(a)Since the Korban Pesach proceeds the Tamid shel Bein ha'Arbayim because of the double Lashon "Erev" and "Bein ha'Arbayim", then why, by the same token, does it not proceed the Ketores and Hadlakas ha'Neros (which are written together in the same Pasuk, and by which the Torah only writes - in Ki Sisa - "Bein ha'Arbayim")?
(b)Since the word "Oso" is written by Hadlakas ha'Neros, how do we know that the Korban Pesach also precedes the Ketores?
(a)The reason that the Korban Pesach does not proceed the Ketores and Hadlakas ha'Neros (despite the fact that the a Torah writes by it both "ba'Erev" and "Bein ha'Arbayim", whereas only "Bein ha'Arbayim" is used by them) - is because of the Pasuk "Ya'aroch Oso Aharon ... me'Erev ad Boker" (written by Hadlakas Neiros), from which Chazal derive 'Oso me'Erev ad Boker, v'Ein Davar Acher me'Erev ad Boker'.
(b)The Korban Pesach also precedes the Ketores - because the Ketores is compared to Hadlakas Neiros (see question 1b).
(a)A second Beraisa, corroborating the Kashya that we just asked, does indeed place the Korban Pesach after Hadlakas ha'Neros and the Ketores. What does that Tana do with the word "Oso" written by Hadlakas ha'Neros?
(b)Why does the Tana prefer to preclude the Ketores from preceding it rather than The Korban Tamid?
(c)How do we now interpret the Pasuk "u've'Ha'alos Aharon es ha'Neros, Bein ha'Arbayim Yaktirenah"?
(d)The only major thing to be brought on the Mizbe'ach (albeit on a different Mizbe'ach) before the Korban Tamid shel Shachar, was the Ketores. Why is that?
(a)The second Beraisa which places the Korban Pesach after Hadlakas ha'Neros and the Ketores - learns from "Oso" to preclude only the Ketores, which (in spite of the Pasuk in Ki Sisa "u've'Ha'alos Aharon es ha'Neiros, Bein ha'Arbayim Yaktirenah", which suggests that the Ketores is to be burnt after the Hadlakas Neiros) must now be burnt before it.
(b)The Tana prefers to preclude the Ketores from proceeding the Hadlakas Neiros rather than The Korban Tamid - because, like Hadlakas Neiros, the Ketores is an Avodas Penim (i.e. it is performed, not in the Azarah, like the Tamid was, but in the Heichal).
(c)We now interpret the Pasuk "u've'Ha'alos Aharon es ha'Neiros, Bein ha'Arbayim Yaktirenah" - to mean that when Aharon kindles the Menorah, the Ketores must already have been sacrificed.
(d)The reason that the Ketores preceded the Tamid shel Shachar - is because the Torah writes by it "ba'Boker, ba'Boker", whereas by the Tamid it writes only "ba'Boker".
(a)In spite of what we have written until now, the Tana Kama of the Beraisa cites one other set of Korbanos (besides the Pesach) that proceeded the Tamid shel Bein ha'Arbayim. What is it?
(b)When does a Mechusar Kipurim require Tevilah?
(a)A Mechusar Kipurim (a Zav or a Metzora) who needed to bring their Korban at the termination of their extended period of Tum'ah, in order to eat the Korban Pesach - were also permitted to bring their respective Korbanos after the Tamid shel Bein ha'Arbayim.
(b)A Mechusar Kipurim Tovels on the seventh day, and then again on the eighth day before he is permitted to eat Kodesh.
(a)Rebbi Yishmael Bno shel Yochanan ben Berokah is even more lenient than the Tana Kama regarding a Mechusar Kipurim. What does he say?
(b)Why does a Mechusar Kipurim over-ride the Din of Hashlamah on Erev Pesach (according to everyone)?
(c)To answer the same question about the Mechusar Kipurim the whole year round (according to Rebbi Yishmael Bno shel Yochanan ben Berokah), Ravina quoting Rav Chisda establishes Rebbi Yishmael Bno shel Yochanan ben Berokah by a Chatas ha'Of of a Metzora Ani. How does this answer the Kashya?
(a)Rebbi Yishmael Bno shel Yochanan ben Berokah is even more lenient than the Tana Kama - he permits a Mechusar Kipurim to bring his Korbanos after the Tamid, the whole year round.
(b)A Mechusar Kipurim over-rides the Din of Hashlamah on Erev Pesach (according to everyone) - because the Aseh of bringing the Korban Pesach carries with it a penalty of Kares, which the Aseh of Hashlamah does not. So it is a case of a more stringent Aseh over-riding a less stringent one.
(c)Ravina quoting Rav Chisda explains why the Aseh of Mechusar Kipurim the whole year round (when there is no Kares), over-rides that of Hashlamah - by establishing Rebbi Yishmael Bno shel Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah by a Chatas ha'Of of a Metzora Ani - which is eaten by the Kohanim without any of it being brought on the Mizbe'ach, in which case there is no Isur of Hashlamah (which was only written with regard to bringing a Korban on the Mizbe'ach after the Tamid).
(a)Rav Papa establishes Rebbi Yishmael even by a Chatas Behemah. How does he answer the Kashya?
(b)Why does the animal not become Pasul b'Linah, since it has not been sacrificed by the morning?
(c)What does Rav Chisda do with the fact that a Metzora also has to bring an Asham (according to Rav Papa, that too, can have been placed on the Mizbe'ach)?
(a)Rav Papa establishes Rebbi Yishmael even by a Chatas Behemah - because, according to him, all he needs to do is to place the animal on the Mizbe'ach, thereby fulfilling the requirement of "v'Hikrivo Lifnei Hash-m" (which subsequently permits the Mechusar Kipurim to eat Kodshim), without contravening the Aseh of Hashlamah (which is restricted to burning the animal on the Mizbe'ach, and not just to placing it at the side).
(b)An animal does not become Pasul b'Linah as long as it on the Mizbe'ach, even though it has not been sacrificed.
(c)According to Rav Chisda, the Beraisa speaks when he has already brought his Asham.
(a)The Gemara then asks from the Olah that the Metzora is obligated to bring, and suggests that maybe the Kaparah of the Olah does not prevent him from eating Kodshim. Why does the Gemara not make the same suggestion regarding the Asham?
(b)What do we learn from the Pasuk in Tzav: "v'Hikriv es Asher la'Chatas Rishonah", and what problem does that create in our case?
(c)How does the Pasuk in Metzora "v'He'elah ha'Kohen es ha'Olah" (written by the bull of the Chatas Metzora) help us solve that problem?
(a)The Gemara would not dream of suggesting that maybe the Kaparah of the Asham does not prevent him from eating Kodshim - since the main Kaparah ceremony centers around the Asham (when its blood is placed on his thumbs etc.).
(b)The Pasuk "v'Hikriv es Asher la'Chatas Rishonah" - serves as a Binyan Av for all people who are obligated to bring a Chatas and an Olah, that they must bring the Chatas first (even if it is a Chatas ha'Of and an Olas Behemah). In that case, we cannot explain that the Metzora has already brought his Olah (before the Chatas), and the Kashya remains on Rav Chisda 'What about the Olas ha'Of - which does go on the Mizbe'ach, but which cannot have been brought yet. How does he now avoid contravening the Aseh of Hashlamah?
(c)We learn from the Pasuk "v'He'elah ha'Kohen es ha'Olah" - 'she'He'elah K'var' (i.e. that since the Torah writes "v'He'elah" - in the past - instead of "Ya'aleh" in the future - we deduce that b'Di'eved, if one brought an Olah before the Chatas, he is Yotzei. Consequently, the Beraisa must be speaking when he had indeed brought the Olah already.
(a)According to Rav Papa, who says that they place the Chatas Behemah on the Mizbe'ach overnight, why are we not afraid that a Kohen who comes across it, will mistake it for yesterday's Korban, and place it on the Mizbe'ach (thereby contravening the Aseh of Hashlamah)?
(b)What do we learn from the Pasuk ...
1. ... in Tzav "v'Hiktir ha'Kohen es ha'Chelev ha'Mizbeichah ... v'Hayah he'Chazeh l'Aharon u'le'Vanav"?
2. ... in Tetzaveh "v'Achlu Osam Asher Kupar Bahem"?
(c)In that case, what is the point of leaving the animal on the Mizbe'ach, according to Rav Papa?
(a)According to Rav Papa, who says that they place the Chatas Behemah on the Mizbe'ach overnight, we are not afraid that a Kohen who comes across it, will mistake it for yesterday's Korban, and place it on the Mizbe'ach - because of the principle 'Kohanim Zerizim Hem'.
(b)We learn from ...
1. ... "v'Hiktir ha'Kohen es ha'Chelev ha'Mizbeichah ... v'Hayah he'Chazeh l'Aharon u'le'Vanav" - that the Kohanim are not permitted to eat the Chazeh v'Shok (the chest and the right calf) before the Chalavim have been placed on the Mizbe'ach to burn.
2. ... "v'Achlu Osam Asher Kupar Bahem" - that the Kaparah of the owner is not complete before the Kohanim have eaten his Chatas ('Kohanim Ochlim, u'Ba'alim Miskaprim'. - Rashi, Amud 1 DH 'be'Sha'r', adds that the Mitzvah of eating Kodshim Kalim [such as the Shelamim] extends to the owner - even if he is a Yisrael).
(c)The Kohen's participation in the Kaparah is only l'Chatchilah, answers the Gemara; b'Di'eved, should the meat become Tamei or get lost, the Korban remains valid and the owner's atonement intact. Consequently, in our case (according to Rav Papa) since the Kohen, due to the fact that the Chalavim have not yet been burnt, is unable to eat the meat, Chazal gave it a Din of meat that became Tamei or that got lost, and said that, since there is no option, the Chatas should just be placed on the Mizbe'ach, and that will suffice to permit the Mechusar Kipurim to eat Kodshim, as if it had got lost.
(a)"Lo Yalin Chelev Chagi ad Boker" (Tetzaveh) teaches that one may still sacrifice the Chalavim until morning; whereas "v'Hiktir Aleha Chelvei ha'Shelamim" (Tzav) teaches that all Korbanos must be brought before the Tamid shel Bein ha'Arbayim. How does Rav Kahana reconcile these two seemingly contradictory Pesukim?
(b)What do we infer from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "Lo Yalin la'Boker Zevach Chag ha'Pasach" (Ki Sisa)?
2. ... "Olas Shabbos b'Shabbato" (Pinchas)?
(c)How do the two inferences clash?
(d)How does Rav Avahu reconcile them? Is it not a Dochek (a pushed answer), to confine the former Pasuk to such a narrow case?
(a)"Lo Yalin Chelev Chagi ad Boker", says Rav Kahana, teaches us that the leftovers of the day's Korbanos may still be placed on the Mizbe'ach all night; whereas from "v'Hiktir Aleha Chelvei ha'Shelamim" we learn that l'Chatchilah, all Korbanos must be brought before the Tamid shel Bein ha'Arbayim, and their Chalavim placed on the Mizbe'ach immediately.
(b)we infer from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "Lo Yalin la'Boker Zevach Chag ha'Pasach" (Ki Sisa) - that the Pesach (which is a weekday Korban) may continue to be placed on the Mizbe'ach throughout Yom-Tov night.
2. ... "Olas Shabbos b'Shabbato" - that one may only burn a Shabbos Korban on Shabbos (or a Yom-Tov offering on Yom-Tov or Shabbos), but not a weekday Korban on Shabbos (or on Yom-Tov).
(c)The two inferences clearly clash - because the first inference permits burning a weekday offering on Yom-Tov, whereas the second one forbids it.
(d)Rav Avahu explains that we have no option but to establish the Pasuk of "v'Lo Yalin" ... by Erev Pesach that falls on Shabbos, in which case one will be burning a Shabbos Korban on Yom-Tov, which is permitted. This may be a Dochek, but it is acceptable since there is no alternative explanation.
(a)What are the four Avodos by which a Pesach will become Pasul through a thought of Pigul or she'Lo Lishmo?
(b)What do we learn from the Pasuk in Bo "Zevach Pesach Hu"?
(c)Can a Pesach become Pasul by a joint Machshavah of Lishmo and she'Lo Lishmo?
(a)The four Avodos by which a Pesach will become Pasul through a thought of Pigul or she'Lo Lishmo - are the Shechitah, the Kabalas ha'Dam (in a vessel), the Holachas ha'Dam (to the south-western corner of the Mizbe'ach), and the Zerikah (the sprinkling of the blood).
(b)We learn from the Pasuk "Zevach Pesach Hu" - that the Pesach must be Shechted etc. with the right Kavanah (Lishmo); otherwise it becomes Pasul (which most other Korbanos do not).
(c)A Pesach can become Pasul by a joint Machshavah of Lishmo and she'Lo Lishmo - as we shall now see.
(a)Rav Papa asks whether this dual Machshavah refers to one Avodah or to two Avodos. What does this mean?
(b)If we are talking about one Avodah, then it is obvious that the author of the Mishnah must be Rebbi Yosi who says 'bi'Gemar Devarav Adam Nitfas', and not Rebbi Meir. Why not?
(c)But if we are talking about two Avodos, then the author could even be Rebbi Meir. Why might Rebbi Meir agree in this case?
(d)In which case do Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yosi hold their dispute?
(a)Technically, it is possible to think by one Avodah i.e. that he is performing it Lishmo and she'Lo Lishmo, and it is also possible to think this by two Avodos i.e. that he is performing the Shechitah Lishmo, shall we say, and the Zerikah she'Lo Lishmo (and so with any combination of the four Avodos. There is also another way of explaining Machshavah by two Avodos, as we shall see later. Rav Papa's Sha'leh is to which of these two does our Mishnah refer.
(b)If we are talking about one Avodah, then the author cannot be Rebbi Meir - who says 'Tefos Lashon Rishon', meaning that when (regarding the laws of Kodshim) a person makes two contradictory statements (or has two contradictory thoughts), then it is the first one that is valid. According to him, two conflicting thoughts are indicative that one has retracted, and, in the realm of Kodshim, one cannot retract (even immediately).
(c)But if we are talking about two Avodos, then the author can even be Rebbi Meir - because, since the two Machshavos do not clash (since one pertains to one Avodah, and the other, to another, Rebbi Meir will agree that both Machshavos will take effect).
(d)Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yosi argue in a case where someone says 'Harei Zu Temuras Olah, Temuras Shelamim': According to Rebbi Meir, the animal is a Temuras Olah; whereas Rebbi Yosi holds that we allow the animal to graze until it becomes blemished. Then it is sold, and with one half of the proceeds the owner must buy an Olah, and with the other, a Shelamim.