1)

TOSFOS DH AMAR K'RA VE'SHACHAT VE'CHUKAH

úåñ' ã"ä àîø ÷øà åùçè åçå÷ä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the D'rashah of "Chukah").

àåîø øáéðå úí, ãîùîò áôø÷ ùðé ãæáçéí (ãó éç.) ã"çå÷ä" ìà äåé òéëåá îîùîòå, àìà îâæøä ùåä ...

(a)

Clarification (Part 1): The Gemara in the second Perek of Zevachim implies, says Rabeinu Tam, that "Chukah" is not crucial by implication, but rather through a Gezeirah-Shavah ...

ãéìôéðï äúí îâæøä ùåä ãìà øçåõ éãéí çéìì, îâæéøä ùåä "çå÷ä" "çå÷ä" îùúåéé ééï?

(b)

Clarification (Part 2): Since the Gemara there learns that a Kohen who serves without having washed his hands desecrates the Avodah from a Gezeirah-Shavah - "Chukah" "Chukah" from a Kohen serves after having drunk wine.

2)

TOSFOS DH U'MAH BE'MAKOM SHE'LO KIDESH HA'GORAL ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä åîä áî÷åí ùìà ÷ãù äâåøì ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the possibility of learning the Kal va'Chomer conversely).

åàí úàîø, ÷éðéí âåôééäå îðà ìï ùìà ÷ãù äâåøì, àéîà ÷"å àéôëà?

(a)

Question): From where do we know that the Goral does not render the birds themselves Kodosh (by learning a Kal va'Chomer the other way round (birds from the goats)?

åéù ìåîø, ãàéëà ùåí îéòåè.

(b)

Answer: There is some Miy'ut or other (of which we are unaware, that prevents from doing so).

3)

TOSFOS DH TA'MA DE'KASAV RACHMANA VE'ASAHU HA LA'V HACHI DARSHINAN LEIH

úåñ' ã"ä èòîà ãëúá øçîðà åòùäå äà ìàå äëé ãøùéðï ÷"å

(SUMMARY: Tosfos reconciles this D'rashah with Rebbi Yehudah, whom the Gemara in Yoma establishes as the author of this Beraisa, even though he holds that "Chukah" is written exclusively in connection with Avodos that are performed inside [which Hagralah is not]).

úéîä, ãáôø÷ èøó á÷ìôé (éåîà ãó îà.) îå÷é äàé áøééúà ëøáé éäåãä, îùåí ãñúí ñôøà øáé éäåãä äéà; åøáé éäåãä àéú ìéä áôø÷ äåöéàå ìå ã'ìà ëúéá çå÷ä àìà áãáøéí äðòùéí áôðéí ááâãé ìáï', åäâøìä áçåõ äåéà?

(a)

Question: In Perek Taraf be'Kalpi (Yoma 41.), based on the principle that 'S'tam Sifra, Rebbi Yehudah', the Gemara establishes this Beraisa like Rebbi Yehudah, who holds in Perek Hotzi'u lo that the Torah only writes "Chukah" in connection with Avodos that are performed inside the Heichal wearing white Begadim, whereas the Hagralah was performed outside?

åàéï ìåîø, ãùåí úðà ìà ôìéâ à'ãøùà ã"åòùäå", åìà ôìéâ òìéä øáé ðçîéä, ãàéú ìéä ãëúéá "çå÷ä" à'ðòùä áçåõ.

(b)

Refuted Answer: One cannot answer that there is no Tana who disagrees with the D'rashah of "ve'Asahu", and that Rebbi Nechemyah, who establishes "Chukah" on the Avodos that are performed outside, does not argue with him ...

ãäà àùëçï øáé ùîòåï áôø÷ èøó á÷ìôé (ùí ãó î. åùí), ãñáø ãäâøìä ìà îéòëáà.

(c)

Refutation: Since we find that Rebbi Shimon who holds, in Perek Taraf be'Kalpi (Ibid. 40. & 40:) that Hagralah is not crucial.

åé"ì, ãôøéê îùåí ãáôø÷ èøó á÷ìôé (ùí ãó ìè:) ãøéù øáé éðàé "îàùø òìä", "àùø òìä" úøé æîðé ìòëá ...

(d)

Answer #1 (Part 1): The Kashya is based on the Gemara there (39:) where Rebbi Yanai Darshens from the double expression "asher Alah" "asher Alah" that it is crucial ...

åôøéê 'àìîà ãøùéðï ÷"å', àò"â ãëúéá òéëåáà. åàîøéðï 'ðå÷îä "àùø òìä" ìãøùà àçøéúé îùåí ÷"å'.

(e)

Answer #1 (Part 2): And the Gemara now asks 'So we see that one does Darshen a Kal va'Chomer, even though the Torah writes an Ikuva, we nevertheless ask that we should establish "Asher Alah" with regard to another D'rashah because of the Kal va'Chomer.

åäùø î÷åöé úéøõ, ãäúí éìéó îãëúéá "æàú", ãìà ëúéá "çå÷ä" àìà áãáøéí äðòùéí ááâãé ìáï áôðéí.

(f)

Answer #2 (Part 1): The Count from Coucy answers that there we learn from the fact that the Torah writes "Zos", and 'Chukah' is confined to Avodos that are performed wearing the white Begadim inside.

åäùúà ôøéê äëà ùôéø, ãàé ìà ãøùéðï ÷"å, àîàé àöèøéê "æàú" ìîòåèé, ãìà ÷àé çå÷ä áãáøéí äðòùéí áçåõ.

(g)

Answer #2 (Part 2): Now the Gemara's Kashya here makes good sense - because if we would not Darshen the Kal va'Chomer, why would we need "Zos" to preclude it, seeing as "Chukah" does not pertain to Avodos that are performed outside.

ãäà òì ëøçê ìà ëúéá "çå÷ä" àìà áãáøéí äðòùéí áôðéí, ãàé ëúéá ðîé áãáøéí äðòùéí áçåõ, àîàé àöèøéê "åòùäå"?

(h)

Proof (Part 1): And "Chukah can only pertain to Avodos that are performed inside, because if it also pertained to Avodos that are performed outside, we would not need "ve'Asahu"?

àìà åãàé àò"â ãëúéá "çå÷ä", ãøùéðï ÷"å.

(i)

Conclusion (Part 1): We therefore must say that although the Pasuk writes Chukah, we Darshen the Kal va'Chomer.

åàôéìå ëúéá ðîé "çå÷ä áãáøéí äðòùéí áçåõ, äåä ãøùéðï ÷"å, àé ìàå ãëúéá "åòùäå" - åìëê àöèøéê "æàú".

(j)

Conclusion (Part 2): And even if Chukah pertains to Avodos that are performed outside, we would Darshen the Kal va'Chomer, had it not written "ve'Asahu". And that explains why we need "Zos".

àáì îëì î÷åí ä÷ùä ä"ø îðåç, ãîàé ôøéê, åäà ìà ëúéá "çå÷ä" àìà à'òáåãä, åäâøìä ìàå òáåãä äéà?

(k)

Question: In any event Rebbi Mano'ach asked what the Gemara is asking, seeing as the Torah only writes Chukah with regard to Avodah, and Hagralah is not an Avodah?

åöøéê òéåï ùí.

(l)

Conclusion: The Gemara there needs to be looked into.

4)

TOSFOS DH ZOS LA'LEVI'IM VE'LO ACHERES LA'LEVI'IM

úåñ' ã"ä æàú ììåéí åìà àçøú ììåéí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses why the Gemara does not say that since the Pasuk is talking about a Zav, it comes to preclude a Zav, rather than a Zavah).

úéîä, ãáôø÷ ëéöã äøâì (á"÷ ãó ëã.) ãøéù î"åæàú úäéä èåîàúå" - 'ìîòåèé æáä îøàéåú'. åôøéê 'åàéîà ìîòåèé æá îéîéí'?

(a)

Question (Part 1): The Gemara in Perek Keitzad ha'Regel (Bava Kama 24.), Darshens from the word "ve'Zos" (in the Pasuk "ve'Zos Tih'yeh Tum'aso"), to preclude a Zavah from sightings (only days). And the Gemara asks that perhaps it comes to preclude a Zav from days?

åîùðé '÷àé áøàéåú îîòè øàéåú, ÷àé áøàéåú îîòè éîéí'?

(b)

Question (Part 2): To which it answers 'Since the Pasuk is talking about sightings, it is logical to say that it comes to preclude sightings, and that it precludes days'.

åàîàé ìà ÷àîø '÷àé áæá îîòè æá, ÷àé áæá åîîòè æáä' - ãäëé îñúáø èôé, ëãîùîò ôùèéä ã÷øà "åæàú úäéä èåîàúå" - 'åìà àçøú'?

(c)

Question (Part 3): Why do we not rather say that since the Pasuk is talking about a Zav, it comes to preclude a Zav, rather than a Zavah - since this is a more logical way of looking at it, since the simple explanation of the Pasuk is 'This is his Tum'ah, and no other'?

ëããøùéðï äëà "æàú ììåéí" - 'åìà àçøú ììåéí'?

(d)

Precedent: Like we Darshen here - "This is for the Levi'im - and nothing else is for the Levi'im'?

åéù ìåîø, ãäëà ðîé äåä ãøùéðï "æàú àùø ììåéí" - 'åìà ìëäðéí', àé ìàå ããøéù ìéä î"àùø ììåéí".

(e)

Answer #1: In our case too, were it not for the words "Asher la'Levi'im", we would Darshen here too "This is for the Levi'im and not for the Kohanim".

àé ðîé, äëà ãøùéðï äëé, îùåí ãîæëéø "ììåéí" á÷øà, àáì äúí àé ìîòåèé æá ÷à àúé, äåä ìéä ìîëúá "æàú ùäéà èåîàú äæá" - ìäæëéø äæá á÷øà.

(f)

Answer #2: Alternatively, we Darshen here he way we do, only because it mentions the Levi'im, in the Pasuk. By the same token, if the Pasuk there wanted to preclude by Zav, it ought to have written 'This is the Tum'ah of a Zav' (and not " ... his Tum'ah").

åø"é úéøõ, ãæá åæáä ùí àçã äåà, åìäëé ìà ùééê ìîéîø '÷àé áæá îîòè æá ... ' - ãëê éù ìé ìîòè æáä ëîå æá.

(g)

Answer #3: The Ri answers that a Zav and a Zavah are like one entity. Consequently, the Gemara cannot say that since the Pasuk is talking about a Zav, it comes to preclude a Zav (rather than a Zavah), since it is just as liable to preclude a Zavah as a Zav.

5)

TOSFOS DH YACHOL AF BE'SHILOH U'BEIS OLAMIM KEIN

úåñ' ã"ä éëåì àó áùéìä åáéú òåìîéí ëï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos presents a contradiction as to whether we learn Mishkan and Mikdash from each other or not).

îùîò - ãàé ìàå îéòåè, äåå âîøé îäããé.

(a)

Clarification: This implies that if not for the Miy'ut, we would learn them from each other ...

åëï áøéù òéøåáéï (ã' á.) ãôøéê 'åäà ÷øà áîùëï ëúéá?' åîùðé, 'àùëçï î÷ãù ãàé÷øé îùëï, åîùëï ãàé÷øé î÷ãù'.

(b)

Precedent: Similarly at the beginning of Eruvin (2.) where the Gemara asks 'But is the Pasuk not talking about the Mishkan?' And it answers that we do find that 'Mikdash' is called 'Mishkan' and 'Mishkan' is called 'Mikdash'.

åúéîä, ãáô' éãéòåú (ùáåòåú ãó èæ: åùí) îùîò ãìà âîøéðï îäããé, àé ìàå ãëúéá úøé ÷øàé ...

(c)

Question (Part 1): In Perek Yedi'os however (in Shevu'os 16: & 17.) it implies that wse do not learn one from the other, unless there are two Pesukim.

ã÷àîø äúí 'ìëúåá àå àéãé åàéãé "î÷ãù", àå àéãé åàéãé "îùëï" '?

(d)

Question (Part 2): Since the Gemara says there ' Let the Gemara write either both times "Mikdash" or both times "Mishkan"?'

åëï áñåèä áôø÷ äéä îáéà (ã' èæ.) îöøéê úøé ÷øàé ìàúåéé ùéìä åáéú òåìîéí, åáôø÷ ùðé ùòéøé (éåîà ã' ñæ:) âáé 'îãáø äîãáøä'

(e)

Precedent #1: Likewise in Sotah, in Perek Hayah Meivi (16.) the Gemara requires two Pesukim to include (Mishkan) Shiloh and the Beis-ha'Mikdash, and also in Perek Sh'nei Se'irei (Yoma 16:) regarding "Midbar" "ha'Midbarah" ...

åáôø÷ èøó á÷ìôé (ùí ã' îã.) âáé "åëì àãí ìà éäéä áàäì îåòã"; åáôø÷ äåöéàå ìå (ùí ðâ.) âáé 'îòìä òùï?

(f)

Precedent #2: And in Perek Taraf be'Kalpi (Ibid. 4.), in connection with "ve'Chol Adam Lo Yih'yeh be'Ohel Mo'ed" and in Perek Hotzi'u lo (Ibid. 53.), in connection with 'Ma'aleh Ashan'.

åúéøõ ä"ø ðúðàì, ãáòéøåáéï ìà öøéê ÷øà ì'î÷ãù' - ãòé÷ø ãøùà áàä òì äî÷ãù, ãáîùëï ìà äéå ãìúåú.

(g)

Answer (Part 1): ha'Rav Nesanel answers that in Eruvin, we do not need a Pasuk for Mikdash - since the main D'rashah comes for Mikdash, seeing as in the Mishkan there were no doors.

åäà ãäëà, ñáøà äéà, àí ìà äéä äôñå÷, ùéôñìå àó áùéìä åáéú òåìîéí, äåàéì åàéðå úìåé á÷ãåùú äîùëï [åò"ò úåñ' òéøåáéï á. ã"ä àùëçï åúåñ' éåîà ãó îã. ã"ä áùéìä úåñ' ñåèä ã' èæ. ã"ä åáéú åúåñ' ùáåòåú èæ: ã"ä àå àéãé].

(h)

Answer (Part 2): And as for the Sugya here, it is logical to say that, if not for the Pasuk, age will invalidate the Avodah even in Shiloh and in the Beis-ha'Mikdash, since it has nothing to do with the Kedushah of the Mishkan.

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

6)

TOSFOS DH NISMALEI ZIKNO RA'UY LE'ASOS SHELI'ACH TZIBUR VE'LEIRED LIFNEI HA'TEIVAH VE'LISA ES KAPAV

úåñ' ã"ä ðúîìà æ÷ðå øàåé ìéòùåú ùìéç öéáåø åìéøã ìôðé äúéáä åìéùà àú ëôéå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the various stages when a Katan becomes permitted to be the Sheli'ach-Tzibur and to Duchen).

úéîä, ãáô' ä÷åøà àú äîâéìä (îâéìä ãó ëã.) àîøéðï '÷èï ÷åøà áúåøä, åàéðå ôåøñ òì ùîò, åìà éåøã ìôðé äúéáä, åìà ðåùà àú ëôéå'; îùîò - äà äáéà ùúé ùòøåú éåøã ìôðé äúéáä åðåùà àú ëôéå?

(a)

Question: In Perek ha'Korei es ha'Megilah (Megilah 2.) the Gemara permits a Katan to read in the Torah. But to be Poreis on the Sh'ma, to be the Sheli'ach Tzibur or to Duchen (if he is a Kohen)?

åéù ìåîø, ãëùäáéà á' ùòøåú éëåì ìéøã ìôðé äúéáä, àáì ìéòùåú ùìéç öéáåø ÷áåò àå ìäúôìì áúòðéåú åáîòîãåú àéðå ðòùä òã ùéúîìà æ÷ðå ...

(b)

Answer: Once he grows to pubic hairs he is eligible to be the Sheli'ach Tzibur casually, but not on a regular basis, nor on Ta'aniyos and Ma'amados, until his beard is fully grown ...

ëãàîøé' áîñëú úòðéú (ãó èå.) 'àéï îåøéãéï ìôðé äúéáä àìà æ÷ï åøâéì'.

(c)

Source: As we have learned in maseches Ta'anis (Daf 15.) 'One only sends down to the Amud (on a Ta'anis) someone who is 'old and experienced'.

åà"ú, ãáñåó ìåìá äâæåì (ñåëä ãó îá.) îùîò ãàôéìå ÷èï ðåùà àú ëôéå - ãàîøéðï '÷èï ùéåãò ìéùà àú ëôéå, îçì÷éï ìå úøåîä ááéú äâøðåú'?

(d)

Question: The Gemara at the end of Perek Lulav ha'Gazul (Succah 42.) implies that even a Katan is permitted to Duchen, as the Gemara says there 'Once a Kohen Katan knows how to Duchen, one may give him Terumah in the granary?

åá÷åðèøñ ôéøù ìàå ãå÷à ÷èï, àìà îééøé ëùäáéà ùúé ùòøåú.

(e)

Answer #1: Rashi explains that 'Katan' is La'v Davka, but in fact means one who has already reached the stage of bar-Mitzvah.

åìà îùîò äëé - àìà ÷èï îîù, ãåîéà ã'÷èï äéåãò ìãáø, àáéå îìîãå úåøä', å'äéåãò ìùçåè àåëìéï îùçéèúå', ãîå÷é ìä áâãåì òåîã òì âáéå?

(f)

refutation: That is not however, what the Gemara there seems to be saying - but rather, a proper Katan, like the Gemara says there 'a Katan who knows how to speak (and who will therefore recite Hallel)'; and 'If a Katan knows how to Shecht, one is permitted to eat from his Shechitah.

åé"ì, ãäà ã'÷èï ðåùà àú ëôéå' - äééðå òí äâãåìéí, ëãàîøéðï âáé ùéø ... 'áéï øâìé äìåéí äéå òåîãéï, åöòøé äìåéí äéå ð÷øàéí' áô' àéï áòøëéï (òøëéï éâ:) ...

(g)

Answer #2 (Part 1): When the Gemara in Megilah permits a Katan to Duchen, it means together with Gedolim, as the Gemara in Perek Ein Echin (Erchin 13:) says regarding the Shir ... 'Between the legs of the Levi'im they would stand, and they were referred to as Tzo'arei ha'Levi'im'.

àáì áôðé òöîå àéðå ðåùà àú ëôéå òã ùéáéà á' ùòøåú.

(h)

Answer #2 (Part 2): But he is only permitted to Duchen on his own once he grows two pubic hairs.

7)

TOSFOS DH VE'GABO TAHOR

úåñ' ã"ä åâáå èäåø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos restricts the current ruling to where the Tum'ah touches the back).

äééðå ãìà îéèîà îâáå; àáì àí ðèîà îúåëå, ðèîà ðîé âáå, åîèîà àçøéí ...

(a)

Clarification: That means that it cannot become Tamei via its outside; but if the inside becomes Tamei, the outside automatically becomes Tamei too, and it even renders others Tamei as well ...

ëãàîøéðï áú"ë 'îøåáä îãú ãìèîà îìéèîà, ùëìé çøñ îèîà àçøéí îàçåøéå, åàéðå îéèîà îàçåøéå'.

(b)

Precedent #1: As we have learned in the Toras Kohanim 'the measure of being Metamei others exceeds that of becoming Tamei, as a K'li Cheres is Metamei others via its outside, but cannot become Tamei via its outside.

åàîøéðï ðîé áôø÷ òì àìå îåîéï (áëåøåú ãó ìç.) 'ëìé çøñ ðèîà úåëå, ðèîà âáå'.

(c)

Precedent #2): And we also learned in Perek Eilu Mumin (Bechoros Daf 38.) 'A K'li Cheres whose inside becomes Tamei, its outside becomes Tamei, too.

åðøàä ãâáå èäåø àôéìå ðâò ùøõ áéã ùáå, ãìà àîø éã ìäëðéñ áëìé çøñ.

(d)

Chidush: And it seems that the back remains Tahor even if a Sheretz touched its handle, since the Din of a handle bringing in Tum'ah was not said with regard to earthenware vessels.

åäà ãôøéê áøéù äòåø åäøåèá (ì÷îï ãó ÷éç.) 'åàéîà éã ìäåöéà, àáì ìäëðéñ ìà?' åîùðé 'éã éúéøà ëúéá - "úðåø åëéøéí éåúõ èîàéí äí, åèîàéí éäéå ìëí" 'ìøáåú àú äéãåú'?

(e)

Implied Question: Then why does the Gemara at the beginning of 'ha'Or ve'ha'Rorav' (Daf 118.), after suggesting that there is a Yad to 'bring out' but not to 'bring in', conclude that the Torah writes an extra "Yad" ("Tanur ve'Kirayim Yutatz Teme'im heim, u'Teme'im Yih'yu lachem") to include 'Yados'?

ä"÷, ìøáåú àú äéãåú ìäåöéà, åàééúø éã ãæøòéí ìäëðéñ.

(f)

Answer #1 (Part 1): What the Gemara means is that after learning Tados le'Hotzi, we are left with a Yad to bring in Tum'ah by Zera'im ...

àáì éã ãúðåø åëéøéí ìà îëðéñ ...

(g)

Answer #1 (Part 2): But the Yad of ovens and stoves does not bring in Tum'ah ...

ëãîùîò áúåñôúà ãëìéí, ãàîø 'àéï èåîàä ìëìé çøñ àìà îàåéøå, åáäéñè äæá ò"â àáï îñîà'; åìà çùéá ùéù ìå èåîàä îéãå.

(h)

Precedent: As is implied in the Tosefta of Keilim, which specifically states that there is no Tum'ah for K'lei Cheres other than via its air and by the Heset of a Zav via a stone under which there is a cavity - It does not however, mention that it can become Tamei via its handle.

åòåã, ã÷øà ãîèäø ëìé çøñ äîå÷ó öîéã ôúéì îùîò àôéìå éù ìå éãéí.

(i)

Answer #2: And besides, the Pasuk which declares Tahor an earthenware vessel that has a lid that is firmly fixed, implies that this is the case even if it has handles.

8)

TOSFOS DH O EINO ELA IM-KEIN NAGA

úåñ' ã"ä àå àéðå àìà àí ëï ðâò

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses as to why we need a Pasuk to teach us that an earthenware vessel receives Tum'ah via its air).

åà"ú, åäà îãëúá øçîðà "úåëå" 'åìà úåê úåëå', ùîò îéðä ãî÷áì èåîàä îàåéøå?

(a)

Question: Why do we not know that it receives Tum'ah via its air from the fact that the Torah needs to write "Tocho" to preclude 'Toch Tocho' (as we shall learn on 25.)?

åé"ì, ãàôéìå ìà î÷áì èåîàä îàåéøå, ëéåï ãîèîà àçøéí îàåéøå, àöèøéê ùôéø ìàåëìéí äðúìéí úåê úåëå ãèäåøéï.

(b)

Answer: Even if it did not itself receive Tum'ah via its air, it would be necessary to teach food that is suspended in 'Toch Tocho' is Tahor, since it renders food that is suspended in its air.

åîéäå ÷ùä, îãëúéá ' "úåëå" ùì æä, åìà úåëå ùì àçø', ù"î ãîéèîàéï îàåéøï?

(c)

Question: Nevertheless, why can we not learn that it becomes Tamei via its air from the fact that the Torah writes "Tocho" to preclude the inside of other vessels from rendering them Tamei (as we shall also learn there)?

åé"ì, ãä"à àí àéðå òðéï ìéèîà, úðäå òðéï ìèîà úåëå ùì æä îèîà àçøéí îàåéøå, åìà úåëå ùì àçø.

(d)

Answer #1: Because (had a K'li Cheres not itself become Tamei via its air), we would have explained the Pasuk with regard to the air of other vessels not rendering Tamei what is suspended in them.

àé ðîé, ä"à úåëå ùì æä î÷áì èåîàä áîâò, åìà úåëå ùì àçø. åìà é÷áìå èåîàä ùàø ëìéí àôéìå áîâò àìà îâáï.

(e)

Answer #2: Alternatively, we would have learned that the inside of this vessel receives Tum'ah via touching, but not that of another vessel, in which case other vessels will not be subject to Tum'ah from the inside, even by touching, only via the outside.

(åìé ðøàä ã÷øà ÷îà [äåé] îå÷îéðï ùî÷áì èåîàä îàåéø åìà ãøùéðï úåëå ùì æä åìà úåëå ùì àçø àìà [áúø] (áúøà) ã÷ééîà ìï î÷øà àçøéðà ùî÷áì èåîàä îàåéøå) (âìéåï).

(f)

Answer #3: (It seems to me that we would have established the first Pasuk [of "Tocho"] with regard to receiving Tum'ah via its air, and we would not have Darshened "Tocho" 'shel Zeh, ve'Lo Tocho shel Acher' - which we do only after we know that a K'li Cheres receives Tum'ah via its air) (Gilyon).

9)

TOSFOS DH ELA IM-KEIN NAGA

úåñ' ã"ä àìà à"ë ðâò

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the corollary between the various D'rashos that emerge from the Pasuk of Tzamid Pasil).

å"úåëå" ãëúá øçîðà, ò"ë ìîòåèé âáå.

(a)

Clarification: And the word "Tocho" that the Torah writes can only come to preclude the outside.

åà"ú, åäà î÷øà ã"öîéã ôúéì" ðô÷à?

(b)

Question #1: Why do we not already know this from the Pasuk "Tzamid Pasil"?

åòåã ä÷ùä äø"é ëäï, àí ëìé çøñ àéðå î÷áì èåîàä îàåéø, ìîä ìé "äåà" ãëúéá âáé öîéã ôúéì, ìîéîø 'äà ùàø ëìéí àôéìå îå÷ôåú öîéã ôúéì èîàéí' ...

(c)

Question #2 (Part 1): Moreover, the Ri ha'Kohen asks, if a K'li Cheres is not subject to Tum'ah via its air, then why does the Torah need to write "Hu" by the Din of Tzamid Pasil, to teach us that other vessels are Tamei even if their lids are tightly sealed?

äà ëéåï ãëìé çøñ àéðå îéèîà îàåéøå, úå ìéëà ìîòáã ÷"å ùìà éäå ùàø ëìéí îéèîàéï îâáï àìà îúåëï åáðâéòä?

(d)

Question #2 (Part 2): Since earthenware vessels do not receive Tum'ah via their air, we can no longer learn from a Kal ve'Chomer that other vessels should not become Tamei via their backs, only via their insides by means of touching?

åîéäå ìùéðåéà ÷îà ùôéøùðå ìòéì: ãä"à àí àéðå òðéï ìéèîà úðäå òðéï ìèîà, àúé ùôéø - ãàëúé àéëà ÷"å ùìà éäå ùàø ëìéí îéèîàéï îâáï - 'åîä ëìé çøñ ùîèîà àçøéí îàåéø, àéðå î÷áì èåîàä îâáå, ùàø ëìéí ìà ë"ù'.

(e)

Qualification (Part 1): According to the first answer that we gave above (in the previous Dibur): namely that if we do not need the D'rashah with regard to becoming Tamei, we will learn it with regard to making others Tamei, the question is answered, in that we will still learn the Kal va'Chomer with regard to other vessels not becoming Tamei from the outside - 'because if earthenware vessels which are Metamei others via their air, yet they are not themselves subject to Tum'ah from the outside, how much more so other vessels, which are not (Metamei others via their air)!

àáì ìîä ãôøéê ãä"à úåëå ùì æä î÷áì èåîàä áîâò, åìà úåëå ùì àçø, ÷ùä?

(f)

Qualification (Part 2): But according to what we ask, that the inside of a K'li Cheres should be subject to Tum'ah by means of touching, but not the inside of other vessels, the Kashya remains.

åé"ì, ãëì ëîä ãìà éãòéðï ãëìé çøñ îéèîà îàåéøå, ìà îöéðï ìîéãøù î"ëì ëìé ôúåç" äà ããøùéðï áñîåê 'àéæäå ëìé ùèåîàúå ÷åãîú ìôúçå'.

(g)

Answer: As long as we do not know that earthenware vessels receive Tum'ah via their air, we cannot Darshen from "Kol K'li Pasu'ach' - 'Which is the vessel whose Tum'ah precedes its entrance ... ?' ('ha Tzamid Pasil, Tahor').

åäùúà åãàé ìà äééðå éåãòéí äéàê ìãøåù äôñå÷.

(h)

Conclusion: In which case, we would not know how to Darshen the Pasuk.

10)

TOSFOS DH HA'TORAH HEI'IDAH AL K'LEI CHERES VA'AFILU MALEI CHARDAL

úåñ' ã"ä äúåøä äòéãä òì ëìé çøñ åàôé' îìà çøãì

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses a. why the Gemara mentions specifically mustard-seeds, and b. how we know that the reason for the Tum'ah is not because of 'Tziruf').

ìôé îä ùîôøù ø"ú, ãàéï àåëì î÷áì èåîàä îãàåøééúà ôçåú îëáéöä, ìà ð÷è çøãì ãå÷à àìà ëìåîø åàôéìå îìà áéöéí ...

(a)

Clarification (Part 1): According to Rabeinu Tam, who holds that food that measures less than a 'k'Beitzah is not subject to Tum'ah, the Gemara mentions 'mustard-seeds', it might just as well have said 'eggs' ...

åð÷è çøãì îùåí ãîãøáðï, î÷áì èåîàä áëì ùäåà.

(b)

Clarification (Part 2): And the reason that it said mustard-seeds is because mi'de'Rabbanan, even the smallest amount receives Tum'ah.

ä÷ùä øáéðå àôøéí, îðìï ãäééðå îèòí àåéø, ãìîà äåé îèòí ùëìé çøñ îöøó ëùëåìï ðåâòéï æä áæä åðåâòéï áëìé ...

(c)

Question (Part 1): Rabeinu Efrayim asks from where we know that the reason (for the Tum'ah) is because of the air; maybe it is because an earthenware vessel combines them ('Tziruf'), since they are touching each other, and the outer ones are touching the vessel?

àáì ðúìéí áàåéø ìà?

(d)

Question (Part 2): But if they were hanging in the air, they would not become Tamei?

åë"ú, àí ëï öéøåó ãëúéá âáé ÷ãùéí ìîä ìé? ããøùéðï (ôñçéí ãó éè.) 'ëó àçú äôñå÷ òùä ìëì îä ùáëó àçú'?

(e)

Refuted Answer: In that case, you may ask, why does the Gemara in Pesachim (19.) require the Pasuk "Kaf Achas ... ", to teach us the concept of 'Tziruf' by Kodshim? (Why can we not learn it from Chulin)?

àéöèøéê îùåí ëìé ùèó?

(f)

Refutation: We need it because of K'lei Shetef (vessels that are not earthenware [whereas the above ruling is confined to earthenware vessels]).

åéù ìåîø, îãëúéá äëà "ëì", îùîò àôéìå ðúìä áàåéø.

(g)

Answer #1: The additional word "Kol" ("Kol asher be'Socho Yitma") implies even if the food is hanging inside the vessel.

åòåã, äúí ãøùéðï öéøåó, îãëúéá "àçú" îùîò ùäëó îöøó åòùä ìëì àçú.

(h)

Answer #2 (Part 1): Moreover, the Gemara there (regarding Kodshim) Darshens 'Tziruf' from the word "Achas", implying that the spoon combines whatever is on it, and renders it all one ...

àáì äëà ìà ëúéá 'àçú'.

(i)

Answer #2 (Part 2): Whereas here the Torah does not use the word 'Achas'.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF