Previous daf

1)

(a) The Beraisa validates an Asham Metzora that was Shechted she'Lo li'Shemo, or whose blood was not placed on the thumb or big toe of the Metzora. It also necessitates bringing ...

1. ... Nesachim.
2. ... another Asham (to permit the Metzora to re-enter the camp).

(b) This is a Tiyuvta on Rav - who just invalidated it, because it failed to achieve its purpose of being Machshir.

(c) Resh Lakish disagrees with the first statement of Rav. He rules that ...

1. ... a Minchas ha'Omer whose Kemitzah was taken she'Lo li'Shemah - is Kasher.
2. ... the Kohanim are not however, permitted to eat the Shirayim - because of the Isur of Chadash, which remains intact until the new Minchah is brought.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk (in connection with the Nesachim) "mi'Mashkeh Yisrael" - that one is forbidden to offer Hashem whatever is forbidden to a Yisrael.

(b) Rav Ada bar Ahavah explains that Resh Lakish nevertheless permits bringing the Pasul Minchas ha'Omer (even though it is still Asur to a Hedyot) - due to the principle 'Ein Mechusar Z'man le'Bo ba'Yom' (since it will become permitted on that same day without anything being done to it, it is as if it was already permitted).

(c) Rav Ada b'rei de'Rav Yitzchak queries this from a Beraisa, which discusses the special Halachos that pertain to Ofos and not to Menachos, and vice-versa. Ofos can be brought by two partners and by Mechusrei Kaparah (but not Menachos).

(d) The third advantage that Ofos enjoy over Menachos is - that the Isur of Neveilah (to which a Chulin bird that is killed by Melikah is subject) becomes permitted (whereas Menachos have no special concession).

(a) Menachos, on the other hand, require K'li, Tenufah and Hagashah - and they can be brought communally (which Ofos cannot).

(b) Rav Ada b'rei de'Rav Yitzchak asks that, according to Rav Ada bar Ahavah, the last concession by Ofos ('Hutru mi'Chelal Isuran') ought to apply to Menachos too, inasmuch as Minchas ha'Omer is permitted even though it is forbidden to a Hedyot.

(c) We resolve the problem - by pointing out that, once we say 'Ein Mechusar Z'man le'Bo ba'Yom' - it is no longer considered an Isur.

(a) The Kohen would place blood of the Asham and oil on the thumb and big toe of the Metzora, and to sprinkle oil towards the Kodesh seven times. The order of priority was - 1. placing the blood ... 2. sprinkling the oil ... 3. placing the oil ... .

(b) If he inadvertently placed the oil before ...

1. ... the blood - he was obligated (after placing the blood) to refill the crucible with oil and place it again, and the same applied if he did so before ...
2. ... sprinkling the oil.

(c) This poses a Kashya on Rav Ada bar Ahavah - because if we say 'Ein Mechusar Z'man le'Bo ba'Yom, why should the Kohen need to place the oil again?

(d) Rav Papa answers that a Metzora is different, because the Torah writes 'Havayah' ("Zos *Tih'yeh* Toras ha'Metzora ... )" - implying that the Kohen must adhere to the correct order of events.

(a) The Asham of the Metzora precedes his Chatas. According to the Beraisa, a Chatas which the Kohen Shechted before the Asham - requires 'Ibur Tzurah' (being left overnight off the Mizbe'ach, to become Pasul be'Linah), and then burning in the Beis ha'Sereifah.

(b) This ruling precludes the possibility - of someone stirring the blood of the Chatas until the Asham has been Shechted and its blood sprinkled, before placing the blood of the Chatas.

(c) Rav Papa asks from this Beraisa on Rav Ada bar Ahavah - the same Kashya as we just asked a moment ago. Why is the Chatas Pasul, seeing as 'Ein Mechusar Z'man le'Bo ba'Yom'?

(d) True, Rav Papa himself just explained how Metzora is different (because the Torah writes 'Havayah'). He did not however, consider that answer appropriate here - since it is the Shechitah of the Chatas that is the problem, and Shechitah is not an Avodah. Consequently, 'Havayah' will not apply to it, and we will need to understand why the alternative solution (of stirring the blood) is not applicable.

(a) According to Rav Papa therefore, based on the Beraisa, we must hold - 'Yesh Mechusar Z'man le'Bo ba'Yom'.

(b) And Resh Lakish permits the Kometz of the Pasul Minchas ha'Omer to be burned on the Mizbe'ach, based on a ruling of Rebbi Yochanan and himself - who both stated that the morning of the sixteenth of Nisan permits Chadash (and not the Omer [even in the time of the Beis Hamikdash]).

(c) They learn it from the Pasuk (in connection with Chadash) "be'Etzem ha'Yom ha'Zeh" (implying that Chadash becomes permitted from the beginning of the day).

(d) And they reconcile this with the Pasuk "ad Havi'achem es Omer ha'Tenufah" - by establishing the Pasuk as a Mitzvah (but not an obligation).

7)

(a) Resh Lakish did not actually make the previous statement - but it can be implied from a statement that he did make.

(b) The Mishnah in 'Rebbi Yishmael' rules - that the Kohanim may not bring Menachos, Bikurim or Minchos Beheimah (i.e. Minchos Nesachim) before having brought ...

1. ... the Omer (on the sixteenth of Nisan), and if they did, it is Pasul.
2. ... the Sh'tei ha'Lechem (on Shavu'os), but if they did, it is nevertheless Kasher.

(c) Rebbi Yitzchak Amar Resh Lakish qualified the former ruling - by confining it to the fourteenth or fifteenth of Nisan. If they brought it on the sixteenth before the Omer, it is Kasher ...

(d) ... because the new crops become permitted already by the light of day (even before the Omer has been brought).

(a) Rava disagrees even with Resh Lakish. According to him - not only may one bring a Minchas ha'Omer whose Kemitzah was taken she'Lo li'Shemah, but the Kohanim are even permitted to eat it ...

(b) ... because a Machsheves P'sul can only take effect on something that is fit to (regularly) perform the Avodah with, precluding the Minchas ha'Omer, which consists of barley, and which is therefore unfit for the Avodah elsewhere.

(c) Rava also extends this rule to someone who is eligible to serve and in a location that is eligible. What is meant by ...

1. ... someone who is not eligible is - a Kohen Ba'al-Mum.
2. ... a location that is not eligible is - there where the Mizbe'ach is chipped.

(a) The Beraisa Darshens from the Pasuk "min ha'Bakar" - to preclude a T'reifah.

(b) We try to refute the need for such a D'rashah, by means of a 'Kal-va'Chomer from Ba'al-Mum - which is permitted to a Hedyot, yet it is forbidden to Gavohah. In that case, a T'reifah, which is forbidden to a Hedyot, should certainly be forbidden to Gavohah.

(c) We ask on this however, from Cheilev and Dam, which are forbidden to a Hedyot, but permitted to Gavohah. But we refute this Pircha - from the fact that Cheilev and Dam are part of an amimal that is permitted, whereas a T'reifah is entirely forbidden.

(d) So we try again to refute the 'Kal va'Chomer', by citing Melikah which is completely Asur, yet it is forbidden to a Hedyot but permitted to Gavohah. And we counter this - by pointing to the fact that Melikah is the very thing that, not only forbids it to a Hedyot, but that permits it to Hekdesh, whereas the fact that is a T'reifah does not render it Kadosh.

(a) So we make a further attempt at reinstating the need for a Pasuk to forbid bringing a T'reifah as a Korban. We try to learn - from a 'Mah Matzinu' from Minchas ha'Omer. which is permitted to Gavohah, despite being forbidden to a Hedyot. In that case, the same ought to apply to a T'reifah.

(b) We refute the counter-argument that Minchas ha'Omer is different because it has the distinction ...

1. ... of permitting Chadash - since we can still learn from it in the Sh'mitah-year, when Chadash is permitted anyway.
2. ... even in the Sh'mitah year, of permitting Sefichin (the seeds that grow wild) - according to Rebbi Akiva, who forbids Sefichin when the time of Bi'ur arrives, and which are therefore not permitted by the Omer.

(c) Rav Acha bar Rava told Rav Ashi however, that even according to Rebbi Akiva, the Minchas ha'Omer permits Chadash even in the Sh'mitah - in Chutz la'Aretz.

(d) And what's more, he added, even according to those who hold that Chadash in Chutz la'Aretz is, to begin with, only de'Rabbanan, the Minchas ha'Omer has the distinction of permitting the La'av within it, by which he means - that even though they are forbidden in Eretz Yisrael because of Shevi'is, the Omer nevertheless removes the La'av of Chadash.

(a) Rav Acha from Difti speaking to Ravina, queried Rav Acha bar Rava's final argument, from T'reifah itself - in that by the same token, perhaps we need the Pasuk to preclude from likewise bringing a T'reifah as a Korban, to permit the La'av of T'reifah.

(b) We finally refute the Kashya from Minchas ha'Omer on T'reifah - by virtue of the fact that by Minchas ha'Omer, the only way of performing the Mitzvah is via the Isur, which is not the case by T'reifah (in which case, we have still to justify the Pasuk ["min ha'Bakar"]).

(c) Resh Lakish tries to learn T'reifah from *Mefatem ha'Ketores*, which is forbidden to a Hedyot, but permitted to Gavohah. The problem with Resh Lakish's initial text is - that 'Mefatem ha'Ketores' refers to a person, so how can Resh Lakish go on to say 'Asur le'Hedyot' and 'Mutar la'Gavohah'?

(d) After amending it to 'Pitum ha'Ketores', we refute the proof from there - on the grounds of 'Mitzvasah be'Kach' (like we just concluded to distinguish the Minchas ha'Omer from a Beheimah T'reifah).

(a) We refute Mar b'rei de'Ravina's proof from Temidin u'Musafin on Shabbos in the same way. We reject the initial Pircha, that Shabbos is different than T'reifah, in that 'Hutra mi'Chelalah Eitzel Milah' - on the grounds that Milah itself is Tzorech Gavohah, and not Tzorech Hedyot.

(b) And we follow exactly the same pattern with regard to Rav Ada bar Aba's proof from Kil'ayim (Sha'atnez) which is permitted to Gavohah, even though it is forbidden to a Hedyot. The only one of the Bigdei Kehunah that definitely entails wearing Kil'ayim is - the Avneit (the belt) of the Kohen Gadol.

(c) We initially consider Kil'ayim 'Hutrah mi'Chelalah Eitzel Hedyot' - with regard to Tzitzis on a linen garment.