תוספות ד"ה טרפות

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how the Gemara can derive that "Chayos" excludes Treifos.)

תימה הא דרשינן מיניה שחיין ראשי אברים


Question #1: This is difficult. Don't we derive that it cannot be missing a limb from the word "Chayos?"

וליכא למימר דה"ק דטרפה ידעינן מכל שכן דמחוסר אבר דאמעיט מחיות


Answer: One cannot say that our Gemara means that we clearly know that a Treifah cannot be brought, as if a bird missing a limb cannot be brought since it is excluded from the word "Chayos," certainly a Treifah cannot be brought!

דאכתי אימא דקרא למעוטי טרפה אתא ולא למחוסר אבר


Question: Even so, I would say that perhaps the Pasuk ("Chayos") is excluding a Treifah, not a bird missing a limb.

וע"ק דקאמר הניחא למ"ד טרפה חיה דמשמע לדידיה לא ממעטינן טרפה מחיות


Question #2: There is an additional question. This is understandable according to the opinion that a Treifah can live (for another twelve months), as he presumably holds that one would not exclude Treifah from "Chayos."

ובפ"ק דע"ז (דף ה:) אמרינן מנין למחוסר אבר שאסור לבני נח שנאמר מכל החי אמרה תורה הבא בהמה שחיין ראשי אברים שלה


Question #2 (cont.): The Gemara in Avodah Zarah (5b) asks, "How do we know that a Nochri cannot offer an animal that is missing a limb as a sacrifice (to Hash-m)? This is as the Pasuk states, "from all that is alive." The Torah is stating that one should only offer an animal that is not missing a limb."

ופריך והא מבעי ליה למעוטי טרפה טרפה מלהחיות זרע נפקא הניחא למ"ד טרפה אינה יולדת אלא למאן דאמר טרפה יולדת כו'


Question #2 (cont.): The Gemara (ibid.) asks, "Don't we require this Pasuk to exclude a Treifah? The Gemara answers, a Treifah is excluded from the Pasuk, "to let the seed live." The Gemara continues, "This is only understandable according to the opinion that a Treifah cannot give birth. However, according to the opinion that a Treifah can give birth etc."

אלמא ממעט טרפה מקרא דמכל החי אפילו למ"ד טרפה חיה דלמ"ד דיולדת כ"ש דחיה


Question #2 (cont.): This implies that we exclude a Treifah from the Pasuk, "from all that is living" even according to the opinion that a Treifah can live. The opinion that holds it can give birth certainly holds that it cannot live!

דאפילו למ"ד דחיה מצי סבר דאינה יולדת כדמשמע באלו טרפות (לעיל דף נז:) ומשמע נמי התם דליכא לאוקומי קרא אתרוייהו


Proof: This is apparent from the fact that even the opinion that holds a Treifah can live can also hold that it cannot give birth, as implied earlier in Chulin (57b). The Gemara in Avodah Zarah (5b) also implies that we cannot say the Pasuk is talking about both a Treifah and an animal missing a limb.

וי"ל דהתם דלקיום העולם אין סברא למעט מחוסר אבר אלא טרפה דאע"ג דחיה אינה חיה זמן מרובה אבל הכא איכא לאוקומי אתרוייהו


Answer: Since the Gemara in Avodah Zarah (5b) is referring to the continuing existence of the world, there is no reason to presume it is excluding an animal that is missing a limb. Rather, it is clearly excluding a Treifah that even though it can still live, it will not live much longer. However, here one can say it is referring to both a Treifah and an animal missing a limb.

ולמ"ד טרפה חיה לא מסתבר למעט מיניה טרפה כיון דאיכא לאוקומי אמחוסר אבר או שמא יש לחלק בין חי לחיות


Answer (cont.): According to the opinion that a Treifah can still live it is illogical to exclude Treifah, since we can say instead that it is referring to an animal that is missing a limb. Alternatively, it is possible to differentiate between the implications of "Chai" and "Chayos."



תוספות ד"ה למעוטי

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why birds of an Ir ha'Nidachas are not excluded from being sacrificed from the Pasuk "mi'Mashkeh Yisrael.")

תימה הא נמי נפקא מדתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל דכיון שאסורים בהנאה לא קרינן ביה ממשקה ישראל


Question: This is difficult, as it is also derived from the teaching of Tana Dvei Rebbi Yishmael. Since it is forbidden from benefit, it is not called "from what is drunk (i.e. permitted for consumption) by (a) Yisrael."

ואפשר דלא ממעטינן ממשקה ישראל אלא דומיא דערלה וכלאי הכרם שלא היה להם שעת הכושר כדאמר פ"ק דמנחות (דף ו.) והילכך אפילו לכפרה מותרות דאי משום הנאה מצות לאו ליהנות ניתנו


Answer: It is possible that we only exclude things from the Pasuk, "from what is drunk by a Yisrael" if it is similar to Orlah and Kilai ha'Kerem that never were permitted to be consumed, as stated in Menachos (6a). Therefore, these birds would be able to be used for sacrifices (if not for the derivation in our Gemara). There is no problem with them being forbidden from benefit, as Mitzvos are not considered benefit.

וצ"ע בבהמת עיר הנדחת אם עבר והקדישה והקריבה אם הוא קרבן כשר כיון דלשרפה קיימא


Question: Study is required regarding a person who transgressed by dedicating an animal from an Ir ha'Nidachas as a sacrifice, and he indeed brought it as a sacrifice. The question is whether this is a valid sacrifice, since it was supposed to be burned.



תוספות ד"ה שלא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that Rava and Ra Nachman bar Yitzchak are not arguing.)

צ"ע היאך משמע זה מטהורות


Question: It requires study to understand how this implies that they are kosher birds.

וא"ת וחיות ל"ל


Question: According to Rava, why do we require the Pasuk "Chayos?"

וי"ל דרבה ורב נחמן בר יצחק לא פליגי אהדדי ותרי מיעוטי חד לדמר וחד לדמר


Answer: Rava and Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak are not arguing on each other. Each merely holds that a different Pasuk excludes this.



תוספות ד"ה לצפרים

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that while birds that were exchanged for Avodah Zarah may be fit to be sacrifices, birds that were worshipped are not.)

כאן נמי צ"ל דלכפרה כשרות


Observation: It must be that these birds can also be brought as sacrifices.

דאל"כ תיפוק ליה מדתני דבי רבי ישמעאל ומשום הכי נקט שהחליפם בעבודה זרה


Proof: Otherwise, we should derive from Tana Dvei Rebbi Yishmael that they are forbidden! (See Tosfos #2 above.) This is why the Gemara states that they were switched for Avodah Zarah.

אבל צפרים הנעבדים פשיטא דאסורין דאין ראויין לכפרה


Observation (cont.): However, birds that were worshipped are obviously forbidden, as they are not fit to be brought as atonement.




תוספות ד"ה הכי גרסינן

(SUMMARY: Tosfos says the better text is "a chick that is a Treifah" rather than "chicks that are Treifos.")

וכן נמצא בספר ישן והתניא אם אפרוח טרפה חייב וקא סלקא דעתך דטרפה קאי אאפרוח ומשני הכי קאמר אפרוח שאמו טרפה


Text #1: The following text is also found in an old Sefer: "Doesn't the Beraisa state that if the chick is a Treifah he is liable?" The Gemara understands at this point that the chick is a Treifah. The Gemara's answer is, "It means a chick whose mother was a Treifah."

אבל לספרים דגרסי אפרוחים טריפות אינו מיושב


Text #2: However, this is not understandable according to the Sefarim that have the text, "chicks that are Treifos." (It is less understandable to answer that what is meant is "chicks whose mothers are Treifos.")



תוספות ד"ה שני

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the Gemara's question.)

פי' אי הוי חציצה ויכול ליקח התחתונים קודם שילוח ואי לא הויא חציצה אסור ליקח עד שישלח כדאמרינן לקמן


Explanation: The question is whether this is a Chatzitzah and therefore he can take the bottom eggs before sending away the mother bird, or if it is not a Chatzitzah and therefore he cannot take the eggs on the bottom row before sending away the mother bird, as stated later.



תוספות ד"ה מה ביניהן

(SUMMARY: Tosfos has difficulty understanding the case regarding layers of branches.)

תימה הא דמחייב לעיל ברובדי אילן היכי מיירי


Question: This is difficult. When the Gemara earlier says that one is still obligated even though the mother is on layers of branches, what is the case?

אי אפילו בלא נגע מן הצד כלל מאי משני הכא אף על גביהן דלא נגעה עלייהו והיינו רובדי אילן משמע הא מן הצד נגעה אכתי תקשה דהא חייב ברובדי אילן לעיל אע"ג דלא נגעה כלל


Question (cont.): If the bird is not even touching the chicks at all, what is the Gemara's answer here that even if the mother bird is on top of them he is exempt if she is not touching them, and this is the case of the layers of branches? This implies that if she is touching the chicks from the side, one should ask that one is obligated to do Shiluach in the case of the layers of branches earlier, even though the bird is not touching the chicks at all!

ואי לא מחייב לעיל אלא בנגעה מן הצד דוקא אם כן מאי קאמר בסמוך מעופפת איצטריכא ליה דאפילו כנפיה נוגעות בקן כיון דההוא נוגעים במן הצד אכתי תקשה ליתני רובדי אילן וכ"ש מעופפת דהא ברובדי אילן מיירי נמי בנוגעים מן הצד


Question (cont.): If the Gemara earlier meant that one is only obligated when the mother bird is touching the chicks from the side, what does the Gemara mean when it says later that we require the case of hovering as it is exempt even though it is touching, since its wings are touching the nest from the side? Since the wings are touching from the side, one should still ask that the case of layers of branches should be stated, and we would certainly know that if it is hovering one is obligated!