1)

TOSFOS DH Sachin Moshachtan l'Mah she'Hen (cont.)

úåñôåú ã"ä ñëéï îåùëúï ìîä ùäï (äîùê)

åèòîà îùåí ãáàéï ìëôø òì [èåîàú] î÷ãù å÷ãùéå ãúðé áîúðéúéï äúí åááøééúà çéãù èôé îîúðéúéï (äâäú äá"ç)

(a)

Explanation: The reason [why the knife pulls them] is because they come to atone for Tum'as Mikdash v'Kodoshav, which is taught in our Mishnah there, and the Beraisa taught a bigger Chidush than our Mishnah;

ã÷úðé ùúçìúå ìà áà àìà ìëôø òì îæáç äçéöåï ìàôå÷é ùòéø äôðéîé ãáòéðï úøúé èåîàú î÷ãù åîæáç äçéöåï

1.

[The Beraisa] taught that initially it came to atone only on the the outer Mizbe'ach. [This is not the reason. Rather,) this excludes the inner goat [of Yom Kipur], for we require both - [atonement for] Tum'as Mikdash v'Kodoshav, and the outer Mizbe'ach.

åàó òì âá ãîùîò äúí ãàé ìà îùåí âæéøä àèå ìôðé ëôøä äéå (äâäú äá"ç) î÷éöéï áâåôï àôé' áîåúø çèàåú äôðéîéåú

(b)

Implied question: It connotes there that if not for the decree due to before Kaparah, they would offer them themselves for Kitz ha'Mizbe'ach, even with leftover inner Chata'os!

äééðå îùåí ãäëé âîéøé ãîåúø çèàåú öáåø ìòåìä

(c)

Answer: That is because so was the tradition, that Mosar Chatas Tzibur is an Olah.

åøáéðå çððàì îôøù ëôéøåù äòøåê åâøéñ äúí úðéà ðîé äëé å÷àé àîéìúà ãøáé éåçðï ãàîø ãìøáé ùîòåï î÷éöéï áäï áâåôï äåàéì åîòé÷øà òåìä åäùúà òåìä àáì ìà áîåúø çèàú ëå'

(d)

Alternative text: R. Chananel explains like the Aruch, and his text there says "also a Beraisa teaches so." It refers to R. Yochanan's teaching, that according to R. Shimon we offer them themselves for Kitz ha'Mizbe'ach, since initially it was an Olah and now it is an Olah. However, one may not use Mosar Chatas [for Kitz ha'Mizbe'ach]...

åúéîä àîàé ðèø òã ìñåó ãìòéì äåä ìéä ìàúåéé

(e)

Question: This is astounding! Why did it wait until the end [to bring the Beraisa to support R. Yochanan]? It should have brought it above!

2)

TOSFOS DH Dilma Im Timtzi Lomar ka'Amar

úåñôåú ã"ä ãìîà àí úéîöé ìåîø ÷àîø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that also R. Zeira says so.)

åøáé æéøà ðîé ùäùéá (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã) ìøáé éøîéä òì èåîàä ùàéøòä áéï æå ìæå ëîå ëï àí úéîöé ìåîø ÷àîø

(a)

Explanation: Also R. Zeira, who answered R. Yirmeyah [that the second atones for] Tum'ah that occurred between one and the other, said "if you will say [that it atones for an Aveirah after it was Hukdash, it atones for an Aveirah after Shechitah]";

å÷åùéà øàùåðä åîé àéú ìéä ìøáé ùîòåï ìá áéú ãéï îúðä ìà çù ìúøõ ãàéëà ìîéîø ãàôøùéðäå áæä àçø æä

1.

He was not concerned to answer the first question "does R. Shimon hold that Lev Beis Din stipulates?", for we can say that they were separated one after the other.

åàéðå çåùù á÷åùéà ãìé÷å åìéîà ìéä ì÷øà ëå'

i.

He was not concerned for the question "will we establish the verse [only when they were separated one after the other?!]"

åòåã ãäéëà ãìéú ìéä ú÷ðúà áøòééä àéú ìéä ìøáé ùîòåï ìá áéú ãéï îúðä ëãîåëç áîðçåú ô' äúåãä (òè:)

2.

Also, R. Shimon holds that Lev Beis Din stipulates when there is no solution through Re'iyah, like is proven in Menachos (79b).

åîéäå äà îåëç ãäéëà ãàéú ìéä ú÷ðúà áøòééä ìéú ìéä ìá áéú ãéï îúðä åëàï àéú ìéä ú÷ðúà áøòééä

3.

However, it is proven that when there is a solution through Re'iyah, he does not hold that Lev Beis Din stipulates. Here there is a solution through Re'iyah.

3)

TOSFOS DH Todah she'Shachtah l'Shem Todas Chavero Rabah Amar Kesherah

úåñôåú ã"ä úåãä ùùçèä ìùí úåãú çáéøå øáä àîø (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) ëùøä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses in which case they argue.)

åòåìä ìùí çåáä åîùåí (äâäú æáç úåãä) ùðåé áòìéí ìà îéôñìà ãàéï ùéðåé áòìéí àìà (à''ë) áæøé÷ä

(a)

Explanation: It counts for the obligation. It is not disqualified due to Shinuy Ba'alim, for Shinuy Ba'alim applies only to Zerikah;

åøá çñãà àîø ôñåìä ôéøåù ìà òìúä ìùí çåáä îùåí ãäåé ùéðåé ÷åãù ëùàîø úåãú ôìåðé ìùí úåãä àçøú ùì ôìåðé

1.

Rav Chisda says that it is Pasul, i.e. it does not count for the obligation, for it is Shinuy Kodesh, when he said "Ploni's Todah l'Shem a different Todah of Ploni";

àáì àîø úåãä æå ìùí ôìåðé ëùøä âîåøä ìôé ùäåà ùéðåé áòìéí áùçéèä ãëùéøä âîåøä

2.

However, if he said "this Todah is l'Shem Ploni", it is totally Kosher, for this is Shinuy Ba'alim in Shechitah, which is totally Kosher.

4)

TOSFOS DH Hagahah Rav Chisda Amar Pesulah

úåñôåú ã"ä äâä''ä øá çñãà àîø ôñåìä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos brings two opinions about whether they argue about other Korbanos.)

ðøàä ãå÷à áúåãä ôìéâ îùåí ãëúéá áäï ÷øà ùìîéå

(a)

Explanation #1: It seems that they argue only about Todah, for it is written about it "Shelamav".

åá÷åðèøñ ôéøù ãäåà äãéï áùàø ÷øáðåú

(b)

Explanation #2: Rashi explained that they likewise argue about other Korbanos.

5)

TOSFOS DH Amar Rava Chatas she'Shachtah l'Shem Chatas Kesherah

úåñôåú ã"ä àîø øáà çèàú ùùçèä ìùí çèàú ëùøä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains when intent for a different Chatas disqualifies.)

ôéøù øáéðå úí ãøáà ëøá çñãà ñ''ì ãäà ãøáä àéãçé åèòîà ãúåãä îùåí ùìîéå (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí)

(a)

Explanation #1 (R. Tam): Rava holds like Rav Chisda, for Rabah's opinion was rejected. The reason for Todah is due to "Shelamav".

îùîò ãø''ì ãàééøé ùùçèä ìùí çèàú çáéøå

(b)

Inference: The case is, he slaughtered l'Shem another's Chatas.

åðøàä ãìàå áäëé îééøé îãìà ÷àîø áäãéà çáéøå

(c)

Rebuttal: It seems that we do not discuss this, since it did not say explicitly "his friend"!

àìà îééøé áçèàú çìá ìùí çèàú ãí ëãàîø øáà ì÷îï áôéø÷éï (ãó è:) çèàú çìá ùùçèä ìùí çèàú ãí ìùí çèàú òáåãú ëåëáéí ëùøä

(d)

Explanation #2: Rather, we discuss Chatas Chelev l'Shem Chatas Dam, like Rava said below (9b) that a Chatas Chelev slaughtered l'Shem Chatas Dam or l'Shem Chatas Avodah Zarah is Kosher;

ìùí çèàú ðæéø ìùí çèàú îöåøò ôñåìä äðé òåìåú ðéðäå

1.

[If he slaughtered it] l'Shem Chatas Nazir or l'Shem Chatas Metzora, it is Pasul. These are [like] Olos (since they do not atone for sin).

åàí úàîø åúøúé ãøáà (äâää áâìéåï) ìîä ìé

(e)

Question: Why did Rava need to teach these two teachings?

åéù ìåîø ãäê ãäëà ð÷è ìàùîåòéðï ãùéðåé ÷åãù àéôëà îùéðåé áòìéí àò''â ãøáà ìà ôéøù äôñå÷éí áãáøéå (äâäú áøëú äæáç, öàï ÷ãùéí åøù"ù)

(f)

Answer: He taught this here to teach that Shinuy Kodesh is opposite to Shinuy Ba'alim, even though Rava did not explain the verses in his words;

îãàîø áøéù ôéøåùå (ìòéì ãó â:) ãøá éåñó áø àîé øîé åîùðé (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí)

1.

Source: [The Gemara] said at the beginning of explaining [Rava's opinion] that Rav Yosef bar Ami asked a contradiction, and answered it. (Had Rava explained how he expounds, there was no question at all!)

åäê (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí) ãì÷îï ð÷è ìçì÷ áçèàåú åâí îùåí áòéà ãàçø ëê ãáòé øáà çèàú çìá ùùçèä ìùí çèàú ãèåîàú î÷ãù å÷ãùéå îäå

2.

This teaching below he mentioned to distinguish between Chata'os, and also due to the question afterwards that Rava asked about "if a Chatas Chelev was slaughtered l'Shem Chatas Tum'as Mikdash v'Kodoshav, what is the law?"

6)

TOSFOS DH Chatas she'Shachtah Al Mi she'Mechuyav Olah Kesherah

úåñôåú ã"ä çèàú ùùçèä òì îé ùîçåééá òåìä ëùøä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos gives two possible cases.)

åëâåï ùìà äôøéùä òãééï ãàé äôøéùä äåä ìéä ëòì îé ùàéðå îçåééá ëìåí àí úéîöé ìåîø ãìà îëôøà àòùä ãìàçø äôøùä ãîñúîà òåìä éáéà åéëôø òì äëì

(a)

Explanation #1: The case is, [he knows that he is obligated an Olah, and] he did not separate it yet. (His Olah will atone for everything, so it is as if he Vadai has no obligation.) If he separated it, he is like one who has no obligation, if you will say that it does not atone for an Aseh after separation. (Perhaps he transgressed after separation, but he does not know, so he will not bring an Olah for it. He is like one who is not obligated anything, and his Chatas is Pasul. However, when he did not yet separate,) presumably, he will bring an Olah and atone for everything.

1.

Note: We explain like Rashash. Explanation #2 is even if you will say that since the Torah did not obligate him, we do not assume that one who transgressed will bring an Olah.

à''ð ãàîø äøé òìé òåìä ãëùéôøéùðä éëôø òì ëì òùä ùòáø

(b)

Explanation #2: Or, he said "it is Alai to bring an Olah." When he will separate it, he will atone for every Aseh that passed.

7)

TOSFOS DH Al Mi she'Eino Mechuyav Klum Pesulah

úåñôåú ã"ä òì îé ùàéðå îçåééá ëìåí ôñåìä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains another text.)

àéú ãâøñé (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí) áäà îéîøà òåìä ãâáé òåìä ðîé ëúéá ìëôø òìéå

(a)

Alternative text: Some texts of this teaching say "Olah", for also regarding Olah, it is written "Lechaper Alav";

ãàé âøñéðï äëà çèàú ì''ì àéãê îéìúà ãøáà ãçèàú îëôøú òì çééáé òùä îäëà ùîòéðï ìä

1.

If the text here is "Chatas", why do we need Rava's other teaching that a Chatas is Mechaper for Isurei Aseh? We learn it from here!

8)

TOSFOS DH Al Chayavei Aseh Lo Kol she'Chen

úåñôåú ã"ä òì çééáé òùä ìà ëì ùëï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why it atones only a little.)

îäàé ÷ì åçåîø äåä ìï ìîéîø ãàôéìå î÷éáòà îëôøà

(a)

Implied question: From this Kal v'Chomer we should have said that it atones greatly!

àìà ãàéðä ñáøà (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã) äåàéì åòé÷øà ìîéìúà àçøéúé ÷àúéà åàäðé ÷ì åçåîø ì÷åôéà:

(b)

Answer: This is unreasonable (that it atone greatly), because primarily, it comes for another matter. The Kal v'Chomer helps [to atone] a little.

7b----------------------------------------7b

9)

TOSFOS DH Olah Doron Hi

úåñôåú ã"ä òåìä ãåøåï äéà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that even though it atones more for an Aseh, it is like a gift.)

àò''â ãàòùä îëôøú éåúø îçèàú ãäà îëôøà î÷éáòà

(a)

Observation: Even though it atones for a Aseh more than a Chatas does, for [Olah] atones greatly [for an Aseh, even so it is considered a gift].

10)

TOSFOS DH Ritzah Praklit

úåñôåú ã"ä øéöä ôø÷ìéè

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that Chatas is first even when this reason does not apply.)

àò''â ãàéëà òåìú éåìãú åîöåøò åðæéø ãìà îééúé ÷øáï àìà ìàéùúøåéé á÷ãùéí ëãàîø áôø÷ áúøà ãëøéúåú (ãó ëå.) åàôéìå äëé (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí) çèàúí ÷åãîú ìòåìä ãìà çì÷ä úåøä

(a)

Observation: There is Olas Yoledes, Metzora and Nazir. Each of these is only to permit the person to Kodshim (and the Mikdash), like it says in Kerisus (26a), and even so, the Chatas precedes the Olah, for the Torah did not distinguish. (Zivchei Efrayim - the text should say Chatas Yoledes, Metzora and Nazir. The Sugya in Kerisus and Rashi there support him. The Havah Amina was that their Korban is for Kaparah - PF.)

1.

Note: The Meforshim in Kerisus explain that "Nazir" refers to a Safek Nazir Tamei. It seems that the text there should say "so that Nezirus Taharah will take effect on him", for he does not need a Korban to permit him to Kodshim! There, Birkas ha'Zevach is Magiha like this, and Be'er Sheva proves so from Kerisus 8b, Rashi and Tosfos in Shevu'os 8b, and Tosfos in Sotah 15a. Perhaps the text of our Tosfos is mistaken. Or, Tosfos gave the reason for Yoledes and Metzora, and did not elaborate to give the reason for Nazir. (In Nazir 46a, R. Eliezer says that everything [in the Parshah] is Me'akev his Heter to drink wine.) Indeed, R. Gershom's text in Kerisus says "to permit him to Kodshim", but perhaps it was "fixed" to conform to errant texts of the Gemara.

11)

TOSFOS DH va'Amartem Zevach Pesach

úåñôåú ã"ä åàîøúí æáç ôñç

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we learn Shinuy Ba'alim from this verse.)

äàé ÷øà ëúéá áøéùà åùîåø àú çåãù äàáéá äåä ìéä ìàå÷åîé [áùéðåé áòìéí] áàí àéðå òðéï

(a)

Implied question: This verse is written first. It should have established "Shamor Es Chodesh ha'Aviv" to discuss Shinuy Ba'alim, since it is not needed [for Shinuy Kodesh, which we learn from va'Amartem]!

àìà îùåí ãëééì áä ëì òáåãåú ãëúéá åòùéú ôñç [ãîùîò] îñúîà ëì òùéåú äìëê îå÷é ìéä ìùéðåé ÷åãù

(b)

Answer: Because ["Shamor..."] includes all the Avodos, for it is written "v'Asisa Pesach", which connote everything that is done [to offer it], therefore we establish it to discuss Shinuy Kodesh (which applies to all Avodos).

12)

TOSFOS DH v'Zavachta Pesach

úåñôåú ã"ä åæáçú ôñç

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out another Drashah that we make from this verse.)

áñåó äúåãä (îðçåú ôá.) ãøéù ìä áîùðä ìãáø ùáçåáä [ùäéà áàä îï äçåìéï]

(a)

Reference: In Menachos (82a), the Mishnah expounds this to teach that an obligation must come from Chulin (and not from Ma'aser);

åäúí áâîøà ðîé îééúé ãøùà ãäëà

1.

There in the Gemara, it brings also the Drashah of here.

13)

TOSFOS DH u'Mai Nihu Shelamim

úåñôåú ã"ä åîàé ðéäå ùìîéí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos gives three reasons to say so.)

ãòåìä ìéëà ìîéîø ãàéðä áàä îëì öàï åá÷ø ëãôé' á÷åðèøñ ãàéðä áàä ð÷áä

(a)

Explanation: We cannot say that it is Olah, for it does not comes from all Tzon and Bakar (flock and cattle), like Rashi explained, for it cannot be a female.

åòåã àéëà ì÷îï úìúà ÷øàé åääåà ãàí ëáù îåëç áäãéà ãäåé ùìîéí

(b)

Proof: Also, below there are three verses, and the verse "Im Keves" explicitly proves that it is a Shelamim.

åòåã ããåçéï ÷ãùéí ÷ìéí àöì ÷ãùéí ÷ìéí åìà àöì ÷ãùé ÷ãùéí ëãì÷îï (ãó è.)

(c)

Support: Also, we push off Kodshim Kalim (if we must say that it discusses a different Korban) to [another case of] Kodshim Kalim, and not to Kodshei Kodoshim (such as Olah), like below (9a).

14)

TOSFOS DH v'Zavachta Pesach lechid'Rav Nachman

úåñôåú ã"ä åæáçú ôñç ìëãøá ðçîï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos brings the Sifri, which expounds differently.)

áñéôøé ôøùú òùø úòùø ãøéù ëåìäå áùðåé ÷åãù

(a)

Remark: The Sifri in Parshah "Aser Ta'aser" expounds all of them to discuss Shinuy Kodesh.

åäëé àéúà äúí åæáçú àéï ìé àìà æáéçä ùàø òáåãåú îðéï åàùéðåé [÷åãù] ÷àé

1.

It says there '"V'Zavachta" teaches only about Shechitah. What is the source for other Avodos?' It discusses Shinuy Kodesh.

ú''ì åòùéú éëåì àó ä÷èø çìáå ú''ì åæáçú åàéï æä áñåâéà ùìðå

2.

[It answers] 'it says "v'Asisa". Perhaps [Shinuy Kodesh applies] even to Haktarah of the Chelev! It says '"v'Zavachta".' This is not in our Sugya.

15)

TOSFOS DH Hu Le'akev Bein Hacha Bein Hacha

úåñôåú ã"ä äåà ìòëá áéï äëà áéï äëà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos brings two opinions about what we seek the source for.)

áùéðåé ÷åãù áëì òáåãåú áùéðåé áòìéí áæáéçä

(a)

Explanation #1: [This refers to] Shinuy Kodesh in all Avodos, and Shinuy Ba'alim in Shechitah.

àò''â ãäåà áæáéçä ëúéá áôøùú áà àì ôøòä å÷øà ãåòùéú áôøùú øàä àðëé

(b)

Implied question: "Hu" is written regarding Shechitah in Parshas Bo, and "v'Asisa" is in Parshas Re'eh! (How can "Hu" teach about Shinuy Kodesh, which is taught in a different Parshah?)

îëì î÷åí îùîò äåà áäåééúå ëùäåà òùåé ëîöåúå ëãôé' á÷åðèøñ

(c)

Answer: Even so, "Hu" connotes b'Havayaso, when it is done like its Mitzvah, like Rashi explained.

åäùúà äà ã÷àîø àùëçï æáéçä ùàø òáåãåú îðà ìï àùéðåé áòìéí ÷àé

(d)

Consequence: This that it says "we find Shechitah. What is the source for other Avodos?" refers to Shinuy Ba'alim.

òåã éù ìôøù ãáéï áùéðåé ÷åãù áéï áùéðåé áòìéí ÷áòé îðà ìï ìòëá ãäåà ÷àé ãå÷à àæáéçä

(e)

Explanation #2: We ask the source to be Me'akev both for Shinuy Kodesh and Shinuy Ba'alim, for "Hu" refers only to Shechitah;

åîãàô÷éä øçîðà ìùéðåé áòìéí áìùåï ùéðåé ÷åãù àéú ìï ìàå÷åîé äåà (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) ãæáéçä ìòëá áéï áùéðåé áòìéí áéï áùéðåé ÷åãù

1.

Since the Torah taught Shinuy Ba'alim through an expression of Shinuy Kodesh, we should establish "Hu" of Shechitah to be Me'akev both regarding Shinuy Ba'alim and Shinuy Kodesh;

åùéðåééà ãäåàéì åâìé âìé ìà ðéçà ìäàé ôéøåùà ëîå ìôéøåù ÷îà

(f)

Observation: The answer "since [the Torah] revealed, it revealed" is not as proper according to this Perush as according to Explanation #1.

16)

TOSFOS DH Mah Shelamim Bein bi'Zvichah Bein bi'She'ar Avodos Lo Chalakta Bahen

úåñôåú ã"ä îä ùìîéí áéï áæáéçä áéï áùàø òáåãåú ìà çì÷ú áäï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks why a verse must teach about Shinuy in Shechitas Pesach.)

åà''ú ëéåï ãëúéá åòùéú ôñç ìòëá áùéðåé ÷åãù áëì òùéåú ìùúå÷ ÷øà îæáéçä åúéúé îùìîéí

(a)

Question: Since it is written "v"Asisa Pesach" to make Shinuy Kodesh Me'akev in all Asiyos (Avodos), the Torah should have omitted [Zevach Pesach Hu,] to teach about Shechitah, and we would learn from Shelamim!

ãîä ùìîéí ìà çì÷ú áéï áùéðåé ÷åãù ìùéðåé áòìéí ìîöåä àó ìôñç ìà úçìå÷ ìòëá

1.

Just like in Shelamim we do not distinguish between Shinuy Kodesh and Shinuy Ba'alim l'Chatchilah (both are forbidden), even in Pesachim we do not distinguish [and both are] Me'akev!

17)

TOSFOS DH Ela Hu Lamah Li

úåñôåú ã"ä àìà äåà ìîä ìé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos brings other Drashos from "Hu".)

ì÷îï áôø÷ áéú ùîàé (ãó ìæ:) åáôñçéí ôø÷ îé ùäéä èîà (ãó öæ.) ãøéù äåà ãôñç ìîòåèé úîåøú ôñç åúøé äåà ëúéáé

(a)

Observation: Below (37b) and in Pesachim (97a), [the Gemara] expounds "Hu" of Pesach to exclude Temuras Pesach. "Hu" is written twice.

åáôñçéí áñåó úîéã ðùçè (ãó ñá:) ãøéù øáé àìéòæø îäåà ãôñç ìà äåà ëùø ìùí àçøéí åìà àçøéí ëùøéï ìùîå

(b)

Reference: In Pesachim (62b), R. Eliezer expounds from "Hu" of Pesach that it is not Kosher l'Shem other [Korbanos], and others are not Kosher l'Shem Pesach;

åøáé àìéòæø ìèòîéä ãàéú ìéä òëåáà áàùí åìà îå÷é ìéä ìîéîø àáì àùí ìà ðàîø áå äåà ëå'

1.

This is like R. Eliezer taught elsewhere (in our Mishnah) that [Lishmah] is Me'akev in Asham, and he does not establish ["Hu" like it says here,] to teach 'in Asham, it says "Hu" only [after Haktaras Eimurim. Since the Korban is Kosher even if the Eimurim are not burned at all, all the more so if they were burned Lo Lishmah!]'

18)

TOSFOS DH Kol Makom she'Ne'emar Hu bi'Zvichah

úåñôåú ã"ä ëì î÷åí ùðàîø äåà áæáéçä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos defends our text.)

ôéøù á÷åðèøñ åìà âøñéðï ìéä îùåí ãìéúéä ááøééúà ãì÷îï

(a)

Assertion (Rashi): The text does not say this, for it is not in the Beraisa below.

åàéï ìîçå÷ áùáéì ëê äñôøéí ãàôùø ùäéà ááøééúà áùåí î÷åí áúåñôúà:

(b)

Objection: This is no reason to erase [this] from Seforim! Perhaps it is a Beraisa somewhere in the Tosefta.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF