1) TOSFOS DH v'Ein Mo'alin b'Afrah
úåñôåú ã"ä åàéï îåòìéï áàôøä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the Chidush of this.)
úéîä úéôå÷ ìéä ãàôø ä÷ãù îåúø ëãàé' áñåó úîåøä (ãó ìã.)
(a) Question: I should already know [that there is no Me'ilah], for ashes of Hekdesh are permitted, like it says in Temurah (34a)! (Indeed, the Gemara asks there from a Beraisa that forbids, and gives two answers.)
åìîàï ãîå÷é äà ãúðéà àñåø áðôìä ãìé÷ä îàéìéä ãìà äåé àéðéù ãìîòåì ðéçà
1. Observation: One opinion establishes the Beraisa that forbids, to discuss when a fire erupted by itself, that there is no person to transgress Me'ilah. According to that opinion, this is fine. (Here no one transgressed Me'ilah, so the ashes are forbidden. Keren Orah says that there is no argument about this.)
àìà ìîàï ãîå÷é ìä áúøåîú äãùï [äúí] åáô' ëì ùòä (ôñçéí ãó ëå:) ÷ùéà
2. Summation of question: However, according to the opinion that establishes it to discuss Terumas ha'Deshen there, and in Pesachim (26b), this is difficult!
åé''ì ãùàðé äëà ãëì îöååúä ìùøéôä òåîã
(b) Answer #1: Here [Parah Adumah] is different, for its entire Mitzvah is destined to be burned. (Keren Orah rejects this answer. All the more so there is no Me'ilah, for its Mitzvah was done!)
åòåã ðøàä ãèòí ãäúí îùåí ãàéï ìê ãáø ùðòùéú îöååúå åîåòìéï áå àáì äëà àëúé ìà àéúòáéã
(c) Answer #2: The reason there (to permit ashes of burned Kodshim) is because Me'ilah never applies after the Mitzvah was done. Here, the Mitzvah (Haza'ah) was not done yet.
2) TOSFOS DH d'Ka Avdei l'Makasan
úåñôåú ã"ä ã÷à òáãé ìîëúï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos connects this to another teaching of Rav Ashi.)
øá àùé ìèòîéä ãàîø áîñëú îëåú (ãó ëà.) ãàôø î÷ìä îåúø ìäðéç òì îëúå îùåí ãîëúå îåëçú òìéå
(a) Explanation: Rav Ashi holds like he taught elsewhere. He said in Makos (21a) that one may put oven ash on a wound. [We are not concerned lest it look like a tattoo,] for his wound proves about it.
3) TOSFOS DH Gazru Bei Me'ilah
úåñôåú ã"ä âæøå áéä îòéìä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos infers that there is Me'ilah mid'Rabanan.)
îùîò äëà ãàéëà îòéìä îãøáðï
(a) Inference: There is Me'ilah mid'Rabanan.
åä''ð àîøéðï ôø÷ äåöéàå ìå (éåîà ãó ðè. åùí:) åáôø÷ åìã çèàú (îòéìä ã' éà.) îåòìéï áãîéí ãáøé ø''î åø''ù åçë''à àéï îåòìéï
(b) Support #1: It connotes like this also in Yoma (59a) and Me'ilah (11a). R. Meir and R. Shimon say, Me'ilah applies to blood. Chachamim say, Me'ilah does not apply.
åòã ëàï ìà ôìéâé àìà ãøáðï àáì ãàåøééúà àéï îåòìéï
1. Inference: They argue only mid'Rabanan, but mid'Oraisa, Me'ilah does not apply.
åàéú ãâøñé ôø÷ åìã çèàú î''è ãî''ã àéï îåòìéï åùéáåù äåà àìà ä''â î''è ãìëåìäå àéï îåòìéï îãàåøééúà
2. Correction: Some texts in Me'ilah say "what is the reason for the opinion that Me'ilah does not apply?" This is mistaken. Rather, the text says "why do all hold that Me'ilah does not apply mid'Oraisa?"
åäúí ðîé úðï ø''ù àåîø äãí ÷ì áúçéìúå åçîåø áñåôå ëå' àìîà ãîãøáðï äåà
(c) Support #2: In a Mishnah there, R. Shimon says that blood is lenient at the beginning and stringent at the end (regarding Me'ilah). This shows that it is mid'Rabanan.
åúéîä ãáñåó ôø÷ áúøà ãúîåøä (ãó ìá:) áòé âáé î÷ãéù òåìä ìáã÷ äáéú àñåø ìùåçèä òã ùúéôãä åîåòìéï áä ùúé îòéìåú åôøéê åàé ãøáðï îé àéëà îòéìä ãøáðï
(d) Question: In Temurah (32b), it asks about one who is Makdish an Olah to Bedek ha'Bayis. It is forbidden to slaughter it until it is redeemed, and two Me'ilos apply to it. It asks, if it is mid'Rabanan, is there Me'ilah mid'Rabanan?!
åé''ì ãëéåï ãàéëà îòéìä ãàåøééúà ìà ùééê ìú÷ï îòéìä àçø ãøáðï
(e) Answer: Since there is Me'ilah mid'Oraisa, it is not applicable to enact another Me'ilah mid'Rabanan.
åîéäå úéîä ãøéù îòéìä (ãó á.) úðï ÷ãùé ÷ãùéí ùùçèï áãøåí îåòìéï áäï ãøáðï åîàé àéëà áéï îòéìä ãàåøééúà åîòéìä ãøáðï ãàåøééúà îùìí çåîù ãøáðï ìà îùìí çåîù åë''ù ÷øáï
(f) Question: In Me'ilah (2a), a Mishnah teaches that Kodshei Kodoshim slaughtered in the south, Me'ilah applies to them mid'Rabanan. What is the difference between Me'ilah mid'Oraisa and Me'ilah mid'Rabanan? Mid'Oraisa, one pays a Chomesh (an added quarter of the principal). Mid'Rabanan one does not pay Chomesh, and all the more so [he does not bring] a Korban (Asham Me'ilos).
åôøéê îé àéëà îòéìä ãøáðï àéï ãàîø òåìà ÷ãùéí ùîúå éöàå îéãé îòéìä ãáø úåøä äà ãøáðï àéëà îòéìä
1. [The Gemara] asks, is there Me'ilah mid'Rabanan?! Yes, for Ula said that if Kodshim died, Me'ilah is uprooted mid'Oraisa. This implies that there is Me'ilah mid'Rabanan.
åàîàé ìà îééúé îúðé' ãàéëà îòéìä áãîéí
2. Why didn't [the Gemara] bring our Mishnah, that Me'ilah applies to blood?!
åé''ì îùåí ããîéà èôé ì÷ãùé ÷ãùéí ùùçèï áãøåí åëîàï ãçð÷éðäå ãîé (åäøá ø' çééí åëï ôé' á÷åðèøñ ëàï) [ö"ì åëï ôé' á÷åðèøñ äúí - öàï ÷ãùéí]
(g) Answer #1: [It brought Ula's teaching about Kodshim that died] because it resembles more Kodshei Kodoshim slaughtered in the south. It is as if he choked them. Also Rashi explained so there.
(ããí à÷ãùåä øáðï) [ö"ì åäøá ø' çééí úéøõ ããí à÷ãùåä áéú ãéï - öàï ÷ãùéí] åäùúà àéëà ùôéø îòéìä ãàåøééúà
(h) Answer #2 (and retraction of Supports (b), (c) - R. Chaim): Beis Din was Makdish blood. Now, there is properly Me'ilah mid'Oraisa.
àáì ÷ãùéí ùîúå ìà ðçúà ìäå ÷ãåùú ãîéí äéìëê îééúé èôé ùôéø
1. However, if Kodshim died, there is no Kedushas Damim (so there cannot be Me'ilah mid'Oraisa). Therefore, it was better to bring [from Ula that there is Me'ilah mid'Rabanan].
åàôø ôøä ðîé àéëà ÷ãåùä îãøáðï
2. Also ashes of Parah Adumah have Kedushah [and Me'ilah] mid'Rabanan!
å÷ùä ìôéøåùå ãáôø÷ åìã çèàú (îòéìä ãó éá.) âáé ÷ãùéí ùîúå ãôøéê îé àéëà îéãé ãîòé÷øà ìéú áéä îòéìä ãôñ÷ú åàîøú àôé' á÷ãùéí ÷ìéí åìáñåó àéú áéä îòéìä
(i) Question: In Me'ilah (12a), regarding Kodshim that died, it asks "do we ever find something that never had Me'ilah, that you said a uniform law, that even Kodshim Kalim (which had no Me'ilah when they were alive), and in the end it has Me'ilah (after death)?!"
åìà åäøé ãí
1. [The Gemara asks] do we not find this? Behold [we find this regarding] blood!
åîàé ôøéê ìôéøåùå èåáà àéëà ìôìåâé
2. According to [R. Chaim's] Perush, what was the question? There is a great difference between them (Beis Din was Makdish blood, therefore it gets Me'ilah)!
ìëê ðøàä ëîå ùôéøùúé
(j) Conclusion: It seems that my explanation (Answer #1) is correct.
åîéäå úéîä ÷öú àîàé ìà îééúé îúðé' ãîééúé îéðä ñééòúà ìòåìà äðäðä îï äçèàú ëùäéà çéä ìà îòì òã ùéôâåí ëùäéà îúä ëéåï ùðäðä ëì ùäåà îòì
(k) Question: [When the Gemara asked if there is Me'ilah mid'Rabanan,] why didn't it bring the Mishnah from which a support is brought for Ula? "One who benefits from Chatas when it is alive, he did not transgress Me'ilah until he decreased the value. [One who benefits] when it is dead, once he benefited any amount, he transgressed Me'ilah."
åùîà ìäëé ìà îééúé ìä ããéìîà äééðå ãå÷à çèàú äåàéì åìëôøä àúéà ìà áãéìé îéðä åú÷ðå øáðï îòéìä èôé ëã÷àîø áúø äëé ãîçèàú ìà ùîòéðï (äòåìä) [ö"ì äà ãòåìà - öàï ÷ãùéí]
(l) Answer: Perhaps it did not bring it, for perhaps this is only Chatas, since it comes for Kaparah, people do not refrain from it, and Rabanan enacted Me'ilah more [than for other Korbanos], like it says after this "from Chatas we cannot learn Ula's teaching."
åàéú ñôøéí ãâøñé äåàéì åìëôøä àúéà áãéìé îéðä
(m) Alternative text: Some texts say "since it comes for Kaparah, people refrain from it."
åàéï äñåâéà îåëçú ëï
(n) Rebuttal: The Sugya proves unlike this.
åùîà ä''÷ îúðé' àùîòéðï ãàôéìå çèàú ãáãéìé àéëà îòéìä åòåìà àùîòéðï (àéìå) [ö"ì àôéìå - éùø åèåá, òåìú ùìîä] äéëà ãìà áãéìé àéëà îòéìä
(o) Defense: Perhaps it means as follows. Our Mishnah teaches even Chatas, from which people refrain, there is Me'ilah, and Ula teaches that even when people do not refrain, there is Me'ilah.
4) TOSFOS DH Par Helam Davar v'Se'irei Avodas Kochavim
úåñôåú ã"ä ôø äòìí ãáø åùòéøé òáåãú ëåëáéí
(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks why Par is taught in the singular, and Se'irei in the plural.)
éù ìã÷ã÷ àîàé ð÷è âáé ôø ìùåï éçéã åâáé ùòéøé ìùåï øáéí åäåé îöé ìîéð÷è ôøé òáåãú ëåëáéí
(a) Question: Why does it mention Par in the singular, and Se'irei in the plural? It could have said Parei Avodas Kochavim! (Tosfos (Yoma 50a DH Par) answers that the Gemara did not teach Parei Helam in the plural, lest people err to think that it includes the bulls brought for idolatry. They are Olos!)
5) TOSFOS DH d'Sham'inan Lei l'R. Shimon d'Chayish li'Peshi'ah
úåñôåú ã"ä ãùîòéðï ìéä ìø''ù ãçééù ìôùéòä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks that the same applies to R. Yehudah.)
÷öú ÷ùéà ãøáé éäåãä ðîé çééù ìôùéòä ãìà àùëçï ãðéôìåâ àú÷ðåú åìòéì ñ''ì îùì éåøùéí
(a) Question: Also R. Yehudah is concerned for negligence. We do not find that he argues with the enactments, and above (51b) he holds that [mid'Oraisa] the heirs [bring the Chavitim]! (Yashar v'Tov asks that in Shekalim, he argues with the enactments! Perhaps Tosfos had a different text there.)
6) TOSFOS DH d'Iy Lo ka'Tani
úåñôåú ã"ä ãàé ìà ÷úðé
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this is something uncommon.)
ëìåîø ãáø ùàéðå øâéì àìà áà÷øàé áòìîà:
(a) Explanation: [The Tana did not teach] something that is not common, and is a mere happenstance.
52b----------------------------------------52b
7) TOSFOS DH l'Rabanan Huchpelah Levonasah
úåñôåú ã"ä ìøáðï äåëôìä ìáåðúå
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why only this question is only according to Rabanan.)
àáì ìàáà éåñé áï ãåñúàé ëéåï ãöøéê ÷åîõ ááå÷ø å÷åîõ áòøá ìà ùééê ìàéëôåìé èôé îùéòåø ùìí
(a) Explanation: However, according to Aba Yosi ben Dostai, since it needs a Kometz in the morning and a Kometz in the afternoon, one cannot double it more than the full Shi'ur;
(ãìøáðï) [ö"ì åìøáðï - öàï ÷ãùéí] äåà ãáòé àé áòéðï ùìí áìáåðä ëé äéëé ãáòéðï ùìí áòùøåï
1. According to Rabanan he asks whether we require a full Shi'ur of Levonah, just like we require a full Isaron.
àáì îùîï áòé (èôé) ìàáà éåñé áï ãåñúàé ðîé ãáëì éåí ìà äéä ø÷ ìåâ åîçöä ááå÷ø åëï áòøá åäùúà ðîé
(b) Distinction: However, he asks about oil also according to Aba Yosi ben Dostai, for every day there was only one and a half Lugim in the morning, and also in the afternoon, and also now;
àå ãéìîà ìëì òùøåï äéå â' ìåâéï åæå äéà áìéìúï
1. Or, perhaps there were three Lugim for every Isaron, and this is [the ratio] of how it is mixed.
8) TOSFOS DH Halachah k'Aba Yosi ben Dostai
úåñôåú ã"ä äìëä ëàáà éåñé áï ãåñúàé
(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks that this will not be relevant until Mashi'ach.)
úéîä äéìëúà ìîùéçà:
(a) Question: This ruling does not apply until Mashi'ach will come! (Tosfos Zevachim 45a DH Hilchesa answered that only Rav Yosef holds that we should not rule about such Halachos. Alternatively, we should not rule about Hilchesa li'Meshicha only when additionally it applies only if one transgressed.)
9) TOSFOS DH Kol ha'Menachos Ba'os Matzah Chutz mi'Chametz sheb'Todah...
úåñôåú ã"ä ëì äîðçåú áàåú îöä çåõ îçîõ ùáúåãä åùúé äìçí
(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that Lachmei Todah are not called Minchah.)
ùúé äìçí ðéçà ãëééì áäãé ùàø îðçåú ãàé÷øé îðçä ëãàîø áôø÷ äúëìú (ìòéì ãó îæ:) àáì ìçîé úåãä ìà àùëçï
(a) Implied question: It is fine that he includes Shtei ha'Lechem with other Menachos, for it is called Minchah, like it says above (47b). However, we do not find that Lachmei Todah [are called Minchah]!
åî''î ðéçà [ö"ì ãð÷è ìéä - éùø åèåá] ìàùîåòéðï ãéðà
(b) Answer: In any case it is fine that he taught it, to teach us the law (i.e. the argument about how we ferment it. The Torah explicitly says that it is Chametz! - Taharas ha'Kodesh)
10) TOSFOS DH Bodeh
úåñôåú ã"ä áåãä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos affirms that this is the correct text, with a Dalet.)
áãì''ú âøñéðï áòøåê åôé' ìùåï äåöàä ëîå (îìëéí à éá) áçåãù àùø áãà îìáå (ðçîéä å) ëé îìáê àúä áåãàí
(a) Remark: The Aruch says that text [is Bodeh] with a Dalet. He explained that it is an expression of Hotza'ah (removing), like "ba'Chodesh Asher Bada mi'Libo", and "Ki mi'Libcha Atah Vodam."
11) TOSFOS DH Chaserah Oh Yeserah
úåñôåú ã"ä çñøä àå éúøä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos derives that one who measures flour should not compress it.)
îëàï ôé' äøá øáéðå çééí ãëùîåããéï áîãä áôñç àå ìöåøê çìä àéï ìäëáéã òì äñìú ãà''ë ðîöàú éúøä ëîå ìòðéï îðçåú
(a) Consequence: From here, R. Chaim explained that when we measure [flour] in a measuring Kli on Pesach (one may not make a big dough on Pesach (Pesachim 48a), i.e. more than an Isaron (OC 456:1), lest it become Chametz) or for the need of Chalah, one may not press down on the flour, for if so it will be too much, like we find regarding Menachos. (Even though it fits into the measure, our Mishnah teaches that if it is denser than normal flour, it is considered more than the Shi'ur. What is Tosfos' concern about Chalah, if the dough exceeds the minimal Shi'ur for Chalah? Perhaps he will think that it is less than the Shi'ur, and not separate. Shitah Mekubetzes Kesav Yad deletes the word "Oh". Tosfos discusses only measuring an Isaron on Pesach, i.e. the Shi'ur for Chalah. One may not make a bigger dough.)
åòåã àîøéðï (ì÷îï ãó ôæ. - éùø åèåá îåç÷å) âåãùà úéìúà
(b) Support: Also, we say (Shabbos 35a) that the Godesh (amount that one can pile above the Kli) is a third (of the total. Sefas Emes, Yashar v'Tov - if one presses and compacts the flour, one can make a bigger Godesh! Rather, this shows that we do not press.)
12) TOSFOS DH Minayin l'Chol ha'Menachos she'Hen Ba'os Matzah v'Chulei
úåñôåú ã"ä îðéï ìëì äîðçåú ùäï áàåú îöä ëå'
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the question and the answer.)
úéîä îúðé' äéà (ì÷îï ãó ðä.) ãúðï ëì äîðçåú ðéìåùåú áôåùøéí åîùîøí ùìà éçîéöå ëå' ùðàîø ëì äîðçä (áì úàôä) [ö"ì åâå' ìà úòùä - ùéèä î÷åáöú, öàï ÷ãùéí] çîõ
(a) Question #1: A Mishnah (below, 55a) teaches that all Menachos are kneaded with lukewarm water, and we guard them from Chimutz... for it says "Kol ha'Minchah... Lo Se'aseh Chametz"! (Why did R. Freida ask?)
åä''ð ãøùé' ì÷îï áâî' (ùí) ùàø îðçåú îðéï ú''ì ëì äîðçä
1. Also, we expound below (55a) 'what is the source for other Menachos? It says "Kol ha'Minchah..."!'
åòåã îùîò ãùééê ìøáåéé èôé îääåà ÷øà ãëì îðçä îîàé ãîøáä îäàé ÷øà ãæàú úåøú äîðçä ãîééúé äëà
(b) Question #2: It connotes that it is more feasible to include from that verse "Kol ha'Minchah..." than from this verse that [R. Ami] brings here "Zos Toras ha'Minchah"!
ãîääåà ìà ùééê ìøáåéé àìà îðçåú ùéù áäí ãéï äëúåá áôøùä äâùä ÷îéöä åìáåðä (ëâåï îðçú ñìú åîçáú) [ö"ì åáàåú ñåìú ëâåï îðçú ñìú - éùø åèåá] åîøçùú
1. From this verse [here] we can include only Menachos that have the law written in the Parshah - Hagashah, Kemitzah, Levonah, and they come from Soles, e.g. Minchas Soles and Marcheshes;
àáì îëì äîðçä àéúøáå àôéìå îðçú äòåîø åîðçú ÷ðàåú åîðçú ëäï åîðçú [ðñëéí] åìçí äôðéí
2. However, from "Kol ha'Minchah..." it includes even Minchas ha'Omer, Minchas Kena'os, Minchas Kohen, Minchas Nesachim and Lechem ha'Panim!
åðøàä ìôøù ãøáé àîé ìà øöä ìäáéà (ìï) [ö"ì ìå - éùø åèåá] äà ããøùéðï îééúåøà ã÷øàé (àìà) ìôé ùäéä ñáåø ãàôéìå ìîöåä ÷à îéáòéà ìéä äéëà ãìà ëúéáà îöä
(c) Answer #1: R. Ami did not want to bring for him what we expound from the extra words, because he thought that [R. Freida] asks even for a Mitzvah, where Matzah is not written;
äáéà ìå î÷øàåú ôùåèåú åúîä òì ùàìúå åäùéá ìå ãëúéáà ëúéáà ëâåï îçáú åîàôä ãìà ëúéáà ëâåï îðçú ñìú åîøçùú ëúéá æàú úåøú
1. [R. Ami] brought for him simple verses and was astounded at his question, and answered that what is written [explicitly] is written, e.g. Machavas and Ma'afe [Tanur]. What is not written, e.g. Minchas Soles and Marcheshes, it is written "Zos Toras."
åä''ä ãàëúé îäðê ÷øàé ìà éãòéðï ëåìäå ùàø îðçåú
2. Likewise, from these verses, we still do not know all other Menachos.
)òåã îùîò( [ö"ì åòåã ãîùîò] ãîðçú ñìú ðîé ëúéáà ãàåúä ôøùä ãæàú úåøú ãëúéá áä îöåú úàëì ôùèéä ã÷øà áîðçú ñìú [ëúéá] ãëúéá îñìú äîðçä åîùîðä åîæàú úåøú îøáé îøçùú
(d) Answer #2: It connotes that also Minchas Soles is written in that Parshah of Zos Toras, for it says in it "Matzos Te'achel." The simple meaning of the verse is written about Minchas Soles, for it says "mi'Soles ha'Minchah umi'Shamnah", and from Zos Toras we include Marcheshes;
åîäùúà îöéðå ìîéîø ãðúøáå ëì îðçåú àôéìå àåúí ãàéï áäí äâùä ÷îéöä åìáåðä [ö"ì åàéï áàåú ñåìú - éùø åèåá] ëé äéëé ãîøáéðï îøçùú àò''â ãìà àééøé áä ÷øà
1. Now we can say that all Menachos are included, even those without Hagashah, Kemitzah and Levonah, and do not come from Soles, just like we include Marcheshes, even though the verse does not discuss it.
àáì ÷ùéà à''ë ëì äîðçä ìøáåú ùàø îðçåú ìîä ìé
(e) Question: If so, why do we need "Kol ha'Minchah..." to include other Menachos?
ãàí ðàîø ììàå
1. Suggestion: It is for a Lav.
à''ë äéëé îééúé ìòëá îìà úàôä ãì÷îï ãøéù ìéä òì äëìì
2. Rejection: If so, how do we bring Ikuv from "Lo Se'afeh"? Below (55b), we expound this for the Klal!
åø''ú îôøù ãîéáòéà ìéä ìøáé ôøéãà îðìï ãáàåú îöä åìà ùéàåø åçìåè ãàé îìà úòùä çîõ ãîúðé' äåä àîéðà ùéàåø åçìåè ùøé
(f) Answer (R. Tam): R. Freida asked what is the source that they come Matzah, and not Sei'or (a dough that partially fermented) or Chalut (scalded in boiling water)? If we had only "Lo Se'aseh Chametz" of our Mishnah (55a), one might have thought that Sei'or and Chalut are permitted;
à''ì ãëúéáà ëúéáà àìîà îöåú áòéðï åùéàåø åçìåè ìàå îöä äéà
1. [R. Ami] told him "what is written, is written." This shows that we need Matzos, and Sei'or and Chalut are not Matzah.
à''ì ìòëá ÷à îéáòéà ìï îðìï ãîéôñìà àí äáéà ùéàåø åçìåè
2. [R. Freida] said "I ask to be Me'akev. What is the source that if he brought Sei'or or Chalut, it is Pasul?"
à''ì ãëúéá ìà úàôä çîõ ãîùîò àìà îöä ãëúéá îöä áàåúä ôøùä
3. [R. Ami] told him "it is written Lo Se'afeh Chametz", which connotes, rather, Matzah, for Matzah is written in the Parshah;
åøá çñãà ôøéê ãéìîà (îìà) [ö"ì ìà - öàï ÷ãùéí] úàôä çîõ àìà ùéàåø àò''â ãëáø ëúéá ìà úòùä àéöèøéê èåáà ìëããøùéðï ì÷îï
4. Rav Chisda asked, perhaps Lo Se'afeh Chametz, rather, Sei'or! Even though it is already written Lo Se'aseh [Chametz], we need it greatly, like we expound below (so it is not extra to forbid even Sei'or and Chalut)!
åôé' æä ãçå÷ åîâåîâí:
(g) Objection: This is a difficult, awkward Perush.