TOSFOS DH Yiplu li'Nedavah... (cont.)
úåñôåú ã"ä éôìå ìðãáä...(äîùê)
ãìðæéøåúé (äâäú áøëú øàù) îùîò ùôéø ìî÷öú ðæéøåúå
Explanation: "For my Nezirus" properly connotes "for part of [the Korbanos needed for] his Nezirus.
àáì äéëà ãîú åäéå ìå îòåú ñúåîéï ãéôìå ìðãáä ãàééøé áäôøéù îòåú åàîø îòåú äììå ì÷øáðåú ðæéøåúé
Distinction: However, when he died and he had Ma'os Stumim, which fall to Nedavah, [we can say that] we discuss when he separated coins and said "these coins are for the Korbanos of my Nezirus";
ìà éåëì ìäáéà áëåìï ÷øáï àçã ãäà ÷øáðåú ÷àîø
He cannot bring one Korban with all of them, for he said Korbanos;
äéìëê éù áîòåú äììå ãîé çèàú ìëê ôøéê àéê éäà áëåìï ðãáä åäìà ãîé çèàú îòåøáéï áäï
Therefore, there is in these coins money of Chatas. Therefore, we ask how all can go to Nedavah, for money of Chatas is mixed with them.
åáæä îúééùá ìùåï îúðé' ãîòéìä (ãó éà.) äîôøéù [îòåú] ìðæéøåú àéï îåòìéï áäï îôðé ùøàåééï ìáà áëåìï ùìîéí åîééøé îúðé' áñúåîéï (äâäú àåøç îéùåø)
Support: Our Mishnah in Me'ilah says "one who separates coins for Nezirus, Me'ilah does not apply to them, for it is proper for all of them to be for Shelamim." The Mishnah discusses Stumim;
åáúø äëé úðé îú åäéå ìå îòåú ñúåîéï
Afterwards it teaches "if he died and had Ma'os Stumim..."
åäà áñúåîéï àééøéðï åäëé àéáòé ìéä ìîéîø îú éôìå ìðãáä
Question: It was discussing Stumim! It should have said "if he died, they fall to Nedavah"!
àìà äëà [÷à îééøé] ãàîø ãå÷à ìðæéøåúé ãàæ éëåì ìäáéà áëåìï àçã î÷øáðåúéå ãìà îùîò àëì ÷øáðåúéå (äâäú áøëú øàù)
Answer: Rather, here we discuss when he said specifically "for my Nezirus." Then he can bring from all [the coins] one of his Korbanos, for it does not connote all his Korbanos.
åìëê ÷úðé áñéôà îú åäéå ìå îòåú ñúåîéï åàôéìå ðîé àîø àìå ì÷øáðåú ðæéøåúé ëåìï éôìå ìðãáä
Therefore, the Seifa teaches "if he died and had Ma'os Stumim, and even if he said "for the Korbanos of my Nezirus", they all go to Nedavah.
åëï îåëç îääåà (ãìøáà) [ãì÷îï] (ãó ëå:) àìå ìçèàúé åäùàø ìùàø ðæéøåúé åîú ãîé çèàú éìëå ìéí äîìç åäùàø éáéà áçöéå òåìä åáçöéå ùìîéí
Proof: Below (26b), [if one said] "these are for my Chatas, and the rest is for the rest of my Nezirus" and he died, the Chatas money goes to the Dead Sea, and of the rest, [the heir] brings Olos with half, and Shelamim with half.
åîùîò îùåí ãàîø äùàø ìùàø ðæéøåú ãçùáéðï ìéä ëàåîø ì÷øáðåú ðæéøåúé àáì àîø åäùàø ìðæéøåúé åìà ìùàø îëåìï éòùä îäí òåìä àå ùìîéí îëåìï ëê ôø"é, äâä"ä.
Inference: Because he said "the rest is for the rest of my Nezirus", we consider it as if he said "for the Korbanos of my Nezirus", but if he said "the rest is for my Nezirus", and not "for the rest of my Nezirus", he may use all of them for the Olah or all for the Shelamim. So explained the Ri. This is a comment.
TOSFOS DH R. Shimon ben Lakish...
úåñôåú ã"ä øáé ùîòåï áï ì÷éù...
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why he establishes the verse to discuss Stumim.)
åëì ÷øáðåú ðæéø áðãø äí áàéï ò"é ùðãø áðæéø (äâäú îäø"á øðùáåøâ) åàôéìå äçèàú
Explanation: All Korbanos Nazir come through a vow to be a Nazir, and even the Chatas.
åñáøà äåà ìàå÷åîé áîåúø ëé äàé ãáùàø îåúø ìà îùëçú ìä
It is reasonable to establish it to discuss the excess in such a case (Stumim of a Nazir), for we do not find other cases of leftover;
ãàí äôøéù [îòåú] ìòåìä åðúåúøå ùäåæìå äáäîåú éëåì ìä÷øéá îäí òåìä åëï ùìîéí ëîå ùäôøéù îúçéìä
If he separated coins for an Olah, and there were leftover, for animals became cheaper, he can offer Olos from them. The same applies to Shelamim, like he separated from the beginning;
åñáøà ìäòîéãí áîåúø ñúåí ëé äàé çèàú òåìä åùìîéí îòåøáéï éçã.
It is reasonable to establish it to discuss leftover Stumim like this, in which Chatas, Olah and Shelamim are mixed together.
TOSFOS DH Mefurashin Lo Matzis Amrat
úåñôåú ã"ä îôåøùéï ìà îöéú àîøú
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why Mefurashim cannot go to Nedavah.)
ãéôìå ìðãáä ãëáø ôñ÷ä úðà ãáé øáé éùîòàì ãåìã çèàú îúä åìà ìðãáä
Explanation: [You cannot say that specified coins] fall to Nedavah, for Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael already ruled that the child of a Chatas must die. It does not go to Nedavah;
åä"ð ðéîà áîåúø ùìä ãìàéáåã àæéì åìà ìðãáä
We similarly say that [if one bought a Chatas for less than the amount he separated for it], its excess goes to waste (to the Dead Sea), and not to Nedavah;
ãäëì ð÷øà îåúø çèàú áéï åìã çèàú áéï úîåøú çèàú áéï (äâäú áøëú øàù) äëà ãäôøéùä (ëï ðøàä ìäâéä) îôåøùéï åäéôø ìä áòìä
This is because all [these cases] are called Mosar (excess) Chatas, i.e. Vlad (the child of a) Chatas, Temuras Chatas (an animal onto which one tried to transfer the Kedushah of his Chatas), and the case here, that she separated specified [coins], and her husband annulled her...
àå ääéà ãúðï áîñëú îòéìä (ãó éà.) äéëà ãäôøéù îòåú ìðæéøåúå åîú åäéå ìå îòåú îôåøùéï ëì àìä ùàéðï çèàú òöîï ùí îåúøåú òìéäí
Or, the case taught in the Mishnah in Me'ilah (11a) where he separated coins for his Nezirus, and died, and had specified coins, all these cases that are not Chatas themselves, they are called excess.
åä"ä ãîöé ìîéîø ãäìëä âîéøé ìä çèàú îúä
Implied question: He could have said that a tradition from Moshe from Sinai teaches that the Chatas must die!
àìà ðéçà ìéä ìàúåéé úðà ãáé øáé éùîòàì [ãúðà] çèàú îúä òåìä åùìîéí é÷øáå (äâäú áøëú øàù) ëì àçã ëãéðéä ëîå áîùðúéðå ã÷àîø òåìä úé÷øá òåìä.
Answer: He prefers to bring Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael, who taught that the Chatas must die, and the Olah and Shelamim are offered each like its law, just like in our Mishnah, which says that the Olah is offered for an Olah.
TOSFOS DH Rak Kadasehcha Asher Yihyeh Lecha
úåñôåú ã"ä ø÷ ÷ãùéê àùø éäéå ìê
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we do not expound this to teach about Olah and Shelamim.)
áúîåøä áøéù ô' àìå ÷ãùéí ãøéù ø÷ ÷ãùéê àìå äúîåøåú àùø éäéå ìê àìå äååìãåú
Citation (Temurah 17b): "Rak Kadasehcha" refers to Temuros. "Asher Yihyeh Lecha" refers to Vlados;
ãìòåìä åùìîéí âåôééäå ìà àéöèøéê ùäøé ëáø îôåøù áåé÷øà æàú úåøú òåìä åúåøú ùìîéí.
We do not need it for Olah and Shelamim themselves, for already in [Parshas] Vayikra the laws of Olah and Shelamim are explicit.
TOSFOS DH ka'Tani Yachol Af Vlad Chatas...
úåñôåú ã"ä ÷úðé éëåì àó åìã çèàú... (ùééê ìòîåã á)
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that the verse teaches about Temuras Asham.)
ìàùí äåà ãàúà ìåîø ùàéðå ÷øá àùí
Explanation: It comes to teach about [Temuras] Asham, that it is not offered for an Asham.
TOSFOS DH ka'Tani Yachol Af (part 2)
úåñôåú ã"ä ÷úðé éëåì àó (çì÷ á)
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses why we need a verse in addition to the tradition from Sinai.)
ëì ùáçèàú îúä áàùí øåòä (äâäú áøëú øàù)
Citation of Gemara: Any case in which a Chatas dies, [the corresponding case of] an Asham is Ro'eh (grazes until it gets a Mum, then it is redeemed).
ìôé' ø"ú ãôéøù áñîåê ëì ùáçèàú îúä áàùí òåìä ðîé ôøéê ùôéø (äâäú áøëú øàù)
Explanation: Also according to R. Tam, who explained that any case in which a Chatas dies, [mid'Oraisa, a corresponding] Asham is [offered for] an Olah, we ask properly;
ãîùîò [ãàé ìàå ÷øà ä"à úðäåâ áúîåøú àùí ãéï àùí] (äâäú àåøç îéùåø) ëãéï ùðåäâ áúîåøú òåìä ãéï òåìä
[The Beraisa] connotes that if not for the verse, one might have thought that we conduct with Temuras Asham the law of Asham, like we conduct with Temuras Olah the law of Olah.
åìéúà ãäìëä ãúîåøú àùí ìà ÷øéáä àùí àìà òåìä
This is wrong. The Halachah is, Temuras Asham is not offered for an Asham, rather, for an Olah!
åîùðé ãåãàé ìçèàú ðîé öøéê ÷øà ìåîø [ùàí ÷øá] çèàú åàùí ÷àé òìä áòùä
Explanation (cont.): We answer that surely, [we know from tradition that one may not offer them for Chatas or Asham. However,].we need a verse for [Asham, and] also Chatas, to teach that if he offered it for a Chatas or Asham, he transgresses an Aseh;
ãäëé îùîò ÷øà úîåøú òåìä ååìã [ùìîéí] é÷øá ëì àçã ëöúåúå (äâäú ëúø úåøä) äàé ìùí òåìä åäàé ìùí ùìîéí ëãëúéá úùà åáàú åòùéú òåìåúéê äáùø
The verse connotes that Temuras Olah and Vlad Shelamim, each is offered like its Mitzvah, this one for an Olah, and this one for a Shelamim, like [the end of the verse Rak Kadasehcha] says "Tisa u'Vasa...; V'Asisa Olosecha ha'Basar";
[äà] åìã çèàú åúîåøú àùí ìà úùà åú÷øéá ìùí çèàú åúîåøú àùí ìùí àùí (äâäú îäø"á øðùáåøâ)
We infer that Vlad Chatas and Temuras Asham you do not carry and offer [Vlad Chatas] for Chatas and Temuras Asham for an Asham;
àìà åìã çèàú îúä îäéìëúà åúîåøú àùí îäéìëúà ÷øéá ìùí òåìä ìôéøåù øáéðå úí ãáñîåê ìàå äáà îëìì òùä òùä
Rather, Vlad Chatas dies, due to a tradition from Moshe from Sinai. A tradition teaches that Temuras Asham is offered for Olah, according to R. Tam. A Lav (against offering them for Chatas or Asham) derived from an Aseh (they must die and be offered for an Olah, respectively) is an Aseh.
ãàé îäéìëúà äåä àîéðà äéìëúà ùìà é÷øéá çèàú åàùí ãàé î÷øéá ìéä ìà îéçééá ÷à îùîò ìï ÷øà
If we had only the tradition, one might have thought that the tradition forbids offering [Vlad Chatas] for a Chatas, or [Temuras Asham] for an Asham, but if one offered it, he is not liable. The verse teaches that this is not so. (Rather, he transgresses a Lav derived from an Aseh.)
25b----------------------------------------25b
TOSFOS DH R. Akiva Omer...
úåñôåú ã"ä øáé ò÷éáà àåîø...
(SUMMARY: Tosfos justifies his question against R. Yishmael.)
åà"ú ìéùðé ìéä ãàéöèøéê ÷øà ìîé÷í òìéä áòùä ëãùðé ìòéì ìøáé éùîòàì
Question: He should answer him that we need the verse to put an Isur Aseh [on offering Temuras Asham, like we answered above according to R. Yishmael!
åé"ì ãäåà ìà îùîò òùä [ë"ë] ëîå ø÷ ãäåé îéòåèà
Answer: "Hu" does not connote an Aseh as much as "Rak", which is an exclusion.
åà"ú åîàé ÷àîø ø"ò ìø' éùîòàì àéðå öøéê äà àéöèøéê ùôéø ÷øà ãø' éùîòàì ìòùä ãìà îùîò îäåà
Question: Why did R. Akiva say to R. Yishmael 'we do not need the verse ("Rak" to forbid offering Vlad Chatas for a Chatas, and Temuras Asham for an Asham]'? We properly need the verse according to R. Yishmael for an [Isur] Aseh, which we do not infer from "Hu"!
åö"ì ãø"ò îéèòà ÷èòé áîéìúéä ãø' éùîòàì ãñ"ã ãìéú ìéä ìø' éùîòàì äéìëúà ãçîù çèàåú
Answer: We must say that R. Akiva erred about R. Yishmael' words. He thought that R. Yishmael has no tradition of five Chata'os [that must die];
åìà îééúé ø' éùîòàì ÷øà ãø÷ ììîã àòùä àìà àîéòåèà ùàéðå ÷øá åîù"ä [àîø] àéðå öøéê äøé äåà [àåîø åëå'] ãîùîò ùôéø îéòåèà ãàéðå ÷øá
R. Yishmael does not bring the verse "Rak" to teach an [Isur] Aseh, rather, to exclude, that one may not offer [Vlad Chatas for a Chatas, and Temuras Asham for an Asham].
åà"ú åàëúé îàé ÷à"ì ø"ò àéðå öøéê [äà] ø"ò âåôéä ìà ãøéù äåà ìäàé ãøùà àìà ìëãøá äåðà àîø øá ñ"ì
Question: Still, why did R. Akiva say to him "we do not need [the verse]?" R. Akiva himself does not expound it for this Drashah, rather, he holds like Rav Huna taught in the name of Rav! (If an Asham was Nitak, i.e. given to a shepherd to graze and was slaughtered for an Olah, it is Kosher. "Hu" teaches that it remains an Asham until Nituk.)
à"ë âí ìø' éùîòàì àéöèøéê ìéä ìëãøá äåðà åîàé ÷à"ì ø"ò ãàéðå öøéê ø÷ äà öøéê åöøéê ëéåï ãäåà àúà ìãøùà àçøéðà ëãøá äåðà
If so, also R. Yishmael needs it for Rav Huna's teaching. Why did R. Akiva say to him "we do not need "Rak"? It is truly needed, since "Hu" is needed for another Drashah, like Rav Huna [expounded]!
åé"ì ãìîàé ãôøéùéú àúé ùôéø ãø"ò èòä áãáøé ø' éùîòàì åñáø ãìéú ìéä äéìëúà ãçîù çèàåú åìà àééúé ÷øà ãø÷ àìà ìîòåèé îä÷øáä
Answer: According to what I explained, this is fine. R. Akiva erred about R. Yishmael' words. He thought that R. Yishmael has no tradition of five Chata'os, and [R. Yishmael] brings the verse "Rak" only to exclude offering;
åìä"÷ åìãéãê ãìéú ìê ääìëä åîöøëú ø÷ ìåîø ãìà ÷øá àéðå öøéê ø÷ ãùôéø îöé ìîéãøù îäåà áàùí âåôéä
Therefore, he said "according to you, who have no tradition, and you need "Rak" to teach that it is not offered, [really] you do not need "Rak". We can properly expound this from "Hu" in [the verse of] Asham itself;
áùìîà ìãéãé ãàéú ìé äéìëúà áçîù çèàåú îúåú åáàùí ìà öøéëà ìé ÷øà ãäåà ìîòåèé àùí îä÷øáä ãðô÷à ìéä îäéìëúà ãìà ÷øá àùí
This is fine for me. I have a tradition of five Chata'os that must die. I do not need the verse "Hu" for Asham to teach that it is not offered, for the tradition teaches that it is not offered for an Asham;
åãøùéðï äåà ìëãøá äåðà åëé àúà ÷øà ãø÷ ìòùä
We expound "Hu" like Rav Huna. The verse "Rak" teaches an Aseh.
àìà ìãéãê ãìéú ìê äéìëúà àìà ãøùà î÷øà ãø÷ ìàéñåø ä÷øáä àéðå öøéê ìø÷
However, according to you, who have no tradition, rather you expound from the verse "Rak" to forbid offering, you do not need "Rak";
ãèåá ùúãøåù îùôè úîåøú àùí îäåà äëúåá áàùí âåôéä éåúø îùúãøåù ìëãøá äåðà.
It would be better that you expound the law of Temuras Asham from "Hu", which is written regarding Asham itself, rather than to expound it like Rav Huna.
TOSFOS DH v'Chi Asa Kra...
úåñôåú ã"ä åëé àúà ÷øà...
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how Rav Huna's law follows from the tradition.)
ã÷é"ì çèàú ùîúå áòìéä ðúëôøå áòìéä òáøä ùðúä úîåú åëì ùáçèàú îúä áàùí øåòä
Explanation: We hold that a Chatas whose owner died, or the owner atoned through another animal, or [the Chatas] is over a year old, it must die, and any case in which a Chatas dies, [the corresponding case of] an Asham is Ro'eh;
åäééðå ðéú÷ ìøòééä ùðîñø ìøåòä ëâåï àùí [ùðàáã] åðúëôøå áòìéå áàçø åàçøé ëï ðîöà øåòä
This is Nitak l'Re'iyah. It is handed over to a shepherd [to graze], e.g. an Asham was lost and the owner atoned through another animal, and afterwards [the Asham] was found. It is Ro'eh;
ëùø ìòåìä îãàéöèøéê (äâäú îäø"á øðùáåøâ) ùéøòä òã ùéñúàá åéáéà áãîéå òåìä
It is Kosher for an Olah, since it must graze until it gets a Mum, and we bring an Olah with its [redemption] money;
[å÷àîø] øá äåðà ãàí àçø ùðú÷å åðúðå ìîøòä äáäîåú ì÷çå åùçèå [ñúí] ëùø åäåé òåìä ëéåï ùìáñåó ãîéå äéå ðåôìéï ìòåìä.
Rav Huna taught that if after it was Nitak and left to graze, he took it and slaughtered it Stam, it is Kosher, and it is an Olah, since in the end its money goes to [buy an] Olah.
TOSFOS DH Nitak Ein Lo Nitak Lo d'Amar Kra b'Havayaso Yehei
úåñôåú ã"ä ðéú÷ àéï ìà ðéú÷ ìà ãàîø ÷øà äåà áäåééúå éäà
(SUMMARY: Tosfos brings from R. Tam that Nituk is only mid'Rabanan.)
åäåéà àùí åôñåì ôéøåù îäåà îùîò ãìäëé (äâäú ø' áöìàì àùëðæé) àúà äåà ìàùîåòéðï ãáòé ðéúå÷
Explanation: It is a Pasul Asham. "Hu" connotes that it comes to teach that it requires Nituk.
å÷ùä ìäàé âéøñà ãìîä ìé ÷øà ãäåà äà äéìëúà äåà ãëì ùáçèàú îúä ãäééðå ðúëôøå áòìéä áàùí øåòä àìîà ãáòé ðéúå÷
Question #1: This text is difficult. Why do we need the verse "Hu"? A tradition from Moshe from Sinai teaches that any case in which a Chatas dies, i.e. [including] when the owner atoned [through another animal, the same case of] an Asham is Ro'eh. This shows that it requires Nituk!
åúå ãáô"÷ ãùáåòåú (ãó éá.) ÷àîø à"ä ëé ìà ðéú÷ ðîé åîùðé âæéøä ìàçø ëôøä àèå ìôðé ëôøä
Question #2: In Shevuos (12a) we ask "if so, even if it was not Nitak!" We answer that we decree after Kaparah due to before Kaparah;
àìîà ãðéúå÷ ìà äåé àìà îãøáðï áòìîà åäëà îôé÷ ìéä î÷øà ãäåà
Inference: Nituk is only mid'Rabanan. Here we learn from the verse "Hu"!
åàäúí ðîé ÷ùä åäà äìëä äéà ãáòé ðéúå÷
Question #3: Also there is difficult. A tradition obligates Nituk! (Why do we say that it is a decree?)
åôé' ø"ú [ãäéìëúà] ðéùðéú [ëì ùáçèàú îúä] áàùí òåìä áìà ùåí ðéúå÷
Answer (R. Tam): The tradition teaches that any case in which a Chatas dies, an Asham is an Olah, without any Nituk;
åäà ã÷àîø äù"ñ áàùí øåòä îùåí ãâæøå øáðï ãáòé [øòééä] îùåí âæéøä ãìàçø ëôøä àèå ìôðé ëôøä
The Gemara there says that an Asham is Ro'eh because Chachamim decreed to require Re'iyah. This is a decree after Kaparah, due to before Kaparah.
åäëà àåîø ø"ú ãìà âøñéðï ðéú÷ àéï ìà ðéú÷ ìà ãåãàé ìà î÷øà äåà ãáòé ðéúå÷ àìà øáðï âæøå ãáòé ðéúå÷ ìøòééä
Assertion (R. Tam): Here, the text does not say "if it was Nitak, yes (it is Kosher for an Olah). If it was not Nitak, no." Surely, the need for Nituk is not from the verse, rather, Rabanan decreed to require Nituk to Re'iyah;
ëãîåëç áô"÷ ãùáåòåú (ùí) ã÷àîø âæéøä ìàçø ëôøä àèå ìôðé ëôøä
This is proven in Shevuos. It says that this is a decree after Kaparah, due to before Kaparah.
åáôñçéí ô' àìå ãáøéí (ãó òâ: åùí.) àéëà ìî"ã ãøá äåðà áòé ò÷éøä åúðé áîéìúéä ãøá äåðà ùçèå ìùí òåìä ëùø åâøñéðï î"è
Citation: In Pesachim (73b), there is an opinion that Rav Huna obligates Akirah, and in his text of Rav Huna's teaching it says "if he slaughtered it for an Olah, it is Kosher." The text says "what is the reason?"
åìãéãéä äëé ôéøåùå î"è áòé ò÷éøä ùöøéê ùéùçèðå ìùí òåìä áôéøåù åäìà ñåó ñåó òåîã ãîéå ìòåìä ëùéñúàá
According to this opinion. It means as follows. What is the reason to require Akirah, that one must slaughter it explicitly l'Shem Olah? In the end, its money is destined to be for an Olah, when it will get a Mum!
àîø ÷øà äåà áäåééúå éäà äååééú àùí òã ùéò÷øðå áôéøåù ìùí òåìä
[The Gemara answers] it says "Hu". It remains in its status. It is an Asham until he explicitly uproots it to be an Olah;
äà îäìëúà ä"ä áìà ò÷éøä ðîé ëùø ìòåìä
If we had only the tradition, also without Akirah, it would be Kosher for an Olah.
åàéëà ìî"ã äúí áôñçéí ãøá äåðà ìà áòé ò÷éøä åúðà áîéìúéä ãøá äåðà ùçèå ñúí ëùø ìòåìä åìãéãéä ðîé âøñéðï î"è
The other opinion there in Pesachim holds that Rav Huna does not obligate Akirah. His text of Rav Huna's teaching says "if he slaughtered it Stam, it is Kosher for an Olah. Also according to him, the text says "what is the reason?"
åäëé ôéøåùà î"è ìà áòé ò÷éøä äåàéì åäéä ùí àùí òìéå
It means as follows. What is the reason not to require Akirah, since it was called an Asham?
ãàé îùåí äéìëúà ãðéùðéú [ã÷øá] òåìä àéîà ãåå÷à ò"é ò÷éøä
Do not say that we learn from the tradition, which teaches that it is offered for an Olah. Perhaps this is only through Akirah!
åîùðé (äåà) ãàîø ÷øà äåà áäåééúå éäà [ùéäà ìàçø ëôøä òåîã ìòåìä (åäéä) àó ìôðé ò÷éøä] ëîå ùòúéã ìäéåú ëùéñúàá äééðå òåìä éäéä áìà ùåí ò÷éøä
The Gemara answers 'it says "Hu" - it remains in its status. After Kaparah it is set to be an Olah even before Akirah, like it will be in the future when it gets a Mum, i.e. it will be an Olah, [even now it is an Olah] without any Akirah.
áéï ìîø áéï ìîø ðéúå÷ ìøòééä ìà áòé àìà îãøáðï áòìîà ëãôøùéðï.
Conclusion: According to both opinions, the need for Nituk to Re'iyah is only mid'Rabanan, like we explained. (They argue only about whether Akirah is needed.)
TOSFOS DH Amar Mar Halachah Hi b'Nazir
úåñôåú ã"ä àîø îø äìëä äéà áðæéø
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses changing money from Korbanos ha'Of to Behemos.)
ôéøåù ãñúåîéí éôìå ìðãáä
Explanation: Stumim go to Nedavah.
åúå ìéëà åäúðéà åùàø çééáé ÷éðéï ùáúåøä ëâåï îöåøò ùîáéà ìèäøúå çèàú äòåó åòåìú äòåó àí ãì äåà åäôøéù îòåú ì÷éðå áòåãå ãì åäòùéø
Explanation (cont.): [The Gemara asks] are there no other cases? A Beraisa teaches that others who are obligated a Ken, e.g. a Metzora, who brings for his Taharah Chatas ha'Of and Olas ha'Of, if he is poor, and he separated coins while he was poor, and he became rich...
[øöä] áëåìï ìäáéà çèàú áäîä éáéà åäòåìä éáéà îáéúå
If he wants, he may bring from all [the coins] Chatas Behemah, and the Olah he will bring from other money in his house.
äâä"ä (äâäú îäø"á øðùáåøâ) åöøéê ìåîø ùáùòä ùäôøéù äîòåú úçéìä àîø äøé àìå ìöøòúå åäéä áéãå ìäáéà áëåìï ôøéãä àçú ùì çèàú àå ùì òåìä
Comment: You must say that at the time he separated the coins initially, he said "these are for my Tzara'as", and he could have brought one bird for a Chatas or Olah;
åìëï ëùäòùéø éáéà áäï áëåìï ðîé (äâäú úôàøú öéåï) çèàú áäîä àå òåìú áäîä ëãô"ì
Therefore, also when he became rich, he may bring from all [the coins] Chatas Behemah, or Olas Behemah, like I explained above (24b DH Hayu);
àáì àîø ì÷øáðåú öøòúå áùòú äôøùä îéã çì î÷öú ãîéå ìçèàú åî÷öú ìòåìä åìëùéòùéø ìà éåëì ìäáéà îëåìï çèàú áäîä àå òåìú áäîä
However, if he said "these are for the Korbanos of my Tzara'as" at the time of separation, immediately some of the money is designated for Chatas, and some for Olah. When he became rich, he may not bring from all [the coins] Chatas Behemah or Olas Behemah;
ãìà àîøéðï îôðé ùøàåé ìäáéà áëåìï ùìîéí àìà äéëà ãàîø ìðæéøåúå
We say [that there is no Me'ilah] because it is proper to bring Shelamim with all of them only when he said "for his (really, 'my') Nezirus";
àáì àîø àìå ì÷øáðåú ðæéøåú àéï áéãå ìäáéà áëåìï ùìîéí
However, if he said "for Korbanos of Nezirus", he cannot bring Shelamim with all of them.
åáô' èøó á÷ìôé (éåîà ãó îà.) îåñéó åîáéà çåáúå îãîé çèàúå åàéï îåñéó åîáéà çåáúå îãîé (äâäú áøëú øàù, îìàëú éå"è) òåìúå
Implied question: In Yoma (41a), it says [that if an Oni separated money for a Ken for Tum'as Mikdash, and later designated some for the Chatas and some for the Olah, and he became rich,] "he adds and brings his obligation (Chatas Behemah) from the money of his Chatas. He does not add and bring his obligation from the money of his Olah.
îùîò ãàéï éëåì ìäáéà îëåìï çèàú
Inference: He cannot bring Chatas [Behemah] from all [the coins]! (Griz - Tosfos asked from 41b, which holds that if one bought Chatas ha'Of from some of the money, the rest becomes Demei Olah. What is the reason? The rest could be used for Chatas, e.g. if the first will be lost, or he will buy another for Acharayus!)
îééøé ãàîø [ì÷øáðåú] èåîàúå (äâäú äøù"ù)
Answer #1: We discuss when he said "for the Korbanos of his Tum'ah."
à"ð ùäôøéù î÷öú ìçèàú åî÷öú ìòåìä, ò"ë äâä"ä.
Answer #2: He separated some for his Chatas, and some for his Olah. Until here is a comment.