Previous daf

1)

(a) Rami bar Chama asked Rav Chisda what the Din would be if the Kohen were to receive the blood in a K'li which was inside a K'li. Such a Kabalah might be Pasul - because it is a Chatzitzah (in which case, the Kohen would not be holding the K'li and would therefore not be making the Kabalah) - even though the Chatzitzah is caused by the same species (a different species would certainly be considered a Chatzitzah - see Tosfos DH 'Min be'Mino').

(b) There no proof that it is *not* a Chatzitzah from our Mishnah, which says 'Nasan es ha'Malei ba'Reikan' - because that could just as well mean that he *poured* the contents of the full bowl into the empty one, and not that he *placed* the one bowl inside the other.

(c) True, the Mishnah has already said 'Irah Dam ha'Par le'Dam ha'Sa'ir'. Nevertheless he would pour it back again in order to ensure that it was well mixed.

(d) Nor is there a proof from the Beraisa in Zevachim which considers the feet of another Kohen a Chatzitzah - because (in this regard) a foot is worse than a bowl since it is *not* subject to Bitul (whereas a bowl *is*).

3)

(a) According to the second Lashon, Kabalah in a K'li within a K'li might be Pasul because it is not the regular way that Kabalah is performed.

(b) Rav Chisda resolves this version of the She'eilah from the Beraisa, which infers from the Pasuk in Bamidbar "es Kol K'lei ha'Shares Asher Yesharsu Bam ba'Kodesh" - *two* Keilim but only *one* Sherus (Avodah), from which we see that a bowl within a bowl is Kasher.

(a) Rami bar Chama also asked Rav Chisda whether or not, the soft bark that grows around the date-palms is considered a Chatzitzah, if the Kohen placed it inside the bowl before receiving the blood. Although it is made of a different species, it might nevertheless *not* be a Chatzitzah - because the blood seeps through (and it is not therefore considered a real Chatzitzah).

(b) One is *not* permitted to use the water contained in a sponge in the water-trough (which in turn, is attached to the spring from which the Kohen is drawing the water for the Parah Adumah) for sprinkling.

(c) The sponge is not however, considered a Chatzitzah vis-a-vis the water in the trough.

(d) We cannot however, resolve Rami bar Chami's She'eilah from this Mishnah - because water, being less dense than blood, seeps through to a much larger extent than blood.

(a) According to some, Rav Chisda replied that by blood (which is a liquid), it is *not* considered a Chatzitzah, whereas by the Kometz of a Minchah (which is a solid), it *is*.

(b) By Kometz, Rav Chisda meant the Kidush K'li (placing it inside a K'li after the Kemitzah) which was equivalent to the Kabalas ha'Dam of a Korban.

6)

(a) The Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav is described as "Lifnei Hashem".

(b) The Tana Kama holds 'Hakafah be'Regel' - which means that the Kohen Gadol walked round the Mizbe'ach as he placed the two sets of blood on each of its four corners.

(c) Seeing as the Tana Kama holds 'Hakafah be'Regel', the Kohen Gadol will actually have been standing in front of each corner as he placed the blood on it. Consequently (bearing in mind that the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi was only two Amos tall), he had to hold his arm at an acute angle, and if he were to move his hand upwards, blood would pour up his sleeve. As a result, after dipping his finger into the bowl of blood, he would place the blood on the corner in a downward direction. That is why the Tana uses the expression 'Hischil Mechatei *ve'Yored*'.

(d) The Kohen Gadol *concluded* with the south-eastern corner - the corner where the Kohen would *begin* placing the Matanos of a Chatas during the rest of the year.

(a) It was in order for him to move his finger upwards as he placed the blood on three of the four corners - because he was sufficiently distant from them, and the angle sufficiently slight, for there to be no fear that the blood might run up his sleeve.

(b) The exception was the corner where he was standing, since there, the angle of his arm would be acute. Consequently there, he placed the blood in a downward direction (like the Chachamim hold by all the corners).

(c) After he had placed the blood on the four corners of the Mizbe'ach - he sprinkled the blood once on top.

(d) He placed the Sheyarei ha'Dam ...

1. ... from the current Avodos of the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi - onto the Yesod of the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon that was closest to the Heichal (i.e. the western Yesod).
2. ... from the Avodos of the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon (throughout the year) - onto the Yesod that was closest to the ramp (i.e. the one Amah of southern Yesod).

(a) The blood flowed from the Yesod into the Amah that flowed through the Azarah, and from there out to the valley of Kidron.

(b) One was permitted to derive benefit from the blood (the gardeners used it as manure) provided they paid Hekdesh for it.

(c) Someone who used it before having paid for it was Chayav Me'ilah (mi'de'Rabbanan - as we shall see).

(a) The Torah needs to write ...

1. ... with regard to the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kipur (after he had sprinkled the two sets of blood on the Paroches) "*ve'Yatza* el ha'Mizbe'ach" - to teach us, says Rebbi Nechemyah, that when he sprinkled the blood on the Paroches, he had been standing close to it (i.e. between the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi and the Paroches). Otherwise, we would have assumed that he stood *outside* the Mizbe'ach - like the Kohen did when he sprinkled the blood from the Par He'elam Davar and the Par Kohen Mashi'ach.
2. ... by the Par He'elam Davar shel Tzibur "Mizbach Ketores ha'Samim *Asher Lifnei Hashem*" - to teach us, says Rebbi Nechemyah, that the Kohen who sprinkled the blood from the Par He'elam Davar and of the Par Kohen Mashi'ach had to stand outside the Mizbe'ach ha'Ketores ('Mizbe'ach Lifnei Hashem, ve'Ein Kohen Lifnei Hashem'). Otherwise, we would have learned from the Kohen Gadol who, when he sprinkled the blood from the Par and the Sa'ir on Yom Kipur, stood in between the Mizbe'ach and the Paroches.

(b) The author of our Mishnah is Rebbi Yossi Hagelili, in whose opinion the Kohen Gadol would place the blood on the *north*-eastern corner first. According to Rebbi Akiva, he would first sprinkle on the *south* -eastern corner (like he did throughout the year).

(c) Rebbi Akiva concurs with Rebbi Yehudah (that there were *two* curtains in the second Beis Hamikdash, dividing between the Kodesh and the Kodesh Kodashim, and that the entrance to the Amah Teraksin was on the *south*). Consequently, when the Kohen Gadol concluded the Avodah in the Kodesh Kodashim, he would enter the Heichal on the south, in which case, the *south* side was closer to him than the north. Whereas Rebbi Yossi Hagelili holds like Rebbi Yossi (that there was only *one* curtain in the time of the second Beis Hamikdash, and that it opened into the Kodesh Kodashim on the *north*). Consequently, in his opinion, it would be the *north* side that was nearer to the Kohen Gadol, and not the south.

(d) He did not place the blood first on the north-*western* corner (according to Rebbi Yossi Hagelili) or on the south-*western* corner (according to Rebbi Akiva) - the first corner he would arrive at after the previous Avodah - since the Torah writes "*ve'Yatza* el ha'Mizbe'ach", which they both understand to mean that the Kohen Gadol must go to the far end of the Mizbe'ach.

(a) The Yam (Mikveh) that Shlomoh made stood on twelve copper oxen. The first three mentioned in the Pasuk in Divrei Hayamim faced north, the second three, west, the third three, south and the fourth three, east. Rami bar Yechezkel learns from that order - that by the Avodas Chutz, the Kohen always turns to the right.

(b) We reject the contention that both Rebbi Yossi Hagelili and Rebbi Akiva (in whose opinion, the Kohen Gadol moves to the left) concur with Rami bar Yechezkel's statement, but, whereas the former learns P'nim from Chutz, the latter does *not* - because even if Rebbi Akiva does not learn P'nim from Chutz, there is no reason why he should *have to* go towards the left, so why should he not be able to go towards the right, if he so wished?

(c) Assuming that Rebbi Akiva concurs with Rami bar Yechezkel's statement, the reason for moving to the left, from the south-eastern corner to the south-west and so on (instead of moving to the right) - is because, since he really ought to have begun with the south-*western* corner (the one he arrived at first - and we have a principle 'Ein Ma'avirin al ha'Mitzvos'), then he makes up for his omission by sprinkling on *it* second (rather than last).