Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) TUMAH HUTRAH B'TZIBUR

(a) Our Mishna apparently differs with R. Yosi.

1. R. Yosi says that the Tzitz does not address edibles.
2. To do Zerikah requires that the meat be considered in existence.
3. R. Yosi, then, appears to agree with R. Yehoshua.

(b) No, R. Yosi holds like R. Eliezer.
(c) Question: Then what difference does it make that R. Yosi holds that the Tzitz does not address edibles?
(d) Response Question: And what difference does it make for R. Eliezer that it *does*?
(e) Answer: The "existence" of the edibles allows the Korban to contract Pigul and to become immune from Me'ilah.

1. R. Eliezer holds that the Tzitz allows the Korban to proceed as though the edibles were there.
2. R. Yosi holds that it does not.

(f) Question: What Ritzui Ochlin helped the Shtei Halechem?

1. Perhaps it permits the Korban brought with them?
2. That would have been address by "Shalmei Tzibur, making the list four, not five.

(g) Answer: R. Yosi holds that Tumah is *permitted* in communal offerings (and the Tzitz is not needed).
(h) Question: Why (if the Tumah is Hutrah) does R. Yosi require sprinkling on the Kohen?
(i) Answer: Indeed, the Mishna is not like R. Yosi.

(a) Question: R. Yosi appears to accept contradictory opinions!?

1. He accepts both R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua in their opinions.
2. He repeats this acceptance both by Zevachim as well as by Menachos.

(b) Answer: When he was learning each topic (Zevachim and Menachos), he asserted that the dispute would hold by the other topic, as well.
(c) Question: Why does he need to mention, again, by Menachos that the dispute would carry over?
(d) Answer: R. Yosi agrees with R. Eliezer when the Ochlin become Tameh (but still exist) and with R. Yehoshua when the Ochlin are lost or burnt.
(e) Question: The only way to accept the Tamei Ochlin is with Ritzui Tzitz, but we were taught that R. Yosi holds that the Tzitz is *not* Meratzeh?!
(f) Answer: The opinion of R. Yosi is to accept R. Eliezer (blood even without meat) in public offerings, and to accept R. Yehoshua (no blood without meat) by individual offerings.
(g) Question #1: We learnt previously that R. Yosi holds Tumah B'Tzibur is *Dechuyah* not *Hutrah*?

(h) Question #2: R. Yehoshua would also agree by Tzibur that the blood can come without the meat!?
(i) Answer: The opinion of R. Yosi is to accept R. Eliezer after b'Dieved and R. Yehoshua l'Chatchilah.
(j) Question: But we were taught that R. Yehoshua *also* holds that after the fact the Korban is effective!?
(k) Answer: R. Yehoshua holds that b'Dieved it is effective only in the instance of Tumah, not of loss; R. Yosi is siding with R. Eliezer in the b'Dieved case even where there was loss of the meat.

(a) If the meat of the Korban Pesach become Tameh, there is no Zerikah, even if the Chelev exists.
(b) By other Korbanos, as long as either the meat or the Chelev is not Tameh, there is Zerikah.

(a) [Rav] If there was Zerikah, even by the Korban Pesach, b'Dieved, the owners were Yotzei.
(b) Question: But the Korban Pesach must be *eaten*!?
(c) Answer: The lack of eating does not block its effectiveness.
(d) Question: But the Pasuk says "each according to his eating?"
(e) Answer: That is the Mitzvah, but does not preclude effectiveness without it.
(f) Question: But we have a Bereisa by Menuyin that implies that the eating *is* Me'akev!?
(g) Answer: Rav holds like R. Noson that the eating is *not* Me'akev.
(h) Question: Where do we find R. Noson holding this opinion?

1. One source is his statement that all of Klal Yisrael could be Yotzei with one Korban.
2. That could be because each group could withdraw, allowing all others to participate, but this would *not* hold if the Korban became Tameh!

(i) Answer: The source is from his teaching that the second group of Menuyin on the Korban do not have to bring a Pesach Sheni because the blood was sprinkled (even though they did not eat a Kezayis).
(j) Question: Here, too, it could be because the first group *could have* withdrawn.
(k) Answer: Then the Bereisa should have said "because they could have withdrawn," not "because the blood was sprinkled?" (Hence we see Rav's source.)

(a) Question: What forced Rav to learn the Mishna according to R. Noson, learn it like the Rabanan (and even b'Dieved there is no Zerikah)?
(b) Answer: Rav was troubled by the words "he does not do Zerikah," since it should have said simply "Pasul," thus implying that it is only speaking l'Chatchilah.
(c) Question: According to R. Noson, what is meant by "each according to his eating?"
(d) Answer: The person must be able to eat.
(e) Question: Who holds that a thought regarding a person who cannot eat will not invalidate the Korban Pesach?

1. Is it R. Noson
2. This would be a logical extension of his Din.

(f) Answer: All hold this since incorrect thoughts regarding the consumers at the time of Zerikah would not invalidate the Korban.
(g) Question: Who holds that we do not prepare a Korban Pesach for anyone who was unable to eat either at the time of the Shechitah or the Zerikah? (This would appear to not follow R. Noson, who holds that the inability to eat should not pose an issue of invalidation.)
(h) Answer: Even R. Noson holds that the *person* must be able to eat.
(i) Question: Who holds that if the owners became Tameh after the Shechitah we still do the Zerikah even though there will not be Achilah?
(j) Answer #1: R. Eliezer holds that this is the view of R. Noson (that even if the owner is Tameh the eating is not Me'akev).
(k) Answer #2: We are speaking when the majority of the Tzibur became Tameh after the Shechitah.
(l) Question: If we are dealing with a Tzibur Tameh, then why isn't the Korban eaten?
(m) Answer #1: It is a Gezeirah lest people confuse the Din.
(n) Answer #2 [top of 79a]: Rav holds like R' Yehoshua (that the eating is not Me'akev).