TOSFOS DH Ika d'Ilu Perat u'Chelal... (cont.)
ืชืืกืคืืช ื"ื ืืืื ืืืืื ืคืจื ืืืื... (ืืืฉื)
TOSFOS DH Ika d'Ilu Perat u'Chelal... (cont.)
ืชืืกืคืืช ื"ื ืืืื ืืืืื ืคืจื ืืืื... (ืืืฉื)
ืื ืืืืขื ืืจืืื ืืืื ืืจืืื (ืืืืช ืืจืืช ืจืืฉ) ืืืืขื ืืจืืื ืืจืฉืื ื ืืื ืืืคืจืืฉืืช (ืืืืช ืืืจ"ื ืจื ืฉืืืจื)
Explanation of question: If it were only Mi'et v'Ribah, we would expound it like Mi'et v'Ribah v'Mi'et, like I explained!
ืืืข"ืค ืืจืืื ืืืืขื ืืจืืื ื ืื ืืืจ ืืจืืื ืงืื ืื ืืื ื ืืืื
Implied question: Also regarding Ribah u'Mi'et v'Ribah, he says that the first Ribuy does not help at all! (Why are we concerned if the latter Mi'ut in Mi'et v'Ribah v'Mi'et does not help?)
ืืฉืืื ืืชื ืืืื ืืืืืจ ืจืืื ืงืื ืืืจืืื ืืงืจื ืืืชืืื ืื ืืื ืืืงืืช ืืืจืฆืข
Answer: Granted, there we can say that the first Ribuy is the way of the verse to begin with it, e.g. v'Lakachta ha'Martze'a;
ืืื ืืืขื ืืชืจื ืืืื ืืืืืจ ืืื
However, we cannot say so about the latter Mi'ut.
ืืืืื ืฆ"ื ืืื ื ืืื ืืชืืจื ืืคื' ืืืื ืืืจืืฉ ืืื ืืจืืืื ืืืืขืืื ืืจืฉืื ื ืืื ืืคืจื ืืืื ืืคืจื, ืขื"ื ืืืจ"ืฃ ื "ืข.
Conclusion: Therefore, we must say that there is no Midah to expound [Mi'et v'Ribah v'Mi'et]. Even according to the opinion that expounds Ribuyim and Mi'utim, he expounds it like Prat u'Chlal u'Ferat.
TOSFOS DH Ein Heter Mitztaref l'Isur
ืชืืกืคืืช ื"ื ืืื ืืืชืจ ืืฆืืจืฃ ืืืืกืืจ (ืฉืืื ืืืฃ ืื:)
TOSFOS DH Ein Heter Mitztaref l'Isur
ืชืืกืคืืช ื"ื ืืื ืืืชืจ ืืฆืืจืฃ ืืืืกืืจ (ืฉืืื ืืืฃ ืื:)
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that Heter does not join to a Shi'ur to be liable.)
ืื ืืื ืืฆื ืืืช ืืฉืจ ืืืฆื ืืืช ืืื ืืื ื ืืืื,
Explanation: If one ate a half k'Zayis of [Kosher] meat and a half k'Zayis of Chelev, he is not liable.
TOSFOS DH Ein (part 2)
ืชืืกืคืืช ื"ื ืืื (ืืืง ื) (ืฉืืื ืืืฃ ืื:)
TOSFOS DH Ein (part 2)
ืชืืกืคืืช ื"ื ืืื (ืืืง ื) (ืฉืืื ืืืฃ ืื:)
(SUMMARY: Tosfos proves that he expounds Mishras.)
[ืืืฅ] ืืืืกืืจื (ืืืืช ืจ' ืืฆืืื ืืฉืื ืื) ื ืืืจ ืฉืืจื ืืืจื ืชืืจื ืืื ืืฉืจืช ืขื ืืื ืื ืืฉืชื,
Citation of Gemara: Except for Isurei Nazir, for the Torah said "v'Chol Mishras Anavim Lo Yishteh."
ืืืืืจ ืฉืื ืฉืจื ืคืชื ืืืื ืืืฉ ืื ืืคืช ืืืืื ืืื ืืฆืจืฃ [ืืืืช] ืืืื
Explanation: If one soaked his bread in wine, and there is bread and wine to combine to a k'Zayis, he is liable.
ืืื ืืจืฉืื ื ืืกืืื ืืื ืืืื ืืืืช ืืืื ืืืืืื ืงืจื ืืื ืื ืืืืชืืจื ืืืฉืจืช ืืจืฉืื ื ืืื ืืื ืืื ืืื
We expound like this below. If there is a k'Zayis of wine itself, why do we need the verse? We expound [Heter Mitztaref l'Isur] due to "Mishras", which is extra, and not from "Kol".
ืืืื ืืืจืืก ืื ืฉืืชืื ืืกืคืจืื ืืฉืจืช ืืื ืืฉืจืช ืืืื ืืฉืืข ืืืื ืืจืฉืื ื ืืื
Assertion: The text should not say like it says in Seforim "Mishras v'Chol Mishras." This implies that we learn from v'Chol Mishras;
ืื"ื ืืคืจืื ืืืจ' ืืืื ื ืื ืืืื ืืจ"ื ืืืจืืฉ ืื
Source: If so, we should challenge also R. Avahu 'like whom did he teach? Like R. Elazar, who expounds "Kol"!'
ืืืคื' ืื ืชืืืฆื ืืืืจ ืืจืื ื ืืจืฉื ืืื ืืฉืจืช ืืข"ื ืืื ืืจืฉื ืื
Suggestion: Perhaps Rabanan expound "v'Chol Mishras", even though they do not expound "Kol"!
ื"ื ืืื ืคืจืื ืืงืื ืืืื ืืืื ืืฉืจืช ืืืืชืจ ืืฆืืจืฃ ืืืืกืืจ ืืื ืืืชื ืืืื ืืขืื ืืืื (ืื ืืื ืืืคืืก ืื ืฆืื) ืืฉืื ืืื (ืืืืช ืจ' ืืฆืืื ืืฉืื ืื, ืืจืืช ืจืืฉ)
Answer: In any case, what was the question below "we need Mishras for Heter Mitztaref l'Isur!"? He should say "I learn from v'Chol!"
ืืื ืืืื ืืฉืืขืืช ืืืืื ืืืฉืจืช ืืื ืืืื.
Conclusion: Rather, surely he learns from Mishras, and not from v'Chol.
TOSFOS DH k'Man k'R. Elazar d'Darish Kol
ืชืืกืคืืช ื"ื ืืืื ืืจืื ืืืขืืจ ืืืจืืฉ ืื
TOSFOS DH k'Man k'R. Elazar d'Darish Kol
ืชืืกืคืืช ื"ื ืืืื ืืจืื ืืืขืืจ ืืืจืืฉ ืื
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that Ze'iri explains like Rava in Menachos.)
ืืค' ืืื ืขืืืจืื (ืคืกืืื ืื.) ืื ืืืืฆืช ืื ืชืืืื ืืจืืืช ืืืชื ืืืืื ืืฉืืจ ืืืื ืืคืืืื ืจืื ื ืขืืื
Citation (Pesachim 42a): [R. Eliezer expounds] "Kol Machmetzes Lo Sochelu" to include Kutach ha'Bavli (a dip made with bread) and beer of Madai (i.e. mixtures of Chametz), and Chachamim disagree.
ืืคื' ืจืฉ"ื ืืค' ืืื ืขืืืจืื ืืืขืืจื ืืคืจืฉ ืืืจืืืชื ืืคืจืง ืื ืืื ืืืช ืืืืช ืืฆื
Explanation #1: Rashi explained there that Ze'iri explains the Beraisa in Menachos (58a)...
[ืืชื ืื] ืืชื ืื ืื ืฉืืืจ ืืื ืืืฉ ืื ืชืงืืืจื (ืืืืช ืื"ื) ืืื ืื ืืื ืืืื ืืงืฆืชื ืื ืืื ืช"ื ืื ืขืืจืืื ืื ืืื ืช"ื ืื ืื
Citation (58a - Beraisa): "Ki Chol Se'or v'Chol Devash Lo Saktiru" teaches only if it is totally [Se'or or honey]. What is the source if it is partially? It says "Kol". What is the source for a mixture? It says "Ki Kol".
ืคื' ืืื ืื ืืื ืื ืืืช ืืงืฆืชื (ืืืืช ืื"ื) ืืฆื ืืืช ืื ืืื ืช"ื ืื
Explanation: This teaches only if the entire k'Zayis [is Se'or or honey]. What is the source for part, i.e. half a k'Zayis? It says "Kol".
ืืืืื ื ืืืชืจ ืืฆืืจืฃ ืืืืกืืจ ืืจ"ื ืืฆื ืืืช ืืฉืืืจ ืืืฆื ืืืช ืืืฆื
This is Heter Mitztaref l'Isur. It teaches about half a k'Zayis of Se'or, and half a k'Zayis of Matzah.
ืืงืฉื ืืคืืจืืฉื ืื"ื ืืคืจืฉ ืืขืืจื ืืืจืืืชื ืืื ืฉืืคืจืฉ ืืืื ืืกื (ืืืืช ืื"ื) ืืค' ืื ืืื ืืืช (ืื ืืืช ื ื.) ืื"ืง ืืืคืืงื ืืืืืื
Question #1: If so, Ze'iri explains the Beraisa like Abaye there. Here it says that Ze'iri` comes to argue with Abaye!
ืืขืื ืงืฉื ืืื ืคืจืื ืืืื ืืจ"ื ืื ืืจืื ื ืืืื ืืืืืช
Question #2: What was the question "like whom [did he teach]? Like R. Elazar"? His teaching can be also according to Rabanan!
ืื ืื ืืจืื ื ืื ืืจืฉื ืื ืื ืื ืืจืฉื ืืืื ืืืจ ืืืื ืขืืืจืื (ืคืกืืื ืื:)
Granted, Rabanan do not expound "Kol". However, they expound "Ki Chol"! It says so in Pesachim (43b);
ืื"ื ืจืื ื ื ืื ืืืจืฉื ืืจืฉื ืจืืฉืื ื ืืืงืฆืชื ืื ืืื ืืืื ืคื' ืืฆื ืืืช ืฉืืืจ ืืืฆื ืืืช ืืฆื ืืื ืื ืฉืืืจ
If so, also Rabanan expound the first Drashah "what is the source for part, i.e. half a k'Zayis of Se'or and half a k'Zayis of Matzah?", from "Ki Chol Se'or"!
ืื ืื ืืจืื ื ืืจืฉื [ืืืจืื ื] ืื ืืจืฉื ืืื (ืืืืช ืืืจ"ื ืจื ืฉืืืจื) ืืจ"ื ื"ื ืืจืฉื [ืจืืฉืื ื] ืืคืฉืืื ืืืชืจ ืืืจืืฉ ืจ"ื ืืื ืจืื ื ืืจืฉื ืื ืืื ืื
Granted, Rabanan do not expound the latter Drashah from "Kol" like R. Elazar. In any case, they expound the first Drashah, which is simpler, which R. Elazar expounds from "Kol". Rabanan expound it from "Ki Chol"!
ืืื ื ืจืื ืืืขืืจื ืืคืจืฉ ืืืจืืืชื ืืคืจืง ืื ืืื ืืืช ืืืคืืจืฉ [ืจืื] ืืชื ืืื ืื ืืื ืืืื ืคืืจืืฉ ืื ืืงืืืฅ ืืืืื ื ืฉื ื ืืืชืื ืืงืกืืจ ืืื ืงืืืฅ ืคืืืช ืืฉื ื ืืืชืื
Explanation #2: It seems that Ze'iri explains the Beraisa in Menachos like Rava explains there. This teaches only if it is totally [Se'or or honey], i.e. the entire Kometz, i.e. two k'Zeisim. He holds that a Kometz cannot be less than two k'Zeisim;
ืืงืฆืชื ืื ืืื ืคืืจืืฉ ืืฆื ืืงืืืฅ ืฉืืื ืืืืช ืช"ื ืื
Citation (cont.): What is the source for part, i.e. half the Kometz, which is a k'Zayis? It says "Kol".
ืขืืจืืื ืื ืืื ืืืืื ื ืืฆื ืืืช ืืฉืืืจ ืืืฆื ืืืช ืืืฆื ืืืืื ื ืืืชืจ ืืฆืืจืฃ ืืืืกืืจ ืช"ื ืื ืื
Citation (cont.): What is the source for a mixture, i.e. half a k'Zayis of Se'or and half a k'Zayis of Matzah? This is Heter Mitztaref l'Isur. It says "Ki Kol".
ืืืฉืชื ืืชื ืฉืคืืจ ืืืืจ ืืืื ืืจ"ื ืืืจืืฉ ืื ืืืืื ืืื ืืชื ืืืฆื ืืงืืืฅ ืืืืชืจ (ืืืืช ืื"ื) ืืื ืื ืื ืืขืืจืืื ืืืืื ื ืืืชืจ ืืฆืืจืฃ ืืืืกืืจ ืืืคืจืืฉืืช
Support: Now it is fine that we asked 'like whom [did he teach]? Like R. Elazar, who expounds "Kol".' Since "Kol" teaches about a half Kometz, "Ki Chol" is extra to teach about a mixture, i.e. Heter Mitztaref l'Isur, like I explained;
ืืื ืืจืื ื ืืื ืืจืฉื ืื [ืจืง ืื ืื] ืืืงืฆืชื ืืืืื ื ืืืฆื ืืงืืืฅ ืฉืืื ืืืช ืฉืื
However, according to Rabanan, who do not expound "Kol", [they expound] only "Ki Chol", for part, i.e. half the Kometz, which is a full k'Zayis;
ืืื ืขืืจืืื ืืืืื ื ืืืชืจ ืืฆืืจืฃ ืืืืกืืจ (ืืืืช ืื"ื) ืื ืฉืืขื' ืืื
However, a mixture, i.e. Heter Mitztaref l'Isur, they do not learn at all.
ืื"ืช ืืืืื ืืืจืืฉ ืืงืฆืชื ืื ืื ืืืื ื ืืฆื ืืืช ืืก"ื ืืงืืจื ืืคืืืช ืืืืืช ืืื ืงืืืจ ืขืืจืืื ืื ืื
Question: According to Abaye, who expounds "what is the source for part", i.e. half a k'Zayis, and he holds that there is Haktarah less than a k'Zayis, what was the question "what is the source for a mixture?"
Note: Here, "half" is not precise. The same applies to any amount. However, above, we said that the Heter is Mitztaref l'Isur. There cannot be less than a k'Zayis of Isur, for if so the Heter is the majority, and it is not Batel to the Isur.
ืืื ืืืืื ื"ืฆ ืขืืจืืื ืืฆืจืฃ ืืืชืจ (ืืฆืืจืฃ) ืืืืกืืจ ืืืืืกืืจ ืืืืืื ืืืืื ืืืคืจืืฉืืช
According to Abaye, we do not need its mixture to join Heter to Isur. [Any amount of] the Isur alone makes him liable, like I explained!
ืื"ื ืืืื ืืคืจืฉ ืขืืจืืื ืื ืืื ืืืืื ื ืืืื ืืืจืืฉื ืืืจืืืชื ืืจืื ืืฆื ืืืช ืืขืื ืื ืืืกืืคื ืืคื' ืืื ื ืืขืื ืื ืืื [ืืืื] ืฉืืื ื ื ืืืจ ืืื ืคื"ืง ืืื ืืืช.
Answer: He explains "what is the source for a mixture?", i.e. dissolved [Isur]. The Reisha of the Beraisa includes an intact half a k'Zayis, and the Seifa teaches even if it is not intact, rather, dissolved, which is not recognizable. Also Rashi explained so in Menachos.
TOSFOS DH Ein Hachi Nami Ela Le'afukei mid'Abaye
ืชืืกืคืืช ื"ื ืื"ื ืืื ืืืคืืงื ืืืืืื
TOSFOS DH Ein Hachi Nami Ela Le'afukei mid'Abaye
ืชืืกืคืืช ื"ื ืื"ื ืืื ืืืคืืงื ืืืืืื
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how Abaye explains.)
ื"ืง ืืฉืืืจ ืขืืืคื ืืืฉืืืขืื ื ืืื ืืืืื
Explanation: He prefers to teach about Se'or, to teach unlike Abaye;
ืืื ืงื"ื ืืืื ืืงืืจื ืื' ืืื ืืืื ืฆืืจืืฃ ืืื ืืื ืื ืื
He teaches that there is no Haktarah [less than a k'Zayis], and if [Heter] joins [with Isur], yes (he is liable). If not, [he is] not.
ืืืื ืืคืจืฉ ืืื ืืืจืืืชื ืืคืจืง ืื ืืื ืืืช ืืื ืื ืืื ืืืื ืคื' ืืืืช ืืงืฆืชื ืคื' ืืฆื ืืืช ืืืื ืืืช ืืื
He (Abaye) explains the Beraisa in Menachos as follows. This teaches only about all, i.e. a k'Zayis [of Se'or or honey]. What is the source for part, i.e. half a k'Zayis, for so he holds [that one is liable for a half a k'Zayis]?
ืขืืจืืื ืื ืืื ืืืืื ื ืืืขื ืฉืืืจ ืืขืืจื ืืก"ื ืืืื ื ืืืืื ืืืขืืจื ืืืืชืจ ืืชืืื ืช"ื ืื ืื
Explanation (cont.): What is the source for a mixture, i.e. a little Se'or mixed in? One might have thought that since it is mixed with Heter, it is Batel. It says "Ki Chol".
ืืืืืืื ืืื ืฉืืื ืฆืืจืืฃ ืืืฃ ืืคืืืช ืืืืืช ืฉืืืจ ืืืื
Observation: According to him (Abaye), joining does not apply, for one is liable even for less than a k'Zayis of Se'or.
ืื"ืช ืืืืื ืืืจืืฉ ืืื ืฉืืืจ ืืคืืืช ืืืืืช ืืืื ืื ืืจืืฉ ื ืื ืืืฅ ืืืืื ืขืืื ืืคืืืช ืืืืืช ืืจ' ืืืขืืจ
Question: According to Abaye, who expounds from "Kol Se'or" less than a k'Zayis, why doesn't he expound also [regarding] Chametz to obligate for less than a k'Zayis, according to R. Elazar?
ืื"ื ืืฉืื ื ืืื ืืืฅ ืืืชืื ืืื ืืืืื ืืืื ืืืืื ืืคืืืช ืืืืืช.
Answer: Chametz is different, for eating is written regarding it, and less than a k'Zayis is not [called] eating.
TOSFOS DH Hachi Garis Rashi Mekom Mag'o Amai Pasul
ืชืืกืคืืช ื"ื ื"ื ืจืฉ"ื ืืงืื ืืืขื ืืืื ืคืกืื (ืืืืช ืื"ื)
TOSFOS DH Hachi Garis Rashi Mekom Mag'o Amai Pasul
ืชืืกืคืืช ื"ื ื"ื ืจืฉ"ื ืืงืื ืืืขื ืืืื ืคืกืื (ืืืืช ืื"ื)
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the basis of the question.)
ืื ืืืื ืชืืืื ืืจืืื ืืงืกืืจ (ืืืืช ืื"ื) ืืืืืข ืืืจืื ื ืืื ืืืกืืจ
Explanation: [He asks why the place he touched is Pasul, because] the spices should be Batel is the majority. [The Makshan] holds that Dimu'a (a mixture of Terumah) is forbidden mid'Rabanan;
ืืืืืจ ืืืืืืจืืืชื ืื ืืชืจื ืืืื ืืื ืืชืจืืื ืืื ืืืื ืืจืื ื ืืื.
I.e. mid'Oraisa one [part of Isur] is Batel in two [parts of Heter]. This that one measure of Terumah is Batel only in 100 [measures of Chulin] is only mid'Rabanan.
TOSFOS DH Amar Rabah bar bar Chanah...
ืชืืกืคืืช ื"ื ืืืจ ืจืื ืืจ ืืจ ืื ื...
TOSFOS DH Amar Rabah bar bar Chanah...
ืชืืกืคืืช ื"ื ืืืจ ืจืื ืืจ ืืจ ืื ื...
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that really, this is only mid'Rabanan.)
ืืฉืื ืืฉื ืชืจืืื ืขืืื [ืืืื ืืืื ืืืืื ื ืื ืฉื ืชืจืืื ืขืื]
Explanation #1: [A Zar is lashed for a k'Zayis of Dimu'a] because it is called Terumah. Therefore, also regarding Tum'ah, it is called Terumah.
ืืืืื ืื ืืืืจื ืืชืจืืื ืขืฆืื ืืืคืกืื ืืืื ืืฉืื ืจืฉ"ื [ืืคืกืืื]
Distinction: However, it is not as stringent as Terumah to be Posel everything. Rashi explained like this in Pesachim.
ืืงืฉื ืืจืืื ื ืชื ืืืืคืจืื ืืืืืื ืืจืืื ืืฉืืข ืฉืืฉืื ืืืฉืื ืืื ื ืืขืื ืืืืจ ืฉืืื ืืขืื ืืื ืืชืืื
Question #1 (R. Tam): Since we asked "it should be Batel is the majority", this connotes that the garlic and oil are not intact. Something intact is not Batel;
ืืื ืืฉืืข ืืื [ืืงืชื ื] ืื ืืข ืืืื ืืื ืืืงืฆืชื ืืฉืืข ืืืฉืื ืืืฉืื ืงืื ืืื ืืืงืคื ืืืื ืงืชื ื ืืืงืฆืชื
It connotes unlike this, for it taught "a Tevul Yom touched Miktzaso (part of it)." This connotes that it refers to the garlic and onions, and not the porridge, since it did not teach "Miktzasah" (feminine, like the word porridge)!
ืื ืื ืืฉืืข ืืืืืจื ืฉืืฉืื ืืืฉืื ืืขืื
Inference: This connotes that the garlic and onions are intact.
ืืชื ืืกืืคื ืืื ืืฉื ื ืืืกืืช ืืืื ืืื (ืค"ื ื"ื) ื"ืจ ืืืืื ืืืืชื ืืืื ืฉืื ืืืฉ ืืงืขืจื
Question #2: The Seifa of this Mishnah in Maseches Tevul Yom (2:3) teaches "R. Yehudah says, when is this? It is when they are a clump in the bowl";
ืืฉืืข ืืืืืจื ืฉืืื ืืขืื
Inference: [The garlic and onions] are intact.
ืืข"ืง ืืจืื"ื ืืชื ื ืืชื ืขืืกื ืฉื ืืืขืช ืืชืจืืื ืืื ื ื ืคืกื ืืืืื ืืื ืจ' ืืืกื ืืจ"ืฉ ืืืืจืื ื ืคืกืืช
Question #3 (Riva): A Mishnah there teaches "if a dough was mixed with Terumah, it is not disqualified through a Tevul Yom. R. Yosi and R. Shimon say, it is disqualified."
ืืืื ืืืืข ืืืขืืจื ืืืื ื ื ืืืจ ืื ืืคืืื ืืื ืืงืื ืืืขื ืืฉืื ืืงืื ืืืขื ืืื ืืื ืืืกืจ ืืกืจ ืืืืื ืืืื ืืฉืจื ืืืืื ืฉืจื
Inference: Regarding Dimu'a that is mixed and [the Terumah] is not recognized, we do not distinguish between where he touched and where he did not touch. Rather, the one who forbids, forbids everything, and the one who permits, permits everything.
ืืื ืคื' ืจืืื ื ืชื ืืืืืจื ืฉืืฉืื ืืืฉืื ืืคืืืจืื ืขื ืืืงืคื ืื ืืจืื ืืจืืฉื ืืืงืคื ืฉื ืชืจืืื ืืฉืื ืืฉืื ืืืืื ืืืืื
Explanation #2 (R. Tam): We discuss when the garlic and onions are scattered on the porridge and are recognized. The Reisha discusses porridge of Terumah, and the garlic and onions are totally Chulin;
ื"ื ืืืฉืื ืืืฉืื ืืื ืืืืืช ืืืืืื ืืืืืืช ืืืืืื ืืืจืื ื ืืขืืื (ืืืืื ืืฃ ืงืื.) ืฉืื ืืืืืืช ืืช ืืืืืื
We can say that the garlic and onions are like Yados (handles) for Tum'ah. Regarding Yados, we say elsewhere (Chulin 118a) that they bring Tum'ah (if Tum'ah touched the Yad, it is as if it touched the matter for which it is a Yad).
ืืื ืืงืคื ืฉื ืืืืื ืืฉืื ืืฉืื ืฉื ืชืจืืื ืื ืคืกื ืืื ืฉืื ืืฉืื ืฉื ืืข ืื
Distinction: However, when the porridge is Chulin and the garlic and onions are Terumah, he disqualifies only the garlic and onions that he touched.
ืื"ื ืืืืื ื ืื ืืงืื ืืืขื ืืืื ืคืกื ืื ืื ืืื ืืืืฆื
The text: The text says "we asked, why did he disqualify the place that he touched? It is not k'Beitzah!
ืืืขืื ื ืจืฉ"ื ืื ืืฉืจื ืืืช ืืืืจืกื ืฉืืืื ืืงืืืืช ืคื' ืฉืืืื ืืงืื ืืืืื ืืคื' ืืื ืฉืืื
Question: Rashi rejected this text, for in several places Rashi explained that any amount of food can receive Tum'ah;
ืืืืจืฉื' ืืช"ื ืืืื ืืืื ืืืื ืฉืืืื ืืื ืฉืืื
We expound in Toras Kohanim "Ochel Yitma" to teach that any amount is Mitamei (becomes Tamei);
ืืืื ืืฃ ืืืืจืื ืืื ืฉืืื ืช"ื ืืฉืจ ืืืื ืืืื ืื ืืื ืืืช ืืืช ืืืืื ื ืืืืฆื
Citation (Toras Kohanim): Perhaps any amount is Metamei others! It says "Asher Yochal" - [the largest amount of] food that can be eaten (swallowed) at once, i.e. a Beitzah (is Metamei others, but not less than this).
ืืจ"ืช ืืืืจ ืืืกืืืชื ืืขืืื ืืื
Answer (R. Tam): It is a mere Asmachta;
ืืืืก' ืืืืืช (ืคื"ื ื"ื) ืชื ื ืคืืืช ืืืืืฆื ืืืืืื ืืืขื (ืืืืช ืืชืจ ืชืืจื) ืืงืชื ื ืกืืคื ืื ืืืื ืืืื ืืื ื ืืืขื
Source: In Ohalos (13:5) a Mishnah teaches that less than a k'Beitzah of food diminishes [the size of an opening to prevent it from allowing Tum'as Ohel to pass to the other side], and the Seifa teaches "this is the general rule. What [can become] Tamei does not diminish. (I.e. mid'Oraisa less than k'Beitzah is not Mekabel Tum'ah, therefore it diminishes.)
ืืื ืืืืืง ืืื [ืื] ืืื ืืืืฆื
Implied question: Why does it say here "it is not k'Beitzah!"?
ืฆ"ื ืืืื ืืฉืื ืืืืง ืืืฉืงืื ืืืืืื ืืคืืืช ืืจืืืขืืช ืืื ืืฉืื ืคืจืื
Answer: We must say that we do not ask from the oil, for less than a Revi'is of liquids are Mitamei. Rather, we ask about the garlic.
Note: We never find that k'Beitzah is the Shi'ur for a liquid. However, if the Shi'ur for Tum'ah of liquids were a Revi'is, the question "it is not k'Beitzah" would apply to the oil and the garlic.
ืื"ืช ืืืื ืคืจืื ืืืจื ืฉืื ืืืช (ืืืืช ืืจืืช ืจืืฉ) ืืื ืฉืืื ืืงืืืื ืืืืื ืคืืืช ืืืืืฆื ืืืืืจืืืชื ื"ื ืคืกืื ืฉืคืืจ
Question: What was the question? Indeed, garlic is not Mekabel Tum'ah if there is less than a k'Beitzah, mid'Oraisa. In any case, it is properly disqualified!
ืืืข"ื ืืืื ืืงืืืื ืืืืื ืืืืืจืืืชื ื"ื ืืืจืื ื ืืืืื ืืืื ืคืจืื ืื ืืคืกืื ืจ"ื ืืืจืื ื
Even though it is not Mekabel Tum'ah mid'Oraisa, in any case mid'Rabanan they are Metamei! What was the question? "Disqualified" means, mid'Rabanan!
ืื"ื ืืืืฉื ื ืืคืกื ืืฉืืข ืืืืืจืืืชื,
Answer: The expression "disqualified" connotes mid'Oraisa.
ืืืฉื ื ืืืืื ืืืจ ืืืงื ืขืืื ืืืืืช ืืืื ืืืงื ื ืงื ืืืงื ืืื ืชืจืืืช ืฉืื ืืืจืื ื
Observation: The Gemara answers "since a Zar is lashed for a k'Zayis." This is not precise that he is lashed, for Terumah of garlic is mid'Rabanan (like we say below on 36b).
