Previous daf

1)

(a) Even though the Tana Kama learns Havdalah from "u''Malak Ve'hiktir", he nevertheless needs 'Vehikrivo" to avoid learning from Chatas ha'Of - because otherwise, he would have rather learned Olas ha'Of from "ka'Mishpat", 'ke'Mishpat Chatas ha'Of' (which immediately precedes it) ...

(b) ... and he would then have learned from "u'Malak Ve'hiktir" - that the Melikah of the Olas ha'Of, like the Haktarah, must take place on top of the Mizbe'ach (i.e. on the upper half of the Mizbe'ach [unlike the Chatas ha'Of, which is brought on the lower half]).

(c) Now, in spite of "Ve'hikrivo", the Tana Kama learns both this Halachah and the Din of Havdalah from "u'Malak Ve'hiktir" - because "Ve'hikrivo" indicates that we do not learn the Olas ha'Of from Chatas ha'Of, enabling us to compare the Melikah of the former, to the Haktarah in all respects.

(a) Rav Chisda learns from the Pasuk "Ve'hikriv Aharon es Par ha'Chatas *Asher Lo*", which is written twice - that a Chatas can only be purchased from one's own private Chulin funds, and not from the Terumas ha'Lishkah ("Shelo", 've'Lo mi'Shel Tzibur'), and not from Ma'aser Sheini ("Shelo", 've'Lo mi'Shel Ma'aser').

(b) And we learn from the Pasuk there "Ki ba'Yom ha'Zeh Yechaper Aleichem" (bearing in mind that the Pasuk also mentions "Etzba" and Kehunah") - that a Chatas can only be brought by day.

(c) We learn from the Pasuk "be'Yom Tzavoso" - that all Korbanos can only be brought by day.

(d) And, seeing as the Torah writes (in connection with a Nidvas Olas ha'Of) "Ve'hikriv *ha'Kohen*", the Tana Kama of the previous Beraisa only learns 'the right hand' by Olas ha'Of from "ka'Mishpat" ('ke'Mishpat Chatas Beheimah') because of the other two Limudim ['min ha'Chulin' and 'be'Yado ha'Yemanis'], even though it is not needed per se).

(a) Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Resh Lakish learns from the Pasuk "Ve'taval ha'Kohen es Etzba'o ha'Yemanis" - that any Avodah by which the Torah writes "Etzba" or "Kohen", must be performed with the right hand.

(b) Nevertheless, even though the Torah writes (in connection with a Nidvas Olas ha'Of) "Ve'hikriv *ha'Kohen*", the Tana Kama of the previous Beraisa needs to learn the 'right hand' from "ka'Mishpat" ('ke'Mishpat Chatas Beheimah') - because he agrees with Resh Lakish's D'rashah where the Torah writes "Etzba" without "Kohen", but not vice-versa.

(c) Rebbi Yishmael learns 'Mul Oref' by Olas ha'Of from "ka'Mishpat" ('ke'Mishpat Chatas ha'Of'). The problem now is - from where the Tana Kama and Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon (who learn their own respective D'rashos from "ka'Mishpat") learn it.

(d) In fact, we reply, they learn - from a a 'Mah Matzinu' from Chatas ha'Of.

(a) Our Mishnah states - that the age at which pigeons are eligible to be brought on the Mizbe'ach, is Pasul by (young) doves, and vice-versa.

(b) 'Techilas ha'Tzihuv' - when the plumage in the vicinity of the neck turns a golden color, is Pasul by both ...

(c) ... because the one is too old to be called a 'ben Yonah', and the other, too young to be called a 'Tor'.

(a) When the Beraisa says 'Torim Gedolim ... b'nei Yonah Ketanim' - it means that "Torim" in the Torah refers to older pigeons, and "b'nei Yonah", to younger doves.

(b) Had the Torah not written ...

1. ... "Torim" - we would have validated even younger pigeons, with a 'Kal-va'Chomer' from doves, where younger ones are valid, even though older ones are not.
2. ... "b'nei Yonah" - we would have validated even older doves, with a 'Kal-va'Chomer' from pigeons, where older ones are valid, even though younger ones are not.

6)

(a) Rava learns that young pigeons and older doves are Pasul - from the fact that the Torah never mentions 'b'nei Tor' or 'Yonim'.

(b) We refute the suggestion that perhaps "b'nei Yonah" means younger doves, whereas ''Torim" implies young pigeons as well as older ones - with the 'S'vara' that just as "b'nei Yonah" is Davka, so too, is "Torim" Davka.

(c) The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "min ha'Torim" and "min b'nei ha'Yonah" - that Techilas ha'Tzihuv in both cases is Pasul.

(d) Otherwise, we would have said - that it is Kasher in both cases, since it has neither yet become a Gadol regarding 'b'nei Yonah', nor is it any longer a Katan regarding 'Torim'.

(a) Ya'akov Korchah cites a Beraisa which gives the age when b'nei Yonah are Kasher as 'mi'she'Ye'alelu', which he explains with the Pasuk in Iyov "Efrochav Ye'alelu Dam". Abaye interprets this as - from the time that there is enough blood flowing through its body that, if one were to cut its wing, blood would flow from the cut.

(b) In any event, Ya'akov Korcha's D'rashah implies that until they reach that stage they are Pasul - because immediately after birth, they are disgusting, and not fit to bring on the Mizbe'ach.

(a) Rebbi Zeira asked what the Din will be if someone undertakes to bring an Olah consisting of Torim or b'nei Yonah, and he brings one of each that has reached the stage of Techilas ha'Tzihuv. The Noder will ...

1. ... have fulfilled his obligation - if Techilas ha'Tzihuv is a Safek.
2. ... not have fulfilled his obligation - assuming it is an independent species.

(b) Rava attempts to resolve the She'eilah from the Beraisa 'P'rat li'Techilas ha'Tzihuv she'Bazeh ve'she'Bazeh'. This creates a problem with the first side of the She'eilah - because Hashem does not have doubts, and does not therefore require Pesukim to dispel them.

(c) On the other hand, the D'rashah is perfectly acceptable according to the side that considers Techilas ha'Tzihuv an independent species - since this is something that the Torah needs to teach us.