Previous daf

1)

(a) To answer the Kashya on Rav Huna, we try to establish the Beraisa (neither like either Rebbi Yossi in the Mishnah nor like the Rabbanan, but like) Rebbi, who rules that if someone Shechts one of the Kivsei Atzeres with the (verbalized) intention of eating half a k'Zayis of each of the Sh'tei ha'Lechem, Chutz li'Zemano - the lambs are Kasher (because this constitutes only a half a Machshavah on half a Matir).

(b) We can infer from the Shochet's words - that if he were to say 'one k'Zayis from the two loaves', it would be Pigul.

(c) Bearing in mind the Machlokes between Rebbi Yossi and the Rabbanan, the problem with Rebbi's statement is 'mi'Mah Nafshach' - if Rebbi holds like the Rabbanan, then even a Machshavah on one of the loaves ought to suffice, whereas if he holds Like Rebbi Yossi, back comes the Kashya on Rav Huna (that we are currently trying to circumvent)?

(d) We answer by establishing Rebbi like the Rabbanan, and amending the wording (from 'Eino Chayav ad she'Yefagel *bi'Sheteihen*') to ' ... ad she'Yefagel bi'Sheneihem' - meaning, that the word 'both of them' refers, not to the loaves (where a Machshavah on one of them would indeed suffice), but to the lambs, because the Rabbanan hold 'Ein Mefaglin be'Chatzi Matir'.

(a) And the Beraisa comes to preclude from the opinion of Rebbi Meir, who holds - 'Mefaglin be'Chatzi Matir'.

(b) According to the Rabbanan (who hold 'Ein Mefaglin be'Chatzi Matir') Pigul is applicable to a case of 'ha'Kometz es ha'Minchah', even though it is not applicable to ...

1. ... 'ha'Maktir es ha'Kometz' - because whereas Haktarah pertains to the Levonah too (rendering the Kometz a Chatzi Matir), Kemitzah does not.
2. ... 'ha'Shochet Echad min ha'Kevasim' - because whereas the former is a complete Avodah (seeing as Kometz does not apply to the Levonah, as we just explained), the latter is only half an Avodah, seeing as both lambs require Shechitah.

(c) The current Beraisa opens with the word 'Le'olam' - implying that the Tana is coming to teach us a big Chidush, one which precludes from various opinions).

(d) In that case, the problem in establishing the Beraisa like the Rabbanan is - that the only Chidush lies in the word 'bi'Sheneihem', which comes to preclude from Rebbi Meir; whereas if we were to leave the Beraisa intact, and establish it like Rebbi Yossi (a Kashya on Rav Huna), then it would be coming to preclude from both Rebbi Meir (regarding 'Chatzi Matir') and the Rabbanan (regarding 'Sh'nei ha'Lechem').

(a) Furthermore, Rav Ashi queries our interpretation of the Beraisa (to accommodate Rav Huna), from another Beraisa, which discusses Parim u'Se'irim ha'Nisrafin.

1. Parim u'Se'irim ha'Nisrafin are Shechted - in the Azarah.
2. Their leftover blood is poured - on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon.

(b) Rebbi Elazar Mishum Rebbi Yossi rules in the case of a Kohen who Shechts Parim u'Se'irim ha'Nisrafin with the intention of pouring their blood on to the Yesod or of burning the Eimurim on the Mizbe'ach next day - that the Korban is Pigul (because a Machsheves Chutz by an Avodas Chutz is valid).

(c) If on the other hand, the Kohen ...

1. ... Shechts Parim u'Se'irim ha'Nisrafin with the intention of sprinkling their blood on the following day - the Korban will be Kasher, and the same will apply if he ...
2. ... sprinkles the blood of the same with the intention of pouring the Sheyarei ha'Dam on to the Yesod on the following day - because he does not consider a Machsheves P'nim during an Avodas Chutz and a Machsheves Chutz during an Avodas P'nim, to be valid.

(d) In the very first case, it cannot be the blood that becomes Pigul, because of a Mishnah in Zevachim - which states that only something that has a Matir (such as the Sheyarei Minchah, or the Eimurei and the Basar of Zevachim is subject to Pigul, but not something that is a Matir itself (such as the Dam of a Zevach).

(a) If, in the previous case, it is not the Dam that becomes Pigul, it is - the Basar.

(b) Bearing in mind that the author of this Beraisa is Rebbi Yossi, the Kashya on Rav Huna is - that if Pigul on the Dam extends to the Basar, then how much more so will it extend from one thigh to the other?

(a) Ravina asks a similar Kashya on Rav Huna from another Beraisa, where Rebbi Yossi concedes that if a Kohen performs Kemitzah on a Minchah, having in mind to eat the Shirayim or to sacrifice the Kometz on the following day - then it is Pigul, and whoever eats it is Chayav Kareis.

(b) This cannot refer to a person who eats the Kometz - because the same Mishnah in Zevachim, which precludes Dam from the Chiyuv of Pigul, also precludes the Kometz (which is also a Matir).

(c) It must therefore refer to the Shirayim.

(d) This proves - that two components of the same Korban, such as the Kometz and the Shirayim, the Dam and the Basar and certainly the two thighs, are considered one entity regarding Pigul.

(a) Having proved Rav Huna wrong, Rebbi Yochanan now explains the apparent discrepancy between Rebbi Yossi in our Mishnah, who considers the Sh'tei ha'Lechem as two entities, and in the Beraisa, where he combines the two as if they were one entity - by Darshening from two Pesukim that they do indeed contain both specifications: they are one entity, inasmuch as they are both crucial and that, by means of Machshavah, they combine to make a Shiur k'Zayis as regards Pigul, and they are two entities, in that without a Machshavah, one is not Mefagel the other.

(b) Rebbi Yossi learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Tavi'u Lechem Tenufah" - that the two loaves are one entity (see Tosfos DH 'ha'Kasuv').
2. ... "Shetayim, Sh'nei Esronim" - that they are two entities.

(c) Rebbi Yochanan learns to make the same distinction by the two rows of Lechem ha'Panim - from the Sh'tei ha'Lechem (because of their similarity).

7)

(a) When Rebbi Yochanan asks ...

1. ... 'Pigal be'Lachmei Todah Mahu', he means to ask - whether, seeing as the Lachmei Todah too, contain four different kinds of loaves, Rebbi Yossi will also argue with the Rabbanan, and confine Pigul to the one which the Kohen specifically had in mind, or whether here he will concede to the Rabbanan that it is all considered one Korban. And will explain his She'eilah ...
2. ... 'be'Ma'afeh Sanur Mahu', which contains two different kinds of loaves - in the same way.

(b) In response, Rav Tachlifa from Eretz Yisrael quoted Rebbi Yochanan a Beraisa, which states - 've'Chein Atah Omer be'Lachmei Todah, ve'Chein Atah Omer be'Minchas Ma'afeh'.

(a) The Beraisa rules that if a Kohen thought during the Shechitah to eat half a k'Zayis of Basar, and during the Zerikah, to eat another half - the Korban is Pigul, because Shechitah and Zerikah combine.

(b) Some say that the same will not apply to a Machshavah of half a k'Zayis by the Kabalas ha'Dam, and half, by the Holachah - because it is only Shechitah and Zerikah, which are both Matirin, that combine, but not Kabalah and Holachah, which are not.

(c) Others say - that Kabalah and Holachah combine too.

(a) We query all this from a Beraisa, quoted by Levi. The Tana states there the four Avodos, Shechitah, Zerikah, Kabalah and Holachah - do not combine to create Pigul.

(b) Rava establishes the first Beraisa like the Rabbanan, and the second, like Rebbi, who says - that if someone Shechted one of the Kivsei Atzeres, having in mind to eat half a k'Zayis of one of the two loaves, and the other Keves, having in mind to eat a half a k'Zayis of the other loaf - they do not combine.

(c) Abaye claims however, that Rebbi's ruling differs from the case in question - in that whereas the latter is a case of 'Kulo Matir va'Chatzi Zayis', Rebbi's is one of 'Chatzi Matir and Chatzi Zayis'.

(d) What makes Shechitah and Zerikah a complete Matir, more than each of the two lambs is - the fact that Shechitah is Matir the Dam, and Zerikah the Basar.

(a) Rava bar Rav Chanan attempts to answer this question on the grounds - that if Rebbi would hold Pigul by Kulo Matir, then he would decree a P'sul by Chatzi Matir.

(b) And he bases this on rulings by Rebbi Yossi and the Rabbanan - both of whom issue similar decrees, rendering Pasul cases that resemble those of Pigul.

(c) He proves from the opening Mishnah in the Perek ...

1. ... 'Lehaktir Levonasah le'Machar, Rebbi Yossi Omer Pasul ve'Ein Bo Kareis' - that Rebbi Yossi decrees Lehaktir Kometz di'Levonah on account of Lehaktir Kometz de'Minchah.
2. ... 'Pigal be'Kometz ve'Lo bi'Levonah, bi'Levonah ve'Lo be'Kometz ... va'Chachamim Omrim, Ein Bo Kareis ad she'Yefagel be'Chol ha'Matir' (implying that there is no Pigul, but that it is Pasul) - that the Rabbanan decree Kometz de'Minchah on account of Kometz de'Minchas Chotei, and Levonah de'Minchah on account of Levonah de'Bazichin.

(a) But Abaye rejects Rava bar Rav Chanan's Kashya. We explained why Rebbi Yossi decreed above in the case of the Kometz di'Levonah, and the Rabbanan in the case of Kometz and Levonah de'Minchah. The Rabbanan, in a Mishnah later, will issue a decree rendering Pasul a Machshavah on one Keves to eat the two loaves the next day, and on one Bazach, to eat the two rows of Lechem ha'Panim the next day - on account of the second Keves and the second Bazach.

(b) There is no reason though, for Rebbi to similarly decree in the case of Keves Echad and Chatzi Zayis - since there is no other case of Chatzi Matir and Chatzi Achilah which is subject to Pigul, on whose account he might decree.

(c) The Mishnah later concludes that the Rabbanan concede to Rebbi Meir that in the case of a Minchas Chotei and a Minchas Kena'os, Pigal be'Kometz renders the Minchah Pigul, and whoever eats it is Chayav Kareis. The problem with this statement is - that, seeing as there is no other Matir, it seems obvious that this is a standard case of Pigul, so why does the Tana find it necessary to mention it?

(d) However, the fact that the Tana deemed fit to mention it - proves that the Rabbanan's reason for rendering Pasul 'Pigal be'Kometz ve'Lo bi'Levonah' in the Reisha is due to a decree on account of a Minchas Chotei, as we just explained.

(a) If one of the Sh'tei ha'Lechem or of the rows of Lechem ha'Panim became Tamei, Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah rules that both loaves and rows must go to the Beis ha'Sereifah - because he holds 'Ein Korban Tzibur Chaluk' a Korban Tzibur cannot be divided into two; either the loaves are all eaten or they are all burned).

(b) The Chachamim - permit the Kohanim to eat the second loaf.

(c) Rebbi Elazar qualifies the Machlokes - Rebbi Yehudah will concede, he says, that in the event that the loaf became Tamei after the Zerikas ha'Dam, only the Tamei loaf is burned.

(d) Rav Papa establishes the basis of their Machlokes as to whether the Tzitz atones for Achilos (the Rabbanan) or not (Rebbi Yehudah). This means - that, according to the Rabbanan, the Tzitz worn by the Kohen Gadol atones for the Korban that became Pasul through Tum'ah, permitting the Kohanim to eat it, but not the loaf which is actually Tamei, since the Tzitz does not have the power to remove the La'av of Tum'ah.