Previous daf

1)

(a) Rava asked what the Din will be in a case - where someone sacrifices ba'Chutz the head of a young dove comprising less than a k'Zayis, but whose Shiur is complemented by a grain of salt.

(b) Rava from Parzika queried the She'eilah on the grounds - that it seems to be the very issue which Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish have just disputed.

(c) Rav Ashi replied however, that even ...

1. ... Rebbi Yochanan might concede that the grain of salt will not combine to make up the Shiur, because, unlike the bone, it is not of the same species as the bird.
2. ... Resh Lakish concede that it will - because, unlike the bone of the limb of the Korban, which is dispensable Bedieved, the grain of salt is not (as the Torah writes in Vayikra "ve'Lo Sashbis Melach B'ris ... ").

(d) The outcome of Rava's She'eilah is - 'Teiku'.

(a) The Rabbanan in our Mishnah ask on Rebbi Yossi Hagelili, who rules 'Shachat ba'Chutz, ve'He'elah ba'Chutz Patur ... ', from Shachat bi'Fenim u'Ma'aleh ba'Chutz'. When Rebbi ...

1. ... answers 'Mah le'Shochet bi'Fenim u'Ma'aleh ba'Chutz she'Kein Haysah Lo Sha'as ha'Kosher', he means - that there where the Korban was Shechted inside the Azarah, even Rebbi Yossi Hagelili will agree that one is Chayav for Ha'ala'as Chutz, because (despite the fact that it became Pasul be'Yotzei, once it is taken outside, as the Rabbanan asked), at least it had a Sha'as ha'Kosher, whereas Shachat ba'Chutz ve'He'elah ba'Chutz did not.
2. ... Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon answers 'Mah le'Shochet bi'Fenim u'Ma'aleh ba'Chutz she'Kein Kodesh Mekablo', he means - that even Rebbi Yossi Hagelili will agree there that one is Chayav, since, the P'sul having occurred after it entered the Azarah ('Pesulo ba'Kodesh'), it is Kasher Bedieved ('Im Alah Lo Yeired'), which is not the case by 'Shachat ba'Chutz ve'He'elah ba'Chutz'.

(b) When Ze'iri explains that the difference between Rebbi and Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon will manifest itself in a case where one Shechted the Korban ba'Chutz at night-time, he means - that on the one hand, it had no Sha'as ha'Kosher, whereas on the other, it is 'Pesulo ba'Kodesh' (and is therefore Kasher Bedi'eved).

(c) According to Rabah, the difference between Rebbi and Rebbi Elazar be'Rebbi Shimon is - where a Kohen received the blood in a K'li Chol, in which case there was no Sha'as ha'Kosher, but it is Pesulo ba'Kodesh.

(a) The Rabbanan also queried Rebbi Yossi Hagelili in the same way, when he ruled that a Tamei person who ate a Tamei Korban is Patur (as we learned in our Mishnah). Their proof seems irrefutable, and indeed - Rebbi Yossi Hagelili concedes that in a case where a Tamei person ate a Tahor Korban, he is Chayav (even though he renders the animal Tamei. The source of this (unanimous) ruling is the principle - 'Ein Isur Chal al Isur' (a second Isur cannot take effect on existing one).

(b) And Rebbi Yossi Hagelili and the Rabbanan argue - in a case where the Tum'as Basar preceded the Tum'as ha'Guf.

(c) The basis of their Machlokes is whether 'Isur Chal al Isur' by Isur Kolel (the Rabbanan) or not (Rebbi Yossi Hagelili). This is an Isur Kolel - die to the fact that Tum'as ha'Guf adds additional pieces to the Tamei person that were permitted to him before.

(d) We ask that even assuming 'Ein Isur Kolel Chal al Isur', how can Rebbi Yossi Hagelili ignore the fact that Tum'as ha'Guf is an Isur Chamur - because it carries an Isur Kareis, whereas Tum'as Basar is only a La'av.

(e) We refute this Kashya however, on the grounds - that Tum'as Basar too, has a Chumra over Tum'as ha'Guf, inasmuch as unlike the latter, it is not subject to Tevilah in a Mikvah (and who's to decide which Chumra is more prominent?).

(a) Our Mishnah lists the Chumros of one Avodas Chutz over the other. The Chumra of ...

1. ... Shechitas Chutz over Aliyas Chutz is - that someone who Shechts ba'Chutz having in mind that a Hedyot should eat it, is Chayav (which he will not be if he sacrifices it in honor of a Hedyot).
2. ... Aliyas Chutz over Shechitas Chutz is - that whereas if two people hold a knife and Shecht it together, they are Patur, if they carry a limb together on to the Mizbe'ach, they are Chayav.

(b) When the Tana says 've'ha'Ma'aleh le'Hedyot Patur', he means that - assuming he was Shogeg regarding Ha'ala'as Chutz and Meizid regarding Avodah-Zarah, he will be Patur from a Korban, notwithstanding the fact that he is Chayav Kareis for Avodah-Zarah.

(a) When Rebbi Shimon says ...

1. ... 'He'elah, ve'Chazar ve'He'elah, ve'Chazar ve'He'elah, Chayav', he means that if someone sacrificed a limb of a Korban ba'Chutz be'Shogeg, remembered and, after forgetting again, he sacrificed another limb, and then repeated it a third time, he is Chayav three Chata'os.
2. ... 've'Eino Chayav ad she'Ya'aleh le'Rosh ha'Mizbe'ach', he means - that one is only Chayav for Ha'ala'as Chutz if he actually builds a Mizbe'ach ba'Chutz and sacrifices on it.

(b) With regard to Rebbi Shimon's ...

1. ... first ruling, Rebbi Yossi rules - that he is only Chayav one Chatas.
2. ... second ruling, he rules - that one is Chayav even if he sacrificed on a rock or on a stone.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... (in connection with Ha'ala'as Chutz) "La'asos Oso *la'Hashem*") - that 'ha'Ma'aleh le'Hedyot Patur'.
2. ... (in connection with Shechitas Chutz) "Ish Ish" - that 'ha'Shochet le'Hedyot (Ish le'Ish) is Chayav.
3. ... (in connection with Ha'ala'as Chutz) "Ish Ish" - that two people who sacrifice a limb together are Chayav.
4. ... "Dam Yechashev ha'Ish ha'Hu" (in connection with Shechutei Chutz) - that if two people perform Shechutei Chutz together, they are Patur.

(b) From the Pasuk ...

1. ... "ve'Nichras ha'Ish ha'Hu" (written by Ha'ala'as Chutz), we learn - that Kareis only applies to someone who sacrifices ba'Chutz on purpose, but not be'Shogeg or be'O'nes, or if he is tricked into doing so.
2. ... "ve'Nichras ha'Ish ha'Hu" (written by Shechutei Chutz) - the same as we learned from the previous Pasuk.

(c) And from "Lehakriv Korban *la'Hashem*" (written by Shechitas Chutz), we learn - that one is only Chayav Shechutei Chutz by a Korban that is fit to go before Hashem, but not by the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach.

(d) And we learn that someone who sacrifices the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach outside the Azarah is Patur - from Shechutei Chutz.

7)

(a) According to Rebbi Shimon in a Beraisa, we need "Ish Ish" (by Ha'ala'as Chutz) to include two people who sacrificed ba'Chutz in the Din of Ha'ala'as Chutz, to negate the 'Kal-va'Chomer' from Shechitas Chutz - that if Shochet, who is Chayav le'Hedyot, is Patur when he Shechts together with somebody else, Ha'ala'ah, who is Patur le'Hedyot, should certainly be Patur when he does it together with somebody else.

(b) Rebbi Yossi disagrees. He learns from "Ve'nichras ha'Ish *ha'Hu* (by Ha'ala'as Chutz)", 'Echad ve'Lo Shenayim'. He preclude 'Shogeg, O'nes and Mut'ah' - from the extra 'Hey' in ha'Hu ...

(c) ... and he explains "Ish Ish" - as a manner of speech ('Dibrah Torah ki'Leshon B'nei Adam').

(d) Rebbi Shimon - does not consider "Hu", "ha'Hu" a D'rashah.

(a) Rebbi Yossi learns from "Dam Yechashev *la'Ish ha'Hu* Dam Shafach" - that ha'Shochet le'Hedyot is Chayav.

(b) The reason that he does not learn it from "Ish Ish" (like Rebbi Shimon does) is - because he holds 'Dibrah Torah ki'Leshon B'nei Adam' (like he explained by Ha'ala'ah).

(a) We learned in our Mishnah the Machlokes between Rebbi Shimon ('Chayav al Kol Aliyah va'Aliyah') and Rebbi Yossi ('Eino Chayav Ela Achas'). We learn from the Pasuk "La'asos *Oso* la'Hashem" - that one is only Chayav for sacrificing an entire entity, and not just a part.

(b) According to Resh Lakish, Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi Yossi are arguing over four or five limbs. The basis of their Machlokes is - whether "La'asos Oso" refers to the entire animal (precluding part of it from the Chiyuv [Rebbi Yossi]), or to each limb (to preclude someone who sacrifices only part of a limb from the Chiyuv [Rebbi Shimon]).

(c) Even Rebbi Shimon will agree - that someone who sacrifices one limb, part at a time, is only Chayav one Chatas.

(d) We might also interpret 'Eiver Echad' to mean a limb that fell off the Mizbe'ach (Mukt'ri P'nim, which will be explained shortly).

(a) Rebbi Yochanan establishes the Machlokes by one limb (Mukt'ri P'nim). According to him - they argue over whether one is Chayav for sacrificing ba'Chutz, Mukt'ri P'nim that fell off the Mizbe'ach (Rebbi Shimon), or nor (Rebbi Yossi).

(b) Rebbi Shimon's source is - the fact that one is obligated to return 'Pok'in (that fell off the Mizbe'ach) on to the Mizbe'ach ...

(c) ... and "Oso" comes to preclude - Mukt'ri Chutz (to preclude sacrificing an incomplete limb of Shechutei Chutz from Ha'ala'as Chutz).

(d) Rebbi Yossi holds Patur (even on Mukt'ri P'nim) - from the Pasuk "Lo Yevi'enu" [like Rebbi Yishmael, as we learned earlier]).

(e) Both Tana'im will hold - that one is Chayav for sacrificing the animal ba'Chutz limb by limb.

(a) Ula disagrees with Rebbi Yochanan. According to him, both Tana'im agree that one is Chayav for sacrificing Mukt'ri P'nim ba'Chutz - since one is Chayav to return Pok'in on the Mizbe'ach, and they argue over sacrificing Mukt'ri Chutz.

(b) According to Rebbi Shimon, who includes Mukt'ri Chutz in Ha'ala'as Chutz - "Oso" comes to preclude someone who burns less than a k'Zayis at a time.

(c) According to Ula's second Lashon both Tana'im agree that one is Patur for sacrificing a limb of Mukt'ri Chutz, and they argue over a limb of Mukt'ri P'nim. The basis of their Machlokes is - whether one returns Pok'in on to the Mizbe'ach (Rebbi Shimon) or not (Rebbi Yossi).

(d) Avuhah di'Shmuel, who declared that the Minhag to replace Pok'in (limbs that fell off the Mizbe'ach) on to the Mizbe'ach, does not conform with the opinion of Rebbi Yossi - holds like the second opinion of Ula.

(a)

1. Rav Huna quotes the Pasuk "Va'yiven No'ach Mizbe'ach la'Hashem" - as Rebbi Yossi's source for his ruling that a Bamas Yachid requires a Mizbe'ach ...
2. ... whereas Rebbi Yochanan quotes the Pasuk "Va'yikach Mano'ach es G'di ha'Izim ... Va'ya'al al ha'Tzur la'Hashem" - as Rebbi Shimon's source for his ruling that it does not.

(b) The Torah writes ...

1. ... "Va'yiven No'ach Mizbe'ach la'Hashem", according to Rebbi Shimon (not because he had to do so, but) - because it was convenient.
2. ... " ... Va'ya'al al ha'Tzur la'Hashem", according to Rebbi Yossi - because it was a Hora'as Sha'ah (a momentary ruling).

(c) Alternatively, Rebbi Shimon in a Beraisa, extrapolates his ruling from the Pasuk "Mizbe'ach Pesach Ohel Mo'ed" - 've'Ein Mizbe'ach ba'Bamah'.

(d) We explain the continuation "Lefichach, He'elah al ha'Sela O al ha'Even Chayav' (when it would have more sense to have said 'Yatza' - by amending it to 'Lefichach, be'Sha'as Isur ha'Bamos, He'elah al ha'Sela ... Chayav'.

(a) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina asked - whether a Bamas Yachid requires 'Keren, Kevesh, Yesod and Rivu'a' (like the Mizbe'ach in the Mishkan did).

(b) Rebbi Yirmiyah answered him with a Beraisa - which draws a distinction between a Bamah Gedolah (where all of these are crucial), and a Bamah Ketanah (where they are not).

(c) The Bamah Gedolah - was first in Nov, then in Giv'on.