TOSFOS DH VAHAVINAN BAH TA'AMA D'SHE'LO L'SHEMO HA STAMA PATUR
úåñ' ã"ä åäåéðï áä èòîà ãùìà ìùîå äà ñúîà ôèåø
(SUMMARY: Tosfos disagrees with this (Rashi's) version of the text, and present what they claim is the more common one.)
ëê äéà âéøñú ä÷åðèøñ.
Text #1: This is Rashi's text.
å÷ùä, ãàããéé÷ îñéôà, ðéãå÷ îøéùà àéôëà - 'èòîà ãìùîå, äà ñúîà, çééá', àìîà ãìà áòéðï ò÷éøä?
Question: The Gemara might just as well have made the opposite inference from the Reisha 'That is because he did it Lish'mo', but had he done it S'tam, he would be Chayav!' So we see, that it does not require Akirah!'
åáøåá ñôøéí éùðéí âøñéðï 'åäåéðï áä "ìùîå àîàé ôèåø, ôñç áùàø éîåú äùðä ùìîéí äåà?" ù"î áòé ò÷éøä'.
Text #2: The text in most Sefarim is 'And we ask "Why is Lish'mo Patur, seeing as a Pesach the whole year round is a Shelamim?" - So we see, that it does require Akirah!
ôé' ãàé ñúîà ìà áòé ò÷éøä, à"ë, ñúí äåé ùìîéí, åëùø ëùùçèå ìùí ôñç ...
Clarification: ... because, if S'tam did not require Akirah, then S'tam it would become a Shelamim, and it would be Kasher if one Shechted it as a Pesach (during the year) ...
îéãé ãäåä à'ùìîéí åãàé ùùçèï ìùí ôñç, ãëùøéï.
Precedent: ... just like a regular Shelamim that is Kasher if one Shechted it as a Pesach.
TOSFOS DH MI'DEMEI PESACH MI IDCHI
úåñ' ã"ä îãîé ôñç îé àéãçé
(SUMMARY: Tosfos works out how it is possible to Shecht the animal in a way that it remains permissible to eat.)
åàí úàîø, îîä ðôùê àéãçé âí îãîé ôñç, ãîëé ùçéè ôåøúà, àéðä øàåéä ìôãåú àìà ìëìáéí, åàéï ôåãéï ÷ãùéí ìäàëéìï ìëìáéí?
Question (Part 1): Mah Nafshach it is rejected even from the value of the Pesach, because from the moment he Shechts a little, it can only be redeemed to feed the animals, and one is not permitted to redeem Kodshim to feed to the dogs?
åàí ìàçø ôãéåï âåîø ùçéèúå, àí ëï äåéà ìä çåìéï áòæøä, åàñåøä áàëéìä?
Question (Part 2): ... and if he were to complete the Shechitah after redeeming it, it would fall under the category of 'Chulin ba'Azarah', which one is forbidden to eat?
åé"ì, ãîéã àçø ôãéåï éåöéàðå çåõ åéâîåø ùí ùçéèúå.
Answer: Immediately following the redemption, he can take the animal out of the Azarah and complete the Shechitah there.
TOSFOS DH VE'HA'TENAN SHACHAT BAH SHENAYIM O ROV SHENAYIM V'ADAYIN HI MEFARCHESES HAREI HI K'CHAYAH L'CHOL DEVAREHAH
úåñ' ã"ä åäúðï ùçè áä ùðéí àå øåá ùðéí åòãééï äéà îôøëñú äøé äéà ëçéä ìëì ãáøéä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos presents the source for this statement.)
àéï äîùðä ëï áùåí î÷åí ...
Statement: There is no such Mishnah anywhere ...
àìà ããéé÷ ìä îúðéúéï ãäòåø åäøåèá (ì÷îï ÷éæ:) ãúðï 'äùåçè áäîä èîàä ìòåáã ëåëáéí åîôøëñú, îèîàä èåîàú àåëìéï, àáì ìà èåîàú ðáìåú.
Source: ... but the Gemara extrapolates it from the Mishnah in 'ha'Or ve'ha'Rotav' (on Daf 117b) where the Mishnah rules that if someone Shechts a Tamei animal to Avodah-Zarah, and it is still shuddering, it is Metamei Tum'as Ochlin, but not Tum'as Neveilos.
TOSFOS DH HA'SHOCHET B'SHENAYIM O B'SHELOSHAH MEKOMOS
úåñ' ã"ä äùåçè áùðéí àå áâ' î÷åîåú
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses three interpretations of 'two or three locations'.)
ôéøù á÷åðèøñ - çúê ëàï åçæø åäúçéì ìçúåê ìîòìä àå ìîèä.
Explanation #1: Rashi explains that he cuts in one location, and then begins to cut in a different location (on the neck) above or below it.
å÷ùä, ãàí àéï øåá áî÷åí àçã äéàê ùçéèúå ëùøä; åàí éù øåá áî÷åí àçã, à"ë ùçéèä îôåøòú äéà?
Question: If there is no majority in one of the places, how can the Shechitah possibly be Kasher, Whereas if there is, then it is a 'revealed Shechitah' (so what is the problem)?
åé"ì, ãàò"â ãéù øåá áî÷åí àçã, ìà äåé ùçéèä îôåøòú - ãáùìà ðçúê äñéîï ìà ìîòìä îáéú äùçéèä åìà ìîèä, àæ äåéà ùçéèä îôåøòú ...
Answer: Even though it is speaking where there is a nakority in one of the places, it is not a 'revealed Shechitah' - which it only is if there is no cut above or below the location of the Shechitah ...
ãáéú äùçéèä îéøååç øååç; àáì ëùðçúê ìîòìä àå ìîèä ìà îéøååç, åàéðä îôåøòú.
Reason: ... because the revelation of the Shechitah is caused by the fact that the neck opens up following the Shechitah, which it does not do if there is a cut on the neck above or below the location of the Shechitah.
åëé ôøéê î'ùðéí àåçæéï áñëéï åùåçèéï', ìà äåé îöé ìùðåéé ãäúí ëùùçè ëì àçã øåá, åäøé äéà îôåøòú ...
Implied Question: When the Gemara asks from the case of two people who are holding a knife (one knife each) and Shechting, why does the Gemara not answer that each one Shechted the majority, in which case it is a revealed Shechitah?
ãî"î, ëù÷ãí äàçã åùçè øåá, åçáéøå ìà ùçè òãééï àìà îéòåè, àéðä îôåøòú åðôñìä; åëéåï ãëáø ðôñìä úå ìà äãøà åîúëùøà, ëùâí çáéøå âîø äøåá.
Answer: Because in any event, when the first one Shechted a majority, and his friend had only Shechted a little, it is not 'revealed' and immediately becomes Pasul, and once it is Pasul, it cannot then become Kasher, even after the second one has Shechted a majority.
åáùàìúåú ãøá àçàé îôøù 'á' àå â' î÷åîåú' - ëâåï ùëì àåúï î÷åîåú áäé÷ó ùì ñéîï ëâåï ùçúê ñáéá ñáéá ëàï îòè åëàï îòè áèáòú àçú á÷ðä, åëéåöà áå áååùè, åáéï äëì éù øåá.
Explanation #2: The She'iltos of Rebbi Achai Gaon however, explains that when Rav says 'in two or three locations', he means that all the locations are located around the circumference of the neck, and that the person Shechted a little at one point in two or three locations around the cartilage of the wind-pipe or the esophagus, which in total, amounted to a Rov.
åòåã ôéøù áùàìúåú - ùàôéìå çúê îéòåè ä÷ðä ìîòìä ìöã äòåø, åçæø åùçè îéòåèå ìîèä ìöã àçø, æä ùìà ëðâã æä, ãëùøä, ëéåï ãáéï äëì éù øåá.
Ruling: The She'iltos also rules that even if one Shechts a bit of the wind-pipe at the top beside the skin, and then Shechts a bit at the other end, not opposite each other, the Shechitah is Kasher, provided he has Shechted a majority in total.
åøáéðå çððàì ôéøù 'á' àå â' î÷åîåú' - ëâåï øåá ä÷ðä ìîòìä åøåá äååùè ìîèä.
Explanation #3: Whereas Rabeinu Chananel interprets 'two or three locations' as 'the majority of the wind-pipe above and the majority of the esophagus below'.
åìôéøåùå ìà îùëçú ùìùä î÷åîåú.
Observation: According to him, there is no such thing as three locations.
TOSFOS DHMASIV REBBI ELIEZER SHENAYIM OCHZIN B'SAKIN V'SHOCHTIN
úåñ' ã"ä îúéá øáé àìòæø ùðéí àåçæéï áñëéï åùåçèéï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos rejects a possible answer.)
ìôéøåù øáéðå çððàì åäùàìúåú ìà áòé ìùðåéé ãäëà ëùùçè äàçã äøåá ...
Implied Question: According to the She'iltos and Rabeinu Chananel (in the previous Dibur) the Gemara does not want to answer that one of them Shechted the majority ...
ãäà îùîò ùäùçéèä ëùøä òì éãé ùðéäí.
Answer: ... since it is implied that both of them are instrumental in the Shechitah.
TOSFOS DH DILMA SAMCHI A'HADADI V'LO AVDI RUBA
úåñ' ã"ä ãìîà ñîëé àäããé åìà òáãé øåáà
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains this according to Rashi and the She'iltos respectively.)
ìôéøåù ä÷åðèøñ ëì àçã ìà éùçåè øåá.
Explanation #1: According to Rashi this means that each one will not Shecht a majority ...
åìôéøåù äùàìúåú áéï ùðéäí ìà éòùå øåá.
Explanation #2: Whereas according to the She'iltos it means that they will not Shecht a majority between them.
30b----------------------------------------30b
TOSFOS DH LIMADTANU RABEINU MISHNASEINU B'SHENEI SAKINIM U'V'SHENEI BENEI ADAM
úåñ' ã"ä ìîãúðå øáéðå îùðúéðå áùðé ñëéðéí åáùðé áðé àãí
(SUMMARY: Tosfos extrapolates the Halachah, based on both Rashi's text and that of the B'hag.)
îùîò ùëï äìëä, ãáùðéí åùìùä î÷åîåú, ùçéèä ëùøä.
Halachah: This implies that it is Halachah, and that a Shechitah in two or three locations is Kasher.
åáä"â âøéñ 'ìîãúðå øáéðå, îùðúéðå áñëéï àçã åá' áðé àãí' ...
Alternative Text: The B'hag however has the text 'Limad'tanu Rabeinu, Mishnaseinu be'Sakin Echad u'Shenei B'nei Adam' ...
ëìåîø - åäéàê àúä àåëì?
Explanation: ... as if to say 'How could you then eat it?'
åî"î, ëéåï ãìà çù ìãáøéå åàëì îùåôøé ùåôøé, ù"î ùëï äìëä, ùäøé çæø áå îîä ùäéä øâéì ìôøù áîúðéúéï ñëéï àçã.
Halachah: Nevertheless, since he (Rebbi Yitzchak bar Shmuel) took no notice of Rebbi Zeira and carried on eating 'from the best', it is clear that this is the Halachah, and that he had retracted from his original line of thought, establishing the Mishnah by one knife.
TOSFOS DH HICHLID HA'SAKIN BEIN SIMAN L'SI'MAN
úåñ' ã"ä äçìéã äñëéï áéï ñéîï ìñéîï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why this ruling is brought here, and not later in the Perek where it belongs.)
ì÷îï (ãó ìá.) âáé îúðé' ãçìãä äéä øàåé ìäáéàä ...
Implied Question: Why did the Gemara not cite this ruling later in the Perek, in connection with the Mishnah of Chaladah ...
àìà àâá ãàëùø øá ìòéì ùçéèä ùàéðä îôåøòú, ÷î"ì ãàéðä îôåøòú ëæàú, ôñåìä îèòí çìãä.
Answer: Only because Rav declared Kasher earlier a Shechitah that is not revealed (Einah Mefura'as), it is coming to teach us here that Einah Mefu'ra'as such as this is Pasul because of Chaladah.
TOSFOS DH O SHE'HICHLID HA'SAKIN TACHAS HA'SHEINI U'PASKO
úåñ' ã"ä àå ùäçìéã äñëéï úçú äùðé åôñ÷å
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Mishnah presents this ruling in connection with the second Si'man and not the first.)
øáåúà ð÷è, àò"â ùëáø ðùçè äàçã.
Explanation #1: It is telling us a Chidush by the way, that it is Pasul even though one Si'man has already been Shechted.
åð÷è ðîé àåøçà ãîéìúà, ãëùùçè ñéîï øàùåï áäåáàä, ëùçåæø åáà ìòùåú äåìëä, úçá øàù äñëéï áéï ñéîï ùðé ìöåàø.
Explanation #2: It also mentions the normal case, that when, after having Shechted the first Si'man by drawing the knife towards himself, when he then comes to push the knife in the opposite direction, the Shochet tends to stick the tip of the knife between the second Si'man and the neck.
TOSFOS DH HICHLID B'MI'UT SIMANIM MAHU
úåñ' ã"ä äçìéã áîéòåè ñéîðéï îäå
(SUMMARY: Tosfos gives various interpretations of the She'eilah, and discusses the ramifications with regard to the other Pesulei Shechitah.)
ôé' á÷åðèøñ - áîéòåè áúøà, àáì áîéòåè ÷îà, ôùéèà ìï ãäåéà ðáìä.
Explanation #1: Rashi establishes this by the last bit of the Si'man, but by the first bit, it is obvious that it is a Neveilah ...
åáäâøîä ðîé ôñ÷ ãàôé' ùçè ùðé ùìéù åäâøéí ùìéù, ãòáãéðï ìçåîøà, îã÷àé äëà áúé÷å.
Halachah #1: ... And likewise he rules that if one Shechted two thirds and made Hagramah on the last third, we are strict (and invalidate the Shechitah), since the Gemara here remains with a 'Teiku'.
åøáéðå éöç÷ áøáé îàéø àåîø ãáäâøîä ôñ÷éðï áô"÷ (ìòéì éè.) ëøáé éåñé áø éäåãä, åàéëà ãîëùø ðîé ìøáðï ùçè ùðé ùìéùé åäâøéí ùìéù ...
Halachah: Rabeinu Yitzchak b'Rebbi Meir however, maintains that regarding to Hagramah, the Gemara ruled in the first Perek (19a) like Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah (who holds 'Rubo ke'Kulo'); What's more, some commentaries even declare Kasher where one Shechted two thirds and made Hagramah by the last third, even according to the Rabbanan ...
åìà ãîéà ìäëà, ãäúí ùìà áî÷åí ùçéèä äåà, åäåé ëàéìå ùåçè áøâìä àçø ùçéèú äñéîï.
Reasoning #1: ... and it is not comparable to our case (of Chaladah), since there it is not being performed in the location of Shechitah, in which case it is as if one Shechted the animal's leg after Shechting the first Si'man.
(åëàï) [åëï] ðîé àí ìàçø ùçéèú äøåá ò÷ø (äøåá) äîéòåè, ùçéèúå ëùøä, ëéåï ãäåé ùìà ëãøê ùçéèä.
Reasoning #2: And similarly, if, after Shechting the majority, one tore out the minority, the Shechitah is Kasher, seeing as it was not done by way of Shechitah.
åø"ú ä÷ùä ìôéøåù ä÷åðèøñ - ãúðéà áúåñôúà 'ùçè àçã àå øåá àçã áòåó, àôéìå àí âîøå ìæîï îøåáä, ùçéèúå ëùøä?
Question: Rabeinu Tam queries Rashi from the Tosefta, which learns that, if one Shechted one Si'man or the majority of one Si'man of a bird, even if one completed it only over a long period of time, the Shechitah is Kasher?
åîôøù ø"ú, ãäëà áòé áîéòåè ÷îà, åáòé ìøá éäåãä ãîëùø úçú äòåø, ããìîà àí úçá äñëéï áîéòåè äñéîï, åùçè áøåá ùìîèä ëãøëå äåéà çìåã èôé ...
Explanation #2 (Part 1): Rabeinu Tam therefore establishes the She'eilah here with reference to the first Miy'ut, and the question is according to Rav Yehudah, who declares Kasher under the skin, since perhaps if the Shochet stuck the knife during the first Miy'ut of the Si'man, and then Shechted the majority below it normally, it is considered even more Chalud ...
àå ãéìîà àôéìå ìàîøé áé øá ãàîøé 'úçú äòåø àéðé éåãò' - äééðå îùåí ãùçéèä ìà ùééëà áòåø åäåé çìãä ìôé ùäåà ùìí; àáì ñéîðéí, ãùééëé áäå ùçéèä, åàôéìå äëé àéï öøéê ìùçåè àìà äøåá, äîéòåè ùòì äñëéï äåé ëàéìå ðçúê, åìà äåé çìãä.
Explanation #2 (Part 2): ... or perhaps even according to Amri de'bei Rav, who hold that underneath the skin may well be considered Chaladah, that is due to the fact that the skin is not subject to Shechitah, and it is Chaladah because it is complete; whereas the Si'manim, which are subject to Shechitah, in spite of which one only needs to be Shechtcthe majority, the Miy'ut which is on top of the knife is considered cut, and it is not considered Chaladah.
à"ð, îéáòéà ìéä ëùúçá äñëéï úçú îéòåè ÷îà åôñ÷å îìîèä ìîòìä, àç"ë ùçè äøåá.
Explanation #3: Alternatively, the Gemara is asking what the Din will be if the Shochet stuck the knife underneath the first Miy'ut and cut the Si'man upwards, before Shechting the Rov normally.
åëï 'ùää áîéòåè ñéîðéí' ãì÷îï (ãó ìá.), îôøù ø"ú áîéòåè ÷îà ãååùè.
Halachah: And so too the case of 'Shahah be'Miy'ut Simanim' later (on Daf 32a) Rabeinu Tam establishes by the first Miy'ut of the esophagus.
åäùúà àúé ùôéø äàé ã÷àîø ìòéì (ãó ëè.) 'àé îçöä òì îçöä ëøåá, äà òáã ìéä øåáà, ãáîéòåè áúøà ôùéèà ìéä ãëùø.
Clarification #1: What the Gemara said earlier (on the previous Daf) that 'If Mechtzah al Mechtzah is considered a Rov, he Shechted the Rov' now makes good sense, since the Gemara takes for granted that the last Miy'ut is Kasher.
åäùúà ìôéøåùå, àú"ì ãëùø àó áîéòåè ÷îà, ìà ôñìä ùäééä áòåó îï äúåøä, ëéåï ãäëùøå áñéîï àçã.
Clarification #2: According to Rabeinu Tam's explanation, if one takes on that even the first Miy'ut is Kasher, then a bird is not subject to Shehiyah min ha'Torah, seeing as the Hechsher of a bird is with one Si'man ...
åäà ã÷àîø ì÷îï áôéø÷éï (ãó ìá.) ã'ùäééä äåé ëãé áäîä ìáäîä, åòåó ìòåó ...
Implied Question: ... and when the Gemara later (on Daf 32a) gives the Shi'ur of Shehiyah of an animal the times it takes to Shecht an animal, and that of a bird, the time it takes to Shecht a bird ...
äééðå îãøáðï.
Answer: ... that is mi'de'Rabbanan.
åá÷ðä ìà ùééëà ùäééä àôéìå îãøáðï, ãùää áîéòåè ÷îà ëùøä, îéãé ãäåä à'îöà çöé ÷ðä ôâåí.
Halachah: What's more, Shehiyah is not applicable to the windpipe at all, even mi'de'Rabbanan, since it is no worse than if one discovered half the windpipe cut (which is Kasher) ...
åîä ùëúåá áúåñôúà 'ùçè çöé äâøâøú, åùää ëãé ùçéèä åâîøä, ùçéèúå ôñåìä'...
Implied Question: ... and what the Tosefta writes - that if one Shechted half the windpipe and waited the time it takes to Shecht, before completing the Shechitah, it is Pasul ...
èòåú ñåôø äåà, åâøñéðï 'ëùøä' ...
Answer: Is a printing error; The correct text is 'Kesheirah' ...
ãäà ìòéì îééúé ìä âáé îçöä òì îçöä ëøåá.
Proof: ... because that is how it is quoted above in the Sugya of 'Mechtzah al Mehtzah'.
åîéäå âí ìôéøåù øáéðå úí ÷ùä îúåñôúà - ãúðéà 'ùçè îéòåè ååùè, åùää ëãé ùçéèä, ôñåìä' àìîà éù ùäééä áîéòåè ÷îà, åì÷îï ÷àé áúé÷å?
Question (Part 1): There is also a Kashya on Rabeinu Tam himself from the Tosefta, which rules that if one Shechted a Miy'ut of the Veshet and waited a Shi'ur Shechitah, the Shechitah is Pasul, from which we see that Shehiyah does apply to the first Miy'ut; whereas later the Gemara remains with a 'Teiku' on this very point?
åàí ðàîø ãìà éãò, à"ë âí ìôéøåù ä÷åðèøñ ðàîø ãìà éãò ääéà úåñôúà ùä÷ùä îîðä ø"ú.
Question (Part 2): And if we will say that the Gemara was not aware of the Tosefta, then we can answer the Kashya on Rashi too by saying that the Gemara on which Rashi is commenting was not aware of the Tosefta from which Rabeinu Tam queried him?
åä"ø àåùòéà îôøù 'äçìéã áîéòåè ñéîðéí' - äééðå ìàçø ùùçè øåá äàçã, äçìéã úçú äîéòåè ùðùàø, åùçè ñéîï ùðé.
Explanation #4: Rebbi Oshaya explains 'Hichlid be'Miy'ut Kama' to mean that after the Shochet Shechted the majority of one Si'man, he made Chaladah on the remaining Miy'ut of that Si'man before Shechting the second one.
åùää áîéòåè ñéîðéí ãì÷îï îôøù ã÷àé à'ùåçè áñëéï øòä ã÷àîø äúí 'àôéìå äåìéê åäáéà ëì äéåí ëåìå, ëùø' ...
Explanation of Gemara later (Part 1): Whereas 'Shahah be'Miy'ut Kama' later is referring to the case of where he Shechted with a blunt knife about which the Gemara there says that even if he moved it backwards and forwards all day, the Shechitah is Kasher.
åîáòéà ìï àí ùçè øåáå ùì àçã, åäåìéê åäáéà ëì äéåí ëåìå áîéòåèå, îäå?
Explanation of Gemara later (Part 2): And the She'eilah now is what the Din will be if, after Shechting the majority of the first Si'man, he moved the knife backwards and forwards all day on the remaining Miy'ut ...
ããìîà äà ãîëùéø áñëéï øòä àôéìå äåìéê åäáéà ëì äéåí ëåìå, ùîà äééðå áîúòñ÷ ìçúåê äñéîï ...
Reasoning (Part 1): ... because perhaps the reason that the Gemara declares Kasher Shechitah with a blunt knife there where he moved it backwards and forwards all day is because he is busy cutting the Si'man ...
àáì ëàï ùëáø çúê øåáå, äøé äåà ëàéìå ðçúê ëåìå, åëùîåìéê åîáéà ëì äéåí ëåìå áàåúå îéòåèà, äåé ëàéìå îåìéê áéã åáøâì, åéù ëàï ùäééä, åôñåìä.
Reasoning (Part 2): ... but here, where he has already Shechted the majority of the Si'man, it is considered as if the entire Si'man has been Shechted, so that when he subsequently spends all day moving the knife backwards and forwards, it is as if he did so on one of the animals fore or hind legs, in which case it is Shehiyah, and the Shechitah is Pasul.
TOSFOS DH TANA D'VEI REBBI YISHMAEL V'SHACHAT EIN V'SHACHAT ELA U'MASHACH
úåñ' ã"ä úðà ãáé øáé éùîòàì åùçè àéï åùçè àìà åîùê
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that he learns two things from the Pasuk.)
ãàò"â ãàéäå âåôéä ãøéù áøéù ôéø÷éï (ìòéì ëæ.) "åùçè", 'áî÷åí ùùç çèäå' ...
Implied Question: Even though, at the beginning of the Perek (27a) he himself Darshens from "ve'Shachat", 'be'Makom she'Shach Chateiu' ...
úøúé ù"î.
Answer: He learns two things from this D'rashah.