Previous daf

1)

(a) The question what we learn from "Oso" (in the Pasuk "Ve'shachat *Oso* bi'Mekom ... " [in Tzav]) remains. We reject the suggestion that we learn from "Oso", 'Oso ba'Tzafon, ve'Ein Shochet ba'Tzafon' - because we already know that from the identical D'rashah by Rebbi Achya ...

(b) ... but from the Pasuk in Vayikra (in connection with the Olas Tzon) "Ve'shachat Oso al Yerech ha'Mizbe'ach" "Oso", 've'Lo Olas ha'Of'.

(c) We then try to learn from "Oso" (of the Sa'ir Nasi) 'Oso, ve'Lo ben Of', which we would have thought needs to be Shechted in the north - because if a Chatas Beheimah, which does not require a Kohen to Shecht it, requires Tzafon, a ben Of, which needs a Kohen to perform the Melikah, certainly should.

(d) We refute this suggestion however, on the grounds that the former possesses a Chumra in that it requires a K'li Shareis (both for the Shechitah and for the Kabalas Dam), which the latter does not.

(a) So we suggest that "Oso" comes to preclude the Korban Pesach from Tzafon. Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov in a Beraisa, thinks that the Pesach ought to require Tzafon - because if an Olas Tzon, which does not require a Kohen to Shecht, requires Tzafon, a Pesach, which requires a Kohen for the Melikah, certainly ought to.

(b) We reject that suggestion too, on the basis of a Chumra that Olah possesses over Pesach - namely, that an Olah is completely burned, whereas the Pesach is eaten.

(c) Neither can we learn Pesach from ...

1. ... Chatas - because a Chatas atones for Chayvei K'riysus, or from ...
2. ... from Asham - because it is Kodshei Kodshim, or even from ...
3. ... all three (Olah, Chatas and Asham) with a 'Mah ha'Tzad' - because in fact, they are all Kodshei Kodshim (whereas Pesach is Kodshim Kalim).

(a) Finally we revert to our original suggestion, that "Oso" (of the Sa'ir Nasi) comes to preclude the Shochet, who can be standing in the south whilst he Shechts, whereas from "Ve'shachat Oso" (of the Olas Tzon) we learn - 'Ein Shochet ba'Tzafon, Aval Mekabel ba'Tzafon (which is what Rebbi Achya really meant to say in the first place).

(b) Although the Sugya in Zevachim learned originally learned this from "*Ve'lakach* mi'Dam ha'Par (which we Darshen 'Lo Yikach' [he should receive the blood where the Chatas is]) - this Tana does not hold of that D'rashah.

(a) Rav Papa rules that someone who bakes the Lechem ha'Panim as Chametz receives two sets of Malkos - because, we think, baking is the final stage of shaping (and therefore incorporates it).

(b) The problem with that (from the Beraisa 'Mah Afiyah Meyuchedes she'Hi Ma'aseh Yechidi ... ') is - the implication that baking is an independent Melachah (and that it does not incorporate any other Melachos).

(c) So we draw a distinction between a case where the person who baked the dough also cut it (Rav Papa) and where somebody else cut it (Beraisa, as Rabeinu Gershom explains).

(a) If a Bechor Beheimah is stricken with Achizas Dam (a blood infection), Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa confines letting its blood to a location which will not result in a blemish - to preclude the ears and the eyes.

(b) The Chachamim permit it even in those two locations - provided they do not use that as an excuse to Shecht it.

(c) A blemish will permit the Bechor to be eaten according to all opinions - if it comes about automatically.

(d) Rebbi Shimon holds like the Chachamim, but he even permits the Bechor to be eaten - because he holds 'Davar she'Ein Miskaven, Mutar (and creating a blemish for the animal's health, and not in order to be allowed to eat it, is considered 'Davar she'Ein Miskaven' [see also Tosfos]).

(a) The most stringent opinion of all is that of Rebbi Yehudah - who forbids letting the blood of a Bechor even if it will mean that it will die ...

(b) ... because when a monetary loss is involved, he says, a person becomes so harassed that once he is permitted to let blood, he will do so, irrespective of whether the location is one which renders it a Ba'al-Mum or not.

7)

(a) Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan learns from the Pasuk "Lo Se'aseh *Chametz* ... ve'Lo Se'afeh *Chametz" - that Mechametz Achar Mechametz is Chayav) meaning that even though the person who kneads (for example) the Minchah as Chametz is Chayav, the one who subsequently shapes it is Chayav too.

(b) And he says the same regarding the Pasuk in Emor "u'Ma'uch, ve'Chasus, ve'Nasuk, ve'Karus" (in connection with the castration of an animal). These terms mean - squashed the Beitzim, partially severed them, removed them from their bag or severed them completely.

(c) He learns his D'rashah from this Pasuk - from the fact that the Torah inserts "Nasuk", which we would otherwise know from a 'Kal-va'Chomer' from "Karus".

(a) Whether Matil Achar Matil is Chayav too or not depends on the Machlokes Tana'im regarding letting the blood of the Bechor that has a blood infection (that we are currently discussing). Rebbi Meir holds - Asur, the Rabbanan, Mutar.

(b) Rebbi Meir learns from the Pasuk "Kol Mum Lo Yih'yeh Bo" (from the word "Kol") - that making a blemish on a Bechor is Asur under all circumstances, whereas the Rabbanan learn from the Pasuk "Tamim Yih'yeh le'Ratzon" - that the prohibition (written later in the Pasuk) is confined to destroying its perfection.

(c) We refute the suggestion that Rebbi Meir learns from "Tamim Yih'yeh le'Ratzon" that a Bechor Ba'al-Mum from birth is precluded from the prohibition - because a Ba'al-Mum from birth has no Kedushah (like a stick), and des not therefore require a Pasuk to preclude it.

(d) We conclude that he precludes Pesulei ha'Mukdashin after they have been redeemed, which we might otherwise have included in the prohibition - just like they are included in the prohibition of shearing (for their wool) and working with them.

(a) The Rabbanan learn from "*Kol* Mum Lo Yih'yeh Bo" that one is not even permitted to cause a blemish to occur on a Bechor. The example the Beraisa gives to illustrate this is - placing a piece of yeast or a fig on its ear, for a dog to come and take it and wound the Bechor's ear in the process.

(b) Rebbi Ami rules that if someone places yeast on a dough of a Minchah and sits down to watch it - he is Chayav like Ma'aseh Shabbos.

(c) We query his concluding words 'ke'Ma'aseh Shabbos' from a statement by Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan, who said that if someone places Basar on to coal on Shabbos - he is Patur unless he stokes (turns over the meat.

(a) Rava answers 'Mai Chayav Nami de'Ka'amar ke'Ma'aseh Tz'li', by which he means - that he is Chayav for the placing alone, as if he would have stoked the meat on Shabbos.

(b) The difference between Shabbos and Menachos in this regard is - that with regard to Shabbos the meat requires stoking because otherwise, it is not properly done (for which one is not Chayav on Shabbos; whereas with regard to Menachos, it will become Chametz whether he stokes it or not.