Previous daf

1)

(a) The Tana Kama forbids one to Tovel a Tamei vessel during Bein- Hashemashos of Erev Yom-Tov - because it may be Yom-Tov, and one is not permitted to Tovel vessels on Yom-Tov.

(b) Rebbi Shimon Shezuri is even more strict - he forbids a Kohen (who uses his vessels for Terumah - Rashi later in the Sugya), to Tovel during *any* Bein-Hashemashos, because from the fact that he is Toveling it Bein Hashemashos, it appears that he intends to use it straightway (before the following Bein-Hashemashos).

(c) But does the Tana Kama not hold of the Din of Ha'arev Shemesh? Why does he restrict the Isur of Tevilah to Bein Hashemashos of Yom-Tov?

(d) The Talmidim in the Beis Hamedrash established the Machlokes between Rebbi Shimon Shezuri and the Tana Kama when they saw the owner running to Tovel as Bein-Hashemashos approached - the Tana Kama holds that the fact that he is running (to beat the clock) demonstrates that he knows about Bein Hashemashos, and the moment he discovers that he was too late, he will refrain from using the vessel before the following night. But Rebbi Shimon Shezuri argues that he may well be running because he is busy, and not because he is aware of the Din of Ha'arev Shemesh.

(a) Rava maintains that, if the owner is running as Beis Hashemashos approaches, even Rebbi Shimon Shezuri will agree that the owner knows about the Din of Ha'arev-Shemesh, and that their dispute is confined to a case when he comes to ask about a second vessel - whether less than a k'Adashah of Sheretz with which it came into contact, renders it Tamei or not.

(b) Rebbi Shimon Shezuri maintains that - if he doesn't know that less than a k'Adashah is not Metamei, then he doesn't know either the Din of Ha'arev Shemesh; whereas the Rabbanan argue that just because he doesn't know about the Shiur of Tum'as Sheretz (which is *not* written explicitly in the Torah), it doesn't necessarily follow that he doesn't know the Din of Ha'arev Shemesh (which *is*).

(c) Our Mishnah permits Toveling on Yom-Tov ...

1. ... 'mi'Gav le'Gav' - meaning that if someone Toveled his vessels intending to use them to press olives, and then changed his mind and decided to use them for wine-making, he may Tovel them on Yom-Tov (because strictly speaking, they do not require Tevilah at all. Consequently, if he does decide to Tovel them, it is only a Chumrah, not a real Tikun).
2. ... 'me'Chaburah le'Chaburah' - that if he Toveled his vessels to use with one group of people eating the Korban Pesach, and then changed his mind to join another group, he may Tovel them again on Yom-Tov (for the same reason as 'mi'Gav le'Gav').

(a) Beis Shamai permit Shelamim to be brought on Yom-Tov without making Semichah on them, but they forbid Olos. They forbid ...

1. ... Semichah on Yom-Tov - because Semichah entailed leaning one's hand on the head of the animal with all one's strength, as a result of which the animal prevented him from falling. And it is forbidden to ride an animal or to support oneself on it on Yom-Tov.
2. ... the bringing of Olos - because they are brought purely for Hashem, and the Torah writes in Bo "Hu Levado Ye'aseh *Lachem*" (forbidding all preparation that is not for the consumption of a Jew). This prohibition is confined to Olos Yachid, but not to the Tamid and the Musaf, whose times are fixed, and which therefore over-ride Shabbos and Yom-Tov.

(b) Beis Hillel disagree. According to them, one does make Semichah on Yom- Tov, and one does bring Olos (even Olos Yachid - we will now see which ones).

(c) Rav Ada bar Ahavah agrees with Ula that the Shelamim to which Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel refer are Shalmei Chagigah exclusively. Nedarim and Nedavos, whether they are Olos or Shelamim, cannot be bought on Yom-Tov.

(d) The Olah that Beis Hillel permit is an Olas Re'iyah.

(a) Beis Shamai learns from "va'Chagosem Oso *Chag* la'Hashem" - that it is only the Chagigah (part of which is eaten by the owner) that one may bring on Yom-Tov, but not the Olas Re'iyah; whereas Beis Hillel learn from "la'Hashem", that whatever is for Hashem is included in the concession (even the Olas Re'iyah - provided that is, it is a Yom-Tov Korban).

(b) Beis Hillel agree that Nedarim and Nedavos are forbidden - because they are not due to be brought on Yom-Tov (they could either be brought later or should have been brought earlier).

(c) We learn the obligation to bring an Olas Re'iyah on Yom-Tov - from the Pasuk in Mishpatim "ve'Lo Yeira'u Panai Reikam".

(d) Even though one has seven days in which to bring one's Olas Re'iyah and Shalmei Chagigah, they are nevertheless permitted on Yom-Tov - in case something happens to prevent one from bringing them altogether ('Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah le'Yadcha, Al Tachmitzenah'). Perhaps one can also explain that even though the Torah gives seven days of Tashlumin, the main Mitzvah is the first day (particularly by Olas Re'iyah, where the Torah writes "ve'Lo Yera'u Panai Reikam", implying that one should not arrive in the Azarah empty-handed.

(a) We amend the Reisha of the Beraisa which states that 'Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel *agree* that one cannot bring an Olah that is not for Yom-Tov, and that one *can* bring a *Shelamim* that *is*', to read - 'that 'Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel *agree* that one cannot bring an Olah *or a Shelamim* that is not for Yom-Tov'; and the Seifa that their Machlokes is over 'a *Shelamim* that is *not* of Yom-Tov', to read - that it is over 'n *Olah* that *is* for Yom-Tov'

(b) Rav Yosef fails to see why it should be necessary to amend the Beraisa - because even if *this* Tana clashes with Ula's opinion, there is *another Tana* who holds like him (in fact, the previous Beraisa is a minority opinion, as we shall now see).

6)

(a) According to the Tana Kama of the Beraisa, one may not bring a Korban Todah ...

1. ... on Pesach - because it includes forty loaves, ten of which are Chametz.
2. ... on Shavu'os - because one cannot bring Nedarim and Nedavos on Yom-Tov.

(b) we learn from the Pasuk in Ki Savo "ve'Zavachta Shelamim ve'Achalta Sham, ve'Samachta ... " - the principle of 'Ein Simchah Ela be'Basar' (one cannot fulfill the Mitzvah of Simchah with anything other than *meat* - others say than with the meat of *Shelamim*).

(c) Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon permits a Todah on Sukos, even to fulfill one's obligation of Simchah, but not a Chagigah - because one cannot fulfill one's obligations with something that one is already obligated to bring (the Shalmei Simchah are different - because we include all kinds of Korban, even those that one is already obligated) from the Pasuk "ve'Samachta be'Chagecha").

(a) When the Tana Kama forbids bringing a Todah on Pesach because it contains Chametz - he is referring, not to Pesach itself, which is obvious, but to Erev Pesach. The reason for the prohibition is because one only has until midday to eat the Chametz-breads. This increases the chances of one's not finishing the Korban and having to burn the leftovers. We therefore apply the principle 'Ein Mevi'in Kodshim le'Beis ha'Pesul' and forbid bringing it at all that day.

(b) When he permits the Todah to be brought on Sukos - he is referring to Chol ha'Mo'ed, because on Yom-Tov itself, there is no more reason to permit bringing it than on Shavu'os.

(a) Rebbi Shimon learns from a Hekesh that whatever cannot be brought on Pesach and Shavu'os, cannot be brought on Sukos either. The contention that he is referring to the Chol ha'Mo'ed Sukos of the Tana Kama is unacceptable - because, if cutting wood from trees is permitted on Chol ha'Mo'ed, how can bringing a Todah be forbidden.

(b) We conclude that Rebbi Shimon concedes that one is permitted to bring a Korban Todah on Chol ha'Mo'ed Sukos, and that when he compares Sukos to Pesach and Shavu'os, he is talking about 'Bal Te'acher' - meaning that any Korban that was promised *before* Pesach (and was therefore obligated on Pesach), one has Shavu'os and finally Sukos, on which to bring it (after which one will have transgressed 'Bal Te'acher'); but if it was promised only *after* Pesach (and was not obligated on Pesach), one can still bring it after Sukos (until the following Sukos - before one transgresses 'Bal Teacher'). Note: The apparent concession to bring the Korban after the first Yom-Tov, is not absolutely correct, since, it is unanimously agreed that, after the first Yom-Tov, one transgresses an Asei (as we will learn in Rosh Hashanah). The bone of contention in our Sugya is when one transgresses Bal Te'acher only.

(c) When the Tana Kama says 'Aval Meivi Adam Todaso be'Chag ha'Sukos' - he is merely offering a sound piece of advice, because in his opinion, one is Chayav 'Bal Te'acher' after three Yamim-Tovim, irrespective of their order. Consequently, failing to bring the Todah on Sukos will result in having to make a special trip to Yerushalayim to bring one's Todah. Why is that? Because on *Pesach*, he will not be able to bring it on account of the Chametz that it contains, and on *Shavu'os*, because Nedarim and Nedavos cannot be brought on Yom-Tov (as we learned earlier).

(a) Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon permits bringing a Todah on Sukos. He cannot mean on Chol ha'Mo'ed - because then he would simply be repeating what the Tana Kama says.

(b) What he must therefore mean is that one may even bring it on Yom-Tov - and it now transpires that he is the author of the Beraisa on the previous Amud, who holds that Nedarim and Nedavos can be brought on Yom-Tov.

(c) The reason that he mentions specifically Sukos is - because, in his opinion, someone who fails to bring his Neder or Nedavah by Sukos, transgresses Bal Te'acher, irrespective of whether he made the Neder before Pesach, Shavu'os or Sukos.

(d) In his opinion, that is why the Torah in Re'ei finds it necessary to insert the words "u've'Chag ha'Sukos" (even though Sukos is what is currently under discussion). Rebbi Shimon explains this apparent redundancy as the source for his explanation (as we learned earlier) - that one only transgresses 'Bal Te'acher' on Sukos (but provided the three Chagim have passed in their right order).

(a) We ask whether, if someone declared an animal a Todah, on condition that he may fulfill his obligation of Chagigah with it, he may subsequently rely on that condition. The answer is that he may not.

(b) The Gemara bases its answer on the answer that Rebbi Yochanan gave Resh Lakish who asked him whether - if someone undertook to become a Nazir on condition that he will be able to bring his Korbanos using the money of Ma'aser Sheini, he may rely on that condition, to which Rebbi Yochanan replied in the negative.