Clarification: He was actually fasting.

Inference: This implies that he is Chayav Kefel even if he did not go to Beis-Din; in fact he would be Chayav even Arba'ah va'Chamishah if not for the fact that 'The entire Shechitah must be performed be'Isur'.

Inference (cont.): And the Reisha too, states 'Chayav be'Arba'ah va'Chamishah, even though, like the Seifa, it speaks that he did not yet go to Beis-Din ...

Proof: Since the sole difference between the Reisha and the Seifa lies in the fact that whereas in the Reisha he Shechted before his father died, in the Seifa, his father died and then he Shechted it.

Conclusion: According to what Rav Nachman initially thought - 'And not five half-cattle, it only establishes the case 'where he had already appeared in Beis-Din', so that it should not be a case of five half-cattle; In that case, the entire Sugya implies that 'One can bequeath a K'nas to one's children'.

Question: The Riva queries this from the beginning of 'Na'arah she'Nispatsah' (Kesuvos, Daf 42b & 43a), where the Gemara says 'When did Rabah say that it is Mamon, to hand down to his sons, by other Kenasos ... '?

Question (cont.): And the Gemara there speaks where he had appeared in Beis-Din, but if he had not, the entire Sugya there implies that he could not bequeath it to his children?

Answer #1: Rava and Rav Nachman here do not agree with the Sugya there; they hold that other Kenasos one can bequeath to one's children, even if he has not appeared in Beis-Din.

Answer #1 (cont.): Because, granted one cannot bequeath the K'nas of Oneis and Pituy to one's children under any circumstances, as the Beraisa states there ...

Answer #1 (cont.): That is because he cannot bequeath to them the thing from which the K'nas emerges - i.e. his daughter - as the Gemara explains there "Osom li'Veneichem", 've'Lo B'noseichm li'Veneichem' ...

Answer #1 (cont.): Whereas the Mamon here, from which the Kefel Arba'ah va'Chamishah emerge - i.e. the animal, he can bequeath to his children. Consequently, he can bequeath to them the K'nas as well.

Answer #2: Moreover the Ri explains, Rava and Rav Nachman here do not argue with the Sugya of Rabah and Abaye in Perek Na'arah (Ibid.), because here the entire Mishnah speaks where he had appeared in Beis-Din and they told him that he was Chayav to pay his disputant.

Answer #2 (cont.): Since in such s case, a person is able to bequeath a K'nas to his children, since they informed him that he is Chayav ... .

Refuted Question: And the Gemara cannot now ask on the Reisha 'Let it differentiate by himself, where he Shechted or sold the animal in the lifetime of his father, irrespective of whether he had appeared in Beis-Din or not?

Refutation: Since it suits the Tana to learn it all where he had appeared in Beis-Din, in which case it is no longer a K'nas, yet in the Seifa, where 'He Shechted after his father died', he is Patur, because we need 'u'Tevacho Kulo be'Isura', which it is not.

Refutation (cont.): And this Chidush it can only teach us where the father died first and then he Shechted or sold it.

Refutation (cont.): Whereas initially, when the Gemara held "Chamishah Bakar", 've'Lo Chamishah Chatza'ei Bakar', which is the reason that he is Patur in the Seifa, the Gemara is justified in asking that the Tana should have drawn a distinction in the same case (where the father died after his son Shechted or sold the animal) - 'When does that speak, where he had appeare in Beis-Din and they said to him "Go and give it to him!" ...

Refutation (cont.): But where he did not - i.e. where they did not tell him to give it to him, only that he is Chayav to do so, and he subsequently Shechted or sold the animal and then his father died, he is Patur, due to the D'rashah 've'Lo Chamishah Chatza'ei Bakar' (See Mesores ha'Shas).

Conclusion: Since that is the reason in the Seifa, which also speaks where he had not yet appeared in Beis-Din during his father's lifetime, which means that they did not instruct him to actually pay his father, only informing him that he is Chayav to pay him.

Conclusion (cont.): In that case, the Seifas had no reason to switch to where the son Shechted after his father's death, seeing, in that case, the same would apply even if his father would have died after the Shechitah.

Refutation: This explanation is a bit of a Dochek however

Reason: Because, since appearing in Beis-Din of 'Chayav Atah Litein lo' is effective in that he acquires it and can bequeath it to his children, it should also be effective in that it should be considered as if he is obligated to give his father five complete oxen

Reason (cont.): Since it is through his father that he is Chayav to pay his brothers and not directly through them.

Answer #2: The Ri ha'Lavan therefore explains that a person bequeaths every K'nas to his children, and the Sugya in 'Na'arah she'Nispatsah' is referring to Korban Shevu'ah (and not to K'nas at all [See Mesores ha'Shas]) ...

Source: As is evident at the beginning of the Sugya, where Abaye asked Rabah about Korban, to which he replied 'When did I say that it is Mamon according to Rebbi Shimon, to be Chayav on it a Korban Shevu'ah, to bequeath it to his children ...

Source (cont.): That if their father died and they claimed from him after that the K'nas that he was Chayav to pay the father who took him to Beis-Din, and he denied and swore and then confessed ...

Reason: Since it was revealed that at the time that it fell to the heirs it had already become Mamon vis-a-vis their father - since he had already appeared in Beis-Din, where he was pronounced Chayav to pay, and he was not able to admit and be Patur; Consequently, as far as they are concerned, it is no longer basically a K'nas, in which case it is similar to the Pikadon mentioned in the Torah, and he is Chayav a Korban Shevu'ah.

Answer #2 (concl.): But had he not appeared in Beis-Din, even though the heir is now claiming from him, it is nevertheless not comparable to Pikadon, and he is not therefore Chayav a Korban Shevu'ah with his claim - even if they took him to Beis-Din and they pronounced him Chayav to pay them, and when they subsequently claimed from him, he denied the claim, swore and confessed, since the basic claim is a K'nas.

Precedent: As the Gemara says afterwards - the Pasuk "ve'Kichesh is needed for where the girl appeared in Beis-Din, became a Bogeres and then died, because, since there he inherits from her in any case ...

Precedent (cont.): It is not comparable to Pikadon, even though it comes to her father now as an inheritance, since initially, as regards both her and him it was initially a K'nas, even where she died after becoming a Bogeres, it is basically considered a K'nas regarding the father, and he (the seducer) is therefore not Chayav a Korban Shevu'ah.

Question: In Perek ilu Na'aros (Ibid. Daf 30a [See also Tosfos there, Daf 38b, DH 'Yesh']) the Gemara asks whether 'Bagrus takes effect in the grave, and the father loses his rights, or not' ...

Question (cont.): Why should the father lose his rights if there is Bagrus in the grave? Granted, he does not have his own rights, but why should he not have the rights via what he inherits from his daughter ...

Reason: Seeing as K'nas is subject to inheritance?

Answer: In that case, he cannot obtain via his daughter something that she herself was not able to obtain, since she died whilst she was still a Na'arah.

Question: When the Gemara initially asks whether there is Bagrus in the grave, in which case her son will receive it, how can it possibly go to her son, seeing as she cannot bequeath it, as we see in the latter She'eilah - 'Whether there is Bagrus in the grave, in which case the father loses his rights'?

Answer: The first She'eilah refers to Boshes and P'gam, which are Mamon, and which she is therefore able to bequeath to her son ...

Implied Question: Despite the fact that Boshes and P'gam are compared to K'nas ...

Source: As the Mishnah states in Perek Na'arah (Ibid., Daf 41b) 'If she did not manage to appear in Beis-Din before her father died, then they belong to her' - implying that it is referring also to Boshes and P'gam, seeing as it says 'they (Harei Hein)' in the plural ...

Answer: That comparison pertains specifically to the father's claim ...

Source #1: As the Torah writes "And the man who was intimate with her shall give to the girl's father fifty (Sela'im)", on which the Gemara Darshens 'The pleasure of the intimacy is fifty Sela'im, implying that he must also pay Boshes and P'gam'.

Source #2: Others Darshen it from "Because he afflicted her", implying that there is also Boshes and P'gam to pay.

Answer (cont.): Whether in our case, granted the rapist is Patur from the K'nas, since she is unable to bequeath it - because she herself never obtained it, he is not Patur from Boshes and P'gam, which is Mamon.

Implied Question: From the fact that the Torah declares Chayav Chulin ba'Azarah and Shechutei Chutz one cannot ask - 'If the Shechitah is mi'Techilah ve'ad Sof, then from the moment one Shechts the first bit, one renders the animal Asur, and the remainder is merely like cutting (a clod of) earth?

Implied Question (cont.): And one cannot answer that one is Chayav on account of that first bit, as Tosfos will explain shortly (in the next DH).

Answer: Because, since there is no P'sul other than that of Shechutei Chutz, one can say that the Torah renders him Chayav under these circumstances.

Answer (cont.): But where there is a second P'sul together with it (such as in the case cited in Chulin), then he ought to be Patur, even according to those who hold 'Yeshnah li'Shechitah .mi'Techilah ve'ad Sof' ...

Reason: Seeing as the end of the Shechitah is like cutting (a clod of) earth.

Question: Since the end of the Shechitah is Pasul, he ought not to be Chayav on the first bit, even according to those who hold 'Yeshnah li'Shechitah mi'Techilah ve'ad Sof '?

Source: As is implied in the second Perek of Chulin (Daf 29b) - where the Gemara asks from where a P'sul occurred (to the Parah Adumah) by the Shechitah, then, whether both before the P'sul and after it, the Shechitah does not render the Shochet's clothes Tamei ...

Source (cont.): By the Haza'ah then, before the P'sul, the Haza'ah renders the Kohen's clothes Tamei; after the P'sul, it does not. And if one holds 'Yeshnah li'Shechitah mi'Techilah ve'ad Sof ', why does the Tana not draw the same distinction by the Shechitah (as it does by the Haza'ah)?

Source (cont.): And the Gemara replies in amazement 'Are you asking from where there is a Kilkul in the Shechitah? Seeing as in the end the Shechitah became spoilt, it becomes revealed retroactively that it was n ot a Shechitah at all!'

Proof: And as for the Kilkul in question, Rabeinu Tam explains that it was not necessarily one that occurred in the actual Shechitah itself, such as 'Nocher or Me'aker' (where he tore it open or where he pulled out the Simanim) - but even if it became spoilt by work that he performed simultaneously with it ...

Source: Similar to the P'sul that occurred by the Haza'ah, which speaks with regard to a P'sul Melachah ...

Proof: Because otherwise, one could still ask that one should differentiate even by the Shechitah, by a case of a P'sul Melachah?

Question (concl.): In any event, we see from there even aaccording to the opinion that 'Yeshnah li'Shechitah ... ', should aa P'sul occur in the middle, the beginning of the Shechitah is not considered a Shechitah?

Answer: The Gemara could indeed have asked that Kashya here, only it concludes satisfactorally anyway.

Clarification: One can therefore present a discrepancy in Rebbi Yochanan, seeing as he himself says in Perek ha'Ish Mekadesh (Kidushin, Daf 57b) that 'Chulin she'Nishchatu ba'Azarah is d'Oraysa' ...

Clarification (cont.): And he learns it from a Pasuk.

Inference: This implies that if it ('Chulin she'Nishchatu ba'Azarah') was mi'de'Rabanan, it would justifiably be considered the owner's.

Halachah: That being so, one can deduce that the sacrifices of Avodah-Zarah are Asur be'Hana'ah min ha'Torah ...

Source: Since the Gemara asked earlier (on Daf 71b) why, according to Rebbi Meir, 'Shochet la'Avodah-Zarah is Chayav', seeing as the moment he Shechts the first bit, he renders the animal Asur, and as for the rest, he is not Shechting what belongs to the owner?

Refutation: It is possible however, to refute this proof - in that even if a sacrifice to Avodah-Zarah was Asur be'Hana'ah mi'de'Rabanan, it would be considered not his ...

Reason: Bearing in mind that the Chachamim forbade all types of Hana'ah, to the point that, even a woman that he betrothed with it is not Mekudeshes ...

Source: As we learned in the Tosefta of Kidushin (Perek 4) 'If someone betroths with Yayin Nesech or with Oros Levuvin (the skin of the heart of Avodah-Zarah that has been removed), the Kidushin is not valid, even if he betrothed her with the proceeds of their sale'.

Refutation (cont.): Whereas if one is Mekadesh a woman with Chulin ba'Azarah, assuming it is only mi'de'Rabanan, the woman is Mekudeshes - Therefore it is considered the owner's.

Refutation (concl.): Because at the end of 'ha'Ish Mekadesh' (Kidushin, Daf 58a) in connection with 'Chulin she'Nishchatu ba'Azarah', the Mishnah, quoting Rebbi Shimon, says 'Mekudeshes', and the Gemara asks 'So we see that Rebbi Shimon holds 'Chulin she'Nishchatu ba'Azarah La'av d'Oraysa?'

The Isur Achilah is Different: We can however, extrapolate that the Isur Achilah is definitely d'Oraysa from the Sugya earlier (on Daf 71a), where the Rabanan declare Patur someone who Shechts an animal to Avodah-Zarah because it is an unfit Shechitah' ...

Proof: And if the Isur Achilah was only mi'de'Rabanan, it would not be classified as 'an unfit Shechitah'.

Refuted Question: One cannot ask that if it would be Asur to eat min ha'Torah, that would have to be because it is compared to a Meis (Avodah-Zarah, Daf 29b) ...

Refuted Question (cont.): In which case, by the same token, it should also be Asur be'Hana'ah, like a Meis?

Refutation: Since the Torah writes "Va'yochlu Zivchei Meisim", they are only compared with regard to eating, but not with regard to Hana'ah.

Question: At the beginning of 'Chezkas ha'Batim' (Bava Basra, Daf 31a [See Tosfos, DH 'Amar Leih]) we learned that 'In the event that Reuven and Shimon claim that the field belonged to their respective father and that they ate the three years of Chazakah in the field ...

Question (cont.): And that if Reuven brings witnesses that it belonged to his father and that he ate the three years in the field, and Shimon, that he ate the three years of Chazakah ...

Question (cont.): Rav Nachman rules that two Achilos cancel each other out and we place the field in the Chazakah of Reuven's father. On which Rava asks that their testimonies are contradictory (and ought therefore to be negated)?

Question (concl.): But why is this considered contradictory - seeing as Rava holds here 'mi'Ka'an u'le'Haba hu Nifsal', in which case we ought to say, according to him that, on the Achilah on which they contradicted one another, they have been disproved, but on the father's ownership, on which they did not contradict one another, Reuven has not been disproved?

Precedent: Like in the case where the two witnesses who testified that Levi stole an animal and Shechted it, became Zom'min on the Shechitah ...

Precedent (cont.): Where, according to Rava who says 'mi'Ka'an u'le'Haba hu Nifsal', even though 'Toch k'dei Dibur ke'Dibur Dami' (See Mesores ha'Shas), since they only become Pasul from the time that they became Zom'min, on the Shechitah, on which they contradicted one another, they are Zom'min, but on the Geneivah, on which they did not contradict each other, they are not Zom'min, as is evident later

Answer #1: According to the reason that it is a Chidush, there is no problem (See Mesores ha'Shas).

Extension of Question: And the Kashya is confined to the reason of 'the purchasers' loss' ...

Reason: Since it does not seem that the Gemara mentioned exclusively 'purchasers ...

Reason (cont.): Since it does state that the difference between the two reasons is cases that do not involve purchasers.

Answer: According to the distinction that the Gemara draws there between the same testimony and a different one, the problem falls away ...

Reason: Because, since they have been proven to be liars on that land, they are no longer believed on it ...

Reason (cont.): Whereas in our case, even though they have been proven to be liars on the Shechitah, they have not been proven to be liars on the Geneivah ...

Reason (concl.): Which is not considered to be the same testimony.

Refuted Question: One cannot ask how Rava knows that they are believed to render the first witnesses Pasul, Why we do not say that one can only include the Chidush as it is - 'to do to them what they planned to do ... ', but not to render them Pasul ...

Refutation: Because seeing as they pay money or are put to death, how much more so do they become Pasul, since the Torah would not half-believe them.

Question: According to Rav Chisda, who says in 'Chezkas ha'Batim' (Bava Basra, Ibid. Amud b) 'Two pairs of witnesses who contradict one another 'What do we have to do with false witnesses?' ...

Question (cont.): The fact that they are Pasul is no Chidush? If anything, the fact that the Mazimin are Kasher is a Chidush according to him? ...

Question (concl.): And the Gemara there tries to establish Rava like Rav Chisda?

Answer #1: According to the attempt to establish Rava like Rav Chisda, Rava's reason is due, not to the fact that it is a Chidush, but to the purchaser's loss.

Answer #1 (cont.): And it is according to the outcome of the Gemara there, which establishes Rava like Rav Huna, who says 'Each pair can come independently and testify' that the fact that the first pair are Pasul is a Chidush.

Implied Question: And when Rava in Perek Kol ha'Nishba'in (Shevu'os, Daf 48a & 48b) explains the Mishnah in Rosh ha'Shanah according to Rav Chisda ...

Answer: It is not because he concurs with him.

Answer #2 (to original question): Alternatively, the fact that they are Vaday Pasul is a Chidush even according to Chisda.

Answer #2 (cont.): Since when it considers the two pairs of witnesses false witnesses, it is only mi'Safek ...

Answer #2 (concl.): And if two witnesses from outside were to testify that Reuven borrowed a Manah from Shimon, and one of those two contradicting pairs testified that he did not, we would not extract money from a Safek.

Answer #2 (concl.): Whereas the Muzamim are completely Pasul, even to rely on them to establish ownership over the money that a person already has in his possession.

Conclusion: That is why it is a Chidush; and it is in this regard that it is only from the time of the Chidush and onwards that they are considered Vaday Pesulin (See Mesores ha'Shas).

Implied Question: According to this, the Gemara could have established the difference (between the two reasons) as 'All Sh'taros regarding loans or business transactions that come to extract money, which are acceptable according to the reason of 'P'seida di'Lekuchos'.

Answer: Only the Gemara confines its list to differences that conform with the opinions of both Rav Huna and Rav Chisda.

Question: Why is it considered a Chidush at all? Why do we not believe them with a 'Migu' that they could have declared them Pasul, by testifying that they are thieves?

Question (cont.): And in the case of two pairs of witnesses that contradict one another, the latter pair ought then to be believed according to both Rav Huna and Rav Chisda?

Answer #1: The Ri explains that 'Migu' is only applicable to a single person, but not to two people ...

Reason: Since they are not of one mind, and what one of them intends to claim, the other one does not.

Answer #2: It also seems that this 'Migu' is somewhat similar to 'a Migu that contradicts the testimony of witnesses', since there are witnesses that counter the 'Migu' to disprove them.

Refuted Question: And the fact that there are also witnesses that conform with the 'Migu' makes no difference.

Answer #3: Furthermore, 'Migu' is no better than witnesses ..

Answer #3 (cont.): Consequently, if other witnesses who bear out their testimony will not help to disprove the second pair - based on the principle 'Two are as good as a hundred', how much more so a 'Migu'!

Implied Question: When the Gemara says in the second Perek of Kesuvos (Daf 18b & 19a) regarding 'Two witnesses who signed on a Sh'tar, and who claim that they were small children or that they were forced to sign ... ' that 'provided their signatures do not appear anywhere else, they are believed' ...

Answer: That is not a 'Migu' ...

Answer (cont.): But seeing as the Sh'tar is only verified via their testimony, it is a matter of 'ha'Peh she'Asar hu ha'Peh she'Hitir' ...

Source: As the Gemara says there in the same Perek (Daf 22b) in reply to the question from where we know 'Peh she'Asar' - Why do we need a Pasuk? It is a S'vara!'

Clarification of Sugya in Kesuvos: And in the case (Ibid.) of two witnesses who signed a Sh'tar and died, and along came two other people from outside and testified that they were children, forced or Pasul from testifying ...

Clarification of Sugya in Kesuvos (cont.): On which the Gemara rules there that assuming that their signatures appeared elsewhere, the latter pair are not believed, and it is a case ot two against two.

Chidush: We need to say that 'Pasul from testifying' that the Tana mentioned means that they are relatives (See Maharsha) ...

Reason: Because if they testified that that they are thieves, they would be believed even if they were still alive.

Conclusion: There are more answers to the question, but this is not the place to elaborate.

Clarification: It seems that if the Sh'tar was not seen until after the Hazamah, Rava will concede that we do not take it into account, even though the date precedes the Hazamah.

Reason: Because who's to say that these Muzamim did not write it later, inserting an earlier date?

Clarification (cont.): And when Rava says that the Sh'tar is not Pasul retroactively, that speaks specifically where it was seen before the Hazamah.