1)

TOSFOS DH Minayin l'Mis'asek b'Kodshim she'Hu Pasul

úåñôåú ã"ä îðéï ìîúòñ÷ á÷ãùéí ùäåà ôñåì

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the case of Mis'asek b'Kodshim.)

ô''÷ ãçåìéï (ãó éâ.) ôéøù á÷åðèøñ ëâåï îúòñ÷ áñëéðå ìäâáéäå [àå] ìæåø÷å

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi in Chulin 13a): E.g. he was engaged with a knife to lift it or throw it. (He did not intend for Shechitah.)

å÷ùä ãëä''â àôéìå áçåìéï ôñåì ìøáðï ãôìéâé òìéä ãøáé ðúï åáòå ëååðä

(b)

Objection: In such a case even [Shechitah of] Chulin is Pasul according to Rabanan who argue with R. Nasan and require intent!

åàôé' îúëåéï ìçúéëä ëâåï æø÷ ñëéï ìðåòöä áëåúì ãçùéá îúëåéï ìçúéëä ëãîåëç ô''á ãçåìéï (ãó ìà:) àô''ä ôñìé øáðï

1.

And even intent to cut, e.g. he threw a knife to insert it in a wall, which is considered intent for cutting, like is proven in Chulin (31b), even so Rabanan disqualify;

òã ùéúëåéï ìçúéëú ñéîðéï àó òì âá ãàéðå îúëåéï ìùçéèä ìäúéø áùø åãàé îëùøé ëã÷àîø äúí åøáðï ðäé ãìà áòå ëååðä ìæáéçä ìçúéëä îéäà áòéðï

2.

[They disqualify] unless he intends to cut Simanim. [Then,] even though he does not intend for Shechitah to permit the meat, surely they are Machshir, like it says there "Rabanan, granted they do not require intent for Shechitah, they require [intent] to cut;

ôéøåù ìçúéëú ñéîðéï àáì çúéëä àçøú ìà ãæø÷ ñëéï ìðåòöä áëåúì îúëåéï ìçúéëä äåà åôñìé øáðï

i.

Explanation: They require intent to cut Simanim, but another cutting is not [enough], for throwing a knife to insert it in a wall is considered intent for cutting, and Rabanan disqualify.

åðøàä äàé îúòñ÷ ã÷ãùéí äééðå îúëåéï ìçúéëú ñéîðéï åìà ìùí æáéçä ãáçåìéï ëùø åá÷ãùéí ôñåì

(c)

Explanation #2: Mis'asek in Kodshim is that he intends to cut Simanim, but not for the sake of Shechitah. For Chulin it is Kosher, but for Kodshim it is Pasul.

åòåã éù îúòñ÷ àçø ëâåï îùåí çåìéï ãäééðå ëñáåø ùäï çåìéï åëåìäå îåùçè àú áï äá÷ø ðô÷é:

(d)

Explanation #3: There is another Mis'asek, e.g. for the sake of Chulin, that he thought that the animal is Chulin. We learn from all of these from "v'Shachat Es Ben ha'Bakar."

2)

TOSFOS DH Eizehu Mekoman Kodshei Kodoshim Shechitasan b'Tzafon

úåñôåú ã"ä àéæäå î÷åîï: ÷ãùé ÷ãùéí ùçéèúï áöôåï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses whether or not a Kli Shares is required.)

ä''ø àôøéí äéä îã÷ã÷ îëàï ãìà áòéðï ñëéï áùçéèä îãìà ÷úðé ùçéèúï áëìé ùøú áöôåï ëã÷úðé âáé ÷áìä å÷éáåì ãîï áëìé ùøú áöôåï

(a)

Inference (R. Efrayim): A knife is not required for Shechitah, because the Mishnah did not teach that "they must be slaughtered with a Kli Shares in the north", like it taught about Kabalah "Kabalah of their blood is in a Kli Shares in the north."

åîúåê ëê àúéà ùôéø äà ãàîø áô''÷ ãçåìéï (ãó â.) ëâåï ùáã÷ ÷øåîéú ùì ÷ðä åùçè áä ãìà áòé ëìé ùøú

(b)

Support #1: According to this, it is fine what it says in Chulin (3a) "e.g. he checked a sharp reed and slaughtered with it", for a Kli Shares is not required.

åëï îùîò ÷öú áôñçéí ô' åàìå ãáøéí (ãó ñå.) ùäéä ëì àçã îáéà ñëéðå îúåê áéúå

(c)

Support #2: It connotes a little like this in Pesachim (66a), that everyone used to bring his knife [for Shechitas Pesach] from his house.

åàé àôùø ìåîø ëï ãáñåó äúåãä (îðçåú ôá:) åáñåó ãí çèàú (ì÷îï öæ:) ãøéù îãëúéá åé÷ç àú äîàëìú ãòåìä èòåðä ëìé åéìôéðï îéðéä ëåìäå

(d)

Rejection #1: This cannot be! In Menachos (82b) and below (97b) we expound from "va'Yikach Es ha'Ma'acheles" that Olah requires a Kli, and we learn all [Zevachim] from it.

åáñåèä ôø÷ äéä îáéà (ãó éã:) îùîò ãñëéï î÷ãù ìéä ìãí

(e)

Rejection #2: In Sotah (14b) it connotes that the knife is Mekadesh the blood.

åòåã áøéù äúåãä (îðçåú òç:) àéëà ìî''ã ñëéï àìéîà îëìé ùøú ãàó òì âá ãìéú ìä úåê î÷ãùà

(f)

Rejection #3: In Menachos (78b) there is an opinion that a [Shechitah] knife is greater than a [Stam] Kli Shares. Even though [a knife] has no interior, it is Mekadesh.

åääéà ÷øåîéú ùì ÷ðä

(g)

Implied question: We find (Chulin 3a) that Shechitah with a sharp reed is Kosher!

àéëà ìîéîø ùú÷ðä åòùàä ëìé åëø' éåñé áø' éäåãä ãàîø áôø÷ äéä îáéà (ñåèä éã:) ãòåùéï ëìé ùøú ãòõ

(h)

Answer: We can say that he fixed it and made it a Kli, and according to R. Yosi b'Ribi Yehudah, who says in Sotah (14b) that we can make a Kli Shares from wood [or other vegetation].

åääéà ãàìå ãáøéí (ôñçé ' ñå.)

(i)

Implied question: In Pesachim (66a it connotes that everyone used to bring his knife for Shechitas Pesach from his house)!

àéîø ëì àçã ä÷ãéù ñëéðå áòøá ùáú

(j)

Answer: We can say that everyone was Makdish his knife before Shabbos. (There it discusses when Erev Pesach was on Shabbos.)

åäàé ãìà úðï äëà ùçéèúï áëìé ùøú áöôåï ëãúðï á÷áìä

(k)

Implied question: Why didn't the Mishnah teach "they are slaughtered with a Kli Shares in the north", like it taught about Kabalah?

ìà ãîé ãá÷áìä ðîé ìà äæëéø äëìé àìà îùåí ãáòé ùéäà âí äëìé áöôåï ìàôå÷é àí äáäîä áöôåï åäëìé áãøåí åäãí î÷ìç áúåëå

(l)

Answer: These are different. Also regarding Kabalah, it mentioned the Kli only because also the Kli must be in the north. This excludes if the animal is in the north and the Kli is in the south and the blood spurts into it.

úãò ãáëì äðäå ãáòå öôåï ÷úðé ùçéèä ëå' å÷éáåì ãîï áëìé ùøú áöôåï åâáé ÷ãùéí ÷ìéí ùùçéèúï áëì î÷åí áòæøä ìà ÷úðé å÷éáåì ãîï áëìé ùøú àò''â ãáòé ÷áìä áëìé ùøú

1.

Proof: In all of these (i.e. Kodshei Kodoshim) that require the north, it teaches Shechitah... and Kabalas Dam in a Kli Shares in the north, but regarding Kodshim Kalim, which are slaughtered anywhere in the Azarah, it does not teach Kabalas Dam in a Kli Shares, even though Kabalah require a Kli Shares!

åëï ìòéì ôø÷ ùðé (ãó ëå.) ãúðéà ÷ãùéí ÷ìéí ùçéèúï áôðéí å÷áåì ãîï áëìé ùøú áôðéí àúà ìàùîåòéðï ùöøéê ùéäà äëìé áôðéí

(m)

Support: Also above (26a), a Beraisa teaches that Kodshim Kalim are slaughtered inside [the Azarah], and Kabalas Dam is in a Kli Shares inside, it comes to teach that the Kli must be inside;

ìàôå÷é àí øåá äëìé áçåõ åîéòåèä áôðéí àò''ô ùàéï äãí áôðéí ðôñì áéåöà ãî÷áì áîéòåè ùáôðéí

1.

This excludes if most of the Kli is outside and the minority is inside, even though the blood inside is not disqualified though Yotzei, for it is received in the minority [of the Kli] inside.

àé ðîé îùåí ãàéëà àùí îöåøò ùîú÷áì áéã àéöèøéê (îëàï îòîåã á) ìîéúðé áëåìäå ÷ãùéí å÷éáåì ãîï áëìé ùøú (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú)

2.

Alternatively, it says so because there is Asham Metzora, in which [some] of the blood is received in the hand. Therefore, it needs to teach in all Kodshei [Kodoshim] that Kabalas Dam is in a Kli Shares.

47b----------------------------------------47b

åîéäå éù ìã÷ã÷ îäà áúåñôúà ãîðçåú çåîø á÷îéöä îáùçéèä ùä÷îéöä èòåðä ëìé åäùçéèä àéðä èòåðä ëìé àìà àôé' ÷øåîéú ùì ÷ðä

(n)

Question: The Tosefta in Menachos teaches that there is a stringency of Kemitzah over Shechitah. Kemitzah requires a Kli, and Shechitah does not require a Kli, rather, even a sharp reed!

åòì ëøçéê ìà ÷àîø ãìà úáòé ëìé ëìì ãäà àîøéðï îä òåìä èòåðä ëìé ëå' àìà ãìà áòé ëìé ùøú ÷àîø

1.

You are forced to say that it does not mean that it does not require a Kli at all, for we say "just like Olah requires a Kli...!" Rather, it means that it does not require a Kli Shares.

åîéäå éù ìôøù ãìà çééùéðï ìëìé éôä ÷àîø åìà (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) ôñìä ÷øåîéú ùì ÷ðä îùåí ä÷øéáäå ðà ìôçúê ëãôøéê äù''ñ áñåèä ôø÷ äéä îáéà (ãó éã:) âáé ëôéôä îöøéú

(o)

Answer: We can explain that it means that we are not concerned for a nice Kli, and we do not disqualify a sharp reed due to Hakrivehu Na l'Fechasecha (one would not give an inferior gift to a governor to find favor in his eyes), like the Gemara asks in Sotah (14b) about a Kefifah Mitzris (wicker basket, in which Minchas Sotah is brought);

ããåøåï äåà ùãøê ìäáéà áëìé ðàä àáì áùçéèä ìà çééùéðï

1.

Explanation #1: This is because it is a gift. It is normal to bring it in a nice Kli. However, we are not concerned about [the Kli for] Shechitah.

àé ðîé ëôéôä îöøéú îëåòøú éåúø î÷øåîéú ùì ÷ðä

2.

Explanation #2: Alternatively, a Kefifah Mitzris is more repulsive than a sharp reed.

3)

TOSFOS DH Elu v'Elu Nisrafim a'Beis ha'Deshen

úåñôåú ã"ä àìå åàìå ðùøôéï àáéú äãùï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses how we learn this.)

ôéøù á÷åðèøñ ãôø éåí äëéôåøéí àúé îäé÷éùà ãôø äòìí ëãàîø áôø÷ áéú ùîàé (ìòéì ìè.) ìôø æä ôø éåí äëéôåøéí

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): We learn Par Yom Kipur from a Hekesh of Par Helam Davar, like it says above (39a) "l'Par" - this is Par Yom Kipur.

åàí úàîø åäà àéï ãáø äìîã áäé÷ù çåæø åîìîã áäé÷ù åôø äòìí áâåôéä ìà ëúéá áéä àì áéú äãùï åîôø ëäï äîùéç àúé

(b)

Question: Something learned from a Hekesh does not return to teach through a Hekesh! It does not say "El Beis ha'Deshen" regarding Par Helam Davar itself. It is learned from Par Kohen Mashi'ach;

ëãëúéá áôø äòìí (åé÷øà ã) ëàùø ùøó àú äôø äøàùåï åäééðå äé÷ù ëîå åùçè äçèàú áî÷åí äòåìä ã÷øé ìéä äé÷ù ì÷îï (ãó îç.)

1.

It says about Par Helam "Ka'asher Saraf Es ha'Par ha'Rishon." This is a Hekesh, like "v'Shachat ha'Chatas bi'Mkom ha'Olah." This is called a Hekesh below (48a).

åìôéøù''é ãôø÷ áéú ùîàé (ìòéì î.) ãéìôéðï ôø éåí äëéôåøéí ìàú áãí åèáéìä îôø ëäï îùéç àí ëï ðéîà ãîöéðå ìîéìó ðîé ùøéôú áéú äãùï àáì ìôø''ú ãäúí ÷ùéà

2.

According to Rashi, who explained above (40a) that we learn from Par Yom Kipur from Par Kohen Mashi'ach regarding "Es", "b'Dam" and Tevilah, if so, we can say that we can learn also burning in Beis ha'Deshen. However, according to R. Tam there [who says that all are equated to Par Helam, and Par Helam Davar is equated to Par Kohen Mashi'ach], it is difficult!

åéù ìåîø ãàéëà úøé äé÷éùé áôø äòìí åòùä ëàùø òùä ìôø ããøùéðï îéðéä ôø÷ áéú ùîàé (âí æä ùí) æä ôø ëäï îùéç áéï ìòëá áäæàåú áîùéç (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí) áéï ìàâîåøé éåúøú åùúé äëìéåú áôø äòìí îîùéç

(c)

Answer: There are two Hekeshim of Par Helam - "v'Asah Ka'asher Asah l'Par", which we expounded above (40a) to refer to Par Kohen Mashi'ach, to make the Haza'os Me'akev in the Haza'os of Mashi'ach, and also to teach about Yoseres ha'Kaved and the two kidneys in Par Helam from Mashi'ach...

äåà äãéï ãðéâîø ìòðéï ùøéôä ôø äòìí îîùéç åëé äãø åëúá áôø äòìí åëàùø ùøó (äéìëê) äåä ìéä ëîàï ãëúéá áâåôéä

1.

Likewise, we can learn also burning, Par Helam from Mashi'ach. When the Torah returned to write about Par Helam "v'Cha'asher Saraf", it is as if it wrote burning in it itself.

åòåã éù ìåîø äà ãðùøôéï çåõ ìâ' îçðåú éìéó ì÷îï áñåó èáåì éåí (ãó ÷ä:) îãëúéá úìú àì îçåõ ìéúï ìå ìîçðä ùìéùéú ëàéìå (äâäú ç÷ ðúï) ëúá áëåìäå

(d)

Explanation #2: Burning outside of three Machanos, we learn below (105b) from the three times it is written "mi'Chutz la'Machaneh" to teach a third Machaneh, as if it was written in each;

åàéï æä àìà ëâéìåé îéìúà áòìîà ãîçåõ ìîçðä ãëúá áëì çã åçã áîçðä ùìéùéú ÷àîø

1.

This is like a mere Giluy Milsa that "mi'Chutz la'Machaneh" written in each one refers to a third Machaneh;

äéìëê àúé ùôéø ôø éåí äëéôåøéí îôø äòìí åàééúø ìå äúí îçåõ ìîçðä ãëúéá áôø éåí äëéôåøéí ìøáðï ìåîø ìê ëéåï ùéöà îçåõ ìîçðä àçú äùåøôå îèîà áâãéí

2.

Therefore, we properly learn Par Yom Kipur from Par Helam, and mi'Chutz la'Machaneh" written there regarding Par Yom Kipur is extra according to Rabanan, to teach that once it left one Machaneh, one who burns it is Metamei his garments.

åìøáé ùîòåï ìâ''ù ììîã îôøä îä ëàï ùìùä îçðåú àó ìäìï ùìùä îçðåú

i.

And according to R. Shimon [it is extra] for a Gezeirah Shavah to teach from Parah. Just like here [it is burned outside of] three Machanos, also there three Machanos;

îä ìäìï ìîæøçä ùì éøåùìéí àó ëàï ìîæøçä ùì éøåùìéí

ii.

Just like there it was east of Yerushalayim, also here it was east of Yerushalayim.

åîéäå áéú äãùï åãàé ÷ùä ãðäé ãùìùä îçðåú äåé ëîàï ãëúéá áâåôéä áéú äãùï ìà ëúéá áâåôéä ãàôùø çåõ ìâ' îçðåú ùìà áî÷åí ãùï

(e)

Question: However, Beis ha'Deshen is surely difficult. Granted, it is as if three Machanos were written [about Par Helam] itself. Beis ha'Deshen is not written about it itself. It is possible that [Par Helam] is burned outside of three Machanos, not in Beis ha'Deshen!

åàí ëï äà ãáòé î÷åí ãùï äåé ãáø äìîã áäé÷ù åàéðå çåæø åîìîã áäé÷ù

1.

If so, the requirement of the place of the ashes is something learned from a Hekesh. It cannot return to teach through a Hekesh!

åùîà âí æä çùåá âéìåé îéìúà áòìîà äéà ãëì äðùøôéï çåõ ìùìù îçðåú ðùøôéï áî÷åí àçã (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú)

(f)

Answer #1: Perhaps also this is considered a mere Giluy Milsa, that everything burned outside of three Machanos is burned in one place.

äùúà àúé ùôéø ùòéø éåä''ë ãìà àéú÷ù ìôø äòìí

(g)

Support: Now it is fine [how we learn about] Se'ir Yom Kipur, which is not equated to Par Helam Davar.

àé ðîé ëåìäå éìôéðï áéú äãùï áâ''ù ãîçåõ ìîçðä îëäï îùéç

(h)

Answer #2: For all of them, we learn Beis ha'Deshen through a Gezeirah Shavah "mi'Chutz la'Machaneh" from Kohen Mashi'ach.

åàéï ìôøù ãàúé îøéáåéà ãçèàú çèàú ãëúéá áôø åùòéø ùì éåí äëôåøéí

(i)

Implied suggestion: Perhaps we learn from the inclusion "Chatas... Chatas" written regarding Par and Se'ir Yom Kipur;

ããøùéðï ì÷îï áñåó äúòøåáú (ãó ôâ.) åàú ôø äçèàú åàú ùòéø äçèàú éåöéà àì îçåõ ìîçðä åùøôå îä ú''ì çèàú çèàú ùéëåì ãàéï ìé ãîèîà áâãéí åðùøôéï ááéú äãùï àìà àìå áìáã

1.

We expound below (83a) "v'Es Par ha'Chatas v'Es Se'ir ha'Chatas Yotzi El mi'Chutz la'Machaneh v'Sarfu." Why does it say Chatas... Chatas? One might have thought that only these are Metamei Begadim [of those who burns them] and are burned in Beis ha'Deshen;

îðéï ìøáåú ôø ëäï îùéç åôø äòìí ãáø ùì öéáåø åùòéøé òáåãú ëåëáéí ú''ì çèàú çèàú ãáøé øáé éäåãä

2.

What is the source to include Par Kohen Mashi'ach, Par Helam Davar of the Tzibur and Se'irei Avodah Zarah? It says "Chatas... Chatas." R. Yehudah says so.

ãòì ëøçéï ðùøôéï àáéú äãùï ëãé ðñáä ãäà òé÷ø òì ùôê äãùï áôø ëäï îùéç ëúéá

(j)

Rejection: You are forced to say that "they are burned in Beis ha'Deshen" was taught needlessly. "Shefech ha'Deshen" is written primarily regarding Par Kohen Mashi'ach!

àìà îùåí îèîà áâãéí ð÷è ãìà ëúéá áäå

1.

Rather, it was taught due to Metamei Begadim, which is not written regarding these.

åëï îåëéç ãø' îàéø ôìéâ òìéä å÷àîø àéðå öøéê äøé äåà àåîø ìëôø ùàéï úìîåã ìåîø ìëôø ìéîã òì ëì äîúëôøéí áôðéí ùùåøôï îèîà áâãéí

(k)

Proof: We must say so, for R. Meir argues with [R. Yehudah], and says "this is not needed. It says "Lechaper". Why does it say Lechaper? This teaches that everything that is Mechaper inside [the Heichal], one who burns it is Metamei Begadim.

åùîà ëé äéëé ãéìéó îøéáåéà ãçèàú çèàú èåîàú áâãéí áëåìäå îôø åùòéø ùì éåí äëôåøéí äëé ðîé äåä éìéó îéðééäå îääåà øéáåéà âåôéä áéú äãùï áôø (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí) åùòéø ùì éåí äëôåøéí

(l)

Defense (of Suggestion): Perhaps just like he learns from the inclusion Chatas... Chatas Tum'as Begadim for all of them (Parim and Se'irim ha'Nisrafim) from Par and Se'ir Yom Kipur, likewise he learns from them, through that inclusion, Beis ha'Deshen for Par and Se'ir Yom Kipur.

4)

TOSFOS DH Mah Nesinah b'Atzmo Shel Kohen

úåñôåú ã"ä îä ðúéðä áòöîå ùì ëäï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes that we learn from Lekichah of the blood.)

ôé' á÷åðèøñ îãëúéá àöáò âáé ùîï åéìéó ãí îéðéä (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú)

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This is because it says "Etzba" regarding oil, and we learn blood from it.

åúéîä à''ë äåé äé÷ùà îáðéï àá åì÷îï (ãó ðà.) îéáòéà ìï àé ãáø äìîã ááðéï àá çåæø åîìîã áäé÷ù

(b)

Objection: If so, this is a Hekesh from a Binyan Av. Below (51a), we ask [and did not resolve] whether something learned from a Binyan Av returns to teach through a Hekesh!

åðøàä ìé ì÷éçä îðúéðä ðîé äåé áðéï àá åéìôéðï îðúéðä ãéãéä åìà îðúéðä ãùàø ÷øáðåú

(c)

Explanation #2: Also Lekichah from Nesinah is a Binyan Av, and we learn from its Nesinah, and not from other Korbanos;

åì÷îï àîøéðï ãéìôéðï ùôéø áðéï àá îáðéï àá. áøå''ê

1.

Below, we say that we properly learn a Binyan Av from a Binyan Av. This is from R. Baruch.

5)

TOSFOS DH Af Lekichah v'Lakach ha'Kohen mi'Dam ha'Asham...

úåñôåú ã"ä àó ì÷éçä åì÷ç äëäï (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) îãí äàùí...

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we do not expound so about Chatas.)

úéîä ãâáé çèàú ðîé ëúéá (åé÷øà ã) åì÷ç åðúï åìà àîøé' (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) îä ðúéðä áòöîå ùì ëäï àó ì÷éçä áòöîå ùì ëäï

(a)

Question: Also regarding Chatas, it is written "v'Lakach... v'Nasan", and we do not say that just like Nesinah is with the Kohen's body, also Lekichah is with the Kohen's body!

åùîà äëà ãøéù îùåí ãîééúø ãëúéá áîöåøò (ùí éã) òùéø åòðé

(b)

Answer #1: Perhaps here he expounds because it is extra. It is written about Metzora Ashir and Oni.

åàò''â ãáúåøú ëäðéí ãøéù î÷îàé

1.

Implied question: In Toras Kohanim, it expounds from the first (written about Metzora Ashir. The latter, written about Oni, is extra!)

àáúøà ñîéê

2.

Answer: It relies on the latter (really, we expound the latter, which is extra).

åðøàä ìé ãáçèàú ëúéá åì÷ç îãí äçèàú áàöáòå åðúï àí ëï ìàå áéãå î÷áì ãáàöáò ìà àôùø ì÷áì

(c)

Answer #2: It seems to me that since regarding Chatas it is written "b'Etzba'o v'Nasan", he does not receive with his hand, for it is not possible to receive blood on his finger!

àìà òì ëøçéï áëìé ÷àîø åàöáòå äééðå ãòáéã àåæï ìùôú îæø÷ ëãàîø ìòéì ôø÷ ùðé (ãó ëã.)

1.

Rather, you are forced to say that it means [that he receives] in a Kli. "B'Etzba'o" shows that we make a handle on the brim of the bucket, like it says above (24a);

àáì áàùí ìà ëúéá áàöáò åîùåí ãìà ðéîà åì÷ç áàöáòå äééðå åèáì ãå÷à åìà îééøé á÷áìä

2.

However, regarding Asham it is not written "b'Etzba'o", lest we say that v'Lakach b'Etzba'o is dipping [his finger in the blood in order to put it on the Metzora], and it does not discuss Kabalah;

ìäëé àéöèøéê ìâæéøä ùåä ãâîøéðï îåé÷ç çöé äãí åéùí áàâðåú áú''ë. áøå''ê

i.

Therefore we need the Gezeirah Shavah. We learn from "va'Yikach [Moshe] Chatzi ha'Dam va'Yasem ba'Aganos", in Toras Kohanim. This is from R. Baruch.

6)

TOSFOS DH Mah Chatas Te'unah Kli v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä îä çèàú èòåðä ëìé ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses how we learn Asham Metzora from Chatas.)

ôéøù á÷åðèøñ ãéìôéðï ì÷éçä ì÷éçä áúåøú ëäðéí ëúéá áçèàú åì÷ç äëäï îãí äçèàú åëúéá áòåìú ñéðé åé÷ç îùä çöé äãí åéùí áàâðåú

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): We learn [from a Gezeirah Shavah] Lekichah-Lekichah in Toras Kohanim. It is written about Chatas "v'Lakach ha'Kohen mi'Dam ha'Chatas", and it is written about Olas Sinai "va'Yikach Moshe Chatzi ha'Dam va'Yasem ba'Aganos."

åúéîä äåä ìéä ãáø äìîã áâæéøä ùåä çåæø åîìîã áäé÷ùà ãëçèàú äàùí åáòéà äéà ì÷îï (ãó ð.) åìà àéôùéèà ìîàï ãàîø áúø îìîã àæìéðï

(b)

Objection: This is something learned from a Gezeirah Shavah, and it returns to teach through a Hekesh "ka'Chatas ha'Asham." This was a question below (50a), and it was not resolved according to the opinion that it depends on the source (whether or not it is Kodesh)!

åîéäå áçðí ôéøù á÷åðèøñ ãéìôéðï ì÷éçä ì÷éçä ãì÷îï áñåó ãí çèàú (ãó öæ:) îùîò ãàúéà áäé÷ùà ãæàú äúåøä îæáçé ùìîé öéáåø

(c)

Explanation #2: There was no need for Rashi to explain that we learn from Lekichah-Lekichah. Below (97b), it connotes that we learn from a Hekesh Zos ha'Torah from Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur;

ã÷àîø îä òåìä èòåðä ëìé àó ëì èòåï ëìé îàé ëìé àéìéîà îæø÷ áæáçé ùìîé öéáåø ðîé ëúéá åé÷ç îùä çöé äãí åéùí áàâðåú

1.

Citation (97b): Just like Olah requires a Kli, also every [Zevach] requires a Kli. What Kli does this discuss? If it is a bucket, also regarding Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur it says "va'Yikach Moshe Chatzi ha'Dam va'Yasem ba'Aganos"!

ôéøåù åëéåï ãäãø àéú÷ù ëåìäå ìùìîéí ãëúéá áäàé ÷øà åéìôéðï îéðéä äúí îä ùìîéí îôâìéï åîúôâìéï ëìé ðîé úéìó îùìîéí ãäúí ðîé ùìîéí äåå áñéðé

2.

Explanation: Since [the Torah] returned to equate all of them to Shelamim, which is written in this verse, and we learn from it there "just like Shelamim is Mefagel and becomes Pigul..." also a Kli we should learn from Shelamim, for also there at Sinai ("va'Yikach Moshe...") was Shelamim!

åîéäå îëì î÷åí ÷ùä òãééï ãäåä ìéä ãáø äìîã áäé÷ù åàéðå çåæø åîìîã áäé÷ù

(d)

Question: In any case it is still difficult, for this is something learned from a Hekesh, and it does not return to teach through a Hekesh!

éù ìåîø ãáääåà äé÷ùà ãåæàú äúåøä ëúá ðîé àùí åàéú÷åù ðîé ìùìîéí åëì àùîåú áëìì àôéìå àùí îöåøò

(e)

Answer: The Hekesh Zos ha'Torah, also Asham is written in it. It is equated also to Shelamim, and all Ashamos are included, even Asham Metzora;

àìà ãäåä àîéðà ãîòèéä ÷øà î÷áìú ëìé åðãøùéä áéã ãáòöîå ùì ëäï äìëê àúà ëçèàú äàùí ìâìåéé ãìà áà äëúåá ìäåöéàå î÷áìú ëìé ìâîøé

1.

Rather, one might have thought that the Torah excluded [Asham Metzora] from Kabalah in a Kli, and we expound "b'Yad" that [Kabalah] is through the Kohen's body itself. Ka'Chatas ha'Asham reveals that the verse does not come to totally exclude Kabalah in a Kli. (Rather, some Kabalah is in his hand, and some is in a Kli.)

å÷ùä âæéøä ùåä ãì÷éçä îñéðé ìîä ìé ìéìó ëåìäå îùìîéí

(f)

Question: Why do we have the Gezeirah Shavah of Lekichah from [Korbanos of] Sinai? We should learn all of them from Shelamim!

éù ìåîø ãçèàú éìôéðï îùìîéí ì÷áìú ëìé îäé÷ùà åâæéøä ùåä ãì÷éçä ì÷éçä àéöèøéê ìîéäåé ëîàï ãëúéá áâåôéä ãçèàú åäãø éìôéðï àùí îçèàú áäé÷ùà ãëçèàú äàùí

(g)

Answer: We learn Chatas from Shelamim for Kabalah in a Kli from a Hekesh, and the Gezeirah Shavah Lekichah-Lekichah is needed so it is as if it was written in Chatas itself, and then we learn Asham from Chatas through the Hekesh ka'Chatas ha'Asham.

åìà âîøéðï îòé÷øà àùí îùìîéí áäé÷éùà ãæàú äúåøä ëãéìôéðï ìòðéï ôéâåì

(h)

Implied question: Why do we not learn initially Asham from Shelamim through the Hekesh Zos ha'Torah, like we learn regarding Pigul?

ãàí ëï âæøä ùåä ãì÷éçä ì÷éçä ìîä [ìé]:

(i)

Answer: If we did, what would we learn from the Gezeirah Shavah Lekichah-Lekichah?!

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF