1)

TOSFOS DH PARAH METAMEI TUM'AS OCHLIN ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä ôøä îèîà èåîàú àåëìéï ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos queries the reason 'because it had a Sha'as ha'Kosher' from various angles, and clarifies different aspects of 'Kol ha'Omeid ... '.)

úéîä, ãîã÷àîø 'äåàéì åäéúä ìä ùòú äëåùø' , îëìì ãäùúà ìàå áú ôãééä äéà.

(a)

Introduction to Question: Since the Gemara says 'Ho'il ve'Haysah lah Sha'as ha'Kosher', it implies that currently it is not subject to redemption?

åàîàé, åäà àéú ìéä ìø"ù áùáåòåú (ãó éà: åùí) ãôøä ÷ãùé áã÷ äáéú äéà...

(b)

Question: But why not? Seeing as Rebbi Shimon holds in Shevu'os (Daf 11b & 12a) that the Parah Adumah is Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis ...

åìø"ù àéú ìéä ã÷ãùé áã÷ äáéú ìà äéå áëìì äòîãä åäòøëä, áääéà ùîòúà âåôà?

1.

Question (cont.): And in the very same Sugya there, he holds that Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis are not subject to Ha'amadah and Ha'arachah?

åðøàä ìôøù ãäà ã÷úðé 'äåàéì åäéúä ìä ùòú äëåùø' îééøé ìàçø äæàä...

(c)

Answer: We therefore need to say that when the Tana says 'Ho'il ve'Haysah lah Sha'as ha'Kosher', it is speaking after the Haza'ah ...

ãàéï ñáøà ùúäà áú ôãééä àçø ùäåæä ãîä, åàô"ä îèîà èåîàú àåëìéï äåàéì åäéúä ìä ùòú äëåùø ÷åãí äæàä.

1.

Answer (cont.): ... and it is no logical to say that it can be redeemed after the blood has been sprinkled; nevertheless, it is Metamei Tum'as Ochlin, since it had a Sha'as ha'Kosher before the Haza'ah.

åà"ú, åäà 'ëì äòåîã ìäæåú, ëîåæä ãîé' ?

(d)

Question: Why do we not apply the principle 'Kol ha'Omed Lehazos, ke'Muzah Dami'?

åé"ì, ã÷åãí ÷áìä áëåñ ìàå ëîåæä ãîé, ëãôøéùéú ìòéì.

(e)

Answer: Before the blood has been received in the Kos, it is not considered ke'Muzah, as Tosfos explained earlier (on the previous Amud, DH 'Kol').

ä÷ùä øáéðå ùîåàì áø' çééí, ìîä ìé ã'äéúä ìä ùòú äëåùø', úéôå÷ ìéä ã'çéáú ä÷ãù îëùøúå åîùåéà ìä àåëìà... '

(f)

Question: Rabeinu Chayim b'Rebbi Shmuel asks why it had to have a Sha'as ha'Kosher? Why do we not say that Chibas ha'Kodesh renders it 'Kasher' and turns it into a food ...

ëããøùéðï áô"á ãçåìéï (ãó ìå: åùí) "åäáùø" 'ìøáåú òöéí åìáåðä' ?

1.

Question (cont.): ... as the Gemara explains in the second Perek of Chulin (Daf 36b & 37a) "ve'ha'Basar", 'to include wood and frankincense'?

åë"ú ãôøä ìø"ù, ëéåï ã÷ãùé áã÷ äáéú äéà, ìà ùééê áä 'çéáú ä÷ãù... '

(g)

Refuted Answer: And if you will say that 'Chibas ha'Kodesh' , according to Rebbi Shimon, is not applicable to Parah, since it is Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis ...

ãàôéìå á÷ãùé îæáç ìà îäðé 'çéáú ä÷ãù' àìà ëù÷ãùå ÷ãåùú äâåó áëìé ùøú, ëãîåëç áøéù äîðçåú åäðñëéí (îðçåú ãó ÷á:) åáô' ëì äôñåìéï (æáçéí ãó ìã.)...

1.

Refuted Answer (cont.): ... because 'Chibas ha'Kodesh' is not even applicable to Kodshei Mizbe'ach, unless they are declared Kedushas ha'Guf inside a K'li Shareis, as is evident at the beginning of 'ha'Menachos ve'ha'Nesachim' (Menachos, Daf 101a) and in Perek Kol ha'Pesulin (Zevachim, Daf 34a) ...

äà ò"ë ùééê áôøä 'çéáú ä÷ãù,' àôéìå ìø"ù ...

(h)

Refutation: ... it is clear that 'Chibas ha'Kodesh' does apply to Parah, even according to Rebbi Shimon ...

ãáøéù äîðçåú åäðñëéí ôøéê ìø"ù 'ðåúø åôøä àîàé îèîàéï èåîàú àåëìéï, òôøà áòìîà äåà, ã'ëì äòåîã ìùøåó ëùøåó ãîé... '

1.

Source: ... since the Gemara, at the beginning of 'ha'Menachos ve'ha'Nesachim' (Daf 102b) asks, why, according to Rebbi Shimon, Nosar and Parah, are Mitam'in Tum'as Ochlin, seeing as they are merely dust, seeing as whatever stands to be burnt is considered burned? ...

åîùðé- çéáú ä÷ãù îëùøúå ...

2.

Source (cont.): ... and it answers that Chibas ha'Kodesh renders it 'Kasher'.

åäééðå èòîà ãàò"â ãàéï áä ÷éãåù ëìé, ëéåï ã÷ãùé áã÷ äáéú äéà, î"î ùééê áéä çéáú ä÷ãù, ëéåï ã"çèàú" ÷øééä øçîðà...

3.

Reason: ... and the reason for this is because, even though it did not become sanctified by means of a K'li Shareis, 'Chibas ha'Kodesh' nevertheless applies, since the Torah calls it a 'Chatas' (Chulin, 11a).

åëì òðééðéä ëòéï òáåãú ÷ãåùú äâåó -ùéù áä äæàä åôñåìä ùìà ìùîä.

4.

Reason (cont.): ... and everything connected with it is like the Avodah of Kedushas ha'Guf (of a Chatas) - it is sprinkled and it is Pasul she'Lo li'Shemah.

åúéøõ ø"é, ãàéï çéáú ä÷ãù îåòìú àìà ìùåééä ùàéï àåëì ëàåëì, ëâåï ðåúø åôøä ùäï çùåáéí ëòôøà, åòöéí åìáåðä...

(i)

Answer: The Ri answers that 'Chibas ha'Kodesh' is only effective to turn a non-food into a food - such as Nosar and Parah which are considered like dust, or wood and frankincense ...

àáì ãáø ùäåà àåëì àìà ùàéï î÷áì èåîàä ìø"ù, îùåí àåëì ùàéï àúä éëåì ìäàëéìå ìàçøéí, ìà éåòéì çéáú ä÷ãù ìòùåú äàéñåø ëîåúø.

1.

Answer (cont.): ... but as for something that is already a food, but which is not Mekabel Tum'ah according to Rebbi Shimon, since it is not fit to feed to others (because it is Asur be'Hana'ah), Chibas ha'Kodesh will not help to render permitted something that is forbidden.

åäà ãîùîò áøéù ëì äôñåìéï, ãàåëì áùø ùðèîà ìôðé æøé÷ä ä"à ãìà ì÷é, òì éãé ãøùä ãëì ùàéï ðéúø ìèäåøéí àéï çééáéï òìéå îùåí èåîàä, àé ìàå îùåí ãîøáéðï î"åäáùø" ëîå òöéí åìáåðä?

(j)

Question: And when the Gemara at the beginning of Kol ha'Pesulin thinks that, were it not for the fact that we include it from "ve'ha'Basar", to include wood and frankincense - someone who eats Basar that became Tamei before the Z'rikah would not receive Malkos, based on the D'rashah that whatever is not permitted to Tehorim, one is not Chayav on it because of Tum'ah ...

äúí ëéåï ãìà áòé ôèø ìéä àìà îùåí ãáòé ìîéìó îèåîàú äâåó, éù ìðå ìøáåú î"åäáùø" î÷"å ãòöéí åìáåðä.

(k)

Answer: ... that is because, since the Gemara only wants to exempt it (Tum'as Basar) from Tum'as ha'Guf, we can include him from "ve'ha'Basar" via a Kal va'Chomer from Eitzim and Levonah.

åà"ú, àîàé ìà àîø ãëì ÷ãùéí é÷áìå èåîàä îçééí, ëéåï ãîöåä ìùåçèï, åðéîà 'ëì äòåîã ìùçåè, ëùçåè ãîé? '

(l)

Question: Why do we not say that all Kodshim are subject to Tum'ah in their lifetime, seeing as it is a Mitzvah to Shecht them, in which case we ought to say 'Whatever stands to be Shechted is considered Shechted'?

åé"ì, ãàôéìå ðùçè, ìà àîøéðï ã'ëæøå÷ ãîé' òã ùé÷áì áëåñ, ë"ù ëùòãééï ìà ðùçè.

(m)

Answer: Even if it has been Shechted, we will not consider the blood to be 'Zaruk' until it has been received in a Kos, how much more so before it has even been Shechted.

åîéäå ùòéø äîùúìç ÷ùä ìø"é, ùéèîà îçééí èåîàú àåëìéï ìø"ù, ìî"ã (éåîà ñæ.) ãùøå àéáøéí áäðàä...

(n)

Question: The Ri asks however, why the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ch is not Tamei Tum'as Ochlin in its lifetime, according to Rebbi Shimon, according to the opinion in Yoma (Daf 67a) that permits deriving benefit from its limbs ...

ãëéåï ùòåîã ìãçåú, îöå÷ ëãçåé ãîé' ?

1.

Reason: ... because, since it stands to be pushed down from the rock, it is considered pushed down'?

åé"ì, ãìà àîøéðï ãëì äòåîã ìòùåú ãëòùåé ãîé, àìà áàåëì äàñåø ìäéåú ëîåúø, å÷øéðï áéä 'àåëì ùàúä éëåì ìäàëéìå ìàçøéí' ...

(o)

Answer: We only say that 'Something that stands to be done is considered done' to render a food that is forbidden, permitted, in that we now call it 'A food that one is able to feed others' ...

àáì ìà îäðé ìùàéï àåëì ëîå á"ç ìéçùá ëàåëì...

1.

Answer (cont.): ... it does not however, help to turn something that is not a food, such as a living animal, into a food ...

àò"â ãäåä îäðé òì äàåëì ëâåï ðåúø åôøä ìéçùá ëòôøà, àé ìàå ãîëùø ìäå çéáú ä÷ãù...

(p)

Implied Question: Even though it would help to turn a food, such as Nosar or Parah, into dust, were it not for the fact that 'Chibas ha'Kodesh renders them 'Kasher' ...

îéãé ãäåä à'áï ô÷åòä åãâéí ùäï îåúøéï áìà ùçéèä, åàô"ä çéåúï îèäøúï...

1.

Precedent: This is similar to a ben Peku'ah and fish, both of which are permitted without Shechitah, yet the fact that they are alive renders them Tahor ...

ìøáðï, ãôìéâé àø' éåñé äâìéìé áô' áäîä äî÷ùä (çåìéï ãó òä.).

2.

Precedent (cont.): ... according to the Rabanan who argue with Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili' in Perek Beheimah ha'Mekasheh (Chulin, Daf 75a).

2)

TOSFOS DH PARAH METAMEI TUM'AS OCHLIN

úåñ' ã"ä ôøä îèîà èåîàú àåëìéï

(Summary: Tosfos discusses at length Rashi in Chulin which explains why Parah requires Kabalas Tum'ah, seeing as it renders Tamei a person and the clothes he is wearing.)

ä÷ùä á÷åðèøñ áô' àåúå åàú áðå (çåìéï ãó ôà: åùí) 'ìîä ìé ÷áìú èåîàä? úéôå÷ ìéä ãäéà âåôä îèîàä àãí åáâãéí' ?

(a)

Question: Rashi, in Perek Oso ve'es B'no (Chulin, Daf 82a [See also Tosfos there, 81b DH 'Parah Metam'ah']) asks as to why it needs Kabalas Tumn'ah? Why the fact that it itself renders Tamei Adam and his clothes will not suffice?

åúéøõ, ãáëä"â îôøù áëøéúåú áô' ãí ùçéèä (ãó ëà.) 'ëâåï ùçéôäå ôçåú îëáéöä áö÷ ;àé îùåéú ìä àåëì, îöèøó áäãé áö÷ åî÷áì äàé áö÷ èåîàä àí éâò áèåîàä åîèîà ùàø àåëìéí...

(b)

Answer: And he answers that in similar vein, the Gemara in Kerisos (Daf 21a) says 'Such as where one covered less than a k'Beitzah (of Neveilah) with dough; If one renders it a food, it combines with the dough, which in turn, receives Tum'ah in the event that it touches Tum'ah, and which then renders other food Tamei as well.

åàé ìàå àåëì äåà, ìà î÷áì äàé áö÷ èåîàä , ãìéú áéä ùéòåøà, åëé ðâòå áéä àåëìéï àçøéí èäåøéï äï, ùàéï ðåâòéï áðáéìä àìà ááö÷ òë"ì.

1.

Answer (cont.): But if it is not a food, then the dough is not subject to Tum'ah, since it does not have a Shi'ur, in which case, other food that touch it remain Tahor, seeing as they touch. not the Neveilah, only the dough' (Rashi).

åîä ùäæëéø 'ðáéìä' ...

(c)

Implied Question: The reason that he mentions Neveilah (and not Parah) is ...

îùåí ãòìä ãëøéúåú ÷àîø.

1.

Answer: ... because he is referring to the Sugya in K'risos.

åîä ùàîø 'åî÷áì äàé áö÷ èåîàä àí éâò áèåîàä' ðøàä ìø"é ãìà ã÷, ãääéà ã'çéôäå ááö÷' ãëøéúåú îééøé ëùéù ëæéú îï äðáéìä.

(d)

Refutation: And what Rashi says that 'The dough receives Tum'ah if it touches Tum'ah', he said absentmindedly, the Ri explains, seeing as the case of 'Chipeihu be'Batzek' in K'risos is speaking where there is a k'Zayis of Neveilah.

åðøàä ùèîà äáö÷ îï äðáéìä ò"é öøåôå ìëáéöä, ëîå ùîéèîà îî÷åí àçø, ùäëæéú éëåì ìäéåú îèîà åîöèøó.

(e)

Clarification: It therefore seems that the dough receives Tum'ah from the Neveilah, by virtue of the combination to make up a k'Beitzah (of food), just like it would if it received Tum'ah from somewhere else, since the K'zayis can render Tamei and combine at one and the same time.

åðøàä ùçæø áå îùéèúå ùäéä øâéì ìôøù áëì î÷åí ã'àåëì ôçåú îëáéöä î÷áì èåîàä îï äúåøä...

(f)

Comment: Rashi also seems to have retracted from he was accustomed to saying in many places (See Pesachim, Daf 33b DH 'be'ke'Beitzah' & Zevachim Daf, 31a DH 'Letamei') that even food that is less than a k'Beitzah is subject to Tum'ah min ha'Torah ...

ùäøé ôéøù áäãéà ãìà î÷áì äàé áö÷ èåîàä, ãìéú áéä ùéòåøà.

1.

Comment (cont.): ... since he specifically explains that the dough is not subject to Tum'ah since it lacks the required Shi'ur.

åàéï ìúøõ ÷åùééú ä÷åðèøñ ãáìà öéøåó áö÷ öøéê äåà ìèòí ùì ùòú äëåùø, îùåí ãìà îöéðå ùîèîàä àìà îúòñ÷éï...

(g)

Refuted Answer: One cannot answer Rashi's Kashya by saying that without the combination of the dough, one requires the reason of Sha'as ha'Kosher, since it is only those who are dealing with it who render their clothes Tamei ...

ëãúðï áîñ' ôøä (ô"ç î"â) 'äùåøó ôøä åôøéí åäîùìç àú äùòéø îèîà áâãéí, åäï òöîí àéï îèîà áâãéí...

1.

Support: ... as we learned in the Mishnah in Parah (8:3) 'The person who burns the Parah and the bulls (the Parim ha'Nisrafin), and the one who sends away the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach render their clothes Tamei, even though they themselves (the Parah ...) do not render the clothes Tamei ...

äøé æä àåîø '[îèîàéê] ìà èéîàåðé, åàú èîàúðé' ...

2.

Support (cont.): ... and they (the clothes) now say 'The one that rendered you Tamei, does not render me Tamei, but you do render me Tamei!'

ãî"î îèîàä äéà àåëìéï åîù÷éï, îàçø ùñåôä ìèîà èåîàä çîåøä àú îúòñ÷éï, åìà áòé ìà äëùø îéí åìà äëùø ùøõ ...

3.

Refutation: Since, in spite of that, it renders Tamei food and drink, seeing as eventually it stands to render those who deal with it a stringent Tum'ah, requiring neither Hechsher Mayim nor Hechsher Sheretz ...

ëãúðé ãáé ø' éùîòàì áô' áà ñéîï (ðãä ãó ðà. åùí) 'îä æøòéí ùàéï ñåôï ìèîà èåîàä çîåøä, öøéëéï äëùø ... '.

4.

Source: ... as Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael learns in a Beraisa in Perek Ba Si'man (Nidah, Daf 51a & 51b) - 'If already seeds, that do not stand to finally become a stringent Tum'ah, require a Hechsher ... '.

åø"é îúøõ ãîä ùñåôå ìèîà èåîàä çîåøä ìà îäðé àìà ìòðéï æä ãçùáéðï ìéä ëàéìå äåëùø áîéí åëàéìå ðâò áùøõ, àáì àéï îåòéì ìòùåú ùàéï àåëì ëàåëì...

(h)

Answer: The Ri answers that, the fact that it stands to finally become a stringent Tum'ah is only effective in that it is as if it has become Huchshar via water or as if it touched a Sheretz, but not to turn a non-food into a food.

äìëê ìø"ù ãáòé àåëì ùàúä éëåì ìäàëéì ìàçøéí, îä ùñåôå ìèîà èåîàä çîåøä ìà éòùðå [ëàåëì] ùéëåì ìäàëéìå ìàçøéí...

1.

Answer (cont.): Consequently, according to Rebbi Shimon who requires a food that one can feed to others, standing to finally become a stringent Tum'ah will not achieve that.

åìëê ìà îèîà àìà îùåí ùäéä ìä ùòú äëåùø.

2.

Answer (concl.): And that explains why it is only Tamei because it had a Sha'as ha'Kosher.

åëï îåëç áæáçéí áñ"ô èáåì éåí (ãó ÷ä.) ã'ú"ø, äùåøó äôøä åôøéí åäîùìç äùòéø îèîà áâãéí, åäí [òöîí] àéðí îèîà áâãéí àìà îèîà àåëìéï åîù÷éï, ãáøé ø"î.

(i)

Proof: And this is evident at the end of Perek T'vul Yom (Zevachim, Daf 105a) where Rebbi Meir, in a Beraisa, states that 'the clothes of the person who burns Parah, Parim and the one who sends the Sa'ir are Tamei, even though they themselves are not Metamei the clothes (of those deal with them), only food and drink ...

åçëîéí àåîøéí, ôøä åôøéí îèîàéï èåîàú àåëìéï åîù÷éï, àáì ìà ùòéø äîùúìç îôðé ùäåà çé. '

1.

Proof (cont.): ... whereas according to the Rabanan, Parah and Parim are Metamei Tum'as Ochlin u'Mashkin, but not the Sa'ir ha'Mishtal'ach, since it is still alive.

åôøéê 'áùìîà ø"î ëãúðà ãáé ø' éùîòàì "îä æøòéí " ...' ...

2.

Proof (cont.): And the Gemara asks that 'Rebbi Meir is easily understood, since he concurs with Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael, who learns 'If already seeds ... ' ...

àìà ìøáðï, àé àéú ìäå ãúðà ãáé ø' éùîòàì, àôéìå ùòéø äîùúìç ðîé, åàé ìéú ìäå, ôøä åôøéí, îðà ìäå?

3.

Proof (cont.): ... but as far as the Rabanan is concerned, if they hold like Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael, then even the Sa'ir too (should be Metamei Tum'as Ochlin), whereas if they don't, then from where do they know Parah and Parim?

åîùðé 'öøéëéï äëùø èåîàä îî÷åí àçø' -ôé' ðäé ãäàé ãñåôå ìèîà èåîàä çîåøä àéï öøéëéï äëùø èåîàä, àáì äëùø àåëì áòé...

4.

Conclusion: And the Gemara answers that it needs a Hechsher Tum'ah from another source - in other words, even though, since they stand to finally become a stringent Tum'ah, they do not require a Hechsher Tum'ah, they do require a Hechsher Ochel ...

åîù"ä ùòéø äîùúìç ãìà çæé ìàëéìä ùäåà çé, ìà îèîà.

5.

Conclusion (cont.): Consequently, the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach, which is not fit to eat whilst it is still alive, is not Metamei.

åäùúà ôìéâé -ãø"î ñáø ãîä ùñåôå ìèîà èåîàä çîåøä îåòéì ìéçùá àåëì, åøáðï ñáøé ãôøä åôøéí ãå÷à îèîà åìà ùòéø äîùúìç, îùåí ãàéðå îåòéì ìéçùá àåëì...

(j)

Triple Machlokes: And they argue as follows: Rebbi Meir holds that what it stands to become Tamei Tum'ah Chamurah is effective to render it a food, whereas according to the Rabanan only Parah and Parah are Metamei, but not the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach, since it does not render it a food.

åø"ù ñáø ãå÷à ôøä äåàéì åäéúä ìä ùòú äëåùø, ÷øéðï áéä 'àåëì ùàúä éëåì ìäàëéìå ìàçøéí' ,åìà ôøéí åùòéø äîùúìç, ùìà äéúä ìäï ùòú äëåùø.

1.

Rebbi Shimon: Rebbi Shimon, on the other hand, holds specifically Parah, because, since it had a Sha'as ha'Kosher, it falls under the category of 'food that one can feed to others', but not Parim and Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach, which did not have a Sha'as ha'Kosher ...

åëï îåëç áúåñôúà ãôøä -ãáúø îéìúééäå ãø"î åøáðï, ÷úðé 'ø"ù àåîø "ôøä îèîà èåîàú àåëìéï, äåàéì åäéúä ìä ùòú äëåùø, ôøéí äðùøôéï åùòéøéí äðùøôéï àéï îèîàéï èåîàú àåëìéï, äåàéì åìà äéä ìäï ùòú äëåùø" .'

2.

Proof #1: ... and this is evident in the Tosefta of Parah (at the end of the seventh Perek) - where, after citing the opinions of Rebbi Meir and the Rabanan, the Tana citing Rebbi Shimon, states that 'Parah is Metamei Tum'as Ochlin, since it had a Sha'as ha'Kosher, but Parim ha'Nisrafin and Se'irim ha'Nisrafin are not, since they did not have a Sha'as ha'Kosher'.

åòåã îééúé ø"é øàééä- ãáëîä ãåëúé ÷úðé 'öøéëéï îçùáä åàéï öøéëéï äëùø' ...

3.

Proof #2: The Ri brings another proof from the fact that in many places, the Tana says 'They need Machshavah, but not Hechsher' ...

áô' ãí ùçéèä (ëøéúåú ãó ëà.) âáé 'ðáìú áäîä èîàä áëì î÷åí åðáìú äòåó áëôøéí' ...

4.

Example #1: In Perek Dam Shechitah (K'risus, Daf 21a) in connection with 'The Neveilah of a Beheimah Teme'ah everywhere, but that of a bird, only in the villages' ...

åáô' áà ñéîï (ðãä ãó ð:) âáé 'âåæì ùðôì ìâú' ...

5.

Example #2: In Perek Ba Si'man (Nidah, Daf 50b) in the case of 'A dove that fell into a vat'.

åáøéù èäøåú âáé 'ðáìú òåó èäåø' ...

6.

Example #3: And at the beginning of Taharos (1:1) in connection with 'the Neveilah of a Tahor bird' ...

ãàò"ô ùàéï öøéëéï äëùø ìôé ùñåôå ìèîà èåîàä çîåøä, öøéëéï îçùáä...

7.

Proof (cont.): In that, even though they do not require a Hechsher, since the stand to become Tamei Tum'ah Chamurah, they nevertheless require Machshavah ...

ãìâáé äà [ìùååéé àåëì], ìà îäðé îä ùñåôå ìèîà èåîàä çîåøä.

8.

Proof (concl.): ... because to render them a food, the fact that it stands to become Tamei Tum'ah Chamurah is not effective.

åúéîä, àé ôìéâ ø"î à'ëì äðé?

(k)

Question #1: Does Rebbi Meir really argue in all these cases?

åòåã, ãáô' â"ä (çåìéï ãó ÷á.) åáô' èáåì éåí (æáçéí ã' ÷ä:) áòé ìîéã÷ ãääéà ã'öøéëä îçùáä åàéï öøéëä äëùø' ãèäøåú, àúéà ëø"î, îãñéôà ø"î, ã÷úðé 'ùçéèä åîìé÷ä îèäøú èøéôúä îèåîàúä .

1.

Question #2: Moreover, in Perek Gid ha'Nasheh (Chulin, Daf 102a) and in Perek T'vul-Yom (Zevachim, Daf 105b) the Gemara wants to prove that the ruling (in Maseches Taharos) that 'It (the Neveilah of a Tahor bird) needs Machshavah but not Hechsher' goes like Rebbi Meir, since the Seifa there - 'Shechitah u'Melikah Metaheres T'reifasah mi'Tum'asah', goes like him ...

åîùðé "îéãé àéøéà? ñéôà ø"î, åøéùà øáðï" ... '

2.

Question #2 (cont.): ... and it refutes it on the grounds that "What has one to do with the other? the Seifa goes like Rebbi Meir and the Reisha, like the Rabanan!" '.

åäéëé äåä áòé ìàåëåçé, äà ò"ë 'öøéëä îçùáä' àúà ãìà ëø"î?

3.

Question #2 (concl.): How could the the Gemara have even tried to establish it like Rebbi Meir, seeing as 'Tz'richah Machshavah' cannot go like him?

åòåã, ãáäòåø åäøåèá (çåìéï ã' ÷ëç: åùí) âáé çúê áùø îï àáø îï äçé, 'çúëå åàç"ë çéùá òìéå, èäåø; çéùá òìéå åàç"ë çúëå, èîà' ,åîå÷îéðï ìä äúí ëø"î ...

4.

Question #3: Furthermore, in 'ha'Or ve'ha'Rotev' (Chulin, Daf 128b & 129a) in connection with 'Chatach Basar min Eiver min ha'Chai', the Tana writes 'Chatcho ve'Achar-kach Chishev alav, Tahor; Chishev alav ve'Achar-kach Chatcho, Tamei' , which it establishes like Rebbi Meir ...

åôøéê äúí ìîàï ãîå÷é ìä áùäåëùø, 'ì"ì äåëùø, äøé îèîà èåîàä çîåøä àâá àáéå...'?

5.

Question #3 (cont.): ... and the Gemara there asks that according to those who establish the case by Huchshar, why that is necessary, seeing as it stands to become a Tum'ah Chamurah via its father (the body of the animal from which it was severed)? ...

îùîò àò"â ãîå÷îéðï ìä ëø"î, ðéçà ìéä îä ùîåòéì ìèîà èåîàä çîåøä àâá àáéå, ìòðéï ãìà áòé äëùø, åìòðéï îçùáä ìà îäðé?

6.

Question #3 (concl.): ... implying that, even though the author is Rebbi Meir, there is no problem in saying that the fact that it stands to become a Tum'ah Chamurah via its father in that it does not require Hechsher, but not regarding Machshavah?

åàåø"é, ãéù ìçì÷ áéï ùòéø äîùúìç ãîîéìà àí äéä ðùçè äåé çæé ìàëéìä áìà îçùáä...

(l)

Answer: The Ri therefore explains that one can differentiate between the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach, which, if it was not Shechted, would automatically be fit to eat if it were to be Shechted, without Machshavah, on the one hand ...

îä ùàéï áðáìú òåó èäåø åáàáø îï äçé, ùàéï ñåôå ìòùåú àåëì, îåãä ø"î ãáòéðï îçùáä.

1.

Answer (cont.): ... and the Neveilah of a Tahor bird and Eiver min ha'Chai, which do not stand to become a food, in which case Rebbi Meir will concede that it requires Machshavah, on the other.

åâøñéðï 'ôøä îèîà' ,åì"â 'îéèîàä' ...

(m)

Text #1: The text reads 'Parah Metamei', and not 'Parah Mitam'ah' ...

ãìîàé ð"î ÷áìú èåîàä ùìä? àé ìèîà àçøéí, ëéåï ùäéúä ìä ùòú äëåùø, úåøú àåëì éù ìä åáìà ÷áìú èåîàä äéà îèîà àçøéí, îùåí ãñåôä ìèîà èåîàä çîåøä.

1.

Reason: Because what difference will the fact that it becomes Tamei make? If it is inasmuch as it renders others Tamei - seeing as it had a Sha'as ha'Kosher, it has the status of a food, in which case it will render others Tamei even without receiving Tum'ah, seeing as it stands to become a Tum'ah Chamurah?

åáúåñôúà ðîé îåëç ãâøñéðï 'îèîà' åìà 'îéèîàä' ,ã÷úðé 'îèîà àåëìéï åîù÷éï' .

2.

Support: And in the Tosefta too (at the end of Perek 7), it is evident that the correct text is 'Metamei', and not 'Mitam'ah', when it says 'Metamei Ochlin u'Mashkin'.

åàé âøñéðï 'îéèîà' ,ö"ì ëîå ùúéøõ øù"é -ëùöéøôä ìôçåú îëáéöä áö÷, ùàé àôùø ìôøä ìèîà áö÷, ùàéï îåòéì îä ùñåôå ìèîà èåîàä çîåøä àìà ãäåé ëðåâò áùøõ...

(n)

Text #2: If, on the other hand, the text does read 'Mitamei', we will have to explain it like Rashi - where one combined it with less than a k'Beitzah of dough, since the Parah cannot be Metamei the dough, since the fact that it stands to become a Tum'ah Chamurah will only be effective to the extent that it is as if it touched a Sheretz ...

åàéìå ðâò áùøõ ìà äéä îèîà àú äáö÷, ëéåï ùáùø ôøä äåà ôçåú îëáéöä.

1.

Text #2 (cont.): ... and in this case, even if it touched a Sheretz it would not render the dough Tamei, seeing as the Basar of the Parah was less than a k'Beitzah.

ìëê öøéê ÷áìú èåîàä îî÷åí àçø, ëãé ùéèîà äáö÷.

2.

Text #2 (concl.): And that explains why it requires Kabalas Tum'ah from another source, in order to render the dough Tamei.

å÷ùä, ãìîàé ð"î áîä ùîöèøó ìôçåú îëáéöä? äà áìà"ä àåëì î÷áì èåîàä áëì ùäåà?

(o)

Question: What difference does the fact that it combines with less than a k'Beitzah (of dough), seeing as in any event, even the smallest measure of food is subject to Tum'ah (mi'de'Rabanan)?

åàé ìòðéï ÷áìú èåîàä ãàåøééúà, ìùøåó òìéå àú ä÷ãùéí, äðéçà àé çéáú ä÷ãù ãôøä ãàåøééúà, àò"ô ùàéï áä ÷éãåù ëìé...

1.

Possible Answer: ... and if it is to receive Tum'ah d'Oraysa - with regard to burning Kodshim on account of it, that is fine if we hold that Chibas ha'Kodesh of Parah is d'Oraysa, even though it has not been sanctified in a K'li ...

àáì àí îãøáðï, ò"ë ìà î÷áìé èåîàä äðé àåëìéï àìà îãøáðï, ãîãàåøééúà ëùøåó ãîé åòôøà áòìîà ðéðäå?

2.

Question (cont.): ... but if it is only mi'de'Rabanan, then the foods in question will only be subject to Tum'ah mi'de'Rabanan, since min ha'Torah, it is as if it has been burned, and is considered like dust?

åòåã îôøù ø"é, îä ùîéèîà ò"é ÷áìú èåîàä îï äùøõ, ðôñìú áëê - åàé ìàå ãäéúä ìä ùòú äëåùø, ìà äéúä î÷áìú èåîàä åìà äéúä ðôñìú...

(p)

Another Tack: Furthermore the Ri explains, the fact that it receives Tum'ah from a Sheretz invalidates it - and if not for the fact that it had a Sha'as ha'Kosher, it would not receive Tum'ah and would not be Pasul ...

ãàò"â ã÷ôéã øçîðà áòåñ÷éï áä ùéäéå èäåøéí, ìàå îùåí ãäåä îèîàå ìä, àìà îùåí ãâæéøú äëúåá äåà...

(q)

Implied Question: Because even though the Torah insists that those who deal with it must be Tahor, that is not because they will otherwise be Metamei it ...

ãàôéìå áòåñ÷éï áä á÷ðä àå áôùåèé ëìé òõ áòéðï ùéäéå èäåøéï.

1.

Proof: .. but a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv, seeing as even if they were to handle it with a cane or with a flat wooden vessel, they would still have to be Tahor ...

åà"ú, ãàé ìàôñåìé [äéà] òöîä, âí äàôø éäéä ðôñì áðâéòú äèåîàä...

(r)

Question: If it is to invalidate the Parah itself, also the ashes will be invalidated when they touch Tum'ah ...

ëãàîø áôø÷ çåîø á÷ãù (çâéâä ãó ëâ. åùí) 'ìà éùà àãí àôø çèàú åîé çèàú åéòáéøí áñôéðä, îùåí îòùä ùäéä' ?

1.

Question (cont.): As the Gemara says in Perek Chomer ba'Kodesh (Chagigah 23a & 23b), when it prohibits carrying 'the ashes or the water of the Chatas' and transporting them on a boat, due to the incident that it relates there.

åé"ì, ãàé çùéáà àåëì, î÷áì èåîàä îùðé åîùìéùé, åàé ìà, ìà.

(s)

Answer: If it is considered a food, it will receive Tum'ah from a Sheini or a Shelishi, but not if it is not.

åàéï ìåîø ãð"î, îä ùîèîà èåîàú àåëìéï -ãîàçø ùðôñì åàéï òìéä òåã èåîàä çîåøä, àëúé àùúééø áä èåîàú àåëìéï.

(t)

Refuted Answer #1: Nor can one explain that the difference it makes if it is Mitamei Tum'as Ochlin is that, since it has become Pasul and it is no longer subject to Tum'ah Chamurah, it still retains Tum'as Ochlin ...

àé ðîé, äëé ÷àîø 'àçø ùðôñìä, àí ðâò áä ùøõ, îéèîà èåîàú àåëìéï, äåàéì åäéúä ìä ùòú äëåùø' ...

(u)

Refuted Answer #2: Alternatively, what Rebbi Shimon means is that, if after it became Pasul it is touched by a Sheretz, it is Mitamei Tum'as Ochlin, seeing as it had a Sha'as ha'Kosher ...

ãîä ùëáø èîà èåîàä çîåøä àéï îåòéì ìå...

1.

Reason: ... because the fact that it was once Tamei Tum'ah Chamurah does not affect it ...

îàçø ãäùúà îéäà àéï òåã ñåôå ìèîà èåîàä çîåøä, åøàééä îôø÷ áäîä äî÷ùä (çåìéï ãó òâ:)

2.

Reason (cont.): ... seeing as now it will no longer adopt a Tum'ah Chamurah - and proof of this lies in Perek Beheimah ha'Maksheh (Chulin, Daf 73b).

åàéï ìäàøéê ëàï áæä; ãìà éúëï ìôøù ëï ëìì...

(v)

Conclusion: There is no point in dwelling further on this point, since there is absolutely no justification in explaining it like this ...

îãôøéê áîðçåú (ãó ÷á:) 'ëéåï ãëì äòåîã ìùøåó ëùøåó ãîé, ðåúø åôøä àîàé îèîà èåîàú àåëìéï'? ...

1.

Proof: ... due to the Gemara's Kashya in Menachos (Daf 102b) 'Since "Whatever stands to be burned is considered as if it is already burned", why are Nosar and Parah Mitamei Tum'as Ochlin?' ...

åîàé ÷åùéà? åäà ìàçø ù÷áìä äôøä èåîàä, àéï òåîãú ìéùøó, ãðôñìä, åðùúééø áä îâò èåîàä?

2.

Proof (cont.): What is the problem? Seeing as the Parah already received Tum'ah, now that it became Pasul, it no longer stands to be burned and retains the status of Maga Tum'ah?

åàôéìå ìà ðâò áä ùøõ àìà ôòí àçú...

(w)

Refuted Answer: And even if the Sheretz touched it only once ...

îëì î÷åí áúçéìú ðâéòä ëáø ðôñìä äôøä, åáñåó ðâéòä îèîàä èåîàú àåëìéï, ãàæ ëáø àéï òåîãú ìéùøó.

1.

Refutation: Nevertheless, the moment the Parah makes contact, it becomes Pasul, and at the end of the contact it is Mitam'ah Tum'as Ochlin, since then it is no longer subject to burning.

77b----------------------------------------77b

3)

TOSFOS DH OMER HAYAH REBBI SHIMON PARAH NIFDIS ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä àåîø äéä ø"ù ôøä ðôãéú ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos discusses first the opinions of Rebbi Shimon and the Rabanan and then the status of the Parah Adumah.)

ðøà' ùø"ì ãàôéìå îãøáðï îåúø ìôãåúä...

(a)

Clarification: What the Gemara seems to be saying is that it is permitted to redeem it, even mi'de'Rabanan ...

ãáñô"÷ ãùáåòåú (ãó éà:) ãéé÷ à'îúðéúà (úåñôúà ô"à) ãîñëú ôøä ã÷úðé 'ùçèä òì âá îòøëúä, àéï ìä ôãééä òåìîéú... '

1.

Proof: ... since at the end of the first Perek of Shevu'os (Daf 11b), on the Beraisa (Tosefta, Maseches Parah 2:2) 'Shachtah al-Gabei Ma'arechtah, Ein lah Pediyah Olamis'.

ãìà àúé ëø"ù, ãìø"ù ðôãéú äéà, ëãàùëçï äëà.

2.

Proof (cont.): ... the Gemara extrapolates that it does not go like Rebbi Shimon, according to whom it can be redeemed, as we see here.

åúéîä, ãò"ë îä ùàéï ðôãéú ìøáðï, àéï æä îï äúåøä...

(b)

Question: When the Rabanan say that it cannot be redeemed, that cannot be min ha'Torah ...

ãäà áú äòîãä åäòøëä äéà, ëì æîï ùîôøëñú, ìôé ôé' àçã ãìòéì (ã' òå.).

1.

Reason: Seeing as it is subject to Ha'amadah ve'Ha'arachah as long as it is still Mefarcheses - according to one of the explanations cited above (on Daf 76a, DH Shechitah) ...

åàí ëï, îð"ì ìø"ì ãø"ù ôìéâ à'øáðï? ãìîà îåãä ø"ù ãîãøáðï ìàå áú ôãééä äéà àìà îãàåøééúà, åìäëé îèîà èåîàú àåëìéí, äåàéì åäéúä ìä ùòú äëåùø?

2.

Reason (cont.): ... In that case, how does Resh Lakish know that Rebbi Shimon argues with the Rabanan? Perhaps he concedes that it is not subject to Pediyah mi'de'Rabanan, only mi'd'Oraysa, and it is Mitanei Tum'as Ochlin, since it had a Sha'as ha'Kosher?

åæä ãåç÷ ìåîø ãàó òì âá ãîãàåøééúà áú ôãééä äéà, ëéåï ãîãøáðï ìàå áú ôãééä, ìà çùéá àåëì ùàúä éëåì ìäàëéì ìàçøéí?

(c)

Refuted Answer: It is a Dochek to say that even though min ha'Torah it had a Sha'as ha'Kosher, seeing as mi'de'Rabanan it is not subject to Pediyah, it is not considered food that one can feed to others.

åé"ì, ãîàï ãàñø, àñø àôéìå îãàåøééúà, ëéåï ùùçèä ìùîä áäëùø ÷øáï, åîàï ãùøé ùøé àôéìå îãøáðï òã ùéòùå äæéåúéä, ëãôøéùéú ìòéì.

(d)

Answer: The one who forbids, forbids even mi'd'Oraysa, seeing as he Shechted it li'Shemah for the Hechsher of the Korban, whilst the one who permits, permits even mi'de'Rabanan, until the Kohen has performed the Haza'os, as Tosfos explained earlier (on Amud Alef, DH 'Parah' 1).

åàí äééðå àåîøéí ãìøáðï ôøä ÷ãùé îæáç äéà, äåé à"ù.

(e)

Refuted Reason: If, according to the Rabanan, Parah would be Kodshei Mizbe'ach, it would be understood (why it is Asur mi'd'Oraysa).

àê àéï ðøàä ùéñáåø ùåí úðà ãôøä ÷ãùé îæáç äéà...

(f)

Refutation: However it is not feasible that any Tana considers Parah Kodshei Mizbe'ach ...

îã÷à îúîä âîøà áøéù 'àéï îòîéãéï' (ò"æ ã' ëâ: åùí) 'ùîò îéðä ãôøä ÷ãùé îæáç äéà! '

1.

Proof #1: ... since the Gemara, at the beginning of 'Ein Ma'amidin' (Avodah-Zarah, Daf 23b & 24a) asks in surprise 'Does this mean that Parah is Kodshei Mizbe'ach'?

åáëîä î÷åîåú ÷àîø ã'çèàú ÷øééä øçîðà' -îùîò ã÷ãùé áã÷ äáéú äéà...

2.

Proof #2: Moreover, in many places in Shas the Gemara says that 'the Torah calls it a Chatas' - implying that intrinsically, it is Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis ...

àò"â ãúðï áù÷ìéí (ã' å) ùäéà îúøåîú äìùëä...

(g)

Implied Question: And even though the Mishnah in Shekalim (4:6) states that it is purchased from T'rumas ha'Lishkah' ...

äééðå ìôé ùöøéëéï ìä ëäðéí äòåáãéí ÷øáðåú, çùéá öåøê ÷øáï, åìá á"ã îúðä òìéäï...

(h)

Answer: ... that is because, since it is the Kohanim who bring the Korbanos who need it, it is considered for the needs of Korbanos, and 'the heart of Beis-Din' makes the necessary stipulation) ....

ãàôéìå îìîãé äìëåú ÷îéöä ìëäðéí, ðåèìéï ùëøï îúøåîú äìùëä...

1.

Precedent: ... bearing in mind that even those who teach the Kohanim the Dinim of Kemitzah take their remuneration from the T'rumas ha'Lishkah ...

åàôéìå áìà á"ã îúðä òì äìùëä, éëåì ìäéåú ùáàä îîðä îï äúåøä, äåàéì åöåøê ÷øáðåú äéà.

2.

Answer (cont.): And even without 'the heart of Beis-Din stipulating' on the contents of the Lishkah, it may well be that one may use it for these things min ha'Torah, seeing as they are for the needs of the Korbanos.

åäà ãàîø ã'÷ãùé áã÷ äáéú äéà' ...

(i)

Clarification: Consequently, when we say that it is Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis ...

ìà ùúäà ÷ðåéä î÷ãùé áã÷ äáéú...

1.

Clarification (cont.): That is not to say that it is purchased from Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis funds ...

àìà ãéðä ë÷ãùé áã÷ äáéú, ã÷ãåùä ÷ãåùú ãîéí åìà ÷ãåùú äâåó ë÷ãùé îæáç.

2.

Clarification (concl.): ... but that it has the Din of Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, that its Kedushah is that of Kedushas Damim, and not Kedushas ha'Guf, like Kodshei Mizbe'ach (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim).

4)

TOSFOS DH KOL HEICHA DE'ISEIH BI'MECHIRAH ISEIH BI'TEVICHAH ETC

úåñ' ã"ä ëì äéëà ãàéúéä áîëéøä àéúéä áèáéçä ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos explains why Mocher on Shabos is nevertheless Chayav, even though Tove'ach is not.)

åîåëø áùáú ãçééá, àò"â ãàí èáç ôèåø...

(a)

Question: And Mocher on Shabbos, which is Chayav, even though Tavach is not ...

ääéà áäîä àéúà áèáéçä áçåì.

(b)

Answer: ... since that animal is subject to Tevichah on a weekday ... .

5)

TOSFOS DH ZEH BANAH AV KOL MAKOM SHE'NE'EMAR SEH EINO ELA LEHOTZI ES HA'KIL'AYIM

úåñ' ã"ä æä áðä àá ëì î÷åí ùðàîø ùä àéðå àìà ìäåöéà àú äëìàéí

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the definition of Rava's Binyan Av and elaborates.)

áôø÷ àåúå åàú áðå (çåìéï ã' òç: åùí) ôé' á÷åðèøñ ãòáéã áðéï àá îãëúéá "ùåø ùä ëùáéí åùä òæéí" .

(a)

Introduction to Question: In Perek Oso ve'es B'no (Chulin, Daf 78b & 79a), Rashi explains that Rava learns the Binyan Av from the Pasuk "Shor Seh Kesavim ve'Seh Izim".

å÷ùä ìø"é, ãì÷îï àîø ãìøáé àìéòæø àúàé ãøáà, ìèîà ùðåìã îï äèäåø åòéáåøå îï äèîà, ãìà ëø' éäåùò...

(b)

Question: The Ri queries this however, since later (on Daf 78a) the Gemara explains that Rava goes according to Rebbi Eliezer (See Hagahos ve'ha'Tziyunim), with regard to a Tamei animal that is born from a Tahor animal that conceived from a Tamei one, and not like Rebbi Yehoshua ...

ãàé ëø' éäåùò î"ùä ëùáéí" åî"ùä òæéí" ðô÷à- ëìåîø åìà öøéê ìáðéï àá ãøáà.

1.

Question (ont.): ... who has no need of Rava's Binyav Av, seeing as he learns it from "Seh Kesavim" and from "Seh Izim".

åàãøáä, îääåà ÷øà äåé áðéï àá ãøáà?

2.

Question (concl.): On the contrary (according to Rashi) Rava's Binyan Av is from that same Pasuk?

åðøàä ìø"é, ãáðéï àá ãøáà äåé î"ùä" ãôñç, ãëúéá (ùîåú éá) "ùä úîéí æëø áï ùðä éäéä ìëí" ...

(c)

Answer: The Ri therefore explains that Rava learns the Binyan Av from "Seh" of Pesach, by which the Torah writes (in Sh'mos 12) "Seh Tamim Zachar ben Shanah Yih'yeh lachem min ha'Kevasim u'min ha'Izim Tikachu".

úãò, ãäà îñ÷éðï 'ëé àéúîø ãøáà ìòðéï ôèø çîåø àéúîø, ãúðï 'àéï ôåãéï ... ' ...

1.

Proof: And to prove this, the Gemara concludes (on Daf 78a) that Rava is speaking in connection with Petter Chamor, as we learned in the Mishnah "Ein Podin ... ' ...

, åáñô"÷ ãáëåøåú (ã' éá. åùí) îôé÷ ìéä î"ùä" "ùä" ãôñç.

2.

Proof (cont.): ... and at the end of the first Perek of Bechoros (Daf 12a & 12b) the Gemara learns that from a Gezeirah-Shavah "Seh" "Seh" from Pesach.

åà"ú, åî"ù ãäëà ÷øé ìéä 'áðéï àá' ,åááëåøåú ÷øé ìéä 'â"ù' -ã÷àîø 'ðàîø ëàï "ùä" åðàîø ìäìï "ùä" . '

(d)

Question #1: Why does the Gemara here refer to it as a 'Binyan Av', and in Bechoros as a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' - by virtue of the statement 'It says here "Seh" and it says further on "Seh" '.

åòåã, î"ù ãð÷è øáà 'ëìàéí' èôé îòâì åçéä èøéôä åùçåèä, ãëì äðé ðô÷à ìï ãàéï ôåãéï ôèø çîåø î"ùä" ãôñç ...

(e)

Question #2: Why does Rava mention 'Kil'ayim' more than 'a calf', 'a Chayah', 'a T'reifah' and a 'Shechutah', all of which, we learn from "Seh" of Pesach, cannot be used to redeem a Petter Chamor ...

ã÷àîø äúí 'îä ìäìï ôøè ìëì äùîåú äììå' ?

1.

Source: ... seeing the Gemara says there 'Just as there, it excludes all of these cases'?

åòåã, àîàé ìà ôøéê 'èøéôä, "ùä" ëúéá? 'ëé äéëé ãôøéê 'ëìàéí, "ùä" ëúéá! '

(f)

Question #3: Why does it not ask here 'T'reifah! - But the Torah writes "Seh"?', like it asks with regards to Kil'ayim?

åòåã, ãìøáé àìéòæø, ãùøé ìôãåú áëìàéí ôèø çîåø, àîàé ìà ùøé áùçåèä åèøéôä, ëéåï ãîå÷é ìä áðéï àá ìèîà ùðåìã ...' ëãàîøéðï ì÷îï áùîòúéï?

(g)

Question #4: Furthermore, why does Rebbi Eliezer, who allows redeeming a Petter Chamor with Kil'ayim, not also permit redeeming it with a Shechutah and a T'reifah, since he establishes the Binyan Av by a Tamei animal that is born from a Tahor one ... ?

åòåã, ëé áòé ì÷îï ìøáé àìéòæø 'áðéï àá ãøáà ìîàé äìëúà,' ìéîà ìîòåèé àçøéðé àúà, ãàéï ôåãéï?

(h)

Question #5: Moreover, when the Gemara asks later according to Rebbi Eliezer what the Binyan Av of Rava comes to teach us, why does it not answer that it comes to preclude the other types of animals (besides Petter Chamor), with which one cannot redeem it?

åë"ú ãèøéôä åùçåèä îîùîòåúéä ã"ùä" ðô÷à, ëîå òâì åçéä...

(i)

Refuted Answer: And if you will say that we learn a T'reifah and a Shechutah from the implication of the word "Seh", like a calf and and a Chayah ...

äà àîø áôø÷ äåöéàå ìå (éåîà ã' îè: åùí) ã"ôø" àôéìå ùçåè ÷øåé ôø...

1.

Refutation: ... but the Gemara says in Perek Hotzi'u lo (Yoma, Daf 49b Tosfos DH 'Sha'ani') that even a Shechted bull is called "Par" ...

åëï "ùä" ãôñç àé ìàå ãëúéá "îäéåú îùä" ,îçéåúéä ãùä.

2.

Refutation (cont.): ... and the same would apply to "Seh" of Pesach, had the Torah not written 'mi'Heyos Mi'Seh", from which the Chachamim extrapolate 'mi'Chiyuteih de'Seh' (only as long as it is alive).

åðøàä ìø"é, ãáðéï àá ãøáà åâ"ù ãáëåøåú ìàå çãà îéìúà äéà...

(j)

Answer: The Ri therefore explains that Rava's Binyan Av and the Gezeirah-Shavah in Bechoros are not one and the same ...

ãåãàé úøåééäå ðô÷é î"ùä" ãôñç, åáðéï àá ãøáà àúé îéúåøà ã"îï ëùáéí åîï äòæéí ú÷çå- " ãîùîò òã ùéäà àáéå ëáù åàîå ëáùä...

1.

Answer (cont.): ... because even though both are learned from "Seh" of Pesach, Rava learns the Binyan Av from the extra words 'min ha'Kevasim u'min ha'Izim Tikachu" - which implies that the father must be a 'Keves' and the mother, a 'Kivsah'.

åìâåôéä ìà àéöèøéê, ãîùàø ÷ãùéí ðô÷à...

2.

Answer (cont.): This Limud is not needed for itself, seeing as we can learn it from other Kodshim ...

ãúðéà áñîåê "ùåø àå ëùá àå òæ" ôøè ìëìàéí...

3.

Source: ... as the Beraisa will shortly say "Shor O Kesev O Eiz" - 'to preclude Kil'ayim' ...

àìà ììîåã áòìîà àúé, ãëì î÷åí ùðàîø "ùä," àéðå àìà ìäåöéà ëìàéí...

(k)

Answer (cont.): ... but to learn from it the principle 'Wherever the Torah writes "Seh", it comes specifically to preclude Kil'ayim'.

åàé ìàå áðéï àá, îâæéøä ùåä ã"ùä" "ùä" ìà äåä îîòèéðï ëìàéí...

(l)

Implied Question: ... and if not for the Binyan Av, we would not have precluded Kil'ayim from the Gezeirah-Shavah of "Seh" "Seh" ...

îùåí ãä"à "úôãä úôãä" øéáä...

1.

Answer: ... because we would have then said that "Tifdeh Tipadeh" includes it ...

ëé äéëé ãìà îîòèéðï äúí 'ùàéðå æëø úîéí åáï ùðä' îâ"ù îùåí "úôãä úôãä" øéáä.

2.

Precedent: ... in the same way as we do not preclude there whatever is not a Zachar, Tamim or ben Shanah from the Gezeirah-Shavah, because "Tifdeh Tipadeh" includes it.

åñáøà äåà ìîòè ëåìí îâæéøä ùåä ã"ùä" èôé îëìàéí...

(m)

Implied Question: And it is a S'vara to preclude them all from the Gezeirah-Shavah of "Seh" more than Kil'ayim ...

[ãàéäå ðîé î÷øé "ùä"].

1.

Answer: ... since Kil'ayim is also called "Seh".

åîù"ä øáé àìéòæø ãîå÷é áðéï àá ãøáà ì'èîà ùðåìã ...' , ùøé áëìàéí.

(n)

Conclusion: And that explains why Rebbi Eliezer establishes Rava's Binyam Av by a Tamei that is born ... ' (permitting Kil'ayim).

åì÷îï ã÷àîø 'àé ì÷ãùéí, áäãéà ëúéá áäå' -îùîò ãàé ìà äåä ëúéá áäãéà, äåä àúé ìéä ùôéø...

(o)

Introduction to Question: Later (on Daf 78a), when the Gemara says 'If it comes for Kodshim, the Torah specifically precludes Kil'ayim by them' - implying that had it not done so, we would have indeed learned it from "Seh" of Pesach (from the Binyan Av) ...

àò"â ãòé÷ø áðéï àá ìà äåä îééúø áôñç àìà îùåí ãáôñç âåôéä ìà àéöèøéê, ãî÷ãùéí ðô÷à...

1.

Implied Question: Even though the basic Binyan Av by Pesach is only superfluous because it is not needed for itself, since we learn it from Kodshim ...

ëï ãøê äâîøà ùòåùä ëàéìå ÷éí ìéä îî÷åí àçø.

(p)

Answer: ... such is the way of the Gemara, to make out as if it knows certain facts from another source ...

åä"÷- àé ì÷ãùéí åúàîø ãî÷øà àçøéðà ðô÷à ìï áôñç ìîòåèé ëìàéí... '

1.

Answer (cont.): And what the Gemara means is - 'If it comes for Kodshim, and you will say that we learn from another Pasuk to preclude Kil'ayim on Pesach ... '.

åëòðéï æä éù áøéù ÷ãåùéï (ãó â: åùí) åáôø÷ ðòøä (ëúåáåú ãó îå:) âáé '÷éãåùé äáú ìàáéä' -ã÷àîø 'åë"ú ðéìó îáåùú åôâí? '

(q)

Precedent: And we find a similar set-up at the beginning of Kidushin (Daf 3b Tosfos, DH 've'Chi') and in Perek Na'arah (Kesuvos, Daf 46b) in connection with 'Kidushei ha'Bas le'Avihah' - where the Gemara says 'And if you say let us learn it from Boshes and P'gam' ...

àò"â ãáåùú åôâí âåôéä ìà ÷éí ìï ãàáåä äåà àìà î÷ãåùéï, áñ"ô àìå ðòøåú (ùí ãó î: åùí).

1.

Precedent (cont.): ... even though we only know that Boshes and P'gam themselves go to the father from Kidushin, as the Gemara explains at the end of 'Eilu Na'aros' (Ibid, Daf 40b, Tosfos DH 'de'I').

6)

TOSFOS DH GABI GENEIVAH DI'CHESIV SHOR O SEH SHE'EIN ATAH YACHOL LEHOTZI KIL'AYIM MI'BEINEHEM

úåñ' ã"ä âáé âðéáä ãëúéá ùåø àå ùä ùàéï àúä éëåì ìäåöéà ëìàéí îáéðéäí

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies why we cannot learn the same thing from the fact that the Torah inserts "Seh", according to Rava.)

åàí úàîø, áìàå äëé ðîé äî"ì âáé âðéáä ãëúéá "ùä" ìîòè ëìàéí ëãøáà, àúé "àå" ìøáåéé?

(a)

Question: Without this, the Gemara could have said that, in connection with Geneivah, the Torah writes "Seh" to preclude Kil'ayim, like Rava, the Torah therefore writes "O" to include it?

åé"ì, ãîéìúà ãøáà ìà àéúîø àìà äéëà ãëúéá "ùä" ìçåã, àáì äëà ëúéá ðîé "ùåø".

(b)

Answer: Rava's statement is confined to where the Torah writes only "Seh" . whereas here it writes "Shor" as well.