1)

TOSFOS DH Minayin l'Nisnin Al Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon... (cont.)

úåñôåú ã"ä îðéï ìðéúðéï òì îæáç äçéöåï... (äîùê)

åìîèä îðà ìï àí ìà îåãí æáçéê éùôê àìîà ãáéú äìì ðîé ãøùé ìéä

(a)

Summation of Support: What is his source for [what should be put] below, if not from "v'Dam Zevachecha Yishafech"? This shows that also Beis Hillel expound it.

åîéäå éù ìãçåú

(b)

Rebuttal: We can reject this. (Perhaps they learn from another verse, even though we do not find a Drashah from another verse.)

1.

Note: Shitah Mekubetzes says that the rest of this Tosfos is a comment.

åðøàä ìé (úåñôú) ãùàø æáçéí éãò îãìà ùðä áäï ìòëá

(c)

Comment: It seems to me that he knows other Zevachim from the fact that the Torah did not repeat [Saviv] to make [both Matanos] Me'akev;

àáì çèàú ìà ðëùéø îèòîà ãìà ùðä àìà ôùéèà ìéä ãâîø çèàú çéöåï îçèàú ôðéîé ìòëá

1.

However, regarding Chatas we should not be Machshir due to "the Torah did not repeat." Rather, it is obvious to him that we learn an outer Chatas from an inner Chatas to be Me'akev;

àé ìà àùëçï áòìîà ãîöéðï ìîéâîø îéðéä ãîúðä àçú ëéôø à''ë òì ëøçéê ìá''ù áòé äëà îðéï ãðâîø îçèàú ãáòé ùúé îúðåú

2.

If we did not find in general that we can learn from [v'Dam...] that one Matanah is Mechaper, if so you are forced to say that here [the Tana] asks according to Beis Shamai, "what is the source?" We should learn from Chatas that two Matanos are needed!

àò''â ãçèàú çîéøà

i.

Implied question: Chatas is more stringent! (We cannot learn a stringency from it to other Korbanos.)

âéìåé îéìúà äéà ììîåã ñúåí îï äîôåøù

ii.

Answer: This is a mere Giluy Milsa (revelation) to learn what is not explicit from what is explicit.

ãàé ìáéú äìì îàé áòé îðéï äà ìà ùðä ìòëá

3.

If it were according to Beis Hillel, what was the question "what is the source?" The Torah did not repeat [Saviv] to teach that it is Me'akev!

åîäàé èòîà ìà îöé ìîéáòé éäà ëùøä áãéòáã áåìà ëìåí ãëôøä áëãé ìà àùëçï: áøå''ê ò''ë

(d)

Support: This is why we could not ask that b'Di'eved, it should be Kosher without any Matanos, for we do not find Kaparah without any [Matanos]. This is from R. Baruch.

2)

TOSFOS DH Matan Dam li'Yesod Talmud Lomar v'Dam Zevachecha Yishafech

úåñôåú ã"ä îúï ãí ìéñåã ú''ì åãí æáçéê éùôê

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how we learn about the Yesod.)

àò''â ãìà ëúéá éñåã

(a)

Implied question: The Torah did not write Yesod!

îöéðå ùéøéí ùðùôëéï ìéñåã ãëúéá áçèàú åàú ãîä éùôê àì éñåã äîæáç

(b)

Answer: We find that Shirayim are poured on the Yesod, for it says regarding Chatas "v'Es Damo Yishpoch El Yesod ha'Mizbe'ach."

3)

TOSFOS DH Trei Tana'i v'Aliba d'R. Yishmael

úåñôåú ã"ä úøé úðàé åàìéáà ãøáé éùîòàì

(SUMMARY: Tosfos brings four explanations of this, and questions all of them.)

ãîàï ãéìéó ìéä ìôñç áùôéëä ìéú ìéä ôñç ôåèø àú äæáç

(a)

Explanation #1: The one who learns that [blood of] Pesach is spilled, he holds that [the Brachah on] Pesach does not exempt the Zevach (Chagigah of the 14th);

åìà ôìéâ ø' éùîòàì àãøáé ò÷éáà ãëéåï ãôñç áùôéëä îäàé ÷øà úå ìéú ìï ìîéìó îéðéä ðéúðéï áæøé÷ä ëùøéï áùôéëä

1.

R. Yishmael does not argue with R. Akiva. Since this verse teaches that [Dam] Pesach is spilled, now we cannot learn from it that [blood] that should be thrown, it is Kosher if it was spilled;

åîàï ãàéú ìéä ôìåâúà ìéú ìéä ôñç áùôéëä àìà áæøé÷ä ëùìîéí

2.

And the one who holds that it is an argument, he does not hold that [Dam] Pesach is spilled, rather, it is thrown, like Shelamim.

i.

Note: There is an implied question - if so, why does the Brachah on Pesach exempt the Zevach, but not vice-versa?

åîéäå ôñç òé÷ø åæáç èôì ìå äìëê àéï æáç ôåèø ìôñç àáì ôñç ôåèø æáç

ii.

However, Pesach is primary and the Zevach is secondary to it. Therefore [the Brachah on] Zevach does not exempt the Pesach, but Pesach exempts the Zevach.

åáôñçéí éøåùìîé äàé èòîà àîø áä ëê ôé' á÷åðè'

(b)

Support: The Yerushalmi in Pesachim gives this reason. Rashi explained like this.

åéù úéîä îñåâéà ãñåó ò''ô (ôñçéí ÷ëà.) âáé áéøê áøëú äôñç ôèø àú ùì æáç ã÷àîø òìä ëùúéîöé ìåîø ìãáøé ø' éùîòàì æøé÷ä áëìì ùôéëä åìà ùôéëä áëìì æøé÷ä åìãáøé ø' ò÷éáà ìà ùôéëä áëìì æøé÷ä åìà æøé÷ä áëìì ùôéëä

(c)

Question #1: This is difficult, for in Pesachim (121a), regarding one who blessed on Pesach exempted the Zevach, it says "when you will say according to R. Yishmael that Zerikah is included in Shefichah (pouring), and according to R. Akiva Shefichah is not included in Zerikah, and Zerikah is not included in Shefichah";

àìîà ø' éùîòàì àéú ìéä úøúé ãôñç áùôéëä åæøé÷ä áëìì ùôéëä

1.

Inference: R. Yishmael holds like both of these - [Dam] Pesach is poured, and Zerikah is included in Shefichah!

åòåã ÷ùä ìôéøåù ä÷åðèøñ îñåâéà ãùîòúéï ã÷àîø ìòéì ñáø ìä ëø' ò÷éáà åìà ñáø ìä ëååúéä ìâîøé

(d)

Question #2: Also our Sugya is difficult for Rashi. It said above that [the Tana of the Beraisa] holds like R. Akiva. He does not hold like him totally!

ãøáé ò÷éáà ñáéøà ìéä ãôñç áùôéëä åúðà ãáøééúà ñáø áæøé÷ä

1.

R. Akiva holds that Pesach is poured, and the Tana of the Beraisa holds that it is spilled!

ãàé ëø''ò ãàîø ôñç áùôéëä äìà îàï ãàîø ôñç áùôéëä äééðå îãí æáçéê éùôê

i.

If [the Tana of the Beraisa] held like R. Akiva, who says that Pesach is poured, [this cannot be, for] the one who says that Pesach is poured, he learns from v'Dam Zevachecha Yishafech!

ãúðéà ø' éùîòàì àåîø ëå' àí ëï ìà àééúø ÷øà ìîúðä àçú ëéôø ò''ë

ii.

In the Beraisa, R. Yishmael says [that v'Dam Zevachecha Yishafech teaches about Dam Pesach], so there is no extra verse to teach that one Matanah was Mechaper! Until here is a comment.

åòåã ÷ùä ãàîø áôñçéí ôø÷ äàùä (ãó ôç:) âáé çîùä ùðúòøáå òåøåú ôñçéäí åäà ùìîéí áæøé÷ä åôñç áùôéëä

(e)

Question #3: It says in Pesachim (88b-89a) regarding five [groups], that the skins of their Korbanos Pesach became mixed (and there is a wart on one, and we do not know which was not Yotzei Pesach. We say that there is no solution for each group to bring a Pesach and stipulate "if we were already Yotzei, it is a Shelamim", for Dam) Shelamim should be thrown, and Pesach is poured!

åîùðé îàé ðô÷à îéðä åäúðéà îðéï ìðéúðéï áæøé÷ä ùðúðï áùôéëä ùéöà

1.

[The Gemara] responds "what difference does it make? A Beraisa teaches that blood that should be thrown, if it was poured, he was Yotzei!"

àìîà àéú ìéä úøúé ãôñç áùôéëä åðéúðéï áæøé÷ä ùðúðï áùôéëä ùéöà

2.

Inference: The Tana holds both that Dam Pesach should be poured, and that blood that should be thrown, if it was poured, he was Yotzei!

åòåã îã÷úðé ááøééúà îðéï ìðéúðéï áæøé÷ä ëå' îëìì ãàéëà ùôéëä åàé ôñç áæøé÷ä àí ëï ëåìäå áæøé÷ä ðéðäå

(f)

Question #4: Since the Beraisa taught "what is the source for blood that should be thrown...", this implies that some blood should be poured. If Pesach is thrown, all of them are thrown!

[åòåã ÷ùä äà àîøé' áñôøé ø' éàùéä àåîø ÷åãù äí ìîä ðàîø ìäáéà àú äîòùø åàú äôñç ùéèòðå ùôéëä àçú ùìà ùîòðå ìäí áëì äúåøä ëåìä]

(g)

Question #5 - Citation (Sifri - R. Yoshiyah): Why does it say "Kodesh Hem"? This includes Ma'aser and Pesach, that they require one Shefichah. We have no other source for this in the entire Torah;

åøáé éöç÷ àåîø àéï öøéê ùäøé ëáø ðàîø åãí æáçéê éùôê ìäáéà àú äîòùø åàú äôñç ùéèòðå ùôéëä

1.

Citation (cont. - R. Yitzchak): We do not need this. It already says v'Dam Zevachecha Yishafech to include Ma'aser and Pesach, that they require Shefichah;

åîä úìîåã ìåîø ÷åãù äí ìäáéà àú äîòùø ùéèòåï ä÷èø çìáéí ùìà îöéðå áëì äúåøä ëåìä

2.

Citation (cont.): Why does it say "Kodesh Hem"? This obligates Haktarah of Chelev of Ma'aser. We do not find this in the entire Torah;

îùîò ãøáé éàùéä ùôéëä ãøáé éöç÷ ÷àîø

3.

Inference: R. Yoshiyah discusses the same Shefichah as R. Yitzchak. (Do not say that he said "Shefichah" imprecisely, and really he means Zerikah, for R. Yitzchak argues only about the source, but not about the Halachah.)

i.

Note: Tosfos asks, just like R. Yoshiyah learns Shefichah from a verse other than v'Dam Zevachecha, also R. Yishmael could!

åàò''â ããøéù ìéä î÷øà ãëúéá âáé áëåø áæøé÷ä

4.

Implied question: [R. Yoshiyah] expounds "Kodesh Hem", which is written regarding Bechor, which requires Zerikah!

ãìîà îãàúå îøéáåéà åìà ëúáéðäå áäãéà ÷ãøéù

5.

Answer: Perhaps since [Ma'aser and Pesach] are learned from an inclusion, and [the Torah] did not write them explicitly, he expounds [that they must be poured, and not thrown].

åëé ôøéê [äúí àáà çðï ìîä ðàîø åîä ùàø ÷ãùéí ùìà äåùåå áîúï ãîéí

6.

Implied question: Why does Aba Chanan ask there "why was [Kodesh Hem] written [to teach about Haktaras Eimurim of Ma'aser and Pesach]? Other Kodshim (except for Ma'aser and Pesach) do not have the same Matanos Dam [and we are Maktir the Eimurim. Ma'aser and Pesach, which have the same Matanos Dam, all the more so we are Maktir the Eimurim! This connotes that also Pesach is through Zerikah!]

i.

Note: Keren Orah asks why we could not explain that other Kodshim require more than one Matanah of Dam, unlike Bechor. Ma'aser and Pesach require only one Matanah, just like Bechor!

äééðå] ãàúà ìîòåèé çèàú ãáàöáò

7.

Answer: (Really, Pesach is poured.) He excludes Chatas, [whose blood is out on the Mizbe'ach] via the finger.

åðøàä ãøáé éùîòàì (ãôñçéí) ÷ñáø ãôñç áùôéëä î÷øà àçøéðà åìà îãí æáçéê

(h)

Explanation #2: R. Yishmael learns that Pesach is poured from a different verse, and not from v'Dam Zevachecha.

åëé ôøéê äëà äàé åø"é äàé ÷øà îôé÷ (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí) ìéä ìëãúðéà øáé éùîòàì àåîø îúåê

(i)

Implied question: When we ask here "R. Yishmael uses the verse [for another teaching], like a Beraisa teaches, R. Yishmael says, since... [v'Dam Zevachecha Yishafech mandates blood and Eimurim of Ma'aser and Pesach on the Mizbe'ach...

äåä îöé ìîéîø ã÷ñáø ôñç áùôéëä î÷øà àçøéðà åìà îãí æáçéê

1.

We could have answered that he learns from another verse that Pesach is poured, and not from "v'Dam Zevachecha"!

àìà îùåí ãàùëç áøééúà ãøáé éåñé äâìéìé ð÷èä

(j)

Answer: Because we find the Beraisa of R. Yosi ha'Gelili (that learns blood and Eimurim of Ma'aser and Pesach on the Mizbe'ach from a verse other than v'Dam Zevachecha, we say that our Beraisa is like him).

1.

Note: Shitah Mekubetzes inserts in the text of Tosfos that this is very difficult, to say that we learn that Pesach is poured from a Drashah not brought in the Gemara.

åøáéðå ùîåàì áùí øáéðå ùìîä ôé' áòðéï àçø äàé ãòøáé ôñçéí (ãó ÷ëà.) ëùúéîöé ìåîø ìãáøé øáé éùîòàì æøé÷ä áëìì ùôéëä ëìåîø îúåê ãáøé øáé éùîòàì (îëàï îòîåã á) úåëì ìã÷ã÷ ãæøé÷ä áëìì ùôéëä

(k)

Explanation #3 (Rashbam in the name of Rashi): In Pesachim (121a), when it says "when you will say according to R. Yishmael that Zerikah is included in Shefichah (pouring)", this means that from R. Yishmael's words you can derive that Zerikah is included in Shefichah;

37b----------------------------------------37b

ãëéåï ã÷àîø ãáéøê òì äôñç ôèø àú äæáç àí ëï ñáéøà ìéä ãîúðåúéäí ùåéï åàó ôñç áæøé÷ä

1.

Since he said that one who blessed on Pesach exempted the Zevach, if so he holds that their Matanos are the same, and also Pesach is thrown;

åäà ãæáç ìà ôèø ôñç îùåí ãæáç èôì ìå

i.

He holds that Zevach does not exempt the Pesach, because the Zevach is secondary to [Pesach].

åëéåï ãôñç áæøé÷ä àí ëï àééúø ìéä ãí æáçéê éùôê åîöé ìîéãøù îéðéä ìåîø ãæøé÷ä áëìì ùôéëä

2.

Consequence: Since Pesach is thrown, v'Dam Zevachecha Yishafech is extra for him, and he can expound from it that Zerikah is included in Shefichah.

åìà âøéñ åìà ùôéëä áëìì æøé÷ä ãìäàé úðà ãøáé éùîòàì ëåìäå áæøé÷ä

(l)

Remark: The text does not say "and Shefichah is not included in Zerikah", for according to this Tana, according to R. Yishmael, all of them are thrown.

åìãáøé ø''ò ãìà æä ôèø àú æä àí ëï àéï îúðåúéäí ùååú

(m)

Explanation #3 (cont.): According to R. Akiva, neither [Korban] exempts the other. If so, their Matanos are different;

ãôñç áùôéëä î÷øà åãí æáçéê éùôê åàí ëï ìà æøé÷ä áëìì ùôéëä åìà ùôéëä áëìì æøé÷ä ãäà åãí æáçéê àéöèøéê ìéä ìãéãéä ìåîø ãôñç áùôéëä

1.

He learns that Pesach is poured, from v'Dam Zevachecha Yishafech. If so, Zerikah is included in Shefichah, and Shefichah is not included in Zerikah", for he needs v'Dam Zevachecha to teach that Pesach is poured.

åìäàé ôéøåùà ÷ùä îëì î÷åí îääéà ãäàùä (ôñçéí ãó ôè.)

(n)

Question #1: According to this, it is difficult from Pesachim (89a. It is not like either Tana. It says that Pesach is poured, and Zerikah is included in Shefichah!)

åòåã îðà ìéä ìøáé éùîòàì ãæøé÷ä áëìì ùôéëä îùåí ãîééúø åãí æáçéê éùôê

(o)

Question #2: What is R. Yishmael's source that Zerikah is included in Shefichah? It is because v'Dam Zevachecha Yishafech is extra;

ãìîà àúà ìëì äðéúðéï òì îæáç äçéöåï ùðúðï áîúðä àçú ëéôø

1.

Perhaps it comes to teach that anything put on the outer Mizbe'ach, if he put once, he was Mechaper!

åä''ø çéé''í àåî''ø ãáñôøé''í éùðé''í âøñéðï ëùúéîöé ìåîø ìãáøé øáé éùîòàì æøé÷ä áëìì ùôéëä åùôéëä áëìì æøé÷ä ãäëì àçã ãëì ä÷øáðåú áæøé÷ä ìøáé éùîòàì åàéï ìçåù àí áæøé÷ä àí áùôéëä

(p)

Explanation #4 (R. Chaim): In old Seforim, the text says "when you will say that according to R. Yishmael, Zerikah is included in Shefichah and Shefichah is included in Zerikah, for they are all one, for R. Yishmael holds that all Korbanos are thrown, and we need not be concerned if it is thrown or poured...

åäééðå ëùéèú øáéðå ùîåàì åëì îä ùä÷ùéúé òìéå ÷ùä âí ìôé' æä

(q)

Question: This is like the Rashbam's Perush. Everything I asked against him is difficult for this Perush.

åìëåìäå ìéùðé ÷ùä àé ôñç áùôéëä (ìøáé ò÷éáà) àí ëï ãøéù ì÷øà ããîí åáùøí ãäðê áëåøåú (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) ëøáé éùîòàì åàçã úí åàçã áòì îåí ðô÷à ìéä îéäéä ìê

(r)

Question: According to all versions, it is difficult. If R. Akiva holds that Pesach is poured, if so he expounds the verse[s] of "Damam" and "u'Vesaram" of other Bechoros like R. Yishmael, and he derives "whether Tam or Ba'al Mum" from "Yihyeh Lach." (Od Yosef Chai - R. Akiva cannot expound "Damam" to include Ma'aser and Pesach, for he holds that Pesach is poured. The plural must refer to Bechoros in general. If so, also "u'Vesaram" could refer to Bechoros in general. We cannot learn from it "whether Tam or Ba'al Mum." Rather, we learn this from "Yihyeh Lach");

åì÷îï áñåó àéæäå î÷åîï (ãó ðæ.) ôìéâ øáé ò÷éáà àøáé éùîòàì åîå÷é ìä ì÷øà ãåáùøí àçã úí åàçã áòì îåí ëøáé éåñé äâìéìé ãäëà

1.

Below (57a), R. Akiva argues with R. Yishmael and establishes the verse u'Vesaram - "whether Tam or Ba'al Mum", like R. Yosi ha'Gelili here!

4)

TOSFOS DH Echad Tam v'Echad Ba'al Mum (pertains to Amud A)

úåñôåú ã"ä àçã úí åàçã áòì îåí (ùééê ìòîåã à)

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that we do not expound the end of the verse like this.)

àò''â ãéäéå ìê ëçæä äúðåôä åùå÷ äúøåîä îå÷îéðï ìéä áñåó àéæäå î÷åîï (ùí) åááëåøåú (ëæ:) ááëåø úí

(a)

Implied question: "Yihyeh Lach l'Chaze ha'Tenufah v'Shok ha'Terumah", we establish it below (57a) and in Bechoros (27b) to discuss a Bechor Tam!

øéùéä ã÷øà ãáùøí ìùåï øáéí ð÷è îùåí áòì îåí

(b)

Answer: The Reisha of the verse says "[u]'Vesaram" in the plural due to a Ba'al Mum (to include it).

5)

TOSFOS DH she'Lo Matzinu Lo b'Chol ha'Torah Kulah

úåñôåú ã"ä ùìà îöéðå ìå áëì äúåøä ëåìä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos prefers to explain that we do not find such a law elsewhere.)

ôéøù á÷åðè' ùìà îöéðå ìå ÷øà àçø áëì äúåøä ëåìä

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): We have no other verse in the entire Torah [to teach that a Bechor Ba'al Mum is given to a Kohen].

åðøàä ìôøù ùìà îöéðå áëì äúåøä ëòðéï æä ãùàø ôñåìé äîå÷ãùéï àéðå îúðä ìëäï àìà ôåãäå åî÷øéá àçø úçúéå

(b)

Explanation #2: It seems that it means that we do not find in the entire Torah like this. All other blemished Korbanos are not a gift to a Kohen. Rather, one redeems it, and offers another in place of it;

åæä îúðä ìëäï åàåëìå áîåîå

1.

This is a gift to a Kohen. [The Kohen] eats it with its blemish.

åëé äàé âååðà àùëçï (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) áô' ùúé îãåú (îðçåú öà:) ùìà îöéðå áëì äúåøä ùéäà èôì çîåø îï äòé÷ø âáé àú äëáù æå òåìú éåìãú äàçã æä àçã òùø ùì îòùø

(c)

Support: We find like this in Menachos (91b) "we do not find in the entire Torah that what is secondary is more stringent than what is primary, regarding "Es ha'Keves" - this is Olas Yoledes. "Ha'Echad" - this is the 11th of Ma'aser (if the 10th to leave was mistakenly called 'ninth' and the 11th was called 'tenth' it is offered like a Shelamim, and it requires Nesachim. It is Kodesh only due to Ma'aser, which itself does not require Nesachim!)

6)

TOSFOS DH Kodesh Hem Hem Kereivein v'Ein Temurasan Kereivah

úåñôåú ã"ä ÷åãù äí äí ÷øéáéï åàéï úîåøúï ÷øéáä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out a contradiction about this in Temurah.)

úéîä ãáô''÷ ãúîåøä (ãó ä:) áéï àáéé åøáà îå÷îé äí ìáëåø åîòùø ùðúòøáå áëì äòåìéï ù÷øéáéï ìâáé îæáç

(a)

Question #1: In Temurah (5b), both Abaye and Rava establish "Hem" for a Bechor or Ma'aser that became mixed with any animals offered on the Mizbe'ach;

åàéï úîåøúï ÷øéáä ðô÷à ìäå îãëúéá ìä' äåà ÷øá åàéï úîåøúå ÷øéáä

1.

We learn that their Temurah is not offered from "la'Shem" - it is offered, but its Temurah is not offered!

åòåã ÷ùä ãàáéé âåôéä ãøéù ìéä äúí áôø÷ àìå ÷ãùéí (úîåøä ëà.) î÷øà ãäëà îãëúéá ÷åãù äí

(b)

Question #2: Abaye himself expounds there (Temurah 21a) from the verse here, since it is written "Kodesh Hem"! (Chidushei Basra explains that the Sugya there is like R. Yosi ha'Gelili here. The Sugya in Temurah 5b is like R. Yishmael, who cannot expound like R. Yosi, for he holds that Dam Pesach is poured.)

7)

TOSFOS DH Shamati she'Temuras Pesach Kereivah u'Temuras Pesach Einah Kereivah

úåñôåú ã"ä ùîòúé ùúîåøú ôñç ÷øéáä åúîåøú ôñç àéðä ÷øéáä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that when Pesach could be offered, its Temurah is offered.)

îôøù äúí áôñç ùðîöà ÷åãí ùçéèä éøòä åëï úîåøúå îùåí ãôñç òöîå ìà ÷øá ìà ÷øáä úîåøúå (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí)

(a)

Explanation: It explains there that if Pesach was found before Shechitah, it is Ro'eh (grazes until it gets a Mum), and similarly its Temurah. Because the Pesach itself is not offered, also its Temurah [is not].

åììéùðà ÷îà ãøáä ãáôø÷ îé ùäéä èîà (ôñçéí öå:) àôéìå äîéø áå ìàçø ùçéèä åììéùðà áúøà äéëà ãäîéø ÷åãí ùçéèä ãå÷à åääåà ìéùðà ìà ÷àé ãàéúåúá äúí (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí)

1.

According to the first version of Rabah in Pesachim (96b), this is even if he made Temurah after Shechitah. According to the second version, this is only if he made Temurah before Shechitah. That version is not sustained, for it is refuted there.

å÷öú ÷ùä äà ããøùéðï ÷åãù äí àáëåø îòùø åôñç äí ÷øéáéí åàéï úîåøúï ÷øéáä ãìà äåé îòéï àçã (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí)

(b)

Question #1: We expound "Kodesh Hem" about Bechor, Ma'aser and Pesach. They are offered, and their Temuros are not offered. This is not uniform!

ãâáé ôñç àí äîéø áôñç òöîå ù÷øá ìùí ôñç úîåøúå ðîé ÷øéáä (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí)

1.

(Temurah of Bechor or Ma'aser is never offered.) Regarding Pesach, if he made Temurah in Pesach itself that is offered for Pesach, also its Temurah is offered;

ãàí àéúà ãìà ÷øá àîàé àéúåúá äúí ìùåï ùðé ùì øáä îããøùé' äåà ÷øá åàéï úîåøúå ÷øéáä (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí)

2.

Source #1: If it were not offered [in such a case], why was the latter version of Rabah refuted there, since we expound "it is offered, but its Temurah is not offered"?

ìéîà ãáøééúà áäëé îééøé äåà ÷øá ëìåîø ôñç ÷øá åàéï úîåøúå ÷øéáä ëùäåà îéîø áôñç ãçæé (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí)

i.

We should say that it discusses as follows. It is offered, i.e. Pesach is offered, and its Temurah is not offered, when he makes Temurah in a Pesach proper [to be offered]!

åòåã ãøùéðï äúí àí ëùá ìøáåú ôñç ùòáøä ùðúå åùìîéí äáàéí îçîú ôñç ìëì îöåú ùìîéí

3.

Source #2: Also, we expound there "Im Kesev" to include a Pesach that passed its year, and a Shelamim that comes due to Pesach, for all Mitzvos of Shelamim;

åôéøù äúí á÷åðè' ùìîéí äáàéï îçîú ôñç ãäééðå úîåøú äôñç òöîå åáòðéï àçø ìà îéúå÷í ëãôøéùéú ìòéì ô''÷ (ãó è.)

i.

Rashi explained there that "a Shelamim that comes to due to Pesach" is Temuras Pesach itself. We cannot explain it differently, like I explained above (9a);

åáëì î÷åí ùäôñç ÷øá àå ìùí ôñç àå ìùí ùìîéí âí äúîåøä ÷øéáä ëéåï ãìà àúéà îëç ÷ãåùä ãçåéä

ii.

Wherever Pesach is offered, either l'Shem Pesach or l'Shem Shelamim, also the Temurah is offered, since it does not come from a Kedushah Dechuyah!

åö''ò àí éëåì ìä÷øéá äúîåøä ìùí ôñç ÷åãí ùçéèä ãùîà éù ìãøåù äåà ÷øá ìùí ôñç åàéï úîåøúå ÷øéáä ìùí ôñç àáì ìùí ùìîéí ÷øáä ëù÷øá äåà ìùí ôñç

(c)

Question: This requires investigation, whether one can offer the Temurah l'Shem Pesach before Shechitah. Perhaps we should expound "it is offered l'Shem Pesach, but its Temurah is not offered l'Shem Pesach", but it is offered l'Shem Shelamim when [the Pesach itself] is offered l'Shem Pesach.

8)

TOSFOS DH Harei Kan Shesh

úåñôåú ã"ä äøé ëàï ùù

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses why Beis Shamai need to expound six.)

åà''ú áçîù ñâé ãìàçú ìà àéöèøéê ãëôøä áëãé ìà àùëçï

(a)

Question: It would suffice [for the Torah to allude to] five, for we do not find Kaparah without any [Matanos]!

åé''ì ããéìîà á''ù ìéú ìéä äàé èòîà

(b)

Answer: Perhaps Beis Shamai disagree with this reasoning.

9)

TOSFOS DH l'Totafos

úåñôåú ã"ä ìèåèôåú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes that he expounds the initial Vov in ul'Totafos.)

åàîø øáéðå úí ãáñôøéí îãåéé÷éí ìà ëúéá ìèåèôåú ëìì áåé''å ìáñåó àìà åé''å ãåìèèôú ãøéù

(a)

Explanation #1 (R. Tam): In precise Seforim, it is never written l'Totafos with a Vov at the end. Rather, he expounds the [initial] Vov in ul'Totafos;

åàôéìå ìîàï ãìà ãøéù åé''å åé''å ìî''ã ãøéù ëãàîø âáé åäðåúø ô' äòøì (éáîåú òá:)

1.

Even the opinion that does not expound [an initial] "Vov", he expounds "Vov Lamed", similar to what it says about "veha'Nosar" in Yevamos (72b).

åéù îôøùéí ãìèåèôú ãøéù ãëúéá ìèåèôú îìà áåé''å ãåé''å ãáéï ùðé äèéúéï ãøéù å÷ñáø âåøòéï åîåñéôéï åãåøùéï

(b)

Explanation #2: We expound l'Totafos. It is written l'Totafos with a Vov between the two letters "Tes". He holds that we remove and add and expound. (It is as if the Vov was written at the end, to denote the plural.)

åàåîø øáéðå úí ãìà àîøéðï âåøòéï åîåñéôéï åãåøùéï áàîöò äúéáä àìà áúçìú äúéáä àå áñåó ëãàùëçï áôø÷ äæäá (á''î ãó ðã:) âáé åçîéùéúå åâáé ãí îäôø é÷áìðå åâáé åðúúí àú ðçìúå ìùàøå áéù ðåçìéï (á''á ãó ÷éà:)

(c)

Rebuttal (R. Tam): We do not remove and add and expound in the middle of a word, only at the beginning or at the end, like we find in Bava Metzi'a (54b) regarding "v'Chamishiso", and regarding "Dam meha'Par Yekablenu" (above, 25a) and regarding "u'Nesatem Es Nachalaso li'Sh'ero" in Bava Basra (111b).

10)

TOSFOS DH Tat b'Katfei Shetayim

úåñôåú ã"ä èè áëúôé ùúéí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we learn only four.)

åà''ú à''ë ìéáòé úøé ñøé áúé

(a)

Question: If so, we should require 12 Batim! (L'Totafos is written three times, and each alludes to four!)

åé''ì ëéåï ãîðéï äåà àéðê äåå ìäå ëôøùä ùðàîøä åðùðéú åìà ãîå ì÷øðåú ùàéï äîðéï ëúåá áôéøåù

(b)

Answer #1: Since it teaches the number, the other [occurrences of l'Totafos] are like a Parshah that was said and repeated. It is unlike Keranos, in which the number is not written explicitly.

åä''ø éäåãä î÷åøáé''ì îôøù ãçã èèôú ìâåôéä åàéðê úøúé àúå ìîðéï áúéí áìùåï ëúôé åáì' àôøé÷é

(c)

Answer #2 (Ri of Korvil): One Totafos is needed for the simple meaning. The others come for the number of Batim in Katfi language, and also in Afriki language.

11)

TOSFOS DH Ela me'Atah ba'Sukos v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä àìà îòúä áñëú ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that we expound "Sukos" also for the walls.)

áîñ' ñåëä (ãó å:) ãøùéðï (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú, áøëú äæáç) ìãôðåú åëï áô' äîáéà (áéöä ì:) âáé àéï ðåèìéí òöéí îï äñåëä àñøéðï ðîé îï äãôðåú îãëúéá çâ äñåëåú ãëùí ùçì ùí ùîéí òì äçâéâä ëê çì òì äñåëä

(a)

Explanation: In Sukah (6b), we expound for walls, and in Beitzah (30b) regarding "we do not take wood from the Sukah", we forbid also from the walls (not only from the Sechach), since it says "Chag ha'Sukos [... la'Shem]" - just like Hash-m's name (Kedushah) takes effect of the [Korban] Chagigah, so it takes effect on the Sukah.

åúéîä ãâáé àéï îñëëéï áãáø äî÷áì èåîàä åâáé úòùä åìà îï äòùåé ìà ãøùéðï ìãôðåú:

(b)

Question: Regarding "one may not use for Sechach something that receives Tum'ah", and regarding "Ta'aseh," and not from something already made, we do not expound this for the walls! (Ran (Sukah 6b) - "Sukah" does not connote the walls. Here we expound extra words to teach about the walls.)

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF