1) TOSFOS DH v'Hadar Bei Rabah l'Gabei d'Rava
úåñôåú ã"ä åäãø áéä øáä ìâáéä ãøáà
(SUMMARY: Tosfos justifies Rabah's initial opinion.)
úéîä äúðï áäãéà áôø÷ äîæáç î÷ãù (æáçéí ãó ôã.) åàìå àí òìå ìà éøãå äìï åäéåöà åäèîà åùðùçè çåõ ìæîðå åçåõ ìî÷åîå åàôé' ìøáé éäåùò âåôéä (ãäëé) [ö"ì ãäëà - éùø åèåá] îùîò áøéù îòéìä (ãó á.) ãìà éøãå
(a) Question: A Mishnah explicitly teaches (Zevachim 84a) "the following, Im Alah Lo Yered - Lan, Yotzei, Tamei, Shechitah was [with intent] Chutz li'Zmano or Chutz li'Mkomo", and even according to R. Yehoshua himself here, it connotes in Me'ilah (2a) that Lo Yered. (Why did Rabah initially say Yered?);
ã÷úðé ëìì àîø ø' éäåùò ëì ùìà äéä ìä ùòú äéúø ìëäðéí îåòìéï áä ùðùçèä çåõ ìæîðä åçåõ ìî÷åîä
1. Source: It was taught "R. Yehoshua said a Klal - whatever never had a Heter for Kohanim, Me'ilah applies to it, [e.g.] it was slaughtered Chutz li'Zmano or Chutz li'Mkomo";
åîôøù áâîøà äåàéì åîøöä ìôéâåìå
2. The Gemara explains that [the Mishnah teaches that Me'ilah applies to them] because they are Meratzeh for Pigul (Zerikah of Chutz li'Zmano enables one to be Chayav Kares for eating it, and Chutz li'Mkomo is equated to Chutz li'Zmano).
(åàéáòéà ìäå òìå îäå ùéøãå øáä àîø àí òìå éøãå øá éåñó àîø òìå ìà éøãå åôøéê äúí øá éåñó ìøáä çãà îâå çãà ãëì ùäéä ôñåìå á÷åãù àí òìå ìà éøãå åúéåáúà ãøáä - éùø åèåá îåç÷å) åàéï ìçì÷ áçèàú îùåí ãôñåìä ùìà ìùîä
3. Implied suggestion: Chatas is different, because it is Pasul Lo Lishmah.
ãùìà ìùîä âåôéä àí òìúä ìà úøã
4. Rejection: Lo Lishmah itself, Im Alah Lo Yered!
åòåã ÷ùä ãáëì ãåëúà éìôéðï çåõ ìî÷åîå îçåõ ìæîðå áñô'''÷ ãæáçéí (ãó éã.) âáé çèàåú äôðéîéåú
(b) Question #2: Everywhere, we learn Chutz li'Mkomo from Chutz li'Zmano, [e.g.] in Zevachim (14a) regarding inner Chata'os! (Why did Rabah initially distinguish them?)
ãàò''â ãàîø ø' ùîòåï ëì ùàéðå òì îæáç äçéöåï ëùìîéí àéï çééáéï òìéå îùåí ôéâåì îåãä äéä ãôñåì î÷ì åçåîø éìéó çåõ ìæîðå á÷ì åçåîø îùìà ìùîï åçåõ ìî÷åîå îùåí ãàéú÷ù ìçåõ ìæîðå
1. Even though R. Shimon said that anything that is not [offered] on the outer Mizbe'ach like Shelamim, one is not liable for it due to Pigul, he agrees that it is Pasul from a Kal v'Chomer. He learns Chutz li'Zmano from a Kal v'Chomer from Lo Lishmah, and Chutz li'Mkomo because it is equated to Chutz li'Zmano;
åáô' ëì äôñåìéï (ùí ã' ìã:) àéï òåùéï ùéøééí àìà çåõ ìæîðå åçåõ ìî÷åîå äåàéì åîøöä ìôéâåìå
2. And in Zevachim (34b) we say that [a Pasul who did Zerikah] makes (the remaining blood in the animal) Shirayim (here, this means 'useless') only [if he intended] Chutz li'Zmano or Chutz li'Mkomo, since it is Meratzeh for Pigul;
åçåõ ìî÷åîå åãàé ìà îøöä àìà îçåõ ìæîðå éìéó
i. Surely, Chutz li'Mkomo is not Meratzeh (there is never real Pigul for it with Kares). Rather, we learn from Chutz li'Zmano.
åëï áôø÷ àéæäå î÷åîï (æáçéí ðà.) åáôø÷ äúòøåáú (ùí (ôá.) [ðøàä ùö"ì ôã:])
(c) Question #3: And similarly in Zevachim (51a) and (84b, we say that blood of Chutz li'Zmano is Kosher (i.e. like a proper Zerikah), because it is Meratzeh for Pigul, and Chutz li'Mkomo is Kosher, for it is equated to Chutz li'Zmano!
åø''ú âøéñ ëàï úåãä åìà âøéñ çèàú
(d) Answer - Version #2 (R. Tam): The text here says Todah, and not Chatas.
åãå÷à äëà áúåãä ìà éìôéðï çåõ ìî÷åîå îçåõ ìæîðå ëéåï ãìòðéï ÷ãåùé ìçí ìà ùééê ìîéìó äåàéì åìàå âåôéä ãæáéçä äåà
(e) Explanation #1 (of Version #2): Only here regarding Todah we do not learn Chutz li'Mkomo from Chutz li'Zmano, since for Kidush of the bread we cannot learn, since it is not part of the Zevach itself (also for Lo Yered we do not learn - Yashar v'Tov).
åòåã éù ìôøù ãîùåí ãàééøé áúåãä ð÷è úåãä åäåà äãéï ëì ÷ãùéí ÷ìéí ããåå÷à ÷ãùé ÷ãùéí ãìà îäðéà æøé÷ä ãéãäå áàéîåøéï ìòðéï îòéìä ãáéï ÷åãí æøé÷ä áéï ìàçø æøé÷ä éù áäï îòéìä éìôéðï çåõ ìî÷åîå îçåõ ìæîðå
(f) Explanation #2: Because we discuss Todah, he mentioned Todah, and the same applies to all Kodshim Kalim. Only Kodshei Kodoshim, their Zerikah does not help for Eimurim regarding Me'ilah, for both before Zerikah and after Zerikah there is Me'ilah. (The Pesul of the Zerikah does not matter so much.) We learn Chutz li'Mkomo from Chutz li'Zmano;
àáì ÷ãùéí ÷ìéí ãîäðéà æøé÷ä áàéîåøéí ìòðéï îòéìä àîøéðï ãæøé÷ú ôéâåì ãîáéàä ìéãé îòéìä îäðéà ðîé ìòðéï ãìà úøã àáì çåõ ìî÷åîå ãìà îäðé ìîòéìä ìà
1. However, Kodshim Kalim, Zerikah helps for Eimurim regarding Me'ilah. We say that Zerikas Pigul, which brings to Me'ilah, helps also that Lo Yered. However, Chutz li'Mkomo, which does not help for Me'ilah, no.
åàò''â ãàîø øá âéãì áôø÷ äúëìú (ìòéì îæ:) ãæøé÷ú ôéâåì àéðä îáéàä ìéãé îòéìä
2. Implied question: Rav Gidal said above (47b) that Zerikas Pigul does not bring to Me'ilah!
äàîøéðï äúí ãàéúåúá
3. Answer #1: We say there that he was refuted.
åàôé' ìãéãéä ðîé éù ìéúï èòí îùåí ãçåõ ìæîðå îøöä ìôéâåìå åçåõ ìî÷åîå àéðå îøöä
4. Answer #2: And even according to [Rav Gidal], we can explain that Chutz li'Zmano is Meratzeh for its Pigul, but Chutz li'Mkomo is not Meratzeh.
åëï îåëç áôø÷ äîæáç î÷ãù (æáçéí ãó (ôâ:) [ö"ì ôä.]) ùéù çéìå÷ ìòðéï éøéãä áéï ÷ãùé ÷ãùéí ì÷ãùéí ÷ìéí âáé äà ãàîø òåìà àéîåøé ÷ãùéí ÷ìéí ùäòìï ìôðé æøé÷ú ãîéí ìà éøãå ðòùå ìçîå ùì îæáç
(g) Support: It is proven in Zevachim (85a) that there is a distinction for Yered between Kodshei Kodoshim and Kodshim Kalim, regarding Ula's teaching that Eimurim of Kodshim Kalim that Alu before Zerikas Dam, Lo Yered, because they became 'food' of the Mizbe'ach.
2) TOSFOS DH Ein ha'Nesachim Miskadshim Ela bi'Shechitas ha'Zevach
úåñôåú ã"ä àéï äðñëéí îú÷ãùéí àìà áùçéèú äæáç
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that the Kedushah is to fix them for this Zevach.)
ôé' á÷åðèøñ ìéôñì áìéðä
(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi): [Through Shechitas ha'Zevach, the Nesachim become Kodesh] to become Pasul through Linah.
åìà éúëï àìà ìòðéï ìùðåúï ìæáç àçø ÷àîø ëãôøéùéú áñåó ä÷åîõ æåèà (ìòéì èå:):
(b) Rejection (and Explanation #2): This cannot be! Rather, it says so regarding changing them to another Zevach, like I explained above (15b DH Efshar).
79b----------------------------------------79b
3) TOSFOS DH Lev Beis Din Masneh Aleihen
úåñôåú ã"ä ìá áéú ãéï îúðä òìéäï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explained this above.)
ôéøùúé äúí (ìòéì ôø÷ à' ãó èå:)
(a) Reference: I explained this above (15b DH Efshar. Lev Beis Din stipulates that if the first animal became Pasul through Shechitah, it may be offered with another Zevach that was slaughtered at the time.)
4) TOSFOS DH v'Lisnu Alaihu v'Lifku l'Chulin
úåñôåú ã"ä åìéúðå òìééäå åìéô÷å ìçåìéï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos justifies the Havah Amina.)
àò''ô ùëáø ÷éãùå áëìé ùøú
(a) Implied question: They already became Kodesh in a Kli Shares!
àôéìå úîöé ìåîø ëìé ùøú î÷ãùéí ùìà îãòú äðé îéìé ÷åãù àáì çåìéï ìà î÷ãùé
(b) Answer: Even if you will say that a Kli Shares is Mekadesh without intent, this is only Kodesh, but it is not Mekadesh Chulin.
5) TOSFOS DH Liflog v'Lisni b'Didah
úåñôåú ã"ä ìéôìåâ åìéúðé áãéãä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos infers from here what is the text of our Mishnah.)
îëàï îåëç ãâøñ áîúðéúéï åàí ìðå åìà âøñéðï åàí ìàå ãà''ë äà ÷à îôìâé
(a) Inference: From here it is proven that the text in our Mishnah "v'Im Lanu", and the text does not say "v'Im Lav", for if so, it distinguishes [within the same case]!
6) TOSFOS DH u'Mi Eis Lei l'R. Shimon Lev Beis Din Masneh Aleihen
úåñôåú ã"ä åîé àéú ìéä ìøáé ùîòåï ìá á''ã îúðä òìéäï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we ask from R. Shimon.)
îùåí ãàîøï ãøáé àìòæø áøáé ùîòåï ñáø ìä ëååúéä ãàáåä ÷ôøéê äëà îø' ùîòåï
(a) Explanation: Because we said that R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon holds like his father, we ask here from R. Shimon.
åëï ìòéì áñåó øáé éùîòàì (ãó òá:) ãçé÷ ìàå÷îéä ëååúéä âáé ùìà ëîöåúä
(b) Support: Similarly above (72b), [the Gemara] struggles to establish [R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon] like [R. Shimon] regarding "unlike its Mitzvah."
7) TOSFOS DH d'Eis Lei Takanah b'Re'iyah
úåñôåú ã"ä ãàéú ìéä ú÷ðä áøòééä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why he did not mention a different solution.)
úéîä ìä''ø îùä ãäåä ìéä ìîéîø ùàðé äúí ãàéú ìäå ú÷ðúà ì÷éõ äîæáç ëãàéúà áùáåòåú (ãó éá. åùí)
(a) Question (R. Moshe): He should have said that there is different, for there is a solution to offer it] for Kitz ha'Mizbe'ach (Olos Tzibur), like it says in Shevuos (12a)!
åé''ì ãð÷è øòééä ëé äéëé ãìà ú÷ùé îùòéøé çèàåú åìà îéáòéà ÷àîø
(b) Answer: It mentioned Re'iyah so that one will not ask from Se'irei Chata'os, and he says a bigger Chidush;
ìà îéáòéà áúîéãéï ãàéï ðôãéï )ãäåä ÷éõ ìîæáç( [ö"ì ãàéú ìäå ú÷ðúà ãäåå ÷éõ ìîæáç - ëï ðøàä ò"ô éùø åèåá] àìà àôé' ùòéøé çèàåú (ãàéï) [ö"ì àéï - áàøåú äîéí] ðôãéï ìø' ùîòåï îùåí ãàéú ìäå ú÷ðúà áøòééä:
1. Not only Temidim are not redeemed, for they have a solution to be Kitz la'Mizbe'ach. Rather, even Se'irei Chata'os are not redeemed according to R. Shimon, for there is a solution through Re'iyah.