1)

TOSFOS DH U'MI'YAD BEN NEICHAR LO SAKRIVU ES EILEH

úåñ' ã"ä åîéã áï ðëø ìà ú÷øéáå àú àìä

(Summary: Tosfos discusses, why, in view of this Pasuk, we needs the Pasuk "Ish Ish" to teach us that B'nei No'ach can bring Nedarim and Nedavos.)

åà"ú, ìîä ìé ''àéù àéù'' 'ìøáåú áðé ðç ùðåãøéï ðãøéí åðãáåú ëéùøàì' (çåìéï ãó éâ:)? úéôå÷ ìéä îäàé ÷øà ...

(a)

Question: Why do we need "Ish Ish" to teach us that B'nei No'ach can bring Nedarim and Nedavos like a Yisrael (Chulin, Daf 13b)? Why can we not learn it from this Pasuk ...

ãîã÷àîø ''ìà ú÷øéáå àú àìä'', îùîò àìä àé àúä î÷øéá àáì àúä î÷øéá úîéîéí?

1.

Question (cont.): Because, since it says "Lo Takrivu es Eileh", it implies that they cannot bring these, but that they can bring animals without a blemish?

àáì àéôëà ìéëà ìîéáòéà - "îéã áï ðëø" ìîä ìé, úéôå÷ ìéä î"àéù àéù"? ...

(b)

Implied Question: One cannot however, ask the reverse - 'Why we need "mi'Yad ben Neichar"? Why can we not learn it from "Ish Ish"? ...

ãäà àéöèøéê "áï ðëø" ìäàé ãøùà ãäëà 'ìà ùðà áîæáç ãéãäå åìà ùðà áîæáç ãéãï' (ìà àîøéðï) ...

1.

Answer: Since we need "ben Neichar" to teach us the D'rashah cited here 'That there is no difference between their Mizbe'ach and ours ...

àìà "àéù àéù" ìîä ìé?

(c)

Question (cont.): But why do we need "Ish Ish"? (See Shitah Mekubetzes, 32, and Ein Mishpat).

åúéøõ øáéðå ùîùåï áø àáøäí ãàéöèøéê ìäê ôìåâúà ãøáé éåñé äâìéìé åøáé ò÷éáà áôø÷ åàìå îðçåú (îðçåú òâ:) ...

(d)

Answer: Rebbi Shimshon bar Avraham answers that e need it regarding the Machlokes between Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili and Rebbi Akiva in Perek Eilu Menachos (Menachos, Daf 73b) ...

'îä úìîåã ìåîø "ìòåìä"? ôøè ìðæéøåú, ãáøé øáé éåñé äâìéì;é åøáé ò÷éáà àîø "òåìä" àéï ìé àìà òåìä åìà ùàø ÷øáðåú.

1.

Answer (cont): 'Why does the Torah say "la'Olah"? To preclude Nezirus, says Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili; Rebbi Akiva says "Olah", to preclude other Korbanos'.

2)

TOSFOS DH ELA B'TAM V'NA'ASEH BA'AL-MUM

úåñ' ã"ä àìà áúí åðòùä áòì îåí

(Summary: Tosfos explains the reasoning behind the statement and elaborates.)

'ãàéëà ìîéîø äåàéì îòé÷øà úí äåä, ñáø "àó òì ôé ùðôì áå îåí, à÷ãéùðå åà÷øéáðå" ...

(a)

Reason: 'Because one can say that since it was initially without blemish, he thinks that "Even though it obtained a blemish, I will declare it Hekdesh and sacrifice it" ...

åëéåï ãìä÷øéáä ÷îëååï åìàñå÷é, ëé à÷ãùéðäå, ì÷é ...

1.

Reason (cont.): And since he has the intention of sacrificing it and bringing it on the Mizbe'ach, he will receive Malkos for declaring it Hekdesh ...

àáì ááòì îåí îòé÷øå îîòé àîå ãé÷ìà áòìîà äåà, åàéëà ìîéîø ãìà àñé÷ àãòúéä ãçæé ìà÷øåáéä (ìùåï øù"é).

2.

Reason (concl.): Whereas in the case of an animal that was born blemished, it is no different than a stick, and one can assume that it never crossed his mind to sacrifice it' (Rashi's words).

å÷ùä ìäø"ø îø äéëé îöéðå ìîéîø ãìà àñé÷ àãòúéä ìà÷øåáé

(b)

Question: ha'Rav Rav Mar queries this however, in that how can one say that he did not intend to sacrifice it ...

åäìà äúøå áå 'ìà ú÷ãéù áòì îåí ìîæáç', åäåà ÷áì òìéå äúøàä åàîø 'òì îðú ëï àðé òåùä' ...

1.

Question (cont) : Seeing as they warned him 'not to declare a Ba'al-Mum Hekdesh to go on the Mizbe'ach', and he accepted the warning, announcing 'That is precisely what I am going to do!' ...

ãáìàå äëé ìà ì÷é?

2.

Question (concl.): Otherwise he would not receive Malkos?

ìë"ð ìäø"í ìôøù ãìà ÷àé ø"ù áï ì÷éù à'áì ú÷ãéùå àìà à'áì ú÷èéøå åà'áì úæøé÷å ...

(c)

Answer: Therefore the Ram explains that Resh Lakish is referring, not to the La'av not to declare Hekdesh, but to that of not to burn on the Mizbe'ach and not to sprinkle the blood ...

åä"ô - ìà ùðå ãòåáø à'áì ú÷èéøå åà'áì úæøé÷å àìà ëùä÷ãéùå úí åðòùä áòì îåí ...

(d)

Clarification: And what the Gemara means is 'They only said that one transgresses Bal Taktiru and Bal Tazriku if one declared Hekdesh a Tam which became a Ba'al-Mum ...

ãëéåï ãçìä òìéå ÷ãåùú îæáç ÷åãí ùäåîí, àñé÷ à'ãòúéä ãçæé ìä÷øáä ...

1.

Reason: Because, since the Kedushah of the Mizbe'ach took effect on it before it obtained a blemish, he intended to bring it on the Mizbe'ach

àáì áòì îåí îòé÷øå ÷åãí ÷ãåùä, ãé÷ìà áòìîà äåà, ãìà îñé÷ àãòúéä ãçæé ìä÷øáä, åìà ì÷é.

(e)

Clarification (cont.): But an animal that was initially blemished before it was sanctified, is no more than a stick, and it would not occur to him that it is fit to bring on the Mizbe'ach, in which case he will not receive Malkos.

3)

TOSFOS DH AFILU AKDISH LI'DEMEI NESACHIM LAKI

úåñ' ã"ä àôéìå à÷ãéù ìãîé ðñëéí ì÷é

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the statement.)

åë"ù î÷ãéù ìãîé òåìä àå ì÷øáï àçø.

(a)

Clarification: And all the more so if he is Makdish it for the value of an Olah or of some other Korban.

åäà ãàîø ì÷îï (ãó éç:) 'äî÷ãéù ð÷áä ìòåìä éîëø, åéôìå ãîéå ìòåìä', ö"ì ãì÷é àìéáà ãøáà ...

(b)

Clarifying the Sugya later: When the Gemara says later (on Daf 18b) that if someone declares a female animal an Olah, it should be sold, and the proceeds used to purchase an Olah - we must say that he receives Malkos, according to Rava

îéäå àìéáà ãøáé ãàîø áäøöàú âåôå àà"ë ä÷ãéù ìâåôå, ìà ì÷é.

1.

Clarifying the Sugya later (cont.): Though not according to Rebbi, who says only if he is Makdish it for the animal itself (but not for its value).

åëï äà ãúðï ôø÷ ëéöã îòøéîéï (ì÷îï ëæ:) 'àîø òì äáäîä èîàä åòì áòìú îåí "äøé àìå òåìä'', ìà àîø ëìåí. "äøé àìå ìòåìä"...

(c)

Clarifying the Mishnah later: And the same applies to the Mishnah later in Perek Keitzad Ma'arimin (on Daf 27b) Where he declares on a non-Kasher animal and on one that is blemished 'Harei Eilu Olah'. His declaration is not valid, but if he says 'Harei Eilu le'Olah', it is ...

éîëøå åéáéà áãîéäí òåìä' ...

1.

Clarifying the Mishnah later (concl.): They are then sold, and with the proceeds, he purchases an Olah ...

öøéê ìåîø ãì÷é.

(d)

Conclusion: There too, we must say that he receives Malkos.

7b----------------------------------------7b

4)

TOSFOS DH ABAYE AMAR EIN LOKIN AL LA'AV SHE'BI'KEKALUS

úåñ' ã"ä àáéé àîø àéï ìå÷éï òì ìàå ùáëììåú

(Summary: Tosfos, citing Rashi, clarifies Abaye's statement.)

ôøù"é ãäà 'àéï ìå÷éï' ãàîø àáéé àéï ìå÷éï úøúé ÷àîø, àáì çãà ì÷é - åàìéáà ãî"ã çãà îéäà ì÷é à'ìàå ùáëììåú ...

(a)

Clarification: Rashi explains that when Abaye says 'Ein Lokin', he means that he does not receive two sets of Malkos, but one, he does - according to the opinion that that one receives one set of Malkos for a La'av she'bi'Kelalos ...

áùéìäé ô' ëì ùòä (ôñçéí ãó îà:) - ìùåï øù"é.

1.

Source: In Perek Kol Sha'ah (Pesachim Daf 41b) - Rashi's words.

åëï îåëç äñåâéà, ã÷àîø áñîåê 'àôé÷ ä÷èøä î÷öúå åòééì ÷áìú äãí' ...

(b)

Proof: And this is evident in the Sugya, when it says shortly 'Take out "a partial burning" and replace it with 'Kabalas ha'Dam' ...

åàé ìà ì÷é ëìì, àëúé áöéø ìéä çãà.

1.

Proof (cont.): And if he did not receive Malkos at all, there would still be one case missing.

5)

TOSFOS DH SHE'EIN ZACHIN B'CHAYEIHEN

úåñ' ã"ä ùàéï æëéï áçééäï

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles the statement with the opinion that holds 'Basar Miskaper Azlinan'.)

åàí úàîø, åàé æëéï áäï áçééäï, äéëé îéîø ìîàï ãàîø áâîøà 'áúø îúëôø àæìéðï'.

(a)

Question: If they acquire them in their lifetime, how can they declare a Temurah, according to the opinion that one goes after the one who is being atoned?

åéù ìåîø, ãø"ì àó áúø îúëôø åìàå ìàôå÷é áòìéí àúé.

(b)

Answer: The Gemara means also after the one who is being atoned (and not exclusively).

6)

TOSFOS DH LO SHANU ELA I'ZEMAN HA'ZEH

úåñ' ã"ä ìà ùðå àìà áæîï äæä

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles this with the Sugya in Bava Kama.)

îùîò ãáëåø áæîï äæä îîåï áòìéí äåà.

(a)

Inference: This implies that a B'chor nowadays belongs to the owner.

åà"ú, äàîø ôø÷ ùåø ùðâç äôøä (á"÷ ãó ðâ:) 'ùåø åùåø ôñåìé äîå÷ãùéï ùðâçå, àáéé àîø çöé ðæ÷', åîå÷é ìä áîåòã ...

(b)

Introduction to Question: In Perek Shor she'Nagach ha'Parah (Bava Kama, Daf 53b) Abaye says that an ox and an ox that is Pesulei ha'Mukdashin gore, he (the ox) pays Chatzi Nezek; and the Gemara establishes it by a Mu'ad ...

àáì ùåø ùì ôñåìé äîå÷ãùéï, ôèåø - àìîà ìàå "øòäå" ÷øéðà áéä ...

1.

Contradiction: But the Pesulei ha'Mukdashin ox is Patur - so we see that it is not considered "Re'ehu" ...

å÷àîø äúí ðîé ã'ùåø ùì äãéåè ùðâç ùåø ùì ôñåìé äîå÷ãùéï çééá' - àìîà îùîò ã÷øéðà áéä "øòäå"?

2.

Contradiction: And it also says there that a Shor of a Hedyot that gores a Shor Pesulei ha'Mukdashin is Chayav from which we see that it is considered "Re'ehu"?

åöøéê ìåîø ã÷îééúà îééøé ááëåø ùåø ãìà îöé ôøé÷, åáúøééúà áùàø ÷ãùéí ãôøé÷ ìäå áîåîï ...

(c)

Resolution: We are therefore forced to say that the first ruling is speaking about a firstborn ox, which cannot be redeemed, whereas the latter case is speaking about other Kodshim, which can be redeemed when they obtain a blemish.

åäúí áæîï äæä àééøé - ùäøé äàîåøàéí ãàééøé äúí òìä ìà äåå áæîï äáéú...

(d)

Introduction to Question (cont.): And the Gemara there is referring to nowadays - since the Amora'im in question did not live in the time of the Beis-ha'Mikdash ...

åàôéìå äëé ÷àîø äúí ãìàå îîåðå äåà ...

1.

Introduction to Question (cont.): Yet the Gemara says that it is not his Mamon ...

åàí ëï ÷ùä - ãäëà àîø ãîîåðå äåà áæîï äæä?

(e)

Question: Whilst here the Gemara maintains that nowadays it is his Mamon?

åöøéê ìåîø ãäëà àúééà ëøáé éåñé äâìéìé, åääéà ãäúí ëøáðï.

(f)

Answer: We therefore need to say that here it speaks according to Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili, and there, according to the Rabbanan (See Shitah Mekubetzes, Hashmatos).

åàó òì âá ãáô' ÷îà ãá"÷ (ãó éá: åùí ã"ä åàí) àîø [åìùðé] äà ëøáé éåñé [åäà ëøáðï]?

(g)

Implied Question: Even though in the first Perek of Bava Kama (Daf 12b & 13a, DH 've'Im') asks 'Let it answer that one goes according to Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili, and the other, according to the Rabbanan?'?

ö"ì ãìôé æä, ìà îéúå÷îà ääéà ñåâéà ãôø÷ äôøä.

(h)

Answer: We have to say that according to that, the Sugya in Perek ha'Parah is not correct.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF