Previous daf

1)

(a) The problem with the extra bit of oil which the 'Metzora' added after the Kemitzah (to perform the Matanos, in case it was an Asham Metzora is - that it needs to be eaten (whether it is part of the Asham or a Nedavah), yet it cannot be eaten, since, if it is a Nedavah, it requires a Kemitzah to permit it.

(b) We answer that he redeems it, stipulating when he does - that if it is a Nedavah, then he is duly redeeming it on the money that he brings with him.

(c) That oil was not sanctified together with the rest of the Log - because, since it was not placed in the K'li Shareis together with the rest of the Log when he sanctified it, it remains Chulin (since a K'li Shareis only sanctifies what one specifically intends it to sanctify).

(d) The problem we still have, assuming he redeems the oil ...

1. ... inside the Azarah is - that the moment that he redeems it, it is as if he brought Chulin into the Azarah (which is forbidden).
2. ... outside the Azarah - then he will have transgressed taking Kodshei Kodshim outside the Azarah (which is forbidden, too).

(a) We conclude that he redeems it inside the Azarah, and the reason that he has not transgressed bringing Chulin into the Azarah is - because the transfer from Hekdesh to Chulin took place automatically, without him performing any act that is Asur.

(b) If the Kohen had reversed the order and first finish all the Avodos as if it was a Metzora, before performing the Kemitzah, we would have avoided the last set of Kashyos. We did not establish the Beraisa like that - because the obligation to bring something on the Mizbe'ach takes precedence over other considerations (Shitah Mekubetzes). In fact, performing the Matanos with it is like destroying Kodshei Mizbe'ach.

(c) We reconcile our interpretation of the Beraisa with Rebbi Shimon himself, who holds in a Mishnah in 'Kol ha'Tadir' that one cannot donate oil as a Korban - by allowing it here on account of 'Tikunei Gavra', as we explained above (to answer a different Kashya).

(a) Rebbi Eliezer in K'riysus - permits bringing an Asham Taluy as a Nedavah even Lechatchilah, to atone for sins that he inevitably performed.

(b) Rav Rechumi in the name of Rav Huna bar Tachlifa asked why Rebbi Shimon did not require the 'Metzora' to stipulate that if he is not a Metzora, then the animal will be an Asham Metzora - because then, seeing as either way, the Korban will have to be eaten in one day, there is no problem of causing Kodshim to be burned.

(c) Rav Rechumi tried to prove from here - that Rebbi Shimon must be the one who argues with Rebbi Eliezer in Temurah.

(d) Ravina was surprised however, at the Kashya - since an Asham Metzora comes as a lamb in its first year, whereas an Asham Taluy comes as a ram (so how can one make such a stipulation).

(a) Our Mishnah discusses a case where limbs of a Chatas became mixed up with those of an Olah. According to Rebbi Eliezer, all the limbs must be placed on the Mizbe'ach. He justifies burning the limbs of the Chatas - by viewing them as if they were pieces of wood (seeing as the Kohen did not intend to burn them as limbs of a Korban).

(b) The Chachamim disagree with him - because they do not hold of that S'vara (in which case the Kohen will transgress 'Kol she'Mimenu le'Ishim ... ').

(c) Therefore they say - the limbs should be left overnight to become Pasul be'Linah, before being taken out to the Beis ha'Sereifah and burned.

(d) Rebbi Eliezer's source is the Pasuk "ve'el ha'Mizbe'ach Lo Ya'alu *le'Rei'ach Nicho'ach*" (as we explained earlier) . The Rabbanan preclude 'Kol she'Mimenu le'Ishim' (that we discussed earlier) from the word "Osam (in the Pasuk "Korban Reishis Takrivu Osam"), and they include in the main Pasuk - the Sh'tei ha'Lechem and Bikurim, which they learn (to bring as a Korban, though not on the Mizbe'ach) from "Se'or" and "D'vash", respectively.

(a) In the Pasuk "ve'el ha'Mizbe'ach Lo Ya'alu", Rebbi Eliezer incorporates - the Kevesh, with regard to the prohibition of bringing Se'or and D'vash on the Mizbe'ach.

(b) And from "Osam" he precludes - Shirayim from the La'av of "ve'el ha'Mizbe'ach Lo Ya'alu'.

(c) The Rabbanan learn - that too from "Osam" (which refers to everything that is written in that Pasuk).

(a) According to Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa, Rebbi Eliezer and the Rabbanan argue in a case where the limbs of a complete Olah got mixed up with those of a Ba'al-Mum. In a case where the limbs of a Chatas became mixed up with ...

1. ... those of an Olah (like in our Mishnah) - even the Rabbanan agree that they are all brought on the Mizbe'ach.
2. ... the limbs of a Rovei'a or Nirva - even Rebbi Eliezer agrees that they are not.

(b) We ask that if Rebbi Eliezer agrees with the Chachamim in the latter case, because the limbs of a Rovei'a and a Nirva are totally unfit, what makes him concede with regard to the limbs of a Ba'al-Mum? Rav Huna therefore establishes the Beraisa with regard to Dokin she'be'Ayin (eye's web).

(c) And he establishes the author as Rebbi Akiva - who maintains that, seeing as Dukin she'be'Ayin is a Mum that is not so easily recognizable, 'Im Alu Lo Yerdu'.

(d) To answer the Kashya that even Rebbi Akiva only permits such an animal on the Mizbe'ach Bedi'eved, but not Lechatchilah, Rav Papa establishes the Beraisa - when the Kohanim already took the pieces on the Mizbe'ach (turning it into a case of Bedieved).

7)

(a) If the Beraisa is speaking when the pieces are already on the Mizbe'ach, and the author is Rebbi Akiva, we ask, the Tana ought to be even more lenient - because then they ought to have been permitted even if they had not been mixed with limbs of complete Korbanos?

(b) We therefore conclude that Rebbi Eliezer's source (for permitting limbs of a Chatas that became mixed up with a Ba'al Mum) must be the Pasuk "Mum Bam", from which he learns that the prohibition of placing the limb of a blemished animal on the Mizbe'ach only applies when it is on its own, but not when it is mixed up with the limb of a complete animal (see Shitah Mekubetzes).

(c) The Rabbanan learn from "Mum Bam" - that the prohibition only applies as long as the animal is actually blemished, but not once it has healed.

(d) Rebbi Eliezer learns this from the Lashon "Bam", when it would have been more correct to write "Bahem" - a D'rashah with which the Rabbanan do not hold.

(a) Rebbi Eliezer's Lashon 'Ro'eh Ani es B'sar ha'Ba'alas-Mum' (in place of B'sar ha'Chatas' in our Mishnah) seems to clash with Rebbi Eliezer's D'rashah from "Mum Bam" - since the former is derived from Rebbi Eliezer's comparison between the limbs of a Ba'al Mum and those of a Chatas, whereas the latter learns it directly from the Pasuk "Mum Bam".

(b) We answer that Rebbi Eliezer himself learns it from "Mum Bam", as we just explained, and he only cites the Limud from Chatas - in order to convince the Rabbanan (who do not agree with the D'rashah "Mum Bam") to concede that he is right, by comparing Ba'al-Mum to Chatas.

(c) The Rabbanan reject Rebbi Eliezer's comparison of limbs of a Ba'al Mum to limbs of a Chatas - because, they argue, it is disgusting to bring limbs of a Ba'al-Mum on the Mizbe'ach in any manner, which is not the case with limbs of a Chatas.

(a) Rebbi Eliezer rules in our Mishnah, in a case where limbs of complete animals became mixed up with limbs of Ba'alei-Mumin, that, if one of the heads is sacrificed - the Kohanim are permitted to bring all the other heads ...

(b) ... because we assume the one that was brought, to have been the one that is Asur.

(c) The Rabbanan go so far as to say - that even if all the heads but one were brought, the last one must go to the Beis ha'Sereifah.

(d) Rebbi Eliezer - certainly permits it to be brought on the Mizbe'ach.

(a) According to Rebbi Elazar, Rebbi Eliezer only permits the heads to be brought two at a time (but not one by one) - because we can then assume that just as the one is definitely not a Ba'al-Mum, neither is the other.

(b) Rebbi Ya'akov asked Rebbi Yirmiyah bar Tachlifa how Rebbi Elazar will reconcile his statement with the Seifa 'Afilu Karvu Kulan Chutz me'Echad Meihen ... '. He replied - that by 'Echad' the Tana meant 'Zug Echad' (one pair).

(a) Our Mishnah now discusses blood of Korbanos that has been mixed with other liquids. If it is mixed with ...

1. ... water, it is still considered blood (and may still be sprinkled) - provided it still resembles blood.
2. ... wine - it is still considered blood, provided, assuming that the wine was water, it would resemble blood, and the same will apply if it was mixed with ...
3. ... the blood of Beheimos or Chayos.

(b) Rebbi Yehudah disagrees with the latter ruling. In his opinion - blood is never Mevatel blood (in which case it can always be sprinkled).

(a) In a case where the blood became mixed up with Pasul blood, the Mishnah rules - the mixture must be poured into the Amah (the stream that flowed through the Azarah).

(b) The same applies to Dam ha'Tamtzis - the blood that drizzles out of the neck after the animal has been Shechted, rather than pouring out in a jet.

(c) Rebbi Eliezer permits sprinkling blood that was mixed with Dam ha'Tamtzis - and the Tana Kama agrees with him Bedi'eved, should the Kohen have already sprinkled it, as will be explained in the Sugya.