Previous daf

1)

(a) We learn from the Pasuk ..

1. ... "ve'Ata u'Vanecha Itach Tishmeru es Kehunaschem" -- that the Avodas ha'Kohanim is forbidden to Zarim.
2. ... "ve'Shachat es Ben ha'Bakar Lifnei Hashem, *ve'Hikrivu B'nei Aharon ha'Kohanim*" - that it is only from the Kabalah and onwards (which is meant in this Pasuk by "ve'Hikrivu") that Kohanim are required to perform it (in which case we will explain "ve'Samach ve'Shachat" [which precedes "ve'Hikrivu"] to mean that the owner who leans his hands on it may also perform the Shechitah - even though he is a Zar).

(b) Abaye now attempts to re-learn Chizkiyah's Derashah (quoted at the foot of 26b.) from the Pasuk "ve'Nasnu B'nei Aharon ha'Kohen Eish Al ha'Mizbe'ach" - that Hefshet ve'Nitu'ach do not require Kehunah (otherwise, the Torah would not need to inform us that arranging the fire on the Mizbe'ach ("ve'Nasnu") requires Kehunah - it is obvious, since it is written after "ve'Hikrivu".

(c) However, we refute this explanation, too - because arranging fire on the Mizbe'ach is an Avodah that does not render the Korban Pasul (when it is not performed) [and we would therefore not know from "ve'Hikrivu" that it too, requires Kehunah]. Consequently, "ve'Nasnu" is intrinsically needed.

(a) It is not necessary to write "ve'Hikriv ha'Kohen es ha'Kol" (referring to carrying the limbs on to the Mizbe'ach) because, like arranging the fire, it does not render the Avodah Pasul (when it is not performed), so we can learn from "ve'Nasnu" (by arranging the fire - see 1a), that it too, needs Kehunah.

(b) The Torah writes "ve'Hikriv" ... to infer from it that it is only the carrying of the *limbs* on to the Mizbe'ach that requires Kehunah, but not the carrying of the *wood* (which is permitted to Zarim).

(c) We also learn from the previous Derashah that it is specifically *carrying* the wood on to the Mizbe'ach that does *not* require Kehunah, but *arranging* the two blocks of wood on the Mizbe'ach, *does* - See Tosfos DH 'Holachas'.

(a) We learn from "ve'Hiktir *ha'Kohen* es ha'Kol ha'Mizbechah" - to preclude Hefshet ve'Nitu'ach from Kehunah. It is not needed for itself as we explained by arranging the two blocks of wood (in 2c).

(b) We learn from the Torah's use of the plural in the Pasuk "ve'Archu" "B'nei Aharon" "ha'Kohanim" - that the lamb of the Tamid must be carried on to the Mizbe'ach by six Kohanim (five to carry the limbs and one, the innards).

(c) But how can we possibly learn the Din of the *lamb* of the Korban from a Pasuk which speaks about a Korban brought from a *bull* (of a Korban Olas Nedavah)?

(d) We resolve this difficulty from the continuation of the Pasuk "al ha'Eitzim Asher al ha'Eish Asher Al ha'Mizbe'ach" - which is redundant. So using the logic that it is the lamb of the Korban Tamid that requires a fresh arrangement of wood and fire on the Mizbe'ach each morning, we apply the Pasuk to the Korban Tamid, as we explained.

4)

(a) "ve'ha'Eish al ha'Mizbe'ach Tukad Bo" refers to the Mitzvah of arranging the wood on the Mizbe'ach each morning.

(b) The Pasuk writes "ve'Arach Aleha ha'Olah", from which we Darshan 'ha'Olah, Olah Rishonah' (precluding all other Korbanos from requiring a new Ma'arachah).

(c) The Torah took the opportunity of mentioning the Din of arranging the wood here since it is speaking about the needs of an Olah, and we might otherwise wonder how the wood and the fire came to be on the Mizbe'ach.

(a) 'Zar she'Sidar es ha'Ma'arachah, Chayav' (Misah bi'Yedei Shamayim).

(b) He *is* permitted to remove it - for the Kohen to re-arrange (It is unclear however, what a Zar is doing on the Mizbe'ach in the first place, or how he is permitted to remain there?) According to some Rishonim, the Zar actually rectifies him sin by removing the wood that he placed.

(c) Rebbi Zeira objected to Rebbi Yochanan's first statement - There is no such thing, he argues, as an Avodah that is Kasher by night (such as arranging the wood) and Pasul for a Zar to perform?

(d) We cannot answer Rebbi Zeira's Kashya from ...

1. ... the Avodah the burning of the limbs and the fat-pieces - because they are not a night-Avodah at all, but the conclusion of the day Korbanos.
2. ... the Terumas ha'Deshen - because it too, is not really a night-Avodah, but the beginning of the day Avodos. This we learn from another statement of Rebbi Yochanan's, where he says that if a Kohen performed Kidush Yadayim ve'Raglayim for the Terumas ha'Deshen, he does not need to do so again, since he has already done it at the beginning of the Avodah (See Tosfos Yeshanim and Rabeinu Chananel).

7)

(a) When Rava asked that if the Sidur Sh'nei Gizrei Eiztim was an Avodah, then why did it not require a Payas - he forgot the Beraisa (quoted above 22a) that whoever merited the Terumas ha'Deshen, also merited arranging the Ma'arachah and the Sidur Sh'nei Gizrei Eitzim.

(b) Despite the fact that only *day*-Avodos required a Payis, nevertheless ...

1. ... the burning of the limbs and fat-pieces - required a Payis because it too, was really the end of the day Avodah - as we said above.
2. ... the Terumas ha'Deshen required a Payas - (even if it *was* considered a night-Avodah) because of the episode with the two Kohanim.

(c) In spite of the fact that only those Avodos which rendered a Zar Chayav Misah, required a Payis - they nevertheless instituted a Payis by the Shechitah, because it was the first Avodah of the Tamid.

(a) In the next Mishnah, the Tana describes how the Memuneh would ask the Kohanim to go and see whether it was light in the east - because it once happened that, mistaking the light of the moon for the light of the sun, they Shechted the Tamid shel Shachar before dawn, with the result that the Tamid had to be taken to the Beis ha'Sereifah and burned.

(b) Even though the Sidur Sh'nei Gizrei Eitzim on the Mizbe'ach was considered a *day*- Avodah, he nevertheless instructed them to go and see whether the time of *Shechitah* of the Tamid had arrived, and not the time of the Sidur Sh'nei Gizrei Eitzim - because, in the latter case, even if they *had* placed the two blocks of wood on the Mizbe'ach by night, they would have been able to rectify the mistake by removing it and re-placing it after dawn-break (something which is of course, not possible by the Shechitah of the Tamid).

(a) In the second Lashon, Rebbi Zeira asked Rebbi Yochanan (who declares a Zar who arranged the Ma'arachah to be Chayav Misah), why he should be Chayav, seeing as it is followed by the Avodah of Sidur Sh'nei Gizrei Eitzim.

(b) Rashi delete the Kashya from the carrying of the limbs and the fat- pieces, and from the Terumas ha'Deshen, both of which are the beginning of other Avodos, and yet a Zar is Chayav for performing them - because we have already established both of those cases as Avodos Tamos (final Avodos) in the Sugya of Rav and Levi (on 24a).