1)

TOSFOS DH AMAI PATAR REBBI SHIMON SHECHITAH RE'UYAH HI

' " "

(Summary: Tosfos explains why the Gemara does not answer that he Shechted the mother first and then broke the neck of the daughter.)

" " , ... ?

(a)

Question: Rebbi Moshe from Pontaiza asked - Why does the Gemara not answer that he Shechted the mother and then broke the daughter's neck, in which case the Arifah is considered its Shechitah? ...

( .) ' ' .

1.

Precedent: Like the Gemara states in Perek Sh'nei Se'irei (Yoma, Daf 64a) 'Pushing it off the cliff is considered its Shechitah'.

, ...

(b)

Answer: The Tana should nevertheless have called it Shechitah ...

, .

1.

Reason: Seeing as the Beraisa does not mention Shechitah, and it is merely trying to find a case of Mechusar Z'man by Mishtale'ach.

2)

TOSFOS DH HA ITS'RA LAH ME'CHAYIM

' "

(Summary: Tosfos explains why we compare Eglah Arufah Asham Taluy, and not, Asham Vaday.)

", ? , ?

(a)

Question: So what if it is? We have a case of Asham Vaday where it was known before the Shechitah, yet it goes out to graze ... ?

, ...

(b)

Answer: It is more logical to compare Eglah Arufah to Asham Taluy (See Olas Shlomoh) ...

, , ...

1.

Reason: Which comes to atone for a Safek, since it comes initially on a Safek, and it atones ...

, , , .

2.

Reason (cont.): In which case, since it is Asur while it is still alive, even after it is known, it still retains its original Isur.

3)

TOSFOS DH TANA'I HI N'EMAR MACHSIR U'MECHAPER BI'FENIM V'N'EMAR MACHSIR U'MECHAPER BA'CHUTZ ETC. AF MACHSHIR U'MECHAPER BA'CHUTZ ASAH MACHSHIR

' " '

(Summary: Tosfos discusses this Sugya and the Sugya in Kidushin in detail. He disagrees with Rashi's explanation.)

.

(a)

Clarification #1: This refers to the birds of a Metzora like the Mechaper - Eglah Arufah.

, ? , ?

(b)

Question: From where do we know that it (Eglah Arufah) is Asur in its lifetime?

( . ), ?

(c)

Question #2: And the same Kashya will apply to the Gemara in Perek ha'Ish Mekadesh (Kidushin, Daf 57a & 57b), where it learns from the same source that the birds of a Metzora are Asur in their lifetimes?

' ' , , ...

(d)

Refuted Answer: Rashi explains here - 'So we see that he holds Eglah Arufah is Asur in its lifetime, because if he learns Machshir from Mechaper, how much more so will he learn Mechaper from Mechaper ...

- ...

1.

Refuted Answer (cont.): Eglah from Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach, which is certainly Asur in its lifetime, like other Kodshim.

- '' , ?

2.

Refutation: This is a Dochek however - because if so, the main proof is not mentioned in the Gemara?

' ' , ...

(e)

Authentic Explanation #1: Rabeinu therefore explains that 'Machshir ba'Shutz' refers to the Meshulachas, in in some Sefarim it mentions it specifically ...

" - , - , ...

1.

Clarification: This means that - also ba'Chutz, the Torah made the Machshir of Meshulachas Asur be'Hana'ah, just like Eglah Arufah, and we then learn Shechutah from Machshir - in that just as it is Asur in its lifetime, so too the Eglah ...

.

2.

Clarification (cont.): And so too, is the Shechutah Asur in its lifetime.

.

(f)

Conclusion: And the Sugya in Kidushin now fits nicely as well.

- ...

(g)

Authentic Explanation #2: Furthermore one can answer the Gemara there as follows - That the Binyan Av of Machshir like Mechaper can only be coming to teach us that the birds of the Metzora are Asur in their lifetime ...

", " " ' ' .

1.

Reason: Because as far as after the Shechitah is concerned, we would already know the Isur Han'ah from the Pasuk "Ve'zeh asher Lo Sochlu".

", " " , ?

(h)

Question: How can one learn an Isur Hana'ah from "la'Zeh asher Lo Sochlu", seeing as that nis written in connection with Tamei birds that are Mutar be'Hana'ah?

", , ...

(i)

Answer: Since the Torah reveals to us that the Shechutah is Asur, it stands to reason that also the Meshulachas is Asur until it is sent away ...

...

1.

Reason: Since it is a S'vara that the two birds are equal until the conclusion of their respective Mitzvos ...

; .

2.

Reason (cont.): Since it is a S'vara that the two birds are equal until the conclusion of their respective Mhe Meshulachas is an Isur Hana'ah, so too, is the Isur Shechutah Asur be'Hana'ah.

" .

(j)

Conclusion: And this is how one has to learn the Sugya there anyway.

25b----------------------------------------25b

4)

TOSFOS DH ASHAM TALUY BA AL HA'NEVEILAH

' "

(Summary: Tosfos, citing Rashi, clarifies the statement and elaborates.)

...

(a)

Clarification: On a Safek Isur La'av, Rashi explains ...

'" ? " " '... , .

1.

Clarification (cont.): 'What is the reason of Amru lo? Because the Torah says 'asher Lo Se'asenah bi'Shegagah ve'Asheim" ' ...

() [ ] ...

(b)

Refuted Explanation: It seems that this does not mean that, according to Amru lo, he has a Chiyuv to bring an Asham Taluy on a regular La'av ...

" " - , ?

1.

Reason: Seeing as the Torah writes "ve'Lo Yada" - Would he have to bring it on eating a Safek Neveilah, and not on eating a Vaday Neveilah?

" " , , ...

(c)

Authentic Explanation: It therefore seems that the "Lo Yada" mentioned in the Pasuk refers to a Chovah, with regard to a sin be'Shogeg, which, if he was aware of it, he would have to bring a Chatas ...

" "" "" ...

(d)

Implied Question: And although they hold of the Gezeirah Shavah of "Mitzvos" "Mitzvos" ...

" " ...

1.

Answer: They hold that "Lo Se'asenah" is effective in that he may bring it even on S'tam La'avin.

"" " " .

(e)

Explanation (Rabanan): Whereas the Rabanan Darshen the Gezeirah Shavah of "Mitzvos" "Mitzvos" to preclude S'tam La'avin, on which one does not bring a Korban at all.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF