Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) PROHIBITIONS THAT APPLY TO BLOOD

(a) (Mishnah): (Nosar and Tamei apply to Kodshim in which Pigul does not apply,) except for blood.
(b) Question: What is the source of this?
(c) Answer: Three words in the following verse exclude blood from Me'ilah (later, we will use two of them to exclude from Nosar and Tamei):

1. (Ula): "Va'Ani Nesativ *Lachem*" - blood is yours (it is not considered Hash-m's, there is no Me'ilah);
2. (Tana d'vei R. Yishmael): "Lechaper" - it is for atonement, not for Me'ilah;
3. (R. Yochanan): "Hu" - blood has the same status before Kaparah as after;

i. Just as after Kaparah there is no Me'ilah, also before.

4. Question: Why not say that just as before Kaparah there is Me'ilah, also after?!
5. Answer: We never find Me'ilah (in something used for a Mitzvah) after the Mitzvah was done.
6. Question: We do find this regarding Terumas ha'Deshen!
7. Answer: Terumas ha'Deshen and Bigdei Kehunah (i.e. the linen garments the Kohen Gadol wears on Yom Kipur) are Shnei Kesuvim (two verses, one of which teaches something which could have been learned from the other (i.e. that Me'ilah applies after the Mitzvah was done)), they do not teach to other cases.
8. Question: This is according to Chachamim, who expound "V'Hinicham Sham" to teach that the linen garments require Genizah (they may not be used);

i. But according to R. Dosa, who says that they may not be used on another Yom Kipur but a regular Kohen may use them, how can we answer?

9. Answer: Terumas ha'Deshen and Eglah Arufah are Shnei Kesuvim, they do not teach to other cases.
10. Question: This is according to the opinion that Shnei Kesuvim do not teach to other cases - according to the opinion that they do teach, how can we answer?
11. Answer: Regarding each, a verse teaches not to learn to other cases:

i. It says "*Ha'*Arufah" and "V'Sam*o*" (but normally, there is no Me'ilah after the Mitzvah).

12. Question: Why do we need three exclusions to teach that there is no Me'ilah in blood?
13. Answer (and culmination of answer (c)): One excludes Me'ilah, the others exclude Nosar and Tamei.

(d) We do not need a verse to teach that Pigul does not apply - Pigul applies only to something that *has* Matirim, blood is a Matir for other things.

(a) Question (R. Yochanan): Why does the Torah teach Kares three times regarding eating Shelamim b'Tum'ah?

(b) Answer: One is a Klal, one makes it considered something governed by a Klal which received a new law, to teach about the entire Klal (i.e. that Kares for Tum'ah applies to Kodshei Mizbe'ach, not to Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis), and one teaches that one is liable for things not normally eaten.
(c) Question: R. Shimon exempts for things not normally eaten - how does he expound the third Kares?
(d) Answer: It teaches that one is liable for inner Chata'os;

1. One might have thought, since (he holds that) one is not liable for Pigul of inner Chata'os, one is not liable for eating them b'Tum'ah - the extra verse teaches that this is not so.

(e) (Mishnah - R. Shimon (just before he died)): One is liable for things that are normally eaten...
(f) Version #1 - Rav Tivyomi - ((R. Yochanan or Reish Lakish), or, (R. Elazar or R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina)): They argue about eating (Kodesh that is not normally eaten) b'Tum'as Basar (when the Kodesh itself is Tamei - Chachamim Mechayev, R. Shimon exempts), but all agree that one is not lashed for Tum'as ha'Guf;
(g) (A Chacham from the other pair) They argue in both cases.
(h) Question: Why do Chachamim Mechayev even for Tum'as ha'Guf?
(i) Answer: Since "Veha'Basar Asher Yiga b'Chol Tamei (Lo Ye'achel)" applies, also "V'Tum'aso Alav (v'Nichresah)" applies.
(j) Version #2 - Rav Kahana - The Amora'im discussed the end of the Mishnah (R. Shimon exempts for eating wood, frankincense or Ketores b'Tum'ah.)
(k) (R. Yochanan or Reish Lakish, or, R. Elazar or R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina): They argue about Tum'as ha'Guf (R. Shimon exempts, Chachamim Mechayev), but all agree that one is lashed for Tum'as Basar;
(l) (A Chacham from the other pair) They argue in both cases.
(m) (Rava): Presumably, the latter opinion is correct.
(n) Question: What is the reason?
(o) Answer: Since R. Shimon holds that "Veha'Basar Asher Yiga..." does not apply, neither does "V'Tum'aso Alav".
(p) Question: It was taught, "Veha'Basar" includes wood and frankincense!
(q) Answer: Indeed, they are forbidden (Tosfos - mid'Oraisa; Rashi - mid'Rabanan), but one is not lashed for them.

(a) (Mishnah): There are six intentions in Korbanos:

1. Which Korban it is, whose Korban it is, it is l'Shem (for the sake of) Hash-m, l'Shem the fire, l'Shem a smell, and to be pleasing (these will be explained);
2. Additionally, a Chatas or Asham is offered l'Shem the transgression.

(b) R. Yosi says, even if one slaughtered without any intention, it is Kosher;

1. Chachamim enacted to slaughter without intent, for everything depends on the intent of the Oved (the one offering the Korban).

(c) (Gemara - Rav Yehudah): "Olah" - an Olah is offered l'Shem Olah (as opposed to l'Shem Shelamim);

1. "Ishei" - the Eimurim should burn totally, not to merely grill them (Rashi; Ramban (on Chumash) - they are burned on the fire, not on coals);
2. "Re'ach" - (the meat should make a nice smell on the Mizbe'ach), it should not be roasted first;

i. (Rav Yehudah): If limbs were roasted before they were offered, he did not fulfill "Re'ach".

3. "Nicho'ach" - he must intend that it will be pleasing to Hash-m;
4. "La'Sh-m" - he intends for Hash-m, Creator of the world;

(d) (Rav Yehudah): If a Chatas was slaughtered l'Shem Olah, it is Pasul; if it was slaughtered l'Shem Chulin, it is Kosher.
(e) (R. Elazar): He expounds "V'Lo Yechalelu Es Kodshei Benei Yisrael" - (intentions for other) Kodshim are Mechalel (Posel) Kodshim, (intent for) Chulin is not.
(f) Question (Rabah - Mishnah - R. Yosi): Even if one slaughtered without any intention, it is Kosher - this is an enactment of Chachamim.

1. Inference: It is Kosher because he had no intent - had he intended for Chulin (or any other improper intent), it would be Pasul!

(g) Answer (Abaye): No - when he had no intent, it is Kosher and Meratzeh (he fulfilled his obligation);

1. If he intended for Chulin, it is Kosher, it is not Meratzeh.

(h) (R. Elazar): If Reuven (knowingly) slaughtered a Chatas l'Shem (to be) Chulin, it is Kosher;

1. If he thought that it was Chulin (and slaughtered l'Shem Chulin), it is Pasul.
2. Shmuel and Rav Huna also agree with the latter law.
3. Question (Shmuel): What is the source that Misasek (one who did not intend for the action he did) is Pasul in Kodshim?
4. Answer #1 (Rav Huna): "V'Shachat Es Ben ha'Bakar" - the slaughter must be l'Shem an ox (Korban).
5. Shmuel: I knew that l'Chatchilah, it must be l'Shem the Korban - I asked, what is the source that this is Me'akev!
6. Answer #2 (Rav Huna): "Lirtzonchem Tizbechuhu" - you must slaughter it knowingly.