KERISUS 24 (14 Elul) – This Daf has been dedicated in honor of the Yahrzeit of Yisrael (son of Chazkel and Miryam) Rosenbaum, who passed away on 14 Elul, by his son and daughter and their families.

1)

TOSFOS DH MAFRISH SH'NEI ASHAMOS L'ACHRAYUS

úåñ' ã"ä îôøéù ùðé àùîåú ìàçøéåú

(Summary: Tosfos discusses an alternative text.)

àéú ñôøéí ãâøñé 'åðúëôø áàçã îäï' ...

(a)

Another Text: There are some texts that read 've'Niskaper be'Echad Meihem' ...

åàéðå öøéê, ãàôéìå ùðéäí òãééï çééí, àí ðåãò ìå ùìà çèà àå çèà, éøòå òã ùéñúàáå.

(b)

Refutation: This is unnecessary however, since even if they are both still alive, should it become revealed that he did not sin or that he did, 'They graze in the meadow ... '.

2)

TOSFOS DH IM AD SHE'LO HISKAL YEITZEI VE'YIR'EH B'EIDER ETC. MAI CHAZIS ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä àí òã ùìà ðñ÷ì éöà åéøòä áòãø ... îàé çæéú ...

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles the Kashya with the Sugya in Sanhedrin.)

åàí úàîø, îàé ôøéê? äà àîøéðï ñðäãøéï (ãó èå.) 'ëîéúú áòìéí ëê îéúú äùåø' ,åëéåï ãàéï äáòìéí ðäøâéí áòãåú îåëçùú, äùåø ìà éäøâ?

(a)

Question: What is the Gemara asking? The Gemara says in Sanhedrin (Daf 15a) 'Like the death of the owner, so is the death of the ox' - and since the owner is not sentenced to death by a contradictory testimony, neither is the ox (See Olas Shlomoh)?

åàé ìàåñøå áäðàä, áìà òãåú àçøåðéí ðîé àéðå àñåø áäðàä ìôéøåù ø"ú ...

1.

Question (cont.): And if he is coming to declare it Asur be'Hana'ah, without the latter testimony it is also not Asur be'Hana'ah, according to Rabeinu Tam ...

ùîôøù áòìîà ÷ãåùéï (ãó ðæ:) ãùåø äðñ÷ì àéðå àñåø îçééí áäðàä ìàçø ùðâîø ãéðå òã ùéùçè.

2.

Question (concl.): Who explains elsewhere, in Kidushin (Daf 57b) that a Shor ha'Niskal does not become Asur be'Hana'ah in its lifetime after its Din has been concluded until it is Shechted.

åéù ìåîø, ãîééúé ìéä îùåí ñéôà ã÷úðé 'îùðñ÷ì, îåúø áäðàä' .

(b)

Answer: It cites this on account of the Seifa, which states 'Once it has been stoned, it is Mutar be'Hana'ah

3)

TOSFOS DH AMAI TZAYIS L'KAMA'I

úåñ' ã"ä àîàé öééú ì÷îàé

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the question.)

ìàåñøå áäðàä, àìà ìàå áòãé äæîä ? ... '

(a)

Correct Explanation: To render it Asur be'Hana'ah, is it not because of the Eidei Hazamah? ...

àáì ìà îöé ìîéôøê îôùèéä ãîúðéúéï- ãúðé 'åáùåø äðñ÷ì àéðå ëï' ,ãäééðå òì ôé òãéí, åãëååúä áàùí úìåé òì ôé òãéí, å÷ùä ìøá éäåãä ...

(b)

Refuted Explanation: But it cannot ask from the Mishnah directly - which says 'But by Shor ha'Niskal, it is not so', meaning via witnesses, and likewise by an Asham Taluy it is via witnesses - posing a Kashya on Rav Yehudah ...

ãàéëà ìîéîø ãîúðé' îééøé áòãé äëçùä -ëìåîø ùäåëçùå äòãéí ùîáéà òì ôéäí àùí...

(c)

Refutation: Because we could answer that the Mishnah is speaking by Eidei Hakchashah - that the witnesses through which he is bringing an Asham have been contradicted ...

ãáääéà ìà ñîéê à'òãéí ùéáàå àçøé äøàùåðéí ìäëçéùï... '

1.

Refutation: Because then he does not rely on the witnesses who come after them to contradict them ...

àáì øá éäåãä îééøé ùäåæîå äòãéí, åà'òãéí ñîéê áäæîä.

2.

Refutation (cont.): Whereas Rav Yehudah is speaking where the witnesses became Zomemin, in which case, he does rely on the second set of witnesses.

åìëê öøéê ìäù"ñ ìîéã÷ ëããéé÷ - 'ä"ã? àéìéîà ãàúå áé úøé åàîøé äøâ ... ' . î"ø.

(d)

Conclusion: That is why the Gemara had to ask the way it did - 'How does it speak? If it is speaking where two come and testify that he killed ... ' (Tosfos' Rebbe).

4)

TOSFOS DH DE'AMRU LO NIRVA SHORO

úåñ' ã"ä ãàîøå ìå ðøáò ùåøå

(Summary: Tosfos queries Rabeinu Efrayim contention that a Rove'a and Nirva are not Asur be'Hana'ah.)

îëàï ÷ùä ìôéøåù øáéðå àôøéí ùäéä àåîø øåáò åðøáò àéðå àñåø áäðàä, ãìà âîøéðï ìéä îùåø äðñ÷ì ...

(a)

Introduction to Question: This poses a Kashya on Rabeinu Efrayim, who maintains that Rove'a and Nirva are not Asur be'Hana'ah, since we do not learn them from Shor ha'Niskal ...

ùäøé áô"÷ ãñðäãøéï îöøéê ÷øà âáé øåáò åðøáò áë"â, åìà âîøéðï ìéä îùåø äðñ÷ì.

1.

Source: Because in the first Perek of Sanhedrin, the Gemara requires a Pasuk to teach us that Rove'a and Nirva require twenty-three - and it does not learn it from Shor ha'Niskal.

åäëà îùîò ãàñåø áäðàä- îã÷àîø 'ëì äîçæé÷ áå æëä áå' ?

(b)

Question: Whereas here it implies that they are Asur be'Hana'ah - since it says that 'Whoever takes it acquires it'?

åéù ìééùá, ãåãàé îåúø áäðàä -åäà ã÷àîø äëà 'ëì äîçæé÷ áå, æëä áå' ãîùîò ãàô÷øéä îùåí ùäåà àñåø áäðàä...

(c)

Answer: They are certainly Mutar be'Hana'ah - and when the Gemara says here that 'Whoever takes it acquires it', implying that it is Hefker because it is Asur be'Hana'ah' ...

ìàå äëé ôéøåùå àìà -æëä áå áãîé äùåø áîä ùùåä áçééå éåúø îàçø îéúä...

1.

Answer (cont.): That is not the reason, but rather - that he acquires it for the value of the ox, in that it is worth more in its lifetime than after its death

ãìà àô÷øéä, ø÷ ùéòùä ìå îéúú áéú ãéï; àáì ìà îãîé äðáìä.

2.

Answer (concl.): Since he did not declare it Hefker, only that the Misas Beis-Din should be carried out, but not from the proceeds of the Neveilah.

àáì ÷ùä îääéà ãùéìäé äàéù î÷ãù (÷ãåùéï ðæ.) ÷àîø äù"ñ 'ìà îöéðå áòìé çééí ðàñøéí' ;åôøéê 'åäøé øåáò åðøáò ãîçééí' ?

(d)

Question #1: There is a Kashya however, from the Gemara in ha'Ish Mekadesh (Kidushin, 57a) where it asks on the statement that 'We do not find live animals that are Asur' - from Rove'a and Nirva, which are Asur when they are alive'?

åòåã, ãáúåñôúà [ãá"÷ ô"ã] àéëà áäãéà 'ðøáò àñåø áäðàä .'

(e)

Question #2: Moreover, the Tosefta in Bava Kama (Perek 4) specifically rules that 'Nirva is Asur be'Hana'ah'?

24b----------------------------------------24b

5)

TOSFOS DH ALMA CHULIN SHE'NISHCHATU BA'AZARAH BI'SEREIFAH UREMINHI ASHAM VADAI EINO KEIN

úåñ' ã"ä àìîà çåìéï ùðùçèå áòæøä áùøéôä åøîéðäé àùí åãàé àéðå ëï

(Summary: Tosfos explains why the Gemara's Kashya is confined to the Rabbanan, and explains Rabah's answer.)

ôéøù ø"é, ãìøáðï ìà ôøéê, ùäøé àùí úìåé àó ëé ðåãò ìå ÷åãí ùçéèä, àéðå çåìéï àìà ÷ãåù ìãîéå, åàí ëï, ìàçø ùçéèä ôùéèà ãáùøéôä äåé,

(a)

Clarification of Question: The Ri explains that the Kashya does not pertain to the Rabbanan, since even if one discovers that he did not sin before the Shechitah of the Asham Taluy, it does not become Chulin, but remains Kadosh for its value. Consequently, it is obvious that, after the Shechitah, it must be burned ...

åàîàé ÷øé ìéä 'çåìéï áòæøä'?

1.

Clarification of Question (cont.): So why refer to it as 'Chulin ba'Azarah'?

àìà ìø' îàéø ãå÷à ôøéê, ãàîø àó àùí úìåé ëé ðåãò ìå ÷åãí ùçéèä, éøòä áòãø òí ùàø öàðå, ãçåìéï âîåøéï äåé, åàôéìå äëé ÷àîø äáùø éöà ìáéú äùøéôä - åðéçà ã÷øé ìéä 'çåìéï áòæøä; åìëê ôøéê ùôéø.

2.

Clarification of Question (cont.): And the Gemara asks specifically on Rebbi Meir, who says that, by an Asham Taluy too, if one discovers that he did not sin, it must graze with the rest of his sheep, since it is proper Chulin, and yet the Basar must be burned - in which case it is correct to call it 'Chulin ba'Azarah'. It is on him that the Gemara's Kashya is justified.

åîùðé 'úáøà ... '.

(b)

Answer #1 : And it answers 'Tavra ... '.

àîø øáä, àéãé åàéãé ìø' îàéø àúé ùôéø.

(c)

Answer #2: Rabah explains that both Beraisos can go according to Rebbi Meir.

åäà ã÷àîø âáé åãàé 'é÷áø'?

(d)

Implied Question: And the reason that, regarding a Vadai Asham, the Gemara says 'Yikaver'?

îùåí ãçåìéï âîåøéí äåé, ùäøé äôøéùå òì äåãàé, åëé àéâìàé îéìúà ùèòä, çåìéï äåé ...

(e)

Answer: Because it is proper Chulin, seeing as he separated it on a definite sin, and when he discovers that he erred, it turns out to be Chulin ...

àáì àùí úìåé ìà äôøéùå àìà òì äñô÷.

1.

Answer (cont.): As opposed to an Asham Taluy which he only separated on a Safek.

åàó òì âá ãøáé îàéø ìéú ìéä 'ìáå ðå÷ôå', åâîø åî÷ãéùå?

(f)

Implied Question: And even though Rebbi Meir does not hold of 'Libo Nokfo' and that he therefore declares it Hekdesh with a full heart?

äééðå ãå÷à ÷åãí ùçéèä, àáì ìàçø ùçéèä âîø áìáå åî÷ãéùå, åìëê áùøéôä.

(g)

Answer: That is before the Shechitah, but after the Shechitah, he declares it Hekdesh with a full heart.

6)

TOSFOS DH RAV ASHI AMAR LO KASHYA

úåñ' ã"ä øá àùé àîø ìà ÷ùéà

(Summary: Tosfos cites an alternative text and explains it.)

ñéôà îùåí ãîéçæé ëæáç ôñåì, åëï âøéñ øù"é.

(a)

Clarification: 'The Seifa - because it looks like a Pasul Korban' - and this is Rashi's text.

åéñ"â 'øéùà îùåí ... ' ...

(b)

Alternative Text: Some Sefarim however, have the text 'The Reisha - because ... ' ...

åà'àùí úìåé ÷àé, ãëéåï ãòì 'ð÷éôú äìá' äåà áà, åàôéìå àí ðåãò ìå ÷åãí æøé÷ä, ãéï äåà ùéùøó, ãîçæé ëæáç ôñåìä ...

(c)

Clarification: And it refers to Asham Taluy, because, seeing as it comes on 'a banging of the heart' (a nagging suspicion), and even if he discovers prior to the Zerikah, it correct for it to be burned, since it looks like a Pasul Korban ...

àáì àùí åãàé ëì æîï ùìà ðæø÷ äãí, çåìéï, åìôéëê é÷áø.

1.

Clarification (cont.): Whereas an Asham Vaday is Chulin as long as its blood has not been sprinkled; consequently, it must be buried.

åîéäå îùðæø÷ äãí, àôéìå àùí åãàé éùøó - ãîçæé ëæáç ôñåì.

2.

Clarification (concl.): Once its blood has been sprinkled however, even an Asham Vaday must be burned - since it looks like a Pasul Korban.

7)

TOSFOS DH KA'SAVAR REBBI YOSSI K'LEDI SHAREIS MEKADSHIN HA'PASUL BI'TECHILASH LI'KAREV

úåñ' ã"ä ÷ñáø øáé éåñé ëìé ùøú î÷ãùéï äôñåì áúçìä ìé÷øá

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles this with the Sugya in Zevachim and elaborates.)`

åàí úàîø, ãáô' äîæáç î÷ãù (æáçéí ôæ.) áòé ø' ùîòåï áï ì÷éù îøáé éåçðï 'ëìé ùøú îäå ùé÷ãùå ìëúçìä '?åôùè ìéä 'àéï î÷ãùéï' .

(a)

Introduction to Question: In Perek ha'Mizbe'ach Mekadesh (Zevachim 87b) Resh Lakish asks Rebbi Yochanan whether 'K'lei Shareis sanctify Lechatchilah', to which the latter replied 'Ein Mekadshin' ...

åðéîà ãìà ëø' éåñé?

1.

Question: Is that not according to Rebbi Yossi?

åé"ì, ãáòìîà áùàø ôñåìéï àéú ìéä àéï î÷ãùéï, åäëà ùàðé ...

(b)

Answer: Generally, regarding other Pesulin, he holds Ein Mekadshin, but this case is different ...

ãàéï æä ôñåì ëì ëê- ùäéä úçìúå ÷øáï åáà òì ð÷éôú ìá, åàéðå çåìéï, åòãééï ùí àùí òìéå.

1.

Reason: Inasmuch as it is not such a P'sul, seeing as initially it was a Korban which came due to 'a banging heart'; it is not therefore Chulin, and it still bears the title 'Chulin'.

åøáðï ãàîøé 'éùôê' ìà ÷ùéà -ãúôùåè îøáðï )ãàîøé( [ãìà î÷ãùé] ...

(c)

Implied Question: And as for the Rabanan, who say 'Yishafech', one cannot ask - 'Let us prove that, according to them 'Lo Mekadshei' ...

ãé"ì, ãëé ðîé áòìîà 'î÷ãùé' ,ä"î îùåí ãäåå ÷ãùéí àê àéøò áäï ôñåì, àáì äëà ãðîöà ùäéä çåìéï, àéï ëìé ùøú î÷ãùéí ÷ãùéí ôñåìéï.

1.

Answer: Because we can explain that even if, normally, they hold 'Mekadshei', that is because they are Kodshim, only a P'sul occurred, whereas here, where it transpires that they were Chulin, K'lei Shareis are only Mekadesh Kodshim Pesulim.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF