Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) A "ZAR" INVALIDATES THE "AVODAH"

(a) Answer #2 (Tana d'vei R. Yishmael): We learn a Kal va'Chomer from a Ba'al Mum (blemished Kohen) - a Ba'al Mum may eat Kodshei Kodoshim, but he is Mechalel Avodah; a Zar may not eat Kodshei Kodoshim, all the more so he is Mechalel Avodah!
(b) Question: We cannot learn from a Ba'al Mum, for this Pesul (disqualification) applies even to the Korbanos themselves!
(c) Answer #1: A Tamei Kohen proves that this is not the reason (Tum'ah does not apply to (living) Korbanos, yet a Tamei Kohen is Mechalel Avodah).
(d) Question: We cannot learn from a Tamei, since he makes Tamei what he touches!
(e) Answer: A Ba'al Mum proves that this is not the reason!
(f) Conclusion: Each has its own stringency; the Tzad ha'Shavah of (a Ba'al Mum and Tamei) is that they are commanded not to Oved, they are Mechalel Avodah - also a Zar is commanded not to Oved, he is Mechalel Avodah.

1. Question: What is the source that a Zar is commanded not to Oved?

i. Suggestion: "...Va'Yinazru mi'Kodshei Benei Yisrael..." (as we expounded above).
ii. Rejection: If (Tana d'vei R. Yishmael holds that) the verse forbids a Zar to Oved, it also teaches that he is Mechalel Avodah ("V'Lo Yechalelu" - if so, the Kal va'Chomer is not needed)!

2. Answer: He learns from "V'Zar Lo Yikrav Aleichem".

(g) Question: We cannot learn from a Ba'al Mum and a Tamei, both of those are forbidden to Oved on a Bamah (even when Bamos are permitted), but a Zar is not!
(h) Answer #2 (to Question (b)): We do not use a Tamei to answer the question from Ba'al Mum, rather, an Onen.
(i) Question: We cannot learn from an Onen, he is forbidden to eat Ma'aser!
(j) Answer: A Ba'al Mum may eat Ma'aser - we learn from the Tzad ha'Shavah of Ba'al Mum and Onen, they are commanded not to serve, they are Mechalel Avodah - also a Zar.
(k) Question: Still, we cannot learn from these, they are forbidden to serve on a Bamah!

1. Question (Rav Sama brei d'Rava): How do you know that an Onen may not Oved on a Bamah? Perhaps he is permitted!

(l) Answer #3 (to Question 3:d, 15B - Rav Mesharshiya): We learn that a Zar is Mechalel Avodah from a Kal va'Chomer from someone sitting:

1. Someone sitting may eat Kodshei Kodoshim, but he is Mechalel Avodah - a Zar may not eat Kodshei Kodoshim, all the more so he is Mechalel Avodah!

(m) Question: We cannot learn from someone sitting, he cannot testify!
(n) Answer: We learn the Kal va'Chomer from a sitting Chacham (he may testify).
(o) Question: We can still challenge this - sitting is a Pesul regarding testimony (even if it does not apply to a Chacham)!
(p) Answer #1: Rav Mesharshiya does not consider that to be a challenge.
(q) Answer #2: It is a challenge - he learns from a Tzad ha'Shavah of a sitting Chacham and a Ba'al Mum, Tamei or Onen.
(r) Question: We must say that one may Oved on a Bamah while sitting (if not, we cannot learn from the Tzad ha'Shavah, since all the sources (in the Tzad ha'Shavah) are forbidden to serve on a Bamah) - what is the source of this?
(s) Answer: "La'Amod Lifne Hash-m Leshareso" - this is only in front of Hash-m (in the Mikdash), one may serve on a Bamah while sitting.

(a) (Mishnah): An Onen...
(b) Question: What is the source of this?
(c) Answer #1 "(If the Kohen Gadol is an Onen,) U'Min ha'Mikdash Lo Yetzei v'Lo Yechalel";

1. Inference: A regular Kohen that did Avodah when he was an Onen is Mechalel Avodah.

(d) Answer #2 (R. Elazar): "Hen ha'Yom Hikrivu (said in astonishment)" (Moshe had asked why the Chatas of Rosh Chodesh was burned. Nadav and Avihu had died that day, Aharon and his sons were Onenim - had his sons (regular Kohanim) offered it, this would have made it Pasul.)

1. R. Elazar did not learn from "U'Min ha'Mikdash Lo Yetzei..." because it does not say that a regular Kohen who is an Onen is Mechalel Avodah (and he does not make the above inference);
2. The first opinion did not learn from "Hen ha'Yom Hikrivu..." because he holds that the Chatas was burned because it became Tamei ("Hen ha'Yom" explains why it was not eaten earlier, because no Onen may eat Kodshim, it does not allude to Avodah of Onenim).

(e) Answer #3 (Tana d'vei R. Yishmael): We learn from a Kal va'Chomer from a Ba'al Mum:

1. A Ba'al Mum can eat Kodshim, yet he is Mechalel Avodah - an Onen may not eat Kodshim, all the more so he is Mechalel Avodah!

(f) Question: We cannot learn from a Ba'al Mum, for this Pesul applies even to the Korbanos themselves!
(g) Answer: A Zar proves that this is not the reason (Zarus does not apply to Korbanos, yet a Zar is Mechalel Avodah).
(h) Question: We cannot learn from a Zar, he will never become fit to serve!
(i) Answer: A Ba'al Mum (with a temporary blemish) proves that this is not the reason;
(j) We learn from the Tzad ha'Shavah, they are commanded not to Oved, they are Mechalel Avodah - also an Onen is commanded not to Oved, he is Mechalel Avodah!

1. Question: What is the source that a Zar is commanded not to Oved?

i. Suggestion: "U'Min ha'Mikdash Lo Yetzei...".
ii. Rejection: If he holds that this verse forbids a (regular Kohen) Onen to Oved, it also teaches that he is Mechalel Avodah ("V'Lo Yechalel" - if so, the Kal va'Chomer is not needed)!

2. Answer: He learns from "Hen ha'Yom Hikrivu" (but he does not learn from this that an Onen is Mechalel Avodah as R. Elazar did. If we had no other source that an Onen is Mechalel Avodah, we could explain that before Aharon said this verse, he had told Moshe that the Chatas was burned on account of Aninus; Moshe thought he meant that Aharon' sons mistakenly offered it (and made a second mistake, they thought that this made it Pasul). Aharon then said this verse to explain that he himself (the Kohen Gadol, who may serve in Aninus) offered it); it was burned because no Kohen would be able to eat it (R. Yishmael holds that Aninus lasts until morning, at which time the Chatas is Nosar.)

(k) Question: We cannot learn from a Ba'al Mum and a Zar, they are never permitted to serve (whereas an Onen Kohen Gadol is permitted)!
(l) Answer: A Tamei proves that this is not the reason (even though a Tamei may offer Korbanos Tzibur (if they are not enough Tehorim), when a Tamei is forbidden, he is Mechalel Avodah)!

1. We learn from the Tzad ha'Shavah of all three.
2. Question: We can ask, they are never permitted to offer an individual's Korban (whereas an Onen Kohen Gadol is permitted)!
3. Answer: It suffices that there is permission for Teme'im to serve (even though this is restricted to Korbanos Tzibur).

(m) Answer #4 (to Question (b) - Rav Mesharshiya): We learn that an Onen is Mechalel Avodah from a Kal va'Chomer from someone sitting:

1. Someone sitting may eat Kodshim, but he is Mechalel Avodah - an Onen may not eat Kodshim, all the more so he is Mechalel Avodah!

(n) Question: We cannot learn from someone sitting, he cannot testify!
(o) Answer: We learn the Kal va'Chomer from a sitting Chachamim.
(p) Question: Still, we can ask that sitting is a Pesul regarding testimony!
(q) Answer #1: Rav Mesharshiya does not consider that to be a question.
(r) Answer #2: It is a question - he learns from a Tzad ha'Shavah of a sitting Chacham and a Ba'al Mum, Tamei or Zar.

(a) (Mishnah): An Onen is Mechalel Avodah.
(b) (Rava): This only applies to a Korban Yachid, but if he offered a Korban Tzibur, it is acceptable (Tosfos - but cannot be eaten).

1. We learn from a Kal va'Chomer from Tum'ah:

i. Tum'ah is not permitted to a Kohen Gadol regarding a Korban Yachid (if he offered it when he is Tamei, it is Pasul), it is permitted to a regular Kohen regarding a Korban Tzibur - Aninus is permitted to a Kohen Gadol regarding a Korban Yachid, all the more so it is permitted to a regular Kohen regarding a Korban Tzibur!

(c) Objection (Rabah bar Ahilai): We can make contradictory Kal va'Chomerim!

1. Aninus should be forbidden to a Kohen Gadol regarding a Korban Yachid:

i. Tum'ah is permitted to a regular Kohen regarding a Korban Tzibur, it is forbidden to a Kohen Gadol regarding a Korban Yachid - Aninus is forbidden to a regular Kohen regarding a Korban Tzibur, all the more so it is forbidden to a Kohen Gadol regarding a Korban Yachid!

2. Tum'ah should be permitted to a Kohen Gadol regarding a Korban Yachid:

i. Aninus is forbidden to a regular Kohen regarding a Korban Tzibur, it is permitted to a Kohen Gadol regarding a Korban Yachid - Tum'ah is permitted to a regular Kohen regarding a Korban Tzibur, all the more so it is permitted to a Kohen Gadol regarding a Korban Yachid!

3. Tum'ah should be forbidden to a regular Kohen regarding a Korban Tzibur:

i. Aninus is permitted to a Kohen Gadol regarding a Korban Yachid, it is forbidden to a regular Kohen regarding a Korban Yachid - Tum'ah is forbidden to a Kohen Gadol regarding a Korban Yachid, all the more so it is forbidden to a regular Kohen regarding a Korban Tzibur!

(d) Conclusion: There is no reason to learn any of these Kal va'Chomerim more than the others, but they contradict each other - therefore, we do not learn any of them. (We do not distinguish, because the Torah did not:

1. Tum'ah is forbidden in a Korban Yachid, and permitted in a Korban Tzibur, both to a regular Kohen and Kohen Gadol;
2. Aninus is permitted to a Kohen Gadol and forbidden to a regular Kohen, both in a Korban Yachid and Korban Tzibur.