1)

TOSFOS DH Dochin Kodshim Kalim

úåñôåú ã"ä ãåçéï ÷ãùéí ÷ìéí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos gives a difference between the answers.)

ðøàä ãáéï ø' éåñé áø' àáéï åøáé àáéï àéëà áéðééäå áëåø ãìøáé àáéï ìéëà ìîéôøê îáëåø ãàéï ðàëì ìëì àãí

(a)

Explanation: R. Yosi b'Ribi Avin and R. Avin argue about a Bechor. According to R. Avin we cannot ask from a Bechor, for not everyone may eat it.

2)

TOSFOS DH d'Lo Liba'i Nesachim

úåñôåú ã"ä ãìà ìéáòé ðñëéí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out another Nafka Minah.)

äåä îöé ìîéîø ãìà ìéáòé úðåôú çæä åùå÷

(a)

Observation: He could have said that it does not require waving the chest and foreleg.

3)

TOSFOS DH l'Mai Nafka Minah l'Milka Alei b'Lo Yiga'el

úåñôåú ã"ä ìîàé ðô÷à îéðä ìîéì÷à òìéä áìà éâàì

(SUMMARY: Tosfos questions how he can be lashed.)

úéîä äéëé ì÷é àçø ùçéèä àìà éâàì äà àîøéðï ááëåøåú áôø÷ ëì ôñåìé äîå÷ãùéï (ãó ìá:) ãìàçø ùçéèä îãøáðï

(a)

Question: How is he lashed after Shechitah for Lo Yiga'el? We say in Bechoros (32b) that after Shechitah [the Isur to sell] is mid'Rabanan! (Keren Orah says that the Havah Amina was that after verbal Akirah it becomes Ma'aser.)

4)

TOSFOS DH ha'Asiri Zeh Ma'aser

úåñôåú ã"ä äòùéøé æä îòùø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that we make another Drashah from "ha'Asiri".)

àëúé ãøùéðï îéðä (á''î ãó æ.) òùéøé åãàé åìà òùéøé ñô÷

(a)

Observation: We also expound from this (Bava Metzi'a 7a) "a definite 10th, and not a Safek 10th." (Shalom Rav - "Asiri" suffices to exclude a Safek. Here we expound the prefix Hei.)

5)

TOSFOS DH Iy Nami d'Leisvei l'Kohanim

úåñôåú ã"ä àé ðîé ãìéúáéä ìëäðéí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out another Nafka Minah.)

äåä îöé ìîéîø ðîé ãìà áòé ñîéëä ëããøùéðï áú''ë åñîê éãå òì øàù ÷øáðå åìà áëåø åîòùø åôñç (îðçåú ãó öá:)

(a)

Observation: We could have said that it does not require Semichah, like we expound in Toras Kohanim "v'Samach Yado Al Rosh Korbano", but not Bechor, Ma'aser or Pesach (Menachos 92b).

6)

TOSFOS DH Dilma b'Mosar Asham Kesiv

úåñôåú ã"ä ãéìîà áîåúø àùí ëúéá

(SUMMARY: Tosfos justifies the Havah Amina.)

úéîä äà ëúéá äëà ìæáç äùìîéí åàéìå îåúø àùí ÷øá òåìä

(a)

Question: It says here "l'Zevach Shelamim", and Mosar Asham is offered for an Olah!

åé''ì ãäàé ãëúéá ìæáç äùìîéí ìàå ùéäéä ìæáç äùìîéí àìà ùéò÷åø ùí àùí îîðå ìùåçèå ìùí ùìîéí àå ìùí æáç àçø

(b)

Answer: "L'Zevach Shelamim" does not mean that it will be a Korban Shelamim. Rather, he must uproot the name of Asham from it, to slaughter it l'Shem Shelamim or another Korban;

ëããøùéðï ìéä (ìòéì ãó ç:) áëìì åôøè åìòåìí ÷øá òåìä åàúà ÷øà ìîéîø ãáòé ò÷éøä

1.

This is like we expound above (8b) through Klal u'Ferat. Really, it is offered for an Olah. The verse comes to teach that it needs Akirah.

7)

TOSFOS DH u'Shelamim ha'Ba'in Machmas Pesach l'Chol Mitzvos Shelamim

úåñôåú ã"ä åùìîéí äáàéï îçîú ôñç ìëì îöåú ùìîéí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes that this is Mosar Pesach.)

ôé' á÷åðèøñ çâéâú àøáòä òùø

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This refers to Chagigah of the 14th (a Shelamim brought with Pesach. One eats it before Pesach, so he is already satiated when he eats Pesach.)

åëï ì÷îï ñåó ëì äôñåìéí (ãó ìå.) âáé úåãä ùðàëìú ìéåí åìéìä îðéï ìøáåú ùìîé ðæéø åùìîé ôñç ú''ì ùìîéå

1.

Also below (36a), regarding a Todah that is eaten one day and a night, "what is the source to include Shalmei Nazir and Shalmei Pesach? It says Shelamav";

åôé' á÷åðèøñ ùìîé ôñç çâéâú é''ã

2.

Rashi explained that Shalmei Pesach is Chagigah of the 14th.

å÷ùä ãáôñçéí áàìå ãáøéí (ãó òà:) ãøéù î÷øà áäãéà ãçâéâú é''ã ðàëìú ìùðé éîéí åìéìä àçã

(b)

Question #1: In Pesachim (71b), it expounds explicitly from a verse that Chagigah of the 14th is eaten for two days and a night!

[åáú''ë áô' áùø æáç úåãú ùìîéå îøáé çâéâú é''ã ìùðé éîéí åìéìä àçã] åùìîéí äáàéï îçîúå ìéåí åìéìä

(c)

Question #2: In Toras Kohanim, on the verse "[u']Vasar Zevach Todas Shelamav", it includes Chagigah of the 14th for two days and a night, and Shelamim that comes due to [Pesach] for one day and a night!

åðøàä ãåãàé ùìîé ôñç ãëì äôñåìéï (ùí) äééðå îåúø äôñç ëé ääåà ãú''ë

(d)

Explanation #2: Surely, Shalmei Pesach below (36a) is Mosar Pesach, like in Toras Kohanim;

åáôñçéí ô' äàùä (ãó ôè.) âáé çîùä ùðúòøáå òåøåú ôñçéäí ã÷àîø åðééúé îåúø äôñç ãðàëì ìéåí åìéìä

1.

And in Pesachim (89a), regarding five groups [that offered Pesachim, and] the skins of their Pesachim became mixed (and a Mum was found on one, so we are unsure which group did not fulfill Pesach), it says "they should bring Mosar Pesach, which is eaten for one day and a night";

åáô''÷ ãø''ä (ãó ä.) ÷øé ìîåúø äôñç ùìîé ôñç ãçùéá ôñç ìáì úàçø åôøéê ôñç æéîðà ÷áéòà ìéä ëå' åîùðé îàé ôñç ùìîé ôñç ñã''à äåàéì åîçîú ôñç ÷àúå

2.

In Rosh Hashanah (5a), Mosar Pesach is called Shalmei Pesach, for it is considered Pesach regarding Bal Te'acher (the Isur to delay offering Korbanos), and it asks "Pesach has a fixed time!", and answers that "Pesach" refers to Shalmei Pesach. One might have thought that since it comes to due to Pesach...

åòì ëøçéä ìàå äééðå çâéâú é''ã ãëéåï ã÷úðé ôñç ìà ùáé÷ îåúø äôñç ãîé÷øé ôñç èôé ãäééðå ôñç îîù åîå÷é ìä áçâéâú é''ã

3.

You are forced to say that it is not Chagigah of the 14th. Since it taught Pesach, it would not abandon Mosar Pesach, which is called Pesach more, for it is truly Pesach (that was not offered in its time), and establish it to discuss Chagigah of the 14th.

åùìîéí äáàéï îçîú äôñç ãùîòúéï ðîé äééðå îåúø äôñç

(e)

Answer (cont.): Also "Shelamim that comes due to Pesach" of our Sugya is Mosar Pesach.

àò''â ãëáø úðà ôñç ùòéáøä ùðúå

1.

Implied question: It already taught Pesach that its year passed!

äàé ùìîé ôñç äåé ìà òéáøä ùðúå åìà æîðå àå òéáøä æîðå åìà ùðúå

2.

Answer: Shalmei Pesach is when its year and its time (to be offered, i.e. Pesach) did not pass, or its time passed but its year did not pass.

àò''â ãî÷øà àçøéðà ðô÷é

3.

Implied question: We learn it from another verse!

äëé øâéìåú äúðà ëîå (á''î ãó ì.) åäúòìîú

4.

Answer: The Tana often [attributes many laws to a verse that teaches only one of them], like (Bava Metzi'a 30a) "v'His'alamta";

ããøéù ôòîéí ùîúòìí ëâåï æ÷ï åàéðä ìôé ëáåãå åëäï åäåà ááéú ä÷áøåú [åùìå îøåáä îùì çáéøå àò''â] ã÷øà ìà àúé àìà ìæ÷ï åàéðä ìôé ëáåãå

i.

It expounds "sometimes you may avoid (returning an Aveidah), e.g. a Chacham and it is below his dignity (to carry such an item), or a Kohen, and the Aveidah is in a cemetery, or if his own loss [if he goes to take the Aveidah] exceeds the value of his colleague's [Aveidah]", even though the verse comes to teach only a Chacham and it is below his dignity.

åáô' îé ùäéä èîà (ôñçéí ãó öå:) ôé' á÷åðèøñ ãäééðå úîåøú ôñç òöîå

(f)

Explanation #3: In Pesachim (96b), Rashi explained [that Shelamim that comes due to Pesach] is Temurah of Pesach itself.

åàò''â ããøùéðï äúí äåà ÷øá åàéï úîåøúå ÷øéáä

(g)

Implied question: We expound there "it is offered, but its Temurah is not offered"!

äà îåëç äúí ãëì äéëà ãôñç ÷øá âí úîåøúå ÷øéáä åì÷îï ôø÷ á''ù (ãó ìæ.) áúçìúå ðã÷ã÷

(h)

Answer: It is proven there that whenever Pesach is offered, also its Temurah is offered. Below, at the beginning of Perek 4 (37b, DH Shamati) we will be meticulous [to explain this].

åëï îùîò ãôøéê îåúø äôñç ìéäåé úåãä ìîàé ìäèòéðå ìçí îé àéëà îéãé ëå'

(i)

Support (for Explanation #2): It connotes like this [above], for it asks "Mosar Pesach should be a Todah! For what law [should it be considered Todah]? To obligate offering bread with it. Do we ever find [that Mosar of Todah itself does not need bread, and Mosar that comes from elsewhere (Pesach) requires bread?!]

åìéîà ìäéåú ðàëì ìéåí åìéìä ëîå úåãä

1.

Question: The Gemara should have said [that it is called Mosar Todah] to be eaten for one day and a night, like Todah!

àìà ù''î îåúø ôñç ðîé áìàå äëé ðàëìéí ìéåí åìéìä ãäééðå ùìîé ôñç. ð''ì áøå''ê:

2.

Answer: [Since it did not say so,] this shows that in any case, Mosar Pesach is eaten for one day and a night. I.e. it is Shalmei Pesach. So it seems to me, R. Baruch.

9b----------------------------------------9b

8)

TOSFOS DH Chad l'Ivrah Shenaso u'Zmano

úåñôåú ã"ä çã ìòéáøä ùðúå åæîðå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that the same applies in the opposite case.)

ä''ä ùðúå áìà æîðå

(a)

Observation: The same applies if its year [passed], but not its time.

åàò''ô ùáùòä ùä÷ãéùå ìà äéä øàåé ìôñç ãëùéâéò æîðå úòáåø ùðúå

(b)

Implied question: When he was Makdish it, it was not proper for Pesach, for when the time will come, its year will pass!

ãàôé' îôøéù ð÷éáä ìôñçå àå æëø áï ùúé ùðéí úåøú ùìîéí òìéå ëãúðï áîé ùäéä èîà (ôñçéí ãó öæ:) éøòä òã ùéñúàá åéîëø åéáéà áãîéå ùìîéí

(c)

Answer: Even if one separated a female or a two-year old, it has the law of Shelamim, like the Mishnah in Pesachim (97b) says that that it is Ro'eh until it gets a Mum, and it is sold, and he brings Shelamim with the [redemption] money.

9)

TOSFOS DH Eisivei Rav Mesharshiya l'Rava v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä àéúéáéä øá îùøùéà ìøáà ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses whether or not this is difficult for Rava.)

úéîä îàé ÷åùéà äà øáà äåà ãîôøù èòîà ãø''ù áøéù îðçåú (ãó â:) îæàú úåøú

(a)

Question: What was the question? Rava explains R. Shimon's reason in Menachos (3b) from "Zos Toras"!

åàåîø ø''ú ãäëà âøñé' øáä åøáä ìèòîéä ãîùðé äúí ëàï áùéðåé ÷åãù ëàï áùéðåé áòìéí

(b)

Answer #1 (R. Tam): Here the text says "Rabah". [It is a proper question] according to Rabah's reasoning, for he answers there "this refers to Shinuy Kodesh, and this refers to Shinuy Ba'alim."

åòåã é''ì ãàôé' âøñéðï øáà øåöä ìééùá ãáøé øá ìëåìäå àîåøàé ãäúí

(c)

Answer #2: Even if the text says "Rava", [Rav Mesharshiya] wants to resolve Rav's words according to all Amora'im there.

åìôé' ø''ú ÷ùä ãðøàä ãøá îùøùéà úìîéãå ùì øáà äéä åìà ùì øáä

(d)

Question (against Answer #1): [Our Gemara] is difficult for R. Tam, for it seems that Rav Mesharshiya was Rava's Talmid, and not Rabah's.

åòåã é''ì ùøåöä øáà ìééùá ãáøé øá îùîéä ãîáåâ àôé' ëøáðï ãôìéâé òìéä ãø''ù ãìéú ìäå æàú úåøú

(e)

Answer #3: Rava wants to resolve Rav's words in the name of Mavog even according to Rabanan who argue with R. Shimon. They do not expound Zos Toras.

åøá îùøùéà ëùä÷ùä ìå îø''ù äéä éëåì ìä÷ùåú îîúðé' ãîðçåú

(f)

Implied question: When Rav Mesharshiya asked from R. Shimon, he could have asked from our Mishnah in Menachos!

àìà ðéçà ìéä ìîéôøê îáøééúà ãàôé' ìø''ù ãîëùéø ìà îæàú úåøú îëùéø åëï îùîò îôé' ä÷åðèøñ

(g)

Answer: He prefers to ask from the Beraisa, for even R. Shimon who is Machshir, he is not Machshir due to Zos Toras. Also Rashi connotes like this.

åàò''â ãáô' ãí çèàú (ì÷îï ãó öá.) ãøùéðï úåøä àçú ìëì äçèàåú åìéëà îàï ãôìéâ

(h)

Implied question: Below (92a), we expound "one Torah (law) for all Chata'os", and no one disagrees!

äééðå áîéãé ãëúéáà áäãéà áçèàú âåôä ãøùéðï ìéä ìë''ò ëâåï äàé (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) ãôø÷ ãí çèàú àáì ùéðåé ÷åãù ìà ëúá áçèàú

(i)

Answer: This refers to something written explicitly about Chatas itself. All agree that we expound [Zos Toras for such matters], e.g. the matter below (92a, Dam Chatas that fell on a garment). However, Shinuy Kodesh was not written regarding Chatas.

åáøéù àéæäå î÷åîï (ì÷îï ãó îç.) ããøéù úåøä àçú ìëì äàùîåú å÷àîø äðéçà ìîàï ãàéú ìéä úåøú àìà ìîàï ãìéú ìéä úåøú äééðå ìø''ù åìøáðï áøéù îðçåú (ãó â:) ìøáà

(j)

Remark: Below (48a), we expound "one Torah for all Ashamos", and it says "this is fine for the one who expounds Toras. However, the one who does not expound Toras" - these [opinions] refer to R. Shimon and Rabanan in Menachos (3b), according to Rava (i.e. Rava holds that they argue about Zos Toras. Rabah and Rav Ashi hold that R. Shimon is Machshir for a different reason.)

10)

TOSFOS DH l'Shem Chatas Nazir l'Shem Chatas Metzora

úåñôåú ã"ä ìùí çèàú ðæéø ìùí çèàú îöåøò

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that Rava taught a similar teaching above.)

ìòéì (ãó æ.) àéëà ùîòúà àçøéúé ãøáà (äâää áâìéåï, îùéèä î÷åáöú) ãîçì÷ áéï ùåçè [ìùí çèàú] ìùåçè ìùí òåìä

(a)

Explanation: Above (7a), there is another teaching of Rava that distinguishes between Shechitah l'Shem Chatas and Shechitah l'Shem Olah;

åùí ôéøùúé úøúé ãøáà ìîä ìé

1.

There (DH Amar) I explained why Rava needed to teach two teachings. (One teaches that Shinuy Kodesh is opposite to Shinuy Ba'alim. The other distinguishes between Chata'os.)

11)

TOSFOS DH v'Shachat Osah l'Chatas

úåñôåú ã"ä åùçè àåúä ìçèàú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos justifies two Drashos from this verse.)

ìòéì áôéø÷éï ãøùéðï ìéä ìîéìúà àçøéúé

(a)

Explanation: Above (5a) we expound this for a different matter!

åùîà äëà ãøéù îãìà ëúéá åùçè ìçèàú àåúä

(b)

Answer: Perhaps here we expound since it did not write 'v'Shachat l'Chatas Osah.'

12)

TOSFOS DH Al Mi she'Mechuyav Chatas d'Tum'as Mikdash v'Kodoshav Mahu

úåñôåú ã"ä òì îé ùîçåééá çèàú ãèåîàú î÷ãù å÷ãùéå îäå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why this does not follow from what was taught above.)

îéäå âøò îîé ùàéðå îçåééá ëìåí

(a)

Observation: This is worse than one who is not obligated anything. (Then it is Pasul (7a), for surely he was Mevatel an Aseh, and a Chatas atones somewhat for an Aseh. Here, he needs a different Kaparah; it does not atone for him at all, so perhaps it is Kosher. Why don't we say that also here, it atones for Bitul Aseh? The case is, the person separated an Olah to atone for every Bitul Aseh that he did (Chidushei GRY"M Feinstein).

13)

TOSFOS DH Mechashvin me'Avodah l'Avodah

úåñôåú ã"ä îçùáéï îòáåãä ìòáåãä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses when such intent disqualifies.)

ëãàîø ëâåï îùçéèä ìæøé÷ä (ëîå ùéðåé áòìéí)

(a)

Explanation: This is like it says, e.g. from Shechitah to Zerikah.

àáì îùçéèä ì÷áìä ìà ãäà îôéâåì éìéó ìä

(b)

Distinction: However, from Shechitah to Kabalah, no (intent does not disqualify), for we learn from Pigul;

å÷''å ãøá àùé ãéìéó îùéðåé áòìéí ìà äåé àìà îùçéèä ìæøé÷ä ëîå ùéðåé áòìé'

1.

All the more so, Rav Ashi, who learns from Shinuy Ba'alim, [intent from Avodah to Avodah] is only from Shechitah to Kabalah, just like Shinuy Ba'alim. (Holachah is like Kabalah. This Dibur continues on the next Daf.)

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF