1) TOSFOS DH Kivan di'Chsiv Lifnei Hash-m Ifsil Lei b'Yotzei
úåñôåú ã"ä ëéåï ãëúéá ìôðé ä' àôñéì ìéä áéåöà
(SUMMARY: Tosfos distinguishes Shtei ha'Lechem from Lachmei Todah.)
àò''â ãâáé ìçîé úåãä ðîé ëúéá ìôðé ä' (åé÷øà æ) åðàëìéï áëì äòéø
(a) Implied question: Also regarding Lachmei Todah it is written Lifnei Hash-m, and they are eaten in the entire city!
äëé ÷àîø ëéåï ãëúéá ìôðé ä' àìîà áòéðï ôðéí åîéôñéì áéåöà îãàéú÷ù ìçèàú ëãàîø áàéæäå î÷åîï (æáçéí ãó ðä.)
(b) Answer: It means as follows. Since it is written Lifnei Hash-m, this shows that we require inside [the Mikdash], and it is disqualified if it leaves, since it is equated to Chatas, like it says in Zevachim (55a).
1. Note: Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur are equated to Chatas! Encylopedia Talmudica explains that our Tosfos here and Rashi there hold that Shtei ha'Lechem are included in the Hekesh.
åôø÷ äúòøåáåú (ùí òæ.) îééúé ëä''â åâøñéðï àé àáøàé àéôñéìå áéåöà
(c) Implied question: 1. And in Zevachim (77a) it brings like this, and the text says "if [the oil brought with Asham Metzora] is [redeemed] outside, it is disqualified through Yotzei!" (We know this without a Drashah, since it is needed for the Asham. Also here, we should not need a Drashah! It seems that this is the intent of Eizehu Mekoman.)
2) TOSFOS DH l'Olam k'Rebbi
úåñôåú ã"ä ìòåìí ëøáé
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the oven is not Mekadesh them.)
åàéï äúðåø î÷ãù ëéåï ãìà (÷ãùé) [ö"ì çæå - ùéèä î÷åáöú, öàï ÷ãùéí] ëåìäå ëãôøéùéú
(a) Explanation #1: The oven is not Mekadesh since not all of them are proper [to be Kadosh], like I explained (46a DH v'Eizeh).
àé ðîé ëîàï ãàîø (ìòéì ãó æ.) àéï ëìé ùøú î÷ãùéï àìà îãòú
(b) Explanation #2: This is like the opinion that Klei Shares are Mekadesh only if he intends [for this].
3) TOSFOS DH Ha d'Lo k'Rebbi
úåñôåú ã"ä äà ãìà ëøáé
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that Zerikah is Mekadesh.)
îùîò ãìøáé àìòæø áøáé ùîòåï ìà î÷ãùà ùçéèä ëìì àìà æøé÷ä
(a) Inference: According to R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon, Shechitah is not Mekadesh at all. Only Zerikah is [Mekadesh];
ãàé î÷ãùà äéàê îåùê àçø ùçéèä ãéìîà äðé ìà ÷éãùä äùçéèä
1. Source: If [Shechitah] were Mekadesh, how does he take two [after Shechitah]? Perhaps Shechitah was not Mekadesh these!
åðøàä ùî÷ãùú äëì [åìà] ëîå âîø ÷ãåùä àáì ìøáé ùäåà âîø ÷ãåùä àé àôùø ì÷ãù æä áìà æä
(b) Assertion: It seems that it is Mekadesh everything, but not full Kedushah. However, according to Rebbi, that it is full Kedushah, it is impossible to be Mekadesh one without the other.
4) TOSFOS DH Moshech Shenayim Mehen v'Zorek Daman she'Lo Lishmah
úåñôåú ã"ä îåùê ùðéí îäï åæåø÷ ãîï ùìà ìùîä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we do not say that the lambs are lost.)
úéîä äà ëéåï ãäåæ÷÷å áùçéèä àáã äìçí àáãå äëáùéí àáãå äëáùéí àáã äìçí
(a) Question: Since Shechitah made Zikah, if the bread was lost, the lambs are lost. If the lambs were lost, the bread is lost!
åé''ì ãùçéèä ãäðé ëáùéí ìà ÷áòä ëéåï ãìà ðúáøø îé äí äîå÷ãùéï åëåìäå ìà çæå
(b) Answer: Shechitah of these lambs was not Kove'a, since it was not clarified which [of them] are Kodesh, and it is not proper for all [to be brought with the bread].
5) TOSFOS DH Chatei b'Chatas Bishvil she'Tizkeh b'Chatas Amrinan
úåñôåú ã"ä çèà áçèàú áùáéì ùúæëä áçèàú àîøéðï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses in which cases we say so.)
åàôéìå äéä òåáø [ö"ì ìàå - éùø åèåá] ãåîéà ãòåìä ãòåáø áìàå ãëì ùîîðå ìàéùéí äøé äåà ááì ú÷èéøå
(a) Explanation: And [we permit] even if he would transgress a Lav [in a Chatas in order to fix a Chatas], similar to [the Isur to transgress in Chatas in order to fix an] Olah, in which he transgresses the Lav "anything from which part is burned [on the Mizbe'ach], one may not be Maktir [the Shirayim]."
åô' ëéöã öåìéï (ôñçéí ã' ôä.) àéï òùä ãåàëìå àú äáùø ãåçä ìàå ãåòöí ìà úùáøå áå åìà àîøéðï òîåã åçèà áùáéì ùéæëä áàëéìä
(b) Implied question: In Pesachim (85a), the Aseh of "v'Achlu Es ha'Basar" does not override the Lav of "v'Etzem Lo Yishberu Vo", and we do not say "go transgress in order to merit eating"!
ìà ãåîä àëéìä ìä÷èøä ãàéëà ú÷ðú ÷øáï åòãéôà
(c) Answer #1: Eating is unlike Haktarah, for [Haktarah] fixes the Korban, and it is preferable.
åàôéìå äéëà ãàéëà ú÷ðú ÷øáï ìà àîøéðï àìà äéëà ãðùçè ëãàîøéðï ìòéì (ãó îæ.) àáã äìçí àáãå äëáùéí åìà ùøéðï ìùåçèï ùìà ìùîï
(d) Answer #2: And even when it fixes the Korban, we say [transgress...] only when it was [already] slaughtered, like we said above (47a) "if the bread was lost, the lambs are lost", and we do not permit to slaughter them Lo Lishmah;
åâáé úåãä ùðúòøáä (áúîåøä) [ö"ì áúîåøúä åîúä àçú îäï - ç÷ ðúï] ãçáéøúä àéï ìä ú÷ðä àò''â ãìéëà àìà àéñåøà ãçåìéï áòæøä ô' äúåãä (ì÷îï ô:) åèåáà àéëà
1. And regarding a Todah that became mixed with its Temurah and one of them died, there is no solution for the one remaining, even though there is [a solution through transgressing] only the Isur (Aseh, and some say that it is only mid'Rabanan) of Chulin b'Azarah, below (80b), and there are more cases like this.
îéäå ÷öú ÷ùä ãáôø÷ äúòøåáåú (æáçéí òç.) àîøéðï ðúòøá áãí äúîöéú éùôê ìàîä åìà àîøé' çèà áãí äúîöéú áùáéì ùúæëä áãí äðôù
(e) Question: In Zevachim (78a), we say that if [Dam ha'Nefesh] became mixed with Dam Tamtzis (which is Pasul for Hakravah), we spill it to the Amah. We do not say "transgress with Dam Tamtzis, so you will merit with Dam ha'Nefesh"!
åé''ì ãîùåí âæéøä äåé ëãîñé÷ äúí
(f) Answer: It is due to a decree, like we conclude there.
åäà ãúðï áä÷åîõ (ìòéì ëâ.) ðúòøá ÷åîöä áùéøéä ìà é÷èéø ãàò''â ãâåôä ãîðçä äéà ìà àîøéðï çèà áùéøéí áùáéì ùúæëä á÷åîõ
(g) Implied question: A Mishnah above (23a) says that if the Kometz became mixed with its Shirayim he is not Maktir. Even though it is the very same Minchah, we do not say "transgress with Shirayim, so you will merit with the Kometz"!
ëéåï ùéù ìäï ùðé ùîåú
(h) Answer: This is because [the Kometz and Shirayim] have two [different] names.
6) TOSFOS DH Oh she'Shachtan Bein Lifnei Zmanan Bein Le'acher Zmanan
úåñôåú ã"ä àå ùùçèï áéï ìôðé æîðï áéï ìàçø æîðï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses who can hold like this Beraisa.)
(åð''ì) [ö"ì åö"ì ìøá äåðà - éùø åèåá] ãàôé' ìùîï ëùøéï ãäà àéï ìê ãáø ùëùø ùìà ìùîï åôñåì ìùîï
(a) Assertion: We must say that according to Rav Huna (Zevachim 114b), even Lishman they are Kosher, for there is nothing Kosher she'Lo Lishman and Pasul Lishmah. (Rav Huna argues with Rav Chilkiyah there, and with the Sugya above (47b), which said that Pesach is Pasul Lishmah and Kosher Lo Lishmah.)
(åðøàä ìé) [åö"ì - éùø åèåá] ãàúéà ëúðà ãáé ìåé ãñîåê ãìîàï ãôñì áäå ùìà (ìùîï) [ö"ì ëîöåúï - éùø åèåá] àí ëï îàé ùðà îçèàú éåìãú ãäåéà îçåñø æîï ÷åãí æîðä
1. And we must say that [this Beraisa] is like Tana d'Vei Levi below (48b), for according to the opinion (Rav Yitzchak, who disqualifies) unlike their Mitzvah (he equates to Chatas, which is Pasul she'Lo Lishman), if so, why is this unlike Chatas Yoledes, which is Mechusar Zman before its time?
7) TOSFOS DH Chatei b'Shabbos Bishvil she'Tizkeh b'Shabbos
úåñôåú ã"ä çèà áùáú áùáéì ùúæëä áùáú
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we do not Zerikah to eat them on Shabbos.)
úéîä éæøå÷ ëãé ìàåëìï çé ãëé äàé âååðà úðï ôø÷ ùúé äìçí (ì÷îï ãó öè:)
(a) Question: He should do Zerikah in order to eat them raw! (One cannot cook them on Shabbos.) A Mishnah teaches like this below (99b).
åé''ì ãàéï æä æëåú åàéï ìçèà áëê
(b) Answer: This is not a Zechus. One should not transgress for this.
åàéï ìãîåú ìîä ùäúéøå ìøãåúä ÷åãí ùéáà ìéãé çéåá ùáú (ùáú ã' ã.):
(c) Remark: This is unlike the Heter [for one who stuck dough to the wall of an oven on Shabbos] to remove it before he comes to be liable for [baking on] Shabbos (Shabbos 4a).
48b----------------------------------------48b
8) TOSFOS DH Kivsei Atzeres she'Shachtan she'Lo k'Mitzvasan Pesulim
úåñôåú ã"ä ëáùé òöøú ùùçèï ùìà ëîöåúï ôñåìéï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes that they were the wrong age or slaughtered at the wrong time.)
ôéøù á÷åðèøñ ùìà ìùîï
(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi): [He slaughtered them] she'Lo Lishman.
åäà ãúðï (æáçéí ãó á.) ëì äæáçéí ùðæáçå ùìà ìùîï ëùøéï çåõ îï äôñç åäçèàú åìà îôé÷ ëáùé òöøú
(b) Implied question: A Mishnah (Zevachim 2a) says that all Zevachim slaughtered she'Lo Lishman are Kosher, except for Pesach and Chatas. We do not exclude Kivsei Atzeres!
ãìà ôñé÷ ìéä ìàôå÷é ùìîéí
(c) Answer #1: It is not uniform to exclude Shelamim (because Shalmei Yachid are Kosher she'Lo Lishman).
àé ðîé ëé ÷úðé áàéï áâìì òöîï áàéï áâìì ìçí ìà ÷úðé
(d) Answer #2: The Mishnah teaches matters that come for themselves. It did not teach what comes to due to bread.
åäà ãìà îîòèéðï ìäå îàåúä ìçèàú ëé äéëé ãîîòèéðï àùí
(e) Implied question: Why don't we exclude [Kivsei Atzeres] from "Osah l'Chatas" (only Chatas she'Lo Lishmah is Pasul), just like we exclude Asham?
ëéåï ãàéú÷åù ìçèàú åàúå áäãéä ãëúéá (åé÷øà ëâ) åòùéúí ùòéø òæéí àçã ìçèàú åùðé ëáùéí
(f) Answer: Since [Kivsei Atzeres] are equated to Chatas, and come with it, like it is written "v'Asisem Se'ir Izim Echad l'Chatas u'Shnei Kevasim" (we do not exclude them, and they are Pasul she'Lo Lishman, like Chatas).
åúéîä îðà ìéä ãèòîà îùåí äé÷éùà ãìîà äåàéì åáàéí ìäúéø çãù áî÷ãù åìà äúéøå åàîàé àéúåúá øá áô''÷ (ìòéì ã.)
(g) Question: What is his source that the reason is due to the Hekesh? Perhaps it is because they come to permit Chadash in the Mikdash, and [because they were she'Lo Lishman] they did not permit! And why was Rav refuted above (4a)? (Rav taught that if Minchas ha'Omer was Nikmatz Lo Lishmah, it is Pasul, or Asham Nazir or Asham Metzora was slaughtered Lo Lishmah, it is Pasul, since it comes to permit (Chadash, drinking wine or eating Kodshim), and it did not permit. We should say that Rav holds like our Tana, and he disqualifies what comes to permit, and it did not permit!)
åé''ì ãà''ë ìéçùåá [ðîé] øá ëáùé òöøú åäëà ðîé ìéçùåá îðçú äòåîø åàùí ðæéø åîöåøò
(h) Answer #1: If so, Rav should mention also Kivsei Atzeres. And also here, we should count Minchas ha'Omer, Asham Nazir and Metzora.
àé ðîé äìçí äåà äîúéø åëáùéí ãîúéøéï ìçí ìà àé÷øå îúéø
(i) Answer #2: The bread is the Matir, and the lambs, which permit the bread, are not called a Matir. (What permits a Matir does not receive the law of a Matir.)
àé ðîé ìçí ðîé ìà îé÷øé îúéø (äéà) ëéåï ã÷åãí ìùúé äìçí àí äáéà ëùø
(j) Answer #3: Also the bread is not called a Matir, since if he brought [Chadash] before Shtei ha'Lechem, it is Kosher.
åîéäå ÷ùä ìôé æä ãëé ôøéê áñîåê ìéôøåê îääéà ãàééúéðï ìòéì ëáùé òöøú ùùçèï ùìà ìùîï äãí éæø÷ åäáùø éàëì
(k) Question: According to this, when it asks below (from the Beraisa of an Asham that is too young or too old), it should have asked from what was brought above (48a), if Kivsei Atzeres were slaughtered Lo Lishmah, we are Zorek the blood and eat the meat!
åëì''à ùôéøù á÷åðèøñ ðøàä ùìà ëîöåúï áï ùðä åäáéàå áï ùúéí
(l) Explanation #2: It seems that Rashi's second Perush is correct. "Unlike their Mitzvah' means that it must be one year old, and he brought a two year old.
åäà ãìà ð÷è ìùåï äáàä ãùééëà âáé áï ùðä åäáéà áï ùúéí
1. Question: Why didn't it use an expression of bringing, which applies to what must be one year old, and he brought a two year old?
îùåí ãäåé ùìà áæîðå åîçåñø æîï áëìì
2. Answer: Not in the correct time and Mechusar Zman are included [in unlike their Mitzvah. Bringing it too early does not disqualify, but premature Shechitah does.]
åáúåñôúà ãðæéø ÷úðé áäê ãáñîåê ùäáéàï ùìà ëîöåúï
(m) Support: In the Tosefta in Nazir (4:9), it teaches in the [law] brought below (a second year animal brought in place of a yearling, or vice-versa) "he brought them unlike their Mitzvah."
9) TOSFOS DH Te'ubar Tzurasan
úåñôåú ã"ä úòåáø öåøúï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that he holds like Rabah bar Avuha.)
äàé úðà ãøáä áø àáåä äåà ãàôé' ôéâåì áòéðï [ö"ì òéáåø] öåøä
(a) Explanation: [This Beraisa] holds like] Tana d'Rabah bar Avuha, that even Pigul requires Ibur Tzurah (below, 50b).
