1) TOSFOS DH R. Yochanan Amar Pesulah
úåñôåú ã"ä øáé éåçðï àîø ôñåìä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that this is worse than not mixing at all.)
àò''â ãìà áìì ëùøä áìì çåõ ìçåîú äòæøä âøò
(a) Explanation: Even though if he did not mix at all it is Kosher (below, 18a), mixing outside the wall of the Azarah is worse.
åìà ãîé ìääéà ãæáçéí áô' ÷ãùé ÷ãùéí (ãó ñâ:) ãúìéðï èòîà îéöä ãîä áëì î÷åí áîæáç ëùøä ùàí äéæä åìà îéöä ëùøä
(b) Implied question: Why is this unlike what it says in Zevachim (63b)? We attribute the reason why Mitzuy (squeezing Dam Chatas ha'Of) anywhere on the Mizbe'ach is Kosher, because if he did Haza'ah and not Mitzuy, it is Kosher!
ãäúí áôðéí åäëà áçåõ
(c) Answer: There is inside [the Azarah]. Here is outside (it is worse).
2) TOSFOS DH Reish Lakish Amar Kesherah
úåñôåú ã"ä øéù ì÷éù àîø ëùøä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos infers that Yotzei does not disqualify even after Kidush in a Kli.)
äëà îùîò ãàò''â (ã÷ãåùä äéà) [ö"ì ðú÷ãùä áëìé] ìà îéôñìà áéåöà åàôéìå øáé éåçðï ìà ôìéâ àìà îùåí ãòùä äáìéìä áçåõ àáì îùåí éåöà ìà
(a) Explanation #1 - Inference: Here it connotes that even though it was Mekudash in a Kli, it is not disqualified through Yotzei, rather, only because he mixed it outside, but not due to Yotzei.
åëï îùîò áôø÷ äúëìú (ì÷îï ãó îæ.) ãàîø øá ùùú äðé úðàé ëøáé ñáéøà ìäå ãàîø ùçéèä î÷ãùà (äéà àéôñéìà) [ö"ì åàéôñéìà - ùéèä î÷åáöú] áéåöà
(b) Support #1: It connotes like this also below (47a. R. Eliezer and R. Akiva argue about if Shtei ha'Lechem left the Azarah between Shechitah and Zerikah of Kivsei Atzeres, and Zerikah was with intent Chutz li'Zmano, whether or not the bread is not Pigul.) Rav Sheshes said that these Tana'im hold like Rebbi, who says that Shechitah is Mekadesh, and it becomes disqualified through Yotzei.
åáñåó ùîòúà (ùí îç.) ÷àîø äà ãìà ëøáé ëéåï ãàîø ùçéèä î÷ãùà ãôøé÷ ìäå äéëà àé àáøàé àéôñéìå ìäå áéåöà
(c) Support #2: At the end of that Sugya, it says that this is unlike Rebbi. Since he said that Shechitah is Mekadesh, where could we redeem the loaves? If it is outside, they are disqualified due to Yotzei;
îùîò îùåí ãùçéèä î÷ãùà äåà ãàéôñéì áéåöà äà ìàå äëé ìà (ãàò''â) [ö"ì ãàò''â - áàøåú äîéí] ãàéú ìéä úðåø î÷ãù áôø÷ øáé éùîòàì (ì÷îï ãó òá:)
1. Inference: Because Shechitah is Mekadesh, it is disqualified through Yotzei. If not [that Shechitah is Mekadesh], it would not, even though below (72b) he holds that the oven is Mekadesh!
åîéäå éù ìãçåú ãáàéï òí äæáç ùàðé ãäà ðñëéí äáàéï òí äæáç ìà îéôñìå áìéðä àìà áùçéèú æáç ëãàîø æòéøé ì÷îï áôø÷ äúåãä (ãó òè.)
(d) Rebuttal (of Support #2): We can say that what comes with the Zevach is different, for Nesachim that come with the Zevach, they are not disqualified through Linah until through (after) Shechitah of the Zevach, like Ze'iri says below (79a)...
åàéìå áôðé òöîï úðï ÷ãùå áëìé ðôñìéï áìéðä
1. Whereas [Nesachim] that come by themselves, a Mishnah teaches that after Kidush in a Kli, they are disqualified through Linah!
åéù òåã øàéä îäà ãúðï áô' ùðé ãîòéìä (ãó è.) âáé îðçåú åùúé äìçí ÷øîå áúðåø äåëùøå ìéôñì áèáåì éåí åáîçåñø ëéôåøéí åáìéðä àáì éåöà ìà ÷úðé
(e) Support #3: A Mishnah in Me'ilah (9a) about Menachos and Shtei ha'Lechem teaches that if they formed a crust in the oven, they are Huchshar to become Pasul through a Tevul Yom, Mechusar Kipurim or Linah, but it did not teach Yotzei!
åàò''â ãâáé òåôåú åæáçéí äåä îöé ìîéúðé [ö"ì éåöà àâá àçøéðà - öàï ÷ãùéí] ìà úðé àâá ùúé äìçí åìçí äôðéí åîðçåú
1. Even though regarding birds and Zevachim (which that Mishnah discusses), it could have taught Yotzei, due to others [that the Mishnah discusses] it did not teach [Yotzei], i.e. due to Shtei ha'Lechem, Lechem ha'Panim and Menachos (for Yotzei does not disqualify them).
åäà ãàîø áôø÷ ëì ùòä (ôñçéí ãó ìå.) âáé ìéùä ãîðçåú ðäé ãáæøéæéï ìéúà áî÷åí æøéæéï àéúà
(f) Implied question: It says in Pesachim (36a) about kneading of Menachos "granted, it is not [necessarily] done through Zerizim (Kohanim, who are zealous), but it is in a place of Zerizim (inside the Azarah)!"
àåøçà ãîéìúà ð÷è ùãøê ìòùåúä áî÷åí æøéæéï
(g) Answer: It discussed the usual case. It is normal to knead them in a place of Zerizim.
åäà ãàîøéðï áôø÷ äîæáç î÷ãù (æáçéí ôç.) [ö"ì ëìé ùøú - ùéèä î÷åáöú] àéï î÷ãùéï ìé÷øá àáì î÷ãùéï ìéôñì
(h) Implied question: We say in Zevachim (88a) that Klei Shares are not Mekadesh [Pesulim] to be offered, but they are Mekadesh them to become Pasul!
äééðå áèáåì éåí åáîçåñø ëéôåøéí åáìéðä àáì ìà áéåöà
(i) Answer: That is to become Pasul through a Tevul Yom, Mechusar Kipurim or Linah, but not through Yotzei.
åá÷åðèøñ ôé' ì÷îï áøéù ùúé îãåú (ãó ôæ:) âáé ùåìçï àáì î÷ãùéï ìéôñì áìéðä åáéåöà
(j) Explanation #2 (Rashi): Below (87b), Rashi explained about the Shulchan "but it is Mekadesh to become Pasul through Linah and Yotzei";
åáôø÷ äîæáç î÷ãù (æáçéí ôç.) ôé' á÷åðèøñ àáì î÷ãùéï ìéôñì áéåöà àí éöà çåõ ì÷ìòéí àå ðâò èáåì éåí
1. And in Zevachim (88a), Rashi explained "but they are Mekadesh to become Pasul through Yotzei, if it leaves the Kela'im (Azarah), or a Tevul Yom touched it."
åìà éúëï
(k) Rebuttal: This cannot be.
åîä ùôéøù øáéðå ùìîä áôø÷ ùðé ãæáçéí (ãó ë:) âáé éöéàä îäå ùúåòéì á÷éãåù éãéí åøâìéí ëãøê ëì ä÷ãùéí ù÷ãùå áëìé äðôñìéí áéåöà
(l) Explanation: In Zevachim (20b), Rashi explained about leaving [the Azarah, the Gemara asked] does it affect Kidush of hands and feet, like all Kodshim Mekudash in a Kli, that are disqualified through Yotzei?
àéï äèòí úìåé áëê ëìì
(m) Rebuttal #1: It does not depend on this at all. (Yashar v'Tov - it is illogical to say that a Pesul of Yotzei has any connection to disqualifying Kidush of hands and feet.)
åòåã ãäà ÷àîø äúí ëéåï ãôøéù àñåçé îñç ãòúéä
(n) Rebuttal #2: It says there "once he left, he diverted his mind from Avodah." (It is due to Hesech Da'as, and not due to Yotzei.)
åäà ããéé÷ áô' ùúé äìçí (ì÷îï öä: åùí.) àîøú ìéùúï åòøéëúï áçåõ àìîà îãú éáù ìà ðú÷ãùä
(o) Implied Question #1: [The Gemara] infers below (95b) "you said that kneading and arranging [the loaves] is outside - this shows that the dry measure was not Mekudash"! (If it was Mekudash, they would be disqualified through Yotzei!)
åëï áñåó ëì äîðçåú áàåú îöä (ùí ñâ.) ããøéù ø' ùîòåï úðåø úðåø ùúé ôòîéí ùúäà àôééúï áúðåø åùúäà ä÷ãéùï áúðåø
(p) Implied Question #2: Below (63a), R. Shimon expounded that "Tanur" is written twice, to teach that they are baked in an oven, and they are Hukdash in an oven;
åôøéê åäúðï ø' ùîòåï àåîø ìòåìí äåé øâéì ìåîø. ùúé äìçí åìçí äôðéí ëùøåú áòæøä åëùøåú àáé ôàâé
1. [The Gemara] asks that in a Mishnah, R. Shimon says "you should be accustomed to say that Shtei ha'Lechem and Lechem ha'Panim are Kosher in the Azarah, and Kosher in Beis Pagi (outside the Azarah)!
ìàå îùåí ãðú÷ãùä äåé îéôñéì áéåöà àìà îùåí ããáø îëåòø äåà ìäåöéà ìçåõ ìàçø ùðú÷ãùä
(q) Answer: This is not because if it became Kodesh, it would be disqualified through Yotzei. Rather, it is repulsive to take it outside after it became Mekudash.
åà''ú åëéåï ãá÷ãåùú ëìé ìà îéôñìà áéåöà îðçú ëäðéí åçáéúé ëäï âãåì ãìéú áä ÷îéöä àéîà îéôñì áéåöà
(r) Question: Since through Kedushas Kli it is not disqualified through Yotzei, Minchas Kohanim and Chavitei Kohen Gadol, which do not have Kemitzah, from when are they disqualified through Yotzei?
åùîà áàåúí îåòéì ÷éãåù ëìé ëãàîøé' (áæáçéí ãó îä:) ùàéï ìäí îúéøéï îùé÷ãù áëìé
(s) Answer: Perhaps for them Kedushas Kli helps [to become disqualified through Yotzei], like we say (Zevachim 45b) that what has no Matirin, [one is liable for eating it b'Tum'as ha'Guf] from when it is Mekudash in a Kli.
3) TOSFOS DH mi'Kemitzah v'Eilach Mitzvas Kehunah
úåñôåú ã"ä î÷îéöä åàéìê îöåú ëäåðä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that also previous Mitzvos require Kehunah.)
äâùä åúðåôä ðîé áòå ëäåðä ùàéï æø ÷øá àöì äîæáç
(a) Implied question: Also Hagashah and Tenufah require Kehunah, for a Zar may not approach the Mizbe'ach!
àìà äëà áã' òáåãåú ùáîðçä àééøé ùîúçéìéï îùòú ÷îéöä
(b) Answer #1: Here we discuss the four Avodos of a Minchah, that begin from the time of Kemitzah.
åîéäå (áìàå äëé ðéçà ãìéëà úðåôä) [ö"ì úðåôä áìàå äëé ðéçà ãìéëà - éùø åèåá] àìà áîðçú òåîø å÷ðàåú ëãúðï áô' ëì äîðçåú áàåú îöä (ì÷îï ñà.) åáîðçåú ÷ðàåú àéï éöé÷ä åáìéìä ãìéú áä ùîï
(c) Answer #2: Even without this Tenufah is fine, for it applies only to Minchas ha'Omer and Minchas Kena'os, like the Mishnah below (61a). [Reish Lakish does not discuss the latter, for he teaches about putting oil and mixing], and in Minchas Kena'os, there is no Yetizkah and Belilah, for it does not have oil;
åáîðçú äòåîø àò''â ãèòåðä ùîï ìà ëúéá áä å÷îõ äëäï
1. And in Minchas ha'Omer, even though it needs oil, it is not written about it "v'Kamatz ha'Kohen."
4) TOSFOS DH umid'Kehunah Lo Ba'i Panim Nami Lo Ba'i
úåñôåú ã"ä åîãëäåðä ìà áòéà ôðéí ðîé ìà áòéà
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we do not say so about Shechitah.)
åà''ú äøé ùçéèä ãìà áòéà ëäåðä åáòéà ôðéí ãëúéá (åé÷øà à) åùçè àú áï äá÷ø ìôðé ä' ëããøùéðï áô' ëì äôñåìéï (æáçéí ãó ìá:) ãáòéðï ùéäà áï äá÷ø ìôðéí
(a) Question: Shechitah does not require Kehunah, and it must be in [the Azarah], for it is written "v'Shachat Es Ben ha'Bakar Lifnei Hash-m", like we expounded in Zevachim (32b), that the bull must be inside!
åé''ì ãùàðé äúí îùåí ÷áìä
(b) Answer #1: There is different, for also Kabalah [must be inside. Shitah Mekubetzes rejects this, for if so, it should suffice that the neck be inside!]
àé ðîé ùëï îéðé ãîéí
(c) Answer #2: [There is different,] for it is a Korban with blood.
5) TOSFOS DH Chaser ha'Log Ad she'Lo Yatzak Yimla'enu
úåñôåú ã"ä çñø äìåâ òã ùìà éö÷ éîìàðå
(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks how Reish Lakish did not know this Mishnah.)
îùðä äéà áîñ' ðâòéí (ôé''ã î''é) åúéîä ùìà äéä éåãò ø' ùîòåï áï ì÷éù
(a) Question: This is a Mishnah in Nega'im (14:10). It is astounding that Reish Lakish did not know it! (Sefas Emes - he held that we do not learn oil from Menachos. A verse teaches that Chaser disqualifies a Minchah.)
åëä''â [÷ùä] áô' áîä èåîðéï (ùáú ð:) ãôøéê îîúðéúéï ãäèåîï ìôú åöðåðåú
(b) Observation: It is difficult also in Shabbos (50b), it asks from the Mishnah of one who does Hatmanah of turnips and radishes! (Tosfos ha'Rosh there says that Rav Huna and Shmuel establish the Mishnah to discuss a turnip that was inserted, removed and re-inserted before Shabbos. The Gemara rejects this, and says that they are refuted.)
6) TOSFOS DH Ad she'Lo Yatzak Yimla'enu
úåñôåú ã"ä òã ùìà éö÷ éîìàðå
(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with a Beraisa above.)
îùîò äà îùéö÷ ìà éîìàðå
(a) Inference: After Yetizkah, he may not complete it.
åúéîä ãìòéì (ãó ä.) úðéà ä÷ãéí îúï ùîï ìîúï ãí éîìàðå ùîï ëå' åäééðå ìàçø éöé÷ä
(b) Question: Above (5a), a Beraisa teaches that if he put oil [on the Behonos of the Metzora] before the blood [of the Asham], he fills (the Shi'ur of a Log of oil, and puts it after the blood). This is after Yetizkah (putting oil in the Kohen's palm)!
åé''ì ãääéà ëø' ùîòåï ãôìéâ áîñ' ðâòéí (ôé''ã î''é) åîééúé ìä áîñ' éåîà ùàí çñø òã ùìà ðúï ùéîìàðå åàôé' ìàçø éöé÷ä
(c) Answer #1: That is like R. Shimon, who argues in Nega'im (14:10), and it is brought in Yoma, that if it became Chaser before he put, he completes it, and even after Yetizkah! (Rashash - we do not find this in Yoma.)
åàò''ô ùëáø ðúï ÷åãí îúï ãí äåàéì ãáôñåì ðòùéú ìà ùîä îúðä
1. Even though he already put [oil] before the blood, since it was put improperly, it is not called putting (so we can properly learn from there).
åîäàé èòí àúéà ðîé ëúðà ÷îà ãéöé÷ä äðòùéú áôñåì ìà ùîä éöé÷ä
(d) Answer #2: For this reason, it is also like the first Tana, because Yetizkah done improperly is not considered Yetizkah.
7) TOSFOS DH Man d'Pasil k'R. Yehoshua
úåñôåú ã"ä îàï ãôñéì ëøáé éäåùò
(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with the Gemara in Pesachim.)
äà ãà''ø éåñé áô' ëéöã öåìéï (ôñçéí òç. åùí) ãîñúáøà ëé äéëé ãôìéâé øáé àìéòæø åøáé éäåùò áæáçéí äëé ôìéâé áîðçåú
(a) Implied question: R. Yosi said in Pesachim (78a) "presumably, just like R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua argue about Zevachim, they argue about Menachos"! (Reish Lakish holds that R. Yehoshua disqualifies a Chaser Minchah, even if some remains, but R. Yehoshua is Machshir a Chaser Zevach if some remains!)
ìàå ãå÷à ìø' ùîòåï áï ì÷éù àìà ëé äéëé ãôìéâé áæáçéí áìà ðùúééø ôìéâé áîðçåú áçñøå ùéøééí
(b) Answer: According to Reish Lakish, this is not precise. Rather, just like they argue about Zevachim when nothing remained, they argue about Menachos when the Shirayim are Chaser.
åà''ú äà ã÷àîø äúí ãòé÷ø ÷øàé ëé ëúéáé áæáçéí ëúéáé åäà áîðçåú ðîé àéëà ÷øàé ããøéù áñîåê äîðçä
(c) Question: It says there that primarily, the verses are written about Zevachim. There are verses also about Menachos. Below (9b, Reish Lakish) expounds "ha'Minchah"!
åéù ìåîø ãäúí ìøáé éåçðï ÷àîø ãìãéãéä ìéëà ÷øàé äéëà ãçñøå ùéøéí òã ëæéú ãî÷èéø ÷åîõ òìéäí:
(d) Answer: There it says according to R. Yochanan. According to him, there are no verses when Shirayim are Chaser until a k'Zayis. One is Maktir the Kometz for them.
9b----------------------------------------9b
8) TOSFOS DH Osan Shirayim Asurin b'Achilah
úåñôåú ã"ä àåúï ùéøééí àñåøéï áàëéìä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we are Maktir the Kometz in this case.)
åà''ú ëéåï ãàñéøé äøé äåà ëàéìå ìà ðùúééø ëìåí åäéàê î÷èéø ÷åîõ òìéäí
(a) Question: Since they are forbidden, it is as if nothing remains. Why may he be Maktir the Kometz for them?
äà áëì æáçéí ÷à''ø éäåùò ãäéëà ãìà ðùúééø ëìåí ãàéï æåø÷ äãí
1. Regarding all Zevachim, R. Yehoshua said that when nothing remains of them, he does not do Zerikas Dam (above, 9a)!
åé''ì ëéåï ãéìôéðï îðçä îæáç úäà ëæáç ãëéåï ãìà àáãå äåé ëàéìå äï áòéï
(b) Answer: Since we learn a Minchah from a Zevach, it is like a Zevach. Since [the Shirayim] were not lost, it is as if they are intact. (If a k'Zayis of meat of a Zevach remains, we throw the blood. Correspondingly in a Minchah, we are Maktir the Kometz.)
åöøéê ìçì÷ áéï æä ìðèîà ãëéåï ãàéï æáç ðôñì ò''é çñøåï àò''â ãùéøééí ðôñìéï òáãéðï ìéä ëæáç ìä÷èéø ÷åîõ òìéäí
(c) Remark: We must distinguish between this and when it became Tamei. Since a Zevach is not disqualified through Chisaron, even though the Shirayim became Pasul, we treat it like a Zevach [in which meat remained] to be Maktir the Kometz for them.
9) TOSFOS DH Osan Shirayim Mah Hen b'Achilah
úåñôåú ã"ä àåúï ùéøééí îä äï áàëéìä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that he could have settled this from the Beraisa above.)
äåä îöé ìîéôùèä îäà ãàí îùðôø÷ä ðôøñ ìçîä äìçí ôñåì
(a) Observation: He could have resolved this from the Beraisa, that if [Lechem ha'Panim] became Chaser after it was removed, it is Pasul.
10) TOSFOS DH Ein Mi'ut Acher Mi'ut Ela Lerabos
úåñôåú ã"ä àéï îéòåè àçø îéòåè àìà ìøáåú
(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks why the Torah wrote the exclusions.)
åàí úàîø åìùúå÷ îúøåééäå
(a) Question: [The Torah] could have refrained from teaching both [exclusions, and we would not need an inclusion]!
åëé äàé âååðà îöé ìä÷ùåú áëì îéòåè àçø îéòåè
(b) Observation: One can ask so about every case of Mi'ut Achar Mi'ut.
11) TOSFOS DH Al Bohen Yado ha'Ymanis v'Chulei
úåñôåú ã"ä òì áäï éãå äéîðéú ëå'
(SUMMARY: Tosfos justifies the question.)
áéï ãòðé áéï ãòùéø ÷à áòé ãëéåï ãëúéá òì ãí äàùí åòì î÷åí ãí äàùí îîéìà éãòéðï áùîï
(a) Explanation: We ask both about an Oni and Ashir. Since it is written "Al Dam ha'Asham" and "Al Mekom Dam ha'Asham", automatically we know about oil [that it is put on the right thumb. Yashar v'Tov - do not say that the Parshah was repeated for a Chidush, and we need not expound every repetition. If so, the Torah should not have changed the wording, like Tosfos says below. Perhaps the next Dibur is really part of this Dibur.]
åä''ä ãîöé ìîéáòé îúðåê àåæï
(b) Implied question: Likewise, he could have asked about the lobe of the ear!
åìôé ùäúçéì ìãøåù ëó ãîöåøò ÷à îñé÷ òì áäï îàé ãøùú áéä áéï ãòðé áéï ãòùéø:
(c) Answer: Since he began to expound about the hand [written] regarding Metzora, he concludes "what do you expound about the Bohen?", both for an Oni and Ashir.