðù÷åì ã' æåæé åðéùãéðäå, åàéãê ìéùúøå îùåí áøéøä?' ...

2.

Introduction #3 to Questions: And likewise the case where 'Three people purchased their bird Korbanos in partnership, and one of the birds subsequently dies' - on which the Gemara at the end of Yoma (Daf 55b) asks matter-of-factly 'Why not take four Zuzim and throw them out, and permit the rest on account of B'reirah?'

åà"ë áëì àéñåø äîòåøá áäéúø, ðñîåê à'áøéøä, åðù÷åì ëùéòåø äàéñåø, åàéãê ìéùúøå?

(e)

Question #1: In which case, why do we not rely on B'reirah whenever Isur becomes mixed up with Heter? Why not simply take away the Shi'ur Isur and permit the rest?

åëï 'æáçéí ùðúòøáå áùåø äðñ÷ì', ãàîøéðï (æáçéí ãó ò:) 'éîåúå'...

(f)

Question #2: And by the same token, 'Korbanos that became mixed up with a Shor ha'Niskal', why does the Gemara say in Zevachim (70b) 'Yamusu'? ...

åàîàé, ðäé ãáòìé çééí çùéáé åìà áèìé, î"î ðù÷åì çã îéðééäå, åàéãê ìéùúøå?

1.

Question #2 (cont.): Granted, live animals are Chashuv and are not subject to Bitul, why can one nevertheless not take one away, and permit the rest on account of B'reirah?

åàåîø îåøé äøî"ø ëìì âãåì áãéï æä - ãåãàé ëì ãáø ùäåáøø äàéñåø îúçìä åàç"ë ðúòøá áäéúø, ìà ñîëéðï à'áøéøä ...

(g)

Answer: Tosfos' Rebbe, ha'Rav Mordechai presents a major principle with regard to this Din - Certainly, he says, in any case where the Isur was initially discernable and became mixed up with Heter afterwards, we do not rely on B'reirah ...

ëéåï ùúòøåáúå äéä áàéñåø ...

1.

Reason: Since it became mixed up be'Isur ...

àáì äðé úòøåáúï áäéúø - ëé äàéñåø ìà äéä îáåøø ÷åãí úòøåáúå, åìàçø äúòøåáú ðåìã äàéñåø ...

2.

Answer (cont.): Whereas the above cases became mixed up be'Heter - seeing as the Isur was not clearly discernable before the mix-up and the Isur was only born after it occurred ...

àæ ñîëéðï àáøéøä, [åòé' äéèá úåñôåú áëåøåú ðå: åùééê ìãó ðæ. ã"ä ìáøåø åò"ò úåñôåú ñåèä éç. ã"ä çæø].

3.

Answer (concl.): that is when we rely on B'reirah (Examine Tosfos in Bechoros [56b] which belongs on 57a DH 'Liveror', and see also Tosfos Sotah, 18a DH 'Chazar').

30b----------------------------------------30b

3)

TOSFOS DH MINA HA MILSA D'AMRI RABBANAN EIN Z'NUS LI'BEHEIMAH

úåñ' ã"ä îðà äà îéìúà ãàîøé øáðï àéï æðåú ìáäîä

(Summary: Tosfos disagrees with Rashi's explanation.)

ã÷úðé áîúðé' 'àúðï ëìá îåúø'. ìùåï øù"é.

(a)

Explanation #1: As the Mishnah states 'Esnan Kelev Mutar' (Rashi's wording).

å÷ùéà, åëé ìà äéä éåãò ãîúðé' ÷øà ãøéù ãá' åìà ã'?

(b)

Question #1: Did the Gemara not know that the Tana learned it from the Pasuk "Two", 'and not four'?

åòåã, îàé ÷îäãø 'ìà ìéùúîéè ... ', åëé (ìà) ø"ì ìå ñáøà çãùä ùàéðä áîùðä?

(c)

Question #2: Moreover, how can the Gemara answer 'Lo Lishtamit ... '? Is he telling him (the questioner) a new S'vara that is not mentioned in the Mishnah?

åòåã, ëé îééúé áøééúà ã"á' ", 'åìà ã' ', àîàé ìà îééúé îúðé' ã÷úðé ðîé äëé?

(d)

Question #3: Furthermore, when the Gemara cites the Beraisa "Two", and not four', why did he not cite the Mishnah, which says the same thing?

åðøàä ìîåøé, ãåãàé øá àçà îôøæé÷à äéä éåãò äîùðä åäôñå÷ ã"á' ", 'åìà ã' ...

(e)

Explanation #2: Tosfos' Rebbe therefore explains that of course Rav Acha from Parzika knew the Mishnah and the Pasuk "Two", 'and not four' ...

åäéä ôùéèà ìéä ãàí äéä ðåúï äàúðï ìëìáúà ãàéðå àúðï, îùåí ÷øà ãùðéí åìà àøáòä ...

1.

Explanation #2 (cont.): And he took for granted that if he gave the Esnan to the dog that it was an Esnan, precisely on account of the Pasuk ...

àáì äéä áòé ìäôê - àí àãí ðåúï àúðï ìæåðä òì îðú ùéìéï ëìáå àöìä, àí áéàú ëìá îé÷øéà áéàú æðåú àå ìà?

2.

Explanation #2 (cont.): And his She'eilah was the reverse case - where a man gives an Esnan to a Zonah on condition that the dog sleeps with her, whether relations with the dog is considered a Bi'as Z'nus or not?

åàó òì âá ãàéï àúðï ùàãí ðåúï ìëìáúà àñåø, î"î àúðï ùðåúï ëìá ìàùä àñåø.

3.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Because even though an Esnan that a man gives to a bitch is not forbidden, perhaps one that a dog gives a woman is.

åîùðé 'ìà ìùúîéè úðà ãìéúðé ,'àúðï ùðåúï àãí ìä, åàúðï ùäëìá ðåúï ìä'.

4.

Explanation #2 (cont.): And the Gemara answers that 'The Tana'im would not fail to insert 'An Esnan that a man gives her and the Esnan that a dog gives her' ...

åäìùåï ãçå÷ ÷öú?

(f)

Question: Though the Lashon is somewhat forced?

åáúø äëé îééúé îï äáøééúà ã'ëé äéëé ãàîø ãàéï áéàú àãí ááäîä áéàú æðåú, ëê àéï áéàú áäîä áàùä ÷øåéä æðåú'.

(g)

Explanation #2 (cont.): It then cites the Beraisa that 'Just as the Bi'ah of a man with an animal is not considered Z'nus, so too, is the Bi'ah of an animal with a woman not considered Z'nus'.

åîîúðé' ìà øöä ìäáéà, îùåí ãîùðä àéï ãøëä ìôøù, àáì áøééúà, àí äéä àúðï àùä äðáòìú ìëìá àñåø, äéä ìä ìôøù.

1.

Explanation #2 (concl.): It declined to cite the Mishnah, because it is not the way of a Mishnah to elaborate, whereas as far as the Beraisa is concerned, had the Esnan of a woman who has relations with a dog been Asur, the Tana ought to have said so.

åáéáîåú (ãó ðè:) îåëéç ãîéìúà ãøá àçà ðàîø òì àùä ùðáòìä ìëìá - ãàéëà äúí 'îòùä áøéáä àçú áäéúìå ùäéúä îëáãú åøáòä ëìá ëåôøé îàçåøéä; áà îòùä ìôðé çëîé' åäëùéøåä'.

(h)

Proof: And in Yevamos (Daf 59b) it is clear that Rav Acha's statement refers to a woman who has relations with a dog - since it cites there the story of 'A woman in Hislu, who was sweeping the house when a wild dog raped her from behind; and when the story came before the Chachamim, they declared her Kasher'.

åòì äîòùä áòà øá àçà îôøæé÷éà îðà äà îéìúà.

(i)

Conclusion: And it is in connection with that story that Rav from Parzika asked 'From where do they know ... ?'

4)

TOSFOS DH D'NICHA LEIH B'NAFCHUSEIH

úåñ' ã"ä ãðéçà ìéä áðôçåúéä

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles this with the Sugya in Avodah Zarah.)

úéîä, ãäëà âáé ðòáã àñøéðï åìã ðòáã, åáîñ' ò"æ (ãó îå:) áòé 'äîùúçåä ì÷îä, ñåìú îäå ìîðçåú, éù ùéðåé áðòáã àå àéï ùéðåé áðòáã?

(a)

Introduction to Question: Here by Ne'evad, the Gemara declares the V'lad of a Ne'evad forbidden, whereas in Maseches Avodah Zarah (Daf 46b) the Gemara regarding 'Someone who prostrates himsel before standing corn', what the Din will be with regard to the flour being eligible for Menachos, whether there is Sinuy (a change) by Ne'evad or not?

åîééúé äê îéìúà ãøáà ã'åìã ðòáã àñåø', åîùðé 'äúí îòé÷øà áäîä åäùúà áäîä, åááà äåà ãàçéãà áàôéä, àáì ÷îä îòé÷øà çéèéï åäùúà ñåìú' ...

1.

Introduction to Question: And, after citing the current statement of Rava that 'V'lad Ne'evad is Asur', it retorts that 'There it was an animal to begin with, only the door was closed in front of it (See Shitah Mekubetzes, 27), whilst the standing corn (in the case there) was initially wheat which now became flour' ...

àìîà ùøéðï èôé áùéðåé îáðåìã, åâáé àúðï äåé ñáøà ãá"ù ìäôê - ãàîøå 'ùéðåé áî÷åîå äåà òåîã' å'çéèéï åòùàï ñåìú àñåøéï', åáåìã îåãå ãùøé, îãøùà ã"äí", 'åìà åìãåúéäí'?

(b)

Question: So we see that there is more S'vara to permit something that has changed than a V'lad, whereas in connection with Esnan, Beis Shamai holds the opposite - that Shinuy retains its status, inasmuch as 'Wheat which one ground into flour remains Asur', but they concede that a V'lad is permitted, due to the D'rashah "Heim", 've'Lo V'ladoseihem'?

åéù èòí ìçì÷ - ãåãàé âáé òáåãú ëåëáéí åìã àñåø, ëãîôøù äëà, 'ãðéçà ìéä áðôçéä', åãòúå ìäùúçååú ìëì äðôç ...

(c)

Answer: There is reason to differentiate however - in that certainly, with regard to Avodas Kochavim, the V'lad is forbidden, as the Gemara explains here, because 'he is pleased with the swelling', and he has in mind to prostrate before the swelling too ...

àáì îùúçåä ì÷îä àéï ãòúå ìäùúçååú àìà ìîä ùäåà øåàä, ãäééðå àú äçéèéï åìà àú äñåìú ...

1.

Answer (cont.): Whereas someone who prostrates himself before standing corn only has in mind what he sees, i.e. the wheat and not the flour ...

àáì âáé àúðï, ãòúä à'òé÷ø àúðï. ìôéëê âáé áäîä ããòú äæåðä ìáäîä åìà ìåìã, åâáé ÷îä ãòúä ìñåìú ùäéà òé÷ø.

2.

Answer (concl.): On the other hand, regarding Esnan, her mind is on the main article. Consequently, by an animal, her mind is on the animal and not the V'lad, whereas by standing corn it is on the flour, which is the Ikar.

5)

TOSFOS DH REBBI ELIEZER OMER V'LAD T'REIFAH LO YIKAREV

úåñ' ã"ä øáé àìéòæø àåîø åìã èøôä ìà é÷øá

(Summary: Tosfos disagrees with Rashi and elaborates.)

ôøù"é àáì ìäãéåè ã"ä ùøé, ãìà îâåôä ÷à øáå.

(a)

Refuted Explanation: Rashi explains that - to a Hedyot, everyone agrees, it is permitted, seeing as it does not grow from its body.

åìà ðäéøà, ãáô' àìå èøôåú (çåìéï ðç.) îôøù áäãéà ãàôé' ìäãéåè ðîé àñåø ...

(b)

Refutation: That is not correct however, since in Perek Eilu T'reifos (Chulin, Daf 58a) the Gemara specifically states that (according to Rebbi Eliezer) it is Asur to a Hedyot as well ...

åäà ãôìéâé ìâáåä (ðîé ùøé) ...

(c)

Implied Question: And they only argue by Gavohah ...

ìäåãéòê ëçï ãø"é ãàôé' ìâáåä ðîé ùøå. ìëê ðøàä ãàó ìäãéåè àñåø ...

1.

Answer: To teach us how far Rebbi Yehoshua goes, that he even permits to Gavohah. It would therefore seem that even to a Hedyot it is also Asur.

åäà ãð÷è 'ìà é÷øá' ...

(d)

Implied Question: And the reason that the Tana says 'Lo Yikarev' ...

îùåí øáðï ãàîøé 'é÷øá' ð÷èéä.

1.

Answer: Is because the Rabbanan say 'Yikarev'.

6)

TOSFOS DH AVAL NIRVE'U V'LI'BESOF IBRU DIVREI HA'KOL MUTARIN

úåñ' ã"ä àáì ðøáòå åìáñåó òéáøå ã"ä îåúøéï

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the statement and reconciles it with the Sugya in Pesachim.)

ôéøåù - 'ãæä åæä âåøí îåúø'.

(a)

Clarification: Because 'Zeh ve'Zeh Gorem is Mutar'.

å÷ùä, ãùîòéðï ìéä ìø' àìéòæø ãàéú ìéä áôø÷ ëì ùòä (ôñçéí ëæ.) 'æä åæä âåøí, àñåø'?

(b)

Question: But Rebbi Eliezer says in Perek Kol Sha'ah (Pesachim, Daf 27a) that 'Zeh ve'Zeh Gorem is Asur'?

åé"ì, ãäúí îééøé áãáø ùàñåø àó ìäãéåè, åäëà îééøé áàéñåø âáåä ìáã [åò' úåñ' ñðäãøéï ô: ã"ä àìà].

(c)

Answer: There it is speaking about something that is Asur also to a Hedyot, whereas here it is speaking about Isur Gavohah exclusively (See Tosfos, Sanhedrin, Daf 80b DH 'Ela' [There in Pesachim, Tosfos leaves this Kashya unanswered]).

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF