Previous daf

1)

(a) In a case where the Kohen said 'Chatzi Zayis Chutz li'Zemano, Chatzi Zayis Chutz li'Mekomo, va'Chatzi Zayis Chutz li'Zemano', Rava rules 'Va'yikatz ke'Yashein ha'Pigul' - which is synonymous with the principle 'Matza Miyn es Miyno, ve'Niy'ur', and which means ...

(b) ... that even though the Tana Kama holds in the case of 'Chutz li'Zemano and Chutz li'Mekomo, Pasul ve'Ein Bo Pigul', in this case he will agree with Rebbi Yehudah that it is Pigul ...

(c) ... since the two half-k'Zeisim of Pigul combine to negate the Chutz li'Mekomo.

(d) According to Rav Hamnuna - 'Eiruv Machshavos Havi' (meaning that the Chutz li'Mekomo combines with the Chutz li'Zemano [despite the second Chatzi k'Zayis of Chutz li'Zemano]).

(a) Rava proves his point from a Mishnah in Taharos, where the Tana rules - in a case of a k'Beitzah Ochel Rishon and a k'Beitzah Ochel Sheini ...

1. ... that were mixed together, and that then came into contact with food - that the mixture becomes a Rishon, to render whatever it touches, a Sheini).
2. ... that were mixed together, but that then became separated, before one of the halves came into contact with food - that half has the Din of a Sheini.

(b) Rava's proof is from the Tana's ruling there that, should both halves fall together into a food, they render it a Rishon, which he derives from the Seifa, where the Tana draws a distinction between where the two halves fall on a Terumah loaf independently ('ba'Zeh Achar Zeh'), and where they do so simultaneously. The real definition of 'ba'Zeh Achar Zeh' is - that, in addition, the first half had already been removed from the loaf, when the second one fell on it. There were the first one remains on the loaf, it would make no difference whether it fell in simultaneously or consecutively.

(c) And the Tana rules there that if each of the two halves falls independently on to the loaf - it is Pasul (like the Din of a Shelishi), whereas if they both fell on it simultaneously - it is Tamei (with the Din of a Sheini le'Tum'ah) ...

(d) ... a proof that we apply 'Matza Miyn es Miyno' under similar circumstances.

(a) Rav Hamnuna refutes Rava's proof however, on the grounds that the Mishnah in Taharos is different - inasmuch as there, there was a Shiur Tum'ah to begin with (unlike our case, which began with a half a k'Zayis of Pigul [which is not a full Shiur]).

(b) Rav Hamnuna proves his point from another Mishnah there 'ha'Ochel she'Nitma be'Av ha'Tum'ah, ve'she'Nitma bi'Velad ha'Tum'ah' - where half a Beitzah of food became Tamei through an Av ha'Tum'ah (making it a Rishon), and another half, through a Rishon le'Tum'ah (making it a Sheini).

(c) A food that is less than a k'Beitzah - is certainly subject to Tum'ah. The Shiur of a k'Beitzah was said with regard to being Metamei others exclusively.

(a) The Tana rules there - that the two halves combine to render whatever touches them, a Shelishi (Pasul, if it is Terumah), like the lesser of the two.

(b) Rav Hamnuna (who establishes that Mishnah even when they added a third half-k'Zayis that was a Rishon) - proves from there that we do not say 'Matza Miyn es Miyno ve'Chozer'.

(c) Rava refutes Rav Hamnuna's proof however - by establishing the Mishnah when no third half-k'Zayis was added.

(a) When Rav Dimi arrived from Eretz Yisrael, he quoted a Beraisa that he heard from bar Kapara which rules 'Chatzi Zayis Chutz li'Mekomo, ve'Chatzi Zayis Chutz li'Zemano ve'Chatzi Zayis Chutz li'Zemano - Pigul' ...

(b) ... because a half-Zayis is ineffective against a full Zayis.

(c) When Ravin arrived from Eretz Yisrael, he cited bar Kapara's Beraisa differently. He cited it - when both Chatzi Zeisim of Chutz li'Zemano preceded the Chatzi Zayis of Chutz Li'Mekomo.

(d) But in Rav Dimi's case - where the Chatzi Zayis of Chutz li'Mekomo preceded the two half-k'Zeisim of Chutz li'Zemano, the second Chatzi Zayis will not have the power to negate the Din of Pasul, which the first two half-Zeisim already created.

(a) According to Rav Ashi, bar Kapara's Beraisa reads 'Chatzi Zayis Chutz li'Zemano, u'k'Zayis, Chetzyo Chutz li'Mekomo, ve'Chetzyo Chutz li'Zemano, Pigul' - because a half k'Zayis cannot negate a whole one.

(b) In fact, Rav Ashi hold like Rava above, who applied the S'vara 'Matza Miyn es Miyno ve'Niy'ur', only he goes further than Rava, inasmuch as he even allows the two half-Zeisim of Chutz li'Zemano to combine, there where the second one was declared together with the half-Zayis of Chutz li'Mekomo.

(c) Rebbi Yanai extrapolates from the Pasuk "ve'es Izevel Yochlu ha'Kelavim" - that Achilah of an animal is called Achilah, and that consequently, if the Kohen has in mind to feed an animal outside of the allotted time limit, the Korban is Pigul.

(a) We query Rebbi Yanai from the Pasuk "Tochlehu Eish Lo Nufach", which by the same token, implies - that what a fire consumes is called Achilah too.

(b) Based on our Mishnah 'Le'echol ka'Chatzi Zayis, u'Le'haktir ke'Chatzi Zayis, Kasher', the problem this create with Rebbi Avahu's ruling is - why the two Achilos do not therefore combine to render the animal Pigul.

(c) We solve the problem by establishing our Mishnah when the Kohen used a Lashon Haktarah (had he used a Lashon Achilah, then even 'Le'echol ka'Chatzi Zayis, u'Le'haktir ke'Chatzi Zayis' would have combined to render the Korban, Pigul.

(a) Rav Ashi asks what the Din will be if the Kohen has in mind that two different people should eat the Korban - whether the criterion is the Machshavah (which covers a k'Zayis), or the eaters (neither of whom eats a k'Zayis).

(b) We resolve Rav Ashi's She'eilah from the same Mishnah that we just cited 'Le'echol ka'Chatzi Zayis, u'Le'haktir ke'Chatzi Zayis, Kasher ... ' - implying that two Achilos similar to the Achilah and the Haktarah (i.e. two different people) would combine, even though each one eats less than a k'Zayis.

9)

(a) Rava asked what the Din will be if the Kohen had in mind to eat a k'Zayis she'Lo bi'Zemano over a longer period of time than a K'dei Achilas P'ras (the time it takes to eat three boiled eggs) - whether we go after Achilas Adam (which requires 'Toch K'dei Achilas P'ras') or Achilas Mizbe'ach (which does not).

(b) And we know that Achilas Gavohah is not restricted to a 'K'dei Achilas P'ras' - because sometimes, when the fire on the Mizbe'ach is low, it will take longer than that to burn.

(c) Abaye tries to resolve the She'eilah from our Mishnah 'Le'echol ke'Chatzi Zayis u'Le'Haktir Chatzi Zayis', 'Ha Le'echol ve'Le'echol Mitztaref' - implying that Le'echol ve'Le'echol (similar to Le'echol u'Lehaktir) is Pigul, even though the Lehaktir may have taken longer than 'K'dei Achilas P'ras'.

(d) We refute Abaye's proof however - by suggesting that we are comparing Le'echol to Lehaktir when there is a large fire burning on the Ma'arachah.

(a) We extrapolate from the same piece of Mishnah 'Ha Le'echol ve'Le'echol Davar she'Ein Darko Le'echol Mitztaref' - which clashes with the Reisha of our Mishnah 'Le'echol es she'Darko Le'echol' (implying but not 'she'Ein Darko Le'echol').

(b) Rebbi Yirmiyah answers by establishing the Seifa section of Mishnah like Rebbi Eliezer, who holds - 'Mechashvin me'Achilas Adam la'Achilas Mizbe'ach' (and vice-versa).

(c) In the Mishnah in the next Perek, Rebbi Eliezer rules that someone who Shechts a Korban with the intention of eating a part of the animal that is not normally eaten or with the intention of burning part of the animal that is normally burned, 'Chutz li'Mekomo O Chutz li'Zemano - Pasul'.

(d) To establish the Mishnah even like the Rabbanan, Abaye amends the inference to read - 'Ha Le'echol ve'Le'echol Davar she'Darko Le'echol, Mitztaref'.

(a) The basic problem with Abaye's version is - that we have already learned it all in the Reisha.

(b) We already know from the Reisha of our Mishnah that 'Le'echol ve'Le'echol Davar she'Darko Le'echol combines, and by inference, that 'Le'echol, ve'Le'echol Davar she'Ein Davar Le'echol' does not - 'Kal va'Chomer 'Le'echol u'Le'haktir'.

(c) And we answer - that we still need the Seifa, because, on the other hand, maybe 'Le'echol u'Lehaktir Davar she'Darko Lehaktir' is better than 'Le'echol ve'Le'echol Davar she'Ein Darko Le'echol', and we would therefore have thought that they would be Mitztaref.

12)

(a) Our Mishnah rules that the Shechitah of Kodshim (Kodshei Kodshim as well as Kodshim Kalim) which is performed by Zarim, Nashim, Avadim and Temei'im - is Kasher ...

(b) ... because of the principle 'Shechitah Kesheirah be'Zar'.

(c) We only permit a Tamei to Shecht Kodshim however - on the express condition that he does not touch the animal (after its death).

(d) The Chumra that results from this leniency - is that if the Shochet (whoever he is) has a Machshavah Pesulah, it invalidates the Korban.