Previous daf

1)

(a) The problem the Pasuk "Sham Tizbach es ha'Pesach ba'Arev" poses on Rebbi Elazar Amar Rebbi Oshaya is - that seeing as the Torah writes "ba'Arev", how can he interpret "Bein ha'Arbayim" to mean all day (just as we remarked with regard to the Neiros)?

(b) Based on a Beraisa, we answer 'ha'Hu li'Ye'uchar Davar Hu de'Asa' - meaning that the significance of "ba'Arev" here is that having delayed bringing the Pesach until the evening, it must be brought after the Tamid shel Bein ha'Arbayim (where the Torah writes "Bein ha'Arbayim", but not "ba'Erev").

(c) And we find a precedent for this in Rebbi Yochanan, who ruled that someone who delayed Musaf and now has to Daven Musaf and Minchah - must Daven Minchah before Musaf (even though the Chiyuv to Daven Musaf was there first).

(a) The problem with the Pasuk "Bein ha'Arbayim" written in connection with Ketores and Neiros is - why, if "Bein ha'Arbayim" means all day, the Torah uses an expression there, which cannot be taken literally (as we just explained).

(b) We also ask on Rebbi Oshaya from a Beraisa, where Rebbi (who holds like ben Beseira) asks how Rebbi Yehoshua can equate a Pesach on the morning of the fourteenth with a Pesach on the thirteenth - seeing as the latter is Kasher in the afternoon?

(c) This proves - that ben Beseira's reason is (not because a Pesach is Kasher on the morning of the fourteenth, but) because it is Kasher for part of the day (a suggestion which we rejected in Rebbi Yehoshua's name on the previous Amud).

(d) Rebbi Yochanan therefore rules - that (according to ben Beseira) a Pesach that is Shechted on the morning of the fourteenth is Pasul, irrespective of whether it is li'Shemo or she'Lo li'Shemo.

(a) According to Rebbi Yochanan's interpretation of ben Beseira, Rebbi Avahu asks how it is ever possible to have a Kasher Korban Pesach. When he comments that if is designated on the ...

1. ... fourteenth morning, it is 'Dichuy Me'ikara', he means - that seeing as it is not then fit to be brought either as a Pesach or as a Shelamim, it is immediately rejected, and Rebbi Yochanan holds that 'Dichuy Me'ikara Havi Dichuy' (as we shall see shortly), in which case the Korban is Pasul.
2. ... thirteenth, it is Nir'eh ve'Nidcheh, he means - that even though it was initially fit to be brought as a Shelamim, it became 'Dachuy' on the morning of the fourteenth, in which case it is Pasul according to everybody.

(b) This is not a problem according to the Rabbanan of ben Beseira (Rebbi Yehoshua) - since on the morning of the fourteenth, the animal, which is fit to be brought as a Shelamim, is never Dachuy.

(c) According to Rebbi Avuhu, the only case of a Kasher Korban Pesach, according to ben Beseira is - when the owner designated it in the afternoon of the fourteenth (when it is fit to be brought as a Pesach).

(d) The Pesach will even be Kasher however, according to ...

1. ... Abaye - if it as designated on the morning of the fourteenth, because he holds 'Ein Mechusar Z'man le'Bo ba'Yom' (i.e. seeing as the animal will be fit to be brought as a Pesach later that day, it is considered as if it that time had already arrived (with regard to the animal not being considered Dachuy).
2. ... Rav Papa - if is designated on the night of the fourteenth, because he holds 'Laylah Ein Mechusar Z'man (i.e. we extend the principle to the night before it is due).

(a) Rav Papa bases his statement on a ruling of Rebbi Apturiki, who presented an apparent contradiction between the Pasuk "Ve'hayah Shiv'as Yamim Tachas Imo" (implying that on the night of its eighth day the newborn animal is permitted to be brought as a Korban, and "u'mi'Yom ha'Shemimi va'Hal'ah Yeratzeh" (implying that it is forbidden until the actual day, but forbidden the night before).

(b) And he resolved the problem - by explaining that the night is eligible for designating the animal (i.e. it is not called Dachuy), and the day for bringing it.

(c) Rebbi Zeira asked Rebbi Avahu whether Rebbi Yochanan holds 'Ba'alei-Chayim Nidachin', because if he held 'Ba'alei Chayim Einan Nidachim' - Rav Papa would not need to conclude that the owner must have designated the Pesach in the afternoon, seeing as whenever he designated it, it would not be Dachuy.

(d) The alternative to '*Ba'alei Chayim* Nidachin' is - 'Shechutin Nidachin' (with which everyone agrees).

(a) Rebbi Avahu answered by referring to another ruling of Rebbi Yochanan, where, in a case where Reuven declared Hekdesh his half of an animal that he owned together with Shimon, and he bought the other half from Shimon and declared that Hekdesh, too, Rebbi Yochanan rules that ...

1. ... the Hekdesh takes effect, but it cannot be sacrificed..
2. ... he is able to make a Temurah on it, and the Temurah has the same Din as the animal itself.

(b) The animal cannot be sacrificed - because when Reuven declared the first half Hekdesh, it immediately became Dachuy (since, due to Shimon's ownership, the Hekdesh could not spread to the entire animal).

(c) Rebbi Avahu proved from there that Rebbi Yochanan holds 'Ba'alei Chayim Nidachin'. Otherwise, why could Reuven not sacrifice the animal after purchasing the second half and declaring the entire animal Hekdesh (Kedushas ha'Guf).

(d) This ruling also proves that Rebbi Yochanan holds 'Dichuy Me'ikara Havi Dichuy' (since the animal was Dachuy from the moment it was declared Hekdesh). The third principle Rebbi Avahu extrapolates from it is - 'Yesh Dichuy be'Damim'.

(a) The ramifications of Kedushas Damim are - that the animal is only Kadosh vis-a-vis its value, meaning that it must be sold and the proceeds used to purchase another animal for Hekdesh.

(b) 'The ramifications of 'Yesh Dichuy be'Damim' are - that the animal's adopting Kedushas Damim is sufficient reason to render it Dachuy.

(c) The alternative explanation of 'Yesh Dichuy be'Damim' that we reject is - that it is the monetary rights that Shimon has in the animal that are sufficient to render the animal Dachuy.

7)

(a) Ula Amar Rebbi Yochanan ruled that if someone designated a Chatas for having eaten Cheilev, and then became an apostate and repented - his Chatas is Dachuy.

(b) Rebbi Yirmiyah Amar ... Rebbi Yochanan found it necessary to issue the same ruling with regard to someone who went through the same process, but who went out of his mind and recovered (rather than) becoming an apostate and repenting - because (as opposed to the first case, where the Dichuy was self-imposed), here, it was created naturally (and might have therefore been no worse than falling asleep)

(c) And Ula found it necessary to issue his ruling in spite of that of Rebbi Yirmiyah - because (unlike Rebbi Yirmiyah's case, where the situation is beyond his control to change) *he* is able to retract at any time (in which case, we may have thought that it is not considered Dichuy).

(a) Rebbi Yirmiyah asked whether, in a case where someone ate Cheilev and designated a Korban, and Beis-Din then permitted Cheilev and retracted - the animal is Dachuy or not.

(b) What makes this a case of Dichuy is - the fact that during the time that Beis-Din permitted Cheilev, a Yachid was Patur from bringing a Chatas.

(c) That old man replied that on the contrary, when Rebbi Yochanan would Darshen about Dichuy, he would begin with this case, by which he meant that this is more a classical case of Dichuy than the previous cases - since not only is the man concerned Dachuy from his Chatas, but the Din of Chatas is Dachuy from everybody else too (so to speak).

(a) When Shimon ben Azai cited the Sanhedrin of Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah's ruling (equating an Olah she'Lo li'Shemo with a Pesach and a Chatas she'Lo li'Shemo), he referred to them as 'Shiv'im u'Shenayim Zakein', and not 'Zekeinim' - because they all agreed with the ruling 'like one man'.

(b) We reject Rav Huna's ...

1. ... suggestion that ben Azai's source is the Pasuk "*Olah Hi* Isheh Re'ach Nicho'ach la'Hashem" - on the grounds that it is written after Haktaras Eimurin (just as we explained earlier with regard to Asham).
2. ... counter-argument that "Olah Hi" is written there twice (one of which comes to teach us 'Im Eino Inyan' that she'Lo li'Shemo before Haktaras Eimurin is Pasul) - because there again, the Torah does the same thing by Asham (and if we do not make such a D'rashah there, why should he make it here).

(c) We conclude that ben Azai learns the P'sul of Olah she'Lo li'Shemo from Chatas she'Lo li'Shemo - with a 'Kal va'Chomer' (since an Olah is completely burned, whereas a Chatas is not).

(d) We counter the Pircha ...

1. ... 'Mah le'Chatas she'Kein Mechaperes' - with 'Pesach Yochi'ach'.
2. ... 'Mah le'Pesach she'Kein Zemano Kavu'a - with 'Chatas Tochi'ach'.

(a) ben Azai dismisses the Pircha 'Mah le'Tzad ha'Shaveh she'Kein Yesh Bahen Tzad Kareis' - since the connotation of 'Tzad Kareis' by Pesach is different that than of Chatas (as we explained earlier).

(b) He does not however, invalidate Asham she'Lo li'Shemo from the same 'Binyan Av' - because of the Pircha 'Mah le'ha'Tzad ha'Shaveh she'Bahen she'Kein Yeshnan be'Tzibur ke'va'Yachid' (whereas there is no such thing as an Asham be'Tzibur).

(c) Alternatively, ben Azai would have asked from 'Tzad Kareis had he learned Olah from a 'Binyan Av'. But he didn't. He learned it - from tradition from the Sanhedrin [without knowing their source], as we explained in our Mishnah).

(d) And the reason that Rav Huna cited the 'Kal va'Chomer' was - in order to sharpen the brains of his Talmidim, either to encourage them to ask the Kashyos brought in our Sugya, or to train them in making their own 'Kal-va'Chomers').