1) TOSFOS DH Klal Amar R. Akiva v'Chulei
úåñôåú ã"ä ëìì à''ø ò÷éáà ëå'
(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that we rule like this both for Pesach and Milah.)
áô' ø''à àåîø àí ìà äáéà (ùáú ãó ÷ìâ. åùí) åáô' àìå ãáøéí (ôñçéí ãó ñè:) ôñ÷ ëø' ò÷éáà îùåí ãàéëà öøéëåúà âáé ôñç åîéìä àáì äëà ìéëà öøéëåúà
(a) Observation: In Shabbos (133a) and in Pesachim (69b) [Rav Yehudah] rules like R. Akiva, because there is a Tzerichusa for Pesach and Milah (a reason why he needed to teach that the Halachah follows R. Akiva for both of them). However, here there is no Tzerichusa.
åîéäå àîéìúéä ãø''ò ìà áòé öøéëåúà ãàùîòéðï áëì ãåëúà îàé ããçé ùáú:
(b) Remark: However, we do not need a Tzerichusa for R. Akiva's ruling. He teaches everywhere what is Docheh Shabbos.
2) TOSFOS DH Kol ha'Kelim she'Hayu b'Mikdash Orchan l'Orcho Shel Bayis
úåñôåú ã"ä ëì äëìéí ùäéå áî÷ãù àåøëï ìàåøëå ùì áéú
(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that this is like Rebbi, and there is an exception.)
áâî' úðéà çåõ îàøåï ùàåøëå ìøåçáå ùì áéú
(a) Exception: In the Gemara, a Beraisa teaches "except for the Aron." Its length was along the width of the Bayis;
åáùåìçï åîðåøä ôìéâé øáé åø' àìòæø áø' ùîòåï åîúðé' ëøáé ãàîø îæøç åîòøá îåðçéï:
1. Rebbi and R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon argue about the Shulchan and Menorah. Our Mishnah is like Rebbi, who says that they were placed east to west.
3) TOSFOS DH Sha'alu Es Rebbi Zu Minayin
úåñôåú ã"ä ùàìå àú øáé æå îðéï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that they ask about Kelim used for the baking process.)
àîúðé' ÷àé å÷àîø îðéï ùëì äîðçåú éù áäï îòùä ëìé áôðéí
(a) Explanation: This refers to our Mishnah. It means, what is the source that all Menachos have an action with a Kli inside?
åìà ìòðéï ÷îéöä îëìé ùøú å÷éãåù ÷åîõ áëìé ùøú àééøé ãáäàé ÷øà ãîééúé àééøé ááéùåì çèàú åàùí åàôééú îðçä åìà îééøé á÷éãåù ÷åîõ ëìì
1. It does not discuss Kemitzah from a Kli Shares, and Kidush of the Kometz in a Kli Shares, for this verse brought discusses cooking a Chatas and Asham and baking a Minchah. It does not discuss Kidush of a Kometz at all;
åîäé÷ùà ãæàú äúåøä ðô÷à ìï ìòéì áñåó ô' äúåãä (ãó ôá:) îä òåìä èòåðä ëìé ãëúéá åé÷ç àú äîàëìú àó ëì èòåï ëìé
2. We learn [Kemitzah and Kidush Kometz in a Kli Shares] from the Hekesh "Zos ha'Torah" above (82b) - just like Olah needs a Kli, for it says "va'Yikach Es ha'Ma'acheles", also everything [in the verse] needs a Kli;
å÷îéöä ëðâã ùçéèä å÷éãåù ÷åîõ ëðâã ÷áìä ëãàîø ìòéì áô' ùðé (ãó éâ:)
i. Kemitzah corresponds to Shechitah, and Kidush Kometz corresponds to Kabalah, like it says above (13b).
àìà äëà áìéùä åòøéëä åàôéä ùì îðçä îééøé ãàéú÷ù àôéä ãîðçä ìáéùåì ãçèàú åàùí îä äí èòåðéï ëìé ãëúéá åëìé çøñ àùø úáåùì áå éùáø åàí áëìé ðçåùú áåùìä
(b) Explanation #1: Rather, here we discuss kneading, Arichah and baking a Minchah. Baking a Minchah is equated to cooking Chatas and Asham. Just like they need a Kli, for it says "u'Chli Cheres Asher Tevushal Bo Yishaver v'Im bi'Chli Nechoshes Bushalah."
åîéäå îæä àéï øàéä ãìàå ìîéøîé çåáä ÷àîø
(c) Rebuttal: There is no proof from here. The verse does not come to obligate [a Kli]!
àìà ëãôéøù á÷åðèøñ ãëúéá àùø (úáåùì áå) [ö"ì éáùìå ùí - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã] åàéï áéùåì áìà ëìé åáôðéí îùúòé ÷øà ãàé áçåõ äøé çèàú åàùí ðôñì áéåöà åòåã ëúéá áéä ìáìúé äåöéà àì [äçöø] äçéöåðä
(d) Explanation #2: Rather, it is like Rashi explained "Asher Yevashlu Sham", and there is Bishul only in a Kli. And the verse discusses inside [the Azarah], for if it were outside, Chatas and Asham are disqualified through Yotzei! Also, it says "l'Vilti Hotzi El ha'Chatzer ha'Chitzonah";
àó àôéä ãîðçä èòåðéï ëìé ùøú åäåà äãéï ìéùä åòøéëä
1. [We learn that] also baking a Minchah needs a Kli Shares, and the same applies to kneading and Arichah.
åöøéê ìã÷ã÷ ìàéæå îðçä àéöèøéê ÷øà àé ìîðçú îçáú åîøçùú åîàôä úðåø äà ëúéá áäå ëìé åàéìå ìîðçú ñìú àéï áä àôéä ÷åãí ÷îéöä
(e) Question: For which Minchah do we need a verse? If it is for Minchas Machavas, Marcheshes or Ma'afe Tanur, Kli is written regarding them! And if it is Minchas Soles, it is not baked before Kemitzah!
4) TOSFOS DH veha'Ika Bazichin
úåñôåú ã"ä åäàéëà áæéëéï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos justifies the question.)
ä÷ùä á÷åðèøñ àîàé ôøéê äëé ãäà ùåìçï ìà î÷ãù ìäå ìáæéëéï
(a) Question (Rashi): Why does he ask so? The Shulchan is not Mekadesh the Bazichin!
åðøàä ãìà ÷ùä (ìéä) îéãé ãäà àîøéðï áô''÷ (ìòéì ãó æ.) ã÷åîõ îðçä îëìé ùòì âáé ÷ø÷ò ùëï îöéðå áñéìå÷ áæéëéï îùîò ãäåé ë÷åîõ îò''â äùìçï:
(b) Answer: This is not difficult at all. We said above (7a) that we do Kemitzah from a Kli on the ground, for so we find that the Bazichin are removed [from the Shulchan, which rests on the ground. This connotes that [removing them from on top of the bread] is like Kemitzah on the Shulchan!
96b----------------------------------------96b
5) TOSFOS DH Lo Hayu Sham Snifin
úåñôåú ã"ä ìà äéä ùí ñðéôéï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos questions R. Yosi's opinion.)
úéîä ìøáé éåñé îä äï ÷ùåúéå ã÷øà ãì÷îï (ãó öæ.) àîøéðï ÷ùåúéå àìå äñðéôéï åîð÷éåúéå àìå ä÷ðéí
(a) Question: According to R. Yosi, what are "Kesosav" of the verse? Below (97a), we say that Kesosav are the Snifin, and Menakiyosav are the poles! (Tosfos does not answer this. R E.M. Horowitz and Sefas Emes suggest that R. Yosi means that the Snifin were not opposite the bread, or not near the Shulchan, or did not support the bottom loaf (which rested on the Shulchan) of each pile of six. They supported only the upper breads.)
åøù''é ôéøù áôé' çåîù ùðçì÷å áäï çëîé éùøàì åàéú ãàîøé àéôëà åàåð÷ìåñ ùúøâí îð÷éåúéå îëéìúéä ëîàï ãàîø îð÷éåú àìå ñðéôéï
(b) Implied answer: Rashi explained in his Perush on the Chumash that Chachmei Yisrael argued about this, and some say oppositely. Unkelos translated Menakiyosav "Mechiltei." This is like the opinion that Menakiyosav are the Snifin. (Taharas ha'Kodesh - perhaps R. Yosi holds that Kesosav are poles, and he has a different Perush for Menakiyosav, e.g. molds, like the Ramban on Chumash explained!)
åìà îöéðå îçìå÷ú æä áù''ñ ùìðå åîëéìúéä ðîé éù ìééùá à÷ðéí ðîé ùâí äí äéå (ñåðôéï) [ö"ì ñåáìéï - ùéèä î÷åáöú] àú äìçí
(c) Rejection #1: We do not find this argument in our Talmud. Also, we can resolve (the Targum with our Gemara); Mechiltei refers to the poles, for also they bear the bread.
åòåã ãàé àñðéôéï äà ëúéá (ùîåú ëä) åîð÷éåúéå àùø éåñê áäï ùîñëëéï áäï àú äìçí ùòì äìçí îñëëéï ä÷ðéí áéï ìçí ìçáøúä
(d) Rejection #2: Also, [Menakiyosav] cannot refer to the Snifin, for it says "u'Menakiyosav Asher Yusach Bahen Es ha'Lechem" - the poles are over the bread, between one loaf and another. (Above (94b DH d'Samchei), Tosfos said that the Snifim support only the bottom bread. If so, they are not over the bread.)
åäà ãëúéá (áîãáø ã) àú ÷ùåú äðñê
(e) Implied question: It says "Es Kesos ha'Nasech"! (This implies that Kesosav are over the bread; Nasech is an expression of covering. Tosfos holds that all agree that Kesosav are the Snifim!)
äëé ÷àîø ñðéôéï ùì ÷ðéí äîñëëéï àú äìçí åëãôøéùéú ìòéì ùäñðéôéï îòîéãéï àú ä÷ðéí
(f) Answer: It means the Snifin of the poles that are over the bread, and like I explained above (94b DH d'Samchei) that the Snifin hold up the poles.
6) TOSFOS DH Misgarto Shel Shulchan Ma'amedes Es ha'Lechem
úåñôåú ã"ä îñâøúå [ùì ùìçï] îòîãú àú äìçí
(SUMMARY: Tosfos infers that only the bottom bread needs to be supported.)
îùîò ùà''ö äòîãä àìà çìä äúçúåðä åìòéì ôéøùðå (ãó öã:)
(a) Inference: Only the bottom bread needs support. I explained this above (94b DH d'Samchei).
7) TOSFOS DH l'Divrei ha'Omer Misgarto l'Matah Haysah
úåñôåú ã"ä ìãáøé äàåîø îñâøúå ìîèä äéúä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses whether we may learn about a tabletop from the Shulchan.)
áøâìéí àáì äãó äòìéåï çì÷ äéä îùðé öããéï åàéï ìå áéú ÷éáåì
(a) Explanation: [According to the opinion that the Misgeret was below] on the legs, but the top board was flat on both sides and it has no receptacle...
èáìà äîúäôëú ùéëåìéï ìäùúîù áöã æä ëîå áöã æä ùçì÷ä äéà îùðé öããéï èîàä ëùåìçï ùì î÷ãù ùäéä î÷áì èåîàä ëãîôøù ì÷îï
1. [He holds that] a reversible tabletop, that one can use one side like the other side, for it is smooth from both sides, it is Tamei (i.e. Mekabel Tum'ah), like the Shulchan of the Mikdash, which received Tum'ah, like it explains below;
åàéï èáìà æå ëùàø ôùåèé ëìé òõ îùåí ãøçáä äéà áéú ÷éáåìä
2. This Tavla (tabletop) is not like other Peshutei Klei Etz (wooden Kelim with no interior, which are not Mekabel Tum'ah), for its width is its receptacle.
åìãáøé äàåîø ìîòìä äéúä äàé ãî÷áì èåîàä îùåí ãàéú (ìä) [ö"ì ìéä - éùø åèåá] áéú ÷áåì åàéðä îúäôëú åèáìà äîúäôëú úéáòé ìê ëê ôéøù á÷åðèøñ
(b) Distinction: According to the opinion that [the Misgeret] was above, [the Shulchan] is Mekabel because it has a receptacle, and it is not reversible. A reversible tabletop, you can ask about it (for we cannot learn it from the Shulchan). So Rashi explained.
åäàé ãìà îùëç áôø÷ àìå îåîéï (áëåøåú ãó ìç.) èåîàä îãàåøééúà (åàéï) [ö"ì áàéï - öàï ÷ãùéí] ìå úåê áëìé ùèó àìà áäðê ãçæå ìîãøñåú ãìà àéú÷ù ìù÷
(c) Implied question: Why do we find in Bechoros (38a) Tum'ah mid'Oraisa without an interior among Klei Shetef (those that have Taharah through Tevilah) only through [Kelim] proper for Midras, that were not equated to Sak?
äééðå ëîàï ãàîø îñâøúå ìîòìä äéúä ãèáìà äîúäôëú úéáòé ìê
(d) Answer #1: This is like the opinion that the Misgeret was above, that a reversible tabletop, one can ask about it.
àé ðîé èáìà äîúäôëú (áéù) [ö"ì ëéù - öàï ÷ãùéí] ìä úåê çùéáà îçîú ùäéà øçáä [ö"ì ëãôé' ä÷åðèøñ - âîøà òåæ åäãø, îãôåñ éùï] åìà îé÷øéà àéï ìå úåê (ëê ôé' á÷åðèøñ - âîøà òåæ åäãø îåç÷å)
(e) Answer #2: A reversible tabletop is like something with an interior, because it is wide, like Rashi explained. It is not called "it has no interior."
åäà ãàîø áôø÷ äîåëø àú äáéú (á''á ãó ñå.) âáé ãó ùì ðçúåîéï ãôùåèé ëìé òõ [ö"ì èîà - öàï ÷ãùéí] îãøáðï
(f) Implied question: It says in Bava Basra (66a) about a baker's board that a Pashut Kli Etz is Tamei mid'Rabanan!
äééðå ëîàï ãàîø îñâøúå ìîòìä äéúä ãîãøáðï èîàä åîãàåøééúà úéáòé åìëì äôçåú àôéìå úîöé ìåîø ãîãàåøééúà èäåøä îãøáðï îéäà èîàä
(g) Answer #1: That is like the opinion that the Misgeret was above. Mid'Rabanan it is Tamei. Mid'Oraisa, one can ask about it. And at least, even if you will say that mid'Oraisa it is Tahor, mid'Rabanan it is Tamei;
åîé÷ì ùí ø' àìéòæø îùåí ãùîà îãàåøééúà èäåøä
1. R. Eliezer is lenient there, because mid'Oraisa it is Tahor.
àé ðîé ääéà ùéðåéà ãìà ëø' éåçðï åáîñ÷ðà ìà ÷àé
(h) Answer #2: That answer is unlike R. Yochanan. (According to him, it is at least Safek Tamei mid'Oraisa.) In the conclusion, his opinion is not sustained.
àé ðîé äà ãîéáòé ìï äëà áèáìà äîúäôëú äééðå îùåí ãèáìà îùîùú àú äàãí åîùîùú îùîùé àãí ëãúðéà áú''ë áôøùä åéäé áéåí äùîéðé
(i) Answer #3: Here we ask about a reversible tabletop, because a Tavla serves man and serves things that serve man, like a Beraisa in Toras Kohanim in Parshas Shemini;
åëìé òõ éëåì àó äñåìí åä÷åìá (åäàðçåú) [ö"ì åäðçåúä - éùø åèåá] åäîðåøä ú''ì îëì ëìé òõ [ö"ì åìà ëì ëìé òõ - ùéèä î÷åáöú] éëåì ùàðé îåöéà àú äùåìçï åàú äèáìà åäãåìá÷é ú''ì ëì ëìé øéáä
1. Citation (Toras Kohanim): "U'Chli Etz" - perhaps even a ladder, Kolev (peg), Nechusah (a Kli placed under Kelim) or Menorah (candelabra) [is Mekabel Tum'ah]! It says "mi'Kol Klei Etz", but not all Klei Etz. Perhaps I exclude a table, Tavla and Dulbaki (a kind of table)! "Kol Klei" includes [these];
åîä øàéú ìøáåú àìå åìäåöéà àú àìå àçø ùøéáä äëúåá åîéòè ú''ì ù÷ îä ù÷ îéåçã ùîùîù àãí åîùîù (úùîéùé) [ö"ì îùîùé - éùø åèåá] àãí àó àðé àøáä àú äùåìçï åàú äèáìà åäãåìá÷é ùîùîù àãí åàú îùîùé àãí
2. Citation (cont.): Why do you include these and exclude these [and not vice-versa], since the verses include and exclude [and do not specify what to include or exclude]? It says "Sak" - just like a sack serves man and things that serve man, I include a table, Tavla and Dulbaki, which serve man and things that serve man;
åîåöéà àðé àú äñåìí ùîùîù àãí åàéðå îùîù àú îùîùé àãí ä÷åìá åäðçåúä åäîðåøä ùîùîù àú îùîùé àãí åàéðå îùîù àãí
3. Citation (cont.): I exclude a ladder, which serves man but does not serve things that serve man, and a peg, Nechusah or Menorah (it merely holds lamps), which serve things that serve man, but do not serve man.
åòì ëøçê áùàéï øàåééï ìîãøñ îééøé îãìà ð÷è îèä ëñà åñôñì (åäåä ìéä ìøáåééðäå ðîé) [ö"ì åòåã ãäåé îöé ìøáåééðäå - âîøà òåæ åäãø ò"ô úåñ' ñåëä ä.] îîùëá
4. Assertion: You are forced to say that this is when they are not proper for Midras, since it did not mention a bed, chair or bench. Also, [if so] it should have included them from "Mishkav";
åáùàéï ìäí áéú ÷éáåì îãìà ÷àîø îä ù÷ îéèìèì îìà åøé÷ï
5. And we discuss when they have no receptacle, since it did not say "just like a Sak is carried full and empty [such Kelim are Mekabel Tum'ah]";
åîéáòéà ìï äëà àé ãøùà âîåøä äéà ìå àå àñîëúà áòìîà
6. And here we ask whether it is a real Drashah, or a mere Asmachta.
îùåí ãòì ëøçéï àôéìå ìî''ã îñâøúå ìîèä àò''ô ùëì äãøùåú öøéëåú ääéà ãú''ë ìøáåéé îùîùé àãí åîùîù îùîùé àãí åäùåìçï äèäåø àéöèøéê ììîã ùîâáéäéï àåúå ìòåìé øâìéí
i. You are forced to say that even according to the opinion that the Misgeret was below, even though all the Drashos are needed, the Drashah of Toras Kohanim to include things that serve man and that serve things that serve man, and "ha'Shulchan ha'Tahor" is needed to teach that we lift it for Olei Regalim [to see the Lechem ha'Panim steaming on it]...
î''î ìòðéï èáìà ìàå ãøùà âîåøä äéà ãèáìà äîúäôëú ðô÷à ìï îùåìçï äèäåø
ii. Even so, regarding Tavla it is not a real Drashah, for we learn a a reversible tabletop from Shulchan ha'Tahor (so perhaps also mi'Kol Klei Etz is a mere Asmachta.)
åäùúà ãó ùì ðçúåîéï ãôùéèà ìï ãäåéà ãøáðï àéðä îùîùú àãí åîùîùé àãí
7. Observation: Now, a baker's board, it is obvious to us that it is mid'Rabanan, for it does not serve man and things that serve man.
åäà ãîùîò áëì ãåëúà ãôùåèé ëìé òõ àôéìå èåîàä ãøáðï àéï áäï
(j) Implied question: Everywhere, it connotes that a Pashut Kli Etz does not have even Tum'ah mid'Rabanan!
ëãîùîò áøéù çåìéï (ãó â.) ã÷àîø èîà áîå÷ãùéï ùáã÷ ÷øåîéú ùì ÷ðä åùçè áä åòì ëøçê áùòùàä ëìé ãòåìä èòåðä ëìé
1. It connotes like this in Chulin (3a). It says a Tamei [person] can slaughter Kodshim - he checked a sharp reed and slaughtered with it. And you are forced to say that this is when he made it a Kli, for an Olah requires a Kli!
åáô' áëì îòøáéï (òéøåáéï ãó ìà.) ã÷àîø ãù÷éì ìä áôùåèé ëìé òõ
2. And in Eruvin (31a), it says that [a Kohen] can take [his Eruv from a cemetery] via a Pashut Kli Etz.
åáôø÷ ëì äëìéí (ùáú ÷ëâ:) âáé ÷ðä ùì æéúéí ãôøéê áâîøà ôùåèé ëìé òõ äåà
3. And in Shabbos (123b) regarding a stick [used to check] olives, the Gemara asks "it is a Pashut Kli Etz [which is not Mekabel Tum'ah]!"
åáô''÷ ãùáú (ãó èæ.) ëìé òõ ëìé æëåëéú ôùåèéäï èäåøéï àôéìå îãøáðï ãåîéà ãëìé æëåëéú
4. And in Shabbos (16a) it says that Pashut Kelim of wood or glass are Tehorim. This is even mid'Rabanan, just like glass Kelim [which were taught with Klei Etz]!
åñéëëä áçéöéï æëøéí ëùøä áô''÷ ãñåëä (ãó éá:)
5. And if one used for Sechach "male" arrow shafts (they have a protrusion that enters the hole in the metal arrowhead. They have no receptacle), it is Kosher (Sukah 12b);
åàé î÷áìé èåîàä àôéìå îãøáðï äåå ôñéìé ìñéëåê ãàîø îø àôéìå îèìðéåú ùàéï áäï ùìù åàðéöé ôùúï ôñåìéï àò''â ãìà äåå î÷áìé èåîàä
i. If they were Mekabel Tum'ah, even mid'Rabanan, they would be Pasul for Sechach, for it was taught that even rags that are not three [by three fingers] and tufts of flax are Pasul, even though they are not Mekabel Tum'ah!
ëì äðé ìà ãîå ìãó ùì ðçúåîéï ãçùéá øçáä ëáéú ÷éáåì ëãôéøù á÷åðèøñ äëà ãîäàé èòîà èîàä èáìà äîúäôëú îãàåøééúà ìî''ã îñâøúå ìîèä
(k) Answer #1: All of these are unlike a baker's board, for its width is considered like a receptacle, like Rashi explained here, that for this reason a reversible tabletop is Mekabel Tum'ah mid'Oraisa according to the opinion that the Misgeret was below.
åàé äåä îöé ìîéîø ããó ùì ðçúåîéï äåé ëèáìà ãîùîùú àãí åîùîùé àãí ë''ù ãðéçà èôé ãìà ãîé ìëì äðé ãèäåøéï àôéìå îãøáðï
(l) Answer #2: If we could say that a baker's board is like a Tavla that serves man and things that serve man, all the more so it is better. It is unlike all of these that are Tehorim even mid'Rabanan.
åøáéðå ùîåàì ôé' ùí ãääéà îñ÷ðà ìà ÷ééîà
(m) Answer #3 (Rashbam, Bava Basra 66a): That conclusion is not sustained. (Rather, a baker's board is Tahor.)
åø''ú ôé' ãäééðå èòîà ãèáìà äîúäôëú ìôé ùéù ìä áéú ÷éáåì ìîèä ëîå ùåìçï ìîàï ãàîø îñâøúå ìîèä åòãéó èôé îùàø ôùåèé ëìé òõ ùàéï ìäí áéú ÷éáåì ëìì
(n) Answer #4 (R. Tam): The reason for a reversible tabletop is because it has a receptacle below, like the Shulchan, according to the opinion that the Misgeret was below. (Yad Binyamin - the Misgeret is attached to the Tavla, and when he a reverses it, the Misgeret is above, the Tavla has a receptacle.) It is better than other Pashut Klei Etz, which do not have a receptacle at all.
åàé àôùø ìäéåú ëï ãìôéøåùå ìî''ã îñâøúå ìîèä äéúä äîñâøú ÷áåòä áùåìçï åáô''÷ ãñåëä (ãó ä.) îåëç ãáøâìéí äéúä äîñâøú åìà áùåìçï
(o) Rebuttal: This cannot be, for according to this, according to the opinion that the Misgeret was below, the Misgeret was fixed in the Shulchan (in the Tavla itself), and in Sukah (5a) it is proven that the Misgeret was in the legs, and not in the Shulchan [itself];
ãôøéê åðéìó îæø ãàîø îø æø ëì ùäåà åîùðé ãðéï ëìé îëìé åàéï ãðéï ëìé îäëùø ëìé åôøéê îñâøú ðîé äëùø ëìé äåà åîùðé îñâøúå ìîèä äéúä
1. [The Gemara] asks "we should learn [the thickness of the Kapores] from the crown [on the Aron, Mizbe'ach or Misgeret] - it was taught that the crown was Kolshehu (there was no required Shi'ur)!", and answers that we learn a Kli from a Kli, and we do not learn a Kli from a Hechsher (something needed to for the sake of a) Kli. It asks that also the Misgeret was Hechsher Kli, and answers that the Misgeret was below. (I.e. it was not attached to the Tavla. The Tavla rested on it.)
8) TOSFOS DH Kli Etz ha'Asuy l'Nachas Hu
úåñôåú ã"ä ëìé òõ äòùåé ìðçú äåà
(SUMMARY: Tosfos justifies considering it stationary.)
ãîä ùîñì÷éí àåúå áñéìå÷ îñòåú
(a) Implied question: They remove it at the time that the encampments travel!
àéï æä èìèåì ëéåï ãî÷åîå ÷áåò
(b) Answer: This is not considered moving, since its place is fixed.
9) TOSFOS DH Siluko k'Siduro
úåñôåú ã"ä ñéìå÷å ëñéãåøå
(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that this is only according to one opinion.)
äééðå ìîàï ãàîø àôééúå ãåçä ùáú ãúðåø î÷ãù
(a) Limitation: This is according to the opinion that baking it overrides Shabbos, for the oven is Mekadesh;
ãìî''ã àéï àôééúå ãçéà ùáú ìà äéä çí áùòú ñéãåø
1. According to the opinion that baking it does not override Shabbos, it was not hot when it was arranged [on the Shulchan on Shabbos, more than 12 hours later. The other opinion holds that miraculously, it remained hot the entire week, but this opinion has no source to expound so.]
10) TOSFOS DH Kan b'Tzipuy she'Eino Omed
úåñôåú ã"ä ëàï áöéôåé ùàéðå òåîã
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses whether there was another way to reject this answer.)
äåä îöé ìà÷ùåé (îùìçï ãîùä ãöéôåé) [ö"ì ãùìçï ãîùä öéôåé - òåìú ùìîä] ãòåîã äåà
(a) Explanation #1: We could have asked that Moshe's Shulchan, its plating was Omed (nailed to the Shulchan)!
àé ðîé ìà äéä îçåáø áòõ àìà ëòéï îòùä àøåï
(b) Explanation #2: [The plating] was not connected to the wood. Rather, it was made like the Aron;
ãàîø áôø÷ áúøà (ãáøëåú ãó ðå) [ö"ì éåîà (ãó òá:)] ùìù àøåðåú òùä áöìàì àçã ùì òõ åùðéí ùì æäá
1. It says in Yoma (72b) that Betzalel made three Aronos - one of wood, and two of gold (one was outside the wood, and one was inside.
åòåã éù ìôøù ãòåîã ÷øé ëùäöéôåé òá åçæ÷ åøàåé ìäùúîù òìéå áôðé òöîå àôéìå ëé ù÷ìú ìéä ìòõ:
(c) Explanation #3: It is called Omed when the plating is thick and strong and proper to use it by itself, even if you would remove the wood.