Question: Why do we need a Ribuy? Granted, we cannot include it (Kil'ayim) from "Shor va'Kesev", but why can we not include it from "Kesev va'Eiz", from which one can produce Kil'ayim?

Answer: The Ri explains that, although, on the one hand, we could learn Kil'ayim from the fact that the Torah places "Kesev" next to "Eiz", on the other, one can preclude it from the fact that it places "Shor" next to "Kesev" ...

Source: Based on the princple ('le'Chumra u'le'Kula) le'Chumra Makshinan'.

Reason: And since, had the Torah not wriiten any "O", neither in the Seifa nor in the Reisha, we would have precluded Kil'ayim, "O" must therefore come to include.

Clarification: The Gemara answers 'Since the Seifa comes to preclude' - i.e. the "O" that is written in connection with "Kesev va'Eiz", had it been written elsewhere (where it is not written "Shor va'Kesev"), we would have said that it comes to preclude ...

Clarification (cont.): Consequently, here too, we Darshen it to preclude, and likewise the "O" in the Reisha we Darshen to preclude and not to include ...

Clarification (cont.): On which the Gemara asks 'To the contrary, let us say the reverse?' - that since the first "O" is written in a place where had it been written elsewhere (where it is not written "Kesev va'Eiz"), we would have said that it comes to include, here too, we Darshen it to include, and likewise the "O" in the Seifa we Darshen to include and not to preclude, and the Gemara answers ... .

Question: Let it write only the "O" between "Kesev va'Eiz", since from "Shor va'Kesev" we would have precluded Kil'ayim, and from the "O" between Kesev va'Eiz", Nidmeh?

Answer: Had the Torah written only one "O", even in connection with "Kesev va'Eiz", we would have Darshened it to include Kil'ayim, seeing as if it had not written "O" at all, we would hav excluded Kil'ayim from Kil'ayim from "Shor va'Kesev" as Tosfos explained earlier.

Question: Without the KaL Va'Chomer from Kil'ayim one can ask why one needs to include 'Nidmeh'? Why is it not automatically included as long as the Torah has not precluded it? ...

Reason: Since when the Gemara says that the 'Oyin' come to preclude, even though we preclude Kil'ayim, we would not preclude Nidmeh had the Torah not precluded it?

Answer: Without any Pasuk, we would include a Nidmeh that is partially similar (to its mother) by means of some Simanim, and exclude one that is not similar at all, since we would learn this from "Tachas" "Tachas" from Ma'aser, and Ma'aser, in turn, "Ha'avarah" "Ha'avarah" from B'chor.

Answer (cont.): And now that the Gemara has said that "O" comes to preclude, we preclude even a Nidmeh that is similar via some Simanim ...

Answer (cont.): And when the Gemara says that it comes to include, it means to include a Nidmeh even it is not similar at all

Conclusion: And what the Gemara is therefore now saying is that 'If we include Kil'ayim, how much more so Nidmeh, even if it is not similar at all?'

Explanation #1: Because it is as if the Torah wrote "Seh" based on the Gezeirah-Shavah of 'Ha'avarah' 'Ha'avarah' from B'chor, by which the Torah writes "Seh" - "Im Shor Im Seh" (in Vayikra 26).

Explanation #2: Rashi however, explains that the Torah writes "Tzon" by Ma'aser, which is akin to "Seh".

Question #1: But this does not appear correct.

Introduction to Question #2: Furthermore, in the last Perek of Bechoros (Daf 57a) the Gemara asks 'If we learn Ma'aser "Tachas" "Tachas" from Kodshim, then it should apply even to those as well?' - i.e. Yotzei Dofen, Mechusar Z'man and Yasom should also not enter the pen to be Ma'asered?' ...

Introduction to Question #2 (cont.): 'And if we do not learn it from Kodshim, then we will know T'reifah from "Kol asher Ya'avor", to preclude a T'reifah. But from where will we know a Kil'ayim animal?'

Question #2: What is the Kashya? Let us say that we learn Kil'ayim from the Binyan Av of Rava, seeing as by Ma'aser the Torah writes "Tzon" (See Mesores ha'Shas), as Rashi explains here?

Answer: According to Tosfos however, who explained that the Gemara relies on the the "Seh" of B'chor, there is no Kashya ...

Answer (cont.): Since the Gemara cannot say there that we derive Ma'aser from Bechor, by which the Torah precludes Ki'ayim

Reason: Because if so, by the same token, we will also preclude Yotzei Dofen from Ma'aser, as we will learn it from B'chor.

Clarification: The Ri, citing the first Perek of Bechoros (Daf 5b) establishes this specifically by an animal that is not similar at all, but that if it is similar by means of some Simanim, we learn from "Ach" that it is Kadosh by B'chor.

Explanation: And it is necessary to preclude NIdmeh both by Kodshim and by B'chor ...

Reason: Because, had it written it only by Kodshim, we would have learned B'chor from Kodshim, and precluded from B'chor even an animal that has some Simanim of the mother ...

Reason (cont.): And if it had written the Ribuy only by B'chor, to include a Nidmeh which has some Simanim, we would have included it also by Kodshim, as we learn from from the other with a Gezeirah Shavah.

Reason (cont.): And similarly, had it not written it at all by Kodshim, and the Ribuy and Miy'ut only by Bchor, we would have learned Kodshim from B'chor.

Conclusion: But now that the Torah writes a Miy'ut by Kodshim, and a Miy'ut and Ribuy by B'chor, we cannot learn Kodshim from B'chor ...

Conclusion: Because if we would, then the Torah should not have inserted the Miy'ut by Kodshim.

Explanation #1: Rashi (at the beginning of Amud Beis) explains that Rebbi Yehoshua argues with Rebbi Shimon, and permits a camel that is born to a cow that became pregnant via an ox, with one Siman Taharah - that it either chews its cud or has cloven hooves.

Explanation #1 (cont.): And he Darshens "es Zeh Tochhlu, es ha'Gamal" - 'A camel you may not eat with one Siman, but another animal, you may; and what is that (other animal)? A Tamei animal that is born to a Tahor one that became pregnant via a Tahor one'.

Explanation #1 (cont.): 'Perhaps even if it became pregnant via a Tamei one?' - meaning that just as we permit it, so too, will we permit its son, in the event that a cow became pregnant from it? Therefore the Torah says "Seh Kesavim" ' ...

Clarification: 'via a Tamei one' is La'av Davka, seeing as in fact, it is Tahor; only it is similar to a Tamei one.

Question #1: The entire Sugya in Bechoros however (on Daf 6b & 7a), does not conform with his explanation.

Question #1 (cont.): Rather, it implies that Rebbi Yehoshua concedes to Rebbi Shimon that a regular camel born to a cow from a bull is Asur, and if it has one Siman of a cow, it is permitted.

Question #1 (concl.): But that has nothing to do with the Simanim of the Torah - chewing its cud or having split hooves.

Explanation (of Sugya in Bechoros): The Gemara there says that 'If a lamb gives birth to a goat or vice-versa, it is Patur from the Bechorah, but if it has some Simanim of its mother, it is Chayav; Rebbi Shimon however, requires its head and most of it to be similar to its mother.

Explanation (cont.): Ans it is with reference to that case that the Gemara asks whether, according to Rebbi Shimon the son of a cow requires the head and the majority of its body to resemble its mother, to permit it to be eaten, or whether a slight similarity will suffice?

Explanation (cont.): It tries to resolve the She'eilah from Rebbi Yehoshua, who holds like Rebbi Shimon, since he calls it 'Tamei', yet he adds that one may eat it with one Siman.

Explanation (concl.): The Gemara refutes this proof however, by arguing that 'Perhaps he holds like Rebbi Shimon in one point and argues with him in the other'.

Question #2: Moreover, it implies there that Rebbi Yehoshua's reason is because he holds 'Zeh ve'Zeh Gorem, Asur' ...

Question #2 (cont.): In which case even if a Tahor animal is born from a Tahor mother and a Tamei father, it will be Asur?

Explanation: And the case in our Sugya, which Rava establishes by a Tamei that is born to a Tahor mother and a Tamei father too, speaks where it slightly resembles its mother, like the case of Rebbi Yehoshua ...

Reason: Because if it totally resembled a camel, even if its father was a Tahor animal, it would be Asur, seeing as he (Rebbi Yehoshua) holds like Rebbi Shimon, as the Gemara states 'That it was pregnant from a Kalut, like Rebbi Shimon'.

Implied Question: In fact, it could just as well have stated the case of a Tahor that is born to a Tahor, but whose father is a Tamei, which is Tamei ...

Implied Question (cont.): Seeing as "Seh" comes to preclude Kil'ayhim, and it is Asur on account of 'Zeh va'Zeh Gorem' ...

Answer: Only since it mentions 'Tamei she'Nolad' in the words of Rebbi Yehoshua, it also mentions it in those of Rava.

Implied Question:: And the reason that mentions it in the words of Rebbi Yehoshua is ...

Answer: Because since, in the Reisha it states 'But you can eat a Tamei that is born from a Tahor whose father is a Tahor, with one Siman', therefore in the Seifa too, it says 'You may have thought that one may eat a Tamei that is born from a Tahor whose father is a Tamei' ...

Answer (cont.): But in fact, a Tahor that is born to a Tahor whose father is a Tamei is also Asur, due to 'Zeh va'Zeh Gorem'.

Conclusion: And when the Gemara says here 'not like Rebbi Yehoshua', all the more so does it not go like Rebbi Eliezer his disputant, who permits it completely.

Conclusion (cont.): And the text here reads 'Rebbi Elazar', and not 'Rebbi Eliezer'.

Clarification: It is obvious jhowever, that the Noder himself is permitted to exempt himself, should he not wish to perform the Mitzvah in the ideal manner.