Clarification (Part 1): Rabeinu Tam says that the Gemara in the second Perek of Zevachim implies, that "Chukah" is not crucial by implication, but rather through a Gezeirah-Shavah ...

Clarification (Part 2): ... since the Gemara there learns that a Kohen who serves without having washed his hands desecrates the Avodah from a Gezeirah-Shavah - "Chukah" "Chukah" from a Kohen who serves after having drunk wine.

Question): From where do we know that the Goral does not render the birds themselves Kodosh (by learning a Kal va'Chomer the other way round (birds from the goats)?

Answer: There is some Miy'ut or other (of which we are unaware), that prevents from doing so.

Question: In Perek Taraf be'Kalpi (Yoma 41a), based on the principle that 'S'tam Sifra, Rebbi Yehudah', the Gemara establishes this Beraisa like Rebbi Yehudah, who holds in Perek Hotzi'u lo that the Torah only writes "Chukah" in connection with Avodos that are performed inside the Heichal wearing white Begadim, whereas the Hagralah was performed outside?

Refuted Answer: One cannot answer that there is no Tana who disagrees with the D'rashah of "ve'Asahu", and that Rebbi Nechemyah, who establishes "Chukah" by the Avodos that are performed outside, does not argue with him ...

Refutation: ... since we find that Rebbi Shimon, who holds, in Perek Taraf be'Kalpi (Ibid. 40a & 40b) that Hagralah is not crucial.

Answer #1 (Part 1): The Kashya is based on the Gemara there (39b) where Rebbi Yanai Darshens from the double expression "asher Alah" "asher Alah" that it is crucial ...

Answer #1 (Part 2): ... and the Gemara now asks 'So we see that one does Darshen a Kal va'Chomer, even though the Torah writes an Ikuva - to refute the Kal va'Chomer - we nevertheless ask that we should establish "Asher Alah" with regard to another D'rashah because of the Kal va'Chomer.

Answer #2 (Part 1): The Count from Coucy answers that there we learn from the fact that the Torah writes "Zos", and 'Chukah' is confined to Avodos that are performed wearing the white Begadim inside.

Answer #2 (Part 2): And now the Gemara's Kashya here makes good sense - because if we would not Darshen the Kal va'Chomer, why would we need "Zos" to preclude it, seeing as "Chukah" does not pertain to Avodos that are performed outside ...

Proof (Part 1): ... because "Chukah" can only pertain to Avodos that are performed inside, because if it also pertained to Avodos that are performed outside, we would not need "ve'Asahu".

Conclusion (Part 1): We therefore must say that although the Pasuk writes Chukah, we Darshen the Kal va'Chomer.

Conclusion (Part 2): And even if Chukah pertains to Avodos that are performed outside, we would Darshen the Kal va'Chomer, had it not written "ve'Asahu". And that explains why we need "Zos".

Question: In any event, Rebbi Mano'ach asked what the Gemara is asking, seeing as the Torah only writes Chukah with regard to Avodah, and Hagralah is not an Avodah?

Conclusion: The Gemara there needs to be looked into.

Question (Part 1): The Gemara in Perek Keitzad ha'Regel (Bava Kama 24a), Darshens from the word "ve'Zos" (in the Pasuk "ve'Zos Tih'yeh Tum'aso"), to preclude a Zavah from sightings - (and she only counts days). And the Gemara asks that perhaps it comes to preclude a Zav from days? ...

Question (Part 2): ... to which it answers that since the Pasuk is talking about sightings, it is logical to say that it comes to preclude sightings, 'Would it talk about sightings and pr3eclude days!?

Question (Part 3): Why do we not rather say that since the Pasuk is talking about a Zav, it comes to preclude a Zav, rather than a Zavah - since this is a more logical way of looking at it, since the simple explanation of the Pasuk is 'This is his Tum'ah, and nothing else'? ...

Precedent: ... like we Darshen here - 'This is for the Levi'im - and nothing else is for the Levi'im'?

Answer #1: In our case too, were it not for the words "Asher la'Levi'im", we would Darshen 'This is for the Levi'im and not for the Kohanim'.

Answer #2: Alternatively, we Darshen here he way we do, only because it mentions the Levi'im, in the Pasuk. By the same token, if the Pasuk there wanted to preclude by Zav, it ought to have written 'This is the Tum'ah of a Zav' (and not " ... his Tum'ah") - to mention av in the Pasuk.

Answer #3: The Ri answers that a Zav and a Zavah are like one entity. Consequently, the Gemara cannot say that, since the Pasuk is talking about a Zav, it comes to preclude a Zav (rather than a Zavah), since it is just as liable to preclude a Zavah as a Zav.

Clarification: This implies that if not for the Miy'ut, we would learn them from each other ...

Precedent: Similarly at the beginning of Eruvin (2a) where the Gemara asks 'But is the Pasuk not talking about the Mishkan?' And it answers that we find that 'Mikdash' is called 'Mishkan' and 'Mishkan' is called 'Mikdash'.

Question (Part 1): In Perek Yedi'os however (in Shevu'os 16b & 17a) it implies that we do not learn one from the other, unless there are two Pesukim ...

Question (Part 2): ... since the Gemara states there 'Let the Gemara write either both times "Mikdash" or both times "Mishkan"?'

Precedent #1: Likewise in Sotah, in Perek Hayah Meivi (16a) the Gemara requires two Pesukim to include (Mishkan) Shiloh and the Beis-ha'Mikdash, and also in Perek Sh'nei Se'irei (Yoma 16b) regarding "Midbar" "ha'Midbarah" ...

Precedent #2: ... and in Perek Taraf be'Kalpi (Ibid. 4a), in connection with "ve'Chol Adam Lo Yih'yeh be'Ohel Mo'ed" and in Perek Hotzi'u lo (Ibid. 53a), in connection with 'Ma'aleh Ashan'.

Answer (Part 1): ha'Rav Nesanel answers that in Eruvin, we do not need a Pasuk for Mikdash - since the main D'rashah comes for Mikdash, seeing as in the Mishkan there were no doors.

Answer (Part 2): ... And as for the Sugya here, it is logical to say that, if not for the Pasuk, age will invalidate the Avodah even in Shiloh and in the Beis-ha'Mikdash, since it has nothing to do with the Kedushah of the Mishkan.

Question: In Perek ha'Korei es ha'Megilah (Megilah 2a) the Gemara permits a Katan to Lein. But not to be Poreis on the Sh'ma, to be the Sheli'ach Tzibur or to Duchen (if he is a Kohen)?

Answer: Once he grows two pubic hairs he is eligible to be the Shali'ach Tzibur casually, but not on a regular basis, nor on Ta'aniyos and Ma'amados, until his beard is fully grown ...

Source: ... as we learned in Maseches Ta'anis (Daf 15a) 'One only sends down to the Amud (on a Ta'anis) someone who is 'old and experienced'.

Question: The Gemara at the end of Perek Lulav ha'Gazul (Succah 42a) implies that even a Katan is permitted to Duchen, as the Gemara says there 'Once a Kohen Katan knows how to Duchen, one may give him Terumah in the granary?

Answer #1: Rashi explains that 'Katan' is La'av Davka, but in fact means one who has already grown two pubic-hairs.

Refutation: That is not however, what the Gemara there seems to be saying - but rather, a proper Katan, like the Gemara says there 'a Katan who knows how to speak (and who will therefore recite Hallel)'; and 'If a Katan knows how to Shecht, one is permitted to eat from his Shechitah.

Answer #2 (Part 1): When the Gemara in Megilah permits a Katan to Duchen, it means together with Gedolim, as the Gemara in Perek Ein Echin (Arachin, 13b) states regarding the Shir ... 'Between the legs of the Levi'im they would stand, and they were referred to as 'Tzo'arei ha'Levi'im' (who cause the Levi'im Tza'ar)...

Answer #2 (Part 2): ... and he is only permitted to Duchen on his own once he grows two pubic hairs.

Clarification: That means that it cannot become Tamei via its outside; but if the inside becomes Tamei, the outside automatically becomes Tamei too, and it even renders others Tamei as well ...

Precedent #1: ... as we learned in the Toras Kohanim 'The measure of being Metamei others exceeds that of becoming Tamei, as a K'li Cheres is Metamei others via its outside, but cannot become Tamei via its outside'.

Precedent #2): And we also learned in Perek Eilu Mumin (Bechoros Daf 38a) ... that a K'li Cheres whose inside becomes Tamei, its outside becomes Tamei, as well ...

Chidush: ... and it seems that the back remains Tahor even if a Sheretz touched its handle, since the Din of a handle bringing in Tum'ah was not said with regard to earthenware vessels.

Implied Question: Then why, after suggesting that there is a Yad to 'bring out' but not to 'bring in', does the Gemara at the beginning of 'ha'Or ve'ha'Rorav' (Daf 118a), conclude that the Torah writes an extra "Yad" ("Tanur ve'Kirayim Yutatz Teme'im heim, u'Teme'im Yih'yu lachem") to include 'Yados'?

Answer #1 (Part 1): What the Gemara means is that, after learning 'Yados le'Hotzi', we are left with a Yad to bring in Tum'ah by Zera'im ...

Answer #1 (Part 2): ... but the Yad of ovens and stoves does not bring in Tum'ah ...

Precedent: ... as is implied in the Tosefta of Keilim, which specifically states that there is no Tum'ah for K'lei Cheres other than via its air and by the Heset of a Zav via a stone under which there is a cavity - And it does not however, mention that it can become Tamei via its handle.

Answer #2: Moreover, the Pasuk which declares Tahor an earthenware vessel that has a lid that is firmly fixed, implies that this is the case even if it has handles.

Question: Why do we not know that it receives Tum'ah via its air from the fact that the Torah needs to write "Tocho" to preclude 'Toch Tocho' (as we will learn on 25a)?

Answer: Even if it did not itself receive Tum'ah via its air, it would be necessary to teach food that is suspended in 'Toch Tocho' is Tahor, since it renders Tamei food that is suspended in its air.

Question: Nevertheless, why can we not learn that it becomes Tamei via its air from the fact that the Torah writes "Tocho" to preclude the inside of other vessels from rendering them Tamei (as we will also learn there)?

Answer #1: Because (had a K'li Cheres not itself become Tamei via its air), we would have explained the Pasuk with regard to the air of other vessels not rendering Tamei what is suspended in them.

Answer #2: Alternatively, we would have learned that the inside of this vessel receives Tum'ah via touching, but not that of another vessel, in which case other vessels will not be subject to Tum'ah from the inside, even by touching, only via the outside.

Answer #3: (It seems to Tosfos that we would have established the first Pasuk [of "Tocho"] with regard to receiving Tum'ah via its air, and we would not have Darshened "Tocho" 'shel Zeh, ve'Lo Tocho shel Acher' - which we do only after we know that a K'li Cheres receives Tum'ah via its air - Gilyon).

Clarification: And the word "Tocho" that the Torah writes can only come to preclude the outside.

Question #1: Why do we not already know this from the Pasuk "Tzamid Pasil"?

Question #2 (Part 1): Moreover, the Ri ha'Kohen asks, if a K'li Cheres is not subject to Tum'ah via its air, then why does the Torah need to write "Hu" by the Din of Tzamid Pasil, to teach us that other vessels are Tamei even if their lids are tightly sealed ...

Question #2 (Part 2): ... because, seeing as earthenware vessels do not receive Tum'ah via their air, we can no longer learn from a Kal va'Chomer that other vessels should not become Tamei via their backs, only via their insides by means of touching?

Qualification (Part 1): According to the first answer that we gave above (in the previous Dibur): namely, that if we do not need the D'rashah with regard to becoming Tamei, we will learn it with regard to making others Tamei, the question is answered, inasmuch as we will still learn the Kal va'Chomer with regard to other vessels not becoming Tamei from the outside - 'because if earthenware vessels which are Metamei others via their air, yet they are not themselves subject to Tum'ah from the outside, how much more so other vessels, which are not (Metamei others via their air)!

Qualification (Part 2): But according to what we ask, that the inside of a K'li Cheres should be subject to Tum'ah by means of touching, but not the inside of other vessels, the Kashya remains.

Answer: As long as we do not know that earthenware vessels receive Tum'ah via their air, we cannot Darshen from "Kol K'li Pasu'ach" - what we will Darshen shortly 'Which is the vessel whose Tum'ah precedes its entrance ... ?' ('ha Tzamid Pasil, Tahor').

Conclusion: And now we certainly would not know how to Darshen the Pasuk.

Clarification (Part 1): According to Rabeinu Tam, who holds that food that measures less than a 'k'Beitzah is not subject to Tum'ah, the Gemara does not mention mustard-seeds Davka; it might just as well have said 'eggs' ...

Clarification (Part 2): ... and the reason that it mentioned mustard-seeds is because mi'de'Rabbanan, even the smallest amount receives Tum'ah.

Question (Part 1): Rabeinu Efrayim asks from where we know that the reason (for the Tum'ah) is because of the air; maybe it is because an earthenware vessel combines them ('Tziruf'), since they are touching each other, and the outer ones are touching the vessel ...

Question (Part 2): ... but if they were hanging in the air, they would not become Tamei?

Refuted Answer: In that case, you may ask, why does the Gemara in Pesachim (19a) require the Pasuk "Kaf Achas ... ", to teach us the concept of 'Tziruf' by Kodshim? (Why can we not learn it from K'lei Cheres)?

Refutation: We need it because of K'lei Shetef (vessels that are not K'lei Cheres [whereas the above ruling is confined to earthenware vessels]).

Answer #1: The additional word "Kol" ("Kol asher be'Socho Yitma") implies even if the food is hanging inside the vessel.

Answer #2 (Part 1): Moreover, the Gemara there (regarding Kodshim) Darshens 'Tziruf' from the word "Achas", implying that the spoon combines whatever is on it, and renders it all one ...

Answer #2 (Part 2): ... whereas here the Torah does not use the word 'Achas'.