1)

TOSFOS DH Afilu Achas b'Ribo Yamusu Kulan (cont.)

úåñôåú ã"ä àôéìå àçú áøéáåà éîåúå ëåìï (äîùê)

úãò ãìøáé éäåãä àîàé ëåðñéï ìëéôä åòáéã öòø áòìé çééí åî÷ì÷ì çöéøå åëéôúå àãøáä ìéòøôéðäå á÷åôéõ åì÷áøéðäå

(a)

Proof - Question: According to R. Yehudah, why does he enter them into Kipah, and cause pain to animals, and ruin his Chatzer and Kipah? He should break their necks with a chopping knife and bury them!

àìà åãàé àúé ìàçìåôé áàãí åòáãé äéëéøà

1.

Answer: Rather, surely we are concerned lest the law be confused with that of people, and they made a Heker (sign);

åìøáðï ðîé òáãé äéëéøà ãôèøéðï ìäå åìà çééùé' ìú÷ìä

2.

Also according to Rabanan they made a Heker and exempt them, and we are not concerned for Takalah (lest one come to benefit from them).

àáì áîúðé' ãäëà çééùéðï ìú÷ìä ãàéëà ëîä ñô÷ àéñåøéï ìôé ùäí îå÷ãùéí ëâåï øëá òì âáé ùåø åáà çáéøå åøëá åñîéëä òì âáé øàù âãé åèìä åçìá îå÷ãùéï ò''â îëúå

(b)

Distinction: However, in our Mishnah here we are concerned for Takalah, for there are several Safek Isurim because they are Kodshim, e.g. if one rode on an ox and his friend came and rode (all of them transgress Me'ilah, if it is Kodshei Kodoshim - Kidushin 55a), or Semichah on the head of a kid or lamb, or putting Chelev of Kodshim on one's wound;

ãùøé áùåø äðñ÷ì ìôé ùàéðå ãøê äðàúå (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú, áøëú äæáç)

1.

This is permitted regarding Shor ha'Niskal, because it is not the normal way to benefit from it.

åòåã ãàéëà àéñåø îòéìä ãäæéã áîòéìä áîéúä äéìëê ëåìï éîåúå

2.

Also, [regarding Kodshei Kodoshim] there is an Isur of Me'ilah. One who transgressed Me'ilah b'Mezid is Chayav Misah [bi'Ydei Shamayim according to Rebbi - Sanhedrin 83a]. Therefore, all of them die.

åàì úúîä äúí ëéåï ãàéñåø äðàä ðéðäå àîàé ìà ú÷éðå áäå øáðï îéúä åéæ÷é÷å ìäåøâï

(c)

Question: There, since it is Isur Hana'ah, why didn't Rabanan enact death, and obligate killing them?

åëé (äâää áâìéåï, åùéèä î÷åáöú) éæ÷é÷å á''ã ìäøåâ ëì àéñåøé äðàä äøé äæàá åäàøé ãîå÷é ìä ø''ì åäåà ùäîéúå åàñåøéï áäðàä (ñðäãøéï ãó èå:) åìà ú÷éðå ìäå îéúä àìà àîøå ëì ä÷åãí ìäåøâï æëä

(d)

Answer: Must Beis Din kill all Isurei Hana'ah?! A wolf and lion, Reish Lakish establishes [that Beis Din kills them] only if they killed, and they are Asurim b'Hana'ah (Sanhedrin 15b). They did not enact death for them (when they did not kill), rather, they said that whoever kills them, he merited.

åî÷ùä øáà äééðå ã÷úðé òìä åàôé' àáà çìôúà áéðéäí

1.

Rava (Sanhedrin 80a) asked that it was taught about this... even if Aba Chalifta (R. Yosi's father) was among them. (This shows that it discusses people!).

àìà àîø øáà ùðéí ùäéå òåîãéï åéöà çõ îáéðéäí åäøâ ùðéäí (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) ôèåøéï åàôéìå àáà çìôúà áéðéäí (äâäú áàøåú äîéí) ãìà úìéðï áéä ùäøâ

2.

Rather, Rava said that if two were standing, and an arrow came from one of them [we do not know who shot it], and it killed someone, both are exempt, and even if Aba Chalifta was among them. We do not attribute that he killed! (Even so, the other person is exempt.)

àáì áùååøéí àåúï ùéù ìúìåú áäï çééáéï îùåí åáòøú äøò î÷øáê

3.

Distinction: However, regarding oxen, those that we could attribute [the killing] to them are liable, due to "u'Vi'arta ha'Ra mi'Kirbecha."

åòåã àåîø ø''ú ãùåø äðñ÷ì àéðå ðàñø îçééí

(e)

Answer #3 (to Question (a), 70b - R. Tam): Shor ha'Niskal is not forbidden in its lifetime. (Therefore we are lenient about a mixture.)

åôéøù ãëåìä ääéà ùîòúà (á''÷ ãó îà.) ãîîùîò ùðàîø ñ÷ì éñ÷ì äùåø àéðé éåãò ùäéà ðáéìä åðáéìä àñåøä áàëéìä îåëçú ëï

1.

He explained that the entire Sugya in Bava Kama (41a) "since it says that the ox will be stoned, don't I know that it is Neveilah, and one may not eat it?! (Why did the Torah need to write that one may not eat it)?" proves like this.

åñåâéà ãôø÷ ùðé ã÷ãåùéï (ãó ðæ.) (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) ëì öôåø èäåøä úàëìå ìøáåú äîùåìçú åæä àùø ìà úàëìå îäí ìøáåú àú äùçåèä

(f)

Implied question: It says in Kidushin (57a) "Kol Tzipor Tehorah Tochelu" includes the bird (used for Taharas Metzora) that is sent away. "V'Zeh Asher Lo Sechelo" includes the [other bird, which is] slaughtered;

åôøéê àéôåê àðà åîùðé ìà îöéðå áòìé çééí ùàñåøéï ôéøåù (äâää áâìéåï, åùéèä î÷åáöú) ùìà éäå îåúøéï ëùùåçèï áø îàìå ùòåîãéï åîå÷öéï ìîöååúï

1.

The Gemara asks "I could say oppositely!" (the sent bird is forbidden, and the slaughtered bird is permitted), and answers that we do not find Ba'alei Chayim forbidden, i.e. that will not be permitted when they are slaughtered, except for these that are destined and set aside for their Mitzvah;

åìëê àéï ìàñåø îùåìçú ìåîø ãçì òìéä àéñåø ìàçø ùéìåç ìàåñøä áàëéìä ëãéï ùàø òåôåú èîàéï ãëúéáé á÷øà

i.

Therefore, we should not forbid the sent bird, to say that Isur takes effect on it after it is sent to forbid eating it, like the law of other Tamei birds written in the verse.

åôøéê åäøé îå÷öä åðòáã (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí) ãàñåøéï ôéøåù ãîçééí àñåøéï ìùåçèï åìä÷øéáï ìâáåä åîùðé äðé îéìé ìâáåä àáì ìäãéåè ùøé

2.

[The Gemara] asks "Muktzeh and Ne'evad are forbidden", i.e. while alive it is forbidden to slaughter them and offer them to Hash-m, and it answers "that is only to Hash-m, but for a person, they are permitted."

åäøé øåáò åðøáò áòãéí ãîçééí àñåøéï ôé' ãîçééí àñåøéï ìéùçè åàí ùçèï àñåøéï àó àðé àáéà îùåìçú åîùðé øåá áòìé çééí ÷àîøéðï

3.

[The Gemara] asks "Rove'a and Nirva through witnesses are forbidden", i.e. while alive it is forbidden to slaughter them, and if he slaughtered them they are forbidden. "I can say that the same applies to the sent bird!" It answers "I meant that most Ba'alei Chayim [are not forbidden while alive]."

åàí (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã) ëï ãàéï ùåø äðñ÷ì ðàñø ëì æîï ùäåà çé ùåø ùìà ðâîø ãéðå ùðúòøá áàçøéí ùðâîø ãéðï ëåìï ôèåøéï åîåúøéï (äâäú áàøåú äîéí) áâéæä åòáåãä

4.

Consequence: If so, that Shor ha'Niskal is not forbidden as long as it is alive, if an ox without a final verdict became mixed with others that had a final verdict, they are all exempt, and one may shear them and work with them;

åàéï ëàï òéðåé äãéï ëéåï ãôèåøéï îñ÷éìä îéäå ìëùéùçèå àå éîåúå éäå àñåøéï áäðàä

i.

Inuy Din (delaying execution) does not apply here, since they are exempt from stoning. However, when they will be slaughtered or die, they are Asur b'Hana'ah.

åäà ãàîø áñåó ôø÷ ùåø ùðâç ã' åä' (ãó îä. åùí ã''ä îëåø) ãùåø ùðâîø ãéðå îëøå àéðå îëåø àôéìå ìøéãéà

(g)

Implied question: It says in Bava Kama (45a) that if an ox that had a final verdict was sold, the sale is not valid even for plowing (i.e. it is forbidden while alive)!

äééðå îùåí ãàñåø ìòðåú ãéðå åîöåä ìñå÷ìå

(h)

Answer #1: That is because one may not delay its execution, and it is a Mitzvah to stone it.

åòåã ãàéï ìå îëø ãàéï ìå áòìéí åäìå÷ç àéðå éëåì ìæëåú áå éåúø îùàø àãí

(i)

Answer #2: It is not sold because it has no owner, and the buyer cannot acquire it more than anyone else;

àáì ëé ìà ðâîø ãéðå îëøå îëåø ìùçéèä àé ðîé ìøéãéà ãîöé ìàòøå÷éä ìàâîà

1.

However, if there was no final verdict and he sold it, it is sold for Shechitah. Alternatively, it is for plowing. He can divert it to a swamp (where Beis Din will not find it to judge it);

åëé ùçéè ìéä [ìàçø ùðâîø ãéðå] àñåø áàëéìä ëê ðøàä ìø''ú ëîå ùôéøùðå

i.

If he slaughters it after a final verdict, one may not eat it. So it seems to R. Tam like we explained.

å÷ùä ãáñåó ôø÷ ÷îà ãòøëéï (ãó æ:) îùîò ãùåø äðñ÷ì ðàñø îçééí âáé äàùä ùîúä ðäðéï áùòøä

(j)

Question: In Erchin (7b) it connotes that Shor ha'Niskal is forbidden in its lifetime, regarding a woman who died, we may benefit from her hair;

ãîôøù äúí æå îéúúä àåñøúä åæå âîø ãéðä àåñøúä

1.

(A Beraisa teaches that if a woman was executed, one may benefit from her hair. If an animal was executed, one may not benefit from its hair.) It explains there that her death forbids her, and [Shor ha'Niskal's] final verdict forbids it!

åéù ìåîø âîø ãéðä ãîçééí âåøí ìä ìäéåú çì òìéä àéñåø ùàñåøä àôéìå ùçèä ãòáãä ëòéï áùø åæå îéúúä àåñøúä àéï òìéä ùåí àéñåø îçééí

(k)

Answer: Its final verdict causes that an Isur takes effect on it after death. It is forbidden even if he slaughtered it, and made it like meat [that one may eat]. [A woman's] death forbids her. There is no Isur on her in her lifetime.

åéù ìäáéà øàéä ãìà ðàñø îçééí îäà ãúðéà áôø÷ îøåáä îãú (á''÷ ãó òà.) åáôø÷ àìå ðòøåú (ëúåáåú ãó ìâ:) (âáé) âðá ùåø äðñ÷ì åèáçå îùìí úùìåîé ã' åä' ãáøé øáé îàéø

(l)

Proof: A Beraisa in Bava Kama (71a) and Kesuvos (33b) proves that it is not forbidden in its lifetime. If one stole Shor ha'Niskal and slaughtered it, R. Meir says that he pays four (if it was a Seh) or five;

åàîàé äà ìéúà áîëéøä åùîòéðï ìéä ìøéù ì÷éù áôø÷ îøåáä îãú (á''÷ ãó òà.) ãëì ùéùðå áèáéçä éùðå áîëéøä åëì ùàéðå áèáéçä àéðå áîëéøä åä''ä ãëì ùàéðå áîëéøä àéðå áèáéçä

1.

What is the reason? It cannot be sold, and Reish Lakish taught in Bava Kama (71a) that whenever there is [liability for] Shechitah, there is [liability for] a sale. Whenever there is not Shechitah, there is not a sale, and likewise, whenever there is no sale there is no Shechitah!

àáì àé ùøé áäðàä ðéçà ùéëåì ìîåëøå ìøëåá òìéå òã áéú äñ÷éìä àå ìéäðåú áå îòè òã àåúä ùòä àå àí äéå áéú ãéï îúòöìéï áñ÷éìúå

2.

However, if it is permitted to benefit from it, this is fine. He can sell it to ride on it until the place where they stone it, or to benefit from it a little until that time, or if Beis Din were slothful about stoning it.

åîéäå îä ùàåîø ø''ú ãàéï ìå îëø ãàéï ìå áòìéí æä ìà ðåëì ì÷ééí

(m)

Question: R. Tam said that it has no sale because it has no owner. We cannot uphold this.

åîä ùôñ÷ ø''ú áòãø ùéù áå ùä àçã ñô÷ ãøåñä ãùøé îèòîà ãëì ãôøéù îøåáà ôøéù

(n)

Opinion #1: R. Tam ruled that in a herd that has one Seh that is Safek Nidras, it is permitted, for each that separates, it separates from the majority.

ìà éúëï ãéù ìàñåø âæéøä ùîà é÷ç îï ä÷áåò àôéìå äéëà ãôøéù îàìéå

(o)

Rebuttal: This cannot be. We must forbid. This is a decree, lest one take from Kavu'a, even if it separated by itself;

ø÷ áãáø ùìà ðàñø áúòøåáú ëâåï è' çðåéåú îåëøåú áùø ùçåèä åàçú ðáéìä (ôñçéí ãó è:) äúí ùøéðï àé ôøéù àçú åìà âæøéðï ùîà é÷ç îï ä÷áåò ùäøé äàéñåø ðéëø åéãåò äéëï äåà

1.

Only regarding something that was not forbidden in a mixture, e.g. nine stores sell slaughtered meat and one sells Neveilah (Pesachim 9b), there we permit if one separated (meat was found in the street), and we do not decree lest he take from Kavu'a, for the Isur is recognized and known where it is;

åìëê ùøéðï äéëà ãôøéù àå ëâåï ãðîöà áéã òåáã ëåëáéí

i.

Therefore, we permit when it separated, or if it was found in the hand of a Nochri.

àáì àí ðàñø áúòøåáú åôøéù ìà àîøéðï ãôøéù îøåáà ôøéù åàí éù áòãø ñô÷ ãøåñä àôéìå àçã áøéáåà ëåìï éîåúå

(p)

Distinction: However, if it was forbidden in a mixture, and it separated, we do not say that it separated from the majority, and if there is in the city a Safek Nidras, even one in 10,000, all of them must die.

úãò ãèáòú ùì òáåãú ëåëáéí ùðúòøáä áøéáåà ëåìï àñåøåú åáôéøù àçú îäï ôìéâé øá åùîåàì áâîøà (ì÷îï ãó òã.) àé àåñøú äùàø àé ìà

(q)

Proof: If a ring of idolatry was mixed with 10,000, all of them are forbidden, and if one of them separated, Rav and Shmuel argue below (74a) about whether or not it forbids the others;

àáì áääéà âåôä àåúä ùôéøùä ìà ôìéâé åëåìï îåãå (äâäú éòá"õ) òìîà ãàñéøà

1.

However, the very one that separated, they do not argue about it. All agree that it is forbidden.

åëì àéñåøé äðàä ùôéøùå îúòøåáúï àñåøéï åìà àîøéðï îøåáà ôøéù

2.

And all Isurei Hana'ah that separated from their mixtures are forbidden, and we do not say that it separated from the majority;

åèòîà îùåí âæéøä ùîà é÷ç îï ä÷áåò åìà ùðà çåìéï åìà ùðà ÷ãùéí

i.

This is due to a decree lest he take from what is Kavu'a. There is no distinction between Chulin and Kodshim.

åéù ìäúéø äáäîä ùðåùà äæàá åäøåòä îöéìä åðúòøáä áòãø îùåí ãàéï ãøåñä àìà áéã åùîà èøôä áùéðéí åäåä ìéä ñô÷ ñôé÷à

(r)

Pesak: We can permit an animal that a wolf carries and the shepherd saves it and it became mixed with the herd because Drusah is only with the claw (of a foreleg - Chulin 53a), and perhaps it tore it with its teeth, so it is a Sefek-Sefeka (even if this animal was the one carried, perhaps it is not Tereifah. The same applies if it did not tear it at all. Tosfos teaches a bigger Chidush. Even if we saw that the carried animal was bleeding, and now in the mixture we find at least three (or we do not find any) animals that were bleeding, all are permitted.

åëï äðõ ùðåùà àååæ ùîà ðåùàä áçøèåí àå áéï øâìéå åìà äëä áéã

1.

Similarly, if a hawk carries a goose, perhaps it carries it in its beak or between its feet, and did not strike it with its hand (claw).

îéäå éù ìééùá ãáøé ø''ú ãìà ãîé ìèáòú ùì òáåãú ëåëáéí ãùàðé áòìé çééí ëéåï ãàôùø ò''é ãðëáùéðäå ãðéðééãéï

(s)

Defense (of R. Tam): This is unlike a ring of Avodah Zarah. Ba'alei Chayim are different, since it is possible to force them to go away, and they will wander (and separate from each other).

åàí úàîø àîàé úðï éîåúå ðéîà éøòå òã ùéñúàáå åéôãå åàçøé ëï ðéîà ëì ãôøéù îøåáà ôøéù

(t)

Question: Why does the Mishnah say that they die? We should say that they graze until they get a blemish, and he redeems them, and afterwards say that everything that separates, it separates from the majority!

ãäùúà ìäãéåè çæå ùäøé ëîä ÷ãùéí àîøéðï áäå éøòå åìà çééùéðï ìú÷ìä

1.

Now they are proper for a person, for in many [cases of] Kodshim we say that they graze, and we are not concerned for tkl!

åáñéôà àîøéðï áøåáò åðøáò éøòå åìëùéñúàáå éôãí åéùçèí åéàëìí îèòí ãôøéù îøåáà ôøéù

2.

In the Seifa we say about Rove'a and Nirva [that the entire mixture] grazes until they get a blemish. He redeems them, and afterwards he slaughters and eats them, because everything that separates, it separates from the majority!

åéù ìåîø ãìà òáãéðï ú÷ðä áøòééä ëéåï ãìàçø øòééä ìà îéùúøé ðîé àìà îèòí ëì ãôøéù

(u)

Answer: [Here] we do not make a solution through grazing, since even after grazing it is permitted only due to "everything that separates..."

åòåã ùàì äøá øáé éöç÷ îø''ú ã÷àîø øáé ùîòåï (ñðäãøéï ãó òè:) äðñ÷ìéí áðùøôéí éãåðå áñ÷éìä ùäùøéôä çîåøä

(v)

Question (Ri, of R. Tam): R. Shimon says (Sanhedrin 79b) that if Niskalim (they were sentenced to be stoned) became mixed with Nisrafim, we stone them, for [he holds that] burning is more stringent. (Niskalim became mixed with Nisrafim connotes that there were more Nisrafim than Niskalim.)

ðéæéì áúø øåáà ìäçîéø áãéðé ðôùåú ëãàéúà ôø÷ ÷îà ãçåìéï (ãó éà:) ãìà çééùéðï ùîà áî÷åí ñééó ð÷á äåä

1.

We should follow the majority to be stringent in capital cases, like it says in Chulin (11b) that [we kill a murderer, and] we are not concerned lest there was a hole where [he stabbed him with] a sword! (If the victim was already Tereifah, we cannot kill one who kills him.)

åúéøõ ãìà àæìéðï áúø øåáà ìäçîéø ëéåï ùðäøâ áìàå äëé áîéúä àçøú

(w)

Answer #1 (R. Tam): We do not follow the majority to be stringent, since in any case he is killed through another Misah.

àé ðîé ìà àæìéðï áúø øåáà ìçééá àåúå ùäåà åãàé áñ÷éìä

(x)

Answer #2 (R. Tam): We do not follow the majority to obligate [everyone burning, including] one who is Vadai liable stoning.

åîäàé èòîà ìà ú÷ùé ìï äà ãàîø ôø÷ àìå äï äðùøôéï (ñðäãøéï ãó òè:) ãàãí øåöç ùìà ðâîø ãéðå ùðúòøá òí àçøéí ùðâîø ãéðï ëåìï ôèåøéí

(y)

Support: For this reason, it is not difficult what it says in Sanhedrin (79b) that if a human murderer who did not have a final verdict became mixed with others who had a final verdict, they are all exempt;

ãîùåí øåáà ìà ðòáéã ãáø ùäåà ù÷ø åãàé ãåãàé éù àçã ùàéðå áø îéúä ëìì ìôé ùìà ðâîø ãéðå

1.

We will not do something that is Vadai false, due to the majority, for there is surely one who is not Chayav Misah at all, because he did not have a final verdict;

åìà ãîé ìàåúå ùäøâ åãàé àìà ãìà éãòéðï àé èøéôä äåä àé ùìí äåä

2.

He is unlike one who Vadai killed, but we do not know whether [the victim] was Tereifah or healthy.

åòåã éù ìåîø ãäåä ìéä ÷áåò åëì ÷áåò ëîçöä òì îçöä ãîé åôèåø îãàåøééúà ãñô÷ ðôùåú ìä÷ì

(z)

Answer #3: [The mixture of Niskalim with Nisrafim] is Kavu'a, and every Safek Kavu'a is like an even Safek, and mid'Oraisa he is exempt, for we are lenient about Safek Nefashos.

åëé úéîà ðéëáùéðäå åðéîà ëì ãôøéù

1.

Suggestion: We should force them to go away, and say that everything that separates...!

àé àúä øùàé ìîåùëï ìäçîéø òìéå

2.

Rejection #1: You may not draw (separate) them to be stringent on him (the one who is liable only stoning).

åòåã âæéøä ùîà é÷ç îï ä÷áåò

3.

Rejection #2: There is a decree [not to do so] lest he take from what is Kavu'a.

åäà ãôøéê îòé÷øà ëé úðé äðùøôéí áðñ÷ìéí úéôå÷ ìé ãøåáà ðñ÷ìéí ðéðäå

4.

Implied question: The Gemara asked initially, when he taught Nisrafim [that became mixed] with Niskalim, even without [saying that burning is more stringent], I know that we stone them because the majority are Niskalim! (If it is Kavu'a, we cannot rely on the majority!)

äëé ôéøåùà ìëì äôçåú ìà âøò îùåí ãøåáà ðñ÷ìéí:

5.

Answer: It means that at least it is no worse because the majority are Niskalim. (There is no reason to assume that we should burn them.)

2)

TOSFOS DH Al Pi Ed Echad Oh Al Pi ha'Ba'alim

úåñôåú ã"ä òì ôé òã àçã àå òì ôé äáòìéí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses why we do not kill it.)

ôéøù á÷åðèøñ ãôèø ìéä îñ÷éìä îùåí ãîåãä á÷ðñ ôèåø

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): It is exempt from stoning because one who admits to a fine is exempt.

åëï ôéøù áîëåú (ãó å.) ãàéï àãí ðäøâ òì ôé òöîå îèòí ÷ðñ

1.

Remark: Rashi explained like this in Makos (6a), that a person is not killed through his own [admission] because [Misah] is a fine.

åðøàä ãàôé' àîøé ùðâîø ãéðí ááéú ãéï ôìåðé àéï ðäøâéí òì ôéäí åàò''â ãëé äàé âååðà îçééá á÷ðñ ëãîåëç áôø÷ ÷îà ãîëåú (ãó â.)

(b)

Rebuttal #1: It seems that even if they say (admit) that they had a final verdict in Ploni's Beis Din, they are not killed through their mouth (admission), even though in such a case one obligates himself a fine, like is proven in Makos (3a).

åâáé ôìåðé øáò ùåøé áôø÷ ÷îà ãñðäãøéï (ãó é.) îôøù îùåí ãàãí ÷øåá àöì îîåðå ìà àîøéðï åðäøâ ùåøå åìà ôìâéðï ãéáåøà àìà äøåáò åäùåø ðäøâéï

(c)

Rebuttal #2: And regarding "Ploni had Bi'ah with my ox", in Sanhedrin (10a) it explains that we do not say that a person is [considered] a relative to his property. We kill his ox, and we do not divide his words. Rather, Ploni and the ox are killed;

åàé ÷ðñ îé÷øé ëé ðîé àîú äåà ùøáò ùåøå àîàé ðäøâ ùåø òì ôéå åäà îåãä á÷ðñ ôèåø ëîå àí àîø âðáúé åèáçúé ãôèåø îëôì åã' åä'

1.

If [Misah] is a fine, even if it is true that he had Bi'ah with his ox, why do we kill the ox based on [the owner's] words? One who admits to a fine is exempt, like if he said "I stole [a Seh or ox] and slaughtered it, he is exempt from [paying] double, four or five [times its value]!

åðøàä ìé èòîà ãàéðå ðäøâ òì ôé äáòìéí àó ãàéï (äâäú îøåîé ùãä) òã àçã òîå ëãàéúà ôø÷ ëì äàñåøéï (úîåøä ãó ëè.) æä åæä îåúøåú áàëéìä

(d)

Explanation #2: It seems to me that the reason we do not kill an ox based on its owner even if no other witness is with him, is like it says in Temurah (29a) "one may eat [the ox] both of these cases";

1.

Note: Merumei Sadeh explains that we do not kill it even if another witness is with him, like Tosfos said in Bava Kama (41b DH Al), because a person is a relative to his property, and he is Pasul for testimony. Tosfos cites Temurah merely to show that testimony is required. It is forbidden to offer, even though it had Chezkas Heter, because we know Vadai [through his admission] that it was Nirva. Even so, one may eat it, for testimony is needed to forbid to people.

îðìï àé ñ''ã ìäãéåè àñéøé ìîä ìé ìîòåèéðäå ìøåáò åðøáò ìâáåä

2.

What is the source? If you think that it is forbidden to people, why do we need a verse to exclude Rove'a and Nirva from being offered to Hash-m?

åàò''â ãäúí ìà îæëéø áøåáò åðøáò òì ôé äáòìéí

3.

Implied question: There, regarding Rove'a and Nirva it does not mention "based on the owner"! (It was discussing Muktzeh and Ne'evad.)

îëì î÷åí òì ëì òðéï ùôñåì âáåä åîåúø ìäãéåè ÷àé îðäðé îéìé. áøåê

4.

Even so, in every case that it is disqualified to Hash-m and permitted to a person, [it asks] "what is the source of this?" This is from R. Baruch.

3)

TOSFOS DH b'Rove'a v'Nirva

úåñôåú ã"ä áøåáò åðøáò

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that two witnesses are needed to forbid to people.)

ôéøù á÷åðèøñ òì ôé òã àçã àå òì ôé äáòìéí ùðàñø ìâáåä åìà ìäãéåè ãáùðé òãéí äéä ðàñø àôéìå ìäãéåè

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): It is disqualified to be offered through one witness or the owner, but not to a person. Through two witnesses it is forbidden even to a person.

åëï îùîò áøéù ô' áúøà ãëøéúåú (ã' ëã.) ãàîø øáé éåçðï ùåø äðñ÷ì ùäåæîå òãéå ëì äîçæé÷ áå æëä àîø øáà îñúáøà èòîéä ãøáé éåçðï ëâåï ãàîøå ìéä ðøáò ùåøå

(b)

Support #1: It connotes like this in Kerisus (24a). R. Yochanan said that if the witnesses [who condemned] a Shor ha'Niskal were Huzmu, whoever seizes it acquired it. (The owner despaired from it, so it became Hefker.) Rava said that presumably, R. Yochanan discusses when they said that his ox was Nirva (through someone else, but if they said that the owner was Rove'a it, he knows that they are lying and does not despair);

åàé ìà ìéúñø áäðàä àîàé îééàù äìà äòåø îåúø áäðàä åäáùø ìëìáéí

1.

If it is not forbidden to benefit from it, why does he despair? (Even if one may not eat it,) one may benefit from the hide, and feed the meat to dogs!

åëï ðîé îùîò áôø÷ äàéù î÷ãù (÷ãåùéï ãó ðæ:) ãôøéê åäøé øåáò åðøáò áòãéí ãàñéøé îçééí ìäãéåè

(c)

Support #2: Also in Kidushin (57b) it connotes like this. It says that a Rove'a and Nirva through witnesses, which is forbidden while alive to a person...

åàí úàîø åîðìï äà ëé ëúéá ÷øà áðåâç ëúéá åìà éìôé îäããé ëãàîøéðï ôø÷ ùåø ùðâç ã' åä' (á''÷ ãó î:) ùéù áðåâç ùàéï áøåáò åéù áøåáò ùàéï áðåâç

(d)

Question: What is the source? The verse discusses a gorer, and we do not learn [a gorer, and Rove'a and Nirva] from each other, like we say in Bava Kama (40b) for a gorer has a stringency not found in Rove'a, and Rove'a has a stringency not found in Noge'ach!

åùîà àéëà ùåí ãøù:

(e)

Answer: Perhaps there is some Drashah [to forbid a Rove'a].

71b----------------------------------------71b

4)

TOSFOS DH uvi'Tereifah

úåñôåú ã"ä åáèøéôä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how grazing helps for a mixture with a Tereifah.)

áâî' ãéé÷ äàé èøéôä äéëé ãîé àé éãò ìä ìéæéì åìéù÷ìä

(a)

Explanation: The Gemara asks what is the case of a Tereifah? If he knows which it is, he should remove it!

åîôøù øáé éøîéä ëâåï ùðúòøáä áååìã èøéôä åøáé àìéòæø äéà

1.

R. Yirmeyah explains that a Vlad (the child of a) Tereifah became mixed with [others]. The Mishnah is R. Eliezer [who disqualifies such an animal for a Korban];

åøáé éðàé îôøù ëâåï ãàéúòøáä ð÷åáú ä÷åõ áãøåñú äæàá

2.

R. Yanai explains that an animal scratched by a thorn became mixed with an animal that a wolf was Dores;

åøéù ì÷éù îôøù ëâåï ãàéòøá áðôåìä

3.

Reish Lakish explains that an animal that fell [from the roof] became mixed.

åä÷ùä ä''ø àôøéí ëéåï ãìà éãéòä îä îåòìú ëàï øòééä ãìîéëìä à''à îùåí ñô÷ èøéôä åìòåáãé ëåëáéí åìëìáéí àé àéôùø ãàéï ôåãéï àú ä÷ãùéí ìäàëéìï ìëìáéí

(b)

Question (R. Efrayim): Since [the Tereifah] is not known, how will grazing help? One cannot eat it, due to Safek Tereifah. We cannot say that it helps to permit it to Nochrim or dogs, for we do not redeem Kodshim in order to feed them to dogs [or Nochrim]!

åîçééí ðîé ìà àéôùø ìéäðåú ãôñåìé äîå÷ãùéí àñåøéí áâéæä åòáåãä

1.

Also in its lifetime one cannot benefit from it, for one may not shear or work with blemished Kodshim!

îéäå ìî''ã ãàéòøá áãøåñä éù ìä áãé÷ä ìàçø ùçéèä àí äàãéîä áùø ëðâã áðé îòééí àå ëðâã äñéîðéí ãàôé' åãàé ãøåñä éù ìä áãé÷ä

(c)

Answer - part 1: According to the opinion that a Drusah became mixed, it can be checked after Shechitah, if the meat became red opposite the intestines or opposite the Simanim. Even a Vadai Drusah can be checked (sometimes it is Kosher, if neither of them became red).

åìî''ã ãàéòøá áðôåìä ðôåìä éù ìä áãé÷ä

(d)

Answer - part 2: And according to the opinion that a fallen animal became mixed, a fallen animal can be checked (Chulin 51b - he must check the intestines, and some say also the ribs and vertebrae).

àáì ìî''ã áååìã èøéôä ÷ùä

(e)

Question: However, according to the opinion that a Vlad Tereifah became mixed, this is difficult!

åùîà ÷ñáø ôåãéï àú ä÷ãùéí ìäàëéìï ìëìáéí ëàéëà ãàîøé áôø÷ ùðé ãáëåøåú (ãó èå:)

(f)

Answer #1: Perhaps he holds that we may redeem Kodshim in order to feed them to dogs, like one version in Bechoros (15b).

àé ðîé äà ãàîøéðï (äâäú ùéèä î÷åáöú) (ôñçéí ãó ëè.) àéï ôåãéï àú ä÷ãùéí ìäàëéìï ìëìáéí äðé îéìé äéëà ãìà çæå àìà ìëìáéí ëâåï ÷ãùéí ùîúå àå ðèøôå

(g)

Answer #2: This that we say (Pesachim 29a) that we do not redeem Kodshim in order to feed them to dogs, this is when they are proper only for dogs, e.g. Kodshim that died or became Tereifah;

àáì äðé àñåøéí îçîú èøéôåú çåìéï ùðúòøáå áäï àáì ÷ãùéí âåôééäå àí äéä îëéøï ãçæå ìãéãéä ùøé ìäàëéìï ìòåáãé ëåëáéí åìëìáéí

1.

However, these [mixtures] are forbidden due to Chulin Tereifos that became mixed with them, but the Kodshim themselves, if we would recognize them, would be proper for [a Yisrael]. One may [redeem them and] feed them to Nochrim or dogs.

åîéúøöà áäëé ôéøëà àçøéúé ùäéä î÷ùä ä''ø àôøéí ááëåøåú ô' ëì ôñåìé äîå÷ãùéï (ãó ìá:) áëåø îúéø ø''ò àôé' ìòåáã ëåëáéí

(h)

Support: This answers another question that R. Efrayim asked in Bechoros (32b). R. Akiva permits a [blemished] Bechor even to a Nochri;

åì÷îï áô' èáåì éåí (ãó ÷â:) àîø ø''ò îãáøéäí ìîãðå ùäîôùéè àú äáëåø åðîöà èøéôä ùéàåúå äëäðéí áòåøå

1.

Question: Below (103b), R. Akiva says "from their words, we learn that if one flayed a Bechor and it was found to be Tereifah, Kohanim may benefit from the hide";

îùîò ãåå÷à áòåøå àáì ááùøå ìà ãàñåø ìäàëéìå ìëìáéí åìòåáãé ëåëáéí

2.

Inference: Only hide (they may benefit from), but not the meat, for one may not feed it to dogs or Nochrim! (Gilyonos Kehilas Yakov - there we discuss after it was offered and found to be Tereifah! However, on 104a R. Akiva discusses also a Ba'al Mum that was not offered. R. Efrayim asks from this case.)

åìôé îä ùôéøùúé ðéçà ãîéãé ãìà çæé ìéùøàì àñåø ìäàëéìå ìëìá åìòåáãé ëåëáéí àáì îéãé ãçæé ìéùøàì ëéåï ùðôãå ùøé ìéúï ìëìá

(i)

Answer: According to what I explained, this is fine. Something not proper for Yisrael (e.g. a Bechor was found to be Tereifah), one may not feed it to a dog, but something proper for Yisrael, once (the Kodshim in the mixture) were redeemed, one may give it to a dog.

åäééðå èòîà ããøùéðï åàëìú åìà ìëìáéê ëìåîø ãáø ùàéï òåîã àìà ìëìáéê

(j)

Source: This is because we expound (Pesachim 29a) "v'Achalta", and not for your dogs, i.e. something destined only for your dogs (for it is forbidden to Yisrael);

àáì äéëà ãçæé ìãéãéä àéùúøå ìâîøé ãàéú÷ù ìöáé åàéì

1.

However, when it is permitted to [a Yisrael], it is totally permitted, for it is equated to a deer or wild goat (Chayos, which cannot be Kodshim).

åà''ú áôø÷ äôøä (á''÷ ãó ðâ:) ãôèøéðï ùåø ôñåìé äîå÷ãùéí ùðôì ìáåø îùåí ãëúéá åäîú éäéä ìå îé ùäîú ùìå

(k)

Question: In Bava Kama (53b), if an ox of blemished Kodshim fell into a pit, we exempt [the owner of the pit], for it says "veha'Mes Yihyeh Lo" - this is when [the owner of the pit] will own the Mes;

äøé äîú ùìå ëãúðï (ì÷îï ãó ÷â:) ãéàåúå äëäðéí áòåøå åîùåí òåø ìçåãéä

1.

He owns the Mes, for we expound below (103b) that Kohanim may benefit from the hide;

àéöèøéê ùåø åìà àãí ãäåä îçééáðà áàãí ãçùéá äîú ùìå îùåí òåø ãùøé áäðàä îãàåøééúà

2.

Due to the hide alone, we need [the verse to teach that a pit is liable for] "Shor", and not a person, for I would have obligated for a person (who fell in a pit). This is considered that [the owner of the pit] owns the Mes, for mid'Oraisa one may benefit from [human] skin;

åìà àñåø àìà îùåí âæéøä ùîà éòùä òåøåú àáéå åàîå ùèéçéï (çåìéï ãó ÷ëá.)

3.

[Human skin] is forbidden only due to a decree lest people make mats from their parents' skin (Chulin 122a)!

åé''ì ãñåâéà ãá''÷ (ãó ðâ:) àúéà ëîñ÷ðà ãôø÷ èáåì éåí (ì÷îï ã' ÷ã.) ãôñ÷é' ëøáðï áùø á÷áåøä åòåø áùøéôä

(l)

Answer: The Sugya in Bava Kama (53b) is like the conclusion in Chulin (104a). We rule like Rabanan, that the meat is buried and the skin is burned.

5)

TOSFOS DH v'Yavi bi'Dmei ha'Yafeh she'Bahen

úåñôåú ã"ä åéáéà áãîé äéôä ùáäï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes that only one was Pasul.)

ôéøù''é åé÷ç îòåú ëùéòåø ãîé äéôä ùáëåìï åéàîø ëì î÷åí ùäåà äæáç éäà îçåìì òì îòåú äììå

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): He takes coins like the value of the best [animal] among them, and says "whenever the Korban is, it is redeemed on these coins."

îùîò ìôéøåùå ùäæáç îòåøá áøéáåà ùì øåáò åðøáò åäìùåï îùîò ëï

(b)

Inference: The Korban is mixed with 10,000 of Rove'a and Nirva. The wording connotes like this.

åàé àéôùø ìåîø ëï ããåîéà ãøéùà ÷úðé ùäðñ÷ì ðúòøá áøåá æáçéí åëï îåëç áâîøà

(c)

Rejection (and Explanation #2): One cannot say so, for it teaches similar to the Reisha, which taught that [the Shor] ha'Niskal became mixed with a majority of Zevachim. It is proven like this in the Gemara. (Mar'eh Kohen - the Gemara asked why both clauses were needed. Also, it discusses the opinions of what kind of Tereifah became mixed in the singular.)

åáãîé äéôä ùáäï äééðå ãîé äéôä ùì ëì àçã åàçã åîðéç äâøåò ùáäï ùìà éçìì

1.

[We must say that] "the value of the best among them" is the value of every nice one [in the mixture]. He abandons the worst one, and does not redeem (corresponding to its value, for one animal was not Kodesh).

6)

TOSFOS DH l'Shem Mi she'Hu

úåñôåú ã"ä ìùí îé ùäåà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes that he offers it Stam.)

ôéøù á÷åðèøñ (ëãé) ëùé÷øéáðå éàîø äøé äåà ìùí áòìéí ùìå

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): When he offers it, he says "it is for its owner."

å÷ùä ãäà àîø áøéù îëéìúéï (ãó á:) àúðå áéú ãéï ãìà ìéîà ìùîï ãéìîà àúé ìîéîø ùìà ìùîï

(b)

Question: It says above (2b) that Beis Din stipulated not to say Lishmah, lest one come to [err and] say Lo Lishmah!

àìà ìùí îé ùäåà äééðå ñúîà ãñúîà ðîé ëìùîå ãîé

(c)

Explanation #2: Rather, [he offers] l'Mi she'Hu (for whoever owns it), i.e. Stam. Also Stam is considered Lishmah.

7)

TOSFOS DH Mi ka'Tani b'Kamah

úåñôåú ã"ä îé ÷úðé áëîä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos cites a different answer given elsewhere.)

áôø÷ ëì äàñåøéï (úîåøä ãó ëç.) îùðé áòðéï àçø åìà ôøéê äúí åìéúðé äà åìà áòé äà ëãôøéê äëà

(a)

Citation: In Temurah (28a) it answers differently (one might have thought Pesulim are not Batel only regarding Kodshim, for they are repulsive, but they are Batel in Chulin), and it does not ask there "teach this, and this would not be needed!", like it asks here.

8)

TOSFOS DH d'Hedyot Nami Tana Lei v'Elu Asurim v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä ãäãéåè ðîé úðà ìéä åàìå àñåøéï ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that we could have brought other Mishnayos.)

îëîä îùðéåú äåä îöé ìàúåéé îîúðé' ãàôä áå àú äôú áîñëú òáåãä æøä (ãó îè:) åîîúðé' ãòøìä (ô''â î''ä å) áòøìä åëìàé äëøí:

(a)

Observation: We could have brought from several Mishnayos, e.g. he baked bread [with wood from an Asheirah, it is forbidden, and if it became mixed with others, all are forbidden - Avodah Zarah 49b] and in Orlah (3:5,6) regarding Orlah and Kil'ai ha'Kerem.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF