Previous daf

1)

(a) We learn from the Pasuk "Ve'asisa Kiyor *Nechoshes* ve'Chano *Nechoshes* (from the fact that the Torah writes "Nechoshes" both by the Kiyor and by its stand) ... " - that the Torah's comparison of the stand to the Kiyor is restricted to the fact that they are both made of copper, and no more (precluding the suggestion that the stand should be eligible for Kidush).

(b) We initially extrapolate from there that "Yirchatzu" does not include even K'lei Chol (for Kidush) - because now that the Torah precludes the stand which is a K'li Shareis, how muh more so vessels that are not even K'lei Shareis.

(c) Mar Zutra b'rei de'Rav Mari asked Ravina however - how we can possibly learn receptacles from the stand of the Kiyor, which was not made as a receptacle.

(d) So we learn from "Mimenu" - to preclude receptacles that are K'lei Chol from Kidush.

(e) We know to include K'lei Shareis from "Yirchatzu" and to exclude K'lei Chol from "Mimenu", and not vice-versa - because K'lei Shareis have been anointed like the Kiyor, whereas K'lei Chol have not.

(a) Resh Lakish rules - that any substance that is Kasher to complement the forty Sa'ah of a Mikvah, is Kasher to complement the Shiur of 'sufficient for four Kohanim to wash simultaneously' of the Mei Kiyor.

(b) This comparison does not include - the water for Netilas Yadayim (for bread).

(c) We refute the suggestion that ...

1. ... thin mud is the case that complements a Mikvah and the Mei Kiyor, but not water for Netilas Yadayim - because if it is thin enough for a cow to bend down and drink, then it will complement the latter too, whereas if it is not, then it will not complement the former either.
2. ... red, wingless gnats are the case - because these are eligible for Tevilah Lechatchilah, even if there is no water at all.

(d) This latter ruling is based on the principle of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel in a Beraisa - which permits Toveling in anything which is formed from water ...

(e) ... which is why - Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi permitted Toveling even in the eye of a (big) fish that melted.

(a) Rav Papa concludes that, based on a Mishnah in Mikva'os, the item referred to by the Mishnah is 'Nasan Sa'ah ve'Natal Sa'ah' - in connection with substances such as fruit-juice and other liquids that are not intrinsically water.

(b) 'Nasan Sa'ah ve'Natal Sa'ah will ...

1. ... not render the Mikvah Kasher - in a case where it initially makes up the forty Sa'ah.
2. ... render the Mikvah Kasher - in a case where it is added to a Kasher Mikvah of forty Sa'ah.

(c) One can one do this, according to Rav Yehudah ... Amar Rebbi Yochanan - up to (but not including) the majority of the Mikvah (i.e. twenty Sa'ah).

(d) Even though it is effective to render a Mikvah Kasher, 'Nasan Sa'ah ve'Natal Sa'ah' will not have the same effect with regard to water for Netilas Yadayim - because the Revi'is ha'Log of water is not sufficiently Chashuv to be Mevatel the fruit-juice which is added.

(a) Rav Papa rules that - if one makes a cavity in the wall of the Mikvah large enough to hold a Revi'is of water that enters from the Mikvah - it is permitted to Tovel needles and forks there, even though the water is no longer joined to the forty Sa'ah in the Mikvah ...

(b) ... because that Revi'is comes from a Kasher Mikvah.

(c) When Rebbi Yirmiyah Amar Resh Lakish says 'Mei Mikvah Kesheirim le'Mei Kiyor' - he means that any water that is eligible for Tevilah, is also eligible for Kidush (in the Kiyor), including water that is not Mayim Chayim (spring water).

(a) The Torah writes "ve'ha'Kerev ve'ha'Kera'ayim Yirchatz ba'Mayim". From the word "ba'Mayim" the Beraisa precludes undiluted wine - and diluted wine (even though it comprises two thirds water).

(b) The Tana adds 'Le'rabos Sha'ar Mayim, ve'Kal va'Chomer le'Mei Kiyor', which we initially interpret to mean - that if ordinary water is Kasher to wash the innards of Kodshim, then how much more so water that is eligible for the Kiyor (which has the advantage of being Mayim Chayim, a Kashya on Resh Lakish, who validates *any water* that is fit for a Mikvah, fit for the Kiyor).

(c) We try to answer that in fact, the Tana is referring to the actual Mei Kiyor - meaning that the water of the Kiyor is Kasher for washing the innards of Kodshim, since they have the advantage of being sanctified.

(d) We refute this however, based on a Tana de'Bei Shmuel, who says - that water that has a secondary name (such as 'Mei Kiyor') cannot be used for anything which requires S'tam Mayim.

(a) Left with our original interpretation of the Beraisa, where the 'Kal-va'Chomer' indicates that the Mei Kiyor needs to be Mayim Chayim, we reconcile Resh Lakish with the Beraisa - by citing Rebbi Yochanan, who quotes a Machlokes Tana'in in this regard.

(b) In the Beraisa that he quotes 'Rebbi Yishmael Omer Mei Ma'ayan' - the Chachamim permit any water.

7)

(a) There is no Pasuk in the Chumash to disqualify an Areil. The source to disqualify him Lechatchilah is - the Pasuk in Yechezkel "Kol Ben Neichar Areil Leiv ve'Areil Basar Lo Yavo el Mikdashi".

(b) And we learn from the Pasuk "Ba'havi'achem B'nei Neichar Arlei Leiv ve'Arlei Basar Liheyos be'Mikdashi Le'chalel es Beisi" - that he (and an Areil Leiv) also renders the Avodah Pasul Bedieved.

(c) An Areil Leiv is a Yisrael whose ways are estranged from his Father in Heaven. We know that it does not mean a Nochri - because the Torah compares him to an Areil Basar (who is a Yisrael).

(d) Having disqualified an ...

1. ... Areil Basar, the Torah still needs to disqualify an Areil Leiv - because he is not physically repulsive, like an Arel Basar.
2. ... Areil Leiv, the Torah nevertheless needs to disqualify an Areil Basar - whose deeds, unlike those of a ben Neichar, are le'Shem Shamayim.

(a) The Ziknei Darom confine the Tamei (disqualified by our Mishnah from performing the Avodah) to a Tamei Sheretz, but preclude a Tamei Meis - because since the latter may perform the Avodah Lechatchilah by a Korban Tzibur, it ought to atone at least Bedi'eved by a Korban Yachid.

(b) We learn from "be'Mo'ado" (written by the Korban Tamid in Pinchas) - the principle 'Tum'ah (Tum'as Meis) Hutrah be'Tzibur'.

(c) Nevertheless, a Korban Yachid should be Kasher Bedi'eved, in spite of the fact that the Ritzuy be'Tzibur is a 'Gezeiras ha'Kasuv' which is confined to a Korban Tzibur - because it is logical that any P'sul that is permitted Lechatchilah by a Tzibur, should atone Bedieved by a Yachid via 'Ritzuy Tzitz' (the atonement effected by the Tzitz that the Kohen Gadol wears on his forehead to atone for Tum'ah).

(d) We then ask why the Ziknei Darom take for granted that Tum'as Meis is permitted be'Tzibur, but not Tum'as Sheretz, since we can learn Tum'as Sheretz by Korban Tzibur with a 'Kal va'Chomer' - because if Tum'as Meis, which requires sprinkling with the ashes of the Parah Adumah on the third and seventh days, is permitted, how much more so Tum'as Sheretz, which does not.

(a) We answer that the Ziknei Darom compare the Machaprin (the Kohanim) to the Miskaprin (the Tzibur) - by which we mean that, seeing as both are included in "be'Mo'ado", we learn Tamei Kohanim from a Tamei Tzibur, where the Torah permits specifically Tum'as Meis (and not Tum'as Sheretz), negating the 'Kal-va'Chomer'.

(b) We conclude that the Ziknei Darom must then hold 'Shochtin ve'Zorkin al Tamei Sheretz' - meaning that one may Shecht a Korban on behalf of a Tamei Sheretz (or of a Tamei Meis on his seventh day) and sprinkle its blood, seeing as he will be able to eat it at nightfall.

(c) We extrapolate this from their ruling - because if they held 'Ein Shochtin ve'Zorkin ... ', they would have to permit Tum'as Sheretz be'Tzibur as well, based on the principle that whenever a Yachid is rejected, the Tzibur is permitted Lechatchilah.

(a) Ula cites Resh Lakish, who asks on the Ziknei Darom from the fact that, according to them, the Ko'ach of Miskaprin is stronger than that of Mechaprin - as we see from the previous ruling, which permits sending a Korban on behalf of a Tamei Sheretz, whereas a Kohen who is a Tamei Sheretz is not permitted to do the Avodah.

(b) In that case, a Kohen Tamei Meis ought not to be Meratzeh (whereas the Ziknei Darom said that it is), seeing as one cannot send the Korban of a Yisrael who is a Tamei Meis to the Azarah.

(c) We answer - that the Ziknei Darom in fact, permit even a Tamei Meis to send his Korban to be brought on his behalf.

(d) And according to them, the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Ish Ish Ki Yih'yeh Tamei la'Nefesh" which prescribes a Pesach Sheini for someone who is Tamei on Pesach Rishon - speaks 'le'Mitzvah' (ideally, even though he could have had the Pesach Rishon sent to the Azarah on his behalf).
2. ... "Ish Le'fi Ochlo" - by the same token, speaks 'le'Mitzvah', too.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "be'Mishsas Nefashos" - that the Pesach must be Shechted for those who are designated to eat it.
2. ... "Tachosu" - that the Pesach is Pasul if it is not (because whatever the Torah repeats in the realm of Kodshim, is Me'akev (crucial to the Mitzvah).

(b) In spite of the fact that the Torah places Ochlin (eaters) together with Menuyin (appointees), the Ziknei Darom permit a Tamei Meis (not on his seventh day) to have his Korban Pesach sent on his behalf - because for some reason, they do not compare them (see Tosfos DH 'Ziknei Darom').

(c) We conclude that, in spite of what we just said and in spite of what we said earlier to answer Resh Lakish's Kashya, equating a Tamei Meis with a Tamei Sheretz with regard to sending his Korban, Resh Lakish's Ka'l va'Chomer (Mechaprin from Miskaprin) still stands - due to the fact that even if a Tamei Meis *can* send his Korban to the Azarah, that is only Bedi'eved (as we just explained), whereas a Tamei Sheretz may do so Lechatchilah. Consequently, a Kohen Tamei Meis should not be able to be Meratzeh be'Yachid.