1) TOSFOS DH v'Eizeh Hi Zikah Shelahen Zo Shechitah
úåñôåú ã"ä åàéæå äéà æé÷ä ùìäï æå ùçéèä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses when the bread is lost.)
ãàí àáã äìçí àáãå äëáùéí åàí àáãå äëáùéí àáã äìçí åäééðå ëøáé ãàîø ì÷îï (ã' îæ.) ëáùé òöøú àéï î÷ãùéï äìçí àìà áùçéèä
(a) Explanation: If the bread was lost, the lambs are lost (Pasul). If the lambs were lost, the bread is lost. This is like Rebbi, who says below (47a) that Kivsei Atzeres are Mekadesh the bread only through Shechitah.
åìøáé àìòæø áø' ùîòåï (÷ùä) ðäé ãàí àáã äìçí àáãå äëáùéí ëãàîø øáé éåçðï ì÷îï (ùí) äëì îåãéí ùöøéê ùéäà ìçí áùòú ùçéèä
(b) Question #1: According to R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon, granted, if the bread was lost, the lambs are lost, like R. Yochanan says below (there) "all agree that bread is needed at the time of Shechitah";
îë''î àáãå ëáùéí àîàé àáã äìçí äà àéú ìéä ôãéåï (ëãôé' á÷åðè') [ëãàéúà] áô''÷ ãôñçéí (ã' éâ:) âáé ìçîé úåãä åðôø÷éðäå åðô÷éðäå ìçåìéï ëîàï ëøáé ãàîø åëå'
1. In any case, if the lambs were lost, why should the bread be lost? It can be redeemed, like it says in Pesachim (13b) about Lachmei Todah "we should redeem them and make them Chulin! Like whom is this? It is like Rebbi..."
îùîò ãìøáé àìòæø áø''ù ðô÷é ìçåìéï
2. Inference: According to R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon, they become Chulin!
åìà îñúáø ìçì÷ ãùàðé äëà ãàéëà úðåôä îçééí
3. Implied suggestion: Here is different, for there is Tenufah in their lifetime.
ãäà îñô÷à ìï àé òåùä æé÷ä ëì ùëï ãìà îñééòà ì÷ãù
4. Rejection: We are unsure [whether or not] Tenufah makes Zikah. All the more so, it does not help to be Mekadesh [the bread! Yashar v'Tov - R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon holds that Shechitah makes Zikah, and even so it does not help to be Mekadesh. All the more so Tenufah, which is we are unsure whether it makes Zikah, is not Mekadesh!]
åúå ãàîøéðï ì÷îï (ã' îæ:) ùçè ùðé ëáùéí òì àøáòä çìåú îåùê ùúéí îäï )åîðéçï( [ö"ì åîðéôï] åäùàø ðàëìåú áôãéåï àò''â ãàéëà úðåôä áëåìäå (åö''ò - éùø åèåá îåç÷å)
5. Rejection #2: Also, we say below (47b) that if he slaughtered two lambs on four loaves, he takes two from them and waves them, and the rest are eaten through redemption, even though Tenufah was done on all of them;
åîùîò äúí ãìøáé àìòæø áø' ùîòåï ôåãï áçåõ åðàëìéï áçåõ [ö"ì åö''ò - éùø åèåá]
i. And it connotes there that according to R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon, he redeems them and they are eaten outside! This requires investigation.
åäà ãàéôìéâå àáéé åøáà ì÷îï (ùí.) áîéìúéä ãøáé ãàîø ÷ãåù åàéðå ÷ãåù àáéé àîø ÷ãåù åàéðå (ðéúø øáà àîø ÷ãåù åàéðå ðôãä) [ö"ì âîåø øáà àîø ÷ãåù åàéðå ðéúø - öàï ÷ãùéí]
(c) Question #2: Abaye and Rava argue about below (47a) about Rebbi's words "it is Kadosh and not Kadosh." Abaye says that it is Kadosh, but not fully Kadosh. Rava says that it is Kadosh and cannot be permitted;
åàîøé' ìàáéé úôéñ ôãéåðå ìøáà ìà úôéñ àìîà ìàáéé ìøáé ðîé ðô÷é ìçåìéï åàí ëï îàé àáã äìçí ãäëà
1. We say that according to Abaye, it is Tofes (transfers its Kedushah to) Pidyono (what is used to redeem it), and according to Rava it is not Tofes. This shows that according to Abaye, also according to Rebbi it becomes Chulin. If so, why does he say here that the bread is lost?
åàéï ìåîø àáã îìé÷øá
2. Implied suggestion: It is lost from being offered.
ãôùéèà ãàëúé çæå (ìãáø àçø) [ö"ì ìúåãä] î''ù îìçí àçø
3. Rejection: Obviously, it is still proper for a Todah. Why is it worse than other bread?!
(åù''î) [ö"ì åùîà - òåìú ùìîä] ëéåï ãðôãå ô÷òä ÷ãåùú úðåø åøáé ãñáéøà ìéä úðåø î÷ãù (àé) [ö"ì äåé ëàéìå] àôé ìä áúðåø ãçåì ìà î÷ãùå
(d) Answer #1: Perhaps since it was redeemed, Kedushah [that it received from] the oven was uprooted. According to Rebbi, who says that the oven is Mekadesh, it is as if was baked in a Chulin oven.
åúéîä äåà
(e) Objection: This is astounding!
åð''ì ãìàáéé úôéñ ôãéåðå åìà ðôé÷ ìçåìéï
(f) Answer #2: According to Abaye it is Tofes its Pidyon and it does not become Chulin.
åäùúà ðéçà ìùåï úôéñ ãäåä ìéä ìîéîø ðôãä
(g) Support: Now, the expression "Tofes" is fine. [If it became Chulin,] it should have said "it can be redeemed"!
åúãò ãäà øáé äåà ãàîø úðåø î÷ãù áñåó øáé éùîòàì (ì÷îï òá:) åúðï (ì÷îï ã' ÷:) äîðçåú åäðñëéí àéï ìäí ôãéåï îù÷ãùå áëìé åùúé äìçí ðîé àé÷øå îðçä ì÷îï (ã' ðá:)
(h) Proof: Rebbi is the one who says that the oven is Mekadesh, below (72b), and a Mishnah (100b) teaches that Menachos and Nesachim have no Pidyon after Kidush in a Kli, and also Shtei ha'Lechem is called a Minchah below (52b).
îéäå éù ìçì÷ áéï îðçä ãáäãé æáç ìîðçä ìçåãä (ëãàéúà) [ö"ì ëãäåëçúé - çæå"à] áô''÷ (ìòéì å.)
(i) Rebuttal: We can distinguish between a Minchah with a Zevach and a Minchah by itself, like I proved above (6a).
åäà ãìà ÷àîø àéëà áéðééäå àìéáà ãàáéé ãìøáé àìòæø áøáé ùîòåï éëåì ìôãåú àú äìçí åìøáé àéðå éëåì
(j) Implied question: Why didn't [the Gemara] say that they differ about the following according to Abaye? According to R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon he can redeem the bread, and according to Rebbi he cannot!
åé''ì äà ãøáé àìòæø áø' ùîòåï ðîé äëé àéú ìéä àé ñ''ì ãúðåø î÷ãù åìàå îèòîéä ãäëà (ãôìéâ) [ö"ì ôìéâ - öàï ÷ãùéí] òìéä
(k) Answer: Also R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon holds [that he can redeem the bread] if he holds that the oven is Mekadesh. His argument with [Rebbi] is not due to the reason here.
àáì ìîàé ãîôøù àéëà áéðééäå ìàéôñåìé áéåöà ÷ãåùú ëìé àéðå îåòéì ãáø ëîå ùäåëçúé áô''÷ (ùí ãó è.)
(l) Disclaimer: However, according to what it explains that they argue about to become Pasul through Yotzei, Kedushas Kli does not help at all, like I proved above (9a, DH Reish Lakish);
åñåâéà ãôñçéí (ãó éâ:) ãñáøä ãìøáé ìà ðô÷é ìçåìéï ëøáà àúéà ãìçîé úåãä ìéú ìäå úðåø åà''ë ìàáéé ðô÷é ìçåìéï
1. And the Sugya in Pesachim (13b), which holds that according to Rebbi they do not become Chulin, is like Rava, for Lachmei Todah do not have [Kedushas due to] an oven. If so, according to Abaye they become Chulin.
åúéîä ãîùîò äëà ãàé úðåôä òåùä æé÷ä àáã äìçí àáãå äëáùéí åàîàé äà îãøáé àìòæø áø' ùîòåï ðùîò ã÷åãí ùçéèä ìøáé ë÷åãí æøé÷ä ìø''à áøáé ùîòåï ãîé (åàéï) [ö"ì åéù - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ìäí ôãéåï ìëåìé òìîà
(m) Question: This is astounding! It connotes here that if Tenufah makes Zikah, if the bread was lost, the lambs are lost. What is the reason? From R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon we hear that before Shechitah according to Rebbi is like before Zerikah according to R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon, and all agree that they have Pidyon;
ëãàéúà ì÷îï (ãó îæ:) âáé ùåçè ëáùéí òì ã' çìåú ãìø''à áøáé ùîòåï ôåãï áçåõ
1. This is like it says below (47b) about one who slaughters lambs on four loaves, that according to R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon he redeems them outside!
åé''ì ãäëà ÷ñáø úðåø î÷ãù åì÷îï ÷àé ñáø àéï úðåø î÷ãù åäìëê ùîòúéï àúéà ùôéø àó ëø''à áø' ùîòåï àé ÷ñáø úðåø î÷ãù åì÷îï àééøé àé ÷ñáø àéï úðåø î÷ãù
(n) Answer #1: Here [the Gemara] holds that the oven is Mekadesh. Below it holds that the oven is not Mekadesh. Therefore, our Sugya is fine even according to R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon, if he holds that the oven is Mekadesh. Below it discusses if he holds that the oven is not Mekadesh.
àé ðîé äúí àôéìå àôàí ááú àçú àéï äúðåø î÷ãùï ëéåï ãìà çæå ëåìäå ëé ääéà ãñåó ìåìá åòøáä (ñåëä ãó îè:) (ãàéï) [ö"ì ìî"ã éù - öàï ÷ãùéí] ùéòåø ìîéí îöé ìîìàåú áçáéú î÷åãùú åìà àéôñìé áìéðä
(o) Answer #2: Even if they baked them at once, the oven is not Mekadesh them, since not all are proper [to be Kadosh], like the case in Sukah (49a). According to the opinion that there is a Shi'ur for [Nisuch] ha'Mayim, he can fill in a flask that is Mekudash, and [the water] is not disqualified through Linah.
àé ðîé ùàðé äëà ãàéëà úðåôä çùéáà àáì äúí ëéåï ùàéðä øàåéä àìà ìùúé çìåú ìà àìéîà ääåà úðåôä ìà÷áåòé
(p) Answer #3: Here is different for there is Tenufah which is important, but there, since it is proper only for two loaves, that Tenufah is not powerful to fix it;
åàôéìå ø''à áøáé ùîòåï îåãä äëà ãùçéèä ÷áòä
1. Even R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon admits here that Shechitah is Kove'a (so that if the lambs are lost, the bread is lost, for Shechitah joins with Tenufah to cause that the bread cannot be redeemed - Yashar v'Tov).
åäà ãîéáòéà ì÷îï (ãó îæ.) ëáùé òöøú ùùçèï ìùîï åæø÷ ãîï ùìà ìùîï àåúå äìçí îäå áàëéìä åôøéê ìîàï àé ìø''à áø' ùîòåï äàîø æøé÷ä äéà ãî÷ãùä
(q) Implied question: Below (47a), regarding Kivsei Atzeres that were slaughtered Lishmah and Zerikas Dam was Lo Lishmah - may one eat that bread? According to whom does he ask? If it is according to R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon - he said that Zerikah is Mekadesh!
[ö"ì àéðå ø"ì ùéäà ìå ôãéåï àìà - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ëìåîø åëì ùëï ùàñåøéï áàëéìä ãäà äúí äåä úðåôä )åëãôøùé'( [ö"ì åëãôøù"é - öàï ÷ãùéí]
(r) Answer: [The Gemara] does not mean that it has Pidyon. Rather, all the more so it is forbidden to eat them, for there was Tenufah there, like Rashi explained.
åá÷åðèøñ ôéøù ì÷îï (ãó îç.) âáé ôåãï áçåõ ìø''à áø' ùîòåï ãôøé÷ ìäå ÷åãí æøé÷ä
(s) Question: Rashi explained below (48a) regarding "he redeems them outside", according to R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon he redeems them before Zerikah!
)åîéâå) [ö"ì îéâå - öàï ÷ãùéí] ãçæå ì÷øáï ãàé áòé îðéó àìéîé ìîéúôñ ôãéåðï
(t) Answer: Migo (since) they are proper for a Korban, that if he wants, he waves them, [their Kedushah] is strong to be Tofes their Pidyon.
åäà ãáñåó øáé éùîòàì (ì÷îï ãó òá:) îùîò ãàéôìéâå øáé åø''à áøáé ùîòåï àé äå÷áòå áùçéèä àé ìà äå÷áòå åôéøù á÷åðèøñ ìùðåúï ìùí æáç àçø
(u) Explanation #1: Below (72b) it connotes that Rebbi and R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon argue about whether or not Shechitah is Kove'a, and Rashi explained to change them to another Korban!
äà ìéúà ãàôéìå áúðåôä äåæ÷÷å æä ìæä àí úðåôä òåùä æé÷ä
(v) Rejection #1: This is wrong. Even through Tenufah [alone], they are Huzkak one to the other if Tenufah makes Zikah! (If so, we should have resolved that Tenufah does not make Zikah.)
åòåã ÷ùä ãîùîò ãìø''à éëåì ìùðåúï ìùí æáç àçø åäà ìéúà ãìëåìé òìîà àéðå éëåì ìùðåúï ìùí æáç àçø ìôéøåù ãôéøùðå
(w) Rejection #2: [Rashi] connotes that according to R. Elazar he can change them to another Korban. This is wrong. All agree that he cannot change them to another Korban, according to what I explained!
àìà äúí îééøé ìàôñåìé áéåöà:
(x) Explanation #2: Rather, there we discuss to become Pasul through Yotzei.
2) TOSFOS DH Nifras Lachmah
úåñôåú ã"ä ðôøñ ìçîä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that the Beraisa needed to teach three kinds of Pesulim.)
úìú âååðé ÷úðé ðôøñ éöà ðèîà åëåìäå öøéëé
(a) Explanation: Three kinds were taught - it became Chaser, was Yotzei or became Tamei. All of them are needed.
åö''ò ùìà é÷ùä îëàï (ìøáà) [ö"ì ìøá äåðà] ãàîø áô''÷ (ìòéì ãó éá.) ãìî''ã æøé÷ä îåòìú ìéåöà ãáçñøåú îåãä
(b) Question: This requires investigation, so it will not be difficult for Rav Huna, who said above (12a) that [even] the opinion that Zerikah helps for Yotzei, he agrees about Chaser. (There was no need to teach Nifras, i.e. Chaser.)
3) TOSFOS DH mishe'Shachtah Nitma Lachmah... vi'Ydei Nidro Yatza veha'Lechem Pasul
úåñôåú ã"ä îùùçèä ðèîà ìçîä... åéãé ðãøå éöà åäìçí ôñåì
(SUMMARY: Tosfos questions our text, and also another text.)
äê âéøñà àéúà áñôøéí
(a) Version #1: This text is in Seforim.
åúéîä ãîã÷úðé éöà àìîà ÷ñáø äöéõ îøöä òì àëéìåú åäãø ÷àîø åäìçí ôñåì ãìùåï ôñåì îùîò ãàôéìå ðèîà î÷öúå ôñåì ëåìå
(b) Question #1: Since it says "he was Yotzei", this shows that he holds that the Tzitz is Meratzeh for eating. Later it says "and the bread is Pasul." "Pasul" connotes that even if part became Tamei, all of it is Pasul!
åòåã ãäåä ìéä ìîéúðé úåøí îï äèäåø òì äèîà ëã÷úðé ñéôà âáé ðæø÷ äãí
(c) Question #2: It should have taught "he takes Terumah from Tahor on Tamei", like the Seifa regarding "the blood was thrown"!
ìëê ðøàä ãâøñéðï åéãé ðãøå ìà éöà
(d) Correction - Version #2: It seems that the text "he was not Yotzei his Neder."
åúéîä ãìòéì (ãó ëä.) ãéé÷ îàï ùîòú ìéä ãàîø àéï æøé÷ä îåòìú ìéåöà øáé àìéòæø å÷ñáø äöéõ îøöä òì àëéìåú
(e) Question: Above (25a), [the Gemara] inferred "who holds that Zerikah does not help for Yotzei? It is R. Eliezer, and he holds that the Tzitz is Meratzeh for eating";
åäà äëà ÷úðé îùùçèä éöà ìçîä éãé ðãøå ìà éöà åñáøä ãàéï äöéõ îøöä òì àëéìåú
1. Here it teaches that if the bread left after Shechitah, he was not Yotzei his vow, and [the Beraisa] holds that the Tzitz is not Meratzeh for eating!
4) TOSFOS DH d'Rachmana Karyei Shelamim
úåñôåú ã"ä ãøçîðà ÷øééä ùìîéí
(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that also Kivsei Atzeres are called Shelamim.)
àó òì âá ãëáùé òöøú ðîé àé÷øå ùìîéí
(a) Implied question: Also Kivsei Atzeres are called Shelamim!
ìà ãîé ùäøé äí ÷ãùé ÷ãùéí åìà éìôéðï î÷ãùéí ÷ìéí
(b) Answer #1: They are different, for they are Kodshei Kodoshim, and we do not learn them from Kodshim Kalim.
àé ðîé ìà éìôéðï ùìîé öéáåø îùìîé éçéã:
(c) Answer #2: We do not learn Shalmei Tzibur from Shalmei Yachid.
46b----------------------------------------46b
5) TOSFOS DH Avdu Kevasim Lo Tiba'i Lecha d'Vadai Ba'i Tenufah
úåñôåú ã"ä àáãå ëáùéí ìà úéáòé ìê ãåãàé áòé úðåôä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that Tenufah is with the lambs that replace the lost lambs.)
áäãé ëáùéí àçøéðé åìà ãîé ìæå úåãä åæå ìçîä ãàé àáãä äúåãä àéðå îáéà àçøú
(a) Explanation: [The bread must be waved] with the other lambs. This is unlike "this is a Todah, and it is its bread." If the Todah was lost he need not bring another.
6) TOSFOS DH u'Mai Shena Shiv'as Kevasim... d'Lo Mekadshei v'Lo Me'akvi
úåñôåú ã"ä åîàé ùðà ùáòä ëáùéí... ãìà î÷ãùé åìà îòëáé
(SUMMARY: Tosfos gives two opinions about whether or not he asks about Ikuv.)
àâá î÷ãùé ð÷è îòëáé ãäà ãøùéðï ìòéì (ã' îä:) ùáòú ëáùéí àò''ô ùàéï ìçí åä''ð ìçí àò''ô ùàéï ùáòä ëáùéí
(a) Explanation #1: Agav (along with) Mekadshei it mentioned Me'akvei, for we expounded above (45b) "Shiv'as Kevasim", even if there is not bread. Likewise, there is bread even if there are not seven lambs! (Abaye need not ask about this.)
åîéäå á÷åðèøñ ôé' ãîéáòéà ìéä áúø ãäåæ÷÷å æä ìæä áùçéèä
(b) Explanation #2 (Rashi): He asks after they were made dependent on each other through Shechitah.
7) TOSFOS DH Lefichach Shachtan she'Lo Lishman Lo Kidesh ha'Lechem
úåñôåú ã"ä ìôéëê ùçèï ùìà ìùîï ìà ÷ãù äìçí
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why he taught about Shechitah Lo Lishmah.)
èôé äåä ðéçà ìîéúðé ùçèï ìùîï ã÷ãù äìçí
(a) Implied question: It would have been better to teach that if he slaughtered them Lishman, the bread is Kadosh!
àìà àùîòéðï àò''â ãàçøéðé ìùîï ðùçèå ìà ÷ãù äìçí
(b) Answer: He teaches that even though others were slaughtered Lishman, the bread is not Kadosh.
8) TOSFOS DH Shtei ha'Lechem ha'Ba'os Bifnei Atzman
úåñôåú ã"ä ùúé äìçí äáàåú áôðé òöîï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this is like R. Akiva (45b).)
ëî''ã ìçí òé÷ø
(a) Explanation: This is like the opinion that the bread is primary.
9) TOSFOS DH Lisrefinhu Le'alter
úåñôåú ã"ä ìùøôéðäå ìàìúø
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this is like both opinions in Pesachim.)
åàôé' ìî''ã (ôñçéí ãó ìã:) àôé' ôéâåì èòåï [ö"ì òéáåø] öåøä
(a) Implied suggestion: This is unlike the opinion (Pesachim 34b) that even Pigul requires Ibur Tzurah!
äëà ùàðé ãîöåúï áëê
(b) Rejection: (It is even like him.) Here is different, for this is its Mitzvah. (When Shtei ha'Lechem is brought by itself, it must be burned.)
10) TOSFOS DH Lefi she'Ein Sorfin Kodshim b'Yom Tov
úåñôåú ã"ä ìôé ùàéï ùåøôéï ÷ãùéí áé''è
(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that the Gemara could have asked why it is not burned at night.)
äåä îöé ìîéôøê ìîåöàé éå''è ìàìúø ìùøôéðäå ãîðåúø ìà éìéó îãîñé÷ öåøú ä÷øáúï
(a) Observation: It could have asked that it should be burned immediately on Motza'ei Yom Tov. He does not learn from Nosar, for we conclude that [they are burned after] Tzuras Hakravasan (the last time to offer them).
11) TOSFOS DH Tzuras Hakravasan
úåñôåú ã"ä öåøú ä÷øáúï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes that until night is the time to offer them.)
ôéøù á÷åðèøñ òã úîéã ùì áéï äòøáéí
(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi): This is until the afternoon Tamid (it is the last Korban offered each day).
îéäå áùîòúà ãðú÷ì÷ìå äìåéí áùéø (ø''ä ãó ì:) (îôøù) [ö"ì ôéøùúé - âîøà òåæ åäãø] ã÷øáðåú öéáåø ÷øáé àçø äúîéã åãçå òùä ãäùìîä
(b) Objection: In the Sugya of [a case in which] the Leviyim sang the wrong Shirah (because Beis Din made the day Rosh Chodesh based on testimony after the afternoon Tamid - Rosh Hashanah 30b), I explained that Korbanos Tzibur may be offered after the afternoon Tamid. They override the Aseh (that the afternoon Tamid must be the last Korban).
ìëê ðøàä ìôøù òã äìéìä
(c) Explanation #2: It is until the night.
12) TOSFOS DH Mah Bikurim Bifnei Atzman
úåñôåú ã"ä îä áéëåøéí áôðé òöîï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why R. Akiva needs a Gezeirah Shavah.)
åàôéìå äëé àéöèøéê ìøáé ò÷éáà éäéå îúäééðä ììçí ãîòëá ëáùéí:
(a) Observation: Even though (this shows that Shtei ha'Lechem may be brought by themselves), R. Akiva needs [to learn] "Yihyu" from "Tihyenah" to teach that the bread is Me'akev the lambs.