Previous daf

1)

(a) We learned above a number of times that the unspecified money of a Nazir goes li'Nedavah. Considering that the money includes that of a Chatas - we might have expected the money to go to the Yam ha'Melach.

(b) We could ask from Shelamim too - which are normally eaten, whereas Nedavah is completely burnt.

(c) We extrapolate from the fact that the header is 've'Hayu Lo Ma'os S'tumin' and not 'Hayu Lo Ma'os S'tumin' that the Kashya is based on the Mishnah in Me'ilah ('ha'Mafrish Ma'os li'Neziruso ... . Meis, ve'Hayu Lo Ma'os S'tumin ... ') rather than our own Mishnah ('ha'Ishah she'Nadrah be'Nazir'). The reason for this is - because the Mishnah in Me'ilah speaks when the Nazir said 'le'Korbanos Nezirusi' (specifically implying *all* of her Korbanos), giving rise to the Kashya; whereas our Mishnah speaks when the woman just said 'li'Nezirus', in which case she could later use all the money to purchase an Olah (as we explained earlier), thereby dispensing with the Kashya altogether (Tosfos).

(a) Rebbi Yochanan answers the initial Kashya with the principle 'Halachah Hi be'Nazir. If the money incorporated only the Olah and the Shelamim - they would buy with half of it an Olah, and with the other half, a Shelamim (Tosfos).

(b) We could also give the reason that we cannot answer here that the owner could theoretically have purchased an Olah with it (like we answered above) - because the case here speaks after the owner's death, in which case that argument is not applicable.

(c) Resh Lakish disagrees with Rebbi Yochanan. He learns from the Pasuk "le'Chol Nidreihem u'le'Chol Nidvosam" - that whatever remains from a Neder, goes to Nedavah.

(d) Resh Lakish ...

1. ... interprets the word 'Nidreihem' to incorporate the money of Mosar Chatas (despite the fact that a Chatas is an obligation and not a Neder) - because the source of the Chatas Nazir is the Neder Nezirus that the Nazir initially undertook.
2. ... uses this Pasuk to teach us about the money that remains from a Nazir rather than money which remains from other Korbanos (i.e. when the price of animals dropped) - because in those cases, there is no reason that one should not still be able to use the money for what it was originally intended (Tosfos).

(a) According to Rebbi Yochanan, the money of the Chatas in the case of Ma'os Mefurashin goes to the Yam ha'Melach, because that is part of the 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai'. Resh Lakish learns this from Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael - who says that the child and the Temurah (the exchange) of a Chatas must die.

(b) If the child of a Chatas (and a Temurah) must die - it stands to reason that the same will apply to money that is leftover, because they all fall under the heading 'Mosar Chatas').

(c) According to Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael, the Pasuk "(Rak) Kodoshecha Asher Yih'yu Lach u'Nedarecha" refers to - the children and the Temurah of Olos and Shelamim.

(d) He then learns from ...

1. ... the continuation of the Pasuk "Tisa U'vasa el ha'Makom Asher Yivchar Hashem" - that they should be taken to Yerushalayim.
2. ... the Pasuk "ve'Asisa Olosecha ha'Basar ve'ha'Dam" - that, once there, one does not withhold from them water and food and let them die.
3. ... its continuation "ve'ha'Basar Tochel" - that (even though the beginning of this Pasuk is confined to Olos) the same applies to Shelamim.
4. ... the word "Rak (Kodoshecha Asher Yih'yu Lach u'Nedarecha)" - that although this is what is done with Mosar Olah and Shelamim, it is not the case with Mosar Chatas and Mosar Asham.

(a) Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael states ...

1. ... 'ke'Derech she'Atah Noheg be'Olah Nehog *bi'Temurasah'*, failing to mention 'bi'Veladeihem' (like he does by Shelamim) - because an Olah, by definition, must be a male, in which case, it cannot have children.
2. ... 'Yachol af V'lad Chatas u'Temuras Asham Kein', switching from 'V'lad Chatas' to 'Temuras Asham' - because an Asham too, can only be a male.

(b) A Temuras Asham is - sent into the field to graze until it obtains a blemish, when it is redeemed, and the money used to buy an Olah; whereas a Temuras Olah and a Temuras Shelamim are actually brought as an Olah and a Shelamim respectively.

(c) Rebbi Akiva disagrees with Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael. He learns from the Pasuk "Asham Hu" - that it is only the Asham itself that is brought as an Asham, but not a Mosar Asham.

(d) In spite of the fact that 'V'lad Chatas Meisah' is a 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai' (implying that other Korbanos are precluded from this Halachah), Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael nevertheless requires the Pasuk "ve'Asisa Olosecha ha'Basar ve'ha'Dam" to teach us that 'V'ladei Kodshim u'Temurasam' (Shelamim and Olos) are not taken to Yerushalayim to die - because we might otherwise have thought that the Mosar Chatas dies wherever it is located, whereas the Mosar Chatas and Shelamim must be taken to Yerushalayim to die there.

5)

(a) We have already learned that 'V'lad Chatas Meisah' is a Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai'. The reason Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael needs to learn it from the Pasuk "*Rak* Kodoshecha Asher Yih'yu Lecha u'Nedarecha" is - to preclude (not a Chatas, as we initially thought), but - an Asham, from the Din of Olah and Shelamim).

(b) But the Din of Asham too, is incorporated in the 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai' - which states 'Kol she'be'Chatas Meisah, be'Asham Ro'eh'.

(c) In that case, back comes the Kashya 'Why does Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael require the Pasuk for Chatas and Asham'. As a matter of fact, the Pasuk teaches us that someone who does bring a Mosar Chatas or Asham for the purpose that they were originally intended, transgresses, not only a Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai, but also Asei.

(a) The problem that we have with Rebbi Akiva, who learns that Mosar Asham is not brought as an Asham, from the Pasuk "Asham *Hu*" is - why he requires a Pasuk, when there is a 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai'?

(b) We answer according to Rav Huna Amar Rav - who says that if, after sending the Mosar Asham into the field to obtain a blemish ('Nitko li'Re'ayah') - but before it actually became blemished, one Shechted it as an Olah, the Korban is Kasher.

(c) The reason for this is - because in any case, after it was blemished, the animal stood to be Shechted and the money used to purchase an Olah.

(d) Rebbi Akiva now Darshens "Asham *Hu*" - to teach us that, in the event that he Shechted it before even sending it into the field, it is not Kasher.

(a) We cannot establish that the Pasuk comes to teach us an Asei (like we explained above according to Rebbi Yishmael) - because "Asham Hu" does not imply an Asei (like "Rak Kodoshecha ... Tisa u'Vasa" does) Tosfos.

(b) Rebbi Akiva said 'Eino Tzarich', when really we do need the Pasuk to teach us an Asei (which, as we just explained, we cannot derive from his Pasuk) - because he misunderstood Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael. He thought that he does not learn the 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai' at all, in which case "Rak ... " is needed for the basic Halachah (that Mosar Chatas and Asham are not brought as such, and) not for the Asei (Tosfos).

(c) According to the outcome of our Sugya, Rebbi Akiva himself does not learn Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael's D'rashah from "Asham Hu". He nevertheless expects Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael to do so - because, still based on his previous misunderstanding, he argues that Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael would not need "Rak ... " just to learn that Mosar Chatas and Asham are not brought, because that he could learn from "Asham Hu". He himself however, who learns the 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai', would need "Rak ... " for the Asei (leaving "Asham Hu" for the D'rashah of Rav Huna Amar Rav) Tosfos.

(d) In fact - there is no dispute between Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael and Rebbi Akiva. Both learn the Sugya like Rebbi Akiva, only Rebbi Akiva did not realize that Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael agreed with him.

(a) Rabeinu Tam reconciles ...

1. ...Rebbi Akiva's D'rashah from "Asham *Hu*" ('Nitak In, Lo Nitak, Lo') with the Sugya in Shevu'os, which describes 'Ro'eh as a 'G'zeirah de'Rabbanan' - by omitting the words 'Nitak In, Lo Nitak, Lo' from the text.
2. ... the Sugya in Shevu'os with the Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai, which clearly states 'Kol she'be'Chatas Meisah, *be'Asham Ro'eh*' - by changing the text of the 'Halachah ... ' to 'Kol she'be'Chatas Meisah, be'Asham *Olah*'.

(b) The reason for the decree - is because *before* the Kaparah has been effected, Ro'eh is d'Oraysa, so they decreed after the Kaparah on account of before it.

(a) The Sugya in Pesachim discusses whether Rav Huna Amar Rav requires Akirah or not, and it is with regard to that our Sugya asks (not 'Ta'ama', but) 'Mai Ta'ama'. Akirah means - that when the owner Shechts it as an Olah, he must specifically have in mind to replace the Asham status with that of an Olah.

(b) The answer to the Kashya is 'de'Amar K'ra "Hu", 'be'Havayasa Yehei', according to those who say ...

1. ... that the Asham does require Akirah is - that "Hu" implies that it will remain an Asham, unless he changes its status.
2. ... that it does not is - that "Hu" implies that, after the Kaparah, it will remain Kasher (to be brought as an Olah), without the need to specifically say so.