Explanation #2 (cont.): Rav Ashi answers that Yom Tov is an Aseh v'Lo Sa'aseh, and an Aseh is not Docheh an Aseh v'Lo Sa'aseh.

Question (Ri): In Beitzah (8b) it connotes that Rava holds that Yom Tov is an Aseh v'Lo Sa'aseh, regarding oven ash, for he asks "still, Yom Tov is an Aseh v'Lo Sa'aseh, and the Aseh to cover the blood [of Shechitah of a bird or Chayah] is not Docheh an Aseh v'Lo Sa'aseh!" Rather, Rava said...

Poor answer: The Gemara prefers to ask that Yom Tov is an Aseh v'Lo Sa'aseh, for we hold like Rav Ashi, but Rava, even though he does not hold that Yom Tov is an Aseh v'Lo Sa'aseh, still covering the blood does not override Yom Tov, due to "Levado" (only Melachah of Ochel Nefesh itself overrides Yom Tov).

Explanation #3 (Ri): He learns from a Kal v'Chomer from Nedarim and Nedavos, which override Yom Tov, even though 13 covenants were not made about them. Bris Milah, over which 13 covenants were made, all the more so it overrides Yom Tov! Rava holds that [Nedarim and Nedavos] are offered on Yom Tov.

Implied question: Nedarim and Nedavos are a "need" of Shamayim! We ask like this below (131b) "you cannot learn from the Omer and Shtei ha'Lechem, for they are a need of Shamayim!"

Answer: They are not obligatory [therefore they are not considered a need of Shamayim];

Even Chata'os and Ashamos [which are obligatory] are not called a need of Shamayim, since had he not sinned, he would not need to bring them.

Explanation #3 (cont.): Rava holds that Yom Tov is an Aseh v'Lo Sa'aseh, like is proven in Beitzah. Therefore, he needs a Kal v'Chomer. If not for the Kal v'Chomer, he would not need a verse to forbid;

Rava does not discuss burning Kodshim, just the Gemara brings his teaching, for from it we learn that burning Kodshim does not override Yom Tov.

Question: The other Amora'im above, who hold that Yom Tov is only a Lav, should learn from here that an Aseh is not Docheh a Lav! (All agree that Aseh Docheh Lo Sa'aseh.) The Gemara asks like this in Yevamos (6a).

Answer: Perhaps we cannot learn from here, for one can do [the Mitzvah of burning the Nosar] after Yom Tov.

Question: What is the source that Tamei Terumah is Asur b'Hana'ah, that we ask what is the reason [to permit benefit at the time of burning it]?

If we learn [a Kal v'Chomer] from Ma'aser, which is lenient, like it connotes below, we can ask that Ma'aser has the stringencies HaDaS TaV, like we ask in Yevamos (74b)! (It requires Hava'as Makom (must be brought to Yerushalayim), Viduy, Asur (it is forbidden to an Onen), Tamei (one may not burn Tamei Ma'aser), and Bi'ur. Terumah has only four stringencies over Ma'aser.)

Suggestion #1: We would forbid [Terumah] because it is called Kodesh - "v'Nasan la'Kohen Es ha'Kodesh."

Suggestion #2: We would forbid because [Terumah] is equated to Kodshim, like it says in Me'ilah (19a) that the Torah equated Kodesh to Terumah;

Kodesh itself is Asur b'Hana'ah when it became Tamei, even Kodesh that was Mutar b'Hana'ah before [becoming Tamei], e.g. Shelamim. This we properly learn from a Kal v'Chomer from Ma'aser, or from a Hekesh to Ma'aser, like it says in Pesachim (24a).

Rejection: If so, what was the question "why do you see [to say that Terumah is permitted and Kodshim is forbidden]? Say that "Mimenu" comes to exclude (permit) Kodesh, and not Terumah!"?

If we would exclude (permit) Kodesh, what would be the source to forbid Terumah?!

Answer: We would learn Terumah from a Hekesh to Bikurim, and Bikurim [are equated to] Ma'aser, like it says in Yevamos (73b);

Below, we do not rely on the Kal v'Chomer [to learn Terumah from Ma'aser], rather, on the Hekesh.

Distinction: However, we properly learn Kodesh from a Kal v'Chomer from Ma'aser, like it says in Pesachim (24a). We cannot challenge this from HaDaS TaV, for all of these stringencies apply to Kodesh, except for Viduy;

Explanation (R. Tam): We cannot challenge it from Viduy, for it does not apply to Kodesh;

However, it applies to Terumah, for along with Ma'aser, one says Viduy also about Terumah. It was taught that "v'Gam Nasativ la'Levi" refers to Terumah. Terumah does not have its own Viduy. (Therefore, this is a stringency of Ma'aser over Terumah.)

Question: Still, how can we learn Kodesh from Ma'aser through a Kal v'Chomer? We can ask that Ma'aser requires minted coins [to redeem it], like it asks in Makos (17b)!

Answer (Ri): This challenge [to the Kal v'Chomer] applies only to [eating it] outside the wall [of Yerushalayim], like there, that we wanted to learn that one who eats Todah or Shelamim outside the wall is lashed, from Ma'aser.

Question: Here, we forbid burning (for heat) and lighting (burning for illumination) with Isur Hana'ah. Orlah, which is Asur b'Hana'ah, one may benefit from it while burning it, like it says in Pesachim (27b)! The only case found in which Rabanan forbid wood is a chair (or other Kelim, but one may benefit from Isur while it is consumed)!

Answer: We must reject this, and say that oil, meat and grain are considered intact at the time of burning more than wood. (Therefore, one may not benefit from such Isurim while they burn.)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [We must burn Tamei Terumah] lest one stumble [eat it].

Consequence: According to this, it need not be specifically burned. The same applies to other ways of eradication. Rashi said so explicitly in Pesachim (46a).

Rebuttal: In Temurah (33b), it teaches Tamei Terumah among Nisrafim (Isurei Hana'ah that are burned), and it says that Nisrafim may not be buried!

Explanation #2: It must be specifically burned, because it resembles Kodesh. This is mid'Rabanan.

Explanation #3: [It must be burned] mid'Oraisa, since it is called Kodesh.

Question: It says in Pesachim (20b) regarding Tamei Terumah [wine] that one may sprinkle it [on the floor to give a good scent to the house];

The Mishnah in Temurah says that what is proper to be buried must be buried. This refers to liquids!

Answer: It refers only to Orlah and Kil'ai ha'Kerem, but not to Terumah, which is Mutar b'Hana'ah.

Implied question: R. Eliezer expounded (Bechoros 34a) that Tahor Terumah and Taluy (Safek Tamei) Terumah have the same law. One places it in a hidden place, and not in an open (Hefker) place, for one may not cause Tum'ah to it!

Answer: There he expounds "Mishmeres Terumosai", which connotes two Terumos that must be guarded, i.e. Tahor and Taluy. Here he expounds from "Lecha" (you may benefit from them).

Question: We could count another stringency of Kodshim over Terumah! [A Mechusar Kipurim, i.e. Zav, Zavah, Yoledes or Metzora,] may eat Terumah after Ha'arev Shemesh (once night comes after they immersed), but they may eat Kodshim [only] after offering their Korban! (Ramban - we know that Kodshim is more stringent than Terumah regarding Mechusar Kipurim, only due to the six stringencies Pankachs!)

Explanation: This is one who intended [while offering the Korban] to eat Chutz li'Mkomo (where it is forbidden, e.g. Kodshei Kodoshim outside the Azarah, or Kodshim Kalim outside of the wall of Yerushalayim), and it includes one who eats outside the wall [even if he offered it with proper intent]. "Nosar" is one who intended [while offering it] to eat Chutz li'Zmano (after it is forbidden), and [what is normally called] Nosar is included (eating after the allowed time).

Remark: This Pigul and Nosar is like it says in Pesachim (16b) "if it refers to the Aveirah of Pigul, this was already written. If it refers to the Aveirah of Nosar..."

This is unlike "Pigul" in the entire Gemara, which is when one intended [while offering it] to eat Chutz li'Zmano, which here is called Nosar.

Explanation #1: He does not live to 60 years, which is normal death.

Support: It connotes like this in Mo'ed Katan (28a). When Rav Yosef turned 60, he made a celebration for Rabanan. He said "I left [concern for] Kares." Abaye said "granted, you left concern for Kares of years. Did you leave concern for Kares of days?!"

Explanation: This is like it says there. If one died on the first day [that he fell sick], this is death of anger. If [he was sick] two days, this is death of bewilderment. If [he was sick] three days, this is Kares.

Misah bi'Ydei Shamayim does not have a fixed time. Rather, he dies due to this Aveirah, even if he does not have another Aveirah.

And even according to the opinion (below, 55b) that there is death without sin, due to this Aveirah his days will be shortened.

Explanation #2: However, the Yerushalmi says [one who gets] Kares does not reach 50 [years]. It learns from "Al Tachrisu Es Shevet ha'Kehasi... v'Zos Asu Lahem vi'Chyu";

I.e. the Torah commanded to enact for them lest they die through their Avodah, before 50, and it says "Al Tachrisu." This connotes that Kares is dying before 50;

Misah [bi'Ydei Shamayim] said in the Torah is dying before 60, for it says "ba'Midbar ha'Zeh Yitamu v'Sham Yamusu", and the decree was only on men [at least] 20, that they will die before 40 [more years], and it is called Misah.

Distinction (Riva): However, his seed is not cut off, except for those [Aveiros of Kares] about which it says "Ariri."

Rebuttal (R. Tam): In Yevamos (55a), it says "why did the Torah write Ariri regarding one's aunt? This teaches like Rava..."

If his seed is cut off only for those [Aveiros] about which it says "Ariri", what was the question?

Implied question: Why didn't it say in Mo'ed Katan "granted, you left concern for Kares of years. Did you leave concern for Kares of children?!"

Answer: There it discusses when he does not have minor children. Only minors are punished due to their parents' sins, and not adults, like it connotes below (32b).

Question: In Toras Kohanim it excludes the wife of one's maternal brother from Kares, for it says "Eshes Achiv Nidah Hi' - just like there is a Heter for a Nidah, [the Torah forbids] Eshes Ach that has a Heter, i.e. the wife of one's paternal brother. She is permitted when she (really, his brother) has no children [when he dies];

In the entire Gemara, it connotes that there is Kares for her (the wife of one's maternal brother), like for other Arayos, for she is counted among the 15 women who exempt their Tzaros! (If a woman falls to Yibum to a relative forbidden with Kares, just like she is exempt from Yibum and Chalitzah, her co-wives are exempt.)

Remark: This is fine according to Riva. We can say that [Toras Kohanim] exempts [the wife of one's maternal brother] from Ariri. It is not proper to elaborate.

Question: The verse does not say l'Oro! We can say "give to him, and not something that is not proper for him at all"!

Answer: If so, it should write only "Titen", for Nesinah is always at least Shaveh [the value of] a Perutah. (This excludes Tamei Terumah, which is Asur b'Hana'ah.) Since it says "Lo", this connotes "for him, and not for his fire."

Explanation: [It is obligatory] in the place where he eats, due to Oneg (pleasure);

Abaye would not argue about Hadlakas Ner itself. Obviously it is obligatory, for the Mishnah says "for three Aveiros [women die during labor... One is] for not being careful about Hadlakas ha'Ner."

Explanation: Regarding washing the hands in hot water, it is called Chovah, for it is not such a Mitzvah. Mayim Acharonim is called Chovah due to danger of Sedom salt, and a person was killed due to [omitting] it, and it is more stringent than Mayim Rishonim.

Opinion #1: Some say not to bless on Hadlakas Ner, since it is called Chovah, like we say (Chulin 105a) that Mayim Acharonim is Chovah, and it does not require a Brachah.

Rebuttal (R. Tam): This is totally wrong. It is unlike Mayim Acharonim, which is merely for salvation [from harm];

However, Hadlakas Ner is an obligation of the Mitzvah of Oneg Shabbos. Several obligations require a Brachah!

Opinion #2: Some say another reason not to bless. If one found a lamp burning, he need not extinguish it and relight it, or light another.

Rebuttal #1: Regarding Kisuy ha'Dam (after Shechitah of a bird or Chayah, one must cover the blood), if the wind [blew sand] and covered it, he is exempt. Even so, when he covers it, he must bless!

Similarly, one who was born circumcised, there is an opinion that he need not extract a drop of blood for the sake of Bris Milah, yet a Beraisa (below, 137b) teaches that one who circumcises blesses!

Pesak: Sidur Rav Amram Gaon says that one who lights Ner Shabbos blesses "Asher Kideshanu..."

Rebuttal #2 (of: Opinion #2 (R. Tam): If a lamp was already burning, he must extinguish it and relight it, like that elder said "as long as he does not light too early or too late" (23b). (If he lit too early, he was not Yotzei.)

Implied question: Also kerosene smells bad, like it says above (12b), this refers to an oil lamp (a servant may not inspect cups and bowls using its light), and this refers to a kerosene lamp (he is permitted)!

And in Yoma (39a), it says "if one comes to measure kerosene (to buy it, the seller says) "measure it for yourself" (because it smells bad)!

Answer: Its odor is not as bad as tar.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Beis Shamai do not expound Semuchin. (They have no source to permit Kil'ayim in Tzitzis.)

Implied question: Why doesn't it say that they forbid?

Answer: They hold in general that garments in a box (i.e. even when he is not wearing them) are obligated. Here (that they are linen, and one may not wear them with Techeles) they are exempt. It is not appropriate to say "they forbid" (since there is no Isur when they are in a box).

Citation (Menachos 40a - Seifa of the Beraisa - R. Eliezer): Anyone who puts Techeles on his Sadin (linen garment) in Yerushalayim is shocking.

Note: Our text there says "R. Eliezer b'R. Tzadok." This was after the Bas Kol said that the Halachah follows Beis Hillel. Also below, Tosfos attributes this opinion to R. Eliezer b'R. Tzadok. The Reisha of the Beraisa says that Beis Shamai exempt a Sadin, Beis Hillel obligate, and the Halachah follows Beis Hillel.

Rebbi said if so, why did they forbid it? I.e. if so (the Halachah follows Beis Hillel, who obligate), those who are appalled at him, why do they do so (disapprove), since the Halachah follows Beis Hillel?

[The Gemara] answers that this is a decree, lest his Sadin tear (and there is no Mitzvah of Techeles to permit wearing Kil'ayim). It also answers that it is a decree due to a night garment [which is exempt from Tzitzis].

Explanation #1 (cont.): Rashi explained in a Teshuvah that they decreed only about Techeles, but it is obligated in its species (linen Tzitzis).

Implied question: [If so], why did an angel rebuke Rav Ketina (Menachos 41a) "in summer, you wear a Sadin. In winter, you wear a rounded (two-cornered) coat. What will be with Tzitzis?! (You never fulfill it!)

Answer: He meant, what will be with the ideal Mitzvah of Tzitzis (with Techeles), but he fulfilled Tzitzis with its species (in summer).

Also in our Sugya, [R. Yehudah's Talmidim] had Tzitzis with its species. They hid them from R. Yehudah, for he obligates putting Techeles, and he thought that they do like Beis Shamai mid'Oraisa;

They held that even Beis Hillel forbid mid'Rabanan, due to a night garment.

Objection #1 (Ri): In Menachos (41a), the Gemara seeks to prove that Tzitzis is an obligation on the garment (even when he is not wearing it) from early Chasidim. Once they wove three [by three fingers of the garment], they attached Tzitzis. We reject this (they were exceedingly stringent).

Why didn't we bring from here? It did not teach that [Beis Shamai] forbid! (Rashi explained that Beis Shamai obligate even when not wearing the garment, therefore it is not appropriate to say "they forbid." We do not find that Tana'im argue about this. If so, presumably also Beis Hillel obligate even when not wearing the garment!)

Strengthening of Objection #1: Also Bahag rules that Tzitzis is an obligation on the person, since we bless "to wrap oneself in Tzitzis."

Objection #2: We say in Yevamos (4a) regarding Kil'ayim in Tzitzis that even the one who does not expound Semuchim elsewhere, he expounds in Sefer Devarim. How can it be that Beis Shamai do not expound Semuchim?

Objection #3: Rav Amram Gaon rules like Beis Shamai in six matters, and he counts this among them. (If they do not expound Semuchim, the Halachah cannot follow them!)

Objection #4: Why did it mention [the argument regarding] Tzitzis on a Sadin (if all agree that we attach linen Tzitzis)? It should have mentioned Kil'ayim in Tzitzis!

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): All agree that we expound Semuchin. Beis Shamai exempt mid'Rabanan, due to a night garment, or lest it tear;

They exempt even from its species, since they mentioned Tzitzis on a Sadin, and not Techeles on a Sadin, like R. Eliezer b'R. Tzadok said "anyone who puts Techeles on his Sadin..."

Beis Hillel obligate even in Techeles. They disagree with these decrees of Beis Shamai.

We hold like Beis Shamai, like is proven from the end of this Beraisa. (If the Halachah follows Beis Hillel, why is it shocking to wear a Sadin?!)

Support: Now it is fine (the angel's rebuke), for Rav Ketina did not have Tzitzis at all;

Similarly, R. Yehudah's Talmidim did not have Tzitzis at all, for they hold like Beis Shamai.

Pesak (R. Tam): One should not make a linen Talis and put on Tzitzis even of its species, for we hold like Beis Shamai, who exempt. One who does so, his Brachah is l'Vatalah.

Inference: Since the Gemara mentioned this reason (due to a night garment), and not the reason lest it tear, this connotes that we hold like R. Shimon, who exempts a night garment in Menachos (43a).

Support: It connotes like this also in Brachos (14b). In Eretz Yisrael, they did not say Parshas Tzitzis (with Kri'as Shma) at night, just they begin "Daber El Bnei Yisrael";

Citation (14b - Abaye): Since they begin, also we begin. Since we begin, we finish [the Parshah].

Inference: All agree that there is no Mitzvah of Tzitzis at night. Therefore, women are exempt from Tzitzis.

Implied question: Rav Yehudah and Rav Amram put Tzitzis on their wives' garments (Menachos 43a, Sukah 11a), for they hold that it is a Mitzvas Aseh she'Lo ha'Zman Gerama (it applies at all times)!

Answer: The Halachah does not follow them, for it connotes that only they did so, but others did not.

Support: A Beraisa in Kidushin (33b) teaches that the following are Mitzvos Aseh sheha'Zman Gerama - Shofar, Lulav, Sukah and Tzitzis.