ืืื ืืื ืงืืืจ ืืืืื ืืืจ ืืืงื ืขืืื ืืืืืช ืืืื ืืืชื ืชืจืืื ืืืืจืืืชื ืืื ืืื ืืืืฉืืื ืืื ืืชืืื ืืื ืืืงืคื.
Rather, it means that since a Zar would be lashed for a k'Zayis if it were Terumah mid'Oraisa, it is proper to consider it [important], and it is not Batel to the porridge.
TOSFOS DH Mishum d'Heter Mitztaref l'Isur (pertains to Amud B)
ืชืืกืคืืช ื"ื ืืฉืื ืืืืชืจ ืืฆืืจืฃ ืืืืกืืจ (ืฉืืื ืืขืืื ื)
TOSFOS DH Mishum d'Heter Mitztaref l'Isur (pertains to Amud B)
ืชืืกืคืืช ื"ื ืืฉืื ืืืืชืจ ืืฆืืจืฃ ืืืืกืืจ (ืฉืืื ืืขืืื ื)
(SUMMARY: Tosfos justifies this Havah Amina.)
ืืืื ื ืืฆื ืฉืืื ืืืงื ืขืืื ืืืืืช
Explanation: [We must say that he is lashed because Heter joins with Isur,] for [otherwise] we do not find that he is lashed for a k'Zayis [of garlic through eating the porridge - Malei ha'Ro'im].
ืืื ืชืืืจ ืืืืื ืืืืื ืืืจ ืืืงื ืขืืื ืืืืืช ืื ืืื ืืืงื ืืฆืืืจ ืืฉืื (ืืืืช ืืขื"ืฅ) ืืืืช
Question: Why don't we say that it is because a Zar is lashed for a k'Zayis, if he would gather a k'Zayis of garlic from the porridge?
ืืืจ"ื ืืืื ืืจื ืืืืืชื ืืื ืืืฉืื ืื ืืขืื ืืืช ืื ืืืืืจ ืฉืื ืืชืืื ืืื ืืืงืคื.
Answer (Ri): This is not the normal way to eat it. This is not a reason to say that [the garlic] is not Batel to the porridge.
TOSFOS DH Amar Lei Lo
ืชืืกืคืืช ื"ื ืืืจ ืืื ืื
TOSFOS DH Amar Lei Lo
ืชืืกืคืืช ื"ื ืืืจ ืืื ืื
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how he answered the question.)
ืืื ืืืงื ืขืืื ืืงืืืจ ืืืื ืืืืช ืืืืช ืืืื ืืืืืช ืคืจืก ืืืฉืื ืืืืืื ืื ืืืืกืืจ ืืขืฆืื ืืืงื
Explanation: [He answered that] he is lashed for it, i.e. when there is k'Zayis bi'Chdei Achilas Pras. He is lashed for eating the Isur itself.
ืื"ืช ืื ื ืืื ืืืืจืกืช ืจืฉ"ื ืืืจืก ืืืืืืื
Observation: This is fine according to Rashi's text, which says "it should be Batel";
ืืืฉืชื ืืฉื ื ืืืื ืืืืื ื ืืืืงื ืขื ืืืืกืืจ ืืืื ืื ืืืื ืืขื ืื ืืืกืืจื ืื"ื ืืื ืืืืื ืืื ืืืืื
Now he answers that since we find that he is lashed for the Isur, this shows that it is not Batel regarding Isur. Similarly, it is not Batel regarding Tum'ah.
ืืื ืืื' ืจ"ืช ืืคืจืื ืืื ืื ืืืื ืืืืฆื ืื ืืชืจืืื ืืืื ืืคืกืื ื ืืื ืืฉื ื ืืฉืชื ืืืืื ืืืจ ืืืงื ืขื ืืืืกืืจ ืืืืืื ืืืื ืืืืืช ืคืจืก
Question: However, according to R. Tam's text, he asked that there is not a k'Beitzah of the Terumah. How can it become Pasul? If so, what was the answer now "since a Zar is lashed for eating the Isur itself in the time to eat a half loaf"?
ื"ื ืืืื ืคืืกื ืืชืจืืื ืืืืืชืจ [ืืืื] ืืฆืืจืฃ ืืืืกืืจ ืืขื ืื ืืืข ืืื ืืขื ืื ืืืงืืช ืืื ืืืชืจ ืืฆืืจืฃ ืืืืกืืจ
Still, how does he disqualify the Terumah, and how does Heter join with Isur regarding touching? Regarding lashes, Heter does not join with Isur!
ืื"ื ืืืคืจ"ืช ื ืืื (ืืืืช ืืจืืช ืจืืฉ) ืื"ืง ืืืื ืืืขื ืื ืืืงืืช ืืื ื ืืืืชืจ ืืืฆืืจืฃ (ืืืืช ืจ' ืืฆืืื ืืฉืื ืื) ืืืืกืืจ ืืืงืืช ืขืืื
Answer: According to R. Tam, we can say that he answered that since regarding lashes, the Heter helps, for it joins with Isur to be lashed for it...
ืฉืืจื ืื ืืื ืืืงื (ืขืืื) ืืืืกืืจ ืืชืื ืืืงืคื ืืืืืื ืื ืืื ืืืงื ืขืืื ืฉืืื ืืจื ืืืืื ืืื ืืืคืืจืฉื ื
If he would gather the Isur from the porridge and eat it, he would not be lashed, for this is not the normal way to eat, like we explained (36a DH Mishum).
Note: There, Tosfos said that is not the normal way to eat, but he connotes that one who does so is lashed. There, Birkas Rosh says that there he discusses when the garlic is intact on the porridge, and here he discusses when it is mixed in. In another case of abnormal eating, the Gemara says Batlah Daito Etzel Kol Adam; Rashi says that one is not lashed, and Tosfos disagrees (below, DH Hanach, part 2).
ืืืื ืืื ื ืืืืชืจ ืฉืืืืื ืขื ืืืงืคื ืืฆืจืคื ืืืืกืืจ ืืืงืืช ื"ื ืืืขืื ืืืืชืจ ืืืฆืืจืฃ ืืืืกืืจ ืืืคืกืืื ืืข"ืค ืฉืืื ืืืงืื ืืืขื ืืืืฆื ืืืืื:
Inference: The Heter helps, that he eats [the Terumah] with the porridge, to join it for Isur to be lashed. Similarly, the Heter should help to join it to Isur to become Pasul, even though there is not a k'Beitzah [to Terumah] in the place he touched. This is difficult. (Tif'eres Tziyon - regarding lashes, the Heter merely causes that the Terumah was eaten normally. What is the source that it joins with Isur to a Shi'ur?!)
TOSFOS DH Amar (part 2)
ืชืืกืคืืช ื"ื ืืืจ (ืืืง ื)
TOSFOS DH Amar (part 2)
ืชืืกืคืืช ื"ื ืืืจ (ืืืง ื)
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that he eats a k'Zayis of Terumah.)
ืื ืืืืื ืืืืช ืืืื ืืืืืช ืคืจืก
Citation of Gemara: No, there is k'Zayis bi'Chdei Achilas Pras.
. ืฉืื ืืืื ืืื ื ืฉืืขืืจ ืคืจืก ืฉืื ืืจืืข ืืืฆืื ืืฉ ืื ืืืืช ืชืจืืื ืืืืื ืืืื ืืื ืืืื.
Explanation: If he eats a half-loaf, i.e. [the volume of] four eggs, there is a k'Zayis of Terumah. Therefore he is liable, and it is not Batel.
TOSFOS DH uk'Zayis bi'Chdei Achilas Pras mid'Oraisa Hi
ืชืืกืคืืช ื"ื ืืืืืช ืืืื ืืืืืช ืคืจืก ืืืืจืืืชื ืืื
TOSFOS DH uk'Zayis bi'Chdei Achilas Pras mid'Oraisa Hi
ืชืืกืคืืช ื"ื ืืืืืช ืืืื ืืืืืช ืคืจืก ืืืืจืืืชื ืืื
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why Abaye did not know this from a Mishnah.)
ืืืจ ืืจ"ื ืืืข"ื ืืืชื ืืชืื ืืื ืืืจืืชืืช (ืืฃ ืื:) ืื ืืืืืื ืืฆืืจืคืื ืืืื ืืืืืช ืคืจืก
Implied question (Maharam): A Mishnah in Kerisus (12b) teaches that all foods join bi'Chdei Achilas Pras!
ืื ื ืืืื ืืืืื (ืืืืช ืืจืฉ"ืฉ) ืืื ืฉืืื ืืขืื ืื ืืื ืฉืืชืขืจืืืืช ืืืืื ืืืื ืืืชืจ ืืฆืืจืฃ ืืืืกืืจ ืืชืืื
Answer: That refers to one who eats Chelev, which is intact. However, in a mixture, since Heter does not join with Isur, [the Isur] is Batel;
ืืื ืื ืืื ืืืงื ืืืืกืืจ ืืชืื ืืืืชืจ ืืืืืื ืืขืื ืื ืืืื ืืืืืช ืคืจืก ืื (ืืืืช ืชืคืืจืช ืฆืืื) ืืืืืื ืขื ืืืืกืืจ ืืืืืื ืืืข"ืค ืฉืืื ืืืืชืจ ืืฆืืจืฃ ืขืื
Also if he would gather the Isur from the Heter and eat it by itself, bi'Chdei Achilas Pras, he would not be liable for the Isur itself, and even though Heter does not join with it;
Note: Perhaps Tosfos means "even though it is not mixed with Heter that could be Mevatel it." Arzei ha'Levanon suggests that the text should say "since Heter does not join with it." See also the note above on DH Amar Lei, d:1:i.
ืืข"ื ืืชืื ืืื ืืืืช ืืืื ืืืืืช ืคืจืก ืืืืจืืืชื ืืคื' ืืื"ื
Therefore, [Abaye] asks in astonishment "is k'Zayis bi'Chdei Achilas Pras mid'Oraisa even in such a case?!"
ืื"ื ืงืฉื ืืจืฉื"ื ืืื ืคืจืื ืืคืืื ืื ืืื ืืืืช ืืืื ืืืืืช ืคืจืก ืืืืจืืืชื ืชืืคืืง ืืื ืืฉืื ืืขื ืืขืืงืจ
Question (Rashbam): What was the question? Even if k'Zayis bi'Chdei Achilas Pras were not mid'Oraisa, it should suffice [to be lashed] because Ta'am k'Ikar!
ืืื ืืืื ืืืืชื ืืกืืื ืืฉืจืช ืืืชื ืืขื ืืขืืงืจ
Abaye [himself] brings below that "Mishras" teaches that Ta'am k'Ikar!
ืืืื ืืืกืจ ืื ืืชื ืืขื ืืืื ื ืืชืืื ืื"ืฉ ืืื ืฉืืขืืงืจ ืขืฆืื ืื ืืชืืื
Inference: [Isur] forbids because it gives taste, and it is not Batel, and all the more so here, that the Ikar itself is not Batel! (I.e. it is intact. It did not dissolve.)
ืืชืืจืฅ ืืืฉืชื ืก"ื ืืืืื ืืืขื ืืขืืงืจ ืืื ื ืืืื ืืื ื"ื ืืืื ืืืืช ืื ืืืขื ืืืช ืืืช [ืืืื] ืฉืืืืืข ืืืืช ืืื ืืฉื ื ืืืชืื ืคืช ืืืืืื ืืืช ืืืช
Answer (Rashbam): Now, Abaye holds that one is liable for Ta'am k'Ikar only if he eats a k'Zayis of the taste at once, e.g. a k'Zayis of wine was absorbed in two k'Zeisim of bread, and he ate (swallowed) them at once;
ืืกืืจื ืืื ืฉืื ืืืื ืืขื ืืืืจ ืื ืืขืืงืจ ืืืขืืงืจ ืขืฆืื ืก"ื ืืฉืชื ืฉืืื ื ืืืื ืืื ืื ืืืืื ืืืช ืืืช.
It is logical that taste is not more stringent than the Ikar, and now he holds that the Ikar itself, he is liable only if he eats it at once.
TOSFOS DH Iy Hachi...
ืชืืกืคืืช ื"ื ืื ืืื...
TOSFOS DH Iy Hachi...
ืชืืกืคืืช ื"ื ืื ืืื...
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why this is difficult only for Rav Dimi.)
ืืก"ื ืืืื ื ืืืฉ ืื ืืืืช ืืืื ืืืืืช ืคืจืก ืืืืชื ืืืืื
Explanation: We are thinking that there is k'Zayis [of Chametz] bi'Chdei Achilas Pras of Kutach ha'Bavli.
ืืืืืืื ืืืื ื ืืื ืืืืื ืืงืคื ืืฉืืข ืืื ืืืขื ืืืืชืจ ืืฆืืจืฃ ืืืืกืืจ ืืืืื ื ืืจ"ื ืืืจืืฉ ืื
According to him (Abaye), surely the case of porridge is fine. He understands that the reason is because Heter Mitztaref l'Isur. This is according to R. Elazar, who expounds "Kol";
ืืื ืืจืื ื ืืื ืืจืฉื ืื ืคืฉืืื ืืื (ืืื) ืคืืืื ืขืืื
However, according to Rabanan, who do not expound "Kol", it is obvious to him that they argue with him.
ืืื ืืื (ืืืืช ืืืจ"ื ืจื ืฉืืืจื) ืืืืงื ืืงืืืจ ืืจ' ืืืื ื ืืฉืื ืกืืจื ืืืื ืื ืืฉืืื ืืคืืืื ืชื ืื
However, regarding this that he is lashed, that [Rav Dimi] said that according to R. Yochanan, it is due to reasoning (because there is k'Zayis bi'Chdei Achilas Pras), we do not find that Tana'im argue about this!
ืื"ืช ืืืืื ืืื ืคืืืื ืจืื ื ืขืืื ืืจืื ืืืขืืจ ืืืืชื ืืืืื ืืืื ื ืืฉืืื ื ืืืื ืื ืืืืชื ืจืง ืืืืช ืืฆืืืฆื ืฉืื ืืื ืืืืช ืื ืืืืกืืจ
Question: (Why did Abaye ask?) He should say that Rabanan argue with R. Elazar about Kutach ha'Bavli, i.e. when he eats precisely a k'Zayis, for he did not eat a k'Zayis of Isur!
ืืจ' ืืืขืืจ ืืืืื ืืืจืืฉ ืื ืืืชืจ ืืฆืืจืฃ ืืืืกืืจ ืืื ืื ืืื ืื ืื ืฉืืื ืฉื ืืืืช ืืืื ืืืืืช ืคืจืก ืืืื ืจืื ื ืฉืคืืจ ืืืืืืื
R. Elazar obligates, for he expounds "Kol" [to teach that] Heter Mitztaref l'Isur. However, if he ate so much that there is k'Zayis bi'Chdei Achilas Pras, Rabanan agree that he is liable!
ืื"ื ืืืืงืืืจ ืืชื ืืค' ืืื ืขืืืจืื (ืคืกืืื ืื.) ืขื ืืืฅ ืืื ืืืืจ ืขื ืืฉ ืืจืช ืขื ืขืืจืืื ืืืื ืืืื ืืฉืืข ืืคื' ืืื ืื ืืืืชื ืืจืื ืืืจืื ื ืืื ืืืืืื.
Answer: Since [Chachamim] said there in Pesachim (43a) "for absolute Chametz of grain, one is Chayav Kares. For its mixture, he is not liable at all", this connotes even if he ate much Kutach, [they] say that he is not liable.
TOSFOS DH Hanach l'Kutach ha'Bavli... d'Iy Misraf Sarif Lei
ืชืืกืคืืช ื"ื ืื ื ืืืืชื ืืืืื... ืืื ืืืฉืจืฃ ืฉืจืืฃ ืืื
TOSFOS DH Hanach l'Kutach ha'Bavli... d'Iy Misraf Sarif Lei
ืชืืกืคืืช ื"ื ืื ื ืืืืชื ืืืืื... ืืื ืืืฉืจืฃ ืฉืจืืฃ ืืื
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this refers to swallowing it.)
ืืฉืื ืืืืืข ืืื ืฉืืจืคื ืืื (ืข"ื ืืฃ ืื:)
Explanation: "Sarif" is an expression of swallowing, like it says "Sorfah Chayah" (he swallows it raw - Avodah Zarah 29b).
TOSFOS DH Hanach (part 2)
ืชืืกืคืืช ื"ื ืื ื (ืืืง ื)
TOSFOS DH Hanach (part 2)
ืชืืกืคืืช ื"ื ืื ื (ืืืง ื)
(SUMMARY: Tosfos brings two opinions about one who eats it by itself.)
ืืืื ืืขืชื ืืฆื ืื ืืื
Citation of Gemara: Batlah Da'ato Etzel Kol Adam (we are not concerned for his opinion. The Halachah is based on normal people.)
ืืคืกืืื (ืืฃ ืื.) ืคืจืฉ"ื ืืื ืืชืจืื ืืื ืืคืืจ ืฉืืื ืื ืืจื ืืืืื
Explanation #1 (Rashi in Pesachim 44a): If this occurs, he is exempt, for this is not the normal way to eat it.
[ืื ืจืื] ื"ื ืืื ืืชืจืื ืืื ืืืืื ืืืืื ืืืืื ืื ืืืืจื.
Explanation #2: It seems that if this occurs, [Chachamim] agree that he is liable. They do not discuss this. (Rather, they discuss one who consumes it normally.)
TOSFOS DH v'Iy Mishtar Shatar Lei
ืชืืกืคืืช ื"ื ืืื ืืืฉืืจ ืฉืืจ ืืื
TOSFOS DH v'Iy Mishtar Shatar Lei
ืชืืกืคืืช ื"ื ืืื ืืืฉืืจ ืฉืืจ ืืื
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this refers to consuming it through dipping in it.)
ืืืื ืื [ืืืจืื] ืืืื ืืืืช ืืืื ืืืืืช ืคืจืก
Explanation: He dips [other food] in it, like the normal way [of consuming Kutach], he does not consume k'Zayis [of Chametz] bi'Chdei Achilas Pras.
ืืื"ื ื ืื ืืื ืฉืืจ ืืืื ืืคืืืื (ืืืืช ืืจืืช ืจืืฉ) ื ืื ืืชื
Support: The same applies to Kutach ha'Bavli. [Chachamim and R. Elazar] argue also about it there.
ืืข"ื ืืืจื ืืฉืชืืชื ืืขืื ื
Implied question: It is normal to drink it by itself!
ืืืื (ืืืืช ืืจืืช ืจืืฉ) ืืื ืืจื ืืฉืชืืช ืืืื ื ืื ืื ืืืกืืช ืจืฆืืคืื ืืืื ืืืืืช ืคืจืก ืืื ืฉืชื ืืื ืจืฆืืคืื ืืืื ืืขืชื ืืฆื ืื ืืื.
Answer: However, it is not normal to drink so many cups consecutively [to consume a k'Zayis of Chametz] bi'Chdei Achilas Pras. If he drinks them consecutively, Batlah Daito Etzel Kol Adam.
TOSFOS DH Shtei Maduchos
ืชืืกืคืืช ื"ื ืฉืชื ืืืืืืช
TOSFOS DH Shtei Maduchos
ืชืืกืคืืช ื"ื ืฉืชื ืืืืืืช
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the question.)
ืืืฉ ืืื ืชืืืื ืืื ืก"ื ืืืืช ืืืื ืืืืืช ืคืจืก ืืืืจืืืชื ืืืื ืืืจ ืฉืื ื ืืืืจ
Explanation: There are spices in them. If you will say that k'Zayis bi'Chdei Achilas Pras is mid'Oraisa, why do we make a lenient assumption [that the Terumah fell into the Terumah...]?
ืืืื ืืื ืชืจืืื ื ืคืื ืืชืื ืฉื ืืืืื ืืืืืื ืืืชื ืื ืืืืืื ืื ืืื ืื ื ืืชืืืช ืืืงื
Since if the Terumah fell into the Chulin, one (a Zar) who eats it is Chayav Misah, we should not make a lenient assumption!
ืฉืืื ืกืืจื ืืืฉ"ืก ืืืืจ ืฉืืื ืื ืืืืช ืืืื ืืืืืช ืคืจืก.
The Gemara did not think that there is not k'Zayis bi'Chdei Achilas Pras.
TOSFOS DH Eis Seforim d'Garsei
ืชืืกืคืืช ื"ื ืืืช ืกืคืจืื ืืืจืกื
TOSFOS DH Eis Seforim d'Garsei
ืชืืกืคืืช ื"ื ืืืช ืกืคืจืื ืืืจืกื
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why Abaye did not answer that this is like Rabanan.)
ืืื ืืื ืืืชืจ ืืฆืืจืฃ ืืืืกืืจ ืืืื ืืืจ ืฉืื ื ืืืืจ,
Citation of Gemara: [Some texts say] rather, what [do you say]? Heter joins to Isur? [Also for you it is difficult,] why do we make a lenient assumption?
[ืื"ืช] ืืืฉื ื ืืืื ืืฃ ืื ืืืจ ืืืืื ืืืงืคื ืืืชืจ ืืฆืืจืฃ ืืืืกืืจ ืืืื ื ืืจ' ืืืขืืจ ืืืจืืฉ ืื ืืื ืืจืื ื ืืื ืืจืฉื ืื
Question: Abaye should answer that even though he said regarding porridge that Heter Mitztaref l'Isur, this was according to R. Elazar, who expounds "Kol". This is like Rabanan, who do not expound "Kol"!
ืื"ื ืืื ื ืืื ืืื ืืืคืืืื ืชืจื ืืชืจื ืกืชืื (ืืืืช ืชืืจืช ื ืืืจ) ืืืื ืืื ืื ืืจ' ืืืขืืจ ืื ื ืื (ืืืืช ืืืจ"ื ืจื ืฉืืืจื)
Answer: He does not want to say that two Stam [Beraisos] argue with each other. If this is like R. Elazar, and this one is.
ืืืคืจืง ืืื ืขืืืจืื ืืืชื ืืกืคืจืื ืืื ืื ื ืืชืจืืืช ืชืืืื ืืจืื ื
In Pesachim, this is not in Seforim. Rather, it says "do not ask from Terumah of spices, which is mid'Rabanan";
ืืืื ืชืืจืืฉ ืืืฆืืจ ืืชืื ืืืืื ืชืืื ื ืืงืืื.
The Torah wrote [to separate Terumah from] grain, wine and oil. (Everything else is mid'Rabanan.) This is why we make a lenient assumption.
TOSFOS DH Shtei Kupos
ืชืืกืคืืช ื"ื ืฉืชื ืงืืคืืช
TOSFOS DH Shtei Kupos
ืชืืกืคืืช ื"ื ืฉืชื ืงืืคืืช
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why only here it helps that there is a majority of Heter.)
ืืืื ืชืืืื ืืื ืก"ื ืื'
Explanation: There is grain in [the boxes]. If you think that [k'Zayis bi'Chdei Achilas Pras is mid'Oraisa, why do we make a lenient assumption]?
ื"ื ืืฉืืื ืืืืื ืืืืจืื ื ืืืชืจ ืืฆืืจืฃ ืืืืกืืจ [ืื ืืืจืื ื] ืืื ืืฉืืืืกืืจ ืจืื [ืขืืื]
Citation of Gemara: Granted, according to me, that we say Heter Mitztaref l'Isur, we say so only when there is more Isur [than Heter].
ืืงืฉื ืืืื ืืืชื ืืืืื ื ืคืืฉ ืืืชืืจื
Question #1: Kutach ha'Bavli has more Heter (the minority is Chametz)!
ืืชื ืืื ืืืืืืช ืืืืืง ืืืื ืืื ืืืชืจ ืืฆืืจืฃ ืืืืกืืจ ืืืื ืืืจ ืฉืื ื ืืืืจ ืืืฉื ื ืืื ืืฉืื ืื ืคืืฉื ืืืืื
Question #2: Regarding mortars, we infer "rather, what [do you say]? Heter joins to Isur? [If so,] why do we make a lenient assumption?" He should answer "we are lenient because there is more Chulin [so Heter does not join to Isur]"!
ืืืืืจ ืจืื ืืืืื ืืืงืื ืฉืืฉ ื ืืชื ืืขื ืืืื ืืืืชื ืืืืื ืืืืืืืืช ืฉืืืืกืืจ ื ืืชื ืืขื ืื ืืืื ืืืืชืจ ืืฆืืจืฃ ืืืืกืืจ
Answer (Tosfos' Rebbi): Surely, when there is Nosen Ta'am, e.g. regarding Kutach ha'Bavli and mortars, that the Isur gives taste [to the Heter], then the Heter joins to the Isur;
ืืฉื"ื ืืื ืื' ืงืืคืืช ืืืืืจื ืืฉืชืืื ืืื ืืื ืืื ืืืืชืจ ืืฆืืจืฃ ืืืืกืืจ (ืืืืช ืืืจ"ื ืจื ืฉืืืจื) ืืืืื ืฉืืืชืจ ืจืื ืืื ื ืชืืื [ืืืืกืืจ] ืืืืื ืืื ืืชืืืช ืืืงื
This does not apply here, with two boxes. We discuss when both are the same species. Heter does not join to Isur. Since the Heter is the majority, the Isur is Batel immediately. It is proper that we make a lenient assumption!
ืื"ืช ืื ืื ืื ืื ื ืฆืจืืืื ืฉืื ื ืืืืจ ืชืืคืืง ืืื ืืืฃ ืื ื ืคืื ืชืจืืื ืืชืื ืืืืื ืืืื ืืื ืืจืื
Question: If so, why do we need to say "I say [that the Terumah fell into the Terumah]"? Even if the Terumah fell into the Chulin, it is Batel immediately is the majority! (Keren Orah questioned this, for mid'Rabanan Terumah is Batel only if there is 100 times as much Chulin.)
ืืืฉ ืืืืจ ืืืฉืชื ืก"ื ืืชืจืืื ืืืื ืืื ืืืืจืืืชื ืืืืืืจืืืชื ืื ืชืืื ื ืืงืืื ืื ืื ืชืจื ืืขืื ืืื ืืจืื ืืขืื ืืฉืื ื ืืืืจ
Answer: Now we are thinking that Terumah nowadays is mid'Oraisa. Mid'Oraisa, we make a lenient assumption only if there are two reasons. Firstly, there is more [Heter]. And secondly, "I [can] say..."
Note: Tosfos connotes that "I can say" is not synonymous with "making a lenient assumption. E.g. if both boxes were Chulin, but now he needs only one of them, we would not assume that the Terumah fell in the other box, for there is no reason to permit the one he wants more than the other.
ืื"ื [ืคืจืื] ืืจ' ืืืื ื ืืค' ืืขืจื (ืืืืืช ืคื.).
Support: We ask like this against R. Yochanan in Yevamos (82a. If Terumah nowadays is mid'Oraisa, why do we make a lenient assumption?)
TOSFOS DH Ela l'Didach...
ืชืืกืคืืช ื"ื ืืื ืืืืื...
TOSFOS DH Ela l'Didach...
ืชืืกืคืืช ื"ื ืืื ืืืืื...
(SUMMARY: Tosfos justifies the question.)
[ืชืืื] ืืืื ืืืืงืืช ืืขืื (ืืืืช ืืืจ"ื ืจื ืฉืืืจื) ืืืืืจื ืืื ืืืื ื ืืืื ืื ื ืืชื ืืขื ืืื ืงืฉืื ืืื ืืื ืืื ืืืื ื ืืืืจืืืชื ืืจืืื ืืืื
Question: Since you established above that we discuss Min b'Mino, and it is not Nosen Ta'am, what was difficult? Mid'Oraisa, Min b'Mino is Batel is the majority;
ืืฉืคืืจ ืืืื ืชืจื ืืขืื ืืืืชืืจื ืจืืืื ืืฉืื ื ืืืืจ
There are two proper reasons to permit. There is more [Heter], and [we can say] "I say..."!
ืื"ื (ืืืืช ืืจืืช ืจืืฉ) ืืื ืืืชื ืืืืืช ืืืื ืืืืืช ืคืจืก ืืืืจืืืชื ืืืื ืืฉืืื ื ืืื ื ืื ืืื ืืืื ื ืืื ืืชืืืช ืืืงื ืขื ืืื ืกืื ืจืืืื
Answer: If it is true that k'Zayis bi'Chdei Achilas Pras is mid'Oraisa for Min b'Eino Mino, also for Min b'Mino we should not rely on the majority to make a lenient assumption;
ืืืื ืืื ืฉืืืืืจื ืื ืืืืื ืืขืื ืืืืจื ืืื ืืฉืืื ื ืืื ื
It is proper that Chachamim be stringent, just like the stringency of Min b'Eino Mino. (Chachamim were stringent to say that Min b'Mino it is Batel only in 60, like the law of Min b'Eino Mino. This Dibur continues on the coming Daf.)