1)
(a)Rebbi Yehudah asked the Rabbanan why, seeing as they disagree with him regarding the cupful of blood, the Kohanim would block up the exit of the Amah to prevent the blood from flowing out of the Azarah. What did they reply?
(b)According to the Chachamim, why did the blood on the Kohanim's feet not constitute a Chatzitzah?
(c)What does the Beraisa say about blood, ink, honey and milk?
(d)What renaining problem do we still have with the fact that, according to the Chachamim, the Kohanim had to wade through the blood?
1)
(a)When Rebbi Yehudah asked the Rabbanan why, seeing as they disagree with him regarding the cupful of blood, the Kohanim would block up the exit of the Amah to prevent the blood from flowing out of the Azarah, they replied that - it was considered praiseworthy for the Kohanim to wade through the Azarah up to their knees in blood.
(b)According to the Chachamim, the blood on the Kohanim's feet did not constitute a Chatzitzah - because it was still wet.
(c)The Beraisa rules that - once blood, ink honey and milk are dry, they constitute a Chatzitzah, whereas as long as they are still wet, they do not.
(d)The remaining problem with the fact that, according to the Chachamim, the Kohanim had to wade through the blood is that - it will stain the Bigdei Kehunah, and as we learned in the previous Perek, stained Bigdei Kehunah invalidate the Avodah.
2)
(a)To dispense with the current problem, why can the Kohanim simply not raise the hem of their shirts?
(b)On what grounds do we refute the suggestion that they are only required to wade through the blood whilst carrying the limbs on to the ramp, because it is not an Avodah?
(c)Then by which non-Avodah do the Kohanim wade through the blood (hems raised)?
(d)How do they then avoid getting their clothes blood-stained when carrying the limbs and the blood to the Mizbe'ach?
2)
(a)To dispense with the current problem, the Kohanim cannot simply raise the hem of their shirts - because as we already learned (from the word "Mido"), shortened clothes too, invalidate the Avodah.
(b)We refute the suggestion that they are only required to wade through the blood whilst carrying the limbs on to the ramp, because it is not an Avodah - since as we already learned in the first Perek (from the Pasuk "Vehikriv ha'Kohen es ha'Kol"), that carrying the limbs on to the ramp is considered an Avodah.
(c)In fact, the Kohanim wade through the blood, hems raised - when carrying wood on to the Mizbe'ach (which is definitely not an Avodah).
(d)And to avoid getting their clothes blood-stained, they carry the limbs and the blood on to the Mizbe'ach - by walking along the Itzteba'os (stone colonnades built in the floor of the Azarah).
3)
(a)What does the Tana Kama of our Mishnah say about someone who Shechts a Korban having in mind to eat ...
1. ... part of the animal that is not normally eaten or to burn part of it that is not normally burned, Chutz li'Mekomo or Chutz li'Zemano?
2. ... less than a k'Zayis of part of the animal that is normally eaten or to burn less than a k'Zayis that is normally burned, Chutz li'Mekomo or Chutz li'Zemano?
3. ... less than a k'Zayis of part of the animal that is normally eaten and to burn less than a k'Zayis that is normally burned, Chutz li'Mekomo or Chutz li'Zemano ...
(b)What is the reason for the latter ruling?
(c)With which of these rulings does Rebbi Eliezer disagree?
(d)And what does the Tana say about someone who Shechts a Korban with the intention of eating a k'Zayis of the skin or the gravy Chutz li'Zemano ve'Chutz li'Mekomo? Which other three P'sulin are they (as well as the remainder of items on the list that we are about to discuss) not subject to?
(e)The Tana includes the Kifah and the Elel in the list. If Kifah constitutes the spices and the fragments of meat at the bottom of the pot, what is Elel?
3)
(a)According to the Tana Kama of our Mishnah, if someone Shechts a Korban having in mind to eat ...
1. ... part of the animal that is not normally eaten or to burn part of it that is not normally burned, Chutz li'Mekomo or Chutz li'Zemano - the Korban does not become Pasul.
2. ... less than a k'Zayis of part of the animal that is normally eaten or to burn less than a k'Zayis that is normally burned, Chutz li'Mekomo or Chutz li'Zemano or ...
3. ... less than a k'Zayis of part of the animal that is normally eaten and to burn less than a k'Zayis that is normally burned, Chutz li'Mekomo or Chutz li'Zemano - the Korban does not become Pasul either.
(b)The reason for the latter ruling is - because Achilah and Haktarah do not combine).
(c)Rebbi Eliezer disagrees - with the first of these rulings, because, according to him, a Machsheves Chutz li'Zemano or Chutz li'Mekomo, even on part of the animal that is not normally eaten or burned, invalidates the Korban (as we already learned).
(d)The Tana also rules that if someone Shechts a Korban with the intention of eating a k'Zayis of the skin or the gravy Chutz li'Zemano ve'Chutz li'Mekomo - the Korban is not Pasul. Neither are they (nor the remainder of items on the list, that we are about to discuss) subject to the Din of Pigul (if the Kohen had a Machsheves Chutz li'Zemano on a k'Zayis Basar or Emurin), Nosar or Tum'ah.
(e)The Tana includes in the list the Kifah (the spices and the fragments of meat at the bottom of the pot) and the Elel - the nerve in the neck (which is hard).
4)
(a)Which other four parts of the animal does the Tana add to the list?
(b)What do all the items in the Tana's list have in common?
(c)Why are ...
1. ... the fetus and the placenta of an animal not subject to Machsheves Chutz li'Zemano or Chutz li'Mekomo?
2. ... the eggs of a bird on which the Kohen performs Melikah not subject to Machsheves Chutz li'Zemano or Chutz li'Mekomo?
(d)Which other two Isurim are the milk of Mukdashin and eggs of a pigeon of Kodshim not subject to?
4)
(a)The other four parts of the animal listed by the Tana are - the bones, the nerves, the horns and the hooves.
(b)All the items in the Tana's list - are not edible.
(c)The ...
1. ... fetus and the placenta of an animal and ...
2. ... the eggs of a a bird on which the Kohen performs Melikah are not subject to Machsheves Chutz li'Zemano or Chutz li'Mekomo - because they are not considered part of the Korban [though according to Rebbi Elazar, the reason would appear to be a different one, as we will see shortly]).
(d)The other two Isurim that the milk of Mukdashin and eggs of a pigeon of Kodshim not subject to are - Nosar and Tum'ah.
5)
(a)Rebbi Elazar holds Pigeil be'Zevach, Nispagel ha'Shelil. Why is that?
(b)Then on what grounds does he continue Pigeil ba'Shelil, Lo Nispagel ha'Zevach?
(c)In the latter case, what is the Din regarding the Sh'lil itself?
5)
(a)Rebbi Elazar holds Pigeil be'Zevach, Nispagel ha'Sh'lil - because, based on the principle Ubar Yerech Imo hu, he holds that - the fetus is part of the mother.
(b)Nevertheless he continues Pigeil ba'Shelil, Lo Nispagel ha'Zevach - because a Sh'lil is inedible (and as we learned in our Mishnah, a Machsheves Achilah on part of the animal which is inedible does not render the Korban Pigul).
(c)In the latter case - the Sh'lil itself is certainly not subject to Pigul, as we learned in our Mishnah.
6)
(a)Rebbi Elazar continues Pigeil be'Elel, Nispagel ha'Mura'ah, but not vice-versa. What is Mura'ah?
(b)If not vice-versa is due to the fact that the crop is not edible, what is the reason for the initial ruling (bearing in mind that in our Mishnah, we described Elel too, as being inedible)?
(c)And he states further Pigeil be'Emurim, Nispaglu Parim; be'Parim, Lo Nispaglu Emurim. What does Parim refer to?
(d)What is the reason for the latter ruling?
(e)What can we extrapolate from Rebbi Elazar's dual rulings regarding the Sh'lil, the Mura'ah and the Basar Parim?
6)
(a)Rebbi Elazar continues Pigeil be'Elel, Nispagel ha'Mura'ah - its crop, but not vice-versa ...
(b)... because the Mura'ah is not edible; and the reason for the initial ruling is - because the Elel of a bird which is soft, is edible (and when our Mishnah describes Elel as inedible, it is referring to the Elel of an animal, which is hard).
(c)And he states further Pigeil be'Emurim, Nispaglu Parim; be'Parim, Lo Nispaglu Emurim. Parim refers to - Parim ha'Nisrafin, which are entirely burned outside Yerushalayim.
(d)The reason for the latter ruling is - because the Basar of the Parim is not fit to eat, in which case it is not considered a Machsheves P'sul.
(e)We can extrapolate from Rebbi Elazar's dual rulings regarding the Sh'lil, the Mura'ah and the Basar Parim that - even something that cannot render others Pigul is nevertheless subject to Pigul.
7)
(a)Rebbi Shimon and the Rabbanan argue in Perek T'vul-Yom over whether Parim ha'Nisrafin are subject to Pigul at all. What does the Beraisa say about a case where the Kohen sprinkled the blood with the intention of eating their Basar or burning their Emurim Chutz li'Zemano?
(b)How do we reconcile this with what we learned in the previous Perek Chishav she'Tochleihu Eish le'Machar, Pigul?
(c)When, according to the Rabbanan, will Pigul then apply to Parim ha'Nisrafin?
(d)What do we try to extrapolate from the Lashon of the Beraisa ve'Shavin she'Im Chishav ba'Achilas Parim, u'vi'Sereifasan, Lo Asah ve'Lo K'lum (as a proof for Rebbi Elazar)?
(e)How do we refute this proof? If a Machshavah on the Emurim does not render the Parim, Pigul, then what does it render Pigul?
7)
(a)Rebbi Shimon and the Rabbanan argue in Perek T'vul-Yom over whether Parim ha'Nisrafin are subject to Pigul at all. In a case where the Kohen sprinkled the blood with the intention of eating their Basar or burning their Emurim Chutz li'Zemano, the Beraisa rules that - even according to the Rabbanan, whether the Kohen thinks to eat the Parim after the allotted time or to burn the Emurim after their allotted time, the Korban remains Kasher ...
(b)... and what we learned in the previous Perek Chishav she'Tochleihu Eish le'Machar, Pigul - is only if he thought that the Mizbe'ach will eat the Emurim after their time (which is not applicable to Parim ha'Nisrafim, which are not burned on the Mizbe'ach), as we explained there.
(c)According to the Rabbanan, Pigul will apply to Parim ha'Nisrafin - if the Kohen has the Machshavah of Chutz li'Zemano during the S'reifas ha'Emurin.
(d)We try to infer from the Lashon of the Beraisa ve'Shavin she'Im Chishav ba'Achilas Parim, u'vi'Sereifasan Lo Asah ve'Lo K'lum - ha Chishav be'Eimirin, Nispaglu Parim (even though the Parim cannot make Pigul, a proof for Rebbi Elazar).
(e)We refute this proof however - by switching the inference as ha Chisav be'Eimirin, Nispaglu ha'Emurim (Atzman).
35b----------------------------------------35b
8)
(a)The Beraisa discusses Parim ha'Nisrafin u'Se'irim ha'Nisrafin. At which stage do they become ...
1. ... subject to Me'ilah?
2. ... Pasul through being touched by a T'vul-Yom or a Mechusar Kipurim and subject to Linah?
(b)How do we again try to prove Rebbi Elazar right from here?
(c)According to the Seifa of the Beraisa, up until when are they subject to Me'ilah?
(d)Why does the Seifa create a problem with our suggestion that Linah in the Reisha refers to Linas Emurim (and not Basar)?
(e)How do we refute this Kashya?
8)
(a)The Beraisa discusses Parim ha'Nisrafin u'Se'irim ha'Nisrafin, which become ...
1. ... subject to Me'ilah - the moment they are sanctified.
2. ... Pasul through being touched by a T'vul-Yom or a Mechusar Kipurim and subject to Linah - the moment they have been Shechted.
(b)We again try to prove Rebbi Elazar right from here - because assuming that Linah refers to the Basar, just as Linas Basar invalidates the Basar, so too, will Machsheves Linas Basar (Chutz li'Zemano) invalidate it.
(c)According to the Seifa of the Beraisa, they are subject to Me'ilah - up until the Basar is completely burned.
(d)The Seifa creates a problem with our suggestion that Linah in the Reisha refers to Linas Emurim (and not Basar) - because since the Seifa is speaking about the Basar, so too, we think, is the Seifa.
(e)We refute this Kashya however - with Ha ke'de'Iysa, ve'Ha ke'de'Iysa' (the Reisha is speaking about the Emurim, and the Seifa, about the Basar (leaving us without a proof for Rebbi Elazar).
9)
(a)The Beraisa, which now discusses the things that are neither Mefagel nor Mispagel, lists all the items in our Mishnah. Why does the Tana there find it necessary to add specifically the wool of the head and the hair of the goat's beard?
(b)From which La'av does the Tana exempt them, besides those of Pigul, Nosar and Tamei?
(c)How does Rabah query Rebbi Elazar from this Beraisa? How does he interpret ve'Eilu she'Ein Mefaglin ve'Ein Mispaglin?
(d)How do we establish it, in order to refute the Kashya?
9)
(a)The Beraisa, which now discusses the things that are neither Mefagel nor Mispagel, lists all the items in our Mishnah. The Tana there finds it necessary to add specifically the wool of the head and the hair of the goat's beard - because we would otherwise have thought that they must be burned on the Mizbe'ach together with the skin, which is also not normally included in the Haktarah, but which is together with the head (due to a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv).
(b)Besides the La'avin of Pigul, Nosar and Tamei, the Tana also exempts them from the La'av of Ma'aleh ba'Chutz (sacrificing them outside the Beis-Hamikdash).
(c)Rabah queries Rebbi Elazar from ve'Eilu she'Ein Mefaglin ve'Ein Mispaglin - which he assumes to mean that - they are neither Mefagel the Korban, not do they become Pigul on account of the Korban.
(d)We refute the Kashya by establishing it to mean that - they are neither Mefagel the Korban, not do they become Pigul on account of themselves, but on account of the Korban, they do become Pigul (like Rebbi Elazar).
10)
(a)Rabah's proof is based on the Seifa Kulan Lo Mefaglin ve'Lo Mispaglin. Why is that a problem?
(b)How do we counter this Kashya from the continuation ve'Ein Chayavin aleihen Mishum Pigul, Nosar ve'Tamei?
(c)Why indeed, does the Tana repeat Pigul?
(d)What do we therefore conclude?
10)
(a)Rabah's proof is based on the Seifa Kulan Lo Mefaglin ve'Lo Mispaglin - which (according to our interpretation of the Reisha) seems to be merely repeating it.
(b)We counter this Kashya from the continuation ve'Ein Chayavin aleihen Mishum Pigul, Nosar ve'Tamei - where Pigul is also nothing more than a repetition of the Reisha.
(c)In fact, the Tana inserts Pigul - on account of Nosar and Tamei ...
(d)... and by the same token, he adds Kulan Lo Mefaglin ve'Lo Mispaglin on account of ha'Ma'aleh meihen ba'Chutz, Patur.
11)
(a)What does Rava extrapolate from the Seifa of our Mishnah Chalav ha'Mukdashin u'Beitzei Torim Ein Chayavin aleihen Mishum Pigul, Nosar ve'Tamei', (bearing in mind that the Tana has just said Hashochet es ha'Mukdashin Le'echol Sh'lil O ha'Shilya ba'Chutz, Lo Pigeil')?
(b)How does he then reconcile the apparent contradiction between the two statements?
(c)What does he prove from there?
11)
(a)Bearing in mind that the Tana has just said Hashochet es ha'Mukdashin Le'echol Sh'lil O ha'Shilya ba'Chutz, Lo Pigeil, Rava extrapolates from the Seifa of our Mishnah Chalav ha'Mukdashin u'Beitzei Torim Ein Chayavin aleihen Mishum Pigul, Nosar ve'Tamei - Ha Sh'lil ve'Shilya, Chayavin.
(b)And he reconciles the apparent contradiction between the two statements - by establishing the former ruling by Machmas Atzman (where he thought to eat the Sh'lil and the Shilya themselves Chutz li'Zemano), and the latter ruling by Machmas ha'Zevach (where he had in mind to eat the Basar Chutz li'Zemano) ...
(c)... a proof for Rebbi Elazar.
12)
(a)The Tana Kama in Perek ha'Mizbe'ach Mekadesh includes Ba'alei Mumin among the Pesulin that Im Alu, Yerdu (If they are taken up on to the Mizbe'ach, they must come down). What does Rebbi Akiva say?
(b)Rebbi Yochanan restricts Rebbi Akiva's ruling to the Mum of Dukin she'be'Ayin (eye's web). Why is that?
(c)He also requires the Hekdesh to have preceded the Mum. Why is that?
(d)In which case of Olah Pesulah will Rebbi Akiva concede that Im Alah, Yeired, even though it is Kasher by an Olas ha'Of?
(e)Why is that?
12)
(a)The Tana Kama in Perek ha'Mizbe'ach Mekadesh includes Ba'alei Mumin among the Pesulin that Im Alu, Yerdu (If they are taken up on to the Mizbe'ach, they must come down). Rebbi Akiva holds - Im Alu, Lo Yerdu.
(b)Rebbi Yochanan restricts Rebbi Akiva's ruling to the Mum of Dukin she'be'Ayin (eye's web) - because it is Kasher by the Korban of a bird (which is not subject to the P'sul of Mumin).
(c)He also requires the Hekdesh to have preceded the blemish - because Kedushas Mizbe'ach cannot take effect on a Ba'al-Mum, only Kedushas Damim.
(d)Rebbi Akiva will concede that an Olas Nekeivah Im Alah, Yeired (even though a Nekeivah is Kasher by an Olas ha'Of and by Shalmei Beheimah) ...
(e)... because it is compared to an animal whose blemish preceded its Hekdesh).
13)
(a)We learned in the Beraisa (that we cited earlier) ha'Ma'aleh meihen ba'Chutz, Patur. Rebbi Zeira extrapolates from the Beraisa Meihen (from the Sh'lil and the Shilya), Ha me'Iman, Chayav.' Why must this be talking about an Olas Nekeivah, and not for example, a Shelamim?
(b)Why must the author be Rebbi Akiva?
(c)What Kashya does this pose on what we just learned?
(d)What objection do we raise to the suggestion that the inference reads (not Ha me'Iman, Chayav, but) Ha me'Eimurei Iman, Chayav?
(e)How do we therefore amend 'ha'Ma'aleh Meihen ba'Chutz, Patur', to accommodate the suggestion?
13)
(a)We learned in the Beraisa (that we cited earlier) ha'Ma'aleh meihen ba'Chutz, Patur. Rebbi Zeira extrapolates from the Beraisa meihen (from the Sh'lil and the Shilya), Ha me'Iman, Chayav. This must be talking about an Olas Nekeivah, and not for example, a Shelamim - because the Basar of a Shelamim is not fit to be brought on the Mizbe'ach, and is therefore not subject to the La'av of Ma'aleh ba'Chutz.
(b)The author must be Rebbi Akiva - who holds Im Alsah, Lo Teired', which explains why it is Chayav ba'Chutz.
(c)This poses a Kashya on what we just learned - that Rebbi Akiva concedes that the Basar of a Nekeivah le'Olah 'Im Alsah, Teired'.
(d)We object to the suggestion that the inference reads (not Ha me'Iman, Chayav, but) Ha me'Eimurei Iman, Chayav - because ha'Ma'aleh meihen Patur (the source of the inference) is talking about the Basar, and not the Emurin.
(e)To accommodate the suggestion, we therefore amend ha'Ma'aleh meihen ba'Chutz, Patur, to read ha'Ma'aleh me'Emureihen ba'Chutz, Patur.
14)
(a)According to Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah, if someone Shechts a Korban having in mind to leave its blood or its Emurin until the next day, it is Pasul. What is strange about this ruling?
(b)What do the Chachamim say?
(c)What does our Mishnah say in a case where one Shechts the Korban having in mind ...
1. ... to place the blood on part of the Mizbe'ach where there is no Y'sod, above the Chut ha'Sikra instead of below it, or vice-versa, or on the outer Mizbe'ach instead of on the inner one, or vice-versa?
2. ... that Teme'im or Areilim should eat it or bring it?
3. ... to break its bones (assuming it is a Korban Pesach)?
(d)Which other case of Machsheves P'sul does the Tana add with regard to a Korban Pesach?
14)
(a)According to Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah, if someone Shechts a Korban, having in mind to leave its blood or its Emurin until the next day, the Korban is Pasul. This is strange - seeing as this is neither Achilah nor Haktarah.
(b)The Chachamim - declare the Korban, Kasher.
(c)Our Mishnah rules in a case where one Shechts the Korban having in mind ...
1. ... to place the blood on part of the Mizbe'ach where there is no Y'sod, above the Chut ha'Sikra instead of below it, or vice-versa, or on the outer Mizbe'ach instead of on the inner one, or vice-versa that - the Korban is Kasher, and the same applies in a case where he had in mind ...
2. ... that Teme'im or Areilim should eat it or bring it, or ...
3. ... to break its bones (assuming it is a Korban Pesach).
(d)The other case of Machsheves P'sul mentioned by the Tana with regard to a Korban Pesach is - if he had in mind to eat it cooked or half roasted.
15)
(a)What does the Tana finally say about a case where the Kohen has in mind to mix the blood with the blood of a Pasul Korban?
(b)What is the principle that governs this ruling? What are the only three Machshavos that render a Korban Pasul or Pigul?
15)
(a)The Tana finally rules that if the Kohen has in mind to mix the blood with the blood of a Pasul Korban - the Korban is Kasher ...
(b)... because a Korban only becomes Pasul or Pigul with one of three Machchovos - Chutz li'Zemano, Chutz li'Mekomo or, in the case of a Pesach or a Chatas, she'Lo Lish'mo.