Previous daf

1)

(a) Rebbi Yashiyah learns from the extra 'Vav' in the Pasuk "Im Olah Korbano min ha'Bakar ... *ve'Im* min ha'Tzon Korbano" - that someone who declares that he will bring an Olah, has the choice of bringing either a cow or a lamb as a Korban (and does not need to bring both).

(b) He requires a Pasuk for this - because he maintains that even where the Torah does not mention "Yachdav", it is as if it had.

(c) In spite of the extra 'Vav' in "ve'Im min ha'Tzon", Rebbi Yonasan requires "min ha'Bakar O min ha'Tzon" Lechalek to teach us - that even in a case of S'tam, where he does not specify what he is going to bring, he is permitted to bring whichever one he pleases.

(d) The Pasuk "Im Olah Korbano ... ve'Im min ha'Tzon Korbano" on the other hand, is speaking - when he specifies at the time of the Neder that he will bring either one of them.

(a) The Beraisa learns Todah from *"O* Zevach". Despite the fact that the Todah is itself a Zevach - this Limud is necessary, because of the loaves which accompany it, which are not a Zevach (or which we might have thought replace the Minchas Nesachim).

(b) Neither can we learn it from Eil Nazir - which is only accompanied by two kinds of loaves, whereas the Todah requires four.

(c) The problem with the word "Olah" is - that the Torah has already written "Lefalei Neder O bi'Nedavah", which appears to render it redundant.

(d) We could in fact, dispense with "Olah" and with "Minchah" from "min ha'Bakar" (or from "Zevach").

(a) We answer by categorizing "Va'asisem Isheh la'Hashem ... Lefalei Neder O bi'Nedavah ... Ve'asisa le'Rei'ach Nicho'ach" as a 'K'lal u'P'rat u'Ch'lal'. If not for the word "Olah" - any Korban that is not brought because of a sin would be considered 'similar to the P'rat' ...

1. ... to preclude Chata'os and Ashamos.
2. ... to include Bechor, Ma'aser and Pesach.

(b) Now that the Torah does write Olah - any Korban that is not obligatory is considered similar to the P'rat ("Lefalei Neder O bi'Nedavah") ...

(c) ... including (besides V'lados Kodshim, Temuros, and Olah ha'Ba min ha'Mosros) - Asham she'Nitak li'Re'ayah and Kodshim that have been Shechted she'Lo li'Sheman.

(a) Now that we Darshen the word "O", we learn from "Lefalei Neder O bi'Nedavah" - that one is Chayav even if one brings either a Neder or a Nedavah (without having to bring both).

(b) Rebbi Yonasan, who considers them separate anyway (as long as the Torah does not write "Yachdav"), this is not necessary. He learns from there - that someone who does bring both must bring Nesachim for each one independently.

(c) And he learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "ve'Chi Sa'aseh ben Bakar Olah *O* Zavach" (given that if one were to bring an Olah and a Shelamim as a Neder or as a Nedavah, he would have to bring two sets of Nesachim) - that even if one were to bring two Olos or two Shelamim, one as a Neder and one as a Nedavah, he would also have to bring two sets of Nesachim.
2. ... "Lefalei Neder "O" ... Shelamim" - that the same will apply even if he brings two Olos or two Shelamim as a Neder or as a Nedavah.

(d) Rebbi Yashiyah (who learns 'Lechalek' from the actual Pasuk [of "min ha'Bakar O min ha'Tzon"]) learns from ...

1. ... the word "O" - that even if the two animals are the of same kind (both bulls or both sheep), they still require two sets of Nesachim.
2. ..."Kachah Ta'aseh la'Echad" - that the same will apply even they are also declared Hekdesh simultaneously.

(a) The Torah writes (in connection with the Korbanos of a Metzora on the eighth day of his Taharah) "u'Sheloshah Esronim So'les Minchah". We learn from the Pasuk later "Ve'he'elah ha'Kohen es ha'Olah ve'es ha'Minchah" - that the Minchah mentioned in the earlier Pasuk is one that comes together with the Korban, and not independently.

(b) The Pasuk "ve'Yayin la'Nesech Revi'is ha'Hin Ta'aseh al ha'Olah O la'Zavach la'Keves ha'Echad" is superfluous. "al ha'Olah" comes to teach us that the Olas Metzora requires Nesachim, and "la'Zavach" and "O", respectively - that his Chatas and his Asham do, too.

(c) We cannot learn both the Chatas and the Asham from "la'Zavach", like the Beraisa did on the previous Daf ('Chatas ve'Asham Minayin, Talmud Lomar "Zavach" ') - because that was fine as long as they both came to be Machshir (the Nazir, to drink wine and to make himself Tamei Meis); but here, where the former comes to atone, and the latter, to enable the Metzora to enter the camp), they require two Pesukim.

6)

(a) We suggest that, in place of the Chatas and the Asham of a Metzora, "Zavach" might come to include the Chatas and the Asham of a Nazir.

(b) We refute this suggestion however, with a Beraisa. From the Pasuk (in connection with the Korbanos of a Nazir) "u'Minchasam ve'Niskeihem", the Tana includes in the Din of Nesachim - the Olah and the Shelamim of a Nazir.

(c) The problem with the Pasuk there "ve'es ha'Ayil Ya'aseh Zevach Shelamim" is - that the Shalmei Nazir is already included in the earlier Pasuk "ve'Ayil Echad Tamim li'Shelamim".

(d) The Tana therefore learns from there - that only the Korbanos of a Nazir that, like the Ayil, sometimes come as a Neder and Nedavah require Nesachim, but not his Chatas and Asham.

(a) And Abaye refutes the suggestion that "ha'Olah" (in Korach) comes to include (not Olas Metzora, but) Olas Yoledes, by quoting another Beraisa, which, based on the Pasuk there ...

1. ... "la'Keves" - incorporates the Olas Yoledes in the Din of Nesachim.
2. ... "ha'Echad" - incorporates the eleventh animal (which the owner mistakenly called the tenth) in the Din of Nesachim.

(b) What is unique about the latter D'rashah is - the fact that the tenth animal (i.e. Ma'aser Beheimah) does not require Nesachim, yet the eleventh, which was erroneously declared as the tenth, does.

(c) Rava takes for granted that "al ha'Olah O la'Zavach" must include the Olah, Chatas and Asham of the Metzora (and not the other suggested Korbanos) - because the Pasuk precludes three Korbanos from Nesachim, and the only person who (conveniently) brings three Korbanos (that need to be precluded) is a Metzora.

(a) Rav Sheishes learns from "O la'Ayil" there, that Eilo shel Aharon - the Olah that the Kohen Gadol is obligated to bring on Yom Kipur.

(b) We cannot learn Eilo shel Aharon from "be'Mo'adeichem", seeing as it is a Korban that is brought in honor of Yom-Tov - because "be'Mo'adeichem" refers to Korbanos that the entire Tzibur bring (such as the Shalmei Chagigah and Olas Re'iyah), but not to a Korban that is brought by only one person.

(c) Nor can we learn it from the Olah of a Yoledes - since her Korban does not have a fixed time, whereas the Olas Yom Kipur of the Kohen Gadol does.

(a) And from the word *"O* la'Ayil", the Tana includes a Palgas - a sheep between the age of twelve and thirteen months (when it is no longer a lamb, but has not yet become a ram) in the Din Nesachim.

(b) This conforms with Rebbi Yochanan, who explains the Mishnah in Parah with this D'rashah. The Tana there rules that someone who makes a Neder to bring a lamb or a ram, and brings a Palgas ...

1. ... is obligated to bring the Nesech of a ram.
2. ... has not fulfilled his Neder.

(c) bar Pada explains 'Maysi u'Masni' - in other words, when he brings the Nesech of an Ayil, he stipulates that if the Palgas is a lamb, then he is Yotze with the Nesech of a lamb, and the excess should be a Nedavah; whereas if it is a ram, he will fulfill the Nesech of a ram.

(d) The problem with bar Pada's explanation is - if a Palgas is a Safek, why does the Pasuk instruct us what to do with it? Since when is there such a thing as a Safek before Hashem? This is not a Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan, who considers a Palgas a Beryah bi'Fenei Atzmo, and not a Safek.

(a) Regarding the Kashya on bar Pada, we conclude - 'Vaday le'bar Pada Kashya' (i.e. we do not know what he will learn from "O").

(b) We learn from the Pasuk "Kachah Ye'aseh ...

1. ... "la'Shor ha'Echad" that (in spite of having already said "Ve'hikriv al ben ha'Bakar", and in spite of the difference between a lamb and a ram as regards the Nesachim) - there is no difference between a calf and a bull.
2. ... "O la'Ayil ha'Echad" that (in spite of having already said "O la'Ayil Ta'aseh Minchah" - there is no difference between a ram in its second year and one in its third.
3. ... "O la'Seh ba'Kesavim" that (in spite of having already said "O la'Keves ha'Echad") - there is no difference between a female lamb and a ewe.
4. ... "O ba'Izim" that (despite the fact that Kevasim incorporates goats) - there is no difference between a kid-goat and a goat.

(a) Rava tested his Talmidim, Rav Papa and his colleagues. When he quizzed them 'Niskei Recheilah be'Kamah', he meant to ask - either whether there is any difference between the Nesech of a male sheep and a ewe, or whether there is any difference between a female lamb and a ewe.

(b) Rav Papa answered with a Mishnah in Shekalim, which discusses the Chosamos (the four discs) in the Beis-Hamikdash - To purchase Nesachim for one's Korban, one would pay Yochanan the stated price, and would receive in exchange the appropriate disc, which he would present to the Gizbar, who would give him the required Nesech.

(c) The Chosem marked 'G'di' incorporated the entire spectrum of the sheep and goat family, young and old, male and female ...

(d) ... with the sole exception of the ram, whose Nesech was two Esronos and a third of a Hin (instead of the one Isaron and a quarter of a Hin of a sheep).