1)

TOSFOS DH AMAR REBBI YITZCHAK BAR YOSEF AMAR REBBI YOCHANAN HA'KOL MODIM ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä àîø ø' éöç÷ áø éåñó àîø ø' éåçðï äëì îåãéí ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the statements of Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yossi according to Rebbi Yitzchak bar Yosef ... .)

ëê äéà äùéèä ìø' éöç÷ áø éåñó ...

(a)

Clarification: This is how Rebbi Yitzchak bar Yosef learns ...

ãèòîà ãø"î ìàå îùåí 'úôåñ ìùåï øàùåï' ...

(b)

Rebbi Meir: Rebbi Meir's reason is not because of 'T'fos Lashon Rishon' ...

åàé àîø 'úîåøú òåìä åùìîéí' àôé' ø"î îåãä ãúøåééäå çééìé- åìà ôìéâ ø"î àìà á'úîåøú òåìä úîåøú ùìîéí' ëãîôøù ...

1.

Rebbi Meir (cont.): And that if he says 'Temuras Olah u'Shelamim', even Rebbi Meir will concede that both take effect - and he only argues by 'Temuras Olah Temuras Shelamim' as he explains ...

îãäåä ìéä ìîéîø 'úîåøú òåìä åùìîéí' ...

2.

Reason: Since he ought otherwise to have said 'Temuras Olah u'Shelamim' ...

'åø' éåñé ñáø 'àé àîéðà "úîåøú òåìä åùìîéí", ÷ãåùä åàéðä ÷øéáä' - ëìåîø ìà éåëì ìä÷øéáä, ãçöé' äåé úîåøú òåìä åçöéä äåé úîåøú ùìîéí ...

(c)

Rebbi Yossi: Whereas Rebbi Yossi holds that he (the owner) thinks 'If I say "Temuras Olah u'Shelamim" it will be Kadosh but cannot be brought on the Mizbe'ach' - that he will not be able to bring it because it is half a Temuras Olah and half a Temuras Shelamim ...

àéîà "úîåøú òåìä úîåøú ùìîéí" åú÷øá' ...

1.

Rebbi Yossi (cont.): I will say "Temuras Olah Temuras Shelamim", And I will be able to bring it' ...

ìôéëê úçåì à'úøåééäå, ãìùðéäí ðúëååï.

2.

Rebbi Yossi (concl.): That is why it takes effect on both of them - since he has both of them in mind.

2)

TOSFOS DH HA'OMER BEHEIMAH ZU CHETZYAH TEMURAS OLAH V'CHETZYAH TEMURAS SHELAMIM KULAH TIKAREV OLAH DIVREI REBBI MEIR

úåñ' ã"ä äàåîø áäîä æå çöéä úîåøú òåìä çöéä úîåøú ùìîéí ëåìä úé÷øá òåìä ãáøé ø"î

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles this with Rebbi Yitzchak bar Yosef and elaborates.)

åà"ú, ìøáé éöç÷ áø éåñó, ãàîø èòîà ãø"î 'îãäåä ìéä ìîéîø ... ' åìà îùåí 'úôåñ ìùåï øàùåï' ...

(a)

Question #1: According to Rebbi Yitzchak bar Yosef (See previous Dibur) who says that Rebbi Meir's reason is because of 'mi'de'Havah leih Lemeimar ... ' (See previous Dibur), and not because of 'T'fos Lashon Rishon' ...

äëà ìà ùééê ìîéîø 'îãäåä ìéä ìîéîø', åà"ë àîàé ú÷øá òåìä?

1.

Question #1 (cont.): Here 'mi'de'Havah leih Lemeimar' is not applicable, so why should it be brought as an Olah?

åëï áîúðé' ã÷úðé 'äéà ùìîéí ååìãä òåìä', ãàîø ø"î 'äøé æä åìã ùìîéí', ä"ð ìà ùééê ìîéîø 'îãäåä ìéä ìîéîø'?

(b)

Question #2: Likewise in the Mishnah, where it says 'Hi Shelamim u'Veladah Olah', and where Rebbi Meir rules that it is a V'lad Shelamim, it is not applicable either?

åé"ì, ããå÷à ëé àîø 'úîåøú òåìä úîåøú ùìîéí', ãîùîò ãñåúø ãáøéå, ùí åãàé àðå öøéëéï ìäàé èòí 'îãäåä ìéä ìîéîø' ...

(c)

Answer: It is specifically where he said 'Temuras Olah, Temuras Shelamim', which appears contradictory, that we need to come on to the reason of 'mi'de'Havah leih Lemeimar' ...

ãàé ìàå äàé èòîà, ä"à ìùðéäí ðúëååï, ãàéï ãøê àãí ìñúåø ãáøéå ë"ë ...

1.

Reason: Because, if not for that reason, we would have thought that he had both in mind, since it is not human nature to speak in such contradictory terms ...

ìôéëê àðå öøéëéï ìäàé èòîà ã'îãäåä ìéä ìîéîø "úîåøú òåìä åùìîéí'' åàîø "úîåøú òåìä úîåøú ùìîéí", ãòúå ùúçåì æå åàç"ë úçåì æå ...

(d)

Answer (cont.): That is why we need the reason of 'He ought to have said "Temuras Olah u'Shelamim", and instead said "Temuras Olah, Temuras Shelamim", hye has the intention that first one takes effect, then the other ...

àáì îúðé' ãúøé âåôéï ðéðäå, åàéï æå ñúéøä - ãàéëà ìîéîø ãòúå à'úøåééäå ...

1.

Answer (cont.): Whereas in our Mishnah, where they are two different entities, there is no contradiction - and one can say that his intention is that both of them should take effect.

åëï äëà ðîé àéï æå ñúéøä - ëéåï ãîôøù 'çöééï', àéï àðå öøéëéï ìäàé èòîà ã'îãäåä ìéä ìîéîø', ãáìàå äëé ðîé àéëà ìîéîø ããòúéä à'úøåééäå, åîéã ùàîø 'çöéä úîåøú òåìä', çééìà à'ëåìä.

2.

Precedent #1: And in our case too, where there is no contradiction - since he specifically states 'half of them', we do not need the reason of 'mi'de'Havah leih Lemeimar', since without it, one can say that his mind is on both of them - and as soon as he says 'Chetzyah Temuras Olah', it takes effect on the entire animal.

åëï áîúðé', îéã ùàîø 'äéà ùìîéí', çééìà ÷ãåùä à'åìã.

3.

Precedent #2: And similarly in our Mishnah, as soon as he says 'Hi Shelamim, the Kedushah takes effect on the V'lad.

åö"ò áô"á ãæáçéí (ãó ì:) âáé 'ëæéú åëæéú?

(e)

Query: And the Sugya of 'ke'Zayis u'ke'Zayis' in Zevachim (Daf 30b) needs to be looked into.

åà"ú, äéëé ÷àîø ø"î 'ëåìä úé÷øá òåìä', äà ø"î ëø' éäåãä ñáéøà ìéä áô"÷ (ìòéì éà:) - ãàí àîø 'øâìä ùì æå òåìä, àéï ëåìä òåìä'?

(f)

Question: How can Rebbi Meir say that 'It is brought as al Olah', seeing as in the first Perek (Daf 11b) he concurs with Rebbi Yehudah there, who says 'Raglah shel Zu Olah, Ein Kulah Olah'?

åàé îùåí ãîåãä ø' éäåãä áãáø ùäðùîä úìåéä áå -'åçöéä' äééðå äðùîä úìåéä áä äéà ...

(g)

Refuted Answer: And if it is because Rebbi Yehudah concedes by a part of the animal on which its life depends - and 'Chetzyah' is in that category ...

äà àîø áô"÷ (ùí.) ãäðé îéìé úçìú ä÷ãù, àáì úîåøä ìà çééìà àôéìå áãáø ùäðùîä úìåéä áå ...

1.

Refutation: The Gemara says in the first Perek (Ibid.) that that speaks specifically by the initial Hekdesh, but regarding Temurah, it does not take effect even by a part of the animal on which its life depends ...

ã'àéï îîéøéï àéáøéï áùìîéí'.

2.

Reason: Since 'One cannot declare limbs a Temurah on a whole animal'.

åé"ì, ãø"î ñáø ìä ëååúéä áçãà åôìéâ òìéä áçãà ...

(h)

Answer #1: Rebbi Meir holds like him in one point but argues with him in another ...

ñáø ìä ëååúéä - ãàí àîø 'øâìä ùì æå òåìä', àéï ëåìä òåìä ...

1.

Answer #1 (cont.): He holds like him - inasmuch as, if one declared 'Raglah shel Zu Olah', the entire animal is not an Olah ...

åôìéâ òìéä - ãëé äéëé ãáúçìú ä÷ãù çééìà à'ëåìä áãáø ùäðùîä úìåéä áå, äëé ðîé ëé àîø úîåøä à'àáø ùäðùîä úìåéä áå çééìà à'ëåìä ...

2.

Answer #1 (cont.): But he argues with him - in that, just as by the initial Hekdesh the Hekdesh on a limb on which the animal's life depends takes effect on the entire animal, so too is the Din by a Temurah ...

ëø' éåñé, ãîãîä úîåøä ìúçìú ä÷ãù ...

(i)

Precedent: Like Rebbi Yossi, who compares Temurah to the initial Hekdesh ...

ëãúðï áô"÷ (ùí é.) 'à"ø éåñé, åäìà áîå÷ãùéï äàåîø "øâìä ùì æå òåìä", ëåìä òåìä, àó ëùàîø "øâìä ùì æå úçú æå", úäà ëåìä úîåøä úçúéä ...

1.

Source: As the Mishnah (Ibid., Daf 10a), citing Rebbi Yossi, states 'Just as we find that someone who declares "Raglah shel Zu Olah", all of it is an Olah, so too, if someone declares "Raglah shel Zu Tachas Zu", the whole of it is a Temurah in its place' ...

ä"ð ñáéøà ìéä ìø"î - ãëé äéëé ãçééì úçìú ä÷ãù à'ëåìä áãáø ùäðùîä úìåéä áå, äëé ðîé úçåì úîåøä à'ëåìä ...

(j)

Answer #1 (cont.): And tis too, is how Rebbi Meir takes on - that just as the beginning of Hekdesh takes effect on the entire animal - regarding a limb on which the animal's life depends, so too will Temurah take effect on the entire animal.

åø' éäåãä ñáø ãàéï úîåøä çìä à'àáø ëìì, àôéìå áàáø ùäðùîä úìåéä áå - àó òì âá ãáúçìú ä÷ãù îåãä áãáø ùäðùîä úìåéä áå.

1.

Answer #1 (concl.): Whereas according to Rebbi Yehudah, Temurah does not take effect on a limb at all, even it the life of the animal depends on it - even though he concedes that at the beginning of Hekdesh it does.

åèòí - ëãôé' áô"÷ (ãó éà.) àå îùåí ããøéù "áäîä" "ááäîä" ...

(k)

Reason #1: And the reason is - as Tosfos explained in the first Perek (Daf 11a, DH 'Ha Mani') either because he Darshens "Beheimah" "Beheimah"

àå îùåí ã'î÷éù úîåøä ìîòùø - îä îòùø ÷øáï éçéã ... '.

(l)

Reason #2: Or because he compares Temurah to Ma'aser - 'Just as Ma'aser is a Korban Yachid ... '.

àé ðîé é"ì ãëé àîø 'çöéä', àôéìå ø' éäåãä îåãä ...

(m)

Answer #2: Alternatively, when the owner declares 'Chetzyah', even Rebbi Yehudah will concede ...

ãéù ìçì÷ áéï çöéä ìàáø ùäðùîä úìåéä áå ...

1.

Reason: Because one can draw a distinction between Chetzyah and a limb on which the animal's life depends ...

ãäëé ðîé àðå öøéëéï ìçì÷ ìøáé éåñé, ãàîø 'åìà ùìéîéï áäï', åáçöéä îåãä ãîéîø, ëàùø àôøù áñîåê, áòæøú äùí.

2.

Precedent: Since we must make a similar distinction according to Rebbi Yossi, who says 'And not whole animals on them (limbs), yet he concedes that one can declare a Temurah on Chetzyah, as Tosfos will explain shortly ,be'Ezras Hash-m.

3)

TOSFOS DH REBBI YOSSI OMER TAMUS

úåñ' ã"ä øáé éåñé àåîø úîåú

(Summary: Tosfos disagrees with Rashi's explanation.)

ôéøù"é ã'àó áâîø ãáøéå àãí ðúôñ', åàéäå àéðå îçåééá çèàú; äìëê úîåú.

(a)

Refuted Explanation: Rashi explains that 'A person is also taken to task on the end of his statement', and he is not Chayav a Chatas; hence it must die.

å÷ùä, äéëé çééìà ÷ãåùú çèàú òìéä ëìì - äàîø áðãøéí (ãó å.) ãàôéìå àîø òì äáäîä 'äøé æå çèàú', àí àéðå îçåééá çèàú, ìà àîø ëìåí?

(b)

Refutation: How can the Kedushah of a Chatas take effect at all - when the Gemara in Nedarim (Daf 6a) says that 'Even if someone who is not Chayav a Chatas declares on an animal "Harei Zu Chatas", he has said nothing'?

ìôéëê ôø"é ãäëà îééøé ãàîø 'åçöéä úîåøú çèàú' ...

(c) Refutation #2: Therefore the Ri explains that it speaks here where he said 've'Chetzyah Temuras Chatas' ...

åä"â áúåñô' [ô"â ò"ù] 'áäîä æå çöéä æå úçú òåìä åçöéä æå úçú çèàú", úé÷øá òåìä; ø' éåñé àåîø úîåú'.

(d)

Proof: And that is indeed the text in the Tosefta (Perek 3, see inside) 'Beheimah Zu Chetzyah Tachas Olah ve'Chetzyah Tachas Chatas, Tikarev Olah; Rebbi Yossi Omer Tamus'.

åèòí ãø' éåñé îùåí ãùðéäí çééìé, åëéåï ãàéëà òìéå úîåøú çèàú, ìîéúä àæìà.

(e)

Reason: Rebbi Yossi's reason is because both take effect, and since there is on it the status of Temuras Chatas, it must die.

4)

TOSFOS DH MAHU DE'SEIMA N'HI D'HI LO KARVAH TEMURASAH TIKAREV

úåñ' ã"ä îäå ãúéîà ðäé ãäéà ìà ÷øáä úîåøúä úé÷øá

(Summary: Tosfos explains the Havah Amina and reconciles it with the Sugya in the first Perek.)

åà"ú, äéëé ñ"ã ìåîø ëï, ãçùéá úîåøä èôé îääéà ãàúà îçîúéä?

(a)

Question: How can one even think to say that the Temurah is stronger than the animal that it comes to replace?

åé"ì, ãîäå ãúéîà ãàéï ãòúéä ùúäà äúîåøä çöéä òåìä åçöéä ùìîéí, àìà à'ãòúà ùúäà ëåìä úîåøä úçú çöéä ùì òåìä àå úçú çöéä ùì ùìîéí, åäåé ÷øéáä.

(b)

Answer: Because we would have thought that he does not intend the animal to be half Olah, half Shelamim, but that it should be a complete Temurah instead of either the half Olah or the half Shelamim - and is therefore brought on the Mizbe'ach.

åàó òì âá ãáô"÷ (ìòéì é.) ÷àîø øáé éåñé ã'àéï îîéøéï áäîä ùìéîä áàáøéí' - ëãúðï 'åìà ùìîéí áäï áçöéä' ...

(c)

Implied Question: And even though in the first Perek (Daf 10a) Rebbi Yossi said that 'One cannot declare a complete animal a Temurah on limbs' - as the Mishnah says 've'Lo Shelamim bahen be'Chetzyah' ...

îåãä ãàí àîø 'áäîä æå ùì çåìéï úçú çöéä ùì æå', ãçééìà ...

1.

Answer: He concedes that if one says 'Beheimah Zu shel Chulin Tachas Chetzyah shel Zu' it takes effect ...

åäééðå äàé ãôøéùéú ìòéì ãöøéê ìçì÷ áéï çöéä ìùàø àéáøéí.

2.

Answer (continued): One needs to differentiate between half of it (a whole animal) and other limbs.

åîäå ãúéîà ãú÷øá úîåøúä, àó òì âá ãäéà ìà ÷øéáä - ÷î"ì ãìà ÷øéáä ...

(d)

Conclusion: Consequently. We would have thought that its Temurah is brought even though it is not - therefore it teaches that it is not ...

ëéåï ãîëç ÷ãåùä ãçåéä ÷à àúééà.

(e)

Reason: Since it comes from a rejected Kedushah.

26b----------------------------------------26b

5)

TOSFOS DH SH'MA MINAH MI'DE'REBBI YOCHANAN T'LAS SH'MA MINAH YESH DICHUY B'DAMIM

úåñ' ã"ä ùîò îéðä îãø' éåçðï úìú ù"î éù ãéçåé áãîéí

(Summary: Tosfos explains an alternative text.)

åéù ñôøéí ãâøñé 'ù"î ÷ãåùú ãîéí îãçä'.

(a)

Alternative Text: There are texts read 'Sh'ma Minah Kedushas Damim Madcheh'.

åé"î îãçä àú äúîåøä ãàéðä ÷øéáä - ëãàîø 'åúîåøúä ëéåöà áä.

(b)

Refuted Explanation: Some commentaries explain that it pushes away the Temurah so that it cannot be brought - as it says 'And its Temurah is like it'.

åìà ðøàä, ùäøé áô' áúøà ãëøéúåú (ãó ëæ:) âáé 'îèîà î÷ãù òùéø ùäôøéù ÷ï ìëáùúå, åäòðé, äåàéì åðãçä éãçä' ...

1.

Introduction to Refutation: This is not correct however, since in the last Perek in Kerisus (Daf 27b) in connection with 'A wealthy Metamei Mikdash who designated birds for his lamb, and then became poor, the Gemara rules that, since it was rejected, it remains rejected ...

å÷àîø òìä (ãó ëç.) 'ù"î úìú: ù"î ÷ãåùú ãîéí îãçä' ...

2.

Introduction to Refutation (cont.): And the Gemara there (on Daf 28a) concludes 'Sh'ma Minah T'las: Sh'ma Minah Kedushas Damim Madcheh' ...

åäúí ìéëà ìôøåùé îãçä äúîåøä, ãäà àéï úîåøä áòåôåú?

3.

Refutation: And one cannot explain there that it pushes away the Temurah, since there is no Temurah by birds.

àìà åãàé äëé ôéøåùà - ëîå 'éù ãéçåé áãîéí', ëìåîø àôéìå áãáø ùàéï áå àìà ÷ãåùú ãîéí.

(c)

Authentic Explanation: The explanation must therefore be the same as that of 'Yesh Dichuy be'Damim' - meaning even something that is only subject to Kedushas Damim.

åà"ú, î"î àéðå îúåøõ äúí, ãäà ìà ùééëà ÷ãåùú ãîéí áòåôåú, ãäà ÷ééîà ìï (îðçåú ÷:) ã'àéï ìòåôåú ôãéåï'?

(d)

Question: However, the Gemara there remains unanswered, seeing as Kedushas Damim too, does not apply by birds, since we Pasken (in Menachos, Daf 100b) that 'Birds are not subject to Pidyon'?

é"ì, ãäúí ä"ô 'ù"î éù ãéçåé àôéìå áãáø ãìéú áéä ÷ãåùú äâåó', åä"ä àôéìå ÷ãåùú ãîéí àéï áä ...

1.

Answer: What the Gemara there means is 'A proof that there is Dichuy even by something that is subject to Kedushas ha'Guf - even though it is not subject to Kedushas Damim either

ëääéà ã'îèîà î÷ãù òùéø ùäôøéù ÷ï ... '.

2.

Precedent: Like the case of Metamei Mikdash Ashir who designated birds ... '.

åà"ú, îàé ÷î"ì ø' éåçðï? ëåìäå ðîé ùîòéðï áôø÷ îé ùäéä èîà (ôñçéí ãó öç.) òì 'äîôøéù ð÷áä ìôñçå'; å÷àîø òìä 'ù"î úìú ... ' - åà"ë, îàé ÷î"ì ø' éåçðï?

(e)

Question: What is Rebbi Yochanan coming to teach us? We learn all three things in Perek Mi she'Hayah Tamei, (Pesachim, Daf 98a) in connection with 'Someone who designates a Nekeivah for his Pesach', when the Gemara says 'Sh'ma Minah T'las ... ', so what is Rebbi Yochanan teaching us?

åé"ì, îùåí ãôìéâé úðàé ááòìé çééí àé ðãçéï àé ìà, åàùîåòé' ãø' éåçðï àéú ìéä ëî"ã 'áòìé çééí ðãçéï'.

1.

Answer: Because Tana'im argue as to whether live animals can be rejected or not, and he is concurring with the opinion that they can.

åà"ú, îàé ÷àîø 'ù"î éù ãéçåé áãîéí' å'ù"î ãéçåé ãîòé÷øà äåé ãéçåé' - ëéåï ãùîòéðï 'ãéçåé îòé÷øà' äééðå ÷ãåùú ãîéí?

(f)

Question: Why does he say both 'Sh'ma Minah Yesh Dichuy be'Damim' and 'Sh'ma Minah Dichuy Me'ikara havi Dichuy' - seeing as once we know 'Dichuy Meikara', it is Kedsushas Damim?

åé"ì, ãàùëçðà ùôéø ãéçåé îòé÷øà ã÷ãéù ÷ãåùú äâåó ...

1.

Answer: We do find cases of Dichuy Me'ikara that are Kadosh Kedushas ha'Guf, such as ...

ëâåï îåîø ùàëì çìá åäôøéù ÷øáï òìéå åçæø áå - ãäåé ãéçåé îòé÷øå å÷ãåù ÷ãåùú äâåó, ùäøé àéï äãéçåé òì éãé ÷øáï.

2.

Example #1: A Mumar (who ate Cheilev, designated a Korban on it and did Teshuvah - which is Dichuy Me'ikara and at the same time, Kadoshy Kedushas ha'Guf, seeing as the Dichuy did not come about on account of the Korban itself.

àé ðîé, ëääéà ãôø÷ äúòøåáåú (æáçéí ãó òç.) ãúðï 'ãí ùðúòøá áîéí, àí éù áå îøàä ãí, ëùø' ...

3.

Example #2: Alternatively, like the case in Perek ha'Ta'aruvos (Zevachim, 78a) where, commenting on the Mishnah 'Blood (of a Korban) that became mixed up with water, is Kasher as long as it has the appearance of blood' ...

åãéé÷ òìä áâî' 'à"ø çééà áø àáà à"ø éåçðï "ìà ùðå àìà ùðôìå îéí ìúåê ãí, àáì àí ðôì ãí ìúåê îéí, øàùåï øàùåï áèì ...

4.

Example #2 (cont.): Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan comments 'That speaks specifically where the water falls into the blood, but where the blood falls into the water, it becomes Bateil drop by drop ...

åàó òì âá ãéù áå îøàä ãí - åëä"â îöéðå ãéçåé îòé÷øå á÷ãåùú äâåó.

5.

Example #2 (concl.): Even if it still has the appearance of blood ...

åà"ú, ëéåï ãàéú ìéä ìø' éåçðï 'ãéçåé îòé÷øå äåé ãçåé', àîàé ð÷è ø' éåçðï âåôéä áô"÷ ãæáçéí (ãó éá:) åáôø÷ ðâîø äãéï (ñðäãøéï ãó îæ.) 'àëì çìá åäôøéù ÷øáï åäîéø ãú åçæø, äåàéì åðãçä éãçä' ...

(g)

Introduction to Question: Since Rebbi Yochanan holds 'Dichuy Me'ikara havi Dichuy', why does he himself say in the first Perek of Zevachim (Daf 12b) and in Perek Nigmar ha'Din (Sanhedrin, 47a) - that if someone ate Cheilev, designated a Korban, converted and did Teshuvah 'Ho'il ve'Nidcheh Yidacheh' ...

ðéîà 'àëì çìá åäîéø ãú åäôøéù ÷øáï' - åàùîòéðï øáåúà èôé, ãàôé' 'ãçåé îòé÷øå äåé ãçåé'?

1.

Question: Why did he not rather present a case where he ate Cheilev, converted and then designated a Korban, seeing as he even holds 'Dichuy Me'ikara havi Dichuy'?

åé"ì, îùåí àéãê îéìúà ãø' éåçðï, ãàîø äúí 'àëì çìá åäôøéù ÷øáï åðùúèä åçæø åðùúôä', ð÷è ðîé äëé - ãáääåà ìà îöé ìîéð÷è 'ðùúèä åäôøéù ÷øáï', ãùåèä àéï áäôøùúå ëìåí.

2.

Answer: Due to Rebbi Yochanan's other statement there - that 'If someone ate Cheilev, designated a Korban, became insane and recovered', it states the above case in this manner - because in the latter case it could not have (inverted the order and stated that) 'he became insane and then designated a Korban', since the designation of a Shoteh is invalid.

åà"ú, äéëé îöéðå ìîéîø ãøáé éåçðï àéú ìéä 'ãéçåé îòé÷øå äåé ãéçåé' - äàîø áô' ùðé ùòéøé (éåîà ãó ñã.) ãèòîà ãî"ã ã'áòìé çééí àéðï ðãçéï' ãéìéó îîçåñø æîï; åàéãê îçåñø æîï ìà àçæé, äà àçæé ...

(h)

Introduction to Question: How can we say that Rebbi Yochanan holds 'Dichuy Me'ikara havi Dichuy' - seeing as in Perek Sh'nei Se'irei (Yoma, Daf 64a) the Gemara gives the reason of those who hold 'Ba'alei Chayim Einan Nidachin' as the fact that we learn it from Mechusar Z'man; and their disputants hold that whereas a Mechusar Z'man was never fit, Ba'alei-Chayim were ...

îùîò ãäà ã÷ñáø ã'áòìé çééí ðãçéï' ñ"ì ãàéï ãçéä àìà äéëà ãàçæé îòé÷øå ...

1.

Introduction to Question (cont.): Implying that what he holds that 'Ba'alei-Chayim Nidachim' only applies where they were unfit to begin with ...

åà"ë îðà ìéä ã'ãéçåé îòé÷øå äåé ãéçåé'?

2.

Question: If so, from where does he know that 'Dichuy Me'ikara havi Dichuy'?

åé"ì, ãéù ùí ùéèä àçøú ãî"ã ãñ"ì ã'áòìé çééí àéðï ðãçéï' éìéó î÷øà ã"îåí áí ìà éøöå", åìà éìôéðï ìéä îîçåñø æîï ...

3.

Answer: There is another explanation there that the one who holds 'Ba'alei chayim Ein Nidachin' learns it from the Pasuk "Mum bam Lo Yeratzu", and not from Mechusar Z'man ...

åìô"æ îöéðå ìîéîø ãàéú ìéä 'ãçåé îòé÷øå äåé ãçåé' - åäà ã÷àîø äúí 'îçåñø æîï ìà àéçæé', äééðå î÷îé ãäåä éãò ÷øà ã"îåí áí".

4.

Conclusion: That being the case, we can say that he holds Dichuy Me'ikara havi Dichuy' - and when the Gemara says there 'Mechuser Z'man Lo Ichzi', that speaks before it knew about the Pasuk "Mum Bam".

åà"ú, äøé ääéà ãô' áúøà ãëøéúåú (ãó ëæ: åëç.) ãàîø øáé àåùòéà 'îèîà î÷ãù òùéø ùäôøéù ÷ï ìëáùúå åäòðé, äåàéì åðãçä éãçä' å÷àîø òìä 'ù"î úìú ... ' ëé äëà ...

(i)

Introduction to Questions: The case in the last Perek of Kerisus (Daf 27b & 28a), where Rebbi Oshaya says that, in the case of a rich Tamei Mikdash who designated birds for his lamb and became poor - ho'il ve'Nidcheh Yidacheh', and the Gemara comments there 'Sh'ma Minah T'las ... ', like it does here ...

åôøéê òìä îø"ù ã÷àîø 'äîôøéù ð÷áä ìôñçå åéìãä æëø, äåà òöîå ÷øá ôñç' - åðéîà 'äåàéì åðãçä éãçä'? åäúí ÷ùä èåáà ...

1.

Introduction to Questions (cont.): And the Gemara queries him from Rebbi Shimon, who says in the case where 'Someone designates a Nekeivah for his Pesach and it gives birth to a Zachar, that it itself is brought as a Pesach' - Why do we not say there too 'Ho'il ve'Nidcheh Yidacheh'? This gives rise to many questions ...

çãà, à'ãôøéê ìøáé àåùòéà, ðôøåê ðîé àîéìúà ãø' éåçðï?

2.

Question #1: Firstly, why does it ask on Rebbi Oshaya and not on Rebbi Yochanan?

åòåã, àãîåúéá ìéä îø"ù, ðñééòéä îøáðï ãôìéâé òìéä ãø"ù, åàîøå 'úøòä òã ùúñúàá åúîëø, åéáéà áãîéä ôñç' ...

3.

Question #2: Secondly, instead of querying him from Rebbi Shimon, why not support him from the Rabbanan, who argue with Rebbi Shimon, and who say 'Let it graze until it obtains a blemish, and it is the sold and the proceeds used for to purchase a Pesach' ...

åðäé ðîé ãäëé ÷îùðé, î"î îä ñ"ã ãî÷ùä? åëé ìà äåä éãò ùéúøõ ìå ëï?

4.

Question #2 (cont.): Granted, that is what the Gemara answers, but what did the Maksheh think? Why did he not know that that is what the Gemara would answer?

åòåã, à'ãôøéê îø"ù ãáøééúà, ðôøåê îø"à ãîúðé' ãôéø÷éï ãìòéì åàìå ÷ãùéí (ãó éç:) ãúðï áäãéà 'äîôøéù ð÷áä ìòåìúå åéìãä æëø, éøòä ... ' øáé àìéòæø àåîø, "äåà òöîå é÷øá òåìä" '?

5.

Question #3: And thirdly, why does it ask from Rebbi Shimon in a Beraisa and not from Rebbi Eliezer in the Mishnah in the previous Perek 've'Eilu Kodshim' (Daf 18b), where (in a similar same case) of 'Someone who designates a Nekeivah for his Olah ... ', in reply to the Tana Kama's 'Yir'eh', he rules 'Hu Atzmo Yikarev Olah'?

åé"ì, ãñ"ì ìî÷ùä ãèòîà ãø"ù ãàîø á'îôøéù ð÷áä ìôñçå åéìãä æëø, ãäåà òöîå ÷øá ôñç' - äééðå îùåí ãàæéì ìèòîéä ãàîø áô' åàìå ÷ãùéí (ãó éè:) âáé ääéà ãúðï 'äîôøéù ð÷áä ìàùí, éøòä ... '; ø"ù àåîø "úîëø ùìà áîåí" ...

(j)

Answer: The Maksheh holds that Rebbi Shimon, who says 'ha'Mafrish Nekeivah le'Pischo ... Hu Atzmo Karev Pesach' is following his reasoning (above) in Perek 'Eilu Kodshim, where, in connection with 'ha'Mafrish Nekeivah le'Asham', in reply to the Tana Kama's 'Yir'eh', he rules 'Timacher she'Lo be'Mum' (See Masores ha'Shas) ...

åôøéê áâî' òìä 'ìîä ìé úñúàá? úîëø ùìà áîåí, ãëéåï ãìà çæé ìîéìúéä äééðå îåîå?' åîùðé 'à"ø éäåãä àîø øá äééðå èòîà ãàîø "îâå ãðçúà ìä ÷ãåùú ãîéí ðçúà ìä ÷ãåùú äâåó" ' ...

1.

Answer (cont.): The Gemara asks there why the Tana Kama needs 'Yir'eh'? Why not simply sell it without a Mum, because, the fact that it is not fit for its normal usage is in itself a Mum? And Rav answers - because 'Since Kedushas Damim takes effect on it, so does Kedushas ha'Guf' ...

åèòîà ãø"ù îôøù ãñáø ãëì îéãé ãìà çæé ìâåôéä, ìà ðçúà ìä ÷ãåùú äâåó ...

2.

Answer (cont.): Whereas according to Rebbi Shimon, anything that is not fit to be intrinsically Kadosh, Kedushas ha'Guf will not take effect on it ...

åîù"ä ôøéê îø"ù à'ääéà ã'îèîà î÷ãù òùéø ùäôøéù ÷ï', ãìéú áä ÷ãåùú äâåó ...

(k)

Answer to Question #2: And this explains why the Gemara asks from Rebbi Shimon on 'Metamei Mikdash Ashir she'Hifrish Kein', which does not have Kedushas ha'Guf ...

åìéëà ìîéîø 'ìéñééòéä îøáðï' - ãòã ëàï ìà ôìéâé øáðï àìà á'îôøéù ð÷áä ìôñçå' å'îôøéù ð÷áä ìàùí' îäàé èòîà ã'îâå ãðçúà ìä ÷ãåùú ãîéí, ðçúà ìä ÷ãåùú äâåó' ...

1.

Answer to Question #2 (cont.): And one cannot retort 'Support him from the Rabbanan' - Because until now the Rabbanan only argue with Rebbi Shimon by 'Mafrish Nekeivah le'Pischo' and by 'Mafrish Nekeivah le'Asham based on the S'vara that 'Since Kedushas Damim takes effect, so does Kedushas ha'Guf' ...

àáì áääéà ã'îèîà î÷ãù' ìà ùééê áéä äàé èòîà - ã÷ãåùú ãîéí ìéú áäï, ãáòåôåú ìéú áäå ôãéåï, åðò÷øä î÷ãåùú îæáç, ãìà äï åìà ãîéäï ÷øáé, åáäà àôéìå øáðï îåãå.

2.

Answer to Question #2 (concl.): Whereas by the case of 'Tamei Mikdash' this is not applicable - since they are not subject to Kedushas Damim, seeing as birds are not subject to Pidyon, and they are uprooted from Kedushas Mizbe'ach, as neither they nor their proceeds are brought - and even the Rabbanan concede to that.

åìä"ð ðéçà ãìà ôøéê à'îéìúéä ãøáé éåçðï - ãùééê áéä ùôéø 'îâå ãðçúà ìä ÷ãåùú ãîéí ðçúà ìä ÷ãåùú äâåó', åà"ë àé äåä îåúéá îéðä îø"ù, ä"à à'ãîåúéá îø' ùîòåï, ìéñééòéä îøáðï ...

(l)

Answer to Question #1: It also explains why the Gemara does not ask on Rebbi Yochanan - because according to him, 'Migu de'Nachsa ... ' is more applicable, and had it asked on him, we would have argued that rather than query him from Rebbi Shimon, support him from the Rabbanan ...

åîù"ä ðîé ðéçà ãîåúéá îø"ù ãáøééúà åìà îø' àìéòæø ãîúðé' - îùåí ãîñúáø ìéä ãèòîà ãø"ù îùåí ãàæéì ìèòîéä ãääéà ãîëéìúéï ô' àìå ÷ãùéí (ãó éè:).

(m)

Answer to Question #3: And that is why we can now justify the fact that it asked from Rebbi Shimon in thye Beraisa and not from Rebbi Eliezer in the Mishnah - because he assumed Rebbi Shimon's reason to concur with the reason mentioned in our Masechta (in Perek Eilu Kodshim, Daf 19a) ...

åîùðé äúí ìàå áôìåâúà ã'îâå ãðçúà ... ' úìéà îéìúà, àìà áôìåâúà ã'áòìé çééí ðãçéï' - åàðï ìøáðï àîøé - åø"ù äåà ã÷ñáø 'áòìé çééí àéðï ðãçéï'.

1.

Answer to Question #3 (concl.): And the Gemara answers that there the Machlokes is not regarding 'Migu de'Nachsa ... ', but over whether 'Ba'alei-Chayim Nidachim' or not - our statement goes according to the Rabbanan, and it is Rebbi Shimon who holds 'Ba'alei-Chayim Einan Nidachin'.

6)

TOSFOS DH AMAR ABAYE HA'KOL MODIM D'I AMAR CHETZYAH OLAH V'CHETZYAH MA'ASER HA'KOL OLAH KEREIVAH

úåñ' ã"ä àîø àáéé äëì îåãéí ãàé àîø çöéä òåìä åçöéä îòùø ãáøé äëì òåìä ÷øéáä

(Summary: Tosfos disagrees with Rashi's explanation.)

ôéøù øù"é àôéìå ðúëååï úçìä ìëê, ãìà çùéá îéìúà áúøééúà îéãé ...

(a)

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that it speaks even if he initially had that in mind, since the last part of his statement is not significant ...

ãàéï îòùø ÷ãåù ëé äàé âååðà àìà ãøê îðéï åäåà äéä òùéøé ...

1.

Reason: Because Ma'aser is not Kadosh unless it is done via counting, and it is the tenth one ...

åä"ä àí àîø 'çöéä òåìä åçöéä úîåøä' ìà çééìà úîåøä âáé òåìä ...

(b)

Precedent: And the same applies where he declared 'Chetzyah Olah ve'Chetzyah Temurah, that the Temurah does not take effect with regard to the Olah ...

äåàéì åìà ÷ééîà ùí áäîä âáéä ùéîéø áä ...

1.

Reason: Since there is no animal standing there on which to declare a Temurah ...

àìà çöéä îòùø åçöéä úîåøä, ãúøåééäå ëé äããé ðéðäå, äéà çééìà òë"ì.

(c)

Explanation #1 (cont.): And it is only regarding Chetzyah Ma'aser ve'Chetzyah Temurah that it takes effect, seeing as they are both equal (until here are the words of Rashi).

å÷ùéà, ãàôéìå àí ëåìä îòùø, àéï áãáøéå ëìåí?

(d)

Question #1: Even if he declared it completely Ma'aser, his declaration would be invalid?

åòåã, îàé 'àå ãìîà îòùø ÷øéáä ... ' - äà ìà ÷øéáä åìà ÷ãùä àìà áîðéï?

(e)

Question #2: Moreover what does the Gemara mean when it says 'Or perhaps, the Ma'aser is brought ...' - when in fact, it is neither brought nor is it even Kadosh other than via counting (See Shitah Mekubetzes 15)?

åôø"é ãîééøé áàãí äîòáéø öàðå úçú äùáè, åàîø 'îùúöà òùéøé îï äãéø, úäà çöéä òåìä åçöéä îòùø', ãáøé äëì òåìä ÷øéáä ...

(f)

Explanation #2: The Ri therefore explains that it is speaking about a person who 'passed his sheep underneath the staff', and who said 'When the tenth one leaves the pen, it should be half an Aloah and half Ma'aser, and everyone agrees that it is brought as an Olah ...

ã÷ãåùú äôä ùä÷ãéùä ìòåìä òãéôà î÷ãåùú îòùø ùàéðå éëåì ìçåì àìà òì éãé îðéï òùéøéú åäòáøú ùáè ...

(g)

Reason: Since the verbal Kedushah withy which he sanctified the Olah is stronger than the Kedushas Ma'aser which cannot take effect other than by means of counting ten and passing under the staff ...

ããå÷à áòåìä åùìîéí ôìéâ ø' éåñé åàîø ãçìå ùðéäï ...

1.

Reason (cont.): Olah and Shelamim that Rebbi Yossi argues and maintains that both take effect ...

ãìà àìéîà ëåìé äàé ÷ãåùú æä îæä ...

2.

Reason (con.): Because the Kedushah of the one is not that much greater than the Kedushah of the other ...

àáì áòåìä åîòùø - ãàìéí ÷ãåùú òåìä åòãéôà îàã î÷ãåùú îòùø, ã"ä ëååðúå ìòåìä.

(h)

Explanation #2 (cont.): But by Olah and Ma'aser - where the Kedushah of the Olah is that much greater thyan that of Ma'aser, they all agree that he has the Olah in mind.

åà"ú, àîàé ìà àîø 'ãáøé äøá åãáøé äúìîéã, ãáøé îé ùåîòéï?' ëãàîøéðï ìòéì áøéù ôéø÷éï âáé áëåø ...

(i)

Question: Why do we not say 'Divrei ha'Rav ve'Divrei ha'Talmid, Divrei Mi Shom'in?', as the Gemara said earlier at the beginning of the Perek regarding B'chor? ...

åúçåì îòùø åìà òåìä?

1.

Question (cont.): And Ma'aser ought therefore to take effect and not Olah?

åé"ì, ãäúí ëùàîø ááëåø 'òí éöéàú øåáå éäà òåìä'; àáì äëà îééøé ùàîø 'òí éöéàú îéòåèå éäà òåìä åîòùø', ãìà çì òìéä ÷ãåùú îòùø òã éöéàú øåáå.

(j)

Answer: There it is speaking where he said regarding the B'chor that 'When the majority of it emerges it should be an Olah', whereas here it speaks where he said that it should be an Olah and Ma'aser when a minority of it emerges', and Kedushas Ma'aser does not take effect until the majority emerges.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF