Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) A SOURCE TO PERMIT A "TREIFAH"

(a) Answer #5 (Rav Shisha brei d'Rav Idi): A Tzad ha'Shavah would permit a Treifah (therefore, the verse is needed)!

1. We could not learn from Melikah, for the Kedushah causes the Isur - Chelev and blood counter this (they are forbidden to people and may be offered, even though their Kedushah does not cause their Isur!)
2. Question: We could not learn from Chelev and blood, the rest of what (the animal) they come from is permitted, whereas a Treifah is totally forbidden!
3. Answer: Melikah counters this (it is Neveilah, which is totally forbidden to people)!
4. The question against each of these does not apply to the other; the Tzad ha'Shavah of both is that forbidden to people and may be offered - we learn from this to Treifah!

(b) Rejection: We cannot learn from the Tzad ha'Shavah, in each of them that is the Mitzvah!
(c) Answer #6 (Rav Ashi): The Kal va'Chomer itself (forbidding a Treifah to be offered) is faulty!

1. We cannot learn from a Ba'al Mum, for this is a Pesul even in Kohanim (but Treifah is not)!

(d) Question (Rav Acha Sava): Yotzei Dofen (one born through Caesarian section) refutes this - such a Kohen is Kosher for Avodah, yet it is permitted to people and may not be offered!
(e) Answer: We cannot learn from Yotzei Dofen, for a firstborn Yotzei Dofen animal does not receive Kedushas Bechor, whereas a firstborn Treifah does!
(f) Question: Ba'al Mum counters this (it receives Kedushas Bechor, it is permitted to people and may not be offered)!
(g) Answer: We cannot learn from Ba'al Mum, it is a Pesul in Kohanim!
(h) Question: The question against each of these does not apply to the other; the Tzad ha'Shavah of both are permitted to people and may not be offered - Treifah is forbidden to people, all the more so it may not be offered! (So why is a verse needed?)
(i) Answer #1: We cannot learn from the Tzad ha'Shavah, neither Ba'al Mum nor Yotzei Dofen is ever permitted (in Kodshim, where it is forbidden), but Treifah is permitted!

1. Question (Rav Acha brei d'Rava): In which case is Treifah permitted (but not Ba'al Mum or Yotzei Dofen)?

i. Suggestion: Melikah of Olas ha'Of makes it a Treifah, yet it is Huktar.
ii. Rejection: Regarding birds, also a Ba'al Mum may be offered - Zevachim must be unblemished and (sometimes) must be male, in birds we are never concerned for these!

2. Answer: Kohanim eat Melikas Chatas ha'Of, even though it is Treifah.

(j) Rejection: They eat from Hekdesh's table (and regarding Hekdesh, also Ba'al Mum (of birds) is permitted)!
(k) Answer #2: We cannot learn from the Tzad ha'Shavah, for the sources we learn from are known Pesulim (every Mum is visible, and people talk about a Yotzei Dofen, but some Treifos (such as a hole in the intestines) are not known (to anyone, until after slaughter));

1. Therefore, a verse is needed.

(l) Question: Other verses Posel Treifah!

1. "Mi'Mashke Yisrael" - Kodshim must be from things that (if they were Chulin would be) permitted to Yisrael.
2. (Ma'aser Behemah is taken from) "Kol Asher Ya'avor Tachas ha'Shavet" - this excludes a Treifah, which does not pass (properly, for it is weak).

(m) Answer: All three verses are needed:

1. If it only said "Mi'Mashke Yisrael", one might have thought to exclude only things which were never permitted, such as Orlah and Kilai ha'Kerem, but something that was permitted and became forbidden would be acceptable;
2. If it only said "Kol Asher Ya'avor...", we would say that one cannot Makdish a Treifah (to be Ma'aser or any other Korban), but if a Kosher Zevach became Treifah, it would be acceptable;
3. Therefore, it must also say "Min ha'Bakar".

(a) (Mishnah): Each of the following is Posel Minchas Chotei or any other Minchah:

1. Kemitzah was done by a Zar, Onen, Tevul Yom, Mechushar Begadim, Mechushar Kipurim, one who did not wash his hands and feet, Arel, or Tamei;
2. It was done while sitting, or standing on top of a vessel, Behemah or another Kohen's foot.

(b) If Kemitzah was done with the left hand, it is Pasul;
(c) Ben Beseira says, he returns the Kometz to the Minchah, and does Kemitzah again, with his right hand.
(d) If the Kometz included a pebble, grain of salt, or grain of Levonah (frankincense), it is Pasul;

1. This is because a Kometz that is too big or Chaser (lacking) is Pasul.

(e) (In Kemitzah, the Kohen inserts his middle three fingers into the Minchah and bends them back to his palm).
(f) A Kometz that is too big - some of the Minchah sticks out (to the right or left of the three fingers;
alternatively, some is between the end of one of these fingers and the palm);
(g) (Another case of) a Kometz that is Chaser - the fingers were curled, not extended.
(h) (Gemara) Question: The Mishnah could have said 'any Minchah' - why did it specify Minchas Chotei?
(i) Answer: This is a Chidush according to R. Shimon.

1. (Beraisa - R. Shimon): It would have been proper that Minchas Chotei require oil and Levonah, in order that a sinner will not 'profit' (pay less than one who bring a normal Minchah);

i. The Torah exempted it, in order that his Korban not be beautiful.

2. It would have been proper that a Chatas require Nesachim, in order that a sinner will not 'profit';

i. The Torah exempted it, in order that his Korban will not be beautiful.

3. One might have thought, since R. Shimon holds that the Torah does not want a sinner's Korban to be beautiful, if a Pasul did Kemitzah, it should be Kosher - the Mishnah teaches, this is not so.

(j) Question: If so, the corresponding Mishnah about Zevachim should also teach this!

1. It should Posel Kabalah of *Chatas Chelev* (or any other Chatas brought for a transgression) *or any other* Chatas (e.g. Yoledes or of the Tzibur) done by a Zar or Onen...;
2. This would be a Chidush according to R. Shimon (even though the Korban should not be beautiful, we do not Machshir Avodah of a Pasul!)
3. That Mishnah does not specify Chatas Chelev, it just says 'any Chatas' - apparently, saying 'any' without saying 'except for' teaches all cases;

i. The same applies here, since it says 'any' and does not list exceptions, without saying 'except for' teaches all cases;

(k) Answer: Here, the Mishnah must teach that R. Shimon admits:

1. Since the Reisha (the first Mishnah) is unlike R. Shimon (according to Rabah and Rava; Shitah Mekubetzes [32] - according to everyone, for it is Posel Lo Lishmah in Holachah), one might have thought that the Seifa is also unlike R. Shimon - therefore, it teaches that this is not so.

(a) (Rav): If a Zar did Kemitzah, he returns it (the Minchah is Kosher, a Kohen will do Kemitzah).
(b) Question: But the Mishnah said that a Zar is Posel!
(c) Answer: It means, it is Pasul until it is returned.
(d) Question: But R. Yehudah ben Beseira says this (surely, the first Tana argues!)
(e) Answer #1: All agree when the Kometz is intact that he returns it, they only argue when it is Chaser:

1. Chachamim say that he may not bring more from his house to complete the lack, R. Yehudah says that he may.

(f) Objection (Mishnah - R. Yehudah ben Beseira): He returns the Kometz and does Kemitzah again...

1. If all agree to this, and the argument is whether or not he may bring more from his house, R. Yehudah should say, he returns it, *brings more from his house* and does Kemitzah again...!

(g) Answer #2: Rav's law is like R. Yehudah.
(h) Objection: R. Yehudah explicitly says that he returns it (what is Rav's Chidush?)!
(i) Answer: R. Yehudah only said this regarding Kemitzas Smol (taken with the left hand);

1. One might have thought that other Pesulim cannot be fixed - Rav teaches, this is not so.

(j) Question: Why is the left hand different, that we would think that it is the only Pesul that can be fixed?
(k) Answer: Smol is used in the Avodah on Yom Kipur.
(l) Question #1: Also a Zar is Kosher for slaughter!
(m) Answer: Slaughter is not an Avodah. (Rashi - because a Zar may do it; Tosfos - because a slaughter of Kodshim *never* requires a Kohen, or because even Chulin requires slaughter.)

1. Question: It is an Avodah!

i. (R. Zeira citing Rav): If a Zar slaughtered the Parah Adumah, it is Pasul.
ii. (Rav): (We know this because) it says "Elazar" (i.e. a Kohen) and "Chukah" (which teaches that it is Me'akev.)

2. Answer: Parah Adumah is different, it is Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis (Avodah does not apply to them).
3. Question: If slaughter of Bedek ha'Bayis requires a Kohen, all the more so slaughter of Kodshei Mizbe'ach! (Rashba - the questioner misunderstood the previous answer to mean that slaughter of Bedek ha'Bayis is an Avodah that requires Kehunah, but we do not find this regarding Kodshei Mizbe'ach.)
4. Answer (Rav Shisha brei d'Rav Idi): Slaughter of Bedek ha'Bayis requires a Kohen just like seeing Tzara'as (to rule on it), even though neither is an Avodah.

(n) Question #2: We should learn from a Bamah (that a Zar is sometimes Kosher for Avodah, so surely Kemitzas Zar can be fixed, just like Kemitzas Smol!)

1. Suggestion: We do not learn from (the fact that something is Kosher on) a Bamah.
2. Rejection (Beraisa) Question: What is the source that if Yotzei (Eimurim that left the Azarah) came up on the Mizbe'ach, we do not take them down?
3. Answer: Because Yotzei is Kosher on a Bamah, it is not taken down from the Mizbe'ach.

(o) Answer: Really, we do not learn from a Bamah - the Tana really learns from "Zos Toras ha'Olah" that they are not taken down.

(a) Inference: Rav had to teach that R. Yehudah says that other Pesulim can be fixed, otherwise, we would have thought that they cannot.
(b) Question #1 (Beraisa - R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah and R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon): R. Yehudah ben Beseira says that all Pesulim can be fixed. (Tosfos - everyone already knew this Beraisa or the next.)
(c) Question #2 (Beraisa): "V'Komatz mi'Sham" - from where the Zar stands (Rashi - Ezras Yisrael, i.e. Tzafon is not required; Tosfos - it need not be where Hagashah is done (the southwest corner of the Mizbe'ach));

1. Question (R. Yehudah ben Beseira): What is the source that if Kemitzah was done with the left hand, he returns the Kometz, and does Kemitzah again, with the right hand?
2. Answer: "V'Komatz mi'Sham" - from the place where Kemitzah was already done.

i. The verse does not specify why Kemitzah was repeated, surely the same law applies to all Pesulim!

(d) Version #1 - Answer: Rav's Chidush is that R. Yehudah ben Beseira allows fixing the Pesul even after the Kometz was put in a Kli Shares - Tana'im argue about this.

1. (Beraisa - R. Yosi ben Yosi and R. Yehudah ha'Nachtom): (R. Yehudah ben Beseira says that) the Pesul can be fixed only before the Kometz was put in a Kli - after this, it cannot. (Rav holds like Chachamim who argue with these two Tana'im.)

(e) Version #2 - Answer: Rav's Chidush is that R. Yehudah allows fixing the Pesul only before the Kometz was put in a Kli, like the following Tana'im, unlike Chachamim.

1. (Beraisa - R. Yosi and...): The Pesul can be fixed only before the Kometz was put in a Kli Shares.

(f) Objection (Rav Nachman): Either way you say, this is difficult!

1. If these two Tana'im hold that Kemitzah Pesulah is considered Avodah, even if it was not put in another Kli, it cannot be fixed;
2. If they hold that it is not Avodah, even after it was put in another Kli, it can be fixed!

(g) Retraction (Rav Nachman): Indeed, it is Avodah - the Avodah is not finished until it is put in another Kli, (therefore, it can be fixed.)