Previous daf

1)

(a) Rebbi Shimon in a Beraisa permits the Kohanim to eat Kodshim however they like - roasted, well cooked or just cooked.

(b) And he permits them to add spices - even if they are Terumah.

(c) Rabah reconciles this with his previous statement, forbidding Lechatchilah, even according to Rebbi Shimon, to detract from the time that Terumah may be eaten - by confining that to Terumah d'Oraysa, whereas this Beraisa speaks about spices, which are only Terumah de'Rabbanan.

(a) The Tana Kama of the Mishnah in Ma'aser Sheini forbids purchasing Terumah with Ma'aser- Sheini money - because it restricts the location where Terumah may be eaten (Yerushalayim).

(b) Rebbi Shimon - permits it (even though the Beraisa is referring to Terumah d'Oraysa).

(c) Rabah had no answer, so - he remained silent.

(a) When Rav Yosef asked Abaye why he did not query Rabah from the Mishnah in Shevi'is which forbids cooking a vegetable of Shevi'is in Terumah oil, he replied - that having already queried him from Terumas Tavlin, he knew that Rabah would give him the same answer (seeing as Terumas Yerek, like Terumas Tavlin, is only mi'de'Rabbanan).

(b) The problem with his answer is - that, in that case, the Tana should have discussed 'cooking a vegetable of Terumah in oil of Shevi'is' (rather than the other way round).

(c) So Abaye, citing Rabah, gives Rebbi Shimon's reason (for permitting it) as the fact that they were already mixed up. Rav Yosef's problem with that is - why the Rabbanan then disagree with Rebbi Shimon (since they agree with Rebbi Shimon when there is no other option, as we learned earlier).

(d) We reject Abaye's answer, comparing this to Asham and Shelamim in our Mishnah, on the grounds - that Asham and Shelamim can be rectified through Re'iyah ('Yir'eh ad she'Yista'ev'), whereas it is not possible to squeeze all the oil from the vegetables.

(a) We then ask from the case of Yerek shel Shevi'is ... from 'Chatichah ba'Chatichos' in our Mishnah - where the Rabbanan agree with Rebbi Shimon (that 'Mevi'in Kodshim le'Beis ha'Pesul', so why do they argue with him in the Beraisa.

(b) Ravina refutes the Kashya however - by differentiating between 'Chatichah ba'Chatichos', which cannot be rectified and 'Yerek shel Shevi'is ... ', where it is possible to squeeze the oil from the vegetable in which it was cooked ('Efshar li'S'chot').

(c) Rav Yosef disagrees with this answer - because on the one hand, if one were to squeeze out the cooked vegetable completely, it would result in a loss regarding the Sh'mitah produce, and on the other, if one squeezed it just a little, then it would still be considered mixed, and nothing would have been achieved.

(d) We learn from the word "le'Ochlah" in Behar - that Sh'mitah produce must be eaten and not wasted or spoilt.

5)

(a) The Beraisa discusses a case of a 'Safek Metzora Muchlat Safek Eino Muchlat'. According to Rebbi Shimon, when, on the eighth day, he brings his Asham together with the Log of oil, he stipulates - that, in case he is not a Metzora, the Korban will be a Shelamim.

(b) The Korban is Shechted - on the north side of the Azarah.

(c) The Tana also necessitates Semichah, Nesachim and Tenufas Chazeh ve'Shok - as well as Matan Behonos (placing the remainder of the blood on the right thumb ... , which a Shelamim does not).

(d) The Kohanim eat the Korban - and they have one day and the following night in which to eat it.

(a) It appears from this Beraisa - that Rebbi Shimon holds 'Mevi'in Kodshim le'Beis ha'P'sul' even Lechatchilah (a Kashya on Rabah); otherwise, he would not have permitted it here in the case of a Safek Metzora.

(b) Rabah will answer however - that this case is different than the previous cases, inasmuch as the man needs to be released from his Tum'as Tzara'as ('Tikunei Gavra' [in which case it is considered Bedi'eved]).

(a) Rebbi Shimon will justify bringing the Log of oil (bearing in mind that he may not be a Metzora Muchlat) - by making him stipulate that, in case he is not, the oil is a Nedavah.

(b) Normally - a Log of oil that someone donates as a Korban requires Kemitzah (like a Minchah).

(c) The problem this creates is - that assuming he is really a Metzora, once the Kemitzah has taken place, the Log is incomplete (and an incomplete Log is Pasul).

(d) We solve the problem - by ordering the 'Metzora' to replace the oil from his own supplies.

(a) He burns the Kometz on the Mizbe'ach.

(b) The problem if he burns them ...

1. ... *after* the seven Matanos is - that if he is not a Metzora, and the Korban is really a Nedavah, then he is left with Shirayim that diminished between the Kemitzah and the burning, which may not be burned.
2. ... *before* the seven Matanos - then, again assuming that the Korban is a Nedavah, bearing in mind the principle 'Kol she'Mimenu le'Ishim, Harei Hu be'Bal Taktiru' (once the part of the Korban that is due to go on the Mizbe'ach has been burned, it is forbidden to burn the remainder of the Korban [or to do any other Avodah with it]), how can he then perform the seven Matanos with the remaining oil?

(c) Rav Yehudah b'rei de'Rebbi Shimon ben Pazi solves the problem - by requiring the 'Metzora' to stipulate when he performs the Haza'ah that if he is not a Metzora, the oil of the Haza'os should be considered like water (in which case there is no Isur in bringing the remainder of the Log on the Mizbe'ach).

(d) Even though we are talking about a liquid, Rav Yehudah say 'le'Shem Eitzim' - because the source of the Halachah is the Pasuk "Lo Saktiru ...", and one normally burns wood, not water.

1. ... the word "Mimenu" (which is superfluous) - the principle 'Kol she'Mimenu le'Ishim, Harei Hu be'Bal Taktiru'.
2. ... the last two words in the following Pasuk "Korban Reishis Takrivu Osam le'Rei'ach Nicho'ach" - 'le'Rei'ach Ni'cho'ach I Atah Ma'aleh, Aval Atah Ma'aleh le'Shem Eitzim'.