Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) "HOLACHAH" WITHOUT WALKING (cont.)

(a) (Ula): Holachah without walking is not considered Holachah.
(b) Question: (According to Chachamim,) if a Kosher Kohen redoes the Holachah while walking, is the Korban Kosher?
(c) Answer (Mishnah): If a Kosher Kohen did Kabalah and gave it to a Pasul, he returns it to the Kosher Kohen.

1. Even if this means that the Kosher Kohen takes it back, it shows that the Holachah can be fixed!

(d) Rejection: If the Pasul was closer to the Mizbeach (than the Kohen that did Kabalah), this would indeed be a proof;

1. However, perhaps the Pasul was further from the Mizbeach (so giving it to him was not Holachah at all)!

(e) (Ula): Holachah without walking is Pasul.

1. (Since he already taught that is not considered Holachah,) this means that it cannot be fixed.

(f) Question (Rav Nachman - Mishnah): If blood fell from the vessel on the floor and it was gathered, it is Kosher (even though when it spills, some if it spreads out towards the Mizbeach, i.e. Holachah without walking!)
(g) Answer: No, the case is, none of the blood spread towards the Mizbeach.
(h) Question: Surely, it spreads in all directions!
(i) Answer #1: No, it fell on an incline.
(j) Answer #2: It fell in a crevice.
(k) Answer #3: The blood was very thick, virtually congealed, it did not spread at all.
(l) Objection #1: It is unreasonable to say that the Tana taught about such unusual cases!
(m) Objection #2 (Mishnah): If blood fell (straight from the animal) onto the floor and it was gathered, it is Pasul.

1. If in a normal case (when blood spilled from the vessel and some spread towards the Mizbeach) it is Pasul, the Tana should have taught this case instead (to distinguish between ways the blood spreads, rather than distinguishing whether it fell from the animal or the vessel, which is a smaller Chidush)!
2. Ula is refuted.

(n) R. Shimon and Chachamim (explicitly argued about whether or not improper intention in Holachah is Posel, they also) argue about whether or not Holachah without walking is considered Holachah.

1. All agree that improper intention is Posel in major Holachah (the Kabalah was far from the Mizbeach, Holachah through walking is needed);
2. They argue about minor Holachah (the Kabalah was right by the Mizbeach, no walking is needed - Chachamim say that improper intention is Posel, R. Shimon says that it is not).

(o) Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael laughed at this - if so, according to R. Shimon, how does improper intention Posel Haza'ah of Chatas ha'Of (shaking the bird to fling the blood towards the Mizbeach - we know that all agree that it is Posel)?!

1. If the intention was before the blood left the neck, this has no effect!
2. If the intention was after the blood left the neck, the Mitzvah was finished (surely, it has no effect)!
3. Rejection: Perhaps he had improper intention while it was in the air, for truly, the Mitzvah is not finished until the blood reaches the Mizbeach!

i. Question (R. Yirmeyah): If a Kohen was Mazeh and he became blemished before the blood reached the airspace of the Mizbeach, what is the law?
ii. Answer (R. Zeira): It is Pasul.
iii. Question: What is the reason?
iv. "V'Hizah...V'Nasan" - the Haza'ah is completed when the blood reaches the Mizbeach.

(p) (Rav Papa): They laughed because R. Shimon and Chachamim argued about major Holachah (R. Shimon is Machshir because one could have avoided it)!
(q) Version #1: Rather, all agree that minor Holachah is Posel (because it is indispensable);
(r) Version #2: Rather, all agree that minor Holachah is not Posel (because it is not considered Holachah) (end of Version #2);

1. They argue about major Holachah.

(a) (Benei R. Chiya or R. Yanai): If a Zar did Holachah and a Kohen took it back and repeated the Holachah, it is Kosher;
(b) (The other of Benei R. Chiya and R. Yanai): It is Pasul.

1. They argue whether or not Holachah of a Zar can be fixed.

(c) (Rav Simi bar Ashi): If a Kohen did Holachah and a Zar took it back and repeated the Holachah - the opinion that said Kosher (above) will Posel here (because he considers the final Holachah to be primary), the opinion that was Posel will Machshir here (because he considers the first Holachah to be primary).
(d) (Rava): No, all agree that this is Pasul.
(e) Question: What is the reason?
(f) Answer: Once the blood was taken back, it is now necessary to do Holachah.

(g) (R. Yirmeyah): R. Eliezer and Chachamim argued about necessary Holachah.

1. (Mishnah - R. Eliezer): Holachah where it is necessary (if done with improper intention) is Posel a Korban, Holachah where it is unnecessary does not.
2. (Rava): All agree that Holachah towards the Mizbeach is considered necessary, Holachah away from the Mizbeach is considered unnecessary;

i. They argue when it was brought towards the Mizbeach and taken away - Chachamim consider this necessary Holachah, R. Eliezer considers it unnecessary.

(h) Question (Abaye - Beraisa - R. Eliezer): Holachah where it is necessary is Posel a Korban:

1. Holachah towards the Mizbeach is considered necessary, Holachah away from the Mizbeach is considered unnecessary.
2. If it was brought towards the Mizbeach and taken away, this is considered necessary.

(i) Rava: The Beraisa refutes me.

3) THE "AVODAH" OF "PESULIM"

(a) (Mishnah): If any of the following did Kabalah, it is Pasul:

1. A Zar, an Onen, a Tevul Yom (one who immersed today, he will be fully Tahor at nightfall);
2. A Mechushar Kipurim (one whose Taharah is not completed until he brings a Korban), Mechushar Begadim (a Kohen who lacks one or more of his garments), one who did not wash his hands and feet, an Arel (one who is uncircumcised);
3. One who is Tamei, sitting down, or standing on top of vessels or an animal or another person's feet.

(b) If he received the blood with his left hand, it is Pasul;
(c) R. Shimon says, it is Kosher.
(d) (Gemara) Question: What is the source that a Zar is Mechalel Avodah (i.e. if he did Avodah, it is Pasul)?
(e) Answer #1 (Levi): "...Aharon v'El Banav va'Yinazru mi'Kodshei *Benei Yisrael* (v'Lo Yechalelu...when the Kohanim are Tamei)";

1. Question: What does 'Benei Yisrael' come to exclude?

i. Suggestion: It excludes Kodshei Benos Yisrael.
ii. Rejection: We cannot say that Korbanos of women may be offered in Tum'ah!

2. Answer #1: It excludes Korbanos of Nochrim.
3. Rejection: The Tzitz never makes Tamei Korbanos of Nochrim acceptable (even though it sometimes does so for Korbanos of Yisrael), all the more so Korbanos of Nochrim may not be offered in Tum'ah!

i. If a Nochri's Korban became Tamei, whether or not this happened intentionally, it is unacceptable.

4. Answer #2: Rather, we expound as follows: "Aharon v'El Banav va'Yinazru mi'Kodshei" - the Kohanim (when they are Tamei) must keep away from Kodshim;

i. Also, "Benei Yisrael v'Lo Yechalelu" - Benei Yisrael (even Tehorim) must not (do Avodah, for they) Mechalel Avodah.