Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) FOR WHOM DO KOHANIM SERVE?

(a) Question (Rav Simi Bar Aba - Beraisa): A Kohen may throw for (one that vowed not to benefit from the Kohen) the blood of his sin-offering or guilt-offering.
(b) Answer: This refers to the sin and guilt-offerings of a leper (atonement sacrifices) - "This is the law of the leper" (whether an adult or minor).
(c) (Mishnah): Kohanim that Piglu (offered sacrifices with improper intent, e.g. to eat from them after the allowed time) - if this was intentional, they must compensate the owner of the sacrifice.

1. We infer, if it was unintentional, they need not pay, but the sacrifice is Pigul (an abomination).
2. This fits well according to the opinion that Kohanim are agents of Hash-m.

(d) Question: According to the opinion that they are agents of Yisrael - it should not be Pigul!

1. The owner can say, you were only my agent to help me, not to hurt me!

(e) Answer: Even though they are agents of Yisrael, Pigul is an exception - the Torah said "He will not Yechashev (think; it will be considered) to him" - in any case, it becomes Pigul.

(a) (R. Yochanan): Every sacrifice requires the consent of the one for whom it is brought, except for atonement sacrifices, for a man may bring these for his children that are minors.
(b) Question: According to this, a person should be able to bring a sin-offering for his friend that ate Chelev, just as a man brings this for his wife if she is insane, as R. Yehudah!

1. But R. Elazar said, if a person separated a sin-offering for his friend, this has no effect!

(c) Counter-question #1: What is the case of a sin-offering for an insane wife?

1. Suggestion: If she ate while insane - no sacrifice is brought for this!
2. Suggestion: She ate while sane, and later became insane.
3. Rejection: R. Yochanan taught, if a (sane) man ate Chelev, separated his sin-offering, became insane, and returned to sanity, the animal is disqualified - since it was unfitting to bring while he was insane, it is forever unfitting.

i. (We conclude, the one who asked question (b) holds that we can learn from cases which are impossible, such as a sin-offering on behalf of an insane person).

(d) Counter-question #2: According to R. Yochanan, a person should be able to bring a Pesach sacrifice for his friend, for he can bring for his minor children!

1. But R. Elazar taught, one who separated a Pesach sacrifice for his friend - this has no effect!

(e) Answer (R. Zeira): "A lamb for the household" (the law that a man brings for his minor children) is only mid'Rabanan.
(f) Question: How does he know this?
(g) Answer (Mishnah): A man told his children, I am slaughtering the Pesach sacrifice on behalf of whoever is first to ascend to Yerushalayim. Once one of them enters, he acquires his portion, and acquires on behalf of his siblings.

1. If mid'Oraisa, the children must be enumerated on the sacrifice - the acquisition could not work after the slaughter!

(h) Question: If so, why did he tell his children that the acquisition will be through the 1st to ascend?
(i) Answer: To train them to zealously perform Mitzvos.

1. (Beraisa): It happened, the daughters ascended before the boys - they were zealous, the boys were lowly.

(a) (Mishnah): He may separate Terumah for him ...

(b) Question: For Reuven to separate Terumah for Shimon - does he need Shimon's consent?

1. Do we say, since this is advantageous for Shimon, his consent is not needed?
2. Or, perhaps he prefers to do the Mitzvah himself!

(c) Answer (Mishnah): He may separate Terumah and Ma'aser for him with his consent ...
(d) Question: What is the case?

1. Suggestion: Reuven separates parts of Shimon's produce to be Terumah to exempt the rest of Shimon's produce.
2. Question: Whose consent does he have?

i. Suggestion: If Reuven's - the separation is invalid, for he was not made an agent to do this!
ii. Suggestion: If Shimon's - but this gives Shimon pleasure, that Reuven fulfills his mission!

(e) Answer: Rather, we must say that Reuven separates his own produce to be Terumah to exempt Shimon's produce.
(f) Question: Whose consent does he have?

1. Suggestion: If Shimon's - but this gives Shimon pleasure, that Reuven fulfills his mission!

(g) Answer: Rather, Reuven's - we see, Shimon's consent is not needed.
(h) Rejection: Really, he took the Terumah from Shimon's produce.

1. The case is as Rava said (elsewhere) - Shimon said, 'Whoever wants to separate Terumah may do so'.

(i) Question (R. Yirmiyah): If Reuven separates his produce to be Terumah to exempt Shimon - who decides which Kohen receives it?

1. If not for Reuven's produce, Shimon's produce would be untithed!
2. Or - do we say, if not for Shimon's produce, Reuven's produce would not become Terumah!

(j) Answer #1 (R. Zeira): "All the produce of your seed you will give" (the giving is dependent on the owner of the produce being exempted).

1. Question (Mishnah): He may separate Terumah and Ma'aser for him with his consent ...

i. If Shimon decides which Kohen gets it, Reuven benefits Shimon (since the Terumah was from Reuven's produce).
ii. Rather, it must be that Reuven decides!

2. Answer: Really, the Terumah was from Shimon's produce; the case is, Shimon said, 'Whoever wants to separate Terumah may do so'.

(k) Answer #2 (R. Avahu): The one who made an object Hekdesh adds the fifth when he redeems it; the one getting atonement from a sacrifice can make Temurah from it; if Reuven makes his produce Terumah to exempt Shimon's produce, Reuven decides to which Kohen it will go.

(a) (Mishnah): Reuven may teach Shimon Medrash, laws and Agadata, but not written Torah.
(b) Rhetorical question: Why can't he teach him written Torah - because he benefits him?
(c) Question: The same applies to Medrash!
(d) Answer (Shmuel): The Mishnah is in a place where people take money for teaching written Torah, but not for Medrash.
(e) Question: Why should the Mishnah assume that is the case?