1)

TOSFOS DH Lo Tehei Pechusah mi'Shochet b'Chutz u'Ma'aleh b'Chutz

úåñôåú ã"ä ìà úäà ôçåúä îùåçè áçåõ åîòìä áçåõ

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses who applies this reasoning, and when.)

úéîä àîàé àéúåúá äëà ìéîà àðà ãàîøé ëøáé ùîòåï ãô' äùåçè åäîòìä (ì÷îï ÷éà.) ãàîø æòéøé ùçéèú ìéìä àéëà áéðééäå ãìøáé ùîòåï çééá

(a)

Question: Why was [R. Yochanan] refuted here? He should say "I hold like R. Shimon below (111a), for Ze'iri said that they argue about Shechitah at night. According to R. Shimon, he is liable!

åé''ì ãäëà ÷àîø àôé' ìøáé éäåãä ãàé ìøáé ùîòåï ãå÷à ìîä ìé èòîà ãìà úäà ôçåúä úéôå÷ ìé îùåí ãøàåé ìäú÷áì áôðéí

(b)

Answer: Here, [R. Yochanan] said even according to R. Yehudah. If it were only according to R. Shimon, why does he need the reason "it should not be less than Shechitah b'Chutz and Ma'aleh b'Chutz"? It should suffice that it is proper to be accepted inside!

åà''ú äà ãúðéà ì÷îï áô' äùåçè åäîòìä (ãó ÷è.) îðéï ìøáåú ôñåìéï ëâåï äìï åäéåöà ëå' ú''ì ìà éáéàðå ìòùåú ëì äîú÷áì áôúç àäì îåòã çééáéï òìéå áçåõ

(c)

Question: A Beraisa below (109a) says "what is the source to include Pesulim such as Linah and Yotzei...? It says "Lo Yevi'enu" to make one liable outside for everything that is accepted at Pesach Ohel Mo'ed;

ì''ì ÷øà úéôå÷ ìé ãìà úäåé ôçåúä îùåçè áçåõ åîòìä áçåõ

1.

Why do we need a verse? I already know, because it should not be less than Shechitah b'Chutz and Ma'aleh b'Chutz"? (Here that Shechitah was Kosher, all the more so one should be liable for offering it outside!)

åë''ú ãääéà ëøáé ùîòåï ãìéú ìéä äàé èòîà

2.

Suggestion: That [Beraisa] is like R. Shimon, who disagrees with this reasoning.

à''ë ìéúðé ùçéèú ìéìä åðùôê ãîä åéöà ãîä çåõ ì÷ìòéí

3.

Rejection: If so, it should teach Shechitah at night, the blood spilled, and the blood went outside the Kela'im!

åé''ì ãáìï åéåöà åèîà ìà ùééê ìà úäà ôçåúä îùåçè áçåõ

(d)

Answer: Regarding Linah, Yotzei and Tamei, "it should not be less than Shechitah b'Chutz" does not apply. (R. Yochanan only said so regarding Pesulim of Shechitah. Perhaps these Pesulim are more severe.)

2)

TOSFOS DH Miktal Katlei

úåñôåú ã"ä î÷èì ÷èìéä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why it is not considered Shechitah.)

îùåí ãìà îöéðå ùçéèä áòåó áôðéí äìëê ä''ì ëäúéæ øàùå åìà ãîé ìùçéèú ìéìä

(a)

Explanation: Because we do not find Shechitah of a bird inside, therefore it is as if he chopped off its head. It is unlike Shechitah at night.

3)

TOSFOS DH u'Mai Ka Mashma Lan d'Yesh Hefshet v'Nitu'ach b'Rosh Mizbe'ach...

úåñôåú ã"ä åîàé ÷î''ì ãéù äôùè åðúåç áøàù äîæáç...

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that we ask about after it was brought down.)

úéîä ãäê ÷åùéà éëåì ìä÷ùåú áìàå äëé ãäéëé ãîé

(a)

Question: He could ask this question without this! What is the case?

àé áôñåìéí åðúç àåúå àîø øçîðà åàé áëùøéï äðéçà ëå'

1.

If [the Korban] is Pasul, the Torah said "v'Nitach Oso" (only a Kosher Olah)! If it is Kosher, this is fine [according to the opinion...]

åîôøù ä''ø çééí ãàí òìúä áøàù äîæáç ìë''ò éù äôùè åðúåç åëùäéà ìîèä ôìéâé îäå ìäòìåúä åìäôùéèä

(b)

Answer (R. Chaim): If it ascended to the top of the Mizbe'ach, all agree that Hefshet v'Nitu'ach (flaying and dissecting) applies [there]. When it is below, they argue about whether or not we bring it up and flay it.

åäëé ôéøåùà áùìîà àé îééøé øéùà áëùøéï åúéäåé ñééòúà ìòåìà åúðà ñéôà ìâìåéé øéùà ãáëùøéí

1.

It means as follows. Granted, if the Reisha discusses Kesherim, and it supports Ula, he taught the Seifa to reveal about the Reisha that they are Kesherim;

àó òì âá ãñéôà ìà àùîåòéðï îéãé ãìë''ò éù äôùè åðúåç áøàù äîæáç åìà úðéà àìà ìâìåéé àøéùà

2.

Even though the Seifa [itself] does not teach anything, for all agree that Hefshet v'Nitu'ach apply on top of the Mizbe'ach, it was taught only to reveal about the Reisha.

àìà àé àîøú øéùà áôñåìéï ñéôà áîàé àé áôñåìéï åðúç àåúä àîø øçîðà

3.

However, if you will say that the Reisha discusses Pesulim, what does the Seifa discuss? If it discusses Pesulim, the Torah said "v'Nitach Osah"!

åàé áëùøéï îàé ÷à îùîò ìï àé ÷à îùîò ìï ãéù äôùè åðúåç áøàù äîæáç ëìåîø àôéìå äåøéãä éòìðä ìäôùéèä äðéçà ìîàï ãàîø ëå':

i.

If it discusses Kesherim, what is the Chidush? If it teaches that that Hefshet v'Nitu'ach apply on top of the Mizbe'ach, i.e. even if it was brought down, they bring it up to flay it, this is fine according to the opinion...

85b----------------------------------------85b

4)

TOSFOS DH v'Hu she'Kadam Hekdeshan Es Muman

úåñôåú ã"ä åäåà ù÷ãí ä÷ãùï àú îåîï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that the Mizbe'ach is Mekadesh only in this case.)

ùçìä òìéäï ÷ãåùú îæáç àáì ÷ãí îåîï ìä÷ãùï ìà äéå ÷ãùé îæáç îòåìí åàôéìå áãå÷éï ùáòéï àéï äîæáç î÷ãùï

(a)

Explanation: Kedushas Mizbe'ach took effect on it. However, if the Mum preceded the Hekdesh, they were never Kodshei Mizbe'ach, and even [if the Mum is mere] cataracts in the eye, the Mizbe'ach is not Mekadesh them.

åúéîä ãáô' á' ãáëåøåú (ãó èæ.) àîøéðï åäùåçèï áçåõ ôèåø øá äåðà îúðé çééá åîå÷é ìä áãå÷éï ùáòéï åàìéáà ãøáé ò÷éáà ãàîø àí òìå ìà éøãå

(b)

Question #1: In Bechoros (16a), we say that one who slaughters them outside is exempt. Rav Huna taught that the text says "liable", and establishes it to discuss cataracts in the eye, and according to R. Akiva, who says that Im Alah Lo Yered.

åìëàåøä ìà ÷àé àîúðéúéï ãäúí àìà àáøééúà ãúðéà ëååúéä ãøá ùùú ùôéøù ëììå ùì ãáø ìàúåéé ìùåçè áçåõ ãôèåø åîééøé ã÷ãí îåîï ìä÷ãùï

1.

It seems that he does not refer to our Mishnah there (14a), rather, to the Beraisa (15b) that is like Rav Sheshes. [The Gemara] explained that "the Klal (general rule) is" [in the Beraisa] includes one who slaughters outside, that he is exempt. It discusses when the Mum preceded the Hekdesh;

åòìä ÷àîø ãøá äåðà îúðé çééá

2.

And about this, it says that Rav Huna taught "liable"!

åäùúà àîàé îúðé çééá äà àîøéðï äëà àôéìå áãå÷éï ùáòéï éøãå ëéåï ã÷ãí îåîï ìä÷ãùï

3.

Summation of question: Why did he teach "liable"? We say here that even cataracts in the eye, Yered, since the Mum preceded the Hekdesh!

åáìàå äëé ÷ùä ãäà áëìì ÷úðé äøé äï ëçåìéï ìëì ãáøéäí (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí) åäéëé îúðé çééá

(c)

Question #2: Without this, it is difficult! It was taught in the Klal "they are like Chulin in every way." How can he teach "liable"?

åá÷åðèøñ äâéä ùí áñéôà ãáøééúà ã÷ãí ä÷ãùï ìîåîï åäùåçè áçåõ ôèåø åòìä ÷àé øá äåðà åîúðé çééá

(d)

Answer: Rashi changed the text there in the Seifa of the Beraisa, when the Hekdesh preceded the Mum, that one who slaughters it outside is exempt. Rav Huna refers to this, and taught that he is liable.

åëï ðøàä ãîééúé áúøéä áéï ìôðé ôãéåï áéï ìàçø ôãéåï òåùéï úîåøä ãäééðå ñéôà ãáøééúà

(e)

Support: This is correct, for it brings after this "whether before or after Pidyon, it makes Temurah", which is the Seifa of the Beraisa.

5)

TOSFOS DH Yesh Nirva b'Ofos Oh Ein Nirva b'Ofos

úåñôåú ã"ä éù ðøáò áòåôåú àå àéï ðøáò áòåôåú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with the Drashah in Chulin.)

äà ããøùéðï áñåó ôø÷ ÷îà ãçåìéï (ãó ëâ.) îï äúåøéï ìîòåèé ðøáò

(a)

Implied question: We expound in Chulin (23a) "Min ha'Turin" to exclude Nirva! (What was the question here?)

äééðå ëîñ÷ðà ãùîòúéï àáì àí úîöà ìåîø ãàéï ðøáò áòåôåú ìà úå÷îéä àìà ìîòåèé îå÷öä

(b)

Answer: That is according to the conclusion of our Sugya. However, if you will say that Nirva does not apply to birds, you would establish [the verse] to exclude only Muktzah (designated for idolatry).

6)

TOSFOS DH u'Mosar ha'Omer

úåñôåú ã"ä åîåúø äòåîø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why this is not included in Shirei Menachos.)

àéðå áëìì ùéøé îðçåú ãçìå÷ äåà îäï ùáà ìäúéø äçãù åáà îï (äâäú éòá"õ) äùòåøéï

(a)

Explanation: This is not included in Shirayim of Menachos. It is different than them, for it comes to permit Chadash, and it is from barley;

ùúé äìçí áàéï çîõ åìçí äôðéí àéï ð÷èø áäí àìà ùðé áæéëé ìáåðä:

1.

[Also] Shtei ha'Lechem [is unlike Shirei Menachos, for] it is Chametz. Lechem ha'Panim [is unlike Shirei Menachos, for] we are not Maktir any of it, only the two spoons of Levonah [that accompany it. Tosfos could have said so also about Shtei ha'Lechem; Haktarah does not apply to it at all.]

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF