Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) WHEN IS THE BLOOD "NIFSAL"?

(a) (Mishnah): If blood was brought in Lechaper...
(b) (Beraisa - R. Eliezer): It says here "Lechaper ba'Kodesh", and it says that no one else may be in the Ohel Mo'ed on Yom Kipur when the Kohen Gadol enters "Lechaper ba'Kodesh";

1. Just as there, the prohibition begins once the Kohen Gadol enters, even before Kaparah, also here the blood is Pasul once it enters, even before Kaparah;

(c) R. Shimon says, it says here "Lechaper ba'Kodesh", and it says to burn the Par and Sa'ir of Yom Kipur whose blood was brought in "Lechaper ba'Kodesh";

1. Just as there, this refers to after Kaparah, also here.

(d) Question: What do they argue about?
(e) Answer: R. Eliezer holds that it is better to learn (about blood, which should be left) outside from (people who are commanded to stay) outside, and not from the Kaparah of Yom Kipur which was done inside;

1. R. Shimon holds that it is better to learn about (the blood of) an animal from (the blood of) an animal, and not from a law concerning people.

(f) (Mishnah - R. Yehudah): (If it was entered b'Shogeg, it is Kosher.)
(g) Inference: If it was entered b'Mezid, it is Pasul.
(h) Question: Does this apply when he was Mechaper (like R. Shimon), or even before Kaparah (like R. Eliezer)?
(i) Answer (R. Yirmeyah - Beraisa) Question: It says, "V'Es Par ha'Chatas v'Es Se'ir ha'Chatas..." - why does it say "Veha'Soref..."?

1. Question: Clearly, the verse teaches that the one who burns them is Metamei Begadim (he and his clothes become Teme'im)!
2. Answer: The question is, why does it say "ha'Chatas" twice?

(j) Answer (R. Yehudah): This teaches that all Chata'os that should be burned (i.e. inner Chata'os) are Metamei Begadim (of those who burn them).
(k) Objection (R. Meir): We already know that from "Lechaper" (that all Korbanos brought inside for Kaparah are Metamei Begadim);

1. Question: Why doesn't R. Yehudah learn like R. Meir?
2. Answer (and summation of Answer (i)): He uses "Lechaper" for the Gezerah Shavah (of R. Shimon).

2) THE "MIZBE'ACH" IS "MEKADESH"

(a) (Mishnah): The Mizbe'ach is Mekadesh what is fitting for it (as we now explain):

1. R. Yehoshua says, any Kodesh fitting for the fire (i.e. it is normally burned on the Mizbe'ach) that Alah (came up on the Mizbe'ach) is offered, Lo Yered (we do not take it down, even if it is Pasul) - "Hi ha'Olah Al Mokdah";

i. Olah is fitting for the fire, if it came up Lo Yered - the same applies to all Kodshim.

2. R. Gamliel says, any Kodshim fitting for the Mizbe'ach that Alah, Lo Yered - "Hi ha'Olah Al Mokdah Al ha'Mizbe'ach";

i. Olah is fitting for the Mizbe'ach, if it came up, Lo Yered - the same applies to all Kodshim.

(b) They argue only about blood and Nesachim (of wine or water) - R. Gamliel says Lo Yerdu (since they are offered on the Mizbe'ach), R. Yehoshua says Yerdu (since they are not burned).
(c) R. Shimon says, (when Nesachim accompany a Korban), whether (only) the Nesachim or Korban or both are Pesulim, we do not take down the Korban, we take down the Nesachim.

(d) (Gemara) Inference: (The Mizbe'ach is Mekadesh) *only* what is fitting for it, nothing else.
(e) Question: What does this come to exclude?
(f) Answer (Rav Papa): This excludes a Kemitzah that was not put into a Kli Shares.
(g) Question (Ravina): Why is this different than Ula's law?

1. (Ula): If Eimurim of Kodshim Kalim Alu before Zerikah, Lo Yerdu, for they became 'food' of the Mizbe'ach.

(h) Answer: Eimurim are not taken down, for they are not lacking anything;

1. The Kemitzah is taken down, for it is lacking (it must be put in a Kli Shares).

(i) (Mishnah - R. Yehoshua): Any Kodshim fitting for the fire...
(j) Question: How does R. Gamliel expound "Al Mokdah"?
(k) Answer: This teaches that if meat (of the Olah) flies off the Mizbe'ach, we must return it.
(l) Question: What is R. Yehoshua's source of this law?
(m) Answer: He learns from "Asher Tochal ha'Esh".

1. R. Gamliel uses this to teach that meat of an Olah is returned to the fire, Ketores is not.

i. (R. Chanina bar Minyomi): "Asher Tochal ha'Esh Es ha'Olah Al ha'Mizbe'ach" - meat of an Olah is returned to the fire, not Ketores.

2. R. Yehoshua says, it teaches both (meat of an Olah is returned, Ketores is not.)

(n) (Mishnah - R. Gamliel): Any Kodshim fitting (for the Mizbe'ach)...
(o) Question: How does R. Yehoshua expound "Mizbe'ach"?
(p) Answer: This teaches *what* is Mekadesh what is fitting for the fire, i.e. the Mizbe'ach is Mekadesh.

1. R. Gamliel says, another verse teaches that ("Kol ha'Noge'a ba'Mizbe'ach Yikdash"!)
2. R. Yehoshua says, one verse teaches about Kodshim that was once fitting (to be burned, i.e. but later became Tamei or became Nosar), the other teaches about Kodshim that was never fitting (e.g. something slaughtered Chutz li'Zmano or Chutz li'Mkomo).
3. R. Gamliel says, since the Torah permits offering Pesulim, we do not distinguish whether or not it was ever fitting.

(q) (Mishnah - R. Shimon): Whether (only) the Korban is Kosher...
(r) (Beraisa - R. Shimon): (The Mizbe'ach is Mekadesh an) "Olah" - just as Olah is offered on account of itself, similarly, the Mizbe'ach is Mekadesh anything offered on account of itself;

1. This excludes Nesachim that accompany a Korban.

(a) (Beraisa - R. Yosi ha'Galili) Suggestion: "Kol ha'Noge'a ba'Mizbe'ach Yikdash" - perhaps this applies even to things not fitting for the Mizbe'ach!
(b) Rejection: "Kevasim" - it is Mekadesh (only) things fitting for it, like lambs.
(c) R. Akiva says, "Olah" - it is Mekadesh (only) things fitting for it, like an Olah.
(d) Question: What is the difference between them?
(e) Answer (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): They differ concerning Olas ha'Of:

1. R. Akiva includes it from "Olah", R. Yosi ha'Galili excludes it from "Kevasim" (the Mizbe'ach is Mekadesh only Behemos).

(f) Question: What does R. Yosi ha'Galili learn from "Olah"?
(g) Answer: Had it said only "Kevasim", one might have thought that it is Mekadesh even living animals - "Olah" teaches, this is not so.
(h) Question: What does R. Akiva learn from " Kevasim "?
(i) Answer: Had it said only "Olah", one might have thought that it is Mekadesh even Menachos - " Kevasim " teaches, this is not so.
(j) Question: What is the difference between these Tana'im (of the Beraisa) and those of our Mishnah?
(k) Answer (Rav Papa): They argue about a Kemitzah that *was* put into a Kli Shares:

1. The Tana'im of our Mishnah say Lo Yered, the Tana'im of the Beraisa say Yered.