1)

TOSFOS DH v'Hikrivo Mah Talmud Lomar

úåñôåú ã"ä åä÷øéáå îä úìîåã ìåîø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we expound another Drashah from this in Chulin.)

åà''ú ãáô''÷ ãçåìéï (ãó ëà:) ãøéù ìãøùà àçøéðà äà àéöèøéê ìëããøùéðï äëà

(a)

Question: In Chulin (21b) this is expounded differently. (Olas ha'Of is not offered like Chatas ha'Of. Only in the former, the head and body are attached through a full Siman.) We need it for like we expound here!

åé''ì ãäëà ãøéù îãñîëéä ìúåøéí åáðé éåðä ù''î ôøéãä àçú åäúí ãøéù îãñîëéä ìåä÷èéø

(b)

Answer: Here we expound from the fact that [v'Hikrivo] was written next to Turim and Bnei Yonah, this shows that it is [even] one bird. There we expound from that it is written next to v'Hiktir.

åàéï ìåîø ããøùéðï úøúé îùåí åé''å ãåä÷øéáå

(c)

Suggestion: Perhaps we expound both of these due to the [prefix] Vov in v'Hikrivo!

ãäà áçåìéï äåà øáé éùîòàì ãìà ãøéù åé''å ô' àìîðä (éáîåú ãó ñç:)

(d)

Rejection: In Chulin R. Yishmael [taught the other Drashah], and he does not expound Vov (Yevamos 68b).

2)

TOSFOS DH she'Lo Kava Lo Tzafon Eino Din she'Lo Kava Lo Kohen

úåñôåú ã"ä òåó ùìà ÷áò ìå öôåï àéðå ãéï ùìà ÷áò ìå ëäï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses why Kemitzah does not disprove this.)

åà''ú ÷îéöä úåëéç ãìà ÷áò ìä öôåï å÷áò ìä ëäï

(a)

Question: Kemitzah should be Yochi'ach! The Torah did not fix the north for it, but it fixed a Kohen!

åéù ìåîø îä ìîðçä ùèòåðä äâùä åúðåôä å÷éãåù ÷åîõ åëìé ùøú

(b)

Answer: We cannot [refute this] from a Minchah, which requires Hagashah, Tenufah and Kidush in a Kli Shares. (That is why it requires a Kohen.)

åà''ú ðéìó îãàéú÷ù çèàú ìîðçä ëãàîøéðï ìòéì

(c)

Question: We should learn from the Hekesh to a Minchah, like we said above (63b)!

åðøàä ãîñúáø ìéä ãìà úäåé îìé÷ä òáåãä éåúø îùçéèä

(d)

Answer: It is reasonable to him that Melikah should not be Avodah more than Shechitah.

3)

TOSFOS DH Ben Ohf she'Kava Lo Kohen Eino Din she'Yikva Lo Kli

úåñôåú ã"ä áï òåó ù÷áò ìå ëäï àéðå ãéï ùé÷áò ìå ëìé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos defends the Havah Amina.)

åà''ú ÷îéöä úåëéç ù÷áò ìä ëäï åìà ÷áò ìä ëìé

(a)

Question: Kemitzah should be Yochi'ach! The Torah fixed a Kohen for it, but did not fix a Kli!

åé''ì îä ìîðçä ùëï àéðä îéðé ãîéí

(b)

Answer: We cannot [refute this] from a Minchah, for it is not a species with blood.

åà''ú îä ìáï öàï ùëï îéï æáç àáì òåó ìà çùéá ìéä îéï æáç áô''÷ (ìòéì ãó ç:)

(c)

Question: We cannot learn from Tzon, for it is a Zevach (Korban that needs Shechitah), but a bird is not considered a kind of Zevach, like above (8b)!

åé''ì ãäééðå îùåí ã÷éí ìï ùäåà áéã àáì àé äåä áëìé äåä çùéá îéï æáç

(d)

Answer: This is because we know that [Melikah] is done by hand, but if it were with a Kli (like the Havah Amina), it would be considered a kind of Zevach.

åà''ú îä ìáï öàï ùëï èòåï öôåï

(e)

Question: We cannot learn from Tzon, for it requires the north!

òì ëï ðøàä ãîòé÷øà ñîéê àäé÷ùà ãæàú äúåøä ãéìôéðï îéðä îä òåìä èòåðä ëìé

(f)

Answer: Initially, [the Makshan] relied on the Hekesh of Zos ha'Torah (96b), from which we learn that Olah requires a Kli;

ãòåôåú ðîé ëúéáé áääåà òðééðà îãôøéê ô''÷ ãçåìéï (ãó ëá.) áéåí îáéåí öååúå ðô÷à

1.

Also birds are written in that matter, since we ask in Chulin (22a, why do Chachamim learn that Olas ha'Of is offered) during the day [from "like the law"]? We learn from "b'Yom Tzavoso"!

åáîâéìä ôø÷ ä÷åøà ìîôøò (ãó ë:) âáé ëì äéåí ëùø ìîìé÷ä ãøùéðï áâîøà îáéåí öååúå

2.

And in Megilah (20b), regarding "the entire day is Kosher for Melikah", we expound in the Gemara from b'Yom Tzavoso.

4)

TOSFOS DH Talmud Lomar ha'Kohen u'Malak b'Atzmo Shel Kohen

úåñôåú ã"ä úìîåã ìåîø äëäï åîì÷ áòöîå ùì ëäï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we cannot learn from the Hekesh above.)

åà''ú åðéìó îãàéú÷ù ìòéì çèàú äòåó ìîðçä

(a)

Question: We should learn from the Hekesh above (63b) of Chatas ha'Of to Minchah!

åé''ì çèàú àéú÷ù òåìú äòåó ìà àéú÷ù

(b)

Answer #1: Chatas is equated, but Olas ha'Of is not equated.

åòåã ëéåï ãàéëà ìàå÷åîé äé÷ù ìà îô÷à î÷''å ãäëà

(c)

Answer #2: Since we can establish the Hekesh [for something else], it does not negate the Kal v'Chomer here.

åòåã ãàãøáä ð÷éù áäé÷ùà ãæàú äúåøä ìòåìä ãáòéà ëìé

(d)

Answer #3: Just the contrary, through the Hekesh of Zos ha'Torah, we should equate [Olas ha'Of] to Olah, which requires a Kli!

5)

TOSFOS DH v'Chi Sa'aleh Al Daitcha she'Zar Karev l'Mizbe'ach

úåñôåú ã"ä åëé úòìä òì ãòúê ùæø ÷øá ìîæáç

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that all could agree to this reasoning.)

åàôéìå îàï ãìéú ìéä äê ñáøà âáé äöúú àìéúà (éåîà ãó îä.) îùåí ãäà àôùø ã÷àé ààøòà åòáéã áîôåçà

(a)

Explanation: Even the opinion that disagrees with this reasoning regarding lighting twigs on the Ma'arachah, that is because it is possible that [a Yisrael] stands on the ground and [ignites] through a bellows. (Here, even he agrees that we do not need a verse to require a Kohen for Melikah.)

6)

TOSFOS DH Af Melikah b'Rosh ha'Mizbe'ach

úåñôåú ã"ä àó îìé÷ä áøàù îæáç

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses learning Chatas ha'Of and Olah from each other.)

çèàú åòåìä éìôé îäããé âáé îåì òåøó åìòðéï áòöîå ùì ëäï áâ''ù ðàîø ëàï åîì÷ åðàîø ìäìï åîì÷

(a)

Explanation: We learn from [Melikah of] Chatas and Olah from each other regarding opposite the Oref and through the Kohen himself through a Gezeirah Shavah. It says here u'Malak, and it says there u'Malak;

àáì ìäöøéê ìçèàú îìé÷ä áøàù äîæáç ëòåìä ìà éìôéðï îùåí ãòåìä ìà éìôà àìà îäé÷ùà ãä÷èøä åãáø äìîã áäé÷ù àéðå çåæø åîìîã áâ''ù îãøáé éåçðï ëãàîø ôø÷ àéæäå î÷åîï (ìòéì ãó îè:)

1.

However, we do not learn to obligate Melikah for Chatas on top of the Mizbe'ach, for Olah was learned only from a Hekesh of Haktarah, and something learned from a Hekesh does not return to teach through a Gezeirah Shavah, from R. Yochanan's teaching above (49b).

åà''ú áô''÷ ã÷ãåùéï (ãó ìå.) ãàîø ãîìé÷ä àéðä ëùéøä áðùéí ãàéú÷ù ìä÷èøä åáä÷èøä ëúéá áðé àäøï åìà áðåú àäøï

(b)

Question: In Kidushin (36a), it says that Melikah is not Kosher through women, for it is equated to Haktarah, and regarding Haktarah it says "Bnei Aharon", and not Benos Aharon;

úéðç îìé÷ä ãòåìä îìé÷ä ãçèàú îðìï ãáø äìîã áäé÷ù àéðå çåæø åîìîã áâ''ù

1.

This is fine for Melikas Olah. What is the source for Melikas Chatas? Something learned from a Hekesh does not return to teach through a Gezeirah Shavah!

åé''ì ãâìåé îéìúà áòìîà äåà ëäï åìà ëäðú

(c)

Answer: It is a mere Giluy Milsa that [the Torah discusses specifically a] "Kohen", and not a Kohenes.

åà''ú åøáé éùîòàì (äâää áâìéåï) ãðô÷à ìéä áôø÷ ÷îà ãçåìéï (ãó ëà:) òåìú äòåó îîåì òåøó îäé÷éùà ãëîùôè çèàú äòåó åìéú ìéä â''ù ãäëà

(d)

Question: R. Yishmael learns in Chulin (21b) that [Melikas] Olah is opposite the Oref from the Hekesh "ka'Mishpat (like the law of) Chatas ha'Of." He does not learn the Gezeirah Shavah here;

à''ë îðà ìéä áçèàú äòåó ãáòéðï ëäï ùúäà áòöîå ùì ëäï

1.

If so, what is his source that [Melikah] of Chatas ha'Of requires the Kohen's body?

åé''ì ãçèàú ðîé éìôà îòåìä îäé÷éùà ãëîùôè

(e)

Answer: He learns also Chatas from Olah from the Hekesh "ka'Mishpat".

7)

TOSFOS DH Damo Kulo

úåñôåú ã"ä ãîå ëåìå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this is only for Olah.)

ðøàä ãçèàú ìà áòé ãîå ëåìå îãìà ÷úðé áä ä÷éó áéú îìé÷ä ìîæáç

(a)

Assertion: It seems that Chatas does not require all the blood, since it was not taught that he brought the place of Melikah to [press it against] the Mizbe'ach. (Chidushei Basra - the verse says that he squeezes, but he need not press against the Mizbe'ach.)

8)

TOSFOS DH v'Im Asa'ah l'Matah me'Raglav v'Afilu Amah Achas Kesherah

úåñôåú ã"ä åàí òùàä ìîèä îøâìéå åàôéìå àîä àçú ëùéøä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this is considered the place of Haktarah.)

àó òì âá ãëúéá åîì÷ åä÷èéø åðîöä

(a)

Implied question: It says "u'Malak... v'Hiktir... v'Nimtza"! (Melikah and Mitzuy must be in the place of Haktarah.)

ìà áòé î÷åí ä÷èøä îîù ëé äéëé ãìâáé ãí çùéá ÷øï (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) ñîåê ì÷øï àîä àçú:

(b)

Answer: We do not require the actual place of Haktarah. This is like regarding blood, that within one Amah of the Keren is considered the Keren. (Olas Shlomo asks that Amora'im argue about this above (53a); some require putting on the edge. The Griz asks that the Sovev, and even the entire top half of the Mizbe'ach, is Kosher for Haktarah!)

65b----------------------------------------65b

9)

TOSFOS DH Hivdil b'Chatas v'Lo Hivdil b'Olah Pasul

úåñôåú ã"ä äáãéì áçèàú åìà äáãéì áòåìä ôñåì

(SUMMARY: Tosfos questions how we learn about Olah.)

áçèàú ðéçà ëããøùéðï áú''ë çèàú äéà ùàí îì÷ä ùìà ìùîä ôñåìä åä''ä ãëì ùùéðä áä ôñåìä àáì áòåìä ÷ùä îðìï

(a)

Question #1: Regarding Chatas, this is fine, like we expound in Toras Kohanim "Chatas Hi" - if Melikah was done Lo Lishmah, it is Pasul, and likewise any deviation is Pasul. However, Olah is difficult. What is the source?

åòåã ãîä÷èøä éìôà îä ä÷èøä äøàù áòöîå åäâåó áòöîå àó ëàï ëå' àí ëï îä (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) ä÷èøä àéðä îòëáú àó äáãìä àéðä îòëáú

(b)

Question #2: Also, we learn from Haktarah - just Haktarah, the head is by itself and the body is by itself, also here (Melikah)... if so, just like Haktarah is not Me'akev, also Havdalah is not Me'akev!

åëï ÷ùä îîìé÷ú òåìä (äâää áâìéåï) ùòùàä ìîèä ëéåï ãîä÷èøä éìôà ðéîà (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) ãåï îéðä åîéðä åëé äéëé ãìà ä÷èéø ìîòìä ëùø ìà îì÷ ìîòìä ðîé ëùø

(c)

Question #3: Melikas Olah done below is difficult. Since we learn from Haktarah, we should learn everything from it, and [say that] just like if Haktarah was not done above, it is Kosher, also if Melikah was not done above, it is Kosher!

10)

TOSFOS DH Keitzad Karav ha'Matir

úåñôåú ã"ä ëéöã ÷øá äîúéø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos questions why this is repeated in other Mishnayos.)

ëì äðê îùðéåú ãäëà åãô''÷ ãîëéìúà åãîðçåú öøéëé ìã÷ã÷ àîàé öøéëé ëåìäå

(a)

Question: We must be meticulous [to explain] why we need all of these Mishnayos here, and in the first Perek above, and in Menachos!

11)

TOSFOS DH ka'Avid Ma'aseh Olah b'Chatas

úåñôåú ã"ä ÷òáéã îòùä òåìä áçèàú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that the different places are not considered a Shinuy.)

îä ùæä ìîòìä åæä ìîèä ìà çùéá ìéä ùéðåé

(a)

Explanation: The fact that [Olah] is offered above and [Chatas] is below is not considered a deviation.

12)

TOSFOS DH v'R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon Savar Mitzuy b'Chatas Lo Me'akev

úåñôåú ã"ä åøáé àìòæø áø''ù ñáø îéöåé áçèàú ìà îòëá

(SUMMARY: Tosfos gives three Perushim of how this affects dividing.)

äéìëê àí øöä ìäáãéì éáãéì åìà éîöä àçø äáãìä åìà òáéã îòùä òåìä

(a)

Explanation #1 - Consequence: [Since squeezing is not Me'akev,] if he wants to divide, he can divide and not squeeze after dividing, and he did not do Ma'aseh (the actions of an) Olah;

åàé îùåí ãùéðä áäáãìä [ëéåï ãìà îéöä] ëîòùä òåìä à''ë ëé îáãéì äåé çéúåê áùø áòìîà ëê ôéøù á÷åðèøñ

1.

Even though he deviated in Havdalah, since he did not squeeze like [is Me'akev] for Olah, if so, dividing is like mere cutting flesh. Rashi explained like this.

å÷ùä ãáô''÷ ãçåìéï (ãó ëà:) ããøéù øáé àìòæø áø''ù ëîùôè çèàú äòåó îä ìäìï ëùäåà àçåæ äøàù áâåó îæä (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) åéìéó îéðéä áòåìú äòåó ùàéï çåúê àìà øåá ùðéí

(b)

Question: In Chulin (21b), R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon expounded ka'Mishpat (like the law of) Chatas ha'Of. Just like there, when he holds the head, he sprinkles blood with the body (for it is attached), and he learns from it Olas ha'Of, that he cuts only the majority of two Simanim;

äéëé éìéó äà àé áòé îáãéì ìâîøé áçèàú

1.

How does he learn [this]? If he wants, he totally divides in Chatas!

åäééðå éëåìéï ìôøù ëùäåà àçåæ äøàù áâåó îæä àí éøöä ÷àîø

(c)

Answer: We could explain "when the head is attached to the body, he sprinkles", i.e. if he wants to.

åäà ã÷àîø (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) äúí àé îä ìäìï áñéîï àçã

(d)

Implied question: It says there "perhaps just like there, [he cuts only] one Siman...!"

äééðå ùàí éøöä ìà éçúåê ë''à ñéîï àçã

(e)

Answer: This means that if he wants, he cuts only one Siman.

àáì ÷ùä îáøééúà ãäúí ìòéì ã÷úðé ùðéí àå øåá ùðéí åîôøù äúí ùðéí ìøáðï àå øåá ùðéí ìø' àìòæø áø''ù

(f)

Question #1: Earlier there (21a), a Beraisa above teaches "two [Simanim] or the majority of two", and it explains two according to Rabanan, or the majority of two according to R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon;

ìå÷îä ëåìä ëøáé àìòæø áø''ù ãàé áòé ùðéí åàé áòé øåá ùðéí

1.

We should establish it totally like R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon. If he wants, [he cuts] two, and if he wants, the majority of two!

åáôø÷ äòåø åäøåèá (ùí ãó ÷ëâ.) ðîé âáé èìéú ùð÷øòä øåáä ùåá àéðä çéáåø åèäåøä åîå÷é ìä áèìéú èáåìú éåí

(g)

Question #2: Also in Chulin (123a), regarding a Talis that was mostly torn, it is no longer connected, and is Tahor, we establish it to discuss a Talis that is a Tevul Yom;

ãëéåï ãìà çñ òìä åàèáìä ìéëà ìîéîø ãéìîà çééñ åìà ÷øò øåáä

1.

Since he was not concerned for [ruining] it, and he immersed it, we need not say "perhaps he was concerned for it, and did not tear the majority."

àáì ëùàéðä èáåìú éåí âæøéðï

i.

However, when it is not a Tevul Yom, we decree [lest he did not tear the majority].

åôøéê àìà îòúä ìøáé àìòæø áø''ù ìéâæø ãéìîà ìà àúé ìîéòáã øåáà

2.

[The Gemara] asks if so, according to R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon, we should decree lest he not [cut] the majority!

åäùúà àé àéï àñåø ìçúåê ëì äùðéí ì''ì ìîâæø ùí ëìì ãéìîà çééñ

3.

Summation of Question #2: If there is no Isur to totally cut two, why would we decree there at all lest he be concerned for it?!

åðøàä ìôøù ëì ñåâéà æå áäáãìä ùìàçø äæàä àáì ÷åãí äæàä ëåìé òìîà ìà ôìéâé ãôñåìä ãàîø ÷øà ìà éáãéì

(h)

Explanation #2: It seems that this entire Sugya discusses Havdalah after Haza'ah. However, all agree that before Haza'ah it is Pasul, for it says "Lo Yavdil";

åãå÷à øáé ùîòåï áï àìé÷éí ãì÷îï àéú ìéä äê ñáøà ìøáé àìòæø áø''ù ãéëåì ìäáãéì ëì äùðéí åàôéìå ÷åãí äæàä åìéú ìéä àéñåø ôñåì áäáãìä ëìì ãäà îôøù ìà éáãéì ã÷øà àéï öøéê ìäáãéì

1.

Only R. Shimon ben Elazar below holds that according to R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon, he may totally divide both [Simanim], and even before Haza'ah. He holds that there is no Isur [or] Pesul of dividing at all, for he explains "Lo Yavdil" to means that he need not divide;

åñåâéà ãçåìéï ôø÷ ÷îà (ãó ëà:) åääéà ãäòåø åäøåèá (ùí ãó ÷ëâ.) ãìà ëååúéä àìà ëøá çñãà åøáä åàáéé

2.

The Sugyos in Chulin (21b) and (123a) are unlike him, rather, like Rav Chisda, Rabah and Abaye.

åäëé ôéøåùà ãëåìä ùîòúà îàé áéðééäå ôé' îàé èòîééäå àîø øá çñãà îéöåé çèàú äòåó îòëá àéëà áéðééäå

3.

The entire Sugya means as follows. What do they argue about? I.e. what are their reasons? Rav Chisda said, they argue about whether or not Mitzuy of Chatas ha'Of is Me'akev;

ãøáðï ñáøé îéöåé çèàú äòåó îòëá åëùäæä òãééï ìà ðâîøä îöååúä

4.

Rabanan hold that Mitzuy of Chatas ha'Of is Me'akev, and when he did Haza'ah, the Mitzvah was not finished;

äéìëê ëùäáãéì ñéîï ùðé ìàçø äæàä ìà çùéá îçúê áùø áòìîà åôñåì îùåí ùòùä îòùä òåìä áçèàú ùéù ëàï äáãìä áùðéí ÷åãí îéöåé ëîå áòåìä

i.

Therefore, when he separates the second Siman after Haza'ah, it is not considered merely cutting flesh, and it is Pasul, because he did Ma'aseh Olah to a Chatas, for there is Havdalah of two Simanim before Mitzuy, just like in Olah;

åø''à áø''ù ñáø ãîéöåé àéðå îòëá åëáø ðâîøä ëì îöååúï åëùîáãéì ìàçø äæàä àéðå àìà îçúê áùø áòìîà

5.

R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon holds that Mitzuy is not Me'akev, and the Mitzvah was already finished. When he divides after Haza'ah, he merely cuts flesh.

åäùúà ö''ì ãøá çñãà [ñáø] ãùäééä áñéîï ùðé áòåìú äòåó ìà îòëá ãàé îòëá àîàé ôñåì ìøáðï ëùäáãéì ìàçø äæàä

(i)

Explanation #2 (cont.): Now we must say that the second Siman in Olas ha'Of is not Me'akev, for if it were Me'akev, why do Rabanan disqualify when he divided after Haza'ah?

àéï ëàï îòùä òåìä ùäøé ùää åàéï äëùøä ùì òåìä áëê åàé àôùø ìå ìòùåú äæàä áéï îìé÷ú ñéîï øàùåï ìñéîï ùðé ùìà éùää

1.

There is no Ma'aseh Olah, for the Hechsher of Olah is unlike this, and he cannot do Haza'ah between Melikas of the first Siman and the second Siman, lest he delay.

åøáä îôøù ùäééä áñéîï ùðé áòåìú äòåó îòëá àéëà áéðééäå ãìøáðï ìà îòëá åìøáé àìòæø áø''ù îòëá

(j)

Explanation #2 (cont.): Rabah explains that they argue about whether delay in the second Siman of Olas ha'Of is Me'akev. R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon holds that it is Me'akev.

åàáéé îôøù ãøåá áùø îòëá àéëà áéðééäå åøáðï ñáøé øåá áùø ìà îòëá

1.

Abaye explains that they argue about whether [cutting] the majority of flesh is Me'akev. Rabanan hold that the majority of flesh is not Me'akev;

åìëê æéîðéï ãìà çúéê øåá áùø òí ñéîï äøàùåï ÷åãí ääæàä åëùîáãéì àçø ääæàä éù ëàï îòùä òåìä áçèàú

2.

Therefore, sometimes he does not cut the majority of flesh with the first Siman before Haza'ah. When he divides after Haza'ah, there is Ma'aseh Olah in a Chatas;

åàôéìå çúê øåá áùø òí ñé' øàùåï (äâää áâìéåï) âæøéðå àèå äéëà ãìà çúê øåá áùø

i.

And even if he cut the majority of flesh with the first Siman, we decree due to when he did not cut the majority of flesh.

åø''à áøáé ùîòåï ñáø øåá áùø îòëá åìëê ìà ôñì ãàéï ëàï îòùä òåìä ùëáø çúê øåá áùø òí ñéîï øàùåï åëùîáãéì ìàçø ääæàä îúä òåîã åîáãéì åôñåì

3.

And R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon holds that the majority of flesh is Me'akev. Therefore, he does not disqualify, for there is not Ma'aseh Olah, for he already cut the majority of flesh with the first Siman, and when he divides after Haza'ah, he divides a dead [bird], and it is Pasul.

åëä"â áòåìä ìàå äáãìä äéà ãàáéé (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) ìèòîéä ãàéú ìéä äëé áô''÷ ãçåìéï (ãó ë:) ãôøéê ú÷ùé ìê òåìú äòåó ãáòéà ùðé ñéîðéï åëé îúä òåîã åîåì÷ åìéú ìéä èòîà ãëãé ì÷ééí îöåú äáãìä

i.

In such a case of an Olah, it is not Havdalah. Abaye teaches like he taught elsewhere. He holds like this in Chulin (20b). He asked "you should ask about Olas ha'Of, which requires two Simanim. Does he do Melikah on a dead bird?!" He does not hold that it is in order to fulfill the Mitzvah of Havdalah.

åäãø ÷àîø àîøåä øáðï ÷îéä ãøáé éøîéä ôé' äðê èòîé ãøá çñãà åøáä åàáéé

(k)

Explanation #2 (cont.): After, it says that Rabanan said this in front of R. Yirmeyah, i.e. these reasons of Rav Chisda, Rabah and Abaye;

àîø ìäå ìà ùîéòà ìäå äà ãàîø ø''ù áï àìé÷éí îùåí øáé àìòæø áï ôãú àåîø äéä ø''à áøáé ùîòåï ùîòúé ùîáãéìéï áçèàú äòåó åîàé ìà éáãéì à''ö ìäáãéì

1.

He said to them, did you not hear what R. Shimon ben Elyakim said in the name of R. Elazar ben Pedas, that R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon used to say "I heard that we divide in Chatas ha'Of. What is Lo Yavdil? He need not separate."

ôé' åìà öøéëéï ìëì äðê èòîé ãôøéù øá çñãà åøáä åàáéé åàó ÷åãí ääæàä îåúø ìäáãéì

2.

Explanation: Therefore, we do not need all these reasons of Rav Chisda, Rabah and Abaye. Even before Haza'ah it is permitted to divide.

åà''ú ãìãéãäå ãàñåø ìäáãéì ÷åãí äæàä åàôéìå ìøáé àìòæø áø''ù à''ë îàé ÷àîø ìòéì îúðéúéï ãìà ëø''à áø''ù

(l)

Question: According to [Rav Chisda, Rabah and Abaye], it is forbidden to divide before Haza'ah, and even according to R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon. If so, why did [the Gemara] say above that our Mishnah is unlike R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon?

äà ìëàåøä îúðé' ÷åãí äæàä ãåîéà ãøéùà ã÷úðé çèàú äòåó ëéöã äéúä ðòùéú îì÷ øàùä îîåì òøôä åàéï îáãéì åîæä îãîä òì (îëàï îãó äáà) ÷éø äîæáç

1.

It seems that our Mishnah is before Haza'ah, like the Reisha, which taught "how is Chatas ha'Of done? He does not Melikah of the head opposite the Oref, and does not divide, and shakes the blood on the wall of the Mizbe'ach"!

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF