TOSFOS DH Ein Li Ela Yom Echad Minayin Lerabos Muflag Shenayim v'Sheloshah
úåñôåú ã"ä àéï ìé àìà éåí àçã îðéï ìøáåú îåôìâ ùðéí åùìùä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that "Shenayim" is imprecise.)
àâá øéäèà ð÷è ùðéí ãùðéí äééðå éåí ùðé ìéîé æéáä ãäééðå îåôìâ éåí àçã ùøéáä ëáø
Observation: It was not precise to mention two, for two, i.e. the second day of Zavah, is one day Muflag (one day separates it from Sof Nidah), which was already included [from "Oh Chi Sazov"].
ãäà îðé åàæéì òã é' åé''à åà''ë ùðéí äééðå ùðé
Proof: We count and go until 10 and 11 (i.e. days 10 and 11 of Zavah, and not 10 and 11 days Muflag). If so, "two" is the second day [which we already included]!
TOSFOS DH Hu she'Metamei bi'Re'iyos kiv'Yamim Eino Din v'Chulei
úåñôåú ã"ä äåà ùîèîà áøàéåú ëáéîéí àéðå ãéï ëå'
(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes that this is not a proper Kal v'Chomer.)
úéîä ãàéëà ìîôøê îä ìäéà ùëï îèîàä áàåðñ åäëé àîøéðï áøéù ôø÷ áðåú ëåúéí (ìòéì ìá:) ãìà éìôéðï îäããé
Question #1: We can challenge this! She becomes Tamei [even] through [sightings] due to Ones. We say so above (32b), and therefore we do not learn [Zav and Zavah] from each other!
åëï ì÷îï ã÷àîø îä äåà ùàéðå ñåôø àçã ìàçã ëå' àéëà ìîôøê îä ìäåà ùëï îèîà áøàéåú ëáéîéí
Question #2: Also below, it says "he does not count one [clean day] for one [day of a sighting]..." We can challenge this - he becomes Tamei through sightings [even on one day] as if they were on different days!
îéäå áæä îöéðï ùôéø ìîéìó ãìâáé ñôéøä àçîéø øçîðà áàùä îáàéù åìòðéï ñôéøä òáéã ùôéø ÷''å äåàéì åìòðéï ñôéøä îöéðå ùäçîéø áàùä îáàéù
Answer (to Question #2): This we can properly learn, for regarding counting, the Torah is more stringent about a woman than a man, and regarding counting it is a proper Kal v'Chomer, since regarding counting we find that the Torah is more stringent about a woman than a man.
åö''ì ùàéðå ÷ì åçåîø âîåø àìà ëîå âéìåé îéìúà áòìîà ìâìåú æä òì æä
Answer: We must say that it is not an absolute Kal v'Chomer. Rather, it is like a Giluy Milsa (reveals a matter), for one to reveal about the other.
åö''ò ãàéëà î÷åîåú ãàéëà úøé ÷øàé ìãí ðãåú åìæéáåú åéù î÷åîåú ãðô÷à îçã ÷øà
Question: There are places where there are two verses for Dam Nidah and Zivos, and in some places we learn from one verse!
TOSFOS DH Talmud Lomar Kol Yemei Nidasah
úåñôåú ã"ä ú''ì ëì éîé ðãúä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that R. Akiva need not expound "Kol" in general.)
úéîä ãäê îå÷îéðï ëø''ò àìîà ø''ò ÷à ãøéù ëì
Question: We establish this like R. Akiva. This shows that he expounds "Kol."
åëï áùìäé ô' äúòøåáú (æáçéí ôá.) ãøéù ø''ò ëì
Also in Zevachim (82a) R. Akiva expounds "Kol";
åà''ë ëé ÷àîø áôñçéí ôø÷ àìå òåáøéï (ãó îâ:) îàï ùîòú ìéä ããøéù ëì ø' àìéòæø äåà ãìîà ø''ò äåà ããøéù ðîé ëì
If so, when it says in Pesachim (43b) whom do we know that he expounds "Kol"? It is R. Eliezer. Perhaps it is R. Akiva, who also expounds "Kol"!
åéù ìåîø ãàéï ìãîåú ãøùåú ãëì ìäããé ãéù ëì ãùééê ìîãøù ìë''ò åäàé ãùîòúéï ãìîðéðà îãøù ùôéø ãîãéîé ìîðéðà ëì ðîé ìîðéðà
Answer: We do not compare Drashos of "Kol" to each other. There is a "Kol" that everyone can expound. The "Kol" of our Sugya is expounded properly for the number, for in matters of counting, also "Kol" is for the count.
TOSFOS DH Tana d'Vei Eliyahu Kol ha'Shoneh Halachos
úåñôåú ã"ä úðà ãáé àìéäå ëì äùåðä äìëåú
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this is brought to conclude with a good matter`.)
àéú ñôøéí ãìà âøñéðï ìéä îéäå áôéøåù øù''é àéúà åø''ú äâéäå áñôøå
Alternative text: Some texts omit this. However, it is in Rashi's text, and R. Tam's corrected his text [to say so].
åëï ðøàä ãàééãé ãàééøé ìòéì áäìëúà îééúé ìä ìñééí áãáø èåá åàéúà ðîé ëï áîâéìä ôø÷ áúøà (ãó ëç:) åäëé ðîé àîøéðï áàéï òåîãéï (áøëåú ìà.)
Support: This is correct (that it is in the text). Since above we discuss Hilchesa (a tradition from Sinai), it is brought here to conclude with a good matter. It is brought also in Megilah (28b) Brachos (31a);
ùëï îöéðå áðáéàéí äøàùåðéí ùñééîå ãáøéäï áãáøé ùáç åúðçåîéï:
We find that the early Nevi'im concluded their words with words of praise and consolation.