1) TOSFOS DH v'Zo Hi Avodah Kasheh sheb'Mikdash
úåñôåú ã"ä åæå äéà òáåãä ÷ùä ùáî÷ãù
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses why he mentioned Minchas Machavas and Marcheshes.)
ìî''ã áôø÷ àìå îðçåú (ì÷îï òä:) ùîçæéøï ìñåìúï àéðä ÷ùä éåúø îîðçú ñåìú
(a) Explanation: According to the opinion below (75b) that one [breaks a Minchah into tiny pieces, and] returns them to be [like] flour, this is no harder than Kemitzah of Minchas Soles!
àìà ñáø ìä ëî''ã ùäéä îçì÷ä ìùðéí åùðéí ìàøáòä:
(b) Answer: He holds like the opinion that he breaks it into two pieces, and the two into four.
2) TOSFOS DH v'Ha Ika Chafinah
úåñôåú ã"ä åäà àéëà çôéðä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this is Chafinah in the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim.)
ëùäéä ðëðñ ìôðé åìôðéí åìà ëùäéä çåôï áìùëú áéú àáèéðñ åòáåãä ÷ùä äéà îàã ëãîåëç áéåîà (ãó îè:)
(a) Explanation: This refers to when [the Kohen Gadol] entered inside. (He pulls the spoon using his fingertips or teeth, and spills all the Ketores into his hands.) It is not when he takes a double-handful in the chamber of Beis Avitnas. This was a very difficult Avodah, like is proven in Yoma (49b).
3) TOSFOS DH mil'Matah l'Ma'alah
úåñôåú ã"ä îìîèä ìîòìä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos gives two explanations of this.)
ôéøù á÷åðèøñ ùäëðéñ øàùé àöáòåúéå á÷îç åâáé éãå ëðâã ä÷îç å÷îõ
(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi): He inserts the fingertips into the flour, and the back of his hand faces the flour;
åàéï æä ëøàùé àöáòåúéå ãìòéì ãäúí ôñ éãå ëðâã ä÷îç åîëðéñ øàùé àöáòåúéå å÷åîõ îìà ÷åîöå òã ôñ éãå
1. This is unlike "his fingertips" above. There, his palm faces the flour, and he enters his fingertips into the flour, and scoops a full Kometz until his palm.
åäùúà ìôé' ä÷åðèøñ ÷åøà øàùé àöáòåúéå ìîèä
(b) Consequence: Now, according to Rashi he calls his fingertips "below".
åëï îôøù ø''ú áîñëú ùáú (ãó öã:) âáé öéöéï äôåøùéï ìîòìä ôéøåù ìöã ôéñú äéã
(c) Support: So R. Tam explained in Shabbos (94b) regarding strands of skin separating [from the fingertip]. Above means towards the palm.
åîáéà øàéä îäà ãàîø áô' ëì äéã (ðãä éâ.) îï äòèøä åìîòìä ãìöã äâåó ÷åøà ìîòìä
(d) Proof: In Nidah (13a) "from the crown [of the Ever] and above" - towards the body is called above.
åàéðä øàééä ëì ëê ãìâáé îéìä ùäéà úìåééä ùééê ì÷øåú øàù äîéìä ìîèä àáì àöáòåú ùàãí æå÷ó àöáòåúéå ìîòìä ùééê ì÷øåú ìîòìä øàùé äàöáòåú
(e) Rebuttal: This is not such a proof. Regarding the Ever, which is suspended, it is appropriate to call the end of the Ever "below". However, fingers, which a person [sometimes] sticks them up, it is appropriate to call the fingertips "above"!
åîìîèä ìîòìä éù ìôøù ùîëðéñ éãå á÷îç ãøê ôñ äéã òã ùîâéò ìøàùé àöáòåúéå:
(f) Explanation #2: One can explain "from below to above" that he enters his hand into the flour from the palm, until he reaches his fingertips.
11b----------------------------------------11b
4) TOSFOS DH Kometz u'Levonah she'Chaser v'Chulei
úåñôåú ã"ä ÷åîõ åìáåðä ùçñø ëå'
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that the Shi'ur for Levonah is a Kometz.)
áëì ãåëúé îùîò ãùéòåø ìáåðä ë÷åîõ
(a) Observation: Everywhere it connotes that the Shi'ur of Levonah is the amount of a Kometz;
åì÷îï áôø÷ áúøà (ãó ÷å:) âîø ãìáåðä ìà éôçåú îï ä÷åîõ ãëúéá åäøéí îîðå á÷åîöå îñìú äîðçä åîùîðä åàú ëì äìáåðä î÷éù ìáåðä ìäøîä ãîðçä îä äøîä ãîðçä ÷åîõ àó ìáåðä ÷åîõ
1. Below (106b), we learn that [if one vowed to bring] Levonah, he may not bring less than a Kometz, for it says "v'Herim Mimenu b'Kumtzo mi'Soles ha'Minchah umi'Shmanah v'Es Kol ha'Levonah" to equate Levonah to the part taken from the Minchah. Just like a Kometz is taken from a Minchah, also the Shi'ur of Levonah is a Kometz.
åìáåðä (áàä) [ö"ì äáàä - áàøåú äîéí] ááæéëéï ùðé ÷îöéí éìéó ìä áú''ë áâ''ù
2. And Levonah that comes [with Lechem ha'Panim] in spoons, [the Shi'ur is] two Kometzim; we learn this in Toras Kohanim through a Gezeirah Shavah;
ãðàîø ëàï àæëøúä åâáé ÷åîõ àæëøúä îä ìäìï îìà ä÷åîõ àó ëàï îìà ä÷åîõ åäééðå ùðé ÷îöéí îìà ä÷åîõ ìñãø æä åîìà ä÷åîõ ìñãø æä
i. It says here (regarding Lechem ha'Panim) "Azkarasah", and regarding Kometz "Azkarasah". Just like there it is a full Kometz, also here a full Kometz, i.e. two Kometzim - a full Kometz for this Seder (set of six loaves), and a full Kometz for this Seder.
5) TOSFOS DH R. Yehudah Savar Kol v'Afilu Chad Koret
úåñôåú ã"ä ø' éäåãä ñáø ëì åàôé' çã ÷åøè
(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that elsewhere, the Tana'im say oppositely.)
îùîò äëà ãøáé éäåãä ñáø ãäìáåðä ëåìä ìáåðä îùîò
(a) Inference: Here it connotes that R. Yehudah holds that "ha'Levonah" connotes all the Levonah.
åä''ð àéú ìéä áô''÷ ãáëåøåú (ãó â.) áëåø ëåìéä áëåø îùîò ëúá øçîðà ëì ãàôé' ëì ùäåà
(b) Support: He similarly holds in Bechoros (3a) that "Bechor" connotes the entire Bechor. The Torah wrote "Kol" to teach even [if a Yisrael owns] any amount.
åúéîä ãáôø÷ ëñåé äãí (çåìéï ôç.) ùîòéðï ìéä ìø' éäåãä ãîå î÷öú ãîå îùîò
(c) Question: In Chulin (88a), we heard that R. Yehudah holds that "Damo" connotes even part of the blood!
åùîà îùåí ãëúéá ãîå áåé''å ãøéù ããí ëì ãí îùîò ëúá øçîðà ãîå ãàôé' î÷öú ãîå
(d) Answer: Perhaps it is because it is written "Damo" with [the suffix] Vov, we expound "Dam" connotes all the blood. The Torah wrote "Damo" - even part of the blood.
åìôé ñáøà æå ìà éúëï îä ùôåñ÷ ø''ú ëøáé éäåãä ãàîø àí éù ùí ãí ùìà äåà ôèåø îìëñåú
(e) Question: According to this, R. Tam's ruling like R. Yehudah cannot be [correct. R. Yehudah] said "if there is blood there not [from the Chayah or bird that he slaughtered], he is exempt from covering it;
ãäà àîø ááëåøåú (ãó â:) ìéú ãçù ìä ìäà ãø' éäåãä ãàîø ùåúôåú òåáã ëåëáéí çééáú ááëåøä
1. It says in Bechoros (3b) that no one is concerned for R. Yehudah's opinion, who says that [an animal] owned in partnership with a Nochri, Bechorah applies to [its firstborn]!
åùîà éù ìçì÷ áéï ãí ìáëåø
(f) Answer: Perhaps we can distinguish between blood and a Bechor.
åëîå ëï öøéê ìçì÷ ãìà ú÷ùé (ääéà ãáëåøåú) [ö"ì ääåà - éùø åèåá] àäà ãàîø ôø÷ àìîðä ðéæåðéú (ëúåáåú öæ:) ìéú ãçù ìä ìäà ãø''ù ãàîø [ö"ì ìà àîøéðï - éùø åèåá] î÷öú ëñó ëëì ëñó åáùîòúéï îùîò ãàéú ìéä ìø''ù äìáåðä ëåìä ìáåðä
(g) Support: Similarly, we must distinguish lest that [Gemara] contradict what it says in Kesuvos (97b) that no one is concerned for R. Shimon's opinion, that we do not say that part of the money is like all the money (only if a widow sold half her Kesuvah, it is as if she sold all, and she is not fed), and in our Sugya it connotes that R. Shimon holds that "ha'Levonah" connotes all the Levonah!
åäà ããøéù øáé éäåãä äëà (ëåìä ìáåðä) [ö"ì ëì äìáåðä - øù"ù] åëï ì÷îï áô' ëì äîðçåú áàåú îöä (ãó ðå:) ãøéù ëì îåí åáøéù àìå òåáøéï (ôñçéí îâ.) ìà ãøéù ëì
(h) Implied question: Here R. Yehudah expounds "Kol ha'Levonah", and similarly below (56b) he expounds "Kol Mum", and in Pesachim (43a) he does not expound "Kol"!
ì÷îï àôøù áôø÷ ëì äîðçåú áàåú îöä (ãó ðå:) áò''ä
(i) Reference: Below (56b DH Amar) I will explain, b'Ezras Hash-m.
6) TOSFOS DH v'R. Shimon Es Lo Darish
úåñôåú ã"ä åøáé ùîòåï àú ìà ãøéù
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that he expounds Es, but not for this Drashah.)
ôé' ìà ãøéù ìäà ãøùà àáì ãìà ãøéù ëìì ìà ÷àîø ãùîòéðï ããøéù àú áô''÷ ãáëåøåú (ãó å:) âáé àú äâîì ããøéù ìéä ìàñåø àú çìáå
(a) Explanation: He does not expound it for this Drashah. He does not say that he does not expound it at all, for we know that he expounds Es in Bechoros (6b) regarding "Es ha'Gamal." He expounds it to forbid the milk;
åì÷îï áôø÷ ëì äîðçåú áàåú îöä (ãó ñ:) ããøéù ø''ù àú äîðçä ìøáåú ùàø îðçåú ìäâùä
1. And below (60b), R. Shimon expounds "Es ha'Minchah" to include other Menachos for Hagashah.
åîù''ä ìà îééúé äëà ääéà ãùîòåï äòîñåðé ëãîééúé ìä äúí ááëåøåú òì øáðï
(b) Support #1: Therefore, we do not bring here the story of Shimon ha'Amsoni (who used to expound every Es in the Torah, until he came to "Es Hash-m Elokecha Tira", and retracted from all of them), like it brings it there in Bechoros regarding Rabanan.
åëï éù ìúøõ )îøáé) [ö"ì ìøáé - éùø åèåá] éäåãä ããøéù äëà àú
(c) Support #2: So we can answer for R. Yehudah, who expounds here "Es";
åáô''á ãñåèä (ãó éæ.) )ãøéù øáé éäåãä öååàåú å÷áìåú îäàìåú) [ö"ì îîòè øáé éäåãä öååàåú å÷áìåú îäàìä - øù"ù] ëø''î åàìéáà ãø''î îñé÷ äúí ãàú ìà ãøéù åò''ë ëîå ëï éàîø ìøáé éäåãä
1. Question: In Sotah R. Yehudah excludes commands and acceptances (they need not be written in Megilas Sotah) from "ha'Alah", like R. Meir. According to R. Meir it concludes there that he does not expound "Es." You are forced to say so also according to R. Yehudah!
àìà åãàé ìà ãøéù ìääéà ãøùà ÷àîø
2. Answer: Rather, surely it means that he does not expound "Es" for that Drashah.
åîéäå é''ì ãø' éäåãä àú ìà ãøéù åàú ãøéù åäëà ëúá åàú ëì äìáåðä
(d) Rebuttal: One could say that R. Yehudah does not expound "Es", but he expounds "v'Es", and here it is written "v'Es Kol ha'Levonah."
åòåã ÷ùä ãø' éåñé äâìéìé ãøéù áôø÷ ùåø ùðâç ã' åä' (á''÷ îá.) ð÷é îãîé åìãåú àìîà ãøéù äðàú òåøå îàú áùøå ëãîùîò äúí
(e) Implied Support #3 - Question: R. Yosi ha'Gelili expounds in Bava Kama (42a, that the owner of an ox is) "Naki (exempt) from paying for a fetus (aborted due to goring)." This shows that he expounds [to forbid] benefit from the skin [of a Shor ha'Niskal] from "Es Besaro", like it connotes there (41b, so he need not expound Naki to teach that he gets no Hana'ah from the ox, even from the skin);
åáôø÷ áäîä äî÷ùä (çåìéï ãó ò:) îùîò ãìà ãøéù àú áâîøà áäîä [ö"ì âáé - öàï ÷ãùéí] ùîú òåáøä ëå'
1. And in Chulin (70b), it connotes that he does not expound Es in the Gemara regarding an animal whose fetus died...
ã÷àîø òì îéìúéä ãø''é äâìéìé ÷ìåè áîòé ÷ìåèä ìéèîà îùîò ãñáø ëøáðï ãø''ù ãùøå ôø÷ ÷îà ãáëåøåú (ãó å:) ÷ìåè (áîòé ÷ìåèä) åìà ãøéù àúéï
2. Implied Answer #1: It says about R. Yosi ha'Gelili's opinion "a [Tahor fetus that is] Kalut (its hooves are not cloven) in the womb of a [Tahor] Kalut with hooves should be Tamei!", it connotes that he holds like Rabanan of R. Shimon, who permit in Bechoros (6b) Kalut (born from a Tahor animal), and they do not expound "Es"! (I.e. R. Yosi ha'Gelili holds like Rabanan, and does not expound "Es" like R. Shimon does.)
åîéäå éù ìôøù ãôøéê áçåìéï (ùí) î÷ìåè áîòé ÷ìåèä ùøàùå åøåáå ãåîä ìàîå ãùøé ìë''ò
(f) Rebuttal (and Answer #2): However, we can say that in Chulin (70b) it asks from a Kalut in the womb of a Kalut, that its head and majority resemble its mother. All permit this.
7) TOSFOS DH Kegon she'Hifrish Lah Shnei Kamatzim
úåñôåú ã"ä ëâåï ùäôøéù ìä ùðé ÷îöéí
(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes that he stipulated that one become Kadosh.)
åà''ú åäéàê ÷ãùé
(a) Question: How do they become Kadosh?
àé ááú àçú
1. Suggestion: He separated both at once.
äàîøéðï áôø÷ äúåãä (ì÷îï òç:) úåãä ùùçèä òì ùîåðéí çìåú ìà ÷ãùå ìø' éåçðï
2. Rejection: We say below (78b) that if Todah was slaughtered on (to be Mekadesh) 80 loaves, R. Yochanan holds that they do not become Kadosh (even though 40 should become Kadosh)!
åàé áæä àçø æä
3. Suggestion: He separated one after the other.
äàîøé' á÷ãåùéï áô''á (ãó ð:) ãëì ùàéðå áæä àçø æä àôé' ááú àçú àéðå åäëà ëéåï ãìéúéä ááú àçú ëì ùëï áæä àçø æä
4. Rejection: We say in Kidushin (50b) that if two matters do not take effect one after the other, even at once they do not take effect. Here, since they do not take effect at once, all the more so one after the other (they do not take effect)!
åé''ì ëâåï ãàîø é÷ãù ÷åîõ àçã îúåê ùðé ÷îöéí ëãàîø áôø÷ äúåãä (ùí) äëì îåãéí äéëà ãàîø ìé÷ãùå àøáòéí îúåê ùîåðéí ã÷ãéùé
(b) Answer: The case is, he said that one Kometz should become Kadosh among two Kamatzim, like it says below (78b). All agree that when he said "40 among the 80 should become Kadosh", that they become Kadosh.
8) TOSFOS DH Kegon she'Hifrish Lah Shnei Kamatzim
úåñôåú ã"ä ëâåï ùäôøéù ìä ùðé ÷îöéï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes that in this case it is Kosher.)
áìùåï àçã ôé' á÷åðèøñ ãääéà ã÷úðé ôñåìä ùäôøéù ìä ùðé ÷îöéï
(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi's latter Perush): The case in which it was taught that it is Pasul is when he separated two Kamatzin.
åàé àôùø ìåîø ëï ãìòéì îùîò ãáäôøéù ìä ùðé ìåâéï éù ìé ìäëùéø éåúø äåàéì åäàé çæé ìéä åäàé çæé ìéä
(b) Rebuttal #1: One cannot say so, for above (11a) it connotes that if he separated two Lugim (for the oil of a Metzora), there is more reason to be Machshir, since this one is proper for it, and this one is proper for it;
åä''ä äëà ùéù ìäëùéø éåúø áäôøéù ìä ùðé ÷îöéí îá÷åîõ åçöé
1. Also here, there is more reason to be Machshir when he separated two Kamatzin than when he separated one and a half Kamatzin!
åòåã ã÷àîø áñîåê äôøéù ùðé ÷îöéí åàáã àçã îäï ÷åãí ÷îéöä ìà äå÷áòå ôéøåù åëùøä
(c) Rebuttal #2: It says below that if he separated two Kamatzin and one was lost before Kemitzah, they were not Hukve'u. This means that it is Kosher;
àáã ìàçø ÷îéöä äå÷áòå åäåéà (îëàï îãó äáà) éúéøä åôñåìä
1. If one was lost after Kemitzah, they were Hukve'u, and it is too much, and it is Pasul!