Previous daf

1)

(a) 'Rebbi Yehudah Omer, Tamus'. According to ...

1. ... Rebbi Yochanan - this refers to the second animal in the *first* pair (because he holds Ba'alei Chayim Nidachin).
2. ... Rav - this refers to the second animal in the *first* pair, too.

(b) The problem with Rebbi Yochanan from Rebbi Yehudah's second statement: 'Nishpach ha'Dam, Yamus ha'Mishtale'ach' - is that, seeing as, according to Rebbi Yochanan, both Tana'im agree that Ba'alei Chayim Nidachin, Rebbi Yehudah is merely making a statement here with which the Rabbanan agree.

(a) We ...

1. ... accept Rebbi Yehudah's statement 'Nishpach ha'Dam, Yamus ha'Mishtale'ach' - because, since the Mitzvah of the blood has not been completed (and bearing in mind "Chukah") it would be necessary to bring another Sa'ir la'Hashem (and automatically another Sa'ir for the Hagralah) in which case, the original Sa'ir will be Pasul, because Rebbi Yehudah holds 'Ba'alei Chayim Nidachin'.
2. ... query his statement 'Meis ha'Mishtale'ach, Yishafech ha'Dam' however - on the grounds that, once the Hagralah has been performed, the Mitzvah of the Sa'ir la'Azaz'el has been completed, and there seems no reason why the blood of the Sa'ir la'Hashem should be poured out.

(b) We learn from the Pasuk "Yo'omad Chai Lifnei Hashem Lechaper Alav" - that the Sa'ir la'Azaz'el must remain standing until the Kaparas ha'Dam. Consequently, should it die earlier, the Mitzvah has not been performed, and a new Hagralah will be required.

(a) If the Sheluchim who are carrying the town's Shekalim lose them or if the money is stolen ...

1. ... *after* the Terumas ha'Lishkah was already emptied - they must swear to the treasurers of Hekdesh that they were not careless etc.
2. ... *before* the Terumas ha'Lishkah was emptied - they must swear to the people who sent them, and to whom they are still answerable.

(b) Should the money turn up, then both lots are Shekalim, and, according to the Tana Kama, the people are obligated to give their half-Shekel again the following year. According to Rebbi Yehudah, the second lot of money that they paid, exempts them from having to give the following year.

(c) We initially reconcile this with the Par and the Sa'ir of Yom Kipur, where Rebbi Yehudah himself says that, if they were lost, re-placed and then found, they must die - by quoting Rebbi Oshaya, who rules that the new Korbenos Tzibur must be purchased with the new half-Shekalim of that year.

(d) He learns this from the Pasuk in Pinchas "Zos Olas Chodesh be'Chodsho" - which implies that the new Korbanos must be purchased with the new batch of half-Shekalim.

5)

(a) If Rebbi Yehudah's reason (for saying that the Sa'ir of Yom Kipur that was lost, re-placed and found, must die) is because of the Pasuk "Zos Olas Chodesh be'Chodsho", it will then be restricted to the Sa'ir (asks the Gemara) but not to the Par - since, unlike the former, the latter was purchased not with money from the Terumas ha'Lishkah, but out of the Kohen Gadol's own pocket.

(b) We reject the contention (on this and each of the subsequent answers) that we decree the Par because of the Sa'ir - because, if that was the case, it would be sufficient to decree Ro'eh (that it should graze), but not that an animal of Kodshim should die.

(c) From the statement of Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel: 'Korbenos Tzibur ha'Ba'in be'Echad be'Nisan, Mitzvah Lehavi min he'Chadash, ve'Im Heivi min ha'Yashan, Yatza', asks the Gemara - it is clear that even the *Sa'ir* is Kasher if one *did* purchase it with money from the previous year, so why should it die?

1. We reject that contention however - on the grounds that we could then bring the two goats and make a fresh Hagralah.
2. We reject the contention that it is because people might say that Hagralah fixes the goats from one year to the next - because that reason would be applicable to the Sa'ir, but not to the Par. And even if one wanted to decree the Par because of the Sa'ir, then Chazal should have said 'Ro'eh', and not 'Tamus' (as we explained above).
3. And we reject the contention that Rebbi Yehudah says Yamusu because the Kohen Gadol might die, and a Chatas she'Meisah Be'alehah, Tamus - because that reason would be applicable to the Par (which was a private Korban), but not to the Sa'ir, which was a Korban Tzibur, and 'Ein Chatas Tzibur Meisah'.

(a) The Rabbanan suggested to Abaye that the reason that Rebbi Yehudah says 'Tamus' is because it is a Gezeirah because of 'Chatas she'Avrah Shenasah'. But surely, asks the Gemara, this *is* a 'Chatas sh'Avrah Shenasah' (and not just a Gezeirah because of it)?

(b) The Gemara answers that they hold like Rebbi - who says (with regard to Batei Arei Chomah) that one year (which renders the sale of a house in a walled city that was sold, permanent) constitutes three hundred and sixty five days (and not a regular lunar year of three hundred and fifty four days). Consequently, on the following Yom Kipur, the goat (which needs to be in its first year - and no more, will not be a 'Chatas she'Avrah Shenasah', and will only be forbidden because of a Gezeirah (because it resembles a 'Chatas she'Avrah Shenasah').

(c) The above Gezeirah will not apply to the Par, which has to be in its third year or more.

(d) Resh Lakish compares a Chatas she'Avrah Shenasah to a Chatas that is standing in a Beis ha'Kevaros - which is perfectly Kasher, but to which the Kohen has no access. A Chatas she'Avrah Shenasah too, is not listed among the Chata'os ha'Meisos, according to Resh Lakish, only, like the animal in the Beis ha'Kevaros, it cannot be sacrificed.

(a) By Batei Arei Chomah, the Chachamim consider a year - as a regular lunar year (i.e. three hundred and fifty four days).

(b) In a leap year, the extra month goes to the seller, permitting him to redeem his house for an extra thirty (or twenty-nine) days.