1)
(a)Bearing in mind that the Torah has already written in Bo (in connection with the Korban Pesach) "Lo Sosiru mimenu ad Boker", what does Rebbi Yehudah learn from the Pasuk in Tzav "Lo Yani'ach mimenu ad Boker"?
(b)The Pasuk begins with the words "u'Vesar Zevach Todas Shelamav". What do we learn from ...
1. ... the juxtaposition of the two phrases?
2. ... the word "u'Vesar"? Which two aspects of Korban, besides Chalipin, does this come to include?
(c)What is a Chalipei Todah?
(d)What happens to the two animals?
1)
(a)In spite of the Torah having already written in Bo (in connection with the Korban Pesach) "Lo Sosiru mimenu ad Boker", Rebbi Yehudah learns from the Pasuk in Tzav "Lo Yani'ach Mimenu ad Boker" - via Im Eino Inyan, that Machsheves Hinu'ach she'Lo bi'Zemano is effective too (as we saw in our Mishnah).
(b)The Pasuk begins with the words "u'Vesar Zevach Todas Shelamav". We learn from ...
1. ... the juxtaposition of the two phrases that - the time limit of a Korban Todah is one day.
2. ... the word "u'Vesar" that - Chalipin, V'lados and Temuros of a Todah must also be eaten by the end of the first day.
(c)A Chalipei Todah is - the replacement of Korban Todah that got lost, after the original animal has been found.
(d)The original animal is brought to cover his initial Neder, and the Chalipei Todah is brought as a Nedavah.
2)
(a)In the list of Korbanos that can be eaten for one day, which two Korbanos do we learn from the word ...
1. ... "Zevach"?
2. ... "Shelamav"?
(b)What is Shalmei Pesach?
(c)And which three types of loaves does the word "Korbano" incorporate?
(d)If "Lo Yani'ach" comes to teach us the time limit of all the above Kodshim, how can Rebbi Yehudah learn Machsheves Hinu'ach from it?
2)
(a)In the list of Korbanos that can be eaten for one day, the two Korbanos that we learn from the word ...
1. ... "Zevach" are - a Chatas and an Asham.
2. ... "Shelamav" comprise - Shalmei Nazir and Shalmei Pesach ...
(b)... the Chagigah that is brought with the Pesach on the fourteenth of Nisan.
(c)The three kinds of loaves that the word "Korbano" incorporates are - the Lachmei Todah and the Chalos and the Rekikin (the wafers) of a Nazir.
(d)Even though "Lo Yani'ach" comes to teach us the time limit of all the above, Rebbi Yehudah nevertheless learns Machsheves Hinu'ach - from the fact that the Torah uses the word "Lo Yani'ach" (rather than "Lo Sosiru").
3)
(a)What problem do we have with the current source of Rebbi Yehudah ("Lo Yani'ach"), from our Mishnah Shachtan al-M'nas ... O Le'hotzi'an la'Chutz"?
(b)In addition, what reason did Rebbi Yehudah himself give to explain why Machsheves Hinu'ach is Pasul?
(c)At which stage does Hinu'ach render the Korban, Pasul?
(d)If Rebbi Yehudah's reason is based on a S'vara, what problem do we have with his opinion?
3)
(a)The problem with the current source of Rebbi Yehudah ("Lo Yani'ach"), from our Mishnah Shachtan al-M'nas ... O Le'hotzi'an la'Chutz" is - what is then his source for the Machshevah of Hotza'ah Chutz li'Mekomo?
(b)In addition, the reason Rebbi Yehudah himself gave to explain why Machsheves Hinu'ach is Pasul is - the S'vara that just as Hinu'ach Dam le'Machar invalidates the Korban (see Shitah Mekubetzes), so does Machsheves Hinu'ach le'Machar (and the same S'vara will apply to Machsheves Hotza'ah Chutz li'Mekomo).
(c)Hinu'ach renders the Korban, Pasul - from nightfall (the end of Sheki'ah).
(d)If Rebbi Yehudah's reason is based on a S'vara, the problem we have with his opinion is - why he does not then argue with the Tana Kama in all the cases in our Mishnah (by Shover Atzmos ha'Pesach or she'Yochlu mimenu Na, by al-M'nas she'Yochlu Teme'im or she'Yakrivuhu Teme'im, and by she'Yochluhu Areilim or she'Yakrivuhu Areilim)?
4)
(a)What general answer do we give to explain why Rebbi Yehudah does not argue by all the cases in our Mishnah?
(b)How do we know that the Tana is speaking about the Teme'im bringing the Emurin and not the blood?
(c)What do we mean when we say in the second Lashon Kol ke'Mineih?
(d)And why does Rebbi Yehudah not then argue with the Tana Kama by ...
1. ... Le'areiv Damo be'Dam Pesulim?
2. ... Litein es ha'Nitnin le'Ma'alah, le'Matah or vice-versa?
4)
(a)The general answer we give to explain why Rebbi Yehudah does not argue in all the cases is - because, in all of the cases from which we asked, the Korban itself would not be Pasul even if one were to transgress, in which case a Machsheves P'sul will not validate it either.
(b)We know that the Tana is speaking about the Teme'im bringing the Emurin and not the blood (which would invalidate the Korban) - because it is similar to the case of al-M'nas she'Yochluhu Teme'im, which refers to Temei'im eating the Basar, and not the blood.
(c)When we say in the second Lashon Kol ke'Mineih, we mean that - in the cases that we just mentioned, the Shochet cannot invalidate the Korban, because which Tamei or Areil Kohen would listen to him to eat or to bring the Korban anyway. Consequently, the Shochet's Machshavah regarding the actions of others are not effective. Note, this S'vara does not apply to regular Pigul, which is a Gezeiras-ha'Kasuv'.
(d)Neither does Rebbi Yehudah argue with the Tana Kama by ...
1. ... Le'areiv Damo be'Dam Pesulim - because he holds Ein Dam Mevateil Dam, as we explained earlier.
2. ... es ha'Nitnin le'Ma'alah, le'Matah, or vice-versa - because he holds she'Lo bi'Mekomo ki'Mekomo Dami.
5)
(a)We say that Rebbi Yehudah does not argue with the Tana Kama over ha'Nitnim bi'Fenim she'Nasnan ba'Chutz, and vice-versa, because it is not a place that is Meshulash. What does Meshulash mean?
(b)To which case does this refer?
(c)We query Rebbi Yehudah however, from another Beraisa. What does Rebbi Yehudah learn from the Pasuk in Parshas Shoftim "Lo Sizbach ... Kol Davar Ra", besides the P'sul of a Chatas which is Shechted in the south?
(d)What problem does this create with what we just said?
5)
(a)When we say that Rebbi Yehudah does not argue with the Tana Kama over ha'Nitnim bi'Fenim she'Nasnan ba'Chutz, and vice-versa, because it is not a place that is Meshulash, we mean that - one is only Chayav (for Chutz li'Mekomo) for taking the Korban or the Dam to a place which is Kasher to place Dam, Basar and Emurim.
(b)This refers - to the case of Nitnin ba'Chutz she'Nasnan bi'Fenim (because ha'Nitnin bi'Fenim she'Nasnan ba'Chutz did have a Heter for all three in the time of the Bamos, as we explained earlier).
(c)We query Rebbi Yehudah however, from another Beraisa, where, besides the P'sul of a Chatas which is Shechted in the south, he learns from the Pasuk in Parshas Shoftim "Lo Sizbach ... Kol Davar Ra" that - a Chatas whose blood is taken inside the Heichal, is Pasul ...
(d)... even though the latter is not a Makom Meshulash, a proof that Rebbi Yehudah does not concur with the D'rashah of Meshulash.
6)
(a)What does Rebbi Yehudah mean when he says in a Mishnah in the eighth Perek, Hichnis be'Shogeg, Kasher?
(b)We extrapolate from there Ha be'Meizid Pasul. How do we establish the case? At which stage will the Korban become Pasul?
(c)What Kal va'Chomer do we Darshen from there, that clashes with what we just said?
(d)How do we then resolve the discrepancy in Rebbi Yehudah?
6)
(a)When Rebbi Yehudah says in a Mishnah in the eighth Perek, Hichnis be'Shogeg, Kasher, he means that - if the Kohen actually takes the blood of a Chatas Chitzonah into the Heichal (even if he places it on the Mizbe'ach ha'Ketores, as we will now see), the Korban remains Kasher.
(b)We extrapolate from there Ha be'Meizid Pasul - but only, if he actually places the blood on the Mizbe'ach ha'Ketores, otherwise not.
(c)And if Rebbi Yehudah holds of Meshulash as regards bringing the blood inside the Heichal, Kal va'Chomer as regards a mere Machshavah - clashing with what we just said, that Rebbi Yehudah does not concur with the D'rashah of Meshulash at all.
(d)We resolve the discrepancy in Rebbi Yehudah - by turning the two Beraisos into a Machlokes Tana'im regarding the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah.
36b----------------------------------------36b
7)
(a)We also query Rebbi Yehudah with regard to his previous D'rashah from "Kol Davar Ra", that one is Chayav for Shechting a Chatas on the south side of the Azarah. How does he Darshen the same phrase "Kol Davar Ra", in another Beraisa?
(b)And how do we resolve this discrepancy?
7)
(a)We also query Rebbi Yehudah with regard to his previous D'rashah from "Kol Davar Ra" (that one is Chayav for Shechting a Chatas on the south side of the Azarah). In another Beraisa, he Darshens the same phrase "Kol Davar Ra" - to preclude someone who Shechts a Chatas on the south side of the Azarah from the Chiyuv.
(b)And we resolve this discrepancy - in the same way as we resolved the previous one, by turning it into a Machlokes Tana'im as to what Rebbi Yehudah actually said.
8)
(a)What does Rava mean when he says u'Modeh Rebbi Yehudah, she'Chozer ve'Kov'o le'Pigul?
(b)How does Rava try to prove this from Pigul Lifnei Zerikah?
(c)How do we refute Rava's proof?
8)
(a)When Rava says u'Modeh Rebbi Yehudah, she'Chozer ve'Kov'o le'Pigul he means that - even though the Korban is already Pasul, it will become Pigul should the Kohen have a Machsheves Chutz li'Zemano during a later Avodah.
(b)Rava tries to prove this from Pigul Lifnei Zerikah - which is not (yet) effective, yet the Zerikah will render it valid retroactively, in spite of the initial Machsheves Hinu'ach le'Machar.
(c)We refute Rava's proof however - on the grounds that whereas in the latter case, there is only one Machshavah, in Rebbi Yehudah's case there are two (one of them a Machsheves P'sul and not Pigul, in which case it is considered 'Lo Kareiv Kol Matirav').
9)
(a)Rav Huna queries Rava (strange, since Rav Huna lived long before Rava) from the Beraisa that we discussed earlier. What does the Tana rule there in a case where ...
1. ... the Shochet had in mind to place the blood of a Korban that is normally placed above the Chut ha'Sikra, below it or vice-versa?
2. ... by one of the subsequent Avodos, the Kohen had a Machsheves Chutz li'Mekomo or ...
3. ... Chutz li'Zemano?
(b)And what does the Tana say about the Korban, in a case where, following a Machsheves Hinu'ach, but on the next day (according to Rebbi Yehudah), the Kohen subsequently had a Machsheves Chutz li'Mekomo or Chutz li'Zemano?
(c)What does this prove?
(d)What does Rava answer?
9)
(a)Rav Huna queries Rava (Perhaps this ought to be Rav Huna b'reih de'Rav Yehoshu'a, since Rav Huna lived long before Rava) from the Beraisa that we discussed earlier. The Tana rules, in a case where ...
1. ... the Shochet had in mind to place the blood of a Korban that is normally placed above the Chut ha'Sikra, below it, or vice-versa - the Korban is Kasher.
2. ... the Kohen, by one of the subsequent Avodos, had a Machsheves Chutz li'Mekomo - the Korban is Pasul ...
3. ... Chutz li'Zemano - it is Pigul.
(b)And the Tana rules, in a case where, following a Machsheves Hinu'ach, but on the next day (according to Rebbi Yehudah), the Kohen subsequently had a Machsheves Chutz li'Mekomo or Chutz li'Zemano that - the Korban is Pasul but not Pigul.
(c)This proves that even Machsheves Hinu'ach le'Machar, according to Rebbi Yehudah, prevents any subsequent Pigul from taking effect, because it is considered Lo Karvu Kol Matirav ...
(d)... to which Rava has no answer.
10)
(a)What does Rav Chisda Amar Ravina bar Sala say about someone who has a Machshavah that Teme'im should eat the Korban Chatas tomorrow?
(b)What is the Chidush?
(c)On what grounds do we refute Rava's proof from every case of Pigul, where the Shochet or the Kohen's thoughts occur before Zerikah, when the Korban is also not yet fit to eat?
10)
(a)Rav Chisda Amar Ravina bar Sala rules that someone who has a Machshavah that Teme'im should eat the Korban Chatas tomorrow - renders the Korban Pigul ...
(b)... even though Achilas Teme'im is an Achilah Pesulah.
(c)We refute Rava's proof from every case of Pigul, where the Shochet or the Kohen's thoughts occur before Zerikah, when the Korban is also not yet fit to eat - because there at least, it will automatically become fit to eat after Zerikah, whereas here, an Achilah Pesulah remains Pasul.
11)
(a)Rav Chisda speaks about the Basar of the Korban Pesach or the Chalos Todah that one eats before they are ready to be eaten. What does this refer to?
(b)What did Rav Dimi bar Chin'na used to say in this regard?
(c)What is the Chidush?
11)
(a)Rav Chisda speaks about the Basar of the Korban Pesach or the Chalos Todah that one eats before they are ready to be eaten - meaning a Korban Pesach that has not yet been roasted and Chalos Todah from which the four required loaves (one from each of the four kinds that accompany the Todah) have not yet been separated to give to the Kohen.
(b)Rav Dimi bar Chin'na used to say that - someone who eats them be'Tum'as ha'Guf, is nevertheless Chayav ...
(c)... in spite of the principle that whatever is not permitted to Tehorim is not subject to Chiyuv, if eaten by Teme'im.
12)
(a)The Beraisa comments on the Pasuk in Tzav "ve'ha'Nefesh asher Tochal mi'Besar Zevach Shelamim asher la'Hashem". What does the Tana learn from "asher la'Hashem"?
(b)What does Rava try to prove from there?
(c)We refute the proof in one of two ways. One of them, in that Emurin are at least fit for Hash-m, whereas the Pesach and the Lachmei Todah are not. what is the alternative refutation?
12)
(a)The Beraisa comments on the Pasuk in Tzav "ve'ha'Nefesh asher Tochal mi'Besar Zevach Shelamim asher la'Hashem". The Tana learns from "asher la'Hashem" that - even if someone eats Emurei Kodshim Kalim be'Tum'as ha'Guf, he is Chayav Kareis (even though they are not fit to eat) ...
(b)... a support for Rav Dimi bar Chin'na's ruling.
(c)We refute the proof in one of two ways. One of them, in that Emurin are at least fit for Hash-m (Achilas Mizbe'ach), whereas the un-roasted Pesach and Lachmei Todah that have not had the four loaves separated from them are not. Alternatively - Emurim are fit to serve their function, whereas an un-roasted Pesach and Lachmei Todah that have not had the four loaves separated from them are not.
Hadran alach 'Kol ha'Pesulin'
Perek Beis Shamai
13)
(a)Most Korbanos whose blood is sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon, require two Matanos on the two diagonally opposite corners (that have a Y'sod). What do Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel say there where the Kohen performed only one?
(b)They argue however, by a Chatas. How many Matanos does a Chatas require?
(c)Beis Shamai hold that in order to atone, Bedieved, the Kohen must perform at least two Matanos. What do Beis Hillel say?
(d)According to Beis Hillel, what will the Din therefore be, if the Kohen places the first Matanah ...
1. ... correctly, and the second Matanah with a Machsheves Chutz li'Zemanah?
2. ... with a Machsheves Chutz li'Zemanah, and the second with a Machsheves Chutz li'Mekomah?
13)
(a)Most Korbanos whose blood is sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon, require two Matanos on the two diagonally opposite corners (that have a Y'sod). If the Kohen performed only one - Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel agree that the Korban is nevertheless Kasher.
(b)They argue however, by a Chatas, which requires - four Matanos, one on each corner.
(c)Beis Shamai hold that in order to atone, Bedieved, the Kohen must perform at least two Matanos. According to Beis Hillel - one will suffice.
(d)Consequently, according to Beis Hillel, if the Kohen places the first Matanah ...
1. ... correctly, and the second Matanah with a Machsheves Chutz li'Zemanah - the Korban is Kasher.
2. ... with a Machsheves Chutz li'Zemanah, and the second with a Machsheves Chutz li'Mekomah - the Korban is Pigul.
14)
(a)What is the basic difference between the Matanos of the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon (which we just discussed) and those of the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi?
(b)What will the Din therefore be if the Kohen places any one of the Matanos on the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi with a Machsheves she'Lo bi'Zemano?
(c)Why is it not Pigul?
14)
(a)The basic difference between the Matanos of the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon (which we just discussed) and those of the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi is that - the latter requires all four Matanos, even Bedieved.
(b)Consequently, if the Kohen placed any one of the Matanos on the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi with a Machsheves she'Lo bi'Zemano - the Korban is Pasul.
(c)It is not Pigul - because the Tana holds Ein Mefaglin be'Chatzi Matir, in which case the Machsheves she'Lo bi'Zemano must incorporate all four Matanos in order to become Pigul.