1) TOSFOS DH HA'HI SEREIFAH MAMASH HAVA'I

תוספות ד"ה ההיא שריפה ממש הואי

(SUMMARY: Tosfos cites two Beraisos that clash over whether Nadav and Avihu's bodies were burned or not [though they agree that their clothes remained intact]. And they then explain why, even according to the former, Mishe'el and Eltzafan became Tamei upon touching them, and were therefore invalidated from bringing the Korban Pesach).

בת"כ איכא ב' ברייתות שנויות סתם דפליגי - מעיקרא קתני 'כיצד היתה מיתתן שני חוטין ... ונשרף גופן, ובגדיהן קיימין, שנאמר "ותצא אש מלפני ה' ותאכל אותם וימותו". ובתר הכי גבי "יבכו את השריפה" קתני 'שריפת נשמה וגוף קיים'.

(a) Conflicting Beraisos: Toras Kohanim cites two (Stam) conflicting Beraisos (with regard to the death of Nadav and Avihu): The first one, citing the Pasuk in Shemini "And a fire went out ... and consumed them and they died") states that two streaks of fire descended and burned their bodies, but their clothes remained intact; whereas according to the second one, their 'Neshamos were burned, whilst their bodies remained intact.

וא"ת, והא אמרי' בפ' הישן (סוכה דף כה: ושם) 'מישאל ואלצפן היו, שנדחו לפסח שני'; ואי שריפה ממש הואי, לא נטמאו?

(b) Question: The Gemara in Sucah, explains that the Teme'im who complained about not being able to bring the Korban Pesach were Misha'el and Eltzafan, who were subsequently ordered to bring the Pesach Sheini. But surely if the bodies of Nadav and Avihu were (completely) burned, then Misha'el and Eltzafan ought not to have become Tamei?

ויש לומר, דשלדן קיימת הוה, כדאמר בהמפלת (נדה דף כז:) מת שנשרף ושלדו קיימת, טמא.

(c) Answer: Their skeletons however, remained intact, and the Gemara in 'ha'Mapeles' rules that as long the skeleton remains intact, it renders Tamei whoever touches it.

2) TOSFOS DH OSAM VE'LO BIGDEIHEM

תוספות ד"ה אותם ולא בגדיהם

ואם תאמר, והא כתיב (ויקרא י) "וישאום בכותנותם"?

(a) Question: Bearing in mind the Pasuk "and they carried them out via their shirts, why do we need "Osam" to teach us that their clothes were not burned?

ויש לומר, דלא ידעינא אם בכותנות הנושאים או בכותנות הנישאים.

(b) Answer: Were it not for "Osam", it would be possible to learn that Misha'el and Elazafan carried them out with their own shirts.

3) TOSFOS DH VE'NEILAF MI'PARIM HA'NISRAFIM

תוספות ד"ה ונילף מפרים הנשרפים

המ"ל "ואהבת לרעך כמוך" - ברור לו מיתה יפה.

(a) Potential Answer: The Gemara could have answered by quoting the Pasuk "ve'Ahavta le'Re'acha Kamoso" - 'Select a "pleasant" death' (as it will do shortly).

4) TOSFOS DH SHE'KEIN MACHSHIR

תוספות ד"ה שכן מכשיר

תימה, דלא חשיב מכפר, כדאמר בפרק נגמר הדין (לעיל דף מב.).

(a) Question: Why does the Gemara not add 'Mechaper' (that they also atone, as it did in Perek Nigmar ha'Din.

5) TOSFOS DH HANACH NEFISHI

תוספות ד"ה הנך נפישי

(SUMMARY: Tosfos offer two explanations as to why the Gemara declines to answer that it is preferable to learn 'Machshir' from 'Machshir').

ומשום הכי לא קאמר הכא 'מכשיר ממכשיר עדיף', כדאמרינן בפרק נגמר הדין (שם).

(a) Explanation #1: That explains why the Gemara does not say here that it is preferable to learn Machshir from Machshir, as it does in Perek Nigmar ha'Din.

א"נ מכשיר דהתם עדיף - שזה הכשירו בכך, וזה אדרבה נפסל בכך.

(b) Explanation #2: Alternatively, it is because the Machshir there is stronger, since that is its regular Hechsher, whereas here, to the contrary, its Hechsher renders it Pasul.

52b----------------------------------------52b

6) TOSFOS DH TA'AH BI'DE'RAV MASNAH

תוספות ד"ה טעה בדרב מתנה

ואף רבי אלעזר ב"ר צדוק נמי חזר בו.

(a) Clarification: And R. Elazar b'R. Tzadok too, retracted (see Ya'avetz).

7) TOSFOS DH BI'ZEMAN SHE'YESH KOHEN YESH SHOFET

תוספות ד"ה בזמן שיש כהן יש שופט

המ"ל כדדרשינן בפרק הנחנקין (לקמן דף פז.) מלמד שהמקום גורם.

(a) Potential Answer: The Gemara could just as well have answered that it is the location that causes it (i.e. when the Sanhedrin are sitting in the Lishkas ha'Gazis), like it does in Perek ha'Nechnakin.

8) TOSFOS DH R. YEHUDAH OMER NIVUL HU ZEH

תוספות ד"ה רבי יהודה אומר ניוול הוא זה

לא קרי ליה 'ניוול' אלא משום דכתיב "ובחקותיהם לא תלכו", כדמוכח בגמרא.

(a) Clarification: R. Yehudah only calls it 'Nivul' because of the La'av of 'Chukas ha'Goy' ('not to follow the customs of the Nochrim'), as is implied by the Gemara.

9) TOSFOS DH ELA KEIVAN DICHESIV SEREIFAH

תוספות ד"ה אלא כיון דכתיב שריפה

(SUMMARY: Tosfos query our Gemara in view of the Gemara in Avodah-Zarah, which forbids something that falls under the category of 'Chok', even though it is based on a Pasuk. And they answer by drawing a distinction between two different kinds of Chok).

תימה, דמשמע הכא דאע"ג דחוקה היא, כיון דכתיב באורייתא, שרי.

(a) Question (Part 1): The Gemara implies here that even though it is 'Chok of the Goyim, since it is based in the Torah, it is permitted ...

ובפ"ק דמסכת ע"ז (דף יא. ושם) פריך 'ושריפה חוקה היא, והכתיב "ובחקותיהם לא תלכו" '?

(b) Question (Part 2): Whereas in the first Perek of Avodah-Zarah the Gemara asks 'If Sereifah is really a Chok, then we will apply the Pasuk "u've'Chukoseihem Lo Seleichu"?

ומסיק 'לאו חוקה היא'.

(c) Question (Part 3): And the Gemara answers that it does not fall under the category of 'Chok' - implying that, if it did, then it would be forbidden (even though it is based in the Torah)?

וי"ל, דהתם קאמר 'לאו חוקה היא - לשם עבודת כוכבים,יש דאי הוי חוקה לעבודת כוכבים, אפילו הוה כתוב באוריי' לא הוה מהני.

(d) Answer (Part 1): When the Gemara there says 'La'av Chukah Hi', it means that it is not a Chok for Avodah-Zarah', since, if it would be, the fact that it is written in the Torah would not make any differrence (and it would be forbidden) ...

אבל הכא איירי בחוק העובדי כוכבים שלא לשם עבודת כוכבים - דומיא דסייף, דכיון דכתיב באורייתא לא מינייהו גמרינן, ושרי.

(e) Answer (Part 2): Whereas our Sugya is referring to a Chok of the Goyim which is not connected to Avodah-Zarah, such as killing by the sword, which is permitted since it is based in a Pasuk in the Torah.

10) TOSFOS DH ISH P'RAT LE'KATAN

תוספות ד"ה איש פרט לקטן

אבל האשה מיחייבא בביאת בן ט' שנים ויום אחד, כדתנן בפרק יוצא דופן (נדה דף מה.), ומייתי לה לקמן.

(a) Clarification: The woman however, is Chayav for being intimate with a nine-year old, as we have learned in Perek Yotzei Dofen, which the Gemara will quote later.

11) TOSFOS DH P'RAT LE'EISHES KATAN

תוספות ד"ה פרט לאשת קטן

הא דאיצטריך קרא?

(a) Implied Question: Seeing as the Kidushin of a Katan is not valid, why do we need a Pasuk to preclude the wife of a Katan from the Din of Eishes Ish?

היינו במייעד לבנו קטן, או בן ט' שבא על יבמתו.

(b) Answer (Part 1): We need the Pasuk for a case a. where a man performed Yi'ud between his Amah Ivriyah and his son who is still a Katan, and b. where a nine-year old performed Yibum with his Yevamah, both of whose actions are valid.

וס"ד כיון דמדאורייתא רמיא קמיה, ליחייב עלה משום דא"א, קמ"ל.

(c) Answer (Part 2): In the latter case we would have thought that since min ha'Torah, the Yevamah falls to him, she would have the Din of a regular Eishes Ish; therefore the Torah writes "Eishes Ish", to preclude her.

והכי מוקמינן לה בפ"ק דקדושין (דף יט. ושם).

(d) Proof: And this is how the Gemara establishes the case in the first Perek of Kidushin.

12) TOSFOS DH P'RAT LE'EISHES ACHERIM

תוספות ד"ה פרט לאשת אחרים

(SUMMARY: Tosfos establishes 'Acherim' as Nochrim, and goes on to discuss the status of the wife of a Nochri with regard to a Yisrael who has relations with her).

והיינו כותי, וקמ"ל דאין אישות לכותים.

(a) Clarification (Part 1): This refers to a Kuti; and it comes to teach us that Kutim (i.e. Nochrim) are not subject to 'Ishus'.

אע"ג דאין מיתה ואזהרה, איסורא מיהא איכא.

(b) Clarification (Part 2): Despite the fact that they are precluded from the Din of Misah and even from a La'av, nevertheless, they are forbidden ...

מדאיצטריך למישרי יפת תואר; דדרשינן בפ"ק דקידושין (דף כא: ושם) "אשת" 'אפילו אשת איש'.

(c) Source: This is because the Torah finds it necessary to permit a Y'fas To'ar, as the Gemara Darshens in the first Perek of Kidushin "Eishes" - 'even if she is married.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES ON THIS DAF