Previous daf

1)

(a) Is it not obvious that if one Shechted the Korban Pesach for owners who cannot eat it for whatever reason (which renders the Korban Pasul), he is Chayav Chatas? Why do we need a Mishnah to tell us that?

(b) We cannot answer that the Tana includes this case because of the Seifa 'le'Ochlav ve'she'Lo le'Ochlav etc. ... Patur' - because that too, is obvious (since the Korban is Kasher).

(c) The Gemara concludes that the Tana mentions it because of the case of 'she'Lo Lishemo', which in turn, needs to be included, to teach us about the Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua.

(a) Mekalkel ba'Chaburah means making a wound which has no overall benefit. One is only Chayav for making a wound which is beneficial (according to this opinion - as is the case by other Melachos), such as to obtain blood to feed one's animal.

(b) Someone who Shechts a Korban Pesach she'Lo le'Ochlav is not Patur because of Mekalkel ba'Chaburah - because he obtains the benefit of 'Im Alu, Lo Yerdu' (any Pesul Korban that occurred in the Azarah is Kasher inasmuch as, if it is taken up on the Mizbei'ach, it remains there).

(c) He is nevertheless Chayav if he Shechted a Pesach which he subsequently found to be ...

1. ... blemished (specifically by a cataract in the eye) - according to Rebbi Akiva, who holds that unlike other blemishes, a Korban with a cataract in the eye also has the Din of 'Im Alu, Lo Yerdu'.
2. ... a Tereifah (in a visible place) - because the Shechitah is nevertheless effective to remove Tum'as Neveilah.

(a) Someone who Shechts a Chatas outside the Azarah to Avodah-Zarah on Shabbos - is Chayav a Chatas for Shabbos, for Avodah-Zarah and for Shechutei Chutz.

(b) This is not Mekalkel ba'Chaburah - because the Shechitah is effective to remove the Isur of Eiver min ha'Chai.

(a) Whenever a Chatas must die, an Asham grazes in the field until it becomes blemished, and with its money one buys a Nedavah (Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai).

(b) Rav Huna quoting Rav said about such an Asham that was put in the field to graze but was Shechted without actually specifying that it was now an Olah - that it is nevertheless Kasher for an Olah. We see from Rav that a Korban that stands to be changed does not require Akirah (to change its status specifically).

(c) The reason that the Asham is not Kasher even if it is Shechted *before* it is placed in the field to graze - is because Chazal decreed a case where the Kaparah *has* been effected because of a similar case where it has *not* (and where it still remains an Asham). There is no case for such a decree once it has been designated as an Olah.

(d) According to Rebbi Eliezer, the Asham has exactly the same Din as the Chatas, so whenever the Chatas dies, the Asham dies, too.

(a) The Tana Kama holds that an Asham whose owner died etc. goes li'Nedavah (which means for Olas Kayitz ha'Mizbei'ach, which, in effect, is a Nidvas Tzibur), whereas according to Rebbi Yehoshua, the owner brings a private Olah for himself with the proceeds.

(b) According to Rebbi Yehoshua, the Olah will require Semichah, and its drink-offering comes out of his own pocket, which is not the case if it goes for a Nedavah.

(c) From the fact that it is the proceeds of the blemished Asham that goes to Nedavah and not the animal itself - we prove that Chazal decreed after the Kaparah because of a case where the owner has not been atoned for yet.

6)

(a) According to Rav Yehudah quoting Rav, who said above that an Asham whose owner died does not require Akirah (and the same will apply to a Korban Pesach after Pesach), a Korban Pesach whose owners had dies etc. - would be Pasul because it was Shechted after the Korban Tamid shel Bein ha'Arbayim.

(b) If *this* is why it is Pasul, then surely that is an external Pesul, not a Pesul ha'Guf, in which case it ought to need Ibur Tzurah. Consequently, it must be Pasul because it requires Akirah (not like Rav Yehudah Amar Rav), until when it remains a Pesach, which is Pasul because it has no owner (which is a Pesul ha'Guf).

(c) We therefore amend Rav to read not 'u'Shechato Stam' etc., but 'u'Shechato Le'shem Olah' - otherwise, it remains a Pesach (because 'Pesach Ba'i Akirah').

(a) From Rebbi Chiya bar Gamda, who establishes the Mishnah there by a Pesach whose members were all Teme'ei Meisim, and whose Korban was therefore automatically destined for the Pesach Sheni, and requires Akirah (to become a Shelamim), it is clear that, otherwise, we would say 'Pesach Lo Ba'i Akirah', like the original statement of Rav Yehudah Amar Rav.

(b) By establishing the Beraisa in 6a (which states that, if a similar case were to occur on a weekday, it would be burnt immediately) by someone who designated his Pesach *before* mid-day, and who died *after* mid-day, we seemingly resolve the problem with Rav, because - the Pesach then becomes a 'Nir'eh ve'Nidcheh' (fit and rejected) which cannot be rectified.

(c) This answer however, does not conform with Rav himself, who holds that animals are not subject to rejection (i.e. are always rectifiable).

(d) Establishing the Beraisa like Rebbi Eliezer (of the Mishnah in 'Tamid Nishchat', who disqualifies another Korban that one Shechted in the name of a Pesach) - because according to Rebbi Eliezer, he ought to be Chayav a Chatas, too, since Rebbi Eliezer holds 'To'eh bi'Devar Mitzvah, Chayav'. Why does the Mishnah exempt him?

9)

(a) Rebbi Yishmael Be'no shel Rebbi Yochanan Ben Berokah says 'Im Yesh Shehus ba'Yom Leidah, Im Mashchu Ba'lim es Yedeihem O she'Meisu O she'Nitme'u, Chayav, ve'Te'ubar Tzuraso, ve'Yotz'ei le'Beis ha'Sereifah'.

(b) Tana of Bei Rabah Bar Avuha holds that even Pigul (the ultimate Pesul ha'Guf) requires Ibr Tzurah.

(c) The Gemara proves its point from the case of Nitme'u Ba'lim - which also requires Ibur Tzurah, even though everyone agrees that Nitme'u Ba'lim, where the Pesach now stands to be brought as a Pesach on Pesach Sheni, is a Pesul ha'Guf (and requires Akirah). So we see that, according to the Tana of Bei Rabah Bar Avuha, even a Pesul ha'Guf requires Ibur Tzurah.

Next daf