Previous daf

1)

(a) According to Rav Idi bar Avin ... Amar Rebbi Yochanan, Rebbi Shimon holds that Temidin that are not needed cannot be redeemed without a blemish, whereas the Rabbanan hold that they can. The basis of their Machlokes is - whether we hold 'Leiv Beis-Din Masneh Aleihen (the Rabbanan) or not (Rebbi Shimon).

(b) Rebbi Yosef b'rei de'Rav Shemayah asked from here on Rav Papa - who just ascribed 'Leiv Beis-Din Masneh Aleihen' to Rebbi Shimon (too).

(a) When Rebbi Yirmiyah asked Rebbi Zeira why, having received the blood of the two goats of Shevu'os in two separate vessels and having already sprinkled the blood of the first one, they needed to sprinkle the blood of the second one, the latter replied - that it was to atone for Tum'ah that occurred between one goat and the other.

(b) From the fact that Rebbi Yirmiyah asked his Kashya with reference to an Asei after the Shechitah, Rebbi Yosef b'rei de'Rav Shemayah infers - that had it occurred after the Hafrashah, but before the Shechitah, Rebbi Yirmiyah takes for granted that the goat would have atoned (and Rebbi Zeira certainly does).

(c) The problem with the alternative explanation in Rebbi Shimon (that we discussed above [that the Pasuk speaks when they designated the two goats at two different times]) is - that we assumed there that, had they done so simultaneously, the second goat would not now atone for an Asei after the Hafrashah (which clashes with what we just said).

(d) Rav Papa (had no answer to the first Kashya). He answered the second Kashya however with 'Dilma Im Timtzi Lomar ka'Amar', by which he meant - that Rebbi Yirmiyah might really have incorporated two She'eilos in one; first he asked whether 'Bein Zeh la'Zeh' of Rebbi Shimon refers to before the Hafrashah or after it (because the goat atones even for an Asei after the Hafrashah). And assuming that he is referring to after the Hafrashah, will it even atone for an Asei after the Shechitah as well.

(e) That answers the Kashya - inasmuch as, 'Bein Zeh la'Zeh' of Rebbi Shimon could in fact mean either before or after the Hafrashah, depending on the two sides of Rebbi Yirmiyah's She'eilah (which remains unresolved, due to the possibility that the Halachah is not like Rebbi Zeira).

(a) Rabah validates Reuven's Todah that was Shechted on behalf of Shimon (who is also obligated to bring a Todah). Rav Chisda invalidates it - because he considers it Shinuy Kodesh. Rabah does not, seeing as they are both Chayav the same Korban. Note, that neither Amora considers it Shinuy Ba'alim, since both owners are Chayav a Korban.

(b) Rabah learns his ruing from a Beraisa, where Aba Chanin in the name of Rebbi Eliezer validates a Todah that was Shechted as a Shelamim - because a Todah is in fact, a Shelamim.

(c) Rabah extrapolates from there that a Todah as a Todah is definitely Kasher. We counter Rabah's proof however - by establishing the Beraisa when both Korbanos belong to the same owner (and it is Kasher even if the two Todos are brought for different reasons [e.g. one because he returned from the sea, the other, because he was set free from captivity).

(d) The Tana preferred to add that [his] Shelamim le'Shem Todah is Pasul (rather than a case of Reuven's Todah for Shimon's Todah) - to teach us that even though a Todah is considered a Shelamim, a Shelamim is not considered a Todah.

(a) We already discussed Rava's statement (earlier we cited it in the name of Rav Yehudah Amar Rav) 'Chatas she'Shachtah le'Shem Chatas Kesheirah, le'Shem Olah, Pesulah'. When he says 'Chatas ... le'Shem Chatas', he means, for example - a Chatas Cheilev as a Chatas Dam.

(b) And he learns his dual ruling from the Pasuk - "Ve'Shachat Osah le'Chatas", validating the one (which is a Chatas), and invalidating the other (which is not).

(c) Rava also extrapolates from the Pasuk "Ve'chiper Alav" - that if Reuven's Chatas is Shechted as Shimon's, it is Pasul, whereas if it is Shechted as Shimon's Olah, it is Kasher, because he Darshens "Alav", 've'Lo al Chaveiro', to refer to a Chaver who like him, is Chayav a Chatas (but not to one who is Chayav an Olah).

(d) Rava holds like Rav Chisda in the previous dispute (since Rabah was referring not only to a Todah, but to all Korbanos [and he only mentioned Todah because his proof was based on a Pasuk regarding Todah] see also Tosfos DH 'Amar Rava'.

(a) Based on the previous case, Rava rules that a Chatas that was Shechted for no particular sin, is Pasul - because there is nobody who has not committed one Asei or another, for which a Chatas atones.

(b) Rava explains that a Chatas atones for Chayvei Asei - from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Chayvei Kareis).

(c) Rava also said that a Chatas that was Shechted for someone who is Chayav an Olah is Kasher - because an Olah is a different species than a Chatas (and is precluded from ''Alav", ve'Lo al Chaveiro').

(d) He nevertheless rules Pasul in the current case - because a Chatas does not come to atone for an Asei Lechatchilah (see Tosfos DH 'Al Chayvei Asei'). It atones Bedieved - for an Asei for which he did not yet obligate himself to bring an Olah, but not for one which he did.

6)

(a) We already discussed Rava's statement forbidding sprinkling an Olah she'Lo li'Shemah even after having Shechted it she'Lo li'Shemah. He also invalidates an Olah that is Shechted with Shinuy Kodesh after the owner's death. He declares such an Olah that is Shechted with Shinuy Ba'alim Kasher however - because once the owner dies, the Korban has no owner.

(b) Rav Pinchas b'rei de'Rav Ami however - holds that the heirs become the new owners.

(c) Rav Ashi questioned what he meant by that. Whether he meant that we take his words ...

1. ... literally - in which case, he argues with Rava, and the heirs will have to bring another Olah to replace it.
2. ... with a pinch of salt - and that this is not necessary. What he therefore meant was that the Olah will atone for any Mitzvos Asei that the heirs performed, provided it is brought correctly.

(d) Rav Pinchas b'rei de'Rav replied - that he did indeed mean what he said literally.

(a) We have learned that an Olah comes to atone for an Asei or a La'av ha'Nitak la'Asei. The problem with that, assuming the sinner ...

1. ... did not do Teshuvah - lies in the Pasuk in Mishlei ''Zevach Resha'im To'evah" (which teaches us that without Teshuvah, one's Korban is worthless).
2. ... did Teshuvah - lies in the Beraisa, which teaches us that the moment one a person does Teshuvah, he is forgiven for his sin, in which case no Korban is necessary.

(b) Rebbi Shimon in a Beraisa, explains the sequence of first Chatas, then Olah, that pertains to most cases where both are required as follows. First the defense counsel enters to appease the king (the Chatas), he says, and this is followed be a gift (the Olah).

(c) This Beraisa serves as a proof for Rava, who stated - that an Olah comes essentially as a gift (and not as an atonement).

(a) We learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Sh'mor es Chodesh ha'Aviv, Ve'asisa Pesach" - that Shinuy Kodesh is forbidden (Lechatchilah) by the Korban Pesach.
2. ... "Va'amartem Zevach Pesach Hu" - (Im Eino Inyan) that Shinuy Ba'alim is forbidden too.

(b) Initially, we think that the Pasuk there needs to add "Ve'zavachta Pesach la'Hashem Elokecha" - to teach us that both Shinuy Kodesh and Shinuy Ba'alim are even Pasul Bedi'eved.

(c) We objection to this D'rashah is - the fact that it is already used for another D'rashah (as we shall now see).

(a) The problem Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah has with the continuation of the Pasuk "Tzon u'Vakar" - is that the Korban Pesach has to come from Tzon, and not Bakar.

(b) He therefore learns from it - that Mosar ha'Pesach becomes a Shelamim, which is the only Korban that can be brought from any Tzon or Bakar, male or female.

(c) Rav Safra therefore concludes that "Ve'zavachta Pesach ... " teaches us Rav Nachman's Din, and "Sh'mor es Chodesh ha'Aviv, Ve'asisa Pesach" and "Va'amartem Zevach Pesach", Shinuy Kodesh and Shinuy Ba'alim respectively. And we learn from "(Zevach Pesach) Hu" - Le'akev (that they are both Pasul even Bedieved).

(d) And he learns all the other Avodos by Pesach from Shechitah with the S'vara of 'Ho'il Ve'gali Gali'. Rav Ashi - disagrees with that S'vara.

(a) Rav Ashi therefore learns all the other Avodos - from the Hekesh of "Zos ha'Torah la'Olah ve'la'Minchah ... " (as we shall now see).

(b) The continuation of the Pasuk "be'Yom Tzavoso es B'nei Yisrael Le'hakriv es Korbeneihem" - comes to include Bechor, Ma'aser and Pesach.

(c) Firstly, he learns from Shelamim - that all three are included in the Isur of Shinuy Kodesh and Shinuy Ba'alim, just like it is.

(a) Rav Ashi goes on to learn Pesach exclusively from the same Hekesh - by extending the D'rashah to Bedi'eved, and comparing all Avodos to Shechitah, rendering them all Pasul even Bedieved by Pesach, just as they are all Kasher Bedieved by Shelamim.

(b) Seeing as he now learns Shinuy Kodesh and Shinuy Ba'alim (by Pesach) Lechatchilah from " ... Le'hakriv es Korbeneihem", he now learns that they are Pasul even Bedi'eved - from the Pesukim in Re'ei ...

(c) ... and the D'rashah that is now redundant is - "Hu" (from which Rav Safra learned the Din of Bedi'eved).

(d) We therefore conclude that "Hu" by the Korban Pesach comes to preclude from Rebbi Eliezer's interpretation of "Hu" by Asham. When Rebbi Eliezer Darshened from the latter "Hu" that an Asham she'Lo li'Shemo is Pasul, Rebbi Yehoshua said to him - that the Torah deliberately inserted it after the Haktaras Eimurin to teach us not to Darshen this way, like we do by the Pesach, where "Hu" is mentioned before the Shechitah.