Previous daf

1)

(a) We establish our Mishnah like Rebbi Meir (in a Beraisa). According to the Beraisa, the Chachamim in our Mishnah (who holds that if the Todah turns out to be a Ba'al-Mum, the loaves are not sanctified) is - Rebbi Yehoshua.

(b) According to Rebbi Yehudah there, the Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and Yehoshua concerns 'Chutz li'Mekomo'. They both hold that if the Todah turns out to be a Ba'al Mum - the loaves are not sanctified.

(c) Rebbi Eliezer compares Chutz li'Mekomo to Chutz li'Zemano (in which case, the loaves are not Kadosh), Rebbi Yehoshua - to a Ba'al-Mum (in which case, they are).

(d) After they had both voiced their respective opinions, Rebbi Eliezer commented - that they should inspect the cases and see to which of the two, Chutz li'Mekomo is more similar.

(a) Rebbi Eliezer learns P'sul Machshavah from P'sul Machshavah, rather than from P'sul ha'Guf. Rebbi Yehoshua nevertheless learns Chutz li'Mekomo from a Ba'al-Mum - because unlike Chutz li'Zemano) they are not Chatav Kareis.

(b) He then compares she'Lo li'Mekomo to - she'Lo li'Shemo, which is not Chayav Kareis, and in addition, is a P'sul Machshavah as well.

(c) Rebbi Eliezer's reaction to that - was to remain silence ...

(d) ... an indication that he conceded that Rebbi Yehoshua was right (and that he had retracted).

(a) In answer to the Kashya why Rebbi Meir does not consider 'Nimtza'as Ba'al-Mum' a P'sul Kodem Shechitah (like 'Nimtza'as T'reifah'), we establish the Mishnah like Rebbi Akiva, who holds 'Im Alu, Lo Yerdu' with regard to - 'Dukin she'be'Ayin' (eye's web), which is a temporary blemish that is not easily discernible.

(b) Rebbi Yehoshua counters this however. with the argument - that the fact that a Korban with eye's web is not taken down from the Mizbe'ach (Bedieved), does not mean that it will have the power to sanctify the loaves.

(a) If a Chatas is Shechted with a Machsheves she'Lo bi'Zemanah, 'Im Alsah Lo Teired' - because of the principle 'Torah Achas le'Chol ha'Olin, Im Alsu, Lo Yerdu' (and because it is effective in sanctifying the loaves).

(b) And the same will apply, says Rabah, to a Machsheves Chutz li'Mekomah. Rava holds - 'Im Alsah Lo Teired' ...

(c) ... like Rebbi Eliezer (who compares Chutz li'Mekomo to Chutz li'Zemano); whereas Rabah holds like Rebbi Yehoshua (who compares it to she'Lo li'Shemah [which does not sanctify the loaves]).

(d) We are forced to say that Rava retracted - since Rebbi Eliezer (the source of Rava's opinion) retracted, as we just learned.

(a) Our Mishnah equates the Din of the Minchah of the Milu'im (regarding 'Shachtah she'Lo li'Shemah') with the Lachmei Todah - and the same will apply to the Din by the loaves of the Eil Nazir in the equivalent case.

(b) According to Rav Papa, the Tana ought to have rather taught the Din by Eil Nazir - because it is more common than the Milu'im (which took place only once).

(c) Our Tana nevertheless preferred to present it by the Milu'im - because it took place first.

(d) Our Mishnah rules - that if Nesachim were sanctified in a K'li, and the Korban is subsequently discovered to be Pasul - then if another Korban is available, it should be brought together with the Nesachim; but if not, the Nesachim will become Pasul be'Linah the following morning.

(a) Ze'iri learns from the Pasuk "Zevach u'Nesachim" - that the Shechitas ha'Zevach sanctifies the Nesachim.

(b) The problem this creates with our Mishnah 'ha'Nesachim she'Kidshu bi'Chli ve'Nimtza Zevach Pasul, Im Yesh Zevach Acher ... ve'Im La'av, Yipaslu be'Linah' (assuming that it became Pasul with the Shechitah) is - that when the Zevach became Pasul, so did the Nesachim (so how can they be brought on the Mizbe'ach)? Alternatively, seeing as the Nesachim are not sanctified, why do they become Pasul be'Linah?

(c) We answer that it became Pasul with the Zerikah, adding 'like Rebbi' - who says that either one of two things that are Matir, can be Matir on its own.

(d) Here too - the Shechitah sanctifies the Nesachim, without the Zerikah (even though it too, is a Matir).

(a) We refute the suggestion that the author of our Mishnah must then be Rebbi however, establishing the Mishnah even like Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, and the Mishnah speaks when the blood spilled between the Shechitah and the Zerikah. In addition, we add, Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon then concurs with - his father Rebbi Shimon ...

(b) ... who says 'Kol ha'Omed li'Zrok - ke'Zaruk'.

(c) That will apply here - in that when the blood spilt it was Kasher. Consequently, at that moment it was as if the blood had been sprinkled (not to render the Korban Kasher, but to render the Nesachim still eligible to be brought with another Korban).

8)

(a) Rav Chisda - disqualified leftover Shemen of a Korban from being used for another Korban.

(b) Nevertheless, our Mishnah permits bringing the Nesachim of a Pasul Korban with another Korban - because of the principle 'Leiv Beis-Din Masneh Aleihen' (meaning that Beis-Din have stipulated at the outset, that Nesachim that are not used for one Korban can be used for another one).

(c) Beis-Din did not however, make such a stipulation with regard to the leftover Shemen - since it is more of an intrinsic part of the Korban for which it was designated, than the Nesachim.

(d) Beis-Din did not simply stipulate that the Nesachin should go out to Chulin - because that would cause people to jump to the conclusion that one can take Kodshim that have been sanctified in a K'li Shareis and use them for Chol (not realizing that Nesachim are sanctified by the Zevach (which became Pasul), and not via a K'li Shareis.

(a) To answer the Kashya that even now, people are likely to jump to the conclusion that one is permitted to bring the Nesachim of one Kasher Korban with another - Matisyah ben Yehudah establishes our Mishnah when a second Korban was already Shechted at the time that the first one became Pasul (and it looks as if the Nesachim were designated for it) thereby dispensing with the decree based on what people might say.

(b) We can extrapolate from there - that if no such animal was already available, then the Nesachim would be Pasul.

(c) When our Mishnah concludes 've'Im La'av, Yipaslu be'Linah' (when in reality, even if another Korban became available on that day and Linah would be avoided, it would be Pasul, as we just explained) - the Tana merely means to say that if no other Korban has already been Shechted, then it as if it has passed the stage of Linah, and is Pasul.

(a) According to the Chachamim, unblemished Korbenos Tzibur that are redundant, may be redeemed as they are. This refers either to the four lambs that remain in the Lishkas ha'Tela'im on Rosh Chodesh Nisan or - to Korbenos Tzibur that are found after having been lost and replaced (such as the Par ve'Sa'ir of Yom Kipur, over which Rebbi Shimon and the Chachamim argue in Shavu'os).

(b) The Chachamim's reason is - the principle 'Leiv Beis-Din Masneh Aleihem'.

(c) Rebbi Shimon forbids their redemption - as we learned in Shavu'os, where he prohibits the Kohanim both from bringing the Par ve'Sa'ir on Sukos or on Pesach, and from redeeming them.

(d) And we reconcile Rebbi Shimon there with Rebbi Shimon in our Sugya, whom we just established, holds 'Leiv Beis-Din Masneh Aleihem' - by pointing out that there (in Shavu'os) there exists the alternative of 'Re'iyah' (sending the animal out to romp in the field until it obtains a blemish, before redeeming it; whereas in our case, there is no alternative, and if not for 'Leiv Beis-Din ... ', the Minchah would have to be burned.

(a) Our Mishnah discusses the baby of a Todah, its Temurah and its Chiluf - meaning where the initial Korban got lost, but was found again after a replacement was designated.

(b) The Tana rules - that none of them require Lechem.

(c) We learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Im al *Todah Yakriv*" - that in the case of 'Chalifah', where both animals are standing in front of the owner, he brings whichever one he pleases together with the Lechem.
2. ... "Yakrivenu" - that only one of them (the first one) requires Lechem.

(a) "Im al Todah" comes to include - that the babies, the Temuros and the Chalifos of the Todah must be brought on the Mizbe'ach.

(b) We did indeed, just include 'Chalifos' - but that was when both animals were standing in front of the owner. Now we are speaking when he has already brought the second one by the time the first one is found.

(c) "Ve'hikriv al Zevach ha'Todah" then comes to preclude - the above from the Lechem.

(d) Rebbi Chananyah citing Rebbi Yochanan - qualifies the previous ruling to 'le'Achar Kaparah' after the first animal has been brought, but if it has not, then the V'lados, Temurah and Chalipin require Lechem (though exactly what he is referring to has yet to be clarified).