1)

TOSFOS DH AMAR RAVA IM KEIN

úåñ' ã"ä àîø øáà à"ë

(Summary: Tosfos explains the statement and elaborates.)

ôéøåù àé î÷ãéù òåùä úîåøä, îöéðå öéáåø åùåúôéï òåùéï úîåøä - ëâåï ãùåå ùìéçà ìà÷ãåùéä ìäúëôø áä äí, åäùìéç éîéø áä àò"ô ùäåà ÷øáï öéáåø ...

(a)

Explaining the Question: If the owner makes the Temurah, we find the Tzibur and partners making a Temurah - i.e. where they appointed a Shali'ach to be Makdish it on their behalf, and the Shali'ach makes the Temurah, even though it is a Korban Tzibur.

ïáùìäé ôø÷éï úðé ,éöàå ÷øáðåú öéáåø ùàôéìå éçéã àéï òåùä áäí úîåøä?

1.

Explaining the Question (cont.): Whereas in this Perek we learned in a Beraisa - 'to preclude Korb'nos Tzibur, on which even a Yachid cannot make a Temurah?

àáì ìà îöéðå ìîéîø àé îúëôø òåùä úîåøä, îöéðå öáåø åùåúôéï òåùéï úîåøä - ëâåï ãàéú÷ãåù áäîä ìäúëôø áä éçéãé ...

(b)

Refuted Explanation: But we cannot say that if the person being atoned for makes the Temurah, we find the Tzibur and partners making a Temurah - i.e. where he declared Hekdesh an animal on behalf of a single person (See Shitah Mekubetzes, Hashmatos) ...

ãëéåï ãéçéã îúëôø áä, ìàå ãöáåø äéà àìà ãéçéã.

1.

Refutation: Because since it is a single person who is receiving the Kaparah, it does belongs, not to the Tzibur, but to the Yachid.

2)

TOSFOS DH ITMAR BAR PADA

úåñ' ã"ä àéúîø áø ôãà

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the identity of bar Pada.)

æäå áø ôãà áï àçåúå ùì áø ÷ôøà ...

(a)

Clarifying Identity: This refers to bar Pada, the son of bar Kapara's sister ...

ëãàéúà ô' ÷îà ãîòéìä (ãó ã:) 'à"ì áø ÷ôøà ìáø ôãà "áï àçåúé "øàä îä àúä ùåàìðé ìîçø áá"ä" '.

(b)

Proof: As we find in the Gemara in Me'ilah (Daf 4a) 'bar Kapara said to bar Pada "My sister's son, See what you will ask me tomorrow in the Beis-ha'Medrash" '.

åàéï æä áï ôãú, ãáï ôãú äåà ø"à áï ôãú.

(c)

Refuted Identity: It is not ben P'das, who is alias Rebbi Elazar ben P'das.

3)

TOSFOS DH V'EIN KEDUSHAH CHALAH AL HA'UBRIN

úåñ' ã"ä åàéï ÷ãåùä çìä òì äòåáøéí

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the statement in detail (.

ùàí ä÷ãéù òåáø áîòé àîå áäîú çåìéï àéðå ÷ãåù ìé÷øá, åàé î÷øéá ìéä ëùðåìã åìà à÷ãùéä îùðåìã, îééúé çåìéï áòæøä.

(a)

Clarification: Inasmuch as if one is Makdish an Ubar in its mother's womb, it is Chulin, and not Kadosh to be brought on the Mizbe'ach, and if one brings it after it is born without declaring it Hekdesh, one is bringing Chulin into the Azarah.

åàí äôøéù çèàú îòåáøú, ìà äåå ëùúé çèàåú ìàçøéåú ...

1.

Clarification (cont.): Also, if one designates a pregnant Chatas, it is not considered two Chata'os regarding the Din of Achrayos ...

ãòåáø îëç àéîéä äåà ã÷ãéù åìà îëç òöîå ...

2.

Clarification (cont.): Since the fetus is Hekdesh on account of its mother and not in its own right ...

åäåé ëååìã çèàú - åìîéúä àæéì ...

3.

Clarification (concl.): Bu it is the baby of a Chatas, which must die.

åëï ìëì ãáøéå äøé äåà ëååìãåú ÷ãùéí åìà ëúçéìú ä÷ãù.

(b)

Clarification: And so in all regards it has the Din of a V'lad Chatas and not of a newly-appointed Hekdesh animal.

4)

TOSFOS DH V'REBBI YOCHANAN AMAR KEDUSHAH CHALAH AL HA'UBRIN

úåñ' ã"ä åøáé éåçðï àîø ÷ãåùä çìä òì äòåáøéï

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the statement in detail (.

åàí ä÷ãéù òåáø áîòé àîå çåìéï, ÷ãéù; åàí äôøéù çèàú îòåáøú äåé ëîôøéù ùúé çèàåú ìàçøéåú ...

(a)

Clarification: If one is Makdish a fetus inside the womb of a Chulin animal, the Kedushah takes effect; and if one designates a pregnant Chatas it is akin to designating two Chata'os for Achrayos.

åìà äåé ëåìã çèàú, àìà äåìã ÷ãåùúå ÷ãåùú äôä îëç äàãí åìà îëç äàí.

1.

Clarification (cont.): It is ot like a V'lad Chatas, only the baby is Kadosh Kedushas ha'Peh (by verbal declaration) via the owner and not via its mother.

åìà îöéðå åìã çèàú ãàæéì ìîéúä àìà áî÷ãéù çèàú øé÷ðéú åòéáøä.

(b)

Conclusion: And we do not find a V'lad Chatas that dies unless one declares Hekdesh a Chatas which subsequently became pregnant.

5)

TOSFOS DH V'AZDA REBBI YOCHANAN L'TA'AMEIH ETC. RATZAH BI'VELADAH MISKAPER

úåñ' ã"ä åàæãà øáé éåçðï ìèòîéä [ëå'] øöä áåìãä îúëôø

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies Rebbi Yochanan's opinion and elaborates.)

ôéøåù åàéï öøéê ÷ãåùä àçøú - åäåé ëîôøéù ùúé çèàåú ìàçøéåú ...

(a)

Authentic Explanation: And it is not necessary to declare another Kedushah - It is as if he designated two Chata'os for Achrayus ...

ùîò îéðä ãàéú ìéä ìø' éåçðï ÷ãåùä çìä òì äòåáøéï ...

1.

Authentic Explanation (cont.): So we see that Rebbi Yochanan holds that Kedushah takes effect on Ubrin.

ãàé ñì÷à ãòúê ãàéï ÷ãåùä çìä, éöèøê ÷ãåùä àçøú àçø ùðåìã.

(b)

Proof: Because if he held that it does not, it would require another Kedushah after it was born.

àáì àéï ìôøù îãìà àæéì ìîéúä, ùîò îéðä ã÷ãåùä çìä ...

(c)

Refuted Explanation: But one cannot explain that the fact that it does not die proves that the Kedushah takes effect ...

ãäàé (àé) àôùø ìåîø ãàó ò"â ãàéï ÷ãåùä çìä òì äòåáø, àôéìå äëé ìà àæéì äåìã ìîéúä ...

(d)

Refutation: Since one can say (See marginal note) there that even if the Kedushah does not take effect on an Ubar, the baby does not die ...

ãùîòéðï ìéä ìø' éåçðï ãàéú ìéä 'ùééøå îùåééø' ...

1.

Reason: Because Rebbi Yochanan holds 'Shayrei Meshuyar' (If one leaves over the Kedushah, it is left over' ...

åàé àîø òì áäîä ùì çåìéï 'äéà ÷ãù ååìãä çåìéï', äøùåú áéãå - ã'òåáø ìàå éøê àîå äåà'.

2.

Reason (cont.): And if one declares on a Chulin animal 'It is Kodesh and its baby Chulin', this is permissible - because 'A fetus is not part of the mother' ...

åëï îôøù äù"ñ ì÷îï ô' ëéöã îòøéîéï (ãó ëä.) ...

(e)

Proof: And this is what the Gemara says later on in Perek Keitzad Ma'arimin (Daf 25a).

àìà òé÷ø ääåëçä äåà ãîã÷àîø 'øöä áåìãä îúëôø', åîùîò ãàéï öøéê ìà÷ãåùéä æéîðà àçøéúé àçø ùðåìã - ãîùä÷ãéù äàí äåìã ÷ãåù òì ôéå åìà îëç äàí.

(f)

Authentic Explanation (cont.): The chief proof is from the statement 'Ratzah bi'Veladah Miskaper', implying that it is not necessary to declare it Kadosh again after it is born - because that once he was Makdish the mother, the baby became Kadosh via his declaration, and not via its mother.

å÷"÷, îä ùôéøù øù"é æ"ì ìáø ôãà ãàîø 'àéï ÷ãåùä çìä òì äòåáøéï' ...

(g)

Introduction to question: Rashi explains that, according to bar Pada, who says that 'Kedushah does not take effect on Ubrin' ...

åðô÷à îéðä ãàí äôøéù çèàú îòåáøú, äåä ìéä åìã çèàú åìîéúä àæìà ...

1.

Introduction to question (cont.): The ramifications of which are that if he separated a pregnant Chatas, the fetus has the status of the baby of a Chatas and must die.

îðìï? ãìîà àó òì âá ãàéï ÷ãåùä çìä, ìà àæéì ìîéúä - ãùîà àéú ìéä 'ùééøå îùåééø', åìàå éøê àîå äåà, ëãôéøùðå?

(h)

Question: From where does he know this? It may well be that although the Kedushah does not take effect, it does not die - Perhaps he holds 'Shayro Meshuyar', and it is not part of the mother, as Tosfos just explained?

10b----------------------------------------10b

åé"ì, ãò"ë àéú ìéä ìáø ôãà ã'ùééøå àéðå îùåééø' ...

(i)

Answer: bar Pada has to hold 'Shayro Eino Meshuyar' ...

ãàí ìà ëï ú÷ùä ìéä îîúðé' (åìã ùìîéí) ãôø÷ ëéöã îòøéîéï ãúðï (ì÷îï ëã:) ' "åìãä ùì æå òåìä åäéà ùìîéí", ãáøéå ÷ééîéï; "äéà ùìîéí ååìãä òåìä", äøé æä ååìã ùìîéí' ...

1.

Reason: Because otherwise, we can query him from the Mishnah in Keitzad Ma'arimin (Daf 24b) - ' "V'ladah shel Zu Shelamim ve'Hi Olah", Devarav Kayamin; "Hi Shelamim u'V'ladah Olah", harei Zeh V'lad Shelamim' ...

åàé àéú ìéä ìáø ôãà ã'ùééøå îùåééø', àîàé åìãä ùìîéí - äà àé áòé äåä îùééø äåìã áçåìéï?

(j)

Answer (cont.): Because if bar Pada held 'Shayro Meshuyar' why (in the latter case) is the baby a Shelamim - bearing in mind that, had he wanted, he could have left over the baby as Chulin?

ãáùìîà ø' éåçðï ãàîø ,'÷ãåùä çìä òì äòåáøéï' - îéã ãàîø 'äéà ùìîéí', ãòúéä ðîé ì÷ãåùé äåìã áùìîéí åäåé äåìã ùìîéí òì ÷ãåùú ôéå, åìà îèåðéä ãàí ...

1.

Answer (cont.): It would be fine according to Rebbi Yochanan, who holds 'Kedushah takes effect on Ubrin' - the moment he declares 'Hi Shelamim', he has in mind to sanctify the baby (too) as a Shelamim and it is a Shelamim via his declaration, and not on account of its mother ...

àáì ìáø ôãà ãàîø '÷ãåùä àéðä çìä òì äòåáøéï', àéï äåìã ÷ãåù òì ôéå àìà îëç ãàí ...

2.

Answer (cont.): But according to bar Pada, who holds that 'Kedushah does not take effect on Ubrin', the baby is sanctified, not via his declaration but via its mother

åàí ñáéøà ìéä ã'ùééøå îùåééø', àîàé àéï äåìã òåìä? ...

3.

Answer (cont.): So if he were to hold 'Shayro Meshuyar', why would the baby not be an Olah?

àìà ùîò îéðä ãöøéê ìåîø ãîéã ùäàí ÷ãåùä, ÷ãåù äåìã îëç äàí.

(k)

Conclusion: This is therefore a proof that we need to say (that, according to him) as soon as the mother becomes sanctified, the baby becomes sanctified via the mother.

åà"ú, ëéåï ãàéï ÷ãåùä çìä òì äòåáøéï, äéëé ÷àîø 'åìãä òåìä åäéà ùìîéí, ãáøéå ÷ééîéï'?

(l)

Question: Seeing as Kedushah is not effective on the Ubrin, how can the Tana say 'V'ladah Olah ve'Hi Shelamim, Devarav Kayamin'?

åé"ì, ãìãîéí ÷àîø.

(m)

Answer: He means for its monetary value.

åà"ú, äéëé àôùø ã÷ãåùä çìä òì äòåáøéï, åäà àîø ãàñåø ìä÷ãéù îçåñø æîï?

(n)

Question #1: How can Kedushah take effect on Ubrin, bearing in mind that one cannot declare Kadosh a Mechusar Z'man (before the allotted time)?

åì÷îï àîøéðï (ôø÷) 'ëéöã îòøéîéï òì äáëåø? (âí æä ùí) äîáëøú ùäéúä îòåáøú, àîø "îä ùáîòé áäîä àí æëø òåìä" - àìîà ãàôéìå ìëúçéìä îöé î÷ãéù ìéä ...

(o)

Introduction to Question #2: Later, in answer to the question how one is Ma'arim ('cheats') on a B'chor, the Gemara answers 'If an animal is pregnant with a firstborn animal, the owner declares "If the fetus is a male, it is an Olah!" - from which we see that it is permitted, even Lechatchilah, to declare it Hekdesh ...

åîàé ùðà îîçåñø æîï?

1.

Question #2: How does this differ from Mechusar Z'man?

åé"ì, ã÷åãí ùðåìã, îöé î÷ãéù ìéä ...

(p)

Answer: Before it is born, one is permitted to declare it Hekdesh ...

åîééúé ìéä ááëåøåú (ãó éã.) î÷øà.

1.

Source: As the Gemara in Bechoros (Daf 14a) learns from a Pasuk.

6)

TOSFOS DH AVAL HACHA D'AKD'SHEIH L'IMEIH HU B'CHLAL IMEIH

úåñ' ã"ä àáì äëà ãà÷ãùéä ìàéîéä äåà áëìì àéîéä

(Summary: Tosfos queries the need for this Tzerichusa and part of the Tzerichusa itself.)

å÷ùä ìä"ø î"ø - ìîä ìé ìäàé öøéëåúà, ìéîà ëääéà ãàé àùîåòéðï ÷îééúà, äåä àîéðà ã'ùééøå àéðå îùåééø' ...

(a)

Question #1: Tosfos' Rebbe asks why we need the Tzerichusa; why can we not simply say that, had Rebbi Yochanan only learned the first case, we would have thought that 'Shayro, Eino Meshuyar' ...

åìäëé àéöèøéê ìîéîø 'øöä áåìãä îúëôø' ìàùîåòéðï ã'ùééøå îùåééø' ëãôéøù?

1.

Question (cont.): And that he therefore needs to state 'Ratzah bi'Veladah Miskaper' to teach us that 'Shayro Meshuyar', as the Gemara explains?

åòåã ÷ùä, ãäéëé îöé ìîéîø ã'äåà áëìì àéîéä ìà ÷ãéù' - äúðï áäãéà ôø÷ ëéöã îòøéîéï (ì÷îï ãó ëä.) 'äéà ùìîéí ååìãä òåìä, äøé æä åìã ùìîéí ...

(b)

Question #2: Moreover, how can the Gemara say that it is not Kadosh together with its mother - seeing as the Mishnah in Perek Keitzad Ma'arimin (on Daf 25a) specifically states ' "It is a Shelamim and its baby, an Olah", the baby is a V'lad Shelamim' ...

àìîà ÷ãåù äåà áëìì àéîéä?

1.

Question #2 (cont,): From which we see that it is Kadosh together withy its mother?

åé"ì, ãäëé ôéøåùå - äåà áëìì àéîéä ìà ÷ãåù òì ôé äàãí àìà îèåðéä ãàîå äåà ÷ãåù ...

(c)

Answer: What it means is that it is not Kadosh together with its mother, not via the verbal declaration, but via its mother ...

ã'òåáø éøê àîå äåà', å'àé ùééøå àéðå îùåééø' ...

1.

Reason: Because 'Ubar Yerech Imo Hu' and 'I Shayro, Eino Meshuyar' ...

îùåí äëé àéöèøéê ááúøééúà ìàùîåòéðï ã÷ãåù äåìã âí òì ôé äàãí åìà îèåðéä ãàîå ìáã. äø"í.

(d)

Conclusion: That explains why, in the latter statement, he needs to teach us that the baby is Kadosh also via the verbal statement and not just via its mother (ha'Ram).

7)

TOSFOS DH KI TANYA HA'HU KEDUSHAS DAMIM

úåñ' ã"ä ëé úðéà ääéà ÷ãåùú ãîéí

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles the Sugya in 'Keitzad Ma'arimin' with this statement.)

å÷ùä, àí ëï, îàé ÷àîø ôø÷ ëéöã îòøéîéï (ì÷îï ã' ëã:) ñéôà ãäàé - 'éìãä ùðé æëøéí, àçã îäï é÷øá òåìä' ...

(a)

Question: In that case, what does the Seifa of the same Beraisa say in Perek Keitzad Ma'arimin (later, on Daf 24e) - 'If it gave birth to two males, one of them is brought as an Olah' ...

ëéåï ãìéú ìéä àìà ÷ãåùú ãîéí, àîàé é÷øá òåìä?

1.

Question (cont.): Seeing as it only has Kedushas Damim, how can one bring it as an Olah?

åàé àîøú ãéîëø ìöøëé òåìä ...

(b)

Refuted Answer: And if you will explain it to mean that it should be sold for the needs of an Olah ...

äà ÷úðé äúí 'åäùðé éîëø ìöøëé òåìä'; åàí ëï îä áéï øàùåï ìùðé?

1.

Refutation: It states there that 'The second one should be sold for the needs of an Olah'; What is then the difference between the first animal and the second one (See Shitah Mekubetzes, Hashmatos)?

åöøéê ìåîø ëéåï ãðçú áøàùåï ÷ãåùú ãîéí, ðçú áéä ðîé ÷ãåùú äâåó.

(c)

Answer: We must therefore say that, since there falls on the first one Kedushas Damim, there also falls on it Kedushas ha'Guf.

8)

TOSFOS DH EIMUREI HU D'LO MEIMAR HA MEKADESH KEDISHEI UBRIN

úåñ' ã"ä àéîåøé äåà ãìà îéîø äà î÷ãù ÷ãéùé òåáøéï

(Summary: Tosfos explains the statement and elaborates.)

ãàé ìà ÷ãéùé, ôùéèà ãàéï îîéøéï ùìéîéï áäï, ãçåìéï äï.

(a)

Clarification: Because if they would not be Kadosh, it is obvious that one could not declare whole animals a Temurah on them, seeing as they are Chulin.

åäëà ìà îöé ìúøåöé '÷ãåùú ãîéí', ëãìòéì ...

(b)

Refuted Answer: And one cannot answer here 'Kedushas Damim', like the Gemara answered earlier ...

ãäà àéï òåùéï úîåøä.

1.

Refutation: Since they would then not be subject to Temurah (See Shitah Mekubetzes, 39).

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF