1)

TOSFOS DH Ha Mani R. Nechemyah Hi

úåñôåú ã"ä äà îðé øáé ðçîéä äéà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses which blood R. Nechemyah discusses.)

ãàîø ùéøé äãí ùä÷øéáï áçåõ çééá åìà îéúðé úìúà ôèåøé áäãé úìúà çéåáé

(a)

Explanation: [It is R. Nechemyah,] who says that if one offered Shirayim of blood outside he is liable. He could not teach three exemptions together with three Chiyuvim (for he never exempts outside).

ëåìä ñåâéà ãùîòúà îùîò ãøáé ðçîéä îééøé áãîéí äçéöåðéí

1.

Our entire Sugya connotes that R. Nechemyah discusses outer blood.

åä÷ùä äøá øáé éò÷á îàåøìéð''ù ãì÷îï áñåó äùåçè åäîòìä (ãó ÷éà.) àîøéðï åäùúà ãàîø øá àãà áø àäáä îçìå÷ú áùéøéí äôðéîéí àáì áùéøéí äçéöåðé' ãáøé äëì àéï îòëáéï ëé (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) ÷àîø ø' ðçîéä áùéøéí äôðéîéí

(b)

Question #1 (Ri of Orlins): Below (111a), we say "now that Rav Ada bar Ahavah said that they argue about inner Shirayim, but all agree that outer Shirayim are not Me'akev. R. Nechemyah discusses inner Shirayim!"

åòåã ÷ùä ã÷àîø ø' éåçðï äúí (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí) ø' ðçîéä ëãáøé äàåîø ùéøéí îòëáéï åäëà àùëçï çéöåðéí ãî÷øéáï áçåõ çééá åàéðï îòëáéï

(c)

Question #2: R. Yochanan said there (111a) that R. Nechemyah [obligate for offering Shirayim outside, for he] holds like the opinion that Shirayim are Me'akev. Here we find that if one offered outer [Shirayim] outside he is liable, and they are not Me'akev;

ã÷àîø äëà ìø' ðçîéä áãîéí äçéöåðéí úøé ôèåøé åçã çéåáà åëéåï ãàéï îçùáä îåòìú áäï åàéï èòåðéï ëéáåñ à''ë ìà îòëáé

1.

Source: It says here according to R. Nechemyah two exemptions for outer blood, and one Chiyuv. Since intent does not take effect on it, and it need not be laundered, if so it is not Me'akev!

åòåã ãàé ùéøéí äðéúðéï ìéñåã áãîéí äçéöåðéí îòëáé à''ë îöéðå ãîéí çöééï ìîèä åçöééï ìîòìä åáçã î÷åí ìà àùëçï ëãàîø ìòéì

(d)

Question #3: If Shirayim of outer blood put on the Yesod were Me'akev, if so we find that blood is partially below and partially above, and we never find this in one place, like it says above (38a)!

åòåã îé òãéôé îùìù îúðåú ùáçèàú

(e)

Question #4: Are [outer Shirayim] better than [the last] three Matanos of a Chatas?

åòåã àîøéðï áñåó äùåçè åäîòìä (ì÷îï ãó ÷éá.) âáé çèàú ù÷éáì ãîä áùúé ëåñåú ãîå÷é ìä ëø' ðçîéä îùì ìîä''ã ëå'

(f)

Question #5: We say below (112a) regarding a Chatas whose blood was received in two cups, which we establish like R. Nechemyah... A parable for this [is one who was Makdish his Chatas, lost it, was Makdish another, and then found the first...]

åîå÷é ìä áùòéø ðùéà àìîà ø''ð áçéöåðåú àééøé ãåîéà ãùòéø ðùéà

1.

We establish it to discuss the goat (Chatas) of a Nasi. This shows that R. Nechemyah discusses outer Chata'os, similar to the goat of a Nasi!

îéäå äà ìà ÷ùéà àò''â ãäîùì àééøé áùòéø ðùéà î''î øéùà ìà äåé áùòéø ðùéà

(g)

Answer: This (Question #5) is not difficult. Even though the parable discusses Se'ir Nasi, the Reisha does not discuss Se'ir Nasi.

åö''ì ñåâéà ãùîòúà àúéà ãìà ëø' éåçðï

(h)

Answer #1 (to all questions): We must say that our Sugya is unlike R. Yochanan (who says that R. Nechemyah holds that Shirayim are Me'akev).

åáøééúà ìà ÷ùéà ìø' éåçðï

1.

Implied question: [If so,] the Beraisa is difficult for R. Yochanan! (Why did the Beraisa distinguish between blood destined for the Yesod, and what is destined for Amah, and not distinguish within what is destined for the Yesod, between inner Chata'os and outer Chata'os? Our Sugya answered that the Beraisa is R. Nechemyah, and he does not totally exempt outer Shirayim. R. Yochanan cannot say so, for he holds that R. Nechemyah obligates only what is Me'akev - Panim Me'iros!)

ãäà ãìà îôìéâ áãéãéä îùåí ãëåìä áôðéîéí ÷îééøé

2.

Answer: It does not distinguish within [what is destined for the Yesod, between inner Chata'os and outer Chata'os] because it totally discusses inner Chata'os.

(úåñ') åéù ìôøù à''ø éåçðï ø' ðçîéä ëî''ã ùéøéí äôðéîééí îòëáé åàéìå äéä òåùä àåúï (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã) áçåõ çééá

(i)

Comment - Answer #2: R. Yochanan said that R. Nechemyah holds like the opinion that inner Shirayim are Me'akev. If he would [throw] them outside [l'Shem Avodah], he would be liable;

à''ë éù ìçééá àó áçéöåðéí àò''â ãìà îòëáé ãâîøé' îàéáøéí åôãøéí

1.

If so, we should obligate even for outer [Shirayim], even though they are not Me'akev, for we learn from limbs and Chelev.

åàé ôøëú îä ìàéáøéí åôãøéí ùëï úçéìú òáåãä

2.

Implied question: You can challenge this - limbs and Chelev are initial Avodah!

ùéøééí ôðéîééí éåëéçå

3.

Answer: Inner Shirayim are Yochi'ach (one is liable even for final Avodah).

åàé ôøëú îä ìùéøééí äôðéîééí ùëï îòëáéï

4.

Implied question: You cannot learn from inner Shirayim, for they are Me'akev!

àéáøéí åôãøéí éåëéçå

5.

Answer: Limbs and Chelev are Yochi'ach (one is liable even for what is not Me'akev).

åö''ò ãäà ùéøééí äôðéîééí ÷åøà àåúï úçéìú òáåãä ì÷îï

(j)

Question: Below (111a), we call inner Shirayim initial Avodah!

(äâää) ø''ú äùéá ìå ãàîú äåà ãø' ðçîéä àó áùéøéí äçéöåðéí îééøé îã÷úðé ùéøé äãí ñúîà ì''ù ôðéîéí åì''ù çéöåðéí

(k)

Comment - Answer #3 (R. Tam, to Ri of Orlins): The truth is, R. Nechemyah discusses even outer Shirayim, since he taught Stam Shirayim - there is no difference between inner and outer [Shirayim];

åäëé ôé' ãùîòúà ãñåó äùåçè åäîòìä (â''æ ùí) åäùúà ãà''ø àãà áø àäáä îçìå÷ú áùéøéí äôðéîéí àáì çéöåðéí ãáøé äëì ìà îòëáé åëé ÷àîø ø' ðçîéä (äâää áâìéåï, îùéèä î÷åáöú) áùéøéí äôðéîéí

1.

The Sugya below (111a) means as follows. Now that Rav Ada bar Ahavah said that they argue about inner Shirayim, but all agree that outer Shirayim are not Me'akev, R. Nechemyah discusses inner Shirayim!

ôéøåù ëé ÷àîø ãùéøéí îòëáé îåëìä îëôø äééðå áùéøéí äôðéîéí åëé úðéà ääéà áùéøéí äçéöåðéí

2.

Explanation: When he said that Shirayim are Me'akev from "v'Chilah mi'Kaper", this refers to inner Shirayim. That Beraisa refers to outer Shirayim;

ôé' ääéà ãø' ðçîéä åø' ò÷éáà áùéøéí äçéöåðéí ëì æä îãáøé øá àãà

3.

I.e. the Beraisa of R. Nechemyah and R. Akiva refers to outer Shirayim. All this is from the words of Rav Ada;

åìãáøéå ãøáé ò÷éáà äù''ñ ÷àîø ãîä ùàîø ø''ò ùéøé äãí ùéøé îöåä äï îùîò ì''ù ôðéîéí åìà ùðà çéöåðéí

(l)

Implied question: According to R. Akiva, the Gemara says that R. Akiva said that Shirayim are Shirei (remnants of a) Mitzvah, this connotes that there is no difference between inner and outer [Shirayim]!

