Previous daf

1)

(a) Rebbi Meir in our Mishnah, rules that if the Kohen burns the Kometz, but not the Levonah, with a Machshavah to eat the Shirayim the next day, 'Pigul ve'Chayavin Alav Kareis' - and the same applies in the reverse case?

(b) The Chachamim say ...

1. ... in the case of a regular Minchah - 'Ein bo Kareis ad she'Yefagel be'Chol ha'Matir' (i.e. 'Ein Mefaglin be'Chatzi Matir').
2. ... in the case of a Minchas Chotei or Kena'os - 'she'Im Pigal be'Kometz, she'Hu Pigul, ve'Chayavin Alav Kareis'.

(c) Similarly, Rebbi Meir rules that if someone Shechted one of the two Kivsei Atzeres with the intention of eating the two loaves or if he burned one of the Bazichin with the intention of eating the two rows of Lechem ha'Panim, the next day, the Pigul is effective. The Chachamim say - 'Ein Bo Kareis ad she'Yefagel be'Chol ha'Matir'.

(d) Finally, the Mishnah rules that in a case where someone Shechted one of the lambs with the intention of eating ...

1. ... it the next day - 'Hu Pigul, va'Chaveiro Kasher'.
2. ... 'Chaveiro' the next day - Sheneihem Kesheirim'.

(a) Rav establishes the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and the Chachamim in a case where the Kohen burned the Kometz bi'Shetikah and the Levonah be'Machshavah (i.e. 'bi'Levonah ve'Lo be'Kometz') exclusively, but not in the reverse case ('Kometz be'Machshavah u'Levonah bi'Shetikah'). In the latter case, even the Rabbanan will concede that it is Pigul, because of the principle 'Kol ha'Oseh, al Da'as Rishonah Hu Oseh' (when a person performs two consecutive acts, he has in mind to perform the second one along the same lines as the first).

(b) According to Shmuel however, they argue in both cases - and so does Rebbi Yochanan.

(a) When Rava repeated this Sugya, Rav Acha bar Rav Huna queried Rav from a Beraisa. After ascribing Pigul to a Machshavah during the Kemitzah, Matan K'li and Hiluch, the Tana cites the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and the Rabbanan, with regard to the Haktarah 'Nasan es ha'Kometz bi'Shetikah ve'es ha'Levonah be'Machshavah; es ha'Kometz be'Machshavah ve'es ha'Levonah bi'Shetikah. According to Rav, we try to amend the Lashon of the Beraisa to - 'u'K'var Nasan es ha'Levonah bi'Shetikah'.

(b) We reject the amendment on two scores however; one, that the Tana in another Beraisa, specifically said 'Achar-Kach'. The other - that if we accept it, there will no difference between the two cases cited by the Beraisa.

(c) To answer the Kashya on Rav therefore, Rav Chanina establishes the Beraisa 'bi'Shetei De'os' - meaning that there were actually two Kohanim involved, the one burned the Kometz the Kometz with a Machshavah and the other, the Levonah with Shetikah (where the principle ' ... al Da'as ha'Rishonah Hu Oseh' does not apply).

(a) We ask on Rav from another Beraisa. When the Tana says 'Bameh-Devarim Amurim, be'Damim ha'Nitnin al Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon' - he is referring to the fact that the Kohen creates Pigul with one Matanah on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon.

(b) The Tana continues that, regarding the forty-three Matanos on Yom Kipur that end with the Matanos on the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi, or the eleven Matanos on the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi of the Kohen Mashi'ach or of the Par He'elam Davar - 'Pigal bein ba'Rishonah, bein bi'Sheniyah u'bein bi'Shelishis, Ein Bo Kareis ad she'Yefagel be'Chol ha'Matir' ...

(c) ... and we do not apply the principle ' ... al Da'as Machshavah ha'Rishonah Hu Oseh' (a Kashya on Rav).

(d) Here too, we suggest that maybe the Tana is speaking by two De'os - by which we mean that the Kohen Gadol dies or becomes Tamei, and a second Kohen takes over from him.

(a) This is only possible however, according to those who hold "be'Par", 'va'Afilu be'Damo shel Par', by which we mean - that even if the Par became Pasul after it was Shechted, the Kohen Gadol nevertheless continues with the Avodas Dam (and it is not necessary to Shecht a second Par). By the same token, if the first Kohen Gadol died during the Avodah, the second Kohen Gadol would be able to continue with the Matanos, without having to bring another bull and begin again.

(b) Others however, hold - "be'Par", 've'Lo be'Damo shel Par'. According to them, that would not be possible.

(c) Rava therefore tries to establish the case where the Kohen Gadol was Mefagel by the first set of Matanos, silent by the second, and Mefagel again by the third - in which case, the Kohen Gadol has indicated that (in this case, at least) ' ... al Da'as Machshavah ha'Rishonah Hu Oseh' does not apply (because if it did, why would he have needed to specifically be Mefagel by the third set of Matanos?)

(d) Rav Ashi refutes Rava's answer on the basis of the fact that the Tana does not mention Shetikah in the middle of the Matanos, and he goes on to amend Rava's answer - by establishing the Beraisa when the Kohen Gadol was specifically Mefagel by the first and second sets of Matanos, but was silent by the third (which is still a case of Chatzi Matir). Here too, his Machshavah negates the principle ' ... al Da'as Machshavah ha'Rishonah Hu Oseh').

(e) We refute Rav Ashi's explanation too however - based on the Lashon of the Beraisa 'Pigal, bein ba'Rishonah, bein bi'Sheniyah, bein bi'Shelishis', since the term 'bein' used in each case, belies his explanation.

6)

(a) We learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Yeratzeh" (Kedoshim, in Kedoshim, in connection with Pigul) from "Yeratzeh" (in Emor, in connection with a Korban Kasher) - that, just as by a Kasher Korban, the Zerikas ha'Dam only 'atones' if all the Avodos were performed correctly, so too, does the Zerikas Dam following a Machsheves Pigul, only effect Pigul, if all the other Avodos were performed correctly.

(b) In the Beraisa that we just quoted 'Pigal bein ba'Rishonah, bein bi'Sheniyah u'bein bi'Shelishis, Ein Bo Kareis ad she'Yefagel be'Chol ha'Matir', Rebbi Meir holds 'Pigul, ve'Chayavin Alav Kareis'. The problem with this is - that since the subsequent Matanos were also performed with a Machsheves Pigul, how can the Pigul be effective?

(c) Rabah therefore establishes the Beraisa by four bulls and four goats - where after each Machsheves Pigul, the pertinent Matanos were completed, before the blood spilt and they had to take a second, third and fourth Par ve'Sa'ir (for P'nim, Heichal, Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi and Keranos).

(d) This solves the problem - inasmuch as each set of Matanos was completed correctly, thereby enabling the Pigul to take effect.

(a) Rava re-establishes the Beraisa by one bull and one goat. He maintains - that, since the subsequent Pesulim also constitute Pigul (and not another P'sul), the Zerikas ha'Dam will effect Pigul.

(b) We reconcile ...

1. ... the Beraisa which refers to forty-three Matanos (with regard to the Par ve'Sa'ir of Yom-Kipur), and the Beraisa which refers to forty-seven - by establishing the former according to those who hold that the blood of the Par and Sa'ir are mixed for the Matanos of the Keranos, and the latter, according to those who hold that they were placed independently.
2. ... the latter Beraisa with the Beraisa which refers to forty-eight - by establishing the former Beraisa like those who hold that pouring the Shirayim on to the Yesod of the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon is not crucial, and the latter, like those who hold that it is.

(a) We ask what the Din will be in the case of 'Pigal be'Holachah de'Kometz' - whether it is considered a Chatzi Avodah, since the Levonah too, requires Holachah (and it is therefore compared to 'Pigal be'Haktarah', which is also a Chatzi Avodah), over which the Rabbanan and Rebbi Meir argue, or whether it is considered a full-fledged Avodah, in which case even the Rabbanan will agree that it is Pigul.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan holds 'Holachah ki'Kemitzah', and it is a full-fledged Avodah, whereas Resh Lakish holds - 'Holachah ke'Haktarah', in which case it is not.

(c) At first glance, Resh Lakish's S'vara seems more sound than that of Rebbi Yochanan - because one cannot deny that the Levonah too, requires Holachah.

(d) Rava explains that, according to Rebbi Yochanan - any Avodah that is not Matir (because it is dispensable [such as Holachah] see Shitah Mekubetzes 4), can be Mefagel on its own (i.e. it does not fall under the category of Chatzi Avodah).

(a) Abaye queries Rava from our Mishnah 'Shachat Echad min ha'Kevasim Le'echol Sh'tei Chalos le'Machar; Hiktir Echad min ha'Bazichin ... ' - which is also a case of Chatzi Matir (of an Avodah she'Einah Materes), yet the Rabanan argue with Rebbi Meir, and hold 'Ein bo Kareis.

(b) To which Rava replied that it is the Shechitas Kevasim that sanctifies the Lechem (and not placing the loaves in the oven) - and whatever sanctifies, is considered a complete Matir.

(c) And he gives the same answer to Rav Shimi bar Ashi's Kashya from the Beraisa (in connection with the Shechitas Pesachim), where Acherim (Rebbi Meir) learns 'Hikdim Mulim la'Areilim, Kasher; Areilim le'Mulim, Pasul - meaning that if someone Shechted the first Si'man of the Korban Pesach for Mulim, and the second Si'man for Areilim, it is Kasher, but vice-versa, is Pasul.

(d) The Rabbanan say - either way, it is Kasher ...

(e) ... based on their ruling 'Ein Mefaglin be'Chatzi Matir, whilst Rebbi Meir holds 'Mefaglin ... '.

(a) There too, Rava concludes that it is the actual Shechitah which is Mekadesh (which is considered like being Matir). Abaye assumed that the blood on the neck of the Korban is Kadosh automatically.

(b) Abaye then queries Rava from the Beraisa that we cited on the previous Amud 'Bameh-Devarim Amurim, bi'Kemitzah, be'Matan K'li u've'Hiluch'. This Beraisa poses a Kashya on Resh Lakish, in that according to him, the Rabbanan consider Hiluch de'Haktarah a Chatzi Matir which is not Mefagel, yet here the Rabbanan agree that it is Pigul?

(c) So Resh Lakish ...

1. ... interprets 'Holachah' as - Hiluch de'Matan K'li, which a complete Avodah (seeing as, unlike Hiluch de'Haktarah), does not pertain to the Levonah (which was not subject to Kemitzah), and is therefore an Avodah Sheleimah.
2. ... amends the Lashon of the Beraisa, switching the order from ' ... u've'Matan K'li u've'Hiluch' to 'u've'Hiluch u've'Matan K'li'.
3. ... explains that when the Beraisa continues 'Aval Ba Lo Lehaktarah ... ' (when according to his text, the next Avodah in line is the Holachah that precedes the Haktarah, and the Tana ought to have said 'Ba Lo Leholachah') - the Tana refers to Holachah as Haktarah, because that is the purpose of the Holachah.

(d) And as for the Beraisa continuing 'Nasan es ha'Kometz bi'Shetikah', and not 'Holich es ha'Kometz ... ' - he has no answer.

(a) When we speak about 'Hiktir Shumshum Le'echol le'Machar ad she'Kalah Kometz Kulo', we mean - that the Kohen burned the volume of a Shumshum at a time, intending to eat a K'dei Shumshum of the Shirayim at a time the next day.

(b) The three opinions expressed by Rav Chisda, Rav Hamnuna and Rav Sheishes are - Pigul, Pasul and Kasher.

(c) When we try to establish the one who says ...

1. ... Pigul, like Rebbi Meir, we are referring to Rebbi Meir who holds 'Mefaglin be'Chatzi Matir'.
2. ... Pasul, like the Rabbanan, we are referring to the Rabbanan who hold 'Ein Mefaglin be'Chatz Matir', though it is Pasul.
3. ... Kasher, like Rebbi - who learned earlier that the halves do not combine, and that the Korban is Kasher.

(d) We reject this suggestion however, on the grounds that ...

1. ... Rebbi Meir might well concede here that *it is not Pigul* - because here, unlike in his case, the Kohen did not have in mind a Shi'ur of Pigul in one go.
2. ... the Rabbanan concede that *it is* - because here, he intended to burn the entire Matir.
3. ... Rebbi concede that it is Pasul - because, unlike in his case, where he had in mind to burn half the Matir and to eat half the Shiur Achilah, here, he supplemented the full Shiur on both counts.

1. ... Pigul is - because the Tana'im all consider both eating and burning in this way (bit by bit) a regular way of eating and burning.
2. ... Pasul - because although on the one hand, they consider it a regular way of eating, it is not a regular way of burning.
3. ... Kasher - because they consider it neither the one nor the other.