1) TOSFOS DH ha'Kometz Es ha'Minchah
úåñôåú ã"ä ä÷åîõ àú äîðçä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we did not infer from here like from R. Chiya.)
ìòéì áñåó ôø÷ ÷îà (ãó éá.) ãéé÷ îãøáé çééà ãìà úðé àå ëæéú ãìà îöé ìîéã÷ îäëà ãäëà ìà àéöèøéê ìîéúðé àå ëæéú ëéåï ãúðà áô' ÷îà
(a) Above (12a, the Gemara) inferred from R. Chiya, who did not teach "or a k'Zayis", for it could not infer from here, for here it did not need to teach "or a k'Zayis", since it was taught in the first Perek (11b).
2) TOSFOS DH Ka Mashma Lan dib'Hai Modeh
úåñôåú ã"ä ÷î''ì ãáäàé îåãä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with the Gemara below.)
åäà ãáòé ìîéîø áñîåê ãø' éåñé ãìà ëø''î ãàîø îôâìéï áçöé îúéø
(a) Implied question: Below (14a), we want to infer that R. Yosi holds unlike R. Meir, who says that Chetzi Matir can make Pigul!
ìà ãîé ãäëà ÷åîõ äîðçä çùéá òáåãä ùìîä ëéåï ùàéï ëéåöà áä áìáåðä ëãîåëç áëåìéä ôéø÷éï ì÷îï åëê ôéøù á÷åðèøñ áñîåê:
(b) Answer: This is different. Here, Kometz of the Mishnah is considered a full Avodah, since there is nothing like this with the Levonah, like is proven in our Perek below. Also Rashi explained like this below.
13b----------------------------------------13b
3) TOSFOS DH Mishum Holachah Nag'u Bah ka'Savar Holachah she'Lo b'Regel...
úåñôåú ã"ä îùåí äåìëä ðâòå áä ÷ñáø äåìëä ùìà áøâì ëå'
(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks why it does not say so in Zevachim.)
áñåó ô''÷ ãæáçéí (ãó éâ:) [ö"ì àîøéðï - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã] ùîòúé ùèáéìú àöáò îôâìú åçã èòîà äåà ãîñé÷ òìä àó àðï ðîé úðéðà ëé äëà åàô''ä ìà ÷àîø òìä ÷ñáø äåìëä ùìà áøâì (äåà) [ö"ì ëå' - ùéèä î÷åáöú]
(a) Implied question: In Zevachim (13b) it says "I heard that Tevilah of the finger is Mefagel" and it is for the same reason (as here), for it concludes "also we learned so in a Mishnah", like here, and even so it does not say about it "he holds that Holachah without the feet [is considered Holachah]"! (Some answer that all agree that what is indispensable is an important Avodah, and it is considered Holachah. It does not depend on this argument - Sefas Emes, Zevach Todah (Sof Perek 1 DH Mishum).)
4) TOSFOS DH Le'echol Echad Min ha'Sedarim
úåñôåú ã"ä ìàëåì àçã îï äñãøéí
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that the same applies to intent for one loaf.)
äåà äãéï çìä àçú îï äñãøéí ùàåúå äñãø ôéâåì
(a) Assertion: The same applies to one Chalah of the Sedarim. That Seder is Pigul.
îãáòé øáé éåçðï áâî' áìçîé úåãä îäå áîðçú îàôä úðåø îäå îùîò ãîéáòéà ìéä îùåí ãäåå ùðé îéðéí àáì àåúå îéï ôùéèà ãðúôâì
(b) Source: R. Yochanan asked in the Gemara (14b, if one was Mefagel in one kind of bread of) Lachmei Todah - what is the law? [Of] Ma'afe Tanur - what is the law? This implies that he asks because they are two species. However, the same species, obviously it becomes Pigul!
åäà ã÷àîøéðï áâîøà àéìå àéèîà çã àáø îé àéèîà ëåìéä àò''â ãùééê äàé èòîà áçìä àçú ùàí ðèîàä àçú ìà ðèîà ëì äñãø
(c) Implied question: It says in the Gemara "if one limb became Tamei, did all of it become Tamei?!", even though this reason applies to one Chalah. If one became Tamei, the entire Seder did not become Tamei!
î''î ìòðéï ôéâåì ðúôâì äåàéì åäå÷áòå áñãø àçã åçùéá ëçã ìòðéï ôéâåì èôé îôéâì áéøê ùì éîéï ãìà ðúôâì éøê ùîàì
(d) Answer #1: Even so, regarding Pigul, [it all] became Pigul, since they were fixed in one Seder, and they are considered one regarding Pigul more than one was Mefagel the right thigh. The left thigh did not become Pigul.
åùîà âí ìòðéï èåîàä àí ðèîàä àçú ðèîà ëì äñãø
(e) Answer #2: Perhaps also regarding Tum'ah, if one became Tamei, the entire Seder becomes Tamei.
åäà ãð÷è äëà åáñéôà àçã îï äñãøéí åìà ð÷è çìä àçú îàçã îï äñãøéí
(f) Question: Why did it mention [regarding Lechem ha'Panim] here and in the Seifa (14b) "one of the Sedarim", and it did not say one Chalah from one of the Sedarim?
[ö"ì äëà - öàï ÷ãùéí] îùåí øáåúà ãø''é åáñéôà îùåí øáåúà ãçëîéí ãàò''ô
1. Inference: It is forbidden to change them, if not for the stipulation of Beis Din!
çéùá òì ëì äñãø àô''ä àåúå ñãø ãå÷à ôéâåì åèîà åäùðé àéðå ôéâåì åèäåø
(g) Answer: Here it is to teach a Chidush in R. Yosi, and in the Seifa for a Chidush in Chachamim. Even though he intended for the entire Seder, even so that Seder is Pigul (in the Reisha) and Tamei (in the Seifa), and the second [Seder] is not Pigul (in the Reisha), and it is Tahor (in the Seifa).
5) TOSFOS DH Iy Amrat Bishlama Chad Gufa
úåñôåú ã"ä àé àîøú áùìîà çã âåôà
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the question against Rav Nachman.)
ðøàä ãäùúà ðîé ñ''ì ãäà ãîöèøôéï ëé òøáéðäå äééðå îèòí ããøùéðï ì÷îï (ãó éã:) äëúåá òùàï âåó àçã åäëúåá òùàï ùðé âåôéï
(a) Assertion: It seems that also now, [Rav Huna] holds that they join when he mixed (intended for a half-k'Zayis from each), this is due to the reason we expound below (14b), that the Torah made them one body, and the Torah made them two bodies;
åîù''ä ôøéê àé àîøú áùìîà ãùúé éøëåú çùéáé çã âåôà ãàí ôéâì áæå ðúôâìä æå îù''ä îöèøó (ëîå) [ö"ì ðîé] ëùîòøá ãäëúåá òùàï âåó àçã
1. Therefore, [Rav Nachman] asks that granted, if you will say that two thighs are considered one body, that if he was Mefagel this, [also] this became Pigul, therefore they join also when he mixes them, for the Torah made them one body;
àìà àé àîøú ãùúé éøëåú ðîé çùéáé úøé âåôé îä îåòéì îä ùòùàï äëúåá âåó àçã
2. However, if you say that also two thighs are considered two bodies, what does it help that the Torah made them one body?! (Yashar v'Tov - on 14b, Tosfos holds that the Torah called them one (Lechem) to make Shtei ha'Lechem like one. Perhaps a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv teaches that mixing through intent is stronger than being part of the same Korban! This cannot be, for intent is no stronger than an action of Tum'ah; it is not Metamei the other after it separated.)
ãàôùø ðîé ãìîàé ã÷ñáø øá äåðà àí çéùá áùúé äéøëåú áëæéú ìà äåé ôéâåì àí (àéúà çùéáà) [ö"ì çéùá - éùø åèåá] ìàçø ùäåáãìå æå îæå åö''ò
i. It is also possible that according to what Rav Huna holds, if he intended for a k'Zayis in two thighs, it is not Pigul, if he intended after they were separated one from the other! This requires investigation.
åá÷åðèøñ ôéøù áò''à:
(b) Explanation #2: Rashi did not explain like this. (Yashar v'Tov - Rashi explained (14b) that there is no extra verse to make Shtei ha'Lechem like one. Rather, since they are Me'akev each other, presumably, they are like one. Surely, mixing through intent is not stronger than being part of the same Korban.)