Implied Question: The Gemara in Zevachim (24a) quotes an argument among Tanaim regarding the Pasuk, "And the Kohen will take from the blood of the Chatas with his finger and he will put." One says that the word "finger" is referring to the taking of the blood stated previously, and not the putting stated afterward. One says the opposite, and one says it is referring to both. (How can that be understood in light of what we stated previously in this Tosfos?)

Answer: The reason for this is that the simple meaning of the Pasuk is that it is referring to the taking mentioned previously. However, we find in a different Pasuk that it says, "And you will take from the blood of the bull and you will put on the corners of the altar with your finger." This Pasuk clearly puts the finger together with putting.

Answer (cont): The Tanaim therefore argue regarding the meaning of this Pasuk. One says that the meaning is based on the simple explanation of the Pasuk that "finger" is referring to taking the blood. Another says we derive from the Pasuk quoted above that "finger" is always joined with the putting of the blood.

Answer (cont.): He did not want to say it also refers to the taking of the blood, as taking only makes sense if there is a handle on the vessel.

Answer (cont.): The opinion that it refers to both combines the reasons given by the two opinions above.

Question: It requires some study to understand whenever the Gemara says that a Pasuk can be derived together with the previous words or the following words, why these Pesukim should be derived in this fashion more clearly than the five Pesukim that are in doubt (as to whether they are together with the previous words or the following words, see Yoma 52a).

Question: How can we eat rams? Even if a Nochri castrates them, why are they different than Basar b'Chalav?

Answer: Since the Torah forbade these types of animals to be brought as sacrifices, the implication is that they are permitted to be eaten.

Question: If someone, even a Nochri, cuts the ear of a Bechor it should become forbidden!

Answer: The Torah permitted animals that have blemishes regarding Kodshim (i.e. even though they cannot be brought as Kodshim), such as a deer and ram. This indicates that they are not considered disgusting.

Question: Why don't we say that while this permits having benefit from it, it should still be forbidden to be eaten, just as the Gemara asks later regarding seeds (i.e. Kilayim of seeds)?

Answer: We derive that it is permitted to benefit from Melachos done on Shabbos (according to Torah law) from the word "for you," as explained in Bava Kama (71a) and Kesuvos (34a) even according to Rebbi Yochanan ha'Sandlar who forbids eating food cooked on Shabbos.

Question: It is somewhat difficult why Rebbi Yochanan (ha'Sandlar) has to derive from "holy" that one cannot eat food cooked on Shabbos. He should derive this from "whatever I have made an abomination," and derive a permission to benefit from "for you!"

Explanation: The ox and donkey (should become forbidden).

Text: Some Sefarim have the text, "now that it is permitted to be sacrificed, it certainly is permitted for a regular person! How do you know that it is permitted to be used as a sacrifice? This is as the Pasuk states, "And from the hand of a "stranger" you should not offer the bread of your G-d from all of these." This indicates that you cannot offer "from all of these," meaning animals with blemishes. However, you can offer Kodshim that had a sin done with them (i.e. Kilayim)."

Question: Kilayim of seeds and threshing should be forbidden, as from the Pasuk of "these" only animals are permitted to be used as sacrifices. If it would be referring to everything, all actions done on Shabbos should be derived from "these!" Why would we need the Pasuk, "it is Kodesh?"

Answer: It is not possible to forbid Kilayim of seeds and threshing from benefit due to the Pasuk, "Whatever I have made an abomination for you." The prohibition of threshing while muzzling the animal is due to the animal (not the grain being threshed). Similarly, the prohibition against plowing with animals that are Kilayim with each other is due to the animals, not the plowing and planting. This is apparent from the fact that it is even forbidden to ride these two animals hitched together (i.e. pulling a wagon).

Question: The Gemara later asks that the bird that is not sent away properly (as per the Mitzvah of Shiluach ha'Ken) should be forbidden. We should derive that it is even permitted to be brought as a sacrifice due to the Pasuk, "these!"

Answer: The Pasuk, "these" refers to animals, not birds. We cannot derive birds from animals because being older or younger does not cause an animal to be invalid as it does regarding turtledoves and pigeons.

Question: Why is the Pasuk of "these" necessary? Since the Pasuk "from the animal" is needed in Temurah (28b) to exclude animals that have relations with people, it must be that other Kodshim that have sins done with them are not forbidden due to the Pasuk, "whatever I have made an abomination."

Answer: You might say that "from the animal" teaches that it is permitted for a regular person to use, and it is not forbidden due to "whatever I have made an abomination for you."

Question: Even so, we should derive from a person who plows with an ox and donkey or muzzles the mouth of a cow using a Kal v'Chomer from people who have relations with animals as these animals are killed, yet (if there is only one witness or the owner admits) the animal is permitted to a regular person.

Answer: Without the Pasuk "these" we would forbid animals that have relations with people from the Pasuk "from the cattle," just as we exclude animals worshipped as idols.

Text: There are Sefarim that have the text, "If Shabbos is stringent and we say that it is holy but items done on it are not (i.e. not forbidden), certainly these are not forbidden!" Rashi also has this text.

Explanation: He explains that we do not ask this question regarding Basar b'Chalav, as it is logical that "whatever I have made an abomination" is referring to Basar b'Chalav which is itself an abomination.

Explanation (cont.): However, here he is not eating what was plowed or what was muzzled. Rather, it is the result of the actions of plowing or muzzling from which he receives benefit. We derive from Shabbos that what results from the action is not forbidden.

Question: This is difficult. Why shouldn't food cooked on Shabbos be as much of an abomination as Basar b'Chalav?

Answer: It seems that the reasoning is that regarding Basar b'Chalav the item itself shows that milk was cooked with meat. However, when something is cooked on Shabbos it is not apparent (i.e. sometime after Shabbos) that it was cooked on Shabbos.

Implied Question: The Gemara asks questions from Oso v'Es Beno and Shiluach ha'Ken. (Why should they be different than food cooked on Shabbos?)

Answer: It must be that the prohibition is considered more recognizable than plowing with Kilayim or muzzling and threshing.

Question: Don't we need this Pasuk to teach us that it is supposed to be burned? This should imply that while Kilayim of seeds do not have to be burned, they are still forbidden from benefit!

Answer #1: The Gemara in any case asks a good question.

Answer #2: Alternatively, the Pasuk should say "lest it be burned." Since it says, "lest it be holy" it implies that it is forbidding benefit like Hekdesh (which is forbidden from benefit).

Question: Later (116a), we say that one is allowed to move a plant over a vineyard unless it grows one two hundredth more while it is being moved. If it did not grow another two hundredth, it is permitted to eat it. This is derived from the Pesukim, "ha'Mile'ah" and "ha'Zera."

Question (cont.): Why don't we say that this is regarding benefit, but it is indeed forbidden to eat due to the Pasuk, "Whatever I have made an abomination for you" as the Gemara wants to say here?

Answer: Since we find that Kilay Zeraim are permitted to be eaten as they are compared to animals, yet Kilay ha'Kerem are forbidden, it is logical that if they did not grow one two hundredth we should say as follows. Just as they were not totally forbidden like Kilay ha'Kerem, so too they should be permitted to be eaten like Kilay Zera'im.

Question: Perhaps a Pasuk is required in a case where he dedicated the animal as a sacrifice and then bred it with another type of animal? This is similar to the Gemara in Temurah (29a) that says regarding a Treifah that we need a Pasuk to forbid it being brought as a sacrifice in a case where it only became a Treifah after it was dedicated as a sacrifice.

Answer #1: Even so, if we want to say in our Gemara that an animal of a regular person is forbidden due to "whatever I have made an abomination for you," certainly it will be forbidden to offer such an animal as a sacrifice even if it was dedicated as a sacrifice before it was bred with another animal! One can give same answer regarding Oso v'Es Beno which is discussed later (in our Gemara).

Answer #2: Alternatively, since the Torah teaches us regarding Treifah that there is no difference whether it was dedicated first or not, it must be that the same applies to Kilayim or animals that are not old enough to be offered as sacrifices.

Explanation: This is as the Pasuk says, "And from the eighth day and on it will appease." The Gemara earlier (81a) said that the Torah connected the prohibition of Oso v'Es Beno to an Asei.

Question: This is difficult, as we permit the birds for this reason without requiring a Pasuk!

Question (cont.): In Kidushin (57a), regarding birds offered by a leper, we derive that the Pasuk, "All kosher birds you can eat" includes a bird sent away by a leper. "And this you cannot eat" includes the bird slaughtered as part of the purification of the leper. The Gemara asks, why don't we reverse these teachings? (Why not say that the bird sent away is prohibited, and the one slaughtered is permitted?) Rava answers, the Torah would not have said to send away the bird so someone could find it and eat a forbidden bird.

Question (cont.): Why does the Gemara (ibid.) require the Pasuk, "All kosher birds you can eat" to permit the bird sent away? We permit the bird of Shiluach ha'Ken in our Gemara with logic alone!

Answer: Regarding a leper, since the Pasuk said "do not eat" in order to forbid one of the birds, I would think that the other is also forbidden because the two birds of a leper are compared to each other.

Answer (cont.): We would not permit because the Torah would not have said to send the bird away in a manner where someone might sin, if we did not have the extra Pasuk, "All kosher birds you may eat."

Answer (cont.): This is unlike "all that I have made an abomination for you," as here the Pasuk is not specifically discussing Shiluach ha'Ken. We therefore can say it is referring to something else.

Explanation: Reish Lakish does not agree with the derivations in Pesachim (41a) that if a person roasted it and then cooked it or cooked it in other liquids etc.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that Pesukei ha'Mukdashin are (called "two types" because they are) permitted to be eaten (after they are redeemed) like Chulin, but it is forbidden to use its shearings or work it just as if it were still Kodshim.

Question: This does not appear to be correct, as it would not be called "two types" because of this difference.

Explanation #2: Rather, it appears that since Pesulei ha'Mukdashin are compared to a deer and ram, they are considered two types.

Explanation #2 (cont.): This is as the Gemara states in Makos (22a) that Rebbi Yitzchak says that a person who crossbreeds an ox that is Pesulei ha'Mukdashin receives lashes. Rebbi Oshiya also says that if someone makes such an ox give him a ride he receives lashes. This is because it has one body, yet the Torah made it as if it is two separate bodies like a deer and a ram.

Observation: Based on this explanation, Rabeinu Tam answers how to understand a Gemara in Bechoros (33a). The Gemara says that the Torah says "deer and ram" three times. One is for the derivation of Rebbi Yitzchak, one is for the derivation of Rebbi Oshiya etc. Rashi there explains that it is not clear where this derivation is. (Rabeinu Tam understands that it is the derivation of Rebbi Oshiya in Makos quoted above.)

Explanation: Without the Pasuk, "You should not eat it" I would think that the Pasuk is prohibiting one's body from benefiting without eating.

Implied Question: One cannot ask that Orlah is different, as it is only nullified in two hundred parts of permitted items. (Why not?)

Answer: This law is a Rabbinic law (and we are discussing Torah law).

Explanation: We cannot derive that Basar b'Chalav should be punishable through Kares as we do not punish based on a Kal v'Chomer.

Implied Question: We could have derived from Kilay ha'Kerem itself using a Mah Matzinu. (Why didn't we?)

Answer: However, it was better for the Gemara to start the discussion by attempting to derive using a Kal v'Chomer.

Implied Question: One cannot ask that Orlah, Chametz, Kilay ha'Kerem are all (different because they are) burned, as stated in the Mishnah in Temurah (33b). (Why not?)

Answer #1: We should learn this as well (that Basar b'Chalav should be burned).

Answer #2: Alternatively, this is specifically according to Rebbi Yehudah who says that Biur Chametz means solely that one must burn Chametz. However, according to the Rabbanan, Chametz does not have to be burned.

Question: Rebbi Yaakov from Orleans asks, why doesn't the Gemara ask that all of these (see c) are not permitted in anyway, as opposed to Basar b'Chalav which does not apply to the meat of a non kosher animal, the fat of a non kosher animal, and in other cases as stated earlier.

Answer: This is not considered permitted in other cases. Specifically regarding Cheilev the Pasuk says, "All Cheilev" implying even that of an undomesticated animal. When the Gemara later derives that Cheilev of an undomesticated animal is permitted, it is considered permitted in certain ways. However, the Pasuk never says, "All etc." regarding Basar b'Chalav.

Explanation: However, now (that we derive from it is prohibited to eat using a Gezeirah Shaveh, see Rashi DH "mi'Shoom") we make a Kal v'Chomer that just as it is forbidden to eat it is forbidden from benefit.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that we can derive from Kilay ha'Kerem using a Mah Matzinu, and we would not be able to ask a question on it.

Answer: Even so, it is asking on the teaching of a Kal v'Chomer from all three (Orlah, Chametz, Kilay ha'Kerem).