1)

TOSFOS DH HA MANI REBBI YEHUDAH HI (This Dibur belongs on Daf 10b)

úåñ' ã"ä äà îðé ø' éäåãä äéà

(Summary: Tosfos refutes Rashi's alternative text.)

éù ñôøéí âøñéðï 'àé ø' éäåãä, øéùà äéëé îúå÷îà - ã÷úðé "åìà àáøéï ãçåìéï áùìîéí ã÷ãù" ... '

(a)

Alternative Text: Some Sefarim have the text 'If it is Rebbi Yehudah, how will we explain the Reisha - "And not Evarim of Chulin on Shelamim of Hekdesh" ' ...

ãîùîò úîåøä äåà ãìà òáãé àáøéï ìáäîä - ãìéçåì ÷ãåùú úîåøä òì ëì âåó äáäîä îùåí àáø ãéãéä ùäîéøå áùìéîéí ...

1.

Clarifying the Question: Which implies that although one cannot make the limbs of an animal a Temurah on an animal - that the Kedushas Temurah should take effect on the body of an animal, on account of its limb which he declared a Temurah on a complete animal ...

äà îé÷ãù ÷ãéùé àáøéí áúçéìú ä÷ãù - àí ä÷ãéù àáø àçã, ôùèä ÷ãåùä áëåìä ...

2.

Clarifying the Question (cont.): They are Kadosh at the inception of Hekdeh - if one is Makdish them at the beginning of Hekdesh, and if one is Makdish a limb, the Kedushah spreads to the entire animal ...

ãäà úðà ãîúðé' äàé ñáøà àéú ìéä - îã÷îäãø ìéä 'åäìà áîå÷ãùéï äàåîø "øâìä ùì æå òåìä", ëåìä òåìä' ...

(b)

Source: Seeing as the Tana of our Mishnah holds of that S'vara - since he counters 'We see by Mukdashin that if someone declares "this animals leg is an Olah", the entire animal is an Olah' ...

îëìì ãîåãä úðà ÷îà áúçéìú ä÷ãù ãôùèä áëåìä ...

1.

Source (cont.): We can infer that the Tana Kama concedes that, at the inception of the Kedushah, it spreads to the entire animal ...

åø' ùîòåï äåà ãäåé áø æåâéä ãøáé éåñé ì÷îï ááøééúà åàîø 'áúçéìú ä÷ãù ëåìä òåìä', åàùîåòéðï áúîåøä ãìà ...

(c)

Clarifying the Question (cont.): And the partner of Rebbi Yossi is Rebbi Shimon, who says later in the Beraisa that at the inception of Hekdesh, it is all Hekdesh', and he now teaches us that this is not the case by Temurah ...

àé îùåí ããøéù "áäîä ááäîä", àé îùåí ãî÷éù úîåøä ìîòùø - áñéôà ãôéø÷éï - îä îòùø ÷øáï éçéã ... ' ...

1.

Reason: Either because he Darshens "Beheimah bi'Veheimah" or because at the end of the Perek, he compares Temurah to Ma'aser - 'Just as Ma'aser is a Korban Yachid ... ' ...

åîääéà äé÷ùà âåôà éìéó 'îä îòùø àéðå ðåäâ áàáøéí, àó úîåøä àéðä ðåäâú áàéáøéí' ...

2.

Reason (cont.): And from that same Hekesh he learns that just as Ma'aser does not apply to limbs, so too does Temurah not apply to limbs ...

åäëé àîøéðï áôø÷ áäîä äî÷ùä (çåìéï ãó ñè:) ...

(d)

Proof: And this is what the Gemara says in Perek Beheimah ha'Maksheh (Chulin, Daf 69a) ...

ãàé øáé éäåãä, äàîø ì÷îï ááøééúà ã'ìà ôùèä ÷ãåùä áëåìä'?

(e)

Clarifying the Question (concl.): Because if it was Rebbi Yehudah, he says later on in a Beraisa that 'The Kedushah does not spread to all of it'?

äëà áîàé òñ÷éðï - ããéé÷éðï 'äà ùìà ò"é úîåøä ÷ãùä ëì äáäîä ò"é àáø àçã' ëâåï ùä÷ãéù àáø ùäðùîä úìåéä áå ...

(f)

Answer: When we extrapolated that if not by Temurah, the entire animal does become Kadosh via one limb, that is speaking where he was Makdish a limb on which the life of the animal depends ...

ãàîøé' ì÷îï 'îåãä ø' éäåãä áãáø ùéòùä àåúä èøôä ...

1.

Proof: As the Gemara says later 'Rebbi Yehudah concedes by a limb which renders the animal a T'reifah ...

ëâåï àí ä÷ãéù àçú îøâìéä îï äàøëåáä åìîòìä, äøé ëåìä òåìä' ...

2.

Example: Such as where he was Makdish one of its legs from the knee and upwards - then all of it is an Olah'.

åáúîåøä ìà ãøùé' "áäîä ááäîä". ò"ë ìùåï øù"é.

(g)

Answer (cont.): But by Temurah we do not Darshen "Beheimah bi'Veheimah" (See Hagahos ha'Bach on Rashi [until here is the wording of Rashi]).

åðøàä ãàéï öøéê ìâøåñ ëì æä ...

(H)

Refutation: It is not however, necessary to insert this text ...

ãîùîò ãôøéê îèòí ãîäãø ìéä ø' éåñé 'åäìà áîå÷ãùéï ... ', îëìì ãîåãä ú"÷ áä ...

1.

Reason: Because it implies that the Gemara's Kashya is based on the fact is asking from the fact that Rebbi Yossi countered 'We see by Mukdashin ... ', from which we see that the Tana Kama concedes to that ...

åáô' áäîä äî÷ùä (âæ"ù) éù ìùåï àçø ãøáé éåñé à'ãðôùéä ÷îäãø, àáì úðà ÷îà ôìéâ òìéä àôéìå áúçéìú ä÷ãù ...

2.

Reason (cont.): Whereas in Perek ha'Maksheh (Ibid.) the Gemara explains that Rebbi Yossi is making his own statement, and that the Tana Kama argues with him even at the inception of Hekdesh ...

åàí ëï àéëà ìîéîø ãøáé éäåãä äéà.

3.

Reason (concl.): In which case one can say that the Tana Kama is Rebbi Yehudah.

2)

TOSFOS DH HACHI KA'AMAR MAKDISHIN EIVARIN U'MAMIRIN

úåñ' ã"ä äëé ÷àîø î÷ãéùéï àéáøéï åîîéøéï

(Summary: Tosfos disagrees with Rashi's Text.)

ëê âéøñú øù"é - åø"ì àí ôùèä ÷ãåùä áëì äáäîä ò"é ÷ãåùú äàáø, îîéøéï áëì äáäîä; àáì àîø "àáø æä ùì çåìéï úäà úîåøä" ìà àîø ëìåí.

(a)

Text #1: This is Rashi's text - and it means that, if the Kedushah spread to the entire animal on account of the Kedushah of the one limb, then one can declare a Temurah on the entire animal, but if one said 'This limb of Chulin shall be a Temurah', he has said nothing.

åðøàä ãîùåí äëé ãçé÷ øù"é ìâøåñ 'åîîéøéï' îùåí ãôøéê òìä áñîåê 'àáøéí îé ÷ãéùé?' ...

(B)

Reason: And it seems that Rashi 'pushed' to read 'u'Mamirin' because the Gemara will shortly query it 'Since when are Emurin holy?' ...

ãàé ìà âøñ 'åîîéøéï', äéëà àùëçðà ãàîø 'àáøéï ÷ãùé'?

1.

Reason (cont.): And if we did not have the text 'u'Mamirin', where do we find that the Tana said 'Evarin Kadshi'?

àìà îã÷àîø 'àáøéï îîéøéï', åòì ëøçéï äééðå ëùä÷ãéù äàáø åôùèä ÷ãåùä áëì äáäîä.

2.

Reason: Only since he said 'Evarin u'Mamirin', this must be speaking where he was Makdish a limb, and the Kedushah spread to the entire animal.

åìà ðäéøà ìâøåñ 'åîîéøéï' ...

(c)

Refutation: It is not however, correct to insert 'u'Mamirin' ...

çãà ãàéðå áøåá äñôøéí? ...

(d)

Reason #1: Firstly because it does not appear in the majority of Sefarim ...

åòåã ãáîúðéúéï âáé çîåø áúçéìú ä÷ãù îáúîåøä úðé, ãàé âøñ 'åîîéøéï', àéï æä çåîø áúçéìú ä÷ãù îáúîåøä?

(e)

Reason #2: And secondly, because the Beraisa is speaking about where the inception of Hekdesh is more stringent than the Temurah, and if we insert 'u'Mamirin', this is not the case?

åìëê ðøàä ãìà âøñ ìéä.

1.

Refutation: Therefore we do not insert it.

åäà ãôøéê òìä áñîåê 'àáøéí îé ÷ãùé?' ...

(f)

Implied Question: And when the Gemara asks shortly 'Evarim Mi Kadshi?' ...

îùåí ã÷úðé 'î÷ãéùéï òåáøéï åàáøéí', åáåãàé àáø ìçåãéä ìà ä÷ãéùå àé ìà ãôùèä ÷ãåùä áëì äáäîä.

(g)

Answer: That is because it states 'Makdishin Ubrin ve'Evarim', and it is certain that they were not Makdish a limb on its own unless the Kedushah spread to the entire animal.

3)

TOSFOS DH HA'SHOCHET ES HA'CHATAS

úåñ' ã"ä äùåçè àú äçèàú

(Summary: Tosfos explains why it can only be referring to a goat.)

ëâåï ùòéøä ...

(a)

Clarification: This can only refer to a (kid)-goat ...

ãàéìå ëùáä àé àôùø ìéìã úåê ùðúä, ëãàéúà ááëåøåú (ãó éè:).

1.

Reason: Because a lamb cannot possibly give birth within the first year, as the Gemara explains in Bechoros (Daf 19b).

4)

TOSFOS DH U'MATZA BAH BEN ARBA CHAI

úåñ' ã"ä åîöà áä áï àøáò çé

(Summary: Tosfos explains why specifically a four month old baby.)

ãàéìå áï ä' ááäîä ã÷ä àéðä ðéúøú ìø' îàéø áùçéèú àîå (ôø÷ áäîä äî÷ùä [çåìéï ãó òã.]).

(a)

Reason: Because a fifth-month old Beheimah Dakah (small-type animal) is not permitted by its mother's Shechitah, according to Rebbi Meir, as the Gemara states in Perek Beheimah ha'Maksheh (Chulin, Daf 74a).

11b----------------------------------------11b

5)

TOSFOS DH RAV CHISDA SAVAR K'MA'AN D'AMAR T'REIFAH EINAH CHAYAH V'RAV SAVAR K'MA'AN D'AMAR T'REIFAH CHAYAH

úåñ' ã"ä øá çñãà ñáø ëîàï ãàîø èøéôä àéðä çéä åøáà ñáø ëîàï ãàîø èøéôä çéä

(Summary: Tosfos points out a. that Rav Chisda says the opposite in Bechoros, and b. that Rava seems to contradict his opinion here in Chulin.)

åáô"÷ ãáëåøåú (ãó â.) ðäôëä ñåâéà æàú âáé ùåúôåú òåáã ëåëáéí - ãøá çñãà ñáø èøéôä çéä ...

(a)

Switched Opinions: In the first Perek of Bechoros (Daf 3a) the Sugya is reversed, in connection with the partnership with a Nochri - where Rav Chisda holds that a T'reifah can survive ...

åæå îï äñåâéåú äôåëåú ùáäù"ñ ...

1.

Switched Opinions cont.): And this is one of the reversed Sugyos in Shas ...

åëï îöéðå áùàø ãåëúé âáé ôìåâúà ãàáéé åøáà ã'éãéí îåëéçåú' áîñëú ðãøéí (ãó ä: åáîñëú ðæéø [ãó ñá. ò"ù]).

(b)

Precedent: And we find this in a number of places - e.g. by the Machlokes between Abaye and Rava with regard to 'Yadayim Mochichos', in Maseches Nedarim (Daf 5b) & Maseches Nazir (Daf 62a - [See there]).

åîéäå öøéê òéåï ìôé äà ãàîø øáà äëà èøéôä çéä, ãáôø÷ äçåìõ (éáîåú ãó ìå) àîø øáà âáé ñô÷ èøôä îùäéðï ìä é"á çãù.

(c)

Question: One needs however, to look into Rava' here, who says that a T'reifah can survive, whereas in Perek ha'Choletz (Yevamos Daf 36 - See Ein Mishpat), he rules regarding a Safek T'reifah, that one waits twelve months.

6)

TOSFOS DH HASAM LO NACHSA LEIH KEDUSHAS HA'GUF (See Hagahos ha'G'ra)

úåñ' ã"ä äúí ìà ðçúà ìéä ÷ãåùä ëìì

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles the Sugya here, according to Rashi) with the Sugya in Bechoros.)

ôéøù øù"é ãñáø ãùåúôåú äòåáã ëåëáéí ôåèøú îï äáëåøä.

(a)

Clarification: Rashi explains that the Tana holds that the partnership of a Nochri exempts the owner form the Bechorah.

åáô"÷ ãáëåøåú (ãó â:) ÷àîø àôé' ìî"ã ùåúôåú äòåáã ëåëáéí àéðå ôåèø. åäà ãàîø äúí ìà ðçúà ìéä ÷ãåùä ...

(b)

Implied Question: Whereas in the first Perek of Bechoros (Daf 3b) the Gemara says that it applies even according to the opinion that the partnership of a Nochri does not exempt the owner form the Bechorah - and when it says there that the Kedushah does noyt take effect ...

ø"ì ìä÷øéá.

1.

Answer: It means to bring on the Mizbe'ach.

7)

TOSFOS DH HI SHELAMIM U'VELADAH CHULIN V'SHACHTAH BI'FENIM MAHU

úåñ' ã"ä äéà ùìîéí ååìãä çåìéï åùçèä áôðéí îäå

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the She'eilah and resolves it with the Beraisa cited on Amud Alef.)

ôéøåù àí äåìã àñåø îùåí çåìéï áòæøä.

(a)

Clarification: This means that the mother of the baby I Asur because it is Chulin in the Azarah.

åðøàä ãîöé ìîéôùèéä îääéà ãìòéì ã'äùåçè àú äçèàú åîöà áä áï ã' çé' - îùîò ãìà äåé çåìéï áòæøä.

(b)

Resolution: It appears that one can resolve it from the Beraisa that we learned earlier 'ha'Shochet es ha'Chatas u'Matza bah ben Daled Chai' - implying that it is not Chulin in the Azarah (See Shitah Mekubetzes 38).

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF