Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) THE SHECHINAH AND TUMAH

(a) We are taught that even when we are Tamei the Shechinah is with us.
(b) The blasphemer challenged R. Chanina by calling us Tamei (based on the Pasuk indicating that such will be the case in the end).
(c) R. Chanina responded that the Shechinah is with us even so.

(a) The Beraisa uses this Pasuk as a Hekesh (to connect Par-Sair and Heichal-Kodesh HaKodoshim).
(b) Question: Can something which is, itself, derived from a Hekesh (Par from Sair) in turn teach a Hekesh (Heichal from Lifnim)?!
(c) Answer: This is not called a Hekesh (but rather Heimenu VeDavar Acher).
(d) Question: But what according to the opinion that considers Heimenu as a Hekesh?
(e) Answer: The "place" is learned from one another (such that each Hekesh deals with its own issues and no Lamed is being Melamed).
(f) Alternate Answer: The Limudim can both be learned as one (Chutz from Penim).

(a) R. Elazar b. R. Yosi reported seeing drops of Dam (from the Sair on Yom Kipur) on the Paroches in Rome, contrary to the Tana Kama who teaches that the Haza'ah is *not* on the Paroches itself.
(b) Question: Perhaps those drops were from other Korbanos (e.g. the Par He'elem Davar)?
(c) Answer: R. Elazar saw the (eight) drops in line.
(d) The Beraisa teaches the same sequence regarding the other Korbanos:

1. R. Elazar reported seeing *those* drops (and while those are not done on the Paroches, it is not Me'akev is some drops fall on it).
2. Question: Perhaps those were from Yom Kipur?
3. Answer: He saw they were not in line.

(a) If they became mixed before the Haza'ah Bifnim:

1. (Rava) He does one set of Haza'os and it counts for both.
2. R. Yirmiyah sharply put down Rava's suggestion.

i. Rava ends up with the Sair LeMa'alah being sprinkled before the Par LeMatah, which is Pasul.
ii. Rather, he must sprinkle one sent for Par and another set for Sair.

(b) If they became mixed after the Par LeMa'alah:

1. R. Papa suggested to do one Haza'ah LeMatah for both and then a Sair LeMa'alah.
2. Rava told R. Papa that the insult leveled by R. Yirmiyah would apply doubly to this suggestion which repeated the earlier error.

3. Rather, he must sprinkle for Par LeMatah and then offer a full set for Sair.

(c) If the cups of the Par and Sair became confused:

1. He sprinkles two sets from each cup.

(d) If only some of each of the Damim became mixed:

1. It seems obvious that he would use the non-mixed Dam!
2. The question is whether the mixed Dam would be considered Shirayim (and placed on the Yesod) or it is Dechuyah (and spilt into the Amah).
3. (R. Papa) It is clearly Dechuyah.

i. Even the opinion (R. Elazar b. R. Shimon, below) which maintains that one cup makes the others Shirayim would say so only if the contents of the cups could be, but were not, sprinkled.
ii. Here, however, they *could not* be sprinkled and would be Dechuyah.

4. (R. Huna b. R. Yehoshua) It is clearly Shirayim.

i. Even the opinion (Tana Kama, below) which maintains that one cup makes the other Dechuyah would say so only when nothing was offered from those cups.
ii. In our case, parts of each cup *were* sprinkled.

(a) The Machlokes (referred to above) is reported in the Beraisa which deals with a Chatas whose Dam was collected in four cups.
(b) If the Matanos were offered partially from each cup:

1. (Tana Kama) The remaining Dam in each cup is Shirayim.
2. If, however, the Matanos were offered from only one cup, then the Dam in the remaining cups is Dechuyah.
3. (R. Elazar b. R. Shimon) This second case would still make the rest Shirayim.
4. Question: How will R. Elazar learn the limitation of VeEs Damo (even partial Dam) Yishpoch?
5. Answer: It will preclude the Shirayim remaining in the animal.