1) TOSFOS DH Eino b'Toras Shelamim
úåñôåú ã"ä àéðå áúåøú ùìîéí
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the consequence of this.)
ìöàú òåø ìçåìéï ãìà çìä òìéå ÷ãåùú ùìîéí ëìì ùéöà äòåø ìçåìéï åéöà î÷ãåùú îòùø
(a) Explanation: [The law of Shelamim does not apply to it] so that the hide will become Chulin. Kedushas Shelamim does not take effect on it at all so that the hide will become Chulin and leave Kedushas Ma'aser;
ãàé äåàé ÷ãåùú ùìîéí àçéä äåä ðôé÷
1. If Kedushas Shelamim took effect on a Chayah, [the hide] would go out [to become Chulin];
åäùúà ìà çééì àçéä ìà ÷ãåùú ùìîéí åìà úåøú áùø úàåä ãçéä ìáùø úàåä ðôé÷ òåø ìçåìéï ëãîùîò äëà
2. Now, a Chayah does not get Kedushas Shelamim, and not the law of Besar Ta'avah (meat that one will eat as Chulin), for a Chayah [bought] for Besar Ta'avah, the hide goes out to Chulin, like it connotes here;
ã÷úðé äìå÷ç çéä ìæáçé ùìîéí åáäîä ìáùø úàåä ìà éöà äòåø ìçåìéï äà àéôëà ëâåï çéä ìáùø úàåä åáäîä ìæáçé ùìîéí éöà äòåø ìçåìéï
3. It teaches that one who buys a Chayah for a Shelamim, or a Behemah for Besar Ta'avah, the hide does not become Chulin. This implies that oppositely, e.g. a Chayah for Besar Ta'avah, or a Behemah for Shelamim, the hide goes out to Chulin;
ëããøùéðï áôø÷ áëì îòøáéï (òøåáéï ãó ëæ:) áá÷ø îìîã ùìå÷çéï á÷ø àâá òåøå åàôé' ééï àâá ÷ð÷ï ÷îøáé äúí
4. This is like we expound in Eruvin (27b) "ba'Bakar" teaches that one buys cattle Agav (along with) its skin, and even wine Agav the bottle (one pays the entire price with Ma'aser coins, and Kedushah takes effect only on the part for consumption) we include there.
åîéäå äà éù ìãçåú ãàúà ÷øà ìîéîø ùäîòåú îúçììéï òì äòåø åòì ä÷ð÷ï åìòåìí òåø å÷ð÷ï ÷ãåùéí ë÷ãåùú îòùø àáì äëà îùîò ãðôé÷ ìçåìéï
(b) Rebuttal: One can reject this. The verse comes to teach that the [Ma'aser] coins are profaned on the skin and the bottle, and really, the hide and bottle have Kedushas Ma'aser. However, here it connotes that it becomes Chulin.
åäà ãùøéðï çéä ìáùø úàåä èôé îáäîä
(c) Implied question: Why do we permit here a Chayah for Besar Ta'avah more than a Behemah?
ðøàä ãðô÷à ìï îäà ãúðéà áñôøé åàëìú îòùø ãâðê éëåì é÷ç áäîä ìîùúä áðå ðàîø ëàï ùîçä åðàîø ìäìï ùîçä îä ìäìï ùìîéí àó ëàï ùìîéí
(d) Answer: It seems that we learn from a Beraisa in Sifri. "V'Achalta... Masar Degancha" - one might have thought that one may buy an animal for his son's [nuptial] feast! It says here Simchah, and it says there (regarding the pilgrimage festivals) Simchah. Just like there [one brings] Shelamim, also here [one buys with Ma'aser coins] Shelamim;
àé îä ìäìï òåìåú àó ëàï òåìåú úìîåã ìåîø (åùîçú àëéìä ùéù áä ùîçä) [ö"ì åàëìú åùîçú ùîçä ùéù áä àëéìä - áàøåú äîéí]
1. Citation (Sifri): Perhaps just like there [one brings also] Olos, also here [one may buy] Olos! It says "v'Achalta... v'Samachta" - Simchah that has eating.
åäê ãøùà ìà ùééëà áçéä àìà ááäîä äøàåéä ì÷øáï
2. This Drashah (which forbids Besar Ta'avah) does not apply to a Chayah, rather, to a Behemah, which is proper for a Korban.
2) TOSFOS DH Mosif Shnei Chomeshim
úåñôåú ã"ä îåñéó ùðé çåîùéí
(SUMMARY: Tosfos infers that one who redeems Shelamim adds a Chomesh.)
ëàï îùîò ùéù çåîù ëùôåãä ùìîéí
(a) Inference: Here it connotes that there is a Chomesh when one redeems Shelamim.
å÷ùéà ãáô' äæäá (ááà îöéòà ãó ðã:) îùîò ãìéëà çåîù
(b) Question: In Bava Metzi'a (54b) it connotes that there is no Chomesh!
ãàîø îä áäîä èîàä îéåçãú ùúçéìúä ä÷ãù åëåìä ìùîéí åîåòìéï áä åîñé÷ ãìòðéï çåîù ÷àîø åëåìä ìùîéí ìîòåèé ÷ãùéí ÷ìéí
1. It was taught "just like a Tamei Behemah is initial Hekdesh, and it is totally for Shamayim (Bedek ha'Bayis), and Me'ilah applies to it..." and we conclude [that this teaches] about Chomesh, and "it is totally for Shamayim" excludes Kodshim Kalim!
åùí ôéøùðå
(c) Answer: There we explained (DH l'Inyan. In the conclusion of the Toras Kohanim, it includes even Kodshim Kalim.)
3) TOSFOS DH Ha Mani R. Yehudah Hi
úåñôåú ã"ä äà îðé ø' éäåãä äéà
(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that we could have answered so above.)
ìòéì ðîé âáé çéä ìæáçé ùìîéí äåä îöé ìùðåéé äà îðé øáé éäåãä äéà
(a) Observation: Above, regarding a Chayah for a Shelamim, we could have answered that [the Mishnah, which holds that the hide gets Kedushas Shelamim] is like R. Yehudah (and R. Ami said that Hatfasah of Ma'aser Sheni for Shelamim does not take effect, i.e. according to R. Meir).
4) TOSFOS DH Lehakish Davar ha'Bas Min ha'Tzon u'Min ha'Basar l'Pesach
úåñôåú ã"ä ìä÷éù ãáø äáà îï äöàï åîï äá÷ø ìôñç
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the source for Kodshim other than Zevachim.)
úéîä úéðç æáçéí òåôåú åîðçåú åìçîé úåãä îðìï
(a) Question: Granted, this teaches about Zevachim. What is the source for birds, Menachos and Lachmei Todah?
åìîàï ãéìéó áâî' îçèàú ðéçà
(b) Answer: According to the opinion in the Gemara that learns from Chatas, this is fine.
5) TOSFOS DH u'Nesachim mi'Kol Makom Lo Yavi'u Ela Min ha'Chulin
úåñôåú ã"ä åðñëéí îëì î÷åí ìà éáéàå àìà îï äçåìéï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos gives a source for this.)
ãëì ãáø ãëåìå ìîæáç àéðå áà îï äîòùø ëãúðéà áääéà ãñéôøé ùäáàúé ìòéì ãîîòè òåìåú ãáòéðï (àëéìä ùéù áä ùîçä) [ö"ì ùîçä ùéù áä àëéìä - áàøåú äîéí]:
(a) Explanation: Anything that is totally for the Mizbe'ach may not come from Ma'aser, like the Sifri I brought above (DH Eino) that excludes Olos, for we require Simchah that has eating.
82b----------------------------------------82b
6) TOSFOS DH v'Hashta Nami
úåñôåú ã"ä åäùúà ðîé
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses when R. Akiva learns possible from impossible.)
ãëúéá åòáãú ìà÷ùåéé ìëì äôñçéí ìéôøåê åëé ãðéï àôùø îùàé àôùø åîùðé àéï îùéáéï òì ääé÷ù åø''ò ñáø àô''ä àéï ãðéï àôùø îùàé àôùø
(a) Explanation: [Also now] that it is written "v'Avadta" to equate all Pesachim, he should ask "do we learn possible from impossible?!", and answer that we do not challenge a Hekesh, and R. Akiva holds that even so, we do not learn possible from impossible.
àáì àéï ìåîø ãìéú ìéä äé÷ùà
(b) Implied suggestion: Perhaps [R. Akiva] does not make the Hekesh.
ãòì ëøçéï àéú ìéä äé÷ùà ãöøéëà ìùàø îéìé ëãàéúà áôø÷ îé ùäéä èîà (ôñçéí ãó öå.)
(c) Rejection: You are forced to say that he makes the Hekesh, for it is needed for other matters, like it says in Pesachim (96a).
åà''ú åäà áôø÷ áðåú ëåúéí (ðãä ãó ìæ:) ããøùéðï ëéîé ðãúä ëê éîé ìéãúä ôøéê åëé ãðéï àôùø îùàé àôùø
(d) Question: In Nidah (37b), that we expound "like her days of Nidah (do not count towards seven clean days), the same applies to days of Leidah (Tum'as Yoledes)", it asks "do we learn possible from impossible?!";
åîùðé øá ùùú ò''ë ä÷éùï äëúåá åøá àçãáåéé áø àîé îùðé øáé àìéòæø äéà
1. Rav Sheshes answered that you are forced to say that the Torah equated them. Rav Achdevoy bar Ami answered that [the Beraisa] is R. Eliezer.
îùîò ãáòé øá ùùú ìùðåéé àôéìå ëø''ò åàîàé äà ä''ð äé÷éùà äéà åôìéâé
2. Inference: Rav Sheshes wants to answer even according to R. Akiva. What is the reason? Also here it is a Hekesh, and they argue [about learning possible from impossible]!
åé''ì ãñáø øá ùùú äëà ãàéëà ìàå÷åîé äé÷éùà ìùàø îéìé ìäëé ìà àîøéðï ò''ë ä÷éùï äëúåá
(e) Answer: Rav Sheshes holds that here we cannot establish the Hekesh for other matters. Therefore we do not say "you are forced to say that the Torah equated them."
åáñîåê ããøéù îä àùí àéï ùôéø åùìéà ÷ãåù ëå' å÷àîø ãñáø ããðéï àôùø îùàé àôùø
(f) Implied question: Below (83a, R. Eliezer) expounds "just like there is no Kedushah to a fetus or fetal sac inside an Asham (it is male...), and it says that he holds that we learn possible from impossible.
ãîùîò ìéùðà ãø' àìéòæø ìèòîé' àáì ø''ò ôìéâ òìéä
1. Inference: This connotes that R. Eliezer holds like he taught elsewhere, but R. Akiva disagrees!
äúí ðîé öøéëà äé÷ùà ìîéìé èåáà
(g) Answer: Also there, we need the Hekesh for other matters.
åà''ú äà ôìéâé áô' äçåìõ (éáîåú îå.) ãøáé àìéòæø éìéó îàáåú ãîì åìà èáì äåé âø åøáé éäåùò éìéó îàîäåú ãèáì åìà îì äåé âø
(h) Question: They argue in Yevamos (46a). R. Eliezer learns from the Avos (our forefathers who left Mitzrayim) that if one circumcised [to convert] but did not immerse, he is a (valid) convert, and R. Yehoshua learns from the women of that generation that if he immersed but was not circumcised, he is a convert;
åôøéê åìøáé àìéòæø ðîé ðéìó îàîäåú ãäà àéú ìéä ãðéï àôùø îùàé àôùø
1. It asks that also R. Eliezer should learn from the women, for he holds that we learn possible from impossible;
åäùúà àôéìå ìø''ò îöé ìà÷ùåéé ãäúí îåãä ããðéï ãäé÷éùà äåà ëããøùéðï áôø÷ á' ãëøéúåú (ãó è.) ëëí ëâø îä àáåúéëí ìà ðëðñå ìáøéú ëå' ãò''ë äé÷éùï äëúåá
2. Summation of question: Now even according to R. Akiva we could ask, for there he agrees that we learn, for it is a Hekesh, like we expound in Kerisus (9a) "Kachem ka'Ger" - just like your Avos entered the Bris (converted), for you are forced to say that the verse equates them!
åé''ì ãäúí îñúáø ãàúà ÷øà ìîéîø ãéìôéðï àðùéí îàðùéí åðùéí îðùéí åàé ìàå ãàùëçï áòìîà ãøáé àìéòæø ñáø ãðéï ëãîééúé îäê ãäëà ìà äåä ôøéê
(i) Answer: There it is reasonable that the verse comes to teach that we learn men from men and women from women. If we did not find elsewhere that R. Eliezer holds that we learn [possible from impossible], he would not ask.
åéù ìúîåä åìø''ò îðìï ãàéï îùìùéï áîëåú ãáô''÷ ãîëåú (ãó ä.) éìôéðï ìä áâæéøä ùåä ãøùò øùò [îîéúä] åäééðå àôùø îùàé àôùø
(j) Question: According to R. Akiva, what is the source that we do not divide lashes (among Edim Zomemin. Rather, each is lashed as many as he plotted to obligate the defendant?) In Makos (5a) we learn this from a Gezeirah Shavah "Rasha-Rasha" from Misah. This is possible from impossible (lashes could be divided, but Misah cannot)!
åàò''â ãàéï âæ''ù ìîçöä
1. Implied suggestion: A Gezeirah Shavah is not half-way (we always learn from it everything possible).
ä''ð àéï äé÷ù ìîçöä å÷ñáø àéï ãðéï
2. Rejection: Also a Hekesh is not half-way, and [R. Akiva] holds that we do not learn [from a Hekesh possible from impossible]!
åë''ú ãîåãä äúí îùåí ãâæ''ù ìà öøéëà åò''ë ä÷éùï äëúåá
3. Suggestion: He agrees there, because the Gezeirah Shavah is not needed [for anything else], so you are forced to say that the Torah equated them.
ãäà öøéëéï ìîéìé èåáà áääåà ôéø÷à âåôéä åáôø÷ ÷îà ãñðäãøéï (ãó é.) åáôø÷ àçã ãéðé îîåðåú (ùí ìâ:) åáôø÷ äçåáì (á''÷ ôå:) åáôø÷ àìå ðòøåú (ëúåáåú ìä.)
4. Rejection: We need it for many laws in that Perek itself, and in Sanhedrin (10a) and (33b) and in Bava Kama (86b) and in Kesuvos (35a).
7) TOSFOS DH uv'Tarbitza Amur
úåñôåú ã"ä åáúøáéöà àîåø
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this is a Beis Midrash.)
äåà áéú äîãøù î÷åí ùîøáéöéï áå úåøä åìùåï ùäåñéôå áå øáðï áù''ñ
(a) Explanation: This is the Beis Midrash, a place where they are Marbitz (spread) Torah. This is an expression that Rabanan added in the Gemara.
8) TOSFOS DH va'Yikach Es ha'Ma'acheles
úåñôåú ã"ä åé÷ç àú äîàëìú
(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with the Gemara in Chulin.)
äùúà ãøéù ìéä äëà ì÷ãùéí ùèòåï ëìé
(a) Observation: Here we expound this to teach that Kodshim require a Kli.
åúéîä ãáô''÷ ãçåìéï (ãó èæ. åùí) îå÷îéðï ìéä ìòðéï çåìéï ãàîøéðï îðéï ìùçéèä ùäéà áúìåù ùðàîø åé÷ç àú äîàëìú
(b) Question: In Chulin (16a) we establish it regarding Chulin. We say "what is the source for Shechitah that it is with something detached? It says "va'Yikach Es ha'Ma'acheles"!
åàåîø ø''ú ã÷øà åãàé á÷ãùéí ëúéá àìà âîøéðï ðîé çåìéï îãëúéá ìùçåè àú áðå åìà ëúéá ìùçåè äòåìä
(c) Answer (R. Tam): Surely, the verse is written about Kodshim. However, we learn from it also Chulin, since it wrote "to slaughter his son", and did not write "to slaughter the Olah";
àáì ëìé ìà ùééê ìîéìó áçåìéï àìà á÷ãùéí ëùàø òáåãåú ãáòå ëìé ùøú
1. However, we cannot learn from a Kli for Chulin, only for Kodshim, like other Avodos that require a Kli Shares;
åîãëúéá åé÷ç ãîùîò ãáø úìåù åìà ëúéá åéëéï ãøùéðï úìåù áçåìéï
2. And since it wrote va'Yikach, which connotes something detached, and did not write v'Yachin, we expound something detached for Chulin;
åëìé á÷ãùéí îãäæëéø îàëìú ãä''ì ìîëúá åé÷ç àú äîçúê
3. And [we expound] a Kli for Kodshim, since it mentioned Ma'acheles. [If not for this,] it should have written va'Yikach Es ha'Mechatech (the matter that cuts).
åàò''â ãäúí ãçé øáé çééà æøéæåúéä ãàáøäí ÷î''ì
(d) Implied question: There, R. Chiya rejects (this Drashah. The verse) teaches the zealousness of Avraham (he took a knife with him, lest he not find something proper for Shechitah. Likewise, he should reject the Drashah here!)
äëà ìà ùééê ìãçåéé äëé ãìòðéï îä ùäáéà òîå ãáø úìåù åìà ñîê òì îä ùéîöà öåø å÷ðä îçåáø ùééê ìåîø ãëúáéä ÷øà ìàùîåòéðï æøéæåúéä ãàáøäí )÷î''ì - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã îåç÷å)
(e) Answer: Here we cannot reject like this. Regarding that he brought something detached and did not rely on finding a [sharp] rock or attached reed, we can say that the verse teaches the zealousness of Avraham;
àáì îàëìú ùäæëéø ìîä ìé [àé] ìàå ìàùîåòéðï ãòåìä èòåðä ëìé
1. However, why did it mention a knife, if not to teach that an Olah requires a Kli?!
9) TOSFOS DH Mah Minchah Einah Ne'echeles Ela l'Zichrei Kehunah
úåñôåú ã"ä îä îðçä àéðä ðàëìú àìà ìæëøé ëäåðä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses why we do not learn this from Chatas and Asham.)
áñåó ãí çèàú áæáçéí (ãó öç.) ôéøù á÷åðèøñ äà ãìà éìôéðï ìæëøé ëäåðä îçèàú åàùí ëãéìôéðï îîðçä îùåí ãëúéá áúøåééäå âáé àëéìú æëøéí ÷åãù ÷ãùéí äåà
(a) Explanation #1: In Zevachim (98a), Rashi explained that we do not learn l'Zichrei Kehunah from Chatas and Asham, like we learn from Minchah, because in both of them it is written regarding males eating "Kodesh Kodoshim Hu" ("Hu" excludes other matters).
å÷ùéà ãáôø÷ àéæäå î÷åîï (æáçéí ãó ðä.) àéëà úðà ãéìéó îäé÷éùà ãçèàú îäàé ÷øà ãëúéá åòùéúí ùòéø òæéí àçã ìçèàú åùðé ëáùéí áðé ùðä ìæáç ùìîéí îä çèàú ìæëøé ëäåðä àó ùìîé öéáåø ìæëøé ëäåðä
(b) Objection: In Zevachim (55a), there is a Tana who learns from a Hekesh of Chatas from this verse "v'Asisem Se'ir Izim Echad l'Chatas u'Shnei Kevasim Bnei Shanah l'Zevach Shelamim" - just like Chatas is for male Kohanim [to eat it], also Shalmei Tzibur is for male Kohanim!
åðøàä ìôøù ãäééðå èòîà äëà ëéåï ãäé÷éùà ãçèàú åàùí àéëà ìàå÷åîä ìîéìúà àçøéúé ëãîôøù äëà ìà îå÷îéðï ìé' ìàëéìú æëøéí ëéåï ãàéðå ùåä áëì äðäå ãëúéáé á÷øàé
(c) Explanation #2: The reason here is since we can establish the Hekesh of Chatas and Asham for other matters, like it explains here, we do not establish it for males eating, since it is not the same for all written in the verse (e.g. Shelamim);
àáì îðçä òì ëøçéï ìäëé àúàé ãìà îùëçú ìîéìúà àçøéúé
1. However, Minchah, you are forced to say that it comes for this, for we do not find another matter [that it teaches].
10) TOSFOS DH Af Kol Eino Ne'echal Ela l'Zichrei Kehunah
úåñôåú ã"ä àó ëì àéðå ðàëì àìà ìæëøé ëäåðä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses which Shelamim are in the verse.)
åùìîéí ãäàé ÷øà áëáùé òöøú ÷àé ã÷ãùé ÷ãùéí ðéðäå ëì äëúåáéï áî÷øà æä ëê ôé' á÷åðè' áæáçéí
(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi in Zevachim): Shelamim in this verse is Kivsei Atzeres, for everything in this verse is Kodshei Kodoshim.
åðøàä ãòì ëøçéï àééøé ðîé áùìîé ðãáä ãäà áô''÷ ãæáçéí (ãó ç.) ðô÷à ìï îäàé ÷øà ùìà ìùîå
(b) Objection #1 (and Explanation #2): You are forced to say that it discusses also Shalmei Nedavah, for in Zevachim (8a) we learn from this verse Lo Lishmah. (Even so, regarding male Kohanim, we learn only to Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur - Yad Binyamin.)
åòåã áëåìäå ÷øáðåú ãèòåðéï ëìé îäëà ðô÷à ìï: .
(c) Objection #2: All Korbanos require a Kli - we learn this from here!