1) TOSFOS DH Chatas Karyei Rachmana
úåñôåú ã"ä çèàú ÷øééä øçîðà
(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that the Sugya in Zevachim is like the conclusion here.)
ìôé èòí æä ìà äéä öøéê ììîåã áô''÷ ãæáçéí (ãó ç:) ãùîéòú ä÷åì áîä äöã
(a) Inference: According to this reason, there was no need to learn in Zevachim (8b, that Lo Lishmah disqualifies Chatas) Shevu'as ha'Edus from a Tzad ha'Shavah.
åáîñ÷ðà ãùîòúéï ìà ÷àé àìò éìéó ìä îãëúéá äåà
(b) Observation: In the conclusion of our Sugya, this is not sustained. Rather, he learns from "Hi".
2) TOSFOS DH Mai Nafka Minah Ha Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael
úåñôåú ã"ä îàé ðô÷à îéðä äà úðà ãáé øáé éùîòàì
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses when we can learn a Gezeirah Shavah in different ways.)
áëéñåé äãí (çåìéï ã' ôä.) åôø÷ äîôìú (ðãä ãó ëá:) îùðé îããîé ìéä éìôéðï ìôé ùäâ''ù îëçéùåú æå àú æå
(a) Reference: In Chulin (85a) and Nidah (22b) we answer that (when a Gezeirah Shavah can be learned from different words,) we learn from the words that resemble each other [more], for the [possible] ways to learn the Gezeirah Shavah contradict each other;
àáì ëàï åáäåøéå' áñ''ô äåøä ëäï (ã' ç:) ãàôù' ìãøåù [ö"ì ìúøåééäå - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ãøùé' ìäå ìúøåééäå
1. However, here and in Horiyos (8b) that it is possible to expound both, we expound both.
åääéà ãáô' äúëìú (ì÷îï ã' îä: åùí) ÷ùéà âáé ëáùéí îòëáéï àú äìçí (åâîø) (ö"ì ãâîø - ùéèä î÷åáöú) áï ððñ éäéå îéäéå åìà âîø éäéå îúäééðä åäúí îöéðï ìîéìó úøåééäå ãìçí åëáùéí îòëáéï æä àú æä
(b) Question #1: Below (45b) it is difficult regarding "the lambs (Kivsei Atzeres) are Me'akev the bread (Shtei ha'Lechem)." Ben Nanas learns "Yihyu" from "Yihyu", and he does not learn from "Tihyenah", and there we could learn both, that the bread and the lambs are Me'akev each other!
åëï áô''á ãéáîåú (ãó éæ:) ìà îëçùé àäããé ãîöé ìîéìó ãîï äàá åìà îï äàí àå îï äàí åìà îï äàá îé÷øé àçååä
(c) Question #2: Similarly, in Yevamos (17b, the possible ways to learn the Gezeirah Shavah) do not contradict each other, for one could learn that [brothers] from the father but not from the mother, and from the mother but not from the father, [each case] is called brotherhood!
3) TOSFOS DH Ligamer Avono me'Avono d'Shemi'as ha'Kol
úåñôåú ã"ä ìéâîø òåðå îòåðå ãùîéòú ä÷åì
(SUMMARY: Tosfos justifies the question.)
àò''â ãùîéòú ä÷åì âåôà éìôéðï áîä äöã áô''÷ ãæáçéí (ã' ç:) åáòéà äéà áôø÷ àéæäå î÷åîï (æáçéí ãó ðà.) àé ãáø äìîã ááðéï àá çåæø åîìîã áâ''ù åìà àéôùéèà
(a) Implied question: Shemi'as ha'Kol itself we learn from a Tzad ha'Shavah in Zevachim (8b), and it is a question in Zevachim (51a) whether or not something learned from a Binyan Av returns to teach through a Gezeirah Shavah, and it was not resolved! (Regarding this, Tzad ha'Shavah is like a Binyan Av.)
îëì î÷åí ôøéê ùôéø ãìâîø òåðå îòåðå ãùîéòú ä÷åì àå ðôùè îäëà ãáø äìîã ááðéï àá àéï çåæø åîìîã áâ''ù
(b) Answer: In any case he asks properly. We should learn Avono from Avono of Shemi'as ha'Kol, or resolve from here that something learned from a Binyan Av does not return to teach through a Gezeirah Shavah!
úéîä ãáäåøéåú ôø÷ äåøä ëäï (ãó ç:) éìéó ãìà îééúé àùí úìåé àìà òì ñô÷ çèàú ÷áåòä áâ''ù ãðàîø (àùí) (ö"ì åàùí - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã) áàùí úìåé åðàîø åàùîå áöáåø
(c) Question: In Horiyos (8b) we learn that one brings Asham Taluy only for a Safek [Aveirah] for which [one who surely transgressed b'Shogeg] brings a Chatas Kavu'a (not Oleh v'Yored) through a Gezeirah Shavah. It says here v'Ashem regarding Asham Taluy, and it says v'Ashemu regarding [Par Helam Davar of] the Tzibur;
åàãøáä ðéìó òåðå îòåðå ãùîéòú ä÷åì ãòåìä åéåøã ãäà ãáòé ìîéîø (ãîåúøä ðãáä äåà ãâîéøé (ìà) ÷àé åáô''÷) (ö"ì ãìîåúøä ðãáä äåà ãâîéøé ìà ÷àé ãáô''÷ - öàï ÷ãùéí) ãùáåòåú (ãó é.) àùëçðà ãéìéó ùòéø ãøàù çãù îòåï (òåðå) (ö"ì òåï - ùéèä î÷åáöú, - öàï ÷ãùéí)
1. Just the contrary, we should learn Avono-Avono from Shemi'as ha'Kol, which is Oleh v'Yored, for this that we wanted to say that it comes to teach that Mosar [Asham] goes to Nedavah is not sustained, for in Shevuos (10a) we find that we learn Se'ir Rosh Chodesh from "Avon Avon"!
i. Note: Acharonim ask that the Gemara asks this there! Be'er Sheva (there) says that in Tosfos' text, the Gemara did not ask this there.
4) TOSFOS DH Chatas Taima Mai di'Chsiv Bah Hi
úåñôåú ã"ä çèàú èòîà îàé ãëúéá áä äéà
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the source to disqualify Chatas Lo Lishmah.)
áëîä ãåëúé îùîò ãéìôéðï òéëåáà áçèàú ãëúéá áä äéà ëàï åáôø÷ ÷îà ãæáçéí (ãó é:) áùðé î÷åîåú øáé àìéòæø àåîø àó äàùí àîø ìå øáé éäåùò çèàú ðàîø áä äéà áùçéèä ëå'
(a) Observation: In several places it connotes that we learn Ikuv [of Lishmah] for Chatas, since it says "Hi" - here, and in Zevachim in two places. On 10b, R. Eliezer says "even Asham." R. Yehoshua said, in Chatas it says "Hi" regarding Shechitah...
òã) (ö"ì òåã - éùø åèåá) äúí çèàú èòîà îàé ãëúéá áä äéà
1. Also, it says there (11a) 'what is the reason for Chatas? It says "Hi".'
åúéîä ãäúí áääéà ôéø÷à (ùí æ:) àîø çåõ îï äôñç åäçèàú éìéó î÷øàé àçøéðé
(b) Question: There (7b) it says "[all Zevachim slaughtered Lo Lishmah are Kosher,] except for Pesach and Chatas, and we learn from other verses ("v'Shachat Osah l'Chatas", and other verses for other Avodos)!
åúéøõ ä''ø çééí ãçã ìçèàú ùùçèä ìùí òåìä åçã ìçèàú [ö"ì çìá - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ùùçèä ìùí çèàú ðæéø åîöåøò
(c) Answer #1 (R. Chaim): We need one [Drashah] for Chatas slaughtered l'Shem Olah, and one for Chatas Chelev slaughtered l'Shem Chatas Nazir or Chatas Metzora.
å÷ùéà ìôéøåùå à''ë îàé ôøéê ìòéì ãìùí çèàú ðæéø åîöåøò úäà ëùéøä åúøöä îùåí ãëúéá æàú úåøú äçèàú úåøä àçú ìëì çèàåú
(d) Question: If so, what was the question above (3b) 'l'Shem Chatas Nazir or Metzora should be Kosher and Meratzeh, because it is written "Zos Toras ha'Chatas" - one Torah for all Chata'os?' (A verse teaches unlike this!)
åéù ãåç÷éí ãäëà ãøéù äåà ìòëá äééðå äåà ãëúéá áùòéø ðùéà îùåí ã÷àîø áô''÷ ãæáçéí (ãó ä.) (àéðï ëùéøéï) (ö"ì àí àéðï îøöéï - öàï ÷ãùéí) ìîä äï áàéï åàîøéðï îöéðå ááàéï ìàçø îéúä ùäí ëùøéï åàéðí îøöéï
(e) Poor answer: Some say that here we expound "Hi" to be Me'akev, i.e. "Hi" written regarding Se'ir Nasi, for it says in Zevachim (5a) "if they (Korbanos slaughtered Lo Lishmah) are not Meratzeh, why are they offered?", and we say that we find that Korbanos brought after the owner died are Kosher, and they are not Meratzeh!
ãàùä ùäáéàä çèàúä åîúä éáéàå éåøùéä òåìúä åàùí ðîé ÷øá ìîåúøå
1. Citation (5a, 5b): If a woman (who gave birth) brought her Chatas and died (before bringing her Olah), her heirs bring her Olah. Also Asham, its Mosar is offered.
åäùúà àé ìàå ãëúéá äåà áùòéø ðùéà äåä àîéðà çèàú ð÷áä ãäéà âåôä ìà ÷øáä îåúøä àìà ìãîéí ëâåï îôøéù ùúé çèàåú ìàçøéåú äåà ãôñì øçîðà ùìà ìùîä
2. Summation of Answer: If not that "Hi" was written about Se'ir Nasi, one might have thought that only a female Chatas, the Torah disqualified it Lo Lishmah, for it itself is not offered when it is Mosar, rather, its value is offered, like one who separated two Chata'os for Achrayus (if the first will be lost or blemished, he will offer the second)...
àáì ùòéø ðùéà ãäåé æëø åäåà âåôéä ÷øá òåìä ìîåúøå ìéúëùø ùìà ìùîå ëúá øçîðà äåà
3. However, Se'ir Nasi, which is a male, and it itself is offered for an Olah when it is Mosar, it is Kosher Lo Lishmah! Therefore, the Torah wrote "Hi".
åëé úéîà ìéìôå ùàø çèàåú îéðéä á÷ì åçåîø
4. Question: We should learn other Chata'os from it from a Kal v'Chomer!
ùîà ìà éìôéðï éçéã îðùéà
5. Answer: Perhaps we do not learn an individual from a Nasi.
åòåã é''ì ãäåà ãçèàú àúà ìâìåéé àäåà ãàùí ãìà îòëá ëäåà ãôñç áô''÷ ãæáçéí (âí æä ùí)
(f) Answer #2: "Hi" of Chatas comes to reveal about "Hu" of Asham, that it is not Me'akev, like "Hu" of Pesach, in Zevachim (5a. I.e. Chulin Lo Lishmah is Pasul, but another Korban Lo Lishmah is Kosher. The Gemara says that presumably, "Hu" of Asham is not Me'akev, for it is written regarding Haktaras Eimurim, and even if they are not burned at all, the Korban is Kosher!)
åùîà àé ìà ëúá àìà áôñç ìà äåä ãøùéðï äëé
1. Perhaps if [Hu] were written only regarding Pesach, we would not expound so. (Only because the Torah wrote Hi regarding essential Avodah of both Chatas and Pesach, we expound that Asham is different.)
à''ð äàé [äåà] ãçèàú àúà ìâìåéé àääåà ãîðçú çåèà åîðçú ÷ðàåú ãîòëá ëããøéù äëà
(g) Answer #2: "Hi" of Chatas comes to reveal about "Hu" of Minchas Chotei and Minchas Kena'os, that [Lishmah] is Me'akev, like it expounds here.
5) TOSFOS DH Le'acher Haktaras Eimurim
úåñôåú ã"ä ìàçø ä÷èøú àéîåøéí
(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that Hu is written also beforehand.)
åäà ãëúéá ÷åãù ÷ãùéí äåà
(a) Implied question: It is written [before Haktaras Eimurim "Zos Toras ha'Asham] Kodesh Kodoshim Hu"!
ãøéù áú''ë äåà ÷øá åàéï úîåøúå ÷øéáä åìîòè úåãä åàéì ðæéø ãàéðå ðùçè áöôåï
(b) Answer: Toras Kohanim expounds "Hu" is offered, but its Temurah is not offered, and it excludes Todah and Eil Nazir, that (even though they are eaten only for one day and a night, one does not [need to] slaughter them in the north.
åôø÷ ÷îà ãæáçéí (âí æä ùí) ôéøù á÷åðèøñ ãìà éìôéðï îéðéä îùåí ãìà îùîò ìäå ìùîå àìà ëùëúá äåà òí ùí ä÷øáä ëâåï çèàú äåà àùí äåà
(c) Answer #2: In Zevachim (5b), Rashi explained that we do not learn from it, because "Hu" connotes Lishmah only when it is written with the name of the Korban, e.g. "Chatas Hi", "Asham Hu."
åàò''â ãëúá àùí äåà àùí àùí [ìä']
(d) Implied question: It is written "Asham Hu Asham Asham la'Shem"!
ãøéù áú''ë ìîòåèé àùí ðæéø åàùí îöåøò îëñó ù÷ìéí
(e) Answer: Toras Kohanim expounds this to exclude Asham Nazir and Asham Metzora from Kesef Shekalim (one need not buy it for at least two Shekalim of silver).
åäà ããøéù )áñôøé) (ö"ì ñôøà - - âìéåï áùí éôä òéðéí) áôøùú æàú úäéä âáé àùí îöåøò ëé ëçèàú )ëàùí( (ö"ì ëàùí - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã) äåà ôøè ìùùçèä ùìà ìùîä
(f) Implied question: The Sifri in Parshas "Zos Tihyeh [Toras ha'Metzora]" expounds about Asham Metzora "Ki ka'Chatas ha'Asham Hu" to exclude if it was slaughtered she'Lo Lishmah!
ðøàä ãàñîëúà áòìîà äåà
(g) Answer: It seems that that is a mere Asmachta. (Mishmeros Kehunah - surely the Drashah is like R. Eliezer, who disqualifies Asham Lo Lishmah. However, he learns from ka'Chatas ka'Asham. The Drashah from "Hu" is an Asmachta.)
6) TOSFOS DH Ela Hu Lamah Li lechid'Rav Huna
úåñôåú ã"ä àìà äåà ìîä ìé ìëãøá äåðà
(SUMMARY: Tosfos rejects a text in Temurah based on our Sugya.)
îùîò ãäåà ãëúá ìàçø ä÷èøú àéîåøéï ÷à ãøéù åä÷èéø àåúí äëäï äîæáçä àùä ìä' àùí äåà (åé÷øà æ)
(a) Inference: He expounds "Hu" written after Haktaras Eimurim - "v'Hiktir Osam ha'Kohen ha'Mizbe'ach Isheh la'Shem Asham Hu."
åìà ëñôøéí ãâøñé áôø÷ åàìå ÷ãùéí (úîåøä ã' éæ:) áîéìúéä ãøáé ò÷éáà àùí äåà àùí àùí [ìä'] äåà (äåà) ÷øá åàéï úîåøúå ÷øéáä
(b) Alternative text: This is unlike texts that say in Temurah (17b) in R. Akiva's words "Asham Hu Asham Asham la'Shem" - Hu (it) is offered, but its Temurah is not offered.
ãìáñåó îå÷é ìéä ìëãøá äåðà
(c) Rejection #1: In the end, we establish it like Rav Huna [who expounds here "Hu" written after Haktaras Eimurim - "v'Hiktir... Isheh la'Shem Asham Hu"].
åòåã ãáú''ë ãøéù ìéä ìîòåèé àùí ðæéø åîöåøò îëñó ù÷ìéí
(d) Rejection #2: In Toras Kohanim it expounds ["Asham Hu Asham Asham la'Shem"] to exclude Asham Nazir and Metzora from Kesef Shekalim.
7) TOSFOS DH Asham she'Nitak li'Re'iyah v'Shachto Stam Kosher l'Olah
úåñôåú ã"ä àùí ùðéú÷ ìøòééä åùçèå ñúí ëùø ìòåìä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the source for Re'iyah and Nituk.)
äà úéîä àîàé ëùø ìòåìä äà àîøéðï áúîåøä áôø÷ àìå ÷ãùéí (âí æä ùí ãó éç.) ãâîéøé ãëì ùáçèàú îúä áàùí øåòä
(a) Question: Why is it Kosher for an Olah? We say in Temurah (18a) that a tradition teaches that any case in which a Chatas must die, an Asham is Ro'eh (grazes until it becomes blemished. We sell it and buy Olos with the money!)
åëé úéîà ä''î ìëúçéìä àáì áãéòáã ëùø
1. Suggestion: That is l'Chatchilah, but b'Di'eved, it is Kosher [for an Olah].
àëúé äà ãúðéà áôñçéí áñåó àìå ãáøéí (ãó òâ.) åáôø÷ ÷îà ãùáåòåú (ãó éá.)
2. Question: Still, a Beraisa in Pesachim (73a) and in Shevuos (12a) is difficult;
àùí ùîúå áòìéå àå ùðúëôøå (îëàï îòîåã á) áòìéå éøòä òã ùéñúàá åéîëø åéáéà áãîéå òåìä áãîéå àéï àáì äåà âåôéä ìà âæéøä ìàçø ëôøä àèå ìôðé ëôøä äì''ì îùåí ãâîéøé ãáàùí øåòä
i. It says that if the owner of an Asham died or atoned [through another animal, it] grazes (until it is blemished. We sell it and buy an Olah with its money, but it itself is not [offered for an Olah]. This is a decree after Kaparah due to before Kaparah. It should say that it is due to a tradition that [whenever a Chatas must die,] an Asham is Ro'eh!
4b----------------------------------------4b
åîúåê ôé' ä÷åðèøñ îùîò ãìà âîéøé àìà ðéú÷ ìøòééä áòìîà åîùîñøå ìøåòä ëùø ìòåìä îùí åàéìê àôéìå äåà áòöîå ãùåá àéï ùí àùí òìéå
(b) Answer: Rashi's Perush connotes that the tradition is only that it is Nitak to Re'iyah (handed over to a shepherd). Once it is handed over to a shepherd, it is Kosher for an Olah from then and onwards, even it itself, for it is no longer called Asham.
åúéîä âãåì äåà ìåîø ëê
(c) Objection #1: This is greatly astounding to say so [that after Nituk it is not called Asham].
åòåã ãäåä ìéä ìîéîø âæéøä ìàçø ðéúå÷ àèå ÷åãí ðéúå÷
(d) Objection #2: [The Gemara] should have said "this is a decree after Nituk due to before Nituk"!
åòåã ãîùîò áäãéà äúí áôñçéí ãðéúå÷ ìøòééä ãøáðï îããéé÷ àîéìúéä ãøá äåðà ãäëà ãàîø ùçèå ñúí ëùø ìòåìä àìîà ÷ñáø ìà áòé ò÷éøä
(e) Objection #3: It explicitly connotes in Pesachim that Nituk to Re'iyah is mid'Rabanan, for it infers from Rav Huna's teaching here, who said that if he slaughtered it Stam, it is Kosher for an Olah, "this shows that he holds that it does not need Akirah (to uproot it from being an Asham, i.e. to explicitly offer it for an Olah)";
àé äëé ëé ìà ðéú÷ ðîé åîùðé âæéøä ìàçø ëôøä àèå ìôðé ëôøä
1. [The Gemara] asks "if so, also without Nituk [it should be Kosher for an Olah]!", and answers that this is a decree after Kaparah due to before Kaparah. (I.e. Nituk is not mid'Oraisa. It is merely a decree.)
åøáéðå ùîåàì ìà âøéñ äúí ëé ìà ðéú÷ ðîé àìà äëé âøéñ à''ä ìëúçéìä ðîé
(f) Answer (to objection #3): The Rashbam's text there does not say "also without Nituk." Rather, it says "if so, also l'Chatchilah"!
ôéøåù éëåì ìùåçèå ñúí ëéåï ãìà áòé ò÷éøä åàîàé ð÷è åùçèå ñúí ãîùîò ãéòáã
1. Explanation: [Also l'Chatchilah] he should be able to slaughter it Stam, since Akirah is not needed. Why does it say "he slaughtered it Stam", which connotes b'Di'eved?
ãáùìîà àé äåä àîø åùçèå ìùí òåìä ãáòé ò÷éøä äåä ðéçà ãð÷è ãéòáã àôéìå ìàçø ðéúå÷ âæéøä ùîà éùëç ìòå÷øå
2. Granted, had [Rav Huna] said "and he slaughtered it for an Olah", for it needs Akirah, it would be fine that it mentioned b'Di'eved. Even after Nituk is a decree lest he forget to do Akirah! (L'Chatchilah, one must wait for it to get a Mum.)
åîùðé ãëé ìà áòé ò÷éøä ðîé àñåø ìëúçéìä ëîå ìôðé ëôøä
(g) Answer (cont.): [The Gemara] answers that even if it does not need Akirah, it is forbidden l'Chatchilah, just like before Kaparah.
åãåç÷ äåà ùîâéä äñôøéí
(h) Objection #1: It is difficult to change the text of Seforim.
åòåã ãäåä ìéä ìùðåéé âæéøä àèå ìôðé ðéúå÷
(i) Objection #2: [The Gemara] should have answered "this is a decree due to before Nituk"!
åø''ú ìà âøéñ ëàï åáô''÷ ãæáçéí (ãó ä.) åáðæéø (ãó ëä:) ðéú÷ àéï ìà ðéú÷ ìà åáúîåøä àéðå áøåá ñôøéí áô' åàìå ÷ãùéí (ãó éç.) åáô''á ãæáçéí (ãó ëç.) àéðå áùåí ñôø
(j) Alternative text: R. Tam's text does not say here, and not in Zevachim (5a) or Nazir (25b) "if Nitak, yes (it is Kosher for an Olah), but if it was not Nitak, no." It is not in Temurah (18a) in most texts, and in Zevachim (28a) it is not in any Sefer.
ã÷øà ãäåà áäåééúå éäà ìà ìôñåì áìà ðéúå÷ ÷àúé ãøòéé' ãøáðï äéà
(k) Source: The verse "Hu" [from which we expound] '- it will remain in its status' does not come to disqualify without Nituk, for Re'iyah is mid'Rabanan;
åäëé âîéøé äìëúà ãëì ùáçèàú îúä áàùí ÷øá òåìä åîùåí ãú÷åï øáðï øòééä âæéøä àèå ìôðé ëôøä ð÷è äù''ñ áàùí øåòä
1. So the tradition was taught, that whenever a Chatas must die, an Asham is offered for an Olah. Because Rabanan enacted Re'iyah, a decree due to before Kaparah, the Gemara mentioned that an Asham is Ro'eh;
å÷øà àúà ìîéîø ãëùø ìòåìä áìà ò÷éøä ãáäåééúå îä ùáñåôå ìäéåú ìàçø ò÷éøä éäéä áìà ò÷éøä ãäééðå òåìä ëãâîéøé
i. The verse comes to teach that it is Kosher for an Olah without Akirah, for like it will ultimately be after Akirah, it is without Akirah, i.e. an Olah, like the tradition teaches.
åàéï ìçåù àé ÷àé ÷øà àäéìëúà
(l) Implied question: How can a verse teach about a tradition?
ãëé äàé âååðà àùëçðà áô' äìå÷ç òåáø ôøúå (áëåøåú ã' èæ.) ãàéöèøéê ÷øà åàéöèøéê äéìëúà
(m) Answer: We find like this in Bechoros (16a). We need a verse, and we need the tradition. (Tzon Kodoshim - without the tradition, one might have thought that the verse teaches that it is like its current state. There was no question against Rashi, for the tradition to require Nituk does not reveal whether or not Akirah is needed.)
åäùúà ðéçà äà ãôøéê áôñçéí (ãó òâ.) àé äëé ëé ìà ðéú÷ ðîé
(n) Support: Now it is fine what it says in Pesachim (73a) "if so (it is Kosher for an Olah without Akirah), also without Nituk"!
åòåã éù ìôøù ãâøñéðï äëà ùôéø ðéú÷ àéï ìà ðéú÷ ìà ãàîø ÷øà äåà áäåééúå éäà ÷åãí ëôøä
(o) Defense #1 (of the text that R. Tam rejected): The text can properly say "if Nitak, yes, but if it was not Nitak, no", for the verse says "Hu" - it will be in its [current] state before Kaparah.
åäéëà ãàáã åäôøéù àçø åðîöà äøàùåï åäøé ùðéäí òåîãéí ãôìéâé áôø÷ ùðé ùòéøé (éåîà ãó ñã.) ãøá àîø îöåä áøàùåï åø' éåçðï àîø îöåä áùðé
1. When it was lost and he separated (was Makdish) another and the first was found, and both are here, [Amora'im] argue about this in Yoma (64a). Rav says that the Mitzvah is to offer the first, and R. Yochanan says that the Mitzvah is to offer the second;
ìà àîø ùéäà çáéøå ÷øá îéã òåìä ãáäåéé' àùí éäà ÷åãí ëôøä äéìëê ðéú÷ àéï ìà ðéú÷ ìà îùåí ãâæøéðï àèå ìôðé ëôøä
i. [Even though Rav Huna taught in the name of Rav that if he slaughtered it Stam, it is Kosher for an Olah, Rav] did not say that the other is offered immediately for an Olah, for in its state it is an Asham before Kaparah. Therefore, if Nitak, yes, but if it was not Nitak, no, for we decree due to before Kaparah.
åáôñçéí (ãó òâ.) ãôøéê ëé ìà ðéú÷ ðîé äééðå ìàçø ëôøä àìà ùìà ðéú÷
(p) Defense #2: And in Pesachim (73a), it asks "also if it was not Nitak!", i.e. after Kaparah, but it was not Nitak;
ãáùìîà àé áòé ò÷éøä äåä ðéçà ãáòé ðéúå÷ ëãé ùéäà ðæëø ìòå÷øå ìùí òåìä
1. Granted, if it requires Akirah, it would be fine that Nituk is required, so he will remember to be Oker to the name Olah.
åà''ú åîåúø äôñç ã÷øá ùìîéí (ìéîà) ãáòé ò÷éøä åìéáòé ðéúå÷ ëãé ùéäà ðæëø ìòå÷øå
(q) Question #1: Mosar Pesach that is offered Shelamim, which needs Akirah, we should require Nituk for it, so he will remember to be Oker it!
åòåã àîàé ìà âæøéðï áéä àèå ìôðé ëôøä ëîå áàùí
(r) Question #2: Why don't we decree due to before Kaparah, just like regarding Asham?
åé''ì ãùàðé ôñç ùàéï æîðå ø÷ òøá äôñç îçöåú åìà ùééê ìîéâæø áéä ëìì áùàø éîåú äùðä
(s) Answer #2: Pesach is different, because its time is only on Erev Pesach after midday. It is not applicable at all to decree about the rest of the year. (No one would offer it at another time without Akirah, i.e. l'Shem Pesach. And with Akirah he would not err to offer it before Kaparah, for before Pesach he knows that it is before Kaparah.)
åà''ú áùìîà àùí ùîúå áòìéå àéëà ìîéâæø àèå ÷åãí îéúä åðúëôøå áòìéå àèå ÷åãí ëôøä ãäåà âåôéä ìà ìé÷øá òåìä
(t) Question: Granted, if the owner of an Asham died, one can decree due to before death, and [decree about] when the owner atoned through another, due to before Kaparah, that it itself may not be offered for an Olah;
àìà úîåøú àùí ååìã úîåøú àùí ãúðï áôø÷ åàìå ÷ãùéí (ãó ë:) éøòå åáòé ìîéîø áâîøà ÷åãí ëôøä )ãâæøéðï ùîà äåà) [ö"ì ùäåà - öàï ÷ãùéí] òöîå é÷øá åàéúåúá
1. However, Temuras Asham and Vlad Temuras Asham, which the Mishnah teaches in Temurah (20b) that they are Ro'eh, and the Gemara (Rav Nachman) wanted to say that before Kaparah, it itself is offered, and he was refuted...
äúí îàé âæéøä àéëà åäìà àó ÷åãí ëôøä )ãéù) [ö"ì ãéðå - éùø åèåá] ìé÷øá òåìä åà''ë äåà òöîå é÷øá òåìä
2. There, what decree is there? Even before Kaparah its law is to be offered for an Olah. If so, it itself should be offered for an Olah! (There is no reason to decree.)
åé''ì ãâæøéðï àèå àùí âåôå ìôðé ëôøä
(u) Answer: We decree due to Asham itself before Kaparah.
å÷öú ÷ùä ìôé' ø''ú îðæéø (ãó ëä:) ãø' éùîòàì ãøéù åìã çèàú åúîåøú àùí àé î÷øéá ìéä ÷àé òìéä áòùä îãëúéá ø÷
(v) Question: According to R. Tam, Nazir (25b) is difficult. R. Yishmael expounds 'Vlad Chatas and Temuras Asham - if he offers it, he transgresses an Aseh, for it says "Rak"';
ø''ò àåîø àéðå öøéê äøé äåà àåîø àùí äåà (äåà ÷øéáä åàéï úîåøúå ÷øéáä) [áäåééúå éäà]
1. R. Akiva says, this is not needed. It says "Asham Hu" - it is in its status.
åôøéê ìîä ìé ÷øà åäà äéìëúà âîøéðï ìéä ëì ùáçèàú îúä áàùí øåòä åîùðé àéï ä''ð åëé àúà ÷øà ìëãøá äåðà ëå'
2. [The Gemara] asks why a verse is needed. A tradition teaches that whenever a Chatas must die, an Asham is Ro'eh! It answers that indeed, this is true. The verse comes for Rav Huna's teaching...
îùîò ãäåà àúà ìîòåèé îä÷øáä åìàå ìàëùåøéä ìä÷øáä
3. Inference: "Hu" comes to exclude offering [Temuras Asham]. It does not come to permit offering! (R. Akiva expounds it to forbid offering it. According to R. Tam, Rav Huna expounds it to teach that it is Kosher for an Olah without Akirah. The Gemara does not connote that he expounds oppositely to R. Akiva!)
8) TOSFOS DH Machshirin Leis Behu d'Asu Le'acher Misah
úåñôåú ã"ä îëùéøéï ìéú áäå ãàúå ìàçø îéúä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos gives the source that Chatas Yoledes is Machshir.)
ôé' á÷åðèøñ çèàú éåìãú îëùéø äéà ëãàîøéðï áô' ãí ùçéèä îôðé ùîëùøúä ìàëåì á÷ãùéí
(a) Explanation (Rashi): Chatas Yoledes is Machshir, like we say in Perek Dam Shechitah, because it permits her to eat Kodshim.
åàâá øéäèéä ìà ã÷ ùí åîùðä äéà áô' äîáéà àùí úìåé (ëøéúåú ãó ëä:) [åáú"ë - âìéåï]
(b) Correction: He was not meticulous. It is a Mishnah in Kerisus (25b), and [a Beraisa] in Toras Kohanim.
9) TOSFOS DH Hachi Garsinan... Olasah u'Mesah...
úåñôåú ã"ä (ä''â áú''ë äàùä ëå' - öøéê ìîç÷å) òåìúä åîúä...
(SUMMARY: Tosfos infers that Olah brought before Chatas is Kosher b'Di'eved.)
îùîò àáì äéà àí äéúä çéä äéúä îáéàä çèàúä àçø òåìúä åòìúä ìä òåìúä ìùí çåáä
(a) Inference: If she was alive, she would bring her Chatas after her Olah, and the Olah would count for her obligation.
åëï îùîò [áú''ë] áôøùú àùä ëé úæøéò ùàí äáéàä òåìúä úçéìä úáéà çèàúä îîéï òåìúä åëï áîñëú ÷ðéí (ô''á î''ä) åëï áîñëú ÷ðéí (ô''á î''ä)
(b) Support: It connotes like this in Toras Kohanim in Parshas Tazri'a, that if she brought her Olah first, she brings her Chatas from the same species as her Olah (a Tor, or a Ben Yonah). Also Maseches Kinim (2:5, connotes like this).
åúéîä ãáô' úîéã ðùçè (ôñçéí ã' ðè.) àîøé' æä áðä àá ùëì äçèàåú ÷åãîåú ìòåìä àôéìå çèàú òåó ÷åãí ìòåìú áäîä
(c) Question: In Pesachim (59a), we say "this is a Binyan Av, that every Chatas [brought with an Olah], the Chatas comes before the Olah, even Chatas ha'Of before Olas Behemah" (e.g. for a Yoledes, who brings both);
åàôéìå ãéòáã ÷àîø îãîùðé ùàðé òåìú îöåøò ãøçîðà àîø åäòìä ùäòìä ëáø
1. It means even b'Di'eved, since it answers 'Olas Metzora is different, since the Torah said "v'He'elah" - that he already offered.'
åäééðå ãéòáã ãìëúçéìä (çèàúä) [çèàú' - ãôåñ åéðéöéä] ÷åãîú ëãëúéá á÷øà áäãéà ù''î ãáòìîà àôéìå ãéòáã ìà
i. This is b'Di'eved, for l'Chatchilah his Chatas is first, like the verse says explicitly. This shows that normally, even b'Di'eved [if the Olah was offered first, it is Pasul]!
åúéøõ ä''ø çééí ãä''ä áòìîà
(d) Answer (R. Chaim): The same applies in general.
åäà ãáòé ÷øà áîöåøò
(e) Implied question: Why is a verse needed for Metzora?
îùåí ãëúéá áéä äåéä æàú úäéä áäåééúå éäà ãîùîò òéëåáà ëãàîøéðï áùîòúéï áñåó
(f) Answer: It is because Havayah is written - "Zos Tihyeh", it will be in its status, which implies that it is Me'akev, like we say in our Sugya at the end.
àò''â ãîñ÷éðï ì÷îï éù îçåñø æîï ìáå áéåí
(g) Implied question: We conclude below that Mechusar Zman applies on the same day!
àéï ìôñåì áòìîà îèòí æä ãìà äåé àìà áñãø îöåøò ëîå ùàôøù ì÷îï
(h) Answer: Elsewhere we do not disqualify due to this, for it is only in the Seder of Metzora, like I will explain below (5a DH v'Iy).
10) TOSFOS DH Lo Yavi'u Yorshin Chatasah
úåñôåú ã"ä ìà éáéàå éåøùéï çèàúä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos corrects the text of Toras Kohanim to say like our Gemara.)
äâéøñà îùúáùú áú''ë áôøùú åé÷øà [áô'] àí ìà úâéò [åâå']
(a) Remark: The text is errant in Toras Kohanim in Parshas Vayikra on the verse "Im Lo Sagi'a..."
àçã ìçèàú åàçã ìòåìä ùîîéï çèàú éáéà òåìä ùàí äáéà çèàúå åîú éáéàå éåøùéï òåìúå åîðéï ùàí äáéà òåìúå åîú ùéáéàå éåøùéï çèàúå ú''ì àçã ìçèàú åàçã ìòåìä
1. Citation (Toras Kohanim): "Echad l'Chatas v'Echad l'Olah" - from the species of the Chatas, he brings an Olah. If he brought his Chatas and died, the heirs bring his Olah. What is the source that if he brought his Olah and died, the heirs bring his Chatas? It says "Echad l'Chatas v'Echad l'Olah."
åëê éù ìäéåú äâéøñà éëåì ùàí äáéà òåìúå åîú ùéáéàå éåøùéï çèàúå ú''ì àçã ìçèàú
(b) Correction: The text should say as follows. One might have thought that if he brought his Olah and died, his heirs bring his Chatas! It says "Echad l'Chatas v'Echad l'Olah."
ôé' çèàú ÷åãîú ìòåìä åàñîëúà áòìîà äéà ãîäéìëúà äåà ãðô÷à ìï ãçèàú ùîúå áòìéä ìîéúä àæìà
(c) Explanation: This is a mere Asmachta. We know this from a tradition that if the owner of a Chatas died, it must die.
11) TOSFOS DH Lo Nehenin v'Lo Mo'alin
úåñôåú ã"ä ìà ðäðéï åìà îåòìéï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that a Mishnah teaches like this.)
áðæéø áôø÷ [îé ùàîø äøéðé ðæéø åùîò çáéøå åàîø] åàðé (ãó ëã:) úðï ëé äàé âååðà
(a) Remark: In Nazir (24b), a Mishnah teaches like this.
12) TOSFOS DH v'Ein Te'unin Lechem
úåñôåú ã"ä åàéï èòåðéï ìçí
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses what accompanies Korbanos brought improperly.)
àò''â ãáñîåê âáé àùí îöåøò ùìà ìùîå ÷úðé ãèòåï ðñëéí
(a) Implied question: Below (5a), regarding Asham Metzora Lo Lishmah, it is taught that it requires Nesachim!
éù ìçì÷ áéï ðñëéí ãùééëé áëì ä÷øáðåú ììçí
(b) Answer #1: We can distinguish between Nesachim, which apply to all Korbanos, and bread.
åòåã ëãôé' á÷åðèøñ îùåí ãáòéðï òì ëôé äðæéø åìéëà
(c) Answer #2: Rashi explained that we require "Al Kapei ha'Nazir", and there is no [Nazir].
åîéäå ÷ùä ìîä äèòéðå ëàï æøåò áùéìä éåúø îùìà ëîöååúå (åùìà ìùîå) [ö"ì ãôéøù"é ùìà ìùîä] áô' äúëìú (ì÷îï ãó îç:)
(d) Question: Why is the cooked foreleg required here, more [Me'akev] than [Eil Nazir] offered unlike its Mitzvah, which Rashi explained below (48b) to be Lo Lishmah? (Tosfos infers that here the Zero'a applies, for the Mishnah says only that bread is not required. On 48b, it says that also the Zero'a does not apply. Chemdas Daniel - Tosfos means that he must give the Zero'a to a Kohen. It need not be cooked with the ram or waved. The Yerushalmi says that the Zero'a is not required, i.e. regarding cooking and waving, but it must be given to a Kohen.)
åé''ì ãùìà ëîöåúå äåé îùåðä éåúø îãàé
(e) Answer #1: Unlike its Mitzvah is too different. (Here it was offered exactly like Eil Nazir, just there is no Nazir.)
åòåã ùìà ëîöåúå ðøàä ãäééðå áï ùðä åäáéà áï ùúéí àå îçåñø æîï ãäåé îùåðä éåúø îãàé
(f) Answer #2: "Unlike its Mitzvah" means that it must be a second year animal, and he brought a yearling, or Mechusar Zman, which is too different.
å÷öú úéîä ëéåï ãàéï èòåï ìçí éôñåì ëãàîø áô' ùúé îãåú (ì÷îï ãó ôè:) âáé àùí îöåøò ùùçèå ùìà ìùîå èòåï ðñëéí ùàí àé àúä àåîø ëï ôñìúå
(g) Question: Since it does not need bread, it is Pasul, like it says below (89b) about Asham Metzora slaughtered Lo Lishmah. It requires Nesachim. If you will not say so, you disqualify it;
åäëà ðîé éäà èòåï ìçí ùàí àé àúä àåîø ëï ôñìúå
1. Also here, it should require bread. If you will not say so, you disqualify it!
åéù ìçì÷ ëîå ùôé' ãðñëéí àìéîé îìçí åáô' ùúé îãåú ààøéê áòæøú äàì:
(h) Answer: We can distinguish like I explained, that Nesachim are stronger than bread. In Perek Shtei Midos (89b DH she'Im) I will elaborate b'Ezras Hash-m.