TEMURAH 23 (10 Av) - Dedicated by Mrs. Gitti Kornfeld in memory of her father, Reb Yisrael Shimon ben Shlomo ha'Levi Turkel, whose Yahrzeit is on 10 Av.

1)

(a)We just cited Rav Huna Amar Rav, who said that both Rebbi and the Rabbanan agree that if the owner takes either the Avudah or the she'Einah Avudah and brings it, then the second one must die. In what case do they then argue?

(b)According to Rebbi, we then instruct him to bring the she'Einah Avudah. What do the Rabbanan say?

(c)What is now the basis of their Machlokes?

(d)What is Rebbi's reason?

1)

(a)We just cited Rav Huna Amar Rav, who said that both Rebbi and the Rabbanan agree that if the owner takes either the Avudah or the she'Einah Avudah and brings it, then the second one must die - and they argue in a case where they come to Beis-Din to ask what they should do (as we will explain shortly).

(b)According to Rebbi, we then instruct him to bring the she'Einah Avudah (and the Avudah dies); whereas the Rabbanan hold that - we instruct him to bring the Avudah (and the Einah Avudah is Ro'eh).

(c)The basis of their Machlokes is - whether the Chachamim made a Takanah to save Kodshim from having to die (the Rabbanan) or not (Rebbi) ...

(d)... since strictly speaking, the Avudah is meant to die).

2)

(a)In the case where the owner found the Chatas money that was lost, before he had a chance to purchase a Chatas with the replacement money, our Mishnah rules 'Yavi me'Eilu u'me'Eilu Chatas ... '. What can we extrapolate from there?

(b)Seeing as the opening cases in the Mishnah go according to the Rabbanan, what alternative ruling could the Tana have issued?

(c)Then why did he prefer the ruling that he gave?

2)

(a)In the case where the owner found the Chatas money that was lost, before he had a chance to purchase a Chatas with the replacement money, our Mishnah rules 'Yavi me'Eilu u'me'Eilu Chatas ... ' - implying that if he would do so with either set of money on its own, the other set would go to the Yam ha'Melach.

(b)Seeing as the opening cases in the Mishnah go according to the Rabbanan, the Tana could also have advised him - to consult the Beis-Din, who would have instructed him to purchase the Chatas with the lost money (in which case the she'Einah Avudah would have gone to Nedavah).

(c)But he preferred the ruling that he gave - to save the owner the trouble of going to the Beis-Din for instructions.

3)

(a)Rav Mesharshaya queries Rav Huna Amar Rav from a Beraisa that discusses the Pasuk in Tzav (in connection with the Sheyarei Minchah "ve'ha'Noseres Mimenah Yochlu Aharon u'Vanav ... ba'Chatzar Ohel Mo'ed Yochluhah". What does the Tana Darshen from the extra ...

1. ... "Yochlu" (of "Yochluhah")?

2. ... the "hah" (of "Yochluhah")?

(b)What is the reasoning behind the two respective rulings?

(c)In the former ruling, how do the Kohanim circumvent the Isur of bringing Chulin into the Azarah?

(d)In answer to Rav Mesharshaya's Kashya, how do we reconcile this Beraisa with Rebbi, who holds that the Chachamim did not make a Takanah to preserve Kodshim?

3)

(a)Rav Mesharshaya queries Rav Huna Amar Rav from a Beraisa that discusses the Pasuk (in connection with the Sheyarei Minchah) "ve'ha'Noseres Mimenah Yochlu Aharon u'Vanav ... ba'Chatzar Ohel Mo'ed Yochluhah". The Tana Darshens from the extra ...

1. ... "Yochlu" (of "Yochluhah") that - if the Kohanim receive only a small portion of Minchah, then they may eat either Chulin or Terumah together with it.

2. ... the "hah" (of "Yochluhah") that - they have to eat it on its own, without Chulin or Terumah, with reference to a large portion of Minchah ...

(b)... the former, in order that - it should be eaten to satisfaction (like the Afikoman), and the latter, so that - it should not be eaten with gluttony.

4)

(a)What does Rebbi Aba Amar Rav now hold? In which case do ...

1. ... the Rabbanan agree with Rebbi?

2. ... Rebbi and the Rabbanan argue?

(b)On the previous Daf, we cited the Mishnah in Yoma (in connection with a case where the Sa'ir la'Azazel died and they took a second pair to find a partner for the Sa'ir la'Hashem) 'ha'Sheini Yir'eh ... ve'Yiplu Damav li'Nedavah'. What do we extrapolate from the fact that this is a Korban Tzibur?

(c)Why does Rav say 'Ba'alei Chayim Einan Nidachin'?

(d)What is now the problem with this according to the Rabbanan of Rebbi (based on the interpretation of Rebbi Aba Amar Rav)?

(e)How do we therefore reconcile the Mishnah in Yoma with Rebbi Aba Amar Rav's interpretation of the Rabbanan?

4)

(a)Rebbi Aba Amar Rav now holds that ...

1. ... even the Rabbanan will agree that, if the owner received atonement via the Einah Avudah (even on the instructions of the Beis-Din), the Avudah has to die.

2. ... Rebbi and the Rabbanan argue over whether, if he brought the Avudah, the Einah Avudah dies (Mafrish le'Ibud ke'Ibud Dami [Rebbi]) or is Ro'eh (the Rabbanan [Mafrish le'Ibud La'av ke'Ibud Dami]).

(b)On the previous Daf, we cited the Mishnah in Yoma (in connection with a case where the Sa'ir la'Azazel died and they took a second pair to find a partner for the Sa'ir la'Hashem) 'ha'Sheini Yir'eh ... ve'Yiplu Damav li'Nedavah'. From the fact that this is a Korban Tzibur, we extrapolate that - in the equivalent case by a Korban Yachid, the Chatas must die.

(c)Rav says 'Ba'alei Chayim Ein Nidachin' - to explain why the Sa'ir la'Hashem from the first pair is brought on the Mizbe'ach, in which case the Sa'ir la'Hashem of the second pair is a case of Mafrish le'Ibud.

(d)The problem with this, according to the Rabbanan of Rebbi (based on the interpretation of Rebbi Aba Amar Rav) is - from the implication that we just made (that a Korban Yachid would have to die), seeing as they hold Mafrish le'Ibud La'av ke'Ibud Dami.

(e)We therefore reconcile the Mishnah in Yoma with Rebbi Aba Amar Rav's interpretation of the Rabbanan - by establishing the author there as Rebbi and not the Rabbanan.

23b----------------------------------------23b

5)

(a)Our Mishnah opens with ha'Mafrish Chatas ve'Avdah, ve'Hikriv Acheres Tachtehah, Tamus. What can we extrapolate from there? Why does this create a problem for both Rav Huna and Rebbi Aba?

(b)And we answer Milsa di'Pesika leih Katani, Milsa de'Lo Pesika leih Lo Katani. What do we mean by that?

(c)By the same token, what can we extrapolate from the subsequent ruling (ha'Mafrish Ma'os le'Chatas ve'Avdu, ve'Hifrish Acherim ... Yavi me'Eilu u'me'Eilu)? On whom is this a Kashya?

(d)How do we reconcile them with the Mishnah?

5)

(a)Our Mishnah opens with 'ha'Mafrish Chatas ve'Avdah, ve'Hikriv Acheres Tachtehah Tamus', from which we can extrapolate - Ha Lo Hikrivah, Tir'eh (irrespective of which one he brought or whether he brought it on his own or consulted the Beis-Din (thereby creating a problem for both Rav Huna and Rebbi Aba).

(b)And we answer 'Milsa di'Pesika leih Katani, Milsa de'Lo Pesika leih Lo Katani', by which we mean that - the Tana only mentions Hikrivah because there the Din is Tamus with no exceptions (but by Lo Hikrivah there are times when it is Tir'eh, according to Rav Huna in some cases, and according to Rebbi Aba, in others).

(c)By the same token, we can extrapolate from the subsequent ruling (ha'Mafrish Ma'os le'Chatas ve'Avdu, ve'Hifrish Acherim ... Yavi me'Eilu u'me'Eilu) that - had he purchased the Chatas from either of them, the Din would have been Yolichem le'Yam ha'Melach, just as we extrapolated from the previous ruling (again posing a Kashya on both Rav Huna and Rebbi Aba).

(d)And we reconcile them with the Mishnah - by answering here once again Milsa di'Pesika leih Katani ... (just as we answered the previous Kashya).

6)

(a)Rebbi Ami issues a ruling in a case where someone designates two piles of money for Acharayus. What does this mean?

(b)What does he actually rule?

(c)Why is this ruling superfluous according to ...

1. ... Rebbi?

2. ... the Rabbanan?

6)

(a)Rebbi Ami issues a ruling in a case where someone designates two piles of money for Acharayus meaning that - one of the piles will be used for his Korban, the other one, as a security, in case the first one is lost.

(b)And he rules that - he may use whichever pile he wishes for his atonement, and the other one goes to Nedavah.

(c)This ruling is superfluous according to ...

1. ... Rebbi - who, we already know, only rules Meisah in a case of Mafrish le'Ibud (as we explained), but not by Mafrish le'Achrayus).

2. ... the Rabbanan - who hold even by Mafrish le'Ibud, Yiplu li'Nedavah', how much more so by Mafrish le'Acharayus.

7)

(a)So we establish Rebbi Ami like Rebbi Shimon. Which Rebbi Shimon is he referring to? What does Rebbi Shimon say with regard to 'Chameish Chata'os Meisos' in the second Perek?

(b)What is Rebbi Ami now coming to teach us?

(c)We query this however, from a Mishnah in Yoma, which discusses the thirteen collecting-boxes in the Beis-Hamikdash. What is written on six of them?

(d)What is the money inside them used for?

7)

(a)So we establish Rebbi Ami like Rebbi Shimon, who rules in the second Perek that 'Chameish Chata'os Meisos' - under all circumstances, and that there is no such Din as Ro'eh (which is synonymous with Nedavah).

(b)Rebbi Ami now comes to teach us that - although there is no Din of Nedavah by the actual Chatas, there is by the money.

(c)We query this however, from a Mishnah in Yoma, which discusses the thirteen collecting-boxes in the Beis-Hamikdash, on six of which is written - Nedavah.

(d)The money in the boxes is used for - Mosros (of Chata'os, Ashamos and wherever the Chachamim rule that the money goes to Nedavah).

8)

(a)According to Rebbi Yehudah, the Kohanim did not receive the skins of these Mosros. Then what happened to them?

(b)Rebbi Nechemyah (or Rebbi Shimon) disagrees on account of the D'rashah of Yehoyadah ha'Kohen. What did Yehoyadah ha'Kohen Darshen from the Pasuk in Vayikra "Asham hu, Ashom Asham la'Hashem"?

(c)What is the problem with Rebbi Ami from there?

(d)How do we resolve the problem? What do we mean when we say that the Mishnah in Shekalim only teaches us one Seider, and we need Rebbi Ami to extend Rebbi Shimon's ruling to two Sedarim?

8)

(a)According to Rebbi Yehudah, the Kohanim did not receive the skins of these Mosros - which were sold and the proceeds used to purchase Olos for Kayitz ha'Mizbe'ach.

(b)Rebbi Nechemyah (or Rebbi Shimon) disagrees on account of the D'rashah of Yehoyadah ha'Kohen, who Darshened from the Pasuk in Vayikra "Asham hu, Ashom Asham la'Hashem" that - with the above Mosros one purchases Olos, whose Basar goes on the Mizbe'ach, whereas the skin goes to the Kohanim.

(c)The problem with Rebbi Ami from there is that - seeing as Rebbi Shimon already teaches us that Nedavah does apply in certain circumstances, why do we need Rebbi Ami to teach us the same thing.

(d)And he answers that the Mishnah in Shekalim only teaches us one Seider - where the owner designated one pile of money for his Chatas, which subsequently went down in price, leaving him some of the original money still intact after the purchase; but we need Rebbi Ami to extend Rebbi Shimon's ruling to two Sedarim - where the owner initially designated two piles of money for Acharayus.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF