1) TOSFOS DH Ad she'Yishchot Lishman v'Yizrok Daman Lishman
úåñôåú ã"ä òã ùéùçåè ìùîï åéæøå÷ ãîï ìùîï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses whether R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon really requires Zerikah.)
úéîä ìîä ìé æøé÷ä äà ô''÷ ãôñçéí (ã' éâ:) îñ÷éðï ãø' àìòæø áø' ùîòåï ñáø ìä ëàáåä ãàîø ëì äòåîã ìéæø÷ ëæøå÷ ãîé
(a) Question: Why is Zerikah needed? In Pesachim (13b) we conclude that R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon holds like his father, who says that anything destined to be thrown, it is as if it was thrown!
åúéøõ øéá''à æøé÷ä ùìà ìùîä âøéòä îðùôê ãí
(b) Answer (Riva): (They said so in a case when the blood spilled.) Zerikah Lo Lishmah is worse than if the blood spilled.
å÷ùä ãì÷îï ô' äîðçåú åäðñëéí (ã' ÷á.) îåëç ãàò''â ãðòùä ôñåì áæøé÷ä ùæø÷ òì îðú ìàëåì çåõ ìæîðï àîø ëì äòåîã ìéæø÷ ëæøå÷ ãîé
(c) Question: Below (102a) it is proven that even though it became Pasul through Zerikah, that he threw with intent to eat Chutz li'Zmano, he says that anything destined to be thrown, it is as if it was thrown!
åäëé àéúà áâî' äúí ìà ãôéâì áùçéèä åî÷ùä àáì ôéâì áæøé÷ä îàé äëé ðîé ãîèîà èåîàú àåëìéï ëå'
1. So it says in the Gemara there "no, he made Pigul in Shechitah." It asks "but if he made Pigul in Zerikah, what is the law - does it have Tum'as Ochlim?!..."
éù ìçì÷ ãùìà ìùîä òå÷ø ä÷øáï åòåùäå ÷øáï àçø
(d) Answer #1: We can distinguish. She'Lo Lishmah uproots the Korban and makes it another Korban.
àé ðîé äëà ðîé áòé ìîéîø åéäéä øàåé ìæøé÷ä
(e) Answer #2: Here [R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon] means [only] that it must be proper for Zerikah.
2) TOSFOS DH v'Es ha'Ayil Ya'aseh Zevach Shelamim
úåñôåú ã"ä åàú äàéì éòùä æáç ùìîéí
(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes that he learns from a Giluy Milsa.)
àéï ìôøù ãéìéó äëà îãàéú÷åù ìçîé úåãä ìùìîé ðæéø ëãéìôéðï ôø÷ äúåãä (ì÷îï ã' òç.) ùìîéå ìøáåú ùìîé ðæéø ìòùøä ÷áéï éøåùìîéåú
(a) Implied suggestion: Here he learns from the Hekesh of Lachmei Todah to Shalmei Nazir, like we learn below (78a) "Shelamav" to include [bread of] Shalmei Nazir for 10 Kabim Yerushalmiyos (six and two thirds Esronim);
åùúé äìçí ðîé àéú÷åù ììçîé úåãä ëããøéù ðîé äúí îúáéàå ùëì îä ùàúä îáéà ëæä
1. Also Shtei ha'Lechem is Hukash (equated) to Lachmei Todah, like it expounds there from "Tavi'u", that everything you bring is like this.
äà ìéúà ãà''ë äåä ìéä ìîã îï äìîã
(b) Rejection: If so, this is Lamed (something learned from something else) from Lamed. (In Kodshim, we cannot learn Hekeshim Lamed mi'Lamed.)
åàò''â ãäåä ìéä äéîðå åãáø àçø
1. Suggestion: This is [learning] from it and another matter!
àéëà ìîàï ãìà éìôéðï áñåó àéæäå î÷åîï (æáçéí ãó ðæ.) åô' äúåãä (ì÷îï ãó òç.)
2. Rejection: There is an opinion that we cannot learn [Lamed mi'Lamed, even from it and another matter], in Zevachim (57a) and below (78a)!
àìà âìåéé îéìúà áòìîà äåé åéìôéðï ùôéø
(c) Explanation: Rather, it is a mere Giluy Milsa [to learn Todah from Eil Nazir], and we properly learn [Shtei ha'Lechem from Todah].
åîéäå ÷ùä ãà''ë àîàé àéöèøéê ÷øà áúåãä òì çìåú ìçí çîõ é÷øéá ÷øáðå òì æáç îìîã ùàéï äìçí ÷ãåù àìà áùçéèú äæáç
(d) Question #1: If so, why do we need a verse for Todah "Al Chalos Lechem Chametz Yakriv Korbano Al Zevach" to teach that the bread is Kadosh only through Shechitas ha'Zevach"? (Yashar v'Tov - if we learned from a Hekesh, we would need this verse to write so explicitly about Todah in order to teach about Kivsei Atzeres, for we cannot learn Hekesh mi'Hekesh.)
åúå ø' àìòæø áø' ùîòåï ããøéù ëì òùéåú âáé äúåãä ìà ëúéá òùéä åâáé úåãä ðîé ôìéâ ëãàé' ô''÷ ãôñçéí (ãó éâ:) åáúåñôúà (ãæáçéí) [ö"ì îðçåú ä:â - âîøà òåæ åäãø]
(e) Question #2: R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon expounds all Asiyos (actions, are needed to be Mekadesh the bread). Regarding Todah it is not written Asiyah, and he argues also about Todah , like it says in Pesachim (13b) and in the Tosefta of Menachos (5:3)! (If there were a Hekesh, we could say that he learns from Eil Nazir to require all actions. Al Zevach is needed to obligate bread at the time of Shechitah, so Todah is learned from [a Hekesh] and something else, and it can teach to Shtei ha'Lechem.)
åé''ì ãäåä àîéðà îã÷øééä øçîðà ùìîéí ãìà î÷ãùé ìçí ëé ùìîéí
(f) Answer: One might have thought that since the Torah called [Todah] Shelamim, the bread is not Kadosh, just like Shelamim [is not Mekadesh bread];
åðæéø ðîé ìà ñâé áìà ÷øà ëîå âáé úåãä îùåí ã÷øééä øçîðà ùìîéí
1. Also [Eil] Nazir we would not know without a verse, like regarding Todah, because the Torah called it Shelamim.
åìø''à áø''ù ðîé ëéåï ãâìé ÷øà áðæéø ãáëì òùéåú ä÷éãåù úìåé äåà äãéï áëåìäå
2. And also according to R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon, since the Torah revealed about [Eil] Nazir that the Kidush depends on all the actions, the same applies to all of them (Todah and Shtei ha'Lechem, from a Giluy Milsa).
3) TOSFOS DH ba'Meh Ya'aseh bi'Zevichah
úåñôåú ã"ä áîä éòùä áæáéçä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks how elsewhere, we expound from here Shinuy Ba'alim.)
úéîä ãáô''÷ ãæáçéí (ãó ã:) ãøéù îëàï ùéðåé áòìéí åãøéù ìëì òùéåú ðéîà ãìà (ëø''à áø''ù) [ö"ì ëøáé - èäøú ä÷åãù]
(a) Question: In Zevachim (4b, the Gemara) expounds from here Shinuy Ba'alim (Avodah with intent for one who is not the owner, since it need not teach about Shinuy Kodesh), and expounds for all actions. We should say that this is unlike Rebbi!
åé''ì åãàé ùîòé' ùôéø úøúé
(b) Answer: Surely, we properly learn both [Shechitah and all actions from Ya'aseh. However, regarding the bread, since it did not write Zevach Ya'aseh, rather, Ya'aseh Zevach, it refers only to Shechitah.]
åö''ò ìøáé îðà ìéä ùéðåé áòìéí (åö''ò - éùø åèåá îåç÷å)
(c) Question: According to Rebbi, this requires investigation. What is his source for Shinuy Ba'alim (for all actions? - Yashar v'Tov. Taharas ha'Kodesh changes the text to ask according to R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon. If Ya'aseh was written about Shinuy Kodesh, and we need it to teach all actions, it is not extra to teach about Shinuy Ba'alim!)
4) TOSFOS DH she'Yehei Lechem b'Sha'as Shechitah
úåñôåú ã"ä ùéäà ìçí áùòú ùçéèä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses whether there must be bread even from the time of Tenufah.)
úéîä äà îùòú úðåôä áòé ìçí åàò''â ãìà îòëá øàåé îéäà áòéðï
(a) Question: We require bread from the time of Tenufah! Even though [Tenufah] is not Me'akev, it must be Ra'uy (proper for Tenufah, i.e. there is bread)!
åùîà àôé' øàåé ìà áòéðï
(b) Answer #1: Perhaps we do not require even Ra'uy.
åòåã ùîà àúà ìîéîø ãáùòú ùçéèä áòéðï ùéäà áôðéí àò''â ãëùø áéåöà
(c) Answer #2: Perhaps it comes to teach that at the time of Shechitah, the bread must be inside, even though it is Kosher if it left.
5) TOSFOS DH b'Kuntres Garas... l'Abaye Lo Tafis Pidyono l'Rava Tafis Pidyono
úåñôåú ã"ä á÷åðèøñ âøñ... ìàáéé ìà úôéñ ôãéåðå ìøáà úôéñ ôãéåðå
(SUMMARY: Tosfos affirms this text, but explains unlike Rashi.)
åôé' ìàáéé ìà àìéîà ÷ãåùúà ëåìé äàé ùéäà ðôãä
(a) Explanation: According to Abaye, the Kedushah is not so strong that it should be redeemed.
åëä''â àéëà ÷öú ô''á ãáëåøåú (ãó èå:) âáé åìãåú áòìé îåîéï ëåðñï ìëéôä
(b) Support: It is a little like this in Bechoros (15b) regarding offspring of [Kodshim that are] Ba'alei Mumim. We enter them into a cell [to starve];
äéëé ìéòáã ìé÷øáéðäå îëç ÷ãåùä ãçåééä àúééï ìéôø÷éðäå ìà àìéîé ìîéúôñ ôãéåðï
1. Citation (15b): What [else] could we do? We cannot offer them, for they come from a Kedushah Dechuyah (they could not be offered). We cannot redeem them, for [their Kedushah] is not strong enough to be Tofes their Pidyon!
åäùúà áòé ìàáéé îàé áéðééäå ëéåï ãìøáé ìà àìéîé ÷ãåùúà ëì ùëï ìø''à áø''ù
(c) Explanation (cont.): Now, we ask according to Abaye, what is the difference between [the Tana'im]? Since according to Rebbi its Kedushah is not strong enough to be Tofes its Pidyon, all the more so according to R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon!
å÷ùä ãìàáéé ðîé ìéáòé àìéáà ãøáé îä áéï ùåçèï ìùîï ìùåçèï ùìà ìùîï ãë''ù ãìà àìéí ìîéúôñ ôãéåðå
(d) Question #1: According to Abaye, we should ask also what is the difference if he slaughters them Lishmah or Lo Lishmah? All the more so [Lo Lishmah, its Kedushah] is not strong enough to be Tofes its Pidyon!
ãäà ìø''à áø''ù ìà îäðé ùçéèä îéãé åîù''ä ìà úôéñ ôãéåðå
1. According to R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon, Shechitah does not help at all, and it is not Tofes its Pidyon!
åúå ãáôñçéí (ãó éâ:) îùîò àéôëà ãìøáé ìà úôéñ åìø''à áø''ù úôéñ
(e) Question #2: In Pesachim (13b) it connotes oppositely. According to Rebbi it is not Tofes (its Pidyon), and according to R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon it is Tofes!
åì÷îï (ãó îç.) ðîé ìø''à áø''ù ôåãï áçåõ
(f) Question #3: Below (48a) it says according to R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon that he redeems them outside!
åùîà åãàé ëé àéï úðåôä å÷ãåùú úðåø ìà ÷ãéù àìà ÷ãåùú ôä åîéôøé÷
(g) Answer: Perhaps surely, when there is no Tenufah and Kedushas Tanur (due to the oven), it has only Kedushas Peh (verbal), and it can be redeemed;
àáì äëà [ãàéëà ùçéèä åúðåôä åúðåø] ìäëé ìà îéôøé÷ åëãôøéùéú ìòéì
1. However, here there is Shechitah, Tenufah or [Kedushas] Tanur (due to the oven). Therefore it cannot be redeemed, like I explained (46a DH Eizeh. In Pesachim, regarding Todah, there is only Shechitah. Therefore, it is Tofes its Pidyon. Here, with Shechitah there is Tenufah or Kedushas Tanur. They join to be Mekadesh the bread, so it cannot be Tofes its Pidyon.)
åôé' ä÷åðè' (ãôé' ìàáéé ðôãä åìøáà àéðå ðôãä) [ö"ì ùôéøù äâéøñà ìàáéé úôéñ ôãéåðå ìøáà ìà úôéñ ôãéåðå - éùø åèåá] ö''ò ãúçéìä ôé' ìøàá''ù àéðå ÷ãåù ëìì åðôé÷ ìçåìéï ìâîøé åìáñåó ôéøù åë''ù ìøàá''ù
(h) Question: Rashi explained this text that according to Abaye it is Tofes its Pidyon, and according to Rava it is not Tofes its Pidyon. This requires investigation, for initially he explained that according to R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon it is not Kadosh at all, and at the end he explained that all the more so, according to R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon [one may not eat it]!
åìôéøåùå (ì''ã ìàáéé) [ö"ì ìà ãîé ìøáé - éùø åèåá] ÷ãåù èôé ãàìéí ãìà ðôé÷ [ìçåìéï åìøàá''ù ðôé÷ ìçåìéï]
1. According to his Perush, this is different. According to Rebbi it is more Kadosh, for it is strong and it does not become Chulin, and according to R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon it becomes Chulin!
åéúëï éåúø âéøñà àçøéúé
(i) Remark: [According to Rashi's Perush] another text would be better.
åîéäå âéøñú ä÷åðèøñ ðëåðä ìàáéé úôéñ åìøáà ìà úôéñ åäùúà àéëà áéðééäå áî÷åîåú àçøéí åãç÷éðï ìàùëåçé äëà îàé áéðééäå:
(j) Conclusion: Rashi's text is correct (but his Perush is not). According to Abaye it is Tofes [its Pidyon], and according to Rava it is not Tofes. Now there is a difference between them elsewhere, and we struggle to find what they argue about here. (Yashar v'Tov - above (46a DH Eizeh, Tosfos explained that according to Abaye it does not become Chulin due to Kedushas Tanur. R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon holds that the oven is not Mekadesh, and it becomes Chulin! The Gemara did not say that they argue about this, for it depends on the argument of whether the oven is Mekadesh.)
47b----------------------------------------47b
6) TOSFOS DH d'Tanan Eimurei Kodshim Kalim v'Chulei
úåñôåú ã"ä ãúðï àéîåøé ÷ãùéí ÷ìéí ëå'
(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks why he did not bring from the Reisha.)
úéîä ãìà îééúé øéùà ãúðï áùø ÷ãùé ÷ãùéí ùéöà ìôðé æøé÷ú ãîéí øáé àìéòæø àåîø åëå'
(a) Question: Why doesn't he bring the Reisha, which taught "meat of Kodshei Kodoshim that left before Zerikah - R. Eliezer says..."?
7) TOSFOS DH Pigul
úåñôåú ã"ä ôéâåì
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why R. Eliezer exempts for Pigul, Nosar and Tamei.)
îôøù äúí ëäøöàú ëùø ëê äøöàú ôñåì åîä äøöàú ëùø òã ùé÷øáå ëì îúéøéï åëå'
(a) Explanation: It explains there (Zevachim 28b) that like Hartza'as (what makes acceptable) Kosher, so is Hartza'as Pigul (Pigul requires that all Avodos were done properly, except for intents Chutz li'Zmano). What is Hartza'as Kosher? All the Matirim must be offered...
åèîà äðéúø ìèäåøéí çééáéï òìéäí îùåí èåîàä ùàéðå ðéúø ìà
1. And [liability for eating Kodshim when one is] Tamei - what is permitted to Tehorim, one is liable for it for Tum'ah, and what is not permitted, no;
åðåúø éìéó çéìåì îèîà
2. And we learn Nosar from [a Gezeirah Shavah] "Chilul-Chilul" from Tamei.
8) TOSFOS DH Kav'ah Lechem b'Pigul Ki Basar
úåñôåú ã"ä ÷áòä ìçí áôéâåì ëé áùø
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the two sides of the question.)
àìîà ëâåôéä ãæéáçà ãîé äëà ðîé ëéåï ãæáç ðéúø áæøé÷ä ùìà ìùîï ìçí ðîé ëéåï ãëâåôé' ãæáç ãîé
(a) Explanation: (The bread becomes Pigul like meat.) This shows that it is like the Zevach itself. Likewise, since the Zevach is permitted through Zerikah Lo Lishmah, also the bread, since it is like the Zevach itself;
àå ãìîà ìçåîøà àîøéðï ì÷åìà ìà àîøéðï ùéäà ëé âåôéä ãæáç
1. Or, perhaps we say that it is like the Zevach itself to be stringent, but we do not say so to lenient.
9) TOSFOS DH uv'Hadar Ailinhu Pligi
úåñôåú ã"ä åáäãø òééìéðäå ôìéâé
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this refers only to the bread.)
àìçí ÷àé àáì ààéîåøéï (àôé') ëé ìà äãø òééìéðäå ôìéâé åëï îåëç ô' äúãéø (æáçéí ã' ö.)
(a) Explanation: This refers to the bread, but the Eimurim, even if he did not return them inside [the Azarah], they argue. This is proven in Zevachim (90a).
10) TOSFOS DH v'Einah Motzi'ah mi'Ydei Me'ilah
úåñôåú ã"ä åàéðä îåöéàä îéãé îòéìä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos says that the Mishnah in Me'ilah is not difficult for Rav Gidal.)
ááùø ÷ãùé ÷ãùéí
(a) Explanation: [It does not remove Me'ilah from] meat of Kodshei Kodoshim.
úéîä ãäà úðï ô''à ãîòéìä (ãó á.) àéæå äéà ùìà äéúä ìä ùòú äéúø ìëäðéí ùðùçèä çåõ ìæîðä îùîò ãëé ðùçèä áäéúø ìà îöé îùëç
(b) Question: A Mishnah in Me'ilah (2a) teaches 'what did not have Sha'as Heter to Kohanim? It was slaughtered Chutz li'Zmano." This implies that if it was slaughtered b'Heter, we cannot find [that it did not have Sha'as Heter to Kohanim]!
åìàå ÷åùéà äéà
(c) Remark: This is not difficult. (Yashar v'Tov - the Mishnah is not difficult for Rav Gidal. It cannot discuss before Zerikah, for then Me'ilah applies even if Shechitah was Kosher.)
11) TOSFOS DH v'Lav Itosav Rav Gidal
úåñôåú ã"ä åìàå àéúåúá øá âéãì
(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that the Gemara answered there for Rav Gidal.)
åìà çùéá ùéðåéà ãäúí ãøéù îòéìä ãøá ôôà äåà ãî÷ùä ìä äúí åìà ñ''ì ääåà ùéðåéé'
(a) Explanation: (Our Sugya says that he was refuted.) It does not consider the answer given there (Me'ilah 3b) to be a proper answer, for Rav Papa (who explains here unlike Rav Gidal) challenged [Rav Gidal] there, and he does not hold like the answer.
îéäå úéîä ãäúí áñåó ùîòúéï (âí æä ùí) îééúé ìéä ñéåò
(b) Question: However, this is astounding, for at the end of the Sugya (there, 4a), it brings a support for [Rav Gidal]!
åàéú ãâøñé åìà àéúåúá øá âéãì áðéçåúà
(c) Answer: Some texts say here "and Rav Gidal was not refuted" b'Nichusa (not in astonishment).
åàéðå ðøàä
(d) Rebuttal: This is not correct.
12) TOSFOS DH Mahu she'Yizrok Daman she'Lo Lishman
úåñôåú ã"ä îäå ùéæøå÷ ãîï ùìà ìùîï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with what R. Yirmeyah taught above.)
ìø' éøîéä ãàîø [ö"ì ãàé - éùø åèåá] úðåôä òåùä æé÷ä àáã äìçí àáãå äëáùéí
(a) Implied question: Why did R. Yirmeyah say (46a) that if Tenufah makes Zikah, if the bread was lost, the lambs are lost? (Here he was unsure whether one may throw the blood Lo Lishmah to permit the lambs!)
ã÷åãí ùçéèä ìà ùøéðï ìùðåéé àáì äéëà ãëáø ðùçèä ùøéðï ìùðåéé ëãé ìú÷åðé æáçà
1. Before Shechitah we do not permit Shinuy (Lo Lishmah). However, if it was already slaughtered, [perhaps] we permit Shinuy in order to fix the Zevach.
13) TOSFOS DH v'Harei Pesach Achar Chatzos
úåñôåú ã"ä åäøé ôñç àçø çöåú
(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out another answer that he could have given.)
îöé ìùðåéé ëãîùðé ô' áúøà ãæáçéí (ãó ÷èå.) ùàðé ôñç ãáùàø éîåú äùðä ùìîéí äåé
(a) Observation: He could have answered like [the Gemara] answers in Zevachim (115a) that Pesach is different, for at other times of the year it is a Shelamim.
14) TOSFOS DH v'Harei Todah
úåñôåú ã"ä åäøé úåãä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the question and the answer.)
ãàí ðôøñ äìçí àå ùàáã åðæø÷ äãí ìùîä ôñåìä ãäà àáã äìçí àáãä äúåãä
(a) Explanation: If the bread became Chaser or it was lost and the blood was thrown Lishmah, it is Pasul, for if the bread was lost, the Todah was lost;
ãìéú ìéä ñåâéà ãìòéì (ãó îå:) àìà ÷ñáø ãùìà ìùîï [áòé ìîæø÷] åëé æøé÷ ùìà ìùîä ëùø
1. [The Makshan] disagrees with the Sugya above (46b). Rather, he holds that he should throw Lo Lishmah, and when he throws Lo Lishmah, it is Kosher.
åîùðé ùàðé úåãä ã÷øééä øçîðà ùìîéí äìëê ìëúçìä éëåì ìæøå÷ ìùí (ùìîéí) [ö"ì úåãä - äâäú ÷øï àåøä] ëé àáã äìçí
(b) Explanation (cont.): [The Gemara] answers that Todah is different, for the Torah called it Shelamim. Therefore, l'Chatchilah one may throw the blood l'Shem Todah when the bread was lost.
åäî÷ùä äéä éëåì ìä÷ùåú ëîå ùä÷ùä ìîòìä åäà ëéåï ãùçéèä òåùä æé÷ä àéôñéì ìçí úéôñéì ðîé úåãä
(c) Observation: The Makshan could have asked like he asked above - since Shechitah makes Zikah, if the bread became Pasul, also the Todah became Pasul!
å÷ùä îàé ùðé ùàðé úåãä ã÷øééä øçîðà ùìîéí äåì''ì ìàå îéìúà äéà ãìùîå ðîé ëùø
(d) Question: What was the answer "Todah is different, for the Torah called it Shelamim"? It should have said that this is not correct, for it is Kosher also Lishmah!
àìà ðøàä ìôøù ãåãàé ìùí úåãä ôñåìä åôøéê ùôéø åîùðé ãìùí ùìîéí ðîé ìùîä îé÷øé åäéìëê ìà îéôñìà áäëé
(e) Explanation #2: Surely, l'Shem Todah is Pasul. [The Gemara] asks properly, and answers that also l'Shem Shelamim is called Lishmah. Therefore, it is not disqualified through this;
àáì ìùí úåãä ôñåì ãìà äåé áìà ìçí
1. However, l'Shem Todah is Pasul, for it cannot be without bread.
åàôé' [ö"ì ìî"ã - öàï ÷ãùéí] áôñç ãìà áòé ò÷éøä
(f) Implied question: There is an opinion that Pesach does not require Akirah! (If one slaughters it at any other time, automatically it is a Shelamim. We should say the same about Todah without bread!)
äëà ùàðé ãëáø ðùçèä [ìùí úåãä îù''ä áòé ò÷éøä]
(g) Answer: Here is different, for it was already slaughtered l'Shem Todah. Therefore, it requires Akirah.
15) TOSFOS DH Moshech Shetayim Mehen u'Manifan
úåñôåú ã"ä îåùê ùúéí îäï åîðéôï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes that he waves two at a time, and every pair is waved.)
ìîàé ãîå÷é ìä ëøáé öøéê ìåîø ùîðéó ëåìí ãäà ìà éãòé' äé à÷ãéù
(a) Assertion: According to this that we establish this like Rebbi (48a), we must say that he waves all of them, for we do not know which he was Makdish.
åúéîä ãëéåï ãáúðåôä ùàçø ùçéèä àééøé à''ë ìéîà åæåø÷ àú äãí òìéäï ëãîæëéø úðåôä ãìà öøéê
(b) Question #1: Since he discusses Tenufah after Shechitah, if so, he should say that he throws the blood for them, like he mentions Tenufah without need (he merely narrates the Avodah. Below, Tosfos will explain that there is a Chidush about how he does Tenufah. If so, this is not difficult.)
åòåã ãìéùðà ìà îùîò ùéðéó äã'
(c) Question #2: The wording does not connote that he waves the four!
åðøàä ìôøù ðåèì àçú åîðéó äùìù àçøåú (òîäï) [ö"ì òîä - ç÷ ðúï] æå àçø æå åëï áùðéä åëï áùìéùéú åëï áøáéòéú
(d) Answer: He takes one and waves the three others with it [one at a time], one after the other, and similarly for the second, and the third and the fourth;
åäùúà àåøé ìï ùöøéê ùìà éðéó äã' ááú àçú ëãé ùéäà ðéëø ùìà éæø÷ äãí ø÷ òì äùúéí:
1. Now, he teaches us that he must not wave the four at once, in order that it will be evident that he does Zerikas Dam only for the two.