Previous daf

1)

(a) In the second approach, we assume that, if both Rebbi Yossi Hagelili and Rebbi Akiva were to hold Hakafah be'Regel, then even Rebbi Akiva would learn P'nim from Chutz. The reason that, according to Rebbi Akiva, the Kohen Gadol moves to the left is because, in his opinion, Hakafah be'Yad (and we do not learn Yad from Regel in this regard).

(b) Alternatively, they both agree that Hakafah be'Yad - and, whereas Rebbi Yossi Hagelili *does* learn Yad from Regel in this regard, Rebbi Akiva does *not*. (Note: According to this answer too, we will have to apply the Sevara that we gave at the end of the previous Amud (as to why he *has to* go to the left.)

(c) We reject this explanation however, because Rebbi Eliezer in our Mishnah holds 'Hakafah be'Yad', implying that the Tana Kama (whom we have already identified as Rebbi Yossi Hagelili) holds 'Hakafah be'Regel'.

(d) One Kohen Gadol claimed that he made Hakafah be'Regel - comparing the "Saviv" of the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi to the "Saviv" of the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon. The other one claimed that he made Hakafah be'Yad - because the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi was the same size as one of the Keranos of the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon (and when sprinkling on one Keren, he did not walk round it but stood still).

(a) The author of our Mishnah, who quotes Rebbi Eliezer as saying that the Kohen Gadol moved his hand *upwards on all of the corners* except for the one at which he was standing, is Rebbi Yehudah. According to Rebbi Meir - Rebbi Eliezer holds that, the Kohen Gadol moved his hand *downwards by all the corners* except for the furthest corner (that was diagonally opposite him).

(b) Rebbi Meir's reason by the corner nearest to him is the same as Rebbi Yehudah's (to prevent the blood from flowing up his sleeve); and on the two adjacent corners he continues with the same pattern as he began. The reason that he changes by the furthest corner, to move his hand upwards - is because it is easier for the Kohen Gadol to do that.

(a) 'Hizah Mimenu al Taharo shel Mizbe'ach' - We initially explain 'Taharo shel Mizbe'ach to mean the *middle* of the Mizbe'ach - i.e. half-way up the wall of the Mizbe'ach.

(b) The Gemara brings a proof from the vernacular- 'Tahar Tihara' - which means the *middle* of the day.

(c) We reject this from a Beraisa, which says that the Kohen Gadol does not sprinkle on to ashes or coals - but only on to a part of the Mizbe'ach that has been cleared.

(d) Based on the Pasuk in Mishpatim "u'che'Etzem ha'Shamayim la'Tohar" (which means "like the vision of the heaven for *clarity*"), we now explain 'Taharo shel Mizbe'ach' to mean the part of the Mizbe'ach that has been *cleared* of ashes and coals.

(a) According to Chananya, the Kohen Gadol would sprinkle the blood all seven times on the *north* of the (top of the) Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi - whereas according to Rebbi Yossi, he would sprinkle it on the *south*.

(b) Chananya holds that the entrance to the Amah Teraksin was in the south - so he would begin placing the blood on the south-eastern corner, and conclude by the north-eastern one (like Rebbi Akiva on the previous Amud), where he would now sprinkle the seven on top of the Mizbe'ach. Whereas Rebbi Yossi holds that the entrance was in the north (as we saw above) (like Rebbi Yossi Hagelili) - in which case, he would begin placing the blood on the north-eastern corner, and conclude with the south-east, so that he would now sprinkle seven times on the south.

(c) This is derived from the Pasuk "ve'Tiharo ve'Kidsho" - which teaches us that there where the Kidush (i.e. the placing of the blood on the corners) ends, that is where the Taharah (the seven Haza'os) begins.

(a) The Kohen Gadol would pour out the blood on the western Yesod of the Mizbe'ach. The Gemara quotes the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos "ve'es Kol Dam ha'Par Yishpoch el Yesod Mizbe'ach ha'Olah Asher Pesach Ohel Mo'ed" - which refers to the western Yesod, since that was the one that faced the opening of the Kodesh.

(b) From the word "ha'Par" we include the Par of Yom Kipur.

(c) We learn that the leftover blood of the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon was poured on the one Amah of the *southern* Yesod - from the previous Halachah (by the blood of the two Parim); just as in that case, the Shirayim was poured on the nearest Yesod (i.e. the *western* one), so too, was the Shirayim of the Mizbe'ach poured on to the nearest Yesod (i.e. the *southern* one).

(a) Rebbi Yishmael holds that all leftover blood (even from the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon) was poured on to the western Yesod - because he learns what is *not* specified (the Shirayim of the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon) to what *is* (the Shirayim of the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi).

(b) And according to Rebbi Shimon, they were all poured on to the southern Yesod - because, according to him, the entrance to the Amah Teraksin was in the south - which made the *southern* Yesod the one that was "Pesach Ohel Mo'ed", and not the *western* one.

(c) In Rebbi Shimon's Beis Hamedrash, they quoted Rebbi Yishmael as saying that all the blood had to be poured on to the *southern* Yesod - on which the Gemara comments as a Si'man 'Mashchuha Gavri le'Gavra', meaning that Rebbi Shimon's disciples managed to pursuade Rebbi Yishmael to switch his view over to their's.

7)

(a) The authors of our Mishnah, which says that someone who uses the leftover blood after it has flowed out of the Beis Hamikdash via the water of the Amah, *is* Mo'el, are Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Shimon. According to the Chachamim - he is *not* Mo'el.

(b) Even according to Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Shimon - the Me'ilah is only mi'de'Rabbanan.

(c) By Me'ilah d'Oraysa, one is obligated to pay an extra fifth, but not by Me'ilah de'Rabbanan.

(a) Ula learns from the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos "va'Ani Nesativ *Lachem*" - that min ha'Torah, there is no Me'ilah by the blood of Kodshim, which is therefore permitted.

(b)

1. ... Tana de'Bei Rebbi Shimon learns from "Lechaper" - that Hashem gave us the blood as an atonement, but not to be Mo'el for using it.
2. ... Rebbi Yochanan learns from "Ki ha'Dam *Hu* ba'Nefesh Yechaper" - that the blood retains the same status throughout: just as it is permitted *after* it has atoned (because once the Mitzvah has been completed, it is no longer called 'Kodshei Hashem'), so too, is it permitted even *before* it has atoned.

(c) In the previous Derashah, we cannot reverse the Limud: to compare *after* the Kaparah to *before* it - i.e. that Me'ilah should be effective even *after* the Kaparah has been concluded - because there is nothing whose Mitzvah has been completed that is still subject to Me'ilah.