(a)Acherim (alias Rebbi Meir), in a Beraisa, differentiates between Hikdim Mulim la'Areilim and Hikdim Areilim l'Mulim. What does Acheirim say, and what is the initial problem with his statement?
(b)We try to establish Acherim like Rava, who says 'Adayin Hi Machlokes', and Acherim holds 'Einah li'Shechitah Ela b'Sof'. What, briefly, does Rava mean with 'Adayin Hi Machlokes'?
(c)How do we now explain Acherim?
(a)'Hikdim Mulim la'Arelim' would appear to be Kasher (according to Acherim) because 'Kula Orlah Ba'inan, v'Leika'; in that case, why is 'Hikdim Arelim l'Mulim' Pasul? It should be Kasher for the same reason!
(b)When Rava says 'Adayin Hi Machlokes', he means that even by Chetzyah Olah, v'Chetzyah Shelamim (which is similar to our case of 'Hikdim Arelim l'Mulin', where he is doing one Avodash with two Machshavos) Rebbi Meir (alias Acherim) holds 'Tefos Lashon Rishon'.
(c)Since, according to Rava, Acherim holds 'Einah li'Shechitah Ela b'Sof', only one Machshavah can be valid in such a short space of time; and, since he holds Tefos Lashon Rishon, it is his first Machshavah that is valid, whether it is Machsheves Mulin or Machsheves Arelim.
(a)According to Rabah, Acherim can even hold 'Yeshnah li'Shechitah Mitechilah v'Ad Sof'; he does not however, require 'Piv v'Libo Shavin'. What is the case, and how does he explain Acherim?
(b)The Gemara rejects this explanation on the basis of the Mishnah in Terumos 'ha'Miskaven Lomar Terumah, v'Amar Ma'aser' ... . What does the Tana there say (and Stam Mishnah Rebbi Meir)?
(c)Abaye finally explains that Acherim holds Mefaglin b'Chatzi Matir. What is the case of ...
1. ... 'Hikdim Mulin la'Areilim, Kasher'?
2. ... 'Hikdim Areilim l'Mulim, Pasul'?
(d)What do the Rabanan say, and what is their reason?
(a)According to Rabah, Acherim can even hold 'Yeshnah li'Shechitah Mitechilah v'Ad Sof'. It speaks however, when he specifically intended to Shecht on behalf of both Mulin and Arelim. What happened was that he had only managed to utter Arelim, when he concluded the Shechitah. Rebbi Meir does not require 'Piv v'Libo Shavin', in which case, we ignore the fact that he had had in mind to add 'u'le'Mulin'; we go after what he actually said, not what he meant to say, and the Korban is Pasul. Whereas, the Chachamim require 'Piv v'Libo Shavin'. Consequently, since he had had in mind to add 'u'le'Mulin', the Korban is Kasher, even though he did not manage to complete what he wanted to say.
(b)The Stam Mishnah in Terumos says 'ha'Miskaven Lomar Terumah, v'Amar Ma'aser' (or vice-versa) - his statement is ineffective, since he did not say what he had in mind to say. So we see, that Rebbi Meir does require 'Piv v'Libo Shavin'.
(c)Abaye finally explains that Acherim holds 'Mefaglin b'Chatzi Matir' ...
1. ... By 'Hikdim Mulin la'Arelim' - he Shechted the first Siman for Mulin and the second for Arelim as well, in which case, both Simanim were Shechted b'Kashrus, so the Pesach is Kasher;
2. ... By 'Hikdim Arelim l'Mulin' - he Shechted the first Siman for Arelim, and whatever he then thinks by the second Siman, the Pesach will be Pasul, because Rebbi Meir holds 'Mefaglin ba'Chatzi Matir' (e.g. one of the two Simanim which render the Shechitah Kasher).
(d)According to the Rabanan, whichever Siman he Shechted first, the Pesach is Kasher - because 'Ein Mefaglin b'Chatzi Matir' (provided that at least one of the Simanim was Shechted for Mulin - even if it was Shechted for Arelim as well).
(a)If someone who owns Chametz, Shechts the Korban Pesach, he transgresses a Lav. Which Lav?
(b)Which Korban does Rebbi Yehudah compare to the Pesach in this regard?
(a)If someone who owns Chametz, Shechts the Korban Pesach, he transgresses the Lav of "Lo Sishchat Al Chametz Dam Zivchi" (Ki Sisa).
(b)Rebbi Yehudah compares the Korban Tamid shel Bein ha'Arbayim to the Pesach in this regard.
(a)What distinction does Rebbi Shimon make with regard to someone who Shechts other Korbanos (besides the two that we have already mentioned) on the fourteenth on Chametz, and someone who Shechts them on the fifteenth?
(b)What is the exception to this?
(c)And what about someone who Shechts the Koran Pesach on the fifteenth?
(d)What principle governs Rebbi Shimon's rulings?
(a)According to Rebbi Shimon that if someone Shechts other Korbanos on the fourteenth on Chametz is always Patur, whereas if he Shechts them on the fifteenth Lishmo (l'Shem Pesach) he is Patur; she'Lo Lishmo, he is Chayav.
(b)The sole exception to this is the Chatas, which becomes Pasul when it is Shechted she'Lo Lishmo. Consequently, even Rebbi Shimon will agree that if one Shechted a Chatas on the fifteenth she'Lo Lishmo on Chametz, he will be Patur.
(c)Someone who Shechts the Pesach on the fifteenth on Chametz, Lishmo, is Patur, she'Lo Lishmo, he is Chayav.
(d)Rebbi Shimon holds Shechitah she'Einah Re'uyah Lo Shmah Shechitah. Consequently, for any Shechitah that is Pasul, he will not receive Malkus.
(a)Who has to own the Chametz, and who will receive Malkus?
(b)According to Resh Lakish, the Chametz has to be in the Azarah, before the Shochet etc. will receive Malkus. What does Rebbi Yochanan say?
(c)Why does the Gemara reject the suggestion that the source of their Machlokes is whether "Al" (in the Pasuk "v'Lo Sishchat Al Chametz Dam Zivchi") means close by or not?
(a)If the Shochet, the Zorek or any member of the group possesses Chametz, then the Shochet or the Zorek will receive Malkus for Shechting or sprinkling respectively.
(b)According to Rebbi Yochanan, they will receive Malkus even if the Chametz is at home in the owner's house.
(c)The Gemara rejects the suggestion that the source of their Machlokes is whether "Al" (in the Pasuk "v'Lo Sishchat Al Chametz Dam Zivchi") means close by or not - on the grounds that they have already argued that point by 'ha'Shochet Todah Lifenim, v'Lachmah Chutz l'Chomah'.
(a)The breads of the Korban Todah adopt Kedushas ha'Guf (they become Pasul through contact with a Tevul-Yom and a Mechusar Kipurim as well as through Linah, and can no longer be redeemed when they are Tamei). What causes them to adopt Kadosh Kedushas ha'Guf?
(b)If one Shechts the animal of the Todah in the Azarah and the bread is outside, the bread does not become Kedushas ha'Guf. According to Rebbi Yochanan, 'outside' means outside the wall of Beis Pagi (the outer precincts of Yerushalayim). What does Resh Lakish say, and what is the basis of their Machlokes (bearing in mind that the Torah writes "Vehikriv Al Zevach ha'Todah, Chalos")?
(a)It is the Shechitah of the Todah that causes the Lachmei Todah to adopt Kadosh Kedushas ha'Guf.
(b)According to Resh Lakish, the bread does not become Kadosh with the Shechitah of the Todah, if it (the bread) is outside the Azarah, because he holds that "Al" (in the Pasuk "Al Zevach ha'Todah Chalos" (Parshas Tzav) means close by, whereas Rebbi Yochanan does understand "Al" in this way.
(a)We then try to explain the Machlokes Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish (with regard to 'ha'Shochet es ha'Pesach Al he'Chametz' when the Chametz is not in the Azarah) as to whether 'Hasra'as Safek Sh'mah Hasra'ah' or not. What exactly would their Machlokes then be?
(b)According to Rebbi Yochanan, if someone declares that he will eat a certain loaf of bread by the end of that day, he is not subject to Malkus for not eating it, because it is a passive Lav (a Lav she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh). What reason does Resh Lakish give for this?
(c)Why is it no longer possible to explain the Machlokes regarding 'ha'Shochet es ha'Pesach Al he'Chametz' by Hasra'as Safek, like we attempted to do in a.?
(a)If the Chametz is in the Azarah, then we know for sure that the Shochet or the Zorek is transgressing a Lav, so that this is a Hasra'as Vaday, whereas if it is not, we cannot be certain that they will be transgressing (since perhaps the Chametz has been eaten or destroyed), and it will be a Hasra'as Safek. Resh Lakish holds 'Hasra'as Safek Lo Shmah Hasra'a'h'. Consequently, he requires the Chametz to be in the Azarah; whereas Rebbi Yochanan, who holds 'Hasra'as Safek Shmah Hasra'ah', permits the Chametz to be even outside the Azarah.
(b)If someone declares that he will eat a certain loaf of bread by the end of that day, he is not subject to Malkus for not eating it, according to Resh Lakish, because it is a Hasra'as Safek.
(c)It is no longer possible to explain the Machlokes regarding 'ha'Shochet es ha'Pesach Al he'Chametz' by Hasra'as Safek, like we attempted to do in a. - because Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish have already argued it out with regard to 'Shevu'ah she'Ochal Kikar Zu ha'Yom' ... , and there is no point in repeating the same Machlokes again.
(a)The Gemara finally re-establishes the Machlokes as it first attempted to do, by whether "Al" means close or not. In that case, having already informed us that it does not (in the case of 'ha'Shochet es ha'Pesach'), why did Rebbi Yochanan see fit to repeat it by 'ha'Shochet Todah Lifenim, v'Lachmah Chutz la'Chomah'?
(b)What does 'Midi d'Havah a'Klei Shares' mean?
(c)What does Rebbi Ami learn from ...
1. ... "Lo Sishchat Al Chametz" (and not "Al Chemtzecha")?
2. ... "Lo Sishchat Al Chametz - v'Lo Yalin Cheilev Chagi Ad Boker"?
(a)Even though Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue concerning whether Al means close by or not by Chametz, we might have thought that it is specifically here that Rebbi Yochanan does not require 'Al b'Samuch' - because Chametz is Chametz wherever it is, so why should there be a difference between Chametz that is inside the Azarah and Chametz that is outside? By the Lachmei Todah, on the other hand, Rebbi Yochanan may well agree that the breads must be in the Azarah when the Todah is being Shechted in order to adopt Kedushas ha'Guf. Why?
(b)'Midi d'Havah a'Klei Shares' - which means that, just as a Kli Shares renders Kadosh whatever is placed into it, but not what is outside, so too, would we have thought that the breads of the Todah only become Kadosh if they are actually inside the Azarah - if Rebbi Yochanan had not specifically informed us otherwise (see Tosfos DH 'Midi d'Havah').
(c)Rebbi Ami learns from ...
1. ... "Lo Sishchat Al Chametz" (and not "Al Chemtzecha") - that the Shochet receives Malkus even for Chametz that is not actually his, but belongs to another member of his group.
2. ... "Lo Sishchat Al Chametz - v'Lo Yalin Cheilev Chagi Ad Boker" - that only those who are included in the Lav of "v'Lo Yalin Cheilev Chagi Ad Boker" (i.e. the Shochet and the Maktir) transgress, but not those who are not members of the group.
(a)What Chidush does Rav Papa derive from the latter Derashah with regard to the Kohen who burns the Emurim?
(b)The Beraisa which corroborates Rav Papa's statement, adds that a Kohen who makes Melikah on the bird-offering of a Mechusar Kipurim on the fourteenth of Nisan - after the Korban Tamid - does not receive Malkus. Why not?
(c)Seeing as the author of the Beraisa is Rebbi Shimon, why does he mention specifically the Melikah of a bird?
(a)Rav Papa adds that also the Kohen who burns the Emurim - will transgress if any member of that group possesses Chametz, seeing as he too, is subject to the Lav of "v'Lo Yalin Cheilev Chagi Ad Boker".
(b)The Beraisa which corroborates Rav Papa's statement, adds that a Kohen who makes Melikah on the bird-offering of a Mechusar Kipurim on the fourteenth of Nisan - after the Korban Tamid - does not receive Malkus. The author of this Beraisa is Rebbi Shimon, who holds in our Mishnah that one is not Chayav for Shechting any other Kodshim on Chametz on the fourteenth.
(c)The Beraisa mentions the Melikah of a bird Korban only because of the Mechusar Kipurim, which, like the Korban Pesach, is Kasher after the Tamid shel Bein ha'Arbayim, and is the most likely Korban that will be brought after the Isur Chametz becomes effective. In fact, the same will apply to any Korban that is brought then.
(a)The Tana of a second Beraisa includes 'ha'Molek Al ha'Chametz', as well as 'ha'Mazeh', among those who do receive Malkus. What does 'ha'Mazeh' mean?
(b)What does the Tana say about 'ha'Kometz es ha'Minchah Al ha'Chametz'?
(a)'ha'Mazeh' - refers to the Haza'as ha'Dam of the Chatas ha'Of.
(b)'ha'Kometz es ha'Minchah Al ha'Chametz - Eino Over b'Lo Sa'aseh'.
(a)How do we reconcile this latter Beraisa (which sentences 'ha'Molek' ... to Malkus) with the previous Beraisa, which exempts him? Who is the author of both Beraisos?
(b)How does the Beraisa prove this answer to be correct (to avoid a contradiction from the Reisha to the Seifa)?
(c)And how do we reconcile this Tana (which exempts the Maktir - the one who burns the Emurim on the Mizbe'ach - from Malkus, with the previous Tana, who holds that he is Chayav Malkus?
(a)The author of both the Beraisa which exempts the Molek from Malkus and that which sentences him - is Rebbi Shimon; the former Beraisa speaks on the fourteenth, the latter on Chol ha'Mo'ed.
(b)The Gemara proves this answer to be correct, because otherwise, how can the Tana one minute write (in the Reisha) 'Lo Amru Ela ba'Pesach Bilevad', and then go on to write (in the Seifa) 'Echad ha'Shochet ... Echad ha'Molek, v'Echad ha'Mazeh' (which pertain to Korbanos other than the Pesach)?
(c)With regard to the contradiction between the Beraisa which obligates the Maktir and the Beraisa which exempts him, this is indeed a Machlokes Tana'im: the one Tana compares Haktarah to Shechitah, the other does not.