Previous daf

1)

(a) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel in a Mishnah in 'Sheloshah Minim' says that a Nazir who brought a she-lamb, a lamb and a ram, without specifying which animal was to go for which Korban - brings the she-lamb as a Chatas, the lamb as an Olah and the ram as a Shelamim.

(b) Rav Papa responded to Rav Shimi bar Ashi's Kashya with this Mishnah. According to Rav Shimi bar Ashi, who learns that unspecified birds are considered S'tumin (like Rav Chisda), the same should apply to animals ('Ma'os ve'Lo Beheimos'). In that case - why does Raban Shimon ben Gamliel consider the three unspecified animals to be Mefurashin?

(c) He now put on a par three animals which are fit to bring for that particular Korban and three bulls, which are not (as we explained above) - on the grounds that based on Rav Huna Amar Rav, who at least considers the three bulls mixed Mefurashin, we can explain Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, who considers the three unspecified Korbenos Nazir to be Mefurashin; but if, as Rav Shimi bar Ashi maintains, we will consider the bulls to be S'tumin, then Raban Shimon ben Gamliel will have no basis at all.

(d) Besides the fact that the Lashon does not imply it, Raban Shimon ben Gamliel cannot be speaking when the owner later designated each of the animals for its specific task - because then it would be obvious, and Raban Shimon ben Gamliel would not be teaching us anything.

(a) Rav Papa queries Rav Shimi bar Ashi, in spite of the fact that Rav Chisda obviously considers the birds to be S'tumin, and the same will apply to animals, not because he considers Rav Chisda's opinion a joke - seeing as Rav Chisda is quoted as Halachah a number of times in Shas.

(b) The reason is - because even if birds *are* considered S'tumin (and are not precluded from 'Ma'os'), that is only because Rav Papa maintains that only things like money (which is unfit to bring as a Korban) can be precluded from 'Ma'os' (e.g. bulls, which are unfit to bring as a Korban Nazir), but not birds or animals which are.

(c) Rav Shimi bar Ashi answered him that (even though we learn from 'Ma'os' to preclude from the Din of S'tumin whatever is not money) - the birds of a Kein are different, because the Torah writes "ve'Lakach, *ve'Asah*", indicating that they are considered S'tumin, and the Kohen can still designate them, if the owner did not yet do so.

(d) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel's case too, is different - inasmuch as, since each of the three animals is only fit to become the Korban that it is intended for, it is automatically considered to be Mefurash (and does not require specific designation, like the birds and the three bulls do).

3)

(a) The Beraisa discusses the Dinim of a son who is a Nazir bringing the money or the Korbanos of his deceased father on his own behalf. Where a son, like his father ...

1. ... ate Cheilev - he is not permitted to bring the Korban from the money that his father's designated before he died.
2. ... was a Nazir (and the money was S'tumin) - he is permitted to do so.

(b) If in the same case, the son was a Nazir already during his father's lifetime - he will be forbidden to bring the Korban from the money that his father's designated before he died (Note: This is Tosfos reading of the Mishnah later. According to our reading, the Tana reverses the cases).

(c) The source of these Halachos of Nazir - is Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai.

(d) If the father left Beheimos Mefurashos ...

1. ... the Chatas - goes to the Yam ha'Melach.
2. ... the Olah - is brought as an Olah.
3. ... the Shelamim - as a Shelamim.

(a) When Rav Hamnuna asks (with reference to the previous case) 'Mai La'av Afilu Ba'alas Mum' - he is referring to where the father left three blemished animals, and what he means to ask is whether we will say there as well, that the three animals have a Din Mefurashin, and will therefore go to the Yam ha'Melach.

(b) Rav Hamnuna is asking a Kashya on Rav Nachman, who learned earlier that blemished animals have the Din of S'tumos (even if they are Mefurashin) - to which we answer 'Lo Temimah'.

(c) Nevertheless, in the Reisha of the Beraisa, which speaks about the father leaving over Ma'os S'tumos, the Tana does not make a point of speaking about blemished animals - because the two are one and the same (and when he mentions 'Ma'os', he incorporates blemished animals).

(d) The reason that we ask this Kashya on the Beraisa, and not on our Mishnah, where the Tana said 'Ma'os S'tumin Yiplu li'Nedavah' is - because the Tana there first speaks about 'Ma'os Mefurashin', so it is natural to continue with 'Ma'os S'tumin', and the Kashya would not be justified (whereas in the Beraisa, where the Tana seems to be differentiating between S'tumin and Mefurashin, it could just as well have mentioned blemished animals as money).

(a) We Darshen from the Pasuk "Asher Nasi Yecheta ... ve'Heivi es *Korbano*" - that a son cannot be Yotze with the Chatas that his father left after his death.

(b) The problem that we have with this is - that in light of the Halachah that 'Chatas she'Meisah Ba'alehah Tamus', we should not require a Pasuk to teach us this.

(c) We try to distinguish between a case of min ha'Kalah al ha'Chamurah or vice-versa and min ha'Kalah al ha'Kalah or min ha'Chamurah al ha'Chamurah.

1. Kalah - means the Chatas that one brings for lighter sins (such as 'Shevu'as Bituy and Shevu'as ha'Eidus).
2. Chamurah - means the Chatas that one brings for Chayvei Ka'res.

(d) We learn from the second "Korbano" (mentioned in connection with a Chatas Kisbah) - that the son cannot even be Yotze with the Korbanos of his father min ha'Kalah el ha'Kalah or min ha'Chamurah el ha'Chamurah.

(a) We might have thought that, even though a son cannot be Yotze with his father's *Korbanos* (after his death), he might nevertheless be Yotze with the money that he left for his Korbanos - because we have the precedent of a Nazir, where the son is permitted to use the money that his father left for his own Nezirus.

(b) It does not matter that we are speaking about the Ma'os *Mefurashin* of his father, whereas the Halachah is confined to Ma'os S'tumin (as long as we have a precedent of a case where he 'shaves on his father's money').

(c) We learn from the third "Korbano" (written in connection with a Chatas Se'irah) - that the son cannot even use the *money* that his left for his Chatas.

(d) In spite of the fact that we have already learned from all three "Korbano" that the Torah mentions, we nevertheless continue to make D'rashos from the same word - because we do not learn only from "Korbano", but from the combination of "Korbano al Chataso".