Previous daf

1)

(a) The Par and the Sa'ir atone for Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kadashav - when the Tum'ah was known initially and then forgotten. It only tides the offender over until he recalls it, when he will be obligated to bring a Korban Olah ve'Yored.

(b)

1. ... "ve'Chiper es Mikdash ha'Kodesh" - refers to Tum'ah that occurred in the Kodesh Kodashim;
2. ... "ve'es Ohel Mo'ed" - in the Heichal;
3. ... "Yechaper" - in the Azaros.

(c) With regard to the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach): "ha'Kohanim", "Am ha'Kahal" and "Yechaper" - refer to the Kohanim, the Yisraelim and the Levi'im respectively.

(d) The Tana Kama of the Beraisa learn from here - that all Yisrael receive atonement through the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach.

(a) Rebbi Shimon says that just as the blood of the Sa'ir la'Hashem atones for Yisrael - on Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kadashav, so too, does the blood of the Par atone for the Kohanim on Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kadashav; and just as the Viduy over the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach atones for all of Yisrael's other sins, so too does the Viduy over the Par atone for all of the other sins of the Kohanim.

(b) Rebbi Shimon explains that the Torah compares the Kohanim, the Levi'im and the Yisre'elim - to teach us that the Kohanim have a Kaparah, just as Yisrael do. Nevertheless, their Kaparos are independent.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk "ve'Chilah mi'Kaper es ha'Kodesh, ve'es Ohel Mo'ed ve'es ha'Mizbe'ach" - that the Kaparah of each one should be treated separately (as we learned above in our Mishnah).

(b) If the blood spills after the Kohen Gadol has concluded the Matanos of the Mizbe'ach - the Avodah does not become invalid.

(c) Rebbi Meir (the Tana Kama of our Mishnah - who holds that, if the blood of the Par or the Sa'ir spilled in the middle of one of the sets of Matanos, he must begin that set again) interprets "mi'Dam Chatas ha'Kipurim Achas ba'Shanah" - to mean that the Kohen Gadol must perform each Kaparah with *one* animal and not *two*.

(d) Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon interpret it to mean - that one sprinkles *once* and not *twice*.

(a) The Log Shemen shel Metzora was sprinkled seven times towards the Heichal and then placed on the right thumb and big right toe of the Metzora, who was standing by the Sha'ar Nikanor.

(b) When Rebbi said 'Li Chilak Rebbi Ya'akov be'Lugin' - he meant that Rebbi Ya'akov taught him that, here, even Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon will agree that, should the oil spill before the Kohen has completed either of the two Avodos, he must bring fresh oil and begin that Avodah again, since the Torah writes "Log *Echad* Shamen" - one lot of oil and not two.

(c) The difficulty with this is from another Beraisa, which describes the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir on the one hand, and Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon, on the other. And there it states categorically, that Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon argue with Rebbi Meir by the Log Shemen in exactly the same way as they do by the Par and Sa'ir of Yom Kipur.

(d) What Rebbi really said must therefore have been 'Li Shanah Rebbi Ya'akov be'Log' - meaning that Rebbi Ya'akov taught him the Machlokes between the Tana'aim by the Log (in the same way as they argued by the Par and the Sa'ir).

(a) The Beraisa concludes that Matnos ha'Rosh are not crucial to the Metzora's Kaparah. This refers to the remainder of the oil, which the Kohen placed on the head of the Metzora.

(b) The Noseres min ha'Minchah - was eaten by the Kohanim.

(c) The Nosar *was* crucial to the validity of the Minchah (i.e. if the Kohen were to burn the entire Minchah without taking the Kometz (The Kohanim's eating was not crucial).

(d) The Matnos ha'Behonos (by which the Torah writes "u'mi'Yeser ha'Shemen") *are* crucial - because they are called 'Shirayim', whereas the Matnos ha'Rosh (by which the Torah adds "ve'ha'Nosar") are *not* - because they are called 'Sheyarei Shirayim'.

6)

(a) Rebbi Yochanan says that, according to Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon, if an Asham Metzora was Shechted with the wrong intention (i.e. as an Olah or a Shelamim), nothing could be done to complete the Kaparah - because, according to them, a Korban that has achieved half a Kaparah, is taken into account (as we see from the blood of the Par or the Sa'ir of Yom Kipur which spilled in the middle of a Kaparah - where, according to them, he simply carries on from where he left off). Consequently, since in our case, the Asham that he brought is Kasher (even though it does not serve as a Kaparah for the owner), what he brought is taken into account (it is called a Korban), and, were he to bring another Korban, it would be called *two* Korbanos - and the Torah writes "Keves *Echad* Asham".

(b) Rav Chisda asks why that should not be the case even according to Rebbi Meir (who does *not* contend with the first animal that he brought), since the Torah writes in Metzora "ve'Hikriv Oso le'Asham" - and "Oso" implies that one only brings the Asham together with the Log of oil, and no other animal (irrespective of whether the first one atoned for the owner or not).

(c) We bring a proof for Rebbi Yochanan from a Beraisa - which, after stating the very case of which Rebbi Yochanan speaks, concludes 've'Tzarich Asham Acher Lehatiro'. If understood literally, the author could only be Rebbi Meir, as Rebbi Yochanan explained.

(d) Rav Chisda rejects this proof. He explains 've'Tzarich Asham Asher Lehatiro' to mean - that although it requires another Asham, there is nothing that can be done about it.

(a) A precedent for Rav Chisda's explanation lies in a Beraisa, where Beis Shamai disagree with Beis Hillel, who say that a Nazir (who is obligated to shave off all his hair, but) who has no hair, is absolved from the need to shave it off. Beis Shamai say that he requires a razor to be passed over his skin - and Rav Avina explains this to mean that he requires a razor, but there is nothing one can do about it.

(b) Rebbi Pedas disagrees with Rav Avina. According to him, the Kohen would pass the razor over the location where the hair ought to have been.

(c) According to Rebbi Pedas, we do not need to fulfill the Pasuk exactly as it is written; whereas according to Rav Avina, we do.

(a) Rebbi Pedas equates the opinion of Beis Shamai by Nazir with that of Rebbi Elazar who says (regarding a Metzora who has no right thumb or big toe on which to place the Log of oil and the blood of his Asham) - that he simply places them on the location where the thumb and big toe should have been (i.e. the stump).

(b) According to the Tana Kama of Rebbi Elazar, he cannot become Tahor from his Tzara'as. Rebbi Shimon says that if the Kohen placed the oil and the blood on the left thumb or big toe, he is Yotze.

(a) Seeing as "ve'Lakach (written in connection with the Asham Metzora) refers to Kabalas ha'Dam - we learn from the Hekesh "ve'Lakach ... ve'Nasan (al T'nuch Ozen ha'Mitaher)", that, just like the *placing* of the blood on the thumb and the big toe of the Metzora was done by hand, so too, was it *received* by hand.

(b) We learn from the Pasuk "Ki ke'Chatas ha'Asham Hu" - that the blood of the Asham, like that of the Chatas, had to be recived in a bowl.

(c) We learn that the Kabalas ha'Dam of the Chatas itself requires a K'li - from a Hekesh ("Zos ha'Torah la'Olah ... where all the Korbanos are compared) from Olah and Shelamim, by which the Torah writes at Har Sinai "va'Yasem ba'Aganos".

(d) In order to fulfill both Pesukim - two Kohanim were required for the Kabalas ha'Dam of the Asham Metzora, one to receive some of the blood in his hands, the other, the rest of it in a bowl.

(a) Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon say in a Beraisa 've'Chulan Metam'in Begadim ve'Nisrafin be'Veis ha'Deshen'. They are referring to all the cases in our Mishnah of the blood of the bull or the goat that spilled after one Kaparah, when they had to bring a substitute.

(b) According to the Chachamim - it is only the last animal that is Metamei the person together with his clothes, since that is the one that completes the Kaparah.

(c) Rava asked Rav Nachman whether they would also send out all three goats la'Az'azel, if the blood of the Sa'ir la'Hashem spilled after the Matnos P'nim and then again after the Matnos Chutz - necessitating a fresh Hagralah each time. This case might well be different than the previous one, where all three goats la'Hashem would have to be burned (according to Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon) - because here, the Torah writes "Leshalach *Oso*" - implying *one* and not *two*.