1) TOSFOS DH Mi Ba'inan Simah Dumiyah d'Nesinah Oh Lo
úåñôåú ã"ä îé áòéðï ùéîä ãåîéà ãðúéðä àå ìà
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses whether there is a Shi'ur of Nesinah in other places.)
áô''÷ ãëøéúåú (ãó å:) ôìéâé øáé éäåãä åø''î âáé ùîï äîùçä ãø' îàéø ñáø òì áùø àãí ìà éñê åëúéá åàùø éúï îîðå òì æø îä ñéëä ëì ùäåà àó ðúéðä ëì ùäåà
(a) Citation (Kerisus 6b): R. Yehudah and R. Meir argue about Shemen ha'Mishchah. R. Meir holds that "Al Besar Adam Lo Yisach", and it is written "v'Asher Yiten Mimenu Al Zar" - just like Sichah is any amount, also Nesinah is any amount;
åø' éäåãä ñáø éìôéðï ðúéðä ãæø îðúéðä ãòìîà îä ðúéðä ãòìîà ëæéú àó ðúéðä ãäëà ëæéú
1. And R. Yehudah holds that we learn Nesinah of a Zar from Nesinah elsewhere. Elsewhere, Nesinah is a k'Zayis. Also here, it is a k'Zayis.
åäùúà äê áòéà ãäëà ðéçà ìúøåééäå ãàôéìå ìø''î ãéìéó äúí îùåí ãðúéðä åñéëä áçãà îéìúà ëúéáé àìà ùæä ëúåá áàæäøä åæä ëúåá áëøú
(b) Consequence: Now, the question here is fine according to both of them. Even R. Meir, who learns [Nesinah from Sichah] there, this is because Nesinah and Sichah are written about one matter, just [Sichah] is written about the Lav, and [Nesinah] is written about the Kares;
åàôéìå ìø' éäåãä ðîé ãìà éìéó äúí ãìîà äëà îåãä ëéåï ãðúéðä åùéîä ëúéáé áçã ÷øà
1. And even R. Yehudah, who does not learn [Nesinah from Sichah] there, perhaps here he admits, because Nesinah and Simah are written in the same verse.
åäà ãîùîò ãðúéðä áòìîà áëæéú
(c) Implied question: It connotes that Nesinah elsewhere is a k'Zayis. (What is the source?)
äééðå îùåí ãéìôéðï îðúéðä ãúùìåîé úøåîä ãäåéà áëæéú ëøáðï ãôø÷ ëì ùòä (ôñçéí ìá:)
(d) Answer: This is because we learn from Nesinah of payment of Terumah (if a Zar ate Terumah b'Shogeg, he must pay), which is [only if he ate at least] a k'Zayis, like Rabanan in Pesachim (32b);
åãìà ëàáà ùàåì ãìãéãéä ùåä ôøåèä áòé åëé àéëà ùåä ôøåèä àò''ô ùàéï áå ëæéú
1. Possibility #1: This is unlike Aba Sha'ul, who requires a Perutah, and when there is a Perutah [he obligates] even if there is not a k'Zayis.
àé ðîé àôéìå ëàáà ùàåì ãùàðé äúí ãéìéó îîòéìä ãáôøåèä ëãàéúà äúí
2. Possibility #2: This is even like Aba Sha'ul. There is different, for he learns from Me'ilah, [for which the Shi'ur is] a Perutah, like it says there.
åäà ãàîø áôø÷ äæäá (á''î îæ.) ÷åðéï áëìé àó òì ôé ùàéï áå ùåä ôøåèä àò''â ãëúéá åðúï ìøòäå
(e) Implied question: It says in Bava Metzi'a (47a) that we can acquire with a Kli (Chalipin) even if it is not worth a Perutah, even though it says "v'Nasan l'Re'ehu" [this is difficult for Aba Sha'ul]!
