1) TOSFOS DH Al Dam ha'Asham v'Al Mekom Dam ha'Asham l'Mai Asu
úåñôåú ã"ä òì ãí äàùí åòì î÷åí ãí äàùí ìîàé àúå
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that he asks why the Torah changed the wording.)
ôéøåù ãìëúåá àå àéãé åàéãé òì î÷åí àå àéãé åàéãé òì ãí
(a) Explanation: [He asks that] the Torah should have written both "Al Mekom", or both "Al Dam."
2) TOSFOS DH Amar Rava me'Acher d'Chasav Al Dam...
úåñôåú ã"ä àîø øáà îàçø ãëúá òì ãí...
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses what is extra to be expounded.)
ãðäé ãòì áäï ãòðé åãòùéø öøéëéï ìöããéï åìöéãé öããéï î''î éîðéú ìîàé àúà
(a) Explanation #1: Granted, we need "Al Bohen" for an Oni and Ashir to teach about Tzedadin and Tzidei Tzedadin (the sides and the underside). Still, what does "Yemanis" teach?
àìà àîø øáà éã éã ì÷îéöä éã éîðéú ãùîï ãîöåøò òùéø àúà ìâ''ù ã÷îéöä åãîöåøò òðé ìôøùä ùðàîøä ìùðåú ëê ôéøåù äñåâéà ìôéøåù ä÷åðèøñ
1. Rather, Rava taught that "Yad-Yad" teaches that the right hand is used for Kemitzah. Yad Yemanis of oil of a rich Metzora comes for the Gezeirah Shavah for Kemitzah, and of Metzora Ani is for a Parshah said and repeated. So Rashi explained the Sugya.
å÷ùä ãîùîò ìøáà ãéîðéú ããí àéöèøéê áéï áòðé áéï áòùéø åàîàé ìà éìôé îäããé ëîå (ðîé) áöããéï åáöéãé öããéï
(b) Question #1: It connotes that Rava needs Yemanis of Dam, both for an Ashir and Ani. Why doesn't he learn them from each other, like Tzedadin and Tzidei Tzedadin?
åäåä ìï ìîéîø ãéîðéú ããí ãòðé äåé ìôøùä ùðàîøä åðùðéú ëîå éîðéú ãùîï ãòðé
1. We should have said that Yemanis of Dam of an Ani is for a Parshah said and repeated, just like Yemanis of oil of an Ani!
åùîà ìòðéï éîðéú [ö"ì áãí - öàï ÷ãùéí] ìà äåå éìôé [ö"ì îäããé - öàï ÷ãùéí] àé ìàå ãäåå ëúéáé áäãéà ëéåï ãçìå÷éï á÷øáðåúéäí àò''â ãéìôé îäããé ìöããéï åìöéãé öããéï
(c) Answer: Perhaps regarding Yemanis for blood, we would not learn (Ashir and Ani) from each other if not that they were written explicitly, since their Korbanos are different, even though he learns them from each other for Tzedadin and Tzidei Tzedadin.
òåã ÷ùä ãîùîò ùáà øáé éøîéä ìä÷ùåú ìøáé æéøà åìôéøåù ä÷åðèø' ìà î÷ùé îéãé
(d) Question #2: It connotes that R. Yirmeyah comes to challenge R. Zeira. According to Rashi, he does not ask anything!
åòåã ÷ùä äà ãìà ð÷è ø' éøîéä ðîé úðåê àåæï
(e) Question #3: Why didn't also R. Yirmeyah mention the lobe of the ear?
åòåã ëéåï ãø' éøîéä ìà áòé òì áäï ìîä ìé àìà îëç ãëúéá òì ãí äàùí åòì î÷åí ãí äàùí àí ëï äåä ìéä ìîéîø îàçø ãëúéá òì ãí äàùí åòì î÷åí ãí äàùí òì áäï ìîä ìé ëã÷àîø øáà
(f) Question #4: Since R. Yirmeyah asked 'why do I need "Al Bohen" only due to "Al Dam ha'Asham" and "Al Mekom Dam ha'Asham", if so, he should have said 'since it is written Al Dam ha'Asham" and "Al Mekom Dam ha'Asham, why do I need "Al Bohen"?', like Rava said!
åðøàä ìôøù ãôøéê îùåí ããøéù øáé æéøà îëôå ãëì î÷åí ùðàîø ëó àéðå àìà éîéï àí ëï áòì áäï éãå ãäåé ãåîéà ãëó ìà äåä öøéê ìîëúá éîéï
(g) Explanation #2: He asks because R. Zeira expounded from "Kapo" (his hand), that wherever it says Kaf, it is the right hand. If so, Al Bohen Yado, which is like Kaf, there was no need to write "right"!
åìôé äñôøéí ãâøñéðï áîöåøò òùéø ìîä ìé ìàå ãå÷à åäåà äãéï ãäåä ôøéê îöåøò òðé àìà ð÷è òùéø îùåí ãàôéìå áòùéø ÷ùéà ìéä àîàé àéöèøéê
(h) Observation: According to the Seforim that say "in a Metzora Ashir", this is not precise. Likewise he would ask about Metzora Ani! Rather, he mentioned Ashir because even an Ashir is difficult for him. (Taharos ha'Kodesh - this is not only according to Explanation #2.)
[ö"ì åîùðé - áàøåú äîéí] çã ìäëùéø öããéï åçã ìôñåì öéãé öããéï
(i) Explanation #2 (cont.): He answered that we need one to be Machshir Tzedadin, and one to disqualify Tzidei Tzedadin.
ôéøåù éîðéú ãòùéø åéîðéú ãòðé åàò''â ãéîðéú ìà îùîò ìà öããéï åìà öéãé öããéï îééúåøà áòìîà ãøéù
1. Explanation: Yemanis of Ashir and Yemanis of Ani [teach these]. Even though Yemanis does not connote Tzedadin or Tzidei Tzedadin, he expounds because it is extra;
åáîéìúéä ãøáà âøñéðï îàçø ãëúéá òì ãí äàùí åòì î÷åí ãí äàùí åëúá éîðéú áãí (ùì îöåøò òùéø éîðéú ãëúá áùîï ãîöåøò òðé) [ö"ì ãîöåøò éîðéú ãëúá áùîï ãîöåøò - éùø åèåá] ìîä ìé
2. In Rava's teaching, the text says "since it is written Al Dam ha'Asham and Al Mekom Dam ha'Asham, and it is written Yemanis regarding blood of a Metzora, why is Yemanis written regarding oil of a Metzora?"
åàéðé éëåì ìéùáå éôä åöøéê ìã÷ã÷ áå
(j) Remark: I cannot resolve this well. One must be meticulous about it. (Chak Nasan - this is a comment of a later Mefaresh who did not understand Tosfos.)
3) TOSFOS DH Smol l'Mai Asa
úåñôåú ã"ä ùîàì ìîàé àúà
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains this and the following question.)
îùîàì ùðé ãòùéø ÷à áòé ã÷îà àúà ìâåôéä ìäëùéø ùîàì åîùðé ãàúà ìîòè éîéï
(a) Explanation: He asks about the second Smol of an Ashir, for the first comes for the simple meaning, to be Machshir the left hand. He answers that it comes to exclude the right hand.
åìîéòåè àçø îéòåè ãðøáé éîéï
(b) Implied question: We should expound Mi'ut after Mi'ut to include the right hand!
àéï ìãøåù ãà''ë ìà ìëúåá àìà çã
(c) Rejection: We should not expound so, for if so, [the Torah] should write only one.
åäãø áòé åàéãê ùîàì ìîàé àúà äééðå ãòðé:
(d) Explanation: Afterwards, he asks what the other Smol comes for, i.e. of an Ani.
10b----------------------------------------10b
4) TOSFOS DH v'Harei Zerikah... v'Tanan Zarak bi'Smol Pesulah...
úåñôåú ã"ä åäøé æøé÷ä ëå' åúðï æø÷ áùîàì ôñåì åìà ôìéâ øáé ùîòåï àîø àáéé ôìéâ ááøééúà
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses this question.)
úéîä ãàéï æä áà áîùðä áùåí î÷åí
(a) Question #1: This is not a Mishnah anywhere!
åòåã ä÷ùä ä''ø éò÷á îàåøìéð''ù àîàé ôìéâ øáé ùîòåï ðäé ãìà ëúá áä àìà ëäåðä î''î àúéà îäé÷ùà ãæàú äúåøä
(b) Question #2 (Ri of Orlins): Why does R. Shimon argue? Granted, only Kehunah is written. In any case, we learn it from the Hekesh of v'Zos ha'Torah!
ãàîø ì÷îï áñåó äúåãä (ãó ôâ.) åáæáçéí ôø÷ ãí çèàú (ãó öç.) îä çèàú àéðä áàä àìà îï äçåìéï åáéåí åáéãå äéîðéú àó ëì ëå'
1. It says below (83a) and in Zevachim (98a) just like Chatas is brought only from Chulin, and during the day, and [its Matanos Dam are] with the right hand, also all [Korbanos in the verse].
åôøéê éãå äéîðéú îãøáä áø áø çðä ðô÷à ãëì î÷åí ùðàîø àöáò åëäåðä àéðå àìà éîéï
2. [The Gemara] asks that we know the right hand from Rabah bar bar Chanah's teaching - wherever it says Etzba and Kehunah, it is only with the right hand!
åîùðé ëãé ðñáä àé ðîé ñáø ìä ëøáé ùîòåï ãëäåðä áòéà àöáò
3. It answers that [the right hand] was taught needlessly (really, we do not learn it from the Hekesh). Alternatively [the Tana] holds like R. Shimon, that [if only] Kehunah [is written, this does not mandate the right hand. For this, it] needs [to write also] Etzba.
îùîò áäãéà ãø' ùîòåï éìéó ùàø ÷øáðåú îçèàú
4. Observation: This explicitly connotes that R. Shimon learns other Korbanos from Chatas!
åäùéá ìå ø''ú ãâøñéðï äëà åäøé îìé÷ä ëå' åúðï îì÷ áùîàì ôñåìä åîùðä äéà áæáçéí áôø÷ çèàú äòåó (ãó ñç.)
(c) Answer #1 (R. Tam): The text here says "behold, Melikah... and a Mishnah teaches that Melikah with the left hand is Pasul. This is a Mishnah in Zevachim (68a);
äëé úðï ìä äúí ëì äôñåìéí ùîì÷å îìé÷úï ôñåìä åàéðä îèîàä áâãéí àáéú äáìéòä îì÷ áùîàì àå áìéìä ëå'
1. Citation (68a): All Pesulim who did Melikah, their Melikah is Pasul, and [the bird] is not Metam'ah Begadim b'Beis ha'Bli'ah (of one who eats a k'Zayis of it) - if he did Melikah with the left hand, or at night...
åäù''ñ äáéàä á÷åöø ùëï ãøê äù''ñ ì÷öø ëîä îùðéåú åäñåôøéí èòå ëàï åëúáå áî÷åí îìé÷ä æøé÷ä
2. Our Gemara brings an abridgement [of the Mishnah]. The Gemara is wont to shorten several Mishnayos. Scribes erred here, and wrote "Zerikah" in place of Melikah.
åòåã àîø ø''ú ãàôé' âøñéðï æøé÷ä îöéðï ìîéîø ãäàé úðà ñáø ëøáé ùîòåï àáì ø' ùîòåï ìà ñáø ìä ëååúéä ãìà éìéó éîéï áæøé÷ä áùàø ÷øáðåú îçèàú
(d) Answer #2 (R. Tam): Even if the text says "Zerikah", we can say that this Tana holds like R. Shimon, but R. Shimon does not hold like him, and he does not learn the right hand for Zerikah for other Korbanos from Chatas.
å÷ùä ìôø''ú ãàôéìå âøñé' ãîì÷ òì ëøçéï àîú äåà ãîëùø ø' ùîòåï æøé÷ä áùîàì ëãîåëç áñîåê åîééúé ìä áôø÷ ÷îà ãæáçéí (ãó éà.) åôø÷ ùðé (ãó ëä.)
(e) Question (against Answer #1): Even if the text says "Malak", you are forced to say that it is true that R. Shimon is Machshir Zerikah with the left hand, like is proven below and it is brought in Zevachim (11a, 25a);
îàé èòîà ãøáé ùîòåï áà ìòåáãä áëìé òåáãä áùîàì ëàùí
1. [It says] "what is R. Shimon's reason? If he comes to do the Avodah (Haktaras ha'Kometz) in a Kli, he may use the left hand, like an Asham";
åäééðå (áæøé÷ú) [ö"ì ëæøé÷ú - áàøåú äîéí] àùí ùäåà áùîàì ãá÷áìä ìà îééøé ãàôé' çèàú ðîé ìà áòé éîéï á÷áìä ìøáé ùîòåï ëãîåëç áô''á ãæáçéí (ãó ëã.) ãàîø ø' ùîòåï åëé ðàîø éã á÷áìä ëå'
i. I.e. it is like Zerikas Asham, which is with the left hand, for he does not discuss Kabalah. Even Chatas does not require Kabalah with the right hand according to R. Shimon, like is proven in Zevachim (24a). R. Shimon said "does it say Yad regarding Kabalah...?!"
åöøéê ìúøõ ãäàé úðà ñáø ìä ëø' ùîòåï àáì ø' ùîòåï ìà ñáø ìä ëååúéä
(f) Conclusion: We must answer [like Answer #2,] that this Tana holds like R. Shimon, but R. Shimon does not hold like him.
åàí úàîø ìôø''ú )àé ðîé âøéñ îì÷) [ö"ì ðîé ãâøñéðï îì÷ äà - âîøà òåæ åäãø] îìé÷ä ðô÷à ìï áô''÷ ãçåìéï (ãó ëà.) îãëúéá åàú äùðé éòùä òåìä ëîùôè ããøùéðï ëîùôè çèàú áäîä îä çèàú áäîä àéðä áàä àìà îï äçåìéï åáéåí åáéãå äéîðéú
(g) Question: Also according to R. Tam, that the text says Malak, in Chulin (21a) we learn [the right hand for] Melikah from "v'Es ha'Sheni Ya'aseh Olah ka'Mishpat." We expound "like the law of Chatas Behemah. Just like Chatas Behemah is brought only from Chulin, and during the day, and with the right hand...
åäúí ðîé ôøéê éîðéú îãøáä áø áø çðä ðô÷à åîùðé [ö"ì ëø"ù - ùéèä î÷åáöú, öàï ÷ãùéí] ãëäåðä áòé àöáò
1. Also there [the Gemara] asks that we know the right hand from Rabah bar bar Chanah's teaching, and answers like R. Shimon, that Kehunah needs Etzba;
åîäé÷ùà (ðîé ãæàú äúåøä) [ö"ì ãæàú äúåøä ðîé - éùø åèåá] ãæàú äúåøä ðô÷é òåôåú ìîàï ãàéú ìéä äé÷ùà ëîå ùôéøùúé áøéù ôéø÷éï
2. And from the Hekesh of Zos ha'Torah we learn also birds, according to the opinion that makes the Hekesh, like I explained above (2a DH Kol)!
åéù ìåîø ãîìé÷ä ùäéà ëðâã ùçéèä ìà ðô÷à åáäæàä îééøé ãáòéà éîéï
(h) Answer #1: Melikah, which corresponds to Shechitah, we do not learn. We discuss Haza'os, which need the right hand.
àé ðîé ääåà úðà ñáø ìä ëääåà úðà ãôìéâ áô''á ãæáçéí (ãó ëã.) òì ø' ùîòåï åôåñì ÷áìä áùîàì îùåí ã÷ñáø î÷øà ðãøù ìôðéå åìàçøéå åîå÷é àöáò ãëúéá âáé çèàú âí òì ÷áìä
(i) Answer #2: That Tana holds like the Tana who argues in Zevachim (24a) with R. Shimon and disqualifies Kabalah with the left hand, because he holds that the verse is expounded before and after. He establishes Etzba written regarding Chatas also for Kabalah;
åìãéãäå éìôéðï ùôéø îìé÷ä áéîéï îçèàú ã÷áìä ìà ùééê (ìîéìúà) [ö"ì ìîéìó - öàï ÷ãùéí] ãìéúà áòåó åéìôéðï îìé÷ä
1. According to them, we properly learn Melikah with the right hand from Chatas, for we cannot learn Kabalah, for there is no Kabalah in a bird, and we learn Melikah;
àáì ø' ùîòåï ã÷àîø ÷áì áùîàì ëùø åìéú ìéä éîéï áçèàú áäîä àìà áäæàä ìçåãä áòåìú äòåó ðîé ìà äåä áòé éîéï áîìé÷ä àìà áäæàä ãå÷à
2. However, R. Shimon, who says that if he did Kabalah with the left hand it is Kosher, and he holds that the right hand is needed for Chatas Behemah only for Haza'ah, also in Olas ha'Of he does not require the right hand for Melikah, only for Haza'ah.
åàí úàîø ëéåï ãø''ù ôìéâ áîìé÷ä à''ë îúðéúéï ãæáçéí ôø÷ çèàú äòåó (ãó ñç.) ãîì÷ áùîàì ëå' ìà àúéà ëøáé ùîòåï
(j) Question: Since R. Shimon argues about Melikah, if so our Mishnah in Zevachim (68a), which says that if he did Melikah with the left hand... is unlike R. Shimon;
äà ò''ë ëø''ù àúéà îã÷úðé ñéôà àå áìéìä àéðå îèîà áâãéí àáéú äáìéòä åîôøù èòîà îùåí ãëì ùôñåìå á÷åãù àéðå îèîà áâãéí ëå'
1. You are forced to say that it is like R. Shimon, since the Seifa taught "or [Melikah] at night, it is not Metam'ah Begadim b'Beis ha'Bli'ah", and [the Gemara] explains the reason because anything that is Pesulo b'Kodesh is not Metamei Begadim...
åîôøù áâî' ãëéåï ãäê ùçéèä îúøú àú äàéñåø ôéøåù ùàí òìä ìà éøã åäééðå ëø' ùîòåï ãìø' éäåãä ðùçèä áìéìä úøã ãîîòè ìä îæàú äéà äòåìä áô''á ãæáçéí (ãó ëæ:)
2. The Gemara (69a) explains that since this Shechitah permits the Isur, i.e. Im Alah Lo Yered, this is like R. Shimon, for according to R. Yehudah, if it was slaughtered at night, Yered. He excludes this from "Zos Hi ha'Olah", in Zevachim (27b)!
åéù ìåîø ãääåà úðà ñáø ìä ëø' ùîòåï áçãà åôìéâ òìéä áçãà
(k) Answer #1: That Tana holds like R. Shimon in one matter (we learn improper from proper), and argues with him in one matter (Melikah with the left hand).
àé ðîé àôéìå ø' éäåãä äéä îåãä áòåôåú ãìà éøãå îùåí ìéìä ëéåï ãäåä ôñåìå á÷åãù ãìà ëúéáé îéòåèé àìà ááäîä
(l) Answer #2: Even R. Yehudah agrees about birds that Lo Yered due to [Melikah at] night, since it is Pesulo b'Kodesh. The exclusions were written only for Behemah.
åàí úàîø ãáøéù äîæáç î÷ãù (ùí ôâ:) îô÷é ø' ò÷éáà åø' éåñé äâìéìé îòåìä åëáùéí ãîæáç î÷ãù àú äøàåé ìå åîàï ããøéù îëáùéí ôåñì äøáä áòåó éåúø îáäîä
(m) Question: In Zevachim (83b), R. Akiva and R. Yosi ha'Gelili learns from Olah and Kevasim that the Mizbe'ach is Mekadesh what is proper for it. The one who expounds from Kevasim disqualifies birds much more than animals!
åé''ì ãø' éäåãä ñáø ëîàï ããøéù îòåìä åìà ëáùéí àå îùàø ãøùåú ãäúí
(n) Answer: R. Yehudah holds like the one who expounds from Olah, and not from Kevasim or other Drashos there.
åøáéðå ùîåàì îééùá âéøñú äñôøéí åîôøù åäøé æøé÷ä ãìà ëúéáà áä àìà ëäåðä åúðï æø÷ áùîàì ôñåì
(o) Answer #3 (to Questions #1,#2 - Rashbam): We ask from Zerikah, about which only Kehunah is written, and a Mishnah teaches that if he did Zerikah with the left hand, it is Pasul;
åîëéåï ãúðà ëì äæáçéí ù÷éáì áùîàì ôñåì ëì ùëï æøé÷ä ùäéà òé÷ø ëôøä åìà ôìéâ øáé ùîòåï àìà à÷áìä
1. Since it taught "all Zevachim for which he did Kabalah with the left hand is Pasul", all the more so Zerikah, which is which is the primary Kaparah, and R. Shimon argues only about Kabalah;
åàé äåä ôìéâ àæøé÷ä äåä ìéä ìàùîåòéðï ëç ãäéúéøà ãîëùø ø' ùîòåï áæøé÷ä åëì ùëï á÷áìä
2. If he argued about Zerikah, [the Tana] should have taught so to teach Ko'ach d'Hetera (the extremity of the lenient opinion), that R. Shimon is Machshir Zerikah, and all the more so Kabalah!
åà''ú åëéåï ãéìôéðï àöáò ãçèàú îâ''ù îàöáò îöåøò ãäåé áéîéï äéëé éìôéðï éîéï áùàø ÷øáðåú îçèàú áäé÷éùà ãæàú äúåøä
(p) Question: Since we learn Etzba of Chatas from a Gezeirah Shavah from Etzba of Metzora, which is with the right hand, how do we learn the right hand for other Korbanos through the Hekesh of v'Zos ha'Torah?
äà ôìåâúà ãàîåøàé äéà áøéù àéæäå î÷åîï (æáçéí ð.) àé ãáø äìîã áâ''ù çåæø åîìîã áäé÷éùà àå ìà
1. Amora'im argue about this in Zevachim (50a), whether or not something learned from a Gezeirah Shavah returns to teach through a Hekesh.
åðøà' îúåê ëê ãëì ùëï ãðéçà äëé èôé ãäëé ôøéê åäøé æøé÷ä ãìà ëúéáà áéä àöáò åìà ôìéâ ø' ùîòåï åàò''â ããøùéðï éîéï îäé÷éùà ãçèàú
(q) Answer: Based on this, all the more so this is fine here! He asks that Zerikah, Etzba is not written about it, and R. Shimon does not argue, even though we expound the right hand from the Hekesh of Chatas;
äðéçà ìî''ã ãáø äìîã îâ''ù çåæø åîìîã áäé÷éùà àìà ìî''ã àéï çåæø åîìîã áäé÷éùà àîàé ìà ôìéâ ø' ùîòåï
1. This is fine for the opinion that something learned from a Gezeirah Shavah returns to teach through a Hekesh. However, according to the opinion that it does not return to teach through a Hekesh, why doesn't R. Shimon argue?
åäùúà äà ãîùðé áçåìéï (ãó ëá.) ñáø ìä ëø' ùîòåï ãëäåðä áòéà àöáò äééðå ëî''ã çåæø åîìîã áäé÷éùà
(r) Consequence: Now, the answer in Chulin (22a) "he holds like R. Shimon, that Kehunah needs Etzba" is like the opinion that it returns to teach through a Hekesh;
åàéãê ùðåéà ãîùðé áôø÷ äúåãä (ì÷îï ôâ.) ëãé ðñáä äåé ëî''ã àéï çåæø åîìîã áäé÷éùà
1. The other answer below (83a) that [the right hand] was taught needlessly, is like the opinion that it does not return to teach through a Hekesh.
åîéäå áôø÷ ÷îà ãçåìéï (ãó ëá.) ìéúà ùéðåéà ãëãé ðñáä àáì áñåó ãí çèàú (æáçéí öç.) îùðé úøååééäå
2. However, in Chulin (22a) it does not give the answer that it was taught needlessly, but in Zevachim (98a) it gives both answers.
åîéäå àôùø ãäëà îåãå ëåìé òìîà ãçåæø åîìîã áäé÷éùà ëéåï ãîöåøò çåì ãäåà îìîã øàùåï
3. However, it is possible that here all agree that it returns to teach through a Hekesh, since Metzora is Chulin, for it is the first Melamed (source).
åìúéøåõ æä àðå öøéëéï áñîåê ããøéù áà ìòåáãä áéã òåáãä áéîéï ëçèàú ãäééðå (çèàú åäé÷éùà) [ö"ì äé÷éùà åçèàú - ùéèä î÷åáöú, öàï ÷ãùéí] âåôéä îâ''ù éìôéðï ìä
4. Support: We need this answer below, for [Rav Yehudah brei d'R. Chiya] expounds [according to R. Shimon] "if he comes to do the Avodah by hand, he uses the right hand, like for Chatas", which is a Hekesh, and Chatas itself we learn from a Gezeirah Shavah.
5) TOSFOS DH Palig b'Beraisa
úåñôåú ã"ä ôìéâ ááøééúà
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Makshan did not ask from Kemitzah.)
ä÷ùä á÷åðèøñ ìéúé î÷îéöä ãìà ëúéá áä àìà ëäåðä åúðï ÷îõ áùîàì ôñì åìà ôìéâ øáé ùîòåï
(a) Question (Rashi): [The Makshan] should ask from Kemitzah, about which only Kehunah is written, and the Mishnah teaches that if he did Kemitzah with the left hand it is Pasul, and R. Shimon does not argue!
åúéøõ ãäééðå èòîà ãìà ôìéâ ø' ùîòåï ãðôé÷ ìéä ãùîàì ôñåì î÷ãùé ÷ãùéí äéà ëçèàú åëàùí
(b) Answer #1 (Rashi): R. Shimon does not argue because he learns that the left hand is Pasul from "Kodshei Kodoshim Hi ka'Chatas vecha'Asham."
å÷ùä ãàé éãò ìáøééúà ãáñîåê îàé ÷ùéà ìéä îæøé÷ä äà áäãéà ôìéâ ãîëùø æøé÷ä áùîàì ëã÷úðé ìòåáãä áëìé òåáãä áùîàì ëàùí ãäééðå ëæøé÷ú àùí
(c) Objection: If [the Makshan] knew the Beraisa below [that expounds this verse], what was his question from Zerikah? He explicitly argues and is Machshir Zerikah with the left hand, like it teaches "if he comes to do the Avodah with a Kli, he does it with the left hand, like Asham." This refers to Zerikah of Asham!
åðøàä ãäåä îùðé îéã éã ðô÷à
(d) Answer #2: He [did not ask, for the Tartzan] would answer that he learns from Yad-Yad [from Metzora to obligate the right hand].
6) TOSFOS DH ul'Man d'Amar Nami Ba'i Kidush Kometz
úåñôåú ã"ä åìîàï ãàîø ðîé áòé ÷éãåù ÷åîõ
(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that this opinion was refuted.)
äééðå øá ðçîï áø' éöç÷ åàéúåúá ì÷îï áä÷åîõ øáä (ãó ëå.)
(a) Implied question: This is Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, and he was refuted below (26a)! (Why must we answer according to him?)
åîëì î÷åí ðéçà ìôøåùé îéìúéä ãø' ùîòåï ëëåìé òìîà
(b) Answer: In any case he prefers to explain R. Shimon's opinion according to everyone (all Amora'im).
7) TOSFOS DH bi'Smol Achshurei Michshar
úåñôåú ã"ä áùîàì àëùåøé îëùø
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the source for this.)
ôéøù á÷åðèøñ ëãàîøéðï ì÷îï áà ìòåáãä áëìé òåáãä áùîàì ëàùí
(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi): This is like we say below - if he comes to do the Avodah in a Kli, he may use the left hand, like an Asham.
å÷ùä ãäúí îééøé áîòìä ä÷åîõ áëìé ìä÷èéø àáì ëùðåúï ä÷åîõ áëìé ùøú ì÷ãùå ìòåìí àéîà ìê ãáòé ðúéðä áéîéï ëîå ùä÷îéöä áéîéï
(b) Objection: There it discusses bringing up the Kometz [on the Mizbe'ach] for Haktarah, but when he puts the Kometz in a Kli Shares to be Mekadesh it, I can tell you that he must put with the right hand, just like Kemitzah is with the right hand!
åáæáçéí (ãó ëä.) ôéøù á÷åðèøñ ãîëùø áùîàì îùåí ãìà òãéó î÷áìä ãîëùø øáé ùîòåï áùîàì
(c) Explanation #2 (Rashi in Zevachim 25a): He is Machshir with the left hand because it is no greater than Kabalah, which R. Shimon is Machshir with the left hand.
åâí æä ÷ùä ãìòåìí àéîà ìê ãòãéó îùåí ãëúéá áä ÷øà éã éã ãøáà
(d) Question: Also this is difficult! I can say that it is greater, because it is written "Yad-Yad" for Rava's [Gezeirah Shavah]!
åùîà ìà îñúáø ìéä ìîãøù ãòãéó î÷áìä
(e) Answer: Perhaps he holds that it is unreasonable to expound that it is greater than Kabalah.
åàí úàîø îàï ãáòé ÷éãåù ÷åîõ äééðå øá ðçîï ì÷îï áä÷åîõ øáä (ãó ëå.) [ö"ì åøá ðçîï - öàï ÷ãùéí] ôìéâ àéäåãä áøéä ãøáé çééà
(f) Question: The one who requires Kidush of a Kometz is Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak below (26a), and Rav Nachman argues with Yehudah brei d'R. Chiya! (How can we base a question on Yehudah's teaching?)
åéù ìåîø ãäåä îôøù áà ìòåáãä áéã á÷îéöä âåôä ëãîùîò äëà àå áäòìàä áéã ìä÷èéø ìàçø ùðú÷ãù áëìé
(g) Answer: (Even though Rav Nachman requires Kidush Kometz, there is no reason why he must argue with Yehudah's Drashah.) He would explain "if he comes to do the Avodah in his hand" to refer to Kemitzah itself, like it connotes here, or Ha'alah in the hand in order to do Haktarah after there was Kidush in a Kli.
8) TOSFOS DH l'Kometz d'Minchas Chotei
úåñôåú ã"ä ì÷åîõ ãîðçú çåèà
(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that the Gezeirah Shavah is not with Minchas Chotei.)
àó òì âá ãåéîìà ëôå îîðä ìà ëúéá áîðçú çåèà åîéðéä éìôéðï ìòéì éã éã ì÷îéöä
(a) Implied question: "Va'Ymalei Kapo Mimenah" is not written about Minchas Chotei, and above, we learn Yad-Yad to Kemitzah! (Yad is not written about Minchah, rather, Kapo in the verse cited. The Gezeirah Shavah is really between Yad of Metzora and Kapo.)
[ö"ì î"î îå÷îéðï ìéä áàí àéðå òðéï ìîðçú çåèà - éùø åèåá]
(b) Answer: In any case (since it need not teach about other Menachos), we establish it through Im Eino Inyan to teach about Minchas Chotei.
9) TOSFOS DH v'Alah b'Yado Tzeror
úåñôåú ã"ä ÷îõ åòìä áéãå öøåø
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why only the Kemitzah was Pasul.)
åàí úàîø îàé àéøéà òìä àôé' ðùàø áùéøééí ðîé ãäåéà ìä îðçä ùçñøä ÷åãí ÷îéöä åôñåìä ëãàîøï ìòéì
(a) Question: Why does it say that a pebble (came in his hand)? Even if it remained with the Shirayim, the Minchah was Chaser before Kemitzah, and it is Pasul, like we said above (6a)!
åéù ìåîø ùàéï øâéìåú ìöîöí äòùøåï ùìà éäà áå îòè éåúø
(b) Answer: It is not common to put such a precise Isaron [of flour], that there is not a little more. (Even after deducting the volume of the pebble, there is an Isaron of flour.)
åàí úàîø åìøáé éäåãä áï áúéøà ðéîà ãéçæåø åé÷îåõ
(c) Question: According to R. Yehudah ben Beseira, we should say that he returns and does Kemitzah again!
åùîà ñúí ìï úðà ãìà ëååúéä
(d) Answer #1: Perhaps the Stam Tana disagrees with him.
àé ðîé éù ìçì÷ áéï ÷îéöä ôñåìä ì÷îéöä äðòùéú îôñåìéï:
(e) Answer #2: We can distinguish a Pasul Kemitzah from a Kemitzah done by a Pasul. (Only regarding the latter, R. Yehudah says that he repeats Kemitzah.)