Previous daf

1)

(a) Ravina asked Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak what the Din will be (vis-a-vis a Korban Oleh ve'Yored), according to Rebbi Yirmiyah and Rebbi Yossi Hagelili, in the case of a king who is stricken with Tzara'as. Generally, a king who is stricken with Tzara'as - is forced to abdicate his throne (as we shall see on the next Daf).

(b) 'Miftar Patur' means that he is only Patur as long as he is king, but becomes Chayav once his status changes; 'Midcha Dachi' means - that since he was Patur at the time that he contracted Tzara'as, he is not just Patur but rejected.

(c) When Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak replied 'Dilach O De'Gaza', he meant - that seeing as the Korban is purchased with the money belonging to the Nasi, he remains Patur, seeing as, losing his throne does not mean that he also loses his wealth (and the reason that the king is not subject to a Korban Oleh ve'Yored is due to his wealth, as we explained earlier).

(a) According to Rebbi Akiva, a Kohen Gadol is Patur from a Korban Oleh ve'Yored. He learns it from the Pasuk "Zeh Korban Aharon u'Vanav" - implying that the only Korban that a Kohen Gadol is obligated to bring is his daily Korban Chavitin, to preclude a Korban Oleh ve'Yored).

(b) We try to refute this proof however, by suggesting that the Torah only precludes him from bringing the Minchah that a very poor man brings - since after all, like the Chavitei Kohen Gadol, it comprised a tenth of an Eifah of fine flour (but not from that of Dalus [the bird Korban] and of Ashirus [the animal Korban]).

(c) We counter this suggestion by quoting the Pasuk "Ve'chiper Alav ha'Kohen al Chataso Asher Chata me'Achas me'Eileh" - from which we learn that whoever is Patur from one is Patur from the other,

(a) We have a problem with this however, from Rebbi Akiva in our Mishnah, where he ruled that, whereas a Nasi is ...

1. ... Chayav a Korban by Bituy Sefasayim and Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav, he is ...
2. ... Patur by Shemi'as Kol.

(b) Bearing in mind that the Pasuk there writes (in connection with the Nasi) "Ve'hayah Ki Ye'esham le'Achas me'Eileh", the problem is - why he did not Darshen there (by Nasi) that whoever is Patur from one of them is Patur from all three (like he Darshened by Kohen Gadol).

(c) Initially - we differentiate between "me'Achas" (which he does Darshen in this way) and ''le'Achas" (which he does not).

(d) We conclude that in the latter Pasuk, Rebbi Akiva explains "le'Achas" to mean that even if only one of the three applies, then the king is Chayav to bring that one. He would in fact, have Darshened "me'Achas me'Eileh" in exactly the same way, if it had been written by Dal or Ashir. However, because it is written by Dalei Dalus (in which it is similar to the Minchas Chavitin, as we explained ealier, and in conjunction with the initial D'rashah by Minchas Chavitin ["Zeh Korban Aharon u'Vanav"]).

(a) In the case of pure Shogeg, our Mishnah recaps that ...

1. ... by other Mitzvos, a Yachid brings a Kisbah or Se'irah, and the Nasi, a Sa'ir. The Kohen Gadol and the Beis-Din bring - a Par.
2. ... by Avodah-Zarah, a Yachid, a Nasi and a Kohen Gadol bring a Se'irah. Beis-Din bring - a Par for an Olah, and a Sa'ir for a Chatas.
3. ... a Yachid and a Nasi are subject to an Asham Taluy - whereas a Kohen Gadol and Beis-Din are Patur.
4. ... Beis-Din is Patur from an Asham Vaday - whereas a Yachid, a Nasi and a Kohen Gadol are all Chayav.

(b) Everyone agrees that Beis-Din are Patur from a Korban Oleh ve'Yored, and that a Yachid, a Nasi and a Kohen Gadol are Chayav for two of the three cases. Rebbi Shimon exempts the Kohen Gadol - from Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav ...

(c) ... and a Nasi from Shemi'as Kol (like Rebbi Akiva).

(d) According to the Tana Kama, those who are Chayav all bring a Korban Oleh ve'Yored. Rebbi Eilezer however - obligates a Nasi to bring a Sa'ir.

(a) Rebbi Shimon, in a Beraisa, presents 'K'lalim'. He equates a Nasi with a Yachid as regards an Asham Taluy. He equates a Nasi with a Yachid regarding an Asham Vaday. What does he say about a Kohen Gadol and Beis-Din?

(b) He exempts Beis-Din from Korban Oleh ve'Yored, and he obligates both a Nasi and a Kohen Gadol to bring it, though he exempts a Nasi from Shemi'as Kol and a Kohen Gadol from Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav - implying that a the latter is Chayav for Shemi'as Kol and Bituy Sefasayim.

(c) Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua reconciles this with the Seifa, where Rebbi Shimon equates a Kohen Gadol with the Beis-Din, who are Patur from all three cases of Korban Oleh ve'Yored - by establishing the latter by Dalei Dalus, and the former, by Dalus.

(d) Rebbi Shimon, we conclude, agrees with Rebbi Akiva in one point, and argues with him in another. In fact, he ...

1. ... agrees with what he says - that a Kohen Gadol is Patur from the Minchah of Dalei Dalus.
2. ... argues with him - when he exempts him from the Korban of a Dal (and of an Ashir) as well (as we just explained a little earlier).

6)

(a) Chizkiyah learns from the Pasuk "Ve'nichresah ha'Nefesh ha'Hi mi'Toch ha'Kahal" - that according to Rebbi Shimon in our Mishnah, a Kohen Gadol is Patur from a Korban for Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav), since he does not share the Korban of the Kahal on Yom Kipur).

(b) In that case we ask, by the same token, a Nasi should be Patur from a Korban too (seeing as he does not share the Korban of the Kahal throughout the year). We reply (bearing in mind that this Pasuk occurs in the Parshah of Yom Kipur) - that since he does share the Kahal's Korban on Yom Kipur, he is not precluded like a Kohen Gadol is.

(c) This leaves us however, with the Kashya, that Kohanim, who do not share in the Kahal's Korban on Yom Kipur either, should also be Patur from the Korban of Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav. We reject the suggestion that Kohanim are at least equal to the rest of the Kahal regarding other Mitzvos throughout the year - because a Kohen Gadol is, too (yet he is precluded).

(d) Rava finally amends Chizkiyah's Limud to read - that a Kohen Gadol is exempt from Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav because he is exempt from the Chet of the individuals of the Kahal (by S'tam Shigegas Ma'aseh [not on Yom Kipur, but) the whole year round (which neither a Nasi nor Kohanim Hedyotos are).

(a) Rebbi Eliezer in our Mishnah, obligates a Nasi to bring a Sa'ir for a Korban Oleh ve'Yored. Rebbi Yochanan restricts this ruling to Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav - which is Chayav Kareis be'Meizid, like cases of Chatas Kavu'a be'Shogeg (but not to Shemi'as Kol and Shevu'as Bituy - which are not).

(b) Rav Papa proves this from the fact that Rebbi Eliezer confines his ruling to a Nasi, because, if not for Rebbi Yochanan - he ought to have included a Kohen Gadol by Shemi'as Kol and Bituy Sefasayim.

(c) The reason that he does not at least include a Kohen Gadol by Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav is - because he holds like Rebbi Shimon, who exempts a Kohen Gadol from a Korban by Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav.

(a) Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua queried Rav Papa. Perhaps he asked, Rebbi Eliezer refers to all three cases of Korban Oleh ve'Yored (i.e. that a Kohen Gadol brings a Par), because he holds like Rebbi Akiva, who says - that a Kohen Gadol is Patur from a Korban Olah Oleh ve'Yored.

(b) To which Rav Papa replied that in any event, Rebbi Akiva did not exempt the Kohen Gadol from a Par - in which case, had Rebbi Eliezer concurred with his opinion, he should have added that to the Sa'ir of a Nasi.

(c) We conclude 've'Su Lo Midi' - from which it is clear that Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua accepted his answer.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan states - that Rebbi Eliezer concedes that a Nasi is Patur from an Asham Taluy (even though it is Chayav Kareis by Meizid just like a fixed Chatas).

(b) A Beraisa expert cited a Beraisa in front of Rav Sheishes (regarding a Nasi) 'Asham Taluy Ba al Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav' - because he is Chayav Kareis by Meizid, like a fixed Chatas.

(c) The author of this Beraisa must be - Rebbi Eliezer, who applies this S'vara to obligate a Nasi by Korban Oleh ve'Yored.

(d) The problem with this Beraisa is - that it does not conform with the previous statement of Rebbi Yochanan (in which case, the Beraisa has no author).

10)

(a) Our Mishnah rules - that a Kohen Gadol who sins and is removed from office, or a king who sins and abdicates - needs to bring a Par and a Sa'ir respectively.

(b) A Kohen Gadol who is removed from office and then sins still brings a Par, says the Tana. A Nasi in the same circumstances however - has the Din of a Hedyot (in which case he brings a Kisbah or Se'irah).