1)

TOSFOS DH LAMAH LI K'RA V'HA HILCH'SA GEMIRI LAH

úåñ' ã"ä ì"ì ÷øà åäà äéìëúà âîéøé ìä

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles this question with the Gemara on the previous Amud.)

åà"ú, ìéîà ëãìòéì - ÷øà îéáòé ìéä ãàé òáã åî÷øéá ÷àé òìä áòùä?

(a)

Question: Why does the Gemara not answer like it did earlier - that the Pasuk is needed to teach us that if he transgresses and sacrifices it, he contravenes an Asei?

åé"ì, ã"äåà" ìà îùîò ìéä òùä ë"ë ëîå "ø÷".

(b)

Answer: The word "Hu" does not imply an Asei as much as "Rak" does.

2)

TOSFOS DH NITAK IN LO NITAK LO MAI TA'AMA D'AMAR K'RA HU B'HAVAYASO YEHEI

úåñ' ã"ä ðéú÷ àéï ìà ðéú÷ ìà îàé èòîà ãàîø ÷øà äåà áäååééúå éäà

(Summary: Tosfos disagrees with Rashi's text.)

ä"â øù"é.

(a)

Text/Explanation #1: This is Rashi's version of the text.

å÷ùä, ãäëà çæéðï ãáòé' 'ðéú÷' î÷øà, åáôñçéí ôø÷ àìå ãáøéí (ãó òâ. åùí) àéëà ãáòé ðéúå÷ îùåí âæéøä àçø ëôøä àèå ìôðé ëôøä? ...

(b)

Question #1: Here we see that we need to learn 'Nitak' from a Pasuk, whereas in Pesachim (Perek Eilu Devarim, Daf 73a and 73b) it explains that we need 'Nitak' (sent to graze) because of a decree - after Kaparah on account of before Kaparah? ...

ãäëé àéúà 'àîø øá äåðà àîø øá, àùí ùðéú÷ ìøòéä åùçèå ñúí, ëùø ìòåìä, àìîà ìà áòé ò÷éøä ...

1.

Question #1 (cont.): As it says there, quoting Rav Huna Amar Rav 'An Asham that was Nitak for grazing and that one Shechted S'tam, is eligible to be an Olah, from which we see that it does not require Re'ayah ...

àé äëé, îàé àéøéà "ðéú÷", àôéìå ëé ìà ðéú÷ ðîé?' ...

2.

Question #1 (cont.): If so, why does it say "Nitak", the same ought to apply even if it was not Nitak?'

åîùðé 'âæéøä ìàçø ëôøä àèå ìôðé ëôøä'?

3.

Question #1 (concl.): To which it replies that 'It is a Gezeirah after the Kaparah on account of before the Kaparah'.

åò"÷, ãäëà àîø ãìùí òåìä ëùø, äà àîø áëåìé äù"ñ ã'äìëä ìîùä îñéðé ëì ùáçèàú îúä, áàùí øåòä'?

(c)

Question #2: Here it states that it is eligible to be brought as an Olah, whereas throughout Shas it says that 'Whatever dies by a Chatas must graze by an Asham Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai'?

ìëï ðøàä [ìø"ú] ãäìëä ìîùä îñéðé ðùðéú áàùí ã÷øéáä òåìä ...

(d)

Answer: Rabeinu Tam therefore explains that the Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai with regard to an Asham is that it is brought as an Olah ...

åäëà ì"â 'ðéú÷ àéï, ìà ðéú÷ ìà', àìà âøñéðï 'àùí ùðéú÷ ìøòéä, åùçèå ñúîà ëùø ìòåìä, ãàîø ÷øà "äåà", áäååééúå éäà' ...

(e)

Text Explanation #2: And the text here does not read 'Nitak In, Lo Nitak, Lo', but 'Asham she'Nitak li'Re'ayah, and which he Shechted S'tam, is eligible to be brought as an Olah, since the Torah writes "Hu", 'it retains its status' ...

ôéøåù - áäååééúå ùäåà òúéã ìäéåú ãäééðå òåìä, åáàåúä äååéä éäà îòúä...

1.

Reason: With reference to its future status as an Olah, and it has that status already now ...

åîù"ä àôéìå ñúí ëùø ìòåìä, ãìà áòé ò÷éøä.

(f)

Text/Explanation #2 (cont.): Which is why it is eligible S'tam to be brought as an Olah, even without uprooting (a verbal statement).

åîéäå àéöèøéê ääìëä ìîùä îñéðé ... ãàé ìàå äëé, ìà äåä éãòéðï îä äåéä àéú áä.

1.

Text/Explanation #2 (concl.): It nevertheless requires a Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai - without which we would not have known to which status it is referring.

åììùåï ãàîø [áôñçéí] áàìå ãáøéí (ãó òâ.) 'åùçèå ìùí òåìä ëùø' - ôéøåù îùîò àáì ñúîà ìà éäà ëùø, ãáòé ò÷éøä 'î"è? ãàîø ÷øà "äåà", áäååééúå éäà' ...

(g)

Alternative Explanation: And according to the Lashon which says in Pesachim (Ibid.) 'And he Shechted it as an Olah, it is eligible' - implying that S'tam it will not be eligible, and that it requires uprooting. Why? Because the Pasuk writes "Hu", 'it retains its status' ...

ôéøåù áäååééúå ùäéä òúä éäà, ãéò÷øðå ìòåìä.

1.

Clarification: Inasmuch as it retains its initial status, and requires Akirah to turn it into an Olah.

åîéäå àöèøéê ääìëä ìîùä îñéðé, ãàé ìàå äëé, ìà ä"à ùéäà ëùø ìòåìä àôéìå ò"é ò÷éøä.

2.

Clarification (cont.): It nevertheless requires a Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai - without which we would have thought that it is not eligible as an Olah even via Akirah.

3)

TOSFOS DH AFILU MI'MAR'AIHU

úåñ' ã"ä àôéìå îîøòééäå

(Summary: Tosfos disagrees with Rashi's text/explanation, and offers two alternatives.)

ôøù"é 'àôéìå äï áîøòä áàôø åäâéò æîï äøâì, ìà éàîø "àéðé èåøç àçøéäí ìá÷ùí áàâí åìäåìéëí, àáì àîúéï ìé òã ôòí àçøú".

(a)

Text/Explanation #1: Rashi explains that 'even if they are grazing in the pasture-ground when Yom-Tov arrives, he should not say 'I will not bother to go and fetch them but will wait for another occasion'.

ìéùðà àçøéðà: 'àôéìå îîåøâééäå' - ëìåîø àôéìå äï ãùéï àú äúáåàä áîåøéâéí. òë"ì.

1.

Text/Explanation #1 (cont.): Another text reads 'Afilu be'Murgaihu' - meaning that even they are threshing the produce with the threshing-ledge (Until here are the words of Rashi [See Shitah Mekubetzes 31]).

åìà ðäéøà, ùäøé àñåøéï äï áòáåãä?

(b)

Refutation: This is not correct however, since it is forbidden to work with them.

åø"é îôøù 'îàøâééä' - àôéìå äï ãìåú áùø ...

(c)

Text/Explanation #2: The Ri therefore has the text 'Ma'argiyah' - even if the animals are lean-fleshed ...

ãñã"à ëéåï ùäí úùåùé ëç, àéðå öøéê ìäòìåúí, äåàéì åàéðå ñåó ä÷ãù - ëâåï åìãåú åúîåøåú.

1.

Reason: Because we would have thought that since they are weak, it is not necessary to bring them to the Beis-ha'Mikdash, seeing as it is not the end of Hekdesh, like babies and Temurah animals).

"ëé ùîèå äá÷ø" (ùîåàì á å) îúøâîéðï 'àøé àéúîøéâå úåøúà'.

(d)

Source: Targum Yonasan translates the Pasuk in Shmuel (2, 6) "ki Shamtu ha'Bakar", 'Arei ismerigu Tursa' (See Chok Nasan).

åä"ø éöç÷ áø ùðéàåø ôéøù 'îîøòééäå' - àôéìå îî÷åí ùîåúø ìøòåúä åìâãìä- ãäééðå áçå"ì - ã'àéï îâãìéï áäîä ã÷ä áà"é.

(e)

Explanation #2 (of first Lashon): And ha'Rav Yitzchak bar Sh'neur explains 'me'Mar'aihu' - that even from a place where it is permitted to graze and rear the sheep - i.e. in Chutz la'Aretz - since it is forbidden to rear a small animal in Eretz Yisrael ...

åàùîòé' ã÷ãùéí áàéí îçåõ ìàøõ.

1.

Explanation #2 (of first Lashon [cont]): And it comes to teach us that Kodshim can be brought from Chutz la'Aretz.

åæå äéà äãøùä ãàéúà áñôøé ' - "ø÷ ÷ãùéê àùø éäéå ìê" - îëàï ùîáéàéï ÷ãùéí îçå"ì ...

(f)

Support: And this D'rashah actually appears in the Sifri ' "Rak Kodoshecha asher Yih'yu lach" - from here we learn that one may bring Kodshim from Chutz la'Aretz ...

éëåì àó áëåø åîòùø ëï, ú"ì "ø÷" ...

1.

Support (cont.): Perhaps this extends even to B'chor and Ma'aser? Therefore the Torah writes "Rak" ...

åîä øàéú ìøáåú àú àìå åìäåöéà àú àìå? ...

2.

Support (cont.): And what do you see to include these and to exclude those?

àçø ùøéáä äëúåá åîéòè, îøáä àðé àú àìå ùàéï ìäï ôøðñä áî÷åîï, ëìåîø àéðï ðàëìéï áîåîï áçå"ì ...

3.

Support (cont.): We include these that do not have Parnasah there where they are - i.e. which cannot be eaten, even with a blemish, in Chutz la'Aretz ...

åîåöéà àðé àú àìå ùéù ìäï ôøðñä áî÷åîï - ëìåîø ùðàëìéï áîåîï áçå"ì.

4.

Support (concl.): And exclude those that do - i.e. which can be eaten with a blemish in Chutz la'Aretz

4)

TOSFOS DH REBBI ELIEZER OMER V'LAD SHELAMIM LO YIKAREV

úåñ' ã"ä øáé àìéòæø àåîø åìã ùìîéí ìà é÷øá

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the reason.)

åîãøáðï äåà, ëãîôøù áâî' 'ùîà éâãì îîðå òãøéí òãøéí'.

(a)

Clarification: mi'de'Rabbanan, as the Gemara explains, 'in case he rears flocks of sheep from it'.

5)

TOSFOS DH VA'CHACHAMIM OMRIM YIKAREV

úåñ' ã"ä åçëîéí àåîøéí é÷øá

(Summary: Tosfos queries the third opinion.)

ö"ò çëîéí äééðå ú"÷?

(a)

Question: This requires explanation, since the Chachamim say the same as the Tana Kama (See Hagahos haG'ra)?

6)

TOSFOS DH V'CHILUFEHAH (This Dibur belongs after DH 'Amar Rebbi Shimon).

úåñ' ã"ä åçéìåôéä

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the case.)

äééðå àáãä åäôøéù àçøú úçúéä åðîöàú äøàùåðä, åäøé ùúéäï òåîãåú.

(a)

Clarification: This speaks where it got lost, he designated another animal to replace it and the first one is found, so that both animals are now standing there.

7)

TOSFOS DH AMAR REBBI ELIEZER LO NECHL'KU AL V'LAD V'LAD SHELAMIM V'AL V'LAD V'LAD TEMURAH SHE'LO YIKAREV

úåñ' ã"ä àîø ø"ù ìà ðçì÷å òì åìã [åìã] ùìîéí åòì åìã [åìã] úîåøä ùìà é÷øá

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the opinions.)

áäà ôìéâé àîåøàé áâî' - øáä àîø îñúáøà ùìà ðçì÷å ùìà é÷øáå, àìà é÷øáå ...

(a)

Clarification #1: Amora'im argue over this in the Gemara - Rabah explains that they probably do not argue that they should not be brought, but that they should ...

åøáé éäåùò áï ìåé àîø ìà ðçì÷å ùé÷øáå àìà ìà é÷øáå.

1.

Clarification #1 (cont.): Whereas according to Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, they do not argue that they should be brought, but that they should not.

ìãáøé øáé éäåùò áï ìåé àéëà â' îçìå÷åú áãáø ...

(b)

Clarification #2: According to Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi (See Olas Shlomoh) there are three opinions in the matter ...

ú"÷ ãø"ù ñáø àìéáà ãú"÷ ëåìäå ÷øáé ...

1.

Opinion #1: The Tana Kama of Rebbi Shimon according to the Tana Kama holds that they are all sacrificed ...

åìø"à ëåìäå ìà ÷øáé ...

2.

Opinion #2: Rebbi Elazar holds that they are not ...

åø"ù ñáø ãë"ò àçø åìã øàùåï ãìà ÷øáé, åìà ôìéâé àìà áåìã øàùåï.

3.

Opinion #3: Whereas according to Rebbi Shimon, they all agree that the babies tat are born after the first one are not brought, and they are arguing over the first one.

åáâî' îôøù èòîééäå.

(c)

Conclusion: And the Gemara will explain their respective reasons.

18b----------------------------------------18b

8)

TOSFOS DH TANI REBBI CHIYA L'SIYU'EI L'REBBI YOHOSHUA BEN LEVI IM KESEV HU MAKDISH V'LAD RISHON HE KAREIV V'LAD SHEINI EINO KAREIV

úåñ' ã"ä úðé øáé çééà ìñéåòé ìø' éäåùò áï ìåé àí ëùá äåà î÷øéá åìã øàùåï äåà ÷øá åìã ùðé àéðå ÷øá

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies both the authorship and the statement.)

åäééðå ãìà ëøáà, ãìøáà àìéáà ãëåìé òìîà ÷øá åìã åìã.

(a)

Clarifying Authorship #1: This does not go like Rava, according to whom everyone agrees that the V'lad of the V'lad is brought on the Mizbe'ach.

åìø' éäåùò áï ìåé ò"ë ëøáðï ...

1.

Clarifying Authorship #2: And according to Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi it goes like the Rabbanan ...

ãàé ìø"à åìã øàùåï àéðå ÷øá ëìì.

2.

Clarifying Authorship #2: Because according to Rebbi Elazar, the first V'lad is not brought at all.

åäê ãøùä àéðä àìà àñîëúà áòìîà, ãäà åãàé äà ãåìã ùðé àéðå ÷øá äééðå îãøáðï - ùîà éâãì îîðå òãøéí òãøéí.

(b)

Clarification: This D'rashah is only an Asmachta, since for sure the second V'lad is not brought is only mi'de'Rabbanan - 'in case one will come to rear flocks'.

åáôñçéí (ãó öå:) îå÷é ìä ìäàé ìãøùà àçøéðà.

(c)

Conclusion: In fact the Gemara in Pesachim (Daf 96b) learns a different D'rashah from this Pasuk.

9)

TOSFOS DH MA'ATZARTA BA'I L'MEICHLEIH

úåñ' ã"ä îòöøúà áòé ìîéëìéä

(Summary: Tosfos Explains why the Gemara asks from Shavu'os and not Pesach.)

àáì ìà ôøéê 'îôñç áòé ìîéëìéä?' ...

(a)

Implied Question: The Gemara does not however, ask that he ought to have eaten it from Pesach ...

ãàôùø ãîçåñø æîï äéä.

(b)

Answer: Since it may have been premature (before the eighth day).

10)

TOSFOS DH I HACHI MAI ASHADUSEIH

úåñ' ã"ä àé äëé îàé àñäãåúéä

(Summary: Tosfos explains the Lashon 'I Hachi'.)

ãáùìîà àé ìà äéä çåìä áòöøú åäàé çâ äñåëåú, ÷àúà øáé ôôééñ ìàôå÷é ãøáà ...

(a)

Clarification: Since had it not been sick on Shevu'os and it would now have been Sukkos, Rav Papayos would have been coming to preclude Rava ...

àìà äùúà îàé àùîåòéðï?

1.

Clarification (cont.): But now what is he coming to teach us?

11)

TOSFOS DH V'CHALIFOS

úåñ' ã"ä åçìéôåú

(Summary: Tosfos discusses 'Chalipos'.)

ö"ò, îä 'çìéôåú' ...

(a)

Question: We need to look into the meaning of 'Chalipos' ...

ãàé äôøéù úåãä åàáãä åäôøéù àçøú úçúéä åðîöàú äøàùåðä, åäøé ùúéäï òåîãåú ...

(b)

Refuted Answer: Because if the Todah that he designated got lost and after he designated a replacement it was found, and they are both now standing there ...

äà ëáø ùîòéðï ìéä îøéùà ãáøééúà?

1.

Refutation: We already learned that in the Reisha of the Beraisa?

åö"ì ãàâá ùéèôéä ð÷è ìéä äëà.

(c)

Answer: We must therefore explain that the Tana inserts it here 'in haste'.

12)

TOSFOS DH AVAL GABEI V'LAD TEMURAH D'EIMEIH NAMI KARVAH

úåñ' ã"ä àáì âáé åìã úîåøä ãàéîéä ðîé ÷øáä

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the meaning of 'its mother'.)

ìàå àéîéä îîù ...

(a)

Clarification: Not really its mother ...

àìà ä÷ãù øàùåï ùáàå àìå îëçï, åäåà ÷øá, ãæëø äåà

1.

Clarification (cont.): But the original Heekdesh from which these stem - which is in fact, a male.

13)

TOSFOS DH BI'DEMEIHEN IN HU ATZMO LO

úåñ' ã"ä áãîéäï àéï äåà òöîå ìà

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the question.)

åà"ú, îàé ÷ôøéê? ãìîà ùàðé äëà ãìà ÷øá ...

(a)

Question: What is the Gemara asking? Perhaps it is different here; and the reason that it is not brought on the Mizbe'ach is ...

ã'ëì ùáçèàú îúä áàùí øåòä' ...

1.

Question (cont.): Due to the principle 'Whatever dies by a Chatas, must graze by an Asham' ...

ååìã çèàú îúä, åîù"ä áàùí éøòä, àáì äåà òöîå ìà é÷øá?

2.

Question (concl.): And since the V'lad of a Chatas dies, by the Asham, it must graze, but it itself, is not brought on the Mizbe'ach?

åé"ì, ãìà ðâîøä 'áàùí øåòä' àìà áäðé ãùééëé ëäìëúå áàùí - ëâåï îúå áòìéå àå ðúëôøå àå úîåøä àå òáøä ùðúä ...

(b)

Answer: The rule that 'the Asham must graze' was only said by those where 'ke'Hilchaso' pertains to the Asham - i.e. where the owner died or was atoned for, or the Temurah of an Asham or where it passed its first year ...

ãëì äðé ã' ãùééëé áàùí ëäìëúå, àáì åìã àùí ãìàå ëäìëúå äåà ...

1.

Answer (cont.): Because by all four the term 'Asham ke'Hilchaso' is applicable - but not by the 'Vlad of an Asham' which is not ke'Hilchaso' ...

ãàùí æëø äåà, åìà ùééê áéä åìã, áäà ìà ðâîøä ääìëä.

2.

Reason: Because it is a male, and 'V'lad' is not applicable to it, in which case the Halachah was not said.

14)

TOSFOS DH ELA L'DIDCHU D'AMRISU LO KAREIV

úåñ' ã"ä àìà ìãéãëå ãàîøéúå ìà ÷øá

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles this with Rava earlier in the Sugya and elaborates.)

åà"ú, úé÷ùä îøáðï ìøáðï, ìôé äà ãàîø øáà ìòéì ãäéëà ãàéîéä ÷øáä, àôéìå øáðï îåãå ãåìã ðîé ÷øá - åäëà áåìã úîåøú àùí àéîéä ÷øáä ...

(a)

Introduction to Question: We can ask from the Rabbanan on the Rabbanan, according to what Rava said earlier - that wherever the mother is brought on the Mizbe'ach, even the Rabbanan agree that the V'lad is brought too - and since here by the V'lad of the Temuras Asham the baby is brought ...

à"ë, äåä ìäå ìîéîø ãåìã òöîå é÷øá?

1.

Question: They ought to have said that the V'lad itself is brought?

åé"ì, ãøá çñãà ãäëà ìéú ìéä äàé ùéðåéà ãøáà ãìòéì, àìà ñ"ì ëãîùðé øáä áø áø çðä 'áîçìå÷ú ùðåéä åø"à äéà' ...

(b)

Answer #1: Rav Chisda here does not concur with Rava's answer earlier; he holds like Rabah bar bar Chanah answers regarding 'Machlokes Shenuyah ve'Rebbi Elazar Hi' ...

åøáà ãîùðé ìòéì ãäéëà ãàéîéä ÷øáä àôéìå øáðï îåãå, îùðé äëà ùéðåéà àçøéðà ...

1.

Answer #1 (cont.): Whereas Rava who answers earlier that 'Wherever the mother is brought on the Mizbe'ach, even the Rabbanan agree that the V'lad is brought too' will give a different answer here ...

ëãàéúà áñîåê ãøáà îùðé ùéðåéà àçøéðà.

2.

Answer #1 (concl.): As the Gemara will say shortly - that Rava gives a different answer.

åîåøé äøî"ø ôé' ãìòåìí îöé ìîéîø ãøá çñãà ðîé àéú ìéä ùéðåéà ãøáà ãìòéì ...

(c)

Answer #2: Tosfos' Rebbe ha'Rav Mordechai however, that it is possible that Rav Chisda concurs with the answer that Rava gave earlier ...

ãäà ãàîø ã'äéëà ãàéîéä ÷øáä, àôéìå øáðï îåãå', ä"î âáé åìã úîåøú òåìä ...

1.

Answer #2: Because when he said that 'Wherever the mother is brought on the Mizbe'ach, even the Rabbanan agree ... ' that speaks specifically by the v'lad of a Temuras Olah ...

ãòé÷ø úçéìú ä÷ãù ÷øá òåìä, åîù"ä ãéï äåà ùéäà äåìã òöîå ÷øá òåìä ...

(d)

Reason: Because when he said that 'Wherever the mother is brought on the Mizbe'ach, even the Rabbanan agree ... ' that speaks specifically by the v'lad of a Temuras Olah ...

àáì äëà âáé åìã úîåøú àùí, ãòé÷ø úçéìú ä÷ãù ÷øá àùí åìà òåìä, àéï ãéï ùéäà äåìã ÷øá òåìä.

1.

Answer #2 (cont.): But here by the V'lad of a Temuras Asham, where the beginning of its Hekdesh it is brought as an Asham and not as an Olah, it does not follow that the V'lad should be brought as an Olah.

åä"ð ÷àîø ìø' àìòæø á'îôøéù ð÷áä ìòåìä åéìãä, ãàéï òé÷ø úçéìú ä÷ãù ÷øá òåìä àìà øåòä , àôé"ä, äåìã òöîå ÷øá ...

(e)

Introduction to Question: And this is also what the Gemara asks on Rebbi Elazar (See Hagahos Tzak 3) who says that someone who designates a female animal as an Olah, that its initial Hekdesh is not brought as an Olah but must graze, yet the V'lad is brought ...

äëé ðîé ä"ì ìîéîø áåìã úîåøú àùí.

1.

Question: He ought to have said the same with regard to the V'lad of a Temuras Asham ...

åàó òì âá ãàéï òé÷ø ää÷ãù ÷øá òåìä, äåìã òöîå ÷øá. îåøé äøî"ø.

2.

Answer #2 (concl.): That even though the basic Hekdesh is not brought as an Olah, the V'lad itself should be (Tosfos' Rebbe, ha'Rav Mordechai).

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF