Question: According to Rav Chisda, Rava and Abaye, why does the Gemara establish the Mishnah not like Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, seeing as it is apparently speaking before the Haza'ah (similar to the Reisha) - as it says 'How does one perform Chatas ha'Of? One performs Melikah on the nape of the neck without severing it, and makes Haza'ah'.

Answer #1: According to them, the Mishnah declares Pasul in all cases, even after Haza'ah, since Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon says 'I heard that one severs', which seems to pertain to the Mishnah, and comes to argue on it.

Answer #2 (Part 1): Rabeinu Tam however, explains that when Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon interprets "Lo Yavdil" to mean that it is not necessary to make Havdalah, he means during Mitzuy, when he needs the blood, and if he makes Havdalah, then all the blood will be squeezed out. And it is during the Haza'ah exclusively that the Pasuk says that one is forbidden to make Havdalah - but during the Mitzuy, "Lo Yavdil" means that he does not need to make Havdalah (as we explained).

Answer #2 (Part 2): ... and we allow the Pasuk to establish itself as it sees fit, so that we learn both rulings from it. Since it expresses itself with a Lashon of a La'av, we Darshen that at the time of the Haza'ah, it is forbidden to make Havdalah, but not during the Mitzuy, which we could have learned from "Vehikrivo", which comes to differentiate between Chatas ha'Of and Olas ha'Of (had it been the Torah's intention to do so) ...

Answer #2 (Part 3): ... Therefore we explain that the Pasuk also comes to teach us that during the Mitzuy, the Kohen is permitted to refrain from making Havdalah, if he wishes.

Clarification (Part 1): And when the Gemara asks whether they did not hear what Rebbi Shimon ben Elyakim says, implying that the latter comes to argue with Rav Chisda, Rava and Abaye ...

Clarification (Part 2): ... that is because according to Rebbi Shimon ben Elyakim, one need not worry about performing Havdalah after Haza'ah - because he is doing Ma'aseh Olah by a Chatas ...

Clarification (Part 3): ... seeing as that is also how the Chatas is performed, since the Pasuk means 'Ein Tzarich Lehavdil'.

Question (Part 1): According to Rav Huna in the name of Rav, who says in Me'ilah, in Perek Chatas ha'Of (Daf 8:) that Mitzuy Chatas ha'Of is not crucial to the Mitzvah, why do the Rabbanan invalidate where the Kohen made Havdalah after the Haza'ah? It is not a Ma'aseh Olah by a Chatas, since it is merely like cutting a piece of flesh (as we explained earlier)?

Answer: According to the first explanation, the question falls away, since Rav Huna may well hold like Rebbi Shimon ben Elyakim, who establishes the Machlokes before the Haza'ah ...

Question (Part 2): ... but according to Rabeinu Tam, even according to Rebbi Shimon ben Elyakim they only argue after the Haza'ah.

Suggested Answer: Neither can we answer that the Rabbanan of the Mishnah in Zevachim hold that Mitzuy Chatas ha'Of is crucial ...

Refutation: ... since, bearing in mind the Gemara in Me'ilah, which tries to establish every S'tam Mishnah like Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, Rav Huna will presumably hold like him.

Answer: He will establish the Mishnah that states 'Hivdil Pasul' before the Haza'ah, in which case it will go even like Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon.

Implied Question: ... and the Gemara in Zevachim which states that the Mishnah does not go like Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon ...

Answer (Part 1): ... goes like Rav Ada bar Ahavah, who says in Me'ilah that the blood of Mitzuy ha'Of is crucial, and the Rabbanan argue with Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, even according to Rav Huna. Because, since he said 'I heard that one makes Havdalah!', it implies that the Rabbanan argue with him and hold that Mitzuy is crucial ...

Answer (Part 2): ... but the S'tam Mishnah in Zevachim goes according to him (Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon) without any problem, as we explained.

Implied Question: What Rashi explained - that we cannot switch the D'rashos (to learn 'ke'Mishpat Chatas Beheimah', and to make Havdalah from "Vehikrivo") ...

Explanation #1: ... because Rebbi Yishmael bases his rulings the D'rashah of "u'Malak Vehiktir" (which is otherwise superfluous) on "u'Malak Vehaktir" ...

Refutation: ... is not correct ... because one cannot prove from "u'Malak Vehiktir" that one cannot reverse the D'rashos, since we need it to teach us the Din of 'be'Rosho shel Mizbe'ach' (as we will learn on Daf 22b).

Explanation #2 (Part 1): But it is merely from a S'vara that Rebbi Yishmael compares them to 'Mul Oref'.

Proof: A proof for this lies in the fact that the Tana Kama and Rebbi Elazar do not even require a Pasuk for 'Mul Oref' ...

Explanation #2 (Part 2): Only we learn 'Melikah' (by Olas ha'Of) from 'Melikah' (from Chatas ha'Of) via a 'Mah Matzinu'.

Observation (1): At the end of 'ha'Todah (Menachos 83a) the Gemara answers that it mentions 'Yado ha'Yemanis' by the way (like it answers here regarding 'ba'Yom') ...

Observation (2): ... whereas at the end of 'Dam Chatas' (Zevachim 98a) it gives both answers ('K'dei Nasaba' and alternatively like it answers here).

Explanation (Part 1): It seems that according to those who hold the principle that something that is learned from a Gezeirah-Shavah cannot then learn from it with a Hekesh, we will have to answer 'K'dei Nasabah', because 'Etzba' of Chatas itself we learn via a Gezeirah-Shavah from Metzora (which is synonymous with 'Yemin') in the second Perek of Zevachim (Daf 24a) and in the first Perek of Menachos (Daf 10a).

Explanation (Part 2): Consequently, how can we now learn 'Yado ha'Yemanis' from it with a Hekesh?

Question: Why does the Gemara not ask here on the Beraisa 'What does Nimtza come to preclude?', like it asks above (Daf 20a) on the Mishnah of 'Nimtza Kasher bi'Shechitah, Pasul bi'Melikah'?

Answer (Part 1): Because this Beraisa refers to the Mishnah (immediately preceding it) - to explain that Torim Gedolim are Kasher, and then concludes that it turns out ('Nimtza') just like our Mishnah said.

Answer (Part 2): ... whereas in the Mishnah above, there is no reason to say 'Nimtza', seeing as the Reisha has already taught us that Shechitah is performed on the neck and Melikah from the nape, and that if one reversed the procedure, it is Pasul.

Refutation of Text: Nowhere do we find these two terms appearing together ...

Reason: ... since 'she'Yachol' means that if not for the Pasuk concerned, we would not have said such a thing; whereas 've'ha'Lo Din Hu' means that even without the Pasuk we would have said it.

Clarification: If not for the Pasuk of 'Torim', we would have declared Kasher even young pigeons from a 'Kal va'Chomer'.

Question: On the contrary, if not for "Torim", we would not have known that pigeons are eligible for a Korban at all?

Answer #1 (Part 1): What the Gemara means is that, if the Torah had not compared pigeons to doves (from which we will shortly preclude young pigeons) - in other words, had it written Torim far away from b'nei Yonah, it would have implied that Torim Gedolim and Ketanim are both Kasher, in which case we would have known it even without a 'Kal-va'Chomer' ...

Answer #1 (Part 2): ... only the Gemara prefers to learn it from a 'Kal-va'Chomer'.

Answer #2 (Part 1): Alternatively, the Torah could have reversed the order, and written "b'nei Yonah ve'Torim" ...

Answer #2 (Part 2): ... in which case we would not have compared Torim to b'nei Yonah, seeing as "b'nei" might just as well refer to "Torim".

Answer #2 (Part 3): Nevertheless, large Torim would be permitted, since the Torah did not specifically write "b'nei Yonah u'benei Torim", and we would have permitted them all from a 'Kal-va'Chomer'.

Conclusion: ... and that is why the Torah says "Torim" (before "b'nei Yonah" and in the same Pasuk), implying specifically Gedolim, as we will explain later 'similar to b'nei Yonah'.

Clarification: As the Gemara will explain shortly, since there is no Pasuk that writes "min ha'Yonim" (without the word "b'nei").

Question: Since we don't yet know that "b'nei Yonah" refers exclusively to Ketanim, from where does the Tana know that "Torim" does not include Ketanim, seeing as we only know that from the comparison to "b'nei Yonah"?

Answer #1: What the Tana means to say is that if we were able to learn from an external source that "Torim" implies specifically Gedolim, then we would have learned from a 'Kal-va'Chomer' that "b'nei Yonah" incorporates Gedolim.

Answer #2: Rashi explains that the Gemara is only asking from where we know that it is crucial - because we ought to have learned from a 'Kal-va'Chomer' that young Torim are Kasher, even though "Torim" per se implies specifically Gedolim.

Question: This explanation is difficult however, because if (Torim) implies Gedolim, how can we Darshen a 'Kal-va'Chomer' to change the Pasuk and to say that it is not crucial?

Clarification (Part 1): This D'rashah cannot be due to the fact that there are many Pesukim to that effect, since even if in only one place, the Pasuk wrote "Torim and b'nei Yonah" we would Darshen from the fact that it wrote by one "b'nei" and not by the other.

Reason: ... because why would the Torah add the word "b'nei" by one of them for no reason?

Implied Question: ... and the Gemara then mention 'Lo Lishtamet (implying that it is referring to many references)?

Answer: ... merely because it is a Chidush (but not because it is crucial).

Translation #1: Unklus translates "Tzela" (rib) as 'Il'a. Consequently, 'mi'she'Ye'al'u' means 'when the wing has become dislocated and there is blood flowing from the ribs.

Translation #2: Menachem (ben S'ruk) however, in his Seifer, translates 'Ye'al'u Dam' as - 'absorbed blood', as in Ovadyah (1) "ve'Shasu ve'La'u" (and they will drink and absorb').

Question: Seeing as 'Mah Nafshach' (either way) one of them is Pasul, how can one possibly sacrifice it?

Answer #1: The Gemara's She'eilah is whether one is Yotzei if Bedi'eved the Kohen sacrificed them.

Answer #2: Alternatively, the She'eilah is whether, since he brought them to the Kohen, he has fulfilled his Neder, seeing as, when all's said and done, one of them is fit to be sacrificed,

Answer #3: Others explain that the Gemara is talking about a Bamah, based on the Yerushalmi in Megilah, which implies that all birds may be brought on a Bamah, even chickens, and even Chayos, and that only non-Kasher species are prohibited.

Refutation (Part 1): This is not however, correct, since the Yerushalmi is talking about a Bamah regarding B'nei No'ach ...

Proof: ... since the Gemara at the end of Zevachim (Daf 125b) learns this from the Pasuk "And No'ach built a Mizbe'ach; and he took from all the Kasher animals ... ".

Refutation (Part 2): ... but regarding other Bamos (of a Yisrael) however there is an opinion that no birds at all are permitted, even pigeons and young doves.

Refutation (Part 3): Furthermore, the Yerushalmi states that (on a Bamah) an Olah does not require Hefshet and Nitu'ach (stripping and cutting into pieces), and the Gemara at the end of Zevachim (120a) equates the Din of Bamah Ketanah with that of Bamah Gedolah with regard to Hefshet ve'Nitu'ach.

Conclusion: It is therefore clear that the Yerushalmi is talking about a Bamah of b'nei No'ach.

Question #1 (Part 1): In the case where one of the animals (of Ma'aser Beheimah) that has already been counted jumps back into the pen, the Gemara in the first Perek of Bava Metzi'a (Daf 6b) Darshens that they are all Patur, because the Torah writes Asiri Vaday, and not Asiri Safek?

Question #2 (Part 1): Similarly, in a case where it is a Safek as to whether the Baheres preceded the white hairs (and he is Tamei) or if the white hairs preceded the Baheres (and he is Tahor), we Darshen at the end of Nazir (65b) that he is Tahor, seeing as the Torah mentions Taharah first, in the Pasuk "Letaharo O Letam'o"?

Clarification (Part 1): There is no Kashya from our Sugya (on to there) however ...

Clarification (Part 2): ... since here, what the Gemara means is that we do not preclude them because of a Din Vaday, only because of a Din Safek, as the Gemara says 'It is a Safek and he will be Yotzei' - if he brings both; Whereas there (in Bava Metzi'a), they are all Vaday Patur, and not just because of Safek (which explains why we cannot ask there 'Itzrich K'ra Lime'utei S'feika').

Clarification (Part 2): Likewise, in the case of 'Safek Baheres Kadmah le'Se'or Lavan ... ", it is Vaday Tahor.

Question #3 (Part 1): There is a Kashya however, regarding a Coy, in the last Perek of Yoma (Daf 74a), where, due to the Pircha 'Itzrich K'ra Lime'utei S'feika', the Gemara concludes that a Coy is an independent species, and not a Safek.

Question #3 (Part 2): But how do we know that? Perhaps it is really a Safek, and we need the Pasuk of "Kol Cheilev" (the source for the Limud) to render it Vaday (and not just Safek)?

Question #4: ... And the same Kashya will apply in Perek Sh'tei Midos (Menachos 91b) which we will cite shortly.

Answer (Part 1): Any Safek that cannot be clarified, such as that of Baheres and Ma'aser (that we cited earlier), because sometimes it is like this and sometimes, like that, it is feasible to preclude them from a Pasuk because they are a Safek ...

Answer (Part 2): On the other hand, wherever it is possible to clarify the Safek once and for all, such as in the case of 'Techilas ha'Tzihuv', which is standard, and which is known to Hash-m (whether they are Gedolim or Ketanim), and likewise regarding a Coy and a Palgas, which are all the same. Therefore it is not possible to say that the Pasuk precludes them because they are a Safek ...

Answer (Part 3): ... and the same will apply at the end of 'Al Eilu Mumin' (Bechoros 41b) with regard to the Beraisa which states that when it says later "ha'Zachar", which is superfluous, it comes to preclude a Tumtum and an Androginus.

Answer (Part 4): The Gemara then asks 'Who is the author? If it is the Tana Kama, 'Itzrich K'ra Lime'utei S'feika' - There too, the Gemara is asking from Androginus, which are all the same; either they are all males or they are all females, a fact which Hash-m knows (and which is therefore not a Safek).

Question (Part 1): But Rav holds that an Androginus is a Safek, as we explained at the end of ha'Mapeles (Nidah 28a), seeing as he renders him Tamei both from the white (Keri) and from the red (Dam Nidus).

Question (Part 2): Moreover, at the end of Perek ha'Areil, he rules like Rebbi Yossi, that the Chachamim were unable to decide whether he is a Zachar or a Nekeivah.

Clarification: ... and when Rebbi Yossi in a Beraisa refers to it an independent creature, that is La'av Davka (not to be taken literally).

Question (Part 3): Nevertheless, Rav precludes him (an Androginus) from the Din of Bi'as Mikdash, from the fact that the Torah writes "mi'Zachar ve'ad Nekeivah Teshaleichu" - 'Zachar Vaday, Nekeivah Vada'is' ...

Question (Part 4): ... and how can the Pasuk come to preclude a Safek'?

Answer (Part 1): In the case of Rav there are two Mi'utim - since the Pasuk could have written either "mi'Zachar ad Adam" or 'mi'Nekeivah ad Adam'; and one of them therefore comes to preclude an Androginus, the other, a Tumtum' ...

Answer (Part 2): If an Androginus is a male, then "mi'Zachar" comes to preclude him because he is 'different'; whereas if she is a female, then "mi'Nekeivah" comes to preclude her because she is different.

Implied Question: How can the Gemara then ask in Bechoros, in connection with where it precludes an Androginus from the extra "Zachar" written by Olah - 'Who is the author? If it is the Tana Kama, it is a Safek. 'Does the Pasuk come to preclude a Safek?'

Answer: The Gemara's Kashya there is justified, inasmuch as, if it comes to preclude an Androginus even it he is a Zachar, merely because he is different than other males, that means he is a male and not a Safek, in which case it does not go like the Tana Kama, who considers him a Safek.

Question: How about a Tumtum, which sometimes turns out to be a male and sometimes, a female, and which cannot be clarified one way or the other - yet Rav Chisda says, at the end of Eilu Mumin (Bechoros 42a) 'Erase from here Tumtum!', implying that it is a Safek, and does not require a Pasuk to preclude him?

Answer: Rav Chisda holds that the Pasuk does not preclude Tumtum because he is a Safek, since, if he was a male, he would be like any other male. Consequently, since it is possible to establish the Miy'ut by Androginus, we cannot establish it by a Tumtum ...

Explanation of Sugya in Bechoros (Part 1): ... and this is how we will explain the Sugya there: 'The Machlokes pertains to an Androginus, who is not a B'chor according to the Rabbanan; Whereas a Tumtum, even according to them, is not sanctified because of a Safek, seeing as the words "ha"Zecharim Takdish" which is written by B'chor, can be established to preclude an Androginus, as we explained.

Explanation of Sugya in Bechoros (Part 2): Therefore the Gemara asks that 'In that case, let him also be assessed by Arachin (to establish "ha'Zachar" to preclude an Androginus, and not a Tumtum? ...

Explanation of Sugya in Bechoros (Part 3): ... Why did we then learn in a Beraisa "ha'Zachar", to preclude a Tumtum and an Androginus? ...

Explanation of Sugya in Bechoros (Part 4): ... and the Gemara replies 'Erase from there 'Tumtum'!

Explanation of Sugya in Bechoros (Part 5): But are there not two Miy'utim "ha'Zachar" and "ve'Im Nekeivah" (presumably, one to preclude an 'Androginus', the other, to preclude a 'Tumtum')?

Explanation of Sugya in Bechoros (Part 6): We need them both to preclude Androginus completely, because if the Torah had only written "ha'Zachar", we would have said that he is not worse than a woman, and we would have evaluated him accordingly. (Continued on 23.)