תוספות ד"ה הכי גרסינן הניחא למאן דאמר לא זהו אבנטו

(SUMMARY: Tosfos states the correct text and why it is so.)

כדמוכח בפ"ק דיומא (דף יב.)


Text: This is as is apparent from the Gemara in Yoma (12a).




תוספות ד"ה אלמא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the Mishnah, but is unsure how the Gemara's conclusion fits with his explanation.)

פירוש לא מזבני כמו לא זבני דכי היכי דכשלקח ממנו במשקל מנכה לו משום דכשאמר ליה מכור לי ליטרא בשר לא רצה לקנות מתנות ה"נ מתני'


Explanation: The words "they do not sell" is as if it says "they do not buy." Just as when the customer made a purchase from the butcher based on weight he can deduct the weight of the Matnos Kehunah from what he has to pay, as when he asked for a Litra of meat he had not intention to buy Matanos he would have to give to the Kohen, so too is the case in our Mishnah.

שייר אצל מוכר הוי כלוקח הימנו במשקל ולא זבין מתנה דכהן אבל בשלא שייר כלום לא שייך לומר לא זבין שהרי קנה הכל


Explanation (cont.): If he left it by the seller it is as if he bought by weight, and he did not buy the Matanah of the Kohen. However, if he did not leave anything by the seller it is impossible to say he did not buy it, as he bought everything!

ומיהו הא דקאמר דא"ל מוכר מתנה דכהן לא זבני לך לא א"ש


Implied Question: However, the Gemara's conclusion "that this is when the seller says he is not selling the Matanos" does not fit with what we have stated.



תוספות ד"ה שילוח הקן

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that the Gemara could have said Matanos instead of Reishis ha'Gez.)

וה"ה לבד ממתנות וחדא מינייהו נקט


Explanation: It is also applicable to Matanos. The Gemara chose one of the two (when it stated Reishis ha'Gez).



תוספות ד"ה כל היכא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara stated a rule that excluded Gid ha'Nasheh instead of making a different rule excluding Oso v'Es Beno.)

תימה כיון דאין חילוק בין חולין ומוקדשים אלא בגיד הנשה ובאותו ואת בנו א"כ הכי נמי הוה מצי למימר איפכא שלא לצורך לבד מאותו ואת בנו


Question: This is difficult. Since there is no difference between Chulin and Mukdashim (in all of the Mitzvos discussed in our Mesechta) aside from Gid ha'Nasheh and Oso v'Es Beno, they also could have said that this statement is never required in the Mishnah besides for the exception of Oso v'Es Beno!

וי"ל דכיון דחדוש הוא באותו שהוא שלא לצורך כדמפרש ואזיל ולאו מי אוקימנא כו' ניחא טפי לומר לבד מאותו דבר שהייתי סבור שהוא לצורך והוא שלא לצורך


Answer: Since it is a novel teaching regarding Gid ha'Nasheh that it is not required, as explained later in the Gemara when it says, "And don't we establish etc." it is better to exclude Gid ha'Nasheh that I would have thought needed to be said but truthfully it does not need to be said.



תוספות ד"ה מאי טעמא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how the Mishnah included a novel teaching since it followed the pattern of the other Mishnayos in Chulin.)

דהא דאשמועינן דולדות קדשים במעי אמן או בהוייתן הן קדושין הוה מצי לאשמועינן בעלמא בלא גיד הנשה


Explanation: When the Mishnah (89b) teaches that offspring of Kodshim is either holy in the womb or only when it comes out of its mother, it could have taught this without discussing Gid ha'Nasheh.

אלא איידי דתנא לצורך תנא נמי שלא לצורך ומ"מ מוקמינן לה בולדות קדשים כיון דמצינן לפרושי דאשמועינן חדוש קצת


Explanation (cont.): However, once the Mishnayos had to state "regarding Chulin and Mukdashim" in most of the Mishnayos in our Mesechet, it also stated this regarding Gid ha'Nasheh where it did not need to be stated. Even so, we say that it must be referring to offspring of Kodshim, since we can explain that it is teaching us a somewhat novel lesson.



תוספות ד"ה יצא

(SUMMARY: Rashi and Tosfos argue regarding the explanation of the Gemara's derivation.)

פ"ה דטעמא משום דלא אמרה תורה שלח לתקלה


Opinion #1: Rashi explains that the reason is because the Torah would not say that you should send away the bird if it is forbidden to eat (and someone else may eat it).

וקשה חדא דלישנא לא משמע הכי


Question #1: This is difficult, as the Gemara's terminology does not imply that this understanding is correct.

ועוד דמסיק ומוקי לה בלא נגמר דינו וא"כ אין בו תקלה


Question #2: Additionally, the Gemara concludes and establishes the case (regarding the killer bird) as where its ruling was not yet handed down. If so, it is not forbidden to eat and cannot cause one who does so to transgress!

ונראה דפשטיה דקרא דריש דמשמע דבמידי שיכול לשלחו משתעי אבל הקדש מצוה להביאו ליד גזבר


Opinion #2: It seems that the Gemara is explaining the simple meaning of the Pasuk. The Pasuk implies that Shiluach ha'Ken only applies to something one can send away, not to a bird which a person is supposed to bring to the caretaker of Kodshim birds.

ופירש בקונטרס מתקח לך לא מצי לאתויי דהא ביצי תורים לא מועלים ולא נהנים


Explanation: Rashi explains that from "you should take for yourself" one cannot derive this, as one cannot transgress Meilah nor have benefit from Hekdesh eggs of turtledoves.

ואע"ג דבקדשי בדק הבית מועלים מתניתין איירי בקדשי מזבח לכ"ע ולא פליגי בסמוך אלא בקדשי בדק הבית ולהכי לא מצי ממעט מתקח לך


Explanation (cont.): Despite the fact that one could transgress Meilah if these eggs were regular Hekdesh items, everyone holds that our Mishnah is referring to Kodshei Mizbe'ach. The argument later is regarding regular Hekdesh. This is why we could not exclude Hekdesh from "take for yourself."

ומיהו לשון להביאו ליד גזבר אין מיושב כל כך דגזבר לא שייך אלא בקדשי בדק הבית


Implied Question: However, the terminology "to bring it to the caretaker" does not seem very accurate here, as a caretaker is only relative when discussing regular Hekdesh.