Previous daf

1)

(a) The Tana Kama of a Beraisa declares someone who pours three Login of wine ba'Chutz, Chayav. According to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon however - that is only if he sanctified them in a K'li Shareis.

(b) Rav Ada b'rei de'Rav Yitzchak establishes their Machlokes by Birutzei Midos - which is the excess wine in the center that rises above the level of the container.

(c) The Machlokes is whether - one is Chayav if there are Birutzei Midos in addition to the three Login (the Tana Kama) or not (Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon).

(a) According to Rabah b'rei de'Rava, the Machlokes is based on whether Yisrael brought Nesachim in the desert or not (to which we referred a little earlier). Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon holds like Rebbi in a Beraisa, who states 'Bamas Yachid Einah Tzerichah Nesachim'. The Tana Kama holds like the Chachamim, who say - 'Te'unah Nesachim'.

(b) The above Machlokes in turn, hinges on another Machlokes. Rebbi Yishmael in a Beraisa learns from the Pasuk (in connection with the Nesachim) "Ki Savo'u el Eretz Moshvoseichem" that a Bamah Gedolah requires Nesachim, which he extrapolates from - "Asher Ani Nosen Lachem" (in the plural), implying 'a Bamah that belongs to all of you' (but not to a Bamas Yachid).

(c) According to Rebbi Akiva, the Pasuk is referring to a Bamah Ketanah - because according to him, "Moshvoseichem" implies many places (and there was only one Bamah Gedolah.

(d) Rebbi Yishmael interprets 'Moshvoseichem' to mean - after they have captured the Land and distributed it.

1. ... Yishmael extrapolates from the fact that the Pasuk is referring to Bamos Tzibur - that they did not bring Nesachim in the desert.
2. ... Akiva extrapolates from the fact that the Pasuk is referring to Bamos Yachid - that they did (and it is therefore unnecessary to permit them on a Bamas Tzibur.

(a) The reason Rebbi Yochanan ascribes to Rebbi Nechemyah, who declares Chayav someone who pours the Sheyarei ha'Dam, ba'Chutz is - because he holds 'Shirayim Me'akvin' (rendering it a major Avodah).

(b) Rebbi Akiva in a Beraisa, queries Rebbi Nechemyah - because he holds 'Shirayim Einan Ma'akvin'.

(c) When Rebbi Nechemyah countered from Eivarim u'Pedarim, for which one is Chayav ba'Chutz, despite the fact that they too, are Sheyarei Mitzvah - by pointing out that Eivarim u'Pedarim come at the beginning of the Avodah, whereas Sheyarei ha'Dam come at the end (rendering them Sheyarei Mitzvah).

(d) We ask that according to Rebbi Yochanan - why did Rebbi Nechemyah not answer that the Sheyarei ha'Dam are Me'akev, in which case, they cannot be considered Sheyarei ha'Dam any more than Eivarim u'Pedarim.

(e) Initially - we remain with a Kashya.

(a) We nevertheless get round it by citing Rav Ada bar Ahavah, who establishes the Machlokes in 'Eizehu Mekoman' regarding whether 'Sheyarim Me'akvin' or not - by the Shirayim ha'Penimiyim

(b) Consequently, we establish ...

1. ... Rebbi Nechemyah in our Mishnah - with regard to Sheyarim Penimiyim.
2. ... the Machlokes between Rebbi Nechemyah and Rebbi Akiva in the Beraisa - with regard to Sheyarim ha'Chitzonim.

(c) The problem with this is - why, when Rebbi Akiva asked Rebbi Nechemyah from Shirayim Chitzonim, he did not answer Rebbi Akiva, that his statement was confined to Shayarim Penimiyim?

(d) We answer - that Rebbi Nechmeyah (could have answered that, but) chose to counter Rebbi Akiva's Kashya according to what he (Rebbi Akiva) thought.

6)

(a) Our Mishnah rules that a Kohen who performs Melikah bi'Fenim and sacrifices the bird ba'Chutz - is Chayav.

(b) If he also performed the Melikah ba'Chutz however, says the Tana, he is Patur ...

1. ... on the Ha'ala'ah - because Melikah ba'Chutz renders the bird Neveilah.
2. ... on the Melikah, as we learned earlier in the Perek 'ha'Shochet, ve'Lo ha'Molek'.

(c) The Mishnah rules that someone who Shechts a bird ...

1. ... bi'Fenim and sacrifices it ba'Chutz - is Patur, because a bird that is Shechted bi'Fenim is not fit to go on the Mizbe'ach.
2. ... ba'Chutz and sacrifices it ba'Chutz - is Chayav.

(d) The difference between the two cases (bearing in mind that in the latter case, the Of becomes Pasul be'Yotzei too) is - that every Shechitas or Ha'ala'as Chutz is a Gezeiras-ha'Kasuv, which renders him Chayav even though it is Yotzei. Apart from the P'sul of Chutz however, any other P'sul that is not acceptable bi'Fenim (even Bedieved), is precluded from Avodas Chutz.

(a) It transpires, the Tana observes, that 'Derech Hechsheiro bi'Fenim Peturo ba'Chutz, Derech Hechsheiro ba'Chutz, Peturo bi'Fenim. The Reisha means - that the Melikah (that is Machshir the bird bi'Fenim) invalidates the Isur of Ha'ala'as Chutz, if it is performed ba'Chutz.

(b) The problem with the Seifa is - that 'Derech Hechsheiro ba'Chutz' makes no sense, since a bird of Kodshim does not have any Hechsher ba'Chutz.

(c) To accommo date the Seifa therefore, we amend the wording of the Mishnah to - 'Chiyuvo', and what the Tana now means is that the way that one would be Chayav for the second stage ba'Chutz if one performed the first stage (i.e. Melikah) inside, one is Patur for performing it outside, and vice versa (if one performed the Shechitah inside, one is Patur for Ha'ala'as Chutz, even though, had he performed it outside, he would have been Chayav.

(a) When Rebbi Shimon in the Mishnah says 'Kol she'Chayavin Alav ba'Chutz Chayavin al ka'Yotzei Bo bi'Fenim she'He'elah ba'Chutz', he means - that whenever one would be Chayav if the entire Avodah was performed ba'Chutz, he will be Chayav even if the first Avodah was performed bi'Fenim and the second, ba'Chutz.

(b) The only exception is - where he Shechted the bird bi'Fenim and then sacrificed it ba'Chutz (where he is Patur, but where he would be Chayav if he Shechted it ba'Chutz, too.

(c) Rebbi Shimon cannot be referring to the Reisha ('ha'Molek Of bi'Fenim Ve'he'elah ba'Chutz Chayav; Malak ba'Chutz Ve'he'elah ba'Chutz Patur'), to teach us that just as he is ...

1. ... Chayav bi'Fenim, so too, is he Chayav ba'Chutz' - because then he ought to have said (not 'Kol she'Chayavin Alav ba'Chutz ... ', but) 'Kol sha'Chayavin Alav bi'Fenim').
2. ... not Chayav ba'Chutz, so too, is he not Chayav bi'Fenim - because then he should have said 'Kol *she'Ein* Chayavin Alav ba'Chutz ... '.

(d) Neither can he be referring to the Seifa ('ha'Shochet Of bi'Fenim ve'He'elah ba'Chutz, Patur; Shachat ba'Chutz ve'He'elah ba'Chutz, Chayav'), to teach us that just as he is ...

1. ... not Chayav bi'Fenim, so too, is he not Chayav ba'Chutz either - because then he should have said 'Kol she'Ein Chayavin Alav bi'Fenim' (and not, Kol she'Chayavin Alav ba'Chutz').
2. ... Chayav ba'Chutz, so is he Chayav bi'Fenim - because that would clash with his final statement 'Chutz min ha'Shochet bi'Fenim u'Ma'aleh ba'Chutz' (where is he Patur).

(a) Ze'iri learns the Machlokes with regard to the Shechitah of an animal at night-time, which he now adds to our Mishnah ('ve'Chein ha'Shochet ba'Laylah bi'Fenim Ve'he'elah ba'Chutz ... '), where the Tana Kama rules Patur', but 'Shachat ba'Laylah ba'Chutz Va'he'elah ba'Chutz, Chayav'.

(b) Whereas Rebbi Shimon holds - that in the Reisha, he is Chayav too (because he holds 'ha'Shochet ba'Laylah, Im Alsah Lo Teired', whereas the Tana Kama, who is Rebbi Yehudah, holds 'Im Alsah, Teired', as we learned in 'ha'Mizbe'ach Mekadesh').

(c) In the same way, Rava learns that they are arguing over a case of Kiblah bi'Cheli Chol. Based on his amended version of the Mishnah - they are arguing whether someone who received the blood in a K'li Chol bi'Fenim and then performed the Matanos ba'Chutz, is Patur (the Tana Kama) or Chayav (Rebbi Shimon), like he would be if he received the blood ba'Chutz and performed the Matanos ba'Chutz ...

(d) ... and the basis of the Machlokes is - whether 'Im Alsah Lo Teired' extends to all Pesulin ba'Kodesh (Rebbi Shimon) or whether it is confined to a handful of Pesulim that are fit for Avodas Tzibur (Rebbi Yehudah), as we learned in 'ha'Mizbe'ach Mekadesh'.

(a) According to Avuhah di'Sh'muel, Rebbi Shimon explicitly comments on the Seifa of the Reisha ('ha'Molek Of bi'Fenim Ve'he'elah ba'Chutz Chayav; Malak ba'Chutz Ve'he'elah ba'Chutz Patur'). Rebbi Shimon holds - Chayav, just like he is Chayav in the Reisha.

(b) When he concludes 'Chutz min ha'Shochet bi'Fenim u'Ma'aleh ba'Chutz', he is not referring to what he said, but to the inference 'Ha Kol she'Ein Chayavin Alav bi'Fenim Ve'he'elan ba'Chutz, Patur' ...

(c) ... comprising cases - that are not Pesulan ba'Kodesh, such as Rovei'a and Nirva.

(d) And the reason that Shochet bi'Fenim Ve'he'elah ba'Chutz is different is - because of the Pasuk "O Asher Yishchat", from which we learned earlier that one is Chayav, even though he would have been Patur had he Shechted the bird bi'Fenim.

(a) Our Mishnah rules in a case where the Kohen received the blood of a Korban in one vessel, and then placed some of the blood ...

1. ... 'ba'Chutz and some bi'Fenim' - that he is Chayav ...
2. ... and the same applies to where he placed some 'bi'Fenim and some ba'Chutz' - since both cups were fit to be placed bi'Fenim.

(b) The Tana mention the first case (which is obvious) - in order balance the second one.

(c) The Chidush in the Seifa is - that one is Chayav on the second cup even though it is Shirayim.

(a) If the Kohen received the blood in two vessels, and placed it all outside, he is Chayav - one Chatas, if he did not become aware of the Isur in between the two sets of Matanos, but two of he did.

(b) If he placed the blood of one of the cups ...

1. ... bi'Fenim and the other, ba'Chutz - he is Patur (as will be explained in the Sugya).
2. ... ba'Chutz and the other, bi'Fenim - he is Chayav for the first set of Matanos, whereas the second will render the Chatas Kasher.

(a) The Tana compares the current set of Halachos - to someone who finds the Chatas that became lost after he had already designated a second one, where exactly the same pattern emerges.

(b) If he Shechts them both ba'Chutz, he is Chayav for each one - because they are both fit to be brought bi'Fenim.

(c) Whereas he will be Patur if he Shechts the first one bi'Fenim and the second one ba'Chutz - because it is a Chatas whose owner has already been atoned for, which is sent to die.

(d) In the reverse case, the Din will be exactly the same as the Chatas whose blood was received in two cups - namely that he is Chayav for the first one, whereas the second one atones.

(a) The Tana concludes 'Ke'shem she'Damah Poter es Besarah, Kach Hi Poteres es B'sar Chavertah. When we say 'Damah Poter es Besarah', we mean - that the Basar is no longer subject to Me'ilah.

(b) He is referring to the case where he Shechted both animals bi'Fenim, where the Zerikas ha'Dam permits the Basar to the Kohanim, taking it out of the realm of Me'ilah. Had he Shechted them outside, there would have been no Me'ilah anyway, seeing as the Shechitah would have been considered as if he had strangled them, and once Kodshim die other than by means of Shechitah, they are no longer subject to Me'ilah.

(c) And the reason that the blood of the one exempts the Basar of the other from Me'ilah (despite the fact that it is Pasul, and not fit for Kohanim) is - because a Chatas whose owner has already been atoned must die, and is not therefore subject to Me'ilah (as we explained earlier, by the equivalent case regarding the Basar).

(d) The Tana mentions this here, in spite of the fact that it has nothing to do with Shechutei Chutz - because of its similarity to the previous cases, which have.