Source: As the Gemara states in Bava Metzi'a (Daf 29:) 'Tefilin are readily available in the house of bar Chavu'.

Halachah (Opinion #1): Rabeinu Tam learned from here that it is not necessary to tie one's Tefilin each day when putting them on.

Halachah (Opinion #2): ... as opposed to Rabeinu Eliyahu, who rules that one is obligated to ...

Source: ... based on the Gemara in 'ha'Kometz Rabah (Menachos 35b [See Tosfos there DH 'mi'Sha'as]) 'At which point does one recite the B'rachah over Tefilin? From the time that one lays them until the time of tying'.

Refutation: Rabeinu Tam however, interprets 'Keshirah' as 'tightening' - that one tightens the shel Rosh around the head.

Precedent: ... like the Gemara in Nidah (26b) 'There is a placenta attached (fitted tightly) to it ...

Proof #1: ... Because if it meant literally tying, is a person supposed to go each day to house bar Chavu?

Proof #2 (Part 1): Furthermore, at the beginning of 'ha'Motzei Tefilin' (Daf 97a) it is implied that tying one's Tefilin on Shabbos is forbidden, since it is a permanent knot; since the Gemara says there that one may bring old Tefilin into one's house pair by pair; but not new ones' (which the Gemara there interprets as Tefilin that have not been tied).

Proof #2 (Part 2): ... and if one had to tie and untie them every day, they would not fall under the category of 'a permanent knot'.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains 'Ikur' - as we learned in the Mishnah 'If one Shechted the esophagus and broke the wind-pipe.

Question: But this has nothing to do with the Dinim of Shechitah? It is Pasul because he did not Shecht the animal, and is not comparable to the other Hilchos Shechitah"?

Answer: It speaks where one Shechted with a defective knife or with a scythe; and it is referred to as 'Broke the wind-pipe, which is Pasul because it is not called 'Shechitah', but 'strangulation', as we learned in the Mishnah later (in 15b) ' ... except for a scythe and a saw ... '.

Explanation #2: The Halachos Gedolos defines 'Ikur' as - 'Where the Siman was torn out and Shechted outside its locaton.

Question: What does this have to do with Hilchos Shechitah, seeing as he didn't do anything, and it was the Siman that moved by itself? And even if he Shechted it there, it is already Pasul because of 'Hagramah'?

Answer (Explanation #2 [Part 1]): It is speaking where one Shechted the Simon after it moved from its place.

Explanation #2 (Part 2): ... and 've'Chulhu Teninhu' refers to the Mishnah in Perek Kisuy ha'Dam (85a) 'Someone who cuts open the animal or or who teras out the Siman is Patur from Kisuy ha'Dam'.

Question: Is it not obvious that the Shechitah is not effective, seeing as it has already become a T'reifah?

Answer (Part 1): According to the Halachos Gedolos it is not a T'reifah; rather it is 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai' that Shechitah is not effective on a Siman outside the location where it is attached to the neck ...

Answer (Part 2): ... and even a bird; which is permitted with the Shechitah of one Siman, if either of the Simanim moves from its place, Shechitah of the other Simon is ineffective.

Queston: Why, according to the Halachos Gedolos, does the Gemara not list 'Someone who broke the wind-pipe with a defective knife' among the Dinim of Shechitah, like it does according to Rashi?

Answer #1: Because that is not Shechitah, only strangling.

Answer #2: According to Rashi, the Gemara does not mention the case of Shemutah (of the Halachos Gedolos), because he considers it a T'reifah, in which case it is not necessary to mention it.

Question #1: It transpires however, that 'Ikur' of the Halachos Gedolos is not equivalent to the other Hilchos Shechitah, which concern the actual Shechitah, whereas it merely concerns Shechting a Siman that has moved from its place.

Question #2: Also a little difficult is the Lashon 'Nocher u'Me'aker', which implies that no other Shechitah is involved, and that (like 'Nocher') it dies directly via the 'Ikur'.

Statement: The problems with Rashi's explanation from later (Daf 20a & 20b) and from Perek Eilu T'reifos (Daf 44a), and resolving the explanation of the Halachos Gedolos - Tosfos will explain each point in its place be'Ezras Hash-m.

Clarification: Even though there are large knives and small knives, we assess the knife with regard to each animal, that it should be two kneck-breadths long.

Clarification: Because, since most times one Shechts correctly, in which case it is permitted min ha'Torah, the Chachamim were not stringent to declare it a Neveilah.

Clarification: Even if there many holes there not in the location of the teeth, it is logical to attribute them all to a wolf, in the same way as we declare Kasher later wherever the hand of the Shochet reaches.

Inference: It implies here that we learn 'Safek Tum'ah bi'Reshus ha'Rabim Tahor' from Sotah.

Gemara Nazir (Part 1): The Mishnah in Perek Sh'nei Nezirim (Nazir 57a) however, states that 'If a person said to two Nezirim "I saw one of you becoming Tamei, but I don't which one", they are both obligated to bring a Korban Tum'ah and a Korban Taharah'.

Gemara Nazir (Part 2): ... The Gemara asks that seeing as the two Nezirim plus the person who is standing with them makes three, it falls under the category of 'Safek Tum'ah bi'Reshus-ha'Rabim Tahor', in which case they ought not to bring a Korban Tum'ah at all, only Korban Tahor? To which the Gemara answers that the third person says that he saw a Tamei object being thrown into their midst (though he was standing in a different domain).

Gemara Nazir (Part 3): What is the Gemara answering? Now that it is a case of 'Safek Tum'ah bi'Reshus ha'Yachid, which is Vaday Tamei, as is evident at the beginning of Nidah, 2b, in the case of 'a Mikvah which was measured and found to be lacking' - where the Gemara queries Rebbi Shimon, who rules that in the R'shus-ha'Yachid 'Tolin' (Safek Tamei) - that if we learn it from Sotah, why 'Tolin', and not Tamei Vaday?

Gemara Nazir (Part 4): ... in which case both Nezirim ought to bring a Korban Tum'ah, and not a Korban Taharah, like at first, when we thought that it was a R'shus ha'Rabim, and where we asked 'Let them bring a Korban Taharah (only)?

Question (Part 1): The reason that they do not bring a Korban Tum'ah only if it is a R'shus-ha'Yachid, must therefore be because we only learn from Sotah something that is possible (like Sotah); And there is no doubt that they did not both become Tamei ...

Question (Part 2): ... whereas initially, when we thought that it is a R'shus ha'Rabim. there was no problem if both of them brought a Korban Taharah, even though one of them is definitely Tamei, since we do not learn 'Safek Tum'ah' bi'Reshus ha'Rabim from Sotah, only from the fact that we place each one on a Chezkas Taharah?

Answer (Part 1): We learn from Sotah to declare Tahor in a R'shus ha'Rabim, wherever there is no Chezkas Taharah, such as the case of a Mikvah that was measured and found to be lacking, where there is no Chazakah ...

Answer (Part 2): ... because if we try to place the Mikvah on a Chezkas Shaleim (seeing as it was originally full), on the contrary, place whoever Toveled in it on a Chezkas Tum'ah. And that is when Rebbi Shimon declares it Tamei because we learn it from Sotah.

Answer (Part 3): ... and now that we are trying to say that, regarding Isur we do not place on a Chazakah like we do regarding Sakanah, even where there is a Chazakah we learn from Sotah, and wherever this is not possible (such as by the case of two Nezirim on Daf 57a) they are not Tahor because of Chazakah.

Answer (Part 4): And the Gemara's query there (that we cited earlier) goes according to the Gemara's conclusion here - that we do go after Chazakah.

Clarification: Similarly, something that does not have the ability to ask, where we rule 'S'feiko Tahor', and which we learn from Sotah, that is specifically where there is no Chazakah, like the case in Taharos (Perek 3, Mishnah 8) of a baby who was found playing next to a dough, whom Rebbi Meir declares Tahor, because he does not have the sense to ask, and based on the principle 'S'moch Mi'uta le'Chazakah' (add the minority to the Chazakah ... ), turning into 'Palga u'Palga' (half-half), like we learned in Kesuvos 119b).

Question: How can we learn from Sotah, who has a Chezkas Taharah?

Answer: Since her husband warned her, and she nevertheless concealed herself with another man, the strong likelihood exists that she sinned, which weakens her Chazakah.

Question: On what basis do we then declare Tamei every Safek Tum'ah bi'Reshus ha'Yachid, even where there is a Chezkas Taharah? If it is from Sotah, but did we not just explain that a Sotah's Chazakah has been weakened

Answer: We do indeed learn it from Sotah, whom the Pasuk gave the Din of a Vaday, by not placing her on a Chazakah; because if we were to contend with her Chazakah (weakened though it may be), she ought not to be Vaday Tamei ...

Clarification (Part 1): ... and that what we say in Perek ke'Shem (Sotah 29a) that we need Sotah to teach us the Din of Tahor bi'Reshus ha'Rabim, because as far as Rav Gidal is concerned, we would have thought that Safek of a Davar she'Ein bo Da'as Lisha'el is Tamei even in the R'shus ha'Rabim ...

Clarification (Part 2): ... the Gemara might just as well have said we need it to teach us that Tum'ah bi'Reshus ha'Yachid is Tamei even where there is a Chezkas Taharah, because as far as Rav Gidal is concerned, perhaps it would only be Tamei there where there is no Chezkas Taharah.

Clarification: This refers even to the flask ...

Implied Question: ... since, even though all the vessels connected with the Parah Adumah were made of either marble, stone or earth (which are not subject to Tum'ah, as we learned at the beginning of Yoma (2a) and in Perek ha'Yashein (Succah, 21a).

Answer (Part 1): ... that refers specifically to the period before the burning of the cow, as we learned in the Mishnah in Parah (Perek1, Mishnah 1&2) 'Seven days prior to the burning of the cow they would bring ... , because all its preparations required vessels made of marble, stone or earth.

Answer (Part 2): ... but once the cow has been burned, one may 'sanctify' it in whichever vessel one fancies, as we learned in Maseches Parah, Perek ha'Meivi K'lei Cheres (Mishnah 5) 'Anything is eligible for sanctifying, even vessels made of marble, stone or earth', implying that other vessels are certainly eligible.

Answer (Part 3): And the reason that the Tana mentions those three, is because we would otherwise have thought that they are not considered Keilim, as the Gemara states in the first Perek of Shabbos (16b).

Question (Part1): In this Sugya, we attribute it to a Tamei person, as does the Gemara in the first Perek of Pesachim (Daf 10b) regarding a spade that became lost in the house' ...

Question (Part 2): ... whereas the Gemara in the first Perek of Nidah (4a) regarding a loaf that is placed on a board, attributes it to a Tahor person?

Answer #1: Rabeinu Tam explains that the reason here and in Pesachim is because the Chachamim issued a decree on all Safek vessels that are found, whereas on Safek food they did not.

Answer #2: Furthermore, one could answer that it is specifically in the case in Nidah, where there was a Tamei board underneath the loaf, and it was impossible for the latter to fall without touching the board, that we attribute it to a Tahor person who deliberately removed the loaf to prevent it from becoming Tamei; whereas there would be no reason for a Tamei person to have removed it.

Clarification: Similarly, in the case cited in Perek Kisuy ha'Dam (86a) regarding 'The majority of children play ... ', according to Rabeinu Tam's explanation there, that the majority of children play with the dough, and a minority don't, the Gemara attributes the ruling there to a Tahor person having handed him a piece of the dough, because he was afraid that the child might render the dough Tamei.

Explanation #1: In the first Lashon, Rashi explains that 'Any creature that "sicks up" the water invalidates it' because, having removed water in order to drink, it is considered as if work has been performed with it - which renders it (the water that it separated) Pasul. Consequently, when it 'sicks it up', it renders the original water Pasul.

Question: What has 'work' got to do with drinking?

Explanation #2 (Part 1): It therefore seems that if it is speaking prior to the Kidush, it is Pasul because it does not conform to "Spring water into the vessel" - 'that the spring water must be poured directly into the vessel, and not to fill one vessel and then pour it into another vessel, before the Kidush - like Rashi actually explains in the second Lashon.

Explanation #2 (Part 2): Whereas if it is speaking after the Kidush (in which case it mentions 'Teme'ah' on account of the vessel), or as Tosfos will explain later - that it is Pasul because of the spit in their mouths which is now mixed with water, and the Tana holds a. 'Yesh Bilah' and b. the Haza'ah (sprinkling) requires a certain Shi'ur (as opposed to Rebbi Eliezer in Perek ha'Ta'aroves (Zevachim 80a who holds. [in connection with a flask of Mei Chatas into which water fell] that one must sprinkle two Haza'os).

Explanation #3: Alternatively, the Tana means that it is Pasul with one Haza'ah, like Rebbi Eliezer, who also speaks in this Mishnah - since he specifically adds 'also the mouse!'

Proof: And this is how the Tosefta explains the reason of Rebbi Yehoshua, who says that 'also the sanctified water does not become Pasul through tipping, only through drinking, just as Rebbi Eliezer said, because of the liquid in his mouth that is mixed with water.

Ruling: ... and that explains why, if the weasel first made 'Girgur' (it poured the water into its throat, so that nothing remains in its mouth, it is Kasher.

Observation: According to this explanation, it is similar to dew that fell on it during the night, which the Tana juxtaposes to it.

Clarification: It is a Mishnah in Maseches Parah (9:3) "The only Sheretz to invalidate Mei Chatas is the weasel, because it 'sicks up' the water. Raban Gamliel adds the snake, since it too, 'sicks up' what it drinks. Rebbi Eliezer adds the mouse'.

Implied Question: ... and the Gemara here does not also mention 'Rebbi Eliezer adds the mouse'?

Answer: .. because Rebbi Eliezer is a 'Shamuti' (meaning either that he is from Beis Shamai or that he was in Cherem).

Clarification: This is a Beraisa, although the Mishnah in Maseches Parah also says 'Pesulah'.

Question: Then why did the Gemara not cite the Mishnah?

Answer: Perhaps he prefers to cite the Beraisa, which adds' Because I say that a Tamei person entered', which the Mishnah does not.

Implied Question: Even though the Reisha of the Mishnah also says 'Pesulah', whereas the Reisha of the Beraisa uses the word 'Teme'ah' ...

Answer #1: That is due to the opinion in Perek Dam Chatas (Daf 93:) which rules that 'Mei Chatas she'Nitm'u, Mitaharin'.

Answer #2: ... or because the P'sul is the result of Tum'ah, the Beraisa says 'Teme'ah'.

Answer #3 (Part 1): Moreover, because also the flask itself is Tamei, seeing as we attribute it to a Tamei person.

Answer #3 (Part 2): ... whereas in the Seifa, the flask is Tahor (therefore the Tana says 'Pesulah').

Observation: There is also another difference between Mei Chatas which became Tamei and Nei Chatas which became Pasul, as we learned in the ninth Perek of Maseches Parah (Mishnah 8).