1)

TOSFOS DH HA'KOL MEMIRIN ECHAD ANASHIM V'ECHAD NASHIM

úåñ' ã"ä äëì îîéøéï àçã àðùéí åàçã ðùéí

(Summary: Tosfos explains why the Tana sees fit to mention this here.)

áäëì ùåçèéï ìà úðé 'àçã àðùéí åàçã ðùéí

(a)

Implied Question: In ha'Kol Shochtin the Tana does not state 'both men and women' (See`Shitah Mekubetzes, 15 [so why does he mention it here?])

åáâî' îôøù îùåí ãëì äôøùä ëåìä áìùåï æëø ðàîøä, àéöèøéê ÷øà ìøáåéé ðùéí.

(b)

Answer: The Gemara explains that it is necessary due to the fact that the entire Parshah speaks in the masculine.

2)

TOSFOS DH V'SOFEG ES HA'ARBA'IM

úåñ' ã"ä åñåôâ àú äàøáòéí

(Summary: Tosfos explains why the Tana does not say Shemonim.)

åà"ú, àîàé ìà úðé ùîåðéí, ãäà ëúéá (åé÷øà ëæ) "ìà éçìéôðå åìà éîéø àåúå" ?

(a)

Question: Why does the Tana not say Shemonim, bearin g in mind the Pasuk in Vayikra (27) "Lo Yachlifenu be'Lo Yamir oso"?

åéù ìåîø, ãìà ðçú ìîðéï îì÷éåú, àìà ëìåîø ãì÷é òìéä...

(b)

Answer #1: He is not concerned with the number of Malkiyos, only to teach us that it is subject to Malkos ...

ãñã"à ãäåé ìàå ãàéï áå îòùä åàéï ìå÷éï òìéå.

1.

Reason: Because we would otherwise have thought that it is a La'av that is not subject to an act, and is not therefore subject to Malkos.

åòåã é"ì, ãìòåìí ìà ì÷é àìà àøáòéí...

(c)

Answer #2: Moreover, he only receives forty lashes ...

åúøé ìàåé öøéëé- çã á÷øáï ùìå åçã áùì çáéøå, åëâåï ãàîø 'ëì äøåöä ìäîéø éáà åéîéø'.

1.

Answer (cont.): Since the two La'avin are needed, one for himself and one for his friend, where he declared 'Whoever so wishes, may come and make a Temurah (on my animal)' (as the Gemara will say later, on Daf 9a).

3)

TOSFOS DH HA GUFA KASHYA AMRAT HA'KOL MEMIRIN L'CHATCHILAH LO SHE'ADAM RASHAIU L'HAMIR DI'EVED

úåñ' ã"ä äà âåôà ÷ùéà àîøú äëì îîéøéï ìëúçìä ìà ùàãí øùàé ìäîéø ãéòáã

(Summary: Tosfos explains how the Gemara knows that 'ha'Kol Mamirin' means Lechatchilah, and elaborates.)

åà"ú, îðà ìéä ìî÷ùä ã'äëì îîéøéï' ìëúçìä äåà, ãìîà ãéòáã äåà? ...

(a)

Question: How does the Makshan know that 'ha'Kol Mamirin' means Lechatchilah, and not Bedi'eved? ...

ãëä"â ôøé÷ áøéù çåìéï (ãó á.) ã'àéëà äëì ìëúçéìä åàéëà äëì ãéòáã'

1.

Precedent: In the same way as the Gemara explains at the beginning of Chulin (Daf 2a) 'Sometimes "ha'Kol'" is Lechatchilah, and sometimes it is Bedi'eved'.

åö"ì ãò"ë 'äëì îîéøéï' ìëúçìä, ãàé ãéòáã, úøúé ãéòáã ìîä ìé?

(b)

Answer #1: We are forced to say that 'ha'Kol Mamirin' is Lechatchilah, because if it was Bedi'eved, why do we need two Bedi'eveds?

ëãôøù"é äúí- ãø"ì ã'äëì ùåçèéï' ìëúçéìä, ãàé ãéòáã, úøúé ãéòáã ìîä ìé?

1.

Support: As Rashi explains there - that 'ha'Kol Shochtin' musst be Lechatchilah, because if it was Bedi'eved, why do we need two Bedi'eveds?

åôéøù øáéðå ùìîä æëøåðå ìáøëä äúí ãìëê ìà ÷ùä äëà 'úøúé ãéòáã ìîä ìé' îùåí ãàùîåòéðï áñéôà ùñåôâ àøáòéí, ãñã"à ìàå ùàéï áå îòùä äåà åàéï ìå÷éï òìéå.

(c)

Introduction to Question: Rabeinu Shlomoh z.l. however, explains there that the Gemara does not ask here why we need two Bedi'eveds

åìôéøåùå ÷ùä îàé ôøéê äëà?

(d)

Question: According to his explanation, the question remains - What is the Gemara asking here?

åàéï ìåîø ãäééðå äàé ã÷îùðé ...

(e)

Refuted Answer: Nor can we say that that is what the Gemara answer ...

ãàéï äìùåï îùîò ëï.

1.

Refutation #1: Since that is not what the Lashon implies.

åòåã, îàé ÷îùðé îîä ùä÷ùä?

2.

Refutation #2: Moreover, how does it answer the Kashya? (See Olas Shlomoh).

åôø"ú ãúðï 'äëì îîéøéï' ãìéùðà àìéîà- ìàùîåòéðï ãàôéìå áîæéã äúîåøä ðúôñú...

(f)

Explanation #1: Rabeinu Tam explains that the Mishnah writes 'ha'Kol Mamirin' - a strong Lashon to teach us that the Temurah takes effect even be'Meizid ...

åñã"à 'àøáòéí áëúôéä åëùø?! '

1.

Reason: Because we would otherwise have thought that that - 'Forty lashes on his shoulders and it is Kasher!?'

åäééðå äà ã÷à îùðé.

2.

Reason (cont.): And that is precisely what the Gemara answers.

åà"ú, åäéëé îöé ìîéîø ãúðà ìéùðà àìéîà îùåí çéãåù ãîæéã...

(g)

Question: How can we say that the Tana learns a strong Lashon due to the Chidush of Meizid?

äà àîø ì÷îï "éäéä," ìøáåú ùåââ ëîæéã' ,àìîà îùîò ãîæéã ôùéèà èôé îùåââ?

1.

Question (cont.): When the Gemara says later on that "Yih'yeh" comes to include Shogeg like Meizid', implying that Meizid is more obvious than Shogeg?

åúéøõ øáéðå áøåê, ãäà ãàîø "éäéä" ' ,ìøáåú ùåââ ëîæéã' ìòðéï îì÷åú ÷àîø

(h)

Answer #1: Rabeinu Baruch answers (See Shitaah Mekubetzes 20) that when the Gemara says "Yih'yeh" to include Shogeg like Meizid', it says so specifically with reference to Malkos ...

åøáéðå ùîùåï îùð"õ çì÷ òìéå -ãäà àîøé' 'àéï îì÷åú áùåââ' .

(i)

Refutation: Rabeinu Shimshon mi'Shantz however, disagrees with him - because we take on that 'Shogeg is not subject to Malkos'.

åéù ñôøéí çìå÷éï áãáø ì÷îï (ãó éæ.) ã÷àîø 'âáé úîåøä ì÷é, âáé ÷ãùéí ìà ì÷é ;'åàéú ãâøñé 'âáé úîåøä ÷ãåù, âáé ÷ãùéí ìà ÷ãåù' .

(j)

Two Opinions: There are different opinions however, in the Gemara later (on Daf 17a), where it says 'By Temurah, he receives Malkos, but not by Kodshim'; whilst another Lashon states that 'By Temurah it is Kadosh, but not by Kodshim'.

åé"à, ãäà ãàîø "éäéä" 'ìøáåú ùåââ ëîæéã' -äééðå ìòðéï îúôñ ÷ãåùä...

(k)

Answer #2: Some explain that when it says "Yih'yeh" 'to include Shogeg like Meizid' - it is speaking specifically with regard to the Kedushah taking effect

ãàîø áòìîà 'ä÷ãù áèòåú ìà äåé ä÷ãù' ,åîù"ä ôùéè èôé áîæéã îáùåââ.

1.

Reason: Seeing as elsewhere (Nazir, 31a) 'Hekdesh be'Ta'us Lo havi Hekdesh', which is why Meizid is more obvious than Shogeg.

åäà ãàîø äëà ãúðà 'äëì îîéøéï' îùåí øáåúà ãîæéã...

(l)

Answer #2 (cont.): And when the Gemara says here that the Tana says 'ha'Kol Mamirin' due to the Chidush of Meizid ...

äééðå ìòðéï ä÷øáä- ãàîø ì÷îï 'äúîåøä ðîé ÷øéáä' -åàùîòéðï äëà ãàó áîæéã ÷øéáä...

1.

Answer #2 (concl.): It says that in connection with Hakravah - since the Gemara says later that 'The Temurah is also sacrificed' - and it is teaching us here that even be'Meizid it is sacrificed ...

ãñ"ã 'àøáòéí áëúôéä åëùø'?!

2.

Reason: Because we would otherwise have thought that 'Forty lashes on his shoulders and it is Kasher!?'

åëì æä ìà ðäéøà ìø"é, îã÷îùðé øá éäåãä äëé '÷úðé äëì îúôéñéï áúîåøä -àçã àðùéí åàçã ðùéí' .åîä ìå ìäæëéø 'àçã àðùéí åàçã ðùéí' ?

(m)

Refutation: All this however, does not seem right to the Ri, since Rav Yehudah answers 'It says ha'Kol Matfisin bi'Temurah - both men as women'. Why does he need to say 'both men and women'?

ìëï ôø"é, ãúðà )á'(äëì îîéøéï' ìéùðà àìéîà -îùåí ðùéí...

(n)

Explanation #2: Therefore the Ri explains that the Mishnah writes 'ha'Kol Mamirin' - a strong Lashon, on account of Nashim ...

ãàîø ì÷îï ãëì äòðéï îãáø áìùåï æëø, åëúéá "äîø éîéø" ìøáåéé ðùéí...

1.

Explanation #2 (cont.): As the Gemara explains later - that the entire Inyan speaks in the masculine, and it therefore writes "Hamer Yamir" to include women ...

ãñã"à àäðé îéòåèà åàäðé øéáåéà- àäðé øéáåéà ìàùîåòéðï ãúîåøú ðùéí ÷ãùé, åàäðé îéòåèà ãìà î÷øáï.

(o)

Reason: Since we would otherwise have thought that both the Miy'ut and the Ribuy are effective - the Ribuy to teach us that a woman's Temurah takes effect, and the Miy'ut, to teach us that it is not sacrificed.

ìëê úðà 'äëì îîéøéï' ìéùðà àìéîà -ã÷øéáä ëîå úîåøú àðùéí.

1.

Reason (cont.): Therefore the Tana says 'ha'Kol Mamirin', a strong Lashon - that it is sacrificed like the Temurah of a man.

4)

TOSFOS DH TECHILAS HEKDESH

úåñ' ã"ä úçéìú ä÷ãù

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies why Temurah is called Sof Hekdesh here and Techilas Hekdesh in Nazir.)

ëîå úîåøä, îñåó ä÷ãù -ãäééðå ñîéëä, ãäåà ñîåê ìùçéèä.

(a)

Clarification: Such as Temurah, from the end of Hekdesh - Semichah, which is next to Shechitah.

åäà ã÷øé ìúîåøä ñåó ä÷ãù (ëîå) áîñëú ðæéø (ãó ìà.)...

(b)

Implied Question: And the reason that it calls Temurah the end of Hekdesh in Maseches Nazir (Daf 31a) is ...

îùåí ãìà àééøéðï äúí áñîéëä ëìì, åäåä ìéä úîåøä ñåó ä÷ãù ìâáé ÷øáï ùäîéøå áå...

(c)

Answer: Because it does not speak there about Semichah at all, apposed to the Korban for which it was exchanged ...

ãàåúå ÷øáï äåé øàùåï åçéìåôéå ùðé ...

1.

Answer (cont.): Since that Korban is the first, and its exchange, the second ...

àáì äëà ã÷îùúòéðï áñîéëä, äåä ìéä úîåøä úçéìú ä÷ãù ìâáé ñîéëä ùäéà ìáñåó úéëó ìùçéèä. ìùåï øù"é.

2.

Answer (concl.): Whereas here where it speaks about Semichah, Temurah is the beginning of Hekdesh as opposed to Semichah, which is the end immediately after Shechitah (the wording of Rashi).

5)

TOSFOS DH KORBANO V'LO KORBAN OVED-KOCHAVIM

úåñ' ã"ä ÷øáðå åìà ÷øáï òåáã ëåëáéí

(Summary: Tosfos discusses the Sugya thoroughly.)

â' "÷øáðå" ëúéá - çã áá÷ø, çã áöàï åçã áëáù - "÷øáðå", åìà ÷øáï çáéøå'.

(a)

Clarification: "Korbano" is written three times - once by Bakar, once by Tzon and once by Keves - 'Korbano, ve'Lo Korban Chavero'.

å÷' ,ãáô' á' îãåú ãøùé' "éãå", åìà éã àùúå åìà éã ùìåçå, åà''ë, ìîä ìé 'åìà ÷øáï çáéøå'?

(b)

Question: In Oerek h'tei Midos, the Gemara Darshens "Yado", 've'Lo Yad Ishto, ve'Lo Yad Chavero'. In that case, why do we need 've'Lo Korban Chavero'?

åé''ì, ãàé ìà "÷øáðå", 'åìà ÷øáï çáéøå', ìà äåä îå÷îé' ìéä ''éãå'', ,åìà éã ùìåçå', àìà 'åìà éã çáéøå', àáì ùìåçå äåä àîøé' 'ùìåçå ùì àãí ëîåúå'.

(c)

Answer: Wee ==re it not for "Korbano", 've'Lo Korban Chavero', we would not have established "Yado" 'to preclude Yad Shelucho, only to preclude Yad Chavero, but as far as Shelucho is concerned, we would have said 'Shelucho shel Adam Kamoso'.

åëï òåáã ëåëáéí, ãàé ìàå àìà çã,äåä îå÷îé' ìéä áòåáã ëåëáéí, àáì çáéøå ñåîê.

1.

Answer (cont.): And likewise regarding Oved-Kochavim, had there been only one Pasuk, we would have established it to preclude a Nochri, but his friend may be Somech.

åà''ú, ìîä ìé "éãå" 'åìà éã àùúå'? úéôå÷ ìéä ã'áðé éùøàì ñåîëéï, åìà ðùéí ñåîëåú'?

(d)

Question: Why do we need "Yado", 've'Lo Yad Ishto'? Why can we not learn it from 'B'nei Yisrael Somchin, ve'Lo B'nos Yisrael Somchos'?

åé''ì, ãäå''à ä''î ÷øáï òöîå, àáì á÷øáï áòìä àéîà ãñåîëåú.

(e)

Answer: We would have thought that that speaks by their own Korban, but that they do make Semichah on the Korban of their husband.

åà"ú, ìîàé àéöèøéê "÷øáðå" ìäëé ?äà ðô÷à ùôéø î"áðé éùøàì" 'ñåîëéï, åàéï äòåáãé ëåëáéí ñåîëéï' ?

(f)

Question: Why do we need "Korbano for that (to preclude the Korban of a Nochri)? Why can we not learn it from 'B'nei Yisrael Somchin, ve'Ein ha'Ovdei-Kochavim Somchin'?

åéù ìåîø, ãàéöèøéê, ãîäå ãúéîà àéï äòåáã ëåëáéí òöîå ñåîê òì ÷øáðå, åîéäå äëäðéí ñåîëéï òìéäï...

(g)

Answer: We need it because we would otherwise have thought that, although Nochrim are not Somech on their Korbanos, the Kohanim are Somech on them ...

åîù"ä àéöèøéê "÷øáðå" , ìåîø ùàéï á÷øáï òåáã ëåëáéí ñîéëä ëìì.

1.

Answer (cont.): Consequently, we need "Korbano" to teach us that the Korban of a Nochri is not subject to Semichah at all.

6)

TOSFOS DH V'REBI MEIR D'AMAR YORESH MEIMIR MAI TA'AMA

úåñ' ã"ä åøáé îàéø ãàîø éåøù îéîø îàé èòîà

(Summary: Tosfos explains why we need to find a reason according to Rebbi Meir and elaborates.)

åàí úàîø, àîàé àéöèøéê èòîà ìø' îàéø? ëéåï ãìéú ìéä "÷øáðå" ' ,åìà ÷øáï àáéå' ,àìîà àéú ìéä éåøù ñåîê...

(a)

Question: Why do we need a reason according to Rebbi Meir? Since he does hold of "Korbano", 've'Lo Korban Aviv', he holds that an heir makes Semichah ...

åàí ëï, àéú ìéä ìîéîø ãéåøù îéîø ,ãäà éìôéðï æä îæä ?

1.

Question (cont.): In which case he will also hold that an heir can make a Temurah, since we learn one from the other?

åéù ìåîø, ãàé ìàå ÷øà ã"äîø éîéø" ãîøáä éåøù, äåä ìéä ìàå÷åîéä "÷øáðå" èôé ìîòåèé éåøù, îìøáåú ëì áòìé çåáøéï...

(b)

Answer: If not for the Pasuk "ve'Im Hamer Yamir" which comes to include an heir, we would have rather established "Korbano" to preclude an heir, than to include all the Shutfin (partners) ...

àáì äùúà ãëúéá "åàí äîø éîéø" 'ìøáåú éåøù,' àîø ãñåîê, åîå÷é "÷øáðå" ìøáåú ëì áòìé çåáøéï.

1.

Answer (cont.): However now that the Torah writes "ve'Im Hamer Yamir" to include an heir, we say that he does perform Semichah, and "Korbano" comes to include all the Shutfin.

åà"ú, îàé ùðà ãùàø "÷øáðå" ìîòåèé, åäàé ìøáåéé?

(c)

Question: Why is this "Korbano" different than all the other Korbano, which come to exclude, whilst this one comes to include?

åéù ìåîø, ãìîòåèé ìà îöéú àîøú, ãàí ëï, ìéùúå÷ ÷øà îéðéä, åîîéìà àîø ãàéï äùåúôéï ñåîëéï, ëãàîø ì÷îï (ãó éâ.) ã'àéï äùåúôéï îîéøéï'.

(d)

Answer: Because the Pasuk cannot come to exclude, because if it did, it would only need to remain silent, and we would automatically say that Shutfin do not perform Semichah, as the Gemara will say later (on Daf 13a) that 'Ein ha'Shutfin Mamirin'.

2b----------------------------------------2b

7)

TOSFOS DH V'EIN ME'VI'IN NESACHIM

úåñ' ã"ä åàéï îáéàéï ðñëéí

(Summary: Tosfos, citing Rashi, clarifies the statement and elaborates.)

ôøù"é åàéï îáéàéï ùì òåáã ëåëáéí áôðé òöîï ëéùøàì ùîúðãáéï ðñëéí áôðé òöîï- àáì áäãé ÷øáðå îáéàéï ...

(a)

Clarification: Rashi explains that one cannot bring those of a Nochri on their own like a Yisrael, who may donate Nesachim independently - but together with his Korban one does bring them ...

ëãàîø áîñëú ù÷ìéí (ãó éà òîåã ã) ãæä àçú îï äú÷ðåú ùäú÷éðå á"ã -ãòåáã ëåëáéí ùîùìç òåìúå åãîé ðñëå îîãéðú äéí ùî÷áìéï îîðå ...

1.

Source: As the Gemara says in Maseches Shekalim (Daf 11 Amud 4), that one of the Takanos that Beis-Din instituted is - that if a Nochri who sends his Olah together with the money for its Nesech from overseas, one accepts it from him.

àáì åãàé ÷øáðå èòåï ðñëéí ãáäãé ÷øáðå (èòåï ðñëéí å) îáéàéï ðñëéí îùì öáåø.

(b)

Conclusion: But his Korban certainly requires Nesachim, and that together with it one brings Nesachim from the Tzibur.

8)

TOSFOS DH BA'MEH DEVARIM AMURIM B'KODSHEI MIZBE'ACH AVAL B'KODSHEI BEDEK HA'BAYIS MO'ALIN

úåñ' ã"ä áîä ãáøéí àîåøéí á÷ãùé îæáç àáì á÷ãùé áã÷ äáéú îåòìéï

(Summary: Tosfos cites a Machlokes between Rashi and the Ri as to who is the author of this statement.)

ôøù"é ãàúàï ìø"ù.

(a)

Explanation #1: According to Rashi this goes like Rebbi Shimon.

åø"é ôéøù ãîñ÷ðà ãîéìúà ãø' éåñé...

(b)

Explanation #2: But the Ri explains that it is the conclusion of Rebbi Yossi's statement

åä"÷ 'øáé éåñé àåîø áëåìï àðé øåàä ìäçîéø; åäà ã÷àîø ø"ù "àéï îåòìéï áäï" ,áã"à á÷ãùé îæáç ... '.

1.

Explanation #2 (cont.): And what the Tana is saying is - 'Rebbi Yossi says 'In all the cases my opinion is Lehachmir; and when Rebbi Shimon says "Ein Mo'alin bahen", he is speaking specifically about Kodshei Mizbe'ach ... '.

åáúåñôúà îùîò ëôøù"é- ãàéúà áäãéà 'àáì á÷ãùé áã÷ äáéú îåãä øáé ùîòåï.'

(c)

Proof for Explanation #1: The Tosefta however, supports Rashi, when it states 'But Rebbi Shimon concedes by Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis'.

9)

TOSFOS DH KATANI MIHAS EIN OSIN TEMURAH

úåñ' ã"ä ÷úðé îéäú àéï òåùéï úîåøä

(Summary: Tosfos explains why the She'eilah cannot go according to Rebbi Yossi.)

åà"ú, åãéìîà ìøáé éåñé ÷áòé, ãàîø 'áëåìï ìäçîéø?'

(a)

Question: Perhaps he is asking according to Rebbi Yossi, who says 'be'Chulan Lehachmir'?

åé"ì, ãðéçà ìéä ìàå÷åîé äáòéà àó ìø"ù.

(b)

Answer #1: The Gemara prefers to establish the She'eilah also like Rebbi Shimon,

òé"ì, ãò"ë ãìøáé éåñé ìà àôùø ìàå÷åîé äáòéà...

(c)

Answer #2: Moreover, the She'eilah cannot go according to Rebbi Yossi ...

ãëéåï ãàéú ìéä ãòåùéï úîåøä, ãàôéìå àú"ì ãäééðå òì éãé éùøàì åîáòéà ìéä ìøîé áø çîà àí äòåáã ëåëáéí òöîå àôùø ìòùåúä, äà ìà îöéú àîøú ...

(d)

Reason: Because, since he holds that they can make a Temurah, even assuming that it is via a Yisrael, and that Rami bar Chama is asking whether the Nochri himself cannot do it - it is not feasable to learn like that

ãò"ë àí éùøàì îúôéñä, öøéê ùéàîø äòåáã ëåëáéí 'ëì äøåöä ìäîéø éáà åéîéø... '

1.

Reason (cont.): Because even if a Yisrael declares the Temurah, the Nochri will need to declare 'Whoever so wishes to make a Temurah, should come and do so!' ...

åàí äòåáã ëåëáéí òöîå àéï òåùä úîåøä, äéàê àôùø ìòùåú ùìéç?

2.

Reason (concl.): And if the Nochri himself cannot make a Temurah, how can he appoint a Shali'ach to do so?

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF