Previous daf

1)

(a) Our Mishnah draws a distinction between a Kometz which became Tamei and one which was Yotzei - in that the Tzitz atones for the former, but not for the latter.

(b) In fact - the Tzitz even permits the Shirayim of a Tamei Minchah to be eaten by the Kohanim.

(c) According to the Beraisa, when the Torah writes (in connection with the Tzitz) "Ve'nasa Aharon es Avon ha'Kodashim", it cannot refer to the sin of ...

1. ... Pigul - since the Torah writes there "Lo Yeichashev".
2. ... Nosar - since there the Torah writes "Lo Yeiratzeh".

(d) It refers to the sin of Tum'ah rather than the above two - because Tum'ah already enjoys a special dispensation with regard to a Tzibur (where the Torah writes "be'Mo'ado", 'Afilu be'Tum'ah').

(a) Rebbi Zeira suggested that maybe it pertains to the sin of Yotzei - since it too, has a special dispensation by Bamos (which have no curtains behind which to restrict a Korban).

(b) Abaye answered by quoting the Pasuk there "le'Ratzon Lahem Lifnei Hashem" - which serves to dismiss Rebbi Zeira's suggestion, by virtue of the fact that "Lifnei Hashem" implies a sin that took place bi'Fenim, and not by a Bamah.

(c) And, based on the key Pasuk "Avon ha'Kodashim", Abaye refutes Rebbi Ila'a's suggestion, that perhaps it comes to atone for the sin of S'mol, which is permitted on Yom Kipur (by the Kaf and the Machtah) - because "Avon" by definition, means a sin, to preclude 'S'mol', which in the context of the Kaf and the Machtah, is not a sin, since that is the way the Avodah is meant to be performed.

(d) Rav Ashi answers differently. He extrapolates from the Lashon "Avon ha'Kodashim" - that the Tzitz comes to atone for the sin of the Kodshim, and not for the sin of the Kohanim who sacrifice it.

(a) Rav Sima b'rei de'Rav Idi (or b'rei de'Rav Ashi) suggested to Rav Ashi that perhaps the Tzitz atones for the sin of Ba'al-Mum - which enjoys a special dispensation by Ofos (as Mar said ' ... Ein Tamus ve'Zachrus be'Ofos').

(b) Rav Ashi replied - that the Torah specifically writes in Emor (in connection with bringing a Ba'al-Mum on the Mizbe'ach)- "Ki Lo le'Ratzon Yih'yeh Lachem".

(a) The Beraisa draws a distinction between Dam she'Nitma ve'Zarko be'Shogeg and Dam she'Nitma ve'Zarko be'Meizid - inasmuch in the case of the former, the Tzitz atones, whereas in the case of the latter, it does not.

(b) This distinction does not apply - to a Korban Tzibur, by which the Tzitz atones even be'Meizid.

(c) The Beraisa adds - 'u've'Oved-Kochavim, bein be'Shogeg bein be'Meizid, bein be'O'nes bein be'Ratzon, Lo Hurtzah' ...

(d) ... which we learn - from the Pasuk "le'Ratzon Lahem", 've'Lo le'Ovdei-Kochavim'.

5)

(a) We ask on the previous Beraisa from another Beraisa. According to the Tana there the Tzitz atones - for the Dam, the Basar and the Cheilev of a Korban which became Tamei.

(b) According to him, the Tzitz atones bein be'Shogeg bein be'Meizid, bein be'Ones bein be'Ratzon, bein be'Yachid bein be'Tzibur.

(a) Rav Yosef tries to connect the two Beraisos to a Machlokes between Rebbi Yossi and the Rabbanan in a third Beraisa - where the Tana forbids separating Terumah from Tamei crops on to Tahor ones.

(b) The Tana Kama draws a distinction between someone who did so Bedi'eved be'Shogeg - whose Terumah is valid, and one who did so be'Meizid - whose Terumah is not.

(c) Rebbi Yossi maintains - that either way, it is valid.

(d) Rav Yosef compares the ruling of Rebbi Yossi tallies with that of the second Beraisa - in that in both cases, the Tana does not penalize the sinner, even though he sinned be'Meizid.

(a) We query Rav Yosef's suggestion that the authors of the two Beraisos are Rebbi Yossi and the Rabbanan. Even Rebbi Yossi might not agree with the latter Beraisa concerning Ritzuy Tzitz, we suggest - because the fact that he does not penalize the person for taking Terumah from Tamei crops on to Tahor ones, does not mean that he is also lenient with regard to Ritzuy Tzitz.

(b) In fact, we assume that Rebbi Yossi disagrees with the fact that the Tzitz atones even for Achilos (i.e. to permit the Kohanim to eat the Basar), since in another Beraisa, he argues with Rebbi Eliezer who holds 'ha'Tzitz Meratzeh al Achilos'.

(c) Rav Yosef will simply switch the opinions - Rebbi Eliezer will hold that the Tzitz does not atone for Achilos, whereas Rebbi Yossi holds that it does.

(d) We query this answer too however, with another Beraisa. The Tana there learns from the Pasuk "Kol Tahor Yochal Basar ... ve'ha'Nefesh Asher Tochal Basar mi'Zevach ha'Shelamim ... ve'Tum'aso Alav, ve'Nichresah" - that one is only Chayav Kareis for eating be'Tum'ah Kodshim that are permitted to Tehorim, but not Kodshim that are forbidden ...

(e) ... exempting a Tamei person who eats Kodshim before the Zerikas ha'Dam, from Kareis.

(a) When we suggest 'Ne'echal li'Tehorin Chayavin Alav Mishum Tum'ah, ve'she'Eino Ne'echal li'Tehorim, Ein Chayavin Alav ... ' we mean that perhaps the Torah is coming to preclude Lan and Yotzei (which were Nitar but are not Ne'echal).

(b) We ...

1. ... initially include - Pigulin and Nosaros from "Asher la'Hashem" ...
2. ... but ultimately exclude them from "mi'Zevach ha'Shelamim" ('ve'Lo Kol Zevach').

(c) Bearing in mind that Nosaros is synonymous with Lan, when the Beraisa says (after having included 'Lan and Yotzei') 'Yachol she'Ani Marbeh es ha'Pigulin *ve'es ha'Nosaros'*, it really means - ' ... es ha'Pigulin *ke'Nosaros'*.

(d) Now that we have one Pasuk to include (Kareis for eating Kodshim be'Tum'as ha'Guf), and one Pasuk to exclude, we opt to include Lan and Yotzei, and exclude Basar which became Tamei before the Zerikas Dam - since the former were permitted for a short time, whereas the latter were not.

(a) We now ask on Rav Yosef, who switched the opinions of Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yossi (regarding 'Tzitz Meratzeh al Achilos'). We know that the author of this Beraisa is Rebbi Eliezer - because he is the one who holds 'Ein Zerikah Mo'eles le'Yotzei' ...

(b) ... yet the Beraisa also holds that the Tzitz atones for Achilos, like Rebbi Eliezer said in the Beraisa above (a Kashya on Rav Yosef who switched that opinion to that of Rebbi Yossi).

(a) Rav Chisda finally resolves the original discrepancy between the two Beraisos - by presenting the author of the second Beraisa as Rebbi Eliezer (and not as Rebbi Yossi).

(b) And we know that Rebbi Eliezer agrees with the ruling in the second Beraisa, which does not penalize even the sinner who sinned be'Meizid - because we have a specific Beraisa to the effect that he validates the Terumah, even if it was made Tamei, be'Meizid.

(c) We must assume that Rebbi Eliezer is lenient by Kodshim just as he is lenient with regard to Terumah - because otherwise, who will be the author of the second Beraisa?

(a) Ravina resolves the initial discrepancy differently. He draws a distinction between the Tum'ah and the Zerikah regarding Shogeg and Meizid - permitting the former even be'Meizid, as long as the latter was performed be'Shogeg.

(b) Consequently, he establishes ...

1. ... the first Beraisa, which differentiates between Shogeg and Meizid - by the Zerikah.
2. ... the second Beraisa, which does not - by the Tum'ah (as the respective Lashon in each Beraisa implies).

(c) Rav Shilo disagrees with Ravina. According to him, it does not matter whether the Zerikah is performed be'Shogeg or be'Meizid. Provided the Tumah occurred be'Shogeg, the Tzitz atones. (d) And he explains the Lashon of ...

1. ... the second Beraisa ' ... she'Nitma bein be'Shogeg bein be'Meizid' to mean - 'Nitma be'Shogeg; ve'Zarko, bein be'Shogeg bein be'Meizid'.
2. ... another Beraisa 'Dam she'Nitma ve'Zarko be'Shogeg Hurtzah; be'Meizid, Lo Hurtzah' to mean - Dam she'Nitmah ve'Zarko, Nitma be'Shogeg Hurtzah; be'Meizid, Lo Hurtzah'.