Previous daf

1)

(a) In a Beraisa, Rebbi Eliezer tries to prove his opinion (i.e. that Olas ha'Of le'Shem Chatas ha'Of is subject to Me'ilah) from an Asham that one Shechted in the North as a Shelamim. He must be speaking about prior to the Zerikah - because after the Zerikah, the Basar is no longer subject to Me'ilah (seeing as it is fit to be eaten by the Kohanim).

(b) He is proving from there - that if one changes from something that is subject to Me'ilah to something that is not (when it is Kasher), Me'ilah nevertheless applies (in which case Me'ilah should also apply in the case of Olas ha'Of that is brought as a Chatas ha'Of).

(c) Rebbi Yehoshua repudiates Rebbi Eliezer's proof from there - on he grounds that, whereas in the case of the Olas ha'Of, the Kohen also changed the location, in the case of the Asham, he did not.

(d) Finally, Rebbi Eliezer attempts to disprove Rebbi Yehoshua's opinion from an Asham that one Shechted in the south as an Asham, where besides changing its name, he also changed its location. Rebbi Yehoshua counters - that unlike the case of Olas ha'Of, where cutting only one Si'man has also changed to the Avodah of the Chatas, there is no change of Avodah in the case of the Asham (since the Avodah of the Asham and the Shelamim are the same).

(a) Rebbi Eliezer remained silent. Rava asked why he did not query Rebbi Yehoshua further from 'Asham she'Shachto be'Darom le'Shem Shelamim be'Shinuy Ba'alim', where the Chiyuv Me'ilah remains. What Rava means with this is that, before grasping Rebbi Yehoshua's real reason - we would place Shinuy Ba'alim on a par with Shinuy Ma'asim (changing the Avodah), and just as Me'ilah applies there, so too, should it apply in the case of Chatas ha'Of.

(b) To answer the Kashya, he cites Rav Ada bar Ahavah, who gives Rebbi Yehoshua's reason as - the fact that the Olas ha'Of actually becomes a Chatas ha'Of (even to the point of being Kasher, or so we think at the moment).

(c) This answers the Kashya, because, Rava extrapolates, from the fact that Rebbi Eliezer did not ask it - it is clear that he realized it himself.

(a) When we then ask 'I Hachi, Chatas ha'Of Nami, she'As'ah Lema'alah ke'Ma'aseh ha'Olah ... be'Idach Si'man, Timashech Ve'tehavi Olas ha'Of', we mean - that based on our current understanding of Rav Ada bar Ahavah (that the bird actually becomes a Kasher Chatas ha'Of, according to Rebbi Yehoshua), why does our Mishnah rule Pasul in the above case" Why do we not say that when the cuts the second Si'man, it becomes a Kasher Olas ha'Of?

(b) We try to support this Kashya by citing Rebbi Yochanan in the name of Rebbi Ban'ah, who says 'Kach Hi Hatza'ah shel Mishnah' - by which we think he means that 'Olas ha'Of she'As'ah Lematah, is the only case in the Mishnah over which Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua argue.

(c) We answer however - that 'Kach hi Hatza'ah shel Mishnah' might mean that their argument extends to the rest of the Mishnah, too (in which case it will prove quite the opposite).

(d) Rav Ashi refutes the Kashya once and for all - by differentiating between an Olas ha'Of that is brought below the Chut ha'Sikra - which becomes a Chatas the moment he cuts one Si'man, with a Chatas ha'Of that is brought above it, which (bearing in mind that Melikah is Kasher anywhere on the Mizbe'ach) remains a Chatas when he cuts one Si'man, and a Pasul Chatas the moment he cuts the second one.

4)

(a) We ask on Rav Ada bar Ahavah from a Mishnah in Kanin, which discusses a case where Rachel and Le'ah who had given birth, purchased a pair of birds between them. The case is - where one of the women had already brought her Olah, and the other, her Chatas. And the pair of birds that they purchased was meant to make up for the two missing Korbanos.

(b) The Tana rules that, in a case where the Kohen brought ...

1. ... both birds above the Chut ha'Sikra - the Olah was Kasher, whereas the Chatas was Pasul.
2. ... one above the Chut ha'Sikra and one below it - both birds are Pasul, because for all we know, the Kohen (without realizing it) brought the Olah below the Chut and the Chatas above it.

(c) We ask from the second case on Rav Ada bar Ahavah, why the bird that was brought below the Chut ha'Sikra should not be Kasher anyway, even if it was a Olah, like Rav Ada explained. And we answer - that Rav's ruling will apply only to a case where one person is concerned, but in this case, how will Le'ah who is Chayav a Chatas, be Yotze with Rachel's Olah (even according to Rav Ada bar Ahavah).

(a) The Mishnah also discusses a case where Rachel and Le'ah required six birds between them - the above Olah and Chatas plus a second pair of birds.

(b) Between them, they brought one Chatas and one Olah, one pair of unspecified birds and one pair of specified birds. Like in the previous case, if the Kohen brought all the birds above the Chut ha'Sikra, half of them are Olos. In a case where the Kohen brought half of them above and half of them below the Chut ha'Sikra, the Tana - invalidates all the birds except for the unspecified ones, one of which automatically becomes a Chatas, the other, an Olah.

(c) They are Kasher - on the basis of the Halachah that if the birds are not specified by the owner when he designates them, then they become specified when the Kohen designates them for the Avodah.

(d) To make up for the specified birds that are both Pasul, the two women will be obligated - to purchase another pair of birds and to stipulate that the Olah is being brought on behalf of the one who previously brought a Chatas, and vice-versa.

(a) We now ask on Rav Ada bar Ahavah the same Kashya as we asked on the previous Mishnah. We cannot answer like we did earlier, that the one woman will not be Yotze her Chatas with the other's Olah (like we did there) - because we are speaking here, when the women had not specified which woman receives which bird (as they did there).

(b) Neither can we answer by establishing the Mishnah in Kanim not like Rebbi Yehoshua - because the author of Kanim is basically Rebbi Yehoshua, as we shall now proceed to prove.

(a) The Mishnah in Kanim rules that a pregnant woman who makes a Neder to bring a Kan (a pair of birds, either pigeons or young doves) should she give birth to a boy, when she does indeed give birth to a boy - must bring two Kinin, one for the birth (an Olah and a Chatas), and one for her Neder (two Olos) ...

(b) ... because a Chatas can never be brought voluntarily (not even a Chatas ha'Of).

(c) Assuming that she did not designate the four birds that she subsequently brings, when she hands them to the Kohen - he must bring three birds above the Chut ha'Sikra, and one below it.

(a) The Tana then discusses what the Din will be if the Kohen mistakenly brings two of the birds above the Chut ha'Sikra and two below it, without consulting the woman - because he must have assumed that the woman gave birth be'Zov (thereby requiring two Kinin, each consisting of a Chatas and an Olah).

(b) Assuming that ...

1. ... both Kinin comprised the same species (either pigeons or young doves) - the woman remains obligated to bring one bird of the same species, to compensate the bird that was brought as a Chatas.
2. ... they comprised two different species - she will have to bring two birds, one of each species, since the Tana is speaking when it is unsure which of the two species the Kohen brought first for her Chovah and which he brought last for her Neder (had this been clarified, she would only have had to bring the second bird of whichever species was brought last).

(c) The Din would differ if, in addition, she specified which species she would bring for her Neder, and forgot what she said, assuming that ...

1. ... both Kinin comprised the same species - inasmuch as she would then remain obligated to bring three birds, one of the same species that she brought the first time, and a Kan comprising the other species.
2. ... they comprised two different species - she would still have to bring four birds, one of each species to complement the Chatas of whichever species the Kohen brought last, which is either a pigeon (to which she must add two young doves), or a young dove (to which she must Consequently, she brings two pigeons and two young doves.