ZEVACHIM 98 (8 Av) - Dedicated l'Iluy Nishmas Mrs. Lily (Leah bas Pinchas) Kornfeld, who passed away on 8 Av 5765. Dedicated by her daughter and son-in-law, Diane and Andy Koenigsberg and family. May Lily and her husband's love for Torah and for Eretz Yisrael continue in all of their descendants.

1)

TOSFOS DH Ika d'Nafka Lei mi'Hacha v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä àéëà ãðô÷à ìéä îäëà ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that there is a third opinion.)

òåã éù úðà ùìéùé áôø÷ àéæäå î÷åîï (ìòéì ãó ðä.) ãàîø àìà äé÷éùà ìîàé àúà îä çèàú ìæëøé ëäåðä àó æáçé ùìîé öéáåø ìæëøé ëäåðä

(a)

Observation: There is a third Tana above (55a) who says "rather, what does the Hekesh come to teach? Just like Chatas is for male Kohanim [to eat], also Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur is for male Kohanim.

åäà ãìà îééúé ìä äëà

(b)

Implied question: Why isn't this Tana brought here?

îùåí ãñåâéà ãùîòúà äéà åìà îùëç ìä áøééúà áäãéà

(c)

Answer: The Sugya brought it there [in the name of Rav Mari brei d'Rav Kahana]. We do not find an explicit Beraisa [that expounds this. Chidushei Basra - also our Sugya is not a Beraisa, rather, Shmuel in the name of R. Elazar! Tosfos means that since above is not a Beraisa, it is not difficult to say that our Sugya did not know it.]

2)

TOSFOS DH Mah Chatas Mekadeshes b'Balu'a v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä îä çèàú î÷ãùú ááìåò ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with the Gemara in Chulin.)

äà ãàîøéðï áôø÷ âéã äðùä (çåìéï ãó öç:) ìà ðöøëä [àìà] ìèòí ëòé÷ø ãá÷ãùéí àñåø åäëà ùøé

(a)

Implied question: We say in Chulin (98b) that this is needed only for Ta'am k'Ikur. In Kodshim, it is forbidden [if one can taste Isur in a mixture], and here it is permitted;

[åôøéê] åìéâîø îéðä âìé øçîðà âáé çèàú ëì àùø éâò ááùøä é÷ãù îùîò ãôùéèà ìéä ãùàø ÷ãùéí éìôéðï îçèàú

1.

[The Gemara] asks that we should learn from it, and answers that the Torah revealed about Chatas "Kol Asher Yiga bi'Vsarah Yikdash." This implies that it is obvious that we learn other Kodshim from Chatas!

äééðå îäé÷ùà ãäëà

(b)

Answer: [It is obvious] due to the Hekesh here.

3)

TOSFOS DH Af Kol Ein Shefir v'Shilya Kadosh Bo

úåñôåú ã"ä àó ëì àéï ùôéø åùìéà ÷ãåù áå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses what we learn from Asham to female Korbanos.)

ôéøù á÷åðèøñ åàéï çìá åùúé ëìéåú ùì ùìéì ùáîòéä ÷øéáéï

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): The Chelev and two kidneys of a fetal sac in its womb are not offered.

å÷ùä ãäåä ìéä ìúðà ìôøåùé çìá åëìéåú ùì ùôéø åùìéà ëîå ùéìäé áäîä äî÷ùä (çåìéï ãó òä.)

(b)

Question #1: The Tana should have specified Chelev and the kidneys of a skin of a fetus or fetal sac, like in Chulin (75a)!

äâ''ä åòåã ãîùîò îúåê ôéøåùå ããå÷à çìá åùúé ëìéåú äåà ãàéï ÷ãåùéï ìé÷øá àáì äååìãåú âåôï ÷ãåùéï äï åà''à ìåîø ëï

(c)

Comment - Question #2: His Perush connotes that only the Chelev and two kidneys are not Kodesh to be offered, but the children themselves are Kodesh. One cannot say so!

ãúðéà úîåøä (ãó éà.) äùåçè àú äçèàú åîöà áä áï ã' ðàëì ìëì àãí åáëì î÷åí åìòåìí

1.

A Beraisa in Temurah (11a) says that if one slaughtered a Chatas and found inside a four month fetus (a Nefel), anyone may eat it, anywhere, forever;

åîå÷é ìä ìîàï ãàéú ìéä áäååééúï äï ÷ãåùéï áøéù ëéöã îòøéîéï (ùí ãó ëä:) ãäï òöîï çåìéï áîòé àîï

i.

We establish this like the opinion that [Vlados Kodshim] become Kodesh when they are born, in Temurah (25b). They themselves are Chulin in their mother's womb!

åðøàä ìôøù ãìòðéï çåìéï âîåøéï ÷à éìéó ãùôéø åùìéà äðîöà ááèï çèàú ìàçø ùçéèä àéðï ÷ãåùéï ëìì

(d)

Explanation #2: We learn that it is absolute Chulin, that a skin of a fetus or fetal sac found in the womb of a Chatas after Shechitah is not Kadosh at all;

åîäëà àéú ìéä åìãåú ÷ãùéí áäååééúï äï ÷ãåùéï

1.

From here [we know that] he holds that Vlados Kodshim become Kodesh when they are born.

åäà ãúðéà áøééúà áäîä äî÷ùä (çåìéï ãó òä.) îä çìá åùúé ëìéåú äàîåøéï áàùí îåöà îëìì ùìéì àó ëì îåöà îëìì ùìéì

(e)

Implied question: A Beraisa in Chulin (75a) teaches that just like Chelev and the two kidneys said regarding Asham do not apply to a fetus (for Asham is a male), also all [Korbanos, Chelev and the kidneys] are not offered from a fetus!

ääåà úðà ñáø áîòé àîï ÷ãåùéï åìëê àéöèøéê ÷øà ìîòåèé çìá åùúé ëìéåú îä÷øáä

(f)

Answer: That Tana holds that Vlados Kodshim become Kodesh in the womb. Therefore, he needs a verse to exclude Chelev and the two kidneys from being offered.

åìôé îä ùôéøùúé ìà àúé ùôéø äà ãìà éìéó îòåìä ëîå ìôé' ä÷åðèøñ

(g)

Question: According to what I explained, it is difficult why we did not learn from Olah, [un]like it is fine according to Rashi. (Tzon Kodoshim - for Hakravah, we could not learn other Korbanos from Olah, which is Kalil. According to Tosfos, we do not learn about Hakravah. We should have learned from Olah, which is earlier in the verse!)

4)

TOSFOS DH Mah Shelamim Mefaglin v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä îä ùìîéí îôâìéï ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos gives the source from which we expound this.)

ìòéì áñåó ôø÷ á' (ãó ëç:) àéëà úðà ããøéù ìä îãëúéá åàí äàëì éàëì îáùø æáç ùìîéå îä ùìîéí îôâìéí åîúôâìéï ëå'

(a)

Reference: Above (28b), there is a Tana who expounds this from "Im He'achel Ye'achel mi'Besar Zevach Shelamav" - just like Shelamim makes Pigul and becomes Pigul..."

åëï áôø÷ á''ù (ìòéì ãó îã.) ããøéù ìä ðîé îääåà ÷øà îä ùìîéí îéåçãéï ùéù ìäí îúéøéï áéï ìàãí áéï ìîæáç îôâìéï åîúôâìéï

1.

Also above (44a, the Gemara) expounds this from that verse. Just like Shelamim has Matirim (something that permits it) to people and the Mizbe'ach (Zerikah Dam permits the meat to people and the Eimurim to the Mizbe'ach), it makes Pigul and becomes Pigul;

ôé' á÷åðèøñ îôâìéï àú äðñëéí àí çéùá áæáç

(b)

Explanation #1: Rashi explained that it is Mefagel Nesachim if he intended for the Zevach.

åáçðí ãç÷ ãäåä îöé ìîéîø ùäãí îôâì àú äáùø åäáùø òöîå îúôâì

(c)

Remark (and Explanation #2): There was no need to give this difficult explanation. He could have said that it is Mefagel the meat, and the meat itself becomes Pigul!

5)

TOSFOS DH Mah Chatas Ein Ba'ah Ela Min ha'Chulin

úåñôåú ã"ä îä çèàú àéðä áàä àìà îï äçåìéï ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that there is another Drashah from "Chatas".)

úøúé ãøéù îçèàú ãëáø ãøù ðîé îä çèàú î÷ãùú ááìåò

(a)

Observation: He expounds two laws from "Chatas", for he already expounded "just like Chatas forbids through absorption..."

6)

TOSFOS DH Kedi Nisba v'Iba'is Eima Savar Lah k'R. Shimon v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä ëãé ðñáä åàé áòéú àéîà ñáø ìä ëø''ù ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why elsewhere we give only one of these answers.)

äëà îñé÷ ìäðé úøé ùéðåéé àáì áñåó äúåãä (îðçåú ãó ôâ.) îùðé ëãé ðñáä ìçåãéä åáô''÷ ãçåìéï (ãó ëá.) îùðé ëäåðä áòéà àöáò ëå' åúå ìà

(a)

Implied question: Here we give two answers, but in Menachos (83a) we answer only that it was taught needlessly, and in Chulin (22a) we answer only that "Kehunah" needs also "Etzba" (to teach that the right hand is required)!

åðøàä ãìîàï ãàîø ìòéì (ãó ð.) ãáø äìîã áâ''ù àéðå çåæø åîìîã áäé÷ù ö''ì äëà (åáô''÷ ãçåìéï) (ö"ì åáñåó äúåãä - âìéåï) ëãé ðñáä

(b)

Answer: According to the opinion above (50a) that something learned from a Gezeirah Shavah does not return to teach through a Hekesh, we must say here and in Menachos (83a) that it was taught needlessly;

ãàöáò ãçèàú âåôéä éìôéðï áâ''ù ãîöåøò ãäééðå éîéï ìòéì áô' á' (ãó ëã:) åáô''÷ ãîðçåú (ãó é.) åàí ëï ìà îöéðå ìîéìó áäé÷ù ùàø ÷øáðåú îçèàú

1.

This is because Etzba of Chatas itself we learn from a Gezeirah Shavah from Metzora that it is the right finger, above (24b) and in Menachos (10a). If so, we cannot learn other Korbanos from a Hekesh to Chatas. (The Sugya in Menachos 83a holds like this. The Sugya in Chulin holds that something learned from a Gezeirah Shavah returns to teach through a Hekesh. Our Sugya gives two answers, one for each opinion.)

7)

TOSFOS DH Mah Asham Atzmosav Mutarin v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä îä àùí òöîåúéå îåúøéï ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos brings three explanations of the source for Asham itself.)

ôé' á÷åðèøñ ìòùåú îäí ëìéí àðé ùîòúé áàùí ôùåè ìå ùòöîåúéå îåúøéï ùäøé ðàëì ìëäðéí åðåúø áòöîåú ìà ùééê àìà áãáø äðàëì àó ëì åàôéìå òåìä

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): One may make Kelim from [bones of Asham]. I heard that this is obvious to [R. Akiva] that bones of Asham are permitted, for Kohanim eat it, and Nosar does not apply to bones, only to something eaten. The same applies to all [Korbanos], and even Olah.

åîéáòé ìé äà ðîé îçèàú äåä îöé éìéó

(b)

Question: He could have learned also from Chatas (for Kohanim eat it)!

åðøàä áòéðé ãîìå éäéä éúéøà ðô÷à ìéä áàùí ãëúéá áéä ìëäï àùø éëôø áå ìå éäéä ëê ôé' á÷åðèøñ

(c)

Explanation #2 (Rashi himself): He learns from an extra "Lo Yihyeh" regarding Asham, for it is written "la'Kohen Asher Yechaper Bo Lo Yihyeh."

åäùúà ìôéøåù øáåúéå ãîñáøà éãò ãòöîåú îåúøéï áëì ÷ãùéí äðàëìéï åìà àöèøéê äé÷éùà àìà ìäúéø òöîåú òåìä

(d)

Question #1: According to Rashi's Rebbeyim (Explanation #1), presumably, [R. Akiva] knew that bones of all Korbanos that are eaten are permitted. He needed the Hekesh only to permit bones of Olah;

÷ùä îùìîéí àå îùàø ÷ãùéí äðàëìéï ðéìó åìîä àéëúåá àùí

1.

He could have learned from Shelamim, or other Kodshim that are eaten. Why was Asham written?

åòåã ãáôø÷ äîæáç î÷ãù (ìòéì ãó ôå.) ãøéù îâ''ù ðàîø áàùí ìå éäéä åðàîø áòåìä ìå éäéä å÷àîø ãîåôðé îä àùí òöîåúéå îåúøéï àó òåìä ëå'

(e)

Question #2: Above (86a, R. Yochanan) expounds from a Gezeirah Shavah. It says about Asham "Lo Yihyeh", and it says about Olah "Lo Yihyeh", and it says that it is Mufneh (these words are extra regarding Olah). Just like bones of Asham are permitted, also of Olah;

åäùúà úéôå÷ ìéä îäé÷éùà ãäëà åì''ì â''ù ëéåï ãìà àéöèøéëà äé÷éùà ãäëà àìà ìàâîåøé áòåìä

1.

He should know this already from the Hekesh here! Why does he need the Gezeirah Shavah? The Hekesh here is needed only to teach about Olah!'

åéù ìåîø ëéåï ãùàø ÷øáðåú öøéëé ëì çã ìîìúéä ëãîôøù äëà ìà ðéìó îéðééäå ãáø àçø ùàéðå ö''ì áëì ä÷ãùéí ø÷ áòåìä

(f)

Answer: Since the other Korbanos, each is needed for its law [to teach to all Kodshim], like it explains here, we would not learn from them something else that is not needed for all Kodshim, rather, only for Olah. (Panim Me'iros - this answers the first question. Chidushei Basra - it answers [also] the second. If not for the Gezeirah Shavah, we would not expound to teach about bones, which is needed only for Olah. (Perhaps we would rather expound to teach about Shefir and Shilya, which apply to all Korbanos that can be females - PF.))

åëé äàé âååðà ôéøùðå ìòéì (ãó öæ:) âáé îðçä ãéìôéðï îéðéä æëøé ëäåðä åìà éìôéðï îçèàú åàùí

(g)

Support: We explained like this above (97b DH Mah Minchah) regarding Minchah, from which we learn [that] male Kohanim [eat it], and we do not learn from Chatas and Asham (since we can expound from them laws that apply to all Zevachim).

åìôé' æä äàé úðà ìéú ìéä ãøùà ãùôéø (îëàï îòîåã á) åùìéà ãìòéì

(h)

Consequence: According to Explanation #1, this Tana argues with the Drashah of Shefir and Shilya above;

98b----------------------------------------98b

åîàï ããøéù òöîåú îåúøéï îìå éäéä ôø÷ äîæáç î÷ãù (ìòéì ãó ôå.) àéú ìéä äé÷éùà ãàùí ìâáé ùôéø åùìéà

1.

And [R. Yochanan] who expounds above (86a) that its bones are permitted from Lo Yihyeh, he holds that the Hekesh of Asham teaches about Shefir and Shilya.

åìôøù''é ãàîø ãáëì ä÷ãùéí îï äãéï àñåøéï äòöîåú ãìà äúéø äëúåá àìà áùø äøàåé ìàëéìä

2.

And according to Rashi, who says that according to letter of the law, bones of all Kodshim are forbidden, for the Torah permitted only meat proper to be eaten;

åâéìä ìðå áàùí ìå éäéä ãîùîò ùøéåúà ðéìó ëîå ëï äéúø áëì ä÷ãùéí ò''ô æä

i.

The Torah revealed about Asham "Lo Yihyeh", which connotes Heter. We similarly learn Heter in all Kodshim through this.

äâää ÷ùä ãáääåà ÷øà ëúéáé çèàú åàùí áôøùú öå àú àäøï ëçèàú ëàùí úåøä àçú ìäí äëäï àùø éëôø áå ìå éäéä åìîä ð÷è àùí

(i)

Comment - Question: In that verse, Chatas and Asham are written, in Parshas Tzav - "ka'Chatas ka'Asham Torah Achas Lahem la'Kohen Asher Yechaper Bo Lo Yihyeh." Why does it mention Asham [more than Chatas]?

åé''ì ãòé÷ø ôøùä áàùí

(j)

Answer #1: The Parshah primarily discusses Asham.

åòåã ãìå éäéä ðëúá ì' éçéã ùîà ìà ÷àé ø÷ òì äàùí ãñìé÷ îéðéä

1.

Answer #2: It is written Lo Yihyeh, in the singular. Perhaps it refers only to Asham, which is the last matter mentioned.

åìà ú÷ùé (äëé âøñéðï) äà ããøùéðï ìòéì áôø÷ äîæáç î÷ãù (ùí) ðàîø ìå éäéä áòåìä òåø äòåìä àùø ä÷øéá ìëäï ìå éäéä åðàîø ìå éäéä áàùí îä àùí òöîåúéå îåúøéï àó òåìä òöîåúéä îåúøéï å÷àîø äúí îåôðé

(k)

Implied question: We expounded above (86a) it says "Lo Yihyeh" regarding Olah - "Ohr ha'Olah Asher Hikriv la'Kohen Lo Yihyeh", and it says Lo Yihyeh regarding Asham. Just like the bones of Asham are permitted, also bones of Olah are permitted, and it says there that [the Gezeirah Shavah] is Mufneh;

åäùúà ìîä ìé áòåìä ìå éäéä úéôå÷ ìé îäé÷éùà ãàùí ãùîòúéï

1.

Why do we need "Lo Yihyeh" regarding Olah? I should know this already from the Hekesh to Asham in our Sugya!

åé''ì ãìà âîøéðï îäé÷éùà àìà ÷øáðåú äðàëìéï

(l)

Answer: We learn from the Hekesh only Korbanos that are eaten.

åî''î ÷ùä àé îîùîòåúà ãìå éäéä ãàùí ãøùéðï òöîåúéå îåúøéï åéìôéðï îéðéä ùàø ÷øáðåú ùìîéí çèàú åúåãä äìà áòåìä ðîé ëúéá ìå éäéä åì''ì âæéøä ùåä ôø÷ äîæáç î÷ãù (ùí) ìîéâîø îàùí

(m)

Question: Still, it is difficult. If we expound from the connotation of Lo Yihyeh of Asham that its bones are permitted, and we learn other Korbanos from it, i.e. Shelamim, Chatas and Todah - also regarding Olah it is written Lo Yihyeh. Why do we need the Gezeirah Shavah above (86a) to learn from Asham?

åé''ì ãìå éäéä ãòåìä ÷àé òì äòåø åìà ìäúéø òöîåú ãäëé ëúéá ÷øà òåø äòåìä ìå éäéä

(n)

Answer: Lo Yihyeh of Olah refers to the skin, and does not permit the bones. The verse says "Ohr ha'Olah Lo Yihyeh."

[ö"ì åìäëé îîùîòåú - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ìå éäéä ìà ãøéù àìà îééúåøà

1.

Therefore, we do not expound from the connotation of Lo Yihyeh, rather, because it is extra.

åùí ôéøù á÷åðèøñ ãôùéè ìéä áàùí éåúø îòåìä îùåí ãàó áùøå îåúø

(o)

Remark: There, Rashi explained that Asham is more obvious than Olah because even its meat is permitted;

åàé îùåí ðåúø ãáùøéôä

(p)

Implied question: It should be forbidden due to Nosar, which must be burned!

ìà ùééê ðåúø àìà áîéãé ãáø àëéìä ëãëúéá åäðåúø îáùø äæáç åà''ë ìà öøéëðà ìîâîø àìà òåìä ãëìéì åæäå ëîå ùôéøù áùîòúéï áùí øáåúéå

(q)

Answer: Nosar applies to only to something eaten, like it says "veha'Nosar mi'Besar ha'Zevach." If so, we need to learn only Olah, which is Kalil. This is like he explained here in the name of his Rebbeyim.

äâä''ä. åáôø÷ ëéöã öåìéï (ôñçéí ãó ôâ.) îåëç áäãéà ëãáøéå ãàéï ðåúø áòöîåú

(r)

Comment - Support: In Pesachim (83a) it is explicitly proven like Rashi said, that Nosar does not apply to bones.

åáîðçåú áñåó äúåãä (ãó ôâ.) ôéøù á÷åðèøñ ãäà ãôùéèà ìéä áàùí éåúø îùàø ÷øáðåú äðàëìéï îùåí ãëúéá áàùí äåà ìàçø ä÷èøú àéîåøéï ãîùîò äåà àùí åàéï òöîåúéå àùí

(s)

Explanation #3: In Menachos (83a), Rashi explained that Asham is more obvious than other Korbanos that are eaten because regarding Asham it says "Hu" after Haktaras Eimurim, which connotes that it is an Asham, and its bones are not an Asham.

åöøéê ìã÷ã÷ ì''ì úøé ÷øàé ìòöîåú (äé÷éùà ãäëà ãàúé îäåà åâæéøä ùåä ãìå) (ö"ì äåà åìå - öàï ÷ãùéí) éäéä áôø÷ äîæáç î÷ãù (ìòéì ãó ôå.)

(t)

Question #1: Why do we need two verses for bones -"Hu", and "Lo Yihyeh" above (86a)?

åúå ÷ùä ìé ãäåà ãàùí ãøùéðï ô''÷ (ìòéì ãó ä:) ìàùí ùðéú÷ ìøòééä

(u)

Question #2: We expounded "Hu" of Asham (5b) for an Asham that [cannot be offered, so it] was Nitak l'Re'iyah (left to graze until it gets a Mum)!

îéäå úøé äåà ëúéáé áàùí áôøùú åé÷øà. áøå''ê:

(v)

Answer (to Question #2): There are two verses "Hu" regarding Asham in Parshas Vayikra. This is from R. Baruch.

8)

TOSFOS DH Tevul Yom u'Mechusar Kipurim Einam Cholkim...

úåñôåú ã"ä îúðé' èáåì éåí åîçåñø ëéôåøéí àéðí çåì÷éí...

(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes that Mechusar Kipurim does not require Ha'arev Shemesh before eating Kodshim.)

îùîò äëà ãîçåñøé ëéôåøéí ùäáéàå ëôøúï áòå òãééï èáéìä åäòøá ùîù

(a)

Inference: Here it connotes that a Mechusar Kipurim who brought his Kaparah still needs Tevilah and Ha'arev Shemesh (to wait until night before he may eat Kodshim).

åëï îùîò ôø÷ áëì îòøáéï (òéøåáéï ãó ìá.) ãîééúé äà îúðéúà äàùä ùéù òìéä ìéãä àå æéáä îáéàä îòåú åðåúðú áùåôø åèåáìú åàåëìú á÷ãùéí ìòøá

(b)

Support #1: It connotes like this also in Eruvin (32a). It brings a Beraisa "a woman who had on her [a Chiyuv to bring a Korban for] a birth or Zivah, she brings coins and puts them in the box [for Kinei Chovah; Kohanim buy birds with the coins and offer them], and she immerses and eats Kodshim at night."

åáøéù úîéã ðùçè (ôñçéí ãó ðè.) ðîé àîøéðï àó îçåñø ëôøä áùàø éîåú äùðä ùèåáì åàåëì [ö"ì á÷ãùéí - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ìòøá

(c)

Support #2: Also in Pesachim (59a) we say "also a Mechusar Kipurim the rest of the year, he immerses and eats Kodshim at night."

åúéîä (ãúðà) (ö"ì ãúðï - ùéèä î÷åáöú) ôø÷ çåîø á÷åãù (çâéâä ãó ëà.) åáùîòúéï îééúé ìä äàåðï åäîçåñø ëéôåøéí öøéëéï èáéìä ì÷ãù

(d)

Question #1: A Mishnah in Chagigah (21a), and it is brought in our Sugya (99a), teaches that an Onen and Mechusar Kipurim need [only] Tevilah for Kodesh!

åáùîòúéï ðîé áâî' îùîò ãèáéìä ãå÷à áòé ãîééúé ääéà ãîçåñø ëôøä ãçâéâä åôøéê áúø äëé èîà ùøõ èîà îòìéà äåà åäòøá ùîù áòé

(e)

Question #2: Also our Sugya in the Gemara connotes that only Tevilah is needed, for it brings [the Mishnah] of Mechusar Kipurim in Chagigah, and asks afterwards "a [person who was] Tamei [due to a] Sheretz is properly Tamei. He needs Ha'arev Shemesh (before he may eat Kodshim)!"

îùîò ãòã äùúà ìà àééøé ëìì áäòøá ùîù

1.

Inference: Until now, we did not discuss Ha'arev Shemesh at all!

åòåã àîøéðï áôñçéí áô' äàùä (ãó ö:) ùåçèéï åæåø÷éï òì èáåì éåí åòì îçåñø ëéôåøéí åàéï ùåçèéï åæåø÷éï òì èîà ùøõ

(f)

Question #3: We say in Pesachim (90b) that we slaughter and do Zerikah [of Korban Pesach] for a Tevul Yom or Mechusar Kipurim, but we do not slaughter and do Zerikah [of Korban Pesach] for a Tamei Sheretz;

åôøéê îàé ùðà èáåì éåí ãçæé ìàåøúà èîà ùøõ ðîé çæé ìàåøúà

1.

Citation (90b) Question: Why is a Tevul Yom different - because he is proper [to eat] at night? Also a Tamei Sheretz is proper at night!

åîùðé îçåñø èáéìä åçééùéðï ãìîà ôùò àáì áîçåñø ëéôåøéí ìà çééùéðï ëùîñø ÷éðå ìá''ã åëãøá ùîòéä ãàéï á''ã ùì ëäðéí îúòöìéï

2.

Citation (cont.) Answer: A Tamei Sheretz is lacking Tevilah. We are concerned lest he be negligent (not immerse). We are not concerned for a Mechusar Kipurim, when he gave his Ken to Beis Din, and like Rav Shemayah taught, that the Beis Din of Kohanim are not lazy (surely they will offer it today).

åäùúà îçåñø ëéôåøéí äà áòé èáéìä ðéçåù ãìîà ôùò

3.

Question: [Also] a Mechusar Kipurim needs Tevilah. We should be concerned lest he be negligent (not immerse)!

àìà åãàé áèîà ùøõ ãáòé äòøá ùîù àéëà ìîéçù ãìîà ôùò åìà èáì òã ìàåøúà

4.

Answer: Rather, surely a Tamei Sheretz needs Ha'arev Shemesh, so there is concern lest he be negligent and not immerse until night.

àáì äà ãìà áòé äòøá ùîù ìîàé ðéçåù ìéä àôéìå áìéìä éëåì ìèáåì åéàëì

5.

Summation of question: [Mechusar Kipurim] does not need Ha'arev Shemesh. What concern is there? Even at night he can immerse and eat!

åòåã àîøéðï áôø÷ ùðé ãáéöä (ãó éç.) ëìé ùðèîà áàá äèåîàä àéï îèáéìéï àåúå áéåí èåá áåìã äèåîàä îèáéìéï àåúå áé''è

(g)

Question #4: We say in Beitzah (18a) that a Kli that became Tamei through an Av ha'Tum'ah, one may not immerse it on Yom Tov. [If it became Tamei] through a Vlad ha'Tum'ah (it is Tamei only mid'Rabanan), one may immerse it on Yom Tov;

åàé áèáéìä ãøáðï áòé äòøá ùîù àí ëï ìà éåëì ìäùúîù áå áéåí òã äìéìä åìöåøê çåì äåà îèáéì ìéä

1.

If a Tevilah mid'Rabanan requires Ha'arev Shemesh, if so he cannot use it today until night, and he immerses it for use on a weekday! (One may toil on Yom Tov only for needs of the day.)

åòåã úðï áîñ' ôøä (ôé''à î''ä) ëì äèòåï áéàú îéí îãáøé ñåôøéí îèîà àú ä÷ãù åôåñì àú äúøåîä åîåúø áçåìéï åáîòùø ìàçø áéàúå äåúø áëåìï

(h)

Question #5: A Mishnah in Parah (11:5) teaches that any [person or Kli] who (or that) needs Tevilah mid'Rabanan, is Metamei Kodesh (makes it a Shelishi, so it can disqualify other Kodesh) and disqualifies Terumah, and is permitted Chulin and Ma'aser [Sheni]. After Tevilah, he (or it) is permitted all of them!

åáäãéà àîøéðï áéøåùìîé áîñ' úøåîåú ô' ùðé ðôì ãìé ìúåê äáåø ðôìå ëìéå ìúåê äáåø îòøéí òìéäï åîèáéìï

(i)

Question #6: We say explicitly in the Yerushalmi in Terumos that if a bucket fell into a pit, or his clothes fell into a pit, he may scheme about them and immerse them;

úøéï àîåøàéï çã àîø áàá äèåîàä åçã àîø áåìã äèåîàä

1.

Citation (Yerushalmi): Two Amora'im [argue about this]. One says that this is [even] for an Av ha'Tum'ah, and one says that this is for a Vlad ha'Tum'ah

îúéá î''ã áåìã äèåîàä ìî''ã áàá äèåîàä àó áçåì åäà öøéê äòøá ùîù åîùðé áøåöä ìäùúîù áäï çåìéï áèäøä

2.

The one who says that this is for a Vlad ha'Tum'ah challenged the one who says that it is for an Av ha'Tum'ah - "[does he immerse] even [for the sake of] a weekday? It needs Ha'arev Shemesh!", and [the other] answers "this is when he wants to use [the same day] for Chulin in Taharah;

îùîò áäãéà ãìî''ã áåìã äèåîàä ðéçà ãìà áòé äòøá ùîù

3.

Inference: This explicitly connotes that the one who says for a Vlad ha'Tum'ah, it is fine that it does not need Ha'arev Shemesh!

åáéøåùìîé ô' ùðé ãáéöä àéëà àéôëà îúéá î''ã áàá äèåîàä ìî''ã áåìã äèåîàä åàåúä âéøñà îùåáùú åääéà ãîñ' úøåîåú òé÷ø

(j)

Observation: The Yerushalmi in Beitzah says oppositely! The one who says that this is for an Av ha'Tum'ah challenged the one who says that it is for a Vlad ha'Tum'ah. That text is mistaken, and the text in Terumos is primary.

åðøàä ìôøù ãäà ã÷úðé äëà áîúðéúéï ìòøá ìàå îùåí îçåñø ëéôåøéí àìà îùåí èáåì éåí

(k)

Answer: Our Mishnah teaches "at night", not due to Mechusar Kipurim, rather, due to Tevul Yom;

åáô' áëì îòøáéï (òéøåáéï ãó ìá.) ãð÷è ìòøá ìàå îùåí äòøá ùîù ãàé éãòä ùäå÷øá ÷éðä åãàé èåáìú åàåëìú ìàìúø

1.

And in Eruvin (32a) it mentioned "at night", not due to Ha'arev Shemesh, for if she knows that her Ken was offered, she may immerse and eat Kodshim immediately;

àìà äúí äåà îèòí çæ÷ä ùàéï á''ã ùì ëäðéí (îúòöìéï) (ö"ì òåîãéí îùí - âìéåï) òã ùéëìå ëì îòåú ùáùåôø åîèòí æä ìà úåëì ìàëåì ëì äéåí

2.

Rather, there it is due to the Chazakah that Beis Din of Kohanim do not leave until they offer [birds for] all the coins in the box. Due to this, she cannot eat the entire day (the Chazakah is only that they will offer them all before night).

åëé úéîà îùòä ùîúçéìéï ìä÷øéá àú äúîéã ùì áéï äòøáéí úäà èåáìú åàåëìú

3.

Suggestion: From the time they begin to offer the afternoon Tamid she should be able to immerse and eat! (No Korbanos should be offered after the afternoon Tamid.)

äà àôùø ìä÷øéá àú ä÷éðéí ìàçø úîéã ëéåï ùàéï ìîæáç àìà ãîä ëãàîø áøéù úîéã ðùçè (ôñçéí ãó ðè.)

4.

Rejection: Birds (Chatas ha'Of) may be offered after the Tamid, since the Mizbe'ach gets only their blood, like it says in Pesachim (59a);

åáäîä ðîé àîøéðï äúí îòìä åîìéðä

i.

Also regarding an animal, we say there that he [throws the blood, and] brings up [the Eimurim] and leaves them overnight [on the Mizbe'ach, for Linah does not disqualify there. Likewise, even Olas ha'Of could be offered after the Tamid in this way.]

åääéà ãúîéã ðùçè (ùí) ãîçåñø ëéôåøéí áùàø éîåú äùðä ùèåáì åàåëì á÷ãùéí ìòøá

(l)

Implied question: Why does it say in Pesachim (90b) that the rest of the year, a Mechusar Kipurim immerses and eats Kodshim at night?

àééãé ãð÷è äúí âáé ôñç ùèåáì åàåëì ôñçå ìòøá ãôñç àéðå ðàëì àìà áìéìä ð÷è ðîé áääéà ìòøá

(m)

Answer: Since it taught there regarding Pesach that he immerses and eats his Pesach at night, for Pesach is eaten only at night, it mentioned also [regarding the rest of the year] at night.

åäà ãàîøéðï (îëàï îãó äáà) áôñçéí áô' àìå ãáøéí (ãó ò.) ñëéï ùðîöà áé''ã ùåçè áä îéã áé''â ùåðä åîèáéì

(n)

Implied question: We say in Pesachim (70a) that if a knife was found on the 14th (Erev Pesach), he may slaughter [Pesach] with it immediately. If it was found on the 13th, he is Shoneh (sprinkles on it with Mei Chatas the second time. I.e. he is concerned lest the owner sprinkled the first time four days ago, and intended to sprinkle again today) and immerses it;

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF