Previous daf

1)

(a) We learn the concession of Tum'ah be'Tzibur from the Pasuk in Beha'aloscha "*Ish* Ki Yihyeh Tamei la'Nefesh" - 'Ish Nidcheh le'Pesach Sheini, ve'Ein Tzibur Nidachin'.

(b) This principle does not apply to any type of Tum'ah that stem from a person's body (i.e. Zavin, Metzora'in, Nidos and Yoldos).

(a) Rav Sheishes proves that 'Tum'ah Dechuyah Hi be'Tzibur', from a Beraisa in Menachos which rules that a Kohen who was bringing the Minchas ha'Omer when it became Tamei, must bring another one (if this is possible) - something which would not be necessary if 'Tum'ah Hutrah be'Tzibur.

(b) Rav Nachman refutes this proof on the basis of 'Modina Heicha de'Ika Shirayim la'Achilah' - meaning that Tum'ah Hutrah be'Tzibur only applies to *bringing* the Korban, but not to *eating* it (which in fact, remains forbidden, as we have already learned). Consequently, when we are speaking of a Korban that needs to be eaten (such as the Korban Omer), even *he* will agree that we try to re-place the Tamei Korban (in order to fulfill the Mitzvah of eating it).

(a) Rav Sheishes then brings proof from another Beraisa there, which issues an equivalent ruling with regard to a Kohen who was bringing a Minchas Parim, ve'Eilim u'Kevasim', even though they are not eaten (because he thinks that the Tana is referring to the Minchas Parim, ve'Eilim u'Kevasim' of the Musaf of Yom-Tov, which is fixed (indicating that 'Tum'ah Dechuyah be'Tzibur).

(b) Rav Nachman interprets 'Parim' to mean Par Avodah-Zarah (which does not have a fixed time); 'Eilim', Eilo shel Aharon (which is only a Korban Yachid) and 'Kevasim', Keves ha'Ba Im ha'Omer (which is eaten).

5)

(a) 'Dam she'Nitma, ve'Zarko, be'Shogeg Hurtzah, *be'Meizid, Lo Hurtzah'* means that although min ha'Torah Ritzuy Tzitz (the atonement of the Tzitz) permits the Korban even to be eaten, Chazal decreed on a case where the blood became Tamei be'Meizid, that it may not be eaten.

(b) The reason that they did not disqualify the Korban completely - is because bringing a Korban when it is not obligatory, entails bringing Chulin to the Azarah.

(a) Rav Nachman establishes the Beraisa (which appears to makes no distinction between Shogeg and Meizid, Yachid and Tzibur, the Tzitz always atones for the blood, the flesh and the Cheilev that became Tamei) with regard to the *Kashrus* of the Korban. The *Tzitz* is only needed to atone for a Korban *Yachid* - a Korban *Tzibur* which is Tamei does not require the Tzitz to atone for it.

(b) In the second answer, Rav Nachman establishes the Beraisa by Korbenos Tzibur which are not time-bound, which also need the Tzitz to atone for them (known as Ritzuy Tzitz).

(a) The Pasuk of "ve'Nasa Aharon es Avon ha'Kodashim" (which is speaking about Ritzuy Tzitz), cannot be referring to the sin of Pigul i.e. (the *thought* of Shechting the Korban in the *wrong location*) or to that of Nosar (Shechting it in order to eat it outside the allotted *time* - which is normally referred to as Pigul).

(b) The Pasuk cannot be referring to them - because the Torah has already written "Lo Yeratzeh" by the former and "Lo Yechashev" by the latter.

(c) The Tzitz atones for Tum'ah more than it does for 'Pigul' and 'Nosar' - because we have another leniency by Tum'ah (which does not exist by them) - namely, that 'Tum'ah Hutrah be'Tzibur', forming a precedent.

(d) The Beraisa explicitly mentions 'Hutrah'. Rav Sheshes answers that this is a Machlokes Tana'im, and that his opinion concurs with the Tana of another Beraisa.

8)

(a) Rebbi Shimon holds that the Tzitz atones for Kodshim which became Tamei, whether they became Tamei whilst the Kohen Gadol was wearing it or not. According to Rebbi Yehudah, it will only atone as long as the Kohen Gadol is actually wearing it.

(b) Rebbi Shimon proves his point from the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kipur, when the Kohen Gadol did not actually wear the Tzitz whenever entering the Kodesh Kodshim, yet it clearly atonet at that time, too.

(c) The Kohen Gadol on Yom Kipur is no proof, replies Rebbi Yehudah - because he was performing the Avodah for the Tzibur and 'Tum'ah Hutrah be'Tzibur', in which case, the Tzitz was not needed.

(d) Rebbi Shimon agrees that, if the Tzitz is broken, and is unfit to atone, it will not atone.

10)

(a) Rebbi Yehudah learns from "ve'Hayah *Al Metzach Aharon, ve'Nasa* ... " - that the Tzitz atoned only when the Kohen Gadol is *actually wearing* it; Rebbi Shimon from "ve'Hayah Al Mitzcho *Tamid, le'Ratzon* ... " - that it atoned at all times, even when he was *not*.

(b) "Tamid" cannot mean that it always had to be on the Kohen Gadol's forehead, Rebbi Shimon argues - because that was not possible! Does he not need to sleep and go to the bathroom?

(c) According to Rebbi Yehudah, we learn from "Tamid" that the Kohen Gadol was not permitted to take his mind off the Tzitz (i.e. by behaving in a manner that was not conducive with the standard of Kedushah that went with the Tzitz).

(d) Rebbi Yehudah learns from a Kal va'Chomer from Tzitz (which contained only *one* name of Hashem) - that one may not take one's mind off one's Tefilin (whilst one is wearing them), and should therefore feel them at regular intervals.