Previous daf

1)

(a) The Beraisa establishes the Pasuk (in connection with which animals must be sacrificed and which can be redeemed) "ve'Im Kol Beheimah Temei'ah ... " - by a Ba'al-Mum (which it refers to as 'Tamei', the source of our previous suggestion).

(b) We are forced to divest it of its simple meaning (i.e. a non-Kasher species) - because we already have a Pasuk to teach us that ("ve'Im ba'Beheimah Temei'ah u'Padah be'Erkecha").

(c) And the Tana learns from the Pasuk "Asher Lo Yakrivu Mimenu Isheh la'Hashem" - that it is only on a permanent blemish that a Hekdesh animal may be redeemed, but not on a passing one (that prevents the animal from being sacrificed today, but is gone tomorrow).

(a) Rav Huna bar Mano'ach queries Shmuel (who learns that 'she'Nitme'u' in the Reisha of our Mishnah is 'La'av Davka') from the Seifa of the Mishnah itself 'ha'Ofos, ve'ha'Eitzim ve'ha'Levonah u'K'lei Shareis, mi'she'Nitme'u Ein Lahen Pidyon'. Birds are not redeemable - because (unlike animals) they adopt Kedushas ha'Guf from the moment they are declared Hekdesh (and do not require a K'li Shareis to attain that status).

(b) Rav Huna bar Mano'ach initially explains that the latter three are not redeemable - because Machshirei Korban (such as Menachos and Nesachim) cannot be redeemed as long as they Tahor, and the above three are not subject to Tum'ah (as we will now explain), posing a Kashya on Shmuel.

(c) Eitzim and Levonah are only subject to Tum'ah because of Chibas ha'Kodesh - meaning that under normal circumstances, raw materials other than food are not subject to Tum'ah, and it is only because they are Hekdesh that the Torah gives them a Din Tum'ah.

(a) Chibas ha'Kodesh is not applicable with regard to ...

1. ... Eitzim - because we are speaking about wood that has not yet been cut to size.
2. ... Levonah - because we are speaking before it has been sanctified in a K'li Shareis.

(b) Neither can Tum'ah be the reason that K'lei Shareis cannot be redeemed - since they can easily be Toveled in a Mikvah.

(c) We refute this Kashya on Shmuel by accepting his ruling with regard to Nesachim and Menachos - which are easy to replace, whereas Eitzim, Levonah and K'lei Shareis, which are uncommon, the Rabanan declared unredeemable.

(d) Wood for the Mizbe'ach is uncommon - because it must be free of worms (as we learned in 'Kol Korbenos Tzibur').

(a) The Beraisa rules - that unblemished animals that one declares Hekdesh Bedek ha'Bayis can only be redeemed for the purpose of bringing them on the Mizbe'ach ...

(b) ... because whatever is fit to go on the Mizbe'ach, never leaves the realm of Mizbe'ach (meaning that it does not go out le'Chulin).

(c) Rav Papa assumes that if Shmuel had heard of this Beraisa - he would have retracted his statement (since there is no difference between animals that are fit to go on the Mizbe'ach and Menachos and Nesachim).

(d) We refute Rav Papa's suppositon however. Shmuel knew of this Beraisa, yet he did not retract - because he places animal Korbanos in the category of things that are uncommon (and on which the Chachamim therefore decreed), since the slightest blemish (such as eye's-web) renders them Pasul.

(a) Rav Kahana disagrees with Shmuel. He maintains - that Menachos and Nesachim can only be redeemed when they are Tamei, but not when they are Tahor.

(b) In the first Lashon, Rebbi Oshaya agrees with Rav Kahana, but in the second - he agrees with Shmuel.

(c) Rebbi Elazar makes a compromise. Basically, he holds like Rav Kahana, holding like Shmuel only with regard to - the Asiris ha'Eifah of a Minchas Chotei Ani.

(d) And he learns it from a Pasuk (in connection with the Korban Oleh ve'Yored). He learns from the Pasuk (in connection with a Korban ...

1. ... Ashir) "me'Chataso" - that if after designating a lamb as his Korban, he becomes poor, the lamb automatically goes out to Chulin.
2. ... Ani) "al Chataso" - that if after designating an Asiris ha'Eifah for his Minchah, he becomes rich, he is obligated to redeem the flour, and use the proceeds towards purchasing a lamb or a goat for his Chatas.

6)

(a) Rebbi Oshaya heard - that a Minchah which a Kohen rendered Pigul, according to Rebbi Shimon - is not subject to Tum'as Ochlin.

(b) The Tana Kama rules that Isurei Hana'ah (such as Orlah, K'lai ha'Kerem and Shor ha'Niskal ... ) - are subject to Tum'as Ochlin.

(c) When he includes ...

1. ... 'Shor ha'Niskal' - he is referring to a Shor ha'Niskal that one Shechted (after Beis-Din had declared it was Chayav Sekilah).
2. ... 'Peter Chamor' - he is referring to a first-born donkey that one Shechted on behalf of a Nochri, and which was still convulsing ...

(d) ... because once the ox has been stoned and the donkey has stopped convulsing - they are Tamei Tum'as Neveilus, rendering the Tum'as Ochlin irrelevant (since it is more stringent than Tum'as Ochlin [in that even a k'Zayis is Metamei, whereas Tum'as Ochlin needs to be a k'Beitzah in order to be Metamei).

(a) Rebbi Shimon concedes to the Tana Kama that Basar be'Chalav is Metamei Tum'as Ochlin - because it had a Sha'as ha'Kosher (was originally permitted [see Rabeinu Gershom]) or because even after mixing them together, they remain permitted until one cooks them together (see Gilyon Maharsha).

(b) A Shor ha'Niskal (and the other animals mentioned in the Beraisa) however, did not have a Sha'as ha'Kosher before it gored - because as long as the animal is alive, it is be'Chezkas Isur until it has been proved to have been Shechted; and besides, a live animal is never subject to Tum'ah.

(c) Rav Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan ascribes Rebbi Shimon's ruling to the Pasuk (in connection with Tum'as Ochlin) "mi'Kol ha'Ochel Asher Ye'achel" - which implies that food that one can feed to others is Tamei Tum'as Ochlin, but not food that one cannot [such as Isurei Hana'ah]).

(a) Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah in the name of Rebbi Shimon learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Ki Am *Kadosh* Atah la'Hashem Elokecha, Lo Sevashel G'di ba'Chaleiv Imo" "ve'Anshei *Kodesh* Tih'yun Li, u'Basar ba'Sadeh T'reifah Lo Socheilu" - that Basar be'Chalav, like T'reifah, is Mutar be'Hana'ah.

(b) When he gave the reason for his conceding to the Tana Kama that Basar be'Chalav is Tamei Tum'as Ochlin as the fact that it originally had a Sha'as ha'Kosher - he was merely adding a second reason to the previous one ('Chada ve'Od Ka'amar').

(a) We query Rebbi Oshaya from a Beraisa, where Rebbi Shimon rules - that there are cases of Nosar being Metamei Tum'as Ochlin and cases of Nosar that is not.

(b) 'Lan Lifnei Zerikah, Eino Metamei Tum'as Ochlin, le'Achar Zerikah Metamei Tum'as Ochlin' - because the former did not have a Sha'as ha'Kosher, whereas the latter did.

(c) He stated that ...

1. ... Pigul, both with regard to Kodshei Kodshim and Kodshim Kalim - is not Metamei Tum'as Ochlin, whereas ...
2. ... Pigul by a Minchah - is, a Kashya on Rebbi Oshaya (who said that according to Rebbi Shimon, it is not).

(d) We answer that the Beraisa is speaking about a Minchah which had a Sha'as ha'Kosher, whereas Rebbi Oshaya is speaking about one which did not - i.e. where the owner declared the wheat Hekdesh whilst it was still attached to the ground.

(a) The problem with this explanation is that even wheat that is sanctified when it is still attached to the ground ought to have a Sha'as ha'Kosher - because it can be redeemed.

(b) We cite the first Lashon of Rebbi Oshaya himself on the previous Amud, where he said - 'Temei'in Nifdin, Tehorin Ein Nifdin' (in which case until it became Tamei, the Minchah did not have a Sha'as ha'Kosher).

(c) According to the second Lashon however ('Afilu Tehorin Nifdin'), the Kashya remains. The problem that we initially have with the answer that since the Minchah was not redeemed, it is considered as if it did not have a Sha'as ha'Kosher is - that Rebbi Shimon himself holds 'Kol ha'Omed li'Pados, ke'Paduy Dami'.

(d) Rebbi Shimon in a Beraisa explains that a Parah Adumah is Metamei Tum'as Ochlin - because it had a Sha'as ha'Kosher.

(e) To which Resh Lakish adds - that even if the Parah has already been Shechted and is waiting to be burned it can be redeemed (from which we can see that it is considered a Sha'as ha'Kosher because it can be redeemed, even if ultimately, it is not.

(a) We answer the Kashya by differentiating between a Parah Adumah - which stands to be redeemed, and a Minchah - which does not.

(b) The problem with this from 'Lan Lifnei Zerikah' in our Mishnah, where the Tana rules 'Ein Metamei Tum'as Ochlin' is - that there too, they could have performed Zerikah, and it was a Mitzvah to do so, yet the Tana, placing it in the category of 'Lo Hayah Lo Sha'as ha'Kosher', rules 'Ein Metamei Tum'as Ochlin'?

(c) So we establish the case - when the Korban was Shechted so close to dusk that there was not time in the day to perform the Zerikah (in which case it really was a case of 'Lo Hayah Lo Sha'as ha'Kosher').

(d) And we answer the Kashya as to why the Tana then switches to 'Lan le'Achar Zerikah' to find a case of Haysah Lo Sha'as ha'Kosher, and not simply 'Haysah Lo Sha'us ba'Yom' - with 'Hachi Nami Ka'amar ... ' (meaning that when the Beraisa says 'Lan le'Achar Zerikah', it actually means to say 'Lan le'Achar *she'Yera'eh* li'Zerikah' [even though the Zerikah has not yet been performed in practice]).