Jewish Audio on Chabad.org. Today's שיעור will be מסכת קידושין דף ל״ו, but we will start on דף ל״ה עמוד ב׳, nine lines from the bottom of the עמוד, the second line from the wide lines. גמרא says: איסי תני: אף בל יקרחו נשים פטורות. We are in the middle of the סוגיא here of which מצוות women are exempt. So we said that women are exempt from מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא, those מצוות, positive מצוות, which have a time limit, but they are not exempt from מצות עשה שלא הזמן גרמא, and they are also not exempt from all מצות לא תעשה, from all negative מצוות. But the משנה gave a few exceptions: the exception of בל תקיף, בל תשחית, and בל תטמא למתים. So איסי learned that they are also exempt from the איסור of בל יקרחו. בל יקרחו, this refers to the איסור of a person is not allowed to cause baldness in his head because of a dead person. The גוים used to have a custom that if someone in the family would die, they would tear their hair out of their head. And the תורה says in פרשת ראה, חומש דברים, פרשת ראה, קפיטל י״ד, פסוק א׳, it says: בנים אתם לה׳ אלקיכם, you are children to ה׳, לא תתגודדו, you shall not cut yourself, ולא תשימו קרחה בין עיניכם, and you should not make a baldness between your eyes, למת, for a dead body. So this is an איסור on a person that he is not allowed to tear the hair out of his head because of a person that died in the family. We also find a similar פסוק in פרשת אמור, where it speaks about the איסורים for כהנים. There, in the beginning of פרשת אמור, קפיטל כ״א, פסוק ה׳, it says: לא יקרחו קרחה בראשם, they should not cause baldness in their head. So what איסי is saying here that women are exempt from this איסור. And the

גמרא says: מאי טעמא דאיסי? What would be the reason of איסי? And the גמרא says: דדריש הכי, because he דרשנ׳ס so, as follows. He quotes the פסוק that we just quoted, it says: בנים אתם לה׳ אלקיכם, you are children to ה׳, לא תתגודדו, do not cut yourself, ולא תשימו קרחה בין עיניכם, and do not cause baldness between your eyes, למת, because of a dead body. And the פסוק continues: כי עם קדוש אתה לה׳ אלקיך, because you are a holy nation to ה׳, your God. So he דרשנ׳ס: since the beginning of this פסוק is בנים אתם לה׳ אלקיכם, you are children to ה׳, but really the literal translation of בנים is that you are sons to ה׳. So he learns: בנים ולא בנות, לקרחה. The תורה tells us that this applies only to sons, not to daughters. And concerning which דין does the תורה apply that? To the דין of קרחה. Because in this פסוק, we have two דינים: the דין of לא תתגודדו, which means do not cut yourself, and also לא תשימו קרחה בין עיניכם, and do not cause baldness. So he says that when the תורה gives the introduction, you are sons to ה׳, it comes to tell us that this דין that I'm going to say only applies to sons, not to daughters, only to men, not to women. Now, to

which of the two does that דין apply, this exemption that the women have, to which of the two דינים does it apply? Does it apply to the דין of לא תתגודדו, which is the דין of not cutting yourself, or to the דין of לא תשימו קרחה בין עיניכם? So he says, it applies to the דין of קרחה. So the תורה tells us that when it comes to the איסור, the prohibition of קרחה, it doesn't apply to women. Then he asks: אתה אומר לקרחה, you say it applies to קרחה, או אינו אלא לגדידה? Maybe it applies to גדידה, to the לאו of לא תתגודדו? And it would make more sense that way, because right after the words בנים אתם לה׳ אלקיכם, the תורה says the first thing: לא תתגודדו. You should not cut yourself. Then the תורה says: ולא תשימו קרחה בין עיניכם. So it would make more sense to say that when the תורה exempts women from this איסור, which איסור is it? It's the איסור of לא תתגודדו that they're exempt, and not the איסור of ולא תשימו קרחה. So he says: but כשהוא אומר, but since the תורה continues in the next פסוק and says: כי עם קדוש אתה לה׳ אלקיך, because you are a holy nation to ה׳, so he gives the reason for this prohibition: because you are a holy nation, women are also part of the Jewish nation. So the תורה is telling us that this דין applies to women too. So therefore, הרי גדידה אמור. So we assume that the תורה is telling us that גדידה, cutting yourself, applies to women too, because the תורה says: כי עם קדוש אתה לה׳ אלקיך, so the תורה is telling us that women are included in the איסור, so we assume that which איסור does the תורה mean that women are included? In the איסור of גדידה. הא מה אני מקיים, so if so, what will we do with the פסוק בנים ולא בנות, where the תורה exempts women? לקרחה, that will go to קרחה. In other words, we have here in this פסוק two opposite things. On one hand, the תורה says בנים, and it excludes women. On the other hand, the תורה says כי עם קדוש אתה לה' אלקיך, which includes women. And the תורה here speaks about two איסורים, the איסור of לא תתגודדו, and the איסור of לא תשימו קרחה. So what we learn is that concerning one of the two איסורים, the תורה exempts women, concerning the other איסור, the תורה includes women. And the way he learned was that the one that exempts women is the איסור of לא תשימו קרחה, and the one that's to include women is the איסור of לא תתגודדו. But then he asks, ומה ראית, so why did you see? Why did you think, לרבות את הגדידה ולהוציא את הקרחה, to include women in the case of לא תתגודדו, of the cutting, and to exclude women in the case of causing the baldness? We don't know from the תורה which the תורה comes to include women, and in which one the תורה comes to exclude women. So what makes us say that concerning גדידה, we include the women, and concerning קרחה, we exclude the women? And he answers, מרבה אני את הגדידה, there is more reason to say that concerning גדידה, we include the women, because גדידה, שישנה במקום שיער ושלא במקום שיער, this איסור of cutting yourself applies to all parts of the body, whether at a place where you have hair, or a place where there's no hair. So since this includes more parts of the body, there's a סברא that this would also include more people. ומוציא אני את הקרחה, and I would exclude women from the דין of קרחה, שאינה אלא במקום שיער, because that is only in the place of hair. The איסור of קרחה, causing baldness, only applies to the place of hair. So that is limited. So since it is limited in the place where this איסור applies, we also assume it's limited to the people it applies. And therefore we say that when the תורה comes to exclude women, it is concerning the דין of קרחה. But then the

גמרא asks, ואימא, let us say, בנים ולא בנות, בין לקרחה, בין לגדידה. Maybe when the תורה comes to exclude women by using the word בנים, which means ולא בנות, that refers to both, to the איסור of לא תתגודדו and to the איסור of לא תשימו קרחה, in both the דין is that it excludes women? וכי כתב כי עם קדוש אתה לה' אלקיך, ay the תורה writes later, "You are a holy nation to השם", which as we said before comes to include women, maybe בשריטה הוא דכתיב, maybe that refers to a third thing, to שריטה? What is שריטה? שריטה is an incision. We find by the כהנים in the פסוק in אמור it says ובבשרם לא ישרטו שרטת, and in their flesh they shouldn't cause an incision. And at this point the גמרא thinks that שריטה is not the same as גדידה. When the תורה says לא תתגודדו, that means with the hand, cutting yourself with the hand. When the תורה says ובבשרם לא ישרטו שרטת by the כהנים, that you should not cause an incision, that's with a כלי, that's with a vessel, that's with a knife. So maybe when the תורה says here that women are exempt, that refers to לא תתגודדו and to לא תשימו קרחה, ay the תורה says כי עם קדוש לה' אלקיך to include women, that's for the third thing, that they include women in the case of שריטה, when they cut themselves with the knife, that's where women are also חייב? Ay, one one might ask, that when we look into the פסוק in ראה, where it says כי עם קדוש לה' אלקיך, the whole concept of שריטה is not mentioned, the whole שריטה is not mentioned there. So how can we say that the פסוק כי עם קדוש to include women applies to שריטה when שריטה is not mentioned there? So רש"י explains that even though שריטה is not mentioned there, but it is the same ענין. And therefore we're able to say that כי עם קדוש comes to include women concerning something which is similar to one of the דינים that's mentioned before, even though that דין is not specifically mentioned here. And רש"י explains that would make more sense than to say the way we said before: that the פסוק כי עם קדוש refers to לא תתגודדו, which is earlier in the פסוק. The תורה first says לא תתגודדו, then לא תשימו קרחה. And what we said before was that the פסוק כי עם קדוש, which includes women, refers to לא תתגודדו, to the דין not the one that's next to the פסוק כי עם קדוש, but to a previous דין. That is very hard to say. So therefore the גמרא felt maybe it'd be easier to say that the פסוק בנים אתם to exclude women refers to both, לא תתגודדו and לא תשימו קרחה, and the פסוק כי עם קדוש, which includes women, refers to שריטה. And the גמרא answers, סבר איסי, איסי holds, שריטה וגדידה אחת היא, that שריטה and גדידה really mean the same thing, they both mean whether you do it with the hand or with the כלי, and therefore we cannot say that the פסוק כי עם קדוש comes for שריטה. אביי אמר, but אביי says, היינו טעמא דאיסי, this is the reason for איסי. He's going to give a different

reason for איסי why איסי holds that women are exempt from the איסור of קרחה. And he says, דגמר, because we learn out קרחה קרחה מבני אהרן. A גזירה שוה the word קרחה from the word קרחה which says by בני אהרן. As we said before, we We find this איסור of קרחה twice: in פרשת ראה, when it speaks about all יידן, it says לא תשימו קרחה בין עיניכם, in פרשת אמור, where it speaks about כהנים, it says לא יקרחו קרחה בראשם. So we compare the two words קרחה of the כהנים and the קרחה of the ישראל, and we say like this: מה להלן נשים פטורות, just like by the case of the כהנים women are exempt from this איסור. And how do we know that? Because in the beginning of that פרשה, it starts off with the words אמור אל הכהנים בני אהרן, speak to the כהנים, the sons of אהרן, and as the גמרא said earlier that this word בני אהרן comes to exclude women, because we דרשן בני אהרן ולא בנות אהרן, the sons of אהרן, not the daughters of אהרן. So we learn now that this exemption of the daughters of אהרן refers to the whole פרשה there, even though the first דין right after that words בני אהרן is the דין of טומאה, nevertheless we learn now that this לימוד of בני אהרן ולא בנות אהרן refers to the whole פרשה, and ממילא it refers also to the פסוק לא יקרחו קרחה בראשם. So ממילא it's as if it says בפירוש in the תורה concerning כהנים that women, the daughters of the כהנים, are exempt from this איסור of קרחה. And now since we have a גזירה שוה קרחה קרחה from the בני אהרן, so we learn out that just like the daughters of אהרן are פטור from the איסור of קרחה, אף כאן, so too here, when the תורה tells us that a ישראל is not allowed to make a קרחה, so also נשים פטורות, women are פטור. But now the גמרא asks: ואי סבירא לן דכי כתיב קרא בכולי עניינא דכתיב, if we're going to hold the way we're saying now, that this introduction of בני אהרן, which excludes women, applies to the whole ענין of all the פסוקים, in other words, it also applies to the פסוק לא יקרחו קרחה, and that's how we know that women are פטור by ישראל also, because we make a גזירה שוה קרחה from ישראל to קרחה of the daughters of אהרן, the question we ask: נישתוק קרא מיניה, let the תורה be quiet and not mention the גזירה שוה at all, ותיתי בקל וחומר, we'd learn out from a קל וחומר, why do we need a גזירה שוה קרחה קרחה to teach us that women by ישראל are פטור from קרחה? Without the גזירה שוה, we would have known it anyway with a קל וחומר by learning it out from the daughters of אהרן. And no, I mean, I would say, מה כהנים, מה דכהנים שריבה בהם הכתוב מצות יתרות, where the תורה gave them many more מצות, in other words, everything by כהנים is stricter, they have more מצות than a ישראל, nevertheless בני אהרן ולא בנות אהרן, nevertheless when it comes to קרחה, the איסור of קרחה by the כהנים, women are exempt, ישראל לא כל שכן? When the ישראל have this איסור of קרחה, certainly women are exempt! If the women by the כהנים are exempt, certainly by the ישראלים, which are not as strict, so certainly they're exempt! So the question is, why do we need the גזירה שוה of קרחה קרחה? And the גמרא answers: אי לאו גזירה שוה, הוה אמינא הפסיק הענין. If not for the גזירה שוה, we would have thought that there is a הפסק, an interruption in the ענין. In other words, we would have not known that the introduction of the words בני אהרן also applies to לא יקרחו קרחה. We would think that this exemption of women that's learned out from בני אהרן also, only applies to the first דין mentioned in that פרשה, and that is the דין of טומאה למתים. And we would not know that this פסוק בני אהרן refers to the whole פרשה, including the part the פסוק of לא יקרחו קרחה בראשם. Now that we

have a גזירה שוה קרחה קרחה, in other words, the תורה is telling us that we must learn out something by ישראל from כהנים, now what can that be? Obviously there is something that the תורה tells us by כהנים that the תורה does not tell us by ישראל. Now what could that be? That is this לימוד of בני אהרן. That itself teaches us that the words בני אהרן, which exempts women, also refers to the פסוק לא יקרחו קרחה. So there is something that the תורה tells us clear by כהנים that's not mentioned by ישראל, and therefore we need the גזירה שוה קרחה קרחה. So if not for the גזירה שוה, we would טאקע not know that women are exempt even by כהנים, because we would think that the בני אהרן does not apply to the פסוק לא יקרחו קרחה. But now that the תורה wants us to learn something out from the כהנים by using the גזירה שוה, that itself tells us that by the כהנים we do know that women are exempt, and obviously the פסוק בני אהרן also applies to the פסוק ולא יקרחו קרחה. But then the גמרא asks: השתא נמי נימא הפסיק הענין, we still could say, even when we have the גזירה שוה, we still could say that the תורה is מפסיק, and the words בני אהרן do not apply to the פסוק לא יקרחו קרחה. איי, we said that what would the גזירה שוה go for if not for that? אי משום גזירה שוה, if you're worried about the גזירה שוה, מיבעיא ליה לכדתניא, we need the גזירה שוה for a different דין, because we learn in a ברייתא, the פסוק says לא יקרחו, it says by כהנים that they should not make this קרחה, not cause baldness, יכול, I would think, אפילו קרח ארבע וחמש קריחות, even if he caused four or five baldness, he did it four or five times, לא יהא חייב אלא אחת, he should only be חייב for one, תלמוד לומר קרחה, the תורה adds the word קרחה, it doesn't just say לא יקרחו בראשם, it says לא יקרחו קרחה בראשם. So by adding the word קרחה, that comes to teach us לחייב על כל אחת ואחת, that you're חייב for every time you did it. Then the ברייתא continues: it says בראשם, it says you should not cause the baldness in your head. מה תלמוד לומר? Why does the תורה have to tell us that? לפי שנאמר, because it says לא תתגודדו ולא תשימו קרחה בין עיניכם למת. It says in the פסוק in ראה that we mentioned concerning ישראל. There it says you should not cut yourself and you should not cause baldness between your eyes למת for a dead body. יכול, so from that פסוק I would think, לא יהא חייב אלא על בין העינים, you're only חייב if you do it between your eyes because the תורה says you should not cause the baldness between your eyes. מנין לרבות כל הראש? From where do we know to include the whole head, that any part of the head that you tear out the hair because of a מת you are חייב? תלמוד לומר, so the פסוק here by the כהנים says בראשם, it just says in their head, לחייב על הראש כבין העינים, to say that you're חייב if you do it any place of the head the same way as if you would do it between your eyes. So now we see that from the פסוק that it says by the כהנים, לא יקרחו קרחה בראשם, we learn out two extra דינים. One דין we learn out from the word קרחה, that you're חייב for every time you do it. We also learn out from the word בראשם, that you're חייב for every part of the head. Now the גמרא asks: ואין לי אלא כהנים, we only know this by כהנים שריבה בהם הכתוב מצות יתירות, that the תורה gave them extra מצות. So we could say that since the כהנים have extra מצות, so this is also part of the extra מצות, that a כהן, if he does it many times, is חייב for every single one. Also a כהן is חייב for every part of the head. But ישראל מנלן? How do we know that the same applies to a ישראל, that a ישראל is חייב for every time he makes the קרחה and he's חייב for everywhere in the head? And the גמרא answers: נאמר כאן קרחה ונאמר להלן קרחה. It says here קרחה and it says there קרחה. It says קרחה by כהנים, and it says קרחה by the ישראלים. So we have a גזירה שוה. So we compare the two and we say, מה כאן, just like here, by the כהנים, חייב על כל קרחה וקרחה, you are חייב for every time you do the קרחה, and also וחייב על הראש כבין העינים, you are חייב on any part of the head just like you would be חייב for between the eyes, אף להלן, so there too, by the ישראלים, חייב על כל קרחה וקרחה, you are חייב for every time you do it, וחייב על הראש כבין העינים. And you are חייב for any part of the head similar to as if you would do it between the eyes. So that's the לימודים that we learn out from the כהנים to the ישראלים. And then we go back and we say, we learn out a certain דין from the ישראלים to the כהנים, and we say, מה להלן, just like over there by the ישראלים, על מת, that this איסור only applies if you did it because of a person who died, אף כאן, so too by the כהנים, על מת, it is also only if you did it for a מת. Because the פסוק by the כהנים doesn't mention מת at all. It just says לא יקרחו קרחה בראשם. So I would think that they're never allowed to tear the hair out of their head. Therefore, we learn out a גזירה שוה from the ישראלים that it's only חייב if you do it על מת. So anyway, we see here that the גזירה שוה is used for all these דינים to show that the דינים that we have by the כהנים apply to the ישראלים, and the דינים of the ישראלים apply to the כהנים. So the question is, how can you say that the גזירה שוה of קרחה קרחה teaches us that the דין of קרחה by the כהנים only applies to men? Because otherwise, there's nothing that we can use the גזירה שוה for. Therefore, the גזירה שוה says that there must be a special דין by the כהנים that is not by the ישראלים. And we said before, what could that דין be? That probably the words בני אהרן to exclude women applies to the פסוק of לא יקרחו קרחה. But now that we found something else that we use the גזירה שוה for, so the גזירה שוה doesn't prove anymore that by the כהנים we know for sure that the women are exempt. So we're back to the question: where do we know that women are exempt from this איסור of קרחה? And the גמרא answers: אם כן, if the גזירה שוה would only be for those דינים that we mentioned before and not for this דין of having women exempt, נכתוב קרא קרח, the תורה should have written the word קרח, מאי קרחה? Why does the תורה write the word קרחה with an extra ה? שמע מינה תרתי. That teaches us both. That teaches us it's a very strong גזירה שוה, that in addition to these דינים, that there must be another דין that the גזירה שוה wants us to learn out. Now what can that other דין be? So we know from there that it must be that the בני אהרן ולא בנות אהרן, which exempts women, applies to the פסוק of לא יקרחו קרחה too, and we know that women are exempt from the איסור of קרחה by the כהנים, and from there we learn out that the women are exempt from the איסור of קרחה also by the ישראלים. So this is the reason אביי gave to איסי's opinion that women are exempt from the איסור of קרחה. רבא אמר, but רבא says, היינו טעמא דאיסי, this would be the reason of איסי. He gives a different reason why איסי holds that women are exempt from the איסור of קרחה. The reason is דיליף, he learns out בין עיניכם מתפילין, the words בין עיניכם from תפילין. Because as we said before, the פסוק says: ולא תשימו קרחה בין עיניכם, you should not make a קרחה between your eyes. And by תפילין we also find the words בין עיניכם. So he learns out: מה להלן

נשים פטורות, just like by תפילין women are פטור, אף כאן so too here by קרחה, נשים פטורות, women are פטור. Then the גמרא asks: ורבא מאי טעמא לא אמר כאביי, why does not רבא say like אביי, why did רבא give his reason that we learn it out from תפילין, and that is why women are פטור from קרחה, why doesn't he learn like אביי, that we have a גזרה שוה קרחה קרחה from בני אהרן? And the גמרא answers: קרח קרחה לא משמע ליה. As we said before, the whole יסוד, foundation, for the גזרה שוה of אביי is because the תורה should have written קרח and the תורה wrote קרחה. So רבא says he doesn't hold that this is a לימוד, that we could be מדייק in this extra ה, and from here we should learn out that this teaches us that women are פטור, because he doesn't דרשן that extra ה. Then the גמרא asks: ואביי מאי טעמא לא אמר כרבא, why doesn't אביי learn like רבא, why doesn't he learn that we learn it out, a גזרה שוה בין עיניכם from תפילין? אמר לך, he will answer you: תפילין גופייהו מהכא גמרי לה. And just the opposite, we do use the גזרה שוה בין עיניכם, but just the opposite, we learn out the דינים of תפילין from the דינים of קרחה. And therefore we already can't use the גזרה שוה to learn out the דינים of קרחה from the דינים of תפילין.

What do we learn out from קרחה to תפילין? We say: מה להלן, just like by the case of קרחה, מקום שעושים קרחה, that where is the איסור? In the place where you could make a קרחה, where you could cause baldness, and that is בגובה של ראש, in the top of the head. אף כאן so too by תפילין, מקום הנחה, the place where you have to put on תפילין is בגובה הראש, in the top of the head. Because when the תורה says by תפילין that you should put on תפילין בין עיניכם between your eyes, we might think that you have to put it on the forehead right between the eyes. So therefore we learn out that בין עיניכם of תפילין from the בין עיניכם of קרחה, that just like by קרחה, even though the תורה uses the words בין עיניכם between your eyes, it means on top, over the forehead, a place where there is hair, it couldn't mean the forehead because you can't pull out hair on the forehead when there is no hair. So there the בין עיניכם definitely means on top, over the forehead. So too by תפילין, when the תורה says that you should put it on בין עיניכם, it means on top of the forehead, in the place where there is hair. Then the גמרא asks:

בין לאביי ובין לרבא, according to אביי and according to רבא, האי בנים אתם מאי דרשי ביה? What do they דרש from the פסוק בנים אתם? Because the first explanation in איסי's words was that he learns out that women are exempt from קרחה because the תורה gives an introduction to that פרשה with the words בנים אתם לה' אלקיכם, you are sons to השם. But according to אביי ורבא, that they learn out the exemption of women from a different פסוק, so then what do they use this פסוק of בנים אתם לה' אלקיכם for? What does the תורה mean with that? And the גמרא answers: האי מיבעי ליה לכדתניא, they need this for what we learned in a ברייתא. It says in the ברייתא: בנים אתם לה' אלקיכם, the פסוק says you are children to השם, so the פשט is that בזמן שאתם נוהגים מנהג בנים, אתם קרויים בנים. When you act, you behave like children, you are called children. אין אתם נוהגים מנהג בנים, if you do not behave like children, אין אתם קרויים בנים, you are not called children. דברי רבי יהודה, that's the opinion of רבי יהודה. In other words, according to רבי יהודה, the תורה tells us that you have to behave like children in order to be children. בנים אתם לה' אלקיכם, you are like children, you should be like children, you should behave like children. רבי מאיר אומר, רבי מאיר says: בין כך ובין כך אתם קרויים בנים, whether it's like that or like this, whether you behave like children, or you don't behave like children, you are still called children. How do we know that? שנאמר, because there's a פסוק in ירמיה that says: בנים סכלים המה, they are foolish children. So we see that even though they are foolish, nevertheless, they are considered children. ואומר, there's another פסוק that says: בנים לא אמון בם, that they are children in whom there is no faith. So here too we see that even though they have no faith and they have no אמונה, nevertheless, they're called בנים. ואומר, there is another פסוק: זרע מרעים בנים משחיתים, which means that you are children of evildoers and you are sons that deal corruptly. So here we see that even though they do evil and they are corrupt, nevertheless, they are called children. ואומר, there's another פסוק that says: והיה במקום אשר יאמר להם לא עמי אתם, that instead of saying to you that you are not not my nation, יאמר להם בני קל חי, it will be said to them that they are children of the living God. So we here too we see that even though they are worthy of not being considered השם's nation, nevertheless, they are considered the children of the living God. Then the גמרא asks: מאי ואומר? Why do we have to bring the other פסוקים? As soon as we brought the first פסוק, בנים סכלים המה, and that they are foolish children, already we see that even though they are not the way they're supposed to be, nevertheless they're called children. Why do we have to bring more proof from other פסוקים? And the גמרא answers, וכי תימא, because I would have thought after they brought the first פסוק that they're called foolish children, I would think, סיכלי הוא דמיקרו בני, children who are foolish are still called children as long as they're only foolish. But כי לית בהו הימנותא, but when they don't have faith, לא מיקרו בני, then they're not called children. In other words, if they do עבירות, if they're רשעים, then they're not called children. They're only called children if they are foolish. So therefore, תא שמע. So we bring the other פסוק, ואומר, that there's another פסוק that says, בנים לא אמון בם, that they are children that don't have any faith. So here we see that even though they don't have faith, they're still called children. But וכי תימא, I still might think, כי לית בהו הימנותא הוא דמיקרו בני, that when they're missing faith, that's when they're still called children. But כי פלחו לעבודת כוכבים, לא מיקרו בני, but when they serve idols, then they wouldn't be called children. תא שמע, that's why he brings the other פסוק, ואומר, there's another פסוק that says, זרע מרעים בנים משחיתים, that even though they worship עבודה זרה, they're still called children. And רש"י says that the word משחיתים refers to עבודה זרה. As he brings a פסוק in דברים where it says, פן תשחיתון ועשיתם פסל וגומר, that you might be corrupt and might make a פסל of עבודה זרה. So we see that השחתה refers to עבודה זרה. So when the פסוק says, זרע מרעים בנים משחיתים, so we see that even if they're משחיתים, if they worship עבודה זרה, nevertheless they are called children. And then we continue, וכי תימא, I still might say, בנים משחיתים הוא דמיקרו, corrupt children they are called, בני מעליא לא מיקרו, good children they are not called. In other words, since they got this title of בנים משחיתים, that's how it's going to stay. They never could again be called good children. In other words, it would seem that even if they do תשובה, then they still will be called בנים משחיתים. Therefore, תא שמע, come hear, ואומר, there's another פסוק that says, והיה במקום אשר יאמר להם לא עמי אתם, that instead of being called, being said to them that they are not my nation, יאמר להם בני א-ל חי, it'll be said to them that they are the children of the living God, which obviously will be through תשובה. So we see that even if you worship עבודה זרה, if you do תשובה, you still could get the title of בני מעליא, of being called good children. It's interesting to know that concerning this מחלוקת between רבי מאיר and רבי יהודה, that רבי מאיר holds that בין כך ובין כך בני הם, that whether they act like children or not, they are considered my children, and רבי יהודה, who holds that only if they act like children they are considered children, the רשב"א in תשובות, in חלק א' סימן קצ"ד writes that the הלכה is like רבי מאיר. In other words, we פסקן that a איד is always called a child to השם, whether he behaves like a child or not. And even more than that, in the ספרי in האזינו, in the פסוק ל"ב קאפיטעל ל"ב פסוק ה', it's משמע that רבי יהודה himself admitted to רבי מאיר. And even though originally he argued with רבי מאיר, and he held that only if you behave like a child you're considered a child to השם, later on admitted to רבי מאיר. And באמת we find that רבי עקיבא also holds like רבי מאיר, because in the גמרא in בבא בתרא דף י' עמוד א', we see that there was a question that טורנוסרופוס הרשע asked רבי עקיבא, and from the answer of רבי עקיבא we see that he held that a איד is always called a child to השם, because there the גמרא tells that טורנוסרופוס הרשע asked רבי עקיבא a question. He says, "How can you give צדקה to a poor man?" And he gave a משל. He says, "Imagine if there was a king that had a servant, and the and the king got angry at his servant, and he put him in jail, and he made a decree that no one should feed him. And somebody went behind the back of the king and gave food to that servant. What do you think," he said, "the king would be, happy or angry? Definitely the king would be angry. And the same thing you're doing. If השם made this person poor, obviously השם wants this person shouldn't have the food. Now you come along and give him the food, so definitely you get השם angry. So how could you give צדקה?" And רבי עקיבא answered that, "You gave a wrong משל. You have to give a משל of a son. Imagine if the king had a son, and he got angry at his son, and he put his son in jail, and he made a decree that no one should feed his son. And then a friend of the son quietly fed the son of the king. And later on the king found out that the friend did that. Do you think he'll be happy or angry? He'll definitely be happy, that even though he made a decree that no one should feed his son, in his heart he is happy if somebody will feed him because, after all, it is his son. And the same," he says, "is with אידן. We are not considered slaves to השם, we are considered considered בנים, children to השם, even in a case where השם is angry, because we see in the משל he gave was that the משל is of a king who was angry at his son, and he put him into jail, and that's the משל he uses concerning the אייבערשטער and the אידן. And nevertheless, he says that the משל is from a child, not from an עבד." So we see that

רבי עקיבא, too, holds that the אידן are always considered children to השם, even if they are, they act in such a way that השם should be angry at them, nevertheless they are considered children to השם. And now Now we will continue with the משנה. The משנה is going to tell us some of the things that women are פטור, that doesn't apply to women, and they are all ענינים that apply to קרבנות. It starts off by saying השמיכות, the idea of שמיכה, שמיכה means that when you bring a קרבן you have to put your hands on the קרבן. והתנופות, the קרבנות that you have to wave, you have to pick it up and put it down and wave it in certain directions. וההגשות, there's a דין by a קרבן מנחה, the קרבן that's made of flour, that you have to bring it close to the corner of the מזבח. והקמיצות, the דין by a מנחה is that you have to take off a קומץ. That means that after you have the מנחה prepared, the כהן would put his hand into the flour that's mixed with oil and he would make a קמיצה, he would take a handful, and that handful he would later be מקטיר on the מזבח. So the קמיצות וההקטרות, and to be מקטיר on the מזבח, והמליקות, and the דין of מליקה. מליקה refers to שחיטה of an עוף. When they used to bring a קרבן of a bird, the way they used to kill it was not the regular שחיטה. Regular שחיטה is done with a knife on the throat, and מליקה was done with the nail of the כהן, of his finger, and it was done in the neck of the bird. So this דין of מליקה והקבלות, and receiving of the blood. After you שחט the animal, there has to be קבלת הדם. There has to be a כהן that stands with a כלי and receives the blood. והזאות, and the spritzing of the blood. All these things just mentioned נוהגין באנשים, they only apply to the men, ולא בנשים, not to the women. In other words, a woman does not do שמיכה, a woman does not do תנופה, and if the woman let's say is a daughter of a כהן, she cannot do those עבודות mentioned. She cannot bring the מנחה close to the מזבח, she cannot make the קמיצה, take the handful, she cannot be מקטיר anything on the מזבח, she cannot make the מליקה in the bird, she cannot receive the blood, she cannot spritz the blood. חוץ ממנחת סוטה ונזירה, except the מנחה of a סוטה. A סוטה is a woman that her husband warned her not to hide with a certain man, and later she did hide with that man. So the דין is that the husband has to bring this woman to the בית המקדש and she has to drink the מים המאררים, the special water, and she also has to bring a קרבן מנחה. So when she brings that מנחה, she does do תנופה, she does pick up the מנחה together with the כהן, as the גמרא will explain. And also נזירה, if a woman accepted upon herself to be a נזיר, she's a נזירה. A נזיר is a person who accepts upon himself not to drink wine and he can't become טמא למתים, he cannot cut his hair, etc. And a woman, too, can become a נזירה. And then there is a דין that after you are finished with the נזירות, you have to bring a קרבן מנחה. So a woman, when she brings a קרבן מנחה, would do תנופה, שהן מניפות, that they do pick it up. Those are the exceptions to the דינים mentioned earlier in the משנה. The

גמרא continues and says שמיכות, where do we know that women are exempt from שמיכה? דכתיב, because the פסוק says דבר אל בני ישראל. This is a פסוק in the beginning of פרשת ויקרא. This is like an introduction to the whole פרשה of the קרבנות that the תורה tells us later on. And the תורה starts off with the words דבר אל בני ישראל, and later on within that פרשה it says וסמך. The פסוק דבר אל בני ישראל is פסוק ב', the פסוק וסמך is פסוק ד', but nevertheless this introduction refers to the whole פרשה. And that's what the גמרא says, since it says דבר אל בני ישראל, speak to the children, the sons of ישראל, and the תורה says וסמך, there should be שמיכה, they should put their hands on the קרבן, so we learn out בני ישראל סומכין ואין בנות ישראל סומכות, only the sons of ישראל, the males, זכרים, the men do שמיכה, but the daughters, the women do not do שמיכה. Then the משנה said תנופות, that one of the things they cannot do is תנופה, to wave the קרבן. So it says, because the פסוק says דבר אל בני ישראל. This is a פסוק in פרשת צו, קפיטל ז', פסוק כ"ט. The פסוק says דבר אל בני ישראל, and then later on it says in the פרשה והניף. Really it doesn't say והניף, it says להניף אותו תנופה לה', that's in פסוק ל'. But nevertheless, we see that after an introduction of דבר אל בני ישראל, the תורה speaks about תנופה. So we learn out בני ישראל מניפין, the sons of ישראל, they do the תנופה, ואין בנות ישראל מניפות, but the daughters, the women do not do תנופה. Then the גמרא continues, it said in the משנה הגשות, that one of the things a woman cannot do is הגשה, to bring the קרבן מנחה close to the מזבח, דכתיב, because the תורה says זאת תורת המנחה, this is the תורה of the מנחה, הקרב אותה בני אהרן, let the children of אהרן, the sons of אהרן, bring it close. So we learn out בני אהרן ולא בנות אהרן, that only the sons of אהרן, the men, are the ones that are able to bring it close, to do the הגשה, but not the daughters, not the women. Then the גמרא continues, it said in the משנה קמיצות, that one of the things the woman cannot do is קמיצה, taking the handful of the מנחה. דכתיב, because there's a פסוק that says, and this is a פסוק in פרשת ויקרא, קפיטל ב׳, פסוק ב׳. The פסוק says והביאה אל בני אהרן וקמץ, he should bring it to the sons of אהרן, and he will make a קמיצה. So we learn out from here, בני אהרן ולא בנות אהרן, the sons of אהרן could do the קמיצה, and not the daughters of אהרן. Then it said in the משנה, הקטרות, that the thing, one of the things the woman cannot do is to be מקטיר. דכתיב, because there's a פסוק that says והקטירו אותו בני אהרן, that the sons of אהרן should be מקטיר it. So we learn out בני אהרן ולא בנות אהרן, the sons of אהרן, not the daughters of אהרן. The daughters of אהרן, they cannot be מקטיר. המליקות, it said in the משנה, that only a זכר, a man, a כהן, a man could do the מליקה, but not the woman. Where do we know that from? דכתיב, because the פסוק says ומלק והקטיר. This is a פסוק in פרשת ויקרא, קפיטל א׳, פסוק ט״ו. There the תורה says ומלק את ראשו והקטיר המזבחה, he should do מליקה and be מקטיר on the מזבח. So what do we do? איקיש מליקה להקטרה, the תורה compares מליקה to the הקטרה. And just like to be מקטיר we brought a פסוק before it the woman cannot be מקטיר, so we learn out from there that a woman can also not make מליקה. We also learn in the משנה הקבלות, that a woman cannot do קבלת הדם, receiving of the blood. דכתיב, because the פסוק says in the same פרשה, והקריבו בני אהרן, that the sons of אהרן should bring it close, ואמר מר, and we have learned, we know that והקריבו זו קבלת הדם, when it says they should bring close, it means the קבלת הדם, the receiving of the blood. So from here we see that the woman cannot receive the blood, because the תורה says בפירוש והקריבו בני אהרן, the sons of אהרן should bring it close, so we learn out only the sons and not the daughters. Then it said in the משנה והזאות, the spritzing, the spraying. So the גמרא asks הזאה דהיכא, what kind of spraying does the משנה refer to? אי דפרה, do we mean the spraying of the פרה? Because the דין is that when they made the פרה אדומה, פרה אדומה is the red heifer, they used to take a red cow and there was a whole process of what to do with this red cow, and at the end they would burn it, and with the ashes, when they would mix it with water, they would sprinkle on a person who became טמא through a dead body, and that would make him טהור, part of the process of making him טהור. Now, in the process of the burning of the פרה אדומה, one of the things that had to be done was that they had to spray the blood of the פרה אדומה. So can we say that when the משנה says that woman cannot do the הזאה, that it refers to the הזאה of the blood of the פרה אדומה? So it says it couldn't mean that, because אלעזר כתיב בה, because the תורה there mentions that who has to do it, אלעזר. אלעזר was the סגן, he was the second-in-command to the כהן גדול, he was so to speak the assistant כהן גדול, and from there we learn out that who should do it, in any time that they used to make the פרה אדומה, the סגן had to do it. So not only woman cannot do it, even a regular כהן couldn't do it. So the

משנה couldn't mean this type of הזאה that woman cannot do, because not only they, no one could do it but אלעזר, but the סגן כהן גדול. אי דפנים, if we're going to say it means the spraying of the blood inside, usually when they used to spray the blood of a קרבן, it was sprayed on the מזבח, מזבח החיצון, the outside מזבח, the מזבח that stood in the עזרה, which was outside of the היכל, there they used to spray the blood, every קרבן had its own דין of how to spritz the blood on the מזבח. But then there were certain קרבנות, as רש״י mentions, that's the קרבנות of the פר כהן משיח or פר העלם דבר של ציבור, that they used to spritz those bloods inside the היכל. So that's what the גמרא asks, when it says in the משנה that woman cannot spray the blood, does it mean the פנים, the one that you have to spray inside? But it couldn't mean that, because הכהן המשיח כתיב בה, it says there clearly in the תורה that that only the כהן that was anointed with the שמן המשחה could do it, only the כהן גדול himself could do it. So not only woman couldn't do it, a regular כהן couldn't do it either. So this is not what the משנה means to tell us that woman couldn't do. אלא הזאה דעוף, what he means to say is that when you spritz the blood of a קרבן which was a bird, so there woman cannot do. And how do we טאקע know that woman cannot spray the blood? דאתיא בקל וחומר מבן צאן, we learn it out a קל וחומר from the blood that is spritzed from an animal. ומה בן צאן, and מה דאך by an

animal, שלא קבע לו כהן לשחיטתו, that the תורה did not establish that a כהן must שחט it, because the דין is that a ישראל is allowed to שחט a קרבן. As we learn out from the פסוק, the פסוק says ושחט את בן הבקר, he should שחט the animal, והקריבו בני אהרן, and the children of אהרן should bring it close. And as we said before, the פסוק והקריבו refers to קבלת הדם, to receiving of the blood. And we learn out from here that since by והקריבו, which is the accepting of the blood, the תורה says בני אהרן, but by ושחט, by the שחיטה the תורה does not say בני אהרן, it just says ושחט את בן הבקר, so we learn out that only מקבלה ואילך מצות כהונה, that only from receiving of the blood, from that point on you must have a כהן. But the שחיטה, which is earlier than that, anybody could do it, even a ישראל. And that's what the גמרא says, that מה תור by an animal, where the תורה did not establish a כהן to שחט, in other words, a כהן doesn't have to שחט, a ישראל could שחט, nevertheless, קבע לו כהן להזאתו, the תורה said that a כהן must spritz the blood, because the פסוק says, וזרקו בני אהרן, that the children of אהרן should spray. So we see that the הזאה must be done through a כהן. So בן עוף, when you have a קרבן of a bird, שקבע לו כהן למליקתו, where the תורה did say clearly that a כהן must do the מליקה, the מליקה is not כשר through a ישראל, as the תורה says, והקריבו הכהן אל המזבח ומלק את ראשו, the כהן should bring it close to the מזבח and do the מליקה. So the תורה says clearly that the כהן should do the מליקה. So since by a bird, where you must have a כהן for the מליקה, אינו דין, is certainly, שקבע לו להזאתו, that the תורה established a כהן for the הזאה. And and that's what the משנה is trying to tell us, that when they come to the הזאה of a bird, it must be done through a כהן, but a כהנת, a woman cannot do it. And then the משנה said, חוץ ממנחת סוטה ונזירה, except the מנחה of a סוטה or a מנחה of a נזירה, that there, the woman does do תנופה. אמר ליה רבי אלעזר לרבי יאשיה דדריה, רבי אלעזר said to רבי יאשיה of his generation, because there were two רבי יאשיה's. And even in the time of רבי אלעזר, there was the older רבי יאשיה still alive. So therefore, if the גמרא would not say which רבי יאשיה he meant, we would not know which רבי יאשיה it was. So therefore, the גמרא said that רבי אלעזר said to רבי יאשיה of his generation, לא תתיב אכרעך, do not sit down on your knees, עד דאמרת לי להא שמעתא, until you answer me this דין, until you explain to me this דין. מניין למנחת סוטה שטעונה תנופה, how do we know that a מנחה of a סוטה needs תנופה, has to be picked up? So the גמרא says, מנלן? What's your question, from where we know it? בגופא כתיב, in the פרשה of מנחת סוטה, it says clearly, it says והניף את המנחה, you should pick up the מנחה. So what's your question, how do we know that a מנחת סוטה needs תנופה? אלא, he says, the question that he meant was תנופה בבעלים מנלן, how do we know that the owner of the קרבן, the one that brings the קרבן has to pick it up? And who's the one that brings the קרבן? The woman. So how do we know that she also has to pick it up? Because when the תורה says it has to be picked up, the תורה says ולקח הכהן מיד האשה, the כהן should take the מנחה from the woman, and he will pick it up. So it seems as if the תורה is saying that the כהן has to pick it up. How do we know that the woman, too, has to pick it up? And the גמרא answers, אתיא, we learn it out, יד יד משלמים, a גזירה שוה, the word יד from שלמים. כתיב הכא, here, by the דין of מנחת סוטה, the תורה says ולקח הכהן מיד האשה, the כהן should take it from the hand of the woman. וכתיב התם, it says there, by שלמים, ידיו תביאנה, his hands should bring it. So it also uses the term ידיו, יד. מה כאן כהן, just like by the מנחת סוטה, we know for sure the כהן has to pick it up, because it says the כהן should take the קרבן from her hand. So we know that the כהן has to do the תנופה, אף להלן כהן, so too, by שלמים, the כהן has to do the תנופה. And on the other hand, we learn out, מה להלן בבעלים, just like over there by the שלמים, the בעלים have to do the תנופה, אף כאן, so here too, בבעלים, here too, by the סוטה, the בעלים, the owner has to do the תנופה. Now הא כיצד, how could that be? Does the כהן do the תנופה or does the owner do the תנופה? So the answer is כהן מכניס ידו תחת יד בעלים, the כהן puts his hand under the hand of the owner, ומניף, and he picks up. So by the שלמים it would be under the hand of the owner of the שלמים, and by the סוטה, it would mean he puts his hand under the סוטה, who is considered the בעלים of the מנחה, and together they pick up. The גמרא says now, אשכחן, we find this by סוטה. So we learn out by סוטה that she has to do תנופה. נזירה מנלן, how do we know that a נזירה also does תנופה, because we said before that the exception is מנחת סוטה, מנחת נזירה? And the גמרא answers, אתיא, we learn out, כף כף מסוטה, a גזירה שוה from the word כף. By סוטה it says ונתן על כפיה, he should put on her hands. By a נזיר it says ונתן על כפי הנזיר, on the hands of the נזיר. So since the תורה uses the same term in both places, it's a גזירה שוה. So we learn out that just like by סוטה, the בעלים, the סוטה herself, has to be part of the תנופה, so too by נזירה, we learn out that she has to be part of the תנופה. But תוספות asks a קשיא here. Why does the גמרא need פסוקים to be ממעט, to exclude woman in all these cases? לכאורה, we automatically would know ourselves that women are exempt from these דינים, because we learned before that women are פטור from all מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא, And these דינים are all מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא, because we learn out from the פסוק ביום צותו, in the day that he commanded to be מקריב the קרבנות, we learn out that קרבנות could only be brought during the day. So קרבנות בכלל are מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא. So automatically, women cannot participate in bringing of the קרבנות, because they are exempt from מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא. And תוספות answers that we do need a פסוק. Because if not for the פסוק, we would say that women are not obligated to do it. But if a woman will do it, the קרבן will still remain כשר. That's why we need these פסוקים, that women are not part of these things, and therefore if they would do it, they would make the קרבן פסול. Then תוספות ask that this is only good concerning the other things, but not concerning סמיכה, because סמיכה, even if the קרבן did not have סמיכה, the קרבן is still כשר. So automatically we understand even if a woman did סמיכה, she doesn't make the קרבן פסול. So then according to that, when the גמרא learns out from a פסוק that a woman is exempt from סמיכה, it is not to tell us that if she did it, it's פסול, because the דין is it's כשר. So all it is to tell us that the woman doesn't have to do סמיכה. So here we have the question: Why do we need a פסוק to tell us that a woman doesn't have to do סמיכה, when anyway it's a מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא that women are פטור? And תוספות answers that we do need the פסוק for that. Because if not for the פסוק, we would think that a woman does have to do סמיכה, even though it is a מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא, because the תורה says וסמך ושחט. The תורה brings together the two דינים of סמיכה and שחיטה. So we would think that just like שחיטה is כשר with a woman, because as we said before, the דין of שחיטה by a קרבן doesn't have to be through a כהן, could be through a ישראל, and not only through a ישראל, and even could be through a woman. So we would think that just like שחיטה is כשר with a woman, so too a woman is חייב to do סמיכה, because the תורה says וסמך ושחט. Therefore, we have to have a special פסוק to tell us that a woman is exempt from סמיכה. And then תוספות says the same thing applies to תנופה. Then we need a special פסוק to tell us that a woman is exempt from תנופה, because I would think maybe she is חייב בתנופה, even though it's a מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא, because we do find in certain places where a woman is חייב בתנופה, like the גמרא says later on that by the מנחה of a סוטה and the מנחה of נזירה, the woman does participate in the תנופה. So we would have learned out from there, and we would have said that a woman has to do תנופה in all קרבנות. Therefore, we need a special פסוק concerning תנופה. But then תוספות asks another קשיא: Why do we need פסוקים that the women are exempt from all these עבודות, when we know that if a person, a כהן even, does the עבודה מחוסר בגדים, not wearing the proper clothes, then the עבודה is פסול? So then why do we need a פסוק that the women don't do these עבודות, since they are מחוסר בגדים anyway, they're not wearing the proper clothes, so certainly the עבודה is פסול? And תוספות answers, one תירוץ he says that we're talking in a case where they did put on the בגדים. Let's say if a woman did put on the proper בגדי כהונה, the proper clothes of the כהנים, so we would think that they could do the עבודה. Therefore, we have these פסוקים that the women פסל the עבודה. Or another תירוץ תוספות says that we would have thought that when do we say that מחוסר בגדים is פסול, that if a person does the עבודה without the proper בגדים, the עבודה is פסול, that's only if he was commanded to put on the בגדים. So in a case like that, if he doesn't wear the בגדים, the עבודה is פסול. But the women, since they were never commanded to put on the proper בגדים, so we would think maybe even if they do the עבודה without the בגדים, it is כשר, therefore we have to have the פסוקים that nevertheless it is פסול. תוספות also asks a קשיא concerning the גמרא later. The גמרא brought from the משנה הזאות, that one of the things that doesn't apply to women is הזאה, the spraying of the blood. And the גמרא asked: What kind of הזאה do we mean? Do we mean the הזאה, the spraying of the blood of the פרה אדומה? We couldn't say that, because there not only is a woman exempt, not שייך to it, but even a regular כהן is not שייך, because the תורה says אלעזר כתיב ביה, the תורה says that it has to be done through אלעזר, through the assistant כהן גדול, so certainly a woman can't do it, if even a regular כהן couldn't even do it. Then the גמרא asked: אי דפנים, if we're going to say it means the spraying of the blood of those קרבנות that you have to spray the blood inside, also it couldn't be because the תורה says הכהן המשיח, that it has to be done through the כהן גדול. So תוספות asks a קשיא: This is only good according to those מאן דאמרs that hold that way, because we find a מחלוקת whether when you make a פרה אדומה, does the blood have to be sprayed דווקא through the סגן כהן גדול, through the assistant כהן גדול or not? In the time of the פרה אדומה in חומש, in the time of משה רבינו, the תורה says clearly that השם said that he should take אלעזר, אלעזר the סגן כהן גדול, he should be the one to do it. But the question is: Does this apply לדורות? Does this דין also apply to all later generations? So there is one opinion that says, yes, this applies to all generations, that always the the הזאה of the פרה אדומה had to be done through the סגן כהן גדול. But there is another opinion that learns out from a special לימוד that לדורות, for later generations, any כהן could involve himself in the פרה אדומה. So תוספות asks that this פשט in the גמרא, where the גמרא says that if it's the פרה אדומה that we're talking about, we don't have to tell us that a woman is פטור, because it has to be done through אלעזר, that's only good according to the מאן דאמר that says that it always has to be done through the סגן כהן גדול. But what about according to that מאן דאמר that holds that a פרה could be done through any כהן הדיוט? So according to that מאן דאמר, the משנה does have to tell us that it doesn't apply to a woman, because it does apply to other כהנים, so it's a חידוש that it doesn't apply to a woman. And the same thing with the second thing when the גמרא says אי דפנים, הכהן המשיח כתיב, if it refers to the spraying of the blood of the קרבנות that we spray in פנים, it says הכהן המשיח only, only the כהן גדול could do it. But this is only good according to the מאן דאמר that holds that only a כהן גדול has to do it. But according to the other מאן דאמר that learns out from a special פסוק that any כהן could do it, so according to him a כהן הדיוט could do it, so it is a חידוש that a woman can't do it. And in the גמרא it's משמע that according to everybody it is very simple that in both of these cases woman cannot do it because of what the גמרא says, that by פרה it says אלעזר, and by the כהן by the פנים it says כהן המשיח. And תוספות answers that even according to the other מאן דאמר that says that it could be done through any כהן הדיוט, we still understand what the גמרא means. Because even according to that מאן דאמר, we have to have special פסוקים to teach us that, that a כהן הדיוט could do it. Now that's what the גמרא means: since we have to have a special פסוק that a כהן הדיוט could do it, so one thing is for sure, that if not for that special פסוק, even a כהן הדיוט couldn't do it. It's only because of that special פסוק that a כהן הדיוט could do it. So obviously, women are definitely exempt, because for women we don't have that special פסוק, and without the פסוק, even כהן הדיוט couldn't do it. And that's what the גמרא means, that that is very simple that women couldn't do it, and therefore, the גמרא asks what does it mean, and the מסקנא of the גמרא is that it refers to the הזאה of the bird. Then תוספות asks another קשיא. The גמרא says concerning תנופה that what is done? מכניס כהן ידו תחת יד הבעלים ומניף. The כהן puts his hand under the hand of the בעלים, of the owner, and he picks it up. So תוספות asks, לכאורה this is a חציצה. There will be an interruption, a חציצה, between the hand of the כהן and the קרבן. And we know that you're not allowed to have a חציצה between the hand of the כהן and the קרבן. And תוספות proves that someone else's hand is considered a חציצה, because he says the גמרא says in מנחות דף צ''ד עמוד א' that if two partners bring a קרבן, there is no תנופה. And the גמרא explains why: because what should we do? Should we have first one partner pick it up, and then the second partner pick up? That's no good, because the תורה says תנופה, which means one תנופה and not two תנופות. And if they're going to do it one after another, there'll be two תנופות. If you're going to say that let one partner put the hand on the קרבן and the other partner put his hand under his hand, so the גמרא says it's a חציצה, so you couldn't do it, and therefore, there is no תנופה by a קרבן that is brought by two partners. But one thing we do see from the גמרא there that a hand is a חציצה between the other hand. So how come by regular תנופה, the כהן put his hand under the hand of the בעלים, isn't it a חציצה? And תוספות says we can't compare the case over here to the case of the two partners. Over here, the תורה says clearly that both should make the תנופה, as the גמרא says we learned it out from a גזירה שוה that you have to have both, so the תורה says לכתחילה that both should do the תנופה, and this is the way they do it. Over there, by the case of the שותפים, the תורה doesn't say anything about שותפים that both שותפים should make תנופה. The תורה just says that an owner has to do תנופה. Now the question is, what do we do when we have two partners? So since if one will put his hand under the other it'll be a חציצה, so we can't do it. But here where the תורה says clearly, it is part of the דין of the תורה, the גזירת הכתוב, that they both have to do the תנופה, and this is the way they do it, so the תורה לכתחילה is telling us that this is the דין, so therefore, obviously, there is no חציצה. That's one תירוץ תוספות gives. Another תירוץ תוספות gives, that here too it doesn't mean that the כהן puts actually his hand under the hand of the owner. What it what it does mean is that they both together do the תנופה: the כהן holds his hand under the כלי, and the owner holds his hand on top of the כלי, and therefore, it is no חציצה. And תוספות says we find the same way was done in another place, by ביכורים. It says that by ביכורים the כהן היה אוחז בשפתו, he held onto the edge of the כלי, so תוספות says it means that the כהן held onto the edge of the כלי on top, and the owner held onto the כלי on the bottom. So too here, by מנחות the same thing, but just the opposite: the the בעלים, the owner, held onto the כלי on top, and the כהן held onto the כלי on the bottom, and therefore, there was no חציצה. But the מהרש''א asks a קשיא on תוספות: if so, why can't they do the same thing by the two partners? Why does the גמרא say that two partners don't do תנופה because there's nothing we could do, why don't we do the same thing as תוספות said here now, that one that one of the partners should hold onto the bottom and one will hold on top, so here we will have no חציצה and we will have one תנופה. And the מהרש״א answers that only concerning the regular תנופה, with the כהן and the בעלים, there we could say that we do it this way. Since there are two פסוקים, there's a special דין that the בעלים has to have a תנופה, there's a special דין that the כהן has to participate in the תנופה, so therefore we could say that the way it's done, one holds on top and one holds on the bottom. But concerning two partners, there are no two דינים of תנופה that they both have to do. There is one דין of תנופה. So in a case where there is one דין of תנופה, so there we say that we cannot do it this way, that one shall do on top and one should do it on the bottom. Therefore the גמרא says that two partners don't do תנופה at all. But the תוספות רי״ד brings another תירוץ that מפרשים answer on this קשיא: Why is there no חציצה between the hand of the כהן and the קרבן? And he says because you could put one hand next to the other. It doesn't have to be one over the other. When the גמרא talks about שותפים, so it's possible to have more than two שותפים, it could be five שותפים, five partners, so there there is not enough place to put the hands next to each other. So there the גמרא says what could you do, it will have to be only one over the other and that will be a חציצה. But here where we're talking about one person, by one person you could put the hand one next to each other. But תוספות רי״ד himself says that he doesn't accept this תירוץ, but he himself says that בכלל he doesn't think the קשיא is a קשיא, that this whole דין of חציצה by תנופה is only if there's a חציצה between the hand of the owner and the קרבן. But it doesn't say anywhere that you can't have a חציצה between the hand of the כהן and the קרבן. So therefore, by the case of the שותפים, where we say let both put the hands under the קרבן, there will be a חציצה between the hand of one of the partners, which is one of the owners, and the קרבן, that's where חציצה is no good. But here where we're talking about a regular תנופה, and we're talking about the חציצה between the hand of the כהן and the קרבן, in other words the hand of the owner will be in between, here we don't find a דין of חציצה, and therefore the גמרא says that he is allowed to put his hand under the hand of the owner, and we don't care about it being חציצה, because לגבי the hand of the כהן, there is no איסור of חציצה.