Previous daf

1)

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that Rove'a, Nirva ... are precluded from Ha'ala'as Chutz from "Lehakriv Korban Lifnei Mishkan Hashem", and we ask why the Tana does not learn it from "ve'el Pesach Ohel Mo'ed Lo Hevi'o" (like it did the previous group [Paras Chatas ... ]) - which precedes the former chronologically (i.e. it has to be brought to the Ohel Mo'ed before it can be sacrificed).

(b) We answer the Kashya - by establishing the case when the animal became a Rove'a or a Nirva only after it was declared Hekdesh (in which case it was already fit to be brought to the entrance of the Ohel Mo'ed and subject to Shechutei Chutz).

(c) Initially, we do not accept this answer with regard to Muktzah and Ne'evad - because Hekdesh is no longer the personal property of the owner, and we have a principle 'Ein Adam Oser Davar she'Eino she'Lo' (one cannot render forbidden something that belongs to somebody else).

(a) We get round this problem however, by quoting Rebbi Yossi Hagelili, who says - that Kodshim Kalim are considered the property of the original owner.

(b) Rebbi Yossi Hagelili is referring to a case where, after denying under oath having Shimon's animal in his possession, Reuven admits that he swore falsely, for which he is then Chayav an Asham Gezeilos. Rebbi Yossi Hagelili now Darshens from the Pasuk "Ve'kichesh ba'Amiso, u'Ma'al *ba'Hashem*" - that he has to swear even in a case where Hashem has stakes in the animal (Kodshim Kalim), because Shimon is still considered the owner.

(c) Consequently - we can now establish the case with regard to Muktzah ve'Ne'evad too, when the owner rendered the animal Asur only after declaring it Hekdesh (in which case it was already fit to be brought to the entrance of the Ohel Mo'ed, but is now precluded from Shechutei Chutz from the Pasuk "Lehakriv Korban ... ").

(a) It is clear why the above answer to our initial Kashya (that the animal only became disqualified after being declared Hekdesh, does not apply to a Kil'ayim or to a Yotzei Dofen). Neither can we answer Esnan and Mechir in this way - because Esnan and Mechir cannot take effect on an animal of Hekdesh (even Kodshim Kalim according to Rebbi Yossi Hagelili).

(b) So we answer the Kashya with regard to all four cases - by establishing the case by a fetus of a Kodshim animal that was given as an Esnan or Mechir, or that was itself a Kil'ayim or a Yotzei Dofen.

(c) Even though Esnan and Mechir cannot take effect on the mother, it can take effect on the fetus - because of the principle 'V'ladei Kodshim be'Havayasan Hein Kedoshim' (the baby of a Kodshim animal only becomes Hekdesh after it is born).

1. ... 'Ba'alei-Mumin Ovrin', the Tana nevertheless saw fit to present it again in the case of 'young Torin' - because since, unlike the former, there is nothing disgusting (in the eyes of Hashem) with regard to the latter, we may have thought that the Tana Kama will concede to Rebbi Shimon that they are subject to Shechutei Chutz.
2. ... 'young Torin', the Tana saw fit to present it again in the case of 'Ba'alei-Mumin Ovrin' - because, since (unlike young Torin) *they* were originally fit and became rejected, we may have thought that Rebbi Shimon will concede to the Tana Kama that they are not included in Shechutei Chutz.
3. ... 'Ba'alei-Mumin Ovrin' and 'young Torin', the Tana found it necessary to present it again in the case of 'Oso ve'es B'no' - because since the latter is not an intrinsic P'sul, we may have thought that the Rabbanan will concede to Rebbi Shimon that Shechutei will apply to them.

(a) According to Rebbi Ila'a, Rebbi Shimon's source is the Pasuk in Re'ei "Lo Sa'asun" (in connection with their arrival in Eretz Yisrael). We learn from ...

1. ... "Lo Sa'asun ke'Chol Asher Anachnu Osin Poh ha'Yom ... " - that once they arrived in Eretz Yisrael (Gilgal), they would no longer be permitted to bring all the Korbanos that they were currently bringing in the Mishkan.
2. ... "Ish Kol ha'Yashar be'Einav" - that they would only be permitted to bring Nedarim and Nedavos.
3. ... "Ki La Ba'sem ad Atah el ha'Menuchah" - that this situation would only last (for fourteen years) until they built the Mishkan (Shiloh) when it would revert to what it was in the Mishkan in the desert.

(b) Rebbi Shimon extrapolates from there that Mechusar Z'man ba'Chutz is subject to a La'av. We think that, based on this source, one ought to be Chayav for Mechusar Z'man bi'Fenim, too - because, since Moshe's Mishkan was still standing, it had a Don of Mishkan, inasmuch as it was considered P'nim.

(c) Based on this explanation, Rebbi Yirmiyah queried Rebbi Zeira on his statement in Chulin, where he said - that there is no second set of Malkos for the La'av of 'Oso ve'es B'no' (for Mechusar Z'man bi'Fenim).

(d) To which Rebbi Zeira replied - that Rebbi Ila'a was explaining Rebbi Shimon, whereas in the Sugya in Chulin, he was going according to the Rabbanan.

6)

(a) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak explains that Gilgal cannot be considered Mechusar Z'man - because, despite the fact that the Mishkan was still standing, the P'nim of Gilgal is considered Chutz with regard to Shiloh (in which case, it cannot be considered Mechusar Z'man, and will not be subject to Malkos).

(b) Rabah disagrees with Rebbi Ila'a (who cites Rebbi Shimon's source as "Lo Sa'asun"). He quotes a Beraisa where Rebbi Shimon Darshens the Pasuk in Re'ei (in connection with Shechutei Chutz) "Lo Suchal Lizbo'ach es ha'Pasach". He learns from "be'Achad She'arecha" that the La'av only applies when everyone brings their Korbanos through one gate (i.e. at a time when the Bamos are forbidden).

(c) When he precludes 'be'Sha'as Heter Bamos' from the La'av - he is merely corroborating what we just said.

(d) The problem with establishing the Pasuk after Chatzos is - that (if we are talking about the era of Isur Bamos, then) someone who brings the Pesach ba'Chutz has contravened a Chiyuv Kareis too (and not just a La'av).

(a) In that case, Rabah extrapolates, it must be speaking before Chatzos - a proof that Mechusar Z'man is subject to a La'av, according to Rebbi Shimon.

(b) We refute Rabah's explanation however, by establishing the La'av by Sha'as Heter Bamos. The problem with that is - that the Beraisa specifically established the case by Sha'as Isur Bamos.

(c) We answer 'Isur Bamah Lo, Heter Bamah la'Chavero' - meaning that it is a Z'man Isur Bamos as far as the Pesach is concerned, but Heter Bamos with regard to an Olah or a Shelamim.

(d) Bearing in mind that a Pesach before Chatzos is a Shelamim, the Beraisa is now coming to teach us - that the La'av of "Lo Suchal Lizbo'ach es ha'Pesach" only pertains to Shechting it in the afternoon, when it is a Korban Pesach, but not in the morning, when it is a Shelamim, and permitted on a Bamah. Note, now that Rebbi Shimon is referring to the era of Heter Bamos, his D'rashah from "be'Achad She'arecha" refers to a Bamas Tzibur, where they *did* bring the Korban Pesach.

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that a Zav, Zavah or Yoledes who bring their Chatas or Asham ba'Chutz, are Patur. To answer the Kashya, that none of these bring an Asham, Ze'iri amends our Mishnah - to include a Metzora (who does).

(b) Whilst Rav Sheishes, to answer the Kashya on the Seifa (obligating them if they bring their Olah or Shelamim), that none of them bring a Shelamim either, amends our Mishnah - to incorporate a Nazir, who does.

(c) The statement 'di'Zeiri Kav'uhu Tana'i, de'Rav Sheishes Lo Kav'uhu Tana'i' - is of no consequence, since, whether the Tana'im inserted it or not, it needs to be inserted, to rectify the error.

(a) According to Rebbi Chilkiyah bar Tuvi, the P'tur ba'Chutz (which the Tana writes with regard to Chatas and Asham) is confined to where the Shechitah ba'Chutz was performed 'li'Shemo', but if it was performed 'she'Lo li'Shemo', the Shochet is Chayav - because it is fit to be brought bi'Fenim in that state.

(b) By ...

1. ... 'li'Shemo', he means - even S'tam.
2. ... 'she'Lo li'Shemo', he means - that the Shochet had in mind specifically to bring it as an Olah.

(c) Based on the principle 'Kol ha'Zevachim she'Nizbechu she'Lo li'Sheman, Kesheirim, Chutz min ha'Pesach ve'ha'Chatas' - Rebbi Chilkiyah bar Tuvi refers to the Asham exclusively (but not to the Chatas).

(d) We cannot however, apply the same with regard to li'Shemo, and say that he is Chayav, since it is fit to sacrifice bi'Fenim she'Lo li'Shemo - because it lacks the Ma'aseh of Akirah (changing its identity, and as long as it that has not been done, it is not considered fit to bring bi'Fenim).