Thurs Sotah 3

Tosfos quotes the Yerushalmi that there is an argument there if Kinoy is a permission or an obligation. R' Yehoshouh holds that he's permitted to Mikana but he's not obligated, while R' Eliezer holds he's obligated.

The Yerushalmi wants to say the argument depends on the argument what is grounds for divorce. R' Yehoshua holds like Bais Hillel that even burning his food is grounds for divorce. Therefore he's not obligated to Mikana her, since he has an option to just divorce her. However, R' Eliezer holds like Bais Shamai, the only grounds for divorce is that she definitely committed adultery (i.e., you have witnesses to the effect.) Here you don't have witnesses, so you don't have grounds for divorce, so you must Mikana her to permit her to you.

Tosfos asks: our Gemara says that R' Akiva holds it's an obligation to be Mikana, despite being the most lenient Shita about grounds for divorce. (He holds you may divorce a wife if you found a prettier woman.) So we see that the two arguments cannot be interdependent.

Wed Sotah 2

Tosfos quotes the Yerushalmi. The Pasuk says that a spirit of jealousy cam over him. (This implies that he's Mikane in a serious spirit) Therefore, someone is only Mikana with fear and not with lightheadedness or haughtiness. The Torah writes by these laws "Chuka" which implies that it's totally necessary (and any other type of Mekana doesn't take effect.)

Tues Nazir 66 (really on 65, which was yesterday)

If one found three dead in a field, we consider it a cemetery and you can't exhume them. If you knew that two existed and on e was found (or the other way around) as long as all three is not in the same category.

Tosfos asks why this should be so? Rashbam says, since this is all part of the Halacha L'Moshe Misinai and therefore it's not dictated by logic. Rather, it's just the Torah's decree that we don't deal with it as if it's an established cemetery.

However, Ri says it's very logical. if all know about the two buried there, if the third one was part of the original cemetery, we should have known about it too. Therefore, we need to assume that the one found was just a coincidence that it was buried next to the ones you know about. So either it's a cemetery you know completely about, or a completely ainchant rediscovered cemetery. However, it cannot be a hybrid between the two.

Mon Nazir 65 (really 64, from yesterday)

The Gemara has a few inquiries. First if the rodent is floating on dissolved Nevaila, if it's considered on food and is considered resting or on liquid and is considered floating. Even if that's considered food, how about floating on semen whcih we should really consider liquid (since it starts that way.) Or since it comes out of the solid body, we consider it a continuation. Even if we consider it solid, how about flowing on the waters of he Parah Aduma?

Tosfos explains the last query, since there is mixed ash, it's thicker than water, therefore I might say it's somewhat like a solid.

Tosfos thereby says: since the only only attribute that this water is different than other water, is because of its consistency, the Gemara could have the same inquiry of any water mixed with ashes.

Alternatively, it was specifically asked by Parah. Since it can make someone Tamai, we may consider it(together with the rodent) one big piece of Tumah. Thus that may be a reason to say that the whole Tumah is floating on the bottom water (that the Parah water is on top of.)

Thurs Nazir 61

The gemara ends by saying that a Nazir Tamai needs a razor from our case of the Safeik Nazir Tahor or Tamai

Tosfos asks, how is that a proof. Perhaps he needs to shave his hair for the chance he's a Nazir Tahor? Tosfos answers: since we don't allow him to drink wine and needs another period to act like a Nazir and bring other Korbonos (where he'll shave his head anyhow for his Nazir Tahor) So we wouldn't acquire him to do so the third period if not that even a Nazir Tamai needs a razor.

Wed Nazir 60

The gemara inquires if a Nazir Tamai needs to shave his hair with a razor or even by putting on some potion that will make his hair fall out.

Tosfos point out that this refers to when he shaved part of his hair and the rest with the potion. We would never have though he's allowed to do all his hair with a potion, since the Gemara in BK says this potion will cause the hair never to regrow, if he would put the potion on his hall hair, then he won't have hair to shave for when he becomes a Nazir Tahor.

Tues Nazir 59

The Gemara forbids someone to shave his armpit hair. He cannot have an excuse that it's uncomfortable, since it doesn't grow that long.

Tosfos proves that we forbid even trimming the armpits with scissors. If it would be permitted, even if the armpit grows very long, you won't have an excuse to shave it with a razor, since you can relieve yourself with scissors.

Also, it implies that if there was a valid excuse, you can cut the armpit hair as long as you don't do it for beauty. Thus you can look in the mirror (even if generally you consider that to be a woman's activity) to avoid hurting yourself when you shave.

Mon Nazir 58 (really 57, we'll say something from yesterday)

R' Huna held that there is an issur to shave the head of a minor, but a woman is permitted, since she's not warned not to cut the hair. R' Ada holds there is no Issur to cut a minor's hair, however, whoever it is Assur to cut their hair, a woman is also commanded not to cut their hair.

Tosfos proves that the Halacha follows R' Huna. Since the Gemara in Bava Metziah that explains usually you cannot make a Shliach for an Aveira. However, a courtyard, which acquires for you objects found in them as if they're your Shliach even for acquisitions that are an Aveira. There is an argument why. One Shita holds because it's forced to do it. We only say you can't have a Shliach that has a choice whether to do it or not. Another Shita holds because the courtyard is not commanded in Mitzvos. You can't make a Shliach that is also commanded in that Mitzvah.

One of the Nafka Minas are making a woman your Shliach to shave the hair of a child. She's not commanded not to shave, but she's doing it on her own will and nobody forced her. So we see that mean are commanded not to shave the child's hair (and we consider this a Shliach for an Aveira) however she's not commanded not to shave the child, despite the fact that men are Chayiv.

Thurs Nazir 54

The Gemara has a Drasha to include graves before Matan Torah also becomes Tamai by touching (but not by Ohel.)

Tosfos explains: this has nothing to do with the argument (between R' Shimon and Chachumim) whether a Goy's grave is Mitameh in an Ohel. Over here, without the Drasha, we would assume to all that there is no Tumah in such a grave. Since the Torah starts the Parsha of Tumah "if someone dies" which connotes only future deaths,and not ones before the Torah was given.

Tosfos asks: the gemara in BB says that R' Banah was marking the graves for the Maaras Hamachpeila. We only mark graves that are mitamai for Ohel. Since they died before Matan Torah, why was it needed to be marked?

Tosfos answers: they're the exception. The Torah says when an "Odom" dies." Therefore we would assume it includes Odom Harishon, since he's definitely included in the term "Odom." Even Avraham is called "Odom HAgadol."

Alternatively, he held that our Drasha to include the dead before Matan Torah is Mitamah even with an Ohel. Therefore they're more stringent than Goyim's graves (according to R' Shimon) after Matan Torah.

Wed Nazir 53

Tosfos brings the rules of how Tumah manifests itself in the grave. If the grave is not hollow a Tefech high, then Tumah only rises on top of the actual body. If it's hollow a Tefach, Then if it's completely closed, then Tumah rises through out the length and width of the grave, even in the portion that there is none of the body under that area. However, if the grave is not completely closed and there is an opening where the Tumah can escape, so there is Tumah above the grave.

Tues Nazir 52

The Gemara says, although the spine (with ribs) has a stronger Tumah than regular bones. However, if most of the ribs are broken or disconnected (even if all the pieces are lying there together) they no longer have the same Tumah, and receive the halcha as regular bones.

Tosfos points out: we see in the Gemara in Chulin that compares Treifos to Tumah of the spine. (Over there it compares how many vertebrates needs to be missing that the spine doesn't make Tumas Ohel also renders an animal missing that many to be a Treifa.) So too here breaking most of an animal's ribs render it a Treifa. We see a Gemara like this, that to render a Treifa it needs to break most of the ribs of both sides of the animal. If the ribs get dettached, then it's a Treifa if done to most of one side of the ribs.

Mon Nazir 51

The gemara says that if someone finds three dead bodies in a field within a certain distance that we can assume that there was a cemetery there, you can't exhume them. We assume that this was a old cemetery, which they have a right to remain there, and not just temporarily buried there and forgotten about.

The Gemara says: if one of the dead was found missing some limb, we don't count it as one of the three, and you may exhume them.

Tosfos asks: what difference does it make which shape you find the dead. As long as you find three in a row is a sign that there was a cemetery. So even if one is not complete should also show that?

Tosfos answers: If we say that this Halacha does not come from logic, but rather a Halacha L'moshe M'sinai. We only consider it to be a proper cemetery because the Torah decreed so, then we can say the certain disparage in the halcha, that we don't count the dead with missing limbs, are also part of this decree.

Thurs Nazir 47

The Gemara has a Shaila, which one comes first to bury a Mais Mitzvah,a Kohain Gadol that was anointed or one that was appointed afterwords after they hid the oil, by wearing all eight clothing.

Tosfos deals with the problem, later we say that when they have to appoint another Kohain gadol to serve in the first one's life (when the first Kohain gadol was not fit to serve), cannot do the Avodah when the Kohain gadol comes back. We say there it's simple that a non preforming Kohain gadol should bury first. So what is the question here?

Tosfos answers: we only retire him from doing Avodah in the first one's life time if he was a temporary substitution. We refer to a case where the first Kohain Gadol was exiled for many years. Since the second one was an established kohain gadol for years, we allow him to keep on practicing.the Avodah.

Wed Nazir 46

The Gemara says the Hava aminah of the Drasha to compare those without hand to people with hands regarding T'nufah, to tell us that if you don't do T'nufah, then you're not Yoitzeh

Tosfos explains: it's much more simpler to understand that people without hands are not Yoitzeh than people with hands but decided not to do it. We have the rule, any action that is not M'akeiv is only when you have the ability to do it. When you don't have the ability to do it, then it's M'akeiv and you're not Yoitzeh. Therefore, since someone without hands don't have the abilty to do T'nufah, so of course it's M'Akeiv, so too for people with hands T'nufah is M'akeiv.