Previous daf

1)

(a) The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "ve'Dam Zevachecha Yishafech" - that the Korbanos whose blood is sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon and that require two Matanos, are Kasher, if the Kohen performed only one.

(b) Bearing in mind that the remaining blood of a Chatas is poured on to the Yesod of the Mizbe'ach, another Beraisa learns from this Pasuk - that the same applies to all other Korbenos.

(c) The first Tana, we explain, concurs with Rebbi, who learns that from the Pasuk (in connection with a Chatas ha'Of) "ve'ha'Nish'ar ba'Dam Yimatzeh" - since the word "be'Dam" is otherwise superfluous.

(a) The remaining problem is that a third Beraisa learns from "ve'Dam Zevachecha Yishafech" - that Bedieved, if the Kohen poured the blood on to the Yesod, instead of performing Zerikah, the Korban is Kasher.

(b) And we answer that our Tana holds like Rebbi Akiva, who holds - that Zerikah and Shefichah are not interchangeable (even Bedieved).

(c) The basis of this Machlokes is the Mishnah in Pesachim, which discusses the B'rachos over the Pesach and the Zevach (the Chagigah). The B'rachah one recites over ...

1. ... the Korban Pesach is - ' ... Le'echol es ha'Pesach'.
2. ... the Korban Chagigah is - ' ... Le'echol es ha'Zevach'.

(a) According to Rebbi Yishmael, the B'rachah over the Pesach covers the Chagigah (we initially think) - because he Darshens from "ve'Dam Zevachecha Yishafech" that Shefichah incorporates Zerikah.

(b) Rebbi Akiva holds - that the B'rachah over the Pesach does not cover the Chagigah, nor vice-versa.

(c) Even Rebbi Yishmael concedes that the B'rachah over the Chagigah does not cover the Pesach - because the Pesach requires Shefichah, and nowhere do we find that Zerikah incorporates Shefichah.

(d) Rebbi Akiva disagrees with Rebbi Yishmael - because he learns from "ve'Dam Zevachecha Yishafech", that the Pesach requires Shefichah, and one cannot at the same time learn from it that Shefichah incorporates Zerikah. Note, that the Tana of the first Beraisa who agrees with Rebbi Akiva that 'Ein Zevichah bi'Chelal Shefichah', does not agree that the Pesach requires Shefichah.

(a) We ask from yet another Beraisa, where Rebbi Yishmael quotes the Pasuk in Korach (the source that a Bechor requires Matan Damim and Eimurim on the Mizbe'ach). He learns from "ve'Dam Zevachecha Yishafech" - that Ma'aser Beheimah and Pesach too, require Matan Damim and Eimurim on the Mizbe'ach.

(b) And we reply that our Tana holds like Rebbi Yossi Hagelili, who learns - that from the Pasuk there, which continues "es Damam Tizrok ... ve'es Chelbam Taktir" (from the fact that the Torah writes it in the plural).

(c) We reconcile Rebbi Yishmael in the current Beraisa with Rebbi Yishmael earlier, who learned from the same Pasuk that 'Zerikah bi'Chelal Shefichah' - by turning Rebbi Yishmael's opinion into a Machlokes Tana'im.

(d) Having concluded that the Pasuk can only be used for one of the above, assuming that Rebbi Yishmael learns from "ve'Dam Zevachecha Yishafech" that ...

1. ... the Pesach requires Shefichah - he will agree with Rebbi Akiva with regard to the B'rachah over the Pesach covering the Chagigah and vice-versa (that one does not cover the other).
2. ... 'Zerikah bi'Chelal Shefichah' (seeing that he no longer holds that the Pesach requires Shefichah Lechatchilah), the B'rachah on the Pesach covers the Chagigah (and not vice-versa) - because the Pesach is the major Korban, whereas the Chagigah is only secondary.

(a) According to Rebbi Yishmael, who interprets the entire Pasuk of Bechor by a Bechor exclusively, the continuation of the Pasuk "u'Vesaram Yih'yeh Lach", we explain, there is no problem. We are referring to - the Torah's use of the plural ...

(b) ... which according to him, refers to - the Bechor of an ox, a lamb, or a goat, which are all mentioned earlier in the Pasuk, and which must all be given to the Kohen.

(c) According to Rebbi Yossi Hagelili however, where the Torah has since referred to Ma'aser and Pesach, which are not given to the Kohen - how can the Torah then speak about ''Besaram", when it is only the Bechor that goes to the Kohen?

(d) And we solve the problem - by extrapolating from the word "Besaram", that both a Bechor Tam and a Bechor Ba'al-Mum must be given to the Kohen.

6)

(a) Rebbi Yishmael learns from the end of the Pasuk "u'che'Shok ha'Yamin *Yih'yeh Lach*" - that a Bechor Ba'al-Mum must be given to the Kohen.

(b) We extrapolate from the Pasuk there "Lo Sipadeh ki Kodesh Heim" - that a Temurah of the Korbanos contained in that Pasuk are not brought on the Mizbe'ach.

(c) The problem according to Rebbi Yishmael, who restricts the source Pasuk to Bechor is - that there is then no direct source to incorporate Temuras Ma'aser and Temuras Pesach in the current Halachah (whereas we know that they are included, from the two Mishnah's that we are about to discuss).

(a) The Mishnah in ...

1. ... Temurah states 'Temuras Bechor u'Ma'aser Hein u'Veladan ad Sof Kol ha'Olam - Harei Hein ki'Bechor u'Ma'aser, Ve'ye'achlu be'Muman le'Ba'alim'.
2. ... Pesachim, quoting Rebbi Yehoshua, rules - that sometimes a Temuras Pesach is sacrificed and sometimes it is not, only he was unable to explain it.

(b) Rebbi Akiva solved Rebbi Yehoshua's quandary - by establishing the former ruling when the swap took place with a Korban Pesach after its time (when becomes a regular Shelamim), whereas the latter ruling speaks when the swap was made before Pesach (when it is a Temuras Pesach).

(c) Rebbi Yossi Hagelili learns the Din by Temuras Bechor and Temuras Pesach from - "Lo Sipadeh ki Kodesh Heim".

(d) Rebbi Yishmael learns from ...

1. ... the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Kol Asher *Ya'avor* Tachas ha'Sheivet" from "*Ve'ha'avarta Kol Peter Rechem" - that Temuras Ma'aser, like Temuras Bechor, is not brought on the Mizbe'ach.
2. ... the Pasuk "Im Kesev (Hu) Makriv" - that a Temuras Pesach after Pesach is brought on the Mizbe'ach.
3. ... "(Im Kesev) Hu (Makriv) - that a Temuras Pesach before Pesach is not.

9)

(a) Rav Huna ascribes Beis-Shamai's minimum of two Matanos by a Chatas to the three times the word "Karnos" (in the plural) appears in the Parshah of Chatas Chitzonah in Vayikra (once by the Sa'ir of the Nasi, and twice by the Chatas Yachid, once by the Kisbah and once by the Se'irah) - totaling six K'ranos, four Lechatchilah, Bedieved, two.

(b) Beis-Hillel learn four Matanos from the same words - because Beis-Hillel follow the Mesores (the spelling), and two of the "Karnos" are missing a 'Vav'. Whereas Beis Shamai follow the Mikra (the sound, which includes a 'Vav').

(c) Beis-Hillel therefore explain - four Keranos, one of which is crucial.

(d) On what grounds do we reject the suggestion that all four "K'ranos" come 'le'Mitzvah' (Lechatchilah) (despite of the fact that in the realm of Kodshim, whatever is not repeated is generally Lechatchilah) - because there is no such thing as a Kaparah 'free of charge'. At least one Matanah must be performed in order for there to be a Kaparah.

(a) Alternatively, Rav Huna combines the Mikra (six) and the Masores (four) to explain how Beis Hillel arrive at their opinion - because on average this leaves us with five Keranos, four Lechatchilah, and one Bedieved.

(b) Some Tana'im learn the four Batim in Tefilin from the three times "le'Totafos" is written in the Torah - due to the fact that two of them are written minus a 'Vav' (and they follow the Mesores).

(c) According to Rav Huna's second explanation in Beis-Hillel, Tefilin ought to contain - five Parshiyos (the average of four [the Mesores] and six [the Mikra]).

(d) According to this explanation however, Beis Hillel learn the four Parshiyos of Tefilin - by means of the acronym ' "Tat'' be'Kaspi Shetayim, "Pas" be Afriki Shetayim' (' "Tat" means two in Caspian, and "Pas" means two in African'), like Rebbi Akiva.

(a) By Sukos too, the Torah writes three times "ba'Sukos". According to Rav Huna's second explanation in Beis-Hillel, a Sukah ought have at least five walls (since there too, two of the "ba'Sukos" are written minus a 'Vav'.

(b) And we arrive at ...

1. ... three - after using one of the five for the basic Chiyuv of Sukah, and another for the S'chach.
2. ... two and a bit - via 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai', which detracts the third wall to a bit (plus a Tzuras ha'Pesach).

(a) Based on the Pasuk "Ve'tam'ah Shevu'ayim ke'Nidasah", a woman is Tamei - for two weeks, after giving birth to a girl.

(b) Bearing in mind that there too, the Torah writes "Shevu'ayim" without a 'Vav', she ought to be Tamei (according to Rav Huna's second explanation) - for forty-two days (half the difference between the fourteen days of "Shevu'ayim" and the seventy of "Shiv'im" (i.e. fifty-six days [14 + 28 = 42]).

(c) We learn from the word ''ke'Nidasah" however - that her Tum'ah is close to the seven days of Nidus (indicating that here we must ignore the Mesorah altogether, because if we contend with it, the seventy days that the word implies, is too far removed from the seven days of Nidus).