1)

TOSFOS DH Hagahah Echad ba'Boker v'Lo Shenayim ba'Boker

úåñôåú ã"ä äâ''ä àçã áá÷ø åìà ùðéí áá÷ø (äîùê)

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that elsewhere, we expound this differently.)

áòìîà ãøùéðï àçã (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) äîéåçã ùáòãøå (îâéìä ãó ëç.)

(a)

Reference: Elsewhere, we expound "Echad" - the most special in the herd (Megilah 28a).

2)

TOSFOS DH u'Bein ha'Arbayim di'Chsiv bi'Ketores v'Neros Lamah Li

úåñôåú ã"ä åáéï äòøáéí ãëúéá á÷èåøú åðøåú ìîä ìé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why he did not ask about the Tamid.)

áéï äòøáéí ãúîéã ðéçà ìéä ìëãàîø áøéù úîéã ðùçè (ôñçéí ãó ðç.) ãæéîðéä îëé éðèå öììé òøá

(a)

Observation: He has no difficulty with Bein ha'Arbayim written regarding the Tamid, like it says in Pesachim (58a) that its time is from when afternoon shadows lean (i.e. the sun is in the west, and shadows lean to the east).

3)

TOSFOS DH v'Im Isa Kulei Ra'uy Hu

úåñôåú ã"ä åàí àéúà ëåìéä øàåé äåà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos justifies the question.)

åìà îöé ìúøõ ãð÷è î÷öúå øàåé îùåí øáé éäåùò

(a)

Implied question: Why can't [R. Oshaya] answer that [Rebbi] mentioned that part [of the day] is proper due to R. Yehoshua?

îùåí ãäëé ôøéê îðà ìéä ìø' àåùòéà ãáï áúéøà îëùéø ôñç ùçøéú

(b)

Answer: [The Gemara] asks as follows. What is R. Oshaya's source that Ben Beseira is Machshir Pesach in the morning?

àé îùåí ãôñåì ùìà ìùîå

1.

Suggestion: It is because he disqualifies [a Pesach slaughtered then] Lo Lishmah.

ãìîà èòîà îùåí ãî÷öúå øàåé ãäà çæéðï äëà ãèòí èåá äåà

2.

Rejection: Perhaps the reason is because part is proper! We find that this is a good reason (Rebbi said so);

àáì ìãáøé ø' àåùòéà ãàéðå úåôñå ìèòí èåá à''ë îàé ôøéê øáé ìøáé éäåùò äìà áëåìå øàåé äåà úìéà îéìúà

i.

However, R. Oshaya holds that it is not a good reason. If so, what was Rebbi's question against R. Yehoshua? The law depends on the entire day being proper!

4)

TOSFOS DH Hagahah Iy d'Afreshei Ha'idna Dichuy Me'ikara Hu

úåñôåú ã"ä äâ''ä àé ãàôøùéä äàéãðà ãçåé îòé÷øà äåà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos distinguishes this from Mechusar Kipurim.)

ãìà ãîé ìîçåñø ëôåøéí ãìà çùéá ãçåé ÷åãí äáàú ÷øáðå

(a)

Implied question: Why is this unlike Mechusar Kipurim (one who must bring a Korban to complete his Taharah)? That is not considered Dichuy before he brings his Korban!

ãàéï æîðå òã ùéèäø åéèáåì

(b)

Answer: Its time is not until he becomes Tahor and immerses. (From that time, it was proper);

àáì äàé ìà çæé ìôñç åùìîéí àò''ô ùäéä æîï ùìîéí

1.

However, this was not proper for Pesach and Shelamim, even though it was the time for Shelamim!

5)

TOSFOS DH Rav Papa Amar Afilu Teima me'Orsa Laylah Ein Mechusar Zman

úåñôåú ã"ä øá ôôà àîø àôéìå úéîà îàåøúà ìéìä àéï îçåñø æîï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that Rav Papa said oppositely in Menachos.)

áøéù îðçåú (ãó ä.) îùîò ãøá ôôà ñ''ì éù îçåñø æîï ìáå áéåí

(a)

Implied question: In Menachos (5a) it connotes that Rav Papa holds that Mechusar Zman applies [to what will become proper] the same day!

åöøéê ìçì÷ áéï îçåñø æîï ãäëà ìäúí

(b)

Answer: We must distinguish between Mechusar Zman of here to there. (Tosfos Menachos 5a DH Ela - Mechusar Zman of the same day applies to offering, but not to being Makdish.)

6)

TOSFOS DH Laylah Ein Mechusar Zman

úåñôåú ã"ä ìéìä àéï îçåñø æîï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos brings other Gemaros that connote like this.)

åëï îùîò áëøéúåú (ãó ç.) (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) åáçâéâä (ãó è:) ìøáé éåçðï åëï áîðçåú ôø÷ ùúé äìçí (ãó ÷.) åáðæéø (éç:) åáéåîà ôø÷ àîø ìäí äîîåðä (ãó ëè:)

(a)

Reference: It connotes like this in Kerisus (8a), in Chagigah (9b) according to R. Yochanan, and in Menachos (100a), Nazir (18b) and Yoma (29b).

7)

TOSFOS DH Laylah li'Kedushah Yom l'Hartza'ah

úåñôåú ã"ä ìéìä ì÷ãåùä éåí ìäøöàä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks how Kedushah can take effect in the womb.)

ä÷ùä äøá øáé éåñó ãáúîåøä (ãó é.) îùîò ãúí áîòé úîéîä ÷ãåù ã÷ãåùä çìä àòåáø áîòé àîå

(a)

Question (R. Yosef): In Menachos (10a) it connotes that a Tam fetus in a Tam mother is Kadosh, for Kedushah takes effect on a fetus in its mother's womb;

åäéàê ÷ãåù áéï ìáø ôãà áéï ìø' éåçðï åäà ìéìä ì÷ãåùä ãå÷à àáì ÷åãí ìëï ìà

1.

How is it Kadosh, both according to Bar Pada and R. Yochanan? Only the night [before its eighth day] is proper for Kedushah, but not before this! (Some answer that one may not be Makdish it l'Chatchilah, but b'Di'eved it takes effect, or one may be Makdish it in the womb, but not from birth until the eighth day, or the Sugyos disagree.)

8)

TOSFOS DH Yom l'Hartza'ah

úåñôåú ã"ä éåí ìäøöàä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the Nafka Minah of this Drashah.)

úéîä úéôå÷ ìé îáéåí öååúå åìîä ìé ãëúéá áéåí äùîéðé

(a)

Question: Even without this [Drashah], I know from "b'Yom Tzavoso" (that one may offer it only during the day)! Why do we need "ba'Yom ha'Shemini"?

åé''ì ãàé ìà ëúéá àìà åäéä ùáòú éîéí úçú àîå äåä àîéðà àí ùçè áìéìä àí òìå ìà éøãå

(b)

Answer: Had [the Torah] written only "v'Hayah Shiv'as Yamim Tachas Imo", one might have thought that if he slaughtered at night, if [the Chelev or limbs of an Olah] were brought on the Mizbe'ach, they do not descend;

åäùúà ÷îùîò ìï ãäåé îçåñø æîï åúøã [àôéìå ìø''ù] ãàéï ôñåìå á÷åãù

1.

Now, it teaches that it is Mechusar Zman, and they descend, even according to R. Shimon, for Ein Pesulo b'Kodesh.

åáô' áúøà (ì÷îï ÷éá:) ðîé îùîò ãàí òìä éøã ãúðï (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) îçåñø æîï ùùçèå áçåõ àéðå áëøú

(c)

Support: Also below (112b), it connotes that if it ascended, it is brought down, for a Mishnah teaches that if one slaughtered Mechusar Zman outside [the Mikdash], he is not Chayav Kares;

åàí òìä ìà éøã äà (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) îåëç äúí ã÷øé îú÷áì ìôúç àäì îåòã åçééá ëøú áçåõ

1.

If the law were that if it ascended, it is not brought down, it is proven there that this is called "it is accepted in Pesach Ohel Mo'ed", and he is Chayav Kares outside!

åìø''é ãàîø (ì÷îï ãó ôã.) áùçéèú ìéìä àí òìä úøã

(d)

Implied question: According to R. Yochanan, who says that if one slaughtered at night, if it ascended, it is brought down. (If so, what is the Nafka Minah that it is Mechusar Zman?)

é''ì ìî''ã áôø÷ áúøà (ùí ÷ë.) àéï ìéìä ááîä äùúà ùäåà îçåñø æîï àí ùçè ìéìä àçø ùáéòé ôñåì àó ááîä

(e)

Answer: According to the opinion below (120a) that [the Isur to offer at] night does not apply a Bamah, now that it is Mechusar Zman, if he slaughtered at night after seven days, it is Pasul even on a Bamah.

å÷ùä ìîàï ãàîø éù ôñåì ìéìä ááîä

(f)

Question: This is difficult for the opinion that [the Isur of] night applies to a Bamah!

éù ìåîø ãîåãä àó ø''é ãááîä ùçéèú ìéìä ìà úøã

(g)

Answer: Even R. Yochanan agrees that on a Bamah, what is slaughtered at night does not descend.

9)

TOSFOS DH Kedoshah v'Einah Kreivah

úåñôåú ã"ä äâ''ä ÷ãåùä åàéðä ÷øéáä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with the Gemara in Temurah.)

ìà ãîé ìøâìä ùì æå òåìä ãúîëø ìöåøëé òåìä (úîåøä ãó éà:)

(a)

Implied question: This should be like "the leg of this is an Olah." It is sold to one who needs an Olah (but he deducts the value of the leg - Temurah 11b)!

ãäúí àéðä ãçåéä ëéåï ãáéãå ì÷ãùä

(b)

Answer: There it is not Dechuyah (rejected), since it is in his ability to be Makdish it.

10)

TOSFOS DH Shma Minah Ba'alei Chayim Nidchin

úåñôåú ã"ä ù''î áòìé çééí ðãçéï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses R. Yochanan's Chidush.)

åà''ú îàé ÷î''ì ø' éåçðï îúðé' äéà áô' îé ùäéä èîà (ôñçéí öæ:) äîôøéù ð÷áä ìôñçå ëå' åàîøé' òìä áâî' (öç.) ù''î úìú

(a)

Question: What is R. Yochanan's Chidush? Our Mishnah in Pesachim (97b) teaches this! If one separated a female for his Pesach... and it says in the Gemara "we learn from this three matters"!

åëé úéîà îùåí ãàéëà ôìåâúà ãúðàé ááòìé çééí ðãçéï áô' ùðé ùòéøé (éåîà ãó ñã.) åàùîåòéðï ø' éåçðï ãáòìé çééí ðãçéï

1.

Suggestion: It is because Tana'im argue about Ba'alei Chayim Nidchin in Yoma (64a). R. Yochanan teaches that they are Nidchin.

äà à''ø éåçðï çãà æéîðà

2.

Rejection: R. Yochanan already taught this!

åé''ì ãîôøéù ð÷áä ãçééä áéãéí åàôé' [øá] îåãä äúí ãáòìé çééí ðãçéï

(b)

Answer: Separating a female [for Pesach] is overt Dichuy. Even Rav agrees there that Ba'alei Chayim Nidchin in such a case. (Here R. Yochanan teaches that Ba'alei Chayim Nidchin even when the Dichuy happened automatically.)

åîéäå ÷ùä îàëì çìá åäîéø ãúå ãäåé ãçééä áéãéí

(c)

Question #1: If one ate Chelev and became a Mumar, this is overt Dichuy!

åòåã ãäåé ðøàä åðãçä åìîä ìéä ìøáé éåçðï ìàùîåòéðï

(d)

Question #2: It was Nir'eh v'Nidcheh. Why must R. Yochanan teach it?

åöøéê ìã÷ã÷ áëì äðê îéîøåú ãø' éåçðï äðê úìú ãáòìé çééí ðãçéí åáùðé î÷åîåú ãôìéâé øá åø' éåçðï áääéà ãáôø÷ ùðé ùòéøé åáääéà ãì÷îï ô' ÷ãùé ÷ãùéí (ãó ðè.) âáé îæáç ùðôâí

(e)

Question: We must be meticulous in all these teachings of R. Yochanan - these three that Ba'alei Chayim Nidchin, and in two places that Rav and R. Yochanan argue - in Yoma and below (59a) regarding the Mizbe'ach becoming dented! (Why didn't Rav argue also about these three? - Chak Nasan)

11)

TOSFOS DH u'Shma Minah Yesh Dichuy b'Damim

úåñôåú ã"ä åùîò îéðä éù ãéçåé áãîéí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses Dichuy b'Damim from Dichuy Me'ikara.)

ôé' á÷åðè' áãáø ùàéï áå àìà ÷ãåùú ãîéí ìà úéîà ùàéï ãçåé îòé÷øà (àéï áå) àìà á÷ãåùú äâåó

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [There is Dichuy b'Damim, i.e. in a matter that has only Kedushas Damim. Do not say that there is Dichuy Me'ikara only in Kedushas ha'Guf.

åà''ú à''ë ãçåé îòé÷øà åãçåé áãîéí äëì àçã ãëì ãçåé îòé÷øà àéï áå àìà ÷ãåùú ãîéí

(b)

Question: If so, Dichuy Me'ikara and Dichuy b'Damim are the same, for every Dichuy Me'ikara has only Kedushas Damim!

åé''ì ãîùëçú ìä á÷áì ãí áëìé ùéù áå îéí ãøàùåï øàùåï ãçåé åçæø åðäôê ìîøàä ãí

(c)

Answer: We find this when he received the blood in a Kli that has water. The first drops are Dachuy. Later, (the mixture of blood and water) turned to have the appearance of blood;

åáô' äúòøåáú (ì÷îï ãó òç.) àîøé' ããí ìúåê îéí øàùåï øàùåï áèì

1.

Below (78a), we say that blood into water, every amount that falls in first is Batel. (Even if it looks like blood now, it is Pasul.)

åìòðéï ëéñåé àéðå ëï ãàéï ãçåé àöì îöåú

(d)

Distinction: Regarding covering, it is not so. There is no Dichuy regarding Mitzvos.

åä''ø çééí îôøù éù ãçåé áãîéí ùãåçä úîåøä ùìà ì÷øá

(e)

Explanation #2 (R. Chayim): "Dichuy applies to Damim", i.e. it is Docheh its Temurah so it cannot be offered;

åìà àîøé' ëéåï (äâää áâìéåï, îöàï ÷ãùéí) ãàéï ÷ãåùä àìà ìãîéí ìà àìéîà ìäúôéñ äúîåøä ìãçåúä î÷ãåùúä ìòùåúä ëéåöà áä

1.

We do not say that since it is Kodesh only for Damim, it is not strong enough to take effect on the Temurah to be Docheh it from its Kedushah, to make it like itself.

åëôé' æä îùîò îúåê âéøñú äñôøéí ãëøéúåú ãâøñé' äúí (ãó ëç.) ëê ù''î áòìé çééí ðãçéï ã÷úðé åàéðä ÷øéáä

(f)

Support: The text of Seforim in Kerisus (28a) connotes like this. It says there that we learn [from R. Yochanan's teaching] that Ba'alei Chayim Nidchin, for he taught that [if one was Makdish his half, even after he buys the other half] it is not offered;

åù''î ÷ãåùú ãîéí îãçä ã÷úðé åúîåøúä ëéåöà áä

1.

And we learn that Kedushas Damim is Docheh, for he taught that its Temurah is like itself.

åù''î éù ãçåé áãîéí ã÷úðé ÷ãåùä ìîàé ìãîéí

2.

And we learn that Dichuy applies to Damim, for he taught that it is Kadosh. For what is it Kadosh? [It is] for Damim.

åãçåé îòé÷øå ìà ÷úðé äúí

3.

Observation: It did not teach there Dichuy Me'ikara! (I.e. Dichuy Me'ikara is the same as "Dichuy applies to Damim", and "Kedushas Damim is Docheh" refers to Temurah, like R. Chayim said.)

åîéäå ä''ø çééí âøéñ ãçåé îòé÷øå åìà âøéñ éù ãçåé áãîéí åëï éù ëîä ñôøéí

(g)

Disclaimer: However, R. Chayim's text says Dichuy Me'ikara, and does not say "Dichuy applies to Damim." Also several Seforim say so. (If so, Tosfos' question returns, and there is no proof for R. Chayim's answer.)

åìôé' ÷ùä îääéà ãîôøéù ð÷áä ìôñçå ãìà ÷àîø äúí úîåøúä ëéåöà áä åàîøé' òìä éù ãçåé áãîéí

(h)

Question #1: According to his Perush, the case of separating a female for Pesach is difficult. It does not say there that its Temurah is like itself, and we say about [it that it teaches that] Dichuy applies to Damim!

åëï áô' áúøà ãëøéúåú (ãó ëç.) ã÷àîø ø' àìòæø àîø ø' àåùòéà îèîà î÷ãù òùéø ùäôøéù ÷ï ìëáùúå åäòðé ëå' ã÷àîø ù''î úìú

(i)

Question #2: In Kerisus (27b-28a), R. Elazar said in the name of R. Oshaya that if an Ashir transgressed Tum'as Mikdash and he separated birds in place of the sheep (that he should bring), and he became poor... we learn three things from this (including that Dichuy applies to Damim);

åìà ùééëà úîåøä [ãàéï úîåøä áòåôåú]

1.

Temurah does not apply [there], for Temurah does not apply to birds!

åøáéðå ù''é ôé' áúùåáä ëîå ùôé' åëúá ãáø æä ìîãúé ôéøåùå îîñ' ëøéúåú ãâøñé' äúí áìùåï æä ù''î ÷ãåùú ãîéí îãçä

(j)

Explanation #1 (cont.): Rashi wrote in a Teshuvah like he explained, and wrote that he learned the Perush of this matter from Maseches Kerisus. The text says there "this teaches that Kedushas Damim is Docheh";

ëìåîø ù''î àôé' ùìà ÷éãùä îúçéìä ìä÷øáú âåôå àìà ÷ãåùú ãîéí ëâåï ä÷ãéù çöéä åçöéä ùðé çåìéï

1.

I.e. this teaches [that it is Docheh] even if initially he was not Makdish it to offer it itself, rather, Kedushas Damim, e.g. he was Makdish half, and the other half was Chulin.

åäëé ðîé ôøùéðï ìéä éù ãéçåé áãîéí ëâåï ð÷áä ìôñçå ìà çæéà âåôà ìôñç àìà ìãîéä åëé à÷ãùä ìãîéí à÷ãùä

2.

We similarly explain Dichuy applies to Damim, e.g. [he was Makdish] a female for his Pesach. It itself is not proper for Pesach, only for its value. When he was Makdish it, he was Makdish it for its value;

åàééãé ããçåéä äéà ãìà çæéà ìà÷øåáé âåôà ìãáø ùäå÷ãùä ìä àîøé' úãçä (îëàï îòîåã á) îì÷øá ìòåìí àôéìå ìàçø ôñç àò"â (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí) ãëì îåúø äôñç äåé ùìîéí åð÷éáä ìùìîéí îéçæà çæéà

3.

Since it was Nidcheh, and it itself cannot be offered for what it was Hukdash, we say that it is Nidcheh from ever being offered, even after Pesach, even though every Mosar Pesach is a Shelamim, and a female is proper for Shelamim.

12b----------------------------------------12b

ã÷úðé îúðé' ãîéä ìùìîéí àáì àéäé âåôä ìà

4.

Source: Our Mishnah taught "its value is for Shelamim", but it itself is not [a Shelamim];

àìîà àìéîà ÷ãåùú ãîéí ìåîø áä úåøú ãçåé åìà àùëçéðï úðàé ãôìéâé áäà îéìúà îéäå (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí) èåáà àúà ìàùîåòéðï

i.

Inference: Kedushas Damim is strong enough to apply the law of Dichuy. We do not find Tana'im who argue about this. However, this teaches very much.

åøáéðå çððàì îôøù éù ãéçåé áãîéí ëìåîø ããîéí ãçåéí (åäãéçåé áãîéí) ùìà é÷øéá îï äãîéí ÷øáðå ùäéä áãòúå ìäôøéù

(k)

Explanation #3 (R. Chananel): Dichuy applies to Damim, i.e. money is rejected not to offer from the money the Korban that he intended to separate;

ëîå éù ãçåé áãîéí ãîé ùäéä èîà (ôñçéí ãó öç.) ãúðï äúí âáé îôøéù ð÷áä ìôñçå éøòä òã ùéñúàá åéîëø åéáéà áãîéå ùìîéí

1.

This is like "Dichuy applies to Damim" in Pesachim (98a). The Mishnah there says about one who separated a female for his Pesach. It grazes until it gets blemished, and we sell it and bring Shelamim with its money.

åø''ù ðîé ôé' ëï äúí éù ãçåé áãîéí àôéìå äãîéí ãçåééï ùàéï îáéàéï îäï ôñç ùäéä ãòúå ëï áùòú äôøùä

2.

Support: Also Rashi explained so there. "Dichuy applies to Damim" - even the money is rejected. We do not bring from it Pesach for which he intended at the time he separated.

îéäå àéðå ëï àìà îáéà îï äãîéí ôñç ëãúðéà ô' áúøà ãëøéúåú (ãó ëç.) äîôøéù ð÷áä ìôñçå éøòä òã ùéñúàá åúéîëø åéáéà áãîéä ôñç

(l)

Rejection: This is not true. He brings Pesach from the money, like the Beraisa in Kerisus (28a) says, that if one separated a female for his Pesach, it grazes until it gets blemished, and it is sold and he brings Pesach with its money.

åîúåê äê áøééúà øáéðå ùîåàì îåç÷ áôø÷ îé ùäéä èîà (ôñçéí ãó öç.) ùìîéí åâøéñ éáéà áãîéä ôñç

(m)

Remark: Due to this Beraisa, the Rashbam erased "Shelamim" from the text in Pesachim (98a), and wrote "he brings Pesach with its money."

àîðí àéï âéøñà æå ðëåðä ãàí ëï äéëé ÷àîø áâîøà ù''î éù ãçåé îòé÷øå [åéù] ãçåé áãîéí [åáòìé] çééí ðãçéï

(n)

Rejection: This text is wrong. If so (it were right), why does the Gemara say "this teaches that there is Dichuy Me'ikara, and Dichuy applies to Damim, and Ba'alei Chayim Nidchim"?

äìà ëé ðîé àîøéðï (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) áòìîà àéï ãçåé àéï éëåì ìä÷øéá (äâää áîäãåøú òåæ åäãø) àéäé âåôä ôñç ùäøé ð÷áä äéà åáôñç ëúéá æëø úîéí áï ùðä

1.

Even if we would say in general Ein Dichuy, he cannot offer it for Pesach, for it is a female, and it is written about Pesach "Zachar Tamim Ben Shanah"!

à''ë òì ëøçê äúí ô' îé ùäéä èîà âøñé' ùìîéí

2.

Conclusion: You are forced to say that the text there in Pesachim is "Shelamim".

åø''ú àåîø ãàéï ìîçå÷ äñôøéí ãáàìå ÷ãùéí àîøé' äîôøéù ð÷áä ìôñçå úøòä åéáéà áãîéä ôñç

(o)

Explanation #4 (R. Tam): We should not erase [the text in] Seforim. In Temurah (19a), we say that if one separated a female for his Pesach, it grazes until it gets blemished and he brings Pesach with its money;

ðùúééøä àçø äôñç úøòä òã ùúñúàá åéîëø åéáéà áãîéä ùìîéí

1.

If it remained after Pesach, it grazes until it gets blemished and it is sold and he brings Shelamim with its money;

åîúðé' ãîé ùäéä èîà áëä''â îééøé áðùúééøä àçø äôñç

i.

Our Mishnah in Pesachim discusses such a case, that it remained after Pesach.

åôéøåù ùì éù ãçåé áãîéí äåé éù ãéçåé áãáø ùàéï áå ø÷ ÷ãåùú ãîéí åìà ÷ãåùú äâåó

2.

The explanation of "Dichuy applies to Damim" is that Dichuy applies to a matter that has only Kedushas Damim, and not Kedushas ha'Guf.

åö''ò áääéà ãëøéúåú à''ø àìòæø à''ø àåùòéà îèîà î÷ãù òùéø ëå'

(p)

Question: This requires investigation in Kerisus (27b-28a), that R. Elazar said in the name of R. Oshaya that if an Ashir transgressed Tum'as Mikdash...

åîúéá øá òå÷áà äîôøéù ð÷áä ìôñçå úøòä éìãä æëø éøòä åéáéà áãîéå ôñç ëå' ø''ù àåîø äåà òöîå é÷øá ôñç

1.

Rav Ukva challenged him from one who separated a female for his Pesach, it grazes until it gets blemished; if it gave birth to a male, it grazes, and he brings Pesach with its money... R. Shimon says, it itself is offered for Pesach.

åîùðé ëé àîøéðï ìøáðï åø''ù ñ''ì ãáò''ç àéï ðãçéï

2.

Citation (cont.) Answer: [R. Elazar and R. Oshaya] said according to Rabanan. R. Shimon holds that Ein Ba'alei Chayim Nidchim;

ãúðéà îú àçã îäí îáéà çáéøå ùìà áäâøìä ãáøé ø''ù

i.

Citation (cont. - Beraisa - R. Shimon): If [after the lottery on Yom Kipur,] one of the [goats] died, we bring a replacement without a lottery. (Even though the live goat could not be offered before a replacement was brought, after it is brought we offer it itself.)

åäùúà îàé ñ''ã îòé÷øà ãôøéê îø''ù ìñééòé' îøáðï

3.

Summation of question: What did the Makshan think initially, that he challenged [R. Oshaya] from R. Shimon? He should support him from Rabanan!

åé''ì ãñ"ã (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) ãú''÷ ðîé îåãä ãáò''ç àéï ðãçéï åäà ã÷àîø éøòä èòîà ëøáé àìòæø ãúîåøä ô' àìå ÷ãùéí (ãó éç:)

(q)

Answer: One might have thought that the first Tana agrees that Ein Ba'alei Chayim Nidchim. The reason he said that it grazes is like R. Elazar (some texts - Eliezer) in Temurah (18b);

ãúðï äîôøéù ð÷áä ìòåìä åéìãä æëø éøòä øáé àìéòæø àåîø àó äåà òöîå é÷øá òåìä

1.

Citation (18b - Mishnah): If one separated a female for an Olah and it gave birth to a male, it grazes. R. Eliezer says, it itself is offered for an Olah;

åîôøù áâîøà ãâáé îôøéù ð÷áä ìôñçå åéìãä æëø ìà äåä à''ø àìéòæø äåà òöîå é÷øá ôñç ãâîéøé ìî÷åí ùäîåúø äåìê ùí äåìã äåìê

2.

The Gemara explains that regarding one who separated a female for his Pesach and it gave birth to a male, R. Eliezer would not say that it itself is offered for Pesach, for we have a tradition that the destiny of Mosar is the destiny of the child;

åìôðé äôñç ãàéîéä ÷ãùä ìãîé ôñç ùìà äéä éëåì ìäîúéï òã ùúìã äæëø åé÷øéáðå ôñç åìëê åìã ðîé ìãîé ôñç àò''â ã÷ñáø áò''ç àéï ðãçéí

i.

Before Pesach, the mother has Kedushas Damim for Pesach. He could not wait until it gives birth to a male and offer it for Pesach. Therefore, also its child is for Demei Pesach, even though he holds that Ein Ba'alei Chayim Nidchim. (Tosfos connotes that we discuss when he did not expect it to give birth before Pesach, but if he did, he could offer the child itself for Pesach - PF.)

åîéäå ÷ùä àãôøéê ìéä îáøééúà ãëøéúåú ìñééòéä îú''÷ ãøáé àìéòæø ãúîåøä ãàéú ìéä áòìé çééí ðãçéï ã÷àîøé áîôøéù ð÷áä ìòåìä åéìãä æëø éøòä

(r)

Question #1: Rather than challenging him from the Beraisa in Kerisus, he should support him from the first Tana of R. Eliezer in Temurah, who holds that Ba'alei Chayim Nidchim. They (Rabanan who argue with him) say that if one separated a female for his Pesach and it gave birth to a male, it grazes...

åîîúðéúéï ãôñçéí åîôìåâúà (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) ãúðàé áéåîà (ãó ñã:)

1.

[And he should support him] from our Mishnah in Pesachim, and the argument of Tana'im in Yoma (64b)!

åòåã ÷ùä äéëé îééúé îääéà ãîú àçã îäí ãàéú ìéä ìø''ù ãàéï ðãçéï ãìîà ùàðé äúí ãìà ãçééä áéãéí

(s)

Question #2: How does he bring [a question] from the case in which one of the [goats] died, that R. Shimon holds that Ein Nidchim? Perhaps there is different, for he was not overtly Docheh it!

åòåã ÷ùä äéëé îééúé îääéà ãøáé àìéòæø ãôùéèà ìéä äúí ãáòìé çééí ðéãçéí åìòéì îáòéà ìéä äúí áëøéúåú (ãó ëæ.)

(t)

Question #3: How does he bring [a question] from the case of R. Eliezer, that it is obvious to him that [he holds that] Ba'alei Chayim Nidchim? Above, this was a question in Kerisus there (27a)!

åáúîåøä ôéøùúé ìôðé øáéðå ãçéãåùà ãøáé éåçðï äåé àò''â ãáéãå ìú÷ï åìé÷ç çöéä äùðé

(u)

Explanation #5: In Temurah, I explained in front of Rabbeinu that the Chidush of R. Yochanan is that [there is Dichuy] even though it is b'Yado to fix (the Dichuy) and buy the other half;

åëï øáé àìòæø àîø øáé àåùòéà ô' áúøà ãëøéúåú áéãå ìäô÷éø ðëñéå åäåé òðé åäåä øàåé ä÷ï ùäôøéù

1.

Similarly, in the case of R. Elazar in the name of R. Oshaya in Kerisus (27b-28a), it is b'Yado to make his property Hefker, and he will be an Oni, and the birds he separated will be proper;

åîéäå àéï áéãå ë''ë ëîå ðôâí äîæáç áøéù ô' ÷ãùé ÷ãùéí (ì÷îï ãó ðè.) ãçåé îòé÷øå äåà åëùø ìë''ò

2.

However, it is not so much b'Yado as when the Mizbe'ach was dented (below, 59a). That is Dichuy Me'ikara, and it is Kosher according to everyone;

åùîòéðï ãëùø ëì äéëà (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) ãáéãå ìú÷ï ëãàéúà ôø÷ ìåìá äâæåì (ñåëä ãó ìâ.)

3.

We learn that it is Kosher whenever it is b'Yado to fix it, like it says in Sukah (33a);

åìëê ðîé ð÷è øáé éåçðï àëì çìá åäôøéù ÷øáï åäîéø ãúå åçæø ùéãçä ãäåä ìéä ðøàä åðãçä

i.

This is why R. Yochanan mentioned "he ate Chelev and separated a Korban and became a Mumar, and repented, that [the Korban] is Nidcheh", since it was Nir'eh v'Nidcheh;

åìà ð÷è ùäôøéù ÷øáï ìàçø ùäîéø ãúå ãääåà ëùø ëéåï ãáéãå ìú÷ï á÷ì ëîå ðôâí äîæáç åâí ãçåé îòé÷øå ãëùø

ii.

He did not mention that he separated a Korban after he became a Mumar, for then it is Kosher, since it is b'Yado to fix it easily, like when the Mizbe'ach was dented, and also it is Dichuy Me'ikara, which is Kosher;

åáëøéúåú ô' áúøà ãôøéê ìø' àåùòéà îø' ùîòåï åìà îééúé ìéä ñééòúà îøáðï

(v)

Implied question: In Kerisus (28a), why did [Rav Ukva] challenge R. Oshaya from R. Shimon, and did not support him from Rabanan?

îùåí ãòã ëàï ìà ôìéâé øáðï åàîøé ùðãçä îùåí ãàéï áéãå ìú÷ï ëìì áùòú ä÷ãù ùäéà ð÷áä ìôñçå

(w)

Answer: This is because we find that Rabanan argue and say that it is Nidcheh [only] because it is not b'Yado at all to fix at the time of Hekdesh, for it is a female for his Pesach;

àáì äéëà ùáéãå ìú÷ï ÷öú ëâåï îèîà î÷ãù òùéø ùäôøéù ÷ï ãàé áòé îô÷ø ðëñéä îåãå (ëï ðøàä ìäâéä) ãìà äåé ãéçåé ëì æä ôé' øáéðå ä÷ãåù æöå÷''ì

1.

However, when it is somewhat b'Yado to fix, e.g. one who transgressed Tum'as Mikdash separated birds, if he wants, he can make his property Hefker, they agree that there is no Dichuy. All of this is from Rabbeinu ha'Kadosh of blessed memory.

å÷ùä ìé òì æä îàé ôøéê ìòéì àé àôøùéä îöôøà ãçåé îòé÷øå äåà äìà áéãå ìäùäåúå òã çöåú ëîå ä÷ãéù çåáåú áâìâì ãëùéøéï áùéìäé ôø÷ àçøåï (ì÷îï ÷éç.)

(x)

Question #1: According to this, what was the question above (12a) "if he separated it in the morning, it is Dichuy Me'ikara!"? He can delay it until midday, just like one who was Makdish an obligation [when the Mishkan was] in Gilgal. They are Kosher (below, 118a)!

åëï àåúå åàú áðå

(y)

Question #2: The same applies to Oso v'Es Beno. (Why is it Dichuy Me'ikara? He can delay slaughtering the latter until tomorrow!)

12)

TOSFOS DH u'Shma Minah Dichuy Me'ikara Havi Dichuy

úåñôåú ã"ä åù''î ãçåé îòé÷øå äåé ãçåé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses how the law changes when touch b'Yado.)

úéîä ãâáé äãñ àîøéðï ô' ìåìá äâæåì (ñåëä ãó ìâ:) äéëà (ãàùëçï) ãàùçåø îòøá éå''è ããçåé îòé÷øà ìà äåé ãçåé

(a)

Question: Regarding myrtle, we say (Sukah 33b) that when [its berries were] black before Yom Tov, Dichuy Me'ikara is not Dichuy!

åé''ì ãùàðé äúí ãáéãå ìú÷ðå

(b)

Answer: There is different, because it is b'Yado to fix it. (He removes berries until there are more leaves than berries.)

úãò ãâáé (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) ð÷èí øàùå [îòé''è] åòìúä áå úîøä [áé''è] îéáòéà ìéä àé éù ãçåé àé ìàå [åìà] ôùèéðï ìä îäà îùåí ãð÷èí àéï áéãå ìú÷ðå

(c)

Proof: Regarding [a myrtle branch] whose top was Niktam (cut off) before Yom Tov, and a [quasi-]date grew on it on Yom Tov (so now its top is Kosher), the Gemara asks whether or not there is Dichuy, and we do not resolve it from this (case when it was black), because Niktam is not b'Yado to fix it.

åà''ú î''è ãø' éåçðï ãàîø ãçåé îòé÷øå äåé ãçåé ìéìó îîçåñø æîï ãìà äåé ãçåé ëãàîø áô' ùðé ùòéøé (éåîà ãó ñã.)

(d)

Question: What is R. Yochanan's reason to say that Dichuy Me'ikara is Dichuy? He should learn from Mechusar Zman that it is not Dichuy, like it says in Yoma (64a)!

åé''ì ãùàðé îçåñø æîï ãçåæø [åðøàä] îîéìà

(e)

Answer: Mechusar Zman is different, for it returns and is Nir'eh again automatically.

åà''ú àîàé àéöèøéê ìøáé éåçðï îéòåèà ãîåí áí äðé äåà ãëé òáø îåîí éøöå äà ëì äãçåééí àí òáø îåîí ìà éøöå äåàéì åðéãçå àéãçå

(f)

Question: Why did R. Yochanan need an exclusion "Mum Bam" - regarding these (temporary Mumim), when the Mum passes, they are accepted, but anything Nidcheh, [even] when the Mum passes, they are not accepted, for once they are Nidcheh, they are Nidcheh?

äà îåí òåáø ìà éìôéðï [ãìãçé] ãìà äåé ãçåé ãäúí îîéìà äåé

1.

We do not learn that a temporary Mum is Docheh. It is not Docheh, for there it is automatic!

åé''ì ãàéëà îåí ãàéðå òåáø àìà òì éãé øôåàä

(g)

Answer: There is a Mum that passes only through a cure (it is not automatic).

13)

TOSFOS DH Hacha Korban Idchi

úåñôåú ã"ä äëà ÷øáï àéãçé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains this in both possible ways.)

åâøò îãàéãçé âáøà

(a)

Explanation #1: This is worse than when the person is Nidcheh.

åäà ãîùîò àéôëà áäåøéåú ô' áúøà (ãó éà.) âáé ðùéàåú îäå ùúôñé÷

(b)

Implied question: It connotes oppositely in Horiyos (11a) regarding "is becoming Nasi an interruption?"! (He separated a female when he was a Hedyot, and then he was appointed Nasi, who brings a male.)

ìà ãîé ãäúí ìà àéãçé ÷øáï îï äçìá ùàëì ãòãééï äåà çééá ÷øáï

(c)

Answer: There is different, for the Korban was not Nidcheh from [being offered due to] the Chelev that he ate. He is still obligated a Korban.

åø''ú ôéøù àéôëà ãâáé äåøå á''ã ìà äåé ä÷øáï (äâäú òì ùéèä î÷åáöú áù"ñ åéìðà) ãçåé

(d)

Explanation #2: R. Tam explained oppositely. When Beis Din ruled, the Korban is not Nidcheh;

ãâáøà àéãçé ùàéðå éåãò àí ôèåø àí ìàå ÷øáï ìà àéãçé ãàé ìà ãäúéøå á''ã äéä ÷øá åðîöà ùìà äéä ãçåé àìà ò''é èòåúå

1.

The person is Nidcheh, for he does not know whether or not he is exempt, but the Korban is not Nidcheh, for had Beis Din not permitted, it would have been offered. It turns out that the Dichuy was only through his mistake;

àáì äëà àôéìå ÷øáï ðîé àéãçé ãëéåï ùäåà ùåèä àå îåîø ôèåø äåà ìëåìé òìîà

2.

However, here, even the Korban is Nidcheh, since he is a lunatic or Mumar. He is exempt according to everyone.

14)

TOSFOS DH Ben Azai b'Kal v'Chomer Maisi Lah

úåñôåú ã"ä áï òæàé á÷''å îééúé ìä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos arouses questions about the Kal v'Chomer.)

àó ò''â ãôñåì ùìà ìùîï îåöéàå îéãé ôâåì ãáòéðï ùéäéå ëì îúéøéí áëùøåú

(a)

Remark: Even though the Pesul of Lo Lishmah removes it from becoming Pigul, for [to become Pigul] we require that all the Matirim were b'Kashrus (except for intents Chutz li'Zmano)...

ìà ãîéà ìäà ãàîø áôø÷ ùðé ãôñçéí (ãó ëæ:) ëì ãéï ùúçéìúå ìäçîéø åñåôå ìä÷ì àéðå ãéï

1.

This is unlike what it says in Pesachim (27b) "any Kal v'Chomer that is initially to be stringent, and at the end it is lenient, it is not a Kal v'Chomer." (There, if we learn that Bi'ur Chametz is only through burning, one who has no wood cannot burn it, and definitely he will be exempt. Here, the leniency can be avoided, if all the Avodah is done Lishmah - Chak Nasan, Pirchei Kehunah, Zivchei Efrayim. Ayeles ha'Shachar - some say that the leniency of Pigul is a consequence of the stringency of Lo Lishmah. It is not a law of Lo Lishmah itself. It is better to say that in any case it is Pasul. We are not Mevatel the Kal v'Chomer just because it removes the Chiyuv Kares.)

úéîä åáï òæàé àé ãøéù àåúä ìùîä ëùøä ùìà ìùîä ôñåìä äà ùàø ÷ãùéí ëå' ÷ì åçåîø îàé àäðé ìéä

(b)

Question: If Ben Azai expounds "Osah" - it is Kosher Lishmah, and Pasul Lo Lishmah, but other Kodshim (are Kosher even Lo Lishmah), how does the Kal v'Chomer help him?

åàé ìà ãøéù à''ë àùí ìéòëá îäé÷éùà ãëçèàú ëàùí (äâäú áøëú äæáç)

1.

And if he does not expound it, [Lishmah] should be Me'akev in Asham, due to the Hekesh "ka'Chatas ka'Asham"!

15)

TOSFOS DH Mah leha'Tzad ha'Shavah she'Bahen she'Chen Yesh Bahen Tzad Kares

úåñôåú ã"ä îä ìäöã äùåä ùáäï ùëï éù áäï öã ëøú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this Pircha applies even if we learn also from Asham.)

úéîä åìø''à ãôñì çèàú åàùí ìéôñåì ðîé òåìä åúéúé îçèàú åàùí [åôñç]

(a)

Question: According to R. Eliezer who disqualifies Chatas and Asham, he should disqualify also Olah! He should learn from Chatas, Asham and Pesach!

åé''ì ãùééê ÷öú öã ëøú áàùí îùåí ãàéëà àùí úìåé

(b)

Answer: Kares applies to an Asham, for there is Asham Taluy;

åîéäå ìà ùééê ëîå áçèàú åôñç ëãîåëç ìòéì:

1.

However, it does not apply as much as to Chatas and Pesach, like is proven above (10b).

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF