Previous daf

1)

(a) Rav Huna objects to Rav Ila'i Amar Resh Lakish (who holds that one is Chayav Shechutei Chutz for an Asham she'Lo bi'Zemano she'Lo li'Shemo ... ) - on the basis of the S'vara - that something that is Pasul li'Shemo, cannot be Kasher she'Lo li'Shemo.

(b) And the Mishnah in the first Perek validating all Kodshim that are Shechted she'Lo li'Sheman - he will establish by Korbanos that are Kasher li'Sheman.

(c) A Pesach that one brings all year round she'Lo li'Shemo (as a Shelamim) is - Kasher (in spite of the fact that it is Pasul li'Shemo).

(d) Ula reconciles his objection with this ruling - because a Pesach during the rest of the year automatically becomes a Shelamim, which is not the case by most other Korbanos (which require Akirah).

(a) In the Parshah of Shechutei Chutz, the Torah could have written " ... Asher Yishchat ba'Machaneh O Asher Yishchat mi'Chutz la'Machaneh, ve'el Pesach ... Lo Hevi'o". From "Shor, O Kesev O Eiz" mentioned there the Beraisa includes, Olas Mechusar Z'man be'Ba'alim - Asham Metzora and Asham Nazir.

(b) The Tana conspicuously omits - a Korban Chatas.

(c) The Tana cannot be talking about ...

1. ... an Asham bi'Zemano (bi'Shemo) - because then there would be no reason to omit Chatas from the Chiyuv.
2. ... an Asham she'Lo bi'Zemano, li'Shemo - because then, why would an Asham be Chayav (seeing as it Pasul bi'Fenim).

(d) Neither can he be talking about li'Shemo, and the Chiyuv ba'Chutz is based on the fact that he would be Chayav bi'Fenim she'Lo li'Shemo - since it is lacking Akirah, as we explained earlier.

(a) The Beraisa must then be speaking - bi'Zemano she'Lo li'Shemo - and the Asham is Kasher even though it would have been Pasul had it been Shechted li'Shemo (a proof for Rebbi Chilkiyah bar Tuvi).

(b) We reject the proof however, by establishing the case by bi'Zemano she'Lo li'Shemo, but the author is Rebbi Eliezer, who holds - that an Asham she'Lo li'Shemo bi'Fenim is Pasul, just like a Chatas ...

(c) ... and the Tana learns Asham (the secondary case) taking for granted that the same applies to the Chatas (the source from which Asham is learned).

(d) We cannot establish the Beraisa by bi'Zemano and li'Shemo, and the Chidush by Asham will extend to Chatas too - because a. what does that have to do with Rebbi Eliezer (who is speaking about she'Lo li'Shemo), b. seeing as both are written with regard to being Kasher bi'Fenim, why does the Tana refer to one as 'Ikar' and the other, as 'Tafeil', and c. we would not require a Pasuk to teach us that one is Chayav ba'Chutz for Kodshim that are Kasher bi'Fenim.

(e) Despite the fact that an Asham (or a Chatas) she'Lo li'Shemo bi'Fenim is Pasul, one is nevertheless Chayav for Shechting it ba'Chutz she'Lo li'Shemo, according to Rebbi Eliezer - because until it has actually been Shechted she'Lo li'Shemo, it retains its original status (even though he has designated it for something else) and is therefore fit to Shecht bi'Fenim.

(a) The Beraisa discusses an 'Olah Mechusar Z'man be'Gufah and a Chatas bein be'Gufah bein be'Ba'alim'. We reject the text 'Yachol she'Ani Marbeh Olah Mechusar Z'man ... ' - because it presumes that it is the Seifa of the previous Beraisa when really, it is the Reisha (though those who inserted it actually thought that it was the Seifa, because of the order in which the Sugya cites them).

(b)

1. 'Olah Mechusar Z'man be'Gufah' is - within the first eight days of birth.
2. 'Chatas ... be'Ba'alim' is - the Chatas of a Nazir or of a Metzora, whose Taharah is not yet complete.

(c) We extrapolate from the fact that the Tana omits Asham - that he must be Chayav for Shechting it ba'Chutz.

(d) The case of Asham Mechusar be'Ba'alim is - that of an Asham Nazir and an Asham Metzora.

(a) The Tana cannot be referring to Asham li'Shemo - because then he ought to be Chayav for Shechting the Asham ba'Chutz as well.

(b) So he must be talking about she'Lo li'Shemo - even though bi'Fenim (she'Lo bi'Zemano) he would be Patur, a Kashya on Rav Huna.

(c) Here too, we establish the Beraisa like Rebbi Eliezer. The Tana is speaking in a case of she'Lo li'Shemo, and he is Patur - because (seeing as Rebbi Eliezer compares Asham to Chatas) it is not fit to Shecht bi'Fenim she'Lo li'Shemo.

(d) The Tana mentions the Ikar (the Chatas), and (seeing as the same reason pertains to both), it is obvious that the same applies to the Tafeil (the Asham).

(a) According to Rav Huna, the Rabbanan agree with Rebbi Eliezer in this ruling - because whatever is not fit li'Shemo, cannot be fit she'Lo li'Shemo either.

(b) And what forces Rav Huna to establish the author as Rebbi Eliezer - is the fact that the Seifa has to go like him, as we explained earlier.

(c) In addition, the Rabbanan do not learn Asham from Chatas, and we would not automatically learn one from the other. If the Tana had wanted to mention only one, it should have mentioned Asham rather than Chatas - to teach us the additional Chidush that Asham has to be Pasul she'Li li'Shemo, because it is Pasul li'Shemo.

(a) When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael, he cited a Beraisa of bei bar Liva'i, which hinted at a Pasuk which includes Olas Mechusar Z'man be'Ba'alim and Asham Nazir and Asham Metzora in the Din of Shechutei Chutz, but failed to pinpoint it. Ravina pointed to - "Shor, ve'Chesev va'Eiz" (as we learned in the Beraisa earlier).

(b) We ...

1. ... prove Rebbi Chilkiyah bar Tuvi right from there - because the Tana must be speaking in a case of she'Lo li'Shemo (as we proved earlier).
2. ... try to refute the proof - by establishing it like Rebbi Eliezer (like we did there).

(c) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak rejects this answer however, based on Rav Dimi's Kashya on bar Livai's Beraisa from a Beraisa cited by Levi, which states - that an Asham Nazir and an Asham Metzora which were Shechted ...

1. ... she'Lo li'Sheman - are Kasher, even though the owner has not fulfilled his obligation with it.
2. ... Mechusar Z'man be'Ba'alim or in their second year - are Pasul.

(a) To resolve the discrepancy - Rav Dimi established the latter Beraisa by li'Shemo, and the former by she'Lo li'Shemo (but not according to Rebbi Eliezer), a proof for Rebbi Chilkiyah bar Tuvi.

(b) Rav Ashi gave the same answer to resolve the discrepancy between the first Beraisa (which he establishes she'Lo li'Shemo [but not Rebbi Eliezer[) and our Mishnah - which rules with regard to Mechusar Z'man be'Ba'alim 'ha'Zav ... she'Hikrivu Chatasam ve'Ashamam ba'Chutz Peturin' (and which he establishes li'Shemo).

(c) Now that we have established bar Livai's Beraisa (rendering Chayav Asham Nazir and Metzora ba'Chutz Chayav, by she'Lo bi'Zemano), to reconcile it with own opinion, Rav Huna establishes the case - where the owner initially designated two Ashamos (in case one gets lost), in which case one of them automatically stands to become an Olah (similar to the S'vara that we gave above to explain a Pesach during the rest of the year, to answer the same Kashya).

(d) And he bases this on a ruling of Rav that he himself quoted, who rules that an Asham which has been disqualified from being sacrificed, and that was sent into the field to become blemished, but Shechted before it had a chance to do so - is automatically Kasher as an Olah.

9)

(a) The Beraisa extrapolates from ...

1. ... the word "Olah" - that Shechutei Chutz only applies to things that are fit to be brought on the Mizbe'ach, to preclude 'B'sar Chatas, Asham and Kodshei Kodshim and Kalim, Moser ha'Omer, Sh'tei ha'Lechem and Lechem ha'Panim and Sheyarei Menachos', which are all eaten.
2. ... the Pasuk "Asher Ya'aleh Olah O Zavach" - that 'ha'Yotzek, ha'Bolel, ha'Poses, ha'Mole'ach, ha'Meinif, ha'Magish, ha'Mesader ha'Shulchan, ha'Meitiv es ha'Neiros, ha'Kometz ve'Hamekabel, ba'Chutz' are Patur, since unlike Olah, they are all not final Avodos.

(b) Rav Chanah bar Rav Ketina quoting Rav Asi, cited the Pasuk "Va'yishlach es Na'arei B'nei Yisrael Va'ya'alu Olos" in front of Rav Chisda. The "Na'arei B'nei Yisrael" were - the Bechoros.

(c) When he commented on the Pasuk, 'u'Paskeih', he meant - that there should be an Esnachta under the word "Yisrael", because although it was the Bechoros who prepared the Olos, it was Nadav and Avihu who actually brought them on the Mizbe'ach, since they were chosen to perform the Avodah already at Sinai.

(d) Rav Chisda had in mind to ask him from our Mishnah - which specifically states that the Bechoros who served until the Mishkan was built.

(a) Rav Chisda also heard from Rav Chanah in the name of Rav Ada bar Ahavah - that the Olah that Yisrael brought at Har Sinai did not require Hefshet and Nitu'ach.

(b) The reason that he then changed his mind about asking the previous Kashya from our Mishnah is - because he came across a Beraisa, which disproves both statements of Rav Chanah.

(c) Besides informing us that before the Mishkan was erected, Bamos were permitted, the Tana also says that ...

1. ... any type of Beheimah, Chayah and Of could be brought on a Bamah, male or female, complete or blemished, provided it was a Kasher species.
2. ... the only category of Korban - that could be brought though, was an Olah.

(d) The Beraisa permits Nochrim nowadays all of the above concessions - since the Isur of Bamos does not pertain to them.

(a) The Tana says - that ...

1. ... until the Mishkan was erected, it was the Bechoros who performed the Avodah.
2. ... the Olah in question required Hefshet ve'Nitu'ach, whereas according to Rav Chana's previous rulings, Nadav and Avihu took over the Avodah already at Sinai, and the Olos did not require Hefshet and Nitu'ach.

(b) To which Rav Chanah replied - 'Tanai Hi' (meaning that the first point [initially] is subject to a Machlokes Tana'im).

(c) Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah in a Beraisa, interprets "ha'Kohanim" in the Pasuk "ve'Gam ha'Kohanim ha'Nigashim el Hashem Yiskadashu", as Bechoros, whereas, according to Rebbi - it refers to Nadav and Avihu.

(d) Rebbi's explanation ties up nicely with the Pasuk in Shemini "Hu Asher Diber Hashem bi'Kerovai Ekadesh" - because the prediction implied there refers to the above Pasuk, to which Hashem added that if those 'Kohanim' go too close, Hashem will 'cause a breach' in them (which is precisely what happened later [in Shemini], when they went too close).

(a) According to Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah, "Hu Asher Diber Hashem ... " refers to the Pasuk in Tetzaveh "Ve'no'adti Shamah li'Venei Yisrael Ve'nikdash bi'Chevodi" - which he reads as 'bi'Mechubadai', which now means that Hashem predicted that when He would appear to Yisrael in the newly-erected Mishkan, He would be sanctified with His honored ones (i.e. by there death [a reference to Nadav and Avihu, as Rashi explains there]).

(b) When this Pasuk was said to Moshe, he did not fully understand it (in fact, he thought that it pertained to himself and his brother Aharon).

(c) Based on what we just said, Moshe told Aharon - that his two sons had died in order to create a Kidush Hashem.

(a) When Aharon realized how close his sons were to Hashem - he reacted to Moshe's comforting words by remaining silent (and accepting the Divine decree).

(b) David Hamelech too, advocated silence in face of the Midas ha'Din, when he wrote in Tehilim "Dom Hashem *Ve'hischolel Lo*" - by which he meant that even if many of one's relatives are being killed, must one accept it in silence.

(c) Shlomoh said in Koheles - that there is a time when one receives reward for being silent, and a time when one is rewarded for talking.

(d) Aharon's reward for his silence was - that the following Parshah, prohibiting Kohanim from drinking wine was said to him (and not to Moshe).

(a) Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan read the Pasuk in Tehilim "Nora Elokim mi'Mikdashecha" as - "Nora Elokim mi'Mekudashecha", by which he means to say that Hashem is revered when He performs Din with His holy ones.

(b) Rav Chanah bar Rav Ketina answers the Kashya from Hefshet ve'Nitu'ach in the same way as he answered the previous one - 'Tana'i Hi' (as we shall now see).

(c) Rebbi Yishmael in a Beraisa, says 'K'lalos Ne'emru be'Sinai u'P'ratos Ne'emru be'Ohel Mo'ed'. Assuming that the former statement refers to the Pasuk "Mizbach Adamah Ta'aseh Li Ve'zavachta Alav ... ", Rebbi Yishmael is now saying - that although they were told the K'lalei Korban at Har Sinai, the P'ratim (such as Hefshet and Nitu'ach) were only handed to them later in the Ohel Mo'ed), in which case, Hefshet and Nitu'ach were not performed with the Olah at Har Sinai (like Rav Chanah bar Ketina).

(d) According to Rebbi Akiva - they were told both the K'lalim and the P'ratim at Sinai, and again in the Ohel Mo'ed and a third time, at Arvos Mo'av.