Previous daf

1)

(a) Rebbi Zeira asks whether, if an Olas Bamas Yachid that was taken into the confines of a Bamas Tzibur after the Shechitah, and then taken out again - we say 'Keivan de'Ayla, Kaltah Lah Mechitzos' (and it nevertheless retains the Din of an Olas Bamas Tzibur) or 'Keivan de'Hadar, Hadar' (and it reverts to its original Din of an Olas Bamas Yachid.

(b) We try to connect this She'eilah to the following Machlokes Amora'im. The Mishnah in Me'ilah says that even if Kodshei Kodshim are Shechted in the south of the Azarah - they are subject to Me'ilah.

(c) The Chidush is - that we do not say that Shechting them in the south is akin to killing them without Shechitah (in which case they would lose the Din Me'ilah).

(d) Rabah maintains that if they were subsequently taken up on the Mizbe'ach, 'Im Alu Yerdu'. Rav Yosef rules - 'Im Alu, Lo Yerdu'.

(a) We try to resolve our She'eilah based on the Machlokes between Rabah and Rav Yosef - in that here too, Rabah will hold 'Keivan de'Hadar Hadar' (since Shechitah in the wrong place removes their Kedushah (at least as regards the Din of 'Im Alu ... '); whereas Rav Yosef, who holds that it does not, holds 'Im Alu, Lo Yerdu'.

(b) We reject this suggestion however - on the grounds that ...

1. ... Rabah might well confine his ruling to the case of the Mizbe'ach in the Beis-Hamikdash, (conceding that in our case, we will say 'Keivan she'Hichnisah, Kaltah Lah Mechitzos') - because the Mizbe'ach only sanctifies Kodshim that are fit for it (as we already learned in 'ha'Mizbe'ach Mekadesh'), whereas the Bamah Gedolah is Mekadesh even Kodshim that are not.
2. ... Rav Yosef confines his ruling to the case of Mizbe'ach (conceding that in our case, we will say 'Keivan de'Hadar Hadar') - because both Kodshim that are Shechted in the north and Kodshim that are Shechted in the south, are brought on the same Mizbe'ach, whereas Kodshei Bamas Tzibur and Kodshei Bamas Yachid are brought on different Mizbechos.

(c) What was obvious to Rabah (one way) and Rav Yosef (the other), was not so obvious to Rebbi Yanai (see Shitah Mekubetzes and Hagahos Rav Yitzchak Iyzak Chaver). He asked whether the limbs of a Bamas Yachid that were taken up on to the Mizbe'ach of a Bamas Tzibur, must be taken down again.

(d) We remain with a She'eilah ('Teiku'), though we do qualify the She'eilah. It is obvious (to Rebbi Yanai) - that if the majority of the limb is already burning 'Im Alu, Lo Yerdu' (and the She'eilah pertains to a case where it is not.

(a) Rav and Shmuel argue over Shechitas Laylah by a Bamah Ketanah - one validates it, the other, doesn't.

(b) Rebbi Elazar referred to an apparent discrepancy between two Pesukim in Shmuel - where once, when they were preparing for war, Shaul specifically ordered the people to Shecht by day, and then the Pasuk records that they Shechted by night.

(c) Rav and Shmuel answer the Kashya differently. One of them establishes the first Pasuk by Kodshim, and the second, by Chulin (because he holds that Laylah is forbidden even by a Bamas Yachid) - the other establishes the first Pasuk by Kodshei Bamah Gedolah (which require day, even though they are being brought on a Bamah Ketanah); and the second Pasuk, by Kodshei Bamah Ketanah (which do not).

(a) According to Rav, Kodshei Bamas Yachid do not require Hefshet and Nitu'ach. Rebbi Yochanan says - that they do.

(b) They argue over a statement by Rebbi Yossi Hagelili, who says - that the Olah which Yisrael brought in the desert (i.e. at Har Sinai) did not require Hefshet and Nitu'ach.

(c) He concludes his statement with 'she'Ein Hefshet ve'Nitu'ach Ela me'Ohel Mo'ed. Rebbi Yochanan takes Rebbi Yossi Hagelili to the letter. Rav qualifies his words - confining them to a Bamah Gedolah, but not to a Bamah Ketanah.

(a) After listing the differences between a Bamah Gedolah and a Bamah Ketanah, the Beraisa (which we cited already in 'ha'Shochet ve'ha'Ma'aleh' lists the Halachos that they share. The Tana rules that ...

1. ... Kiyor ve'Kano - applies to a Bamah Gedolah, but not to a Bamah Ketanah.
2. ... Shechitah - applies to both Bamos, as does ...
3. ... Hefshet ve'Nitu'ach and ...
4. ... Dam Matir u'Mefagel.

(b) This Beraisa - proves Rebbi Yochanan right.

6)

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that Z'man and Nosar apply equally to a Bamah Gedolah and a Bamah Ketanah. We would learn otherwise from a 'Binyan Av' from Yotzei, which is not Pasul by a Bamah Ketanah - but, like Lan (Nosar), it must be burned (in the Beis-Hamikdash).

(b) We know that Yotzei is not Pasul by a Bamah Ketanah - since a Bamah Ketanah does not require Mechitzos.

(c) Consequently, based on what we have just said, just like Yotzei is Kasher by a Bamah, so too is Lan.

(a) We refute this Limud however by learning a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Ofos - which do not become Pasul by means of a Mum, whereas Kodshei Bamas Yachid do ...

(b) ... in which case, if Z'man applies to Ofos, 'Kal-va'Chomer' to Kodshei Bamas Yachid.

(a) We repudiate this 'Kal-va'Chomer' however, on the grounds that Ofos also posses a stringency, inasmuch as a Zar is forbidden to sacrifice Ofos, though he is permitted to sacrifice Kodshei Bamas Yachid.

(b) We finally learn the Din of Z'man from the Pasuk "ve'Zos Toras Zevach ha'Shelamim" which teaches us - that all Shelamim share the same Halachos, irrespective of whether they are brought on the Mizbe'ach on a Bamas Yachid.

(c) We confine this Limud specifically to Z'man, and not to all the other Dinim of Shelamim - because the Limud pertains to the Halachos that are dealt with in that Parshah, one of which is that of Z'man and Pigul.

(d) And we extend this ruling to ...

1. ... Nosar - because of the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Avon" "Avon" from Pigul.
2. ... Tamei - because it too, is written in that Parshah.

On to Menachos