1)

TOSFOS DH Eima Mah Zar b'Misah Af Yoshev b'Misah (cont.)

úåñôåú ã"ä àéîà îä æø áîéúä àó éåùá áîéúä (äîùê)

æø åìîàé ãôøéùéú àúé ùôéø ãîéúä ãîçåñø áâãéí ìà îéúåøà àìà îùåí ãàùëçï ãæø äåé áîéúä åìëê àîøéðï ãìà éìôéðï îéúä îäà ã÷øééä øçîðà æø

(a)

Answer: According to what I explained, it is fine. Misah of Mechusar Begadim is not from an extra verse, rather, because we find that a Zar is Chayav Misah. Therefore, we say that we do not learn Misah from this that the Torah called him a Zar.

åìôéøåù ä÷åðèøñ ãéìéó áîä îöéðå (äâää áâìéåï) ÷ùä ãäåä ìéä ùìùä ëúåáéí äáàéï ëàçã

(b)

Question: According to Rashi, who says that we learn from them through Mah Matzinu, it is difficult. They are Sheloshah Kesuvim ha'Ba'im k'Echad!

åá÷åðèøñ ôéøù åä''ä ðîé ãîöé ìîéîø îùåí ãäåé æø åùìà øçåõ éãéí åøâìéí ùðé ëúåáéí äáàéï ëàçã ãäà îçåñø áâãéí âåôéä ìà ëúéáà áéä îéúä àìà îùåí ãæø äåà åçãà îéðééäå ð÷è

(c)

Answer: Rashi explained that likewise, we could have said that a Zar, and one who did not wash his hands and feet, are Shnei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im k'Echad, for Misah is not written explicitly regarding Mechusar Begadim. It is only because he is a Zar. The Gemara mentioned one of them (Mechusar Begadim. It could have mentioned Zar instead.)

åàé àéôùø ìåîø ëï ãáäãéà àùëçï îéúä áîçåñø áâãéí áôøùú åàúä úöåä

(d)

Rebuttal: One cannot say so! We find Misah written explicitly about Mechusar Begadim in Parshas Tetzaveh!

åîéäå ôéøåù ä÷åðèøñ òì ëøçéï òé÷ø ãáñðäãøéï ñåó ôø÷ äðùøôéï (ãó ôâ: åùí ã''ä àéï) éìéó áäãéà îçåñø áâãéí áîéúä îùåí ãäåå ìäå æøéí ãàéï áâãéäí òìéäí àéï ëäåðúï òìéäï

(e)

Conclusion: However, you are forced to say that Rashi's Perush is primary, for in Sanhedrin (83b) it explicitly learns that there is Misah for Mechusar Begadim, for he is a Zar, for when their clothes are not on them, their Kehunah is not on them;

åîéúä ãëúéáà áôøùú åàúä úöåä

(f)

Implied question: Misah is written explicitly in Parshas Tetzaveh (about Mechusar Begadim)!

îôøù ä''ø éò÷á îàåøìéðù ãáîëðñéí ëúéá

(g)

Answer (Ri of Orlins): It is written about [Mechusar] Michnesayim;

å÷øà ãåçâøú ããøéù îéðéä áøéù ôéø÷éï áñðäãøéï àéï áâãéäí òìéäí àéï ëäåðúï òìéäí åäåå ìäå æøéí àéöèøéê ìùàø áâãéí

1.

The verse "v'Chagarta [Osam Avnet...]", from which we expound in Sanhedrin (83b) that when their clothes are not on them, their Kehunah is not on them, and they are Zarim, is needed for other Bigdei [Kehunah];

åîéðéä ìà äåä éìôéðï îëðñéí ãìà ëúéáà áääéà ôøùúà

2.

We could not learn Michnesayim from that verse, for it is not written in that Parshah.

