1) TOSFOS DH b'Mikra Nidrash Lefanav ul'Acharav Ka Mipalgei
úåñôåú ã"ä áî÷øà ðãøù ìôðéå åìàçøéå ÷à îéôìâé
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses when we expound Lefanav ul'Acharav.)
åà''ú îðìï ãáäëé ôìéâé ãéìîà èòîà ãøáðï ëãàñé÷ðà áô''÷ (ìòéì ãó é.) åôø÷ ùðé ãæáçéí (ãó ëã:) ãëì î÷åí ùðàîø àöáò àå ëäåðä àéðå àìà éîéï åø''ù áòé úøúé
(a) Question: What is the source that they argue about this? Perhaps Rabanan's reason is like we concluded above (10a) and in Zevachim (24b), that whenever it says Etzba or Kehunah, it is only the right, and R. Shimon requires both [to teach that the right is required! Really, Kehunah requires Etzba, but Etzba itself suffices.]
åé''ì ãìùåï äáøééúà îùîò îùåí ã÷àé òìéä áàöáòå ëã÷úðé (áàöáò) [ö"ì áàöá' - ãôåñ åéðéöéä, ðãôñ áãó éç:] åì÷ç
(b) Answer: The wording of the Beraisa connotes that it is because it refers to b'Etzba'o, like it teaches "b'Etzba'o v'Lakach."
åäà ãìà îôøùé øáðï èòîééäå îãëúéá äëäï
(c) Implied question: Why didn't Rabanan explain that their reason is because it is written "ha'Kohen"?
îùåí ãàéöèøéê äëäï áëéäåðå
(d) Answer: Ha'Kohen is needed to teach "in his (e.g. wearing Bigdei) Kehunah."
åàò''â ãáô' ùðé ãæáçéí (ãó ëã:) ÷àîø àìéáà ãø''ù åàìà äëäï ì''ì åîùðé äëäï áëéäåðå
(e) Implied question: In Zevachim (24b), it says according to R. Shimon "why does it say ha'Kohen?", and answers to teach "the Kohen in his Kehunah"!
äåà äãéï ãìøáðï àéöèøéê ðîé àìà ðèø òã ìáñåó ãî÷ùé ìø''ù åîùðé ìéä åäåà äãéï ìøáðï
(f) Answer: Also Rabanan need it for this. Rather, [the Gemara] waited until the end, and challenged R. Shimon, and answered, and the same applies to Rabanan.
åà''ú ãáô' äùåàì (á''î ãó öä. åùí) ôìéâé (úðàé) [ö"ì àîåøàé - øù"ù, éùø åèåá] áî÷øà ðãøù ìôðé ôðéå
(g) Question: In Bava Metzi'a (95a) Amora'im argue about whether or not a verse is expounded Lifnei Panav (to refer to what is before the matter before it. The Torah wrote that a borrower is exempt b'Ba'alim, i.e. if the lender was working for him. The same applies to the previous Parshah of a Shomer Sachar. Tana'im argue about whether it applies to a Shomer Chinam, which is written before a Shomer Sachar);
åôøéê úðï äùåàì àú äôøä ëå' åäà ùåîø çðí ãìôðé ôðéå ìà ÷úðé åìéèòîéê ùåîø ùëø ãìôðéå îé ÷úðé
1. The Gemara) asks from a Mishnah "one who borrows a cow..." - it did not teach (exemption b'Ba'alim for) a Shomer Chinam, which is Lifnei Panav! [The Tartzan counters] according to you, why didn't it teach a Shomer Sachar, which is Lefanav?!
îàé ÷åùéà ìéîà ãääéà îùðä ø''ù äéà ã÷ñáø äëà åáô' á' ãæáçéí (ãó ëã:) ãî÷øà ðãøù ìàçøéå åìà ìôðéå
2. What was the question? We should say that that Mishnah is R. Shimon, who holds here and in Zevachim (24b) that the verse is expounded l'Acharav, but not Lefanav!
åé''ì ãäúí [èòîà] ãø''ù îùåí ãåé''å îåñéó òì òðéï øàùåï ëãàîøéðï äëà âáé åäáéàä
(h) Answer: There, R. Shimon's reason is due to Vov Mosif Al Inyan Rishon (the prefix Vov equates this Parshah to the previous Parshah), like we say here about v'Hevi'ah.
åà''ú åàîàé ìà àîøéðï äëà ã÷àé àúøåééäå ëîå úúððä åàëìä åîëåø áô' ëì ùòä (ôñçéí ãó ëà:) åáô' ëì äáùø (çåìéï ã' ÷éã.) åáô''÷ ãîñëú ò''æ (ã' ë.) åâáé ðùê åîøáéú áô' àéæäå ðùê (á''î ãó ñà.)
(i) Question: Why don't we say here that it applies to both of them, like "Titnenah v'Achalah u'Mchor" (R. Meir permits to give for free or sell a Neveilah to a Ger Toshav, and likewise to a Nochri) in Pesachim (21b) and in Chulin (114a) and in Avodah Zarah (20a) and regarding Neshech and Marbis (Bava Metzi'a 61a - both of them are Ribis, and both apply to food and money)?
ãìà ãîé ìú÷åí åäãøú áô''÷ ã÷ãåùéï (ãó ìá:)
1. [Here is] unlike "Takum v'Hadarta" Kidushin (32b. Chachamim do not expound them to apply both to Lefanav (Mipnei Seivah) and l'Acharav (Pnei Zaken), because it is not proper to say Takum Pnei [Zaken], and not v'Hadarta Mipnei [Seivah].)
åîéäå ìà ãîé ìúúððä åàëìä ãúøé îéìé ðéðäå àáì äëà çãà îéìúà ãáàöáòå )çãà( [ö"ì àçãà - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã] ÷àé
(j) Answer: However, [here] is unlike "Titnenah v'Achalah", which are two matters. Here it is one matter, for [perhaps] b'Etzba'o applies to one. (Yad Binyamin - Titnenah v'Achalah cannot both refer only Lefanav to a Ger Toshav, for then why did the verse write Nochri? Likewise, both cannot refer only to a Nochri. The Tana holds that it is best to expound Titnenah v'Achalah together, so they must refer to Lefanav ul'Acharav. The same applies to Neshech and Marbis However, here, even if b'Etzba'o refers only to Kabalah, or only to Nesinah, the Torah needed to write both.)
ãëé äàé âåðà îçì÷éï àä' î÷øàåú ãàéï ìäí äëøò ùàú îçø îùå÷ãéí àøåø å÷í
(k) Support: We distinguish like this (Yoma 52a) regarding the five verses that have no resolution (whether a particular word in the verse applies to what came before, or what came after) - Se'es, Machar, Meshukadim, Arur and v'Kam. (There, Tosfos (DH Seis) explains why they cannot refer to Lefanav ul'Acharav.)
åëé úéîà áàöáòå ðîé ìà éäéä ìå äëøò
(l) Suggestion: We should say that also b'Etzba'o has no resolution!
åéù ìçì÷ [ö"ì ãôùèéä ã÷øà îùîò ã÷àé àåì÷ç î"î ñáø ú"÷ ã÷àé âí àåðúï] îùåí ãàùëçï åðúú òì ÷øðåú äîæáç áàöáòê ëãàîøéðï áô' á' ãæáçéí (ã' ëã:)
(m) Answer: We can distinguish, for the simple meaning of the verse connotes that it refers to v'Lakach. Even so, the first Tana holds that it applies also to v'Nasan because we find "v'Nasata Al Karnos ha'Mizbe'ach b'Etzba'echa", like we say in Zevachim (24b).
åöøéê òéåï áîñëú úòðéú (ã' èå.) ãëúéá àåø æøåò ìöãé÷ åìéùøé ìá ùîçä ãàîøéðï öãé÷éí ìàåøä åéùøéí ìùîçä åìà àîøéðï ã÷ééîé àúøåééäå ëîå úúððä åàëìä
(n) Question: This requires investigation in Ta'anis (15a). It says "Ohr Zaru'a la'Tzadik ul'Yishrei Lev Simchah" - we say that there is light for Tzadikim, and Simchah for Yesharim (straightforward people). Why don't we say that both (Tzadikim and Yesharim) refer to both (Ohr and Simchah), like Titnenah v'Achalah?
2) TOSFOS DH Ela Hainu Taima d'R. Shimon v'Hevi'ah Vov Mosif Al Inyan Rishon
úåñôåú ã"ä àìà ä''è ãø''ù åäáéàä åé''å îåñéó òì òðéï øàùåï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how R. Shimon and his son expound.)
àôéìå ìà éãøåù ø''ù ìôðéå åìàçøéå åé''å îåñéó ãøéù
(a) Explanation: Even if R. Shimon does not expound Lefanav ul'Acharav, he expounds Vov Mosif;
åâáé åì÷ç åðúï ìà àîøéðï åé''å îåñéó ìîéìó ÷áìä îðúéðä áéîéï ëãôé' á÷åðèøñ ãáàöáòå îôñé÷ áéï åì÷ç ìåðúï ãä''ì ìîëúá åì÷ç äëäï åðúï îï äãí áàöáòå
1. And regarding "v'Lakach... v'Nasan", we do not say Vov Mosif to learn Kabalah from Nesinah to require the right hand, like Rashi explained, because b'Etzba'o interrupts between v'Lakach and v'Nasan. [Had the Torah wanted us to expound Vov Mosif,] it should have written 'v'Lakach ha'Kohen v'Nasan Min ha'Dam b'Etzba'o.'
åà''ú áô' á' ãæáçéí (ã' ëã:) ãà''ø àìòæø )áï ùîåò) [ö"ì á"ø ùîòåï - éùø åèåá] ëì î÷åí ùðàîø àöáò áðúéðä ùéðä áðúéðä ôñåì á÷áìä ëùø
(b) Question: In Zevachim (24b), R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon said that wherever it says Etzba regarding Nesinah, if he deviated in Nesinah, it is Pasul. [If he deviated] in Kabalah, it is Kosher;
åäéëï ðàîøä àöáò áðúéðä ãëúéá åì÷çú îãí äôø åðúú òì ÷øðåú äîæáç áàöáòê å÷ñáø î÷øà ðãøù ìôðéå åìà ìôðé ôðéå åìàçøéå
1. Where does it say Etzba regarding Nesinah? It is written "v'Lakachta mi'Dam ha'Par v'Nasata Al Karnos ha'Mizbe'ach b'Etzba'echa", and he holds that the verse is expounded Lefanav, but not Lifnei Panav and not l'Acharav.
i. Note: The Gemara there needed to say that he does not expound l'Acharav, for if he expounded Lefanav and l'Acharav, he would learn both Kabalah and Nesinah from the verse here v'Lakach... b'Etzba'o v'Nasan.
ìéîà åé''å îåñéó òì òðéï øàùåï
2. He should say Vov Mosif Al Inyan Rishon! (Just like b'Etzba'echa refers to v'Nasata, it applies also to what is above, i.e. v'Lakachta.)
åùîà ø''à áø ø''ù ìéú ìéä åé''å îåñéó òì òðéï øàùåï
(c) Answer #1: Perhaps R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon never expounds Vov Mosif Al Inyan Rishon.
à''ð ìà ãøéù åé''å îåñéó ëãé ìãøåù äî÷øà ìôðé ôðéå
(d) Answer #2: He does not expound Vov Mosif in order to expound the verse Lifnei Panav.
3) TOSFOS DH Gali Rachmana Gabei Paro Shel Aharon v'Chulei
úåñôåú ã"ä âìé øçîðà âáé ôøå ùì àäøï ëå'
(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that R. Shimon holds that this is not an Avodah.)
îùîò äëà ãìø''ù ùçéèú ôøå áæø ôñåìä
(a) Inference: According to R. Shimon, Shechitah of [Aharon's] Par through a Zar is Pasul.
åàó ò''â ãîñ÷éðï áôø÷ ÷îà ãæáçéí (ãó éã.) ìø''ù ùçéèä ìàå òáåãä äéà
(b) Implied question: We concluded in Zevachim (14a) that according to R. Shimon, Shechitah is not an Avodah!
ì''÷ îéãé ëãôé' áô''÷ (ìòéì ã' ä.)
(c) Answer: This is not difficult at all, like I explained above (5a DH Shechitah. We find that Shechitas Parah Adumah through a Zar is Pasul, even though it is Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, so it is not due to Avodah. Rather, it is like we find that ruling about appearances of Tzara'as requires Kehunah.)
4) TOSFOS DH v'Amar Rav Tenufah Me'akva b'Nazir
úåñôåú ã"ä åàîø øá úðåôä îòëáà áðæéø
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Makshan did not ask from a Mishnah.)
îîúðé' äåä îöé ìà÷ùåéé ãúðï (ì÷îï ã' ëæ.) á' îéðéï ùáðæéø îòëáéï æä àú æä
(a) Implied question: He could have asked from a Mishnah (below, 27a), which teaches that the two kinds [of bread] of a Nazir are Me'akev each other!
àìà ðéçà ìéä ìà÷ùåéé ãøá àãøá
(b) Answer #1: He prefers to ask a contradiction in Rav.
à''ð îùåí ãàôéìå úðåôä ùäéà ùéøé îöåä áùàø ÷øáðåú îòëáú áðæéø
(c) Answer #2: Even Tenufah, which is Shirei Mitzvah (it is not Me'akev) in other Korbanos, is Me'akev for a Nazir.
5) TOSFOS DH v'Amar Mar Shelamav Lerabos Shalmei Nazir
úåñôåú ã"ä åàîø îø ùìîéå ìøáåú ùìîé ðæéø
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this was taught below.)
ì÷îï àéúà áô' äúåãä (ã' òç.)
(a) Reference: This is below (78a).
6) TOSFOS DH Torah Ba'i Chukah v'Chukah Lo Ba'i Torah
úåñôåú ã"ä úåøä áòéà çå÷ä åçå÷ä ìà áòéà úåøä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that in truth, we learn from a Gezeirah Shavah.)
àåîø ø''ú ãëì î÷åí ãàîøé' çå÷ä òéëåáà ìà îîùîòåúà àìà îâ''ù éìôéðï ìä áøéù ôø÷ á' ãæáçéí (ã' éç. åùí)
(a) Explanation (R. Tam): Wherever we say that Chukah makes something Me'akev, it is not from the connotation. Rather, we learn from a Gezeirah Shavah in Zevachim (18a);
ãàîøé' àùëçï îçåñø áâãéí ôéøåù ãàí òáã çéìì ùúåéé ééï îðìï àúéà çå÷ä çå÷ä îîçåñø áâãéí ãîòëá ëãéìéó äúí ìòéì àó ùúåéé ééï ìòëá
1. We say that we find Mechusar Begadim, i.e. that if he served, he profaned the Avodah. What is the source for one who drank wine? We learn Chukah-Chukah from Mechusar Begadim, which is Me'akev (profanes b'Di'eved), like we learned there above. Also one who drank is Me'akev.
åàí îîùîòåúà äåà ì''ì ìîéìó â''ù
2. If we learn from the connotation, why would we need a Gezeirah Shavah?
åîéäå îòé÷øà åãàé äåä áòé ìîéîø áùîòúéï îîùîòåúà ãäåä áòé úåøä åçå÷ä
(b) Observation: However, initially in our Sugya we wanted to say that it is from the connotation, for we required Torah and Chukah.
7) TOSFOS DH Chukah Lo Ba'i Torah
úåñôåú ã"ä çå÷ä ìà áòéà úåøä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that Torah must teach something.)
åà''ú åúåøä ìîàé àúà ãëä''â ôøéê áô''÷ (ìòéì ã' é.) âáé àöáò ìà áòéà ëäåðä ãôøéê àìà ëäï ì''ì
(a) Question: What does Torah comes for? The Gemara asks like this above (10a) regarding Etzba does not need Kehunah. It asks "why is Kohen written?"
åé''ì ãúåøä àúà ìùåí ãøùä
(b) Answer: Torah comes for some Drashah.
8) TOSFOS DH v'She'ani Hasam d'Amar Kra mi'Girshah umi'Shamnah
úåñôåú ã"ä åùàðé äúí ãàîø ÷øà îâøùä åîùîðä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes that this is due to the repetition.)
ôéøù á÷åðèøñ ãîöé ìîéëúá îâøù åîùîï åëúá îâøùä åîùîðä ùîò îéðä äëé àîø øçîðà îâøùä ùìí îùîðä ùìí ùàí çéñø ëì ùäåà ôñåì
(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi): It could have written mi'Geresh umi'Shemen. Rather, it wrote mi'Girshah umi'Shamnah. This shows that the Torah means from all its crushed grain and from all its oil. If any is missing, it is Pasul.
åáñîåê ãàîø ùîåàì âøù (îëàï îòîåã á) åùîï îòëáé' åàéï ãáø àçø îòëá îùîò ãáøéå ñåúøéí æä àú æä ãúìé èòîà áçæøä åìà áä''à éúéøà
(b) Question #1: Below, [Rav teaches that anything repeated about a Minchah is Me'akev, and] Shmuel says that Geresh and oil are Me'akev, but nothing else is Me'akev. This connotes that he contradicts himself, for he attributes the reason to repetition, and not to the extra Hei!
19b----------------------------------------19b
åò''÷ àîàé ìà îééúé ÷øà ãîñìúä ããøùé' îéðéä áô''÷ (ìòéì ã' è:) ùàí çéñø ëì ùäåà ôñåìä
(c) Question #2: Why does [the Gemara] not bring the verse "mi'Saltah"? We expound from it above (9b) that if any was missing, it is Pasul!
(ùîò îéðä) [ö"ì åðøàä - öàï ÷ãùéí] ãä''ð îèòí ùéðä äëúåá ÷àîø (åðøàä ãäëà) [ö"ì åäëà - öàï ÷ãùéí] îééøé ìòðéï ùéòëáå æä àú æä ãáòé ãùðä òìéå äëúåá
(d) Explanation #2: It seems that also here, it is because the Torah repeated, and here we discuss to be Me'akev each other. [The Torah] must repeat it [to make this Me'akev];
åñîéê àîñìúä åîùîðä ãâáé îðçú äòåîø ëúéá (åé÷øà á) îâøùä åîùîðä åáùàø îðçåú ëúéá îñìúä åîùîðä åâøùä åñìúä äëì ñåìú
1. [The Gemara] relies on mi'Saltah umi'Shamnah. About Minchas ha'Omer it is written mi'Girshah umi'Shamnah, and it is written about other Menachos mi'Saltah umi'Shamnah. Girshah and Soltah both refer to fine flour [so this is considered a repetition];
åì÷îï áôéø÷éï (ãó ëæ.) âáé ñåìú åùîï îòëáéï æä àú æä îééúé îâøùä åîùîðä åîñìúä åîùîðä àáì ìâáé ãîéòåèï îòëá àú øåáï îééúé îñìúä åîùîðä
2. Below (27a), regarding flour and oil are Me'akev each other, it brings mi'Girshah umi'Shamnah and mi'Saltah umi'Shamnah. However, regarding that the minority is Me'akev the majority (the full Shi'ur is required) it brings mi'Saltah umi'Shamnah.
)åëï âáé( [ö"ì ãâáé - òåìú ùìîä] òéëåáà ãðôùéä ìà áòé ùðä ìòëá àáì ìâáé îòëáéï æä àú æä áòé ùðä ìòëá
i. Regarding Ikuv of it itself (Chisaron) we do not need a repetition to make this Me'akev, but for them to be Me'akev each other, we need a repetition to make it be Me'akev.
9) TOSFOS DH b'Kumtzo she'Lo Ya'aseh Midah l'Kometz
úåñôåú ã"ä á÷åîöå ùìà éòùä îãä ì÷åîõ
(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that we expound another law from this word.)
áô''÷ (ìòéì ã' éà.) ãøùé' îìà ÷åîöå éëåì îáåøõ ú''ì á÷åîöå
(a) Implied question: Above (11a), we expound "Melo Kumtzo" - perhaps it should be overflowing! It says b'Kumtzo [to teach that this is not so. Here we expound differently!]
úøúé ùîòú îéðä
(b) Answer: We learn both [Drashos] from [b'Kumtzo].
10) TOSFOS DH u'Shmuel Amar Doros mi'Sha'ah Lo Yalfinan
úåñôåú ã"ä åùîåàì àîø ãåøåú îùòä ìà éìôéðï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses learning Doros from Sha'ah.)
äà ãáòé øáé æéøà ìîéìó áô''÷ (ìòéì ãó è:) îåéîìà ëôå îîðä ãëì î÷åí ùðà' ëôå àéðå àìà éîéï
(a) Implied question: R. Zeira wanted to learn above (9b) from "va'Ymalei Kapo Mimenah" that wherever it says Kapo, it is the right hand! (This is Doros from Sha'ah!)
ìà îúå÷îà îéìúéä áîñ÷ðà
(b) Answer: This was not sustained in the conclusion.
åäà ãîñé÷ øáà éã éã ì÷îéöä ãéìéó åéîìà ëôå îéã ãîöåøò ìòðéï ÷îéöä åìãåøåú
(c) Implied question: Rava (10a) concluded that Yad-Yad teaches about Kemitzah. He learns "va'Ymalei Kapo" from Yad of Metzora regarding Kemitzah, and for generations!
ùîà ëéåï ãùàø âæéøåú ùååú ãàæï åøâì ìãåøåú òáãéðï ðîé äê
(d) Answer: Perhaps since we make other Gezeiros Shavos of Ozen and Regel for Doros, we do so also for this (Yad).
åäà ãà''ø àìòæø áæáçéí áôø÷ ÷ãùé ÷ãùéí (ãó ñ.) îæáç ùðôâí àéï àåëìéï áâéðå ùéøé îðçä ùðà' åàëìåä àöì äîæáç åëé àöì äîæáç àëìåä ëå'
(e) Implied question: R. Elazar said in Zevachim (60a) that if the Mizbe'ach was dented, we do not eat due to it Shirei Minchah, for it says "v'Ichluhu Etzel ha'Mizbe'ach" - do they eat it at the Mizbe'ach?! (It may be eaten anywhere in the Azarah! Rather, this teaches that it must be eaten when the Mizbe'ach is intact.)
ùàðé äúí ãàùëçï ëéåöà áä ÷ãùé ãåøåú ããøéù äúí ìòéì îæáç ùðôâí ëì ÷ãùéí ùðùçèå ùí ôñåìéï ùðàîø åæáçú òìéå ëå'
(f) Answer: There is different, for we find Kodshei Doros like this, for it expounds above there (59b) that if the Mizbe'ach was dented, all Kodshim that were slaughtered there are Pesulim, for it says "v'Zavachta Alav..."
àáì àéï ìôøù ãìà éìéó äëà ãåøåú îùòä îùåí ãðúçðê àäøï ëì æ' éîé äîìåàéí åòùä ÷îéöä áëôå
(g) Implied suggestion: Here he does not learn Doros from Sha'ah because Aharon was inaugurated all the seven days of Milu'im, and he did Kemitzah with his hand. (Yashar v'Tov - normally he learns Doros from Sha'ah. The Milu'im was different, for the Torah was adamant that he do Kemitzah with his hand.)
ãà''ë îàé ÷ôøéê îäà ãàîø ùîåàì àáì îæø÷åú î÷ãùéí ãëúéá ùðéäí îìàéí ñåìú
(h) Objection #1: If so, what was the question from Shmuel's teaching 'but the buckets are Mekadesh, for it is written "Sheneihem Mele'im Soles"?'
åòåã àîøéðï áæáçéí áôø÷ èáåì éåí (ãó ÷à.) âáé àðéðåú ùàîø ìå àäøï ìîùä àí ùîòú á÷ãùé ùòä ùäåúøä àðéðåú ìà ùîòú á÷ãùé ãåøåú
(i) Objection #2: We say in Zevachim (101a) about Aninus that Aharon said to Moshe "if you heard about Kodshei Sha'ah that they were permitted [to eat them in] Aninus, you did not hear about Kodshei Doros!"
åîéäå ùîà äúí ëê ðàîø ìå áôéøåù
(j) Answer (to Objection #2): Perhaps there, it was said to Moshe explicitly [that the Heter was only for Sha'ah].
ãàé ìàå äëé ÷ùéà ìéä ìøá ãéìéó (ùòä îãåøåú) [ö"ì ãåøåú îùòä - öàï ÷ãùéí]
(k) Proof: If not, it is difficult for Rav, who learns Doros from Sha'ah!
åäà ãáòé ÷øà áôø÷ ðâîø äãéï (ñðäãøéï ãó îä. åùí) ãìãåøåú éøééä åñ÷éìä åìà éìéó îñéðé
(l) Implied question (against Rav): Why do we need a verse in Sanhedrin (45a) that for Doros [execution through Skilah] is through throwing [the person] down, and [if this did not kill him] stoning, and we do not learn from [what it says about one who will ascend Har] Sinai [at the time of Matan Torah]?
ìà ãîé ìäëà ããéìîà àòáéøä ãñéðé îéçééá úøúé åìà áùàø òáéøåú
(m) Answer: There is unlike here. Perhaps for an Aveirah of Sinai one is liable two [kinds of death], but not for other Aveiros.
åäà ãáòé áô''÷ ãñðäãøéï (ãó èå:) ùåø ñéðé áëîä éìôéðï ùòä îãåøåú àå ìà
(n) Implied question: In Sanhedrin (15b), it asks how many judges were needed to convict an ox [that ascended] at Sinai. Do we learn Sha'ah from Doros, or not? (According to Rav, surely we should learn, just like we learn Doros from Sha'ah. According to Shmuel, surely we should not learn!)
äúí âìåé îéìúà áòìîà
(o) Answer: There it is a mere Giluy Milsa.
úãò ãìáñåó éìéó ìä îãëúéá àí áäîä àí àéù ëå' åîðìï ãàéù ñéðé áë''â àé ìàå ãéìéó îãåøåú
(p) Proof: In the end, we learn from the verse "Im Behemah Im Ish" - what is the source that a person [who ascended] Sinai is [convicted] through 23, if not that we learn from Doros?!
åäà ãéìôéðï ì÷îï áñåó äúåãä (ãó ôá:) ôñç ãåøåú îôñç îöøéí åàôéìå îàï ãôìéâ ìà ôìéâ àìà îùåí ãàéï ãðéï àôùø îùàé àôùø
(q) Implied question: We learn below (82b) Pesach Doros from Pesach Mitzrayim Sha'ah. And even the one who argues, he argues only because we do not learn possible from impossible!
ùàðé äúí ãôñç îôñç ùééê ìîéìó èôé
(r) Answer: There is different, for Pesach from Pesach we can learn more [than Stam Doros from Sha'ah].
åöøéê ìã÷ã÷ ìùîåàì ã÷ñáø äëà îãä ì÷åîõ ìà ôñì îùåí ãìà éìéó ãåøåú îùòä äà úðà áô''÷ (ìòéì ãó å.) ÷îõ åòìä áéãå âøâéø îìç àå ÷åøè ùì ìáåðä ôñì îôðé ùàîøå ä÷åîõ äçñø åäéúø ôñåì
(s) Question: According to Shmuel, who holds here that a Midah for the Kometz does not disqualify because we do not learn Doros from Sha'ah, [it is difficult] what was taught above (6a) that if he took Kemitzah and a grain of salt or stick of Levonah came in his hand, it is Pasul, for it was taught that a Kometz that is too big or Chaser (lacking) is Pasul.
åîäàé ÷øà âåôéä ãøéù ìéä äúí áâîøà îãëúéá îìà ÷åîöå á÷åîöå åìà îöéðå ùùðä àé ìàå îåéîìà ëôå
1. The Gemara (11a) expounds this from this verse Melo Kumtzo... b'Kumtzo, and we do not find that it was repeated, if not va'Ymalei Kapo;
åàé áìà ùðä äëúåá îñúáø ìï (ùòéëá) [ö"ì ùéòëá - áàøåú äîéí] à''ë âí ìòðéï îãä ì÷åîõ ðîé îòëá ëéåï ãúøåééäå îäàé ÷øà ðô÷é
2. If without repetition it is logical to us that it should be Me'akev, if so also regarding a Midah for the Kometz it should be Me'akev, since both of them are from this verse!
11) TOSFOS DH Klei ha'Lach Mekadeshin Es ha'Lach
úåñôåú ã"ä ëìé äìç î÷ãùéï àú äìç
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explained this above.)
ôéøùúé áô''÷ (ìòéì ãó ç:)
(a) Reference: I explained this above (8b DH Klei. The only Kelim [with receptacles] that were not measures were for wet, e.g. buckets for blood, and they were also proper for Menachos, and were Mekadesh them.)
12) TOSFOS DH d'Tana Bei Kra Treisar Zimni
úåñôåú ã"ä ãúðà áéä ÷øà úøéñø æéîðé
(SUMMARY: Tosfos justifies this answer.)
àéï ìä÷ùåú àãøáä ìéäåå ùðé ëúåáéï äáàéï ëàçã åàéï îìîãéï
(a) Remark: One should not ask that just the contrary, they are like Shnei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im k'Echad, which do not teach [to elsewhere. Tzon Kodoshim - Rashi explained that Shnei Kesuvim applies when different matters were taught, and we could have learned from one of them from the other. Here, the same matter was repeated.]
13) TOSFOS DH ha'Hu Likvo'a Lah Makom
úåñôåú ã"ä ääåà ì÷áåò ìä î÷åí
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why another verse did not fix a place.)
åà''ú ÷áéòåú î÷åí ùîòé' î÷øà ãä÷øéá åàééúø ìéä åäâéùä ìåîø ãùðä äëúåá ìòëá
(a) Implied question: We learn fixing a place from "Hikriv", and "v'Higishah" is extra to teach that it was repeated to make it Me'akev!
åé''ì àé îä÷øéá äåä àîéðà òì äëáù ñîåê ìîæáç åìà òì äîæáç îîù ëãàùëçï åä÷øéá äëäï àú äëì äîæáçä ãàîøéðï áô''÷ (ìòéì ãó é.) æå äåìëú àéáøéí ìëáù
(b) Answer: Had it said only "Hikriv", one might have thought on the ramp near the Mizbe'ach, and not on the Mizbe'ach itself, like we find "v'Hikriv ha'Kohen Es ha'Kol ha'Mizbechah", which we said above (10a) is bringing limbs to the ramp.
14) TOSFOS DH k'Neged Chudo Shel Keren v'Dayo
úåñôåú ã"ä ëðâã çåãå ùì ÷øï åãéå
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why it says Dayo.)
áô''á ãñåèä (ãó éã:) ãéé÷ îàé åãéå åîùðé ñ''ã úéáòé äâùä (ëîðçä) [ö"ì îðçä - öàï ÷ãùéí] âåôä ôé' ùéñéøðä îï äëìé åéâéù äñåìú òöîå ìîæáç
(a) Reference: [The Gemara] in Sotah (14b) asks "why does it say Dayo (this suffices)?", and answers that one might have thought that the Minchah itself requires Hagashah, i.e. he removes it from the Kli and touches the flour itself to the Mizbe'ach.
åáøéù ðãä (ãó á.) âáé ëì äðùéí ãééï ùòúï àéï îã÷ã÷ îàé ãééï
(b) Implied question: In Nidah (2a) regarding all women are Dayan Shatan (when one sees Dam Nidah, she is not Safek Tamei retroactively, lest the blood left her Makor earlier), we do not ask "why does it say Dayan?"!
åé''ì ãäúí ùééê ùôéø ìîéúðé ãééï ìàôå÷é îäìì åçëîéí
(c) Answer: There it is proper to teach Dayan (it suffices that she is Tamei from now and onwards), to teach unlike Hillel and Chachamim (who are Metamei her retroactively).
15) TOSFOS DH l'Ma'aravah Shel Keren li'Dromah Shel Keren
úåñôåú ã"ä ìîòøáä ùì ÷øï ìãøåîä ùì ÷øï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos favors a text that says that he brings to one or the other.)
ôé' á÷åðèøñ ëàï åëàï
(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi): [He brings the Minchah] here and here (on the west side of the edge and the south side).
å÷ùéà à''ë îàé î÷ééí òöîå åîáèì çáéøå åäìà îâéùä ëàï åëàï
(b) Question: If so, how does [one verse] fulfill itself and nullify the other [verse]? He brings it close in both places!
åáæáçéí ô' ÷ãùé ÷ãùéí (ãó ñâ:) âøñé' áñôøéí àå ìãøåîä ùì ÷øï ôéøåù ìàéæä øåç ùéøöä
(c) Explanation #2 (Rashi in Zevachim 63b): The text in Seforim says "or to the south of the corner." I.e. in either direction that he wants.
åäùúà ðéçà ãúåôñéï àú ùî÷ééí òöîå åçáéøå
(d) Support: Now it is fine that we adopt the way that fulfills itself and the other;
åàí îâéùä áøåç îòøáéú ñîåê ì÷øï ðîöà îáèì ôðé äîæáç ãäééðå ãøåí ëãàîøéðï áæáçéí (ãó ñá:) òì éøê äîæáç öôåðä ëàãí ùùåëá ãéøéëå áöôåï åøàùå áãøåí
1. If he does Hagashah on the west side, near the corner, he is Mevatel Pnei ha'Mizbe'ach, i.e. the south, like we say in Zevachim (62b) "Al Yerech ha'Mizbe'ach Tzafonah" - like a person who lies with his leg in the north and his head in the south;
åàí îâéùä áøåç ãøåí ñîåê ì÷øï îòøáéú ðîöà î÷ééí ùðéäí ùâí æä ìôðé ä' ãëåìéä îæáç áöôåï åäéëì îîåöò áàîöò òæøä
2. If he does Hagashah on the south side, near the western corner, it turns out he fulfills both of them, for also this is Lifnei Hash-m, for the entire Mizbe'ach is in the north, and the Heichal is in the middle of the Azarah (between north and south);
åðîöà é' àîåú ôúçå ùì äéëì ä' áöôåï åä' áãøåí åðîöà ãøåîå ùì îæáç ìôðé äôúç åàéðå éëåì ìäúøç÷ îä÷øï ãìà ÷øéðà áéä ìôðé ä' ëéåï ãéù ÷øåá îîðå
3. It turns out that the 10 Amos of the opening of the Heichal, five are in the north and five are in the south side. It turns out that the south of the Mizbe'ach is in front of the opening, and he cannot distance [far] from the corner, for we do not call this Lifnei Hash-m, since there is [something] closer;
åñéîï ìãáø ÷ðé îðåøä ãîæøç åîòøá îåðçéí åìà ÷øéðà ìôðé ä' àìà áðø äñîåê àò''â ãëåìï ñãåøåú áøåç àçú æå àçø æå
i. A Siman for this is the branches of the Menorah. They are resting east to west, and only the Ner closest [to the west] is called Lifnei Hash-m, even though they are all arranged in one direction, one after the other.
åîéäå ðø ùðé ùì á' ðøåú îæøçéåú ÷øé ðø îòøáé ëîå ùàôøù ì÷îï áôø÷ ëì ÷øáðåú (ãó ôå:)
4. However, the second Ner of the two Neros on the east is called the Ner Ma'aravi, like I will explain below (86b).
16) TOSFOS DH Harei Melach d'Lo Tana Bei Kra
úåñôåú ã"ä äøé îìç ãìà úðà áéä ÷øà
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses what is the repetition.)
áîñ÷ðà îùðé ëéåï ãëúéá áéä áøéú ëîàï ãúðà áéä ÷øà ãîé
(a) Explanation: In the conclusion, [the Gemara] answers that since it is written "Bris", it is as if it was repeated.
åäùúà ñ''ã ãîã÷àîø àîø øá ëì î÷åí ùäçæéø îùîò ùìà îöà òéëåá àçø (àìà áîðçåú) [ö"ì áîðçåú àìà îùåí ùäçæéø - öàï ÷ãùéí]
1. Now, we are thinking that since Rav said "wherever the Torah repeated", this implies that he did not find any other Ikuv (a way the Torah teaches that something is Me'akev) in Menachos, except for repetition.
17) TOSFOS DH d'Tanya Bris Melach Olam Hu (this starts a new Dibur according to Tzon Kodoshim)
úåñôåú ã"ä ãúðéà áøéú îìç òåìí äåà [æä ãéáåø çãù ìôé öàï ÷ãùéí]
(SUMMARY: Tosfos changes the text.)
ø''ú âøéñ îìç áøéú åäåà ÷øà ãëúéá áôøùú åé÷øà ìà úùáéú îìç áøéú àìäéê îòì îðçúê
(a) Alternative text: R. Tam's text says Melach Bris. It is a verse in Parshas Vayikra "Lo Sashbis Melach Bris Elokecha me'Al Minchasecha";
àáì áøéú îìç òåìí äåà ìà ëúéá âáé ÷øáðåú àìà âáé îúðåú ëäåðä (áîãáø éç)
1. However, "Bris Melach Olam Hu" is not written regarding Korbanos, rather, regarding Matanos Kehunah.
åàí úîöé ìåîø ããøùéðï îãàô÷éä øçîðà áìùåï îìç
(b) Implied suggestion: We expound [to teach about Korbanos] since the Torah said this using the word "Melach".
à''ë àùëçï ãùðä äëúåá áîìú ìòëá
(c) Rejection: If so, we find that the Torah repeated salt to be Me'akev!
åëï ì÷îï ááøééúà (ãó ëà:) ãäàåîø äøé òìé îðçä ùëúåá (áñéôøà) [ö"ì áñôøéí - öàï ÷ãùéí] úìîåã ìåîø áøéú îìç òåìí äåà åìäìï äåà àåîø îàú áðé éùøàì áøéú òåìí âøéñ ðîé ø''ú îìç áøéú ã÷øà ãåìà úùáéú ãøéù ìä áú''ë:
(d) Remark: Similarly, below (21b) in the Beraisa "it is Alai [to bring] a Minchah", it is written in Seforim 'it says "Bris Melach Olam Hu"', and below it says "me'Es Bnei Yisrael Bris Olam."' R. Tam's text says Melach Bris, for Toras Kohanim expounds the verse "Lo Sashbis."