1) TOSFOS DH Kera'i Lamah Li
úåñôåú ã"ä ÷øàé ìîä ìé
(SUMMARY: Tosfos brings two opinions about which verses we expound.)
ôé' á÷åðèøñ ãúìú ÷øáðå ëúéáé áùìîéí áåé÷øà åàí îï äöàï ÷øáðå àí ëáù äåà î÷øéá ÷øáðå åñîê éãå òì øàù ÷øáðå
(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi): "Korbano" is written three times regarding Shelamim, in Parshas Vayikra - "v'Im Min ha'Tzon Korbano", "Im Keves Hu Makriv Korbano", "v'Samach Yado Al Rosh Korbano."
åáú''ë îùîò ãà÷øáðå ãòæ ÷àé
(b) Explanation #2: Toras Kohanim connotes that it refers to "Korbano" written regarding a goat.
åäúí ìà ëúéáé àìà úøé åàí òæ ÷øáðå åä÷øéá îîðå ÷øáðå
(c) Implied question: There it is written only twice - "v'Im Ez Korbano" and "v'Hikriv Mimenu Korbano"! (Here we expound three verses "Korbano"!)
åùîà åñîê éãå òì øàùå çùéá ëîå ÷øáðå
(d) Answer: Perhaps "v'Samach Yado Al Rosho" is considered as [if it wrote] Korbano.
2) TOSFOS DH Techilas Hekdesh mi'Sof Hekdesh
úåñôåú ã"ä úçìú ä÷ãù îñåó ä÷ãù
(SUMMARY: Tosfos brings two versions of what these refer to.)
úîåøä îñîéëä
(a) Version #1: [We learn] Temurah (initial Hekdesh) from Semichah (final Hekdesh).
åáðæéø áôø÷ áéú ùîàé (ãó ìà.) çùéá ìúîåøä ñåó ä÷ãù
(b) Implied question: In Nazir (31a), Temurah is considered final Hekdesh!
àáì äëà ìâáé ñîéëä çùéá úçìú ä÷ãù
(c) Answer #1: Here, with respect to Semichah, [Temurah] is considered initial Hekdesh.
åàéú ñôøéí ãâøñé äëà àéôëà
(d) Answer #2 - Version #2: Some texts here say oppositely. (Temurah is called final Hekdesh.)
åáô' äæäá (á''î ðä.) ðîé ÷øé úîåøä ñåó ä÷ãù ìâáé çéìåì
(e) Support: Also in Bava Metzi'a (55a), Temurah is called final Hekdesh with respect to redemption.
3) TOSFOS DH Korbano v'Lo Korban Oved Kochavim
úåñôåú ã"ä ÷øáðå åìà ÷øáï òåáã ëåëáéí
(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that also another verse excludes Nochrim from Semichah.)
äà ããøùéðï áôø÷ ëì äîðçåú áàåú îöä (ìòéì ñà:) áðé éùøàì ñåîëéï åàéï äòåáãé ëåëáéí ñåîëéï
(a) Implied question: We expounded above (61b) "Bnei Yisrael" do Semichah, and Nochrim do not do Semichah!
ôéøùúé ùí
(b) Reference: I explained this there (61b DH Matzinu. Had it written only Bnei Yisrael, one might have thought that a Yisrael can do Semichah for a Nochri on his Korban, just like he brings Nesachim for him. "Korbano" teaches that this is not so.)
4) TOSFOS DH Lerabos Kol Ba'alei Korban li'Semichah Leis Lei
úåñôåú ã"ä ìøáåú ëì áòìé ÷øáï ìñîéëä ìéú ìéä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos brings two opinions about whether or not one owner does Semichah.)
ôé' á÷åð' àçã ñåîê òì éãé ëåìï
(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi here): One does Semichah for all of [the owners].
åáøéù úîåøä (ãó á.) ôéøù á÷åðè' ãìà ñîëé ëìì
(b) Explanation #2 (Rashi in Temurah (2a)): They do not do Semichah at all.
åéù ñôøéí ùëúåá ùí î''è ãìà îééçã ÷øáï ãéãäå îùîò ëôéøåùå
(c) Support: Some texts there say "what is the reason? Their Korban is not specified [for one person]. This connotes like Rashi explained [there].
àáì ÷ùä ãì÷îï àîøé' ÷øáðå ìøáåú ëì áòìé (ñîéëä) [[ðøàä ùö"ì ÷øáï ìñîéëä] ùéëåì åîä úðåôä ùðúøáúä áùçåèéï îúîòèä (áîçåáøéï) [ö"ì áçåáøéï - öàï ÷ãùéí] ñîéëä ùìà ðúøáúä áùçåèéï àéï ãéï ùúúîòè (áîçåáøéï) [ö"ì áçåáøéï - öàï ÷ãùéí]
(d) Question: Below (94a) we say that "Korbano" include all owners of the Korban for Semichah. One would have thought [to learn from a Kal v'Chomer.] Tenufah applies to slaughtered animals, but all partners on a Korban do not wave. Semichah does not apply to slaughtered animals, all the more so all partners should not be Somech!
îùîò ãàé ìàå ÷øà äåä àîéðà ãäåé ëúðåôä ãàçã îðéó òì éãé ëåìï åëàï ðîé àçã ñåîê òì éãé ëåìï
1. Inference: If not for the verse, one would have thought that it is like Tenufah, that one waves for all of them. Also here, one does Semichah for all of them!
5) TOSFOS DH Miba'i Lei Lerabos Es ha'Ishah
úåñôåú ã"ä îéáòé ìéä ìøáåú àú äàùä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with R. Yehudah's opinion in Avodah Zarah.)
úéîä ãáôø÷ àéï îòîéãéï (ò''æ ëæ.) ùîòéðï ìéä ìø' éäåãä âáé äîåì éîåì ãáøä úåøä ëìùåï áðé àãí
(a) Question: In Avodah Zarah (27a), we learn that R. Yehudah holds regarding "Himol Yimol" that Dibrah Torah k'Leshon Bnei Adam (he does not expound the repetition)!
åùîà áî÷åí ùäôñå÷ îåëéç ìà àîøéðï
(b) Answer: Perhaps when it is proven from the verse [that it is for a Drashah] we do not say so.
6) TOSFOS DH l'Fi she'Kol ha'Inyan Kulo Eino Medaber Ela bi'Leshon Zachar
úåñôåú ã"ä ìôé ùëì äòðéï ëåìå àéðå îãáø àìà áìùåï æëø
(SUMMARY: 1. Tosfos explains why elsewhere we need a verse to exclude women. 2. Tosfos explains that we equate initial and final Hekdesh only regarding heirs.)
áëîä î÷åîåú áòé ÷øà ìîòè àùä ëâåï áðé éùøàì ñåîëéï åàéï áðåú éùøàì ñåîëåú åëï (ñåèä ãó ëâ:) áâðéáúå åìà áâðéáúä àò''ô ùëì äòðéï àéðå îãáø ëåìå àìà áìùåï æëø
(a) Implied question: In several places we require a verse to exclude a woman, e.g. "Bnei Yisrael" do Semichah but Bnos Yisrael do not do Semichah, and (Sotah 23b) "bi'Geneivaso" (a man is sold to be an Eved Ivri for his theft), and not bi'Geneivasah, even though the entire Parshah is in the masculine!
îùåí ãäùååä äëúåá àùä ìàéù ìëì òåðùéí ùáúåøä (÷ãåùéï ãó ìä.)
(b) Answer: This is because the Torah equated a woman to a man for all punishments in the Torah (Kidushin 35a).
àìà äëà äééðå èòîà ëãîôøù áøéù úîåøä (ãó á:)
(c) Explanation: Rather, here the reason is like it explains in Temurah (2b);
îäå ãúéîà äðé îéìé òåðù ãùåä áéï áéçéã áéï áöéáåø àáì äëà ëéåï ãòåðù ùàéðå ùåä áëì äåà ãúðï àéï äöéáåø åäùåúôéï òåùéï úîåøä àùä ðîé ëé òáøä ìà úéì÷é ÷î''ì
1. One might have thought that [they are equated] only for punishments that are the same for individuals and a Tzibur. Here, since the punishment is not the same, for the Mishnah teaches "a Tzibur and partners cannot make Temurah", also a woman who transgressed is not lashed. The verse teaches that this is not so.
åà''ú åìîä ìéä ìîéîø ùëì äòðéï ëåìå äåä ìéä ìîéîø ìôé ùéù ìðå ììîåã úçìú ä÷ãù îñåó ä÷ãù ãëé äéëé ãàéðä ñåîëú àéðä îîéøä
(d) Question #1: Why does it say "the entire Parshah [is in the masculine]? It should have said "because we should learn initial Hekdesh from final Hekdesh. Just like [a woman] does not do Semichah, she does not make Temurah!"
åòåã ÷ùä ãðéìó ñåó ä÷ãù ëâåï ùçéèä îúçéìú ä÷ãù ëâåï ñîéëä åðáòé ùçéèä ááòìéí
(e) Question #2: We should learn final Hekdesh, e.g. Shechitah, from initial Hekdesh, e.g. Semichah, and require the owner to do Shechitah!
åîéäå áæä é''ì ëãàîø áä÷åîõ øáä (ìòéì éè.) ãâìé øçîðà áôøå ùì àäøï åùçè àú ôø äçèàú àùø ìå îëìì ãáòìîà ìà áòéðï áòìéí
(f) Answer (to Question #2): We can answer this like it says above (19a) that the Torah revealed about Aharon's bull "v'Shachat Es Par ha'Chatas Asher Lo", this implies that elsewhere, the owner need not [slaughter].
åòåã ÷ùä äà ãúðï áøéù úîåøä (ãó æ:) ãàéï ëäðéí îîéøéï ááëåø îùåí ãëúéá äåà åúîåøúå éäéä ÷ãù äéëï ÷ãåùä çìä ááéú áòìéí àó úîåøä ááéú áòìéí
(g) Question #3: A Mishnah (Temurah 7b) says that Kohanim cannot make Temurah from Bechor [that they received], for it says "Hu u'Temuraso Yihyeh Kodesh." Just like [initial] Kedushah took effect in the owner's house, also Temurah is in the owner's house;
úéôå÷ ìéä ãéìôéðï úçéìú ä÷ãù îñåó ä÷ãù îñîéëä (ãáòìéí - éùø åèåá îåç÷å)
1. We should know this already, for we learn initial Hekdesh from final Hekdesh, i.e. from Semichah (which does not apply to Bechor)!
åòåã ÷ùä ãáòé äúí áúîåøä (ãó á:) òåáã ëåëáéí îäå ùéîéø ðéìó îñîéëä ãàéï òåáã ëåëáéí ñåîê
(h) Question #4: [The Gemara] in Temurah (2b) asks "can a Nochri make Temurah?" We should learn from Semichah, for a Nochri does not do Semichah!
åéù ìåîø ããåå÷à âáé éåøù âîøé îäããé ãàé çùéá ÷øáðå ìâáé äàé çùéá ðîé ìâáé äàé àáì áòìîà ìà éìôé îäããé ëìì
(i) Answer (to all questions): Only regarding an heir we learn [initial and final Hekdesh] from each other. If it is considered Korbano for this, it is considered Korbano also for this. However, elsewhere we do not learn them from each other at all.
7) TOSFOS DH v'R. Yehudah v'Im Lo Darish
úåñôåú ã"ä åøáé éäåãä åàí ìà ãøéù
(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that elsewhere he expounds Vov.)
äà ãáòìîà ãøéù ø' éäåãä åé''å
(a) Implied question: Elsewhere, R. Yehudah expounds Vov!
ôéøùúé áñåó äúëìú (ìòéì ðà: ã''ä åé''å)
(b) Reference: I explained this above (51b DH Vov. Perhaps he does not expound Vov for this Drashah, rather, for something else.)
8) TOSFOS DH ha'Kol Somchin
úåñôåú ã"ä äëì ñåîëéï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this teaches what was taught above.)
áøéù òøëéï (ãó á.) àîøé' äëì ìàéúåéé éåøù
(a) Citation (Erchin 2a): "Everyone" includes an heir.
åúéîä äà úðà ìéä øéùà
(b) Question: The Reisha (our Stam Mishnah above, 92a) taught [an heir]! (Sefas Emes - we learned that an heir does Semichah, just like he can make Temurah. Partners cannot make Temurah. The Mishnah teaches that heirs who are partners do Semichah! Or, it teaches about one who inherited a Korban after his father did Semichah and died, or inherited from one who does not do Semichah, e.g. his mother.)
åëîå ëï ÷ùä îäëì îîéøéï ãàîøé' äúí áøéù úîåøä (ãó á.) ãäëì ìàéúåéé éåøù åãìà ëøáé éäåãä åîîúðé' ãìòéì ùîòéðï ìä ãàå÷éîðà ãìà ëø' éäåãä
(c) Question: Likewise, "ha'Kol Memirin" in Temurah (2a) is difficult. [The Gemara] says that "everyone" includes an heir, and unlike R. Yehudah. From our Mishnah above (92a, which says that an heir can make Temurah) we know unlike R. Yehudah!
åé''ì ãàåøçéä ãúðà äëé ëéåï ãìà îééúø ìéä ááà áëê øâéì ìùðåú úéáä àçú àâá àåøçéä àò''â ãúðé ìä áäãéà áùàø ãåëúé
(d) Answer (to both questions): The Tana is wont to do so, since he does not teach an extra clause. He often changes one word [and teaches] in passing, even though it was taught explicitly elsewhere.
ëãàùëçï áëúåáåú áô' ðòøä (ãó îç: åùí) ãúðï ìòåìí äéà áøùåú äàá ëå' îôøù áâî' îàé ìòåìí ìàôå÷é îîùðä øàùåðä àò''â ãîùðä øàùåðä åàçøåðä úðï áôø÷ àò''ô (ùí ðæ.)
(e) Source #1: We find like this in Kesuvos (48b). A Mishnah teaches [that an Arusah] is always in her father's Reshus..., and the Gemara explains that "always" teaches unlike Mishnah Rishonah (after the time for Chupah came, she is in her husband's Reshus), even though Mishnah Rishonah and Acharonah were taught in a Mishnah (57a).
åëï áøéù éáîåú (ãó â.) úðï ôåèøåú îùåí ãàé úðà (àåñøú ä''à àåñøú) [ö"ì àåñøåú ä''à àåñøåú - ãôåñ åéðéöéä] ìééáí àáì îéçìõ çìöä
(f) Source #2: In Yevamos (3a, the Gemara says that) the Mishnah (2a) taught that [15 Arayos] exempt [their Tzaros from Yibum or Chalitzah], for had it taught "forbid", one might have thought that they forbid Yibum, but [the Tzarah] does Chalitzah...
àò''â ãäà îéìúà ùîòéðï îëîä îúðé' ãàôé' çìéöä ìà áòé ëã÷úðé (ùí ãó á:) ëì äéëåìä ìîàï åìà îéàðä öøúä çåìöú åìà îúéáîú àìîà ãàéðê àôé' çìéöä ìà áòå
1. [It taught so] even though we know this from many Mishnayos that even Chalitzah is not needed, like it taught (2b) "any [Ervah] one who could have done Mi'un (annulled her mid'Rabanan marriage), but did not do Mi'un, her Tzarah does Chalitzah and not Yibum. This shows that the others (who could not have done Mi'un) do not even need Chalitzah!
òåã úðï (ùí ãó éâ:) çìöå áéú äìì îëùéøéï åàé áòéà çìéöä àôé' îãøáðï äéå ôåñìéï ëãàùëçï áøéù äçåìõ (ùí ìå:) âáé îú áúåê ùìùéí åòîãä åðú÷ãùä ãàí àùú ëäï àéðä çåìöú ùìà úéôñì ìå
2. Also, a Mishnah (13b) teaches that if they did Chalitzah, Beis Hillel are Machshir [to Kehunah]. If Chalitzah were needed, even mid'Rabanan, they would be Pasul, like we find in Yevamos (36b) regarding [a man who died, and afterwards his only child] died within 30 days [of birth], and [the widow] became Mekudeshes. If she is a Kohen's wife (Arusah), she does not do Chalitzah, lest this forbid her to him. (Since we let them stay married, this shows that we hold that the baby was viable. Even so, an Eshes Yisrael must do Chalitzah, i.e. mid'Rabanan, and it says that if her husband is a Kohen, Chalitzah would forbid her to him.)
åáøéù áøëåú (ãó á. åùí) ðîé àîøéðï îéìúà àâá àåøçéä ÷î''ì äòøéá ùîùå àåëì áúøåîä àò''ô ùäéà îùðä áîñëú ðâòéí (ôé''ã î''â)
(g) Source #3: Also in Brachos (2a) we say that [the Mishnah] teaches a law in passing, that after Ha'arev Shemesh (night comes after a person immersed) he may eat Terumah, even though a Mishnah in Nega'im (14:3) teaches so [explicitly].
9) TOSFOS DH Rav Chisda v'Rav Yitzchak bar Avodimi
úåñôåú ã"ä øá çñãà (åøáé) [ö"ì åøá - éùø åèåá] éöç÷ áø àáãéîé
(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that two Chachamim were named Rav Yitzchak bar Avodimi.)
ëàï åì÷îï áôø÷ ùúé äìçí (ãó öç.) îùîò ùäéä çáøå ùì øá çñãà åäåà äéä (îëàï îòîåã á) øáå ùì øáà
(a) Inference: Here and below (98a) it connotes that [Rav Yitzchak bar Avodimi] was the colleague of Rav Chisda, and [Rav Yitzchak bar Avodimi] was Rava's Rebbi;
93b----------------------------------------93b
ãàîø øáà áøéù éáîåú (ãó â.) åáô' äðùøôéï (ñðäã' òä:) à''ì øá éöç÷ áø àáåãéîé àúéà äðä äðä àúéà æîä æîä
1. Source: In Yevamos (3a) and in Sanhedrin (75b), Rava said "Rav Yitzchak bar Avodimi told me that we learn from a Gezeirah Shavah "Henah-Henah" and "Zimah-Zimah."
åòåã àçø äéä áéîé øáé ëãàùëçï áô' ëéøä (ùáú î:) ãàîø øá éöç÷ áø àáåãéîé ôòí àçú ðëðñúé àçø øáé ìáéú äîøçõ ëå'
(b) Observation: There was another Rav Yitzchak bar Avodimi who was in the days of Rebbi, like we find in Shabbos (40b) that Rav Yitzchak bar Avodimi said "once, I entered after Rebbi to the bathhouse."
åäåà äéä øáå ùì øá ãàîø áô' äñôéðä (á''á ôæ.) àéëà úðà ãàúðééä ìøá îãåú àçåééä ìøá éöç÷ áø àáåãéîé
(c) Assertion: [That Rav Yitzchak] was the Rebbi of Rav, for it says in Bava Basra (87a) "is there a Tana who taught to Rav Midos? [Ze'iri] pointed to Rav Yitzchak bar Avodimi."
åøáéðå ùîåàì âøéñ ãàúðééä øá áìà ìî''ã ëìåîø ùùðä ìå øá áîãåú
(d) Rebuttal: The Rashbam's text there says "d'Asnei", without a Lamed, i.e. "is there someone to whom Rav taught Midos?"
åø''ú îééúé øàéä îôø÷ ëì äáùø (çåìéï ÷é.) ãøáå ùì øá äéä ãàîø àéëà úðà ãàúðééä ìøá ëçì àçåééä ìøá éöç÷ áø àáåãéîé
(e) Proof (of Assertion - R. Tam): He was Rav's Rebbi, for in Chulin (110a) it says "is there a Tana who taught to Rav udder? [Ze'iri] pointed to Rav Yitzchak bar Avodimi";
åàé àôùø ìâøåñ ùí ãàúðééä øá ãäåà ã÷îäãø ìéä àðé ëçì îðé÷ä ùðéúé ìå
1. There, the text cannot say "d'Asnei Rav" (that Rav taught to him), for [according to one version] he answered "I taught to him the udder of a nursing animal."
åéù îôøùéí ãìå ëîå îîðå ëãàùëçï áîåòã ÷èï (ãó ëà.) åàí äéå øáéí öøéëéï ìå
(f) Rebuttal: Some explain that [the text says learned;] "Lo" (to him) is like Mimenu (from him, like we find in Mo'ed Katan (21a) "if many need Lo (to learn Torah from an Avel within Shiv'ah, he may teach them)."
10) TOSFOS DH Asya Semichah Semichah mi'Ziknei (pertains to Amud A)
úåñôåú ã"ä àúéà ñîéëä ñîéëä îæ÷ðé (ùééê ìòîåã à)
(SUMMARY: Tosfos questions the two sources to exclude a blind person.)
úéîä àí ëï ðéáòé îðå÷éí îëì îåí
(a) Question #1: If so, we should require that they are clean from any Mum!
åìîàï ãéìéó îòåìú øàééä ðîòè ñåîà áàçã îòéðéå ãôèø ìéä îøàééä åùàø ëì äðäå ãôèåøéí äúí
(b) Question #2: According to the opinion that learns from Olas Re'iyah, we should exclude one who is blind in one eye, for he is exempt from Re'iyah, and all others who are exempt there!
åòåã ìîä ìé áðé éùøàì ìîòåèé ðùéí úéôå÷ ìé îäëà
(c) Question #3: Why do we need "Bnei Yisrael" to exclude women? We should know from here! (Devar Avraham 1:15:2 - we hold that we cannot learn possible from impossible. A woman cannot be an owner of Par Helam Davar, for she cannot be on the Sanhedrin. We cannot learn to a Korban that she owns. However, if the Sanhedrin separated Par Helam Davar, and one of the members became blind or a Ba'al Mum, the Torah revealed that he does not do Semichah, even though he is an owner.)
11) TOSFOS DH Yalif mi'Olas Re'iyah (pertains to Amud A)
úåñôåú ã"ä éìéó îòåìú øàééä (ùééê ìòîåã à)
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses why this is not Lamed mi'Lamed.)
àò''â ãòåìú øàééä âåôä îòåìú ðãáä âîøä ëãáñîåê å÷ééîà ìï (æáçéí ãó îè:) ããáø äìîã áäé÷ù àéï çåæø åîìîã áâ''ù
(a) Implied question: Olas Re'iyah itself we learn from Olas Nedavah, below, and we hold (Zevachim 49b) that something learned from a Hekesh does not return to teach through a Gezeirah Shavah! (Really, the Gemara never resolved this. Tosfos asks why we did not resolve from here.)
äðé îéìé äéëà ãéìéó ääéà îéìúà âåôä àáì äëà éìôéðï òåìú çåáä ãèòåðä ñîéëä îòåìú ðãáä åäãø âîøéðï ñåîà ãìà
(b) Answer: That is when we learn the matter itself [through Gezeirah Shavah that we learned from the Hekesh). However, here we learn that Olas Chovah needs Semichah from Olas Nedavah, and then we learn that a blind person does not [do Semichah. Eizehu Mekoman - we must distinguish this from something learned from a Hekesh and something else. Some say that it is like learning from a Hekesh, regarding Lamed mi'Lamed - 78a.)
12) TOSFOS DH Yado v'Lo Yad Ishto
úåñôåú ã"ä éãå åìà éã àùúå
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the need for verses to exclude women from Semichah.)
îäà ãëúéá áðé éùøàì ìîòåèé ðùéí îñîéëä ìà ðô÷à àùúå
(a) Implied question: We should exclude his wife from "Bnei Yisrael", which excludes women!
ãäåä àîéðà úñîåê á÷øáï áòìä ãëéã áòìä ãîéà
(b) Answer: One might have thought that she can do Semichah on her husband's Korban, for [her hand] is like her husband's hand (for she is like his body).
åà''ú åìîä ìé ÷øà ìîòåèé ðùéí îñîéëä úéôå÷ ìé ãîöåú òùä ùäæîï âøîà àí úëó ìñîéëä ùçéèä ãàåøééúà ëãàîø áô' ëì äôñåìéï (æáçéí ìâ.)
(c) Question: Why do we need a verse to exclude women from Semichah? I should already know this, for it is a Mitzvas Aseh sheha'Zman Gerama, if Tekef l'Semichah Shechitah (Shechitah must be right after Semichah) is mid'Oraisa, like it says in Zevachim (33a! Since Shechitah is only during the day, also Semichah.)
ãàôéìå ñîê áñåó äìéìä úëó ìòîåã äùçø öøéê ìùçåè òãééï àú äúîéã úçéìä ùìà éäà ãáø ÷åãí ìúîéã
1. Even if he did Semichah at the end of the night, right before dawn, still [someone] must slaughter the Tamid [before the Korban on which he did Semichah], for nothing may precede the Tamid!
òåã úðï áôø÷ á' ãîâéìä (ãó ë:) ëì äéåí ëùø ìñîéëä åìùçéèä ãøéù áâîøà ãëúéá áéåí æáçëí åàéú÷ù ñîéëä ìùçéèä ãëúéá åùçè åñîê
(d) Strengthening of question: Also, a Mishnah (Megilah 20b) teaches that the entire day is Kosher for Semichah and Shechitah. The Gemara expounds [about Shechitah] from b'Yom Zivchachem, and Semichah is equated to Shechitah, for it says "v'Shachat v'Samach"! (Even if Tekef l'Semichah Shechitah is not mid'Oraisa, this is difficult.)
13) TOSFOS DH k'Ilu Lo Chiper v'Chiper
úåñôåú ã"ä ëàéìå ìà ëéôø åëéôø
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses in what sense he was not Mechaper.)
áô''÷ ãæáçéí (ãó å.) áòé ìîéã÷ îäëà ãìà îëôø àòùä ãìàçø äôøùä ã÷àîø îàé ìàå ëéôø òùä ã÷åãí äôøùä ìà ëéôø ñîéëä ãäåä ìéä òùä ãìàçø äôøùä
(a) Citation: In Zevachim (6a) the Gemara wanted to infer from here that it does not atone for an Aseh after Hafrashah (separating the Korban), for it says "is it not that it was Mechaper an Aseh before Hafrashah, and it was not Mechaper [omitting] Semichah, which is an Aseh after Hafrashah?!"
åàîø øáà òùä ãñîéëä ÷àîøú ùàðé äëà ëéåï ãëì ëîä ãìà ùçè áòîåã åñîåê ÷àé àéîú ÷à äåé òùä ìàçø ùçéèä çùéá ëòùä ãìàçø ùçéèä
1. Citation (cont. - Rava): The Aseh of Semichah is different, for here, as long as he did not do Shechitah, he should do Semichah! When [did he transgress] an Aseh? It is after Shechitah. [Therefore] it is considered an Aseh after Shechitah. (Obviously, a Korban does not atone for Aveiros after Shechitah!)
àîø ìéä øá äåðà áø (øáé) éäåãä ìøáà åàéîà ëéôø âáøà ìà ëéôø ÷îé ùîéà ëãúðéà åäðåúø áùîï àùø òì ëó äëäï ëå'
2. Citation (cont. - Rav Huna bar Yehudah): Perhaps the person atoned, but he did not atone in front of Shamayim (he did not do the Mitzvah properly), like a Beraisa teaches "veha'Nosar ba'Shemen Asher Al Kaf ha'Kohen ..."
åúéîä ãìà îééúé îáøééúà ãúðåôä ãäëà ãòì ëøçéï ìà ëéôø ÷îé ùîéà ÷àîø ãìà ùééê ìîéîø ìà ëéôø òùä ãúðåôä äéà ìàçø æøé÷ä
(b) Question: Why didn't it bring the Beraisa of Tenufah here? You are forced to say that "he did not atone" means in front of Shamayim, for it cannot mean (he did atone for neglecting) the Aseh of Tenufah, for it is after Zerikah! (Surely Zerikah is not Mechaper for an Aveirah done afterwards.)
åéù ìåîø ãäê áøééúà îéúðéà âáé àùí îöåøò áúåøú ëäðéí ùèòåï úðåôä çé åùééê ìôøù ìà ëéôø òùä ãúðåôä îçééí
(c) Answer: This Beraisa was taught about Asham Metzora in Toras Kohanim, that it requires Tenufah while it is alive. One can explain that he did not atone for [omitting] the Aseh of Tenufah while alive.
14) TOSFOS DH v'Lo Yado Al ha'Tzavar
úåñôåú ã"ä åìà éãå òì äöåàø
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this is the place of Shechitah.)
ìöã äâøåï î÷åí äñéîðéï ùùí ÷øåé öåàø ëãúðï áôø÷ ÷îà ãçåìéï (ãó éè:)
(a) Explanation: This refers to the neck on the side of the throat, where the Simanim (foodpipe and windpipe) are. There is called Tzavar, like a Mishnah in Chulin (19b) teaches.