Previous daf

1)

(a) 'Eilim' in our Mishnah cannot refer to the Musaf of Rosh Chodesh and Shavu'os (like the Parim and the Kevasim) - because they only brought one ram (so the term 'Eilim' is inappropriate).

(b) The Parim, Eilim and Kevasim in Chomesh ha'Pekudim comprise the Musaf - whereas those in Toras Kohanim - comprise the set of Korbanos that accompany the Sh'tei ha'Lechem.

(c) Initially, we think that it cannot refer to the Korbanos in Toras Kohanim either - since the Torah writes there "Yih'yu Olah" (and 'Havayah' always comes to be Me'akev).

(a) We conclude that Eilim in our Mishnah refers to the Eilim in Toras Kohanim, and the Mishnah is coming to teach us that the Eilim in Toras Kohanim are not Me'akev those in Chomesh ha'Pekudim (nor vice-versa).

(b) There is no problem with our Tana referring to the Parim and the Kevasim even of the same set, but to Eilim specifically of different sets - since the Dinim of Parim, Eilim and Kevasim are not part of the same Halachah, but constitute three independent Halachos.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk "u'va'Yom ha'Chodesh ...

1. ... Par ben Bakar Temimim" - that if the Kohanim did find two bulls for the Musaf of Rosh Chodesh (as required), then they may bring just one.
2. ... ve'Shishah Kevasim" - that if they did not have the seven prescribed lambs, then they may bring six.
3. ... ve'la'Kevasim Asher Tasig Yado" - that in a case of emergency, they are even permitted to bring just one lamb.

(b) Nevertheless, the Torah writes "Shishah Kevasim", to teach us - that they must make every effort to bring as many of the prescribed lambs as possible.

(c) Whereas from "Yih'yu" we learn - that the bulls, the rams and the lambs are Me'akev each other (see Tosfos DH 'u'Minayin').

(a) The problem with the Pasuk "Koh Amar Hashem Elokim ba'Rishon be'Echad la'Chodesh Tikach Par ben Bakar Ve'chiteisa es ha'Bayis" is - that the bulls on Rosh Chodesh are brought as an Olah, and not a Chatas (as implied in this Pasuk).

(b) Rebbi Yochanan maintained that Eliyahu will solve this problem once the third Beis-Hamikdash has been built. Rav Ashi claimed that he had an answer. According to him - this bull was brought as a Milu'im (an inaugural sacrifice) on the eighth day after the completion of the second Beis-Hamikdash (in the same way as Moshe brought a goat as a Chatas, at the Milu'im on the eighth day after the completion of the Mishkan.

(c) We support this with a Beraisa, where, when Rebbi Yehudah made the same comment regarding the Pasuk in Yechezkel as Rebbi Yochanan, Rebbi Yossi replied - that the bull was brought to inaugurate the second Beis-Hamikdash.

(d) To which Rebbi Yehudah replied 'May Hashem set your mind at rest, just as you set my mind'.

(a) The problem that Rebbi Yochanan had with the Pasuk "Neveilah u'Tereifah Lo Yochlu ha'Kohanim" was - why this is mentioned here, seeing as Yisre'eilim are not permitted to eat Neveilos and T'reifos any more than Kohanim? Here too, he commented that only Eliyahu will be able to answer this question.

(b) Ravina explained that the Pasuk needs to mention this specifically with regard to Kohanim, whom we might otherwise have thought are permitted to eat Neveilah and Tereifah - seeing as they are permitted to eat Melikas ha'Of (which is in fact, Neveilah).

(c) Rebbi Yochanan, interpreting the Pasuk "ve'Chein Ta'aseh be'Shiv'ah ba'Chodesh me'Ish Shogeh u'mi'Pesi ... ", explained ...

1. ... ve'Chein Ta'aseh" to mean - that, should it become necessary, they should bring a bull as a Par He'elam Davar, just as they brought the bull mentioned previously.
2. ... "be'Shiv'ah" - even if only seven tribes (the majority of tribes, even if they do not constitute the majority of people) followed the ruling of Beis-Din ha'Gadol ...
3. ... "ba'Chodesh" - who issued a new ruling (forbidding something that is Chayav Kareis) ...
4. ... "me'Ish Shogeh u'mi'Pesi" - and the people acted be'Shogeg upon their ruling.

(a) When Rav Yehudah Amar Rav said 'May that man be remembered for the good', he was referring to - Chanina (or Chananya) ben Chizkiyah.

(b) Who was confronted - by the various problems in Seifer Yechezkel which we just discussed.

(c) In order to solve them - he took three hundred barrels of oil (as fuel) up to his attic, where he toiled, until he resolved all the difficulties.

(d) Rav praised him so highly - because, were it not for his efforts, they would have hidden the Book of Yechezkel.

(a) The problem Rebbi Shimon had with the Pasuk in Yechezkel "ve'Eifah la'Par ve'Eifah la'Ayil Ya'aseh Minchah ... " was - that the Minchah of a Par consists of three Esronim, whereas that of an Ayil is two Esronim. So how can the Pasuk equate them?

(b) He therefore learns from there - that it is preferable to bring one bull with its Minchah or one ram with its Minchah, rather than many bulls without their Menachos (as we learned in our Mishnah).

8)

(a) Our Mishnah rules that the bull, the rams, the lambs and the goat on Shavu'os are not Me'akev the Sh'tei ha'Lechem, nor vice-versa. Rebbi Akiva's next statement, that the Sh'tei ha'Lechem are Me'akev the lambs is not a contradiction to this - since he is referring to the two lambs that accompanied the Sh'tei-ha'Lechem, whereas the Tana Kama is referring to the seven lambs that were brought simultaneously, together with a bull and two rams.

(b) The lambs are not Me'akev the Sh'tei ha'Lechem, according to Rebbi Akiva.

(c) According to Rebbi Shimon ben Nannes, it is the lambs that are Me'akev the Sh'tei ha'Lechem, but not vice-versa - because, he says, during the forty years in the desert, they brought the lambs, but not the loaves ...

(d) ... because the Sh'tei ha'Lechem must be brought from the crops of Eretz Yisrael.

(a) After ruling like ben Nannes, Rebbi Shimon adds - that this ruling is not based on his reason.

(b) He states the principle - that whatever is mentioned in Chomesh ha'Pekudim (the Musafim) they brought in the desert, but not whatever is mentioned in Toras Kohanim (the Sh'tei ha'Lechem and the Korbanos that were brought together with them (whereas ben Nannes maintains that they brought the latter and not the former).

(c) And the reason that, according to Rebbi Shimon, one may bring the lambs without the Lechem, but not the Lechem without the lambs is - because the lambs are Matir themselves (to be eaten), whereas the Loaves need the lambs to be Matir them, and cannot be Matir themselves.

(a) Seeing as "Shiv'as Kevasim Temimim" implies that they can be brought independently (see Tosfos DH 'Shiv'as'), Rebbi Tarfon explains "Ve'hikravtem al ha'Lechem" to mean - that the lambs were not brought as long as the Loaves coould not be brought (i.e. in the desert).

(b) We know that the Korbanos mentioned in the Pasuk in Emor are not the same as those mentioned in Pinchas (which would mean that the Musafin were not brought in the desert) - because of the differences between them (one bull and two rams in the former, and one bull and two rams in the latter).

(c) Rebbi Tarfon therefore concludes - that although they did not bring the animals listed *in Emor* in the desert, they did bring those listed *in Pinchas*.

(d) And he knows that ...

1. ... the distinction extends even to the lambs, which are the same in both Parshiyos - because it would be illogical to distinguish between the lambs in Pinchas on the one hand, and the bulls and the rams on the other, seeing as they are all listed together.
2. ... all the animals in the two Parshiyos are not the same ones (and that the Torah did not simply give the Kohen the choice of bringing one bull and two rams or two bulls and one ram) - because the Torah also changes the order (from Kevasim, Par and Eilim in Emor to Parim, Ayil and Kevasim in Pinchas).

(a) Rebbi Akiva (in our Mishnah) learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Yih'yu" (Ve'heinif ha'Kohen Osam al Lechem ha'Bikurim ... Yih'yu la'Hashem") "Tih'yenah" ("So'les Tih'yenah" - that the Lechem is Me'akev the Kevasim.

(b) ben Nannes learns the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' learns from the Pasuk there (in connection with the animals) "Yih'yu Olah la'Hashem" that it is the Kevasim that are Me'akev the Lechem - because he prefers to learn "Yih'yu" from "Yih'yu" (rather than from "Tih'yenah").

(c) He does not contend with Rebbe Yishmael's principle 'Mah Hi 'Shivah', Mah Hi 'Bi'ah' (as long as the words in the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' are similar in meaning) - because that is only when there is no alternative.

(d) Rebbi Akiva counters that argument however, nevertheless opting to learn from "So'les Tih'yenah" - because he prefers to learn what is a Matanah to the Kohen (the Lechem and the Kevasim) from what is a Matanah to the Kohen (the Lechem) than from the Olos that go to Hashem.

(a) Alternatively, they argue over the interpretation of the Pasuk "Kodesh Yih'yu la'Hashem la'Kohen". When Rebbi Akiva says that it is the Lechem that goes entirely to the Kohen, he means - that the Pasuk obviously refers to it and not to the Kevasim, whose Eimurim go on the Mizbe'ach.

(b) ben Nannes objects to that - due to the fact that the Torah writes "la'Hashem la'Kohen", which he interprets as if the Torah had written "la'Hashem ve'la'Kohen", implying that it pertains to the Kevasim and not to the Lechem?

(c) Rebbi Akiva disagrees with him however - since, in his opinion, the Torah should then have written "la'Hashem ve'la'Kohen" (with a 'Vav').

(d) He therefore interprets the expression "la'Hashem la'Kohen" like Rav Huna - who explained (with regard to Gezel ha'Ger) 'Kan'o Hashem ve'Nasno la'Kohen', which is synonymous with the principle 'Kohanim mi'Shulchan Gavohah ka'Zachu' (the Kohanim eat as guests at Hashem's table).