1) TOSFOS DH Mah Lehalan Yetzikah u'Blilah Af Kan Yetzikah u'Blilah


(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gezeirah Shavah is needed.)


(a) Question: Why must I learn from a Gezeirah Shavah "Korbanecha-Korbanecha"? I already know this, since we include below from "Minchah" to include all Menachos for Yetzikah. We exclude only Minchas Ma'afe!

'' ''

(b) Answer #1: We can say that the Gezeirah Shavah is primarily for putting oil in the Kli. Yetzikah and Blilah here, also without the Gezeirah Shavah I would know them, since it is written Minchah.


(c) Answer #2: The Gezeirah Shavah is needed also for Blilah. From "Minchah" I would include only Yetzikah, for [Minchah] was written about Yetzikah, and we include from it Pesisah for all Menachos, for Pesisah and Yetzikah are written in that verse.

( ) [" - ]

(d) Question: In Minchas Soles and Minchas ha'Omer, about which it is not written Blilah and putting oil in the Kli before making them, what is the source?

1. Granted, Machavas and Marcheshes, it says Korbanecha about them. However, what is the source for other Menachos?

2. Suggestion: Since it says Minchah regarding Machavas, we include all Menachos for three Matanos of oil.

'' [" ]

3. Rejection: If so, just like we exclude Ma'afe from Yetzikah, because it says Aleha and Hi, we should exclude also from putting oil in the Kli before making them, for these words are written together - "v'Yatzakta Aleha Shemeh Minchah Hi"!


(e) Answer: Regarding three Matanos of oil, we learn all Menachos from each other without any Gezeirah Shavah, from mere reasoning. Since they require Matanos of oil, we learn Sasum (what was not taught explicitly) from the explicit. It is like a mere Giluy Milsa.


(f) Implied question: Why do we need here Korbanecha for a Gezeirah Shavah?


(g) Answer: Since regarding Machavas Yetzikah is written last, and regarding Marcheshes putting oil in the Kli is written first, one might have thought that this [Minchah], its law is like this, and this [Minchah], its law is like this;

'' ''

1. However, after we learn from a Gezeirah Shavah to apply to what was said about this to this, the same applies to all Menachos except for Ma'afe, which the Torah excluded from Yetzikah;

2. Because the exclusions are written about Yetzikah, "Minchah" is needed to include all Menachos for Yetzikah.

2) TOSFOS DH Shapir ka'Amrei Lei Rabanan u'Mai Hi


(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes that "Shapir ka'Amrei Lei" is not a question.)


(a) Question #1: Initially it was obvious to [the Makshan] that Rabanan said properly, and afterwards he asks "what is this [that Rabanan said]?"! (The Dibur ha'Maschil shows that Tosfos' text of the Gemara was like Shitah Mekubetzes brings.)

(b) Question #2: [The Gemara] does not answer this question at all (Rabanan said properly! How can Rebbi answer?)

(c) Explanation: It seems that this is said b'Nichusa, i.e. it is not a question. Rabanan said properly to [Rebbi].

(d) Support: We find in the Tosefta that Rebbi retracted, and said "their words are better than mine."


(e) Explanation (cont.): "Mai Hi" means from which reason? Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak said, it is a Revi'is of oil, and it is divided among many Chalos. After they are baked they are dry, and absorb oil due to the fire, and a Revi'is of oil does not suffice for them.

3) TOSFOS DH u'Mah Chalos she'Ein Te'unos Meshichah v'Chulei

" '

(SUMMARY: Tosfos questions the Havah Amina to learn from each other to the other.)

(a) Question: One must be meticulous [to clarify] whether or not applies here "each stands in its place" (we do not learn from either to the other).

4) TOSFOS DH k'Min Chai


(SUMMARY: Tosfos brings different explanations of this.)

' ''

(a) Explanation #1: Rashi drew [the shape of Chai] like a Tes.


(b) Explanation #2: In his Perush on Chumash, Rashi explained like a Gimel.


(c) Explanation #3: Some say that it is like a Nun or Chaf.

( :) [] () [ " ]

(d) Explanation #4 (Aruch): A Beraisa in Kerisus (5b) teaches that kings they anoint (put the oil in a shape) like a crown, and Kohanim Gedolim like a Greek Chai. I.e. [Moshe] poured oil on Aharon's head, and it descended in two directions, like two legs (coming out of the torso), and this is its form. (Musaf ha'Aruch and Tif'eres Yisrael (Zevachim 10:37) drew the form of an upside-down V.)

1. Note: Rashi in Kerisus (5b DH k'Min) and the Rambam (Hilchos Klei ha'Mikdash 1:9) drew the form of an "X". Tif'eres Yisrael (ibid.) concludes like the Rambam.

5) TOSFOS DH Eima Lehotzi Minchah v'Chulei

" '

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we did not ask so about Pesisah.)

(a) Question (Rashi): Also regarding Pesisah we should ask so, to exclude Minchas Kohanim!

() [ " , " " :] ( ) [" - ]

(b) Answer (Rashi): Presumably, we should include Minchas Kohanim like the law of Minchas Machavas, about which Pesisah is written explicitly, for both of them are Minchas Yachid and Nefesh is written in the Parshah;


1. This excludes Shtei ha'Lechem and Lechem ha'Panim, which are of the Tzibur.


6) TOSFOS DH Eizehu Davar she'Tzarich Shnei Mi'utin v'Chulei

" '

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we do not expound like we did about Hagashah.)

( :)

(a) Question: Above (60b), regarding Hagashah, that many exclusions are written, from the first we exclude Shtei ha'Lechem and Lechem ha'Panim, for none of them goes to the fire, and the second exclusion for Minchas Nesachim, which does not come due to itself, and the third exclusion for Minchas Kohanim and Minchas Kohen Mashi'ach, from which Kohanim do not get anything;

( )

1. Here, regarding Yetizkah, that there are two exclusions - granted, we need not exclude Shtei ha'Lechem and Lechem ha'Panim, for they do not even require oil, like we exclude them there...

2. In any case, we should establish the first exclusion for Minchas Nesachim, and the other to exclude Minchas Kohanim and Minchas Kohen Mashi'ach, for the reasons there!

(b) Answer: This is different. Regarding Hagashah there are three exclusions, and we cannot establish all of them for Minchas Ma'afe;

1. However, here there are two exclusions, and we can establish both of them for Minchas Ma'afe, so we do so.

7) TOSFOS DH Chavitza


(SUMMARY: Tosfos brings three opinions about this.)

' ''

(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi): This is a cooked food called Shelinkok. Bread is crumbed into it.

(b) Question: How is this relevant to Menachos? Here, the cooking is Mevatel it from the form of bread!

1. Suggestion: Frying of Menachos is like cooking of Chavitza.

2. Rejection #1: Below, we bring about this "if one gathered from all of them...." - there no frying!

( .)

3. Rejection #2: We say in Brachos (37a) regarding wheat - if he grinded it, kneaded it, baked it and cooked it, if the pieces are intact, he blesses ha'Motzi. If the pieces are not intact, he blesses Borei Minei Mezonos;

i. Inference: If the pieces are not intact, even if they are a k'Zayis [he blesses Borei Minei Mezonos].

4. Rejection #3: Below, [Abaye] says "and according to R. Yishmael, he returns them to flour (breaks them very finely). Will you say that Kohanim do not bless ha'Motzi?!"

i. How did he want to say that he blesses ha'Motzi? Is there a greater case of "the pieces are not intact" than this?!


(c) Explanation #2 (R. Tam): Chavitza is fine [bread] crumbs stuck together via honey or Chelev and lard, like frying of a Minchah.


(d) Explanation #3 (Aruch): It is like Chavitza of dates. He crumbs the bread in a bowl, and pours soup on it.

8) TOSFOS DH Hayah Omed u'Makriv Menachos bi'Yerushalayim


(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses in which cases he blesses she'Hecheyanu.)

(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi): [This refers to] a Kohen who did not bring a Minchah this year [until now].

(b) Objection: He should not have said "bring" (which connotes that he offers his own Minchah), for a Minchas Kohen is Kalil, and we discuss a Minchah that is eaten, like it says "if he took them to eat them..."!

(c) Explanation #2: He can explain a Kohen who did not offer a Minchah this year [until now], and we discuss a Minchas Yisrael.

(d) Explanation #3: [Rashi] gave another explanation. [This refers to] a Yisrael who did not offer a Minchah in his lifetime [until now].

(e) Objection: It says "if he took them to eat them..." A Yisrael may not eat [Menachos]!

'' () [" - ] ( :)

(f) Explanation #4 (Rabbeinu Shemayah, in Brachos (37b)): [He blesses she'Hecheyanu] only for Menachos, because it is not common to volunteer Menachos.

(g) Rebuttal: One cannot say so, for a Tosefta teaches so also about a Zevach!

[" " - ] [" - ]

(h) Explanation #5: Because new Mishmaros came and switched [and each Mishmar served only] twice in a year, for there were 24 Mishmaros, and each Mishmar had six Batei Avos (a different subdivision of the Mishmar offered each day), it turns out that [each Kohen] offered only two days in a year, and there is a fixed time for them to offer, one day in half a year. Therefore he blesses on a Zevach or Minchah she'Hecheyanu at the time [he offers].

9) TOSFOS DH Liket mi'Kulan


(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this refers to from the five grains.)

(a) Explanation #1: This refers to the five species [of grain], and during Pesach.

(b) Implied suggestion: Perhaps it refers to Menachos!

(c) Rejection: This cannot be, for it says "if it is Chametz", and all Menachos are Matzah. So Rashi explained.

(d) Explanation #2: In some Perushim, it is written [that this refers to] crumbs less than a k'Zayis. It is not explained where [this refers to].

10) TOSFOS DH Afilu Pirurin she'Ein Bahen k'Zayis


(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with the Gemara in Brachos.)

'' ( . ) '

(a) Question: [R. Chiya bar Ashi] says in Brachos (39a) that dry bread soaking in a bowl, one blesses on it ha'Motzi. He argues with R. Chiya bar Aba, who says that one must finish the Brachah with the loaf (while it is still whole);

1. What is the case? If there is no other bread, we conclude here that he blesses ha'Motzi!

( ) [" - ]

2. If there is other bread, he blesses on the big! They argue there only about big pieces and small whole loaves, but big pieces and small pieces, obviously he blesses on the big]! And if there is another whole bread, obviously he blesses on that bread!


(b) Answer: There it discusses a loaf that he crumbles from it in a bowl for the sake of the Brachah, in order to bless on it ha'Motzi. (The first opinion holds that when it is dry, it is not proper for a Brachah. The latter holds that one must bless while it is whole.)