Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) "PIGUL" DURING PART OF THE "MATIRIM" (cont.)

(a) Question (against Reish Lakish - Beraisa - R. Meir): One Matanah can make Pigul in outer Korbanos (i.e. on the outer Mizbe'ach), but regarding inner Korbanos, which require a total of 43 Matanos (between the staves of the Aron, on the Paroches and inner Mizbe'ach, i.e. the Par and Sa'ir of Yom Kipur) or 11 Matanos (on the inner Mizbe'ach, i.e. Par Mashu'ach or Par He'elem Davar):

1. Whether he was Mefagel in the first, second or third (set of Matanos), the Korban is Pigul, there is Kares;
2. Chachamim say, Kares does not apply unless he was Mefagel in all the Matirim (Matanos).
3. Summation of question: R. Meir is Mechayev Kares even if he was Mefagel in the second or third set, Reish Lakish's explanation (all Matanos follow the initial intent) does not apply!

(b) Answer #1 (R. Yitzchak bar Avin): The case is, the blood spilled after each set of Matanos, each time a new animal was brought to finish the Avodah; he was Mefagel in slaughter of the first, second or third animal, slaughter is an entire Matir.
(c) Question: If so, why do Chachamim exempt from Kares?
(d) Answer (Rava): Chachamim hold like R. Eliezer:

1. (Mishnah): One who offers outside the Mikdash a k'Zayis of any of the following is Chayav Kares:

i. A Kometz, frankincense, Ketores, the Minchah of a Kohen or Kohen Gadol, Minchas Nesachim (that accompanies a Korban).

2. R. Eliezer says, he is not liable until he offers it entirely. (Likewise, Pigul only applies if he was Mefagel all the animals needed to complete offering this Korban.)

(e) Objection: But Rava himself says that R. Eliezer admits regarding blood (that one is liable for offering part of it outside)!

1. (Mishnah - R. Eliezer and R. Shimon): If the blood spilled after some of the Matanos, (those Matanos are valid and are not repeated, a new animal is slaughtered,) we put the remaining Matanos.

(f) Answer #2 (Rava): The case is, he was explicitly Mefagel in the first and third (sets of Matanos), he was silent during the second set;

1. One might have thought, since he verbalized his intent (Chutz li'Zmano) in the third set, this shows that he always expresses his intent, his silence during the second set shows that he was not Mefagel in it;
2. The Beraisa teaches, this is not so, we still say that his intent in the second set was like his previously expressed intent.

(g) Objection (Rav Ashi): The Beraisa does not say that he was silent during the second set!
(h) Version #1 (Our text) Answer #3 (Rav Ashi): The case is, he was explicitly Mefagel in the first, second and third sets (but not the fourth, i.e. the Shirayim (the Tana holds that they are Me'akev)); alternatively, the four Matanos on the Keranos of the inner Mizbe'ach are counted separately from the seven Matanos on Tiharo (its top or middle).
(i) Version #2 (Rashi in Menachos) Answer #3 (Rav Ashi): The case is, he was explicitly Mefagel in the first and second sets, but was silent during the third. (End of Version #2)

1. One might have thought, since he verbalized his intent in the second (Version #1 - and third) set(s), this shows that he always expresses his intent, his silence during the last set shows that he was not Mefagel in it;
2. The Beraisa teaches, this is not so, we still say that his intent in the last set was like his previously expressed intent.

(j) Objection: But it says '*Whether* he was Mefagel in the first, second *or* third'!
(k) (Mishnah - R. Meir): (If he was Mefagel in some sets of Matanos) the Korban is Pigul, there is Kares.
(l) Question: Pigul does not apply unless all the Matirim were offered (without any Pesul other than Chutz li'Zmano)!

1. Becoming Pigul is like becoming acceptable - a Korban does not become Pigul until finishing all the Avodos needed for a Kosher Korban to bring atonement (without any other Pesul).
2. Once he was Mefagel in one Matanah, the rest of the blood is Nifsal, putting it on the Mizbe'ach is like putting water!

(m) Answer #1 (Rabah): He can Mefagel in any of the sets of Matanos (of the inner Chata'os of Yom Kipur) if (the blood spills after each set, and) a total of four Parim and four Se'irim are brought.
(n) Answer #2 (Rava): It is possible even if only one Par and one Sa'ir are brought;

1. Just as when one is Mefagel in slaughter, we consider the subsequent Zerikos to be proper (they were offered without any other Pesulim) - the same applies when one is Mefagel in any of the 43 Matanos.

(o) Contradiction (Beraisa): There are 47 Matanos.
(p) Answer: That is according to the opinion that the blood of the Par is offered by itself on the four Keranos of the inner Mizbe'ach, and likewise, of the Sa'ir;

1. The Tana (at the beginning of this Daf) who counted 43 says that they are mixed together and put at once.

(q) Contradiction (Beraisa): There are 48 Matanos.
(r) Answer: That is according to the opinion that (the blood of the Par is offered by itself on the Keranos, and likewise of the Sa'ir), and that the Shirayim are Me'akev (therefore, they are counted).

(a) Question (against Reish Lakish - Beraisa): A Minchah can become Pigul through one Avodah, if this is Kemitzah, putting it into a Kli Shares or Holachah;

1. R. Meir says, if one was Maktir the Kometz with intent (Chutz li'Zmano) and the frankincense (Levonah) silently, or the Kometz silently and the frankincense with intent, it is Pigul, there is Kares;
2. Chachamim say, Kares does not apply unless he was Mefagel in all the Matirim.
3. Summation of question: R. Meir is Mechayev Kares if he offered the Kometz silently and the frankincense with intent (this shows that he only needs one of the Matirim - he did not show intent until after the Kometz)!

(b) Answer: It means, if he offered the Kometz silently *after having* offered the frankincense with intent.
(c) Objection:#1: If so, this is just like the first clause (the Kometz with intent and the frankincense silently) - why must both be taught?
(d) Objection #2 (Beraisa): (If he was Maktir the Kometz silently) *and then* (frankincense with intent)...
(e) These questions are left difficult.