Previous daf

1)

(a) Our Mishnah declares an animal of Kodshim that has a permanent blemish, subject to Bechorah and Matanos after it has been redeemed - provided the blemish preceded the Hekdesh.

(b) The Tana rules that ...

1. ... shearing its wool or working with it - is permitted.
2. ... the babies to which it subsequently gives birth and its milk - are permitted too.
3. ... someone who Shechts them outside the Azarah (even before it has been redeemed) - is Patur from Kareis (for Shechutei Chutz).

(c) This is different than 'Dukin she'be'Ayin', where one would be Chayav for Shechutei Chutz, if the Hekdesh had preceded the blemish - because it is not really Hekdesh.

(d) And he also rules that this same animal ...

1. ... cannot make a Temurah.
2. ... can be redeemed and fed to the dogs if it dies, even though it is unable to stand (because it does not require Ha'amadah and Ha'arachah).

(a) All this does not apply to - Bechor and Ma'aser.

(b) It does not apply to ...

1. ... Bechor - because it is sanctified by the womb as it is born, even if it is a Ba'al Mum.
2. ... Ma'aser - because the Torah writes in Bechukosai (in connection with it) "Do not distinguish between good (an animal without a blemish) and bad (an animal with one).

(c) All the above Halachos will not apply - if the Hekdesh preceded the blemish ...

(d) ... even if it had a temporary blemish before it was declared Hekdesh, and contracted the permanent one afterwards.

(a) The above are not subject to Bechorah or to Matanos, neither do they go out to Chulin to be shorn or to work with, even after they have been redeemed. The Tana declares them Chayav for Shechutei Chutz - before they have been redeemed.

(b) This latter ruling is extremely restricted, but does not apply to the vast majority of blemishes - because Shechutei Chutz only applies to animals that are fit to go on the Mizbe'ach (or at least to remain on the Mizbe'ach, as we shall see).

(c) The Tana's final ruling is that if they die, they must be buried. They cannot be redeemed - because any animal of Kodshim requires Ha'amadah ve'Ha'arachah, and a dead animal cannot stand.

(a) We learned in the Reisha that even where the blemish preceded the Hekdesh, the animals are only subject to Bechorah and Matanos once they have been redeemed, but not before - because Kedushas Damim is Patur from Bechorah and Matanos (just like Kedushas ha'Guf).

(b) We make the same observation regarding their going out to Chulin to be shorn or worked with, and we suggest that our Mishnah supports a ruling of Rebbi Elazar - who forbids the shearings of Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis and working with them.

(c) However, we refute the proof from our Mishnah for Rebbi Elazar - since it may well be that the Chachamim only decreed on Kedushas Damim, which one might come to confuse with Kedushas ha'Guf (which goes on the Mizbe'ach), but not on Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, which never goes on the Mizbe'ach.

(a) We learned also that their babies and their milk are permitted. The Tana cannot be referring to where the animal became pregnant and gave birth ...

1. ... after it was redeemed - because, seeing as it is Chulin, that is obvious.
2. ... before it was redeemed - because the Tana specifically said 've'Nifdu', implying that prior to the redemption, they are forbidden.

(b) In which case, the Tana must be speaking - when it became pregnant before the redemption, but was redeemed afterwards.

6)

(a) The Beraisa rules that the babies that are born to Ba'alei Mumin which were declared Kodshei Mizbe'ach - are sold (redeemed), even though they are not blemished (which would be a prerequisite by regular Kodshim).

(b) The Beraisa comes to resolve - the She'eilah whether babies that are born to Ba'alei Mumin can be redeemed without a blemish or not.

(c) The babies cannot be brought directly on the Mizbe'ach - because they were born from a rejected Kedushah (from a mother that was unfit to go on the Mizbe'ach).

(a) The reason the Tana gives for not requiring a blemish prior to the sale - is that 'the Tafel is not worse than the Ikar' (i.e. since the baby's blemished mother can be redeemed immediately, it can as well [as if it too, was blemished]).

(b) We can extrapolate from there that someone who is Makdish Kedushas Damim a male, unblemished animal (which does not come from a rejected Kedushah) - is Kadosh Kedushas ha'Guf, and cannot be redeemed without a blemish ...

(c) ... a support for Rava, who said precisely that.

(d) Rava mentioned specifically a male - because it is eligible to be brought as an Olah, and the majority of people donate Olos (see also Tosfos DH 'Hikdish').

(a) Our Mishnah exempts someone who Shechts a blemished animal outside the Azarah from Kareis. Rebbi Elazar's version of our Mishnah reads 'Chayav' - meaning Malkos, which he receives for Shechting a Ba'al Mum (even) on a Bamas Yachid.

(b) And he bases this ruling on another statement of his - where he explains the Pasuk "Lo Sizbach la'Hashem Elokecha Shor va'Seh Asher Yih'yeh Bo Mum" to refer to Shechting Ba'alei Mumin on a Bamas Yachid ('Im Eino Inyan le'Bamah Gedolah') at a time when Bamos were permitted.

(c) A Bamas Yachid is - a Bamah which any individual would build in his 'backyard' (such as that of Mano'ach, Gid'on and Shmuel). Whereas a Bamah Gedolah is - a public Bamah, as existed in Nov and Giv'on.

(d) He knows that the Pasuk is speaking about a Bamah Ketanah, and not a Bamah Gedolah - because we already know the prohibition by Bamah Gedolah from another Pasuk ("Averes O Shavur" [in Emor]).

(a) We query Rebbi Elazar in that perhaps the Pasuk is speaking about a Bamas Tzibur, and 'Im Eino Inyan le'Kodshim' it must be referring to a Bechor Ba'al Mum, which we might have thought is eligible to go on the Mizbe'ach (even though other Kodshim are not) - because Kedushas Bechor takes effect on it (which it does by most other Kodshim).

(b) We learn from the Pasuk "Pise'ach O Iver Kol Mum Ra, Lo Sizbachenu" - that a Bechor Ba'al Mum is disqualified from the Mizbe'ach.

(c) We make the same suggestion with regard to a. Ma'aser, and b. Temurah, both of which take effect on a Ba'al Mum. We learn from ...

1. ... the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Ha'avarah" "Ha'avarah" - that Ma'aser is compared to Bechor, in which case, like Bechor, it is not eligible to go on the Mizbe'ach.
2. ... the Pasuk "Ve'hayah Hu u'Semuraso ... " - comparing the Temurah to the original Korban, in which case, like the original Korban, it is not eligible to go on the Mizbe'ach.

(a) Finally, Rebbi Zeira asks why we cannot establish the Pasuk by a Bamah Gedaloh, and it comes to teach us that one cannot bring V'lados Kodshim on it - seeing as they too, became sanctified with a blemish (via their mother).

(b) And we answer by citing Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael, who discusses the Pasuk in Re'ei "Rak Kodoshecha ... ".. "Rak Kodoshecha", he explains, refers to Temuros, and "Asher Yih'yu Lach" - to V'lados

(c) From the fact that the Pasuk follows with "u'Nedarecha" - he extrapolates that Temuros and V'lados, like Nedarim (Korbanos that one vows to bring) may not be Ba'alei Mumin.

(a) The Pasuk writes in Bechukosai "Lo Yachlifenu ve'Lo Yamir Oso Tov be'Ra O Ra be'Tov". The problem with the dual ruling is - that if "Ra be'Tov" (an unblemished Chulin animal instead of a blemished Kodshim one) is forbidden, then it is obvious that "Tov be'Ra" (a blemished Chulin animal for an unblemished Kodshim one) certainly is, so why does the Torah see fit to mention it?

(b) Consequently - we interpret "Tov be'Ra" to mean that it is only an animal that was initially unblemished that can make a Temurah, but not one whose blemish preceded its Hekdesh.

(c) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav establishes our Mishnah, which permits Kodshim that were initially blemished and that died, to be redeemed, like Rebbi Shimon, who holds in a Mishnah in the fifth Perek - that Kodshei Mizbe'ach require Ha'amadah and Ha'arachah, whereas Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis don't.

(d) According to Rebbi Shimon, "Ve'he'emid *Osah* ha'Kohen comes to preclude - Kodshei Mizbe'ach whose blemish preceded the Hekdesh from the Din of Ha'amadah ve'Ha'arachah).

(a) The Chachamim say with regard to the latter ruling - 'Im Meisu Yikaveru' (because they too, require Ha'amadah ve'Ha'arachah).

(b) The Chachamim are alias Tana de'Bei Levi in a Beraisa, who says that an animal of Kodshei Mizbe'ach that is a Ba'alei Mum me'Ikaro, or that is a Chayah or a bird - are all subject to Ha'amadah ve'Ha'arachah ('Im Meisu Yikaveru').

(c) We actually ask what Tana de'Bei Levi will learn from "Osah" - a question which remains unresolved.

(d) The source for 'Ha'amadah ve'Ha'arachah' is the Pasuk in Bechukosai "Ve'he'emid es ha'Beheimah Lifnei ha'Kohen, Ve'he'erich Osah ha'Kohen".

(a) The problem, based on the fact that the Chachamim who argue with Rebbi Shimon concede that a Ba'al Mum me'Ikaro does not require Ha'amadah ve'Ha'arachah is - why, when Rav Yehudah Amar Rav said 'Zu Divrei Rebbi Shimon', he did not add the word 'u'Machlekuso'.

(b) And we answer that Rav holds like Resh Lakish, who explained that, according to the Rabbanan, Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis - are subject to Ha'amadah ve'Ha'arachah, whereas Kodshei Mizbe'ach are not.

(c) The problem with that is - the Seifa, where the Tana rules (in the case where the Hekdesh preceded the blemish [which is a case of Kodshei Mizbe'ach]) 've'Im Meisu, Yikaveru' (because it is subject to Ha'amadah ve'Ha'arachah.

(d) And we know that the reason in the Seifa is because of 'Ha'amadah ve'Ha'arachah', and not because of the principle 'Ein Podin es ha'Kodshim Leha'achilan li'Kelavim' - because if it had been the latter, the Mishnah would have said 'Im Na'asu Tereifah, Yikaveiru'.

(a) Alternatively, Rav holds like Yochanan's interpretation of the Chachamim of Rebbi Shimon. According to Rebbi Yochanan, the Rabbanan of Rebbi Shimon require Ha'amadah and Ha'arachah by both Kodshei Mizbe'ach and Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis.

(b) In that case, we will amend his statement 'Zu Divrei Rebbi Shimon' to read - 'Zu Divrei Rebbi Shimon u'Machlekuso'.