Previous daf

1)

(a) When Rav Papa asked Rava what we learn from "Shelishi" (in Kedoshim), he answered that we need it for 'Makom she'Yehei Meshulash be'Dam be'Basar u've'Eimurin', by which he meant that Chutz li'Mekomo only applies if one has in mind to eat the Korban in a place which is fit to bring the Dam and the Eimurin, as well as to eat the Basar ...

1. ... including - Kodshei Kodshim outside the Azarah, or Kodshim Kalim outside the walls of Yerushalayim.
2. ... but precluding either of them in the Heichal, which is not fit for either bringing the Eimurin or eating the Basar.

(b) It is permitted to bring the Dam and the Eimurin outside the Azarah - during the time of Heter Bamos (i.e. before Mishkan Shiloh and between its destruction and the building of the first Beis-Hamikdash) when many of the Hilchos Kodshim did not apply.

(c) Rav Papa asked Rava further why we could not learn the same thing from the "Shelishi" in the Pasuk in Tzav. Even though that Pasuk is needed to teach us Chutz li'Zemano - nevertheless, we might have learned this D'rashah too, from the Lashon "Shelishi".

(d) Rav Ashi put this question to Rav Masna, who answered him that from the Pasuk in Tzav, we would have Darshened "Shelishi, Pigul' - in the form of a 'P'rat u'K'lal', to include all locations.

(a) Rebbi Eliezer in a Beraisa tried to prove that the Pasuk in Tzav must be speaking about a Machsheves Chutz li'Zemano, and not just Nosar - because it is not logical for a Korban to become Pasul after it is already Kasher following the Zerikah.

(b) Rebbi Akiva asked him from ...

1. ... Zav and Zavah - who have stopped seeing Tum'ah, and have counted four or five clean days before they have a sighting, demolishing the Chezkas Taharah that they had following the days that there was no sighting (see Tosfos DH 've'Keivan').
2. ... Shomeres Yom Keneged Yom - who had a sighting during the eleven days between Nidah and Nidah, and who Toveled on the following day, but who then saw blood again after she Toveled, who is now Tamei retroactively.

(c) Rebbi Eliezer replied - with the Pasuk "ha'Makriv" (as we explained on the previous Amud).

(d) And he then proved that "ha'Makriv" refers to the Korban exclusively and not to the Kohen - from the word "Oso" (as we explained there too).

(a) ben Azai Darshens "Oso" (based on the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "Lo Se'acher Leshalmo") - to preclude a Korban that is brought after its time has expired from the realm of "Lo Yeratzeh".

(b) Acherim learns from "Lo Yechashev" - that the Korban is Pasul through Machsheves she'Lo bi'Zemano, but not because the Basar becomes Nosar.

(c) We ask from where ben Azai knows that the Kohen is not Pasul as well as the Korban, and we answer 'from Acherim' - because if the Pasuk needs a Pasuk to preclude the third day (Nosar) it can only be speaking about the Korban and not the Kohen, seeing as it is not the Kohen who sins by eating Nosar but the owner (see Tosfos DH 'Nafka Lan').

(d) Alternatively - the Lashon "Lo Yeratzeh" applies to the Korban and not to the owner.

4)

(a) Acherim in a Beraisa initially thinks that a Bechor that one brings after its first year ought to be Pasul, like Pesulei ha'Mukdashin - because its allotted time has passed and the animal has entered the category of 'bal Te'acher'.

(b) He repudiates this suggestion however, with the Pasuk "Ve'achalta Lifnei Hashem Elokecha Ma'aser Degancha ... u'Vechoros Bekarcha ... " - which compares Bechor to Ma'aser, in that just as the latter does not become Pasul from one year to the next, neither does Bechor.

(c) And we know that Ma'aser does not become Pasul from one year to the next - from the time of Biy'ur that the Torah gives every fourth year to finally distribute all one's Ma'asros.

(d) ben Azai nevertheless needs the Pasuk "Oso" to preclude bal Te'acher from "Lo Yeratzeh" - with regard to Korbanos, which (unlike Bechor, which is merely a Mitzvah to give the Kohen) they come to appease Hashem (either to atone for sins or to make peace between Yisrael and their Father in Heaven), so we may have thought that they become Pasul even though a Bechor does not.

(a) We subsequently query ben Azai's need for the Pasuk "Oso", from the Pasuk (in connection with 'bal Te'acher) "Ve'hayah Becha Chet" - from which we Darshen 've'Lo be'Korbancha Chet'.

(b) ben Azai Darshens from that Pasuk - ''Be'cha Chet", 've'Lo be'Isht'cha Chet' (meaning that a person's wife will not die for her husband's having transgressed the sin of bal Te'acher).

(c) If not for that D'rashah, we would have thought otherwise, based on the Pasuk "Im Ein Lecha Le'shalem, Lamah Yikach Mishkavcha mi'Tachtecha", which Rebbi Elazar (or Rebbi Yochanan) explains to mean - that if someone refuses to pay for what he stole on the pretext that he has no money (see also Shitah Mekubetzes), his wife will die.

(d) Were it not for the Pasuk "Ve'hayah Becha Chet", we would have thought, that, here too - his wife will die if he delays bringing his due Korbanos within the allotted time (presumably because here too, he is withholding Hashem's due's, so to speak) see also Tosfos DH 'Ela', where the comparison is even clearer.

(a) Acheirim Darshens "Lo Yechashev", 'be'Machshavah Hu Nifsal ba'Shelishi'. Rebbi Eliezer however, learns from "Lo Yechashev" the same as Rebbi Yanai (who tallies with the Beraisa that we learned initially in this regard). He learns from it - that other Machshavos (such as Chutz li'Mekomo) which accompany the Machshavah of Pigul, negate the Pigul (absolving the Kohen from Kareis).

(b) Rav Mari cites Rebbi Yanai differently. According to him - "Lo Yechashev" (P'sul Machshavah) is a La'av for which one receives Malkos.

(c) When Rav Ashi queried Rav Mari from the principle 'La'av she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh Lokin Alav', he replied that Rebbi Yanai follows the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah, who holds - 'La'av she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh, Lokin Alav ...

(d) ... which he extrapolates from the fact that the Torah needs to add an Asei to the La'av of Nosar in order to exempt it from Malkos).

(a) Our Mishnah presents the basic Dinim of Chutz li'Mekomo and Chutz li'Zemano. We have already discussed the major difference between the two. The four Avodos by which it is possible to render a Korban, Pasul (Machshavah) or Pigul are - Shechitah, Kabalah, Holachah and Zerikah.

(b) A Kohen can render the Korban Pasul by intending to ...

1. ... eat part of it outside its allotted time - provided he is thinking about a part of the Korban that is normally eaten.
2. ... burn part of it outside its allotted time - provided he is thinking about a part of the Korban that is normally burned.

(c) And a Korban can become Pigul - only if its blood is ultimately sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach (with no P'sul other than the Machsheves Pigul).

(d) The case of ...

1. ... 'Lo Kareiv ha'Matir ke'Mitzvaso' - if he performed any one (or more) of the above with a Machsheves Chutz li'Mekomo in addition to, or independent of, a Machsheves Chutz li'Zemano.
2. ...'Kareiv ha'Matir ke'Mitzvaso' would be - if the Kohen Shechted the Korban S'tam, and then performed either the Kabalah, the Holachah or the Zerikah with a Machsheves Pigul, or vice-versa.

(a) It is obvious that 'Lo Kareiv ha'Matir ke'Mitzvasan' - will not affect the P'sul of Chutz li'Mekomo (which remains Pasul and either way, is not Chayav Kareis).

(b) 'Lo Kareiv ha'Matir ke'Mitzvaso' will apply more extensively to Pesach and Chatas than to other Korbanos - inasmuch a of she'Lo li'Shemah (which renders the Korban Pasul) will have the same effect as she'Lo bi'Mekomo.

(c) If, whilst performing one Avodah, the Kohen had in mind to eat ...

1. ... a k'Zayis outside its allotted Mechitzah and a k'Zayis after its allotted time - the Korban is Pasul, though it is not subject to Kareis.
2. ... half a k'Zayis outside its allotted Mechitzah and half a k'Zayis after its allotted time - they combine too, to render the Korban, Pasul.

(a) Nor will it make any difference, according to the Tana Kama, if he inverts the order of the Machshavos.

(b) According to Rebbi Yehudah however - if the Machsheves Z'man preceded the Machsheves Makom, it is Pigul and is subject to Kareis, because he does not agree with the S'vara 'Machshavos Motzi'os Zu mi'Zu'.

(c) Our Mishnah rules that if the Kohen Shechted a Korban, having in mind to eat a half a k'Zayis after the allotted time and to burn half a k'Zayis after the allotted time - the Korban is Kasher, since the Machshavos of Achilas Mizbe'ach and Achilas Adam do not combine.

(a) According to Ilfa (who establishes the Seifa too, by two Avodos), Rebbi Yehudah only argues with the Tana Kama by two Avodos (e.g. where he Shechted in order to eat a k'Zayis tomorrow, and then received the blood in order to eat a k'Zayis outside the Mechitzah) - but by the one Avodah, he agrees with the Chachamim

(b) The reason for this is because - in the latter case, the first Machshavah had not yet taken effect when he had the second one.

(c) According to Rebbi Yochanan, Rebbi Yehudah argues even by one Avodah as well - because he holds 'T'fos Lashon Rishon' (in which case, the Machsheves Z'man had already taken effect when he had the Machsheves Makom, just like it did in the case of two Avodos).

(d) Surely, we ask, as a proof for Ilfa, it is more logical to establish the Seifa by two Avodos like the Reisha. To which Rebbi Yochanan will answer - that there is nothing illogical about establishing the Reisha by two Avodos, and the Seifa, by both one and two.

(a) Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah opens his words with 'Zeh ha'Kelal'. According to Rebbi Yochanan - it comes to include Avodah Achas.

(b) The Kashya on Ilfa is - what does 'Zeh ha'Kelal' come to include? ...

(c) ... for which we have no answer.