ðòìå ëúéá ãîùîò ëì ãäå
(f) Answer #1: It says "Na'alo", which connotes [worth] any amount.
åâè ðîé àîøéðï (âéèéï ãó ë.) ëúáå òì àéñåøé äðàä ëùø
(g) Implied question: Also a Get, we say that if he wrote it on Isurei Hana'ah, it is Kosher [even though it says "v'Nasan"]!
ãåðúï áéãä ðúéðú âè áòìîà ÷àîø ëãëúé' ñôø àôé' ëì ãäå
(h) Answer #1: "V'Nasan b'Yadah" refers to mere giving a Get (it need not be a monetary gift), like it is written "Sefer" - any amount.
åìîàé ãôøéùéú ãèòîà ãàáà ùàåì îùåí ãéìéó îîòéìä ðéçà èôé ãìà ùééê ìîéìó îîòéìä àìà úøåîä ùäéà ëòéï îòéìä ùîùìí ÷øï åçåîù
(i) Answer #2 (to both questions): According to what I explained that Aba Sha'ul's reason is because he learns from Me'ilah, this is better. It is applicable to learn from Me'ilah only Terumah, which resembles Me'ilah, for one pays principal and Chomesh.
å÷öú ÷ùä áúøåîä ãëúéá (ãáøéí èå) úúï ìå àîàé çéèä àçú ôåèøú àú äëøé ðéáòé ëæéú ëðúéðä ãùîòúéï
(j) Question: Regarding Terumah it is written "Titen Lo." Why does one wheat [kernel] exempt the entire stack? We should require a k'Zayis, like Nesinah of our Sugya!
åàéï ìåîø ãçéèä àçú ìàå ãå÷à
1. Implied suggestion: One wheat [kernel] is not precise.
ãäà àîøéðï áñåó îñëú ò''æ (ãó òâ:) ãèáì áëì ùäåà ãëäúéøå ëê àéñåøå
2. Rejection #1: We say in Avodah Zarah (73b) that any amount of Tevel [forbids a mixture] - like its Heter (any amount of Terumah permits Tevel) so is its Isur.
åáîñëú ôéàä áùîòúà ÷îééúà áéøåùìîé îùîò ãàéï ìä ùéòåø ëìì
3. Rejection #2: In Pe'ah, in the first Sugya in the Yerushalmi, it connotes that there is no Shi'ur at all.
åäà ãìà úðé ìä áäãé äðê ãàéï ìäí ùéòåø
4. Implied question: Why was it not taught with the matters that have no Shi'ur?
îùåí ãàéï àãí òåùä ëì âåøðå úøåîä îùåí ãëúéá øàùéú ùùéøéä ðéëøéï
5. Answer: (It has an upper Shi'ur.) One cannot make his entire granary Terumah, for it says "Reishis" (the first) - the remainder must be recognized.
i. Note: Tosfos ha'Rid (Kidushin 58b DH Chitah) answers that any amount permits the Isur Tevel, but there is a Shi'ur to fulfill the Mitzvah of giving to a Kohen.
åîúï áäåðåú àéï ùééê ìäæëéø ëàï ãìà ùééê áäå ìà ôøåèä åìà ëæéú
(k) Observation: It is not applicable to mention Matanos [of blood on the Behonos] here, for a Perutah and k'Zayis do not apply.
2) TOSFOS DH Yachol bi'Shnei Kohanim Talmud Lomar Aleha
úåñôåú ã"ä éëåì áùðé ëäðéí ú''ì òìéä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos brings three explanations of the Havah Amina.)
ôéøù á÷åðèøñ ùìà éúçééáå áùðé ìàåéï òì äìáåðä åòì äùîï àìà ùðé ëäðéí àçã ðåúï àú äùîï åàçã ðåúï àú äìáåðä àáì çã ëäï ìà îéçééá àìà çã ìàå
(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi): They are liable for two Lavim for Levonah and oil only [if there are] two Kohanim - one puts the oil, and one puts the Levonah. However, one Kohen is liable only one Lav.
å÷ùä ëéåï ãëúéáé ùðé ìàåéï ìîä ìà éúçééá ëäï àçã ëîå ùðéí
(b) Question: Since two Lavim are written, why is one Kohen not liable like two?
åðøàä ìôøù ãîééøé áùúé îðçåú äðòùåú áùðé ëäðéí ãäëé àåøçà ãîéìúà îùåí áøåá òí äãøú îìê
(c) Explanation #2: We discuss two Menachos done through two Kohanim. This is the normal case, for b'Rav Am Hadras Melech (it honors the king when many serve together).
ãäà áúðåôú çæä åùå÷ åçìáéí îèôìéí áå ùìùä ëäðéí îùåí áøåá òí äãøú îìê ëãì÷îï (ãó ñá.) ëì ùëï áùúé îðçåú
1. Source: Three Kohanim engage in Tenufah of [one] Chazah v'Shok, due to b'Rav Am Hadras Melech, like it says below (62a), and all the more so [at least two Kohanim engage with] two Menachos;
åäëé ÷àîø éëåì áùúé îðçåú ãåå÷à ëúéáé ùðé ìàåéï ùáæàú ðúï ùîï åáæàú ðúï ìáåðä
2. It means as follows. Perhaps only regarding two Menachos are written two Lavim, that this [Kohen] put oil and this put Levonah;
ãàéìå áîðçä àçú ëéåï ãëáø ðúï òìéä ùîï äøé äéà ôñåìä åìà îçééá úå àìáåðä ëãàùëçï ìòéì (ãó ðæ.) áäîçîõ àú äôñåìä ãôèåø
i. If it was one Minchah, since he already put oil on it, it is Pasul, and afterwards one is not liable for Levonah, like we find above (57a) that one who ferments a Pasul [Minchah] is exempt.
åàò''â ãäúí ëúéá ìä' ããøùéðï ëùøä åìà ôñåìä
ii. Implied question: There it is written la'Shem - we expound Kosher, and not Pasul!
àéîà îäúí éìôéðï
iii. Answer: I can say that we learn from there.
ú''ì òìéä áâåôä ùì îðçä äëúåá îãáø ìçééá ùðé ìàåéï
(d) Explanation #2 (cont.): [The Gemara answers] it says Aleha - the verse discusses the Minchah itself, to obligate two Lavim.
å÷öú ÷ùä ãàéîà ã÷øà îééøé áùðúï äùîï åàú äìáåðä ááú àçú
(e) Question: I can say that the verse discusses when he put the oil and Levonah at once (but when he put one after the other, he is exempt for the latter, for it was already Pasul)!
åùîà àé àôùø ìöîöí
(f) Answer #1: Perhaps Iy Efshar Letzamtzem (one cannot put them exactly at the same time).
àé ðîé ñúí ÷øà àåøçéä áæä àçø æä ëîå ùøâéìéï áîðçåú ùéù áäí ùîï åìáåðä
(g) Answer #2: The Stam verse discusses the common case, that he puts one after the other, like people usually do for Menachos that have oil and Levonah.
åø''ú îôøù éëåì áùðé ëäðéí ëìåîø áùðé ãáøéí ùæä ðúï ùîï åæä ðúï ìáåðä
(h) Explanation #3 (R. Tam): "Perhaps it is with two Kohanim", i.e. with two matters - this put oil and this put Levonah;
åäåà äãéï áàãí àçã áæä àçø æä àìà îùåí ãàåøçà ãîéìúà ùùðé ëäðéí øâéìéï ìòùåú îùåí áøåá òí äãøú îìê
1. The same applies to one person, but the common case is that two Kohanim do it due to b'Rav Am Hadras Melech;
åàîúðé' ÷àé ãçééá òì äùîï áôðé òöîå åòì äìáåðä áôðé òöîä åáòé àé çééá áæä àçø æä òì ùúéäï àò''ô ùðôñìä áùîï îéãé ãäåé àîçîõ àçø îçîõ
2. It refers to our Mishnah - he is liable for oil by itself, and for Levonah by itself. He asks whether he is liable one after the other for both of them, even though it was disqualified through oil, just like Mechametz after Mechametz;
àå ëéåï ãðôñìä àéðå çééá åîúðé' áùúé îðçåú áàçú ðúï ùîï åáàçú ðúï ìáåðä
i. Or, since it was disqualified, he is not liable, and our Mishnah discusses two Menachos. On one he put oil, and on one he put Levonah.
ú''ì òìéä áâåôä ùì îðçä éöà ðåúï ùîï òì äìáåðä àå ìáåðä òì äùîï ùàéï æä áâåôä
(i) Explanation #3A: [The Gemara answers] it says Aleha - on the Minchah itself. This excludes one who put oil on the Levonah, or Levonah on the oil, for this is not [the Minchah] itself;
åàôéìå ðúï àú äìáåðä îöã àçã áî÷åí ùàéï ùí ùîï î''î òìéä îùîò ùàéï ëìì ùîï áëì äîðçä
1. And even if he put the Levonah on one side, in a place where there is no oil, in any case "Aleha" connotes that there is no oil in the entire Minchah.
àé ðîé áâåôä îùîò ëùøä åìà ôñåìä
(j) Explanation #3B: In [the Minchah] itself connotes a Kosher [Minchah], and not a Pasul.
3) TOSFOS DH R. Shimon Omer Minchas Kohanim... l'Fi she'Ein Bahen Kemitzah
úåñôåú ã"ä øáé ùîòåï àåîø îðçú ëäðéí... ìôé ùàéï áäï ÷îéöä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that R. Shimon's reason is not due to Kemitzah.)
úéîä àìà îòúä îðçú çåèà ùì ëäðéí úäà èòåðä äâùä ãäà áòéà ÷îéöä ìø' ùîòåï ëãúðï ôø÷ åàìå îðçåú (ì÷îï òá:)
(a) Question #1: According to this, Minchas Chotei of Kohanim should require Hagashah, because it requires Kemitzah according to R. Shimon, like a Mishnah below (72b) teaches!
øáé ùîòåï àåîø îðçú çåèà ùì ëäðéí ð÷îöú åä÷åîõ ÷øá áôðé òöîå åäùéøééí ÷øéáéï áôðé òöîï
1. Citation (72b): R. Shimon says, Minchas Chotei of Kohanim is Nikmetzes, and the Kometz I offered by itself, and the Shirayim are offered by themselves.
åëé úéîà äëé ðîé
2. Suggestion: Indeed [R. Shimon holds that it requires Hagashah]!
äà ÷à''ø ùîòåï áâîøà îøáä àðé ùàø îðçåú ùéù îäï ìàéùéí åáàåú áâìì òöîï åéù îäï ìëäðéí åîåöéà àðé ùúé äìçí åìçí äôðéí ùàéï îäï ìàéùéí åîðçú ðñëéí ùàéðä áàä áâìì òöîä åîðçú ëäðéí åîðçú ëäï îùéç ùàéï îäï ìëäðéí
3. Rejection: R. Shimon said in the Gemara "I include other Menachos, for part of them goes on the fire, and they come due to themselves, and Kohanim get part. I exclude Shtei ha'Lechem and Lechem ha'Panim, for no part of them goes on the fire, and [I exclude] Minchas Nesachim, which does not come due to itself, and [I exclude] Minchas Kohanim and Minchas Kohen Mashi'ach, from which Kohanim do not get part;
àìîà éù îäï ìëäðéí áòé
i. Inference: He holds that Kohanim must get part [to be considered like other Menachos. It does not suffice that Kemitzah is taken].
åòåã ÷ùä ãùá÷ äëà òé÷ø èòîà ãäëé äåä áòé ìîéîø ø' ùîòåï àåîø îðçú ëäðéí åîðçú ëäï îùéç àéï áäï äâùä ìôé ùàéï îäï ìëäðéí
(b) Question #2: Here he abandoned the primary reason! He should have said "R. Shimon says, Minchas Kohanim and Minchas Kohen Mashi'ach, they have no Hagashah because the Kohanim do not get part"!
àå áâîøà ìéúðé ááøééúà îøáä àðé ùàø îðçåú ùéù áäï ÷îéöä åîåöéà àðé ëì àìä ùàéï áäï ÷îéöä
1. Or, in the Gemara it should teach in the Beraisa "I include other Menachos, for they have Kemitzah. I exclude all these, which do not have Kemitzah."
åðøàä ìôøù ã÷îéöä ãð÷è äëà àò''â ãìéùðà îùîò ãìèòîà ð÷èéä òì ëøçéï ìà ð÷èéä ìèòîà àìà ìëììà áòìîà ãëì ùàéðå á÷îéöä àéï áå äâùä
(c) Answer: The mention of Kemitzah here, even though the wording connotes that he mentioned it for the reason, you are forced to say that he did not mention it for the reason. Rather, he merely gives a general rule, that anything without Kemitzah does not have Hagashah;
ãùîòéðï îëìì æä ùúé äìçí åìçí äôðéí åîðçú ðñëéí åîðçú ëäðéí åîðçú ëäï îùéç
1. We infer from this Klal Shtei ha'Lechem, Lechem ha'Panim, Minchas Nesachim, Minchas Kohanim and Minchas Kohen Mashi'ach;
åìàå ìîéîø ÷àúé ãëì ùéù áå ÷îéöä éù áå äâùä ãéù ùéù áå ÷îéöä åàéï áå äâùä ëâåï îðçú çåèà ùì ëäðéí
2. He does not mean that everything that has Kemitzah, it has Hagashah, for there is something that has Kemitzah and does not have Hagashah, e.g. Minchas Chotei of Kohanim.
4) TOSFOS DH Minchas Chotei Minayin
úåñôåú ã"ä îðçú çåèà îðéï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses how we learn which Menachos require Hagashah.)
àùàø îðçåú ìà îäãø
(a) Implied question: Why doesn't he ask about [the source for] other Menachos?
ãäà ëúéá áîðçú îøçùú (åé÷øà á) àùø éòùä îàìä îùîò ëì äîðçåú äëúåáåú ùí îðçú ñåìú îðçú îçáú çìåú åø÷é÷éï îðçú äòåîø åîðçú ñåèä ëããøùé ø' ùîòåï åø' éäåãä
(b) Partial answer: It is written about Minchas Marcheshes "Asher Ya'aseh me'Eleh", which connotes all Menachos written there - Minchas Soles, Minchas Machavas, Chalos, Rekikin, Minchas ha'Omer, and Minchas Sotah, like R. Shimon and R. Yehudah expound.
àáì îðçú ëäðéí åîðçú ëäï îùéç ìà îôøù ú''÷ îðà ìéä
(c) Implied question: However, Minchas Kohanim and Minchas Kohen Mashi'ach, the first Tana does not explain from where he knows them!
åàé ááðéï àá
1. Suggestion: He learns from a Binyan Av [from other Menachos].
àéëà ìîéôøê îä ìäöã äùåä ùáäï ùëï ð÷îöåú åéù îäï ìîæáç åìëäðéí úàîø áîðçú ëäðéí åîðçú ëäï îùéç ãëåìä ëìéì åàéï áä ìëäðéí
2. Rejection: We can challenge this! The Tzad ha'Shavah of them is that they are Nikmatzos, and some of them go to the Mizbe'ach, and some to Kohanim. Will you say [that we learn to Minchas Kohanim and Minchas Kohen Mashi'ach, which are totally Kalil, and Kohanim do not receive from it?!
åùîà ìà çùéá ìä ôéøëà
(d) Answer #1 (defense of Suggestion): Perhaps he does not consider this to be a challenge.
àé ðîé îàú äîðçä ðô÷à ìéä ëé äéëé ãðô÷à ìéä îðçú çåèà
(e) Answer #2: He learns from "Es ha'Minchah", just like he learns from it Minchas Chotei.
åãáø úéîä ãùáé÷ äëà îðçú ëäðéí åîðçú ëäï îùéç ãäåà òé÷ø ôìåâúééäå ãôìéâé áä áîúðé' ø' ùîòåï åøáðï
(f) Question #1: This is astounding, that he abandoned Minchas Kohanim and Minchas Kohen Mashi'ach, which is the primary argument that R. Shimon and Rabanan argue about in our Mishnah!
åâí öøéê ìã÷ã÷ àîàé ìà ðô÷é îæàú úåøú äîðçä úåøä àçú ìëì äîðçåú
(g) Question #2: Why don't we learn from "Zos Toras ha'Minchah" - there is one law for all Menachos?
åùîà îùåí ãëúéá äúí åäøéí îîðå á÷åîöå îñåìú äîðçä åîùîðä (àú) [ö"ì åàú - áàøåú äîéí] ëì äìáåðä îùîò ãàééøé áèòåðåú ÷îéöä åèòåðåú ùîï åìáåðä åáàåú ñåìú
(h) Answer: Perhaps it is because it is written there "v'Herim Mimenu b'Kumtzo mi'Soles ha'Minchah umi'Shamnah v'Es Kol ha'Levonah", this connotes that it discusses Menachos that require Kemitzah, and require oil and Levonah, and come from Soles;
ìàôå÷é îðçú ëäðéí åîðçú ëäï îùéç ãàéï èòåðåú ÷îéöä åìà îðçú çåèà åîðçú ñåèä ãàéï èòåðåú ùîï åìáåðä åìà îðçú äòåîø ãñåìú îùîò çéèéï åæå áàä ùòåøéï åìà ëúéá áä ñåìú àìà âøù åùîï
1. This excludes Minchas Kohanim and Minchas Kohen Mashi'ach, which do not require Kemitzah, and Minchas Chotei and Minchas Sotah, which do not require oil and Levonah, and Minchas ha'Omer, for Soles connotes wheat, and it comes from barley, and Soles is not written regarding it, rather, Geresh and oil.
åîéäå áøéù (îëàï îòîåã á) ôéø÷éï (ãó ðâ.) éìôéðï îæàú úåøú ìòðéï îöä àôéìå îðçú îøçùú àò''â ãáæàú úåøú ëúéá ñåìú åæå àéðä áàä ñåìú àìà îøçùú
(i) Question: However, above (53a) we learn from Zos Toras [ha'Minchah] regarding Matzah, even Minchas Marcheshes, even though in Zos Toras it is written Soles, and this does not [offered] Soles, rather, Marcheshes!
60b----------------------------------------60b
åòåã äà øáé ùîòåï áøéù îëéìúéï ãðô÷à (ìï) [ö"ì ìéä - áàøåú äîéí] îæàú úåøú ëì äîðçåú ãàéï îçùáä ôåñìú áäï åäëà áòé ÷øà ìøáåéé îðçú äòåîø åîðçú ÷ðàåú (ñåèä) åìà ðô÷à (ìï) [ö"ì ìéä - áàøåú äîéí] îæàú úåøú
(j) Question #2: R. Shimon above (3b) learns all Menachos from Zos Toras that intent [Lo Lishmah] does not disqualify them, and here he requires a verse to include Minchas ha'Omer and Minchas Kena'os, and he does not learn from Zos Toras!
åðøàä ìôøù ãìà ùééê äëà ìîãøù îæàú úåøú ëìì îùåí ãëúéáé øéáåéé åîéòåèé ãúìúà øéáåéé ëúéáé åúìú îéòåèé
(k) Answer: Here it is not applicable to expound Zos Toras at all, because inclusions and exclusions are written. There are three inclusions and three exclusions;
àú äîðçä åäáàú åä÷øéáä ìøáåú îàìä åä÷øéá åä÷øéáä åäâéù åäâéùä ìîòè ëãîåëçà ñåâéà ãùîòúéï ìôéëê öøéê ìãåï îä éù ìðå ìøáåú åîä éù ìðå ìîòè
1. Es ha'Minchah, v'Heveisa and v'Hikrivah include, and me'Eleh, v'Hikriv-v'Hikrivah (i.e. the Torah could have written "v'Hikriv". Rather, it wrote v'Hikrivah, to teach only it), and v'Higish-v'Higishah exclude, like is proven in our Sugya. Therefore, we must judge what to include and what to exclude.
åøáðï ãäëà îàìä ìîòåèé ùúé äìçí åìçí äôðéí (ããøùéðï) [ö"ì ããøùé - éùø åèåá] ëøáé ùîòåï åëï ä''à ãåä÷øéáä ìîòåèé îðçú ðñëéí
2. Rabanan here hold that me'Eleh excludes Shtei ha'Lechem and Lechem ha'Panim, for they expound like R. Shimon. Similarly, the Hei of v'Hikrivah excludes Minchas Nesachim;
àáì ä''à ãåäâéùä ìîòåèé îðçú ëäðéí åîðçú ëäï îùéç ìà (ãøùéðï åàé ìà ãøùéðï) [ö"ì ãøùé åàé ìà ãøùé - éùø åèåá] ìéä äëà ãøùé' ìéä (áîëéìúà) [ö"ì áîéìúà - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã] àçøéúé
3. However, the Hei of v'Higishah to exclude Minchas Kohanim and Minchas Kohen Mashi'ach they do not expound, and if they do not expound it here, they expound it for something else;
åîñúáø ìäå ìîòåèé äðê èôé îîðçú ëäðéí åîðçú ëäï îùéç îúåê ñáøúå ùì øáé ùîòåï âåôä ãì÷îï ãîòé÷øà àîòè ìäå åäãø àîòè îðçú ëäðéí åîðçú ëäï îùéç
i. They hold that it is reasonable to exclude these more than Minchas Kohanim and Minchas Kohen Mashi'ach for R. Shimon's very reason below, that first he excluded them, and afterwards he excluded Minchas Kohanim and Minchas Kohen Mashi'ach.
5) TOSFOS DH v'Heveisa Lerabos Minchas ha'Omer v'Hikrivah Lerabos Minchas Sotah
úåñôåú ã"ä åäáàú ìøáåú îðçú äòåîø åä÷øéáä ìøáåú îðçú ñåèä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why he does not learn also Minchas Sotah from v'Heveisa.)
úéîä ãîåäáàú äåä ìéä ìîéìó ðîé îðçú ñåèä ãëúéá áä ðîé äáàä ëã÷àîø ø' éäåãä
(a) Question: He should have learned also Minchas Sotah from v'Heveisa, for it is written about it also Hava'ah (bringing), like R. Yehudah said!
åé''ì ãñáøà äåà ìàå÷åîé èôé áîðçú äòåîø ãàéëà ùîï åìáåðä åàéëà ðîé ñåìú åæå ÷îç
(b) Answer: It is more reasonable to include Minchas ha'Omer, which has oil and Levonah, and it has also Soles (greatly sifted flour), and [Minchas Sotah] is [regular] flour.
6) TOSFOS DH Minchas Sotah she'Te'unah Tenufah Eino Din v'Chulei
úåñôåú ã"ä îðçú ñåèä ùèòåðä úðåôä àéðå ãéï åëå'
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses challenges to the Kal v'Chomer.)
åúéîä åìéîà ùúé äìçí éåëéçå ãèòåðéí úðåôä åìà äâùä ëã÷àîø áîúðé'
(a) Question: He should say that Shtei ha'Lechem is Yochi'ach (disproves this). It requires Tenufah and not Hagashah, like it says in our Mishnah!
åé''ì ãàéëà ìîéôøê îä ìùúé äìçí ùëï àéï îäï ìàéùéí
(b) Answer: We can challenge this. You cannot be Mochi'ach from Shtei ha'Lechem, since no part is offered on the fire.
àê úéîä ìåâ ùì îöåøò åàùîå éåëéçå åëáùé òöøú (åùìîé) [ö"ì åàîåøé - éùø åèåá] ùìîé éçéã ãèòåðéï úðåôä åìà äâùä
(c) Question #1: The Log [of oil] of a Metzora and his Asham should be Mochi'ach, and [also] Kivsei Atzeres and Eimurim of Shalmei Yachid, which require Tenufah and not Hagashah!
åì÷îï ìøáé éäåãä ÷ùä èôé ãìà îöøéê ÷øà ìîðçú äòåîø (îãéðà) [ö"ì åîãéðà - öàï ÷ãùéí] éìéó ãàéëà ìîéôøê ëãôøéùéú
(d) Question #2: According to R. Yehudah below this is more difficult. He does not require a verse for Minchas ha'Omer, and he learns from a Kal v'Chomer. We can challenge it like I explained!
7) TOSFOS DH R. Shimon Omer Es ha'Minchah v'Chulei
úåñôåú ã"ä øáé ùîòåï àåîø àú äîðçä ëå'
(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that elsewhere R. Shimon does not expound Es.)
äëà ãøéù øáé ùîòåï àú åáñô''÷ (ìòéì éà:) âáé àú ëì äìáåðä ìà ãøéù [åùí ôéøùúé]
(a) Observation: Here R. Shimon expounds Es, and above (11b) regarding "Es Kol ha'Levonah" he does not expound! I explained there (DH v'R. Shimon, that he expounds Es, but not for that Drashah).
8) TOSFOS DH Yachol she'Ani Marbeh Es Shtei ha'Lechem v'Lechem ha'Panim
úåñôåú ã"ä éëåì ùàðé îøáä àú ùúé äìçí åìçí äôðéí
(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with the Gemara on 57a.)
îùîò äëà (ãäåé) [ö"ì ãìçí äôðéí åîðçú ðñëéí äåå - éùø åèåá] èôé áëìì àú äîðçä îîðçú äòåîø åîðçú ñåèä åìòéì (ãó ðæ.) îùîò àéôëà âáé îçîõ (åùí ôéøùúé - éùø åèåá îåç÷å)
(a) Question: Here it connotes that Lechem ha'Panim and Minchas Nesachim are included in Es ha'Minchah more than Minchas ha'Omer and Minchas Sotah, and above (57a) it connotes oppositely regarding Mechametz (Kol ha'Minchah includes the Omer and Minchas Sotah, and then Asher Takrivu includes Lechem ha'Panim and/or Minchas Nesachim)!
åé''ì îùåí ãáàéï îùòåøéí âøéòé
(b) Answer: Because [the Omer and Minchas Sotah] come from barley, they are inferior (so for Hagashah, initially we do not include them from Es ha'Minchah, and they need an inclusion);
(àé ðîé áúø ãîîòèé ëì äðäå ùúé äìçí åìçí äôðéí ëúéáé äðê øéáåéé) [ö"ì åâáé îçîõ äééðå ìáúø ãîîòèé ëì äðäå åëúéáé äðê øéáåéé - éùø åèåá]
1. And for Mechametz [the inclusion Kol ha'Minchah is written] after we exclude all of these, and these inclusions are written (to include the Omer and Minchas Sotah for Hagashah, and exclude Lechem ha'Panim and Minchas Nesachim. Therefore, the Omer and Minchas Sotah have precedence to be included for the Isur of Mechametz.)