Previous daf

1)

(a) We ask on the 'Tzad ha'Shaveh' of Zar from Ba'al-Mum and Tamei - which are not permitted on a Bamas Yachid, whereas a Zar is.

(b) So we switch the 'Yochi'ach' from Tamei to Onan (which assumes that Onan is permitted to sacrifice on a Bamas Yachid). We still need Ba'al-Mum to counter a Chumra which Onan possesses which Zar does not - namely, that an Onan is forbidden to eat Ma'aser Sheini, which a Zar is not.

(c) Based on the Pasuk 'u'min ha'Mikdash Lo Yeitzei", Rav Sama b'rei de'Rava counters the Kashya 'Mah le'ha'Tzad ha'Shaveh she'Bahen she'Kein Lo Hutru be'Bamah' - that perhaps an Onan is permitted to sacrifice on a Bamah ...

(d) ... because the Pasuk "u'min ha'Mikdash Lo Yeitzei", suggests that the Isur of Onan applies exclusively to the Beis-ha'Mikdash, and does not extend to Bamos.

(a) Rav Mesharshaya learns Zar from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Yoshev - who is *permitted to eat Kodshim*, yet he invalidates the Avodah, 'Kal va'Chomer a Zar, who is *not*.

(b) We counter the Pircha ...

1. ... 'Mah le'Yoshev she'Kein Pasul le'Eidus' - from confining the Limud to a witness who is a Talmid-Chacham (who is permitted to testify whilst sitting).
2. ... 'Mah le'Shem Yoshev, she'Kein Pasul le'Eidus' (other than 'Shem Yoshev Lo Parich') - 'Shem Yoshev Lo Parich' (seeing as we are learning it specifically from a Talmid-Chacham).

(c) Assuming that we do ask from Shem Yoshev, then we will learn from a 'Mah-ha'Tzad from Yoshev and any one of the above (Onan, Tamei or Ba'al-Mum).

(d) We learn from the Pasuk "La'amod Lifnei Hashem Le'shareis" - that one may not testify sitting.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk "u'min ha'Mikdash Lo Yeitzei, ve'Lo Yechalel" - that an Onan Kohen Gadol may continue to perform the Avodah and does not desecrate the Avodah - but an Onan Kohen Hedyot who continues to serve, does.

(b) Rebbi Elazar extrapolates it from Aharon's response to Moshe's query - whether perhaps, the Chatas Rosh Chodesh had been burned because it had been brought by Onenim, to which he replied "Hein Hikrivu ... ?" - by which he meant - that it was it was not his sons, who were Hedyotos (who were forbidden to eat Kodshim, who had sacrificed it), but himself (who, as a Kohen Gadol, was permitted to do so).

(c) The reason that ...

1. ... Rebbi Elazar declines to learn like the first opinion ("u'min ha'Mikdash Lo Yeitzei") is - because he interprets the Pasuk to mean (not that the Kohen Gadol is permitted to continue performing the Avodah, but) that he is forbidden to stop, a Chidush in its own right, from which cannot therefore infer anything ('Ha Acher she'Lo Yatza, Chilel').
2. ... the first opinion declines to learn like Rebbi Elazar - because he holds that the Chatas was burned because of Tum'ah that touched it, and not because of Aninus.

(d) And when Aharon said "Hein Hikrivu ... ", he meant - that it was because they were Onenim, and therefore unable to eat the Chatas until nightfall that it was able to become Tamei.

4)

(a) de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael learns Onan with the same 'Kal va'Chomer' from Ba'al-Mum, as he initially learned Zar. He will answer to the Pircha ...

1. ... 'Mah le'Ba'al-Mum she'Kein Asah Bo Kereivin ke'Makrivin' - with 'Zar Yochi'ach'.
2. ... 'Mah le'Zar, she'Kein Ein Lo Takanah' - with 'Ba'al-Mum Yochi'ach' (assuming that it is no more than a passing blemish).

(b) He cannot learn the warning of an Onan from "u'min ha'Mikdash Lo Yeitzei" - because then he would learn Chilul from there, too.

(c) He learns it from - "Hein Hikrivu", and in his opinion, the Korban was burned because of Aninus.

(a) According to Rebbi Yishmael, if not for the 'Mah ha'Tzad', we would interpret the dialogue between Moshe and Aharon like this: Moshe asked Aharon whether his sons had not sinned by bringing the Chatas even though they were Onenim, to which he replied that since he was the one to have brought the Korbanos, and not them, the question was inconsequencial.

(b) We ask on the 'Mah ha'Tzad' - that (we cannot learn that Onan desecrates the Avodah from Ba'al-Mum and Zar, since) they have no Heter from their respective Isurim like an Onan does (in the form of the Kohen Gadol).

(a) We answer 'Tamei Yochi'ach'. And we counter the Pircha' ...

1. ... 'Mah le'Tamei, she'Kein Metamei" - with 'Hanach Yochichu'.
2. ... 'Mah le'ha'Tzad-ha'Shaveh she'Kein Lo Hutru mi'Chelalan Eitzel Kohen Gadol be'Korban Yachid' with - 'Shem Tum'ah (by a Tzibur) Miha Ishtera'i'.

(b) We needed to come on to Tamei in spite of the fact that a Zar himself has a Heter to bring on a Bamah - because that does not fall under the category of 'Hutar mi'Chelalo', since Tum'ah was never forbidden by a Bamah to begin with.

(c) Rav Mesharshaya learns Onan from 'Yoshev', as he initially learned Zar. And he counters the Pircha ...

1. ... 'Mah le'Yoshev, she'Kein Pasul le'Eidus' - by a Talmid-Chacham witness (as we explained earlier).
2. ... 'Mah le'Shem Yoshev she'Kein Pasul le'Eidus', (assuming that we do accept this as a Pircha) - with 'Asya mi'Yoshev ve'Chada me'Hanach' (i.e. Ba'al-Mum, Zar or Tamei).

(a) Rava qualifies the Din in our Mishnah 'Onan Pasul', by restricting it to a Korban Yachid. And he learns this from Tum'ah - which has no Heter regarding a Kohen Gadol by a Korban Yachid, yet it is permitted to a Kohen Hedyot by a Korban Tzibur. In that case, Aninus, which does have a Heter regarding a Kohen Gadol by a Korban Yachid, should certainly be permitted even to a Kohen Hedyot by a Korban Tzibur.

(b) Rava assumes that Tum'ah is ...

1. ... forbidden to a Kohen Gadol by a Korban Yachid - since we only find Tum'ah permitted by a Tzibur.
2. ... permitted even to a Kohen Hedyot by a Korban Tzibur - since the Torah makes no distinctions.

(c) And he assumes that Aninus is permitted to a Kohen Gadol even by a Korban Yachid - because the Torah seems to give him a blanket Heter.

(d) Rava bar Ahila'i asks three Kashyos on Rava - based on the fact that if one changes just one of Rava's premises, one can can make 'Kal-va'Chomers that work out to be the opposite of those that Rava made.

(a) For example, we might ...

1. ... restrict the Heter of Aninus by a Kohen Gadol to a Korban Tzibur, from Tum'ah (negating Rava's third assumption) - because if a Kohen Hedyot, who is permitted to bring a Korban be'Tzibur be'Tum'ah, yet a Kohen Gadol is not permitted to bring a Korban Yachid, then there where a Kohen Hedyot Onan is forbidden to bring a Korban Tzibur, a Kohen Gadol will certainly be forbidden to bring a Korban Yachid.
2. ... permit Tum'ah to a Kohen Gadol even by a Korban Yachid with a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Aninus (negating Rava's second assumption) - because if a Kohen Hedyot Onan, who is forbidden to bring even a Korban Tzibur ba'Aninus, yet a Kohen Gadol Onan is permitted to bring even a Korban Yachid, then where a Kohen Hedyot is permitted to bring a Korban Tzibur be'Tum'ah, certainly a Kohen Gadol will be permitted to bring a Korban Yachid.
3. ... forbid a Kohen Hedyot even by Tum'ah be'Tzibur with a 'Kal-va'Chomer from Aninus (negating Rava's first assumption) - because if a Kohen Gadol Onan is permitted to bring a Korban Yachid, yet a Hedyot is forbiden to bring even a Korban Tzibur, then Tum'ah, where a Kohen Gadol is not permitted to bring a Korban Yachid, a Kohen Hedyot may certainly not bring even a Korban Tzibur.

(b) Rava bar Ahila'i concludes therefore - that each of the Torah's rulings is absolute (leaving no room for a Safek and subsequently for a 'Kal va'Chomer').

(c) When it therefore ...

1. ... permits Aninus by a Kohen Gadol - it incorporates a Korban Yachid as well as a Korban Tzibur in the Heter.
2. ... forbids Aninus by a Kohen Hedyot - it incorporates a Korban Tzibur as well as a Korban Yachid in the prohibition.
3. ... permits Tum'ah by a KorbanTzibur - it permits even a Kohen Hedyot. 4. ... forbids Tum'ah by a Korban Yachid - it forbids even a Kohen Gadol.

(d) Rava's bar Ahila'i's conclusion differs from Rava - only in the case where he qualifies our Mishnah (permitting a Kohen Hedyot Onan to bring a Korban Tzibur), which he forbids.