ãáô''÷ ãæáçéí (ãó ã.) ÷øéðï ìùéðåé ÷åãù ôñåìå áâåôå åàéëà ãàîøé ëì ùôñåìå áâåôå éùøó îéã
1. In Pesachim (4a) we call Shinuy Kodesh Pesulo b'Gufo, and some say that any Pesul b'Gufo is burned immediately.
10) TOSFOS DH v'Tana d'Vei Levi
úåñôåú ã"ä åúðà ãáé ìåé
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that he makes the Hekesh partially.)
ìà î÷éù ìäå ìçèàú ìäà îéìúà àáì ëåìé òìîà àéú ìäå ìòðéï æëøé ëäåðä ô' àéæäå î÷åîï (æáçéí ãó ðä.) ìâáé ëáùé òöøú
(a) Explanation: He does not equate [Kivsei Atzeres] to Chatas for this, but everyone (including Tana d'Vei Levi) holds [that we equate them] regarding male Kohanim (only they may eat them) in Zevachim (55a), regarding Kivsei Atzeres.
àáì ìòðéï äà ìéú ìéä ãäà ùìîé ðæéø àéú÷ùå ìçèàú åàôé' äëé ñáøé ãëùøéï
1. However, regarding this (Pesul she'Lo Lishman) he does not (equate them), for Shalmei Nazir are equated to Chatas, and even so [everyone] holds that they are Kosher [she'Lo Lishman].
11) TOSFOS DH Eisivei Asham Ben Shanah
úåñôåú ã"ä àéúéáéä àùí áï ùðä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos questions this from elsewhere.)
äà ãìà ôøéê îîúðé' ãô' áúøà ãæáçéí (ãó ÷éá:) ã÷úðé áä òåìú ðæéø åòåìú îöåøò ÷åãí æîðå ùùçèï áçåõ çééáéï
(a) Implied question: Why doesn't [the Gemara] ask from the Mishnah in Zevachim (112b) that teaches that Olas Nazir and Olas Metzora before their time that were slaughtered outside, one is liable?
åäééðå èòîà îùåí ãçæéà ìòåìú ðãáä áôðéí å÷åãí æîðå ìà çæé ìðæéø åîöåøò
1. The reason is because they are proper for Olas Nedavah inside. Before the time, they are not proper for a Nazir or Metzora!
ìà ãîé ëìì ìäëà ãäúí àéðäå âåôééäå çæå ìòåìä àáì äëà îééúéðï ãâîø çåáä îðãáä
(b) Answer: That is totally unlike here. There, they themselves are proper for Olah. However, here we bring [a proof] that we learn Chovah from Nedavah.
úéîä ãáô' àìå ÷ãùéí (úîåøä ãó éè:) (úðï) [ö"ì úðé] àùí áï ùðä åäáéàå áï ùúéí áï ùúéí åäáéàå áï ùðä ëùøéí åìà òìå ìáòìéí ìùí çåáä øáé ùîòåï àåîø ëì òöîï àéðí ÷ãåùéí
(c) Question: In Temurah (19b, a Beraisa) teaches that if an Asham must be in its first year and he brought a second year animal, or it must be second year and he brought a yearling, it is Kosher, and the owner was not Yotzei his obligation. R. Shimon says, they are not Kadosh.
åäùúà äàé ã÷úðé äëà ôñåìéï ìà ëøáé ùîòåï åìà ëøáðï
1. Summation of question: Here it taught Pesulim. This is unlike R. Shimon, and unlike Rabanan!
åéù ìåîø ëãîùðé ôø÷ áúøà ãæáçéí (ãó ÷èå.) ãôøéê îäà ãúðé ìåé àùí ðæéø åàùí îöåøò ùùçèï îçåñø æîï ááòìéí ùçèï áçåõ çééá
(d) Answer: We can answer like it says in Zevachim (115a). It asks from Levi's Beraisa, that if Asham Nazir or Asham Metzora was slaughtered Mechusar Zeman of the owner (before he may offer it), if he slaughtered it outside, he is liable;
åîùðé ëàï ìùîï ëàï ùìà ìùîï ôéøåù ùìà ìùîï ëùøéï ìùîï ôñåìéï
1. It answers "here is Lishmah, and here is Lo Lishmah." I.e. Lo Lishmah is Kosher, and Lishmah is Pasul.
åîéäå ÷ùä ìøá äåðà ãàéú ìéä äúí ãìéëà îéãé ãôñåì ìùîå åëùø ùìà ìùîå åîàé îùðé îäà
(e) Question #1: This is difficult for Rav Huna, who holds there that there is nothing Pasul Lishmah and Kosher she'Lo Lishman. What was the answer from here?
åàéï ìúøõ áäôøéù ùúé àùîåú ìàçøéåú ëãîùðé àøá ãéîé
1. Implied suggestion: The case is, he separated two Ashamos for Achrayus, like it answers [the question against Rav Huna from the resolution of the Beraisos] of Rav Dimi.
ãîã÷úðé ìà òìå îùîò ãàéï îöåä áëê
2. Rejection: Since it taught "[the owner] was not Yotzei", this connotes that there is no Mitzvah in this (offering Lo Lishmah. If there were two for Achrayus, it is as if he initially separated one to be an Olah!)
åúå àîàé àéöèøéê ìîéúðé ìà òìå ìáòìéí ìùí çåáä ôùéèà ãìà òìå ëéåï ãùìà ìùîï àéúòáéã
(f) Question #2: [Even according to Rav Chilkiyah, who argues with Rav Huna,] why did it need to teach that the owner was not Yotzei his obligation? Obviously he was not Yotzei, since it was done Lo Lishmah!
12) TOSFOS DH Asham Nazir v'Asham Metzora she'Shachtan she'Lo Lishman Kesherim
úåñôåú ã"ä àùí ðæéø åàùí îöåøò ùùçèï ùìà ìùîï ëùøéï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos justifies that he need not learn Asham from Shelamim.)
îäëà ìà îöé ìàåëåçé ãéìôéðï àùí îùìîéí îãîëùø áäå ùìà ìùîï
(a) Implied suggestion: We could prove from here that we learn Asham from Shelamim, since we are Machshir she'Lo Lishman!
ãàåúä ãâáé çèàú äåà ãîîòè ìéä åìà ãîé ìùìîé öéáåø ãìà îîòèéðï îàåúä àìà ÷øáðåú éçéã
(b) Rejection: "Osah" written regarding Chatas excludes [Asham] (only Chatas is Pasul she'Lo Lishman). It is unlike Shalmei Tzibur, for we exclude from Osah only Korbanos Yachid;
åäà ãìà òìå ìáòìéí ìùí çåáä îñáøà äåà åìà îèòí îéìó
1. This that the owner was not Yotzei his obligation, we know this from reasoning. It is not learned [from Shelamim].
åàé ùìà ëîöåúï ãìòéì ìàå äééðå ùìà ìùîï ðéçà èôé
(c) Remark: If "unlike is Mitzvah" above is not Lo Lishmah, this is better. (We can say that all hold that "Osah" excludes, even if Kivsei Atzeres are equated to Chatas and are brought with it, and the same applies to Asham Metzora. We do not need a Hekesh to Shelamim to be Machshir Lo Lishmah.)
åäà ãëé àîøé ìòéì äàé úðà ãáé ìåé äåà ìà áòé ìîéôøê îâåôä àîàé ôñåìéï
(d) Implied question: We said above "it is Tana d'Vei Levi." We should have asked from the Seifa itself! Why is [Asham that is the wrong age] Pasul?
ããìîà äàé ãîëùø òåìä ãçæé ìðãáä àáì àùí ãìà çæé ìðãáä îéôñì åúðà àçøéðà äåà
(e) Answer: [One could answer that] perhaps it is Machshir Olah because it is proper for Nedavah, but Asham, which is not proper for Nedavah, is Pasul, and it is another Tana;
àáì îìåé àìåé ôøéê ùôéø ãùìîé ðæéø ðîé ìà çæå ìðãáä ãèåáà àéúôìéâå:
1. However, we ask [a contradiction] in Levi against himself. Also Shalmei Nazir are not proper for Nedavah, for they are too different (they require bread).