Previous daf

1)

(a) The Tana of our Mishnah rules that, in a case where any of the above Pesulim received the blood (even) with a Machshaves Chutz li'Zemano or Chutz li'Mekomo - if there is still Dam ha'Nefesh in the animal's neck, a Kasher Kohen should receive it ...

(b) ... because someone who is not fit to perform the Avodah does not render it Pasul with a P'sul Machshavah (as we learned earlier).

(c) And in a case where ...

1. ... a Kasher Kohen received the blood and handed it to a Pasul, he rules - that the latter should return it to a Kasher Kohen (we already discussed this section of the Mishnah in the first Perek).
2. ... he received it with his right hand and took it into his left - he should return it to his right hand.
3. ... he received it in a K'li Kodesh and poured it into a K'li Chol - he should pour it back into the K'li Shareis.
4. ... the blood spilt from the K'li Shareis on to the floor and the Kohen collected it (with a K'li Shareis) - it is Kasher.

(a) If the Pasul placed the blood ...

1. ... on the ramp, or on the south or east side of the Mizbe'ach where there is no Yesod - a Kasher Kohen should collect the blood and place it on the correct spot. And the same will apply to blood ...
2. ... that is normally placed below the Chut ha'Sikra, above it or vice-versa, or ...
3. ... that should have gone inside the Heichal, outside, or vice-versa.

(b) If this Tana holds that a Pasul can make Shirayim (give the blood a Din of leftovers) then the Tana is teaching us that 'she'Lo bi'Mekomo La'av ki'Mekomo Dami' (in which case the blood is not considered Shirayim). Assuming he holds 'she'Lo bi'Mekomo ki'Mekomo Dami', then he will coming to teach us - that a Pasul cannot make Shirayim.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "ve'Atah u'Vanecha Itach Tishmeru es Avon Kehunaschem le'Chol D'var ha'Mizbe'ach" - that the Kohanim are obligated to ensure that Zarim (incorporating all Pesulim) do not perform the Avodah.
2. ... "Ve'shachat es ben ha'Bakar Lifnei Hashem Ve'hikrivu B'nei Aharon ha'Kohanim ... " - that it is only from the Kabalas ha'Dam and onwards that a Zar is precluded, but not from the Shechitah ('Shechitah Kesheirah be'Zar').

(b) A Zar may Shecht Kodshei Kodshim (bear in mind that the Pasuk is referring to an Olah, which is Kodesh Kodshim).

(a) Even though the Torah permits a Zar to Shecht Kodshim Lechatchilah, our Mishnah nevertheless uses the expression 'Kol ha'Pesulim she'Shachtu ... ' (Bedi'eved) - because of Teme'im, who are forbidden to Shecht Lechatchilah.

(b) The Beraisa learns from the juxtaposition of "Ve'samach" to "Ve'shachat" - that just as Semichah may only be performed by someone who is Tahor, so too Shechitah.

(c) The Shechitah is nevertheless Kasher Bedi'eved - because the prohibition is only mi'de'Rabbanan (in case he touches the animal [and the Pasuk is only an Asmachta, a support from a Pasuk, but not a real source]).

(a) We know that only a Tahor person can perform Semichah - because the Torah writes "Lifnei Hashem" with regard to the Shechitah, meaning that the animal must be standing in the Azarah during the Shechitah, and if the Somech was Tamei, he would not be permitted to enter the Azarah to perform Semichah.

(b) Neither is it possible for him to perform the Semichah outside, before the animal is taken inside for Shechitah - because of the principle 'Teikef li'Semichah Shechitah' (requiring the Shechitah to take place immediately after the Semichah).

(c) Despite the fact that the Torah also writes "Lifnei Hashem" in connection with Shechitah, a Tamei person is nevertheless allowed to Shecht Lechatchilah min ha'Torah - by standing outside the Azarah and Shechting with a long knife (which is not made of metal).

(d) A Tamei person cannot however, perform Semichah by standing outside the Azarah and placing his hands inside the Azarah - because this Tana holds 'Bi'ah be'Miktzas Sh'mah Bi'ah' (a partial entry into the Azarah [even just with his hands, though we will amend this later] is considered a full entry).

(a) Rav Chisda inverts the Beraisa. According to him, the Tana learns that Semichah can only be performed by Tehorim from Shechitah (where the Torah writes "Lifnei Hashem"). The problem is - that we do not need to learn it from Shechitah, since (based on the principle 'Teikef li'Semichah Shechitah') it is as if "Lifnei Hashem" was written directly by Semichah.

(b) We answer that it would otherwise be possible to perform Semichah by standing outside the Azarah and placing one's hands inside. To explain why the Shochet could not also stand outside and Shecht with a long knife, we establish this Beraisa like Shimon ha'Teimani, in a Beraisa, who learns from the Pasuk "Ve'shachat es ben ha'Bakar Lifnei Hashem" - that the Shochet as well as the animal must stand 'Lifnei Hashem'.

(c) The Tana Kama explains - that the animal needs to be Lifnei Hashem, but not the Shochet.

7)

(a) Ula Amar Resh Lakish learns from the Pasuk (in connection with someone who is Tamei) "be'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga ve'el ha'Mikdash Lo Tavo" - that just as touching Kodesh entails no more than touching with one limb, so too, does entry into the Mikdash entail entering with only one limb.

(b) Rav Hoshaya queries Ula from a Beraisa, which discusses a Metzora whose eighth day falls on Erev Pesach, and who sees Keri on that day. His problem is - that he is now forbidden with an Asei to enter the Sha'ar Nikanor, for the blood and the oil to be placed on his right thumb (rendering him unable to bring the Korban Pesach).

(c) The Tana nevertheless allows him to enter after Tevilah (even though no other T'vul-Yom may) - because the Asei of Pesach carries with it Kareis, which overrides the Asei of a T'vul-Yom entering the Machaneh Leviyah, which does not.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan disagrees with Resh Lakish. According to him - a T'vul-Yom who enters the Har ha'Bayis (the Machaneh Leviyah) - does not even transgress an Asei mi'd'Oraysa (because he holds 'T'vul Yom de'Zav La'av ke'Zav Dami'), only an Asei mi'de'Rabbanan ...

(b) ... which he learns from the Pasuk "Va'ya'amod Yehoshafat ... Lifnei ha'Chatzer ha'Chadashah" - implying that Yehoshafat had just issued a new decree, forbidding a Tamei Meis to enter the Machaneh Leviyah.

(c) The problem with allowing a T'vul-Yom to place his hand in the Azarah for the blood and the oil to be placed on his thumb is - that if, as Ula Amar Resh Lakish learns, 'Bi'ah be'Miktzas Sh'mah Bi'ah', how can we allow the T'vul-Yom to place his hands inside the Azarah, a sin which carries with it a Chiyuv Kareis.

(a) Ula answered Rav Hoshaya 'mi'Tunach Sha'ani Metzora ... '. When he said ...

1. ... 'mi'Tunach', he meant - that the answer is inherent in the very case that Rav Hoshaya cited, as we shall now see.
2. ... 'Sha'ani Metzora', he meant that a Metzora himself is unique, in that he is permitted to place his hands in the Azarah, even though he is still a Mechusar Kipurim.

(b) And he goes on to explain - that since the Torah waives the Isur of Tum'ah with regard to a Metzora, because he has no other method of becoming Tahor, it will also waive the Isur of T'vul-Yom of a Zav (with a 'Migu').

(a) Korbenos Tzibur may be brought be'Tum'ah, if the majority of the Tzibur are Tamei Meis.

(b) Rav Yosef extrapolated from Ula that most of the Tzibur who are Zavin on Erev Pesach and who then become Tamei Meis - will be permitted to bring the Korban Pesach (and the Isur of Zivus will become permitted be'Tzibur together with that of Tum'as Meis [with a 'Migu']).

(c) Abaye objected to that - on the grounds that a 'Migu' is only applicable assuming that the Isur of Tum'as Meis was there first, when it will prevent the Isur of Zivus from taking effect, but not to the extent that it can remove the Isur of Zivus which preceded it.

(d) Abaye therefore amended the wording of Rav Yosef's initial statement to read - that if most of the Tzibur who are Tamei-Meis on Erev Pesach and who then become Zavin, they will be permitted to bring the Korban Pesach.

(e) Rav Yosef conceded that Abaye was right.

(a) Abaye still objects to Rav Yosef's comparison - inasmuch as Metzora has a Din of 'Hutrah' (the Torah initially issued the Mitzvah together with the concession), which is why the Heter can even encompass that of Keri too; whereas Tum'as Meis is only 'Dechuyah' (permitted Bedi'eved), in which case, it can override the Isur of Tum'ah only regarding itself, but not that of Zivus that accompanies it.

(b) Rava thinks the opposite. According to him - if anything, the Heter of Metzora would be confined to itself (and not extend to the Isur of Keri); whereas Tum'as Meis, which is 'Dechuyah', will override itself and the Isur of Zivus, too.

(c) Abaye and Rava agree however - that 'Tum'ah Dechuyah be'Tzibur' (and not 'Hutrah').