Previous daf

1)

(a) Our Mishnah incorporates Kodshim Pesulim in the Din of Ha'ala'as Chutz - provided they are in the category of 'Pesulan ba'Kodesh'.

(b) This will help to explain why Kodshim Pesulin are included in Shechutei Chutz - since, as we have already learned, whatever is Pesulo ba'Kodesh, has a Din of 'Im Alu Lo Yardu' (meaning that they are fit to go on the Mizbe'ach Bedieved).

(c) The minimum Shi'ur for which one is Chayav on Ha'ala'as Chutz is - a k'Zayis.

(a) The Tana of the Beraisa learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Asher Ya'aleh Olah O *Zavach*" - that (besides Eimurei Olah) all Eimurei Kodshim are included in the Isur of Ha'ala'as Chutz.
2. ... "ve'el Pesach Ohel Mo'ed Lo Yevi'enu ... " - that even Kodshim that are non-animals are included too.
3. ... " ... La'asos" - that the Isur even incorporates Kodshim Pesulim, as we learned in our Mishnah.

(b) Kodshim Pesulim are inherent in "La'asos" - which implies that one is Chayav for any Korban that a Kohen works with (and whatever falls under the category of 'Im Alu, Lo Yerdu', is turned over with a pitch-fork during the course of the night, together with all the other Eimurim that remained on the Mizbe'ach).

(c) Besides the Kometz, the Levonah, the Ketores and the Menachos of a Kohen Hedyot and of the Kohen Gadol, "Zevach" comes to include - the three Login of wine (comprising the daily Nisuch ha'Yayin) and the three Login of water (comprising the Nisuch ha'Mayim on Succos).

(d) Besides 'Lan, Yotzei, Tamei, Nishchat Chutz li'Zemano and Chutz li'Mekomo, and Kiblu Pesulin ve'Zarku es Daman', "La'asos" incorporates - 'Nitnin Lematah she'Nasnan Lema'alah' (and vice-versa) and 'Nitnin ba'Chutz she'Nasnan bi'Fenim' (and vice-versa).

(a) Regarding the Din in the Mishnah of Tziruf of Basar and Eimurin, we extrapolate from the Lashon 'Olah ve'Eimurehah' - 'Olah ve'Eimurehah, In, Shelamim ve'Eimurehen, Lo'.

(b) The Beraisa, which elaborates on our Mishnah, adds to 'Olah ve'Eimurehah Mitztarfin li'Kezayis Leha'alosan ... - u'Lechayev Aleihen Mishum Pigul, Nosar ve'Tamei'.

(c) The Basar of a Shelamim does not combine with the Eimurin to make up a k'Zayis with regard to Ha'ala'as Chutz - because it is meant to be eaten, not burned.

(a) The problem the Mishnah in Me'ilah 'Kol ha'Pigulin Mitztarfin, ve'Chol ha'Nosarin Mitztarfin', now creates is - that it clashes with the Beraisa that we just learned, which implies that a Shelamim does not combine with its Eimurim with regards to Pigul, Nosar and Tamei.

(b) Pigul, Nosar and Tamei - all pertain to ...

1. ... the Basar and to ...
2. ... the Eimurin - because they both become permitted (to the owner and to the Mizbe'ach respectively) through the Zerikas ha'Dam.

(c) We answer the Kashya from Pigul on to Pigul with 'Ka'an be'Pigul, Ka'an be'Machsheves Pigul', which means - that the Basar and the Eimurim do combine regarding somebody who eats half a k'Zayis of each, but not regarding a Machsheves Pigul, since neither is a Machsheves Achilah effective on something that is burned, nor is a Machsheves Haktarah effective on something which is eaten.

(a) And we answer the Kashya of Nosar on to Nosar with 'Ka'an be'Nosar', meaning that if someone eats half a k'Zayis of Basar and half of Eimurim (even) of Shelamim, they do indeed combine to make up the Shi'ur. 'Ka'an be'Nisosru ad she'Lo Nizrak ha'Dam' (the case where they do not combine) then means - that if the entire Shelamim got lost or burned, and only half a k'Zayis of Basar and half of Eimurim remain, someone who eats them after the allotted time is not Chayav because of Nosar.

(b) And we establish our Mishnah like Rebbi Yeshoshua, who learns from the Pasuk "Ve'asisa Olosecha ha'Basar ve'ha'Dam" - 'Im Ein Basar, Ein Dam' (as we already learned in the previous Perek).

(c) Consequently, in a case where ...

1. ... a Shelamim or an Olah became Pasul and only a k'Zayis of Basar or of Cheilev remains Kasher - the Kohen sprinkles the blood.
2. ... a Shelamim became Pasul and only half a k'Zayis of Basar and half a k'Zayis of Cheilev remain Kasher - the Kohen should not sprinkle the blood.
3. ... an Olah became Pasul ... - he should ...

(d) ... because whereas the Basar of a Shelamim is meant to be eaten whereas the Cheilev goes on the Mizbe'ach, in the case of an Olah, both are brought on the Mizbe'ach.

(a) The problem with the conclusion of the Beraisa 'u'Minchah, Afilu Kulah Kayemes, Lo Yizrok' is - that a Minchah has no blood to sprinkle.

(b) Rav Papa therefore establishes the Beraisa by a Minchas Nesachim that was brought together with the lost or burned Shelamim.

7)

(a) The Tana Kama rules that, in a case where someone sacrificed a k'Zayis of Kometz, Levonah, Ketores, Minchas Kohanim, Minchas Kohen Mashi'ach or Minchas Nesachim, ba'Chutz - he is Chayav

(b) According to him. "La'asos Oso" (that we discussed earlier) - pertains to the full Shi'ur (of a k'Zayis).

(c) Rebbi Elazar - exempts him unless he sacrifices the full Shi'ur.

(a) Rebbi Elazar does not argue with the Rabbanan in the previous Mishnah, where they also give the Shiur of Ha'ala'as Chutz of an Olah as a k'Zayis - because it is the blood of the Olah which is Mechaper, not the Basar, whereas the Basar of the above require the full Shi'ur, according to him, because they are Matir (others).

(b) There where P'sul Chesaron does not apply, Rebbi Elazar Darshens "Oso" - to preclude sacrificing less than the Shiur, just like the Rabbanan do.

(c)

1. Rebbi Elazar will concede that one is Chayav for burning a k'Zayis ba'Chutz (even if it is the last k'Zayis) - if the rest of the Korban was already brought bi'Fenim.
2. The Rabbanan concede that one is not Chayav for burning a k'Zayis ba'Chutz - if some of the Korban was lost or burned.

(d) If the last ruling extends to the Levonah as well, we will have to explain it - with regard to part of either one or two, grains of Levonah getting lost or burned, since Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi Yehudah dispute this point in Menachos.

(a) The Mishnah rules that someone who sacrifices ba'Chutz, Kodshim together with their Eimurim - is Chayav.

(b) The Tana of the Beraisa obligates someone who burns a k'Zayis of Ketores ba'Chutz - which appears to contradict his next statement, exempting someone (whom we assume to be a Zar) who burns half a P'ras bi'Fenim. If one is Chayav for burning it ba'Chutz, why should a Zar be Patur bi'Fenim?

(c) Rebbi Zeira ... Amar Rav replied - that 'Patur' actually refers to the Kohen, and what the Tana means is 'Patur Tzibur' (that the community have fulfilled their obligation).

(d) At this juncture, we think - that half a P'ras has no significance, and the Tana may as well have said half a k'Zayis.

(a) The problem Rebbi Zeira has with Rav, who said that Rebbi Elazar agreed with the Beraisa, the way we just explained it is - that it contradicts Rebbi Elazar's own ruling in our Mishnah (where he exempted half a Shi'ur of Ketores, ba'Chutz).

(b) Rabah reconciles Rav with our Mishnah - by establishing the Beraisa by the daily Ketores brought in the Heichal, which has no Shi'ur, whereas our Mishnah refers to the Ketores of Yom Kipur, which requires a fistful.

(c) Even though the daily Ketores has no Shi'ur d'Oraysa ...

1. ... the Tana mentions half a P'ras - the Rabbanan fixed a P'ras (which is half a Manah) each morning and each afternoon.
2. ... less than a k'Zayis is not considered Haktarah.

(a) According to Rabah, the Tana'im argue over the "M'lo Chosfnav" (the fistful) mentioned in Acharei-Mos; Rebbi Elazar takes it literally, the Rabbanan do not (they say 'La'av Dafka').

(b) Abaye queries this however, based on the word there "Chukah" - which is written specifically in connection with the things that were done bi'Fenim, and which denotes that every detail is crucial.

(c) So Abaye concludes that there is no Machlokes with regard to the Haktarah di'Penim - and even the Rabbanan require a fistful.

(d) And when he establishes the Machlokes with regard to whether we learn P'nim from Chutz or not, he means that - the Rabbanan, who learn P'nim from Chutz, hold that just as one is Chayav on Ha'ala'as Chutz on a k'Zayis of the Ketores Chutz (of the Heichal), so too, is one Chayav on a k'Zayis of the Ketores P'nim (of Yom Kipur).

(e) Whereas according to Rebbi Elazar - one is Chayav on a k'Zayis of Ketores Chutz, because it has no Shi'ur, but not of k'Zayis P'nim, which does (and we do not learn P'nim from Chutz).

(a) The Beraisa rules that someone who sacrifices less than ...

1. ... a k'Zayis of Kometz or Eimurim ba'Chutz - is Patur.
2. ... three Login of wine or water (but more than a k'Zayis) ba'Chutz - is Patur.

(b) Both of these cases - are Kodshei Chutz ...

(c) ... yet the Tana does not even learn Kodshei Chutz from Kodshei Chutz (to be Chayav for more than a 'k'Zayis in the latter case). In that case, asks Rava, how can Abaye give the Rabbanan's reason as being that they learn P'nim from Chutz (when they do not even learn Chutz from Chutz)?

(d) Rava knows that the author of the Beraisa is the Chachamim (and not Rebbi Elazar) - because according to Rebbi Elazar, he would be Patur for even more than a 'k'Zayis of Kometz.

(a) Rava therefore establishes the entire Sugya by the Ketores of the Heichal, which, both opinions agree, has a Shi'ur - namely, a P'ras in the morning and a P'ras in the evening.

(b) According to him - Haktarah has no Shiur, and one is Chayav ba'Chutz on a k'Zayis, even according to Rebbi Elazar.

(c) In order to accommodate the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer therefore, he establishes our Mishnah - when the two half-Pr'as of Ketores had been placed in a K'li Shareis ...

(d) ... and the basis of the Machlokes is - whether placing the Ketores inside a K'li Shareis renders the entire amount Kadosh (in which case one will not be Chayav for burning less than the full amount [Rebbi Eliezer]) or not (the Chachamim).