Implied question: Why doesn't he bring a proof from "Rosho Yihyeh Faru'a" [that a Metzora may not cut his hair]?

Answer: He disagrees with R. Eliezer below, who establishes the verse to discuss (forbid) cutting hair.

Support: Below, he wants to proves from it [an Isur of] wearing Tefilin, like R. Akiva.

Explanation: He argues with Rav Papa, who establishes Rosho Yihyeh Faru'a to discuss [empty of] a hat or turban.

Note: In our text, the Stam Gemara answered the question from Metzora. Perhaps in Tosfos' text, Rav Yosef answers this. Alternatively, the Maharsha would also delete "Amar Rav Yosef" from the Dibur ha'Maskil.

Question: It is not clear whether they argue like this about Rosheichem Al Tifra'u u'Vigdeichem Lo Sifromu (the verse said to Aharon and his sons after Nadav and Avihu died).

Above, we bring this verse to teach about an Avel cutting his hair, but not about a Metzora. This connotes that he holds like R. Akiva, and argues with R. Eliezer, like I explained above.

[Or,] perhaps R. Akiva does not argue with R. Eliezer, [who says that] Pri'as Rosh refers to growing hair, both regarding a Metzora and an Avel. R. Akiva expounds both of them. (He also expounds to forbid wearing Tefilin or a hat.)

Implied question: If so, why didn't we bring [Rosho Yihyeh Faru'a] to teach about a Metzora [cutting his hair]?

Answer: This is because a Beraisa explicitly teaches this.

Implied question: At the beginning of our Sugya, we bring "but he does not conduct his Avelus during the festival." We do not bring the Mishnah below (19a), rather, the verse v'Samachta! (This is unlike our answer, that we would rather bring a Beraisa than a verse!)

Answer: We needed to explain how [the Tana of] the Mishnah knew that he does not conduct his Avelus during the festival;

However, it seemed obvious to him that Rosho Yihyeh Faru'a discusses growing his hair, so he preferred to bring the Beraisa.

Explanation: ["He'anek Dom"] connotes silence from greeting with Shalom, and below we learn also Talmud Torah from this verse.

Implied question: Why did Yechezkeil conduct Avelus regarding "He'anek Dom", but not regarding all other matters?

Answer: He needed to show some ways in which he was an Avel. It was only a parable to observe laws of Avelus.

Implied question: Above, we expound this to teach Atifas ha'Rosh (covering the head until the mustache)!

Answer #1: Perhaps this connotes both of them.

Answer #2: We expound [here that he is silent] because it says Shefam, and not Safah.

Explanation: This is after he immersed due to Keri (semen that he emitted during the Bi'ah). He must immerse due to Keri;

Observation: In Berachos 26a, R. Yehudah connotes that a Ba'al Keri need not immerse for Divrei Torah, if it will not be Metaher him;

Citation (26a): If a woman had relations and saw blood, or a Ba'al Keri saw Zivah, they must immerse. R. Yehudah exempts them [for it will not remove Tum'as Nidah or Zav].

Implied question: According to R. Yehudah, here, we discuss without Tevilah [for we forbid a Ba'al Keri]!

Answer: We must say that he discusses the Seifa of this Beraisa in Berachos (22a);

R. Yehudah says that he may learn Hilchos Derech Eretz [without immersing].

Suggestion: Also R. Yehudah could obligate a Bo'el Nidah to immerse, just like a regular Ba'al Keri!

Rejection: A Ba'al Keri who later saw Zivah, even though he was initially obligated, R. Yehudah exempts him. All the more so he exempts a Bo'el Nidah (who was not initially obligated)!

Question: However, it seems that R. Yehudah and Rabanan argue only about these Tum'os that resemble Keri, i.e. the Tum'ah exudes from his body;

R. Yehudah agrees about Tum'as Mes along with Keri, that he must immerse.

If so, he agrees about Bo'el Nidah, for it is not considered a Tum'ah that exudes from his body!

Strengthening of Question: Even the one who wanted to say (in Pesachim 68a and Yoma 6a) that a Bo'el Nidah is expelled from two Machanos (i.e. even Machaneh Levi), like a Ba'al Keri, it is not considered a Tum'ah that exudes from his body, and also R. Yehudah obligates Tevilah for Divrei Torah.

Answer: [Another] Tosfos explained that since Tum'as Bo'el Nidah [normally] comes through Keri, R. Yehudah agrees that he needs Tevilah.

Question: In the Rav's (Tosfos' Rebbi's) text, this was not written. The Rav asked why the Gemara did not ask about this.

Answer (Tosfos' Rebbi): We already brought this Beraisa above (at the top of this Amud) regarding cutting hair. (It teaches also about laundering.)

Question (Tosfos' Rebbi): Below (Amud B), we asked about Melachah, and brought [to answer this] a Beraisa taught above (on this Amud) "they may be hired"! (Even though the Beraisa was already taught, we asked and brought it again!)

Answer (Tosfos' Rebbi): Along with Metzora, which we [asked and] left unresolved, we asked also about Menudah (even though it was taught in the Beraisa above) and brought the above Beraisa.

Question: Rather than ask about bathing, why didn't we ask about anointing?

Source: There (Ta'anis 13a), we discuss wearing shoes and doing Melachah. The Beraisa does not mean [that also a Menudah and Avel may not do] Melachah, for a Menudah may do Melachah. (We proved this above from a Beraisa that says that he is "Niskar".)

Rather, [the rest] refers to wearing shoes. (Also they are forbidden.)

Pesak: There (Ta'anis 13a), we conclude that an Avel may not bathe in hot or cold water, but washing his face, hands and feet is forbidden in hot water and permitted in cold water;

Even any amount of anointing is forbidden.

Question (Tosfos' Rebbi): Why are Tish'ah b'Av and Yom Kipur different? We forbid washing even the fingers?

Yoma 78a connotes like this. It says that they bring a cloth [and wet it the day before. On Tish'ah b'Av he may put it on his face, hands and feet. On Yom Kipur he may put it on his eyes. I.e. he may not wet his finger, and put his finger on his eyes!]

We learn both of them from anointing! We learn Avelus from "v'Al Tasochi Shemen", and Yom Kipur from "v'Soch Lo Sachti"!

Answer (Rashbam): In Ta'anis, we conclude that an Avel may wash his face, hands and feet in cold water. The same applies to Tish'ah b'Av and Yom Kipur.

Question: Why doesn't the Sugya in Ta'anis bring the law of [wetting] a cloth...?

R. Tam's opinion: On Tish'ah b'Av and Yom Kipur, one may not wash at all, except for his hands in the morning [after sleeping at night].

They are considered like filthy from mud and excrement, since one may not touch his mouth or eyes [before washing], due to [the Ru'ach Ra'ah on them, which is] a princess. (It leaves only through washing.)

Explanation: This means that it does not refer to wearing shoes, rather, to bathing;

Here (when Rav Yosef tries to prove that it forbids a Menudah and Avel to wear shoes), we reject this (perhaps it forbids them to bathe). There (above, when he tries to prove that it forbids them to bathe), we reject this (perhaps it forbids them to wear shoes).

It cannot refer to doing Melachah, like I explained above (for a Menudah may do Melachah).

Question: Why don't we learn from R. Eliezer, in Bava Metzi'a (59b), who tore his clothes and removed his shoes [when he realized that he was Menudah]?

Answer #1: Perhaps he was stringent on himself (more than the Halachah requires).

Answer #2: Perhaps he was in doubt, just like we are in doubt!

Explanation: Regarding all the above questions, we did not bring from Bnei [Yisrael in the] Midbar, for we do not know how they conducted. However, surely they had relations, for they reproduced.

Note: What is the proof that they reproduced after they were like Menudim? Every man's wife became pregnant with a male after Matan Torah (Shabbos Sof 89a, and Rashi), before the Nizuf due to the Egel! This accounts for all the men counted at the end of the 40 years! Indeed, most Shevatim had slightly more men in the latter census than in the former. Also, 24,000 many in the plague after the episode with Zimri, and even more were executed (Rashi Bamidbar 25:5). This could be due to men who were not in the first census, for they left Mitzrayim below 20 years old! Perhaps no girls were born in the Midbar; the men born after Matan Torah married women born in Mitzrayim. However, Rashi (Devarim 2:16) says that the Nizuf was until all those counted died out, i.e. on Tish'ah b'Av in the 40th year It seems that Moshe said all of Parshas Devarim on Rosh Chodesh Shevat (Devarim 1:3), less than six months later, which is too soon to conceive children. In the stipulation with Benei Gad and Benei Reuven (Devarim 3:19), he says that their children will stay in Gilad. It seems that they already had children. Moshe rebuked them for mentioning their flocks before their children (Rashi Matos 32:16, from Tanchuma 7)! We find that Miryam and Aharon had relations after the Leshon ha'Ra about Moshe (Rashi Bamidbar 12:4, from Tanchuma Tzav 13). Even if one will say that Shevet Levi was not Nazuf, Miryam's husband (Kalev) was not a Levi!

Also below, regarding sending Korbanos, perhaps we can prove from the verses [that they sent Korbanos].

Explanation: This refers to Yemei Sifro. Above (7b), Tana'im argue about during the days that he is Muchlat.

Support: We find like this regarding "an Avel may not wear Tefilin." This is not all the days of Avelus. It is only on the first day, and [Tana'im argue about] the second day, below (21a).

Opinion #1 (Rashi): V'Acharei Taharaso refers to seven days [until the latter] Haza'ah to be Metaher from Tum'as Mes. Yesapro Lo alludes to Yemei Sifro. This is like another matter taught by the way;

"Uv'Yom Bo'u" - when a Kohen Hedyot comes to serve [the first time], he brings Asiris ha'Eifah (a Minchah). "V'Chataso" is like purification and his Kedushah to serve. These are two separate matters.

Question: Why didn't he explain that it refers to the Kohen Gadol?

Answer #1: The verse discusses a Kohen Hedyot. It says [above] "he will become Tamei only for a father or mother..." A Kohen Gadol does not become Tamei for a father or mother.

Rashi did not want to explain like we say in Kidushin (78b), that the Reisha discusses a Kohen Gadol, and the Seifa discusses a Kohen Hedyot. (I.e. and here, the Reisha ("he will become Tamei...") discusses a Kohen Hedyot, and the Seifa, regarding Asiris ha'Eifah, discusses a Kohen Gadol.)

Answer #2: Also, this would not teach anything [new]. However, (if it discusses a Kohen Hedyot, this is a Chidush,) for the Torah did not explicitly write the Chinuch of a Kohen Hedyot (the Korban he brings on the first day he comes to serve).

Question #1: Since it teaches separate matters, why does R. Shimon say that "b'Vo'u" teaches that he offers [only] when he is proper (permitted) to enter?

Question #2: In Pesachim (62a), we say that an Arel or Tamei may send all Korbanos [except for Pesach, even though he may not enter the Mikdash]!

Question #3: Our Gemara connotes that it discusses only a Metzora. We brought the Beraisa regarding the question of whether a Metzora may send Korbanos!

Opinion #2 (Tosfos): R. Shimon comes to exclude a Metzora. R. Yehudah expounds "b'Yom Bo'u" to mean his inaugural day of Avodah;

R. Shimon expounds "b'Yom Bo'u" to discuss what was taught above, i.e. a Metzora. It does not discuss Asiris ha'Eifah;

Rather, it teaches about a Metzora, whom the verse discusses, when he becomes Tahor and enters the Azarah, i.e. after Yemei Sifro. Then, he offers his Chatas or his other Korbanos.

Opinion #3 (Another Tosfos): An Arel or Tamei may send their Korbanos, i.e. one who is Tamei from a Sheretz, but not one whose Tum'ah exudes from his body.

Question (the other Tosfos): In Megilah (8a), it seems that '"mi'Zovo", but not from his Tzara'as', teaches that one brings a Korban after Taharah from being a Zav, even if he is still a Metzora!

This is difficult also for what I explained above [that a Metzora offers his Korbanos only after Yemei Sifro].

Answer (the other Tosfos): There (Megilah 8a) we do not discuss Korbanos. Rather, he is Tahor from the law of Mishkav u'Moshav [of a Zav], which is more stringent than that of a Metzora.

Question: This requires investigation, for in Zevachim (74b) and Gitin (28b), some laws of Semichah are explicit, that the owner must do it;

If so, a Tamei may not bring Korbanos!