Previous daf

1)

(a) We conclude that in fact, the entire Pasuk of "Lo Suchal Le'echol bi'She'arecha ... " is superfluous - because all the cases are mentioned earlier in the Pasuk "va'Haveisem Shamah, Oloseichem ... " ...

(b) ... in which case, to teach us Chutz le'Chomah, it would have sufficed to write "Lo Suchal Le'ochlam".

(c) The ramifications of this D'rashah are that by ...

1. ... each of the Korbanos - the extra Pasuk teaches us Malkos for eating them before the Zerikah.
2. ... Bikurim - a Kohen who eats them before Keri'ah will receive Malkos. All the other cases are forbidden but not subject to Malkos, as we explained earlier.

(d) Our Mishnah learns Malkos for eating Kodshei Kodshim outside the hangings of the Azarah - from "u'Basar be'Sadeh Tereifah Lo Socheilu, incorporating any Korban that left its prescribed borders.

(a) It would have sufficed to write "Lo Suchal le'Ochlam" to subject each of the La'avin to Malkos, and would not be considered a 'La'av she'bi'Kelalus' - since the Torah mentions each case independently.

(b) A 'La'av she'bi'Kelalus' will be - a case which is implied from the La'av she'bi'Kelalus, and not specifically mentioned in the Pasuk (see Sugya in Pesachim).

(a) We cited Rava who lists five Isurim by a Zar who eats a piece of Olah before the Zerikah outside the walls of Yerushalayim. He does not include the La'av of "ve'Zar Lo Yochal Ki Kodesh Heim" (written in Tetzaveh, in connection with the Korbonos of the Shiv'as Yemei ha'Milu'im, which were Kodshei Kodshim) in the list - because that applies only to Kodshim which a Kohen is permitted to eat (but not to an Olah).

(b) We learn from the Pasuk "u'Basar ba'Sadeh Tereifah Lo Socheilu" - that Kodshim that leave their prescribed borders become forbidden (as we just explained).

(c) Rava does not include this La'av in the list - because it only applies to Kodshim which would be permitted within their prescribed borders (but not to an Olah).

(a) Rebbi Eliezer Darshens from the Pasuk in Tetzaveh (in connection with Nosar) "Lo Ye'achel Ki Kodesh Hu" - that someone who eats Kodshim which became Pasul receives Malkos.

(b) Nevertheless, Rava does not reckon this La'av together with the other six - because it only pertains to Kodshim which were permitted before they became Pasul (but not to an Olah).

(c) Finally, we ask why Rava does not include the La'av of "Kalil Tiheyeh Lo Te'achel" (Parshas Tzav), to which we reply - that indeed he does, and that in fact, that is the basic La'av of Olah on which he was commenting.

5)

(a) Rav Gidal Amar Rav initially learns from the Pasuk in Tetzveh "Ve'achlu Osam Asher Kupar Bahem" - that a Kohen who ate from a Chatas ve'Asham before the Zerikah receives Malkos ...

(b) ... because, even though the Pasuk itself is an Asei and not a La'av - nevertheless, it implies that the Kohen may not eat it before the Kaparah, and a 'La'av ha'Ba mi'Chelal Asei (that one infers from an Asei) is a La'av'.

(c) We prove however, from the fact that the Torah writes in Re'ei "Ach es Zeh Lo Sochlu mi'Ma'alei ha'Geirah ... ", after having written "ve'Chol Beheimah Mafreses Parsah ... Osah Tocheilu" - that 'La'av ha'Ba mi'Chelal Asei, Asei' (because otherwise, the Torah would not have found it necessary to add the La'av [a Kashya on Rav Gidal Amar Rav]).

(d) In fact, we conclude, what Rav Gidal Amar Rav really said is that a Kohen who ate from a Chatas ve'Asham before the Zerikah does *not* receive Malkos because of "ve'Zar Lo Yochal Ki Kodesh Heim". And he extrapolates this ruling from the Pasuk "Ve'achlu Osam Asher Kupar Bahem" - which indicates that the Malkos of the previous Pasuk only applies after the Kaparah has taken place, which is after the Zerikah.

(a) Rebbi Elazar Amar Rebbi Hoshaya rules - that Bikurim that were separated before Sukos and left until after Sukos - must be left to rot.

(b) This is because, when they were designated, they were initially subject to the Mitzvah of Keri'ah, which can no longer be fulfilled after Sukos.

(c) We reconcile this with another statement of Rebbi Elazar Amar Rebbi Hoshaya, where he considers Hanachah as being crucial to the Mitzvah, but not Keri'ah - by establishing his previous statement like Rebbi Zeira, who holds 'Kol she'Einah Re'uyah le'Bilah, Bilah Me'akeves Bo' (which when applied to our case, means that even though Keri'ah is not necessary, there where it cannot be performed, it negates the Mitzvah). In that case, the reason that the Bikurim had to be left to rot was, not because Keri'ah would no longer take place, but because it could no longer take place.

(d) Rebbi Zeira ruled - that if someone brought sixty-one Isaron for his Minchah, he had to bring it in two vessels, because it is not possible to mix more than sixty Isaron in one vessel (even though the mixing itself was not crucial to the Mitzvah).

(a) Rebbi Asi asked Rebbi Yochanan from when the Kohanim are permitted to eat Bikurim. He replied that those that are subject to Keri'ah, from after the Keri'ah. By 'those that are subject to Keri'ah', he meant - before Sukos (which is the last time for Keri'ah).

(b) Regarding Bikurim that are not subject to Keri'ah (after Sukos), Rebbi Yochanan ruled - that the Kohen may eat them as soon as they enter the Azarah.

(c) Rav Acha bar Ya'akov cited the statement that Hanachah is crucial to the Mitzvah, but not Keri'ah, in the name of Rebbi Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan. This creates a double S'tirah - since in his ruling to Rebbi Asi, he goes after Keri'ah and not after Hanachah.

(a) In fact, we conclude, we are dealing here with two Machlokos Tana'im. To answer the Kashya 'Keri'ah a'Keri'ah', we establish Rebbi Yochanan's ...

1. ... latter ruling - like Rebbi Shimon, who considers Keri'ah crucial to the Mitzvah of Bikurim (as we learned above).
2. ... earlier statement - which does not, like the Rabbanan (of Rebbi Shimon).

(b) To answer the Kashya 'Hanachah a'Hanachah', we establish Rebbi Yochanan's statement which considers Hanachah crucial to the Mitzvah of Bikurim, like the Rabbanan of Rebbi Yehudah - who learn this from the repetition of Hanachah ("Vehinachto Lifnei Hashem Elokecha" and "Vehinicho Lifnei Mizbach Hashem ... "), which in the realm of Kodshim, denotes Ikuv (meaning that it is crucial).

(c) Despite the fact that the Torah writes 'Hanachah' twice, Rebbi Yehudah disagrees with the Rabbanan - because, according to him, "Vehinachto" does not come to make Hanachah Me'akev, but to require Tenufah (the obligation to wave the Bikurim in all directions).

(d) According to Rebbi Yehudah, the word "Vehinachto" then means - "and he will lead it".

(a) We establish the Rabbanan of Rebbi Yehudah as Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, who learns from the Pasuk "Velakach ha'Kohen ha'Tene *mi'Yadecha*" - that Bikurim require Tenufah (and not from the repetition of Hanachah, like Rebbi Yehudah).

(b) Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov learns that "mi'Yadecha" refers to Tenufah - from the Gezeirah-Shavah "Yad" "Yad" from Shelamim in Parshas Tzav.

(c) We learn from our Parshah that Tenufah requires the Kohen's participation by a Shelamim, too, and from Shelamim - that the owner must participate by Bikurim, as well.

(d) To combine the two D'rashos - we require the Kohen to place his hand below that of the owner, and they wave it together, both by Shelamim and by Bikurim.