TOSFOS DH NOGEI'A
תוספות ד"ה נוגע
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how the Gemara deduced that the Mishnah's law does not apply regarding Mahil.)
וא"ת מנא ליה למידק מאהיל לא אי משום דלא קתני לה הא לא קתני נמי משא אע"ג דעצם כשעורה מטמא במשא
Question: How does the Gemara know that we should deduce that this does not apply to Tumas Ohel? If the reason is merely because it is not stated in the Mishnah, impurity through carrying is also not stated in the Mishnah despite the fact that one becomes impure through carrying a bone the size of a barleycorn!
וי"ל דמשא לא אצטריך למתני אבל אהל הוה ליה למתני כיון דאין עצם מטמא באהל
Answer: Carrying does not have to be stated. However, Tumas Ohel should have been stated, since a bone does not cause impurity of Tumas Ohel.
אע"ג דלא מתני ליה במוקדשין מ"מ הוה ליה למתני באפי נפשיה אמת
Answer (cont.): Even though it doesn't apply to dedicated sacrifices that became invalid, it still should have been said regarding a dead person.
אע"ג דלא הוי אהל דומיא דנוגע דנוגע בכל מקום טמא אבל מאהיל לא מטמא אלא כנגד המוח מ"מ במאי דהוי לתנייה
Answer (cont.): Additionally, even though Tumas Ohel is not like impurity through touching, as whenever one touches he is impure as opposed to Tumas Ohel which only applies to the marrow of the bone, it still should have stated Tumas Ohel regarding when it does apply.
ואם תאמר ולשני ליה הא מני רבי יוסי דלית ליה טומאה בוקעת ועולה לקמן בשמעתין
Question: Why don't we answer that this is according to Rebbi Yosi who does not agree that impurity breaks out and goes up, as stated later in the Gemara?
ושמא לא מסתבר ליה לאוקמה כר' יוסי
Answer: Perhaps the Gemara does not think it is logical to establish the Mishnah according to Rebbi Yosi.
TOSFOS DH V'EE MOACH
תוספות ד"ה ואי מוח
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the reason behind Rashi's explanation of our Gemara's question, and why Tosfos deems it unnecessary.)
פירש הקונטרס אע"ג דליכא מוח כלל וזה דחקו מדלא מוקי לה דלית ביה מוח
Explanation: Rashi explains that this is even though there is no marrow at all in the bone. Rashi understood this was correct because the Gemara did not say that there is no marrow in the bone.
ובחנם דחק דמדנקט קולית משמע דמיירי דאיכא מוח קצת
Question: He did not have to say this, as since the Mishnah discusses a Kulis, the implication is that there is some marrow in the bone.
TOSFOS DH EE HACHI
תוספות ד"ה אי הכי
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the difference between the law of Rav Mari and the Mishnah.)
פירוש בשלמא אי איירי בדאיכא כזית א"ש מוקדשין אפי' למ"ד בערבי פסחים (פסחים קכא.) נותר בכביצה דכל חד איירי בשיעור דידיה
Explanation: In other words, it would be understandable if the case was where there was a Kzayis. The case of Mukdashin would then be understandable, even according to the opinion in Pesachim (121a) that only an amount of Nosar the size of an egg causes impurity. This is because each impure case of Mukdashin would be based on however much of it was needed for it to be impure.
אלא כיון דבמת איירי בדליכא שיעור מוקדשין אמאי כו'
Explanation (cont.): However, since the Mishnah is discussing a dead person, if there is not an amount which would cause impurity regarding Mukdashin, why etc?
תימה דמאי קמ"ל רב מרי מתניתין היא
Question #1: This is difficult. What is Rav Mari teaching us? This is stated in a Mishnah!
ועוד דבפ' כיצד צולין (שם דף פג.) מייתי סייעתא לרב מרי ודחי לה לייתי הך מתניתין דהכא
Question #2: Additionally, in Pesachim (83a) the Gemara quotes a proof to the opinion of Rav Mari and then proceeds to push it aside. Why doesn't the Gemara there quote our Mishnah to support Rav Mari?
ונראה דרב מרי אשמועינן עצמות ששמשו נותר כבר אפי' אין בהן עכשיו כלום ומתני' איכא לאוקומי בדאיכא אכתי כזית ומ"מ חדוש הוא דאיכא שימוש נותר בעולם
Answer: It appears that Rav Mari is teaching us regarding bones that were Nosar, even if now they do not have any marrow. The Mishnah is discussing bones that currently still have a Kzayis of marrow, and is required to teach that there is a concept of an item serving the purpose of Nosar (bones for the marrow) and therefore being impure.
ובפסחים דבעי לאתויי מעצמות פסח דקאמר אלא לאו דאית ביה מוח
Implied Question: The Gemara in Pesachim (ibid.) wanted to bring a proof to Rav Mari from the bones of a Pesach sacrifice (that regarding other Korbanos we do not see bones are considered significant even if they have marrow), as it said that it must be that there is marrow in the bone (regarding the Pesach). (Why ask a question on Rav Mari from the bones of a Pesach if it could have asked from our Mishnah which is only referring to bones with marrow?)
היינו שהיה בה מוח כבר דעכשיו לא קאמר דפשיטא דטעונין שרפה משום מוח
Answer: It brought a proof from the bones of a Pesach where there used to be marrow, but now there was no marrow. (This is the Maharam's explanation of the last few lines of Tosfos.)
TOSFOS DH HACHA...B'SHESHIFAH
תוספות ד"ה הכא...בששיפה
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the significance of the flesh being cut out with a knife.)
דתו לא מעלה ארוכה והלכך כיון דליכא כזית מוח לא מטמא באהל דליכא שיעור ולא הוי נמי אבר ואשמועינן דשיפה אינו מטמא באהל
Explanation: It will no longer fill in the cut in the flesh. Therefore, since there is not a Kzayis of marrow it does not cause impurity through Ohel, as there is not an amount which causes impurity. It is also not considered a limb. This teaches that if the amount of flesh that is missing was cut out with a knife (or other similar implements), it does not cause impurity through Ohel (as it will not heal).
TOSFOS DH U'MAI
תוספות ד"ה ומאי
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that Rebbi Yochanan's deduction is made because the Mishnah is discussing marrow inside a bone.)
וקמ"ל דנוגע היינו מאהיל ומצטרפין
Explanation: This teaches us that touching (in the Mishnah) is Mahil, and they combine.
וא"ת ליתני כזית מן המת הנוגע בו טמא ואנא ידענא דנוגע היינו מאהיל
Question: Why doesn't the Mishnah say that if someone touches a Kzayis from a dead person he is impure, and I will know (just as Rebbi Yochanan says now) that touching refers to Ohel?
וי"ל דלא הוה שמעינן ליה מהכא אלא משום דקים לן בעלמא דכזית מן המת מטמא באהל אבל השתא דקתני קולית מן המת וקתני נוגע מוכיח דנוגע היינו מאהיל דאי אפשר ליגע במוח ממש בתוך הקולית אלא ע"י אהל
Answer: We only know this here because we generally say that a Kzayis from a dead person causes impurity through Ohel. However, now that the Mishnah discusses a Kulis from a dead person and it says "touch," it is clear that "touch" really means Ohel. This is because one cannot actually touch the marrow that is inside the Kulis, but it can cause impurity through Ohel.
TOSFOS DH HACHA...B'KZAYIS
תוספות ד"ה הכא...בכזית
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why Rebbi Yochanan did not give Abaye's answer.)
הא דלא קאמר כששיפה כדאמר לעיל
Implied Question: Rebbi Yochanan did not answer that the case is where the flesh was cut out with a knife, as Abaye answered earlier. (Why not?)
אפשר דסבירא ליה דשיפה מעלה ארוכה מבחוץ
Answer: It is possible that he holds that even if it is cut out it can still heal.
125b----------------------------------------125b
TOSFOS DH AMAR REBBI ZEIRA
תוספות ד"ה אמר ר' זירא
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why Rebbi Zeira did not give a similar answer to that of Abaye stated later.)
הוה מצי למימר בטומאה למטה מטפח עסקינן כדאמרינן בסמוך
Implied Question: Rebbi Zeira seemingly could have answered that the case is where the impure item was less than a Tefach under his hand, as Abaye states later. (Why didn't he say this?)
אלא משמעות אהל משמע ליה למעלה מטפח
Answer #1: Rather, he understands that Ohel implies there is over a Tefach between the object and what is covering it.
אי נמי לית ליה סברא דלקמן
Answer #2: Alternatively, he does not agree with the logic stated later.
וא"ת אי בטומאה רצוצה דווקא עסקינן אמאי נקט בסיפא המשכה ע"י דבר אחר טהור ה"ל למינקט אבל אם אינה רצוצה טהור
Question: If we are specifically referring to a case where the impure item is less than a Tefach from what is covering it, why does the second case state that if something else causes the impurity to be in the same area as him he is pure? It should have said, "If the impurity is not less than a Tefach from what is covering it, he is pure!"
וי"ל דאתא לאשמועינן דאפילו בין שני מגדלים דומיא דרישא לא הוי טומאה רצוצה בהמשכה ע"י דבר אחר דתרתי בעינן בין ב' מגדלים וגם שהוא עצמו מאהיל על הטומאה או הטומאה עליו
Answer: It is coming to teach that even between two structures, as in the first case, there is no impurity less than a Tefach that can be continued through a different entity. In order for a person to become due to this type of impurity, two things are required: It must be that he is between these two structures, and that either he is hovering over the impure item or the impure item is on him.
TOSFOS DH U'MA'AN
תוספות ד"ה ומאן
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara's proof is valid for Rava, but not Abaye.)
פי' בקונט' דלא מייתי ראיה אלא אליבא דרבא
Opinion: Rashi explains that this proof is only being brought according to Rava's explanation (stated later).
וכן עיקר דהא לאביי מאי משני דע"כ צריך לאוקומי מתניתין בכל ענין דאם לא כן מאי דחה רבי זירא לעיל בטומאה בין שני מגדלים נוקי נמי מתניתין בכה"ג
Proof: This is correct as according to Abaye, what is the answer? It must be that the Mishnah is discussing all cases (and not differentiating between less than a Tefach and more than a Tefach). Otherwise, why did Rebbi Zeira have to say that the case must be about impurity that is between two structures? Let us say that the Mishnah is only regarding a case where the person was less than a Tefach away!
אלא ע"כ צריך לפרש בכל ענין דלא תקשה אכתי נוגע אין מאהיל בלא טומאה רצוצה לא
Proof (cont.): Rather, it must be that the Mishnah is referring to any type of Ohel. Otherwise we could still ask (on Rebbi Yochanan's answer on 125a, similar to the way the Gemara starts on 125a - see Maharam) that the Mishnah only discusses touching, but implies that hovering over higher than a Tefach would not be valid.
הילכך אליבא דאביי לא מיתוקמא כיון דאיכא אהל למעלה מטפח דלא הוי נגיעה
Proof (cont.): Therefore, we cannot establish this proof according to Abaye, since he holds that if one hovers over an object more than a Tefach it cannot be called touching.
אבל רבא דלא מפיק אלא אהל דהמשכה ליכא למיפרך מידי דמתני' לא איירי בהמשכה מדקתני הנוגע משמע אהל דומיא דנוגע דאיהו גופיה ולא ע"י דבר אחר
Proof (cont.): However, according to Rava who only excludes (from being included in "touching") something hovering over both him and the impurity, there is no question. This is because our Mishnah is not discussing something else hovering over both of them, as it clearly states, "One who touches." This implies a case of Ohel similar to a case of touching, meaning he is hovering over it and causing the Tumas Ohel, not a third entity that is over both him and the impurity.
ואביי ורבא לית להו דרבי זירא דשני לעיל בטומאה בין שני מגדלים דאי אית להו מנא לן לפרש כדמפרש דלמא בטומאה רצוצה בין שני מגדלים עסקינן אלא ודאי לית להו
Observation: Abaye and Rava do not agree with Rebbi Zeira who answers earlier that the case is where there is impurity between two wooden structures. If they agreed with him, why would they give his explanation (as they can explain the Mishnah otherwise)? Rather, they clearly do not agree with him.
וא"ת וכיון דלית להו דרבי זירא וההוא דלעיל מתוקמא לאביי כדאית ליה ולרבא כדאית ליה ואתיא טפי שפיר לרבא דמתוקמא בפשיטות דרישא מצטרפין דכאילו נגיעה היא כיון שאין בהמשכה ובסיפא דאין מצטרפין כיון דע"י המשכה היא וא"כ אמאי איצטריך להביא מהכא מההיא דלעיל יכול להביא ראיה דקרי לאהל מגע לפי סברת רבא
Question: We know that Rava and Abaye do not agree with Rebbi Zeira, and they explain the Mishnah in Ohalos (3:1) quoted earlier differently. Rava's explanation that the first case in Ohalos (ibid.) where they combine is as if they touched since there is nothing hovering over them, and the second case where they do not combine is through something hovering over them, is a very good and simple explanation. Why do we need to quote Rebbi Yosi to prove he is correct? We can understand the Mishnah as proof to Rava that Ohel is called touching!
וי"ל דניחא ליה טפי לאתויי מהכא שנזכר בה שם חכם
Answer: It is better to quote a proof from a statement that includes the name of the scholar who said it (in this case Rebbi Yosi).
TOSFOS DH SHELO
תוספות ד"ה שלא
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that nullification may not be needed when it involves closing up a window.)
וא"ת כיון דלא מבטל להו כדפי' בקונטרס יהא טמא אפילו שלא כנגד הנקב כדאמרינן פרק לא יחפור (ב"ב דף יט:) דכל מידי דלא מבטל ליה אין חוצץ בפני הטומאה
Question: Since he does not nullify (intend to keep) them there as Rashi explains, a person who is even in the space that is not over the holes should become impure! This is as the Gemara states in Bava Basra (19b) that anything that is not put down with intent to stay there does not interrupt impurity.
ומיהו שם פירש דכל דבר שסותם כל החלון א"צ בטול ושם (כ. ד"ה היא) מפורש
Answer: However, he explains there that anything that closes up an entire window does not have to be nullified. This is explained there (in Bava Basra 20a, DH "Hee").
TOSFOS DH KASAVAR
תוספות ד"ה קסבר
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that Rebbi Yosi sometimes says that impurity breaks through.)
וא"ת היכי מוקמינן לעיל מתניתין כוותיה והא מתניתין סבר דבוקעת ועולה דקתני בקולית סתומה הנוגע בה טמא ואוקמינן דמאי נוגע מאהיל
Question: How could we have established the Mishnah earlier as being according to Rebbi Yosi? We established that our Mishnah's comment that a closed Kulis has a law that the impurity breaks through and goes up and that therefore one who touches it is impure means that one who is over it is impure!
וי"ל אע"ג דסבר רבי יוסי טומאה טמונה אינה בוקעת מודה בקולית סתומה שמטמא באהל כמו במת בכסותו דמודה רבי יוסי דמטמא
Answer: Even though Rebbi Yosi holds that hidden impurity does not break through, he admits regarding a closed Kulis that it is impure in an Ohel just as a dead person wearing clothing causes this type of impurity.
TOSFOS DH TUMAH
תוספות ד"ה טומאה
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the structure is deemed to interrupt between the impurity outside of it and what is inside of it.)
שהמגדל חוצץ בין הטומאה ובין מה שבתוכו דאינו מקבל טומאה דעשוי לנחת הוא
Explanation: This is because the structure interrupts between the impure item (outside of it) and what is inside of it. The structure itself does not become impure (and therefore can be considered an interruption) because it remains in its place (it is not moved around).
TOSFOS DH YACHOL
תוספות ד"ה יכול
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that Rebbi Yosi understands our Gemara is not speaking about a whole dead person.)
נראה דמודה רבי יוסי בהא דאמרינן בביצה (דף י.) המת בבית ולו פתחים הרבה כולן טמאים מפני שסוף טומאה לצאת דרך שם
Implied Question: It appears that Rebbi Yosi admits to the Gemara's statement in Beitzah (10a) that if a dead person is in a house and there are many exits, they are all impure because the impurity is going to leave through one of them. (How can his position be reconciled with this Gemara?)
דהתם במת שלם דאין דרך לשורפו ולנתחו פחות מכזית
Answer: The Gemara (ibid.) is referring to a whole dead person who is not normally burned and cut up into pieces of less than a Kzayis.