Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) SPECIFYING A KORBAN

(a) (R. Chisda) Kinin can only be differentiated by Lekichah or Asiyah.
(b) (R. Shimi b. Ashi) The rationale of R. Chisda derives from the words in the Pesukim.
(c) Question: But the Beraisa (cited at the bottom of 40b) teaches that the Goral, not the Name, makes the Kedushah (but the Name should not have been under consideration since it is neither Lekichah or Asiyah)?!
(d) Answer (Rava): The Kal VaChomer of the Beraisa is understood to include the factor of Asiyah and Lekichah.
(e) Question: We learn in a Beraisa (regarding the Korban Chatas of a poor person) that there is Kiviyah at times other than Lekichah or Asiyah?!
(f) Answer: The Beraisa must be amended to read that he became wealthy *after* setting aside the funds, which is akin to Lekichah.
(g) Question: What about the position of R. Chana (citing R. Yoshiyah) that Bidi'eved the newly-wealthy person *is* Yotze with the Korban Ani (the designation is neither at a time of Lekichah nor of Asiyah)?

(h) Answer: The Beraisa should be understood to mean he then took the birds and said...

1. Question: How could he and add to the value of the birds, as we know that there is no Pidyon by birds?!
2. Answer: It means adding to the *remaining* funds.

(i) He had only purchased one bird (which becomes a Nedavah) with part of the money designated for Olah.
(ii) He must bring new funds for the Chatas, however, and the one bird already bought as a Chatas must be killed.

(i) Question: But we have a Beraisa which says that a wealthy Metzora who brings the Korban of an Ani is *not* Yotze?!
(j) Answer: The Metzora is unique given the word Zos.
(k) Question: Then it should not work for an Ani who brings the Korban of an Ashir either?!
(l) Answer: The Torah so indicates by the word Toras (as found in the supporting Beraisa).
(m) Question: Then learn from Metzora to Tamei Mikdash?!
(n) Answer: The Torah restricts the rules of Metzora, allowing that elsewhere the Ashir may be able to bring the Korban Ani.

(a) A scarlet thread was tied between its horns and it stood by the gate of its departure.
(b) The Sair LaShem was by its Beis HaShechitah (see Gemara).
(c) The Kohen recited the Vidui for the Kohanim.
(d) The People respond to the Shem with Baruch Shem.

(a) Question: Does the Mishnah mean that the Sair LaShem was also tied with a string (around its neck) or also stood in its place (to be slaughtered)?
(b) Answer: From the Beraisa (which gives the reason as to prevent mixing this animal with others) we come to understand that it means a string was also tied (around its neck) since standing it near the place os Shechitah would not prevent it from being mixed with others.

(a) (R. Yitzhok) I have learned about the scarlet threads on the Parah Adumah and on the Sair HaMishtaleach, and I do not know which one requires a minimum Shiur.
(b) (R. Yosef) The fact that the thread on the Sair HaMishtaleach must be cut in half indicates that it is the one requiring a minimum Shiur.
(c) Question: But the thread on the Parah must have heft?!
(d) Answer (Rava): The requirement of Koved is a Machlokes Tanaim.
(e) Question (Abaye): But it seems from the Beraisa that the thread of the Parah must be cut, since it refers to the Sheyarei Lashon?
(f) Answer: That means the narrowing end (like the tail).
(g) (R. Chanin citing Rav) If the flame caught the thread it is Kosher.
(h) Question: But the Beraisa teaches that if the thread was Nis'havhev it must be replaced with another?!
(i) Answer: One speaks of a standing flame, which burnt the thread at a distance from its source, where R. Chanin spoke of a bent flame, who burning is still considered "within."
(j) Rava cites his source that the requirement of Koved is a Machlokes Tanaim (Rebbi and R. Elazar b. R. Shimon).