Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Nasan queries Rav Papa, who just established the Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah ('Sheneihem Yeitz'u le'Beis ha'Sereifah') and the Rabbanan ('ha'Tamei be'Tum'aso') by whether 'Tzitz Meratzeh al Achilos' or not. What does Rebbi Yehudah, in a Beraisa, say in a case where one of the Bazichin became Tamei?
What do the Rabbanan say?
Why can the Machlokes there not be whether 'Tzitz Meratzeh' or not?
How does this pose a Kashya on Rav Papa?
Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Nasan queries Rav Papa, who just established the Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah ('Sheneihem Yeitz'u le'Beis ha'Sereifah') and the Rabbanan ('ha'Tamei be'Tum'aso') by whether 'Tzitz Meratzeh al Achilos' or not. Rebbi Yehudah says in a Beraisa that in a case where one of the Bazichin became Tamei - both Bazichin must be burned.
The Rabbanan rule there too - 'ha'Tamei be'Tum'aso, ve'ha'Tahor be'Taharaso'.
The Machlokes there cannot be whether 'Tzitz Meratzeh' or not - because everyone agrees that 'Tzitz Meratzeh al ha'Olin' ...
... yet Rebbi Yehudah holds that both Bazichin are burned, a Kashya on Rav Papa.
Rav Ashi queries Rav Papa further from another Beraisa. What does Rebbi Yehudah say there about a case where one tribe is Tamei during the bringing of the Korban Pesach?
What do the Rabbanan hold?
On what basis does Rebbi Yehudah permit the entire Tzibur to bring the Pesach be'Tum'ah, despite the fact that the majority of tribes are Tahor?
Rav Ashi queries Rav Papa further from another Beraisa, where Rebbi Yehudah rules that if one tribe is Tamei during the bringing of the Korban Pesach - all twelve tribes may bring it be'Tum'ah (without being fussy about touching those who are Tamei), a ruling that has nothing to do with 'Tzitz Meratzeh'.
According to the Rabbanan - the Tamei tribe brings the Pesach Sheini, whereas the other eleven tribes bring the Pesach Rishon be'Taharah.
Rebbi Yehudah permits the Tzibur to bring the Pesach be'Tum'ah, despite the fact that the majority of the tribes are Tahor - because he holds that one tribe is considered a community.
Ravina even queries Rav Papa from our Mishnah, where Rebbi Yehudah rules that if one of the Sh'tei ha'Lechem or of the rows of Lechem ha'Panim become Tamei, both are taken to the Beis ha'Sereifah. What reason does he give for that?
What can we now learn from both our Mishnah and the Beraisa (cited by Ravina and Rav Ashi respectively)?
So what reason does Rebbi Yochanan ascribe to Rebbi Yehudah's rulings?
What was the latter's source for this?
Ravina even queries Rav Papa from our Mishnah, where Rebbi Yehudah rules that if one of the Sh'tei ha'Lechem or of the rows of Lechem ha'Panim becomes Tamei, both are taken to the Beis ha'Sereifah - because 'Ein Tzibur Chaluk'.
We can now learn from both our Mishnah and the Beraisa (cited by Ravina and Rav Ashi respectively) - that Rebbi Yehudah's reason is not because of 'Ein Tzitz Meratzeh al Achilos'.
The reason Rebbi Yochanan ascribes to Rebbi Yehudah's rulings is - 'she'Ein Korban Tzibur Chaluk' ...
... which the latter - learned from his Rebbes.
Our Mishnah rules that the Todah can render its Lechem Pigul. How about vice-versa?
What time-limit does the Torah prescribe for eating a Todah?
What will the Din then be, if someone Shechts his Todah with the intention of eating ...
... it the next day?
... its loaves the next day?
What does the Tana then say about being Mefagel ...
... the lambs that accompany the Sh'tei ha'Lechem?
... the Sh'tei ha'Lechem?
Our Mishnah rules that the Todah can render its Lechem Pigul - but not vice-versa.
The time-limit the Torah prescribes for eating a Todah - is the day that it is brought and the following night.
Consequently, if someone Shechts his Todah with the intention of eating ...
... it the next day - both the Todah and the Lechem become Pigul.
... its loaves the next day - the loaves become Pigul, but not the Todah.
The Tana then rules that if one is Mefagel ...
... the lambs that accompany the Sh'tei ha'Lechem - both become Pigul.
... the Sh'tei ha'Lechem - that the Lechem becomes Pigul, but not the lambs.
What does Rav Kahana learn from the Pasuk in Tzav "Ve'hikriv al Zevach ha'Todah, Chalos"?
What should the Torah otherwise have written?
Then why does our Mishnah exempt the Todah from Pigul, if one is Mefagel the loaves?
What Kashya does this pose on the Seifa of our Mishnah 'ha'Kevasim Mefaglin es ha'Lechem'?
Rav Kahana learns from the Pasuk in in Tzav "Ve'hikriv al Zevach ha'Todah, Chalos" - that the Lachmei Todah are also called 'Todah'.
Otherwise, the Torah ought to have written - "Ve'hikriv Chalos al Zevach ha'Todah".
And the reason our Mishnah exempts the Todah from Pigul if one is Mefagel the loaves is - because although the Lechem is called 'Todah', the Todah is not called 'Lechem'.
The Kashya this poses on the Seifa of our Mishnah 'ha'Kevasim Mefaglin es ha'Lechem' - is that by the same token, the Loaves ought not to be Pigul, since nowhere do we find the Sh'tei ha'Lechem referred to as 'Kevasim'.
So what reason do we finally give to explain why both 'ha'Todah Mefageles es ha'Lechem' and 'ha'Kevasim Mefaglin es ha'Lechem' and not vice-versa?
Having taught us both sides of the Halachah by Todah, why did the Tana then find it necessary to repeat it with regard to the Sh'tei ha'Lechem? Why might we otherwise have thought that the Din in the Seifa ('ve'ha'Lechem Eino Mefagel es ha'Todah') will not apply to the Kevasim and the Sh'tei ha'Lechem?
The reason that we finally give to explain why both 'ha'Todah Mefageles es ha'Lechem' and 'ha'Kevasim Mefaglin es ha'Lechem' and not vice-versa - is because both the Todah and the two lambs are brought on account of their respective loaves (in fact, they even permit them to be eaten), but not vice-versa.
Having taught us both sides of the Halachah by Todah, the Tana nevertheless found it necessary to repeat it with regard to the Sh'tei ha'Lechem, because we might otherwise have thought that - since (unlike the loaves of the Todah), the loaves of the Sh'tei ha'Lechem are waved together with the Basar, the Lechem will be Mefagel the Kevasim too, even though the Lechem of the Todah is not Mefagel the Todah.
Rebbi Elazar asked Rav what the Din will be if someone Shechts a Todah with the intention of eating half a k'Zayis of the Korban and half of the Lechem. Why could he not have been asking him about the Minchah becoming Pigul?
Then what was his She'eilah?
Rav replied that the Lechem is indeed Pigul. We query this however, with a 'Kal-va'Chomer'. Which 'Kal-va'Chomer'?
Rebbi Elazar asked Rav what the Din will be if someone Shechts a Todah with the intention of eating half a k'Zayis of the Korban and half of the Lechem. He could not have been asking him about the Minchah becoming Pigul - since the Lechem does not render the Basar Pigul, as we just learned.
His She'eilah was - whether the Basar combines to render the Lechem Pigul or not.
Rav replied that the Lechem is indeed Pigul. We query this however, with a 'Kal-va'Chomer' - because if the Basar which is Mefagel, does not itself become Pigul, then how can the Lechem, which is not Mefagel, become Pigul?
We query the 'Kal-va'Chomer' however, from a Beraisa, which discusses a case where Reuven sowed seeds in Shimon's vineyard in which the grapes were already recognizable (S'madar). What did the Chachamim of that time rule? Why is that?
What is the significance of the fact that the grapes were S'madar?
What is then the Kashya on Rav from there? What 'Kal-va'Chomer could we have Darshened there?
We query the 'Kal-va'Chomer' however, from a Beraisa, which discusses a case where Reuven sowed seeds in Shimon's vineyard in which the grapes were already recognizable (S'madar). The Chachamim of that time ruled -that the seeds were forbidden, but the grapes were permitted (because of the principle 'Ein Adam Oser Davar she'Eino she'lo'.
The fact that the grapes were S'mader - is insignificant, other than that happened to be the case (see also Tosfos DH 'she'Zara ... ').
The Kashya on Rav from there is - that if one Darshen the sort of retroactive 'Kal-va'Chomer' that he Darshened, then why did the Tana not Darshen 'u'Mah ha'Oser (the vines) Eino Ne'esar, ha'Ba Le'esor ve'Lo Asar (the seeds) Eino Din she'Lo Yis'aser!'
On what grounds do we refute the Kal va'Chomer in the case of Kil'ayim?
Which are the only seeds that are d'Oraysa?
One of the reasons for this is because only they have a root and do not therefore decompose before re-growing. The other is based on the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "Lo Sizra Karm'cha Kil'ayim". What do we learn from there?
We refute the 'Kal-va'Chomer' in the case of Kil'ayim however - based on the fact that seeds in a vineyard are only mi'de'Rabbanan.
In fact, it is only Kanvus (hemp) and Lof (a kind of legume) that constitute an Isur d'Oraysa in a vineyard.
One of the reasons for this is because only they have a root and do not therefore decompose before re-growing. The other is based on the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "Lo Sizra Karm'cha Kil'ayim", from which we learn - that only seeds that grow clusters that resemble grapes are subject to Kil'ayim).
Now that the Kil'ayim is only mi'de'Rabbanan, why did the Chachamim there forbid only the seeds and not the vines?
Others learned Rebbi Elazar's She'eilah to Rav (not with regard to someone who Shechted the Todah in order to be Mefagel the Lechem, but) with regard to another (albeit similar) case. Which case?
The rest of the Sugya is identical to the initial one. Why, according to the second Lashon, did Rebbi Elazar not deign to ask what the Din will be in the case of 'ha'Shochet es ha'Todah Lefagel es ha'Lechem'?
Now that the Kil'ayim is only mi'de'Rabbanan, the Chachamim forbade only the seeds and not the vines - because they wanted to penalize the one who sinned (and not the owner of the vineyard [see also Shitah Mekubetzes 4]).
Others learned Rebbi Elazar's She'eilah to Rav (not with regard to someone who Shechted the Todah in order to be Mefagel the Lechem, but) - with regard to someone who Shechted the Kivsei Atzeres with the intention of eating the two loaves the next day.
The rest of the Sugya is identical to the initial one. According to the second Lashon, Rebbi Elazar did not deign to ask what the Din will be in the case of 'ha'Shochet es ha'Todah Lefagel es ha'Lechem' - because since (unlike the Sh'tei ha'Lechem) the loaves are not waved together with the Todah, he took for granted that they would not be Mefagel the Korban.
According to Rebbi Aba Zuti, Rebbi Elazar asked Rav what the Din will be if someone Shechts one of the Kivsei Atzeres in order to eat a k'Zayis 'me'Chaveiro' the next day. What are the two possible meanings of 'me'Chaveiro'?
What are the ramifications of the She'eilah, assuming it refers to ...
... the other lamb?
... the loaves?
Rav tried to resolve the She'eilah from a Mishnah later, which cites the exact case of Rebbi Elazar's She'eilah, concluding 'Sheneihem Kesheirim'. What does this prove?
How did Rebbi Elazar refute Rav's proof?
According to Rebbi Aba Zuti, Rebbi Elazar asked Rav what the Din will be if someone Shechts one of the Kivsei Atzeres in order to eat 'me'Chaveiro' the next day. 'me'Chaveiro' - might refer to the other lamb, or it might refer to the loaves.
If it refers to ...
... the other lamb - then the Pigul will be ineffective, since one Matir is not Mefagel the other (as we have already learned);
... the loaves, then they will become Pigul (as we have learned too).
Rav tried to resolve the She'eilah from the Mishnah later, which cites the exact case of Rebbi Elazar's She'eilah, concluding 'Sheneihem Kesheirim' - a proof that 'Chaveiro' refers to the other lamb.
Rebbi Elazar refuted Rav's proof however - on the grounds that perhaps the Beraisa speaks where he actually specified 'Chaveiro Keves'.
According to Rebbi Meir in our Mishnah, from which stage will a Machshavah on a Zevach be Mefagel the Nesachim?
What does he say about the Nesachim being Mefagel the Zevach?
What is therefore the difference between someone who Shechts a Zevach with the intention of eating it the next day, and someone who does so with the intention of bringing the Nesachim the next day?
What does Rebbi Meir mean when he says 'Mefagel es ha'Nesachim'. What would one have to do in order to be Chayav Kareis?
According to Rebbi Meir in our Mishnah, a Machshavah on a Zevach will be Mefagel the Nesachim - from the moment the latter are sanctified in a K'li Shareis (at which point they permanently adopt Kedushas Mizbe'ach).
And he adds - that Nesachim cannot be Mefagel the Zevach.
Consequently, in a case where someone Shechts a Zevach with the intention of eating it the next day - the Nesachin are included in the Pigul; whereas where he does so with the intention of bringing the Nesachim the next day - the Nesachim become Pigul, but not the Zevach.
When Rebbi Meir says 'Mefagel es ha'Nesachim', he means that someone who subsequently drinks them is Chayav Kareis.
On what grounds does Rebbi Meir, in a Beraisa, consider Nesachim subject to Pigul?
How does he counter the Rabbanan's argument that it is possible to bring the Nesachim as much as ten days after the Korban?
According to Rava, how will Rebbi Meir counter the Rabbanan's argument that one can change the Nesachim from one Korban to another?
Rebbi Meir, in a Beraisa, considers Nesachim subject to Pigul - because the Zerikas ha'Dam is Matir them to be sacrificed.
He counters the Rabbanan's argument that it is possible to bring the Nesachim as much as ten days after the Korban - by pointing out that he is referring to Nesachim that the owner brings together with his Korban, irrespective of when that is.
According to Rava, Rebbi Meir counters the Rabbanan's argument that one can change the Nesachim from one Korban to another - by stating that, in his opinion, the Shechitah of the Korban fixes them (like it does the Lachmei Todah), and they can no longer be changed.
On what grounds does Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa, include the Log of oil of a Metzora in the Din of Pigul? What Matir does it have?
What did Rebbi Meir reply when the Chachamim queried him from the fact ...
... that it is possible to bring the Nesachim as much as ten days after the Korban?
... that it is possible to change the Log of oil to the Asham of another Metzora?
Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa, includes the Log of oil of a Metzora in the Din of Pigul, on the grounds - that it is permitted to the Kohanim through the Shechitah of the Asham Metzora.
When the Chachamim queried him from the fact ...
... that it is possible to bring the Nesachim as much as ten days after the Korban, he replied (like he did in the previous Beraisa) - that he was referring exclusively to Nesachim which the owner brought together with the Korban.
... that it is possible to change the Log of oil to the Asham of another Metzora, he replied (like he did there) - that in his opinion, it becomes fixed with the Shechitah of the Asham (like the Lachmei Todah).