Previous daf

1)

(a) The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "ve'Samo Eitzel ha'Mizbe'ach" - that the Terumas ha'Deshen must be placed beside the Mizbe'ach (though it was actually placed beside the ramp).
2. ... "ve'Heisir es Mur'aso be'Notzasah ... el Makom ha'Deshen" - that the Deshen from the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi are placed there too.

(b) When we query this with the suggestion that 'Idi ve'Idi le'Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon, ve'Likebo'a Lo Makom' we mean - that we really need the second Pasuk to teach us that the Makom ha'Deshen (for the Terumas ha'Deshen) is on the east side of the Mizbe'ach (which is not mentioned in the first Pasuk).

(c) And we answer that for that alone it would have sufficed to write "Eitzel ha'Mizbe'ach Keidmah" (see Tosfos DH 've'Eima'). From ...

1. ... "el Mekom ha'Dashen" - we learn ('Im Eino Inyan') that the ashes of the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi are placed there too.
2. ... the 'Hey' in "ha'Deshen" - this extends to the ashes of the Menorah, which are placed there as well.

(a) Our Mishnah rules with regard to benefiting from baby pigeons or grown-up doves of Kodshei Mizbe'ach - 'Lo Nehenin, ve'Lo Mo'alin'.

(b) Rebbi Shimon disagrees in the former case. He holds - that baby pigeons are subject to Me'ilah, because they will be fit to be brought on the Mizbe'ach when they grow up.

(c) In fact, he follows his opinion in a Beraisa regarding someone who Shechts 'Oso ve'es B'no' Kodshim ba'Chutz', where he rules - that he has transgressed a La'av, but that he is exempt from Kareis - because whatever is not currently acceptable bi'Fenim, is not subject to Kareis ba'Chutz.

(a) We query the Rabbanan however, from their own opinion regarding Ma'aser Beheimah. They rule that a Beheimah Mechusar Z'man (that is less than eight days old) that goes through the pen and that is designated to be Ma'aser Beheimah - is Kadosh ...

(b) ... and they learn it from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Ha'avarah" "Ha'avarah" from Bechor (which is Kadosh from birth).

(c) We do not however, say the same with regard to Mechusar Z'man of Ofos - only Beheimos, which are subject to Pidyon in a case of (the fellow-P'sul) a Ba'al-Mum, which Ofos are not.

(a) Ula Amar Rebbi Yochanan rules - that Kodshim she'Meisu are no longer subject to Me'ilah.

(b) Rav Chisda objected on the grounds of - 'Where did their Kedushah go?'

(c) Ula prove his Rebbe right from our Mishnah however - from grown-up doves, which, as the Tana clearly states, are no longer subject to Me'ilah.

(a) Ula nevertheless concedes to Rav Chisda (see Tosfos DH 've'Chi') - that Kodshim she'Meisu are subject to Me'ilah mi'de'Rabbanan.

(b) He maintains however, that this does not extend to the case of young pigeons - which (unlike Kodshim she'Meisu) were never subject to Me'ilah mi'd'Oraysa.

(c) We try to counter that from Dam - which was also not previously subject to Me'ilah d'Oraysa, yet the Rabbanan later decreed Me'ilah.

(d) But Ula refuted our argument from a statement of Rav, who said - that the blood of Hakazah of a Beheimas Kodshim (which is no longer eligible for Zerikah) is Asur be'Hana'ah and is subject to Me'ilah mi'd'Oraysa (which is not the case with regard to the blood of a young pigeon).

6)

(a) Rav Hamnuna queries Rav ('ha'Meikiz Dam li'Beheimah ... ') who is actually quoted by Rav Huna) from the next Mishnah, which rules - that Chalav Mukdashin and Beitzei Torin 'Lo Nehenin ve'Lo Mo'alin'.

(b) And we reconcile Rav with the Beraisa - by drawing a distinction between blood on the one hand -without which the animal cannot live (and which is therefore considered part of the animal), and milk and eggs on the other - which are dispensable (and which are therefore not considered part of the animal).

(a) Rav Mesharshaya queries Rav from another Beraisa, where the Tana rules that the Zevel (the dung) of Beheimas Kodshim that one finds in the Azarah - 'Ein Nehenin ve'Ein Mo'alin'.

(b) Bearing in mind that an animal cannot live without dung (i.e. there is bound to be some in its stomach), we reconcile Rav with the Beraisa - by differentiating between the blood, which is an intrinsic part of the animal, and the dung, which is not (and which is therefore not subject to Me'ilah, even though it is indispensable).

(c) We conclude (with regard to 'Ein Nehenin ve'Ein Mo'alin' of Dam) 've'Damav le'Lishkah', which means - that it must be placed in the boxes in the Azarah, which go to Nedavah.

(d) And it actually supports a statement of Rebbi Elazar, who rules that wherever the Chachamim say 'Kadosh ve'Eino Kadosh' - (i.e. 'Lo Nehenin ve'Lo Mo'alin') the money goes to Nedavah.

(a) We just discussed our Mishnah, (regarding Chalav Mukdashin and Beitzei Torin), which goes on to qualify this ruling - by declaring someone who derives benefit from a chicken of Bedek ha'Bayis and its egg - Chayav Me'ilah for both.

(b) The other case of Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis that it cites is - that of a donkey and its milk.

(c) The Tana differentiates between the eggs and milk of Kodshei Mizbe'ach and those of Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis - due to the fact that whereas in the case of Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis the eggs and the milk are as much subject to Damim as the chicken and the Beheimah, in the case of Kodshei Mizbe'ach, they are not fit to go on the Mizbe'ach.

(a) The problem with the Reisha of our Mishnah is - that it implies that if someone declares a Beheimah or an Of, Hekdesh in order to sell it and buy with the proceeds a Korban, and then derives benefit from the milk of the one or the eggs of the other - it is not subject to Me'ilah (even though it is a case of Kedushas Damim).

(b) To answer the Kashya, Rav Papa adds to the wording of the Mishnah - a section confining the ruling to where he declared the Beheimah or the Of Kedushas ha'Guf (in which case the Din is 'Lo Nehenin ve'Lo Mo'alin', as we explained), but where he declared it Kedushas Damim, it has the Din of Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis (which it goes on to discuss).