1)

(a)What problem do we now have with Rebbi Akiva ("Asham Hu" 'Hu Kareiv, ve'Ein Temuraso Kareiv')?

(b)So we conclude that we need "Hu" for Rav Huna's D'rashah. What does Rav Huna say about an Asham that is Shechted S'tam, assuming it was ...

1. ... sent into the field to graze ('Re'iyah')?

2. ... not been sent into the field to graze? Where does he learn this from?

(c)In which case is Rebbi Akiva now speaking (see Hagahos ha'G'ra 1)?

1)

(a)The problem with Rebbi Akiva ("Asham Hu" 'Hu Kareiv, ve'Ein Temuraso Kareiv') is - that we already know this from the 'Halachah' (that whatever is Meisah by Chatas, is Ro'eh by Asham).

(b)So we conclude that we need "Hu" for Rav Huna, who learns that if an Asham whose owner has already received his Kaparah, is Shechted S'tam, assuming it was ...

1. ... sent into the field to graze ('Re'iyah') - it is brought as an Olah.

2. ... not sent into the field to graze - it remains an Asham, and is not valid as an Olah.

(c)Consequently, Rebbi Akiva is speaking - where the Asham was Shechted S'tam without being sent to graze.

2)

(a)We query why the latter Tana, who learns V'lad and Temuras Olah and Shelamim from "Rak Kodoshecha asher Yih'yu lach ... " does not learn it from the Pasuk "Im Zachar Im Nekeivah". How do we refute the initial answer (that we need that Pasuk for V'lad and Temuras Ba'alei-Mumin)?

(b)How do we then answer the original question?

(c)On the other hand, to explain how the first Tana will learn the Pasuk "Rak Kodashecha ... Tisa u'Va'sa", we answer 'Afilu mi'Mir'ayhu'. What does this mean?

(d)And what does 'mi'Murgayhu' in the second Lashon mean?

2)

(a)We query why the latter Tana, who learns V'lad and Temuras Olah and Shelamim from "Rak Kodoshecha asher Yih'yu lach ... " does not learn it from the Pasuk "Im Zachar Im Nekeivah". We refute the initial answer (that we need that Pasuk for V'lad and Temuras Ba'alei-Mumin) - by recalling that we learn that from the two "Ims", and not from "Zachar" and "Nekeivah".

(b)And we answer the original question - by pointing out that this Tana does not Darshen "Im" (negating the point that we just made).

(c)On the other hand, to explain how the first Tana will learn the Pasuk "Rak Kodashecha ... Tisa u'Va'sa", we answer 'Afilu mi'Mir'ayhu', which means - that once Yom-Tov arrives, one should not delay, but fetch the animals concerned from 'their grazing grounds', however far away they may be, to take them to the Beis- Hamikdash.

3)

(a)Rebbi Eliezer holds that the V'lad of a Shelamim cannot be brought as a Shelamim. Then what does one do with it?

(b)How does Rebbi Shimon qualify the Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and the Chachamim?

(c)What did Rebbi Yehoshua and Rebbi Papayas testify regarding this Halachah?

(d)What else did Rebbi Papayas testify with regard to a cow of Shelamim that they ate on Pesach?

3)

(a)Rebbi Eliezer holds that the V'lad of a Shelamim cannot be brought as a Shelamim - but in placed in a narrow room without food or drink until it dies.

(b)Rebbi Shimon qualifies the Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and the Chachamim - by confining it to V'lad Shelamim, but not to V'lad V'lad Shelamim or V'lad V'lad (or just V'lad) Temurah (as will be explained in the Sugya).

(c)Rebbi Yehoshua and Rebbi Papayas testified - that a V'lad Shelamim is brought as a Shelamim (like the Chachamim).

(d)Rebbi Papayas also testified that they once owned a cow of Shelamim that they ate on Pesach - and its V'lad as a Shelamim on Succos.

4)

(a)Rebbi Ami Amar Rebbi Yochanan tries to learn Rebbi Eliezer's Din from the Pasuk in Vayikra "ve'Im Zevach Shelamim Korbano". How does he learn it from there?

(b)Rebbi Chiya bar Aba queried Rebbi Ami from the Pasuk in Tzav "Im al Todah Yakrivenu". What is the problem from there?

4)

(a)Rebbi Ami Amar Rebbi Yochanan tries to learn Rebbi Eliezer's Din from the Pasuk in Vayikra "ve'Im Zevach Shelamim Korbano" - translating "Im" as if it had been punctuated with a 'Tzeirei' (to read 'Eim') instead of a 'Chirik', and then Darshening "Eim", 've'Lo V'lad'.

(b)Rebbi Chiya bar Aba queried Rebbi Ami from the Pasuk in Tzav "Im al Todah Yakrivenu" - which we ought then to Darshen in the same way (to disqualify the V'lad of a Todah from the Mizbe'ach).

5)

(a)Which three cases does the Beraisa specifically permit to be brought from the very same word "Im al Todah Yakrivenu"?

(b)What is ...

1. ... the definition of 'Chilufah'?

2. ... the Din of a Chilufah?

(c)What reason does Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan therefore give to explain Rebbi Eliezer's ruling?

(d)Why did they not then also decree on a Korban Todah (see Shitah Mekubetzes 24)?

5)

(a)From the very same word "Im al Todah Yakrivenu", the Beraisa specifically permits 'V'ladah, Chilufah u'Temurasah' of a Todah to be brought on the Mizbe'ach (see Hagahos ha'G'ra 4).

(b)'Chilufah' is ...

1. ... where the original Todah got lost, and was found again before the replacement was brought, in which case ...

2. ... either animal may now serve as the Todah).

(c)Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan therefore attributes Rebbi Eliezer's ruling - to a Rabbinical decree for fear that one might then delay bringing the mother, so as to rear flocks of Shelamim sheep. Meanwhile, they will come to shear the mother and work with it.

(d)They did not also decree on a Korban Todah - because it is less common (and Chazal tend not to decree on things that are not common [see also Shitah Mekubetzes 24).

6)

(a)When Rebbi Shimon said in our Mishnah 'Lo Nechl'ku al V'lad V'lad Shelamim ... she'Lo Yikarevu', he may have meant that Rebbi Eliezer would not have said 'Lo Yikarevu' (and he too must agree that they can be brought). What else might he have meant?

(b)On what grounds does ...

1. ... Rabah prefer the first interpretation?

2. ... Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi prefer the second one?

6)

(a)When Rebbi Shimon said in our Mishnah 'Lo Nechl'ku al V'lad V'lad Shelamim ... she'Lo Yikarevu', he meant either that Rebbi Eliezer would not have said 'Lo Yikarevu' (since he too must agree that they can be brought), or - that even the Rabbanan would agree that 'Lo Yikarevu'.

(b)

1. Rabah prefers the first interpretation - because it would be unusual to retain a Kodshim animal for so long.

2. Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi prefers the second - since the fact that there are V'ladei V'lados certainly bears out the Chachamim's suspicions more than just V'lados.

18b----------------------------------------18b

7)

(a)What does the Beraisa learn from the words "Im Keves" (in the Pasuk in Vayikra [in connection with the Korban Shelamim] "Im Keves hu Makriv")?

(b)From the continuation of the Pasuk " ... hu Makriv" the Tana precludes the V'lad of all other Kodshim. This cannot pertain to V'lad Chatas, which we already knows goes le'Misah. Why can it not pertain to V'lad Olah or Asham?

(c)So how does Ravina finally establish it?

(d)Why do we not already know this from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Ha'avarah" "Ha'avarah" from B'chor?

(e)Why does Rebbi Chiya cite this Beraisa here?

7)

(a)The Beraisa learns from the words "Im Keves" (in the Pasuk in Vayikra [in connection with the Korban Shelamim] "Im Keves hu Makriv") - that it is only V'lad Shelamim that one brings as a Shelamim, but not V'lad di'V'lad.

(b)From the continuation of the Pasuk " ... hu Makriv" the Tana precludes the V'lados of all other Kodshim. This cannot pertain to V'lad Chatas, which we already knows goes le'Misah. Nor can it pertain to V'lad Olah or Asham - since both Korbanos are males, which have no offspring.

(c)So Ravina finally establishes it - by V'lad Ma'aser Beheimah.

(d)We cannot learn this from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Ha'avarah" "Ha'avarah" from B'chor - because that would be learning 'Efshar from I Efshar' (since B'chor is a male).

8)

(a)What does Rava say about a Korban that one fails to bring after the first Yom-Tov. What problem does this create with Rebbi Yehoshua and Rebbi Papayus in our Mishnah?

(b)Rav Z'vid in the name of Rava explains that the V'lad was sick on Shavu'os. What does Rav Ashi say? How does he interpret 'Chag'?

(c)Why does Rav Z'vid decline to learn like Rav Ashi?

(d)Either way, what is the significance of Rebbi Papayas' testimony?

8)

(a)Rava rules that each day that one fails to bring a Korban after the first Yom-Tov - one transgresses an Asei, a problem with Rebbi Papayas in our Mishnah, who testified that they ate the baby of the Shelamim that they brought on Pesach, not on Shevu'os, but on Chag (which we interpret as Succos).

(b)Rav Z'vid in the name of Rava explains that the V'lad was sick on Shavu'os. Rav Ashi answers - that 'Chag' there refers to Shavu'os.

(c)Rav Z'vid declines to learn like Rav Ashi - because wherever Pesach is mentioned, Shavu'os is referred to as 'Atzeres', and not 'Chag'.

(d)Either way, the significance of Rebbi Papayas' testimony is - to preclude Rebbi Eliezer, who holds that V'lad Shelamim is not brought on the Mizbe'ach.

9)

(a)What does our Mishnah say about V'lad Todah u'Temurasah?

(b)Regarding the Pasuk in Vayikra "Im al Todah Yakrivenu", what does the Beraisa learn from ...

1. ... "Yakriv..." (in the Pasuk "Im al Todah Yakrivenu")?

2. ... " ...nu" (of the same word)?

(c)And what does the Tana learn from the word there ...

1. ... "Im"?

2. ... "Todah"?

9)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that V'lad Todah u'Temurasah - u'V'lad V'ladah ad Sof Kol ha'Doros Harei eilu ke'Todah (like it said by Shelamim).

(b)Regarding the Pasuk "Im al Todah Yakrivenu", the Beraisa learns from ...

1. ... "Yakriv..." (in the Pasuk "Im al Todah Yakrivenu") - that the exchange of a Todah ('Chilufah') can serve as the Todah that he is obligated to bring (as we learned on the previous Amud).

2. ... " ...nu" (of the same word)- whichever one he chooses requires loaves, but not the other one.

(c)And the Tana learns from the word there ...

1. ... "Im" - that V'lados, Temuros and Chalifos (the second animal) are brought on the Mizbe'ach, too.

10)

(a)What are the ramifications of the Mishnah's statement that Temuras Olah, V'ladah and V'lad V'ladah are like the Olah?

(b)We already quoted Rebbi Elazar, who holds that the male son of a female animal that one designated as an Olah is brought directly as an Olah. What do the Chachamim say?

(c)How does Rabah bar bar Chanah answer the Kashya that the Rabbanan, who argue with Rebbi Elazar in the Seifa (by V'lad Olas Nekeivah) and hold Ro'eh, do not argue on the Reisha (by Temuras Olah)?

(d)According to Rava however, the Rabbanan agree in the Reisha that the Temurah ... is brought directly. Why is that?

10)

(a)The ramifications of the Mishnah's statement that Temuras Olah, V'ladah and V'lad V'ladah are like the Olah are - that it requires skinning, cutting up and burning on the Mizbe'ach.

(b)We already quoted Rebbi Elazar, who holds that the male son of a female animal that one designated as an Olah is brought directly as an Olah. The Chachamim rule - 'Yir'eh' (that it is sent into the field until it obtains a blemish, when it is redeemed, and the proceeds are used to purchase an Olah).

(c)To answer the Kashya that the Rabbanan, who argue with Rebbi Elazar in the Seifa (by V'lad Olas Nekeivah) and hold Ro'eh, do not argue on the Reisha (by Temuras Olah), Rabah bar bar Chanah explains - that even though they only express their opinion in the Seifa, they really argue in the Reisha (which is the opinion of Rebbi Elazar) too.

(d)According to Rava however, the Rabbanan agree in the Reisha that the Temurah ... is brought directly as well - because, unlike the case of Olas Nekeivah, the mother itself is brought directly.

11)

(a)We cite a Beraisa which discusses Temuras Asham, V'lad Temurah ... . The Tana Kama rules 'Yir'eh'. What does Rebbi Eliezer hold?

(b)What does Rebbi Elazar say that seems to contradict his ruling in our Mishnah?

(c)Rav Chisda answers 'le'Divreihem de'Rabbanan ka'Amar'. What does Rebbi Elazar really hold? What is he then saying to the Rabbanan?

(d)What do the Rabbanan reply?

11)

(a)We cite a Beraisa which discusses Temuras Asham, V'lad Temurah ... . The Tana Kama rules 'Yir'eh'. Rebbi Eliezer holds - 'Yamusu'.

(b)Rebbi Elazar says - 'Yavi bi'Demeihen Olah', implying that they cannot be brought directly on the Mizbe'ach (an apparent contradiction to his ruling in our Mishnah).

(c)Rav Chisda answers 'le'Divreihem de'Rabbanan ka'Amar', meaning - that he himself maintains his position stated in our Mishnah, and the point that he is making to the Rabbanan is, if the Din is 'Yir'eh', then at least the Olah that is brought ought to be an Olas Yachid, in the name of the owner of the Asham.

(d)To which the Rabbanan reply - that, in their opinion, the proceeds of 'Yir'eh' always go towards Nidvas Tzibur (for the Olas Kayitz ha'Mizbe'ach).

12)

(a)According to Rava, Rebbi Elazar concedes that Temuras Asham itself does not go on the Mizbe'ach. Why is that? What makes Temuras Asham worse than Olas Nekeivah in this regard?

(b)What do we mean when we say that the mother is called an Olah (besides the fact that the money is designated for an Olah)?

12)

(a)According to Rava, Rebbi Elazar concedes that T'muras Asham itself does not go on the Mizbe'ach - because, unlike Olas Nekeivah (where the mother is called an Olah), the T'muras Asham's 'mother' is not called an Olah.

(b)When we say that the mother is called an Olah, we mean (besides the fact that the money is designated for an Olah) - that there is a precedent for an Olas Nekeivah in the Olas ha'Of, as we learned earlier.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF