1) TOSFOS DH Rabanan Savrei ha'Tzitzis Meratzeh Al Achilos
úåñôåú ã"ä øáðï ñáøé äöéõ îøöä òì àëéìåú
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that the Tzitz permits only what is Tahor.)
ìà ìîéùøééä ìèîà áàëéìä àìà ìòðéï ãìà äåé äàé èîà ëàáåã åùøåó àìà çùåá ëèäåø ìòðéï ãùøéà æøé÷ä ìàéãê ãèäåø âîåø
(a) Explanation: [The Tzitz] does permit eating what is Tamei. Rather, it causes that Tamei is not as if it was lost or burned. Rather, it is considered Tahor so that Zerikah will permit the rest, which is totally Tahor.
2) TOSFOS DH v'R. Yehudah Savar Ein ha'Tzitz Meratzeh
úåñôåú ã"ä åøáé éäåãä ñáø àéï äöéõ îøöä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with his opinion that Tum'ah Hutrah b'Tzibur.)
åäåä ìéä äàé èîà ëàáåã åùøåó åìà îäðéà æøé÷ä ìèäåø
(a) Explanation: This Tamei is as if it was lost or burned. Zerikah does not help for what is Tahor.
àò''â ãøáé éäåãä ñ''ì áô' ëéöã öåìéï (ôñçéí òæ.) èåîàä äåúøä áöéáåø åìà îéáòé öéõ ìøöåéé
(b) Implied question: R. Yehudah holds in Pesachim (77a) that Tum'ah is permitted b'Tzibur, and the Tzitz is not needed to be Meratzeh!
ãîàé )ãäúø äåà( [ö"ì ãäåúøä - öàï ÷ãùéí] áöéáåø ìà îäðéà ìäàé èîà ìîéùøééä áàëéìä äåà äãéï ðîé ãìà îäðéà ìîéùøééä ìèäåø ãìòðéï äéúø àëéìú ìà îäðéà
(c) Answer: What is permitted b'Tzibur does not help for Tamei, to permit eating it. Likewise, it does not help permit what is Tahor, for it does not help to permit eating. (It helps only that the Korban is accepted);
åìà äåéà ëøéöåé öéõ (åìî''ã) [ö"ì ãìî''ã - ÷øï àåøä] îøöä îäðéà ìèäåø åìà îäðéà ìèîà
1. It is unlike Ritzuy of the Tzitz, for according to the opinion that it is Meratzeh, it helps for Tahor, but does not help for Tamei.
3) TOSFOS DH v'Ha Olin d'Tzitz Meratzeh v'Chulei
úåñôåú ã"ä åäà òåìéï ãöéõ îøöä ëå'
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this is like both opinions in Pesachim.)
åàôé' ìî''ã áô' ëéöã öåìéï (ùí òæ:) àéï äöéõ îøöä òì äòåìéí
(a) Implied question: There is an opinion in Pesachim (77b) that the Tzitz is not Meratzeh for Olin!
äð''î áéçéã àáì áöéáåø îåãä ãöéõ îøöä òì äòåìéï
(b) Answer: That is for an individual. B'Tzibur, he agrees that the Tzitz is Meratzeh for Olin.
4) TOSFOS DH u'Pligi
úåñôåú ã"ä åôìéâé
(SUMMARY: Tosfos questions the inference from Rav Huna's question.)
îùîò ãàé îùëç úðàé (ãöéõ) [ö"ì áöéõ - áøëú äæáç, øù"ù] îøöä òì äòåìéï äåä ðéçà ìéä
(a) Inference: If we find that Tana'im argue about whether the Tzitz is Meratzeh for Olin, it is fine for him.
åìëàåøä ë''ù ãäåä ÷ùä èôé ãøáé éäåãä ãàîø ùðéäí éòùå áèåîàä ÷ñáø ãöéõ îøöä òì äòåìéï (åîúðéúéï) [ö"ì åáîúðéúéï (ëï äåà áãôåñ åéðéöéä) ÷ñáø àéï äöéõ îøöä òì àëéìåú
(b) Question: Seemingly, all the more so it is more difficult, for R. Yehudah, who says that both of them are done in Tum'ah, holds that the Tzitz is Meratzeh for Olin, and our Mishnah he holds that the Tzitz is not Meratzeh for eating...
åøáðï ãàîøé èîà áèåîàúå åèäåø áèäøúå ÷ñáøé àéï äöéõ îøöä òì äòåìéï åáîúðéúéï ÷ñáøé äöéõ îøöä òì àëéìåú
1. And Rabanan, who say that the Tamei is in its Tum'ah and the Tahor in its Taharah, hold that the Tzitz is not Meratzeh for Olin, and in our Mishnah they hold that the Tzitz is Meratzeh for eating!
5) TOSFOS DH R. Yehudah Savar Afilu Shevet Echad Tamei...
úåñôåú ã"ä øáé éäåãä àåîø àôé' ùáè àçã èîà...
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why he needs to say that a Korban Tzibur is not divided.)
àó òì âá ãøáé éäåãä ñ''ì áô''÷ ãéåîà (ãó æ:) ãèåîàä äåúøä áöéáåø
(a) Implied question: R. Yehudah holds in Yoma (7b) that Tum'ah Hutrah b'Tzibur!
î''î àéöèøéê ìéä èòîà ãàéï ÷øáï öéáåø çìå÷ áôñç ëéåï ãéù áéä àëéìä ëãîåëç äúí
(b) Answer: Even so, he needs the reason that a Korban Tzibur is not divided regarding Pesach, since it has Achilah, like is proven there.
6) TOSFOS DH v'Hacha Mai Tzitz Meratzeh Ika
úåñôåú ã"ä åäëà îàé öéõ îøöä àéëà
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that it does not help for Tum'as ha'Guf.)
ôé' äà àéï äöéõ îøöä òì èåîàú äâåó ëãôé' á÷åðè' åãøéù ì÷îï áä÷åîõ øáä (ãó ëä.) òåï ä÷ãùéí äåà ðåùà åìà òåï äî÷ãéùé'
(a) Explanation: The Tzitz is not Meratzeh for Tum'as ha'Guf. [The Gemara] expounds below (25a) that it bears "Avon ha'Kodoshim", and not sin of those Had it written [only], are Makdish.
åáôø÷ ùðé ãæáçéí (ãó ëâ.) ðîé àîøéðï áäãéà ãàéï äöéõ îøöä òì èåîàú äâåó
(b) Support: Also in Zevachim (23a), we say explicitly that the Tzitz is not Meratzeh for Tum'as ha'Guf.
åäà ãàîø áô' ëéöã öåìéï (ôñçéí òæ.) ãìî''ã èåîàä ãçåéä áòéà öéõ ìøöåéé
(c) Implied question: It says in Pesachim (77a) that according to the opinion that Tum'ah Dechuyah [b'Tzibur], the Tzitz is needed!
äééðå ìèåîàú áùø ãîäðé öéõ àáì ìèåîàú äâåó ãìà îäðé öéõ àôé' áìà öéõ
(d) Answer: For Tum'as Basar, the Tzitz helps. For Tum'as ha'Guf, the Tzitz does not help, even without the Tzitz (Tum'ah is Dechuyah).
7) TOSFOS DH Minayin l'Lachmei Todah v'Chulei
úåñôåú ã"ä îðéï ììçîé úåãä ëå'
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this was primarily taught below.)
ì÷îï áô' äúåãä (ãó ô.) òé÷ø îéìúà
(a) Reference: The primary teaching is below (80a).
8) TOSFOS DH Lechem Ikri Todah Todah Lo Ikri Lechem Mishneh
úåñôåú ã"ä ìçí àé÷øé úåãä úåãä ìà àé÷øé ìçí
(SUMMARY: Tosfos uses this to answer a question from Yevamos.)
îäàé èòîà îéúøöà îä ùî÷ùéí áô' äòøì (éáîåú òâ:) [ö"ì ãéù áîòùø åáéëåøé' îùà''ë áúøåîä
(a) Observation: This answers what people ask in Yevamos (73b), that there are stringencies of Ma'aser and Bikurim that Terumah does not have;
î''è ãìà éìôéðï (áéëåøéí îúøåîä) [ö"ì úøåîä îáéëåøéí - öàï ÷ãùéí] àò''â ãàéú÷åù ããøùéðï (ôñçéí ìå:) åúøåîú éãê àìå äáéëåøéí
1. Question: Why don't we learn Terumah from Bikurim? They are equated, for we expound "u'Serumas Yadecha" - these are Bikurim!
ãáéëåøéí àé÷øå úøåîä úøåîä ìà àé÷øéà áéëåøéí
2. Answer: Bikurim are called Terumah, but Terumah is not called Bikurim.
åäà ãî÷éù ìäå áôø÷ äòåø åäøåèá (çåìéï ÷ë:)
(b) Implied question: They are equated in Chulin (120b)!
äúí àñîëúà áòìîà àîø
(c) Answer: What it says there is a mere Asmachta.
9) TOSFOS DH ha'Mefagel Ein Misfagel v'Chulei
úåñôåú ã"ä äîôâì àéï îúôâì ëå'
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains when we say such a Kal v'Chomer.)
ôéøåù àåúå ùàúä ø''ì ùäåà îôâì àúä îåãä ùàéï îúôâì
(a) Explanation: This that you want to say that it is Mefagel, you agree that it does not become Pigul.
åáøéù îëåú (ãó á.) øåöä ìåîø ÷''å ëé äàé âååðà âáé îòéãéï àðå áàéù ôìåðé ùäåà áï âøåùä åðîöàå æåîîéï ãàéï àåîøéí éòùä æä áï âøåùä úçúéå
(b) Implied question: In Makos (2a), the Gemara wants to make a Kal v'Chomer like this regarding "we testify that Ploni is a Ben Gerushah (a Pasul Kohen)", and they were found to be Zomemin (they were present at the place and time that they claimed to see the testimony). We do not say this [witness] should become a Ben Gerushah in place of [the one he testified about];
îùåí ãàîøéðï ÷''å åîä äîçìì àéï îúçìì áà ìçìì åìà çéìì àéðå ãéï ùìà éúçìì
1. This is because we say a Kal v'Chomer. One who is Mechalel (a Kohen who has Bi'ah with a divorcee, he profanes her and his children), he is not profaned. One who comes to be Mechalel (this witness), and did not profane, all the more so he is not profaned!
åôøéê øáéðà à''ë áéèìú úåøú òãéí æåîîéï åîä äñå÷ì àéðå ðñ÷ì äáà ìñ÷åì åìà ñ÷ì àéðå ãéï ùìà éñ÷ì
2. Ravina asked that if so (you make such a Kal v'Chomer), you nullify Edim Zomemin! One who stones is not stoned. One who came to stone and did not stone, all the more so he should not be stoned!
åàò''â ãäëà îú÷ééí ä÷''å ìòðéï òãéí æåîîéï ùàðé îùåí èòîà ãà''ë áéèìú úåøú òãéí æåîîéï
(c) Answer #1: Even though here the Kal v'Chomer is sustained, regarding Edim Zomemin is different, because if so, you nullify Edim Zomemin.
åîä äñå÷ì ëå' ôé' îùåí ã÷éí ìï äøâå àéï ðäøâéï îùåí ããøùéðï ëàùø æîí åìà ëàùø òùä ëê ôé' ùí á÷åðè'
1. Explanation #1: One who stones [is not stoned], because we hold that if [through their testimony, witnesses] killed, they are not killed, for we expound "like he plotted", and not like he did. So Rashi explained there.
å÷ùä à''ë àîàé ð÷è ñ÷éìä éåúø îùàø îéúåú
2. Question: If so, why did it mention stoning more than other Misos?
åîôøù ø''ú åîä äñå÷ì àéðå ðñ÷ì ãøåöç ìòåìí áñééó àôé' äøâ àú çáéøå áàáï
3. Explanation #2 (R. Tam): One who stoned is not stoned. A murder is always killed through a sword, even if he killed his colleague with a rock.
åòåã ðøàä ã÷''å ãäëà ìà ãîé ìääåà [ö"ì ÷"å ãäúí - öàï ÷ãùéí]
(d) Answer #2: The Kal v'Chomer here is unlike the Kal v'Chomer there;
ãáà ìôâì äëà äééðå ìçí ùáà ìôâì çöé æéú ùì úåãä ò''é ùéöèøó (ìôåñìä) [ö"ì ìôåâìä - öàï ÷ãùéí] åìà ôéâì ùàéðå îöèøó (ìôåñìä) [ö"ì ìôåâìä - öàï ÷ãùéí] àéðå (îëàï îòîåã á) ãéï ùìà éöèøó ìäúôâì ìòöîå
1. Here, "one who comes to be Mefagel" refers to bread (Lachmei Todah), which comes to be Mefagel a half-k'Zayis of Todah, through joining to be Mefagel it, and was not Mefagel, for it did not join to be Mefagel it. All the more so it should not join to become Pigul itself!
15b----------------------------------------15b
åëé äàé âååðà äåé äàé ãáñîåê åîä àåñø àéðå ðàñø äâôï ùàåñø àéðå ðàñø äáà ìàñåø ãäééðå æøòéí ùáàéï ìàñåø äâôï òì éãé öéøåôí ùðòùéï ëìàéí åìà àñø àéðå ãéï ùìà éàñø ò''é öéøåó ùì âôï
(e) Support #1: Also below is [the Kal v'Chomer] below. What forbids does not become forbidden - the vine that forbids does not become forbidden. What comes to forbid and does not forbid, i.e. the Zera'im that come to forbid the vine through joining, for they become Kil'ayim, all the more so they should not become forbidden through joining with the vine!
åîäàé èòîà ðîé ðéçà áîúðéúéï ãùåçè àú äúåãä ìàëåì äìçí ùäìçí îôåâì åäúåãä àéðä îôåâìú åìà àîøéðï ÷ì åçåîø
(f) Support #2: Also for this reason it is fine in our Mishnah "one who slaughters Todah [with intent] to eat the bread [Chutz li'Zmano], the bread became Pigul and the Todah is not Pigul, and we do not say the Kal v'Chomer. (We do not say that since the bread did not succeed to be Mefagel the Todah, it itself does not become Pigul. This is because the Kal v'Chomer applies only when we need to join matters.)
10) TOSFOS DH she'Zara Karmo Shel Chavero Smader
úåñôåú ã"ä ùæøò ëøîå ùì çáéøå ñîãø
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why it mentioned Smader.)
äà ãð÷è ñîãø
(a) Implied question: Why did it mention Smader (unripe grapes)?
ìàùîåòéðï ãäâôðéí äúéøå îèòí ãàéï àãí àåñø ãáø ùàéðå ùìå
(b) Answer: This teaches that the vines (i.e. grapes) are permitted because one cannot forbid what is not his;
ãìà úéîà îä ùäúéøå àú äâôðéí îùåí ãðâîøå åìà äåñéôå îàúéí åìà îùåí ãàéï àãí àåñø
1. You should not say that they permitted the grapes because they were finished (before they were in a state of Kil'ayim) and did grow additionally more than one part in 200 (of their size when they were planted), and not because one cannot forbid [what is not his].
11) TOSFOS DH v'Asru Es ha'Zera'im
úåñôåú ã"ä åàñøå àú äæøòéí
(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that this is unlike the Halachah.)
äééðå ãìà ëøáé éàùéä ãàîø òã ùéæøò çèä åùòåøä åçøöï áîôåìú éã
(a) Explanation: This is unlike R. Yoshiyah, who says [that the Torah forbids] only if he sows wheat, barley and a grape seed together by hand;
åëîä ñúí îùðéåú ãìà ëååúéä àò''â ã÷ééîà ìï ëååúéä ëãàéúà ááøëåú (ãó ëá.) åáçåìéï áôø÷ øàùéú äâæ (ãó ÷ìå:) ðäåâ òìîà ëúìúà ñáé ëøáé éàùéä áëìàéí
1. There are several Stam Mishnayos unlike him, even though we hold like him, like it says in Brachos (22a) and Chulin (136b) that the world follows three elders - R. Yoshiyah regarding Kil'ayim...
åàîøéðï áô''÷ ã÷ãåùéï (ãó ìè.) âáé ääåà ãæøò çéèé åùòøé áé âåôðé ìéúé îø ðéùîúéä àîø ìéä ìà öäøéúå áä ìà ÷é''ì ëøáé éàùéä ôéøåù áúîéä
2. And we say in Kidushin (39a) that a man seeded wheat and barley among vines, and [Rav Anan] said "we should put him in Cherem!" [Rav Chanan] said "you do not know [laws of Kil'ayim] clearly. Do we not hold like R. Yoshiyah?!", i.e. in astonishment (surely we hold like him)!
12) TOSFOS DH v'Hitiru ha'Gefanim
úåñôåú ã"ä åäúéøå äâôðéí
(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with the Gemara in Yevamos.)
äééðå ëøáé éåñé åøáé ùîòåï ãîñëê âôðå òì âáé úáåàúå ùì çáéøå (ãàîø) [ö"ì ãàî' - âîøà òåæ åäãø] ø áñåó äòøì (éáîåú ôâ:) àéï àãí àåñø ãáø ùàéðå ùìå
(a) Explanation: This is like R. Yosi and R. Shimon, that one who drapes his vine over another's grain, that we say in Yevamos (83b) that one does not forbid what is not his.
åöøéê ìåîø ãúáåàä ãäúí ìàå áñúí úáåàä ùì ä' îéðéï ãàí ëï äåé ãàåøééúà ëîå ÷ðáåñ åìåó ãîñ÷éðï äëà ãàñåø )åäéëé( [ö"ì åäúí - öàï ÷ãùéí] îñé÷ øáé éåñé ãùøé àìà ãøá ôåñ÷ äúí ëøáðï
(b) Consequence: We must say that the grain there is not Stam of the five species, for if so it is mid'Oraisa, like hemp and Luf (Rashi - legumes whose seeds do not degenerate), which we conclude here is forbidden, and there R. Yosi concludes that it is permitted, but Rav rules there like Rabanan (and forbids even other grains. Here we discuss the five grains, and even R. Yosi forbids.)
13) TOSFOS DH Efshar Lishnosan l'Zevach Acher
úåñôåú ã"ä àôùø ìùðåúï ìæáç àçø
(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with the Gemara below.)
áúåñôúà ãæáçéí àéï äìùåï ëï åâøñ äúí àîø àó àðé ìà àîøúé àìà ëù÷ãùå áëìé àîøå ìå àò''ô ùðú÷ãùå àôùø ìùðåúï ìæáç àçø
(a) Alternative text: In the Tosefta in Zevachim (5:1), the text is different. It says there that he said "even I said only when they were Mekadesh in a Kli." They said to him "even though they were Mekudash, it is possible to change them to another Korban";
å÷ãùå áëìé ãúåñôúà äééðå áàéí òí äæáç ãäëà
1. "They were Mekudash in a Kli" of the Tosefta is "what comes with the Zevach" here.
åà''ú ãäùúà îùîò ãìøáðï (ãàôùø) [ö"ì àôùø - áàøåú äîéí] ìùðåúï ìæáç àçø àôé' ìàçø ùçéèä
(b) Question: Now it connotes that according to Rabanan, it is possible to change them to another Korban, even after Shechitah;
åì÷îï áô' äúåãä (ãó òè.) úðï äðñëéí ù÷ãùå áëìé åðîöà æáç ôñåì àí éù æáç àçø é÷øáå òîå
1. Below (79a), a Mishnah says that Nesachim that were Mekudash in a Kli and the Zevach was found to be Pasul, if there is another Zevach, [the Nesachim] are offered with it;
åôøéê áâî' (ùí:) åäàîø øá çñãà ùîï ùäôøéùå ìùí îðçä æå ôñåì ìùí îðçä àçøú åîùðé ìá áéú ãéï îúðä òìéäí àí äåöøëå äåöøëå åàí ìàå éäå ìæáç àçø
2. The Gemara asks "but Rav Chisda taught that oil that was separated for this Minchah, it is Pasul for another Minchah", and answers that Lev Beis Din stipulates about them - if they are needed, they are needed, and if not, they will be for another Korban;
àìîà ãàñåø ìùðåúï àí ìà îùåí úðàé áéú ãéï
3. Inference: It is forbidden to change them, if not for the stipulation of Beis Din!
åàéï ìåîø ãäà ãàîøå øáðï ðîé äëà àôùø ìùðåúï äééðå îùåí úðàé á''ã
4. Implied suggestion: Also what Rabanan said here "it is possible to change it" is due to Tenai Beis Din.
çãà îé ìà òñ÷éðï á÷øáï éçéã ãìà ùééê áéä ìá áéú ãéï
5. Rejection #1: Do we not discuss even a Korban Yachid, to which Lev Beis Din does not apply?!
åòåã ìåâ ùîï ãàùí îöåøò ìà îùëçú àìà áéçéã
6. Rejection #2: We find the Log of oil of a Metzora only regarding an individual!
åòåã ãàéï ìá á''ã îúðä àìà äéëà ãìà äåöøëå àáì àí äåöøëå àé àôùø ìùðåúå
7. Rejection #3: Lev Beis Din stipulates only when they did not need (the Nesachim for the Korban for which it was Hukdash). If they needed, it is impossible to change it!
åðøàä ìôøù ãñåâéà ãäúí ëøáé îàéø
(c) Answer #1: The Sugya there is like R. Meir.
åàí úàîø åäìà øá çñãà ñúîà ëëåìé òìîà
(d) Question: Rav Chisda taught Stam, like everyone!
[ö"ì åé"ì - éùø åèåá] ëãîôøù èòîà äúí îùåí ãùîï âåôà ãîðçä äåà
(e) Answer: We can answer like he explains the reason there, because the oil itself is part of the Minchah itself.
(åîàé) [ö"ì åàîàé - éùø åèåá] ÷ùéà ìéä îøá çñãà (îîúðé') [ö"ì àîúðé' - éùø åèåá] ãäúí úé÷ùé ìéä äà ãøáðï ãäëà
(f) Question: Why did [the Makshan] question the Mishnah there from Rav Chisda? He should question Rabanan here!
åùîà ëîå ëï äéä éëåì ìä÷ùåú àìà î÷ùä àñúí îúðéúéï ãàôé' ìøáé îàéø àôùø ìùðåúå
(g) Answer: Perhaps similarly he could have challenged him. Rather, he questioned the Stam Mishnah, that even according to R. Meir it is possible to change it.
åäà ãìà ôøéê îñúí îúðéúéï ãäúí îãø''î âåôéä àãøáé îàéø ãäëà
(h) Implied question: Why don't we ask from the Stam Mishnah there, from R. Meir himself (we assume that a Stam Mishnah is R. Meir) against R. Meir here?
îùåí ãìà ðæëø ùí øáé îàéø áäãéà
(i) Answer: This is because R. Meir's name was not explicitly mentioned [in the Stam Mishnah].
åëï îéìúà ãæòéøé ãäúí ðîé àìéáà ãøáé îàéø àúéà ã÷àîø äúí (ãó òè.) àéï äðñëéí îú÷ãùéï àìà áùçéèú äæáç
(j) Answer #1 (cont.): Also zii's teaching there is according to R. Meir. He said there (79a) that Nesachim become Mekudash only through Shechitah of the Zevach.
ôéøåù ìòðéï ùìà ìùðåúï (ìòðéï) ìæáç àçø
(k) Explanation #1: [They are Mekudash] so one cannot change them to another Zevach.
åìà ëîå ùôéøù ùí á÷åðèøñ ìòðéï ìéôñì áìéðä
(l) Explanation #2: This is unlike Rashi explained there, to become Pasul through Linah.
ãìòðéï ìéðä åãàé îéôñìé îù÷ãùå áëìé
(m) Rebuttal: Regarding Linah, surely it is [able to be] disqualified from when it was Mekudash in a Kli!
ãàîø áñåó øáé éùîòàì (ì÷îï òá:) âáé ùúé äìçí ãàé úðåø î÷ãù îéôñìé áìéðä
1. Source #1: Below (72b) regarding Shtei ha'Lechem, it says "if the oven is Mekadesh, they are disqualified through Linah!"
åòåã áñåó ìåìá åòøáä (ñåëä ð.) ÷àîø æòéøé âåôéä ãàé îééúé áî÷åãùú àéôñìå ìäå áìéðä
2. Source #2: In Sukah (50a), zii himself said that if they bring [water for Nisuch ha'Mayim] in a Mekudash [Kli], it is disqualified through Linah!"
åîùðä ùìîä ùðéðå áô''á ãîòéìä (ãó é.) âáé ðñëéí ÷ãùå áëìé äåëùøå ìéôñì áìéðä
3. Source #3: An explicit Mishnah (Me'ilah 10a) regarding Nesachim teaches that [from when] they were Mekudash in a Kli, they are Huchshar to become disqualified through Linah!
îéäå ääéà éù ìãçåú ããå÷à áðñëéí äáàéí áôðé òöîï
4. Rebuttal (of Source #3): We can reject the proof from that [Mishnah. It is] only for Nesachim that come by themselves.
åëîå ùôéøùúé [ö"ì ðøàä - öàï ÷ãùéí] ãàééøé ìòðéï ùìà ìùðåúï ìæáç àçø
(n) Conclusion: Like I explained is correct. It discusses not being able to change it to a different Korban.
åäà ãôøéê äúí îîúðéúéï ã÷úðé àí éù æáç àçø é÷øáå òîå îàé ìàå ãàéôñåì áùçéèä
(o) Implied question: It asks there from our Mishnah, which taught that if there is another Zevach, he offers [the Nesachim] with it. Is it not that [the animal for which it was Hukdash] was disqualified through Shechitah?! (According to Tosfos, what was the question? Perhaps zii meant that Nesachim become Mekudash through a Kosher Shechitah so one cannot change them to another Zevach! This is fine for Rashi. The Mishnah says that if there is no other Zevach, they are disqualified through Linah. We ask why, for Kidush Kli does not enable Linah to disqualify. A Kosher Shechitah is required!)
äëé ôøéê ãîëùø ãåå÷à îùåí ãàéëà æáç (îëàï îãó äáà) àçø ùäéä (æáç) æáåç áàåúä ùòä åâí îùåí ãìá á''ã îúðä òìéäï ëîå ùîòîéãä áñåó
(p) Answer: It asks as follows. [The Nesachim] is Kosher only because there is another Zevach that was slaughtered at the time, and also because Lev Beis Din stipulates about them, like he establishes it at the end;