Previous daf

1)

(a) Assuming that our Mishnah 'Pigeil, bein be'Kodshei Kodshim ... Eino Metamei Tum'as Ochlin', speaks about Pigeil bi'Zerikah, this is a Kashya on Rebbi Oshaya - according to whom Rebbi Shimon (based on the principle, 'Kol ha'Omed Lizarek ... ') ought to have said 'Metamei Tum'as Ochlin'.

(b) To reconcile the Mishnah with Rebbi Oshaya - we establish it when the Kohen was Mefagel by the Shechitah, (rendering it a case of 'Lo Hayah Lo Sha'as ha'Kosher').

(c) The problem with the continuation of the Mishnah 'Pigeil be'Minchcah, Metamei Tum'as Ochlin' is - that the Tana should have rather gone on to a case of 'Pigeil bi'Zerikah' (without switching to a Korban Minchah)?

(d) And we answer that the Tana deliberately switches to Minchah to teach us - that even though the Kohen was Mefagel by the Kemitzah (which is the equivalent to the Shechitah of a Korban (which is not Metamei Tum'as Ochlin, as we just learned), it is nevertheless Metamei Tum'as Ochlin (as we explained).

(a) When Rav Ashi said over this whole piece to Rav Nachman, the latter refuted it. He established the case in our Mishnah ...

1. ... 'Lan Lifnei Zerikah' - to read as it stands (without changing it to 'Kodem she'Yera'eh li'Zerikah').
2. ... 'Pigeil bein be'Kodshei Kodshim ... ' - by 'Pigeil bi'Zerikah' (and not by 'Pigeil Lifnei Shechitah').

(b) Yet in both cases, he justifies the Tana for ruling 'Eino Metamei Tum'as Ochlin, even according to Rebbi Oshaya - because Rebbi Shimon does not extend the principle 'Kol ha'Omed Lipados, ke'Paduy Dami', to Zerikah (to say 'Kol ha'Omed Lizarek ... ke'Zaruk Dami') ...

(c) ... because whereas Pidyon entails no more than saying a few words, Zerikah constitutes an act (and as long as the act has not been performed, even Rebbi Shimon will concede that it cannot be considered as if it has.

(a) Rebbi Yehoshua in the Mishnah in Me'ilah, confines Me'ilah (with regard to Kodshim that became Pasul) to something which the Kohanim were at no stage, permitted to eat. Something that the Kohanim are permitted to eat, on the other hand, is not subject to Me'ilah - because it has left the category of "Kodshei Hashem" (with which the Parshah of Me'ilah begins).

(b) The latter category comprises three cases, 'she'Lanah', 'she'Nitme'ah' - and 'she'Yatz'ah'.

(c) The former comprises three cases too, 'she'Nishchatah Chutz li'Zemanah ve'Chutz li'Mekomah' - 've'she'Kiblu Pesulin ve'Zarku es Damah'.

(d) We query Rav Nachman and Rav Ashi's explanation however, from 'Lanah' in the Reisha - because assuming that the Tana means literally that the Basar and the Dam remained overnight before the Zerikas Dam, then 'Sha'as Heter la'Kohanim' would mean that the Kohen could have performed the Zerikah had he wished (which is what Rav Nachman just rejected).

(a) In attempting to answer the Kashya, we establish the case of 'Lanah' - when it is fit to become Pasul through 'Nitme'ah' or 'Yatz'ah', meaning after the Zerikah.

(b) But in a case of 'Lanah Mamash' (before the Zerikah) - Rebbi Shimon would hold Mo'alin (because he agrees that 'Kol ha'Omed Lizarek La'av ke'Zaruk Dami', as Rav Nachman explained according to Rebbi Oshaya).

(c) The problem with the Lashon 'Kol she'Haysah Lah Sha'as Heter la'Kohanim' is - that since the Tana is speaking when no P'sul has actually occurred, he ought to have said 'Kol she'Yesh Heter le'Kohanim' (rather than 'Kol she'Haysah ... ').

(d) In fact, Rav Ashi really answered Rav Nachman by drawing a distinction between Me'ilah - which is a derivative of Kedushah, which (due to 'Kol ha'Omed Lizarek ke'Zaruk Dami'), departs from the Kodshim animal as soon as it ready for Zerikah, and Tum'as Ochlin - which is only applicable when it is actually a food (but not on account of 'Kol ha'Omed Lizarek').

(a) We query this answer too, from a Beraisa, which discusses someone who brings an Asham Taluy, and who discovers in the process, that he did not sin. One brings an Asham Taluy - for a case of Safek Chatas (e.g. someone who ate one of two pieces of fat that were lying in front of him, one Cheilev, the other, Shuman (be'Shogeg), and he doesn't know which one he ate.

(b) Rebbi Meir permits him to let the animal loose among his animals, because it is Chulin. The Chachamim say - 'Yir'eh ad she'Yista'ev Ve'yimacher, Ve'yiplu Damav li'Nedavah', because, afraid that he really sinned, the owner declares it Hekdesh without reservations (in spite of the Safek).

(c) Rebbi Eliezer even permits him to bring it - because, he maintains, one is permitted to bring an Asham Taluy every day to atone for any Safek Kareis that he may have transgressed..

(d) In a case where he only discovered his innocence after the Shechitah, the Beraisa rules - that the blood must be poured out and the animal burned (in the Beis ha'Sereifah).

6)

(a) If the blood has already been sprinkled when the owner discovers that he did not sin, the Tana Kama holds that the Basar may be eaten. Rebbi Yossi rules even more leniently. According to him - the Basar may be eaten even if the blood is still in the bowl (and has yet to be sprinkled).

(b) We try to prove from Rava, who equates Rebbi Yossi with Rebbi Shimon - that even as regards turning something that is not edible into a food, Rebbi Shimon holds 'Kol ha'Omed Lizrok ke'Zaruk Dami' (seeing as we are permitting the blood to be sprinkled and the Basar to be eaten [even though he already knows that he did not sin] on the basis of 'Kol ha'Omed Lizarek ... '), a Kashya on Rav Nachman and Rav Ashi.

(c) We reject Rava's interpretation of Rebbi Yossi however, by citing Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina, who ascribes Rebbi Yossi's reason - to the principle 'K'lei Shareis Mekadshin es ha'Pesulin Lechatchilah Likarev'.

(a) Based on Rava's interpretation of Rebbi Yossi, Rav Ashi commented to Rav Kahana that - if, as Rava suggests, Rebbi Shimon holds 'Kol ha'Omed Lizarek ke'Zaruk Dami', then he will also hold 'Kol ha'Omed Lisaref' ke'Saruf ke'Saruf Dami'.

(b) In that case, he asked, bearing in mind that Nosar and Parah both stand to be burned - why are they Tamei Tum'as Ochlin. Since when are ashes Tamei Tum'as Ochlin?

(c) Rava replied - by ascribing Tum'as Ochlin to Chibas ha'Kodesh.

(a) Ravina was surprised at Rava's reply. He thought that, notwithstanding the fact that Chibas ha'Kodesh can cause Hekdesh that is not otherwise subject to Tum'ah to become Tamei - but he did not think that it would go so far as to cause it to adopt Tum'as Ochlin, to be a Rishon, which is Metamei a Sheini.

(b) In any event, he thought that, with Rava's explanation, one could resolve the She'eilah of Resh Lakish, who asked whether one counts Rishon ve'Sheini in the case of Tz'rid shel Menachos - a section of the flour of a Minchah which had not been touched by the oil, and which would therefore not be subject to Tum'ah, were it not for Chibas ha'Kodesh.

(c) Rav Ashi's reply was - that whereas Resh Lakish was asking about the Din Torah, Rav Kahana's statement referred to the Din de'Rabbanan (even assuming that min ha'Torah, one does not count Rishon ve'Sheini).

(d) If we were to count Rishon ve'Sheini mi'de'Rabbanan, and the Nosar, the Parah or the Tz'rid shel Menachos then touched Kodshim - it would be left hanging in abeyance (because Kodshim that became Tamei through a Tum'ah de'Rabbanan may not be burned).

(a) Our Mishnah rules that if someone undertakes to bring ...

1. ... '*a Minchah* al ha'Machavas' and then brings a Minchas Marcheshes, or vice-versa - his Minchah is Kasher, but he remains obligated to fulfill his Neder.
2. ... '*this Minchah* (with reference to flour lying in front of him) as a Minchah al ha'Machavas' and then brings a Minchas Marcheshes, or vice-versa - the Minchah that he brought is Pasul.

(b) The same distinction will apply where someone undertakes to bring '*two Esronim* in one K'li' (as one Minchah) and he brings them in two Keilim (as two), or vice-versa, or '*these two Esronim* in one K'li' and he brings them in two Keilim, or vice-versa. In the latter set of cases, the Minchah is Pasul if he brings the Minchah in two Keilim instead of one - a. because he took two Kematzim whereas he undertook to take only one; and b. because each K'li contains a Minchah Chaseirah (less than what he undertook to bring).

(c) And in a case where someone undertook to bring two Esronim in one K'li, and brought them in two Keilim. Then, ignoring people who reminded him that he had said 'one K'li', he went ahead and finished bringing them in two Keilim, the Tana rules - that the Minchah that he brought is Pasul ...

(d) ... even though he did not say "Eilu' (despite the fact that in the previous case, the Korban is Kasher because he did not say 'Eilu') - because the absence of a statement on his part, to the effect that they were right and that he was bringing it in fulfillment of another Neder, proves that this was not the case, and that he mistakenly brought it in fulfillment of his Neder.

(a) And in the equivalent case to the previous one, where he erred and brought the Minchah in one Keili instead of two, in spite of the people who reminded that he had said 'two' - the Mishnah rules that the Minchah has the Din of two Korbanos that became mixed ...

(b) ... where the Halachah is - that it is possible to take a Kometz from each Minchah separately, he should do so; otherwise, the two Menachos are Pasul (as we learned in 'ha'Kometz Rabah).

(c) We do not say the same with regard to the earlier case 'Eilu Lehavi bi'Shenei Keilim Ve'heivi bi'K'li Echad, Pasul' is - because there Tana speaks in a case where it was not possible to take a Kometz from each one.

(a) Having taught the Din in ...

1. ... the Reisha (with regard to a Minchah al ha'Machavas and a Minchas Marcheshes), the Tana found it necessary to repeat it in the Seifa (with regard to two Esronos in one K'li and in two) - since the owner did not change the basic Korban, we might have thought that in the Reisha de'Seifa, he will have fulfilled his Korban, too.
2. ... the Seifa, the Tana nevertheless found it necessary to repeat it in the Reisha - because we might otherwise have thought that, since he did not split one large Minchah into two, in the Reisha de'Seifa, he would have fulfilled his obligation, too.

(b) Our Mishnah, in the Reisha de'Reisha and the Reisha de'Seifa rules 'Mah she'Heivi Heivi, vi'Yedei Nidro Lo Yatza'. Rebbi Shimon in a Beraisa, disagrees. He holds - 'Af Yedei Nidro Nami Yatza'.

(a) We ask on our Mishnah from a Beraisa (in connection with the Korban Minchah). When the Tana there writes 'Lo Kidshum K'lei Shareis' - he means that the K'li Shareis in which one brings a Minchah does not sanctify it.

(b) This poses a Kashya on our Mishnah, which rules - 'Zu Lehavi be'Machavas Ve'heivi be'Marcheshes ... Harei Zu Pesulah'. But if the K'li does not sanctify the Minchah, why can he not simply transfer the Minchah into the right K'li?

(c) And we answer - that although the K'li does not sanctify the Minchah to allow it to be brought, it does sanctify it to become Pasul (as is the case here).

(a) Abaye learns from the Pasuk "Ka'asher Nadarta" - that mentioning the K'li (whether the Minchah will be a Machavas or a Marcheshes) at the time of the declaration of the Neder fixes the K'li, but not mentioning it at the time of designation (after the Neder has been made).

(b) This enables him to qualify our Mishnah - by confining the P'sul in the Seifa de'Reisha ('Zu Lehavi be'Machavas ... ') to where he fixed the K'li at the time of the Neder, but had he fixed it at the time of designation, he would be permitted to change it afterwards.

(c) Rebbi Acha bar Chanina ... Amar Rebbi Yochanan - says the same.