Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) A REMNANT IS "MACHSHIR" A "KORBAN"

(a) (Mishnah - R. Eliezer): Even if the Shirayim became Teme'im, were burned or lost, the Minchah is Kosher;
(b) R. Yehoshua says, it is Pasul.
(c) (Gemara - Rav): R. Yehoshua is Posel only when all the Shirayim became Teme'im - if some remained Tehorim, he is Machshir.
(d) We are thinking that Rav says this only regarding Tum'ah, not if they were burned or lost.
(e) Question: How does Rav hold regarding Shirayim?

1. If he holds that a remnant is significant, even if some was burned or lost and some remains, R. Yehoshua should Machshir;

i. If he holds that a remnant is not significant, even if some was Nitma and some remains Tahor, why is R. Yehoshua Machshir?
ii. Suggestion: He is Machshir because the Tzitz is Meratzeh.
iii. Rejection: If so, he should Machshir even if all became Tamei!

(f) Answer: Really, he holds that a remnant is significant;

1. Rav said his law regarding Tum'ah, the same applies if they were burned or lost - he merely mentioned the first case of the Mishnah.

(g) (Beraisa - R. Yehoshua): If a k'Zayis of the meat or Chelev of any Zevach remains, we Zorek the blood;

1. If a half k'Zayis of the meat and a half k'Zayis of Chelev of (almost) any Zevach remains, Zerikah is not done;

i. The only exception is Olah - since it is Kalil (entirely burned), meat and Chelev join.

2. Regarding a Minchah, even if it is totally intact, Zerikah is not done.
3. Question: Zerikah does not apply to a Minchah (Haktarah is not called Zerikah!)
4. Answer (Rav Papa): It refers to Minchas Nesachim - one might have thought, since it accompanies a Zevach, it is just like the Zevach (and if it remains, Zerikah is done to permit Haktarah of the Minchah) - the Tana teaches, this is not so.

(h) Question: What is R. Yehoshua's source?
(i) Answer (R. Yochanan): "(V'Zorak...Es ha'Dam...) v'Hiktir ha'Chelev l'Re'ach Nicho'ach..." - even if there is no meat, only Chelev, Zerikah is done.
(j) Question: This shows that Zerikah is done for the sake of Chelev - what is the source when there is only Yoseres ha'Kaved v'Shtei Klayos (other Eimurim)?

1. (Beraisa): Regarding a Minchah, even if it is totally intact, Zerikah is not done.
2. Inference: Zerikah is not done for a Minchah, it is done for Yoseres (ha'Kaved) v'Shtei Klayos (for these are part of the Korban)!

(k) Answer (R. Yochanan): "L'Re'ach Nicho'ach" - Zerikah is done for anything (Huktar) l'Re'ach Nicho'ach.
(l) The Torah must write "Chelev" and "l'Re'ach Nicho'ach":

1. If it only wrote Chelev, one might have thought that Zerikah is done for Chelev, but not for Yoseres v'Shtei Klayos;
2. If it only wrote l'Re'ach Nicho'ach, one might have thought that Zerikah is done even for Minchas Nesachim.

(a) (Mishnah): If the Kometz was not Mekudash in a Kli Shares, it is Pasul;
(b) R. Shimon is Machshir.
(c) If the Kometz was Huktar in two stages (half at a time), it is Kosher.
(d) (Gemara - R. Yehudah brei d'R. Chiya) Question: What is R. Shimon's reason?
(e) Answer #1 (R. Yehudah brei d'R. Chiya): He learns from "Kodesh Kodoshim Hi (a Minchah) ka'Chatas veka'Asham":

1. If the Kohen wants to Maktir the Kometz using his hand (without a Kli), like (Matanos Dam of) Chatas, he uses the right hand, like for Chatas;
2. If he wants to Maktir it using a Kli, like (Matanos Dam of) Asham, he may use the left hand, like for Asham.

(f) Answer #2 (R. Yanai): Once Kemitzah was taken from a Kli Shares (holding the Minchah), Ha'alah (bringing up on the Mizbe'ach) and Haktarah may be from the Kohen's belt, or from an earthenware vessel.
(g) Answer #3 (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): All agree that the Kometz must be Mekudash in a (second) Kli Shares. (After this, R. Shimon says that Haktarah need not be from a Kli Shares.)
(h) Question (Beraisa #1): Ha'alah and Haktarah of Chelev, limbs, wood, Kometz, Ketores and Levonah is Kosher, whether they were by hand or with a Kli, with the right or left hand.

1. This refutes R. Yehudah!

(i) Answer: When it says 'it is Kosher by hand', this refers to the right hand; 'with a Kli', it can be using the right or left hand.
(j) Question (against Rav Nachman - Beraisa): If Kemitzah was not from a Kli Shares, if the Kometz was not Mekudash in a Kli Shares, or if Ha'alah and Haktarah were not in/from a Kli Shares, it is Pasul;

1. R. Eliezer and R. Shimon are Machshir if the Kometz was put in a (Chulin) Kli.

(k) Answer: It should say, they are Machshir (Klei Chol) *after* the Kometz was put in a Kli (Kodesh).
(l) (Beraisa - Chachamim): The Kometz requires a Kli Shares:

1. The Kometz is taken from a Kli Shares, Mekudash in a Kli Shares, Ha'alah and Haktarah are with a Kli Shares;
2. R. Shimon says, since Kemitzah was from a Kli Shares, Ha'alah and Haktarah do not need a Kli Shares.
3. (This refutes Rav Nachman!)

(m) Answer: It means, since Kemitzah and Kidush were with Klei Shares, Ha'alah and Haktarah do not need a Kli Shares.
(n) (Beraisa - R. Eliezer and R. Shimon): If the Kometz was taken with the right hand and put in the left hand, it must be returned to the right hand;

1. If he had intent Chutz li'Mkomo or Chutz li'Zmano while it was in the left hand (Rashi; Shitah Mekubetzes - after doing Kemitzah with the left hand), it is Pasul, there is no Kares;
2. (Text of Shitah Mekubetzes, Birkas ha'Zevach): If he had intent Chutz li'Mkomo while it was in (Shitah - after doing Kemitzah with) the right hand, it is Pasul, there is no Kares; Chutz li'Zmano, it is Pigul, there is Kares.
3. Chachamim say, once he put it in his left hand, it is Pasul (it cannot be fixed.)

i. Question: What is the reason?
ii. Answer: The Kometz must be Mekudash in a Kli Shares (like Kabalas Dam in a Kli Shares) - putting it in the left hand is like blood that spilled on the ground (before Kabalah), even if it was gathered it is Pasul.

4. Inference: R. Eliezer and R. Shimon do not require Kidush Kli!

(o) This refutes Rav Nachman, and supports R. Yehudah.
(p) Suggestion: This also refutes R. Yanai (R. Shimon does not allow the left hand for Haktarah, all the more so a garment!)
(q) Rejection: Tana'im argue about this, R. Yanai holds like the simple understanding of Beraisa #1 (not like we explained to answer on behalf of R. Yehudah.)

(a) (Mishnah): If the Kometz was Huktar in two stages, it is Kosher.
(b) (R. Yehoshua ben Levi): In two stages it is Kosher, but not more than this;
(c) (R. Yochanan): It is Kosher in two stages, or even more than two.
(d) Question: Why do they argue?
(e) Answer (R. Zeira): R. Yehoshua ben Levi holds that a Kometz must be at least two k'Zeisim, and Haktarah must be at least a k'Zayis (since it is called 'Achilah');

1. R. Yochanan holds that a Kometz can be less than two k'Zeisim, therefore Haktarah can be less than a k'Zayis (since we have a source that Haktaras Kometz can be in two stages.)

(f) Question: When does Haktaras ha'Kometz permit eating the Shirayim?
(g) Answer #1 (R. Chanina): They are permitted after (any part of) the Kometz catches fire.
(h) Answer #2 (R. Yochanan): They are permitted when most of the Kometz catches fire.
(i) (Rav Yehudah): R. Yochanan learns from "V'Hinei Alah Kitor ha'Aretz k'Kitor ha'Kivshan";

1. A Kivshan (pit that houses a fire) does not make smoke until its majority is aflame.

(j) Question (against R. Yochanan - Ravin bar Rav Ada - Beraisa): We know that things normally offered all night, such as limbs and Chelev, may be brought on the Mizbe'ach and Huktar at night;

1. Question: What is the source Leha'alos and Lehaktir after sundown things offered during the day, such as a Kometz, Levonah, Ketores, Minchas Kohanim, Chavitei Kohen Gadol, and Minchas Nesachim?

i. Question: Ha'alah and Haktarah may not be after sundown, we said that they are offered during the day!
ii. Answer #1: Rather, the Beraisa asks, 'What is the source Lehaktir just before sundown, they will burn all night?'

2. Answer: "Zos Toras ha'Olah" is a Ribuy, it permits this.
3. Summation of question: If Haktarah is just before sundown, the majority will not catch flame before sundown! (If it is not considered Haktarah before sundown, it is Nifsal on account of Linah!)

(k) Answer #1: When the Kometz catches fire, this is considered Haktarah regarding Klitah (it is food of the Mizbe'ach, Linah does not apply to them), it is not considered Haktarah to permit the Shirayim until most of the Kometz catches fire.
(l) Answer #2 (to both questions - R. Elazar): The Beraisa refers to returning things to the fire after they flew off.
(m) Rav Dimi gave the same answer in the name of R. Yanai.
(n) Question: But R. Yanai taught that if Ketores came off the fire, even whole grains, we do not return them!

1. (R. Chanina bar Minyomi, son of R. Eliezer ben Yakov): "Asher Tochal ha'Esh Es ha'Olah Al ha'Mizbe'ach" - we return parts of an Olah (that flew off the Mizbe'ach), not Ketores.

(o) Answer: We must deletes 'Ketores' from the text of the Beraisa (Rashba - it is not returned, for it is not like Olah, it is not offered on the outer Mizbe'ach.)

(a) Question (R. Elazar): If the Kometz was put on the Mizbe'ach underneath wood of the Ma'arachah, what is the law?

1. Is this considered Haktarah or not?

(b) This question is not resolved.
(c) Question (Chizkiyah): If limbs (of an Olah) were put on the Mizbe'ach underneath wood of the Ma'arachah, what is the law?

1. This is not "Al ha'Etzim", it is invalid;
2. Or, since it also says "Asher Tochal ha'Esh Es ha'Olah Asher Al ha'Mizbe'ach", they may be on the wood *or* Mizbe'ach!

(d) This question is not resolved.
(e) Question (R. Yitzchak Nafcha): If limbs were put next to the Ma'arachah, what is the law?

1. The question is not according to the opinion that "Al" literally means 'on', surely he requires "Al ha'Etzim";
2. The question is according to the opinion that "Al" means 'near':

i. It suffices to put them near the wood;
ii. Or since the verse continues "(Al ha'Etzim Asher Al ha'Esh Asher) *Al* ha'Mizbe'ach", and there it means 'on', the first "Al" means 'on'!

(f) This question is not resolved.