Previous daf

1)

(a) Resh Lakish learns from the Pasuk "ha'Kohen Ha'mechatei Osah Yochlenah" - that only a Kohen who performs the Avodah is permitted to eat Kodshei Kodshim.

(b) He reconciles this with the fact that even though only one Kohen sprinkles the blood of a Korban, all the Kohanim of that Mishmar eat it - by amending his statement to a Kohen who is fit to perform the Avodah (even though he does not actually perform it).

(c) What nevertheless forces us to interpret "Yochlenah" to 'Yechalkenah' (receives a portion) - is the fact that a Kohen Katan is permitted to eat Kodshim, even though he is not fit to perform the Avodah ...

(d) ... which we know from the fact that he is permitted to eat Kodshei Kodshim - either because the Torah finds it necessary to preclude him from the distribution ("Ish ke'Achiv") or because of the Pasuk we are about to qote "Kol Zachar ba'Kohanim Yochal Osah" (in spite of the fact that in that context, it does not pertain to eating).

(a) In spite of what we just concluded, a Ba'al-Mum receives a portion of Kodshim, even though he is unfit to bring it - due to a 'Gezeiras ha'Kasuv' (the Pasuk in Tzav "*Kol Zachar* ba'Kohanim Yochal Osah").

(b) We prefer to include a Ba'al-Mum from "Kol Zachar" rather than a T'vul-Yom - because he is already permitted to eat Kodshim (which a T'vul-Yom is not).

(c) We reject the suggestion that we ought to include a T'vul-Yom, because at nightfall, he will automatically become fit to receive a portion - on the grounds that, when all's said and done, he is not fit now.

(d) Rav Yosef learns this from the word "Yochlenah" - which (bearing in mind that we have interpreted it to mean 'Yechalkenah') hints that we are including someone who is already permitted to eat Kodshim.

(a) Resh Lakish asks whether a Kohen Ba'al-Mum who is Tamei received a portion of Kodshim. We might that he ...

1. ... does - because he is not worse that a plain Ba'al-Mum, who is not fit to bring Korbanos anyway.
2. ... does not - because unlike a plain Ba'al-Mum, he is not permitted to eat Kodshim (which is perhaps the criterion for receiving a portion).

(b) Rabah resolves the She'eilah from a Beraisa concerning a Kohen Gadol Onan, who brings Korbanos, but who may not eat them. The Tana rules there - that he does not receive a portion (a proof that it is the Kohen's right to eat Kodshim that entitles him to receive a portion, not his right to perform the Avodah).

(a) Rav Oshaya asks whether a Tamei Kohen receives a portion of Korbenos Tzibur. This must be speaking about a Korban that is brought when most of the Tzibur is Tahor - because a Korban Tzibur is brought be'Tum'ah, but burned.

(b) He might receive a portion even though he was not fit to eat it - because (if it was brought be'Tum'ah, he would be eligible to bring it).

(c) We resolve the She'eilah - in the same way as we resolved the previous one (that receiving a portion is linked with being fit to eat it [at the time of the Zerikas ha'Dam]).

(a) The Mishnah in Chagigah requires a Kohen Onan and a Kohen Mechusar Kipurim to Tovel for Kodesh. Rebbi Ami Amar Rebbi Yochanan reconciles this with our Mishnah, which permits an Onan to touch Kodshim - by establishing the latter when he has already Toveled.

(b) And the reason that he does not require Ha'arev Shemesh (to wait for nightfall) as well is - because the Tevilah is only a 'Ma'alah de'Rabbanan' (a Rabbinical Chumra connected with Kodshim), which does not require Ha'arev Shemesh.

(c) We reconcile this with Rabah bar Rav Huna, who maintains that once the Kohen Tovels, his Aninus returns - by answering instead that the Mishnah in Chagigah speaks when there was 'Hesech ha'Da'as (i.e. the Kohen, in the knowledge that he is forbidden to eat Kodshim anyway, was no longer careful to guard himself against Tum'ah), whereas our Mishnah speaks when there was not.

(a) The problem with establishing the Mishnah in Chagigah by 'Hesech ha'Da'as' is - the statement of Rebbi Yustai b'Rebbi Masun Amar Rebbi Yochanan, that Hesech ha'Da'as requires sprinkling with th Eifer ha'Parah on the third and seventh days.

(b) Nor will establishing the Mishnah by Hesech ha'Da'as from Tum'as Sheretz only, solve the problem - because he will still require 'Ha'arev Shemesh'.

(c) And besides - in that case, he ought also to require Tevilah for Terumah, so why does the Tana there obligate Tevilah for Kodesh but not for Terumah?

(d) To dispense with all these Kashyos, Rebbi Yirmiyah establishes the Mishnah in Chagigah when the Kohen was careful to avoid all things that might render him Tamei d'Oraysa (which require Ha'arev Shemesh), but not Pasul mi'de'Rabbanan (which don't) See Shitah Mekubetzes.

(a) We object to Rebbi Yirmiyah's explanation on the grounds - that it does not seem logical to guard oneself from one thing and not from the other.

(b) We overrule this objection however, with a Beraisa, which states that if someone who is walking with a basket (in which there is a metal shovel) on his head claims that he was careful about Tum'ah that renders the basket Tamei, but not the spade - the basket is Tahor, and the spade, Tamei.

(a) The spade does not render the basket Tamei anyway - because one K'li cannot render another K'li, Tamei (even mi'de'Rabbanan).

(b) To explain why the spade does not render Tamei the contents of the basket - Rava establishes the case when he claims that he was careful to guard the spade against things that would render it Tamei, but not against things that render it Pasul ...

(c) ... a proof that people do tend to guard themselves from one thing and not from the other.

(d) When word of this reached Rebbi Aba bar Mamal however, he put a spoke in its wheel, by quoting Rebbi Yochanan Amar Rebbi, who ruled - that although one is forbidden to eat Terumah that is a Shelishi, one us permitted to touch it ...

(e) ... a proof - that when it comes to Ma'alos de'Rabbanan, the Rabbanan simply decreed the prohibition of eating, but not of touching (and not because of the owner's Hesech ha'Da'as),

9)

(a) We extrapolate from our Mishnah 've'Eino Cholek Le'echol be'Kodshim' - that should the Oman's friend invite him to eat his portion of Kodshim together with him, he is permitted to join him.

(b) Rebbi Yirmiyah mi'Difti reconciles this with the Mishnah in Pesachim, which permits him to eat the Korban Pesach but not Kodshim - by establishing our Mishnah on Pesach night, when he is permitted to eat other Kodshim with a 'Migu', since he is permitted to eat the Korban Pesach anyway); whereas the Mishnah in Pesachim is referring to the other days of the year.

(c) Rav Asi establishes the Mishnah in Pesachim when the deceased that was buried on the fourteenth also *died* on the fourteenth - in which case during the day at least, he is an Onan d'Oraysa, whereas our Mishnah is speaking when he died on the thirteenth - in which case on the day of the fourteenth, he is only an Onan de'Rabbanan.

(d) In the former case, the Chachamim therefore differentiated between the Korban Pesach and other Korbanos - because the Aninus of the night after the death of the deceased is only de'Rabbanan, who were lenient with regard to the Korban Pesach, which carries a penalty of Kareis, but not with regard to other Korbanos (whose eating is only an Asei [since it follows the day on which he was an Onan d'Oraysa).

(a) The author of the principle 'Aninus Laylah (the night after the death) de'Rabbanan' - is Rebbi Shimon.

(b) According to Rebbi Yehudah - Aninus Laylah is d'Oraysa.

(c) Rebbi Shimon's proof is - the fact that Chazal permitted an Onan to Tovel in the day and eat his Korban Pesach by night (which would be inconceivable if Aninus Laylah were de'Rabanan).

(d) And we confine the Beraisa where Rebbi Shimon forbids an Onan to send his Korban through a Sheli'ach - to other Korbanos, but not the Korban Pesach.

(a) Rebbi Shimon in another Beraisa, forbids a Kohen Onan to bring a Todah as well as a Shelamim. He needs to include an Olah in the prohibition independently, because, unlike Shelamim and Todah - it cannot be brought as a Shalmei Simchah on Yom-Tov.

(b) We know that one can fulfill the Mitzvah of Simchah with ...

1. ... a Shelamim - because of the Pasuk in Ki Savo "Ve'zavachta Shelamim Ve'achalta Sham, Ve'samachta".
2. ... a Todah - because a Todah is basically a Shelamim.

(c) Once we know Olah, we would not automatically include in the prohibition ...

1. ... Bechor, Ma'aser and Pesach - because they cannot be brought as a Nedavah.
2. ... Chatas ve'Asham (even after we know Bechor, Ma'aser and Pesach as well) - because they come to atone for a sin.

(d) We learn all of these from the word - "Zevach" (in the Pasuk in Vayikra "Im Zevach Shelamim Korbano"), which incorporates all Korbenos Beheimah..

(a) From the Pasuk "ve'Im Im Zevach Shelamim Korbano", we still incorporate in the prohibition - Ofos, Menachos, Yayin, Eitzim and Levonah.

(b) The problem this Beraisa now creates with our interpretation of Rebbi Shimon's previous ruling 'Onan Eino Meshale'ach Korbenosav' is - that we established it by all Korbenos other that the Korban Pesach, whereas the latter Beraisa seems to incorporate the Korban Pesach with the other Korbenos.

(c) Rav Chisda answers 'Pesach K'dei Nasvah' (the Tana mentions Pesach together Bechor and Ma'aser, even though it is not really compatible with them). Rav Sheishes answers the Kashya, by interpreting 'Pesach' to mean - Shalmei Pesach (i.e. the Chagigah which is a Shelamim, and] which a large group brings with the Pesach).

(d) Having already mentioned 'Shelamim', the Tana nevertheless finds it necessary to add it - because we would otherwise have thought that since it is brought together with the Pesach, it has the same Din as it.