Previous daf

1)

(a) We know that Pesach requires Linah - from the Pasuk in Re'ei "u'Fanisa va'Boker ve'Halachta le'Ohalecha".

(b) The Mitzvah of 'Linah' on Pesach comprises remaining in Yerushalayim overnight - until the first morning of Chol ha'Mo'ed.

(a) We ask from where the Tana Kama and Rebbi Shimon (who learn 'Bal Te'achar' from "be'Chag ha'Matzos, u've'Chag ha'Shavu'os u've'Chag ha'Sukos") will learn Tashlumin by Shavu'os. We cannot ask the same question on Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, who learns 'Bal Te'achar' from "u've'Chag ha'Sukos" - because, according to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, Sukos alone determines Bal Te'acher, in which case, "be'Chag ha'Matzos, u've'Chag ha'Shavu'os" remain superfluous, to Darshen Tashlumin by Shavu'os.

(b) The Tana Kama and Rebbi Shimon in fact, learn Tashlumin from Rosh Chodesh - because in the same way as the Torah says to count the *days* which comprise the month, and then to bring the Korban of Rosh Chodesh on one of the *days* that one counted (i.e. the following day), so too, does the Torah say count the *weeks* until Shavu'os and bring the Korban on one of the *weeks* that one counted (i.e. the following week).

(c) We know to reckon one *week* in which to bring the Korbanos of Shavu'os, on account of the seven *weeks* of the Omer, and not just the one *day*, on account of the forty-nine *days* - because the name of the Chag is 'Shavu'os' (indicating that the weeks that one counts are the main objective of the Mitzvah, and that the counting of the days is of secondary importance).

(a) How can the Tana list Pesach among the Korbanos that are included in Bal Te'acher, we ask - when the Pesach can only be brought on the fourteenth of Nisan?

(b) Rav Chisda answers that the Tana includes Pesach only by the way, but not because it belongs there - Rav Sheshes interpret 'Pesach' to mean 'Shalmei Pesach' (i.e. a Korban Pesach that was left over and not Shechted on the fourteenth, and which becomes a Shelamim.

(c) The Tana nevertheless finds it necessary to mention them specifically, despite the fact that he has already included Shelamim in the list - because it is the way of the Tana'im to categorize lists in this way (e.g. ordinary Shelamim and Shelamim that came from a Pesach).

4)

(a) The Beraisa learns Bal Te'acher in all the cases mentioned in the Beraisa on 4a. from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei (which is the source for Bal Te'acher. Although the Torah only writes "Neder", we nevertheless include Nedavah from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Neder" "Neder" from the Dinim of Korbanos in Tzav. A Neder - consists of a vow to bring an unspecified animal as a Korban (a Shelamim or an Olah) ; whereas a Nedavah - consists of designating a specific animal as a Korban.

(b) In the case of a Neder (which he did not specify) - he remains *responsible*, should he subsequently designate an animal for his Neder and it gets lost; whereas in the case of a Nedavah - he is *not* (seeing as the animal which he designated, is no longer available to bring).

(c) From "la'Hashem Elokecha" we learn Damim, Erchin, Charamim and Hekdeshos - which are all Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis.

(d) From the Pasuk "Lo Se'acher Le'shal*mo*" - we learn 'Hu ve'Lo Chalifav' (that Bal Te'acher is confined to the animal itself, but not to the animal which the owner designated in place of the Korban which got lost, and which he subsequently found and brought on the Mizbe'ach).

(a) From "Darosh Yidreshenu" we learn four Korbanos - Chata'os and Ashamos, Olos and Shelamim.

(b) The Nedarim and Nedavos that we learned earlier covers Olos and Shelamim that one volunteered to bring during the year - the Derashah of "Darosh Yidreshenu" comes to include Olos Re'iyah and Shalmei Chagigah (which are obligatory).

(c) Besides Tzedakos - we learn from "Hashem Elokecha" that Ma'asros (Dagan and Beheimah) and Bechor are also included in the La'av of 'Bal Te'acher'.

(d) From "me'Imach", we include Leket, Shikchah and Pei'ah in the La'av of 'Bal Te'acher'.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk "ve'Hayah *Becha Chet*" - 've'Lo be'Korbancha Chet' (to teach us that even though one has transgressed the La'av of 'Bal Te'acher', the Korban nevertheless remains valid).

(b) When the Tana says "Hu" 've'Lo Chilufav', he cannot possibly be referring to ...

1. ... Chilufei Olah or Shelamim - because they become Korbanos in their own right, so why should 'Bal Te'achar' not apply to them?
2. ... Chilufei Chatas - because it is one of the Chata'os that has to die, and it is obvious that 'Bal Te'acher' will not apply to it.

(c) We then suggest that maybe he is referring to Chilufei Todah - which one brings without the forty loaves.

(d) If both animals were still alive - one would bring both of them together with the one set of loaves, and stipulate that the loaves go together with whichever one is the original Todah.

(a) "Hu" 've'Lo Chalipav' cannot refer to the previous case, but when one of the animals died, - because then it would be obvious that 'Bal Te'acher' will not apply, seeing as there is no way that he can bring the Todah (because, if it *is* the original Todah, then he is *obligated* to bring the loaves too; whereas if it is *not*, then he is *not permitted* to bring them).

(b) Rav Sheshes finally establishes "Hu" 've'Lo Chalipav' by a Chalipei Olah or Shelamim. As for the Kashya 'P'shita' that we asked before - it speaks when two Yamim-Tovim had already passed when the original Korban became blemished, and he designated this one to replace it. We would have thought that seeing as this animal is to replace the original one, he will already transgress 'Bal Te'acher' after the third Yom-Tov arrives, (as if it was the original Korban); therefore we learn from "Hu" 've'Lo Chalipav', that he is *not* (until three Regalim pass from the time that he designated *it*).

(c) According to Rebbi Meir, in whose opinion one transgresses Bal Te'acher already after *one* Yom-Tov - Rav Sheshes will establish the case when he designated a second animal in the middle of Yom-Tov to replace the original Korban which had just become blemished. We would have thought that one transgresses 'Bal Te'acher' immediately after Yom-Tov (seeing as this animal comes to replace the original one). The Torah therefore writes "Hu" to teach us - to teach us 've'Lo Chalipav' (as we explained in b.).

(a) The Torah writes in connection with Bechor Beheimah "Shanah be'Shanah". We would have thought that the Bechor even *becomes Pasul* after the first year has expired - like a blemished Korban, which becomes Pasul.

(b) We learn that it does *not* from the fact that the Torah compares it to Ma'aser (Dagan) which does *not* become Pasul - because of the Pasuk in Ki Savo, which obligates the clearing out of all one's Ma'asros and of giving them to their rightful owners after the end of the third year.

(c) Acheirim (in a Beraisa) learns from the Torah's Hekesh of Bechor to Ma'aser (in the Pasuk in Re'ei "ve'Achalta Lifnei Hashem Elokecha ... ") - that just as Ma'aser does not become Pasul even after the time period of one year has expired, so too, does a Bechor not become Pasul after one year (as we just explained).

(d) We nevertheless need the Derashah of "ve'Hayah Becha Chet" 've'Lo be'Korbancha Chet', to teach us that a Korban does not become Pasul on account of 'Bal Te'acher' - because we might otherwise have said that Bechor does *not* become Pasul, because it does not come to atone (for a sin) or even as a gift, but other Korbanos, which come for either one or the other, *do* (seeing as he is now bringing then sinfully).

(a) Ben Azai learns from the Pasuk in Tzav (regarding the P'sul of Pigul) "ha'Makriv *Oso* Lo Yechasheiv" - that Pigul (a thought on the part of the Kohen to bring the animal in its wrong time) renders the Korban invalid, but not an animal that is brought to the Beis Hamikdash after its time.

(b) So we amend the Beraisa to read "Be'cha Chet" 've'Lo be'Ishtecha Chet'. We would have otherwise thought that a man's wife would die because *he* transgressed 'Bal Te'achar' - because Rebbi Yochanan (some say Rebbi Elazar) said that a man's wife can die because he did not pay back money that he stole from *human beings*(see Tosfos DH 'Ela Im Kein'), so why should she not die when he does not pay what is owing to *Hashem*?
Note: That a woman dies for her husband's sins probably speaks when she is Chayav Misah anyway (for other transgressions). Normally however, her husband's merits would protect her and she would not die. Now however, that he too, is guilty of not paying money that he stole, his merits will not protect her.