Previous daf

1)

(a) Our Mishnah rules that a Chatas ha'Of which the Kohen brings ...

1. ... below the Chut ha'Sikra 'ke'Ma'aseh Chatas le'Shem Olah' or ke'Ma'aseh Olah le'Shem Olah' - is Pasul.
2. ... above the Chut ha'Sikra, even 'ke'Ma'aseh Chatas le'Shem Chatas' - is Pasul, too.

(b) When the Tana says 'ke'Ma'aseh ...

1. ... Chatas', he means - that the Kohen cuts one Si'man, and performs Haza'ah and Mitzuy.
2. ...'Olah' he means - that he cuts both Simanim and performs Mitzuy, but not Haza'ah.

(a) The Tana rules that an Olas ha'Of that the Kohen brings ...

1. ... above the Chut ha'Sikra 'ke'Ma'aseh Olah le'Shem Chatas' - is Kasher, only the owner has not fulfilled his duty.
2. ... above the Chut ha'Sikra 'ke'Ma'aseh Chatas le'Shem Olah', or 'ke'Ma'aseh Chatas le'Shem Chatas' - is Pasul.

(b) And he rules - that an Olas ha'Of that the Kohen brings below the Chut ha'Sikra - is Pasul whatever the circumstances.

(a) The Tana concludes 've'Chulan Ein Metam'in Begadim be'Beis ha'Beliyah' - a Tum'ah that renders Tamei whoever eats it (even though he did not otherwise touch it), which is the only Tum'ah that pertains to the Neveilah of a Tahor bird.

(b) And he is coming to teach us - that even though the Melikah is Pasul, it nevertheless takes the bird out of the realm of Neveilah.

(c) The Tana adds to this ruling - 'u'Mo'alin Bahen'.

(d) The only exception to this of the above cases is 'Chatas ha'Of she'As'ah Le'matah le'Shem Chatas' - where the Melikah is Kasher, and which therefore permits the Chatas to be eaten by the Kohanim (and whatever is fit to be eaten is not subject to Me'ilah).

4)

(a) Initially, we establish the Reisha of the Mishnah 'Chatas ha'Of she'As'ah le'Matah' in the case of 'Ma'aseh Olah le'Shem Chatas', by Melikah (when the Kohen cut both Simanim). And the problem that our Mishnah, which rules that it is Pasul, will then not go like Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon - is not really a problem, since we have already established the previous Mishnah not like him (so it is feasible to establish this Mishnah not like him as well).

(b) Nevertheless, we suggest that 'Ma'aseh Olah' might mean that he omitted the Haza'ah ...

(c) ... and we will gain the possibility of establishing the Mishnah like Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon.

(a) The change in the Seifa 'As'ah Lema'alah ke'Ma'aseh Kulan, Pesulah' (incorporating Ma'aseh Chatas le'Shem Chatas'), cannot refer to the Kohen's having performed the Melikah above the Chut ha'Sikra - because we already learned that the Melikah may be performed anywhere on the Mizbe'ach.

(b) So it must be referring to - the Kohen's having omitted the Haza'ah.

(c) We refute the proof that seeing as the change in the Seifa refers to the Haza'ah, so too, does the change in the Reisha - on the grounds that this is simply not necessarily so, and that 'Ha ke'de'Iysa, veHa ke'de'Iysa' (each one speaks in its own respective case [Melikah and Haza'ah respectively]).

(a) In the Seifa, we learned 'Olas ha'Of she'Asah Lema'alah ke'Ma'aseh Chatas le'Shem Olah, Pesulah'. Besides the Melikah of only one Si'man, 'Ma'aseh Chatas' might refer to - the omission of Mitzuy.

(b) We object to the latter interpretation however, because then the Seifa (ve'Chulan ... 'u'Mo'alin Bah') would not go like Rebbi Yehoshua, who rules (in the following Mishnah) - 'Ein Mo'lin Bah'.

(a) Rebbi Eliezer ('Mo'alin Bah') and Rebbi Yehoshua ('Ein Mo'alin Bah') in the following Mishnah, actually argue over 'Olas ha'Of she'Asah Lematah ke'Ma'aseh Chatas le'Shem Chatas'. 'ke'Ma'asesh Chatas' refers to the Melikah (i.e. only one Siman) and not to the Mitzuy (i.e. which the Kohen omitted) - because Rebbi Yehoshua's reason (that cutting one Si'man Le'matah turns the bird into a Chatas, as we will later conclude), is simply not applicable to a case where the Kohen cut two Simanim before omitting the Mitzuy.

(b) We have now established the Seifa ('Olas ha'Of ... Lematah ke'Ma'aseh Chatas') by Melikah - the Reisha ('Chatas ha'Of ... Lema'alah le'Shem Olah') by Melikah, and the Metzi'asa ('Olas ha'Of ... Lema'alah ke'Ma'aseh Chatas') by Mitzuy.

(c) We deal with this seemingly strange phenomenon - by accepting it.

(a) We already cited the Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua regarding 'Olas ha'Of she'Asah le'Matah ke'Ma'aseh Chatas le'Shem Chatas'. Rebbi Eliezer holds 'Mo'alin Bah' - since the Heter Achilah that would have remove the Me'ilah by a Kasher Chatas, does not apply in this case.

(b) He attempts to prove his opinion from a 'Kal va'Chomer' - because if Me'ilah applies to a Chatas that he changed to an Olah (even though the Chatas itself is not subject to Me'ilah), then how much more so will it apply to an Olah (which is subject to Me'ilah) that he changed to a Chatas.

(c) Rebbi Yehoshua refutes this proof however, on the grounds that one cannot prove an 'Olah le'Shem Chatas' from a 'Chatas le'Shem Olah' - because whereas, in the latter case, the Olah that he is changing to is subject to Me'ilah, the Chatas in the former case, is not.

(a) Rebbi Eliezer then tries to prove his point from Kodshei Kodshim that were Shechted in the south (as Shelamim), whose Basar is also not normally subject to Me'ilah, yet someone who derives Hana'ah in this case is Mo'el.

(b) Rebbi Yehoshua refutes this proof too however - on the grounds that the Shelamim is subject to Me'ilah via its Eimurin, whereas the Chatas ha'Of (of which we speaking) is not subject to Me'ilah at all.