1) TOSFOS DH Zil Tfei
úåñôåú ã"ä æéì èôé
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we do not bless 'that You did not make me a Bor.')
àáì àáåø ìà îáøëéðï
(a) Implied question: [If we bless also 'that You did not make me a slave', because a slave is lower than a woman,] we should bless also 'that You did not make me a Bor'!
ãàéðå îöåé ãäåé ëì ùàéðå ìà áî÷øà åìà áîùðä åìà áãøê àøõ
(b) Answer #1: [A Bor] is not common, for it is anyone who does not know Mikra, and not Mishnah, and does not act with Derech Eretz (properly).
åðøàä éåúø ùîáøê àòáã åàùä ùàéðï (îöåééï) [ö"ì îöååéï - öàï ÷ãùéí] ëîåúå
(c) Answer #2: It is more proper to bless on a slave and woman, who are not commanded [in Mitzvas Aseh sheha'Zman Gerama] like him (a man).
2) TOSFOS DH l'Beis Midrasho Shel R. Chiya
úåñôåú ã"ä ìáéú îãøùå ùì øáé çééà
(SUMMARY: Tosfos rejects our text.)
àéðå øáé çééà ùø' ðúï ùäéä çùåá îøáé ëãàîøéðï (á''á ÷ìà.) éìãåú äéúä áé åäòæúé ôðé áðúï äááìé ìà äéä îáéà øàéä îøáé çééà
(a) Objection: This is not R. Chiya [the Talmid of Rebbi], for R. Nasan, who was greater than Rebbi, like [Rebbi] said in Bava Basra (131a) "I was immature, and I was brazen with Nasan ha'Bavli", would not bring a proof from R. Chiya!
1. Note: I do not understand why R. Nasan would not bring a proof from an episode involving a smaller Chacham. He learns from the miracle!
åáúåñôúà âøñéðï ìáéú îãøùå ùì øáé îàéø
(b) Alternative text: In the Tosefta, the text says "to the Beis Midrash of R. Meir."
3) TOSFOS DH Talis She'ulah Kol Lamed Yom
úåñôåú ã"ä èìéú ùàåìä ëì ì' éåí
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses whether Tzitzis and Mezuzah apply to what was borrowed.)
àéï ìã÷ã÷ îëàï ãñúí ùàìä ì' éåí ëîå äìåàä áô''÷ ãîëåú (ãó â:)
(a) Implied suggestion: We can infer from here that Stam She'elah (lending an object that it itself will be returned) is for 30 days, just like Halva'ah (lending money or food to be spent or consumed, and the borrower will return its equivalent, Stam Halva'ah is 30 days, like it says) in Makos (3b).
çãà ããéìîà ùàìä ãèìéú ãå÷à
(b) Rejection #1: Perhaps this is only for She'elah of a Talis.
åòåã äëà (ìà îéôèø àìà) [ö"ì ãìà îéôèø àìà òã ì' éåí îùåí - öàï ÷ãùéí] ãòã ì' éåí ñáøé àéðùé ãùàåìä äéà (ãàéï ãøê ùàìä éåúø ãîãàåøééúà) [ö"ì àáì àçø ì' éåí ðøàéú ëùìå ãàéï ãøê ùàìä éåúø àáì îãàåøééúà - öàï ÷ãùéí] ôèåøä ìòåìí
(c) Rejection #2: Here that he is exempt only until 30 days, people think that it is borrowed, but after 30 days it looks like his, for it is not common to lend for longer, but Mid'Oraisa it is always exempt;
ëããøùéðï (çåìéï ãó ÷ìä.) øàùéú âæ öàðê åìà ùì àçøéí äëé ðîé ëñåúê åìà ùì àçøéí
1. This is like we expound (Chulin 135a) "Reishis Gez Tzoncha", and not of others (we learn from the suffix "Cha"). Also here, [we should expound] "Kesuscha", and not of others!
àò''â ãáîæåæä çééá äùåëø ëãîñé÷ äúí (ùí:)
(d) Implied question: A tenant is obligated in Mezuzah, like we conclude there (135b, even though it says "Beischa")!
ãáéúê ìà àúà ìàôå÷é áéú àçøéí àìà ìëãøáà ãàîø ãøê áéàúê (ìòéì ãó ìã.) åô''÷ ãéåîà (ãó éà:) ðîé àéëà äëé
(e) Answer #1: "Beischa" does not come to exclude another's house, rather, like Rava taught - Derech Bi'asecha (the way you enter, to teach that the Mezuzah is put on the right side). It says so also in Yoma (11b);
åä''è ãìà îñúáø ÷øà ìîòåèé áéú àçøéí ãëéåï ãìùéîåø òáéã ì''ù
1. The reason is because it is unreasonable that the verse excludes another's house. Since Mezuzah is to guard [the residents], it makes no difference [who owns the house].
îéäå ëì ì' éåí ôèåø ãìàå áéú ãéøä ãéãéä äåà ëãàîøéðï ô''÷ ãááà áúøà (ãó ç.) âáé ðùúää ùí ì' éåí äøé äåà ëàðùé äòéø
2. Limitation: However, for 30 days [in a rented house] he is exempt, since it is not his residence, like we say in Bava Basra (8a) regarding "if one stayed [in a city for] 30 days, he is like people of the city."
åäà ãîééúé äëà [ö"ì îîæåæä - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ñéåò ìøá éäåãä ìäà ãèìéú ùàåìä
3. Implied question: Why do we bring a support [from Mezuzah] to Rav Yehudah [who taught] about a borrowed Talis? (Mezuzah is different, like Tosfos explained!)
ãîñúáø ìéä ìãîåú èìéú îãøáðï ìîæåæä ãàåøééúà
4. Answer #1: [The Gemara] holds that it is reasonable to compare the law of a Talis mid'Rabanan (it is obligated after 30 days) to Mezuzah mid'Oraisa.
åö''ò àé îöéðï ìîéîø ãìòðéï ìôèåø òã ì' éåí äåà ãîééúé
5. Answer #2: This requires investigation, whether we can say that [the Gemara] brings [a support] to exempt until 30 days.
åîéäå é''ì ãîæåæä ðîé îãøáðï ãúøé áéúê ëúéáé
(f) Answer #2 (to Question (d)): Also Mezuzah is mid'Rabanan, for it says twice "Beischa". (One teaches Derech Bi'asecha, and one excludes another's house.)
åäà ãáòé áñåó äùåàì (á''î ÷à:) îæåæä òì îé åôøéê äà àîø øá îùøùéà çåáú äãø äéà
(g) Implied question: In Bava Metzi'a (101b), the Gemara asks who must put the Mezuzah, and asks that [this is obvious, for] Rav Mesharshiya taught it is Chovas ha'Dar (obligatory on the resident)!
ìàå ìçéåáé ùåëø îééúé ìä àìà ä''÷ ôùéèà ùäîùëéø àéðå çééá ëéåï ùàéðå ãø ùí
(h) Answer: He does not come to obligate the tenant. Rather, he says as follows. Obviously, the landlord is not obligated, since he does not live there.
åëï ô''÷ ãîñëú ò''æ (ãó ëà. åùí) ãôøéê áéú ðîé îô÷ò ìéä îîæåæä åîùðé çåáú äãø äéà ôé' ùàí éøöä ìà éãåø áå àìà éùúîù áå ìúáï å÷ù åìà îéçééá
(i) Support: Similarly in Avodah Zarah (21a) it asks that also [if one sells to a Nochri] a house, he uproots it from Mezuzah, and answers that it is Chovas ha'Dar. I.e. if [the owner] wanted, he would not live there, rather, he would use it for straw and stubble and it would not be obligated.
åäà ãàîøéðï øéù ø''à ãîéìä (ùáú ÷ìà:) ìà ìëì àîø ø''à îëùéøé îöåä ãåçéï àú äùáú ãîåãä ø''à ùàí öééõ èìéúå åòùä îæåæä ìôúçå çééá äåàéì åáéãå ìäô÷éøï
(j) Implied question: It says in Shabbos (131b) that R. Eliezer did not say in every case that Machshirei Mitzvah are Docheh Shabbos, for R. Eliezer agrees that if he put Tzitzis on his Talis or made a Mezuzah for his door he is liable, since he can make it Hefker. (Why must it discuss Hefker? It suffices to live elsewhere to exempt it!)
ä''î ìîéîø äåàéì åáéãå (ùìà ìäðéçä) [ö"ì ìäðéçï - öàï ÷ãùéí] àìà äèòí äùåä áëì ìë''ò åìî''ã çåáú èìéú áìà ìáéùä çééá
(k) Answer: [The Gemara] could have said that [it is exempt] since he can abandon them (not wear the garment and not live in the house). Rather, it gives a reason that applies to all of them according to everyone, and according to the opinion that [Tzitzis] is Chovas Talis, he is liable without wearing.
4) TOSFOS DH Kol Kohen she'Eino Oleh l'Duchan
úåñôåú ã"ä ëì ëäï ùàéðå òåìä ìãåëï åëå'
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses when Kohanim transgress for not ascending.)
ãå÷à ëùàåîø ìå òìä ëãàéúà )áñåèä ãó ìè.) [ö"ì áñôøé - öàï ÷ãùéí] öøéê ùéàîø ìäí çæï äëðñú ùàå éãéëí ÷åãù åáúøâåí ááìé ðîé îúøâîéðï [àîåø ìäí] ëã úéîøåï ìäåï
(a) Explanation: This is only when [someone] says to him "ascend", like it says in the Sifri that the Chazan of the Beis ha'Keneses must say to them "lift your hands Kodesh", and also in the Targum Bavli of "Emor Lahem" is "Kad Teimrun Lehon."
åàò''â ããøùé' îéðéä òùä îôé÷ ìéä ô' åàìå ðàîøéï (ñåèä ìç.) ùðéí ð÷øàå ëäðéí åìà ëäï àçã
(b) Implied question: how can we learn from this verse an Aseh? We learn from it in Sotah (38a) that two [Kohanim] are called Kohanim, but one is not!
åúøúé ùîòéðï îéðä
(c) Answer: We learn from two matters from it.
åî''î àåîø ø''ú ùàôé' ëäï àçã òåìä ìëì äôçåú îãøáðï åãéé÷ îìéùðà ãìà ÷àîø ùðé ëäðéí òåìéí åìà àçã îùîò àôé' àçã
(d) Pesak: R. Tam said that in any case, even one Kohen ascends, at least mid'Rabanan. He deduced from the wording [there]. It does not say that two Kohanim ascend, but one does not. This implies that even one ascends.
åòåã ôé' ùù''ö àéï ìå ìä÷øåú ìôé ùäåà îôñé÷ åàéï ìäôñé÷ àôé' ìéäà ùîéä øáä åàôé' ðçù ëøåê òì ò÷éáå
(e) Pesak: [R. Tam] also explained that a Shali'ach Tzibur should not call [Kohanim to ascend], for he interrupts [Chazaras ha'Shatz], and one may not interrupt (Shemoneh Esre) even for Amen Yehei Shmei Raba, and even if a snake is wrapped around his heel.
åëï ôø''ç ãù''ö äîôñé÷ òáéøä äéà áéãå
(f) Support #1: Also R. Chananel explained that a Shali'ach Tzibur who interrupts [to call Kohanim], this is an Aveirah.
åúðéà áñôøé àîåø ìäí (îëàï îòîåã á) îìîã ùçæï äëðñú àåîø ìäí àîøå
(g) Support #2 (Sifri): "Emor Lahem" teaches that the Chazan of the Beis ha'Keneses says to them "say [Birkas Kohanim]."
44b----------------------------------------44b
åáéøåùìîé àîøéðï åáìáã ùéäà äçæï éùøàì åçæï ìàå äééðå ù''õ ùçæï äåà ùîù äëðñú ëãàéúà ô''÷ ãñðäãøéï (ãó éæ:) åá' çæðéí åô''æ ãááà îöéòà (ãó öâ:) çæðé îúà
1. And in the Yerushalmi we say "the Chazan must be a Yisrael." Chazan is not the Shali'ach Tzibur, for Chazan is the Shamash (Gabai) of the Beis ha'Keneses, like it says in Sanhedrin (17b) "and two Chazanim...", and in Bava Metzi'a (93b) it says "Chazanim of the city..."
àáì ù''ö äåà ä÷åøà
2. However, the Shali'ach Tzibur is the Korei (says the words for the Kohanim to repeat).
åàåîø ø''ú ùù''ö äåà ôåúç ááøëðå åîñééí åàéï äëäðéí øùàéï ìäúçéì òã ùéëìä äãáåø îôé ä÷åøà
(h) Pesak (R. Tam): The Shali'ach Tzibur begins with "Borcheinu" and finishes, and the Kohanim may not begin until the word finishes from the mouth of the Korei. (This is not an interruption, for it is a Tefilah.)
åãåå÷à ëùòåîã ááéú äëðñú åàåîø ìå òåáø àáì àí òåîã áçåõ àéðå òåáø
(i) Limitation: This is only when [a Kohen] stands in the Beis ha'Keneses and [a Yisrael] says to him, he transgresses [if he does not bless], but if he stands outside, he does not transgress.
ãàîøéðï áéøåùìîé øáé ùîòåï áï ôæé ëã äåä úùéù [äåä] ÷àé àçåøé òîåãé ø' àìòæø ðôé÷ ìáøàé
1. Source: We say in the Yerushalmi that R. Shimon ben Pazi, when he was weak (and could not Duchan), he stood in back of the pillars. R. Elazar went outside.
5) TOSFOS DH ha'Soles veha'Shemen Ein Me'akvin Es ha'Yayin
úåñôåú ã"ä äñåìú åäùîï àéï îòëáéï àú äééï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos infers that Soles and flour are Me'akev each other.)
îùîò äà ñåìú åùîï îòëáéï àäããé
(a) Inference: Soles and flour are Me'akev each other.
åúéîä ãäà ìà ëúéá ùåí ÷øà áîðçú ðñëéí
(b) Question: There is no verse about Minchas Nesachim!
åùîà éìôéðï îîðçú ðãáä ãëúéá áä òéëåáà ìòéì (ãó ëæ.) åâìåéé îéìúà áòìîà äåé
(c) Answer: Perhaps we learn from Minchas Nedavah, for which an Ikuv is written above (27a), and it is a mere Giluy Milsa (that they are always Me'akev each other. Therefore, one cannot ask that we cannot learn one from the other).
ãâáé îéòåèå îòëá àú øåáå ëúéá ÷øà âí áîðçú ðñëéí åäúí âìé ìï ÷øà
1. Source: Regarding that the minority is Me'akev the majority, a verse is written also regarding Minchas Nesachim, and there the Torah revealed (that they are the same).
6) TOSFOS DH Minchasam v'Niskeihem ba'Laylah Minchasam v'Niskeihem...
úåñôåú ã"ä îðçúí åðñëéäí (àôé') áìéìä îðçúí åðñëéäí...
(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that often the Gemara does not cite the true source.)
áô''á ãúîåøä (ãó éã.) îåëç ãìîçø ðô÷à ìï (ãáø) [ö"ì îãáø - ùéèä î÷åáöú, öàï ÷ãùéí] éåí áéåîå îìáã ùáúåú ä'
(a) Reference: In Temurah (14a) it is proven that we learn [that they may be offered the next day] from "Davar Yom b'Yomo Milvad Shabsos Hash-m";
åãøê äù''ñ ìäáéà (òì - éùø åèåá îåç÷å) ôñå÷ äøäåè áùðé ãøùåú àò''â ãðô÷é î÷øàé àçøéðé
1. The Gemara is wont to bring a verse fluent (in people's mouths) for two Drashos, even though we learn from other verses.
ëé ääéà ãùáç ðòåøéí ìàáéä (÷ãåùéï ãó â.) åëï îåäúòìîú (á''î ãó ì.) åëï ñôø ëåøúä åàéï ãáø àçø ëåøúä (âéèéï ãó ëà:) åëï îåúø äôñç åùìîéí äáàéï îçîú äôñç ô''÷ ãæáçéí (ãó è.) åô''ã ãæáçéí (ãó ìæ.) åôø÷ äúåãä (ì÷îï ôâ:) åô' îé ùäéä èîà (ôñçéí ãó öå:)
2. Examples: We find this regarding Shevach Ne'urim l'Aviha (all money that comes to a Na'arah, her father receives it - Kidushin 3b), and "v'His'alamta" (sometimes one may ignore an Aveidah - Bava Metzi'a 30a), and a Sefer divorces, and nothing else divorces (Gitin 21b), and Mosar Pesach and Shelamim that come due to Pesach in Zevachim (9a, 37a) and below (83b) and in Pesachim (96b).
åô''á ãáëåøåú (ãó èå.) ããøéù àê åìà çìáå åîñé÷ øáà ãàê ìàåúå åàú áðå äåà ãàúà åçìáå îãîå ðô÷à
3. In Bechoros (15a) [the Gemara] expounds "Ach", and not its Chelev, and Rava concludes that "Ach" teaches about Oso v'Es Beno, and we learn its Chelev from "Damo".
åëï áùîòúéï ãúðéà ááøééú' æáç åðñëéí åîñ÷éðï ãáñáøà ôìéâé
4. Similarly in our Sugya, a Beraisa teaches [that Rebbi learns from] "Zevach u'Nesachim", and we conclude that they argue about reasoning.
7) TOSFOS DH Minchasam v'Niskeihem
úåñôåú ã"ä îðçúí åðñëéäí
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses which occurrence of these words we expound.)
ôé' á÷åðè' ô''÷ ãæáçéí (ãó ç.) åôø÷ äîæáç î÷ãù (ùí ôã.) åô''á ãúîåøä (ãó éã.) ãîðçúí åðñëéäí ãôøé äçâ ÷ãøéù
(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi in Zevachim 8a, 84a, Temurah 14a): He expounds Minchasam v'Niskeihem of bulls of Sukos.
å÷ùä ìø''ú äéëé îùîò îéðéä ìéìä
(b) Question #1 (R. Tam): How do we learn night from it?
åòåã äéëé ãøùéðï îéðéä îðçä åàç''ë ðñëéí äà ÷øà ãáúøéä ëúéá ìôøéí åìàéìéí åàéðí ëúåáéí òì äñãø ãôøéí åàéìéí ÷ãîé
(c) Question #2: How do we expound from it "Minchah, and afterwards Nesachim"? The verse continues after this "la'Parim vela'Eilim", and they are not written in order, for the bulls and rams are before (the Minchah and Nesachim)!
åúå ãôøéê åøáðï ðîé äà áòé ìéä åîðçúí åëå' åîàé (öøéê) [ö"ì ôøéê - ùéèä î÷åáöú, öàï ÷ãùéí] äà èåáà ëúéá
(d) Question #3: [The Gemara] asks that also Rabanan need [the verse] for [bringing] Menachos [and Nesachim at night or on a later day]. What was the question? There are many verses (one for each day of the Chag)!
àìà òì ëøçéï ëéåï ùëåìí îùåðéí æä îæä ëåìäå öøéëé
1. Rather, you are forced to say that since all of them (the Musaf of each day) are different from each other, all of them are needed. (If so, none are free for these Drashos! Taharas ha'Kodesh points out that on six days of Sukos, the verse begins with a Vov (u'Minchasam v'Niskeihem...), to show that the Minchah and Nesachim depend on the Korban. We expound only what is written on days four and eight, Minchasam v'Niskeihem without the Vov, which connote that they are independent.0
ìëê ðøàä ìø''ú ããøéù î÷øà ãòöøú ôøùú àîåø àì äëäðéí åàéìéí ùðéí éäéå òåìä ìä' åîðçúí åðñëéäí àùä øéç ðéçåç ìä'
(e) Explanation #2 (R. Tam): We expound the verse about Shavu'os in Parshas Emor "v"Eilim Shenayim Yihyu Olah la'Shem u'Minchasam v'Niskeihem Isheh Re'ach Nicho'ach la'Shem";
îãëúá ðñëéí áéï òåìä ìàùä ù''î ãáàéí áìéìä ëé àùä ãäééðå ä÷èøä åìà îééúåøà
1. Since it wrote Nesachim between Olah and Isheh, this teaches that they may come at night, for Isheh is Haktarah. We do not learn from something extra.
åð÷è îðçä áøéùà ããîé ìòåìä èôé áä÷èøä
2. It mentioned Minchah first, for it resembles Olah more [than Nesachim do]; Haktarah (applies to it, like to Olah).
åäà ãô''÷ ãæáçéí (ãó ç.) ãøéù îðçúå (åðñëéí) [ö"ì åðñëå - ç÷ ðúï] àôé' áìéìä åîùîò äúí ãîééúåøà (ãåå÷à) [ö"ì ãåà"å - éùø åèåá] ÷ãøéù
(f) Implied question: In Zevachim (8a) it expounds "Minchaso v'Nisko", even at night, and it connotes there that it expounds the extra Vov!
(åäúí) [ö"ì äúí - ùéèä î÷åáöú] âáé ðæéø ãøù îãëúé' îðçúå åðñëå åëúéá ðîé åîðçúí åðñëéäí
(g) Answer: There regarding Nazir it expounds, since it is written "Minchaso v'Nisko", and it is written also "u'Minchasam v'Niskeihem";
ìîçø ðîé ùîòéðï ëéåï ãâìé âáé òöøú úå àéï ìçì÷
1. We learn [that they may be brought] also the next day, since the Torah revealed regarding Shavu'os, now we do not distinguish.
åúéîä åäà äðé ÷øàé ááàéï òí äæáç ëúéáé åäðäå ìà àúå àìà áéåí ëãàéúà áô''á ãúîåøä (ãó éã.)
(h) Question: These verses discuss what comes with a Zevach, and they come only during the day, like it says in Temurah (14a)!
åé''ì ãàí àéðå òðéï ááàéï òí äæáç úðäå òðéï ááàéï ìàçø äæáç
(i) Answer: Im Eino Inyan (if it need not teach about) what comes with a Zevach, we use it to teach about what comes after a Zevach. (Chemdas Daniel - if Minchas Nesachim was not in the Azarah when the Korban was slaughtered, one may bring it at night or on a later day.)
åäà ãàîøéðï áøéù úòðéú (ãó á:) îä ðéñåê äîéí áìéìä ãàîø îø åðñëéäí àôé' áìéìä îùîò ãî÷øà ãôøé äçâ îééúé ùàéï ðéñåê äîéí àìà áçâ
(j) Implied question: We say in Ta'anis (2b) just like Nisuch ha'Mayim may be at night, for it was taught "v'Niskeihem" - even at night... This implies that we learn from bulls of Sukos, for Nisuch ha'Mayim is only during Sukos!
ìàå îéìúà äéà ãëéåï ãâìé ìï ÷øà áòöøú ãäåé ðñëé öáåø ä''ä ìëì ðñëé öáåø å÷øà ãàéöèøéê áðæéø ãäåé ðñëé éçéã
(k) Answer: This is wrong. Since the Torah revealed about Shavu'os, which is Niskei Tzibur, the same applies to all Niskei Tzibur, and a verse is needed for Nazir, which is Niskei Yachid.
8) TOSFOS DH Kivan d'Mis'amra Shirah Alaihu
úåñôåú ã"ä ëéåï ãîúàîøà ùéøä òìééäå
(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that perhaps this is only when they come with a Zevach.)
ôé' (ìäáéàí) [ö"ì ìäáàéí - öàï ÷ãùéí] òí äæáç àáì áôðé òöîå áòéà äéà ô' àéï ðòøëéï (òøëéï éá.)
(a) Explanation: [Shirah is said over] Nesachim that come with a Zevach, but those that come by themselves, this was a question in Erchin (12a).
åî''î àó áìàå æáç òãéôé ëéåï ùäéå øàåééï ìùéøä åìáà òí äæáç
(b) Remark: In any case, even without a Zevach they are preferable, since they are proper for Shirah and to come with a Zevach.
9) TOSFOS DH v'Dam Zevachecha Yishafech
úåñôåú ã"ä åãí æáçéê éùôê
(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that elsewhere we retract from this Drashah.)
ô' áéú ùîàé (æáçéí ãó ìå:) îòé÷øà ãøéù îäàé ÷øà åìà ÷àé ìáñåó
(a) Reference: In Zevachim (36b) initially [the Gemara] expounds from this verse, but at the end it is not sustained.
10) TOSFOS DH ka'Mishpat ka'Mishpatam
úåñôåú ã"ä ëîùôè ëîùôèí
(SUMMARY: Tosfos gives the source for Ikuv on the first day.)
åáéåí øàùåï ãìà ëúéá ëîùôè ëúéá áéä éäéå
(a) Explanation: And on the first day that it is not written ka'Mishpat, it is written Yihyu.
11) TOSFOS DH Ela d'Rosh Chodesh v'Atzeres di'Chsiv b'Chumash ha'Pekudim
úåñôåú ã"ä àìà ãø''ç åòöøú ãëúéá áçåîù äô÷åãéí
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses why we did not ask from Pesach.)
åàò''â ãëúéá éäéå ìëí
(a) Implied question: It is written "Yihyu Lachem"! (They should be Me'akev each other!)
ìàå òìééäå ÷àé
(b) Answer: This does not refer to them (rather, to the Nesachim).
åäà ãìà ôøéê îôñç ëé äéëé ãôøéê îäðé ãäà ëúéá áéä éäéå
(c) Implied question: We could have asked from Pesach, just like we asked from these, for it is written "Yihyu" (Bamidbar 28:19)!
åøù''é ôé' áéçæ÷àì ãäà ãëúéá âáé ôñç æ' ôøéí åæ' àéìéí ìéåí ãìæ' éîé ôñç ÷àîø ôø åàéì ìéåí ãàí ìà îöà ùðéí áëì éåí îáéà àçã
(d) Answer: Rashi on Yechezkel (45:23) explained that it is written [there] regarding Pesach seven bulls and seven rams a day - this is [in all] for the seven days of Pesach, a bull and a ram each day. If he cannot find two, each day he brings one.
åäùúà ðéçà ùôéø ãäà ìà îòëáé àäããé
1. Now it is fine (that we did not ask from Pesach), for [the verse proves that the two bulls of Musaf each day] are not Me'akev each other.
åúéîä ãäà ëúéá áéä éäéå
(e) Question: It is written Yihyu (regarding Musaf of Pesach)!
åàéï ìåîø ã÷àé àëáùéí åìà àôøéí åàéìéí
1. Implied suggestion: It refers to lambs (written Lifnei (before) Yihyu), and not to bulls and rams (Lifnei Fanav, i.e. before what is before Yihyu).
ãâáé òöøú ìà ÷àîøéðï äëé
2. Rejection: We do not say so regarding Shavu'os! (On 45a, we say that Yihyu written in Emor applies even Lifnei Fanav, to the rams.)
åäà ãð÷è áñîåê àéìéí ãäëà åäëà ìà îòëáé äà àéðäå îòëáé ä''ð îöé ìîéð÷è ëáùéí
3. Observation: Below (45a), it says that the rams [of Shavu'os] here (brought with Shtei ha'Lechem, in Parshas Emor) and here (of Musaf, in Parshas Pinchas) are not Me'akev (each other, i.e. we can bring those written in one place, even if we cannot bring those written in the other place) - but they (the rams in Emor) are Me'akev each other. [The Gemara] could have said likewise about the lambs.
åìà ãîé ì÷åãù éäéå ãâáé ìçí ãôìéâé ø''ò åáï ððñ (ì÷îï ãó îä:) àäééà ÷àé àé àëáùéí àé àìçí àáì àúøåééäå ôùéèà ìäå ãìà ÷àé àò''â ãëúéá áçã ÷øà
4. Distinction: This is unlike "Kodesh Yihyu" regarding [Shtei] ha'Lechem. R. Akiva and Ben Nanas argue about whether it refers to the lambs [Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur brought with it] or the bread, but it is obvious to them that it does not apply to both, even though they are written in one verse;
äééðå ëáùéí ììçí àáì ëáùéí àäããé ä''ð ãîòëáé ëãúðï áä÷åîõ øáä (ìòéì ëæ.) á' ëáùé òöøú îòëáéï æä àú æä åëï á' çìåú
i. I.e. the lambs [are not Me'akev] the bread, but indeed the lambs are Me'akev each other, like a Mishnah above (27a) teaches that the two lambs of Shavu'os are Me'akev each other, and similarly the two loaves.
åìà îñúáøà ðîé ìîéîø ãäåééä ãôñç ìà ÷ééîà àìà àúîéîéí
(f) Poor Answer #1: Perhaps Havayah ("Yihyu", which teaches Ikuv) of Pesach refers only to Temimim.
ãìäà ìà àéöèøéê ÷øà ãáòìé îåîéï ôùéèà ãôñåìéï
(g) Rejection: We do not need a verse for this. Obviously, Ba'alei Mumim are Pasul!
åð''ì ãìùåí ãøùà àúà ãìà îñúáø ìãåøùå áòéëåá ëéåï ãìà îéùúîéè äù''ñ [ö"ì ìùàîåòéðï - áàøåú äîéí]
(h) Answer #2: It seems that [Yihyu] comes for some Drashah, for it is not reasonable to expound it for Ikuv, since we do not find anywhere that the Gemara teaches this [that the bulls of Pesach are Me'akev each other].
åáñôøé ãåøù âáé ôñç äøé ùîöà ôøéí åìà îöà àéìéí àéìéí åìà îöà ëáùéí ùåîò àðé ùìà é÷øéá òã ùéîöà ëåìï ú''ì ùáòú éîéí ú÷øéáå àùä àôéìå àçã îäï
(i) Implied question: The Sifri expounds about Pesach 'if he found bulls (proper to offer) but did not find rams, [or he found] rams but did not find lambs, one might have thought that he may not offer until he finds all of them! It says "Shiv'as Yamim Takrivu Isheh" - even one of them.'
éëåì àôé' ëåìï îöåééï ú''ì ôøéí áðé á÷ø ùðéí åàéì àçã
1. Citation (Sifri): Perhaps this is even if all are available! It says "Parim Bnei Bakar Shenayim v'Ayil Echad." (Yashar v'Tov - the Havah Amina was that Yihyu teaches Ikuv even when they are not available. "Shiv'as Yamim..." refutes this.)
åîéäå äà ã÷àîø ùåîò àðé ùìà é÷øéá òã ùéîöà ëåìï òì ëøçéï ìàå îùåí ãñîéê àéäéå
(j) Answer: However, what it says "one might have thought that he may not offer until he finds all of them", you are forced to say that it is not because he relies on Yihyu (for if so, one species should be Me'akev another. Granted, regarding Pesach we could say that Shiv'as Yamim teaches that this is not so. However, even when there is an Ikuv and no Ribuy, one species is not Me'akev another, like Tosfos brings immediately.)
ãâáé òöøú ãøéù ðîé äëé äúí åëï áçâ àò''â ãëúéá áéä ëîùôè åëå' åàëì çã îééúé ÷øà ãùáòú éîéí åàò''â ãìà ëúéá ìà áòöøú åìà áçâ:
1. Source: Also regarding Shavu'os [the Sifri] expounds like this there (even though it says Yihyu in Emor), and also regarding Sukos, even though it says "ka'Mishpat"...! For each, [the Sifri] brings the verse Shiv'as Yamim, even though it is not written regarding Shavu'os or Sukos. (Rather, the Havah Amina was that "Parim... Shenayim..." teaches Ikuv even when they are not available. Shiv'as Yamim is a Giluy Milsa that it applies only when they are available, and similarly for the verses listing the number of Korbanos on Shavu'os and Sukos. However, if we learned Ikuv from Yihyu and ka'Mishpat, we could not say such a Giluy Milsa.)