תוספות ד"ה תלה

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the text of our Gemara.)

אית ספרים דגרסי אויר עזרה כעזרה דמי או לא


Text #1: There are some Sefarim that have the text, "Is the air of the Azarah like the Azarah or not?"

וקשה דבפרק [כל הפסולין] (זבחים דף לב.) אמר טמא שהכניס ידו לפנים חייב דביאה במקצת שמה ביאה ובפרק כל הפסולין (שם דף לב:) נמי אמר ואי אמרת ביאה במקצת שמה ביאה היכי מעייל ידיה בבהונות משמע דאויר נמי נתקדש


Question #1: This is difficult. In Zevachim (32a), the Gemara says that if an impure person inserted his hand into the Azarah he is liable, as even partially entering the Beis Hamikdash is called entering. The Gemara (32b) then asks that if you will say that partially entering is called entering, how can a Metzora bring his big fingers and toes into the air of the Azarah? This question also implies that the air is holy!

ועוד אי לאו כעזרה דמי א"כ כשמוליך דם ואיברים למזבח יפסל ביוצא


Question #2: Additionally, if the air is unlike the status of the Azarah, when he brings the blood and the limbs to the Mizbe'ach they (and the Korban they are part of) should become invalid, as they have went out of the Azarah!

ונראה כגירסת הספרים דגרסי כי גמירי שהייה היכא דבר השתחואה הוא


Text #2: It appears that the correct text is that of the Sefarim that state, "When do we say one is liable for remaining in the Beis Hamikdash? We say this when the person can technically bow down in the Beis Hamikdash (as opposed to hanging in the air)."



תוספות ד"ה צריך

(SUMMARY: Tosfos clarifies the question and Rava's position.)

בטימא עצמו בשוגג איירי אבל אם היה שרץ במקדש והתרו בו שלא יטמא עצמו בלא שהייה נמי מילקא לקי


Explanation: This is referring to a case where he accidentally became impure. However, if there was a Sheretz in the Beis Hamikdash and he was warned not to become impure, even if he would not remain in the Beis Hamikdash he would receive lashes.

כדמוכח בפרק מי שאמר הריני נזיר (נזיר יז. ושם) דקאמר התם בעי רבא נזיר והוא בבית הקברות מי בעי שהייה או לא וקאמר ה"ד אילימא דקאמר לא תנזור מי בעי שהייה כו'


This is apparent from the Gemara in Nazir (17a) that says that Rava asked the following question regarding a person who vowed to become a Nazir immediately while he was in a cemetery. Does he need to remain in the cemetery to be liable or not? The Gemara there asks regarding this case, what is the case? If he was warned not to make his vow before he did so, does he have to remain there to be liable (etc.)?! [Similarly, it should be clear that if the person was warned not to become impure in the Beis Hamikdash, he should be liable without having to remain.]

ואין לתמוה דהתם בעי רבא אי גמירי שהייה אבראי אבל בפנים למלקות פשיטא ליה דגמירי שהייה


Implied Question: One should not ask that in Nazir (ibid.) Rava's question is whether or not remaining is necessary outside the Beis Hamikdash (regarding Nazir), but in the Beis Hamikdash regarding being liable for lashes he clearly holds that remaining is necessary. (In our Gemara, he is unsure whether or not one must remain in the Beis Hamikdash in order to be liable for lashes. This seems to be a contradiction.)

דהתם בעי את"ל דבפנים גמירי שהייה למלקות בחוץ מהו


Answer #1: This is because the Gemara there is merely asking that if you say one must remain in the Beis Hamikdash to be liable to receive lashes, what is the law regarding remaining outside the Beis Hamikdash (i.e. a Nazir in a cemetery)? (The Gemara does not mean to say Rava clearly holds that one must remain in the Beis Hamikdash in order to be liable to receive lashes.)

ור"ת גרס התם רב אשי דרב אשי בעי לה הכא בסמוך


Answer #2: Rabeinu Tam understands that the text in Nazir reads, "Rav Ashi" as Rav Ashi has a question about this later in our Gemara.



תוספות ד"ה או אין צריך [שהייה למלקות]

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses similarities between the amount of waiting required to transgress Kilayim and being impure in the Beis Hamikdash.)

הכא משמע דלקי אשהייה דלא קמיבעיא ליה אלא אי צריך שהייה כשיעור השתחואה או לא


Observation: The Gemara here implies that one does receive lashes for remaining in the Beis Hamikdash. The only question in the Gemara is whether or not one must stay long enough to bow down in the Beis Hamikdash.

וקשה בפרק בתרא דמכות (דף כא. ושם:) תנן גבי היה לובש כלאים ואמרו לו אל תלבש אל תלבש והוא פושט ולובש חייב על כל אחת ואחת


Question: This is difficult, as in Makos (21b) the Mishnah states that if someone was wearing Kilayim and they said to him not to do so twice, if he keeps taking the clothes off and wearing them he is liable for every time he puts them on.

ואמר רב ביבי בגמרא לא פושט ולובש ממש אלא מכניס ומוציא ידו בבית אונקלי שלו רב אשי אמר אפי' לא שהה אלא כדי לפשוט וללבוש מכלל דרב ביבי לא מחייב בשהייה


Rav Bibi says in the Gemara that this does not mean that he actually takes off the clothes and puts them on again, but rather that he puts his arm in and out of the sleeve. Rav Ashi says that even if he did not wait while wearing the clothes long enough to be able to put them on and take them off, he is liable. This implies that Rav Bibi does not require one to remain in the clothes for awhile to transgress Kilayim. (Does this mean that he also does not require waiting while impure in the Beis Hamikdash in order to transgress this prohibition?)

וי"ל דרב ביבי לא פליג אדרב אשי אלא דלא נחת לאשמועינן חידוש של שהייה אלא לאשמועינן דבהכנסת בית אונקלי חייב אף על פי שאינו לובש כל המלבוש


Answer #1: Rav Bibi is not arguing with Rav Ashi. He did not address the law regarding waiting. Rather, his point was to teach that if someone put his hand in the sleeve of clothing that are Kilayim he is liable, even if he does not put on the entire article of clothing.

א"נ לרב ביבי לא לקי אשהייה משום דהוי לאו שאין בו מעשה והכא איירי למ"ד לאו שאין בו מעשה לוקין עליו


Answer #2: Alternatively, according to Rav Bibi one does not receive lashes for remaining in clothing that is Kilayim being that this is a negative prohibition without an action. Our Gemara is according to the opinion that one does receive lashes for a negative prohibition that does not involve an action.

א"נ איירי לענין איסור מלקות ולא לענין חיוב ורב אשי דפליג עליה התם וחשב שהייה כמעשה כיון דתחילת הלבישה ע"י מעשה


Answer #3: Alternatively, Rav Bibi is referring to receiving lashes for the prohibition of wearing Kilayim, not merely whether or not this action is prohibited. Rav Ashi argues that remaining in the clothes is considered an action, being that he originally did an action to wear the clothes.

והכא אפי' אי לא בעינן שהייה כדי השתחואה מ"מ בעינן כדי יציאה וכניסה אבל בפחות מיכן לא כי היכי דבעינן גבי כלאים כדי פשיטה ולבישה


In our Gemara, even if we do not require remaining for as long as it takes to bow down, we still require the amount of time it takes to exit and enter. However, less than that clearly does not make one liable to receive lashes, just as we require regarding Kilayim that in order to be liable one must wear the clothes (at least) as long as it takes to take them off and wear them.

ונראה דאפי' את"ל דגמירי שהייה כדי השתחואה למלקות במקדש ובנזיר היינו משום דדמו לשהייה דקרבן דגבי מקדש אבל לגבי כלאים פשיטא דלא גמירי דלא שייך התם השתחואה כלל


Answer #4: It appears that even if you will say that we require remaining long enough to bow down in the Beis Hamikdash and for a Nazir in the cemetery in order for them to receive lashes, this is only because it is similar to the law of remaining long enough to have to bring a Korban when impure in the Beis Hamikdash. However, regarding Kilayim it is obvious that we do not derive from this law, as Kilayim has nothing to do with bowing down (in the Beis Hamikdash). (Therefore, establishing an amount of time for Kilayim regarding bowing down is nonsensical.)



תוספות ד"ה טימא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the case of this question.)

צריך לומר דבשעה שטימא עצמו לא ידע שהיה במקדש


Explanation: It must be that when he made himself impure he did not know that he was in the Beis Hamikdash.

דאי ידע וטימא עצמו במזיד אפי' שכח אח"כ לא מיחייב קרבן דהא לא שב מידיעתו הוה


If he knew and he made himself impure on purpose, even if he forgot afterwards he will not be liable to bring a Korban. This is because he would not have done things differently due to his knowledge. (In order to bring a Korban, one must not have wanted to do the sin and regretted his actions when he realized he sinned. If he sins on purpose and then remember he did so, he cannot bring a Korban.)

ואי למלקות בעי צריך לומר דלא התרו בו אלא לאחר שטימא עצמו דאם התרו בו קודם לא בעי שהייה כדפי' לעיל


If he is asking regarding whether or not he receives lashes, it must be that the warning was only given to him after he made himself impure. If they warned him before he made himself impure he would not require remaining in the Beis Hamikdash, as we explained earlier (TOSFOS DH TZARICH).



תוספות ד"ה נזיר

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the difference between being connected and disconnected from a source of impurity.)

וא"ת והאמר בפ' ג' מינין (נזיר דף מב. ושם) גבי נזיר שהיה מת מונח על כתיפו והושיטו לו מת אחר ונגע בו יכול יהא חייב ת"ל ולא יחלל במי שאינו מחולל יצא זה שמחולל ועומד


Question: The Gemara in Nazir (42a) discusses a Nazir who had a dead man on his shoulder. Another dead man was stretched out to him, and he indeed touched it. One would think he should be liable for becoming impure again. This is why the Pasuk says, "And he should not make unholy" implying that the prohibition only applies to someone who is not yet unholy. This excludes someone who is already unholy.

ופריך מדתנן היה מטמא ואמרו לו אל תטמא אל תטמא חייב על כל אחת ואחת ומשני כאן בחיבורין כאן שלא בחיבורין משמע כל זמן שלא פירש מן המת אינו חייב במה שהושיטו לו מת אחר משום דאין מוסיף טומאה על טומאה


The Gemara there asks from the Mishnah which says that if a Nazir was becoming impure, and people told him not to, he is liable for every time he made himself impure. (This seemingly contradicts the Gemara's previous statement!) The Gemara answers that there is a difference whether one is connected to the impurity or not. This implies that as long as the Nazir has not separated himself from holding the dead person, he is not liable for touching another dead person. This is because he is not adding any impurity.

וכל זמן שמונח טומאה על כתיפו מי שנוגע בו טמא טומאת ז' ולא מיחייב אלא שלא בחיבורין שכבר פירש מן הראשון דמי שהיה אז נוגע בו לא היה טמא אלא טומאת ערב


As long as the impurity is on his shoulder, whoever touches him becomes impure for seven days. He only becomes liable again if he is disconnected from the impurity, as he has already separated himself from the source of his original impurity. Once he is separated, someone who touches him is only impure for one day.

לכך כשחוזר ונוגע בו חייב שהוסיף טומאה בנגיעה זו דמי שהיה נוגע בו בשעת נגיעה זו יהיה טמא טומאת ז' וא"כ הכא אמאי ילקה על השהייה כל זמן שלא פירש


Therefore, when he goes back and touches a dead person he is liable, as he has added impurity through this second touching. Now a person who touches him (while he is touching the second dead person) will indeed be impure for seven days. Accordingly, in our Gemara, why should he receive lashes for waiting in the cemetery as long as he has not separated himself from the source of the impurity (i.e. the cemetery)?

וי"ל דהא דפטר ליה כשהושיטו לו מת אחר היינו בשלא הספיק להשליך מת הראשון מעליו לפיכך אינו מוסיף טומאה אבל הכא הוא מוסיף טומאה שבכל שעה הוא מוזהר לפרוש מן הקבר


Answer #1: It is possible to answer that the reason he is exempt when a second dead person was stretched out to him while the first was still on his shoulder is because he did not have time to throw the first dead man off of him. Therefore, he is not considered to be adding impurity. However, here he is adding impurity, as he is warned every minute that he must separate himself from the graves.

ור"ת מפרש דהכא איירי בשנטמא סמוך לחשיכה דבלא פירש נמי מוסיף לו יום אחד ע"י שהייה


Answer #2: Rabeinu Tam explains that here the case is when he became impure close to dark. Even if he does not leave the cemetery, he gains another day of being impure by waiting in the cemetery.

ונראה דההיא דנזיר דמפליג בין בחיבורין בין שלא בחיבורין אתי כמ"ד במסכת שמחות (פ"ד) דאפי' באותו יום שנטמא אינו יכול לחזור ולטמא לפי שמוסיף טומאה בחיבורין כדפרי'


Observation: It appears that the Gemara in Nazir that differentiates between being connected and being disconnected is according to the opinion in Meseches Semachos (ch.4) that even on the day that he became impure he cannot become impure again, as he adds impurity when he touches it.

אבל למאן דשרי התם ליטמא באותו יום עצמו דלא חשיב ליה תוספת טומאה כיון שאינו מוסיף ימים לא אתיא


However, the opinion that says one can become impure on the day that he already became impure, as it is not considered adding impurity because there is no prolonging the amount of days he is impure, is clearly not like the Gemara in Nazir (ibid.).



תוספות ד"ה אי דשהה

(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks two questions on the Gemara's question.)

הק' ר"ת מה בכך אם הוא בר כרת מ"מ איכא נפקותא טובא דהא קיימא לן (מכות דף כג.) חייבי כריתות שלקו נפטרו מידי כריתתן ואם בטל כרת נשאר עליו מיתה


Question #1: Rabeinu Tam asks, why is the Gemara emphasizing that he is liable to receive Kares? There is still a big difference between Kares and death (from Heaven)! The Gemara in Makos (23a) rules that people who are liable to receive Kares and instead received lashes are now exempt from receiving Kares. Accordingly, even if the Kares here is nullified, he would still be liable to receive death (as he did Avodah while impure)!

ועוד נפקא מינה דמיתה כגון שהזיד בשימוש טומאה ושגג בטומאת מקדש


Question #2: There is an additional difference if his punishment is death. For example, if he purposely served in the Beis Hamikdash while impure but accidentally violated being impure in the Mikdash (i.e. he never learned that law), he would still be liable for death (though he would not be liable for Kares, as he was impure in the Mikdash accidentally).




תוספות ד"ה אפילו

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the difference between entering normally and entering backwards.)

ואם נכנס דרך פניו משנכנס רובו טמא אבל במיעוט לא דר' אושעיא דהכא אית ליה אפי' גבי טמא שנכנס למקדש ביאה במקצת לא שמה ביאה דבפ' כל הפסולין (זבחים דף לב: ושם) פריך לעולא דאמר ביאה במקצת שמה ביאה


Explanation: If he enters normally, once most of his body enters he is considered impure. However, if less than half of his body enters, he does not become impure. This is as Rebbi Oshiya holds that even regarding an impure person who enters the Mikdash, he is only called entering if most of his body enters the Mikdash. This is apparent from the Gemara in Zevachim (32b) that asks questions on Ula's position that partial (less than half) entrance is considered entrance.

ועוד דאפי' עולא דאמר שמה ביאה דוקא גבי מקדש כדמפרש התם משום דכתיב בכל קדש לא תגע ואל המקדש לא תבא מה נגיעה במקצת שמה נגיעה אף ביאה במקצת שמה ביאה אבל גבי בית המנוגע מודה דלא שמה ביאה דלא מצינו שהקיש הכתוב


Additionally, even Ula who holds that partial entrance is considered entrance only holds this regarding the Beis Hamikdash as explained there that the Pasuk says, "In all holiness you should not touch, and to the Mikdash you should not come." We derive from this Pasuk that just as partial touching is called touching, so too partial entering is called entering. However, regarding a house that has leprosy he agrees that this is not called entering, as we do not find that the Pasuk made a comparison regarding this law.

דאי לא תימא הכי תקשה לעולא ממתניתין דמס' ידים (פ"ג מ"א) ומייתי לה בפ"ב דחולין (דף לג:) המכניס ידיו לבית המנוגע ידיו תחלות דברי ר' עקיבא וחכ"א ידיו שניות ומפרש במסכת חולין דכ"ע ביאה במקצת לא שמה ביאה ובגזירה ידיו אטו גופו קמיפלגי ומיהו כשנכנס רובו הוי טמא דרובו ככולו


If you do not say this, you should ask a question on Ula from the Mishnah in Yadayim (3:1) which is quoted in Chulin (33b). The Mishnah says that if someone sticks his hands into a house with leprosy, his hands become a Rishon. These are the words of Rebbi Akiva. The Chachamim say that his hands are considered a Sheini. The Gemara in Chulin (ibid.) explains that everyone agrees that partial entering is not called entering. The question is whether or not we make a decree of hands (entering) because of a body (entering). However, if most of his body would enter he is impure, as most of him is like all of him.

ותימה דדרך אחוריו נמי כשנכנס רובו יהא טמא מטעם דרובו ככולו ומשנכנס כולו הוי טמא מידי דהוה אכלים שבבית


Question: This is difficult. When someone enters backwards, he should still be impure if most of him enters because "Rubo k'Kulo" -- "most is like all." When all of him enters he is certainly impure (even though he entered backwards), just as the vessels in the house are impure!

וי"ל דאם כן לא היה חילוק בין דרך ביאה לדרך אחוריו ואמאי כתיב והבא אל הבית דמשמע דרך ביאה


Answer: It is possible to answer that if this would be true, there would be no difference between whether he entered normally or backwards. Why, then, would the Pasuk have written, "And the one who comes to the house" in a way that implies that one is only impure if he enters the house normally?

וליכא למימר דאיצטריך לומר דהכא טעון כיבוס בגדים כששהה בכדי אכילת פרס


One cannot say that this would still be necessary to teach that his clothes must be washed if he stayed in the house long enough to eat a Pras.

דסברא הוא דאפי' נכנס דרך אחוריו כולו אם שהה כשיעור שהייה דטעון כיבוס בגדים דבכל ענין כתיב (והבא אל הבית) והאוכל בבית יכבס בגדיו


This is because it is logical that even if his entire body goes in backwards, if he waits inside (enough to eat a Pras) his clothes require washing. This is because the Pasuk says, "And whoever eats in the house should wash his clothes" no matter how he entered the house.



תוספות ד"ה דרך

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why leaving backwards is normal but entering backwards is not.)

אע"ג דאמר בפ"ק דחולין (דף י: ושם) דיציאה דרך אחוריו שמה יציאה דקאמר כ"ג ביוה"כ יוכיח דכתיב ביה יציאה ותנן יצא ובא לו דרך כניסתו


Implied Question: This is despite the fact that the Gemara in Chulin (10b) says that going out backwards is called leaving. The Gemara there says that this can be proven from the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kippur regarding whom the Pasuk says that he went out. The Mishnah says that he went out the way he went in (meaning backwards). (Why, then, can't we say that going in backwards is also called "going in?")

היינו משום דדרך לצאת כן כתלמיד הנפטר מרבו כדמפרש בפ' הוציאו לו (יומא נג.)


Answer: This is because it is normal to leave backwards, like a student who departs from a Rav, as explained in Yoma (53a).



תוספות ד"ה ואין אוכלין

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that the opening of the Azarah must be seen when eating Kodshei Kodoshim.)

אפילו יש נקב לראות שם דרך [דרך שם] פתח עזרה דבעינן שיראה פתח עזרה בשעת אכילה כדאמר בפ' איזהו מקומן (זבחים ד' נו.)


Explanation: This is even if there is a hole that enables one to see the opening of the Azarah. This is because we require one to see the opening of the Azarah when he eats Kodshei Kodoshim, as stated in Zevachim (56a).



תוספות ד"ה ואין שוחטים

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara did not say one cannot "eat" instead of "slaughter.")

וה"ה דאין אוכלין דגגים ועליות לא נתקדשו כדאמר בפרק כיצד צולין (פסחים דף פה: ושם)


Implied Question: One also cannot eat there, as the rooftops and attics were not made holy, as stated in Pesachim (85b). (Why, then, didn't it just say "one cannot eat...?")

אלא נקט שחיטה משום דאכילה בעזרה לא שייכא בקדשים קלים


Answer: Rather, it said "one cannot slaughter" because eating in the Azarah is not relative to Kodshim Kalim.



תוספות ד"ה וטמא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the difference between the attics and rooftops of the Heichal.)

תימה אמאי פטור תיפוק ליה דחייב משום גג דהיכל גופיה שהרי נתקדש כדמשמע בסוף פרק כיצד צולין (שם) גבי הא דאמר רב גגין ועליות לא נתקדשו ופריך (שם פו.) מהא דתניא עליית בית קדשי קדשי' חמורה מקדשי הקדשים


Question: This is difficult. Why is he exempt? He should be liable because the roof of the Heichal itself was made holy! This is implied in Pesachim (85b), regarding Rav's statement that the rooftops and attics were not made holy. The Gemara (86a) asks a question on this from the Beraisa that states that the attic of the Kodshei Kodoshim is more stringent than the Kodshei Kodoshim itself.

ומשני רב יוסף שאני היכל כו' משמע שנתקדשו עליות ומסתבר דגגין ועליות דין אחד להם


Rav Yosef answers that the Heichal is different etc. This implies that the attics did become holy, and it is logical that the rooftops have the same law as the attics.

וצ"ל דאע"פ שנתקדשו עליות גג לא נתקדש דעלייה גופה לא ידעינן אלא מקרא דדוד והתם לא כתיב אלא עליות


Answer: It must be that even though the attics were made holy, the rooftops were not made holy. We only know that the attics themselves are holy because of the Pasuk stated regarding David. That Pasuk only mentions attics, not rooftops.

וכן מוכח התם בהדיא דקאמר ת"ש וגגו קודש ולא משני מהיכל מותיב איניש כדפירש שם בקונטרס משום דבקרא לא כתיב גגין


This is also clearly apparent from the Gemara there, as it brings a proof from the Beraisa that says the rooftops (of the Heichal) are holy. Rashi explains there that the Gemara could not answer this by saying that one cannot ask a question from the Heichal, as the Gemara did earlier regarding the holiness of the attics above the Heichal, because the Pasuk does not mention the rooftops (as opposed to the attics).



תוספות ד"ה אבל

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how one can be liable to bring a Korban for the "positive" Mitzvah of Nidah.)

ואע"ג דאמר בפרק בתרא דמכות (דף יג:) דבעינן דומיא דע"ז דאמר רחמנא לא תעביד ואי עביד מיחייב יצא פסח ומילה


Implied Question: This is despite the fact that the Gemara in Makos (13b) says that we require that a Korban be brought for something similar to Avodah Zarah. The similarity is that just as the Torah said not to do Avodah Zarah, and if one does so he is liable, so too other Korbanos are brought for such sins. This is as opposed to Pesach and Milah, where the Torah said to perform a Mitzvah and one abstained from doing so. (How, then, can one be liable to bring a Korban for the positive Mitzvah of Nidah?)

עשה דנדה לא תעביד הוא דלא תפרוש בהנאה מרובה


Answer: The positive command of Nidah is stating what not to do, as it is (to pull away, but also) not to pull away with a lot of pleasure in doing so.



תוספות ד"ה אי בת"ח

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why he is only liable for one Korban.)

חדא הוא דמיחייב אע"פ שהוא מזיד על הפרישה מכל מקום על הכניסה חשבינן ליה שב מידיעה דאימא יצר אלבשיה כדאשכחן בכתובות בפרק נערה (דף נא:)


Explanation: He is only liable for one prohibition. Even though he is liable for pulling away pleasurably, he is still considered to have not wanted to have sinned when entering, as we can say that he simply had too much evil inclination, as stated in Kesuvos (51b regarding a woman). (In other words, being that he was already in the middle when she had her period, he is not considered liable for entering, just as a woman is not liable if someone forced her to have relations and she then did not want him to stop.)