1) TOSFOS DH Tamid Shel Shachar Ta'un Shnei Gezirin (cont.)
úåñôåú ã"ä úîéã ùì ùçø èòåï ùðé âæéøéï (äîùê)
ãñéãåø ùðé âæéøéï äéä àôéìå ÷åãí (úøåîú äãùï) [ö"ì ãéùåï îæáç äôðéîé åäîðåøä - éùø åèåá] ëãàéúà áñéãåø äîòøëä ãàáéé áôø÷ àîø ìäï äîîåðä (éåîà ãó ìâ.)
(a) Answer (cont.): Arranging two logs was even before Dishun [removing ashes from] the inner Mizbe'ach and the Menorah, like it says in Abaye's order of the Ma'arachah in Yoma (33a).
åäééðå ãàîø áéøåùìîé áô''á ãéåîà àîø øáé éåçðï ìà âæøå òì ùðé âæéøéï áùçøéú ôé' ùéäå áùòú ä÷èøú àéáøéí
(b) Support: In the Yerushalmi, R. Yochanan said "they did not decree about two logs in the morning." I.e. it need not be at the time of burning the limbs.
à''ø àñé îúðéúéï àîøä ëï áëì éåí ÷øá áéï äòøáéí áàçã òùø åìà àîø áùçøéú ëìåí
1. Citation (Yerushalmi) Support (R. Asi): Our Mishnah proves like this! Every day it is offered in the afternoon through 11, and it does not say in the morning anything (about Kohanim bringing logs).
åîäùúà ìéëà ìîéã÷ îäúí ëìì àé äåéà áëäï àçã àå áùðé ëäðéí
(c) Observation: Now we cannot infer at all whether [in the morning] it was through one Kohen or two Kohanim.
åîéäå éù ìã÷ã÷ îäà ãúðéà äúí áâî' áéåîà (ãó ëå:)
(d) Inference: We can learn from a Beraisa in Yoma (26b);
îðéï ìúîéã ùì áéï äòøáéí ùèòåï ùðé âæéøéï áùðé ëäðéí ùðàîø åòøëå òöéí òì äàù àí àéðå òðéï ìúîéã ùì ùçø ùðàîø åáòø òìéä äëäï òöéí áá÷ø úðéäå òðéï ìúîéã ùì áéï äòøáéí
1. Citation (26b): What is the source that the afternoon Tamid requires two logs through two Kohanim? It says "v'Archu Etzim Al ha'Esh" - if it need not teach about the morning Tamid, for it says "u'Vi'er Aleha ha'Kohen Etzim ba'Boker", we use it to teach about the afternoon Tamid.
åàéîà àéãé åàéãé áúîéã ùì ùçø å÷àîø øçîðà ðéòáã áçã åäãø ðòáéã áúøé
2. Citation (cont.) Suggestion: Perhaps both of them refer to [logs with] the morning Tamid. The Torah said to do with one [Kohen], and later do through two!
àìîà îùîò áäãéà ãùì ùçø áçã îùåí ãëúéá åáéòø ìùåï éçéã åùì áéï äòøáéí áúøé îùåí ãëúéá åòøëå ìùåï øáéí
3. Inference: This explicitly connotes that [the logs of] the morning are through one, for it is written "u'Vi'er" in the singular, and of the afternoon are through two, for it says "v'Archu", in the plural.
åòåã úðéà äúí (ãó ëæ:) áñåó ôéø÷à îé ùæëä áúøåîú äãùï éæëä áñéãåø îòøëä åáùðé âæéøé òöéí
(e) Support: Further, a Beraisa there (27b) teaches that the one who merited [through the lottery, to do] Terumas ha'Deshen, he merits to arrange the Ma'arachah and [to bring] two logs. (This shows that in the morning, one Kohen brings the two logs.)
2) TOSFOS DH Keitzad Ya'aseh
úåñôåú ã"ä ëéöã éòùä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses what the question was.)
ùìà éáà ãáø ìôñåì éðéçðä òí äáæéëéï ìùáú äáàä
(a) Explanation #1: [We ask, how does he do] lest it come to be Pasul? He leaves it with the Bazichin until the coming Shabbos.
àé ðîé îä éòùä îï äìçí àçø ùäå÷èøå äáæéëéï
(b) Explanation #2: [We ask,] what does he do with the bread after Haktarah of the Bazichin?
3) TOSFOS DH she'Afilu Hu Al ha'Shulchan Yamim Rabim Ein b'Kach Klum
úåñôåú ã"ä ùàôéìå äåà òì äùåìçï éîéí [øáéí] àéï áëê ëìåí
(SUMMARY: Tosfos questions how we learn from the Shulchan to the Mizbe'ach.)
úéîä ãáôø÷ äîæáç î÷ãù (æáçéí ãó ôæ.) áòà îéðéä øáà îøáä ìéðä îåòìú áøàùå ùì îæáç àå àéðä îåòìú
(a) Question: In Zevachim (87a), Rava asked Rabah whether or not Linah takes effect on top of the Mizbe'ach;
äéëé ãîé àé ãìà éøãå äùúà ìðå áòæøä àîøú ìà éøãå áøàùå ùì îæáç îéáòéà
1. Citation (87a): What is the case? If [the limbs] did not descend - Linah in the Azarah (regular Nosar), you said that [Im Alah] Lo Yered. Does he ask about Linah on top of the Mizbe'ach?!
àìà ãéøãå ìùåìçï îãîéðï ìä ãúðï ùàôé' äåà òì äùåìçï éîéí [øáéí] àéï áëê ëìåí
2. Citation (cont.): Rather, it descended. Perhaps we compare it to [Linah on] the Shulchan. Even if [Lechem ha'Panim] was on the Shulchan many days, this is not a problem.
åäùúà äà ìà ãîé ìùåìçï ãäà àñéãøå áàçã áùáú ÷àé îùåí ãëìé ùøú àéï î÷ãùéï ùìà áæîðï ëãîåëç áôø÷ ùúé äìçí (ì÷îï ã' ÷.)
3. Summation of question: [Linah on the ground] is unlike the Shulchan. [Our Mishnah] discusses when it was arranged on Sunday, for Klei Shares are not Mekadesh not in their time, like is proven below (100a);
ããéé÷éðï îäëà åàé ñ''ã ëìé ùøú î÷ãùéï ùìà áæîðï ìé÷ãåù åìéôñì åàí ñéãøï áùáú äëé ðîé ãàí ìà ñéì÷ï ìùáú àçøú äéä ðôñì áìéðä
i. [There] it infers from here "if you think that Klei Shares are Mekadesh not in their time, [the bread] should become Kadosh, and become Pasul." If he arranged [the bread] on Shabbos, indeed, if he did not remove it the next Shabbos, it becomes Pasul due to Linah!
åàäê âåôä ãàçã áùáú î÷ùé äúí ãàé ìéìä àéï îçåñø æîï ëé îèé ìéìä ãáé ùéîùé úé÷ãåù åúéôñì åîùðé øáà áù÷ãí åñéì÷å
4. And about this itself (when it was arranged) on Sunday, it asks there "if night is not considered Mechusar Zeman, when [the first] Shabbos night comes, it should become Kadosh, and become Pasul [at dawn of the next Shabbos]! Rava answered that the case is, he removed [it from the Shulchan before Shabbos night];
åøá àùé îùðé àôéìå áùìà ÷ãí åñéì÷å ðòùä ëîé ùñéãøå ä÷åó
5. And Rav Ashi answered that even if he did not remove it, [since it did not become Kodesh when placed on the Shulchan,] it is as if a monkey put it on. (It does not become Kodesh until the proper time.)
åà''ë âáé îæáç àôéìå îãîéú ìéä ìùåìçï ðîé úåòéì áå ìéðä
6. Consequence: Regarding the Mizbe'ach, even if you compare it to the Shulchan, Linah should take effect!
åé''ì ãìùåï ùàôé' äåà òì äùåìçï îùîò ìéä ðúéðú èòí àääåà ãñéãøå àçø äùáú ãìëê ìà çééùéðï òìéä îùåí ãáëì ìçí äôðéí ëîå äðñãø áæîðå àôéìå äåà òì äùåìçï éîéí [øáéí] àéï áëê ëìåí
(b) Answer: The expression "even if it is on the Shulchan" connotes that it gives the reason for the case when it was arranged after Shabbos. Therefore we are not concerned for it, for in all Lechem ha'Panim, like what was arranged in its time, even if it is on the Shulchan many days, this is not a problem. (It becomes the food of the Shulchan. We properly learn from the Shulchan to the Mizbe'ach.)
åîéäå òì ëøçéï ìàå èòí âîåø äåà ãäëà äééðå èòîà îùåí ãëìé ùøú àéï î÷ãùéï àìà áæîðï
(c) Remark: However, we are forced to say that this is not a total reason, for here, the reason is because Klei Shares are Mekadesh only in their time! (The Mishnah teaches that when it was arranged after Shabbos, Linah does not disqualify, just like when it was arranged on Shabbos, but for a different reason.)
4) TOSFOS DH Birutzei Midos
úåñôåú ã"ä áéøåöé îãåú
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that they are sold for Kitz ha'Mizbe'ach.)
àò''â ãðú÷ãùå ìå÷çéï îäï ëáùéí ìòåìåú ÷ééõ ëãôøéùéú áøéù ôéø÷éï (ãó ôç.) ãìá á''ã îúðä òìéäí
(a) Remark: Even though [Birutzei Midos] become Kadosh, we buy from them lambs for Olas Kitz ha'Mizbe'ach, like I explained above (88a), that Lev Beis Din stipulates about them.
5) TOSFOS DH me'Arba v'Amdu mi'Shalosh Mesapek me'Arba
úåñôåú ã"ä îàøáò åòîãå îùìù îñô÷ îàøáò
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses in what case this is permitted only for Hekdesh.)
áô' äæäá (á''î ãó ðæ:) îôøù ãäàé øáéú ä÷ãù äéëé ãîé ëâåï ù÷éáì òìéå ìñô÷ ñìúåú îàøáò åòîãå îùìù ãîñô÷ îã' ãáçáéøå ëé äàé âååðà àñåø
(a) Citation: In Bava Metzi'a (57b) it explains "what is the case of Ribis Hekdesh? E.g. he accepted to supply flour [to Hekdesh] for four [Sa'im for a Sela], and the price [rose] to three. He supplies based on the rate of four." Regarding [supplying to] a person, it is forbidden in such a case.
åúéîä äéëé ãîé
(b) Question: What is the case?
àé ãàéú ìéä ñìúåú àå çéèéï ùéúçììå òìéäï îòåú ä÷ãù
(c) Answer #1: He has flour or wheat to profane the coins of Hekdesh on them.
àôé' áäãéåè ùøé ãàôé' òì äâãéù úðï (ùí ã' òá:) ôåñ÷ òîå òì äâãéù
(d) Objection: If so, even for a person it is permitted. Even based on a stack, a Mishnah (72b) permits to contract (set a price, to supply later at that price) based on a stack!
åëé úéîà äà ãùøé ìôñå÷ òîå òì äâãéù äééðå áôåñ÷ ìôé äùòø (àå) àôé' áùòø äì÷åèåú àáì àé îåæéì èôé àñåø àôé' áéù ìå åäëà âáé ä÷ãù ùøé
1. Suggestion: One may contract based on a stack when he contracts according to the rate, even the rate of gatherers, but if he is cheaper, it is forbidden even if he has, and here regarding Hekdesh it is permitted.
àé àôùø ìåîø ëï ãäà áøéù äæäá (ùí ãó îå.) úðéà äéå çîøéå åôåòìéå úåáòéí àåúå åàîø ìùåìçðé úï (îëàï îòîåã á) ìé áãéðø îòåú åàôøðñí åàðé àòìä ìê éôä ãéðø åèøéñéú àí éù ìå îåúø
2. Rejection: One cannot say so, for in Bava Metzi'a (46a) a Beraisa teaches that if his donkey-drivers and workers were demanding wages, and he told a moneychanger "give to me a Dinar of [small] coins, and I will take care of them, and I will give to you the value of a Dinar and a Trisis", if he has, it is permitted;
90b----------------------------------------90b
(ëãôøéùéú) [ö"ì ëãôéøù äúí - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã] ãîèáò ðòùä çìéôéï àå áôøåèèåú ãëéåï ãéù ìå àåæåìé àåæéì âáéä åàéï ëàï àâø ðèø ìéä
i. This is like it explains there, that a coin can become Chalipin, or [the employer] has blank coins (not minted, i.e. commodities acquired through Chalipin. The moneychanger acquires immediately, so there is no loan.) Since he has, he [merely] gives to him cheaper, and this is not Ribis.
åàí àéï ìå àôéìå âãéù
(e) Answer #2: [The supplier] does not have even a stack.
à''ë îä îøåéçå áä÷ãîú îòåú äøé ìà éåëì ìäùúîù áäï ãàéï ìäí òì îä ùéúçìì åìà ðô÷é ìçåìéï
(f) Objection: If so, how does he benefit through [Hekdesh] advancing to him coins? He cannot use them, for there is nothing on which to be profaned, and they do not become Chulin!
åé''ì ãìòåìí áãìéú ìéä àôé' âãéù àìà î÷áì îòåú ä÷ãù åäåìê àöì áòìé áúéí ùðåúðéï ìå éåúø îã' ñàéï åîøåéç äéúø
(g) Answer: Really, he does not have even a stack. Rather, he receives Hekdesh coins and goes to Ba'alei Batim who give to him more than four Sa'im [for a Sela], and he gains the excess.
åîä ùàéï ðåúï ìä÷ãù àåúå äòåãó îéãé ãäåä àîùìù åòîãå ààøáò
1. Implied question: Why does he not give the excess to Hekdesh, just like [one who accepted to supply] for three, and the price [dropped] to four?
îùåí ãìà éäéá ìä÷ãù àìà ëôé äùòø åäùòø äåà îàøáò
2. Answer: It is because he gives to Hekdesh only like the price, and the price is four.
åîéäå ìôé èòí æä äéä îåúø ìäåìéê îòåú ä÷ãù ìñçåøä ëãé ìäùúëø áäï åæäå úéîä ãà''ë àîàé ìà àùëçï øéáéú áä÷ãù áëé äàé âååðà áô' äæäá (á''î ãó ðæ:)
(h) Objection: According to this reason, one may bring Hekdesh coins for commerce, in order to profit through them. This is astounding! If so, why don't we find Ribis of Hekdesh in such a case, in Bava Metzi'a (57b)?
ìëê ðøàä ãàéï ðëåï ìòùåú ëï àå îùåí áæéåï ä÷ãù àå îùåí ùìà éáà ìéãé îòéìä
(i) Conclusion: It is improper to do so, either due to disgrace of Hekdesh, or lest one come to Me'ilah (use the Hekdesh coins for himself. Rather, we must rely on Answer #1, that he has a stack.)
åäà ãùøé äëà áä÷ãù åàñåø áäãéåè
(j) Reiteration of objection (d): Why is it permitted here for Hekdesh, and forbidden for a person? (Al should be permitted, since he has a stack!)
é''ì ëé ääéà ãñåó àéæäå ðùê (ùí ãó òã.) àîø øá îçåñø ùúéí ôåñ÷ ùìù àéðå ôåñ÷ åùîåàì àîø áéãé àãí àôéìå îàä ôåñ÷ áéãé ùîéí àôéìå àçú àéðå ôåñ÷
(k) Answer: It is like in Bava Metzi'a (74a). Rav said that if [Peros] lack two (two Melachos must be done to them) he may contract. If three are lacking, he may not contract. Shmuel said, [Melachos] that people can do, he may contract even if 100 [are lacking]. What depends on Shamayim (e.g. he needs sun or wind), he may not contract even if one [is lacking];
úðï ôåñ÷ òîå òì äâãéù åäà îçåñø îùãà áçîä ìîéáù åìîéãù åîéãã åîùðé ëâåï ãùãà áçîä åéáù
1. The Mishnah taught that one may contract based on a stack of grain. He must put it in the sun to dry, thresh and winnow (three are lacking)! It answers that it already dried in the sun;
åìùîåàì [ãàîø áéãé ùîéí àôéìå àçã àéðå ôåñ÷ åäà îçåñø] îéãã ãáéãé ùîéí äéà àôùø áðôååúà
i. [It asks] according to Shmuel, who said that what is bi'Ydei Shamayim, he may not contract even if one [is lacking], it is lacking winnowing, which is bi'Ydei Shamayim! [It answers] that he can use a sifter.
åáä÷ãù àôéìå îçåñø ëì äðé ùøé
2. Culmination of Answer: Regarding Hekdesh, even if it is lacking all of these, it is permitted [to contract].
åòåã éù ìåîø ãîééøé äëà áòùéøéí äîúðãáéí åðåúðéï îòåú çåìéï ìîåëøé ñìúåú ëãé ìñô÷ îàøáò
(l) Defense of Answer #2: (Really, he does not have a stack.) Here we discuss rich people who volunteer and give Chulin coins to people who sell flour in order to supply [Hekdesh] at the price of four.
åàôéìå ìîàï ãçééù ùîà ìà éîñøåí éôä áôø÷ äáéú åäòìéä (ùí ãó ÷éç.) âáé ùåîøé ñôéçéí áùáéòéú ãàéï îúðãá ùåîø çðí
(m) Implied question: The one who is concerned lest he not hand over [to Hekdesh] well, in Bava Metzi'a (118a) regarding people who guard Sefichim in Shemitah, that one may not volunteer to guard for free [for the Omer, also here he should forbid, lest the rich people not hand over to Hekdesh properly]!
äëà ìéëà ìîéçù ãàôéìå ìà îñøå äòùéøéí éôä éôä îëì î÷åí îåëøé äñìúåú ù÷éáìå äîòåú îåñøéï àåúí éôä éôä
(n) Answer: Here there is no concern. Even if the rich people did not hand over well, in any case those who sell flour, who received the coins, hand over very well.
åëé úéîà àôéìå øéáéú ÷öåöä ìéùúøé ùéìåå äòùéøéí îàä ùì çåìéï ìùìí ìä÷ãù îàä åòùøéí ëãàùëçï áäæäá (á''î ãó ðæ:) âáé àáðé (áéú) [ö"ì áðéï - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã] äîñåøåú ìâéæáø
(o) Question: Even contracted Ribis should be permitted, that rich people lend 100 of Chulin to pay to Hekdesh 120, like we find in Bava Metzi'a (57b), regarding building rocks entrusted to a Gizbar!
ìà ãîé ãäúí äëì éåãòéí ùäàáðéí òåîãåú ìáðéï åìéëà ìîéâæø àèå äãéåè
(p) Answer #1: It is different. There, everyone knows that the rocks are destined for building. There is no need to decree about a commoner;
àáì äëà âæøéðï ãéìîà àúé ìîéîø ãëé îìåä îàä áîàä åë' ùøé àí ä÷ãéùåí àçø ëê ëé äéëé ãùøé ìäìååúï îàä ìùìí ìä÷ãù îàä åòùøéí
1. However, here we decree lest they come to say that when one lends 100 for 120, it is permitted if he is Makdish them afterwards, just like it is permitted to lend 100 [in order] to pay to Hekdesh 120.
åòåã (ãàôéìå ëé äàé âååðà àñåø) [ö"ì ãëé äàé âååðà àñåø àôéìå - öàï ÷ãùéí] îãàåøééúà ãçùéá ëàéìå äåéà äðàä ìîìåä ëéåï ã÷òáéã òì ôéå
(q) Answer #2: Such a case is forbidden even mid'Oraisa, for it is considered as if there is Hana'ah to the lender, since [the borrower] does (gives to Hekdesh) due to his words;
(ëâåï) [ö"ì åäåé ëîå - öàï ÷ãùéí] úï îðä ìôìåðé åà÷ãù àðé ìê ãî÷åãùú îãéï òøá
1. This is like "give 100 [Zuz] to Ploni and I will be Mekudeshes to you." She is Mekudeshes due to the law of Arev (a guarantor becomes liable, for since the lender gives to the borrower based on the Arev's words, it is as if he gave to the Arev. When he gives to Ploni, it is as if he gives to her. Here, when the borrower gives to Hekdesh, it is as if he gives to the lender.)
åìà ãîé ìàáðé áðéï ùàéï ìâæáø çì÷ áäï
(r) Distinction: This is unlike building rocks. The Gizbar has no stake in them.
åìà ãîé ðîé ìù÷åì àøáò æåæé åìéîà ìéä ìôìðéà ãìåæôï æåæé ãäà ôùéèà åãàé ãàñåø ìîéîø ìçáøéä àðà îåæéôðà ìê æåæé åäá ìôìðéà àøáò æåæé
1. Also, it is unlike "take four Zuz and tell Ploni to lend money to me." Obviously, it is forbidden to say to a friend "I will lend to you money, and you will give to Ploni four Zuz."
6) TOSFOS DH mi'Shalosh v'Amdu me'Arba Mesapek me'Arba
úåñôåú ã"ä îùìù åòîãå îàøáò îñô÷ îàøáò
(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that according to R. Yehudah, the same applies to a person.)
áäà ìéëà ÷åìà áä÷ãù èôé îáäãéåè ìøáé éäåãä ãúðï áñåó àéæäå ðùê (á''î ãó òá:) àò''ô ùìà ôñ÷ òîå ëùòø äâáåä éëåì ìåîø ìå úï ìé ëæä àå úï ìé îòåúé
(a) Observation: Here there is no leniency for Hekdesh more than for a commoner, according to R. Yehudah, for in a Mishnah (Bava Metzi'a 72b, he) teaches that even if he did not contract with him at the high price, he can tell him "give to me like this, or give to me my coins."
7) TOSFOS DH Afilu Minchah Talmud Lomar Olah
úåñôåú ã"ä àôé' îðçä ú''ì òåìä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with the Gemara in Zevachim.)
úéîä ãáøéù äîæáç î÷ãù (æáçéí ãó ôâ:) îùîò ãîãëúéá òåìä ìà îîòèéðï îðçä âáé ëì äðåâò áîæáç é÷ãù
(a) Question: In Zevachim (83b) it connotes that from "Olah", we do not exclude a Minchah, regarding "whatever touches the Mizbe'ach becomes Kadosh";
ãàîøé' àé ëúéá òåìä åìà ëúéá ëáùéí äåä àîéðà ëì òåìéï àôé' îðçä
1. We say "had it written Olah, and not written Kevasim, one might have thought anything that ascends [on the Mizbe'ach], and even a Minchah"! (Here, Olah excludes a Minchah!)
åé''ì ãùàðé äúí ãëúéá ëì äðåâò ãîùîò ìøáåú
(b) Answer #1: There is different, for it is written Kol ha'Noge'a, which connotes to include.
àé ðîé æàú úåøú øéáä
(c) Answer #2: "Zos Toras [ha'Olah]" includes.
àé ðîé äëà âáé ðñëéí ãëåìï ìîæáç îñúáø òåìä îîù ãëåìä ëìéì
(d) Answer #3: Here, regarding Nesachim, which are totally for the Mizbe'ach, it is reasonable that [Olah teaches only] an actual Olah, which is totally Kalil.
8) TOSFOS DH Shelamim Minayin
úåñôåú ã"ä ùìîéí îðéï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we need another verse for Shelamim.)
åà''ú ùìîéí áäãéà ëúéáé (áîãáø èå) ìôìà ðãø àå ùìîéí ìä'
(a) Question: Shelamim is explicitly written - "Lefalei Neder Oh Shelamim la'Shem"!
åé''ì ãäà áøéùéä ãääåà ÷øà ëúéá åëé úòùä áï á÷ø åàúà æáç ìøáåéé îï äöàï
(b) Answer: At the beginning of that verse, it says "v'Chi Sa'aseh Ben Bakar." "Zevach" comes to include from Tzon (sheep and goats).
9) TOSFOS DH Shalmei Chagigah v'Olas Re'iyah
úåñôåú ã"ä ùìîé çâéâä åòåìú øàééä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why it mentioned these rather than Kivsei Atzeres.)
äåä îöé ìîéð÷è ëáùé òöøú
(a) Implied question: He could have mentioned Kivsei Atzeres!
àìà ð÷è ãáø äðåäâ áëì äøâìéí
(b) Answer: He mentioned something that applies on all Regalim.
10) TOSFOS DH Oh b'Mo'adeichem
úåñôåú ã"ä àå áîåòãéëí
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that the Drashah is from the latter word.)
îáîåòãéëí ãøéù ãì÷îï (ãó öà.) ãøéù àå àå
(a) Explanation: He expounds b'Mo'adeichem, for below (91a) he expounds "Oh Oh."
11) TOSFOS DH Ben Bakar bi'Chlal Hayah
úåñôåú ã"ä áï á÷ø áëìì äéä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the source for cattle.)
ôé' á÷åðèøñ áëìì åòùéúí àùä ãùîòéðï ëì äòåìä ìàéùéí
(a) Explanation (Rashi): It was included in "v'Asisem Isheh." We learn everything that ascends to the fire.
åáçðí ôé' ëï ãáäãéà ëúéá áôøùä (áîãáø èå) îï äá÷ø àå îï äöàï
(b) Objection #1: There was no need for him to explain so. It is explicitly written in the Parshah "Min ha'Bakar Oh Min ha'Tzon"!
åòåã ëúéá áúøéä åä÷øéá òì áï äá÷ø
(c) Objection #2: It says afterwards "v'Hikriv Al Ben ha'Bakar"!
åìùåï áëìì îùîò ëôé' ä÷åðèøñ
(d) Support (for Rashi): The wording "biChlal" connotes like Rashi (that it is not explicit).
12) TOSFOS DH Mah Ben Bakar Meyuchad Ba b'Neder Oh bi'Nedavah
úåñôåú ã"ä îä áï á÷ø îéåçã áà áðãø àå áðãáä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how we knew what to exclude.)
åîôé÷ ùòéøé çèàú èôé îùåí ãàéï ëéåöà áäï ðãáä àáì ùìîé (ãçâéâä) [ö"ì çâéâä - éùø åèåá] åòåìú øàééä ëéåöà áäï ðãáä:
(a) Explanation: We exclude Chatas goats more, for nothing like them comes for Nedavah. However, Olas Re'iyah, similar Korbanos are Nedavos.