ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafPesachim 59
(a) The reason that the Korban Pesach does not proceed the Ketores and
Hadlakas ha'Neros (despite the fact that the a Torah writes by it both
"ba'Erev" and "Bein ha'Arbayim", whereas only "Bein ha'Arbayim" is used by
them) - is because of the Pasuk "Ya'aroch *Oso* Aharon ... me'Erev ad Boker"
(written by Hadlakas Neiros), from which Chazal derive 'Oso me'Erev ad
Boker, ve'Ein Davar Acher me'Erev ad Boker'.
(b) The Korban Pesach also precedes the Ketores - because the Ketores is
compared to Hadlakas Neiros (see question 1b).
(a) The second Beraisa which places the Korban Pesach *after* Hadlakas
ha'Neros and the Ketores - learns from "Oso" to preclude only the
Ketores, which (in spite of the Pasuk in Ki Sisa "u've'Ha'alos Aharon es
ha'Neiros, Bein ha'Arbayim Yaktirenah", which suggests that the Ketores is
to be burnt *after* the Hadlakas Neiros) must now be burnt *before* it.
(b) The Tana prefers to preclude the Ketores from proceeding the Hadlakas
Neiros rather than The Korban Tamid - because, like Hadlakas Neiros, the
Ketores is an Avodas Penim (i.e. it is performed, not in the Azarah, like
the Tamid was, but in the Heichal).
(c) We now interpret the Pasuk "u've'Ha'alos Aharon es ha'Neiros, Bein
ha'Arbayim Yaktirenah" - to mean that when Aharon kindles the Menorah, the
Ketores must already have been sacrificed.
(d) The reason that the Ketores preceded the Tamid shel Shachar - is because
the Torah writes by it "ba'Boker, ba'Boker", whereas by the Tamid it writes
(a) A Mechusar Kipurim (a Zav or a Metzora) who needed to bring their Korban
at the termination of their extended period of Tum'ah, in order to eat the
Korban Pesach - were also permitted to bring their respective Korbanos after
the Tamid shel Bein ha'Arbayim.
(b) A Mechusar Kipurim Tovels on the seventh day, and then again on the
eighth day before he is permitted to eat Kodesh.
(a) Rebbi Yishmael Be'no shel Yochanan ben Berokah is even more lenient than
the Tana Kama - he permits a Mechusar Kipurim to bring his Korbanos after
the Tamid, the whole year round.
(b) A Mechusar Kipurim over-rides the Din of Hashlamah on Erev Pesach
(according to everyone) - because the Asei of bringing the Korban Pesach
carries with it a penalty of Kares, which the Asei of Hashlamah does not. So
it is a case of a more stringent Asei over-riding a less stringent one.
(c) Ravina quoting Rav Chisda explains why the Asei of Mechusar Kipurim the
whole year round (when there is no Kares), over-rides that of Hashlamah - by
establishing Rebbi Yishmael Be'no shel Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah by a
Chatas ha'Of of a Metzora Ani - which is eaten by the Kohanim without any of
it being brought on the Mizbei'ach, in which case there is no Isur of
Hashlamah (which was only written with regard to bringing a Korban *on the
Mizbei'ach* after the Tamid).
(a) Rav Papa establishes Rebbi Yishmael even by a Chatas Beheimah - because,
according to him, all he needs to do is to place the animal on the
Mizbei'ach, thereby fulfilling the requirement of "ve'Hikrivo Lifnei Hashem"
(which subsequently permits the Mechusar Kipurim to eat Kodshim), without
contravening the Asei of Hashlamah (which is restricted to *burning* the
animal on the Mizbei'ach, and not just to placing it at the side).
(b) An animal does not become Pasul be'Linah as long as it on the
Mizbei'ach, even though it has not been sacrificed.
(c) According to Rav Chisda, the Beraisa speaks when he has already brought
(a) The Gemara would not dream of suggesting that maybe the Kaparah of the
Asham does not prevent him from eating Kodshim - since the main Kaparah
ceremony centers around the Asham (when its blood is placed on his thumbs
(b) The Pasuk "ve'Hikriv es Asher la'Chatas Rishonah" - serves as a Binyan
Av for all people who are obligated to bring a Chatas and an Olah, that they
must bring the Chatas first (even if it is a Chatas *ha'Of* and an Olas
*Beheimah*). In that case, we cannot explain that the Metzora has already
brought his Olah (before the Chatas), and the Kashya remains on Rav Chisda
'What about the Olas ha'Of - which *does* go on the Mizbei'ach, but which
cannot have been brought yet. How does he now avoid contravening the Asei of
(c) We learn from the Pasuk "ve'He'elah ha'Kohen es ha'Olah" - 'she'He'elah
K'var' (i.e. that since the Torah writes "ve'He'elah" - in the past -
instead of "Ya'aleh" in the future - we deduce that Bedieved, if one brought
an Olah before the Chatas, he is Yotzei. Consequently, the Beraisa must be
speaking when he had indeed brought * the Olah already.
(a) According to Rav Papa, who says that they place the Chatas Beheimah on
the Mizbei'ach overnight, we are not afraid that a Kohen who comes across
it, will mistake it for yesterday's Korban, and place it on the Mizbei'ach -
because of the principle 'Kohanim Zerizim Hem'.
(b) We learn from ...
1. ... "ve'Hiktir ha'Kohen es ha'Chelev ha'Mizbeichah ... ve'Hayah he'Chazeh
le'Aharon u'le'Vanav" - that the Kohanim are not permitted to eat the Chazeh
ve'Shok (the chest and the right calf) before the Chalavim have been placed
on the Mizbei'ach to burn.
(c) The Kohen's participation in the Kaparah is only Lechatchilah, answers
the Gemara; Bedi'eved, should the meat become Tamei or get lost, the Korban
remains valid and the owner's atonement intact. Consequently, in our case
(according to Rav Papa) since the Kohen, due to the fact that the Chalavim
have not yet been burnt, is unable to eat the meat, Chazal gave it a Din of
meat that became Tamei or that got lost, and said that, since there is no
option, the Chatas should just be placed on the Mizbei'ach, and that will
suffice to permit the Mechusar Kipurim to eat Kodshim, as if it had got
2. ... "ve'Achlu Osam Asher Kupar Bahem" - that the Kaparah of the owner is
not complete before the Kohanim have eaten his Chatas ('Kohanim Ochlim,
u'Ba'lim Miskaprim'. - Rashi, Amud 1 DH 'be'Sha'r', adds that the Mitzvah of
eating Kodshim Kalim [such as the Shelamim] extends to the owner - even if
he is a Yisrael).
(a) "Lo Yalin Chelev Chagi ad Boker", says Rav Kahana, teaches us that the
leftovers of the day's Korbanos may still be placed on the Mizbei'ach all
night; whereas from "ve'Hiktir *Aleha* Chelvei ha'Shelamim" we learn that
Lechatchilah, all Korbanos must be brought before the Tamid shel Bein
ha'Arbayim, and their Chalavim placed on the Mizbei'ach immediately.
(b) we infer from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "Lo Yalin *la'Boker* Zevach Chag ha'Pasach" (Ki Sisa) - that the
Pesach (which is a weekday Korban) may continue to be placed on the
Mizbei'ach throughout Yom-Tov night.
(c) The two inferences clearly clash - because the first inference permits
burning a weekday offering on Yom-Tov, whereas the second one forbids it.
2. ... "Olas *Shabbos* be'Shabbato" - that one may only burn a Shabbos
Korban on Shabbos (or a Yom-Tov offering on Yom-Tov or Shabbos), but not a
weekday Korban on Shabbos (or on Yom-Tov).
(d) Rav Avahu explains that we have no option but to establish the Pasuk of
"ve'Lo Yalin" ... by Erev Pesach that falls on Shabbos, in which case one
will be burning a Shabbos Korban on Yom-Tov, which is permitted. This may be
a Dochek, but it is acceptable since there is no alternative explanation.
(a) The four Avodos by which a Pesach will become Pasul through a thought of
Pigul or she'Lo Lishemo - are the Shechitah, the Kabalas ha'Dam (in a
vessel), the Holachas ha'Dam (to the south-western corner of the
Mizbei'ach), and the Zerikah (the sprinkling of the blood).
(b) We learn from the Pasuk "Zevach Pesach *Hu*" - that the Pesach must be
Shechted etc. with the right Kavanah (Lishemo); otherwise it becomes Pasul
(which most other Korbanos do not).
(c) A Pesach *can* become Pasul by a joint Machshavah of Lishemo and she'Lo
Lishemo - as we shall now see.
(a) Technically, it is possible to think by one Avodah i.e. that he is
performing it Lishemo and she'Lo Lishemo, and it is also possible to think
this by two Avodos i.e. that he is performing the Shechitah Lishemo, shall
we say, and the Zerikah she'Lo Lishemo (and so with any combination of the
four Avodos. There is also another way of explaining Machshavah by two
Avodos, as we shall see later. Rav Papa's Sha'leh is to which of these two
does our Mishnah refer.
(b) If we are talking about one Avodah, then the author cannot be Rebbi Meir
- who says 'Tefos Lashon Rishon', meaning that when (regarding the laws of
Kodshim) a person makes two contradictory statements (or has two
contradictory thoughts), then it is the first one that is valid. According
to him, two conflicting thoughts are indicative that one has retracted, and,
in the realm of Kodshim, one cannot retract (even immediately).
(c) But if we are talking about two Avodos, then the author can even be
Rebbi Meir - because, since the two Machshavos do not clash (since one
pertains to one Avodah, and the other, to another, Rebbi Meir will agree
that both Machshavos will take effect).
(d) Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yossi argue in a case where someone says 'Harei Zu
Temuras Olah, Temuras Shelamim': According to Rebbi Meir, the animal is a
Temuras Olah; whereas Rebbi Yossi holds that we allow the animal to graze
until it becomes blemished. Then it is sold, and with one half of the
proceeds the owner must buy an Olah, and with the other, a Shelamim.