Previous daf

1)

(a) When Rav Dimi arrived from Eretz Yisrael, he cited Rebbi Yirmiyah's support of Rebbi Yochanan ('Mecheshvin me'Avodah la'Avodah') on the one hand, and Rebbi Ila's support of Resh Lakish ('Ein Mechashvin ... ') on the other. In support of Rebbi Yochanan, Rebbi Yirmiyah initially learned a 'Kal-va'Chomer - that if Shechitah Chutz li'Zemano does not invalidate the Korban, yet Shachto al-M'nas Li'zerok Damo Chutz li'Zemano does, she'Lo li'Shemo which does invalidate the Korban, should certainly invalidate it if one Shechted the Korban al-M'nas Li'zerok she'Lo li'Shemah.

(b) Rava bar Ahila'i asks on this 'Kal va'Chomer' however, on the grounds - that one is Chayav Kareis for eating she'Lo bi'Zemano (i.e. Pigul [even if one eats it immediately]), which is not the case by someone who eats she'Lo li'Shemo.

(c) So Rava bar Ahila'i amends the 'Kal-va'Chomer to Chutz li'Mekomo (instead of Chutz li'Zemano), answering the Kashya from Kareis - by virtue of the fact that the P'sul of Chutz li'Mekomo is precluded from the Kareis of Chutz li'Zemano (as we shall see in the second Perek).

(d) Rav Ashi asks on this 'Kal-va'Chomer' however - in that Chutz li'Mekomo applies to all Korbanos, in which case one cannot learn from it that of she'Lo li'Shemo, which is confined to Pesach and Chatas.

(a) So Rav Ashi finally cites Rebbi Yirmiyah's proof for Rebbi Yochanan from a 'Kal va'Chomer' based on the distinction between 'Hareini Shochet she'Lo le'Shem P'loni' (which is Kasher) and 'Hareini Zorek she'Lo le'Shem P'loni' (which is Pasul) - because the P'sul of Shinuy Ba'alim is confined to the Kaparah (and is therefore unaffected by the Shechitah.

(b) Rebbi Yirmiyah proves Rebbi Yochanan's ruling from there - because bearing in mind that if someone says 'Hareini Shochet she'Lo li'Shemo, Pasul', how much more so should the Korban be Pasul, if he Shechts li'Shemo in order to sprinkle it she'Lo li'Shemo.

(c) And Rebbi Ila proves Resh Lakish's opinion from the fact that the Torah requires a Pasuk to teach us Shinuy Kodesh by Zerikah (as we learned earlier). We might otherwise have learned it from a 'Mah ha'Tzad' from Shechitah and Kabalah.

(d) The Torah writes it - to teach us that only if one actually sprinkles the blood she'Lo li'Shemo is the Korban Pasul, but not if he Shechts having in mind to sprinkle the blood she'Lo li'Shemo.

(a) Rav Papa asks why we cannot say the exact opposite - meaning that the Torah writes Shinuy Kodesh by Zerikah to teach us that the Korban is even Pasul if he had in mind to sprinkle the blood she'Lo li'Shemah at the time of Shechitah (which would then be a proof for Rebbi Yochanan).

(b) If it was not to preclude 'Mechashvin me'Avdah la'Avodah', we answer - the Torah should have omitted Zerikah altogether, and we would have learned it from Shachitah and Kabalah (as we explained).

(c) Rebbi Yochanan will counter this proof, by asking a 'Pircha' on the 'Kal va'Chomer', from the fact that Shechitah and Kabalah are different. The Chumra that they have over Zerikah, besides the fact that they require 'Tzafon' is - that they also pertain to Chata'os ha'Penimiyos (which Zerikah does not, as we explained earlier).

(d) Resh Lakish however, is not perturbed by this Kashya - because the Machshavah of she'Lo li'Shemo is written by Shelamim (to which neither Chumra applies).

(a) In an independant Machlokes, in a case where the Shochet Shechted li'Shemah having in mind to sprinkle the blood she'Lo li'Shemah, Rav Nachman invalidates the Korban (like Rebbi Yochanan). Rabah validates it (like Resh Lakish).

(b) Rabah retracts however - due to the 'Kal va'Chomer' of Rav Ashi (which follows the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan.

(a) The Chut ha'Sikra - was the red thread that surrounded the Mizbe'ach, to mark the halfway mark.

(b) When Rebbi Eliezer ...

1. ... tried to learn that an Asham should be Pasul she'Lo li'Shemah from a 'Mah Matzinu' from a Chatas - Rebbi Yehoshua countered that a Chatas is more stringent, because its blood is sprinkled above the Chut ha'Sikra (which an Asham is not).
2. ... replied 'Pesach Yochi'ach' - he asked that Pesach is more stringent, inasmuch as it has a fixed time (which an Asham has not).

(c) The only other Korban, besides a Chatas Beheimah, whose blood is sprinkled above the red thread is - an Olas ha'Of.

(d) So Rebbi Eliezer attempts to learn the P'sul of an Asham she'Lo li'Shemo from a new source. He learns from the fact that the Torah writes the word "Hi/Hu" by the Chatas, the Pesach and the Asham - that all three are Pasul she'Lo li'Shemo (as we explained earlier).

(a) Rebbi Yehoshua rejects Rebbi Eliezer's proof, due to the fact - that "Hu" by the Asham is written - after the Haktaras Eimurin ...

(b) ... which refutes Rebbi Eliezer's proof - because even if the Eimurin are not burned at all, the Korban is Kasher (so how can the fact that it is burned she'Lo li'Shemo render the Korban Pasul).

(c) Rebbi Eliezer's final proof is from the Pasuk "ka'Chatas ka'Asham" - comparing an Asham to a Chatas ...

(d) ... which is extremely difficult to refute - on the basis of the principle 'Ein Mashivin al ha'Hekesh (though we will see later, what the Rabbanan learn from this Hekesh, despite the principle 'Ein Hekesh le'Mechtzah').

7)

(a) When Rebbi Yehoshua dismissed Rebbi Eliezer's proofs from Chatas and from Pesach, Rebbi Eliezer declined to learn Asham from a 'Mah ha'Tzad' from the two of them - because of the obvious 'Pircha' that they are both somehow connected with a Chiyuv Kareis (the former comes to atone for a Chiyuv Kareis be'Shogeg, whilst the latter obligates someone who fails to bring it, Kareis).

(b) Rebbi Yehoshua did not ask on Rebbi Eliezer's 'Mah Matzinu' from Chatas, that a Chatas is different, since ...

1. ... its blood enters the Kodesh Kodshim on Yom Kipur - because Rebbi Eliezer is talking about Chata'os ha'Chitzonos (regular Chata'os and not that of Yom Kipur [which is a Chatas Penimi]).
2. ... it is rendered Pasul by the blood entering the Kodesh - because he holds that an Asham whose blood enters the Kodesh is Pasul, too.
3. ... it *atones for Chayvei K'riysus* - because he is talking about a Chatas of Shemi'as Kol, which *does not*.

(c) Neither does he ask him from the fact that the Chatas requires four Nesinos Damim (one on each corner of the Mizbe'ach), whereas the Asham requires only two on the two diagonally opposite corners, because he holds like Rebbi Yishmael, who holds - that when placing the blood on the two corners, the Kohen actually had to sprinkle the blood twice on each Keren (one on each of the outer sides).

(a) We conclude however, that a Chatas requires three things that other Korbanos do not. Two of them are sprinkling with the finger (as opposed to from the bowl) and sprinkling on the 'Keranos' - the third is placing the blood on the tip of each Keren.

(b) This distinction also applies to the Olas ha'Of - whose blood has to be sprinkled above the Chut ha'Sikra, but does not need to be placed on the Keranos.

(c) Rebbi Yehoshua did not ask from there on Rebbi Eliezer - because he asked one Kashya out of two or three possible Kashyos (though he might have asked them all, had he so wished).

(a) We ask why, when Rebbi Yehoshua asked Rebbi Eliezer from the Chatas, which is sprinkled above the Chut ha'Sikra (which an Asham is not), the latter did not reply that the Asham too, was sprinkled above the Chut ha'Sikra (from the same 'Mah Matzinu'). Abaye answers that Rebbi Eliezer cannot say that - 'Kal-va'Chomer' from an Olah, *which is all burned* yet it is sprinkled below the Chut ha'Sikra, how much more so an Asham, which is *not*.

(b) We ask on this that an Olah does not come to atone like an Asham does, and we answer - 'Chatas ha'Of Tochi'ach' (which comes to atone, yet it is sprinkled below the Chut ha'Sikra).

(c) We end up by learning Asham from a 'Mah Matzinu' from Olas Beheimah and Chatas ha'Of (which have in common with the Asham that they are both Kodshei Kodshim). We cannot learn it from Chatas ha'Of alone - since Chatas ha'Of is not a Miyn Zevach (which is Shechted, like an Asham is).

(d) Rava from Parzika however, asks a 'Pircha' on the 'Mah Matzinu'. The Chumra that an Asham has over both an Olas Beheimah and a Chatas ha'Of is - that it has a fixed minimum price-tag (two Shekel), whereas they do not.

(a) Rebbi Eliezer learns from the Pasuk "ha'Kohen ha'Mechatei Osah" - 'Osah Lema'alah, ve'Ein Damah shel Acher Lema'alah'.

(b) We do not also Darshen "Osah" 'li'Shemah Kesheirah ... ', Ha Sha'ar Zevachim Bein li'Sheman Bein she'Lo li'Sheman, Kesheirin - because we know that Pesach she'Lo li'Shemo is Pasul (so "Osah" in that regard must be 'La'av Davka').

(c) We do not, by the same token, also say that "Osah" is La'av Davka with regard to above the Chut ha'Sikra, seeing as the Torah would have had to preclude Olas ha'Of from the Limud - since Olas ha'Of is not a Zevach, in which case we can learn that "Osah" precludes all Zevachim from being sprinkled above the Chut ha'Sikra.

(d) Alternatively, the Tana who does not consider Olas ha'Of a Shiyur is Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, who holds - that a Chatas Beheimah is sprinkled on the Keren (as we learned above), in which case "Osah" precludes even an Olas ha'Of as well.

(e) The Rabbanan hold - that both a Chatas Beheimah and an Olas ha'Of are sprinkled above the Chut ha'Sikra, and not necessarily on the Keren.

(a) The Torah writes "ve'Chol Chatas Asher Yuva es Damah el ha'Kodesh Penimah Lo Se'achel". Rebbi Akiva in a Beraisa learns that this extends to all Korbanos - from the word "ve'Chol".

(b) According to the Chachamim, it is confined to a Chatas. Rebbi Eliezer incorporates an Asham (from the Hekesh "ka'Chatas ka'Asham").

(c) The Chachamim argue with Rebbi Eliezer - from the 'Kal va'Chomer' from Olah, as we explained above (which overrides the Hekesh).

(a) In fact, the Chachamim learn that an Asham whose blood entered the Kodesh is Kasher from a 'Mah ha'Tzad' from Olah and Minchas Chotei (along the lines that we learned that an Asham cannot be sprinkled above the Chut ha'Sikra from Olah and Chatas ha'Of). We ask why they Chachamim learn from Minchas Chotei and not from Olas ha'Of, which would have been preferable - because it is mi'Miyn ha'Damim (a bird is more similar to a Zevach than a Minchah, inasmuch as it involves Avodas ha'Dam).

(b) We answer - that whether or not one is Chayav for taking the blood of the Olas ha'Of into the Kodesh (even according to the Chachamim) is subject to a She'eilah of Ravin in Perek Dam Chatas.

(c) Ravin's She'eilah is - based on the fact that the blood of an Olas ha'Of is different than of a Zevach inasmuch as it does not require Kabalah, and is taken there whilst it is still on the neck of the bird.