Previous daf

1)

(a) We learn from the Pasuk "Lo Yasim Alehah Shemen ... ki Chatas Hi" - that a Minchas Chotei has the Din of a Chatas, and is Pasul she'Lo li'Shemah.

(b) According to the Beraisa quoted by a Beraisa expert, the leftovers (Mosar) of the Minchas Kena'os (of a Sotah) - go to Nedavah.

(c) The ramifications of ...

1. ... 'Mosar' are - that if after purchasing the barley for a Sotah's Minchah, there is money leftover, it goes to ...
2. ... 'Nedavah' - one of the boxes in the Beis-Hamikdash, which was used to purchase Olos Nedavah shel Tzibur, which were sacrificed during the long summer months ('Olos Kayitz Mizbe'ach'), when the Mizbe'ach was not in use.

(a) In response, Rav Nachman cited a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Avon" "Avon" (from Chatas). The Mosar ha'Chatas - goes to Nedavah.

(b) We learn from the Pasuk "Kesef Asham ve'Kesef Chatas la'Kohanim Yi'hyu" - that the Mosar ha'Chatas goes to Nedavah, to purchase Olos for the Mizbe'ach, and the skin goes to the Kohanim.

(c) He also learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Mazkeres *Avon*" from "Laseis es *Avon* ha'Eidah" (in connection with Chatas) - that a Minchas Kena'os is Pasul she'Lo li'Shemah (like a Chatas).

(a) We ask why, in that case, we do not invalidate an Asham she'Lo li'Shemo as well, from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' Ve'nasa *Avono* from "Laseis es *Avon* ha'Eidah". Initially, we try to answer this Kashya - by dismissing the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' by differentiating between "Avon" and "Avono".

(b) We refute this answer however, on two scores; one of them, because we could then learn "Avono" "Avono" from "Im Lo Yagid Ve'nasa Avono" (written in connection with the Chatas of Shemi'as Kol) - the other, based on the principle 'Zu hi Shivah Zu hi Bi'ah' (with regard to Tzara'as Batim [that we can learn a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' between two similar words, such as "Shivah" and Bi'ah", even though they are not identical])

(c) Initially, we reject the suggestion that the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' was only given (to Moshe at Har Sinai) to learn from it the Din of Mosar Nedavah - by citing the principle 'Ein Gezeirah-Shavah le'Mechtzah'.

(d) We ultimately settle the issue by citing the Pasuk in "Ve'shachat *Osah* le'Chatas" - which indicates that a Chatas she'Lo li'Shemah is Pasul, but not other Korbanos (such as an Asham).

(a) The problem the D'rashah of "Osah" now creates vis-a-vis Minchas Chotei and Minchas Kena'os is - that it also precludes them from the P'sul of she'Lo li'Shemah, so how do we know that they are indeed Pasul?

(b) We therefore learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Chatas Hi" - that a Chatas she'Lo li'Shemah is Pasul.
2. ... "Chatas Hi" and "Minchas Kena'os Hi" - that a Minchas Chotei and a Minchas Kena'os respectively, are Pasul she'Lo li'Shemah.

(a) We do not invalidate an Asham she'Lo li'Shemo, despite the fact that the Torah writes there too "Ve'hiktir Osam ha'Kohen ... Asham *Hu*" - because that speaks after the burning of the Eimurim ...

(b) ... and seeing as the burning is not crucial to begin with, performing it she'Lo li'Shemah can hardly invalidate it.

(c) And "Hu" teaches us the Halachah contained in a statement of Rav Huna Amar Rav, who rules - that an Asham (whose owner brought another Asham) that is sent into the field to graze (i.e. that is placed under the jurisdiction of a shepherd), and is then Shechted S'tam, is a Kasher Olah.

(d) He learns from "Hu" - that until it is actually given to the shepherd, it remains a Pasul Asham.

6)

(a) Rav declares a Minchas ha'Omer whose Kemitzah was taken she'Lo li'Shemah, Pasul - because it comes to be Machshir (permit Chadash), but fails to do so.

(b) Likewise, in the identical case concerning an Asham Nazir and an Asham Metzora - Rav declares them Pasul, for the same reason.

(c) We ask why, according to Rav - our Mishnah does not add Minchas ha'Omer to Minchas Chotei and Minchas Kena'os when it precludes them from the Menachos that are Kasher she'Lo li'Sheman.

(d) We answer this Kashya in two ways; one of them, that our Mishnah is only concerned with Korbenos Yachid, and not with Korbenos Tzibur; the other - that the Tana only deals with Menachos that are brought independently, not those (such as the Minchas ha'Omer) that are brought together with Korbanos.

(a) We also ask why, according to Rav - the Tana in Zevachim omits Asham Nazir and Asham Metzora from the Seifa of the Mishnah in Zevachim 'Kol ha'Zevachim ... Chutz mi'Pesach ve'Chatas'.

(b) And we answer - that the Tana omits Ashamos, since Asham Gezeilos and Asham Me'ilos are Kasher she'Lo li'Sheman.

(c) The basis to differentiate between Asham Nazir and Metzora on the one hand, and Asham Gezeilos and Me'ilos on the other is - the fact that whereas the latter come to atone, the former only come to be Machshir.

(a) Rebbi Yirmiyah bases this distinction - on someone who dies, leaving a Machshir and a Mechaper, in which case his heirs are obligated to bring the Mechaper, but not the Machshir.

(b) And he cites a Mishnah in Kidushin, which discusses a woman who gave birth and died after bringing either her Chatas or her Olah. The status of ...

1. ... her Chatas is - Machshir (since it permits her to eat Kodshim).
2. ... her Olah is - Mechaper.

(c) The Tana there rules - that in the case where she died after bringing ...

1. ... her Chatas - the heirs must bring her Olah.
2. ... her Olah - they do not bring her Chatas (which must die).

(a) Rebbi Yehudah b'rei de'Rebbi Shimon ben Pazi queries Rebbi Yirmiyah's answer however, from a Mishnah in Nazir. Although the Rabbanan forbid deriving benefit from money that has been designated for one's Korbenos Nezirus (Chatas, Olah and Shelamim), the Tana exempts someone who did so from Me'ilah - because all the money is fit to be used to purchase the Shelamim, which is not subject to Me'ilah, because it belongs to the owner, and is not Kodshei Hashem (except for the Eimurim after the Shechitah).

(b) If the Nazir died leaving money S'tam for his Korbanos, it all goes to Nedavah. If he specified the money, then the D'mei Chatas goes to the Yam ha'Melach. The Rabbanan forbade deriving benefit from it, but it is not subject to Me'ilah - because whatever stands to be killed or destroyed is not considered Kodshei Gavohah, and is not therefore subject to Me'ilah.

(c) The ...

1. ... D'mei Olah - goes to Nedavah, and is subject to Me'ilah.
2. ... D'mei Shelamim - is used to purchase a Shelamim, which can be eaten for one day (like the Din of Shalmei Nazir) but does not require loaves of bread (because it is not a Todah).

(d) The Tana does not mention D'mei Asham - because it is only a Nazir Tamei who needs to bring an Asham, not a Nazir Tahor.

(a) Rebbi Yehudah b'rei de'Rebbi Shimon ben Pazi asks from the D'mei Olah and the D'mei Shelamim - which are Machshirin, yet they are brought after the owner's death.

(b) Rav Papa explains that Rebbi Yirmiyah is speaking specifically about a Hechsher Kavu'a, whereas, based on a statement of Mar, the Olah and the Shelamim of a Nazir are considered a Hechsher she'Eino Kavu'a. Mar said - that someone who shaved on any one of the three Korbanos (Chatas, Olah or Shelamim) has fulfilled his obligation, and is permitted to drink wine.