Previous daf

1)

(a) David Hamelech sanctified the floor of the Azarah of the Beis Hamikdash (with two Korbenos Todah and 'Shir shel Pega'im').

(b) We learn from the Pasuk "Ve'lakach ha'Kohen" - that nothing may interrupt between the hand of the Kohen and the K'li Shareis with which he receives the blood of a Korban.

(c) We now learn that nothing may interrupt between the Kohen's feet and the floor of the Azarah - from the equivalent Din of K'li Shareis.

(d) In spite of having taught us that the Kohen may not stand on ...

1. ... vessels (which are 'Miyn be'she'Eino Miyno' [a different material than the Kohen's foot]) whilst performing the Avodah, our Mishnah finds it necessary to add an animal - to teach us that even 'Miyn be'Miyno' is Chotzetz as well.
2. ... an animal (which is not 'Miyn Adam'), he nevertheless needs to add another Kohen's foot - to teach us that even 'Miyn Adam' is Chotzetz, too.

3)

(a) Rebbi Ami rules that if a Kohen stands on a stone-slab of the Azarah which has come loose and which they ...

1. ... do not intend to fix (i.e. because they have in mind to replace it) - his Avodah is Pasul.
2. ... intend to fix - we have a She'eilah whether his Avodah is Kasher or not, because he (Rebbi Ami) is not sure whether the stone is considered as if it had already been fixed or not.

(b) According to Rabah Zuti's version of the She'eilah, the Kohen performed the Avodah on a spot where the stone-slab had been removed - and the reason that we initially ascribe to Rebbi Ami for thinking that the Avodah might be Pasul is - because David Hamelech only sanctified the actual floor of the Azarah, but not the ground underneath it.

(c) What prompts us to retract from this explanation and decide that David Hamelech certainly sanctified the floor of the Azarah together with the ground down to the center of the earth is - the fact that Rebbi Ami did not then ask the same She'eilah in a case where the entire floor of the Azarah had been removed.

(d) The She'eilah must therefore be - whether performing the Avodah with one foot on the floor and the other in a hole is considered 'Derech Avodah' (the way of service) or not.

(a) the Tana Kama learns from the Pasuk "Ve'Lakach ha'Kohen mi'Dam ha'Chatas be'Etzba'o Ve'nasan al Karnos ha'Mizbe'ach" (from the fact that the Torah places "be'Etzba'o" in between "ve'Lakach" and "Ve'nasan") - that the Kohen is obligated to perform both Kabalas ha'Dam and Zerikah with his right hand.

(b) The basis for this Limud is the word "Etzba", which always indicates the right hand, according to the Tana Kama. The source for this is - the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Etzba" "Etzba" from Metzora (where the Torah specifically writes "be'Etzba'o ha'Yemanis").

(c) Rebbi Shimon says - that since the Torah does not write "Yad" by Kabalah (only "be'Etzba'o ve'Nasan"), a Kohen who receives the blood with his left hand does not invalidate the Avodah.

(a) We query Rebbi Shimon in that if he Darshens the Gezeirah-Shavah, then what difference does it make that the Torah does not write "Yad" by Kabalah (seeing as it writes "Etzba") - with reference to a similar Gezeirah-Shavah "Yad" "Yad" from Metzora (where the Torah writes "al Bohen Yado ha'Yemanis").

(b) Whereas if he doesn't Darshen the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' - then from where will he know that even Zerikah requires the right-hand.

(c) The problem with Rav Yehudah's explanation (that Rebbi Shimon does not Darshen the Gezeirah-Shavah, and what he really means is that the Torah does not write 'Yad Yemin' by Kabalah) is - that the Kashya that we just asked will then remain (i.e. 'from where does he know that Zerikah requires the right-hand?')

(d) In any event, Rav Yehudah's statement is incorrect, based on another Beraisa, where Rebbi Yehudah says - that wherever the Torah writes "Yad" or "Etzba" requires the Kohen's right-hand.

(a) Rava therefore explains that Rebbi Shimon in fact, holds of the Gezeirah-Shavah, and had the Torah written "Yad" instead of "Etzba", he would have agreed with the Tana Kama, and applied "Yad" both to "Ve'lakach" and to "Ve'nasan". The practical problem with applying "*Etzba*" to "Ve'lakach" - is that it is impossible to hold the bowl for Kabalas ha'Dam with only one finger.

(b) Rav Sama b'rei de'Rav Ashi dismisses this problem however - on the grounds that it is possible to fix a handle to the edge of the K'li, by which the Kohen can hold it even with one finger?

(c) Abaye therefore ascribes the Machlokes to the question of whether - we Darshen the word ("be'Etzba'o") forwards (to "Ve'nasan") and backwards (to "Ve'lakach" [the Rabbanan]) or not (Rebbi Shimon).

(d) Rebbi Shimon does in fact, hold of the 'Gezeirah-Shavah'.

7)

(a) Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon holds that where the Torah writes "Etzba" by Kabalah, it requires the Kohen's right-hand, but not by Nesinah. He is referring to the Pasuk that we have been discussing in this Sugya "Ve'lakach ha'Kohen mi'Dam ha'Chatas be'Etzba'o ve'Nasan".

(b) Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon holds - 'Mikra Nidrash le'Fanav ve'Lo Acharav' (neither like the Chachamim nor like his father, Rebbi Shimon).

(c) And he Darshens the Pasuk (in connection with the Par ha'Milu'im) "Ve'lakachta mi'Dam Ha'Par Ve'nasata al Karnos ha'Mizbe'ach be'Etzba'echa" - that whereas the Kabalas ha'Dam of that Korban did not require the right-hand, the Nesinah, did ...

(d) ... because he holds 'Mikra Nidrash Lefanav, ve'Lo Lifnei Fanav'?

(a) Based on the Pasuk "Ve'lakach ha'Kohen mi'Dam ha'Chatas be'Etzba'o" and the Pasuk in Tazri'a "Ve'taval ha'Kohen es Etzba'o ha'Yemanis", we initially interpret Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan's statement 'Kol Makom she'Ne'emar Etzba u'Kehunah Einah Ela Yemin' to mean - that both "Kohen" and "Etzba" together denote the right hand, but not just one of them.

(b) The problem with Kemitzah is the Mishnah in Menachos - which disqualifies Kemitzah with the left hand, even though the Torah writes only "Kehunah" there (and not "Etzba'').

(c) Rava therefore reinterprets Rebbi Yochanan's ruling to mean - that either "Etzba" or "Kehunah" denote the right hand (but both are not necessary).

(a) Mar interprets the Pasuk "Ve'hikriv ha'Kohen es ha'Kol Ve'hiktir ha'Mizbeichah" - with regard to the Avodah of carrying the limbs to the Mizbe'ach.

(b) The Kohen carried the head of the Tamid in his right hand to the Mizbe'ach, and the right hind-leg - in his left (with the intact skin facing outwards, so as not to subject the people to the ugly view of the part that was cut).

(c) In spite of Rava having just said that wherever the Torah writes Kehunah it requires the right-hand - Holachas Evarim to the Mizbe'ach is not included, because it is dispensable (and Rava refers exclusively to Avodos that are crucial to the overall Avodah).

(d) And Rebbi Shimon validates Kabalah with the left-hand (where the Torah writes "Ve'hikrivu B'nei Aharon ha'Kohanim"), even though Kabalah is crucial to the Avodah - because he argues with the Chachamim, and requires "Kehunah" and "Etzba").

(a) Even though Rebbi Shimon requires both "Kehunah" and "Etzba", he nevertheless says 'Kol Makom she'Ne'emar Yad, Eino Ela Yemin, Etzba Eino Ela Yemin' (without mentioning "Kehunah") - because his first statement precludes "Kehunah" on its own, but not "Etzba" on its own.

(b) Since "Etzba" on its own implies the right hand (even according to Rebbi Shimon), the Torah writes "Kehunah" - to teach us that the Kohen is obligated to wear the Bigdei Kehunah.

(c) The problem with the fact that Rebbi Shimon in our Mishnah only permits Kabalah with the left-hand, but says nothing about Zerikah is - that like by Kabalah, the Torah only writes Kehunah by Zerikah (so why does Rebbi Shimon not validate the left-hand there too?

(d) Abaye answers - that indeed he does, in a Beraisa.

(e) Sure, we learned earlier that Rebbi Shimon requires the right-hand by the Haza'ah of a Chatas - because the Torah writes "Etzba" in that connection (as we explained there).