TOSFOS DH IM EFSHAR LE'MISHLEFINHU MUTAV
úåñ' ã"ä àí àôùø ìîéùìôéðäå îåèá
(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the problem with Rav Papa's answer.)
ëé úéøåöå ìà ÷àé ëìì à'÷åùéà ã'ìéáèìéðäå áøåáà' ...
Clarification: Because his (Rav Papa's) answer does not refer to the Kashya 'Why not be Mevatel them in a majority?' ...
àìà à'÷åùéà ÷îééúà ã'äúí ÷úðé "éãì÷" åáîúðé' "é÷áø" ...
Clarification (cont.): But on the first Kashya - 'There it says "Yidalek", and in the Mishnah, "Yikaver"?'
åäìùåï àéðå îãå÷ã÷.
Conclusion: And the Lashon is not accurate.
TOSFOS DH NISRAFIN DE'HEKDESH MUTARIN
úåñ' ã"ä ðùøôéï ãä÷ãù îåúøéï
(Summary: Tosfos explains why this is mentioned here.)
(ä÷ãù ÷ùéà) åðéçà àé âøñé' 'ðùøôéï àôøï îåúø', åëï âøñé' áî÷öú ñôøéí.
Explanation #1: And this goes nicely if the text reads 'Nisrafin Afran Mutar', as it does in some Sefarim.
îéäå éù ìééùá ãìàìéîåúà ð÷èåä 'àôø ä÷ãù' äëà, ãîúðé' ãðùçèéï çåõ ìæîðï, ãàôøï îåúø ...
Explanation #2: One can however, explain that it mentions 'Eifer Hekdesh, because of their strength to be permitted, since the Mishnah permits the ashes of Hekdesh that was burned after its time expired ...
åîùåí ãáñîåê îåúéá îéðééäå - ã÷àîø 'åðùøôéï ãä÷ãù àôøï îåúø? åäà úðéà ... ', ðñéá ìéä äëà.
Explanation #2 (cont.): Because the Gemara will shortly ask 'Are the ashes of Hekdesh really permitted? Did we not learn in a Beraisa ... ?', it mentions it here (It is not clear however, where exactly Tosfos inserts it).