Previous daf

1)

(a) Rava from Barnish refutes the 'Tzad ha'Shaveh' from Olah and Minchas Chotei to validate an Asham whose blood entered the Kodesh - on the grounds that they have no fixed price-tag, like the Asham does (like we asked above).

(b) So he learns it from the Pasuk "Asher Yuva mi'Damah" - 'Damah shel Zu (of a Chatas), ve'Lo Damah shel Acher'.

(c) Rebbi Eliezer learns "Damah", 've'Lo Besarah'. The Rabbanan learn this from - "Dam" "Damah" (implying two 'Miy'utin').

(d) Rebbi Eliezer does not learn anything from "Dam" "Damah" - because in his opinion, since the Torah had to write "Dam", it is only natural to add the 'Hey' and to write "Damah".

(a) The Rabbanan explain the Pasuk "Kodesh Kodashim Hi ka'Chatas ve'cha'Asham" to mean - that a Minchas Chotei is like a Chatas (and is Pasul if the Kemitzah was made she'Lo li'Shemo), whereas a Minchas Nedavah is like an Asham (and is Kasher).

(b) The problem with Rebbi Eliezer (who does not differentiate between a Chatas and an Asham in this regard) is - how he will explain the Pasuk ''ka'Chatas ve'cha'Asham"?

(c) So we establish him like Rebbi Shimon. In a case where the Kohen took the Kometz to the Mizbe'ach in his hand, without a K'li Shareis, the Tana Kama in the Mishnah in Menachos invalidates the Korban - Rebbi Shimon rules that it is Kasher.

(a) Rav Yehudah b'rei de'Rebbi Chiya bases Rebbi Shimon's opinion on "ka'Chatas ve'cha'Asham". He Darshens - that the Kohen has the option of either carrying the Minchah in his right hand (like a Chatas), or in a K'li Shareis (held even in his left hand), like an Asham.

(b) We learn from the Pasuk "Ve'lakach *ha'Kohen* mi'Dam ha'Chatas *be'Etzba'o*" - that a Chatas must be carried in the Kohen's right hand.

(c) By Asham too, the Torah writes 'Kehunah', yet Rebbi Shimon permits the Kohen to use his left hand - because it does not write 'Etzba' (and Rebbi Shimon requires both).

(d) The Chachamim, who learn from either "Etzba" or "Kehunah" require the Kohen to use his right hand by the Avodos of the Asham too.

(a) We conclude that Rebbi Shimon learns the Pasuk ("Kodesh Kodashim Hi ka'Chatas ve'cha'Asham") like Rav Yehudah b'rei de'Rebbi Chiya explained. And he learns that a Minchas Chotei is Pasul she'Lo li'Shemah - from the word "Hi" (in the same way as we learn the P'sul by Chatas from the word "Hi" there).

(b) According to the Rabbanan in our Mishnah (who validate an Asham that is brought she'Lo li'Shemo), the Torah writes "ka'Chatas ve'cha'Asham" - to teach us that an Asham requires Semichah, like a Chatas.

(a) According to Rebbi Yochanan, Yosef ben Choni (in our Mishnah) and Rebbi Eliezer (in a Beraisa) say one and the same thing - that if one Shechts another Korban as a Pesach or a Chatas, it is Pasul.

(b) Rabah maintains that Rebbi Eliezer agrees with Yosef ben Choni by Pesach - but argues with him by Chatas.

(c) Rebbi Eliezer renders Pasul a Pesach in its second year or other Korbanos that one Shechted on the fourteenth as a Pesach. Rebbi Yehoshua - declares them Kasher.

(d) Rebbi Yehoshua learns - that if other Korbanos that one Shechts during the year as a Pesach are Kasher, even though a Pesach is not (Kasher as a Pesach), then if one Shechts them on the fourteenth, when a Pesach *is* Kasher, they should certainly be Kasher.

(a) Rebbi Eliezer counters Rebbi Yehoshua with the reverse 'Kal-va'Chomer'. He learns - that if a Pesach during the year is Kasher as a Shelamim, even though it is not Kasher as a Pesach - then on the fourteenth, when it is Kasher as a Pesach, it should certainly be Kasher as a Shelamim.

(b) This Kal va'Chomer is unacceptable however - since it negates the Mishnah, which disqualifies a Pesach she'Lo li'Shemo.

(c) Rebbi Eliezer sets out to prove with this (false) 'Kal va'Chomer' - these Halachos are not subject to 'Kal-va'Chomers'.

(d) Rebbi Eliezer also asks on Rebbi Yehoshua's 'Kal -va'Chomer', that Acherim le'Shem Pesach on the fourteenth is worse than a Pesach le'Shem Acherim during the year - because on the fourteenth, Pesach le'Shem Acherim is Pasul (reason enough to render Pasul Acherim le'Shem Pesach).

(a) Rebbi Yochanan proves from here - that Rebbi Eliezer renders another Korban le'Shem Chatas Pasul (just like le'Shem Pesach), since he gives the reason for the P'sul as the fact that a Pesach le'Shem Acherim is Pasul.

(b) Rebbi Yehoshua counters Rebbi Eliezer's second Kashya - in that according to him (Rebbi Eliezer), it now transpires that she'Lo li'Shemo of a Shelamim (on the fourteenth) will be stronger than she'Lo li'Shemo by Pesach (during the year [which goes against what we have learned that a Pesach she'Lo li'Shemo is stronger]).

(c) So Rebbi Eliezer tries another angle. He tries to prove from the fact that a Pesach, whose Moser is brought as a Shelamim, is Pasul if he brings it on the fourteenth as a Shelamim - that a Shelamim (whose Moser is not brought as a Pesach) should become Pasul, if one brings it as a Pesach on the fourteenth.

(d) Rebbi Yehoshua counters that with a similar Limud from a Chatas, whose Moser is brought as an Olah - yet it is Pasul if it is brought as an Olah, whereas an Olah is not Pasul if it is brought as a Chatas, even though its Mosar is not brought as a Chatas.

(a) Rebbi Eliezer counters Rebbi Yehoshua's counter proof - by pointing out that a Chatas (unlike a Pesach) is Kasher all the year round (which is why an Olah that was Shechted le'Shem Chatas is Kasher).

(b) Rebbi Eliezer might have answered - that, in his opinion, an Olah le'Shem Chatas is Pasul too.

(c) Rabah proves from the fact that he didn't - that he only agrees with Yosef ben Choni by Pesach, but not by Chatas.

9)

(a) According to Rav Ashi and Rav Acha b'rei de'Rava in the name Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Yanai respectively, Shimon Achi Azaryah learns from the Pasuk "ve'Lo Yechalelu es Kodshei B'nei Yisrael es Asher Yarimu la'Hashem" - that one does not invalidate a Korban by having in mind a higher Kedushah (but that if one has in mind in inferior Kedushah, the Korban is Pasul).

(b) Shmuel learns from the same Pasuk that someone who eats Tevel is Chayav Misah - because "es Asher Yarimu la'Hashem" is in the future tense, a warning not to desecrate Tevel (which stands to have the Terumah removed from it).

(c) Despite the fact that Misah is not mentioned in this Pasuk, Shmuel knows that one is Chayav Misah - from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Chilul" "Chilul" from Terumah (where the Torah writes "u'Meisu Bo Ki Yechaleluhu").

(d) In spite of Shimon Achi Azaryah's D'rashah, Shmuel learns his D'rashah from there, because the Torah could have written "es Asher Hurmu" (in the past). "Yarimu" in the future implies a second D'rashah.

(a) Shimon Achi Azaryah says 'Kodshim Kalim le'Shem Kodshei Kodshim Kesheirim'. Rebbi Zeira is not sure what he means by 'Kesheirim', whether he means 'Kesheirim u'Meratzin' (that the owner is Yotze, too), or 'Kesheirim ve'Ein Meraztin'.

(b) When Rebbi Zeira says that if Shimon Achi Azaryah means 'Kesheirim u'Meratzin', then he argues with the Tana Kama in two points - he is referring to a. 'Kodshei Kodshim le'Shem Kodshim Kalim Pesulim' (whereas the Tana Kama holds 'Kesheirim' [apart from a Chatas]), and b. 'Kodshim Kalim le'Shem Kodshei Kodshim Kesheirim u'Meratzin' (whereas the Tana Kama holds 've'Lo Alu le'Ba'alim le'Shem Chovah').

(a) Abaye attempts to resolve Rebbi Zeira's She'eilah from the Seifa of our Mishnah 'Bechor u'Ma'aser she'Shachtan le'Shem Shelamim, Kesheirim' - which definitely means 'Kesheirim ve'Ein Meratzin' (since Ritzuy is not applicable there, seeing as the owner is not required to replace them in any case). In that case, he claims, the Reisha also means 'Kesheirim ve'Ein Meratzin'.

(b) We refute Abaye's proof from there however - with 'Ha ke'de'Isa ve'Ha ke'de'Isa' (meaning that even if 'Kesheirim' in the Seifa means 'Kesheirim ve'Ein Meratzin', in the Reisha it may well mean 'Kesheirim u'Meratz'in').

(c) In that case (if the Seifa does not come to reflect on the Reisha), having already learned 'Kodshim Kalim le'Shem Kodshei Kodshim ... ', the Seifa is coming to teach us - that the difference between 'Gavohah' and 'Namuch' applies even when both Korbanos are Kodshim Kalim.

(d) True, we know that too, from the Mishnah in 'Kol ha'Tadir' 'Shelamim Kodmin es ha'Bechor Mipnei she'Hein Te'unin Matan Arba ... '. However - the main Chidush regarding the P'sul of she'Lo li'Shemo is here, and the Tana only mentions it there, because it fits into the Sugya of 'Kol ha'Tadir me'Chavero'.

(a) Rebbi Yehoshua declares a Pesach that was Shechted in the morning of the fourteenth she'Lo li'Shemo, Kasher - because it is no different than on any other day of the year (when a Pesach she'Lo li'Shemo is Kasher).

(b) ben Beseira says - that it is Pasul as if it was Shechted in the afternoon.

(c) Shimon ben Azai quoting the Sanhedrin, rules that 'Kol ha'Zevachim ha'Ne'echalin she'Nizbechu she'Lo li'Sheman Kesheirim'. When he says 'ha'Ne'echalin - he means to preclude an Olah, which he equates with a Pesach and Chatas in this regard.

(d) He was quoting - the Sanhedrin ha'Gadol that convened on the day that Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah was appointed Nasi.

(a) According to Rebbi Elazar Amar Rebbi Oshayah, ben Beseira is Machshir the whole of the fourteenth for the Korban Pesach (which explains why he declares she'Lo li'Shemo, Pasul) - because he considers it all to be included in "Bein ha'Arbayim", as we shall see shortly.

(b) Nevertheless, ben Beseira said '*Ke'ilu* Nishchat Bein ha'Arbayim' - because he was echoing Rebbi Yehoshua, who used the same expression.

(c) ben Beseira and Rebbi Yehoshua did not argue whether a Pesach li'Shemo is Kasher in the morning (ben Beseira) or not (Rebbi Yehoshua) - because we would have then assumed that Rebbi Yehoshua will concede that she'Lo li'Shemo is Pasul, seeing as the Korban is Kasher for part of the day.

(d) Rebbi Oshaya explains "Bein ha'Arbayim" to mean - between the end of one Erev (that of the fourteenth) and the beginning of the next (the onset of night of the fifteenth).

(a) We do not, by the same token, permit the Korban Tamid shel Bein ha'Arbayim to be brought in the morning - because the Torah writes there "es ha'Keves ha'Echad Ta'aseh ba'Boker, ve'es ha'Keves ha'Sheini Ta'aseh Bein ha'Arbayim".

(b) We nevertheless need to Darshen from the Pasuk "es ha'Keves *ha'Echad* Ta'aseh ba'Boker", 'Echad ve'Lo Shenayim' - to preclude the suggestion that one of the Temidin must be brought in the morning, whilst the other can be brought at any time during the day (even in the morning).

(c) Despite the fact that the Torah writes there too, "Bein ha'Arbayim", we know that the Kohen cannot kindle the Menorah any time during the day - seeing as the Torah also writes "me'Erev ve'ad Boker", which the Beraisa explains to mean that one is obligated to pour in enough oil to last from evening until morning (half a Lug of oil, to suffice for the long nights of the winter).

(d) Alternatively, we learn from "me'Erev ve'ad Boker 'Ein Lecha Avodah Kesheirah me'Erev ad Boker Ela Zu Bilevad' - which means that kindling of the lights had to be the last Avodah in the day.

(e) And we know that the second offering of Ketores, which is written in the same Pasuk as the Menorah in Tetzaveh, cannot be brought all day - because it is compared to the Menorah (as we have just explained [and just as we know the one, so we know the other]).