(a)The Reisha of our Mishnah ('ha'Pesach she'Shechato she'Lo Lishmo b'Shabbos, Chayav Alav Chatas') speaks by 'Oker' (as opposed to To'eh). What does this mean, and what do we learn from it?
(b)Why must the Seifa ('ve'Sha'ar Kol ha'Zevachim ... Im Einan Re'uyin, Chayav ... ') be speaking about 'To'eh'? What is To'eh?
(c)How many times did Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef hear the distinction between the Reisha and the Seifa from Rebbi Avahu, before he was satisfied that he would never forget it?
(a)'ha'Pesach she'Shechato she'Lo Lishmo b'Shabbos, Chayav Alav Chatas' - speaks by 'Oker' - meaning that he deliberately Shechted it in the name of a Shelamim . We learn from here that 'Akirah b'Ta'us Lo Havya Akirah'.
(b)The Seifa ('ve'Sha'ar Kol ha'Zevachim ... Im Einan Re'uyin, Chayav ... '), on the other hand, must be speaking about 'To'eh' (thinking that it was a Shelamim) - because otherwise, he would not be To'eh bi'Dvar Mitzvah, and why would Rebbi Yehoshua exempt him from a Chatas?
(c)Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef heard the distinction between the Reisha and the Seifa from Rebbi Avahu - forty times, before he was satisfied that he would never forget it.
(a)Since the Reisha speaks by 'Oker' and the Seifa by 'To'eh', how can Rebbi Eliezer learn a Kal va'Chomer to disqualify Sha'ar Zevachim in the Seifa from Pesach in the Reisha?
(b)Why did Rebbi Yehoshua not then ask Rebbi Eliezer from this distinction rather from the fact that in the Reisha, they changed to something which is forbidden etc.?
(a)Rebbi Eliezer nevertheless learns a Kal va'Chomer to disqualify Sha'ar Zevachim in the Seifa from the Pesach in the Reisha - because he does not differentiate between Oker and To'eh.
(b)Rebbi Yehoshua was saying to Rebbi Eliezer; 'as far as I'm concerned, you cannot learn the Seifa from the Reisha, since the latter is speaking by Oker (which explains why he is Chayav), and the former, by To'eh (so he may well be Patur). But won't you, who do not agree with this distinction, at least concede that one cannot learn a case where one changes to a Korban that is permitted from one where one changes to one that is forbidden.
(a)Rebbi Yehoshua explains that if the Kohanim Shechted another Korban as the Korban Tzibur by mistake, they are Chayav, because there is only one Korban that needs to be brought. How do we reconcile this with the Mishnah in Kerisus, where Rebbi Yehoshua exempts a Mohel who had two babies to circumcise, one who was due before Shabbos, and one, on Shabbos, if he circumcised the Erev Shabbos baby, even though it is the only one that still needs to be circumcised?
(b)What will Rebbi Yehoshua hold in the Seifa, where he circumcised the Sunday baby on Shabbos? Why the difference?
(c)What does Rebbi Eliezer hold? What is the basis of their Machlokes?
(a)The Mishnah in Kerisus, where Rebbi Yehoshua exempts a Mohel who had two babies to circumcise, one who was due before Shabbos, and one, on Shabbos, if he circumcised the Erev Shabbos baby - specifically when, at the time that he circumcised the Erev Shabbos baby, the Shabbos baby had not yet been circumcised. Consequently, he still had the Mitzvah to perform, which renders him an O'nes.
(b)Whereas in our Mishnah, where he Shechted the other Korban in the name of the Korban Tzibur, it speaks when the Tamid had already been Shechted, so that there was no excuse for him to make the mistake, and he remains a Shogeg.
(c)Rebbi Eliezer holds that even 'To'eh bi'Dvar Mitzvah v'Asah Mitzvah, Chayav'.
(a)According to Rebbi Meir, Rebbi Yehoshua renders Chayav a Mohel who had a Friday baby and a Shabbos one to circumcise, and he went and circumcised the Friday baby on Shabbos, but not if he circumcised a Sunday baby instead of the Shabbos one. Why does this statement appear to be senseless?
(b)How do we establish the first case, to answer the question?
(c)In light of that, why does Rebbi Meir maintain that, according to Rebbi Yehoshua, someone who mistakenly Shechts another Korban as a Korban Tzibur on Shabbos is Patur? What is the criterion for being Patur from a Chatas, according to Rebbi Meir?
(a)How can Rebbi Meir render Chayav a Mohel who had a Friday baby and a Shabbos one to circumcise, for circumcising the Friday baby on Shabbos (where he performed a Mitzvah), and absolve him from a Chatas for circumcising the Sunday baby instead of the Shabbos one (where he did not)?
(b)The first case must be speaking when he already circumcised the Shabbos baby on Friday, so that there was no reason to perform any Milah on that Shabbos; whereas the second case speaks when the Mohel is faced with both the Shabbos baby and the Sunday one.
(c)The criterion, according to Rebbi Meir, is whether, when Shabbos came in, it stood to be over-ridden by this person. Consequently, by the Korban Tamid, which stood to be Shechted by anyone when Shabbos came in, one is Patur for Shechting another Korban in its name, according to Rebbi Meir (even though, by the time he Shechted the Korban, the Tamid had already been Shechted).
(a)The author of our Mishnah, who differentiates between other Korbanos that are fit for a Pesach and those that are not, is Rebbi Shimon. What does Rebbi Meir hold in this regard?
(b)What will Rebbi Meir hold (and why) if someone Shechted as a Korban Pesach ...
1. ... a calf of a Shelamim?
2. ... a lamb of Chulin?
3. ... a lamb that was blemished?
(a)Rebbi Meir holds that one is Patur if one Shechts other Korbanos in the name of the Pesach, even if it is not fit to be brought as a Pesach.
(b)According to him, if someone Shechted as a Korban Pesach ...
1. ... a calf of a Shelamim - is Patur (since he is involved with bringing it on the Mizbe'ach).
2. ... a lamb of Chulin - is Patur (since he confuses it with a lamb of a Pesach).
3. ... a lamb that is blemished - is Chayav (since he is not neither involved with bringing it on the Mizbe'ach, nor will he confuse it with a Pesach).
(a)Resh Lakish rules that someone who got confused and ate a spit containing Nosar, thinking that it was roasted meat of a Korban Pesach, is Chayav. Like which Tana does he hold, Rebbi Meir or Rebbi Shimon (in Rebbi Yehoshua)?
(b)Rebbi Yochanan differentiates between a man who mistakenly had relations with his wife when she was a Nidah, and one who did the same thing with his Yevamah. If Rebbi Yochanan renders him Chayav in the case of his wife, then one would certainly expect him to agree with Resh Lakish in a., where he did not perform any Mitzvah at all. Why might this not be the case? Why might he nevertheless disagree with Resh Lakish, to render him Patur, in spite of the fact that he did not perform a Mitzvah?
(a)Resh Lakish, who rules that someone who got confused and ate a spit containing Nosar thinking that it was roasted meat of a Korban Pesach, is Chayav - holds like Rebbi Shimon (because, according to Rebbi Meir, neither of the two criteria to be Patur mentioned in the previous question, are present here).
(b)It may be, the Gemara points out, that Rebbi Yochanan renders him Chayav in the case of his wife - because he should have asked her whether she was a Nidah or not, which of course, is not possible by a spit of Nosar (which is why he will be Patur, even though he did not perform a Mitzvah).
(a)Is there a Mitzvah to be Mesame'ach one's wife ...
1. ... even when she is pregnant?
2. ... even it is not the time of her Onah?
(b)When is it not a Mitzvah?
(c)Considering that being Bo'el a Yevamah is no more of a Mitzvah than being Bo'el one's wife, why does Rebbi Yochanan exempt the former from bringing a Chatas, and obligate the latter?
(a)There is a Mitzvah to be Mesame'ach one's wife ...
1. ... even when she is pregnant, if it is the time of her Onah, and ...
2. ... even it is not the time of her Onah (should she indicate that she wants it).
(b)It is not a Mitzvah to be Mesame'ach one's wife within the Onah of her expected Veses (when Chazal forbade it).
(c)Rebbi Yochanan obligates a man who was inadvertently Bo'el his wife when she was a Nidah, because he should have checked with her, as we explained. This does not apply however, to a being Bo'el a Yevamah for the first time, since he is not yet familiar with her, and is still too embarrassed to ask her (making him an O'nes, rather than a Shogeg).
(a)We try to connect Rebbi Yochanan (who exempts from a Chatas whenever it is not feasible to ask) with Rebbi Yosi, who exempts someone who carried a Lulav into the street on the first day of Succos that fell on Shabbos. Why in fact, is that case different?
(b)Why can we not prove that Rebbi Yochanan follows the opinion of Rebbi Yehoshua who exempts in our Mishnah someone who Shechts another Korban as a Korban Pesach?
(c)Nor can we prove that he follows the opinion of Rebbi Yehoshua in Terumos, who exempts a Kohen who was eating Terumah when he discovered that he was a Ben Gerushah or a Ben Chalutzah from paying the principle plus the extra fifth, because, according to Rav Bibi Bar Abaye, he is speaking about Terumah on Erev Pesach, where, like in the previous case, he is Patur because he is Bahul (rushed). Alternatively, he may be Patur because Terumah is like Avodah. What does this mean? What is special about Avodah in this regard, and how do we learn it from the Pasuk in v'Zos ha'Berachah "Barech Hash-m Cheilo, u'Fo'al Yadav Tirtzeh"?
(a)The reason of Rebbi Yosi, who exempts someone who carried a Lulav into the street on the first day of Succos that fell on Shabbos - may well be because when a Mitzvah is imminent, such as that of Lulav, one rushes to an expert to discover how do perform the Mitzvah, and if not now, when? This reason will not of course, applicable in the case of being Bo'el a Yevamah who is a Nidah, where Rebbi Yosi will hold that he is Chayav, since it is not a time-bound Mitzvah.
(b)And the same argument applies to Rebbi Yehoshua in our Mishnah, who exempts someone who Shechts another Korban as a Korban Pesach from a Chatas, because, like in the previous case, it is a Mitzvah whose time has fallen due.
(c)Rebbi Yehoshua in Terumos, may well exempt a Kohen who was eating Terumah when he discovered that he was a Ben Gerushah or a ben Chalutzah from paying the principle plus the extra fifth - because the Torah writes "Barech Hash-m Cheilo, u'Fo'al Yadav Tirtzeh", from which he learns that any Avodah that a Kohen performed up to the time that he discovers that he is Ben Gerushah or a Ben Chalutzah is Kasher. And the same will apply to a Kohen who mistakenly ate Terumah when he discovered that he was a Ben Gerushah etc., because eating Terumah is considered an Avodah. This has nothing whatsoever to do with Rebbi Yochanan's Din of inadvertently being Bo'el his Yevamah when she is a Nidah, where Rebbi Yehoshua will hold, Chayav.
(a)How did Rebbi Tarfon, who was a Kohen, justify his absence from the Beis ha'Medrash the previous day?
(b)On what grounds did he refer to Terumah as an Avodah?
(c)Why was Raban Gamliel initially surprised when Rebbi Tarfon said that he had been doing the Avodah?
(a)Rebbi Tarfon, who was a Kohen, justified his absence from the Beis ha'Medrash the previous day - because he had been performing the Avodah of eating Terumah.
(b)He referred to eating Terumah as an Avodah - because of the Pasuk in Korach, which writes "Avodas Matanah (referring to the Matnos Kehunah) Eten es Kehunaschem" ... from which he derived that 'Asu Achilas Terumah bi'Gvulin ka'Avodas Beis ha'Mikdash'.
(c)Raban Gamliel was initially surprised when Rebbi Tarfon said that he had been doing the Avodah - because they lived after the Churban Beis ha'Mikdash, when the Avodah was no longer applicable.