Previous daf

1)

(a) Our Mishnah lists 'Chatas ha'Of she'Malkah she'Lo Lish'mah u'Mitzah Damo Chutz li'Zemano' or vice-versa, or if both were performed she'Lo li'Shemah (presumably, this latter case is only inserted on account of the other two cases, since it has nothing to do with Pigul) - to include it in the category of 'she'Lo Kirev ha'Matir ke'Mitzvasan'.

(b) The Din in the equivalent case by an Olas ha'Of would be - 'Pigul ve'Chayav Kareis' (since she'Lo li'Shemo, which is Kasher by an Olah, will not detract from Pigul at all).

(c) The Tana rules that 'Le'echol k'Zayis ba'Chutz, k'Zayis le'Machar' or vice-versa, 'ka'Chatzi Zayis ba'Chutz, ka'Chatzi Zayis le'Machar' or vice-versa - is Kasher, since Achilah and Haktarah do not combine (as we learned in the second Perek).

(a) Rebbi Yehudah disagrees. According to him, whenever the Machsheves Pigul precedes the Machsheves P'sul, he rules 'Pigul ve'Chayav Kareis'.

(b) The Chachamim - do not differentiate (like the Tana Kama [see Mesores ha'Shas]).

(c) Our Mishnah rules that in the case of 'Le'echol ke'Chatzi Zayis u'Lehaktir ka'Chatzi Zayis (with regard to any of the above combinations) - 'Ein Achilah ve'Haktarah Mitztarfin' (as we learned in the second Perek).

(a) The Torah writes in Vayikra, (in connection with Olas ha'Of), "Ve'hikrivo", in spite of having already written "ve'Ve'hikriv min ha'Torim". The Beraisa explains asribes ...

1. ... this to the fact - that "min ha'Torim" itself implies that one may only bring at least two birds. "ve'Hikrivo" therefore comes to preclude from that notion.
2. ... the Torah finding it necessary to continue "el ha'Kohen" (prior to the Melikah) - to preclude from the 'Kal-va'Chomer' that if the Shechitah of an Olas Beheimah, which requires Tzafon, does not require a Kohen, the Melikah of an Olas ha'Of, which does not, should certainly not require one.

(b) Rebbi Akiva learns from "Kohen u'Malak" that the Kohen performs the Melikah with his finger-nail. Otherwise, we would have taken for granted that Melikah requires a K'li Shareis - from a 'Kal-ve'Chomer from Shechitas Beheimah, which does not require a Kohen, yet it requires a K'li Shareis ('Kal-ve'Chomer' Melikas ha'Of, which does).

(c) This D'rashah is only possible because "Kohen u'Malak'' would otherwise be superfluous - since it is obvious that a Zar, who is forbidden to approach the Mizbe'ach, is not eligible to perform Melikah.

(d) And the Beraisa learns from the Hekesh "u'Malak Ve'Hiktir" - that just as the Haktarah of the Olas ha'Of takes place at the top of the Mizbe'ach, so too, does its Melikah (i.e. above the Chut ha'Sikra).

(a) The Tana also learns that the Melikah of an Olas ha'Of must be performed 'mi'Mul Oref (and not at the front of the neck) from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' - "u'Malak" "u'Malak" from Chatas ha'Of (where the Torah specifically wrote "mi'Mul Oref".

(b) From ...

1. ... the Hekesh "u'Malak Ve'hiktir" he learns (apart from the location of the Melikah) - that just as the Kohen burns the body and the head of the bird separately, so too, must he cut both Si'manim in order to separate the head and body.
2. ... the double expression "Ve'hiktir Oso" and "Ve'hiktir ha'Mizbeichah" we learn - that the body and the head of the bird must be burned separately.

(c) And he learns from ...

1. ... "Ve'nimtzah Damo" (and not 'min ha'Dam') - that the Kohen must perform Mitzuy with all the blood.
2. ... "el Kir ha'Mizbe'ach" - that the blood must be squeezed on the wall of the Mizbe'ach, and not on the wall of the Kevesh or of the Heichal or the Ulam.

(a) The Pasuk "u'Malak Ve'hiktir Ve'nimtzah Damo" not be understood literally - because how is it possible to perform Mitzuy after the bird has been burned?

(b) In fact, the Torah places "Ve'hiktir" before "Ve'nimtza" - to teach us that just as the former takes place on top of the Mizbe'ach, so too, does the latter.

(c) Otherwise we would have thought - that if the Olas ha'Beheimah, whose Chatas counterpart is placed above the Chut ha'Sikra, yet it is sprinpled below it, then the Olas ha'Of, whose Chatas counterpart is placed below the Chut ha'Sikra, certainly ought to be!

(d) And we know that the Melikah had to be performed on top of the Mizbe'ach (standiing on the Sovev) - because "Ve'hiktir Ve'nimtza" also indicates that the Mitzuy (which followed the Melikah) has to take place close to the Haktarah.

(a) The Kohen is permitted to bend down and perform the Melikah below the Sovev - because up to the Chut ha'Sikra it is permitted, and the Chut ha'Sikra encircles the Mizbe'ach one Amah below the Mizbe'ach.

(b) Rebbi Rebbi Nechemyah and Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov - insist on performing the Melikah on top of the Mizbe'ach, by the Keren (exclusively).

(c) Even though the Tana Kama agrees with the D'rashah of "Ve'nimtzah Ve'hiktir", Abaye and Rava explain that this is no problem -since, according to the Tana Kama, one may arrange a Ma'arachah on the Sovev.

(d) Rebbi Nechemyah and Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov on the other hand - forbid it.

(a) Another Beraisa learn from the Pasuk "be'Notzasah" - that the Kohen cannot simply cut a window beside the crop and remove the crop without the skin and the feathers that cover it (as would have been the case had the Torah just written "Ve'heisir es Mur'aso").

(b) According to Aba Yossi ben Chanan, the Kohen removes the stomach too - because the word "be'Notzasah" incorporates dung, something disgusting.

(c) Rebbi Yishmael says 'be'Notzah Shelah; Kodrah be'Sakin ke'Miyn Arubah' - by which he means that the Kohen cuts with a knife and takes out the crop together with the skin and the feathers (like the Tana Kama [but not the stomach]).

(d) He is obligated to use a knife - because if he were to use his hands, he would be bound to tear away more of the skin than that which covers the crop, stealing as it were, from the portion of the Mizbe'ach.

8)

(a) The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk (in connection with Shimshon and the lion) "Va'yeshas'ehu ke'Shesa ha'Gedi" - that splitting the Olas ha'Of (where the Torah writes "Ve'shisa Oso") must be done by hand.

(b) We learned in our Mishnah that if the Kohen cut both pipes of a Chatas ha'Of, the Karban is Pasul. The author cannot be Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon - who says in a Beraisa 'Shama'ti she'Mavdilin be'Olas ha'Of'.

(c) Rav Chisda connects their Machlokes to whether Mitzuy is crucial to the Chatas ha'Of or not. Assuming that it is - if in addition, the Kohen cuts two Simanim, it will closely resemble an Olas ha'Of, which is why the Chachamim invalidate it.

(d) Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon will hold on the other hand - that if the Kohen cuts both Simanim, he omits the Mitzuy, because in his opinion, Mitzuy is not crucial to the Avodah.

(a) According to Rava, the Machlokes hinges on 'Shehiyah Bein Si'man le'Siman'. Normally, if a Shochet delays between the Shechitah of the two Simanim when Shechting ...

1. ... an animal - the Shechitah is Pasul.
2. ... a bird - it is Kasher (since it is anyway dispensable).

(b) It is inevitable to delay between the two Simanim of the Chatas ha'Of - because the Kohen has to cut through Rov Basar immediately after cutting the Si'man.

(c) The basis of the Machlokes is whether a delay after cutting the first Si'man of the Olas ha'Of invalidates the Melikah or not. According to the Chachamim - it does not, in which case, the Chatas ha'Of will again resemble it, whereas Rebbi Elazar holds that it is ...

(d) ... in which case the Chatas ha'Of is not similar to it at all.

(e) Despite the fact that the Torah requires the cutting of two Simanim by Olas ha'Of, it is not crucial (like it is by an animal) according to the Chachamim - since unlike the Shechitah of the animal, it is not needed to kill the bird. Consequently, it is required only as a 'Gezeiras ha'Kasuv', and not as part of the killing process. And it is not crucial because there is no Pasuk (as is the rule by Kodshim) to indicate that it is.

(a) Abaye establishes the Machlokes by whether or not, it matters if the Kohen cuts through Rov Basar of the neck of the Olas ha'Of, and the case over which they are arguing is - where the Kohen did not do so prior to cutting the second Si'man.

(b) According to ...

1. ... the Chachamim - it is not crucial. Consequently, when the Kohen cuts both Simanim of the Chatas ha'Of, it once again resembles the Olas ha'Of (where the Kohen never cuts Rov Basar).
2. ... Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon - Rov Basar is crucial to the Chatas ha'Of, in which case cutting two Simanim of the Chatas ha'Of cannot resemble the Olas ha'Of.

(c) Even the Chachamim would agree however, that if the Kohen were to cut through the majority of the Basar first - the Melikah of the Chatas ha'Of would be Kasher.

(d) Abaye and Rava actually argue over the same point as Rebbi Zeira and Rebbi Shmuel b'Rebbi Yitzchak - who argue over whether the Tana'im's bone of contention is 'Shehiyah be'Si'man Sheini be'Olas ha'Of' or 'Rov Basar Me'akev (be'Chatas ha'Of').

(a) The source for the differences between the Melikah of the Chatas ha'Of and the Olas ha'Of is a Beraisa. According to the Tana, before he actually cuts any Si'man - he cuts through the spinal cord and the skull of the bird (with his thumbnail).

(b) Besides the fact that the Kohen cuts only one Si'man of the Chatas, but two Simanim of the Olah, - the Tana requires the cutting of Rov Basar by the Chatas ha'Of, but not by the Olas ha'Of.

(c) The Kohen is not obligated to cut the Si'man of the Chatas ha'Of and the two Si'manim of the Olas ha'Of completely - only the majority of each Si'man that he cuts.

(d) When they told Rebbi Yirmiyah how the various Amora'im interpretated the Machlokes Tana'im, he cited a statement in the name of Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua. He interpreted the Machlokes, based on the Pasuk (by Chatas ha'Of) "Lo Yavdil" - which Rebbi Elazar be'Rebbi Shimon explains as a concession (for the Kohen not to cut both Simanim if he does not want to); whereas the Chachamim explain it as a prohibition.

(a) Rav Acha b'rei de'Rava queried Rebbi Yirmiyah's interpretation by citing the Pasuk (in connection with a pit that someone dug in the street) "ve'Lo Yechasen". Will Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon interpret that Pasuk too, to mean that the owner may cover the pit if he wants to (a rather absurd suggestion)?

(b) Rav Ashi replied by citing the Pasuk "Ba'al ha'Bor Yeshalem" in Mishpatim and "Ve'hikrivo" in Vayikra (by Olas ha'Of, immediately following Chatas ha'Of). We learn from ...

1. ... "Ba'al ha'Bor Yeshalem" - that the Pasuk there comes to obligate the owner of the pit to pay (in which "ve'Ki Yechasenu" cannot possibly be voluntary).
2. ... "Ve'hikrivo" - that Olas ha'Of is not included in the Din of "ve'Lo Yavdil" of Chatas ha'Of, but requires the cutting of two Simanim (as Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon explains in Chulin).

(c) This proves that "Lo Yavdil" means 'Eino Tzarich Lehavdil" - because if was a prohibition - then Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon would have to extrapolate from it that Olas ha'Of is different in that the Kohen is not obligated to cut both Simanim (but that he could if he so wished).

(a) Following the Mitzuy ha'Dam, the Torah writes "Olah Hu". The Beraisa learns from ...

1. ... "Olah" - that if the Kohen performed Mitzuy ha'Dam with the body but not with the head, the korban is nevertheless Kasher.
2. ... "Hu" - that if he did the reverse, it is not.

(b) According to Ravina, the Tana learns this way, and not vice-versa - because the majority of blood is contained in the bird's body.

Next daf