Previous daf

1)

(a) Rebbi Yochanan, Ze'iri and bar Pada decline to learn like Chizkiyah, because each Beis-Av served on his day. What do we mean by that? and in any event, there were skins of Korbanos that they received over and above those that were purchased with money from the box?

(b) The other three decline to learn like ...

1. ... Rebbi Yochanan ('she'Lo Yis'apshu ha'Ma'os') - because they are not concerned about the money rotting.
2. ... Ze'iri ('Keneged Par, ve'Ayil ... G'di ve'Sa'ir, ve'Rebbi Hi') - because they want to avoid establishing our Mishnah like an individual opinion.
3. ... bar Pada ('Keneged ha'Parim, ve'ha'Eilim ... ') on principle - because how can they have had a special box marked 'Mosros', when all of them are Mosros.

(c) They also disagree with him regarding the Ma'ah, because they hold like Rebbi Meir in a Berasisa. Rebbi Elazar there holds that the Ma'ah goes li'Nedavah. Rebbi Meir says - 'li'Shekalim'.

(a) Shmuel maintains that the six boxes corresponded to 'Moser Chatas ... u'Mosar Minchas Chotei u'Mosar Asiris ha'Eifah shel Kohen Gadol' (as we learned in the previous Perek). The leftovers of a regular Minchah - are used to purchase another Minchah.

(b) And the reason that Shmuel lists Moser Chatas and Mosar Minchas Chotei u'Mosar Asiris ha'Eifah shel Kohen Gadol in this list is - because of a D'rashah of Yehoyada ha'Kohen, who Darshens that whatever comes from Mosar Chatas or Mosar Asham (even if it is in fact, a Minchah) should be used to buy Olos Tzibur, and their skins given to Kohanim.

(c) Rebbi Oshaya disagrees. He replaces 'Mosar Asiris ha'Eifah shel Kohen Gadol' with [Mosar Kinin'.

(a) Shmuel omits Mosar Kinin - because it already appears in the Reisha, among the seven boxes that are not li'Nedavah.

(b) Rebbi Oshaya counters this - by omitting Kinin from the Reisha.

(c) We reconcile this with the Beraisa cited by him, which does cite Kinin in the Reisha - by inserting Kinin in the Reisha, and Mosar Kinin in the Seifa.

(d) 'Kinin' in the Reisha means - that a Mechusar Kipurim (who was Chayav to bring a pair of birds) would place his money in the box marked Kinin, and on the assumption that the Kohanim had emptied the boxes, he was permitted to eat Kodshim after nightfall.

(a) Rebbi Oshaya omits Mosar Asiris ha'Eifah shel Kohen Gadol - because he concurs with those who hold that Mosar Asiris ha'Eifah shel Kohen Gadol is left to rot ('Yerakev'), as we shall now see.

(b) We learned in a Beraisa 'Mosar Minchas Nedavah, Mosar Minchah Yerakev'. According to Rav Chisda, the Reisha refers to Mosar Minchas Chotei. What does the Seifa refer to?

(c) Rabah establishes the Seifa by Mosar Lachmei Todah. It cannot be brought ...

1. ... as it is - because Lachmei Todah can only be brought together with the Korban Todah.
2. ... together with another Korban Todah - because every Todah comes together with its own loaves.

(d) He includes Mosar Asiris ha'Eifah shel Kohen Gadol in the Reisha ('li'Nedavah') together with Mosar Minchas Chotei.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan too, holds that Mosar Asiris ha'Eifah shel Kohen Gadol Nedavah goes to Nedavah. Rebbi Elazar says - Yerakev.

(b) We learned in another Beraisa 'Mosar Shekalim, Chulin'. The Tana there rules that 'Mosar Asiris ha'Eifah, Mosar Kinei Zavin ve'Zavos, ve'Kinei Yoldos, va'Chata'os va'Ashamos' - Nedavah.

(c) We try and interpret 'Mosar Asiris ha'Eifah' as - Asiris ha'Eifah shel Kohen Gadol, a proof for those who hold that it goes li'Nedavah'.

(d) We refute this proof however, by establishing it by Mosar (Asiris ha'Eifah) of a Minchas Chotei.

(a) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak cites a Beraisa, which quotes the Pasuk in (in connection with a Minchas Chotei) "Lo Yasim Alehah Shemen ve'Lo Yitein Alehah Levonah *Ki Chatas Hi*", from which Rebbi Yehudah extrapolates - "Hi Keruyah Chatas", 've'Ein Acheres Keruyah Chatas' (to preclude the Asiris ha'Eifah shel Kohen Gadol from the exemption from Levonah).

(b) The Torah refers to the Asiris ha'Eifah of the Kohen Gadol as - a Chatas.

(c) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak nevertheless learns from the Beraisa - that although it is a Chatas, since it does have the Din of a Chatas as regards the Levonah, it does not have the Din of a Chatas as regards Nedavah, either (a proof for those who hold 'Yerakev').

(a) Our Mishnah rules that if someone says 'Shor Zeh Olah', and the animal became blemished - he may use the proceeds to purchase two oxen.

(b) The Tana Kama says the same in the reverse case, 'Sh'nei Shevarim Eilu Olah Ve'nista'avu, Ratzah bi'Demeihen Echad' - Rebbi forbids it.

(c) In a similar ruling, if someone said 'Ayil Zeh Olah' and the ram got a blemish, the Mishnah permits using the proceeds to purchase a lamb. In in the reverse case 'Keves Zeh Olah, Ve'nista'av' - it cites the same Machlokes as it did in the precious case, the Tana Kama permits purchasing a ram with the procceeds, Rebbi forbids it.

(d) We reconcile the first ruling in the Mishnah 'Shor Zeh Olah Ve'nista'av, Im Ratzah Yavi be'Damav Shnayim', with the previous Mishnah 'Harei Alai Shor be'Manah Ve'heivi Shenayim, Lo Yatza' - by pointing to the fact that whereas the previous Mishnah speaks about a Neder ('Harei Alai'), which the Noder remains obligated to fulfill, this Mishnah speaks about a Nedavah ('Harei Zu'), from which he becomes absolved, once the animal becomes blemished.

8)

(a) Despite the fact that the Tana is speaking about a Nedavah (as we just explained), Rebbi forbids bringing one instead of two - because even though it is a Nedavah, the Chachamim did not allow him to change his Korban in this way.

(b) In fact - he argues in the Reisha, in the reverse case too, only he waited for the Rabbanan to finish their statement, before making his.

(c) We might have thought that he would concede to the Rabbanan in the Reisha - where the Noder is actually improving his Korban by bringing two instead of one (despite the fact that they cost the same).

(d) And we prove this from the Seifa, where Rebbi argues in the case of 'Keves Zeh le'Olah ... Yavi be'Damav Ayil' - which is also an improvement, yet he forbids it.

(a) We then ask whether the Noder may change from one species to another - whether, for example, one may purchase two rams instead of a bull.

(b) And we resolve the She'eilah from a Beraisa - where the Tana rules 'Shor Zeh Olah Ve'nista'ev, Lo Yavi be'Damav Ayil' adding - 'Aval Meivi be'Damav Sh'nei Eilim'.

(c) Rebbi forbids it because of 'Ein Bilah' - meaning that one would have to bring two Menachos in two Keilim, and one would not be able to bring them in one K'li, in accordance with the Din.

(d) We have now proved - that one may change from one species to another, even according to Rebbi, who is only concerned about the Menachos, but not about the Korban itself.

(e) We reconcile the Reisha of this Beraisa with our Mishnah, which permits bringing even one lamb with the proceeds of a ram - by presenting it as a Machlokes Ta'an'im. Our Mishnah permits it Lechatchilah, whereas the Beraisa forbids it.

(a) The Beraisa concludes 'u'vi'Tehorim, Eigel, Ve'heivi Par, Keves Ve'heivi Ayil, Yatza'. 'Tehorim' means - without a blemish.

(b) The author of this statement is - the Rabbanan of Rebbi, because, according to Rebbi, 'Katan Ve'heivi Gadol' is not Yotzei'.

(c) We just concluded that, were it not for the problem with the Menachos, Rebbi would agree to the purchase of two rams with the proceeds of one bull. The problem with that from our Mishnah 'Ayil Zeh Olah Ve'nista'ev ... Keves Zeh Olah, Ve'nista'ev' is - that Rebbi forbids bringing a ram or a lamb there, even though the Minchah is brought in one K'li.

(d) We resolve the problem - by once again presenting it as a Machlokes Ta'an'im (whether Rebbi is concerned only about the Menachos, or even about the Korban itself, as we learned above).

(a) Rav Menashyah bar Z'vid Amar Rav qualifies our Mishnah 'Shor Zeh Olah ... Im Ratzah Yavi be'Damav Shenayim'. Had the Noder said 'Shor Zeh *Alai* Olah', he maintains - it would be fixed exactly as he said it.

(b) We reject Rav Menashyah bar Z'vid's statement however, with the argument that 'Alai' means 'Alai Lehavi'o' (obligating him to bring specifically that ox as a Nedavah, but exempting him once it becomes blemished).

(c) What Rav therefore really said was - our Mishnah only speaks when he declared 'Shor Zeh Olah' or 'Shor Zeh Alai Olah', but if he added the word 've'Damav', he means to fix it as a Neder, and is obligated to bring one ox, and not two.

(a) If a man declares one of his lambs or one of his oxen Hekdesh, our Mishnah rules, assuming that he owned ...

1. ... two such animals - that he is obligated to bring the larger one.
2. ... three such animals - that he brings the middle one.

(b) In a case where he remembered specifying which one he would bring, but cannot recall what he said, or if he cites his father on his death-bed, but does not know which one his father was referring to, the Tana rules - that he is obligated to give his biggest animal to Hekdesh ...

(c) ... because, based on the Pasuk in Re'ei "Mivchar Nidreichem", we assume that this is what he had in mind to give.

(a) We can learn from the Reisha of our Mishnah ' ... ha'Gadol she'Bahen Hekdesh' - that someone who is Makdish, does so generously.

(b) And the Mishnah then continues ' ... ha'Benoni Hekdesh', says Shmuel, for exactly the same reason - because the middle one too, is considered generous, compared to the smallest, and we therefore suspect that this is what he may have meant.

(c) What Rebbi Chiya bar Rav suggests he does, to avoid having to give both animals to Hekdesh is - to wait until the middle one becomes blemished, and then to transfer its Kedushah on to the larger one (mi'Mah Nafshach rendering it Chulin).

(a) Rabah bar Avuhah qualifies our Mishnah, by confining the Reisha to where the Noder said 'Echad mi'Shevarai Hekdesh', but where he said 'Shor bi'Shevarai Hekdesh' - he means Davka the best, and not the middle one.

(b) We query this from a statement by Rav Huna bar Chiya Amar Ula 'ha'Omer la'Chavero, Bayis be'Beisi Ani Mocher Lach, Mar'eihu *Aliyah*', which we initially interpret to mean - his attic, which is an inferior section of the house (quite the opposite to Rabah bar Avuhah's interpretation of this Lashon).

(c) We reconcile Rabah bar Avuhah with the Beraisa - by re-interpreting 'Aliyah' to mean 'min ha'Me'uleh she'be'Batim' (the best part of his house).

(a) We ask on Rabah bar Avuhah from a Beraisa 'Shor bi'Shevarai *Hekdesh* ... ', which means 'an Olah' in this context.

(b) The Tana rules that in a case where someone says 'Shor bi'Shevarai Hekdesh' or where his ox became mixed up with his other animals - he takes the biggest and gives it to Hekdesh.

(c) The Tana adds to this statement - that the rest of his animals must be sold as Olos and the money remains Chulin.

(d) The money remains Chulin - because it is only when one redeems Hekdesh (as in the case of Hekdesh animals that became blemished), that the Kedushah needs to be transferred from the animal on to the money.

(a) We ask on Rabah bar Avuhah from here - because we think that the final statement ('ve'Chulan Yimachru ... ') extends to the Reisha too (even though he said 'Shor bi'Shevarai').

(b) We query the answer that 've'Chulan Yimachru le'Tzorchei Olah ... ' only refers to the Seifa 've'Chein Shor shel Hekdesh She'Nis'arev ba'Acherim ... ' - on the basis of the word 've'Chein', which implies that the Reisha and the Seifa are equivalent.

(c) But we answer that the Tana inserts the word 've'Chein' - only with regard to the initial Din 'ha'Gadol she'Bahen Hekdesh' (which is indeed common to both cases), but not to the second statement.

(a) Another Beraisa rules that in a case where someone agreed to sell his friend 'Bayis be'Beisi' or 'Eved ba'Avadai' - he may offer him a house that fell down or an Eved that died ...

(b) ... whereas according to Rabah bar Avuhah - he ought to give him the best that he owns.

(c) We answer the Kashya - by differentiating between Hekdesh (where we say 'be'Ayin Yafah Makdish') and Mecher (where we apply the principle 'Yad Ba'al ha'Sh'tar al ha'Tachtonah' [a branch of 'ha'Motzi me'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah']).

(d) That being the case, we can also revise our answer to the earlier Kashya from 'Bayis be'Beisi Ani Mocher Lach' - because by the same token, we will apply the same S'vara there, and 'Mar'eihu Aliyah' will then mean that the seller has the right to offer the purchaser the attic.