Previous daf

1)

(a) According to the Rabbanan of Rebbi Shimon (who need "el mi'Chutz la'Machaneh" by Yom Kipur for the Din of Tum'as Begadim outside Mechaneh Shechinah, there is no 'Gezeirah-Shavah' to teach us to burn Parim ... ha'Nisrafin on the east of Yerushalayim. In fact, says the Tana Kama of the Beraisa - they burned them on the north of Yerushalayim, because that is the side where all Avodos connected with Kodshei Kodshim were performed.

(b) When, based on the Pasuk "al Shefech ha'Deshen Yisaref", Rebbi Yossi Hagelili says in the Beraisa that a 'Beis ha'Deshen' is required, he means - that one is obligated to pour ashes from the Mizbe'ach on that spot before burning the Parim ... ha'Nisrafin (so that they should be burned in a 'Beis ha'Deshen').

(c) This is the opinion of the Tana Kama in another Beraisa. Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov there interprets the word "Shefech" to mean - that the burning should be done on a slope so that the ashes can roll away.

(d) Rava extrapolated from there that the Rabbanan who argue with Rebbi Yossi Hagelili are in fact, Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov. Abaye disagreed with Rava, because, he claimed - perhaps their Machlokes is whether 'Shefech' *also* means that they should be burned on a slope or not (though the Rabbanan agree with the Tana Kama that ashes must first be brought there from the Mizbe'ach).

(a) The Beraisa states that the 'Soreif' is Metamei Begadim - but precludes both the one who kindles the fire and the one who arranges the wood from Tum'ah.

(b) The Tana defines 'Soreif' - as whoever assists with the actual burning.

(c) And from the Pasuk "ve'ha'Soref *Osam*" - he precludes anyone who helps from the time that the animal becomes ashes.

(d) According to Rebbi Shimon, "Osam" comes to preclude someone who assists with the burning after the Basar has burned completely (like we learned in our Mishnah), and Rava establishes the ramifications of this Machlokes - in a case where the Basar is completely burned, but has not yet become ashes (in which case, he will be Tamei according to the Tana Kama, but Tahor according to Rebbi Shimon).

3)

(a) The Tana Kama of our Mishnah that someone who Shechts Kodshim inside the Azarah and burns them outside in one He'elam is Chayav, by which he means - that he needs to bring two Chata'os.

(b) Rebbi Yossi Hagelili maintains - that he is only Chayav for 'Ha'ala'ah ba'Chutz, if he Shechted the animal inside the Azarah. Otherwise, he has sacrificed a Pasul animal ba'Chutz, for which he is not Chayav.

(c) The Rabbanan prove their point from a case of someone who Shechted Kodshim inside the Azarah and burned them outside - for which (even Rebbi Yossi Hagelili concedes) he is Chayav, despite the fact that the moment he took the Shechted Korban outside the Azarah, it became Pasul (so why should 'Shachat ba'Chutz ve'He'elah ba'Chutz be any worse)?

(a) The Tana Kama declares Chayav a Tamei person who eats Kodshim, irrespective of whether they are Tahor or Tamei. Rebbi Yossi Hagelili concurs - but only if the Korban is Tahor, not if it is Tamei.

(b) Here again, the Rabbanan prove their point from the case of a Tamei who ate a Tahor Korban - inasmuch as the moment he picks it up to eat it, he renders it Tamei anyway.

(c) We learn from the Pasuk (in connection with someone who eats a Shelamim) "ve'Tumaso Alav Ve'nichresah" - that one is only Chayav Kareis or a Korban, in a case where there is Tum'as ha'Guf, precluding a Tahor person who eats Tamei.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "ve'el Pesach Ohel Lo Hevi'o Lehakriv Korban la'Hashem ... ve'Nichras" - the Onesh for Ha'ala'as Chutz.
2. ... "Hishamer Lecha Pen Ta'aleh Olosecha be'Chol Makom ... " - the Azharah for Ha'ala'as Chutz.
3. ... "O Asher Yishchat mi'Chutz la'Machaneh ... "ve'el Pesach Ohel Lo Hevi'o ... ve'Nichras" - the Onesh for Shechitas Chutz.

(b) The problem we are left with is - that there is no clear source for the Azharah for Shechitas Chutz.

(c) We reject the initial suggestion that the Azharah for Shechutei Chutz lies in the Pasuk "ve'Lo Yizbechu Od es Zivcheihem", because it is needed for Rebbi Elazar, who Darshens - that one is Chayav for Shechting an animal to Markulis (even though that is not the way that one generally worships it [she'Lo ke'Darkah. ke'Darkah we already know from the Pasuk "Eichah Ya'avdu ... ve'E'eseh Kein Gam Ani").

(d) Rabah tries to reinstate the initial suggestion by making two D'rashos out of "ve'Lo Yizbechu Od es Zivcheihem" - 've'Lo Od es Zivcheihem ... ' (for Rebbi Elazar's D'rashah), and 've'Lo Yizbe'chu' (as the Azharah for Shechutei Chutz).

6)

(a) We reject Rabah's suggestion too however, on the basis of a Beraisa, which explains that in spite of having already learned an Onesh and an Azharah for Ha'ala'as Chutz, we learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Lema'an Asher Yavi'u B'nei Yisrael es Zivcheihem Asher Heim Zovchim al-P'nei ha'Sadeh" - that if one offers Kodshim that one declared Hekdesh at a time when Shechutei Chutz were permitted ba'Chutz, it is as if one had sacrificed them in the middle of a field.
2. ... "Ve'hevi'um la'Hashem" - that one transgresses a Mitzvas Asei if one does so.
3. ... "ve'Lo Yizbechu Od" - that one contravenes a Lo Sa'aseh, too.

(b) And we then learn from the Pasuk "Chukas Olam Tih'yeh Zos Lachem le'Dorosam" - that one is one Chayav Kareis.

(a) So Abaye learns the Onesh by Shechitas Chutz, where the Torah wrote a punishment (Kareis), but not a warning, from a 'Kal va'Chomer from Ha'ala'as Chutz, where it wrote a warning as well as a punishment.

(b) Ravina asked Rav Ashi that, in that case, the Torah should not have needed to write a specific La'av by Cheilev (where the Torah wrote Kareis), because, by the same token, we could learn it from a 'Kal 'va'Chomer' from Neveilah (where the Torah wrote a La'av, but no Kareis).

(c) Rava refuted this Kashya, as well as a similar Kashya from Sheratzim Temei'in (where. like by Neveilah, the Torah writes an Azharah, but no Kareis) with the Pircha that Neveilah and Sheratzim Temei'in possess the Chumra that they make others Tamei (whereas Cheilev does not).

(d) We cannot learn Cheilev using the same 'Kal va'Chomer' from ...

1. ... Orlah and K'lai ha'Kerem - because they are Asur be'Hana'ah as well, which Cheilev is not.
2. ... Shevi'is - because Shevi'is transfers its Isur on to whatever one exchanges it for (whereas Cheilev does not).

9)

(a) Based on the current 'Kal va'Chomer' regarding the Azharah on Shechutei Chutz, the problem Rava has with Pesach and Milah is - why the Mishnah in Kerisus lists them as only an Asei, when we ought to learn from 'Mosir be'Pesach' (which is not Chayav Kareis [see Tosfos DH 'Teisi') that they are also subject to a La'av (since they receive Kareis).

(b) When Rav Ashi put this Kashya to Rav Kahana say, he replied that we cannot learn Pesach from 'Mosir' - since the Pesach can be remedied (by bringing a Pesach Sheini), whereas 'Mosir' cannot,. Note, it was obvious already at the outset that it is possible to remedy Milah, seeing as one is no longer Chayav Kareis, from the moment that one performs Milah (see Tzon Kodshim).

(c) The problem with learning the Azharah of Shechutei Chutz from that of Ha'ala'as Chutz with a 'Kal- va'Chomer', like Abaye currently suggests, is - that it contravenes the principle 'Ein Onshin min ha'Din' (which means that one cannot learn a punishment from a 'Kal-va'Chomer' [even according to the Tana who holds 'Mazhirin min ha'Din']).

(a) So we finally quote Rebbi Yochanan (on the following Amud), who learns Shechutei Chutz from Ha'ala'as Chutz - (not with a 'Kal-va'Chomer, but) with a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' ('Hava'ah' 'Hava'ah'), which is not subject to Pirchos (because unlike a 'Kal va'Chomer, it is Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai).

(b) Rava learns it from the Pasuk "Sham Ta'aleh Olosecha, ve'Sham Ta'aseh". He too, learns it - by means of a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' ("Sham" "Sham"), comparing any other Avodos that one performs outside the Azarah to Ha'ala'ah.