Previous daf

1)

(a) According to Rav Dimi Amar Rebbi Yochanan, Ilfa asked whether the water in the Kiyor becomes Pasul be'Linah - because seeing as, according to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, the Kidush Yadayim ve'Raglayim does not become Pasul be'Linah, it follows that the water in the Kiyor does not become Pasul either.

(b) The grounds to say that it is - lie in the fact that the water in the Kiyor is intact, whereas the water with which the Kohanim washed their hands and feet has already dried up.

(c) Assuming that it is, Linah can be avoided - by lowering the Kiyor into the stream that flowed through the Azarah (thereby joining the water to the stream, and preventing Linah from taking effect).

(d) According to Ravin Amar Rebbi Yirmiyah ... Amar Rebbi Yochanan, Ilfa later resolved his She'eilah - applying the same Machlokes to the water of the Kiyor (Rebbi and Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon) as applies to the Kohanim.

(a) Rebbi Yitzchak bar Bisna queried Rebbi Yirmiyah however, from a discussion resulting from a statement of Rebbi Ami ... Amar Rebbi Yochanan in the name of Ilfa ...

1. ... who permitted the Kohanim to use the Kiyor for Kidush for Avodas Laylah, if it had not yet been lowered into the stream ...
2. ... but who continued 'u'le'Machar Eino Mekadesh' ...

(b) ... and we are not sure whether he means that the Kohen does not *need* to wash ... (like Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon), or that he is *unable* to do so, due to the water having became Pasul be'Linah.

(c) The problem with Rebbi Yirmiyah now is - that if we were unable to resolve the She'eilah, what made him think that he could.

(d) We try to establish the Mishnah in Yoma, which describes how ben Katin fixed a pulley system to lower the Kiyor into the stream, to prevent the water from becoming Pasul be'Linah, like Rebbi - to refute the proof that according to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, the water in the Kiyor is subject to Linah.

(a) What led us to suggest that the author is Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon is the Reisha of the Mishnah 'Ba Lo Eitzel Paro, u'Paro Hayah Omed Bein ha'Ulam ve'la'Mizbe'ach ... '. We think that the author must be Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon - because he is the one who holds that the northern area of bein ha'Alum ve'la'Mizbe'ach is considered Tzafon (regarding the Shechitah of Kodshei Kodshim).

(b) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah defines Tzafon as - whatever is due north of the northern wall of the Mizbe'ach.

(c) Rebbi is more lenient still. He adds - the northern area of the eleven Amos east of the Mizbe'ach (where the Kohanim are allowed to go, and the eleven Amos east of that, where the Yisre'elim are allowed to go.

(d) All Tana'im agree however, that the northern area of the Beis ha'Chalifos (the rooms adjoining the northern and southern walls of the Ulam, and where they placed their Shechitah knives), since they could not see the Mizbe'ach from there.

(a) We refute the previous proof that the author of the Mishnah must be Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon - on the grounds that Rebbi may argue with Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, who requires north of the actual Azarah. He does not however, argue with Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon. In fact, he comes to rule more leniently than him (as we explained above), in which case, the author could just as well be Rebbi.

(b) We rephrase our proof by suggesting that if the author of the Mishnah under discussion was Rebbi, why did they stand the cow to be Shechted between the Ulam and the Mizbe'ach, and not east of the Mizbe'ach, further away from the Heichal.

(c) We counter this proof too by pointing out - that we could apply the same Kashya to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi, who concedes that the bull could be Shechted north of the Mizbe'ach (so why did he specify 'bein ha'Ulam ve'la'Mizbe'ach')?

(d) We therefore conclude - that, although the bull could have been Shechted north of the Mizbe'ach (according to both Tana'im) and even east of that , according to Rebbi, the Tana mentions specifically 'bein ha'Ulam ve'la'Mizbe'ach, to minimize the distance the Kohen Gadol would have to walk to Shecht it, when he emerged from the Heichal, tired and weary after the heavy Avodah that preceded it.

(a) The first Avodah each morning is - the Terumas ha'Deshen (which takes place before Amud ha'Shachar).

(b) Rebbi Yochanan therefore rules - that a Kohen who washed his hands and feet before performing the Terumas ha'Deshen need not wash again, since he already washed at the beginning of the Avodah.

(c) The problem with Rebbi Yochanan's ruling is - whose opinion Rebbi Yochanan follows; since according to Rebbi, Kidush does not help from one day to the next, whereas according to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, seeing as the Kohen already washed the day before, the washing before Terumas ha'Deshen was unnecessary.

(d) Abaye establishes the Tana as Rebbi - who nevertheless agrees that, seeing as this Linah is only mi'de'Rabbanan, the washing that took place after the call for the Avodah to begin, does not become Pasul be'Linah with dawn break.

(a) Rava disagrees. He maintains that Rebbi Yochanan follows the opinion of Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon - and he makes a compromise, agreeing with Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon with regard to the Kidush for Terumas ha'Deshen (seeing as it is the first Avodah of the day).

(b) In a similar case, where the Kohen washed before the burning of the limbs and fat pieces the evening before, the Kidush would still become Pasul be'Linah at dawn-break (since it took place for yesterday's Avodah).

(a) The Beraisa states that as soon as the Kohanim saw their fellow Kohen descending with the Terumas ha'Deshen - they would quickly make Kidush Yadayim ve'Raglayim from the Kiyor in order to remove the excess ashes from the Mizbe'ach, or on to the 'Tapu'ach' (the pile of ashes in the middle of the Mizbe'ach).

(b) There is no problem with this Beraisa according to Abaye - who establishes the Beraisa like Rebbi, who in turn holds that even though the night Kidush is subject to Linah at dawn-break, this Kidush is not (as he just explained).

(c) The problem according to Rava is - that both according to Rebbi and according to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, the Kidush before Terumas ha'Deshen is no different than the one performed the night before. Consequently, according to Rebbi, Linah ought to have applied even with it, whereas according to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, even without it Linah ought not to apply.

(d) According to Rava therefore, we establish the Beraisa - like Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, only the Beraisa speaks about new Kohanim, who did not perform the Avodah during the night, and for whom this was the first Kidush.

8)

(a) The P'sul of 'Yotzei' - refers to Shechted Kodshim that are taken out of their Mechitzah.

(b) We ask whether, according to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, Yotzei will invalidate the Kidush. It might be ...

1. ... worse than Linah - because, unlike by Linah, the Kohen left the Avodah (and is therefore Mashi'ach Da'as).
2. ... nevertheless not invalidate the Kidush - seeing as he is able to return.

(c) The Beraisa rules that if, after the Kohen made Kidush Yadayim ve'Raglayim ...

1. ... his hands became Tamei (with a Tum'ah de'Rabbanan, which only renders the hands Tamei and not the rest of the body), he need only Tovel his hands.
2. ... he stuck his hands outside the Azarah - they retain their Kedushah (and do not require a second Kidush).

(d) This Beraisa does not help resolve our She'eilah - which refers to the Kohen leaving the Azarah, and not just his hands (as is the case in the Beraisa).

(a) Another Beraisa rules that a Kohen who washed his hands and feet outside the Azarah with a K'li Shareis, or inside the Azarah with a K'li Chol - must repeat the Kidush inside the Azarah with a K'li Shareis, and the same applies to ...

(b) ... a Kohen who Toveled in a pool of water in a cave (or even in the water of a spring, which happens to be less common).

(c) In an attempt to resolve the She'eilah, we extrapolate from the Beraisa - that if the Kohen had made Kidush inside the Azarah and then left, he would not require a fresh Kidush.

(d) We therefore establish the Beraisa - when the Kohen was actually standing inside the Azarah and stuck his hands out, in which case all we can extrapolate is that had he made Kidush inside the Azarah and then stuck his hands out, he would not require a fresh Kidush (like in the previous Beraisa).

(a) Rav Z'vid cites yet another Beraisa in an attempt to resolve our She'eilah. The Tana rules that a Kohen who left the Azarah for a ...

1. ... long period of time - requires a fresh Tevilah.
2. ... for a short period - requires a fresh Kidush (but not Tevilah).

(b) To refute the proof that Yotzei requires a fresh Kidush, Rav Papa establishes the long and the short periods referred to by the Beraisa as - a Kohen who went out to defecate or to urinate, respectively.

(c) We can no longer resolve our She'eilah from there - because following a ruling that requires a person to wipe himself clean even after urinating, he is obligated to make a fresh Kidush (irrespective of the Din of Hesech ha'Da'as, which is the basis of our Sugya).

(d) There is no problem with Rav Papa saying that, despite the fact that the Beraisa specifically mentions those two cases independently - because it is not uncommon for a Tana to make a vague statement, and then to clarify it.

(a) Rebbi Chiya bar Yosef requires the Kohen to perform Kidush Yadayim ve'Raglayim before going out - to Har ha'Mishchah outside Yerushalayim, to burn the Parah Adumah.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan argues with Rebbi Chiya bar Yosef on two scores - permitting the Kidush to take place outside the Azarah, even using a clay vessel.

(c) We cannot resolve our She'eilah from Rebbi Chiya bar Yosef - because the entire Avodah of the Parah Adumah was performed outside the Azarah (and even outside Yerushalayim [so the P'sul Yetzi'ah is not applicable by it]).

(d) The Kohen nevertheless needs to make Kidush in the Azarah, according to him - so that it bears some resemblance to the Avodah of a Korban (because the Torah refers to the Parah Adumah as 'a Chatas').

(a) We ask the same She'eilah that we just asked regarding Yotzei, with regard to a Kohen who becomes Tamei. Tumah might invalidate the Kidush, even though Linah does not - because (unlike the latter, where the Kohen is fit to perform the Avodah) the former renders the Kohen unfit to serve as long as the Tum'ah remains (in which case, he is Mashi'ach Da'as).

(b) On the other hand, it might not - because he needs only to Tovel in a Mikvah, and he will be fit again to serve (so perhaps he is not Mashi'ach Da'as).

(c) We refute the proof from the Beraisa that we cited earlier 'Kidesh Yadav ... ve'Nitme'u, Matbilin ve'Ein Tzarich Le'kadesh - because the Tana is talking in a case where only the hands became Tamei (mi'de'Rabbanan), whereas we are concerned with a case where the Kohen became Tamei (mi'd'Oraysa).

(a) According to the Mishnah in Parah - we render Tamei the Kohen who burns the Parah Adumah (after which he Tovels on the Har ha'Mishchah before burning it).

(b) We already cited Rebbi Chiya b'Rebbi Yosef, who holds 'Mekadesh bi'Cheli Shareis bi'Fenim, ve'Yotzei'. Based on the Mishnah in Parah - it now seems that Tum'ah does not invalidate Kidush Yadayim.

(c) We conclude however, that Parah is different - inasmuch as, in order to counter the Tzedokim, who maintain that the Parah Adumah may not be burned by a T'vul-Yom, we deliberately ensure that the Kohen is just that. And since Chazal allow a T'vul-Yom to actually burn it, they also waive the Din of Tum'ah (which, as we explained earlier, is only mi'de'Rabbanan anyway) invalidating the Kidush.

(d) They nevertheless insisted on Kidush (in the Azarah, according to Rebbi Chiya bar Yosef, and even outside, according to Rebbi Yochanan) to make it resemble an Avodah (as we explained above).