1)

TOSFOS DH Kol ha'Tadir. she'Ne'emar Milvad Olas ha'Boker...

úåñôåú ã"ä ëì äúãéø. ùðàîø îìáã òåìú äá÷ø...

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses why we need another source that the Tamid is first.)

úéîä ãáôø÷ úîéã ðùçè (ôñçéí ãó ðç:) àîøéðï îðéï ùìà éäà ãáø ÷åãí ìúîéã ùðàîø äòåìä òåìä øàùåðä ì''ì úéôå÷ ìé îäëà

(a)

Question #1: In Pesachim (58b) we say 'what is the source that nothing may precede the [morning] Tamid? It says "ha'Olah" - the first Olah.' We should learn from here!

åëé úéîà ãääåà ìðãøéí åðãáåú åäàé ìîåñôéï ãîåñôéï ÷áåò ìäí æîï åðãøéí åðãáåú àôùø áëì éåí åúãéø

1.

Suggestion: That refers to Nedarim and Nedavos, and here it refers to Musafim. Musafim have a fixed time, and Nedarim and Nedavos are possible on every day, so they are Tadir.

äà áôø÷ äúëìú (îðçåú ãó îè.) îééúé áäãéà ÷øà ãäòåìä àîúðé' ãäúîéãéï àéï îòëáéï àú äîåñôéï

2.

Rejection: In Menachos (49a) it explicitly brings "ha'Olah" regarding the Mishnah that Temidim are not Me'akev Musafim;

ã÷àîø ä''ã àé ãàéú ìéä [åì÷ãí] åäúðéà îðéï ùìà éäà ãáø ëå'

i.

It says "what is the case? If he has [lambs for both], and [it teaches about] offering first (the Tamid need not be first, this cannot be, for) a Beraisa teaches 'what is the source that nothing [may precede the Tamid, and it learns from ha'Olah]'!

åòåã ÷ùä èôé áñåó äâåæì ÷îà (á''÷ ãó ÷éà.) ãøéù îãëúéá îìáã àéì äëôåøéí îëìì ãëñó áøéùà

(b)

Question #2: Bava Kama (111a) is more difficult. It expounds that "Milvad Eil ha'Kipurim" implies that money is first (one may bring his Asham for Gezel ha'Ger only after giving the money to the Kohanim);

åôøéê àìà îòúä îìáã òåìú äáå÷ø îëìì ãîåñôéï áøéùà åäúðéà îðéï ùìà éäà ãáø ëå'

1.

[The Gemara] asks that if so ("Milvad" connotes before), "Milvad Olas ha'Boker Asher l'Olas ha'Tamid" should teach that Musaf is first, but a Beraisa teaches 'what is the source that nothing...'!

äåä ìéä ìîéôøê îîúðé' ãäëà ãàãøáä ããøéù îãëúéá îìáã òåìú äáå÷ø îëìì ãúîéãéï ÷åãîéï

i.

It should have asked from our Mishnah here, for just the contrary, it expounds that since it is written "Milvad Olas ha'Boker", this teaches that Temidim are first!

åìéëà ìîéîø ðîé ãàéöèøéê ÷øà ãäëà ìöéáåø ùàéï ìäí úîéãéí åîåñôéï àìà ëãé àçã îäí

2.

Implied suggestion: We need the verse here for a Tzibur that has enough [lambs] only for Temidim or Musafim (but not both of them. Even if the Musaf is for today and the Temidim for tomorrow, we save them for the Tamid - Tzon Kodoshim.)

ãîúðé' ìàå áëé äàé âååðà àééøé ãåîéà ãñéôà ã÷úðé ãí çèàú ÷åãí ìãí òåìä

3.

Rejection: Our Mishnah does not discuss this, similar to the Seifa, which teaches that Dam Chatas precedes Dam Olah!

åìéëà ìîéîø ãçã ìîöåä åçã ìòëá

4.

Implied suggestion: One verse teaches l'Chatchilah, and one teaches that it is Me'akev.

ãòéëåáà ìéëà ëãàîø áô' äúëìú (îðçåú ãó îè.)

5.

Rejection: [The order] is not Me'akev, like it says in Menachos (49a).

åé''ì ãäòåìä òåìä øàùåðä ìä÷ãîú ä÷èøä ãáä÷èøä àééøé å÷øà ãäëà ìä÷ãîú ùçéèä ãúòùå àú àìä áòùééä ããí [àééøé]

(c)

Answer #1 (to Question #1): '"Ha'Olah" - the first Olah' teaches that it is first for Haktarah, and the verse here teaches that it is first for Shechitah, for "Ta'asu Es Eleh" discusses [offering] blood.

åäùúà ðéçà ãîééúé áôø÷ äúëìú (ùí) äàé ÷øà ãäòåìä (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí) ìîéîø ãàôé' áä÷èøä ãìà úðï úîéã ùì ùçø ÷åãí

(d)

Support: Now it is fine that in Menachos there, it brings "ha'Olah" to teach that even for Haktarah, which our Mishnah did not teach, the morning Tamid is first.

à''ð îùåí ãìùåï ùìà éäà ãáø ÷åãí îùîò èôé òéëåáà àúéà èôé îï îùðä

(e)

Answer #2 (to Question #1): [The questioner in Pesachim thought that it is Me'akev. Therefore he brought from the Beraisa,] because the expression "nothing may precede" connotes that it is Me'akev more than our Mishnah [does].

åäùúà ðéçà ãìà îééúé áäâåæì ÷îà (á''÷ ãó ÷éà.) îîúðé' ìàåëåçé òì îìáã àéì äëôåøéí ãìà äåé ëñó áøéùà

(f)

Answer #1 (to Question #2): Now it is fine that in Bava Kama (111a) it does not bring our Mishnah to prove about "Milvad Eil ha'Kipurim" that the money is not brought first;

ãìòåìí ëñó áøéùà ëéåï ãëúéá ëñó ÷åãí åàçø ëê àéì

1.

Really, the money is first, since Kesef was written first, and afterwards the ram;

àáì äëà àééøé áòùééú äãí åä''÷ ÷øà îìáã òåìú äáå÷ø ùòùéúí ëáø òáåãú äãí úòùå àú àìä

2.

However, here we discuss offering the blood. The verse means as follows. "Milvad Olas ha'Boker", for which you already offered the blood, offer these [Musafim];

àáì ä÷èøä ãëúéá î÷îé ÷øà ãîìáã òåìú äáå÷ø úäéä ÷åãí äúîéã ãëåìäå ÷øàé ã÷îéä áä÷èøä îùúòé ãäà ëúéá áäå àùä øéç

i.

However, Haktarah [of Musafim], which is written before the verse "Milvad Olas ha'Boker", is before [Haktarah of] the Tamid, for all the verses beforehand discuss Haktarah, for they say "Isheh Rei'ach";

åìäëé àéöèøéê ìàúåéé îäòåìä ãàò''â ãä÷èøú ãîåñôéï ëúéáé î÷îé îìáã (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) òåìú äá÷ø ä÷èøú úîéã ÷åãîú ìäï

ii.

Therefore, we need to bring from "ha'Olah". Even though Haktarah of Musafim is written before Milvad Olas ha'Boker, Haktarah of the Tamid precedes them;

ä''ð äëà àò''â ãëñó ëúéá î÷îé îìáã àéì äëéôåøéí éëåì ìäéåú ãàéì ÷åãí

iii.

Likewise here, even though Kesef is written before "Milvad Eil ha'Kipurim", it can be that the ram is offered before [giving the money].

îéäå ÷ùä ã÷øàé ã÷îé îìáã òåìú äáå÷ø áòáåãú ãí [ðîé] àééøé ëãëúéá ìòéì îéðéä åùòéø çèàú àçã ìëôø òìéëí åëôøä áãí äéà

(g)

Question #1: The verses before Milvad Olas ha'Boker discuss also Avodas ha'Dam, like it says above "v'Sa'ir Chatas Echad Lechaper Aleichem", and Kaparah is through the blood!

åòåã àîàé ìà âîøéðï ä÷èøä åãí îäããé

(h)

Question #2: Why don't we learn Haktarah and blood from each other?

åîôøù ä''ø çééí ã÷øà ãäòåìä àéöèøéê ìçáéúéï ãîëì äúãéø ìà àúé ãáëì éåí àéúðäå ëúîéã

(i)

Answer #3 (to Question #1 - R. Chaim): We need "ha'Olah" for Chavitei [Kohen Gadol]. We cannot learn from "whatever is more Tadir", for it is offered every day, just like the Tamid.

åëï îåëç áéåîà áôø÷ àîø ìäí äîîåðä (ãó ìã.) ã÷àîø àéáøéí ÷åãîéï ìîðçä ãúðéà îðéï ùìà éäà ãáø ëå' åàîø øáà ëå' åáîðçú çáéúéí àééøé

(j)

Support: This is proven in Yoma (34a). It says that limbs are offered before the Minchah, for a Beraisa teaches "what is the source that nothing...", and Rava said that it discusses Minchas Chavitim;

ãàé áîðçú ðñëéí úéôå÷ ìé îãëúéá òåìä åîðçä

1.

If it were Minchas Nesachim, I already know [that the limbs are first] for it says "Olah u'Minchah";

å÷øà ãäëà àéöèøéê ììîã òì ëì äúãéøéï ù÷åãîéï

2.

We need the verse here ("Milvad...") to teach about everything Tadir, that it comes earlier.

îéäå àéï îøåéç ëìì áæä éåúø îùàí ðàîø ãàéöèøéê äòåìä ìðãøéí åðãáåú

(k)

Objection (to Answer #3): However, this does not help at all more than if we would say that ha'Olah is needed for Nedarim and Nedavos! (Still, why does Menachos (49a) bring "ha'Olah" to teach that the Tamid precedes Musafim?)

åéù ìúîåä àîàé ìà ðô÷à ìï ãúîéãéí ÷åãîéï ìîåñôéï îãëúéá áúîéã áá÷ø

(l)

Question #3: Why don't we derive that Temidim precede Musafim because it says about the Tamid "ba'Boker"?

åéå÷ãí ãáø ùðàîø áå ááå÷ø ìîåñó ùëúá áå áéåí ãîùîò áòéöåîå ùì éåí ëããøùéðï [äúí] (â''æ ùí) áéåí ìàçø

1.

Something about which it says "ba'Boker" should precede Musaf, about which it is written "ba'Yom", which connotes that in the middle of the day, like we expounded there ba'Yom - after!

åàîøéðï ðîé (ôñçéí ãó ðç.) îåñôéï áùù åàæ àéðå á÷ø

2.

We say also in Pesachim (58a) that Musafim are offered in the sixth hour, and then it is not morning!

åäééðå éëåìéï ìãçå÷ åìåîø ãàé ìàå ÷øà ãäòåìä äééðå îàçøéï ä÷èøú úîéã òã àçø ä÷èøú äîåñó ëãîùîò áäâåæì ÷îà (á''÷ ã' ÷éà.) îãëúéá îìáã

(m)

Poor Answer: If not for "ha'Olah", we would delay Haktarah of the Tamid until after Haktarah of Musaf, like it connotes in Bava Kama (111a), since it says Milvad;

åúòùä ááå÷ø äåä îå÷îéðà ìòáåãú äãí

1.

We would establish "Ta'aseh ba'Boker" regarding Avodas ha'Dam.

àáì òãééï ÷ùä ëéåï ãëúéá äòåìä ìàôå÷é îääéà ñáøà ì''ì ÷øà ãîìáã ìàùîåòé' ãúîéãéï ÷åãîéï ìîåñôéï ìòáåãú äãí úéôå÷ ìéä îãëúéá áúîéã ááå÷ø åáîåñôéï áéåí

(n)

Question: Still, it is difficult, since it is written ha'Olah to exclude that reasoning, why do we need "Milvad" to teach that Temidim precede Musafim for Avodas ha'Dam? We should know this because it is written about the Tamid "ba'Boker", and regarding Musaf [it is written] ba'Yom!

2)

TOSFOS DH Mina Lan kideka'Tani Taima

úåñôåú ã"ä îðà ìï ëã÷úðé èòîà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos questions a similar question in Megilah.)

äëà ðéçà ùäèòí îôåøù áîùðä

(a)

Remark: Here it is fine (that we question the question), for the reason is explicit in the Mishnah.

àáì áùîòúà ÷îééúà ãîâéìä (ãó á.) ÷ùä ã÷àîø îð''ì ëãáòéðï ìîéîø ÷îï çëîéí ä÷éìå ëå'

(b)

Question: However, in Megilah (2a), it is difficult. It asks "[why do you ask] what is the source? It is like we will say below, Chachamim were lenient...!"

åîä áëê àèå îù''ä ìéú ìéä ìîéáòé îð''ì îàçø ùàåúå äèòí àéðå îôåøù áîùðä

1.

So what [if it is taught below]? Is that a reason not to ask "what is the source?", since the reason is not explicit in the Mishnah!

3)

TOSFOS DH Asham Kodem l'Todah v'Eil Nazir Mipnei she'Hu Kodshei Kodoshim

úåñôåú ã"ä àùí ÷åãí ìúåãä åàéì ðæéø îôðé ùäåà ÷ãùé ÷ãùéí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we needed this reason.)

äà ãìà ÷àîø èòîà îôðé ùäåà îøöä

(a)

Implied question: Why doesn't it say that the reason is because [Asham] atones?

îùåí ãàéëà àùí ðæéø åàùí îöåøò ãàéï áàéï ìëôø àìà ìäëùéø ëãàîø áô''÷ ãîðçåú (ã' ã:)

(b)

Answer: It is because there is Asham Nazir and Asham Metzora that do not come to atone, rather, to be Machshir (enable counting Nezirus Taharah, or permit eating Kodshim), like it says in Menachos (4b).

åîéäå âáé çèàú ÷àîø èòîà ãîøöä àò''â ãàéëà ðîé çèàú ðæéø åçèàú îöåøò ãàéï áàéï ìëôø àìà ìäëùéø ëã÷àîø ìòéì áô''÷ (ãó è:) äðé òåìåú ðéðäå

(c)

Implied question: Regarding Chatas, it says the reason that it atones, even though there are also Chatas Nazir and Chatas Metzora that do not come to atone, rather, to be Machshir, like it says above (9b) "these [Chata'os] are [like] Olos"!

åéù ìåîø ãìà ñâé ìéä áèòîà ãîøöä îùåí ãúåãä åàéì ðæéø î÷åãùéï ãèòåðéï ìçí ëãàîø áâî'

(d)

Answer: The reason that it atones is not enough, because Todah and Eil Nazir are more Kodesh [in one respect], that bread must be brought with them, like it says in the Gemara (89b).

4)

TOSFOS DH Ma'aser Kodem l'Ofos Mipnei she'Hu Min Zevach...

úåñôåú ã"ä îòùø ÷åãí ìòåôåú îôðé ùäåà îéï æáç...

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that there is only one reason to favor it over Olas ha'Of.)

îä ùàéï ëï áçèàú äòåó ùàéï ìîæáç àìà ãîä

(a)

Explanation: Chatas ha'Of is different. The Mizbe'ach gets only its blood. (Ma'aser has two matters that are Kodshei Kodoshim, i.e. for the Mizbe'ach - blood and Eimurim.)

åëéåï ã÷ãîä ìçèàú äòåó ëì ùëï ìòåìú äòåó ãäà çèàú äòåó ÷åãîú ìòåìú äòåó ëã÷úðé åàæéì ëê ôéøù á÷åðèøñ

1.

Since [Ma'aser] is before Chatas ha'Of, all the more so it is before Olas ha'Of, for Chatas ha'Of precedes Olas ha'Of, like the Mishnah proceeds to teach. So Rashi explained.

åäàé èòîà ðéçà áãí àáì àéîåøé îòùø ã÷ãîé ìòåìú äòåó îàé èòîà ãàëåìä îéìúà ÷àîø ã÷åãîéí ëãîåëç áâîøà

(b)

Question: The reason is fine for blood, but why do Eimurim of Ma'aser precede Olas ha'Of? [The Mishnah] says that [Ma'aser Behemah] has precedence in every way, like is proven in the Gemara!

åùîà áàéîåøéï ñâé áèòîà ãîéï æáç:

(c)

Answer: Perhaps regarding Eimurim, the reason that it is a kind of Zevach suffices.

89b----------------------------------------89b

5)

TOSFOS DH Dam Chatas Kodem l'Dam Olah Mipnei she'Hu Meratzeh (pertains to Amud A)

úåñôåú ã"ä ãí çèàú ÷åãí ìãí òåìä îôðé ùäåà îøöä (ùééê ìòîåã à)

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we did not give the same reason as for Asham.)

äà ãìà ÷àîø èòîà îùåí ùãîä ðéúï òì ã' ÷øðåú ëã÷àîø âáé àùí

(a)

Implied question: Why didn't it say the reason because its blood is put on the four Keranos, like it says regarding Asham?

îùåí ãëéåï ããí òåìä àúé îëç ëìéì ëãàîø áâîøà ìà ñâé áèòîà ãàøáò ÷øðåú

(b)

Answer: Since Dam Olah comes to due to [a Korban] that is Kalil (totally Huktar), like it says in the Gemara, the reason of four Keranos does not suffice.

6)

TOSFOS DH Hacha b'Chatas ha'Leviyim Askinan

úåñôåú ã"ä äëà áçèàú äìåéí òñ÷éðï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that the reason of our Mishnah does not apply to this.)

åäà ã÷àîø îôðé ùîøöä

(a)

Implied question: [The Mishnah] said that Dam Chatas has precedence because it atones!

áçèàú ãòìîà

(b)

Answer: It refers to a regular Chatas.

7)

TOSFOS DH Dam Olah v'Eimurei Chatas Eizeh Mehen Kodem

úåñôåú ã"ä ãí òåìä åàéîåøé çèàú àéæä îäï ÷åãí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos distinguishes this from the previous question.)

ìà ãîéà ìáòééï ãìòéì ãîééøé áîëôø åëìéì âåôééäå

(a)

Observation: This is unlike the question above (of Dam Chatas and Eimurei Olah), which discusses what itself is Mechaper and Kalil;

åäëà àééøé áàåúå ùáà îëç ëìéì åîëç îëôø

1.

Here we discuss what comes to due to Kalil and Mechaper (Dam Olah is from a Korban that is Kalil. Eimurei Chatas are from a Korban that is Kalil.)

8)

TOSFOS DH Dam Olah v'Dam Asham Eizeh Mehen Kodem

úåñôåú ã"ä ãí òåìä åãí àùí àéæä îäï ÷åãí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we did not ask about Dam Asham and limbs of Olah.)

ãí àùí åàéáøé ãòåìä ãí àùí ÷åãí ãàùí îëôø ëçèàú

(a)

Possibility #1: Between Dam Asham and limbs of Olah, Dam Asham has precedence, because Asham atones like Chatas.

à''ð ôùéèà ìéä ãàéáøé òåìä ÷åãîéï ìãí àùí îôðé ùäï ëìéì

(b)

Possibility #2: Obviously limbs of Olah have precedence over Dam Asham, because they are Kalil;

åìà ãîé ìàéáøé òåìä åãí çèàú ãçùéá ãí çèàú îùåí ãäåé àã' ÷øðåú

1.

This is unlike limbs of Olah and Dam Chatas. Dam Chatas is more important, for it is put on four Keranos.

9)

TOSFOS DH Aval Olah Lo

úåñôåú ã"ä àáì òåìä ìà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos justifies the inference.)

ãòì ëøçéï ìîòåèé òåìä àúà ãàé òåìä ÷åãîú ìàùí ìéúðé òåìä åëì ùëï çèàú ãäà ãí çèàú ÷åãí ìãí òåìä

(a)

Explanation: You are forced to say that it comes to exclude Olah, for if Olah has precedence over Asham, it should teach Olah [has precedence], and [we would know that all the more so Chatas, for Dam Chatas has precedence over Dam Olah!

10)

TOSFOS DH Leima Mesayei'a Lei Besar Kodshim Kalim v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä ìéîà îñééò ìéä áùø ÷ãùéí ÷ìéí ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks why we don't bring a support from a Beraisa above.)

úéîä ãìà îééúé ñééòúà îáøééúà ãìòéì áô' á' (ãó ëå.) ã÷úðé âáé ÷ãùéí ÷ìéí ôøëñä åéöúä ìçåõ åçæøä ôñåìä

(a)

Question: Why don't we bring a support from the Beraisa above (26a), which teaches that if Kodshim Kalim quivered [after Shechitah] and left the Azarah, it is Pasul?

åàîøé' òìä ù''î áùø ÷ãùéí ÷ìéí ùéöà ìôðé æøé÷ú ãîéí ôñåìä åîùðé ãéìîà áàìéä åéåúøú äëáã åùúé äëìéåú

1.

We said about this "this teaches that meat of Kodshim Kalim that left [the Azarah] before Zerikah is Pasul", and answer that perhaps it refers to [Eimurim, i.e.] the tail, Yoseres ha'Kaved and the two kidneys.

11)

TOSFOS DH v'Ha d'Ka Mipalgei b'Basar Lodi'acha Kocho d'Reish Lakish

úåñôåú ã"ä åäà ã÷à îéôìâé ááùø ìäåãéòê ëçå ãø''ì

(SUMMARY: Tosfos supports the Havah Amina to teach the argument about Eimurim.)

äåä îöé ìàéôìåâé áàéîåøéï ìäåãéòê ëç ãäéúéøà:

(a)

Observation: They could have argued about Eimurim to teach Ko'ach d'Hetera (the extremity of the lenient opinion. R. Yochanan is Machshir even Eimurim.)

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF