Previous daf

1)

(a) The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "u'Besaram Yih'yeh Lach ka'Chazeh ha'Tenufah u'che'Shok ha'Yamin" - that a Bechor Beheimah can be eaten for two days, like the Chazeh ve'Shok of a Shelamim.

(b) When the She'eilah was put to the Chachamim in the Sanhedrin, Rebbi Tarfon too, answered that Bechor can be eaten for two days. The Tana describes Sanhedrin as 'Kerem be'Yavneh' - because they sat in (three) rows, like the trees in a vineyard (presumably Chazal chose specifically a vineyard, because Torah is compared to wine).

(a) The name of the Talmid who appeared for the first time before the Sanhedrin, and who asked Rebbi Tarfon for his source was - Rebbi Yossi Hagelili.

(b) When Rebbi Tarfon replied by comparing Bechor to Shelamim, on the grounds that both are Kodshim Kalim, Rebbi Yossi Hagelili suggested that it was preferable to compare it to Chatas or Asham (which can only be eaten for one day) - since both are gifts to the Kohen (which the Shelamim is not).

(c) And he repeated this argument when Rebbi Yossi Hagelili gave another reason for comparing Bechor to Shelamim - because Bechor and Shelamim (unlike Chatas and Asham) are not brought because of a sin.

(d) Rebbi Akiva then took over from Rebbi Tarfon. By citing the Hekesh to Shelamim that we quoted above - he gained the principle 'Ein Mashivin al ha'Hekesh' (one cannot ask a Pircha on a 'Hekesh' [in addition to the fact that seeing as the Hekesh compares Bechor to Chazeh ve'Shok, which are also a Matanah like Bechor, Rebbi Yossi Hagelili's argument is no longer applicable]).

(a) Rebbi Yossi Hagelili persisted, claiming that even if one learns Bechor from Chazeh ve'Shok, there is no proof that it may be eaten for two days - since the Pasuk may just as well be comparing it to Chazeh ve'Shok of Todah (as of Shelamim) which may only be eaten for one day.

(b) Rebbi Akiva answered by pointing at the Lashon "u'Vesaram Yih'yeh Lach" that precedes "ka'Chazeh ha'Tenufah ... " - which is superfluous, and (in the manner that the word often does), it adds a 'Havayah' (personal ownership) to the Kohen, ensuring that we compare it to Shelamim rather than to Todah.

(c) Rebbi Yishmael sent Rebbi Akiva a message that he had erred. One could not learn Bechor from Todah anyway (even without the Pasuk "u'Vesaram Yih'yeh Lach"), he maintained - since we only learn Chazeh ve'Shok by Todah from Shelamim with a 'Hekesh', and 'Davar ha'Lamed beHekesh Eino Chozer u'Melamed be'Hekesh'.

(a) From "u'Vesaram Yih'yeh Lach" Rebbi Yishmael learns - that a Bechor Beheimah must be given to the Kohen even if it is a Ba'al-Mum.

(b) Rebbi Akiva learns that from "u'Vesaram" - which is written in the plural, incorporating a Bechor Tam and a Bechor Ba'al-Mum.

(c) According to Rebbi Yishmael - "u'Vesaram" refers to the flesh of Bechoros generally.

(a) The Machlokes between Rebbi Akiva and Rebbi Yishmael (whether eating Chazeh ve'Shok of Todah is considered a Hekesh or not) is based on whether 'Heimenu ve'Davar Acher' is a 'Hekesh' or not, which means - that whether something which is learned partially explicitly and partially from a Hekesh is called a Hekesh or not is now a Machlokes.

(b) What is written explicitly by Todah is - the fact that it can be eaten for one day, and what we learn from a Hekesh from Shelamim is - that the Chazeh ve'Shok are given to the Kohen.

(c) Consequently, Rebbi Yishmael considers 'Heimenu ve'Davar Acher' a 'Hekesh', whereas Rebbi Akiva does not.

(a) We try to prove Rebbi Akiva right from Avodah on Yom Kipur. We learn from the Hekesh "ve'Chein Ya'aseh le'Ohel Mo'ed" that the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi (ba'Chutz) requires 'Achas Lema'alah ve'Sheva Lematah' just like those on the Aron (bi'Fenim).

(b) 'Heimenu ve'Davar Acher' concerns what we learn from the Sa'ir Chatas (shel Yom Kipur [and vice-versa]) with regard to Achas Lema'alah ve'Sheva Lematah.
What is written explicitly ...

1. ... by the Par is - Sheva Lema'alah ("ve'Hizah be'Etzba'o ... ve'Lifnei ha'Kapores Yazeh Sheva Pe'amim").
2. ... by the Sa'ir is - Achas Lema'alah ("Ve'hizah Oso al ha'Kapores ve'Lifnei ha'Kapores").

(c) The problem, according to Rebbi Yishmael is - that if as he maintains, 'Heimenu ve'Davar Achar' is considered a Hekesh, why is the Hekesh 'Achas Lema'alah ve'Sheva Lematah' (to learn ba'Chutz mi'Bi'fenim) from the Pasuk "ve'Chein Ya'aseh le'Ohel Mo'ed") not a Hekesh min ha'Hekesh.

(d) We answer 'Mekomos Hu de'Gamri me'Hadadi', meaning - that a Hekesh comparing one location (Chutz) to another (P'nim) after learning one animal (Sa'ir) from another (Par), is not considered a Hekesh min ha'Hekesh (whereas learning Bechor from Todah, which itself is learned from Shelamim, is).

7)

(a) Alternatively, we answer 'Chutz mi'Penim be'Chad Zimna Gamir', by which we mean - that seeing as we need to learn both Achas Lema'alah and Sheva Lematah from P'nim, it is as if we are learning Chutz from P'nim in one go (unlike the previous case, where we did not learn Chazeh ve'Shok by Bechor from from the Hekesh from Chazah ve'Shok of Todah.

(b) We learn from the Hekesh in Emor (in connection with the Sh'tei ha'Lechem) "mi'Moshvosechem Tavi'u Lechem" - that each of the ten Chametz loaves that accompanied the Todah had to comprise an Isaron (a tenth of an Eifah), just like each of the Sh'tei ha'Lechem.

(c) The Torah has already written - that they must bake ten Chametz Lachmei Todah.

(d) We still need "Tih'yenah" to teach us that each of the ten Chametz loaves comprises an Isaron (as we will explain in Menachos), because otherwise we would have thought - that the ten Chametz loaves must comprise two Esronin (like the two loaves on Shavu'os).

(a) We then learn from the Pasuk "al Chalos Lechem Chametz" - that each Matzah loaf also had to comprise one Isaron.

(b) The Kashya this poses on Rebbi Yishmael is - how we can now learn the second Hekesh, since he considers the first Hekesh (which is also a case of 'Heimenu ve'Davar Acher'), a Hekesh.

(c) We answer 'Tavi'u Yeseira Hi' - meaning that the word "Tavi'u" (the word which creates the first Hekesh) is superfluous, in which case, seeing as "Sh'nei Esronin" is written in this Pasuk, it is as if the Torah had written two Esronin for each two Chametz loaves of the Todah explicitly, and there is therefore no problem with the second Hekesh.

(a) Rav Yosef establishes the author of our Mishnah (which restricts Achilas Pesachim until midnight), as Rebbi Elazar ben Azarya, who learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "ba'Laylah ha'Zeh" "Ve'avarti be'Eretz Mitzrayim ba'Laylah ha'Zeh" - that just as Makas Bechoros took place by midnight, so too, must the Korban Pesach be eaten by midnight.

(b) Rebbi Akiva disagrees on the basis of the Pasuk in Bo "Va'achaltem Oso be'Chipazon". He learns ...

1. ... from there - that they were to eat the Pesach until the time when they were due to leave Egypt in haste arrived (i.e. the morning).
2. ... the Pasuk "ba'Laylah ha'Zeh" (in Bo) - that as opposed to other Korbanos, which are eaten on the day that they are sacrificed, the Pesach can only be eaten at night.

(c) Abaye suggested that the author of our Mishnah could even be Rebbi Akiva, who permits eating the Korban Pesach until morning - because our Mishnah is speaking mi'de'Rabbanan, whereas Rebbi Akiva is speaking mi'dOraysa.

(d) Rav Yosef refuted Abaye's suggestion however, on the basis of the Lashon 've'Eino Ne'echal Ela ad Chatzos', implying - that 'ad Chatzos' is mi'd'Oraysa, just like 'ba'Laylah', 'li'Menuyav' and 'Tz'li'.

Next daf