1)

TOSFOS DH AMAI PATAR REBBI SHIMON SHECHITAH RE'UYAH HI

úåñ' ã"ä àîàé ôèø ø"ù ùçéèä øàåéä äéà

(Summary: Tosfos explains why the Gemara does not answer that he Shechted the mother first and then broke the neck of the daughter.)

ä÷ùä äø"ø îùä îôåðèééæà ìéùðé ãùçè àîä åàç"ë òøôä ìáúä, ãòøéôúä æå äéà ùçéèúä... ?

(a)

Question: Rebbi Moshe from Pontaiza asked - Why does the Gemara not answer that he Shechted the mother and then broke the daughter's neck, in which case the Arifah is considered its Shechitah? ...

ëãàéúà áôø÷ ùðé ùòéøé (éåîà ãó ñã.) 'ãçééúå ìöå÷ æå äéà ùçéèúå' .

1.

Precedent: Like the Gemara states in Perek Sh'nei Se'irei (Yoma, Daf 64a) 'Pushing it off the cliff is considered its Shechitah'.

åéù ìåîø, ãîëì î÷åí ìà äéä ìå ìúðà ì÷øåúå ùçéèä...

(b)

Answer: The Tana should nevertheless have called it Shechitah ...

ãäúí àéï ááøééúà åùçèä, ø÷ áòé ìàùëåçé áéä îçåñø æîï áîùúìç.

1.

Reason: Seeing as the Beraisa does not mention Shechitah, and it is merely trying to find a case of Mechusar Z'man by Mishtale'ach.

2)

TOSFOS DH HA ITS'RA LAH ME'CHAYIM

úåñ' ã"ä äà àéúñøà ìä îçééí

(Summary: Tosfos explains why we compare Eglah Arufah Asham Taluy, and not, Asham Vaday.)

åà"ú, åîä áëê? åäøé àùí åãàé ãðåãò òã ùìà ðùçè, éöà åéøòä?

(a)

Question: So what if it is? We have a case of Asham Vaday where it was known before the Shechitah, yet it goes out to graze ... ?

åéù ìåîø, ãéù ìðå ìãîåéé òâìä òøåôä ìàùí úìåé ...

(b)

Answer: It is more logical to compare Eglah Arufah to Asham Taluy (See Olas Shlomoh) ...

ùáàä ìëôø äñô÷, ùòì ñô÷ áàúä îúçìä, ëéôø...

1.

Reason: Which comes to atone for a Safek, since it comes initially on a Safek, and it atones ...

åàí ëï, ãîéúñø îçééí, âí àçø ùðåãò, áàéñåø äøàùåï òåîãú.

2.

Reason (cont.): In which case, since it is Asur while it is still alive, even after it is known, it still retains its original Isur.

3)

TOSFOS DH TANA'I HI N'EMAR MACHSIR U'MECHAPER BI'FENIM V'N'EMAR MACHSIR U'MECHAPER BA'CHUTZ ETC. AF MACHSHIR U'MECHAPER BA'CHUTZ ASAH MACHSHIR

úåñ' ã"ä úðàé äéà ðàîø îëùéø åîëôø áôðéí åðàîø îëùéø åîëôø áçåõ ëå' àó îëùéø åîëôø áçåõ òùä îëùéø

(Summary: Tosfos discusses this Sugya and the Sugya in Kidushin in detail. He disagrees with Rashi's explanation.)

ôéøåù öôåøé îöåøò ëîëôø òâìä òøåôä.

(a)

Clarification #1: This refers to the birds of a Metzora like the Mechaper - Eglah Arufah.

å÷ùä, îðìï ãîéúñøà îçééí? àéîà ãéìéó îòâìä òøåôä, åöôåøé îöåøò ðàñøéí ìàçø ùçéèä?

(b)

Question: From where do we know that it (Eglah Arufah) is Asur in its lifetime?

åëï ÷ùéà ôø÷ äàéù î÷ãù (÷ãåùéï ãó ðæ. åùí), ãîééúé îéðä ãöôåøé îöåøò îéúñøé îçééí?

(c)

Question #2: And the same Kashya will apply to the Gemara in Perek ha'Ish Mekadesh (Kidushin, Daf 57a & 57b), where it learns from the same source that the birds of a Metzora are Asur in their lifetimes?

åá÷åðè' ôéøù ëàï 'àìîà ñáéøà ìéä òâìä òøåôä àñéøà îçééí, ãëé äéëé ãâîø îëùéø îîëôø, ëì ùëï ãâîø îëôø îîëôø ...

(d)

Refuted Answer: Rashi explains here - 'So we see that he holds Eglah Arufah is Asur in its lifetime, because if he learns Machshir from Mechaper, how much more so will he learn Mechaper from Mechaper ...

òâìä îùòéø äîùúìç -åùòéø äîùúìç åãàé àñåø îçééí ëùàø ÷ãùéí...

1.

Refuted Answer (cont.): Eglah from Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach, which is certainly Asur in its lifetime, like other Kodshim.

åãåç÷- ãà''ë òé÷ø, äúåëçä äåà çåõ îï äñôø?

2.

Refutation: This is a Dochek however - because if so, the main proof is not mentioned in the Gemara?

åøáéðå îôøù 'ãîëùéø áçåõ' äééðå îùåìçú, åáî÷öú ñôøéí äåà ëúéá ...

(e)

Authentic Explanation #1: Rabeinu therefore explains that 'Machshir ba'Shutz' refers to the Meshulachas, in in some Sefarim it mentions it specifically ...

åä"ô -àó áçåõ òùä îëùéø îùåìçú ãàñåø áäðàä ëîå òâìä òøåôä, åäãø ðéìó ùçåèä îîëùéø- ëé äéëé ãàñåøä îçééí, äëé ðîé òâìä ...

1.

Clarification: This means that - also ba'Chutz, the Torah made the Machshir of Meshulachas Asur be'Hana'ah, just like Eglah Arufah, and we then learn Shechutah from Machshir - in that just as it is Asur in its lifetime, so too the Eglah ...

åäëé ðîé ùçåèä àñåøä îçééí.

2.

Clarification (cont.): And so too, is the Shechutah Asur in its lifetime.

åðéçà äùúà äê ã÷ãåùéï.

(f)

Conclusion: And the Sugya in Kidushin now fits nicely as well.

åòåã éù ìúøõ ääéà äúí -ãòì ëøçê äê áðéï àá ãîëùéø ëîëôø ìà àúà àìà ììîã òì öôåøé îöåøò ãàñéøé îçééí ...

(g)

Authentic Explanation #2: Furthermore one can answer the Gemara there as follows - That the Binyan Av of Machshir like Mechaper can only be coming to teach us that the birds of the Metzora are Asur in their lifetime ...

ãàé ìàçø ùçéèä ì"ì, î"åæä àùø ìà úàëìå" 'ìøáåú äùçåèä' ùîòéðï àéñåø äðàä.

1.

Reason: Because as far as after the Shechitah is concerned, we would already know the Isur Han'ah from the Pasuk "Ve'zeh asher Lo Sochlu".

åà"ú, î"åæä àùø ìà úàëìå" äéëé îùúîò îéðéä àéñåø äðàä, åäìà äåà ëúåá âáé òåôåú èîàéï ãîåúøéï áäðàä?

(h)

Question: How can one learn an Isur Hana'ah from "la'Zeh asher Lo Sochlu", seeing as that nis written in connection with Tamei birds that are Mutar be'Hana'ah?

åé"ì, ãëéåï ãâìé ìï ÷øà ãùçåèä îéúñøà, ñáøà äåà ùâí äîùåìçú ùúàñø òã äùéìåç ...

(i)

Answer: Since the Torah reveals to us that the Shechutah is Asur, it stands to reason that also the Meshulachas is Asur until it is sent away ...

ùñáøà äåà ùùúéäï ùååú òã âîø îöååúï...

1.

Reason: Since it is a S'vara that the two birds are equal until the conclusion of their respective Mitzvos ...

åàéñåø ùáîùåìçú äééðå àéñåø äðàä ;äéìëê ùçåèä ðîé úéàñø áäðàä.

2.

Reason (cont.): Since it is a S'vara that the two birds are equal until the conclusion of their respective Mhe Meshulachas is an Isur Hana'ah, so too, is the Isur Shechutah Asur be'Hana'ah.

åëï ö"ì áñåâéà ãäúí.

(j)

Conclusion: And this is how one has to learn the Sugya there anyway.

25b----------------------------------------25b

4)

TOSFOS DH ASHAM TALUY BA AL HA'NEVEILAH

úåñ' ã"ä àùí úìåé áà òì äðáìä

(Summary: Tosfos, citing Rashi, clarifies the statement and elaborates.)

ôéøù á÷åðèøñ òì ñô÷ àéñåø ìàå ...

(a)

Clarification: On a Safek Isur La'av, Rashi explains ...

'î"è ãàîøå ìå? àîø ÷øà "àùø ìà úòùéðä áùââä åàùí" '... ãàôéìå ìéëà ùââä àìà áîéãé ãìàå ãäééðå ùìà éòùä, çééá.

1.

Clarification (cont.): 'What is the reason of Amru lo? Because the Torah says 'asher Lo Se'asenah bi'Shegagah ve'Asheim" ' ...

ðøàä ãìà ÷àîø ùéäà çåáä ìäáéàå (ìøáðï) [ìãàîøå ìå] òì òáéøú ìàå...

(b)

Refuted Explanation: It seems that this does not mean that, according to Amru lo, he has a Chiyuv to bring an Asham Taluy on a regular La'av ...

ãäà ëúéá "åìà éãò" -àèå òì àëéìú ñô÷ ðáìä îáéà, åìà òì åãàé àëéìú ðáéìä?

1.

Reason: Seeing as the Torah writes "ve'Lo Yada" - Would he have to bring it on eating a Safek Neveilah, and not on eating a Vaday Neveilah?

àìà ðøàä ã"ìà éãò" ã÷øà ìòðéï çåáä, åìòðéï ãáø ùàí éååãò ìå, éáéà òì ùââúå çèàú ...

(c)

Authentic Explanation: It therefore seems that the "Lo Yada" mentioned in the Pasuk refers to a Chovah, with regard to a sin be'Shogeg, which, if he was aware of it, he would have to bring a Chatas ...

åàéú ìäå â"ù ã"îöåú" "îöåú" ...

(d)

Implied Question: And although they hold of the Gezeirah Shavah of "Mitzvos" "Mitzvos" ...

àáì àäðé ìéä "ìà úòùéðä" ãàó òì òáéøåú ìàå éëåì ìäáéàå...

1.

Answer: They hold that "Lo Se'asenah" is effective in that he may bring it even on S'tam La'avin.

åøáðï ãøùé âæéøä ùåä ã"îöåú" "îöåú "ìàôå÷é ìàå ãìà îééúé òìéä ëìì.

(e)

Explanation (Rabanan): Whereas the Rabanan Darshen the Gezeirah Shavah of "Mitzvos" "Mitzvos" to preclude S'tam La'avin, on which one does not bring a Korban at all.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF