Previous daf

1)

(a) Even though the Kohanim who ate the goat raw were Alexandri'im, as Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan explained, the Tana nevertheless refers to them as Bavli'im - because the Yerushalmim disliked the Bavli'im (so they would refer to whoever had bad habits, as a Bavli [see Tosfos DH 'she'Son'in').

(b) And we support this with Rebbi Yossi in a Beraisa. When Rebbi Yehudah acknowledged Rebbi Yossi's statement with 'Tanu'ach Da'atcha she'Hinachta Da'ati', he meant - that he was grateful to him for attributing this bad habit to the Alexandri'im and not to the Bavli'im, since his family were from Bavel.

(a) Our Mishnah renders Pasul the Avodah, in a case where they arranged the Bazichin only on Motza'ei Shabbos (even if the Lechem ha'Panim were in place already on Shabbos), if the Kohen then burned the Bazichin on the following Shabbos - because, seeing as they were only arranged on the Shulchan after Shabbos, they are premature until the Shabbos after.

(b) The Tana adds that Pigul, Nosar and Tamei will not apply in this case. By 'Pigul', he means - that the Kohen burned the Bazichin with the intention of eating the Lechem the following day.

(c) Pigul is not applicable - because the Matir (the Bazichin) was not brought in the prescribed way ('she'Lo Kirev ha'Matir ke'Mitzvaso').

(d) The Lechem is not subject to ...

1. ... Nosar - because whatever is not edible, is not subject to Nosar.
2. ... Tumah (i.e. Kareis for eating it be'Tum'as ha'Guf) - because one is only Chayav Kareis for eating be'Tum'ah something that can be eaten be'Taharah.

(a) For the Avodas ha'Bazichin and the Lechem ha'Panim to be Kasher - the Kohanim should leave the loaves on the Shulchan until the second Shabbos ...

(b) ... the Lechem ha'Panim cannot become Pasul be'Linah, until they have spent two Shabbasos on the Shulchan.

(a) The Mishnah in Tamid discusses the time of the Shechitas ha'Tamid. 'Barkai' (meaning 'it has become day') was said - by any Kohen who, in response to the Memuneh [officer]'s question whether the time to Shecht the Tamid had arrived, would climb up on to the roof and ascertain that it had.

(b) Matisya ben Shmuel (the Menuneh in his time) would ask on Yom Kippur whether the first rays of the sun had reached as far as Chevron. He mentioned Chevron - in order to evoke the Z'chus Avos on that auspicious day.

(c) This entire ceremony became necessary - when, mistaking the light of the moon for the first rays of the sun, they once Shechted the Tamid too early, and subsequently had to send it to the Beis ha'Sereifah.

(d) They then sent the Kohen Gadol to Tovel a second time, as the Sugya explains in Yoma. Based on the K'lal in the Beis-Hamikdash - whoever relieved himself li'Gedolim, required Tevilah, li'Ketanim, needed to perform only Kidush Yadayim ve'Raglayim.

(a) The father of Rebbi Avin cited a Beraisa. The Tana there rules that an Olas ha'Of on which a Kohen performed Melikah and a Minchah on which he performed Kemitzah at night time - are Pasul.

(b) Olas ha'Of presents no problem, because once it is Shechted, there is nothing that can be done to bring it back to life. The problem with the Beraisa's second Halachah regarding the Minchah is - why it is not possible to return the Kemitzah to the Shirayim and to repeat the Kemitzah after daybreak.

(c) Rebbi Avin's father, who asked the Kashya, answered it - with the principle 'K'lei Shareis Mekadshin she'Lo bi'Zemanan'.

(a) We query Avuhah de'Rebbi Avin's answer however, from a Beraisa, where the Tana rules that whatever is brought ...

1. ... by day - is sanctified by day.
2. ... by night - is sanctified by night.

(b) The Minchas Nesachim - can be sacrificed by night.

(c) We can extrapolate from the Beraisa's first statement that 'ba'Yom In, ba'Laylah Lo' (a Kashya on Avuhah de'Rebbi Avin's answer). We reconcile them - by differentiating between whether they are being sanctified to be brought on the Mizbe'ach (the latter Beraisa), or to become Pasul (Avuhah de'Rebbi Avin).

(d) Rebbi Zeira still asks on him however, from the Seifa of our Mishnah, which permits leaving the Lechem ha'Panim and the Bazichin that were placed on the Shulchan after Shabbos until two Shabbasos time. According to what we just explained, this ought to be forbidden, because the loaves should become Pasul be'Linah that same night.

(a) Rabah liked Rebbi Zeira's Kashya. Yet Rebbi Avin's father cited a Beraisa (which cannot just be dismissed). So he explains that the Kometz becomes Pasul - due to the principle 'Laylah La'av Mechusar Z'man' (since basically, the night follows the day, in which case, the Kemitzah was sanctified in its right time [only for whatever reason, Avodah is Pasul at night-time]). The Lechem ha'Panim on the other hand, which were placed on the Shulchan six days too early, are really Mechusar Z'man (in which case the Shulchan cannot sanctify the loaves to render them Pasul).

(b) This answer is not fully satisfactory however, since there is still reason to believe - that the Lechem ha'Panim ought to become sanctified the following Friday night (the night before they are due to become sanctified).

(c) To reconcile the Mishnah with Avuhah de'Rebbi Avin, Ravina establishes our Mishnah - when they removed the loaves before dusk of Erev Shabbos and returned them on the following day.

(d) Mar Zutra (or Rav Ashi) disagrees. According to him, the loaves cannot become Pasul, even if they are not removed before dusk of Erev Shabbos - because since they were placed prematurely, it is as if a monkey had arranged them on the Shulchan, and they cannot become Pasul.

8)

(a) Our Mishnah sdiscusses the times when the Sh'tei ha'Lechem and the Lechem ha'Panim could be baked and subsequently eaten. According to the Tana Kama, the Sh'tei ha'Lechem were eaten on ...

1. ... the second day (after they were baked) - when Erev Shavu'os fell on a weekday.
2. ... the third day - when it fell on Shabbos.

(b) And the Lechem ha'Panim were eaten on ...

1. ... the ninth day (after they were baked) - if the Friday (the day before they were arranged on the Shulchan) was a regular weekday.
2. ... the tenth day - if Friday was a Yom-Tov.
3. ... the eleventh day - if Friday was the second day of Rosh Hashanah.

(c) The principle that governs these Halachos is - that the baking of the loaves overrides neither Shabbos nor Yom-Tov.

(d) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel partially disagrees with the Tana Kama - agreeing with him that the baking does not override Shabbos, but not that it does not override Yom-Tov.

(a) The Sugya in Beitzah cites a Machlokes whether or not, Nedarim and Nedavos may be brought on Yom-Tov. The two possible ways of explaining the opinion that holds that they may not are a. mi'd'Oraysa, b. mi'de'Rabbanan.

(b) If it is the Rabbanan who forbade it, the reason for their decree will be - because they were afraid that people might then delay bringing their Korbanos until Yom-Tov ('Shema Yashheh'), which besides being intrinsically forbidden, will also lead them to transgress 'bal Te'acher' (failing to bring one's Korban within its prescribed time-limit).

(c) Ravina proves from our Mishnah that it cannot be mi'de'Rabbanan - because then, the Isur of bringing the Sh'tei ha'Lechem (which is obviously less stringent that Nedarim and Nedavos) must also be only mi'de'Rabbanan. However, seeing as Shema Yashheh does not apply here, there would be no reason to forbid baking the Sh'tei ha'Lechem on Yom-Tov.

10)

(a) According to our Mishnah, Menachos and Nesachim which became Tamei, are subject to Pidyon (redemption) - before they have been sanctified in a K'li, but not afterwards.

(b) The reason for this is because before Kidush K'li - they have the status of Kedushas Damim (which are subject to Pidyon, and the money becomes Kadosh) whereas afterwards - they adopt the status of Kedushas ha'Guf, which is not.

(c) The Tana also rules - that Ofos, Eitzim, Levonah and K'lei Shareis that became Tamei - cannot be redeemed ...

(d) ... because the redemption of Kedushas ha'Guf is only said in connection with animals (after they become blemished).

(a) Shmuel remarks that 'she'Nitme'u' in the Reisha (with regard to Menachos and Nesachim is 'La'av Davka'). He says that - because since they are Kedushas Damim, (as we explained), there is no reason why they should be subject to Pidyon.

(b) And the reason that the Tana says it is - to teach us that the Seifa 'mi'she'Kidshu bi'Cheli Ein Lahem Pidyon', speaks even if they were Tamei (even though if they had a blemish, they would be subject to Tum'ah.

(a) We query this explanation however - on the grounds that this too, is obvious. Why might we think that Kedushas ha'Guf without a Mum can be redeemed, just because it is Tamei?

(b) And we answer - that we might otherwise have thought that, since the Torah refers to a Ba'al- Mum as Tamei, Tum'ah will have the same Din as a Mum as regards Pidyon?

(c) But we reject that answer - because the comparison of a Ba'al Mum to Tamei only applies up to the time that the animal is sanctified with a K'li Shareis; once it does, it is no longer redeemable.

(d) This applies to an animal of Hekdesh - which is Shechted after it has become blemished, and which is no longer redeemable, since it has become sanctified via the knife.