1)

TOSFOS DH Amar Mar v'Chulei...

úåñôåú ã"ä àîø îø åëå'...

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses this inference.)

îãâìé øçîðà âáé ðæéø áéåí äùáéòé éâìçðå ãìà àéöèøéê ãëáø ëúéá åâéìç

(a)

Explanation: [We know that elsewhere, Rubo k'Kulo.] since the Torah revealed about a Nazir "ba'Yom ha'Shevi'i Yegalchenu." This was not needed, for it already wrote v'Gilach!

àìà ìàùîåòéðï ãáòéðï úâìçú îöåä ùìéîä ùìà ùééøä ëìåí,

1.

Rather, this teaches that we require a full Tiglachas Mitzvah that does not leave over anything;

äëà äåà ãáòé ëåìå äà áòìîà øåáå ëëåìå,

2.

Inference: Here we require all. Elsewhere, the majority is like the full amount.

àåîø äø"í ãáòìîà ÷ééîé îéäå ôàú æ÷ï àîø ñåó ôø÷ äîöðéò (ùáú ãó öã:) ãîìà ôé äæåâ îéçééá ãôàú îùîò (ëï ðøàä ìäâéä ò"ô úåñôåú àéåøà) ôåøúà

(b)

Assertion (Maharam): We discuss (infer about) elsewhere. However, regarding the corners of the beard, it says in Shabbos (94b) that one is liable for [the width of the end of] a scissors blade (two hairs), for "Pe'as" connotes a small amount.

42b----------------------------------------42b

2)

TOSFOS DH Eisivei Abaye... Talmud Lomar Lehechalo

úåñôåú ã"ä àéúéáéä àáéé... ú"ì ìäçìå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos proves that this is the correct text.)

áñôøé' (ëï äåà áãôåñ åðöéä) ëúåá ú"ì ìà éçìì

(a)

Alternate text: The text in Seforim is 'the Torah says "Lo Yechalel."'

åæ"à (ëï äåà áãôåñ åðöéä) ãäà ìà ëúéá (äâäú úåøú ðæéø) âáé àæäøú èåîàä

(b)

Rejection #1: This is wrong. This is not written regarding a warning about Tum'ah! (It is a Lav to marry women forbidden to Kehunah.)

åâí áñîåê àîø áäãéà ãìäçìå àúà ìãøùà æå (äâäú úôàøú öéåï)

(c)

Rejection #2: Below, it says explicitly that "Lehechalo" comes for this Drashah!

åìäçìå áëäï ëúéá åîãîé ðæéø ìë"â ãì÷îï ôø÷ ëäï âãåì (ãó îç.) ìîéãéï îäããé îâ"ù (ëï äåà áãôåñ åðöéä) îàîå àîå.

1.

"Lehechalo" is written regarding a Kohen. We compare a Nazir to a Kohen Gadol, for below (48a) we learn them from each other through a Gezeirah Shavah "Imo Imo".

3)

TOSFOS DH Lo Kashya

úåñôåú ã"ä ìà ÷ùéà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the resolution.)

àáéé áà ìúøõ îúðé' åáøééúà

(a)

Explanation: Abaye comes to resolve the Mishnah and Beraisa;

ëàï ùäåà îçåáø ìîú [åäúøå áå] åîåùéèéí ìå îú àçø ìà îéçééá ãä"ì [îçåìì] åòåîã

1.

Here (in the Beraisa), he is connected to the Mes and they warned him and pass another Mes to him. He is not liable, for he is already profaned;

ëàï ùìà áçáåøéí ùôéøù ëáø îäîú åäåùéèå ìå îú àçø ùôéøù îï äøàùåï åàîøå ìå àì úèîà

2.

Here (in our Mishnah), he is not connected. He already separated from the Mes, and they passed [another] Mes after he separated from the first, and they said to him "do not become Tamei";

àéï ëàï îçåìì åòåîã àìà úåñôú èåîàä àó áå áéåí ùáùòä (äâäú îäø"á øðùáåøâ) ùðåâò áîú äðåâò [áå] éèîà ùáòú éîéí

3.

He is not [considered to be] already profaned, and there is an increase of Tum'ah even on the same day, for while he is touching the Mes, one who touches him becomes Tamei for seven days;

ëããøùéðï áôø÷ àéï îòîéãéï (ò"æ ãó ìæ:) ëì àùø éâò áå äèîà éèîà ãé÷øá áãé÷øá îñàá ùáòä åàçøé ùôéøù èåîàú òøá åéù ëàï úåñôú èåîàä (äâäú áøëú øàù).

i.

This is like we expound in Avodah Zarah (37b) "Kol Asher Yiga Bo ha'Tamei Yitma" - one who touches one who touches [the Mes] is Tamei for seven days. After [the one touching the Mes] separated, one who touches him is Tamei until nightfall [after the day he immerses]. There is increased Tum'ah [while he touches]!

4)

TOSFOS DH b'Chiburei Adam b'Adam

úåñôåú ã"ä áçáåøé àãí áàãí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses what is mid'Oraisa and what is mid'Rabanan.)

ôé' ø"é ùäùìéùé äðåâò áðåâò áðåâò (äâäú äøù"ù) áîú ãääåà åãàé îãøáðï èîà ùáòä

(a)

Explanation #1 (Ri): [Chiburei Adam b'Adam is] the third one, who touches one who touches one who touches the Mes. Surely, it is mid'Rabanan that he is Tamei for seven days;

ãëé àîø ãé÷øá áãé÷øá ãàåøééúà ãå÷à ãðâò áðåâò áîú

1.

We said that d'Yakriv bid'Yakriv is mid'Oraisa. This is only one who touches one who touches a Mes;

åáô' àéï îòîéãéï (âæ"ù) àîø äòéã éåñó áï éåòæø ãé÷øá áãé÷øá îñàá åôøéê ãàåøééúà äåà ëì àùø éâò áå äèîà éèîà

2.

Citation (Avodah Zarah 37b): Yosef ben Yo'ezer testified that d'Yakriv bid'Yakriv is Tamei. [The Gemara asked] this is mid'Oraisa - "Kol Asher Yiga Bo ha'Tamei Yitma"!

åîñé÷ ãàåøééúà áçéáåøéï èîà ùáòä ùìà áçéáåøéï èåîàú òøá åàúå àéðäå åâæåø àó ùìà áçéáåøéï èîà ùáòä åàúà éåñó áï éåòæø åùøà

3.

We conclude that mid'Oraisa, b'Chiburim is Tamei seven days, and not b'Chiburei is Tum'as Erev. Chachamim decreed that even not b'Chiburim is Tamei seven days. Yosef ben Yo'ezer came and permitted.

åìôéøåù ø"é [ðôøù] ãàåøééúà áçéáåøéï äééðå ðâò áðåâò áîú ùìà áçéáåøéï äééðå ùäùìéùé äðåâò áðåâò áðåâò áîú (äâäú îùðä ìîìê)

(b)

Explanation #1: According to the Ri, mid'Oraisa b'Chiburim is one who touches one who touches a Mes. Not b'Chiburim is the third, who touches one who touches one who touches a Mes.

àáì øù"é ôéøù äúí åàúå àéðäå åâæøå ùìà áçéáåøéï àó àí ôéøù ìâîøé.

(c)

Explanation #2 (Rashi in Avodah Zarah): They decreed not b'Chiburim, even if he totally separated.