1) TOSFOS DH Ela Parim d'Afilu a'Hadadei Lo Me'akvei
úåñôåú ã"ä àìà ôøéí ãàôé' àäããé ìà îòëáé
(SUMMARY: Tosfos rules out other ways to establish this.)
åäà ãìà îå÷é ìéä áøàù äùðä åéåí äëéôåøéí åùîéðé òöøú
(a) Implied question: Why don't we establish it to discuss Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kipur or Shemini Atzeres?
îùåí ãáëì çã ìéëà àìà çã ôø åçã àéì
(b) Answer: On each of these only one bull and one ram is offered (On Rosh Hashanah there is also the Musaf of Rosh Chodesh, and on Yom Kipur a bull is offered inside! Perhaps "Milvad [Olas ha'Chodesh....]" and "Milvad [Chatas ha'Kipurim]" teach that the Musafim written here do not depend on those other Korbanos - PF.)
åäà ãìà îùðé áôøéí åàéìéí ãòìîà ëãîùðé ô''÷ ãéåîà (ãó æ.) (âáé ôø ãòáåãú ëåëáéí åàéìå ùì àäøï å÷úðé) [ö"ì ôø ãòáåãú ëåëáéí åàéìå ùì àäøï âáé äà ã÷úðé - öàï ÷ãùéí] äéä î÷øéá îðçú ôøéí åàéìéí
(c) Implied question: Why don't we answer that [the plural] bulls and rams refers in general, like we answer in Yoma (7a) "Par [for mistaken Hora'ah about] Avodah Zarah and Aharon's ram" regarding "he was offering Minchas Parim and rams? (Also here, "bulls and rams" can refer to the bull and ram offered every year, or the bull and ram of one of each these three Yamim Tovim!)
ìà ãîé ìäëà ëìì
(d) Answer: That is totally unlike here. (Yashar v'Tov - there is no Havah Amina that if we do not offer Musafim this Rosh Hashanah, we cannot offer them next year. Olas Shlomo - "they are not Me'akev each other" connotes that one species is not Me'akev another.)
2) TOSFOS DH u'Minayin she'Me'akvin Zeh Es Zeh
úåñôåú ã"ä åîðéï ùîòëáéï æä àú æä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos brings two or three explanations of this.)
ôéøåù ëùéù ìäí ëì äöåøê (åëé) åëä''â ãøéù áñôøé ùäáàúé ìòéì
(a) Explanation #1: [They are Me'akev] when there are all [the Korbanos] needed. The Sifri I brought above (44b DH Ela) expounds like this.
à''ð ÷î''ì ëøáðï ãôìéâé òìéä ãø''ù áîúðé' ùé÷øéá ôøéí åìà é÷ðä ðñëéí îàçã îäï
(b) Explanation #2: This teaches like Rabanan who argue with R. Shimon in our Mishnah, that he offers [all] the bulls, and does not buy Nesachim from one of them.
àé ðîé àí éù ìå ëáùéí åàéï ìå ìúîéã ùì áéï äòøáéí î÷øéá ëåìï ìùí îåñó
(c) Explanation #3: If he has lambs, and does not have for the afternoon Tamid, he offers all of them for Musaf.
åîéäå ì÷îï (ãó îè.) îùîò ãúîéãéï ãéåîéä ÷åãîéï ìîåñôéï ãéåîéä îùåí ãúãéø åî÷åãù åö''ò
(d) Question: However, below (49a) it connotes that Temidim of the day have precedence over Musafim of the day, because they are Tadir (more frequent) and Mekudash (have at least as much Kedushah as the Musafim)! This requires investigation.
3) TOSFOS DH Milu'im Hikrivu bi'Ymei Ezra k'Derech she'Hikrivu bi'Ymei Moshe
úåñôåú ã"ä îéìåàéí ä÷øéáå áéîé òæøà ëãøê ùä÷øéáå áéîé îùä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that it was not exactly like the Milu'im of Moshe.)
åìà ãîå äðé ìäðé ãùì îùä òâì åëàï ôø åâí îúðåúéå çìå÷åú ëîôåøù áéçæ÷àì (îä) àì îæåæú äáéú åàì àøáò ôéðåú äòæøä ìîæáç åòì îæåæú ùòø äçöø äôðéîéú
(a) Observation: They were different. [The Milu'im] of Moshe included a calf, and here [only] a bull. Also their Matanos are different, like is explicit in Yechezkel (45:19) "El Mezuzas ha'Bayis v'El Arba Pinos ha'Azarah la'Mizbe'ach v'Al Mezuzas Sha'ar he'Chatzer ha'Pnimis";
1. Note: It seems that this is not a question. Tosfos merely points out that they were not exactly the same.
åôéøù ùí øù''é ùäåà ôø äàîåø ùí ìîòìä (àì) [ö"ì àìä - ùéèä î÷åáöú, öàï ÷ãùéí] ç÷åú äîæáç áéåí äòùåúå ôø áï á÷ø ìçèàú
2. And Rashi explained there that this (the Chatas that this verse discusses) is the bull mentioned above (43:18-19) "Eleh Chukos ha'Mizbe'ach b'Yom He'asoso...; Par Ben Bakar l'Chatas."
àáì ùí ëúéá åì÷çú îãîå åðúúä òì àøáò ÷øðåúéå åòì àøáò ôéðåú äòæøä (åòì) [ö"ì åàì - ùéèä î÷åáöú] äâáåì ñáéá
3. Implied question: However, there it is written (43:20) "v'Lakach mi'Damo v'Nasatah Al Arba Karnosav v'El Arba Pinos ha'Azarah v'El ha'Gevul Saviv"!
åöøéê ìãçå÷ äî÷øà ùéäéå ùåéí
4. Answer: We must explain the verses with difficulty so [the Matanos of blood] will be the same.
åòåã ìôé îä ùîôøù åëï úòùä áùáòä áçãù ãàééøé áùáòä ùáèéí ãàééúå ôø áäåøàä åöøéê ìééùá ùéäéå àåúï îúðåú ëàåúï äëúåáéï âáé ôø áäåøàä áåé÷øà åàé àôùø ìééùáå
(b) Question: Also, according to what [R. Yochanan] explains "v'Chen Ta'aseh ba'Shivah va'Chodesh" that it discusses seven Shevatim that bring a bull for a [mistaken] ruling [of the Great Sanhedrin, and it is offered like the Par Milu'im mentioned earlier], we must resolve that those Matanos are like those written about Par Helam Davar. It is impossible to resolve this!
åùîà åëï úòùä ã÷àîø ìòðéï ùîáéà ôø ùðùøó åìà ìòðéï äîúðåú
(c) Answer: Perhaps "v'Chen Ta'aseh" means that [similarly] he brings a bull that is burned, but not regarding the Matanos (that they are the same).
åãáø úéîä äåà îé ãç÷å ìäù''ñ ìäòîéã äôñå÷ áæ' ùáèéí åôùéèà ã÷øà ÷àé àäà ãëúéá ìòéì âáé ç÷åú äîæáç áéåí äòùåúå ùîáéàéï ôø áï á÷ø ìçèàú åáéåí äùðé ùòéø òæéí åôø åàéì
(d) Question: What forced the Gemara to establish the verse to discuss seven Shevatim?! The simple meaning of the verse refers to what is written above regarding "Chukos ha'Mizbe'ach b'Yom He'asoso", that they bring "Par Ben Bakar l'Chatas", and (43:22) "on the second day, a goat, bull and ram";
åàç''ë ùáòú éîéí úòùä ùòéø çèàú ìéåí åôø áï á÷ø åàéì îï äöàï úîéîéí éòùå ìôéëê àåîø ëàï åëï úòùä áùáòä áçåãù
1. And afterwards (43:25) "Shiv'as Yamim Ta'aseh Se'ir Chatas la'Yom u'Far Ben Bakar v'Ayil Min ha'Tzon Temimim Ya'asu'! Therefore it says here "v'Chen Ta'aseh ba'Shivah va'Chodesh"!
4) TOSFOS DH Ho'il v'Ishteri Melikah
úåñôåú ã"ä äåàéì åàéùúøé îìé÷ä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that we could not learn from Melikah.)
àò''â ãìòéì (ãó ä:) ôøëéðï ùëï îöååúå áëê åëìàéí ðîé àñøéðï ìäå áìà ÷øà
(a) Implied question: Above (5b) we ask that [we cannot learn from Melikah because] this is its Mitzvah, and also Kil'ayim we forbid to [Kohanim] without a verse (for this reason - above, 43a)!
î''î àúà ìàåøåéé ìê ãìà ðéèòé ìîéìó îéðä
(b) Answer: In any case, it comes to teach you that you should not err to learn from it.
åìîàï ã÷àîø ãàéï ùçéèä ìòåó [îï äúåøä] ôéøùúé áçåìéï (ãó ë.)
(c) Remark: According to the opinion that the Torah does not require Shechitah for birds, I explained in Chulin (20a DH Lo, that Melikah does not make Neveilah, but it is Tereifah. Really, the Havah Amina was only that Tereifah is permitted. The verse mentioned Neveilah Agav (along with) Tereifah.)
5) TOSFOS DH b'Shiv'ah Shevatim she'Chat'u
úåñôåú ã"ä áùáòä ùáèéí ùçèàå
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how R. Yochanan expounds the verse.)
äùúà ãøéù áçãù ëîå áãáøéí ùçãùå áéú ãéï (åäåà ùì æ' ùáèéí ùçìá îåúø åòùå) [ðøàä ùö"ì ùçìá îåúø åòùå æ' ùáèéí] òì ôéäí
(a) Explanation: Now he explains "va'Chodesh" like matters that Beis Din was Mechadesh (said something new), that Chelev is permitted, and seven Shevatim did according to them;
åäééðå îàéù ùåâä ùùââå áäåøàúí (åîôðé) [ö"ì åîôúé - äøù"ù] ùäìëå öéáåø åòùå (ôúàåí) [ö"ì ôúàéí - éùø åèåá] òì ôéäí
1. "Me'Ish Shogeh" - they were Shogeg in their Hora'ah. "Umi'Pesi" - the Tzibur went and did foolishly according to them.
åäà ãìà ëøáé éäåãä (äåøéåú ãó ä.) ãáòé ôø ìëì ùáè
(b) Inference: This is unlike R. Yehudah (Horiyos 5a), who requires a bull for each Shevet.
åðøàä ãàôé' ìø' éäåãä ðéçà ãîééøé áîéòåè ùáè
(c) Retraction: It seems that it is fine even according to R. Yehudah. He discusses the minority of a Shevet. (Keren Orah and others questioned this. Chidushei Basra suggests that we learn from Yechezkel that in such a case, they bring one bull. Perhaps Tosfos means that most of Yisrael sinned, but in only one Shevet the majority sinned, and in six others a minority sinned, and in the rest, no one sinned at all - PF.)
6) TOSFOS DH v'Chi Midas Parim v'Eilim Achas Hi
úåñôåú ã"ä åëé îãú ôøéí åàéìéí àçú äéà
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses why we did not ask more directly.)
úéîä ãìéôøåê åëé éù ùí àéôä
(a) Question: He should ask "is there an Eifah there?!" (The Menachos for a bull and ram are, respectively, only three and two Esronim; an Isaron is a 10th of an Eifah.)
åøù''é ôéøù áéçæ÷àì ãàéôä ÷îç äéä îáéà ìäåöéà ñåìú òùøåï îï äñàä åäàéôä ùìù ñàéï åäééðå â' òùøåðéí ìôø åàéôä ìàéì [ö"ì ìäåöéà îîðä ùðé òùøåï ñåìú - öàï ÷ãùéí]
(b) Answer #1 (Rashi on Yechezkel): He brought an Eifah of flour to extract from it an Isaron of Soles (fine flour) from [each] Se'ah. An Eifah is three Sa'im, so this is three Esronim for a bull. An Eifah for a ram is to extract from it two Esronim of Soles;
ëîå ùùðéðå áùúé äìçí (ì÷îï òå:) ùðé òùøåðéí îùìù ñàéï åùì ôøéí â' îâ' ñàéï ìîãê ùàí ìà îöà ñåìú îðåôä ëì ëê éáéà îùì òùøåï ìñàä
1. This is like we learned below (76b) 'two Esronim from three Sa'im, and for bulls three from three Sa'im." This teaches that if he did not find Soles sifted so much, he brings an Isaron from a Se'ah.
åùîï äéï [ìà ùé÷øéá ääéï ëåìå àìà] ùðúåú äéå áäéï [ö"ì åé÷øéá ùîï ìôé äñåìú ëîùôè äæáç ìôø ëîùôèå åìàéì ëîùôèå òë"ì åøù''é áéçæ÷àì - ùéèä î÷åáöú]
2. Explanation: "V'Shemen Hin" does not mean that he offers the entire Hin. Rather, there were notches in the [Kli in the Mikdash that held a] Hin. He offers oil based on the amount of Soles, according to law of the Korban - for a bull like its law, and for a ram like its law. Until here is from Rashi on Yechezkel.
åëé äàé âååðà ùôøù''é áùîï éù ìôøù áàéôä ùäéä ùí àéôä âãåìä å÷èðä
(c) Answer #2: Like Rashi explained about oil, we can explain about the Eifah. There was a big Eifah and a small Eifah. (Yashar v'Tov - there was no measure of an Eifah in the Mikdash! Rather, a proper (big) Eifah is 10 Esronim, and also the amount of Soles for a bull or ram (three or two Esronim) is called Eifah.)
åîä ùîã÷ã÷
(d) Implied question: Why was [the Gemara] meticulous (that bulls and rams have different Shi'urim? Both are called Eifah!)
îùåí ãð÷è áëåìä çã ìéùðà îùîò ùðéäí ùåéï
(e) Answer: Because the same expression was used, this connotes that both of them are equal.
åëï (îëàï îòîåã á) ãåøù áñôøé áôøùú ëé úöà ãà''ø çðéðà áï çæ÷éä áï âøåï åëé îãú ôøéí àéìéí åëáùéí àçú äéà åäìà ëáø ðàîø ùìùä òùøåðéí ìôø åâå'
(f) Support: The Sifri in Ki Setzei expounds like this. R. Chanina ben Chizkiyah ben Garon said, is the measure of bulls, rams and lambs the same?! It is written "Sheloshah Esronim l'Par..."!
45b----------------------------------------45b
àìà îìîã ùàéôä âãåìä åàéôä ÷èðä ÷øåéä àéôä
(g) Answer: Rather, this teaches that a big Eifah and a small Eifah [are both] called Eifah.
7) TOSFOS DH Karvu Kevasim b'Lo Lechem
úåñôåú ã"ä ÷øáå ëáùéí áìà ìçí
(SUMMARY: Tosfos gives several explanations why they did not offer Shtei ha'Lechem.)
ôé' á÷åðèøñ ùìà äéä ìäí àìà îï
(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi): They did not have bread, only manna.
å÷ùä ãáô''á ãéåîà (òä:) îåëç ãàåîåú äòåìí äéå îáéàéï ìäí îéðé îàëì
(b) Question #1: In Yoma (75b) it is proven that Nochrim used to bring to [Yisrael in the Midbar] kinds of food!
åáô' ùúé äìçí (ì÷îï öä.) ðîé îåëç ùäéä òîäí ìçí äôðéí áîãáø åäéå î÷øéáéï îðçú äòåîø
(c) Question #2: Also below (95a) it is proven that they had with them Lechem ha'Panim in the Midbar, and they used to offer Minchah ha'Omer! (Yashar v'Tov - Rashi holds that if they had bread, they would have offered Shtei ha'Lechem. "Ki Savo'u [El ha'Aretz]" is not precise (it does not exclude in the Midbar). If so, also in the Midbar they could not have Lechem ha'Panim (or any Minchah) unless they offered the Omer.)
åàåîø ø''ú ãäééðå èòîà ãëúéá ëé úáåàå àì äàøõ åø''ò ìèòîéä ãëé úáåàå ìàå ãåå÷à
(d) Answer #2 (R. Tam): The reason (they did not offer Shtei ha'Lechem) is because it is written "Ki Savo'u El ha'Aretz", and R. Akiva (disagrees) like he taught elsewhere, that "Ki Savo'u" is not precise;
àáì ø''ù ëøáé éùîòàì ñô''÷ ã÷ãåùéï (ã' ìæ:) ãáéàä ìàçø éùéáä
1. However, R. Shimon holds like R. Yishmael in Kidushin (37b) that "Bi'ah" is after [conquering Eretz Yisrael and] settling.
îéäå ÷ùä ãàí ëï àó ÷øáðéäí ìà é÷øéáå
2. Question: However, if so they could not even offer even the Korbanos [of Shtei ha'Lechem]!
åéù ìçì÷
3. Answer: We can distinguish. (Taharas ha'Kodesh - Shtei ha'Lechem depends on the land, therefore it is only after Bi'ah.)
åðøàä ìôøù îùåí ãùúé äìçí àé÷øå áéëåøéí ëãì÷îï (ã' îå:) åîä áëåøéí áàøõ àó ùúé äìçí ëï
(e) Answer #3: It is because Shtei ha'Lechem is called Bikurim, like below (46b). And just like Bikurim are [brought only] in the land, also Shtei ha'Lechem.
åòåã ãøùéðï áäãéà ôø÷ øáé éùîòàì (ì÷îï ñè:) îîåùáåúéëí ìîòåèé ç''ì
(f) Answer #4: We explicitly expound below (69b) "mi'Moshvoseichem [Tavi'u Lechem Tenufah]" to exclude Chutz la'Aretz.
8) TOSFOS DH Halachah k'R. Shimon ben Nanas
úåñôåú ã"ä äìëä ëøáé ùîòåï áï ððñ
(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks that this will be relevant only in the days of Mashi'ach.)
úéîä äéìëúà ìîùéçà ëãôøéê ô' áéú ùîàé (æáçéí îä.) åáô' ã' îéúåú (ñðäãøéï ðà:)
(a) Question: This Halachah is relevant only for the days of Mashi'ach, like it asks in Yoma (45a), Sanhedrin (51b)!
åáôø÷ òùøä éåçñéï (÷ãåùéï òá.) âáé îîæøéí ôéøùúé
(b) Reference: In Kidushin (72a) I explained. (This is not in our Tosfos there. In Yoma 13a DH Halachah, Tosfos said that the Gemara is not bothered by Hilchesa l'Meshicha. Only Rav Yosef asks this. R. Chaim Kohen said that we question Hilchesa l'Meshicha only when it is also an Aveirah, for it will not be common that people transgress then.)
9) TOSFOS DH Shiv'as Kevasim Af Al Pi she'Ein Lechem
úåñôåú ã"ä ùáòú ëáùéí àò''ô ùàéï ìçí
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how we inferred this.)
îãìà ëúéá åä÷øáúí (òì äìçí ùáòú ëáùéí) [ö"ì ùáòú ëáùéí òì äìçí]
(a) Inference: [We learn this] because it did not write "v'Hikravtem Shiv'as Kevasim Al ha'Lechem."
10) TOSFOS DH mid'Ishtani Sidran
úåñôåú ã"ä îãàùúðé ñéãøï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with the Gemara in Yoma.)
îùîò àé ìà àùúðå ä''à ãçã ðéðäå
(a) Inference: Had the order not changed, one might have thought that they are the same.
å÷ùä ãôø÷ áà ìå (éåîà ò:) îöøéê (àéì) àçã ìàùîåòéðï àéì äàîåø áú''ë æäå äàîåø áçåîù äô÷åãéí åàéëà ããøéù äúí îàçã îéåçã
(b) Question: In Yoma (70b, Rebbi) requires "Echad" to teach that the ram [of Yom Kipur] mentioned in Acharei Mos (amidst Avodas Yom Kipur) is the same one mentioned in Pinchas, and one opinion learns there from "Echad" - Meyuchad (special)!
åé''ì ãîãäëà ëúéá (ôøéí) [ö"ì ôø - îäøù"í] åùðé àéìéí åäëà ëúéá àéì åùðé ôøéí ù''î àé áòé ÷àîø îãìà ëúéá â' ôøéí åâ' àéìéí
(c) Answer: Since here it is written Par v'Shnei Eilim, and here it is written Ayil v'Shnei Parim, this teaches that it means if he wants (he chooses whether to offer like it says here, or like it says there), since it did not write three bulls and three rams;
åäééðå ëãøùà ãäúí à' åìà ùðéí
1. This is like the Drashah there "Echad" and not two.
11) TOSFOS DH Gamar Yiyhu mi'Tihyenah
úåñôåú ã"ä âîø éäéå îúäééðä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks why he limits the Ikuv.)
åàó òì âá ã÷àé àìçí ìáã åàëáùéí ìáã ëãàé' áä÷åîõ [øáä] (ìòéì ëæ.)
(a) Implied question: [Kodesh Yihyu] refers to the bread alone and the lambs alone, like it says above (27a! A Stam Mishnah said that the two lambs are Me'akev each other, and the two loaves are Me'akev each other. The Gemara explained for each of them that Havayah is written. Since it is written about both, they should be Me'akev each other!)
1. Note: I explained according to Shitah Mekubetzes (6,8). This fits the words of Tosfos nicely, and it is a strong question. However, what forced Tosfos to explain like this? Seemingly, above (27a) Havyah regarding the bread is Tihyenah (Vayikra 23:17; Shitah Mekubetzes (20) says that Rashi explains so), and Havyah regarding the lambs is Shenayim Yihyu (verse 18). In our Sugya, the Tana'im argue about a Gezeirah Shavah with [Kodesh] Yihyu in verse 20 - do we learn it from Tihyenah, or from [Shenayim] Yihyu? Perhaps Tzon Kodoshim explains Tosfos like this. R. Akiva expounds Kodesh Yihyu to teach only that the bread is Me'akev the lambs, and Ben Nanas explains oppositely. Tosfos asks that we should apply it to both species, that each is Me'akev the other. The question is not so strong, for the Gezeirah Shavah teaches that it applies to only one species, and not to the other species at all!
îéäå îñúáø ìéä ãìà ðé÷åí àòéëåá ëáùéí áìçí
(b) Answer: However, it is reasonable to [R. Akiva] that we do not establish the Ikuv to the lambs for (being Me'akev) the bread.
åúéîä äåà
(c) Question: This is astounding!
12) TOSFOS DH u'Ben Nanas Leilaf Yihyu mi'Tihyenah
úåñôåú ã"ä åáï ððñ ìéìó éäéå îúäééðä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos justifies the question.)
ãäà ãîå àäããé èôé ãúøåééäå îééøå áòðéï ìçí
(a) Explanation: Both of these resemble each other more, for both of them discuss bread.
åàó òì âá ãàîø èòîà áîúðéúéï [ùëï îöéðå áîãáø î' ùðä ëå']
(b) Implied question: In our Mishnah, [Ben Nanas] said the reason that for 40 years in the Midbar [they offered the lambs, but not the bread. This is why he does not expound oppositely!]
ãéäéå îéäéå ìà ãîå ìäããé ãçãà æ' ëáùéí åçãà ùðé ëáùéí
(c) Answer: [Even so, it would be better to expound oppositely, for] Yihyu from Yihyu, they do not resemble each other. One refers to seven lambs, and one to two lambs.
åáúø ãàñé÷ ãéäéå îéäéå òãéó ìéä ôøéê ìø''ò ëéåï ãòãéó àò''â ãìà ãîå
(d) Explanation (cont.): After we conclude that it is better to learn Yihyu from Yihyu, we challenge R. Akiva, since it is better, even though they do not resemble each other.
åáúåñôúà [ô''å] åáú''ë îùîò ãàîø ø''ò ãáø ù÷åì îé îëøéò åàîø áï ððñ àðé àëøéò
(e) Reference: In the Tosefta (6:7) and in Toras Kohanim, it connotes that R. Akiva said "the matter is equal. Who will decide?", and Ben Nanas said "I will decide."
13) TOSFOS DH Zo Hi Shiv'ah Zo Hi Bi'ah
úåñôåú ã"ä æå äéà ùéáä æå äéà áéàä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks why we do not learn the Gezeirah Shavah to both words.)
ö''ò àé îöéðï ìîéìó îúøåééäå àîàé ìà éìôéðï
(a) Question: This requires investigation. If we can learn [Yiyhu] from both of them (from Tihyenah, and also from Yihyu), why don't we learn?
14) TOSFOS DH Danin Davar she'Matanah l'Kohen
úåñôåú ã"ä ãðéï ãáø ùîúðä ìëäï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we do not learn differently.)
úéîä àãøáä ãðéï ãáø ùîîðå ÷øá ìîæáç îãáø ùîîðå ÷øá ìîæáç
(a) Question: Just the contrary, we should judge something that from its kind we offer on the Mizbe'ach from something that from its kind we offer on the Mizbe'ach!
åéù ìåîø ãäàé öã îñúáø ìéä èôé ëéåï ãàéãé åàéãé àìçí ÷ééîé
(b) Answer: It is more reasonable for him to learn from this similarity (gifts to a Kohen), since both of them refer to bread.
15) TOSFOS DH d'Amar Rav Huna Kan'o Hash-m v'Nasno l'Kohen
úåñôåú ã"ä ãàîø øá äåðà ÷ðàå äùí åðúðå ìëäï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes that he said so here.)
ôéøù á÷åðèøñ ñåó äâåæì ÷îà (á''÷ ãó ÷è:) ÷àîø äëé
(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi): He said so in Bava Kama (109b, about Gezel ha'Ger).
åìéúà ãäúí ÷àîø ááøééúà ÷ðàå äùí åðúðå ìëäï ùáàåúå îùîø åäëà ìà îöéú àîøú äëé ã÷øáðåú äøâì ùåéï ìëì ëããøùéðï ôø÷ áúøà ãñåëä (ãó ðä:)
(b) Rebuttal #1: This is wrong. There, a Beraisa says that Hash-m acquired it, and gave it to a Kohen in that Mishmar (that is serving that week). Here (Shtei ha'Lechem) you cannot say so, for Korbanos of the Regel are the same for all, like it says in Sukah (55b)!
åúå ãðúéðä ãäúí äåé ì÷ãù áå àú äàùä åìëì öøëéå åäëà ìà äåé äëé ëãàéúà á÷ãåùéï (ãó ðá:) äî÷ãù áçì÷å ìà ÷éãù
(c) Rebuttal #2: The "giving" there is in order to be Mekadesh a woman, or any other needs of [the Kohen]. Here it is not so, like it says in Kidushin (52b) that if a Kohen was Mekadesh with his share [of a Korban], she is not Mekudeshes!
àìà ðøàä ìé ãîéìúà ãøá äåðà àäà àéúîø:
(d) Explanation #2: Rav Huna taught his teaching here.