1) TOSFOS DH Iy di'Lematah
úåñôåú ã"ä àé ãìîèä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses which Beis ha'Deshen this is.)
ôé' á÷åðèøñ òì ùôê äãùï áçåõ
(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi): [The Shirayim are spread on] Shefech ha'Deshen outside.
å÷ùä à''ë äåé ðôñì áéåöà
(b) Question: If so, it is disqualified due to Yotzei! (Keren Orah asks that if the law is to put them there, Yotzei does not apply! The Griz agrees, and asks that even if it applied, why would this be a problem?)
àìà ðøàä áòæøä áî÷åí ùùí (ôøéí åùòéøéí) [ö"ì ôñåìé ÷åãùéí - éùø åèåá] ðùøôéï ëãàîø áôø÷ èáåì éåí (æáçéí ÷ã:) ãùìùä ãùðéí äï
(c) Explanation #2: It is in the Azarah, in the place where Pasul Kodshim are burned, like it says in Zevachim (104b) that there are three Batei Deshen.
åäà ãúðï áôø÷ äéä ðåèì (ñåèä ãó ëâ.) åîðçúä îúôæøú àáéú äãùï ùí äéúä åìà ðôñìä áéåöà
(d) Support: A Mishnah (Sotah 23a) teaches that [if a Sotah was married to a Kohen, her] Minchah was spread on Beis ha'Deshen. It was there, and it was not disqualified through Yotzei.
åø''ú îôøù áî÷åí ùîðéçéï úøåîú äãùï àöì äëáù
(e) Explanation #3 (R. Tam): It is in the place where they put Terumas ha'Deshen, near the ramp.
åìà éúëï ãúøåîú äãùï ÷åãí úîéã äéä åàçø äúîéã äéå î÷øéáéï ÷øáðåú åîðçåú åàæ ëáø ðöèðï
(f) Rebuttal: This cannot be, for Terumas ha'Deshen was before the Tamid, and after the Tamid they offered Korbanos and Menachos, and then [the ashes from Terumas ha'Deshen] already cooled off. (Acharonim say that R. Tam holds that it suffices to put the Shirayim there, even though they are not burned.)
2) TOSFOS DH v'Yesh Lecha Davar she'Karev Lematah
úåñôåú ã"ä åéù ìê ãáø ù÷øá ìîèä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we cannot say that he holds like R. Yehudah.)
åàò''â ãàéëà øöôú äòæøä ãðú÷ãùä ìø' éäåãä (æáçéí ãó ðè.)
(a) Implied question: There is the floor of the Azarah, which was made Kadosh according to R. Yehudah (Zevachim 59a)!
àéï æä ìîèä åäééðå àáåä
(b) Answer: (R. Yehudah considers the floor just like the Mizbe'ach.) This is not [called] below. (If R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon holds like R. Yehudah, it is considered Haktarah of the Shirayim.) This is like his father! (It is clear from the Beraisa that he argues.)
3) TOSFOS DH v'Yesh Lecha Davar she'Karev l'Ibud
úåñôåú ã"ä åéù ìê ãáø ù÷øá ìàéáåã
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why Shtei ha'Lechem does not contradict this.)
åàò''â ãàéëà ùúé äìçí äáàéï áôðé òöîï ãìùøéôä ÷àúééï ëãàîøé' áäúëìú (ìòéì ãó îå:)
(a) Implied question: There are Shtei ha'Lechem that come by themselves (if we cannot bring Kivsei Atzeres with them). They come to be burned, like we said above (46b)! (Keren Orah - he asks according to Rav Yosef, who holds that this is Torah law.)
ùàðé äúí ãòé÷ø îöåúï òí äëáùéí ìàëéìä
(b) Answer: There is different, for their primary Mitzvah is with the lambs to be eaten. (Only b'Di'eved, when this cannot be done, they come to be burned.)
4) TOSFOS DH l'Achilah Hikashtiv
úåñôåú ã"ä ìàëéìä ä÷ùúéå
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how they are not equated.)
ãàéú÷ùà îðçú çåèà ìçáéúéï ìòðééï àëéìä åìà ìä÷øáä ùæä ìàéáåã åæä ëìéì
(a) Explanation: Minchas Chotei [of a Kohen] is equated to Chavitim regarding eating, but not for Hakravah, for [the former] is l'Ibud (lost, i.e. burned not on the Mizbe'ach) and [Chavitim] is Kalil (totally burned on the Mizbe'ach).
5) TOSFOS DH Mai ka'Amar
úåñôåú ã"ä îàé ÷àîø
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how Abaye and Rava explain the Beraisa.)
ãäà ëìéì ðîé ëúéá áéä àìîà ìëìéì ðîé äå÷ùä
(a) Explanation: [The Gemara asked, because] also Kalil is written about [Chavitim]. This shows that also for Kalil it is equated!
äëé ÷àîø ëìåîø äàé ÷øà ìàå áçãà îðçä ãàé áçãà îðçä ìëúåá ëìéì åðéùúå÷
1. [Abaye said] "it means as follows." I.e. this verse does not discuss one Minchah. If it were one Minchah, it should write Kalil, and no more;
ãìà ñáéøà ìéä äà ãîñ÷éðï ì÷îï îùåí ìàå àìà ìà úàëì ÷àé àîðçú çåáúå åëìéì úäéä àðãáúå ëîå (ùîôøù) [ö"ì ùîô' - ãôåñ åéðéöéä] àáéé åøáà
2. He does not hold what we conclude below, [that they are equated for a Lav]. Rather, Lo Sochal refers to his obligatory Minchah, and Kalil Tihyeh refers to his Nedavah, like Abaye and Rava explain;
åàúøåééäå ôøéê åàéôåê àðà
3. [The Gemara] challenges both of them "I should say oppositely!"
åîä ùä÷ãéí àáéé ìà úàëì ìëìéì úäéä
(b) Implied question: Why did Abaye put Lo Sochal before Kalil Tihyeh?
ëãé ì÷ééí åëì îðçú ëäï àëåìäå îðçåú ãäëé ÷àîø àáéé ìà úàëì çåáúå ìàå çåáúå ãåå÷à ÷àîø àìà ëìåîø àó çåáúå åëì ùëï ðãáúå àáì ëìéì úäéä àðãáúå ãåå÷à ÷àé
(c) Answer: It is in order to fulfill v'Chol Minchas Kohen for all Menachos. Abaye says as follows. "Lo Sochal" - his obligation, and not only his obligation, rather, even his obligation, and all the more so his Nedavah. However, Kalil Tihyeh refers only to his Nedavah;
åøáà ìà çééù áäà ãùôéø î÷ééí åëì [ö"ì ãëì - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ãîðçåú äå÷ùå ìçáéúéï äê ìòðéï ëìéì åäê ìòðéï ìà úàëì
1. And Rava is not concerned for this, for we properly fulfill v'Chol, for all Menachos [of Kohanim] are equated to Chavitim - this (Nedavah) regarding Kalil, and this (Chovah) regarding Lo Sochal.
6) TOSFOS DH v'Basim Reichei
úåñôåú ã"ä åáñéí øéçéä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes that this is due to the oil and Levonah.)
ôéøù á÷åðèøñ áçã ìéùðà ãëúéá áîðçú ðãáä åçáéúéï øéç ðéçåç îä ùàéï ëï áîðçú çåèà
(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi, Version #1): It says about Minchas Nedavah and Chavitim "Re'ach Nicho'ach." This does not apply to Minchas Chotei.
å÷ùä ãìà çùéá ùîï åìáåðä
(b) Question: It does not count oil and Levonah (among their similarities)!
ìëê ðøàä ëìùåï àçø ùôéøù ãîéðééäå áñéí øéçéä
(c) Explanation #2: The other version that Rashi explained is primary, that their types (Minchas Nedavah and Chavitim) smell nice [because they have oil and Levonah].
7) TOSFOS DH Rabanan Hai Kol Minchas v'Chulei
úåñôåú ã"ä åøáðï äàé ëì îðçú ëå'
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that we ask also how R. Shimon expounds this.)
äééðå áéï øáðï áéï ø''ù ãôìéâé òìéä ãøáé àìòæø áøáé ùîòåï
(a) Explanation: [Rabanan] refers both to Rabanan, and to R. Shimon, who argue with R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon.
8) TOSFOS DH Lav d'Zaros
úåñôåú ã"ä ìàå ãæøåú
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses which Lav this is.)
ôé' á÷åðè' åëì æø ìà éàëì ÷åãù
(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi): [The Lav of Zaros is] "v'Chol Zar Lo Yochal Kodesh."
[åëôéøåùå] îùîò áô''÷ ãëøéúåú (ãó ã:) âáé àëì çìá îï äîå÷ãùéí ã÷àîø øáé éäåãä ìå÷ä ùìù åçùéá úøé ìàåéï ãçìá åçã ãëúéá åëì æø ìà éàëì ÷åãù
(b) Support #1: It connotes like this in Kerisus (4b) regarding one who ate Chelev of Kodshim. R. Yehudah says that he is lashed three times, and he counts two Lavim of Chelev, and one for "v'Chol Zar Lo Yochal Kodesh."
åëï áô' áúøà ãîëåú (ãó éç.) àîø øáà æø ùàëì îï äòåìä ìôðé æøé÷ä çåõ ìçåîä ìø''ù ìå÷ä çîù åôøéê ìéì÷é ðîé îùåí åëì æø ìà éàëì ÷åãù
(c) Support #2: In Makos (18a) Rava said that if a Zar ate from an Olah before Zerikah outside the wall of Yerushalayim, according to R. Shimon he is lashed five times. [The Gemara] asks that he should be lashed also for "v'Chol Zar Lo Yochal Kodesh."
å÷ùä ãääåà ÷øà áúøåîä ëúéá ëãîå÷é ìéä áôø÷ é' éåçñéï (÷éãåùéï ãó ñè:) åëúéá (ìòéì îéðéä úåùá) [ö"ì áúøéä úåùá ëäï - öàï ÷ãùéí] åùëéø ìà éàëì ÷åãù
(d) Question: That verse discusses Terumah, like we establish in Kidushin (69b), and it says after it "Toshav Kohen v'Sachir Lo Yochal Kodesh"!
åðøàä ãâøñé' áúøåééäå åæø ìà éàëì ëé ÷åãù äí åáääéà ùîòúà âåôà ãîëåú (ãó éç:) îééúé ìä âáé æø ùàëì îçèàú åàùí ìôðé æøé÷ä ôèåø
(e) Explanation #2: It seems that the text in both [Kerisus and Makos] is "v'Zar Lo Yochal Ki Kodesh Hem." In that Sugya itself of Makos (18b), it brings [that verse] regarding the exemption of a Zar who ate from Chatas or Asham before Zerikah.
åàí úàîø åäéëé ì÷é äëà åáëøéúåú àìàå ãæøåú äà îñé÷ äúí áîëåú âáé òåìä ä''î äéëà ãçæé ìëäðéí äëà ìëäðéí ðîé ìà çæé
(f) Question: How is he lashed here and in Kerisus for the Lav of Zarus? It concludes there in Makos regarding Olah "this is when it is proper for Kohanim. Here also for Kohanim it is not proper!"
åâáé æø ùàëì îçèàú åàùí ìôðé æøé÷ä ôèåø ÷àîø [ðîé] ãëì äéëà ã÷øéðà áéä åàëìå àåúí àùø ëåôø áäí ÷øéðà áéä åæø ìà éàëì ëé ÷åãù äí
1. And also regarding the exemption of a Zar who ate from Chatas or Asham before Zerikah, it says "whenever we apply "v'Achu Osam Asher Kupar Bahem", we apply "v'Zar Lo Yochal Ki Kodesh Hem"!
åéù ìééùá ôéøåù ä÷åðèøñ ãäëà åâéøñú äñôøéí ãëøéúåú åãîëåú (âí æä ùí) ãùééê áéä ìàå ãëì æø ìà éàëì ÷åãù àò''â ãëúéá áúøåîä ãéìôéðï ÷åãù çè çè îúøåîä
(g) Defense (of Explanation #1): We can resolve Rashi's Perush here and the text of Seforim in Kerisus and Makos. The Lav "v'Chol Zar Lo Yochal Kodesh" applies, even though it is written about Terumah, for we learn [Me'ilah] from a Gezeirah Shavah "Chet-Chet" from Terumah;
ëãàùëçðà áôø÷ äðùøôéï (ñðäãøéï ôã.) ãéìéó îòéìä îúøåîä åìà (îëàï îòîåã á) ÷éí ìï àæäøä áîòéìä àìà îúøåîä
1. This is like we find in Sanhedrin (84a) that we learn Me'ilah from Terumah, and we know an Azharah (Lav) for Me'ilah only from Terumah.
74b----------------------------------------74b
àáì àìàå ãåæø ìà éàëì ëé ÷åãù äí ìà ì÷é ëéåï ãìà çæé ìëäðéí
2. However, for the Lav "v'Zar Lo Yochal Ki Kodesh Hem" he is not lashed, since it is not proper for Kohanim.
åäà ãð÷è äëà ìàå ãæøåú åìà ÷àîø ìàå ãîòéìä
(h) Implied question: [Since he is lashed due to Me'ilah,] why did it mention here the Lav for Zarus, and it did not say the Lav for Me'ilah?
ìéùðà ã÷øà ð÷è
(i) Answer: It adopted the wording of the verse.
åîéäå ÷ùéà ìôéøåù æä îäà ãúðéà äúí ëì çìá åëì ãí ìà úàëìå îä çìá ìå÷ä ùìù àó ãí ìå÷ä ùìù
(j) Question (against Explanation #1): A Beraisa there teaches "Kol Chelev v'Chol Dam Lo Sochelu" - just like for Chelev [of Kodshim] he is lashed three times, also for blood he is lashed three times;
åôøééê îàé ùðà çìá ãìå÷ä ùìù ãàéú áéä äìéï úøé ìàåéï ãàîøéðï åìàå ãæøåú ãí ðîé ìéì÷é ùìù ãàéú áéä äìéï úøéï ìàåéï ãàîøéðï åìàå ãæøåú
1. [The Gemara] asks, why should Chelev be different (if not for the Hekesh), that he is lashed three times, because it has these two Lavim that we said [there], and the Lav of Zarus? Also for blood he should be lashed three times, for it has these two Lavim that we said, and the Lav of Zarus!
åîùðé àéöèøéê ñã''à äåàéì åàéîòéè ãí îèåîàä àéîòéè ðîé ãí îæøåú ÷îùîò ìï ä÷éùà
i. It answers that it is needed. One might have thought that since blood was excluded from [liability for eating it b']Tum'ah, it is excluded also from Zarus. The Hekesh teaches that this is not so.
åàé æøåú äééðå ìàå ãîòéìä äà áäãéà àéîòéè ãí îèåîàä åîîòéìä áñåó ëì äáùø (çåìéï ÷éæ:)
2. If Zarus is the Lav of Me'ilah, blood is explicitly excluded from Tum'ah and Me'ilah in Chulin (117b)!
åá÷åðèøñ ìà âøéñ äúí îèåîàä àìà îîòéìä åéù ìôøù ãäëé ÷àîø ñ''ã àîéðà äåàéì åàéîòéè îîòéìä ôéøåù î÷øáï îòéìä àéîòéè ðîé îæøåú ëìåîø îîì÷åú ãìàå ãîòéìä ãðôé÷ îåëì æø
(k) Answer: Rashi's text there (Kerisus 4b) does not say "from Tum'ah", rather, "from Me'ilah." We can explain that one might have thought that since it is excluded from Me'ilah, i.e. from Korban Me'ilah, it is excluded also from Zarus, i.e. lashes, for the Lav of Me'ilah we learn from "v'Chol Zar." (In our text of Rashi there, he himself answers so.)
÷î''ì äé÷éùà ãëé îîòèéðï ãí áñåó ëì äáùø äééðå ãåå÷à î÷øáï îòéìä åìà îîì÷åú
1. The Hekesh teaches that this is not so. When we exclude blood in Chulin, this is only from Korban Me'ilah, but not from lashes.
åäà ãìà àîøéðï àéôëà ãîéòåèà ìîì÷åú åäé÷éùà ì÷øáï
(l) Implied question: Why don't we say oppositely, that the exclusion is for lashes, and the inclusion is for Korban?
îùåí ãäé÷éùà âáé ìàå ëúéá
(m) Answer: It is because the Hekesh is written regarding a Lav.
àáì àé âøñéðï (ìèåîàä) [ö"ì îèåîàä - éùø åèåá] ÷ùä îä øàéú ìîòè èåîàä åìøáåú æøåú àéîà àéôëà
(n) Reiteration of Question (j): However, if the text says "from Tum'ah", this is difficult. Why do you exclude Tum'ah, and include Zarus? I can say oppositely!
åîéäå áëì òðéï öøéê èòí ãòì ëøçéï àîú äåà ãîîòèéðï èåîàä åîøáéðï æøåú
(o) Observation: In any case (also according Explanation #2) we need a reason, for we are forced to say that it is true that we exclude Tum'ah and include Zarus. (Why don't we say oppositely?)
åé''ì îùåí ãäé÷éùà ãëì çìá åëì ãí âáé æøåú [ö"ì ëúéá - öàï ÷ãùéí] ãäëì æøéí àöì çìá åãí àáì ñúí áðé àãí èäåøéï
(p) Answer: It is because the Hekesh "Kol Chelev v'Chol Dam" is written regarding Zarus, for everyone is a Zar regarding Chelev and blood. However, Stam people are Tahor.
åà''ú åàé ãîôøùéðï ãìàå ãæøåú äåà ìàå (ãåëì æø) [ö"ì åæø - éùø åèåá] ìà éàëì ëé ÷åãù äí ú÷ùé ìï ãìéì÷é ðîé àìàå ãîòéìä
(q) Question: If we explain that the Lav of Zarus is "v'Zar Lo Yochal Ki Kodesh Hem", it is difficult. He should be lashed also for the Lav of Me'ilah!
åé''ì ãìà çùéá ìàå ãîòéìä îùåí ãìà çùéá àìà ìàåé ãìà ùééëé àìà áçìá åàéîåøéï àáì ìàå ãîòéìä ùééê àó ááùø åá÷ãùé áã÷ äáéú
(r) Answer #1: [The Gemara] does not count the Lav of Me'ilah because it counts only Lavim that apply only to Chelev and Eimurim, but the Lav of Me'ilah applies even to meat and Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis.
1. Note: This is difficult. Also Zarus applies to meat! Perhaps Tosfos explains that anyone, i.e. even a Kohen, is lashed three times for Chelev Kodshim, and for him, none of those Lavim apply to meat. Or, the text should say "... Lavim that apply only b'Chegon Chelev and Eimurim (matters like them, i.e. Kodshei Mizbe'ach), but the Lav of Me'ilah applies even to Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis"; in Dfus Vinitziyah it does not say "Basar". However, Tosfos' words below about Nosar connote that we count only Lavim that apply to Chelev, but not to other meat. This requires investigation.
åòåã ãùééê ðîé áäðàä áìà àëéìä
(s) Answer #2: [The Lav of Me'ilah] applies to also to Hana'ah without eating (therefore, it was not counted).
åäà ãôøéê äúí ìòéì ãìéçééá ðîé îùåí (ëé - òåìú ùìîä åéùø åèåá - îåç÷å) ÷åãù
(t) Implied question: It asks above there (4a) "he should be liable also for Kodesh (i.e. Me'ilah)"!
äééðå îùåí ãäúí çùéá ìàå ãðåúø åìà ùééê áçìá èôé îáùàø áùø
(u) Answer: This is because there, it counts the Lav of Nosar, which does not apply to Chelev more than to other meat.
åà''ú åìøáðï ãôìéâé äúí áëøéúåú (ãó ã:) òìéä ãøáé éäåãä åîîòèé ãí îæøåú àí ëï áñåó ëì äáùø (çåìéï ãó ÷éæ.) ãçùéá çåîø áçìá îáãí ìéçùåá ìàå ãæøåú
(v) Question: According to Rabanan who argue there in Kerisus with R. Yehudah, and exclude blood from Zarus, if so, in Chulin (117a), that it considers the stringencies of Chelev over blood, it should include also Zarus!
åé''ì ãôìåâúà ìà ÷îééøé
(w) Answer: It does not discuss matters about which there is an argument.
åà''ú àîàé ìà çùéá áëøéúåú (ãó ã:) ìàå ãçìá ðáìä åçìá èøôä éòùä ìëì îìàëä åàëåì ìà úàëìåäå (åé÷øà æ)
(x) Question: Why doesn't it count in Kerisus (4b) the Lav "v'Chelev Neveilah v'Chelev Tereifah Ye'aseh l'Chol Melachah v'Achol Lo Sochluhu"?
åé''ì ãìàå áòðééðà ã÷ãùéí ëúéáà ëé äðé ãäúí
(y) Answer: It is not written regarding Kodshim like the other [Lavim] there.
åîéäå ÷ùä ãìéì÷é îùåí ìàå ãäëà ãëì ùäåà áëìéì úäéä äøé äåà ááì úàëì
1. Question: He should be lashed for the Lav here, that anything Kalil, Lo Sochal applies to it!
åé''ì ãôìåâúà äéà äëà
2. Answer #1: It does not discuss matters about which there is an argument.
àé ðîé äåé ìàå ùáëììåú
3. Answer #2: It is Lav shebi'Chlalos (so one is not lashed for it).
9) TOSFOS DH uv'Zeh Yafeh Ko'ach Kohanim mi'Ko'ach ha'Mizbe'ach
úåñôåú ã"ä åáæä éôä ëç ëäðéí îëç äîæáç
(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that the Mizbe'ach receives from what is offered with Shtei ha'Lechem and Lechem ha'Panim.)
àò''â ãàéëà ëáùéí áäãé ìçí åáæéëé ìáåðä áäãé ìçí äôðéí
(a) Implied question: There are lambs with the bread, and spoons of Levonah with the Lechem ha'Panim!
îâåôå îéäà ìéëà ìîæáç
(b) Answer: The Mizbe'ach does not receive from them themselves.
10) TOSFOS DH veha'Ika Olah
úåñôåú ã"ä åäàéëà òåìä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we did not ask about Levonah and wood.)
åà''ú åäàéëà ìáåðä ãàîøéðï áôø÷ áúøà (ì÷îï ÷å:) äàåîø äøé òìé ìîæáç éáéà ìáåðä ùàéï ìê ãáø ù÷øá ëåìå ìîæáç àìà ìáåðä
(a) Question: There is Levonah, which we say below (106b) that one who says "it is Alai to [give to] the Mizbe'ach" that he brings Levonah, for only Levonah is offered totally to the Mizbe'ach!
åé''ì ãìà îééøé äëà àìà áîéãé ãçæé ìàëéìä åìäëé ìà çùéá ðîé òöéí ìøáé
(b) Answer: Here we discuss only matters proper to eat. Therefore, we do not consider also wood according to Rebbi.
11) TOSFOS DH Le'afukei mid'Shmuel v'Chulei
úåñôåú ã"ä ìàôå÷é îãùîåàì ëå'
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we did not challenge Shmuel from here.)
òé÷ø îéìúà áôø÷ äúãéø (ì÷îï öà:) åôøéê òìä èåáà
(a) Reference: [Shmuel's] teaching is primarily below (91b), and the Gemara greatly challenges it.
åäà ãìà ôøéê îäëà
(b) Implied question: Why don't we challenge it from here?
ìôé ùàéðå àìà îééúåø îùðä
(c) Answer: It is because a mere extra phrase in our Mishnah [connotes unlike it].
åîäàé èòîà ðîé ìà îééúé äúí ñééòúà îäëà àääéà ãùîåàì
1. Support: For this reason, we do not support from here his other teaching.
åäúí îåëç èòîà ãùîåàì îùåí ãáø ùàéï îúëåéï
(d) Explanation: There, it is proven that Shmuel's reason is due to Davar she'Eino Miskaven (he does not intend to extinguish the fire on the Mizbe'ach).
12) TOSFOS DH Komtzo v'Shirav Ne'echalin
úåñôåú ã"ä ÷åîöå åùéøéå ðàëìéï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the same does not apply to wine.)
[àáì] ééï öìåì äåà åàé àôùø ì÷åîöå
(a) Distinction: However, wine is clear, and it is impossible to take a Kometz from it. (One can take a Kometz from congealed oil.)
13) TOSFOS DH Ika Matanos
úåñôåú ã"ä àéëà îúðåú
(SUMMARY: Tosfos proves that these were not inside the Heichal.)
ôéøåù [ö"ì á÷åðèøñ - ùéèä î÷åáöú] îúðåú òì äôøåëú
(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi (Kesav Yad)): The Matanos are on the Paroches.
åìà îùîò ëï áä÷åîõ øáä ìòéì (ãó ëæ:) ãàîø ùáò äæàåú ùáôðéí åùáîöåøò îëìì ãùì îöåøò ìà äåé áôðéí
(b) Objection #1: It connotes unlike this above (27b). It says "the seven Haza'os inside and of a Metzora." This connotes that those of a Metzora are not inside!
åòåã úðï áñåó ðâòéí áà ìå àöì îöåøò ìùòø ð÷ðåø ðúï îï äãí òì úðåê [ö"ì åëå' - öàï ÷ãùéí] ðèì îìåâ äùîï åéö÷ (åèáì) [ö"ì åëå' èáì - öàï ÷ãùéí] åäæä æ' ôòîéí ëðâã áéú ÷ãùé ä÷ãùéí ëå' áà ìå àöì îöåøò ëå'
(c) Objection #2: Mishnayos in Nega'im (14:8-10) teach "he came to the Metzora... [to] Sha'ar Nikanor... he put from the blood on the ear lobe... He took from the oil and poured [into another's palm...] he immersed [his finger in the oil] and sprinkled seven times towards the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim... He came to the Metzora...
îãìà ÷úðé áà ìå ìäéëì îùîò ùáòæøä òåîã åîãäãø úðé áà ìå àöì îöåøò îùîò ùìà äéä òåîã áùòø ðé÷ðåø
1. Inference: Since it did not teach "he came to the Heichal", this connotes that he stands in the Azarah, and since it later teaches "he came to the Metzora", it connotes that he was not standing in Sha'ar Nikanor. (Yashar v'Tov - perhaps he entered the Heichal, just the Mishnah does not mention this, just like it does not mention that he entered the Azarah for the Matanos! Tosfos answers that since it says [again] "he came to the Metzora", it is as if it explicitly said that at the time of the Matanos, he was not in Sha'ar Nikanor, rather, in the Azarah.)
14) TOSFOS DH Lemi'utei Minchas Ma'afe
úåñôåú ã"ä ìîòåèé îðçú îàôä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why he does not call this "made in a Kli".)
ìà îé÷øé ðòùéú áëìé ã÷ñáø àéï úðåø î÷ãù:
(a) Explanation: This is not called "made in a Kli", for he holds that the oven is not Mekadesh.