Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) DID "SE'IR NACHSHON" REQUIRE "TZAFON"?

(a) Objection #1 (Ravina): This answers for R. Yehudah, who says that Se'ir Nachshon required Semichah - according to R. Shimon, how can we answer?
(b) Objection #2 (Mar Zutra brei d'Rav Tavi): This does not even answer for R. Yehudah - we only learned that Se'ir Nachshon required Semichah, this does not suggest that it required Tzafon!

1. Suggestion: If "Oso" did not exclude this, we would learn it from a Binyan Av (from Chata'os of Doros that apply to all generations.)
2. Rejection: If so, we would not need a verse to teach about Semichah, we would learn it from the Binyan Av!

i. We must say, we do not learn (Semichah regarding Korbanos of Chanukas ha'Mishkan) from permanent Korbanos (i.e. that apply to all generations) - the same applies to Tzafon!

(a) (Mishnah): One is liable for (every step, for) kneading, arranging the loaves and for baking.
(b) (Rav Papa): If he baked, he is liable twice, for arranging and for baking (Rashi - because baking is the culmination of arranging; Tosfos - some arranging is (almost inevitably) done at the time of baking.)
(c) Question: The Beraisa (55B) said that baking is a single step, one is liable for it by itself!
(d) Version #1 (Rashi) Answer: Rav Papa discusses when different people arranged and baked, the Beraisa is when one person did both (we cannot Mechayev him twice for arranging.)
(e) Version #2 (Tosfos) Answer: Rav Papa discusses when Reuven baked and also arranged (a bit), the Beraisa is when he did not arrange at all (e.g. Shimon put the dough in a cold oven, Reuven ignited it.)

(a) (Beraisa - R. Meir): If a Bechor had too much blood, we may let blood only from a place where the wound will not be considered a Mum (blemish);
(b) Chachamim say, we may let blood even from a place which will cause a Mum (disqualifying it from being offered, it will be eaten like Chulin);

1. However, the animal may not be slaughtered until it develops another Mum (this is a decree, lest people let blood when there is no need.)

(c) R. Shimon says, the animal may be slaughtered based on this Mum;

(d) R. Yehudah says, we may not let blood even if this is the only way to save its life.
(e) (R. Chiya bar Aba): (Even though Tana'im argue about making a Mum in a Ba'al Mum,) all agree that one is liable for Mechametz (fermenting) after Mechametz, for it says "Lo Se'aseh Chametz" and "Lo Se'afeh Chametz" (we learned from these that one is liable for every step);
(f) All agree that one is liable for Mesares (castrating) after Mesares - "U'Ma'uch v'Chasus v'Nasuk v'Charus" (the verse discusses Mumim of castration, it ends "...uv'Artzechem Lo Sa'asu".)

1. Question: If one is liable for Kores (disconnecting the testicles), all the more so for Nosek (Tosfos - totally cutting them off, but they are still in the sac; Rashi - removing them from the sac) - why did the Torah need to say "v'Nasuk"?)
2. Answer: This teaches that one is liable for Nosek after Kores.

(g) They argue only about making a Mum in a Ba'al Mum:

1. R. Meir is Mechayev for this - "Kol Mum Lo Yihyeh Bo";
2. Chachamim exempt - "Tamim Yihyeh l'Ratzon" (since a Ba'al Mum cannot be (offered) l'Ratzon, the Lav of making a Mum does not apply.)
3. Question: How does R. Meir expound Chachamim's verse?
4. Answer #1: It excludes a Ba'al Mum from the beginning (before it became Kodesh.)
5. Rejection: Such an animal has no Kedushas ha'Guf (intrinsic Kedushah, obviously the Lav does not apply!)
6. Answer #2: Rather, it excludes Pesulei ha'Mukdashim (blemished Korbanos) after redemption:

i. Since it is forbidden to work with or shear Pesulei ha'Mukdashim, one might have thought that the prohibition to blemish them also remains - the verse teaches, this is not so.

7. Question: How do Chachamim expound R. Meir's verse?
8. Answer (Beraisa): "Kol Mum Lo Yihyeh Bo" - this forbids directly making (Yehayei) a Mum;

i. Question: What is the source to forbid causing a Mum, e.g. sticking food to the ear (inciting dogs to eat the food, thereby cutting the ear?)
ii. Answer: It could have said only 'Mum' - "*Kol* Mum" is extra to include this.