Previous daf

1)

(a) According to our Mishnah, Rebbi Yossi concedes, in a case where a Kohen performed a Kemitzah with the intention of eating the Shirayim or burning the Kemitzah tomorrow - that it is Pigul, and whoever eats it is Chayav Kareis.

(b) If however, the Kohen's intention is to eat the Levonah tomorrow, Rebbi Yossi holds 'Pasul ve'Ein Bo Kareis'. The Rabbanan maintain - 'Pigul, ve'Chayavin Alav Kareis'.

(c) When the Rabbanan ask Rebbi Yossi 'Mai Shanah Zeh min ha'Zevach' - they are asking why the current Halachah should differ from the case of a Kohen who Shechts a Korban with the intention of burning the Eimurin tomorrow, where we rule 'Pigul ve'Chayavin Alav Kareis'.

(d) Rebbi Yossi answered - that whereas the Dam, the Basar and the Eimurin are all considered an intrinsic part of the same Korban, the Levonah is not an intrinsic part of the Minchah.

(a) The Tana says 'Modeh Rebbi Yossi ba'Zeh ... ', based on his ruling in the Seifa. If the Tana had not said it, we might have thought - that Rebbi Yossi's reason is 'Ein Mefaglin be'Chatzi Matir', a reason which applies to the Reisha too (since the Levonah is as much a Matir, as the Kometz).

(b) According to Resh Lakish, Rebbi Yossi's reason is - because one Matir cannot render another Matir, Pigul.

(c) Similarly, said Resh Lakish, Rebbi Yossi said that one of the Bazichei Levonah cannot render the other one Pigul, either. He needed to say that, because we might otherwise have thought - that Rebbi Yossi's reason is because the Levonah is not of the same species as the Minchah, whereas the two Bazichin, which are of the same kind, can render each other Pigul.

(d) The problem with this is from our Mishnah, where Rebbi Yossi explicitly said 'ha'Zevach Damo, u'Vesaro ve'Eimurav Echad, u'Levonah Einah min ha'Minchah' - which seems to be the very reason that we just rejected (i.e. the components of the Korban are all part of the animal, whereas the Levonah is of a different species than the Minchah).

3)

(a) Rebbi Yossi is not saying what we just suggested. What he is saying is - that, seeing as (unlike the Eimurin, which can only be brought after the Dam, or the Shirayim, after the Kometz), the Levonah can be brought even before the Kometz, in which case it is a Matir, and a Machshavah on one Matir cannot render another Matir, Pigul (just as Resh Lakish said).

(b) Even though on principle, the Rabbanan agree that 'Ein Matir Mefagel Matir', that is only when the two Matirin are brought in two Keilim, but they will argue with Rebbi Yossi - there where the two Matirin are brought in one K'li.

(c) The Rabbanan agree with Rebbi Yossi - there where the Kohen Shechted one of the Kivsei Atzeres (the lambs of Shavu'os) with a Machshavah to bring the other one Chutz li'Zemano, in which case both lambs will remain Kasher.

(a) 'Likut Levonah' is - skimming the Levonah from off the Minchah, to burn on the Mizbe'ach.

(b) Rebbi Yanai rules 'Likut Levonah be'Zar, Pasul'. Considering that Likut Levonah itself is not an Avodah, Rebbi Yirmiyah explains - that he is Chayav because of 'Holachah' ...

(c) ... and Rebbi Yanai holds - 'Holachah she'Lo be'Regel Sh'mah Holachah' (see Shitah Mekubetzes 7)

(a) Rav Mari proves that Likut Levonah is indeed an Avodah, from the Mishnah in the first Perek which lists the four Avodos of a Minchah. Kometz, we learned, is equivalent to the Shechitah of a Zevach, Molich, to Molich, and Maktir to Zorek, the link between ...

1. ... Kometz and Shechitah is - the fact that both designate the portion of Hashem (the Kometz and the Dam respectively).
2. ... Haktarah and Zerikah is - that both constitute actually giving that portion to Hashem.

(b) Initially, we reject the suggestion that Nosen (Kometz) bi'Cheli is an Avodah because it is similar to Kabalah - since the former entails an act, whereas the latter is automatic.

(c) So we think, that what turns ...

1. ... Nesinas K'li into an Avodah - is the fact that it is indispensible, and that is why we compare it to Kabalah.
2. ... Likut Levonah into an Avodah is - because it too, is indispensable, and is therefore compared to Holachah.

(d) We reinstate our original suggestion (that Nosen bi'Cheli is an Avodah because it is similar to Kabalah) - on the grounds that the Pircha that we asked is unacceptable, since, seeing as both entail Kedushas K'li, what difference does it make whether there is an act or not?

(a) Rebbi Yossi rules that - if a Kohen Shechted the two Kivsei Atzeres having in mind to eat one of the loaves on the following day - that loaf is Pigul, whereas the second loaf is Pasul (but there is no Chiyuv Kareis for eating it).

(b) The parallel case he discusses is - if the Kohen sacrificed the two Bazichin with the intention of eating one of the rows of Lechem ha'Panim on the next day (on Sunday).

(c) According to the Rabbanan - both loaves are subject to Pigul (and Kareis).

(d) The Tana'im do not contend with the other Korbanos that are brought at the same time as the Sh'tei ha'Lechem (i.e. seven lambs, one bull and two rams) - because the Kedushah of the Sh'tei ha'Lechem depends on the Shechitah of the two lambs exclusively (as we will learn in Perek 'ha'Techeiles').

(a) Rav Huna rules that if the Kohen is Mefagel a Korban, having in mind to eat one of the thighs after the allotted time - the second thigh is not Pigul.

(b) He bases this on a S'vara and on a Pasuk. The S'vara is - that, presumably, Machshavah is no better than Ma'aseh, and if one thigh becomes Tamei, the other remains unaffected; likewise Machshavah.

(c) And he learns it from the Pasuk's use of the singular "ve'ha'Nefesh ha'Ocheles *Mimenu* Avonah Tisa" - "Mimenu", 've'Lo me'Chaveiro'.

(a) Rav Nachman queries Rav Huna from a Beraisa. He extrapolates from the Beraisa (in connection with the Sh'tei ha'Lechem) 'Le'olam Ein Bo Kareis ad she'Yefagel bi'Sheteihen bi'k'Zayis' - 'bi'Sheteihen In, be'Achas Lo'.

(b) The author cannot be the Rabbanan of Rebbi Yossi - because according to them, even if the Kohen is Mefagel only one loaf, it would cause both loaves to become Pigul.

(c) If the author is Rebbi Yossi, the problem with Rav Huna's statement is - that if even the two thighs are two totally separate entities, then certainly, the two loaves are, in which case, they could not possibly combine.

(d) On the other hand, even if the two loaves are able to combine, based on the fact that the two thighs are considered one entity, Rebbi Yossi in our Mishnah, is justified in ruling that if the Kohen is Mefagel the one loaf, the other one is not Pigul - since unlike the case in the Beraisa, the Kohen did not combine them.