1)

TOSFOS DH Etzem ki'Se'orah Halachah

úåñôåú ã"ä òöí ëùòåøä äìëä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the two sides of the question.)

ãðæéø îâìç òìéå ãî÷øà ìà àúé ëãëúéá òì ëì ðôùåú îú ìà éáà îéãé ãîéèîà ááéàä

(a)

Possibility #1: A Nazir shaves for it (a bone the size of a barley seed. This is a tradition,) for we do not learn it from the verse, which says "Al Kol Nafshos Mes Lo Yavo", which refers to something that is Metamei one who enters [the same Ohel]...

åøáéòéú ãí áòé ìàâîåøé îéðéä î÷"å

1.

And [R. Akiva] wanted to learn a Revi'is of blood from it (the bone) from a Kal va'Chomer.

àå ãéìîà øáéòéú ãí äìëä îä ùäåà îèîà áàäì ãìéú ìäå ðôùåú îú ìøáéòéú ãí

(b)

Possibility #2: Or, perhaps a Revi'is of blood is a tradition, that it is Metamei b'Ohel, for (R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua) do not expound "Nafshos Mes" to teach about a Revi'is of blood;

ãàãøáä îùîò ãí çöé ìåâ ùäåà ùéòåø ùúé ðôùåú åäìëä ìîùä îñéðé äåà ãîèîà áàäì áøáéòéú

1.

Just the contrary! [Nafshos Mes] connotes a half Log of blood, which is the Shi'ur of two Mesim. (Even though most people have much more than a Revi'is of blood, a Revi'is is considered the minimal Shi'ur needed for life.) It is a tradition from Moshe from Sinai that a Revi'is is Metamei b'Ohel;

åòöí ëùòåøä ÷ì åçåîø ëìåîø îòöí ëùòåøä áòé ììîåã ùéâìç òì àäì øáéòéú ãí

2.

A bone the size of a barley seed is [the source of] the Kal va'Chomer. I.e. from a bone the size of a barley seed he wanted to learn that a Nazir shaves for Tum'as Ohel of a Revi'is of blood.

åàéï ãðéï ÷ì åçåîø îäìëä ôé' îëç çåîø ùäåà äìëä ìîùä îñéðé ìà ðòùä ÷ì åçåîø

(c)

Explanation: "We do not learn a Kal va'Chomer from a tradition" means that from the strength of the stringency, which is a tradition from Moshe from Sinai, we cannot make a Kal va'Chomer.

ú"ù øáéòéú ãí ÷ì åçåîø åòöí ëùòåøä äìëä.

1.

The Gemara resolves [the question from a Beraisa that says that] a Revi'is of blood is [the source of] the Kal va'Chomer, and a bone the size of a barley seed is the tradition.

2)

TOSFOS DH Megalchin u'Mevi'in Korban Tum'ah v'Korban Taharah v'Omer v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä îâìçéï åîáéàéï ÷øáï èåîàä å÷øáï èäøä åàåîø ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that he need not say this.)

ìàå ãå÷à ð÷è åàåîø àìà æä é÷øá ìùí îé ùäåà åæä é÷øá ìùí îé ùäåà.

(a)

Explanation: It is not precise that he must say so. Rather, this [Korban] is offered for whoever [is obligated to bring it], and this is offered for whoever [needs to bring it].

3)

TOSFOS DH b'Omer Ra'isi she'Nizrekah Tum'ah Beineichem

úåñôåú ã"ä áàåîø øàéúé ùðæø÷ä èåîàä áéðéëí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this is Safek Tum'ah in Reshus ha'Yachid.)

åäåà òåîã îøçå÷ ãäåé ñô÷ èåîàä áøùåú äéçéã

(a)

Explanation: [The one who saw the Tum'ah thrown] was standing far away, so this was Safek Tum'ah in Reshus ha'Yachid. (If he was nearby, there were three together, so it would be Safek Tum'ah in Reshus ha'Rabim, which is Tahor.)

åàí úàîø àí ëï éáéà ëì àçã ÷øáï èåîàä åãàé ãëì ñô÷ èåîàä áøùåú äéçéã ùåøôéï òìéä [úøåîä]

(b)

Question: If so, each should bring Korban Tum'ah Vadai, for every Safek Tum'ah in Reshus ha'Yachid [is considered Vadai Tamei, and] we burn Terumah due to it!

åéù ìåîø ãìà âîéøé îñåèä àìà ãáø ùàôùø ìäéåú ëñåèä ãàôùø ùðèîàú

(c)

Answer: We learn from Sotah [that Safek Tum'ah in Reshus ha'Yachid is considered Vadai Tamei] only something that is possible, like Sotah. It is possible that she was defiled;

àáì äëà ìà àôùø ìèîàåú ùðéäí ãåãàé àçã èäåø

1.

However, here we cannot be Metamei both of them [Vadai], for surely one of them is Tahor!

åàí úàîø àí ëï îàé ôøéê îòé÷øà åäà ñô÷ èåîàä áøùåú äøáéí äåà ëìåîø åéáéàå ùðéäí ÷øáï èäøä

(d)

Question: If so, what was the question from the beginning "this is Safek Tum'ah in Reshus ha'Rabim", i.e. and both should bring Korban Taharah?

åäà ñô÷ èåîàä áøùåú äøáéí ãîèäøéðï ðîé îñåèä âîøéðï ìä åìà éìôéðï àìà ãáø ùàôùø ìäéåú åäëà áåãàé àçã èîà

1.

Also Safek Tum'ah in Reshus ha'Rabim, which we are Metaher, we learn from Sotah. We learn only something that could be. Here, surely one of them is Tamei!

åéù ìåîø ãñô÷ èåîàä áøùåú äøáéí ìàå îñåèä âîøéðï ìéä àìà ëì çã åçã îå÷îéðï àçæ÷úéä

(e)

Answer: [We have a different source that] Safek Tum'ah in Reshus ha'Rabim is Tahor. We do not learn this from Sotah. Rather, we establish each in his Chazakah;

åéìôéðï ìéä î÷øà ôø÷ ÷îà ãçåìéï (ãó é:) ìäòîéã ëì ãáø àçæ÷úéä

1.

In Chulin (10b), we learn from a verse to establish everything in its Chazakah.

àó òì âá ãåãàé àçã èîà

(f)

Implied question: How can we establish each in his Chazakah? Surely one of them is Tamei!

ëéåï ãìà éãòéðï ìéä

(g)

Answer: Since we do not know [which is Tamei, we can we leave each in his Chazakah].

åàó òì âá ãáôø÷ ÷îà ãçåìéï (â"æ ùí) ìîàé ã÷à ñì÷à ãòúéä ÷àîø äúí äéìëúà âîéøé ìä

(h)

Implied question: In Chulin (9b), in the Havah Amina we said that [Safek Tum'ah in a Reshus ha'Rabim] is a tradition from Moshe from Sinai;

åîùîò äúí ãñô÷ èåîàä áøùåú äøáéí ìàå îùåí çæ÷ä àìà ðâîø îñåèä

1.

It connotes there that it is not due to Chazakah, rather, [we have a tradition] to learn from Sotah!

áîñ÷ðà ìà ÷àé äëé åáî÷åí àçø [áøéù îñëú ðãä] îôåøù áàåøê.

(i)

Answer: This is not the conclusion. Elsewhere (at the beginning of Nidah) it is explained at length.

57b----------------------------------------57b

4)

TOSFOS DH v'Rav Ada bar Ahavah Savar Echad ha'Makif v'Echad ha'Nikaf b'Mashma

úåñôåú ã"ä åøá àãà áø àäáä ñáø àçã äî÷éó åàçã äðé÷ó áîùîò

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the argument of Rav Ada and Rav Huna.)

ôùèéä [ã÷øà] åãàé ìðé÷ó àæäø øçîðà ãäà ôàú øàùëí ëúéá ãäééðå äðé÷ó

(a)

Explanation: The simple meaning of the verse surely warns the Nikaf, for it says "the corners of your heads", i.e. the Nikaf.

åîéäå îã÷àîø ìà ú÷éôå åìà ëúéá ìà úå÷ôå äåñá äìàå âí òì äî÷éó ëãé ìä÷éù î÷éó ìðé÷ó

1.

However, since it says "Lo Sakifu", and did not write 'Lo Sukfu', the Lav was put also on the Makif, in order to equate the Makif to the Nikaf;

ëìåîø ëì äéëà ãðé÷ó áø çéåáà äåà (äâäú áøëú øàù) î÷éó ðîé áø çéåáà äåà

2.

I.e. whenever the Nikaf is liable (if he would transgress, i.e. he is commanded), the Makif is liable.

åääåà ÷èï äåàéì åâåôéä ìàå áø òåðùéï äåà åìà îéçééá î÷éó ìéä ðîé ìà îéçééá åàôé' àéù ùøé ìà÷åôé ì÷èï

i.

Since a minor is not punishable, also one who is Makif him is not liable. Even a man may be Makif a minor.

åàéï ìúîåä îðà ìéä ìäù"ñ ãøá àãà áø àäáä ñáø îåúø ìâãåì ìä÷éó àú ä÷èï

(b)

Question: How does the Gemara know that Rav Ada bar Ahavah holds that an adult may be Makif a minor?

ãîùîò ìéä îã÷àîø ìéä ìøá äåðà åãéãê îàï î÷éó ìäå ãîùîò ìãéãé àôé' âãåì î÷éó ì÷èï àáì ìãéãê îàï î÷éó ìäåï

(c)

Answer: It infers this, since he asked Rav Huna "your [children], who is Makif them?" This implies "I hold that even an adult may be Makif a minor. However, according to you, who is Makif them?"

åäàé ãìèééä

(d)

Implied question: [Since Rav Ada bar Ahavah himself holds that an adult may be Makif a minor], why did he curse him?

äééðå ìôé ñáøúå ãøá äåðà ãàñø ìâãåì ìä÷éó ì÷èï åàîø ìéä ëéåï ãàñøú ìâãåì ìä÷éó ì÷èï âí äàùä àñåøä ìä÷éó ì÷èï

(e)

Answer: This was according to Rav Huna's reasoning, that an adult may not be Makif a minor. [Rav Ada] told him, since you forbid an adult to be Makif a minor, also a woman may not be Makif a minor;

ãìà ñ"ì ìîãøù ìøá àãà ìãøåù ëì ùéùðå áäùçúä éùðå áä÷ôä ìôèåø àùä äî÷ôú àçøéí

1.

Rav Ada does not expound that whoever is commanded about shaving is commanded about Hakafah, to exempt a woman who is Makif others.

åàò"â ãá÷éãåùéï áô' ÷îà (ãó ìä:) ãøùéðï äëé ëì ùéùðå áäùçúä éùðå áä÷ôä ëå' ìôèåø ðùéí äðé÷ôåú

(f)

Implied question: In Kidushin (35b) we expound like this! Whoever is commanded about shaving is commanded about Hakafah, to exempt a woman who is Nikaf!

áääéà ãøùä îåãä øá àãà îùåí ãôùèéä ã÷øà àééøé áðé÷ó

(g)

Answer: Rav Ada agrees about that Drashah, because the simple meaning of the verse discusses the Nikaf;

àáì îä ùãåøù øá äåðà ðîé ìà ú÷éôå àî÷éó îìéùðà ãìà ú÷éôå åî÷éùå ìäùçúú æ÷ï ìôèåø äàùä äî÷ôú àôé' ìâãåì áäà åãàé ôìéâ øá àãà

1.

However, this that Rav Huna expounds that "Lo Sakifu" applies also to the Makif, due to the wording Lo Sakifu (as opposed to Lo Sukfu), and equates it to shaving to exempt a woman who is Makif even an adult, surely Rav Ada argues with this;

ãìéú ìï ìä÷éù ä÷ôä ìäùçúä àìà áîàé ãàééøé ôùèéä ã÷øà ëâåï áðé÷ó

2.

[He holds that] we should equate Hakafah to shaving only for what the simple meaning of the verse discusses, e.g. the Nikaf.

åäùúà ôìéâé áúøúé øá äåðà ñáø ãàùä ùøéà ìä÷éó áéï âãåì áéï ÷èï äåàéì åàéðä áäùçúä àéðä áä÷ôä áéï ìäéåú áä÷ôä ãàééøé áéä ôùèéä ã÷øà áéï ìä÷éó àçøéí

(h)

Consequence: Now, they argue about two matters. Rav Huna holds that a woman may be Makif an adult or minor. Since she is not commanded about shaving, she is not commanded about Hakafah, both regarding being Nikaf, which the simple meaning of the verse discusses, and also regarding being Makif others;

åøá àãà ñáø ãåãàé àùä ôèåøä îìäéåú ðé÷ôú îä÷éùà ãäùçúä ãàééøé áéä ôùèéä ã÷øà

1.

Rav Ada bar Ahavah holds that surely a woman is exempt for being Nikaf, from the Hekesh of shaving, which the simple meaning of the verse discusses;

àáì îìéùðà ãìà ú÷éôå ããøùéðï îéðéä ìçééá âí äî÷éó âí äàùä çééáú áääåà åìà ðôèøä îä÷éùà ãäùçúä ëéåï ãìà àééøé áéä ôùèéä ã÷øà åòåáøú áìàå àí ä÷éôä ìâãåì

2.

However, from the wording Lo Sakifu, which we expound to obligate also the Makif, also a woman is liable for it. She is not exempted from the Hekesh of shaving, since the simple meaning of the verse does not discuss this. She transgresses a Lav if she is Makif an adult.

åôìéâé ðîé á÷èï ãøá äåðà ñáø âãåì äî÷éó àú ä÷èï çééá

(i)

Consequence (cont.): They argue also about a minor. Rav Huna holds that an adult who is Makif a minor is Chayav;

åìà îñúáøà ìéä ìøá äåðà ìîéãøù ãîùåí ãàô÷éä ÷øà áäê ìéùðà ãìà ú÷éôå ãîùîò àî÷éó åàðé÷ó ìîéîø ãäéëà ãðé÷ó ìàå áø çéåáà î÷éó ðîé ôèåø

1.

He holds that it is unreasonable to expound that because the Torah used the expression Lo Sakifu, which connotes the Makif and the Nikaf, therefore when the Nikaf is not commanded, also the Makif is exempt;

ãäééðå ìîéâîø îâáøà òì âáøà ìà îùîò ìéä

i.

I.e. he holds that we do not learn from person to person.

åøá [àãà] ñáø ãìäëé àô÷éä ÷øà áäê ìéùðà ìîéîø äéëà ãðé÷ó ìàå áø çéåáà î÷éó ðîé ôèåø äéìëê âãåì äî÷éó ì÷èï ôèåø

2.

Rav Ada holds that the Torah used this expression to teach that when the Nikaf is not commanded, also the Makif is exempt. Therefore, an adult who is Makif a minor is exempt.

åðøàä ã÷éé"ì ëøá äåðà ãàùä ùøéà ìä÷éó ÷èï åä"ä ìâãåì

(j)

Pesak: We hold like Rav Huna, that a woman may be Makif a minor, and the same applies to an adult.

ãñåâéà ãäù"ñ ëååúéä áôø÷ ÷îà ãááà îöéòà (ãó é:) ã÷àîø îàé áéðééäå àéù ãàîø ìàùä à÷éôé ìé ÷èï

(k)

Source: The Sugya in Bava Metzi'a (10b) is like him. (Some say that Yesh Shali'ach l'Devar Aveirah when the Shali'ach is not commanded, and some say so when the Shali'ach has no choice.) It says that these versions argue about a man who told a woman "be Makif a minor for me";

å÷àîø ãäùìéç ãäééðå äàùä ìàå áú çéåáà äéà àìîà ãàùä îåúøú ìä÷éó ì÷èï ëøá äåðà

1.

It says that the Shali'ach, i.e. the woman, is not commanded. This implies that she may be Makif a minor, like Rav Huna.

åîãð÷è ðîé àùä åìà àéù îùîò ðîé ãàéù äî÷éó ì÷èï çééá åäééðå ðîé ëøá äåðà

2.

Inference: Since it discusses a woman, and not a man, this implies that a man who is Makif a minor is liable. Also this is like Rav Huna.

åäåä îöé ìîéîø äúí ùäàéù àîø ìàùä à÷éôé ìé âãåì ëéåï ãñåâéà àæìà ëøá äåðà

(l)

Implied question: Why didn't it say that they argue about a man who told a woman "be Makif an adult for me"? The Sugya is like Rav Huna [who permits even this]!

àìà äâãåì ìà éàáä ùîåò ìä ùú÷éôðå ëé äåà éúçééá àáì ÷èï ìàå áø îçàä äåà åìàå áø òåðùéï äåà

(m)

Answer: An adult would not consent to let her be Makif him, since he would be liable. However, a minor cannot protest, and he is not punishable.

åà"ú åìøá àãà ãî÷éù î÷éó ìðé÷ó åä"ä ãð÷éù ðé÷ó ìî÷éó åðéîà ëì äéëà ãî÷éó ìàå áø çéåáà ðé÷ó ðîé ôèåø åéäéä îåúø ìäéåú ðé÷ó îï äòåáã ëåëáéí

(n)

Question: According to Rav Ada, who equates Makif to Nikaf, similarly we should equate Nikaf to Makif, and say that whenever the Makif is not liable, also the Nikaf is exempt, and it would be permitted to be Nikaf from a Nochri!

åé"ì ìøá àãà î÷éó ìðé÷ó î÷ùéðï îùåí ãòé÷ø çéåáà ã÷øà àðé÷ó ëúéá ìà ú÷éôå ôàú ãäééðå ôàú ãðé÷ó

(o)

Answer: According to Rav Ada, we equate Makif to Nikaf, because the primary liability of the verse is written regarding the Nikaf. "Lo Sakifu Pe'as [Roshchem]" refers to the sideburns of the Nikaf;

ìîéîø äéëà ãðé÷ó áø çéåáà âí äî÷éó çééá åàé äðé÷ó ìàå áø çéåáà äåà äî÷éó ôèåø

1.

This teaches that whenever the Nikaf is commanded, also the Makif is liable, and if the Nikaf is not commanded, the Makif is exempt;

àáì ëùäðé÷ó áø çéåáà àó àí àéï äî÷éó áø çéåáà àñåø ã÷øà àúé ìà÷åùé î÷éó ãîùúîò îìéùðà ãìà ú÷éôå àðé÷ó ãîùîò îâåôéä ãôùèéä ã÷øà

2.

However, when the Nikaf is commanded, even if the Makif is not liable, it is forbidden, for the verse comes to equate the Makif, which the expression Lo Sakifu connotes, to the Nikaf, which the simple meaning of the verse connotes;

àáì àéï ñáøà ìä÷éù âåôéä ã÷øà ãäééðå äðé÷ó ìî÷éó ãìà îùúîò àìà îìéùðà áòìîà ìà ú÷éôå åìà îâåôéä ã÷øà

i.

However, it is unreasonable to equate the simple meaning of the verse itself, i.e. the Nikaf, to the Makif, which is connoted only from the expression Lo Sakifu, and not from the verse itself.

åúãò ãàí ìà ëï îöåøò àîàé ãçé ìàå ãä÷ôä åäà àôùø ì÷ééí ùúéäí ùé÷éôäå ÷èï åàùä åòåáã ëåëáéí àìà ùîò îéðä ëãôøéùéú

(p)

Proof: If not, why does [Tiglachas] Metzora override the Lav of Hakafah? It is possible to fulfill both of them, if a minor, woman or Nochri shaves him! Rather, this teaches like I explained.

åà"ú åìøá äåðà ãìà î÷éù î÷éó ìðé÷ó åàò"â ãðé÷ó ìàå áø çéåáà äåà îéçééá î÷éó àí ëï äî÷éó àú äòåáã ëåëáéí ìçééá ëîå äî÷éó ì÷èï

(q)

Question: According to Rav Huna, who does not equate the Makif to the Nikaf, and even though the Nikaf is not commanded, the Makif is liable, if so, one who is Makif a Nochri should be liable, just like one who is Makif a minor!

åãåç÷ ìçì÷ îùåí ã÷èï àúé ìëìì çéåá

(r)

Poor answer #1: We distinguish. A minor [is more stringent], because he will come to be obligated.

ãäùúà îéäà ìàå áø çéåáà äåà åèòîà ãøá äåðà ìà úìé áäëé àìà îùåí ãìà î÷éù î÷éó ìðé÷ó

(s)

Objection: Now, he is not obligated! Rav Huna's reason does not depend on this, rather, because he does not equate the Makif to the Nikaf!

åðøàä ìäø"ó ãéù ìåîø äåàéì åëúéá ôàú øàùëí àéùøàì ÷àé ÷øà åìà àòåáã ëåëáéí

(t)

Answer #2 (R. Peretz): Since it says "Pe'as Roshchem", the verse refers to Yisrael, and not to Nochrim.

åö"ò áî÷éó àú äàùä àé îçééá ëîå á÷èï ìøá äåðà.

(u)

Question: This requires investigation, whether one who is Makif a woman is liable, like one who is Makif a minor, according to Rav Huna.

5)

TOSFOS DH l'Fi she'Ne'emar Lo Sakifu...

úåñôåú ã"ä ìôé ùðàîø ìà ú÷éôå...

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that the Havah Amina was that Rosho teaches about Hakafas Kol ha'Rosh.)

÷à ñì÷à ãòúê äùúà ãîï äãéï ìà àéöèøéê ÷øà ìîãçé ìà úòùä ãä÷ôä ãàó ìàå äùåä áëì ããçé (äâäú îäø"á øðùáåøâ)

(a)

Explanation: We are thinking now that according to letter of the law, we do not need a verse to override the Lav of Hakafah, for [the Aseh of Tiglachas Metzora] overrides even a Lav ha'Shavah b'Chol;

àìà ÷î"ì (äâäú îäø"á øðùáåøâ) ãä÷ôú ëì äøàù ùîä ä÷ôä.

1.

Rather, it teaches that Hakafas Kol ha'Rosh is called Hakafah.