Previous daf

1)

(a) Shmuel says that whenever a Chatas must die, a Shelamim under the same circumstances is brought directly on the Mizbei'ach. This is just a chance similarity, not because there is any logical connection between a Chatas and a Pesach.

(b) And whenever the Chatas must graze, he says, the Pesach grazes, too.

(c) Rebbi Yochanan says that a Pesach that is found *before* its replacement has been Shechted is *not* brought directly as a Shelamim.

(a) Ro'eh means that it is sent into a field to graze until it obtains a blemish, when it can be redeemed.

(b) According to Resh Lakish, the Mishnah in Temurah does not include 'Avrah Shenasah' on its own, among the Chata'os ha'Meisos, but 'Avrah Shenasah *ve'Avdah*'.

(c) Resh Lakish compares a Chatas she'Avrah Shenasah to one that is standing in a grave-yard - to warn the Kohen that just as he is forbidden to Shecht the latter, so too, should he refrain from Shechting the former.

(d) We learn from "Im Kesev" (Vayikra) that a Pesach she'Avrah Shenasah is brought as a Shelamim. According to Resh Lakish, who learns that a Chatas she'Avrah Shenasah, Ro'ah, a Pesach ought to be Ro'eh, too?

(a) The Gemara therefore restricts Shmuel's principle to the Avudin i.e. Pesach she'Kipru Ba'leha. Whenever a Chatas that was lost, dies, the Pesach is brought, and whenever it grazes, the Shelamim grazes too.

(b) Shmuel, explains the Gemara, holds like Rebbi, according to whom a Chatas that is found after its replacement has been designated but not yet brought, must die (and not like the Chachamim, who hold that it grazes), in which case the fact that a Pesach that is found after mid-day (according to Rebbi Zeira on the previous Amud - but before the Shechitah of the replacement) is brought as a Shelamim, conforms with his statement.

(c) There is no problem with Rebbi, who holds that *every* lost Chatas dies, whereas a Pesach that is both lost and found before mid-day, grazes - because a Pesach that is lost *before* mid-day (when it is not as yet fit to be brought on the Mizbei'ach) does not have the Din of a lost Pesach (even if one replaced it with another one).

(d) This is derived from Rava, who said with regard to a Chatas that was lost at night-time (when it is not yet fit to be brought on the Mizbei'ach) is not called 'lost', and which consequently only grazes, and does not die.

4)

(a) According to Rebbi (who says that even a lost Chatas that is found *before* its replacement was brought, must die) the case of 'Chatas Ro'eh' is when two Chata'os were designated, one to bring as a Kaparah, and the other, as a back-up; one is brought, whilst the other is sent out to graze.

(b) But in that case, a Pesach under similar circumstances should graze, too. Yet it does not, but is brought directly as a Shelamim (since this a classical case of a Mosar Chatas)? (Note: the Gemara could just as well have asked that this is not the case of Avud (lost) that we are trying to establish?)

(a) The Gemara concludes that Shmuel holds like Rebbi Shimon - who says that the five Chata'os die *in all circumstances* (in the case of Avud, irrespective of when it was found, and even in a case when one separated two Chata'os). Consequently, since there is no case of Ro'eh by Chatas, the previous Kashya falls away.

(b) We establish Shmuel like Rebbi Shimon - because it is only according to him, that his principle 'Kol she'ba'Chatas Meisah, be'Pesach Karev Shelamim' holds water. According to the Chachamim, a Chatas that is found before its replacement has been brought - grazes, and according to Rebbi, when two Chata'os that are designated, one to be brought and the other, as a back-up - one of them grazes, whereas in both cases, a Pesach is brought on the Mizbei'ach (and if Shmuel held like either of them, the Pesach ought to graze, too).

(c) Retracting from the original version of Shmuel's statement, the Gemara now accepts only the first half - 'Kol she'Bachatas Meisah, be'Pesach Kareiv' etc., but omits the second half - 'Kol she'be'Chatas 'Ro'ah, Ro'ah'.

(d) Rebbi Yochanan says that the Pesach is only brought as a Shelamim if it is found *after* the Shechitah of the replacement, but not when it is found *beforehand* - even after mid-day, in which case, it grazes. According to Shmuel however, even then, it may be brought as a Shelamim.

(a) Shmuel cannot be referring to a Pesach whose owner died - because the Pesach is fixed at mid-day, so if the owner dies *after* mid-day, it must be sent to graze.

(b) It is also necessary to establish Shmuel specifically by a *lost* Pesach - since that is what Rebbi Yochanan (with whom he argues) is talking about.

8)

(a) If the owner of the Pesach dies, his son cannot bring it as a Pesach - because it is a Pesach without designees.

(b) He brings it as a Shelamim.

(c) A son is permitted to bring it as a Pesach, provided he is a joint owner.