åîéäå ìîàï ãîøáé áéåîà (ãó ä:) îëðñééí îåæä äãáø [åé''å îåñéó òì òðéï øàùåï] ÷ùä îéúä ãëúá øçîðà âáé îëðñéí ìîä ìé

(h)

Question #1: However, according to the opinion that includes Michnesayim from "v'Zeh ha'Davar", Vov Mosif Al Inyan Rishon (it teaches that the law of the previous matter applies), this is difficult. Why did the Torah write Misah regarding Michnesayim?

åòåã ÷ùä ìôéøåù ä÷åðèøñ ãìéäåé æø åîëðñéí åùìà øçåõ ùìùä ëúåáéí

(i)

Question #2: According to Rashi, a Zar, Michnesayim and one who did not wash are Sheloshah Kesuvim!

2)

TOSFOS DH Ho'il v'Ritzpah Mekadeshes

úåñôåú ã"ä äåàéì åøöôä î÷ãùú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that David was Mekadesh it.)

ãåã ÷éãùä ëãôéøù á÷åðèøñ

(a)

Explanation: David was Mekadesh the floor, like Rashi explained;

åàò''â ãùìîä áðä äáéú ãåã ÷éãùä ëãàîø ì÷îï áùîòúà ëé ÷ãéù ãåã åëå'

1.

Even though Shlomo built the Beis ha'Mikdash, David was Mekadesh it, like it says below in our Sugya "when David was Mekadesh..."

åáéøåùìîé ãôø÷ á' ãùáåòåú àîøéðï ãåã æä îìê âã æä ðáéà

(b)

Support: In the Yerushalmi, we say that David is a king, and Gad is a Navi (both are needed to be Mekadesh the Azarah).

åîä ùôéøù á÷åðèøñ ù÷éãùä áùúé úåãåú åáùéø

(c)

Explanation (Rashi): [David] was Mekadesh it with two Korbanos Todah, and Shir.

àéðå ëï ãòæøä àéðä î÷ãùä áùúé úåãåú àìà áùéøé îðçä ëãàéúà áùáåòåú (ãó èå.)

(d)

Rebuttal: This is wrong. The Azarah is not made Kadosh with two Todos, rather, with Shirayim of a Minchah, like it says in Shevuos (15a).

3)

TOSFOS DH Ho'il v'Ritzpah Mekadeshes

úåñôåú ã"ä äåàéì åøöôä î÷ãùú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses when Chatzitzos disqualify.)

ôéøåù ãî÷ãùú äàãí ìòáåã òáåãä ùí ãàéðå éëåì ìòáåã áî÷åí àçø åëìé ùøú ôéøåù áâãé ëäåðä î÷ãùéï äàãí ìòáåã òáåãä

(a)

Explanation #1: [The floor] is Mekadesh the person who does Avodah there. He cannot serve elsewhere. "Klei Shares" are Bigdei Kehunah. They are Mekadesh a person to do Avodah;

îä ëìé ùøú ìà éäà ãáø çåöõ áéðå ìáéï ëìé ùøú ãäà ëúéá òì áùøå ëãàîøéðï ìòéì (ãó éè.)

1.

Just like Klei Shares may not have a Chatzitzah interrupting between them and [the Kohen], for it says "Al Besaro", like we said above (19a, also the floor).

åáâãé ëäåðä ÷øé ìäå ëìé ùøú ëãàîø ìòéì (ãó éâ.) ùúäà áëäï ëùø åáëìé ùøú

2.

Bigdei Kehunah are called Klei Shares, like it says above (13a) "[Kabalah] must be with a Kosher Kohen and Klei Shares."

åá÷åðèøñ ôé' ùáëìé ùøú îîù ùìà éäà ãáø çåöõ áéï ëäï ìëìé ùøú á÷áìú äãí ëãëúéá åì÷ç äëäï ùúäà ì÷éçä áòöîå ùì ëäï

(b)

Explanation #2: Rashi explained there that it is literally Klei Shares. Nothing may interrupt between the Kohen and the Kli Shares during Kabalah, like it is written "v'Lakach ha'Kohen" - the Kohen must take with his own body.

åàí úàîø î"ù ãçùéá (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) ìéä äëà çöéöä åìòéì ðîé ãôøéê åúéôå÷ ìé îùåí çöéöä åâáé ääåà ãëøéê éãéä áùéøàé (ôñçéí ãó ðæ.) àìîà ì÷éçä ò''é ã''à ìà ùîä ì÷éçä

(c)

Question: Why is it different here, that it is considered a Chatzitzah, and also above (19a) we asked "we already know [that it is Pasul] due to Chatzitzah", and regarding the [Kohen Gadol] who used to wrap his hands in silk (Pesachim 57a)? This shows that taking through an intermediary is not called Lekichah...

åáô' ìåìá äâæåì (ñåëä ãó ìæ.) ÷àîø øáà ãì÷éçä ò''é ãáø àçø ùîä ì÷éçä

1.

In Sukah (37a), Rava said that taking through an intermediary is called Lekichah!

åéù ìåîø ãäúí [ìà] îééøé ëâåï ãëøéê éãéä áñåãø åðåèì ìåìá ãäà åãàé ìà äåé ì÷éçä

(d)

Answer: There, we do not discuss when he wrapped his hands in a scarf and took a Lulav. Surely that is not called Lekichah;

àìà ãëøéê ìéä ììåìá áñåãøà åðåèìå åáàåúå òðéï îééúé øáà øàéä îàæåá

1.

Rather, he wrapped a Lulav in a scarf and takes it. Rava brings a proof from taking Ezov (hyssop) in such a way.

åëï öøéê ìåîø îúåê ùîòúà ãäúí ã÷àîø øáà âåôéä îéï áîéðå àéðå çåöõ äà áùàéðå îéðå çåöõ

(e)

Support: We must say so due to the Sugya there. Rava himself said that Min b'Mino is not a Chatzitzah. This implies that Min b'Eino Mino is a Chatzitzah;

åàîàé åäà ì÷éçä ò''é ãáø àçø ùîä ì÷éçä

1.

Question: What is the reason? Taking through an intermediary is called Lekichah!

åùîà çã îéðééäå øáä

2.

Answer #1: Perhaps Rabah taught one of these [teachings].

åìîàé ãôøéùéú ðéçà ãëé ëøéê ìéä ììåìá áñåãø àó òì ôé ùàéðå çéáåø âîåø äåé ëîå áéú éã åìäëé çùéá ìéä ì÷éçä

3.

Answer #2: According to what I explained, it is fine. When he wrapped a Lulav in a scarf, even though it is not totally connected, it is like a handle, and therefore it is considered Lekichah.

å÷öú ÷ùä îääéà ãéåîà (ãó ðç.) ã÷àîø äðéç îæø÷ áúåê îæø÷ îäå

(f)

Question: The Gemara in Yoma (58a) is somewhat difficult. It says "if he placed a bucket in a bucket, what is the law?

îàé ÷à îéáòéà ìéä äà ëé äàé âååðà äåéà ì÷éçä òì éãé ã''à ùîä ì÷éçä ãìéäåé çéöåï áéú éã ìôðéîé

1.

What was the question? In such a case, taking through an intermediary is called Lekichah. The outer bucket is a handle for the inner!

åéù ìåîø ãàé àçéæ ìéä çéöåï áãåôðéå ùîèìèì äôðéîé òì éãå äëé ðîé ãäåéà ì÷éçä îèòí áéú éã

(g)

Answer: If he holds the outer by its walls, that he moves the inner via it, indeed this is Lekichah, due to the reason of [the outer is] a handle;

àìà äëà áîàé òñ÷éðï ëâåï ùðåùà äçéöåï îúçúéå ãìà îäðé ëìì ìôðéîé:

1.

However, what is the case here? He carries the outer from its bottom. It does not help at all for the inner (also without the outer, he would be taking the inner).

24b----------------------------------------24b

4)

TOSFOS DH b'Mikra Nidrash Lefanav u'Le'acharav ka'Mipalgei

úåñôåú ã"ä áî÷øà ðãøù ìôðéå åìàçøéå ÷îéôìâé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses places that connote otherwise.)

äà ãôìéâé àîåøàé áôø÷ äùåàì (á''î ãó öä.) áî÷øà ðãøù ìôðéå åìà ìôðé ôðéå åôøéê îîúðé' ãäùåàì

(a)

Implied question: Amora'im argue in Bava Metzi'a (95a) about whether the verse is expounded Lefanav (about what preceded it), but not Lifnei Fanav (about what preceded the matter that preceded it), and we ask from our Mishnah there...

ìà îöé ìîéîø ãääéà ø''ù ãìà ãøéù ÷øà ìôðéå

1.

Why couldn't we say that the Mishnah (which does not expound Lifnei Fanav) is R. Shimon, who does not expound [here] Lefanav?

ãäúí äåé îèòîà ãäåé''å îåñéó òì òðéï øàùåï åîåãä ø''ù ëãàîø áä÷åîõ øáä (îðçåú ãó éè.) äééðå èòîà ãø''ù åäáéàä (ëï öøéê ìäâéä) åé''å îåñéó òì òðéï øàùåï

(b)

Answer: There, the reason is due to Vov Mosif Al Inyan Rishon. R. Shimon agrees in such a case, like it says in Menachos (19a). R. Shimon's reason is "v'Hevi'ah" - Vov Mosif Al Inyan Rishon;

åâáé åì÷ç åðúï ìà àîøéðï åé''å îåñéó òì òðéï øàùåï ìîéìó (äâää áâìéåï, áùí öàï ÷ãùéí) ÷áìä îðúéðä áéîéï ëãôé' äúí á÷åðèøñ ãàöáòå äôñé÷ äòðéï áéï åì÷ç ìåðúï

1.

Regarding "v'Lakach... v'Nasan" we do not say Vov Mosif Al Inyan Rishon to learn Kabalah from Nesinah, that it is with the right hand, like Rashi explained there that "Etzba'o" interrupts between "v'Lakach" and "v'Nasan".

åáô' (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) ÷îà ã÷ãåùéï (ãó èå:) îùîò ãëåìé òìîà ãøùéðï î÷øà ìôðéå áìà åé''å îåñéó òì òðéï (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú, öàï ÷ãùéí) ãôøéê åð÷éù îæåæä ìúìîåã úåøä

(c)

Implied question #1: In Kidushin (15b), it connotes that all expound the verse Lefanav without Vov Mosif Al Inyan, for it asks that we should equate Mezuzah to Talmud Torah!

åáô''÷ ãøàù äùðä (ãó è:) ãøùé ëåìé òìîà î÷øà ìôðéå åáìôðé ôðéå åìàçøéå ôìéâé

(d)

Implied question #2: And in Rosh Hashanah (9b), all expound the verse Lefanav, and they argue about Lifnei Fanav and afterwards!

åáñîåê ÷ùä èôé ã÷àîø øáé àìòæø áø''ù ëì î÷åí ùðà' àöáò áðúéðä ùéðä áðúéðä ôñåì á÷áìä ëùø

(e)

Question #3: Below is even more difficult! R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon says that wherever it says "Etzba" regarding Nesinah, if he deviated in Nesinah, it is Pasul. [If he deviated] in Kabalah, it is Kosher;

ëâåï åì÷çú îãí äôø åðúú òì ÷øðåú äîæáç áàöáòê å÷ñáø î÷øà ðãøù ìôðéå åìà ìôðé ôðéå åìàçøéå ðéîà åé''å îåñéó òì òðéï øàùåï

1.

E.g. "v'Lakachta mi'Dam ha'Par v'Nasata Al Karnos ha'Mizbe'ach b'Etzba'echa." He holds that the verse is expounded Lefanav, and not Lifnei Fanav and not afterwards. He should say Vov Mosif Al Inyan Rishon!

åùîà øáé àìòæø áø''ù ìéú ìéä åé''å îåñéó

(f)

Answer #1: Perhaps R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon does not expound Vov Mosif Al Inyan Rishon.

à''ð ìà ãøùéðï åé''å îåñéó ëãé ìãøåù äî÷øà ìôðé ôðéå

(g)

Answer #2: We do not expound Vov Mosif Al Inyan Rishon in order to expound Lifnei Fanav.

5)

TOSFOS DH v'Harei Zerikah v'Tanan Zarak bi'Smol Pasul

úåñôåú ã"ä åäøé æøé÷ä åúðï æø÷ áùîàì ôñåì

(SUMMARY: Tosfos brings another text, but also defends our text.)

àôéìå áùàø æáçéí åìà ôìéâ ø''ù àîø àáéé ôìéâ ááøééúà

(a)

Version #1: [Zerikah with the left hand is Pasul] even for other Zevachim, and R. Shimon does not argue! Abaye said that he argues in a Beraisa.

åôøù''é æø÷ áùîàì áùàø ÷øáðåú àáì áçèàú îåãä ø''ù ãáòé éîéï ëãàéúà ááøééúà ìòéì

(b)

Explanation (Rashi): He did Zerikah with the left hand for other Korbanos, but R. Shimon agrees that Chatas requires the right hand, like the Beraisa above (24a) teaches.

åä÷ùä äøá ø' éò÷á îàåøìéðù îàé ÷åùéà åàîàé ôìéâ ø''ù ááøééúà

(c)

Question (Ri of Orlins): What was the question, and why does R. Shimon argue in a Beraisa [about other Korbanos]?

ðäé ãìà ëúá àìà ëäåðä î''î àúéà îäé÷ùà ãæàú äúåøä ãàîø ì÷îï ñåó ãí çèàú (ãó öç.) åáîðçåú ñåó äúåãä (ãó ôâ.) îä çèàú àéðä áàä àìà îï äçåìéï åáéåí åáéãå äéîðéú àó ëì åëå'

1.

Granted, it is written only Kehunah. In any case, we should learn from the Hekesh "Zos ha'Torah", which we say below (98a) and in Menachos (83a) that just like Chatas comes only from Chulin and during the day and with the right hand, also all [Korbanos]!

åôøéê éãå äéîðéú îãøáä áø áø çðä ðô÷à ãëì î÷åí ùðàîø àöáò åëäåðä àéðä àìà éîéï

2.

[The Gemara] asks that we know the right hand from Rabah bar bar Chanah, who taught that wherever it says 'Etzba' and 'Kehunah', the right hand is required;

åîùðé ëãé ðñáä àé ðîé ñáø ìä ëø''ù ãëäåðä áòéà àöáò

3.

It answers that [the right hand] was taught needlessly (we know it from Rabah bar bar Chanah, and not from the Hekesh). Alternatively, (the Tana, R. Akiva,) holds like R. Shimon, who says that 'Kehunah' requires 'Etzba' [to obligate the right hand, but 'Kehunah' by itself does not].

îùîò áäãéà ãø''ù éìéó ùàø ÷øáðåú îçèàú

i.

Inference: This explicitly shows that R. Shimon learns other Korbanos from Chatas!

åäùéá ìå ø''ú ãìà âøñéðï åäøé æøé÷ä ãàéðä îùðä áùåí î÷åí àìà âøñéðï åäøé îìé÷ä åîùðä äéà ì÷îï áôø÷ çèàú äòåó (ãó ñç.)

(d)

Version #2 (R. Tam): The text does not say [here] "behold Zerikah", for this is not a Mishnah anywhere. Rather, the text says "behold Melikah." This is a Mishnah below (68a);

ãúðï ëì äôñåìéï ùîì÷å îìé÷úï ôñåìä åàéï îèîàéï áâãéí àáéú äáìéòä îì÷ áùîàì àå áìéìä ëå'

1.

Citation (68a - Mishnah): Any Pasul who did Melikah, his Melikah is Pasul, and it is not Metamei the clothes of one who swallows it. If he did Melikah with the left hand or at night...

åäù''ñ äáéàä á÷åöø ùëï ãøê äù''ñ ì÷öø ëîä îùðéåú åäñåôøéí èòå åëúáå áî÷åí îìé÷ä æøé÷ä åòåôåú ìà àúå áäé÷ùà ãæàú äúåøä

2.

The Gemara brought [this Mishnah] abbreviated. The Gemara often abbreviates Mishnayos. Scribes erred, and wrote "Zerikah" in place of "Melikah". We do not learn birds from the Hekesh of Zos ha'Torah;

àáì æøé÷ä áùàø ÷øáðåú ôñì ùôéø áùîàì ãéìéó áäé÷ùà ãæàú äúåøä ëãîùîò ùéìäé ãí çèàú (ì÷îï ãó öç.)

i.

However, Zerikah of other Korbanos is properly Pasul with the left hand. We learn from the Hekesh of Zos ha'Torah, like it connotes below (98a).

åáñîåê ðîé âøñéðï ááøééúà îì÷ áùîàì ôñåì åø''ù îëùéø

3.

Also in the coming Beraisa, the text says "if he did Melikah with the left hand, it is Pasul, and R. Shimon is Machshir."

åòåã àåîø ø''ú ãàôéìå âøñéðï æø÷ îöéðå ìîéîø ãääåà úðà ãæàú (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú, øù"ù) äúåøä ãîôé÷ éîéï îçèàú ñáø ìä ëø''ù ãëäåðä áòéà àöáò

(e)

Answer #2 (R. Tam): Even if the text says "Zarak", we can say that the Tana of (who expounds) Zos ha'Torah, who learns the right hand from Chatas, holds like R. Shimon, that Kehunah requires Etzba;

àáì ø''ù ìà ñáø ìä ëååúéä ìîéìó éîéï áæøé÷ä áùàø ÷øáðåú îçèàú îùåí ãæøé÷ä ìà éìôéðï îäæàä

1.

However, R. Shimon does not hold like him to learn the right hand in Zerikah of other Korbanos from Chatas, because we do not learn Zerikah from Haza'ah (of inner Chata'os, about which the Torah taught that the right hand is required).

å÷ùä òì æä îòé÷øà ëé ôøéê åäøé æøé÷ä ãìà ôìéâ ø''ù ãéìîà äééðå îùåí ãéìéó îäé÷éùà

(f)

Question: Initially, when [the Gemara] asked "behold Zerikah, that R. Shimon does not argue about it!", perhaps this is because he learns from the Hekesh!

åéù ìåîø ãòãéôà îùðé ôìéâ ááøééúà

(g)

Answer: [The Gemara] gave a better answer, that he argues in a Beraisa.

å÷ùä ìôø''ú ãàôéìå âøí ááøééúà îì÷ òì ëøçéê àîú äåà ãîëùéø ø''ù æøé÷ä áùîàì ëãîåëç áñîåê åáô''÷ (ìòéì ãó éà.)

(h)

Question (against R. Tam): Even if the text in the Beraisa says "Malak", you are forced to say that it is true that R. Shimon is Machshir Zerikah with the left hand, like is proven below (25a) and above (11a);

ãàîø åîàé èòîà ãø''ù áà ìòåáãä áëìé òåáãä áùîàì ëàùí åäééðå áæøé÷ú àùí ãá÷áìä ìà àééøé ãàôé' çèàú ðîé ìà áòé éîéï á÷áìä ìø''ù

1.

Citation (11a): What is R. Shimon's reason? If [the Kohen] wants to offer [the Kometz] in a Kli, he may take it in his left hand, like an Asham. This refers to Zerikah of an Asham, for he does not discuss Kabalah. Even for Chatas, R. Shimon does not require Kabalah with the right hand!

i.

Note: Above (11a), the Gemara said so to explain R. Eliezer.

ãàîø ìòéì åëé ðàîøä éã á÷áìä (ìø''ù) ëå'

ii.

[R. Shimon] said above "was Yad said regarding Kabalah?!..."

åöøéê ìúøõ ãäàé úðà ñáø ìä ëååúéä áçãà

(i)

Answer: He must answer that this Tana (who expounds Zos ha'Torah) holds like R. Shimon in one way (that Kehunah requires Etzba, but he requires the right hand for all Zerikah, unlike R. Shimon).

åàí úàîø ìôéøåù øáéðå úí ðîé ãâøñéðï îì÷ äà îìé÷ä ðô÷à ìï áô''÷ ãçåìéï (ãó ëá.) éîéï àôéìå ìø''ù îãëúéá åàú äùðé éòùä òåìä ëîùôè

(j)

Question: Also according to R. Tam, that the text says "Malak", we learn the right hand for Melikah in Chulin (22a) even according to R. Shimon, since it says "veha'Sheni Ya'aseh Olah ka'Mishpat";

ãøùéðï ëîùôè çèàú áäîä ãàéðä áàä àìà îï äçåìéï åáéåí åáéãå äéîðéú

1.

We expound "like the Mishpat (law) of Chatas Behemah, which comes only from Chulin, and during the day, and with the right hand";

åäúí ðîé ôøéê éîðéú îãøáä áø áø çðä ðô÷à åîùðé ëø''ù ãëäåðä áòéà àöáò

2.

Also there, it asks that we learn the right hand from Rabah bar bar Chanah, and answers that [the Tana] holds like R. Shimon, that 'Kehunah' requires 'Etzba'!

åé''ì ãîìé÷ä ùäéà ëðâã ùçéèä ìà ðô÷à åäúí áäæàä îééøé ãáòéà éîéï àáì îäé÷éùà ìà éìôéðï òåôåú îçèàú áäîä åìëê àéöèøéê ðîé ëîùôè äúí

(k)

Answer #1: Melikah, which corresponds to Shechitah, we do not learn. There it discusses Haza'ah, which requires the right hand, but from a Hekesh we do not learn birds from Chatas Behemah. Therefore, we need also "ka'Mishpat" there.

à''ð ääåà úðà ñáø ëúðà ãôìéâ òìéä ãø''ù ìòéì åôåñì ÷áìä áùîàì îùåí ãî÷øà ðãøù ìôðéå åìàçøéå åîå÷é àöáòå ãëúéá âáé çèàú âí òì ÷áìä

(l)

Answer #2: That Tana holds like the Tana who argues with R. Shimon above, and disqualifies Kabalah with the left hand, because he expounds the verse Lefanav and afterwards. He establishes "Etzba'o" written regarding Chatas also regarding Kabalah;

åìãéãäå éìôéðï ùôéø îìé÷ä áéîéï îçèàú ã÷áìä ìà ùééê ìîéìó ãìéúéä áòåó åéìôéðï îìé÷ä

1.

According to them, we properly learn Melikah with the right hand from Chatas. We cannot learn Kabalah, for it does not apply to birds, and we learn Melikah;

àáì ø''ù ãàîø ÷áì áùîàì ëùø åìéú ìéä éîéï áçèàú áäîä àìà áäæàä ìçåãä áòåìú (îëàï îãó äáà) äòåó ðîé ìà äåä áòé éîéï áîìé÷ä àìà áäæàä ãåå÷à

2.

However, R. Shimon, who says that if he did Kabalah with the left hand, it is Kosher, and he requires the right hand for Chatas Behemah only for Haza'ah, also for Olas ha'Of, he would not require the right hand for Melikah, rather, only for Haza'ah.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF