Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) MAY A "TAMEI MES" SEND HIS "KORBAN PESACH"?

(a) Question: "Ish Ish Ki Yihyeh Tamei...(will bring Pesach on Pesach Sheni)"!
(b) Answer: That is l'Chatchilah, but if he sent his Korban on Pesach (Rishon), he fulfilled his obligation.
(c) Question: "Ish l'Fi Achlo Tachoso Al ha'Seh" (we only slaughter Pesach for those who can eat it)!
(d) Answer: That is only l'Chatchilah.
(e) Question: It is Me'akev!

1. (Beraisa): "B'Michsas Nefashos" - this teaches that we slaughter Pesach only for those who can eat it;

i. Suggestion: It is forbidden to slaughter for people who do not own a share, but this does not Posel the Korban.
ii. Rejection: "Tachoso" - this is repeated to teach that it is Me'akev.

2. Summation of question: People who do not own a share are equated to people who cannot eat it, i.e. if it was slaughtered for them, it is Pasul!

(f) Answer: Ziknei Darom do not equate people who do not own a share with people who cannot eat it.
(g) Question: Even if they do not equate them, we have a question!

1. An owner who is Tamei Sheretz can send his Korban l'Chatchilah, but a Tamei Sheretz Kohen is Mechalel Avodah;
2. An owner who is Tamei Mes should not send his Korban (he should wait until Pesach Sheni) all the more so a Tamei Mes Kohen is Mechalel Avodah!

(h) Question (against Ziknei Darom - Beraisa): The Tzitz is Meratzeh (makes acceptable) Korban Pesach or Korbanos of a Nazir if the blood became Tamei, not if he (the owner) is Tamei.

1. Question: What is his Tum'ah?
2. Answer #1: He is Tamei Sheretz.
3. Rejection: Ziknei Darom say that we offer the Korban (Pesach) of someone who is Tamei Sheretz (it is Meratzeh without the Tzitz)!
4. Answer #2: He is Tamei Mes.

i. Summation of question: The Beraisa teaches that the Tzitz is not Meratzeh, implying that a Tamei Mes may not send his Korban!

(i) Answer: If the owner was Tamei, indeed the Tzitz is Meratzeh, but the Beraisa does not discuss this;

1. Rather, when it says 'not if *he* was Tamei', it means that the *Kohen* who offered it was Tamei Sheretz.

(j) Question (end of the Beraisa): If he became Tamei through Tum'as ha'Tehom (a Tum'ah that no one knew about), the Tzitz is Meratzeh.

1. R. Chiya taught, Tum'as ha'Tehom is Meratzeh only regarding Tum'as Mes!
2. Question: What does R. Chiya comes to exclude?

i. Suggestion: He excludes Tum'as Sheretz.

(k) Answer: No, he excludes Tum'as Zivah.
(l) Question: Rami bar Chama asked whether or not Tum'as ha'Tehom is permitted to a Kohen offering Korbanos;

1. If our Beraisa discusses Tum'as ha'Tehom of the Kohen, he should have been able to resolve his question!

(m) Answer: Rami bar Chama argues with Ziknei Darom (Rami holds that we do not offer the Korban of a Tamei Mes, because being fit to eat is Me'akev Pesach; he establishes the Beraisa to teach about Tum'ah of the owner).
(n) Version #1 - Question (against Rami bar Chama - Beraisa): "V'Nasa Aharon Es Avon ha'Kodoshim";

1. Question: What sin does the (Tzitz on the) Kohen Gadol sustain?

i. It cannot be Pigul (here (and in many places in Shas) this refers to a Korban offered with intention Chutz li'Mkomo, even though one is not Chayav Kares for eating it), we learn that from "Lo Yechashev" (Rashi - from "Lo Yeratzeh")!
ii. It cannot be Nosar (here, this refers to a Korban *offered with intention to eat it when it is* Nosar, i.e. Chutz li'Zmano, what the Torah calls Pigul), we learn that from "Lo Yeratzeh" (Rashi - from "Lo Yechashev")!

2. Answer: It bears the sin of a Tum'ah permitted to the Tzibur.
3. Question: Which Tum'ah is this?

i. Suggestion: It is Tum'as Sheretz.
ii. Rejection: That is never permitted to the Tzibur (since a Tamei Sheretz can send his Korban and eat it in Taharah at night; Tosfos - or, if Rami holds that a Tamei Sheretz may not send his Korban, the Tzitz is not Meratzeh)!

4. Answer #1: It bears Tum'as Mes.

i. Suggestion: The case is, the owners became Tamei.
ii. Inference: A Tamei Mes may send his Korban (and the Tzitz is Meratzeh).

5. Question: To which Korban does this apply?

i. It cannot be a Nazir's Korban - "V'Chi Yamus Mes Alav (he must repeat Nezirus before bringing his Korbanos)!

6. Answer: It applies to Korban Pesach.

(o) Answer (and Answer #2 to Question 3): Really, he is Tamei Sheretz; the Beraisa means, it bears the sin of Tum'ah, (albeit not the same kind) which is permitted to the Tzibur.
(p) Version #2 - Question (against Ziknei Darom): "V'Nasa Aharon Es Avon *ha'Kodoshim*" - he does not bear the sin of the *Makdishim* (not of the owner, who was Makdish the Korban, nor of the Kohanim who offered it).

1. Question: Which Tum'ah is discussed?

i. Suggestion: It discusses Tum'as Sheretz.
ii. Version #1 (Rashi) Rejection: That is never permitted to the Tzibur (i.e. the Kohanim - the owners do not need Ritzuy Tzitz, a Tamei Sheretz may send his Korban and eat it at night b'Taharah)!
iii. Version #2 (Tosfos) Rejection: That is never permitted to the owners (if a Tamei Sheretz may send his Korban, he must eat it at night b'Taharah; if he may not send his Korban, the Tzibur does not need the Tzitz to send Pesach Rishon (since they are not Nidchim to Pesach Sheni), and the Tzitz does not permit an individual!)

2. Answer #1: It bears Tum'as Mes.

i. Summation of question: It does not bear the sin of the Makdishim, i.e. a Tamei Mes owner may not send his Korban, and a Tamei Mes Kohen is Mechalel Avodah in an individual's Korban.

(q) Answer (and Answer #2 to Question 1): Really, he is Tamei Sheretz; the Beraisa means, it bears the sin of Tum'ah, (albeit not the same kind) which is permitted to the Tzibur.

(a) (Mishnah): One who sits (is Mechalel Avodah).
(b) Question: What is the source of this?
(c) Answer (Rava): "(Bo Bachar Hash-m) La'Amod Leshares" - Kohanim were chosen to serve standing, not sitting.
(d) (Beraisa): "La'Amod Leshares" - L'Chatchilah, Avodah must be standing;

1. "Ha'Omedim" - the Torah taught this again to teach that it is Me'akev.

(e) Question (Rava): One who sits is like a Zar, and he is Mechalel Avodah - we should say, just as a Zar is Chayav Misah for Avodah, also one who sits!

1. (Beraisa): An Arel, Onen or sitting Kohen is not Chayav Misah for Avodah, but he transgresses a Lav.

(f) Answer (Rav Nachman): There are separate verses to teach that Mechushar Begadim and one who did not wash are Chayav Misah (for Avodah), one of these could have been learned from the other;

1. Whenever there are two verses, and one of them teaches something which could have been learned from the other, we do not learn from them to other cases (if the Torah wanted us to learn to other cases, it would only have written one of them)!

(g) Question: According to the opinion that we do learn from two such verses, how can we answer?
(h) Answer: There is a third such verse about Shtuyei Yayin, all agree that we do not learn from three such verses.