Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) THE DATES OF BAVEL

(a) Ula taught that [the reason the Jews were sent to Bavel is so that] they could eat the dates there and [be free] to study Torah.
(b) Ula discovered that dates were very inexpensive in Bavel.

1. He remarked that the residents did not learn commensurate to the ease of their sustenance.
2. When he discovered that they caused indigestion, he remarked that despite this the residents still studied Torah.

(a) The Beis HaMikdash is called [by the Pasuk in Yeshayahu] the House of the G-d of Yaakov.
(b) Question: Why not call it by reference to Avraham and Yitzhok?
(c) Answer: Avraham called it Har, Yitzhok called it Sadeh, while Yaakov called it Bayis.

(a) The day of the ingathering will be as great as the day in which heaven and earth were created.
(b) The comparison involves Rosh Echad...Yom Yizrael and Yom Echad.

(a) Question: It seems from here that we apply Bereirah.
(b) Answer: Not necessarily, since the Torah allows automatic appointment of household members (servants and minors).
(c) Question: Why is a wife singled out among the adults whose agreement is needed for them to be counted in?
(d) Answer: The Bereisa means a wife and those similar to her.
(e) Question: There seems to be a contradiction in our assumptions regarding a wife's participation with her husband.

1. One Bereisa implies that wives need to agree to be counted with their husbands.
2. One Bereisa implies that unless they are counted with their husbands unless they indicate otherwise.

(f) Answer: The first Bereisa means that their agreement is assumed.
(g) Question: But the Bereisa when dealing with the case where the adult slaughtered on his/her own, the we see that a woman's participation is *not* assumed?
(h) Answer: There cannot be a stronger statement of non- participation than slaughtering one's own Korban Pesach.

(a) Question: There is a Bereisa which contradicts our Mishna!?

1. Our Mishna says that the servant may not eat either one.
2. The Bereisa says he may choose whichever he wishes.

(b) Answer: One speaks where the two owners are at ease with one another; one where they are particular with one another.

(a) Question: The Bereisa contradicts our Mishna!?

1. Our Mishna implies that he may make his own Korban.
2. In the Bereisa he may not eat his own nor his master's.

(b) Answer: One is the Mishna Rishonah; the other the Mishna Acharonah.

1. Beis Hillel held that such an Eved works for himself one day and for his master the next (Mishna Rishonah).

2. Beis Shamai pointed out that he would then not be able to be married.
3. Beis Hillel retracted (Mishna Acharonah).

(a) If the Eved Schechted a kid, he eats a kid; if a lamb, a lamb.
(b) If he Schechted both, he eats whichever was Schechted first.
(c) If he forgot his instructions, he Schechts both on condition.
(d) If the master forgot his instructions, both animals are burnt, but they need not bring a Pesach Sheni.

(a) Question: How can the master eat whichever was first?

1. This would mean that he could be appointed to two Korbanos.
2. This would imply Bereirah (Rashi).

(b) The Mishna is speaking of a King and Queen.

1. The King told the servants to ask the Queen her preference.
2. The Queen told the servants to ask R. Gamliel.
3. R. Gamliel said that since the monarchs have no preference, the first Korban is theirs, unlike other people.

(c) In another incident where they found a (presumably dead) Sheretz in the royal kitchen and thought that the whole meal was Tamei.

1. They asked the King who referred them to the Queen.
2. The Queen referred them to R. Gamliel.
3. R. Gamliel tested the Sheretz and found it alive, and the meal was Tahor.
4. Such was the chain of command regarding the meals.

(a) Question: What the Eved acquires becomes his master's?!
(b) Answer: The shepherd gave him the animal on condition.

(a) Abaye taught: This (that they are Patur) only applies after Zerikah, but if before Zerikah, they must make Pesach Sheni.

1. The above could be a qualification of the Mishna [the master forgot what he had instructed his Eved], or;
2. This could qualify the Bereisa [five skins of Korbanos Pesach became mixed and one was found blemished].
3. If the qualification applies to the Mishna (where both animals were acceptable), then it certainly applies to the Bereisa (where one animal may have had a blemish).
4. If the qualification applies to the Bereisa, then we might say that the exemption of the Mishna is unqualified since Heaven knows which Korban is which.

(b) Question: How can *all* five groups be exempt from Pesach Sheni?
(c) Answer: We have no other option.

1. We cannot have each of the groups bring a Pesach Sheni [on account of the doubt] since that would bring four Hulin animals into the Azarah!
2. We cannot have them combine to bring one Pesach Sheni since it would be eaten by those who are not appointed to it!

(d) Question: Let each group bring a conditional offering (either Pesach Sheni or Shelamim)!?
(e) Answer: That is impossible, since the Kohanim could not eat from those Shelamim which are, potentially, Korbanos Pesach.