Previous daf

1)

(a) The Beraisa discusses a Litra of dried Terumah figs that the owner pressed on top of an Igul (a large round vessel), a barrel or a beehive, but does not know which one. Dried figs are called 'Ketzi'os' - after the knife (Miktzo'a) with which they are cut before drying.

(b) Rebbi Meir citing Rebbi Eliezer is very lenient with regard to Bitul in this case - actually allowing the figs lying in the bottom of the barrels to combine with those on top (even though the Terumah figs are definitely on top) in the hundred and one that is needed to be Mevatel the Terumah figs.

(c) Rebbi Yehoshua disagrees. According to him - it is only if there are a hundred barrels all in all (besides the one with the Terumah figs), so that the hundred tops can be Mavatel the Terumah.

(a) According to Rebbi Yehudah, the last ruling is really that of Rebbi Eliezer, and Rebbi Yehoshua is more stringent still. He holds that even three hundred barrels will not be Mevatel the Terumah figs ...

(b) ... because sometimes the rings of figs are sometimes sold by number, and 'Kol she'Darko Limanos, Lo Bateil'.

(c) The Seifa of the Beraisa discusses a case where the Terumah figs in an Igul become Bateil, even according to Rebbi Yehoshua. That is - where the owner doesn't remember whereabouts in the Igul he pressed the Terumah figs, as Rav Papa explains.

(a) Rav Ashi establishes our Mishnah (where the Chatas she'Meisah is not Bateil) even according to the Rabbanan of Rebbi Meir who, with regard to Chavilei Tilsan, hold neither 'Kol she'Darko Limanos' nor 'es she'Darko Limanos'. Nevertheless, the Chatas is not Bateil among the other Korbanos - because live animals are Chashuv in their own right, and do not therefore, b ecome Bateil.

(b) We ...

1. ... ask why it is not possible to take one animal at a time and bring it on the Mizbe'ach - on the grounds that each one comes from the Rov.
2. ... refute this suggestion however - because it clashes with the principle 'Kol Kavu'a ke'Mechtzah al Mechtzah Dami' (whatever comes from its original location is considered as having come from fifty per-cent Heter and fifty per-cent Isur).

(c) To circumvent the problem of 'Kavu'a' - we could force the animals to move around and then take them one by one as they are moving (because whatever is moving is not considered 'Kavu'a'), based on the principle 'Kol de'Parish, me'Ruba Parish' (whatever separates, separates from the majority).

(d) The problem with our Mishnah is - why we then need to destroy all the animals, when we have this simple solution?

4)

(a) Initially, Rava answers that we are afraid that ten Kohanim may come simultaneously and sacrifice them - meaning that they will all sprinkle the blood and burn them on the Mizbe'ach at one and the same time, in which case we can no longer apply 'Kol de'Parish ... '.

(b) We object to ...

1. ... this answer however - on the grounds that once the animals became Bateil and have been Shechted one by one, how can they then become Asur once more?
2. ... the suggestion that perhaps ten Kohanim will come and take ten animals from the moving herd and Shecht them simultaneously - because it is unlikely for ten people to be able to take ten animals from a moving herd at exactly the same moment ('I Efshar Letzamtzem').

(c) Rava finally answers 'Mishum Kavu'a', by which he means - that we are afraid that ten Kohanim will come and take ten animals from the herd without first moving the animals around.

(a) In a case where, following the correct procedure, a Kohen takes one of the animals and brings it on the Mizbe'ach, Rava rules that, even Bedieved, the Korban is Not Kasher (even though it is only a Rabbinical decree [see Shitah Mekubetzes in Hashmatos]).

(b) According to some opinions, 'Kol Kavu'a ... ' here is not d'Oraysa - because the Isur is not discernible (as is the Nochri in the classical case of Kavua [where someone throws a stone into a group of people consisting of nine Jews and one Nochri]), where he is not Chayav for murder because of Kavu'a.

(a) Rav Huna bar Yehudah queries Rava from a Beraisa, which rules that if a Chatas got mixed up with Olos or vice-versa (even one in ten thousand) - they must all die.

(b) We know that the Tana is speaking about birds, and not animals - because if he was speaking about animals, the Din of 'Yir'u ad she'Yista'avu ... ' would apply (but it does apply to birds).

(c) The Tana goes on to say that if the Kohen took the initiative and brought ...

1. ... all the birds above the Chut ha'Sikra or below it - half the Korbanos are Kasher (the Olos in the first case, and the Chata'os in the second).
2. ... half the birds above the Chut and half below it - all the Korbanos are Pasul (in case all those that he brought above the Chut were the Chata'os, and those that he brought below it, were the Olos).

(d) This last case poses a Kashya on Rava - in whose opinion, all the Korbanos should be Pasul, seeing as if the Kohen had asked what to do with them, he would have been told not to proceed in the first place.

(a) Rava reconciles his ruling with the Beraisa - by establishing it according to those who hold 'Ein Ba'alei Chayim Nidachin', whereas he follows the opinion of those who hold 'Ba'alei Chayim Nidachin'.

(b) Shechted animals are different than live ones - in that even those Tana'im who hold Ba'alei Chayim are not Dechuyin, concede that Shechutin are.

(c) In a case where the limbs of a Ba'al-Mum became mixed up with those of unblemished Olos, Rebbi Eliezer in a Mishnah in Perek T'vul-Yom rules that if the Kohen brought one of the heads - one may Lechatchilah proceed to bring all the other heads, too ...

(d) ... because we assume that the head that was brought, was that of the Ba'al-Mum.

(a) This Mishnah creates a problem for Rava - inasmuch as if, as Rava just explained, only those who hold 'Ba'alei Chayim Einan Nidachin' permit an animal that is Dachuy, and everyone holds Dachuy by Shechutin, how will we then explain this Beraisa?

(b) We answer that Rebbi Eliezer holds like Chanan ha'Mitzri, who rules that, in a case where the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach died and the blood of the Sa'ir la'Hashem was already in the Kos (ready for sprinkling) - one only needs to bring one goat, to replace the one that died (because he holds 'Ba'alei Chayim Einan Nidachin' (even Shechutin) ...

(c) ... whereas according to the other Tana'im - it would be necessary to bring two goats and to start again, because the blood of the Sa'ir la'Hashem became Dachuy when the Sa'ir la'Azazel died.