1) TOSFOS DH Gilach Al Echad mi'Sheloshtan Yatza
úåñôåú ã"ä âéìç òì àçã îùìùúï éöà
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this is unlike the Heter to drink wine.)
åàôé' ìøáðï ãìà ùøå ìùúåú áééï òã ùéáéà çèàúå áô' â' îéðéï (ðæéø ãó îå.)
(a) Explanation: This is even according to Rabanan, who do not permit him to drink wine until he brings his Chatas, in Nazir (46a).
2) TOSFOS DH Tiyuvta
úåñôåú ã"ä úéåáúà
(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that Rav can argue with the Beraisa.)
äåä îöé ìîéîø øá úðà äåà åôìéâ ëã÷àîø áëîä ãåëúé
(a) Observation: We could have said that Rav is a Tana and he argues, like it says in several places.
3) TOSFOS DH sheha'Menachos Te'unos Kli
úåñôåú ã"ä ùäîðçåú èòåðåú ëìé
(SUMMARY: Tosfos justifies that this is a stringency of a Minchah.)
åà''ú àãøáä æå äéà ÷åìà ìâáé òåôåú ãáòå (îìé÷ä) [ö"ì äæàä - ç÷ ðúï] áòöîå ùì ëäï
(a) Question: Just the contrary, this is a leniency compared to birds, which require Haza'ah with the Kohen's very body!
åé''ì ãá÷ãåùä àééøé ùöøéê ì÷ãùå áëìé ùøú îä ùàéï ëï áòåôåú
(b) Answer: We discuss Kedushah. One must be Mekadesh [a Minchah] in a Kli Shares. This does not apply to birds.
4) TOSFOS DH v'Im Isa bi'Menachos Nami Mishkachas Lah
úåñôåú ã"ä åàí àéúà áîðçåú ðîé îùëçú ìä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the premise.)
ôé' åàí àéúà ùúäà ëùøä
(a) Explanation: This means "if it is true that it is Kosher..."
5) TOSFOS DH v'Iy Ein Mechusar Zman l'Bo ba'Yom Amai Yachzor v'Yiten
úåñôåú ã"ä åàé àéï îçåñø æîï ìáå áéåí àîàé éçæåø åéúï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why Mechusar Zman applies more to Metzora.)
ìáñåó îñ÷éðï ãéù îçåñø æîï ìáå áéåí
(a) Remark: Below we conclude that Mechusar Zman applies the same day.
åúéîä ãáéåîà áô' äåöéàå ìå (ãó ñ:) îöøéê çå÷ä ùìà éùðä àú äñãø åäéëà ãìà ëúéáà çå÷ä ìà çééùéðï àí îùðä
(b) Question: In Yoma (60b) we require "Chukah" to teach that he may not change the order. When "Chukah" is not written, we are not concerned if he changes!
åé''ì ããå÷à (áäãé îöåøò) [ö"ì áäà ãîöåøò - ùéèä î÷åáöú] çùéá îçåñø æîï áîä ùòãééï ìà äâéò æîï (èäøúï) [ö"ì èäøúå - ùéèä î÷åáöú] àáì ñãø òáåãú éåä''ë ãìëôøä ìà çùéá îçåñø æîï
(c) Answer: Only regarding a Metzora it is considered Mechusar Zman, that the time for his Taharah did not come yet, but the order of the Avodos of Yom Kipur, which are for Kaparah, [changing the order] is not considered Mechusar Zman.
6) TOSFOS DH Shechitah Lav Avodah Hi
úåñôåú ã"ä ùçéèä ìàå òáåãä äéà
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the source to say so.)
ôé' ä÷åðèøñ îãàëùøä øçîðà áæø
(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi): Since the Torah was Machshir a Zar [for Shechitah, this shows that it is not an Avodah].
åà''à ìåîø ëï ãàäëùø æø âåôéä îééúé ìä ì÷îï áôéø÷éï (ãó å:) åáñô''÷ ãæáçéí (ãó éã:)
(b) Rebuttal: This cannot be, for we bring [that Shechitah is not an Avodah] to explain why a Zar is Kosher, below (6b) and in Zevachim (14b)!
åîéäå éù ìééùá ôéøåùå ãëéåï ãáùåí î÷åí ìà áòé ëäï áùçéèä ìàå òáåãä äéà åìà ãîé ìùîàì ãéù î÷åí ùöøéê éîéï åìäëé ôøéê òìä [áæáçéí] îôøä
(c) Defense: We can resolve his Perush. Since we do not require a Kohen for Shechitah in any place, it is not an Avodah. It is unlike the left hand, for there is a place where the right hand is required. This is why [the Gemara] in Zevachim asks from [Shechitas] Parah [Adumah].
åäøá øáé éöç÷ îàåøìéð''ù îôøù ìàå òáåãä äéà ìôé ùùååä áçåìéï åá÷ãùéí àí ëï ìà îèòí òáåãä öåä äî÷åí ùçéèä
(d) Explanation #2 (Ri of Orlins): It is not an Avodah because it is the same in Chulin and in Kodshim. If so, the Torah did not command Shechitah due to Avodah.
åðøàä ìôøù ãìàå òáåãä äéà îãàëùøéðï áô''á ãæáçéí (ãó ëå.) òîã áãøåí åäåùéè éãå áöôåï åùçè á÷ãùé ÷ãùéí åáî÷áì ôñåì
(e) Explanation #3: It is not an Avodah, because in Zevachim (26a) we are Machshir one who stood in the south and stretched his hand to the north and slaughtered Kodshei Kodoshim, and such a case of Kabalah is Pasul;
ããøùéðï àåúå áöôåï åìà ùåçè áöôåï àáì î÷áì áöôåï
1. We expound "Oso (the Korban is) b'Tzafon", but the Shochet need not be in the north, but the Mekabel must be in the north;
åáùìîéí îëùéøéï òîã áçåõ åäåùéè éãå ìôðéí åùçè åàí ÷éáì ÷áìúå ôñåìä
2. And for Shelamim we are Machshir one who stands outside [the Mikdash] and stretches his hand inside and slaughters. If he received [like this], the Kabalah is Pasul;
ããøùéðï áô' ëì äôñåìéí (æáçéí ãó ìá:) áï äá÷ø ìôðé ä' åìà ùåçè ìôðé ä'
i. We expound in Zevachim (32b) "Ben ha'Bakar Lifnei Hash-m", but the Shochet need not be Lifnei Hash-m;
àáì àí ÷éáì ÷áìúå ôñåìä îùåí ãëúéá ìòîåã ìôðé ä' ìùøúå àìîà ëì ùéøåú ìôðé ä'
ii. However, if he received, the Kabalah is Pasul, because it says "La'amod Lifnei Hash-m Lesharso." This shows that all service must be Lifnei Hash-m;
ù''î îãàëùøä øçîðà òîã áçåõ åäåùéè éãå ìôðéí åùçè îëìì ãùçéèä ìàå ùéøåú äéà
iii. Inference: Since the Torah is Machshir one who stands outside and stretches his hand and slaughters, this implies that Shechitah is not service.
åòåã îãàîø áääéà ùîòúà áô''á (ãó ëå.) ãðúìä åùçè ùçéèúå ëùéøä ùçéèä òì éøê àîø øçîðà åìà ùåçè òì éøê
(f) Support: Also, it says in Zevachim (26a) that if one was suspended [in the air above the Azarah] and slaughtered, it is Kosher, for the Torah said that Shechitah (i.e. the Korban) must be "Al Yerech" (by the Mizbe'ach), but the Shochet need not be Al Yerech.
àìîà ùçéèä ìàå òáåãä äéà ãàé òáåãä äéà ìà äéä îëùéø ìä øçîðà áëä''â ãäà ðúìä å÷éáì àîø ã÷áìúå ôñåìä îùåí ãàéï [ö"ì ãøê - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ùéøåú áëê
1. Inference: Shechitah is not an Avodah. If it were an Avodah, the Torah would not be Machshir it in such a case, for we say [there] that if one was suspended [in the air] and did Kabalah, it is Pasul, for this is not the way to serve.
åîéäå îãôøéê ì÷îï (ãó å:) åáô''÷ ãæáçéí (ã' éã:) åáô' çèàú äòåó (ùí ã' ñç:) îôøä ãàîø øá ùçéèú ôøä áæø ôñåìä îùîò ÷öú ëôéøåù ä÷åðèøñ
(g) Support (for Explanation #1): Since it asks below (6b) and in Zevachim (14b, 68b) from Parah, that Rav said that if a Zar did Shechitah of Parah, it is Pasul, this connotes a little like Rashi explained.
åîéäå âí ìôé îä )ùôéøù) [ö"ì ùôéøùöé - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã, öàï ÷ãùéí] éù ìééùáå
(h) Retraction of Support: However, also according to what I explained, we can resolve this.
àáì ÷ùéà ãà''ë ìùîòåï äúéîðé ãáòé áôø÷ ëì äôñåìéï (ùí ãó ìá:) ùéäå éãéå ùì äùåçè ìôðéí îï äðùçè äåéà ùçéèä òáåãä
(i) Question (against Explanation #3): If so, according to Shimon ha'Temani, who requires in Zevachim (32b) that the Shochet's hand is further in [the Azarah] than the [Korban] slaughtered, Shechitah is an Avodah!
7) TOSFOS DH Shechitah Lav Avodah Hi
úåñôåú ã"ä ùçéèä ìàå òáåãä äéà
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that we do not find anyone who argues with this.)
ìà îöé ìùðåéé ãø''ù áï ì÷éù ñáø ãòáåãä äéà
(a) Implied question: Why couldn't we answer that Reish Lakish holds that it is an Avodah?
ãáæä ìà îöéðå ùåí îçìå÷ú
(b) Answer: We do not find any argument about this.
ãàò''â ãôøéê ì÷îï îùçéèú ôøä áæø åîùðé ã÷ãùé áã÷ äáéú äéà
(c) Implied question: It asks below (6b) from Shechitah of Parah Adumah [which is Pasul] through a Zar, and answers that it is Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis;
åîùîò ãàé ÷ãùé îæáç äéà äåä ãéé÷é îéðä ãòáåãä äéà
1. Inference: If it were Kodshei Mizbe'ach, we would infer from it that [Shechitah] is an Avodah;
åáô' èøó á÷ìôé (éåîà ãó îá.) àéëà ìî''ã ãùçéèú ôøå áæø ôñåìä åôøå ÷ãùé îæáç äåà
2. In Yoma (42a) there is an opinion that Shechitah of [the Kohen Gadol's] Par [of Yom Kipur] through a Zar is Pasul, and his Par is Kodshei Mizbe'ach!
àéï æä ãéå÷ ãî''î ëéåï ãàùëçï ùçéèú ôøä áæø ôñåìä àò''â ã÷ãùé áã÷ äáéú äéà à''ë îä ùôñìä äëúåá âáé )ôøä) [ö"ì ôøå - öàï ÷ãùéí] ìàå îùåí ãäåé òáåãä
(d) Answer: This is not a valid inference, for since we find that Shechitas Parah Adumah through a Zar is Pasul, even though it is Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, this that the Torah disqualified regarding his Par is not due to Avodah;
ãäà áôøä (àéï ùçéèä òáåãä ãôñìä) [ö"ì ìàå îùåí ãùçéèä òáåãä äéà ôñìä àìà - öàï ÷ãùéí] ëãîôøù îéãé ãäåä àîøàåú ðâòéí ãáòé ëäåðä
1. Source: [Shechitah Zar] disqualifies Parah Adumah, not because Shechitah is an Avodah, rather, like it explains, like we find regarding [ruling about] appearances of Tzara'as, which require Kehunah.
úãò ãäà áæáçéí (ãó éã:) àîøé øáä åøá éåñó äåìëä áæø îçìå÷ú ø''ù åøáðï åîñ÷éðï äúí ìø''ù ùçéèä ìàå òáåãä äéà åùàðé ôøä ã÷ãùé áã÷ äáéú äéà
(e) Proof: In Zevachim (14b), Rabah and Rav Yosef say that R. Shimon and Rabanan argue about Holachah of a Zar, and we conclude there that according to R. Shimon, Shechitah is not an Avodah, and Parah is different, for it is Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis;
åì÷îï áä÷åîõ øáä (ãó éè.) îùîò ãìø''ù ùçéèú ôøå áæø ôñåìä ã÷àîøéðï îãâìé øçîðà âáé ôøå ùì àäøï åùçè (àäøï) àú ôø äçèàú àùø ìå îëìì ãáòìîà ìà áòéðï áòìéí
1. Below (19a) it connotes that R. Shimon holds that Shechitah of Par [Kohen Gadol] through a Zar is Pasul, for we say that since the Torah revealed about Aharon's Par "v'Shachat Es Par ha'Chatas Asher Lo", this implies that normally the owner is not required [to slaughter his Korban].
åîéäå ÷ùéà îäà ãàîøéðï áôø÷ èøó á÷ìôé (éåîà ãó îá.) î''ù ôøä ãëúéá áä àìòæø åçå÷ä ôøå ðîé äëúéá åëå' åîùðé ùàðé ôøä ã÷ãùé áã÷ äáéú äéà
(f) Question: It says in Yoma (42a) "why is Parah different (a Kohen must slaughter it) - because it is written Elazar and Chukah? Also his Par, it is written [Aharon and Chukah]!" It answers that Parah is different, for it is Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis;
åëéåï ãîôøä éãòéðï ôøå à''ë îàé ÷à îùðé
1. Since we know his Par from Parah, what was the answer? (Even though Shechitah is not an Avodah, we can learn that a Kohen is required!)
å÷ì ìúøõ ãä''÷ ùàðé äúí áôøä ùäéà ÷ãùé áã÷ äáéú åìà ùééê áä òáåãä à''ë éù ìäòîéã àìòæø åçå÷ä àùçéèä ëîå àùàø ãáøéí ùáä
(g) Answer: This is easy to answer. It means as follows. Parah is different, for it is Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, and Avodah does not apply to it. If so, we should establish Elazar and Chukah to teach about Shechitah, just like for other matters in it;
àáì ôøå ùäåà ÷ãùé îæáç àéï ñáøà ìäòîéã àäøï åçå÷ä àìà àòáåãä ùáå åìà àùçéèä ãìàå òáåãä äéà
1. However, his Par, which is Kodshei Mizbe'ach, it is reasonable to establish Aharon and Chukah only for Avodos in it, and not to Shechitah, which is not an Avodah.
8) TOSFOS DH Shechitah Lav Avodah Hi
úåñôåú ã"ä ùçéèä ìàå òáåãä äéà
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we do not say that it is Pasul due to Kabalah.)
úéîä äà àéëà ÷áìä ãòáåãä äéà åãéìîà îùåí ÷áìä äåà ã÷àîø ùìà éäà àçø îîøñ áãîä îùåí ãëúéá áä äåééä
(a) Question: There is Kabalah, which is an Avodah. Perhaps due to Kabalah, it says that one may not stir the blood (until we offer the Asham, and then finish offering the Chatas), because it says Havayah (the Avodos must be in order)!
åé''ì ãäåééä ìà ÷àîø àìà àîéãé ãëúéá áàåúä ôøùä
(b) Answer: Havayah was said only about something written in that Parshah.
9) TOSFOS DH Ela Amar Rav Papa Hainu Taima d'Reish Lakish
úåñôåú ã"ä àìà à''ø ôôà ä''è ãøùá''ì
(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves a contradiction in Rav Papa.)
îùîò äëà ãñáø øá ôôà éù îçåñø æîï ìáå áéåí
(a) Inference: Here it connotes that Rav Papa holds that Mechusar Zman applies to the same day;
åúéîä ãáô''÷ ãæáçéí (ãó éá. åùí) âáé äà ãôñéì áï áúéøà ôñç ùùçèå áé''ã [ö"ì ùçøéú - éòá"ö] áéï ìùîå áéï ùìà ìùîå îñé÷ øá ôôà ãàé àôøùéä ùçøéú àå áìéìä ìàå ãçåé îòé÷øå äåà ãàéï îçåñø æîï ìáå áéåí
(b) Question: In Zevachim (12a), regarding Ben Beseira disqualifies Pesach slaughtered on the 14th in the morning, whether Lishmah or Lo Lishmah, Rav Papa concludes that if he separated it in the morning or the [previous] night, it is not Dichuy Me'ikara, for Mechusar Zman does not apply to the same day (it will be Kosher in the afternoon)!
åé''ì ãàéï ìãîåú äôøùä ìäê ãäëà ãàèå áääéà ãùîòúéï îé ìà îåãä øá ôôà áîöåøò ùéëåì ìäôøéù äçèàú ÷åãí ùé÷øéá äàùí
(c) Answer: Separation is unlike here in our Sugya. Doesn't Rav Papa agree that a Metzora can separate the Chatas before he offers his Asham?!
ããå÷à ÷úðé ä÷ãéí çèàúå ìàùîå ùùçèå ÷åãí äàùí ëã÷úðé ìà éäà àçø îîøñ áãîä
1. It was taught specifically if he did the Chatas before the Asham, i.e. he slaughtered it before the Asham, like it was taught "someone else does not stir the blood..."
åääéà ãéåîà ô' ùðé ùòéøéí (ã' ñá:) âáé ùòéøé éä''ë ùùçèï áçåõ ùäâøéì òìéäï ãîñé÷ òìä ãàéï îçåñø æîï ìáå áéåí åìéëà îàï ãôìéâ
(d) Implied question: The case in Yoma (62b) regarding goats of Yom Kipur that he slaughtered outside, that he made a lottery on them, it concludes about this that Mechusar Zman does not apply the same day, and no one argues!
àéï ìãîåú ëîå ëï ëàï ãìâáé ùçåèé çåõ çùéá øàåé ìôúç àäì îåòã ëéåï ãçæé áå áéåí:
(e) Answer: Similarly, we do not compare that to here. For Shechutei Chutz it is considered proper for Pesach Ohel Mo'ed, since it will be proper the same day.
5b----------------------------------------5b
10) TOSFOS DH He'ir ha'Mizrach Matir
úåñôåú ã"ä äàéø äîæøç îúéø
(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes that mid'Oraisa, this totally permits.)
åà''ú ðäé ãîúéø äìàå òùä îéäà àéëà ëãîåëç ì÷îï áôø÷ øáé éùîòàì (ãó ñç. åùí) ãòã äáéàëí àú ÷øáï àìäéëí ìîöåä
(a) Question #1: Granted, it permits the Lav [of Chadash]. However, there is still an [Isur] Aseh, like is proven below (68a) that "Ad Havi'achem Es Korban Elokeichem" is a Mitzvah!
)åîéäå) [ö"ì åòåã - öàï ÷ãùéí] ÷ùéà áääéà ùîòúà âåôà ãôøéê îú÷ðú øáï éåçðï áï æëàé åàé ñ''ã îöåä îùåí îöåä ìé÷å åìéâæåø
(b) Question #2: That Sugya itself is difficult. It asks from the enactment of R. Yochanan ben Zakai. If you think that [eating Chadash only after the Omer is offered] is a Mitzvah, due to a Mitzvah would he decree?!
îàé ÷åùéà àîàé ìà ðâæåø îùåí òùä àôéìå áàéñåø äëðä ãøáðï àùëçï áô''÷ ãáéöä (ãó ä:) ãâæøéðï ùîà éáðä áéú äî÷ãù
1. What was the question? Why should we not decree due to a Mitzvah? Even for the Isur Hachanah mid'Rabanan, we find (Beitzah 5b) that we decree lest the Beis ha'Mikdash be built!
ìôéëê ðøàä ãàéðå àìà îöåä îï äîåáçø áòìîà åàôéìå òùä ìéëà
(c) Answer (to both questions): It seems that it is mere the ideal Mitzvah (not to eat Chadash until after the Omer is offered), but there is not even an [Isur] Aseh.
11) TOSFOS DH b'Mi she'Ra'uy l'Avodah
úåñôåú ã"ä áîé ùøàåé ìòáåãä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this affects Pigul.)
ãàò''ô (ùäëäï ðôñì àå ëù÷éáìå) [ö"ì ùä÷øáï ðôñì ëù÷áìå - öàï ÷ãùéí] ôñåìéï åæø÷å àú ãîå àå ùðôâí äîæáç ñ''ã ãîäðéà îçùáä ì÷åáòå áôâåì ëãàùëçï âáé éåöà áñåó ôéø÷éï
(a) Explanation: Even though the Korban was disqualified when Pesulim did Kabalah or did Zerikah, or the Mizbe'ach was dented, one might have thought that intent helps to fix it for Pigul, like we find regarding Yotzei, at the end of our Perek (12a).
12) TOSFOS DH uv'Davar ha'Ra'uy l'Avodah
úåñôåú ã"ä åáãáø äøàåé ìòáåãä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses what this comes to exclude.)
ôéøù á÷åðèøñ ëâåï îðçú (çåèà) [ö"ì çéèéï - öàï ÷ãùéí] ìàôå÷é îðçú äòåîø ùì ùòåøéí ãàéðä øàåéä àìà ìòáåãä æå áìáã
(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi): [Something proper for Avodah] is a Minchah of wheat. It excludes Minchas ha'Omer, which is of barley. It is proper only for that Avodah.
å÷ùéà ãà''ë îðçú ÷ðàåú ìà úéôñì ùìà ìùîä
(b) Question: If so, Minchas Kena'os should not be Pasul Lo Lishmah (for the same reason)!
åðøàä ìôøù ãçùéá îðçú äòåîø ãáø ùàéï øàåé ìòáåãä îùåí ãàôéìå ìâáåä àñåø ìä÷øéá çãù ÷åãí (äòåîø) [ö"ì ùúé äìçí - ç÷ ðúï]
(c) Explanation #2: Minchas ha'Omer is considered not proper for Avodah because even to Hash-m it is forbidden to offer Chadash before Shtei ha'Lechem.
åìôéøåù ä÷åðèøñ éù ÷öú ìãçå÷ ãáîðçú äòåîø ãìà ùééê áéä ùéðåé áòìéí ãäà ãöéáåø äéà
(d) Answer #1 (to Question (b), and Defense of Explanation #1): With difficulty, we can say that Shinuy Ba'alim does not apply, for it is of the Tzibur;
åìà ôñåì áä (ðîé) ùéðåé ÷ãù ëéåï ãìà äåé øàåé ìòáåãä
1. And Shinuy Kodesh does not disqualify, since it is not proper for [any other] Avodah.
åá÷åðèøñ úéøõ ãùàðé îðçú (çåèà) [ö"ì ñåèä - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã] ãçèàú ÷øééä øçîðà
(e) Answer #2 (Rashi): Minchas Sotah is different, for the Torah called it Chatas.
åëé úéîà äøé òåîø ùòåøéï øàåé ìòáåãä âáé ñåèä
(f) Implied suggestion: The Omer, which is of barley, is proper for Avodah for a Sotah!
çãà ãäúí ÷îç åäëà âøù
(g) Rejection #1: There (Minchas Kena'os of a Sotah) is of [barley] flour. Here (the Omer) is Geresh (the grain is beaten, but it is not ground finely into flour).
åòåã àéï æä øàåé ìòáåãä ãìáøø òåï àúéà
(h) Rejection #2: [Being proper for Minchas Kena'os] is not considered proper for Avodah, for [Minchas Kena'os merely] comes to clarify sin.
13) TOSFOS DH she'Chen Kedushasah Osartah
úåñôåú ã"ä ùëï ÷ãåùúä àåñøúä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how the Kedushah inhibits Heter.)
ôéøåù ù÷ãåùúä âåøîú ìä ìäéåú (çìå÷ä) [îìå÷ä] åàéðä îåúøú áùçéèä ëùàø çåìéï
(a) Explanation: Its Kedushah causes that it needs Melikah, and it is not permitted through Shechitah, like other Chulin.
14) TOSFOS DH k'R. Akiva d'Amar Sefichin Asurin
úåñôåú ã"ä ëøáé ò÷éáà ãàîø ñôéçéí àñåøéï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos proves that this does not refer to after Bi'ur.)
ôéøù á÷åðèøñ ìàçø äáéòåø
(a) Explanation (Rashi): [Sefichin] are forbidden after Bi'ur.
å÷ùéà ìø''ú ãáäà øáðï îåãå ãëìä ìçéä ùáùãä ëìä ìáäîúê ùááéú
(b) Question #1 (R. Tam): Rabanan agree about this - when it is finished for Chayos in the field, finish (eradicate) it from your animals in the house!
åòåã ãøáé ò÷éáà ãøéù ìä áô' î÷åí ùðäâå (ôñçéí ãó ðà:) î÷øà ãäï ìà ðæøò åìà ðàñåó åàéìå ìàçø áéòåø ðô÷à ìï îìáäîúê åìçéä
(c) Question #2: R. Akiva expounds [the Isur of Sefichin] in Pesachim (51b) from the verse "Hen Lo Nizra v'Lo Ne'esof", and after Bi'ur we learn from "li'Vhemtecha ul'Chayah"!
åòåã ãáùòú äòåîø ìà äéä áéòåø ùàãøáä àæ äúáåàä áîéìåàä åàéðä ëìä ìçéä ùáùãä òã ùðä ç' áéîåú äçåøó áîøçùåï
(d) Question #3: At the time of the Omer was not Bi'ur. Just the contrary, then the grain is fully grown, and it is not finished for Chayos in the field until the eighth year, in the winter, in Cheshvan!
åáôø÷ î÷åí ùðäâå (â''æ ùí) ôéøùúé
(e) Reference: I explained this in Pesachim (51b DH Kol. All agree that Sefichin are forbidden after Bi'ur. R. Akiva forbids even before Bi'ur.)
15) TOSFOS DH she'Chen Ba'ah Lehatir Lav sheb'Sochah
úåñôåú ã"ä ùëï áàä ìäúéø ìàå ùáúåëä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes that it totally permits.)
ôéøù á÷åðèøñ ùìà éòáåø áä äàåëì ùéøé äòåîø îùåí ìàå ãçãù àìà îùåí ùáéòéú
(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi): One who eats the Shirayim will not transgress due to the Lav of Chadash, only due to [the Lav of] Shevi'is.
åæäå úéîä [ö"ì ãìà îöéðå áùåí î÷åí ùéäå ùéøé îðçåú ùì äòåîø àñåøéï áàëéìä - ùéèä î÷åáöú]
(b) Question #1: This is astounding! We do not find anywhere that Shirei Menachos of the Omer are forbidden to eat!
[ö"ì åòåã - ùéèä î÷åáöú] àí ìà éúéø òåîø àéñåø ùáéòéú àé÷øé ëàï îîù÷ä éùøàì
(c) Question #2: If the Omer does not permit the Isur of Shevi'is, is this called "mi'Mashkeh Yisrael"?! (Korbanos must be permitted to Yisrael!)
åòåã îàé ÷ôøéê èøéôä ðîé úé÷øá ìäúøú ìàå ùáúåëä ùéàëìå ä÷øáï ùì èøéôä åäìà àéðå îúéø àéñåø ùáéòéú åìîä éúéø àéñåø èøéôä:
(d) Question #2: What was the question "also a Tereifah should be offered to permit the Lav in it", that they will eat a Tereifah Korban? [The Omer] does not permit the Isur Shevi'is. Why should [Hakravah of a Tereifah] permit the Isur of Tereifah?