1) TOSFOS DH Kol ha'Menachos she'Nikmetzu she'Lo Lishman Kesheros Ela...
úåñôåú ã"ä îúðé' ëì äîðçåú ùð÷îöå ùìà ìùîï ëùéøåú àìà...
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses how we learn that Menachos must be Lishmah.)
òáåãä ÷îééúà ð÷è åä''ä ðúéðä áëìé åäåìëä åä÷èøä ëã÷úðé ñéôà
(a) Explanation: It mentioned [Kemitzah, for this is] the first Avodah. The same applies to Nesinah in a Kli, Holachah and Haktarah, like the Seifa teaches;
ã' òáåãåú éù á÷åîõ ëðâã ã' òáåãåú ùéù áãí ëãàîøéðï ì÷îï áô''á (ã' èæ.) åáô''÷ ãæáçéí (ã' ã.)
1. There are four Avodos with the Kometz, corresponding to four Avodos with Dam [Zevachim], like we say below (16a) and in Zevachim (4a);
åáàåúï ã' òáåãåú ôñìä îçùáä ùìà ìùîï åîçùáú ôéâåì ãçåõ ìæîðå åçåõ ìî÷åîå
i. In those four Avodos, intent Lo Lishmah disqualifies, and intent of Pigul Chutz li'Zmano and Chutz li'Mkomo. (Lo Lishmah disqualifies only Minchas Chotei and Minchas Kena'os; for other Menachos, it merely causes that the owner was not Yotzei. Proper Pigul, for which Kares forbids eating it, is only through intent Chutz li'Zmano. Often, Chutz li'Mkomo is imprecisely called Pigul.)
àáì áúðåôä åäâùä àéï îçùáä ôåñìú àò''â ãáòé ëäåðä
2. However, in Tenufah and Hagashah, intent does not disqualify, even though they require Kehunah.
åáô''÷ ãæáçéí (ãó ã:) éìôéðï î÷øàé ãîçùáä ôåñìú áùìîéí áã' òáåãåú åùàø æáçéí éìôéðï îùìîéí áäé÷éùà ãæàú äúåøä åî÷øà ãîåöà ùôúéê åîöøéê ìäå
(b) Reference: In Zevachim (4b) we learn from verses that intent disqualifies Shelamim in four Avodos, and we learn other Zevachim from Shelamim through a Hekesh "Zos ha'Torah", and the verse "Motza Sefasecha", and show why both are needed;
åðøàä ãìîðçåú ðîé éìôéðï ìîöåä îùìîéí îääéà äé÷ùà âåôä ëîå áæáçéí
(c) Assertion: We learn also to Menachos l'Chatchilah from Shelamim, from the same Hekesh, just like Zevachim.
ãîãøùà ãø' ùîòåï ããøéù áâîøà áñîåê ÷ãùé ÷ãùéí äéà ëçèàú åëàùí îðçú çåèà äøé äéà ëçèàú îðçú ðãáä äøé äéà ëàùí
1. Implied question: We should learn from the Drashah of R. Shimon that the Gemara expounds below "Kodshei Kodoshim Hi ka'Chatas vecha'Asham" - Minchas Chotei is like Chatas, and Minchas Nedavah is like Asham!
ìà îöéðï ìîéìó ãìà òé÷ø ãøùà äéà ëãàîøéðï áô''÷ ãæáçéí (ãó éà.) ãòé÷ø ÷øà ìëãø' éäåãä áøéä ãøáé çééà áà ìòåáãä áéã òåáãä áéîéï ëçèàú ëå'
2. Answer: We cannot learn from it, for it is not the primary Drashah, like we say in Zevachim (11a) that the verse comes primarily for Rav Yehudah brei d'R. Chiya's law - if one wants to offer [the Kometz] in his hand, he uses his right hand, like Chatas [and if he wants to offer it in a Kli, he may use his left hand, like Asham].
åìòëá áîðçú çåèà îôøù äúí îãëúéá áä äéà ëîå áçèàú
3. We explain there that [Lishmah] is Me'akev in Minchas Chotei since it is written "Hi", like regarding Chatas.
åëï îôøù ðîé áôéø÷éï (ãó ã.) ãâîø îðçú çåèà åîðçú ÷ðàåú ãôåñìåú ùìà ìùîï ãëúéá áäå äéà
4. Support: So we explain also below (4a) that we learn that Minchas Chotei and Minchas Kena'os are Pasul Lo Lishmah because it is written about them "Hi".
åàí úàîø åòåôåú ãáòå ìùîï ëãàîøéðï áâîøà åëãúðï áæáçéí áô' çèàú äòåó (ãó ñå:) îðìï
(d) Question: Birds must be Lishmah, like we say in the Gemara, and like a Mishnah in Zevachim (66b) teaches. What is the source for this?
ãàé îäé÷ùà ãæàú äúåøä
1. Suggestion #1: It is from the Hekesh "Zos ha'Torah."
àé àôùø ìåîø ëï ìôéøåù ä÷åðè' ãô''÷ ãçåìéï (ãó ëá.) âáé òåìú äòåó ãëúéá åàú äùðé éòùä òåìä ëîùôè
2. Rejection: You cannot say so according to Rashi's Perush in Chulin (22a) regarding Olas ha'Of, about which it is written "v'Es ha'Sheni Ya'aseh Olah ka'Mishpat";
ããøéù äúí ëîùôè çèàú áäîä ãàéðå áà àìà îï äçåìéï åáéåí åáéãå äéîðéú
i. [The Gemara] expounds there ka'Mishpat (like the law of) Chatas Behemah, which comes only from Chulin, and during the day, and with the right hand. (This is unlike our text there, which learns Olas ha'Of from Chatas ha'Of.)
ùä÷ùä ùí ä÷åðèøñ ãîäé÷ùà ãæàú äúåøä ðô÷à ããøéù îéðéä áñåó äúåãä (ì÷îï ãó ôâ.) îä çèàú àéðå áà àìà îï äçåìéï àó ëì ãáø ùáçåáä àéðä áàä àìà îï äçåìéï
ii. Question (Rashi there): We learn from the Hekesh "Zos ha'Torah", from which we expound below (83a) just like Chatas comes only from Chulin, also every obligation comes only from Chulin!
åôéøù á÷åðèøñ ãîúåê (ëê ãòåó ìà ëúá áääåà ÷øà åìà àîøéðï àìà á÷øáï) (ö"ì ãòåó ìà ëúåá áääåà ÷øà ìà îùîò ìéä îääéà ä÷éùà àìà ÷øáðåú - öàï ÷ãùéí) áäîä
iii. Answer (Rashi): Since birds are not written in that verse, the Hekesh connotes only animal Korbanos.
åàéï ìúøõ ãéìôéðï òåôåú îæáçéí ìòðéï ìùîï
3. Suggestion #2: We could learn birds from Zevachim regarding Lishmah.
ãàéëà ìîéôøê îä ìæáçéí ùëï èòåðéï ëìéí ãëé äàé âåðà ôøéê áô' àéæäå î÷åîï (æáçéí ãó îç:) âáé öôåï
4. Rejection: We can challenge this, for Zevachim require a Kli. The Gemara challenges like this in Zevachim (48b) regarding [requiring in] the north.
åîéäå ìôéøåù ä÷åðèøñ ãçåìéï ÷ùä ãòì ëøçéê òåôåú ëúéáé á÷øà ãæàú äúåøä ãîñé÷ äúí ãáéåí ãçèàú äòåó îáéåí öååúå ðô÷à ãëúéá áúø äé÷ùà ãæàú äúåøä
(e) Implied answer - defense of Suggestion #1: Rashi's Perush in Chulin is difficult. You are forced to say that birds are written in the verse "Zos ha'Torah", for we conclude there that we learn that Chatas ha'Of must be during the day from "b'Yom Tzavoso", which is written after the Hekesh Zos ha'Torah!
åëï áîâéìä áô' ä÷åøà ìîôøò (ãó ë:) âáé ëì äéåí ëùø ìîìé÷ä ããøéù áâîøà îáéåí öååúå
1. Also in Megilah (20b), regarding "the entire day is Kosher for Melikah", the Gemara expounds from b'Yom Tzavoso.
åáô' ÷îà ãæáçéí (ãó æ:) )âîøà( (ö"ì âáé - áàøåú äîéí) çåõ îï äôñç ãøéù ôñç ìòðéï ìùîï ìîöåä îãàéú÷åù ìùìîéí îãëúéá áéåí öååúå ìä÷øéá àú ÷øáðéäí æä áëåø îòùø åôñç
2. And in Zevachim (7b) regarding "except for Pesach", we expound Pesach regarding Lishmah l'Chatchilah from the Hekesh to Shelamim, since it is written "b'Yom Tzavoso Lehakriv Es Korbeneihem" - this is Bechor, Ma'aser and Pesach;
à''ë ëéåï ãòåôåú ðîé îáéåí öååúå ðô÷é ùîò îéðä ãòåôåú ðîé àúééï áäé÷ùà ãæàú äúåøä åäåà äãéï ìòðéï ùìà ìùîï ìîöåä îãàéú÷åù ìùìîéí
3. Since we learn also birds from b'Yom Tzavoso, this teaches that also birds are in the Hekesh Zos ha'Torah, and likewise [we learn] about Lishmah l'Chatchilah, since they are equated to Shelamim;
åìòëá áçèàú äòåó ããøùéðï áúåøú ëäðéí îãëúéá äéà
i. We learn that it is Me'akev for Chatas ha'Of from a Drashah in Toras Kohanim, since it is written "Hi".
åäà ãàéöèøéê ìï ëîùôè áô' ÷îà ãçåìéï (ãó ëá.)
(f) Implied question: Why do we need "ka'Mishpat" in Chulin (22a, to teach that Olas ha'Of is like Chatas Behemah)?
éù ìôøù àìéáà ãø' àìéòæø ãô' äúåãä (ì÷îï ãó ôá:) ãìéú ìéä äé÷ùà ãæàú äúåøä
(g) Answer: We can explain according to R. Eliezer below (82b). He does not expound the Hekesh Zos ha'Torah.
åö''ò ãääéà ãøùà ãîééúé áô''÷ ãçåìéï (ãó ëá.) ãîùìå åìà îùì öéáåø åìà îùì îòùø ãøéù ìä áôø÷ äúåãä (ì÷îï ãó ôâ.) àìéáà ãø' ò÷éáà åãìà ëø' àìéòæø
(h) Question #1: The Drashah brought in Chulin (22a, about the Kohen Gadol's Par of Yom Kipur) 'from his [money], and not from the Tzibur, and not from Ma'aser' - we expound it below (83a) according to R. Akiva, and unlike R. Eliezer! (We expounded "not from Ma'aser" from the Hekesh "Zos ha'Torah." Only R. Eliezer, who does not expound this Hekesh, needs a different source to exclude Ma'aser!)
åòåã äéëé éìôéðï òåôåú îçèàú áäîä äà çèàú áäîä ã÷àîø òì ëøçéê ìàå îôøå (ö"ì àôøå - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã, öàï ÷ãùéí) ùì àäøï ÷àé ãîä òðééðå ìùí
(i) Question #2: How can we learn birds from [ka'Mishpat] Chatas Behemah? You are forced to say that this does not refer to Aharon's (i.e. the Kohen Gadol's) Par, for what is its connection to there (Oleh v'Yored)?!
àìà (îçèàú) (ö"ì àçèàú - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã, öàï ÷ãùéí) áäîä ãìòéì îéðä ÷àé ùîáéà áòùéøåú ùæå áàä çìéôéï ìä ëãôé' ùí á÷åðèøñ åçèàú áäîä îôøå ùì àäøï éìôà îãàé÷øé çèàú åäééðå ìîã îï äìîã
1. Rather, it refers to Chatas Behemah above, that a rich person brings, and [birds] come in place of it, like Rashi explained there, and we learn Chatas Behemah from Aharon's Par, since it is called Chatas. This is [learning through Hekeshim] Lamed (something learned) from Lamed! (We do not do so for Kodshim.)
åòåã ÷ùä ìîä ìé ìîãøù äúí áôøå ùì àäøï îùìå åìà îùì îòùø úéôå÷ ìé' ëãàîøéðï áñéôøé áôøùú øàä àðëé áòðéï ]ö"ì òùø úòùø - éùø åèåá] ãîîòè òåìåú îùåí ãëúéá âáé îòùø åàëìú åôøå ùì àäøï ìùøéôä ÷àé
(j) Question #3: Why must we expound there about Aharon's Par "from his", and not from the Tzibur, and not from Ma'aser? I already know this, like we say in the Sifri in Re'eh, regarding "Aser Ta'aser", that we exclude Olos (one may not buy them with Ma'aser) because it says about Ma'aser "v'Achalta". [This excludes also] Aharon's Par, for it is burned!
åîéäå áæä é''ì äà ãëúéá àùø ìå òé÷ø àúà ìîéãøù îùìå åìà îùì öéáåø
(k) Answer (to Question #3): We can answer for this that what it says "Asher Lo" primarily comes to expound his, and not of the Tzibur.
åðøàä ìôøù ãîéúåøà ãøùéðï ëì çèàåú ãëúéá áôøå ùì àäøï àú ôø äçèàú àùø ìå ãäåä îöé ìîëúá àú äôø àùø ìå åëúéá äçèàú ìîéîøà ãëì çèàåú áéï çèàú áäîä áéï çèàú äòåó îùìå ãäééðå îï äçåìéï åìà îùì îòùø
(l) Answer (to Question #2): We can answer that we expound all Chata'os [not from a Hekesh, rather,] from an inclusion. It is written about Aharon's bull "Es Par ha'Chatas Asher Lo." It could have written 'Es ha'Par Asher Lo'! It wrote ha'Chatas to teach that all Chata'os, both Chatas Behemah and Chatas ha'Of, are his, i.e. from Chulin, and not from Ma'aser;
åäùúà ðéçà ãìà äåé äé÷ù
1. Now it is fine [that Chatas Behemah teaches about birds], for it is not a Hekesh.
åîéäå àëúé ÷ùä ìîä ìé ëîùôè ìòðéï çåìéï âáé òåìú äòåó úéôå÷ ìéä îãøùà ãñéôøé ãäà àéðä ðàëìú
(m) Question: It is still difficult! Why do we need ka'Mishpat to teach about [buying] Olas ha'Of from Chulin? We should know from the Drashah of the Sifri, for it is not eaten!
åé''ì ãñ''ã ãàúà åä÷øéáå ìçì÷ ìòðéï çåìéï ëããøéù äúí ãçì÷ äëúåá áéï çèàú äòåó ìòåìú äòåó îãëúéá åä÷øéáå
(n) Answer: One might have thought that "v'Hikrivo" comes to distinguish about Chulin, like we expound there that the Torah distinguished between Chatas ha'Of and Olas ha'Of, since it says v'Hikrivo (he will offer it).
(îúåê ëê ðéçà ìéä) (ö"ì åîúåê ëê ðéçà ìé - öàï ÷ãùéí) ãìà äåä éìôéðï ìä îä÷éùà ãæàú äúåøä îùåí ãëúéá åä÷øéáå
(o) Support: Now I can explain why we would not learn from the Hekdesh of Zos ha'Torah, since it says "v'Hikrivo".
åà''ú àí ëï îàé ôøéê äúí áéåí îáéåí öååúå ðô÷à ãéìîà äééúé îçì÷ îåä÷øéáå
(p) Question: If so, what was the question there "we know that it must be during the day from b'Yom Tzavoso!"? Perhaps I would distinguish, since it says v'Hikrivo!
åé''ì ãáéåí öåúå ëúéá òì æàú äúåøä ìòåìä ãîùîò ëì òåìåú
(q) Answer: B'Yom Tzavoso is written about "Zos ha'Torah l'Olah", which connotes all Olos.
åìåâ ùîï ùì îöåøò ãáòé ìùîï ëãúðéà ì÷îï áä÷åîõ øáä (ãó ëæ:) (âîø) (ö"ì âáé - öàï ÷ãùéí) ùáò äæàåú ùáôøä (ã÷úðé ááøééúà) åùáôðéí åùáîöåøò ùìà ìùîï ôñåìåú ôé' ìäøöåú ëãîñé÷
(r) Implied question: The Log of oil of a Metzora, which needs Lishmah, like a Beraisa teaches below (27b) regarding the seven Haza'os of Parah [Adumah] and [Haza'os of inner Chata'os] inside and [Haza'os] of a Metzora, that they are Pasul Lo Lishmah, i.e. they are not Meratzeh, like we conclude (what is the source of Lishmah for the oil)?
éù ìôøù ãðôé÷ îä÷éùà ãæàú äúåøä ãáéåí öååúå àú áðé éùøàì ìä÷øéá àú ÷øáðéäí (åé÷øà æ) àééøé ðîé áìåâ ùîï ùì îöåøò
(s) Answer: We learn from the Hekesh Zos ha'Torah, for "b'Yom Tzavoso Es Bnei Yisrael Lehakriv Es Korbeneihem" discusses also the Log of oil of a Metzora;
ãàé÷øé ÷øáï ëããøùéðï áô' åàìå îðçåú (ì÷îï ã' òâ.) ìëì ÷øáðí ìøáåú ìåâ ùîï ùì îöåøò
1. [The oil] is called Korban, like we expound below (73a) "l'Chol Korbanam" includes the Log of oil of a Metzora.
àáì àéï ìúøõ ãäåé áëìì àùí îöåøò
(t) Suggestion: We could answer that it is included in Asham Metzora!
ãàí ëï éôñì ùìà ìùîå ìø' àìéòæø ëàùí åì÷îï áä÷åîõ øáä (ãó ëç.) îñ÷éðï ãìà îéôñéì îùåí ãäåé ìîã áäé÷ù åãáø äìîã áäé÷ù àéï çåæø åîìîã áäé÷ù
(u) Rejection: If so, it would be Pasul Lo Lishmah according to R. Eliezer, like an Asham, and below (28a) we conclude that it is not Pasul, because it is learned from a Hekesh, and something learned from a Hekesh does not return to teach through a Hekesh.
åîäà ããøéù áîâéìä (ãó ë:) îìé÷ä îáéåí öååúå åùçéèä îáéåí æáçëí åìà ãøéù ùçéèä îáéåí öååúå ëîìé÷ä
(v) Implied question: Why do we expound in Megilah (20b) Melikah from b'Yom Tzavoso, and Shechitah from b'Yom Zivchachem, and we do not expound Shechitah from b'Yom Tzavoso, like Melikah?
îùåí ãùçéèä ìàå òáåãä äéà:
(w) Answer: It is because Shechitah is not an Avodah.
2) TOSFOS DH she'Lo Lishman
úåñôåú ã"ä ùìà ìùîï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that Shinuy Ba'alim is included.)
ìëàåøä îùîò ãàééøé áùéðåé ÷åãù ëãîôøù áñéôà ìùí îðçú çåèà ìùí îðçú ðãáä
(a) Inference: Seemingly, this connotes that we discuss Shinuy Kodesh, like the Seifa explains "l'Shem Minchas Chotei, l'Shem Minchas Nedavah."
åäåà äãéï ùðåé áòìéí ëãîåëç (áâîøà áô''÷ ãæáçéí ãó ã.) (ö"ì áúéøåöå ùì øáä ãîùðé áâîøà ëàï áùðåé ÷ãù ëàï áùðåé áòìéí - ÷øï àåøä)
(b) Implied question: The same applies to Shinuy Ba'alim, like is proven through Rabah's answer. He answered in the Gemara "this refers to Shinuy Kodesh, and this refers to Shinuy Ba'alim"! (Why didn't the Mishnah teach also Shinuy Ba'alim?)
åùîà ôùéèà ìéä ìäù''ñ áëì ãåëúé ãùðåé áòìéí ëùðåé ÷ãù (ëúéøåöå ùì øáä ãîùðé áâîøà ëàï áùðåé ÷ãù ëàï áùðåé áòìéí - ÷øï àåøä îåç÷å)
(c) Answer #1: Perhaps it is obvious to the Gemara that everywhere, Shinuy Ba'alim is like Shinuy Kodesh.
àé ðîé îîúðé' ãôø÷ áéú ùîàé (æáçéí ãó îå:) ìùí ùùä ãáøéí äæáç ðæáç ìùí æáç ìùí æåáç
(d) Answer #2: [We know this] from the Mishnah in Zevachim (46b) "a Zevach is slaughtered l'Shem six matters - l'Shem [which] Zevach, l'Shem Zove'ach (the owner)..."
3) TOSFOS DH Lishman veshe'Lo Lishman
úåñôåú ã"ä ìùîï åùìà ìùîï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos brings that Stam is like Lishmah.)
áô''÷ ãæáçéí (ãó á:) îñ÷éðï ãñúîï ëìùîï (÷àîø) (ö"ì ãîé - ùéèä î÷åáöú)
(a) Reference: In Zevachim (2b) we conclude that Stam is like Lishmah.
4) TOSFOS DH Kari Lei Neder v'Kari Lei Nedavah
úåñôåú ã"ä ÷øé ìéä ðãø å÷øé ìéä ðãáä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with the Gemara in Chulin.)
îùîò îäëà ãëì äéëà ãëúéá ðãø ðãø ãå÷à åðãáä ðãáä ãåå÷à åëï áô''÷ ãø''ä (ãó å.) ìòðéï áì úàçø
(a) Inference: Here it connotes that wherever it is written Neder, it is specifically a Neder (there is Achrayus), and [wherever it is written] Nedavah, it is specifically a Nedavah, and similarly, in Rosh Hashanah (6a) regarding Bal Te'acher.
åàôéìå ìø''î ãô''÷ ãçåìéï (ãó á. åùí: ã''ä àáì) ããøéù èåá àùø ìà úãåø èåá îæä åîæä ùàéðå ðåãá ëì òé÷ø àìîà ÷øé ìðãáä ðãø
(b) Implied question: In Chulin (2a), R. Meir expounds "Tov Asher Lo Sidor" - better than both (not vowing, and vowing and not paying) is not being Nodev at all. This shows that [he holds that the verse] calls a Nedavah "Neder"!
ùàðé äëà ããøéù îãùðé ÷øà áãéáåøéä
(c) Answer #1: Here is different, for he expounds that the verse changed its wording [from Neder to Nedavah].
àé ðîé áçåìéï ãøéù ãëéåï ãçééù ÷øà ìú÷ìä ìà ùðà ðãø åìà ùðà ðãáä ãáúøåééäå àéëà ìîéçù
(d) Answer #2: In Chulin he expounds that since the verse is concerned for Takalah (transgression), there is no difference between Neder and Nedavah. There is concern through both of them.
àé ðîé îùåí ãðãø ðô÷à ìï îëé úçãì ùîò îéðä ãèåá àùø ìà úãåø ìðãáä àúà
(e) Answer #3: Since we learn Neder from "[v']Chi Sechdal [Lindor]", this shows that "Tov Asher Lo Sidor" comes to teach about Nedavah.
5) TOSFOS DH v'Im Lav Yehei Nedavah
úåñôåú ã"ä åàí ìàå éäà ðãáä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we expound unlike in Rosh Hashanah.)
àò''â ãáô''÷ ãøàù äùðä (ãó å.) ãøéù ìéä ìòðéï áì úàçø ãìà ùééê ìàçø ùçéèä
(a) Implied question: In Rosh Hashanah (6a) we expound this about Bal Te'acher, which does not apply after Shechitah!
äëà ãøéù îôùèéä ã÷øà ãîùîò ã÷øé ìéä ìðãø ðãáä:
(b) Answer: Here we expound the simple meaning of the verse. It connotes that it calls a Neder "Nedavah".
2b----------------------------------------2b
6) TOSFOS DH Shechitah Achas l'Chulan
úåñôåú ã"ä ùçéèä àçú ìëåìï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses why he did not mention Holachah and Kabalah of Menachos.)
ì÷îï ôøéê ãçìå÷éí áùçéèúï ãéù áöôåï åéù áãøåí
(a) Observation: Below, [the Gemara] asks that [Zevachim] differ about Shechitah - some are [slaughtered only] in the north, and some [even] in the south.
åäà ãìà ÷úðé äåìëä àçú ìëåìï îùåí
(b) Implied question: Why didn't [the Tana] teach that Holachah is the same for all of them?
ãàééøé äëà àìéáà ãøáé ùîòåï ãìà çééù áäåìëä áô''÷ ãæáçéí (ãó éã:) îùåí ãäåéà òáåãä ùàôùø ìáèìä
(c) Answer: Here it is according to R. Shimon, who is not concerned for [intent in] Holachah in Zevachim (14b), for it is possible to be Mevatel it (if Shechitah is next to the Mizbe'ach, there is no need for Holachah);
åøáé ùîòåï ãôìéâ àäéìåê áæáç ìà àéöèøéê ìôìåâé áäéìåê ãîðçåú (ì÷îï ãó éá.)
1. R. Shimon, who argued about Holachah of a Zevach, did not need to argue about Holachah of Menachos (below, 12a. Obviously, their law is the same.)
àáì úéîä ÷öú àîàé ìà ôìéâ á÷áìä ãîðçåú ãàéôùø ðîé ìáèìä ìø''ù
(d) Question: Why doesn't he argue about Kabalah of Menachos? Also this, one can be Mevatel, according to R. Shimon! (We cannot say that he relied on what he said about Zevachim, for Kabalah of Zevachim is Me'akev!)
ëãì÷îï ôø÷ ä÷åîõ øáä (ãó ëå.) îàé èòîà ãøáé ùîòåï áà ìòåáãä áéã òåáãä áéîéï ëçèàú à''ë ìà áòå ÷áìä
1. Below (26a), it says "what is R. Shimon's reason? If he wants to offer [the Kometz] in his hand, he offers with his right hand, like a Chatas." If so, Kabalah is not needed!
i. Note: Tzon Kodoshim answers that even though he can be Mevatel taking it in a Kli, he fulfills Kabalah in his hand. Chak Nasan rejects this. Kabalah of the Kometz is putting it in a Kli. If he did Kemitzah and left it in his hand, there was no Kabalah at all!
7) TOSFOS DH Zerikah Achas l'Chulan
úåñôåú ã"ä æøé÷ä àçú ìëåìï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses whether there is Heker in Avodos of blood.)
åàò''â ãéù áîúðä àçú åéù áîúï àøáò
(a) Implied question: Some Korbanos have one Matanah, and some have four Matanos!
ôé' á÷åðèøñ [ö"ì ãàô"ä ìéëà äëéøà - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ãúðï àí ðéúðå ëåìï áîúðä àçú ëéôø
(b) Answer (Rashi): Even so, there is no Heker, for the Mishnah says that if one Matanah was done for any of them, he atoned.
åîéäå ÷ùä ãäðéúðéï áîúï ã' ùðúðï ìùí ðéúðéï áîúðä àçú ìéøöå ãîòùéäï îåëéçéï ëùéúï äùðééí
(c) Question: If Korbanos that require four Matanos (i.e. two Matanos that are four) were put [on the Mizbe'ach] l'Shem Korbanos that require one Matanah, they should be Meratzeh, for their actions prove about them when he puts the second Matanah!
åé''ì ãáùòä ùðúï äøàùåðä ùìà ìùîå òãééï àéï îòùéäï îåëéçéï òã ùéúï äàçøåï åáùðéä àéï îçùáä ôåñìú ëãúðï áô' áéú ùîàé (æáçéí ãó ìå:) ãáîúðä àçú ëéôø
(d) Answer: When he put the first Lo Lishmah, their actions did not yet prove about them until he puts the last, and intent does not disqualify in the second, like the Mishnah (Zevachim 36b), for one Matanah already atoned.
àáì ÷ùä îçèàú ìùí òåìä ãçèàú ìîòìä á÷øðåú åáàöáò åòåìä ìîèä áéñåã åáæøé÷ä îï äëìé
(e) Question #1: Chatas l'Shem Olah is difficult, for Chatas is above on the Keranos and with the finger, and Olah is below on (over) the Yesod, and through throwing from a Kli!
åòåã ÷ùä î÷áìä ãàùí ÷áìúå àó áùîàì åçèàú áéîéï åàó ìøáé ùîòåï áô''á ãæáçéí (ãó ëã.) åì÷îï áôéø÷éï (ãó é.)
(f) Question #2: Kabalah of Asham is difficult. Its Kabalah is even in the left hand, and Chatas is in the right, and even according to R. Shimon in Zevachim (24a) and below (10a)! (R. Akiva Eiger asks that Tosfos asks even according to R. Shimon, i.e. not only according to Rabanan. Rabanan require Kabalah in the right hand for all Korbanos! Perhaps Tosfos means that Kabalah is in the left according to R. Shimon, and even he agrees that Chatas is in the right - PF.)
åðøàä ãåãàé äéä éëåì ìä÷ùåú ëï ì÷îï
(g) Answer: Surely, the Gemara could have asked this below. (Shitah Mekubetzes - in the conclusion it is fine. He discusses most Zevachim.)
8) TOSFOS DH Minchas Chotei Harei Hi k'Chatas
úåñôåú ã"ä îðçú çåèà äøé äéà ëçèàú
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why this is not Hekesh from Hekesh.)
àéï æä ãáø äìîã áäé÷ù çåæø åîìîã áäé÷ù
(a) Implied question: This is something learned from a Hekesh. How can it return to teach through a Hekesh?!
ãàò''â ãçèàú éìôé' ìîöåä îùìîéí áô''÷ ãæáçéí (ãó ç.) îëì î÷åí äà ëúéá (áéä äéà ìâåôéä) (ö"ì äéà áâåôéä - ùéèä î÷åáöú) ìòëá
(b) Answer: (It is not.) Even though we learn [Lishmah in] Chatas from Shelamim l'Chatchilah, in Zevachim (8a), in any case it is written "Hi" regarding [Chatas] itself to teach that it is Me'akev.
àáì ÷ùä äà ãéìéó îðçú ðãáä îàùí ãàéðå îøöä åàùí âåôéä îùìîéí éìôéðï áô''÷ ãæáçéí (ùí)
(c) Question: He learns Minchas Nedavah from Asham that it is not Meratzeh, and Asham itself we learn from Shelamim in Zevachim (8a)!
åé''ì ãäê ãøùà ãäëà àñîëúà áòìîà ëãîôøù áæáçéí ãòé÷ø ÷øà ìëãø' éäåãä áøéä ãø' çééà [àúé] åéìôéðï îðçä îùìîéí áäé÷éùà ãæàú äúåøä
(d) Answer: The Drashah here is a mere Asmachta, like it explains in Zevachim, for the verse primarily comes for Rav Yehudah brei d'R. Chiya's law (if one wants to offer the Kometz in his hand, he uses his right hand, like Chatas...), and we learn Minchah from Shelamim through the Hekesh of Zos ha'Torah.
9) TOSFOS DH Michdi Machshavah d'Pasal Rachmana Hekeisha Hu
úåñôåú ã"ä îëãé îçùáä ãôñì øçîðà ä÷éùà äåà
(SUMMARY: Tosfos justifies the question.)
ãàò''â ãä÷éùà ãëçèàú åëàùí ìàå òé÷ø
(a) Implied question: The Hekesh "ka'Chatas vecha'Asham" is not primary!
î''î àúéà áä÷éùà ãæàú äúåøä åëéåï ãä÷éùà äåà îä ìé ùéðåé ÷åãù îä ìé ùéðåé áòìéí
(b) Answer: Even so, it is learned from the Hekesh "Zos ha'Torah." Since it is a Hekesh, what is the difference between Shinuy Kodesh and Shinuy Ba'alim?
åà''ú îä î÷ùé àáéé ìøáä úé÷ùé áøééúà âåôä ãîåëçà ùéù çéìå÷ îãîôøù èòîà îùåí ãîòùéä îåëéçéï
(c) Question: What was Abaye's challenge to Rabah? The Beraisa itself is difficult, for it is proven that there is a distinction, since it explains the reason "because its actions prove about it"!
åé''ì ãéëåì ìééùá äáøééúà ëäðé àîåøàé ãì÷îï
(d) Answer #1: [Abaye] can resolve the Beraisa like the Amora'im below (Rava and Rav Ashi, 3b).
à''ð ÷ñáø àáéé ãëéåï ãùéðåé ÷åãù ìà ôñåì îùåí ãîòùéä îåëéçéï äåà äãéï ùéðåé áòìéí ãéìôéðï îùìîéí ëé ä''â ãîä ùìîéí ìà çì÷ú ìôñåì àó îðçä ìà úçìå÷ ìäëùéø
(e) Answer #2: Abaye holds that since Shinuy Kodesh does not disqualify because its actions prove about it, the same applies to Shinuy Ba'alim, for we learn from Shelamim as follows - just like Shelamim, you do not distinguish to disqualify, also Minchah, do not distinguish to be Machshir.
ãëé ä''â ãøéù úðà ãáé çæ÷éä áô' àìå ðòøåú (ëúåáåú ãó ìä.) âáé îëä àãí åîëä áäîä
(f) Source: Tana d'Vei Chizkiyah expounds like this in Kesuvos (35a) regarding "Makeh Adam v'Makeh Behemah";
åäê ñáøà ãìà çì÷ (ö"ì çì÷ú - ãôåñ åéðéöéä) àùëçï áôø÷ ÷îà ãæáçéí (ãó æ.) âáé ùìîéí
1. We find this reasoning "you did not distinguish" in Zevachim (7a) regarding Shelamim.
10) TOSFOS DH Olas ha'Of she'Malkah l'Ma'alah
úåñôåú ã"ä òåìú äòåó ùîì÷ä ìîòìä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the Havah Amina of the Makshan.)
÷ñ''ã àò''â ãëùéøä (ëçèàú) (ö"ì áçèàú - âìéåï) îëì î÷åí àéï ãøê ìòùåú ìîòìä ùìà éôåì äãí ìàøõ ÷åãí ùéáà ìîèä )ìîöåä) (ö"ì ìîöåúå - ùéèä î÷åáöú):
(a) Explanation: He is thinking that even though this is Kosher for Chatas [ha'Of], in any case it is not normally done above, lest the blood fall to the ground before he comes below for its Mitzvah (Haza'ah).