1) TOSFOS DH b'Milu'im

úåñôåú ã"ä áîéìåàéí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos gives the source that the bread was on top in the Milu'im.)

ãëúéá åîñì äîöåú àùø ìôðé ä' ì÷ç îöä àçú åâå' òã åéùí (àú) [òì] äçìáéí (òì äçæåú) åòì ùå÷ äéîéï

(a) Explanation: It is written "umi'Sal ha'Matzos Asher Lifnei Hash-m Lakach Matzah Achas... va'Yasam Al ha'Chalavim v'Al Shok ha'Yamin."

åà''ú äà ëúéá áúøéä åéúï äëì òì ëôé àäøï åòì ëôé áðéå åéðó åâå' åàæ ðäôê äìçí ìîèä ëé äðé ãáñîåê

(b) Question: It is written afterwards "va'Yiten ha'Kol Al Kapei Aharon v'Al Kapei Vanav va'Yanaf", and then the bread was reversed to be below, like the cases below! (Chak Nasan - since the Torah does not reveal otherwise, presumably, Aharon held them the same way that Moshe did.)

2) TOSFOS DH Kedei La'atzor Ruchos Ra'os

úåñôåú ã"ä ëãé ìòöåø øåçåú øòåú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos gives a reason for waving in all directions.)

ùîà ìà áëì úðåôåú òåùéï ëï [ö"ì ìäðéó ìã' øåçåú - âîøà òåæ åäãø] àìà ãåå÷à áúðåôä ùì ùúé äìçí ãòöøú åëï ìåìá

(a) Suggestion: Perhaps they do not do so in all Tenufos, to wave in four directions, rather, only in Tenufah of Shtei ha'Lechem on Shavu'os, and similarly Lulav;

îùåí ãàîøéðï áôø÷ ÷îà ãøàù äùðä (ãó èæ.) ãâæø ãéï ðçúí áôñç òì äúáåàä áòöøú òì ôéøåú äàéìï áçâ òì äîéí (åìáã îï äðéòðåò) [ö"ì åìëê áäðéòðåò - öàï ÷ãùéí] ùáìåìá éù áå äåìëä åäåáàä

1. This is because we say in Rosh Hashanah (16a) that the decree about grain is on Pesach, and about fruits of the tree is on Shavu'os, and about water on Sukos. Therefore, in shaking the Lulav, there is Holachah and Hova'ah.

åáòøåê ôéøù áòøê ðò öøéê ìðòðò áäåìëä åäåáàä åäáéà øàéä îäéøåùìîé úðé öøéê ìðòðò ùìù ôòîéí òì ëì ãáø åãáø

(b) Explanation (Aruch, Erech Na): One must wave in Holachah and Hova'ah. He brought a proof from the Yerushalmi. It taught that one must shake three times on each matter;

áòé øáé æéøà äëï çã åäëï çã àå ãìîà äëï åäëï çã

1. Citation (Yerushalmi): R. Zeira asked Hachen Chad v'Hachen Chad - or, perhaps Hachen v'Hachen Chad?

ôé' ëáø àîøðå öøéê ðéòðåò ùìù ôòîéí áòé øáé æéøà ääåìëä úéçùá ôòí àçú åäåáàä ôòí àçú àå ãìîà äåìëä åäåáàä ôòí àçú ðçùáú åöøéê ìäåìéê åìäáéà â' ôòîéí

i. Explanation: I.e. we said that he must shake three times. R. Zeira asked is Holachah is considered once and Hova'ah is [another] one, or perhaps Holachah and Hova'ah are considered like one, and one must do Holachah and Hova'ah three times?

úîï úðéðï áðãä ô''è (ãó ñá.) áòðéï æ' ñîîðéí îòáéøéí òì äëúí åöøéê ìëñëñ ùìù ôòîéí òì ëì àçã øáé æòéøà áòé äëï çã åäëï çã àå äëï åäëï çã åìà àéôùéè

2. Citation (cont.): A Mishnah in Nidah (62a) teaches that we pass seven ingredients over a stain (to determine whether or not it is Dam Nidah), and he must rub three times on each. R. Ze'ira asked Hachen Chad v'Hachen Chad - or, perhaps Hachen v'Hachen Chad? This was not resolved.

åëéåï ãìà àéôùéè òáãéðï ìçåîøà ùìù ôòîéí áëì àçã åàçã òã ëàï ìùåðå

(c) Pesak (Aruch): Since it was not resolved, we are stringent, and do three times on each one (outward and inward).

åääéà áòéà ãäúí àéúà ðîé áäù''ñ ùìðå áðãä áô' äàùä (ãó ñâ.) ãáòé øáé éøîéä àîèåéé åàéúåéé çã àå ãìîà àîèåéé çã åàéúåéé çã

(d) Remark: The question there (about a stain) is also in the Bavli (Nidah 63a). R. Yirmeyah asked, is going out and in count as one, or perhaps going out is one and going in is one?

åëéåöà áä ì÷îï áô' åàìå îðçåú (ãó òå.) âáé ùìù îàåú ùéôä åçîù îàåú áòéèä ãáòé ø' éøîéä àîèåéé åàéúåéé çã àå ãìîà àîèåéé åàéúåéé úøé:

(e) Observation: We find like this below (76a) regarding 300 rolls [for Menachos] and 500 beats. R. Yirmeyah asked whether rolling outward and back counts as one, or outward and back is two?

62b----------------------------------------62b

3) TOSFOS DH Rav Papa Amar d'Kuli Alma Dun Minah u'Minah

úåñôåú ã"ä øá ôôà àîø ãëåìé òìîà ãåï îéðä åîéðä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that he later retracted from this.)

äê îéìúà ãøá ôôà î÷îé ãìéùîòä ìääéà ãñåó ëì äúãéø (æáçéí ãó öà:) ãôìéâé øáé åøáðï áîúðãá ùîï åîñ÷éðï ãôìéâé áãåï îéðä åîéðä ãøáé ñáø ãåï îéðä åàå÷é áàúøä

(a) Explanation: Rav Papa taught this before he heard in Zevachim (91b) that Rebbi and Rabanan argue about volunteering oil. We conclude that they argue about Dun Minah u'Minah (when a matter is learned from another matter, we learn everything from the source). Rebbi holds Dun Minah v'Uki b'Asra. (We learn from the source only what we must. Other laws are like the law of the matter being learned);

å÷àîø øá ôôà äúí àé úðéà úðéà

1. Rav Papa said there "if it was taught, it was taught."

åëï ääéà ãôñçéí áôø÷ ëì ùòä (ãó ìá:) ãéìéó îæéã ãîòéìä ôèåø î÷øáï î÷''å îùàø îöåú ùéù áäï ëøú åôèåø îæéã

(b) Support: Similarly in Pesachim (32b, a Beraisa) learns that one who was Mezid about Me'ilah is exempt from a Korban from a Kal v'Chomer from other Mitzvos which have Kares, and Mezid is exempt;

å÷àîø ìà àí àîøú áùàø îöåú ùëï ìà çééá áäï îéúä ëå' åôøéê äàé úðà îòé÷øà àìéîà ìéä ëøú åìáñåó àìéîà ìéä îéúä

1. Citation (32b - Beraisa): No. If you say [that Mezid is exempt from a Korban in] other Mitzvos, that one is not Chayav Misah [bi'Ydei Shamayim, you cannot learn to Me'ilah... Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak] asks that initially, the Tana held that Kares is more stringent than Misah (that was the basis of his Kal v'Chomer), and at the end he holds that Misah is more stringent!

åîùðé ãäëé ÷àîø ìà àí àîøú áùàø îöåú ùëï ìà çééá áäï îéúä áôçåú îëæéú úàîø áîòéìä ãçééá áôøåèä àò''â ãìéú áéä ëæéú

2. Citation (cont.): [R. Chiya bar Avin] answers that it means as follows. No. Will you learn from other Mitzvos, which have no Misah for less than a k'Zayis, to say so about Me'ilah, for which one is liable for a Perutah, even if it is less than a k'Zayis?!

åôøéê îàï ùîòú ìéä ãàîø äæéã áîòéìä áîéúä øáé ãéìéó çè çè îúøåîä åîéðä îä úøåîä áëæéú àó îòéìä áëæéú

3. Citation (cont.): [R. Chiya, Rabah and Rav Sheshes] ask, who holds that Mezid in Me'ilah is Chayav Misah? It is Rebbi, who learns from [a Gezeirah Shavah] "Chet-Chet]" from Terumah. He should learn Minah - just like the Shi'ur for Terumah is a k'Zayis, also for Me'ilah!

åäùúà îàé ÷åùéà äà øáé äéà ãàéú ìéä ãåï îéðä åàå÷é áàúøä

4. Question #1: What was the question? Rebbi holds that Dun Minah v'Uki b'Asra!

åøá ôôà ãåç÷ ùí ìúøõ ãøáé ñáø ìä ëàáà ùàåì ãîçééá äúí áúøåîä áùùåä ôøåèä àò''â ãìéú áä ëæéú

5. Implied question #2: And Rav Papa there gives a difficult answer that Rebbi holds like Aba Sha'ul, who obligates for a Shaveh Perutah even if it is less than a k'Zayis! (He should have said that Rebbi holds that Dun Minah v'Uki b'Asra!)

åöøéê ìåîø ãî÷îé ãìéùîòä ìääéà ãæáçéí àîøä

6. Answer #1: We must say that [Rav Papa] said so before he heard the case in Zevachim (that Rebbi holds that Dun Minah v'Uki b'Asra. To answer Question #1, we must say that also R. Chiya, Rabah and Rav Sheshes had not (and perhaps never) heard it.)

àé ðîé é''ì äëà åäúí ãäëé ÷àîø ãîäðé ìéëà ìîùîò îéðä

7. Answer #2: Here and there, [Rav Papa] said that we cannot infer [Rebbi's opinion] from here.

4) TOSFOS DH v'Yihyu Zivchei Shalmei Yachid Te'unin Tenufah Chayim v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä åéäéå æáçé ùìîé éçéã èòåðéï úðåôä çééí ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why a verse is needed to refute this.)

ëàï ðîé ùééê ìã÷ã÷ àîàé öøéê ÷øà ðéîà ëì çã åçã úé÷å áãåëúéä

(a) Implied question: Also here, we can ask why we need a verse [and a tradition]. Each should keep its status [what the Torah explicitly said]!

1. Note: I brought above (59a, in DH v'Nasata) that Tosfos in Zevachim (16b DH Kol) says "each keeps its status" only when the Kal v'Chomerim contradict each other. Here there is no contradiction. We could fulfill the Kal v'Chomerim in both directions, and both would require all three Mitzvos!

åé''ì ãîëì î÷åí äåä éìéó îä îöéðå ëãôøéùéú ìòéì åîùåí ãàé÷øå ùìîéí

(b) Answer #1: In any case, one would learn from Mah Matzinu, like I explained above (59a DH v'Nasata), and because they are called Shelamim.

úãò ãäà àéëà ìîéôøê îä ìùìîé öáåø ùëï çåáä àìà àäà ãàé÷øå ùìîéí ñîéê

1. Proof: We can ask that you cannot learn from Shalmei Tzibur, for they are obligatory! Rather, [the Gemara] relies on this that they are called Shelamim.

åòåã ëãàîøï ìòéì ùìîéäí øéáåéà äåà

(c) Answer #2: This is like we said above, that "Shalmeihem" is an inclusion. (It teaches that also in Shalmei Tzibur, only Chazah v'Shok are waved. Likewise, we could include Semichah in Shalmei Tzibur. Therefore, we need a tradition to exclude Semichah, and now we need also "Osam", lest a Kal v'Chomer obligate Tenufah of Shalmei Yachid while alive - Yashar v'Tov.)

5) TOSFOS DH v'Yehei Asham Metzora Ta'un Tenufah Shachut v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä åéäà àùí îöåøò èòåï úðåôä ùçåè ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why "Tenufah" does not refute this)

åàó òì âá ãàîøï ìòéì (ãó ñà.) úðåôä åìà úðåôåú

(a) Implied question: We said above (61a) "Tenufah", and not Tenufos!

äëà ìà ãîé ëéåï ãçãà îçééí åçãà ìàçø ùçéèä

(b) Answer: Here is different, for one is while it is alive, and one is after Shechitah.

6) TOSFOS DH v'Chen ha'Shole'ach Korbanos... Kohen Menif Al Yado

úåñôåú ã"ä åëï äùåìç ÷øáðåúéå... ëäï îðéó òì éãå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses when we permit offering without Semichah.)

úéîä ãáô' ëì äâè (âéèéï ëç.) úðï äùåìç çèàúå îîãéðú äéí î÷øéáéï àåúä áçæ÷ú ùäåà ÷ééí åôøéê áâî' åäà áòéà ñîéëä àîø øá éåñó á÷øáï ðùéí

(a) Question #1: In Gitin (28a), a Mishnah teaches that one who sends his Chatas from overseas, we offer it in the Chazakah that he is alive. The Gemara asks that Semichah is needed, and Rav Yosef answered that it refers to the Korban of women (who do not do Semichah);

åäëà )ìà( [ö"ì ðîé ÷ùéà åäà áòéà ñîéëä åìà - öàï ÷ãùéí] ùééê ìùðåéé äëé ãëáø úðà ìéä øéùà åäàùä ëäï îðéó òì éãä

1. Also here this is difficult, for it requires Semichah, and we cannot give that answer, for the Reisha already taught "a woman, the Kohen waves for her"!

åìéëà ðîé ìùðåéé ëãîùðé øá ôôà áâéèéï (âí æä ùí) áçèàú äòåó òñ÷éðï ãçèàú äòåó ìà áòé úðåôä

2. And we cannot answer like Rav Papa answers in Gitin (28a), that we discuss Chatas ha'Of, for Chatas ha'Of does not need Tenufah!

åëîå ëï ÷ùéà áôø÷ úîéã ðùçè (ôñçéí ãó ñá.) ãàîø ãàéìå ëì äæáçéí òøì åèîà îùìçéí ÷øáðåúéäí

(b) Question #2: Similarly, it is difficult in Pesachim (62a). It says that all Zevachim, an Arel or Tamei may send their Korbanos!

åìéëà ìùðåéé áàùä ãòøì ÷úðé

1. We cannot answer that it discusses a woman, for it taught an Arel;

åìéëà ìàå÷åîé ðîé áçèàú äòåó ãæáçéí ÷úðé

2. And also we cannot establish it to discuss Chatas ha'Of, for it taught Zevachim;

åáëåø åîòùø åôñç ðîé ãìà áòå ñîéëä [ìéëà ìàå÷îé] ãäà ëì äæáçéí ÷àîø

3. And also we cannot establish it to discuss Bechor, Ma'aser or Pesach, which do not require Semichah, for it says "all Zevachim"!

åñô÷ îöåøò áôø÷ äúòøåáåú (æáçéí òå.) ã÷àîø øáé ùîòåï ìîçøú îáéà àùîå åìåâå òîå åîúðä áùìîéí

(c) Question #3: A Safek Metzora, in Zevachim (76a), R. Shimon said, the next day he brings his Asham and his Log with it and stipulates (that if he is not a Metzora, it is a) Shelamim;

ãàåúå àùí èòåï ñîéëä åìà àôùø ìñîåê àìà áä÷ôú éã ìîàï ãàîø ñîéëú àùí îöåøò ìàå ãàåøééúà áôø÷ ëì äôñåìéï (æáçéí ãó ìâ.) åáâáøà àééøé ëãîåëç áúåñôúà

1. That Asham requires Semichah [lest it is a Shelamim], and it is possible to do Semichah only with loose hands, according to the opinion that Semichah on Asham Metzora is not mid'Oraisa, in Zevachim (33a. In real Semichah he presses down, and the Korban supports him. This is permitted only for Vadai Semichah mid'Oraisa). It discusses a man, like is proven in the Tosefta (Nazir 6:1)!

åáô' áúøà ãîåòã ÷èï (ãó èå:) àéúà ãàáì àéðå îùìç ÷øáðåúéå îùåí ãëúéá ùìîéí ëùäåà ùìí äà ìàå äëé îùìç åáîðåãä îéáòéà ìï àí îùìç àå ìà

(d) Question #4: In Mo'ed Katan (15b) it says that an Avel may not send his Korbanos, for it says "Shelamim" - when he is complete. If not for this, he could send. And, we ask whether or not a Menudah (someone excommunicated) may send;

åìà çééùéðï ìñîéëä

1. We are not concerned for Semichah!

åãåç÷ äåà ìúøõ áàùä àå áòåó

(e) Poor Answer: It is difficult to say that it discusses a woman, or a bird.

åì÷îï áôø÷ áúøà (ãó ÷æ:) âáé ùùä ìðãáä àçã îäï ìôø åòâì

(f) Question #5: Below (107b) regarding six [boxes for coins] for Nedavah, one is for a bull or calf. (People leave coins, and the Kohanim buy animals and offer without Semichah!)

åòåã úðï áôø÷ ãí ùçéèä (ëøéúåú ëâ.) åùðéäí îáéàéï çèàú àçã åáôø÷ ùðé ðæéøéï (ðæéø ðæ.) ùîáéàéï ÷øáï òì úðàé

(g) Question #6: A Mishnah in Kerisus (23a) says that [if we are unsure which of two people ate Chelev], both of them bring one Chatas, and in Nazir (57a, when we are unsure which Nazir became Tamei) they bring a Korban [Tum'ah] with a stipulation [that it is for the one who is Tamei]!

åáôø÷ ùðé ã÷ãåùéï (ãó ðä.) âáé áäîä ùðîöàú îéøåùìéí ìîâãì òãø æëøéí òåìåú åìà çééùéðï ìñîéëä

(h) Question #7: In Kidushin (55a) regarding an animal found between Yerushalayim and Migdal Eder (perhaps it is a Korban; if the finder wants to offer it for the owner), males are [assumed to be] Olos, and we are not concerned for Semichah!

áëì äðé åúéøõ ä''ø ùîòåï ãìà ùééê ìà÷ùåéé àìà ãå÷à äúí áçèàú îùåí ãàéëà òãééï çùùà àçøú ãìîà äåéà ìéä çèàú ùîúå áòìéä åñîëéðï ìä÷øéáä áçæ÷ú ùäåà ÷ééí

(i) Answer (to all of these questions - Rabbeinu Shimon): It is applicable to ask [why we allow offering without Semichah] only there regarding a Chatas [sent from overseas] because there is another concern, lest it is a Chatas whose owner died, and to offer it we rely on the Chazakah that he is alive. (If there is any other reason not to offer it, we should not offer it.)

åà''ú åäà áôø÷ äúòøåáåú (æáçéí òã: åùí) úðï [ö"ì ÷ãùéí - éùø åèåá] á÷ãùéí îéï áîéðå ÷øá ìùí îé ùäåà åôøéê áâî' äà áòé ñîéëä åîùðé á÷øáï ðùéí

(j) Question: A Mishnah in Zevachim (74b) teaches that if Kodshim became mixed with Kodshim, Min b'Mino is offered for whoever [owns it], and the Gemara asks "it requires Semichah!", and answers that it discusses a Korban of women!

åé''ì ãäúí ëéåï ãàéëà ú÷ðúà áøòéä àéï ìòùåú áìà ñîéëä ãëé äàé âååðà îôìâéðï äúí âáé àùí

(k) Answer: There, since there is a solution through grazing (until they become blemished. We say that Ploni's Korban, whichever it is, is redeemed onto this animal, and Almoni's is redeemed onto this, and then each can do Semichah on his Korban), we should not offer them without Semichah. We distinguish like this there regarding Asham.

1. Note: Tosfos should show why there is no solution to fulfill Semichah in all the other cases from which he asked. He does so for Arel and Tamei. Chak Nasan does so for the other cases, based on Tosfos in Zevachim and Gitin (74b and 28b, DH v'Ha).

åòøì åèîà àéëà ìàå÷îé áãìéú ìéä ú÷ðúà òøì ùîúå àçéå îçîú îéìä

2. Arel and Tamei, we can establish it when he has no solution. Arel is one whose brothers died due to Milah (he should never circumcise, due to mortal danger);

èîà æá åîöåøò ùàéï øôåàúå úìåééä áòöîå àé ðîé )á÷øáï ä÷áåò ìå æîï ëâåï òåìú øàééä åçâéâä àå - ç÷ ðúï áæáçéí îåç÷å) ùäéä òåáø òìéäï ááì úàçø

i. Tamei is a Zav or Metzora, who cannot be Metaher himself. (He must wait for the Zivah to stop or the Tzara'as to go away. This is not b'Yado.) Alternatively, he would transgress Bal Te'acher. (Therefore, he cannot wait until he becomes Tahor.)

åà''ú äøé çîùä ùðúòøáå òåøåú ôñçéäï áôñçéí áôø÷ äàùä (ãó ôç:) åðîöàú éáìú áàçã îäï ãôèåøéï îìòùåú ôñç ùðé åìà îééúå îåúø äôñç îùåí ñîéëä

(l) Question: If the hides of five Pesachim became mixed with each other (Pesachim 88b), and a wart was found on one of them (it was a Ba'al Mum, the groups that owned and ate them) are exempt from Pesach Sheni. They do not bring [for Pesach Sheni] Mosar Pesach, due to [omitting] Semichah. (Tosfos said that when there is no solution, we may offer without Semichah!)

åéù ìåîø ãëéåï ùäåà ñô÷ ãùîà ôèåø äåà îìòùåú ôñç ùðé (åìà) [ö"ì ìà - éùø åèåá] òùå ìå çëîéí ú÷ðä ãàé àôùø ìú÷ï àí ìà éòáåø îöåú ñîéëä

(m) Answer: Since it is a Safek, for perhaps he is exempt from Pesach Sheni, [Rabanan] did make a solution for him, since it is impossible to fix [the Safek] without (every group that was already Yotzei) transgressing the Mitzvah of Semichah [on a different Korban. In Zevachim (74b), Tosfos asked why we allow this for a Safek Metzora, and answered that there is different, for it is needed to enable the person to eat Kodshim.]

åà''ú ðäé ãñîéëä ìà îòëáà îëì î÷åí òøì åèîà ùàéï éëåìéï ìñîåê ìéîà ëì ùàéï øàåé ìáéìä áéìä îòëáú áå

(n) Question: Granted, Semichah is not Me'akev. In any case, an Arel or Tamei, who cannot do Semichah, we should say that anything not Ra'uy l'Bilah, Bilah Me'akeves Bo!

åëï áääéà ãù÷ìéí (ãó éà:) åãëøéúåú (ãó ëâ.) åãðæéø (ãó ðæ.) ãëì äðé ðîé ãàéï éëåìéï ìñîåê îùåí ñô÷ çùéá ùôéø àéï øàåééï ìáéìä ëãàùëçï áôø÷ äîåëø àú äñôéðä (á''á ôà:) âáé áéëåøéí

1. Strengthening of question: And similarly the case in Shekalim (a box for Nedavah of a bull or calf; alternatively an animal found between Yerushalayim and Migdal Eder), Kerisus (23a) and Nazir (57a) (we are unsure who ate the Chelev, or who became Tamei). Also in all of these, that he cannot do Semichah due to Safek, it is properly considered not proper to do Bilah, like we find in Bava Basra (81b) regarding Bikurim!

åé''ì ãðô÷à ìï îäà ãàîøéðï áôø÷ áúøà ãîåòã ÷èï (ãó èå:) åáéåí áåàå àì ä÷åãù àì äçöø äôðéîéú ìùøú á÷åãù é÷øéá çèàúå æå òùéøéú äàéôä ôéøåù ùäëäï îáéà áùòä ùîúçðê ìòáåãä

(o) Answer #1: We learn from what it says in Mo'ed Katan (15b) "uv'Yom Bo'o El ha'Kodesh El he'Chatzer ha'Penimis Leshares ba'Kodesh Yakriv Chataso" - this is Asiris ha'Eifah. I.e. a Kohen offers it when he is Mis'chanech for [first does] Avodah;

åãøéù äúí ø''ù ááåàå é÷øéá áæîï ùøàåé ìáéàä øàåé ìä÷øáä áæîï ùàéðå øàåé ìáéàä àéðå øàåé ìä÷øáä ëâåï èîà îú åîöåøò

1. R. Shimon expounds there "b'Vo'o Yakriv" - when he is proper for Bi'ah (to enter the Mikdash), he is proper to offer. When he is not proper for Bi'ah, he is not proper to offer, e.g. Tamei Mes or a Metzora.

îùîò ãåå÷à òùéøéú äàéôä àáì ùàø ÷øáðåú îùìç

2. Inference: This is only Asiris ha'Eifah, but other Korbanos he may send (even though he is not proper to do Semichah)!

åîéäå àéï ëì ëê øàéä îæä ããéìîà äà ãîùìç ùàø ÷øáðåú äééðå áäðé ãìà áòå ñîéëä ãåîéà ãòùéøéú äàéôä

(p) Rebuttal: There is not such a proof from this. Perhaps he can send other Korbanos, i.e. those that do not require Semichah, similar to Asiris ha'Eifah!

åéù ìã÷ã÷ îäà ããøùéðï áú''ë (îæåáå åìà îðâòå) [ö"ì îèåîàúå åìà îæåáå - îìáéí, çù÷ ÷ìîä] ù''î ãèîà îùìç ÷øáðåúéå ãáäáàú ÷øáï àééøé

(q) Answer #2: We expound in Toras Kohanim "[he will become Tahor] from his Tum'ah, and not from his Zivah." This shows that a Tamei may send his Korbanos, for the verse discusses bringing a Korban!

åòåã éù ìã÷ã÷ îãîîòèéðï áô''÷ ãçâéâä (ãó ã:) èîà îøàééä ãëúéá [ö"ì åáàú ùîä - éùø åèåá] åäáàúí ùîä ãëì ùéùðå ááéàä éùðå áäáàä

(r) Answer #3: We exclude in Chagigah (4b) a Tamei for Re'iyah, for it says "u'Vasa Shanah v'Haveisem Shamah" - whoever can enter [the Mikdash] has a Mitzvah of bringing [Chagigah and Olas Re'iyah];

ù''î ãùàø ÷øáðåú îùìç åìà çééùéðï ìòðéï ñîéëä áøàåé ìñîéëä

1. Inference: He can send other Korbanos, and we are not concerned about Semichah, that he be proper to do Semichah!

åîéäå ìîàï ãàîø áô' ëì äôñåìéï (æáçéí ãó ìâ:) [ö"ì ãáéàä áî÷öú ìà ùîä áéàä ãîùîò - ç÷ ðúï, åëòéï æä áîìàëú éå"è] ãèîà áø ñîéëä ãàôùø ãîòééì éãéä åñîéê ìà îöéðå ìîéãøù îäðé ÷øàé

(s) Objection (of Answers #2,3): According to the opinion in Zevachim (33b) that Bi'ah b'Miktzas is not considered Bi'ah, it connotes that a Tamei can do Semichah, for it is possible to [stand just outside Pesach ha'Azarah and] enter his hands and do Semichah, we cannot expound from these verses [to permit without Semichah].

åùîà é''ì ãîàï ãàéú ìéä (ùí) áéàä áî÷öú ìà ùîä áéàä ÷ñáø ëì äñåîê øàùå åøåáå äåà îëðéñ

(t) Answer #1: Perhaps we can say that according to the opinion (there) that Bi'ah b'Miktzas is not considered Bi'ah, he holds that whoever does Semichah must enter his head and the majority of his body [to press down with all his strength, therefore a Tamei cannot do Semichah].

àé ðîé àéú ìéä ãîøç÷ öôåï

(u) Answer #2: He holds that the north is far (22 Amos west of Pesach ha'Azarah. Tekef l'Semichah Shechitah (Shechitah must be right after Semichah); since Shechitas Kodshei Kodoshim is far from the Pesach, he cannot enter his hands to do Semichah.)

1. Note: Why didn't Tosfos mention that according to Answer #2, we must infer above that he can send other Korbanos, i.e. Kodshei Kodoshim? Also, when Tosfos answers below for the one who does not require Rosho v'Rubo, he does not say "or he holds that the north is far"! Also, why did he interrupt with Answer #2 before resolving Answer #1 according to the other opinion? Perhaps a later editor added Answer #2.

åîàï ãñáéøà ìéä ãìà áòéðï øàùå åøåáå ÷ñáø áéàä áî÷öú ùîä áéàä

2. And the one who does not require his head and majority, he holds that Bi'ah b'Miktzas is considered Bi'ah.

åîéäå àëúé ÷ùä àé úéëó ìñîéëä ùçéèä ìàå (îëàï îãó äáà) ãàåøééúà àí ëï éëåì ìñîåê àáøàé

(v) Question: Still, it is difficult - if Tekef l'Semichah Shechitah is not mid'Oraisa, he can do Semichah outside [the Azarah]!

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES ON THIS DAF