Implied Question: Even though "Chamor" is written first ...

Answer: The Tana discusses them in this order, because it works out better.

Question: ha'Rav Asher from Lunil asked the Ri how the Tana can possibly think that from Geneivah, Shor and Seh we can include everything?

Question (cont.): ... if it would be a P'rat u'Kelal, we would only include living creatures; How can we now include via a K'lal u'P'rat u'Kelal more than what is implied in the latter K'lal?

Answer: And the Ri answered him that, since the Gemara has not yet taken into account the aspects of 'Kadosh bi'Bechoros' and 'Kareiv le'Gabei Mizbe'ach', if we will now say 'Just as the P'rat is living creature ... ', it will transpire that the latter K'lal - "Chayim" - is not telling us anything more than what is similar to the P'rat.

Answer (cont.): ... and that being the case, we must say that "Chayim" is a K'lal which implies everything, like "Geneivah", because since it is not needed for 'Chayim' Mamash, we will use it to include everything.

Alternative: Or we will translate "Chayim" as an expression of Chashivus ...

Precedent: ... like 'Achyeih le'Keren K'ein She'Ganav' in the Gemara later (on Daf 85a).

Conclusion: And when it says 've'ha'Kol bi'Chelal', it means that if it came only to include what is similar to the P'rat (living creatures), then it would need to write only "Geneivah" and "Chayim", in which case, "Geneivah" would be the K'lal and "Chayim", the P'rat, from which we would learn living creatures.

Implied Question: And when the Gemara asks that the latter K'lal is not equivalent to the former one - even though we just explained that "Chayim" implies everything, just like the K'lal 'Geneivah' ...

Answer: ... nevertheless, since their simple interpretations are not equal, one cannot make them into a K'lal u'P'rat u'K'lal.

Answer: And the Gemara answers - 'We would otherwise have thought that whatever goes on the Mizbe'ach, yes ... '. The K'lal "Chayim" is as it implies, and from what is similar to the P'rat we preclude other animals that are not fit to go on the Mizbe'ach ...

Answer (cont.): .. this is like other cases, where what is similar to the P'rat comes to preclude from the latter K'lal.

Conclusion: So everything fits nicely into place according to the explanation of the Ri.

Question: Except for the last D'rashah, which states - 'Let it say "G'neivah, Shor, Seh, Chamor and Chayim", and everything will be included?'; Seeing as the Gemara wants to say that everything is included in "Chayim" ...

Question (cont.): ... what does the Gemara answer when it says 'If so, we would have said that "Just as the P'rat explicitly refers to living creatures ... " '?, when from the P'rat we are including in the K'lal of "Chayim" even things that are not living creatures?

Answer #1: The Ri answers that the Metaretz did not understand the words of the Makshan, and so he simply reiterates the question itself and explains it.

Refutation: This is not correct however, as it is not the way of the Gemara - but rather that it is the same Tana who asks and who answers his own Kashya.

Answer #2: The answer therefore is that the Tana is coming to elaborate ...

Answer #2 (cont.): ... in that, even if you say there is no difference between Ba'alei-Chayim and non Ba'alei-Chayim, and if we don't preclude from "Chayim" things that are not Ba'alei-Chayim, nevertheless, from the P'rat of "Shor" we will not include whatever is movable and has intrinsic value ...

Answer #2 (concl.): And you will then ask why we need "Himatzei Timatzei"?

Reason: ... seeing as from the P'rat of "Shor" we only include things that go on the Mizbe'ach.

Continuation of Answer #2: The Gemara concludes - 'Let it then say "Geneivah, ve'Shor, va'Chamor, Seh ve'Chayim", and everything will be included?'

Continuation of Answer #2 (cont.): And it answers that, if so, we would have thought that 'Just as the P'rat is intrinsically Ba'alei-Chayim ... '.

Explanation (cont.): Now that it cannot find any other distinction, it differentiates between Ba'alei-Chayim and non Ba'alei-Chayim - whereas initially, when there were other differences, it was not worried when the Gemara did not differentiate between them ...

Explanation (cont.): ... and it now requires "Himatzei Timatzei" to include objects that are not Ba'alei-Chayim.

Explanation (cont.): The Gemara then asks 'What are you coming to include - Ba'alei-Chayim? When it says "Chayim", that refers to Ba'alei-Chayim, so why do we need all those P'ratim?

Explanation (concl.): 'How will we explain "Geneivah" ' - in other words the K'lal u'Prat must be coming to include everything (in which case, the question remains 'Why do we need "Himatzei Timatzei" '?

Question: Furthermore he asked him - Why the Gemara needs to say 'Mah ha'Perat Mefurash Ba'alei- Chayim? It should have said 'If so, we would have thought that just as the P'rat specifies something whose carcass renders Tamei' - to preclude Tahor birds?

Question (cont.): .. in which case, it would not have been able to then ask 'When it says "Chayim", live animals have been said?', and the Torah then justifiably needs to write "Himatzei Timatzei"?

Answer: This Tana holds that we cannot connect this to the issue of Tum'ah ...

Reason: ... because the Tum'os involved are so different - The one concerns the Tum'ah of touching and carrying, the other, Tum'ah of the throat (when eating it).

Question: And furthermore he asked him - Why Rava maintains that the Tana's problem is with "Himatzei Timatzei", and he therefore finds it necessary to change the wording of the Beraisa, and to say "Geneivah" and "Shor"?

Question (cont.): ... why not say that Chizkiyah is coming to explain why we need all the P'ratim, and that we actually rely on "Himatzei Timatzei" ...

Question (cont.): ... and that he concurs with the B'nei Ma'arva, who say that when two K'lalos are juxtaposed, one places the P'rat between them and Darshens them like a K'lal u'Perat (u'Kelal)' ...

Question (cont.): And what the Tana means is - 'Let it say "Himatzei, Shor and Geneivah", and that will include everything; but "Himatzei Timatzei" is not considered two K'lalos, since the Torah speaks in the vernacular'?

Question (cont.): The Gemara answers that from Shor plus two K'lalos alone we would not have able to learn this, and it concludes that it ought then to say "Himatzei (Timatzei)" plus "Shor, Chamor, Seh and Geneivah", which will include everything? And it answers - 'In that case we would say that 'Just as the P'rat explicitly comprises Ba'alei-Chayim ... '.

Question (cont.): If we learn like this, then the Gemara concludes nicely - 'Since, when it says "Chayim", Ba'alei-Chayim have been said, how will we then explain the K'lal u'Perat (u'K'lal) to include everything, in which case the conclusion of the Berfaisa fits well ...

Conclusion: ... because according to Rava's explanation, that the Tana's problem is with "Himatzei Timatzei", the Beraisa itself does not answer anything?

Conclusion (cont.): And also the fact that the Tana mentions "Shor" before "Geneivah" would fit well (according to the suggested explanation).

Answer #1: And the Ri answered him that firstly, one can only apply the principle 'The Torah speaks in the vernacular' there where it is impossible to find another explanation.

Answer #2: ... and secondly, How could the Tana then say that if so, we would have said that 'Just as the P'rat specifically mentions things that go on the Mizbe'ach and that are subject to Kedushas Bechorah' ...

Answer #2 (cont.): ... seeing as this Tana holds that when two K'lalos are juxtaposed, we treat them as a Ribuy, Miy'ut and Ribuy, we are forced to say that from the two K'lalos, we learn everything, since we cannot say 'Place the P'rat in between them - like the B'nei Ma'arva ...

Reason: ... because then, we would be faced with the Kashya 'Why do we need "Seh" ?', as the Gemara will ask shortly.

Introduction to Question: And the Gemara answers 'Because he has a Pircha on it (the initial D'rashah).

Implied Question: ... even though the Pircha is not mentioned in the Beraisa ...

Answer: ... that is because the Tana did not bother to mention it.

Question: Ha'Rav Asher from Lunil also asked the Ri why we cannot still ask why the Torah needs to write "Himatzei Timatzei"? ...

Source of Question: ... because, since we cannot include in the P'rat u'K'lal u'P'rat anything other than living creatures - since the Torah writes "Chayim" in the K'lal itself ...

Source of Question (cont.): ... in that case, in no way can "Chayim" be written as a K'lal, because if it would be a K'lal, why would we need all the listed P'ratim? Let the Torah only write "Geneivah" And "Chayim", in which case we will also include all living creatures? ...

Source of Question (concl.): . so we see that "Chayim" cannot be a K'lal, only a P'rat - in which case from "Chayim" we will include all living creatures, and from all the other P'ratim, everything else.

Support: And so the Gemara will say shortly - "If it comes to include living creatures, we can learn that from "Chayim"?

Answer: And the Ri answered - that later to be sure, where there is a K'lal u'P'rat u'K'lal, as the Gemara says 'Place Shor in between "Himatzei" and "Timatzei", the Gemara rightfully says that similar to the P'rat of Shor we include even things that are not living creatures ...

Answer (cont.): ... whereas here, without "Himatzei Simatzei", if "Chayim" is not a Klal, how can we learn things that are not living creatures ...

Reason: ... seeing as there is no final K'lal to include things that are similar to the P'rat?

Answer (cont.): Consequently, since we cannot include anything if "Chayim" is a P'rat, we will have to say that it is a K'lal, from which the P'ratim will preclude ...

Answer (cont.): ... and we will say that just as the P'rat is specifically something whose carcass renders Tamei ... ' - to preclude Tamei birds.

Implied Question: And although this Tana does not want to bring in the aspect of Tum'ah ...

Answer to Implied Question: ... that is specifically where it was possible to bring in the aspect of living creatures, when it wanted to place the K'lal of "Chayim" on a par with the K'lal of "Geneivah".

Answer (cont.): ... but now that the Gemara concludes that "Chayim" implies only living creatures, and it is not able to bring in the aspect of living creatures - because if it did, why would we need the P'ratim? ...

Answer (concl.): ... it needs to bring in the aspect of Tum'ah.

Answer: And that is why it needs "Himatzi Simatzei" to include everything, as the Gemara concludes.

Alternative Text: There are some Sefarim that have the text 'la'Asuyei' (to include).

See Above: Tosfos dealt with this on the previous Daf (Amud 'Alef', DH 'Davar').

Implied Question: The Gemara could have asked 'Shor va'Seh Lamah li?' ...

Reason: ... seeing as the P'rat of "Chayim" on its own comes to include everything, even if it is not a living creature.

Answer: And because the Gemara began the D'rashah with "Shor", since it is the first P'rat, it mentions only "Seh", though in reality, both of them are superfluous.