1) TOSFOS DH Gezeirah Miktzas Damo v'Chulei
úåñôåú ã"ä âæéøä î÷öú ãîå ëå'
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why he did not make similar decrees.)
úéîä áìùúåú îãîå ðîé ðâæø àèå ëì ãîå
(a) Question: We should decree also [intent] to drink some of the blood due to all the blood!
åé''ì ìùúåú ëì ãîå ðîé ìà îùúîò ùìà éòùä æøé÷ä ëìì àìà àçø æøé÷úä éùúä
(b) Answer: Even [intent] to drink all the blood does not connote that he will not do Zerikah at all. Rather, after Zerikah he will drink it.
åà''ú ìàëåì àîàé îåãéí ìéâæåø àèå ëì àéîåøéí ãäåé ôñåìà ãàåøééúà
(c) Question: Why do they agree about eating? We should decree due to [intent to eat] all the Eimurim, which is Pasul mid'Oraisa [since he will not be Maktir at all]!
åé''ì ãääéà ðîé àôùø áàëéìä ìàçø ùäòìï åîùìä áäï äàåø ùàéðí àìà öìåééï áòìîà åìà ãîé ìäðéç ãîùîò ùìà éòùä æøé÷ä ëìì
(d) Answer #1: Also in that case, it is possible to eat after he brought them up [on the Mizbe'ach] and they caught fire. They are merely roasted. (If they were totally burned, this would not be considered eating Eimurim.) This is unlike "to leave over [blood]" which connotes that he will not do Zerikah at all.
åòåã áàéîåøéí ìà îéôñéì æéáçà àí ìà äå÷èøå
(e) Answer #2: The Zevach is not disqualified if the Eimurim were not Huktar.
åîéäå áòì îðú ìäðéç àéîåøéï ìîçø àå ìäåöéàí ìçåõ äéä ôåñì ø' éäåãä ëãúðï áæáçéí áôø÷ ëì äôñåìéï (ãó ìä:)
(f) Question: However, "in order to leave over the Eimurim until tomorrow" or "to take them outside", R. Yehudah disqualifies, like a Mishnah in Zevachim (35b) says!
åùîà èòîà îùåí ãâæø ìäðéç ëì äàéîåøéí àèå ìäðéç ëì ãîå
(g) Answer: Perhaps the reason is because he decrees about [intent] to leave over all the Eimurim due to [intent] to leave over all the blood.
2) TOSFOS DH Ad Achas
úåñôåú ã"ä òã àçú
(SUMMARY: Tosfos gives two explanations of this.)
áîâéìú ñúøéí ãøáéðå ðñéí âøéñ òã ìàçú ôéøåù òã îàã ëãîúøâîéðï îàã ìçãà
(a) Alternative text: In a hidden scroll of R. Nisim Gaon, the text says "Ad l'Achas", i.e. until very much, like the Targum of "Me'od" (Bereishis 1:31) is "l'Chada".
åé''î òã àçú òã äðôù ùð÷øàú éçéãä
(b) Explanation: Some explain that "Ad Achas" is until the Nefesh, which is called Yechidah.
åäùúà îùîò äëà ùøáé ìîã äøáä îøáé àìòæø áï ùîåò
(c) Inference: Here it connotes that Rebbi learned much from R. Elazar ben Shamu'a.
å÷ùä ãáñåó äòøì (éáîåú ã' ôã.) àîø øáé ëùäìëúé ììîåã úåøä àöì øáé àìòæø áï ùîåò çáøå òìé úìîéãéå ëúøðâåìéï ùì áéú áå÷éà åìà äðéçå ìé ììîåã àìà ãáø àçã áîùðúéðå
(d) Question: In Yevamos (84a), Rebbi said "when I went to learn Torah at [the academy of] R. Elazar ben Shamu'a, his Talmidim surrounded me like chickens of Beis Buki'a, and allowed me to learn from him only one thing in our Mishnah"!
åùîà îòùä æä äéä àç''ë
(e) Answer: Perhaps this episode was afterwards.
úãò ãäúí ÷àîø ììîåã úåøä åäëà ÷àîø ìîöåú îãåúéå
(f) Support: There it says "to learn Torah", and here it says "Limtzos Midosav" (to extract from him what he knows more than me).
3) TOSFOS DH Ela l'Olam Divrei ha'Kol Pasul Asnei
úåñôåú ã"ä àìà ìòåìí ãáøé äëì ôñåì àúðééä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses whether Shmuel and R. Yochanan can hold like this.)
ìôé îñ÷ðà æå ìà ðåëì ìäåëéç ìùåí úðà ôéâåì ëø' àìéòæø
(a) Explanation: According to this conclusion, we cannot prove that any Tana holds [that it is] Pigul like R. Eliezer.
åúéîä ãáô''á ãæáçéí (ãó ëæ:) úðï äùåçè àú äæáç ìàëåì ëæéú îòåø ùúçú äàìéä ìîçø ôéâåì åçééáéï òìéå ëøú
(b) Question #1: In Zevachim (27b), a Mishnah teaches that if one slaughters a Zevach in order to eat a k'Zayis of skin under the tail [of a sheep] tomorrow, it is Pigul and one is Chayav Kares [if he eats a k'Zayis from the Korban, even today];
å÷àîøéðï áâîøà ñáøåä ãòåø äàìéä ëàìéä ãîé ã÷à îçùá îàëéìú îæáç ìàãí àîø ùîåàì äà îðé øáé àìéòæø äéà ãàîø îçùáéï îàëéìú àãí ëå'
1. We say in the Gemara "we are thinking that skin of the tail is like the tail. He intends for a person to eat what the Mizbe'ach should eat! Shmuel said, the Tana is R. Eliezer, who says that intent for what a person should eat (to be Maktir it on the Mizbe'ach, or vice-versa, is intent)!
åëîå ëï ÷ùéà îøáé éåçðï ãìòéì ãîôøù èòîà ãøáé àìéòæø î÷øà
(c) Question #2: Above (17a), R. Yochanan explains that R. Eliezer's reason is from a verse!
åùîà ìéú ìäå îñ÷ðà ãäëà
(d) Answer #1: Perhaps [Shmuel and R. Yochanan] disagree with the conclusion here.
åòåã éù ìúøõ ã÷ñáø ùîåàì ãìëåìäå úðàé äåé ôéâåì åäùìùä îçìå÷åú áìäðéç àáì áäðê äåé ôéâåì áéï ìúðà ÷îà áéï ìøáé àìéòæø
(e) Answer #2: Shmuel holds that according to all the Tana'im, it is Pigul, and the three-way argument is about to leave over. However, in the other cases (to drink blood, be Maktir meat, or eat Eimurim) the first Tana and R. Eliezer agree that it is Pigul;
1. Note: The first Tana is Machshir in the other cases! Keren Orah - Tosfos calls R. Yehudah the first Tana.
àáì ìøáé éåçðï ìà ðåëì ìåîø ëï ãäà áçãà îéìúà ÷àîø ø''é ãîåãä øáé àìéòæø ùàéï òðåù ëøú
2. However, we cannot say so according to R. Yochanan, for in one teaching R. Yochanan taught that R. Eliezer agrees that there is no Kares;
åàéï ùðé ãáøéå ùì øáé éåçðï éëåìéí ìäú÷ééí ùöøéê ìîöåà ùðé úðàéí àìéáà ãøáé àìéòæø ãçã ôñì åçã îôâì åìîàé ãàñé÷ðà ãáøé äëì ôñåì àúðééä ìà îùëç ìäå
i. We cannot sustain R. Yochanan's two teachings. We must find two Tana'im according to R. Eliezer, that one is Posel and one is Mefagel, and according to the conclusion that [R. Yehudah] taught that all agree that it is Pasul, we do not find [such Tana'im].
4) TOSFOS DH Malach v'Lo Henif v'Lo Higish
úåñôåú ã"ä îìç åìà äðéó åìà äâéù
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this is not the order in which they should be done.)
ìà ã÷ã÷ áñãø ãúðåôä ÷åãîú ìîìéçä
(a) Remark: [The Tana] was not meticulous about the order, for Tenufah precedes salting.
ëãúðéà ñåèä (ãó éè.) åäðéó åäâéù ÷îõ åîìç åä÷èéø
(b) Source #1: A Beraisa teaches in Sotah (19a) "he did Tenufah, Hagashah, Kemitzah, salting and Haktarah."
åòåã àîøéðï áâîøà ì÷îï (ãó ë.) ãàéï ìåîø ìà îìç ëäï àìà æø åëé úòìä òì ãòúê ùæø ÷øá àöì îæáç
(c) Source #2: Also, we say in the Gemara below (20a) "do not say that a Kohen did not salt, rather, a Zar salted. Would it cross your mind that a Zar approaches the Mizbe'ach?!"
åäééðå îùåí ùäéúä äîìéçä àçø úðåôä åäâùä:
1. This is because salting was after Tenufah and Hagashah. (If not, why should we assume that it is done near the Mizbe'ach?!)
18b----------------------------------------18b
5) TOSFOS DH Ki Ein Nivlalim Mai Havi Ha Tanan Lo Balal Kosher
úåñôåú ã"ä ëé àéï ðáììéí îàé äåé äà úðï ìà áìì ëùø
(SUMMARY: Tosfos justifies the Havah Amina to bring in one Kli.)
åàí úàîø îëì î÷åí ëéåï ãìëúçéìä îöåä ìáìåì öøéê ìäáéà îðçä ùéëåìä ìäéáìì
(a) Question: In any case, since l'Chatchilah it is a Mitzvah to mix, he must bring a Minchah that can be mixed!
åé''ì ëéåï ãäàé âáøà ì÷øáï âãåì îéëååï äéä ìå ìäáéà áëìé àçã îùåí ãúðï áôø÷ äîðçåú åäðñëéí (ì÷îï ãó ÷â:) ùàí ðãø áëìé àçã ìà éáéà áùðé ëìéí åàí äáéà ôñåì
(b) Answer: Since this man intended for a big Korban, he should bring in one Kli, for a Mishnah below (103b) teaches that if one vowed to bring in one Kli, he may not bring in two, and if he brought, it is Pasul;
äéìëê àé ìà äåä áéìä îòëáà äéä ìå ìäáéà áëìé àçã
1. Therefore, if Bilah were not Me'akev, he should bring in one Kli.
6) TOSFOS DH v'Amar R. Zeira Kol ha'Ra'uy l'Bilah v'Chulei
úåñôåú ã"ä åàîø ø' æéøà ëì äøàåé ìáéìä ëå'
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses how R. Zeira knew this.)
åà''ú îðà ìéä ìø' æéøà äà ìéîà ìà áìì ëäï àìà æø ëîå áìà éö÷
(a) Question: What is R. Zeira's source? We should say that [the Mishnah means that] a Kohen did not mix, rather, a Zar did, like "he did not put [oil]"!
åùîà ÷éí ìéä ãìà ëúéáà òéëåáà ááìéìä
(b) Answer: Perhaps he knows that no verse makes Bilah Me'akev.
åàí úàîø åäà (úðà) [ö"ì ùðä - öàï ÷ãùéí] áä ÷øà ãëúéáà áìéìä áîðçú îçáú åîøçùú åîàôä úðåø (åé÷øà å) åáðùéàéí (áîãáø æ) úøéñø æéîðé
(c) Question: The Torah repeats it! Bilah is written regarding Minchas Machavas, Marcheshes, Ma'afe Tanur, and 12 times in [the Korbanos of] the Nesi'im!
åéù ìåîø ãìà îéùúîéè ÷øà ãìéëúåá áùåí ãåëúà åáììú áùîï áìùåï öååé
(d) Answer: [If it were Me'akev,] the Torah should not have avoided writing in some place an expression of a command "you will mix with oil."
7) TOSFOS DH v'Chol she'Eino Ra'uy l'Bilah Bilah Me'akeves Bo (this starts a new Dibur according to Yashar v'Tov)
úåñôåú ã"ä åëì ùàéðå øàåé ìáéìä áéìä îòëáú áå [æä ãéáåø çãù ìôé éùø åèåá]
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the source to require Ra'uy l'Bilah.)
åà''ú îðìéä ãìéáòé øàåé ìáéìä îàçø ãáéìä ìà îòëáà
(a) Question: What is [R. Zeira's] source that we require Ra'uy l'Bilah, since Bilah is not Me'akev?
åé''ì ñáøà áòìîà äåà ëéåï ãëúá øçîðà áéìä ãðáòé ìëì äôçåú øàåé ìáéìä
(b) Answer: It is reasoning. Since the Torah wrote Bilah, we should require at least proper for Bilah.
åëï ìâáé ÷øéàä ãçìéöä ãô' îöåú çìéöä (éáîåú ãó ÷ã:)
(c) Support #1: The same applies to Keri'ah of Chalitzah in Yevamos (104b. It is valid if they did not recite the verses, but not if one is mute, and could not recite.)
åâí ÷øéàä ãáéëåøéí áôø÷ äîåëø àú äñôéðä (á''á ãó ôà:) åáîëåú (ãó éç:) ãáëì äðäå îééúé ãøáé æéøà
(d) Support #2: The same applies to Keri'ah of Bikurim in Bava Basra (81b) and in Makos (18b). In all of these, [the Gemara] brings R. Zeira's teaching.
àáì áôø÷ ÷îà ã÷éãåùéï (ãó ëä.) ÷ùéà èôé ãáòé ëì áùøå øàåé ìáéàú îéí àôéìå áéú äñúøéí îðìï
(e) Question: In Kidushin (25a) it is very difficult. We require [for Tevilah] that all one's flesh is proper for water to come there, even Beis ha'Setarim (covered places e.g. between folds of flesh). What is the source for this?
äà ëéåï ãëúéá áùøå ãîä áùøå îàáøàé åà''ë àôéìå øàåé ìà ðéáòé
1. Since it is written "Besaro", just like his flesh is external [so he must immerse only what is external]. If so, we should not require even Ra'uy l'Bilah!
åé''ì îùåí ãëúéá ëì áùøå (î''î) [ö"ì ãîøáä àôéìå áéú äñúøéí îùåí äëé - öàï ÷ãùéí] àäðé ìîéîø ãáòéðï øàåé
(f) Answer: Because it is written "Kol Besaro", which includes even Beis ha'Setarim, therefore it helps to teach that we require that it is proper [for water to come there].
åà''ú à''ë ìëúçéìä ðéáòé øçéöä ëîå ááéìä å÷øéàä
(g) Question: If so, l'Chatchilah we should require bathing (i.e. so water will enter Beis ha'Setarim), just like Bilah and Keri'ah [must be done l'Chatchilah]!
åé''ì ùàðé äëà ãëúéá áùøå ãîùîò îàáøàé åëàéìå ëúá áäãéà åøçõ îàáøàé
(h) Answer: Here is different, for it is written "Besaro", which connotes external. It is as if it wrote explicitly "he will bathe externally."
åà''ú áô' ðâîø äãéï (ñðäãøéï ã' îä:) ãàîø ùîåàì ð÷èòä éã äòãéí ôèåø ãáòéà ÷øà ëãëúéá åîñé÷ úðàé äéà åàéëà ìî''ã çééá ðéîà äøàåé ìáéìä ëå'
(i) Question: In Sanhedrin (45b), Shmuel said that if the hand of [each of the] witnesses was cut off, [the defendant] is exempt, for we require the verse like it is written, and we conclude that Tana'im argue about this, and there is an opinion that he is liable. We should say that what is Ra'uy l'Bilah (Bilah is not Me'akev... but here that we could not fulfill "the witnesses' hands will be first to kill him", this should be Me'akev)!
åé''ì ãäúí àéï ñáøà ìôåèøå áùáéì ëê
(j) Answer: There, it is illogical to exempt him due to this.
åàí úàîø áðãøéí áôø÷ ðòøä äîàåøñä (ãó òâ.) ãáòé çøù îäå ùéôø ìàùúå ëå' åîñô÷éðï ìéä àé áòéà øàåé ìùîéòä ëãøáé æéøà àé ìà àîàé îñô÷éðà ìéä
(k) Question: In Nedarim (73a, Rami bar Chama) asks whether a deaf man may annul his wife's [vows]. He is unsure whether or not we require that he is proper to hear [the vow]. Why is he unsure?
åé''ì îùåí ããéìîà äà ãëúá øçîðà åùîò àåøçà ãîéìúà ð÷è ùàéï øàåé ìäôø àìà ò''é ùîéòä
(l) Answer: Perhaps the Torah wrote "and he heard" for it discusses a common case, in which he is proper to annul only through hearing [the vow, but the same applies no matter how he knows about it].
8) TOSFOS DH she'Ribah b'Pesisin
úåñôåú ã"ä ùøéáä áôúéúéï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that this is like one opinion below.)
ñáø ìä ëî''ã áôø÷ àìå îðçåú (ì÷îï ãó òä:) ù÷åôì àçã ìùðéí åùðéí ìàøáòä åìà ëî''ã îçæéø ìñåìúï )ùðàîø äî÷øéá àåúå ëå' - öàï ÷ãùéí - îåç÷å)
(a) Explanation: He holds like the opinion below (75b) that he folds one to two and two to four, and unlike the opinion that he [breaks it into tiny pieces, and] returns them to be [like] flour.
9) TOSFOS DH [ha'Makriv Es...] Modeh b'Avodah Yesh Lo Chelek
úåñôåú ã"ä [ö"ì äî÷øéá àú ëå' - öàï ÷ãùéí] îåãä áòáåãä éù ìå çì÷
(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with the Gemara in Chulin.)
äëà ð÷è [ö"ì ùàéðå - öàï ÷ãùéí] îåãä áòáåãä îùîò àôéìå ú''ç àìà ùäåà øùò
(a) Inference: Here it mentions one who does not admit to Avodah. This connotes even a Chacham, but he is a Rasha.
åáôø÷ äæøåò åäìçééí (çåìéï ãó ÷ì.) àîøéðï ãàéï ðåúðéï îúðä ìëäï òí äàøõ ùðàîø ìúú îðú ìîçæé÷éí áúåøú ä' åìà ÷àîø ìëäï ùàéðå îåãä îãëúéá îçæé÷éí
(b) Question: In Chulin (130a) we say that we do not give Matanos [Kehunah] to a Kohen Am ha'Aretz, for it says "Lases Menas... [Lema'an Yechezku b'Toras Hash-m]" - to those who cling to Toras Hash-m. It does not say [that also we do not give] to a Kohen who does not admit, for it is written [Yechezku, which implies that] they cling!
åùîà éù ìçì÷ ãäúí áúøåîåú åîòùøåú ùàãí ðåúï ìëì ëäï ùøåöä åäëà á÷øáï äîúçì÷ ìëì áéú àá ùì àåúå äéåí
(c) Answer: Perhaps we can distinguish. There it discusses Terumos and Ma'aseros, which a person gives to any Kohen whom he wants to, and here it discusses a Korban divided among the entire Beis Av (a subdivision of Kohanim of the Mishmar who serve) that day;
åñì÷à ãòúê ùëåìï ùåéï îùåí ìëì áðé àäøï úäéä àéù ëàçéå ÷î''ì ÷øà ãáòéðï îåãä áòáåãä
1. One might have thought that all [Kohanim] are the same due to "l'Chol Bnei Aharon Tihyeh Ish k'Achiv." The verse teaches that this is not so. We require that he admits to Avodah.
10) TOSFOS DH Minayin Lerabos Tes Vov Avodos
úåñôåú ã"ä îðéï ìøáåú è''å òáåãåú
(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that the Tana omitted others.)
äëà ìà çùéá äåìëä ãøáé ùîòåï ìèòîéä ãìà çùéá ìä òáåãä áñåó ôø÷ ÷îà ãæáçéí (ãó éã:) îùåí ãàéôùø ìáèìä
(a) Explanation: Here it does not count Holachah. This is like R. Shimon taught elsewhere. He does not consider it an Avodah, in Zevachim (14b) because it is possible to be Mevatel it (if Shechitah is next to the Mizbe'ach, no Holachah is needed).
åîéäå ÷ùä ãàéëà çèàú äôðéîéú ãàé àôùø ìáèìä ëã÷àîø äúí øáé ùîòåï áï ì÷éù
(b) Question: There are inner Chata'os, for which it is impossible to be Mevatel [Holachah], like Reish Lakish said there!
åðøàä ãáëìì ÷áìä äéà ëãàîø äúí ãàô÷ä ì÷áìä áìùåï äåìëä
(c) Answer: [Holachah] is included in Kabalah, like it says there (4a) that the Torah wrote Holachah with an expression of Holachah (v'Hikrivu, to teach that Holachah has the laws of Kabalah).
åîéäå ÷ùä ãàëúé àéëà òáåãåú èåáà ëâåï úøåîú äãùï åñéãåø îòøëä åùðé âéæøé òöéí åãéùåï îæáç äôðéîé åäîðåøä åìçí äôðéí åáæéëé ìáåðä
(d) Question: Still, there are other Avodos, such as Terumas ha'Deshen, arranging the [logs of the] Ma'arachah, the two logs, Dishun of the inner Mizbe'ach and Menorah, Lechem ha'Panim, and Bazichin of Levonah!
åéù ìåîø ãúðà åùééø àò''â ãúðà îðééðà
(e) Answer: Tana v'Shiyer (he taught cases, and omitted other cases), even though he gave a number (15 Avodos).
ãàò''â ãôøéê áôø÷ ÷îà ã÷éãåùéï (ãó èæ:) âáé ã' îòðé÷éí ìäï úðà úðé àøáòä åàú àîøú úðà åùééø
1. Implied question: In Kidushin (16b) regarding the four who get gifts [when they go freed after being an Eved Ivri, the Gemara], asks "the Tana taught four, and you say that Tana v'Shiyer?!"
äúí àñéôà ñîéê ã÷úðé åàé àúä éëåì ìåîø àøáòä áàçã îäï
2. Answer: There it relies on the Seifa, which taught "you cannot say that [all] four apply to one of them" (a male Eved Ivri, or an Amah Ivriyah).
åâáé çåøù úìí àçã áôø÷ áúøà ãîëåú (ãó ëà:) ãôøéê úðà úðé ùîðä åàú àîøú úðà åùééø
3. Implied question: Regarding one who plows one furrow in Makos (21b, Ula) said "the Tana taught eight, and you say that Tana v'Shiyer?!"
ùàðé äúí ãîùîò ãàúà ìèôåéé ìàåé
4. Answer: There is different, for it connotes that [the Tana] comes to maximize [the number of] Lavim (for which one can be lashed for one action).
åáâéèéï àùëçï áôø÷ ÷îà (ãó ç.) ãúðà îðééðà åùééø âáé ùìù ãáøéí áñåøéà åáñåèä áôø÷ äéä îáéà (ãó èæ.) âáé áùìùä î÷åîåú äìëä òå÷áú àú äî÷øà
(f) Support: In Gitin (8a) we find that [the Tana] taught a number and omitted cases, regarding three ways in which Surya [is like Eretz Yisrael, and three ways in which it is like Chutz la'Aretz. The Tana omitted that it is like Eretz Yisrael for selling houses or renting fields, and like Chutz la'Aretz for renting houses - Tosfos Avodah Zarah 21a DH ka'Savar], and in Sotah (16a) regarding three places in which a Halachah (tradition from Sinai) overrides the verse.
åîëì î÷åí öøéê ìéúï èòí îðééðà ìîòåèé îàé
(g) Question: Still, we must give a reason for the count, i.e. what it excludes!
åùîà úðà îðééðà ìîòåèé ùçéèä åäôùè åðéúåç ùäéà òáåãä ùàéðä îñåøä ìáðé àäøï åìà çééùéðï àí àéðå îåãä
(h) Answer: Perhaps the count excludes Shechitah, Hefshet and Nitu'ach. These are Avodos not given to Bnei Aharon, and we are not concerned if a Kohen does not admit [to them].
11) TOSFOS DH Kan b'Minchas Kohanim Kan b'Minchas Yisrael
úåñôåú ã"ä ëàï áîðçú ëäðéí ëàï áîðçú éùøàì
(SUMMARY: Tosfos questions this answer.)
åàí úàîø àëúé ìéîà îúðéúéï ãìà ëøáé éäåãä åø' ùîòåï ãúðï ìà îìç ëùø åì÷îï ááøééúà îåëç ãîìéçä îòëáà ìø' éäåãä åø''ù
(a) Question: Still, we should say that our Mishnah is unlike R. Yehudah and R. Shimon, for the Mishnah says that if he did not salt it is Kosher, and in a Beraisa below (20a) it is proven that salting is Me'akev according to R. Yehudah and R. Shimon;
åà''à ìôøù îúðé' ìà îìç ëäï àìà æø ëãîåëç ì÷îï
1. It is impossible to explain that our Mishnah means that a Kohen did not salt, rather, a Zar did, like is proven below (20a)!
12) TOSFOS DH mi'Kemitzah v'Eilach Mitzvas Kehunah
úåñôåú ã"ä î÷îéöä åàéìê îöåú ëäåðä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explained this above.)
ôéøùúé áôø÷ ÷îà (ìòéì ãó è.)
(a) Reference: I explained this above (9a DH mi'Kemitzah. Also Hagashah and Tenufah, which precedence Kemitzah, require Kehunah! The Gemara discusses the four Avodos of a Minchah, beginning with Kemitzah.)
13) TOSFOS DH v'R. Shimon Bnei Aharon Nidrash Lefanav ul'Acharav
úåñôåú ã"ä åøáé ùîòåï áðé àäøï ðãøù ìôðéå åìàçøéå
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses whether or not R. Shimon holds that mixing is Me'akev.)
åàí úàîø åîé ôìéâ øáé ùîòåï àìà áìì ëùø
(a) Question: Does R. Shimon argue [with our Mishnah, which says that] if he did not mix, it is Kosher?!
åéù ìåîø ãáìì æø âøò ãîéçì òáåãä
(b) Answer #1: If a Zar mixed, it is worse [than if it was not mixed].
åîäàé èòîà ðéçà áìì îçåõ ìçåîú äòæøä ãáôø÷ ÷îà (ìòéì ãó è.) ãôñåì àò''â ãìà áìì ëùø
(c) Support: According to this, it is fine that if he mixed outside the Azarah, it is Pasul (above, 9a), even though if he did not mix, it is Kosher.
àé ðîé îëåìä îúðéúéï ãéé÷éðï ãìà ëø''ù îìà éö÷ åîìà áìì ãìøáé ùîòåï ëéåï ãáòé ëäï àé ìà òáéã ôñåì
(d) Answer #2: We infer from our entire Mishnah that it is unlike R. Shimon, from "he did not put the oil, or he did not mix." According to R. Shimon, since it requires a Kohen, if he did not do it, it is Pasul. (Keren Orah - if so, why did the Gemara (below, 103b) ask why R. Shimon forbids bringing a Minchah of 61 Esronim, because it cannot be mixed? He holds that mixing is Me'akev! Perhaps the Gemara asks because surely Rabanan agree, since they did not respond that mixing is not Me'akev - PF.)
åîéäå ÷ùä îîìéçä ãáòé øáé ùîòåï ÷øà ì÷îï (îðìï - öàï ÷ãùéí îåç÷å) ãîòëáà åìîä ìé ÷øà úéôå÷ ìéä ãáòéðï ëäï ëãàîøéðï åëé úòìä òì ãòúê ùæø ÷øá àöì îæáç
(e) Question: Salting is difficult for this. R. Shimon requires a verse for it below (20a) that it is Me'akev. Why does he need a verse? He should know because it requires a Kohen, like we say (20a) "would it cross your mind that a Zar approaches the Mizbe'ach?!"
åáìàå äàé èòîà áòé ãî÷îéöä åàéìê îöåú ëäåðä åîìéçä àçø ÷îéöä:
(f) Strengthening of question: And [even] without this reason, [salting] requires [Kehunah], for from Kemitzah and onwards it is a Mitzvah of Kehunah, and salting is after Kemitzah!