Previous daf

1)

(a) Rebbi Yochanan permits two sons to bring the Korban that their father left when he died, but not to declare another animal a Temurah (an exchange) on it - because Shutfin cannot make a Temurah ...

(b) ... which we learn - from the fact that the Parshah of Temurah throughout is written in the singular.

(c) This seems to contradict his previous statement (regarding a father who dies, leaving two sons and a Minchah) - in that there he seemed to hold that heirs do not acquire the Korban that they inherit, whereas he he seems to say that they do (otherwise why should they not be permitted to make a Temurah?).

(d) When we reply 'Sha'ani Hasam, de'Amar K'ra "Im Hamer Yamir", 'Le'rabos es ha'Yoresh', we mean - that this is a 'Gezeiras Hakasuv', precluding Shutfin from bringing their father's Korban, even though they do not acquire it.

(a) Rebbi Ya'akov from Nehar Pakud asked (based on the Pasuk [also in Bechukosai, in connection with Ma'aser Sheini]) "ve'Im Ga'ol Yig'al" - that by the same token, heirs who inherit their father's Ma'aser Sheini should not be permitted to redeem it (a fat which is known to be incorrect)?

(b) And we answer - that Ma'aser is different, inasmuch as even their father would have permitted to redeem Ma'aser that he owned be'Shutfus.

(c) In a case where Reuven designated an animal to fulfil Shimon's Neder, Rebbi Avahu Amar Rebbi Yochanan ruled that ...

1. ... Reuven (the Makdish) adds a fifth (should he come to redeem it)?
2. ... Shimon (the owner) is able to make a Temurah.

(d) In the same vein, in a case where Reuven separates Terumah on behalf of Shimon, Rebbi Yochanan ascribes the Tovas Hana'ah (the right to choose the Kohen) to - Reuven.

(a) This proves - that in order to make a Temurah on a Korban, one has to actually own it ...

(b) ... and it prompts Rav Asi to ask Rav Ashi on our previous conclusion, that heirs do not own the Korban that they inherited from their father.

(c) Rav Ashi answered 'mi'Kiv'a Lo Mechapra, mi'Kufya Mechapra - by which he meant that they partially own it, sufficiently to be able to make a Temurah, but not sufficiently to be considered Shutfin.

(a) We learned above that if Kodshim are Shechted she'Lo Lisheman, they are nevertheless Kasher, but the owner remains obligated to bring the Korban again. When we ask whether 'Kipru O Lo Kipru', we mean to ask - whether the Korban at least atones for the sin for which it is brought or not.

(b) The ramifications of the She'eilah are - that if it does, he does not need to worry about getting punished for his sin until he brings his second Korban.

(c) Rav Shisha b'rei de'Rav Idi says 'Mistavra de'Lo Kipru' - because otherwise, what is the point of the second Korban?

(d) On the other hand, one might ask, if it does not atone, what is the point of bringing the first one? Rav Ashi explains why Rav Shisha b'rei de'Rav Idi opted to ask the way he did - because one can answer the latter Kashya in that one brings the first one because it was designated to be brought li'Shemo (so it has to be brought).

(a) If someone sins again after designating his Chatas for a previous sin - the Chatas will not cover his second sin.

(b) We ask whether the same will apply to an Olah with regard to Mitzvos Asei that he transgressed after having designated an Olah. The Olah there might cover his latter sins too - because unlike a Chatas, the Olah is not obligatory (in which case, its deignation [Hafrashah] may well not connect it exclusively with the sin for which he initially designated it).

(c) We try to resolve the She'eilah with the Beraisa, where the Tana asks on the Pasuk "Ve'samach ... Ve'nirtzah Lo Lechaper Alav" - why the Torah connects the Kaparah with the Semichah, when we know that it is really connected with the blood.

(d) The Tana therefore explains that in a case where one failed to peform the Semichah 'Ma'aleh Alav ha'Kasuv Ke'ilu Lo Kiper, ve'Kiper', which, we suggest, means - that although the Korban atones for the sin that he committed before the Hafrashah, it does not atone for the Semichah that he transgressed after it. And seeing as the Pasuk is talking about an Olah, this will resolve our She'eilah.

(a) Rava points out that as long as the animal has not been Shechted, the Mitzvah to perform Semichah still remains. That serves to reject the proof - since, according to Rava, Semichah now becomes an Asei after the Shechitah, and that was obvious all along that the Olah cannot atone for that (see Tosfos DH 'le'Achar').

(b) When Rav Huna bar Yehudah explains 'Kiper Gavra, Lo Kiper Kamei Shemaya', he means - that the Olah does indeed atone for sins that he performed after the Hafrashah, but that the way he did it (without Semichah) lacked perfection.

7)

(a) Rebbi Akiva, in the Mishnah in Nega'im, comments (regarding the Pasuk "ve'ha'Nosar Asher al Kaf ha'Kohen ... Le'chaper Alav Lifnei Hashem") - that if the Kohen fails to place the remaining oil on the head of the erstwhile Metzora, his atonement is ineffective ...

(b) ... whereas according to Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri, the atonement is effective, but it lacks perfection (the source for Rav Huna bar Yehudah's previous explanation).

(c) He cannot mean to obligate the Metzora to bring another Korban - because he first referred to this Mitzvah as 'Sheyarei Mitzvah' (the mere remnant of a Mitzvah), adding that he receives atonement whether he puts the oil on the Metzora's head or not.

(d) We refute this proof of Rav Huna bar Yehudah however, on the grounds that what Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri might have meant was - that he achieves atonement for the placing of the oil on the Metzora's thumbs, but not for placing it on his head.

(a) Rebbi Shimon learned in a Beraisa that the lambs of Shavu'os come to atone for Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav (where the sinner had no knowledge of his sin, as we learned in Shevu'os). This statement is unacceptable however - inasmuch as the lambs of Shavu'os were Shelamim, which do not come to atone.

(b) So we amend 'Kisvei Atzeres' to - 'Se'irei Atzeres'.

(c) They brought two goats on Shavu'os - one as part of the Musaf, and the other, together with the Sh'tei ha'Lechem.

(d) Seeing as the first goat atoned for Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav, the point of the second was - to atone for transgressions in Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav that were perpetrated between the times that one brought the two goats.

(a) The Tana states here that the Torah takes pity on the money of K'lal Yisrael - when it extrapolates from here that (were it not for that pity) Yisrael should constantly be bringing Korbanos for their sins.

(b) The Tana refers to Tum'as Mikdash as an Asei de'le'Achar Hafrashah. He calls it an Asei - because besides the La'av, the Torah in Beha'aloscha presents it as an Asei "Vi'yeshalchu min ha'Machaneh ... ve'Chol Tamei la'Nafesh".

(c) Initially, we explain the statement (mentioned earlier) 'Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav that one perpetrated between the times that one brought the two goats' (for which the second goat atones) as - sins that one perpetrated between the times that the two goats were brought (even though they were designated simultaneously) ...

(d) ... a proof that even a Chatas atones for sins that were performed after it was designated (let alone an Olah [see Shitah Mekubetzes]).

(a) We therefore establish the Beraisa - when they designated the second Chatas after the first one, and the statement 'Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav that one perpetrated between the times that one brought the two goats' really means - that the second goat comes to atone for sins that were perpetrated between the two times that they sacrificed the two goats (but after it was designated).

(b) And if they designated both goats at the same time - the second goat would be redundant.

(c) The problem with this explanation is - to establish the case in this way, since neither does the Pasuk indicate that one is obligated to designate the animals at two different times, nor does it suggest that it is speaking Bedieved, when they did so.

(a) Rav Papa therefore establishes the case even where they designated the two animals at one and the same time, and he explains the Beraisa on the basis of a statement of Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel, in connection with Temidin that remained after the first of Nisan - the date when Korbanos Tzibur are due to be purchased from the Terumah Chadashah (the new half-Shekalim that the people had just donated).

(b) We would therefore expect such Temidim - to become Pasul (since they were purchased with money from the previous year's money, with the intention of bringing them as Temidin).

(c) When Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel says 'Sakin Moshchasan le'Mah she'Hein', he means - that in fact, we apply the principle 'Leiv Beis-Din Masneh Aleihen', in which case Beis-Din actually had in mind that in the event that the lambs are not needed as Temidin, they should be used for Olos Kayitz ha'Mizbe'ach, and that is indeed what the knife sanctifies them as.

(d) Rav Papa adapts Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel's principle to our case - by making out as if Beis-Din had stipulated that the Hafrashah of the second goat should only take effect when it is needed. Consequently, whenever they bring it, it is as if they had designated it at that moment, in which case, it always atones for Tum'as Mikdash that took place before it was designated.