1)

TOSFOS DH V'IDACH HAVAH LEIH L'ACHRAYUS V'KATANI HA D'YACHID MEISAH

úåñ' ã"ä åàéãê äåä ìéä ìàçøéåú å÷úðé äà ãéçéã îúä

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles this statement with the Sugya earlier, which queried Rebbi Aba from this Beraisa.)

åà"ú, ìòéì ôøéê îäà ìø' àáà åçùéá ìéä ë'îôøéù ìàéáåã', åäëà çùéá ìéä ë'îôøéù ìàçøéåú'?

(a)

Question: The Gemara earlier queried Rebbi Aba from here and considered it like 'Mafrish le'Ibud', whilst here it considers it like 'Mafrish le'Achrayus'?

åé"ì, ãîùúîò ìéä äùúà ëéåï ãáùòä ùäôøéù äùðé äéä éåãò ùìà éúëôø áå, àìà áùðé ùáæåâ øàùåï, ä"ì áàçøéåú ...

(b)

Answer #1: The Gemara now understands that, since at the time that he designated the second one he knew that not it would serve as an atonement for him, but the second one of the first pair, it is for Achrayus ...

åìà ãîé ì'äôøéù ìàéáåã' ãìòéì - ãäúí äéä ñåáø ãäøàùåï ðàáã åîúëôø áæä ùîôøéù òúä, åäåä ìéä ëîôøéù ìàéáåã, åìà äåé áàçøéåú ...

1.

Answer #1 (cont.): And it is not comparable to 'Hifrish le'Ibud' earlier - since there he thought that the first one was lost and that he was being atoned for with the one that was now separating, which is akin to Mafrish le'Ibud and not for Achrayus.

àáì äëà ùäéä éåãò áùòú äôøùú äùðé ùéúëôø áøàùåï, äåä ìéä ëîå àçøéåú - åàô"ä ÷àîø ãéçéã îúä ...

2.

Answer #1 (cont.): Whereas in the current case he knew when setting aside the second one, that he would be atoned for with the first one - yet it says that the Korban of a Yachid must die ...

å÷ùä ìøáé àåùòéà ãàîø 'îôøéù ùúé çèàåú ìàçøéåú, îúëôø áàçú îäï åäùðé øåòä'?

3.

Answer #1 (cont.): A Kashya on Rebbi Oshaya, who says that 'Mafrish Sh'tei Chata'os le'Achrayus Miskaper be'Achas meihen ve'ha'Sheini Ro'eh'?

åîùðé øá ìèòîéä ãàîø 'îöåä áøàùåï' - åîùòä ùäåôøù äåôøù ìàéáåã, åàéï æä àçøéåú...

4.

Answer #1 (cont.): And the Gemara answers that Rav follows his reasoning - that 'Mitzvah be'Rishon', in which case from the time that he designated it (the second one), it was designated for Ibud and not for Achrayus ...

åìëê îúä.

5.

Answer #1 (concl.): Therefore it must be destroyed.

åäà ãîãîé ìéä ìòéì ì'îôøéù ìàéáåã' ...

(c)

Implied Question: And the reason that the Gemara earlier compares it to 'Mafrish le'Ibud' is ...

äééðå îèòí ãîöåúå áøàùåï.

1.

Answer: Because the Mitzvah is on the first one.

àå ùîà éù ìôøù ãñ"ì äëà ëøá äåðà, ãàîø ìòéì 'àéðä àáåãä àéðä îúä', ìà ìøáé åìà ìøáðï ...

(d)

Answer #2: Perhaps one can explain that the Gemara here holds like Rav Huna, who said earlier that 'The animal that was not lost does not die' - not according to Rebbi and not according to the Rabbanan ...

åîùåí äëé ôøéê îéðä ãäéä ñáåø ùäåà ë'îôøéù ìàçøéåú'.

1.

Answer #2 (cont.): Consequently, the Gemara asks from it, because it considers it like 'Mafrish le'Achrayos.

2)

TOSFOS DH REBBI ELIEZER B'REBBI SHIMON OMER AFILU B'SAR BA'ALAS-MUM BI'KEDEIRAH ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä øáé àìòæø áø' ùîòåï àåîø àôéìå áùø áòìú îåí á÷ãéøä ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the difference between this Beraisa and the Mishnah.)

åà"ú, î"ù äëà îîúðé' - ãàîøé øáðï áääéà ãîúðé' ãàôéìå ðæø÷ ãîä ãùðéä áòåã øàùåðä áòìú îåí ÷ééîà, àéï ìä ãéï îéúä ...

(a)

Question #1: Why does the Gemara here differ from the Mishnah ... inasmuch as the Rabbanan in the Mishnah say that even if the blood of the second animal has been sprinkled whilst the blemished one is still alive, it does not have a Din Misah

åäëà àîø ãàí ðùçèä áòìú îåí îùðæø÷ ãí úîéîä, àñåøä? ...

1.

Question #1 (cont.): Whilst here it says that if the Ba'alas-Mum is Shechted after the blood of the Temimah has been sprinkled, it is forbidden?

åìø' àìòæø áø' ùîòåï, àôéìå áùø á÷ãéøä, ëùðæø÷ ãîä ùì úîéîä, úöà ìáéú äùøéôä ...

(b)

Question #2: And according to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, even if the meat is already in the pot, when the blood of the Temimah is sprinkled, it goes out to the location where it is burned ...

åáîúðé' ÷àîø ãàí ðùçèä áòìú îåí ÷åãí æøé÷ú ãîä ùì úîéîä, ãëùøä?

1.

Question #2 (cont.): Whereas in the Mishnah, he says that if the Ba'alas-Mum is Shechted before the blood of the Temimah has been sprinkled, it is Kasher?

åéù ìçì÷, ãáääéà ãîúðé' ëéåï ãäéúä ëáø áòìú îåí ÷åãí äôøùä ùì æå, àéï òìéä ÷ãåùä ëì ëê ...

(c)

Answer: One can differentiate in that in the case in the Mishnah, since it was already a Ba'al-Mum before the other one was designated, it does not have a high degree of Kedushah ...

àáì äëà ãäåôøùå ìàçøéåú åðøàå ùðéäí ìä÷øéá, éù òìéä ÷ãåùä éåúø.

1.

Answer (cont.): Whereas in our case, where they were designated for Achrayus and where both are fit to bring on the Mizbe'ach, they do.

24b----------------------------------------24b

3)

TOSFOS DH KEITZAD MA'ARIMIN IM ZACHAR OLAH

úåñ' ã"ä ëéöã îòøéîéï àí æëø òåìä

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies part of the Mishnah and elaborates.)

îôøù áâî' ããå÷à ð÷è 'òåìä' ãìà ðçúà î÷ãåùúéä, àáì ùìîéí, ìà, ãðçúà î÷ãåùúééäå.

(a)

Clarifying Sugya: The Gemara explains that the Tana deliberately mentions 'Olah', since it does not detract from its Kedushah, but not a Shelamim, which does.

'åàí ð÷áä, æáçé ùìîéí'; áâîøà ôøéê 'åð÷áä îé ÷à ÷ãùä ááëåøä' - ëìåîø åì"ì ìäúôéñä á÷ãåùä? ...

1.

Clarifying Sugya (cont.): 'And if it is a Nekeivah (one declares it) a Shelamim; 'Since when is a Shelamim Kadosh bi'Bechorah?' asks the Gemara? - in other words 'Why the need to transfer the Kedushah? ...

åîå÷é ìä ááäîú ä÷ãù, åàéï øöåðå ùéçåì òìä ÷ãåùú äàí, åøåöä ìäúôéñä á÷ãåùä àçøú.

2.

Clarifying Sugya (cont.): And it establishes it by an animal that is Hekdesh, and he doesn't want the Kedushah of the mother to take effect on the V'lad, but some other Kedushah.

åñéôà ã'éìãä ùðé æëøéí' îå÷é ìä ááäîä ãçåìéï...

3.

Clarifying Sugya (concl.): Whereas the Seifa where 'The mother gave birth to two males' it establishes by an animal that is Chulin ...

åà"ë îééøé øéùà åñéôà áçåìéï, åîöéòúà ááäîú ä÷ãù?

(b)

Implied Question: In which case, the Reisha and the Seifa refer to Chulin, and the Metzi'asa to an animal of Hekdesh?

åúéîä ìîåøé äøî"ø, ìîä ãç÷ ìàå÷åîé îöéòúà ááäîä ãä÷ãù ...

(c)

Question: Tosfos' Rebbe, ha'Rav Mordechai asks why the Gemara does not push to establish ythe Metzi'asa by an animal of Chulin ...

äøé ñéôà ãáçåìéï àééøé, åàô"ä àúôéñ áæáçé ùìîéí?

1.

Precedent: Just as the Seifa is speaking about an animal that is Chulin, yet he is Matfis it for a Shelamim?

åúéøõ îùåí ãáòé ìàå÷åîé à'ëéöã îòøéîéï?'

(d)

Answer: And he answers - Because he wants to establish it with regard to 'Keitzad Ma'arimin?' (See Tzon Kodshim)

4)

TOSFOS DH KA'SAVAR RABAN SHIMON BEN GAMLIEL KODSHIM B'HAVAYASAN HEIN KEDOSHIM (This Dibur belongs to Daf 25a)

úåñ' ã"ä ÷ñáø øùá"â åìãåú ÷ãùéí áäåééúï äï ÷ãåùéï

(Summary: Tosfos discusses the ramifications of this statement and elaborates.)

ìôéëê àéï ÷ãåùä çìä òì èåîèå' åàðãøåâéðå' - ùäøé ÷åãí ùúçåì ÷ãåùú äàí òìéäí äéå ëáø áòìé îåîéï, ìôéëê àéï ÷ãåùú äàí çìä òìééäå ...

(a)

Clarification: That is why Kedushah does not take effect on a Tumtum and Androginus - since before they were already Ba'alei-Mumin before their mother's Kedushah took effect on them ...

åâí á÷ãåùú ôä ìà ÷ãùé, ëéåï ùäï áòìé îåîéï, åàéï ãòúå òì áòìé îåîéï...

1.

Clarification (cont.): Nor do they become sanctified via Kedushas Peh (a verbal declaration) - seeing as they are blemished, and he does not have blemished animals in mind ...

ãàé ÷ñáø 'îîòé àîï äï ÷ãåùéï', àí ëï ðçúà ÷ãåùú äàí òìééäå îùòä ùðåìã, ãòãééï ìà äéå áòìé îåîéï - ùäøé ááäîú ä÷ãù îå÷îé' ìä ...

2.

Clarification (cont.): But if he would hold 'mi'Me'ei Imo hein Kedoshim' (whilst still in the womb), then the Kedushah of their mother would take effect on them the moment they are born, since they were not yet Ba'alei-Mumin - and the Gemara establishes the case by an animal that is Hekdesh

ãàé 'îîòé àîï äï ÷ãåùéï', ìà çééìà ÷ãåùú äôä òìééäå, åäåé á÷ãåùú äàí, åîèåðéä ãàí.

3.

Clarification (concl.): And if 'mi'Me'ei Imo hein Kedoshim', Kedushas Peh would not take on them, since the mother's Kedushah is on them, and they are like their mother.

åà"ú, îðìï ãèòîà ãøùá"â îùåí ã÷ñáø 'áäåééúï äï ÷ãåùéï'? ãìîà èòîà ãøùá"â îùåí ãàéï ãòú äî÷ãéù ëé àí ìæëø åãàé åìð÷áä åãàéú ...

(b)

Question: How do we know that Raban Shimon ben Gamliel's reason is because he holds 'be'Havayasan hein Kedoshim'? Perhaps it is because the Makdish only has in mind a definite male or a definite female? ...

ëãàéúà øéù ôø÷ îé ùîú (á"á ãó ÷î:).

1.

Source: As the Gemara says at the beginning of Perek Mi she'Meis (Bava Basra, Daf 140b).

åé"ì, ãîåëç ùôéø ã÷ñáø 'áäååééúï äï ÷ãåùéï', ãàé èòîà îùåí ãàéï ãòú äî÷ãéù ë"à ìåãàé, î"î ú÷ãåù á÷ãåùú äàí ...

(c)

Introduction to Answer: The fact that he holds 'be'Havayasan hein Kedoshim' is clear, because if his reason was that the Makdish only has in mind a Vaday (male or female), then it ought to at least adopt the Kedushah of its mother ...

åàîàé ÷àîø ãàéï ÷ãåùä çìä òìééäå ëìì?

1.

Answer: So why does he say that Kedushah does not take effect on it at all?

åà"ú, ìøá çñãà, ãàîø ááëåøåú ô' òì àìå îåîéï (ãó îà:) òì îúðé' ã'èåîèåí åàðãøåâéðåñ ìà áî÷ãù åìà áîãéðä; øáé éùîòàì àåîø àéï ìê îåí âãåì îæä, åçë"à àéðå áëåø àìà ðâææ åðòáã' ...

(d)

Introduction to Question: According to Rav Chisda, who says in connection with the Mishnah in Bechoros (Perek Eilu Mimin, Daf 41b) 'Tumtum ve'Androginus Lo be'Mikdash ve'Lo ba'Medinah; Rebbi Yishmael Omer "Ein l'cha Mum Gadol mi'Zeh" (there is no bigger Ba'al-Mum than that), va'Chachamim Omrim "Eino B'chor, Ela Nigzaz ve'Ne'evad" (One may shear and work with it)' ...

å÷àîø áâîøà òìä 'àîø øá çñãà, îçìå÷ú áàðãøåâéðåñ, àáì áèåîèåí ã"ä ñôé÷à, å÷ãåùä îñôé÷à åéùçèðå ...

1.

Introduction to Question (cont.): On which Rav Chisda comments that their Machlokes is confined to Androginus, but that a Tumtum, both agree that it is a Safek, in which case it is Kadosh mi'Safek and is Shechted ...

åìàçø ùçéèä úáã÷ àí æëø äåà àå ð÷áä ...

2.

Introduction to Question (concl.): Following which one examines it to determine whether it is a male or a female ...

åàîàé ÷àîø øùá"â ãàéï ÷ãåùä çìä òìéäí?

3.

Question: Why does Raban Shimon ben Gamliel therefore say that Kedushah does not take effect on it (the Tumtum)?

åé"ì, ãìøá çñãà äëé ðîé ÷ãåùä çìä òì èåîèåí ...

(e)

Answer: According to Rav Chisda, Kedushah does indeed take effect on the Tumtum

åäà ã÷àîø 'àéï ÷ãåùä' äééðå ÷ãåùú äôä, ãàéï ãòúå ë"à ìæëø åãàé àå ìð÷áä åãàéú, ëãàéúà ôø÷ îé ùîú (á"á ãó ÷î:).

1.

Answer (cont.): nd when he says that it does not, he is referring to Kedushas ha'Peh, since the Makdish only has in mind a Vaday male or female, as the Gemara states in Perek Mi she'Meis (Bava Basra, Daf 140b).

åäà ã÷àîø äù"ñ ã'àé îîòé àîï äï ÷ãåùéï, äà úôñúéðäå ÷ãåùú àéîéä' ...

(f)

Implied Question: And when the Gemara asks 'I mi'Me'ei Iman hein Kedoshim, ha Tafsinhu Kedushas Imaihu?' ...

ìà àúéà ëøá çñãà.

1.

Answer: It is not going according to Rav Chisda.

åà"ú, äëà àîø ãìî"ã 'áäååééúï äï ÷ãåùéï', àéï ÷ãåùú äâåó çìä òì èåîèåí åàðãøåâéðåñ, åäøé äï ëáòìé îåîéï ãàéï ÷ãåùú äâåó çìä òìééäå ...

(g)

Introduction to Question #1: Here the Gemara says that according to the opinion that 'be'Havayasan hein Kedoshim', Kedushas ha'Guf does not take effect on a Tumtum and an Androginus ...

åáøéù éåöà ãåôï (ðãä ãó î:) îöøéê ÷øà òìééäå ã'àí òìå éøãå' - àìîà ÷ãéùé àôéìå ìî"ã 'áäååééúï äï ÷ãåùéí'.

1.

Introduction to Question #1 (cont.): And at the beginning of 'Yotzei Dofen' (Nidah, Daf 40b) the Gemara requires a Pasuk to teach us that 'If they are taken up to the Mize'ach, they must be taken down' - from which we can learn that they are Kadosh even according to the opinion that 'be'Havayasan hein Kedoshim'.

åìîä ìé ÷øà, îàçø ããééðéðï ìäå ëáòìé îåîéï ãàéï ÷ãåùú äâåó çìä òìééäå?

2.

Question #1: Why do we need a Pasuk, seeing as we consider them like Ba'alei-Mumin, which are not subject to Kedushas ha'Guf?

åä"ð ÷ùä îô' áúøà ãæáçéí (ãó ÷éá.) 'äøåáò åäðøáò åäîå÷öä åäðòáã åäàúðï åäîçéø åäëìàéí åäèøéôä åäéåöà ãåôï ùä÷øéáï áçåõ, ôèåø ...

(h)

Introduction to Question #2: And similarly, we can ask from the last Perek of Zevachim (Daf 112a) which declares Patur an animal that raped, was raped, is Muktzah (set aside for Avodah Zarah), was worshipped, an Esnan, a M'chir Kelev, a Kil'ayim, a T'reifah, or a Yotzei Dofen (born by a caesarian) that one sacrificed outside the Azarah ...

ùðàîø "ìôðé îùëï ä' " - ëì ùàéðå øàåé ìáà ìôðé îùëï ä', àéï çééáéï òìéå' ...

1.

Introduction to Question #2: From the Pasuk "Lifnei Mishkan Hash-m" - 'One is not Chayav for any animal that is not fit to come before the Mishkan of Hashem' ...

åôøéê áâî' (ùí ãó ÷éã.) òìä 'úéôå÷ ìéä î"åàì ôúç àäì îåòã"? - òã ãîñé÷ 'áååìãåú ÷ãùéí, å÷ñáø 'åìãåú ÷ãùéí áäåééúï äï ÷ãåùéï' ...

2.

Introduction to Question #2 (concl.): And the Gemara (Ibid. Daf 114a) queries this 'Why can we not learn that from "ve/el Pesach Ohel Mo'ed"? and it concludes there that it is speaking about V'lados Kodshim, and he holds 'V'lados Kodshim be'Havayasan hein Kedoshin' ...

àìîà îùîò ãùôéø äï [øàåéï] ìáà ìôðé ôúç àåä"î, åàé ìàå ãîîòèéðï ìäå î"ìôðé îùëï ä' ", ìà îîòè ìäå î"ôúç àäì îåòã"?

3.

Question #2: Implying that they are in fact fit to come to the entrance of the Ohel Mo'ed, and if we would not preclude them from "Lifnei Mishkan Hash-m", we would not preclude them from Pesach Ohel Mo'ed"?

åò"÷ ìôé îä ãôø"é áô' îøåáä (á"÷ ãó òæ:) âáé äà ãàîø "àå òæ", 'ìäåöéà àú äðãîä' ...

(i)

Introduction to Question #3: And one can ask another Kashya, according to the Ri in Perek Merubeh (Bava Kama, Daf 77b), in connection with the D'rashah "O Eiz", 'to preclude a Nidmeh' (the offspring of a ram and a lamb, that resembles a goat) ...

å÷ùä ìø"é ìùí, ì"ì ÷øà ìîòåèé ðãîä, úéôå÷ ìéä ãáòìú îåí äåà ...

1.

Question #3: And the Ri asks there 'Why do we need a Pasuk to preclude a Nidmeh, why can we not learn it from the fact that it is a Ba'alas-Mum ...

îãàéùúðé äåä ìéä îåîà - ëãàéúà øéù áëåøåú (ãó å:)?

2.

Reason: Since the fact that it is different renders it a blemish - as the Gemara explains at the beginning of Bechoros (Daf 6b)?

åúéøõ ø"é, ãàéöèøéê ÷øà ìîòåèé ðãîä ãåìãåú ÷ãùéí - ãîäå ãúéîà ãìé÷ãùå àâá àéîéä, ÷î"ì "àå òæ" ãìà.

(j)

Answer: And he answers that we need the Pasuk to preclude a Nidmeh by V'lados Kodshim - since we would otherwise have thought that they ought to be Kadosh together with their mother - therefore we learn from "O Eiz" that this is not the case.

å÷ùä, î"î, ëéåï ãîîòèéðï î"àå òæ" 'ìîòåèé ðãîä ãåìãåú ÷ãùéí' - ãçùáéðï ìéä ëáòìú îåí ...

(k)

Introduction to Question: In any event, seeing as we preclude a Nidmeh by V'lados Kodshim from "O Eiz" - since we consider it a Ba'alas-Mum ...

åë"ù ëìàéí ãâøéòé èôé - ëãàéúà ôø÷ îøåáä (á"÷ ãó òç.), ããéé÷ 'äùúà ëìàéí àéúøáå, ðãîä îéáòé?!' ...

1.

Introduction to Question (cont.): How much more so a Kil'ayim, which is inferior - as the Gemara states in Perek Merubeh (Bava Kama, Daf 78a), where it exclaims 'Now that we include Kil'ayim, need we mention Nidmeh?! ' ...

àìîà âøéòé ëìàéí îðãîä, åëéåï ãîîòèéðï àôéìå ðãîä ãåìãåú ÷ãùéí î"àå òæ" ëãôø"é, ë"ù ëìàéí ãâøéòé ...

2.

Introduction to Question (cont.): So we see that Kil'ayim are inferior to Nidmeh, and since we preclude even a Nidmeh by V'lados Kodshim from "O Eiz", Kal va'Chomer Kil'ayim, which are worse ...

åà"ë, ÷øà ãæáçéí ã"ìôðé îùëï ä' " - ãîöøéê äúí ìîòåèé ëìàéí ìîä ìé, äà ìàå øàåéï äï ìôúç àäì îåòã?

3.

Question: If so, why do we need the Pasuk cited in Zevachim "Lifnei Mishkan Hash-m" - which is required to preclude Kil'ayim - seeing as they are not fit to come to the entrance of the Ohel Mo'ed?

åé"ì, ãìòåìí ôùéèà ìï ãäðé ãúðéà áôø÷ áúøà ãæáçéí (ãó ÷éã.) ìà ÷ãéùé ëìì, åàô"ä àéöèøéê "ìôðé îùëï ä' " ìîòåèéðäå, ãàéï çééáéï òìéäï áçåõ ...

(l)

Answer: In fact, it is obvious that all the cases listed in the last Perek of Zevachim are not Kadosh at all; nevertheless we need "Lifnei Mishkan Hash-m" to preclude them, that one is not Chayav for Shechting them outside ...

ãàéìå î"ôúç àäì îåòã" ìáã ìà îöé ìîòåèéðäå, ùäøé äï øàåéï ìáà ìôðé ôúç àäì îåòã òí àîï áòåãï ááèï àîï - åäéà áäîú ÷ãùéí, àó òì âá ãäåìãåú ìà ÷ãéùé ëìì.

1.

Answer (cont.): Because from "Pesach Ohel Mo'ed" alone one cannot preclude them, seeing as they are fit to come to the entrance of the Ohel Mo'ed with their mothers, whilst they are still inside the womb of their mother, which is an animal of Kodshim - even though the V'lados are no Kadosh at all.

åä"ð ðéçà ääéà ã'éåöà ãåôï' - ãàéöèøéê ÷øà ìîòåèéðäå, ã'àí òìå, éøãå', àó òì âá ãàéï òìéäï ùåí ÷ãåùä ...

2.

Answer (cont.): And in the same way, the Kashya from 'Yotzei Dofen' is answered as well - in that we need the Pasuk to preclude them, that if they went up they must come down, despite the fact that have no Kedushah ...

àìà ùäï øàåéï ìáà áòæøä òí àîï ëùäàí ÷ãåùä, àó òì âá ãäï òöîï ìà ÷ãéùé ëìì.

3.

Answer (concl.): Only they are fit to come to the Azarah together with their mother, if it is Kadosh, even though they themselves are not Kadosh at all.

5)

TOSFOS DH AMAR RAV YEHUDAH MUTAR LEHATIL MUM BI'BECHOR

úåñ' ã"ä àîø øá éäåãä îåúø ìäèéì îåí ááëåø

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the case and reconciles Rav Yehudah with Rav Huna in Chulin.)

ëãàîø ááëåøåú (ãó ìä.) 'âãéà áàæðéä àéîøà áùéôååúéä'.

(a)

Clarification: A kid-goat on its ear and a lamb on its lip, as the Gemara explains in Bechoros (Daf 35a).

åà"ú, ìéîà ãøá éäåãä ãäëà ôìéâ à'ãøá äåðà ôø÷ áäîä äî÷ùä (çåìéï ãó ñè:) 'éöà ùìéù åîëøå ìòåáã ëåëáéí, åçæø åéöà ùìéù àçø, äøé æä ÷ãåù ááëåøä ...

(b)

Question: Does this mean that Rav Yehudah here argues with Rav Huna in Perek Beheimah ha'Maksheh (Chulin, Daf 69b) - 'If, after a third (of the fetus) emerged he sold it to a Nochri, and a second third then emerged, it is Kadosh bi'Bechorah ...

ãëé ðô÷ øåáà ìáñåó, àéâìàé îéìúà ìîôøò ãîòé÷øà äåä ÷ãéù' ...

1.

Question (cont.): Because when a majority subsequently emerged, it inicates retroactively that it was Kadosh' ...

ä"ð ðéîà âáé 'îèéì îåí ... '?

2.

Question (concl.): We ought to say the same in the case of 'Matil Mum ...'?

åéù ìçì÷ áéï îèéì îåí ìîëéøä - ãáîëéøä éù ìèòåú éåúø ùîà éîëåø àçø éöéàú øåáå.

(c)

Answer: One can draw a distinction between Matil Mum and selling - in that by selling, it is easier to err and to sell it after the majority emerged.

6)

TOSFOS DH HA ADIFA YESEIRA MI'D'ASI BEIH LI'YEDEI GIZAH V'AVODAH

úåñ' ã"ä äà òãéôà éúéøà îãàúé áéä ìéãé âéæä åòáåãä

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the statement and discusses today's Minhag.)

ôé' àéï áå îåí, öøéê ìäùäåú, åàéëà ìîéçù ãìîà àúé ìéãé ú÷ìä ãâéæä åòáåãä ...

(a)

Clarification: If there is no blemish, he has to wait, and there is cause to suspect that perhaps he will come to shear it or to work with it ...

àáì äùúà ãéù áå îåí, ùçéè ìéä ëäï åìà àúé ìéãé âéæä åòáåãä, ãìîä éùäðå.

1.

Clarification (cont.): But now that it has a blemish, the Kohen can Shecht it, and he will not come to shear it or to work with it.

åàø"ú ãäùúà ðäâå äòåìí ìîëåø ÷öú îï äàí ìòåáã ëåëáéí ëãé ìäô÷éò äååìã îï äáëåøä ...

(b)

The Current Minhag: Rabeinu Tam says that nowadays the prevalent Minhag is to sell part of the mother to a Nochri in order to remove the V'lad from the Bechorah ...

åèåá äåà ìòùåú ëï - åáìáã ùé÷ðä ìå ÷ðéï çùåá ëîå äâáää ãáäîä ã÷ä àå îùéëä å÷ðéï ëñó òîå.

(c)

Praiseworthy: And this is a good thing to do - provided he acquires it with a proper Kinyan, such as Hagbahah on a small-type animal or Meshichah together with Kinyan Kesef.

åàó òì âá ãàéëà ô"÷ ãáëåøåú (ãó â:) âáé 'øá îøé áø øçì î÷ðé ìòåáã ëåëáéí ... , åëìàé çéåúà ãøá îøé áø øçì' - å÷àîø òìä ã'äà ãëìàé îùåí ãîô÷ò ìäå îëäï, åäåé àéñåøà ìòùåú ëï' ...

(d)

Implied Question: Even though the Gemara relates in the first Perek of Bechoros (Daf 3b) how Rav Mari bar Rachel sold a B'chor to a Nochri ... and his animals died, and it attributes it to the fact that he removed the animals from the realm of the Kohen, which it was forbidden to do?

àé áòéú àéîà îùåí ãøá îøé éãò ìà÷ðåéé ÷ðéï âîåø, åë"ò ìà éãòé, åñáøé ãîéìúà áòìîà òáã, åàúé ìéãé ú÷ìä.

(e)

Answer: One can answer that it is because although Rav Mari knew that it required a proper Kinyan, the people (of his time) who did not, thought that he just made a perfunctory Kinyan, and this led to a Takalah (sin).

åàðï ÷é"ì ëìéùðà áúøà ãáòéà ÷ðéï âîåø ...

(f)

Halachah: We Pasken like the latter Lashon that requires a proper Kinyan.

åàôéìå ììùåï øàùåï ðîé ðéçà ìï èôé ìîåëøå ìòåáã ëåëáéí îìäèéì áå îåí ÷åãí éöéàú øåáå ...

(g)

Halachah (cont.): But even according to the first Lashon, it is better to sell it to a Nochri than to make a blemish on it before the majority emerges ...

ãìà àúé ìîéèòé ìäèéì áå îåí ìàçø éöéàú äøåá- îùåí äëé èåá ìòùåú ëï ...

1.

Reason: In order to avoid making the mistake of making the blemish after the majority has emerged - which is why it is preferable to do so ...

àå ìîëåø ÷öú îï äàí ìòåáã ëåëáéí ÷åãí ìéãä ...

(h)

A Third Option: Or to sell a part of the mother to a Nochri before the birth ...

åäëé òãéó èôé - ãìà àúé ìéãé ú÷ìä ãâéæä åòáåãä.

1.

Preferable: And this is the best method of all - since it avoids the Takalah of shearing and working with it.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF