Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) A PESACH OFFERED AT THE WRONG TIME (cont.)

(a) Suggestion: Perhaps if it was slaughtered l'Shem any Korban, it becomes that Korban!
(b) Answer #1 (R. Avin): When a Korban that is eaten (e.g. Pesach) is Nidcheh (gets the law of a different Korban), it is Nidcheh to a Korban that is eaten.
(c) Objection: Chatas and Asham are also eaten!
(d) Correction: Rather, a Korban that anyone can eat is Nidcheh to a Korban that anyone can eat, not to Korbanos that only Kohanim may eat.
(e) Answer #2 (R. Yosi b'Rebbi Avin): Kodshim Kalim are Nidchim to Kodshim Kalim, not to Kodshei Kodoshim.
(f) Question (R. Yitzchak b'Rebbi Savrin): (According to both answers), if it was slaughtered l'Shem Ma'aser, it should become Ma'aser!

1. Question: What laws would result from this?
2. Answer: It would not require Nesachim, and one who sells it would be lashed for "Lo Yiga'el".

(g) Answer: "Ha'Asiri Yihyeh Kodesh" - the only way an animal can become Ma'aser is if it is the tenth (to leave the pen).
(h) Question: (According to Answer #2), if it was slaughtered l'Shem Bechor, it should become Bechor!!

1. Question: What laws would result from this?
2. Answer: It would not require Nesachim, and one would have to give it to a Kohen.

(i) Answer: We learn a Gezerah Shavah "Evrah-Evrah" from Ma'aser (just as it cannot become Ma'aser (even if slaughtered l'Shem Ma'aser, so to it cannot become a Bechor).
(j) Question: If it was slaughtered l'Shem Temurah (to be in place of another animal (Korban)), it should become a Temurah!

1. Question: What laws would result from this?
2. Answer: One would be lashed for doing this (and it would be forbidden to sell or redeem it - Shitah Mekubetzes deletes this from the text).

(k) Answer: "V'Hayah Hu U'Smuraso" - Temurah only takes effect when a Chulin animal is designated to be in place of a Korban.
(l) Question: If it was slaughtered l'Shem Todah, it should become a Todah!

1. Question: What law would result from this?
2. Answer: One would have to bring bread with it.

(m) Answer: A Pesach itself does not require bread, all the more so a Mosar Pesach!
(n) Objection: A Pesach itself does not require Nesachim, but (you yourself say that) a Mosar Pesach is a Shelamim and requires Nesachim!
(o) Correction: Rather, even a Mosar Todah does not require bread, all the more so a Mosar of another Korban (e.g. Pesach)!

(a) Question (Rav Yemar brei d'Rav Hillel): How do we know that "V'Im Min ha'Tzon Korbano" discusses a Mosar Pesach - perhaps it discusses a Mosar Asham!
(b) Answer (Rava): "V'Im Min ha'Tzon" connotes a Korban that comes from all Tzon, i.e. sheep and goats (but an Asham is always a sheep).
(c) Question (R. Avin bar Chiya): "Min" always excludes - how can Rava expound it to include (that the Korban must apply to all Tzon)?
(d) Answer (R. Mani): Also here, it excludes females and animals above one year old.
(e) Question (Rav Chana Bagdata'ah): You cannot say that it discusses Mosar Pesach!

1. It says "Im Kesev", and later "V'Im Ez" - we already know that Pesach comes from sheep and goats!

(f) Answer: That teaches like the following.

1. (Beraisa): "Kesev" - this includes the tail of a lamb that is a Pesach (it is included with the Eimurim, it is burned on the Mizbeach).
2. "Im Kesev" includes a Pesach above one year and a Shelamim that comes with Pesach (Rashi, it is brought on Erev Pesach, for satiation before eating the Pesach; Tosfos - that results from a Pesach, e.g. Mosar Pesach within its first year);

i. These are like Shelamim in all respects, i.e. the owner does Semichah, brings Nesachim with them, waves the chest and foreleg.

3. "V'Im Ez" separates, to teach that the tail of a goat is not part of the Eimurim.

(g) Question: But we learn this from different verses!

1. (Shmuel's father): "V'Im Min ha'Tzon Korbano L'Zevach Shelamim" to teach that a Korban brought from Tzon (i.e. a Pesach) is a Shelamim!
2. (Rav Nachman): Mosar Pesach is offered like a Shelamim - "V'Zavachta Pesach...Tzon u'Vakar";

i. Question: Korban Pesach cannot be Bakar, only Tzon!
ii. Answer: Rather, it teaches that Mosar Pesach becomes a Korban that can be (any, i.e. male or female) cattle or flock, i.e. Shelamim.

(h) Answer: The three verses teach about three kinds of Mosar Pesach (all become Shelamim), i.e.:

1. After its first year and after Pesach passed (the same applies to before Pesach);
2. Within its first year and after Pesach passed;
3. Within its first year before Pesach came (e.g. a Pesach was lost, a second animal was Hukdash for Pesach, and the first Pesach was found - one is used for Pesach, the other can be slaughtered like Shelamim even before the time to slaughter the Pesach).

(i) The Torah must teach all three cases.

1. If it only taught the first, one might have thought that only then it is Shelamim, because it is totally unfit for Pesach; but not within its first year after Pesach, for it is still fit for Pesach Sheni;
2. If it only taught the first two cases, one might have thought that only then it is Shelamim, because it is unfit for Pesach Rishon; but not within its first year before Pesach, for then it is still fit for Pesach Rishon.

(a) Version #1 (Rav): If a Chatas was slaughtered l'Shem the Chatas of Nachshon (of the inauguration of the Mishkan), it is Kosher - "Zos Toras ha'Chatas" - all Chata'os are considered the same.
(b) Objection (Rav Mesharshiya - Beraisa - R. Shimon): Any Minchah that was Nikmetzes (a handful was taken to be burned on the Mizbeach) l'Shem a different Minchah, it is Kosher, the owner fulfilled his obligation;

1. This is because Menachos are unlike Zevachim:

i. A Minchah made in a Machavas (a shallow pan) is recognizably different (it is drier) than one made in a Marcheshes (a deep pan); a Chareivah (a Minchah without oil) is clearly different than one that is Belulah (kneaded with oil), (therefore, intent for a different Minchah is nonsense, it has no effect);
ii. Slaughter, Kabalah and Zerikah are the same for all Zevachim (therefore, l'Shem a different Zevach is Shinuy Kodesh).

2. Inference: If Menachos were not recognizably different from each other, R. Shimon would agree (with Chachamim) that l'Shem a different Minchah is Posel, they do not expound "Zos Toras ha'Minchah" to teach that all Menachos are considered the same!

(c) Version #2 (Rav): If a Chatas was slaughtered to atone for Nachshon, it is Kosher, because the dead do not need atonement.
(d) Question: Why did he specify Nachshon (among all dead people)?
(e) Answer: To teach (by implication) that it would be Pasul if it was slaughtered for a living person similar to Nachshon, i.e. the Chatas he brings is not on account of a transgression, e.g. a Nazir or Metzora.
(f) Objection: Those Chata'os do not atone (rather, they permit him to eat Kodshim), they are like Olos (and if a Chatas was slaughtered to atone for someone who must bring an Olah, it is Kosher)!
(g) Version #3 (Rav): If a Chatas was slaughtered to atone for someone liable to bring a Chatas like Nachshon, it is Kosher, because that is like an Olah.
(h) Version #4 (Rav): If a Chatas was slaughtered l'Shem the Chatas of Nachshon, it is Pasul, because that is like an Olah.
(i) Question: Why didn't Rav say, if it was slaughtered l'Shem Chatas Nazir or Metzora?
(j) Answer: He gave the first example of an individual's Chatas (that did not atone).
(k) (Rav): If a Chatas separated for eating Chelev was slaughtered to atone for eating blood or serving idolatry, it is Kosher;

1. If it was slaughtered l'Shem Chatas Nazir or Metzora, it is Pasul, for these are like Olos.

(l) Question (Rava): If a Chatas separated for eating Chelev was slaughtered to atone for a Tamei person who entered the Mikdash or ate Kodshim, what is the law?

1. Do we say that since there is Kares for Tum'as Mikdash (just like for eating Chelev), it is Kosher?
2. Or, since a poor person can bring birds for Tum'as Mikdash (but not for Chelev), it is Pasul?

(m) (Rav Acha brei d'Rava): In all these cases (even for blood or idolatry), it is Pasul.
(n) Question: What is the reason?
(o) Answer: "V'Shachat Osah l'Chatas" - it must be slaughtered l'Shem the proper Chatas.
(p) Question (Rav Ashi): According to you, what was Rava's question?
(q) Answer (Rav Acha brei d'Rava): He asked about Shinuy Ba'alim:

1. (Rava): If Reuven ate Chelev and his Chatas was slaughtered to atone for someone who ate blood or served idolatry, it is Pasul;

i. If it was slaughtered l'Shem a Nazir or Metzora that must bring a Chatas, it is Kosher.

2. Question (Rava): If his Chatas was slaughtered to atone for a Tamei person who entered the Mikdash or ate Kodshim, what is the law?

i. Do we say that since there is Kares for Tum'as Mikdash, it is Pasul
ii. Or, since a poor person can bring birds for Tum'as Mikdash, it is Kosher?

3. This question is not resolved.