1)

TOSFOS DH Holachah she'Lo b'Regel Machlokes R. Shimon v'Rabanan

úåñôåú ã"ä äåìëä ùìà áøâì îçìå÷ú ø''ù åøáðï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos says that Rashi's Perush is primary.)

éù îôøù ôéøåù àçø àáì ôéøåù ä÷åðèøñ òé÷ø

(a)

Remark: Some explain differently, but Rashi's Perush is primary. (R. Shimon holds that it is not Avodah, and Rabanan disagree.)

2)

TOSFOS DH Chatas ha'Of d'Paslah Haza'ah Heichi Mishkachas Lah

úåñôåú ã"ä çèàú äòåó ãôñìä [äæàä] äéëé îùëçú ìä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why this depends on R. Shimon's reason.)

ëéåï ãîëùéø ø''ù áäåìëä ùìà áøâì

(a)

Explanation: [We ask how improper intent in Haza'ah can disqualify Chatas ha'Of,] since R. Shimon is Machshir Holachah not by foot;

àìà åãàé àôëà îñúáøà åúìåé äãáø áàôùø ìáèìä

1.

Rather, surely it is more reasonable to say oppositely. It depends on whether or not one can be Mevatel it;

ãøçå÷ îï äîæáç äåìëä æå [àôùø ìáèìä] ãàé áòé äåä ùçéè áöã äîæáç åìà ôñìä áä îçùá'

2.

Far from the Mizbe'ach, it is possible to be Mevatel this Holachah. If he wanted, he could have slaughtered next to the Mizbe'ach. [In such Holachah, improper] intent does not disqualify;

àáì ùçè ÷øåá ìîæáç ãäåìëä æå ùì äåùèú éã ìà àôùø ìáèìä ôñìä áä îçùáä

3.

However, if he slaughtered near the Mizbe'ach, this Holachah of stretching his hand he cannot be Mevatel it. [In such Holachah, improper] intent disqualifies.

åìäëé áçèàú äòåó ôñìä îçùáä áäæàä îëé ðôé÷ òã ãîèà ìîæáç ãìà àôùø ìáèì ãáø æä

4.

Consequence: Therefore, in Chatas ha'Of [improper] intent disqualifies from when [the blood] leaves [the bird] until it reaches the Mizbe'ach, for one cannot be Mevatel this.

àáì ìàéãê ãìà úìéà áàôùø åìà àôùø àìà äåìëä ùìà áøâì ìà çùéáà òáåãä åäåé ëàéìå àéúòáéã îöåúå (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí) àí ëï áçèàú äòåó ðîé ëàéìå àúòáéã îöåúå

(b)

Distinction: However, according to the other opinion, that it does not depends on possible or impossible [to be Mevatel], rather, Holachah not by foot is not considered Avodah, and it is as if the Mitzvah was done, if so also regarding Chatas ha'Of, it is as if the Mitzvah was done.

åîùðé ãøçîðà àçùáä ìäåìëä æå òáåãä ùìéîä (äâää áâìéåï, îöàï ÷ãùéí) áøå''ê

(c)

Explanation (cont.): [The Gemara] answers that the Torah considers this Holachah to be full Avodah. This is from R. Baruch.

3)

TOSFOS DH Ela Chatas ha'Of d'Paslah Bah Machshavah Heichi Mishkachas Lah

úåñôåú ã"ä àìà çèàú äòåó ãôñìä áä îçùáä äéëé îùëçú ìä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why this is difficult only if they argue about small Holachah.)

àé àîøú áùìîà áäåìëä øáúé (äâää áâìéåï) ôìéâé àáì áæåèøúé ãìà àôùø ìáèìä ôñìä îçùáä îùëçú ìä îé÷îé ãúéôå÷ ãí îùåí ããí äðúåï áöåàø ëðúåï áëìé ùøú

(a)

Explanation: Granted, if you will say that they argue about big Holachah, but small Holachah, which cannot be avoided, [improper] intent in it disqualifies, we find this before blood leaves, because blood in the neck is like [blood] placed in a Kli Shares;

åìà ãîé ìáòéà ãøáé àáéï áøéù ãí çèàú (ì÷îï ãó öá:) ãàéáòéà ìéä àé öåàø ëëìé ùøú àé ìà

1.

This is unlike the question of R. Avin below (92b), who asked whether or not the neck is like a Kli Shares. (Chak Nasan - he discussed bringing Dam Chatas into the Heichal, which was written about Chatas Behemah, i.e. after the blood left the neck and entered a Kli Shares. A bird's blood is not put in a Kli. Is blood in its neck like in an animal's neck, or like in a Kli Shares? The Torah taught that improper intent disqualifies Chatas ha'Of, so surely it is as if the blood is in a Kli Shares. Od Yosef Chai - there it is a Safek because we expound "mi'Damah", and not the blood with the meat. (Perhaps the same applies to birds.) Here there is no verse.)

àáì àé áæåèøúé ìà ôñìä ìø' ùîòåï äéëé îùëçú ìä

2.

However, if small Holachah does not disqualify according to R. Shimon, how do we find [that improper intent disqualifies in Haza'ah]?

àáì îëì æøé÷ä ãòìîà ìà ÷ùéà ìéä àé îé÷îé ãìéôå÷ ãí îï äëìé ìàå ëìåí äåà åàé áúø ãðô÷ äà àéúòáéã ìéä îöåúå

(b)

Implied question: Why didn't he ask from every Zerikah? If [the improper intent] was before blood left the Kli, this is nothing. If it was after blood left the Kli, the Mitzvah was done!

îùåí ãôùéèà ìéä ãòã ãîèà ìîæáç (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí) ìà àéúòáéã îöåúå

(c)

Answer: It is because it is obvious to [the Makshan] that the Mitzvah was not done until the blood gets to the Mizbe'ach;

àáì áäæàä ñã''à ãìà öøéê îæáç îéãé ãäåä àäæàä ãôøåëú åáéï äáãéí ãäåéà äæàä àò''ô ùìà ðâò. äâä''ä:

1.

However, regarding Haza'ah, one might have thought that he does not need the Mizbe'ach, just like we find that Haza'ah [towards] the Paroches and between the staves [of the Aron] which is Haza'ah even though the blood does not touch (the Paroches or Aron). This is a comment.

15b----------------------------------------15b

4)

TOSFOS DH Zar v'Onen

úåñôåú ã"ä æø åàåðï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why other Pesulim were omitted.)

äà ãìà úðà áòì îåí åùúåéé ééï åôøåòé øàù

(a)

Implied question: Why didn't [the Mishnah] teach a Ba'al Mum, one who drank wine, and one who grew his hair long (more than 30 days)?

îùåí ãëúéá áäï çéìåì áäãéà

(b)

Answer: For them, the Torah explicitly wrote that they disqualify Avodah.

5)

TOSFOS DH Tevul Yom

úåñôåú ã"ä èáåì éåí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses why the Mishnah teaches Tevul Yom and then Tamei.)

àç''ë úðé èîà åæå åàéï öøéê ìåîø æå ÷úðé åîùåí ãàéëà úøé ÷øàé úðé úøåééäå

(a)

Explanation: Afterwards it teaches a Tamei. The Mishnah taught this (Tevul Yom, which is a bigger Chidush), and we need not say this (Tamei, which is a smaller Chidush). Because there are two verses, both were taught.

åäà ãìà úðé èîà áøéùà

(b)

Implied question: Why did he teach first a Tamei (the smaller Chidush)?

ãðéçà ìéä ìîéúðé èîà áäãé òøì ëãàùëçï áôø÷ äòøì (éáîåú ãó ò.) åáçâéâä (ãó ã:)

(c)

Answer: He prefers to teach Tamei together with Arel, like we find in Yevamos (70a) and Chagigah (4b);

åòåã àéëà úðà ãîøáé ìéä ìòøì ëé èîà

1.

Also, there is a Tana who includes an Arel [because he is] like a Tamei.

åîéäå ñåâéà ãâî' ãìà ëååúéä îãîöøëé ìéä úøé ÷øàé

2.

Disclaimer: However, the Sugya is unlike [that Tana], since we require two verses.

åëé úéîà ãàöèøéê ìòøì á÷øáï öáåø ãàéìå èîà ùøé

3.

Suggestion: Perhaps we need [a verse] for an Arel for a Korban Tzibur, for [he disqualifies it,] whereas a Tamei may offer it!

äà (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) ëé îøáé ø''ò ìòøì ëé èîà äééðå ëæá (äâää áâìéåï, îùéèä î÷åáöú) åîöåøò ãîääåà ÷øà ãøéù ãëúéá àéù àéù îæøò àäøï åäåà öøåò àå æá åàåúä èåîàä ìà äåúøä áöáåø

4.

Rejection: R. Akiva includes an Arel like a Tamei, i.e. like a Zav or Metzora, for he expounds the verse "Ish Ish mi'Zera Aharon v'Hu Tzaru'a Oh Zav", and that Tum'ah (Tzara'as or Zivah) is not permitted b'Tzibur.

6)

TOSFOS DH Ela Lemi'utei Ovdei Kochavim Hashta Tzitz Lo Meratzeh

úåñôåú ã"ä àìà ìîòåèé òåáãé ëåëáéí äùúà öéõ ìà îøöä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the source to exclude Nochrim, and consequences of this.)

ä÷ùä äøá øáé éåí èåá ãäëà îùîò ãäàé áðé éùøàì ìà àúà ìîòåèé òåáãé ëåëáéí

(a)

Question (R. Yom Tov): Here it connotes that this "Bnei Yisrael" does not come to exclude Nochrim;

åì÷îï àîøéðï áô' á''ù (ãó îä.) ÷ãùé òåáãé ëåëáéí àéï çééáéï òìéäí îùåí ðåúø ãéìôéðï çéìåì îèåîàä åáèåîàä ëúéá áðé éùøàì åìà òåáãé ëåëáéí

1.

Below (45a), We say that one is not liable for Nosar of Kodshei Nochrim, for we learn [from a Gezeirah Shavah "Chilul-]Chilul" from Tum'ah, and regarding Tum'ah it says "Bnei Yisrael", to exclude Nochrim!

åàéï ìåîø ãîáðé éùøàì ãëúéá âáé àëéìú ÷åãù áèåîàä ÷ãøéù ùæäå ôñå÷ ùðé ìå áôøùú àîåø àì äëäðéí

2.

Implied suggestion: [There] we expound "Bnei Yisrael" written regarding eating Kodesh b'Tum'ah (Vayikra 22:3), for this is the verse after [va'Yinazru] in Parshas Emor. (Surely, Bnei Yisrael was repeated to exclude Nochrim!)

ãìà îùîò äëé áúåøú ëäðéí åáøéù úîåøä (ãó â.) ãîééúé äúí áäãéà ÷øà ãåéðæøå

3.

Rejection #1: It connotes unlike this in Toras Kohanim and in Temurah (3a), for there it explicitly brings the verse "va'Yinazru"!

åòåã ãâáé åéðæøå ëúéá çéìåì åìà âáé àëéìú ÷åãù áèåîàä

4.

Rejection #2: Chilul is written regarding "va'Yinazru", and not regarding eating Kodesh b'Tum'ah!

åé''ì ã÷øà ãåéðæøå îééøé áëì ùéîåù áéï áëäï èîà ùùéîù áéï áæø ùùéîù åâí àééøé áëì èåîàä áéï áàëéìú ÷ãùéí áèåîàä áéï áèîà ùùéîù

(b)

Answer: The verse "va'Yinazru" discusses every service - both a Tamei Kohen who served, and a Zar who served. It also discusses every Tum'ah, both eating Kodshim b'Tum'ah, and a Tamei who served;

åôùéèà ìéä ãìîòåèé ÷ãùé òåáãé ëåëáéí îàëéìä áèåîàä ìçåãéä ìà àúà ãîáðé éùøàì ãëúéá áúøéä âáé àëéìä áèåîàä ðô÷à

1.

It is obvious to [the Makshan here] that it does not come only to exclude eating Kodshim b'Tum'ah, for we learn that from "Bnei Yisrael" written afterwards regarding eating b'Tum'ah;

åàúà ìîéãøù æø îáðé éùøàì åìà éçììå åàëéìú ÷åãù áèåîàä ãëúéá äëà ìàùîåòéðï ãàéú (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) áéä çéìåì ìàâîåøé àðåúø

2.

It comes to expound a Zar from "Bnei Yisrael v'Lo Yechalelu." Eating Kodesh b'Tum'ah is written here to teach that Chilul applies to it, to teach about Nosar.

åà''ú à''ë áîëåú (ãó éã:) åáùáåòåú (ãó æ.) åáôø÷ äòøì (éáîåú ãó òä.) àîàé ãç÷ ø' éåçðï àæäøä ìàëéìú ÷åãù áèåîàä úéôå÷ ìï îäëà

(c)

Question: If so, in Makos (14b), Shevu'os (7a) and Yevamos (75a), why did R. Yochanan struggle to find a Lav not to eat Kodesh b'Tum'ah? He should learn from here!

åéù ìåîø îùåí ãäàé ÷øà äåé ìàå ùáëììåú ãàúà ðîé ìèîà ùùéîù

(d)

Answer: This verse is Lav shebi'Chlalos (it forbids more than one matter; one is not lashed for such Lavim), for it comes also for a Tamei who served.

îéäå ÷ùä áôø÷ àìå äï äðùøôéï (ñðäãøéï ãó ôâ.) ãéìéó èîà ùùéîù áîéúä îçéìåì çéìåì îúøåîä åôøéê ìéìó çéìåì çéìåì îðåúø ãáëøú åìà áîéúä

(e)

Question #1: In Sanhedrin (83a), we learn that a Tamei who served is Chayav Misah [bi'Ydei Shamayim] from [a Gezeirah Shavah] Chilul-Chilul from Terumah, and the Gemara asks that we should rather learn Chilul-Chilul from Nosar, which has Kares, and not [only] Misah;

1.

Note: The Mishnah says that if a Tamei served, Kohanim break his head. However, this is a tradition from Sinai. We learn from Terumah only Misah bi'Ydei Shamayim.

åîùðé çéìåì ãøáéí òãéó åìà éçììå îìà éçììå àáì ðåúø ëúéá ëé àú ÷ãù ä' çéìì áì' éçéã

2.

It answers that it is better to learn [the Gezeirah Shavah] between words that are both in the plural - "v'Lo Yechalelu" from "Lo Yechalelu". However, regarding Nosar it is written "Ki Es Kodesh Chilel", in the singular.

åäùúà àëúé äåä ìéä ìîéìó îàëéìú èåîàä ãáëøú ãáäàé ÷øà âåôéä

3.

According to this answer, we should still learn from eating [Kodshim b']Tum'ah, for which there is Kares, for it is in this verse itself (va'Yinazru, from which we learn a Tamei who served! Kodshei David - it is as if Chilul is written twice in this verse, so we can learn from a Gezeirah Shavah. It seems that the coming word "v'Od" should be deleted, and this is all one question, that we should learn from a Hekesh.)

åòåã ëéåï ãîçã ÷øà ðô÷é ð÷éù çéìåì ãùéîåù ìçéìåì ãàëéìä

(f)

Question #2: Since we learn [both] from one verse, we should make a Hekesh to equate Chilul of serving to Chilul of eating!

åòåã ãì÷îï ùéìäé ô' áéú ùîàé (ãó îå.) àîøéðï åìà éçììå áùðé çìåìéï äëúåá îãáø àçã ôñåì ðåúø åàçã ôñåì èåîàä åî÷ùé àäããé

(g)

Question #3: Below (46a), we say v'Lo Yechalelu - the verse discusses two matters of profaning - the Pesul of Nosar, and the Pesul of Tum'ah, and they are equated to each other. (Kodshei David - this question does not depend on what was said above. Tosfos says "v'Od" because the answer to Question #1 answers also this);

àí ëï áðåúø ðîé àéëà çéìåì ãøáéí åìà éçììå

1.

If so, also Nosar has Chilul in a plural expression - v'Lo Yechalelu!

åé''ì ãéìéó èîà ùùéîù áîéúä îçéìåì ãëúéá áúøåîä âáé îéúä åîúå áå ëé éçììåäå

(h)

Answer #1: We learn that there is Misah for a Tamei who served from Chilul written about Terumah, regarding Misah - "u'Mesu Bo Ki Yechaleluhu";

åôøéê ðéìó ëøú îçéìåì ãðåúø ãëúéá âáé ëøú ëé àú ÷ãù ä' çìì åðëøúä

1.

The Gemara asks that we should rather learn Kares from Chilul of Nosar, about which it is written Kares - "Ki Es Kedosh Hash-m Chilel v'Nichresah"!

åìëê îùðé äééðå çéìåì ãéçéã àáì ìà éçììå ã÷øà ãåéðæøå àò''â ãîééøé áèîà ùàëì åâí áðåúø ääåà çéìåì ìà ëúéá òåðù áäãéä. æ''ä òé÷ø áøå''ê.

2.

Therefore, it answers that that Chilul in the singular, but "Lo Yechalelu" in the verse of va'Yinazru, even though it discusses a Tamei who ate, and also Nosar, a punishment is not written explicitly regarding that Chilul. This seems to me primary - R. Baruch. (Keren Orah - he holds that a Gezeirah Shavah overrides a Hekesh. This answers Question #2.)

åòåã é''ì ãáäàé ÷øà ãìà éçììå îùîò èîà ùùéîù åæø ùùéîù åàëéìú ÷åãù åðåúø åìà éãòéðï ìäé îéðééäå ð÷éù àé ìæø ãáîéúä àå ìàëéìú ÷åãù åðåúø ãáëøú ìëê öøéê â''ù

(i)

Answer #2: This verse "Lo Yechalelu" connotes a Tamei who served, and a Zar who served, eating Kodesh [b'Tum'ah] and eating Nosar. We do not know to what to equate (a Tamei who served) - to a Zar who served, for which there is Misah, or to eating Kodesh [b'Tum'ah] or Nosar, for which there is Kares. Therefore, we need a Gezeirah Shavah.

åîéäå ÷ùä ìúðà ãáé ø' éùîòàì ãìà ðô÷à ìï æø îäàé ÷øà

(j)

Question #1 (against Answer #2): It is still difficult according to Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael, who does not learn a Zar from this verse.

åòåã ÷ùä àãðô÷à ìï ìøáé (äâää áâìéåï) áòì îåí ùùéîù áîéúä îèîà ùùéîù ãäåé çéìåì ãøáéí ðéìéó îðåúø ãäåé çéìåì éçéã îçéìåì éçéã (äâäú ç÷ ðúï)

(k)

Question #2: Why does Rebbi learn (Sanhedrin 84a) that a Ba'al Mum who served is Chayav Misah [bi'Ydei Shamayim] from a Tamei who served (in Yevamos and Chagigah cited above)? He should learn from eating Kodesh, which has Kares!

å÷ùä ìøáéðå æö''ì ãì÷îï ãéìéó ãàéï çééáéï òì ÷ãùé òåáãé ëåëáéí òì òåï ãðåúø ãéìéó îçéìåì çéìåì ãèåîàä ãëúéá áðé éùøàì åìà òåáãé ëåëáéí

(l)

Question #3 (Rabbeinu): Below (45a), we learn that one is not liable for Kodshei Nochrim for the Aveirah of Nosar, for we learn "Chilul-Chilul" from Tum'ah, about which it says "Bnei Yisrael", and not Nochrim;

äìà ääåà ÷øà âåôéä áðåúø îéùúòé ëãúðé ìåé áùðé çéìåìéï äëúåá îãáø

1.

That verse itself discusses Nosar, like Levi taught (45b) - the verse discusses two Chilulim!

åòåã ÷ùä ìé îðà ìéä (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) ììåé ããøéù ùðé çéìåìéï çéìåì ðåúø åçéìåì èåîàä äìà ìåé âåôéä áùîòúéï îå÷é ì÷øà áùðé çéìåìéï àçøéðé çéìåì èåîàä åçéìåì æøåú

(m)

Question #4: What is Levi's source to expound two Chilulim - of Nosar and of Tum'ah? In our Sugya, Levi himself establishes the verse for a different two Chilulim - of Tum'ah and of Zarus!

é''ì ëéåï ãèåîàä åæøåú ëúéá á÷øà àôéìå ìà ëúéá àìà çã çéìåì îîéìà äåä ÷àé àúøåééäå

(n)

Answer (to Question #4): Since Tum'ah and Zarus are written in the verse, even if it wrote only one Chilul, automatically it would apply to both of them.

åúéîä ìé äà àöèøéê çéìåì ìùåï øáéí ìàâîåøé îéúä áèîà ùùéîù ôø÷ äðùøôéï (ñðäãøéï ãó ôâ.). áøå''ê:

(o)

Question (R. Baruch): We need Chilul in the plural to teach Misah for a Tamei who served, in Sanhedrin (83a)! This is from R. Baruch.

7)

TOSFOS DH Asya b'Kal v'Chomer mi'Ba'al Mum

úåñôåú ã"ä àúéà á÷ì åçåîø îáòì îåí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos dispels other potential sources.)

îéåùá ùàåëì ìà îöé ìîéìó

(a)

Implied question: Why can't we learn from one who sits, who may eat?

ãîä ìéåùá ùëï ôñåì ìòãåú ëã÷àîø áñîåê

(b)

Answer: You cannot learn from one who sits, for he cannot testify, like it says below (16a).

åîîçåñø áâãéí åùìà øçåõ éãéí åøâìéí ðîé

(c)

Implied question: Why can't we learn from Mechusar Begadim (he is not wearing all the Bigdei Kehunah), or did not wash his hands and feet?

ãäðé ìà ôñìé àìà îèòí æøåú

(d)

Answer: They are disqualified only because they are like Zarim (17b).

àáì ÷ùä ãðéìó á÷''å îùúåéé ééï åôøåòé øàù (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí)

(e)

Question: We should learn a Kal v'Chomer from one who drank wine, or Peru'ei Rosh (one who grew his hair long)!

[åé''ì] ãìà ÷ùéà îéãé îùúåéé ééï ãì÷îï îôé÷ ùúåéé ééï ãçéìì îçå÷ä çå÷ä îîçåñø áâãéí åîçåñø áâãéí ìà ðô÷à ìï ãçéìì àìà îèòí ãæøåú åæø àëúé ìà ÷îä ìï (äâää áîäãåøú òåæ åäãø, åéúø áæ, åùìåí øá)

(f)

Answer - part 1: One who drank wine is not difficult at all. Below (17b), we learn that one who drank wine disqualifies from [a Gezeirah Shavah] "Chukah- Chukah" from Mechusar Begadim, and we know that Mechusar Begadim disqualifies only because he is like a Zar, and we do not yet know [the source for] a Zar.

åâí îôøåòé øàù ìà ÷ùéà îéãé ãùéìäé ôø÷ ùðé ãñðäãøéï (ãó ëá:) àîøéðï ãôøåòé øàù ìîéúä âîéøé àáì ìîéçì ìà âîéøé

(g)

Answer - part 2: Also Peru'ei Rosh is not difficult at all. In Sanhedrin (22b) we say that we learn that there is Misah for Peru'ei Rosh, but not that he disqualifies Avodah;

åàôéìå ìîàï ãàîø äúí ãîçìì äééðå îùåí ãàéú÷ù ìùúåéé ééï ãîçìé îèòí æøåú

1.

And even the opinion there that he disqualifies, this is because he is equated to one who drank wine, who disqualifies due to Zarus.

åö''ò àîàé ìà éìéó î÷''å ãéåùá ãàéðå áîéúä

(h)

Question: Why don't we learn a Kal v'Chomer from one who sits? He is not Chayav Misah (but he disqualifies)...

åâí æø ãàéðå áîéúä á÷áìä ìôé ùàéðä òáåãä úîä åîçììé ëì ùëï ôøåòé øàù ãáîéúä ãîçììé. áøå''ê:

1.

Also [we could learn a Kal v'Chomer from] a Zar, who is not Chayav Misah for Kabalah, for it is not final Avodah, and he disqualifies. All the more so, Peru'ei Rosh, who is Chayav Misah, he disqualifies! This is from R. Baruch.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF