1)

TOSFOS DH ANI LO ADUN KEREN MI'KEREN

úåñ' ã"ä àðé ìà àãåï ÷øï î÷øï

(Summary: Tosfos queries both Rebbi Tarfon's Kal va'Chomer and 'Dayo' according to the Chachamim, from various angles.)

ìãáøéäí ÷àîø ìäå, ãìãéãéä ìéú ìéä ãéå' äéëà ãîôøéê ÷"å.

(a)

Clarification: He (Rebbi Tarfon) is saying this according to the words of the Chachamim, since he does not hold 'Dayo' there where it negates the Kal va'Chomer.

åà"ú, îä ìùï åøâì ùëï äæé÷ï îöåé, úàîø á÷øï ùàéï äæé÷å îöåé ë"ë ...

(b)

Question: (One can ask that) whereas the damage of Shen va'Regel is common, that of Keren is less common ...

ãáçæ÷ú ùéîåø ÷ééîé ìî"ã 'ôìâà ðæ÷à ÷ðñà?

1.

Source: ... at least according to the opinion that holds 'Palga Nizka K'nasa' (above, Daf 15a), since the ox`has a Chazakah of being guarded?

åàéï ìåîø îøùåú ìøùåú âîøéðï - åîä øä"ø ùä÷éì áä ìòðéï ùï åøâì, äçîéø áä ìòðéï ÷øï, øùåú äðéæ÷ ìà ëì ùëï!

(c)

Refuted Answer: And one cannot answer that we learn (the Kal va'Chomer) from R'shus to R'shus - 'If in the R'shus ha'Rabim, where the Torah is lenient regarding Shen va'Regel, it is strict regarding Keren, how much more so in the R'shus ha'Nizak!'

ãî"î ùééê ìîôøê ùôéø ...

1.

Refutation: ... since one can still ask the same question ...

ëãîùîò ì÷îï ãáòé ìîéìó ëåôø ùìí áúí áçöø äðéæ÷ îðæ÷éï ãøâì ...

(d)

Source: ... as is implied later (Daf 26a) where the Gemara, which is attempting to learn that a Tam pays full Kofer in the Chatzer of the Nizak from Ninkei Regel ...

åôøéê 'îä ìðæ÷é' ãøâì ùëï éùðï áàù?'

1.

Source (cont.): ... asks 'Whereas Nizkei Regel are applicable to fire?'

åé"ì, ãìàå ôéøëà äéà, ãàéï çåîøà æå îåòìú ìçééáå áøä"ø ...

(e)

Answer: The question is not valid, seeing as the Chumra in question does not render one Chayav in the R'shus ha'Rabim ...

åäëé ãééðéðï ÷"å 'åîä ùï åøâì ùàéï çåîøåú îåòéìåú ìçééáå áøä"ø, îåòéìåú áøùåú äðéæ÷ ìçééáå ... '.

1.

Answer (cont.): So the Kal va'Chomer runs like this - 'If Shen va'Regel, whose Chumros, which are not able to render one Chayav Nezek Shalem in the R'shus ha'Rabim, are able to render one Chayav in the R'shus ha'Nizak ... !'

åáô"÷ ãæáçéí (ãó é.) âáé 'ùåçè ìùîä ìæøå÷ ãîä ùìà ìùîä', ãôñåì î÷"å ãùåçè çåõ ìæîðå, ãëùø ...

(f)

Implied Question: In the first Perek of Zevachim (Daf 10a) in the case of 'Someone who Shechts li'Sh'mah having in mind to sprinkle the blood she'Lo li'Sh'mah', which is Pasul from a Kal va'Chomer from someone who Shechts in the wrong time, which is Kasher ...

åôøéê 'îä ìçåõ ìæîðå ùëï ëøú?' àò"ô ùàéï çåîøà æå îåòìú ìùåçè ìçåõ ìæîðå ìôñåì?

1.

Implied Question (cont.): ... the Gemara asks 'Whereas Chutz li'Zemano is Chayav Kareis?' even though that Chumra does not render Pasul a Korban that is Shechted Chutz li'Zemano?

çåîøà ùäçîéøä úåøä ùàðé, ãëéåï ùäçîéøä úåøä çåîøà æå, äçîéøä çåîøà àçøú.

(g)

Answer: A Chumra which the Torah specifically mentions is different, in that, since the Torah is strict in this point, perhaps it is also strict in another point.

åà"ú, åäéëé ÷àîøé øáðï 'ãéå' - ëì ÷"å ëê äåà, ãáùáéì çåîøà àçøéúé ÷èðä ùéù áæä îä ùàéï áæä, éù ìéúï áçîåø ëì äçåîøåú ùá÷ì?

(h)

Question: How can the Rabbanan say 'Dayo'? Isn't every Kal va'Chomer like that - On account of another small Chumra that a. has that b. does not, one must apply all the Chumros of a. to b. ?

åé"ì, ëéåï ùäçåîøà îòéï äãéï ùàðå áàéï ììîåã, ùééê ìåîø 'ãéå' ùôéø.

(i)

Answer: Since the Chumra in question is similar to the Din that we are trying to learn, it is justifiable to say 'Dayo'.

åà"ú, áôø÷ àçã ãéðé îîåðåú (ñðäãøéï ãó ìä:) àîø 'åúäà ÷áåøú îú îöåä ãåçä ùáú î÷"å - åîä òáåãä ùäéà ãåçä ùáú, ÷áåøú îú îöåä ãåçä àåúä, ùáú ùðãçéú îôðé òáåãä àéðå ãéï ùúäà îú îöåä ãåçä àåúä?'

(j)

Question: In Perek Echad Dinei Mamonos (Sanhedrin, Daf 35b), the Gemara asks 'Let the burial of a Meis Mitzvah override Shabbos from a Kal va'Chomer - If Avodah, which overrides Shabbos, is overridden by Meis Mitzvah, then Shabbos, which is overridden by Avodah, should certainly be overridden by the burial of a Meis Mitzvah? ...

åäùúà ðéîà ëîå ùàéðä ãåçä àú äòáåãä àìà áùá åàì úòùä, ëê àì úãçä ùáú àìà áùá åàì úòùä?

1.

Question (cont.): why do we not say that just as Meis Mitzvah only overrides the Avodah via 'Shev ve'Al Ta'aseh' (negatively), so too, Shabbos ('Dayo')?

åé"ì, ëéåï ãâåó äòáåãä ðãçéú îôðé ÷áåøú îú îöåä, àéï ìðå ìåîø ùúäà çîåøä îîðä áùåí î÷åí.

(k)

Answer: Since the actual Avodah is negated before the burial of a Meis Mitzvah, we cannot say that it (the Avodah) is stricter that it in any aspect.

2)

TOSFOS DH KAL V'CHOMER LI'SHECHINAH ARBA'AH-ASAR YOM

úåñ' ã"ä ÷"å ìùëéðä é"ã éåí

(Summary: Tosfos cites two reasons for the fourteen days)

àåø"ú îùåí ãàîøéðï áäîôìú (ðãä ãó ìà.) ù'äàá åàí ðåúðéï áå ëì àçã ä' ãáøéí åä÷á"ä ðåúï áå é' ãáøéí'.

(a)

Reason #1: Rabeinu Tam explains that it is because of the Gemara in 'ha'Mapeles' (Nidah, Daf 31a) which states that whereas a father and mother each give the baby five things, Hakadosh-Baruch-Hu gives ten (See Mesores ha'Shas).

åé"î, ãð÷è é"ã éåí ëðâã ùðé äñâøåú, ãàéï äñâø ôçåú îæ' éîéí.

(b)

Reason #2: Others attribute the fourteen days to the two sets of quarantine, seeing as there is no quarantine that lasts less than seven days.

åëï îåëç áúåñôúà ãîñëú àáåú.

1.

Source: And this is evident in the Tosefta of Maseches Avos.

3)

TOSFOS DH V'HA HAI TANA D'LO DARASH DAYO

úåñ' ã"ä åäà äàé úðà ãìà ãøéù ãéå

(Summary: Tosfos explains why the Gemara in Bava Metzi'a cites this opinion, despite the fact that it is ultimately rejected.)

åëåìäå îéãçå.

(a)

Conclusion: All of the proofs are ultimately rejected.

åúéîä, ãáôø÷ äùåàì (á"î ãó öä.) ôøéê 'äðéçà ìîàï ãàéú ìéä 'ãéå', àìà ìîàï ãìéú ìéä 'ãéå' îàé àéëà ìîéîø, åàó òì âá ãäúí ìà îôøéê ÷ì åçåîø?

(b)

Question: In Perek ha'Sho'el (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 98a) the Gemara asks 'That is fine according to those that holds 'Dayo', but what about those that do not? Even though in the case there, the Kal va'Chomer is not negated?

åéù ìåîø, ãôøéê ìîàé ãñ"ã îòé÷øà ìäðê àîåøàé.

(c)

Answer: The Gemara is asking according to what those Amora'im originally thought.

4)

TOSFOS DH MIDI V'LO DAVAR ACHER K'SIV

úåñ' ã"ä îéãé åìà ã"à ëúéá

(Summary: Tosfos refutes various attempts at reconciling the Kal va'Chomer with 'Dayo'.)

úéîä, ãðéîà ãàäðé ÷"å ìîâò åîùà ìèåîàä âåôéä, åàäðé 'ãéå' ìåîø ãìà îèîà àãí ìèîà áâãéí ...

(a)

Question: Why do we not apply the Kal va'Chomer with regard to touching or carrying the Tum'ah itself, and 'Dayo' to say that it is not Metamei Adam to be Metamei Begadim ...

åáøéù îñëú ëìéí åáñåó îñëú æáéí îùîò ãù"æ ùì æá îèîà àãí ìèîà áâãéí?

1.

Question (cont.): ... whereas at the beginning of Maseches Keilim and at the end of Maseches Zavim it implies that it is Metamei Adam to be Metamei Begadim?

åë"ú ìà ùééê 'ãéå' ìçì÷ áèåîàä, ùìà îöéðå ùåí ãáø ùîèîà áîùà ùìà éèîà àãí ìèîà áâãéí.

(b)

Refuted Answer: And if you want to say that we do not say 'Dayo' to draw a distinction in Tum'ah, seeing as we do not find anything that is Metami be'Masa which is not Metamei Adam to be Metamei Begadim ...

äà ìòéì (ãó éç:) àîøéðï ëé äàé âååðà ìø"è - àäðé ÷"å ìð"ù, åàäðé 'ãéå' ìîâåôå, åàò"ô ùìà îöéðå ð"ù îâåôå?

(c)

Refutation: But above (on Daf 18b) we said according to Rebbi Tarfon - that from the Kal va'Chomer we learn that one is Chcyav to pay Nezek Shalem, and from 'Dayo' that he pays mi'Gufo - even though we do not find a case where Nezek Shalem pays mi'Gufo?

åëï ì÷îï âáé îôõ àåîø 'àäðé ÷"å ìèåîàú òøá åàäðé 'ãéå' ìèåîàú æ', åàò"ô ãìà îöéðå ãáø äðåâò áîú ùìà éèîà æ'?

(d)

Precedent: And similarly later (on Amud Beis) with regard to a mat, the Gemara states that from the Kal va'Chomer we learn 'Tum'as Erev and from 'Dayo', that he is not Tamei for seven days - even though we do not find anything which touches a Meis that is not Tamei for seven days?

åùîà éù ìðå ìçì÷, ãð"ù åîâåôå ùðé ãáøéí äï åàéï æä ìçöàéï ...

(e)

Answer: Perhaps we can differentiate and say that Nezek Shalem and mi'Gufo are two different things, and it is not therefore considered half a D'rashah ...

åëï ì÷îï éù ãáøéí äðåâòéí áîú ùàéï ìäï èåîàú æ' åàéï ðòùéí àá äèåîàä, ëâåï àåëìéï åîù÷éï åëìé çøñ ...

1.

Answer (cont.): Likewise there are things that touch a Meis that are not Tamei for seven days and that do not become an Av ha'Tum'ah - such as food and drink and earthenware vessels ...

àáì äëà ëéåï ùéù áå èåîàú îùà, àé àôùø ìäéåú ìçöàéï.

2.

Answer (concl.): ... whereas in our case, since it is subject to Tum'as Masa, one cannot make half a D'rashah.

åëï áô"÷ ãôñçéí (ãó éç: åùí) éìôéðï 'îù÷éï äáàéï îçîú ùøõ îîù÷éï äáàéï îçîú ëìé' ...

(f)

Precedent: And similarly in the first Perek of Pesachim (Daf 18b and 19a) we learn liquids that come from a Sheretz from liquids that come from a K'li ...

åìà àîøé' 'ãéå' ùéäéå ùðééí ëîåúí, ãìà îöéðå ãáø äðåâò áùøõ ùìà éäà øàùåï.

1.

Precedent (cont.): ... and we do not say 'Dayo' - that they should be a Sheini like the latter, since we do not find anything that touches a Sheretz that is not a Rishon.

åà"ú, åìéîà ãàäðé ÷"å ìîâò ìèîà àãí ìèîà áâãéí ëøå÷å, åàäðé 'ãéå' ìàôå÷é îîùà?

(g)

Question: Let us learn from the Kal va'Chomer that it is Metamei via touching to be Metamei his clothes, like his spit, and from 'Dayo' to preclude it from Masa?

åé"ì, äà ðîé äåé ìçöàéï, ãìà àùëçï îéãé ùîâòå îèîà àãí ìèîà áâãéí ùìà éèîà áîùà.

(h)

Answer: This too, is considered half a D'rashah, seeing as we do not find anything that renders Tamei via touching Adam le'Tamei Begadav which is not Metamei be'Masa.

åàãøáä, àùëçï îøëá áøéù îñëú ëìéí ùîâòå îèîà àãí åìà ìèîà áâãéí, åîùàå îèîà àãí ìèîà áâãéí.

1.

Answer (cont.): If anything, we find the opposite at the beginning of Maseches Keilim, with regard to Merkav, which is Metamei Adam but not his clothes be'Maga, but be'Masa, it is Metamei his clothes, too.

åà"ú, åìéîà àäðé ÷"å ìîùà åàäðé 'ãéå' ìàôå÷é îâòå ùìà éèîà àìà àãí ìçåãéä åìà ìèîà áâãéí, ùéäà ãéðå ëîøëá?

(i)

Question: Why do we not Darshen the Kal va'Chomer to be Metamei be'Masa, and 'Dayo' to preclude Maga from being Metamei one's clothes, that his Din should resemble that of Merkav?

äà ðîé ìéúà åìàå ôéøëà äéà - ãîùà ãìà ëúéá áéä ëìì éìôéðï î÷"å, åîâò ãëúéá áéä ìà ðáéà ìëì ãéï îâò øå÷ î÷"å.

(j)

Answer: That too, is out of the question - that Masa, which is not mentioned at all, we should learn from a Kal va'Chomer, and Maga, which is, we should not learn with regard to the entire Din of touching spit from the Kal va'Chomer.

5)

TOSFOS DH ELA HAI TANA HU

úåñ' ã"ä àìà äàé úðà äåà

(Summary: Tosfos explains why the Gemara cannot cite the Tana'im in Nazir and reconciles our Sugya with the Sugya in Nidah.)

åäðé úðàé ãàééúé ôø÷ áúøà ãðæéø (ãó ñå.) åúðà ãîúðé' ãäúí ã÷ñáøé 'ù"æ ùì æá îèîà áîùà' ìà ùééê ìàúåéé ëìì äëà ...

(a)

Refuted Answer: It is not feasible to cite here the Tana'im that are cited in the last Perek of Nazir (Daf 66a) and the Tana of the Mishnah there, who hold that the Shichvas-Zera of a Zav renders Tamei by carrying ...

ãäúí ëåìäå ñáøé ãå÷à ÷øåá ìøàééú æéáä îòú ìòú àå éåîå îèîà ù"æ...

(b)

Refutation: ... since there they all hold that the Shichvas-Zera is Metamei specifically within twenty-four hours of the sighting of the Zivus or on the same day ...

åäëà áòé ìàúåéé úðà ùéèîà áîùà ëì æ' á÷"å îøå÷å.

1.

Refutation cont.): ... whereas here the Tana is coming to include that it renders Tamei by carrying all seven days, via a Kal va'Chomer from his spit.

åà"ú, áôø÷ áðåú ëåúéí (ðãä ãó ìã:) ã÷áòé øá éåñó 'øàééä øàùåðä ùì îöåøò îäå ùúèîà áîùà ... ?' ...

(c)

Question: In Perek B'nos Kutim (Nidah, Daf 34b) Rav Yosef asks whether the first sighting of a Metzora renders Tamei via carrying ...

åàîàé ìà ôùéè ãîèîà áîùà î÷"å îøå÷å ãèäåø áèäåø ëîå ÷øé ùì æá ãäëà?

1.

Question (cont.): Why does the Gemara not conclude that it is from his spit, which is Tahor by a Tahor person, like the Keri of the Zav in our case?

åé"ì, ãáòééï ãäúí ìàå àìéáà ãøáé èøôåï àìà àìéáà ãøáðï ãàéú ìäå 'ãéå' äéëà ãîôøéê ÷ì åçåîø.

(d)

Answer: The She'eilah there does not go according to Rebbi Tarfon, but according to the Rabbanan, who say 'Dayo' whenever the Kal va'Chomer is negated.

25b----------------------------------------25b

6)

TOSFOS DH MAPATZ BE'MEIS ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä îôõ áîú ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos cites this Sugya as the source of a statement the Gemara makes in a number of locations.)

äà ãàîøéðï áëì ãåëúéï (ðãä îè. ñåëä ë.) 'ëì äîèîà îãøñ îèîà èîà îú' îäëà ðô÷à.

(a)

Observation: What the Gemara says in various places (Nidah, Daf 49a, and Succah, Daf 20a) that whatever is Metamei Medras is Metamei Tamei Meis, is based on this Sugya.

7)

TOSFOS DH U'MAH PACHIN KETANIM SHE'TEHORIN B'ZAV

úåñ' ã"ä åîä ôëéï ÷èðéí ùèäåøéï áæá

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the statement and queries it from various sources.)

ùàéï éëåì ìéâò áäí áúåëí îôðé ùôéäí öø.

(a)

Clarification: Since one is unable to touch inside them because their opening is narrow.

åáäéñè ðîé ìà îèîà, ëãôéøù á÷åðè' îä ùáà ìëìì îâò áà ìëìì äéñè, åùàéï áà ìëìì îâò ... '.

1.

Clarification (cont.): Neither are they subject to Tum'ah via 'Heset' (moving), because, as Rashi explains, whatever is subject to Tum'ah via touching is subject to Tum'ah via Heset, whereas whatever is not ... '.

åàò"ô ùøàåé ìðâéòú ùòø äæá , ìà îèîà ...

(b)

Implied Question: And even though it is accessible via the Zav's hair, it does not become Tamei ...

ëãôéøù á÷åðè' (áîñ' ùáú) - îùåí ãáòéðï øàåé ìðâéòú áùø.

(c)

Answer: ... since it must be touchable by his flesh, as Rashi explains (in Maseches Shabbos) ...

ãèåîàú ùòø ðô÷à ìï îáùø äæá.

(d)

Reason: ... because the Tum'ah of the hair of a Zav is learned from his flesh.

åà"ú, ãáôø÷ ÷îà ãðãä (ãó ä:) àîøéðï ãëìé çøñ äîå÷ó öîéã ôúéì äðéöåì áàäì äîú àéï ðéöåì áîòú ìòú ùáðãä ...

(e)

Question #1: In the first Perek of Nidah (Daf 8b) the Gemara states that an earthenware vessel with a sealed lid that is saved from Tum'ah in the Ohel of a Meis is not saved from the Tum'ah of 'Me'es Le'es (twenty-four hours retroactively) of a Nidah ...

åáäðæ÷éï (âéèéï ãó ñà:) ðîé ôøéê áñåôå 'åðéçåù ùîà úñéèí àùúå ðãä' ...

(f)

Question #2: And also at the end of 'ha'Nizakin' (Gitin, Daf 62:) the Gemara asks why we are not concerned that his wife might move them whilst she is a Nidah ...

àìîà îùîò ãîèîà áäéñè àò"â ãàéï áà ìëìì îâò?

1.

Conclusion: So we see that Tum'as Heset applies even where touching does not?

åàåø"ú, ãöîéã ôúéì áà ìëìì îâò çùáéðï ìéä, îôðé ùòåîã ìäôúç.

(g)

Answer: Rabeinu Tam explains that a sealed lid is considered touchable, since it stands to be opened.

åàò"â ãâáé ÷åìéú ðáéìä àîø áäòåø åäøåèá (çåìéï ãó ÷ëå:) ãîçåñø ð÷éáä ëîçåñø îòùä ãîé - åàò"â ùçùá òìéä ìðå÷áä, àéï îèîà áîùà ...

(h)

Implied Question: Even though the Gemara says in 'ha'Or ve'ha'Rotev' (Chulin, Daf 126b) that the thigh-bone of a Neveilah that lacks a hole lacks the act of boring one, even though one had in mind to bore one, and is therefore not Metamei be'Masa ...

ãäúí ñúîà àéï òåîãú ìð÷éáä àìà ò"é îçùáúå, àáì öîéã ôúéì ñúîå òåîã ìäôúç.

(i)

Answer: That is because there the bone stands to be holed only via his Machshavah (potentially), whereas the earthenware vessel automatically stands to be opened.

åà"ú, îä ìôëéï ÷èðéí ùëï îéèîàéï îàåéøï ùéëåì ìúìåú ùòø ùì îú áôéäï ... ?

(j)

Question #1: Small earthenware jars are subject to Tum'ah via their air, since one can suspend the hair of a Meis into their opening, whereas ... ?

åáñîåê ðîé ãééðéðï ÷"å îôëéï ÷èðéí ãîèîà áùøõ, åàí ëï áëòãùä ðîé éëåì ìéëðñ áôéå?

1.

Question #2: Moreover, the Gemara will shortly learn a Kal va'Chomer from small earthenware jars which can become Tamei via a Sheretz, in which case even the size of a lentil is able to enter via its opening?

åé"ì, ëìé òõ éåëéçå ãìà îèîà îàåéø' åîèîà áîú ...

(k)

Answer: Wooden vessels, which do not receive Tum'ah via their opening yet they do receive Tum'ah via a Meis will prove ...

àå ùàø ëìéí éåëéçå, ùëï ðòùéï àá äèåîàä, úàîø áîôõ ... ', ôëéï ÷èðéí éåëéçå.

1.

Answer (cont.): Note: It is unclear what Tosfos is trying to say. It appears to me that he is continuing the Limud of Mapatz from Pachin Ketanim and wooden vessels - 'And if you will ask that one cannot learn it from wooden vessels, which can become an Av ha'Tum'ah, whereas a mat cannot, then we can learn it from Pachin Ketanim, which cannot become an Av ha'Tum'ah either'.

åà"ú, îôëéï âãåìéí îöé âîø ãìà îèîà îãøñ, ëãðô÷à ìï áôø÷ ø' ò÷éáà (ùáú ôã: åùí) ãëìé çøñ àéï îèîà îãøñ åîèîà èîà îú?

(l)

Question: Why can we not learn it from Pachin Gedolim which are not subject to Tum'as Medras either, as the Gemara learns in Perek Rebbi Akiva (Shabbos, Daf 84b & 85a), that although earthenware vessels are not Tamei Medras, they are Tamei Meis?

åùîà ðéçà ìéä ìîéð÷è ôëéï ÷èðéí, ùèäåøéï îëì èåîàú æá.

(m)

Answer: Perhaps the Tana prefers to learn it from Pachin Ketanim which are Tahor from all forms of Tum'as Zav.

8)

TOSFOS DH SHE'TEHORIN B'ZAV

úåñ' ã"ä ùèäåøéï áæá

(Summary: Tosfos queries the statement.)

úéîä, îð"ì ùìà éèîà áîòééðåú äæá?

(a)

Question: From where do we know that it does not receive Tum'ah via the fountains of a Zav?

ðäé ãáùòø äæá ìà îèîà, äð"î áùòø ùîáùø äæá âåôéä ðô÷à ìï èåîàú ùòø, äìëê áòéðï øàåé ìðâéòú áùø ...

1.

Question (cont.): Granted, it does receive Tum'ah via his hair, because, since we learn the Tum'ah of the hair from his Basar, it needs to be accessible to the Basar ...

àáì øå÷å ãëúéá áéä áäãéà "åëé éøå÷ äæá áèäåø", ôùéèà ãìà áòéðï áéä øàåé ìðâéòú áùø?

2.

Question (concl.): ... but as far as the Zav's spit - by which the Torah writes explicitly "And if the Zav spits at a Tahor person" - is concerned, it is obvious that it does not need to be accessible to his Basar?

9)

TOSFOS DH MAPATZ SHE'METAMEI B'ZAV ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä îôõ ùîèîà áæá ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos explains why the Gemara cannot make a 'Yochi'ach' from earthenware vessels that are sealed.)

åà"ú, ëìé çøñ äîå÷ó öîéã ôúéì éåëéç - ùîèîà áæá áäéñè ëãô"ì, åèäåø áîú?

(a)

Question: Earthenware vessels that are covered with a sealed lid, which are Metamei via the Heset of a Zav, as Tosfos explained earlier (DH 'u'Mah') but are Tahor by a Meis, will prove otherwise?

åàåîø ø"ú, ãìà ùééê ìîéîø éåëéç îöîéã ôúéì ...

(b)

Answer: Rabeinu Tam explains that one cannot make a 'Yochi'ach' from the sealed lid of an earthenware vessel ...

ùäøé ëòðéï ùîèîà áæá äéä îèîà áîú, ãîä ùîèîà áäéñè æäå îùåí ãäåé ëîå ùäæá ðâò áúåëå ...

1.

Reason: ... which is Metamei by a Zav in the same way as it is Metamei by a Meis, because the reason that it is Metamei be'Heset is because it is as if the Zav touched inside ...

ëãàîøéðï (ú"ë ôøùä îöåøò) 'àéæäå îâò ùäåà ëëåìå? äåé àåîø æä äñéèå.

2.

Reason (cont.): ... like it states in Toras Kohanim, Parshas Metzora) 'What is touching that is considered contact with the entire article?' The answer is 'Heset'.

åáîú ðîé àí äéä ëæéú îï äîú áúåëå, äéä èîà.

3.

Reason (concl.): And by a Meis too, if a k'Zayis of a Meis was inside the vessel,, it would become Tamei.

10)

TOSFOS DH V'KA'MAYSI LEIH BEIN L'TUM'AS EREV BEIN L'TUM'AS SHIV'AH

úåñ' ã"ä å÷îééúé ìéä áéï ìèåîàú òøá áéï ìèåîàú ùáòä

(Summary: Tosfos discusses the ramifications of Tum'as Shiv'ah and explains how it is nevertheless applicable.)

úéîä, ãîä èåîàú ùáòä ùééëà áéä, ãìéú ìéä èäøä áî÷åä?

(a)

Question: How does Tum'as Shiv'ah apply, seeing as it is not subject to Taharah in a Mikvah ...

ëãàîøéðï áôø÷ ø' ò÷éáà (ùáú ãó ôã:).

1.

Source: ... as the Gemara states in Perek Rebbi Akiva (Shabbos, Daf 84b)?

åàéï ìåîø ãéï èåîàú ùáòä ÷àîø, ëìåîø ùðòùä àá äèåîàä ëãéï ãáø ùîèîà èåîàú ùáòä ...

(b)

Refuted Answer: One cannot answer that it means the Din of Tum'as Shiv'ah, with reference to the fact that it becomes an Av ha'Tum'ah, like something that is Tamei for seven days ...

äà ëéåï ãìéú ìéä èäøä áî÷åä, àéï ðòùä àá äèåîàä ...

(c)

Refutation: Because, since it is not subject to Taharah in a Mikvah, it does not become an Av ha'Tum'ah either ...

ëãîåëç áñåó òéøåáéï (ãó ÷ã:).

1.

Source: ... as is evident from the Gemara at the end of Eruvin (Daf 104b).

åé"ì, ãäàé ÷"å ðîé îäðé ìôùåèé ëìé òõ äîéåçãéí ìîãøñ, ùèîà áîú, åîééúé ìäå ìèåîàú ùáòä.

(d)

Answer #1: Because the same Kal va'Chomer applies also to flat wooden vessels that are designated for Medras, which are also subject to Tum'as Meis, and which we now learn are subject to Tum'as Shiv'ah.

à"ð, äáøééúà îééøé áëì îôöéí áéï îôõ ùì òõ ùéù ìå èäøä áî÷åä áéï îôõ ùì ùéôä åâîé.

(e)

Answer #2: The Beraisa is speaking about all mats, whether they are made of wood, which are then subject to Taharah in a Mikvah, or of various kinds of reeds (which are not).

åáîñëú ùáú (ãó ôã.) ôøéê îîôõ ùì ùéôä åâîé, åäëà ôøéê îîôõ ùì òõ.

1.

Conclusion: Consequently, in Maseches Shabbos (Daf 84a) the Gemara asks from a reed mat, whereas here it asks from one made of wood (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim)..

11)

TOSFOS DH SH'MA MINAH MUFNEH MI'SHENEI TZEDADIN

úåñ' ã"ä ù"î îåôðä îùðé öããéï

(Summary: Tosfos explains why the Gezeirah-Shavah is necessary - why we cannot learn Meis from Sheretz with a Hekesh via Shichvas-Zera.)

úéîä, ìîä ìé âæ"ù, ëéåï ãàéú÷ù îú ìùëáú æøò åù"æ ìùøõ ...

(a)

Question: Why do we need a Gezeirah-Shavah, seeing as it is compared to Shichvas-Zera and Shichvas-Zera to a Sheretz ...

ãáëì äúåøä ëåìä ìîéãéï ìîã îï äìîã çåõ îï ä÷ãùéí?

1.

Reason: ... bearing in mind that throughout the Torah, one learns one Lameid from another, with the exception of Kodshim?

åé"ì, ãòì ëøçê ìàå ìëì îéìé âîøé îäããé ìà îäé÷éùà åìà îâæéøä ùåä ...

(b)

Answer: It is clear that we do not learn one from the other in all regards, neither from the Hekesh nor from the Gezeirah-Shavah ...

ëãàùëçï áøéù ôø÷ ùðé ãçåìéï (ãó ìå:) âáé äëùø, ãçã ìèåîàú îú åçã ìèåîàú ùøõ, åöøéëà.

(c)

Support: ... as we find at the beginning of the second Perek of Chulin (Daf 36a) in connection with Hechsher, where it says 'One for Tum'as Meis and one for Tum'as Sheretz, and both are necessary' ...

åîãàéöèøéê â"ù äåà ãùîòéðï ãìëì îéìé ìà âîéøé îäããé ëé àí ìâáé äê ãäëà.

1.

Answer (cont.): And from the fact that the Gemara requires a Gezeirah Shavah we learn that we do not learn everything from each other, only what is mentioned in our Sugya ...

åáñåó ôø÷ áîä àùä (ùáú ãó ñã.) 'ìøáåú ãáø äáà îæðá äñåñ åîæðá äôøä', ùòðéï àçã äí ìèîà áùðéäí ...

2.

Answer (cont.): And at the end of Perek Bameh Ishah (Shabbos, Daf 64a) 'to include something that comes from the tail of a horse and of a cow, which is equally applicable to both of them ...

åëï éãåú äëìéí åäàåëìéí ãéìôéðï áäòåø åäøåèá (çåìéï ãó ÷éç.), ìà îöøéê úøé ÷øàé ìîú åìùøõ.

3.

Answer (concl.): And similarly the handles of vessels and of food, which the Gemara learns in 'ha'Or ve'ha'Rotev (Chulin, Daf 118a), and which does not require two Pesukim, one for Meis and one for Sheretz

12)

TOSFOS DH AMAR K'RA VE'CHIBASTM BIGDEICHEM

úåñ' ã"ä àîø ÷øà åëáñúí áâãéëí

(Summary: Tosfos explains why do we not learn it from a Kal va'Chomer.)

åà"ú, åìéìó î÷"å ëãîòé÷øà?

(a)

Question: Why do we not learn it from a Kal va'Chomer like we did originally?

åé"ì, ãà'èåîàä ãëúéá áäãéà îùîò ìéä ÷øà.

(b)

Answer: Because the Pasuk implies that it refers to what is written explicitly.

åäùúà ãéìôéðï îú áâæéøä ùåä àò"â ãùøõ âåôéä âîøéðï î÷ì åçåîø, ëëúåá áäãéà çùéá ìéä.

(c)

Conclusion: And now that we learn Meis from a Gezeirah-Shavah, even though we learn Sheretz itself from a Kal va'Chomer, it considers it as if it was written explicitly.