Authentic Explanation: We are forced to explain like this - They are not arguing over something that has the same Sheim, that one is Chayav, such as figs and figs, where the picker forgot what he originally intended, or white figs and white figs or black figs and black figs, and he forgot ... , as the Gemara explained earlier ...

Authentic Explanation (cont.): Over what are they arguing? Over a case where there two Sheimos such as grapes and figs, or black and white figs, and he forgot ... , as the Gemara explained their reasons earlier.

Refuted Explanation: Since we cannot say according to Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi Shimon Shezuri that they are arguing over where he picked figs or grapes and he does not know wht he picked ...

Reason: Because that is what Rebbi Yossi holds, and what are they then coming to teach us (See Mayim Kedoshim)?

Rebbi Shimon: Since Rebbi Shimon holds that the Machlokes Rebbi Yehoshua and Rebbi Eliezer is by 'Avad Melaket mi'Libo', and where he intended to pick figs, but he picked grapes, or to pick black figs and he picked white ones, seeing as they are two species, as the Gemara explained their reasons earlier.

Rebbi Shimon (cont.): But by one species and 'Avad Melaket mi'Libo' they do not argue - and both agree that he is Chayav.

Rebbi Shimon (concl.): By one species and 'Lo Avad Melaket mi'Libo' however - such as where he intended to pick these, but in fact picked others, he is Patur due to Mis'asek.

Rebbi Yehudah: Whereas Rebbi Yehudah maintains that even where he intended ... they argue by two species, where 'Lo Avad Melaket mi'Libo'.

Conclusion: From this the Gemara extrapolates that their Machlokes is confined to two species, but by one, they both agree that he is Chayav, as the Gemara learned earlier.

Gemara's Question: Why is that, seeing as it is Mis'asek, in which case the Kashya remains unanswered?

Implied Question: And the reason that the Gemara explains the Machlokes in this way - that according to Rebbi Shimon Mis'asek is Patur, and he establishes the MAchlokes by Avad Melaket mi'Libo, whereas according ro Rebbi Yehudah, Mis'asek is Chayav and it speaks by 'Lo Avad ... ' is ...

Answer: Because the Lashon of the Mishnah implies that Rebbi Yehudah is more stringent ...

Source: Since it states 'Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi Shimon Shezuri do not argue over something with one Sheim that he is Chayav' - there he is certainly Chayav; 'Over what do they argue? Over two Sheimos' - where there is an opinion that declares him Patur ...

Proof #1: And in connection with that Rebbi Yehudah says 'Even if he intends to pick figs ... they argue, there is an opinion that declares him Chayav.

Proof #2: Moreover, Rebbi Yehudah's statement 'I would be surprised if Rebbi Yehoshua would exempt him!' - implies that he is more stringent.

Clarification (Tana Kama): Like Rebbi Yochanan, who established it by a smith ...

Clarification (cont.): Not one who works in metal - but one who makes charcoal in a forest, who, once the wood has burned up and become charcoal ...

Clarification (cont.): He removes the large coals from the fire, since he wants them to cool down - in order to work with them to make metal ...

Clarification (cont.): And he leaves the small coals since they are unfit for the work he is doing, and he does not need them to warm himself, only to become ashes ...

Kilkul: And this is the Kilkul - in that they have no use, and he only wants them to burn up completely and to turn into ashes ...

Kilkul (cont.): And this is what the Tana means when he says 'He had in mind to extinguish the top ones in order to burn the bottom ones' ...

Kilkul (concl.): Because he only wants the 'burning' of the bottom ones so that it should turn into ashes - and that is a 'Kilkul' ...

Clarification (Rebbi Eliezer b'Rebbi Tzadok: Whereas Rebbi Eliezer b'Rebbi Tzadok is Mechayev him two (Chata'os) - one because of Kibuy, and one because of Hav'arah ...

Implied Question: And even though it is both Mekalkel and Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah le'Gufah ...

Answer: In this point he holds like Rebi Yehudah, who declares him Chayav ...

Answer (cont.): Despite the fact that he holds like Rebi Shimon regarding Mekalkel be'Hav'arah.

Clarification (Tana Kama [concl.]): Whereas according to the Rabbanan, he is not Chayav for Hav'arah, since (they hold that) Mekalkel be'Hav'arah is Patur.

Introduction to Question: According to the explanation of the Ri in the first Perek of Kesuvos (Daf 5b [See also Mesores ha'Shas]), that when Rebbi Yehudah says 'Davar she'Eino Miskaven Asur' he means specifically mi'de'Rabanan but not min ha'Torah, there is a Kashya ...

Question: Since here it implies that he holds tha mi'd'Oraysa he is Chayav to bring a Chatas?

Answer: The reason that Rebbi Yehudah rules here that he is Chayav is - because it is 'P'sik Reisha ve'Lo Yamus' (it is bound to happen).

Question: In that case, even Rebbi Shimon agrees, so why does the Gemara equate the Tana Kama with Rebbi Shimon?

Answer: The reason here is because it is a Melachah she'Einah Tzericha le'Gufa (he does not need the direct outcome of the Melachah) - and Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon follow their opinions ...

Implied Question: And it only mentions 'Davar she'Eino Miskaven' ...

Answer #1: To teach us (a Chidush) that he is nevertheless Chayav (according to Rebbi Yehudah), since it is a Melachah she'Einah Tzericha le'Gufa

Answer #2: Furthermore, it is a 'Davar she'Eino MIskaven' because he does not want the coals to ignite, since he derives no benefit from them ...

Answer #2 (cont.): Whereas in the case cited in the Beraisa 'Someone who shovels coals to heat himself by them' it does not mention 'Miskaven' or 'Eino Miskaven', seeing as he is doing it in order to warm himself ...

Answer #2 (concl.): But it is a 'Melachah she'Einah Tzericha le'Gufa' - which is why Rebbi Shimon declares him Patur ...

Implied Question: Even though it is 'P'sik Reisheih ... '.

Answer: Since it is a 'Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah le'Gufah'.

Introduction to Question: The Gemara in Perek ha'Boneh (Shabbos, Daf 103a), on the statement 'Even if it was not a marshland, he was not Mechaven' - and he will be Patur like Rebbi Shimon ...

Introduction to Question (cont.): Asks 'But did Abaye and Rava not both say that Rebbi Shimon concedes by P'sik Reisheih ve'Lo Yamus' - meaning that it is impossible not to have improved the land? ...

Question: What is the Kashya, bearing in mind thar it is nevertheless a Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah le'Gufah - seeing as he does not need the improvement?

Answer #1: The Gemara there initially thinks that it is a P'sik Reisheih ... with which he is pleased, since it is speaking in his own field.

Answer #1 (cont.): And it subsequently answers that he did it in his friend's field rendering it a P'sik Reisheih with which he is not pleased (See Shitah Mekubetzes 25).

Support: The Aruch too, rules that P'sik Reisheih with which he is not pleased is permitted

Source: Based on the Gemara in Succah (Daf 33b) which permits diminishing (the berries on an Aravah) on Yom-Tov, and on the Kashya that he is Mesaken (renders the Aravah fit to use), it answers 'that it must be speaking where he has another Aravah'.

Answer #2: Alternatively, if it is not Tzarich le'Gufah, then even though he has repaired it, it is permitted (See also Tosfos Shabbos 41b DH 'Meicham' and the note there in the margin).

Question: The Ri queries this from the Gemara, which Darshens 'Whereas Beheimah, Chayah and Of are Metamei a stringent Tum'ah and a lighter one ... ' ...

Question (cont.): And since a Tamei bird is not subject to 'Tum'ah in the throat' - it is not subject to a stringent Tum'ah - so from where do we know that its blood is Asur?

Answer #1: The ere is no Kashya according to the Maskana - where it learns from a K'lal and P'rat from "la'Of ve'la'Beheimah", and what it means is that 'Whereas Of and Beheimah there exist both a stringent Tum'ah and a lighter one in their species - i.e. Tahor ones ...

Answer #1 (cont.): To preclude Sheratzim and locusts by whose species there is no stringent Tum'ah'.

Precedent: And this is also how we must learn like this when it says 'Whereas Beheimah ve'Of ... and they have Isur ve'Heter', and the Gemara explains later (on Daf 21b) 'Isur' - prior to the Shechitah; 've'Heter' - after the Shechitah ...

Precedent (cont.): In that case, from where does he know Tamei birds and Tamei animals, which do not have a Heter after the Shechitah?

Precedent (concl.): Unless we say that he means 'the species of Beheimah and Of, to which Ieur and Heter do apply.

Implied Question: And even according to the opinion that exempts birds from Shechitah min ha'Torah ...

Answer: They nevertheless require Nechirah (tearing open) - so they are subject to Isur and Heter.

Answer #2: In any case (even according to the Havah Amina) we can explain that Isur and Heter refers to the Isur of Basar min ha'Chai before its death and the Heter after its death.

Conclusion: Regarding the Kashya from Tum'ah Chamurah however, we have to answer like Tosfos' first answer.

Alternative Answer #1: And when the Gemara asks (on Daf 21a) whether we say 'Just as Beheimah, which is not subject to taking the mother together with the children, also a bird ...

Alternative Answer #1 (cont.): It could just as well have answered 'Just as Beheimah, which is Metamei Tum'ah Chamurah, also a bird ... ' - to preclude the blood of a Tamei bird which is not Metamei Tum'ah Chamurah.

Alternative Answer #2: Or it could have said 'Just as a bird, which is not subject to Eim al ha'Banim, such as one that has been designated, but not one that has not been designated'.

Refuted Explanation: Some commentaries explain 'the blood of Ikur' - i.e. that the Simanim are torn out from where they are joined.

Refutation: Since the animal does not die because of that, only it is a Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai thatit is Pasul, but it is not a T'reifah, its blood is not subject to Kareis - since its Neshamah does not depart on account of it?

Authentic Explanation: Itr must therefore be referring to the blood of the Shecitah after the Ikur.

Implied Question: By the same token, the blood of Shechitah, Nechirah, and Ikur must also be blood with which the Neshamah departs.

Answer: But it only needs to mention it by the blood of Hakazah - because it is unusual to let the blood of one's animal to the extent that its Nefesh departs.

Explanation #1: A chicken's egg (Rashi).

Explanation #2: A second Lashon: the Beitzim of a male.

Question: But the Gemara states 'I will preclude the blood of Beitzim, which is not a species of Basar'.

Inference: This implies that an Isur there is.

Question: The Gemara queries Rav, who rules that if one gathered the blood of fish, it is forbidden, from a Beraisa ...

Question (cont.): What is the Kashya, when it can support him from the Mishnah?

Answer: Granted that it can, and the Gemara could have countered and said 'And according to you, bring a proof from the Mishnah!'

Question: Rabeinu asks why the Gemara ses fit to include all these Tzedadim (common points)? Why will one not suffice ...

Question (cont.): Why does he not simply preclude fish, grasshoppers and Sheratzim which are not subject to Tum'ah Kalah ...

Question (concl.): And similarly, it would suffice regarding the Tzad of Isur and Heter.