1)

TOSFOS DH Ela bi'Fnim v'Chazar v'Nasan b'Chutz Shirayim Ninhu

úåñôåú ã"ä àìà áôðéí åçæø åðúï áçåõ ùéøééí ðéðäå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why this cannot refer to the latter Matanos of Chatas.)

àò''â ãàéú ìàå÷åîà áâ' îúðåú ùáçèàú ãàîøéðï áô' á''ù (ìòéì ãó ìç:) ãìòðéï çåõ äåé ëúçéìúï

(a)

Implied question: We can establish it to discuss the [last] three Matanos of Chatas. We said above (38b) that regarding outside, they are like initial [Matanos]!

ìà îùîò ìéä àìà áùéøééí ãåîéà ãñéôà ãùðé ëåñåú àçã áôðéí åàçã áçåõ ùìà äéä òåùä çáéøå ãçåé àà''ë ðúï ìëåìí

(b)

Answer: [The Makshan] understands [that v'Chazar v'Nasan b'Chutz refers to real] Shirayim, similar to the Seifa of two buckets, [he threw] one inside and one outside. One would not be Docheh the other unless he put all [the Matanos from it].

2)

TOSFOS DH k'Shem she'Damah Poter Es Besarah Min ha'Me'ilah (pertains to 111b)

úåñôåú ã"ä ëùí ùãîä ôåèø àú áùøä îï äîòéìä (ùééê ìîùðä ÷éà:)

(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes that this is when they were slaughtered at once.)

ãæøé÷ú ãí îåöéàä áùø ÷ãùé ÷ãùéí îï äîòéìä ëê äåà ôåèø àú áùø çáéøúä îï äîòéìä

(a)

Explanation: Zerikas Dam uproots Me'ilah from the meat of Kodshei Kodoshim. So it exempts the meat of the other [animal, e.g. what was Hukdash in place of it] from Me'ilah.

åôé' á÷åðèøñ îùåí çèàú ùëéôøå áòìéä ã÷é''ì çèàåú äîúåú ìà ðäðéï åìà îåòìéï

(b)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): It is due to [the law of] a Chatas whose owner atoned [through another animal], for we hold that one may not benefit from Chatas ha'Mesah, but Me'ilah does not apply to it.

å÷ùä ìôéøåùå ãáñåó ôø÷ ÷îà ãîòéìä (ãó å:) úðï àîø øáé ò÷éáà åäøé îôøéù çèàúå åàáãä åäôøéù àçøú úçúéä åàçø ëê ðîöàú äøàùåðä äøé ùðéäí òåîãéí

(c)

Question: In Me'ilah (6b), in a Mishnah, R. Akiva said that one who separates his Chatas and it was lost, and he separated another in place of it, and afterwards the first was found, and both are standing...

ìà ëùí ùãîä ôåèø àú áùøä ëê ôåèø àú áùø çáéøúä

1.

[Do you not admit] that just like its blood exempts its meat (from Me'ilah), it exempts the other animal's meat?!

åàîøéðï áâîøà àîø øáé àìòæø ìà àîø øáé ò÷éáà àìà ùùçè ùðéäí ááú àçú )øöä îæä æåø÷ øöä îæä æåø÷ - ç÷ ðúï îåç÷å) àáì áæä àçø æä ìà

2.

We say in the Gemara (7a) that R. Elazar said that R. Akiva said so only when he slaughtered both of them at once, but not if he slaughtered one after the other.

åàé çùéá ëçèàåú äîúåú àôéìå áæä àçø æä ðîé

3.

If it is considered like Chatas ha'Mesah, also when he slaughtered one after the other (one should exempt the other)!

àìà åãàé ëéåï ãðùçèä ÷åãí æøé÷ú ãîä ùì çáéøúä ùøàåé ìäúëôø ìà äåéà çèàú äîúä

(d)

Explanation #2: Rather, surely since it was slaughtered before Zerikas Dam of the other, it is proper to atone. It is not considered Chatas ha'Mesah;

åäééðå èòîà ãéù çéìå÷ áéï áú àçú ìæä àçø æä ãááú àçú (çùéáé úøåééäå ëçã âåôà) (ö"ì øöä îæä æåø÷ øöä îæä æåø÷ - ç÷ ðúï) åìëê ôåèø àú áùø çáéøúä

1.

This is the reason for the distinction between [Shechitah] at once or one after the other. At once, he may throw the blood of whichever he wants. Therefore, it exempts the meat of the other.

åëï îåëçú äñåâéà

(e)

Support: The Sugya proves like this.

3)

TOSFOS DH Ha Mani Rebbi Hi d'Amar Avudah b'Sha'as Hafrashah Mesah

úåñôåú ã"ä äà îðé øáé äéà ãàîø àáåãä áùòú äôøùä îúä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the argument of Rebbi and Rabanan.)

ìîàï ãàîø áôø÷ åìã çèàú (úîåøä ãó ëâ.) ãäëì îåãéí áîúëôø áùàéðä àáåãä ãàáåãä îúä îééøé äëà áëì òðéï ãäùðéä îúä ìøáé

(a)

Observation: According to the opinion in Temurah (23a) that all agree that if one atones through (i.e. offers) the Einah Avudah (it was not lost. Rather, it was Hukdash to replace the Avudah), that the Avudah must die, here we discuss in every case that the second must die, according to Rebbi;

åàéëà ìîàï ãàîø äúí ãááà ìéîìê ôìéâé åäéëà ãîùê îãòúå àçú îäï åä÷øéá äùðéä îúä ìëåìé òìîà ãðúëåéï ìãçåúä

1.

And there is an opinion there that they argue about when the person comes to ask. When he took one of them based on his own determination and offered it, all agree that the second dies, for he intended to reject it;

åäéëà ãðîìê îåãä øáé (ãðúëôø) (ö"ì ãàí ðúëôø - öàï ÷ãùéí) áàáåãä ãùàéðä àáåãä øåòä

2.

When he asks, Rebbi agrees that if he atoned through the Avudah, the Einah Avudah grazes (until it is blemished...);

åäëà îééøé áùçè ùàéðä àáåãä áôðéí åàáåãä áçåõ

3.

Here we discuss when he slaughtered the Einah Avudah inside, and the Avudah outside.

å÷ùä ÷öú îàé øáé äéà øáðï ðîé ìà ôìéâé áäëé

(b)

Question: Why does it say "it is like Rebbi"? Also Rabanan do not argue about this!

4)

TOSFOS DH v'Hachi ka'Amar Taima d'Avdah Aval Hifrish Shtei Chata'os...

úåñôåú ã"ä åäëé ÷àîø èòîà ãàáãä àáì äôøéù ùúé çèàåú...

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why elsewhere we do not infer so.)

îùîò äéëà ã÷úðé àáãä äåé àáãä ãå÷à

(a)

Inference: When it taught "was lost", this is only if it was lost.

åúéîä ãáñåó ô''÷ ãîòéìä (ãó æ.) úðéà àîø øáé ùîòåï ëùäìëúé ìëôø (áâà) [ôàðé] ëå' òã àîø ìé áðé àúä àåîø ëï åäøé îôøéù çèàú åàáãä åäôøéù àçøú úçúéä ëå'

(b)

Question: In Me'ilah (7a), a Beraisa teaches "R. Shimon says, when I went to Kfar Pani... my son, you say so? If one separates a Chatas and it was lost, and he separated another in place of it..."

åìø''ù òì ëøçéï ìà îçì÷ ãøåòä ìø' ùîòåï ìéú ìéä ëìì ëãàéúà áôø÷ îé ùäéä èîà (ôñçéí ãó öæ:) åáúîåøä ôø÷ )åìã çèàú úîåøä ãó é) (ö"ì éù á÷øáðåú úîåøä ãó èå. - âìéåï)

1.

You are forced to say that R. Shimon does not distinguish, for R. Shimon holds that it is never Ro'eh, like it says in Pesachim (97) and Temurah (15a)!

åé''ì ãáîòéìä àéðå éåøã ìçéãåù æä àìà ìàùîåòéðï ãæøé÷ä îåòìú ìéåöà åçã îéðééäå ð÷è

(c)

Answer: In Me'ilah, he does not come to teach this Chidush (the distinction between when it was lost, and when two were Hukdash from the beginning), rather, to teach that Zerikah helps for Yotzei. He mentioned one of the [Chidushim];

àáì îúðé' ãäëà ìçéãåù úðééä ãàéï æä ãîéåï ë''ë åìà ð÷èä àìà ìàùîåòéðï ãøáé äéà

1.

However, our Mishnah comes for the Chidush (distinction), for ["what is this like?...] is not so similar. It was mentioned only to teach that it is Rebbi (who distinguishes Avudah from two that were Hukdash from the beginning).

i.

Note: Shitah Mekubetzes Kesav Yad and Tzon Kodoshim say that the following begins a new Dibur.

çãà îéðééäå îòé÷øà òåìä äéà

(d)

Citation: One of them was an Olah from the beginning.

åàôéìå ìî''ã áòé ò÷éøä çñøåï ò÷éøä ìà ùîéä çñøåï áäàé ãòåîã ìéò÷ø

(e)

Explanation: Even according to the opinion that Akirah (declaring it to be a different Korban) is needed, a lack of Akirah is not considered Chisaron in such a case that it is destined for Akirah.

åìà ãîé ìäà ãàîøéðï áô' áúøà (ì÷îï ãó ÷éã:) àé äëé ìùîå ìéçééá äåàéì åøàåé ùìà ìùîå åîùðé îçåñø

(f)

Implied question: Why is this unlike what it says below (114b) "if so, he should be liable Lishmah, since it is proper Lo Lishmah!", and it answers that it is lacking Akirah?

ãäúí àéðå òåîã ìéò÷ø

(g)

Answer: There, it is not destined for Akirah.

5)

TOSFOS DH b'Se'ir Nasi

úåñôåú ã"ä áùòéø ðùéà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that our Mishnah is unlike R. Shimon.)

åà''ú ìø''ù çèàú æëø àîàé îúä äà àîøé' áôø÷ ÷îà ãäåøéåú (ãó å:) åáôø÷ ùðé ãúîåøä ' (ãó èå:) ãçîù çèàåú áçã î÷åí âîéøé ìäå åìà îùëçú åìã çèàú áçèàú æëø

(a)

Question: According to R. Shimon, why must a male Chatas die? We say in Horiyos (6b) and in Temurah (15b) that [the tradition for] the five Chata'os (that must die) were taught in one case. We cannot find the child of a Chatas (one of the five) regarding a male Chatas!

åé''ì ãîúðé' ãìà ëø''ù

(b)

Answer: Our Mishnah is unlike R. Shimon.

åäà ãàîøéðï áô' åìã çèàú (ùí ãó ëâ.) âáé ùòéøé éåí äëéôåøéí åäùðé éøòä ìøáé ùîòåï åãéé÷à äà áéçéã îúä

(c)

Implied question: It says in Temurah (23a) regarding goats of Yom Kipur "the second grazes according to R. Shimon", and we infer "regarding an individual, it would die"!

ìàå áæëø ëéåöà áàìå àìà áð÷áä:

(d)

Answer: It does not refer to [an individual's Chatas that is] a male, like these [Chata'os Tzibur, which are males], rather, to a female.

6)

TOSFOS DH Paras Chatas she'Shachtah Chutz mi'Gitah

úåñôåú ã"ä ôøú çèàú ùùçèä çåõ îâúä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos brings a text that says that we discuss where it was burned.)

áøåá ñôøéí âøñéðï ùùøôä

(a)

Alternative text: In most Seforim, the text says "he burned it."

åëï áîñëú ôøä ôø÷ ã' (î''á) úðï ùøôä çåõ ìâúä ôñåìä åäåà äãéï áùçéèä ãàéï çéåá çåõ ìà áùçéèä åìà áäòìàä ëãîåëç áâîøà

(b)

Support: In Parah (4:2), the Mishnah says that if he burned it outside its Gas, it is Pasul, and the same applies to Shechitah, for there is no Chiyuv for Shechitah or Ha'alah (offering), like is proven in the Gemara;

åòé÷ø âú ðéú÷ï ìùøéôä ùäåà ëòéï âåîà ëãôéøù áòøåê åùåøôéï àåúä ùí åàåñôéï àôøä:

1.

The Gas was enacted primarily for burning, for it is like a crater, like the Aruch explained. They burn it there and gather its ashes.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF