1)

TOSFOS DH Zar she'Eino Ochel v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä æø ùàéðå àåëì ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos dispels potential challenges to the Kal v'Chomer.)

åàéï ìåîø ãèîà á÷øáï öáåø åëäï âãåì àåðï éåëéç ùàéðï àåëìéï åòåáãéí

(a)

Implied suggestion: A Tamei regarding a Korban Tzibur, or a Kohen Gadol who is an Onen, should be Yochi'ach. They may not eat [Kodshim], yet they may serve!

ãîä ìäðê ùëï àéðï îåæäøéí úàîø áæø ãîåæäø:

(b)

Answer: One cannot learn from them, who are not warned [not to serve], to a Zar, who is warned!

2)

TOSFOS DH Mah l'Tamei she'Chen Metamei

úåñôåú ã"ä îä ìèîà ùëï îèîà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos dispels a potential question.)

ìà îöé ìîéôøê ùëï òùä áå ÷øéáéí ëî÷øéáéí [ëãôé' á÷åðèøñ]

(a)

Observation: One could not ask that the Torah made what is offered like those who offer (disqualifies what is Tamei), like Rashi explained. (A live animal cannot become Tamei.)

3)

TOSFOS DH Af Ani Avi Zar she'Muzhar v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä àó àðé àáéà æø ùîåæäø ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the need for a Lav.)

ìëê öøéê ìèòîà ãàæäøä îùåí ãìà úéîà èîà á÷øáï öáåø åëäï âãåì àåðï éåëéç ëãôøéùéú

(a)

Explanation: Therefore, we need a Lav, lest we say that a Tamei regarding a Korban Tzibur, or a Kohen Gadol who is an Onen, be Yochi'ach (that his Avodah is Kosher), like I explained (above, DH Zar);

åîäàé èòîà ðîé öøéê ì÷îï áòøì äìëúà âîéøé ìä ãìà àúé á÷''å

1.

Also, for this reason we need a tradition [from Sinai] for an Arel, and we cannot learn from a Kal v'Chomer.

4)

TOSFOS DH Heichan Muzhar

úåñôåú ã"ä äéëï îåæäø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out another source to forbid a Zar.)

úéîä ðéîà îåä÷øéáå áðé àäøï ããøùé' (ì÷îï ãó ìá.) î÷áìä åàéìê îöåú ëäåðä

(a)

Question: We should say that he is warned due to "v'Hikrivu Bnei Aharon." We expound from it (below, 32a) that from Kabalah and onwards, it is a Mitzvah for Kohanim!

îéäå òãéôà îùðé ìàå âîåø îåëì æø ìà é÷øá

(b)

Answer: We answer better than this. There is an absolute Lav from "v'Chol Zar Lo Yikrav."

5)

TOSFOS DH Hagahah Dilma Shari b'Bamah

úåñôåú ã"ä äâ''ä ãìîà ùøé ááîä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this opinion with the Mishnah below.)

åäàé ãìà çùéá àåðï ì÷îï áñåó îëéìúéï (ãó ÷éâ.) áãáøéí ùáéï áîä âãåìä ìáîä ÷èðä ëãçùéá ëéäåï åáâãé ùøú

(a)

Implied question: Why isn't an Onen counted below (113a) among differences between a Bamah Gedolah (i.e. of the Tzibur) and a Bamah Ketanah, like it counts Kehunah and Bigdei Shares (Kehunah)?

ãéìîà úðà åùééø ãùééø ðîé éåùá

(b)

Answer: Perhaps the Tana omitted [differences], for he omitted also sitting.

6)

TOSFOS DH u'Mah Yoshev she'Ochel

úåñôåú ã"ä åîä éåùá ùàåëì

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses when Kohanim may eat Kodshim sitting.)

ëâåï áîåøí î÷ãùéí åáëåø

(a)

Example: [They may eat while sitting] parts taken from Kodshim [Kalim and given to Kohanim, e.g. Chazah v'Shok (the chest and foreleg of a Shelamim) and Bechor. (Shitah Mekubetzes - Kodshei Kodoshim may be eaten only in the Azarah, and one may not sit in the Azarah! Alternatively, we discuss even Kodshei Kodoshim. A need of the Korban is different (one may sit for this), for it says "l'Mashchah Nesativ Lecha", and we expound below (28a) the way that nobles eat.)

7)

TOSFOS DH Mah l'Yoshev she'Chen Pasul l'Edus

úåñôåú ã"ä îä ìéåùá ùëï ôñåì ìòãåú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses whether this is even b'Di'eved.)

öøéê ìéæäø ùìà ìãåï ò''ô òãåú ãîéåùá åáâè àùä öøéê ìéæäø éåúø

(a)

Pesak: One must be careful not to judge based on testimony given while sitting. Regarding a Get of divorce, one must be even more careful.

åùîà ãéòáã àéï ìçåù ãàîø áéøåùìîé ôø÷ ã' îéúåú âáé îáøê àú äùí åäãééðéï òåîãéï òì øâìéäí îéëï ìãééðéï ù÷áìå òãåú îòåîã ùãðéï òì ôé òãåúï

(b)

Disclaimer: Perhaps b'Di'eved there is no concern, for it says in the Yerushalmi in Sanhedrin regarding blasphemy "the judges stand on their feet. This shows that if judges accepted testimony while standing, they may judge based on it";

åîùîò äúí ãëé äéëé ãàéï òëåáà áéùéáú äãééðéï àò''ô ùéù ìäí ìéùá îï äúåøä ä''ð àéï òëåáà áòîéãú äòãéí àò''ô ùéù ìäí ìòîåã îï äúåøä

1.

It connotes there that just like it is not Me'akev that the judges sit, even though mid'Oraisa they should sit, likewise it is not Me'akev that the witnesses stand, even though mid'Oraisa they should stand.

ä÷ùä ä''ø àôøéí ëäï âæìï éäà ôñåì ìòáåãä ÷ì åçåîø îáòì îåí ùëùø ìòãåú åàí òáã çéìì

(c)

Question (R. Efrayim Kohen): A robber should be Pasul for Avodah from a Kal v'Chomer from a Ba'al Mum, who is Kosher for testimony, and if he served, he disqualified;

åìééúé îáòì îåí åîçã îäðê

1.

[Even though we could ask that bmu disqualifies Korbanos just like Kohanim,] we could bring from [a Tzad ha'Shavah of] a Ba'al Mum and one of the other (Pesulim)!

åìàå ÷åùéà äéà ãëéåï ãâæìï àéðå îåæäø ìà àúé îéðééäå ëãôøéùéú ìòéì

(d)

Answer: This is not difficult. Since a robber is not warned [against doing Avodah], we do not learn from them, like I explained above (DH Zar).

8)

TOSFOS DH mi'Yoshev Talmid Chacham

úåñôåú ã"ä îéåùá úìîéã çëí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes that sitting is Kosher b'Di'eved for testimony and Chalitzah.)

à''ë äà ãàîøé' (ùáåòåú ãó ì:) ãúìîéã çëí ìà ìéæì àñäåãé ì÷îéä ãæåèø îéðéä ìàå îùåí ãöøéê ìòîåã

(a)

Consequence: We say in Shevuos (30b) that a Chacham should not go to testify in front of a smaller Chacham than himself. This is not because he must stand (and it is improper for him to stand in front of someone smaller than himself);

àìà îùåí æéìåúà ãäà àé àæéì ìàñäåãé (îðôùéä) îòéã îéåùá

1.

Rather, it is due to disgrace, for if he goes to testify, he testifies sitting (like it says here).

åúå ãàîøéðï áôø÷ ùáåòú äòãåú (ùí) äðé îéìé ìîîåðà àáì ìàéñåøà éìê ìäòéã àéï çëîä åàéï úáåðä ìðâã ä'

(b)

Support: Also, we say in Shevuos (30b) that this is only for monetary cases, but for Isur, he goes to testify - "Ein Chachmah v'Ein Tevunah l'Neged Hash-m" (honor of people does not override concern for Torah Isurim).

åúéîä áñðäãøéï (éè.) ãàîøå ìå ìéðàé òîåã òì øâìéê åéòéãå áê

(c)

Question: In Sanhedrin (19a), they said to Yanai ha'Melech "stand on your feet, and they will testify about you";

åäà îìê òãéó îúìîéã çëí ãîìê àéï éëåì ìîçåì òì ëáåãå åúìîéã çëí éëåì ìîçåì

1.

A king is greater than a Chacham (regarding honor), for a king cannot pardon his honor, and a Chacham can pardon [his honor]!

åé''ì ãìà ãîé ãèòîà ãîçéì úìîéã çëí îùåí ãúåøä ãéãéä äéà

(d)

Answer #1: These are different. The reason why a Chacham can pardon is because the Torah (the reason we honor him) is his;

àáì îìê ëúéá ùúäà àéîúå òìéê àéï æä ùìå àìà ùì àçøéí åàéï éëåì ìîçåì æä

1.

However, a king, it is written that his fear must be upon you. It is not his [honor], rather, others', and he cannot pardon this.

åìâáé îöåú éëåì ìîçåì ãàí îåçì òì ëáåãå îôðé äî÷åí (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) áùáéì ëê ìà éðéç ùìà úäà àéîúå òìéê

2.

Regarding Mitzvos, he can pardon, for if he pardons his honor due to [honor of] Hash-m, this will not cause that fear of him is not on you.

åòåã éù ìåîø ãòåáãà ãéðàé ãéðé ðôùåú äåä åáãéðé ðôùåú àôéìå úìîéã çëí òåîã

(e)

Answer #2: The episode with Yanai was a capital case, and in capital cases, even a Chacham stands.

åàí úàîø äéëé âîø îéåùá úìîéã çëí îä ìéåùá úìîéã çëí ùëï ôñåì ìçìéöä ãçìéöä áòé îòåîã ëãàîø ùéìäé îöåú çìéöä (éáîåú ÷å.) áúé òîåãé

(f)

Question: How can we learn from a sitting Chacham? A sitting Chacham is Pasul for Chalitzah, for Chalitzah requires standing, like it says in Yevamos (106a) "stand, my daughter!"

åèòîà îùåí ãëúéá åòîã åàîø

1.

The reason is because it is written "v'Amad v'Amar."

åîéäå ãéìîà èòîà (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) ãçìéöä îòåîã ìàå îùåí åòîã åàîø ãîé ëúéá åéòîã åéàîø ëããéé÷ ô' áúøà ãîåòã ÷èï (ãó ëà.) âáé ÷øéòä

(g)

Answer: Perhaps the reason why Chalitzah must be standing is not due to "v'Amad v'Amar", for it is not written "he will stand and say", like we infer in Mo'ed Katan (21a) regarding Kri'ah (tearing when a relative dies);

àìà (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã) èòîà îùåí ãäåé ëîå ãéï åéëåì úìîéã çëí ìéùá åáãéòáã àí çìöä îéåùá ëùøä

1.

Rather, the reason is because it is like judgment (litigants must stand), and a Chacham may sit, and b'Di'eved, if she did Chalitzah [when they were] sitting, it is Kosher. (The Yavam and Yevamah are the litigants, so both must stand. If we learned from "v'Amad v'Amar", which discusses the Yavam, we would require also her to stand only if we equate her to the Yavam. R. Meir equates them (Yevamos 105b) and requires also the Yevamah to be an adult, but R. Yosi does not.)

úãò ãäà úðéà çìöä áéï òåîã áéï éåùá áéï îåèä ëùøä

(h)

Proof: A Beraisa (Yevamos 103a) teaches "if she did Chalitzah, whether standing, sitting or leaning, it is Kosher";

åàé î÷øà ãåòîã åàîø áòéðï îòåîã àí ëï ìéäåé òëåáà î÷øà ãëëä àìà îèòí ãéï äåé ëãôøéùéú

1.

If the verse "v'Amad v'Amar" taught that we require standing, it would be Me'akev, due to "Kachach" (which is written there)! Rather, it is due to judgment, like I explained.

åáñôøé ããøéù òåîã î÷øà ãåòîã åàîø àñîëúà äåà

2.

In the Sifri, it expounds the verse "v'Amad v'Amar." This is an Asmachta.

9)

TOSFOS DH Hagahah

úåñôåú ã"ä äâä''ä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos justifies learning from someone sitting.)

åàí úàîø îä ìéåùá ùëï àñåø áòæøä ëãàîø (éåîà ãó ëä.) àéï éùéáä áòæøä àìà ìîìëé áéú ãåã

(a)

Question: How can we learn from sitting? It is forbidden in the Azarah, like it says "only kings from Beis David may sit in the Azarah"!

åùîà àéðå îï äúåøä

(b)

Answer: Perhaps this law is not mid'Oraisa.

úãò ãàé ãàåøééúà àîàé öøéê ÷øà ì÷îï (ãó ëâ:) ìéåùá ìîöåä úéôå÷ ìéä ãàôéìå áìàå òáåãä àéï éùéáä

(c)

Proof: If it were mid'Oraisa, why would we need a verse below (23b) [to forbid Avodah while] sitting? Even without Avodah, one may not sit!

åîéäå àéöèøéê ÷øà ìòåáã áäùúçååàä

(d)

Rebuttal (of proof): However, we need a verse for one who served while bowing.

10)

TOSFOS DH ka'Savar Mipnei ha'Tum'ah Nisrefah

úåñôåú ã"ä ÷ñáø îôðé èåîàä ðùøôä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out another possible explanation.)

äåä îöé ìîéîø ëãáñîåê ìúðà ãáé øáé éùîòàì ã÷ñáø îôðé àðéðåú ðùøôä åäï ä÷øéáå àúé ìàæäøä

(a)

Observation: [The first opinion] could have said like below (16b) according to Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael, who holds that it was burned due to Aninus, and "Hen Hikrivu" comes for a Lav. (This Dibur continues on Amud B.)

16b----------------------------------------16b

ùàîø ìäí îùä ùîà òáøúí òì àéñåø ä÷øáú àðéðåú åèòéúí îçîú ëê ìùåøôå åîéäå ìà éçåìì (äâäú áàøåú äîéí) ëãôé' á÷åðèøñ áñîåê

1.

Moshe said to [Aharon, Elazar and Itamar] "perhaps you transgressed the Isur of offering amidst Aninus, and you erred due to this to burn it!" However, this does not disqualify [the Avodah], like Rashi explained below.

åñåâéà æå ìà ëçã îäðê úðàé ãô' èáåì éåí (ì÷îï ÷à.)

(b)

Observation: This Sugya is not like one of the Tana'im below (101a).

åàéï ìúîåä òì æä ãäðäå úðàé ãäúí ãøùé ÷øàé ãäúí ìôé äàîú ã÷é''ì ãàåðï îçéì òáåãä åéìôéðï (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí) î÷øà àçøéðà

(c)

Remark: This is not astounding, for the Tana'im there expound the verses there according to the truth, that we learn that an Onen disqualifies Avodah from another verse;

àáì àé ìàå ãðô÷à ìï î÷øà àçøéðà îäê ÷øà (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí) ìà äåä ùîòéðï ãäåä ãøéùðà ì÷øà ëé äëà åëãîôøù ìéä á÷åðèøñ

1.

However, if we did not learn from another verse, from this verse we would not learn, for we would expound the verse like here, like Rashi explained.

11)

TOSFOS DH v'Heichan Muzhar... Ela mi'Hen Hikrivu veka'Savar Mipnei Aninus Nisrefah

úåñôåú ã"ä åäéëï îåæäø ëå' àìà îäï ä÷øéáå å÷ñáø îôðé àðéðåú ðùøôä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael learns.)

ùìà äéå ìä àåëìéï ëì äéåí åìéìä àçøé ëï åìîçøúå éäéä ðùøó áå áéåí åìëï éùøó (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) áìà òáåø öåøä ã÷ñáø àðéðåú ìéìä ðîé àñåø åàôé' ð÷áø äîú

(a)

Explanation: There was no one to eat it the entire day and night afterwards, and the next day it will be burned that day. Therefore, it is burned [immediately] without ibz, for [Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael] holds that also Aninus Laylah is forbidden, even if the Mes was buried;

åëùàîø ìå àäøï îôðé àðéðåú ðùøôä èòä îùä ùìà äáéï îôðé àðéðåú ã÷àîø àäøï ùæäå ùìà äéå øàåééï ìàëåì îçîú àðéðåúí

1.

When Aharon told him that it was burned due to Aninus, Moshe erred. He did not understand that "due to Aninus" that Aharon said was that they were not proper to eat it due to their Aninus;

àìà ÷ñáø ùä÷øéáå àåððéí åàîø ìäå îùä ùîà áàðéðåú ä÷øáúåä

2.

Rather, he thought that [Aharon's sons] offered it amidst Aninus, and Moshe said to them "perhaps you offered it amidst Aninus?"

åîéäå çéìåì ìà éìéó ø' éùîòàì îéðéä ãàé ìàå ÷øà àçøéðà äåä àîéðà ãëé ðîé ãàîø ìäí áàðéðåú à÷øáúåä ìà ìîéîø ãàé òáåã äëé ùôéø àùúøåó

(b)

Observation: However, R. Yishmael does not learn Chilul from this. If not for another verse, one might have thought that also when he said to them "[perhaps] you offered it amidst Aninus", this does not mean that had they done so, they properly burned it;

àìà ëùàîøå ìå îôðé àðéðåú ùøôðåä àîø ìäí ùîà òáøúí òì àæäøä åä÷øáúí àåððéí åàîø àäøï åëé äï ä÷øéáå ëê ôé' á÷åðè'

1.

Rather, when they told him that it was burned due to Aninus, [Moshe] said to them "perhaps you transgressed the Lav, and offered it while Onenim", and Aharon said "did they offer?!" So Rashi explained.

å÷öú öøéê ìäåñéó òì ôéøåùå ãëùàîø ìäí ùîà òáøúí òì àæäøä åä÷øáúí àåððéí øåöä ìåîø åèòéúí ìùåøôä òì ëê ãàé ìàå äëé îä òðéï æä àöì (æä) ùøéôä

(c)

Remark: We must add to his Perush, that when [Moshe] said to them "perhaps you transgressed the Lav, and offered it while Onenim", i.e. and you erred to burn it due to this. If not, what is the connection of this to burning?

åòì æä äùéá àäøï äï ä÷øéáå àðé ä÷øáúé åîôðé àðéðåú ùàîøúé ìà îôðé ä÷øáúí áàðéðåú àìà îôðé ùìà éëåìðå ìàëåì îôðé àðéðåú

1.

To this, Aharon answered "did they offer? I offered! 'Due to Aninus' that I said is not due to their offering it amidst Aninus, rather, because we could not eat it due to Aninus."

åà''ú áô' ëéöã öåìéï (ôñçéí ôá.) åì÷îï áôø÷ äúòøåáú (ãó ôâ.) ããøùéðï çèàú ùðëðñ ãîä ìôðéí ôñåìä îäï ìà äåáà àú ãîä ãîùîò äà àí äåáàä ãîä ôñåìä (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú)

(d)

Question: In Pesachim (82a) and below (83a) we expound that if a Chatas' blood entered [the Heichal], it is Pasul, from "its blood was not brought." This connotes that if its blood was brought, it is Pasul;

äéëé ãøéù ìéä ãìîà äëé ÷àîø ìéä ùîà èòéú ìùåøôä îôðé ùðëðñ ãîä ìôðéí

1.

How can we expound this? Perhaps [Moshe] said to him "perhaps you erred to burn it because the blood entered inside!"

i.

Note: The verse says that Moshe spoke to Aharon's sons. Tosfos connotes that Moshe spoke to Aharon. Perhaps he holds like Rashi, that he was criticizing Aharon, and due to Aharon's honor he faced Aharon's sons.

åé''ì ãìà ãîé ãìîä äéä ìå ìäæëéø ìîùä äðê ôñåìéï ãéåöà åðëðñ ãîä ìôðéí

(e)

Answer #1: There is different. Why did Moshe mention these Pesulim of Yotzei and the blood entering [the Heichal]?

ãáùìîà âáé àðéðåú äéä ñáåø ùîà èòä ìôé ùàîø ìå àäøï îôðé àðéðåú ðùøôä

1.

Granted, regarding Aninus, he thought that perhaps [Aharon] erred, since Aharon told him that it was burned due to Aninus.

åä''ø çééí úéøõ ãàðéðåú ìà àîø ìå îùä áôéøåù àìà îúåê úùåáúå ùì àäøï

(f)

Answer #2 (R. Chayim): Moshe did not say to [Aharon] explicitly [that it was due to] Aninus. Rather, [it is inferred] from Aharon's answer;

àáì äï ìà äåáà àú ãîä àîø îùä áôé' îùîò áäãéà ãàí äåáà ùôéø àéùúøåó

1.

However, Moshe explicitly said "its blood was not brought [inside]." This explicitly connotes that if the blood was brought, it was properly burned.

12)

TOSFOS DH she'Chen Lo Hutru mi'Chlalan

úåñôåú ã"ä ùëï ìà äåúøå îëììï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses what is considered Hutru mi'Chlalan.)

ôéøù á÷åðèøñ åæø ãäåúø ááîä àéï æä äåúø îëììå ùäøé ìà ðàñø ùí îòåìí

(a)

Explanation (Rashi): A Zar is permitted on a Bamah. This is not "Hutru mi'Chlalo" (permitted from its general Isur), for it was never forbidden.

åä÷ùä ä''ø çééí ãáä÷åîõ øáä (îðçåú ëä.) ÷øé éåöà äåúø îëììå ìôé ùäåúø (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) ááîä

(b)

Question (R. Chayim): In Menachos (25a), Yotzei is called Hutar mi'Chlalo because it is permitted on a Bamah!

åúéøõ ãùàðé âáé öéõ ãëúéá ìøöåï ìäí áëì î÷åí ùîøöä

(c)

Answer #1 (R. Chayim): The Tzitz is different, for it says "l'Ratzon Lahem" - anywhere it is Meratzeh. (L'Shem Zevach - we require only a Pesul that is accepted elsewhere. Chidushei Basra - the Tzitz was Meratzeh even in the Mishkan, where Yotzei was forbidden. Therefore, it is properly called Hutru mi'Chlalan.)

åòåã é''ì ãàôéìå îé÷øé äåúø îëììå î''î ôøëéðï äëà ùôéø ùëï ìà äåúøå îëììï áî÷åí ùðàñøå

(d)

Answer #2: Even if [Zarus] is called "Hutar mi'Chlalo", still it is a proper question here, for they (Zarus and a Ba'al Mum) were not Hutru mi'Chlalan in the place they were forbidden.

13)

TOSFOS DH Shem Tum'ah Miha Ishtra'i

úåñôåú ã"ä ùí èåîàä îéäà àéùúøàé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos dispels potential challenges to the Tzad ha'Shavah.)

åà''ú îä ìäðê æø áòì îåí èîà ùëï áîéúä úàîø áàåðï åëå'

(a)

Question: You cannot learn from a Zar, a Ba'al Mum and a Tamei, for there is Misah for them. Will you say that an Onen [disqualifies Avodah like them]?!

åé''ì ãñáø ìä ëøáðï ãàîøé (ñðäãøéï ôâ.) áòì îåí ùùéîù áàæäøä åìà ëøáé [ãàîø] áîéúä

(b)

Answer: [Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael] holds like Rabanan, who say (Sanhedrin 83a) that a Ba'al Mum who served transgressed a Lav, unlike Rebbi, who says that there is Misah.

åà''ú îä ìäðê ùëï ôñåìéï áôøä áòì îåí æø åèîà úàîø áàåðï (ì÷îï ãó éæ:)

(c)

Question: You cannot learn from a Zar, a Ba'al Mum and a Tamei, for they are Pasul for Parah Adumah. Will you say that an Onen [disqualifies Avodah like them]?!

åé''ì èáåì éåí éåëéç

(d)

Answer: A Tevul Yom is Yochi'ach. (He is Kosher for Parah, yet he disqualifies Avodah.)

14)

TOSFOS DH Asya b'Kal v'Chomer mi'Yoshev

úåñôåú ã"ä àúéà á÷''å îéåùá

(SUMMARY: Tosfos questions learning from here.)

úéîä îä ìéåùá ùëï ìà äåúø îëììå

(a)

Question: We cannot learn from one who sits, for this was not Hutar mi'Chlalo!

15)

TOSFOS DH Aval b'Korban Tzibur Meratzeh

úåñôåú ã"ä àáì á÷øáï öáåø îøöä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos challenges Rava's Kal v'Chomer.)

úéîä äøé çèàú ãàäøï ãäééðå ùòéø ãø''ç ã÷ééîà ìï ôø÷ èáåì éåí (ì÷îï ÷à.) åáùîòúéï ãàí ä÷øéáåä áàðéðåú ôñåìä

(a)

Question: The Chatas of Aharon (i.e. that he offered amidst Aninus; it was not part of the Milu'im) was the goat of Rosh Chodesh. We hold (below, 101a) and in our Sugya, that had [his sons] offered in amidst Aninus, it would be Pasul!

åé''ì ëéåï ãìà éìôéðï àìà îèåîàä ãéðå ëèåîàä ãàéðå îøöä àìà áàéîåøéï àáì ä÷øáï àéðå ðàëì

(b)

Answer #1: Since we learn only from Tum'ah, its law is like Tum'ah, which is Meratzeh only for the Eimurim (to permit Haktarah), but the Korban may not be eaten.

åòåã ãáìàå äëé ñúø ìéä ùôéø ìäàé ÷''å

(c)

Answer #2: Even without this, [Rava bar Ahilai] properly rejected the Kal v'Chomer.

16)

TOSFOS DH u'Mah Tum'ah

úåñôåú ã"ä åîä èåîàä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos questions this according to one opinion.)

úéîä àé àðéðåú ìéìä ãàåøééúà àéëà ìîéôøê îä ìèåîàä ùëï äåúøä áôñç äáà áèåîàä áàëéìä úàîø áàðéðåú ùìà äåúø

(a)

Question: If Aninus Laylah is mid'Oraisa, we can ask that you cannot learn from Tum'ah, for it is permitted in Pesach brought in Tum'ah (when most of Yisrael are Temei'im). You cannot learn to Aninus, which is not permitted!

17)

TOSFOS DH v'Lo Tusar Aninus v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä åìà úåúø àðéðåú ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that this is not an absolute Kal v'Chomer.)

úéîä îä ìèîà ùëï îèîà

(a)

Question: We cannot learn from a Tamei, for he is Metamei!

åéù ìåîø ãàéðå ÷''å âîåø àìà ñúéøú ãáøéí

(b)

Answer: This is not a full Kal v'Chomer. It merely refutes [the Kal v'Chomer that Rava wanted to make].

18)

TOSFOS DH Kol Chada v'Chada Teikum b'Duchtei

úåñôåú ã"ä ëì çãà åçãà úé÷åí áãåëúéä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we do not say so elsewhere.)

ö''ò ô''÷ ãçåìéï (ãó ëá:) âáé ÷''å ãëùø áúåøéí ôñåì ááðé éåðä åâáé ëùø ùáôøä ôñåì áòâìä (ùí ëâ:) åâáé åéäéå ëì äëìéí î÷áìéï èåîàä îàåéøï î÷''å (ùí ëä.) åáôø' åàìå îðçåú (îðçåú òä.) âáé çìåú åø÷é÷éí åëï ôø' ëì äîðçåú (ùí ãó ñá:) âáé ùìîé éçéã ùèòåðéï ñîéëä åáô' äùåëø àú äôåòìéí (á''î ôç:) âáé ùåø àåëì áîçåáø åáôø÷ ëéöã äøâì (á''÷ ëä:) ã÷àîø åúäà ùï çééáú áøùåú äøáéí î÷''å åáô''÷ ã÷ãåùéï (ãó éã.) åúäà éáîä éåöàä áâè î÷ì åçåîø åáðæéø ôø÷ ùìùä îéðéï (ãó îã.) âáé îèîà (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí) ëîéèîà åáñåó éù îåúøåú (éáîåú ôæ:) ãðòùä îúéí ëçééí î÷''å

(a)

Question: This requires investigation. In Chulin (22b) regarding the Kal v'Chomer of "[the age] that is Kosher for Turim (turtledoves) is Pasul for doves", and "what is Kosher for Parah Adumah is Pasul for Eglah Arufah" (23b), and "all Kelim should be Mekabel Tum'ah from their airspace, from a Kal v'Chomer" (25a), and in Menachos (75a) regarding Chalos and Rekikim (thin cakes), and Shalmei Yachid require Semichah (62b), and in Bava Metzi'a (88b) regarding oxen [while working, are entitled] to eat from what is attached, and in Bava Kama (25b) "Shen should be obligated in Reshus ha'Rabim from a Kal v'Chomer", and in Kidushin (14a) "a Yevamah should leave [Zikas Yibum] through a Get from a Kal v'Chomer" and in Nazir (44a) regarding "what is Metamei is like what becomes Tamei", and in Yevamos (87b) "the dead should be considered like alive, from a Kal v'Chomer"...

öøéê ìã÷ã÷ áëåìï àîàé ìà àîø ëì çãà åçãà úé÷åí áãåëúéä

1.

Why don't we say that [since we cannot make Kal v'Chomerim in opposite directions], each should keep its own law?

åùîà ùàðé äëà îùåí (îëàï îãó äáà) ãäðé ÷''å ñúøé àäããé îä ùàéï ëï áäðäå

(b)

Answer: Perhaps here is different, because these Kal v'Chomerim contradict each other, unlike in these cases [listed above].

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF