1) TOSFOS DH Ho'il u'Chesiv u'Min ha'Tzon k'Man di'Chsiv Yachdav
úåñôåú ã"ä äåàéì åëúéá åîï äöàï ëîàï ãëúéá éçãå
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how we would expound if not for "Oh".)
ãîãëúéá îï äáäîä åäãø ëúéá îï äá÷ø åîï äöàï îùîò ùðéäí
(a) Explanation: Since it is written "Min ha'Behemah", and afterwards it is written "Min ha'Bakar u'Min ha'Tzon", this connotes both of them;
åá÷åðèøñ ôéøù )áò''à - àéðå áãôåñ åéðéöéä) ãúøåééäå àôéøåùà ãáäîä îãìà ëúéá îï äá÷ø åäöàï îùîò ùðéäí ãàúà ìôøù îàéæå áäîä îï äá÷ø åîï äöàï îæä àçã åîæä àçã
1. Rashi explained that both of them explain "Behemah". Since it did not write 'Min ha'Bakar veha'Tzon', it connotes both. It comes to teach which animal - from Bakar and from Tzon, one of each. (Therefore, we need "Oh" to teach that this is not so.)
åàó ò''â ããøùé' áúîåøä (ãó ëç:) ëåìéä (ãåé''å) [ö"ì ÷øàé åâí åé''å - éã áðéîéï] ãéãéä ðîé ãøéù äúí
(b) Implied question: In Temurah (28b), we expound the entire verse and also the Vov (i.e. we exclude two matters from "u'Min". One is from "Min", and one is from the prefix Vov. According to Rashi, here we learn a third matter from "u'Min"!)
î''î àé ìà ëúéá äëà àå ìçì÷ äåä ãøéùðà ìéä ìîéîø ãáòéðà éçãå:
(c) Answer: In any case, had it not written here "Oh" to divide, we would have expounded [u'Min] to teach that we require [both] together. (Now that it says Oh, u'Min is needed only for the Drashos in Temurah.)
2) TOSFOS DH v'Chol ha'Zevachim she'Nizbechu she'Lo Lishman
úåñôåú ã"ä åëì äæáçéí ùðæáçå ùìà ìùîï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that really, we do not need this verse.)
úéîä äà ìîä ìé ÷øà ëéåï ããøùéðï áøéù îëéìúéï (ãó á.) àí ëîä ùðãøú òùéú éäà ðãø åàí ìàå éäà ðãáä ìéáòé ðñëéí ëðãáä
(a) Question: Why do we need a verse? Since we expounded above (2a) "if you did like you vowed, it is a Neder. If not, it is a Nedavah", it should require Nesachim like a Nedavah!
åëé úéîà ãìâáé ðñëéí ìà äåä îå÷é ìéä ì÷øà
1. Suggestion: We would not establish the verse regarding Nesachim.
äà òì ëøçéê öøéê ìàå÷åîé äëé ùàí àé àúä àåîø ëï ôñìúå ëãàîø øáé éåçðï ìòéì âáé àùí îöåøò
2. Rejection: You are forced to establish it so, for if not you disqualified it, like R. Yochanan said above about Asham Metzora!
åðøàä ãëãé ðñáéä îùåí ãàé ìàå ÷øà ãîåöà ùôúéê îäëà äåä ðô÷à ìéä åòé÷ø ÷øà ìàçøéðà àúà:
(b) Answer: It seems that [the verse] was mentioned without need, for if not for the verse Motza Sefasecha, we would have learned from here. The verse comes primarily for other matters.
91b----------------------------------------91b
3) TOSFOS DH d'Amar Mar Chatas v'Asham Minayin Talmud Lomar Zevach
úåñôåú ã"ä ãàîø îø çèàú åàùí îðéï ú''ì æáç
(SUMMARY: Tosfos gives two opinions about what this discusses.)
áô' ëì äôñåìéï (æáçéí ãó ìå.) âáé ðàëì ìéåí åìéìä
(a) Explanation #1: This was taught in Zevachim (36a), about being eaten for one day and a night.
åá÷åðèøñ ôéøù áðæéø áô' â' îéðéï (ãó îä:) âáé çèàú ðæéø åàùîå
(b) Explanation #2 (Rashi): It was taught in Nazir 45b, about Chatas Nazir and his Asham (the Nazir's hair may be placed under the pot in which one of them is cooked, in place of under the Shelamim).
4) TOSFOS DH Aval Heicha d'Chatas Lechaper v'Asham Lehachshir Ba'i Trei Krai'i
úåñôåú ã"ä àáì äéëà ãçèàú ìëôø åàùí ìäëùéø áòé úøé ÷øàé
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why elsewhere one verse suffices.)
åäà ãìà îáòéà ìï úøé ÷øàé ìçèàú åàùí ùì îöåøò áôø÷ ëì äôñåìéï (æáçéí ãó ìå.) àìà ðô÷à ìï îçã ÷øà ëåìäå çèàåú åàùîåú ãðàëìéí ìéåí åìéìä
(a) Implied question: Why don't we require two verses for Chatas and Asham of Metzora in Zevachim (36a)? Rather, we learn from one verse that all Chata'os and Ashamos are eaten for one day and a night!
äééðå äéëà ãìà îùðéðï ìäå îãéï ùàø çèàåú åàùîåú àáì äëà îùðéðï ìäå ãùàø çèàåú åàùîåú ìà áòå ðñëéí åäðé áòå ðñëéí
(b) Answer: That is when we do not change them from the law of other Chata'os and Ashamos. However, here we make them different, for other Chata'os and Ashamos do not require Nesachim, and these require Nesachim.
5) TOSFOS DH Eima Chatas v'Asham d'Nazir
úåñôåú ã"ä àéîà çèàú åàùí ãðæéø
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why he asked specifically about these.)
àçèàú åàùí ãòìîà ìà ôøéê
(a) Implied question: Why didn't he ask about another Chatas and Asham?
àìà îäðé îùåí ãàéú áäå îðçä åâí ãîå ìðãáä ãðæéøåú ðãáä äéà
(b) Answer: He asked only from these, for they have a Minchah, and also they resemble a Nedavah, for Nezirus is a Nedavah. (Rashash asks what is the source that they have a Minchah.)
6) TOSFOS DH Ayil bi'Chlal Hayah v'Lamah Yatza
úåñôåú ã"ä àéì áëìì äéä åìîä éöà
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains what the Drashah is.)
ãëúéá áéä îðçúå åðñëå
(a) Explanation: It says about it "Minchaso v'Nisko." (I already know that Shelamim requires a Minchah and Nesachim!)
åà''ú åäà ãøùéðï ìéä áô''÷ ãæáçéí (ãó ç.)
(b) Question: We expound this in Zevachim (8a, to permit at night. Why do we ask why this was said?)
åé''ì ãäúí åé''å ÷ãøéù åìòéì ôéøùúé áô' äúëìú (ãó îã:)
(c) Answer: There, we expound the Vov. I explained this above (44b DH Minchasam (2). Here we expound since it is written "Minchaso v'Nisko", and it is written also "u'Minchasam v'Niskeihem.")
7) TOSFOS DH Chamor Min ha'Ikar
úåñôåú ã"ä çîåø îï äòé÷ø
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how this is more stringent than the source.)
ãîòùø âåôéä ìà áòé ðñëéí
(a) Explanation: Ma'aser itself does not require Nesachim.
8) TOSFOS DH d'Maisi u'Masni
úåñôåú ã"ä ãîééúé åîúðé
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how he stipulates.)
[ôéøù] á÷åðè' îáéà ðñëé àéì åàåîø àí àéì äåà äøé ðñëéå òîå åàí ëáù äåà éäå ðñëéí ëùéòåø ëáù áàéï çåáä ìå åäùàø éäå ðñëé ðãáä ùäøé îúðãá àãí ðñëéí áìà æáç
(a) Explanation (Rashi): He brings the Nesachim of a ram, and says "if it is a ram, this is its Nesachim. If it is a lamb, the Shi'ur of its Nesachim are obligatory, and the rest is Nesachim of Nedavah", for one may volunteer Nesachim without a Zevach.
åáô''÷ ãçåìéï (ãó ëâ.) äåñéó á÷åðèøñ àò''â ãúðï áôø÷ äîðçåú åäðñëéí (ì÷îï ãó ÷ã.) àéï îúðãá ìåâ ùðéí åçîùä àìà ùìùä ùéäå ÷øåééï ðñëé ëáù àå àøáòä ù÷øåééï ðñëé àéì àå ùùä äøàåééï ìôø
1. In Chulin (23a), Rashi added that even though a Mishnah (below, 104a) teaches that one may not volunteer one, two or five Lugim [of wine], rather, three, which are called the Nesachim of a lamb, or four, which are called the Nesachim of a ram, or six, which are proper for a bull (or any larger amount is proper for a combination of these)...
äëà ëé äàé âååðà áäãé àçøéðé ÷øáé
2. Here (if it is really a lamb, he volunteers an extra Log of wine), with others (Chovah), he may offer it [voluntarily].
åäà ãàîøéðï ì÷îï áâîøà (ãó ÷ã.) ãäéëà ãàééúé çîùä àé àîøú àéï ÷áò ìðñëéí îùéê àøáòä îéðééäå ãçæå ìàéì åî÷øéá åàéãê äåå ðãáä
(b) Implied question: It says below (104a) that when one brings five, if you will say that Nesachim are not fixed (i.e. if one vowed, he need not bring immediately a legal amount no less than his vow), he takes four that are proper for a ram, and the other [Log] will be Nedavah;
åôé' ùí á÷åðèøñ ðãáú öáåø åéîëø åéôìå ãîéå ìùåôøåú àå é÷øá äåà òöîå åéöèøó òí ùðé ìåâéï àçøéí åé÷øá ìðñëé úîéã ãäðé ðîé ìöáåø
1. Rashi explained there that it is Nedavah of the Tzibur. It is sold, and its money falls to boxes (for Kitz ha'Mizbe'ach), or it itself is offered, and it joins with two other Lugim, and it is offered for Nesachim of the Tamid, for also this is for the Tzibur.
îùîò ãàåúå ìåâ çîéùé àéðå ÷øá òí äàøáòä
2. Inference: The fifth Log is not offered with the four!
ìà ãîé ìäëà ãàò''â ãàí ëáù äåà äùìùä áàéï çåáä ìå åäøáéòé ðéúåñó òìéäí ùàðé äëà ãäà àøáòä çæå ìàéì áòìîà
(c) Answer: There is unlike here. Even though if it is a lamb, three [Lugim] are Chovah for it and the fourth is added to them, here is different, for four are proper for a Stam ram.
åà''ú åäà úðéà áñåó ëì äúãéø (æáçéí ãó öà:) ééï ëãáøé øáé ò÷éáà ìñôìéí ëãáøé øáé èøôåï ìàùéí
(d) Question: A Beraisa in Zevachim (91b) teaches that according to R. Akiva, [a Nedavah] of wine is poured into Sefalim (conduits going through the Mizbe'ach). According to R. Tarfon, it is [sprinkled] on the fire;
åäùúà ìøáé ò÷éáà ðéçà àìà ìø' èøôåï ãàîø ìàùéí äà ìà éãò äé îéðééäå ðãáä ãòáéã ìàùéí
1. This is fine according to R. Akiva (in any case, all is for the Sefalim), but according to R. Tarfon, who says that it is for the fire, he does not know [whether part] is Nedavah to offer it on the fire!
åé''ì ãëé ÷àîø øáé èøôåï áñúí àáì áîôøù ìñôìéí îåãä ãìñôìéí
(e) Answer: R. Tarfon says Stam [that Nedavah is for the fire], but it one specifies for the Sefalim, he agrees that it is for the Sefalim.
åìòðéï äîðçä îééúé ùúé îðçåú áùðé ëìéí àçú ùì ùðé òùøåðéí ìàéì åã' ìåâéï ùîï åàçú ùì òùøåï àçã ìëáù åùìùä ìåâéï ùîï åäåéà çãà ìçåáúå åàéãê ðãáä åùúéäï àéðï ð÷îöåú
(f) Explanation (cont.): For the Minchah, he brings two Menachos in two Kelim. One is of two Esronim for a ram and four Lugim of oil, and one is of one Isaron for a lamb and three Lugim of oil. One is for his Chovah, and the other is Nedavah. Kemitzah is not taken from either.
ãîúðãá àãí îðçú ðñëéí áëì éåí
1. This is because one may volunteer Minchas Nesachim every day.
åàé àôùø ìòøá ëãúðï áîúðéúéï àéï îòøáéï ðñëé ëáùéí áðñëé ôøéí åàéìéí
(g) Observation: One may not mix them, like our Mishnah taught "one may not mix Nesachim of lambs with Nesachim of bulls or rams."
9) TOSFOS DH Talmud Lomar l'Shor ha'Echad
úåñôåú ã"ä úìîåã ìåîø ìùåø äàçã
(SUMMARY: Tosfos justifies learning about a calf from "Shor".)
åùåø áï éåîå ÷øåé ùåø ëãëúéá (åé÷øà éæ) ùåø àå ëùá àå òæ ëé éåìã:
(a) Explanation: A newborn Shor (ox) is called an ox, like it says "Shor Oh Kesev Oh Ez Ki Yivaled."