ZEVACHIM 44 (13 Sivan) - Dedicated by Elliot and Lori Linzer to commemorate the Yahrzeit of Chaim Yoseph ben Ephraim Henoch ha'Levi z'l.

1)

TOSFOS DH Ne'echal l'Yom v'Laylah Minayin

úåñôåú ã"ä ðàëì ìéåí åìéìä îðéï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this Tana does not expound the Hekesh "Zos ha'Torah.")

ì÷îï áñåó ãí çèàú (ãó öç.) ãøùéðï îäé÷éùà ãæàú äúåøä îä ùìîéí îôâìéï ëå'

(a)

Implied question: Below (98a), we expound from the Hekesh "Zos ha'Torah" - just like Shelamim can make Pigul...

åðøàä ãäàé úðà ìéú ìéä ääåà äé÷éùà ãàé àéú ìéä ìà äéä öøéê ìëì äðê ééúåøéí

(b)

Answer: This Tana does not expound that Hekesh. If he did, he would not need all of these Yiturim (words extra for a Drashah).

2)

TOSFOS DH v'Asi Nosar Chilul Chilul mi'Tum'ah v'Asi Pigul Avon Avon mi'Nosar

úåñôåú ã"ä åàúé ðåúø çéìåì çéìåì îèåîàä åàúé ôéâåì òåï òåï îðåúø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that we could derive from here a rule of expounding.)

îëàï äåä îöé ìîéã÷ ì÷îï (ãó ð:) ããáø äìîã áâæéøä ùåä çåæø åîìîã áâæéøä ùåä

(a)

Observation: From here we could have derived that something learned from a Gezeirah Shavah returns to teach through a Gezeirah Shavah.

3)

TOSFOS DH ka'Yotzei bi'Shelamim Mai Nihu Bechor

úåñôåú ã"ä ëéåöà áùìîéí îàé ðéäå áëåø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks that elsewhere Bechor is not considered to be closest to Shelamim.)

îùîò ãáëåø ãîé ìùìîéí èôé îùàø ÷ãùéí

(a)

Inference: Here it connotes that Bechor resembles Shelamim more than other Kodshim.

åáòìîà àéðå ëï ãàîø îðçåú (ãó öà:) îä ùìîéí áàéï áðãø åðãáä àó ëì áà áðãø åðãáä

(b)

Question: Elsewhere this is not so! It says in Menachos (91b) "just like Shelamim can be brought for Neder or Nedavah, also everything brought for Neder or Nedavah"!

4)

TOSFOS DH Ela me'Im He'achel Ye'achel

úåñôåú ã"ä àìà îàí äàëì éàëì

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses other ways to expound this verse and this law.)

åàò''â ãàîøéðï ìòéì áñåó ôø÷ ùðé (ãó ëç:) áùúé àëéìåú äëúåá îãáø

(a)

Implied question: We said above (28b) that the verse discusses two eatings (Pigul applies both to what people eat, and what the Mizbe'ach consumes)!

úøúé ùîò îéðä îãìà ëúéá äàëì äàëì àå éàëì éàëì ëãàîø áøéù ä÷åîõ øáä (îðçåú ãó éæ:)

(b)

Answer: We learn both of these, since it did not say He'achel He'achel or Ye'achel Ye'achel, like it says in Menachos (17b).

åîéäå øáé àìéòæø ãîå÷é ìä äúí áãøùà àçøéðà ðô÷à ìéä äê ãøùà î÷øà àçøéðà

(c)

Remark: However, R. Eliezer, who establishes it there for a different Drashah (intent Chutz li'Zmano or Chutz li'Mkomo to eat something that should be Huktar, or vice-versa, disqualifies), he learns this Drashah from another verse;

åøáà ãîôøù ìòéì áñåó ôø÷ ùðé (ãó ëç:) ëåìäå î÷øà (àçøéðà) [àøéëà] åãøéù îáùø æáç ùìîéå îä ùìîéí îôâìéï åîúôâìéï ëå'

(d)

Implied question: Rava explains above (28b) all [Korbanos] from the long verse, and he expounds "mi'Besar Zevach Shelamav" - just like Shelamim makes Pigul and becomes Pigul... (He does not expound Klal u'Ferat u'Chlal!)

ìà ëîå ùôéøù ùí á÷åðèøñ îãëúéá æáç ùìîéí ãîùîò ãî÷éù æáç ìùìîéí

(e)

Answer #1 (Rashi there): It says Zevach Shelamim, which connotes that it equates Zevach to Shelamim.

àìà àäê áøééúà ñîéê

(f)

Rebuttal (and Answer #2): No. Rather, he relies on this Beraisa.

åä÷ùä ä''ø çééí àîàé ùáé÷ ìùåï äáøééúà ãäåä ìéä ìîéîø îä ùìîéí îéåçãéí ùéù ìäí îúéøéï áéï ìàãí áéï ìîæáç

(g)

Question #1 (R. Chaim): Why did [the Gemara] abandon the wording of the Beraisa? It should have said "just like Shelamim is special - it has Matirim both for people and the Mizbe'ach..."!

åòåã ãîìéùðà ãîôâì åîúôâìéï ìà îîòéè ãí ããí îôâì åîúôâì ëãúðéà áúåñôúà ãæøé÷ä îôâìú åîúôâìú

(h)

Question #2: The expression "it is Mefagel and becomes Pigul" does not exclude blood, for blood is Mefagel and becomes Pigul, like a Beraisa in the Tosefta teaches that Zerikah is Mefagel and become Pigul;

ùäãí îôâì äáùø åîúôâìú òì éãé æøé÷ä àí æø÷ òì îðú ìùôåê ùéøéí ìîçø

1.

The blood makes the meat Pigul, and [the blood] becomes Pigul through Zerikah, if he threw with intent to pour Shirayim tomorrow!

5)

TOSFOS DH v'Dunam bi'Klal u'Ferat

úåñôåú ã"ä åãåðí áëìì åôøè

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that we still need the Yiturim.)

åî''î öøéëé ééúåøé ãìòéì ãîëìì åôøè ìà îøáé àìà äãåîä ìôøè áëì öããéï:

(a)

Remark: In any case we need the Yiturim above, for from the Klal u'Ferat we include only what resembles the Prat in every way.

44b----------------------------------------44b

6)

TOSFOS DH Salka Daitach Amina Min ha'Esh v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä ñã''à îï äàù ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos questions why the Torah wrote an exclusion and inclusion.)

úéîä ìà ìëúåá îï äàù åìà áòé ìëì

(a)

Question: The Torah should not have written "Min ha'Esh", and we would not need "l'Chol"!

7)

TOSFOS DH Zeh Gezel ha'Ger

úåñôåú ã"ä æä âæì äâø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we need an inclusion.)

ãàò''â ãîëôø ìà äåä àîéðà ãìéäåé ìëäï àìà îéãé ãðéúåúø îï äîæáç (äâää áâìéåï òì ùéèä î÷åáöú) åìà îîåðà

(a)

Explanation: [We need an inclusion because] from "Kupar", one might have thought that the Kohen gets only what is leftover from the Mizbe'ach, but not money.

åáñôøéí éùðéí âøéñ âæì äâø áäãéà ëúéá áéä áôøùú ðùà ãëúéá ìëäï ìå éäéä

(b)

Alternative text: Old Seforim say "Gezel ha'Ger is written explicitly!" It is written in Parshas Nasa "la'Kohen Lo Yihyeh."

åá÷åðèøñ ìà âøéñ ìéä îùåí ãçèàåú åàùîåú åùàø äàîåøéí (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) áôøùä áäãéà ëúéáé ëì àçã åàçã áî÷åîå åñãøï ìå äëúåá ìàäøï ëàï îôðé îçìå÷úå ùì ÷øç

(c)

Rebuttal (Rashi): The text does not say so, for Chatas and Asham and other [matters] said in the Parshah are written explicitly, each in its place, and the Torah arranged (taught) here that they are to Aharon, due to Korach's feud.

8)

TOSFOS DH v'Afilu Lekadesh Bo Es ha'Ishah

úåñôåú ã"ä åàôéìå ì÷ãù áå àú äàùä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with the teaching in Menachos.)

áô' äúëìú (îðçåú ãó îä:) àîøéðï âáé ùúé äìçí ãòöøú åøáé ò÷éáà îé ëúéá ÷åãù éäéå ìä' åìëäï ìä' ìëäï ëúéá ëãøá äåðà ãàîø øá äåðà ÷ðàå äùí åðúðå ìëäï

(a)

Citation: In Menachos (45b), regarding Shtei ha'Lechem of Shavu'os, R. Akiva says 'does it say 'Kodesh Yihyu la'Shem vela'Kohen'? It says "la'Shem la'Kohen", [to teach] like Rav Huna. Rav Huna taught that Hash-m acquired it, and gave it to the Kohen.'

åôé' ùí á÷åðèøñ ãîùìçï âáåä ÷à æëå åòé÷ø îéìúéä ãøá äåðà àâæì äâø àéúîø áô' äâåæì òöéí (á''÷ ãó ÷è:)

(b)

Explanation (Rashi in Menachos): [Kohanim] acquire from Hash-m's table. Rav Huna's teaching was taught primarily regarding Gezel ha'Ger, in Bava Kama (109b).

åìà îöéðå ãáøé øá äåðà ìùí àìà áøééúà äéà äúí áùéìäé ôéø÷éï åáîñëú òøëéï áùéìäé äî÷ãéù ùãäå (ãó ëç:) äàùí äîåùá ìä' ìëäï ÷ðàå äùí åðúðå ìëäï ùáàåúå äîùîø

(c)

Remark: We do not find Rav Huna's words there. Rather, it is a Beraisa there (109b) and in Erchin (28b) "ha'Asham ha'Mushav la'Shem la'Kohen" - Hash-m acquired it, and gave it to the Kohen in that Mishmar.

åðøàä ãìà âøñéðï ôø÷ äúëìú ëãøá äåðà àìà äëé âøñéðï ìä' ìëäï ÷ðàå äùí åðúðå ìëäï

(d)

Correction: It seems that in Menachos, the text does not say "like Rav Huna." Rather, it says '"la'Shem la'Kohen" - Hash-m acquired it, and gave it to the Kohen.'

åîéäå ìà îöé ìôøù ìëäï ùáàåúå îùîø ëé ääéà ãâæì äâø ãäúí ùäøé áøâì äéå ëì äîùîøåú ùååú ëããøùéðï áô' áúøà ãñåëä (ãó ðä:) îãëúéá åáà áëì àåú ðôùå åùøú

(e)

Observation: We cannot explain "to the Kohen in that Mishmar", like the case of Gezel ha'Ger, [for here it refers also to the Omer, which was during Pesach, and] during the festival all the Mishmaros are equal, like we expound in Sukah (55b), from "u'Va b'Chol Avas Nafsho v'Sheres"!

àìà ëîå ùôé' á÷åðèøñ ìòðéï ãîùìçï âáåä ÷à æëå

1.

Rather, it is like Rashi explained regarding "they acquire from Hash-m's table."

åîéäå îùîò îúåê ãáøéå ãâæì äâø îùìçï âáåä ÷à æëå åàé (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí) àôùø ìåîø ëï ãäà àîøéðï äëà ìê äåà åìáðéê àôéìå ì÷ãù áå àú äàùä

(f)

Question: Rashi connotes that they acquire Gezel ha'Ger from Hash-m's table. One cannot say so, for we say here "it is to you (Aharon) and your children", even to be Mekadesh a woman;

åá÷ãåùéï (ãó ðá:) àîø áî÷ãù áçì÷å áéï á÷ãùé ÷ãùéí áéï á÷ãùéí ÷ìéí àéðä î÷åãùú îùåí ãîùìçï âáåä ÷à æëå

1.

In Kidushin (52b) it says that one who is Mekadesh with his share [of Kodshim], whether Kodshei Kodoshim or Kodshim Kalim, she is not Mekudeshes, because they acquire from Hash-m's table!

åð''ì ãùàðé äëà ãâìé ÷øà ìê åìáðéê

(g)

Answer: Here is different, for the Torah revealed "to you and your children."

åéù úéîä (ìê) ìä' áâæì äâø ìîä ìé ãìâáé âæì äâø (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí) îàé ðô÷à îéðä ã÷ðàå äùí ìîéîø ãîùìçï âáåä ÷à æëå

(h)

Question: Why does it say "la'Shem" regarding Gezel ha'Ger? For Gezel ha'Ger, how is it relevant that Hash-m acquired, to say that they acquire from Hash-m's table?

9)

TOSFOS DH b'Davar ha'Na'aseh bi'Fnim Lo Pigel

úåñôåú ã"ä áãáø äðòùä áôðéí ìà ôéâì

(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with the Gemara in Gitin.)

åäà ãàîø áäðéæ÷éï (âéèéï ãó ðã:) ëäï âãåì áéåí äëéôåøéí éåëéç ãëé àîø ôéâåì îäéîï

(a)

Implied question: It says in Gitin (54b) that the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kipur is Yochi'ach (that one witness is believed about Isurim). If he says that he was Mefagel [in the Heichal, where no one else could be present to witness this], he is believed!

ðäé ãôéâåì ìà äåé ôñåì îéäà äåé î÷''å åëãàîø ìòéì ñô''÷ (ãó éã.) îåãä äéä øáé ùîòåï ìôñåì î÷''å åîä ùìà ìùîå ëå'

(b)

Answer #1: Granted, it is not Pigul, but it is Pasul from a Kal v'Chomer, like it says above (14a) that R. Shimon agrees that it is Pasul from a Kal v'Chomer. Lo Lishmah...

åä''ø çééí îô' ãääåà ôéâåì îééøé áôñåì ùìà ìùîå

(c)

Answer #2 (R. Chaim): [In Gitin], "Pigul' refers to the Pesul of Lo Lishmah.

åìà îùîò ëï ãùìà ìùîï ìà ÷øé ìéä ôéâåì ëãàîø ìòéì ñô''÷ (ãó éâ.) ãé÷à ðîé ã÷úðé ùäæáç ðôñì åìà ÷úðé ùäæáç îúôâì

(d)

Rebuttal: Lo Lishmah is not called Pigul, like it says above (13a) "also the wording [of our Mishnah] supports this. It says that the Zevach is disqualified. It does not say that it becomes Pigul!"

10)

TOSFOS DH v'Chi Mah Lamadnu mi'Shor Zevach ha'Shelamim me'Atah

úåñôåú ã"ä åëé îä ìîãðå îùåø æáç äùìîéí îòúä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that R. Yehoshua ben Levi argues with Rava below.)

ðøàä ãìéú ìéä äà ããøùéðï áôø÷ àéæäå î÷åîï (ì÷îï ãó îè:) îëàùø éåøí ãàéöèøéê ìéåúøú åùúé äëìéåú ìôø äòìí ãáø ùì öéáåø (äâää áâìéåï, îöàï ÷ãùéí) åî÷øà àçøéðà ðô÷à ìéä ìäàé úðà:

(a)

Assertion: He argues with what [Rava] expounds below (49b) from "Ka'asher Yuram", that it is needed for Yoseres ha'Kaved and the two kidneys for Par He'elem Davar of the Tzibur, and this Tana learns it from another verse. (Yad Binyamin, citing Meleches Yom Tov - below, due to Ka'asher Yuram, we consider that Yoseres ha'Kaved and the kidneys were explicitly written about Par He'elem Davar, so we may learn to Se'irei Avodah Zarah. In Toras Kohanim, a Tana expounds a different verse to teach about Se'irei Avodah Zarah.)

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF