TEMURAH 20 (7 Av) - (7 Av) - Dedicated in memory of Dr. Simcha Bekelnitzky (Simcha Gedalya ben Shraga Feibush) of Queens, N.Y., Niftar 7 Av 5757, by his wife and daughters. G-d-fearing and knowledgeable, Simcha was well known in the community for his Chesed and Tzedakah. He will long be remembered.

1)

TOSFOS DH SHE'EIN LACH DAVAR SHE'OSEH TEMURAH ELA HA'RO'EH V'NISTA'EV

úåñ' ã"ä ùàéï ìê ãáø ùòåùä úîåøä àìà äøåòä åîñúàá

(Summary: Tosfos, citing Rashi, clarifies the statement and elaborates.)

ëìåîø ääåà ã÷ãåù ÷ãåùú äâåó, ùàí àéðå øàåé ìä÷øéá, àéðå ðîëø áìà îåí àìà éøòä ...

(a)

Clarification: This means that it is Kadosh Kedushas ha'Guf, in that if it not fit to go on the Mizbe'ach, it cannot be sold without a Mum, but must graze ...

äéìëê ø"ù ñáéøà ìéä áàùí åôñç, äåàéì åàéï àùí åôñç çééìé áð÷áä ãðîëø áìà îåí, äéìëê ìà òáãé úîåøä ...

1.

Clarification (cont.): Consequently, Rebbi Shimon holds by Asham and Pesach that, since they do not take effect on a female, they are sold without a Mum - therefore they cannot make a Temurah ...

àáì áòåìä, ãàéëà ùí òåìä áòåó, ñ"ì ãúøòä åòáãà úîåøä (ìùåï øù"é).

2.

Clarification (concl.): Whereas by Olah, since it has the status of an Olah by a bird, he holds that it grazes and makes a Temurah (Rashi's words).

2)

TOSFOS DH REBBI SAVAR K'RABBANAN D'AMRI MOSROS L'NIDVAS TZIBUR AZLI V'EIN TEMURAH B'TZIBUR

úåñ' ã"ä øáé ñáø ëøáðï ãàîøé îåúøåú ìðãáú öáåø àæìé åàéï úîåøä áöáåø

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles the sequence with that of the previous Sugya, which inverts it.)

åúéîä, îàé ÷àîø? ãìòéì îùîò ãúåìä úîåøä áøòééä, åäëà îùîò ãúåìä øòééä áúîåøä - ìéîà ãìéøòå åéòùä úîåøä?

(a)

Question: What is the Gemara saying? Earlier, it implies that Temurah is dependent upon Re'iyah, whereas here it implies that Re'iyah depends upon Temurah?

åðøàä ãä"ô ëéåï ãìðãáú öáåø àæìé åàéï úîåøä áöáåø, àéï ìåîø ãìéäðé ìéä ìîôøéù ð÷áä ìàùí ìäéåú ÷ãåù ÷ãåùú äâåó, îùåí ãîåúø àùí ÷øá òåìä ...

(b)

Answer: What the Gemara seems to be saying is that - since they go to Nidvas Tzibur, and there is no Temurah by a Tzibur, we cannot say that the fact that Mosar Asham is brought as an Olah helps for Mafrish Nekeivah le'Asham to be Kadosh Kedushas ha'Guf ...

ëéåï ãàéï ãéðí ùåä ìòðéï úîåøä ...

(c)

Reason: Seeing as the Din Temurah regarding the two differs

ãîåúø òåìä òåùä úîåøä, åàéï îåúø àùí òåùä úîåøä, ãìðãáú öáåø àæéì ãìà òáéã úîåøä ...

1.

Reason (cont.): Because Mosar Olah makes a Temurah, which Mosar Asham does not, since it is brought as a Nidvas Tzibur, which cannot make a Temurah.

åìà ãîé ì'îôøéù ð÷áä ìôñç', ãîåúø ôñç äåé ìùìîéí, ùòåùéí úîåøä ëîå äôñç òöîå ...

(d)

Nekeivah le'Pesach: And it is not comparable to 'Mafrish Nekeivah le'Pesach', since Mosar ha'Pesach is a Shelamim, which makes a Temurah like the Pesach itself ...

äéìëê ãéï äåà ùéçåì ÷ãåùú äâåó òì ð÷áä ùäôøéùä ìôñç ...

1.

Nekeivah le'Pesach (cont.): Consequently, it is correct for Kedushas ha'Guf to take effect on a Nekeivah that one designated as a Pesach

ãëê ìé äôøéùä ìôñç ëàéìå äôøéùå ìîåúø ôñç ãäééðå ùìîéí, ãùðéäï òåùéï úîåøä.

2.

Reason: Seeing as there is no difference whether one designates it as a Pesach or as a Mosar ha'Pesach, which is Shelamim, and both of them make a Temurah.

3)

TOSFOS DH D'IKA SHEM OLAH ALEHAH

úåñ' ã"ä ãàéëà ùí òåìä òìéä

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the statement and elaborates.)

âáé òðé áòåìú äòåó.

(a)

Clarification #1: By a poor man, who brings an Olas ha'Of.

åìôé äà ãñ"ã äùúà, øåöä ìåîø 'îôøéù ð÷áä ìòåìúå' áòåìú çåáä - ëâåï îöåøò òùéø, ùöøéê ìäáéà òåìú áäîä æëø ...

(b)

Clarification #1 (cont.): According to what the Gemara currently thinks, 'Mafrish Nekeivah le'Olaso' is referring to an obligatory Olah - such as a rich Metzora, who is obligated to bring a male Olas Beheimah ...

åîù"ä ÷àîø ãòåùéï úîåøä á'äôøéù ð÷áä ìòåìúå' ...

(c)

Clarification #2: And the reason that it says that Mafrish Nekeivah le'Olaso makes a Temurah is ...

îùåí ãäàé çéåáà ãîçåéá ùééê áð÷áä - àí äéä òðé, ùîôøéù òåìú äòåó ãáàä ð÷áä ...

1.

Clarification #2 (cont.): Because the obligation that he must now bring would incorporate a female - if he would be a poor man, who designates an Olas ha'Of, which can come as a female ...

ãàéï úîåú åæëøåú áòåó ...

2.

Reason: Seeing as there is no Din of Tamus (perfection, without blemish) and Zachrus (a male) with regard to birds.

åîù"ä ð÷è âáé òðé 'ëâåï òðé îöåøò' - åìà àîø ùéù ùí òåìä áæá - åîééøé áòåìú ðãáä ...

(d)

Implied Question: And the reason that it gave the example of 'Ani Metzora' - and not 'Shem Olah be'Zav' - with reference to Olas Nedavah ...

ãáòé ìàùëåçé ãáäàé çéåáà ã÷îçééá àéëà ð÷áä áòåìä.

1.

Answer: Because it wants to find that by the Chiyuv that he is obligated to bring, a Nekeivah by the Olah is applicable.

4)

TOSFOS DH DE'HA IKA PARAS CHATAS

úåñ' ã"ä ãäà àéëà ôøú çèàú

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles this reason with what he explained in the previous Dibur.)

úéîä, ìôé îä ãôéøùúé - ãøåöä ìîöåà ð÷áä áòåìä áäàé çéåáà âåôéä ã÷îçééá, åäëà ìà ùééê ìîéîø äëé, ãàéï æä ùåí çåáä ùì ëäï?

(a)

Question #1: According to what Tosfos just explained - that the Gemara wants to find that by the Chiyuv that he is obligated to bring, a Nekeivah by the Olah is applicable, that does not apply here, since there is no such obligation on a Kohen?

åòåã, àîàé ð÷è 'ôøú çèàú', øåá çèàú äîæáç ð÷áä àúéà?

(b)

Question #2: Moreover, why does the Gemara say 'Paras Chatas', seeing as most Chata'os that go on the Mizbe'ach are females?

åé"ì, ãôøéê îë"ù - ãäà àôéìå îôøéù ð÷áä ìòåìä, ãäéà âåôä ìà çæéà ìòåìä, àôéìå äëé ÷àîø ãòåùä úîåøä, îùåí ãàéëà ùí òåìä òìéä áòåìú äòåó ...

(c)

Answer: The Gemara is asking on the basis of a Kal va'Chomer - Since even if he designated a female as an Olah, where the animal itself is not fit to be brought as an Olah, it nevertheless says that it can make a Temurah, seeing as it has the status of an Olah by Olas ha'Of ...

ë"ù îôøéù ôøä ìôøå, ãäéà âåôä çæéà ìôøú çèàú àí äéà àãåîä, ãàéú ìï ìîéîø ãúé÷ãåù?

1.

Answer (cont.): How much more so if one designates a cow as one's bull, where the cow itself would be fit as a Paras Chatas - if it would be red, ought we to say that it is Kadosh.

5)

TOSFOS DH YACHID SHE'HIFRISH SA'IR LI'SE'IRASO TIKDOSH D'HA IKA SE'IR NASI

úåñ' ã"ä éçéã ùäôøéù ùòéø ìùòéøúå úé÷ãåù ãäà àéëà ùòéø ðùéà

(Summary: Tosfos points out that it could just as well have asked from the Beraisa.)

åä"ä ãäåä îöé ìîéôøê îáøééúà âåôà ãìòéì - ã'àùí áï ùðä åäáéàå áï ùúéí', ã÷àîø ø' ùîòåï 'ëì òöîï àéðï ÷ãåùéï' ...

(a)

Implied Question: The Gemara could equally well have asked from the Beraisa itself cited above - in a case where 'instead of an Asham in its first year, one brought one in its second year, Rebbi Shimon rules that it is not Kadosh.

åàîàé, äà çæé ìàùí îòéìåú åâæéìåú ...

1.

Implied Question (cont.): Why is that, seeing as it is fit to be brought as an Asham Me'ilos or Gezeilos ...

åäàé ùéðåéà ã÷îùðé ùééê ðîé òìä?

2.

Implied Question (concl.): And the same answer that the Gemara gives here applies there?

6)

TOSFOS DH HANI T'REI GUFI

úåñ' ã"ä äðé úøé âåôé

(Summary: Tosfos disagrees with Rashi's explanation of 'T'rei Gufi'.)

ôéøù"é éçéã åðùéà ...

(a)

Explanation #1: A Yachid and an Ani (Rashi) ...

åîéäå áäàé âåôà ãéçéã ìà îùëçú ùòéø çèàú, åáäàé âåôà ãðùéà ìà îùëçú ùòéøä ...

(b)

Explanation #1 (cont.): However, Se'ir Chatas is not applicable to the body of the Yachid, nor the Se'irah, to the body of the Nasi ...

àáì òåìä ð÷áä áäàé âåôà îùëçú ìä, ãàé áòé îô÷ø ìðëñéä åäåé òðé åçæé ìéä òåìú äòåó. òë"ì.

1.

Explanation #1 (concl.): - Whereas Olas Nekeivah is applicable (to each one), seeing as he could declare his property Hefker and bring an Olas ha'Of (Until here are the words of Rashi).

åì"ð, ãîàé ÷ôøéê áñîåê 'àé äëé, äà ðîé ìà òåìú äòåó ÷îééúé?' î"î ìà ãîå ...

(c)

Refutation: This is not correct however, because what does the Gemara ask shortly, 'If so, here too, he does not bring an Olas ha'Of?' The two cases are not comparable ...

ãäåà âåôä çæé ìòåìú ð÷áä - àé îô÷ø ðëñéä?

1.

Refutation (cont.): Since he himself is fit to bring an Olas Nekeivah - should he declare his property Hefker?

ìë"ð ìôøù 'äðé úøé âåôé ðéðäå' - ãäàé éçéã ìà çæé ìäéåú ðùéà áòåã äðùéà çé, åðùéà ìà çæé ìäéåú ìå ãéï éçéã ...

(d)

Explanation #2: The correct explanation therefore is "These are two different bodies' - Because the Yachid is not eligible to become a Nasi as long as the present incumbent is still alive;le to nor is the Nasi able to adopt the Din of a Yachid ...

àáì òðé åòùéø ëçã âåôà ãîå - äòùéø øàåé ìäéåú òðé åòðé øàåé ìäéåú òùéø.

1.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Whereas an Ani and an Ashir are like one body - inasmuch as ythe rich mancan become poor, and the poor man, rich.

åäùúà ôøéê ùôéø 'àé äëé' ...

(e)

Clarification: Now the Gemara's Kashya 'If so ... ' is valid ...

ãàîø äà ìà çèà åìà àéçééá áùòéø ...

1.

Clarification: In that it says - 'He did not sin and he is not therefore Chayav to bring a Sa'ir' ...

àó òì âá ãâåôå øàåé ìäéåú ðùéà ...

(f)

Implied Question: Even though his body it eligible to become a Nasi ...

ëéåï ãáääéà ùòúà ãçèà ìà àéçééá áùòéø, ìàå ëâåó àçã ÷øéðà áéä ...

1.

Answer: Seeing as, the moment that he sinned, he was not Chayav to bring a Sa'ir, it is not considered one body...

äëé ðîé áääéà ùòúà ãçèà, ìà àéçééá áòåìú äòåó åìà îöé ôèø ðôùéä áä.

(g)

Clarification (cont.): In our case too, the moment that he sinned, he was not Chayav to bring an Olas ha'Of and he could not exempt himself with it.

7)

TOSFOS DH REBBI SHIMON SAVAR K'REBBI ELAZAR BEN AZARYAH ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä øáé ùîòåï ñáø ëø"à áï òæøéä ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies Rebbi Shimon's opinion.)

'éáéà úåø àå áï éåðä' ...

(a)

Clarification #1: He brings a pigeon or a young dove' ...

ôéøåù åëéåï ãîöé ôèø ðôùéä áòåó àôéìå ìàçø äôøùú áäîä, ëãàé' ô' îøåáä (á"÷ ãó òç:) åà"ë, çæé ùôéø áòåìú ð÷áä.

1.

Clarification #1 (cont.): And since he is able to exempt himself with a bird even after having designated an animal (See Olas Shlomoh), as it states in Perek Merubeh (Bava Kama, Daf 78), It is indeed fit for an Olas Nekeivah.

åö"ì ãîééøé äùúà äà ãø"ù ã'îôøéù ð÷áä ìòåìúå' áàåîø 'äøé òìé òåìä' ...

(b)

Clarification #2: And Rebbi Shimon's statement regarding 'Mafrish Nekeivah le'Olaso' must now be speaking where he declared 'Harei alai Olah'

ãîöé ôèø ðôùéä áòåìú äòåó ð÷áä àôéìå ìàçø äôøùú áäîä, ëãàé' ô' îøåáä (âí æä ùí).

1.

Reason: In which case he can exempt himself with a female Olas ha'Of even after designating an animal, as the Gemara states in Merubeh (Ibid.).

8)

TOSFOS DH YIMACHRU L'TZORCHEI OLAH V'YIPLU DEMEIHEN IM SHA'AR NECHASIM L'BEDEK HA'BAYIS

úåñ' ã"ä éîëøå ìöøëé òåìä åéôìå ãîéäï òí ùàø ðëñéí ìáã÷ äáéú

(Summary: Tosfos presents Rebbi Eliezer's reason.)

ã÷ñáø øáé àìéòæø 'ñúí ä÷ãù ìáã÷ äáéú' ...

(a)

Reason: Since Rebbi Eliezer holds 'S'tam Hekdesh is meant for Bedek ha'Bayis' ...

åäåé ëîúôéñ úîéîéí ìáã÷ äáéú - ãàéðå éåöà îéãé îæáç ìòåìí.

(b)

Precedent: And it is therefore as if one is Makdish Temimim (animals without a blemish) to Bedek ha'Bayis - which never leave the realm of the Mizbe'ach.

9)

TOSFOS DH V'REBBI YEHOSHUA AMAR ZECHARIM ATZMAN YIKARVU OLAH

úåñ' ã"ä åøáé éäåùò àîø æëøéí òöîï é÷øáå òåìä

(Summary: Tosfos presents Rebbi Yehoshua's reason.)

ã÷ñáø ìà ùáé÷ àéðù ÷ãùé îæáç åà÷ãéù ì÷ãùé áã÷ äáéú, îéãé ãçæé ì÷ãùé îæáç ...

(a)

Reason: Because he holds that, as far as something that is fit to go on the Mizbe'ach is concerned, a person will not leave Kodshei Mizbe'ach and be Makdish to Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis

åñúîà ãòúå ìòåìä ...

(b)

Reason (cont.): And S'tam, a person has an Olah in mind ...

ãëåìä ëìéì ìùí.

1.

Reason: Because it all goes to Hash-m.

20b----------------------------------------20b

10)

TOSFOS DH IM HAYAH KOHEN AVODASAH V'ORAH SHELO

úåñ' ã"ä àí äéä ëäï òáåãúä åòåøä ùìå

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the ruling and cites the source.)

ôéøåù àí äéä ëäï æä ùäîåúø ùìå, äåà òöîå î÷øéáä åäòåø ùìå -åàôéìå àéðå îàåúå îùîø äîùîøú áàåúä ùáú ...

(a)

Clarification: If the owner of the leftover is a Kohen, he himself may bring it and retain the skin - even though he does not belong to the particular Mishmar that is serving that week ...

ãäëé úðéà 'îðéï ìëäï ùáà åî÷øéá ÷øáðåúéå áëì òú åáëì ùòä ùéøöä? ...

(b)

Source: Because so we learned in a Beraisa - From where do we know that a Kohen who comes with his own Korbanos may bring them whenever he wishes? ...

ú"ì "åáà áëì àåú ðôùå åùøú": áá"÷ áùéìäé äâåæì ÷îà (ãó ÷è:). ìùåï øù"é.

1.

Source: Therefore the Torah writes "u'Ba be'Chol Avas Nafsho ve'Sheireis" (in Perek ha'Gozel Kama, Bava Kama, Daf 109b) - The wording of Rashi.

11)

TOSFOS DH AVAL LIFNEI KAPARAH DIVREI HA'KOL HU ATZMO YIKAREV ASHAM

úåñ' ã"ä àáì ìôðé ëôøä ã"ä äåà òöîå é÷øá àùí

(Summary: Tosfos draws a distinction between before the Kaparah and after the Kaparah regarding a Temuras Asham Nekeivah.)

åà"ú, åëé òãéó äàé åìã îàéîéä, ãàéìå àéîéä àéðä ÷øéáä àùí ...

(a)

Question: Is this V'lad better than its mother, who is not brought as an Asham ...

ãäìëä ìîùä îñéðé ãúîåøú àùí àéðä ÷øéáä àùí?

1.

Reason: Since it is Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai that a Temuras Asham is not brought as an Asham?

åé"ì, ãùîà ñáéøà ìéä ãúîåøú àùí, ëéåï ãð÷áä äéà, ùôéø ãîéä ÷øéáä àùí ìôðé ëôøä ...

(b)

Answer: Perhaps he (Rabah bar Avuhah) that the proceeds of a Temuras Asham that is a Nekeivah - before the Kaparah, are brought as an Asham.

àáì ìàçø ëôøä ãáøé äëì äåà òöîå ÷øá òåìä ...

1.

Answer (cont.): Though after the Kaparah everyone agrees that it itself is brought as an Olah.

ùäúîåøä ðîé ÷àé ìòåìä ñ"ì.

2.

Reason: Since he holds that the Temurah also stands to be brought as an Olah.

12)

TOSFOS DH EIN ADAM MISKAPER B'DAVAR HA'BA B'AVEIRAH

úåñ' ã"ä àéï àãí îúëôø áãáø äáà áòáéøä

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the statement and elaborates.)

åúîåøä áàä áòáéøä äéà - ùòáø òì "ìà éçìéôðå" ...

(a)

Clarification: And a Temurah is 'Ba'ah ba'Aveirah' - since he transgressed "Lo Yachlifenu".

åàó òì âá ãúîåøú òåìä åùìîéí ÷øéáä ...

(b)

Implied Question: And even though the Temurah of an Olah and a Shelamim are brought ...

äðäå ìàå ìëôøä àúééï, àìà ãåøåï áòìîà äåà. ìùåï øù"é.

1.

Answer: They do not come to atone, but merely as a gift (the wording of Rashi).

13)

TOSFOS DH V'LAD SHEINI EINO KAREV

úåñ' ã"ä åìã ùðé àéðå ÷øá

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the statement and explains the question.)

åìã úîåøä ëåìã ùðé ãîé.

(a)

Clarification: The V'lad of a Temurah is considered a V'lad Sheini.

åä÷ùä îåøé äøî"ø, îàé ÷ôøéê...

(b)

Question: Tosfos' Rebbe ha'Rav Mordechai queries the Gemara's Kashya ...

åäà øáé éäåùò á"ì àìéáà ãøáé ùîòåï ÷àîø, åôìéâé øáðï òìéä - ã'ëì åìãåú ÷øáé òã ñåó äòåìí'?

1.

Question: Bearing in mind that Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi is speaking according to Rebbi Shimon, and the Rabbanan disagree with him and say that 'All the V'lados until the end of time, are brought?

åúéøõ, ãôøéê àäà ã÷àîø 'ã"ä', åàôéìå ìø' àìéòæø, åàéäå ã÷àîø àôéìå ìøáðï 'åìã øàùåï ÷øá, åìã ùðé àéðå ÷øá' ...

(c)

Answer: The Kashya is on what he says 'Divrei ha'Kol', even according to Rebbi Eliezer, who says that, even according to the Rabbanan 'the first V'lad is brought, but not the second'.

àìîà âøò ùðé îøàùåï, åà"ë, ìø' àìéòæø ãàîø áîúðé' åìã øàùåï àéðå ÷øá, ë"ù ùðé.

1.

Answer (cont.): From which we see thar the second V'lad is inferior to the second one.

14)

TOSFOS DH AVAL GABEI ASHAM D'LEKA SHEM OLAH AL IMO

úåñ' ã"ä àáì âáé àùí ãìéëà ùí òåìä òì àîå

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies according to which reason of Rashi - on Daf 19a - this goes.)

äëà ìà îöé ìôøåùé ã'ìéëà ùí òåìä òì àîå áòåìú äòåó' ...

(a)

Refuted Explanation: Here we cannot ascribe the reason to the fact that 'the status of Olah is not applicable to its mother by Olas ha'Of' ...

ãäà äåé ùí òåìä òì àîå áòåìú äòåó.

1.

Reason: Since the status of Olah is indeed applicable to its mother by Olas ha'Of.

àìà ä"ô 'úçéìú ä÷ãù ãàéîéä ìàå ìùí òåìä àé÷ãéù' ...

(b)

Authentic Explanation: But the reason is because 'Its mother was not initially sanctified as an Olah' ...

ãäà ìùí àùí äå÷ãù.

1.

Reason: But as an Asham.

15)

TOSFOS DH BI'DEMEIHEN IN B'ATZMAN LO

úåñ' ã"ä áãîéäï àéï áòöîï ìà

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the Gemara's Kashya.)

åúéîä ìîåøé äøî"ø, îàé ÷ôøéê, äééðå èòîà ãäëà 'äåà òöîå ìà' - îùåí ãàúé ìàéçìåôé, ëãàéúà ìòéì ...

(a)

Question: Tosfos' Rebbe ha'Rav Mordechai asked - What is the Gemara asking, considering that the reason here that 'it itself cannot be brought is because one may come to confuse them, as the Gemara explained earlier (See Olas Shlomoh) ...

åäàé èòîà ìà ùééê á'îôøéù ð÷áä ìàùí'

1.

Question (cont.): And that reason is not applicable by 'Mafrish Nekeivah le'Asham'.

åúé', ãð"ì ãìà àîø äðé èòîé ãìòéì àìà ìâáé äúîåøä òöîå, àáì äåìãéù ìå ãçééú àîå, åäéëé ÷àîøú á'îôøéù ð÷áä ìàùí', ãáðä òöîä é÷øá òåìä?

(b)

Answer: And he answered that it would seem that the Gemara only gave the reasons mentioned earlier with regard to the Temurah itself, but the V'lad is rejected with its mother; so how can the Gemara say by 'Mafrish Nekeivah le'Asham' that the V'lad itself is brought as an Olah?

åä"ð àðå ö"ì ìòéì áôéø÷éï (ãö"ì) ãôøéê îäàé îùðä ãäëà ìø"à ãàîø 'äîôøéù ð÷áä ìòåìä åéìãä' äåà òöîå é÷øá òåìä.

(c)

Precedent: And the same explanation we need to give earlier in the Perek, when the Gemara asks (on Daf 18b) from this Mishnah on Rebbi Eliezer, who said in the case of 'ha'Mafrish Nekeivah le'Olah ve'Yaldah' that it itself is brought as an Olah.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF