1)

(a)What does our Mishnah rule with regard to Rove'a, Nirva, Muktzah, Ne'evad, Esnan, M'chir, Kil'ayim, T'reifah and Yotzei Dofen? What do they all have in common regarding the Din of Bitul?

(b)It is possible to find a T'reifah that is not recognizable as such - if a 'D'rusas ha'Ze'ev' (an animal that has been pierced by the claws of a wolf) became mixed-up with 'Nekivas ha'Kotz' (one that was pierced by a thorn). What other example is there of such a case?

(c)This can only go according to Rebbi Eliezer however. What does Rebbi Eliezer say about a V'lad T'reifah?

(d)If 'Muktzah' is an animal that has been designated for Avodah-Zarah, what Halachic distinction does the Tana draw between a Muktzah animal and one that has actually been Ne'evad (an animal that has been worshipped)?

(e)If all the cases in our Mishnah are not Bateil, then what happens to all the animals concerned?

1)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that Rove'a, Nirva, Muktzah, Ne'evad, Esnan, M'chir, Kil'ayim, T'reifah and Yotzei Dofen - are not subject to Bitul, even if one becomes mixed-up in a thousand.

(b)It is possible to find a T'reifah that is not recognizable as such - either if a 'D'rusas ha'Ze'ev' (an animal that has been pierced by the claws of a wolf) became mixed-up with 'Nekivas ha'Kotz' (one that was pierced by a thorn) or - where the baby of a T'reifah became mixed-up with other animals ...

(c)... according to Rebbi Eliezer - who prohibits a V'lad T'reifah from going on the Mizbe'ach).

(d)Although 'Muktzah' (an animal that has been designated for Avodah-Zarah) - is forbidden, whatever is on it (e.g. its ornaments) are permitted; whereas Ne'evad (an animal that has been worshipped) - is forbidden together with whatever is on it.

(e)All the cases in our Mishnah that are not Bateil - have a Din of Re'iyah; they are sent to graze in a field, and when they obtain a Mum, they may be eaten as P'sulei ha'Mukdashin.

2)

(a)We query our Mishnah from a Mishnah in Zevachim 'Kol ha'Kodshim she'Nis'arvu be'Chata'os Meisos ... Afilu Echad be'Ribu, Yamusu'. How do we initially understand this Mishnah?

(b)What problem do we therefore have with the word 'Afilu'?

(c)How do we therefore reinterpret the Mishnah?

(d)How does this solve the problem? What does 'Afilu' now mean?

2)

(a)We query our Mishnah from a Mishnah in Zevachim 'Kol ha'Kodshim she'Nis'arvu be'Chata'os Meisos ... Afilu Echad be'Ribu, Yamusu', which we initially understand to mean - that if one Kodshim animal became mixed-up with Chata'os ha'Meisos, they must all die.

(b)The problem with the word 'Afilu' then is - that if in a case where one Kodshim animal became mixed-up with a few Chata'os ha'Meisos, they must all die, how much more so if there are ten thousand of the latter. So what does 'Afilu' mean?

(c)We therefore reinterpret the Mishnah to mean (not that one Kodshim animal became mixed-up in a few Chata'os ha'Meisos, but) - that one Chatas ha'Meisah ... became mixed-up in a group of Kodshim animals ...

(d)... adding that even if it was one Chatas ha'Meisah ... among ten thousand Kodshim animals, they must all die.

3)

(a)In view of the Mishnah in Zevachim, what does our Mishnah come to teach us?

(b)How is it possible for Rove'a and Nirva of Kodshim (which are Chayav Misah) to be Mutar be'Hana'ah?

(c)Now that our Mishnah teaches us that Kodshim that are not Isurei Hana'ah are not Bateil, why do we need the Mishnah in Zevachim to teach us that Chata'os that are Isurei Hana'ah are not Bateil either?

3)

(a)In view of the Mishnah in Zevachim, our Mishnah comes to teach us - that even Kodshim that are not Isurei Hana'ah are not subject to Bitul either.

(b)It is possible for Rove'a and Nirva of Kodshim (which are Chayav Misah) to be Mutar be'Hana'ah - if they became forbidden through only one witness or through the testimony of the owner himself (which will suffice to forbid the animal on the Mizbe'ach, but not to have it killed).

(c)Even though our Mishnah already teaches us that Kodshim that are not Isurei Hana'ah do not become Bateil, we need the Mishnah in Zevachim to incorporate Chata'os that are Asur be'Hana'ah in this ruling - because we would otherwise have thought that it is only Kodshim that become forbidden to Hash-m (but not to people) that do not become Bateil, since they are Ma'us (loathsome) before Hash-m, but not Chulin, which are forbidden to Hedyotos too (to teach us that Bitul does not even help for Hedyotos either).

4)

(a)Rav Kahana queried Rav Shimi bar Ashi from another Mishnah in Zevachim, which specifically discusses Kodshei Rove'a and Nirva which became mixed-up with other animals. What does the Tana there actually rule?

(b)How did Rav Shimi bar Ashi then explain the need for our Mishnah, which appears to echo the Mishnah there?

(c)Having taught us that Kodshim that are Rove'a or Nirva are not Bateil, why does our Mishnah then find it necessary to teach us the same when the Revi'ah preceded the Hekdesh?

(d)Why do we then need the Mishnah in Zevachim?

4)

(a)Rav Kahana queried Rav Shimi bar Ashi from another Mishnah in Zevachim, which specifically discusses Kodshei Rove'a and Nirva which became mixed-up with other animals, and where the Tana rules - 'Ro'eh' and with the proceeds of the most expensive of the animals, one purchases whichever Korban became mixed-up in the group.

(b)Rav Shimi bar Ashi explained - that whereas the Mishnah there speaks in a case where the Hekdesh preceded the Revi'ah, our Mishnah speaks where the mix-up occurred before the animal was declared Hekdesh.

(c)In spite of having taught us that Kodshim that are Rove'a or Nirva are not Bateil, our Mishnah finds it necessary to teach us the same when the Revi'ah preceded the Hekdesh - because we would otherwise have thought that the Bitul already took place, allowing the Hekdesh to take effect.

(d)And we need the Mishnah in Zevachim - to teach us the Din of Ro'eh (as we explained) which our Mishnah omitted.

5)

(a)What does the Mishnah in Avodah-Zarah say about Yayin Nesech, Avodah-Zarah, Tziprei Metzora and a host of other Isurei Hana'ah?

(b)Why in Zevachim, with regard to the Ta'aroves of Kodshim, does the Tana list Isurei Achilah (T'reifos) together with Isurei Hana'ah (such as Rove'a and Nirva), whereas in Avodah-Zarah, when listing the Ta'aroves of Chulin, he lists Isurei Hana'ah (such as Yayin Nesech) and Isurei Achilah (such as milk that a Nochri milked) separately?

5)

(a)The Mishnah in Avodah-Zarah rules - that Yayin Nesech, Avodah-Zarah, Tziprei Metzora and a host of other Isurei Hana'ah are not only Asur, but do also not become Bateil.

(b)In Zevachim, with regard to the Ta'aroves of Kodshim, the Tana lists Isurei Achilah (Tereifos) together with Isurei Hana'ah (such as Rove'a and Nirva) - because it is referring to whatever is Asur to Gavohah; whereas in Avodah-Zarah, when listing the Ta'aroves of Chulin, he lists Isurei Hana'ah (such as Yayin Nesech) and Isurei Achilah (such as milk that a Nochri milked) separately - because it is initially talking about Yayin Nesech (so it begins by listing whatever is similar to it).

6)

(a)What does the Beraisa learn from the Pasuk in Vayikra "min ha'Beheimah"? What does this come to preclude?

(b)How does the Tana ...

1. ... on the one hand, try to learn this from a Ba'alas-Mum?

2. ... on the other hand, reject this proof, from someone who plows with an ox and a donkey?

(c)And how does the Beraisa refute this counter-proof from the latter case? Why can we not learn Rove'a ve'Nirva from it?

(d)On what grounds does the Tana go on to reject this Pircha? For which aspect of Rove'a ve'Nirva would we still require the Pasuk of "min ha'Beheimah"?

6)

(a)The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk in Vayikra "min ha'Beheimah" - to preclude Rove'a and Nirva from the Mizbe'ach.

(b)The Tana ...

1. ... on the one hand, tries to learn this from a Ba'alas-Mum - with which no sin was performed, yet it is Asur to go on the Mizbe'ach, 'Kal-va'Chomer' Rove'a ve'Nirva, with which a sin was performed.

2. ... on the other hand, rejects this proof, from someone who plows with an ox and a donkey - with which a sin was performed, yet it is permitted to go on the Mizbe'ach.

(c)The Beraisa refutes the counter-proof from this latter case however - since it is not a case of a Chiyuv Misah, whereas a Rove'a ve'Nirva are.

(d)The Beraisa goes on to reject this Pircha however - with regard to Rove'a ve'Nirva where there is only one witness, where one is not Chayav Misah, and which is therefore comparable to Choresh be'Shor va'Chamor, as a result of which it will still require the Pasuk of "min ha'Beheimah".

7)

(a)Rebbi Shimon however, tries to learn Rove'a ve'Nirva when there is one witness, without a Pasuk. How does he try to learn it from a new 'Kal-va'Chomer' from a Ba'alas-Mum?

(b)What is strange about the continuation of the Beraisa 'Talmud Lomar "min ha'Beheimah", 'Lehotzi Rove'a ve'Nirva'?

(c)How does Rav Ashi explain how in fact, despite the 'Kal-va'Chomer', we cannot really learn the P'sul of Rove'a ve'Nirva from that of a Ba'alas-Mum. Why not? What advantage do Rove'a ve'Nirva have over a Ba'alas-Mum?

(d)What problemhas Rav Ashi now resolved?

7)

(a)Rebbi Shimon however, tries to learn Rove'a ve'Nirva when there is one witness, without a Pasuk. from a new 'Kal-va'Chomer' from a Ba'alas-Mum. If two witnesses do not render it forbidden to eat, yet one witness renders it forbidden to bring on the Mizbe'ach, he argues, then Rove'a ve'Nirva, where two witnesses render it forbidden to eat (since it needs to be stoned), one witness should certainly render it forbidden to bring on the Mizbe'ach.

(b)The continuation of the Beraisa 'Talmud Lomar "min ha'Beheimah", 'Lehotzi Rove'a ve'Nirva' is strange - since Rebbi Shimon just learned it from a 'Kal-va'Chomer' from a Ba'alas-Mum.

(c)Rav Ashi explains how in fact, despite the 'Kal-va'Chomer', we cannot really learn the P'sul of Rove'a ve'Nirva from that of a Ba'alas-Mum - because whereas the latter is visible, the former is not ...

(d)... which explains why we still require the Pasuk.

28b----------------------------------------28b

8)

(a)The current Beraisa learns from the continuation of the Pasuk in Vayikra "min ha'Bakar" 'Lehotzi es ha'Ne'evad'. How come that an animal that is worshipped is not Asur to a Hedyot anyway?

(b)How does the Tana attempt to learn the current D'rashah from a 'Kal-va'Chomer' from Esnan (Zonah) and M'chir (Kelev)? What Chumrah does Ne'evad have over them?

8)

(a)The current Beraisa learns from the continuation of the Pasuk in Vayikra "min ha'Bakar" 'Lehotzi es ha'Ne'evad'. The reason that an animal that is worshipped is not Asur to a Hedyot anyway is - on account of the principle 'Ein Ba'alei-Chayim Asurim' (a live animal is not subject to the Isur of Ne'evad).

(b)The Tana attempts to learn the current D'rashah from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Esnan (Zonah) and M'chir (Kelev) - from a 'Kal-va'Chomer', since unlike them, the ornaments that adorn Ne'evad are Asur be'Hana'ah (as we learned earlier) ...

9)

(a)What does the Tana learn from the Pasuk in Va'eschanan "Lo Sachmod Kesef ve'Zahav aleihem ve'Lakachta lach"?

(b)What reverse 'Kal-va'Chomer' would we otherwise be able to learn from Esnan and M'chir?

(c)We even justify this 'Kal-va'Chomer' by restricting the Pasuk of "Lo Sachmod". To what might we restrict the Pasuk, rendering it feasible?

(d)How do we therefore counter it?

9)

(a)... something which the Tana learns from the Pasuk "Lo Sachmod Kesef ve'Zahav aleihem ve'Lakachta lach".

(b)We would otherwise be able to learn from Esnan and M'chir the reverse 'Kal'-va'Chomer' - that if Esnan and M'chir which are Asur, what is on them is permitted, how much more so what is on Ne'evad, which is itself permitted.

(c)We even justify this 'Kal-va'Chomer' by restricting the Pasuk of "Lo Sachmod" to - inanimate objects.

(d)We counter it however, with the D'rashah "min ha'Beheimah", 'Lehotzi es ha'Ne'evad', forcing us to adopt the earlier 'Kal-va'Chomer'.

10)

(a)Rav Chananya queries the Tana's need for a Pasuk to forbid the ornaments that are attached to the Avodah-Zarah, from the Pasuk in Re'ei "ve'Ibadtem es Sh'mam", 'Kol ha'Asuy li'Shemam'. How does the Tana in fact, interpret this Pasuk?

(b)For example, they would call the idol Beis Galya, 'Beis Karya'. What do these names mean?

(c)What did they call ...

1. ... P'nei Molech?

2. ... Ein Kol?

(d)And how does the Tana know to preclude Rove'a and Nirva from "min ha'Beheimah" and Ne'evad from "min ha'Bakar", and not the other way round?

10)

(a)Rav Chananya queries the Tana's need for a Pasuk to forbid the ornaments that are attached to the Avodah-Zarah, from the Pasuk in Re'ei "ve'Ibadtem es Sh'mam", 'Kol ha'Asuy li'Shemam', which the Tana in fact interprets to mean - the obligation to call the names of idols by derogatory nicknames.

(b)For example, they would call the idol Beis Galya - referring to a revealed image, 'Beis Karya' - which means a destroyed house, or a bathroom.

(c)And they called ...

1. ... P'nei Molech - 'P'nei Kelev'.

2. ... Ein Kol (which means 'the eye that sees everything) - 'Ein Kotz', which means 'the eye of a thorn'.

(d)The Tana knows that "min ha'Beheimah" precludes Rove'a - due to the word "bi'Veheimah" (in the Pasuk in Kedoshim "ve'Ish ki Yiten Shechovto bi'Veheimah)", and Ne'evad from "min ha'Bakar" (and not the other way round) - because of the word "Shor" (in the Pasuk in Tehilim [in connection with the Eigel ha'Zahav] "va'Yamiru es Kevodam be'Tavnis Shor Ochel Eisev").

11)

(a)From "(u)min ha'Tzon" the Tana precludes an animal that is Muktzah to Avodah-Zarah, from the Mizbe'ach. What does he learn from the "Vav" in front of "min"?

(b)What do Rove'a and Noge'ach have in common?

(c)In that case, why do we need two D'rashos to preclude them? Why could we not learn ...

1. ... Noge'ach from Rove'a?

2. ... Rove'a from Noge'ach?

11)

(a)From "(u)min ha'Tzon" the Tana precludes an animal that is Muktzah to Avodah-Zarah, and from the "Vav" in front of "min" - an animal that gored (and killed) someone.

(b)An animal that is Rove'a and one that is Noge'ach - are both Chayav Sekilah.

(c)We nevertheless need two D'rashos to preclude them. We could not learn ...

1. ... Noge'ach from Rove'a - since unlike the latter, the animal is not put to death if it killed be'O'neis (such as one that is trained to kill people).

2. ... Rove'a from Noge'ach - because the latter is unique in that the owner has to pay Kofer (the value of the dead man) in addition to the fact that his ox is stoned (which the former is not).

12)

(a)The Beraisa learns the Isur of Rove'a and Nirva from a different source. What does the Tana comment with regard to Kodshim that fall under that category?

(b)And what does the Tana, in conjunction with Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael, learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... in Emor " ... ki Mashchasam bahem Mum bam "?

2. ... in No'ach " ... ki Hishchis Kol Basar es Darko al ha'Aretz"?

3. ... in va'Eschanan "Pen Tashchisun va'Asisem lachem Pesel Temunas Kol Samel"?

(c)What does Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael learn from the three 'mins' ("min ha'Beheimah, min ha'Bakar u'min ha'Tzon")?

(d)What does the previous Tana then learn from the three 'mins' in the Pasuk in Vayikra "Im min ha'Tzon Korbano min ha'Kevasim O min ha'Izim"?

(e)What does Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael then learn from there?

12)

(a)The Beraisa learns the Isur of Rove'a and Nirva from a different source. The Tana comments that Kodshim that fall under that category - have the same Din as animals whose temporary blemish precede their Hekdesh, which require a permanent blemish before they may be redeemed.

(b)The Tana, in conjunction with Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael learns from the Pasuk ...

13)

(a)Whom did Hash-m instruct to take two bulls and bring them on the Mizbe'ach?

(b)What does Resh Lakish learn from the fact that the second bull is described as 'seven years'? What does this refer to?

(c)How does Rav Acha bar Ya'akov refute the Kashya that that bull was not just Muktzah, but, according to tradition, Ne'evad too?

13)

(a)Hash-m instructed - Gid'on (the Shofet) to take two bulls and bring them on the Mizbe'ach.

(b)Resh Lakish learns from the fact that the second bull is described as 'seven years' - that a Muktzah animal is one that has been designated for Avodah-Zarah for seven years.

(c)Rav Acha bar Ya'akov refutes the Kashya that that bull was not just Muktzah, but, according to tradition, Ne'evad too - by explaining the tradition to mean that it was designated for seven years with the intention of bringing it, though it had not actually been brought yet.

14)

(a)According to Rava, the bull was in fact, worshipped. Then what is the proof that Muktzah alone is forbidden?

(b)The basis of Rava's 'Chidush' is Rebbi Aba bar Kahana. How many Isurim does he list that were permitted to Gid'on that night?

(c)Besides those of 'Chutz, Laylah, Zarus and (the absence of) K'lei Shareis, which other four sins were permitted to him, including two to do with Asheirah?

14)

(a)According to Rava, the bull was in fact, worshipped. But that is a side Chidush (based on tradition) - which does not detract from the proof from the Pasuk that Muktzah alone is forbidden.

(b)The basis of Rava's 'Chidush' is Rebbi Aba bar Kahana, who lists - eight Isurim that were permitted to Gid'on that night.

(c)Besides those of 'Chutz, Laylah, Zarus and (the absence of) K'lei Shareis, the other four sins were - Asheirah vessels, wood of An Asheirah, Muktzah and Ne'evad.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF