Previous daf

1)

(a) According to Rav Amram, the Tana'im (and Rav in the second Lashon) might even hold 'K'lei Shareis Mekadshin Afilu mi'Da'as'. Establishing the case where the Kometz was returned to a K'li that was heaped over the brim - ensures that it does not become Kodesh (because only something that is actually inside the airspace of the K'li Shareis becomes sanctified.

(b) We cannot accept this answer however - because if that is so, how will the Kohen subsequently perform the Kemitzah?

(c) We also object to the suggestion that the K'li was not heaped over the brim, but to the brim - on the grounds that when the Kemitzah would have ben taken, it would have then left a gap within the airspace of the K'li, and it is into that gap that the Kemitzah was returned, leaving us with the Kashya unanswered.

(d) So we finally establish Rav Amram - when the Kemitzah is returned on to the top surface of the wall, and is allowed to fall by itself into the K'li, which is considered as if a monkey had placed it there, and it does not become sanctified.

(a) Rebbi Yirmiyah asked Rebbi Zeira why Rav Amram did not establish the case when whoever performed the Pasul Kemitzah, replaced it in a K'li on the floor - because he initially presumes that a K'li only sanctifies what one places inside it, as long as it is being held.

(b) From the fact that Rav Amram did not establish the case like that, Rebbi Yirmiyah extrapolates - that it must sanctify what is inside it, even when it is lying on the floor.

(c) Rebbi Zeira replied that he had touched on the She'eilah that Avimi had already asked Rav Chisda (as we will explain shortly). We object however, to the mere fact that he quoted Avimi as having asked Rav Chisda - since Avimi was Rav Chisda's Rebbe, and not the other way round.

(a) We know that Rav Chisda was Avimi's Talmid, and not vice-versa - from Rav Chisda himself, who testified - how he had received many Makos with a club from his Rebbe, Avimi?

(b) The problematic Sugya (that Rav Chisda kept on forgetting) was that of 'Shum ha'Yesomim' in Erchin, where one Tana gave the time of assessment as thirty days, and the other, as sixty.

(c) Avimi explained - that if they decided to announce the days consecutively, then they would fix thirty days, whereas if they announced only on Mondays and Thursdays, then they would fix sixty.

(d) Nevertheless, it was Avimi who asked Rav Chisda how one takes Kemitzah - because he forgot the Sugya, so he asked his Talmid.

(a) He did not ask Rav Chisda to come to him - because he figured that by making the effort to go to Rav Chisda, he would finding the answer.

(b) On the way, he met Rav Nachman.
When, in reply to Avimi's question how one takes Kemitzah, the latter pointed to a K'li lying on the ground - Avimi was quite surprised.

(c) Rav Nachman's replied - that what he meant was after the Kohen had picked it up (see Tosfos DH 'Amar Leih').

(a) Avimi asked that if so, every Kemitzah would require three Kohanim, two to hold the K'li containing the Minchah and the K'li into which the Kohen would place the Kemitzah respectively, and one to perform the actual Kemitzah. One Kohen not hold the first two Keilim - since Avodah 'bi'Semol Pasul'.

(b) To which, Rav Nachman replied - that if necessary, thirteen Kohanim could perform an Avodah, like they did when they brought the Korban Tamid.

(c) The Mishnah later states 'Kol ha'Kometz, ve'Nosen bi'Cheli, ha'Molich ve'ha'Maktir Davar Le'echol ... '. When Avimi asked Rav Nachman why the Tana omitted 'ha'Magbihah', he replied - that the Tana was concerned with independent Avodos (and not with the number of Kohanim).

(a) When they asked Rav Sheishes whether the Kohen may perform the Kemitzah from a K'li that is lying on the floor, he cited a Beraisa. The Tana there describes how every Shabbos, eight Kohanim would enter the Heichal - to perform the Avodah of 'Siluk Bazichin' ...

(b) ... two were holding the (fresh) rows of Lechem ha'Panim and two, the Bazichin (bowls with the frankincense), and the other four, to remove last week's Loaves and Bazichin from the Shulchan.

(c) Rav Sheishes resolved the She'eilah from there - since the Tana made no mention of Kohanim to pick up the Shulchan before removing the Lechem ha'Panim (a proof that it is not necessary to hold the Minchah whilst performing the Kemitzah.

(d) The connection between the Siluk Bazichin and the Kemitzah of the Minchah is - that a. the former permits the Lechem ha'Panim to the Kohanim, just as the latter permits them to eat the Minchah, and b. they are both referred to as 'Azkarah'.

(e) Rav Sheishes countered the Kashya that maybe the Tana is speaking about Avodos and not Kohanim (like we explained with regard to the previous Beraisa) - by pointing out that this Tana refers to the number of Kohanim, seeing as he actually made a point of mentioning how many Kohanim there were.

7)

(a) According to Rava, it is obvious that the Kohen may perform Kemitzah from a K'li which is lying on the floor, and likewise, he may sanctify the Minchah in such a K'li. He learns the first ruling from the Siluk Bazichin, like Rav Nachman, and the second ruling - from the 'Sidur Bazichin' (which the Kohanim also did without picking up the Shulchan).

(b) He is not certain however, about being Mekadesh the Kometz in such a K'li. On the one hand, maybe it is Kodesh just like the Kidush of the Minchah. On the other, maybe it is not - like Kabalas ha'Dam, which cannot be performed in two Keilim.

(c) He concludes - that we learn it from Kabalas ha'Dam.

(d) The four main Avodos of the Minchah correspond to the four main Avodos of the Zevach. Kemitzah corresponds to Shechitah, Kidush Kometz to the Kabalas ha'Dam ...

1. ... Holachas Kometz - to Holachas ha'Dam.
2. ... Haktaras Kometz - to Zerikas ha'Dam.

(a) Rav Nachman invalidates a Kometz which the Kohen halved and placed into two Keilim. He learns it from - the blood of a Korban which the Kohen received in two Keilim.

(b) Rava maintains - that it is Kasher.

(c) Having just learned the previous Din of Kometz from the Dam of the Zevach - he also retracted from his stance against Rav Nachman - and conceded that he was right.

(a) The original source of this ruling is where the Kohen was Mekadesh less than the Shiur Haza'ah of the Mei Parah in two Keilim, rendering it Pasul. Pouring the contents of one of the Keilim into the other to make up the Shi'ur - will not help.

(b) We know that Dam does not become Kadosh in halves - from a Beraisa cited by Rav Tachlifa ben Shaul (or from a Beraisa quoting Rebbi Tachlifa ben Shaul), which first cites the Din by Kidush Mei Chatas, and then goes on to discuss the Din by Kabalas ha'Dam.

(c) We will not learn Kabalas ha'Dam from it - if its source is Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai, (because we cannot learn from 'Halachah').

(d) If, on the other hand, we learn it from the Pasuk "Ve'taval ba'Mayim", the Din extends to Kabalas ha'Dam too - because there too, the Torah writes in Vayikra "Ve'taval ba'Dam".

(e) Rebbi Zerika Amar Rebbi Elazar concluded - 'Af be'Dam Lo Kidesh'.

(a) Rava informs us that this Halachah is already mentioned on a Beraisa. The Tana there learn from the Pasuk (in connection with the Par Kohen Mashi'ach) ...

1. ... "Ve'taval" - that the Kohen must dip his finger into the blood inside the bowl, and not take from the blood on the wall of the bowl.
2. ... "ba'Dam" - that the entire Shiur must be inside the bowl to begin with (and not half in one bowl and half in another).

(b) And when the Tana also Darshens from the Pasuk there "min ha'Dam" 'min ha'Dam she'be'Inyan', he means - that the Kohen cannot use the blood that is left on his fingers either.

(c) This bears out a statement by Rebbi Elazar - who said 'Shirayim she'be'Etzba, Pasul'.

(a) Ravin bar Rav Ada cites ... Rav Amram, who asks on Rebbi Elazar from a Beraisa (in connection with the Kohen Gadol sprinkling the Dam of the Chata'os Chitzoniyos). According to Rav Amram, 'Hayah Mazeh, Ve'nitzah Haza'ah mi'Yado; Im ad she'Lo Hizah, Ta'un Kibus' means - that as long as the Kohen Gadol has not concluded all the Haza'os, if blood from his finger drips onto someone, that person's clothes require Tevilah, in which case the blood must still be fit to be sprinkled, a Kashya on Rebbi Elazar.

(b) And he then explains the Seifa 'mi'she'Hizah, Eino Ta'un Kibus Begadim' - to mean that once he has concluded all the Ha'za'os, blood that drips from his finger does not render the clothes Tamei.

(c) To reconcile Rebbi Elazar with the Beraisa, Rava therefore interprets 'ad she'Lo Hizah', and 'mi'she'Hizah' as - before the blood has left his finger (to be sprinkled on the Paroches) it renders Tamei, but not blood that remains on his finger after the Kohen Gadol has already sprinkled it (supporting Rebbi Elazar.

(d) Abaye infers from the Mishnah in Parah 'Gamar mi'Lehazos, Mekane'ach Yado be'Gufah shel Parah' - that as long as he has not finished all the Haza'os, the Kohen Gadol is not required to wipe the blood that remains on his finger (a Kashya on Rebbi Elazar, who holds that he must wipe his finger from the blood after every Haza'ah ... )

(a) Rava answers the Kashya, by changing the inference to - 'Gamar ... Mekane'ach es *Yado* ... Lo Gamar, Mekane'ach *Etzba'o*'.

(b) The ...

1. ... Parah was burned - at the foot of Har ha'Zeisim.
2. ... blood of the Parah was sprinkled towards the entrance of the Ohel Mo'ed - at the top of the same mountain.

(c) The body of the Parah Adumah was burned - in the presence of the Kohen who sprinkled it, after the latter had descended the mountain.

(d) The problem this present on our previous answer, obligating the Kohen to wipe his finger between each Haza'ah is - that assuming that he too, had to wipe his finger clean on the body of the bull, how could he be expected to descend the mountain each time he needed to wipe his finger.

(a) Abaye (who asked the initial Kashya) answered this question - by establishing the obligation of cleaning his finger by doing so on the bowl (and not on the actual cow).

(b) This explains the fact that Ezra refers to the bowls as 'Kipurei Zahav' - because the word also has connotations of cleaning.