1)

TOSFOS DH Matan Arba Nami Kesivan u'Kefeilan...

úåñôåú ã"ä îúï àøáò ðîé ëúéáï åëôéìï...

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Beraisa gave a different reason.)

úéîä ëéåï ãáëúéáï åëôéìï úìéà îéìúà àîàé úìé (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) èòîà ãáøééúà áîä ùîòëáåú áëì î÷åí

(a)

Question: Since it depends on being written and repeated, why does the Beraisa say that the reason is because they are Me'akev everywhere?

åéù ìåîø ãìà úéîà ãðéìó îúï àøáò îîúï ùáò

(b)

Answer: It is lest we say that we should learn four Matanos from seven Matanos.

åà''ú îúï ùúéí ìëì äôçåú ëúéáï åëôéìï åàôéìå ìø''ù åàí ëï ðéìó àéðê ùúéí îéðééäå

(c)

Question: At least two Matanos are written and repeated, and even according to R. Shimon. If so, we should learn the other two from them!

(úåñôú) ðøàä ìé ãàçú ãëúéáä áòìîà åîéðä ìà ðéìó åîï äùðéä ãëúéáä ìà ðéìó äùúéí äðåñôåú ãúøúé îçãà ìà éìôéðï ò''ë

(d)

Comment - Answer: One that is written is always (Me'akev), and we cannot learn from it [that others are Me'akev]. From the second that is written we do not learn two additional, for we do not learn two from one. Until here is a comment.

2)

TOSFOS DH Lo Nitzrechah Ela l'R. Shimon d'Tanya v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä ìà ðöøëä àìà ìø''ù ãúðéà ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses expounding Mikra and Mesores.)

ôéøù á÷åðèøñ ãø''ù àéú ìéä éù àí ìî÷øà

(a)

Explanation (Rashi): R. Shimon holds that Yesh Em l'Mikra (we expound primarily based on how the word is pronounced)

åëï åãàé ùîòéðï ìéä áô''÷ ãñðäãøéï (ãó ã.) âáé áñëú áñëú

(b)

Support: Surely, we know that he holds like this in Sanhedrin (4a) regarding "ba'Sukos... ba'Sukos."

åäà ãùîòéðï áô''÷ ã÷ãåùéï (ãó éç:) ããøéù úøåééäå éù àí ìî÷øà åìîñåøú âáé ááâãå áä

(c)

Implied question: In Kidushin (18b) he expounds both of them - Yesh Em l'Mikra ul'Mesores regarding b'Vigdo Bah (one cannot sell his daughter after a man spread his Beged over her, i.e. married her, nor after Bagdo Bah (dealing with her treacherously, i.e. he sold her and her master did not do Yi'ud)!

îùåí ãäúí àôùø ì÷ééí ùðéäí àáì ëàï àé àôùø ìãøåù ùðéäí

(d)

Answer: That is because there, he can fulfill both of them. However, here we cannot expound both of them.

àáì ìø''ò ÷ùä ãìà ãøéù äúí úøåééäå åáô' ëì ùòä (ôñçéí ãó ìå.) âáé òì ìçí òåðé ãøéù î÷øà åîñåøú

(e)

Question: This is difficult for R. Akiva, who does not expound both of them there, and in Pesachim (36a), regarding Lechem Oni, he expounds Mikra and Mesores (bread over which we answer (say) many things, and poor bread, to disqualify if it was kneaded with fruit juice)!

, áâî' ìåìá àçã îãëúéá ëôú

1.

And also in a Mishnah in Sukah (34b), R. Akiva says "just like we take one Lulav and one Esrog...", and he expounds in the Gemara one Lulav because it is written "Kapas" (without a Vov, to connote the singular, even though it is pronounced Kapos)!

åé''ì ãðäé ãø''ò ñ''ì î÷øà (åîñåøú) òé÷ø î''î ìãøùà ôåøúà ãøùéðï ìéä ìîñåøú

(f)

Answer: Granted, R. Akiva holds that Mikra is primary. Even so, we expound the Mesores a little. (Tzon Kodoshim - in Sukah, we rely also on Pri Etz Hadar, which connotes one.)

åîéäå ÷ùä îø''ù ãäëà ñáéøà ìéä éù àí ìî÷øà åáñåó ëéöã öåìéï (ôñçéí ãó ôå:) âáé ááéú àçã éàëì ÷ñáø éù àí ìîñåøú

(g)

Question: This is difficult from R. Shimon, for here he holds that Yesh Em l'Mikra, and in Pesachim (86b), regarding "b'Bayis Echad Ye'achel" he holds that Yesh Em l'Mesores! (It is written like Yochal, i.e. the person must eat in one group.)

åääéà ãéåúï ãåîéà ãëé éúï åòåáã ãåîéà ãòáã éùîò éùîéò åìà úùà åìà úùéà

(h)

Implied question: We expound "Yutan" similar to "Yiten" (Kidushin 59b - one of the seven liquids is Machshir if he was pleased that it come on the food, even if he did not put it), and Uvad similar to Avad (Pesachim 26a - Eglah Arufah is disqualified even if the owner did not work with it, if he is pleased that it worked), and "Lo Sisa [Shema Shav]" and "Lo Sasi" (Sanhedrin 7b - if one litigant is here, but his opponent is not, the judge may not hear his claims, and he may not plead his case to the judge. Mesores ha'Shas explains so. Tosfos could equally refer to Makos 23a, which expounds from here an Isur to speak Leshon ha'Ra, and an Isur to accept it - PF.)

àåîø ø''ú ãáäðäå ë''ò îåãå ùäî÷øà åäîñåøú ùðéäí îùîòåúí à' åìà ùééëé ìôìåâúà (áéï î÷øà ìîñåøú ãùðéäí îùîòåú àçã åìà ùééëé ìôìåâúà) ãî÷øà åîñåøú

(i)

Answer (R. Tam): In these, all agree [that we expound both], for the Mikra and Mesores can be explained together (Ayeles ha'Shachar, based on Shitah Mekubetzes Bava Metzi'a 30a). These do not pertain to the argument of Mikra and Mesores.

3)

TOSFOS DH l'Matah Hu Omer Keren Keranos Arba Divrei R. Shimon

úåñôåú ã"ä ìîèä äåà àåîø ÷øï ÷øðåú àøáò ãáøé ø''ù

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why he does not expound so about Haza'os.)

åà''ú ëéåï ãîå÷îé ùáæå áæå (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) âáé äæàåú ðîé à''ë ðéáòé àøáéñø

(a)

Question: Since we establish what is written about this [Par] to teach [also about] this [Par, we should do so], also regarding Haza'os. If so, we should require 14!

åé''ì ãìà ãîé ãîúï ã' àùëçï àáì äæàåú àøáéñø ìà àùëçï áùåí î÷åí (úåñôú)

(b)

Answer #1: These are different. We find four Matanos [elsewhere], but we do not find 14 Haza'os anywhere.

åòåã é''ì ã÷øðåú èåáà ðîé îùîò åàí ðàîø àøáò àéï æä ñúéøú äôñå÷ àáì âáé äæàåú ëúéá åäæä ùáò åìà éåúø

(c)

Comment - Answer #2: "Keranos" connotes [two, and it can connote] also more [than two]. If we say four, we do not contradict the verse. However, regarding Haza'os, it is written "v'Hizah Sheva", and not more.

4)

TOSFOS DH li'Semichah v'Shirei ha'Dam

úåñôåú ã"ä ìñîéëä åùéøé äãí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos gives another source to learn Semichah.)

áô' àéæäå î÷åîï (ì÷îï ãó ðá.) ãøéù îãëúéá äôø [ìéîã] òì ôø éåä''ë ùèòåï îúï ãîéí ìéñåã åúéîä ìääåà úðà ñîéëä îðà ìéä

(a)

Question: Below (52a), we expound from that it is written "ha'Par", to teach that Par Yom Kipur requires putting blood on the Yesod. What is that Tana's source for Semichah?

åé''ì ãáúåøú ëäðéí ãøéù îãëúéá åñîê òì øàù äôø ìøáéú ôø éåä''ë ìñîéëä

(b)

Answer: In Toras Kohanim, it expounds "v'Samach Al Rosh ha'Par", to include Par Yom Kipur for Semichah.

1.

Note: Tzon Kodoshim says that the following begins a new Dibur.

ä"î òáåãä ëå' (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí)

(c)

Citation: This is only for Avodah...

àò"â ãðô÷à (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí) ìéä ìääåà úðà îäé÷ùà ãäëà éåúøú åùúé äëìéåú àò''â ãìà îòëáé ëôøä

(d)

Implied question: That Tana learns Yoseres ha'Kaved and the two kidneys from the Hekesh, even though they are not Me'akev Kaparah!

î''î ùéøéí ìà ðô÷é ãâøéòé ëãàîø áñåó äùåçè åäîòìä (ì÷îï ãó ÷éà.) ãàéîåøéí úçéìú òáåãä åùéøééí ñåó òáåãä

(e)

Answer: Still, he cannot learn Shirayim, for it is inferior, like it says below (111a) that Eimurim are initial Avodah, and Shirayim are final Avodah.

5)

TOSFOS DH Asher Lo Darish

úåñôåú ã"ä àùø ìà ãøéù

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explained above that sometimes R. Shimon expounds "Asher".)

ìòéì ôéøùúé áøéù ô''á (ãó éç: ã''ä åàéãê:)

(a)

Reference: I explained this above (18b DH v'Idach. In some cases he expounds "Asher".)

6)

TOSFOS DH Abaye Amar l'R. Yehudah Nami Itztrich

úåñôåú ã"ä àáéé àîø ìøáé éäåãä ðîé àéöèøéê

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that our Sugya is unlike R. Yochanan.)

úéîä äà ùîòéðï ìéä ìøáé éäåãä ãùéøééí äôðéîéí îòëáé ìçã àîåøà áôø÷ àéæäå î÷åîï (ì÷îï ãó ðá:) åáôø÷ äåöéàå ìå (éåîà ãó ñ:)

(a)

Question #1: We know that R. Yehudah holds that inner Shirayim are Me'akev according to one Amora below (52b) and in Yoma (60b);

åäê áøééúà ÷úðé åðñìç àò''ô ùìà ðúï ùéøééí åàéöèøéê ëï éòùä ìîúï àøáò òì ëøçéï ãìà ëååúéä ãëéåï (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) ãùéøééí îòëáéï ëì ùëï îúï àøáò

1.

This Beraisa teaches "v'Nislach", even though he did not put Shirayim, and it needs "Ken Ya'aseh" for four Matanos, we are forced to say that it is unlike [R. Yehudah], for since Shirayim are Me'akev, all the more so four Matanos!

åëé úéîà ãäðé îéìé áùéøééí ãéåä''ë ãâìé ÷øà åëìä îëôø

2.

Suggestion: This is only regarding Shirayim of Yom Kipur, for the Torah revealed [that they are Me'akev, from] v'Chilah mi'Kaper.

ìà îùîò äëé ëãôøéùéú îãìà ÷àîø îçìå÷ú áùéøééí ùì éåä''ë àìà îôìéâ áéï ôðéîéí ìçéöåðéí åáùåí î÷åí ìà îöéðå ùîçì÷ áôðéîéí

3.

Rejection: It connotes unlike this, like I explained (Sof 39b), since [Rav Ada] did not say that they argue about Shirayim of [Par] Yom Kipur, rather, he distinguishes between inner and outer [Shirayim], and we do not find anywhere a distinction within inner [Shirayim].

åòåã ÷ùä äà ã÷àîø ìòéì ñã''à äðé îéìé òáåãä ãîòëáà ëôøä ëå' äà òì ëøçéï ùéøééí ìøáé éäåãä îòëáé ëôøä

(b)

Question #2: It says above "one might have thought that this is only Avodah that is Me'akev Kaparah..." You are forced to say that according to R. Yehudah, Shirayim are Me'akev Kaparah!

åðøàä ãäê ñåâéà àúà ëøéá''ì ãàîø îùîòåú ãåøùéï àéëà áéðééäå åìéú ìéä ìø' éäåãä ùéøééí îòëáéï

(c)

Answer: This Sugya is like R. Yehoshua ben Levi, who says that they argue only about the source (but not about the Halachah), and R. Yehudah does not hold that Shirayim are Me'akev;

åø' éåçðï ãàéú ìéä ìø' éäåãä ùéøééí îòëáé àéöèøéê ëï (ëï ðøàä ìäâéä) éòùä ìñîéëä ìáã

1.

R. Yochanan, who holds that R. Yehudah holds that Shirayim are Me'akev, needs Ken Ya'aseh only for Semichah.

7)

TOSFOS DH Amar Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak Lo Nitzrechah Ela l'R. Yehudah

úåñôåú ã"ä àîø øá ðçîï áø éöç÷ ìà ðöøëä àìà ìøáé éäåãä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that he holds like Abaye.)

ëàáéé ñ''ì ãìø' éøîéä ìòéì ìà îéúå÷îà ëø' éäåãä ãø' éäåãä ãøéù ëï éòùä ìñîéëä åùéøééí åäê áøééúà îå÷îà ìéä ìîúï àøáò

(a)

Observation: He holds like Abaye, for R. Yirmeyah above cannot establish this like R. Yehudah, for R. Yehudah expounds Ken Ya'aseh for Semichah and Shirayim, and this Beraisa establishes it for four Matanos.

8)

TOSFOS DH Lo Nitzrechah Ela l'Es b'Dam uvi'Tevilah

úåñôåú ã"ä ìà ðöøëä àìà ìàú áãí åáèáéìä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos brings two opinions about how we learn these.)

ôé' á÷åðèøñ ãìà ëúéá áãí áôø äòìí àìà áôø ëäï îùéç ëúéá åéìôéðï îéðéä ôø éåä''ë ãàéú÷ù áäàé (îëàï îòîåã á) ÷øà

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): "B'Dam" is not written regarding Par Helam Davar, only regarding Par Helam Davar, only regarding Par Kohen Mashi'ach, and we learn from it Par Yom Kipur, for it is equated in this verse.

40b----------------------------------------40b

å÷ùä ìøáéðå úí ãàîø áùîòúà ãàéöèøéê ìôø æä ôø äòìí ãáø ìàâîåøé éåúøú äëáã åùúé äëìéåú ìùòéøé òáåãú ëåëáéí ãìà ìéäåé ãáø äáà îï ääé÷ù çåæø åîìîã áäé÷ù

(b)

Question (R. Tam): It says in the Sugya (below, 41a) that we need "l'Par" - this is Par Helam Davar, to teach about Yoseres ha'Kaved and the two kidneys to Se'irei Avodah Zarah, lest it be something learned from a Hekesh [which does not] return to teach through a Hekesh;

åàé àéú÷ù ëì äðäå ãëúéáé áäàé ÷øà àäããé àí ëï ùòéøé òáåãú ëåëáéí âåôééäå ããøùéðï îäçèàú ðéìó îôø ëäï îùéç âåôéä ãîôåøùéí áâåôéä éåúøú äëáã åùúé ëìéåú

1.

If all of these written in this verse are equated to each other, if so Se'irei Avodah Zarah themselves, which we expound from "ha'Chatas", we should learn from Par Kohen Mashi'ach itself, for Yoseres ha'Kaved and the two kidneys are explicitly written about it!

ãâí úøååééäå ùòéøé òáåãú ëåëáéí åëäï îùéç ëúéáé (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí) áäàé ÷øà îøéáåéà

i.

Both of them, Se'irei Avodah Zarah and [Par] Yom Kipur, are written in this verse, through an inclusion.

åëï áôø÷ àéæäå î÷åîï (ì÷îï ãó îè:) ãàéöèøéê ëàùø éåøí ìîéìó éåúøú áùòéøé òáåãú ëåëáéí ùìà úàîø ãôø äòìí äåé ãáø äáà îï ääé÷ù

(c)

Strengthening of question: Also below (49b), we need Ka'asher Yuram to learn Yoseres [ha'Kaved] in Se'irei Avodah Zarah, lest we say that Par Helam Davar was learned from a Hekesh;

åëï ðîé àîøéðï áùîòúéï ñã''à äðé îéìé äæàåú ãëúéáé áâåôéä àáì éåúøú åùúé äëìéåú ãìà ëúéáï áâåôéä àéîà ìà

1.

Also in our Sugya (Sof 41a), we say that one might have thought that this is only for Haza'os, which are written in [Par Helam Davar] itself, but Yoseres ha'Kaved and the two kidneys, which are not written in it itself, I would say not;

åàé äå÷ùå ìôø ëäï îùéç äà ëúéáé áâåôéä ëîå áôø éåí äëôåøéí àú áãí åèáéìä (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú)

2.

If [Se'irei Avodah Zarah] are equated to Par Kohen Mashi'ach, [we would learn Yoseres ha'Kaved and the two kidneys, which] are written in [Par Kohen] itself, just like [we learn] "Es", "b'Dam" and Tevilah to Par Yom Kipur!

åîéäå éù ìééùá ìôéøåù ä÷åðèøñ ãìà ãîé ãôùèà ã÷øà åòùä ìôø ëàùø òùä ìôø äçèàú î÷éù ôø øàùåï ìôø àçøåï ãäééðå ôø éåí äëôåøéí ìôø ëäï îùéç

(d)

Answer: We can resolve Rashi's Perush. This is different. The simple meaning of v'Asah la'Par Ka'asher Asah l'Par ha'Chatas" equates the first Par to the last Par, i.e. Par Yom Kipur to Par Kohen Mashi'ach;

àáì ìôø äçèàú ãîå÷îä áôø ëäï îùéç åáùòéøé òáåãú ëåëáéí àéï ðçùá äé÷ù ëìì ëï ôé' øáéðå éöç÷ áø' àáøäí æö''ì (äâäú áàøåú äîéí)

1.

However, l'Par ha'Chatas", which we establish for Par Kohen Mashi'ach and Se'irei Avodah Zarah, is not considered a Hekesh at all. Riva explained like this.

åîéäå ÷ùä àú áãí åèáéìä áùòéøé òáåãú ëåëáéí îðéï ìîéìó îôø äòìí åìîäåé (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí) ëîàï ãëúéá áâåôéä ëîå áéåúøú ãáñîåê

(e)

Question: What is the source for [what we learn from] "Es", "b'Dam" and Tevilah regarding Se'irei Avodah Zarah, to learn from Par Helam Davar and to be as if they were written in it itself, just like Yoseres (below, 41a)?

äðéçà ìøáé éùîòàì àìà ìøáé ããøéù ìôø æä ôø éåä''ë îðà ìéä

1.

This is fine for R. Yishmael. However, for Rebbi, who expounds '"la'Par" - this is Par Yom Kipur', what is his source?

ãáùìîà éåúøú ìà ÷ùéà ãðô÷à ìéä îëàùø éåøí ëãàéúà áô' àéæäå î÷åîï (â''æ ùí) ãàééúø áôø ëäï îùéç ìîéäåé ëîàï ãëúéá áâåôéä ãôø äòìí àáì áãí åèáéìä ìà ùééê áéä

2.

Granted, Yoseres is not difficult, for he learns from Ka'asher Yuram, like it says below (49b), that Par Kohen Mashi'ach is extra, to be as if [Yoseres] was written in Par Helam itself. However, "Es", "b'Dam" and Tevilah do not apply to it!

åðøàä ìø''ú ãìà àéú÷åù ëåìä àäããé àìà ëåìäå àéú÷ù ìôø äòìí åôø äòìí äå÷ù ìôø ëäï îùéç

(f)

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): They are not all equated to each other. Rather, all are equated to Par Helam, and Par Helam Davar is equated to Par Kohen Mashi'ach;

åáôø äòìí ãìà ëúéá áéä áãí äà ëúéá áéä åèáì àöáòå îï äãí ãîùîò ùôéø ùéäà áå ùéòåø èáéìä îòé÷øà ëîå áãí

1.

In Par Helam, in which it is not written "b'Dam", it is written "v'Taval Etzba'o Min ha'Dam", which properly connotes that there is a Shi'ur [enough to dip his finger into] from the beginning, just like "b'Dam";

åäà ãð÷è áãí ìôé ùäåà úçéìä áôøùä áôø ëäï îùéç

i.

[The Gemara] mentioned "b'Dam" because it is first in the Parshah, regarding Par Kohen Mashi'ach.

åëé úéîà äà àéöèøéê ìäà ãîñ÷éðï áô''÷ ãîðçåú (ãó æ:) åì÷îï áôø÷ ãí çèàú (ãó öâ:) îï äãí îï äãí ùáòðéï (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú, öàï ÷ãùéí)

(g)

Question: We need this for what we conclude in Menachos (7b) and below (93b) "Min ha'Dam" - from the blood we are discussing (but not blood left on his finger after each Haza'ah)!

äúí ìà îåèáì äëï àöáòå îï äãí (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú, öàï ÷ãùéí) ãøéù àìà îï åäæä îï äãí áàöáòå ãëúéá áôø ëäï îùéç áúø åèáì

(h)

Answer: There, we do not expound from "v'Taval Etzba'o Min ha'Dam", rather, from v'Hizah Min ha'Dam b'Etzba'o" written regarding Par Kohen Mashi'ach after "v'Taval".

úãò ãäà îôøù äúí ìîòåèé ùéøééí (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) ùáàöáò ùìà éæä ôòí ùðéä åîä òðéï æä âáé åèáì

(i)

Proof: It explains there that it excludes blood left on his finger. He may not sprinkle [it] a second time. This has no connection to dipping [his finger in the blood]!

åàí úàîø åáçèàåú äçéöåðåú îðà ìï àú áãí åèáéìä äìà àôéìå ôðéîé îôðéîé ìà éìéó àìà áäé÷ù

(j)

Question: In outer Chata'os, what is the source for "Es", "b'Dam" and Tevilah? Even an inner [Chatas] from an inner, we learn only from a Hekesh;

åáô''÷ ãîðçåú (ãó æ:) îùîò ãàéúéä áëì çèàåú ã÷àîø ã÷åîõ àéðå ÷ãåù ìçöàéï îùåí ãéìôéðï îãí

1.

In Menachos (7b) it connotes that [these laws] apply to all Chata'os, for it says that the Kometz does not become Kodesh half-way (if he part put into a Kli, and the rest in a different Kli), for we learn from blood;

ëì ùëï ãàéú ìï ìîéìó ãí îãí

2.

All the more so, we should learn blood from blood!

åìôé' øáéðå úí ðéçà ãáçèàåú äçéöåðåú ëúéá îï äãí ãäåé ëîå áãí åëúéá áäå åì÷ç ããøùéðï ùéòåø ì÷éçä ëé äéëé ããøùéðï åèáì ùéòåø èáéìä

(k)

Partial answer: This is fine for R. Tam. Regarding outer Chata'os it is written Min ha'Dam, which is like b'Dam, and it is written about them v'Lakach, which we expound to teach a Shi'ur to take, just like we expound v'Taval to teach a Shi'ur to dip;

åàú ìäëùéø àîéï ùáàöáò éìôéðï î÷ì åçåîø çéöåðåú îôðéîéåú

1.

And "Es", to be Machshir warts on the finger, we learn outer [Chata'os] from inner, through a Kal v'Chomer.

åîéäå öøéê ìã÷ã÷ îëì î÷åí äéëé éìôéðï ÷åîõ îãí ãàôéìå ãí îãí ìà éìéó

(l)

Question #1: However, still one must be meticulous [to explain] how we learn the Kometz from blood. Even blood from blood we do not learn!

(úåñôú) å÷ùä ãáôø äòìí ìà ëúéá àú åà''ë ìäëùéø àîéï îðà ìéä áôø éåí äëôåøéí

(m)

Comment - Question #2: This is difficult, for "Es" is not written in Par Helam. If so, what is his source to be Machshir warts for Par Yom Kipur?

åáîñåøú ÷ãîàä ëúéá (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) àú úðééðà ìà ëúá àú

1.

In Mesores (the tradition of how verses are written), it says that in the first [Parshah, i.e. Par Kohen Mashi'ach] it is written "Es", and in the second, it is not written "Es".

åëï ëúá øáéðå ñòãéä á÷øà ãîï äãí ìà ëúéá àú

2.

Also Rabbeinu Sadya [Gaon] wrote that in the verse "Min ha'Dam", it is not written "Es".

9)

TOSFOS DH l'Es b'Dam u'Tevilah (pertains to Amud A)

úåñôåú ã"ä ìàú áãí åèáéìä (ùééê ìòîåã à)

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out two other matters for which we need the Hekesh.)

äåä îöé ìîéîø ðîé ìàäì îåòã ìëãàîøï ìòéì ùàí ðôçúä ú÷øä ëå' åì÷èåøú ñîéí ìëãàîø áñîåê ùàí ìà ðúçðê äîæáç ëå'

(a)

Observation: Also, we could have said [that we need it] for "l'Ohel Mo'ed", like we said above (40a), that if the ceiling was breached (the Haza'os may not be done), and for "Ketores ha'Samim" like it says below, that if the Mizbe'ach was not inaugurated [with Ketores, the Haza'os may not be done on it].

10)

TOSFOS DH Tanya k'Vasei d'Rav Papa v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä úðéà ëååúéä ãøá ôôà ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why this is a support.)

îùîò ìéä ãäà ã÷úðé ááøééúà ìëì îä ùàîåø áòðéï ãìàú áãí åèáéìä ÷àîø

(a)

Explanation: [The Gemara] understands that what the Beraisa taught "for everything taught in this matter" means for "Es", "b'Dam" and Tevilah;

ãàé ìà àúéà àìà ìòëá ìà äåä ìéä ìîéîø ìëì îä ùàîåø áòðéï

1.

If it came only to teach that [the Haza'os are] Me'akev, it should not have said "for everything taught in this matter."

åìéåúøú åùúé äëìéåú ìéëà ìîéîø ãäà áòáåãú ãí äå÷ùå

2.

We cannot say that it is for Yoseres ha'Kaved and the two kidneys, for they were equated for Avodas Dam.

åìùéøéí ðîé ìà ÷àîø ãøáé ðô÷à ìéä î÷øà àçøéðà ì÷îï áôø÷ àéæäå î÷åîï (ãó ðá.)

3.

Also, we cannot say that it is for Shirayim, for Rebbi learns them from another verse below (52a).

åòåã ÷''å ãøáé éùîòàì åîä áî÷åí ùìà äåùåå ìà ùééê àìà âáé àú áãí åèáéìä

(b)

Support: R. Yishmael's Kal v'Chomer "in a place where they are not equal" applies only to "Es", "b'Dam" and Tevilah.

11)

TOSFOS DH u'Mah b'Makom she'Lo Hushvu Korban l'Korban v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä åîä áî÷åí ùìà äåùåä ÷øáï ì÷øáï ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why this Kal v'Chomer does not apply below, and vice-versa.)

åì÷îï áôø÷ àéæäå î÷åîï (âí æä ùí) éìéó øáé éùîòàì îúï ãí ìéñåã áôø éåí äëôåøéí î÷ì åçåîø åîä àí îé ùàéï ðëðñ ãîå ìôðéí çåáä èòåï éñåã

(a)

Citation: Below (52a), R. Yishmael learns putting blood on the Yesod from Par Yom Kipur from a Kal v'Chomer - if one whose blood is not obligated to enter inside requires the Yesod...

ääåà ÷''å ìà äåä îöé ìîéîø äëà îùåí àú ãäåé ÷åìà ìäëùéø àîéï ùáàöáò

(b)

Observation: We could not say that Kal v'Chomer here, because it is a leniency to be Machshir warts on the finger.

åäàé ÷''å ãäëà ìà îöé ìîéîø äúí ãìà éìôéðï îäàé ÷''å ãáø çãù ìéúï äàîåø ùì æä áæä ãäà çæéðï ãçìå÷éï áëîä ãáøéí

1.

And the Kal v'Chomer here, we could not say there, for we do not learn from this Kal v'Chomer a new matter, to apply what was said about this to the other, for we find that they are different in several matters;

åìà éìôéðï îäàé ãéðà àìà ãìîàé ãëúá áäå öøéê ùéäà æä ëæä ãáàåúå òðéï ùéòùä äæàåú ùì æä éòùä äæàåú ùì æä åäééðå ìàú áãí åèáéìä

2.

We learn from this Kal v'Chomer only that what is written in them must be the same. The same way he does Haza'os for this, he does Haza'os of the other, i.e. "Es", "b'Dam" and Tevilah.

úãò îãìà ôìéâ øáé éùîòàì àìôø æä ôø ëäï îùéç ìòëá ãìîä ìé úéôå÷ ìé îäàé ÷ì åçåîø

(c)

Proof: R. Yishmael does not argue with '"l'Par" - this is Par Kohen Mashi'ach', to teach Ikuv. Why is this needed? We should know from this Kal v'Chomer!

åîä áî÷åí ùìà äåùåä ÷øáï ì÷øáï áôø äòìí åùòéøé òáåãú ëåëáéí äåùåå îòùéí ìîòùéí ãîòëáé î÷åí ùäåùåä ÷øáï ì÷øáï ìà ëì ùëï ãîòëáé

1.

Where the Korbanos (animals) are different, i.e. Par Helam and Se'irei Avodah Zarah, the actions are equated, that they are Me'akev. Where the Korbanos are the same, all the more so they are Me'akev!

åîéäå éù ìãçåú ãîä ìäðê ùëï äåùåå áöéáåø:

(d)

Rebuttal: We can reject this. They (Par Helam Davar and Se'irei Avodah Zarah) are the same. They are [Korbanos] Tzibur (unlike Par Kohen Mashi'ach).

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF