Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) RESOLVING THE BERAISA REGARDING MECHUSAR Z'MAN (cont'd)
[Another answer to explain why we would have prohibited the Seir HaMishtaleach BeMechusar Z'man.]

(a) Alternate Answer (Rava): It is speaking where the mother of the Seir was slaughtered on that day (for an ill person) thus creating the prohibition of Oso V'Es Beno.
(b) Question: But we are not doing Shechitah on the child on the same day as the mother, we are only pushing it off a cliff!?
(c) Answer: For the Seir HaMishtaleach, that is its Shechitah.

(a) (Rav) The remaining Seir from the *original* pair is used, and the match to the *new* Seir is put out to pasture.
(b) (R. Yochanan) The opposite (original is pastured, new one is used).
(c) Question: What is the basis for their dispute?
(d) Answer: Rav holds that the principle of Dichui does not apply prior to Shechitah; while R. Yochanan holds that Dichui does apply to Ba'alei Chaim.
(e) Question: Why does Rav hold his position?
(f) Answer: He learns it from the usual case of Mechusar Z'man, which will become fit even though at the moment it is not fit.
(g) Question: But by Mechusar Z'man the animal never went through a period in which it was fit, unlike our case?!
(h) Answer: Rather, Rav compares it to the case of an animal with an impermanent blemish.

1. Question: Whence do we know that such an animal may be subsequently offered?
2. Answer: From the Pasuk of Mum Bam (only while the blemish is upon them may they not be offered).
3. Question: Why does R. Yochanan hold his position (and not learn, as Rav did, from an impermanent Mum)?
4. Answer: Because the Torah restricted its Heter there with the word Bahem (Mum is the only Nidcheh which comes back).
5. Question: How will Rav understand Bahem?
6. Answer: Bahem teaches that the Isur of Mum only applies if the limb of the Ba'al Mum can be identified, but not in a mixture (as we see is R. Eliezer's position in the Mishnah in Zevachim).
7. Question: Whence then will R. Yochanan learn this Din?
8. Answer: The word Bahem could have otherwise read Bam.
9. Question: How will Rav understand Bam-Bahem?
10. Answer: Rav does not interpret the difference between them.

(i) Question: Why, according to Rav, *must* we offer the original Seir, why not offer either one?
(j) Answer: Rav holds like R. Yosi that the proper Mitzvah is with the first one designated.

1. Question: Where is this opinion of R. Yosi?
2. Answer: When R. Yosi explains the requirement to mark the Kupos as in order to use the first one first.
3. Question: But that may be required since the second has not yet become usable when the first Kupah was available, but here all the Seirim become available at the same moment (conclusion of the Matanos Damim)!?
4. Answer: Rather, the source is R. Yosi regarding the Korban Pesach which was lost, replaced and then found where R. Yosi holds that the first is to be used, unless the second one is superior to it.

(k) (Rava) The Mishnah seems to imply Rav's position while the Beraisa seems to imply R. Yochanan's.

1. The Mishnah says that the new animal LaShem stands in the stead of the one which died, but does not say that the new Mishtaleach stands in stead of the first (like Rav).
2. The Beraisa teaches explicitly that the Sheni is the new Sair, whose partner had not died.

(a) R. Yehudah (also) taught in our Mishnah that the Seir Ha- Mishtaleach must be put to death if the blood LaShem spilt.
(b) Question: While this is understandable according to R. Yochanan (Ba'alei Chaim Nidachin), why, according to Rav is this Ba'al Chai Nidcheh?
(c) Answer: Rav admits that he is not teaching his position in R. Yehudah, but rather in the Rabanan (see Rashi for how the Rabanan's position implies that Ba'alei Chaim are not Nidachin).
(d) Question: Rav's position explains R. Yehudah's argument with the Rabanan, but according to R. Yochanan, what is their argument (they both speak of the same animal)?
(e) Answer: (Rav) That is (another reason) why we said earlier that the Mishnah implies the position of Rav.