1) TOSFOS DH Akirah b'Ta'us Havi Akirah
úåñôåú ã"ä ò÷éøä áèòåú äåéà ò÷éøä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with the Tosefta.)
ö''ò äà ãúðéà áúåñôúà áôø÷ ÷îà ãæáçéí ëáùé öéáåø ùùçèï ìùí ëáùéí åðîöàå àéìéí òìå ìöéáåø ìùí àéìéí àéìéí ùì öéáåø ùùçèï ìùí àéìéí åðîöàå ëáùéí òìå ìùí ëáùéí
(a) Question: A Tosefta (Zevachim 1:3) teaches that if Kivsei Tzibur were slaughtered l'Shem lambs, and they were found to be rams, they count for the Tzibur like rams. If rams were slaughtered l'Shem rams, and they were found to be lambs, they count for the Tzibur like lambs;
àìîà ò÷éøä áèòåú ìà äåéà ò÷éøä
1. Inference: Mistaken Akirah is not Akirah!
åùîà îùåí ùìîé ðãáä ÷àîø åúðà äåà ãìà îôøù
(b) Answer: Perhaps [it is Akirah;] it means [that they count like] Shalmei Nedavah, and the Tana did not specify.
2) TOSFOS DH v'Ka Mechashev Bah li'Shelamim
úåñôåú ã"ä å÷à (îôøù) [ö"ì îçùá - öàï ÷ãùéí] áä ìùìîéí
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that he intended to eat them like Shelamim.)
ëìåîø ìàåëìï ùðé éîéí åëôéøåù ä÷åðèøñ
(a) Explanation: I.e. he intended to eat them for two days, like Rashi explained.
3) TOSFOS DH Mesiv R. Zeira R. Shimon Omer
úåñôåú ã"ä îúéá ø' æéøà ø' ùîòåï àåîø
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that R. Zeira was unaware of the contradiction in R. Shimon.)
ðøàä ãø' æéøà ìéú ìéä ìà ëøáä åìà [ö"ì ëøáà åìà - éùø åèåá] ëøá àùé ãøéù îëéìúéï (ãó á.)
(a) Assertion: It seems that R. Zeira disagrees with Rabah, Rava and Rav Ashi above (2a. They said, respectively, that Shimon is Machshir Shinuy Kodesh because it is evident, or due to "Zos Toras ha'Minchah", or when he said 'l'Shem Marcheshes', i.e. l'Shem the Kli, which is meaningless).
àìà èòîà ãðôùéä ÷àîø ëãîùîò åìà îñé÷ àãòúà ÷åùéà ãø''ù àãø''ù åöøéê òéåï
1. Rather, [R. Zeira] says his own reason, like it connotes, and it did not cross his mind the contradiction in R. Shimon! This requires investigation.
4) TOSFOS DH Tadir u'Mekudash
úåñôåú ã"ä úãéø åî÷åãù
(SUMMARY: Tosfos brings two explanations of this.)
ìùåï à' ôéøù ä÷åðè' áéåí ÷ãåù
(a) Version #1 (Rashi): [It is Mekudash] because it is on a Kodesh day.
åëï îùîò áñåó ëì äúãéø (æáçéí ãó öà.) àèå ùáú ìîåñó àäðé ìúîéã ìà àäðé
(b) Support: It connotes like this in Zevachim (91a). It says "does Shabbos help for Musaf (to make it) Kadosh, and it does not help for the Tamid?!"
å÷öú ÷ùä ãäúí ìà îééúé äà åäëà ìà îééúé ääéà ãäúí
(c) Question: There it does not bring what it says here, and here it does not bring what it says there!
åìùåï àçø ôéøù á÷åðèø' àåúå ùæîðå òëùéå îé÷øé î÷åãù
(d) Version #2 (Rashi): The one whose time is now is called Mekudash.
åäà ãð÷è úîéãéï ãìîçø åîåñôéï ãäàéãðà ãîùîò ãúîéã ùì áéï äòøáéí ÷åãí ìîåñó åäà ìà î÷åãù äåà
(e) Implied question: Why did it discuss tomorrow's Temidim and today's Musafim? This implies that the afternoon Tamid [of today] is before [today's] Musaf. [The afternoon Tamid] is not more Mekudash!
äúí îèòîà àçøéðà ãäëé ÷àîø øçîðà ëì äéëà ãàéëà àçã ááå÷ø òùä ùðé áéï äòøáéí
(f) Answer: There, there is another reason. The Torah said whenever there is one in the morning, do a second in the afternoon.
5) TOSFOS DH Talmud Lomar v'Arach Aleha ha'Olah
úåñôåú ã"ä úìîåã ìåîø åòøê òìéä äòåìä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the Isur of Hakravah before the morning Tamid and after the afternoon Tamid.)
úéîä ãáôø÷ ëì äúãéø (ùí ãó ôè.) ðô÷à ìéä îãëúéá îìáã òåìú äáå÷ø úòùå àú àìä îëìì ãúîéã ÷øá áøéùà
(a) Question: In Zevachim (89a) we learn from "Milvad Olas ha'Boker Ta'asu Es Elu." This implies that the Tamid is offered first!
åé''ì ã÷øà ãäëà àéöèøéê ìîðçú çáéúéï ãàò''â ãúãéø
(b) Answer #1: We need the verse here for Minchas Chavitim. Even though it is [equally] Tadir (the Tamid comes first).
åëï îùîò áôø÷ àîø ìäí äîîåðä (éåîà ãó ìã.) àéáøéï ÷åãîéï ìîðçä ãëúéá åòøê òìéä äòåìä
1. Support #1: It connotes like this in Yoma (34a). Limbs [of the Tamid] are before the Minchah, for it says "v'Arach Aleha ha'Olah";
åòì ëøçê îðçú çáéúéï ÷àîø ãîðçú ðñëéí ðô÷à ìï îãëúéá òåìä åîðçä ëãàéúà ìòéì áôéø÷éï (ãó îã:)
i. You are forced to say that it discusses Minchas Chavitim, for we know Minchas Nesachim (that it is after the Zevach) from "Olah u'Minchah", like it says above (44b).
åôø' ÷îà ãúîéã (ãó ëç:) ðîé àîøéðï ìîéîøà ãçáéúéï ÷ãîé åäúðéà åòøê åëå'
2. Support #2: Also in Tamid (28b) we say 'does this mean that Chavitim come first? A Beraisa teaches "v'Arach..."'
åîäëà âîøéðï ìëì îéðé ãîéí ã÷ãîé (ìçáéúéï) [ö"ì ìîðçåú - öàï ÷ãùéí] ãúðï áô' ëì äúãéø (æáçéí ã' ôè.) äòåôåú ÷åãîéï ìîðçåú ùäììå îéðé ãîéí åàé ìà îäëà îðà ìéä äà
3. Support #3: From here we learn to all kinds of [Korbanos with] blood, that they precede Menachos, for a Mishnah (Zevachim 89a) teaches that birds come before Menachos, for they have blood. If not from here, what is the source for this?
åîéäå ÷ùéà äëà àîàé ìà îééúé îúðéúéï [ö"ì ãäúí - öàï ÷ãùéí] ãìòðéï îåñôéï àééøé
(c) Question: Here, why don't we bring the Mishnah there, which discusses Musafim?
ãàéï ìåîø ãäëà îééøé ãàéú ìéä åì÷ãí åäúí àééøé ãìéú ìéä
1. Implied suggestion: Here we discuss when he has [all the Korbanos needed], and it is a question of which to offer first. There we discuss when he does not have [all the Korbanos needed].
ãäúí ðîé àééøé ãàéú ìéä ãåîéà ããí çèàú ÷åãí ìãí òåìä ãúðï äúí
2. Rejection: Also there it discusses when he has, similar to "Dam Chatas precedes Dam Olah" that is taught there!
åé''ì îùåí ãìà éäà ãáø ÷åãí îùîò èôé òéëåáà àééúéä
(d) Answer: Because "nothing comes before" connotes more Ikuv, it brings [the Beraisa. Chak Nasan - now we are thinking that the order is Me'akev. Later, Abaye rejects this.]
îéäå úéîä ãáäâåæì ÷îà (á''÷ ãó ÷éà.) úðï äáéà àùîå òã ùìà äáéà âæéìå ìà éöà åîôøù áâîøà îùåí ãëúéá îìáã àéì äëôåøéí îëìì ãëñó áøéùà
(e) Question: In Bava Kama (111a) a Mishnah teaches "if he brought his Asham [Gezelos] before he brought his theft, he was not Yotzei." The Gemara explains that "Milvad Eil ha'Kipurim" implies that he brings the money first;
åôøéê àìà îòúä îìáã òåìú äáå÷ø äëé ðîé ãîåñôéï ÷øáé áøéùà åäúðéà åòøê òìéä (îëàï îòîåã á) äòåìä
1. It asks 'if so, Milvad Olas ha'Boker - will we say that the Musaf is offered first?! A Beraisa teaches "v'Arach Aleha ha'Olah"!'
49b----------------------------------------49b
åäùúà ìéôøåê îîúðéúéï [ö"ì ãëì äúãéø - ùéèä î÷åáöú] (ããøùà îäà àéôëà ãòåìú äá÷ø ÷ãîä áøéùà) [ö"ì ããøùéðï îîìáã àéôëà ãòåìú äá÷ø ÷ãîä - öàï ÷ãùéí]
2. Summation of question: We should ask from the Mishnah in Zevachim, that we expound from Milvad oppositely, that Olas ha'Boker is first!
ìëê ðøàä ìôøù ãîäëà ìà ðô÷à ìï àìà ä÷èøä ãëåìé ÷øà áä÷èøä àééøé åîäúí ðô÷à ìï òáåãú ãí ãëúéá úòùå îùîò òùééú äãí
(f) Answer (and Answer #2 to Question (a)): From here (v'Arach Aleha ha'Olah) we learn only Haktarah, for the entire verse discusses Haktarah. From there (the verse of Musafim) we learn Avodas Dam, for it is written Ta'asu, which connotes doing (offering) the blood;
åô' äâåæì [÷îà] (á''÷ ÷éà.) àéöèøéê ìàéúåéé äàé ÷øà ãäà ìà ëúéá àìà ä÷èøä àùä øéç ðéçåç ÷îé úîéã
1. And in Bava Kama (111a) it needs to bring this verse (ha'Olah), for only Haktarah [of Musafim], i.e. "Isheh Rei'ach Nicho'ach", is written before the Tamid;
åãìîà ä÷èøú îåñó ÷ãîä åòùéåú áúø äëé [ö"ì ãáúø - ùéèä î÷åáöú] (îìáã àéëúéáå) ëãëúéá (áîãáø ëç) îìáã òåìú [ö"ì äáå÷ø àùø ìòåìú] äúîéã úòùå àú àìä
i. Perhaps Haktarah of the Musaf is first, and Asiyos (Avodas ha'Dam of Musaf) is after (that of the Tamid), for [Asiyos of Musafim] are written after Milvad, like it says "Milvad Olas ha'Boker Asher l'Olas ha'Tamid Ta'asu Es Elu"!
úéîä ìîä ìé ÷øà [ö"ì áä÷èøä - îùðä ìîìê] ãúîéã ÷åãí ìîåñó úéôå÷ ìé' ãúãéø ÷åãí
(g) Question: Why do we need a verse about Haktarah to teach that the Tamid is before Musaf? I already know that Tadir is first!
ãàò''â ã÷ãîé á÷øà àîøéðï áæáçéí (ã' ôè.) ãîåñôé çåãù ÷ãîé ìîåñôé øàù äùðä àò''â ãëúé' îìáã òåìú äçãù ìáñåó
1. And even though [Musaf is written] first in the verse, we say in Zevachim (89a) that Musfei Rosh Chodesh precede Musfei Rosh Hashanah, even though it says Milvad Olas ha'Chodesh at the end!
åàé îéôñéì (áéåöà) [ö"ì áëê - öàï ÷ãùéí] ðéçà åáñîåê ðô÷à ãìà îéôñéì
2. Remark: If it were disqualified through this (offering in the wrong order), it would be fine (we need a second verse to disqualify b'Di'eved), but below [Abaye] derives that it is not disqualified! (Eizehu Mekoman - Tosfos is unsure, for perhaps this is a mere Dichuy. At the end of this Dibur, Tosfos cites a Tosefta that says that the order is Me'akev.)
åé''ì ãäéà âåôà ùîòéðï (îä òåìä) [ö"ì îäòåìä - öàï ÷ãùéí] ùàéï ìàçø àó òì âá ãëúéá îìáã ìáñåó
(h) Answer: We learn this itself from "ha'Olah", that one should not delay [the Tamid], even though it is written Milvad [Olas ha'Tamid] at the end.
åäà ãàîøéðï áøéù ëì äúãéø (æáçéí ãó ôè:) éëåì éäà çèàú ÷åãîú ìîòùä òåìä îùåí ãëúéá åòùä àú äàçã çèàú åàú äàçã òåìä ú''ì åôø ùðé áï á÷ø ú÷ç ìçèàú
(i) Implied question - Citation (Zevachim 89b): One might have thought that Chatas precedes Ma'aseh Olah, because it is written "v'Asah Es ha'Echad Olah" (regarding Chanukas ha'Leviyim)! It says "u'Far Sheni Ben Bakar Tikach l'Chatas";
éëåì úäà òåìä ÷åãîú ìëì îòùéä ú''ì åòùä åâå' äà ëéöã ãí çèàú ÷åãí ìãí òåìä îôðé ùîøöéí àáøé òåìä ÷åãîéï ìçèàú îôðé ùëåìä ëìéì
1. Citation (cont.): [Since the verse calls it second,] perhaps all actions of the Olah are before [the Chatas]! It says "va'Aseh [Es ha'Echad Chatas v'Es ha'Echad Olah]." How [do we resolve both verses]? Dam Chatas comes before Dam Olah, for it is Meratzeh. Ivrei Olah come before [Eimurei] Chatas, for Olah is totally Kalil (burned).
àìîà áòé ìà÷ãåîé àôé' (îä÷èøä) [ö"ì áä÷èøä - öàï ÷ãùéí] àò''â ãëúéá åòùä ãìà îùîò àìà òùééú äãí
2. Inference: [The verse teaches that] it must be first even for Haktarah, even though it is written "v'Asah", which (according to Answer #2) connotes only Avodas ha'Dam!
ìàå îéìúà äéà ãëéåï ãâìé âáé úîéãéï äåà äãéï ðîé äúí
(j) Answer #1: This is wrong. Since the Torah revealed about Temidim (that Milvad teaches that the Tamid is first also for Haktarah), the same applies there.
àé ðîé îåä÷øéá àú àùø ìçèàú øàùåðä äåä ÷à ãøéù ãîéðéä ãøùéðï (æáçéí ãó ö.) æä áðä àá ëì äçèàåú ÷åãîåú ìòåìä
(k) Answer #2: [Really, we] expound from "Es Asher l'Chatas Rishonah" (and not va'Aseh Es ha'Echad Chatas, which teaches only about blood). From it we expound (Zevachim 90a) "this is a Binyan Av. All Chata'os precede Olah."
.àé ðîé àé ìàå ÷øà ä''à îàé ãáòé áä÷èøä î÷ãéí áøéùà
(l) Answer #3: If not for the verse ("u'Far Sheni... Tikach l'Chatas"), one might have thought that whatever he wants, he is Maktir first.
åúéîä ìîä ìé ÷øà ãäòåìä áìà äàé ÷øà ðîé úéôå÷ ìé îéå÷ãí ãáø ùðàîø áå áá÷ø îãáø ùìà ðàîø áå àìà áéåí ãîùîò áòéöåîå ùì éåí ãîéðéä ùîòéðï áôø÷ úîéã ðùçè (ôñçéí ðç.) ãîåñôéï ÷øáé òã ùù
(m) Question: Why do we need the verse ha'Olah? Without this verse, we already know this from "precede something that says ba'Boker to something that says only ba'Yom, which connotes in Itzumo (the primary part of) the day." From this we learn in Pesachim (58a) that Musafim are offered until six [hours of the day];
åäëé àîøéðï ôø÷ àîø ìäí äîîåðä (éåîà ãó ìâ:) ÷èåøú ÷åãí ìàáøéí éå÷ãí ãáø ùðàîø áå áá÷ø áá÷ø ìãáø ùìà ðàîø áå àìà áá÷ø
1. We say so in Yoma (33b) that Ketores precedes limbs, for we precede something that says ba'Boker ba'Boker to something that says only ba'Boker.
åé''ì àäà ìà ÷ùéà îéãé ãàé ìàå äòåìä äåä ãøùéðï îìáã ëãáòé ìîãøùé' áäâåæì ÷îà (á''÷ ãó ÷éà.)
(n) Answer: This is not difficult at all. If not for ha'Olah, we would expound Milvad like we wanted to expound in Bava Kama (111a, that what is written before Milvad comes first).
àìà àé ÷ùéà ìéùúå÷ îîìáã
1. Question: The verse should omit Milvad [and ha'Olah, and we will know that the Tamid is first because it says ba'Boker]!
åàé îéôñéì áëê ðøàä ùôéø ãîääåà ìà ùîòéðï ôñåì
2. Answer #1: If it is disqualified due to this (offering out of order), this is fine, for from [ba'Boker] we could not learn Pesul. (Yad Binyamin - Abaye concludes that the order of Haktarah is not Me'akev. Perhaps the order of blood is Me'akev, for it is the primary Kaparah.)
àé ðîé îéå÷ãí ìà ùîòé' àìà ùîöåä ìä÷ãéí àáì àí ä÷ãéí åùçè éâîåø åîäëà ùîòéðï ãìà
3. Answer #2: From "precede [something that says ba'Boker...]" we learn only that the Mitzvah is to do it first, but if he already slaughtered [the latter, i.e. Musaf] he should finish [offering it]! Here we learn unlike this.
åúéîä äà ãàîøéðï øéù òéøåáéï (ãó á.) ùìîéí ùùçèï ÷åãí ôúéçú ãìúåú ääéëì ôñåìéï åúéôå÷ ìé ãà''ë à÷ãîéðäå ÷åãí úîéã
4. Question #1: We say in Eruvin (2a) that if Shelamim was slaughtered before the doors of the Heichal were opened, it is Pasul. I should already know this from here, for if so, it was slaughtered before the Tamid!
ãôùèà ãîéìúà îùîò ÷åãí ùðôúçå áàåúå éåí
i. [Do not say that the doors were opened, the Tamid was slaughtered, the doors wherever closed, and then Shelamim was slaughtered,] for the simple meaning connotes that [we discuss] before the gates were opened that day!
åëï ðîé ì÷îï ôø÷ ùúé îãåú (ãó ôè:) òåìú úîéã ùùçèä ùìà ìùîä ëùøä åàîàé äà ÷åãí úîéã àéúòáéã
5. Question #2: Below (89b) it says that if Olas Tamid was slaughtered Lo Lishmah, it is Kosher. Why is this? It was done before the Tamid!
îéäå îäúí ìà ÷ùéà îéãé ãùçéèä ìàå òáåãä äéà (ãìà) [ö"ì åìà - éùø åèåá] äåéà áëìì òùéä
6. Answer: These are not difficult at all. Shechitah is not an Avodah, and it is not included in "Asiyah". (Even though one must slaughter the Tamid first, since it is not an Avodah, b'Di'eved this does not disqualify.)
îéäå úéîä ãàîøéðï ô' àîø ìäï äîîåðä (éåîà ãó ëè.) åôø÷ ùúé äìçí (ì÷îï ãó ÷.) ìà æå áìáã àîøå àìà àôé' òåìú äòåó ùðîì÷ä åîðçä ùð÷îöä úöà ìáéú äùøéôä åàìéìä ÷àé
(o) Question: We say in Yoma (29a) and below (100a) "not only this - rather, even Melikas Olas ha'Of or Kemitzas Minchah is [Pasul, and] burned in Beis ha'Sereifah." It refers to what was done at night;
åúéôå÷ ìé' ã÷îé úîéã òáãéðäå
1. We should know [that they are Pasul, and even if they were during the day] because they were done before the Tamid!
àáì îùåí ÷åãí ôúéçú ãìúåú ääéëì ìà îéôñìé ãìà ëúéá áäå ôúç
2. Observation: They are not Pasul due to preceding opening the doors of the Heichal, for Pesach [Ohel Mo'ed] is not written regarding them.
åùîà ëéåï ãàëúé ìà îèà æîï úîéã ÷øà ìà àééøé áäëé
(p) Answer #1: Perhaps because the time for the Tamid did not yet come, the verse does not discuss this.
àé ðîé ìà îéôñéì áùáéì ëê ëãîñ÷éðï äëà ìîöåä áòìîà
(q) Answer #2: They are not disqualified due to this (preceding the Tamid), like we conclude here that it is a mere Mitzvah [to offer the Tamid first].
åëï îùîò ô' úîéã ðùçè (ôñçéí ãó ðè:) ãòùä ãôñç åòùä ãàëéìú ÷ãùéí ãçé ìòùä ãäùìîä ããøùéðï òìéä äùìí ëì ä÷øáðåú ëåìí
1. Support #1: It connotes like this in Pesachim (59b) that the Aseh of Pesach and the Aseh of eating Kodshim override the Aseh of Hashlamah. We expound Aleha (through the afternoon Tamid) Hashlem (complete) all the Korbanos [of the day, i.e. it is the last Korban of the day. We transgress this for a Mechusar Kipurim, and offer his Kaparah to permit him to eat Pesach.]
åàé äåä îéôñì ìà ùééê áéä ãçééä
i. If [what is offered after the afternoon Tamid] is Pasul, Dechiyah would not apply (his Kaparah offered afterwards would be Pasul, and would not permit him)!
åòìéä äùìí îäàé ÷øà (æé÷øà å) ãåòøê òìéä äòåìä äåà ããøùéðï åëéåï ãäúí ìà îéôñì äåà äãéï äëà
ii. We expound Aleha Hashlem from this verse "v'Arach Aleha ha'Olah". Since there it is not Pasul, also here (what is offered before the morning Tamid).
åëï îùîò ðîé ùìäé îé ùäéä èîà (ùí ãó öç.) áëåø ùðúòøá áôñç àí çáåøú ëäðéí éàëìå åðúòøáå îçééí ÷àîø
2. Support #2: It connotes like this also in Pesachim (98a). If a Bechor became mixed with a Pesach, if the group [who own the Pesach and need to eat it] are Kohanim, they eat [both]. It discusses when they became mixed while alive;
îãôøéê áâî' åäà àéï îáéàéï ÷ãùéí ìáéú äôñåì [åôé' øù''é] åäåä ìéä ìîéîø éøòå òã ùéñúàáå
i. Source: It asks in the Gemara "we do not cause Kodshim to become Pasul" (prone to become Nosar, through offering in a way that puts more restrictions on eating them than the Torah gave. The Torah allows all Kohanim to eat Bechor, for two days and a night. This Bechor is a Safek Pesach, so only this group may eat it, and only at night!) Rashi explained that we should have said that they graze until they get blemished (and redeem the Pesach for the value of the better animal, eat both of them, and buy a new Pesach with the money).
åæîï ùçéèú ôñç àçø úîéã äåà åàôé' äëé ìà îéôñéì äáëåø
ii. The time for Shechitas Pesach is after the [afternoon] Tamid. [Even though we offer both then,] the Bechor is not disqualified [due to this].
åëï îùîò ðîé áäàùä (ùí ãó ôç:) çîùä ùðúòøáå òåøåú ôñçéäï [æä áæä] åðîöàú éáìú áàçã îäï [ëå'] åôèåøéï îìòùåú (ôñç øàùåï å) ôñç ùðé
3. Support #3: It connotes like this also in Pesachim (88b). If the hides of five Pesachim became mixed with each other, and a wart was found on one of them (it was a Ba'al Mum)... they are exempt from Pesach Sheni;
åôøéê èåáà åðééúé ôñç ùðé åðéúðé áîåúø ôñç åãçé÷ èåáà ìùðåéé åäùúà àé îôñéì îàé ÷ùéà ìéä äà ôñç ùðé æîðå ðîé àçø úîéã ãìà çùéá ìéä áéï ãáøéí ùáéï ôñç øàùåï ìôñç ùðé
i. [The Gemara] asks greatly against this - they should bring Pesach Sheni [from Mosar Pesach] and stipulate [that if they already fulfilled Pesach, it is] Mosar Pesach (which is Shelamim). If [anything offered after the afternoon Tamid other than Pesach] is Pasul, what was the question? Also Pesach Sheni is offered after the Tamid. This is not counted among differences between Pesach Rishon and Pesach Sheni;
åàí ëï àé ùìîéí äåé ãîåúø äôñç ÷øá ùìîéí äà îéôñìé
ii. If so, if it is Shelamim, for Mosar Pesach is offered for Shelamim, it is disqualified!
åàéï ìåîø ãòùä ãôñç ãçé ìòùä ãäùìîä
4. Suggestion: The Aseh of Pesach is Docheh the Aseh of Hashlamah.
ãäà ìà äåé àìà ñôé÷à áòìîà
5. Rejection: It is only a Safek! (If it is a Shelamim, he has no Mitzvah of Pesach.)
åîéäå ÷ùéà áäëé ëéåï ãàéëà àéñåøà ãàåøééúà äéëé î÷øéáéï ìëúçìä åàéï ìåîø ãîùåí ñôé÷ú ôñç ãçé ìéä àéñåøà ãàåøééúà
(r) Question #1: [Even if transgressing Hashlamah does not disqualify,] since there is a Torah Isur, how do we offer l'Chatchilah? Do not say that since it is a Safek Pesach, this overrides a Torah Isur!
åúå ãîñ÷éðï äúí ãîùåí ñîéëä ùá÷éðï ìéä ãìéëà ðîé àìà îöåä áòìîà
(s) Question #2: We conclude there (89a) that due to [inability to do] Semichah, we refrain [from offering Pesach Sheni with a stipulation]. Also this (Semichah) is a mere Mitzvah (and its omission does not disqualify).
åâáé áëåø (ãåçä ðîé) [ö"ì ãåç÷ ðîé ìôøù - éùø åèåá] ãáîåúø äôñç àééøé
1. Remark: Regarding Bechor, it is difficult to explain that it discusses [that it was mixed with] Mosar Pesach (which is slaughtered before the afternoon Tamid, so there is no need to override Hashlamah. This is difficult, for "group" applies only to Pesach.)
ìëê ðøàä ãåãàé áúîéã ùì ùçø ãëúéá úòùå äåà ãîòëáé òùéåú ããí àáì áúîéã ùì òøá ìà îòëáà àìà ä÷èøä ãëåìé ÷øà áä÷èøä àééøé
(t) Answer: Surely, regarding the morning Tamid, about which it says Ta'asu, Asiyos of blood are Me'akev (Dam ha'Tamid must be offered before other matters), but the afternoon Tamid, only Haktarah is Me'akev, for the entire verse discusses Haktarah. (Eizehu Mekoman - i.e. the Torah forbids other Haktarah after Haktarah of the afternoon Tamid.)
1. Note: This is a retraction from Answer #2 above (s). The culmination of this answer below (v:3) rejects the supports given for Answer #2.
åëï îùîò áøéù úîéã ðùçè (ùí ãó ðè.) ãîå÷é ìä áçèàú äòåó ùàéï ìîæáç àìà ãîä àé ðîé ááäîä åîòìä åîìéðä áøàùå ùì îæáç
2. Support: It connotes like this in Pesachim (59a). We establish the case of [a Mechusar Kipurim offering after the afternoon Tamid] to be Chatas ha'Of, in which the Mizbe'ach receives only its blood, or an animal, and we bring [the Eimurim] up and leave them overnight on top of the Mizbe'ach (and offer them the next day).
åàé ÷øà ìà àééøé àìà áä÷èøä ðéçà ãìà îòëáà àìà ä÷èøä ãòìéä äùìí ëì ää÷èøåú ëåìï îùîò
i. If the verse discusses only Haktarah, this is fine. Only Haktarah is Me'akev. The verse connotes Aleha Hashlem (complete) all the Haktaros.
àáì àé îúòùå ðôé÷ ãîñúáø ìàùååéé úîéã ùì ùçø ìúîéã ùì òøá îàé èòîà ìà îòëáà ðîé òùééä
ii. However, if we learn from Ta'asu, it is reasonable to equate the morning Tamid to the afternoon Tamid. Why isn't also Asiyah (Avodas ha'Dam) Me'akev?
åäùúà ðéçà ãäðé àééøé áùìà ä÷èéø äúîéã ãä÷èøú àéîåøéí ëì äìéìä ëããøùé' ìòéì (ãó ëå:)
3. Culmination of answer: Now it is fine. These cases (in which we were not concerned for Hashlamah) are when Haktarah of the afternoon Tamid was not [yet] done, for Haktaras Eimurim is Kosher the entire night, like we expounded above (26b).
åääåà ãøéù úîéã ðùçè ãîå÷é ìä áçèàú äòåó ìà áòé ìàå÷åîä ëé äàé âååðà
4. Implied question: Why did we establish in Pesachim (59a) that we discuss Chatas ha'Of (which has no Haktarah)? We could have established it in such a case (Haktarah of the Tamid was not done, so any Korban may be brought)!
ãàí ëï îàé ãçééä àéëà àáì äùúà àéëà ãçééä îãøáðï îéäà âæéøä àèå ä÷èøä
5. Answer: If so, there is no Dichuy [of Hashlamah]. However, now [that we establish it to discuss Chatas ha'Of, after Haktaras ha'Tamid] there is Dichuy mid'Rabanan. There is a decree [against all Hakravah after Haktaras ha'Tamid] due to Haktarah [after Haktaras ha'Tamid].
îéäå áùîòúéï îåëç ãìà äåé àìà ìîöåä
6. Conclusion: (We cannot prove from there whether or not transgressing Hashlamah disqualifies.) However, in our Sugya it is proven that it is a mere Mitzvah. (Yad Binyamin - our Sugya discusses offering before the morning Tamid. Presumably, just like b'Di'eved this does not disqualify, the same applies to transgressing Hashlamah.)
åúéîä ãáô' àìå ãáøéí (ôñçéí òâ:) àîøéðï ùçèå åðåãò ùîùëå éãéäí ÷åãí àå ùðèîàå éùøó îéã
(u) Question: In Pesachim (73b, a Beraisa) says that if he slaughtered [Pesach] and it became known that [the owners] withdrew [from it] before Shechitah, or they became Tamei [beforehand], it is burned immediately;
åôøéê åàé àîøú ìà áòé ò÷éøä ôñåìå îçîú îàé äåé ùùçèå àçø úîéã ùì áéï äòøáéí àìîà áäëé îéôñéì
1. [The Gemara] asks "if you will say that Akirah is not needed (he need not specify that he slaughters it for a different Korban, for automatically it becomes a Shelamim), why is it Pasul? It is because he slaughtered it after the afternoon Tamid." This shows that this disqualifies!
åé''ì ãäàé ãðùøó ìôé ùìëúçéìä àñåø ìä÷èéøå åîîéìà éôñì
(v) Answer #1: It is burned because l'Chatchilah one may not do Haktarah, and automatically it is disqualified.
åäà ãàéï îòìä åîìéðä
1. Implied question: Why don't we bring [the Eimurim] up and leave them overnight [on top of the Mizbe'ach, and offer them the next day]?
ã÷ñáø ìéðä îåòìú áøàùå ùì îæáç
2. Answer: [The Tana] holds that Linah disqualifies [even] on top of the Mizbe'ach.
åàò''â ãä÷èøú àéîåøéí ìà îòëá ëé àáãå ëùø áàëéìä
3. Implied question: (Why is it Pasul due to inability to fulfill Haktaras Eimurim?) Haktaras Eimurim is not Me'akev. When they are lost, one may eat [the meat]!
äðé îéìé ëé àéçæå ìä÷èøä àáì äëà äà ìà àéçæå
4. Answer: That is only when it was proper to do Haktarah. Here, it was not proper.
àé ðîé îãøáðï àñåø ìéæø÷
(w) Answer #2: [It is burned because] mid'Rabanan it is forbidden to do Zerikah.
åìôéøåù æä ìà ÷ùéà îéãé îä ùîáéà øéá''à ãúðéà áúåñôúà ãôñçéí
(x) Support: According to this, the Tosefta in Pesachim (4:2) that Riva brought is not difficult;
ëì ä÷ãùéí ùä÷øéáï ÷åãí úîéã ùì ùçø àå ùòéëáï àçø úîéã äòøá ôñåìéï
1. Citation (Tosefta): All Kodshim that were offered before the morning Tamid or after the afternoon Tamid are Pasul.
åäùúà àé àîøú ãîãøáðï ôñéìé ùìà ìéæø÷ ðéçà
2. If you will say that mid'Rabanan they are Pasul, that one may not do Zerikah, this is fine.
îéäå ä÷øéáå îùîò ùä÷øéá ëåìå
3. Question #1: "Hikrivu" (were offered) connotes that they were totally offered!
åàãøáä àé áùçèï àééøé ÷ùéà ÷åãí úîéã ùì ùçø àôé' (àñøéðï ìéæø÷ àîàé ôñìéðï ìéä) [ö"ì îãøáðï àîàé àñøéðï ìéæø÷ åôñìéðï ìäå] (îëàï îãó äáà) äìà éæøå÷ äéèá àçø äúîéã
4. Question #2: Just the contrary! If you will say that they were slaughtered (but Zerikah was not yet done), what preceded the morning Tamid, even mid'Rabanan, why do we forbid to do Zerikah, and disqualify them? He can properly do Zerikah after the Tamid!