Previous daf

1)

(a) When our Mishnah rules that the Kometz, the Ketores and the Levonah are not subject to Pigul - it means that someone who eats them after the Korban becomes Pigul is not Chayav Kareis ...

(b) ... whereas the Beraisa that we just cited 'Bameh Devarim Amurim, bi'Kemitzah, be'Matan K'li u've'Hiluch' - is talking about making the Minchah Pigul (not the Kometz itself).

(a) The Tana includes Minchas Kohanim and Minchas Kohen Mashi'ach in the list. These two Menachos are different than other Menachos - because, inasmuch as they are completely burned, they are not subject to Kemitzah, and do not therefore, have a Matir.

(b) The Tana - includes Dam in the list.

(c) Rebbi Meir includes Nesachim ha'Ba'in bi'Fenei Atzman' in the list. In addition to Nesachim that are brought independently, this also incorporates - Nesachim that belong to a Korban, but which one only brought on the following day.

(d) The Chachamim - extend this ruling to Nesachim that were actually brought together with one's Korban, which are not subject to Pigul, since the owner could have brought them independently.

(a) The direct connection between the Log Shemen shel Metzora (whose remains are eaten by the Kohanim) and the Asham Metzora is - that the Torah specifically requires it to be placed on the exact location the blood of the Ashem had been placed before it.

(b) Rebbi Meir therefore rules - that, provided it is brought on the same day as the Asham, the log Shemen is subject to Pigul.

(c) Rebbi Shimon disagrees, In his opinion, it is not subject to Pigul - since the Metzora could have brought it the following day.

(d) Our Mishnah subjects to Pigul ...

1. ... the Basar and the skin of the Olah - because the Zerikas ha'Dam is Matir the one to the Mizbe'ach, the other, to the Kohanim.
2. ... an Olas ha'Of - because the blood permits its Basar to the Mizbe'ach.
3. ... a Chatas ha'Of - because the blood permits its Basar to the Kohanim.

(a) The Zerikas ha'Dam is Matir the bringing of the Parim and Se'irim ha'Nisrafim ...

(b) ... in their designated location outside Yerushalayim.

(c) Rebbi Shimon therefore rules - that they are not subject to Pigul (which, he says, is confined to Kodshim that are sacrificed on the Mizbe'ach).

(a) Ula rules - that a Kometz Pigul which Kohanim brought on to the Mizbe'ach is no longer Pigul (regarding itself).

(b) And when he gave the reason 'Im Acherim Meivi li'Yedei Pigul, Hu Atzmo Lo'Kol-she'Kein', what he really meant was - that if it causes others to become Pigul, it should certainly allow itself to go on the Mizbe'ach.

(c) It cannot be understood literally - since then he will be proving that it is no longer Pigul, from a statement that it is!

(d) We do not need Ula to teach us ...

1. ... that someone who eats a Kometz Pigul is not Chayav Kareis - because we just learned in the previous Mishnah, that whatever does not have a Matir cannot become Pigul.
2. ... that 'Im Alu, Lo Yerdu' - because we know that too, from a Mishnah in 'ha'Mizbe'ach Mekadesh'.

(a) The problem in saying that Ula is coming to teach us 'Im Yardu, Ya'alu' is - that the Mishnah in 'ha'Mizbe'ach Mekadesh' rules 'Im Alu, Yerdu'.

(b) Nevertheless, that is how we do establish Ula's Chidush, reconciling it with ...

1. ... the Mishnah in 'ha'Mizbe'ach Mekadesh' - by establishing Ula's Chidush when the fire on the Mizbe'ach already set fire to most of it (at which stage it becomes 'the bread of the Mizbe'ach').
2. ... the fact that he has already taught this before with regard to the limb of a Pasul Korban - by pointing out that the Din by a Kometz might have been different, because unlike a limb, which constitutes one piece, a Kometz is made of many individual particles of flour, in which we might have thought that those particles that the fire has burned are considered the 'bread of the Mizbe'ach', but not the particles that are not.

(c) Rav Acha'i extrapolates from Ula's latest ruling - that in a case where half of such a Kometz was taken down from the Mizbe'ach, whilst the other half was left on the Mizbe'ach - the former half is returned to the Mizbe'ach.

7)

(a) Rebbi Yitzchak Amar Rebbi Yochanan stated that if a Kohen brought Pigul, Nosar and Tamei on the Mizbe'ach - the respective Isurim are removed and 'Im Yardu, Ya'alu'.

(b) When Rav Chisda heard that, he expressed surprise - that the Mizbe'ach acts as a 'Mikvah Taharah'.

(c) 'Mari Dichi' means - 'Master of this statement'.

(d) Rebbi Zeira answered Rav Chisda's Kashya - by establishing Rebbi Yochanan's ruling when the Mizbe'ach had already set fire to most of the limb before it was taken down.

(a) Rebbi Yitzchak bar Bisna asked on Rebbi Yochanan from a Beraisa. The Tana learns from "ve'Tumaso Alav" (in connection with Kareis for someone who ate a Shelamim be'Tum'ah) - that the Torah is referring to a Tum'ah that can be removed (i.e. Tum'as ha'Guf).

(b) The Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan's ruling is - that according to him, Tumas Basar too, can be removed, by placing the Tamei Kodshim on the Mizbe'ach.

(c) We object to Rava's answer that the Beraisa is talking about removing the Tum'ah through Tevilah - on the grounds that the Torah has made no mention of Mikvah (and "ve'Tum'aso Alav", precludes Kodshim whose Tum'ah can be removed by any means whatsoever).

(d) Rav Papa establishes the Pasuk by *Basar* Shelamim - which is eaten by the owner, and does not go on the Mizbe'ach anyway.

(a) Ravina extends the D'rashah from "ve'Tum'aso Alav" even to the Eimurim - which he does because the Pasuk writes there "Asher la'Hashem" (incorporating the Eimurim).

(b) He nevertheless Darshens the Pasuk to answer the Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan - by explaining "Alav" to mean 'whose Tum'ah can be removed whilst it is whole' (whereas the Mizbe'ach only removes the Tum'ah from pieces of Kodshim (the Eimurim)

(a) The Beraisa actually discusses the current Pasuk in detail. The Tana initially assumes that the Pasuk is talking about Tum'as ha'Guf - because it has just said "Kol Tahor Yochal Basar", with reference to the person.

(b) Nevertheless, the continuation of the Pasuk "ve'ha'Nefesh Asher Tochal Basar" causes him to have doubts and suggest that maybe it is talking about Tum'as Basar after all - because seeing as the Torah refers to the person as "Nefesh" (which is feminine), it should have written "ve'Tum'asah Alehah" (if it had meant to refer to the person).

(c) And the Pasuk (in connection with Tum'as Mikdash) "Od Tum'aso Bo" settles the issue, according to the Tana Kama - because he now learns a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Tum'aso" "Tum'aso" from there.

(d) Rebbi Yossi learns it from the Lashon "ve'Tum'aso Alav" - in the singular. Had the Pasuk been talking about Tum'as Basar (Kodshim), it ought to have written 've'Tum'asam Aleihem'.

(a) Acherim learn Tum'as ha'Guf from the Lashon "ve'Tum'aso Alav", which implies that the Tum'ah can be removed (as we explained earlier). Rebbi learns it from "ve'Achal mi'Besar Zevach ha'Shelamim". The problem with that is - that the quote refers to the next Pasuk, which does not seem to be connected to our Pasuk.

(b) Without Rav Yitzchak bar Avudimi's interpretation of the Pasuk, said Rava, we would not understand the Beraisa. Rav Yitzchak bar Avudimi learns the construction of the first Pasuk from the second one - since like it, it opens and closes in the feminine ("ve'ha'Nefesh", Ve'Nichresah ha'Nefesh ha'Hi") though "ve'Tum'aso Alav" in the middle, is masculine. And like the second Pasuk, which refers to Tum'as ha'Guf (as we explained), it too, refers to Tum'as ha'Guf.

(c) By the same token, says Rava, we would not know how to explain the Beraisa without Zeiri's interpretation. The Beraisa explains why we need to learn both Kalos and Chamuros - in connection with Achilas Kodshim be'Tum'as ha'Guf.

(d) We would have thought, according to the Tana, that had the Pasuk written only ...

1. ... Kalos and not Chamuros - that the Kalos are Chayav only a La'av, whereas the Chamuros are Chayav Misah (bi'Yedei Shamayim).
2. ... Chamuros and not Kalos - that one is only Chayav for the Chamuros, but Patur from the Kalos.

(a) Kalos cannot refer to Ma'aser (Sheini) and Chamuros to Terumah, because of the first statement. Saying that had the Torah not written Chamuros, we would have thought that they are Chayav Misah creates two problems - 1. Someone who eats Terumah be'Tum'as ha'Guf is indeed Chayav Misah; 2. How could we possibly learn a Chiyuv Misah by Terumah from the La'av of Ma'aser. In view of the principle 'Dayo La'vo min ha'Din Lih'yos ke'Nadun', he should transgress no more than a plain La'av (like Ma'aser).

(b) The Pasuk by Ma'aser is "Ki-im Rachatz Besaro ba'Mayim ... ve'Lo Yochal min ha'Kodshim", and the Pasuk by Terumah "U'va ha'Shemesh Ve'taher ... ve'Achar Yochal min ha'Kodshim ... u'Meisu Bo". Misah and La'av aside, the major difference between Terumah and Ma'aser that we learn from this Pasuk is - that a Tamei may eat Ma'aser immediately after having Toveled, but Terumah only after nightfall. Note, that Ma'aser throughout the Sugya means Ma'aser Sheini (Ma'aser Rishon is pure Chulin).

(c) Neither can Kalos refer to Tum'as Sheretz, and Chamuros to Tum'as Meis (assuming we are talking about them eating Terumah), because both are in fact, Chayav Misah. The problem with the reason that we gave for the Torah writing Chamuros, namely, to teach us that he contravenes a La'av and not Misah is - that, in fact, we know that he is Chayav Misah.

(d) And assuming that we are talking about them eating Ma'aser, the problem with saying that had the Torah not written Chamuros, we would have thought that he is Chayav Misah is - that we would then be learning Misah by Tum'as Meis from a La'av by Tum'as Sheretz, and again we ought to apply the principle 'Dayo ... '.

(a) Zeiri finally explains Kalos and Chamuros - to mean Tum'as Sheretz and Tum'as Meis (as we just suggested).

(b) Assuming that the Tana means that had the Torah written Tum'as Sheretz both by Terumah and by Ma'aser, but not mentioned Tum'as Meis, when he says 'Im Ne'emar Kalos ve'Lo Ne'emar Chamuros Hayisi Omer al ha'Kalos be'La'av, ve'al ha'Chamuros be'Misah', he means that ...

1. ... a Tamei Sheretz who eats Ma'aser - would be Chayav a La'av.
2. ... a Tamei Sheretz who eats Terumah (Kalos al Chamuros) - would be Chayav Misah.
3. ... a Tamei Meis who eats Ma'aser (Chamuros al Kalos) - would be Chayav Misah too.

(c) Now that the Torah does write Tum'as Meis with regard to Ma'aser - the latter only transgresses a La'av (as we learned earlier).