1) TOSFOS DH Mitzah Damah b'Chol Makom b'Mizbe'ach Kesherah
úåñôåú ã"ä îéöä ãîä áëì î÷åí áîæáç ëùéøä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we do not require above the Yesod.)
àò''â ãëúéá áä éñåã ëãëúéá (åé÷øà ä) éîöä àì éñåã äîæáç
(a) Implied question: Yesod is written - "Yimatze El Yesod ha'Mizbe'ach"!
äàîøéðï áôø÷ çèàú äòåó (æáçéí ãó ñä: åùí) ãîéöåé ìà îòëá àôé' ìà îéöä ëìì åôìåâúà äéà áô''á ãîòéìä (ãó ç:)
(b) Answer: We say in Zevachim (65b) that Mitzuy is not Me'akev, even if he did not do Mitzuy at all. [Amora'im] argue about this in Me'ilah (8b).
1. Note: It seems that the first reference should be to Zevachim 63b. There, a Stam Beraisa says that Mitzuy is not Me'akev. On 65b, Amora'im argue about whether or not Tana'im argue about this.
2) TOSFOS DH Chatas ha'Of she'Hizah Damah
úåñôåú ã"ä çèàú äòåó ùäæä ãîä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that he could have asked about Melikah of Chatas below.)
ìôé ùäúçéì ìä÷ùåú îîéöåé åäæàä î÷ùä ëîå ëï òúä
(a) Explanation: Because he began to ask about Mitzuy and Haza'ah, he asks similarly now;
àáì ëîå ëï (òúä) äéä éëåì ìä÷ùåú îîìé÷ú çèàú ùîì÷ä ìîèä ìùí òåìä ãîìé÷ú òåìú äòåó ìîòìä ëãàîøé' áæáçéí áôø÷ ÷ãùé ÷ãùéí (ãó ñä. åùí) îä ä÷èøä áøàùå ùì îæáç àó îìé÷ä
1. However, similarly he could have asked from Melikah of Chatas done below l'Shem Olah, for Melikas Olas ha'Of is above, like it says in Zevachim (65a) "just like Haktarah is on top of the Mizbe'ach, also Melikah [of Olas ha'Of]."
3) TOSFOS DH d'Iy Kodshim Kalim b'Darom Havah Avid Lehu
úåñôåú ã"ä ãàé ÷ãùéí ÷ìéí áãøåí äåä òáéã ìäå
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the Havah Amina.)
ñ''ã îùåí ãìà ìéúé ìîéèòé åìåîø ùäí ÷ãùé ÷ãùéí
(a) Explanation: One might have thought [that they are slaughtered in the south] lest people come to err and say that they are Kodshei Kodoshim.
1. Note: What is wrong if they err to be stringent? Perhaps they will think that the meat became Pasul if it left the Azarah, or when dawn comes, and burn it, or it will become Nosar because they think that only male Kohanim may eat it. Alternatively, others will see Zarim eat it outside, and think that this is permitted for Kodshei Kodoshim.)
4) TOSFOS DH u'Mi'aver Hu d'Avar v'Shachtinhu b'Darom
úåñôåú ã"ä åîéòáø äåà ãòáø åùçèéðäå áãøåí
(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes that we could have answered so above.)
äà ãìà îùðé äëé ìòéì âáé ÷åùéà ãçèàú äòåó ùäæä ãîä ìîèä ìùí òåìú äòåó
(a) Implied question: Why didn't we answer so above, regarding the question of Chatas ha'Of for which Haza'as Dam was below l'Shem Olas ha'Of?
ôé' á÷åðèøñ îùåí ãàéëà úøúé åìà èòé ùéòùä äæàä åìîèä
(b) Answer #1 (Rashi): There are two deviations. People will not err to say that he does Haza'ah, and below (which are both improper for Olas ha'Of).
åìôéøåùå ÷ùä ãà''ë ú÷ùé ìå îçèàú áäîä ìùí òåìä ãàéëà úøúé ùéðåéé ëãôøéùðà ìòéì
(c) Objection: If so, he should ask from Chatas Behemah for the sake of Olah - there are two deviations, like I explained above (2b DH Zerikah)!
åðøàä ãäùúà çåæø áå îùéðåéà ãìòéì ãìæáçéí åìà ìòåôåú ãàëåìäå àéëà ìùðåéé ãàîøé' îéòáø òáø
(d) Answer #2: Now he retracts from the answer above [that Menachos are unlike] Zevachim, and not birds. Rather, we can answer that he transgressed (also birds are like Zevachim).
5) TOSFOS DH Alma Kevi'usa d'Mana Lav Klum Hu
úåñôåú ã"ä àìîà ÷áéòåúà ãîðà ìàå ëìåí äåà
(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with the Mishnah below.)
åáôø÷ áúøà (ì÷îï ãó ÷ã:) úðï ôéøùúé åàéðé éåãò îä ôéøùúé éáéà çîùúï åîå÷é ìä áâîøà ëø''ù
(a) Citation (104b - Mishnah): [If one said] "I specified [to bring a Minchah], and I do not know what I specified", he brings all five of them, and the Gemara establishes this like R. Shimon.
åäéëé àúéà ëååúéä ãø''ù äà ìø''ù àôé' ôéøù îçáú åäáéà îøçùú éöà
(b) Question: How can it be like R. Shimon? According to R. Shimon, even if he specified Machavas and brought Marcheshes, he was Yotzei!
åùîà äúí ááà ìöàú éãé ùîéí
(c) Answer #1: Perhaps [the Mishnah] is when he comes to be Yotzei Yedei Shamayim.
åàé ðîé ëâåï (ãàéëà çãà ãîééúé å÷àîø) [ö"ì ãàëì çãà ãîééúé ÷àîø - éùø åèåá] àí æå ðãøúé úäà ìðãøé åàí ìàå úäà ðãáä
(d) Answer #2: The case is, he says about each one that he brings "if I vowed this, this is my vow. If not, it is Nedavah."
6) TOSFOS DH Lo Shena Amar Alai v'Lo Shena Amar Zu
úåñôåú ã"ä ìà ùðà àîø òìé åìà ùðà àîø æå
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses why people will not err about Belulah and Chareivah.)
ä÷ùä äøá ø' éöç÷ áï äø''ø îàéø úéðç îçáú ìùí îøçùú àìà çøéáä ìùí áìåìä àîøé äà áìåìä äéà åîéòáø äåà ãòáø åòáéã ìä çøéáä åëï áìåìä ìùí çøéáä
(a) Question (Rivam): Granted, Machavas l'Shem Marcheshes - however, Chareivah l'Shem Belulah, people will say that it is Belulah, and he transgressed and made it dry! The same applies to Belulah l'Shem Chareivah.
åéù ìåîø ãáäà ìà èòé àéðù ùéòùä çøéáä áìåìä åáìåìä çøéáä
(b) Answer #1: People would not err about this to make dry Belulah or Belulah dry.
åòåã é''ì ãðéçà áìàå äëé áéï ìî''ã îðçä ÷ãåùä áìà ùîï áéï ìî''ã àéï îðçä ÷ãåùä áìà ùîï ì÷îï (ö"ò - éùø åèåá îåç÷å)
(c) Answer #2: This is fine without this, both according to the opinion that a Minchah is Kadosh without oil, and according to the opinion that a Minchah is not Kadosh without oil, below (8a). (Olas Shlomo - according to the conclusion that most Zevachim are unlike Menachos, we do not say "people will say that he transgressed.")
7) TOSFOS DH Kivan d'Ika Se'ir Nasi
úåñôåú ã"ä ëéåï ãàéëà ùòéø ðùéà
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that they can confuse a ram with the goat of a Nasi.)
åàí òåìä æå àéì àîøé ùòéø ðùéà äåà ëãàîøéðï áñîåê àîøé ãéëøà àåëîà äåà
(a) Explanation: If this Olah is a ram, people will say that it is Se'ir Nasi, like we say below "they will say that it is a black ram."
8) TOSFOS DH Amar l'Shem Asham Gezelos l'Shem Asham Me'ilos Mai Ika Lemeimar
úåñôåú ã"ä àîø ìùí àùí âæéìåú ìùí àùí îòéìåú îàé àéëà ìîéîø
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Lo Lishmah is evident.)
åà''ú àëúé àîøé (ãàé òáø) (ö"ì ãîéòáø - öàï ÷ãùéí) òáø åîééúé ìéä áï ùðä
(a) Question: (Why is the Lo Lishmah evident?) Still, they will say that he transgressed and brought a yearling!
ãäàîø áúîåøä áôø÷ àìå ÷ãùéí (ãó éè:) àùí áï ùðä åäáéàå áï ùúéí áï ùúéí åäáéàå áï ùðä ëùéøä àìà ùìà òìå ìùí çåáä
1. It says in Temurah (19b) that if an Asham must be a yearling, and he brought a second year animal, or if a second year animal is required, and he brought a yearling, it is Kosher, but he was not Yotzei his obligation!
åéù ìåîø ãøáé ùîòåï ìèòîéä ãàîø äúí ëì òöîä àéðä ÷ãåùä
(b) Answer: R. Shimon holds like he taught elsewhere. He said there "it is not Kadosh at all."
9) TOSFOS DH d'Hai Tzemer v'Hai Sei'ar
úåñôåú ã"ä ãäàé öîø åäàé ùéòø
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that it is evident due to the color.)
öîø ìáï ëãëúéá (éùòéä à) àí éàãéîå ëúåìò ëöîø éäéå
(a) Explanation #1: Wool is white, like it says "if [your sins] will be like red dye, they will be [white] like wool";
ùéòø ùçåø ëãîùîò áøéù äîåöéà ééï (ùáú ãó òæ:) îàé èòîà òéæé îñâé áøéùà åäãø àéîøé ëáøééúå ùì òåìí áøéùà çùåëà åäãø ðäåøà
1. [Goats'] hair is black, like it connotes in Shabbos (77b) "why do goats go at the front, and then rams? This is like the creation of the world - first it was dark, and then light."
åäééðå ã÷àîø äëà àîøé ãéëøà àåëîà äåà
2. Support: This is why it says here "they will say that it is a black ram."
åá÷åðèøñ ìà ôéøù ëï:
(b) Explanation #2: Rashi did not explain so. (He explains that people can distinguish a sheep, which has wool, from a goat, which has hair.)
3b----------------------------------------3b
10) TOSFOS DH Kan b'Kometz Minchah l'Shem Zevach
úåñôåú ã"ä ëàï á÷åîõ îðçä ìùí æáç
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses why Rava mentioned this.)
áçðí ð÷è øáà òðéï æä ãìà àééøé áéä áùåí ãåëúà
(a) Implied question: Rava mentioned this needlessly, for [R. Shimon] does not discuss this anywhere;
ãúéøåõ æä òöîå ùîçì÷ îùåí ãëúéá æàú úåøú äîðçä äéä éëåì ìúøõ ëîå ùúéøõ øáä ëàï áùéðåé ÷åãù ëàï áùéðåé áòìéí áùéðåé ÷åãù ëùø îùåí ãúåøä àçú ìëì äîðçåú
1. This answer itself that he distinguishes, because it says "Zos Toras ha'Minchah", he could have answered like Rabah answered, this refers to Shinuy Kodesh, and this refers to Shinuy Ba'alim. Shinuy Kodesh is Kosher, because [we expound the verse to teach that] there is one Torah (law) for all Menachos.
åùîà ìôéëê ùéðä ìùåðå ùì øáä ãäåä îùîò àí äéä àåîø ëàï áùéðåé ÷åãù ãùéðåé ÷åãù ëùø àôé' áîðçä ìùí æáç
(b) Answer #1: Perhaps he changed Rabah's wording because had he said "here is Shinuy Kodesh", it would connotes that Shinuy Kodesh is Kosher even for a Minchah l'Shem a Zevach.
åòåã éù ìåîø ããéé÷ ìéùðà ãáøééúà ãîùîò ìéä ÷îöä ùìà ìùîä ôñåìä áùéðåé ÷åãù
(c) Answer #2: [Rava] infers from the wording of the Beraisa. It connotes to him that "if he took Kemitzah Lo Lishmah it is Pasul" refers to Shinuy Kodesh.
åì÷îï ã÷àîø ëåìäå ëøáä ìà àîøé åìà îôøù èòîà æä
(d) Implied question: Below (3b), when [the Gemara] says that all of them (Rava and Rav Ashi) did not say like Rabah, it does not explain this reason!
ðéçà ìå ìîéîø èòí äùåä ìëì äàîåøàéí
(e) Answer: It prefers to give a reason that is the same for all the Amora'im. (Chak Nasan - we know that Rava and Rav Ashi both hold that there is more reason to disqualify when the Lo Lishmah is evident. We do not know whether also Rav Ashi infers from the wording of the Beraisa like Rava does.)
11) TOSFOS DH Af Al Gav d'Machshavah d'Lo Minkera Hi v'Tipasel
úåñôåú ã"ä àò''â ãîçùáä ãìà îéðëøà äéà åúéôñì
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why above this was called evident.)
äøáä éù ìúîåä ìîä ùéðä ìùåðå îìéùðà ãìòéì áøéù ùîòúà ãîä ù÷åøà ìòéì îéðëøà ÷åøà äëà ìà îéðëøà åçã ôéøåùà ìúøåééäå
(a) Question: This is very astounding! Why did [the Gemara] change the wording from the wording above at the beginning of the Sugya? What it calls above "evident", here it calls "not evident", and both mean the same!
ãîéðëøà äééðå ùðéëø ùîçùáúå ù÷ø åìà îéðëøà ãäëà äééðå ãàéï ðéëø ùéäà ëîå ùäåà îçùá àìà àãøáä ðéëø ùàéðå ëîå ùäåà îçùá
1. "Evident" means that it is recognized that his intent is false. "Not evident" here means that it is not evident that it is like he intends, rather, just the contrary, it is evident that it is not like he intends!
åùîà ùéðä äìùåï ìôé ùäåà ëîå ðúéðú èòí ãúéôñì ìôéëê ðéçà ìéä ìîéð÷è äëà åìòéì òì ôñåì ìùåï ìà îéðëøà
(b) Answer: Perhaps it changed the wording, for this is like giving the reason to be Pasul. Therefore, it prefers to say here, and above regarding the Pesul, "it is not evident";
åáñåó ùîòúà ã÷àîø ëåìäå ëøáä ìà àîøé àãøáä îçùáä ãîéðëøà ôñì øçîðà îùåí ã÷àé àøáä ð÷è ìùåï îéðëøà òì ôñåì
1. And at the end of our Sugya (3b), when it says that all of them (Rava and Rav Ashi) did not say like Rabah, just the contrary, it says that the Torah disqualified evident intent. Because it refers to Rabah, it uses the expression "evident" regarding a Pesul.
12) TOSFOS DH l'R. Shimon Hacha Nami
úåñôåú ã"ä ìø''ù ä''ð
(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with the Gemara in Zevachim.)
îùîò ãøáðï ìà ãøùé æàú úåøú äçèàú àò''â ãáô' ãí çèàú (æáçéí ã' öá.) âáé ãí çèàú ùðéúæ òì äáâã èòåï ëéáåñ ãøùéðï úåøä àçú ìëì äçèàåú åìéëà îàï ãôìéâ
(a) Implied question: Rabanan do not expound "Zos Toras ha'Chatas", even though in Zevachim (92a) regarding Dam Chatas that splashed on a garment requires laundering, we expound "Toras Achas for all Chata'os", and no one argues!
áîéãé ãëúéáà áçèàú âåôéä ãøùé ìéä ë''ò ëâåï äðé ãôø÷ ãí çèàú àáì ùéðåé ÷åãù ìà ëúéá áçèàú(åòåã ãëéáåñ áâãéí ëúéá áääéà ôøùúà) (ö"ì àìà áôøùä - òåìú ùìîä) ãæàú äúåøä
(b) Answer: For something written about Chatas itself, all expound it, e.g. the matters in Zevachim (92a). However, Shinuy Kodesh is not written about Chatas, rather, in the Parshah of "Zos ha'Torah."
åà''ú ãáô''÷ ãæáçéí (ã' è:) àîø øá îùîéä ãîáåâ çèàú ùùçèä ìùí çèàú ðçùåï ëùéøä ãúåøä àçú ìëì äçèàåú
(c) Question: In Zevachim (9b), Rav said in the name of Mavog that a Chatas slaughtered l'Shem Chatas Nachshon (of the Milu'im) is Kosher, due to "Torah Achas for all Chata'os";
åôøéê øá îùøùéà ìøáà îáøééúà ãø''ù èòîà ãîòùéä îåëéçéï òìéä äà àéï îòùéä îåëéçéï òìéä ìà ìéîà æàú úåøú äîðçä
1. Rav Mesharshiya challenged Rava from the Beraisa of R. Shimon. The reason is because its actions prove about it. This implies that if its actions do not prove about it, no. We should say that Zos Toras ha'Minchah (equates all Menachos)!
åîàé ÷åùéà äà øáà äåà ãîôøù äëà èòîà ãø''ù îæàú úåøú
2. What was his question? Here, Rava explains that R. Shimon's reason is due to Zos Toras! (Likewise, we equate all Chata'os, and l'Shem Chatas Nachshon is Kosher.)
åàåîø ø''ú ãäúí âøéñ øáä åøáä ìèòîéä ãîùðé ìòéì ëàï áùéðåé ÷åãù ëàï áùéðåé áòìéí
(d) Answer #1 (R. Tam): There, the text says [that he challenged] Rabah. [This is a proper question] according to Rabah's reason, for he answered above (2b) "this refers to Shinuy Kodesh (the Lo Lishmah is evident), and this refers to Shinuy Ba'alim."
åòåã é''ì ãàôéìå âøéñ äúí øáà øåöä ìééùá ãáøé øá ëëåìäå àîåøàé ãäëà
(e) Answer #2: Even if the text there says Rava, he wants to resolve Rav's words according to all Amora'im here.
åìôø''ú ÷ùéà ãðøàä ãøá îùøùéà úìîéãå ùì øáà äéä åìà ùì øáä
(f) Question: It is difficult for R. Tam, for it seems that Rav Mesharshiya was Rava's Talmid, and not Rabah's!
åòåã éù ìåîø ùøåöä øáà ìééùá ùí ãáøé øá îùîéä ãîáåâ àôéìå ëøáðï ãôìéâé òìéä ãø''ù ãìéú ìäå æàú úåøú
(g) Answer #3: Rava wants to resolve Rav's words in the name of Mavog even according to Rabanan who argue with R. Shimon, and they do not expound Zos Toras.
åøá îùøùéà ëùä÷ùä ìå îø''ù äéä éëåì ìä÷ùåúå îîúðé'
(h) Implied question: When Rav Mesharshiya asked from R. Shimon, he could have asked from our Mishnah!
àìà ðéçà ìéä ìà÷ùåéé îáøééúà ãàôéìå ø' ùîòåï ãîëùø ìàå îæàú úåøú îëùø
(i) Answer: He preferred to ask from the Beraisa, that even R. Shimon who is Machshir, it is not due to Zos Toras. (Had he asked from the Mishnah, Rava could have said that Rav holds like R. Shimon, and it is due to Zos Toras.)
åëï îùîò ùí ôéøåù ä÷åðèøñ
(j) Support: Rashi there connotes like this.
13) TOSFOS DH l'Shem Chatas Dam l'Shem Chatas Avodas Kochavim Kesherah
úåñôåú ã"ä ìùí çèàú ãí ìùí çèàú òáåãú ëåëáéí ëùéøä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains Chachamim's opinion.)
äê îéìúà àéúà áô''÷ ãæáçéí (â''æ ùí) áùîòúà ãîáåâ
(a) Reference: This is brought in Zevachim (9b) in the Sugya of Mavog.
åáìàå ÷øà ãæàú úåøú îëùø çèàú ìùí çèàú ëã÷àîø äúí øáà (ìòéì) ààéãê îéìúà ãåùçè àåúä ìçèàú àîø øçîðà åäøé çèà' ìùí çèàú ðùçèä
(b) Observation: Even without the verse Zos Toras, he is Machshir a Chatas l'Shem [another] Chatas, like Rava said there earlier (7a) about the other teaching of 'the Torah said "v'Shachat Osah l'Chatas".' Chatas was slaughtered l'Shem Chatas!
àáì ìùí òåìä åãàé ôñåìä åäåà äãéï ìùí çèàú ðæéø åîöåøò ãëòåìåú ãîå ëéåï ãàéï áàéï òì çèà
1. However, l'Shem Olah, surely it is Pasul, and the same applies to l'Shem Chatas Nazir and [Chatas] Metzora, which are like Olos, for they do not come for sin.
åàò''â ãø''ù äåà ãàîø ãçèàú ðæéø áàä ìôé ùöéòø òöîå îï äééï
2. Implied question: R. Shimon says that Chatas Nazir comes because he pained himself [through abstaining] from wine!
àéï æä òì çèà ëéåï ãàöòø ééï ìà îééúé çèàú àìà ãøê ðæéøåú
3. Answer #1: This is not considered for an Aveirah, since one does not bring a Chatas due to pain of [abstaining from] wine. Rather, this is part of Nezirus.
åòåã ãîùåí çèà æåèøà ëé äàé ìà îé÷øé çèàú
4. Answer #2: Due to a small sin like this, it is not called Chatas. (Chatas is for a Chiyuv Kares.)
14) TOSFOS DH Kan b'Kometz Machavas l'Shem Marcheshes Garsinan
úåñôåú ã"ä ëàï á÷åîõ îçáú ìùí îøçùú âøñéðï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos brings another text, and accepts both texts.)
åàéú ãâøñé ëàï á÷åîõ îðçú îçáú ìùí îøçùú åùðéäí éù ìééùá:
(a) Alternative text: Some texts say "here he did Kemitzah of Minchas Machavas l'Shem Marcheshes." Both [texts] can be resolved. (He did not do l'Shem another Minchah, rather, l'Shem a Kli. This has no effect; it is fully Kosher.)