Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) MISHNA: KODSHIM B'TUMAH [bottom of 46b]

(a) Five Korbanos are offered B'tumah, but not eaten.
(b) The Korban Pesach is brought B'tumah and is eaten.

(a) Question: What does the number (5) in the Mishna come to exclude?
(b) Answer: Korbanos Chagigah might have been considered.

1. These Korbanos are of a "public" nature.
2. There is a set time for these Korbanos.
3. They do not, however, override Shabbos.
4. As such, they do not override Tumah, either.

(c) Question: List the Seirim of the festivals!
(d) Answer: They are included in the Zivchei Shalmei Tzibbur (see Rashi).
(e) Question: Then we need not have listed the Seirim of Rosh Chodesh either!
(f) Answer [77a]: Rosh Chodesh is not called Moed, and could have been mistakenly excluded.

1. We are taught that Rosh Chodesh is called "Moed."
2. This is based on the teaching of Abaye regarding the "Moed" for destruction.

(g) Question: Are all the cases of the Mishna derived from "Moed?"
(h) Answer: Indeed, the word Moed (to permit Tumah) may be found by all the festival Korbanos.
(i) Question: Why do we need a separate reference to Moed by *each* of the festivals?
(j) Answer: Each festival has unique qualities which, alone or in combination, would override Shabbos and Tumah, but would not yield the others.

1. Tamid is constant and entirely burnt (unlike the Pesach).
2. Pesach carries Kares (unlike Tamid).
3. Tamid plus Pesach both have a stringent side (unlike the other communal Korbanos) hence the need for the Pasuk.
4. The Pasuk could refer only to Korbanos which bring atonement (and not Omer and Shtei HaLechem).
5. The Omer and Shtei HaLechem are important in that they come to permit (unlike the others).

(a) Tumah in community is [presumably] overridden, not permitted.

1. R. Yehudah is the only Tana who holds that Tumah is permitted.
2. Their Machlokes regarding the Tzitz establishes R. Yehudah's position as Hutrah and R. Shimon's as Hudchah.

(b) The Tzitz [presumably] does not address edible parts of the Korban since R. Eliezer is the only Tanna who holds that the Tzitz addresses edibles while R. Yosi holds that it does not.

(a)

1. Question: Is the Mishna (which permits the Omer and Shtei HaLechem) then not like R. Yehoshua?
2. R. Yehoshua holds (based on "V'asisa Olasecha Habasar V'hadam") that if either the blood or meat become unfit then the other is unfit.
3. R. Eliezer holds (based on "V'dam Z'vachecha Yishafech") that if there is no meat there can still be blood.

(b) Question: How will R. Eliezer use Habasar V'hadam?
(c) Answer: It teaches that both blood and meat are thrown (there is a gap in front of the Mizbeach).
(d) Question: How will R. Yehoshua use V'dam Zivachecha Yishafech?
(e) Answer: That Pasuk is right next to "eat the meat!"

(f) Question: Why (acc. to R. Yehoshua) do we need two Pesukim?
(g) Answer: One for Olah and one for Shlamim, each having its unique qualities.

1. Olah is entirely burnt (unlike Shlamim).
2. Shlamim is "eaten" two ways (unlike Olah).

(h) Question: How will R. Eliezer deal with "eat the meat?"
(i) Answer: It teaches that the meat cannot be eaten if the blood is not sprinkled.
(j) Question: Then the *whole* Pasuk is used for that purpose (and there is no Pasuk for blood without meat)?
(k) Answer: The order of the Pasuk is reversed in mid-verse for the extra teaching.
(l) Question: And R. Yehoshua?
(m) Answer: The Halachah that meat cannot be eaten before the blood is sprinkled is a Kal V'Chomer.

1. Emurim, if absent, are dispensable, yet when they are present they are indispensable.
2. Blood, if absent, is indispensable, all the more so when present.

(n) Question: And R. Eliezer?
(o) Answer: The Torah even writes that which could be derived logically.
(p) Question: And R. Yehoshua?
(q) Answer: Wherever we can apply logic, we do so.

(a) Question: Is our Mishna not like R. Yehoshua?

1. We need both, the blood and the meat.
2. The Tzitz does not address the edibles.
3. How can the edible Korbanos be brought B'tumah?

(b) Answer: The Tzitz addresses that which goes up (onto the Mizbeach).

1. Question: What about the Omer and Shtei HaLechem (nothing goes up)?
2. Answer: The requirement of both the blood and the meat is only by sacrifices, not by meal-offerings.
3. Question: But we find that R. Yehoshua invalidates there, too!?
4. Answer: That teaching is *according* to R. Yehoshua, and *not according* to R. Yehoshua (this Tana carries R. Yehoshua's view further to meal offerings).
5. Question #1: Who is this, more stringent, Tana?
6. Question #2: We find in a Bereisa (wherein R. Yosi states his concurrence with the opinions of R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua in respect to both sacrifices and meal-offerings) that R. Yehoshua *did* hold his view even by meal-offerings!
7. Indeed, R. Yehoshua holds that the Tzitz *does* address edibles.
8. Question: Then why did we say above "according to R. Yehoshua - Pasul?"
9. Answer: That refers to that which was lost or burnt.
10. Question: The according to whom does the Tana teach "if it became Tamei?"
11. Answer: According to R. Eliezer.
12. Question: That is obvious?!

(i) R. Eliezer permits when the ingredients are lost entirely.
(ii) Is it news that he permits when they are Tamei?

13. Answer: It must be according to R. Yehoshua.
14. Question #1: But he taught that it is "Pesula?"
15. Question #2: But he taught that if both the meat and the Cheilev were Tamei, there is no Zerika?

(i) This implies that R. Yehoshua holds that the Tzitz does not address that which "goes up."
(ii) Neither does it address edibles.

16. Answer: This Mishnah does, indeed, follow R. Yehoshua, here it is "L'chatchilah," there, "b'Di'eved."
17. Question: Where do we see that R. Yehoshua makes such a distinction?
18. Answer: In the Bereisa, "...if he did the Zerika, it is effective."
19. Question #1: "Pesula" means even b'Di'eved.
20. Question #2: "Five things are brought B'Tumah" implies l'Chatchilah!
21. Answer: Here it is b'Yachid, here it is b'Tzibur.