1)

TOSFOS DH TEHANI LAH SAKIN L'TAHARAH MIY'DEI NEVELAH

úåñ' ã"ä úéäðé ìä ñëéï ìèäøä îéãé ðáìä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos establishes the Pircha like Rebbi Meir.)

äê ôéøëà ìéúà ìø' éåñé ãàîø áæáçéí ôø÷ çèàú äòåó (ãó ñè:) âáé 'îì÷ åðîöàú èøôä' ã'àéï îìé÷ä îèäøú îéãé ðáìä' ... , ããåå÷à ùçéèä îèäøú ááäîä.

(a)

Clarification (Part 1): This Pircha does not go like Rebbi Yossi, who says in Perek Chatas ha'Of (Zevachim 69:) in a case of 'Malak ve'Nimtzeis T'reifah, that Melikah does not remove the Tum'ah of Neveilah, since it is only Shechitah that renders the animal Tahor (but not Melikah).

àìà ìøáé îàéø ôøéê ã÷àîø äúí ðîé ãîìé÷ä îèäøú.

(b)

Clarification (Part 2): The Pircha goes according to Rebbi Meir, who says there that Melikah renders it Tahor, too.

2)

TOSFOS DH REBBI HI D'SANYA

úåñ' ã"ä øáé äéà ãúðéà ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara did not establish the Mishnah like bar Kapara, and then reconciles Rebbi's opinion here with his [seemingly contradictory] opinion in Nazir.)

äåä îöé ìîéîø áø ÷ôøà äéà ...

(a)

Implied Question: The Gemara could just as well established the author as bar Kapara ...

àìà ãðéçà ìéä ìàå÷îé îùðéåú ãìòéì ëøáé.

(b)

Answer: Only it prefers to establish the above Mishnahs like Rebbi.

ä÷ùä øáéðå àôøéí, ãäëà ñ"ì ìøáé ãéù ùçéèä ìòåó îï äúåøä, åáôø÷ îé ùàîø äøéðé ðæéø åùîò çáéøå åàîø åàðé (ðæéø ëè:) ÷àîø âáé ôìåâúà ãøáé åøáðï - ã'ë"ò ëãé ìçðëå áîöåú'.

(c)

Question #1 (Part 1): Rabeinu Efrayim queries Rebbi here (who holds that a bird to Shechitah min ha'Torah) from the Gemara in Perek Mi she'Amar ... (Nazir 29:), where regarding a certain Machlokes between Rebbi and the Rabbanan there, the Gemara establishes that both opinions attribute a father's right to declare his son a Nazir to Chinuch (education ['K'dei Lechancho be'Mitzvos'], which is only mi'de'Rabbanan) ...

åà"ë, ìøáé äà ÷à àëéì ëäï îìé÷ä?

(d)

Question #1 (Part 2): In that case, according to Rebbi, the Kohen will be eating Melikah (which is Neveilah, whenever the bird is not Kodshim min ha'Torah)?

ãä"ð ôøéê ìòéì îéðéä - ìî"ã 'ëãé ìçðëå áîöåú, ÷àëéì ëäï îìé÷ä?' åîùðé, ÷ñáø 'àéï ùçéèä ìòåó îï äúåøä'.

(e)

Precedent: For the Gemara there earlier asked the very same Kashya on those who hold 'K'dei Lechancho be'Mitzvos' ('ka'Achil Kohen Melikah?'). And the Gemara there answers that this opinion holds 'Ein Shechitah la'Of min ha'Torah'.

åìøáé ìéëà ìùðåéé äëé. àí ëï, úé÷ùé ...

(f)

Conclusion of Question (Part 1): According to Rebbi (in our Sugya) however, that answer will not hold water. Consequently, the Kashya remains on him ...

åàôéìå éçæéø ñéîðéï åéåìéê åéáéà?

(g)

Implied Question: Why can the Kohen simply not pull the Simanim round and move his nails backwards and forwards (thereby performing Shechitah on the bird)?

ðáìä äéà ìøáé, ãáòé ùçéèä áúìåù áô"÷ (ìòéì èæ.) î"åé÷ç àú äîàëìú"?

(h)

Answer: Because, according to Rebbi, it will still be Neveilah, since, based on the Pasuk "Vayikach es ha'Ma'acheles", he holds that Shechitah must be performed with something that is detached (disqualifying a fingernail).

åòåã ãî"ã 'îçæéø', ÷ñáø îåìéê åîáéà áîìé÷ä ôñåì ...

(i)

Question #2: And besides, the opinion that permits the Kohen to pull the Simanim round whilst performing Melikah, forbids moving his nails backwards and forwards ...

ãáòðéï àçø ìà îéúå÷îà îúðéúéï ãô"÷ (ùí éè:) ã'ðîöà ëùø áùçéèä ... ', åà"ë ä"ì ãåøñ?

(j)

Reason: Because otherwise, there is no way of explaining the Mishnah in the first Perek (19:) 'It transpires that what is Kasher by Shechitah is Pasul by Melikah', in which case (as far as Shechitah is concerned) it will be (Pasul because it is) 'Doreis'.

åé"ì, ãäúí áðæéø, ãéçåéà áòìîà äåà, ãîääéà ìéëà ìîéã÷ ãúäåé ôìåâúà ãúðàé, àé äìëä äåà áðæéø àå ëãé ìçðëå; àáì î"î àîú äåà ãøáé ñáø ã'äìëä äåà áðæéø', ëéåï ãñáø ãéù ùçéèä ìòåó îï äúåøä.

(k)

Answer #1: The Gemara in Nazir is merely a Dichuy (pushing off the proof), to say that there is no proof from the Beraisa there that whether it is a Halachah by Nazir or in or in order to educate him in Mitzvos, is a Machlokes Tana'im. In actual fact however, Rebbi must hold that it is a Halachah by Nazir, seeing as he holds that a bird requires Shechitah min ha'Torah.

à"ð, ÷ñáø 'ëãé ìçðëå', åîáéà çèàú äòåó åàéðå ðàëì ...

(l)

Answer #2: Alternatively, he really does hold 'Kdei Lechancho ... ', and although the father brings a Chatas ha'Of (on behalf of his son), the Kohen does not eat it ... .

îéãé ãäåä à'çèàú äòåó äáàä òì äñô÷.

(m)

Source: Like we find by a Chatas ha'Of that comes on a Safek (which is brought but not eaten).

3)

TOSFOS DH V'AL ROV ECHAD B'OF V'AL ROV SHENAYIM B'VEHEIMAH

úåñ' ã"ä åòì øåá àçã áòåó åòì øåá ùðéí ááäîä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos presents two acronyms contained in the word "Ka'asher".)

é"î ããøéù áâéîèøéà ã"ëàùø": "àì"ó" - àçã áòåó; 'ùé"ï' - ùðéí ááäîä; 'øé"ù' - øåáå ùì àçã ëîåäå, øåá àçã áòåó, åøåá ùðéí ááäîä.

(a)

Gematriyah (Acronym) #1: Some commentaries Darshen the acronym of "Ka'asher" - 'Alef' - *E*chad be'Of; 'Shiyn' - *Sh*'nayim ba'Beheimah; 'Reish' - 1. *R*ubo shel Echad Kamuhu, *R*ov Echad be'Of, *R*ov Sh'nayim ba'Beheimah.

øàùé úéáåú ìîôøò ùì "ëàùø" äåé 'øåáå ùì àçã ëîåäå'.

(b)

Gematriyah (Acronym) #2: The first letters of 'Rubo shel Echad Kamohu' backwards) spells "Ka'asher".

4)

TOSFOS DH ASA KI MEMASMEIS KU'EIH B'DAM

úåñ' ã"ä àúà ëé îîñîñ ÷åòéä ãîà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos elaborates on Rashi, who explains that both pipes required examination.)

ôéøù á÷åðèøñ - åöøéê áãé÷ä áñéîðéí, ùîà ðôñ÷ ä÷ðä àå ðé÷á äååùè; åîùåí ñô÷ ãøåñä ìà áòé áãé÷ä, ãúìéðï áëìáà àå á÷ðä, ãàîø áàìå èøéôåú (ì÷îï ðâ.) 'ñô÷ ëìáà ñô÷ ùåðøà àéîø ëìáà'.

(a)

Clarification: Rashi explains that one needs to examine the Simanim, in case the Kaneh (the wind-pipe snapped or the Veshet (the esophagus) has a hole.

åà"ú, ìîàé ðô÷à îéðä àé úìéðï áëìáà àå á÷ðéà, ëéåï ãàôéìå ÷ðéà áòé áãé÷ä?

(b)

Question: What difference does it make if we attribute the blood to a dog or to a cane (and not to a cat), seeing as the Kaneh needs to be examined anyway?

åé"ì, ãðô÷à îéðä, ãàé äåä úìéðï áùåðøà, äåä öøéê áãé÷ä ëðâã ëì äçìì, àò"â ãìéëà øéòåúà àìà ëðâã äñéîðéï.

(c)

Answer #1: The difference lies in the fact that, if we attributed it to a cat, one would need to examine the entire inside of the animal, even though the flaw is confined to the area of the Simanim.

à"ð, ìòðéï ñô÷ ãøåñä, àôé' ìà äàãéîå äñéîðéï àìà îùäå, èøéôä, ëãàîø ì÷îï (ãó ðã.) 'ãâøâøú ãøåñúå áîùäå, ãæéäøà îé÷ìà ÷ìéà'.

(d)

Answer #2: Alternatively, regarding Safek D'rusah, it will be T'reifah even if the Simanim turned slightly red, as the Gemara will say later (on Daf 54.) that the Shi'ur D'risah of the Kaneh is a Mashehu, because the cats venom burns its way through.

28b----------------------------------------28b

5)

TOSFOS DH ASA KI MEMASMEIS KU'EIH B'DAM (Continued from previous Amud)

úåñ' ã"ä àúà ëé îîñîñ ÷åòéä ãîà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos elaborates further on Safek D'rusah by the Veshet.)

åøéá"à îôøù, ãäëà áùîòúéï äåéà îùåí ñô÷ ãøåñä, åàúé ùôéø ã÷àîø 'ååùè àéï ìå áãé÷ä îáçåõ àìà îáôðéí' - åäééðå îùåí ãàéï àãîåîéú äãøåñä ðéëøú áòåø äååùè äçéöåï äàãåí.

(a)

Answer #3 (Part 1): The Riva explains that our Sugya is talking about a Safek D'rusah (and not Nekuvah [see Maharam]), which explains why the Gemara says that 'the Veshet can only be examined from the inside' - which is in turn, because the redness of a D'rusah is not discernable on the outer red skin of the Veshet ...

àáì áð÷åáä, éù ìååùè áãé÷ä àó îáçåõ.

(b)

Answer #3( Part 2): By a Nekuvah, on the other hand, the Veshet can be examined even from the outside (since it is discernable)..

åëï îùîò áàìå èøôåú (ì÷îï ãó îâ.), ã÷àîø øáä 'ååùè àéï ìå áãé÷ä îáçåõ àìà îáôðéí'; å'ìîàé ðô÷à îéðä, ìñô÷ ãøåñä'. åìà ÷àîø ìñô÷ ð÷åáä.

(c)

Proof: And thus it is implied in 'Eilu T'reifos' (Daf 43.) where the Gemara establishes the ramifications of Rabah's ruling that a Veshet requires examination from the inside and not from the outside, to a Safek D'rusah, but does not mention a Safek Nekuvah.

åòåã àîøéðï (ùí) 'ùðé òåøåú éù ìå ìååùè; ðé÷á æä áìà æä, ëùø; åëùðé÷á äôðéîé, äéëé éãòéðï àé ðé÷á çéöåï, àé ìàå ëéåï ãàéï ìå áãé÷ä îáçåõ àôéìå ìòðéï ð÷á?

(d)

Question: Furthermore, the Gemara says there that the Veshet has two skins; If one of them has a hole but not the other, the animal is Kasher. Now if the inner skin is holed but not the outer one, how will we know this, unless we say that the Veshet is not subject to an external Bedikah, even as regards a hole?

åãåç÷ ìåîø ëâåï ùðé÷á äôðéîé îçîú çåìé, åáçéöåï àéï ðéëø ùåí çåìé.

(e)

Refuted Answer: To answer that it speaks where the inner skin is holed due to an illness, whereas the outer skin bears no sign of any illness.

åäø"ø àìçðï ä÷ùä, àé ååùè éù ìå áãé÷ä îáçåõ, àí ëï, îàé ôøéê 'åø"î äéëé àëì áùøà?' ãìîà áî÷åí ð÷á ùçè, åðéîà ãäåä àëéì ò"é áãé÷ä?

(f)

Question: (From here until the end of the Dibur is a note - Maharsha). Rebbi Elchanan asks that, if the Veshet can be examined from the outside, why does the Gemara how Rebbi Meir could possibly eat meat? Why can we not answer that he would eat after an external examination?

åðøàä ìé, ùéù ùåí çåìé ùéàãéí ëîå ãøåñä, åàéï ìå áãé÷ä îáçåõ.

(g)

Answer #1: There must therefore be some sort of illness where the skin turns red like a D'rusah, and which cannot therefore be examined from the outside.

àé ðîé, äëé ôéøåùå - 'åëé úéîà ãìà äåä àëì áìà áãé÷ä, ôñç å÷ãùéí îàé àéëà ìîéîø, ãàé àôùø ìäôøéã äòåø åìáãå÷, ãàéï îåí âãåì îæä?

(h)

Answer #2: Alternatively, what the Gemara means is, that even if you say that he wouold not eat before performing a Bedikah, the Kashya will remain with regard to eating Pesach and Kodshim, where it is impossible to part the skin (in order to examine it), since there is no bigger blemish than this?

6)

TOSFOS DH RAV AMAR MECHTZAH AL MECHTZAH K'ROV

úåñ' ã"ä øá àîø îçöä òì îçöä ëøåá

(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves the contradiction between Rav here and his ruling in 'Eilu T'reifos'.)

åáôø÷ àìå èøéôåú (ì÷îï ãó îã:) âáé (ôñ÷ àú) 'äâøâøú ãàúà ì÷îéä ãøá åáã÷ä áøåá òåáéä'?

(a)

Implied Question: In Perek Eilu T'reifos (Daf 44:) in the case of a wind-pipe that was brought before Rav, and which he examined via the majority of its width ...

îçöä ðîé ÷øé ìéä øåá.

(b)

Answer #1: The Gemara refers to it as a majority, even though it was really only a half.

åáîñ÷ðà ãàîø 'ãë"ò îçöä òì îçöä àéðå ëøåá', ðéçà èôé.

(c)

Answer #2: According to the Gemara's conclusion (where everybody agrees that half is not considered a majority, it works out even better.

7)

TOSFOS DH L'FI SHE'I EFSHAR L'TZAMTZEM

úåñ' ã"ä ìôé ùàé àôùø ìöîöí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the principle Efshar/I Efshar Letzamtzem, and the differentiates between them Halachically.)

àôéìå ìø' éåñé äâìéìé, ãàîø áôø÷ ùðé ãáëåøåú (ãó éæ.) 'àôùø ìöîöí', îåãä äåà áëìé çøñ, ëã÷àîø äúí - 'äåàéì åàéú áå âåîåú'.

(a)

Clarification: Even Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili, who holds in the second Perek of Bechoros (17.) 'Efshar Letzamtzem', concedes that, in the case of an earthenware vessel 'I Efshar Letzamtzem', as the Gemara explains there, seeing as it contain holes.

åéù ìäåëéç îëàï ãäìëä ã'áéãé àãí àôùø ìöîöí' ...

(b)

Halachah #1: One can prove from here that in matters that are bi'Yedei Adam (man-made), 'Efshar Letzamtzem' ...

îãàôìéâå àîåøàé á'îçöä òì îçöä', åáô"÷ ãòéøåáéï (ãó èå:) á'ôøåõ ëòåîã';

(c)

Source (Part 1): Seeing as the Amora'im argue over a case of 'Mechtzah al Mechtzah', and in the first Perek of Eruvin (15:), over 'Parutz k'Omeid' ...

åàí 'àé àôùø ìöîöí', äéëé ùøéà îñô÷, åàôéìå ìîàï ãàñø, ìà àñø àìà îùåí ãäëé àâîøéä ìîùä 'ùçåè øåáà!' 'âãåø øåáà!'.

(d)

Source (Part 2): Now if we were to hold 'I Efshar Letzamtem', how could they possible permit it mi'Safek; since even the one who rules Asur, that is only because the Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai 'Shecht the majority!'; 'Fence the majority!'

åîéäå áéãé ùîéí ðøàä ãäìëä ã'àé àôùø ìöîöí' ...

(e)

Halachah #2: In cases of bi'Yedei Shamayim however, it appears that the Halachah is 'I Efshar Letzamtzem' ...

ãàîø áô' ã' àçéï (éáîåú ãó ëç.) 'ìø' éåçðï ãàîø 'àçéåú àéðé éåãò îé ùðàï'; åðéîà ... ø"é äâìéìé äéà?' ìà ñúí úðà ëø' éåñé äâìéìé ãàîø 'àôùø ìöîöí'.

(f)

Source #1: Since the Gemara in Perek Arba Achin (Yevamos 28.) queries Rebbi Yochanan, who said that he did not know who learned the Mishnah of 'Achyos' - Why can we not establish the author as Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili? And it answers that there is no S'tam Mishnah like Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili, who holds 'Efshar Letzamtzem! (by Dinei Shamayim)'.

åáôø÷ äæåø÷ áâéèéï (ãó òç.) ãôøéê 'åäà àé àôùø ìöîöí' - âáé 'îçöä òì îçöä îâåøùú åàéðä îâåøùú', ãîôøù 'ãàúå úøåééäå áäãé äããé áàøáò àîåú ... '.

(g)

Source #2 (Part 1): And in Perek ha'Zorek (Gitin 78.) where, regarding the Mishnah which rules 'Megureshes ve"Einah Megureshes', in the case of a Get which is Safek Karov leih and Safek Karov, and which, after establishing where they both enter the vicinity of four Amos of the Get simultaneously, the Gemara asks 've'Ha I Efshar Letzamtzem' ...

äúí ðîé äåé ëáéãé ùîéí, ãîñúîà ìà ëååðå ìáà ááú àçú.

(h)

Source #2 (Part 2): That too, is like bi'Yedei Shamayim, since it is unlikely they intended to arrive within the four Amos at the same time.

åà"ú, áøéù òéøåáéï (ãó ä:) âáé 'ìçé äîåùê îãôðå ùì îáåé', ã÷àîø øá àùé 'àôéìå úéîà áîáåé ùîåðä, îä ðôùê àé òåîã ðôéù ðéúø áòåîã îøåáä, åàé ôøåõ ðôéù, ðéãåï îùåí ìçé'; îàé àîøú ãùåå úøåééäå ëé äããé, äåä ìéä ñô÷ ãáøéäí, åëì ñô÷ ãáøéäí ìä÷ì.

(i)

Question (Part 1): At the beginning of Eruvin (5:) with regard to the Din of a Lechi (an upright plank) that stretches inside the Mavoy, where Rav Ashi says that 'even if it speaking about a Mavoy of eight Amos, Mah Nafshach, if the part that is standing is more, then it is permitted because of "Omeid Merubeh", whereas if the breached part, then it has a Din of a Lechi. What will you then say, that the two parts are equal? That is a Safek de'Rabbanan, and in a Safek de'Rabbanan, we are always lenient.

îùîò ãàé àôùø ìöîöí åìáøø äãáø.

(j)

Question (Part 2): This implies that it is impossible to assess and verify the matter (even though it is bi'Yedei Adam)?

åé"ì, ãìòåìí àôùø ìáøø åìîãåã áöîöåí ò"é èåøç, àáì ìà äèøéçåäå çëîéí ìîãåã ùí îñô÷, ëéåï ãáéï òåîã ðôéù åáéï ôøåõ ðôéù ìéëà çùù àéñåø, àà"ë äåà ùåä, åîéìúà ãìà ùëéçà äåà.

(k)

Answer: In fact, it is possible to clarify and to measure, only with a lot of effort, and the Rabbanan did not trouble them to measure mi'Safek, since whether the Omeid is more or the Parutz, there is no suspicion of Isur, only when they are exactly equal, and that is something that is not common.

åàéï ìä÷ùåú òì øá àùé, ãàôéìå ëé ùåå ëé äããé ìùúøé, ã÷é"ì 'ôøåõ ëòåîã îåúø'?

(l)

Refuted Question: We cannot ask on Rav Ashi that even if the two are equal, it should be permitted, since we Pasken 'Parutz k'Omeid Mutar'.

ãøá àùé ÷àé à'øá äåðà áøéä ãøá éäåùò ãàîø äúí 'ìà àîøå àìà áîáåé ùîåðä, àáì áîáåé æ', ðéúø áòåîã îøåáä òì äôøåõ ... ' - åàéäå ñáø äúí ã'ôøåõ ëòåîã àñåø'.

(m)

Refutation: Because Rav Ashi refers specifically to Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua, who confines the case there by a Mavoy of seven Amos, which is permitted by 'Omeid Merubeh al ha'Parutz', and Rav Huna b'reih de'Rav Yehoshua holds that 'Parutz k'Omeid Asur!'

åä"ø ùîòåï äéä îôøù ãàîåøàé ãäëà åãôøåõ ëòåîã îöå ñáøé ëøáðï, ã'àé àôùø ìöîöí' àôéìå áéãé àãí, åôìéâé ëùãåîä ìðå ãäåé îçöä òì îçöä ...

(n)

New Explanation (Part 1): Rebbi Shimon used to explain that both Amora'im here and in the Sugya of 'Parutz k'Omeid could well hold 'I Efshar Letzamtzem' even bi'Yedei Adam, and they are arguing over where we think it is Mechtzah al Mechtzah ...

åîàï ãùøé, îùåí ãàéîà ãùçè øåáà, åàôéìå äï ùåéï, øçîðà àîø 'ìà úùééø øåáà'.

(o)

New Explanation (Part 2): The one who permits, this is because a. we assume that he Shechted the majority, and b. even if they are in fact, equal, the Torah's requirement is not to leave over the majority.

åîàï ãàñø, îùåí ãàéîà ðùàø øåáà ÷ééí, åàôéìå äï ùåéï, øçîðà àîø 'ùçåè øåáà'.åëï âáé ôøåõ ëòåîã.

(p)

New Explanation (Part 3): Whereas the one who forbids it holds that a. We assume that he left the majority not Shechted, and b. even if they are in fact, equal, the Torah's requirement is to Shecht the majority.

åäùúà ðéçà èôé ääéà ãñô÷ ãáøéäí ìä÷ì, ãàé àôùø ìëåéï.

(q)

New Explanation (Part 4): According to this explanation, the case of Safek Divreihem Lehakel fits better, since it is impossible to assess accurately.

àáì ÷ùä, ãîùîò ãáñô÷ ãàåøééúà äåé àñåø îùåí çùùà ùîà äï ùåéï, àò"â ãàé òåîã ðôéù àå ôøåõ ðôéù äåä ùøé.

(r)

Question (Part 1): This implies that by a Safek d'Oraysa, it is forbidden due to the Chashash that they are equal, even though if the Omeid was more than the Parutz or vice-versa, it would be permitted.

åäëà ùøéà àôéìå áàéñåø ãàåøééúà ëùääéúø îöåé éåúø îï äàéñåø, åëï âáé ôøåõ ëòåîã ... åàí ëï, áääéà ãìçé àôéìå äåé ñôé÷à ãàåøééúà, úùúøé?

(s)

Question (Part 2): But, in our Sugya, when the Heter is more common than the Isur, even by an Isur d'Oraysa, as it is in the case of 'Parutz k'Omeid'. In that case, in the case there of Lechi, it ought to be permitted too, even though it is a Safek d'Oraysa?

åðøàä ìé, ãàéëà äúí ìîéçù ùîà ç' àîåú àéðí îöåîöîåú, åàôéìå ôøåõ îøåáä ìà éäà ðéãåï îùåí ìçé, åìäëé ãåå÷à áñô÷ ãáøéäí éù ìä÷ì.

(t)

Answer: It therefore seems that in the case there that one needs to suspect that the eight Amos are not exactly eight Amos, in which case even if the Parutz is more than the Omeid, it will have a Din of Lechi. Consequently, it is only by a Safek de'Rabbanan that we can be lenient.

àáì ÷ùä ìôéøåùå, ãäéëé ãéé÷à áô"á ãáëåøåú (ãó éæ:) îääåà ã'ðîöà îëååï áéï ùúé òééøåú', ãáéãé àãí àôùø ìöîöí ...

(u)

Question (Part 1): The problem with Rabeinu Shimon's explanation however, is from the Gemara in the second Perek of Bechoros (17:) which extrapolates from the case there where a corpse is found between two cities, that bi'Yedei Adam Efshar Letzamtzem

äúí ðîé àò"â ãàé àôùø ìöîöí åìëåéï, îëì î÷åí îåãéí øáðï ãîáéàéï ùúé òâìåú, îùåí ãëì àçú îáéà òâìä îîä ðôùê, ùîà äéà ÷øåáä; åàôéìå äï îöåîöîåú, "ä÷øåáä" àîø øçîðà, åàôéìå ÷øåáåú?

(v)

Question (Part 2): Why can we not say there too, that even if we say 'I Efshar Letzamtzem' the Rabbanan will nevertheless agree that one brings two claves, since each town will bring one 'Mah Nafshach', because a. Perhaps it is the closest, and b. because even if they are exactly the same distance, the Torah writes 'ha'Kerovah', implying even 'K'rovos'?

åìôéøåù ÷îà àúé ùôéø - ãìòåìí àé àôùø ìöîöí åìäéåú ùéäéå ùåéï àìà àçú îäï ÷øåáä éåúø åéåöàéï áùì úðàé?

(w)

Statement: This problem is non-existent according to the first explanation, because since we hold 'I Efsher Letzamtzem' it is not possible for them to be exactly the same distance, one of them must be closer, in which case, they will be Yotzei with one calf and a condition that it will cover whichever town is the closer.

åéù ìåîø, ãìôé' äø"ø ùîòåï ðîé éåöàéí áùì úðàé îîä ðôùê, ãàí ÷øåáä äéà, éåöàä áä; åàí øçå÷ä äéà, úáéà áùáéì çáéøúä.

(x)

Answer (Part 1): According to Rebbi Shimon too, one will be Yotzei with one calf over which one makes a condition, Mah Nafshach, because if it is the closer one, then it is Yotzei with it, and if it is the one that is further away, then it is brining it on behalf of its friend.

îàé àîøú ùîà îöåîöîåú äï, æä àéðå îöåé. åàéï ìäàøéê ëàï éåúø.

(y)

Answer (Part 2): What is left to worry about? Perhaps the two arre equidistant? That is unusual and so we don't need to contend with it.

åàéï ìäàøéê ëàï éåúø. åáòéøåáéï (ãó ä: ã"ä åñô÷) àôøù áò"ä éåúø [åéåúø îáåàø áñåëä èå: úã"ä 'ôøåõ ... ', åúåñôåú áëåøåú éæ: ã"ä àôùø].

(z)

Conclusion: There is nothing more to say here; However, in Eruvin (5: DH 've'Safek'), Tosfos will elaborate. In fact however, they elaborate more in Succah (15: DH 'Parutz ... ') and in Bechoros (17. DH 'Efshar').

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF