1) TOSFOS DH Afik Etzim v'Ayil Nesachim
úåñôåú ã"ä àôé÷ òöéí åòééì ðñëéí
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the Drashos to exclude Nesachim and blood.)
åðîòè ðñëéí áîä îðçä îéåçãú ëå' åãí (îåòì) [ðøàä ùö"ì îîòì] îðçúê
(a) Explanation: We exclude Nesachim from "just like a Minchah [permits]", and [we exclude] blood from "me'Al Minchasecha."
åà''ú àéîà àéôëà
(b) Question: I could say oppositely! (Just like a Minchah requires others (wood), we exclude blood, and "me'Al Minchasecha" excludes Nesachim.)
åé''ì ãìà ùééê ìåîø àéôëà ëìì ãäà ëãé ùìà ðàîø (îùåí) öã ùì îúéø äåà ãàéöèøéëà ìîéëúá îòì îðçúê ìîòåèé ãí ãîúøáé îääåà öã åàéìå ðñëéí îîòèé îéðéä:
(c) Answer: We cannot say oppositely at all, for in order that we will not say the similarity that it permits [includes blood, the Torah] needed to write me'Al Minchasecha to exclude blood, which would be included from that similarity (even though it does not need others, unlike Minchah), whereas Nesachim are excluded through it (it has no similarity to Minchah. There was no Havah Amina to include Nesachim.)
2) TOSFOS DH Yatz'u Etzim she'Ein Mekablin Tum'ah
úåñôåú ã"ä éöàå òöéí ùàéï î÷áìéï èåîàä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this does not apply wood of the Ma'arachah.)
ôé' á÷åðèøñ ãäà ãàîø áô' ëì ùòä (ôñçéí ãó ìä.) åäáùø ìøáåú òöéí åìáåðä àñîëúà áòìîà
(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi): We say in Pesachim (35a) that "veha'Basar" includes wood and Levonah - this is a mere Asmachta.
åàé àôùø ìåîø ëï ãáäãéà àîøéðï áô' ùðé ãçåìéï (ãó ìå:) ãçéáú ä÷ãù ãàåøééúà îääéà ÷øà ãåäáùø
(b) Rejection (and Explanation #2): One cannot say so. We explicitly say in Chulin (36b) that Chibas ha'Kodesh is mid'Oraisa from that verse "veha'Basar"!
åëï îåëç áô' ëì äôñåìéï (æáçéí ãó ìã.) âáé àåëì áùø ìôðé æøé÷ú ãîä ãàîøéðï àáì èåîàú áùø ãáøé äëì ìå÷ä ãàîø îø åäáùø ìøáåú òöéí åìáåðä ëå'
(c) Support #1 (for Explanation #2): This is proven also from Zevachim 34a, regarding one who eats meat before Zerikas Dam. We say 'but for Tum'as Basar, all agree that he is lashed, for it was taught that "veha'Basar" includes wood and Levonah'...!
åäàé ã÷øé ìéä áôø÷ áéú ùîàé (ùí ãó îå:) ôñåìà áòìîà
1. Implied question: Why is this called "a mere Pesul" in Zevachim (46b)?
ìàå îãøáðï ÷àîø àìà îãàåøééúà åôñåìà áòìîà ÷àîø ãìéú ìéä îì÷åú
2. Answer: This does not mean that it is mid'Rabanan. It is mid'Oraisa. It is called "a mere Pesul" because there are no lashes for it.
åòåã ãäéà âåôà îùîò ãìøáðï äåé ãàåøééúà (ãìø' éùîòàì ãàîø) [ö"ì ãìø' ùîòåï äåà ãàîøéðï - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ôñåìà áòìîà
(d) Support #2: This itself (Zevachim 46b) connotes that according to Rabanan it is mid'Oraisa, for [only] according to R. Shimon we say that it is a mere Pesul!
åääéà ã÷øé ìä îòìä áô' ëì ùòä (ôñçéí ãó ìä.)
(e) Implied question: Why is it called a Maileh (attribute) in Pesachim (35a)? (This connotes that it is not mid'Oraisa!)
äëé ðîé ÷àîø âáé îòìåú äòøéá ùîùå àåëì áúøåîä ãðô÷à ìï î÷øà áôø÷ äòøì (éáîåú ãó òã:) àìîà îòìä ãàåøééúà ÷àîø
(f) Answer: We likewise say among Mailos [of Kodshim over Terumah] "after Ha'arev Shemesh, he may eat Terumah [even if he is still Mechusar Kipurim", which we learn from verses in Yevamos (74b). This shows that it means a Maileh mid'Oraisa!
åäà ã÷àîø äëà éöàå òöéí ùàéï î÷áìéï èåîàä
(g) Implied question: It says here "this excludes wood, which does not receive Tum'ah"! (Since veha'Basar includes it, it receives Tum'ah due to Chibas ha'Kodesh!)
(áòöé) [ö"ì áùàø - áøëú äæáç] òöéí ÷àîø åìà áòöé äîòøëä
(h) Answer: That refers to other wood, but not wood of the Ma'arachah.
åà''ú îðéï ìðå ìøáåú òöéí ìèåîàä îåäáùø îàçø ãéù ìäå ôãéåï îï äúåøä àôéìå áúø ãùôéðäå ìâéæøé ëãîùîò áøéù äîðçåú åäðñëéí (ì÷îï ãó ÷à.) ìøáðï ãôìéâé òìéä ãøáé
(i) Implied question: What is our source to include wood for Tum'ah from "veha'Basar", since it has Pidyon mid'Oraisa even after he smoothed them into logs, like it connotes below (101a) according to Rabanan who argue with Rebbi?
ãìøáé åãàé ðéçà ãçùéá ìäå ÷øáï âîåø
1. According to Rebbi, surely it is fine. He considers [wood] a full Korban!
åé''ì ãääéà ãîøáé òöéí áëì î÷åí äééðå ìøáé
(j) Answer: Everywhere that we include wood, it is like Rebbi.
å÷öú ÷ùéà îàçø ãçééáéí òì äòöéí îùåí èåîàä àîàé ìà úðé ìäå áôø÷ ùðé ãîòéìä (ãó é.)
(k) Question: Since one is liable for wood due to Tum'ah, why was it not taught in Me'ilah (10a)?
ãúðï ä÷åîõ åäìáåðä åä÷èåøú ëåìí äåëùøå ìéôñì áèáåì éåí åçééáéï òìéäí îùåí ðåúø åèîà åôéâåì àéï áäí
1. A Mishnah teaches that Kometz, Levonah and Ketores, all of them were Huchshar to become Pasul through a Tevul Yom, and one is liable for them for Nosar and Tamei, and Pigul does not apply to them [for nothing else permits them]!
åé''ì áéï ìøáé áéï ìøáðï ìà îöé úðé ãìøáðï ìà îéçééá àòöéí
(l) Answer: Both according to Rebbi and Rabanan, it could not teach this, for according to Rabanan one is not liable for wood;
åìøáé éù áòöéí îùåí ôéâåì ìàçø ùð÷îöå ëëì ãáø ùéù ìå îúéøéï ìàãí àå ìîæáç ëàéáøé òåìä ùãí îúéøï
1. And according to Rebbi Pigul applies to wood, since Kemitzah is done, like everything that has Matirim to people or the Mizbe'ach, like limbs of Olah, which blood permits them.
3) TOSFOS DH Kan b'Chata'os ha'Chitzoniyos v'Kan b'Chata'os ha'Penimiyos
úåñôåú ã"ä [ëàï áçèàåú äçéöåðåú åëàï áçèàåú äôðéîéåú
(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes that all exempt for cooked blood.)
ôøù''é ãáçèàåú äôðéîéåú àéðå òåáø òìéå åèòîà ëîå ùîôøù ì÷îï
(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi): Regarding inner Chata'os he does not transgress. The reason is like it explains below (it says about them "v'Taval... v'Hizah." Since one cannot immerse a finger in congealed blood or sprinkle it, it is not considered blood.)
åìà ðäéøà ãà''ë áçèàåú äôðéîéåú ðîé îùîò ìôé ùéèú øù''é ùàí áùìå öìåì äåàéì åøàåé ìèáéìä åäæàä éäà çééá òìä àí éàëìðå
(b) Rebuttal #1: This is unreasonable. If so, also for inner Chata'os, it connotes according to Rashi that if they cooked it [and it is] clear, since it is proper for Tevilah and Haza'ah, he should be liable for it if it he eats it;
åàéï äñåâéà îåëéç äëé ãàîøéðï ìòéì ëéåï ãîìçéä ðôé÷ ìéä îúåøú ãí åìà éúçééá òìéå
1. The Sugya proves unlike this. We say above that since he salted it, it loses the status of blood, and he is not liable for it!
åòåã ãøáà ãéãéä àîø àôéìå áçèàåú äôðéîéåú åàëìå çééá åîùîò ìôé' øù''é ãøáà ìéú ìéä ãæòéøé åìòéì ÷àîø éúéá øáà å÷àîø ìäà ùîòúà îùîò ãñáéøà ìøáà ëæòéøé
(c) Rebuttal #2: Rava himself said that even for inner Chata'os, if he ate it he is liable, and according to Rashi it connotes that Rava does not hold like Ze'iri, and above it says that Rava sat and said this teaching. This connotes that Rava holds like Ze'iri!
ìëï ð''ì ãáæòéøé (äééðå ááùìå áàåø ë''ò ìà ôìéâé ãàéðå( [ö"ì ìà ôìéâé ãìëå"ò äéëà ãáìùå -ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã] àéðå òåáø òìéå
(d) Explanation #2: It seems that they do not argue about Ze'iri's law. All agree that when he cooked it, one does not transgress for it;
åäà ãîçì÷ äëà áéï çèàåú äôðéîéåú ìçéöåðéåú ÷àé à÷ôàå áçîä]
1. This that we distinguish here between inner and outer Chata'os refers to when he hardened it in the sun.
4) TOSFOS DH Dam she'Bishlo Eino Over Alav
úåñôåú ã"ä ãí ùáéùìå àéðå òåáø òìéå
(SUMMARY: Tosfos supports this from a Mishnah.)
[åäééðå] äà ãúðï áô' ëì äáùø (çåìéï ãó ÷è. åùí) äìá ÷åøòå åîåöéà àú ãîå ìà ÷øòå àéðå òåáø òìéå [ãîééøé àçø áéùåìå]
(a) Explanation: This is like a Mishnah in Chulin (109a) teaches "one tears the heart and removes the blood. If he did not tear it, he does not transgress for it", which discusses after it is cooked.
5) TOSFOS DH Dam she'Malcho Eino Over Alav (This starts a new Dibur according to the Shitah Mekubetzes and Tzon Kodoshim)
úåñôåú ã"ä [ö"ì ãí ùîìçå àéðå òåáø òìéå - æä ãéáåø çãù ìôé äùéèä î÷åáöú åäöàï ÷ãùéí]
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this is because it is as if it was cooked.)
îãîééúé äðê úøé îéìé áäãé äããé ãí ùáéùìå åãí ùîìçå îùîò ãúøååééäå çã èòîà ëãôé' á÷åðèøñ ãîìéç ëøåúç
(a) Inference: It brings these two teachings together, blood that he cooked and blood that he salted. This connotes that both of them are for the same reason, like Rashi explained, that salting is like Rose'ach (boiling hot);
ãìà çééáä úåøä àìà ãáø äøàåé ìëôøä åëéåï ãáéùìå àå îìçå ðô÷à ìéä îúåøú ãí
1. The Torah obligates only for something proper for Kaparah. Since he cooked or salted it, it lost the status of blood.
åîùîò äëà ãñúí îìéçä ã÷ãùéí äééðå ãàéï ðàëìéï îçîú îìçï ãäàé ãîìéç ëøåúç äééðå ãàéï ðàëì îçîú îìçå ëãôøéùéú áô' ëì äáùø (ùí ãó ÷éá.)
(b) Inference: Here it connotes that Stam salting of Kodshim is so that it is not eaten due to its salt, for this law that "salting is like boiling hot" is when it is not eaten due to its salt, like I explained in Chulin (112a);
åàñúí îìéçä ã÷ãùéí äåà ããéé÷ äëà äà ìàå äëé äåä àîéðà ãí ìéáòé îìç ëéåï ãîìçéä ðô÷à ìéä îúåøú ãí ãàîø æòéøé ãí ùîìçå åëå' åáñîåê àîøéðï åëï ì÷ãéøä
1. Regarding Stam salting of Kodshim he infers here that if not for this (that salting is like boiling hot), one might have thought that blood requires salt. Since he salted it, it lost the status of blood, for Ze'iri taught that if blood was salted..., and below we say "the same applies to a pot."
ìôéëê îã÷ã÷ ø''ú îëàï ãîìéçä ì÷ãøä áàéï ðàëì îçîú îìçå ñâé åìà ëîå ùîôøùéí ëîå ùàãí îåìç ìäöðéò åëîìéç ìöåøê òéáåã àå ëãáòé ìéä ìàåøçà
(c) Inference: Therefore, R. Tam deduced from here that salting for a pot, it suffices if it is not eaten due to its salt, unlike [others] explain that it is [more,] like a person salts to store, or salting for tanning, or like one who needs for the road (to last a long time).
åáôø÷ ëì äáùø (âí æä ùí) (ôéøùúé) [ö"ì ôéøù øù"é] âáé àéðå ðàëì îçîú îìçå [ö"ì äééðå ãìà çæé ìàëéìä áìà äãçä - öàï ÷ãùéí]
(d) Reference: In Chulin (112a), Rashi explained regarding "it is not eaten due to its salt" that it is not proper to eat without rinsing.
6) TOSFOS DH Yiten Bo Ta'am k'Vinah
úåñôåú ã"ä éúï áå èòí ëáéðä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the similarity to Binah.)
(äééðå ãìà çæé ìàëéìä áìà äãçä - öàï ÷ãùéí îåç÷å) ëîå ùäáéðä îú÷ðú äàãí
(a) Explanation: This is like understanding fixes a person.
7) TOSFOS DH v'Chen li'Kederah Garsinan
úåñôåú ã"ä åëï ì÷ãéøä âøñé'
(SUMMARY: Tosfos brings an alternative text.)
åáñôø øáéðå âøùí ëúåá [åëï ìöìé] åëï ôé' øáéðå çððàì áô''÷ ãçåìéï (ãó éã.) âáé àñåøä (áäðàä) [ö"ì áàëéìä] ìéåîà:
(a) Alternative text: In R. Gershom's text it is written "and similarly [one must salt] for roasting", and so R. Chananel explained in Chulin (14a) about [an animal was slaughtered on Shabbos] it is Asur to eat it that day [for one may not salt it. Likewise, one must salt before roasting, lest some blood remain in the meat.]
21b----------------------------------------21b
8) TOSFOS DH b'Lishkas ha'Melach she'Sham Molchin Oros Kodshim
úåñôåú ã"ä áìùëú äîìç ùùí îåìçéï òåøåú ÷ãùéí
(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with the Mishnah in Midos.)
úéîä ãáîñëú îãåú (ô''ä î''â) ãçùéá ùù ìùëåú ùáòæøä ÷úðé ìùëú äîìç ùùí äéå ðåúðéï îìç ì÷øáï ìùëú äôøåä ùùí äéå îåìçéí òåøåú ÷ãùéí
(a) Question: In Midos (5:3), which lists five chambers in the Azarah, it teaches Lishkas ha'Melach, that there they put salt for the Korban; Lishkas ha'Parvah, that there they salted hides of Kodshim!
åé''ì ãäà ã÷àîø äëà ùùí îåìçéï òåøåú ÷ãùéí ìàå ãå÷à àìà ëìåîø îùí äéå ðåèìéï îìç ìîìåç òåøåú ÷ãùéí áìùëú äôøåä
(b) Answer: What it teaches here "there (in Lishkas ha'Melach) they salt hides of Kodshim" is not precise. Rather, from there they took salt to salt hides of Kodshim in Lishkas ha'Parvah;
åäîìç ìà äéä ðúåï áìùëú äîìç ìîìåç ëé àí ìäöðéòå ùí
1. The salt was put in Lishkas ha'Melach only to store it there.
åäà ã÷úðé òìä áîñëú îãåú (âí æä ùí) ùùí äéå ðåúðéï îìç ì÷øáï
(c) Implied question: It teaches about this in Midos there that there (Lishkas ha'Melach) they put salt for the Korban!
äééðå ëìåîø äöðéòå ìöåøê ÷øáðåú ëâåï ìîìåç òåøåú åëì ãáø
(d) Answer: It means that they stored it there for the needs of Korbanos, e.g. to salt hides and all [other needs].
å÷ùéà ìôéøåù æä ãà''ë äéúä îìç áã' î÷åîåú åäëà ìà çùéá àìà ùìùä
(e) Question: According to this Perush, salt was in four places, and here it lists only three! (Lechem Mishneh, Hilchos Isurei Mizbe'ach 5:13 - here it lists places where salt was kept. It does not list where salting was done.)
9) TOSFOS DH veha'Ketores
úåñôåú ã"ä åä÷èøú
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why they did not salt it on the ramp.)
åàí úàîø ìîä îåìçéï àú ä÷èåøú áøàùå ùì îæáç éåúø îòì äëáù åäìà áîæáç äôðéîé äéä ÷øá
(a) Question: Why did they salt the Ketores on top of the Mizbe'ach, rather than on the ramp? It was offered on the inner Mizbe'ach!
åé''ì ìôé ùòì äëáù äéä îúìëìê áãí äàáøéí àáì òì äîæáç äéå îåìçéï ãáø éáù ÷åîõ åìáåðä åîðçú ëäðéí åîðçú ëäï îùéç
(b) Answer: On the ramp it would get dirty from blood of limbs. However, on the Mizbe'ach they salted dry matters - Kometz, Levonah, Minchas Kohanim and Minchas Kohen Mashi'ach;
åàò''ô ùäéå îåìçéï ùí òåìú äòåó äéä îåòè
1. Even though they salted there [also] Olas ha'Of, this was a small amount.
10) TOSFOS DH Chulin Peshita Mai Ba'i Hasam
úåñôåú ã"ä çåìéï ôùéèà îàé áòå äúí
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why Chulin is not there.)
ôé' á÷åðèøñ îùåí ãîëðéñ çåìéï ìòæøä
(a) Explanation (Rashi): [Chulin would not be there, for if so] he enters Chulin b'Azarah;
åîùðé àò''â ãàîø îø éàëìå ùéàëìå òîä çåìéï åúøåîä åôé' á÷åðèøñ ëìåîø çåõ ìòæøä éàëìå çåìéï åúøåîä åéëðéñå åéàëìåä òì äùåáò
1. [The Gemara] answers that even though it was taught "Yochlu" - [when there is little Kodshim], they eat with [the Kodshim] Chulin and Terumah [so that Kodshim will be eaten when they are satiated], Rashi explained that outside the Azarah they eat Chulin and Terumah, and they enter and eat Kodshim when they are satiated.
(åúéîä) [ö"ì åàéîà - ãôåñ åéðéöéä] äåàéì åäðé çåìéï öåøê àëéìú ÷ãùéí äï ìéúéá ìäå îìç (ì÷ãù) [ö"ì ùì ÷ãù - öàï ÷ãùéí]
(b) Question: Since these Chulin are needed for eating Kodshim, they should give to them salt of Hekdesh! (Why does Shmuel forbid?)
åîéäå àôéìå áòæøä îëðéñéí úáìé çåìéï ãúðï áô' ëì äúãéø (æáçéí ãó ö:) åëåìï øùàéï äëäðéí ìúú ìúåëï úáìé çåìéï åúøåîä åðô÷à ìéä áâî' îãëúéá ìîùçä ìâãåìä
(c) Distinction: However, even in the Azarah they bring in Chulin spices, for a Mishnah (Zevachim 90b) teaches "all of them, Kohanim may put in them spices of Chulin and Terumah." The Gemara learns this from "l'Mashchah" - for greatness.
1. Note: There is an implied question. Why didn't the Gemara say that Shmuel taught that we do not give them salt for these Chulin spices?
åùîà áàåúï úáìéï ôùéèà ùéëåì ìéúï îìç ùì ÷åãù ëîå á÷ãùéí òöîï
(d) Answer: Perhaps those spices it is obvious that one may put Kodesh salt in them, like Kodshim themselves.
11) TOSFOS DH Talmud Lomar Bris Melach Olam Hu
úåñôåú ã"ä ú''ì áøéú îìç òåìí äåà
(SUMMARY: Tosfos brings an alternative text.)
ø''ú âåøñ îìç áøéú ëãôøéùéú ìòéì (ãó éè:)
(a) Alternative text: R. Tam's text says Melach Bris, like I explained above (19b).
12) TOSFOS DH Kol Kohen she'Shokel Eino Chotei
úåñôåú ã"ä ëì ëäï ùùå÷ì àéðå çåèà
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how the two opinions expound.)
ìáï áåëøé àôéìå ìåéí ôèåøéí ëîå ëäðéí ëãôøéù èòîà áîñëú ù÷ìéí ëì äòåáø òì äô÷åãéí åùáè ìåé ìà ðô÷ã
(a) Explanation: According to Ben Buchri, even Leviyim are exempt, just like Kohanim, like it explains the reason in Maseches Shekalim - "Kol ha'Over Al ha'Pekudim", and Shevet Levi was not counted (with the rest of Yisrael);
àáì øáï éåçðï áï æëàé ãøéù ëì äòåáø òåáø áéí ñåó
1. However, R. Yochanan ben Zakai expounds "Kol ha'Over" - that he crossed the Yam Suf.
àó òì âá ãëúéá áôøùú àìä ô÷åãé îàú ëëø åàìó (úùòä) [ö"ì åúùò"ä - ùéèä î÷åáöú]
(b) Implied question: It is written in Parshas Eleh Pekudei "Me'as Kikar and 775 [Shekalim]! (This is a half Shekel for every Yisrael counted, excluding the Leviyim!)
äééðå ìúøåîú äàãðéí ãùìù úøåîåú äéå ëãîôøù á÷åðèøñ áôøùú ëé úùà åáàåúä ùì äàãðéí ìà äéä ùáè ìåé àáì áàåúä ùì öåøê ÷øáðåú äéå
(c) Answer: That was the donations for the Adanim. There were three Terumos (donations for the Mishkan), like Rashi explained in Parshas Ki Sisa, and Shevet Levi was not [commanded to give] in the [Terumah] for the Adanim. However, they were in the Terumah for the need of Korbanos.
åäùúà ðéçà èôé äà ãëúéá ëì äòåáø áéí ñåó [îùîò] (òì äô÷åãéí ãäà) [åäà] ãëúéá òì äô÷åãéí îùåí úøåîú àãðéí
(d) Support: Now [the Drashos are resolved] better. What is written "Kol ha'Over" connotes through Yam Suf. It is written "Al ha'Pekudim" due to the Terumah for the Adanim.
åîéäå áìà''ä éù ìôøù ëì äòåáø òì äô÷åãéí ùðô÷ãå áéï ìáãí áéï òí éùøàì
(e) Disclaimer: [Even] without this we can explain "Kol ha'Over Al ha'Pekudim" that they were counted, whether by themselves or with Am Yisrael.
13) TOSFOS DH sheha'Kohanim Dorshin Mikra Zeh l'Atzman
úåñôåú ã"ä ùäëäðéí ãåøùéï î÷øà æä ìòöîï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos infers that R. Yochanan ben Zakai was not a Kohen.)
îùîò ãøáï éåçðï áï æëàé ìà äéä ëäï
(a) Inference: R. Yochanan ben Zakai was not a Kohen. (He said "for themselves", and not "for ourselves.")
åäà ãúðéà áñéôøé âáé ôøä ùàîø øáï éåçðï áï æëàé ìúìîéãéå îä ùòùå åùøúå éãé ùëçúé
(b) Implied question - Citation (Sifri, regarding Parah Adumah): R. Yochanan ben Zakai told his Talmidim "what my hands did and served, I forgot"!
ìàå ãäåà òöîå [ö"ì òùäå - áàøåú äîéí] ÷àîø àìà ëìåîø ò''ô äåøàúå
(c) Answer: He did not refer to what he himself did, rather, what [Kohanim] did according to his Hora'ah.
åäà ãîñ÷éðï äúí åéù àåîøéí äéìì äéä àìà ùìà äéä éëåì ìåîø îä ùòùå åùøúå éãé
(d) Implied question: We conclude there "and some say that it was Hillel, but he could not say "what my hands did and served"! (If it was merely due to his ruling, Hillel could have said also this!)
äééðå èòîà ìôé ùìà ùøôå ôøä áéîéå:
(e) Answer: The reason [why Hillel could not say so] is because they did not burn a Parah in his days.