Question #1: This is difficult. How do we know that one is obligated to redeem it and require it to have Kisuy?

Question #2: Additionally, the Mishnah says it does not apply to animals dedicated to Hekdesh. If one redeems the animal, it is no longer Hekdesh!

Answer: The Gemara is asking as follows. Being that he is going to end up redeeming it due to a loss to Kodshim, when he does the redemption it will mean that retroactively there was an appropriate slaughtering. If so, he should be obligated to cover it even before he redeems it!

Answer (cont.): Additionally, Rebbi Shimon holds that whatever is supposed to be redeemed is as if it is already redeemed.

Answer (cont.): Accordingly, even if he does not end up redeeming them, the slaughtering will still be considered appropriate. This is because the slaughtering of Kodshim is considered appropriate according to Rebbi Shimon even if the blood is spilled, being that whatever is about to be sprinkled is considered as if it is already sprinkled, as stated in Bava Kama (76b).

Question: As long as they are in their death throes, they are still considered able to be stood up and evaluated, as stated earlier (30a)! The Gemara there says that if you will say that we require being stood up and evaluated, the Mishnah states that if he slaughtered two Simanim or most of two Simanim and it is in its death throes, it is still considered alive. (Accordingly, why does our Gemara ask that it is missing being able to be stood up and evaluated?)

Implied Question: It is difficult to say that our Gemara is referring to a bird that does not have so much life in it, as we see one only has to slaughter one Siman or it to be considered slaughtered. (Why isn't this a good answer?)

Answer: This is because it is illogical to differentiate in this fashion between a bird and an animal.

Answer: Rabeinu Shmaya explains that slaughtering two Simanim or most of two Simanim (being considered like it is alive) is as we say later (121a) only regarding a Jew who slaughters a non-kosher animal or a Nochri who slaughters a kosher animal, as explained by Rabeinu Chananel earlier (30a).

Answer (cont.): In that Gemara (ibid.), only if it was in its death throes is it considered alive. This is because it is not permitted to eat due to this slaughtering, and is therefore considered alive until it dies.

Answer (cont.): Similarly, when the Gemara earlier (30a) says that the animal was not pushed aside from having the value of a Korban Pesach, and the Gemara considered an animal in its death throes alive when the slaughtering had not yet been finished, this is referring to a case where only a small amount of slaughtering had been done and it had not yet been permitted to be eaten. However, in our case where the slaughtering does permit the animal to be eaten, the animal is not considered to be able to be stood up and evaluated.

Implied Question: This is unlike blood that sprayed (87b, where we say it should be dragged away and covered). (What is the difference between the two cases?)

Answer: In the Gemara later (87b), if it would not have sprayed it would not have required being dragged away. However, in this case it always needs to be dragged.

Question: The Mishnah later (85a) states that even Kodshim require Kisuy, as it says that Rebbi Meir says that Kodshim slaughtered outside the Azarah require Kisuy! (How can we say that the birds are not holy?)

Answer: This teaching (of our Gemara) means that just as an undomesticated animal is not holy etc. (to be a Korban inside the Beis Hamikdash, so too all birds that are not holy to be a Korban inside the Beis Hamikdash require Kisuy).

Observation: In their place (i.e. area) fish was cheaper than meat, as explained by Rashi.

Observation (cont.): However, the Medrash states that on the first day that guests come, serve geese and chicken to them. On the second day, serve them fish. On the third day, serve them meat. On the fourth day, serve them legumes. (The Medrash states that one should consistently lessen the quality of food that his guests receive. By listing meat after fish, it implies that fish was more expensive than meat. Tosfos is explaining that this all depends on the prices in the area where one lives.)

Question: We say in Pesachim (50b) that if someone is involved in raising small animals he does not see a blessing in his work! (How can our Gemara say that one who deals with these animals becomes rich?)

Answer: Rabeinu Tam explains that the Gemara (ibid.) is referring to raising them in the city, and that one will not see blessing in his work due to the evil eye. However, our Gemara is referring to raising them in the woods where people do not usually see them.

Question: Our Gemara implies that there was white glass extant in the times of Rebbi Yochanan. The same is indicated by the Gemara in Berachos (31a), which relates how Rav Ashi broke white glass at the wedding of his son. However, in Sotah (48b) the Beraisa states that when the Beis Hamikdash was destroyed there was no longer any special silk (called "Shira Fronda") or white glass!

Answer: The Beraisa in Sotah (ibid.) does not mean that it was no longer extant at all, just that it was not as commonly found as it was during the times of the Beis Hamikdash.

Proof: One must also say this regarding the special silk, as the Gemara in Shabbos (20b) states that Rabin and Abaye sat before Rav Nechemyah who was the Reish Galusa (Head Exilarch). They saw that he was wearing special clothing. Rabin said to Abaye, this is the material called "Kalach" mentioned in the Mishnah in Shabbos (20b). Abaye replied, we call this Shira Fronda. (This shows that Shira Fronda was extant during the days of Abaye.)

Implied Question: Rabeinu Tam explains that Abaye meant to object to Rabin's statement by saying that he understood that the Kalach mentioned in the Mishnah was Shira Fronda (and that this was not the material used in the clothing of the Reish Galusa). (If this is so, there is clearly no proof from this Gemara that Shira Fronda was extant during the times of the Amoraim.)

Text: Rabeinu Chananel has the text, "b'Savri." This means cattle that do not cause the plow to go deep enough, and end up causing a person to lose everything that he has planted.

Observation: According to the two explanations given in Beitzah (8b) regarding why the blood of a Koy is not covered on Yom Tov, one being that the earth set aside is only for a clear obligation of Kisuy as opposed to a doubtful obligation, the other being that if we permit Kisuy for a Koy it will lead us to permit its Cheilev (as people will think it is certainly a Chayah), this Kal v'Chomer is impossible to explain. (Note: It is very helpful to learn Beitzah 8b before learning this Tosfos. See the Maharsha on this Tosfos at length as well.)

Observation (cont.): The fact that even a certain obligation of Kisuy does not push aside Shabbos is not because of Muktzah, as even if he prepared the earth before Yom Tov we do not allow him to use it. One also cannot say there is any decree regarding permitting Cheilev, as a certain obligation of Kisuy means we are dealing with a definite Chayah.

Observation (cont.): However, the Gemara in Beitzah (ibid.) concludes that it is permitted to do one covering of earth on Yom Tov after slaughtering a Chayah (and other animals), even though there is a Rabbinic prohibition against digging a hole when one only needs the dirt. If the animal is a doubtful Chayah, this was not permitted.

Observation (cont.): According to this explanation, the Kal v'Chomer here is understandable. Being that they did not permit this on Shabbos even when a certain Chayah was slaughtered (but they did permit it on Yom Tov), certainly they did not permit this for a doubtful Chayah on Yom Tov.

Implied Question: However, the Gemara in Beitzah (ibid.) indicates that even a doubtful Chayah can have Kisuy when only one covering of earth will be used. (Tosfos means that the Gemara ends up rejecting that the reason is due to the Rabbinic prohibition against digging a hole, and concludes that the reason is either due to Muktzah or a decree due to Cheilev. The Gemara's conclusion there seems unlike the Kal v'Chomer in our Gemara, being that it would be forbidden to do Kisuy on Shabbos even if the earth was prepared on Erev Shabbos (taking away the reason of Muktzah). How, then, can we understand the Kal v'Chomer?)

Answer: One can give a forced answer that the Kal v'Chomer is as follows. Kisuy of a definite Chayah does not push aside Shabbos, even if the earth was set aside to be used for this Kisuy, as the Rabbanan forbade this due to unnecessary work done on Shabbos. Certainly, then, a doubtful Kisuy should not push aside Yom Tov when the earth was not set aside to be used for the Kisuy of a Koy, either due to the Rabbinic prohibition against making a hole (to use the dirt, which the Gemara originally thought was the reason) or because of Muktzah (which the Gemara concludes in fact is the real reason), being that he did not intend to use it for a doubtful Chayah.

Answer (cont.): However, regarding earth that was made ready before Yom Tov one cannot forbid using it for a doubtful Chayah due to this Kal v'Chomer from Shabbos, as one cannot compare unnecessary work done on Yom Tov to unnecessary work done on Shabbos.

Answer (cont.): According to the opinion that Kisuy is not allowed because people might think the Cheilev of a Koy is permitted, and it is therefore forbidden even if the earth was prepared from before Yom Tov and even though the Kal v'Chomer doesn't seem to apply (to this reason as stated earlier), it is still possible that people who see the Kisuy will make a mistake (being that they do not know that the earth was set aside specifically for the Kisuy of a Koy, see Tiferes Yaakov) and make a Kal v'Chomer from Shabbos.

Answer (cont.): They will say that being that certain Kisuy does not push aside Shabbos even if the earth is prepared, certainly a doubtful Kisuy does not push aside Shabbos. Being that it is being covered, it must certainly be a Chayah and its Cheilev is permitted. (Our Gemara's Kal v'Chomer according to this answer is that one who does not know that the earth was specifically set aside for the Kisuy of a Koy before Yom Tov will mistakenly make this Kal v'Chomer and end up permitting the Cheilev of a Koy. This is reason enough to forbid doing Kisuy on a Koy on Yom Tov.)

Question: The reason that Shofar is forbidden on Shabbos is due to the decree that he might carry it four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim (the public domain). This reason is irrelevant to Yom Tov (when one is permitted to carry)!

Answer #1: The reason does apply to Yom Tov. For example, if this woman is a Tumtum it is forbidden to carry the Shofar for her, as she is not obligated in Shofar.

Implied Question: One cannot permit due to the reasoning that being that carrying was permitted on Yom Tov in a case where it is necessary, it is also permitted in a case where it is unnecessary (and that therefore it should clearly even be permitted to carry the Shofar for a woman who is in fact a Tumtum). (Why not?)

Answer: This permission to carry is specifically where there is some small need due to Yom Tov to carry. However, here there is no need at all to carry due to Yom Tov.

Answer #2: Alternatively, when the Gemara says that a definite obligation of Shofar does not push aside Shabbos, this is due to the decree that he may carry it four Amos etc. The doubtful obligation that pushes aside Yom Tov means that even though there is a Rabbinic prohibition when blowing the Shofar which is considered a skill, and not a Melachah, this prohibition is pushed aside even in a case of doubtful obligation. [See also Tosfos in Rosh Hashanah 29b, DH "Rediyas."]