תוספות ד"ה כיון

(SUMMARY: Tosfos proves from our Gemara that if a goose or chicken runs away from its owner it is considered ownerless.)

שמעינן מהכא דאווזים ותרנגולים של חולין שמרדו בבעליהם והלכו להן הוו הפקר והמחזיק בהן זכה


Observation: We see from here that Chulin geese and chickens that rebel against their owner by running away are considered ownerless, and whoever takes them acquires them.

דהא הכא היינו טעמא כיון דמרדו הוו הפקר וחייבין בשלוח


Proof: This apparent from here, as the reason they are ownerless and are obligated in being sent away is because they rebelled (and ran away).



תוספות ד"ה דוקא מת

(SUMMARY: Tosfos notes that "dies" and "falls" does not have to be the case.)

לאו דוקא נקט מת דהא שור אפילו נגנב או נאבד נמי חייב באחריותו שהוא קדשי המזבח ולרבי יוחנן נפל נמי לאו דוקא


Observation: The Mishnah does not mean that the ox necessarily died, as the person is obligated to replace the ox even if it was stolen or it went lost since it is Kodshei Mizbe'ach. Similarly, according to Rebbi Yochanan, the house did not necessarily fall.



תוספות ד"ה לפי שמצינו

(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks why Rebbi Nasan entertained that Erchin is the same as Hekdesh that is redeemed onto money.)

תימה באיזה הקדש מיירי אי דאמר הרי זה מאי איריא דנקט לאחר שנתחללו אפילו הקדש עצמו נגנב או נאבד אין חייב באחריותו


Question: This is difficult. Which type of Hekdesh is this referring to? If he said, "This should be" why is the case after the items were redeemed onto money? One is not even responsible for Hekdesh itself (dedicated in this fashion) that is stolen or lost!

אלא על כרחך דאמר עלי אף על גב דבהקדש גופיה חייב באחריותו כיון שנתחלל אינו חייב באחריות המעות ואם כן מה קאמר יכול אף זה כן היאך דומה ערך להקדש שנתחלל


Question (cont.): Rather, it must be referring to where he said, "It is upon me" even though one is responsible for such Hekdesh. However, once it is redeemed onto money he is not responsible for it. If so, why does Rebbi Nasan say, "One might think the same is true regarding this?" How can Erchin be compared to Hekdesh that is redeemed?




תוספות ד"ה שכסוי

(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks why the Mishnah did not state an obvious difference between Kisuy ha'Dam and Shiluach ha'Ken. )

תימה אמאי לא תני שכסוי הדם נוהג בזכרים ונקבות ושלוח הקן אינו נוהג אלא בנקבות


Question: This is difficult. Why doesn't the Mishnah say that Kisuy ha'Dam applies to male and females, while Shiluach ha'Ken only applies to females?



תוספות ד"ה בדרך

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the inclusion of a nest at sea and the exclusion of a nest in the air.)

וא"ת אמאי איצטריך ריבויא לקן שבים דאי משום דכתיב על הארץ א"כ לא ליכתוב בדרך ולשתוק מעל הארץ


Question: Why do we need a Pasuk to include a nest in the sea? If it is because the Pasuk says, "on the land" it simply should not say "on the way" nor "on the land!"

ומיהו על הארץ איצטריך למעוטי נשר בשמים


Answer: However, "on the land" is needed to exclude an eagle (carrying a nest while flying) in the heavens.

אבל קשה דא"כ מאי פריך בסמוך מצא קן בשמים הכי נמי דמחייב ומאי קושיא הא כתיב על הארץ


Question: However, this is difficult. If so, what is the Gemara's question later that if one finds a nest in the heavens he should be obligated in Shiluach ha'Ken? The Pasuk says "on the land!"

ונראה דפריך דקן בשמים נחייב מבדרך ומעל הארץ נמעט שבים במה ראית


Answer: It seems that the question is that a nest in the heavens should be obligated in Shiluach due to "on the way," and we should exclude a nest in the sea from "on the land." Why choose to do the opposite (exclude in the heavens and include in the sea)?



תוספות ד"ה תא שמע

(SUMMARY: Tosfos proves that all other Pesukim with the word "bird" do not refer to non kosher birds.)

וא"ת והא כתיב (תהלים יא) איך תאמרו לנפשי נודי הרכם צפור


Question: Doesn't the Pasuk say, "How can they say to my soul that your mountain is flying away like a bird?" (This implies that a "Tzipor" can even refer to a non kosher bird!)

י"ל דפשיטא דדוד לעוף טהור היה מדמה עצמו וכן (שם קכד) כצפור נמלטה מפח יוקשים (ישעיה לא) כצפרים עפות


Answer: It is obvious that Dovid ha'Melech must have compared himself to a kosher bird. This is similar to the Pesukim "like a bird running from a trap of hunters" and "like birds flying away." (They must be referring to kosher birds, as they are referring to good people).

וא"ת והא כתיב (תהלים פד) גם צפור מצאה בית דאיירי נמי בטמא דאטו טהור מצא טמא לא מצא


Question: Doesn't the Pasuk say, "Even a bird found a home?" This is referring to a non kosher bird as well, as why would we say that a kosher bird found a home but a non kosher bird did not?

ומיהו אפשר דמיירי בטהור כדמוכח סיפא דקרא דכתיב ודרור קן לה וצפור דרור היא טהורה כדמוכח באלו טריפות (לעיל דף סב.)


Answer: However, it is possible that this is referring to a kosher bird, as is apparent from the second part of the Pasuk that states, "And a Dror has a nest." A Dror is a kosher bird, as is apparent from the Gemara earlier (62a).

והא דכתיב (תהלים קד) אשר שם צפרים יקננו חסידה וגו'


Implied Question: The Pasuk states, "That there birds will nest, a Chasidah etc. (A Chasidah is a non kosher bird. Doesn't this indicate that bird can refer to a non kosher bird?)

אפשר דבכלל חסידה הם כל הטמאים וצפרים היינו טהורה


Answer: It is possible that the Pasuk cites Chasidah as an example of all non kosher birds, and it cites "birds" in reference to kosher birds (but Chasidah is not included in "birds").