Question (Ri): What is his source that this Ohel is twined linen? Perhaps it was the curtains of [Notzah of] goats! We find explicitly that that was called Ohel - "Yeri'os Izim l'Ohel Al ha'Mishkan"!

Strengthening of question: The simple meaning of the verse connotes like this. "Va'Yifros (he spread) Es ha'Ohel", i.e. the curtains of goats, "Al ha'Mishkan", i.e. [on] the twined linen [curtains], like it says "v'Es ha'Mishkan Ta'aseh Eser Yeri'os Shesh Mashzar"!

Answer: [R. Elazar] derives this, for the verse is written regarding erection of the Mishkan, and it listed above in the order of erecting it that first [Moshe] put the sockets, and then the boards, and it says after the boards "va'Yifros Es ha'Ohel";

Inference: These are the lower curtains of twined linen, which are the first thing spread [over the interior of the Mishkan].

Question: Why don't we learn from this, that "Mishkan" is the curtains of twined linen, like it says "v'Es ha'Mishkan Ta'aseh [Eser Yeri'os Shesh Mashzar]", and Mishkan is called Ohel, like it says "Es Mishkan Ohel Mo'ed"?

Answer: Perhaps we rely on this verse [to know that linen is called Ohel].

Implied question: We say that every Ohel (not only of linen) over an open [cubic] Tefach brings Tum'ah!

Answer: We learn this from a Kal v'Chomer from Metzora, like the Sifri learns and like Rashi explained.

Question: How can we learn? We should say Dayo (it suffices) to be like a Metzora, to be Metamei only Tum'as Erev (but not for seven days), and to be Metamei only standing or sitting, but not passing through!

It was taught in Nega'im (Mishnah 13:7) and Tosefta (7:5), and it is brought in Kidushin (33b), that if a Tamei (Metzora) sits under a tree and a Tahor passes under, he becomes Tamei...

Note: The texts of these three sources are different. The Mishnah continues "if a Tahor stands under a tree and a Tamei passes, [the former remains] Tahor. Tosfos understands all of them to mean that the Metzora is Metamei only if he is stationary.

Answer: (It is not a Kal v'Chomer.) It is a mere Giluy Milsa from the Kal v'Chomer from Metzora that we should not learn [a Gezeirah Shavah] "Ohel-Ohel" from the Mishkan to exclude, that other Ohalim not of linen do not bring Tum'ah. (Really, all Ohalim bring Tum'ah);

We learn from the Mishkan only regarding that it itself becoming Tamei, even though it is attached. This is only for linen, but not for other things that come from trees...

And [we learn from the Mishkan to exclude] an Ohel not made by man, according to R. Yehudah (Sukah 21a). We cannot learn from Metzora, and we do not find a verse to exclude or include an Ohel not made by man.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [We should say that] even a tent of wood is called Ohel.

Question (Riva): Walls are not called Ohel. Only the cover above is called Ohel!

Explanation #2 (Riva): [We suggest that] just like there (in the Mishkan), boards with linen [are called Ohel], also here, Tum'as Ohel [should require] boards with linen.

Implied question: "Ohel-Ohel" includes! (It should include even without boards.)

Answer: That teaches that the threads need not be twined or six-fold, and that we do not require wool and linen together, like there, rather, even linen without wool.

In any case, he asks that [only] boards with linen [should be called Ohel], for a Stam Ohel is the cover with the walls.

Question (Ri): It says [that the curtains of goats] "Yihyeh Saru'ach Al Tzidei ha'Mishkan mi'Zeh umi'Zeh Lechasoso", and it says below (98b) that it was to cover the Amah [height] of the boards [above the sockets, which were not covered by the wool curtains], and there is an opinion [that it was to cover the Amah [height] of the sockets (he holds that wool curtains reached until the sockets, and totally covered the boards above the sockets);

Inference: He holds that the boards are called Mishkan!

Answer: They are called the sides of the Mishkan, but they are not called Mishkan.

Explanation (Rashbam): The reason it needed to include the hide of a Tamei animal is like it teaches in Toras Kohanim;

It says "Tzemer" - I would know [from this] only species of small animals (which do not work) that may be eaten (Tahor species), similar to Tzemer, which is only of sheep. What is the source to include the hide of a small animal that may not be eaten (a Tamei species), a big animal that may be eaten or may not be eaten (a Tamei species), until we include hides of Sheratzim? It says "Oh b'Or".

It seems that it mentioned a big animal that is eaten Agav (along with) the others. It does not need a verse, for in our Sugya we learn regarding Tum'as Ohel every Tahor species from rams.

Explanation (Rashbam): We need to include this because it says "veha'Beged Ki Yihyeh Bo Nega Tzara'as... v'Her'ah El ha'Kohen." This implies that if it did not have a Nega before he showed it to the Kohen, it is Tahor.

Observation: This does not apply a Mes, like we derive below (64a).

Question: What is the source that the verse discusses hide of a Tahor animal?

Answer: Just like here regarding Nega'im it is written "Sak" and one might have thought that just like Sak is [from] a small animal that one may eat, like is proven in Toras Kohanim and below, that Sak comes from goats, also "Ohr" is [of] a small animal that one may eat.

Implied question: In Toras Kohanim it includes even Sak that comes from something Tamei!

Answer (Rav Pores): Even so, one might have thought that hide is equated only to the connotation of Sak, i.e. of goats, but it is not equated to what we include in Sak. Therefore, we need an inclusion.

Suggestion: We should ask that k'Adashah should have Tum'as Mes, from a Kal v'Chomer!

Answer: All Shi'urim are a tradition from Sinai.

Question (Ri): We should learn from [Tum'as] Mes from Sheratzim through a Gezeirah Shavah of Beged and Ohr, like it says below (64a)!

Answer #1 (Ri): The Gezeirah Shavah "Ohel-Ohel" contradicts this. Therefore, we need an inclusion.

Answer #2: The Gezeirah Shavah does not discuss Tum'as Ohel ha'Mes itself, which is attached.

Question #1: We should say that Shesi v'Erev Yochi'ach (refutes this)! It receives Tum'as Tzara'as, but not Tum'as Mes. I can say the same about hide of a Tamei animal...

Question #2: Why do we need a verse regarding Sheratzim for hide of a Tamei animal? We should learn from a Kal v'Chomer from Notzah Shel Izim (goats' hair). It does not receive Tum'as Tzara'as, but it receives Tum'as Sheratzim!

Answer #1: If there were no verse regarding Sheratzim, we could not learn hide of a Tamei animal from a Kal v'Chomer from Tzara'as, not to Sheratzim and not to Ohel ha'Mes, for Shesi v'Erev would be Mochi'ach;

However, now that Tum'as Sheratzim is written, we properly learn from a Kal v'Chomer from Tzara'as, that it receives Tum'as Ohel ha'Mes;

We cannot say that Shesi v'Erev are Yochi'ach, for Shesi v'Erev do not receive Tum'as Sheratzim. Hide of a Tamei animal receives Tum'as Sheratzim, so it can also receive Tum'as Ohel ha'Mes!

Comment - Answer #2 (to Question #1 - Ri): Shesi v'Erev does not disprove (the Kal v'Chomer from Notzah Shel Izim). We make the Kal v'Chomer as follows. Notzah Shel Izim does not receive Tum'as Tzara'as, but it receives Tum'as Ohel ha'Mes, like a Kli made from goats' hair;

Note: This begins a comment from Tosfos Yeshanim on our Tosfos.

Hide of a Tamei animal, which receives Tum'as Tzara'as, all the more so it receives Tum'as Ohel ha'Mes, like Kelim made from it!

Now we cannot say that Shesi v'Erev is Mochi'ach, for it receives Tum'as Tzara'as, but not Tum'as Ohel ha'Mes, for Kelim do not apply to Shesi v'Erev. (Mili d'Shabata - the Torah was Mechadesh that Tum'as Ohel applies to a Kli made from goats' hair. Even though it is attached, it retains the law of a Kli. This does not apply to Shesi v'Erev.

Suggestion: Perhaps anything that comes from a tree is Mochi'ach! It receives Tum'as Tzara'as, but not Tum'as Mes!

Rejection: It receives Tum'as Tzara'as not due to itself, rather, due to the house, for if one covered a house with Zera'im, it says in Chulin (129a) that it receives Tum'as Tzara'as [with the rest of the house], but Notzah or hide receives Tum'ah by itself.

Answer #3 (Maharam): Shesi v'Erev does not disprove (the Kal v'Chomer from Notzah), for Shesi v'Erev does not receive Tum'ah of Mes or of semen. You cannot learn to hide of a Tamei animal, which receives these Tum'os, for it is written regarding Mes and semen "Kol Beged v'Chol Kli Ohr." (Regarding semen, it says so without the word "Kli" - Vayikra 15:17.)

Implied question: Above (28a), when we asked "you cannot learn from Sheratzim [for even k'Adashah is Tamei]", we should say that touching a Mes or semen is Mochi'ach (proves that hide of a Tamei animal receives even Tum'ah that requires a bigger Shi'ur. Therefore, we can learn from Ohel from these!)

Answer #1: [We cannot learn from] all of these, for less than a k'Zayis is Metamei. Touching a bone of a Mes the size of a barley seed [is Metamei]. The Shi'ur for semen is any amount, or Chasimas Pi ha'Amah.

Rebuttal: This [answer] is wrong. You are forced to say that also regarding Ohel, the Shi'ur is a k'Zayis to bring Tum'ah on all the Kelim [in the Ohel] and on themselves;

(A detached Ohel is Mochi'ach, for even hide of a Tamei animal brings Tum'ah, even though a k'Zayis of Tum'ah is needed.) Even what comes from a tree, when it is detached, we hold that it brings Tum'ah! (This shows that it need not resemble the Mishkan.)

Answer #2: One cannot say at all that a detached Ohel is Mochi'ach, since we come to learn only about what is attached, that only what we learn from the Mishkan is Metamei.

Support: We find like this in Menachos (6a) regarding a Tereifah that was once Kosher. We do not learn from a Tereifah that was never Kosher, even through Tzad ha'Shavah. (This ends the comment from Tosfos Yeshanim. The following is the conclusion of the actual Tosfos.)

Question (ha'Sar mi'Kutzi): Below, what was the question "what was the conclusion about Tachash? We should know that it was Tahor, since we need a verse regarding Sheratzim to be Metamei hide of a Tamei animal!

If the Tachash was Tamei, the Torah could have omitted (teaching hide) regarding Sheratzim, and we would learn from a Kal v'Chomer from Tzara'as!

Now we could not say that Shesi v'Erev is Mochi'ach, for Shesi v'Erev does not receive Tum'ah in Ohel ha'Mes. You cannot learn to hide of a Tamei animal, which receives Tum'ah in Ohel ha'Mes, since the Tachash was Tamei!

Answer #1 (ha'Sar mi'Kutzi): We need the verse of Sheratzim so we will not make the Hekesh to Sak [to teach that Tum'as Ohel applies only to Tahor species].

Answer #2: We cannot learn from here that it was Tahor. Even if it was Tamei, it is written regarding Sheratzim. Something that we could learn from a Kal v'Chomer, the Torah toiled to write it.

Answer #2 (to Question #2 (b)) - R. Shimshon, i.e. ha'Sar mi'Kutzi): We cannot learn Sheratzim from a Kal v'Chomer from Tzara'as, since we can ask that Pashut leather Kelim (i.e. they have no receptacle) refute this. They receive Tum'as Tzara'as, but not Tum'as Sheratzim.

Implied question: Why don't we say that it teaches that the Tachash was Tahor?

Answer: It connotes that it comes to teach a needed Halachic ruling.

Question #1 (Ri): Why shouldn't a Beraisa teach what we expound from a verse?!

Question #2: Similarly, [we can question] all [the objections to the answers about what the Beraisa teaches], why shouldn't Rav Yosef teach a Beraisa, just because another Amora or another Beraisa taught it?!

Answer (Ri): We ask as follows. A verse is explicitly written about Tefilin (that they require a Tahor species). If he came to teach this, he should have brought the verse! Rather, you are forced to say that he came to teach something else;

The Drashah "what is permitted to your mouth" was obvious. He need not teach it. (Therefore, we can say that he taught a less "natural" Drashah, without need to give his source that Tefilin requires what is permitted to your mouth. It seems that this is the Maharshal's intent.)

Answer (cont.): [The Gemara] answers that rather, [he teaches about] the boxes. [We ask] that Abaye taught that the Shin...

Explanation: Rav Yosef should have taught like Abaye said, and we would know that Tefilin require hide of a Tahor animal, for the Drashah "what is permitted to your mouth" is obvious.

Answer (cont.): [The Gemara] answers that rather, [he teaches that] one must wrap [the parchments] with their (Tahor animals') hair. [We ask] that also this we know from a tradition from Sinai, for a Beraisa teaches...

Explanation: Since Rav Yosef did not teach in these words "and they are wrapped with their hair", this shows that he came to teach another matter.`

Answer (cont.): [The Gemara] answers that rather, [he teaches that] the straps [must be from a Tahor animal]. [We ask] that R. Yitzchak taught that a tradition from Sinai teaches that the straps must be black Since they must be black, like the boxes, all the more so they must be from a Tahor animal, like the boxes! It is reasonable to be adamant about Taharah more than blackness.

If Rav Yosef came to teach this, he should have taught that they must be black. We would learn two matters from this - blackness and Taharah.

[The Gemara] answers that a tradition teaches that they must be black, but not that they must be from a Tahor animal. We cannot learn Taharah from blackness.

Question (Rashba): If he comes to teach this, why did he mention "hide" in his words? (Pnei Yehoshua - it is because we learn from the hides of the Tachash.)