Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) "KODSHIM" OF NOCHRIM

(a) (Mishnah - R. Shimon): One is not liable for Pigul, Nosar and Tamei of Kodshim of Nochrim, one who slaughters them outside the Mikdash is exempt;
(b) R. Yosi says, he is liable.
(c) (Gemara - Beraisa - R. Shimon (Tosfos and Shitah Mekubetzes - this Tana is anonymous (i.e. Chachamim)): The following apply to Kodshim of Nochrim:

1. It is forbidden to benefit from them, one who benefited from them did not transgress Me'ilah;
2. One is not liable for them for Pigul, Nosar and Tamei;
3. Temurah does not apply to them;
4. Nochrim may not bring just Nesachim, but Nesachim must be brought with their Korbanos.

(d) R. Yosi is stringent concerning all of these, for it says "La'Sh-m" (to include Nochrim);
(e) This applies to Kodshei Mizbe'ach, but Me'ilah applies to Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis (Rashi - this is according to the first Tana; Shitah Mekubetzes - R. Shimon agrees that Me'ilah applies to Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis).
(f) (Beraisa): It is forbidden to benefit from them, one who benefited did not transgress Me'ilah.
(g) It is forbidden to benefit from them mid'Rabanan;

1. Me'ilah does not apply to them - we learn this from a Gezerah Shavah "Chet-Chet" from Terumah;
2. Regarding Terumah it says "Benei Yisrael", teaching that it does not apply to Nochrim.

(h) (Beraisa): One is not liable for them for Pigul, Nosar and Tamei.
(i) Regarding Tum'ah, it says "Benei Yisrael", excluding Nochrim;

1. We learn Nosar from a Gezerah Shavah "Chilul-Chilul" from Tum'ah, and Pigul from a Gezerah Shavah "Avon-Avon" from Nosar.

(j) (Beraisa): Temurah does not apply to them.
(k) Question: What is the reason?
(l) Answer #1: Regarding Ma'aser of Degen (grain), it says "Benei Yisrael", excluding Nochrim;

1. A Hekesh equates Ma'aser Behemah to Ma'aser Degen, a Hekesh equates Temurah with Ma'aser Behemah.
2. Question: Can something learned from a Hekesh (Ma'aser Behemah) teach about something else (Temurah) through another Hekesh (regarding Kodshim)?!
3. Answer: Ma'aser Degen is Chulin.
4. Question: This is according to the opinion that it depends on the source we learn from (whether it is Chulin or Kodshim);

i. But according to the opinion that it depends on the matter we learn, how can we answer?

(m) Answer #2: Ma'aser Behemah is an obligation (without a fixed time to bring it) - Nochrim only bring Nedarim and Nedavos (voluntary Korbanos);
(n) (Beraisa): Nochrim may not bring (just) Nesachim.
(o) (Beraisa): "Ezrach" - only a Yisrael brings Nesachim;

1. Suggestion: Perhaps the Olah of a Nochri does not require Nesachim!
2. Rejection: "Kachah" (it requires Nesachim).

(p) (Mishnah - R. Yosi): I am stringent concerning all of these...this applies to Kodshei Mizbe'ach...
(q) Question: What is his reason?
(r) Answer: He learns from a Gezerah Shavah "Chet-Chet" from Terumah, which is Kedushas ha'Guf (and it does not apply to Nochrim) - but Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis (monetary Kedushah) applies to Nochrim.

(a) (Beraisa): If blood became Tamei and Zerikah was done b'Shogeg, Hurtzah (the Korban is acceptable);

1. If it was b'Mezid, it is not Meratzeh;

(b) This applies to an individual, but a Korban Tzibur is Hurtzah even b'Mezid;

1. Regarding a Nochri, even b'Shogeg it is not Meratzeh.

(c) Question: Who is the Tana of the Mishnah?
(d) Answer #1: This is unlike R. Yosi, he is stringent to consider Korbanos of Nochrim like those of Yisrael in all respects!
(e) Rejection #1 (Rav Papa): It is even like R. Yosi - regarding the Tzitz which is Meratzeh) "Lahen" - for Yisrael, not for Nochrim.
(f) Objection (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Noson): If so, you should also expound "Asher *Hem* Makdishim" - Yisrael, not Nochrim!
(g) Rejection #2 (Rav Ashi): It says "*L'Ratzon* Lahem" - Hash-m is pleased with Yisrael, not with Nochrim.

(a) (Mishnah): Nosar and Tamei apply to Kodshim in which Pigul does not apply, except for blood;
(b) R. Shimon said (just before he died), one is liable for things that are normally eaten;

1. One is exempt for eating wood, frankincense or Ketores b'Tum'ah.

(c) (Gemara - Beraisa) Suggestion: Perhaps one is liable for eating b'Tum'ah only something that has Matirim to people or the Mizbe'ach!

1. Support: A Kal va'Chomer supports this!
2. One who ate Pigul (b'Shogeg) must bring a Chatas Behemah (even if he is poor), he is liable even if he never knew (that it was Pigul before he ate it), it is never permitted, yet it applies only to something that has Matirim;

i. The Korban for Tum'ah (a Tamei who ate Kodshim b'Shogeg) is Oleh v'Yored (a poor person brings a bird), one is not liable unless he knew that he was Tamei (and later forgot), it is sometimes permitted (if most of the Tzibur is Tamei, they eat Korban Pesach b'Tum'ah), all the more so it should apply only to something that has Matirim!

(d) Rejection: "Asher Hem Makdishim Li" (teaches that one is liable for them b'Tum'ah).
(e) Suggestion: Perhaps one is liable for them from the moment they became Hekdesh!
(f) Rejection: "Yikrav" (this will be explained);

1. Question (R. Eliezer): Is one Chayav Kares just for (Kiruv (coming close), i.e.) touching Kodshim?! (Surely, only for eating!)
2. Answer: Rather, the verse discusses Kodshim that became permitted:

i. If it has Matirim, this is after the Matirim were offered;
ii. If it has no Matirim, this is after it was put in a Kli Shares.

(g) Question: This is the source for Tum'ah - what is the source for Nosar?
(h) Answer: We learn Nosar from a Gezerah Shavah "Chilul-Chilul" from Tum'ah.
(i) Question: Why don't we learn from a Gezerah Shavah "Avon-Avon" from Pigul (that it only applies to something with Matirim)?
(j) Answer #1: It is more reasonable to learn from Tum'ah, for this resembles Nosar regarding GeZeL (an acronym for *G*uf (a Pesul of the Kodshim or person, as opposed to Pigul, which is a Pesul of intent), *Z*erikah (does not cause Tamei or Nosar, but it causes Pigul) and Ku*L*o (Tamei and Nosar need not take effect on the entire Korban, Pigul always does - Tosfos; Rashi - 'Lamed' stands for Chi*L*ul, the Gezerah Shavah between Nosar and Tum'ah).)
(k) Objection: It is more reasonable to learn from Pigul, for this resembles Nosar in more respects:

1. Neither (Nosar or Pigul) is ever permitted (text of Rashi and Tzon Kodoshim), the Tzitz is not Meratzeh for them, they do not pertain to Tum'ah, the prohibitions are on account of time, the prohibitions only affect the meat (whereas Tum'ah applies to one who offers or eats it)!

(l) Answer #2: We learn from Tum'ah on account of Levi's teaching.

1. (Levi - Beraisa): "V'Lo Yechalelu..." - the verse alludes to two Chilulim (desecrations through eating), Nosar and Tum'ah.