Previous daf

1)

(a) The Mishnah in Shekalim rules that if one finds an animal at a distance equivalent to Migdal Eider from Yerushalayim and does not know its status, one must treat it as if it was Kodshim - because the majority of animals that come from Yehushalayim are Kodshim.

(b) One considers a male animal an Olah, and a female - a Shelamim.

(c) We ask how one knows that a male is an Olah, seeing as it could also be a Shelamim. Rebbi Oshaya - establishes our Mishnah when someone wants to remedy the problem and bring the value of the animal as whatever Korban it was. The author of the Mishnah must then be Rebbi Meir - who holds Hekdesh be'Meizid Mis'chalel.

(d) He would then need to bring two sets of money and declare that if the found animal is an Olah, then its Kedushah should be transferred on to one set of money and the other set he hereby designates for a Shalmei Nedavah; whereas if it is a Shelamim, then the reverse will take effect.

(a) According to the Mishnah in Me'ilah, there are only two things belonging to Hekdesh that do not go out to Chulin when they are used. One of them is an animal that is designated as a Korban - which does not go out to Chulin without a blemish.

(b) The second thing is a K'li Sha'res.

(c) According to what we have just learned, if two people rode on an animal that is designated as a Korban, or drank from a Kos of Hekdesh (one after the other) - both of them would be Mo'el.

(d) We reconcile this Mishnah with Rebbi Meir, who, we just concluded, holds that Hekdesh does go out to Chulin be'Meizid - by establishing the author as Rebbi Yehudah.

(a) Despite the fact that according to Rebbi Yehudah, 'Hekdesh be'Shogeg Mis'chalel' does not extend to Kedushas ha'Guf, according to Rebbi Meir by Meizid it does - because his specific intention to take it out of Hekdesh (which does not exist according to Rebbi Yehudah) is effective.

(b) Rebbi Meir said his Din ('Hekdesh be'Meizid Mis'chalel') by Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, which is Kodshei Kodshim. Rebbi Ya'akov explains that Rebbi Oshaya extends it to the Shelamim in the Mishnah in Shekalim, which are Kodshim Kalim - from a 'Kal va'Chomer' (if Kodshei Kodshim go out to Chulin, how much more so Kodshim Kalim)?

(c) Rebbi Chama bar Ukva Amar Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina explained Rebbi Meir like this, substantiating Rebbi Ya'akov's explanation.

4)

(a) Rebbi Yochanan's problem with Rebbi Oshaya's explanation (requiring the finder to transfer the Kedushah of the found animal on to money to bring as an Olah and a Shelamim) is - that it is forbidden to redeem unblemished Kodshei Mi zbe'ach.

(b) We learn from the Pasuk "ve'Im ba'Beheimah ha'Temei'ah, u'Fadah be'Erkecha" - that one may only redeem Kodshei Mizbe'ach once they are blemished.

(c) He therefore adds to Rebbi Oshaya's explanation - that the finder first waits until the animal receives a permanent blemish before redeeming the animal on the money in the manner that we explained.

(a) We learned above that if he found a male animal, he redeemed it on an Olah, as well as a Shelamim. We *do* in fact, contend with the possibility that it is a Todah - and he has to bring an additional animal together with the forty loaves.

(b) But we *do not* contend with the possibility that it is ...

1. ... an Asham Gezeilos, Me'ilos or Shifchah Charufah - because these Ashamos consist of a ram (in its second year), whereas the animal that he found was in its year.
2. ... an Asham Metzora or Nazir - because they are not common.

(c) We cannot answer that he does indeed bring an Asham with a fourth set of money, like we answered by Todah - because one cannot bring a voluntary Asham (and, as we learned earlier, the money is designated on condition, and might be use to purchase a voluntary Korban).

(d) Nor do we contend with the possibility that it is a Pesach ...

1. ... in its time - because people take great care not to lose their Korban Pesach (in which case it is not common to find one).
2. ... after its time - because that becomes a Shelamim, which he is already bringing.
3. ... a Bechor or Ma'aser Beheimah - because these cannot be redeemed, but are eaten as Chulin when they become blemished, which is precisely what he does with them anyway.

(a) We also learned that if he finds a female animal, he redeems it on a Shelamim. We do not contend with the possibility that it is ...

1. ... a Chatas - because a Chatas consists of a goat in its first year, whereas the one that he found was in its second year.
2. ... a Chatas that has already entered its second year - because it is not common.

(b) Chananya bar Chachinai in a Beraisa states that if one did find a female animal in its first year, it is a Chatas. The problem with this statement is - that it might be a Shelamim, and as for redeeming it and bringing a Chatas with the money, one cannot bring a Chatas Nedavah (as we just explained)?

(c) So what he really said was - one gives it the Din of a Chatas.

(d) Practically, this means - that it must be set aside (possibly inside an archway [known as a Kiypah]) and deprived of food until it dies.