Siman - Yoma Daf 41
- אין הקינין מתפרשות אלא או בלקיחת בעלים או בעשיית כהן
Rav Chisda said, אין הקינין מתפרשות אלא או בלקיחת בעלים או בעשיית כהן – Bird pairs do not become specialized and assume their respective designations (of either chatas or olah) except at the time of the owner’s taking them to be offerings or at the time of the Kohen’s actual making of the offerings. Rashi explains that if the owner specifies at the time of taking them, then the designations become irrevocably fixed. Should a Kohen then reverse them, the offerings become passul. If he did not designate them at that time, then even if he attempts to do so later, they remain legally undesignated, and the Kohen may offer either one as the chatas and the other as an olah.
Rav Shimi bar Ashi said that Rav Chisda’s reasoning is based on the passuk regarding kinim, "ולקחה...ועשה" – and she shall take…and the (the Kohen) shall make…, we derive from here that kinim become designated, או בלקיחה או בעשייה – either at the owner’s taking or at the Kohen’s making of the offerings. The Gemara attempts twice to challenge Rav Chisda’s rule and prove that the kinim can be designated in between the taking and the actual offering but is unsuccessful.
- A wealthy person bringing a poor person’s offering
Rebbe Elazar said in the name of Rebbe Hoshaya, מטמא מקדש עשיר והביא קרבן עני לא יצא – A wealthy person who made the Temple tamei and then brought the offering of a poor person ( i.e. kinim) he has not fulfilled his chiyuv. Rebbe Chagga says in the name of Rebbe Hoshaya יצא – he has fulfilled his chiyuv. The Gemara challenges Rebbe Chagga’s position based on a Mishnah in Negaim that states that if a poor metzora brought the offering of a wealthy person he has fulfilled his chiyuv whereas if a wealthy metzora brought the offering of a poor person he has not fulfilled his chiyuv. The Gemara answers that the case of a metzora is different for it is written in that section: "זאת" – This shall be the law of the metzora. The restrictive word this teaches that the metzora may bring only those offerings specifically prescribed for him. When the Gemara challenges this answer based on the first case where the poor metzora does fulfill his chiyuv when he brings the wealthy person’s offering, it answers that the inclusive expression "תורת" – the law of the metzora teaches there is one law for the poor and wealthy metzora; both may fulfill their chiyuv with the wealthy person’s offering.
- Question regarding which red strip of wool requires a minimum shiur
The next Mishnah states, קשר לשון של זהורית בראש שעיר המשתלח – He ties a strip of red wool to the head of the שעיר המשתלח. Rebbe Yitzchak said that he heard from his teachers a distinction that between the two strips of red wool, one for the parah adumah and one for the שעיר המשתלח, that only one requires a minimum shiur, but he could not remember which one. Rav Yosef said it seemed more reasonable that the שעיר המשתלח requires the minimum shiur דבעי חלוקה – since it requires division into two parts, as Rashi explains, half tied to the goat’s head and half tied to the rock. When Rami bar Chama objected, saying that the parah adumah also requires a minimum shiur because it must have weight, as Rashi explains, it must be heavy enough to plummet into the flame, Rava answered saying that it is a machlokes Tannaim whether it requires weight, and Rav Yosef follows the view that it does not.
