Previous daf

1)

(a) The Nesech of ...

1. ... a bull is - six Login (half a Hin).
2. ... a ram - four Login (a third of a Hin).
3. ... a lamb - three Login (a quarter of a Hin).

(b) Rava therefore rules that, according to the opinion of the Rabbanan (who hold that placing the Ketores inside a K'li Shareis does not render it Kadosh), in a case where someone placed ...

1. ... six Login into a K'li (for a bull), and then took out four, which he sacrificed ba'Chutz - he is Chayav, because four is fit for a ram, and, as we just learned, liquids, which are not subject to the Shi'ur Haktarah of a k'Zayis, require a full Shi'ur of Nisuch.
2. ... four Login into a K'li (for a ram), and then took out three ... - he is Chayav, because three is fit for a lamb.

(c) Rav Ashi reinstates Abaye's explanation, establishing our Mishnah by Ketores P'nim. And he accepts his theory that the Rabbanan learn P'nim from Chutz, which he reconciles with the Beraisa, which does not learn even Chutz from Chutz - because, in his opinion, Haktarah from Haktarah (even P'nim mi'Chutz) is stronger than Chutz from Chutz (if it is Nisuch from Haktarah).

(a) We ask whether a Chesaron ba'Chutz is considered a Chesaron or not, meaning - whether if the Kodshim became Chaser outside the Azarah, it will exempt whoever subsequently sacrifices it, from a Chatas or not.

(b) One side of the She'eilah is that seeing as, having left the Azarah, it is Pasul anyway, what difference does it make if it is Chaser, too. Alternatively - perhaps one is only Chayav for sacrificing an entire Korban, but not one that is Chaser (irrespective of where the Chesaron took place).

(a) Rabah bar Rav Chanan objects to Abaye's proof from Rebbi Eliezer in our Mishnah exempting whoever brings a k'Zayis of Kometz or Levonah ... , unless he brings it all - on the grounds that one can hardly bring a proof le'Halachah from Rebbi Eliezer, when the Rabbanan disagree with him.

(b) Abaye's countered Rabah bar Rav Chanan's Kashya however - by citing Rabah, who specifically told him that the Rabbanan agree with Rebbi Elazar in this point.

(c) We reject Abaye's proof anyway - by establishing the Mishnah when the Korban became Chaser whilst it was still bi'Fenim.

(d) And we reject the proof from the Seifa of the Mishnah 've'Chulan she'Chasru Kol-she'Hu Ve'hikrivan ba'Chutz, Patur' - in the same way.

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that someone who sacrifices Kodshim together with their Eimurin ba'Chutz, is Chayav. The problem with that is - why the Basar (which is not subject to burning) is not a Chatzitzah (an interruption) between the Chalavim and the Mizbe'ach, which, we presume, is essential to the Mitzvah.

(b) Shmuel answers 'she'Hafchan', by which he means - that the Tana is speaking when the Kohen stoked the burning flesh, so that the Chalavim ended up at the bottom.

(c) Rebbi Yochanan establishes the Mishnah like Rebbi Shimon - who maintains that Shechutei Chutz do not require a Mizbe'ach, and that even someone who sacrifices them on a rock is Chayav.

(d) Rav dismisses the problem of Chatzitzah with the principle - 'Miyn be'Miyno Eino Chotzetz' (meaning something does not become Bateil in the same species).

(a) Our Mishnah exempts someone who sacrifices a Minchah from which the Kemitzah has not been taken, from Ha'ala'as Chutz - because it is not fit to be brought bi'Fenim.

(b) The Tana rules that if the Kometz fell into the Shirayim, and someone sacrificed it ba'Chutz - he is Chayav.

(c) The problem with the Mishnah's latter ruling is - why the Shirayim (which is in the majority) is not Mevatel the Kometz.

(a) To answer the Kashya, we cite a 'Gezeirah-Shavah'. We learn with regard to "Lo *Saktiru* Mimenu Isheh la'Hashem" from "Ve'kamatz *Ve'hiktir*" (Haktaras Shirayim from Haktaras Kometz) - that just as in the latter case, one Kometz is not Mevatel the other, so too, in the former case, are the Shirayim not Mevatel the Kometz.

(b) And the reason that one Kometz is not Mevatel the other is - because of the principle 'Ein Olin Mevatlin Zeh es Zeh' (that one Korban cannot be Mevatel another of the same species [e.g. animal]).

(a) According to the Tana Kama of our Mishnah, someone who sacrifices either the Kometz or the Levonah ba'Chutz is Chayav. The Tana is referring to a Minchas Nedavah.

(b) Rebbi Eliezer exempts him, unless he sacrifices both - because he requires the burning of the entire Matir.

(c) He will concede that he is Chayav - there where he sacrificed the first one bi'Fenim.

(a) The two Bazichei (bowls of) Levonah - are placed on the Shulchan beside the two rows of Lechem ha'Panim.

(b) They are comparable to the Kometz and the Levonah of a Minchah - inasmuch as between them, they permit the breads to be eaten, in the same way as the latter permit the Minchah.

(c) Consequently, Rebbi Eliezer and the Chachamim respectively - say exactly the same with regard to someone who sacrifices one of the Bazichei Levonah ba'Chutz as they said with regard to the Kometz and the Levonah.

(a) When Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha asks whether the Kometz will permit part of the Shirayim, he means - whether, if he actually designated half the Shirayim against the Kometz before burning it bi'Fenim, he is permitted to eat what he designated.

(b) The two sides of the She'eilah are - whether each one of the Matirin permit half the Shirayim, or merely come to weaken the Isur.

(c) We can be certain that Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha is not referring to ...

1. ... Rebbi Meir (in Menachos), who holds 'Mefaglin be'Chatzi Matir' - because he obviously holds that each half permits half the Shirayim (otherwise he would not be Chayav for Pigul, whose source is Zerikah, which permits the Basar).
2. ... the Rabbanan there, who hold 'Ein Mefaglin be'Chatzi Matir' - who might well hold that half the Matir does not even weaken the Isur either.
3. ... Rebbi Eliezer in our Mishnah, who holds that one is not Chayav on one Matir alone ba'Chutz - because he clearly holds like the Rabbanan of Rebbi Meir.

(d) He must then have presented the She'eilah - according to the Rabbanan in our Mishnah, who validate the burning of one of the Matirin bi'Fenim, and he asks to what extent they validate it.

(e) The outcome of the She'eilah is - 'Teiku'.

10)

(a) Our Mishnah rules - that someone who performs one Matnas Dam ba'Chutz is Chayav.

(b) Although this applies even to Chata'os ha'Penimiyos, we might have thought that it doesn't - because there, unlike the Matanos ba'Chutz, all four Matanos are crucial.

(c) The reason for this ruling, according to the Rabbanan is - because they do not require the whole Matir, as we just learned.

(a) Rebbi Elazar rules that someone who pours water designated for Nisuch ha'Mayim ba'Chutz - is Chayav for Ha'ala'as Chutz.

(b) And Rebbi Nechemyah includes someone who pours Sheyarei ha'Dam, ba'Chutz in the Din of Ha'ala'as Chutz - because, since he holds 'Shirayim Me'akvin', it is considered an Avodas P'nim, and one is Chayav ba'Chutz.

(c) Rava maintains that Rebbi Elazar (who, in the previous Mishnah, required the burning of the entire Matir by Ha'ala'as Chutz), agrees with the Tana Kama in our Mishnah, even with regard to Chata'os ha'Penimiyos - because, according to him (Rebbi Elazar), the one Matanah is effective, as we shall now see.

(d) And he bases his statement on a Beraisa, where Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon say 'mi'Makom she'Pasak Hu Maschil', by which they mean - that should the blood spill after the Kohen Gadol has performed even one Matanah, they Shecht another bull, and the Kohen Gadol simply carries on from where he left off.

(a) According to Rebbi Yochanan in the name of Rebbi Menachem Yudfa'ah, Rebbi Elazar in our Mishnah, who includes the water for Nisuch ha'Mayim, in the Isur of Avodas Chutz, holds like his Rebbe, Rebbi Akiva, in whose opinion - Nisuch ha'Mayim is d'Oraysa.

(b) And he learns it from the Pasuk (written in connection with the Musaf on the sixth day of Succos) "Minchasah u'Nesachehah" - implying two Nisuchim, Nisuch ha'Yayin and Nisuch ha'Mayim.

(c) Resh Lakish queried Rebbi Yochanan. He thought that one would only be Chayav ba'Chutz for pouring three Login (and not less) - because it is written together with Nisuch ha'Hayin, the smallest Shi'ur of which is three Login.

(d) When we ...

1. ... reply 've'Ha Rebbi Elazar Mei ha'Chag ka'Amar', we mean that since he referred explicitly to 'Mei ha'Chag' - he might require one Log (like some opinions in Succah, as we shall see shortly).
2. ... say 've'Ha Rebbi Elazar be'Chag ka'Amar', we mean - to confine the Chiyuv of Chutz to Succos (in answer to the suggestion that he might have been referring to the whole year).

(a) ... Rebbi Yochanan said in the name of bar Nechunyah Ish Baka'as Beis Chorsan that 'Eser Neti'os, Aravah and Nisuch ha'Mayim' - are 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai'.

(b) We say that Menachem Yudfa'a (see Tosfos DH 'Ishtemitseih') must have forgotten this latter statement - because otherwise, he would not have established Rebbi Elazar specifically like Rebbi Akiva, seeing as everyone seems to agree that Nisuch ha'Mayim is d'Oraysa, one way or another.

(a) The Beraisa rules that someone who pours out three Login of water on Succos ba'Chutz, is Chayav. Rebbi Elazar says - only if he drew the water specifically for Succos.

(b) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak establishes the Machlokes by whether the water for Nisuch ha'Mayim has a Shiur or not. What he means is - that, according to the Tana Kama, there is no maximum Shi'ur for the water, in which case, one will be Chayav for even more than three Login, if one poured more into a K'li Shareis. Whereas according to Rebbi Elazar - one is only Chayav if one poured three Login into a receptacle, but not more.

(c) The Machlokes is based on the principle - that a K'li Shareis only sanctifies what is fit to go inside it.

(d) In fact, we learned in the Mishnah is Succah - they used to fill a golden flask holding three Login with water from the Shilo'ach (though according to Rebbi Yehudah there, it only held one Log).

(a) According to Rav Papa, both Tana'im hold that the water has a Shi'ur (see Tosfos DH 'be'Karvu'), and the Machlokes depends upon whether Yisrael brought Nesachim in the desert or not (which will determine how to interpret the Pesukim in Sh'lach-Lecha, on which whether they brought Nesachim on a Bamah or not hinges). If they did, then we apply the principle 'Im Alah Lo Yeired', and if not, then we won't.

(b) Consequently - in a case where they poured three Login into a K'li Chol and poured it ba'Chutz ...

1. ... the Rabbanan will hold Chayav, because Nesachim *were* poured on a Bamah, in which case, 'bi'Fenim, Im Alah, Lo Yeired'.
2. ... Rebbi Elazar holds Patur, since they did not bring Nesachim on a Bamah, in which case 'bi'Fenim Im Alah, Yeired'.

(c) According to Ravina, even Rebbi Eliezer agrees that they brought Nesachim in the desert, which means that they poured Nesachim on a Bamas Yachid without Kidush K'li. But that was only as far as Nisuch ha'Yayin was concerned - since voluntary Korbenos Yachid (which required Nesachim too) were brought on a Bamas Yachid. It did not however, pertain to Nisuch ha'Mayim - which was a communal obligation, and communal obligations were not brought on a Bamas Yachid.

(d) The Tana'im argue in the same case as Rav Papa (where someone poured water ba'Chutz, from a K'li Chol), and is based on whether we now learn Nisuch ha'Mayim from Nisuch ha'Yayin (the Rabbanan) or not (Rebbi Elazar).