1)

TOSFOS DH Echad Meimar v'Ein Shenayim Memirin

úåñôåú ã"ä àçã îéîø åàéï ùðéí îîéøéï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves R. Yochanan's opinion.)

îùîò ãìøáé éåçðï éåøù îéîø

(a)

Inference: According to R. Yochanan, an heir can make Temurah.

åúéîä ãáô' îé ùäåöéàäå (òéøåáéï îå:) ÷àîø øáé éåçðï øáé îàéø åøáé éäåãä äìëä ëøáé éäåãä

(b)

Question: In Eruvin (46b), R. Yochanan said that when R. Meir and R. Yehudah argue, the Halachah follows R. Yehudah;

åáøéù úîåøä (ãó á.) åòøëéï (ãó á.) ôìéâé áä øáé îàéø åøáé éäåãä å÷àîø øáé éäåãä éåøù àéðå îéîø

1.

In Temurah (2a) and Erchin (2a), R. Meir and R. Yehudah argue, and R. Yehudah says that an heir cannot make Temurah!

åé''ì îùåí ãø' éåçðï àéú ìéä äìëä ëñúí îùðä åáøéù úîåøä åòøëéï àåîø äëì îîéøéï ìàúåéé éåøù:

(c)

Answer: R. Yochanan [says that he can] because he holds that the Halachah follows a Stam Mishnah, and at the beginning of Temurah and Erchin, [the Stam Mishnah] says that "anyone can make Temurah" includes an heir.

2)

TOSFOS DH Miskaper Oseh Temurah

úåñôåú ã"ä îúëôø òåùä úîåøä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how others can make Temurah.)

åäà ãúðéà áô' ÷îà ãúîåøä (ãó è.) ìà éçìéôðå áùì àçøéí

(a)

Implied question: A Beraisa in Temurah (9a) teaches that [the Lav] "Lo Yachalifenu" applies to another's [Korban]! (Here we say that one can make Temurah only through a Korban that will atone for him.)

äà îôøù äúí ëâåï ãàîø îøéä ãáäîä ãä÷ãù ëì äøåöä ìäîéø ááäîúå éîéø

(b)

Answer: It explains there that the case is, the owner of the Hekdesh animal said that whoever wants to make Temurah with his animal, can make Temurah.

3)

TOSFOS DH mi'Kufiya Mechapra

úåñôåú ã"ä î÷åôéà îëôøà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with other Gemaros.)

úéîä ãáô' ÷îà ãúîåøä (ãó é.) éìôéðï ãîúëôø òåùä úîåøä îðæéø åääéà ëôøä ÷áåòä äéà

(a)

Question: In Temurah (10a), we learn that the Miskaper makes Temurah from Nazir, and that refers to a proper Kaparah!

åé''ì ãìà éìéó îðæéø àìà ãîôøéù àéðå îéîø àáì îúëôø òåùä úîåøä àôé' î÷åôéà

(b)

Answer: We learn from Nazir only that the one who separated the Korban cannot make Temurah (if he is not the Miskaper), but the Miskaper makes Temurah, even [if he gets only] a small [Kaparah]!

åà''ú ãéåøù á÷åôéà âøéãà ÷øé îúëôø åîéîø åëé äåå ùðéí éåøùéí îé÷øå ùåúôéï åìà îîéøéï

(c)

Question: An heir gets only a small Kaparah, and he is called Miskaper and he can make Temurah. When there are two heirs, they are called partners, and they cannot make Temurah;

åäà áéåîà ôø÷ äåöéàå ìå (ãó ð:) ÷áòé áôø ëä''â ùàçéå äëäðéí îúëôøéí àé á÷áéòåúà îúëôøéï åäåå ùåúôéï åìà îöé îîéø

1.

In Yoma (50b), it asks about Par Kohen Gadol [on Yom Kipur]. His brethren the Kohanim are Miskaper. Do they get a big Kaparah, and they are partners, and they cannot make Temurah;

àå î÷åôéà îúëôøéï åëåìå ùì ëäï âãåì åîöé îéîø ãéçéã äåà

i.

Or, do they get a small Kaparah, and it is totally the Kohen Gadol's, and he can make Temurah, for it is a Yachid's [Korban]?

àìîà ìà çùéá îúëôø ëùäåà î÷åôéà îãëäï âãåì îéîø åìà îé÷øå ùåúôéï îä ùàçéå îúëôøéï áå á÷åôéà

2.

Inference: He is not considered Miskaper when it is a small Kaparah, since the Kohen Gadol can make Temurah. His brethren (the Kohanim) who get a small Kaparah are not called partners!

åé''ì ãáùîòúéï ùðé (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã) äéåøùéï äåå î÷åôéà ìëê îé÷øå ùåúôéï åìà îîéøéï

(d)

Answer: In our Sugya, both heirs get a small Kaparah, therefore they are called partners and they cannot make Temurah;

àáì äúí ëéåï ãàéëà äùúà áäàé ÷øáï ëôøú ëäï âãåì ã÷áéòà ìà çùéáà ìâáéä àçéå ëîå ùåúôéï òì éãé ëôøú ÷åôéà

1.

However, there, since there is in this Korban the big Kaparah of the Kohen Gadol, his brethren are not considered partners through a small Kaparah.

4)

TOSFOS DH d'Iy Salka Daitach Kipru Sheni Lamah Hu Ba

úåñôåú ã"ä ãàé ñ''ã ëéôøå ùðé ìîä äåà áà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos defends the inference.)

úéîä ëîä ÷øáðåú àãí îúðãá åîáéà æä àçø æä îéã àò''ô ùëéôø äøàùåï ùðòùä ìùîå

(a)

Question: This is astounding. One may volunteer many Korbanos and bring one after the other immediately, even though the first atoned, for it was done Lishmah!

åé''ì ãôøéê ùðé ìîä çééá ìäáéà

(b)

Answer #1: He asks why he is obligated to bring the second.

åàí úàîø îàé ÷àîø ùðé ìîä äåà áà ãìîà ÷àúé ìëôø àîçùáä ãùìà ìùîï ãçùéá òùä ìàçø ùçéèä ëîå ñîéëä ãáñîåê

1.

Question: What was the question "why does the second come?" Perhaps it comes to atone for the intent Lo Lishmah, which is considered an Aseh after Shechitah, just like Semichah below!

åîéäå éù ìåîø ãîçùáä úìåéä áòåáã å÷øáï ìà îëôø àìà òì áòìéä

2.

Answer: Intent depends on the one who does the Avodah. The Korban atones only for the owner. (A Yisrael may slaughter his own Korban. However, we obligate a second Korban even when the owner did not engage in the Avodah. Therefore, we cannot say that it is to atone for the intent.)

åðøàä ãîàùí ÷ãéé÷ ùàéðå áà ðãáä

(c)

Answer #2: It seems that we infer from an Asham, which may not be brought for Nedavah. (We ask why he brings a second Asham.)

5)

TOSFOS DH Ela Mai Lo Kipru Lamah Hu Karev

úåñôåú ã"ä àìà îàé ìà ëéôøå ìîä äåà ÷øá

(SUMMARY: Tosfos questions this.)

ö''ò ãäééðå ÷ùéà ãøéù ì÷éù ãàí ëùéøéï äí éøöå åàí àéðï îøöéï ìîä äï áàéï

(a)

Question: This was Reish Lakish's question! If they are Kosher, they should be Meratzeh. If they are not Meratzeh, why do they come? (After he expounded Motza Sefasecha, this is no longer difficult!)

6)

TOSFOS DH Oh Dilma Lo Damya l'Chatas

úåñôåú ã"ä àå ãìîà ìà ãîéà ìçèàú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we cannot resolve this from a Mishnah.)

úéîä ãðôùåè îîúðé' ãô''÷ ãùáåòåú (ãó á:) ãàôé' ìø' ùîòåï ãìéú ìéä (ùí éà:) ìá áéú ãéï îúðä òìéäï ùòéø ùìà ÷øá (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) áøâì æä é÷øá áøâì àçø

(a)

Question: We should resolve from our Mishnah in Shevuos (2b) that even R. Shimon, who does not hold that Lev Beis Din stipulates about [Korbanos Tzibur], a goat (Chatas Tzibur) that was not offered this festival, is offered on another festival;

àò''ô ùîøâì ùòáøå ðúëôøå ëáø àèåîàú î÷ãù å÷ãùéå ã÷åãí äôøùä ã÷àúé äàé ùòéø îëôø àèåîàä ùàçø ëê

1.

Even though from the previous festival they already atoned for Tum'as Mikdash v'Kodoshav before separation, this goat atones for Tum'ah afterwards!

åéù ìåîø ëéåï ùàáã å÷øá àçø úçúéå àéâìàé îéìúà ùìà äéúä äôøùúï äôøùä òã øâì àçø ãùçèé ìéä

(b)

Answer: Since it was lost and another was offered in place of it, it is revealed that the separation was not [for] until the festival during which it was slaughtered.

7)

TOSFOS DH veha'Lo Ein Kaparah Ela b'Dam

úåñôåú ã"ä åäìà àéï ëôøä àìà áãí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that there is Kaparah through Kohanim eating the meat.)

áôø÷ úîéã ðùçè (ôñçéí ðè:) àîøé' ëì ëîä ãìà àëìé ëäðéí áùø ìà îöé îëôø ãëúéá åàëìå àåúí àùø ëåôø áäí îìîã ùäëäðéí àåëìéï áùø åáòìéí îúëôøéí

(a)

Implied question: In Pesachim (59b), we say that as long as Kohanim do not eat the meat, it cannot atone, for it says "v'Achu Osam Asher Kupar Bahem" - this teaches that Kohanim eat, and the owner gets Kaparah!

àáì îëì î÷åí òé÷ø ëôøä àéðä àìà áãí

(b)

Answer: Even so, the primary Kaparah is only through the blood.

8)

TOSFOS DH Le'acher Shechitah Lo Ka Miba'i Lan

úåñôåú ã"ä ìàçø ùçéèä ìà ÷à îéáòéà ìï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that below, R. Yirmeyah asks this.)

áñåó äñåâéà áòé øáé éøîéä àôéìå ìàçø ùçéèä:

(a)

Observation: At the end of the Sugya, R. Yirmeyah asks about even after Shechitah.

6b----------------------------------------6b

9)

TOSFOS DH Lo Kiper Matanos ha'Rosh

úåñôåú ã"ä ìà ëéôø îúðåú äøàù

(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes that this is not Me'akev.)

ôé' á÷åðè' åéáéà ìåâ àçø åéúï îúðåú äøàù åìø' ò÷éáà öøéê ìäúçéì ááäåðåú

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): He brings another Log [of oil] and puts on the head. And according to R. Akiva, he must begin with the Behonos (ear, thumb and toe).

åúéîä ãáñåó äåöéàå ìå (éåîà ãó ñà.) îùîò ãìëåìé òìîà àéï îúðåú äøàù îòëáåú

(b)

Question: In Yoma (61a) it connotes that all agree that Matanos on the head (after putting on the Behonos) are not Me'akev!

åàôéìå ðùôê äìåâ ãôìéâé äúí ø''à åø''ù åøáðï áðúï î÷öú îúðåú ùááäåðåú åðùôê äìåâ

1.

Even when the Log spilled, about which R. Elazar and R. Shimon and Rabanan argue, is when he put of the Matanos on the Behonos, and the Log spilled!

å÷úðé ñéôà âîø îúðåú ùááäåðåú åðùôê äìåâ ãáøé äëì îúðåú ùáøàù àéðï îòëáåú ëìì ãàéï öøéê ìäáéà àçø

2.

And the Seifa teaches that if he finished the Matanos on the Behonos and the Log spilled, all agree that Matanos on the head are not Me'akev at all, and he need not bring more [oil];

ãáòðéï àçø àé àôùø ìôøù åæäå ãìà ëúðàé ãäëà

i.

It is impossible to explain otherwise. This is unlike the Tana'im here!

åö''ì ãìø' éåçðï áï ðåøé ðîé àéï îòëáåú ëìì åàéï öøéê ìòùåúï

(c)

Answer: We must say that also according to R. Yochanan ben Nuri, [the Matanos on the head] are not Me'akev at all, and he need not do them;

åîòé÷øà ñ''ã ìà ëéôø ÷îé ùîéà àôéìå îä ùòùä ëáø ëâåï îúðåú áäåðåú òöîï àò''ô ùðúðï àéï áäï øéöåé âîåø ìôé ùçéñø îúðåú äøàù àò''â ãìà îòëáé

1.

Initially, [Rav Huna bar Yehudah] thought that he was not Mechaper with respect to Shamayim, even for what he already did, e.g. Matanos on the Behonos themselves. Even if he put them, there is not full Ritzuy, since he omitted the Matanos on the head, even though they are not Me'akev.

ëîå ùàîø ìòéì ù÷øáï ùòùä ìà ëéôø ÷îé ùîéà áùáéì ñîéëä ùìà òùä àò''â ãìà îòëáú

i.

This is like it says above, that the Korban that he offered was not Mechaper with respect to Shamayim, because he did not do Semichah, even though it is not Me'akev.

åäãø îñé÷ åîúï áäåðåú ùëáø òùä ëéôø ìâîøé ùéù áäï øéöåé âîåø àáì îúðåú äøàù ìà ëéôø ÷îé ùîéà åàéï öøéê ìòùåúï ãëúéá åäðåúø åâå'

2.

He later concludes that Matanos on the Behonos that he already did were totally Mechaper. There is full Ritzuy. However, Matanos on the head were not Mechaper with respect to Shamayim, and he need not do them, for it is written "veha'Nosar..."

åëï ä÷øáï ëùø åëéôø òì ëì òùä ù÷åãí ìëï àáì ñîéëä ìà ëéôø ãäåéà ìàçø äôøùä òã ùéáéà ÷øáï àçø

3.

Similarly, the Korban is Kosher and it atoned for everything that he did before. However, it did not atone for Semichah, which is after separation, until he brings another Korban.

àáì ÷ùä òì æä ãìà äåé ìéä ìúøõ ø÷ äúí ëúéá åäðåúø åâáé ñîéëä ìà ëúéá åäðåúø

(d)

Question: He should have answered only "there, it is written veha'Nosar, and regarding Semichah it is not written veha'Nosar"!

åö''ì ãäúí ä''ô îúðåú äøàù ìà îòëáé ãëéåï ù÷éáì îãí äàùí åîï äùîï òì äáäåðåú àéðå ÷øåé òåã îçåñø ëôåøéí àìà îåúø ìàëåì á÷ãùéí åìéëðñ ìî÷ãù

(e)

Answer: There it means as follows. Matanos on the head are not Me'akev. Since he received from the blood of the Asham and from the oil on the Behonos, he is no longer called Mechusar Kipurim. Rather, he may eat Kodshim and enter the Mikdash;

ãîúï ùîï ðîé ÷øåé ÷øáï ëãàîø ôø÷ áéú ùîàé (ì÷îï îã:) ìëì ÷øáðí ìøáåú ìåâ ùîï ùì îöåøò åìëï ìëì äôçåú öøéê ìéúï òì äáäåðåú ÷åãí ùéäà îåúø á÷ãùéí. áøåê

1.

This is because Matanos of oil are also called Korban, like it says below (44b) "l'Chol Korbanam" includes the Log of oil of a Metzora. Therefore, at least he must put [oil] on the Behonos before he is permitted Kodshim. This is from R. Baruch.

10)

TOSFOS DH v'Leiku v'Leima Lei l'Kra d'Chi Kesiva b'Zeh Acher Zeh Kesiva

úåñôåú ã"ä åìé÷å åìéîà ìéä ì÷øà ãëé ëúéáà áæä àçø æä ëúéáà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the difficulty.)

äà ìà ôøéê ãìéîà ìéä ì÷øà ùìà çééá ìäáéà ùðéí àìà ëùäôøéù áæä àçø æä àáì äôøéù ùðéí ááú àçú [àéðå çééá]

(a)

Implied question: Why didn't he ask that he should say that the verse obligates bringing two only when he separated one after the other, but if he separated two at once, he need not [offer both]?

ùæå àéðå ÷åùéà ãàôé' äôøéù ùðéí ááú àçú ðäé ëù÷øá äàçã ìà îäðé äùðé ùäåôøù òîå îëì î÷åí éëåì ìäôøéù àçø ëï åìä÷øéá åîåòéì ãìòåìí çééáä úåøä ìäáéà ùðéí

(b)

Answer: This is not difficult. Even if he separated two at once, granted, when he offers the one, the second that he separated with it does not help. In any case, he can separate afterwards, and it will help! The Torah always commanded to offer two.

àìà äëé ôøéê ãàèå îé ìéîà ìéä ì÷øà ãùðéí ùçééáä úåøä ìàåúï ùäåôøùå ùìà ááú àçú (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú)

(c)

Explanation: Rather, he asks as follows. Will he say to him that the verse, that the Torah obligates two, is [only] when they were not separated at once?!

éù úéîà àé ÷à îäðé ìá á''ã ãàèå îé ìéîà (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) ì÷øà ãëé îùúòé ò''é ìá á''ã

1.

It is astounding if Lev Beis Din helps for this. Will he say that the verse discusses through Lev Beis Din?!"

åðøàä ãáìàå ÷øà äåä ÷ùéà ìéä îùòéøé òöøú ùòåùéï ëì ùðä ùãåç÷ äåà ìäòîéãí åìåîø ùäéå îôøéùéï àåúï áæä àçø æä

(d)

Answer: [Even] without the verse, it would be difficult for him from the goats of Shavu'os. [We know that while the Mikdash stood,] we offered them every year. It is difficult to establish and say that they used to separate them one after the other.

11)

TOSFOS DH Sachin Moshachtan l'Mah she'Hen

úåñôåú ã"ä ñëéï îåùëúï ìîä ùäï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos gives three explanations of this.)

áñåó ôø÷ ÷îà ãùáåòåú (ãó éá:) àîøéðï ãùîåàì ñáø ìäà ãø' éåçðï ãäúí åáñîåê îééúé ìä àîø øáé éåçðï úîéãéï ùìà äåöøëå ìöáåø ìãáøé ø''ù àéï ðôãéï úîéîéí

(a)

Reference: In Shevuos (12b), we say that Shmuel holds like R. Yochanan's teaching there, and it is brought below here (6b-7a). R. Yochanan said that Temidim that the Tzibur does not need, according to R. Shimon we do not redeem them if they are Temimim.

ôéøåù àìà î÷éöéï áâåôï àú äîæáç ëã÷àîø äúí ìø' ùîòåï

1.

Explanation: Rather, we offer them themselves for Kitz ha'Mizbe'ach, like it says there according to R. Shimon.

åôé' ùí á÷åðè' ãùîåàì ñáø ìä ìäà ãàîø øáé éåçðï ìãáøé ø''ù àéï ðôãéï úîéîéí åî÷éöéï áäï àú äîæáç

2.

Rashi explained there that Shmuel holds like R. Yochanan taught that according to R. Shimon, they are not redeemed if they are Temimim, and we offer them themselves for Kitz ha'Mizbe'ach;

ãàîø ùîåàì ñëéï îåùëúï ìîä ùäï ôé' ñëéï äùåçèï ñúí îåùëúï ì÷øáï ùäåôøùå îúçéìä ëâåï òåìú úîéã ìòåìú ÷éõ àò''ô ùàéï æä àåúå ÷øáï ëéåï ãîòé÷øà òåìä åäùúà òåìä

i.

Source: Shmuel holds like the knife pulls them to what they are. I.e. a knife that slaughters then Stam causes them to be the Korban for which they were initially separated, e.g. Olas Tamid for Olas Kitz ha'Mizbe'ach, even though it is not the same [exact] Korban, since initially it was an Olah and now it is an Olah.

åäùúà ÷ùä îàé îééúé äúí úðéà ðîé äëé îáøééúà äìà îîúðé' ãäúí äåä ìéä ìàéúåéé

(b)

Question #1: Now it is difficult, that it brings there this Beraisa for a support. It should have brought the Mishnah there (Shavu'os 2b)!

åòåã ãáäãéà îåëç áùîòúéï ãîéìúéä ãùîåàì ãåå÷à ëøáðï ãôìéâé òìéä ãøáé ùîòåï ãàéú ìäå ìá áéú ãéï îúðä òìéäï

(c)

Question #2: It is explicitly proven in our Sugya that Shmuel's teaching is only like Rabanan. R. Shimon argues with him, for he holds that Lev Beis Din stipulates about them!

åéù ôéøåùéí áøù''é ùîåâä áäï ðøàä áòéðé ãìà âøñéðï äà ãùîåàì äëà ãäà áôø÷ ÷îà ãùáåòåú îå÷îéðï ìä àìéáà ãîàï ãìéú ìéä ìá áéú ãéï îúðä òìéäï

(d)

Explanation #2: Some texts of Rashi's Perush were corrected to say "it seems to me that the text here does not bring Shmuel's teaching, for in Shevuos we establish it like the opinion that does not hold that Lev Beis Din stipulates."

åæäå ãåç÷ ìîçå÷ ëì îéìúéä ãùîåàì îï äñôøéí

(e)

Objection #1: It is difficult to erase Shmuel's teaching from Seforim!

åòåã ðøàä ùãáøé ä÷åðèøñ ñåúøéí æä àú æä ùôéøù ñëéï îåùëúï ìîä ùäï øàåééï åòåîãéï ëâåï úîéãéï ùìà äåöøëå ìöáåø ùð÷çå îúøåîä éùðä åäâéò àçã áðéñï î÷éöéï áäï àú äîæáç

(f)

Objection #2: Rashi contradicts himself! He explained that the knife that slaughters them causes them to be the Korban for which they are proper and destined, e.g. Temidim that the Tzibur did not need that were bought from the old Terumah (last year's half-Shekalim) and Nisan came, we use them for Kitz ha'Mizbe'ach;

åàó òì âá ãìùí úîéãéï ðì÷çå åìà ìùí òåìåú ðãáú öáåø äåàéì åìà çæå úå ìöéáåø ÷øáé ìîàé ãçæå îùåí ãìá áéú ãéï îúðä òìéäï àí äåöøëå äåöøëå åàí ìàå é÷éöå áäï

1.

Even though they were bought for Temidim, and not for Olos Nedavah of the Tzibur, since they are no longer proper for the Tzibur, they are offered for what they are proper, for Lev Beis Din stipulates about them. If they are needed, they are needed. If not, they are used for Kitz ha'Mizbe'ach.

àìîà ìôéøåùå ìà îäðé úðàé áéú ãéï ìîé÷øá úå ìúîéãéï

i.

Inference: According to his Perush, Tenai Beis Din does not help to offer them afterwards for Temidim.

åàçø ëê ôéøù ìãáøé çëîéí ðôãéï úîéîéí ãàéú ìäå ìá áéú ãéï îúðä òìéäï ìäëùéøï ìúîéãé ùðä äáàä

2.

Afterwards, he explained that according to Chachamim, they are redeemed while Tam, for they hold that Lev Beis Din stipulates about them to make them Kosher for Temidim for the coming year;

ùàí ìà äåöøëå éäéå ìãîéäï ùéôãå àåúï îîòåú çåìéï áìà îåí åéåöéàåí ìçåìéï åéôìå ãîéäï ìîåúø úøåîä åàçø ëê é÷çå àåúï îúøåîä çãùä åéåëùøå ìúîéãéí

3.

If they are not needed, they are [Kodesh] for their value. They are redeemed with Chulin coins, without a Mum, and they become Chulin, and their [redemption] money goes to Mosar Terumah. Afterwards, we buy [the same lambs] from the new Terumah, and they are Kosher for Temidim.

åðøàä ëôéøåù äòøåê åæä ìùåðå ñëéï îåùëúï ìîä ùäï ôéøåù ìîä ùäï àí úîéãéï àí îåñôéï ñëéï îåùëúï ìäéåú ëï

(g)

Explanation #3: It seems that the Aruch's Perush is correct. The knife pulls them to what they are, i.e. to what they are. Whether they are Temidim or Musafim, the knife pulls them to be so;

àáì èøí ùîåùëúï äñëéï àéï ìåîø àéæä úîéã åàéæä îåñôéï àìà úìåééï åòåîãéï áúðàé ìá áéú ãéï ùëê îúðä òìéäï ìá áéú ãéï

1.

However, before the knife pulls them, we cannot say which is a Tamid and which is a Musaf. Rather, their status is suspended through a Tenai of Lev Beis Din, for so Lev Beis Din stipulates about them;

àó òì ôé ùàîøå ùäï úîéãéï àí éøöå ìä÷øéáï ìùí æáç àçø øùàéï ìôé ùáæîï ùîùê æä äñëéï ùì úîéã (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) äøé äåà úîéã åáæîï ùîùê æä äñëéï ìùì îåñó äøé äåà îåñó

2.

Even though they said that they are Temidim, if they want to offer them for another Korban, they may, for when the knife of (i.e. to slaughter) the Tamid pulled it, it is a Tamid, and when the knife of the Musaf pulled it, it is a Musaf.

åæä ñééòúà ìø' éåçðï [ãàîø] ùàí ìà äåöøëå ìäï [àìéáà ãøáðï] ðôãéï úîéîéí ùìà îùëúï ñëéï ìòåìí

3.

This supports R. Yochanan, who said that if they are not needed, according to Rabanan they are redeemed while Tam, for the knife never pulled it.

åäùúà ìäàé ôéøåùà ìà âøñéðï úðéà ðîé äëé ãîéìúà ãùîåàì ëøáðï àìà âøñé' úðéà îåãä ø' ùîòåï ëå'

(h)

Consequence: Now, according to this Perush, the text does not say "also a Beraisa teaches so", for Shmuel's teaching is like Rabanan. Rather, the text says "a Beraisa teaches that R. Shimon agrees..." (This Dibur continues on the next Daf.)

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF