Previous daf

1)

(a) If, as we just concluded, "Zevach" is a 'Ribuy', then back comes the question 'Let the Pesach become the Korban that one Shechts it as (an Olah or a Chatas)'. We reject Rav Avin's answer, that since a Pesach is eaten, it can only become a Korban that is eaten - on the grounds that a Chatas is indeed eaten.

(b) We therefore amend Rebbi Avin's answer - to ' ... a Korban that is eaten by anyone (a Yisrael as well as a Kohen).

(c) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Avin says - that Kodshim Kalim can only become Kodshim Kalim (to preclude an Olah, a Chatas, and an Asham, which are all Kodshei Kodshim).

(a) Why, according to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Avin, asks Rav Yitzchak b'Rebbi Savrin, if the Pesach was Shechted as Ma'aser Beheimah (which is Kodshim Kalim), should it not become Ma'aser Beheimah. Besides the fact that Ma'aser (unlike a Shelamim) does not require Nesachim - it cannot be sold, either, even with a blemish.

(b) We answer by quoting the Pasuk "ha'Asiri Yih'yeh Kodesh" - from which we extrapolate that only the tenth animal can be called 'Ma'aser', and no other.

(c) In similar vein, he asks, why, if it was Shechted as a Bechor (which is Kodshim Kalim too), should it not become a Bechor. Besides the fact that Ma'aser does not require Nesachim - it must also be given to a Kohen.

(d) The 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Avrah" "Avrah" solves the problem - because it means that we learn Bechor ("Ve'ha'avarta Kol Peter Rechem" [in Bo']) from Ma'aser ("Kol Asher Ya'avor Tachas ha'Shevet" [in Bechukosai]) precluding any animal other than an actual firstborn from becoming a Bechor.

(a) Mar Zutra b'rei de'Rav Nachman learns from the Pasuk "Ve'hayah *Hu* u'Semuraso Yih'yeh Kodesh" - that only a genuine Temurah has the Din of a Temurah (but not a Mosar ha'Pesach).

(b) The ramifications of the suggestion that if the Pesach was Shechted as ...

1. ... a Temurah, it becomes a Temurah are 1. that it cannot be sold or redeemed; 2. that one receives Malkos for having declared it as such.
2. ... a Todah, it becomes a Todah are - that one is obligated to bring the forty loaves that accompany it.

(c) We object to the answer that since the Pesach does not require loaves, why should the Mosar Pesach - inasmuch as if that was the case, the Mosar ha'Pesach could not become a Shelamim either (seeing as a Shelamim requires Nesachim, whereas a Pesach does not).

(d) We therefore amend this answer to read - that if the Mosar Todah itself does not require loaves, why should the Mosar Todah that comes from an external source require them?

(a) We have so far taken for granted that "ve'Im min ha'Tzon Korbano" refers to Mosar Pesach (i.e. a Shelamim, which comes from Tzon). Rav Yeimar b'rei de'Rav Hillel however, queries this. He suggests that it refers to - an Asham which also comes from the sheep family.

(b) Rava, based, we presume, on the word "min", refutes Rav Yeimar's suggestion - on the grounds that "min ha'Tzon" incorporates all species of "Tzon" (sheep and goats, male or female), whereas an Asham can only be brought from a ram.

(c) Rebbi Avin bar Chiya (or bar Kahana) queries the Limud from "min" - which generally comes o exclude, and not to include (as Rava just suggested).

(d) Rebbi Mani answers that here too, "min" comes to exclude - a sheep that has already entered its second year, as well as a female (which cannot be brought as a Korban Pesach).

(e) And the source of Rava's answer is not the word "min", but - "Tzon", which implies any member of the sheep or goat family.

(a) The problem is - that if "ve'Im min ha'Tzon" is speaking about a Mosar ha'Pesach, as we currently maintain, why does the Torah need to continue "Im Kesev ... ve'Im Eiz" (seeing as the Torah has already taught us (in Parshas Bo) that the Pesach comes from these two animals?

(b) If the Torah was not talking about a Mosar ha'Pesach, it would be coming to teach us - that someone who brings a Shelamim, has the choice of bringing either a sheep or a goat (and has nothing to do with a Mosar ha'Pesach at all).

(c) We answer that the Pasuk is indeed talking about a Mosar Pesach, and that the Beraisa explains "Im Kesev ... ve'Im Eiz". The Tana learns from ...

1. ... "Kesev" - that the fat-tail of the Korban Pesach must be brought on the Mizbe'ach together with the fat-pieces (like that of a regular Shelamim).
2. ... "*Im* Kesev" - that a Pesach which has entered its second year, and Shelamim ha'Ba'im Machmas ha'Pesach, are subject to Semichah, Nesachim and the waving of the Chazeh ve'Shok (just like a regular Shelamim).

(d) Shelamim ha'Ba'in Machmas ha'Pesach refers to - the Chagigah that was brought on the fourteenth of Nisan to supplement the Pesach when necessary.

(e) And the Tana learns from "ve'Im Eiz" - that the tail of the goat is not brought on the Mizbe'ach.

(a) We ask from Shmuel's father, who learned above that Mosar Pesach is brought as a Shelamim from "ve'Im min ha'Tzon Korbano le'Zevach Shelamim" on the Beraisa that we just learned - which learns the same thing with regard to a Pesach which has entered its second year (which is synonymous with 'Mosar ha'Pesach') from "*Im* Kesev".

(b) And Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah learns from the Pasuk "Ve'zavachta Pesach la'Hashem Elokecha *Tzon u'Vakar*" - that Mosar ha'Pesach becomes a Shelamim.

(c) To reconcile all three Pesukim - we explain that all three are necessary. Had there been only one Pasuk - we would have applied it to after Pesach, a lamb that has entered its second year (when the animal is no longer eligible to be brought as a Pesach).

(d) We would have not known from there a Mosar Pesach after Pesach, but that is still less than one year old - because it is still eligible to be brought as a Korban Pesach on Pesach Sheini.

(e) And we still need a Pasuk to teach us that the same applies to a Mosar Pesach before Pesach - which is even eligible to be brought as a Pesach on Pesach Rishon.

7)

(a) Rav in the name of Mavog rules that a Chatas which is Shechted as a Chatas Nachshon (the Chatas in the first set of Korbanos brought by the Princes of the tribes in the desert, to inaugurate the Mizbe'ach).

(b) He learns this from the Pasuk "Zos Toras ha'Chatas" - which implies that all Chata'os fall under on category.

(c) Rebbi Shimon says in a Beraisa that if a Kohen took a Kemitzah from a Minchas Marcheshes (in a pot) having in mind a Minchah al ha'Machavas (cooked in a flat pan [or vice-versa]); or a Minchah mingled with oil, having in mind a dry one (or vice-versa) - the Minchah is Kasher ...

(d) ... because everyone can see what sort of Minchah it really is (rendering void any intentions that run contrary to that).

(a) Rav Mesharshaya extrapolates from Rebbi Shimon that, assuming the distinction was not noticeable - his thoughts would invalidate the Minchah ...

(b) ... even though there too, the Torah writes "Zos Toras ha'Minchah" (a Kashya on Rav quoting Mavog).

(c) We cannot ask the same Kashya on Rava (whom we will quote shortly and) who learned earlier 'Chatas Cheilev she'Shechtah le'Shem Chatas Dam, Kesheirah' - because he will explain all Chata'os that atone for Kareis are called Chata'os, whereas a Minchas Marcheshes is not the same as a Minchah al ha'Machavas.

(d) We therefore amend Rav's statement to 'Chatas she'Nishchatah al-M'nas she'Yiskaper Bah Nachshon, Kesheirah' - because this is a case of Shinuy Ba'alim, and a deceased person is not subject to the Kaparah of a Korban.

(a) Rav refers specifically to Chatas Nachshon, and not just the Chatas of any deceased person - in order to teach by implication that in the case of a live person similar to Nachshon (such as if one Shechts the Chatas for the sake of someone who is Chayav a Chatas Nazir or Metzora, the Korban would be Pasul).

(b) We ask on this however 'Hani Olos Ninhu' - meaning - that since a Chatas Nazir and a Chatas Metzora do not come to atone, they are like 'Olos' ...

(c) ... and we learned earlier that if one Shechts a Chatas for someone who is Chayav an Olah, it remains Kasher.

(d) So we amend Rav's statement once again to read - 'Chatas she'Shachtah al Mi she'Mechuyav Chatas ke'Nachshon, Kesheirah, Chatas Nachshon Olah Hi'.

(a) Others amend Rav's statement to 'Chatas she'Shachtah le'Shem Chatas Nachshon, Pesulah' - because a Chatas in the name of an Olah is Shinuy Kodesh from a Chatas to an Olah (as we just explained), and is therefore Pasul.

(b) The reason that Rav in the name of Mavog presented the case of Chatas Nachshon, and not of a Chatas Nazir or Metzora is - because it was the first recorded case of a Chatas Yachad.

(a) Rava rules that a Chatas Cheilev that was Shechted ...

1. ... as a Chatas Dam or a Chatas Avodas-Kochavim is - Kasher (the latter in spite of the fact that it requires a Se'irah, as opposed to a Chatas Cheilev, which may also be a Kisbah).
2. ... as a Chatas Nazir or a Chatas Metzora is - Pasul ...

(b) ... because the first is a case Chatas le'Shem Chatas, whereas the second is one of Chatas le'Shem Olah (as we explained).

(c) Rava asked what the Din will be if one Shechted a Chatas Cheilev as a Chatas Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav, which might be ...

1. ... Kasher - because, on the one hand, like a Chatas Cheilev, it comes to atone for a Chiyuv Kareis.
2. ... Pasul - because, on the other, unlike a Chatas Cheilev, it is not a fixed Korban (since it is a Korban Oleh ve'Yored).

(a) Rav Acha b'rei de'Rava maintains that all the current cases are Pasul. He Darshens the Pasuk "Ve'shachat Osah le'Chatas" to mean - that the Shochet must have in mind the Chatas that he is Shechting. Consequently, a Chatas Cheilev that is Shechted as a Chatas Nachshon, Nazir, Metzora, or even Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav, is Pasul.

(b) When Rav Ashi asked him how he presented his father (Rava)'s She'eilah, he replied that Rava was talking about Shinuy Ba'alim (and not Shinuy Kodesh, as we explained initially). He ruled ...

1. ... Pasul - in a case where a Chatas Cheilev is Shechted in the name of someone who is Chayav a Chatas Dam or Avodas-Kochavim.
2. ... Kasher - in a case where it was Shechted in the name of someone who is Chayav a Chatas Nazir or Metzora.

(c) Whereas his Safek entailed a case - where a Chatas Cheilev was Shechted in the name of someone who was Chayav a Chatas Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav.

(a) If one Shechts a Korban li'Shemah but has in mind to sprinkle its blood she'Lo li'Shemah, Rebbi Yochanan holds Pasul - Resh Lakish, Kasher.

(b) The ...

1. ... principle on which their Machlokes is based is - 'Mechashvin me'Avodah la'Avodah (by a Machsheves she'Lo li'Shemo)'.
2. ... the source of their Machlokes is - whether we learn Machsheves she'Lo li'Shemo from Pigul (Rebbi Yochanan) or not (Resh Lakish).

(c) Resh Lakish declines to learn P'sul Kodesh from Pigul - because Pigul, by definition, entails performing one Avodah, in order to perform another Avodah that enables the Korban to be eaten (either by the owner or by the Mizbe'ach) outside its specified time.

(a) They also indulge in a similar Machlokes in a case where someone Shechts a Chulin animal - in order to sprinkle its blood in honor of Avodas-Kochavim.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan rules that it is Pasul, because he learns - 'Chutz mi'Penim'.

(c) The ramifications of that Machlokes are - whether the animal becomes Asur be'Hana'ah (Rebbi Yochanan) or whether he may even eat it (Resh Lakish).

(d) We would have thought with regard to ...

1. ... the first case, had they only presented the second Machlokes - that Resh Lakish will concede that we learn P'nim from P'nim.
2. ... the second case, had they only presented the first Machlokes - that Rebbi Yochanan will concede that we do not learn Chutz from P'nim.