Previous daf

1)

(a) Rava resolves Rav Yosef's Sha'aleh (whether a Tamei Mes will be Chayav if he eats the Emurim of a Pesach ha'Ba be'Tum'ah or not) - from the fact that the source for the prohibition of eating the Emurim be'Tum'ah is from the extra words "Asher la'Hashem", which is written by the Basar. So wherever one is not Chayav for eating the *Basar* be'Tum'ah, one is not Chayav for eating the *Emurim* either.

(b) 'Perhaps Sheviski Avud' - means that perhaps they ate the Emurim on spits. Who said that they were burned (like they would subsequently be in the Beis ha'Mikdash)?

(c) The three altars in Egypt were the two door-posts and the lintel.

(d) They were used exclusively for the blood, and there was nothing else there on which to burn the Emurim.

(a) We learn from ...

1. ... the Pasuk "ve'Hayah Lachem *le'Mishmeres*" - that the Pesach needs to be examined for blemishes four days before Pesach (in Egypt, this was specifically from the tenth of Nisan).
2. ... the Gezeirah Shavah "le'Mishmeres" and "Tishmeru" (by the Korban Tamid) - that the Tamid too, requires examination four days before it is due to be brought.

(b) From the Pasuk in Bo ...

1. ... "Dabru ... be'Asor la'Chodesh *ha'Zeh* ve'Yikchu" - that it was only the Pesach in Egypt that needed to be examined from the tenth, but not that of subsequent generations.
2. ... "ve'Hayah Lachem le'Mishmeres Ad Arba'ah-Asar Yom la'Chodesh *ha'Zeh*" - that it is only the Pesach Rishon that needs to be examined four days before, but not the Pesach Sheini.

(c) Even though the subsequent Pesachim do not require examination from the tenth, they nevertheless do require examination four days before they are sacrificed, as we shall soon see.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk in Bo "ve'Avad'ta es ha'Avodah ha'Zos ba'Chodesh ha'Zeh" - that all the Avodos of subsequent Pesachim should be equivalent to those of Pesach Mitzrayim.

(b) Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah Darshens from "ve'Achlu es ha'Basar ba'Laylah *ha'Zeh*" - that the Pesach must be eaten by mid-night (from a 'Gezeirah Shavah' from "ve'Avarti be'Eretz Mitzrayim ba'Laylah ha'Zeh"), and Rebbi Akiva, that it can only be eaten on that night (and not for two nights, like a Shelamim).

(c) we learn from ...

1. ... "ve'Chol Areil Lo Yochal *Bo*" - that an Areil is obligated to eat Matzah and Maror (even when he is unable to eat the Pesach - see Tosfos 120a. DH 'Kol').
2. ... "Kol Ben Neichar Lo Yochal *Bo*" - that a Kohen who serves idols may eat Terumah.
3. ... "u'Maltah Oso, Az Yochal *Bo*" - that a Kohen who has a son or a non- Jewish slave who are uncircumcised may eat Terumah.
4. ... "ve'Etzem Lo Yishberu *Bo*" - that one may break the bones of a Pasul Pesach.
5. ... "Al Tochlu *Mimenu* Na - from a 'Gezeirah Shavah' ("Mimemu" by Ma'aser from "Mimenu" by Pesach) that an Areil is forbidden to eat Ma'aser Sheini.

(d) Had the Torah exempted an Areil from the Pesach - we would have ascribed that to the fact that he is physically repulsive (whereas a Ben Neichar is *not*); and had the Torah exempted only a Ben Neichar, we would have ascribed that to the fact that his heart is not with Hashem (whereas an Areil's *is*). Consequently, the Torah needs to exempt them both.

5)

(a) We learn from the Pasuk "va'Achaltem *Oso* be'Chipazon" - that subsequent Pesachim need not be eaten in haste (with belts fastened, wearing shoes and stick in hand), as it was in Egypt.

(b) We finally amend the Mishnah 'Pesach Mitzrayim ... ve'Ne'echal be'Chipazon be'Laylah Echad, u'Pesach Doros Kol Shiv'ah' - to read 'Pesach Mitzrayim ... ve'Ne'echal be'Chipazon be'Laylah Echad *ve'Hu ha'Din le'Pesach Doros, ve'Chimutzo Kol ha'Yom*, u'Pesach Doros Kol Shiv'ah'.

(c) Rebbi Yossi Hagelili learns from the juxtaposition of the two Pesukim in Bo "Lo Ye'achel Chametz ... ha'Yom Atem Yotz'im" - that the Isur of Chametz only applied in Egypt for one day.

6)

(a) 'Temuras Pesach Kereivah' that Rebbi Yehoshua heard about - referred to a Pesach that became lost and the owner 'transferred' its Kedushah to a Chulin animal (exactly when, we shall soon see), which is then brought directly on the Mizbei'ach as a Shelamim.

(b) He found this problematic, because he had also heard that 'Temuras Pesach Einah Kereivah' and he was unable to explain the distinction.

(c) Rebbi Akiva solved the problem: If the lost lamb was found *before* its replacement was Shechted, it is not brought directly, but sent to graze in the field, until it becomes blemished. Then it is redeemed and the proceeds are used to purchase a Shelamim. But if it was found *after* the Shechitah, it is brought directly as a Shelamim.

(d) The reason that the former was not brought directly as a Pesach, and neither was its Temurah - is because, since it was found before the Shechitah of the replacement and was available for Shechitah, the fact that the other one was Shechted, and it, rejected, causes it to become 'Dachuy', rendering it unfit to bring on the Mizbei'ach (whilst a Temurah tends to adopt the same Kedushah as the animal from which it came).

(a) The reason that Rebbi Yehoshua and Rebbi Akiva discuss the *Temuras* Pesach and not the *Pesach itself* (that got lost) - is to teach us the bigger Chidush that even a Temuras Pesach (which is initially designated as a *Shelamim*, and not as a Pesach (and perhaps it should not therefore be considered rejected by the replacement, which is after all, not a *Shelamim*, but a *Pesach*) is nevertheless sometimes Dachuy.

(b) According to Rebbi Zeira, who considers the criterion to be, not the Shechitah itself, but mid-day - the reason the Tana mentions Shechitah, is because mid-day is the time when the Shechitah commences.

(c) The ramifications of their Machlokes - will be if the lost Pesach was found after mid-day but before the Shechitah of the replacement; according to Rabah, it is rejected and is therefore sent to graze; whereas according to Rebbi Zeira, it may be Shechted directly as a Shelamim.

(d) If the lost Pesach had not been re-placed at the time when it was found - then it is not in any way rejected and can therefore be brought directly on the Mizbei'ach.

(a) If the Pesach was found *before* the Shechitah of its replacement, and the owner declared a Temurah on it *after* the Shechitah, Rabah says that it must be sent to graze - because the Temurah came from a rejected Kedushah.

(b) A Temurah is only brought directly if the lost lamb was also found after the Shechitah of the replacement.

(c) The Gemara attempts to refute Rabah's statement from the Beraisa, which learns from the Pasuk in Vayikra "Im Kesev" that a Temuras Pesach is brought directly as a Shelamim - because, if this was talking about a case where the lost lamb was found and the Temurah declared *after* the Shechitah of the replacement, then what will be the Chidush, as this appears to be obvious? Consequently, the Pasuk must be speaking when the *Temurah may have been *declared* after the Shechitah, but the *lamb* must have been found *beforehand* - and yet, it is brought directly as a Shelamim?

(d) We know that a Temuras Pesach should be brought as a Shelamim - from the Pasuk in Re'ei "ve'Zavachta Pesach", from which we learn that a Mosar ha'Pesach is brought as a Shelamim, and a Temuras ha'Pesach that cannot be brought as a Pesach, is also a Mosar ha'Pesach.

(a) We need a special Pasuk for the Alyah of the Pesach. We would not have known it from the Alyah of the sheep that is brought with the Emurim of all other Korbanos - because the Emurim themselves are not written explicitly by the Pesach (only from the Pasuk in Korach "Es Damam Tizrok ve'es *Chelbam* Taktir" - which is written by Bechor).

(b) we learn from ...

1. ... "*Im* Kesev" - that the Mosar ha'Pesach (or the Chagigas Arba'ah- Asar) has the Din of a Shelamim.
2. ... "ve'Im Eiz" - that the Alyah of a goat is not brought with the Emurim of the goat, as is that of a lamb.

(c) We cannot say that a goats tail is not considered an Alyah - because if that was so, why would we require a Pasuk to preclude it from the Din of Alyah.

(a) In the second Lashon, Rabah comes to qualify the Reisha. 'ha'Pesach she'Nimtza Kodem Shechitas ha'Pesach, Yir'eh Ad she'Yista'ev', he says, refers specifically to a case where both the lamb was found and the Temurah was declared, *before* the Shechitah of its replacement; but not if the Temurah was declared *afterwards*.

(b) Abaye refutes Rabah's statement from a Beraisa which precludes from "Pesach Hu", a Temuras Pesach that was found before Pesach. To preclude a case where both the lost lamb was found and the Temurah was declared before the replacement was Shechted from being brought on the Mizbei'ach directly, is obvious and does not require a Pasuk. The Pasuk must therefore come to preclude a case where although the lamb was found *before* the Shechitah, the Temurah was declared only *afterwards* - yet it is not brought directly on the Mizbei'ach - a clear disproof for the second Lashon of Rabah.