1) TOSFOS DH u'Va'os Biglal Atzman
úåñôåú ã"ä åáàåú áâìì òöîï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that this is not needed here.)
(äåà) [ö"ì äùúà - - éùø åèåá] ìà öøéê ìäàé èòîà ãîèòîà ãéù îäï ìëäðéí îéîòèà îðçú ðñëéí ëîå îðçú ëäðéí ãëåìï ìîæáç åàéï îäï ìëäðéí
(a) Implied question: Now we do not need this reason! From the reason that Kohanim get part we exclude Minchas Nesachim just like Minchas Kohanim, for they are totally for the Mizbe'ach, and Kohanim do not get from them!
åìà ð÷èéä àìà îùåí ãð÷èéä áøéùà ãîîòè æä àçø æä:
(b) Answer: It was mentioned only because it was mentioned in the Reisha, that we exclude one after the other. (Initially we excluded just Minchas Nesachim, since it comes due to others. Now that we mention everything excluded, and we need the reason "Kohanim do not get from them" for Minchas Kohanim, this suffices also for Minchas Nesachim. We mention "due to others" only because it was mentioned above.)
2) TOSFOS DH u'Minchas Kohanim u'Minchas Kohen Mashi'ach
úåñôåú ã"ä åîðçú ëäðéí åîðçú ëäï îùéç
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that the reason is not due to lack of Kemitzah.)
ùàéï îäï ìëäðéí
(a) Explanation: [We exclude them] because Kohanim do not get from them.
áîúðéúéï ôéøùúé äà ãúìé èòîà ìôé ùàéï áäï ÷îéöä:
(b) Remark: In our Mishnah (60a DH R. Shimon) I explained why we attribute to the reason that they do not have Kemitzah. (The Tana merely gives a general rule, that anything without Kemitzah does not have Hagashah.)
3) TOSFOS DH Hani Mili Minchah d'Ikri Chatas v'Chatas Te'unah Yesod v'Chulei
úåñôåú ã"ä ä''î îðçä ãàé÷øé çèàú åçèàú èòåðä éñåã ëå'
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses what we learn from Chatas to Minchah.)
áæáçéí áôø÷ ÷ãùé ÷ãùéí (ãó ñâ:) àîøéðï çèàú ÷øåéä îðçä åîðçä ÷øåéä çèàú îä çèàú èòåðä öôåï àó îðçä èòåðä öôåï åîä îðçä á÷øï îòøáéú ãøåîéú àó çèàú á÷øï îòøáéú ãøåîéú
(a) Citation (Zevachim 63b): Chatas is called Minchah, and Minchah is called Chatas. Just like Chatas requires the north, also Minchah requires the north. Just like Minchah is in the southwest corner, also Chatas is in the southwest corner.
åôéøù ùí á÷åðè' ãàåúä âéøñà îùåáùú ãìà çèàú äòåó èòåðä öôåï ìîìé÷ä ëã÷àîø ìòéì ãàåúï áöôåï åìà áï òåó èòåï öôåï åìà îðçä ì÷îéöä èòåðä öôåï
(b) Rebuttal (Rashi there): This text is wrong. Chatas ha'Of does not require the north for Melikah, like it says above (56a), Oso (Shechitah Olas Behemah) is in the north, but a bird does not require the north, and Minchah does not require Kemitzah in the north."
åà''ú îðçú çåèà çìå÷ä (îï äùàø) [ö"ì îùàø îðçåú - öàï ÷ãùéí] åìçèàú áäîä î÷éù ìä äåä (ìàéúåéé àîúðé') [ö"ì ìîúðéé áîúðé' - âìéåï äù"ñ] ã÷úðé äúí ìòéì äîðçåú ð÷îöåú áëì î÷åí áòæøä çåõ îîðçú çåèà
(c) Question #1: Minchas Chotei is unlike other Menachos, and it is equated to Chatas Behemah. The Mishnah should have taught it, for it taught there above (Zevachim 63a) "Kemitzah of Menachos is done anywhere in the Azarah", except for Minchas Chotei"!
åòåã àôùø çèàú äòåó äáàä áãìåú úçú çèàú áäîä àéðä èòåðä öôåï ùäøé ðòùéú á÷øï îòøáéú ãøåîéú îðçä äáàä úçú çèàú äòåó úèòåï öôåï
(d) Question #2: It is possible that Chatas ha'Of, which an Oni brings in place of Chatas Behemah, does not require the north, for it is done in the southwest corner, and Minchah, which [for a very poor person] is in place of Chatas ha'Of, requires the north?!
åòåã ÷ùä ãáôø÷ àéæäå î÷åîï (ùí îè:) îåëç ãçèàú (äòåó - ùéèä î÷åáöú îåç÷å) ãèòåðä öôåï îòåìä äåé äé÷ù àí ëï äéëé àúéà îðçä åäãø éìôà îçèàú åëé ãáø äìîã áäé÷ù çåæø åîìîã áäé÷ù
(e) Question #3: In Zevachim (49b) it is proven that a Hekesh from Olah teaches that Chatas requires the north. If so, how can we learn Minchah from Chatas? Does something learned from a Hekesh return to teach through a Hekesh?!
åôéøù ùí á÷åðèøñ ãðøàä ìå ãâøñéðï îä çèàú ôñåìä ùìà ìùîä àó îðçä ôñåìä ùìà ìùîä
(f) Version #2 (Rashi in Zevachim): The text says "just like Chatas is Pasul she'Lo Lishmah, also Minchah is Pasul she'Lo Lishmah."
å÷ùä ìôéøåùå ãåãàé îòé÷øà àîøé' ìòéì áô''÷ ãîëéìúéï (ãó ã.) áùìîà îðçú çåèà çèàú ÷øééä øçîðà àìà îðçú ÷ðàåú ëå'
(g) Question: Surely, initially we said above (4a) "granted, Minchas Chotei, the Torah called it Chatas. However, Minchas Kena'os...";
àáì áîñ÷ðà àîøéðï àìà îðçú çåèà åîðçú ÷ðàåú ãôñåìåú áùìà ìùîï îðìï çèàú èòîà îàé ãëúéá áä äéà äðé ðîé ëúéá áä äéà
1. However, in the conclusion, we say "rather, what is the source that Minchas Chotei and Minchas Kena'os are Pesulim she'Lo Lishman? What is the reason why Chatas [is Pasul she'Lo Lishmah]? It is because it says "Hi". Also these, it is written Hi!" (According to Rashi, we learn Minchas Chotei from a Hekesh, and not from "Hi"!)
åä''ø çééí âøéñ îä çèàú ãçèàú ]äòåó - ùéèä î÷åáöú[ èòåðä éñåã ãëúéá (åé÷øà ä) åäðùàø áãí éîöä àì éñåã äîæáç àó îðçä èòåðä äâùä ëðâã äéñåã ìàôå÷é ÷øï ãøåîéú îæøçéú
(h) Version #3 (R. Chaim): The text says 'just like Chatas ha'Of requires Yesod, for it says "veha'Nish'ar b'Dam Yimatzei El Yesod ha'Mizbe'ach", also Minchah needs Hagashah opposite the Yesod, to exclude the southeast corner (which did not have a Yesod)';
ëãîåëç äëà ãîãàé÷øé çèàú ðô÷à
1. This is like it is proven here, that we learn from that it is called Chatas.
åà''ú åùàø îðçåú îðìï
(i) Question: What is the source for other Menachos [that they require Yesod]?
åëé úéîà îãàéú÷åù ëì äîðçåú ìçèàú åàùí áô' öå àú àäøï åéìôéðï îùéøé äãí ùèòåðéï éñåã
1. Suggestion: It is because all Menachos are equated to Chatas and Asham in Parshas Tzav ("Kodesh Kodoshim Hi ka'Chatas vecha'Asham"), and we learn from Shirayim of blood, which requires Yesod.
à''ë îðçú çåèà ðîé úéôå÷ ìé îäúí
2. Rejection #1: If so, also Minchas Chotei I should know from there!
åòåã îðìï ãî÷ùéðï ìùéøééí à÷ùéðäå ìúçéìú ãîéí ãìà áòå éñåã áçèàú
3. Rejection #2: What is the source that we equate [Menachos] to Shirayim? We should equate them to initial blood, which does not require Yesod regarding Chatas (the first Matanah is on the southeast Keren)!
åé''ì ãëúéá ìôðé ä' àîðçú çåèà åáëì äîðçåú ðîé ëúéá ìôðé ä' ëé äéëé ãäàé ìôðé ä' ëðâã äéñåã äàé ðîé ëðâã äéñåã
(j) Answer: It is written Lifnei Hash-m regarding Minchas Chotei, and also regarding all Menachos it is written Lifnei Hash-m. Just like [the former] Lifnei Hash-m is opposite the Yesod, also [the latter] is opposite the Yesod.
åìà âæéøä ùåä îîù äéà ããáø äìîã áäé÷ù îéáòéà ìï àé çåæø åîìîã áâ''ù àé ìà àìà âìåéé îéìúà áòìîà
1. Remark: It is not truly a Gezeirah Shavah, for something learned from a Hekesh, we asked whether or not it returns to teach through a Gezeirah Shavah (and we did not resolve from this)! Rather, it is a mere Giluy Milsa.
4) TOSFOS DH Aval Hacha Lifnei Hash-m Karina Bei
úåñôåú ã"ä àáì äëà ìôðé ä' ÷øéðà áéä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses what is called Lifnei Hash-m.)
úéîä ãáæáçéí ôø÷ ÷ãùé ÷ãùéí (ãó ðç. åùí) åáéåîà áôø÷ èøó á÷ìôé (ãó îä:) âáé âçìéí ùì éåí äëôåøéí îùîò ãìà îé÷øé ìôðé ä' àìà áîòøá
(a) Question: In Zevachim (58a) and in Yoma (45b) regarding coals of Yom Kipur, it connotes that only the west is called Lifnei Hash-m;
åëï âáé ðø îòøáé áô' ùúé äìçí (ì÷îï öç:) åäëà âáé úðåôä àîø ìôðé ä' áîæøç
1. Also regarding the Ner Ma'aravi below (98b), and here regarding Tenufah, it says "Lifnei Hash-m" in the east!
åëï âáé ùçéèä ëúéá (åé÷øà à) ìôðé ä' åùøé áëì î÷åí áòæøä
2. Also regarding Shechitah it says Lifnei Hash-m, and it is permitted everywhere in the Azarah!
åéù ìåîø ãùçéèä åúðåôú ìåâ åàùí ëúéá (ùí éã) ìôðé ä' ìîòåèé áçåõ (îëàï îòîåã á) ãúðåôú àùí îçééí
(b) Answer: Regarding Shechitah, Tenufah of the Log [of oil] and Asham it is written Lifnei Hash-m to exclude outside [the Azarah], for Tenufah of the Asham is while it is alive. (If it were after Shechitah, we would already know that it is in the Azarah lest it be disqualified due to Yotzei.)
61b----------------------------------------61b
àáì ìôðé ä' ãäðê ìîä ìé àé ìàå îùåí ãáòéðï áîòøá
1. However, why do we need Lifnei Hash-m of the others, if not to obligate the west?
åîéäå ÷ùä ãîùîò äëà âáé äâùä ãàé ìà áòé éñåã äåä îëùøðà ÷øï ãøåîéú îæøçéú ìäâùä àò''â ãëúéá ìôðé ä'
(c) Question #1: It connotes here regarding Hagashah that if it did not need the Yesod, the southeast corner would be Kosher for Hagashah, even though it is written Lifnei Hash-m;
åäâùä áîæáç äéà åìà àéöèøéê ìîòåèé áçåõ à''ë ìà àúà àìà ìàöøåëéä îòøá
1. Hagashah is [at] the Mizbe'ach, and [Lifnei Hash-m] need not exclude outside. If so, it comes only to obligate the west!
åòåã ÷ùä ãáäê ãäâùä âåôä îùîò áä÷åîõ øáä (ìòéì éè:) ãáòéðï ìôðé ä' îîù
(d) Question #2: In this case of Hagashah itself, it connotes above (19b) that we require truly Lifnei Hash-m (i.e. facing the Heichal);
ã÷àîø øáé àìòæø éëåì éâéùðä áîòøáä ùì ÷øï àå áãøåîä ùì ÷øï åîñé÷ ëùàúä àåîø ìôðé ä' áîòøá áéèìú àì ôðé äîæáç åëùàúä àåîø àì ôðé äîæáç áãøåí ÷ééîú ìôðé ä' áîòøá
1. R. Elazar said "one might have thought that he may do Hagashah at the west of the corner or the south of the corner!" He concludes "when you say Lifnei Hash-m in the west, you neglect El Pnei ha'Mizbe'ach. When you say El Pnei ha'Mizbe'ach in the south, you fulfill Lifnei Hash-m in the west;
ëãîôøù ã÷ñáø ëåìéä îæáç áöôåï ÷àé àìîà ãàé ìàå äëé ìà äåä ÷øéðà áéä ìôðé ä'
2. This is like [the Gemara] explains, that he holds that the entire Mizbe'ach is in the north (so the south is in front of the Heichal). This implies that if not, we would not call this "Lifnei Hash-m"!
5) TOSFOS DH Kohen Meni'ach Yado Tachas Yedei ha'Ba'alim u'Menif
úåñôåú ã"ä ëäï îðéç éãå úçú éãé äáòìéí åîðéó
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses where the owner holds the Kli.)
ìàå ãåå÷à ÷àîø úçú éã äáòìéí îîù ãà''ë äåéà ìä éã äáòìéí çöéöä áéï äëìé åáéï éã äëäï
(a) Observation: It is not precisely under the owner's hand, for if so, the owner's hand is a Chatzitzah between the Kli and the Kohen's hand;
åáñåó ùúé îãåú (ì÷îï öã.) îñ÷éðï âáé áòìé çáøéï ìéðôå ëåìäå áäãé äããé ÷à äåéà çöéöä
1. And below (94a) we conclude regarding partners "if they all wave together, it is a Chatzitzah!"
àìà äáòìéí àåçæéï áàåâðé äëìé åäëäï áùåìéå îìîèä åäééðå úçú éã äáòìéí
(b) Explanation #1: Rather, the owner holds the brim of the Kli, and the Kohen holds it at the bottom. This is under the owner's hand.
åäëé úðï áäãéà áùéìäé îñ' áëåøéí (î''å) äâéò ìàøîé àåáã àáé îåøéã äñì îòì ëúéôå åàåçæ áùôúåúéå åäëäï îðéç éãå úçúéå åîðéôå
(c) Support: A Mishnah explicitly teaches in Bikurim (3:6) when he reached "Arami Oved Avi", he takes the basket down from his shoulder and holds it at the edge, and the Kohen puts his hand underneath and waves it.
åá÷åðèøñ ôé' ì÷îï áôø÷ ùúé îãåú (ãó öâ.) ãúðåôú äëäï ìà àéëôú ìï àí éù áä çöéöä ãòé÷ø úðåôä ááòìéí äéà
(d) Explanation #2: Rashi explained below (93a) that regarding Tenufah of the Kohen, we are not concerned if there is a Chatzitzah, for the primary Tenufah is of the owner.
å÷ùä ãîðà ìéä äà äà úøåééäå ëúéáï
(e) Objection: What is the source? Both of them are written [in the Torah]!
åáéøåùìîé îùîò ÷öú ãäåé [úçú éãéå] îîù ãâøñé' âáé úðåôú îðçú ñåèä åëäï îðéç éãå ëå' åàéï äãáø ëòåø
(f) Support (for Explanation #2): The Yerushalmi connotes that his hand is truly under [the owner's], for the text says regarding Tenufas Minchas Sotah, and the Kohen puts his hand [under hers]... it is not repulsive?!
îáéà îôä åàéðå çåöõ îáéà ëäï æ÷ï åàôéìå úéîà éìã àéï éöø äøò îöåé ìàåúä ùòä
1. Citation (Yerushalmi): He brings a cloth (in between their hands). Is it not a Chatzitzah?! We bring an old Kohen [he will not be aroused]. I can even say a young Kohen - the Yetzer ha'Ra is not frequent at that time (she is disgraced - her clothes are torn, she is prone to explode...)
åîéäå îöéðå ìîéîø ãàò''ô ùæä ìîèä åæä ìîòìä ôòîéí ðåâòéï éãéå áéãä òì éãé ùîúéçã áúðåôä
(g) Rejection: We can say that even though he is below and she is above (at the brim), sometimes his hands touch hers since they wave together.
6) TOSFOS DH Matzinu she'Chilek ha'Kasuv Bein Korban Yisrael...
úåñôåú ã"ä îöéðå ùçéì÷ äëúåá áéï ÷øáï éùøàì...
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses exclusions of those who do not do Semichah.)
ôé' á÷åðèø' ãúðéà áú''ë áøéùéä áðé éùøàì åñîê áðé éùøàì ñåîëéï åìà äòåáãé ëåëáéí ñåîëéï áðé éùøàì ñåîëéï åìà áðåú éùøàì ñåîëåú
(a) Explanation (Rashi): A Beraisa at the beginning of Toras Kohanim says "Bnei Yisrael v'Samach" - Bnei Yisrael do Semichah, and Nochrim do not do Semichah. Bnei Yisrael do Semichah, and Bnos Yisrael do not do Semichah.
åì÷îï áñåó ùúé îãåú (â''æ ùí) àîøéðï ðîé áðé éùøàì ñåîëéï åàéï äòåáãé ëåëáéí ñåîëéï
(b) Support: Also below (93a) we say that Bnei Yisrael do Semichah, and Nochrim do not do Semichah.
åà''ú åúéôå÷ ìé îããøùé' áñåó ùúé îãåú (âæ''ù) ÷øáðå åìà ÷øáï òåáã ëåëáéí
(c) Question: I already know this from what we expound below (93a) "Korbano", and not a Nochri's Korban!
åé''ì ãàéöèøéê ÷øáðå ãìà úéîà ùéñîåê éùøàì áùáéìï (ëâåï) [ö"ì ëîå - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã] ùîáéà ðñëéí áùáéìå
(d) Answer: We need "Korbano" lest we say that a Yisrael can do Semichah for [Nochrim on their Korban], just like he brings Nesachim for him.
åà''ú î÷øáðå åìà ÷øáï çáéøå ðô÷à
(e) Question: I already know this from "Korbano", and not his friend's Korban!
åéù ìåîø ãäåä àîéðà ëéåï ãàéðå éëåì ìñîåê éñîåê àçø áùáéìå åìà ãîé ì÷øáï çáéøå ãáø ñîéëä äåà
(f) Answer: One might have thought that since [a Nochri] cannot do Semichah, someone else will do Semichah for him. This is unlike the Korban of his friend, for [his friend] can do Semichah.
åëé úéîà àùä ðîé ìéáòé îéòåè ùìà éñîåê àçø áùáéìä
(g) Implied question: We should require an exclusion also for a woman, that someone else not do Semichah for her!
ùîà éù îéòåè
(h) Answer #1: Perhaps there is an exclusion.
àé ðîé ëéåï ãâìé áòåáãé ëåëáéí äåà äãéï áàùä
(i) Answer #2: Since [the Torah] revealed about Nochrim, the same applies to a woman.
åà''ú åì''ì ÷øà ìîòåèé äúí éãå åìà éã ùìåçå úéôå÷ ìé î÷øáðå åìà ÷øáï çáéøå
(j) Question: Why do we need a verse there to exclude - "Yado", and not his Shali'ach's hand? I know this from "Korbano", and not his friend's Korban!
åé''ì ãàéöèøéê úøé ÷øàé ãìà úéîà ëé ùåééä ùìéç òãéó ãùìåçå ùì àãí ëîåúå
(k) Answer: We need two verses, lest we say that when he made him a Shali'ach, this is better, for a person's Shali'ach is like himself.
7) TOSFOS DH Yachol Nachlok bi'Tenufah
úåñôåú ã"ä éëåì ðçìå÷ áúðåôä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we do not exempt the Korban from Tenufah.)
ùìà éäà ÷øáï òåáãé ëåëáéí å÷øáï ðùéí èòåï úðåôä (áéùøàì) [ö"ì ëéùøàì - öàï ÷ãùéí]
(a) Explanation: [We will distinguish,] and the Korban of Nochrim or of women will not require Tenufah like a Yisrael's.
ìà îä ìé çì÷ áñîéëä ëå'
(b) Citation: No - [you cannot learn from] this that we distinguish for Semichah...
ëìåîø ìà ðçìå÷ ëãîñé÷ ãéù èòí áñîéëä (ùéäà) [ö"ì ùäéà - öàï ÷ãùéí] ááòìéí åäëúåá îéòè òåáãé ëåëáéí åðùéí
(c) Explanation: We should not distinguish [regarding Tenufah], for there is a reason for Semichah, which the owner does, and the Torah excluded Nochrim and women;
àáì úðåôä áëäðéí ðîé åëùîéòè äëúåá òåáãé ëåëáéí åðùéí îéòè åìà ëäðéí
1. However, Tenufah is also with Kohanim. When the verse excluded, it excluded Nochrim and women, but it did not exclude Kohanim.
åéù ñôøéí ùëúåá áäï îú''ì áðé éùøàì áðé éùøàì îðéôéï åàéï äòåáãé ëåëáéí îðéôéï åàéï äðùéí îðéôåú
(d) Alternative text: Some texts say "why does it say Bnei Yisrael? Bnei Yisrael do Tenufah, and Nochrim and women do not wave.
åáøåá ñôøéí ìà îñééí áäå åàéï äòåáãé ëåëáéí îðéôéï
(e) Question #1: In most Seforim, it does not conclude "and Nochrim do not wave."
åòåã ÷ùä ãì÷îï (ãó ñá:) ãúðéà åäàùä ëäï îðéó òì éãä ä''ì ìîéúðé åäàùä åäòåáã ëåëáéí ëäï îðéó òì éãéäí
(f) Question #2: Below (62b), a Beraisa teaches that a woman, the Kohen waves for her. [According to the other text,] it should have said "a woman or Nochri, the Kohen waves for them"!
åòåã îúðé' ãúðï à' àðùéí åà' ðùéí ä''ì ìîúðé à' àðùéí åà' ðùéí åà' òåáãé ëåëáéí
(g) Question #3: Our Mishnah taught "the same applies to men and women." It should have taught "the same applies to men, women and Nochrim"!
8) TOSFOS DH b'Yisrael Aval Lo b'Acherim
úåñôåú ã"ä áéùøàì àáì ìà áàçøéí
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses Tenufah of Shalmei Nochrim.)
îô' øá éäåãä ãäëé ÷àîø àçã àðùéí åàçã ðùéí åàçã òåáãé ëåëáéí ÷øáðï èòåï úðåôä åúðåôä òöîä áéùøàì àáì ìà áéãé ðùéí åìà áéãé òåáãé ëåëáéí
(a) Version #1: Rav Yehudah explains that it means as follows. The same applies to men, women and Nochrim. Their Korban requires Tenufah, and Tenufah itself is through Yisrael, but not through women or Nochrim.
åá÷åðèø' ëúåá âéøñà àçøú ëîå ùùðéðå áú''ë àîø øáé éåñé îöéðå ùìà çì÷ äëúåá áéï ÷øáï òåáãé ëåëáéí ì÷øáï ðùéí ìñîéëä éëåì ìà ðçìå÷ áúðåôä
(b) Version #2 (Rashi, and Toras Kohanim) Suggestion (R. Yosi): We find that the Torah did not distinguish between the Korban of Nochrim and the Korban of women regarding Semichah. Perhaps we do not distinguish regarding Tenufah!
îä ìé çìå÷ áñîéëä ùàéï ñîéëä àìà ááòìéí ìà ðçìå÷ áúðåôä ùäúðåôä áëäðéí
1. Citation (cont.) Rejection: We distinguish for Semichah, for Semichah is only through the owner. We will not distinguish for Tenufah, since Tenufah is through Kohanim;
åëéåï ùéù úðåôä ùìà ááòìéí éù ìðå ìçìå÷ åìäåöéà ÷øáï òåáãé ëåëáéí ìâîøé îãéï úðåôä ùàéï çæä åùå÷ ùìäï çìå÷ îùàø äáùø ùäëì ìëäðéí
i. Since there is Tenufah without the owner, we should distinguish and totally exclude the Korban of Nochrim from the law of Tenufah, for its Chazah v'Shok is no different than other meat. All is for Kohanim;
àáì ÷øáï ðùéí ùçæä åùå÷ ìëäðéí åäùàø ìáòìéí éäà ÷øáðï èòåï úðåôä áëäðéí åîä ú''ì áðé éùøàì áðé éùøàì îðéôéï åàéï äðùéí îðéôåú
2. However, the Korban of women, the Chazah v'Shok is for Kohanim, and the rest is for the owner. Their Korban should require Tenufah through Kohanim. Why does it say "Bnei Yisrael"? Bnei Yisrael wave, and Bnos Yisrael do not wave.
åìùåï æä îéåùø ùáëîä î÷åîåú áùîåòä æå éù ìäáéï ù÷øáï òåáãé ëåëáéí àéï èòåï úðåôä ëìì ëê äâé' á÷åðèøñ
(c) Support: This version fits well, for in many places in our Sugya we can understand that the Korban of Nochrim does not require Tenufah at all. So Rashi fixed the text.
å÷öú ÷ùä ãàò''ô ùàéï çæä åùå÷ çìå÷ îùàø äáùø éäå ëæáçé ùìîé öáåø ãúðåôúï ëîå ùäï ìøáé ëãì÷îï
(d) Question #1: Even though Chazah v'Shok [of Shalmei Nochrim] is not different than the rest of the meat, it should be like Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur. Their Tenufah is like they are (the entire animal), according to Rebbi below (62a)!
åòåã [ö"ì àò"â - öàï ÷ãùéí] ãúðé ãëì ùìîé äòåáã ëåëáéí ìëäðéí îùåí ãòøì àñåø á÷ãùéí ëãàîø áô' äòøì (éáîåú òã.) î''î àé áòé éäéá ìéä ìéùøàì ãùàø äáùø ùøé ìéùøàì áø îçæä åùå÷ ãàñåø
(e) Question #2: Even though it was taught that all Shalmei Nochrim are to Kohanim, because an Arel may not eat Kodshim, like it says in Yevamos (74a), in any case, if [the owner] wants, he can give it to a Yisrael, for the rest of the meat is permitted to Yisrael, except for Chazah v'Shok, which is forbidden;
åîä ðôùê çæä åùå÷ ùìäï çìå÷ îùàø äáùø ùæä îåúø ìæøéí åæä àñåø ìæøéí
1. No matter what you will say, their Chazah v'Shok is different than the rest of the meat, for [the rest] is permitted to Zarim, and [Chazah v'Shok] is forbidden to Zarim.
åâéøñà øàùåðä éù ìééùá ÷öú ãìà áòé ìîéúðé áîúðéúéï àçã àðùéí åàçã ðùéí åàçã òåáãé ëåëáéí åëï ááøééúà ãì÷îï ìà áòé ìîéúðé åäàùä åäòåáã ëåëáéí
(f) Support (for Version #1): We can resolve Version #1 a little. Our Mishnah need not teach "the same applies to men, women and Nochrim", and similarly the Beraisa below need not teach "a woman or Nochri"...
îùåí ãìîàï ãàîø ì÷îï áôø÷ åàìå îðçåú (ãó òâ:) ùìîé äòåáã ëåëáéí òåìåú ìà ùééê òåáã ëåëáéí áúðåôä ëìì ãòåìä ìà áòéà úðåôä àôéìå áéùøàì
1. This is because according to the opinion below (73b) that Shalmei Nochrim are Olos, Tenufah does not apply to a Nochri at all, for Olah does not require Tenufah, even of a Yisrael;
åàé ãéäéá ìéä ìéùøàì ëãúðéà äúí òåáã ëåëáéí ùäúðãá ìäáéà ùìîéí ðúðï ìéùøàì àåëìï éùøàì
2. If he gave it to a Yisrael, like a Beraisa teaches there, a Nochri who volunteered to bring Shelamim - if he gave it to a Yisrael, the Yisrael eats it;
åîô' ãäëé ÷àîø òì îðú ùéúëôø áäï éùøàì àåëìï éùøàì îñúáøà ãëé äàé âååðà áòé úðåôä ããéðï ë÷øáï éùøàì
3. It explains that it means that [if he gave it] in order that it atone for Yisrael, the Yisrael eats it. Presumably, in such a case it needs Tenufah, for its law is like a Korban of Yisrael.
åîéäå øéùà ãîúðé' åãàé ìàå ëîàï ãàîø ùìîé äòåáã ëåëáéí òåìåú ã÷úðé äâùä åìà úðåôä îðçú äòåáãé ëåëáéí îùîò ãð÷îöú åùéøéä ìëäðéí îãáòé' äâùä
(g) Observation: However, the Reisha of our Mishnah (60a), surely it is not like the opinion that Shalmei Nochrim are Olos, for it taught "Hagashah and not Tenufah - Minchas Nochrim", which implies that it is Nikmetzes and Kohanim eat the Shirayim, since it needs Hagashah;
åìîàï ãàîø (ùìîé äòåáã ëåëáéí - âìéåðé ÷äéìú éò÷á îåç÷å) àéï îúðãá òåáã ëåëáéí àìà òåìåú áîðçåú ðîé àéï îúðãá àìà îðçú ðñëéí ãëåìéä ëìéì åáîðçú ðñëéí úðï åìà úðåôä åìà äâùä
1. And according to the opinion that Nochrim can volunteer only Olos, also Menachos he can volunteer only Minchas Nesachim, which is totally Kalil, and regarding Minchas Nesachim the Mishnah teaches "not Tenufah and not Hagashah."
åàò''ô ãäà ãîîòèéðï îäâùä äåé èòîà îùåí ãàéðä áàä áâìì òöîä àìà òí äæáç ëãàîø ø' ùîòåï
(h) Implied question: The reason we exclude it from Hagashah is because it does not come due to itself, rather, with the Zevach, like R. Shimon said (and this is not with a Zevach)!
ëéåï ãäúðãá îðçú ðñëéí äåé ãéðä ëáàä òí äæáç
(i) Answer: Since he volunteered Minchas Nochrim, its law is like what comes with a Zevach.
úãò îãìà çùéá ìä âáé äâùä
(j) Proof: We do not count [Minchas Nochrim volunteered by itself] among [Menachos for which we do] Hagashah.
9) TOSFOS DH Ein Li Ela Bnei Yisrael Gerim v'Avadim Meshuchrarim Minayin...
úåñôåú ã"ä àéï ìé àìà áðé éùøàì âøéí åòáãéí îùåçøøéí îðéï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that elsewhere we do not exclude converts and freed slaves from "Bnei Yisrael.")
îùîò ãìà äåå áëìì áðé éùøàì
(a) Inference: [Converts and freed slaves] are not included in Bnei Yisrael.
åëï áô' äòøì (éáîåú òã:) àîøé' ãáø àì áðé éùøàì àùä ëé úæøéò àéï ìé àìà áðé éùøàì âéåøú åùôçä îùåçøøú îðéï ú''ì àùä
(b) Support: It connotes like this in Yevamos (74b). We say that "Daber El Bnei Yisrael Ishah Ki Sazri'a" would teach only Bnei Yisrael. What is the source for a convert, or freed slave? It says "Ishah".
åàéú ãìà âøñé îùåçøøú åùí ôéøùúé
(c) Alternative text: Some texts do not say "freed." I explained there. (Texts that say "a freed slave" are primary, for the Gemara asks "a convert and Shifchah may not eat Terumah!" If she was not freed, a Kohen's Shifchah may eat! Also a slave who was not freed has Tum'as Yoledes, and she brings a Korban Yoledes and it is eaten.)
åúéîä ãáôø÷ áðåú ëåúéí (ðãä ìã.) ãøùé' áðé éùøàì îèîàéï áæéáä åàéï äòåáãé ëåëáéí îèîàéï àáì âøéí åîùåçøøéï ìà îîòèéðï
(d) Question: In Nidah (34a) we expound that Bnei Yisrael become Tamei through Zivah, and Nochrim do not become Tamei, but we do not exclude converts and freed slaves!
åëï âáé âåðá ðôù áô' äðçð÷éï (ñðäãøéï ôå.) ìà îîòèéðï îáðé éùøàì âøéí åîùåçøøéï
1. Similarly, regarding kidnapping (Sanhedrin 86a) we do not exclude from "Bnei Yisrael" converts and freed slaves!
åëï áô''÷ ãòøëéï (ã' ä:) ãøùé' áðé éùøàì îòøéëéï åàéï äòåáãé ëåëáéí îòøéëéï åìà îîòèéðï ìà âøéí åìà òáãéí àò''ô ùàéðí îùåçøøéï
2. Similarly, in Erchin (5b) we expound "Bnei Yisrael" are Ma'arich (vow to give to Hekdesh a person's Erech, i.e. a sum based on his age and gender), but Nochrim are not Ma'arich, and we do not exclude converts and slaves, even if they are not freed!
åùîà áëì äðê éù ùåí øéáåé ãîøáé âøéí åîùåçøøéï:
(e) Answer: Perhaps in all of these there is a Ribuy that includes converts and freed slaves.