Question #1: Why is this [Drashah] needed? We challenged the Kal v'Chomer from a widow to a Kohen Gadol, for there, she herself is Mischaleles!

Suggestion: It is not an absolute challenge.

Rejection: Due to this challenge we retracted in Yevamos (44a) from what it said that all agree about Machzir Gerushaso that the child is Pagum (tainted), from a Kal v'Chomer from a widow to a Kohen Gadol!

The Gemara says there "rather, if it was said, it was said as follows..."

Question #2: In Yevamos (14b), R. Yochanan ben Nuri said "what can we do [about the argument about Tzaros (co-wives) of one who fell to Yibum to her relative]? If we will [enact that everyone] do like Beis Hillel, who permit the Tzaros l'Shuk (to marry strangers) without Chalitzah or Yibum, the child is Pagum according to Beis Shamai;

What is the source that he is Pagum? If it is from a Kal v'Chomer from a widow to a Kohen Gadol, we can challenge this, like here!

Answer (to Question #2): We learn that the child of Tzaros l'Shuk is Pagum from "Hi To'evah", and her children are not To'evah. This implies that elsewhere, even the children [from Bi'as Isur] are To'evah.

Suggestion: This is why in our Sugya, we mentioned this verse, even though it is not needed, to teach that R. Yehoshua needs to expound that elsewhere, e.g. Yevamah l'Shuk, the children are To'evah!

Rejection: In Yevamos (15b), R. Yehoshua holds that the children of Tzaros l'Shuk are Kosher for he said "I will testify for you [that two great families came from Tzaros l'Shuk, and members of these families served as Kohen Gadol]."

Answer #1 (to Question #1): If not for the exclusion, we would learn that the child is Pagum because Tum'ah (Acharei Asher Hutama'ah) is written regarding [Machzir Gerushaso], like [it is written regarding] Arayos.

Implied question: There is an opinion that [this verse of] Tum'ah applies only to a Sotah, for once it was uprooted [from Machzir Gerushaso to teach about Sotah], it was uprooted! (It is as if it was written only regarding Sotah.)

Answer: Even so, one might have thought that the expression "To'evah" applies also to the children, had it not written "Hi".

Answer #2: Here it brings the verse "Hi To'evah" so we will not learn from [a Tzad ha'Shavah of] a widow to a Kohen Gadol, and a Nochri or slave, that she is Mischaleles, like R. Yehudah does in Kidushin (78a).

Question: According to the Havah Amina that he did not offer his Asham, like Rav Sheshes wanted to establish it, even if he did not die, we could ask how the second can offer. We do not know who was already exempted from a Korban, and on whose Behonos (thumb, toe and ear) they must put blood of the Asham that was not offered!

Answer: They can [put blood of the Asham] on both of them.

Implied question: What can they do about Semichah? (One may not do Semichah amidst Safek, for he uses the Korban. He presses with all his strength, and it holds him up!)

Answer: They may offer without Semichah, in order to fix them (so they may eat Kodshim).

Question: In Gitin (28b), regarding one who sends his Chatas from overseas [we ask how it may be offered without Semichah], and Rav Papa establishes it to discuss Chatas ha'Of;

How can it say afterwards "[the Mishnah] needed to teach all [three clauses... one might have thought that] one may not bring Chatas ha'Of amidst Safek, lest it is Chulin b'Azarah"? (The Mishnah teaches that we rely on the Chazakah that the owner is still alive, so it is not considered a Safek.) We say in our Sugya that Chatas ha'Of is brought amidst Safek!

Answer: Here, when the Metzora is in front of us, in order to fix the person, we offer Chatas ha'Of amidst Safek, since there is no other solution;

There, when the owner is overseas, if he died, the Chatas should not be offered. Then, [if not for the Chazakah,] we would not offer it amidst Safek.

Implied question: Why does the text say "Tanan"? R. Eliezer's words are not taught in the Mishnah!

Answer: [The Gemara] did not want to elaborate and say "d'Tanya" regarding his words, since his words are not needed so much, only the words of R. Shimon and R. Yehudah.

Observation: In Erchin (17b), it says "Tanya, R. Eliezer ben Yakov says...", and three of them expound the same verse.

Explanation (Rashi): We discuss a Safek Metzora. [The Gemara] says that on the day after his Tevilah, which is the day he brings his Korbanos, he brings his Asham.

Observation: This Beraisa is brought in Zevachim (76a), and there Rashi explained "the next day" to be the eighth day from his Tzara'as;

Observation: It is brought also in Menachos (105a), and there Rashi explained "the next day" is day 61.

Resolution: All of these are the same. Day 61 is in place of day eight from his Tzara'as, but he needed to delay 60 days, for perhaps he was a Nazir Tamei, and then (day 60) was his second shaving.

Support - Citation (Tosefta Nazir 6:1): If one was a Safek Nazir Tamei, Safek Nazir Tahor, but he was Vadai a Nazir. He was a Safek Metzora Tamei, Safek Metzora Tahor, but he was Vadai a Metzora.

Note: The rest of this Tosfos cites and explains the Tosefta.

Explanation: He knows that he was a Nazir, but he does not know whether or not he became Tamei Mes. Similarly, he knows that he was a Metzora, but he does not know whether or not he became Tahor from his Tzara'as.

Citation (cont.): He may eat Kodshim after 60 days, and he may drink wine and become Tamei to Mesim after 120 days;

How is this? They tell him "you are a Nazir Tamei, and you must fulfill all laws of Nazir Tamei, and afterwards you will begin Nezirus Taharah. Sprinkle [with Mei Chatas on day three] and again [on day seven], shave and bring a Korban." He counted seven days, sprinkled and repeated [Haza'ah] and he wants to shave;

[They] tell him "you are Tahor, and a Tahor may not shave after less than 30 days." I.e. perhaps you are a Nazir Tahor. "Go count 23", i.e. in order to complete 30 days.

He counted 30, and he wants to shave. They tell him "you are a Nazir Tahor, and you may shave only on blood", i.e. after Zerikas Dam of one of your Korbanos. He [should] bring three Korbanos - a Chatas, Olah and Shelamim. He is held back from shaving only until [Zerikah of] one of them.

How does he do? He brings Olas Behemah, and stipulates. If he is Tahor, this is obligatory [for Nezirus Taharah]. If not, it is Nedavah (voluntary). After Zerikah of its blood, he may shave;

Explanation: He stipulates about Olah, and not about Chatas, for Chatas Behemah cannot be brought amidst Safek;

Similarly, he does not [stipulate] about Shelamim, because a Nazir's Shelamim requires Tenufah, and he is a Safek Metzora, so he cannot [entered the Mikdash] to wave. Also, [a Nazir's Shelamim] must be accompanied by bread, and the foreleg must be cooked [with the entire animal, and given to the Kohen]. Such Shelamim is not brought for Nedavah.

Conclusion: Therefore, he can stipulate to enable himself to shave only through Zerikas Dam of the Olah.

Citation (cont.): How do we do to be stringent about him? We bring a new flask of Cheres and put a Revi'is of water in it, and he brings a wild bird. This is like all Metzora'im on the first shaving;

He brings Chatas ha'Of like the law of a Tamei. I.e. perhaps he was a Nazir Tamei, and this shaving is of Tum'ah, and he does not begin Nezirus Taharah until he brings the Chatas of Tum'ah, for the Chatas is Me'akev.

Explanation #1: However, his Asham [Nazir Tamei] is not Me'akev, and he delays it until the second shaving, which he does after he is Vadai Tahor from Tzara'as.

Explanation #2: Or, perhaps he does not bring his Asham at all, since he is only Safek Tamei, and he need not bring it to be Machshir him for anything.

Note: R. Shimon and Chachamim argue below (70b) about whether he may stipulate and bring Asham Metzora, which is Me'akev eating Kodshim. Chachamim forbid. Seemingly, all the more so they forbid Asham Nazir Tamei! Tosfos is unsure about R. Shimon. He could forbid Asham Nazir Tamei, which is not Me'akev anything. However, if so, why doesn't R. Shimon make a three-way stipulation about the Asham? If I must bring Asham Metzora, this is it. If not, and I was Tamei, it is Asham Nazir Tamei. If I am not obligated any Asham, it is a Shelamim. Perhaps he does not stipulate because Asham Metzora and Shelamim require Nesachim, but Asham Nazir Tamei does not. One cannot stipulate that the Nesachim be Nedavah, for voluntary Nesachim are unlike obligatory Nesachim. Tosfos (Chulin 23b DH d'Amar) holds that one can stipulate to bring voluntary Nesachim like obligatory Nesachim. Perhaps our Tosfos is unsure about this. If one can stipulate about this, he also brings Asham Nazir Tamei with a stipulation!)

Remark: This that he brings his Chatas on the day that he shaves is like R. Akiva, who says in Nazir (44b) that if he shaved on the eighth, he brings his Korbanos that same day. Now, this is like shaving on the eighth. He delayed it [until the 30th] due to Nezirus Taharah.

[The Tosefta says that] he stipulates about his Chatas [ha'Of]. If I am Tamei, this Chatas is my obligation of Nezirus Tum'ah, and the Olah is Nedavah. I.e. it is Olas Behemah, which is a Safek due to Nezirus Tum'ah;

If I am Tahor, this Olah is my obligation, and the Chatas is due to Safek. He shaves his head, beard and eyebrows, like Metzora'im shave.

Note: It seems that this is like R. Yishmael, who includes only hair of the legs. R. Akiva includes all collections of hair on the body (Sotah 16a). Tiglachas of a Vadai Nazir overrides the Isur to cut the Pe'os, and Tiglachas Metzora Vadai overrides this and also the Isur to shave the beard, but a Safek does not! Due to this, Shmuel (Nazir 57b) said that we discuss a woman or minor.

After this shaving, the Tosefta (6:1) says that he brings Olas Behemah. It seems that it is missing here "and he counts 30 days", i.e. the days of Nezirus Taharah.

He counts Safek Nezirus Taharah, and he cannot shave the second time for his Tzara'as that is proper to be eight days after the first, until Zerikah of one of the bloods, and perhaps he is a Nazir Tahor;

It is better for him to bring Olah amidst Safek than Chatas and Shelamim, like I explained above. Therefore, he delays the Chatas and Shelamim until the end of Nezirus Taharah, which is after he is Vadai Tahor from Tzara'as.

[The Tosefta continues] he stipulates about the Olah that he brings now, and says "if I am Tamei", i.e. I was Tamei at the first shaving, "the first Olah was Nedavah and Chatas ha'Of was obligatory, [so] this Olah is obligatory";

"If I am (i.e. was) Tahor, the first Olah was obligatory, and this is Nedavah", for this shaving has no effect. It is not needed for Nezirus, and not for Tzara'as;

This is because if the first was of Nezirus Taharah, if so he was not a Metzora, for the days of Tzara'as do not count towards Nezirus, like we say in Nazir (17b, 60b).

"Chatas ha'Of that I brought then was Safek." He shaves his head, beard and eyebrows, like Metzora'im shave. This is the second shaving of Metzora;

It should have been at the end seven days of counting from the first shaving, but he could not do so until now, due to Safek Nezirus on him. The shaving of a Safek Metzora does not override the Isur for a Nazir to shave, like we explained.

Citation (cont. - R. Shimon): The next day he brings his Asham, like the law of a Metzora on his eighth day. It is day 61. He stipulates about it...

He eats Kodshim immediately. This is what was taught above "he eats Kodshim after 60 days." It is explicitly proven that day 61 is [in place of] day eight;

Also, it is proven that "the next day" is the day after 61. It is [in place of] day eight from when he shaved, like I explained.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): There is no Semichah on the Asham, like we say in Menachos (92a).

Rebuttal #1: Rashi did not look there! A Mishnah teaches that all Korbanos Yachid require Semichah, except for Bechor, Ma'aser and Pesach. It did not exclude Asham!

Rebuttal #2: In Zevachim (33a), there is an argument about whether or not Semichas Asham Metzora is mid'Oraisa, but all agree that Semichah is required [at least mid'Rabanan]!

Rebuttal #3 - Citation (Nega'im 14:8 - Mishnah): He comes to his Asham, presses his two hands on it...

Implied question: Why does it say here that this Asham requires Semichah? (This connotes that it is only because it is a Safek Shelamim. If not, it would not need Semichah!)

Answer: [It means that he does Semichah] without pressing his hands, according to the opinion that Semichah on Asham Metzora is not mid'Oraisa. Because its Semichah is different from other Ashamos, it says so.

Support: Also "and similarly Nesachim" was not taught because it is a Safek Shelamim, for a Mishnah (Menachos 90b) says that every Chatas and Asham does not need Nesachim, except for Chatas and Asham of Metzora, which need Nesachim;

Rather, because it is different from other Ashamos, it lists here all the ways in which it is different.

Implied question: The simple meaning does not connote that Hash-m favors them, for it does not say Yisa Hash-m Panecha. It connotes that He will turn to you to give to you peace!

Strengthening of question: Also the Sifri expounds that Hash-m will remove His countenance of anger from you!

Answer: However, the Gemara considers it as if it were written 'Panecha.'

Observation: It would have been more appropriate for the Gemara to ask from "Nasati Panecha Gam l'Davar ha'Zeh" regarding Lot, and from "va'Yisa Hash-m Pnei Iyov"!

Question: In Brachos (20b), it says that angels asked Hash-m "Master of the World! You wrote in Your Torah "Asher Lo Yisa Panim." Why do You show favoritism to Yisrael?

Hash-m answered "should I not show favoritism to Yisrael? I said "you will eat and be satiated [and bless Hash-m], and they are meticulous until the size of an egg!

Inference: He distinguishes between Nochrim and Yisrael. Why don't we answer [there] like here, or [answer] here like there?

Answer: Really, the answer here is primary. The verse that says "He does not favoritism" discusses both Yisrael and Nochrim;

For Nochrim it is even before the decree, for this is letter of the law. For Yisrael it is after the decree, but He goes beyond the letter of the law and shows favoritism to them before the decree, like the verse connotes "Yisa Hash-m Panav Elecha";

The angels ask Hash-m "why do You go beyond the letter of the law for Yisrael, more than for Nochrim, to show favoritism to them before the decree"? He answers 'should I not shows favoritism to them?!...."

Citation: The Sifri answers on this question "this is before the decree..."

Question: In Rosh Hashanah (17b), it says "Teshuvah is great, for it tears a person's decree, for it says "va'Shav v'Rafa Lo";

We challenge this from [a Beraisa] that says "if he repented in between, they pardon him. If he did not repent in between, i.e. before the decree, even if he brought all the choice rams, they will not pardon him";

It answers "this is not difficult. This refers to an individual, and this refers to a Tzibur."

Inference: Teshuvah of a Yachid does not tear a person's decree. Our Sugya connotes that Teshuvah helps even for a Yachid, like Eli's sons, even after the decree;

If it were before the decree, obviously Hash-m accepts Teshuvah! Also, "to kill them" connotes after the decree.

Answer: The Sugya here is like R. Yitzchak, who says that prayer is great both before the decree and after the decree.

Inference: If she were not a mound of salt, [her body] would be Tamei, even according to R. Shimon [who says that graves of Nochrim do not have Tum'as Ohel], we can say that it would be Metamei even in an Ohel.

Assertion: Also, R. Bena'ah (Bava Basra 58a) marked off [the place of those buried in] Ma'aras ha'Machpelah (including Adam ha'Rishon, due to Tum'as Ohel). This is even like R. Shimon;

Explanation #1 (for both of these): After Matan Torah, when Yisrael were called "Adam", we can distinguish [them from Nochrim]. Before Matan Torah there is no distinction.

Explanation #2 (R. Moshe of Puntiza): In Nazir (54a), we include graves of those who died before the Dibur from "Oh b'Kever." This shows that before Matan Torah they are Metamei, even though they are not called "Adam".

Rebuttal #1: The Sugya in Nazir is only like R. Shimon. It excludes [graves of Nochrim] from "Adam"!

Rebuttal #2: "Oh b'Kever" is written regarding Tum'as Maga (of touching). After Matan Torah graves of Nochrim are Metamei through touching. R. Shimon excludes only from Ohel. We conclude like this in Yevamos (61a).

Explanation: [In Nazir, "graves of those who died] before the Dibur" means before Parshas [Tum'as] Ohel was said, i.e. before the Mishkan was erected;

This is like it says in Gitin (60a) that eight Parshiyos were said on the day that the Mishkan was erected. It counts Parshas Parah [Adumah] and Parshas Temei'im;

One might have thought that "Ki Yamus b'Ohel" is from now and onwards. Therefore we need "Oh b'Kever." The inclusion applies to Ki Yamus, and not to "Adam".

Support: We find like this in Horiyos (10a) regarding "this excludes before the Dibur" regarding a Zavah.

Question: Why didn't they ask this question about the Shunamis' son, which they discussed?

Answer: Perhaps it is because the verse says about the future "v'Zarakti Aleichem Mayim Tehorim", and they were unsure whether or not this Zerikah is on days three and seven. However, it was clear to them that the Shunamis' son does not need Haza'ah.