(b)What does our Mishnah learn from the words "Olas Ish" (in the Pasuk in Tzav [in connection with the skin of an Ola] "ve'ha'Kohen ha'Makriv Olas Ish")?
(c)Does this mean that they do not receive the skin of an Olah that was Shechted she'Lo li'Shemah?
(d)what is the Din regarding the Olah of a woman?
1)
(a)The skin of Kodshei Kodshim - is given to the Kohanim.
(b)Our Mishnah learns from the Pasuk in Tzav "ve'ha'Kohen ha'Makriv *Olas Ish*" that - the skin of an Olah belongs to the Kohanim only if the Basar is fit to be brought on the Mizbe'ach to atone for the owner (that it did not become Pasul before the Zerikah).
(c)They do however, receive the skin of an Olah that has been Shechted she'Lo li'Shemah (as we will see later) - despite the fact that the owner did not fulfill his obligation.
(d)There is no difference between the Olah of a man and the Olah of a woman in this regard.
2)
(a)From where do we know that the skin of other Kodshei Kodshim (besides the Olah) also goes to the Kohanim?
(b)What Pircha might we have asked on this from the Mizbe'ach?
(c)How do we reject it?
2)
(a)We know that the skin of other Kodshei Kodshim (besides the Olah) also goes to the Kohanim - from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Olah, where they do not receive the Basar, 'Kal va'Chomer' Chatas and Asham, where they do.
(b)We might have queried this from the Mizbe'ach - which receives the Basar of an Olah, but not the skin.
(c)We reject this Pircha however based on the fact that - the Mizbe'ach does not receive the skin of any other Korban either, whereas the Kohanim do.
3)
(a)Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa learns from "Olas Ish", to exclude Olas Hekdesh, which Rebbi Chiya bar Yosef interprets as Olah ha'Ba'ah min ha'Mosros. What does he mean by that?
(b)We query this however, according to the Tana who holds Mosros le'Nidvas Yachid. What do we mean?
(c)And we answer with a statement by Rava based on the letter 'Hey' in the word "ha'Olah" (in the Pasuk in Tzav "Hi ha'Olah al Mokdah al ha'Mizbe'ach"). What does Rava learn from there?
(d)How will this answer our Kashya?
3)
(a)Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa learns from "Olas Ish", to exclude Olas Hekdesh, which Rebbi Chiya bar Yosef interprets as Olah ha'Ba'ah min ha'Mosros - the skin of Olos Tzibur that are purchased from the proceeds of Ashamos that must be let loose in a field until it becomes blemished and are subsequently sold.
(b)We query this however, according to the Tana who holds Mosros le'Nidvas Yachid - the proceeds of those Ashamos are used, not to purchase a Korban Tzibur, but to purchase a Korban Yachid, on behalf of the owner of the Asham (so why should the skin should not go to the Kohanim).
(c)And we answer with a statement by Rava based on the letter 'Hey' in the word "ha'Olah" (in the Pasuk in Tzav "Hi ha'Olah al Mokdah al ha'Mizbe'ach") - which teaches us that the Tamid shel Shachar must be the first Korban to go on the Mizbe'ach.
(d)Likewise here (where the Torah also writes "ha'Olah") - it is only the skin of the original Hekdesh animal that is given to the Kohen, but not of the substitute.
4)
(a)According to Rebbi Aivu Amar Rebbi Yanai P'rat le'Olas Hekdesh refers to someone who designates his Olah to Bedek ha'Bayis. What Machlokes do we cite in this regard?
(b)What are the ramifications of the Machlokes?
(c)Why is precluding the Kohanim from receiving the skin obvious according to those who hold that Kedushas Bedek ha'Bayis is min ha'Torah?
(d)In fact, it also applies according to those who hold that it does not. Why is that?
(e)Rav Hamnuna queries Rav Nachman, who quoting Rabah bar Avuhah, concurs with Rebbi Yanai's explanation. What problem does he have with this ruling, based on the fact that it is the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa?
4)
(a)According to Rebbi Aivu Amar Rebbi Yanai, P'rat le'Olas Hekdesh refers to someone who designated his Olah to Bedek ha'Bayis. We cite a Machlokes in this regard - as to whether Kedushas Bedek ha'Bayis takes effect mi'd'Oraysa or only mi'de'Rabbanan.
(b)The ramifications of this Machlokes are - whether the need to redeem the animal before Shechting is mi'de'Rabbanan (because Kedushas Bedek ha'Bayis only takes effect mi'de'Rabbanan) or min ha'Torah (because it too, is min ha'Torah).
(c)Precluding the Kohanim from receiving the skin is obvious according to those who hold that Kedushas Bedek ha'Bayis is min ha'Torah - since then it is no longer Olas Ish, but Olas Hekdesh.
(d)In fact, it also applies according to those who hold that it does not - because that is as far as the Basar (which belongs to the Mizbe'ach) is concerned, but there is nothing to prevent the skin from becoming Hekdesh Bedek ha'Bayis min ha'Torah, according to all opinions.
(e)Rav Hamnuna queries Rav Nachman, who quoting Rabah bar Avuhah, concurs with Rebbi Yanai's explanation. The problem with this ruling is the fact that it is the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa - who specifically retracted from it.
5)
(a)We learned in a Beraisa that six were designated for Nedavah. Six what?
(b)According to Rebbi Yehudah, these were in order to place the Mosros, with which they would purchase Olos. What happened to the skin?
(c)On what basis did Rebbi Nechemyah (or Rebbi Shimon) object to that?
(d)What did Yehoyada ha'Kohen Darshen from the Pasuk in Vayikra "Ashom Asham, Asham Hu la'Hashem"?
5)
(a)We learned in a Beraisa that six - (Pushkas [collecting-boxes]) were designated for Nedavah.
(b)According to Rebbi Yehudah, these were in order to place the Mosaros, with which they would then purchase Olos - and the skin was given to the Kohanim.
(c)Rebbi Nechemyah (or Rebbi Shimon) objected to that - on the basis of Yehoyada ha'Kohen's D'rashah ...
(d)... from the Pasuk in Vayikra "Ashom Asham, Asham Hu la'Hashem" that - Mosros Chatas and Mosros Asham are used to purchase Olos, whose skin goes to the Kohanim.
6)
(a)What did Yehoyada mean here by Mosar Chatas?
(b)From where do we know that, according to Yehoyada, the skin of Mosaros goes to the Kohanim?
(c)How do we see from this Beraisa that Rebbi Yehudah retracted from his original viewpoint?
(d)How does Rav Hamnuna then establish Rebbi Yehudah's D'rashah "Olas Ish", 'P'rat le'Olas ha'Kodesh'? What is the case?
6)
(a)By Mosar Chatas, Yehoyada ha'Kohen meant here - some of the money that was designated as a Chatas, and that was not used.
(b)We know that, according to Yehoyada, the skin of Mosros goes to the Kohanim - from the Pasuk "Kesef Asham ve'Kesef Chata'os ... la'Kohanim Yih'yu".
(c)We see from this Beraisa that Rebbi Yehudah retracted from his original viewpoint - because he made no attempt to answer Rebbi Nechemyah's Kashya.
(d)Rav Hamnuna therefore establishes Rebbi Yehudah's D'rashah "Olas Ish", 'P'rat le'Olas ha'Kodesh' - in a case where someone declared all his property Hekdesh, as we will now see.
7)
(a)This latter D'rashah follows the opinion of Rebbi Yehoshua in a Mishnah in Shekalim. In a case where someone declared all his property Hekdesh (Bedek ha'Bayis), what, according to Rebbi Eliezer, does one do with animals that are fit for the Mizbe'ach, assuming they are ...
1. ... males?
2. ... females?
(b)Why not just ...
1. ... redeem them all and give them to Bedek ha'Bayis?
2. ... offer them all as Shelamim?
(c)According to Rebbi Yehoshua, one offers the male animals as Olos. What does one do with the females?
(d)Seeing as Rebbi Yehoshua considers the males Hekdesh Mizbe'ach, why, according to Rebbi Yehudah, does the skin not go to the Kohanim, like the skin of other Kodshei Kodshim?
7)
(a)This latter D'rashah follows the opinion of Rebbi Yehoshua in a Mishnah in Shekalim. In a case where someone declared all his property Hekdesh Bedek ha'Bayis, according to Rebbi Eliezer - animals that are fit for the Mizbe'ach, are sold; assuming they are ...
1. ... males - as Olos.
2. ... females - as Shelamim.
(b)They cannot just ...
1. ... all be redeemed and given to Bedek ha'Bayis - since we assume that the owner wants all animals that are fit to be brought as Korbanos, to go on the Mizbe'ach.
2. ... all be offered as Shelamim - because the owner declared them Hekdesh to Hash-m (and not for human consumption).
(c)According to Rebbi Yehoshua, one offers the male animals as Olos - the females are sold as Shelamim, and the money used to purchase Olos.
(d)Despite the fact that Rebbi Yehoshua considers the male animals Hekdesh Mizbe'ach, the skin does not go to the Kohanim, like the skin of other Kodshei Kodshim - because there is nothing to prevent them from becoming Hekdesh Bedek ha'Bayis (as we explained earlier).
8)
(a)What objection does Rav Sima'i bar Chilka'i initially raise with regard to the D'rashah of Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi (a third opinion) in the Beraisa "Olas Ish", 'P'rat le'Olas Geirim'?
(b)How does Ravina therefore interpret "Olas Geirim'?
(c)What do the Rabbanan Darshen from "Or ha'Olah"? What does it come to incorporate?
8)
(a)Rav Sima'i bar Chilka'i objects to the D'rashah of Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi (a third opinion) in the Beraisa "Olas Ish", 'P'rat le'Olas Geirim' - since Geirim are also included in "Ish".
(b)Ravina therefore interprets "Olas Geirim' - to refer to a Ger who died and who has no heirs.
(c)According to the Rabbanan, "Or ha'Olah" comes to incorporate - the skins of Kodshei Kodshim brought by women and Avadim.
9)
(a)Our Mishnah already Darshened "Olas Ish", Olah she'Alsah le'Ish'. What exactly, does this come to preclude?
(b)What does the Tana Kama of the Beraisa now include from ...
1. ... "Or ha'Olah"?
2. ... "Asher Hikriv"?
(c)And what does he exclude from "Or *ha'Olah*"?
(d)From where does Rebbi Yishmael learn that the skins of other Kodshei Kodshim have the same din as those of an Olah?
9)
(a)Our Mishnah already Darshened "Olas Ish", 'Olah she'Alsah le'Ish' - which comes to preclude an Olah that was Shechted Chutz li'Zemano or Chutz li'Mekomo.
(b)The Tana Kama of the Beraisa now includes from ...
1. ... "Or ha'Olah" - an Olah that was Shechted she'Lo li'Shemah.
2. ... "Asher Hikriv" - the skins of other Kodshei Kodshim.
(c)And from "Or *ha'Olah*", he excludes the skin of Kodshim Kalim (from going to the Kohanim).
(d)Rebbi Yishmael learns that the skins of other Kodshei Kodshim have the same Din as those of an Olah - from a Kal-va'Chomer from Olah, as we learned in our Mishnah.
103b------------------103b
10)
(a)Rebbi, in the same Beraisa, disagrees with the previous Tana'im. What does he say about the skin of Korbanos?
(b)How do we see this by ...
1. ... Parim ha'Nisrafin u'Se'irim ha'Nisrafin?
2. ... Chatas, Asham and Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur?
3. ... Kodshim Kalim?
(c)In what way is Olah unique, according to Rebbi? What makes it the only Korban whose skin is given independently to the Kohanim?
10)
(a)Rebbi, in the same Beraisa, disagrees with the previous Tana'im. According to him - the skin always goes together with the Basar.
(b)We see this by ...
1. ... Parim ha'Nisrafin u'Se'irim ha'Nisrafin - where the skin is burned together with the Basar.
2. ... Chatas, Asham and Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur - where the Basar is given to the Kohen with the skin still attached, to remove or to eat with the Korban, as he sees fit.
3. ... Kodshim Kalim - where the skin with Basar belong to the owner, to remove or to eat with the Korban, as he sees fit.
(c)Olah is unique, according to Rebbi - inasmuch as it is the only Korban which requires skinning (explaining why we need a Pasuk to teach us that it is given to the Kohanim).
11)
(a)What does Rebbi learn from the Pasuk in Tzav "Or ha'Olah asher Hikriv lo Yih'yeh"?
(b)Why do we need a Pasuk to preclude a T'vul Yom, a Mechusar Kipurim and an Onan from receiving the skin? Why might we have thought that they do?
(c)Why do the Rabbanan in the Beraisa need to learn the skin of Kodshei Kodshim from a Pasuk? Why do they not learn it from a 'Kal-va'Chomer' like Rebbi Yishmael?
11)
(a)Rebbi learns from the Pasuk "Or ha'Olah asher Hikriv lo Yih'yeh" that - a T'vul Yom, a Mechusar Kipurim and an Onein are precluded from receiving the skin of the Olah.
(b)We need a Pasuk to preclude them - because we would otherwise have thought that, although they are precluded from eating the Basar of Kodshim, there is no reason why they should not receive the skin.
(c)The Rabbanan in the Beraisa learn the skin of Kodshei Kodshim from a Pasuk, in spite of the Kal-va'Chomer of Rebbi Yishmael - due to the principle Milsa de'Asya be'Kal-va'Chomer Tarach ve'Kasav lah K'ra (the Torah will not refrain from stating specifically something that we already know from a Kal-va'Chomer).
12)
(a)What does Rebbi Yishmael learn from "Asher Hikriv"?
(b)The reason that he does not learn it from "Lo Yih'yeh" (like Rebbi) is because he needs "Lo Yih'yeh" for a 'Gezeirah-Shavah', as Rebbi Yochanan taught. What does he learn from "Lo Yih'yeh" from Asham?
(c)Why must the Gezeirah-Shavah be Mufneh (superfluous)? What Pircha could we otherwise ask?
(d)How is it indeed Mufneh.
12)
(a)Rebbi Yishmael learns from "Asher Hikriv" - to preclude a Kohen who is a T'vul Yom, a Mechusar Kipurim or an Onan from receiving a portion in the skin of Kodshei Kodshim.
(b)The reason that he does not learn it from "Lo Yih'yeh" (like Rebbi) is because he needs "Lo Yih'yeh" for a Gezeirah-Shavah "Lo Yih'yeh" "Lo Yih'yeh" from Asham (like Rebbi Yochanan taught, to teach that - the bones of an Olah are permitted to use, just like those of an Asham (which are permitted together with the Basar).
(c)The Gezeirah-Shavah must be Mufneh (superfluous) - because otherwise we could not learn Olah (whose Basar is forbidden) from Asham (whose Basar is permitted).
(d)It is indeed Mufneh - because the Torah could have written "Or ha'Olah asher Hikriv la'Kohen" (omitting "Lo Yih'yeh").
13)
(a)What happens to the skin of Kodshim that became Pasul ...
1. ... before the Hefshet (the skinning)?
2. ... after the Hefshet?
(b)What did Rebbi Chanina, the S'gan (deputy) Kohen Gadol attest?
(c)Rebbi Akiva extrapolates from his words that if a B'chor is found to be a T'reifah after the skinning, the skin is permitted. Under what condition is he speaking?
(d)What makes the skin of a B'chor different than the skin of the other Kodshim that we have been discussing?
(e)On what basis did the Chachamim reject his proof?
13)
(a)The skin of Kodshim that became Pasul ...
1. ... before the Hefshet (the skinning) - remains forbidden.
2. ... after the Hefshet - goes to the Kohanim.
(b)Rebbi Chanina, the S'gan (deputy) Kohen Gadol attested that - he never saw the skin of Kodshim having to be burned.
(c)Rebbi Akiva extrapolates from his words that if a B'chor is found to be a T'reifah after the skinning, the skin is permitted - provided it is only discovered after the Z'rikas ha'Dam.
(d)The skin of a B'chor is different than the skin of the other Kodshim that we have been discussing - inasmuch as it is Kodshim Kalim, and is sometimes Shechted outside the Beis Hamikdash (as we will see in the Sugya).
(e)The Chachamim reject his proof however - based on the principle that not seeing something does not mean that it did not happen (Ein Lo Ra'isi Re'ayah).
14)
(a)What observation do we make regarding the previous Mishnah (the Reisha) 'Whenever the Mizbe'ach does not acquire the Basar, the Kohanim do not acquire the skin'?
(b)Why do we establish this like Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon? What did he say about the blood permitting?
(c)On what basis does the skin therefore remain forbidden to the Kohanim?
(d)We extrapolate from our current Mishnah (the Seifa) that the author must then be Rebbi. Why is that? What does Rebbi say?
14)
(a)We observe that when our Mishnah says 'Whenever the Mizbe'ach does not acquire the Basar, the Kohanim do not acquire the skin' - it implies even if the skinning took place before the Z'rikas ha'Dam ...
(b)... like Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, who rules that the blood does not even permit the (detached) skin of a Pasul Korban.
(c)Consequently, the skin remains forbidden to the Kohanim - due to the Isur of Me'ilah be'Kodshim.
(d)We extrapolate from our current Mishnah that the author must then be Rebbi - because he is the one who holds that the Z'rikas ha'Dam permits the (detached) skin of a Pasul animal.
15)
(a)What problem do we now have with the two Mishnahs?
(b)To solve the problem, how does ...
1. ... Abaye reconcile the Reisha of the Mishnah like Rebbi? Why does the Mishnah present a blanket Isur, when according to Rebbi, there is a Heter (if the skin was flayed before the Zerikah)?
2. ... Rava reconcile the Seifa with Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon? How does he interpret Kodem Hefshet and Achar Hefshet?
15)
(a)The problem with the two Mishnahs is - how the Reisha can go like Rebbi Elazar and the Seifa like Rebbi?
(b)To solve the problem ...
1. ... Abaye reconciles the Reisha of the Mishnah with Rebbi, and the reason that the Mishnah presents a blanket Isur, when according to Rebbi, there is a Heter (if the skin is skinned before the Z'rikah) is - because it is unusual for the Kohanim to delay the Z'rikas ha'Dam until after the skinning.
2. ... Rava reconciles the Seifa with Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon by interpreting Kodem Hefshet as - Kodem she'Nir'u le'Hefshet and Achar Hefshet as Achar she'Nir'u le'Hefshet (meaning after the Zerikah, but before the skin has actually been removed).
