1) TOSFOS DH v'Nasata Aleha Shemen
úåñôåú ã"ä åðúú òìéä ùîï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses why we need Aleha to exclude.)
äàé ÷øà áîðçú äòåîø ëúéá åàéöèøéê ìîòåèé ìçí äôðéí )îùîò) [ö"ì îùîï - ãôåñ åéðéöéä] ãìà úéúé á÷''å îîðçú ðñëéí ùàéðä èòåðä ìáåðä èòåðä ùîï
(a) Explanation: This verse is written regarding Minchas ha'Omer, and it is needed to exclude Lechem ha'Panim from [putting on it] oil, lest we learn from a Kal v'Chomer from Minchas Nesachim, which does not require Levonah, and it requires oil.
åäéà âåôä ãàéðä èòåðä ìáåðä ìà éãòéðï àìà îñéôéä ã÷øà ããøéù òìéä ìáåðä åìà òì îðçú ðñëéí ìáåðä ãìà ðéäãø åðéìó á÷''å îìçí äôðéí ùàéï èòåï ùîï ëãîîòèéðï îøéùéä ã÷øà åèòåï ìáåðä
1. This that [Minchas Nesachim] does not require Levonah, we know this only from the end of the verse. We expound "on [ha'Omer] Levonah", and not Levonah on Minchas Nesachim, lest we learn from a Kal v'Chomer from Lechem ha'Panim, which does not require oil, like we excluded from the beginning of the verse, and it requires Levonah.
åàéï ùééê ëàï ìåîø ãìà ðéëúåá òìéä ìîòåèé ìà áùîï åìà áìáåðä åðéîà çã åçã úé÷åí áãåëúéä ëé ääåà ãô''á ãæáçéí (ãó éæ.)
(b) Implied question: We should say that the Torah should not write Aleha to exclude oil and not Levonah, and each (Lechem ha'Panim and Minchas Nesachim) will keep its status (what the Torah wrote for it, for there is no Kal v'Chomer to teach more), like we say in Zevachim (17a)!
1. Note: Tosfos in Zevachim (16b DH Kol) brought many places in which the Gemara suggested making Kal v'Chomerim in opposite directions, based on what the Torah explicitly wrote. He asked why sometimes we say so that each keeps its status, and answered that we say so only when the Kal v'Chomerim contradict each other. Here there is no contradiction. We could fulfill both Kal v'Chomerim, and both would require oil and Levonah! If so, this question is not difficult. I do not know how our Tosfos would answer the question of Tosfos there.
ãìà ãîé ãäëà áìà ÷''å ðîé äåå âîéøé îäããé àå îùàø îðçåú àå îãàé÷øå îðçä
(c) Answer: There is different. Here, also without the Kal v'Chomer, we would have learned them from each other, or from other Menachos, or because they are called Minchah.
úãò ãäà àäðé ÷''å ãäëà àéëà ôéøëé èåáà:
(d) Proof: There are several challenges we could make against the Kal v'Chomerim here. (Yad Binyamin - Minchas Nesachim is more like other Menachos and ha'Omer - it is one Isaron, it is Kodesh in a Kli, it has Haktarah on the outer Mizbe'ach... and we can say that Lechem ha'Panim is more like other Menachos, that it does not come due to something else. Rather, "Aleha" is not needed to override a Kal v'Chomer, rather, to override a Binyan Av - PF.)
2) TOSFOS DH Hi Lehotzi Shtei ha'Lechem
úåñôåú ã"ä äéà ìäåöéà ùúé äìçí
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the Havah Amina to obligate oil and Levonah for Shtei ha'Lechem.)
àéöèøéê ìîòåèé îùåí ãàé÷øå îðçä ëãëúéá (åé÷øà ëâ) îðçä çãùä
(a) Explanation: It is needed to exclude, because they are called Minchah, like it says "Minchah Chadashah."
3) TOSFOS DH v'Eima Aleha Shemen v'Lo Al Minchas Kohanim Shemen
úåñôåú ã"ä åàéîà òìéä ùîï åìà òì îðçú ëäðéí ùîï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we learn about Minchas Kohanim.)
ôé' á÷åðèøñ åäåà äãéï ìîðçú ðùéí åâøéí
(a) Explanation (Rashi): The same applies to Minchah of women or converts.
åðøàä ãìà áòé ìà÷ùåéé îäðäå îùåí ããîå èôé ìëì äîðçåú äëúåáåú ùí ãáòå ùîï àáì îðçú ëäðéí ìà ãîéà ìäå ãëìéì
(b) Assertion: It seems that he did not want to ask from these, because they are more like all Menachos written there, which require oil. However, Minchas Kohanim is unlike them, for it is Kalil (totally burned).
4) TOSFOS DH Kli
úåñôåú ã"ä ëìé
(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes that this refers to needing the same Kelim.)
ôé' á÷åðèøñ ëì äîðçåú áòå ëìé ììåù áôø÷ ùúé äìçí (ì÷îï ãó öå.) ùàìå ìøáé [æå] îðéï ëå' àáì ìçí äôðéí àéðå ð÷ãù àìà áúðåø
(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi): All Menachos require a Kli to knead them, below (96a). They asked Rebbi "what is the source [that everything done to Menachos is done in a Kli Shares inside]?" However, Lechem ha'Panim becomes Kadosh only in the oven.
å÷ùä àé îãú éáù ðú÷ãùä ìçí äôðéí ðîé áòé ëìé ëãîåëç ìòéì (ãó ðæ.) ãîøáé ìçí äôðéí ìçéîåõ
(b) Question: If the dry measures were Niskadshu, also Lechem ha'Panim requires a Kli, like is proven above (57a). [The Gemara] includes Lechem ha'Panim for [the Isur of Chimutz];
åàé îãú éáù ìà ðú÷ãùä úøåééäå ìà áòå ëìé
1. If the dry measures were not Niskadshu, both of them do not require a Kli!
åàé îùåí äùîï áòå ëìé
2. Suggestion: It requires a Kli due to the oil.
àí ëï ìçí äôðéí ðîé ãäà áòé ìîéîø ùéäà èòåï ùîï áìéùä ëîðçä
3. Rejection: If so, also Lechem ha'Panim [should requires a Kli], for we wanted to say that it must be kneaded with oil, like a Minchah!
åðøàä ìôøù ãëìé äééðå ãìòðéï ëìé ùåå àäããé îðçú äòåîø åîðçú ðñëéí
(c) Answer: It seems that "Kli" means that regarding a Kli, they are the same, Minchas ha'Omer and Minchas Nesachim;
àáì ìçí äôðéí áòé ùåìçï åáæéëéï ììáåðä
1. However, Lechem ha'Panim requires the Shulchan and spoons for the Levonah.
åîéäå âáé ìáåðä ãáñîåê ìà éúëï ìåîø ëï
(d) Observation: However, regarding Levonah below one cannot say so.
5) TOSFOS DH Pigul b'Shabbos
úåñôåú ã"ä ôéâåì áùáú
(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that this is unlike Rava.)
àéï æä ëøáà ãàîø áô''÷ (ìòéì ä:) ãàéï îçùáä ôåñì àìà áîé ùøàåé ìòáåãä ìàôå÷é îðçú äòåîø
(a) Observation: This is unlike Rava, who said above (5b) that intent disqualifies if it is of one who is proper for Avodah, to exclude Minchas ha'Omer (for Chodosh is forbidden until the Omer is offered Lishmah).
åàò''â ãäúí àééøé áîçùáä ùìà ìùîå
(b) Implied question: There he discusses intent Lo Lishmah!
ä''ä áîçùáú ôéâåì îééúé ìä áô''á ãæáçéí (ãó ëå:):
(c) Answer: Likewise for intent for Pigul, [Rava] brings this in Zevachim (26b).
59b----------------------------------------59b
6) TOSFOS DH Ki Chatas Hi
úåñôåú ã"ä ëé çèàú äéà
(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that we expound two other laws from this.)
áô''÷ (ìòéì ãó ã.) ãøùéðï ìéä ìãøùà àçøéúé
(a) Observation: Above (4a) we expound this for another Drashah (it is Pasul Lo Lishmah).
åòåã ãøùéðï ì÷îï áôø÷ áúøà (ãó ÷ç.) ãøùä ùìéùéú
(b) Implied question: We expound it further for a third Drashah below (108a, that Mosar Minchas Chotei is offered for Nedavah)!
åîéäå úøé çèàú äéà ëúéáé áîðçú çåèà
(c) Answer: "Chatas Hi" is written twice in the Parshah of Minchas Chotei. (Tosfos connotes that from one "Chatas Hi" we learn here that oil disqualifies, and above that Lo Lishmah disqualifies. He does not question this. Perhaps these are equally reasonable, therefore we learn both.)
7) TOSFOS DH v'Tihavi Pach Amai Paslah Bah Machshavah
úåñôåú ã"ä åúéäåé ôê (ôéøåù - ùéèä î÷åáöú îåç÷å) àîàé ôñìä áä îçùáä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos corrects the text, and explains it.)
ìà âøñéðï åäëé âøñéðï åúéäåé ãçåé [ö"ì åôøéê - öàï ÷ãùéí] áéï àîúðé' åáéï àáøééúà åúéäåé ãçåé àîàé îéúëùøà áìé÷åè ìáåðä äåàéì åðãçä úãçä
(a) Correction: The text does not say so. The text says "it should be Dichuy!" He questions both our Mishnah and the Beraisa. It should be Dichuy. Why is it Kosher through removing the Levonah? Since it was Nidcheh, it should be Nidcheh!
[åîùðé] çèàú ÷øééä øçîðà àôéìå ëé ðúï áä ìáåðä [ö"ì åäéìëê - ùéèä î÷åáöú] çåæøú ìäëùéøä
1. [The Gemara] answers that the Torah called it Chatas even if he put on it Levonah. Therefore, it returns to be Kosher.
(åäëåúá áñôøéí äôéøåù) [ö"ì åäëúåá áñôøéí äôøùï - ùéèä î÷åáöú] èòä ëñáåø äê ÷åùéà ãî÷ùé åúéäåé ãçåé àôñåì îçùáä ÷àé åôé' áâìéåï äñôø àîàé ôñìä îçùáä åëúá ìîòìä îôéøåùå (ôéøåù) [ö"ì ôé' - éùø åèåá] ìñéîï ùæä ôéøåù [ö"ì åäéåã äéúä âãåìä åäñåôø äòúé÷ ôê - ùéèä î÷åáöú] åäîòúé÷ èòä åëúá äëì áñôø
2. What is written in Seforim [is because] the explainer erred. He thought that this question "it should be Dichuy" refers to the Pesul of intent, and he explained in the margin of the Sefer why intent disqualifies, and wrote above his Perush "Pei Yud'", for a sign that this is a Perush, and the Yud was big and the scribe copied "Pach", and the one who copied it erred, and wrote everything in the Sefer.
åùðéäí èòå ãàôñåì îçùáä ìà ôøéê îéãé ãàé îùìé÷è ìáåðä àîàé ìà úéôñéì áä äøé ëùøä ìä÷èéø åëéåï ãëùøä äéà àäðéà áä îçùáú ôéâåì åë''ù îçùáú ôñåì
(b) Observation: Both of them erred. Regarding Pesul of intent, he does not ask anything, for if [he intended] after he removes the Levonah, why is it not Pasul? It is Kosher to be Maktir. Since it is Kosher, intent for Pigul takes effect on it, and all the more so Pasul intent!
(àí) [ö"ì åàí - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã, öàï ÷ãùéí] òã ùìà ìé÷è ìáåðúä ã÷úðé ôñåì åàéï áå ëøú ääåà ìàå îùåí îçùáä äåà àìà îôðé ùä÷îéöä ôñåìä äéà áòåã äìáåðä òìéä
1. And if [he intended] before he removed the Levonah, that it taught that it is Pasul and there is not Kares, that is not due to intent. Rather, it is because the Kemitzah is Pasul as long as the Levonah is on it!
ëã÷úðé àí ùí ùîï ôñåì ìâáé ùîï åìáåðä ìà îëùø àìà ìôé ùàôùø ììå÷èä åëì æîï ùìà ìé÷èä ëì òáåãåúéä áôñåì
2. This is like it taught "if he put oil it is Pasul" regarding oil. And regarding Levonah, it is Kosher only because he can remove it, and as long as he did not remove it, the entire Avodah is done in a Pasul way.
åìôé âéøñú äèåòéí äëé ôéøåù åúéäåé ôê àîàé ôñì áä îçùáä áäê îðçä áòåã ùäìáåðä áúåëä úäà ëàéìå ðôì òìéä ôê ùîï ãìà äåä çæéà åìà úéçåì ìä îçùáú ôñåì ëìì
(c) Remark: According to those who err, the Perush is as follows. It should be Pach - why does intent disqualify this Minchah as long as the Levonah is in it? It should be as if a flask of oil fell on it, that it is not proper, and Pasul intent does not take effect on it at all;
ãìëé ì÷åè ìä úéúëùø àîàé ôñìà áîçùáä ãçåéä äéà
1. When [the Levonah] is removed, it should be Kosher. Why does Dechuyah intent disqualify it?
[åîùðé] çèàú ÷øééä øçîðà àôéìå ëé ðúï òìéä ìáåðä åäìëê îäðéà áéä îçùáä ìéôñì ëê äâéä øù''é áôéøåùå åìôé ùàéðå áëì äôéøåùéí ëúáúéå
2. [The Gemara] answers that the Torah called it Chatas even if he put on it Levonah. Therefore intent helps for it to become Pasul. So Rashi changed the text in his Perush. Because it is not in all Perushim, I wrote it.
åãáø úéîä äåà îàé ÷ôøéê åúéäåé ãçåé äà áäãéà ãøéù ìä ááøééúà îãëúéá çèàú
(d) Question #1: This is astounding [for all Perushim]! What was the question "it should be Dichuy!"? The Beraisa explicitly expounds "since it is written Chatas"!
åøáà ðîé ìîä ãç÷ ìúøõ çðï äîöøé äéà
(e) Question #2: Also Rava, why did he give a difficult answer "it is Chanan ha'Mitzri"?
8) TOSFOS DH Kol sheb'Yado Lo Havi Dichuy
úåñôåú ã"ä ëì ùáéãå ìà äåé ãçåé
(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks why this is unlike when the Mizbe'ach became dented.)
öøéê ìçì÷ áéï æä ìääéà ãæáçéí áøéù ÷ãùé ÷ãùéí (ãó ðè.) ãëì ä÷ãùéí ùäéå òã ùìà ðôâí äîæáç åàç''ë ðôâí äîæáç ôñåìéï
(a) Implied question: One must distinguish between this and what it says in Zevachim (59a) that all Kodshim that were [Kodesh] before the Mizbe'ach became dented, and afterwards it became dented, they are Pesulim;
ãàîàé ôñåìéï äà ìà äåé ãçåé ëéåï ãáéãå ìú÷ï àú äîæáç
1. Why are they Pesulim? This is not Dichuy, since he can fix the Mizbe'ach!
9) TOSFOS DH Kos Hayah Memalei mi'Dam ha'Ta'arovos
úåñôåú ã"ä ëåñ äéä îîìà îãí äúòøåáåú
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why it is not Batel in Dam Tamtzis.)
àò''ô ùãí äúîöéú îòåøá áå
(a) Implied question: Dam Tamtzis is mixed with it! (L'Chatchilah, we receive all the Dam ha'Nefesh in a Kli, and let all the Dam Tamtzis spill to the floor. We could say that Dam ha'Nefesh is not Batel in a majority of Dam ha'Nefesh blood of other Korbanos, for Olim are not Mevatel each other. However, it should be Batel in a majority of Dam Tamtzis, which is not Olim, for it is Pasul for Hakravah!)
ø' éäåãä ìèòîéä ãàîø àéï ãí îáèì ãí (æáçéí ãó òç.):
(b) Answer: This is like R. Yehudah taught elsewhere, that blood is not Mevatel blood.