Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) THE LAST THREE "MATANOS" OF A "CHATAS" (cont.)

(a) Question (Tosfos - against Rav Papa; Rashi - this challenges Objection (d), it is Answer #1 for Rav Papa): Indeed, R. Nechemyah is Mechayev for Shirayim outside - but one is also liable for offering Eimurim outside, we cannot prove that he requires washing!
(b) Answer: Indeed, we can prove this!

1. (Beraisa #1): The following apply to blood that must be put on the Yesod:

i. It must be washed, intent (Chutz) takes effect on it, one is liable for it outside.

2. None of these apply to blood that is poured into the Amah.
3. Conclusion: The Beraisa must be R. Nechemyah, for he is Mechayev for Shirayim outside, and it says that Shirayim must be washed and intent takes effect on them.

(c) Contradiction (Beraisa #2): The law of Shirayim and Eimurim is different (than blood that is Mechaper) - since they are not Me'akev Kaparah, intent does not take effect on them.
(d) Answer (and rejection of Answer (b)): Beraisa #1 refers to blood of the last three Matanos of a Chatas.
(Therefore, we have no source that R. Nechemyah obligates washing Shirayim.)
(e) Objection: The last three Matanos are put on the Keranos, the Beraisa (#1) says that they are put on the Yesod!
(f) Answer: It means, what remains of them is put on the Yesod.
(g) Question (against Rav Papa): The Beraisa says that intent takes effect on the three Matanos - but Rav Papa says that they do not permit anything, intent does not Mefagel, if the blood entered the Heichal it is not Posel!
(h) Answer: The Beraisa refers to the last three Matanos of inner Chata'os.
(i) Inference: One is exempt for offering the last three Matanos of outer Chata'os outside the Mikdash, it need not be washed.
(j) Question: If so, why did the Beraisa distinguish between (blood put on) the Yesod and (blood poured into) the Amah - it should have distinguished between inner and outer Chata'os!
(k) Answer: The Beraisa is R. Nechemyah, he is Mechayav for Shirayim outside;

1. He distinguished between the Yesod and the Amah, for these differ in all three respects (washing, intent and outside) - had he distinguished between Shirayim of inner and outer Chata'os, they would not differ in all three respects.

(l) Answer #2 (to Question 2:d (38B) - Ravina): The Mishnah said 'If blood splashed from the Keren or the Yesod'...- this means, blood that splashed off the Keren, or blood *Ra'uy for* the Yesod.
(m) Question (Rav Tachlifa bar Gaza): You should (be consistent and) say that it refers to blood Ra'uy for the Keren or for the Yesod!
(n) Answer (Ravina): The Mishnah would not need to teach both of them - if blood Ra'uy for the Keren need not be washed, all the more so blood Ra'uy for the Yesod!

(a) (Beraisa): "V'Asa (he will offer Par He'elam Davar) ka'Asher Asa (like the Chatas of a Kohen Mashu'ach)" - this is a second command to perform all the Matanos, therefore, all are Me'akev, if one was omitted the Par did not atone at all.
(b) Suggestion: Perhaps this only applies to the seven Haza'os (on the Paroches), for seven Haza'os are always Me'akev - what is the source that the four Matanos (on the Keranos of the inner Mizbe'ach) are Me'akev?
(c) Answer: "Ken Ya'aseh". (The Beraisa proceeds to expound the entire verse.)

(d) "La'Par" refers to the Par of Yom Kipur (that atones for the Kohanim); "Ka'Asher Asa *la'Par*" refers to the Par Chatas of a Mashu'ach (for transgressing through his own mistaken Hora'ah); "Ha'Chatas" refers to Se'ir Avodah Zarah (brought if most of Yisrael transgressed idolatry through a mistaken Hora'ah of the Great Sanhedrin).

1. Suggestion: The Musaf of festivals and Rosh Chodesh includes a Sa'ir Chatas - perhaps it is also included (in this verse, and it is offered like an inner Chatas)!
2. Rejection: "Lo" (it, Se'ir Avodah Zarah, not other Se'irim).
3. Question: ("Ha'Chatas" and "Lo" do not connote one Sa'ir more than the other) - why do we include Se'ir Avodah Zarah and exclude Se'irim of the festivals?
4. Answer: It is more reasonable to include the former, for they atone for a known Aveirah (like Par He'elam Davar), whereas Se'irim of the festivals atone for Aveiros (of Tum'ah) which no one ever knew about.

(e) "V'Chiper" - even if the Zekenim did not do Semichah on it;
(f) "V'Nislach" - even if the Shirayim were not put on the Yesod.
(g) Question: (The verse did not specify which Avodos are Me'akev and which are not) - why do we say that Matanos are Me'akev, and Semichah and Shirayim are not?
(h) Answer: Wherever the Torah requires Haza'ah it is Me'akev, Semichah and Shirayim are (usually) not Me'akev.