POINT BY POINT OUTLINE
prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
1) THE STATUS OF IMPROPERLY OFFERED BIRDS (cont.)
(a) R. Eliezer: Kodshei Kodoshim slaughtered l'Shem Kodshim Kalim in the south disprove you!
1. Even though they were slaughtered l'Shem something without Me'ilah, there is Me'ilah. The same applies to an Olah slaughtered l'Shem Chatas.
(b) R. Yehoshua: You cannot learn from there, for Me'ilah applies to part of Kodshim Kalim (i.e. the Eimurim), but not to any part of Chatas ha'Of (Kohanim receive all the meat)!
(c) (Gemara - Beraisa - R. Eliezer): An Asham slaughtered l'Shem Shelamim in the north disproves you!
1. Even though it was slaughtered Lo Lishmah, there is Me'ilah. The same applies to an Olas ha'Of done Lo Lishmah (l'Shem Chatas)!
(d) R. Yehoshua: You cannot learn from Asham, which was Lo Lishmah but was done (slaughtered) in the right place, to Olas ha'Of l'Shem Chatas, which was Lo Lishmah and was done in the wrong place!
(e) R. Eliezer: An Asham slaughtered l'Shem Shelamim in the south disproves you!
1. Even though it was slaughtered Lo Lishmah in the wrong place, there is Me'ilah. The same applies to Olas ha'Of done l'Shem Chatas (below)!
(f) R. Yehoshua: You cannot learn from there, where the Lishmah and place were changed, but the Hakravah was correct, to Olah done l'Shem Chatas, in the place of Chatas and like a Chatas!
(g) Question (Rava): R. Eliezer should have answered, we learn from an Asham slaughtered in the south, l'Shem Shelamim, l'Shem the wrong owner, for (the Lishmah and place were changed, as above, and also,) this is like a deviation in the Hakravah.
1. Since he did not ask this, we infer that he understands R. Yehoshua's opinion like Rav Ada.
2. (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): R. Yehoshua holds that if Olas ha'Of is done l'Shem Chatas, in the place of Chatas and like a Chatas, once one Siman is cut, it becomes a Chatas ha'Of.
2) SWITCHING A "KORBAN" TO ANOTHER "KORBAN"
(a) Question: If so, likewise, if Chatas ha'Of was offered above, like Olah, l'Shem Olah, once one Siman is cut, it should become an Olah!
1. Suggestion: Perhaps this is true!
2. Rejection: R. Yochanan taught 'this is the layout of the Mishnah.'
i. Suggestion: He means that R. Yehoshua (argues only in the case he explicitly discusses, i.e. Olas ha'Of offered below like Chatas l'Shem Chatas, but he) agrees in all other cases!
(b) Answer #1 (and rejection of Rejection (2) and Suggestion (2:i)): No, he means that just like R. Yehoshua argues about Olah done entirely like Chatas, he argues also about Chatas done entirely like Olah.
(c) Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): We understand why Olas ha'Of becomes Chatas ha'Of. Melikah of Olah requires two Simanim and must be done above. Melikas Chatas requires only one Siman and is Kosher below;
1. Once one Siman is cut below, we have two indications that he transforms it to Chatas;
2. Melikah of Chatas is Kosher anywhere on the Mizbe'ach. Once he cuts one Siman, this is a full Melikah (of Chatas) Lo Lishmah. It is Pasul, so it cannot become an Olah when he cuts the second Siman!
(d) (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): R. Yehoshua holds that if Olas ha'Of is done l'Shem Chatas, in the place of Chatas and like a Chatas, once one Siman is cut, it becomes a Chatas ha'Of.
(e) Question (Mishnah): If Rachel gave a bird to the Kohen to offer for her Chatas, and Leah gave a bird for her Olah (each woman had (Rashi - no; Tosfos - an) obligation to bring the other Korban as well):
1. If he offered both of them above (like Olas ha'Of), one of them is Kosher (i.e. the Olah);
2. If he offered both of them below (like Chatas ha'Of), one is Kosher (the Chatas);
3. If he offered one above and one below, both are (Safek) Pesulim. Perhaps the Olah was offered below and the Chatas above (therefore, the Chatas may not be eaten. Each woman must bring another bird.)
4. According to Rav Ada, even if the Olah was offered like a Chatas, it becomes a Chatas (so in any case, the Chatas should be Kosher)!
(f) Answer #1: R. Yehoshua says that an Olah becomes a Chatas for the same person, but not for another person.
(g) Question (Mishnah): If Rachel gave a Chatas to the Kohen, and Leah gave an Olah (Rashi; Shitah Mekubetzes deletes this preface), and they jointly (bought and) gave a Ken (pair of birds) Stumah (they did not specify which would be for which Korban) and a Ken Mefureshes (they specified which is the Chatas and which the Olah, but not which is for each woman):
1. If he offered all the birds above, half of them are Kosher (the Olos);
2. If he offered all the birds below, half (the Chata'os), are Kosher;
3. If he offered half above and half below, only the Ken Stumah is Kosher (perhaps every specified bird was offered in the wrong place), they 'share' the Stumah (one bird counts for each woman, they jointly bring another Ken Stumah, and stipulate that the Chatas/Olah should be for the woman who fulfilled her Olah/Chatas through the first Ken Stumah).
4. Summation of question: Even if the Olos (Mefurashos, and not the Chata'os) were offered below, they should be Kosher like Chata'os!
(h) Answer #1: The Mishnah is not like R. Yehoshua.
(i) Rejection: The last Mishnah of Kinim proves that it (a Stam Mishnah in the last Perek) is like R. Yehoshua (the proof will culminate on the next Daf)!
(j) (Mishnah): If a woman said 'I will bring a Ken when I have a son', when she has a son she must one Ken for her vow (two Olos) and a Ken Chovah (a Chatas and an Olah. I.e. she is poor, so she brings Olas ha'Of in place of a lamb.)
(k) She gives four birds to the Kohen. He must offer three (Olos) above and one (Chatas) below.
(l) If the Kohen did not ask and (assumed that both of them were Chovos and) offered two above and two below, (one of the Olos was Pasul), she must bring another bird above;
1. This is if all the birds were the same species (Torim or Bnei Yonah (turtledoves or doves)). If she brought two of each species, now she must bring two birds (above, one of each species, for the Olas Chovah must be the same species as the Chatas, and she does not know which species the Chatas was).
2. If she vowed to bring a particular species for her vow (and does not remember which), the law is as follows.
i. If she initially brought two Kinim of one species, she must bring three more birds. (They are Olos. One is of that species (for one of the Olos was offered below and is Pasul), and two of the other species (perhaps she vowed the other species).
ii. If she initially brought one Ken of each species, she must bring four more birds. (They are Olos. She does not know which species was offered for the sake of the vow, so she must bring a full Ken of each species.)
3. If she vowed to bring a particular species (and stipulated to bring it together with her (Olas) Chovah, but does not remember which species), the law is as follows.
i. If she initially brought two Kinim of one species (let us say, Torim), she must bring five more birds. (Since one of the Olos was disqualified, she did not fulfill her vow. She must bring a Ken of each species to fulfill it now, along with a (Tor) Olas Chovah; Shitah Mekubetzes explains that she already fulfilled the Olas Chovah, but when she vowed she intended to bring the Ken together with (her Chovah or) an additional Olah of the same species as her Chovah.)
ii. If she initially brought one Ken of each species, she must bring six more birds. (Five are like above, and an extra Olas Ben Yonah, for perhaps the Chovah was Bnei Yonah.)