1) TOSFOS DH v'Im Nitzleh Bo k'Grogeres bi'Makom Echad
úåñôåú ã"ä åàí ðöìä áå ëâøåâøú áî÷åí àçã
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this is fully roasted.)
ôéøåù öìéä âîåøä ëì öøëå ìâîøé éåúø îîàëì áï ãøåñàé
(a) Explanation: This refers to fully roasted, more than Ma'achal Ben Drusai.
2) TOSFOS DH bi'Shenayim v'Sheloshah Mekomos
úåñôåú ã"ä áùðéí åùìùä î÷åîåú
(SUMMARY: Tosfos distinguishes this from a corresponding case of Hotza'ah.)
ìà ãîé ìäåöéà çöé âøåâøú åçæø åäåöéà çöé âøåâøú áôø÷ äîåöéà ééï (ùáú ãó ô.)
(a) Implied question: This should be like one who was Motzi half a Grogeres, and then was Motzi [another] half a Grogeres in Shabbos (80a. If they were to the same Reshus ha'Rabim he is liable!)
ãäúí èòîà ëãàéúà áñåó äáåðä (ùí ãó ÷ã:) îçåñø (÷öéöä) [ö"ì ÷øéáä - ùéèä î÷åáöú, öàï ÷ãùéí] ìàå ëîçåñø îòùä ãîé
(b) Answer: There, the reason is like it says in Shabbos (104b) that Mechusar Kereivah is not like Mechusar Ma'aseh (if he brought them to each other he would be liable. Also now that he did not, he is liable);
àáì äëà àéï ãøê áéùåì áëê åîçåñø ðîé çúéëä å÷øéáä
1. However, here it is not normal to cook like this (a little in two or three places), and it is Mechusar cutting and Kereivah (he must cut off the places that cooked, and only then he can bring them to each other).
3) TOSFOS DH Minchah Minayin
úåñôåú ã"ä îðçä îðéï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we cannot learn from "Chelkam".)
ãîçì÷í ìà ðô÷à ìï àìà ùéøééí ùàçø ÷îéöä åäëà ÷åãí ÷îéöä
(a) Explanation: From "Chelkam" we learn only Shirayim after Kemitzah. Here is before Kemitzah.
4) TOSFOS DH She'ar Menachos Minayin
úåñôåú ã"ä ùàø îðçåú îðéï ú''ì ëì äîðçä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that all agree to this.)
åàôé' ìîàï ãìà ãøéù ëì äëà îåãä ãôùèéä ã÷øà äåà
(a) Assertion: Even the opinion that does not expound "Kol", here he agrees, for the simple meaning of the verse [includes all Menachos].
5) TOSFOS DH Asher Takrivu Lamah Li
úåñôåú ã"ä àùø ú÷øéáå ìîä ìé
(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks that we need it to exempt fermenting what was already offered.)
úéîä äà àéöèøéê ìîçîõ áøàùå ùì îæáç ãôèåø ëãàîøï àå ìëì äôçåú àçø ùäåöú äàåø áøåáå ãàùø ú÷øéáå àîø øçîðà åäà àé÷øáà
(a) Question: We need it for one who fermented on top of the Mizbe'ach, that he is exempt, like we said, or at least [to exempt one who ferments] after the majority caught fire, for the Torah said "Asher Takrivu", and it was [already] offered!
6) TOSFOS DH Lerabos Minchas Nesachim l'Chimutz Lerabos Lechem ha'Panim...
úåñôåú ã"ä ìøáåú îðçú ðñëéí ìçéîåõ ìøáåú ìçí äôðéí...
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses how we learn from the verse.)
îàï ãîøáé îðçú ðñëéí ìà îøáé ìçí äôðéí ã÷ñáø îãú éáù ìà ðú÷ãùä åìéú áä ÷ãåùú äâåó òã ìàçø àôééä
(a) Explanation: The one who includes Minchas Nesachim does not include Lechem ha'Panim, for he holds that dry measures were not Niskadshu, and it does not have Kedushas ha'Guf until after it is baked [and then it is already Matzah, so it cannot become Chametz].
àáì îàï ãîøáé ìçí äôðéí îåãä áîðçú ðñëéí
(b) Distinction: However, the one who includes Lechem ha'Panim agrees about Minchas Nesachim.
