Zevachim 115 -
1) "MECHUSAR ZEMAN" SLAUGHTERED "SHE'LO LISHMAH"
(a) Question (Rav Huna): We never find something that is Pasul Lishmah and Kosher Lo Lishmah!
1. Question: We do find this - Pesach on any day other than Erev Pesach is Pasul Lishmah and Kosher Lo Lishmah!
2. Answer: Pesach on any other day is a Shelamim, Lo l'Shem Pesach is not (Tosfos - purely) Lo Lishmah.
(b) Suggestion: A Beraisa supports Rav Chilkiyah.
1. (Beraisa) Suggestion: Perhaps Shechutei Chutz does not apply to the following (because they are not fit for Pesach Ohel Mo'ed) - an Olah that is Mechusar Zeman, the Asham of a (Tamei) Nazir or Metzora (the Pesul of these will be explained)!
2. Rejection: (The verse of Shechutei Chutz did not need to list the three species Kosher for Korbanos, each is extra to teach one of these -) "Shor, Chesev, Ez"
3. The Tana omitted Chatas.
4. Question: What is the case of the Ashamos?
i. If they are offered (Lishmah) in the proper time, Shechutei Chutz applies even to Chatas!
5. Answer: Rather, we must say that they are Mechusar Zeman.
6. Question: Were they Lishmah?
i. If yes - why is he liable for them (it is not Kosher until he is Oker by slaughtering l'Shem a different Korban)!
7. Answer: We must say, they were Lo Lishmah. (This is a proof for Rav Chilkiyah.)
(c) Rejection: Really, they were offered in the proper time, Lo Lishmah;
1. The Tana is R. Eliezer, who says that also Asham Lo Lishmah is Pasul. (Nevertheless, he is liable, for if slaughtered Stam in the Mikdash, it would be Lishmah and Kosher.)
2. He taught Asham, which we learned (that it is Pasul Lo Lishmah) from Chatas, the same applies to Chatas.
(d) Question (against Rav Huna (and support for Rav Chilkiyah) - Beraisa) Suggestion: Perhaps one is liable for Shechutei Chutz for an Olah which is (itself) Mechusar Zeman or a Chatas that it or its owner is Mechusar Zeman!
1. Rejection: "V'El Pesach Ohel Mo'ed Lo Hevi'o" - Shechutei Chutz only applies to things fitting to be offered Pesach Ohel Mo'ed.
2. The Tana excludes Asham.
3. Question: What is the case?
i. If the Korbanos are Lishmah, even for Asham he should be exempt!
4. Answer: Rather, we must say that they are Lo Lishmah. (The Tana excludes Asham, for he would be liable for it - this supports Rav Chilkiyah and refutes Rav Huna!)
(e) Answer: Indeed, they are Lo Lishmah, but one may not infer that he would be liable for Asham;
1. The Tana is R. Eliezer, who is Posel Asham Lo Lishmah; he taught Chatas, the source, and the same applies to Asham, which we learned from Chatas.
(f) Version #1 (Rashi, excluding the bracketed text) Question (against Rav Huna, support for Rav Chilkiyah:- Rav Dimi - Tana d'vei R. Livai) Suggestion: Perhaps one is exempt for Shechutei Chutz for an Olah if its owner is Mechusar Zeman, and for Asham Metzora or Asham Nazir...
1. (The Tana omitted Chatas - we deduce (like above) that the Ashamos were Mechusar Zeman and Lo Lishmah, and he is liable!)
2. Question: How does the Tana expound that he is liable?
(g) Version #2 (Shitah Mekubetzes, including bracketed text): The following refutes Rav Huna and supports Rav Chilkiyah:
1. (Rav Dimi citing Tana d'vei R. Livai) Suggestion: Perhaps one is exempt for Shechutei Chutz for an Olah if its owner is Mechusar Zeman, and for Asham Metzora or Asham Nazir...
2. Rav Dimi: The Tana expounded that one is liable - I do not understand! (End of Version #2)
3. Answer (Ravina): The verse did not need to list the three species - "Shor, Kesev, Ez" are extra, to teach that one is liable in these three cases.
4. Question: We already asked this (b) and answered it (c) above (the Beraisa is like R. Eliezer, the slaughter was Lo Lishmah!)
5. Answer (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): Because Rav Dimi posed a contradiction, the above answer cannot be given.
i. Contradiction (with Tana d'vei R. Livai - Rav Dimi - Levi): If Asham Nazir or Asham Metzora was slaughtered Lo Lishmah, it is Kosher, the owner did not fulfill his obligation.
ii. If the owner was Mechusar Zeman, or the animals were two years old (a first year animal is required), they are Pesulim (and one who slaughters them outside is exempt.)
iii. Answer (Rav Dimi): Tana d'vei R. Livai is Mechayev for slaughter Lishmah, Levi exempts for slaughter Lo Lishmah.
6. Rav Ashi asked a similar contradiction between our Mishnah (which exempts for Shechutei Chutz of Asham Mechusar Zeman) and the Beraisa (above (b:1), which is Mechayev);
i. He answered, the Mishnah exempts when it was Lishmah (for it is Pasul), the Beraisa is Mechayev for Lo Lishmah (it is Kosher).
7. Summation of question: This refutes Rav Huna, for he cannot answer like above!
(h) Answer: Tana d'vei R. Livai is Mechayev when two Ashamos were separated for Acharayos (in case one will become lost or Pasul, the other will be offered - since both of them cannot be offered for Ashamos), from the beginning, it is as if one of them is an Olah.
(i) This is like Rav.
1. (Rav): If an Asham was Nitak to graze, and it was slaughtered Stam, it is a Kosher Olah.
2) THINGS NOT FIT FOR "HAKTARAH"
(a) (Mishnah): If one offers (is Maktir) meat of a Chatas (outside, he is exempt...)
(b) (Beraisa) Question: What is the source to exempt for offering any of the following outside?
1. Meat of a Chatas, Asham, (other) Kodshei Kodoshim, Kodshim Kalim;
2. The remains of the Omer or of a Minchah (after Kemitzah), Shtei ha'Lechem, Lechem ha'Panim.
3. Answer: One is liable for something like "Olah", i.e. it is fitting to be offered.
4. Question: What is the source to exempt for the following Avodos outside?
i. Pouring oil (on a Minchah), breaking a Minchah into pieces, mixing (the flour with oil), salting, Tenufah, Hagashah, arranging the Lechem ha'Panim on the Shulchan, Dishun ha'Menorah, Kemitzah, and Kabalah.
5. Answer: "Asher Ya'aleh Olah O Zevach" - one is liable only for something resembling Ha'alah (Haktarah), i.e. a final Avodah (there is no Avodah after it.)
3) "AVODAH" BEFORE THE "MISHKAN"
(a) (Mishnah): Before the Mishkan was erected... (Avodah was done by the firstborns.)
(b) (Rav Huna bar Rav Ketina citing R. Asi): "Vayishlach Es Na'arei Benei Yisrael" (before Matan Torah) - this was the last time Avodah was done by the firstborns.
(c) Rav Chisda was planning on challenging this from our Mishnah;
1. He heard Rav Huna say in the name of Rav Ada bar Ahavah that the Olah that Benei Yisrael offered in the Midbar did not require Hefshet and Nitu'ach, so Rav Chisda instead challenged both of Rav Huna's teachings from a Beraisa.
(d) Question (against both teachings - Rav Chisda - Beraisa): Before the Mishkan was erected, Bamos were permitted, Avodah was done by the firstborns, anything could be offered on a Bamah, Behemah, Chayah, Of, male or female, Tam or Ba'al Mum;
1. Only Tahor species could be offered, not Teme'im.
2. All the Korbanos were Olos.
3. The Olah that Benei Yisrael offered in the Midbar did not require Hefshet and Nitu'ach;
4. Nowadays, Nochrim may do so (offer anything on a Bamah.)
(e) Answer (for the first teaching): Tana'im argue about this, Rav Huna holds like Rebbi:
1. (Beraisa - R. Yehoshua ben Korchah): "V'Gam ha'Kohanim ha'Nigashim El Hash-m Yiskadashu" - this warns the firstborns (they are the 'Kohanim' who come close for Avodah) to stay far from Har Sinai;
2. Rebbi says, it warns Nadav and Avihu (for only Benei Aharon will do Avodah from now on).
(f) Question: According to Rebbi, we understand "Hu Asher Diber Hash-m bi'Krovai Akadesh" - the end of the above verse ("Pen Yifrotz Bahem") foreshadowed the death of Nadav and Avihu (when they entered the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim);
1. But according to R. Yehoshua ben Korchah (the first verse refers to the firstborns) - where had Hash-m alluded to the death of Nadav and Avihu?
(g) Answer: "V'Noadti Shamah li'Vnei Yisrael v'Nikdash *bi'Chvodi*" - we read this 'bi'Chvudai' (through my honored ones);
1. Hash-m told this to Moshe on Sinai, Moshe did not know to whom He referred to until they died; then, Moshe told Aharon that they were killed (Maharsha - for a minute transgression) in order to Mekadesh Hash-m.
2. Aharon realized that their death signified their awesome greatness; he was silent, and was rewarded - "Dom la'Sh-m V'Hischolel Lo";
3. We can also learn from "Es Lachashos v'Es Ledaber" - sometimes one is rewarded for silence, sometimes one is rewarded for speaking.
(h) (R. Chiya bar Avin): "Nora Elokim mi'Mikdashecha" - we read this 'mi'Mekudashecha (from Your holy ones)', when Hash-m punishes Tzadikim (for minute transgressions), He is feared, exalted and praised.
(i) Question: We have not defended Rav Huna's teaching about Hefshet and Nitu'ach of the Olah!
(j) Answer: Tana'im also argue about this, he holds like R. Yishmael:
1. (Beraisa - Tana d'vei R. Yishmael): Hash-m taught to Moshe the essence of the Mitzvos on Sinai, He taught to him the details (during the 40 years in the Midbar) in the Ohel Mo'ed;
i. (Hefshet and Nitu'ach are details, they were taught in the Mishkan, they did not apply before this, e.g. to the Olah of Sinai.)
2. R. Akiva says, the essence and the details were given on Sinai, they were repeated in the Ohel Mo'ed and again in Arvos Mo'av (Sefer Devarim, in the 40th year in the Midbar).