POINT BY POINT OUTLINE
prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
1) SOMETHING FITTING TO BE REDEEMED
(a) Likewise, he holds that anything fitting to be redeemed, it is considered as if it was redeemed.
1. (Beraisa - R. Shimon): A red heifer receives Tum'ah like a food because there was a time when it was ready to be eaten.
2. (Reish Lakish): R. Shimon holds that a red heifer may be redeemed even (after slaughter) near the wood (when it is about to be burned).
3. It receives Tum'ah even though it was never actually permitted to eat, but it was ready to be eaten had it been redeemed. Since it could have been redeemed, we consider it as if it was redeemed.
2) THE DIFFERENT ANSWERS
(a) R. Yochanan (bottom of 76a) did not answer as Reish Lakish, for he wanted to establish the Mishnah to discuss even Tam animals;
(b) Question: Why didn't Reish Lakish answer like R. Yochanan?
(c) Answer: "And he slaughtered it or sold it" - a thief is liable (four or five) for slaughtering only if he would have been liable for selling.
1. Since Tam Kodshim cannot be sold, a thief is not liable for slaughtering them.
(d) R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish are consistent with what they taught elsewhere.
1. (R. Yochanan): R. Shimon obligates a thief who sells a Tereifah. Even though he would be exempt for slaughtering it (since this does not permit the meat), he is liable for selling it;
2. (Reish Lakish): R. Shimon exempts him. Since he would be exempt for slaughtering it, he is exempt for selling it.
(e) Question (R. Yochanan - Beraisa): If a thief stole Kilayim (a crossbreed) and slaughtered it, or a Tereifah and sold it, he pays four or five.
1. This is like R. Shimon. Even though he would be exempt for slaughtering it, he is liable for selling it.
(f) Answer (Reish Lakish): No, it is like Chachamim.
(g) Question: Chachamim (who obligate for slaughter even if the meat is not permitted) obligate even for slaughtering a Tereifah!
1. Counter-question: (Even) if you will say it is R. Shimon, he should be liable for selling Kilayim!
2. Answer: You must say that the Tana mentioned slaughtering Kilayim, but the same applies to selling it;
(h) Answer: Also regarding a Tereifah, Chachamim mentioned selling it, but the same applies to slaughtering it!
(i) Rejection (R. Yochanan): We understand if the Mishnah is like R. Shimon. Since the Tana could teach only one thing (selling) about a Tereifah, he also taught only one (slaughter) about Kilayim (even though both apply);
1. If the Mishnah were like Chachamim, they should be taught together. For slaughtering or selling a Tereifah or Kilayim, he pays four or five!
2. This is left difficult (for Reish Lakish).
(a) Question: Why does he pay four or five for Kilayim? The Torah said "Seh" (a sheep or goat);
1. (Rava): Wherever the Torah says "Seh", this excludes Kilayim.
(b) Answer: It says "ox or Seh" to include Kilayim.
(c) Question: Is it really true that 'or' always comes to include?!
1. (Beraisa): "An ox or lamb" excludes Kilayim; "or goat" excludes a Nidmeh (an animal that does not resemble its parents, i.e. a child of two sheep that looks like a goat).
(d) Answer (Rava): 'Or' changes what we would have otherwise understood from the verse.
1. Regarding theft, it says "ox or Seh." Mating them cannot produce Kilayim (nothing will be born), so one would have thought that four or five does not apply to Kilayim. 'Or' teaches that it does apply;
2. Regarding Kodshim, it says "lamb or goat." Mating them can produce Kilayim, so one would have thought that Kilayim are valid Korbanos - 'or' teaches that they are not.