åà''ú åìîä ìé àùø ú÷øéáå ìøáåú úéäåé áëìì ëì äîðçåú
(c) Question: Why do we need to teach Asher Takrivu to include [Minchas Nesachim, and perhaps also Lechem ha'Panim]? It should be included in the Klal of all Menachos!
åëé úéîà ãìà îùîò àìà àåúï äëúåáéí áôøùä
1. Suggestion: [The verse] connotes only those written in the Parshah.
äà àîøéðï ìòéì áä÷åîõ øáä (ãó ëà:) âáé ëì îðçú ëäï ëìéì úäéä ãîùîò òåîø åùúé äìçí ëã÷àîø äúí ùäëäðéí ãåøùéí î÷øà æä ìòöîí
2. Rejection: We say above (21b) about "Kol Minchas Kohen Kalil Tihyeh" that it connotes [even] the Omer and Shtei ha'Lechem, like it says there that the Kohanim expound this verse for their benefit. (They must be exempt from Machatzis ha'Shekel, for if not, they would be partners in the Omer and Shtei ha'Lechem, and it could not be eaten.)
åëé úéîà îùåí ãäúí ìà ëúéá àìà îðçú çáéúéï åòì ëøçéï àúà ìøáåéé ëì îðçåú
3. Suggestion: It is because there only Minchas Chavitim is written, and we are forced to include all Menachos ("Kol" cannot refer only to Chavitim. However, perhaps Kol ha'Minchah written about Chimutz applies only to what is written in that Parshah, i.e. Minchas Nedavah!)
àëúé äà òì ëøçéï îøáéðï ëîä îðçåú ùàéï ëúåáåú ùí áôøùä ãîùîò ãëåìäå áëìì îðçä ëâåï îðçú çåèà åîðçú ëäðéí çåõ îäðê îðçú ðñëéí åìçí äôðéí
4. Rejection: Still, we are forced to say that [for Chimutz] we include all Menachos not written there in the Parshah, for all are included in "Minchah", e.g. Minchas Chotei and Minchas Kohanim, except for these - Minchas Nesachim and Lechem ha'Panim. (The Tana'im did not need to include anything else from Asher Takrivu.)
åá÷åðèøñ ôé' ãìà îúøáé îëì äîðçä îùåí ãìà ãîå ìùàø îðçåú ãáòå ùîï åìáåðä åîðçú ðñëéí ìà áòéà ìáåðä åìçí äôðéí ìà áòéà ùîï
(d) Answer #1 (Rashi): They are not included from "Kol ha'Minchah" because they are unlike other Menachos, which require oil and Levonah, and Minchas Nesachim does not require Levonah, and Lechem ha'Panim does not require oil.
åìôé èòí æä ë''ù ãîðçú çåèà åîðçú ÷ðàåú ìà äåå áëìì ãìà áòå ìà ùîï åìà ìáåðä
(e) Consequence: According to this reason, all the more so Minchas Chotei and Minchas Kena'os (of a Sotah) are not included, for they do not require oil or Levonah.
åúéîä ãäåä ìéä ìàùîåòéðï øáåúà åìéîà ìøáåú îðçú çåèà åîðçú ÷ðàåú ìçéîåõ åë''ù îðçú ðñëéí
(f) Question: He should have taught us a Chidush, and say to include Minchas Chotei and Minchas Kena'os for Chimutz, and all the more so Minchas Nesachim!
åùîà äðäå àò''â ãàéï áäí ùîï åìáåðä ëéåï ãð÷îöåú îéúøáå îëì äîðçä ããîå èôé ìàåúí äëúåáåú ùí ã÷øéðà áéä çì÷í ìà úàôä çîõ
(g) Answer: Perhaps these, even though they do not have oil or Levonah, since Kemitzah is taken, they are included from Kol ha'Minchah, for they resemble more those written there. We apply to it "Chelkam Lo Se'afeh Chametz";
àáì îðçú ðñëéí àéðä ð÷îöú åîðçú ëäðéí àò''â ãàéðä ð÷îöú ëéåï ãàéú áä ùîï åìáåðä ãîéà ìäå èôé
1. However, Minchas Nesachim is not Nikmetzes. And Minchas Kohanim, even though it is not Nikmetzes, since it has oil and Levonah, it resembles them more.
åéù ôéøåùéí îøù''é ùëúåá áäï îùåí ãäàé ÷øà âáé ùàø îðçåú ùùéøéäï ðàëìéï ëúéá àéöèøéê (ìøáåéé áäå) [ö"ì ìøáåééðäå - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ìäðé
(h) Answer #2: In some versions of Rashi it is written that because this verse is written regarding other Menachos, that their Shirayim are eaten, we need to include these.
åä''ð [ö"ì úðéðà ìä - éùø åèåá] áú''ë àéï ìé áìà úòùä çîõ àìà îðçåú ùùéøéäï ðàëìåú îðçåú ùàéï ùéøéäï ðàëìéï îðéï ú''ì ëì äîðçä [ö"ì åâå' - éùø åèåá] ìäáéà ìçí äôðéí ãáøé øáé éåñé äâìéìé ëå'
(i) Support - Citation (Toras Kohanim): I would know that there is a Lav only regarding Menachos that their Shirayim are eaten. What is the source for Menachos whose Shirayim are not eaten? It says Kol ha'Minchah... to include Lechem ha'Panim. R. Yosi ha'Gelili says so...
åéåúø äéä ðøàä ìåîø ãìëê öøéê øéáåé ììçí äôðéí åîðçú ðñëéí îùåí ãîðçú ðñëéí àéðä áàä áâìì òöîä åìçí äôðéí àéï îäï ìàéùéí
(j) Answer #3: It would seem better to say that we need an inclusion for Lechem ha'Panim and Minchas Nesachim because Minchas Nesachim does not come due to itself, and no part of Lechem ha'Panim is burned [on the Mizbe'ach];
àáì ùàø îðçåú áàåú áâìì òöîï åéù îäï ìàéùéí
1. However, other Menachos come due to themselves, and part of them is burned.
åèòí æä àùëçï ì÷îï (ãó ñ:) âáé äâùä ãîøáé ø''ù ùàø îðçåú ìäâùä îàú äîðçä åîîòè ùúé äìçí åìçí äôðéí îãëúéá îàìä åîðçú ðñëéí îãëúéá åä÷øéáä
(k) Support: For this reason we find below (60b) regarding Hagashah, that R. Shimon includes other Menachos from "Es ha'Minchah" and excludes Shtei ha'Lechem and Lechem ha'Panim since it says "me'Eleh", and Minchas Nesachim since it says "v'Hikrivah."
åîéäå úéîä ãîùîò äúí ãàé ìàå îéòåèà äåå îéúøáé ìäâùä îàú äîðçä åîàé ùðà ìçéîåõ ãìà îéúøáå îëì äîðçä äà çéîåõ åäâùä úøåééäå áçã ôøùúà ëúéáé áîðçú îøçùú (åé÷øà á)
(l) Question #1: It connotes there that if not for the exclusion, they would be included for Hagashah from "Es ha'Minchah." Why is Chimutz different, that they are not included from Kol ha'Minchah? Chimutz and Hagashah are both written in one Parshah, regarding Minchas Marcheshes;
åéåúø äéä ìøáåú îëì äîðçä èôé îàú äîðçä
1. It would be more [proper] to include from Kol ha'Minchah than from Es ha'Minchah!
åòåã ÷ùä ãäëà àéúøáå îëì äîðçä îðçú äòåîø åîðçú ñåèä åäúí ìà àéúøáå îàú äîðçä àìà áòé äúí ÷øà ìøáåéé ãîøáä îðçú äòåîø ìäâùä îåäáàú åîðçú ñåèä îï åä÷øéá
(m) Question #2: Here we include from Kol ha'Minchah Minchas ha'Omer and Minchas Sotah, and there they are not included from Es ha'Minchah. Rather, we need a verse there to include, that it includes Minchas ha'Omer for Hagashah from v'Haveisah, and Minchas Sotah from v'Hikriv!
åîéäå áæä àéï úéîä (áñáøà) [ö"ì ãñáøà - öàï ÷ãùéí] ãëì îøáä èôé îàú
(n) Answer (to Question #2): This is not astounding, for it is reasonable that "Kol" includes more than "Es".
àáì æä åãàé úéîä ãäåé àôëà äëà îäúí ãîëì äîðçä îøáä îðçú äòåîø åîðçú ñåèä åàéìå îðçú ðñëéí åìçí äôðéí ìà îúøáéà
(o) Question #3: This is surely astounding, that here it is opposite from there! From Kol ha'Minchah we include Minchas ha'Omer and Minchas Sotah, but Minchas Nesachim and Lechem ha'Panim are not included;
åäúí îøáéðï îàú äîðçä ìçí äôðéí åîðçú ðñëéí åàéìå îðçú äòåîø åîðçú ñåèä ìà îøáéðï
1. And there, from "Es ha'Minchah" we include Lechem ha'Panim and Minchas Nesachim, but Minchas ha'Omer and Minchas Sotah we do not include.
7) TOSFOS DH Minchas Nesachim Mei Peros Hen
úåñôåú ã"ä îðçú ðñëéí îé ôéøåú äï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we asked only about Minchas Nesachim.)
åùàø îðçåú éãåò ãîâáìéï áîéí ãùîðï îåòè åáòðéï æä àé àôùø ìâáì
(a) Explanation: Other Menachos it is known that we knead them with water, for there is little oil, and they cannot be kneaded [with only a little liquid];
àáì îðçú ðñëéí ùîðä îøåáä åñ''ã ãàéï ðåúï îéí:
1. However, Minchas Nesachim has much oil. One might have thought that he does not put water.
57b----------------------------------------57b
8) TOSFOS DH u'Mei Peros Ein Machimitzin
úåñôåú ã"ä åîé ôéøåú àéï îçîéöéï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explained this above.)
. ôéøùúé áøéù ôéø÷éï (ãó ðâ: ã''ä àéï)
(a) Reference: I explained this above (53b).
9) TOSFOS DH v'Sham'inan Lei l'R. Akiva d'Amar Midas Yavesh Lo Niskadshu
úåñôåú ã"ä åùîòéðï ìéä ìø''ò ãàîø îãú éáù ìà ðú÷ãùä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses inferences from this.)
ì÷îï áô' ùúé îãåú (ãó ö.)
(a) Reference: He said so below (90a).
åà''ú ãìîà ñ''ì úðåø î÷ãù ãäééðå îù÷øîå ôðéä åòãééï éëåì ìáà ìéãé çéîåõ
(b) Question: Perhaps he holds that the oven is Mekadesh, i.e. after the faces [of the dough] formed a crust, and it can still become Chametz!
åðøàä ìã÷ã÷ îúåê ëê ãîù÷øîå ôðéå úå ìà àúé ìéãé çéîåõ åðô÷à îéðä ìîöåú ùì ôñç
(c) Answer: It seems that we may infer from this that once the faces formed a crust, it cannot become Chametz! This is relevant regarding Matzos of Pesach.
åáñåó ô''÷ ãùáú (ãó éè:) îùîò ãîääéà ùòúà çùéá àôééä âîåøä
(d) Support: In Shabbos (19b) it connotes that from that this time it is considered full baking;
ãàîø äúí åìà çøøä òì âáé âçìéí àìà ëãé ùé÷øîå ôðéä
1. It says there "and one may put a cake on coals [to roast] only if [there is enough time before Shabbos] for the faces to form a crust"!
åùîà æå äéà ùéòåø ëîàëì áï ãøåñàé
(e) Rebuttal: Perhaps this is the Shi'ur of k'Ma'achal Ben Drusai (a third or half cooked. If it is baked this much, we do not decree lest one stoke the coals to hasten the completion of baking.)
åôìåâúà äéà á÷øéîú ôðéí äúí àé äåé áúçúåï àå áòìéåï
(f) Remark: [Tana'im] argue there about the face that forms a crust, whether it is the bottom or the top.
åö''ò ãîùîò äëà ãàé îãú éáù ðú÷ãùä ÷ãùé ìçí äôðéí îùðîãã áå ñåìú áòùøåï åìà îùúîéè áùåí ãåëúà ãìé÷ãåù àìà àå áúðåø àå òì äùåìçï
(g) Question: This requires investigation, for it connotes here that if the dry measure was Niskadesh, Lechem ha'Panim is Kadosh from when the flour was measured in an Isaron. We do not find this mentioned anywhere that it is Kadosh (then), only in the oven or on the Shulchan!
ì÷îï áôø÷ ùúé äìçí (ãó öä:) ã÷àîø åùðéäí î÷øà àçã ãøùå åäåà ãøê çåì ëå'
1. Below (95b) it says that both of them expounded one verse "v'Hu Derech Chol..." (David found Kohanim in Nov baking Lechem ha'Panim... The Tana'im argue about whether the oven or the Shulchan is Mekadesh.)
åáôø÷ á' ãîòéìä (ãó è.) úðï âáé ìçí äôðéí ÷øîå áúðåø äåëùøå ìéôñì åâáé îðçåú ÷úðé ÷ãùå áëìé
2. And a Mishnah in Me'ilah (9a) teaches about Lechem ha'Panim "if it formed a crust in the oven, it is Huchshar to become Pasul." Regarding Menachos, it says "from when there was Kidush in a Kli."
10) TOSFOS DH R. Yoshiyah Savar Osam Lemi'utei Midas Yavesh mib'Chutz
úåñôåú ã"ä øáé éàùé' ñáø àåúí ìîòåèé îãú éáù îáçåõ
(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves Rashi's Perush with the Gemara in Shevuos.)
åìäëé îîòè îàåúí îãú éáù èôé îîãú ìç ãåéîùçí âáé ëìé äîæáç ëúéá ùäï îãú ìç ëê ôéøù á÷åðè'
(a) Explanation (Rashi): The reason he excludes from Osam dry measures rather than wet measures is because "va'Yimshachem" is written about Kelim of the Mizbe'ach, which are wet measures.
åîùîò ùäéä áäï øéáåé îùéçä éåúø îîãú éáù
(b) Inference: [Wet measures] were included for Meshichah (anointing with Shemen ha'Mishchah) more than dry measures.
åà''ú ääåà ñåâéà ãáøéù ô''á ãùáåòåú (ãó èå.) ããøùéðï àåúí áîùéçä åìà ìãåøåú áîùéçä àìà áòáåãä ëîàï ìà ëø' éåðúï åìà ëø' éàùéä
(c) Implied question: In Shevuos (15a) we expound "Osam" (Kelim of the Mishkan were inaugurated) through Meshichah, but not for generations, rather, through Avodah. Whom is this like? It is not like R. Yonason, and not like R. Yoshiyah!
åé''ì ãàúéà ëø' ò÷éáà ãàéú ìéä îãú ìç áîùéçä áôðéí åáçåõ ëãîåëç áùîòúéï åì÷îï áôø÷ ùúé îãåú (ãó ö.) åñáéøà ìéä îãú éáù çåì äéà
(d) Answer: It is like R. Akiva, who holds that wet measures were anointed inside and outside, like is proven in our Sugya and below (90a), and he holds that dry measures were Chulin;
à''ë ìà àéöèøéê àåúí àìà ìîéîøà ãìãåøåú áòáåãä
1. If so, he needs "Osam" only to teach that for generations [Chinuch] is through Avodah.
11) TOSFOS DH Ein Li Ela Mizbe'ach Kevesh Minayin
úåñôåú ã"ä àéï ìé àìà îæáç ëáù îðéï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that without an inclusion, the ramp is not included.)
äëà îöøëéðï ÷øà ìøáåéé ëáù ëîæáç
(a) Observation: Here we require a verse to include the ramp like the Mizbe'ach.
åëï áñåó äîæáç î÷ãù (æáçéí ãó ôæ.) ãúðéà ëì äðåâò áîæáç é÷ãù àéï ìé àìà îæáç ëáù îðéï ú''ì àú äîæáç
1. Also in Zevachim (87a), a Beraisa says "Kol ha'Noge'a ba'Mizbe'ach Yikdash" teaches only the Mizbe'ach. What is the source for the ramp? It says "Es ha'Mizbe'ach."
åäà ããøéù áæáçéí áùéìäé ÷ãùé ÷ãùéí (ãó ñã:) òì ÷éø äîæáç åìà òì ÷éø äëáù
(b) Implied question: We expound in Zevachim (64b) "Al Kir ha'Mizbe'ach", and not on the wall of the ramp!
ìàå ãîéåúø ÷øà ìîòåèé àìà ëéåï ãëúéá îæáç ãåå÷à îùîò ëã÷àîø ðîé åìà ÷éø ääéëì åìà ÷éø äàåìí
(c) Answer: The verse is not extra to exclude. Rather, since it is written Mizbe'ach, this connotes specifically [the Mizbe'ach], like it says also "and not the wall of the Heichal, and not the wall of the Ulam."
åúéîä ãúðï áô''á ãæáçéí (ãó ëå.) ðúðï òì äëáù ôñåì åàîøé' áâîøà àîø ùîåàì ôñåì áùø àáì áòìéí ðúëôøå ãàîø ÷øà åàðé ðúúéå ìëí òì äîæáç ëéåï ùäâéò ãí ìîæáç ðúëôøå áòìéí
(d) Question: In Zevachim (26a) a Mishnah teaches that if he put on the ramp it is Pasul, and in the Gemara Shmuel says that the meat is Pasul, but it atoned for the owner, for the verse says "va'Ani Nesativ Lachem Al ha'Mizbe'ach Lechaper" - once blood reaches the Mizbe'ach, the owner received Kaparah.
àìîà áìà éúåøà ã÷øà çùáéðà ëáù ëîæáç
1. Inference: Without anything extra in the verse, the ramp is considered like the Mizbe'ach!
åðøàä ìôøù ãùîåàì ìà ÷àé àðúðå òì âáé äëáù [àìà] ààéðê ÷àé ãúðï äúí ùìà ëðâã äéñåã ðúï àú äðéúðéï ìîòìä ìîèä åàú äðéúðéï ìîèä ìîòìä
(e) Answer: Shmuel does not refer to "he put on the ramp", rather, to the other cases that the Mishnah taught there - [the blood was put on a part of the Mizbe'ach] not above the Yesod, he put Nisnim (blood that must be put) above (on the corners of the Mizbeach) below, or Nisnim below he put on top;
åòì æä ÷àîø àìîà ÷ñáø ùìà áî÷åîï ëî÷åîï ãîé åòì ëøçéï ùîåàì ìàå àëåìäå îúðéúéï ÷àé ãðéúðéï áôðéí ùðúðï áçåõ ìëå''ò ìàå ëî÷åîï ãîé
1. Regarding this it says "this shows that he holds that not in its place is like in its place." You are forced to say that Shmuel does not refer to the entire Mishnah, for Nisnim inside that were put outside, all agree that this is not like in its place.
ëãîåëç áô' ëì äôñåìéï (æáçéí ãó ìå.) áñåôå ãôøéê åìéôìåâ øáé éäåãä áðéúðéï áçåõ áôðéí åáôðéí áçåõ ôéøåù ãäðé ùìà áî÷åîï äï åáô''á ãæáçéí (ãó ëå: ã''ä àîø) äàøëúé
2. Source: This is proven in Zevachim (36a). It asks "R. Yehudah should argue about Nisnim outside that were put inside, [and Nisnim] inside that were put outside." I.e. these are not in their place. In Zevachim (26b DH Amar) I elaborated.
12) TOSFOS DH Kevesh Minayin
úåñôåú ã"ä ëáù îðéï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we did not ask about the floor.)
ìø''é ãàîø áæáçéí áô' ÷ãùé ÷ãùéí (ã' ðè.) ãøöôú òæøä ðú÷ãùä ëîæáç äåä îöé ìîéð÷è ÷ø÷ò òæøä îðéï
(a) Implied question: According to R. Yehudah, who said in Zevachim (59a) that the floor of the Azarah was made Kodesh like the Mizbe'ach, [the questioner] could have said "what is the source for the floor of the Azarah [that it is like the Mizbe'ach]?"!
àìà îùåí ãàééøé ðîé äëà áàäì îåòã åùéìä åðåá åâáòåï
(b) Answer #1: Because here he discusses also the Mishkan, Shilo, Nov and Giv'on (in which the ramp was Mekudash, but the floor was not, he asked about the ramp).
àé ðîé àôéìå ìøáé éäåãä äà ã÷ãéù ùìîä øöôä ìëùøéï ÷éãù åìà ìôñåìéï
(c) Answer #2: Even according to R. Yehudah, Shlomo was Mekadesh the floor for Kosher Korbanos, but not for Pesulim.
úãò ãäà àéï òåìéï ìëúçéìä:
(d) Proof: We do not bring them up (offer them) l'Chatchilah. (I.e. we do not apply Im Alah Lo Yered.)