Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) COMBINING THE BLOOD (bottom of 57b)

(a) The Mishnah supports the opinion that the Dam is combined before the Haza'ah on the Mizbeach HaPenimi.
(b) This is a Machlokes R. Yoshia and R. Yonasan.
(c) We may infer that R. Yoshia is of the opinion that they must be combined prior to the Haza'ah, since he holds, generally, that items listed together in the Pasuk are to be combined even in the absence of the word Yachdav.

1. Perhaps R. Yonasan could also maintain, here, that the blood is combined first, owing to the word Achas.
2. This suggestion, however, is clearly refuted by the Beraisa in which the positions of R. Yonasan and R. Yoshia are explicit.
3. R. Yonasan there rejects the implication of Achas in light of the separator term U'Mi'Dam.

(d) A second Beraisa affirms that MeArvin Lekeranos is the position of R. Yoshia.

(a) Question: What would be the Din if the Kohen put one Mizrak into the other, would it be considered a Chatzitzah (Min BeMino) or not?
(b) Answer: Our Mishnah indicates that the one vessel *may* be placed within the other.
(c) No, the Mishnah means *pouring the contents* of (the full) one into the other (empty one), not placing one vessel into the other.
(d) Question: But the Mishnah already taught that he poured the contents of one into the other?
(e) Answer: The second pouring is for greater consistency.
(f) Question: The Beraisa invalidates the Avodah of a Kohen standing on the foot of another, indicating that Min BeMino *is* a Chatzitzah!
(g) Answer: A foot does not become Batel (and is thus not considered Min BeMino).
(h) We could understand the question in (a) as follows:

1. Question: Is it proper to serve HaShem with one vessel inside the other?
2. Answer: From the Pasuk we can learn that multiple vessels may (together) effect one (proper) service.

(i) Question: Would a (fibrous) Siv in a vessel constitute a Chatzitzah (since it is a foreign body- Min BiShe'Eino Mino) or not (since it becomes fully saturated)?
(j) Answer: We find by the Mei Chatas that whatever is not absorbed into the sponge is invalid but whatever is outside of the sponge is Kosher, and so, too, in our case.

1. We may not draw conclusions from there since water is thinner than blood and more likely will permeate the space between the sponge and the vessel.

(k) Alternate Answer: The Siv would be acceptable by blood, but not by a Minchah (even fine flour might not permeate).

3) MISHNAH: THE MATANOS ON THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE MIZBEACH

(a) The Mizbeach spoken of in the Pasuk is the Mizbeach HaZahav.
(b) (Tana Kama) He begins the Hazaos (in a downward motion) in the NE corner and proceeds to his right (NW, SW, SE). [As such, he concludes his Hazaos in the corresponding corner (SE) to where he begins his Avodah on the Mizbeach HaChitzon.]
(c) (R. Eliezer) [Due to the small size of the Mizbeach HaZahav] He did the Avodah while standing in one place. [All the Hazaos (excepting the closest corner) were done in an upward motion.]
(d) After the Matanos on the corners he did seven Hazayos on the top of the Mizbeach and then poured the remaining Dam on the Western Yesod of the Mizbeach HaChitzon.

1. Shirayim from the Mizbeach HaChitzon would be poured on the Southern side, and all the blood would combine beneath in the Amah, then flow out to the Kidron valley where it was sold as fertilizer.
2. There is a prohibition (Me'ilah) against use of the Dam without paying for it.

(a) Two Beraisos teach that, for the Par Chatas of the Kohen Mashiach, the Kohen stands East (outward) of the Mizbeach (and does the Haza'ah on the Paroches from there) whereas on Yom Kipur he stands within, West of the Mizbeach, while doing Haza'ah on the Paroches.

(a) The Beraisa cites a Machlokes regarding the starting corner and the direction the Kohen took around the Mizbeach.

1. R. Akiva- He began in the SE and proceeded to his left (SW, NW, NE).
2. R. Yosi HaGelili- He began in the NE and proceeded to his right (NW, SW, SE).
3. Each opinion begins at the terminus of the other.

(b) Question: Why, according to both opinions, does the Kohen Gadol bypass the Western corner (North or South)?
(c) Answer: VeYatzah El HaMizbeach teaches him to proceed until the "exit" side of the Mizbeach.
(d) Question: Why, according to R. Akiva, doesn't he circle to the right?

1. We learned from Rami b. Yechezkel that all turns must be to the right (Mizrach).
2. This is learned from the sequence of the Pesukim describing the Mikveh of Shlomo.
3. Are we to learn that R. Akiva does not subscribe to this rule (and R. Yosi HaGelili does)?

(e) Answer: They argue not about the principle of turning to the right, but over whether we derive the Avodah on the Mizbeach HaZahav from the Avodah on the Mizbeach HaChitzon.
(f) Question: But even granting that R. Akiva does not draw from the Mizbeach HaChitzon, still, the Kohen should turn to his right, as per the accepted principle!?
(g) Answer: R. Akiva has the Kohen Gadol going back to the corner which he (ordinarily would not have) bypassed (but did, due to the Pasuk of VeYatzah).