Previous daf

1)

(a) We just established our Mishnah 'u've'Mukdashin' like the Tana who holds that the Isur of Gid ha'Nasheh applied to Yisrael before Matan Torah. That Tana is - Rebbi Yehudah later in the Perek.

(b) We also learned in our Mishnah that Gid ha'Nasheh applies to both legs, though Rebbi Yehudah will say (in a Beraisa) - that it only applies to the right one.

(c) When we establish one part of the Mishnah like Rebbi Yehudah, even though the other part holds not like him - we are really establishing it like a Tana who holds like him regarding one issue, but not regarding the other.

(d) We query that however, based on the fact that regarding the Chumra of 'she'Kein Isuro Noheg bi'Venei No'ach', Rebbi Yehudah is referring to its taking effect on a Beheimah Teme'ah, which is only a La'av - which he may well not hold with regard to taking effect on the Isur of Mukdashin, for which one is sometimes Chayav Kareis (i.e. if one eats them be'Tum'ah, or Pigul or Nosar).

(a) So we confine 'Mukdashin' in our Mishnah to a Bechor. That solves our problem - because even if Gid ha'Nasheh cannot take effect on other Kodshim, that is because we assume that they are Kadosh already when they are formed (and the Gidin only come afterwards, as we explained earlier). But a Bechor, is different, inasmuch as it is Kadosh only from birth.

(b) This answer is not confined to the Tana Kama, who holds 'Gid ha'Nasheh Noheg bi'Sh'lil - because even according to Rebbi Yehudah, who holds that it is not, both Isurim will take effect simultaneously, when the baby is born.

(c) Alternatively, we establish the Mishnah by V'lados Kodshim, like we tried to do earlier. However, the Tana would then have to hold - 'Kodshim be'Havayasan Hein Kedoshim' (that Kodshim become holy only from birth [like Bechoros], and not from the time that they are formed, as we assumed until now).

(d) The term 'be'Havayasan' is based on the Pasuk "Rak Kodoshecha Asher *Yih'yu* Lecha Tisa u'Vasa" - from which we learn that even the unborn fetus of Kodshim adopts the Kedushah of Kodshim.

(a) According to Rebbi Chiya bar Yosef, Gid ha'Nasheh is confined to Kodshim that are eaten (Chatas, Asham and Shelamim), but not to Olos. Rebbi Yochanan maintains - that there is no difference, and both are subject to Gid ha'Nasheh.

(b) Rav Papa explains that there is no Machlokes - because Rebbi Yochanan speaks with regard to Malkos, and Rebbi Chiya bar Yosef, with regard to bringing it on the Mizbe'ach ...

(c) ... which is not forbidden since the Torah forbids *us* to eat it, but not the Mizbe'ach.

(d) According to Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak however, Rebbi Yochanan does indeed argue. In fact, he holds - that it is even forbidden to bring the Gid ha'Nasheh on to the Mizbe'ach.

(a) According to other texts, Rav Papa says 'Ka'an Lechaltzo, Ka'an Leha'aloso', which means - that Rebbi Chiya bar Yosef permits bringing it on the Mizbe'ach still attached to the thigh, whereas Rebbi Yochanan is speaking when it has already been detached.

(b) And when Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak now says that they do in fact argue, he means - that according to Rebbi Yochanan, it is even a Mitzvah to remove the Gid ha'Nasheh from the thigh of the Olah before bringing it on the Mizbe'ach.

(c) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak's source lies in a Beraisa, which cites a Machlokes Tana'im. One Beraisa learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... in Re'ei "Ve'asisa Olosecha ha'Basar ve'ha'Dam" - that once the bones, the nerves, the horns and the hooves have been removed from animal, they are not brought on the Mizbe'ach.
2. ... in Vayikra "Ve'hiktir ha'Kohen es ha'Kol ha'Mizbecha" - that as long as they have not been removed, they are.

(a) The Tana Kama in another Beraisa Darshens from the Pasuk in Vayikra, that even if the bones and the nerves ... have been removed from the animal, they must be burned on the Mizbe'ach. And when he establishes the Pasuk in Re'ei by 'Pok'in', he means that - once they burst from the flames and fall off the Mizbe'ach, they are precluded from being returned to the Mizbe'ach.

(b) Rebbi is the author of the first Beraisa, - and that is how he Darshens the Two Pesukim (see Tosfos DH 'Pirshu').

(c) The Rabbanan decline to learn like Rebbi. According to them, the Pasuk in Vayikra cannot be coming to teach us that 'Mechubarin' do not need to be removed from the Mizbe'ach - since that is obvious (because they are no worse than the head of the Olah, which is brought whole on the Mizbe'ach, together with the many bones that it contains). Consequently, the Pasuk must be speaking about the bones and the nerves ... that fell off the Mizbe'ach.

(d) Rebbi counters that - by conceding that most bones (which are 'Mechubarin de'Heteira') do not require a Pasuk , only a Pasuk comes to teach us a Heter regarding the Gid ha'Nasheh which is still attached to the thigh (because it is Mechubarin de'Isura').

(a) The Rabbanan do not accept Rebbi's answer however - because, based on the Pasuk "mi'Mashkeh Yisrael" (which forbids bringing on the Mizbe'ach anything that is forbidden to a Yisrael), the Torah would not have permitted the Gid ha'Nasheh.

(b) And they refute Rebbi's counter argument, that it is no different than Cheilev and Dam, which the Torah also permits on the Mizbe'ach (even though they are not 'mi'Mashkeh Yisrael), in that - Cheilev and Dam constitute the main part of the Korban (whereas Gid-ha'Nasheh does not).

7)

(a) According to Rav Huna, the Kohanim would remove the Gid ha'Nasheh from the Olah and burn it on the Tapu'ach - an area in the center of the Mizbe'ach where they would pile up all the ashes (like an apple), before carrying it to the Beis ha'Deshen outside Yerushalayim.

(b) Rav Chisda argues - that the Torah forbids Yisrael to eat the Gid ha'Nasheh, but not the Mizbe'ach.

(c) Rav Huna counters Rav Chisda's Kashya - with the Pasuk "mi'Mashkeh Yisrael" (as we explained earlier).

(a) Another Beraisa relates how they would - remove the Gid ha'Nasheh of a Shelamim and throw it into the Amah (the stream that passed through the Beis-Hamikdash)

(b) It did not require burning because of Nosar - since Nosar only applies to parts of the Korban that are fit to eat.

(c) The other difficulty with the Beraisa is - that seeing as a Shelamim could be eaten anywhere in Yerushalayim, why does the Tana mention the Amah in the Beis-Hamikdash.

(d) To answer the Kashya, we might amend the text to 'Chatas ve'Asham' (instead of Shelamim). Alternatively, we might establish the Beraisa even with regard to a Shelamim - bearing in mind that the Gid ha'Nasheh ran along the Shok that was given to the Kohanim, who, in turn virtually lived in the Beis-Hamikdash (see Ya'avatz).

(a) Rav Huna explains the continuation of the Beraisa 've'shel Olah Ma'aleihu' to mean - that one takes the entire thigh together with the Gid ha'Nasheh on to the Mizbe'ach, and removes it only afterwards.

(b) This was necessary - because taking the uncut thigh on to Mizbe'ach is more esthetic, and, based on the Pasuk in Malachi, one should not present Hashem anything that one would not present a human king.

(c) We will rule like Rav Huna - because he has the support of a Beraisa.

(a) Rava comments on the Mishnah in Tamid, which states that sometimes, there was as much as three hundred Kur (nine thousand Sa'ah) of ashes piled up on the Tapu'ach - that it is a Guzma (an exaggeration).

(b) And he makes the same comment regarding the Mishnah there - which describes how they used to water the Korban Tamid from a gold cup (in order to facilitate the subsequent flaying [but why 'gold'?]).

(c) Rebbi Ami cites this Mishnah, as well as a Pasuk in Devarim, and a Pasuk in Melachim - to prove that we find Lashon Guzma in Torah, in Nevi'im and in the Lashon Chachamim.

(d) Rebbi Yitzchak bar Nachmeni Amar Shmuel refers to three cases of Chazal as 'Guzma', Tapu'ach, Gefen (shel Zahav) and Paroches. He does not include the case of watering the Tamid with a golden cup - because, based on the principle 'One does not feign poverty in a place where there is wealth', it would have been quite in order to have done that.

(a) The Gefen shel Zahav - was a golden vine arbor, on which anyone who donated a golden grape or a cluster of grapes, would hang it.

(b) Rebbi b'Rebbi Tzadok stated - that they once required three hundred Kohanim to clear it (which Shmuel refers to as a Guzma).

(a) In a Mishnah in Shekalim, Raban Shimon ben Gamliel in the name of Rebbi Shimon ha'Segan, describes the Paroches. It was a Tefach thick and was woven on seventy-two Nirin (part of the weaving loom, through which the individual threads passed). Each thread of the Paroches consisted of twenty-four individual threads. The Paroches itself measured - forty Amos (corresponding to the height of the entrance) by twenty Amos (corresponding to the width of the entrance between the Heichal and the D'vir.

(b) Besides the Paroches ha'Kodesh, the Paroches currently under discussion, might be referring to - the Paroches that was hung at the entrance to the Ulam (from the Azarah) for Tzeniyus.

(c) It consisted of eight hundred and twenty thousand threads. This number might also represent - the number of young girls who wove it.

(d) The Tana also informs us that they would manufacture two Parochos annually. Shmuel considers a Guzma - the Tana's concluding statement, that it took three hundred Kohanim to Tovel it.

(a) Our Mishnah, which ascribes the Din of Gid ha'Nasheh to both the right and the left legs. According to Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa - it pertains to only one of them.

(b) When he concludes 've'ha'Da'as Machra'as she'Hi shel Yemin', he means - either that this is indicated in the Torah (the ultimate Da'as [as we shall see later]), or that this is what he suggests (from a Safek) ...

(c) ... because when, in a wrestling match, Reuven makes Shimon lame, he probably did it by wrapping his right arm around Shimon's body until he reaches his right thigh and striking it.

(a) The Beraisa rules that bones, Gidin, and Nosar of a Korban Pesach - must be burned on the sixteenth of Nisan.

(b) The Tana is talking about - bones that contain marrow (otherwise they would not be subject to burning, as we explained earlier on the Amud).

(c) The problem with Gidin is which kind of Gidin the Tana is referring to. If they were ...

1. ... Gidei Basar - then they should have been eaten together with the Basar.
2. ... leftovers of Gidei Basar - then they are included in 'Nosar'.

(a) Rav Chisda therefore establishes 'Gidin' - as the right and left Gid ha'Nasheh, according to Rebbi Yehudah.

(b) We try to prove from here - that Rebbi Yehudah must be uncertain as to which Gid the Torah is referring (like the second side of our She'eilah), because if he was, then one ought to eat the left Gid, and throw away the right one (as we learned earlier on the Amud).

(c) Rav Ika bar Chin'na however, establishes the case even according to the first side of the She'eilah - where even though they originally knew which Gid was which, the two got mixed up, in which case, mi'Safek, they must both be burned.