To D. Zupnik Shalom! The very point of a Gemoro is that the demands to daas baal a-korban in these two cases are the same: it's no matter to which person belongs the money and the question only is whether the person roitse be-hakrovas a-korban. My statement that shitas Shmuel corresponds to Mishno is not my own hiddush - it is based on Tos. Arachin 21b DH Omar L'ho Shmuel. So from the Tos. I can realize why Shmuel argues with Ulo. But why Ulo argues with Shmuel? This is my question. I'm sorry of my bad English - my native language is Russian and I never used to speak English. (You can write to me in Hebrew as well). And I have one more question - maybe more simple. Gemoro on 24b asks what does Rabby with the pundion. But the question is to be asked on shitas Rav on omud 1! Why the Gemoro waits to this point?
Sincerely,
Alexander
Tosfos does not write that Shmuel's reasoniong follows that of the Mishnah. Tosfos is addressing another issue: how do we know that Shmuel actually meant She'as Hafrashah? His statement is ambiguous and can be applied to She'as Kaparah as well. Tosfos replies that Shmuel was "Kai" on the
Mishnah; his statement was said in relation to the Mishnah and therefore it deals with the same case that the Mishnah does.
The Sevaros of Shmuel and Ula are not based on the Derashah at all, as the next Tosfos points out. The question is whether a person wants to have Kaparah from his own money, and thus it only applies to Chatas and Asham at the time of Hafrashah, or wheter a person wants to do Semichah, in which case it applies to the time of Hakravah.
Your last question is asked by Tosfos, 24b DH Iy k'Rebbi.
D. Zupnik