1)

(a)'Rebbi Yehudah Omer, Tamus'. To which animal is he referring, the first, or the second, and according to ...

1. ... Rebbi Yochanan?

2. ... Rav?

(b)What is the problem with Rebbi Yochanan from Rebbi Yehudah's second statement: 'Nishpach ha'Dam, Yamus ha'Mishtale'ach'?

1)

(a)'Rebbi Yehudah Omer, Tamus'. According to ...

1. ... Rebbi Yochanan - this refers to the second animal in the first pair (because he holds Ba'alei Chayim Nidachin).

2. ... Rav - this refers to the second animal in the first pair, too.

(b)The problem with Rebbi Yochanan from Rebbi Yehudah's second statement: 'Nishpach ha'Dam, Yamus ha'Mishtale'ach' - is that, seeing as, according to Rebbi Yochanan, both Tana'im agree that Ba'alei Chayim Nidachin, Rebbi Yehudah is merely making a statement here with which the Rabanan agree.

2)

(a)Why do we ...

1. ... accept Rebbi Yehudah's statement 'Nishpach ha'Dam, Yamus ha'Mishtale'ach'?

2. ... query his statement 'Mes ha'Mishtale'ach, Yishafech ha'Dam'?

(b)We answer this with the Pasuk "Yo'omad Chai Lifnei Hash-m Lechaper Alav". What do we learn from there that dispenses with our query?

2)

(a)We ...

1. ... accept Rebbi Yehudah's statement 'Nishpach ha'Dam, Yamus ha'Mishtale'ach' - because, since the Mitzvah of the blood has not been completed (and bearing in mind "Chukah") it would be necessary to bring another Sa'ir la'Hashem (and automatically another Sa'ir for the Hagralah) in which case, the original Sa'ir will be Pasul, because Rebbi Yehudah holds 'Ba'alei Chayim Nidachin'.

2. ... query his statement 'Mes ha'Mishtale'ach, Yishafech ha'Dam' however - on the grounds that, once the Hagralah has been performed, the Mitzvah of the Sa'ir la'Azaz'el has been completed, and there seems no reason why the blood of the Sa'ir la'Hashem should be poured out.

(b)We learn from the Pasuk "Yo'omad Chai Lifnei Hash-m Lechaper Alav" - that the Sa'ir la'Azazel must remain standing until the Kaparas ha'Dam. Consequently, should it die earlier, the Mitzvah has not been performed, and a new Hagralah will be required.

3)

(a)If the Sheluchim who are carrying the town's Shekalim lose them or if the money is stolen, to whom must they swear (that they were not careless etc.) ...

1. ... if the Terumas ha'Lishkah was already emptied?

2. ... if it was not?

(b)Should the money turn up, then both lots are Shekalim, and, according to the Tana Kama, the people are obligated to give their half-Shekel again the following year. What does Rebbi Yehudah say, and what is his reason?

(c)How do we reconcile this with the Par and the Sa'ir of Yom Kippur, where Rebbi Yehudah himself says that, if they were lost, re-placed and then found, they must die. Why can they too, not be brought the following year? How do we initially answer this with a statement from Rebbi Oshaya?

(d)How does Rebbi Oshaya learn this from the Pasuk in Pinchas "Zos Olas Chodesh b'Chodsho"?

3)

(a)If the Sheluchim who are carrying the town's Shekalim lose them or if the money is stolen ...

1. ... after the Terumas ha'Lishkah was already emptied - they must swear to the treasurers of Hekdesh that they were not careless etc.

2. ... before the Terumas ha'Lishkah was emptied - they must swear to the people who sent them, and to whom they are still answerable.

(b)Should the money turn up, then both lots are Shekalim, and, according to the Tana Kama, the people are obligated to give their half-Shekel again the following year. According to Rebbi Yehudah, the second lot of money that they paid, exempts them from having to give the following year.

(c)We initially reconcile this with the Par and the Sa'ir of Yom Kippur, where Rebbi Yehudah himself says that, if they were lost, re-placed and then found, they must die - by quoting Rebbi Oshaya, who rules that the new Korbenos Tzibur must be purchased with the new half-Shekalim of that year.

(d)He learns this from the Pasuk in Pinchas "Zos Olas Chodesh b'Chodsho" - which implies that the new Korbanos must be purchased with the new batch of half-Shekalim.

4)

(a)What do Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon say about the Par and the Sa'ir that were lost, re-placed and found?

4)

(a)Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon say that the Par and the Sa'ir that were lost, re-placed and found - must graze, because they (like the Tana Kama of our Mishnah) hold 'Ein Chatas Tzibur Meisah'.

65b----------------------------------------65b

5)

(a)If Rebbi Yehudah's reason (for saying that the Sa'ir of Yom Kippur that was lost, re-placed and found must die) is because of the Pasuk "Zos Olas Chodesh b'Chodsho", why will it then be restricted to the Sa'ir, but not to the Par?

(b)On what grounds do we reject the contention (on this and each of the subsequent answers) that we decree the Par because of the Sa'ir?

(c)We even reject our original contention by the Sa'ir, from the statement of Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel: 'Korbenos Tzibur ha'Ba'in b'Echad b'Nisan, Mitzvah Lehavi min he'Chadash ... '. How does that statement serve to refute our original contention? What is the conclusion of that statement?

5)

(a)If Rebbi Yehudah's reason (for saying that the Sa'ir of Yom Kippur that was lost, re-placed and found, must die) is because of the Pasuk "Zos Olas Chodesh b'Chodsho", it will then be restricted to the Sa'ir (asks the Gemara) but not to the Par - since, unlike the former, the latter was purchased not with money from the Terumas ha'Lishkah, but out of the Kohen Gadol's own pocket.

(b)We reject the contention (on this and each of the subsequent answers) that we decree the Par because of the Sa'ir - because, if that was the case, it would be sufficient to decree Ro'eh (that it should graze), but not that an animal of Kodshim should die.

(c)From the statement of Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel: 'Korbenos Tzibur ha'Ba'in b'Echad b'Nisan, Mitzvah Lehavi min he'Chadash, v'Im Heivi min ha'Yashan, Yatza', asks the Gemara - it is clear that even the Sa'ir is Kasher if one did purchase it with money from the previous year, so why should it die?

6)

(a)We then try to explain Rebbi Yehudah's Din of 'Yamusu' because Hagralah cannot fix the Sa'ir from one year to the next. On what grounds do we ...

1. ... reject that contention?

2. ... reject the contention that it is because people might say that Hagralah fixes the goats from one year to the next?

3. ... reject the contention that Rebbi Yehudah says Yamusu because the Kohen Gadol might die, and a Chatas she'Meisah Be'alehah, Tamus?

6)

(a)We then try to explain Rebbi Yehudah's Din of 'Yamusu', because Hagralah cannot fix the Sa'ir from one year to the next.

1. We reject that contention however - on the grounds that we could then bring the two goats and make a fresh Hagralah.

2. We reject the contention that it is because people might say that Hagralah fixes the goats from one year to the next - because that reason would be applicable to the Sa'ir, but not to the Par. And even if one wanted to decree the Par because of the Sa'ir, then Chazal should have said 'Ro'eh', and not 'Tamus' (as we explained above).

3. And we reject the contention that Rebbi Yehudah says Yamusu because the Kohen Gadol might die, and a Chatas she'Meisah Be'alehah, Tamus - because that reason would be applicable to the Par (which was a private Korban), but not to the Sa'ir, which was a Korban Tzibur, and 'Ein Chatas Tzibur Meisah'.

7)

(a)The Rabanan suggested to Abaye that the reason that Rebbi Yehudah says 'Tamus' is because Gezeirah Mishum Chatas she'Avrah Shenasah'. What is the problem with this statement?

(b)The Gemara answers that they hold like Rebbi. What does Rebbi say (with regard to Batei Arei Chomah)?

(c)Why will this answer not work for the Par?

(d)We reject this answer too, on the same grounds as we rejected the previous ones, as well as to the fact that a Chatas she'Avrah Shenasah does not die. To what does Resh Lakish compare it?

7)

(a)The Rabanan suggested to Abaye that the reason that Rebbi Yehudah says 'Tamus' is because it is a Gezeirah because of 'Chatas she'Avrah Shenasah'. But surely, asks the Gemara, this is a 'Chatas sh'Avrah Shenasah' (and not just a Gezeirah because of it)!?

(b)The Gemara answers that they hold like Rebbi - who says (with regard to Batei Arei Chomah) that one year (which renders the sale of a house in a walled city that was sold, permanent) constitutes three hundred and sixty five days (and not a regular lunar year of three hundred and fifty four days). Consequently, on the following Yom Kippur, the goat (which needs to be in its first year - and no more, will not be a 'Chatas she'Avrah Shenasah', and will only be forbidden because of a Gezeirah (because it resembles a 'Chatas she'Avrah Shenasah').

(c)The above Gezeirah will not apply to the Par, which has to be in its third year or more.

(d)Resh Lakish compares a Chatas she'Avrah Shenasah to a Chatas that is standing in a Beis ha'Kevaros - which is perfectly Kasher, but to which the Kohen has no access. A Chatas she'Avrah Shenasah too, is not listed among the Chata'os ha'Meisos, according to Resh Lakish, only, like the animal in the Beis ha'Kevaros, it cannot be sacrificed.

8)

(a)By Batei Arei Chomah, what do the Chachamim consider a year?

(b)What happens in a leap year? To whose advantage do the extra thirty days go, the seller or the purchaser?

8)

(a)By Batei Arei Chomah, the Chachamim consider a year - as a regular lunar year (i.e. three hundred and fifty four days).

(b)In a leap year, the extra month goes to the seller, permitting him to redeem his house for an extra thirty (or twenty-nine) days.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF