ZEVACHIM 31 - Dedicated by Elliot and Lori Linzer in honor of the birthday of Neti Linzer.

1)

TOSFOS DH va'Yikatz k'Yashen ha'Pigul

úåñôåú ã"ä åé÷õ ëéùï äôéâåì

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why Rava did not say "Matza Min Es Mino v'Ni'ur.")

ìà ùééê äëà îöà îéï àú îéðå åðéòåø:

(a)

Remark: Here does not apply "a species found its species, and it is aroused." (Tzon Kodoshim - this is because there is nothing tangible, just mere intent.)

2)

TOSFOS DH Eiruv Machshavos Havi

úåñôåú ã"ä òéøåá îçùáåú äåé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why this exempts from Kares.)

ùàéï äôñåì îðéç äôéâåì ìéôøã îòìéå

(a)

Explanation: The Pesul does not allow the Pigul to separate from it.

3)

TOSFOS DH Ha Chazar v'Irvan Rishon Havi

úåñôåú ã"ä äà çæø åòéøáï øàùåï äåé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos questions this proof.)

úéîä îä òðéï æä àöì æä ãâáé ÷øáï ëùàîø çöé æéú çåõ ìî÷åîå åçöé æéú çåõ ìæîðå äøé ëáø ðôñì ä÷øáï åàéðå çåæø åðòùä ôéâåì

(a)

Question: What is their connection? Regarding a Korban, when he said Chetzi Zayis Chutz li'Mkomo Chetzi Zayis Chutz li'Zmano, the Korban is already disqualified. It does not return to become Pigul;

àáì çöé áéöä øàùåï åçöé áéöä ùðé ùðúòøáå ãðòùä ùðé àéï äèòí ìôé ùðúáèì çöé áéöä äøàùåï

1.

However, a half-Beitzah of a Rishon [l'Tum'ah] and a half-Beitzah of a Sheni that became mixed, that it became a Sheni, the reason is not because the half-Beitzah of a Rishon became Batel;

àìà îùåí ãàéï ìå ëç ìèîàåú áôðé òöîå äìëê ëùéöèøó òîå çöé áéöä øàùåï ìîä ìà éäà øàùåï

2.

Rather, it is because it has no power to be Metamei by itself. Therefore, when he joins with it a half-Beitzah of a Rishon, why shouldn't it join?!

4)

TOSFOS DH Naflu Shneihem k'Echad Asa'uha Sheniyah

úåñôåú ã"ä ðôìå ùðéäí ëàçã òùàåä ùðéä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that not all agree to this.)

ìî''ã éù ðåâò çåæø åðåâò

(a)

Explanation: This is according to the opinion that there is touching after touching (if something Tahor touch half a Shi'ur of Tum'ah, and after touched another half-Shi'ur, it becomes Tamei.)

5)

TOSFOS DH Hasam Ika Shi'ura

úåñôåú ã"ä äúí àéëà ùéòåøà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos prefers to explain that this refers to a Shi'ur of the Sheni.)

ôé' á÷åðè' îòé÷øà ùéòåø ùìí äåä åðçì÷ äìëê ëùçæø åòøáå ùîå çæø òìéå

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Initially there was a full Shi'ur, and it was divided. Therefore, when he returned and mixed them, its name returned to it;

àáì äëà îòé÷øà çöé æéú ôéâåì åçöé æéú ôñåì ìà ð÷øà ùí ôéâåì òìéå ëé àí ùí ôñåì äìëê ëé äãø àúé çöé æéú ãæîï ìà ô÷ò ùí ôñåì ìîéçì ùí ôéâåì

1.

However, here initially it was a half-k'Zayis of Pigul and a half-k'Zayis of Pasul. it is not called Pigul, rather, Pasul. Therefore, when a half-k'Zayis of [Chutz li']Zman comes to it, it does not lose the name Pasul for the name "Pigul' to take effect on it.

åìôéøåù æä äåä ìéä ìîéîø äúí äåä áéä ùéòåøà äëà ìà äåä áéä ùéòåøà

(b)

Question: According to this, [Rav Hamnuna] should have said "there, there was a Shi'ur. Here, there was not a Shi'ur"!

åîôøù ø''ú àéëà ùéòåøà ùéù îï äùðé ëùéòåø ìôéëê îðéç ìå ìøàùåï ìäôøã îòìéå åäìê ìå ìäúçáø àöì øàùåï àçø

(c)

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): "There is a Shi'ur", i.e. there is a Shi'ur of the Sheni. Therefore, it allows the Rishon to separate from it and it goes to join with another Rishon;

äëà ìéëà ùéòåøà îï äôñåì åàéï îðéç ìå ìôéâåì ìäôøã îòìéå

1.

Here, there is not a Shi'ur of the Pasul. It does not allow the Pigul to separate from it.

6)

TOSFOS DH Amar Rav Hamnuna Mina Amina Lah d'Tanan...

úåñôåú ã"ä àîø øá äîðåðà îðà àîéðà ìä ãúðï...

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains his attempted proof, and the rejection.)

ùäéä áå ëáéöä åùðèîà áåìã äèåîàä ùäéä áå ëîå ëï ëáéöä îöèøôéï æä òí æä àí éù çöé áéöä îï äøàùåï åçöé áéöä îï äùðé îöèøôéï ìèîà á÷ì ùáùðéäí

(a)

Explanation: There was a k'Beitzah, and it became Tamei through a Vlad ha'Tum'ah (not an Av) that also was k'Beitzah. They join with each other. If there is a half-Beitzah of the Rishon and a half-Beitzah of the Sheni, they join to be Metamei like the more lenient of them;

îàé ìàå àò''â ãäãø îìééä ùì÷ç îï äøàùåï åùí òìéå àìîà ëéåï ãìéëà ùéòåøà îï äùðé àéï îðéç ìå ìøàùåï ìäôøã îòìéå ìéìê ìå àöì øàùåï çáéøå

1.

[Rav Hamnuna asserts] is this not even if it was later filled, i.e. he took from the Rishon, and put on (the mixture of Rishon and Sheni). This shows that since there is not a Shi'ur of the Sheni, it does not allow the Rishon to separate from it to go to the other Rishon!

åîùðé ãìîà ãìà äãø îìééä åàéï ìãîåú æä ìèåîàä ùáèìä çæøä åðéòåøä ãäëà ìà áèìä åäëà èòîà îùåí ãàéï ìäôøã îîðå

2.

[The Gemara] answers that perhaps he did not complete [the Shi'ur]. We cannot compare this to Tum'ah that was Batel, and returned and reawakened, for here it was not Batel. Here, the reason is because it does not separate from it.

åìôé' øáéðå úí ùôéøùúé ìà öøéëà ìîä ùôéøù á÷åðèøñ ãàåëì î÷áì èåîàä áëì ùäåà åäàøëúé áôø÷ äîöðéò [ùáú ãó öà. ã''ä àé ìòðéï]

(b)

Observation: According to R. Tam's Perush that I explained, we need not say like Rashi explained that any amount of a food receives Tum'ah. I elaborated in Shabbos (91a).

7)

TOSFOS DH Chishev she'Yochluhu Kelavim l'Machar Pigul

úåñôåú ã"ä çéùá ùéàëìåäå ëìáéí ìîçø ôéâåì

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that we do not say so about Temei'im.)

áñåó ëì äôñåìéï (ì÷îï ãó ìå.) àîøéðï ãçéùá ùéàëìåäå èîàéí ìà äåé ôéâåì

(a)

Implied question: Below (36a), we say that if he intended for Temei'im to eat it, it is not Pigul!

åöøéê ìôøù èòí àîàé âøò îàëéìú ëìáéí

1.

We must explain a reason why this is worse than [intent for] dogs to eat.

8)

TOSFOS DH v'Es Izevel Yochlu ha'Kelavim

úåñôåú ã"ä åàú àéæáì éàëìå äëìáéí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this is needed only regarding eating meat.)

äà ôùéèà ìéä ãùééëà ìéä âáé áäîä áãáø äøàåé ìä ëãëúéá åìáäîúê åìçéä àùø áàøöê úäéä ëì úáåàúä (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) ìàëåì

(a)

Implied question: It is obvious that [Achilah] applies to an animal, regarding something proper for it, like it is written "veli'Vhemtecha ul'Chayah Asher b'Artzecha Tihyeh Kol Tevu'asah Le'echol"!

àìà îàëéìú áùø îééúé øàéä

(b)

Answer: Rather, [R. Yanai] brings a proof that [an animal] eating meat is called Achilah.

9)

TOSFOS DH di'Chsiv Tochlehu Esh Lo Nofach

úåñôåú ã"ä ãëúéá úàëìäå àù ìà ðåôç

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why he did not bring a verse about Haktarah.)

úéîä ãìà îééúé ÷øà ãàí äàëì éàëì ãáùúé àëéìåú äëúåá îãáø àçú àëéìú àãí åàçú àëéìú îæáç (ìòéì éâ:)

(a)

Question: Why didn't [R. Ami] bring the verse "v'Im He'achel Ye'achel", that the verse discusses two consumptions - one of people, and one of the Mizbe'ach?

åëúéá (åé÷øà å) àùø úàëì äàù àú äòåìä

1.

Also, it says "Asher Tochal ha'Esh Es ha'Olah"!

åé''ì ãàù ãâáåä ôùéèà ìéä ãùîä àëéìä åîëì (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) î÷åí àéï àëéìä åä÷èøä îöèøôéï

(b)

Answer: It is obvious to [R. Ami] that Hash-m's fire is called Achilah, and even so, Achilah and Haktarah do not join;

àáì äùúà ãàîøú ãëì àëéìú àù ùîä àëéìä ÷ùéà ìéä àîàé àéï îöèøôéï

1.

However, now that you say that all burning is called Achilah, it is difficult to him why they do not join.

10)

TOSFOS DH she'Ein Achilah v'Haktarah Mitztarfin

úåñôåú ã"ä ùàéï àëéìä åä÷èøä îöèøôéï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that we could have inferred from the Reisha.)

îøéùà äåä îöéðà ìîéã÷ ã÷úðé ìä÷èéø ãáø ùãøëå ìä÷èéø äà ãáø ùàéï ãøëå ìä÷èéø ìà

(a)

Observation: We could have inferred this from the Reisha, which taught "Lehaktir something that is proper for Haktarah." This implies that [intent does not disqualify] something not proper for Haktarah;

àìîà àëéìú àù ìà ùîä àëéìä:

1.

Inference: Consumption of fire is not called Achilah.

31b----------------------------------------31b

11)

TOSFOS DH Ha Le'echol v'Le'echol Dumiya d'Le'echol u'Lehaktir Mitztaref

úåñôåú ã"ä äà ìàëåì åìàëåì ãåîéà ãìàëåì åìä÷èéø îöèøó

(SUMMARY: Tosfos justifies this inference and Abaye's inference.)

åà''ú ãìîà ìòåìí ìà éöèøó åàúà ìîéã÷ ãìàëåì åìàëåì áçã âáøà îöèøó åàôé' áéúø îëãé àëéìú ôøñ

(a)

Question #1: Perhaps really, it does not join, and [the Mishnah] comes to teach through inference that eating and eating of one person joins, even [if he delayed] more than Kedei Achilas Pras (the time to eat a half-loaf)?

åëï áúø äëé ããéé÷ àáéé ãìàëåì åìàëåì áéúø îëãé àëéìú ôøñ îöèøó îã÷úðé ìàëåì åìä÷èéø

(b)

Question #2: Also afterwards, Abaye infers that eating and eating join more than Kedei Achilas Pras, since it taught eating and Haktarah...

ãìîà àúà ìîéã÷ ãìàëåì åìàëåì áùðé áð''à îöèøó

1.

Perhaps it comes to teach through inference that eating and eating of two people join!

åéù ìåîø ããéé÷ îãúìé èòîà ùàéï ä÷èøä åàëéìä îöèøôéï îùåí ãäàé àëéìä åäàé ä÷èøä

(c)

Answer: He infers from this that we attribute the reason that Haktarah and eating do not join because this is eating and this is Haktarah;

äà àé çùéáà ä÷èøä ëàëéìä äåä îöèøó (àé çùéáà ä÷èøä) àò''â ãäåé ëòéï ùðé áðé àãí åáéúø îëãé àëéìú ôøñ

1.

Inference: If Haktarah were considered like eating, it would join even though this is like two people, and more than Kedei Achilas Pras.

12)

TOSFOS DH b'Yeser mi'Kedei Achilas Pras Mahu

úåñôåú ã"ä áéúø îëãé àëéìú ôøñ îäå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we cannot resolve this from our Mishnah.)

åà''ú ìåëç îãúðï çöé æéú áçåõ çöé æéú ìîçø ôñåì

(a)

Question: This should be proven from the Mishnah "Chetzi Zayis b'Chutz Chetzi Zayis l'Machar - it is Pasul"!

åé''ì ããìîà áìä÷èéø

(b)

Answer: Perhaps it refers to Haktarah.

àò''â ãøéùà ÷úðé ìàëåì ëæéú áçåõ ëæéú ìîçø

(c)

Implied question: The Reisha taught "to eat a k'Zayis outside, a k'Zayis tomorrow"!

ùîà ááà ãçöé æéú îééøé áìä÷èéø ãåå÷à

(d)

Answer: Perhaps the clause of a half-k'Zayis discusses specifically Haktarah.

13)

TOSFOS DH u'Mai Ka Mashma Lan Iy Le'echol v'Le'echol she'Darchan Le'echol...

úåñôåú ã"ä åîàé ÷î''ì àé ìàëåì åìàëåì ùãøëï ìàëåì ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks that it teaches Abaye's inferences above.)

úéîä èåáà ÷î''ì ëããéé÷ àáéé âåôéä ìòéì ìàëåì åìàëåì áùðé áðé àãí åáéúø îëãé àëéìú ôøñ:

(a)

Question: It teaches very much, like Abaye himself inferred above - eating of two people, and more than Kedei Achilas Pras!

14)

TOSFOS DH sheha'Shechitah Kesherah b'Nashim

úåñôåú ã"ä ùäùçéèä ëùøä áðùéí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that this is l'Chatchilah.)

áâîøà îåëç ãðùéí ùåçèåú àôé' ìëúçéìä

(a)

Pesak: In the Gemara it is proven that women slaughter even l'Chatchilah.

ãîôøù ãäà (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) ãúðï ùùçèå ãéòáã îùåí ãáòé ìîéúðé èîàéí ãìëúçéìä ìà åìà ÷àîø îùåí ãáòé ìîéúðé ðùéí ã÷úðé áøéùà

1.

Source: It explains that our Mishnah taught "if they slaughtered", i.e. b'Di'eved, because [the Tana] needs to teach Temei'im, which are not l'Chatchilah. It did not say because he needed to teach women, which were taught in the Reisha!

îéëï úùåáä ìîä ùëúáå áäìëåú à''é ãðùéí ìà éùçèå îôðé ùãòúï ÷ìä

(b)

Observation: This refutes what Hilchos Eretz Yisrael wrote, that women may not slaughter, because Daitan Kalos (they are unfocused).

åòåã ëúåá áäï ùçè åìà áéøê åòøåí ùùçè ùçéèä ôñåìä

(c)

Citation (Hilchos Eretz Yisrael): If one slaughtered and did not bless, or someone slaughtered naked, it is Pasul.

åðøàä ùäí çåîøåú áòìîà ùäéä àåîø îãòúå (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) àåúå äçëí ùëúá äìëåú àøõ éùøàì

(d)

Explanation: These are mere stringencies that the Chacham who wrote Hilchos Eretz Yisrael said based on his own opinion. (There is no source for them.)

15)

TOSFOS DH uv'Temei'im

úåñôåú ã"ä åáèîàéí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses why it is Kosher b'Di'eved.)

îôøù áâîøà ãìëúçéìä àéï ùåçèéï ùîà éâòå ááùø

(a)

Explanation: The Gemara explains that l'Chatchilah they do not slaughter, lest they touch the meat.

åàò''â ããí ÷ãùéí àéðå îëùéø

(b)

Implied question: Blood of Kodshim is not Machshir! (Even if they touch it, it is not Mekabel Tum'ah.)

çéáú ä÷åãù îëùøú

(c)

Answer #1: Chibas (the dearness of) ha'Kodesh is Machshir.

àå ëùäòáéøä áðäø åòãééï îù÷ä èåôç òìéä ëãàîø áô''÷ ãôñçéí (ãó ë.)

(d)

Answer #2: He passed [the Korban] through the river, and there was still liquid Tofe'ach (enough to wet what touches it) on it [at the time of Shechitah], like it says in Pesachim (20a).

åà''ú úéôå÷ ìéä ãìîà àúéà ìàéîùåëé áôðéí

(e)

Question: We already know [that a Tamei may not slaughter], lest he come to be drawn (after the Korban) inside (the Azarah)!

åàôé' èäåø âîåø ìáï æåîà ãàîø (éåîà ì.) äðëðñ ìî÷ãù èòåï èáéìä àéï éëåì ìùçåè áñëéï àøåëä ãìîà àúé ìàîùåëé ëãàîø áô' àîø ìäí äîîåðä (ùí ãó ìà.)

1.

Even one who is totally Tahor, according to Ben Zoma, who says (Yoma 30a) that one who enters the Mikdash must immerse, he may not slaughter with a long knife, lest he come to be drawn [into the Azarah], like it says there (31a)!

åé''ì ãáèäåø ùééê ìîéâæø èôé ãìîà àúé ìàéîùåëé àáì èîà îéæäø æäéø åîéãëø åîùåí äëé ìà ð÷è ðîé ùîà éëðéñ éãå ìôðéí àò''â ãàéëà àéñåøà ìîàï ãàîø (ì÷îï ìá:) áéàä áî÷öú ùîä áéàä

(f)

Answer #1: There is more reason to decree about a Tahor, lest he come to be drawn, but a Tamei is careful and remembers. Therefore, it did not mention lest he enter his hand inside, even though it is forbidden according to the opinion that partial Bi'ah is Bi'ah (below, 32b).

åîéäå àéëà ìîéîø ãð÷è èòîà ãäåé ìëåìé òìîà

(g)

Answer #2: It mentioned a reason (lest he touch the meat) that applies to everyone. (Lest he be drawn applies to only according to the opinion that partial Bi'ah is Bi'ah.)

åä÷ùä ä''ø àôøéí åäéàê áîå÷ãùéï ùåçè

(h)

Question (R. Efrayim): How can [a Tamei] slaughter Kodshim?

ãàò''â ãîå÷é ìä áâî' áñëéï àøåëä àéê éúëï ùéäà ëì ëê àøåëä îäø äáéú òã òæøú éùøàì

1.

Even though we establish it in the Gemara to be through a long knife, how can it be so long, from Har ha'Bayis until Ezras Yisrael?

ëãúðï áîñëú ëìéí (ô''à î''ç) äçéì î÷åãù îäø äáéú ùàéï òåáãé ëåëáéí åèîàé îúéí ðëðñéï ìùí òæøú ðùéí î÷åãùú äéîðä ùàéï èáåì éåí ðëðñ ìùí

2.

A Mishnah in Kelim (1:8) says that the Cheil (inside the wall of Har ha'Bayis) is more Kadosh than Har ha'Bayis. Nochrim and Temei'ei Mesim may not enter there. Ezras Nashim is more Kadosh than [the Cheil]. A Tevul Yom may not enter there.

åàôé' àé äàé ñåâéà áèîà ùøõ åîåúø ìéëðñ áçéì î''î òæøú ðùéí àøåëä ÷ì''ä àîä åäéàê éúëï ùúäà ñëéï àøåëä ëì ëê

3.

Even if our Sugya holds that a Tamei Sheretz may enter the Cheil, Ezras Nashim is 135 Amos long. How can a knife be so long?!

åé''ì ãäéëà ãðèîà áòæøú ðùéí ìà (îëàï îãó äáà) äçîéøå òìéå ìöàú ëîå ùîôøù øáéðå úí

(i)

Answer #1: When someone became Tamei in Ezras Nashim, [Chachamim] were not stringent to make him leave, like R. Tam explains.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF