Previous daf

1)

(a) Bearing in mind that the Pasuk "Kedoshim Yih'yu l'Elokeihem" (written in connection with the Kohanim) is written with reference to bringing Kodshim be'Tum'ah we learn from there - that a Kohen T'vul-Yom who performs the Avodah desecrates it.

(b) We do not learn Tum'ah itself from there - because we already know Tum'ah from "vi'Yenazru mi'Kodshei B'nei Yisrael", as we learned earlier.

(c) We suggest that the Pasuk is referring to a Kohen who makes a bald patch for dead person or who destroys his beard with a razor - on the grounds that that is what the previous Pesukim are talking about.

(a) And we refute this by citing the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Chilul" "Chilul" from Terumah. Because our current Pasuk is vague, the Torah relies on the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Chilul" (written here) "Chilul" by Terumah, which teaches us that it is only something that is subject to Miysah (bi'Yedei Shamayim) by Terumah that invalidates the Korban a Kohen who makes a bald patch for a dead person or who destroys his beard with a razor...

(b) ... including a Kohen T'vul-Yom (precluding a Kohen who makes a bald patch for a dead person or who destroys his beard with a razor) who performs the Avodah?

(c) Which three cases of Tum'ah does the Torah specifically include who desecrate the Avodah.

(d) Rabah explains why we need all three. We cannot learn ...

1. ... the other two from Tamei - which renders whatever touches it Tamei (whereas they do not affect whatever touches them).
2. ... Mechusar Kipurim from T'vul-Yom - because whereas the latter is prohibited to eat Terumah as well, the former former is not.
3. ... T'vul-Yom from Mechusar Kipurim - because whereas the latter is lacking an act (bringing his Korban, the former is not (since all he is lacking is sunset, which comes automatically).

(a) We also refute the attempt to learn one from two. We cannot learn ...

1. ... Mechusar Kipurim from Tamei and T'vul-Yom - because whereas they are Pasul by Terumah, a Mechusar Kipurim is not.
2. ... T'vul-Yom from Tamei and Mechusar Kipurim - because whereas they are lacking an act, a T'vul-Yom is not.

(b) Rabah makes no attempt to explain why we cannot learn Tamei from the others - because if we did not know Tamei from "Veyinazru", we would not know T'vul-Yom either ('T'vul-Yom' since we only it because of 'Im Eino Inyan' [because we already know Tamei], and 'Mechusar Kipurim'), which we only include because it is called 'Tamei'.

(c) If we did include Tamei in the deliberations, we would not decline to learn Tamei from Mechusar Kipurim because there it is lacking an act (like we said with regard to T'vul-Yom) - because it requires Tevilah.

(a) We ask that, when all's said and done, the Tum'ah of a Mechusar Kipurim has become weaker (after nightfall) - in which case we can no longer ask 'Mah le'ha'Tzad ha'Shaveh she'Kein Mechusatim Ma'aseh' (since it makes no difference whether it lacks an act or not).

(b) We answer - that in fact, Rabah holds that a Mechusar Ma'aseh of a Zav is a Zav (and the same applies to that of a Metzora), in which case, the Tum'ah remains in full force, and the Pircha on the 'Mah Matzinu' is justified.

5)

(a) The Tana Kama in a Beraisa rules that if an Onan or a Mechusar Kipurim burn it, it is nevertheless Kasher. The Beraisa is referring to - the Parah Adumah.

(b) What does Yosef ha'Bavli - validates a Parah Adumah that an Onan burns, but not one that is burned by a Mechusar Kipurim.

(c) We initially establish the basis of their Machlokes as being - whether 'T'vul-Yom de'Zav ke'Zav Dami' (Yosef ha'Bavli) or not (the Tana Kama), since everyone agrees that a Tamei may not burn the Parah Adumah.

(d) Both Tana'im agree - that a T'vul-Yom (who is not Chayav a Korban) may burn it (as we shall see shortly).

(a) We reject this interpretation (of their Machlokes) however, by referring to the Pasuk in Chukas "Ve'hizah ha'Tahor al ha'Tamei" (when the Torah could have written "Ve'hizah al ha'Tamei") - from which we Darshen that he is still 'slightly Tamei', permitting a T'vul-Yom to sprinkle and (to burn the ashes of) the Parah Adumah.

(b) And the basis of the Machlokes between the Tana Kama and Yosef ha'Bavli is - whether the T'vul-Yom under discussion is specifically a T'vul-Yom of a Tamei Meis (about which the Torah is currently speaking [Yosef ha'Bavli]), or whether it extends to all Teme'ei Meis (even those who are Chayav to bring a Korban too [the Tana Kama]).

(c) Both Tana'im will agree that, on principle - 'Mechusar Kipurim de'Zav ke'Zav'.

(a) Despite the fact that, whether we say 'Mechusar Kipurim de'Zav ke'Zav Dami' or not, makes no difference with regard to the Parah Adumah - it does make a difference with regard to other areas of Halachah (such as eating Terumah), where a T'vul Yom is permitted, yet a Mechusar Kipurim of Zav will be forbidden (since he is still considered Tamei).

(b) The basis of the Chumra of a Mechusar Kipurim over a T'vul-Yom who is not a Mechusar Kipurim is - the fact that all those who require a Korban are those whose Tumah come from their own bodies (whereas in the case of those who do not, it is only the result of contact with an external source of Tum'ah).

(a) Rebbi Avahu Amar Rebbi Yochanan (or in the name of Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon) learns from the Pasuk "Ve'chagarta Osam Avnet Aharon u'Vanav ... Ve'haysah Lahem Kehunah le'Chukas Olam" - that as long as a Kohen is not wearing the four Bigdei Kehunah he does not have the status of a Kohen (vis-a-vis the Avodah), in which case he desecrates the Avodah.

(b) The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk in Shemini "Yayin ve'Sheichar Al Teisht ... u'le'Havdil Beis ha'Kodesh u'Vein ha'Chol" - that a Kohen who has drunk wine and serves in the Beis-Hamikdash, desecrates the Avodah.

(c) The Torah writes "Chukas Olam" three times; twice (in Shemini, in connection with the two Mitzvos of Kehunah currently under discussion and once (in Ki Sisa), in connection with Richutz Yadayim ve'Raglayim.

(a) By Shesuyei Yayin, the Torah adds "be'Vo'achem el Ohel Mo'ed ve'Lo Samusu". Given that this refers specifically to those Avodos for which a Zar is Chayav Misah, it incorporates - Zerikah, Haktarah, Nisuch ha'Mayim and Nisuch ha'Yayin.

(b) We learn from the double 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Chukah" "Chukah" - that a Kohen who serves without wearing the Bigdei Kehunah or without washing his hands and feet desecrates the Avodah, too.

(c) In spite of the fact that the Tana learns Mechusar Begadim from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah', Rebbi Avahu needs to learn it from "Ve'chagarta Osam Avnet ... Ve'haysah Lahem Kehunas Olam" - to include those Avodos for which a Zar is not Chayav Misah in the Din (of Chilul Avodah).