1)

TOSFOS DH DE'KAYMI DARA DE'GAVRA

úåñ' ã"ä ã÷ééîé ãøà ãâáøé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara did not give a more simple answer.)

áìà æä äéä éëåì ìåîø ëâåï ùäéä àãí àçã òåîã ìùí áùòú äñâø åøàä ùìà çñø?

(a)

Implied Question: The truth is that, without this, the Gemara could have answered that someone was standing there at the time of the quarantine and saw that the Nega did not diminish ...

àìà øåöä ìôøù áàåúå òðéï ùàó äëäï òöîå äéä éëåì ìéãò.

(b)

Answer: ... only it wants to present a case where the Kohen himself was able to know.

2)

TOSFOS DH MINA HA MILSA D'AMUR RABBANAN ZIL BASAR RUBA

úåñ' ã"ä îðà äà îéìúà ãàîåø øáðï æéì áúø øåáà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we cannot learn this from the principle 'Ruba va'Chazakah, Ruba Adif').

åà"ú, ëéåï ãàîøéðï 'æéì áúø çæ÷ä', ë"ù áúø øåáà, ã'øåáà åçæ÷ä øåáà òãéó'?

(a)

Question: Bearing in mind the principle that Rov is stronger than a Chazakah, once we establish that we go after the majority, surely it is obvious that we go after Chazakah.

åé"ì, ãìøá àçà áø éò÷á áòé, ãìà ÷éí ìéä çæ÷ä î÷øà.

(b)

Answer #1: The Gemara actually goes according to Rav Acha bar Ya'akov, who does not learn Chazakah from a Pasuk (see Maharsha).

åìîàé ãîôøù øáéðå çééí, ãäà ãøåáà òãéó îçæ÷ä ìà îñáøà àìà éìôéðï îôøä àãåîä - ãàæìéðï áúø øåáà àò"â ãàéëà çæ÷ä ëðâã äøåá, ãàå÷é âáøà ùîæéï òìéå áçæ÷ú èîà, àúé ùôéø äëà.

(c)

Answer #2: According to Rabeinu Chayim, who does not learn that Rov is stronger than Chazakah from a S'vara, but from Parah Adumah, from which we extrapolate that we go after Rov even where the Chazakah (of placing the person who is being sprinkled on a Chezkas Tum'ah) clashes with the Rov, the Gemara here fits nicely.

3)

TOSFOS DH AVAL HEICHA DE'LAYAF LEIS LAN

úåñ' ã"ä àáì äéëà ãìééó ìéú ìï áä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we do not learn it from the fact that Korbanos override Shabbos even where there is a Safek T'reifah);

î÷ùéï, àîàé ìà éìéó îëì ÷øáðåú - ããçå ùáú, åìà çééùéðï ùîà éîöà ÷øáï èøôä, åðîöà ùçìì ùáú?

(a)

Question: Why do we not learn it from all the Korbanos, which override Shabbos, and we are not concerned that the animal may be found to be a T'reifah, in which case the Kohen will have transgressed Shabbos?

åð"ì, ãàéï éëåì ìäåëéç îùí, ãàéëà ìîéîø ãîñô÷ ðîé àîø øçîðà ãìãçé ùáú îöåú ÷øáï ...

(b)

Answer: One cannot prove Rov from there, since it is possible that when the Torah writes that the Mitzvah of Korban overrides Shabbos, it specifically includes a case of Safek.

ëîå ùáôé÷åç ðôù àîøéðï áñô"÷ ãëúåáåú (ãó èå:) ãìà äìëå áå àçø äøåá.

1.

Precedent: ... just like it does with Piku'ach Nefesh, where we say at the end of the first Perek of Kesuvos (15:) that Chazal do not go after the majority (even in the case of a Safek).

4)

TOSFOS DH DEMANACH GUMR'SA ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä ãîðç âåîøúà ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why this applies if Erev Pesach falls on Shabbos).

åàôéìå çì òøá ôñç ìäéåú áùáú, îìàëä ùàé àôùø ìòùåú îò"ù, ãåçä àú äùáú.

(a)

Clarification: It would override Shabbos, even if Erev Pesach were to fall on Shabbos, since it is a Melachah that cannot be performed before Shabbos.

5)

TOSFOS DH "ASYA ME'EGLAH ARUFAH

úåñ' ã"ä àúéà îòâìä òøåôä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why there is a problem with regard to Parah and Eglah. Seeing as even if they are T'reifah, they are still joined).

úéîä, ãìà ãçé âáé ôøä åòâìä - ëéåï ãìééó, ìéú ìï áä?

(a)

Question: Why should it not override Shabbos, because, seeing as it is still joined (see Tosfos ha'Rosh), it doesn't matter?

åé"ì, ãîùîò ãáùòú ùøéôä å(ìàçø) òøéôä úäéä ùìéîä ëîå áùòú ùçéèä (åòøéôä).

(b)

Answer: It is implied that during the burning and breaking the neck it should be complete, just as it is during the Shechitah

6)

TOSFOS DH HA'ARUFAH KE'SHE'HI SHELEIMAH

úåñ' ã"ä äòøåôä ëùäéà ùìîä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how the Gemara can seemingly learn three things from the same word).

ì÷îï áôø÷éï (ëã.) ãøùéðï ðîé î"äòøåôä", 'æàú áòøéôä åàéï àçøú áòøéôä'?

(a)

Implied Question #1: Later in the Perek (on 24a) the Gemara also learns from "ha'Arufah" that 'This one requires its neck to be broken, but not another one (with regard to the goat on Yom Kipur).

åáñåó ôø÷ ëì äáùø (ì÷îï ÷éæ:) âáé 'ãáø ùðòùä îöåúå', àîø úøé îéòåèé ëúéáé "åùîå" "äòøåôä"?

(b)

Implied Question #2: And at the end of Perek Kol ha'Basar (117:), regarding an article whose Mitzvah has been completed, the Gemara refers to two 'Mi'utim' (preclusions) "ve'Samo" and "ha'Arufah" (So how can we learn so many different things from the same word)?

åé"ì, ãî"äòøåôä" îùîò ùôéø ääåà îéòåèà ã'æàú áòøéôä ... ', åîãñîê "äòâìä" ì"äòøåôä" ãøùéðï 'äòâìä ùìîä'.

(c)

Answer: The word "ha'Arufah" intrinsically implies the above Miy'ut (on Daf 2.) "This one requires its neck to be broken ... ' (see also Tosfos ha'Rosh); whereas 'ha'Eglah ke'she'Hi Sheleimah' the Gemara Darshens from the juxtaposition of "ha'Eglah" to "ha'Arufah".

7)

TOSFOS DH "ASYA MI'PARAH ADUMAH

úåñ' ã"ä àúéà îôøä àãåîä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos dismisses the possibility of rendering the animal Kasher due to its Chezkas Kashrus, extrapolating a Halachik Chidush from their reason).

åà"ú, ëéåï ãôøä áú ùúé ùðéí, à"ë, ãéìîà äééðå îùåí ãàå÷îéä àçæ÷ä ùàéðä èøôä, ìî"ã èøôä àéðä çéä?

(a)

Question #1: Since a Parah is two years old, maybe the reason that it is Kasher is because we place it on its Chazakah that it is not a T'reifah - according to those who hold (in Eilu T'reifos 42.) that a T'reifah cannot survive a year.

åîéäå ëàï é"ì ãàéëà çæ÷ä àçøú ëðâãä, ã'äòîã èîà òì çæ÷úå'.

(b)

Answer: Here however, we can counter that there is a Chazakah against that, of placing the Tamei person (who will be sprinkled with the ashes) on his Chezkas Tum'ah.

àáì ì÷îï ãéìéó îòãéí æåîîéí, ÷ùä?

(c)

Question #2: The Kashya will apply however, later when we learn Rov from Eidim Zomemin?

åé"ì, ãëì çæ÷ä ùìà ðúáøøä åìà ðåãòä àôéìå ùòä àçú, ìà àæìéðï áúøä.

(d)

Answer: Any Chazakah that has not been clarified and is not known even if only for a short time, is not considered a Chazakah.

åéù ììîåã îúåê ëê äìëä ìîòùä - ãàí òùä âáéðåú îëîä áäîåú åàç"ë ðùçèä äàçú åðîöàú èøôä, ùëåìí àñåøåú, ãàéï ìé ìäòîéã ôøä à,çæ÷úä åìåîø äùúà äåà ãðèøôä.

1.

Halachah: From this principle we can learn a Halachah le'Ma'aseh - that if one manufactured cheese with the milk of a number of animals, and one of them is then Shechted and found to be a T'reifah, all the cheeses are forbidden, seeing as, for the reason we just mentioned, we cannot place the animal on a Chazakah and say that it only became T'reifah after the cheese was made.

îéäå áèøôä îçîú ùäøéàä äéà ñøåëä, ãàí äééðå á÷éàéï ìáãå÷ àôùø ùäéä ìä äéúø, àéï ìàñåø; ãäåä ìéä ñô÷ ñô÷à - ñô÷ àéðä èøôä, åàí úîöà ìåîø èøôä, àéîà ãàçø ëê ðèøôä.

2.

Reservation: However, if the T'reifus is caused by a lesion on the lung, which might have been declared Kasher had we been experts in examining it, we cannot forbid it, because it is a S'fek S'feika; a. Perhaps the animal is Kasher, and b. even if it is T'reifah, perhaps it became a T'reifah only after the milking.

8)

TOSFOS DH CHATAS KARYEIH RACHMANA

úåñ' ã"ä çèàú ÷øééä øçîðà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos examines the Gemara in Avodah-Zarah, which appears to dismiss this S'vara in its conclusion in favor of saying that Parah is Kodshei Mizbei'ach. They then discuss various aspects of Parah according to Rebbi Shimon and the Rabanan ).

úéîä, ãìà ÷àé äàé èòîà áøéù 'àéï îòîéãéï' (ò"æ ëâ:), ããéé÷ äúí âáé ôìåâúà ãøáé àìéòæø åø' éäåùò 'òã ëàï ìà ôìéâé àìà áçùùà, àáì äéëà ãåãàé øáòä - ôñåìä, ù"î ãôøä ÷ãùé îæáç äéà?

(a)

Question (Part 1): Why does the Gemara not remain with that S'vara at the beginning of 'Ein Ma'amidin' (Avodah-Zarah 23b), regarding the Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua, where the Gemara says that up to now, they only argue in a case where the animal is suspected of having been raped, but where it was certainly raped, it is Pasul. A proof, the Gemara suggests, that Parah Adumah is Kodshei Mizbei'ach?

åîùðé, ãùàðé ôøä ã÷øééä øçîðà "çèàú".

(b)

Question (Part 2): But the Gemara refutes the proof, inasmuch as Parah is different, since the Pasuk calls it "Chatas".

àìà îòúä, úôñì áéåöà ãåôï ... à'ìîä úðéà 'ä÷ãéùä ìéåöà ãåôï, ôñåìä. åø"ù îëùéø' ôéøåù, åàé àéúà ìääéà ãøùä ã"çèàú", îñúîà à'÷øà ìà äåä ôìéâ ø"ù.

(c)

Question (Part 3): In that case, asks the Gemara, a 'Yotzei Dofen' (one that is born by caesarian section) ought to be Pasul - Why did a Beraisa then state that the Rabbanan disqualify a 'Yotzei Dofen', but that Rebbi Shimon validates it? What the Gemara means to ask is that if we were to hold of the D'rashah of "Chatas", Rebbi Shimon would hardly argue with a Pasuk?

åîñé÷ àìà ùàðé ôøä äåàéì åîåí ôåñì áä, ãáø òøåä åòáåãú ëåëáéí ôåñìéï áä.

(d)

Question (Part 4): So the Gemara concludes that Parah is different, in that, since a blemish disqualifies it, so will an immoral act and Avodas-Kochavim disqualify it.

ìëê ôñåìä áøáéòä, åáéåöà ãåôï ëùøä. åøáðï ãôñìé áéåöà ãåôï - îùåí ãñáøé ã÷ãùé îæáç äéà.

(e)

Conclusion: This explains why being raped renders it Pasul, whereas a 'Yotzei Dofen' is Kasher. And the reason that the Rabbanan declare a Yotzei Dofen Pasul is because they consider a Parah Kodshei Mizbei'ach.

åîéäå òì ëøçéê àé àôùø ìôøùä ëï, ãáëì ãåëúà àîøéðï 'ùàðé ôøä ã÷ãùé áã÷ äáéú äéà', à"ë, äåä àúé ëø"ù.

(f)

Refutation: In any event, we cannot explain the Gemara in this way, since that, all the many Sugyos that conclude that Parah is different since it is considered Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis will all hold like Rebbi Shimon.

åðøàä ìôøù, ãäëé ôøéê 'àìà îòúä úôñì áéåöà ãåôï' - åôøéê ìëåìäå èòîé, áéï ðôøù ãèòîà ãøáéòä îùåí ã÷ãùé îæáç äéà áéï ðôøù îùåí ãçèàú ÷øééä øçîðà, ãîñúîà ø"ù ìà ôìéâ à'øáåúéå øáé àìéòæø åøáé éäåùò.

(g)

Answer, Explanation #2 (Part 1): It therefore seems that when the Gemara asks that a 'Yotzei Dofen' ought to be Pasul ... it means to ask irrespective of whether a raped animal is Pasul because it is Kodshei Mizbei'ach, or whether it is Pasul because the Torah calls it Chatas, since Rebbi Shimon would be unlikely to argue with his Rebbes (Rebi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua).

åîùðé ùàðé ôøä äåàéì åîåí ôåñì áä.

(h)

Answer, Explanation #2 (Part 2): ... and the Gemara then replied that Parah is different, since a blemish disqualifies it ... .

åìà âøñéðï 'àìà'.

(i)

Answer, Explanation #2 (Part 3): ... and we do not read the word 'Ela' in the text.

åáñôøéí ìà äéä ëúåá, àìà ùá÷åðèøñ äâéä åëúá ä"â 'àìà'.

(j)

Proof: In fact, it does not appear in the original texts, only Rashi amended the text and inserted it.

åèòîà ã"çèàú" ÷øééä øçîðà ìòåìí ÷àé ìøáðï, ãôñìé áéåöà ãåôï (åàí úàîø ìøáé ùîòåï ... )

(k)

Conclusion: ... and the answer that 'the Torah calls Parah a Chatas' goes specifically according to the Rabbanan, who render a Yotzei Dofen Pasul for that reason.

11b----------------------------------------11b

... åàí úàîø, ìøáé ùîòåï ãìéú ìéä ã'çèàú ÷øééä øçîðà', îðà ìéä ãèøôåú ôåñì áä

(l)

Question: From where does Rebbi Shimon, who does not hold of the D'rashah 'Chatas Karyeih Rachmana', learn that T'reifus disqualifies the Parah?

åé"ì, ãðô÷à ìéä îãëúéá "úîéîä" ...

(m)

Answer #1 (Part 1): He learns it from the fact that the Torah writes "Temimah"

ëããøùéðï áô"÷ ãîñëú ò"æ (ãó å.) ã'ðç âåôéä ìàå èøôä äåä, îãëúéá "úîéí" '.

1.

Precedent: ... like the Gemara in Avodah-Zarah (6a), which learns that Noach himself could not have been a T'reifah, since the Torah describes him as "Tamim".

åøáðï, àöèøéê "úîéîä" - ìëããøùéðï áñôøé "úîéîä" 'ãàó ùúé ùòøåú ùçåøåú ôåñìåú áä'.

2.

Explanation (Part 1): The Rabbanan need "Temimah" for the D'rashah of the Sifri "Temimah" - that even two black hairs render the Cow Pasul.

åìøáé ùîòåï úøúé ù"î, îãëúéá "úîéîä" áéï "àãåîä" ì"àùø àéï áä îåí".

3.

Explanation (Part 2): Rebbi Shimon on the other hand, learns both D'rashos from "Temimah", one from the actual word, the other, from the fact that it is placed in between the word "Adumah" and "Asher Ein Bah Mum".

åòåã éù ìåîø, ãáôñåì äúìåé áâåôä îåãå ëåìé òìîà, ëãúðï (ôøä ô"ã î"à) 'ùçèä ùìà ìùîä, ôñåìä'. åäééðå î"çèàú äéà".

(n)

Answer #2: Alternatively, when it comes to a bodily P'sul, everybody (even Rebbi Shimon) concedes (that we Darshen "Chatas Hi"), as we learned in Parah (4:1) that if one Shechts it she'Lo li'Shemah, it is Pasul - due to the Pasuk "Chatas Hi".

åáñôøé ðîé ãøùéðï "çèàú äéà" - ãîåòìéï áä, åëîä ãøùåú.

(o)

Proof: In the Sifri too, we Darshen from "Chatas Hi", that the Parah is subject to Me'ilah, as well as a number of other D'rashos.

åàí úàîø, áëì ãåëúéï ãîùðé '÷ãùé áã÷ äáéú' àîàé ìà çùéá ìéä ë÷ãùé îæáç îùåí ã"çèàú" ÷øééä øçîðà'?

(p)

Question: Wherever the Gemara answers that Parah is 'Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, why does it not consider it Kodshei Mizbei'ach, seeing as the Torah calls it a "Chatas"?

åéù ìåîø, ãáëì ãåëúéï îñì÷ ìä á÷åùéà àçøéúé.

(q)

Answer: On every such occasion, the Gemara concludes with another Kashya (see Maharam).

åáôø÷ àìå ÷ãùéí (úîåøä ë.) ã÷àîø ãàéï ôøä òåùä úîåøä îùåí ã÷ãùé áã÷ äáéú äéà; ëéåï ãðô÷åúà ìéúà áâåó äôøä, ìà ùééê ãøùä ã"çèàú ÷øééä øçîðà".

(r)

Exception #1: ... except for the Gemara in Eilu Kodshim (Temurah 20b) which states that a Parah cannot make a Temurah because it is Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis. Only there, since the difference does not affect the body of the Cow, the fact that the Torah calls it a Chatas is not relevant (as we explained earlier).

åááëåøåú (ãó ëä.) ðîé ã÷àîø ã'àéï áä àéñåø âéæä åòáåãä ìàçø ùðôãéú, îùåí ã÷ãùé áã÷ äáéú äéà', åìà äåéà ëôñåìé äîå÷ãùéí ùðôãå ...

(s)

Exception #2 (Part 1): And except for the Gemara in Bechoros (2a) which states that, unlike P'sulei ha'Mukdashin, there is no Isur of shearing or working with it after it has been redeemed, because it is Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis. There too, the D'rashah of 'Chatas Karyeih Rachmana' does not apply ...

îùåí ãìàçø ôãéåï ùàéï úåøú ôøä òìéä, ìà ÷øééä øçîðà çèàú.

(t)

Exception #2 (Part 2): ...because once it has been redeemed and the Din of Parah no longer pertains to it, the Torah no longer refers to it as a Chatas.

àé ðîé, îä ùðôãéú äééðå îùåí ã,ìá áéú ãéï îúðä òìéä' ãàé ìà äåöøëåä, úäà ìãîéä, ëãàîøéðï áôø÷ ÷îà ãùáåòåú (ãó éà.).

(u)

Alternative Explanation: Alternatively, the Heter of redeeming a Parah is based on 'Leiv Beis-Din Masneh Alehah' (an unspoken specification of Beis-Din that should it not be needed, it should be redeemed for its monetary value, as the Gemara explains in the first Perek of Shevu'os (Daf 11a).

9)

TOSFOS DH VE'SHACHAT VE'SARAF

úåñ' ã"ä åùçè åùøó

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the D'rashah despite the fact that another Pasuk interrupts between them).

àò"ô ùéù ôñå÷ àçã áéðúéí ...

(a)

Implied Question: Even though a Pasuk interrupts between them ...

îëì î÷åí îùîò "åùøó àú äôøä" ëîå ùäéúä áùòú ùçéèä, îãìà ëúéá 'åùøó àåúä'.

(b)

(Answer): ... the Pasuk nevertheless implies that when the Cow is burned it should be in the same state as it was when it was Shechted.

10)

TOSFOS DH K'GON SHE'HAYU AVIV VE'IMO CHAVUSHIM BE'VEIS HA'ASURIN

úåñ' ã"ä ëâåï ùäéå àáéå åàîå çáåùéí ááéú äàñåøéï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that the woman also has a Chezkas Kashrus).

åòåã äåä îöé ìîéã÷ ,åãéìîà îùåí ãàæìéðï áúø çæ÷ä, ã'äòîã äàí áçæ÷ú öã÷ú'.

(a)

Observation: The Gemara could also have asked that perhaps it is due to Chazakah (and not Rov) because we place the mother on her Chezkas Kashrus (which every Jewish woman has until she is known to have sinned).

11)

TOSFOS DH VE'CHI TEIMA DE'BADKINAN LEIH

úåñ' ã"ä åëé úéîà ãáã÷éðï ìéä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses firstly, why we cannot learn Rov from the murderer himself, who might be a T'reifah, and then the issue of Hasra'as Safek in this case).

î÷ùéðï, ãðéìó îøåöç âåôéä, ãàæìéðï áúø øåáà, ããéìîà äøåöç äåà èøôä, åèøôä ùäøâ àú äðôù ôèåø?

(a)

Question: Why do we not learn that we go after the Rov from the murderer himself, who might be a T'reifah, and a T'reifah who kills is Patur?

åùîà ãàæìéðï áúø øåáà, îãìà çééùéðï ìäøåâ àú äèøôä, ìà ðéìó áòìîà.

(b)

Answer #1: Perhaps we cannot learn to go after the Rovin other places from the fact that we kill a T'reifah.

åòåã ðøàä ìé, ãèòîà ãèøôä ùäøâ ôèåø ãäééðå îùåí ãäåé 'òãåú ùàéï àúä éëåì ìäæéîä', åàé ÷èìéðï òãéí ëùäåæîå ìà ùôéø ÷èìéðï, åàí ëï àéï ìäåëéç àìà îîàé ã÷èìéðï ìòãéí, åìà çééùéðï ãìîà äê ãàñäéãå áéä èøôä äåä, ëã÷àîø áñîåê. åëï îöéðå áùí øáéðå îðçí ä÷ãåù.

(c)

Answer #2: Furthermore, it seems that, bearing in mind that the reason that a T'reifah that murdered is Patur is because it is 'Eidus that is not subject to Hazamah', since it would be wrong to sentence the witnesses who testified against a T'reifah to death. In that case, the proof would be (not from the fact that one sentences the murderer, but) from the fact that one then sentences the Eidim Zomemin, and not desist out of concern that the murderer may have been a T'reifah. And Rabeinu Menachem ha'Kadosh also gave this answer.

àê ÷ùä ìé, îàé ÷àîø 'åëé úéîà ãáã÷éðï ìéä', äà îëì î÷åí äåéà ìéä äúøàú ñô÷, àé ìà àæìéðï áúø øåáà.

(d)

Question: The question remains however, what the Gemara means when it suggests that it is perhaps speaking where we examine the victim, seeing as at the time of the murder, it was a Hasra'as Safek?

åùîà ÷ñáø ã'ùîä äúøàä'.

(e)

Answer: Perhaps he holds 'Hasra'as Safek is considered a Hasra'ah'.

12)

TOSFOS DH LEICHUSH DILMA BE'MAKOM SAYAF NEKEV HAYAH

úåñ' ã"ä ìéçåù ãìîà áî÷åí ñééó ð÷á äåä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos first discusses why we cannot establish the Pasuk in other cases where it is possible to examine the victim, according to the various Tana'im, and whether the Tana'im who hold Chayshinan le'Mi'uta sometimes concede that we follow the majority. Finally, they discuss different types of discrepancy, which have different repercussions).).

àéï ìä÷ùåú îùëçú ìä, ëâåï ùäèáéòå áðäø, ãàôùø áúø äëé ìîéáã÷éä?

(a)

Implied Question: We cannot ask that there is a case (where the murderer will be Chayav) there where he drowned him in a river, where it is possible to examine the victim afterwards ...

ãäà ÷øà "áëìé òõ åáëìé áøæì åàáï" ëúéá.

(b)

Refutation: ... since the Pasuk (under discussion) is speaking where he killed him with a wooden or metal implement.

àáì ÷ùä, ãîùëçú ìä ëâåï ùäéä ÷øåí ùì îåç îâåìä, åøàå ùäéä ùìí, åáà æä åð÷áå åäøâå?

(c)

Question: Still, why can the case not be there where the membrane of the brain area was open and one could see that the victim was complete before the murderer pierced him and killed him?

åéù ìåîø, ããåç÷ äåà ìäòîéã äôñå÷ áëê.

(d)

Answer: To establish the Pasuk in such a case is a Dochek.

åàí úàîø, åáñô"÷ ãîëåú (ãó æ.) ãàîøé øáé èøôåï åøáé ò÷éáà 'àéìå äééðå áñðäãøéï ìà äéä àãí ðäøâ', åîôøù ãäåå áã÷å ìäå åàîøé 'øàéúí ùèøéôä äøâ àå ùìí äøâ? åàí úîöà ìåîø ùìí äøâ, ùîà áî÷åí ñééó ð÷á äåä?'

(e)

Question (Part 1): At the end of the first Perek of Makos (7a) Rebbi Tarfon and Rebbi Akiva both declared that if they had been on the Sanhedrin, nobody would ever have been sentenced to death. And the Gemara explains that this is because they would have examined them by asking them if they saw whether the victim was a T'reifah or complete; and if he killed him whilst he was complete, if they are certain that there was no hole in the location where the sword pierced ...

åäëà îùîò ãìà çééùéðï, ãàæìéðï áúø øåáà?

(f)

Question (Part 2): ... whereas our Sugya implies that we do not contend with that, since we go after the majority?

åéù ìåîø, ãøáé ò÷éáà ìèòîéä, ãàîø 'ãçééùéðï ìîéòåèà' áôø÷ äìå÷ç áäîä (áëåøåú ë:) - ã÷ñáø 'çìá àéðå ôåèø ááäîä ááëåøä', àò"â ãøåá áäîåú àéðï çåìáåú àà"ë éåìãåú.

(g)

Answer #1: Rebbi Akiva follows his own reasoning, since he holds 'Chayshinan le'Miy'uta - in Perek ha'Loke'ach Beheimah (Bechoros 20.), where he says that milk does not exempt an animal from the Bechorah, despite the fact that the majority of animals do not produce milk unless they have given birth.

åàò"â ãàôéìå øáé îàéø, ãçééù ìîéòåèà, îåãä äéëà ãìà àôùø?

(h)

Implied Question: ... despite the act that even Rebbi Meir, who also contends with the Miy'ut, concedes where it is not possible (that we o after the majority).

øáé ò÷éáà çùéá ìéä àôùø, ãàéëà ìàå÷îé ÷øà ùäéä ÷øåí îåçå îâåìä åð÷áå, ëãôéøùðå.

(i)

Answer (Part 1): Rebbi Akiva considers it possible, since one can establish the Pasuk where the membrane of the brain is open, and the murderer pierced it, as we explained.

åøùá"â, ãôìéâ òìééäå åàîø 'àó äí îøáéí ùåôëé ãîéí áéùøàì!' àôéìå çééù ìîéòåèà, î"î çùéá ìéä ìà àôùø, ããåç÷ äåà ìäòîéã äôñå÷ áëê.

(j)

Answer (Part 2): And as for Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, who argues with Rebbi Tarfon and Rebbi Akiva, and who claims that they only add murderers in Yisrael, even assuming that he also contends with the minority, he nevertheless considers it impossible, since it would be a Dochek to establish the Pasuk like Rebbi Akiva.

åòåã àåø"ú, ãàó òì âá ãàé ìà ùééìéðï ìòãéí, ÷èìéðï ìéä, ãñîëéðï à'øåáà äéëà ãìà àôùø; äéëà ãùééìéðï ìäå åàîøé ãìà éãòé, ôèåø.

(k)

Answer #2: Furthermore, Rabeinu Tam explains, even though if one would not ask the witnesses (about a hole in the place where the murderer pierced), he would be Chayav (since we would rely on the majority there where it is impossible), there where we do ask them and they say that they don't know, he is Patur.

îéãé ãäåä à'ñééó åàøéøï, ãàé ìà ùééìéðï ìäå, çééá, åàé ùééìéðï ìäå åàîø àçã áñééó åàçã áàøéøï, ôèåø.

1.

Precedent: ... as is the case regarding a sword or a dagger, where the murderer is Chayav if we don't ask the witnesses; yet if we ask them and there is a discrepancy in their testimony, he is Patur ...

àò"â ãáñééó åàøéøï ëùàåîøéí 'àéï àðå éåãòéï' çééá òã ãîëçùé àäããé?

2.

Implied Question: ... even though in the case of sword or dagger there where they say that they don't know, he is Chayav as long as there is no discrepancy in their testimony (which is not the case regarding 'a hole in the location where the sword pierced') ...

äééðå îùåí ãñééó åàøéøï ìà ùééê ëì ëê áâåó äòãåú, ãîä ìé äøâå áñééó åîä ìé áàøéøï; àáì áî÷åí ñééó ð÷á äåä, ãùééê ìâåó äòãåú èôé, àé áã÷éðï ìäå åàîøå 'àéï àðå éåãòéï', ôèåø.

3.

Answer (Part 1): ... that is because 'a sword or a dagger' is not so much an intrinsic part of the testimony, since what difference does it make whether he killed him with the one or with the other? But whether or not, 'there was a hole in the location where he pierced' is very much part of the testimony. Consequently, if one asks them about it and they don't know, the murderer is Patur.

åàçã àåîø 'ëìéå ùçåøéí' åàçã àåîø 'ëìéå ìáðéí', ãìà ùééê ìâåó äòãåú, àò"ô ãîëçùé àäããé, çééá.

4.

Answer (Part 2): ... whereas there where one witness claims that he was wearing black clothes, and the other says that they were white, which is totally disconnected from the basic evidence, the murderer will be Chayav even if the testimony of the two witnesses clash.

ä÷ùä øáéðå éöç÷ áøáé îøãëé, ãäëà éìôéðï îøåöç åòãéí æåîîéí ãàæìéðï áúø øåáà àó áãéðé ðôùåú; åëï îåëç áøéù ô' áï ñåøø åîåøä (ñðäãøéï ãó ñè.)

(l)

Question (Part 1): The Rivam asks that here we learn from the case of a murderer and that of Eidim Zomemin that we go after the majority even in Dinei Nefashos, and this is also evident at the beginning of 'ben Sorer u'Moreh' (Daf 69a) ...

åáàìå äï äðùøôéï (ùí ãó òè:) àîøéðï 'ðñ÷ìéï áðùøôéï, éãåðå áñ÷éìä ä÷ìä', àò"â ãøåá ðùøôéí ðéðäå?

(m)

Question (Part 2): ... whereas in 'Eilu Hein ha'Nisrafin' (79a) we say that in the event that Niskalin became mixed up in a group of Nisrafin, they are sentenced to the more lenient Sekilah, even though the Nisrafin constitute the majority?

åúéøõ ø"ú ãëéåï ãîîä ðôùê äåà ðäøâ, ìòðéï áàéæå îéúä äåà ðäøâ, ìà àæìéðï áúø øåáà.

(n)

Answer #1: Rabeinu Tam answers that since either way, he is sentenced to death, since it is purely a matter of which death he will receive, we do not go after the majority.

åòåã éù ìåîø, ãäåé ÷áåò åëîçöä òì îçöä ãîé.

(o)

Answer #2: Alternatively, it is a case of Kavu'a, and we follow the principle 'Kol Kavu's ke'Mechtzah al Mechtzah Dami' (so that there is no majority to follow).

åäà ãôøéê äúí îòé÷øà ëé äåä úðé 'äðùøôéï áðñ÷ìéï' - 'úéôå÷ ìéä ãøåáà ðñ÷ìéï ðéðäå'?

(p)

Implied Question: And when the Gemara originally asked there (when it thought that it was the Nisrafin that became mixed up with the Niskalin) why it does not give the reason that (they receive Sekilah) because the majority constitute Chayvei Sekilah ...

äëé ôéøåùå 'ìëì äôçåú ìà âøò îùåí ãäåå øåáà ãðñ÷ìéï'.

(q)

Answer #2 (Part 2): ... what it really means to ask is that it is surely not because the majority are Chayvei Sekilah that there is any less reason to sentence them to Sekilah?)

13)

TOSFOS DH VE'DILMA HACH D'AS'HIDU BEIH T'REIFAH HAVAH

úåñ' ã"ä åãéìîà äê ãàñäéãå áéä èøôä äåä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why incarcerating the murderer for twelve months to see if he survives will not help solve the problem).

åàí úàîø, ãçåáùéí àåúå é"á çãù, åàí éçéä, ìàå èøôä äåà?

(a)

Question: Why can we not imprison the murderer for twelve months, and should he survive, he is not a T'reifah?

åéù ìåîø, ãùîà ÷ñáø èøôä çéä.

(b)

Answer #1: Perhaps this opinion holds that a T'reifah can survive.

åòåã ðøàä ìé - ãàé àéï äåøâéï äòãéí ëùäåæîå àìà àçø é"á çãù, ããéìîà äê ãàñäéãå áéä èøôä, à"ë âí àåúå ùîòéãéï òìéå àéï ìäåøâå òã ìàçø é"á çãù ...

(c)

Answer #2 (Part 1): Furthermore, it seems that if one only kills the Eidim Zomemin after twelve months, for fear that the defendant is a T'reifah, then the defendant too, can also be sentenced to death only after twelve months.

åëéåï ãìà áàå ìäåøâå àìà àçø é"á çãù, à"ë ìà éäøâå äí àó ìàçø é"á çãù, ããéìîà ðòùä èøôä äê ãàñäéãå áéä áñåó é"á çãùéí, åäøé ìà áàå àìà ìäøåâ àú äèøéôä.

(d)

Answer #2 (Part 2): And now that they only came to kill the defendant after twelve months, they cannot be killed even after twelve months, in case he became a T'reifah at the end of twelve months, in which case, they came to have a T'reifah put to death (for which they cannot became Zomemin),

14)

TOSFOS DH LE'REBBI MEIR DE'CHAYASH LE'MI'UTA.

úåñ ã"ä ìøáé îàéø ãçééù ìîéòåèà ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses whether we rule like Rebbi Meir or not elaborates.)

îã÷àîø 'ìøáé îàéø', åìà ÷àîø 'äéëé àëìéðï', îùîò ãìà ÷ééîà ìï ëø' îàéø ãçééù ìîéòåèà.

(a)

Clarification: Since the Gemara says specifically 'According to Rebbi Meir', and not just 'How can we eat?' it implies that we do not rule like Rebbi Meir, who contends with the minority.

å÷ùä, ãáôø÷ äìå÷ç áäîä (áëåøåú ëã.) ôñé÷ øáé éåçðï ëøùá"â ãàîø 'äìå÷ç áäîä îðé÷ä îï äòåáã ëåëáéí, ãôèåøä îï äáëåøä, ëùáðä ëøåê àçøéä, îùåí ãìà îøçîà ìéä àà"ë éìãä.

(b)

Question (Part 1): However, in Perek ha'Loke'ach Beheimah (Bechoros 24a) Rebbi Yochanan rules like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, that someone who purchases a feeding animal from a Nochri is Patur from the Bechorah, provided the baby follows it around, due to the principle that the mutual bond of affection would not be there unless it actually gave birth to it ...

àáì îèòí çìá ìà îéôèø, àò"â ã'øåá áäîåú àéðï çåìáåú àà"ë éåìãåú'.

(c)

Question (Part 2): ... but the fact that the animal is milking alone would not suffice, even though the majority of animals do not produce milk unless they have given birth.

àìîà çééùéðï ìîéòåèà, àò"â ãìéëà çæ÷ä áäãé îéòåèà, ãàé àîøéðï àå÷é áäîä áçæ÷ú ùìà éìãä, àãøáä äòîã ååìã áçæ÷ú ùàéðå ÷ãåù ááëåøä, ùäéä çåìéï áîòé àîå?

(d)

Question (Part 3): So we see that we contend with the minority, even where there is no Chazakah, because if we try to place the animal on a Chazakah that it did not give birth beforehand, we will counter by placing the baby on a Chazakah that it is not a B'chor, since it was Chulin prior to its birth.

åéù ìåîø, ãøáé éåçðï ìà ôñé÷ ëååúéä àìà áäà ã'ìà îøçîà àìà àí ëï éìãä'.

(e)

Answer: Rebbi Yochanan only rules like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel in that there would not be a bond between the two animals if the cow had not given birth to the baby.