Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) THE PROPER TIME TO SLAUGHTER THE PESACH (cont.)

(a) Question: Regarding the Ketores, it says "Bein ha'Arbayim" - will we say that it may be burned anytime in the day?!
(b) Answer: The Torah equates the Ketores to the Menorah.
(c) Question: Also regarding Pesach it says "Tizbach Es ha'Pesach *ba'Arev*" (this shows that it must be in the afternoon)!
(d) Answer: No, that teaches that Pesach is slaughtered after the Tamid.

1. (Beraisa): Since it says "Ba'Arev" and "Bein ha'Arbayim" by Pesach, we slaughter it after the afternoon Tamid, by which it only says "Bein ha'Arbayim".

(e) Question: Can we say that Pesach may be slaughtered in the morning, but if it is slaughtered in the afternoon, it should not be slaughtered until after the Tamid!
(f) Answer: Yes (as we find regarding Musaf)!

1. (R. Yochanan): (The Musaf prayer applies the entire day, but if one did not pray Musaf before the time for Minchah arrived,) he should pray Minchah first.

(g) Objection #1: If "Bein ha'Arbayim" does not connote the afternoon (and we must learn from other verses), why did the Torah say "Bein ha'Arbayim" regarding the Menorah and the Ketores?
(h) Objection #2 (Beraisa - Rebbi): Ben Beseira could answer R. Yehoshua 'Do not compare the morning of Erev Pesach to the previous day, for no part of the previous day is fitting to slaughter the Pesach, but part of Erev Pesach is fitting!

1. According to R. Elazar, Ben Beseira says that all of Erev Pesach is fitting!

(i) (R. Yochanan): Ben Beseira disqualifies a Pesach slaughtered in the morning of Erev Pesach, whether Lishmah or Lo Lishmah since part of the day is fitting.
(j) Question (R. Avahu): If so, how is Pesach ever Kosher according to Ben Beseira?

1. If it was Hukdash in the morning of Erev Pesach, it was Nidcheh from the start (it could not be offered in a Kosher way, either Lishmah or Lo Lishmah; R. Yochanan holds, such a Korban can never be offered);
2. If it was Hukdash before Erev Pesach, it was fitting (it was originally Kosher Lo Lishmah) and then Nidcheh, it never becomes fitting again!

(k) Answer #1 (R. Avahu): We must say that it was Hukdash in the afternoon of Erev Pesach.
(l) Answer #2 (Abaye): We can even say that it was Hukdash in the morning - since it will become fitting that same day, it is considered fitting from the start.
(m) Answer #3 (Rav Papa): We can even say that it was Hukdash the previous night - since it will become fitting (the coming afternoon, which Halachah considers to be) the same day, it is considered fitting from the start.

1. (Tana d'vei R. Yishmael): An animal on the night before its eighth day (is considered fitting to be a Korban, since it may be offered the coming day, therefore it) may enter the pen to be tithed.
2. Contradiction (R. Aftoriki): It says "V'Hayah Shivas Yamim Tachas Imo" - implying that on the night before its eighth day it is fitting to be a Korban;

i. It also says "Umi'Yom ha'Shemini va'Hal'ah Yeratzeh" - implying that the night before its eighth day it is not fit!

3. Answer (R. Aftoriki): The night before it is fitting to be Hukdash, it is not fitting to be offered until the eighth day.

(a) R. Zeira: We may infer that R. Yochanan says that a living animal can be Nidcheh!
(b) R. Avahu: That is correct!

1. (R. Yochanan): If one of two partners in an animal was Makdish his half; he bought his partner's half, and was Makdish that also, the animal is Kodesh, but it cannot be offered; if one makes Temurah on it, the Temurah has the same law as it does.
2. We learn three laws from this:

i. A living animal can be Nidcheh;
ii. Dichuy from the start is considered Dichuy (and it can never be offered);
iii. Dichuy applies to monetary Kedushah (Rashi - the animal can never be offered, even if it becomes fitting; R. Chananel - when redeemed, the money cannot be used for the purpose for which it was Hukdash).

(c) (Ula citing R. Yochanan): If Reuven (unintentionally) ate Chelev, was Makdish a Korban, became a Mumar (who cannot bring a Korban) and repented, since the animal was once Nidcheh, it can never be offered.
(d) (R. Yirmeyah citing R. Yochanan): If Reuven ate Chelev, was Makdish a Korban, went crazy and regained sanity, since the animal was once Nidcheh, it can never be offered.
(e) He must teach both cases.

1. If he only taught the first case, one might have thought that there it can never be offered, because he actively was Docheh the Korban - but if he went crazy, this happens by itself, he is like one who goes to sleep (the Korban is not Nidcheh);
2. If he only taught the second case, one might have thought that there it can never be offered, because he cannot restore his sanity, but a Mumar can always repent (so his Korban is not permanently Nidcheh).

(f) Question (R. Yirmeyah): If Reuven ate Chelev, was Makdish a Korban, and Beis Din (mistakenly) ruled that Chelev is permitted and retracted, is the animal permanently Nidcheh or not?
(g) Answer (An elder): When R. Yochanan would teach about Dichuy, this is the first case he would teach (Rashi - because it is very Nidcheh; R. Tam - because it is not Nidcheh so much, it is a Chidush that it can never be offered).
(h) Question: What is the reason?
(i) Version #1 (Rashi) Answer: If Reuven became a Mumar or insane, he was Nidcheh, but Chatas Chelev still applies; when Beis Din permitted Chelev, Chatas Chelev is also Nidcheh (one who follows a mistaken ruling of Beis Din does not bring a Korban)!
(j) Version #2 (R. Tam) Answer: If Reuven became a Mumar or insane, he and the Korban were Nidchim; when Beis Din permitted Chelev, Reuven is Nidcheh (he is unsure whether or not he should bring the Korban), the Korban is not (it would be offered if not for the mistaken Hora'ah)!

(a) (Mishnah - Shimon Ben Azai): I heard from 72 elder...
(b) Question: Why does it say *elder* (singular)?
(c) Answer: To teach that all agreed like one about the law.
(d) (Mishnah): Ben Azai only added Olah (to the Korbanos that are Pasul Lo Lishmah).
(e) Question (Rav Huna): Question: What is his reason?
(f) Answer #1 (Rav Huna): "Olah Hu" - if it is Lishmah it is Kosher, if not it is Pasul.

1. Question: It also says "Hu" regarding Asham, Ben Azai does not Posel Asham Lo Lishmah!
2. Answer: That is said after burning the Eimurim (Chelev) on the Mizbeach.

i. (Even if the Eimurim are not burned at all, the Korban is Kosher - all the more so if they are burned Lo Lishmah!)

3. Question: Also "Olah Hu" is said after burning the Eimurim!
4. Answer: Regarding Olah, it says "Hu" twice, one of them teaches that it is Pasul Lo Lishmah.
5. Objection: It also says "Hu" twice regarding Asham!

(g) Answer #2: Ben Azai learns from a Kal va'Chomer: Chatas is not entirely burned on the Mizbeach, it is Pasul Lo Lishmah - Olah is entirely burned on the Mizbeach, all the more so it is Pasul Lo Lishmah!

1. Question: We cannot learn from Chatas, since it atones!
2. Answer: Pesach proves that this is not the essential reason - it does not atone, it is Pasul Lo Lishmah!
3. Question: You cannot learn from Pesach, because it is offered at a fixed time of the year!
4. Answer: Chatas proves that this is not the essential reason (there is no fixed time to offer it, it is Pasul Lo Lishmah);

i. We learn from the Tzad ha'Shavah - Chatas and Pesach are Kodshim, if Lo Lishmah they are Pasul - the same applies to Olah.

5. Question: We cannot learn from Chatas and Pesach, because both pertain to Kares!
6. Answer: Ben Azai does not consider that a question, because they do not pertain to Kares the same way (Chatas atones for Chayavei Kerisus, one who does not offer Korban Pesach is Chayav Kares).
7. Question: Ben Azai should also learn Asham from the Tzad ha'Shavah (of Pesach, Chatas and Olah)!
8. Answer: No, because all of those are brought for Korbanos Tzibur, but Asham is not.

(h) Answer #3: Ben Azai does not learn from Chatas and Pesach, because both pertain to Kares;

1. He received the law from the 72 Chachamim.

(i) Question: But Rav Huna said that he learns from a Kal va'Chomer!
(j) Answer: He only said that to make the Talmidim investigate whether there is a valid Kal va'Chomer.