Previous daf

1)

(a) We learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "ve'Im Zevach Shelamim Korbano" - that Korbanos require Shechitah li'Shemah (Lechatchilah).
2. ... "ha'Makriv es Dam ha'Shelamim", and "ha'Zorek es Dam ha'Shelamim" - that Zevach Shelamim is not the intrinsic name of the Korban (vindicating the previous D'rashah).

(b) We then discuss the source for the other three Avodos - Kabalah (receiving the blood in a K'li Shareis), Holachah (carrying the K'li Shareis to the Mizbe'ach) and Zerikah (sprinkling the blood on the wall of the Mizbe'ach).

(c) We cannot learn them from Shechitah - because it has the unique Chumra of rendering the Korban Pesach Pasul if it was Shechted on behalf of a sick or old person who was unable to eat a k'Zayis.

(d) So we learn from "ha'Makriv es Dam ha'Shelamim" - that Kabalah must be performed li'Shemah.

(a) On the other hand, we cannot learn the P'sul of Shechitah she'Lo li'Shemah from Kabalah - because it may not be performed by a Zar (whereas Shechitah may).

(b) We learn the P'sul of Zerikah she'Lo li'Shemah from the Pasuk "ha'Zorek es Dam ha'Shelamim". Besides the fact that Shechitah and Kabalah require 'Tzafon' (the north of the Azarah [in the case of Kodshei Kodshim]), we cannot derive Zerikah directly from them - because whereas they are performed even with Chata'os ha'Penimiyos (Chata'os whose blood is sprinkled inside the Azarah), Zerikah (on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon) is not.

(c) Neither cannot learn *them* from Zerikah - since Zerikah possesses the Chumra that a Zar who performs it is Chayav Miysah, which is not the case with Shechitah (which he may perform Lechatchilah) and Kabalah (for which he is at least not Chayav Miysah).

(a) Nor can we learn Holachah from the other three - because they are not dispensable in the way that it is (i.e. if he is already standing next to the Mizbe'ach).

(b) Even though the Pasuk "Ve'Hikriv es ha'Kol ve'Hiktir ha'Mizbeichah" refers to Holachas Evarim (carrying the limbs to the Mizbe'ach, as Mar taught), the Pasuk "Ve'shachat es ben ha'Bakar Ve'hikrivu B'nei Aharon ... " must nevertheless refer to Kabalas ha'Dam (and not principally to Holachas ha'Dam) - since it is written immediately after Shechitah (which is when Kabalah is performed).

(c) Nevertheless, the Torah uses the Lashon "Ve'hikrivu" (which really refers to Holachah, as we just explained) - to teach us that Kabalah follows the same pattern as Holachah, so that just as the latter is Pasul she'Lo li'Shemah, so is the former.

(a) Rav Pinchas b'rei de'Rav Ami quotes the Pasuk "u'Vesar Zevach Todas Shelamav" which appears to teach us that one must Shecht the Todah le'Shem Todah. However, this D'rashah cannot be correct - because we already learned Shinuy Kodesh above with regard to Shelamim.

(b) He therefore learns from there ('Im Eino Inyan') - the P'sul of Shinuy Ba'alim (that one is obligated Lechatchilah to Shecht the Korban on behalf of the owner, and not on behalf of anybody else).

(c) We have a problem with this however, since the Beraisa learns something else from there. In fact, Aba Chanin in the name of Rebbi Eliezer there learns from this Pasuk that if one Shechted ...

1. ... a Todah as a Shelamim - it is Kasher.
2. ... a Shelamim as a Todah - it is Pasul.

(d) The reason for this distinction is - because whereas a Todah is called a Shelamim, a Shelamim is not called a Todah.

(a) So Aba Chanin learns Shinuy Ba'alim 'Im Eino Inyan' from the word "Zevach". The problem with that is - that the Beraisa learns from "Zevach" that Chatas and Asham have the same Din as a Todah, in that they must be eaten within a day and a night.

(b) Aba Chanin Amar Rebbi Eliezer nevertheless learns Shinuy Ba'alim from there - because had the Pasuk come exclusively for the Din of Chatas and Asham, it ought to have written "u'Vesar Todas Shelamav Zevach ... Ye'achel" (to place "Zevach" next to "Ye'achel"). Now that it places it at the beginning of the phrase, we learn both Limudim from it.

(c) We cannot learn the other Avodos from Shechitah (regarding the P'sul of Shinuy Ba'alim, for the same reason as we could not do so by Shinuy Kodesh). We therefore learn them from a 'Mah Matzinu' from Shinuy Kodesh - based on the fact that the Torah writes "Zevach" in both places. Note, that this is not a 'Gezeirah-Shavah', since neither "Zevach" is redundant.

6)

(a) We ask four Kashyos on the 'Mah Matzinu' however. We ask that Shinuy Kodesh is 'Pesulo be'Gufo' (an intrinsic P'sul, which Shinuy Ba'alim is not) and that it applies to all four Avodos (which Shinuy Ba'alim does not). Shinuy Ba'alim applies only to Zerikah, but not to - Shechitah, Kabalah and Holachah ...

(b) ... because le'Shem Ba'alim has no relevance other than to the Kaparah, which is synonymous with the Zerikah.

(c) We reconcile this with what we learned earlier (that the P'sul of Shinuy Ba'alim applies even to the Shechitah) - by establishing that case when he Shechted the animal in order to sprinkle its blood on behalf of someone else.

(a) The third Kashya is that Shinuy Kodesh applies even after the owner's death, the fourth - that it applies to a Tzibur (neither of which Shinuy Ba'alim does).

(b) Shinuy Ba'alim is not applicable to a Korban Tzibur - because everyone is a joint-owner (so how can one Shecht it for someone who is not an owner?).

(c) Two of these Kashyos, we conclude, are not sound. The problem with the Kashya that Shinuy Kodesh is Pesulo be'Gufo, whereas Shinuy Ba'alim is not, is - that in reality, neither are really a P'sul ha'Guf, but a P'sul Machshavah which the Torah prohibits.

(d) The Kashya distinguishing between Shinuy Kodesh and Shinuy Ba'alim after the owner's death is not a Kashya either, because of the opinion of Rav Pinchas b'rei de'Rav Mari, who holds - 'Yesh Shinuy Ba'alim le'Achar Miysah' (in which case this distinction does not exist either).

(a) In any event, due to the remaining two Kashyos, we cannot learn Shinuy Ba'alim from Shinuy Kodesh. Rav Ami therefore learns it from the Pasuk "Ve'nirtzah Lo Lechaper Alav" - which he explains to mean "Alav", 've'Lo al Chavero'.

(b) We query this from a Beraisa however, where Rebbi Shimon learns from "Ve'nirtzah Lo Lechaper Alav" - 'es she'Alav Chayav be'Achariyuso' (by which he means that a Neder ('Harei Alai'), which he remains obligated to bring), he is responsible for, but not a Nedavah ('Harei Zu Alai').

(c) Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi explain - that Rebbi Shimon derives his Din from the word "Alav", which has connotations of carrying a load on his shoulders.

(d) We reconcile Rav Ami with Rebbi Shimon - by citing his source (not as "Alav", but) as "Ve'nirtzah Lo", "Lo", ve'Lo al Chavero' (and not from "Alav", as we thought at first).

(a) We now know the P'sul of Shechitah and of Zerikah By Shinuy Ba'alim. We cannot learn Kabalah from them - because they are among the Avodos for which one is Chayav for performing outside the Beis-Hamikdash, which Kabalah is not.

(b) Rava therefore learns it from the Pasuk "ve'es ha'Ayil Ya'aseh Zevach Shelamim"- which is written in connection with the Korbanos of a Nazir.

(c) He learns P'sul Ba'alim from there - by Darshening 'she'Tehei Asiyaso le'Shem Shelamim'. It cannot be speaking about Shinuy Kodesh (which it certainly seems to be) - because we already know that (from the sources that we cited on the previous Amud).

(a) When Rav Acha bar Aba asked Rava why we do not consider "Ya'aseh" a 'K'lal' and "Zevach" a 'P'rat' - he was referring to the principle of 'K'lal u'P'rat, Ein bi'Chelal Ela Mah she'bi'Perat', in which case Shinuy Ba'alim should be confined to Shechitah.

(b) Rava replied that he would have agreed with him had the Torah written "Ya'aseh Shelamim Zevach". However, the Torah writes "Ya'aseh Shelamim Zevach" - in which case the word "Zevach" interrupts between the 'K'lal' and the 'P'rat', rendering it ineffective.

(c) Ravina disagrees with Rava, and to answer Rav Acha bar Aba's Kashya, he cites "la'Hashem" as the second 'K'lal', turning it into a 'K'lal u'P'rat u'K'lal' (to include all the Avodos that are similar to the 'P'rat'). Evidently, a 'K'lal u'P'rat u'K'lal' is not subject to the stringency cited by Rava in connection with a 'K'lal u'P'rat'.

(d) Rav Acha from Difti pointed out a discrepancy between the two 'K'lalim'. When he said that ...

1. ... the first K'lal ("Ya'aseh") incorporates 'Asiyos', he meant - the four Avodos.
2. ... the second 'K'lal' incorporates 'whatever is for Hashem', he was referring (besides to pouring the leftovers of blood on to the 'Yesod' (the foundation of the Mizbe'ach) - to the Haktaras Eimurim (the burning of the fat-pieces) on the Mizbe'ach.

(e) The difference between the four Avodos and the latter two is - the fact that the first four are Me'akev (impede) the Korban, whereas the latter two are not.

(a) Ravina replied that the author of the Beraisa is Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael - who Darshens a 'K'lal u'P'rat u'K'lal' even when the two K'lalim have different implications.

(b) We ask that the 'P'rat' might be confined to Avodos for which one is Chayav for performing outside the Beis-Hamikdash ...

1. ... including - Zerikah.
2. ... excluding - Kabalah and Holachah (see Hagahos ha'Bach).

(c) On the other hand, we add, it might be confined to something that requires the north side of the Azarah and that applies to Chata'os ha'Penimiyos ...

1. ... including - Kabalah and Holachah.
2. ... excluding - Zerikah.

(d) We deal with this apparent discrepancy - by applying the principle 'Shekulin Hein, Ve'yavo'u Sheneihen' (since we do not know which way to learn [whether to preclude Kabalah and Holachah or Zerikah], we include them all).

(e) When we give as an alternative answer 'Zerikah mi'de'Rav Ami Nafka', we mean - that we accept the second suggestion (that the 'P'rat' refers to something that requires the north side of the Azarah and that applies to Chata'os ha'Penimiyos, including Kabalah and Holachah, but not Zerikah), only we already include Zerikah from the D'rashah "Ve'nirtzah Lo Le'chaper Alav" that Rav Ami cited above.

(a) We now have a source for Shinuy Ba'alim by the Eil Nazir. We cannot however, learn other Shelamim from it - because it is unique in that other Korbanos are brought together with it.

(b) We learn other Shelamim from the Pasuk "ve'es ha'Ayil Ya'aseh Zevach Shelamim" - from the fact that the Torah writes "Shelamim" and not 'Shalmei'.

(c) We cannot learn the other Korbanos from Shelamim, because it possesses three Chumros that other Korbanos do not - inasmuch as it requires Semichah, Nesachim and the waving of the Chazeh ve'Shok.

(d) None of the other Korbanos require Chazeh ve'Chok (to be waved and given to the Kohen). In addition ...

1. ... Bechor, Ma'aser and Pesach - require neither Semichah nor Nesachim.
2. ... Chatas and Asham do not require - Nesachim.

(a) The Pasuk "Zos ha'Torah la'Olah ve'la'Minchah ve'la'Chatas u'le'Asham ve'la'Milu'im u'le'Zevach ha'Shelamim" is - our ultimate source that compares all other Korbanos to Shelamim, with regard to the P'sul of both Shinuy Kodesh and Shinuy Ba'alim.

(b) We nevertheless need the Pasuk "Motza Sefasecha Tishmor ve'Asisa Ka'asher Nadarta Nedavah" - to teach us that the Korban is intrinsically Kasher (like a Nedavah, as we explained earlier in the Perek).

(c) Even though the Torah has written "Motza Sefasecha ... ", it still needs to write "Zos ha'Torah ... " - because "Motza Sefasecha" does not indicate which P'sul it is referring to.