CHULIN 31-43 - Two weeks of study material have been dedicated by Mrs. Estanne Abraham Fawer to honor the Yahrzeit of her father, Rav Mordechai ben Eliezer Zvi (Rabbi Morton Weiner) Z'L, who passed away on 18 Teves 5760. May the merit of supporting and advancing Dafyomi study -- which was so important to him -- during the weeks of his Yahrzeit serve as an Iluy for his Neshamah.

1)

TOSFOS DH KI MEHANYA CHIBAS HA'KODESH LIPESULEI GUFEIH

úåñôåú ã"ä ëé îäðéà çéáú ä÷ãù ìôñåìé âåôéä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos proves that the Gemara is speaking min ha'Torah, but that mi'de'Rabbanan, Chibas ha'Kodesh does apply to count Rishon and Sheini.)

äùúà îñ÷éðï ãîãàåøééúà ÷îéáòé ìéä, àáì îãøáðï, îåãå ãîåðéï áå øàùåï åùðé.

(a)

Clarification: The Gemara now concludes that the She'eilah is mi'd'Oraysa, but that mi'de'Rabbanan, they concede that one counts Rishon and Sheini (by Chibas ha'Kodesh).

åëï îùîò ðîé ôø÷ äîðçåú åäðñëéí (îðçåú ãó ÷á:) ã÷àîø 'ðåúø åôøä òôøà áòìîà äåà, àîàé îèîà èåîàú àåëìéï? åîùðé, 'áçéáú ä÷ãù'. úôùåè ãáòé ø"ì ... ? åîùðé "ëé ÷îéáòéà ìéä ãàåøééúà, ëé àîøéðï ãøáðï" '.

(b)

Source: And os it is implied in Perek ha'Nesachim (Menachos 102:) where it asks that, since Nosar and Parah are mere dust, why are they Metamei Tum'as Ochlin? And they answer by ascribing it to Chibas ha'Kodesh. And on the Kashya 'Then let us resolve the She'eilah of Resh Lakish (whether Chibas ha'Kodesh makes a Rishon and Sheini)' the Gemara answers 'Resh Lakish asks about the Din d'Oraysa, whereas the Gemara here is speaking about de'Rabbanan'.

åäà ãàîø áô"÷ ãôñçéí (ãó ë.) âáé 'îçè ùðîöàú ááùø - äáùø èîà'. äàé áùø ãàúëùø áîàé, àé áçéáú ä÷ãù, àéîø ãîäðé çéáú ä÷ãù ìôñåìà ãâåôéä, ìîéîðé áéä øàùåï åùðé îé îäðé?

1.

Question (Part 1): And when the Gemara in the first Perek of Pesachim (Daf 20.) asks how, in the case of a needle that is found inside a piece of meat, where the meat is Tamei, the meat became Huchshar Lekabeil Tum'ah. If it is through Chibas ha'Kodesh, says the Gemara, perhaps Chibas ha'Kodesh only helps to invalidate the actual object, but not to count a Rishon or a Sheini?

åë"ú ä"ð, úôùåè äà ãáòé ø"ì ... ?

2.

Question (Part 2): And if you say that it does, then why can one not resolve Resh Lakish;s She'eilah ... '?

äåä îöé ìùðåéé 'ãø"ì îãàåøééúà áòé' ...

3.

Question (Part 3): The Gemara could have answered that Resh Lakish is only asking what the Din will be mi'd'Oraysa ...

àìà ùôéø îùðé ùí 'ëâåï ùäòáéøä áðäø'.

4.

Answer #1: Only the Gemara gives a very good answer there, when it establishes the case where he passed the animal across a river.

åòåã îùåí ãìøá éåñó ãìòéì áòé ðîé îãøáðï.

5.

Answer #2: And also because Rav Yosef there asked earlier what the Din will be de'Rabbanan as well.

åà"ú, úôùåè ãø"ì îãøáé éåñé á"ø çðéðà ãàîø 'îù÷é áéú äîèáçéí àéðå îëùéø', åàí îäðé çéáú ä÷ãù ìîéîðé áéä øàùåï åùðé, îð"î áäëùøï?

(c)

Question: Why can we not resolve Resh Lakish's She'eilah from Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina, who holds 'Mashki Beis ha'Mitbachayim is not Machshir. Now if Chibas ha'Kodesh was applicable to count Rishon and Sheini then why would we need a Hechsher anyway?

åé"ì, ãðô÷à îéðä ìòðéï ëîä ãáøéí ùäéå îáéàéí áòæøä, åâí çåìéï äéå îáéàéí ìàëåì òí äîðçåú åäæáçéí, ëãé ùéäå ðàëìéí òì äùåáò, ëãàîø áä÷åîõ øáä (îðçåú ãó ëà:).

(d)

Answer: The difference will manifest itself regarding many things that they brought into the Azarah (which were not subject to Chibas ha'Kodesh (such as Bikurim), and even Chulin, which they would bring to eat together with Zevachim and Menachos, so that the latter should be eaten 'al ha'Sova' (to satisfaction), as the Gemara explains in 'ha'Kometz Rabah (Menachos 21:).

2)

TOSFOS DH HA'SHOCHET ES HA'MESUKENES

úåñôåú ã"ä äùåçè àú äîñåëðú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Tana uses a Lashon of Bedi'eved, since it is permitted even Lechatchilah.)

àôéìå ìëúçìä ùøé.

(a)

Clarification: This is permitted even Lechatchilah ...

åð÷è ìùåï ãéòáã

(b)

Implied Question: And the reason that it uses a Lashon of Bedi'eved is ...

îùåí ãáòé ìîéúðé 'òã ùúôøëñ'.

(c)

Answer: Because it continues 'ad she'Tefarcheis'.

3)

TOSFOS DH SHE'EINAH CHAYAH LO SOCHAL

úåñôåú ã"ä ùàéðä çéä ìà úàëì

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the Gemara in Eilu T'reifos, which learns something else from the same Pasuk.)

áøéù àìå èøôåú (ì÷îï ãó î"á.) ãøéù îäàé ÷øà ãèøôä àéðä çéä.

(a)

Implied Question: At the beginning of 'Eilu T'reifos (42.), the Gemara Darshens from the same Pasuk that a T'reifah cannot live.

åäééðå ìôé äîñ÷ðà ãùîòúéï ãìà îéúå÷îà áîñåëðú.

(b)

Answer: That is according to the conclusion of our Sugya, that does not establish it by a Mesukenes.

4)

TOSFOS DH HASHTA ME'CHAYIM ASURAH L'ACHAR MISAH MIBA'EI

úåñôåú ã"ä äùúà îçééí àñåøä ìàçø îéúä îéáòéà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the Kal va'Chomer, and discusses the Asei of 'Einah Zevuchah'.)

äùúà ñáø ãñúí ðáìä îñåëðú äéà ÷åãí îéúä; åìäëé ãéé÷ ùôéø, ãàé ÷åãí îéúä àñåøä, ôùéèà ãîéúä ìà ùøéà ìä, ëãôéøù á÷åðèøñ.

(a)

Clarification: The Gemara currently holds that a S'tam Neveilah is a Mesukenes prior to its death, hence the Gemara's inference is correct, in that if it is forbidden prior to its death, it is obvious that death will not render it permitted, as Rashi explains.

åîéã äåä îöé ìîôøê 'ãìîà àúé ÷øà ìðáìä ãìà îëç îñåëðú ÷åãí îéúúä' - ëâåï ùòùàä âéñèøà?

(b)

Implied Question: The Gemara could have asked there and then 'Perhaps the Pasuk is speaking specifically about a Neveilah that was not a Mesukenes prior to its death - such as one which was torn apart' ...

àìà ãðèø òã ñåó äîñ÷ðà.

(c)

Answer: Only the Gemara waited till the end of the Sugya to ask it.

àáì àéï ìôøù ãàôéìå àôùø ìðáìä ùìà äéúä îñåëðú îòé÷øà, î"î ãéé÷, ãîãàñø øçîðà îñåëðú îùåí ã÷øåáä ìîéúä, ë"ù áäîä ùîúä ìâîøé.

(d)

Refuted Explanation: One cannot however, explain that even if the animal would not necessarily be a Mesukenes before it dies, the Gemara would still make the same inference, inasmuch as since the Torah forbids a Mesukenes because it is close to death, how much more so, an animal that is dead!

ãàò"â ãàñø øçîðà èøôä, åàô"ä àéöèøéê ìàñåø ðáìä ...

(e)

Implied Question: Even though the Torah finds it necessary to forbid Neveilah, despite the fact that it has already forbidden T'reifah ...

îùåí ãèøôä îéçñøà.

(f)

Answer: Because T'reifah (is different, in that it) is Chaser (whereas a Mesukenes is not).

àéï ìôøù ëê, ãà"ë îàé ôøéê áîñ÷ðà 'ãìîà àúà ÷øà ìäê ðáìä ãìà äåéà îñåëðú îòé÷øà, ëâåï ùòùàä âéñèøà'?

(g)

Refutation: We cannot learn like that, because if so, how can the Gemara later ask that 'Perhaps the Pasuk is speaking specifically about a Neveilah that was not a Mesukenes prior to its death - such as one which was torn apart'?

àìà ôùéèà ãàéï æä ÷ì åçåîø, ãàéñåø îñåëðú çîéø, ãçì îçééí ...

(h)

Conclusion: It is therefore obvious that this 'Kal va'Chomer' is unacceptable, due to the fact that a Mesukenes is more stringent, since it takes effect already during the animal's lifetime.

ëãàîø áæáçéí áôø÷ çèàú äòåó (ãó ò.), ãìà éìôéðï ðáìä îèøôä îùåí ãçîéøà ãàñåøä îçééí.

(i)

Precedent: As the Gemara says in Zevachim in Perek Chatas ha'Of (Daf 70.), where we do not learn Neveilah from T'reifah 'because, since the latter takes effect during the animal's lifetime, it is more stringent.

åà"ú, ìîàé ãôøéùéú 'àé àîøú ðîé îñåëðú ùøéà, ú÷ùé àîàé àöèøéê ÷øà ìàñåø ðáìä, äà àñåøä îçééí îùåí àéñåø ùàéðä æáåçä, ãøçîðà àîø "åæáçú", åæå ìà ðùçèä ...

(j)

Question (Part 1): According to what we just said, even assuming a Mesukenes is permitted, why do we need a Pasuk to render a Neveilah forbidden, seeing as it is forbidden whilst it is still alive, there already exists an Asei of 'Einah Zevuchah that began in its lifetime, since the Torah writes "Vezavachta", and this animal has not been Shechted ...

ãîî"ð àó ìàçø ùðúðáìä, àéëà òùä ãùàéðä æáåçä ...

(k)

Question (Part 2): because 'Mah Nafshach' even after it became a Neveilah, the Asei of 'Einah Zevuchah' (not eating an animal that has not been Shechted) remains ...

ëãîùîò áôø÷ ëì ùòä (ôñçéí ãó ìå.) åáô"÷ ãðæéø (ãó ã.) ãø"ù àåîø 'äàåëì ðáìä áéåä"ë ôèåø îùåí ãàéï àéñåø çì òì àéñåø', îùîò àôéìå ðúðáìä áéåä"ë ôèåø, îùåí ãàéï àéñåø çì òì àéñåø.

(l)

Source: As is implied in Perek Kol Sha'ah (Pesachim 36.) and in the first Perek of Nazir (4.), where Rebbe Shimon says that 'Someone who eats Neveilah on Yom Kipur is Patur, due to the principle 'Ein Isur Chal al Isur'. implying that even if it became a Neveilah on Yom Kipur itself.

åäùúà ëùîúä, ô÷ò àéñåø àáø îï äçé; àîàé ìà çì àéñåø éåä"ë òí àéñåø ðáìä ááú àçú?

(m)

Question (Part 3): Now surely when the animal dies, the Isur of Eiver min ha'Chai falls away. So why should the Isur of Neveilah Yom Kipur take effect simultaneously with that of Neveilah?

àìà åãàé ìòåìí àéëà àéñåø ãùàéðä æáåçä, åìäëé ìà çééì òìéä àéñåø éåä"ë, ãîçééí ðîé äåä áä àéñåø æä, åàëúé ìà ô÷ò?

(n)

Question (Part 4): It is therefore clear that there is an Isur of Einah Zevuchah already in its lifetime which does not depart (and which prevents that of Yom Kipur from taking effect).

åéù ìåîø, ãäåä îöé ìîéîø åìèòîéê.

(o)

Answer: The Gemara could indeed have retorted 'u'le'Ta'amech' (to offset te Kashya).

5)

TOSFOS DH DILMA HAYNU NEVEILAH HAINU MESUKENES

úåñôåú ã"ä ãìîà äééðå ðáìä äééðå îñåëðú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos differentiates between this question and the same question that the Gemara asked a little earlier.)

àéï ôéøåùå ëääéà ãáñîåê ...

(a)

Clarification: The explanation of this question is not synonymous with the same question that the Gemara asked just before ...

ãäùúà áòé ìîéîø ã÷åãí îéúä îùðñúëðä ÷øé ìä ðáìä.

(b)

Reason: Because now all the Gemara wants to say is that before it dies, from the moment its life is jeopardized it is already called a Neveilah.

6)

TOSFOS DH HASHTA MESUKENES D'LO MECHASRA ASURAH TEREIFAH MIBA'EI

úåñôåú ã"ä äùúà îñåëðú ãìà îçñøà àñåøä èøôä îéáòéà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara cannot establish The case by a T'reifah that is not lacking a limb.)

åë"ú, àöèøéê ìèøôä ãìà îçñøà - ëâåï ãéúéø?

(a)

Suggested Answer: And if you want to say that we need it for T'reifah that is not lacking, such as one that comprises an extra limb?

ëéåï ã'ëì éúø ëðèåì ãîé', äà ðîé îéçñø.

(b)

Refutation: Since we have the principle that 'Whatever is excessive is as if it is removed', that too, is considered lacking.

åðôìä ðîé çùåáä ëîçñøà.

(c)

Conclusion: And Naflah (if the animal fell to the ground [see Daf 42.]) too is considered lacking.

7)

TOSFOS DH V'DILMA HAINU TEREIFAH HAINU MESUKENES

úåñôåú ã"ä åãìîà äééðå èøôä äééðå îñåëðú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos equates this Kashya with the one to he referred in DH 'Dilma Haynu Neveilah?', and wonders why the Gemara did not answer there like it answers here.)

äàé ôéøåùå ëääéà ãìòéì ...

(a)

Clarification: The explanation here is the same as one that we learned earlier (to which we referred in DH 'Dilma ... ') ...

ãäùúà áòé ìîéîø ãëì îñåëðú ÷øé ìä èøôä, ãèøôä ìùåï îñåëðú - ëìåîø ÷øåáä ìîåú, áéï îéçñøà áéï ìà îéçñøà.

(b)

Reason: Since what the Gemara now wants to say is that every Mesukenes is called a T'reifah, that T'reifah is a Lashon of Mesukenes - meaning that it close to dying, whether it lacks a limb or not.

å÷"÷ ãìòéì ãôøéê 'äééðå ðáìä äééðå îñåëðú', ìà ÷àîø 'ìòáåø òìéå áòùä åìà úòùä', ëã÷àîø äëà?

(c)

Question: When the Gemara asked earlier 'Haynu Neveilah, Haynu Mesukenes?', why did it not answer 'to transgress an Asei and a Lo Sa'aseh', like it answers here?

37b----------------------------------------37b

8)

TOSFOS DH U'MAH ME'CHAYIM ASI ISUR TEREIFAH V'CHAYIL A'ISUR NEVEILAH

úåñôåú ã"ä åîä îçééí àúé àéñåø èøôä åçééì à'àéñåø çìá

(SUMMARY: Tosfos queries Rashi's explanation of the Sugya, and suggests two other approaches, though he finds problems with the latter explanation too.)

ôé' á÷åðèøñ, åîä îçééí ãàéñåø îñåëðú àéðå àìà îçîú ÷éøåá îéúä, çì òì àéñåø çìá, ðáìä âåôä îéáòéà?

(a)

Explanation #1 (Part 1): Rashi explains that if already during the animal's lifetime where the Isur Mesukenes is merely due to the fact that it is cl;ose to death, the Isur of T'reifah takes effect on that of Cheilev, need it mention Neveilah itself?

åîãàéöèøéê ìàùîåòéðï áðáìä, îëìì ãîñåëðú ìàå èøôä î÷øé, åàéöèøéê ìàùîåòéðï áäê ðáìä ãàúéà îëç îñåëðú åìà àúéà îëç èøôä, ùìà ðèøôä ÷åãí ìëï, ãúéçåì à'àéñåø çìá.

(b)

Explanation #1 (Part 2): Consequently, since it does find it necessary to mention Neveilah, we can infer that a Mesukenes is not considered a T'reifah, and it needs to inform us that Neveilah that comes from a Mesukenes and not from a T'reifah (i.e. which was not a T'reifah prior to its death), takes effect on Cheilev.

åî÷"å ãèøôä ìà àúéà ...

(c)

Implied Question: And we cannot learn this from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from T'reifah ...

ãèòîà ãèøôä ìàå îùåí ÷éøåá îéúä äåà àìà îùåí çñøåï ...

(d)

Answer: since the reason by T'reifah is not because it is close to death, but because it is lacking ...

ëãîöøëéðï ìúøåééäå áæáçéí áôø÷ çèàú äòåó (ãó ò.).

(e)

Source: Just like the Gemara needs to mention both of them in Zevachim in Perek Chatas ha'Of (Daf 70.).

å÷ùä ìôéøåùå, ãàîàé ìà éìôéðï ùôéø ùéçåì àéñåø ðáìä òì àéñåø çìá î÷"å ãèøôä? ãàé îùåí ãèøôä îçñøà, ðáìä ðîé ëéåï ãîúä àéï ìê çñøåï âãåì îæä?

(f)

Question #1: Why can we not learn that the Isur Neveilah takes effect on that of Cheilev from a 'Kal va'Chomer'? And as for the fact that T'reifah is lacking (Chaser), the fact is that Neveilah too, where the animal is dead, there is no bigger Chesoron that that?

åòåã, îàé ôøéê áúø äëé 'åãìîà àéöèøéê ÷øà ìðáìä ãìà àúéà îëç îñåëðú', ääéà ðîé àúéà î÷"å ëãëúéáðà ìòéì.

(g)

Question #2: Furthermore, what does the Gemara ask afterwards 'Perhaps we need the Pasuk for Neveilah which does not come from a Mesukenes?' Since that too, we learned from a 'Kal va'Chomer', as we explained above (Amud 'Alef' DH 'Hashta me'Chayim')?

åò"÷, ðäé ðîé ãîñåëðú ìà äåé áìàå ãèøôä, î"î úúñø áòùä î÷øà ã"æàú äçéä", ãîùîò ùàéðä çéä ìà úéëåì?

(h)

Question #3: Moreover, granted that a Mesukenes is not included in the La'av of T'reifah, it ought nevertheless to be forbidden due to the Asei of "Zos ha'Chayah", implying that whatever cannot live one may not eat?

åîéäå áæä é"ì àé äåä îå÷îà ÷øà ã"æàú äçéä" áîñåëðú ìàåñøä, äåä îñúáø ðîé ìàå÷åîé áä ìàå ãèøôä ...

(i)

Answer to Question #3 (Part 1): This Kashya one can answer however, in that if we were to establish the Pasuk of "Zos ha'Chayah" to forbid a Mesukenes, it would be logical to establish it by the La'av of T'reifah ...

ãëé äéëé ãòùä ã"æàú äçéä" îúå÷îà áúøåééäå, ãúøåééäå îé÷øå 'àéðä çéä', ä"ð ìàå ãèøôä îúå÷îà áúøåééäå, åà"ë ðáìä ãëúá øçîðà ãçì òì àéñåø çìá ì"ì?

(j)

Answer to Question #3 (Part 2): Because just as the Asei of "Zos ha'Chayah" refers to both of them, since both fall under the heading of 'Einah Chayah', so too, will the La'av of T'reifah refer to both of them. If so, why do we need the Neveilah that is written in connection with Cheilev?

åø"ú îôøù, ãä"÷ 'åîä èøôä ãîçééí åìà îèîà, çééì òì àéñåø çìá, ðáìä ãìàçø îéúä åîèîà, îéáòéà?

(k)

Explanation #2 (Part 1): According to Rabeinu Tam, what the Gemara means to say is that 'If already T'reifah which occurs during the animal's lifetime and which is not subject to Tum'ah, takes effect on the Isur of Cheilev, how much more so Neveilah, which occurs after its death and which is subject to Tum'ah!

åìéëà ìîéôøê ëãôøéê áôø÷ çèàú äòåó (â"æ ùí) ã'èøôä çîåøä, ãçééì àéñåøä îçééí!'

(l)

Refuted Question: And we cannot ask like we do in Perek Chatas ha'Of (Ibid.) that T'reifah is more stringent, since its Isur takes effect during its lifetime ...

ãäúí ÷àîø ìôé äîñ÷ðà ãäëà ãîñåëðú ùøéà.

(m)

Refutation (Part 1): Since that Gemara there goes according to the conclusion of our Gemara's, that a Mesukenes is permitted.

àáì ìîàé ãáòé ìîéîø äùúà - ãàéñåø ðáìä ðîé îúçéì àéñåø ùìä îçééí, ãà"à ùìà äéúä îñåëðú, åîñåëðú àñéøà îèòí ðáìä îçîú ÷éøåá îéúä.

(n)

Refutation (Part 2): Bur according to what we are currently saying - that the Isur Neveilah begins already in its lifetime, because it is impossible for the animal not to have been a Mesukenes, and a Mesukenes is forbidden because of Neveilah, since it brings its death closer.

åàôéìå àí ðàîø ùìà éäà áîñåëðú àìà àéñåø òùä, ìà ùééê ìîéôøê 'îä ìèøôä ùëï îçééí áìàå', ëéåï ãî"î àéñåø ðáìä îçééí, ùôéø äåä éãòéðï ìä ùéçåì òì àéñåø çìá î÷"å ãèøôä.

(o)

Refutation (Part 3): What's more, even if we say that there is only an Isur Asei by Mesukenes, one can still ask that T'reifah is different since there is a La'av, seeing as in any event, the Isur Neveilah applies in its lifetime, we would have known that it takes effect on the Isur of Cheilev from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from T'reifah.

àáì äùúà ãîñåëðú ùøéà, ùééê ùôéø ìîéôøê 'îä ìèøôä ùëï çì àéñåø ùìä îçééí, úàîø áðáìä ùàéï ëàï àéñåø îçééí ëìì.

(p)

Conclusion: However, now that Mesukenes is permitted, it makes sense to ask from T'reifah that takes effect during the animal's lifetime, whereas Neveilah does not apply then at all.

åäùúà ôøéê ùôéø áúø äëé ã'ìòåìí àéîà ìê îñåëðú àñåøä, åàöèøéê ÷øà ùéáà àéñåø ðáìä åéçåì òì àéñåø çìá ìðáìä ãìà äåé îñåëðú îòé÷øà, ëâåï ùòùàä âéñèøà, ãääéà ìà ðàñø îçééí åìà àúé á÷"å ãèøôä.

(q)

Explanation #2 (Part 2): According to this, the Gemara is justified in asking afterwards 'Really, I will say that even if a Mesukenes is forbidden, and we need the Pasuk to inform us that the Isur Neveilah comes and takes effect on the Isur of Cheilev in the case of a Neveilah that was not initially a Mesukenes, such as that of Gist'ra (where the animal was torn apart down the middle), which is not forbidden during its lifetime and we cannot therefore learn it from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from T'reifah?

åøáéðå âøùåí äéä îôøù - 'åîä îçééí àúé àéñåø èøôä çééì à'àéñåø çìá ... ', àò"â ãìéëà ìîéîø áèøôä - 'îâå ãçééì à'äàé àéñåø çééì ðîé à'äàé àéñåø ãçìá', ðáìä ùì àçø îéúä ùäéúä îñåëðú áúçìä, ãàéëà ìîéîø îâå ãçééì äàé àéñåø ðáìä à'àéñåø îñåëðú çééì ðîé à'àéñåø çìá, ìà îéáòéà?

(r)

Explanation #3 (Part 1): Rabeinu Gershon explains the Sugya like this: 'And if during the animal's lifetime the Isur T'reifah takes effect on the Isur Cheilev', even though we cannot apply a 'Migu' and say that since it takes effect on one Isur, it also takes effect on the Isur of Cheilev, it does not need to mention Neveilah of after death, which was a Mesukenes before, and where we can say that since it took effect on the Isur of Mesukenes, it also took effect on the Isur of Cheilev,?

àìà åãàé îãàéöèøéê ÷øà ìîëúá ðáìä, îëìì ãîñåëðú ùøéà ìâîøé.

(s)

Explanation #3 (Part 2): We must therefore say that since the Pasuk finds it necessary to mention Neveilah, Mesukenes must be completely permitted.

åäùúà ôøéê ùôéø 'åãìîà àéöèøéê ìòùàä âéñèøà ãìéëà îâå, ùäøé ìà äéúä îñåëðú?

(t)

Explanation #3 (Part 3): According to this too, the Gemara is justified when it asks later 'Perhaps the Torah needs to write it in a case where he made it a Gist'ra, where there is no 'Migu', since it was not previously a Mesukenes?

å÷ùä ìôé'. ùàéï äù"ñ îæëéø îâå æä ëìì?

(u)

Question #1: The problem with this explanation is that the Gemara does not mention the 'Migu' at all?

åòåã, ãàéëà ìîéôøê ãàéëà ðîé îâå áèøôä ãçééì ðîé à'àéñåø ùàéðå æáåç?

(v)

Question #2 (Part 1): Furthermore, one can ask a 'Pircha' on this in that there is also a 'Migu with regard to the Isur T'reifah, since it also takes effect on that of 'Eino Zavu'ach'?

åìî"ã áôø÷ âéã äðùä (ì÷îï ãó ÷â.) 'áäîä áçééä ìàáøéí òåîãú', çééì ðîé àéñåø èøôä à'àéñåø àáø îï äçé, åàéëà îâå?

(w)

Question #3: Whereas according to the opinion in 'Gid ha'Nasheh' (Daf 103.) that holds 'Beheimah be'Chayehah le'Evarim Omedes', the Isur T'reifah will also take effect on the Isur of Eiver min ha'Chai, leaving us with a 'Migu'?

åòåã, àôéìå ëé àîøú ãîñåëðú àñéøà, åàéëà îâå áðáìä, ìà ùééê ìîéìó î÷"å ãèøôä, ëéåï ãàéëà ìîéôøê 'îä ìèøôä ùëï àñåøä îçééí ... ', ëãôøéê áæáçéí (ãó ò.)?

(x)

Question #4: And finally, even if we say that a Mesukenes is forbidden, and there is a 'Migu' with regard to Neveilah, one cannot learn it from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from T'reifah, due to the 'Pircha' 'Mah li'Tereifah she'Kein Asurah meChayim'? as the Gemara asks in Zevachim (70.)?

9)

TOSFOS DH SHE'LO HURMU MATNOSEHAH

úåñôåú ã"ä ùìà äåøîå îúðåúéä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the Chidush of Yechezkel, according to Rebbi Yochanan, who considers this case Tevel.)

åàí úàîø, ìøáé éåçðï, ãàîø ì÷îï áôø÷ äæøåò (ãó ÷ìá:) 'äàåëì îáäîä ùìà äåøîå îúðåúéä ëàéìå àåëì èáìéí', îàé øáåúéä ãéçæ÷àì?

(a)

Question: According to Rebbi Yochanan, who says later in Perek ha'Zero'a (Daf 132:) that someone who eats from an animal whose Matanos have not been separated, is considered as if he has eaten Tevel', what is the Chidush o Yechezkel?

àò"â ãéçæ÷àì ëäï äéä ...

(b)

Suggested Answer: Even though Yechezkel was a Kohen ...

ëäï òöîå öøéê ìäôøéù úøåîåú åîòùøåú, åàñåø ìàëåì èáì.

(c)

Refutation: A Kohen is also obligated to separate Terumos and Ma'asros. He too, is forbidden to eat Tevel.

åéù ìåîø, ãøáé éåçðï ñáø ëî"ã ùìà àëì îáäîä ùäåøä áä çëí.

(d)

Answer: Rebbi Yochanan will hold like those who learn later that what Yechezkel did not eat was from an animal which required a Chacham to Pasken that it is Kasher.

10)

TOSFOS DH SHE'LO HIRHARTI BA'YOM ETC.

úåñôåú ã"ä ùìà äøäøúé áéåí ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos why this is a Chidush, despite the Gemara in Avodah-Zarah, which presents this as a general prohibition.)

åàí úàîø, îàé øáåúéä ãéçæ÷àì, åäìà ëì àãí ðîé àñåø, ëãàîø áô"÷ ãîñëú ò"æ (ãó ë:) åáôø÷ ðòøä ùðúôúúä (ëúåáåú ãó îå.) "åðùîøú îëì ãáø øò", 'ùìà éäøäø áéåí ... '?

(a)

Question: What is the Chidush of Yechezkel, seeing as this forbidden to everyone, as the Gemara says in the first Perek of Avodah-Zarah (Daf 20:) and in Perek Na'arah she'Nispatsah (Kesuvos 46.), based on the Pasuk "Venishmarta mi'Kol Davar Ra" - 'that a person may not think lewd thoughts by day ... ')?

åé"ì, ãàô"ä çùéá ìéä øáåúà, îùåí ãàîøéðï áôø÷ âè ôùåè (á"á ãó ÷ñã:) 'ùìùä ãáøéí àéï àãí ðéöåì îäí áëì éåí - äøäåø òáéøä, åìùåï äøò, åòéåï úôìä'.

(b)

Answer: It is nevertheless considered a Chidush, now that the Gemara in Perek Get Pashut (Bava Basra 164:) cites three things from which one cannot escape each day 'Lewd thoughts, Lashon ha'Ra and Iyun Tefilah' (see Sugya there).

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF