Question: How can the Gemara deduce from here that it does not become forbidden when it is alive? Perhaps the reason it is permitted is because they did not dedicate it with the intent that it should still be holy if the murderer was found!

Question (cont.): This is similar to the Mishnah in Kerisus (23b) that says that if someone brings an Asham Taluy and he finds out that he did not sin, if the Korban was not yet slaughtered...it should graze until it receives a blemish. If he brings an Asham Vadai this is not the case, rather before it has been slaughtered it should go back into the herd...this is unlike an Eglah Arufah.

Question (cont.): The Gemara explains that the reason for the law regarding an Asham Taluy is that his heart bothers him, and he is Makdish the animal even though it is unclear whether or not he sinned. However, when someone is Makdish an Asham Vaday, he does so with intent that he sinned. When he discovers he did not sin, retroactively the Hekdesh is a mistake.

Question (cont.): Perhaps this is also the reason that an Eglah Arufah is dedicated, and it has nothing to do with not becoming forbidden when it is alive. It is therefore possible that if it would be slaughtered it would be forbidden!

Answer: The Gemara's understanding is that they dedicate the Eglah Arufah with the intent that they are not going to find the killer.

Question: Why doesn't the Gemara give an answer that is given in Kerisus (25a) that "before its head is chopped off" means before it is in place to be chopped off, meaning before it is even taken down to Nachal Eisan?

Answer: It relies on the Gemara deducing there from the end of the Mishnah (Kerisus 23b) that it is not forbidden when it is alive, as the end of the Mishnah says that when its head is chopped off it should be buried, as it was originally brought due to a doubt. It removed its doubt and went away (and therefore it is even forbidden from benefit if they later find the killer).

Question: Why did Rebbi Yanai have to say that Eglah Arufah should not be in the text of our Mishnah? Perhaps this is an argument among Tanaim, as stated in Kerisus (25a) that there is indeed an argument amongst the Tanaim regarding this subject (whether the slaughtering of an Eglah Arufah is an appropriate slaughtering)!

Answer: Rebbi Yanai had a tradition that our Mishnah did not include Eglah Arufah (and that the current text of the Mishnah is wrong).

Question: Rabeinu Moshe from Bundish asks, why don't we say that when the Mishnah states "slaughter" it really means beheading from the back of the neck? According to Rebbi Shimon one would be exempt from Oso v'Es Beno due to the fact that it was not able to be eaten (as it was improperly slaughtered).

Question (cont.): According to the Rabbanan, one would still be liable for Oso v'Es Beno being that this mode of beheading is the way it is supposed to be slaughtered.

Proof: This is as the Gemara in Yoma (64a) states regarding the Se'ir ha'Mishtalei'ach (i.e. Azazel) that pushing it off the cliff is its slaughtering, and one is liable for Oso v'Es Beno when doing so (if its mother/offspring was also slaughtered on Yom Kippur).

Proof: Similarly, we see in Zevachim (70b) that beheading the Eglah causes it not to be considered a Neveilah (without the special law of Eglah, it clearly would be a Neveilah).

Answer: Rabeinu Tam answers that if so, the Mishnah should not have said, "one who slaughters" but rather "one who beheads (from the back of the neck)."

Implied Question: This is difficult, as perhaps the Mishnah states "slaughtering" because of the other cases of the Parah Adumah and stoned ox.

Implied Question (cont.): This is as stated earlier (29a) that being that the second part of the Mishnah was discussing Kodshim animals, it stated "its slaughtering is valid" in a case regarding a bird instead of stating the more accurate description "its Melikah is valid."

Explanation: Rebbi Yanai's opinion is based on his opinion stated in Kidushin (57a) that the Pasuk says, "atonement" regarding the Eglah Arufah just as it states "atonement" regarding Kodshim. This is why it is forbidden when it is alive, just like other Kodshim that are forbidden when they are alive.

Implied Question: The Gemara in Kerisus (6a) derives from the Pasuk, "And they beheaded (from the back of the neck) there" that it should be buried there (and one should not benefit from it). (This Pasuk seems to say it is only forbidden after it is killed, and not when it is alive. If it is like Kodshim, shouldn't it obviously be forbidden without this Pasuk?)

Answer: This Pasuk is required to teach that even after it is beheaded, and the Mitzvah has already been completed, one cannot benefit from it. (This is unlike most things that one may have benefit from once the Mitzvah has been completed, see Zevachim 46a.)

Question: This is difficult. The Mishnah in Kerisus (23b) clearly indicates that the Eglah Arufah does not become forbidden when it is alive. This is as the Gemara deduces from the Mishnah in Kerisus (6:2) that says, "It removed its doubt (once it was beheaded) and went away."

Observation: The Gemara in Kidushin (57a) concludes that this is not the reasoning of Reish Lakish.

Observation (cont.): Rather, the Gemara (ibid.) states that Reish Lakish holds like the Tana d'Vei Rebbi Yishmael that derives as follows. The Pasuk discusses a "Machshir and Mechaper inside." A "Machshir inside" refers to an Asham Metzora which allows a Metzora to eat Korbanos once again, and a "Mechaper" means other Korbanos.

Observation (cont.): It also states a "Machshir and Mechaper outside." The Machshir outside refers to the birds brought by a leper, Eglah Arufah, and the Azazel. (The Gemara (ibid.) states that just as the Machshir inside (i.e. Asham Metzora) is similar to the other Korbanos in that it is forbidden from when it is taken to be an Asham Metzora, so too the Machshir outside (i.e. birds of a leper) is forbidden from when it is taken.)

Proof: We find in Kerisus (25a) that Rav Hamnuna also stated that Eglah Arufah is forbidden from when it is alive, as per the teaching of Tana d'Vei Rebbi Yishmael.

Question: How do we see from the teaching of Rebbi Yishmael that it should be forbidden from benefit when it is alive?

Answer: He deduces this from the fact that the only reason we need to derive a Machshir from a Mechaper is to say that it should be forbidden while alive. After the bird of a leper (that is supposed to be slaughtered) is slaughtered we already know it is forbidden, as the Pasuk says, "And this that you should not eat - including the slaughtered animal etc." (See Kidushin ibid.)

Explanation: Sumchus is arguing on the first part of the Mishnah as well, as Rashi explains.

Explanation (cont.): We similarly see that in Yevamos (9b) the Gemara says that Rebbi Shimon also argued on the first case.

Explanation (cont.): Sumchus is only quoted as arguing in the second part of the Mishnah in order to show the novelty of the position of the Rabbanan. Their position is that even though there are two prohibitions he transgresses here, Oso v'Es Beno and Beno v'Oso, he only receives one set of lashes. This is because they are both derived from the one Pasuk, "You should not slaughter."

Question: This is difficult. The Gemara implies here that if he planted Kilayim once he would only receive one set of lashes. Why wouldn't he also receive lashes due to the prohibition, "Do not move into the border of your friend" (Devarim 19:14)? The Gemara in Shabbos (85a) understands that this is referring to the prohibition of Kilayim.

Answer #1: Being that it is also a warning not to move the border of one's land into his friend's land, one cannot receive lashes due to the prohibition of Kilayim just as one cannot receive lashes for moving the border into his friend's land which he can always give back to the person.

Answer #2: Additionally, this is a negative prohibition that includes multiple prohibitions (and the rule is that one does not receive lashes for transgressing a prohibition that includes multiple prohibitions).

Implied Question: The Gemara asks that this was already taught despite the fact that it is asking this on a Beraisa, and many Beraisos state what was taught in a Mishnah. (Why is this difficult if it is commonly done?)

Answer: Even so, it should have taught this lesson in the same way as it is taught in the Mishnah (if it was repeating the law of the Mishnah).

Proof: We similarly find this (type of question) in Kidushin (74a). The Gemara there states that Abba Shaul used to call a Shetuki a Beduki. The Gemara asks, we already learned in the Mishnah that if people say to a woman, "What is the nature of this child etc.?" Rashi there explains that the question is that it should have said Abba Shaul's opinion in this second Mishnah. (See Tiferes Yaakov who asks that this proof of Tosfos is very difficult to understand.)

Explanation: This also refers to a case where there is one warning and even where he does one after the other. Even in such a case the Rabbanan will say he is exempt (from two sets of lashes), just as they say that a Nazir who drinks wine the entire day only receives one set of lashes.

Opinion #1: It appears that Rebbi Yoshiyah means that one is not liable for Kilai ha'Kerem (until he plants wheat, barley, and grapes together). However, he admits that he will be liable for Kilai Zeraim by planting wheat together with barley.

Proof: The Gemara indicates this when it says that the novelty is that when someone plants wheat and grapes or barley and grapes he is also liable (unlike Rebbi Yoshiyah). (This is the meaning of "Kilayim Kilayim" in the Beraisa, these two types of Kilayim.) The Gemara did not say the novelty is regarding planting only wheat and barley, implying that Rebbi Yoshiyah agrees that one will be liable (for Kilai Zeraim) in this case.

Opinion #2: Another possible explanation is that the two types of Kilayim listed in the Mishnah are Kilai Zeraim and Kilai ha'Kerem. One is wheat and barley and one is wheat and grapes. Regarding one of them Rebbi Yoshiyah admits, and regarding one he argues. However, everyone agrees that wheat and grapes or barley and grapes are the same type of Kilayim.

Text #1: Some Sefarim have the explicit text "or barley and grapes."

Text #2: Even the Sefarim that just have the text "and barley" can be explained as meaning "or barley."

Observation: Therefore, the Mishnah could not have stated a case where wheat, barley, and grapes were planted together and therefore one received two sets of lashes, being that Rebbi Yoshiyah would agree that one would receive two sets of lashes.

Proof: This is also indicated by the Yerushalmi in Kilayim (ch.9) that says according to Rebbi Yoshiyah that being that the Pasuk says, "You should not plant your field Kilayim," what is it discussing when it then says, "You should not plant your vineyard?"

Proof (cont.): This means that being that without grapes one would already be liable due to the Pasuk, "your field" (prohibiting Kilai Zeraim), what does he derive from "You should not plant your vineyard?" If Rebbi Yoshiyah would not say that Kilai Zeraim is liable without grapes, what would be the question? The Gemara's answer is that he receives lashes for "your field" (Kilai Zeraim) and "your vineyard" (Kilai ha'Kerem).

Implied Question: Rebbi Yoshiyah's reason for saying that one is only liable for Kilai ha'Kerem if there are three types of seeds while for Kilai Zeraim one is liable for just two types of seeds... (What is the reason?)

Answer: The Ri explains that Zerias Kilayim implies two types of Zeraim, and grapes are not a type of Zera.

Implied Question: However, one cannot say that he understands the Pasuk means "Do not plant together with your vineyard Kilayim," whereas "your field" implies there is no other seed in the field. (Why not?)

Answer: This is because we cannot explain the Pasuk regarding Kilayim of animals in this fashion (indicating this is not the correct explanation of these Pesukim as well).

Observation: However, Rebbi Yehudah is quoted in the Yerushalmi in Kilayim (1:9) as saying that one is not liable for Kilai Zeraim unless he plants wheat, barley, and spelt. Alternatively, he must plant two wheat seeds together with barley, or two barley seeds together with wheat. This is because he requires Kilai Zeraim together with (a crop in) your field.

Implied Question: In Bechoros (53b), the Gemara says that one cannot take Ma'aser from olives to exempt grapes, as the Pasuk states, "All Cheilev (meaning Terumah) of olives and Cheilev of grapes and grain etc" (Bamidbar 18:12). Rebbi Ami there derives that the Torah is stating that separate Terumos should be taken (on olives exempting olives, and on grapes exempting grapes).

Implied Question (cont.): The Gemara continues that this only teaches that one cannot take Terumah from grapes exempting olives (or visa versa). How do we know one cannot take Terumah from grapes to exempt grain or from grains to exempt other types of grain? The Gemara answers, this is a Kal v'Chomer. Just like grapes and olives are not Kilayim with each other but one can still not take Terumah from one to exempt the other etc.

Implied Question (cont.): The Gemara continues that according to Rebbi Yoshiyah we could ask the same question as follows. Just as grapes and olives which are not Kilayim with each other cannot exempt each other, grapes and grains or grains and other grains that can be Kilayim when they are combined with something else etc. (The Gemara's question seemingly indicates that Rebbi Yoshiyah only holds grains are Kilayim with other grains if they are together with grapes, unlike what we have just established!)

Answer: The only reason that it says "together with something else" is due to the case of grapes together with a grain (not because of the case of grain together with a different type of grain, as this is already Kilayim without anything else being added).

Question: The Gemara concludes later (91a) that Rebbi Yehudah holds the prohibition of Gid ha'Nasheh is clearly only on the right (not left) Gid. (How can our Gemara say his rationale is due to Hasra'as Safek?)

Answer: Our Gemara here means to say that we should bring proof from here that he is not in doubt. The Gemara's answer is that we cannot say this is proof, as he possibly holds like the other Beraisa that states etc. (that Rebbi Yehudah holds Hasra'as Safek is a good Hasra'ah).