1)

TOSFOS DH ELA BI'DE'MAFRISH NEKEIVAH L'OLAH

úåñ' ã"ä àìà áãîôøéù ð÷áä ìòåìä

(Summary: Tosfos, citing Rashi, clarifies the issue.)

'ãàéëà ùí òåìä òì àîå' (ìùåï øù"é) ...

(a)

Clarification: 'Since the status of Olah pertains to its mother' (Rashi) ...

'ãäà ìòåìä à÷ãùä ...

1.

Reason: 'Since the status of Olah pertains to its mother'.

åàé îùåí ãð÷áä äéà ...

(b)

Implied Question: Even though it is a female ...

àôéìå äëé ùí òåìä òìä ...

(c)

Answer: Nevertheless, the term 'Olah' applies to it ...

ùäøé îöéðå ð÷áä áòåìú äòåó.

1.

Reason #1: Since we find a female by Olas ha'Of.

åòåã, ãäà ãëùúîëø, ãîéä òåìä - ãäééðå ùí òåìä ...

2.

Reason #2: Moreover, when it is sold, the proceeds go towards an Olah - hence it has 'the status of an Olah'.

àáì åìã úîåøú àùí àéï ùí òåìä òìä, ãàîå ìà äéà åìà ãîéä' (òë"ì).

(d)

Clarification (cont.): Whereas the V'lad of a Temuras Olah does not have the status of an Olah, since its mother is mother is not an Olah - neither it nor the proceeds of its sale (till here are the words of Rashi).

åìùåï øàùåï ã'ùí òåìú äòåó òì àîå' àé àôùø ìäòîéãä áñåâéà ãì÷îï ...

(e)

Refutation: It is impossible to reconcile Rashi's first reason - 'the status of Olah pertains to its mother' with the Sugya later ...

åáî÷åîå àôøùðä.

(f)

Conclusion: As Tosfos will explain there.

2)

TOSFOS DH V'HA HACHA D'LEKA SHEM SHELAMIM AL IMO

úåñ' ã"ä åäà äëà ãìéëà ùí ùìîéí òì àîå

(Summary: Tosfos accepts here Rashi's first reason in the previous Dibur.)

ëàï ðåëì ìäòîéã ùôéø äùúé ìùåðåú ...

(a)

Accepting Rashi's Two Reasons: Here it is possible to accept both of Rashi's reasons (see previous Dibur) ...

ùäøé àéï ùìîéí áòåôåú, åâí úçéìú ä÷ãù ìà ìùí ùìîéí äåôøù.

1.

Reason: Because Since a. there is no Shelamim by birds and b. the initial Hekdesh was not designated as a Shelamim.

3)

TOSFOS DH I HACHI NIFLOG NAMI B'REISHA

úåñ' ã"ä àé äëé ðéôìåâ ðîé áøéùà

(Summary: Tosfos, citing Rashi, clarifies the question and elaborates.)

ôøù"é (ìùåï øàùåï) éìãä ìôðé äôñç, ðéîà øáé àìéòæø äåà òöîå é÷øá ôñç ...

(a)

Clarification: Rashi explains that if it gave birth before Pesach, why does Rebbi Eliezer not say that it itself is brought as a Pesach ...

ãäà 'àéëà ùí ôñç òì àîå', àìà ùàéðä éëåìä ìé÷øá?

1.

Clarification: Seeing as the status of Pesach pertains to its mother, even though it cannot be brought on the Mizbe'ach?

åäëà àéï éëåìéï ìäòîéã ìùåï øàùåï ãøù"é ãìòéì - ãùí òåìú äòåó òì àîå ...

(b)

Rashi's First Reason: And here one cannot establish the first reason of Rashi cited earlier ...

ãäà äëà àéï ôñç áà ð÷áä, åàéï ôñç áòåôåú.

1.

Reason: Since in this case, a Pesach cannot be a female ...

àáì ìùåï ùðé ðéçà ...

(c)

Rashi's Second Reason: The second reason however, fits nicely ...

ùäøé úçéìú ä÷ãù ìùí ôñç äåôøù, åäåä ìéä ìåîø ãäåìã é÷øéá ìùí ôñç?

1.

Reason: Seeing as it was initially designated as a Pesach, in which case he ought indeed to have said that the baby is brought as a Pesach?

åà"ú, ìéùðé ìéä ãáòéðï ùí ôñç òì àîå áùåí î÷åí, åìà àùëçï ìéä äëà - ãàéï ùí ôñç òì ð÷áä ìé÷øá äéà òöîä ...

(d)

Question: Why does the Gemara not answer that we need the term Pesach to apply to it in some manner, which is not the case here - since the term Pesach does not apply to a female for it itself to be brought as a Pesach ...

åîùåí äëé àéï äåìã ÷øá äåà òöîå ìùí ôñç?

1.

Question (cont.): And that is why the V'lad itself cannot be brought as a Pesach?

îëàï àåîø äøî"ø ãìòåìí ìà àîø ãîäðé ùí òåìú äòåó òì àîå ìäëùéø äååìã òöîå...

(e)

Answer: ha'Rav Mordechai extrapolates from here that we will never say that the term Olas ha'Of of the bird will help to validate the V'lad itself ...

åëì äéëà ãàùëçðà ìäàé ìéùðà, ðôøùäå áò"ä.

(f)

Conclusion: Wherever we find this Lashon, Tosfos will explain it be'Ezras Hash-m.

åáøéù ôø÷ ôéøùúé éôä.

(g)

Reference: Tosfos explained it well at the beginning of the Perek (See Tosfos 17b, DH 'de'Ika').

4)

TOSFOS DH I HACHI

úåñ' ã"ä îàé àé àîøú áùìîà

(Summary: Tosfos explains why 'I Hachi'.)

åàí úàîø, îàé 'àé äëé' àéëà äëà? ...

(a)

Question: How does 'If so' fit into this context? ...

ãäëé ðîé îöé ìôøåëé îîúðé' áäãéà - î"ù áîôøéù ð÷áä ìòåìä åéìãä, àîø øáé àìéòæø ã'áðä òöîå ÷øá òåìä', åäëà âáé ôñç àîø 'éøòä'?

(b)

Question: Seeing as one can ask the same question directly from the Mishnah - Why in the case of Mafrish Nekeivah le'Olah ve'Yaldah does Rebbi Eliezer say that 'the baby itself is brought as an Olah', whereas here by Pesach he says 'Yir'eh'?

åéù ìåîø, ãä"ô - àé àîøú áùìîà áìàå äàé ùéðåéà ãøáà, ìà îöé ìîéôøê îîúðéúéï, ãùàðé äúí ...

(c)

Answer: The explanation is as follows - It would be fine in that, without the Rava's answer, we could not have asked from the Mishnah - since it is different there ...

ãàí äåìã ÷øá òåìä, àéï ùí òåìä ðò÷ø îï äàí - ãìòåìí àãí éëåì ìä÷øéá òåìä áëì éåí ...

1.

Reason: Because if the V'lad is brought as an Olah, the status of Olah is not uprooted from the mother - since aa person may bring an Olah every day ...

àáì äëà, ãàí äåìã òöîå ÷øá ôñç, ðîöà ùí ôñç ðò÷ø îï äàí îîðä åîãîéä, ùäøé àéï áéãå ìä÷øéá ø÷ ôñç àçã ...

2.

Reason (cont.): Whereas here, in the event that the V'lad is brought as a Pesach, it turn out that the status of Pesach is uprooted both from the mother and from the proceeds of her sale - seeing as one is only able to bring one Pesach (See Shitah Mekubetzes 30) ...

ìôéëê àéï ìä÷øéá äåìã áôñç ìò÷åø îîä ùäåôøùä?

3.

Reason (concl.): Consequently, one may not bring the V'lad on Pesach, to uproot that which it(s mother) was designated.

àáì ìøáà ôøéê ùôéø - îàçø ãàéú ìéä ãîùåí ãîåúø ôñç ÷øá ùìîéí çùéá ìéä ëàéìå äåé ùí ùìîéí òì àîå ...

(d)

Answer (cont.): Whereas according to Rava, the Gemara justifiably asks that now that he holds that since the Mosar ha'Pesach is brought as a Shelamim, it is as if the mother has the status of a Shelamim ...

ä"ð äåä ìéä ìîéîø îäàé èòí ÷åãí ôñç ðîé ùéäà äåìã òöîå ÷øá ôñç.

1.

Answer (concl.): By the same token, he (Rebbi Eliezer) should have said that before Pesach too, the V'lad should be brought as a Pesach.

åìà ëôøù"é ùôéøù ðéôìåâ ðîé áøéùà, åðéîà äåìã òöîå é÷øá ùìîéí ÷åãí ôñç ...

(e)

Refuted Explanation: And not like Rashi, who explains that he ought to argue in the Reisha too, and say that the V'ad itself should be brought as a Shelamim before Pesach ...

ã÷åãí ôñç ðîé àí ùçè ôñç ìùí ùìîéí ëùø, ãôñç áùàø éîåú äùðä (÷øáä ùìîéí) ùìà áàøáòä òùø áðéñï ÷øá ùìîéí ...

1.

Reason: Because before Pesach too, if one Shechts a Pesach as a Shelamim it is Kasher, since a Pesach during the rest of the year, other than on the fourteenth of Nisan, is brought as a Shelamim ...

äéìëê ùí ùìîéí òì àîå.

2.

Reason: Hence its mother has the status of a Shelamim.

5)

TOSFOS DH ABAYE OMER LO PALIG MIDI L'MAKOM SHE'HA'MOSER HOLECH SHAM HA'V'LAD HOLECH

úåñ' ã"ä àáéé àåîø ìî÷åí ùäîåúø äåìê ùí äåìã äåìê

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies Abaye's statement, and refuytes it.)

àáéé áà ìôøù ëì ãáøéå ùì ø"à âáé 'îôøéù ð÷áä ìòåìä åéìãä', åëï 'îôøéù ð÷áä ìôñç åðùúééøä' ...

(a)

Clarification: Abaye is coming to explain the entire statement of Rebbi Eliezer, in connection with 'Mafrish Nekeivah le'Olah ve'Yaldah' and 'Mafrish Nekeivah le'Pischo ve'Nishtayrah (and it remained alive after Pesach)'

áäðé ùðé î÷åîåú àîø ã'äåìã òöîå ÷øá', ùäøé äàí ìà ðò÷øä î÷ãåùúä.

1.

Clarification: In these two cases he says that 'The V'lad itself is brought' - seeing as the V'lad itself is brought, because the mother is not uprooted from its Kedushah.

á'îôøéù ð÷áä ìòåìä' - ããîéä ìà éãçå îäéåú òåìä ...

(b)

Case #1: By 'Mafrish Nekeivah le'Olah' - since its proceeds are not rejected from being (used for) an Olah ...

åëï 'îôøéù ð÷áä ìôñç åðùúééøä åéìãä', àí áðä ÷øá, ìà éãçä äàí îùìîéí - ãëéåï ùòáø äôñç, àéðä øàåéä ë"à ìùìîéí ...

(c)

Case #2: And similarly 'Mafrish Nekeivah le'Pesach ve'Nishtayrah ve'Yaldah', if the V'lad is brought, the mother is not rejected from (being brought as) a Shelamim - because, once Pesach has passed, it is only fit to be brought as a Shelamim.

àáì âáé 'úîåøú àùí' åëï 'äôøéù ð÷áä ìôñçå åéìãä ÷åãí äôñç', ãáùðéäí àîø ø"à ãäåìã éøòä ...

(d)

Clarification (cont.): But in the case of both Temuras Asham 'Hifrish Nekeivah le'Pischo ve'Yaldah Kodem Pesach', Rebbi Eliezer says that the V'lad is Roe'h ...

äééðå îùåí ãàí äåìã ãúîåøú àùí äéä ÷øá, à"ë éãçä àîä îîä ùäåôøùä úçéìä - ãäééðå àùí, ùäøé àéðå éëåì ìä÷øéá ùðé àùîåú ...

1.

Reason: This is because if the V'lad of the Temuras Asham were to be brought, the mother would be uprooted from what it was originally designated as - an Asham, seeing as one cannot bring two Ashamos.

åëï 'îôøéù ð÷áä ìôñçå åéìãä ÷åãí äôñç', àí é÷øá äåìã äåà òöîå, àí ëï éãçä àîå äéà åãîéä îôñç - ãàéðå éëåì ìäáéà ëé àí ôñç àçã áùðä - ëê ùîòúé.

(e)

Clarification (concl.): And the same applies to 'Mafrish Nekeivah le'Pesach ve'Nishtayrah ve'Yaldah', if the V'lad itself is brought, both the mother and the proceeds will be uprooted from being brought as a Pesach - since one can only bring one Pesach per year - So Tosfos heard.

îéäå àéï ìùåï äù"ñ îîù îéåùá òì æä

(f)

Refutation: However the Lashon of the Gemara does no go well with this explanation.

åâí øù"é ìà ôéøù ëï.

(g)

Support: Nor does Rashi learn that way.

19b----------------------------------------19b

6)

TOSFOS DH AMAR REBBI YOSSI B'R' CHANINA U'MODEH REBBI ELIEZER

úåñ' ã"ä àîø øáé éåñé áø' çðéðà åîåãä øáé àìéòæø

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the statement.)

àó òì âá ãâáé 'îôøéù ð÷áä ìòåìä' àîø ãäåìã òöîå é÷øá òåìä ...

(a)

Clarification: Even though by 'Mafrish Nekeivah le'Olah' he said that the V'lad itself is brought as an Olah ...

îôøéù ð÷áä ìàùí îåãä äåà ãàéï áðä ÷øá àùí àó ÷åãí ëôøä.

1.

Clarification (cont.): By 'Mafrish Nekeivah le'Asham' he concedes that its V'lad is not brought, even before the Kaparah.

7)

TOSFOS DH P'SHITA AD KA'AN LO KA'AMAR REBBI ELIEZER HASAM GABEI MAFRISH NEKEIVAH L'OLAH D'IKA SHEM OLAH AL IMO ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä ôùéèà òã ëàï ìà ÷àîø øáé àìéòæø äúí àìà âáé îôøéù ð÷áä ìòåìä ãàéëà ùí òåìä òì àîå ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos explains why this cannot go according to Rashi's second reason (on Amud Alef.)

äëà ìà îöéðå ìôøåùé ëìùåï ùðé ãøù"é ãìòéì åìåîø ãúçéìú ä÷ãù äàí ìùí òåìä äåôøù ...

(a)

Refuted Explanation: We cannot explain this according to Rashi's second reason (cited on Amud Alef), to say that initially the mother was designated as an Olah ...

ùäøé 'îôøéù ð÷áä ìàùí' ðîé úçéìú ä÷ãù äàí ìùí àùí äåôøù ...

(b)

Refutation: Since by 'Mafrish Nekeivah le'Asham' too, the mother was designated as an Asham ...

åìôé æä äéä ìðå ìåîø ãáðä ÷øá áàùí ...

1.

Refutation (cont.): In which case the Gemara ought to have ruled that the V'lad must be brought as an Asham ...

àìà ãò"ë ùàðå öøéëéï ìôøù ìùåï øàùåï ùì øù"é åìåîø ãàéëà ùí òåìä òì àîå áòåìú äòåó.

(c)

Authentic Explanation: Consequently, we must explain it according to Rashi's first reason, and to say that the mother has the status of an Olah due to Olas ha'Of.

åúéîä, ãäéëé òáéã ôùéèà îéðéä - ãäà ìà àîøéðï òã äùúà àìéáà ãùåí úðà àå ùåí àîåøà ãîäðé ùí òåìä áòåìú äòåó?

(d)

Question #1: How can we simply learn it from there -bearing in mind that up until now, we have not cited one Tana or Amora who holds that the status of Olah takes effect due to Olas ha'Of?

åòåã, ãìòéì ôéøùúé ã'òåìú äòåó' òì àîå ìà îäðé ìäëùéø äåìã ...

(e)

Question #2: Moreover, earlier Tosfos explained that the 'Olas ha'Of' of the mother does not help to render the V'lad Kasher ...

åðøàä ìîåøé ìôøù ãàéëà ùí òåìä òì àîå - ãñåó äéåí ìà ðãçéú äàí ìäéåú ãîéä ìòåìä, ãòåìä áà ðãáä; ìôéëê ãéï äåìã ìé÷øá òåìä ëàîå áéåîå ...

(f)

Answer: Tosfos' Rebbe therefore explains that it is considered 'Shem Olah al Imo' because - at the end of the day, the mother is not rejected in that its proceeds are used for an Olah, since an Olah can be brought as a Nedavah ...

àáì âáé 'ð÷áä ìàùí', àí é÷øá äåìã àùí, ìà éäéä ëàîå, ùäøé éãçä äàí îàùí - ãàéï àùí áà ðãáä ...

1.

Answer (cont.): Whereas by 'Nekeivah le'Asham', once the V'lad is brought as an Asham, it will no longer be like its mother, since its mother is rejected as an Asham - because an Asham cannot be brought as a Nedavah

åúäà ãîé òåìä - åàéï ìçì÷ ãéï äåìã îãéï àîå.

2.

Answer (concl.): Consequently, the proceeds will be used for an Olah - and one cannot draw a distinction between the V'lad and the mother.

åàó òì âá ãìòéì àñé÷ øáà, âáé 'îôøéù ð÷áä ìôñçå' ãôìéâ ø"à à'øéùà - ôé' àí éìãä ÷åãí äôñç, ãé÷øá äåìã òöîå ôñç, àó òì âá ãñåó äàí ìäéåú ùìîéí ...

(g)

Implied Question: Even though above, Rava concluded, in connection with 'Mafrish Nekeivah le'Pischo' that Rebbi Eliezer argues on the Reisha - inasmuch as if it gave birth before Pesach, the V'lad itself is brought as a Pesach, in spite of the fact that the mother is uptimately brought as a Shelamim ...

äééðå îùåí ãîåúø äôñç ÷øá ùìîéí, åçùéá ìäå øáà ëçã.

1.

Answer: That is because the leftover Pesach is brought as a Shelamim, and Rava considers them one and the same.

8)

TOSFOS DH A'D'MASHMA LAN D'EIN B'NAH KAREIV ASHAM LISHME'INAN D'EIN B'NAH KAREIV OLAH V'KOL SHE'KEIN ASHAM

úåñ' ã"ä à'ãîùîò ìï ãàéï áðä ÷øá àùí ìéùîòéðï ãàéï áðä ÷øá òåìä åë"ù àùí

(Summary: Tosfos the question according to both Rashi and his Rebbe ha'Rav Mordechai.)

ìôøù"é ä"ô - åîä òåìä ìà äåé, àó òì âá ãàéëà ùí òåìä òì àîå áòåìú äòåó ...

(a)

Explanation #1: The explanation according to Rashi, is - If it is not an Olah, even though the status of Olah pertains to its mother by Olas ha'Of ...

ëì ùëï ãàùí ìà äåé, ãìéëà ùí àùí òì àîå.

1.

Explanation #1 (cont.): How much more so will it not be an Asham, where its mother does not have the status of Asham.

åìôé' äøî"ø - åîä òåìä ìà äåé àôéìå ðúëôø, àó òì âá ãñåó äàí ìäéåú òåìä ...

(b)

Explanation #2: Whereas according ha'Rav Mordechai the explanation is that - If it is not an Olah even after the Kaparah, even though the mother will ultimately be an Olah ...

ë"ù ãàùí ìà äåé ÷åãí ëôøä, ãàéï ñåó äàí ìäéåú àùí àí áðä ÷øá àùí.

1.

Explanation #2 (cont.): How much more so will it not be an Asham before the Kaparah, since its mother will not be an Asham if the V'lad is brought as one.

9)

TOSFOS DH REBBI SHIMON OMER TIMACHER SHE'LO B'MUM

úåñ' ã"ä øáé ùîòåï àåîø úéîëø ùìà áîåí

(Summary: Tosfos discusses why Rebbi Shimon does not issue the same ruling with regard to 'Mafrish Nekeivah le'Olah',)

åäà ãìà ôìéâ ðîé øáé ùîòåï á'îôøéù ð÷áä ìòåìä' - åìéîà 'úéîëø ùìà áîåí' ...

(a)

Implied Question: The reason that Rebbi Shimon does not also argue by 'Mafrish Nekeivah le'Olah', and say that it must be sold without a blemish ...

åìîàï ãàéú ìéä áâîøà àìéáà ãø"ù ã'îôøéù ð÷áä ìòåìä' ãå÷à òåùä úîåøä, àáì îôøéù ð÷áä ìàùí, àéðå òåùä úîåøä ...

(b)

Answer: Now according to the opinion in the Gemara that, according to Rebbi Shimon it is specifically 'Mafrish Nekeivah le'Olah' that makes a Temurah, but not 'Mafrish Nekeivah le'Asham' ...

ùôéø ãìà ôìéâ à'òåìä ëîå à'àùí ...

1.

Answer (cont.): It is in order why he does not argue by Olah like he does by Asham ...

ãòåìä éù ìä ÷ãåùú äâåó èôé îàùí, ãòåìä òåùä úîåøä åàéï àùí òåùä úîåøä

2.

Reason: Since an Olah has more Kedushas ha'Guf than An Asham, precisely because it makes a Temurah, whilst an Asham does not.

àáì ìø"ù áï éäåãä ãàéú ìéä àìéáà ãø' ùîòåï [ãàó ìòåìúå àéï òåùä úîåøä ...

(c)

Implied Question: But according to Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah, who maintains in Rebbi Shimon that one cannot make a Temurah for one's Olah either ...

åà"ë] áîôøéù ð÷áä ðîé úéîëø ùìà áîåí?

1.

Implied Question (cont.): In which case 'Mafrish Nekeivah (le'Olah)' too, ought to sell it without a blemish?

ö"ì ãôìéâ áàùí åä"ä áòåìä.

(d)

Answer: we will have to say that he argues by Asham, and by Olah as well.

åúðà âáé àùí ...

(e)

Implied Question: And the Tana only mentions it by Asham ...

ìàùîåòéðï ãàôéìå äëé éôìå ãîéå ìðãáä.

1.

Answer: To teach us that nevertheless, the proceeds go to Nedavah (which is an Olah) See Shitah Mekubetzes 29.

10)

TOSFOS DH ZOS OMERES HIKDISH ZACHAR L'DAMAV KADOSH KEDUSHAS HA'GUF

úåñ' ã"ä æàú àåîøú ä÷ãéù æëø ìãîéå ÷ãåù ÷ãåùú äâåó

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles this with the Sugya in Shevu'os.)

åúéîä ìîåøé äø"ø ùîåàì, îàé ùðà î'î÷ãéù ìãîé ðñëéí' - ãàîø áô"÷ ãùáåòåú (ãó éà.) ãàéðå ÷ãåù ÷ãåùú äâåó àêéðà ãøáà?

(a)

Question: Tosfos Rebbe ha'Rav Shmuel asks why this is different than 'Makdish li'Demei Nesachim', about which the Gemara says in the first Perek of Shevu'os (Daf 11a) that it is not Kadosh Kedushas ha'Guf according to Rava (See Tzon Kodshim)?

åùîà é"ì ãääéà ãäúí àúéà ëø"ù, ãàîø ì÷îï áñîåê ãëì îéãé ãìà çæé ìâåôéä ìà ðçúà áéä ÷ãåùú äâåó.

(b)

Answer: It may well be that that Sugya goes according to Rebbi Shimon, who will shortly say here that 'Whatever is not intrinsically fit to go on the Mizbe'ach is not subject to Kedushas ha'Guf (See footnote).

11)

TOSFOS DH ASHAM BEN SHANAH V'HEVI'O BEN SHETAYIM BEN SHETAYIM V'HEVI'O BEN SHANAH KASHER V'LO ALU LA'BA'ALIM L'SHEM CHOVAH

úåñ' ã"ä àùí áï ùðä åäáéàå áï ùúéí áï ùúéí åäáéàå áï ùðä ëùø åìà òìå ìáòìéí ìùí çåáä

(Summary: Tosfos presents various ways of reconciling this Sugya with the Sugya in Menachos.)

úéîä, áôø÷ äúëìú (îðçåú ãó îç:) úðé 'ôñåì åúòåáø öåøúå, åéöà ìáéú äùøéôä'?

(a)

Question: In Perek ha'Techeiles (Menachos, Daf 48b) the Beraisa rules that it is Pasul and requires Ibur Tzurah (to be left overnight), and is then taken to the Beis ha'Sereifah?

åé"î, ãääéà ãäúí àúéà ëø' ùîòåï ãàîø äëà ã'ëì òöîï àéðï ÷ãåùéí' ...

(b)

Answer #1: Some commentaries explain that that goes like Rebbi Shimon, who says here that they are not Kadosh at all ...

åîééøé äúí ùäáéàå åùçèå áòæøä - åäåé ëùåçèéí ÷ãùé áã÷ äáéú áôðéí, ãôñåì.

1.

Answer #1 (cont.): And it speaks there that they brought it into the Azarah and Shechted it - and it is like Shechting Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis in the Azarah, which renders them Pasul.

åäà ãáòé òéáåø öåøä, ãàéï èòåï òéáåø öåøä àìà ÷ãùé îæáç ...

(c)

Implied Question: And the reason they require Ibur Tzurah, even though only Kodshei Mizbe'ach require Ibur Tzurah ...

äééðå èòîà ãìà ìéçìôå áùàø ÷ãùéí ôñåìéï ãáòé òéáåø öåøä.

1.

Answer: This is in order to confuse it with oter Passul Kodshim which require it.

åäøá ø' àôøéí úéøõ ãäëà áùìà ìùîå, åîùåí äëé ëùø; åäúí îééøé áìùîå.

(d)

Answer #2: Rav Efrayim answers that it is Kasher here because it is speaking in a case of li'Shemo - and that is why it is Kasher, whereas there it is speaking she'Lo li'Shemo (See Shitah Mekubetzes Hashmatos).

åãåîéà îöéðå áôø÷ áúøà ãæáçéí (ãó ÷éã:) ãàîø 'îçåñø æîï ááòìéí ôèåø' - ôéøåù àí ùçèå áçåõ ...

(e)

Precedent: Similar to this we find in the last Perek of Zevachim (Daf 114b), where the Gemara says that 'Mechusar Z'man by the owner is Patur' - meaning that if he Shechted it outside ...

åàîø øá çì÷éä áø èåáéä òìä 'ìà ùðå àìà ìùîå, àáì ùìà ìùîå çééá îùåí ùçåèé çåõ, äåàéì åçæé áôðéí' ...

1.

Precedent (cont.): And Rav Chilkiyah bar Tuvya explained that 'That speaks specifically where he Shechted it li'Shemo, but she'Lo li'Shemo he is Chayav because of Shechutei Chutz - since it is fit to be brought inside' ...

àìîà äéëà ãùçè àùí áï ùðä, ãäåé ëîçåñø æîï, ùìà ìùîå, øàåé ìôðéí äåà.

2.

Precedent (concl.): So we see that if one Shechts an Asham in its first year, which is Mechusar Z'man, she'Lo li'Shemo (he is Chayav) - because it is fit to be brought inside.

îéäå ÷"÷, ëéåï ãäëà îééøé áùìà ìùîå, îàé àéøéà ãìà òìå ìáòìéí ìùí çåáä îùåí ãùéðä áï ùðä îáï ùúé ùðéí, úéôå÷ ìéä ãìà òìå îùåí ãùìà ìùîå äåà?

(f)

Question: Since it is speaking here about she'Lo li'Shemo, why does it need to say that the owner is not Yotzei because 'it changed to in its first year from in its second'? Why does it not rather say 'because it is she'Lo li'Shemo'?

åé"ì, ãàùîòéðï ãàò"â ãàéëà úøé øéòåúà, ëùø.

(g)

Answer: It is teaching us that it is Kasher even though there are two shortcomings.

òé"ì, ãäëà îééøé ìàçø ùðéú÷ ìøòééä, åäúí îééøé áìà ðéú÷, åäåé àùí ôñåì.

(h)

Answer #3 (to original question): Here it is speaking after it was sent into the meadow to graze, whereas there (in Menachos) where it was not, in which case it is a Pasul Asham.

12)

TOSFOS DH V'HA MECHUSAR Z'MAN D'LO CHAZI V'AMAR REBBI SHIMON KADISH L'GUFEIH

úåñ' ã"ä åäà îçåñø æîï ãìà çæé åàîø ø"ù ÷ãéù ìâåôéä

(Summary: Tosfos cites the source.)

áîñëú çåìéï áôø÷ àåúå åàú áðå (ãó ôà.) ã÷úðé 'ø"ù àåîø, "ëì äøàåé ìáà ìàçø æîï, äùåçèå áçåõ òåáø áìà úòùä" '.

(a)

Source: In Perek Oso ve'es B'no (Chulin 81a [See Hagahos ha'Gra]) when Rebbi Shimon says 'Someone who Shechts whatever is fit to be brought later outside the Azarah transgresses a Lo Sa'aseh'.

13)

TOSFOS DH AF MECHUSAR Z'MAN KADOSH LIFNEI ZEMANO V'KAREIV L'ACHAR ZEMANO

úåñ' ã"ä àó îçåñø æîï ÷ãåù ìôðé æîðå å÷øá ìàçø æîðå

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles this with Sugyos in Bechoros and Zevachim.)

úéîä, ãàéúà áô"â ãáëåøåú (ãó ëà:) 'åðéìó î÷ãùéí ãìà ÷ãéùé' - îùîò ã÷ãùéí àéðí ÷ãåùéí áîçåñø æîï?

(a)

Question #1: The Gemara, in the third Perek of Bechoros (Daf 21b) asks 'Let us learn (B'chor) from Kodshim that they are not Kodesh?' - implying that Kodshim before their time are not Kadosh?

åòåã, ãàîø áòìîà (æáçéí ãó éá.) 'ìéìä ì÷ãåùä, éåí ìäøöàä' - îùîò ãìéì ùîéðé ãå÷à ÷ãéù, àáì î÷îé äëé ìà?

(b)

Question #2: Moreover, the Gemara says elsewhere (Zevachim, Daf 12a) 'The night (of the eighth) for the Kedushsah to tsake effect, the day to be sacrificed' - implying that it is specifically on the eighth that it is Kadosh, but not before?

åéù ìåîø, ãä"î ìëúçéìä àñåø ìä÷ãéùå îçåñø æîï ...

(c)

Answer: That is speaking with regard to declaring Lechatchilah an animal Kadosh before its time ...

îéäå àí òáø åä÷ãéù, ÷ãéù ...

1.

Answer (cont.): However if one transgressed and did declare it Hekdesh, it is Kadosh ...

ãéìôéðï ìéä îáëåø [åò"ò úåñ' áëåøåú ëà: ã"ä 'àó' åëå'].

2.

Source: Since we learn it from B'chor (See also Tosfos, Bechoros 21b DH 'Af'' etc.).

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF