Previous daf

1)

(a) We know that a Nochri can donate Korbanos - from the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos (in connection with Shechutei Chutz) "Ish Ish mi'Beis-Yisrael".

(b) According to Rebbi Shimon, Kodshei Ovdei-Kochavim are not subject to Shechutei Chutz - Pigul, Nosar or Tum'ah.

(c) He adds in a Beraisa that Kodshei Ovdei-Kochavim are not subject to Me'ilah either - though one may not derive benefit from them (mi'de'Rabbanan).

(d) Neither can the owner declare a Temurah on them. When he says that Nochrim cannot bring Nesachim - he means independently. Their Korbanos however, are subject to Nesachim, just like those of a Yisrael.

(a) Rebbi Yossi rules - that the Korban of a Nochri is subject to all the above, because the Torah writes "la'Hashem" (in Acharei-Mos).

(b) Even according to Rebbi Shimon - Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis are subject to Me'ilah.

(c) Rebbi Shimon learns from ...

1. ... the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Chet" "Chet" from Terumah - that Kodshei Ovdei-Kochavim are not subject to Me'ilah.
2. ... the Pasuk "Ish Ish mi'Beis Yisrael" (see Shitah Mekubetzes 1) - that they are not subject to Tum'ah.

(d) Rebbi Shimon exempts the Korban of a Nochri from the Isur of Tum'ah, from "B'nei Yisrael", and he learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' ...

1. ... "Chilul" "Chilul" - that the same applies to Nosar.
2. ... "Avon" "Avon" - that Pigul is like Nosar.

(a) The Torah writes "Ki Sikchu me'es B'nei Yisrael", to preclude Nochrim from Ma'aser Dagan. And we learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Aser Te'aser" (initially) - that Ma'aser Beheimah has the same Din in this regard Ma'aser Dagan.
2. ... "Ve'hayah Hu u'Semuraso" - that Temurah has the same Din as Ma'aser Beheimah.

(b) The problem with ...

1. ... this dual Limud is - that in the realm of Kodshim, we cannot learn one Hekesh from another Hekesh.
2. ... the answer 'Ma'aser Beheimah Chulin Hu' is - that this is fine according to those who go after the Melamed, but according to those who go after the Lameid (Temurah, in this case), this answer is not valid.

(c) We resolve the issue, when we conclude that Nochrim are not subject to Ma'aser Beheimah even without the Hekesh to Ma'aser Dagan - because Nochrim are not eligible to bring obligatory Korbanos that have a fixed time.

(d) Despite the fact that they are not eligible to bring any obligatory Korbanos at all, we add the clause 'she'Ein Lahem Z'man' - because this incorporates Ma'aser Beheimah, Chatas and Asham, which they are never Chayav; whereas 'Chovos' S'tam would incorporate Olos and Shelamim, which they are eligible to bring (when they are brought as Nedavos).

(a) We learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Kol *ha'Ezrach*" - that Nochrim are not eligible to bring independent Nesachim.
2. ... *Kachah* Ye'aseh la'Shor" - that their Korbanos nevertheless require Nesachim.

(b) Bearing in mind that Rebbi Shimon precludes Nochrim from the various aspects of Kodshim learned above, from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Chet" "Chet" from Terumah, he confines that to Kodshei Mizbe'ach - on the grounds that Kodshei Mizbe'ach, like Terumah, is Kedushas ha'Guf, to preclude Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, which is Kedushas Damim.

5)

(a) When the Tana talks about 'Dam she'Nitma' being Meratzeh, he means - that the Tzitz worn by the Kohen Gadol waives the P'sul of Tum'ah (Bedieved), enabling the blood to atone.

(b) And when he rules that Dam she'Nitma ve'Zarko ...

1. ... be'Shogeg Hurtzah, he means - that it even permits the Basar to be eaten.
2. ... be'Meizid Lo Hurtzah, he means - that the Rabbanan issued a K'nas, forbidding the Basar to be eaten. We cannot take this ruling literally - because since min ha'Torah, the Korban atones, if the Chachamim were to obligate the owner to bring another Korban, it would constitute Chulin ba'Azarah.

(c) The Tana rules ...

1. ... 'Hurtzah', even be'Meizid - by a Korban Tzibur.
2. ... 'Lo Hurtzah', even be'Shogeg - by the Korban of a Nochri.

(a) The Rabbanan of Rav Papa thought that the author of the latter ruling cannot be Rebbi Yossi - who learns from "la'Hashem" that the Korban of a Nochri is a full-fledged Korban.

(b) Based on the Pasuk (in connection with the Tzitz) "le'Ratzon *Lahem* " Rav Papa told them - that even Rebbi Yossi will concede to this Halachah, since the Pasuk precludes the Korbanos of Nochrim, from the word "Lahem" (implying that 'B'nei Yisrael's Korbanos exclusively are subject to Ritzuy Tzitz).

(c) Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua asked on Rav Papa from the Pasuk (in connection with Tum'ah) "Asher *Heim* Makdishim Li" - which by the same token, ought to preclude the Korbanos of Nochrim from the Din of Tum'ah, yet Rebbi Yossi (whose opinion we are currently dealing with), specifically includes them?

(d) Rav Ashi finally precludes Ritzuy Tzitz from "*le'Ratzon* Lahem" - because the Korban of a Nochri, which is merely a gift, has nothing to do with Ritzuy (Kaparah).

(a) All the items that we precluded earlier in the Perek (such as the Kometz and the Ketores) from the Isur of Pigul, our Mishnah includes in the Isur of Nosar and Tamei - with the exception of Dam.

(b) When Rebbi Shimon restricts the Din of Tum'ah to Kodshim that are edible - he comes to preclude Eitzim, Levonah and Ketores, which are not.

(a) We initially think that the Isur Tum'ah should only pertain to Kodshim that have parts that are permitted both to the people and to the Mizbe'ach - because that is the Din by Pigul (from which we will now try learn it with a 'Kal va'Chomer').

(b) Pigul has three Chumros over Tum'ah. One of them is that it is 'bi'Kevi'a', meaning that if one transgresses, one brings a Chatas Kavu'a (whereas for Tum'ah, one is Chayav a Korban Oleh ve'Yored).

(c) The second is that one Yedi'ah suffices, whereas Tum'ah requires a Yedi'ah at the beginning and a Yedi'ah at the end. The Yedi'ah in the case of Pigul is - the one at the end.

(d) The third Chumra of Pigul is - that it does not become permitted in the case of a Tzibur (such as a Korban Pesach, like Tum'ah does).

(a) So we learn from the Pasuk (in connection with Tum'as Kodshim) ...

1. ... "Asher Heim Makdishim Li" - that Tum'ah applies even to Kodshim that does not have parts that are permitted both to the people and to the Mizbe'ach.
2. ... "Asher Yikrav" - that, in the case of a Korban which has Matirin, the Chiyuv of Tum'ah only applies once the Matirin have been brought (and not that one is Chayav for touching it be'Tum'ah, since the Torah writes in Emor "Ish Ish mi'Zera Aharon ... ba'Kodshim Lo Yochal").

(b) An example of ...

1. ... 'Yesh Lo Matirin' is - the Eimurin or the Basar.
2. ... 'Ein Lo Matirin' - the Minchas Kohanim, which becomes subject to Tum'ah as soon as it has been sanctified in a K'li Shareis.

(c) We know that the same applies to Nosar - from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Chilul" "Chilul".

(d) We suggest that one should rather learn Nosar from Tum'ah because it is similar in 'Gezel' (Guf, Zerikah and Chilul. 'Guf' means that they are both Pesulei ha'Guf (as opposed to Pigul, which is a P'sul Machshavah), whereas ...

1. ... 'Zerikah' means - that (unlike Pigul, which is determined by the Zerikas ha'Dam), they are not.
2. ... 'Chilul' means - that the Torah writes "Chilul" by both of them (which it does not do by Pigul).

(a) We counter the above suggestion however, with the fact that Nosar is similar to Pigul as regards 'Hutar, Tzitz, Tahor, bi'Z'man and Kareiv'. 'Hutar' means that neither of them is permitted by a Korban Tzibur, 'Tzitz', that the Tzitz does not atone for either of them and 'Tahor' just like it suggests, 'bi'Z'man' and 'Kareiv' mean - that, as opposed to Tum'ah, both have to do with time, and both are talking about the P'sul of Kodshim, whereas Tum'ah refers to Tum'as ha'Guf.

(b) So we finally learn Nosar from Tani Levi, which learns from the Pasuk there (before "Asher Heim Makdishim Li") "ve'Lo *Yechalelu* es Sheim Kodshi" (and not "ve'Lo "Yechalu) - that the Torah is referring to two Pesulim, Nosar, as well as Tum'ah.