1)

TOSFOS DH Kol Chada v'Chada Teikum b'Duchtei (cont.)

úåñôåú ã"ä ëì çãà åçãà úé÷åí áãåëúéä (äîùê)

åäèòí ëàï (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) ëîå ùôéøù á÷åðè' îùåí ãðëúáå äëúåáéí ñúí ãëùäåúøä àðéðåú ìë''â ñúí áéï áéçéã áéï áöáåø äåúøä åëùðàñøä ìäãéåè áéï áéçéã áéï áöáåø ðàñøä

(a)

Explanation: The reason here is like Rashi explained, because the verses were written Stam. When Aninus was permitted to a Kohen Gadol Stam, both a [Korban] Yachid and a [Korban] Tzibur were permitted. When it was forbidden to a Kohen Hedyot, both a [Korban] Yachid and a [Korban] Tzibur were forbidden;

åëùäåúøä èåîàä ìöáåø äåúøä àó ìëäï äãéåè åëùðàñøä á÷øáï éçéã ðàñøä àó ìë''â

1.

When Tum'ah was permitted for a [Korban] Tzibur, it was permitted even for a Kohen Hedyot. When it was forbidden for a Korban Yachid, it was forbidden even for a Kohen Gadol;

åàí áîä ùìà çì÷ï äëúåáéí ðãåï ìçì÷ òì éãé ÷''å àîàé ôùéèà áäàé èôé îáäàé ãéù ìãøåù çìåó åìäçìéó àú ëåìï äìëê àîøéðï ëì çãà åçãà úé÷åí áãåëúéä

2.

If we will judge to distinguish based on a Kal v'Chomer what the verses did not distinguish, why is this way more obvious than this? We can expound oppositely, and switch all of them! Therefore, each keeps its own law.

2)

TOSFOS DH Tevul Yom Mina Lan

úåñôåú ã"ä èáåì éåí îðà ìï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the need for all the Drashos.)

úéîä úéôå÷ ìé îãëúéá âáé èáåì éåí åáà äùîù åèäø îëìì ùäåà èîà

(a)

Question: We should know this since it is written regarding a Tevul Yom "u'Va ha'Shemesh v'Taher", which implies that [until night] he is Tamei!

ëããøéù ì÷îï îçåñø ëôåøéí îãëúéá åèäøä îëìì ùäéà èîàä òã äùúà (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú)

1.

[The Gemara] expounds like this below (19b) regarding Mechusar Kipurim. Since it is written "v'Taherah", this implies that she is Temei'ah until now.

åúéøõ ä''ø çééí ãâáé èáåì éåí àéëà ìîéãøù åèäø èäø éåîà ëããøùéðï áùîòúà ÷îééúà ãáøëåú (ãó á:) àáì åèäøä ìà ùééê ìîéãøù äëé

(b)

Answer (R. Chayim): Regarding a Tevul Yom we can expound "v'Taher" - the day was Tihar (completed; it does not refer to the person), like we expound in Brachos (2b), but we cannot expound v'Taherah like this.

åàò''â ãáô' äòøì (éáîåú òã:) ãøùé' èäøä (äâäú àçøåðéí) ìèáåìú éåí àøåê

(c)

Implied question: In Yevamos (74b), we expound Taharah for a Tevulas Yom Aruch (a Yoledes who immersed after her one or two weeks of Tum'ah. She has the law of a Tevul Yom all the days of Tohar!)

ääéà îçåñøú ëôøä ðîé (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) äéà åòì éãé îëìì ùäéà èîàä ìà àúé îéðéä èáåì éåí âøéãà

(d)

Answer: She is also Mechusar Kipurim. Via "this implies that she is Temei'ah" we cannot learn from there one who is only a Tevul Yom.

åîéäå ÷ùä ãàéëà ÷øà àçøéðà á÷ãùéí ìà éàëì òã àùø éèäø ãîå÷îéðï áôø÷ äòøì (ùí) áæá áòì ùúé øàéåú ãìàå áø ÷øáï äåà åìòðéï úøåîä åðéîà îëìì ùäåà èîà

(e)

Question: There is another verse about Kodshim "Lo Yochal Ad Asher Yithar", which we establish in Yevamos (74b) to discuss a Zav who saw two emissions. He does not bring a Korban, and the verse discusses Terumah. We should say that this implies that he is Tamei!

åéù ìåîø ãøáé ñéîàé ããøéù äëà èáåì éåí î÷øà àçøéðà ñáø ìä ëúðà [ãôìéâ äúí àúðà] ãáé øáé éùîòàì ãîå÷é ìéä äúí áæá áòì ùìù øàéåú åîàé òã àùø éèäø òã ãîééúé ëôøä

(f)

Answer: R. Simai, who expounds here Tevul Yom from another verse, holds like the Tana who argues there with Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael, and establishes [the verse] to discuss a Zav who saw three (he brings a Korban). "Ad Asher Yithar" means until he brings Kaparah (his Korban).

åîéäå ÷ùä ãâáé ðâéòú úøåîä áëìé (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) ëúéá áîéí éåáà åèîà òã äòøá åèäø [îëìì ùäåà èîà]

(g)

Question: Regarding Terumah touching a Kli, it is written "ba'Mayim Yuva v'Tamei Ad ha'Erev v'Taher", which implies that it is Tamei!

åöøéê ìåîø ãàé ìàå ÷øà ãø' ñéîàé ãäëà ããøéù èáåì éåí îåìà éçììå ìà äåä ãøùéðï îçåñø ëôøä îåèäøä îëìì ùäéà èîàä åìà èáåì éåí îåèäø îëìì ùäåà èîà îùåí ã÷ìéùà èåîàúééäå

(h)

Answer: We must say that if not for R. Simai's verse, who expounds here a Tevul Yom from "v'Lo Yechalelu", we would not expound Mechusar Kipurim from "v'Taherah", which implies that she is Temei'ah, and not Tevul Yom from "v'Taher", which implies that he is Tamei, because their Tum'ah is light;

àáì îëéåï ãàùëçï ÷øà áäãéà ìèáåì éåí åàò''â ã÷ìéùà èåîàúéä úå ãøùéðï ùôéø îåèäøä îçåñø ëôøä

1.

However, since we find a verse explicitly regarding Tevul Yom, even though his Tum'ah is light, afterwards we properly expound Mechusar Kipurim from "v'Taherah".

åúéîä áîéí éåáà åèîà äìà îôåøù áäãéà ìèáåì éåí ãàé÷øé èîà

(i)

Question: "Ba'Mayim Yuva v'Tamei" - this is explicit that a Tevul Yom is called Tamei!

åé''ì ãöøéê ÷øà âáé òáåãä åìà (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) éçììå ãùîòúéï åâáé àëéìú úøåîä å÷ãùéí ÷øà àçøéðà áôø÷ äòøì (ùí) åìà éìôéðï îäããé

(j)

Answer: We need a verse about Avodah "v'Lo Yechalelu" of our Sugya, and regarding eating Terumah and Kodshim another verse in Yevamos (74b), for we do not learn them from each other;

àáì åèäøä ãëúéá âáé éåìãú ãøùéðï îéðéä îçåñø ëôåøéí ãàñåø á÷ãùéí ôø÷ äòøì åâáé ãîçìì òáåãä ì÷îï áôø÷éï

1.

However, "v'Taherah", which is written regarding a Yoledes, we expound from it Mechusar Kipurim, who is forbidden to Kodshim in Yevamos (74b), and regarding that he disqualifies Avodah, below (19b);

ãàùä ëùøä ìùçåè ÷ãùéí ëãúðï øéù ëì äôñåìéï à''ë ùééê áä çéìåì òáåãä

2.

[We can learn about Avodah] because a woman is Kosher for Shechitas Kodshim, like the Mishnah (below, 31b). If so, Chilul Avodah applies to her.

åúéîä ãâáé æá åæáä åáòì ÷øé åùëáú æøò ëúéáé ëîä ôòîéí åøçõ áîéí åèîà òã äòøá àìîà èáåì éåí àé÷øé èîà áéï ìòáåãä áéï ì÷ãùéí ã÷øàé ñúîà ëúéáé åàé÷øé èîà ìëì îéìé

(k)

Question #1: Regarding a Zav, Zavah, Ba'al Keri and Shichvas Zera, it is written several times "v'Rachatz ba'Mayim v'Tamei Ad ha'Erev." This shows that a Tevul Yom is called Tamei, both for Avodah and for Kodshim, for the verses are written Stam, and he is called Tamei for everything!

åòåã ÷ùä ãáô' ùìùä îéðéï (ðæéø îä.) åáô' àìå äï äâåìéï (îëåú ãó ç:) àîøéðï èîà éäéä ìøáåú èáåì éåí òåã èåîàúå áå ìøáåú îçåñø ëôåøéí ìòðéï áéàú î÷ãù

(l)

Question #2: In Nazir (45a) and in Makos (45a), we say that "Tamei Yihyeh" includes a Tevul Yom. "Od Tum'aso Bo" includes a Mechusar Kipurim regarding Bi'as Mikdash;

åäùúà ì''ì ÷øà äà àé÷øé èîà ìòðéï òáåãä åìàëéìú ÷ãùéí

1.

Why do we need a verse? He is called Tamei for Avodah and eating Kodshim!

åëé úéîà ãìà ðéìó áéàú î÷ãù îðééäå

2.

Suggestion: It is so we will not learn Bi'as Mikdash from them.

(åòåã) ÷ùä ùäøé ÷øà ãåøçõ áîéí åèîà òã äòøá ñúîà ëúéá ãèáåì éåí àé÷øé èîà ìëì îéìé åàôé' ìáéàú î÷ãù

3.

Rejection: The verse "v'Rachatz ba'Mayim v'Tamei Ad ha'Erev" is written Stam, and he is called Tamei for everything, even for Bi'as Mikdash!

åòåã úéîä ëéåï ããøùé' èáåì éåí îèîà éäéä ìîä àéöèøéê úå òåã èåîàúå ìîçåñø ëôåøéí úéôå÷ ìé îåëôø òìéä äëäï åèäøä ëããøùéðï ì÷îï áôéø÷éï îëìì ùäéà èîàä ìòðéï òáåãä

(m)

Question #3: Since we expound a Tevul Yom from "Tamei Yihyeh", why do we need further "Od Tum'aso" for a Mechusar Kipurim? We should learn from "v'Chiper Aleha ha'Kohen v'Taherah", like we expound below (19b), that this implies that she is Temei'ah for Avodah!

åáô' äòøì (éáîåú ãó òã:) ìòðéï àëéìú ÷ãùéí ðãøåù ðîé ìòðéï áéàú î÷ãù ã÷øà áëì îéìé îééøé ùäéà èîàä ÷åãí ëôøä

1.

And in Yevamos (74b) regarding eating Kodshim, we should expound also about Bi'as Mikdash, for the verse discusses all matters, that she is Temei'ah before Kaparah!

åàéï ìúøõ ðîé ãàé ìàå àìà çã øáåéà äåä îå÷îéðà ìéä áîçåñø ëôåøéí îùåí ãîçåñø îòùä åìà áèáåì éåí îùåí ãùîùà îîéìà òøáà

2.

Suggestion: If there were only one inclusion, we would establish it for Mechusar Kipurim, because he is lacking an action, and not regarding Tevul Yom, because night comes automatically.

ãàí ëï äåä ìéä ìîéîø àéôëà èîà éäéä ìøáåú îçåñø ëôåøéí òåã èåîàúå áå ìøáåú èáåì éåí

3.

Rejection: If so, it should have said oppositely - "Tamei Yihyeh" includes Mechusar Kipurim, and "Od Tum'aso Bo" includes a Tevul Yom!

åðøàä ìúøõ ãìòðéï áéàú î÷ãù ìà äåä ãøéùðà îçåñø ëôåøéí îåèäøä îëìì ùäéà èîàä îùåí ãáëøú ãèåîàú î÷ãù ëúéá àéù àùø éèîà åìà éúçèà ãîééøé áèåîàú îú

(n)

Answer #1: Regarding Bi'as Mikdash, we would not expound Mechusar Kipurim from "v'Taherah", which implies that she is Temei'ah, because in the Kares of Tum'as Mikdash it is written "Ish Asher Yitma v'Lo Yischata", which discusses Tum'as Mes;

àáì îçåñø ëôøä ãìà ùééê áîú ìà ìéäåé áëøú

1.

However, Mechusar Kipurim, which does not apply to Mes, would not have Kares.

åöøéê ðîé ÷øà ìøáåú èáåì éåí (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí) ãîùîò àáì ðúçèà ùäæä åùðä åèáì ãìàå îçåñø îòùä äåà ëâåï èáåì éåí ìà äåé áëøú

2.

We also need a verse to include Tevul Yom, for it connotes that if he did Chituy, i.e. received Haza'ah [of mcts] and repeated and immersed, that he is not Mechusar Ma'aseh, e.g. a Tevul Yom, he does not get Kares.

åîäðé èòîé àúé ùôéø ãìéëà ìîéîø ìîä ìé ÷øà äà àéú÷ù ÷ãù ìî÷ãù

(o)

Support: For these reasons, it is fine that we cannot say "why do we need a verse? There is a Hekesh of Kodesh to the Mikdash!"

ãäà ÷øà ãáéàú î÷ãù îéùúòé ìôèåøà å÷øà åáà äùîù åèäø àéöèøéê îùåí ãëúéá áùøõ ã÷éì èôé îðãä åùëáú æøò

1.

[We cannot ask so,] for the verse of Bi'as Mikdash discusses exemption, and we need the verse "u'Va ha'Shemesh v'Taher" because it is written regarding a Sheretz, which is more lenient than Nidah and Shichvas Zera.

3)

TOSFOS DH Hagahah

úåñôåú ã"ä äâ''ä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves the above answer with the Gemara below.)

åìîàé ãôøéùéú ãîåèäøä îëìì ùäéà èîàä ìà äåä îøáéðï îçåñø ëôåøéí àé ìàå ãàùëçï èáåì éåí î÷øà ãøáé ñéîàé

(a)

Comment: According to what I explained, that from "v'Taherah", which implies that she is Temei'ah, we would not include Mechusar Kipurim had we not learned Tevul Yom from the verse of R. Simai.

÷öú ÷ùä äà ã÷àîø áñîåê ãàé ëúá øçîðà áîçåñø ëôåøéí èáåì éåí ìà àúé îéðéä

(b)

Question: It says below that had the Torah written about Mechusar Kipurim, we would not learn Tevul Yom from it;

äà ìà àúé ìï îçåñø ëôåøéí àé ìàå ãàùëçðà ÷øà áèáåì éåí

1.

We would not know Mechusar Kipurim had we not found a verse of Tevul Yom!

åé''ì ùøåöä ìåîø àé ëúá øçîðà îçåñø ëôåøéí áôéøåù

(c)

Answer: He means to say "had the Torah written Mechusar Kipurim explicitly."

åëé äàé âååðà áôø÷ ëéöã (éáîåú ãó ëâ.) âáé ùôçä åðëøéú

(d)

Support: We find like this in Yevamos (23a) regarding a Shifchah and a Nochris.

åîéäå ÷ùä àé ìäàé àúéà à''ë ðéëúåá øçîðà èáåì éåí åîçåñø ëôåøéí áäãéà åìà ìéëúåá èîà

(e)

Question: If it comes for this, if so the Torah should write Tevul Yom and Mechusar Kipurim explicitly, and not write Tamei!

åé''ì ãëéåï ãìà îùëçú öøéëåúà áäðé ìà çù ìã÷ã÷

(f)

Answer: Since we do not find a Tzerichusa for these (a reason why both needed to be taught), he was not concerned to be precise.

4)

TOSFOS DH Remez l'Tevul Yom she'Im Avad Chilel Minayin

úåñôåú ã"ä øîæ ìèáåì éåí ùàí òáã çéìì îðéï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that we could have learned from a Tzad ha'Shavah.)

äåä îöé ìîéìó îéåùá àå îáòì îåí åçã îäðê

(a)

Observation: He could have learned from one who sits or a Ba'al Mum, and one of the others.

5)

TOSFOS DH d'Gamar Chilul Chilul mi'Terumah

úåñôåú ã"ä ãâîø çéìåì çéìåì îúøåîä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses when we equate Terumah to Avodah.)

ä÷ùä ä''ø çééí ëéåï ãèáåì éåí éìéó îúøåîä àí ëï èáåì éåí ùàëì úøåîä éäà áîéúä åáô' äðùøôéï (ñðäãøéï ôâ.) ìà çùéá èáåì éåí

(a)

Question (R. Chaim Kohen): Since we learn a Tevul Yom from Terumah, if so, a Tevul Yom who ate Terumah should be Chayav Misah. In Sanhedrin (83a), it does not count a Tevul Yom!

åùîà äåà äãéï

(b)

Answer #1: Perhaps the same applies (also a Tevul Yom is Chayav Misah).

à''ð ëé äéëé ãîîòèé äúí (ãó ôã.) øáðï áòì îåí ùùéîù îãëúéá áå åìà áòì îåí ä''ä åîúå áå ãëúéá áúøåîä áå åìà áèáåì éåí

(c)

Answer #2: Just like Rabanan exclude there a Ba'al Mum who served, since it says "Bo", and not a Ba'al Mum, the same applies to "u'Mesu Bo" written regarding Terumah, "Bo", and not a Tevul Yom.

åîéäå èîà ùùéîù àéï ìîòè îãëúéá áå ãìäëé àäðé âæ''ù ãçéìåì çéìåì

(d)

Limitation: However, we do not exclude a Tamei who served from "Bo". For this, the Gezeirah Shavah "Chilul-Chilul" helps.

åëï èáåì éåí ùùéîù ðîé äåé áîéúä ëãàéúà äëà åäúí åäééðå èòîà ããîé ìèîà èôé îáòì îåí

1.

Similarly, a Tevul Yom who served is Chayav Misah, like it says here and there. The reason is because he resembles a Tamei more than a Ba'al Mum.

åðøàä ãä''ä ìúøåîä ãìà îîòèéðï èáåì éåí åëï ôéøù á÷åðèøñ áäãéà ãèáåì éåí ùàëì úøåîä áîéúä

(e)

Assertion: It seems that the same applies to Terumah. We do not exclude a Tevul Yom. Rashi explicitly explained so, that a Tevul Yom who ate Terumah is Chayav Misah.

åéù ìéúï èòí ãìà çùéá ìéä äúí îùåí ãèîà åèáåì éåí îçã ÷øà ðô÷é

(f)

Explanation: We can say that this was not listed there because we learn a Tamei and a Tevul Yom from one verse. It says there from "Bo". For this, the Gezeirah Shavah "Chilul-Chilul" helps;

ãäëé ëúéáé ÷øàé áôøùú àîåø àì äëäðéí åáà äùîù åèäø åàçø éàëì îï ä÷ãùéí åâå' åäãø ëúéá åìà éùàå òìéå çèà åîúå áå ëé éçììåäå

1.

The verses say as follows in Parshas Emor. "U'Va ha'Shemesh v'Taher v'Acher Yochal Min ha'Kodoshim", and it says "v'Lo Yis'u Alav Chet u'Mesu Bo Ki Yechaleluhu."

å÷öú úéîä äéëé éìéó äúí áñðäãøéï îçåñø ëôåøéí ùùéîù áîéúä îùåí ãàé÷øé èîà åèîà éìôéðï çéìåì çéìåì îúøåîä

(g)

Question: How do we learn there in Sanhedrin that a Mechusar Kipurim who served is Chayav Misah because he is called Tamei, and we learn Tamei "Chilul-Chilul" from Terumah?

ðéîà ãôñåì áúøåîä áîéúä åãìà ôñåì áúøåîä ìà ëãàîøéðï äëà ãôñåì áúøåîä îçéì òáåãä ëå'

1.

We should say that one who is Pasul to Terumah is Chayav Misah [for eating it], and one who is not Pasul to Terumah is not, like we say here that one who is Pasul to Terumah disqualifies Avodah...!

åéù ìåîø ëéåï ãîçéì òáåãä ãðô÷à ìï îåéðæøå åìà éçììå ëì ãàé÷øé èîà [ñáøà äéà ãâîøéðï] îúøåîä ãäåé áîéúä àò''â ãèäåø ìúøåîä:

(h)

Answer: Since [Mechusar Kipurim] disqualifies Avodah, for we learn from "va'Yinazru v'Lo Yechalelu" - anyone who is called Tamei, it is reasonable that we learn from Terumah, that he is Chayav Misah, even though he is Tahor for Terumah.

17b----------------------------------------17b

6)

TOSFOS DH ka'Savar Rabah Mechusar Kipurim d'Zav k'Zav Dami

úåñôåú ã"ä ÷ñáø øáä îçåñø ëôåøéí ãæá ëæá ãîé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses in what ways he is like a Zav.)

äëé ðîé àéú ìéä ôø÷ ùðé ãëøéúåú (ãó é.) åôéøù á÷åðè' ìòðéï ÷ãùéí ùìà äåúø àöìï äåä ìéä ëàéìå ìà èáì

(a)

Explanation #1: He holds like this also in Kerisus (10a). Rashi explained that regarding Kodshim, to which he was not permitted, it is as if he did not immerse;

åàí àëìï çééá ëøú àå àí ðâò áäï èîàï ìîðåú áäï øàùåï åùðé

1.

If he ate them, he is Chayav Kares, or if he touched them, he was Metamei them to count Rishon and Sheni. (What he touched is a Rishon. What that touches is a Sheni.)

å÷ùä ìôéøåùå ãàí ëï ìî''ã ìàå ëæá ãîé ìéú áéä ëøú

(b)

Question: If so, according to the opinion that he is not like a Zav, there is no Kares;

åáøéù îñëú ëìéí úðï áäãéà ãîçåñø ëôåøéí ùðëðñ ìî÷ãù çééá ãúðï òæøú éùøàì î÷åãùú îîðä ùàéï îçåñø ëôåøéí ðëðñ ìùí åçééá çèàú

1.

In Kelim (1:8), a Mishnah explicitly teaches that if a Mechusar Kipurim entered the Mikdash, he is liable, for the Mishnah says that Ezras Yisrael is more Kodesh than [Ezras Nashim], for a Mechusar Kipurim may not enter there, and he is Chayav Chatas!

åëï áääéà ãôø÷ àìå äï äâåìéï (îëåú ãó ç:) åùìùä îéðéï (ðæéø îä.) èîà éäéä ìøáåú èáåì éåí òåã èåîàúå áå ìøáåú îçåñø ëôåøéí

2.

And similarly, in Makos (8b) and Nazir (45a) "Tamei Yihyeh" includes a Tevul Yom. "Od Tum'aso Bo" includes Mechusar Kipurim;

åáä÷åîõ øáä (îðçåú ãó ëæ:) îçåñø ëôøä ùðëðñ ìôðéí îîçéöúå ìòæøä áùåââ çééá çèàú áîæéã òðåù ëøú

3.

In Menachos (27b), if a Mechusar Kipurim entered inside his Mechitzah (past where he is permitted) b'Shogeg, he is Chayav Chatas. If he was Mezid, he is Chayav Kares;

åàéú÷ù ÷åãù ìî÷ãù áäòøì (éáîåú òä.) åáîëåú (ãó éã.) åáùáåòåú (ãó æ.)

i.

There is a Hekesh of Kodesh to the Mikdash in Yevamos (75a) and Makos (14a) and Shevu'os (7a).

åãåç÷ ìåîø ãëì äðé àúééï ëîàï ãàîø îçåñø ëôåøéí ãæá ëæá ãîé

(c)

Poor Answer #1: All these are according to the opinion that Mechusar Kipurim of a Zav is like a Zav.

åòåã ãáääéà ñåâéà ãðæéø èîà (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) éäéä ìøáåú èáåì éåí ãë''ò îçåñø ëôåøéí ãæá ìàå ëæá ãîé åàôéìå äëé îøáä äúí ëøú ìî÷ãù áîçåñø ëôåøéí

1.

Also, [this is difficult because] in that Sugya of Nazir, "Tamei Yihyeh" includes a Tevul Yom, all agree that Mechusar Kipurim of a Zav is not like a Zav, and even so it includes there Kares for the Mikdash for a Mechusar Kipurim.

åîéäå ôìåâúà ãàîåøàé àéëà øéù ô' ëì äôñåìéï (ì÷îï ìá: ìâ:) àéú ãàîøé äà ãàéú÷ù ÷åãù ìî÷ãù äééðå àôéìå ìëøú ãáéàä áî÷öú ùîä áéàä ëîå ðâéòä

(d)

Remark: However, Amora'im argue about this below (32b). Some say that the Hekesh of Kodesh to the Mikdash, this is even for Kares, for partial Bi'ah is considered Bi'ah, like touching [part is like touching the entire matter];

åàéú ãàîøé ìòðéï îì÷åú ãå÷à àéúîø åîå÷é ìä áëì ÷ãù ìà úâò àæäøä ìðåâò ì÷åãù ãìéëà àìà ìàå àò''â ãàì äî÷ãù ìà úáà äåé áëøú

1.

And some say that it was said only regarding lashes, and establish "b'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga" to be a Lav for touching Kodesh, which has only a Lav, even though "v'El ha'Mikdash Lo Savo" has Kares.

åòåã îä ùôé' á÷åðèøñ ìòðéï ìîðåú áå øàùåï åùðé ì÷ãù

(e)

Explanation #1: Rashi explained that [it is as if he did not immerse] regarding counting Rishon and Sheni for Kodesh.

úéîä äìà îçåñø ëôåøéí àéï îåðéï áå øàùåï åùðé ìèåîàä ëãúðï (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí) áîñëú îòéìä (ãó ç.) çèàú äòåó ëå' äåëùø ìéôñì áèáåì éåí åáîçåñø ëôåøéí

(f)

Question: This is astounding, a Mechusar Kipurim does not count Rishon and Sheni l'Tum'ah, like a Mishnah in Me'ilah (8a) says that Chatas ha'Of... was Huchshar to become Pasul through a Tevul Yom or Mechusar Kipurim;

åãéé÷ áâî' ìéôñì àéï ìèîåéé ìà

1.

The Gemara infers that it becomes Pasul, but it cannot be Metamei [others]!

åøáéðå úí äéä àåîø ãìà ð÷è ôñåì áîçåñø ëôåøéí àìà àâá èáåì éåí

(g)

Answer (R. Tam): It mentioned Pasul regarding a Mechusar Kipurim only Agav (along with) Tevul Yom.

åä÷ùä ìå äøá øáéðå çééí îäà ãáñåèä ôø÷ ëùí (ã' ëè.) àîøé' îðéï ìøáéòé á÷åãù ùäåà ôñåì åîä îçåñø ëôåøéí ùîåúø áúøåîä ôñåì á÷åãù îùîò ôñåì àéï èîà ìà

(h)

Question #1 (R. Chaim Kohen): In Sotah (29a) we say "what is the source that a Revi'i l'Kodesh is Pasul? A Mechusar Kipurim is permitted Terumah, but he is Pasul for Kodesh." This implies that it is Pasul, but not Tamei.

åòåã àé îåðéï áå øàùåï åùðé à''ë éòùä øáéòé çîéùé á÷åãù î÷''å

(i)

Question #2: If we count a Rishon and Sheni, it will make a Revi'i and Chamishi in Kodesh from a Kal v'Chomer!

åîéäå éù ìåîø áæä ãçîéùé àéï ììîåã ãîï äãéï äåä ìîéîø ãéå ëúøåîä àé ìàå îùåí ãîôøê ÷''å åãé ìðå áîòìä àçú éåúø îúøåîä ùéòùä øáéòé

(j)

Answer (to Question #2): We do not learn Chamishi, for letter of the law, it suffices [for Kodesh] to be like Terumah, if not that it uproots the Kal v'Chomer. It suffices to have one level above Terumah, that it makes a Revi'i.

åîéäå òåã ÷ùä îäà ãúðï áô' áúøà ãðãä (ãó òà:) äéåùáú òì ãí èåäø (äéúä) îòøä îéí ìôñç çæøå ìåîø äøé äéà ëîâò èîà îú ì÷ãùéí

(k)

Question #3: A Mishnah (Nidah 71b) says that one who is in the days of Dam Tahor (Tevulas Yom Aruch) may pour water for Pesach. They retracted to say that for Kodshim, she is like one who touched a Tamei Mes;

åîå÷é ìä áâî' ëàáà ùàåì ãàîø èáåì éåí úçìä ì÷åãù îùîò àáì ìøáðï ìà

1.

The Gemara establishes it like Aba Sha'ul, who says that a Tevul Yom is a Rishon for Kodesh. This implies that Rabanan do not say so.

åãåç÷ ìåîø ãëåìäå ääéà ãîòéìä åãñåèä åøáðï ãàáà ùàåì ñáøé ëî''ã îçåñø ëôåøéí ãæá ìàå ëæá ãîé

(l)

Poor answer: All of them - in Me'ilah, Sotah and Rabanan of Aba Sha'ul - hold that the opinion that Mechusar Kipurim of a Zav is not like a Zav.

åîôøù äøá ø' çééí ãðô÷à îéðä ìòðéï ôñç äáà áèåîàä ãúðï (ôñçéí ãó öä:) ôñç äáà áèåîàä (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí) ìà éàëìå îîðå æáéï åæáåú

(m)

Explanation #2 (R. Chaim): It is relevant to Pesach ha'Ba b'Tum'ah. A Mishnah (Pesachim 95b) says that Pesach ha'Ba b'Tum'ah, Zavim and Zavos may not eat from it;

ãìî''ã îçåñø ëôåøéí ãæá ëæá ãîé âí îçåñøé ëôåøéí (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí) ìà éàëìå îîðå

1.

According to the opinion that Mechusar Kipurim of a Zav is like a Zav, a Mechusar Kipurim may not eat from it;

ãìà àéùúøàé áöáåø àìà èîà îú åä''ä èîà ùøõ ãàéï èåîàä éåöàä îâåôå á÷''å îîú ëãàéúà ì÷îï

i.

This is because we permit b'Tzibur only Tum'as Mes, and the same applies to one who is Tamei [from a] Sheretz, for [his Tum'ah] does not emanate from his body, from a Kal v'Chomer from a Mes, like it says below

åî''ã ìàå ëæá ãîé éàëìå îîðå (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí) åäëé îåëç áäãéà áôø÷ ùðé ãëøéúåú (ãó é.)

2.

The one who says that [Mechusar Kipurim of a Zav] is not like a Zav, [holds that] he may eat from it. It is proven like this explicitly in Kerisus (10a).

åòåã ãðô÷à îéðä ìòðéï èåîàä ãçåééä áöáåø (ì÷îï ãó ìá:)

(n)

Explanation #2 (cont.): It is relevant also to Tum'ah that is Nidcheh b'Tzibur (below, 32b. If we must offer a Korban Tzibur b'Tum'ah, we minimize the Tum'ah.)

7)

TOSFOS DH Sarfah Onen u'Mechusar Kipurim Kesherah

úåñôåú ã"ä ùøôä àåðï åîçåñø ëôåøéí ëùøä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes that we learn from a Kal v'Chomer from a Tevul Yom.)

ôé' á÷åðè' ãôøä ÷ãùé áã÷ äáéú äéà

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This is because Parah [Adumah] is Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis.

å÷ùä ãî''î àéú áä ëì ôñåìéï ùá÷øáï ëâåï ùìà ìùîä

(b)

Question: Even so, all the Pesulim of a Korban apply to it, e.g. Lo Lishmah!

ãàîø áä÷åîõ øáä (îðçåú ëæ:) åùáò äæàåú ùáôøä ùòùàï ùìà ìùîï ôñåìåú åðô÷à ìï áñéôøé îùåí ãçèàú ÷øééä øçîðà

1.

It says in Menachos (27b) that if the seven Haza'os of Parah were done Lo Lishmah, they are Pasul. We derive this in the Sifri, from this that the Torah called it "Chatas".

åîäàé èòîà ðîé àîøéðï áô''÷ ãçåìéï (ãó éà.) ãèøôåú ôåñì áä

2.

Support: This is why we say in Chulin (11a) that if it is Tereifah, it is Pasul.

åðøàä ãäééðå èòîà äëà îùåí ãèáåì éåí ëùø áôøä åàúé àåðï åîçåñø ëôåøéí á÷''å îèáåì éåí ùàñåø áðâéòú úøåîä åîåúø áôøä

(c)

Explanation #2: Here, the reason is because a Tevul Yom is Kosher for Parah, and we learn Onen and Mechusar Kipurim from a Kal v'Chomer from Tevul Yom, who is forbidden to touch Terumah, and is permitted [to engage in] Parah.

åìî''ã îçåñø ëôåøéí ãæá ëæá ãîé ìà àúé á÷''å ãîä ìèáåì éåí ãîú ùîåúø ìàëåì áôñç äáà áèåîàä îä ùàéï ëï áîçåñø ëôåøéí

1.

According to the opinion that Mechusar Kipurim of a Zav is like a Zav, we cannot learn from a Kal v'Chomer. You cannot learn from Tevul Yom of Mes, who may eat Pesach ha'Ba b'Tum'ah, unlike Mechusar Kipurim!

åäàé ãèáåì éåí ëùø îï äúåøä àôùø ãîãøáðï ôñåì ãäà àîøéðï ãàôé' áâãé àåëìé ÷åãù îãøñ ìçèàú ëì ùëï èáåì éåí

(d)

Remark: A Tevul Yom is permitted mid'Oraisa. Perhaps mid'Rabanan he is Pasul, for we say that even garments of people who eat Kodesh are Midras (Metamei like an Av ha'Tum'ah) regarding Parah, and all the more so a Tevul Yom!

åäà [ãàîøé' áîñëú ôøä (ô''â) îèîàéï äéå ëäï äùåøó àú äôøä ìäåöéà îìáï ùì öãå÷éí ùàîøå] áîòåøáé ùîù äéúä ðòùéú

(e)

Implied question: We say in Parah (3:8) that they used to be Metamei the Kohen who burns the Parah to refute the Tzedukim, who said that it was done [only] through people who had Ha'arev Shemesh (but a Tevul Yom is forbidden)!

ìàå äééðå èáåì éåí îîù àìà àçéå äëäðéí äéå îðéçéï éãéäí òì øàùå åîàåúä ðâéòä äéä èáåì éåí ëãúðéà áúåñôúà åàéëà áäëé (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) äéëøà ìöãå÷éí

(f)

Answer #1: That was not a real Tevul Yom. Rather, his fellow Kohanim put their hands on his head, and due to that touching he was a Tevul Yom, like a Tosefta teaches, and there is a Heker for (refuting) Tzedukim.

åòåã éù ìôøù ãèáåì éåí îîù äéä ëùø áä åäà ãáâãé àåëìé ÷åãù îãøñ ìçèàú îùåí äéñç äãòú ãùàø èåîàåú

(g)

Answer #2: A real Tevul Yom was Kosher for [Parah]. Garments of people who eat Kodesh are Midras for Parah due to Hesech Da'as (he was not mindful to guard himself) from other Tum'os.

8)

TOSFOS DH v'Hizah ha'Tahor

úåñôåú ã"ä åäæä äèäåø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that regarding Zarus, Haza'ah is more lenient.)

åàó òì âá ãäæàú îé çèàú ëùøä áæø åùøôä ôñåì

(a)

Implied question: Haza'ah of Mei Chatas is Kosher through a Zar, and burning it [through a Zar] is Pasul!

îëì î÷åí éìéó ùøôä îäæàä

(b)

Answer: Even so, [regarding Tum'ah] we learn burning from Haza'ah.

9)

TOSFOS DH Onen u'Tevul Yom Shel Tamei Sheretz d'Kili Asu mi'Kal v'Chomer...

úåñôåú ã"ä àåðï åèáåì éåí ùì èîà ùøõ ã÷éìé àúå î÷''å...

(SUMMARY: Tosfos questions the Kal v'Chomer.)

åàéï ìä÷ùåú îä ìèáåì éåí ùëï îåúø áîòùø îä ùàéï ëï áàåðï

(a)

Question #1: You cannot learn from a Tevul Yom, for he is permitted to [eat] Ma'aser [Sheni]. This does not apply to an Onen!

ãîðâéòä éìôéðï ëãàîø áô' äòøì (éáîåú òá:) òøì ùäæä äæàúå ëùøä îéãé ãäåä àèáåì éåí ùàò''ô ùàñåø áúøåîä ëùø áôøä

(b)

Answer: We learn from touching, like it says in Yevamos (72b) that if an Arel did Haza'ah, it is Kosher, just like we find regarding a Tevul Yom. Even though he is forbidden to Terumah, he is Kosher for Parah;

åôøéê îä ìèáåì éåí ùëï îåúø áîòùø åîùðé àèå àðï ìàëéìä ÷àîøéðï ìðâéòä ÷àîøéðï

1.

The Gemara asks that you cannot learn from a Tevul Yom, for he is permitted to Ma'aser, and answers that we do not discuss eating. We discuss touching;

åîä èáåì éåí ùàñåø áðâéòä ãúøåîä îåúø áôøä òøì ùîåúø áðâéòä ãúøåîä àéðå ãéï ùîåúø áôøä åä''ð éìôéðï àåðï

2.

A Tevul Yom is forbidden to touch Terumah, but he is permitted to Parah. An Arel is permitted to touch Terumah. All the more so he should be permitted to Parah! We similarly learn Onen.

åà''ú îçåñø ëôåøéí åáòì îåí éåëéçå ùîåúøéï áúøåîä åàñåøéï áôøä àó àðé àáéà òøì åàåðï

(c)

Question: A Mechusar Kipurim and Ba'al Mum are Yochi'ach! They are permitted to Terumah, and forbidden to Parah. I can say the same about Arel and Onen!

åîéäå ààåðï ìà ÷ùéà ãîä ìäðê ùëï ìà äåúøå îëììï úàîø áàåðï ùäåúø îëììå àöì ë''â

(d)

Answer - part 1: This is not difficult regarding Onen. You cannot learn from the others, for they were not Hutru mi'Chlaln, to an Onen, which is Hutar mi'Chlalo regarding a Kohen Gadol!

àáì àòøì ÷ùä

1.

However, it is difficult regarding an Arel!

åðøàä ìé ãîä ìîçåñø ëôåøéí ùàñåø ìéâò á÷ãùéí àáì òøì åàåðï îåúøéï

(e)

Answer - part 2: You cannot be Mochi'ach from Mechusar Kipurim, who is forbidden to touch Kodshim, but an Arel and Onen are permitted.

àáì îáòì îåí ÷ùä. áøå''ê.

(f)

Question: However, it is difficult from a Ba'al Mum (it should be Mochi'ach. How can we learn Arel?) This is from R. Baruch.

åòåã îä ìèáåì éåí ùëï àéðå îçåñø îòùä úàîø áòøì

(g)

Question #2: You cannot learn from a Tevul Yom, for he is not Mechusar Ma'aseh, to an Arel, who is Mechusar Ma'aseh (he must circumcise)!

10)

TOSFOS DH Ein Bigdeihem Aleihen Ein Kehunasam Aleihem

úåñôåú ã"ä àéï áâãéäí òìéäï àéï ëäåðúï òìéäí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the need for different sources for this.)

îäëà éìôéðï îéúä áôø÷ äðùøôéï (ñðäãøéï ãó ôâ:) ã÷àîø àéï áâãéäí òìéäí äåå ìäå æøéí åàîø îø æø ùùéîù áîéúä

(a)

Reference: From here we learn Misah in Sanhedrin (83b). It says when their Bigdei [Kehunah] are not on them, they are Zarim, and it was taught that a Zar who served is Chayav Misah.

åä÷ùä äøá øáé éò÷á îàåøìéðù åäà îéúä ëúéáà áäãéà áôøùú åàúä úöåä

(b)

Question (Ri of Orlins): Misah is written explicitly in Parshas Tetzaveh!

åúéøõ ãàó òì âá ãëåìäå áâãéí ëúéáé äúí îëì î÷åí îéúä àîëðñééí ãå÷à ëúéáà ëãîùîò ôùèà ã÷øà

(c)

Answer #1: Even though all of the garments are written there, in any case Misah is written specifically about the Michnesayim (underpants), like the simple meaning of the verse connotes;

å÷øà ãåçâøú ãëúéá áôøùä ùàçøéä ããøùéðï îéðä ãàéï áâãéäí òìéäí àéï ëäåðúï òìéäí àéöèøéê ìùàø áâãéí

1.

The verse of "v'Chagarta" written in the Parshah afterwards, which we expound from it when their Begadim are not on them, their Kehunah is not on them, is needed for other garments;

åîéðéä ìà äåä éìôéðï îëðñééí ãîëðñééí ìà ëúéáé äúí

2.

We would not learn Michnesayim from it, for Michnesayim are not written there.

åòåã éù ìåîø ã÷øà ãåçâøú öøéê ìçéìåì òáåãä ãî÷øé æø: áøå''ê:

(d)

Answer #2: The verse of "v'Chagarta" is needed for Chilul Avodah, that [without Bigdei Kehunah] he is called a Zar. This is from R. Baruch.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF