Previous daf

1)

(a) In spite of the Torah having already written (in connection with the Korban Pesach) "Lo Sosiru Mimenu ad Boker", Rebbi Yehudah learns from the Pasuk "Lo Yani'ach Mimenu ad Boker" - via 'Im Eino Inyan', that Machsheves Hinu'ach she'Lo bi'Zemano is effective too (as we saw in our Mishnah).

(b) The Torah writes next to it "u'Vesar Zevach *Todas* Shelamav". We learn from ...

1. ... the juxtaposition of the two Pesukim - that the time limit of a Korban Todah is one day.
2. ... the word "u'Vesar" - that Chalipin, V'lados and Temuros of a Todah must also be eaten by the end of the first day.

(c) A Chalipei Todah is - the replacement of Korban Todah that got lost, after the original animal has been found.

(d) the original animal is brought to cover his initial Neder, and the Chalipei Todah is brought as a Nedavah.

(a) The Pasuk comes to include (in the list of Korbanos that can be eaten for one day) with the word ...

1. ... "Zevach" - a Chatas and an Asham.
2. ... "Shelamav" - Shalmei Nazir and Shalmei Pesach (i.e. the Chagigah of the fourteenth of Nisan).

(b) The three types of loaves that "Korbano" incorporates are - Lachmei Todah and the Chalos and the Rekikin (the wafers) of a Nazir.

(c) Even though "Lo Yani'ach" comes to teach us the time limit of all the above, Rebbi Yehudah nevertheless learns 'Machsheves Hinu'ach - from the fact that the Torah uses the word "Lo Yani'ach" (rather than "Lo Sosiru").

(a) The problem with the current source of Rebbi Yehudah ("Lo Yani'ach"), from our Mishnah Shachtan al-M'nas ... O Le'hotzi'an la'Chutz" is - what is then his source for the Machsheves Hotza'ah Chutz li'Mekomo?

(b) In addition, the reason Rebbi Yehudah himself gave to explain why Machsheves Hinu'ach is Pasul is - the S'vara that just as 'Hinu'ach Dam le'Machar' invalidates the Korban (see Shitah Mekubetzes), so does Machsheves Hinu'ach le'Machar (and the same S'vara will apply to Machsheves Hotza'ah Chutz li'Mekomo).

(c) Hinu'ach renders the Korban, Pasul - from nightfall (Sof Sheki'ah).

(d) If Rebbi Yehudah's reason is based on a S'vara, the problem we have with his opinion is - why he does not then argue with the Tana Kama in all the cases in our Mishnah (by Shover Atzmos ha'Pesach or she'Yochlu Mimenu Na, by al-M'nas she'Yochlu Teme'im or she'Yakrivuhu Teme'im, and by she'Yochluhu Areilim or she'Yakrivuhu Areilim)?

(a) The general answer we give to explain why Rebbi Yehudah does not argue in all the cases is - because the Korban itself would not be Pasul even if one were to break a bone of the Pesach or eat from the cooked Basar, if Teme'im were to eat from the Basar or bring the Eimurin, or if Areilim were to eat from it or bring it.

(b) We know that the Tana is speaking about the Teme'im bringing the Eimurin' and not the blood (which would invalidate the Korban) - because it is similar to the 'al-Menas she'Yochluhu Teme'im', which refers to Temei'im eating the Basar, and not the blood.

(c) When we say in the second Lashon 'Kol ke'Mineih' - we mean that in the cases which we just mentioned, the Shochet cannot invalidate the Korban, because which Tamei or Areil Kohen would listen to him to eat or to bring the Korban anyway (and any Machshavah that depends upon the actions of others is therefore not effective). Note, that this S'vara does not apply to regular Pigul, which is a Gezeiras-ha'Kasuv'.

(d) Neither does he argue with the Tana Kama by ...

1. ... 'Le'areiv Damo be'Dam Pesulim' - because he holds 'Ein Dam Mevateil Dam', as we explained earlier.
2. ... 'es ha'Nitnin le'Ma'alah, le'Matah' or vice-versa - because he holds 'she'Lo bi'Mekomo ki'Mekomo Dami'.

(a) When we say that Rebbi Yehudah does not argue with the Tana Kama over 'ha'Nitnim bi'Fenim she'Nasnan ba'Chutz' and vice-versa, because it is not a place that is 'Meshulash', we mean - that one is only Chayav (for Chutz li'Mekomo) for taking the Korban or the Dam to a place which is Kasher to place Dam, Basar and Eimurim.

(b) This refers - to the case of 'Nitnin ba'Chutz she'Nasnan bi'Fenim' (because 'ha'Nitnin bi'Fenim she'Nasnan ba'Chutz' did have a Heter for all three in the time of the Bamos, as we explained earlier).

(c) We query Rebbi Yehudah however, from another Beraisa, where he learns from the Pasuk "Lo Sizbach ... Kol Davar Ra" that a Chatas which is Shechted in the south - and one whose blood is taken inside the Heichal, is Pasul ...

(d) ... even though the latter is not a Makom Meshulash, a proof that Rebbi Yehudah does not concur with the D'rashah of 'Shelishi'.

(a) When Rebbi Yehudah says in a Mishnah in 'Kol ha'Zevachim', 'Hichnis be'Shogeg Kasher', he means - that if the Kohen actually took the blood of a Chatas Chitzonah into the Heichal (even if he placed it on the Mizbe'ach ha'Ketores, as we shall now see), the Korban remains Kasher.

(b) We infer from there 'Ha be'Meizid Pasul' - but only, if he actually placed the blood on the Mizbe'ach ha'Ketores, otherwise not.

(c) And if Rebbi Yehudah holds of 'Meshulash' as regards bringing the blood inside the Heichal, 'Kal va'Chomer' as regards a mere Machshavah (clashing with what we just said, that Rebbi Yehudah does not concur with the D'rashah of 'Meshulash' at all.

(d) We resolve the discrepancy in Rebbi Yehudah - by turning the two Beraisos into a Machlokes Tana'im in the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah.

7)

(a) We also query Rebbi Yehudah with regard to his previous D'rashah from "Kol Davar Ra" (that one is Chayav for Shechting a Chatas on the south side of the Azarah). In another Beraisa, he Darshens the same phrase "Kol Davar Ra" - to preclude someone who Shechts a Chatas on the south side of the Azarah.

(b) And we resolve this discrepancy - in the same way as we resolved the previous one, by turning it into a Machlokes Tana'im as to what Rebbi Yehudah actually said.

(a) When Rava says 'u'Modeh Rebbi Yehudah, she'Chozer ve'Kov'o le'Pigul' - he means that even though the Korban is already Pasul, it will become Pigul should the Kohen have a Machsheves Chutz li'Zemano during a later Avodah.

(b) Rava tries to prove this from 'Pigul Lifnei Zerikah' - which does not actually become Pigul until the Kohen performs the Zerikah be'Kashrus.

(c) Similarly, says Rava - according to Rebbi Yehudah, the original Machshavah of Hinu'ach Chutz li'Zemano will come into effect retroactively when he makes the Zerikah with a Machsheves Pigul.

(d) We refute Rava's proof however - on the grounds that whereas in the latter case, there is only one Machshavah, in Rebbi Yehudah's case there are two (one of them a Machsheves P'sul and not Pigul, in which case it ought to be considered 'Lo Kareiv Kol Matirav').

(a) Rav Huna queries Rava (strange, since Rav Huna lived long before Rava) from the Beraisa that we discussed earlier. The Tana rules, in a case where ...

1. ... the one who Shechted the Korban had in mind to place the blood of a Korban that is normally placed above the Chut ha'Sikra, below it, or vice-versa - the Korban is Kasher.
2. ... the Kohen, by one of the subsequent Avodos, had a Machsheves Chutz li'Mekomo - is Pasul ...
3. ... Chutz li'Zemano - is Pigul.

(b) And the Tana rules, in a case where, following a Machsheves Hinu'ach, but on the next day (according to Rebbi Yehudah), the Kohen subsequently had a Machsheves Chutz li'Mekomo or Chutz li'Zemano - that the Korban is Pasul but not Pigul.

(c) This proves that even Machsheves Hinu'ach le'Machar, according to Rebbi Yehudah, prevents any subsequent Pigul from taking effect, because it is considered 'Lo Karvu Kol Matirav' (finally proving Rava wrong).

(a) Rav Chisda Amar Ravina bar Sala rules that someone who had a Machshavah that Teme'im should eat the Korban Chatas tomorrow - renders the Korban Pigul ...

(b) ... even though Achilas Teme'im is an Achilah Pesulah.

(c) We refute Rava's proof from every case of Pigul, where the Shochet or the Kohen's thoughts occur before Zerikah, when the Korban is also not yet fit to eat - because there at least, it will automatically become fit to eat after Zerikah, whereas here, an Achilah Pesulah remains Pasul.

(a) Rav Chisda speaks about the Basar of the Korban Pesach or the Chalos Todah that one ate before they were ready to be eaten - meaning a Korban Pesach that has not yet been roasted and Chalos Todah from which the four required loaves (one from each of the four kinds that accompanied the Todah) have not yet been separated to give to the Kohen.

(b) Rav Dimi bar Chin'na used to say - that someone who eats them be Tum'as ha'Guf, is nevertheless Chayav ...

(c) ... despite the principle that whatever is not permitted to Tehorim is not subject to Chiyuv if eaten by Teme'im.

(a) The Beraisa comments on the Pasuk "ve'ha'Nefesh Asher Tochal mi'Besar Zevach Shelamim Asher la'Hashem". The Tana learns from "Asher la'Hashem" - that even if someone eats Eimurei Kodshim Kalim be'Tum'as ha'Guf, he is Chayav Kareis (even though they are not fit to eat) ...

(b) ... a proof, says Rava, for Rav Dimi bar Chin'na's ruling.

(c) We refute the proof in one of two ways. One of them, in that Eimurin are at least fit for Hashem, whereas the Pesach and the Lachmei Todah under discussion are not. Alternatively - Eimurim are fit to serve their function, whereas an unroasted Pesach and Lachmei Todah that have not had the four loaves separated from them are not.

13)

(a) Most Korbanos whose blood is sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon, require two Matanos on the two diagonally opposite corners (that have a Yesod). If the Kohen performed only one - the Korban is nevertheless Kasher.

(b) Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel agree on this. They argue however, by a Chatas, which requires - four Matanos, one on each corner.

(c) Beis Shamai holds - that in order to atone, the blood of the Chatas requires at least two Matanos Bedieved; whereas, according to Beis Hillel, one will suffice.

(d) Consequently, according to Beis Hillel, if the Kohen places the first Matanah ...

1. ... correctly, and the second Matanah with a Machsheves Chutz li'Zemanah - the Korban is Kasher.
2. ... with a Machsheves Chutz li'Zemanah, and the second with a Machsheves Chutz li'Mekomah - the Korban is Pigul.

(a) The basic difference between the Matanos of the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon (which we just discussed) and those of the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi is - that the latter requires all four Matanos, even Bedieved.

(b) Consequently, if the Kohen placed any one of the Matanos on the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi with a Machsheves she'Lo bi'Zemano - the Korban is Pasul.

(c) It is not Pigul - because the Tana holds 'Ein Mefaglin be'Chatzi Matir' (in which case the Machsheves she'Lo bi'Zemano must incorporate all four Matanos).