Explanation: Do we say that since he would have retracted from one who tears [his garment], which resembles losing what one gives to him, he would have retracted also from the others, which he listed with tearing?

Or, perhaps he would have retracted only from this (tearing)!

Citation (Yerushalmi) Question: What does R. Yehudah say about an Androginus [regarding Re'iyah]? We heard that he holds that one is Mechalel Shabbos for him (one may circumcise him on Shabbos, like a Vadai male).

Citation (cont.) Answer: R. Yochanan ben Dehavai said that R. Yehudah says "even a blind person [is exempt]." One says "even" only when he agrees to the first matter...

Citation (cont.): We establish the reason there regarding Shabbos, for he expounds "Zachar". Why does it say [also] "Arel"? This teaches even if he is a partial Arel (i.e. a partial male);

Here, "Kol Zechurcha" excludes Tumtum and Androginus.

Implied question: Also Androginus is a Safek!

Answer #1: Even so, [if not for an exclusion,] we would obligate him due to [partial] "Zechurcha", like the Gemara says.

Answer #2: Since women are exempt, and a Tumtum is a Safek female, automatically he is exempt [from Olas Re'iyah], lest he bring Chulin b'Azarah.

Question: In Nidah (28a), we exclude from "mi'Zachar v'Ad Nekevah Teshalechu" - a Vadai male or female, but not a Tumtum or Androginus, and the Gemara did not ask anything!

Answer (Ri): There, there are two [words in the] verse (Zachar and Nekevah). We exclude [even Tumtum] due to the extra verse;

Here, there is only one [word in the] verse (Zechurcha). Therefore, we should establish it for Androginus, due to the reason we say (he is a partial male).

Support #1: In Bechoros (41b), R. Yishmael says that [Androginus] is the ultimate blemish. We challenge him, that Androginus is a Safek. Do we need a verse to exclude a Safek?!

Support #2: In Kerisus (21a) regarding a Koy (a Safek Behemah, Safek Chayah) and in Yoma (74a), in all of these there is only one verse. (Therefore, it is unreasonable to say that the verse excludes a Safek.)

Support #3: Based on this, we can resolve R. Shimon. In Yevamos (81a), he says that an Androginus is a male, and [if he is a Kohen], he feeds his wife Terumah;

In Bechoros (42a), R. Shimon ben Yehudah said in the name of R. Shimon that it says "ha'Zachar" to exclude Tumtum and Androginus!

Conclusion: Rather, surely ha'Zachar is extra in the verse [so we exclude Tumtum and Androginus].

Implied question: In Bava Metzi'a (7a), we say that the Torah said "ha'Asiri" Vadai, and not a Safek, and we do not ask why we need a verse to teach about Safek!

Answer: This is because the entire verse is extra for this.

Implied question: In Chulin (22b), we disqualify [from offering] the beginning of yellowing in both (it is too young for a Tur, and too old for a Ben Yonah). The Gemara asks "[if you will say that it is a Safek], do we need a verse to teach about Safek?!"

Answer: We ask from Turim and Ben Yonah, either way you say! [The beginning of yellowing] is either young, or old. It should be Kosher for one of them;

Hash-m knows which is Kosher! We should exclude only one, and the other should be Kosher! R. Yitzchak ben Baruch Ztz"l said so.

Question: Why can't [a Tumtum] bring [Olas Re'iyah] with a Tenai? If he is a female, it is [not Olas Re'iyah, rather,] a Nedavah!

Even according to the opinion that we do not offer Nedarim and Nedavos on Yom Tov, he can bring the next day!

This is fine even according to the opinion that all days are Tashlumin for the first day, like I explained above (2a, DH Eizehu. Whatever Chiyuv he has on the second day, he has on the first, just the day was not proper to offer on it.)

Answer: [He cannot bring and stipulate,] for he is Mevatel (neglects the Mitzvah of) Semichah. (He cannot do Semichah, for if he is a female, he is exempt from Semichah, and he transgresses benefit from a Korban, i.e. it supports him.)

Implied question: Semichah is not Me'akev, like it says in Yoma (5a)!

Answer: In any case, l'Chatchilah we should not enact [to bring a Korban] in a way that is Mevatel Semichah.

Support: The Gemara says so in Pesachim (89a) regarding five groups whose Korbanos Pesach became mixed (after Hakravah), and a wart was found on one of them. (We are unsure who was Yotzei Pesach. We do not tell men to bring Pesach Sheni, and stipulate that if they were already Yotzei, it is a Shelamim, for they cannot do Semichah, lest it is a Pesach.)

Implied question: Why is this unlike an Arel and Tamei, who send Korbanos [with a Shali'ach? It is offered without Semichah.]

Strengthening of question: Also below (4b), we exclude [an Arel and Tamei], because anyone [and only one] who has a Mitzvah to enter [the Mikdash] has a Mitzvah to bring [a Korban], and not due to Semichah!

Answer: There, the person is obligated, and there is an Isur on him, that he cannot [enter the Azarah to] do Semichah. Here, [the Tumtum] is not obligated, for perhaps he is a woman.

Question: Why don't we resolve from here that Semichah must be with all one's strength?

If Semichah requires [only] placing the hands [on the animal's neck], he could stipulate and do Semichah! (The Korban does not support him, so he does not benefit from it.) The Gemara asks like this below (16b).

Answer: The verse exempts [one who is not evidently a male] in every case. (Sefas Emes - Abaye expounds the verse, and automatically this answers for the opinion that does not require Semichah with all one's strength. Rashash - this line sums up the question. We can say that the verse exempts from bringing with a Tenai. If so, what was the Gemara's question "why do we need a verse to exclude a Safek"? Sefas Emes rejected this, for perhaps the Gemara asked according to the opinion that requires all one's strength, for we want to resolve the Mishnah according to everyone!)

Explanation: We do not say that the Gezeirah Shavah "Lah-Lah" (which teaches that Avadim have the Mitzvos of women) applies to him (a Chetzi Eved. Therefore, we need "ha'Adon" to exempt him.)

Question: It is written about him (a Chetzi Eved) "Oh Chufsah Lo Nitan Lah"! (Tosfos equates a Chetzi Eved to a Chetzi Shifchah.)

R. Akiva (Gitin 41b, Kerisus 11a) establishes this to discuss a Chetzyah Shifchah v'Chetzyah Bas Chorin.

Answer: In any case, the Gezeirah Shavah refers [only] to his slave half. This is clear from the verse Oh Chufsah Lo Nitan Lah.

Question: Here it connotes that a Chetzi Eved is obligated [in Re'iyah] according to Mishnah Acharonah (which says that we force his master to free him, to enable him to marry), for here we discuss according to Mishnah Rishonah, like it says at the beginning of this Maseches (2a);

In Gitin (42b), the Gemara asked whether or not there is a fine for [a Mu'ad ox that gores a] Chetzi Eved;

The Torah said "Sheloshim Shekalim Yiten la'Donav", and his master is an Adon!

The question was according to Mishnah Acharonah, for it says there "isn't this according to Mishnah Acharonah"?

Summation of question: Here it is clear that he has only one master (i.e. Hash-m)!

Answer #1: We can say that here we obligate him only because since he is destined to force his master, it is as if he [already] freed him.

There, since the slave died, it is revealed that he was not destined to be freed.

Answer #2: In Kerisus (11a), the Ri answered differently. (Note: this is not in our Tosfos there. In Erchin 2b (DH b'Mishnah), Tosfos answered that his master is called an Adon, but not for Aliyah l'Regel, since he cannot stop him from going.)

Explanation (Rashi): We learn from "Remos Chatzerai", which connotes that he walks with his shoes.

Question: In Berachos (62b), we learn from "Shal Ne'alecha [me'Al Raglecha]"!

Answer: There is primary. Here, the Gemara prefers to bring a proof like it says Ki Savo'u Lera'os...

Note: This verse discusses the Mikdash. However, perhaps we would not know that it discusses one who walks with his shoes if not for Shal Ne'alecha...

Implied question: It says in Pesachim (62a) that an Arel and Tamei send Korbanos, even though Bi'ah (entering the Mikdash) does not apply to them!

Answer: There it discusses Nedarim and Nedavos. They do not have a fixed time to bring them when coming for the festival;

This verse ("u'Vasa Shamah va'Haveisem Shamah") discusses only Olas Re'iyah, which requires entering the Mikdash.

Question #1: R. Shimon says in Mo'ed Katan (16a) "uv'Yom Bo'u... Yakriv" - when he is proper for Bi'ah, he will offer. When he is not proper for Bi'ah, he will not offer;

The Gemara resolves there that a Metzora cannot send his Korbanos.

Does [R. Shimon] disagree with the above teaching about an Arel and Tamei? It seems that no one argues with it!

Poor suggestion: We distinguish. A. Metzora is different, and the teaching [about an Arel and Tamei] discusses other Temei'im.

Rejection: The verse wrote Stam. It connotes that it refers to all Temei'im!

Suggestion: [The verse refers only to a Metzora,] for it says before it "Shivas Yamim Yisperu Lo", which connotes during Yemei Sifro, which applies only to a Metzora!

Rejection: There is an interruption [between Shivas Yamim and Yakriv, i.e.] "uv'Yom Bo'u El ha'Kodesh El ha'Chatzer ha'Penimis", from which we expound Asiris ha'Eifah (the Minchah that a Kohen brings the first day he serves in the Mikdash).

Question #2: There, we should have brought the teaching about an Arel and Tamei, to learn from it that he (a Metzora) may send [Korbanos]!

Answer: There, we discuss Korbanos Metzora when he becomes Tahor from his Tzara'as, and on the eighth day of his cure, when he wanted to bring Korbanos, he became a Metzora again;

Therefore, the Korban he is obligated to bring, he cannot bring it, since he cannot enter. (Perhaps Tosfos refers to his Asham. He must partially enter the Azarah to put from the blood on his ear...)

However, Nedarim and Nedavos, even a Metzora may bring (send) them, just like other Temei'im.

There, I elaborated to explain the teaching that an Arel and Tamei may send Korbanos.

Explanation: We do not require Semichah, just like one who sends his Chatas from overseas (Gitin 28b);

The Gemara there asked that it requires Semichah, and established it to discuss a woman's Korban, or Chatas ha'Of (Semichah does not apply to them).

There, we discuss an Arel whose brothers died due to Milah, and a Tamei such as a Metzora or Zav, whose Taharah depends on being cured;

It is possible that he will never be cured, and he is obligated to bring a Korban. Therefore, it is good for us that he bring it without Semichah;

However, there in Gitin, we should wait until he will [come to the Mikdash and] bring [it himself].

Reference: I elaborated more there in Gitin (28b DH v'Ha).

Implied question (R. Elchanan): Above, we need a verse to exclude Tumtum and Androginus, but we do not exclude [Tumtum] due to Safek Arel!

Answer (R. Elchanan): That is according to Rabanan. According to R. Akiva, we do not need [a verse for a Tumtum, for he is a Safek Arel].

Question: Why do we need to exclude Arel regarding Pesach? We should already know this from [the exclusion of] a Tamei!

Answer: There, we exclude an Arel whose brothers died due to Milah. He is not like a Tamei.

Question: Only according to Rashi, who explained there that the Arel's brothers died due to Milah, we can establish it like this;

However, R. Tam, explains that he [did not circumcise because he] worries about the pain, but if his brothers died due to Milah, this is Ones;

[According to R. Tam] we can ask according to R. Akiva, who includes an Arel like a Tamei, why do we need a verse for an Arel regarding Pesach? We already know this from [the exclusion of] a Tamei!

Answer: He learns from there to in general. Since an Arel is compared to a Tamei regarding Pesach, we expound also [regarding Terumah] from "Ish Ish" to include an Arel like a Tamei.

Suggestion: If there were only the verse [about Terumah] teaching that an Arel is like a Tamei, I would say that Pesach comes b'Orlah (if the majority are Arelim, they bring it), just like Pesach comes b'Tumah!

Rejection - Rhetorical question: What is the source to include an Arel like a Tamei? It is from "Ish Ish Ki Yihyeh Tzaru'a Oh Zav";

There, the verse mentions only Tum'as Tzara'as and Zivah;

We say in Pesachim (67a) that Pesach overrides only Tum'as Mes (a Tzibur may bring it even if the majority are Tamei Mes, but not if they are Zavim or Metzora'im).

Observation: Our Sugya argues with Rava in Yevamos (72b), who says that (if an Arel were considered like a Tamei), surely a Tana would have taught [a Mishnah or Beraisa] that includes an Arel like a Tamei, and we would establish it like R. Akiva!

The Gemara asks from [the Beraisa] here, which exempts an Arel and a Tamei from Re'iyah, and answers that there is different, for he is repulsive.

Inference: Even Rabanan agree, i.e. it is not because they include him like a Tamei, rather, because he is repulsive.

Rejection: We could explain that there is different, for he is repulsive, therefore we include an Arel like a Tamei according to R. Akiva;

However, an Arel is not Metamei through touching like a Tamei. Therefore, they were not taught together.

Explanation: [All the more so] one cannot give a good answer [to His rebuke] to be totally exempt;

One can exempt himself partially, like it says in Eruvin (65a) "I can exempt the entire world from judgment for [lack of proper intent in] Tefilah."

Explanation: He did not want to say that he should testify for him (Shmuel) that he fulfilled everything, for how would he (Moshe) know? He was not in his generation!

Rather, (Shmuel) would say "I expounded and did like this and like this. [Moshe,] testify for me that also you taught like this."

The text: The text does not say "Amar", for Rav Yosef did not ask this. The Gemara did not answer this at all! (If Rav Yosef asked this, i.e. this is why he cried, the Gemara's answer is no reason not to cry - based on Tosfos ha'Rosh.)

Rather, the Gemara asked this.

Explanation: He would tell him what already happened.

Support: The episode with Miryam the hairdresser was in Bayis Sheni, for she was the mother of Ploni (Oso ha'Ish), like it says in Shabbos (104b).