1) TOSFOS DH k'R. Shimon ben Yehudah
úåñôåú ã"ä ëøáé ùîòåï áï éäåãä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos justifies the question.)
åàí úàîø îàé ñì÷à ãòúê ãî÷ùä (ã÷àîøéðï) [ö"ì ã÷àîø - éùø åèåá] ãàé îçöä çìåú åîçöä ø÷é÷éï îåúø äùîï îçæéøå ìçìåú äà ìà àùëçï áô' åàìå îðçåú (ìòéì òä.) øáé ùîòåï ãàéú ìéä äàé ñáøà
(a) Question: What did the Makshan think, that he asks that we say that if it is half Chalos and half Rekikim, he returns the extra oil to the Chalos? We do not find above (75a) that R. Shimon holds like this!
åîðà éãò áëåìä ø÷é÷éï ãùàø äùîï ðàëì ìëäðéí
1. And how does [the Makshan] know that when it is all Rekikim, Kohanim eat the extra oil? (Yashar v'Tov - i.e. if you will say that "R. Shimon ben Yehudah says in the name of R. Shimon" connotes that Rabanan differ about R. Shimon's opinion, also regarding all Rekikim, he should say that Rabanan differ, and say that R. Shimon holds that he returns the extra oil to the Chalos! Therefore, it suffices for Tosfos to give a different answer to the previous question.)
åé''ì îùåí ãøáðï ãôìéâé àøáé ùîòåï áï éäåãä äúí ñáéøà ìäå áîåúø äùîï îçæéøå ìçìåú
(b) Answer: It is because Rabanan who argue with R. Shimon ben Yehudah there hold that he returns the extra oil to the Chalos;
åàìéáà ãøáé ùîòåï ÷àîøé ãäà ÷úðé îðçä äáàä îçöä çìåú åîçöä ø÷é÷éí åîàï ùîòú ìéä ãàéú ìéä äàé ñáøà øáé ùîòåï:
1. They say so according to R. Shimon, for it taught "a Minchah that is half Chalos and half Rekikim." Who holds like this (that there is such a Minchah)? It is R. Shimon.
2) TOSFOS DH she'Hen Elef u'Shemoneh Me'os u'Sheloshim
úåñôåú ã"ä ùäï àìó åùîåðä îàåú åùìùéí
(SUMMARY: Tosfos shows that there are 1830 in all.)
ëéöã ÷ç áéãê îàçã åòã ùùéí åöøó úçéìúï ìñåôï òã äàîöò ëâåï àçã åùùéí äí ñ''à ùðéí åð''è äí ñ''à åùìù åð''ç äí ñ''à ëï úîðä òã ùìùéí ãùìùéí åùìùéí åàçã ðîé äí ñ''à åéòìä ìê ùìùéí ôòîéí ñ''à
(a) Explanation: How (do we know this)? Take (all the numbers) from one to 60, and join the beginning to the end until the middle. E.g. one and 60 are 61. Two and 59 are 61, and three and 58 are 61. Count so until 30, for 30 and 31 are 61. In all you have 30 times 61.
åëï ðåëì ìîðåú ôøéí ãçâ ãòåìéï ìùáòéí ëéöã æ' åé''â äí òùøéí åëï ç' åé''á äí òùøéí åëï è' åé''à äí ë' åé' äøé ùáòéí
(b) Observation: Similarly we can count the bulls [offered] during Sukos, that there are 70. Seven (offered on the last day) and 13 (offered on the first day) are 20, and so eight and 12 are 20, and so nine and 11 are 20, and 10, this is 70 (in all).
3) TOSFOS DH b'Mutar Lehachnis Chulin l'Azarah ka'Mipalgei
úåñôåú ã"ä áîåúø ìäëðéñ çåìéï ìòæøä ÷îéôìâé
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this is unlike R. Eliezer ben Yakov.)
åìà îéúå÷îà àìà ëøáðï ãàîøé ìîðçä ùì ùùéí òùøåï ùùéí ìåâéï
(a) Explanation: We can explain this only like Rabanan, who say that there are 60 Lugim [of oil] for a Minchah of 60 Esronim;
ãàé ëøáé àìéòæø áï éò÷á ãàîø àéï ìä àìà ìåâä äéëé îéúëùøä ëéåï ãàéòøá çåìéï áäãä äà àéðä øàåéä ìáììï îùåí ãäåä ìéä çéñø ùîðä
1. According to R. Eliezer ben Yakov, who says that it has only one Log, how is it Kosher? Since Chulin is mixed with it, it is not proper to mix, because its oil is lacking (the Chulin absorbed some)!
4) TOSFOS DH Rabah Amar d'Kuli Alma v'Chulei
úåñôåú ã"ä øáä àîø ãëåìé òìîà åëå'
(SUMMARY: Tosfos proves that the text does not say Rava.)
øáä âøñéðï àó òì ôé ùäåà àçø øá çñãà ãøáà îùðé ì÷îï ùéðåéà àçøéðà
(a) Assertion: The text says Rabah, even though his opinion is taught after Rav Chisda's. [It cannot say Rava,] for below (106b) Rava gives a different answer.
1. Note: Tosfos connotes that normally, Rabah should be taught before Rav Chisda. It is not clear to me why. In Bava Metzi'a (18b), Rav Chisda told Rabah "tomorrow, Rav Huna will ask you..." It seems that Rav Chisda was already an established Talmid of Rav Huna. Rabah could not have been much older than Rav Chisda, for Rabah died at 40 (and Rav Chisda at 92 - Mo'ed Katan 28a), and Rabah was Rosh Yeshivah for 22 years (Brachos 64a), after Rav Yehudah died (Rashi Gitin 60b), so he was 18 at the time, and even younger in the days of Rav Huna, who died before Rav Yehudah (Tosfos Bechoros 14a)! Igeres Rav Sherira Gaon says that Rav Chisda died 11 years before Rabah. If so, he was born 63 years earlier (since he lived 52 years longer)! We cannot say that Rabah was Rav Chisda's Rebbi, for Rav Chisda said "you", without a title of respect. Also Tosfos in Bechoros (3a DH Rav Chisda) connotes that Rabah should be taught before Rav Chisda. This requires investigation.
5) TOSFOS DH d'Tali Lah b'Da'as Kohen
úåñôåú ã"ä ãúìé ìä áãòú ëäï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that above, Abaye did not say so.)
åàó òì âá ãáä÷åîõ øáä (ìòéì ãó ëã:) ìéú ìéä ìàáéé áãòúà ãëäï úìéà îéìúà
(a) Implied question: Above (24b, regarding for which Minchah Kometz is taken), Abaye does not hold that it depends on the Kohen's intent!
äëà îåãä:
(b) Answer: Here, he agrees [that it depends on the Kohen's intent].
106b----------------------------------------106b
6) TOSFOS DH Efshar d'Maisi Shisin b'Chad Mana u'Maga Lehu v'Kamitz
úåñôåú ã"ä àôùø ãîééúé ùéúéï áçã îðà åîâò ìäå å÷îéõ
(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with the Gemara in 24a.)
úéîä åäà úðéà áä÷åîõ øáä (ìòéì ëã.) åäøéí îîðå á÷åîöå îï äîçåáø ùìà éáéà òùøåï áùðé ëìéí åé÷îåõ
(a) Question: A Beraisa above (24a) teaches "v'Herim Mimenu b'Kumtzo" - from what is connected. He may not bring an Isaron in two Kelim and take Kemitzah;
åîùîò äúí ëâåï ãç÷ ÷ôéæà á÷áà àò''â ãòøéá îòéìàé
1. And it connotes there, e.g. that he carved out a cavity in [the wall of] another Kli. Even though [the Minchah] is connected above [the walls of the Kli separate them below, one may not take Kemitzah like this]!
åàéï ìçì÷ áéï òùøåï àçã ìëîä òùøåðåú
2. Implied suggestion: We can distinguish between one Isaron and several Esronim.
ãäà òì ëøçéê äà ã÷àîøé' äëà åîâò ìäå å÷îéõ ìîä ìé ãîâò ìäå àé ìàå îùåí ãëúéá îîðå ëããøéù ìäå äúí
3. Rejection: You are forced to say that what we say here "he touches them [together] and takes Kemitzah" - why does it say that he touches them, if not because it says Mimenu, like it expounds there?
åëéåï ãîãëúéá îîðå ðô÷à éù ìðå ìîòè ùðé òùøåðåú áùðé ëìéí ëéåï ãçãà îðçä ðéðäå åçã ÷åîõ ìúøåééäå àò''â ãðâòé ëîå òùøåï àçã áùðé ëìéí
i. And since it is learned from Mimenu, we should exclude two Esronim in two Kelim, since they are one Minchah and one Kometz is taken for both of them, even though he touches them, just like one Isaron in two Kelim! (Sefas Emes questions this. We find that doughs join to a Shi'ur for Chalah only through Neshichah, but Neshichah is not needed to separate from one on another. Likewise, perhaps it is harder to join to the Shi'ur of Isaron, than to join Esronim to be one Minchah!)
åöøéê ìôøù ùðé ëìéí ãäëà ëòøéáä ùì úøðâåìéí ãäúí åàò''â ãîôñ÷ï îçéöúä äà ðåâò
(b) Answer: We must say that "two Kelim" here is like a chicken's trough there. Even though a [low] wall separates them, [one may take Kemitzah for what is in both,] for they touch.
åà''ú ãáëåìä ùîòúà îùîò ãìà àñøéðï àìà ìòøá çåáä áðãáä àáì çåáä áçåáä îùîò ãùøé
(c) Question: Our entire Sugya connotes that we forbid to mix only Chovah with Nedavah. It implies that we may mix Chovah with Chovah;
åà''ë ìøáé éàîø àí ùùéí òùøåðéí ðãøúé äøé òìé òãééï òùøåï à' åàí ôçåú îñ' ðãøúé äøé òìé òãééï ëì îä ùçéñøúé îñ' åòåã òùøåï àçã éåúø
1. If so, according to Rebbi, he should say "if I vowed 60, I accept on myself another Isaron. And if I vowed less than 60, I accept on myself the amount less than 60 that I vowed, and another Isaron";
åîééúé ùéúéï áçã îðà åçã áçã îðà åîâò ìäå å÷îéõ îäàé å÷îéõ îäàé ãëéåï ùäëì çåáä éëåì ìòøá
2. He brings 60 in one Kli and one in another Kli, touches them, and takes Kemitzah from this and Kemitzah from this. Since it is all Chovah, he can mix them!
åéù ìåîø ëãùðéðï ìòéì áôø÷ äúåãä (ãó ôà.) äúåøä àîøä èåá àùø ìà úãåø åàú àîøú ìé÷å åìéðãø ìëúçéìä åàéï ìðå ìòùåú ëàï ú÷ðä ò''é äøé òìé
(d) Answer: We answer like we answered above (81a). The Torah said "it is good not to be Noder" - will you say that he should vow l'Chatchilah?! We should not make a solution through "Harei Alai" (a Neder). (Taharas ha'Kodesh questions this. One should not take Nedarim, lest he not fulfill. Here, if we do not find a solution, he is already obligated to bring 60 Menachos to fulfill his first Neder!)
àáì áäøé æå ùøé ãäåé ðãáä
1. However, "Harei Zu" is permitted, for it is a Nedavah. (He brings 60 Menachos, from one to 60, and says whatever is not Chovah, it is Nedavah.)
7) TOSFOS DH v'Rebbi k'R. Eliezer ben Yakov (this starts a new Dibur according to the Shitah Mekubetzes and Tzon Kodoshim)
úåñôåú ã"ä åøáé ëø' àìéòæø áï éò÷á (æä ãéáåø çãù ìôé ùéèä î÷åáöú åöàï ÷ãùéí)
(SUMMARY: Tosfos suggests a possible solution, and rejects it.)
åàéï ìåîø ãìééúé ùéúéï áçã îðà åçã áçã îðà åîâò ìäå å÷îéõ ìäå îòùøåï àðãáä ãáùùéí
(a) Implied suggestion: He should bring 60 in one Kli and one in another Kli, and touch them, and take Kemitzah from the Isaron on [itself and] the Nedavah in the 60!
ãäà ëé (ëìì çåáä îòøá') [ö"ì áìì çåáä åîòøáä - öàï ÷ãùéí] áðãáä äåä ìéä çéñø ùîðä åøéáä ùîðä
(b) Rejection: When he mixes the Chovah [with its oil] and combines it with the Nedavah, [the Chovah] is lacking oil (some is absorbed in the added flour of the Nedavah), and [the Nedavah] has too much oil (it has a full Log in the Kli with one, and the flour in the Kli with 60 absorbed some oil from the Chovah).
8) TOSFOS DH Lo Yifchos mi'Shnei Gezirin
úåñôåú ã"ä ìà éôçåú îùðé âæéøéï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this is only when he said Etzim.)
åãåå÷à ëé àîø òöéí àáì ëé àîø òõ îééúé âæéø àçã ëãàéúà áù÷ìéí (ãó éà)
(a) Limitation: This is only when he said "Etzim" (plural), but if he said "Etz", he brings one log, like it says in Shekalim (6:4).
9) TOSFOS DH Lo Yifchos Min ha'Kometz
úåñôåú ã"ä ìà éôçåú îï ä÷åîõ
(SUMMARY: Tosfos brings an argument about whose Kometz this refers to.)
áîñëú ù÷ìéí áôø÷ ùìùä òùø ùåôøåú (ãó éà) ôìéâé àé ìùéòåø éã áòìéí àé ìùéòåø éã ëäï
(a) Reference: In Shekalim (6:4, Amora'im) argue about when the Shi'ur is [a Kometz based on] the owner's hand, or the Kohen's hand.
10) TOSFOS DH ha'Ma'aleh Es ha'Kometz b'Chutz Chayav
úåñôåú ã"ä äîòìä àú ä÷åîõ áçåõ çééá
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this is even like Rabanan.)
åáäà ëììà äåé îòìä ÷åîõ áôðéí ãä÷èøä îòìééúà äéà åäìëê ìà çùéá ìäå áùéúà ëê ôéøù á÷åðèøñ
(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi): This includes also one who offers the Kometz in [the Mikdash], for it is proper Haktarah. Therefore, we do not count this as a sixth case.
åà''ú åîé ñúí ìï úðà ëø' àìéòæø ãáôø÷ áúøà ãæáçéí (ãó ÷é.) åîééúé ìéä ìòéì áñåó ôø÷ ÷îà (ãó éá:) ãøáðï îçééáé áëæéú áçåõ
(b) Question: Is the Stam Tana like R. Eliezer in Zevachim (110a), and it is brought above (12b)? Rabanan obligate for a k'Zayis outside!
åé''ì ã÷åîõ ãð÷è ìàå ìàôå÷é ëæéú àìà ìàôå÷é îàéãê ãøáé àìéòæø ãàîø áùðé áæéëé ìáåðä òã ùé÷øéá ùðé ÷îöéí
(c) Answer: It does not say a Kometz to exclude a k'Zayis. Rather, it excludes the other teaching of R. Eliezer, who said that [one is liable for] the two spoons of Levonah only if he offers two Kamatzim.
åìôéøåù æä ìà îééøé á÷åîõ ãñåìú
(d) Consequence: According to this Perush, we do not discuss a Kometz of flour. (The entire Mishnah discusses only Levonah.)
11) TOSFOS DH v'Ha Ika Olah
úåñôåú ã"ä åäà àéëà òåìä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks why we did not ask about oil and wood.)
åà''ú åäà àéëà ùîï ìî''ã áôø÷ ëì äúãéø (æáçéí öà:) ãëìéì
(a) Question: There is oil, according to the opinion in Zevachim (91b) that it is Kalil!
åé''ì ëéåï ãàéëà ùîï ãàëìé ëäðéí ìà ôñé÷à ìéä
(b) Answer: Since there is oil that Kohanim eat, it is not uniform (always true that oil is totally for the Mizbe'ach).
åòåã ÷ùéà åäà àéëà òöéí ãàôé' ìøáé ãàîø èòåï ÷îéöä äëì ÷øá ëîôåøù áä÷åîõ øáä (ìòéì ë:):
(c) Question: There is wood! Even according to Rebbi, who says that it requires Kemitzah, everything is offered, like is explained above (20b)!