Previous daf

1)

(a) According to Rebbi Eliezer, says our Mishnah, if the Shirayim became Tamei, burned or lost, the Minchah is Kasher. Our Mishnah is referring to Rebbi Eliezer's ruling in Pesachim 'Dam, Af-al-Pi she'Ein Basar'. By the same token, we will say 'Kometz, Af-al-Pi she'Ein Shirayim'.

(b) Rebbi Yehoshua holds - 'Im Ein Basar, Ein Dam'; likewise, he will hold here 'Im Ein Shirayim, Ein Kometz'.

(c) Rav qualifies Rebbi Yehoshua - by establishing it when all of the Shirayim became Tamei, but as long some of it remains intact, it is Kasher.

(d) Assuming that Rav is referring to 'Nitme'u', and not to 'Nisrefu' or 'Ne'evdu', the problem with this, if Rav holds ...

1. ... 'Shiyura Milsa Hi' is - why the same will not apply to 'Nisrefu' and 'Ne'evdu'.
2. ... 'Shiyura La'av Milsa Hi' and his reason by Nitma is because of Ritzuy Tzitz - then why is the Minchah not Kasher even if all the Shirayim became Tamei?

(a) We conclude that Rav's reason is because of 'Shiyura Milsa Hi', and the reason that he confines his ruling to 'Nitme'u Shiyrehah' is (not to preclude Nisrefu and Ne'evdu, but) - because it is the first of the three cases. In fact, the Halachah extends to Nisrefu and Ne'evdu as well.

(b) And we corroborate this with a Beraisa, where Rebbi Yehoshua rules that ...

1. ... all the Korbanos of which a k'Zayis Basar or a k'Zayis Cheilev remains - 'Zorek es ha'Dam'.
2. ... 'all the Korbanos' of which half a k'Zayis Basar or half a k'Zayis Cheilev remains - 'Eino Zorek es ha'Dam'.
3. ... an Olah of which half a k'Zayis Basar and half a k'Zayis Cheilev remains - 'Zorek es ha'Dam'.

(c) The reason for this difference is - because whereas in the former case Achilah and Haktarah do not combine, in the latter case both half-k'Zeisim comprise Haktarah, and there is no reason why they should not combine.

(a) According to Rav Papa, when Rebbi Yehoshua's states 'u've'Minchah, Afilu Kulah Kayma, Lo Yizrok', he is referring to a Minchas Nesachim that accompanies a Korban.

(b) We would otherwise have thought - that precisely because it accompanies the Korban, it is considered part of the Korban and is no different than the Cheilev in this regard.

(c) Rebbi Yochanan Mishum Rebbi Yishmael (or Mishum Rebbi Yehoshua) learns from the Pasuk "Ve'zarak ha'Kohen es ha'Dam ... Ve'hiktir ha'Cheilev" - that as long as the Cheilev (or a k'Zayis of Cheilev) remains, the Kohen may perform the Zerikas ha'Dam (even though no Basar remains).

(a) We extrapolate from the Beraisa 'u've'Minchah, Afilu Kulah Kayemes, Lo Yizrok' - that if the Yoseres (ha'Kaveid) or the Sh'tei Kelayos remain, 'Yizrok'.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan learns from "le'Re'ach Nicho'ach" (in the same Pasuk) - that whatever remains, as long as it serves the purpose of 'Re'ach Ni'cho'ach', it will enable the Kohen to sprinkle the blood (e.g. the Yoseres and the Sh'tei ha'Kelayos).

(c) The Torah needs to write "le'Re'ach Nicho'ach", to teach us the Din of Yoseres and the Sh'tei ha'Kelayos, which we would not have known from Cheilev (presumably because they are less attached to the Basar than it is). And having written "le'Re'ach Nicho'ach, it still needs to write "Cheilev" - to preclude a Minchas Nesachim, which on its own, does not enable the Dam to be sprinkled (as we just learned).

(a) Our Mishnah states 'she'Lo bi'Cheli Shareis Pasul - ve'Rebbi Shimon Machshir'.

(b) They are arguing over - Kidush Kometz. It is obvious to all - that the initial Minchah requires a K'li Shareis.

(c) The Tana rules that if the Kometz is burned in two lots - it is Kasher.

(a) Yehudah b'rei de'Rebbi Chiya learns from the Pasuk "Kodesh Kodashim Hi, ka'Chatas ve'cha'Asham" - that should the Kohen decide to bring the Kometz with his hand, then he must bring it with his right hand (like the Avodah of a Chatas), whereas if he decided to bring it in a K'li Shareis, then he may do so (like an Asham), even with his left-hand.

(b) According to Rebbi Yanai - once the Kohen performs the Kemitzah from a K'li Shareis, he may even carry it to the Mizbe'ach with his belt or in an earthenware vessel.

(c) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak disagrees with both opinions. In his opinion - the Komeitz initially requires Kidush K'li (see Chidushei Rashba).

(a) We ask on Yehudah b'rei de'Rebbi Chiya from a Beraisa, where the Tana validates ...

1. ... Hekter Chalavim ve'Eivarim ve'Eitzim - both with the hand and with a K'li, both with the right hand and with the left ...
2. ... and the same applies to the Kometz, the Ketores and the Levonah.

(b) The author of this Beraisa must be Rebbi Shimon - because he permits Avodah with the left hand.

(c) Yehudah b'rei de'Rebbi Chiya will interpret the Seifa of the Beraisa - 'li'Tzedadin', i.e. either with the right hand, or in a K'li even with his left (to conform with his earlier ruling).

(a) In a case where 'Kamtzo mi'Cheli Shareis ve'Kidsho she'Lo bi'Cheli Shareis Ve'he'elo Ve'hiktiro she'Lo bi'Cheli Shareis', the Beraisa rules - Pasul.

(b) 'Rebbi Elazar ve'Rebbi Shimon Machshirin *be'Matan K'li'*, a Kashya on Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak - who also requires the Kometz to be placed in a K'li Shareis.

(c) He therefore amends the Beraisa to - 'Rebbi Elazar ve'Rebbi Shimon Machshirin *mi'Matan K'li* va'Eilech'.

9)

(a) In another Beraisa, the Chachamim require the Kometz to be taken from a K'li Shareis, placed into a K'li Shareis - and taken to the Mizbe'ach, in a K'li Shareis.

(b) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak will amend the Seifa 'Rebbi Shimon Omer, Keivan she'Kamtzo *mi'Cheli Shareis*, Ma'alo u'Maktiro ve'Dayo' - to ' ... Keivan she'Kamtzo ve'Kidsho *bi'Cheli Shareis*, Ma'alo u'Maktiro ve'Dayo'

(c) In a case where the Kohen performed the Kemitzah with his right hand and transferred the Kometz to his left hand, Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon in a Beraisa - require him to transfer it back to his right hand.

(d) In a case where the Kohen had a Machsheves Chutz li'Mekomo or Chutz li'Zemano ...

1. ... whilst the Kometz was still in his left hand - they rule - that the Korban is Pasul, but that it is not subject to Kareis (see Shitah Mekubetzes 1).
2. ... after he returned it to his right hand - then in the case of the Machsheves Chutz li'Zemano, it is subject to Kareis, too.

(a) The Rabbanan invalidate a Kometz which the Kohen transferred to his left hand - on the basis of the fact that it still requires Kidush K'li, and it is like blood that fell on the floor *before* being placed in a K'li.

(b) Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon validate the Kometz which the Kohen transferred to his left-hand - because they do not require a K'li, and it is comparable to blood that fell on the floor *after* having been placed in a K'li Shareis, which remains Kasher once it is retrieved.

(c) This is a Tiyuvta (to which there is no answer) - on Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, who maintains that even Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon require Kidush Kometz.

(d) This Beraisa also lends support to Yehudah b'rei de'Rebbi Chiya - in that it requires the Kohen to return the Kometz to his right hand, should he intend to carry the Kometz to the Mizbe'ach with his hand.

(e) In that case, it is a Tiyuvta on Rebbi Yanai (who permits even carrying the Kometz in the Kohen's belt or in an earthenware vessel). Rebbi Yanai will counter - that he holds like the Beraisa of 'Hekter Chalavim ve'Eivarim', without establishing it 'li'Tzedadin' (like Yehudah b'rei de'Rebbi Chiya did).

(a) When Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi comments on our Mishnah ('Hiktir Komtzah Pa'amayim, Kesheirah') 'Pa'amayim, ve'Lo Pa'amei Pa'amayim', he means - that the Kometz can be brought in two lots, but not in three.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan holds - 'Pa'amayim, va'Afilu Pa'amei Pa'amayim'.

(c) Rebbi Zeira explains how each one extrapolate his opinion from 'Hiktir Komtzah Pa'amayim'. Basically, they argue over - whether there can be a Kometz of less than two k'Zeisim. Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi holds that there cannot; Rebbi Yochanan holds that there can.

(d) Consequently, according to ...

1. ... Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi - 'Pa'amayim' (which had to be at least two k'Zeisim) entails bringing the Kometz not less than a 'k'Zayis' at a time, leaving us with no proof that one can bring less a k'Zayis at a time.
2. ... Rebbi Yochanan, on the other hand, if the Kometz is less than two k'Zeisim, 'Pa'amayim' will entail bringing less than a k'Zayis at a time, in which case, they may just as well bring it in three or four lots.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk (in connection with the Shirayei ha'Minchah) "Kodesh Kodshim me'Ishei Hashem" - that the Kohanim only receive a portion from the Shirayim after the Kometz has become a fire-offering.

(b) According to Rebbi Chanina, this refers to as soon as the fire has stared to burn part of the Kometz. Rebbi Yochanan says - only after the fire has burned the majority of the Kometz.

(c) Rav Yehudah proved this to Rabah bar Rav Nachman from the Pasuk (in connection with the burning of S'dom) "ve'Hinei Alah Kitor ha'Aretz ke'Kitor ha'Kivshan - because smoke only rises from a furnace once the majority of its contents have caught fire (and the Pasuk uses the word "Ve'hiktir" by the Minchah, too).

(a) We learn from the Pasuk "Hi ha'Olah al Mokdah al ha'Mizbe'ach Kol ha'Laylah" that the Eivarim u'Pedarim are burned all night on the Mizbe'ach. We might have thought that this does not apply to the Kometz, the Levonah, the Ketores, the Minchas Kohen Mashi'ach and the Minchas Nesachim - because they all need to be brought by day.

(b) This latter list incorporates virtually all the Korbanos. The only Korban that would then burn all night would be - the Olah.

(c) We reconcile the Beraisa's insertion of Minchas Nesachim with the ruling 'Minchasam ve'Niskeihem ba'Laylah' - by establishing the former by Nesachim that are brought together with the Korban (exclusively).

(d) The Beraisa cited by Rav Amram learns from the Pasuk "Zos Toras ha'Olah" (ibid) - that the above Korbanos have the same Din as the Olah, and may be burned at night.

(a) The Beraisa said 'she'Ma'alan u'Maktiran mi'Bo ha'Shemesh'. The problem with ...

1. ... this Lashon is - how one can place the Korbanos on the Mizbe'ach after nightfall, seeing as they already became Pasul be'Linah with the advent of night?
2. ... amending it to 'Im Ba ha'Shemesh' - is how the fire will be able to burn the majority of each limb before nightfall (to prevent it from becoming Pasul be'Linah), as required by Rebbi Yochanan.

(b) We answer 'Ka'an Lehaklit, Ka'an Lehatir' - meaning that, although Rebbi Yochanan may well require this Shi'ur to permit the Shirayim, he will concede that the Korban leaves the realm of Linah as soon as part of the Kometz is burning (like the Shi'ur of Rebbi Chanina).

(c) Rebbi Elazar retains the original Lashon 'mi'Bo ha'Shemesh', and he answers the Kashya from 'Darkan Likarev ba'Yom' - by establishing the Beraisa with regard to limbs that fall off the Mizbe'ach (Pok'in) exclusively.

(a) The problem with the fact that Rav Dimi cites Rebbi Yanai as holding the same view as Rebbi Elazar is - that Rebbi Yanai specifically rules that Ketores that falls off the Mizbe'ach (ha'Zahav) cannot be returned (and the Beraisa currently under discussion includes Ketores in its list).

(b) And what's more, Rav Chanina bar Minyumi quoting a Beraisa of Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov learns from the Pasuk "Asher Tochal ha'Eish es ha'Olah al ha'Mizbe'ach" - that even whole granules of Ketores that fall off the Mizbe'ach may not be returned.

(c) We resolve the problem - by dropping Ketores from the list in the Beraisa.

(a) Rebbi Elazar asked - whether it is permissible to arrange the Ma'arachah for the Korbanos on top of the Kometz, seeing as it might not be considered conventional to burn animals in this way.

(b) Chizkiyah asked a similar She'eilah about arranging the Ma'arachah on top of the Eivarim (which apparently, is less unconventional than arranging it on top of the Kometz). It may nevertheless not be permitted o do so - because the Torah writes "al ha'Eitzim" (and not 'al ha'Olah').

(c) On the other hand, he says, perhaps we will learn from the Pasuk there "Asher Tochal ha'Eish es ha'Olah al ha'Mizbe'ach" - that the Kohen has the option of placing the Olah directly on the Mizbe'ach and the wood on top of it.

(d) The outcome of both She'eilos is ''Teiku'.

(a) "Al" can mean either 'on' or 'next to'.

(b) Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha asked whether it is acceptable to place the Eivarim beside the Ma'arachah (and not on top of it). Seeing as the Torah writes "al ha'Eitzim", this She'eilah initially ties up with the two interpretations of 'al' - because, if it means 'on top of', then it is obvious that placing it at the side is not permissible; whereas if it means 'next to', then it ought to be permissible to do so.

(c) Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha however thinks that, even if 'Al' means 'next to', it might not mean that here - because the Torah also writes "al ha'Mizbe'ach" which can only mean 'on the Mizbe'ach', so just as there it means 'on', so too, by "al ha'Eitzim" does it mean 'on', and not 'next to'.

(d) The outcome of the She'eilah is 'Teiku'.