1) TOSFOS DH Mah Lehalan Yetzikah u'Blilah Af Kan Yetzikah u'Blilah
úåñôåú ã"ä îä ìäìï éöé÷ä åáìéìä àó ëàï éöé÷ä åáìéìä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gezeirah Shavah is needed.)
úéîä ìîä ìé ìîéìó îâ''ù ã÷øáðê ÷øáðê úéôå÷ ìé ãîøáéðï áñîåê îãëúéá îðçä ìøáåú ëì äîðçåú ìéöé÷ä åìà îîòèéðï àìà îðçú îàôä
(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!
åîöéðå ìîéîø ãòé÷ø â''ù ìîúï ùîï áëìé àúéà åéöé÷ä åáìéìä ãäëà äåà äãéï ãáìàå â''ù äåä éãòéðï îãëúéá îðçä
(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.
åòåã ðøàä ãáìéìä ðîé àéöèøéê â''ù ãîãëúéá îðçä ìà îøáéðï àìà éöé÷ä ìçåãä ãòì éöé÷ä ëúéá åîøáéðï îéðéä ôúéúä ìëì îðçåú ãôúéúä åéöé÷ä ëúéáé áääåà ÷øà
(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.
åîéäå öøéê ìã÷ã÷ ãáîðçú ñåìú åáîðçú äòåîø ãìà ëúéá áäå áìéìä (îúï ùîï áëìé ÷åãí ìòùééúï) [ö"ì åîúï ùîï áëìé ÷åãí ìòùééúï îðéï - éùø åèåá]
(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?
úéðç îçáú åîøçùú ãëúéá ÷øáðê àìà ùàø îðçåú îðìï
1. Granted, Machavas and Marcheshes, it says Korbanecha about them. However, what is the source for other Menachos?
åàí ðôøù îãëúéá îðçä áîçáú îøáéðï ëì îðçåú ìùìùä îúðåú ùîï
2. Suggestion: Since it says Minchah regarding Machavas, we include all Menachos for three Matanos of oil.
à''ë [ö"ì ëé] äéëé ãîîòèéðï îàôä îéöé÷ä îãëúéá òìéä åäéà ðîòè ðîé îîúï ùîï áëìé ÷åãí ìòùééúï ãäðê úéáåú âáé äããé ëúéáé åéö÷ú òìéä ùîï îðçä äéà
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"!
åðøàä ìôøù ãâáé ùìùä îúðåú ùîï ëì äîðçåú ìîéãåú æå îæå áìà ùåí â''ù îñáøà áòìîà ãëéåï ãèòåðåú îúðåú ùîï ðìîã ñúåí îï äîôåøù ëòéï âìåé îéìúà áòìîà
(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.
åäà ãöøéê äëà ÷øáðê ìâ''ù
(f) Implied question: Why do we need here Korbanecha for a Gezeirah Shavah?
äééðå îùåí ãëéåï ãáîçáú ëúéá éöé÷ä àçøåðä åáîøçùú ëúéá îúï ùîï áëìé áúçéìä ä''à ùæå ãéðä áëê åæå ãéðä ëê
(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;
àáì àçø ùîìîãéðå áâ''ù ìéúï äàîåø ùì æä áæä ä''ä áëì äîðçåú çåõ îîàôä ãîéòèä øçîðà îéöé÷ä
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;
åîùåí ãëúéáé îéòåèé âáé éöé÷ä äåà ãàéöèøéê ìéä îðçä ìøáåú ëì äîðçåú ìéöé÷ä
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
úåñôåú ã"ä ùôéø ÷àîøé ìéä øáðï åîàé äéà
(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes that "Shapir ka'Amrei Lei" is not a question.)
úéîä îòé÷øà ôùéèà ìéä ãùôéø ÷àîøé øáðï åàç''ë áòé îàé äéà
(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.)
åòåã ùàéï îúøõ ëìåí à÷åùéà æå
(b) Question #2: [The Gemara] does not answer this question at all (Rabanan said properly! How can Rebbi answer?)
åðøàä ìôøù ãìàå ÷åùéà äéà àìà áðéçåúà ÷àîø ãùôéø ÷àîøé ìéä øáðï
(c) Explanation: It seems that this is said b'Nichusa, i.e. it is not a question. Rabanan said properly to [Rebbi].
ëãçæéðï áúåñôúà ãçæø áå øáé ãàîø ðøàéï ãáøéäï îãáøéé
(d) Support: We find in the Tosefta that Rebbi retracted, and said "their words are better than mine."
åîàé äéà ëìåîø îàéæä èòí àîø ø' ùîåàì áø øá éöç÷ øáéòéú ùîï äéà åîúçì÷ú ìëîä çìåú åìàçø àôééúï éáéùåú äï åáåìòåú ùîï îçîú äàåø åáøáéòéú ùîï ìà ñô÷à ìäå
(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
úåñôåú ã"ä åîä çìåú ùàéï èòåðåú îùéçä ëå'
(SUMMARY: Tosfos questions the Havah Amina to learn from each other to the other.)
öøéê ìã÷ã÷ àé ùééê ëàï ëì çã åçã úé÷åí áãåëúéä
(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
úåñôåú ã"ä ëîéï ëé
(SUMMARY: Tosfos brings different explanations of this.)
öééø á÷åðè' ëîéï èé''ú
(a) Explanation #1: Rashi drew [the shape of Chai] like a Tes.
åáôéøåùé çåîù ôé' âéîì
(b) Explanation #2: In his Perush on Chumash, Rashi explained like a Gimel.
åéù îôøéùéí ëîéï ðåï àå ëîéï ë'
(c) Explanation #3: Some say that it is like a Nun or Chaf.
åáòøåê ôéøù ãúðéà áëøéúåú (ãó ä:) äîìëéí îåùçéï ëîéï ðæø åäëäðéí ëîéï ëé éååðéú ôéøåù éö÷ ùîï òì øàù [àäøï] åéåøã àéìê åàéìê ëîéï ùðé (îøâìéåú) [ðøàä ùö"ì îøâìåú] åæäå öåøúå
(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
úåñôåú ã"ä àéîà ìäåöéà îðçä ëå'
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we did not ask so about Pesisah.)
ä÷ùä á÷åðèøñ âáé ôúéúä ðîé ìôøåê àéîà ìäåöéà îðçú ëäðéí
(a) Question (Rashi): Also regarding Pesisah we should ask so, to exclude Minchas Kohanim!
åúéøõ ãîñúáøà îðçú ëäðéí äåä ìéä ìøáåéé (áãéï) [ðøàä ùö"ì ëãéï, ëáøù"é ëú"é òä:] îðçú îçáú (ùëï ôúéúä ëúéáà áéä áäãéà åùúéäï) [ö"ì ùôúéúä ëúéáà áéä áäãéà ùëï ùúéäï - ç÷ ðúï] îðçú éçéã åðôù ëúéá áôøùä
(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;
ìîòè ùúé äìçí åìçí äôðéí ãöéáåø äï:
1. This excludes Shtei ha'Lechem and Lechem ha'Panim, which are of the Tzibur.
75b----------------------------------------75b
6) TOSFOS DH Eizehu Davar she'Tzarich Shnei Mi'utin v'Chulei
úåñôåú ã"ä àéæäå ãáø ùöøéê ùðé îéòåèéï ëå'
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we do not expound like we did about Hagashah.)
úéîä ãìòéì áñåó ëì äîðçåú áàåú îöä (ãó ñ:) âáé äâùä ãëúéáé îéòåèé èåáà îîòèéðà î÷îà ùúé äìçí åìçí äôðéí ãàéï îäï ìàùéí åîîéòåè ùðé îðçú ðñëéí ùàéðä áàä áâìì òöîä åîîéòåè ùìéùé îðçú ëäðéí åîðçú ëäï îùéç ùàéï îäï ìëäðéí
(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;
åäùúà äëà âáé éöé÷ä ãàéëà úøé îéòåèé ðäé ãìà öøéê ìîòåèé ùúé äìçí åìçí äôðéí ùàôéìå ùîï àéðä èòåðä ëãîîòéè ìäå áôø÷ ëì äîðçåú (âí æä ùí)
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...
îëì î÷åí ðå÷é ÷îà ìîòåèé îðçú ðñëéí åàéãê ìîòåèé îðçú ëäðéí åîðçú ëäï îùéç îèòîéí ãäúí
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!
åéù ìåîø ãìà ãîé ãâáé äâùä àéëà úìúà îéòåèé åìà ùééê ìàå÷îé ëåìäå áîðçú îàôä
(b) Answer: This is different. Regarding Hagashah there are three exclusions, and we cannot establish all of them for Minchas Ma'afe;
àáì äëà ãìéëà àìà úøé îéòåèé åàéëà ì÷éåîé úøåééäå áîðçú îàôä î÷ééîéðï
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
úåñôåú ã"ä çáéöà
(SUMMARY: Tosfos brings three opinions about this.)
ôé' á÷åðèøñ úáùéì ù÷åøéï ùìéð÷å''÷ ùîôøøéï áå ôú
(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi): This is a cooked food called Shelinkok. Bread is crumbed into it.
å÷ùä îä òðéï æä àöì îðçåú ùäáéùåì îáèìå ëàï îúåøú ìçí
(b) Question: How is this relevant to Menachos? Here, the cooking is Mevatel it from the form of bread!
åàé îùåí ãèéâåï ãîðçä çùéáà ëáéùåì ãçáéöà
1. Suggestion: Frying of Menachos is like cooking of Chavitza.
åäà áñîåê îééúé òìä ìé÷è îëåìï ãìéëà ùåí èéâåï
2. Rejection #1: Below, we bring about this "if one gathered from all of them...." - there no frying!
åòåã àîøéðï áôø÷ ëéöã îáøëéï (áøëåú ìæ.) âáé çèä èçðä ìùä àôàä åáùìä áæîï ùäôøåñåú ÷ééîåú îáøê äîåöéà àéï äôøåñåú ÷ééîåú îáøê áåøà îéðé îæåðåú
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;
îùîò àéï äôøåñåú ÷ééîåú àôéìå éù áäï ëæéú
i. Inference: If the pieces are not intact, even if they are a k'Zayis [he blesses Borei Minei Mezonos].
åòåã áñîåê ã÷àîø åìøáé éùîòàì ãîçæéøï ìñåìúï äëé ðîé ãìà îáøê äîåöéà
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?!"
äéëé áòé ìîéîø ãîáøê åëé éù ìê àéï ôøåñåú ÷ééîåú éåúø îæä
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?!
åîôøù ø''ú ãçáéöà äï ôúéúéï ã÷éï ùîãáé÷éï àåúï òì éãé ãáù àå òì éãé çìá åùåîï ëòéï èéâåï ùì îðçä
(c) Explanation #2 (R. Tam): Chavitza is fine [bread] crumbs stuck together via honey or Chelev and lard, like frying of a Minchah.
åáòøåê ôé' ëòéï çáéöà ãúîøé ùôéøø äôú á÷òøä åùåôê îø÷ òìéäï
(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
úåñôåú ã"ä äéä òåîã åî÷øéá îðçåú áéøåùìéí
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses in which cases he blesses she'Hecheyanu.)
ôéøù á÷åðèøñ ëäï ùìà äáéà îðçä áùðä æå
(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi): [This refers to] a Kohen who did not bring a Minchah this year [until now].
åìà äéä ìåîø äáéà ãîðçú ëäï ëìéì äéà åáîðçä äðàëìú îééøé ëã÷àîø ðèìï ìàåëìï
(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..."!
åéëåì ìôøù ëäï ùìà ä÷øéá îðçä áùðä æå åîééøé áîðçú éùøàì
(c) Explanation #2: He can explain a Kohen who did not offer a Minchah this year [until now], and we discuss a Minchas Yisrael.
òåã ìùåï àçø ôéøù éùøàì ùìà äáéà îðçä îéîéå
(d) Explanation #3: [Rashi] gave another explanation. [This refers to] a Yisrael who did not offer a Minchah in his lifetime [until now].
å÷ùä ãðèìï ìàåëìï ÷úðé åéùøàì ìà îöé àëéì
(e) Objection: It says "if he took them to eat them..." A Yisrael may not eat [Menachos]!
åä''ø (ùîòåï) [ö"ì ùîòéä - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ôéøù ááøëåú (ãó ìæ:) ããå÷à áîðçåú ìôé ùàéï øâéìéï ìäúðãá îðçåú
(f) Explanation #4 (Rabbeinu Shemayah, in Brachos (37b)): [He blesses she'Hecheyanu] only for Menachos, because it is not common to volunteer Menachos.
åàé àôùø ìåîø ëï ãáúåñôúà ÷úðé ðîé äëé âáé æáç
(g) Rebuttal: One cannot say so, for a Tosefta teaches so also about a Zevach!
åðøàä ìôøù ãìôé ùäéå îùîøåú îúçãùåú åîúçìôåú ôòîééí áùðä [ö"ì ãë"ã îùîøåú äéå - ùéèä î÷åáöú] åìëì îùîøä äéå [ö"ì ùùä - ùéèä î÷åáöú] áúé àáåú ðîöà ùìà äéå î÷øéáéï àìà ùðé éîéí áùðä åæîï ÷áåò ìäí ìä÷øéá ìçöé ùðä éåí àçã ìôéëê îáøê àæáç åàîðçä ùäçééðå ìæîï
(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
úåñôåú ã"ä ìé÷è îëåìï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this refers to from the five grains.)
àçîùú äîéðéí ÷àé åáôñç
(a) Explanation #1: This refers to the five species [of grain], and during Pesach.
åäà ìéëà ìîéîø ãàîðçåú ÷àé
(b) Implied suggestion: Perhaps it refers to Menachos!
ã÷úðé àí çîõ äåà åëì äîðçåú áàåú îöä ëê ôéøù á÷åðèøñ
(c) Rejection: This cannot be, for it says "if it is Chametz", and all Menachos are Matzah. So Rashi explained.
åéù ôéøåùéí ùëúåá áäï àôúéúéï ùàéï áäï ëæéú åìà àéúôøù ìï äéëà
(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
úåñôåú ã"ä àôéìå ôéøåøéï ùàéï áäï ëæéú
(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with the Gemara in Brachos.)
åà''ú äà ãàîøéðï áôø÷ ëéöã îáøëéï (ùí ìè. åùí) ôú öðåîä á÷òøä îáøëéï òìéä äîåöéà åôìéâà ãø' çééà áø àáà ãàîø öøéê ùúëìä áøëä òí äôú
(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);
äéëé ãîé àé ãìéëà ìçí àçø äà îñ÷éðï äëà ãîáøê äîåöéà
1. What is the case? If there is no other bread, we conclude here that he blesses ha'Motzi!
åàé ãàéëà ìçí àçø òì äâãåì îáøê ãòã ëàï ìà ôìéâé äúí àìà áôúéúéï âãåìéí åùìéîéí ÷èðéí àáì ôúéúéï âãåìéí åôúéúéï ÷èðéí ôùéèà (äåàéì åàéëà ìçí àçø ùìí) [ö"ì åàé àéëà ìçí àçø ùìí ôùéèà - öàï ÷ãùéí] ãàääåà ìçí îáøê
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!
åðøàä ìôøù ãîééøé äúí áëëø ùîôøø îîðå á÷òøä ìùí áøëä ëãé ìáøê òìéå äîåöéà:
(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.)