Previous daf

1)

(a) We learned in a Beraisa, 'Nasnah be'Machteshes, Nifseles bi'Tevul-Yom' - implying that the mortar is a K'li Shareis, that renders the Ketores Kedushas ha'Guf (as we shall now see), whereas we just concluded that Ketores is only Kedushas Damim?

(b) This Kashya is based on the Mishnah in Me'ilah. Me'ilah applies to Menachos from the moment thety are declared Hekdesh (Kedushas Damim), whereas from the moment one places them into a K'li Shareis - they will become eligible to becoming Pasul Linah, or Pasul through contact with a Tevul-Yom or a Mechusar Kipurim (P'sul ha'Guf).

(c) We counter this Kashya with another Mishnah there, where the Tana says that the Kometz (of a Minchah), the Levonah, the Ketores, the Minchah of a Kohen, or of a Kohen Gadol (i.e. the daily Minchas Chavitin) and the Minchas Nesachim (that accompanies an animal Korban) - all become Pasul be'Linah from the time they are placed in a K'li Shareis (even though the Ketores has already been pounded in a mortar).

(d) We know that the K'li mentioned in this Mishnah is not the mortar mentioned in the Beraisa - because the Beraisa did not mention P'sul Linah.

(a) Initially, we reconcile the two Mishnahs - by associating Linah with changing its form. Consequently, even though a mortar is a K'li Shareis, the Beraisa omits P'sul Linah - because Ketores does not change its form, and cannot therefore become Pasul be'Linah.

(b) The Mishnah in Me'ilah nevertheless mentions it - because once it is placed in a regular Kli Shareis, ready to bring on the Mizbe'ach, the Rabbanan decreed Linah, because of other cases mentioned there (where the Hekdesh does change its form, and which does therefore become Paul be'Linah.

(c) Despite the fact that Ketores is Kadosh Kedushas ha'Guf, it is possible to redeem it, Rabah concludes - because of the principle 'Leiv Beis-Din Masneh Aleihen' (the Beis-Din stipulate from the moment of Kedushah, that only the Ketores that is destined to be used will adopt Kedushas ha'Guf (whereas whatever is not, will only be Kedushas Damim).

(d) This also answers the Kashya on Ula Amar Rebbi Yochanan (regarding unblemished Temidin) - because it extends to all cases of Kodshei Tzibur, which Beis-Din (the Chachamim of that time) protect by means of 'Leiv Beis-Din Masneh Aleihen').

(a) Abaye queries Rabah from his own statement - that someone who declared a ram Hekdesh Keduushas Damim - it automatically adopts Kedushas ha'Guf. In that case, what is the point of 'Lev Beis-Din Masneh Aleihen, seeing as even if the animal becomes Kedushas Damim, seeing as it is fit to bring on the Mizbe'ach, it will immediately adopts Kedushas ha'Guf.

(b) Rabah replied - that his statement pertained specifically to someone who declared his animal 'Kadosh li'Demei Olah', which adopts Kedushas ha'Guf, seeing as it is itself fit to be brought as an Olah, but not to where he declared it 'Kadosh li'Kedushas Nesachim' (seeing as an animal is not fit to become Nesachim) ...

(c) ... and certainly not to where Beis-Din declared that it should 'Kadosh le'Mosar Terumah', which (unlike Nesachim), does not even go on the Mizbe'ach.

4)

(a) Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa, rules that the bull and the goat of Yom Kipur that got lost and were replaced must die, and the same applies to the goats of the Tzibur that served Avodah-Zarah that got lost and were replaced. All these animals (which fall under the category of 'Chata'os Penimi'os') share the unusual specification - that their blood is brought into the Kodesh and is sprinkled there towards the Paroches and on the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav .

(b) They differ from the Se'irei ha'Regalim, about which we learned 'Lo Karvu be'Regel Zeh Yikarvu be'Regel Acher' - inasmuch as they are not eligible to be used for any other Korban. Consequently, they could only be brought the following Yom Kipur for the same Korban (by which time they will be Pasul, because they are not from the new stock of animals purchased from the Terumah Chadashah [as we learned above]).

(c) Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon say that if the Se'irei Avodah-Zarah or the bull and the goat of Yom Kipur got lost and were replaced - they must graze in the meadow until they obtain a blemish, when they are redeemed and the money goes towards 'Nedavah' (Olas Kayitz la'Mizbe'ach).

(d) They disagree with Rebbi Yehudah - because they hold 'Ein Chatas Tzibur Meisah' (the Halachah that five Chata'os must die does not pertain to a Chatas Tzibur).

(a) We do not rule there too, that the two animals go out to Chulin due to 'Leiv Beis-Din Masneh Aleihen' - because these goats are uncommon, and Chazal's decrees do not generally cover unusual cases.

(b) The Beraisa says - a Parah Adumah can be redeemed should any P'sul occur to it.

(c) This ruling incorporates three cases - if it died, was Shechted outside its specified location or if a superior animal was found.

(d) The Tana then concludes 'Shachtah al-Gabei Ma'arechtah Ein Lah Pedi'ah Olamis - meaning that if it was Shechted in its regular location on the Har ha'Mishchah opposite the Beis Hamikdash, it cannot be redeemed.

(a) The previous ruling does not apply here too - because Chazal did not deem it fitting to redeem it, to take it out to Chulin now that its Avodah was completed be'Hechsher.

(b) Seeing as only seven Paros Adumos were prepared throughout the two Batei-Mikdash, it can hardly be considered common (see also Tosfos 'I Hachi').

(c) Nevertheless (we initially think that) it can be redeemed even without a blemish - because it is only Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis.

(a) 'Ha'amadah ve'Ha'arachah' - means that a Hekdesh animal can only be redeemed if it can be stood up alive and evaluated. And it pertains to Hekdesh Bedek ha'Bayis, but not to Kodshei Mizbe'ach (see Tosfos DH 'I Hachi').

(b) To explain the possibility of redeeming a Parah Adumah that has been Shechted, even though it is not a 'bas Ha'amadah ve'Ha'arachah', we try to establish the author as Rebbi Shimon - who holds (the opposite of the Chachamim) that Kodshei Mizbe'ach require Ha'amadah ve'Ha'arachah, but not Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis (and we currently consider Parah Adumah as Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, as we just explained).

(a) The problem with establishing the Beraisa like Rebbi Shimon lies in another Beraisa, where he says 'Parah Mitam'ah Tum'as Ochlin' (regarding a case where a Sheretz touched it and it touched other food). With regard to other Isurei Hana'ah, Rebbi Shimon holds - that (based on the Pasuk in Shemini "mi'Kol ha'Ochel Asher Ye'achel") whatever is Asur be'Hana'ah, is not subject to Tum'as Ochlin.

(b) And what makes Parah Adumah different is - the fact that, as he himself explains, the cow had a 'Sha'as ha'Kosher' (meaning that there was a moment when it could have been redeemed and eaten).

(c) Resh Lakish explains this to mean - that according to Rebbi Shimon, a Parah Adumah can even be redeemed 'al-Gabei Ma'arechtah' (and at that moment, it is potentially a food).

(a) We now have a clear proof - that Rebbi Shimon, who holds that one can redeem a Parah Adumah 'al-Gabei Ma'arechtah', whilst the Beraisa has specifically ruled that one may not - cannot be its author.

(b) So we explain the fact that the Parah Adumah can be redeemed even though it is uncommon - by reinstating Parah Adumah as Kodshei Mizbe'ach (see Tosfos DH 'I Hachi'), and despite the fact that the Parah Adumah is uncommon, Chazal made a point of including it in the decree (of 'Leiv Beis-Din Masneh Aleihen'), because of its immense value.

(a) In spite of the principle 'Ein Podin es ha'Kodshim Le'ha'achilan li'Kelavim', says Rav Mesharshaya, the point of redeeming a Parah Adumah that died is - for the skin, which is usable.

(b) Indeed, Beis-Din would institute such a Takanah even for a paltry skin, as we see in the popular saying quoted by Rav Kahana 'It's worth saving a camel for its ear'.

(c) When, in our Mishnah, the Rabbanan asked Rebbi Shimon how it is possible to bring the Sa'ir of one Yom-Tov on a different Yom-Tov, seeing as they all atone for different things, he replied that they all come for Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav. He did not reply 'Leiv Beis-Din Masneh Aleihen' - because he does not hold of it.

(d) Rav Idi bar Avin ... Amar Rebbi Yochanan said that unblemished Temidin that are redundant ...

1. ... cannot be redeemed - according to Rebbi Shimon.
2. ... can be redeemed - according to the Rabbanan.