Previous daf

1)

(a) In refuting Rava's proof (that Techilas ha'Tzihuv is an independent species), we establish the D'rashah from "min ha'Torim" and "min b'nei Yonah" to preclude Nirva and Ne'evad (a bird that was raped or worshipped respectively). The Tana says 'Nirva' and not Ro've'a - because Rove'a and Nirva refer to intimate relations between an animal and a human being, in which case, there is no such thing as Rove'a by a bird.

(b) Even though the Tana means to preclude 'Nirva' and 'Ne'evad', he nevertheless speaks about 'Techilas ha'Tzihuv' - by way of 'Asmachta' (though it is not clear why he then omits to mention 'Nirva' and 'Ne'evad').

(c) Tana de'Bei Resh Yishmael learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Ki *Hishchis* Kol Basar es Darko al ha'Aretz" - that 'Hashchasah' always refers to immoral acts.
2. ... "Pen *Tashchisun* Va'asisem Lachem Pesel" - that it refers to Avodah-Zarah, too.

(d) Mar said - that there is no 'Tamus ve'Zachrus' by a Korban Of (i.e. that a Ba'al-Mum and a female bird are Kasher, the latter, even for an *Olas* Of).

(a) We now try to learn from the Pasuk (in connection with Korbanos) "Ki Moshchasam Bahem Mum Bam" - that since a blemish does not invalidate a bird, neither will Ervah and Avodas-Kochavim (since they are both included in "Moshchasam").

(b) We reject this Limud however - due to the D'rashah "min ha'Torim" and "min b'nei ha'Yonah", as we already explained.

(a) A Palgas is - a lamb in its thirteenth month, which neither has the Din of a Keves nor of an Ayil.

(b) Rebbi Zeira asks whether - someone who initially undertakes to bring a Keves or an Ayil, and then brings a Palgas, is Yotzei or not.

(c) The She'eilah is confined to the opinion of bar Pada, but does not follow that of Rebbi Yochanan - who holds that a Palgas is an independent species.

(a) The Mishnah in Parah rules that someone who undertook to bring a lamb or a ram and brings a Palgas - must bring the Nesech of a ram (a third of a Hin of wine [four Lugin]), though he has not fulfilled his obligation.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan learns from the Pasuk "O la'Ayil" (in connection with the Nesachim) - 'Lerabos es ha'Palgas' (that someone who brings a Palgas is obligated to bring the Nesech of a ram), the source for the Mishnah's first ruling).

(c) This a proof - that Rebbi Yochanan must consider a Palgas an independent species (which is also the reason for the Mishnah's second ruling). Otherwise, why would he need a Pasuk to obligate the Nesachim of an Ayil, seeing as we have a principle 'S'feika d'Oraysa le'Chumra'.

(d) If it had been a Safek (bearing in mind that a Palgas might be a lamb) - the Noder would have had to stipulate that if it was a lamb, the difference between a third of a Hin of wine and oil and a quarter, would be a Nedavah (even though on its own, less than a quarter of a Hin cannot be brought as a Nedavah).

(a) bar Pada argues with Rebbi Yochanan's D'rashah from "O la'Ayil" - from which he learns something else, as we learned in Menachos).

(b) According to bar Pada, the additional Safek that the Mishnah might have (other than whether a Palgas is a lamb or a ram) is - whether it might not also be an independent species ...

(c) ... in which case, besides the possibility that the balance between a third of a Hin of wine and oil and a quarter should be a Nedavah, he would also have to stipulate that, if it is an independent species, the entire Nesech will be a Nedavah.

(d) The outcome of Rebbi Zeira's She'eilah is - Teiku ('Tishbi Yetaretz Kushyos ve'Ibayos').

6)

(a) Rebbi Zeira asked what the Din will be if someone who undertook to bring ten Chametz Chalos or ten Matzah Chalos, for a Korban Todah, brings Chalos that are Si'ur - which is a stage in the dough that is no longer Chametz but not yet Matzah.

(b) Rebbi Meir defines 'Si'ur' as when the dough turns pale. Rebbi Yehudah - as when cracks like grasshopper's antenna appear in it.

(c) The She'eilah cannot pertain to the Si'ur of ...

1. ... Rebbi Meir, according to Rebbi Yehudah - which is proper Matzah.
2. ... Rebbi Yehudah, according to Rebbi Meir - which is proper Chametz.
3. ... Rebbi Meir, according to Rebbi Meir - which is also Chametz (seeing as in his opinion, someone who eats it on Pesach is subject to Malkos).

(a) The She'eilah then, pertains to the Si'ur of Rebbi Yehudah, according to Rebbi Yehudah - who rules - that Si'ur on Pesach must be burned, but that it is not subject to Malkos.

(b) The problem that we had with establishing it according to Rebbi Meir, not apply to Rebbi Yehudah - because, seeing he exempts the eater from Malkos, he clearly does not consider it Vaday Chametz.

(c) The two sides of the She'eilah are whether Rebbi considers 'Si'ur' Safek Chametz, Safek Matzah (in which case the Noder is Yotzei 'Mah Nafshach'), or whether it is an independent species (and he is not).

(a) Rav Huna ruled that someone who undertook to bring 'Lachmei Todah' - must bring a Korban together with the loaves.

(b) Rebbi Zeira must therefore be referring to a case - where Reuven undertook to bring ten loaves to cover Shimon's Todah.

(c) The problem still remains however - that even if Si'ur is a Safek, it will leave Shimon in a dilemma what to do, seeing as he has no way of knowing whether he is still obligated to bring the ten Chametz loaves, or twenty of the thirty remaining Matzah loaves.

(d) So we establish the case where he said 'Harei Alai 'Yud' Chalos le'Todaso shel Peloni' - in which case Shimon is certainly not Yotzei, yet because Reuven said 'le'Todaso shel Peloni', he is not obligated to bring a Korban Todah together with the loaves that he brings.

(a) When, in the previous case, Reuven made the undertaking, he had in mind - to bring his Chalos together with those of Shimon.

(b) And the She'eilah is - whether Si'ur is a Safek (in which case he has fulfilled his obligation mi'Mah Nafshach) or an independent species (in which case he has not).

(c) Assuming that Si'ur is a Safek, and Reuven has indeed fulfilled his obligation - he must redeem the Chalos. The money, which goes to Nedavah, is used to purchase Chalos for another Todah.

(d) he outcome of the She'eilah is 'Teiku'.

(a) The Beraisa explains our Mishnah 'Kasher be'Parah, Pasul be'Eglah; Kasher be'Eglah, Pasul be'Parah' - with regard to the way they are killed. The Parah Adumah requires Davka Shechitah, and the Eglah Arufah, Arifah' (breaking its neck).

(b) We try to prove from a 'Kal va'Chomer' that Arifah should be eligible by a Parah from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Eglah - which is Kasher through Arifah, even though it is not Kasher through Shechitah. If so, Parah, which is Kasher through Shechitah, how much more so through Arifah.

(c) We refute this 'Kal va'Chomer however, by citing "Ve'shachat" and "Chukah" (in connection with the Parah Adumah), from which we learn - that Shechitah is crucial to the Parah (since that is what "Chukah" always implies).