1)
(a)Why, assuming that our Mishnah 'Pigeil, bein be'Kodshei Kodshim ... Eino Metamei Tum'as Ochlin', is speaking about Pigeil bi'Zerikah, is this a Kashya on Rebbi Oshaya. What ought the Mishnah to have said, according to him?
(b)How do we establish the Mishnah, to reconcile it with Rebbi Oshaya?
(c)What problem do we then have with the continuation of the Mishnah 'Pigeil be'Minchah, Metamei Tum'as Ochlin'? What should the Tana have rather said?
(d)And we answer that the Tana deliberately switches to Minchah to teach us a Chidush. Which Chidush?
1)
(a)Assuming that our Mishnah 'Pigeil, bein be'Kodshei Kodshim ... Eino Metamei Tum'as Ochlin', is speaking about Pigeil bi'Zerikah, this is a Kashya on Rebbi Oshaya - according to whom Rebbi Shimon (based on the principle, Kol ha'Omed Lizarek ... ) ought to have said 'Metamei Tum'as Ochlin'.
(b)To reconcile the Mishnah with Rebbi Oshaya - we establish it where the Kohen was Mefagel by the Shechitah, (rendering it a case of Lo Hayah lo Sha'as ha'Kosher).
(c)The problem with the continuation of the Mishnah 'Pigeil be'Minchah, Metamei Tum'as Ochlin' is that - the Tana should have rather gone on to a case of Pigeil bi'Zerikah (without needng to switch to a Korban Minchah).
(d)And we answer that the Tana deliberately switched to Minchah, to teach us that - even though the Kohen was Mefagel by the Kemitzah (which is the equivalent to the Shechitah of a Korban (which is not Metamei Tum'as Ochlin, as we just learned), it is nevertheless Metamei Tum'as Ochlin.
2)
(a)When Rav Ashi said over this whole piece to Rav Nachman, the latter refuted it. How did he establish the case in our Mishnah ...
1. ... 'Lan lifnei Zerikah' (which we established Kodem she'Yera'eh li'Zerikah)?
2. ... 'Pigeil bein be'Kodshei Kodshim ... ' (which we established by Pigeil lifnei Shechitah)?
(b)Yet in both cases, he justifies the Mishnah's ruling 'Eino Metamei Tum'as Ochlin', even according to Rebbi Oshaya. Why is that?
(c)Why should there be a difference between Pidyon and Zerikah in this regard?
2)
(a)When Rav Ashi said over this whole piece to Rav Nachman, the latter refuted it. He established the case in our Mishnah ...
1. ... Lan lifnei Zerikah - to read as it stands (without changing it to Kodem she'Yera'eh li'Zerikah).
2. ... Pigeil bein be'Kodshei Kodshim ... - by Pigeil bi'Zerikah (and not by Pigeil lifnei Shechitah).
(b)Yet in both cases, he justifies the Mishnsah's ruling 'Eino Metamei Tum'as Ochlin', even according to Rebbi Oshaya - because Rebbi Shimon does not extend the principle Kol ha'Omed Lipados, ke'Paduy Dami, to Zerikah (to say Kol ha'Omed Lizarek ... ke'Zaruk Dami) ...
(c)... because whereas Pidyon entails no more than saying a few words, Zerikah constitutes an act (and as long as the act has not been performed, even Rebbi Shimon will concede that it cannot be considered as if it has.
3)
(a)Rebbi Yehoshua in the Mishnah in Me'ilah, confines Me'ilah (with regard to Kodshim that became Pasul) to something that the Kohanim were at no stage, permitted to eat. Why is something that the Kohanim are permitted to eat, not subject to Me'ilah?
(b)The latter category comprises three cases. Two of them are she'Lanah and she'Nitme'ah. What is the third?
(c)The former comprises three cases, too. If two of them are she'Nishchatah Chutz li'Zemanah ve'Chutz li'Mekomah, what is the third?
(d)How do we query Rav Nachman's explanation from Lanah in the Reisha?
3)
(a)Rebbi Yehoshua in the Mishnah in Me'ilah, confines Me'ilah (with regard to Kodshim that became Pasul) to something which the Kohanim were at no stage, permitted to eat. Something that the Kohanim are permitted to eat, on the other hand, is not subject to Me'ilah - because it has left the category of "Kodshei Hash-m" (with which the Parshah of Me'ilah begins, and which is a crucial condition for Me'ilah to take effect).
(b)The latter category comprises three cases she'Lanah, she'Nitme'ah - and she'Yatz'ah.
(c)The former too, comprises three cases she'Nishchatah Chutz li'Zemanah ve'Chutz li'Mekomah - and she'Kiblu Pesulin ve'Zarku es Damah.
(d)We query Rav Nachman and Rav Ashi's explanation however, from Lanah in the Reisha - because, assuming that the Tana means literally that the Basar and the Dam remained overnight before the Zerikas Dam, then Sha'as Heter la'Kohanim would mean that the Kohen could have performed the Zerikah had he wished (which is precisely what Rav Nachman just rejected).
4)
(a)In attempting to answer the Kashya, how do we establish the case of Lanah vis a vis Nitme'ah and Yatz'ah?
(b)What would then be the Din in a case of Lanah Mamash (before the Zerikah)?
(c)What problem does this create with the Lashon 'Kol she'Haysah lah Sha'as Heter la'Kohanim'? What ought the Tana to have said?
(d)So how did Rav Ashi really answer Rav Nachman? What distinction did he draw between Me'ilah and Tum'as Ochlin (with regard to Kol ha'Omed Lizarek)?
4)
(a)In attempting to answer the Kashya, we establish the case of Lanah - where it is fit to become Pasul through Nitme'ah or Yatz'ah (after the Zerikah).
(b)But in a case of Lanah Mamash (before the Zerikah) - Rebbi Shimon will hold Mo'alin (because he agrees that Kol ha'Omed Lizarek La'av ke'Zaruk Dami, as Rav Nachman explained according to Rebbi Oshaya).
(c)The problem with the Lashon Kol she'Haysah lah Sha'as Heter la'Kohanim is that - since the Tana is speaking about a case where no P'sul has actually occurred, he ought to have said Kol she'Yesh Heter le'Kohanim (rather than Kol she'Haysah ... ).
(d)In fact, Rav Ashi really answered Rav Nachman by drawing a distinction between Me'ilah - which is a derivative of Kedushah, which (due to Kol ha'Omed Lizarek ke'Zaruk Dami), departs from the Kodshim animal as soon as it is ready for Zerikah, and Tum'as Ochlin - which is only applicable when it is actually a food (but not on account of Kol ha'Omed Lizarek).
5)
(a)We query this answer too, from a Beraisa, which discusses someone who brings an Asham Taluy, and who discovers in the process, that he did not sin. What does one bring an Asham Taluy for?
(b)Rebbi Meir permits him to let the animal loose among his animals, because it is Chulin. What do the Chachamim say?
(c)Why is that?
(d)Rebbi Eliezer even permits him to bring it on the Mizbe'ach. Why is that?
(e)What does the Beraisa say in a case where he only discovered his innocence after the Shechitah?
5)
(a)We query this answer too, from a Beraisa, which discusses someone who brings an Asham Taluy, and who discovers in the process, that he did not sin. One brings an Asham Taluy - for a case of Safek Chatas (someone who, for example, ate [be'Shogeg[ one of two pieces of fat that were lying in front of him, one Cheilev, the other, Shuman, and he doesn't know which one he ate.
(b)Rebbi Meir permits him to let the animal loose among his animals, because it is Chulin. The Chachamim say - 'Yir'eh ad she'Yista'ev Ve'yimacher, Ve'yiplu Damav li'Nedavah' ...
(c)...because, afraid that he really sinned, the owner declares the animal Hekdesh without reservations (in spite of the Safek).
(d)Rebbi Eliezer even permits him to bring it on the Mizbe'ach - because he maintains, one is permitted to bring an Asham Taluy every day to atone for any Safek Kareis that he may have transgressed..
(e)In a case where he only discovered his innocence after the Shechitah, the Beraisa rules that - the blood must be poured out and the animal burned (in the Beis ha'Sereifah).
102b----------------------------------------102b
6)
(a)If the blood has already been sprinkled when the owner discovers that he did not sin, the Tana Kama holds that the Basar may be eaten. Rebbi Yossi rules even more leniently. What does he say?
(b)What do we try to prove from Rava, who equates Rebbi Yossi with Rebbi Shimon?
(c)On whom does this pose a Kashya?
(d)We reject Rava's interpretation of Rebbi Yossi however, by citing Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina. What reason does he ascribe to Rebbi Yossi's ruling?
6)
(a)If the blood has already been sprinkled when the owner discovers that he did not sin, the Tana Kama holds that the Basar may be eaten. According to Rebbi Yossi - the Basar may be eaten even if the blood is still in the bowl (and has yet to be sprinkled).
(b)We try to prove from Rava, who equates Rebbi Yossi with Rebbi Shimon that - even as regards turning something that is not edible into a food, Rebbi Shimon holds Kol ha'Omed Lizrok ke'Zaruk Dami (seeing as we are permitting the blood to be sprinkled and the Basar to be eaten [even though he already knows that he did not sin] on the basis of Kol ha'Omed Lizarek ... ) ...
(c)... a Kashya on Rav Nachman and Rav Ashi.
(d)We reject Rava's interpretation of Rebbi Yossi however, by citing Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina, who ascribes Rebbi Yossi's reason - to the principle K'lei Shareis Mekadshin es ha'Pesulin Lechatchilah Likarev (K'lei Shareis sanctify Pesulim to allow then to be sacrificed Lechatchilah).
7)
(a)Based on Rava's interpretation of Rebbi Yossi, what did Rav Ashi comment to Rav Kahana about Kol ha'Omed Lisaref?
(b)How did he then query Rava from Nosar and Parah Adumah?
(c)What was Rava's reply? To what did he ascribe Tum'as Ochlin?
7)
(a)Based on Rava's interpretation of Rebbi Yossi, Rav Ashi commented to Rav Kahana that - if, as Rava suggested, Rebbi Shimon holds Kol ha'Omed Lizarek ke'Zaruk Dami, then he will also hold Kol ha'Omed Lisaref ke'Saruf Dami.
(b)In that case he asked, bearing in mind that Nosar and Parah Adumah both stand to be burned - why are they Tamei Tum'as Ochlin. Since when are ashes Tamei Tum'as Ochlin?
(c)To which Rava replied - by ascribing Tum'as Ochlin to Chibas ha'Kodesh.
8)
(a)Why was Ravina surprised at Rava's reply, notwithstanding the fact that Chibas Kodesh can cause Hekdesh that would not otherwise be subject to Tum'ah, to become Pasul?
(b)In any event, he thought that, with Rava's explanation, one could resolve the She'eilah of Resh Lakish, who asked whether one counts Rishon ve'Sheini in the case of T'zrid shel Menachos. What is Tz'rid shel Menachos?
(c)What was Rav Ashi's reply? Why does Rav Kahana's statement have nothing to do with Resh Lakish's She'eilah?
(d)What are the ramifications of saying that we do count Rishon ve'Sheini mi'de'Rabbanan, if the Nosar, the Parah or the Tz'rid shel Menachos then touches Kodshim?
8)
(a)Ravina was surprised at Rava's reply. He thought that, notwithstanding the fact that Chibas ha'Kodesh can cause Hekdesh that is not otherwise subject to Tum'ah to become Tamei - because he did not think that it would go so far as to cause it to adopt Tum'as Ochlin, to become a Rishon le'Tum'ah.
(b)In any event, he thought that, with Rava's explanation, one could resolve the She'eilah of Resh Lakish, who asked whether one counts Rishon ve'Sheini in the case of Tz'rid shel Menachos - a section of the flour of a Minchah which was touched by the oil, and which will therefore not be subject to Tum'ah if not for Chibas ha'Kodesh.
(c)Rav Ashi's reply was that - whereas Resh Lakish was asking about the Din Torah, Rav Kahana's statement referred to the Din de'Rabbanan (even assuming that min ha'Torah, one does not count Rishon ve'Sheini).
(d)If we count Rishon ve'Sheini mi'de'Rabbanan, and the Nosar, the Parah or the Tz'rid shel Menachos then touches Kodshim - it will be left hanging in abeyance (because Kodshim that become Tamei through a Tum'ah de'Rabbanan may not be burned).
9)
(a)What does our Mishnah say about someone who undertakes to bring ...
1. ... *a Minchah* al ha'Machavas and then brings a Minchas Marcheshes, or vice-versa?
2. ... *this Minchah* (with reference to flour lying in front of him) as a Minchah al ha'Machavas and then brings a Minchas Marcheshes, or vice-versa?
(b)What does the Tana say about a case where someone undertakes to bring two Esronim in one K'li (as one Minchah) and he brings them in two Keilim (as two Menachos), or vice-versa, or these two Esronim in one K'li and he brings them in two Keilim, or vice-versa.
(c)Why, in the latter set of cases, if he brings the Minchah in two Keilim instead of one (besides the fact that two Kematzim are taken, whereas he undertook to take only one), is the Minchah Pasul?
(d)And what does the Tana say in a case where someone undertakes to bring two Esronim in one K'li, and brings them in two Keilim. Then, ignoring people who remind him that he said one K'li, he goes ahead and brings them in two Keilim?
(e)Considering that he did not say Eilu, why is this case different than the previous case, where the Korban is Kasher, because he did not say Eilu?
9)
(a)Our Mishnah rules that if someone undertakes to bring ...
1. ... *a Minchah* al ha'Machavas and then brings a Minchas Marcheshes, or vice-versa - his Minchah is Kasher, but he remains obligated to fulfill his Neder.
2. ... *this Minchah* (with reference to flour lying in front of him) as a Minchah al ha'Machavas and then brings a Minchas Marcheshes, or vice-versa - the Minchah that he brought is Pasul.
(b)The Tana makes the same distinction - where someone undertakes to bring *two Esronim* in one K'li (as one Minchah) and he brings them in two Keilim (as two Menachos), or vice-versa, or *these two Esronim* in one K'li and he brings them in two Keilim, or vice-versa.
(c)In the latter set of cases, the Minchah is Pasul if he brings it in two Keilim instead of one a. because two Kematzim are taken, whereas he undertook to take only one; and b. - because each K'li contains a Minchah Chaseirah (less than what he undertook to bring).
(d)And in a case where someone undertakes to bring two Esronim in one K'li, and brings them in two Keilim. Then, ignoring people who reminded him that he said one K'li, he goes ahead and brings them in two Keilim, the Tana rules that - the Minchah that he brought is Pasul ...
(e)... even though he did not say Eilu (despite the fact that in the previous case, the Korban is Kasher because he did not say Eilu) - because the absence of a statement on his part, to the effect that they are right and that he is bringing it in fulfillment of another Neder, proves that this is not the case, and that he is mistakenly bringing it in fulfillment of his Neder.
10)
(a)And what does the Mishnah say about the equivalent case to the previous one, where he errs and brings the Minchah in one Keili instead of two, in spite of the people who remind that he said two?
(b)What are the ramifications of this ruling?
(c)Why do we not say the same with regard to the earlier case Eilu Lehavi bi'Shenei Keilim Veheivi bi'K'li Echad, Pasul?
10)
(a)And in the equivalent case to the previous one, where he errs and brings the Minchah in one Keili instead of two, in spite of the people who remind that he said two - the Mishnah rules that the Minchah has the Din of two Korbanos that became mixed up ...
(b)... where the Halachah is that - if it is possible to take a Kometz from each Minchah separately, he should do so; otherwise, the two Menachos are Pasul (as we learned in the third Perek).
(c)We do not say the same with regard to the earlier case Eilu Lehavi bi'Shenei Keilim Veheivi bi'K'li Echad, Pasul - because the case there is where it is not possible to take a Kometz from each one.
11)
(a)Having taught the Din in ...
1. ... the Reisha (with regard to a Minchah al ha'Machavas and a Minchas Marcheshes), why did the Tana find it necessary to repeat it in the Seifa (with regard to two Esronos in one K'li and in two)?
2. ... the Seifa, why did the Tana find it necessary to repeat it in the Reisha?
(b)Our Mishnah, in the Reisha de'Reisha and the Reisha de'Seifa rules 'Mah she'Heivi Heivi, vi'Yedei Nidro Lo Yatza'. Rebbi Shimon in a Beraisa, disagrees. What does he say?
11)
(a)In spite of having taught the Din in ...
1. ... the Reisha (with regard to a Minchah al ha'Machavas and a Minchas Marcheshes), the Tana found it necessary to repeat it in the Seifa (with regard to two Esronos in one K'li and in two) - because, since the owner did not change the basic Korban, we might have thought that in the Reisha de'Seifa, he will also have fulfilled his obligation.
2. ... the Seifa, the Tana nevertheless found it necessary to repeat it in the Reisha - because we might otherwise have thought that, since he did not split one large Minchah into two, in the Reisha de'Reisha, he will also have fulfilled his obligation.
(b)Our Mishnah, in the Reisha de'Reisha and the Reisha de'Seifa rules 'Mah she'Heivi Heivi, vi'Yedei Nidro Lo Yatza'. Rebbi Shimon in a Beraisa holds - 'Af Y'dei Nidro Nami Yatza'.
12)
(a)We query our Mishnah from a Beraisa. What does the Tana there mean when he writes (in connection with the Korban Minchah) 'Lo Kidshum K'lei Shareis'?
(b)Why does this pose a Kashya on our Mishnah?
(c)What do we answer?
12)
(a)We query our Mishnah from a Beraisa, which states 'Lo Kidshum K'lei Shareis' - the K'li Shareis in which one brings a Minchah does not sanctify it.
(b)This poses a Kashya on our Mishnah, which rules - 'Zu Lehavi be'Machavas Ve'heivi be'Marcheshes ... Harei Zu Pesulah'. Now if the K'li does not sanctify the Minchah, why can he not simply transfer the latter into the right K'li?
(c)And we answer - that although the K'li does not sanctify the Minchah to allow it to be brought, it does sanctify it to become Pasul (as is the case here).
13)
(a)What does Abaye learn from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "Ka'asher Nadarta" with regard to fixing the K'li?
(b)How does this enable him to qualify our Mishnah?
(c)What does Rebbi Acha bar Chanina ... Amar Rebbi Yochanan say about this?
13)
(a)Abaye learns from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "Ka'asher Nadarta" that - mentioning the K'li (whether the Minchah will be a Machavas or a Marcheshes) at the time of the declaration of the Neder fixes the K'li, but mentioning it at the time of designation (after the Neder has been made) does not.
(b)This enables him to qualify our Mishnah - by confining the P'sul in the Seifa de'Reisha ('Zu Lehavi be'Machavas ... ') to where he fixed the K'li at the time of the Neder, but had he fixed it at the time of designation, he would be permitted to change it afterwards.
(c)Rebbi Acha bar Chanina ... Amar Rebbi Yochanan - concurs with that.