1) TOSFOS DH V'ISKUSH

תוספות ד"ה ואיתקוש

(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks how we learn from A to B, and B to C, when there is an argument in Zevachim regarding whether or not doing so is valid.)

ואם תאמר ה"ל דבר הלמד בג"ש דר"ח מציץ וחוזר ומלמד אדרגלים בהיקש

(a) Question: #1: This seems to be derived regarding Rosh Chodesh using a Gezeirah Shaveh from the Tzitz. Rosh Chodesh then teaches this lesson regarding the Regalim using a Hekesh.

ופלוגתא היא דרב פפא ומר זוטרא באיזהו מקומן (זבחים דף נ.)

1. However, whether or not this is a valid method is an argument between Rav Papa and Mar Zutra in Zevachim (50a).

ואי הוה אמר דפנימי נמי איתקוש בהאי היקשא דמועדות שהוזכר בסדר קרבן מוספין דכתיב מלבד חטאת הכפורים הוה אתי שפיר דהשתא איתקש רגלים לפנימי דמכפר אטומאת מקדש וקדשיו

2. If he would say that the Pnimi is also compared using this Hekesh from the Moadim that is mentioned regarding the Korban Musaf, "Milvad Chatas ha'Kipurim" this would be understandable. Now we would say that the Regalim are compared to the Pnimi (not Rosh Chodesh) which atones for Tumas Mikdash v'Kadashav.

אבל קשה לר"ש בן יהודה ולר"מ דאית להו דרגלים מכפרים אטהור שאכל הטמא היכי ילפינן הא בהיקש מר"ח ר"ח גופיה לא ילפינן ביה הך כפרה אלא מג"ש מציץ

3. However, this is difficult according to Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah and Rebbi Meir that hold that the Regalim atone for a pure person who ate impure (meat). How can they learn a Hekesh from Rosh Chodesh? This is not derived from Rosh Chodesh itself, but rather is derived using a Gezeirah Shaveh from the Tzitz!

וע"ק אי פנימי נמי איתקש בהאי היקשא אמאי איצטריך לרבי יהודה חטאת לה' חטא שאין מכיר בו אלא ה' הא איתקש ר"ח ורגלים לפנימי דמכפר אטומאת מקדש וקדשיו וליכא לאוקמה בהו אלא באין בה ואין בה

(b) Question #2: There is an additional difficulty. If the Pnimi is also included in this Hekesh, why does Rebbi Yehudah require the teaching from "Chatas la'Hashem" (regarding Rosh Chodesh) that this atones for a sin that only Hash-m knows about? Rosh Chodesh and Regalim are compared to the Pnimi which atones for Tumas Mikdash v'Kadashav. Accordingly, the case can only be when there is no prior knowledge or knowledge afterwards!

וי"ל כיון דציץ לאו עבודה היא אלא תכשיט חוזר ומלמד דהא דלמד אינו חוזר ומלמד היינו בעבודה עצמה

(c) Answer: It is possible to answer that being that the Tzitz is not a service, but rather an adornment (of the Kohen Gadol), Rosh Chodesh can teach this lesson regarding other Korbanos. Something derived (from one topic to a second topic) cannot then be used to apply this lesson (from the second topic) to a third topic if the first topic is also a service of the Beis Hamikdash.

אבל קשיא לר"מ היכי יליף בר"ח ורגלים אין בה ויש בה מחיצון הא חיצון גופיה לא גמרינן אלא משעיר הפנימי שמכפר על דבר שיש בה ידיעה

(d) Question: However, this is difficult according to Rebbi Meir. How can he derive that Rosh Chodesh and Regalim apply to a case where there is no prior knowledge, but there is knowledge after the sin, from the Chitzon? The Chitzon itself is only derived from the Pnimi, which clearly atones for a sin for which there is knowledge! [This is deriving from one topic to a second to a third when all three are services of the Beis Hamikdash!]

ותירץ ר"ת בספר הישר דכיון דהך היקשא דמועד הוי היקשא גמור לחיצון ורגלים מר"ח לענין חטא שאין מכיר בו אלא ה' דכתיב ביה בהדיא עבדינן היקשא לכולה מילתא אפילו לדברים דלא גמר אלא בהיקש ממקום אחר וכן מוכח בסוף פרק איזהו מקומן (שם דף נז.)

(e) Answer: Rabeinu Tam answers in Sefer Hayashar that being that this Hekesh of Moed is a complete Hekesh regarding the Chitzon (and all of the Si'eerim, see Tosfos ha'Rosh), and Regalim is derived from Rosh Chodesh that the sin is only recognized by Hash-m as clearly stated by the Pasuk, we do make a Hekesh for this entire teaching. This is even for things that are only derived from a source that is once removed (third topic from second topic derived from first topic). This is also implied in Zevachim (57a).

2) TOSFOS DH KA SALKA DA'ATACH

תוספות ד"ה קס"ד

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara is not presently bothered by a question asked later in the Gemara.)

השתא לא קשיא עצרת ויום הכפורים מא"ל כדפריך בסמוך

(a) Implied Question: The Gemara at this point does not yet have difficulty with how we derive that this applies to Shevuos and Yom Kippur, as it does later in the Gemara. (Why not?)

משום דכיון דכל חד וחד מחבריה גמר אפילו להך דלא כתב ביה נמי שעיר ושעיר יליף מהך דלעיל הואיל והך דלקמיה כתב ושעיר

(b) Answer: Being that at this point the Gemara understands that each is derived from its friend (the next Parshah of Korbanos), even for the Korbanos that do not say "v'Sa'ir" instead of "Sa'ir" we can derive from the previous Parshah, being that the next one says, "v'Sa'ir." (In other words, if they are all linked by some of them saying "v'Sa'ir" this should be good enough if we say they are all derived from each other.)

אבל לקמן פריך שפיר דכיון דכולהו מר"ח גמרי לא מצי למילף עצרת ויום הכפורים דלא כתב בהו ושעיר הואיל ויש הפסק בינם ובין ר"ח

1. However, later the Gemara understandably asks that being that they are all derived from Rosh Chodesh, Shevuos and Yom Kippur should not be included as regarding them the Pasuk does not say, "v'Sa'ir." This is because there is a separation between Rosh Chodesh and them (making us unable to assume we should derive them from Rosh Chodesh).

3) TOSFOS DH ELA

תוספות ד"ה אלא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks why the Gemara was hesitant about the derivation of "it" but not the derivation of "sin.")

הא דלא פשיטא ליה דרשה דאותה כמו דרשה דעון

(a) Implied Question: It is not obvious to the Gemara that the derivation from "it" should be like the derivation of "sin." (Why not?)

משום דר"ש בן יהודה דריש עון ולא דריש אותה

(b) Answer: This is because Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah derives from "sin" but not from "it."

וכן צריך לפרש בסמוך גבי דרשה דאחת דפשיטא ליה טפי דרשה דאחת בשנה מדרשה דאחת יכפר

1. This must also be the explanation later regarding the teaching of "one," as the teaching of "once a year" is more obvious to the Gemara than the teaching of "one (sin) it should atone (for)."

4) TOSFOS DH MAHU

תוספות ד"ה מהו

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how a korban that went lost can be brought for the next similar festival.)

של ר"ח זה בר"ח אחר או של רגל זה ברגל אחר ניחא לכולהו שיקרבו

(a) Explanation: Everyone understands that the Sa'ir designated for one Rosh Chodesh could be brought on a different Rosh Chodesh, and that the Sa'ir designated for one Regel can be brought on another Regel.

ותימה דבעיא היא בפ"ק דזבחים (דף ו.) אי מכפר עולה אעשה דלאחר הפרשה והשתא אי לא מכפר היאך יקרב הא לא הופרש על טומאה שאירעה בין זה לזה

(b) Question: This is difficult. The Gemara in Zevachim (6a) asks whether or not one can atone with a Korban Olah if it was separated to be an Olah, and only later the sin was committed. In our Gemara, if it will not atone, how can it be brought? It was not separated for the impurity that occurred between the two Korbanos (which is what it is supposed to atone for)!

וי"ל דהכא כיון דנאבד נעקר הפרשתו ואחר שהופרש במקומו כיפר על עבירות שהיה לו לזה לכפר וכשיבא ר"ח תחול עליו הפרשה לעבירות שעברו קודם לכן

(c) Answer: It is possible to answer that here, being that the animal was lost, its separation to be a Korban is also uprooted. The other animal that was separated instead atoned for the sins for which it was supposed to atone. When Rosh Chodesh arrives, a new separation will take effect for sins that were already committed.

והא דמייתי התם מכבשי עצרת ולא אמרי' כשנשחט הראשון איגלאי מילתא שלא תחול על השני הפרשה עד שעת שחיטה

(d) Implied Question: The Gemara in Zevachim (6b) discusses the sheep brought as Korbanos on Shevuos, and does not say that when the first animal was slaughtered it is apparent that the second animal should not be considered to be separated until it will be slaughtered. (If the above answer is correct, why didn't the Gemara itself say this answer?)

לא דמי כלל לשעיר שאבד דכבשי עצרת על דעת כן הופרשו שישחטו זה אחר זה

(e) Answer: This is incomparable to a goat that went lost, as the sheep of Shevuos were separated in order that they should be slaughtered one after the other.

5) TOSFOS DH OSAH

תוספות ד"ה אותה

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the source for Regalim atoning for a complete lack of knowledge according to Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah.)

וא"ת א"כ מנלן דמכפר אאין בה ואין בה דלמא לא מכפר אלא אדר"ח גרידא דהיינו טהור שאכל את הטמא ולא טמא שאכל את הקודש

(a) Question: If so, how do we know that the Si'eer of Regalim atones for someone who had no prior knowledge or knowledge after the fact? Perhaps it only atones for the same thing as the Si'eer of Rosh Chodesh, meaning a pure person who ate impure Kodshim [and not an impure person who ate Kodshim]?

דבשלמא לר"ש כיון דדריש אותה על כרחך מיבעי ליה לאוקומה כפרה דרגלים אאין בה ואין בה כדקתני לעיל

1. It is understandable according to Rebbi Shimon that being that he derives from "it," the atonement of the Regalim is for a case where there is no prior knowledge or knowledge after the fact, as stated earlier.

ולר"מ נמי אע"ג דלא דריש אותה אתי שפיר דהא דריש חטא שאין מכיר בו אלא ה' וגם אית ליה ג"ש דעון עון מציץ וילפינן כולהו מר"ח

2. According to Rebbi Meir as well, even though he does not derive from "it," his opinion is understandable. This is because he does derive (from "Chatas la'Hashem") that this is a sin that only Hash-m knows about. He also holds of the Gezeirah Shaveh of "sin" -- "sin" from the Tzitz, and that we learn all of the Si'eerim of the Regalim from Rosh Chodesh.

אבל לר"ש בן יהודה דלא דריש אותה ולא דריש נמי חטא שאין מכיר בו אלא ה' דהא קאמר דראש חדש לא מכפרת אלא על טהור שאכל את הטמא קשה

3. However, according to Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah who does not derive "it" or (from "Chatas la'Hashem") that this is a sin that only Hash-m knows about, as he says that Rosh Chodesh only atones for a pure person who eats impure Kodshim, this is difficult. (How do we know that the Si'eer of Regalim atones for someone who had no prior knowledge or knowledge after the fact?)

וי"ל דלענין זה ודאי דריש אותה כיון דלרגלים אין להם כפרה אחרת אלא זאת אבל בשיש לרגלים כפרה אחרת דהיינו אין בה ואין בה מכפר נמי אדראש חדש

(b) Answer #1: Regarding this, he certainly derives from "it" that the Si'eer of Regalim atones for another sin (instead of deriving only one sin, he derives an additional specific sin besides that of Rosh Chodesh), namely someone who had no prior knowledge or knowledge after the fact. However, being that the Regalim do have another atonement, meaning no prior knowledge and no knowledge after the fact (as stated above), they also atone for Rosh Chodesh.

ולא פשיטא ליה דרשה דאותה דסבירא ליה דאין סברא למעט שלא ישא אחר אותו עון אלא בשאינו נושא אלא עון זה

1. The derivation of "it" is not simple, as he holds that it is illogical to exclude that nothing else can atone for that sin, unless this Korban itself is only supposed to atone for one specific sin (as opposed to another sin).

והשתא אתי שפיר הא דפריך לעיל אלא דרגלים אמאי לא מכפרי אדר"ח פי' אמאי לא מכפרי נמי אדר"ח ולא פשיטא ליה דרשה דאותה כיון שיש להן כפרה אחרת כדפרישית

2. It is now understandable why the Gemara asks why the Regalim do not atone for Rosh Chodesh. This means, why don't they also atone for Rosh Chodesh? The derivation of "it" is not obvious, being that they have another atonement, as I have explained (in (b) above).

מיהו גבי דרשה דאחת בשנה דפשיטא ליה טפי מדרשה דאחת יכפר צריך לפרש כדפירשתי לעיל

3. However, regarding the derivation of "once a year" that is more simple that the derivation of "it should atone one" one must explained as I explained earlier (in TOSFOS DH ELA above).

ועי"ל דלר"ש בן יהודה איתקוש שעירי רגלים לשעיר החיצון מה חיצון מכפר על דבר שיש בו כרת דהיינו טומאת מקדש וקדשיו אף שעירי רגלים כן

(c) Answer #2: It is also possible to answer that Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah holds that the Si'eerei Regalim are compared to the Si'eer ha'Chitzon. Just as the Chitzon atones for something that is punished by Kares, namely Tumas Mikdash v'Kashav, so too the Si'eerei ha'Regalim atone for Tumas Mikdash v'Kadashav.

6) TOSFOS DH KEDUSHAH

תוספות ד"ה קדושה

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara is bothered by this when the Gemara in Kesuvos states this as a matter of fact.)

וא"ת הא בפרק בתרא דכתובות (דף קה. ושם) אמר דדייני גזירות נוטלין שכרם מתרומת הלשכה וכן (שם קו.) מגיהי ספרים וטובא חשיב התם אלמא לב ב"ד מתנה עליהן ומאי קשיא ליה הכא

(a) Question: At the end of Kesuvos (105a), the Gemara says that the judges would receive their pay from the Terumas ha'Lishkah. The same goes for those who would correct the Sefarim, and others mentioned in Kesuvos (106a). It therefore seems that Beis Din makes a condition about such things (that the money can come from the Terumas ha'Lishkah). Why, then, is this a question (regarding the animals designated for Temidin that were not used)?

וי"ל דשאני התם דלא קדש קדושת הגוף

(b) Answer: The cases in Kesuvos are different, as they did not involve an animal that had Kedushas ha'Guf (it itself was supposed to be brought as a Korban).

7) TOSFOS DH MOSAR

תוספות ד"ה מותר

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the source for the extra amount of Ketores.)

פ"ה מותר משלשה מנין היתירים בכל שנה ממלוא חפנים ביוה"כ דאי אפשר שיכנסו כולם בחפניו

(a) Opinion #1: Rashi explains that this is referring to the three extra Maneh (a Maneh is equal to approximately twenty ounces) that were left over every year from the handful that the Kohen Gadol took on Yom Kippur, as it was impossible that they would all fit in his hand.

ובחנם פירש כן דבלאו הכי יש מותר שבכל שנה היו מפטמין שס"ה מנים למנין ימות החמה וג' מנים לחפני כה"ג ביום הכפורים ומשס"ה היה נשאר בכל שנה פשוטה י"א מנין כמנין ששנות החמה יתירים על שנות הלבנה

(b) Opinion #2: He did not have to give this explanation. In any event there was extra every year. Every year they would prepare three hundred sixty-five Maneh for the days of the solar year, and three Maneh for the handful of the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kippur. Out of the three hundred sixty-five Maneh, eleven were left due to the amount of days that the solar year is more than the lunar year.

ואע"פ שהיו צריכין למלאות בהן לשנים מעוברות שהן גו"ח י"א י"ד י"ז י"ט

(c) Implied Question: This is despite the fact that they needed to add more for leap years, which are the third, sixth, eighth, eleventh, fourteenth, seventeenth and nineteenth years (out of a nineteen year cycle). (If they needed more for the leap years, why didn't they just add the extra from the non-leap years to the leap years?)

מ"מ צריכין היו לחדש בר"ח ניסן כדי שיהיו מתרומה חדשה

(d) Answer: In any event, they needed to buy new Ketores from the new collection.

ומיהו הא דתניא בפ"ק דכריתות (דף ו:) דא' לע"ב שנה היו בו חצאים של שיריים א"א לפרש אלא ממותר ג' מנים של יום הכפורים

(e) Observation: However, the Beraisa in Kerisus (6b) that says that once every seventy-two years they would only make half the amount must be referring to the extra three Maneh from Yom Kippur.

שהרי כל מותר של י"א של שנה פשוטה היו צריכין למלאות במעוברות ובסוף המחזור חמה ולבנה שוין רק שעה אחת ותפ"ה חלקים

1. This is because all of the extra Ketores from eleven regular years would have to be used to fill up the lack of Ketores during the leap years. In the end of every nineteen year cycle, the solar and lunar (together with its leap years) years only have a difference of one hour and four hundred eighty five parts.

אלא המותר שלשה מנים היה נשאר ולא היה נכנס בחפניו אלא חצי מנה וב' מנים וחצי נשאר בכל שנה נמצא לע"ב שנה ק"פ מנים ועוד חסר ד' מנים לפלגא דשס"ח ולא דק

2. Rather, the extra three Maneh would be left, and the only thing that would go into his hand on Yom Kippur is half a Maneh. The other two and a half Maneh were left every year. This means that after seventy-two years there was one hundred eighty Maneh. There is another four Maneh left to equal half of three hundred sixty eight. The Beraisa was not exact in its amount (that it was really seventy-four years and not seventy-two years). (See Maharsha for an understanding of how the Gemara could indeed have been exact.)

וי"ס דל"ג שתים אלא אחת לשבעים שנה ותו לא וכן יש בירושלמי פרק טרף בקלפי

(f) Text: Some Sefarim do not have the text "two" (in "seventy-two"). Rather, they only have the text, "once every seventy years." This is also the text of the Yerushalmi.

וניחא טפי למימרא דלא דק דאי גרסי' שתים לא ניחא כל כך

1. It is much better to say that the Gemara was not exact in its amount according to this text. If the text includes, "two" it is not very understandable (as why say "two" instead of "four").

ובפטום הקטורת הכתוב במחזורים גרס אחת לששים שנה או לשבעים שנה ויכול להיות כשכלים ס' שנה בשתי שנים פשוטות זו אחר זו

2. In (the Medrash discussing) Pitum ha'Ketores that is quoted in Machzorim, the text is once every sixty or seventy years (this is also the text in our Gemaros of Kerisus ibid.). This is indeed possible if the last two years of this sixty year cycle are non-leap years.

8) TOSFOS DH MAFRISHIN

תוספות ד"ה מפרישין

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that the text "from it" is incorrect.)

לא גרסי' ממנה שמתרומת הלשכה היו מפרישין והתם במסכת שקלים (דף ו.) לא איירי בתרומת הלשכה ומאי ממנה שייך

(a) Text: We do not have the text, "mi'Menah." This is because they used to separate from the Terumas ha'Lishkah. The Yerushalmi in Shekalim (6a) is not discussing the Terumas ha'Lishkah, so it is therefore not applicable to say "from it" (which would indicate from what we previously discussed).

9) TOSFOS DH MAFRISHIN SECHAR

תוספות ד"ה מפרישין שכר

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how exactly these funds are separated and given, and why.)

פ"ה שמזכין להן ע"י אחד מן הגזברין ולפי' הא דקאמר בסמוך ומחללין אותה על מעות האומנין היינו מדעתן מאחר שכבר זכו בהן

(a) Opinion #1: Rashi explains that they acquire it through one of the caretakers (of the assets of the Beis Hamikdash). According to what is said later, that the holiness is transferred onto the worker's own monies, this means that the workers do this on their own after they have acquired the Ketores.

ומיהו לשון מפרישין לא משמע אלא הפרשה בעלמא וקאמר נמי נותנין אותה לאומנין בשכרן משמע שעדיין לא זכו בשכרן

(b) Implied Question: However, the term "(they) would separate" only implies that they would separate it. Additionally, the Mishnah says, "they would give it to the workers as their wages." This implies that they did not yet acquire their wages (at this stage).

ולכך נראה דלב ב"ד מתנה עליהן ובהפרשה בעלמא יהיו חולין

(c) Opinion #2: It therefore appears that "the heart of Beis Din" makes a condition on this extra Ketores (that it can be transferred for regular use, see Kerisus 6a-7a that this applies to many things) that it can become a mundane object simply through separating it as such.

ואם תאמר ולמה להו כולי האי יתנו הקטורת מתחלה לאומנין בשכרן

(d) Question: Why, then, does their have to be a whole process (as stated in the Beraisa)? The caretakers should merely give the workers the extra Ketores as their wages!

ומיהו לבן עזאי דאמר במס' שקלים בפ' התרומה (שם) דאין הקדש מתחלל על המלאכה ניחא

(e) Answer #1: However, according to Ben Azai who says in Shekalim in the chapter titled "ha'Terumah" that Hekdesh does not become mundane due to the work alone (but rather its holiness must be transferred onto money), this is understandable.

ואפי' לר"ע נמי דאמר מתחלל על המלאכה ה"מ בקטורת דיחיד כגון במקדיש נכסיו והיו בהן דברים הראוים לקרבנות צבור דגבי הני מיתניא אבל בקטורת של צבור החמירו טפי

1. Even according to Rebbi Akiva who says that it can be transferred for work, this is only regarding the Ketores of an individual. For example, this applies to someone who is Makdish his possessions and amongst them are things that are fit to be brought as Korbanos Tzibur. These types of Hekdesh can be transferred directly as wages. However, if the Ketores already belonged to the public (i.e. it was already part of the Ketores that was going to be brought that year), they were more stringent regarding its transfer.

אי נמי הכא איירי בשכר פטום אומני הקטורת של שנה חדשה וצריך ליתן להן מתרומה חדשה

(f) Answer #2: Alternatively, the Gemara here is discussing the wages of those who make the Ketores of the new year. They must be paid from the new collection of the year. (See footnote #488 in Tosfos ha'Rosh regarding this novel statement of Tosfos.)

ולמאי דאמרינן במעילה בפרק ולד חטאת (דף יד: ושם) דהני אומנין באומני הבנין מ"מ אין יכולין לתת הקטורת בשכרן דאין נותנין שכרן אלא מקדושת בדק הבית

(g) Observation: According to the Gemara in Meilah (14b) that these workers are people who work to repair the structure of the Beis Hamikdash, they cannot receive Ketores as wages, as their wages are only given from Bedek ha'Bayis (general Hekdesh funds, not things that were designated to be brought as Korbanos).

10) TOSFOS DH V'CHI TEIMA

תוספות ד"ה וכי תימא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why it is necessary to put it into a grinder to make it invalid.)

וא"ת בלא נתינה למכתשת נמי תיפסל דמעיקרא נמי קדושת דמים הוא

(a) Question: Without putting it into a grinder it would also become invalid, as it originally had Kedushas Damim (monetary holiness)!

וי"ל דאפילו קדושת דמים לא פסלה בטבול יום אלא בנתינה למכתשת וכתישה שראוי להקריב אבל קודם כתישה לא

(b) Answer: It is possible to answer that even Kedushas Damim would not make it invalid if it was touched by a Tevul Yom. Rather, the only thing making it invalid is putting it into a grinder (and grinding it) in a way that it can now be offered. However, before this step it cannot become invalid.