Previous daf

1)

(a) Regarding the Pasuk in Tzav (in connection with Pigul) "ve'Im He'achol Ye'achel mi'Besar Zevach Shelamav ... ", we learn from ...

1. ... "mi'Besar" - that Pigul applies to Korbanos that are eaten for one day, too, and from ...
2. ... "Zevach" - we extend it even to Olos, that are not eaten at all.

(b) Besides Ofos and Menachos, the Pasuk "Asher Heim Makdishim Li" comes to include - the Log Shemen shel Metzora, in the Din of Tum'as Kodshim..

(c) We learn Nosar from Tum'ah (to incorporate all the above) from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Chilul" "Chilul" - and Pigul from Nosar from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Avon" "Avon" from Nosar.

(d) Despite the fact that the Torah includes everything in the Isur of Pigul anyway, the Pasuk in Tzav nevertheless mentions specifically Shelamim - to teach us that whatever has a Matir, whether it permits Achilas Adam (e.g. the Basar of Kodshim that are eaten) or Achilas Mizbe'ach (e.g. the Eimurin of all Kodshim), is subject to Pigul.

(a) The Beraisa initially includes what is similar to Shelamim - by which the Tana means a Bechor, which like a Shelamim, can be eaten for two days and a night.

(b) The problem with learning Pigul by Bechor from Shelamim via a ...

1. ... 'Mah Matzinu' is that Shelamim has three Chumros that Bechor does not, in that - it requires Semichah, Nesachim and Tenufas Chazeh ve'Shok.
2. ... a 'K'lal u'P'rat u'K'lal' from "ve'He'achol Ye'achel mi'Besar Zevach Shelamav" is - that the two 'K'lalim' are next to each other, making it look more like a 'K'lal u'K'lal u'P'rat.

(c) Rava, quoting the B'nei Ma'arva, solves the latter problem - by simply considering the P'rat as if it was in between the two K'lalim.

(a) The Beraisa includes the Log Shemen shel Metzora among the Kodshim items that are subject to Pigul. The author of this statement is - Rebbi Meir, who holds that one is Chayav for the Log Shemen, even though it could be brought later (because it is permitted by the Dam ha'Asham, to be placed on the various locations on the Metzora's body, and for the Kohanim to eat).

(b) One has - ten days to bring the Log Shemen and Niskei Beheimah after bringing the Korban which they accompany.

(c) When the Rabbanan asked Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa, why he included Niskei Beheimah among the Kodshim that are subject to Pigul, seeing as the owner had the option of bringing them up to ten days time, he replied - that he was speaking specifically in a case where the owner brought them together with the Korban.

(d) The problem with the Seifa of the previous Beraisa, which precludes the Niskei Nesachim and the Dam from Pigul is - that Rebbi Meir holds the same there as he holds by the Log Shemen (so why does the Tana preclude them altogether?).

(a) Rav Yosef establishes the author of the Beraisa ('ad she'Ani Marbeh Log Shemen shel Metzora') as Rebbi, who holds like the Rabbanan of Rebbi Meir (that since one has the option of bringing it later, it is not permitted by the Dam of the Asham. According to the Rabbanan in another Beraisa, the Log Shemen shel Asham is subject to Me'ilah until the Zerikas ha'Dam of the Asham; whereas according to Rebbi, it is - until after the seven Matanos of the Log Shemen towards the Kodesh Kodshim.

(b) And Rebbi holds - that just as the Matanos permit the oil, they also include it in the Din of Pigul.

(c) The Kohanim may actually eat the Sheyarei Log Shemen however- only after the Kohen has also placed it on the thumb and big toe of the Metzora (mi'de'Rabbanan).

(d) When Rebbi Yirmiyah heard Rav Yosef's answer - he expressed surprise that a great man like Rav Yosef should say such a thing.

5)

(a) We cited earlier Rebbi Meir who confined his ruling including the Log Shemen shel Metzora in the Din of Pigul, to a Log Shemen which came together with the Asham - to preclude one that was either brought later on its own, or that came independent of a Korban.

(b) What permits the Kohanim to eat it (even according to the Rabbanan of Rebbi) - is the Matanos.

(c) Nevertheless, it is not subject to Pigul - because, Menachos are compared to Zevachim, and just in the latter case, only the Dam is Mefagel, so too in the former, only the Kometz is Mefagel (an whatever is unconnected to a Kometz, is not subject to Pigul.

(d) According to Rav Yosef, asks Rebbi Yirmiyah - everyone agrees that where there is no other Matir that permits it to be eaten - its own Matanos include it in the Din of Pigul.

(a) Rebbi Yirmiyah therefore establishes Rebbi Meir as the author of the current Beraisa, and he amends the Seifa 'u'Motzi Ani Minchas Nesachim ve'ha'Dam' - by omitting 'Minchas Nesachim'.

(b) Abaye leaves Minchas Nesachim in the Beraisa. He nevertheless explains the entire Beraisa like Rebbi Meir - by amending the Reisha to Log Shemen ha'Ba im ha'Asham, incorporating Minchas Nesachim ha'Ba'im im ha'Zevach, and the Seifa to Nesachim ha'Ba'in bi'Fenei Atzman, incorporating Log Shemen ha'Ba bi'Fenei Atzmo.

(a) The Beraisa includes Log Shemen shel Metzora in the Matnos Kehunah that are eaten, from *"Kol* Korbanam". We need "Kol" to teach us that - since the Torah wrote earlier "min ha'Eish" (and no part of the Log Shemen is brought on the Mizbe'ach, we would have thought that it is not included in "Korbanam".

(b) And from "*le'Chol* Minchasam", he includes Minchas ha'Omer and Minchas ha'Kena'os. Based on the Pasuk "Ve'achlu Osam Asher Kupar Bahem", we need a special Pasuk for ...

1. ... Minchas ha'Omer" - which does not come to atone, but to permit Chadash.
2. ... Minchas ha'Kena'os - which comes to clarify the Sotah's sin.
3. ... Asham Nazir (Tamei) and Asham Metzora - which come to permit the Nazir to recommence his Nezirus, and the Metzora to eat Kodshim.

(c) And we need a Pasuk to include Chatas ha'Of - because we might have thought that, seeing as it was not Shechted (only pricked with the thumb-nail), it is Neveilah (and therefore forbidden to eat).

(d) The problem with the Tana mentioning Asham Metzora is - that the Torah specifically permits it to be eaten ('like a Chatas').

(e) So we amend the Lashon 'Asham Nazir ve'Asham Metzora' to - 'Asham Nazir ke'Asham Metzora'.

(a) The Tana learns the last of the Matnos Kehunah - Gezel ha'Ger, from "Asher Yashivu Li".

(b) And he learns from "Lecha Hu u'le'Vanecha" - that (unlike certain areas of Hekdesh) it is the Kohen's personal property, which he may even use to betroth a woman.

(a) Rebbi Elazar in the name of Rebbi Yossi says in a Beraisa 'Pigeil be'Davar ha'Na'aseh ba'Chutz. Pigeil be'Davar ha'Na'aseh bi'Fenim', Lo Pigeil' - with reference to the Parim ha'Nisrafim (i.e. the Chata'os ha'Penimiyos).

(b) The underlying principle behind Rebbi Elazar's ruling is - that the Avodah must take place in the Azarah, and the Machshavah must concern an 'Achilah' that takes place in the Azarah, too.

(a) If he Shechted the animal in the Azarah with the intention of sprinkling its blood the following day, it is not Pigul - because the Machshavah concerns an Achilah that takes place in the Heichal (where the sprinkling of the Parim ha'Nisrafim takes place).

(b) The reverse case (that is not Pigul either) is - where the Kohen sprinkles the blood in the Heichal with the intention of burning the Shirayim on the following day.

(c) The case of Parim ha'Nisrafim which is Pigul is - if he Shechted them in the Azarah having in mind to pour the Shirayim of the blood on to the Yesod of the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon the following day.

(a) Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi extrapolates Rebbi Elazar's ruling from the Pasuk (in connection with the Par Kohen Mashi'ach) "Ka'asher Yuram mi'Shor Zevach ha'Shelamim" - by treating this as a Hekesh (Parim ha'Nisrafin, as well as all cases of Pigul, to Shelamim) - inasmuch as just as the Avodah by which the Kohen is Mefagel, as well as the Machsheves Achilas Mizbe'ach of a Shelamim, both take effect in the Azarah (ba'Chutz), so too, do they.

(b) This D'rashah is prompted by the fact - that the Pasuk is otherwise superfluous, since all the Eimurin are already listed by the Par Kohen Mashi'ach (where this Pasuk is written).

(a) Rava (or Rav Yosef)'s reaction to Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah who ruled like Rebbi Elazar Mishum Rebbi Yossi was - why on earth it was necessary, considering that it would made no practical difference until Mashi'ach comes and the Beis-Hamikdash is rebuilt.

(b) Abaye's response to Rava's Kashya (based on all of Hilchos Kodshim) was - that in that case, one shouldn't need to learn Kodshim at all. And just like you will answer there that one learns it anyway to receive the reward for the learning, so too, will that apply to Rav's ruling.

(c) To which Rava replied - that he was referring, not to the study of the Halachos, but to why Rav found it necessary to issue a ruling that has no practical ramifications.