Previous daf

1)

(a) Following Nadav and Avihu's death, Moshe instructed Aharon and his sons to eat ...

1. ... the Minchah of the Milu'im.
2. ... the Chazeh ve'Shok of the Shalmei Tzibur.

(b) Moshe was subsequently angry with Aharon - when he discovered that they had burned one of the Korbanos.

(c) The problem with saying that Moshe initially instructed Aharon to eat the Kodshim ba'Aninus lies in another Beraisa - which attributes the fact that Aharon burned the Korban to the Aninus of Aharon and his sons, and what's more, Moshe conceded that Aharon was right.

(a) We answer that the Beraisa goes like Rebbi Nechemyah - Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon ascribe the burning of the Korban to Tum'ah.

(b) And they prove this - because if it was due to Aninus, then all three goats (which will be listed later) ought to have been burned, or they should have waited until nightfall and eaten them then.

(c) Alternatively, we establish both Beraisos like Rebbi Nechemyah, and we reconcile the second Beraisa with the fact that Moshe commanded them to eat the Korbanos in spite of the Aninus - by restricting the dispensation to eat the Korbanos that day to the Korbanos of the Milu'im, but not the regular Korbanos.

(d) According to Rebbi Nechemyah, Moshe did not command them to should eat the Minchas Shemini ba'Aninus - but that they should eat it even though it was a Minchas Tzibur, which was unique (and they would not have otherwise known what to do with it).

(a) When Aharon replied ...

1. ... "Hein Lo Huva Damah el ha'Kodesh Penimah" - Moshe had asked him - whether the blood had not perhaps been taken into the Heichal.
2. ... "ba'Kodesh (Haysah)" ... - whether the animal had not been taken outside the Azarah.
3. ... "Hein Hayom Hikrivu" Moshe had asked him -whether perhaps his sons, who were Onenim (with regard to sacrificing the Korbanos), had not perhaps brought it on the Mizbe'ach.

(b) Aharon retorted that "Va'tikrenah Osi ka'Eileh Ve'achalti Chatas ha'Yom, ha'Yitav be'Einei Hashem" (by which he meant that the special dispensation permitting them as Onenim, to eat Kodshim, did not extend to Kodshei Doros, as we learned earlier). And he learned this - from Ma'aser Sheini, which is forbidden to an Onan, 'Kal-va'Chomer' Kodshim.

(a) Moshe responded - by admitting to having erred, and conceded that Aharon was right. In fact, he said without hesitation, that is what he had been taught, but he had forgotten it.

(b) According to Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon, Moshe asked Aharon ...

1. ... whether due to his sorrow, he had not perhaps been careless, causing the Korban to become Tamei - he expressed surprise that Moshe should suspect him of such gross negligence.
2. ... why they did not then eat it - he replied that in all probability, it was only after nightfall that they were permitted it (because Aninus Laylah de'Rabanan) ...

(c) ... and the reason that they did not eat it after nightfall - was because in the meantime, it had become Tamei be'O'ness.

5)

(a) Aharon said to Moshe "Ve'achalti Chatas Hayom". The significance of "Hayom", according to Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon - is that the Chatas could not be eaten during the day, only at night.

(b) The problem with "Hayom" according to Rebbi Nechemyah" is - that the Korbanos of Milu'im were permitted even during the day, whereas the regular Korbanos were forbidden at night, too (so what does "Hayom" mean).

(c) He therefore explains it to mean - that since the Korban under discussion was a regular Korban (of that day), it did not enjoy the special dispensation that pertained to the Korbenos of the Milu'im.

(a) According to what we just said (to explain Rebbi Nechemyah) "Hein Hayom Hikrivu" makes perfect sense. The problem with this phrase, according to Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Nechemya is - that if Aharon was telling Moshe that perhaps it was only at night-time that the Korbanos were permitted, what does the phrase mean?

(b) In fact, they interpret it to mean - that it was not Elazar and Isamar (who were Onenim) who brought the Korbanos during the day, but he (Aharon, and a Kohen Gadol Onan is permitted to bring Korbanos).

(a) "ve'es Se'ir ha'Chatas" refers to the Sa'ir of Nachshon (the first of the twelve princes to inaugurate the Mizbe'ach), whereas the goat referred to by ...

1. ... Chatas - is the Sa'ir of the Milu'im.
2. ... Darash Moshe - is the Sa'ir of Rosh Chodesh.

(b) The Torah uses the double expression "Darosh Darash" - because Moshe inquired as to why the one goat was burned and the other two were not.

(c) We learn from "ve'Hinei Soraf" - that only one of the goats was burned, and not all three.

(d) "ve'Osah Nasan Lachem Laseis es Avon ha'Eidah" - that the one that was burned was the Sa'ir Rosh Chodesh (which comes to atone for the sin (of Tum'ah) of the congregation.

(a) Rebbi Nechemya refutes Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon's Kashya, that if it was a matter of Aninus ...

1. ... then all three goats should have been burned - by differentiating between Kodshei Sha'ah (which Hashem had specifically permitted) and Kodshei Doros (which He had not) as we already learned.
2. ... then they ought to have waited until nightfall and eaten the Sa'ir Rosh-Chodesh then - because he holds 'Aninus Laylah d'Oraysa'.

(b) Rebbi Nechemyah's source for that - is this Pasuk ("Va'tikrenah Osi ka'Eileh").

(c) Whereas Rebbi and Rebbi Shimon hold - that even though Aninus Laylah is d'Oraysa, that would take effect later, but did not apply to Aharon and his sons, as we already explained.

(d) And Rebbi Nechemyah's answer to the Kashya that Pinchas was there, and if it was a matter of Aninus, *he* should have eaten the Chatas - by agreeing with the opinion of Rebbi Elazar Amar Rebbi Chanina, who maintain that Pinchas became a Kohen only many years later, as we shall now see.

(a)

1. Rebbi Elazar Amar Rebbi Chanina learns from the Pasuk in Pinchas "Ve'haysah Lo u'le'Zar'o Acharav B'ris Kehunas Olam" - that Pinchas became a Kohen only after killing Zimri.
2. Rav Ashi learns from the Pasuk in Yehoshua "Va'yishma Pinchas ha'Kohen u'Nesi'ei ha'Eidah ... " - that he became a Kohen only after being instrumental in making peace between the B'nei Gad and Reuven and the tribes who lived in Eretz Yisrael (following their quarrel over the Mizbe'ach that the former had built beside the Yarden River).

(b)

1. Rav Ashi refutes Rebbi Elazar Amar Rebbi Chanina's interpretation of the Pasuk in Pinchas - by restricting it to a B'rachah (which would only materialize much later).
2. Rebbi Elazar Amar Rebbi Chanina refutes Rav Ashi's interpretation of the Pasuk in Yehoshua - by confining it to inclusion of his descendants, who would become Kohanim Gedolim (since prior to that time, only he was destined to be a Kohen Gadol, but not his descendants).

(a) Rav learns from the Pasuk "me'Eil ha'Milu'im le'Moshe Hayah le'Manah" - that Moshe was a Kohen Gadol who received a portion in Kodshei Shamayim.

(b) And the reason that the Beraisa asks from Pinchas and not from Moshe is - because Moshe was constantly on Har Sinai dealing with the Shechinah, and did not have time to collect a portion of Kodshim.

(c) Like Mar say about Moshe - that he would ascend Har Sinai early in the morning and descend late at night.

(a) The Pasuk "Lechem Elokav mi'Kodshei ha'Kodshim u'min ha'Kodshim Yochel" refers - to a Kohen Ba'al Mum.

(b) The problem the Beraisa has with this Pasuk is - why the Torah needs to mention both Kodshei Kodshim and Kodshim Kalim?

(c) Had the Torah not written ...

1. ... Kodshim Kalim, we would have thought that a Ba'al-Mum may eat only Kodshei Kodshim - since we find that the Chazeh ve'Shok of Shelamim is permitted to Zarim as well as to them.
2. ... Kodshei Kodshim, would have thought that a Ba'al-Mum may eat only Kodshim Kalim, whose Kedushah is less than that of Kodshei Kodshim. (d) We know that the Chazeh ve'Shok of Shelamim is Kodshei Kodshim - because it had to be cooked and eaten at the entrance of the Ohel Mo'ed and could only be eaten for one day and a night.

(a) We attempt to ask from this Beraisa on Rav - based on the understanding that the Zar in the Beraisa refers to Moshe.

(b) To refute the Kashya on Rav however - Rav Sheishes interprets 'Zar' literally, with reference to Bamos, which do not require Kehunah, and on which the Minchah (which was Kodesh Kodshim) was brought.

(c) Bearing in mind that Bamah refers to Bamah Ketanah, Rav Sheishes' answer is not unanimous - because it does not coincide with the opinion that the Korban Minchah was not brought on the Bamah.

(d) The answer depends on the Minchah - because the only other Kodesh Kodshim that are eaten are Chatas and Asham, neither of which could be brought on a Bamah.