1)

TOSFOS DH TREIFOS

úåñôåú ã"ä èøôåú

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

úéîä äà ãøùéðï îéðéä ùçééï øàùé àáøéí

(a)

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

åìéëà ìîéîø ãä"÷ ãèøôä éãòéðï îëì ùëï ãîçåñø àáø ãàîòéè îçéåú

1.

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!

ãàëúé àéîà ã÷øà ìîòåèé èøôä àúà åìà ìîçåñø àáø

2.

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

åò"÷ ã÷àîø äðéçà ìî"ã èøôä çéä ãîùîò ìãéãéä ìà îîòèéðï èøôä îçéåú

(b)

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."

åáô"÷ ãò"æ (ãó ä:) àîøéðï îðéï ìîçåñø àáø ùàñåø ìáðé ðç ùðàîø îëì äçé àîøä úåøä äáà áäîä ùçééï øàùé àáøéí ùìä

1.

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."

åôøéê åäà îáòé ìéä ìîòåèé èøôä èøôä îìäçéåú æøò ðô÷à äðéçà ìî"ã èøôä àéðä éåìãú àìà ìîàï ãàîø èøôä éåìãú ëå'

2.

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."

àìîà îîòè èøôä î÷øà ãîëì äçé àôéìå ìî"ã èøôä çéä ãìî"ã ãéåìãú ë"ù ãçéä

3.

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!

ãàôéìå ìî"ã ãçéä îöé ñáø ãàéðä éåìãú ëãîùîò áàìå èøôåú (ìòéì ãó ðæ:) åîùîò ðîé äúí ãìéëà ìàå÷åîé ÷øà àúøåééäå

i.

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.

åé"ì ãäúí ãì÷éåí äòåìí àéï ñáøà ìîòè îçåñø àáø àìà èøôä ãàò"â ãçéä àéðä çéä æîï îøåáä àáì äëà àéëà ìàå÷åîé àúøåééäå

(c)

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.

åìî"ã èøôä çéä ìà îñúáø ìîòè îéðéä èøôä ëéåï ãàéëà ìàå÷åîé àîçåñø àáø àå ùîà éù ìçì÷ áéï çé ìçéåú

1.

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."

2)

TOSFOS DH L'MIUTEI

úåñôåú ã"ä ìîòåèé

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

úéîä äà ðîé ðô÷à îãúðà ãáé øáé éùîòàì ãëéåï ùàñåøéí áäðàä ìà ÷øéðï áéä îîù÷ä éùøàì

(a)

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."

åàôùø ãìà îîòèéðï îîù÷ä éùøàì àìà ãåîéà ãòøìä åëìàé äëøí ùìà äéä ìäí ùòú äëåùø ëãàîø ô"÷ ãîðçåú (ãó å.) åäéìëê àôéìå ìëôøä îåúøåú ãàé îùåí äðàä îöåú ìàå ìéäðåú ðéúðå

(b)

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.

åö"ò ááäîú òéø äðãçú àí òáø åä÷ãéùä åä÷øéáä àí äåà ÷øáï ëùø ëéåï ãìùøôä ÷ééîà

(c)

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.

3)

TOSFOS DH SHELO

úåñôåú ã"ä ùìà

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

ö"ò äéàê îùîò æä îèäåøåú

(a)

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

åà"ú åçéåú ì"ì

(b)

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

åé"ì ãøáä åøá ðçîï áø éöç÷ ìà ôìéâé àäããé åúøé îéòåèé çã ìãîø åçã ìãîø

(c)

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

4)

TOSFOS DH L'TZIPORIM

úåñôåú ã"ä ìöôøéí

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

ëàï ðîé ö"ì ãìëôøä ëùøåú

(a)

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

ãàì"ë úéôå÷ ìéä îãúðé ãáé øáé éùîòàì åîùåí äëé ð÷è ùäçìéôí áòáåãä æøä

1.

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.

àáì öôøéí äðòáãéí ôùéèà ãàñåøéï ãàéï øàåééï ìëôøä

2.

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

140b----------------------------------------140b

5)

TOSFOS DH HACHI GARSINAN

úåñôåú ã"ä äëé âøñéðï

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

åëï ðîöà áñôø éùï åäúðéà àí àôøåç èøôä çééá å÷à ñì÷à ãòúê ãèøôä ÷àé ààôøåç åîùðé äëé ÷àîø àôøåç ùàîå èøôä

(a)

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."

àáì ìñôøéí ãâøñé àôøåçéí èøéôåú àéðå îéåùá

(b)

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.")

6)

TOSFOS DH SHNEI

úåñôåú ã"ä ùðé

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

ôé' àé äåé çöéöä åéëåì ìé÷ç äúçúåðéí ÷åãí ùéìåç åàé ìà äåéà çöéöä àñåø ìé÷ç òã ùéùìç ëãàîøéðï ì÷îï

(a)

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.

7)

TOSFOS DH MAH BEINEIHEN

úåñôåú ã"ä îä áéðéäï

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

úéîä äà ãîçééá ìòéì áøåáãé àéìï äéëé îééøé

(a)

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?

àé àôéìå áìà ðâò îï äöã ëìì îàé îùðé äëà àó òì âáéäï ãìà ðâòä òìééäå åäééðå øåáãé àéìï îùîò äà îï äöã ðâòä àëúé ú÷ùä ãäà çééá áøåáãé àéìï ìòéì àò"â ãìà ðâòä ëìì

1.

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!

åàé ìà îçééá ìòéì àìà áðâòä îï äöã ãå÷à àí ëï îàé ÷àîø áñîåê îòåôôú àéöèøéëà ìéä ãàôéìå ëðôéä ðåâòåú á÷ï ëéåï ãääåà ðåâòéí áîï äöã àëúé ú÷ùä ìéúðé øåáãé àéìï åë"ù îòåôôú ãäà áøåáãé àéìï îééøé ðîé áðåâòéí îï äöã

2.

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!

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF