1) TOSFOS DH Ki Naga Bo ha'Zav Miha Tamei v'Afilu liv'Sof v'Chulei (cont.)
úåñôåú ã"ä ëé ðâò áå äæá îéäà èîà åàôéìå ìáñåó ëå' (äîùê)
åäùúà àéîú àúà ìéä. àé ÷åãí ùðôñ÷ä øàùåðä àí ëï ëîå ùèéäø îï äîãøñ éèäø îîâò
(a) Summation of question: When did [the Tum'os] come? If it is before the first snapped, if so, just like it becomes Tahor from Midras, it should be Tahor from Maga;
(ãäà) [ö"ì àìà ò"ë àçø ùðéèìä äøàùåðä åðéú÷ðä áà ìå îâò îãøñ äà - öàï ÷ãùéí] ùáò ìéä èåîàä
1. Rather, you are forced to say that after the first was removed and fixed, it received Maga Midras. [This cannot be,] for Sava Lah Tum'ah!
åéù ìåîø ãëùúé÷ï àåæï øàùåðä çì òì àåæï îâò åîãøñ ááú àçú åááú àçú ìà àîøéðï ùáò ìéä èåîàä ëãîñ÷éðï
(b) Answer #1: When he fixed the first flap, Maga and Midras took effect on the flap b'Bas Achas. b'Bas Achas we do not say Sava Lah Tum'ah, like we conclude;
åîâå ãçééì îâò ààåæï çééì ðîé àëåìéä ñðãì ëéåï ãäëì ëìé à'
1. And Migo (since) Maga took effect on the flap, it takes effect also on the entire sandal, since it is all one Kli.
åäø''ù îôøù ãìà ùééê ùáò ìéä èåîàä áèåîàä äáàä îòöîå ëâåï ääéà ãñðãì åãçéùá òìéå åàçø ëê çúëå (åîãøñ îâò) [ö"ì åîâò åîãøñ - äá"ç] ãú''÷ ãø' éåñé ãáàä îòöîå ùðåâò áòöîå
(c) Answer #2 (R. Shimshon): Sava Lah Tum'ah does not apply to a Tum'ah that comes from itself, like the case of a sandal, and when he intended for [meat of Ever Min ha'Chai] and afterwards cut it, and Maga and Midras of the first Tana of R. Yosi, that it comes from itself, for it touches itself;
àáì ñãéðéí äî÷åôìéí èîà (òì) [ö"ì áùáéì - äá"ç] îä ùðâò áçáéøå
1. However, folded sheets are Tamei due to touching one another.
2) TOSFOS DH bi'Shnei Sadinim ha'Mekufalim v'Chulei (pertains to Daf 24b)
úåñôåú ã"ä áùðé ñãéðéí äî÷åôìéí ëå (ùééê ìãó ëã:)
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the Chidush of this case.)
áùðéúìä ìîòìä [ö"ì æä - äá"ç] îæä åéù àåéø ÷öú áéðéäí àééøé ãàé áæä òì âá æä îîù àé ëùéùá äëáéã (òìéäí) [ö"ì òì - éùø åèåá] ùðéäí ááú àçú à''ë òìéåï ìéèîà îâò ëîå úçúåï
(a) Explanation: We discuss when one is suspended above the other, and there is a little air in between, for if they are truly one on top of the other, if when he sat he pressed down on both of them b'Bas Achas, if so the top should be Maga Midras just like the bottom!
åàí äëáéã òì äòìéåï úçéìä à''ë (÷åãí ìúçúåï îâò ìîãøñ ëùðâò) [ö"ì ÷ãí ìúçúåï îâò ìîãøñ ãîâò - öàï ÷ãùéí] ëùðâò áòìéåï åèåîàú îãøñ ìà îèîà úçúåï òã ùéëáéã òìéå
1. And if he pressed down on the top one first, if so the bottom received [Tum'as] Maga before Midras, for Maga [came] when [the Zav] touched the top, and the bottom does not get Tum'as Midras until he presses down on it!
àáì ëùéù àåéø áéðéäí ëé àúé æá åéúéá áòìéåï îéã ëùðåâò òìéåï áúçúåï àúé ìúçúåï îãøñ åîâò ááú àçú åìòìéåï ÷ãí ìä îãøñ ìîâò
2. However, when there is air in between, when the Zav sits on the top, immediately when the top touches the bottom, Midras and Maga come b'Bas Achas, and for the top, Midras came before Maga!
åà''ú àîàé àéöèøéê ìùðåéé ùéù çéìå÷ áéï áú àçú ìæä àçø æä ìéîà ã÷à îééøé áî÷åôìéí æä òì âá æä ã÷ãí äúçúåï îâò ìîãøñ
(b) Question: Why do we need to say that there is a difference between b'Bas Achas and one after the other? We should say that we discuss when they are folded one on top of the other. The bottom received Maga before Midras!
åùîà ÷ñáø ãîëáéã òì ùðéäí ááú àçú
(c) Answer #1: Perhaps [the Tartzan] holds that he presses down on both b'Bas Achas.
åòåã à''ë îàé îåãä äééðå ùàí ðâò áäí äæá ãàå÷éîðà î÷îé îãøñ
(d) Answer #2: If so (they are folded one on top of the other, and the bottom received Maga first), why does it say [in the Seifa that R. Yosi] admits? This is just like if the Zav touched them (the Reisha), which we established before Midras!
åà''ú åúé÷ùé ìéä ìàáéé äéà âåôà îàé ùðà úçúåï îòìéåï ùàéï àáéé îçì÷ ááú àçú åà''ë òìéåï ðîé ìéèîà îãøñ åîâò ãäà ÷ðâò áúçúåï
(e) Question: We should challenge Abaye about this itself! Why is the bottom different than the top, for Abaye does not distinguish b'Bas Achas. If so, also the top should become Tamei Midras and Maga!
åé''ì ãéåãò äéä àáéé ùéù çéìå÷ àìà ìøáà äåä î÷ùä
(f) Answer #1: [The Makshan] knew that according to Abaye there is a distinction. However, he asked according to Rava;
îùåí ãàéú ìéä ùáò èåîàä àôé' äéëé ãîäðé îâòå ìèîà äçöé òùøåï àçø ãà''ë àôéìå ááú àçú ðîé ðéîà ùáò ìéä èåîàä åìà ìéçåì òìéä èåîàú îâò
1. [Rava] holds that Sava Lah Tum'ah even when Maga helps to be Metamei a half-Isaron. If so, also b'Bas Achas we should say Sava Lah Tum'ah, and Tum'as Maga should not take effect.
àé ðîé îùååä áú àçú ìæä àçø æä ãìòéì ãäåé ÷ìä òì ÷ìä
(g) Answer #2: He equates b'Bas Achas to one after the other above, for it is light [Tum'ah] on light.
3) TOSFOS DH v'Nasa Aharon Es Avon ha'Kodoshim v'Chulei
úåñôåú ã"ä åðùà àäøï àú òåï ä÷ãùéí ëå'
(SUMMARY: Tosfos gives two opinions about how we expound.)
ôé' ä÷åðèøñ áô''÷ ãôñçéí (ãó èæ:) âøñéðï àí òåï ðåúø äøé ëáø ðàîø ìà éçùá åàí òåï ôéâåì äøé ëáø ðàîø ìà éøöä
(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi): In Pesachim (16b) the text says "if [you will say that] it refers to the sin of Nosar, it already says "Lo Yechashev"! If [you will say that] it refers to the sin of Pigul, it already says "Lo Yeratzeh"!
åôé' ãäëé àéúà áô''á ãæáçéí (ãó ëç:) ãàéñåøà øáä çåõ ìæîðå ùäåà áëøú î÷øà øáä åôøùä øáä áôøùú öå
1. [Rashi] explained that so it says in Zevachim (28b) that the great Isur of Chutz li'Zmano, which has Kares, is in the big verse in the big Parshah in Parshas Tzav;
åàéñåøà æåèà ãçåõ ìî÷åîå ãìéëà ëøú î÷øà æåèà åôøùä æåèà áôøùú ÷ãåùéí
2. The small Isur of Chutz li'Mkomo, which has no Kares, is in the small verse in the small Parshah in Parshas Kedoshim;
åäáéà øàéä ãäëé àéúà áú''ë
(b) Proof (Rashi, for himself): It says so in Toras Kohanim.
åø''ú âøéñ àéôëà áôéâåì ìà éçùá åáðåúø ìà éøöä îùåí ãîñ÷éðï áô''á ãæáçéí åúøåééäå î÷øà àøéëà ðô÷é ãëúá áéä ìà éøöä åìà éçùá
(c) Version #2: R. Tam's text says differently. Pigul [we learn from] Lo Yechashev, and Nosar Lo Yeratzeh, because we conclude in Zevachim (28b) that both of them are learned from the long verse, in which it says Lo Yeratzeh and Lo Yechashev.
åîä ùðæëø ôéâåì ÷åãí ìðåúø àò''â ãáî÷øà ëúéá áøéùà çåõ ìæîðå
(d) Implied question: Why was Pigul mentioned before Nosar? In the verse, Chutz li'Zmano is written first!
îùåí ãìùåï ôéâåì ëúá áî÷øà áäãéà
(e) Answer: It is because the expression "Pigul" is written explicitly in the verse.
4) TOSFOS DH Im Avon Nosar v'Chulei
úåñôåú ã"ä àí òåï ðåúø ëå'
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this is Chutz li'Zmano.)
ìàå ðåúø îîù ÷àîø ëãàîø áæáçéí ìàçø ùäåëùø éçæåø åéôñì àìà îçùáú ðåúø ãäééðå îçùá ìàåëìå çåõ ìæîðå
(a) Explanation: This does not refer to actual Nosar, like it says in Zevachim (29a) - after [the Korban] was Kosher, does it return to become Pasul?! Rather, it is intent for Nosar, i.e. he intends to eat it Chutz li'Zmano.
5) TOSFOS DH Ha Eino Nosei Ela Avon Tum'ah she'Hutrah mi'Chlalah b'Tzibur
úåñôåú ã"ä äà àéðå ðåùà àìà òåï èåîàä ùäåúøä îëììä áöéáåø
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Drashos were needed.)
åà''ú úéôå÷ ìéä ãìà îùëçú ìä îéãé ãîúå÷í áéä ÷øà àìà áèåîàä
(a) Question: We already know this, for we do not find anything to establish the verse to discuss except for Tum'ah!
åàåîø ø''ú îùåí ãëúéá ìøöåï ìäí îùîò ãáø ùäåà ìøöåï áî÷åí àçø åìäëé ãçé÷ ìàùëåçé äåúø îëììå áëì äðé ãôøéê
(b) Answer (R. Tam): Because it is written "l'Ratzon Lahem" - this connotes something that is accepted elsewhere. Therefore [the Gemara] struggles to find something Hutrah mi'Chlalah (totally permitted) in each of these asked.
åà''ú åðåúø åôéâåì äéëï äåúøå îëììï ãàéöèøéê ìéä ìà éøöä åìà éçùá
(c) Question: How were Nosar and Pigul Hutru mi'Chlalan, that we need Lo Yeratzeh and Lo Yechashev [to teach that the Tzitz is not Meratzeh for them]?
åàåîø ø''ú ãôéâåì äåúø îëììå ááîä ãìà ùééê ùí îçùáú çåõ ìî÷åîå
(d) Answer #1 - part 1 (R. Tam): Pigul is Hutar mi'Chlalo on a Bamah. Intent Chutz li'Mkomo does not apply there.
åðåúø ëãé ðñáä åàâá ôéâåì ð÷è ðåúø äåàéì åàùëç áéä ÷øà àò''â ãìà öøéê
(e) Answer #1A - part 2 (R. Tam): Nosar was taught for nothing. Along with Pigul, it mentioned Nosar, even though there was no need.
àé ðîé äåúø îëììå áøàùå ùì îæáç ãàéëà ìî''ã àéï ìéðä îåòìú ùí áøéù úîéã ðùçè (ôñçéí ãó ðè.) åáôø÷ äîæáç î÷ãù (æáçéí ãó ôæ:)
(f) Answer #1B - part 2: Nosar is Hutar mi'Chlalo on top of the Mizbe'ach. There is an opinion that Linah does not apply on top of the Mizbe'ach, in Pesachim (59a) and in Zevachim (87b).
åîéäå ôìåâúà ãàîåøàé äéà å÷ùéà ìî''ã ìéðä îåòìú ùí áøàùå îäê áøééúà
(g) Objection: Amora'im argue about this. This Beraisa is difficult for the one who says that Linah applies on top of the Mizbe'ach (if we will not say like Answer #1)!
åðøàä ãðåúø éù ììîãå òåï òåï îøéöåé öéõ åôéâåì ðîé îöé ìîéìó äëé
(h) Answer #2: We can learn from Nosar from a Gezeirah Shavah "Avon-Avon" from Ritzuy of the Tzitz. Also Pigul we could learn like this. (Therefore, we need Drashos to teach that the Tzitz is not Meratzeh for them.)
åòåã éù ìôøù ãðåúø äåúø îëììå áîðçú ëäðéí åîðçú ëäï îùéç å÷åîõ åëì ãáø ùàéï ìå îúéøéï ãàéï çééáéï òìéå îùåí ôéâåì ëãúðï áæáçéí áôø÷ áéú ùîàé (ãó îâ.)
(i) Answer #3 - part 2: Nosar is Hutar mi'Chlalo regarding Minchas Kohanim, Minchas Kohen Mashi'ach, a Kometz and anything without Matirim. One is not liable for it for Pigul, like a Mishnah in Zevachim (43a) teaches;
åàôé' ôñåìà ðîé ðøàä ãìéëà ëãàîøéðï áñåó ô''÷ ãæáçéí (ãó éã.) îåãä øáé ùîòåï áäåìëú çèàåú äôðéîéåú
1. It seems that there is not even an Isur, like we say in Zevachim (14a) that R. Shimon agrees about Holachah of inner Chata'os;
åôøéê åäàîø øáé (éùîòàì) [ö"ì ùîòåï - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ëì ùàéðå òì îæáç äçéöåï ëùìîéí àéï çééáéï òìéå îùåí ôéâåì åùðé îåãä ø''ù ìôñåì î÷ì åçåîø
2. [The Gemara] asks that anything not on the outer Mizbe'ach like Shelamim, one is not liable for it for Pigul, and answers that R. Shimon agrees that it is Pasul due to a Kal v'Chomer;
åîä ùìà ìùîï äëùø áùìîéí ôñåì áçèàú çåõ ìæîðå äôñåì áùìîéí àéðå ãéï ùôñåì áçèàú
i. Lo Lishmah is Kosher regarding Shelamim, and Pasul regarding Chatas. Chutz li'Zmano, which is Pasul regarding Shelamim, all the more so it is Pasul regarding Chatas!
îùîò ãàé ìàå ÷ì åçåîø äåä àîéðà ãàôé' ôñåìà ìéëà à''ë áîðçú ëäðéí åîðçú ðñëéí ãìéëà ÷ì åçåîø ãìà àéôñìé ùìà ìùîï ìéëà ôñåì ëìì
3. Inference: If not for the Kal v'Chomer, I would have thought that there is not even a Pesul. If so, for Minchas Kohanim and Minchas Nesachim, for which there is no Kal v'Chomer, for it is not Pasul Lo Lishmah, there is no Pesul at all! (Chemdas Daniel - above, Tosfos mentioned also Kometz. It has no Isur to a person due to Pigul, but Pigul can forbid it to the Mizbe'ach. Here Tosfos mentions what has no Matirim or Shirayim, and there is no Isur Pigul at all.)
àìîà àùëçï ðåúø ãäåúø îëììå ìâîøé
4. Conclusion: We find that Nosar is totally Hutar mi'Chlalo.
6) TOSFOS DH Eima Avon Yotzei v'Chulei
úåñôåú ã"ä àéîà òåï éåöà ëå'
(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that we could have asked about Zarus.)
îòåï ãæøåú ùäåúø îëììå ááîä äåä îöé ìà÷ùåéé åìùðåéé (ëâåï îòåï) [ö"ì ëîå áòåï - ùéèä î÷åáöú] éåöà
(a) Observation: We could have asked that [perhaps] it bears the sin of Zarus, which is Hutar mi'Chlalo on a Bamah, and answered like we answered about the sin of Yotzei. (R. Akiva Eiger asks that the answer for Yotzei, that the Tzitz is Meratzeh for a sin in front of Hash-m, and Yotzei is not in front of Hash-m, does not apply to Zarus! Shitah Mekubetzes, Keren Orah - Zarus is not permitted in front of Hash-m, just like Yotzei. Chak Nasan - Zarus is permitted only on a Bamas Yachid, which is not called in front of Hash-m. Yotzei is Hutar mi'Chlalo for Kodshim Kalim even on a Bamas Tzibur, which is called in front of Hash-m\ did not understand\. Chidushei Basra - Tosfos means that we could have asked about Zarus, like we asked about Yotzei, but the answer for Zarus is like for the left hand - Avon of the Kodshim, and not of the Makdishim.
7) TOSFOS DH Eima Avon Smol she'Hutar mi'Chlalo b'Yom ha'Kipurim
úåñôåú ã"ä åàéîà òåï ùîàì ùäåúø îëììå áéåä''ë
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we did not bring a source for Holachah of limbs.)
äà ãìà ÷àîø áäåìëú àáøéí ìëáù ëãàîø áñåó )ô''÷ ãæáçéí ãó éã) [ö"ì ôø÷ ùðé ãæáçéí ãó ëã:] äøâì ùì éîéï áùîàìå
(a) Implied question: Why didn't he say [that the left hand is Hutar mi'Chlalo] regarding taking limbs to the Mizbe'ach, like it says in Zevachim (24b) "the right hind leg is in his left hand"?
îùåí ãàéï æå òáåãä äîòëáú ëôøä
(b) Answer: It is because this is not an Avodah that is Me'akev Kaparah.
åîäàé èòîà ðîé ìà ôøéê îòåï ìéìä ùäåúø ìàéáøéí åôãøéí
(c) Support: This is why we do not ask from the sin of [Hakravah at] night, which is permitted for limbs and Chelev.
8) TOSFOS DH Avon Kodoshim v'Lo Avon ha'Makdishim
úåñôåú ã"ä òåï ÷ãùéí åìà òåï äî÷ãéùéí
(SUMMARY: Tosfos arouses a question about for what the Tzitz is Meratzeh.)
úéîä äà ìî''ã èåîàä ãçåéä äéà áöáåø åáòéà öéõ ìøöåéé (ãàîøéðï áô''÷ ãéåîà (ãó æ:) ãîøöä ( [ö"ì ëãàîøéðï áô''÷ ãéåîà (ãó æ:) åîøöä] òì äëäðéí äòåùéí áèåîàä
(a) Question: According to the opinion that Tum'ah Dechuyah b'Tzibur, and the Tzitz is needed to be Meratzeh, like we say in Yoma (7b), and [doesn't this mean that] it is Meratzeh for Kohanim who serve b'Tum'ah?!
åìòéì áä÷åîõ æåèà ôéøùúé
(b) Reference: Above (15a DH Hacha) I explained. (The Tzitz helps only for Tum'as Basar, but not for Tum'as ha'Guf. Even without the Tzitz, Tum'as ha'Guf is Dechuyah.)
9) TOSFOS DH v'Eima Avon Ba'al Mum she'Hutar mi'Chlalo b'Ofos
úåñôåú ã"ä åàéîà òåï áòì îåí ùäåúø îëììå áòåôåú
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses why the Gemara did not ask other questions.)
åà''ú åàîàé ìà ôøéê îòåï èøéôä ùäåúø áîìé÷ä ãäà çùéá äåúø îëììå áôø÷ ÷îà (ìòéì ãó å.) ãàîø èøéôä ùäåúøä îëììä îàé äéà àéìéîà áòåìú äòåó ëå'
(a) Question: Why doesn't he ask from the sin of Tereifah, which is permitted in Melikah? It is considered Hutar mi'Chlalo above (6a). It says "what is the case of Tereifah that is Hutar mi'Chlalo? If it is Olas ha'Of...
åáèøéôä ìà ëúéá ìà éøöä
1. Regarding Tereifah it is not written Lo Yeratzeh!
åìàáéé ãîùðé òåï ùäéä áå åãçéúéå ðéçà ãìàôå÷é èøéôú îìé÷ä (ùäåëùøä) [ö"ì ùåëùéøä - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã] áëê
(b) Answer #1: According to Abaye, who answers "a sin that was in it, and I (the Torah) was Docheh it (overrode the Isur and permitted it b'Di'eved)", this is fine. This excludes Tereifah of Melikah. The Mitzvah is to do so (make it Tereifah)!
àáì ìøá àùé ÷ùéà
(c) Question: However, this is difficult for Rav Ashi!
åéù ìåîø ãàîøéðï òåï ÷ãùéí åìà òåï çåìéï ìàôå÷é èøéôåú ãùééê áçåìéï
(d) Answer #2: We say "Avon of the Kodshim", and not Avon of Chulin. This excludes Tereifah, which applies to Chulin.
åà''ú )òåï( [ö"ì åàîàé ìà ôøéê îòåï - ùéèä î÷åáöú] àåðï ùäåúø îëììå àöì ëäï âãåì
(e) Question: Why doesn't he ask from the sin of Onen, which is Hutar mi'Chlalo for a Kohen Gadol?
åìøá àùé ãîùðé ìòéì òåï ÷ãùéí åìà òåï î÷ãéùéï ðéçà
(f) Answer #1: According to Rav Ashi, who answered above "Avon of the Kodshim, and not Avon of the Makdishim", this is fine.
àìà ìàáéé ÷ùéà
(g) Question: However, this is difficult for Abaye!
åùîà àéú ìäå ãäããé
(h) Answer: Perhaps [Abaye and Rav Ashi] both expound like each other. (Likewise, we can say so above for Tereifah. We need not give Answer #2 above.)
åà''ú åàéîà òåï ãîçåñø æîï ëâåï úåê ç' ùäåúø îëììå áòåôåú ëãàîø áô''÷ ãçåìéï (ãó ëá:) ãáðé éåðä ëùéøéï îùéòìòå ãí
(i) Question: We should say that [the Tzitz is Meratzeh for] the sin of Mechusar Zman, e.g. [an animal] within eight days [of birth], which is Hutar mi'Chlalo in birds, like it says in Chulin (22b) that doves are Kosher from when Ya'ala'u blood (it bleeds when one plucks a feather from it)!
åéù ìåîø ãëúéá áéä ìà éøöä ãäà îéåí äùîéðé åäìàä éøöä ëúéá äà ÷åãí ìà éøöä
(j) Answer: [It is as if] it says about [Mechusar Zman] Lo Yeratzeh, for it says "mi'Yom ha'Shemini v'Halah Yeratzeh." This implies that before this, Lo Yeratzeh.
åîéäå ÷ùä îòåï àåúå åàú áðå ãäåúø îëììå áòåôåú
(k) Question: It is difficult from the sin of Oso v'Es Beno, which is Hutar mi'Chlalo in birds!
åìôé îä ùôé' òåï ÷ãùéí åìà òåï çåìéï ðéçà
(l) Answer #1: According to what I answered [above] "Avon of the Kodshim, and not Avon of Chulin", this is fine.
åòåã àîøéðï áô' àåúå åàú áðå (ùí ãó ô:) ãëì äôñåìéï ùáùåø åùä äøé äí áìà éøöä
(m) Answer #2: We say in Chulin (80b) that all Pesulim in a Shor and Seh, Lo Yeratzeh applies to them.
10) TOSFOS DH Aval b'Tzibur Bein b'Shogeg Beis b'Mezid Hurtzah
úåñôåú ã"ä àáì áöáåø áéï áùåââ áéï áîæéã äåøöä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why in Yevamos we did not infer from this Seifa.)
úéîä ãáäàùä øáä (éáîåú ãó ö.) îééúé øéùà ãäê áøééúà åãéé÷ òìä åäà äëà ãøöåéé îøöé öéõ ãúðéà òì îä äöéõ îøöä ëå'
(a) Question: In Yevamos (90a) it brings the Reisha of this Beraisa, and infers about it that here, the Tzitz is Meratzeh, for a Beraisa teaches "for what is the Tzitz Meratzeh?..."
åäùúà îñéôà âåôà äåä ìéä ìàéúåéé ëã÷úðé áñéôà äëà ãáöáåø áéï áùåââ áéï áîæéã äåøöä åîùîò äåà äãéï éçéã àé ìà îùåí ãáéçéã ÷ðñéðï îæéã
1. It should have brought from the Seifa itself, like the Seifa teaches here that b'Tzibur, whether Shogeg or Mezid, it is Hurtzah, and it implies that the same would apply to an individual, if not that for an individual, we fine the case of Mezid!
åéù ìåîø ãàé îñéôà äåä àîéðà ãèòîà ìà îùåí öéõ àìà îùåí ãèåîàä äåúøä áöáåø àó òì âá ãìùåï äåøöä îùîò öéõ:
(b) Answer: If from the Seifa, one might have thought that the reason is not due to the Tzitz, rather, because Tum'ah Hutrah b'Tzibur, even though the wording "Hurtzah" connotes [due to] the Tzitz.
25b----------------------------------------25b
11) TOSFOS DH b'Shogeg Terumaso Terumah
úåñôåú ã"ä áùåââ úøåîúå úøåîä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that it had Sha'as ha'Kosher.)
ùäéúä ìå ùòú äëåùø àééøé ùìà ðéèîà áúçéìú úìéùúå
(a) Explanation: It discusses when it had Sha'as ha'Kosher, that it did not become Tamei when it was initially detached;
ùàí úìùå àãí èîà åòãééï îù÷ä èåôç òìéå àéï úøåîúå úøåîä ëãîåëç áô' ëì ùòä (ôñçéí ãó ìâ.)
1. If a Tamei person detached it and there was still liquid Tofe'ach on it, his Terumah is not Terumah, like is proven in Pesachim (33a).
12) TOSFOS DH b'Mezid Ein Terumaso Terumah
úåñôåú ã"ä áîæéã àéï úøåîúå úøåîä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why this is unlike tithing bad on good.)
àò''â ãúåøí îï äøòä òì äéôä úøåîúå úøåîä ëãàîøéðï áäàùä øáä (éáîåú ãó ôè:) åëãúðï áîñ' úøåîåú (ôø÷ ùðé î''å)
(a) Implied question: One who tithes from bad on good, his Terumah is Terumah, like we say in Yevamos (89b) and like a Mishnah in Terumos (2:6)!
äúí çæé ÷öú äëà ìà çæé ëìì
(b) Answer: There it is somewhat proper [to eat]. Here it is not proper at all.
13) TOSFOS DH d'Meratzeh Tzitz Al Achilos Mi Sham'at Lei
úåñôåú ã"ä ãîøöä öéõ òì àëéìåú îé ùîòú ìéä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos rejects Rashi's Perush.)
ôé' á÷åðèøñ ìäëé ð÷è àëéìåú ãàòåìéï ë''ò îåãå ãöéõ îøöä ëã÷úðé áøéù úåøú ëäðéí åðøöä ìå ìëôø òìéå áãí ëå'
(a) Explanation (Rashi): [The Gemara] mentioned Achilos, because all agree that the Tzitz is Meratzeh for Olin, like it teaches at the beginning of Toras Kohanim - "v'Nirtzeh Lo Lechaper Alav" - through the blood...
åìà ã÷ á÷åðèøñ ãáòåìéï ðîé àùëçï ôìåâúà áôø÷ ëéöã öåìéï (ôñçéí ãó òæ:)
(b) Rebuttal: Rashi was not meticulous. We find an argument also about Olin, in Pesachim (77b).
14) TOSFOS DH Talmud Lomar Asher la'Shem
úåñôåú ã"ä ú''ì àùø ìéé'
(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with the Gemara in Kerisus.)
äëà îå÷îéðà ìéä ìøáåú ìï åéåöà
(a) Observation: Here we establish this to include Lan and Yotzei.
åúéîä ãáñåó ãí ùçéèä (ëøéúåú ãó ëâ: åùí) ãøéù ìéä ìøáåú àéîåøéí ãàéñåø èåîàä çééì ààéñåø çìá
(b) Question: In Kerisus (23b), we expound this to include Eimurim, that the Isur Tum'ah takes effect on the Isur Chelev!
åé''ì ãù÷åìéí äï
(c) Answer: These are equal (there is no reason to include one more than the other, so we learn both of them).
àáì ÷ùä àääéà ãëøéúåú (áñåó) [ö"ì ãáñåó - öàï ÷ãùéí] ô' á' ãîòéìä (ãó é:) ãøéù àéîåøéí îàùø é÷øá àì ä÷ãùéí ããáø ùàéï ìå îúéøéï îùé÷ãù áëìé
(d) Question: The Gemara in Kerisus is difficult, for in Me'ilah (10b) it expounds Eimurim from "Asher Yikrav... El ha'Kodoshim" that something without Matirim, [one is liable for it for Tum'ah] from when it is Mekudash in a Kli!
åé''ì ãäúí ìà îééøé àìà áòåìä åùàø ÷ãùéí àáì ùìîéí ìà äééúé îøáä ëéåï ãéöàå îï äëìì. î''ø
(e) Answer: There it discusses only Olah and other Kodshim, but I would not include Shelamim, since it left the Klal. ("Asher Yikrav..." obligates Kares for eating any Kodshim b'Tum'as ha'Guf, and our verse teaches so specifically for Shelamim.)
15) TOSFOS DH v'Rav Shila Amar v'Chulei
úåñôåú ã"ä åøá ùéìà àîø ëå'
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why he needed to distinguish between Tum'ah and Zerikah.)
åà''ú îàé ãåç÷ééäå ãøáéðà åøá ùéìà ìùðåéé ëìì äà îåëç áäãéà áäàùä øáä (éáîåú ãó ö. åùí) ãçãà îãàåøééúà åçãà îãøáðï îã÷àîø åäà äëà ãîãàåøééúà àøöåéé îøöä ãúðï òì îä äöéõ îøöä ëå'
(a) Question: What forced Ravina and Rav Shila to answer at all? It is proven explicitly in Yevamos (90a) that one [Beraisa] is mid'Oraisa, and one is mid'Rabanan, since it says "here mid'Oraisa it is Meratzeh, for a Mishnah teaches 'for what is the Tzitz Meratzeh?...'"
åé''ì ãìòåìí îùîò ìéä ðîé áéáîåú ãàôéìå îãøáðï ðîé ÷úðé òì îä äöéõ îøöä ëå' ìîø ëãàéú ìéä åìîø ëãàéú ìéä àæøé÷ä àå àèåîàä àìà ãôùéèà ìéä ãîãàåøééúà àéï çéìå÷ áéï èåîàä ìæøé÷ä
(b) Answer: It connotes to him (each of them) also in Yevamos that even mid'Rabanan it taught "for what is the Tzitz Meratzeh", according to [Rav Shila] like he taught and according to [Ravina] like he taught, regarding Zerikah or Tum'ah, but it is obvious to him that mid'Oraisa there is no distinction between Tum'ah and Zerikah;
åäëé ôéøåùå åäà îãàåøééúà àøöåéé îøöä áëì òðéï áéï îèåîàä áéï îæøé÷ä. î''ø
1. It means as follows. Mid'Oraisa it is Meratzeh in every case, both for Tum'ah (b'Mezid) and Zerikah (b'Mezid). This is from my Rebbi.
16) TOSFOS DH Zerikaso Bein b'Shogeg Beis b'Mezid Hurtzah
úåñôåú ã"ä æøé÷úå áéï áùåââ áéï áîæéã äåøöä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why Rav Shila explains unlike the Beraisa connotes.)
àò''ô ùöøéê ìãçå÷ äìùåï àìéáéä
(a) Implied question: According to [Rav Shila], the wording [and Zerikah was done... if it was b'Mezid, Lo Hurtzeh] is difficult!
ðéçà ìéä ìùðåéé äëé åìà ëøáéðà ëãàîø áôø÷ äðæ÷éï (âéèéï ãó ðã.) âáøà ìëôåøé ÷à áòé åàðï ðé÷åí åðé÷ðñéä:
(b) Answer: He prefers to answer like this, and unlike Ravina, like it says in Gitin (54a) "the man wants to atone. Should we fine him?!" (However, it is reasonable to fine for Tum'ah b'Mezid.)