Question: Why does the Gemara (in Bechoros) then query Rav Chisda from "Im Zachar Im Nekeivah" that is written by Shelamim, where there are two Miy'utim (since "Im" is a Miy'ut, as we learned in Perek ha'Mapeles [Nidah Daf 28: regarding "Im Nekeivah"]). Consequently, it must come to preclude a Tumtum?

Answer (Part 1): The text there is (not "Im Zachar Im Nekeivah", but) "Zachar O Nekeivah" that is written in Vayikra regarding Shalmei Tzon, since that is how the Sifri Darshens those Miy'utim...

Answer (Part 2): ... whereas "Im Zachar Im Nekeivah" that is written by Shalmei Bakar the Toras Kohanim (as well as the Gemara in the second Perek of Bechoros (Daf 15b) and in Temurah, Perek Eilu Kodshim (Daf 17b) Darshens to include the child and the Temurah of Ba'alei-Mumin.

Answer (Part 3): Now, the Gemara's Kashya on Rav Chisda is justified, since the current Pasuk contains only one Miy'ut - "O", to preclude, like "O Kesev", which comes to preclude Kil'ayim.

Question (Part 1): Above, we explained that it is where the Safek is not always the same that we need to preclude it ...

Question (Part 2): ... and in the first Perek of Chagigah (Daf 4a) it Darshens "Zechurcha", to preclude a Tumtum (from Re'iyah on Yom-Tov); Yet the Gemara asks "Itzrich K'ra li'Me'utei S'feika, even though they are not all the same?

Answer (Part 1): There the Gemara asks because without this Pasuk, we would exempt a Tumtum from Re'iyah, seeing as he is unable to perform Semichah ...

Implied Question: ... Even though Semichah is not crucial.

Answer: ... it is however, necessary to perform it Lechatchilah, as we find in Pesachim, in Perek ha'Ishah (98b), which rules that, if the skins of the Pesachim belonging to five people, on one of which they found a wart (which renders the Korban Pasul) became mixed up, they are Patur from Pesach Sheini, because they cannot perform Semichah.

Implied Question: ... Even though the Gemara in Kidushin (55a) rules that, if an animal is found between Yerushalayim and Migdal Eider (a location fifteen Mil from Yerushalayim), a male should be brought as an Olah, and a female as a Shelamim - without Semichah (seeing as only the owner may perform Semichah, and in this case, we do ot know who the owner) ...

Answer: It is different there, since we assume them to be already Kadosh, and there is nothing else that one can do retify them.

Implied Question: And as for a Safek Metzora, who brings his asham and its Log of oil (even though he cannot perform Semichah) ...

Answer: ... that is because it is necessary in order to rectify him (to permit him to come to the Beis-ha'Mikdash and to eat Kodshim).

Question (Part 1): We do find a Pasuk that comes to prevent us from erring, even though Hash-m knows exactly what it is - at the of Eilu T'reifos, (66b), where the Gemara asks 'Indeed, we rely on the "Kaskeses" (scales - to permit a fish), so why does the Torah need to add "S'napir" (fins)? ...

Question (Part 2): ... to which the Gemara replies 'Had the Torah written only "Kaskeses" and not "S'napir", we would have thought that "Kaskeses" means fins, and we would therefore have included even Tamei fish (with no scales); therefore the Torah writes "S'napir", to teach us that a fish requires both fins and scales ...

Answer: The fact is that "Kaskeses" implies something that is not straight and smooth, something on which the hand gets caught - and that fits wit fins - and the Lashon Kaskeses applies to it.

Question: Why does Gemara demolish the D'rashah of the Beraisa in order to refute its proof, to learn a different D'rashah from the Pasuk?

Answer (Part 1): The Gemara had a tradition that the Pasuk is needed for the current D'rashah, based on the fact that Rebbi Akiva, in the last Perek of Bechoros (57.) holds of the D'rashah of 'Hashchasah', since he holds that Ma'aser Beheimah takes effect on an animal that is a Rove'a or a Nirva, just as it takes effect on Ba'alei Mumin'.

Answer (Part 2): And he concludes in Perek Mizbe'ach Mekadesh (Zevachim 85:) that Nirva is Pasul by a bird ...

Source: Since the Gemara quoting Rebbi Akiva, declares an animal that is a Ba'al-Mum (that is brought on the Mizbe'ach) Kasher (because a bird that is a Ba'al-Mum is Kasher), but he does not declare a Nirva Kasher (for the same reason, implying that a bird that is a Nirva is Pasul). Now from where does he know that - if not from the current D'rashah?

Question: In that case, why does the Gemara not prove from here that it is a Safek (see Rashi), because if it was a Beryah, we would require a Pasuk to preclude it; So from where do we know that Nirva is Pasul by birds?

Answer #1 (Part 1): Tosfos therefore concludes that that even though initially, the Gemara thought that if it is a Beryah, it requires a Pasuk to preclude it ...

Answer #1 (Part 2): Now that the Gemara has concluded that we need the Pasuk for Nirva and Ne'evad, it holds that a Beryah does not require a Pasuk, but that it is automatically precluded, from the comparison of 'Torim to b'nei Yonah' - for just as "b'nei Yonah" means specifically young ones, so too, does "Torim" mean specifically adults, precluding Techilas ha'Tzihuv in both cases, since it is neither young by the one, nor adult by the other.

Conclusion: And the D'rashah of the Beraisa is merely an Asmachta.

Answer #2 (Part 1): 'The Ba'al Tosfos' Rebbe, Rebbi Aharon from Regensburg' explains that the Gemara's current answer does not contradict the D'rashah of the Beraisa at all, because, he says, the Pasuk contains two Miy'utim - "min ha'Torim O min b'nei ha'Yonah"; one to preclude Nirva and Ne'eved (to take out from the D'rashah of Moshchasam), the other, to preclude from Techilas ha'Tzihuv.

Answer #2 (Part 2): Although Hash-m certainly knows whether it is a Katani or a Gadol - if it is a Katan then we will preclude it from "min ha'Torim", whereas if it is a Gadol, then we will preclude it from "b'nei ha'Yonah", it is we who do not know.

Answer #2 (Part 3): Now, the current D'rashah fits nicely, even if Techilas ha'Tzihuv is considered a Beryah; since we will then need one Miy'ut to preclude a Beryah; the other, to preclude Nirva and Ne'evad.

Answer #2 (Part 4): Whereas initially, we thought that we need both D'rashos to preclude a Beryah, because had it written only one Miy'ut, we would either have precluded it from Gedolim or from Ketanim, in which case, if one brought both one would be Yotzei.

Question (Part 1): His explanation is a little difficult however; If the Pasuk comes to teach us that Techilas ha'Tzihuv is either considered Gadlus or Katnus, even though Hash-m knows which, then why does the Gemara in 'Al Eilu Mumin' (that Tosfos cited on the previous Amud) ask "Who is the author? If it is the Tana Kama, it is a Safek. Do we need a Pasuk to preclude a Safek?'

Question (Part 2): Why can we not say there too, that the Pasuk comes to preclude an Androginus, either because he is an irregular Zachar or because he is an irregular Nekeivah, only we do not know which, and he is not a Safek at all?

Question (Part 3): Conversely, it implies that if Hash-m knows what she is a Nekeivah, then the Torah should not find it necessary to teach it to us.

Implied Question: Why (according to the initial explanation) do we need two Miy'utim?

Answer #1: Perhaps one is to preclude Nirva; the other, Ne'evad

Answer #2: It is more likely however, that we learn Nirva and Ne'evad from one Miy'ut, and the two Miy'utim are needed - one for Torim; the other, for b'nei Yonah.

Alternative Explanation (Part 2): And that is also the reason that we needed two Miy'utim according to the Havah Amina (to preclude a Beryah) - one for Torim; the other, for b'nei Yonah.

Statement (Part 1): Here it is implied that everybody holds of the D'rashah of "Moshchasam" ...

Source: ... because if the Tana who Darshens "min ha'Beheimah" 'to preclude Rove'a' was to argue with it, then the opinion that does not Darshen "Moshchasam" could extrapolate that it is a Beryah.

Statement (Part 2): Clearly then, they all hold of the D'rashah, in spite of which they need "min ha'Beheimah" and "min ha'Bakar", because we would not learn from "Mashchasam" to preclude Rove'a, Nirva and Ne'evad" ...

Conclusion: ... if not for the fact that we have already seen that in Kodshim, matters of Ervah, Avodas-Kochavim and Mum have the same Din (See Maharam).

Ramifications #1: And we still need "Mashchasam" to teach us that Ma'aser Beheimah takes effect on Rove'a and Nirva, just as it takes effect on a Ba'al-Mum ...

Ramifications #2: ... and according to Rebbi Shimon, we also need it with regard to Parah (see Tosfos in the first Perek (Daf 11a & b).

Question: The Gemara at the beginning of 'Kol ha'Asurin' (Temurah 28b) states that the Tana of "Mashhasam" establishes the Pasuk of "min ha'Beheimah" to preclude an animal that is old, sick or sweaty?

Answer: The Gemara certainly understands that the Tana of "Mashchasam" extrapolates Rove'a and Nirva from "Moshchasam" exclusively. And it is the other Tana'im - who learn it from "min ha'Beheimah" - who learn it from the D'rashah of "Mashchasam" as well, as we explained.

Proof for Original Statement (Part 1): And so it would seem from the last Perek of Bechoros (57a) where various Tana'im argue (with regard to Ma'aser Beheimah, Tumtum and Adroginus, Mechusar Z'man and Yotzei Dofen; whereas regarding Nirva and Rove'a, Muktzah and Ne'vad we do not find a Machlokes ...

Proof for Original Statement (Part 2): ... indicating that they all agree that they are Chayav Ma'aser, as the Gemara learns there from "Mashchasam".

Refutation of Original Proof: The proof from here however, one can refute, because even those who don't hold of the D'rashah of "Moshchasam will still require that of "min ha'Torim" to preclude a bird that has been raped, since we might otherwise have thought that since birds cannot rape, they are not subject to being raped either ...

Precedent: ... since the Gemara makes a similar statement in Perek ha'Mizbe'ach Mekadesh (Zevachim 85b).

Clarification (Part 1): Toras Kohanim extrapolates it from the Pasuk "Tamim Zachar ba'Bakar, ba'Kevasim, u'va'Izim" - 'Tamus and Zachrus applies to animals, but not to birds'.

Clarification (Part 2): And the P'sul of Mechusar Eiver (a missing limb) by birds the Gemara in Kidushin (24b) learns from the Pasuk "min ha'Of" - and not 'Kol ha'Of'' ...

Refutation: ... and not like Rashi learns here - because it is written "Hakriveihu Na le'Pechasecha" ('Bring it to your own princes! ... ').

Question: Why do we need a Pasuk to disqualify a Mechusar Eiver, bearing in mind that even b'nei No'ach are forbidden to sacrifice such a bird?

Answer (Part 1): Because the Gemara states in Perek Arba Misos (Sanhedrin 59a) that every Mitzvah that was said to the b'nei No'ach and was not repeated at Har Sinai, was said to Yisrael and not to b'nei No'ach.

Answer (Part 2): Therefore it needs to repeat it, in order for it to be forbidden to the b'nei No'ach, as well as to Yisrael.

Question (Part 1): But why do we need the Pasuk to teach us 'Ein Tamus ve'Zachrus be'Ofos'?

Question (Part 2): Surely, since we need "min ha'Of" to forbid Mechusar Eiver, we will automatically know that a blemish does not disqualify a bird, because if it did, why would we then need "min ha'Of"?

Answer (Part 1): If not for the Pasuk that teaches us 'Ein Tamus ve'Zachrus be'Ofos', we would have thought that a Mum invalidates a bird ...

Answer (Part 2): ... and as for "min ha'Of", that comes to forbid even those Mumin that are permitted by an animal - since the Pasuk "min ha'Of" comes to forbid and not to permit.

Implied Question: Neither can we ask that, since we need "min ha'Torim" to forbid Nirva and Ne'evad, we can extrapolate that a Mum does not invalidate by a bird ...

Answer: ... because we can attribute the need to write "min ha'Torim" to the fact that we might otherwise have permitted Nirva, since it is not subject to Rove'a, as we explained earlier.

Statement: In Perek Sh'tei Midos (Menachos 91b) bar Pada is disproved from this very Pasuk "O la'Ayil" from which we include a Palgas ...

Reason: ... since we do not need a Pasuk to include a Safek'.

Question #1 (Part 1): It is fine to say by the Nesachim that it is possible to bring the Shi'ur of a ram and to stipulate that if it is really a lamb, the remainder will go for Mosar Nedavah, like Rebbi Akiva, who says in Perek Kol ha'Tadir (Zevachim 91:) that someone who donates wine, pours it into the bowls (on the south-west corner of the Mizbe'ach) ...

Question #1 (Part 2): ... and it seems that even Rebbi Tarfon, who says that it is poured on the fire on the Mizbe'ach, only argues where one says 'Harei Alai' S'tam, without adding 'li'Nesachim'; but if he did, then he too will agree that it is poured into the bowls.

Question #1 (Part 3): But how can one stipulate on the Minchah, seeing as their mixing is not the same - seeing as that of a lamb is three Lugin per Isaron (creating a more liquid mixture), whereas that of a ram is two Lugin per Isaron (which is thicker)?

Question #2: And besides, we learned in a Mishnah in Menachos that one is not permitted to mix the Minchah of a lamb with that of a ram?

Refuted Answer: Perhaps you will say that one brings the Shi'ur of the Minchah of a lamb in one vessel, and the Shi'ur of the Minchah of a ram in another one - and stipulate that one of them should be a Nedavah ...

Refutation: That too, is impossible, since a Minchas Nedavah requires Kemitzah, whereas a Minchas Nesachim is entirely burned, as we learned in a Beraisa in Menachos (74b)?

Answer (Part 1): The Riva answers that certainly, if one donates a Minchah S'tam, it requires Kemitzah ...

Answer (Part 2): ... but if one specifically mentions a Minchas Nesachim, it must all be burned ...

Proof: ... and as the Gemara says in Zevachim (84a) and in Menachos (104b) 'One is permitted to donate a Minchas Nesachim every day'.

Conclusion: Having said that, it is possible to stipulate without any problem.

Question (Part 1): But did we not learn in a Beraisa in Eilu Ovrin' (Pesachim 43a) that Si'ur must be burned, and one may place it before one's dog ...

Question (Part 2): ... and the Gemara there explains that this refers to the Si'ur of Rebbi Meir according to Rebbi Yehudah - implying that one is forbidden to eat it?

Answer: The prohibition is only mi'de'Rabbanan.

Proof: ... because, seeing as one is permitted to place it before one's dog is proof that it is proper Matzah.

Question: Perhaps Pesach is different, inasmuch as the Pasuk includes it from the word "Kol", as the Gemara explains in 'Eilu Ovrin'?

Suggested Answer: And if you will say that we learn Chametz of a Korban Todah from Chametz on Pesach ...

Refutation: ... perhaps that is only true with regard to proper Chametz, for which one is Chayav Kareis, but the current case (of Siy'ur), which is not considered proper Chametz with regard to Pesach, is not considered Chametz (at all) with regard to the Todah.

Possible Answer: We can however, explain that what the Gemara means is that - it is obvious that one is not Yotzei the Mitzvah of Matzah, since, regarding Matzah, we learn Todah from Pesach.

Question (Part 1): At the beginning of 'Kol ha'Menachos Ba'os Matzah' (Menachos 53. [in connection with the Minchah]) the Gemara asks that we should Darshen that "It shall not be baked Matzah" - 'only Siy'ur'? ...

Question (Part 2): ... and the Gemara continues 'Whose Siy'ur?' ... If it is the Siy'ur of Rebbi Meir according to Rebbi Meir, seeing as it is subject to Malkos, it is (proper) Chametz?

Conclusion: What is the problem; It is by Pesach that it is considered Chametz, since the Pasuk comes to include it (as we just explained) but not by Menachos?

Answer: It therefore seems that there is an extra Pasuk somewhere regarding Todah and Menachos, which teaches us that Chamezt Nokshah is considered Chametz by them too.

Implied Question: Why does the Gemara there then imply that according to all opinions, one cannot render Chametz the Chametz Loaves by a Todah, using Chametz Nokshah ...

Source: ... since the Gemara there forbids using apples to render the Chametz loaves Chametz, apparently because apples are Chametz Nokshah?

Answer: That is only Lechatchilah, since Lechatchilah, when one comes to render Chametz the Two Loaves (on Shavu'os) and the Chametz Loaves of the Chalos Todah, it is a Mitzvah to use proper Chametz.

Implied Question: The Gemara could have asked the same question regarding the Shechitah of Chulin and the Melikah of Kodshim ...

Answer: ... and the reason that it asked it with regard to Parah and Eglah is because of the similarity between them, since they are both Kodshim that are Shechted outside the Azarah, and they both become Pasul if they carry a yoke, and in many other regards.

Question: Why do we need these Miy'utim to preclude Parah from Arifah and Eglah from Shechitah? Why do we not say that since it is possible to make a Kal-va'Chomer in two opposite directions, like we will do shortly, leave each one as it is (and ignore the 'Kal-va'Chomers'?

Precedent: ... like we say in the second Perek of Zevachim (17b), regarding the Sugya of 'Let Aninus be permitted by a Kohen Hedyot, by a Korban Tzibur, from a Kal va'Chomer'?

Answer (Part 1): Because there, each Kal va'Chomer contradicts the other one completely - seeing as first the Gemara asks why Aninus is not permitted by a Kohen Hedyot, by a Korban Tzibur, from a Kal va'Chomer from the Kohen Gadol (whose Aninus is permitted even by a Korban Yachid?') - and then it reverses the 'Kal-Chamer' by asking that the Aninus of the Kohen Gadol should not be permitted by a Korban Yachid from a Kal va'Chomer from a Kohen Hedyot (whose Aninus is not even permitted by a Korban Tzibur?).

Answer (Part 2): That's why the Gemara concludes that, since one can say like this and one can say like that, each one remains as it is.

Answer (Part 3): Here by Parah and Eglah, on the other hand, where the Gemara is merely coming to apply the Din of one to the other (this is not a Kal va'Chomer, but) - a Mah Matzinu, one cannot say that (one should just ignore them), because if not for the Miy'ut, we would learn one from the other with a 'Mah Matzinu'.

Observation (Part 1): Now if the Gemara had made a Kal va'Chomer to the effect that the Parah would not be permitted via Shechitah - that would have been equivalent to the case in Zevachim.

Observation (Part 2): By the same token, when the Gemara asks 'Let a woman go out via Chalitzah' from a Kal va'Chomer', or 'a Yevamah with a Get' - that is a Mah Matzinu (and not a Kal va'Chomer).

Question: Why can we not ask (on the Mah Matzinu) that an Eglah is not Metaher (like a Parah is), and various other Chumros that each one possesses, which the other one doesn't?

Answer: Because the Kal va'Chomer is not from the power of Eglah and Parah, respectively, but from Shechitah and Arifah - 'Whereas Shechitah, which is not Machshir by Eglah, is Machshir by Parah ... '.

Question: In that case, it is a proper Kal va'Chomer, and not a Mah Matzinu, since one cannot learn Shechitah from Arifah (and vice-versa) with a Mah Matzinu, only with a Kal va'Chomer, in which case we should ignore the two conflicting Kal va'Chomers, like we do in the case of Zevachim?

Answer (Part 1): Wherever the Gemara makes two conflicting Kal va'Chomers, such as here, and later (on Daf 25a) regarding the air of earthenware vessels and regarding Kohanim and Levi'im; and such as the second Perek of Bava Kama (25b) where the Gemara first asks that Shen ve'Regel should be Chayav in the R'shus ha'Rabim from a Kal va'Chomer, and then that the same Shen va'Regel should only be Chayav Chatzi Nezek in the R'shus ha'Yachid ...

Answer (Part 2): It must be that there is a S'vara - a Kula or a Chumra, to make a Kal va'Chomer one way more than the other ...

Answer (Part 3): ... and in order to counter that Kal va'Chomer, we need a Pasuk to preclude it. And now that we have precluded it, we would make a Kal va'Chomer the other way.

Refuted Question #1: One cannot learn here that one may kill a Parah Adumah via Melikah, from a Kal-va'Chomer from Ofos (of Kodshim), which are not Kasher via Shechitah, yet they are Kasher via Melikah ...

Refutation: ... since the Gemara later at the beginning of 'ha'Shochet' (27b) Darshens 'The head of this one (a bird) is killed by the nape of the neck, but the head of another one (an animal) is not killed by the nape of its neck.

Refuted Question #2: Nor can we learn that one may kill a bird via Shechitah from a Kal-va'Chomer - from an animal. which is not Kasher via Melikah ...

Refutation: Since, according to those who learn the Din of Rov Shenayim (the majority of two Simanim) from a Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai, one cannot learn a Kal-va'Chomer or a Binyan Av from a Halachah, as we learned in a Mishnah in Perek Kohen Gadol (Nazir 56b).

Answer (Part 1): Tosfos therefore concludes that since there are Miy'utim regarding Parah and Eglah regarding Shechitah and Arifah (breaking the neck of the Eglah Arufah), we are no longer able to learn Of from Beheimah or Beheimah from Of in anything to do with Shechitah or Melikah.

Answer (Part 2): Since we will always be able to point to Arifah, and say 'Arifah will prove otherwise, seeing as it not Kasher by a cow but it is Kasher by an Eglah, yet it is not subject to Shechitah, so too Melikah (will not be Kasher by an animal either - by the same token) ...

Conclusion: ... and so too, the other way round - will Shechitah not be Kasher by a bird for the same reason.