4) click for question
(a) Initially, we establish the Reisha of the Mishnah 'Chatas ha'Of she'As'ah le'Matah' in the case of 'Ma'aseh Olah le'Shem Chatas', by Melikah (where the Kohen cut both Simanim). And the problem that our Mishnah, which rules that it is Pasul, will then not go like Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon - is not really a problem, since we have already established the previous Mishnah not like him (so it is feasible to establish this Mishnah not like him as well).
(b) Nevertheless, we suggest that 'Ma'aseh Olah' might mean - that he omitted the Haza'ah, thereby enabling us to establish the Mishnah like Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon
5) click for question
(a) The change in the Seifa 'As'ah Lema'alah ke'Ma'aseh Kulan, Pesulah' (incorporating Ma'aseh Chatas le'Shem Chatas'), cannot refer to the Kohen's having performed the Melikah above the Chut ha'Sikra - because we already learned that the Melikah may be performed anywhere on the Mizbe'ach.
(b) So it must be referring to - the Kohen's having omitted the Haza'ah.
(c) We refute the proof that seeing as the change in the Seifa refers to the Haza'ah, so too, does the change in the Reisha - on the grounds that this is simply not necessarily so, and that 'Ha ke'de'Iysa, ve'Ha ke'de'Iysa' (Melikah and Haza'ah each speaks in its own respective case).
6) click for question
(a) In the Seifa, we learned 'Olas ha'Of she'Asah Lema'alah ke'Ma'aseh Chatas le'Shem Olah, Pesulah'. Besides the Melikah of only one Si'man, 'Ma'aseh Chatas' might refer to - the omission of Mitzuy.
(b) We object to the latter interpretation however, because then the Seifa (ve'Chulan ... 'u'Mo'alin bah') would not go like Rebbi Yehoshua, who rules (in the following Mishnah) - 'Ein Mo'alin bah'.
7) click for question
(a) Rebbi Eliezer ('Mo'alin Bah') and Rebbi Yehoshua ('Ein Mo'alin bah') in the following Mishnah, actually argue over 'Olas ha'Of she'Asah Lematah ke'Ma'aseh Chatas le'Shem Chatas'. 'ke'Ma'asesh Chatas' refers to the Melikah (i.e. only one Siman) and not to the Mitzuy (i.e. which the Kohen omitted) - because Rebbi Yehoshua's reason (that cutting one Si'man Le'matah turns the bird into a Chatas, as we will later conclude), is simply not applicable to a case where the Kohen cut two Simanim before omitting the Mitzuy.
(b) We have now established the Seifa ('Olas ha'Of ... Lematah ke'Ma'aseh Chatas') by Melikah - the Reisha ('Chatas ha'Of ... Lema'alah le'Shem Olah') by Melikah, and the Metzi'asa ('Olas ha'Of ... Lema'alah ke'Ma'aseh Chatas') by Mitzuy.
(c) We deal with this seemingly strange phenomenon - by accepting it.
8) click for question
(a) We already cited the Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua regarding 'Olas ha'Of she'Asah le'Matah ke'Ma'aseh Chatas le'Shem Chatas'. Rebbi Eliezer holds 'Mo'alin bah' - since the Heter Achilah that would have removed the Me'ilah by a Kasher Chatas, does not apply in this case.
(b) He tries to prove his opinion from a 'Kal va'Chomer' - because if Me'ilah applies to a Chatas that he changed to an Olah (even though the Chatas itself is not subject to Me'ilah), then how much more so will it apply to an Olah (which is subject to Me'ilah) that he changed to a Chatas.
(c) Rebbi Yehoshua refutes this proof however, on the grounds that one cannot prove an 'Olah le'Shem Chatas' from a 'Chatas le'Shem Olah' - because whereas, in the latter case, the Olah that he is changing to is subject to Me'ilah, the Chatas in the former case, is not.
9) click for question
(a) Rebbi Eliezer then tries to prove his point from Kodshei Kodshim that were Shechted in the south (as Shelamim) - whose Basar is also not normally subject to Me'ilah, yet someone who derives Hana'ah in this case is Mo'el.
(b) Rebbi Yehoshua refutes this proof too however - on the basis of the fact that a Shelamim is subject to Me'ilah via its Eimurin, whereas the a Chatas ha'Of (of which we are speaking) is not subject to Me'ilah at all.
Index to Review Questions and Answers
for Maseches Zevachim
Homepage for Maseches Zevachim