Previous daf

1)

(a) According to Rebbi Yochanan, someone who Shechts an animal inside the Azarah at night-time, and then sacrifices it outside the Azarah - is Chayav (for Ha'ala'as Chutz) ...

(b) ... because it is not worse than Shechting it and sacrificing it outside.

(c) We refute this however, from a Beraisa, which rules 'ha'Shochet Of bi'Febin u'Ma'aleh ba'Chutz, Patur' - in spite of the Seifa 'Shachat be'Chutz u'Ma'aleh ba'Chutz, Chayav' (a Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan).

(d) Although the first Lashon remains with a Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan, how does the second Lashon reconciles Rebbi Yochanan with the Beraisa - by pointing to the word 'ha'Shochet', which (bearing in mind the Mitzvah of Melikah), is like killing it (without Shechitah), and one is not Chayav for sacrificing a Neveilah outside the Azarah.

(a) Ula rules that if Eimurei Kodshim Kalim were brought on the Mizbeach before the blood had been sprinkled - 'Lo Yerdu'.

(b) Rebbi Zeira tries to support Ula's ruling with our Mishnah which lists 'she'Nishpach Damah ve'she'Yatza Daman Chutz li'Kela'im' among those that 'Im Alu Lo Yerdu' - because if 'Nishpach Damah', which is *no longer subject to Zerikah*, is included, 'Kal va'Chomer' where *it is*.

(c) We refute Rebbi Zeira's proof from ...

1. ... there however, by establishing it by Kodshei Kodshim.
2. ... the Beraisa, which adds the Korban Pesach to the list - by establishing it by she'Lo li'Sheman (like Chatas, which follows it), but not by when he sacrificed them before the Zerikah.

(d) Rebbi Zeira, on the other hand brought a proof from there, because he thought - that the P'sul of Korban Pesach is equivalent to that of the Reisha.

(a) We learned in the Mishnah 've'Chulan she'Alu Chayin Yerdu' - implying 'Ha Shechutin, Lo Yerdu'.

(b) Bearing in mind that there is no difference between Kodshei Kodshim and Kodshim Kalim with regard to Chayin, we refute the contention that with regard to Shechutin, there is no difference between them either (a proof for Ula) - by explaining that all Chulin Yerdu, Shechutin is different inasmuch as some of them 'Yerdu' (Kodshim Kalim), whereas others (Kodshei Kodshim) 'Lo Yerdu' ...

(c) ... and when the Tana say 've'Chulan' - he is referring to Chayin.

(d) We ask why that is not obvious, because, seeing as the Tana is talking about Kesheirim, which are due to be brought on the Mizbe'ach anyway, why would we have thought otherwise?

(a) To answer the Kashya - we establish the Mishnah by animals with a catatract in the eye, which, once they are taken down, will not be returned.

(b) And the author of the Mishnah is Rebbi Akiva, who holds with regard to Ba'alei-Mumin 'Im Alu, Lo Yerdu'.

(c) We extrapolate from the Pasuk "ve'Nitach *Osah* li'Nesachim" - that only a Kasher animal is skinned (and the skin is given to the Kohanim), but not a Pasul one.

(d) Based on the fact that we just established 've'Chulan she'Alu Chayin' by Pesulin, the problem with explaining the Seifa ('Shachtah be'Rosh ha'Mizbe'ach, Yafshit vi'Yenatach bi'Mekomah') too, by Pesulin is - that it will clash with the Pasuk that we just quoted.

(a) So we establish the Seifa by Kesheirim, and the Chidush is - that Hefshet and Nitu'ach are permitted on top of the Mizbe'ach.

(b) There is however, an opinion that holds 'Ein Hefshet ve'Nitu'ach be'Rosh ha'Mizbe'ach' - because, seeing as this can be done at the foot of the Mizbe'ach, it is not Derech Eretz to do it on top.

(c) We answer that the Tana is speaking when the animal had a Sha'as ha'Kosher - by which we mean that the animal went up the ramp when it was Kasher, and only became Pasul after having been Shechted and its blood sprinkled. Consequently, it can only be skinned and cut into pieces on the Mizbe'ach (because once it is taken down, it may not be returned), and the objection to Shechting it there falls away.

(d) We establish the author as Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, who rules in Perek T'vul-Yom - that a Pasul animal that had a Sha'as ha'Kosher is skinned and the skin given to the Kohanim.

(a) We learned in a Beraisa (with regard to the current case under discussion) 'Keitzad Oseh, Morid ha'Kirbayim Lematah u'Madichan'. The Kohen cannot just burn the intetines as they are - because it is not Kavod for Hashem, to sacrifice in his honor animals together with their dung.

(b) We learn from the Pasuk "Hakriveihu Na le'Pechasecha" - that whatever one would not serve a king, one may not serve Hashem either.

(c) When we ask why the Kohen needs to do that, we mean - that since, having had to take the pieces of the Pasul Korban down from the Mizbe'ach, he may no longer return them, what is the point of washing out the intentines?

(d) Our answer ...

1. ... to that is - that in this way, should a Kohen who is not aware that they are Pasul come across them, he will take them up on the Mizbe'ach and burn them.
2. ... to the Kashya how we can encourage a Kohen to do something that is forbidden (albeit inadvertently) is - that is preferable to leaving Kodshei Shamayim lying around like carcasses.

7)

(a) Rebbi Chiya bar Aba citing Rebbi Yochanan, asked - whether if Eimurei Kodshim Kalim were brought on the Mizbe'ach before the blood was sprinkled, we say 'Lo Yerdu' or not.

(b) When Rebbi Ami asked him why he did not ask whether they were subject to Me'ilah or not, he replied - that this was not a problem, since Me'ilah is fixed by the Zerikas Dam (and nothing else).

(c) Rebbi Yochanan concluded 'Lo Yerdu' - because the Eimurim became 'Lachmo shel Mizbe'ach', despite the fact that they are not subject to Me'ilah (which is due to the fact that they have not attained the status of Kodshei Mizbe'ach.

(a) According to Rebbi Yochanan, when Rebbi Akiva rules 'Im Alu, Lo Yerdu' with regard to Ba'alei Mumin, he is speaking about cataracts in the eye and similar Mumin (but not to blemishes such as missing limbs) - because they are not considered Mumin with regard to Korbenos Of.

(b) Before he will rule 'Lo Yerdu', Rebbi Akiva also requires the Hekdesh to have preceded the blemish.

(c) That is why he rules - that if someone is Makdish a female animal as an Olah, Rebbi Akiva will concede that 'Im Alah Teired' (even though an Olas Nekeivah [like a Ba'al-Mum] is Kasher by an Of).

(a) From the Pasuk "min ha'Beheimah" we learn - that Rovei'a and Nirva are disqualified from going on the Mizbe'ach.

(b) Rebbi Yirmiyah asks whether the P'sul of Nirva will apply to a bird. He thinks that it ...

1. ... may not - because whatever is not subject to the P'sul of Rovei'a, is not subject to the P'sul of Nirva either.
2. ... nevertheless may - because when all's said and done, a sin was performed on it.

(c) A bird is not subject to the P'sul of Rovei'a - because it is physically impossible.

(a) Rabah resolves our She'eilah from Rebbi Akiva, who is Machshir Ba'alei Mumin - implying (by virtue of omission) that he is not Machshir Nirva.

(b) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak supports Rabah's ruling from a Mishnah in Bechoros, which rules - 'Nirva, Muktzah, Ne'evad, Esnan and Mechir are Metamei the clothes that the person who eats them is wearing (in which case it is clear that 'Im Alu, Yerdu').

(c) On the other hand, he inserts Tumtum and Androginus (in spite of the fact that there is no difference between a Zachar and a Nekeivah with regard to Olas ha'Of) - because in his opinion, they are a 'Beryah bi'Fenei Atzman' (an independant species [see Sugya in Bechoros]).

(d) According to Rebbi Eliezer there - wherever both male and female are Kasher, Tumtum and Androginus are Kasher, too.

(a) Rebbi Chanina S'gan ha'Kohanim in our Mishnah describes how his father used to remove Ba'alei-Mumin from the Mizbe'ach ('Dochin Hayah Aba es Ba'alei-Mumin me'al-Gabei ha'Mizbe'ach'). Besides the fact that the Tana attaches great importance to a Ma'aseh that actually took place, the other Chidush that lies in his words (seeing as he is otherwise merely concurring with the Tana Kama) is - in the word 'Dochin', which implies that they took it down discreetly, and not publicly.

(b) Ula qualifies the Din in our Mishnah 'Im Yardu, Lo Ya'alu' - by confining it to where the fire had not yet burned most of the piece, but where it had, 'Im Yardu, Ya'alu' ...

(c) ... because once a piece of Korban is well burned, it becomes 'Lachmo shel Eish'.

(a) That is Rav Mari's version of Ula's ruling. Rebbi Chanina from Sura learns it on the Seifa, where the Tana says that the bones, the veins, the horns and the hooves of a Korban - must be sacrificed as long as they are still attached to the flesh, but not once they have been removed.

(b) According to Rebbi Chanina from Sura, Ula now rules - that once the fire has burned most of any particular limb, it is returned to the Mizbe'ach in any event.

(c) Rebbi Chanina from Sura agrees with Rav Mari. Rav Mari, on the other hand, does not agree with Rebbi Chanina from Sura - because the bones, the sinews, the horns and the hooves - are not subject to Haktarah at all.

(a) Our Mishnah rules with regard to the Basar of Kodshei Kodshim and Kodshim Kalim, Mosar ha'Omar, the Sh'tei ha'Lechem and the Lechem ha'Panim, the Sheyarei Menachos and the Ketores were brought on the Mizbe'ach - that 'Im Alu, Yerdu' ...

(b) ... because (even though they are all Kasher) - none of them have any connection with the Mizbe'ach.

(c) And the Tana rules - that as long as the hair on the head of a lamb of an Olah and the beard of a goat are connected to the head (which is not officially skinned), 'Im Alu Lo Yerdu' (but not once they have been shorn).

(d) The other four items which the Tana includes in this list are - the bones, the nerves, the horns and the hooves.

(e) He learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Ve'hiktir ha'Kohen es ha'Kol" - that as long as the above are still attached, 'Ya'alu'.
2. ... "Ve'asisa Olosecha ha'Basar ve'ha'Dam' - that if they are not, 'Lo Ya'alu'.