(a)According to Rav Chisda, is a person Chayav for Shechting a Korban Pesach ba'Chutz during the year, if he Shechts it as a Shelamim?
(b)We can infer from the previous statement that if he Shechted it Stam, it would remain Leshem Pesach, and he would be Patur. Why does this appear to be incompatible with the case of the goats that he Shechted before the Hagralah, where he is Chayav because of Ho'il? How would 'Ho'il' apply here, too?
(c)Why does Rav Chisda not apply 'Ho'il' there?
(d)Others ask this apparent contradiction in the name of another Amora, and give the same answer. Which Amora?
1)
(a)According to Rav Chisda, a person is Chayav for Shechting a Korban Pesach ba'Chutz during the year - if he Shechts it as a Shelamim.
(b)Seeing as by the case of the goats that the Kohen Gadol Shechted before the Hagralah, Rav Chisda says 'Ho'il' (since they were fit to be brought as the Korban Musaf), why does he not say here too, 'Ho'il' (since it was fit to be brought in the Azarah - she'Lo Lishmo, as a Shelamim)?!
(c)Rav Chisda does not apply 'Ho'il' there - because it is still lacking Akirah (to specifically uproot the name Pesach from it at the time of Shechitah).
(d)Others ask this apparent contradiction in the name of Rabah, and give the same answer.
2)
(a)Rav Dimi Amar Rebbi Yirmeyahu quotes Rebbi Yochanan as saying that one is Patur even for Shechting a Pesach ba'Chutz during the year as a Shelamim. Why is that?
2)
(a)Rav Dimi Amar Rebbi Yirmeyahu quoted Rebbi Yochanan as saying that one is Patur even for Shechting a Pesach ba'Chutz during the year specifically as a Shelamim - because he agrees with Rav Chisda (that Chesaron Akirah is considered a Chesaron), only he holds that the Akirah has to accompany a Shechitah in the Azarah; an Akirah outside the Azarah is not considered an Akirah.
3)
(a)How did Ravin Amar Rebbi Yirmeyahu quote Rebbi Yochanan?
(b)The Mishnah in Zevachim speaks about a case of someone Shechting a 'Mechusar Zman' - either of the animal itself or of the owner, ba'Chutz. What is a 'Mechusar Zman' ...
1. ... of the animal?
2. ... of the owner?
(c)Is one Chayav for Shechutei Chutz by a Mechusar Zman of the animal?
(d)Why are a Zav, a Zavah, a Yoledes and a Metzora on the eighth day ...
1. ... Patur for Shechting their respective Chatas or Asham ba'Chutz?
2. ... Chayav for bringing their Olah or Shelamim? Which of these brings a Shelamim?
3)
(a)Ravin Amar Rebbi Yirmeyahu quoted Rebbi Yochanan as saying that someone who Shechted a Pesach ba'Chutz during the year is Chayav - even if he Shechted it specifically as a Pesach.
(b)The Mishnah in Zevachim speaks about a case of someone Shechting a 'Mechusar Zman' - either of the animal itself or of the owner, ba'Chutz. A 'Mechusar Zman' ...
1. ... of the animal - means before it reaches its eighth day.
2. ... of the owner - (a Zav, a Zavah, a Yoledes and a Metzora), too, means within the first seven days, whose Korban only falls due on the eighth day.
(c)Someone who Shechts an animal which is a 'Mechusar Zman' - is Patur.
(d)A Zav, a Zavah, a Yoledes and a Metzora on the eighth day ...
1. ... are Patur for Shechting their respective Chatas or Asham ba'Chutz - because they are not fit to be brought in the Azarah (either as an obligation - since their time is premature, or as a voluntary offering - since a Chatas and an Asham cannot be brought voluntarily).
2. ... are Chayav for bringing their Olah or Shelamim - since they are fit to be brought as voluntary offerings in the Azarah. None of the above cases brings a Shelamim, and it is necessary therefore to add a Nazir to the list.
4)
(a)In the previous case, Rav Chilkiyah bar Tuvi restricts the Petur of Chatas and Asham to where he Shechted the Asham as an Asham, but not if he Shechted it as an Olah or a Shelamim. How will Rebbi Yochanan, who, with regard to Shechting a Pesach ba'Chutz, holds of 'Ho'il' (see 2a), explain the difference between an Asham and a Pesach in this regard? Why will Ho'il not apply in the case of Asham to render the Shochet ba'Chutz, Chayav - even if he Shechted it as an Asham?
4)
(a)In the previous case, Rav Chilkiyah bar Tuvi restricts the Petur of Chatas and Asham to where he Shechted the Asham as an Asham, but not if he Shechted it as an Olah or a Shelamim. Rebbi Yochanan will agree that Ho'il does not apply in the case of Asham to render the Shochet ba'Chutz, Chayav, even if he Shechted it as an Asham - because the Asham requires Akirah; whereas, in his opinion, the Pesach does not; it automatically becomes a Shelamim after Pesach.
5)
(a)What do we learn from the Pasuk in Matos "va'Nakreiv es Korban Hash-m" (with regard to the ornaments that the soldiers brought back as war spoils from Midian)?
(b)Then from where do we know that Shechting an animal of Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis ba'Chutz is not included in the prohibition of Shechitas Chutz?
(c)Is one permitted to donate an animal that is fit for the Mizbe'ach to Bedek ha'Bayis?
(d)And what do we preclude from the word "la'Hashem" mentioned there?
5)
(a)We learn from the Pasuk in Matos "va'Nakreiv es Korban Hash-m" (with regard to the ornaments that the soldiers brought back as war spoils from Midian) - that Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis is called a 'Korban'.
(b)Shechting an animal of Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis ba'Chutz is nevertheless not included in the prohibition of Shechitas Chutz - because the Torah writes "v'El Pesach Ohel Mo'ed Lo Hevi'o" (to teach us that one is only Chayav on Shecutei Chutz for animals that are fit to be brought to the entrance of the Ohel Mo'ed - i.e. Kodshei Mizbe'ach, which Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis are not).
(c)One is not permitted to donate an animal that is fit for the Mizbe'ach to Bedek ha'Bayis.
(d)From the word "la'Hashem" mentioned there we preclude the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach from the Din of Shechutei Chutz.
6)
(a)Why does Rashi omit 'Paras Chatas' from the previous Derashah?
6)
(a)Rashi omits 'Paras Chatas' (i.e. the Parah Adumah) from the previous Derashah - because it is anyway unfit to come to the Pesach Ohel Mo'ed (and has therefore already been precluded from the previous Derashah).
63b----------------------------------------63b
7)
(a)With regard to bringing an animal on the Mizbe'ach only from the eighth day and onwards (to preclude a 'Mechusar Zman') - the Torah writes in Emor "Yeratzeh l'Korban Isheh la'Hashem". What do we learn preclude from ...
1. ... "Isheh la'Hashem"?
2. ... "Korban"?
(b)"la'Hashem" comes to include the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach in this prohibition, in spite of the fact that it is not fit to go on the Mizbe'ach. How do we explain the fact that, in the previous Derashah, "la'Hashem" came to exclude the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach from the Lav of Shechutei Chutz, whereas here, it comes to include it in the prohibition of Mechusar Zman?
7)
(a)With regard to bringing an animal on the Mizbe'ach before it is eight days old, the Torah writes "Yeratzeh l'Korban Isheh la'Hashem". From ...
1. ... "Isheh" - we preclude a Korban from being brought on to the Mizbe'ach before it is eight days old.
2. ... "Korban" - that one may not even declare it Hekdesh.
(b)"la'Hashem" comes to include the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach in this prohibition, in spite of the fact that it is not fit to go on the Mizbe'ach - because, since the previous Derashah ("Korban") comes to exclude, "la'Hashem" comes to include; whereas in the previous case (that of Shechutei Chutz), since "el Pesach" came to include (whatever is fit to be brought to the entrance of the Ohel Mo'ed), "la'Hashem" comes to exclude (the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach from the Lav of Shechutei Chutz).
8)
(a)If not for "la'Hashem", the Beraisa would have permitted a baby kid-goat before its eighth day to be used as the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach. What is the problem with this?
(b)We try to solve it by establishing the Beraisa like Chanan ha'Mitzri. What does Chanan ha'Mitzri say? With whom does he argue?
(c)On what grounds do we reject this answer?
(d)So Rav Yosef establishes the Beraisa like Rebbi Shimon. What does he say?
8)
(a)If not for "la'Hashem", the Beraisa would have permitted a baby kid-goat before its eighth day to be used as the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach. But how can that be? Have we not learned that the Goral only fixes the Sa'ir la'Azazel if it is fit to be brought la'Hashem - which a baby of less than eight days is not!?
(b)We try to solve his problem by establishing the Beraisa like Chanan ha'Mitzri - who says that even if the blood (of the Sa'ir la'Hashem) is already in the cup, and the Sa'ir la'Azazel dies, he simply brings a goat from the market and combines it with the blood of the Sa'ir la'Hashem - without Hagralah!
(c)We reject this answer on the grounds that Chanan ha'Mitzri said nothing about not requiring Hagralah for the new goat. Perhaps two goats need to be brought, and it is only after the Hagralah, that they combine it with the blood - his Chidush being that he disagrees with Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah, who holds 'Mes ha'Mishtale'ach, Yishafech ha'Dam').
(d)So Rav Yosef establishes the Beraisa like Rebbi Shimon - who says that, if one of the goats dies, he brings a second one, specifically adding that Hagralah is unnecessary.
9)
(a)Ravina answers the current Kashya (in 8a) by establishing the Beraisa by a second goat, which received its Kedushah by transfer, after the original one became blemished. How does this dispense with the Kashya?
(b)With regard to the prohibition of bringing a Ba'al Mum, what do we learn from the Pasuk in Emor ...
1. ... "va'Isheh Lo Sitnu ... "?
2. ... "al ha'Mizbe'ach?
3. ... "la'Hashem"?
(c)From "Meihem" we learn that one is Chayav for bringing even part of the Chalavim of a Ba'al Mum on the Mizbe'ach. What constitutes a part?
(d)Why do we require a Pasuk to include the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach in the prohibition of both a Ba'al Mum and a Mechusar Zman? Why would we not know ...
1. ... a Ba'al Mum from a Mechusar Zman?
2. ... a Mechusar Zman from a Ba'al Mum?
9)
(a)Ravina answers that we need the Pasuk to invalidate a Mechusar Zman from being used as the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach by a substitute goat, which received its Kedushah by transfer (after the original one became blemished). This second goat does not require Hagralah (even according to the Rabanan of Rebbi Shimon, since its Kedushah came from the goat which had already been chosen by Hagralah.
(b)We learn from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "va'Isheh Lo Sitnu ... " - that the Chalavim of a Ba'al Mum are disqualified from being brought on the Mizbe'ach.
2. ... "al ha'Mizbe'ach - that it is also forbidden to sprinkle the blood.
3. ... "la'Hashem" - that the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach may not be a Ba'al Mum either.
(c)From "Mehem" we learn that one is Chayav for bringing even part of the Chalavim of a Ba'al Mum - i.e. a k'Zayis - on the Mizbe'ach.
(d)We require a Pasuk to include the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach in the prohibition of both a Ba'al Mum and a Mechusar Zman. We would not know ...
1. ... a Ba'al Mum from a Mechusar Zman - because a Mechusar Zman has the disadvantage of being premature, which a Ba'al Mum is not.
2. ... a Mechusar Zman from a Ba'al Mum - because a Ba'al Mum is considered disgusting in the eyes of Hash-m, which a Mechusar Zman is not.
10)
(a)Rava establishes the Beraisa of Mechusar Zman by a Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach whose mother was Shechted on Yom Kippur for a person who was dangerously ill (a different kind of Mechusar Zman). Which Kashya is Rava coming to answer, and how does he answer it?
(b)Considering that the Lav of 'Oso v'es 'Bno' applies exclusively to Shechting them on the same day, why should it pertain to a Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach, which is not Shechted?
10)
(a)Rava establishes the Beraisa of Mechusar Zman by a Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach whose mother was Shechted on Yom Kippur for a person who was dangerously ill (a question of 'Oso v'es Bno' - a different kind of Mechusar Zman) - in which case the Hagralah (which now took place before it became a Mechusar Zman) was valid, since, at that time, it was fit to be brought as the Sa'ir la'Hashem.
(b)Even though the Lav of 'Oso v'es 'Bno' applies exclusively to Shechting them on the same day - nevertheless it will pertain to a Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach, which, strictly speaking, is not Shechted, yet, since pushing it off the rock is its Mitzvah, it is considered a Shechitah, and the goat is therefore considered a Mechusar Zman.
