Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) THINGS EXEMPT FROM "PIGUL"

(a) (Mishnah): Pigul does not apply to the following (in most cases, because they do not have Matirim):

1. The Kometz, Ketores, frankincense, a (voluntary) Minchah of a Kohen, Minchas Chavitin (the daily Minchah of a Kohen Gadol), blood;
2. R. Meir says, also Nesachim brought without a Korban;
3. Chachamim say, all Nesachim, even if brought with a Korban.

(b) R. Shimon says, Pigul does not apply to the Log of oil that a Metzora brings;
(c) R. Meir says, it does apply, because the blood of the Asham permits it.
(d) Pigul applies to anything that has Matirim that permit it to people or to (be offered on) the Mizbe'ach:

1. It applies to an Olah, for the blood permits the limbs to the Mizbe'ach and the skin to Kohanim;
2. The blood of Olas ha'Of permits the meat to the Mizbe'ach;
3. The blood of Chatas ha'Of permits the meat to Kohanim;
4. The blood of Parim or Se'irim ha'Nisrafim permits the Eimurim to the Mizbe'ach;
5. R. Shimon says, Pigul only applies to things offered on the outer Mizbe'ach like Shelamim (the source from which we learn Pigul).

(e) (Gemara - Ula): If a Pigul Kometz was thrown on the Mizbe'ach, it loses the status of Pigul:

1. If it causes something else (the rest of the Minchah) to become Pigul, all the more so it itself! (This will be explained.)

(f) Question: What does Ula mean?
(g) Answer: If the Kometz itself was not acceptable, it could not cause the rest of the Minchah to become Pigul. (Pigul does not apply unless all the Matirim were offered properly (aside from intent Chutz li'Zmano).
(h) Question: What is his Chidush?

1. Suggestion: One (who eats it) is not liable for Pigul.
2. Rejection: Our Mishnah explicitly teaches this - Pigul does not apply to...a Kometz...!
3. Suggestion: If it was brought up the ramp, we do not bring it down.
4. Rejection: A Mishnah explicitly teaches this!

i. (Mishnah): If any of the following was brought up the ramp, we do not bring it down - something (e.g. blood or Eimurim) that was Lan (was left overnight), Yotzei (left the Mikdash), Tamei, something slaughtered with intent Chutz li'Zmano or Chutz li'Mkomo, not offered the day the animal was slaughtered),

(i) Version #1 (Our text) Answer: If it was taken down (from the Mizbe'ach), we bring it up again.
(j) Objection: A Mishnah teaches otherwise!

1. (Mishnah): Just as if it was brought up, we do not bring it down, if it was taken down, we do not bring it up.

(k) Answer: The case is, it caught fire on the Mizbe'ach (before it fell off).
(l) Version #2 (Shitah Mekubetzes) Answer #1: If it was taken down, we do not bring it up.
(m) Objection: A Mishnah explicitly teaches this!

1. (Mishnah): Just as if it was brought up, we do not bring it down, if it was taken down, we do not bring it up.

(n) Answer #2: Ula teaches that if it caught fire on the Mizbe'ach, we bring it up again. (End of Version #2)
(o) Question: Ula already taught this!

1. (Ula): The Mishnah (that teaches that we do not bring it up again) applies when it had not caught fire - if it caught fire, we bring it up again.

(p) Answer: One might have thought, that only applies to a limb (i.e. of an Olah), for it is all one entity, it is as if all of it caught fire, but a Kometz is not all one entity, the part that did not catch fire should not be brought up again;

1. Therefore, Ula also had to teach regarding a Kometz.

(q) (Rav Achai): We learn from Ula that if half of a Pigul Kometz was put on the Mizbe'ach and caught fire, even the half on the ground ceases to be Pigul, we bring it up.

(a) (R. Yitzchak): If Pigul, Nosar or Tamei was brought up on the Mizbe'ach, the prohibition goes away.
(b) Question (Rav Chisda): Does the Mizbe'ach permit prohibitions?!
(c) Answer (R. Zeira): The case is, it caught fire.
(d) Question (R. Yitzchak bar Bisna - Beraisa - Acherim (i.e. R. Meir)): (Eating Kodshim b'Tum'ah is punishable by Kares, the Torah does not say explicitly if this is for Tum'as ha'Guf (the person is Tamei) or for Tum'as Basar.) "V'Tum'aso (This connotes his or its Tum'ah) Alav" - this refers to one (i.e. a person) whose Tum'ah can cease (through immersion), it does not refer to Tamei meat, its Tum'ah never goes away.

1. According to R. Yitzchak, meat can become Tahor!

(e) Answer #1 (Rava): The Tana means, Tum'as Basar never goes away through immersion.
(f) Objection: The verse does not mention immersion, the Tana says that the Tum'ah cannot cease through any means!
(g) Answer #2 (Rav Papa): The verse discusses meat of Shelamim, which is not offered on the Mizbe'ach (it can never become Tahor).
(h) Answer #3 (Ravina): "V'Tum'aso Alav" - this refers to one (i.e. a person) whose Tum'ah can cease while he is intact, it does not refer to meat, its Tum'ah does not cease until some of it is missing (burned).
(i) (Beraisa): "V'Tum'aso Alav" - this refers to a Tum'as ha'Guf;

1. Question: Perhaps it refers to Tamei meat!
2. Answer #1: It says here "Tum'aso", like it says ("Od Tum'aso Bo") regarding Tum'as Mes;

i. Just as there it refers to Tum'as ha'Guf, also here.

3. Answer #2 (R. Yosi): Here (regarding eating Kodshim b'Tum'ah) it refers to Kodshim in the plural (Shelamim) - since Tum'aso is singular, it refers to Tum'as ha'Guf.
4. Answer #3 (Rebbi): "V'Achal" - this refers to Tum'as ha'Guf (this will be explained).
5. Answer #4 (R. Meir): "V'Tum'aso Alav" - this refers to one whose Tum'ah can cease, not to meat, its Tum'ah never goes away.

(j) Question: How does Rebbi learn from "V'Achal" that it refers to Tum'as ha'Guf?
(k) Answer (R. Yitzchak bar Avodimi): (Just before "V'Tum'aso Alav", the Torah permitted a Tahor to eat Kodshim. The only reason to think that "V'Tum'aso Alav" refers to Tum'as Basar is the gender - Tum'aso is masculine, and the verse discusses a *Nefesh* (feminine) that eats - therefore,) the next verse ("Veha'Nefesh...", which also discusses eating Kodshim b'Tum'ah) begins and ends in the feminine, and uses the masculine in the middle, to teach that the Torah is not particular about the gender.
(l) Rava: No one can explain verses as R. Yitzchak bar Avodimi does, no one can explain Beraisos as Ze'iri does!

(a) (Beraisa) Question: Why must the Torah teach about lenient and severe (transgressions)? (Ze'iri will explain everything later.)
(b) Answer: If it only taught lenient ones, one might have thought that one transgresses a Lav for lenient ones and is Chayav Misah (bi'Dei Shamayim) for severe ones;

1. If it only taught severe ones, one might have thought that one is liable for severe ones and is exempt for lenient ones;

(c) Question: What do lenient and severe ones refer to?
(d) Answer #1: Lenient refers to eating Ma'aser (b'Tum'as ha'Guf), severe ones refers to eating Terumah (b'Tum'as ha'Guf).
(e) Rejection #1: The Beraisa says, 'one *might have thought*...one is Chayav Misah for severe ones' - this is true regarding Terumah!
(f) Rejection #2: It says, 'One might have thought that lenient ones are Chayavei Lavin, severe ones are Chayavei Misah';

1. One could not learn Chiyuv Misah from (a Kal va'Chomer from lenient ones, which are) Chayavei Lavin on account of Dayo (a Kal va'Chomer can teach that the same law applies elsewhere, it cannot teach more than the law of the source)! (Indeed, this refutes the simple understanding of the Beraisa itself, no matter which transgressions it refers to!)

(g) Answer #2: Lenient refers to a (person who became) Tamei (by touching a) Sheretz who eats (something, to be explained), severe refers to a Tamei Mes who eats.
(h) Objection: No matter what they eat, it does not fit the Beraisa!

1. If they ate Terumah, both are Chayav Misah - the Beraisa implies that even the severe one is not Chayav Misah!
2. If they ate Ma'aser, why would one think (to learn from lenient ones) that severe ones are Chayavei Misah - Dayo says, we cannot learn more than the law of lenient ones, i.e. a Lav!