1) TOSFOS DH Kol ha'Menachos she'Nikmetzu she'Lo Lishman Kesheros Ela...

" ' ...

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses how we learn that Menachos must be Lishmah.)


(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;

' ' '' (' .) '' (' .)

1. There are four Avodos with the Kometz, corresponding to four Avodos with Dam [Zevachim], like we say below (16a) and in Zevachim (4a);


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.)


2. However, in Tenufah and Hagashah, intent does not disqualify, even though they require Kehunah.

'' ( :) '

(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;

(c) Assertion: We learn also to Menachos l'Chatchilah from Shelamim, from the same Hekesh, just like Zevachim.


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!

'' ( .) ' '

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].

3. We explain there that [Lishmah] is Me'akev in Minchas Chotei since it is written "Hi", like regarding Chatas.

( .)

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".

' ( :)

(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?

1. Suggestion #1: It is from the Hekesh "Zos ha'Torah."

' '' ( .)

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";

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.)

( .)

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!

( ) (" - )

iii. Answer (Rashi): Since birds are not written in that verse, the Hekesh connotes only animal Korbanos.

3. Suggestion #2: We could learn birds from Zevachim regarding Lishmah.

' ( :)

4. Rejection: We can challenge this, for Zevachim require a Kli. The Gemara challenges like this in Zevachim (48b) regarding [requiring in] the north.

(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!

' ( :)

1. Also in Megilah (20b), regarding "the entire day is Kosher for Melikah", the Gemara expounds from b'Yom Tzavoso.

' ( :) )( (" - )

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;


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;

i. We learn that it is Me'akev for Chatas ha'Of from a Drashah in Toras Kohanim, since it is written "Hi".

' ( .)

(f) Implied question: Why do we need "ka'Mishpat" in Chulin (22a, to teach that Olas ha'Of is like Chatas Behemah)?

' ' ( :)

(g) Answer: We can explain according to R. Eliezer below (82b). He does not expound the Hekesh Zos ha'Torah.

'' '' ( .) ( .) ' '

(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!)

(" - , )

(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)?!

() (" - , ) '

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.)

' ]" - ]

(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!


(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.

(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;

1. Now it is fine [that Chatas Behemah teaches about birds], for it is not a Hekesh.

(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!

'' ''

(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).

( ) (" - )

(o) Support: Now I can explain why we would not learn from the Hekdesh of Zos ha'Torah, since it says "v'Hikrivo".


(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!


(q) Answer: B'Yom Tzavoso is written about "Zos ha'Torah l'Olah", which connotes all Olos.

( :) () (" - ) ( ) '

(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)?

( )

(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;

' ( ' .)

1. [The oil] is called Korban, like we expound below (73a) "l'Chol Korbanam" includes the Log of oil of a Metzora.

(t) Suggestion: We could answer that it is included in Asham Metzora!

' ( .)

(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.

( :)

(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?


(w) Answer: It is because Shechitah is not an Avodah.

2) TOSFOS DH she'Lo Lishman


(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that Shinuy Ba'alim is included.)

(a) Inference: Seemingly, this connotes that we discuss Shinuy Kodesh, like the Seifa explains "l'Shem Minchas Chotei, l'Shem Minchas Nedavah."

( '' .) (" - )

(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?)

'' ( - )

(c) Answer #1: Perhaps it is obvious to the Gemara that everywhere, Shinuy Ba'alim is like Shinuy Kodesh.

' ( :)

(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


(SUMMARY: Tosfos brings that Stam is like Lishmah.)

'' ( :) () (" - )

(a) Reference: In Zevachim (2b) we conclude that Stam is like Lishmah.

4) TOSFOS DH Kari Lei Neder v'Kari Lei Nedavah


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

'' '' ( .)

(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.

'' '' ( . : '' )

(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"!

(c) Answer #1: Here is different, for he expounds that the verse changed its wording [from Neder to Nedavah].

(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.

(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


(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we expound unlike in Rosh Hashanah.)

'' '' ( .)

(a) Implied question: In Rosh Hashanah (6a) we expound this about Bal Te'acher, which does not apply after Shechitah!


(b) Answer: Here we expound the simple meaning of the verse. It connotes that it calls a Neder "Nedavah".


6) TOSFOS DH Shechitah Achas l'Chulan


(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses why he did not mention Holachah and Kabalah of Menachos.)

(a) Observation: Below, [the Gemara] asks that [Zevachim] differ about Shechitah - some are [slaughtered only] in the north, and some [even] in the south.

(b) Implied question: Why didn't [the Tana] teach that Holachah is the same for all of them?

'' ( :)

(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);

( .)

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.)


(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!)

( .) ''

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


(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses whether there is Heker in Avodos of blood.)


(a) Implied question: Some Korbanos have one Matanah, and some have four Matanos!

' [" " - ]

(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.


(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!

'' ' ( :)

(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.

(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!

'' ( .) ( .)

(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.)

(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


(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why this is not Hekesh from Hekesh.)

(a) Implied question: This is something learned from a Hekesh. How can it return to teach through a Hekesh?!

'' ' '' ( .) ( ) (" - )

(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.

'' ()

(c) Question: He learns Minchas Nedavah from Asham that it is not Meratzeh, and Asham itself we learn from Shelamim in Zevachim (8a)!

'' ' ' []

(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


(SUMMARY: Tosfos justifies the question.)


(a) Implied question: The Hekesh "ka'Chatas vecha'Asham" is not primary!


(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?


(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"!


(d) Answer #1: [Abaye] can resolve the Beraisa like the Amora'im below (Rava and Rav Ashi, 3b).

'' ''

(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.

'' ' ( .)

(f) Source: Tana d'Vei Chizkiyah expounds like this in Kesuvos (35a) regarding "Makeh Adam v'Makeh Behemah";

(" - ) ( .)

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


(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the Havah Amina of the Makshan.)

'' '' () (" - ) )) (" - ):

(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).