Previous daf

1)

(a) Rebbi Simon in a Beraisa draws a distinction between Lan before Zerikah - which is subject to Me'ilah, and Lan after Zerikah, which is not.

(b) Based on the premise that the Tana is speaking when there was still time in the day to make Zerikah, we try to prove - that even though there is a Heter Zerikah, Me'ilah still applies, because the Tana holds 'Heter Achilah Shaninu'.

(c) We refute this proof however, by establishing the case when the Kohen performed the Kabalah just before nightfall - in which case the reason that Me'ilah still applies is because 'Heter Zerikah Shaninu'.

(d) And we query the answer - on the grounds that the Tana ought to have then rather differentiated between before Sheki'ah and after Sheki'ah (rather than before Zerikah' and after Zerikah').

(e) And we answer - that this is precisely what he says, because 'Lifnei Zerikah' and 'Achar Zerikah' means before and after it is eligible to make Zerikah (respectively).

(a) We try to bring a similar proof from another Beraisa, where Rebbi Shimon draws the same distinction with regard to Pigul that he just drew with regard to Nosar. Based on the premise that 'before Zerikah' refers to where there was still time in the day to sprinkle the blood, we try to prove - that 'Heter Achilah Shaninu' (as we explained earlier).

(b) And by answering that the Tana is speaking just before nightfall, we prove - that 'Heter Zerikah Shaninu' (as we explained there too).

(c) If there was time to sprinkle the blood - then it would be subject to Me'ilah.

(d) And as for the Kashya that if there was, then the Tana ought to have said switched to before nightfall (rather than before Zerikah) - the truth is that it does, because 'Lifnei Zerikah' and 'Achar Zerikah' really mean before and after the blood became eligible to sprinkle (like we explained in our rejection of the previous proof).

(a) We make the same premise with regard to the Beraisa 'ha'Pigul be'Kodshei Kodshim, Mo'alin', as we made in the two previous cases, and we refute it in the same way. If, as we conclude, the Seifa is speaking by Lo Zarak, the problem with the Seifa 'be'Kodshim Kalim Ein Mo'alin' then is - why the Seifa switches to Kodshim Kalim, and not to before Zerikah.

(b) And we answer that the Tana deliberately switches to Kodshim Kalim - to teach us that whereas only a Kasher Zerikah brings the latter into the realm of Me'ilah, to take Kodshei Kodshim out of the realm of Me'ilah, even a Pasul Zerikah will suffice (as we already learned earlier) ...

(c) ... because it takes a proper Zerikah to create Me'ilah, but any Pigul can remove it.

4)

(a) Our Mishnah discusses Basar Kodshei Kodshim that left the Azarah before Zerikah, and where the Zerikah is subsequently performed after it has been returned to the Azarah. Rebbi Eliezer rules ...

1. ... 'Moalin Bah' - because he holds that Zerikah does not take a Yotzei of Kodshei Kodshim out of the realm of Me'ilah.
2. ... 'Ein Chayavin Mishum Pigul, Nosar ve'Tamei' - because he holds that only a Zerikah Kesheirah can bring a Chatas into the realm of Pigul, Nosar and Tamei.

(b) Rebbi Akiva holds - a. 'Ein Mo'alin Bo (because Zerikah takes a Yotzei out of the realm of Me'ilah [irespective of whether it was returned to the Azarah or not]); and b. that even Zerikah of Yotzei a Zerikah Kesheirah will bring a Chatas into the realm of Pigul, Nosar and Tamei.

(a) Rebbi Akiva proves his opinion from the case of a lost Chatas which is found after its replacement has been designated. He extrapolates that just as the Zerikas ha'Dam of either of them ...

1. ... permits its own Basar to be eaten - so too will it permits the Basar of the other one to be eaten.
2. ... removes the second one from the Din of Me'ilah (even though it is Pasul) - so too, will it remove its own Basar from the realm of Me'ilah, even though it is Pasul.

(b) The reasoning behind the first of the two rulings is - because seeing as the Kohen is permitted to sprinkle the blood of whichever one he chooses, it as is they are one and the same Korban.

(c) The Basar of whichever one is Shechted second is Pasul - because it is a Mosar Chatas.

(a) The Seifa of the Mishnah discusses the same case, but with regard to Emurei Kodshim Kalim. Rebbi Eliezer holds 'Ein Mo'alin Bahen ve'Ein Chayavin Aleihen Mishum Pigul'. The reason for the former is because he holds - that Zerikas Yotzei does not bring the limbs of Kodshim Kalim to the realm of Me'ilah.

(b) Rebbi Akiva holds - 'Mo'alin Bahen, ve'Chayavin Aleihen Mishum Pigu, Nosar ve'Tamei'.

(c) Despite having presented the Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Akiva by ...

1. ... Kodshei Kodshim, he nevertheless sees fit to repeat it by Kodshim Kalim to teach us - that just as Rebbi Eliezer requires a proper Zerikah to remove the Din of Me'ilah from the former, so too does he require a proper Zerikah to create Me'ilah by the latter (and that he does not concede this point to Rebbi Akiva).
2. ... Kalim Kalim, he nevertheless sees fit to repeat it by Kodshei Kodshim to teach us - that just as Rebbi Akiva holds by the former that even a Zerikah Pesulah creates Me'ilah, so too, does he holds that it removes the Din of Me'ilah from the latter (and that he does concede this point to Rebbi Eliezer).