ìà ÷ùéà ìøá àãà ãø''ò ìãáøé òöîå äùéá ìå (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú, öàï ÷ãùéí) ãôìéâ àãø' ðçîéä (äâää áâìéåï, îùéèä î÷åáöú) åàéú ìéä ùéøéí àéï îòëáéí àôé' áôðéîéí

(m)

Answer: This is not difficult for Rav Ada. R. Akiva answered according to his own opinion. He argues with R. Nechemyah, and he holds that Shirayim are not Me'akev, even inner Shirayim;

åøáé ðçîéä ñ''ì ìòåìí ãôðéîéí îòëáéï åùéøéí çéöåðéí àéï îòëáéï åàô''ä çééá àëåìï áçåõ (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú)

1.

R. Nechemyah holds that really, inner [Shirayim] are Me'akev, and outer Shirayim are not Me'akev, and even so, one is liable for all of them outside;

åø' éåçðï äéä ñåáø ãàó çéöåðéí îòëáéï ìø' ðçîéä

2.

R. Yochanan holds that even outer Shirayim are Me'akev according to R. Nechemyah.

åáæä ìà äéä îå÷ùä ãìà îöéðå (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí) ùåí úðà ãñáø çéöåðéí îòëáéí ãåãàé àéëà ùåí úðà ãàéú ìéä äàé ñáøà ãçéöåðéí îòëáéï

(n)

Observation: This was not difficult, that we do not find any Tana who holds that outer [Shirayim] are Me'akev, for surely there is some Tana who holds that outer [Shirayim] are Me'akev;

àìà áæä àéúåúá ãäåà ñáø (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) ãøáé ðçîéä äåä ñ''ì ãçéöåðéí îòëáéï åèòîà ãø' ðçîéä ãîçééá áçåõ îùåí òéëåáà äåà ãäà åãàé ìéúéä

1.

Rather, [R. Yochanan] was refuted about the following. He holds that R. Nechemyah holds that outer [Shirayim] are Me'akev, and the reason why R. Nechemyah obligates outside is because they are Me'akev. Surely this is wrong.

å÷' ìôø''ú ãò''ë ìéëà ùåí úðà ùéàîø ùéøéí äçéöåðéí îòëáéï ëãôøéùé' ãìà îöéðå ãîéí ùçöééï ìîèä åçöééï ìîòìä

(o)

Question #1 (against R. Tam): You are forced to say that no Tana holds that outer Shirayim are Me'akev, like I explained, for we do not find blood that is half below and half above!

åòåã ãìà àôùø ìåîø ëï ìø' ðçîéä ùéøéí äçéöåðéí îòëáéï ëãîåëç áñåó äåöéàå ìå (éåîà ãó ñ.)

(p)

Question #2: Also, according to R. Nechemyah we cannot say that outer Shirayim are Me'akev, like is proven in Yoma (60a);

ãôìéâé ø' éäåãä åø' ðçîéä áãáøéí äðòùéï ááâãé ìáï áçåõ ãìøáé éäåãä ìà îòëáé åìøáé ðçîéä îòëáé ...

1.

R. Yehudah and R. Nechemyah argue about matters done in the white garments outside. R. Yehudah holds that they are not Me'akev, and R. Nechemyah holds that they are Me'akev;

ãîôøù ø' éåçðï ãùðéäí î÷øà àçã ãøùå åäéúä æàú ìëí åâå' åëúéá æàú åëúéá àçú ìø' éäåãä çã ìîòåèé áâãé ìáï áçåõ åçã ìîòåèé áâãé æäá áçåõ

2.

R. Yochanan explains that both of them expound one verse - "v'Haysah Zos Lachem..." - it says Zos, and it says Achas. R. Yehudah says that one excludes [from being Me'akev matters done in] the white garments outside, and one excludes the gold garments outside;

åìøáé ðçîéä çã ìîòåèé áâãé æäá åçã ìîòåèé ùéøéí ãìà îòëáé

i.

R. Nechemyah holds that one excludes [matters done in] the gold garments, and one excludes Shirayim, that they are not Me'akev.

åäúí ôøéê [ùôéø] ãøáé éåçðï àãøáé éåçðï îääéà ãì÷îï ã÷àîø ø' éåçðï ãúðé ø' ðçîéä ìãáøé äàåîø ùéøéí îòëáéï ÷ùéà

3.

There, [the Gemara] properly asks a contradiction in R. Yochanan, against R. Yochanan's teaching below, that R. Nechemyah taught like the opinion that Shirayim are Me'akev. It leaves this difficult.

2)

TOSFOS DH v'Asah la'Par Ka'asher Asah

úåñôåú ã"ä åòùä ìôø ëàùø òùä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains according to Rashi, and also gives another Perush.)

ôé' á÷åðè' áôø äòìí ãáø ùì öáåø ëúéá åî÷øà ùàéðå öøéê äåà ùäøé ëì òáåãåúéå ðúôøùå áå çåõ îéåúøú äëáã åùúé äëìéåú ùäåà öøéê ììîåã îôø ëäï äîùéç äàîåø ìîòìä (îëàï îòîåã á) äéîðå

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This is written regarding Par Helam Davar of the Tzibur. The verse is not needed, for all its Avodos were explained, except for Yoseres ha'Kaved (the diaphragm) and the two kidneys, which it needs to learn from Par Kohen Mashi'ach, taught above it.

39b----------------------------------------39b

åäà ìéëà ìîéîø ãìäëé äãø åà÷ùéðäå ìäà îéìúà

(b)

Implied suggestion: Perhaps the Torah equated them for this matter (Yoseres ha'Kaved and the kidneys)!

ãäà ÷øà ëôøä ëúéá áéä åëôø òìéäí åàéîåøéï ìà îòëáé ëôøä

(c)

Rejection: The verse writes Kaparah - "v'Chiper Aleihem", and the Eimurim are not Me'akev Kaparah.

îùîò ìôé' ãàé äåä îöéðå ìàå÷åîé ìòáåãú ãí ìà äåä îå÷îéðà ìéä ìëôåì áäæàåú

(d)

Inference: If we could establish [the Hekesh] to teach about Avodas Dam, we would not establish it to "double" Haza'os (to be a second source, to teach that they are Me'akev).

å÷ùä ìø' ùîòåï áñîåê ÷îéáòé ìîéîø ãàéöèøéê ëï éòùä ìîúï àøáò (àô''ä îöé ðîé ìëôåì áäæàä ãåòùä ìëôåì ëì îä ãàîø áòðéï àúà) ãìà ëúá îúï ã' áäòìí ãáø åî÷øðåú ãëäï îùéç ìîã

(e)

Question: According to R. Shimon below (40a, the Gemara) wanted to say that he needs "Ken Ya'aseh" to teach about four Matanos, for four Matanos are not written regarding Helam Davar, and it is learned from "Keranos" of [Par] Kohen Mashi'ach. (Two Matanos are written about each Par. "Ken Ya'aseh" teaches that for each, we do also the two Matanos written about the other.)

åàí ëï àéîà àéöèøéê åòùä ëàùø òùä ìîúï ã' åà''ë îðà ìéä ìëôåì áäæàåú

1.

If so, I can say that we need Ka'asher Asah for four Matanos. If so, what is the source to double Haza'os (teach that they are Me'akev)?

ìëê ðøàä ãåòùä ìëôåì ìëì îä ùàîåø áòðéï àúéà

(f)

Explanation #2: It seems that "v'Asah" comes to double whatever is written in the Parshah.

åé''ì ìô' øù"é (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) ãåòùä ìà îùîò ìäåñéó áôø äòìí ùúé îúðåú äëúåáåú áëäï îùéç ãàéï ðéëø ùéäà çñø ùåí äæàä àìà äðê ùúéí ãôø äòìí äééðå àåúï ùúéí ãîùéç

(g)

Defense (for Explanation #1): We can say for Rashi that "v'Asah" does not connote to add to Par Helam two Matanos written about Kohen Mashi'ach, for it is not evident that [Par Helam] is lacking any Haza'ah. Rather, the two of Par Helam are the same two as of Mashi'ach. (V'Asah la'Par Ka'asher Asah cannot teach four Matanos. We can learn this only from Ken Ya'aseh.)

å÷ùä ãéìîà åòùä ëàùø òùä àúé ìàú áãí åèáéìä ãìà ëúéá áôø äòìí åëúéá áôø ëäï ìôéøåù øù''é åìà ìëôåì áäæàåú

(h)

Question: Perhaps "v'Asah... Ka'asher Asah" comes for [what we expound (40a) from] "Es", "b'Dam" and Tevilah, which are not written regarding Par Helam Davar, and they are written regarding Par Kohen, according to Rashi, and not to double Haza'os!

é''ì ãàú áãí åèáéìä àéï æä çñøåï òáåãä àìà úé÷åï òáåãä åìà ùééê áäå åòùä ëàùø òùä. áøå''ê

(i)

Answer: [What we expound from] "Es", "b'Dam" and Tevilah is not a Chisaron (lack) of Avodah, rather, it is doing Avodah properly. "V'Asah... Ka'asher Asah" does not apply to it. This is from R. Baruch.

3)

TOSFOS DH l'Par Zeh Par Yom ha'Kipurim

úåñôåú ã"ä ìôø æä ôø éåí äëôåøéí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses what we learn from here.)

ì÷îï àîø ìà ðöøëà àìà ìàú áãí åèáéìä àáì ìòëá ìà àéöèøéê ãçå÷ä ëúéáà áéä

(a)

Explanation #1: Below (40a), we say that we need ["v'Asah... "] only for [what we expound from] "Es", "b'Dam" and Tevilah, but not to teach Ikuv, for Chukah is written in [the Parshah, which teaches that it is Me'akev].

åúéîä åìîä ìéä åòùä ìëôåì áäæàåú úéôå÷ ìé îãàéú÷ù ìôø éåí äëôåøéí

(b)

Question #1: Why does it say "v'Asah... " to "double" Haza'os? I already know this from the Hekesh to Par Yom Kipur!

åòåã ÷ùä ãìøáé éäåãä ãøéù ì÷îï åëìä îëôø àí ëìä ëéôø åàí ìà ëìä ìà ëéôø ìåîø ãîúðåú éåí äëôåøéí îòëáåú

(c)

Question #2: According to R. Yehudah, who expounds below (40a) v'Chilah mi'Kaper - if he finished [the Haza'os], he was Mechaper, and if he did not finish, he was not Mechaper, to teach that the Haza'os of Yom Kipur are Me'akev...

úéôå÷ ìé îäé÷éùà ãôø äòìí ãáø

1.

I should know this from the Hekesh to Par Helam Davar!

åîéäå ìääåà ìéùðà ãàîø áôø÷ àéæäå î÷åîï (ì÷îï ãó ðá:) åôø÷ äåöéàå ìå (éåîà ãó ñ:) ãìøáé éäåãä ùéøéí îòëáéí ðéçà

(d)

Partial answer (to Question #2): According to the version below (52b) and in Yoma (60b) that according to R. Yehudah, Shirayim are Me'akev, this is fine. (V'Chilah mi'Kaper teaches that Shirayim are Me'akev);

àáì ìîàï (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) ãàîø îùîòåú ãåøùéï àéëà áéðééäå åùéøéí ìà îòëáé ìøáé éäåãä ÷ùä ãìòëá áäæàåú ìà öøéê åëìä îëôø ãîôø äòìí ðô÷à

1.

However, according to one who says that they argue only about how the law is expounded, and Shirayim are not Me'akev according to R. Yehudah, it is difficult. We do not need v'Chilah mi'Kaper to teach that Haza'os are Me'akev, for we learn from Par Helam Davar!

åéù ìåîø ãàéöèøéê åëìä ìùáò äæàåú ùòì èäøå ãìéúðäå áôø äòìí

(e)

Answer: We need v'Chilah to teach about the seven Haza'os on Tiharo (the top or middle) of the inner Mizbe'ach, which do not apply to Par Helam Davar.

(úåñôåú òã åùòéøé øàùé çãùéí) åàí úàîø äéà âåôä ðéìó áôø äòìí ãáø áäé÷éùà

(f)

Comment - Question: This itself we should learn from Par Helam Davar through the Hekesh!

åë''ú ãôø éåí äëôåøéí äåà ãàéú÷ù ìôø äòìí ãáø åìà ôø äòìí ìôø éåí äëôåøéí

1.

Suggestion: Par Yom Kipur is equated to Par Helam Davar, but Par Helam Davar is not equated to Par Yom Kipur.

äà ìéúà ãäà éìôéðï éåúøú åùúé äëìéåú áôø äòìí îôø ëäï îùéç ãàúå îééúåøà ãäàé ÷øà

2.

Rejection: We learn (111a) Yoseres ha'Kaved and the two kidneys in Par Helam Davar from Par Kohen Mashi'ach, which we learn from a Yitur (something extra) in this verse. (This shows that this verse teaches also about Par Helam Davar.)

åëï ìø''ù áñîåê éìôéðï àøáò îúðåú áäòìí îëäï îùéç äëé ðîé ðéìó òéëåáà áäòìí îôø éåí äëôåøéí

i.

Also according to R. Shimon below (40a), we learn the four Matanos in [Par] Helam [Davar] from [Par] Kohen Mashi'ach. We should learn also Ikuv in tradition from Sinai from Par Yom Kipur!

äéìëê ðøàä ìé ãåòùä àúé (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) ìòéëåáà ììîã áëäï îùéç åùòéøé òáåãú ëåëáéí ãëúéáé áäàé ÷øà îééúåøà ìåîø ãîúðåúéäí îòëáé

(g)

Explanation #2: Therefore it seems to me that v'Asah comes for Ikuv, to teach about [Par] Kohen Mashi'ach and Se'irei Avodah Zarah, which are written in this verse, from a Yitur, to teach that their Matanos are Me'akev;

ã÷øáðåú ãàúé îøéáåéà ãäàé ÷øà ìà éìôéðï æä îæä

1.

Korbanos that come from a Yitur in this verse, we do not learn them from each other.

àáì ìôéøåù øù''é ãì÷îï àéðå éëåì ìäéåú úéøåõ æä ãôéøù àú áãí ìà ëúá áäòìí ëé àí áëäï îùéç åéìôéðï éåí äëôåøéí îîùéç

(h)

Observation: This answer cannot be according to Rashi's Perush below (40b DH Zeh). He explained that "Es... b'Dam" is not written regarding [Par] Helam. It is written only regarding Kohen Mashi'ach, and we learn Yom Kipur from Mashi'ach;

åëéåï ã÷øáðåú ãàúå îøéáåéà âîøéðï îäããé àí ëï ìéùúå÷ îåòùä åðéâîø òéëåáà áëåìäå (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí) îôø éåí äëôåøéí

1.

Since Korbanos learned from a Yitur, we learn from each other, if so the Torah could have omitted v'Asah, and we would learn Ikuv in all of them from Par Yom Kipur.

îéäå ôøù''é àéï ðøàä ìø''ú ëãîôøù ì÷îï. áøå''ê.

(i)

Remark: However, R. Tam rejected Rashi's Perush, like he explains below. This is from R. Baruch.

åòåã ð''ì ãåãàé ôø äòìí ìà éìôéðï òéëåáà îôø éåí äëôåøéí ùäøé àåúï ôøùéåú øçå÷åú æå îæå àáì ôø äòìí îôø ëäï îùéç éìôéðï ùôéø ìéåúøú åìùúé äëìéåú åìîúï (äâäú ÷äéìú éò÷á åéã áðéîéï) àøáò ùñîåëåú äôøùéåú æå àöì æå. áøåê

(j)

Explanation #3: Surely, we do not learn Ikuv in Par Helam Davar from Par Yom Kipur, for those Parshiyos are far from each other. However, Par Helam from Par Kohen Mashi'ach we properly learn for Yoseres ha'Kaved and the two kidneys and four Matanos, since the Parshiyos are close to each other. This is from R. Baruch

ìôéøåù æä ðéçà ãìäëé ìà éìôéðï ùáò òì èäøå îôø éåí äëôåøéí ìôé ùäôøùéåú øçå÷åú æå îæå

(k)

Support: According to this it is fine that we do not learn the seven [Haza'os] on Tiharo from Par Yom Kipur, for those Parshiyos are far from each other;

àáì ìäëé îäðé ìôø ãîéåúø ìîéãøùæä ôø (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) éåí äëôåøéí ãéìôéðï áéä ãéðéï ùì äòìí

1.

However, "Par" helps for this, that it is extra to expound "this is Par Yom Kipur", through which we learn laws of Helam.

åìôéøåù øù''é ðîé ãéìôéðï ôø äòìí ùôéø îôø ëäï îùéç äà ãìà éìôéðï ùáò ãòì èäøå åùîåðä ãòì äôøëú áôø äòìí îôø éåí äëôåøéí

(l)

Implied question: According to Rashi's Perush, that we properly learn Par Helam from Par Kohen Mashi'ach, why do we not learn the seven on Tiharo and the eight [Haza'os] on the Paroches in Par Helam Davar from Par Yom Kipur?

äééðå èòîà ëéåï ãëúéá áéä åäæä ùáò ôòîéí ìôðé ã' àú ôðé äôøëú åâí éúï (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) òì ÷øðåú àí äåñôú ìà ðú÷ééí äôñå÷ åðøàä äôñå÷ ù÷ø

(m)

Answer: This is because since it says in [Par Helam Davar] "v'Hizah Sheva Pa'amim Lifnei Hash-m Es Pnei ha'Paroches v'Gam Yiten Al Karnos", if you add, you did not fulfill the verse, and it seems that the verse is false;

àáì àøáò ãéìôéðï á÷øðåú îîùéç îùåí ã÷øðåú îùîò ùôéø èåáà ìëì ä÷øðåú àçú ãäééðå àøáò

1.

However, the four that we learn [in Par Helam Davar] from "Karnos", this is because Karnos properly [can] mean many, once on each corner, i.e. four.

åáùòéøé òáåãú ëåëáéí ãéìéó îùì äòìí ãéäáéðï (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã) ùáò ãòì äôøëú îäé÷ùà åëï ùòéøé äøâìéí àé ìàå îéòåèà

(n)

Implied question: Regarding Se'irei Avodah Zarah, we learn from [Par] Helam that we put seven [Haza'os] on the p1c from a Hekesh. Also Se'irei ha'Regalim [we would have learned], if not for an exclusion!

îùåí ãìà ðëúá áäå ëìì òáåãú ãí àìà ëúåáéï ñúí åà''ë àéï æä ñúéøú ôñå÷

(o)

Answer: That is because Avodas ha'Dam is not written at all regarding them. Rather, they are written Stam. If so, this does not contradict the verse.

åáàéîåøéï ãëúéá ëì çìáå åàðï îåñéôéï éåúøú åùúé ëìéåú

(p)

Implied question: It says about the Eimurim "Kol Chelbo", and we add Yoseres ha'Kaved and the two kidneys!

îùåí ãìéëà ùåí ä÷èøä áìà éåúøú åùúé äëìéåú. áøå''ê

(q)

Answer: This is because there is no Haktarah without Yoseres ha'Kaved and the two kidneys. This is from R. Baruch.

4)

TOSFOS DH v'Se'irei Roshei Chodoshim

úåñôåú ã"ä åùòéøé øàùé çãùéí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos justifies the Havah Amina.)

åàí úàîø åäéàê éëåì ìøáåúå åäìà çèàú ãøàù çãù ðàëì äéä ëãëúéá ãøù ãøù îùä åäðä ùåøó

(a)

Question: How could we include it? [Inner Chata'os are burned, but] the Chatas of Rosh Chodesh was eaten, like it is written "Darash Darash Moshe v'Hinei Suraf"!

åéù ìåîø ùòì æä äåà áà ìã÷ã÷ ãðéãøåù îùä îäëà ùéäà áùøéôä ëôðéîéí

(b)

Answer: [The one who suggested this] comes to ask that Moshe should have expounded from here that it is burned, like inner [Chata'os]!

5)

TOSFOS DH v'Chiper Af Al Pi she'Lo Samach

úåñôåú ã"ä åëôø àò''ô ùìà ñîê

(SUMMARY: Tosfos justifies the Havah Amina.)

àò''â ãìà îòëáà áòìîà

(a)

Implied question: Elsewhere, Semichah is not Me'akev!

äåä àîéðà ãîòëáà äëà ëãôé' á÷åðèøñ îùåí ãåòùä ëàùø òùä òìééäå ÷àé

(b)

Answer: One might have thought that here it is Me'akev, like Rashi explained, because v'Asah [la'Par] Ka'asher Asah refers to [Semichah and Shirayim].

åîéäå ìä÷èøú àéîåøéí ìà àéöèøéê ãìà îòëáé áùåí î÷åí ãàçø ùäåëùø éçæåø åéôñì

(c)

Distinction: Regarding Haktaras Eimurim, we do not need [a Drashah] that it is not Me'akev, for it is not Me'akev anywhere. After the Korban was Kosher, will it revert to be Pasul?!

åìà ãîé ìñîéëä ãäåéà ÷åãí òáåãú äãí åùéøééí ðîé òáåãú äãí ðéðäå åîòëáé ìëîä úðàé

1.

It is unlike Semichah, which is before Avodas ha'Dam. Also Shirayim are Avodas ha'Dam, and they are Me'akev according to some Tana'im.

6)

TOSFOS DH v'Nislach Af Al Pi she'Lo Nasan Shirayim

úåñôåú ã"ä åðñìç àò''ô ùìà ðúï ùéøéí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the need for this Drashah.)

åà''ú úéôå÷ ìé îäà ããøùéðï áôø÷ àéæäå î÷åîï (ì÷îï ãó ðá:) áôø ëäï îùéç åàú ëì ãí äôø (ëï öøéê ìäâéä) éùôê ðú÷å äëúåá åòùàå ùéøé îöåä ìåîø ùéøéí àéï îòëáéï

(a)

Question: We should know this from what we expound below (52b) about Par Kohen Mashi'ach "v'Es Kol Dam ha'Par Yishpoch" - the Torah uprooted it and made it a remnant of a Mitzvah, to teach that Shirayim are not Me'akev;

åä''ð ðãøåù éùôê ãôø äòìí

1.

We should expound similarly Yishpoch of Par Helam!

åéù ìåîø ãäðé îéìé áôø ëäï îùéç ëãôøéù (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) ì÷îï á÷åðèøñ ããøéù îãùéðä áäéìåê ìùåðå

(b)

Answer: This is only regarding Par Kohen Mashi'ach, like Rashi explained below (Sof 52a), that we expound since [the Torah] changed the wording;

ùáëì äòáåãåú ùì ëäï îùéç ëúéá åì÷ç åäæä åðúï åëàï ìà ëúéá åùôê àú ãîå (òì) [àì] éñåã àìà áñúí éùôê ùéðä áîùîòå ìðú÷ï

1.

In all the Avodos of [Par] Kohen Mashi'ach, it is written v'Lakach, v'Hizah, v'Nasan, and here it did not write v'Shafach Es Damo El Yesod, rather, Stam "Yishfoch". The Torah changed, to uproot it [so it will not be Me'akev];

àáì äëà áôø äòìí ìà ùéðä äëúåá ãäà ëúá ðîé éúï ìäëé àéöèøéê åðñìç

2.

However, here in Par Helam, the Torah did not change. It wrote also Yiten. Therefore, we need v'Nislach.

åîãàéú÷ù (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã, åöàï ÷ãùéí) ôø ëäï îùéç ìôø äòìí ìà îöé ìîéìó äúí ãìà îòëáé

(c)

Implied question: Why couldn't we learn from the Hekesh of Par Kohen Mashi'ach to Par Helam Davar, to learn from there that it is not Me'akev?

ëéåï ãùéðä òìéå äëúåá ëã÷àîøú äúí ÷''å ìôø ëäï îùéç îòúä éëåì éòëáðå

(d)

Answer: This is because it was repeated, like it says there "a Kal v'Chomer [teaches] to Par Kohen Mashi'ach. If so, perhaps it is Me'akev!";

ãîàé ãëúá áâåôéä äåé ëàéìå ùðä ìòëá ëéåï ãàôéìå ìà äåä ëúá àúé î÷''å

1.

This is because what is written about it itself is as if it was repeated to teach that it is Me'akev, for even had it not been written, we would learn it from a Kal v'Chomer.

å÷ùéà ìé ãåðñìç áôø äòìí ìîä ìé ðéìó îëäï îùéç ãùéøéí ìà îòëáé

(e)

Question: Why does it say v'Nislach regarding Par Helam? We should learn from Kohen Mashi'ach that Shirayim are not Me'akev!

åëé úéîà ìà éìôéðï ÷åìåú äà éìôéðï ÷åìåú áñîåê àîéï ãìà çééõ. áøå''ê

1.

Do not say that we do not learn leniencies. We learn below that warts are not a Chatzitzah! This is from R. Baruch.

7)

TOSFOS DH u'Machshir Ani bi'Semichah v'Shirayim she'Ein Me'akvin b'Chol Makom

úåñôåú ã"ä åîëùéø àðé áñîéëä åùéøéí ùàéï îòëáéï áëì î÷åí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with R. Tam's opinion.)

ãìëì äôçåú çèàåú äçéöåðåú îåãå ëåìé òìîà ãùéøéí ìà îòëáé àáì ìäæàåú ìà àùëçï áùåí î÷åí ùìà éòëáå

(a)

Explanation: At least outer Chata'os, all agree that [their] Shirayim are not Me'akev. However, we do not find anywhere that Haza'os are not Me'akev.

åìôéøåù øáéðå úí ãàéëà úðà ãàîø ùéøéí äçéöåðéí îòëáé ÷ùä ìääåà úðà îðà ìï ìôñåì áäæàåú åìäëùéø áùéøéí

(b)

Question: This is difficult for R. Tam, who said that there is a Tana who says that outer Shirayim are Me'akev. It is difficult for that Tana. What is the source to disqualify [due to omitting] Haza'os, and to be Machshir [without Zerikas] Shirayim?

åùîà ìà ãøéù åðñìç

(c)

Answer: Perhaps he does not expound v'Nislach [to be Machshir without Zerikas Shirayim. Or, he does not expound it at all! - Shalmei Todah]

úãò ãìîàï ãàîø ðîé ùéøéí äôðéîéí îòëáé òì ëøçéï áëì ôðéîéí ÷àîø îã÷àîø îçìå÷ú áùéøéí äôðéîéí àáì áùéøéí äçéöåðéí ëå' åìà ÷àîø îçìå÷ú áùéøéí ãéåä''ë àáì áùàø ôðéîéí ìà îòëáé:

(d)

Proof: According to the opinion that inner Shirayim are Me'akev, you are forced to say that he says so about all inner [Chata'os], since [Rav Ada] said "they argue about inner Shirayim, but [all agree that outer Shirayim are not Me'akev]", and he did not say "they argue about Shirayim of [Par] Yom Kipur, but [Shirayim of] other inner [Chata'os] are not Me'akev."

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF