1)

TOSFOS DH AMAR AL HA'BECHOR IM YETZI'AS RUBO YEHEI OLAH

úåñ' ã"ä àîø òì äáëåø òí éöéàú øåáå éäà òåìä

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies that 'Rubo' is Davka.)

åãå÷à 'òí éöéàú øåáå', àáì àîø 'òí éöéàú îéòåèå' ìà îéáòé' ìéä ...

(a)

Clarification: Specifically when the majority emerged, but if he made the declaration when just the minority emerged, he did not ask ...

ãåãàé òåìä çééìà òìéä, ãàëúé ìà çì ÷ãåùú áëåø òìéä ëìì.

1.

Reason: Because then Olah definitely takes effect on it, since the Kedushah of a B'chor did not yet take effect.

2)

TOSFOS DH HI SHELAMIM U'VELADAH OLAH HAREI ZU U'VELADAH SHELAMIM

úåñ' ã"ä äéà ùìîéí ååìãä òåìä äøé æå ååìãä ùìîéí

(Summary: Tosfos discusses the Halachah and its ramifications.)

ãîéã ùàîø 'äéà ùìîéí' çì ÷ãåùú ôéå ðîé òì äòåáø ëîå òì äàí ...

(a)

Clarification: Because as soon as he declares 'Hi Shelamim', Kedushas Peh takes effect on the fetus as well, like it does on the mother ...

(åìà îéëååðéä ãàí àìå îëç ÷ãåùú ôéå) åàôéìå ìîàï ãàéú ìéä 'ùééøå îùåééø', îéäà àéï éëåì ìùðåú ì÷ãåùä àçøú ...

1.

Clarification (cont.): And even according to the opinion that holds 'Shayro Meshuyar', he can nevertheless not change it to another Kedushah ...

ãîéã ùä÷ãéù äàí, ðúëåéï ðîé ùúçåì òì ôéå àåúä ÷ãåùä òì äòåáø ...

(b)

Reason: Seeing as, the moment he is Makdish the mother, he has the intention that via his declaration, that Kedushah should also take effect on the fetus ...

åàéðå éëåì ìùðåúå î÷ãåùú äàí - àà"ë äæëéø úçìä ÷ãåùú äåìã.

1.

Reason (cont.): And he cannot change it from its mother's Kedushah - unless he first mentions ythe Kedushah of the V'lad.

åôé' øù"é 'äëà ìà ùééê ìîéîø 'áäååééúï' å'áîòé àîï' ...

(c)

Explanation: Rashi writes that 'It is not applicable here "be'Havayasan" and "be'Me'ei Iman" ...

ãëé àîø áäååééúï åìà îîòé àîï - ä"î áä÷ãéùä åìáñåó ðúòáøä ...

(d)

Reason: Since 'be'Havayasan' and not 'be'Me'ei Iman' only applies where one is first Makdish the animal and it then becomes pregnant ...

ãàéäå ìà àúôñé' ìòåáø ùåí ÷ãåùä àìà á÷ãåùúä ãàéîéä ãà÷ãéù ...

1.

Reason (cont.): Seeing as he did not then declare it Hekdesh, and it is only Kadosh with its mother's Kedushah ...

àáì áî÷ãéù îòåáøú, çùéá òåáø ì÷áåìé' ÷ãåùä òë"ì.

2.

Reason (concl.): But if he was Makdish a pregnant animal, the fetus is sufficiently Chashuv to receive its own Kedushsah (Up to here is the Lashon of Rashi [Note that the wording of the previous Dibur also tallies with that of Rashi, suggesting that the previous two Diburim plus this one are really all one Dibur]).

åà"ë, äà ãàîø ìòéì 'åàí ð÷áä, æáçé ùìîéí', åàå÷éîðà ìéä ááäîú ÷ãùéí ...

(e)

Conclusion: That being the case, when the Gemara established the Mishnah 've'Im Nekeivah, Shelamim' by an animal of Kodshim ...

ö"ì ãîééøé áä÷ãéùä åàç"ë ðúòáøä.

1.

Conclusion (cont.): We will have to say that it is speaking where the owner declared it Hekdesh and it became pregnant only afterwards.

3)

TOSFOS DH RATZAH BI'VELADAH MISKAPER

úåñ' ã"ä øöä áåìãä îúëôø

(Summary: Tosfos, citing Rashi, reconciles this ruling with the Sugya on Daf 21b.)

ãëé àîøéðï (ìòéì ãó ëà:) 'åìã çèàú ìîéúä àæéì' ...

(a)

Implied Question: Because when the Gemara said (above, Daf 21b) that 'V'lad Chatas must die' ...

ä"î ëùä÷ãéùä åìáñåó ðúòáøä, àáì ä÷ãéùä îòåáøú çùéá òåáø ì÷áåìé ÷ãåùä áàðôé ðôùéä åìà îëç àîå ...

(b)

Answer: That is when he was Makdish and then it became pregnant, but if he was Makdish a pregnant animal the fetus is Chashuv to adopt Kedushah in its own right - not on account of its mother ...

åäåé ëîôøéù [ùúé] çèàåú ìàçøéåú, ãîúëôø áàéæä ùéøöä, ìùåï øù"é.

1.

Precedent: And it is like designating two Chata'os, in which case he can attain his Kaparah with whichever one he chooses (Rashi's words).

4)

TOSFOS DH KASAVAR REBBI YOCHANAN SHE'IM SHIYER LA'VELAD SHE'AMAR V'LADAH CHULIN VE'HI CHATASMESHUYAR V'HAVI CHULIN

úåñ' ã"ä ÷ñáø øáé éåçðï ùàí ùééø ìåìã ùàîø åìãä çåìéï åäéà çèàú îùåééø åäåé çåìéï

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

åëéåï ãàé áòé ìà ÷ãéù, àìîà 'ìàå éøê àîå äåà', ëé ìà îùééø ìéä ðîé ìàå éøê àîå äåà ...

(a)

Clarification: Since if he wishes it is not Kadosh, from which we see that 'La'av Yerech Imo', even if he does not leave it over it is also not 'Yerech Imo' ...

åîçîú òöîå ÷ãéù åìà îçîú àîå - åìà äåé åìã çèàú, ìùåï øù"é.

1.

Clarification (cont.): It is Kadosh in its own right and not on account of its mother - and it is not therefore a V'lad Chatas (Rashi's words).

5)

TOSFOS DH HAREI ZEH V'LAD SHELAMIM

úåñ' ã"ä äøé æä åìã ùìîéí

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the proof.)

àìîà (ìà) ÷øé 'åìã ùìîéí' - ãîëç àéîéä ðçúà ìéä ÷ãåùä åìà îçîú ðôùéä ...

(a)

Clarification: We see that it is called a 'V'lad Shelamim' - because becomes Kadosh due to its mother and not in its own right.

åâáé çèàú ðîé 'åìã çèàú' îé÷øé åàæéì ìîéúä.

1.

Clarification (cont.): And by Chatas too, it is called 'V'lad Chatas' and must die.

6)

TOSFOS DH D'I SALKA DA'ATACH DE'SHAYRO MESHUYAR

úåñ' ã"ä ãàé ñ"ã ãùééøå îùåééø

(Summary: Tosfos, citing Rashi, clarifies the Kashya.)

ãçùéá áäîä áàôé ðôùéä, åëé ìà ùééøéä, îçîúéä äåà ã÷ãéù ...

(a)

Clarification: Because it is considered an animal it its own right, and consequently, if he does not leave it over, it is Kadosh in its own right ...

'äøé äåìã òöîå ùìîéí' àéáòé ìéä ìîéúðé, ìùåï øù"é.

1.

Clarification (cont.): The Tana ought then to have said 'The V'lad itself is Kadosh' (Rashi's wording).

25b----------------------------------------25b

7)

TOSFOS DH D'TANA KAMA SAVAR IM SHAYRO MESHUYAR

úåñ' ã"ä ãúðà ÷îà ñáø àí ùééøå îùåééø

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the Sugya in detail and proves the current [Rashi's] text to be the correct one.)

åëéåï ãàé áòé ìîéùééøéä åìîéòáãéä çåìéï, äøùåú áéãå ...

(a)

Clarification: And since if he wants to leave it out and make it Chulin, he is permitted to do so ...

àìîà áäîä áàðôé ðôùéä äéà, åà"ë ëé î÷ãéù ìéä ìàéîéä áçèàú, çì ðîé ÷ãåùú ôéå òì äåìã åäåé ðîé çèàú, åîùåí äëé àéðä ðàëìú.

1.

Clarification (cont.): We see that it is an animal in its own right, in which case if he is Makdish its mother as a Chatas, its verbal Kedushah extends to the V'lad, making it a V'lad Chatas, which is why it cannot be eaten ...

åúðà áúøà ñáø 'ùééøå àéðå îùåééø' àìà 'ëéøê àîå äåà', åëé î÷ãéù ìéä ìàîéä, äåìã ÷ãåù îèåðä ãàí, ëùàø åìãåú ÷ãùéí, åìà î÷ãåùú ôéå.

2.

Clarification (cont.): Whereas the latter Tana holds 'Shayro Eino Meshuyar', but 'Ubar Yerech Imo hu', so when he is Makdish the mother, the V'lad is Kadosh on account of the mother, just like other V'lados of Kodshim, and not with his verbal Kedushah ...

åîéäå ëé ùçèä ìàéîéä åîöà áä åìã áï àøáòä çé àéðå ÷ãåù, ãáäåééúå ãå÷à äåà ã÷ãåù, åæä ùìà äéä ìå äåééä ìà ÷ãåù ...

3.

Clarification (cont.): However, when he Shechts the mother and finds inside it a live four-month baby, it is not Kadosh, since it is only Kadosh from the moment it comes into existence, and this animal, which did not experience that moment is not Kadosh.

åîù"ä ÷àîø ã'ðàëìú ìëì àãí' - ãàé 'ùééøå îùåééø', îéã ãà÷ãéù ìéä ìàéîéä, úçåì ðîé ÷ãåùú ôéå òì äåìã.

4.

Clarification (concl.): And that is why it says that it can be eaten by anybody - whereas if 'Shayro Meshuyar', as soon as he declares the mother Hekdesh, the verbal Kedushah takes effect on the baby.

åä÷ùä îåøé äøî"ø, ãáîúðé' úðï ' "äéà ùìîéí ååìãä òåìä", äøé æä åìã ùìîéí' ...

(b)

Introduction to Question: Tosfos' Rebbe ha'Rav Mordechai asks - Our Mishnah states ' "Hi Shelamim u'Veladah Olah", harei Zeh V'lad Shelamim' ...

åôøù"é òìä ãìà ùééê ìîéîø 'áäåééúï äï ÷ãåùéï' áä÷ãéù îòåáøú ...

1.

Introduction to Question: Rashi explains that 'be'Havayasan hein Kedoshim' is not applicable where one is Makdish a pregnant animal ...

àìîà àéðå éëåì ìùðåú äåìã, ãîèåðä ãàí ÷ãéù îéã ãà÷ãéù ìéä ìàéîéä,

2.

Introduction to Question (cont.): So we see that one cannot change the V'lad, in that it is Kadosh with the mother's Kedushah as soon as he declares the mother Kadosh ...

åáòé ìîéîø ãàéú ìéä ìäàé îúðé' 'ùééøå àéðå îùåééø', åàô"ä àéðå éëåì ìòùåú äåìã áçåìéï - åîåúéá îéðä ìø' éåçðï ãàîø 'ùééøå îùåééø' ...

3.

Introduction to Question (concl.): The Gemara wants to say that this Mishnah holds 'Shayro Eino Meshuyar', in spite of which he cannot make the V'lad Chulin - and it queries Rebbi Yochanan, who holds 'Shayro Meshuyar' from it ...

åàé çåìéï äåà ëãàîø äëà, ìî"ã 'ùééøå àéðå îùåééø' àîàé àéðå éëåì ìä÷ãéù äåìã áòåìä?

(c)

Question: Now if it was Chulin as the Gemara says here, why, according to the opinion that 'Shayro Eino Meshuyar' can one not declare the V'lad an Olah?

åúéøõ, ãö"ì ã÷ãåùú äàí îå÷é ìä áäëé ãìà îöé ìà÷ãåùé á÷ãåùä àçøú, àìà îéã ùéåìã úçåì òìéå ÷ãåùú äàí ...

(d)

Answer: And he answers that we are forced to say that the Kedushah of the mother has the effect that one cannot be Makdish it (the V'lad) with another Kedushah, and that as soon as it is born the mother's Kedushah takes effect ...

îéäå çåìéï äåà òã ùéåìã, åàé ùçè ìàéîéä áúåê ëê, äåìã ðàëì ìëì àãí.

1.

Answer (cont.): But until it is born it remains Chulin, and should he Shecht the mother in the interim, the V'lad can be eaten by anybody.

åàó òì âá ãáøéùà ãîúðé' úðï 'àí ð÷áä, æáçé ùìîéí' - åàå÷éîðà áâî' ááäîú ÷ãùéí, àìîà éëåì äåà ìùðåú äåìã á÷ãåùä àçøú ...

(e)

Implied Question: And even though the Reisha of the Mishnah states 'Im Nekeivah, Zivchei Shelamim' - which the Gemara establishes by an animal that is Hekdesh, indicating that one is able to change the V'lad for another Kedushah ...

ääåà áä÷ãéùä åìáñåó ðúòáøä àééøé, ëãôøéùéú áøéù ùîòúéï ...

1.

Answer: That speaks where he is Makdish it and then it becomes pregnant, as Tosfos (citing Rashi) explained at the beginning of the Sugya ...

ãöøéê ìçì÷ áéï ä÷ãéùä îòåáøú ìä÷ãéùä åìáñåó ðúòáøä.

2.

Answer: That we need to differentiate between where one is Makdish a Me'uberes and where the animal became pregnant only after one has been Makdish it.

åéù ñôøéí ãâøñé àéôëà; ú"÷ ñáø 'ùééøå àéðå îùåééø', åçìä ÷ãåùä òì äåìã îèåðä ãàí îéã - ìôéëê àéðå ðàëì ...

(f)

Alternative Text/Explanation: Some Sefarim invert the text - The Tana Kama holds 'Shayro Eino Meshuyar', and the Kedushah falls on the V'lad immediately on account of the mother - which is why it cannot be eaten ...

åúðà áúøà ñáø 'ùééøå îùåééø' åäåé äåìã çåìéï - åîù"ä ÷úðé ã'ðàëì ìëì àãí'.

1.

Alternative Text/Explanation: Whereas the latter Tana holds 'Shayro Meshuyar' and the V'lad is Chulin - and that is why he says that 'It can be eaten by anybody'.

åàéï àðå éëåìéï ìäòîéã - ãðäé ðîé ãìà çìä ÷ãåùú äàí òì äåìã, ìî"ã 'ùééøå îùåééø', î"î úéçåì òìéä ÷ãåùú ôä äàãí ...

(g)

Question #1: It is impossible to explain it however, since granted that, according to the opinion 'Shayro Meshuyar', the mother's Kedushah does not take effect on the V'lad, nevertheless why does the Kedushas Peh of the person not take effect ...

ëãúðï áîúðé' 'äéà ùìîéí ååìãä òåìä, äøé æä åìã ùìîéí'?

1.

Source: As we learned in the Mishnah ' "If it is a Shelamim and its V'lad, an Olah, it is a V'lad Shelamim'.

åòåã, äéëé îöéðå ìîéîø ìú"÷ ã'ùééøå àéðå îùåééø', äà áô"÷ (ìòéì ãó é.) âáé ôìåâúà ãáø ôãà åø' éåçðï ã'÷ãåùä çìä òì äòåáøéï', îééúé äðé á' áøééúåú ãäëà ìîéîø ëúðàé ...

(h)

Introduction to Question #2: Moreover, how can we say that, according to the Tana Kama, 'Shayro Eino Meshuyar', when, in the first Perek, in connection with thye Machlokes bar Pada and Rebbi Yochanan regarding 'Kedushah Chalah al ha'Ubrin', the Gemara cites the two Beraisos cited here, to say that it is a Machlokes Tana'im ...

åà"ë, ò"ë ääéà ã'àéðä ðàëìú', áòé ìàå÷åîé ëø' éåçðï, åàéäå ñáø ã'ùééøå îùåééø'.

1.

Question #2: In which case, the Beraisa of 'Einah Ne'echeles must go like Rebbi Yochanan, who holds 'Shayro Meshuyar'.

àìà åãàé âéøñú øù"é òé÷ø.

(i) Conclusion: Consequently, the Rashi's text must be the correct one.

8)

TOSFOS DH V'AT AMRAT TA'AMA D'REBBI YOCHANAN MISHUM D'SAVAR ADAM MISKAPER BI'SHEVACH HEKDESH

úåñ' ã"ä åàú àîøú èòîà ãø' éåçðï îùåí ãñáø àãí îúëôø áùáç ä÷ãù,

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles Rebbi Yochanan here with Rebbi Yochanan in Kerisus.)

úéîä, ãäëà îùîò ãàéú ìéä ìøáé éåçðï 'àéï àãí îúëôø áùáç ä÷ãù' ...

(a)

Introduction to Question: Here it implies that Rebbi Yochanan holds that 'A person cannot achieve atonement with 'the Sh'vach of Hekdesh' ...

åáô' áúøà ãëøéúåú (ãó ëæ.) îéáòéà ìéä ø' àìòæø ìø' éåçðï 'àé îúëôø áùáç ä÷ãù àå ìà', àîø ìå 'ëîä [ùðéí] âãì æä áéðéðå, åòãééï ìà éãò àé îúëôø áùáç ä÷ãù àå ìà!' ...

1.

Introduction to Question (cont.): Whilst in the last Perek of Kerisus in reply to Rebbi Elazar's She'eilah as to whether 'One can achieve atonement with Sh'vach Hekdesh', Rebbi Yochanan replied 'How many years has this man grown up among us and he still doesn't know whether one can achieve atonement with 'the Sh'vach of Hekdesh or not!' ...

àìîà ãñ"ì ãîúëôø?

(b)

Question: From which we say that he holds that one can?

åöøéê ìçì÷ áéï ùáç ä÷ãù ãúåãä ìùáç ä÷ãù ãçèàú, åäëà áçèàú.

(c)

Answer: We must therefore differentiate between the Sh'vach Hekdesh of a Todah and that of a Chatas - and the Sugya here is talking about a Chatas.

9)

TOSFOS DH LO NITZR'CHA SHE'MAR TOCH K'DEI DIBUR

úåñ' ã"ä ìà ðöøëä àìà ùàîø úåê ëãé ãéáåø

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles this with the Sugya in Bava Basra.)

ôé' ëãé ùàìú [ùìåí] úìîéã ìøá - 'ùìåí òìéê øáé' ...

(a)

Clarification: This means the time it takes for a Talmid to greet his Rebbe - 'Shalom Alecha Rebbi' ...

ãäà ã÷éé"ì (á"á ÷ë:) 'úåê ëãé ãéáåø ëãéáåø ãîé' ...

(b)

Implied Question: And when the Gemara in Bava Basra (Daf 120b) Paskens 'Toch K'dei Dibur is like Dibur' ...

åäééðå ëãé ùàìú øá ìúìîéã

1.

Answer: That is the time that it takes for a Rebbe to greet his Talmid (i.e. 'Shalom Alecha').

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF