Previous daf

1)

(a) The fact that Rebbi Yossi holds 'Ein ha'Tzitz Meratzeh Al Achilos' (like Rebbi Yehoshua) - does not mean that he also requires two things like him (in which case, he could not be the author of our Mishnah, as we explained above in the previous Sugya). In fact, he could hold like Rebbi Eliezer, who holds 'Dam, Af al Pi she'Ein Basar', in which case, he could well be the author of our Mishnah.

(b) If Rebbi Yossi holds 'Dam, Af al Pi she'Ein Basar', asks the Gemara, what is the point of saying 'Ein ha'Tzitz Meratzeh Al Achilos'? What difference does it make whether it does or whether it doesn't?

(c) Rebbi Eliezer too holds 'Dam, Af al Pi she'Ein Basar', yet he also says 'ha'Tzitz Meratzeh Al Achilos', on which one can ask the same question: What is the point of saying this? What difference does it make etc.?

(d) Rebbi Eliezer holds that 'ha'Tzitz Meratzeh Al Achilos', not to render the Korban Kasher (which it is anyway, because he holds 'Dam, Af al Pi she'Ein Basar'), but to render the Korban subject to Pigul, and to remove it from the realm of Me'ilah. According to Rebbi Yossi (who holds 'Ein ha'Tzitz Meratzeh Al Achilos'), it is the opposite: the Korban is not subject to Pigul, but it is subject to Me'ilah.

(a) The equivalent to the blood by the Lechem ha'Panim - is the Bazichin (the bowls of frankincense, which are burnt on the Mizbei'ach, and which permit the bread to be eaten).

(b) The Sh'tei ha'Lechem present a problem, because they are completely eaten. Neither can the Tana be referring to the Korban that is brought together with them - because that is the Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur, already mentioned in the Mishnah. Consequently, we would be left with *four* things that come be'Tum'ah, and not *five*, as the Tana states.

(a) If Rebbi Yossi holds 'Tum'ah Hutrah be'Tzibur' - then he will not require Ritzuy Tzitz, and it will not therefore matter that he holds 'Ein ha'Tzitz Merazte Al Achilos'.

(b) Rebbi Meir holds that one sprinkles the Kohen who burnt the Parah Adumah and the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kipur with the ashes of all the Paros Adumos that were there on each of the seven days.

(c) The Korbanos on Yom Kipur are all Korbenos Tzibur. Consequently, if Rebbi Yossi held 'Tum'ah Hutrah be'Tzibur, why would the Kohen Gadol need to be sprinkled at all?

(a) Initially, we attempt to explain Rebbi Yossi, who seemingly holds like both Rebbi Eliezer and like Rebbi Yehoshua, to mean that when he was holding by Zevachim, he said that just as they argue by Zevachim, so too, they argue by Menachos; and when he was holding by Menachos, he said the reverse.

(b) Bearing in mind that the source of the Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua is the Pesukim by Zevachim (as we learnt above on Daf 77), what does he mean with his latter statement? Why should he learn Zevachim from Menachos, when their initial Machlokes must be by Zevachim?

(c) Explaining him to mean that he rules like Rebbi Eliezer by 'Nitma', and like Rebbi Yehoshua by 'Avud ve'Saruf' does not work either - since why would he rule like Rebbi Eliezer by 'Nitma' (to say that the Korban is Kasher? Because 'Tzitz Meratzeh Al Tum'ah'? But that is impossible, since Rebbi Yossi holds 'Ein Tzitz Meratzeh Al ha'Achilos'.

(d) Besides the fact that Rebbi Yossi holds 'Tum'ah Dechuyah Hi be'Tzibur', we cannot establish him like Rebbi Eliezer by a Tzibur and like Rebbi Yehoshua by a Yachid - because we have already learnt above, that Rebbi Yehoshua agrees by a Tzibur.

5)

(a) True, we concluded earlier that even Rebbi Yehoshua agrees 'she'Im Zarak, Hurtzah', but that was by Tum'ah, which is still there; but by Avud ve'Saruf, which is *not*, and where they still argue, Rebbi Yossi prefers the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer, who permits Avud ve'Saruf Bedieved, 'she'Im Zarak, Hurtzah'.

(b) Rebbi Yossi is in fact speaking, by a Korban Yachid - because by a Korban Tzibur, even Rebbi Yehoshua agrees, as we just explained (in the previous question).

(a) By the Korban Pesach, one sprinkles the blood on the *Basar*, even when the *Cheilev* is *not* there or when it is Tamei (but not when the *Cheilev is* there and the *Basar* is *not* - even according to Rebbi Eliezer) - because the main purpose of the Pesach is to be eaten.

(b) Other Kodshim differ from the Korban Pesach in this regard - inasmuch as if either the Basar or the Cheilev is still valid, one nevertheless sprinkles the blood.

(a) Rav says that if, in the case in our Mishnah when the Basar became Tamei, the blood was sprinkled, the Korban is accepted - because the actual eating is not essential to the validity of the Korban.

(b) We learn from the double Lashon (in Bo) "*be'Michsas*" and "Ish Le'fi Ochlo *Tachosu*" - that if the Pesach was Shechted she'Lo li'Menuyav, it is Pasul (because by Kodshim, whenever the Torah repeats itself, it is to render Pasul even Bedi'eved).

(c) Rebbi Nasan says that the eating of the Pesach is not essential to the validity of the Korban.

(a) Rebbi Nasan learns from the Pasuk in Bo "ve'Shachatu Oso Kol Kehal Yisrael" that the whole of Yisrael can be Yotze with one lamb. Now that would certainly mean that each person would receive less than a k'Zayis, which is not termed eating; which goes to prove that the eating of the Korban is not essential to the validity of the Korban.

(b) The Gemara rejects this proof on the grounds that in that case, some of the members could withdraw (like a kind of 'Migu'), in which case, the remaining members would receive a k'Zayis. Otherwise, Rebbi Nasan may well invalidate a Korban Pesach that cannot be eaten.

(a) Rebbi Nasan says that, even though the second group will receive less a k'Zayis, and should therefore have really withdrawn from it before the Shechitah, they are nevertheless Patur from bringing a Pesach Sheni, if they did not do so. This is because, since the blood has already been sprinkled, they are Yotze their obligation - even though they cannot eat it.

(b) Rebbi Nasan's reason there cannot be because if either group were to withdraw, there would be a k'Zayis for each member of the other group (like we said in the previous case) - because if that is so, then he should have given *that* as his reason, and not 'because the blood has already been sprinkled'.

(c) According to the Rabbanan of Rebbi Nasan - it is only the members of the first group who are Patur from bringing the Pesach Sheini, but not the members of the second group, since they do not receive a k'Zayis.

(d) Rav is forced to establish our Mishnah ('Nitma Basar ve'Cheilev Kayam, Eino Zorek es ha'Dam') by Lechatchilah (from which he deduces that Bedi'eved, the Pesach is Kasher - like Rebbi Nasan) - from the fact that the Tana writes 'Eino Zorek es ha'Dam', and not simply 'Pasul' (which implies Bedi'eved.

(a) According to Rebbi Nasan "Ish Le'fi Ochlo" teaches us that the person must be fit to eat it (to preclude a sick or an old person) - similar to the Din of principle of Rebbi Zeira 'Kol ha'Ra'uy le'Bilah, Ein Bilah Me'akeves Bo'.

(b) The author of the Beraisa, which states 'Shachto le'Ochlav, ve'Zarku Damav she'Lo le'Ochlav, ha'Pesach Atzmo Kasher, ve'Adam Yotze Bo Yedei Chovaso', could even be the Rabbanan, because they hold 'Ein Machsheves Ochlin bi'Zerikah'.

(c) The author of the Beraisa which requires the owner of the Pesach to be fit to eat it from the time of the Shechitah until it is eaten, could even be Rebbi Nasan, who agrees that the owner himself must be fit to eat the Pesach, as we just explained.

(a) Rebbi Elazar (who establishes the author of the Beraisa - which states that if the Pesach was Shechted be'Taharah, and then the owner became Tamei, the blood should be sprinkled be'Taharah, but the Pesach may not be eaten be'Tum'ah - to be Rebbi Nasan) maintains that Rebbi Nasan does not even require the owner to be fit to eat the Pesach either (and the author of the previous Beraisa, according to him, will be the Rabbanan, and not Rebbi Nasan).

(b) According to Rebbi Yochanan, the author of this Beraisa could even be the Rabbanan, because the Tana is speaking about a Pesach ha'Ba be'Tum'ah).

(c) The reason that it is not *eaten* be'Tum'ah as well - is because it speaks when the Tzibur became Tamei *between the Shechitah and the Zerikah* (whereas a regular case of Pesach ha'Ba be'Tum'ah - which *is* eaten - speaks when they became Tamei *before* the Shechitah. Consequently, Chazal decreed that it should not be eaten, in case the following year, the people will become Tamei *after* the Zerikah (in which case it is not a Pesach ha'Ba be'Tum'ah at all), and the people, remembering how they ate the Pesach the previous year, when they also became Tamei after the Shechitah (but *before* the Zerikah), will think that they may eat it this year too.