Previous daf

1)

(a) On the assumption that the Chatas and the Asham mentioned by the Tana refer *all* sin-offerings and guilt-offerings, Rav Shimi bar Ashi tries to prove from the Beraisa 'Im Hayah Cohen, Yizrok Alav Dam Chataso ve'Dam Ashamo' - that the Cohanim must be the Torah's Sheluchim, because, if they were Yisrael's Sheluchim, how could the Madir then sprinkle the blood of the Mudar's Chatas or Asham on the Mizbei'ach, thereby effecting his Kaparah on his behalf?

(b) He does not bring the same proof from our Mishnah, which also permits the Madir to bring the Chata'os and Ashamos of the Mudar, should he be a Cohen - because there, seeing as the Tana first mentions Kinei *Zavin ve'Zavos* and Kinei *Yoldos*, it is obvious that Chata'os and Ashamos which follow probably refer to those of a *Metzora* (who completes the group of Mechusrei Kaparah).

(c) We reject the proof from the Beraisa - by establishing it too, by the Chata'os and Ashamos of a Metzora.

(a) The Tana in a Mishnah in Menachos states 'ha'Cohanim she'Piglu be'Mikdash Mezidin, Chayavin', from which we infer 'Ha be'Shogeg, Peturin', to which the Beraisa adds Ela she'Pigulan Pigul. Now if the Cohanim were Yisrael's Sheluchim, why could the owner of the Korban not present the argument 'li'Tekuni Shadarticha ve'Lo la'Avasasi' ('I sent you for my advantage, not for my disadvantage!'), thereby negating the Shelichus.

(b) We make no attempt to bring the same proof from the Reisha - because (even assuming that a Cohen normally acts as the Yisrael's Sheli'ach), once the Kohen is Mefagel the Korban on purpose, he is acting on his own behalf, and not in the capacity of a Sheli'ach. On the other hand, despite the fact that though a person is not empowered to render another's article forbidden with *words*, he does have the power to do so with an *action* (and the Torah considers Pigul to be an action).

(c) We reject the proof by quoting the Pasuk in Tzav "Lo Yechashev Lo" - which teaches us that a Korban becomes Pasul through Pigul under any circumstances.

(a) Earlier, Rebbi Yochanan proved that a Mechusar Kipurim does not require Da'as, from the fact that a father is obligated to bring the Korbanos of his son who is a Zav. We then try to prove from Rebbi Yehudah, who obligates a man to bring a Chatas Cheilev (a regular Chatas) on behalf of his wife who is a Shotah - that, by the same token, one ought to able to bring a Chatas on someone's behalf, even without his knowledge. But this clashes with Rebbi Elazar, who ruled that if someone brought a Chatas Cheilev on behalf of his friend without his express consent, his friend has not fulfilled his obligation.

(b) The problem that we have with Rebbi Yehudah, if he is really referring to the Chatas Cheilev that one brings on behalf of one's wife, assuming she ate (Cheilev ... ) whilst she was ...

1. ... a Shotah is - that there, *she* has no obligation to bring the Chatas in the first place (seeing as a Shotah is Patur from all the Mitzvos).
2. ... a Pikachas, and then became a Shotah is - that Rebbi Yirmiyah quoting ... Rebbi Yochanan has already taught us that if someone eats Cheilev, designates a Chatas and becomes a Shoteh, his Korban is Pasul because it has become rejected.

(c) So we establish Rebbi Yehudah (not by the Chatas Cheilev of one's wife), but by the Chatas that he brings after she has given birth, for which there is a special Pasuk (as we learned earlier).

(d) The basis of the Machlokes whether we learn a Gadol from a Katan or a Pikei'ach from a Shotah or not - is whether we hold of the principle 'Danin Efshar mi'she'I Efshar' ('it is possible to learn a case where there is an alternative [to bring the Korban oneself] from a case where there is not') or not.

(a) A father may include his young children in his Korban Pesach.

(b) The reason that, according to those who do learn Gadol from Katan (Efshar mi'she'I Efshar'), Rebbi Elazar nevertheless rules that if one Shechted the Pesach on behalf of one's friend without his express knowledge, his friend will not have fulfilled his obligation is - because a father includes his son in the Korban Pesach, not because he is obligated, but because he is part of his family ('Seh le'Veis Avos La'av d'Oraysa').

(c) Even if 'Seh le'Veis Avos La'av d'Oraysa', a child, who has not been designated, is nevertheless permitted to eat from the Korban Pesach - because the requirement to be designated is confined to those who are eligible to be designated (but not to children, who are not).

(a) The Mishnah in Pesachim states that if a father announces that he is about to Shecht the Pesach on behalf of whichever of his sons arrives in Yerushalayim first - the son who arrives first in Yerushalayim earns the right to participate in the Korban Pesach both for himself and for his siblings.

(b) We prove from there that 'Seh le'Veis Avos La'av d'Oraysa' - because if it were, how could he possibly earn the right for his siblings to participate, after the Pesach has already been Shechted (seeing as the designation must take place before the Shechitah)?

(c) The son who arrived first would have earned *his* part in the Korban Pesach even if Seh le'Veis Avos would have been d'Oraysa - due to the principle of 'Yesh B'reirah' (retroactive acquisition) which is held by some Tana'im.

(d) We support this proof (for 'Seh le'Veis Avos La'av d'Oraysa') with the Beraisa, which relates the story of a father who issued such a challenge to his sons and daughters, and, when the man's daughters came in before his sons, he comments that the daughters were keen, and the sons, slow. Since he says nothing about the daughter acquiring a portion and not the sons - it is clear that all the children actually received one, a clear proof that 'Seh le'Veis Avos La'av d'Oraysa', as we just explained.

6)

(a) Despite the fact that one person may act in favor of his friend even without his consent ('Zachin le'Adam she'Lo Befanav') - Reuven might nevertheless not be permitted to separate Terumah from his own crops on behalf of Shimon without his knowledge, due to the fact that Shimon may well wish to perform the Mitzvah himself.

(b) This She'eilah would not even come into question regarding Reuven taking Terumah from *Shimon's* crops without his knowledge - since that is something that he can only do this with Shimon's consent ('Mah Atem le'Da'atchem, Af Sheluchachem le'Da'atchem').

(c) We try to resolve this She'eilah from our Mishnah 'Torem es Terumaso'. We have just explained why the Tana cannot be speaking when the Noder took Terumah from the Mudar's crops *without* his knowledge. Nor can he be speaking when he took from the Mudar's crops *with* his knowledge - because then he would be fulfilling his Shelichus, which is considered Hana'ah.

(d) We attempt to resolve our She'eilah from there - since, having eliminated all other possibilities, the Mishnah must now speak when the Madir separates Terumah from his own produce *without the Mudar's knowledge* (and when the Tana says 'le'Da'ato', he means with the Madir's knowledge, though it is unclear why he needs to insert this word).

(a) According to the Rashba, the Mishnah will hold like Chanan, who also permits the Madir to pay the Mudar's debt, but not according to the Rabbanan, who forbid that. We nevertheless establish our Mishnah even according to the Rabbanan - on the grounds that the Madir wants specifically to take the Terumah from his own crops, in order to gain the Tovas Hana'ah from it (as we shall see later in the Sugya). Consequently, any benefit that the Mudar subsequently receives is only G'rama, which is permitted.

(b) We refute this proof however, by reinstating our Mishnah when the Madir separates the Terumah from the *Mudar's* crops. And we dispense with the Kashya that he is then his Sheli'ach (and is therefore giving him Hana'ah by carrying out his Shelichus), by quoting Rava - who establishes our Mishnah when the Mudar announces 'Kol ha'Rotzeh li'Terom, Yovo ve'Yitrom', in which case, the Madir does not really become the Mudar's Sheli'ach.

(c) If he were to announce ...

1. ... 'Kol ha'Shomei'a Koli, Yitrom' - the Mudar would become his full-fledged Sheli'ach, forbidding him to separate Terumah on his behalf.
2. ... 'Kol ha'Torem, Eino Mafsid' - he would not be his Sheli'ach at all, in which case, his Terumah would not be valid (see also Rashi).

(a) Presuming that Reuven may separate Terumah from his crops on behalf of Shimon, Rebbi Yirmiyah asked Rebbi Zeira who will receive the Tovas Hana'ah. The ...

1. ... two sides of the She'eilah are - whether it is Reuven who has the Tovas Hana'ah, because it his Terumah, or Shimon, because they are his crops.
2. ... ramifications of this She'eilah - are 1. who will receive any money that a relative of a Kohen might offer for his relation to receive the Terumah (the Kohen himself, is in any event forbidden to do anything at all, to prevail upon the Yisrael to give him his Terumos), and 2. to whose choice of Cohen is the Terumah given.

(b) Rebbi Zeira replied with the Pasuk "es Kol Tevu'as Zar'echa ve'Nasata" - which seems to be speaking to the owner of the field, from which we can learn that it is the owner of the crops who receives the Tovas Hana'ah).

(c) To avoid having to disprove Rebbi Zeira from there - Rava establishes our Mishnah when the Madir announced ''Kol ha'Rotzeh li'Terom, Yavo ve'Yitrom' (making him only a partial Sheli'ach - see also Rashi DH 'Le'olam').

(a) We nevertheless prove Rebbi Zeira wrong from a statement by Rebbi Avahu Amar Rebbi Yochanan. According to Rebbi Avahu Amar Rebbi Yochanan ...

1. ... should Reuven declare his animal Hekdesh on behalf of Shimon, and the animal develops a wound - the one who adds the extra fifth is Reuven.
2. ... the one who has the right to declare a Temurah - is Shimon.

(b) He also says that it is the one who *separates* the Terumah who has the Tovas Hana'ah, and not the owner of the crops (like Rebbi Zeira ruled). According to him - "es Kol Tevu'as Zar'echa, ve'Nasata" refers to the beginning of the Pasuk "Aser Te'aser" (which, in turn, refers to the owner).