Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) PROUD BRIDGE-BUILDERS

(a) [R. Chaninah] The Kohanim Gedolim had excessive pride in their refusal to use the bridges built by their predecessors, rather, they each built it anew, at enormous expense.
(b) Question: But Shimon HaTzadik constructed a second bridge when he brought a second Parah Adumah!?
(c) Question: Then why did the great Tzadik do so?
(d) Answer: To impart greatness and honor to the Parah Adumah.
(e) We were taught that abutments to the bridge made it impossible for Kohanim to peer over the edge and (possibly) become Tamei.

(a) R. Akiva did not permit the arrangement (buying and selling wine and oil with the Shirayim) fearing losses to Hekdesh.
(b) If, however, one were to give only profits to Hekdesh while absorbing any losses to himself, it would be permitted.
(c) R. Mana issued a similar ruling regarding the funds of orphans.
(d) R. Chiya was entrusted with orphan's funds, and absorbed any loss while dividing the profit with the orphans.

(a) The Mishnah is the opinion of R. Yishmael.

1. [R. Chiya] Mosar Peiros means profits to Hekdesh.
2. Mosar Nesachim (about which there is a dispute whether it goes for Kelei Shares or for Kayitz) means the fourth Se'ah.
3. [R. Yochanan] Mosar Peiros is the fourth Se'ah.
4. Mosar Nesachim is Beirutzim.

(b) Question: Does R. Chiya not learn the law of Beirutzim?
(c) Answer: It is identical to the fourth Se'ah.
(d) Question: When, according to R. Yochanan, will R. Akiva and R. Chanina, not admit the Peiros (which R. Yochanan understands to mean the fourth Se'ah), we know that the fourth Se'ah is permitted, and Peiros *are* quite admissible!?
(e) Answer: They only rejected the use of Peiros for Kayitz.

(a) Would we even allow the Beirutzim from an *individual* to be used to purchase Kelei Shares (there is no precedent for this)?
(b) Answer: Like the women weaving the Kesones, it is given fully to the Tzibur.
(c) Question: What would the Din be by dry Beirutzim?
(d) Answer: We can demonstrate that only that which has been sanctified in a Keli Shares is Kadosh, and not the dry overflow (this is supported by a Bereisa).

(a) The surplus Ketores was used to pay the workers who prepared it.

1. This necessitated being Mechalel the Kedushah of the Ketores on the salary funds.
2. The Ketores was then given to the workers.
3. The Ketores, in turn, was purchased back from them with new Terumah funds (or old, depending on when the new Terumah came in).

(a) Question: How can we be Mechalel Hekdesh (the Ketores) on Hekdesh (Terumah funds)?
(b) Answer: Other funds are brought and are Mechulal on the building..
(c) Rebbi holds that a debt may be used to be Mechalel the coins and so the Terumah may be given directly to the workers

1. The workers of the houses of Garmu and Avtinas.
2. They would be Mechalel the Ketores, etc.
3. This is all provided that the salaries are already due.

(d) Question [R. Chiya]: What would be done with the surplus if salaries are not yet due?
(e) Answer [R. Chiya]: They would be Mechulal on animals for Kayitz.
(f) Question: Was R. Chiya in doubt or not?!
(g) Answer: He was in doubt whether the surplus Ketores was like the surplus Nesachim (Kelei Shares).
(h) This is, indeed, a Machlokes regarding the Kashrus of Ketores which was pounded in a Keli Chol.

1. R. Yosi b. R. Chanina said it is Pesulah.
2. R. Yehoshua b. Levi said it is Kesheirah.

(i) Their dispute is over how to interpret the Pasuk (Shemos 30:37).
(j) [R. Yusa] Their dispute seems to parallel other opinions.

1. R. Yosi b. Chaninah is like Shmuel (see 4. below).
2. R. Yehoshua b. Levi is like R. Yochanan in the upcoming Mishnah who indicates that Ketores prepared as Chulin is Kesheirah.
3. R. Yosi may be defended by saying that we are speaking of workers receiving their pay in Ketores.
4. Shmuel had taught that the hammer for pounding the Ketores is considered a Keli Shares.
5. Question: Can the Ketores then be redeemed?!
6. Answer: It is Shmuel's opinion that we are lenient regarding surplus.

(i) The position of Shmuel pertains to the Halachah of surplus unblemished animals set aside for the Tamid.

(1) Shmuel holds they are redeemed as unblemished.
(2) R. Yochanan holds they are redeemed like Pesulei HaMukdashin.

(k) If Se'irim (Chatas) are left over:

1. We infer that Shmuel would certainly permit them to be redeemed.
2. We assume that R. Yochanan would send them to pasture.
3. R. Shmuel b. Yitzhok makes them Kayitz.
4. Question: Can a Chatas be brought as an Olah?!
5. Answer [R. Yusa]: Korbanos Tzibur are unique in that they are only designated at the Shechitah.
6. Answer [R. Chiya]: No, it is rather a condition of Beis Din.

Next daf