Previous daf

1)

(a) Abaye establishes the Machlokes between Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish, concerning Tamei sha'Achal Basar Kodesh Lifnei Zerikah by Tum'as ha'guf. Even Rebbi Yochanan will agree however - that someone who eats Basar Kodesh Tamei before the Zerikas ha'Dam will receive Malkos.

(b) And he learns it from Mar who Darshens "ve'ha'Basar" (in the Pasuk "ve'ha'Basar Asher Yiga be'Chol Tamei Lo Ye'achel") - to include wood and frankincense in the Isur (even though they are not fit to eat).

(a) Rava (based on the fact that Tum'as Basar is not subject to "ve'Tum'aso Alav ve'Nichr'sah" [which speaks after the Zerikas ha'Dam], as we explained) maintains, that quite to the contrary - even Resh Lakish will agree that there is no Malkos for eating Basar Kodesh Tamei before the Zerikas ha'Dam.

(b) And he establishes Mar's interpretation of "ve'ha'Basar" - by wood that the Kohen shoveled from the Mizbe'ach, using a shovel that was a K'li Shareis, together with coal and frankincense.

(c) This in turn, is based on a Mishnah in Me'ilah, which draws a distinction between Kodshim that has a Matir (which is subject to Kareis for eating it be'Tum's ha'Guf only after the Matir has been brought), and one that does not (which is subject to Kareis as soon as it is placed into a K'li Shareis).

(a) Resh Lakish extrapolates from the Pasuk "min ha'Bakar u'min ha'Tzon Takrivu" - that if a Kohen takes the limbs of a Tamei (non-Kasher) animal on to the Mizbe'ach - he receives Malkos.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan rules - that he does not ...

(c) ... because "min'ha'Bakar u'min ha'Tzon Takrivu" is an Asei, and he holds 'La'av ha'Ba mi'Chelal Asei, Asei'; whereas accoring to Resh Lakish, it is a La'av.

(d) Rebbi Yirmiyah queries Resh Lakish from a Beraisa. The Tana ...

1. ... extrapolates from the Pasuk (in connection with the list of Kasher animals) "Osah Tocheilu" - to preclude non-Kasher animals ...
2. ... adding - 've'La'av ha'Ba mi'Chelal Asei, Asei' (a Kashya on Resh Lakish).

(a) Rebbi Ya'akov therefore amends the wording of the Machlokes. In fact, both Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish hold that someone who brings a non-Kasher animal on the Mizbe'ach - does not receive Malkos ...

(b) ... and they argue by a Chayah. Rebbi Yochanan exempts someone who brings a Chayah on the Mizbe'ach, from Malkos - on the basis of the same Pasuk "min ha'Bakar u'min ha'Tzon Takrivu", which is a 'La'av ha'Ba mi'Chelal Asei', which is an Asei, as we just explained.

(c) Resh Lakish then absolves him even from an Asei - because, in his opinion, the Torah only absolves one from the obligation of bringing a Chayah, but someone who wishes to bring one, may (see Shitah Mekubetzes).

(d) We cannot say the same as regards bringing a non-Kasher animal - because we know from the pasuk "mi'Mashkeh Yisrael", that one may only bring a Korban from an animal that a Yisrael is permitted to eat.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk "Zos ha'Beheimah Asher Tocheilu, Shor ... Ayal u'Tzvi ... " - that "Beheimah" incorporates Chayah.

(b) Had the Pasuk written " ... Adam ki Yakriv Mikem Korban la'Hashem min ha'Beheimah" and stopped, we would have said - that one may bring a Chayah as Korban.

(c) The Beraisa learns from the fact that the Torah adds "min ha'Bakar u'min ha'Tzon" ...

1. ... once - that one may bring a Chayah, even though it is not a Mitzvah.
2. ... twice - that it is actually forbidden to bring a Chayah on the Mizbe'ach.

(a) We present an analogy of a Rebbe who instructed his Talmid to bring him wheat, and the Talmid brought him wheat and barley ...

1. ... to describe the first scenario (where bringing a Chayah is Reshus) - when the Rebbe instructed him to bring him wheat (in which case the Talmid did not transgress his Rebbe's command by adding barley).
2. ... to describe the second scenario (where it is forbidden) - when the Rebbe instructed him to bring him only wheat (where adding barley is certainly a transgession).

(b) This Beraisa - disproves Resh Lakish.

7)

(a) Resh Lakish asked Rebbi Yochanan whether a Pasul person who received some of the blood (see Tosfos DH 'Li'me'utei') makes the remainder Shirayim - in which case it must be poured out on to the Yesod (and it will not help for a Kasher Kohen to receive it and sprinkle it), or not (in which case, it will).

(b) Rebbi Yochanan replied that in general, a Kabalah or a Zerikah Pesulah does not make Shirayim - except for Zerikah be'Mahshaves Chutz li'Zemano or Chutz li'Mekomo, since it is effective in rendering the Korban Pigul or Pasul (respectively).

(c) According to Rav Z'vid, Resh Lakish asked Rebbi Yochanan whether a Kos Pasul renders the rest of the blood Shirayim or not, by which he meant - whether for example, if the Kos of blood that he received was taken out of the Azarah, the rest of the blood becomes Shirayim, or whether a Kohen can receive it and sprinkle it.

(d) Rebbi Yochanan replied - by expressing surprise that he did not ask the previous She'eilah (regarding a Pasul person who received some of the blood), since if the one is Shirayim, so is the other.

(a) According to Rav Yirmiyah mi'Difti, Abaye asked Rabah whether a Kos renders the rest Dachuy or Shirayim. 'Dachuy' (as opposed to Shirayim, which we have already defined) means - that it is not even poured on to the Yesod, but emptied into the Amah (the stream that flowed through the Azarah).

(b) Rabah replied that this She'eilah is a Machlokes Tana'im in a Beraisa. The Tana Kama learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... (in connection with a Chatas Yachid) "ve'es Kol Damah Yishpoch el Yesod ha'Mizbe'ach" - that there where the Kohen received the blood in four Kosos, and subsequently placed blood from each Kos on one corner of the Mizbe'ach, then the remainder of all four Kosos is poured on to the Yesod.
2. ... (in connection with a Chatas of a Nasi) "es Damo Yishpoch" - that there where the Kohen received the blood in four Kosos, and placed blood from only one of the Kosos on each corner of the Mizbe'ach, then the remainder of blood in that Kos only, is poured on to the Yesod, whilst the blood in the other four Kosos is emptied into the Amah.

(c) Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon rules in the latter case - that the remaining blood in all four Kosos is poured on to the Yesod.

(d) And he establishes the Pasuk "ve'es Damo Yishpoch" - with regard to the blood that remains on the neck of the animal, which is poured into the Amah.

(a) The Tana of our Mishnah presents three cases of P'sul which can be rectified by retracting what one did. Having presented the case of ...

1. ... 'Kibeil ha'Kasher ve'Nasan le'Pasul', he added the case of 'Kibeil bi'Yemin ve'Nasan li'S'mol' - because otherwise, interpreting 'Pasul' to mean Tamei, we would have restricted the concession to rectify it that case only, since Tum'ah is permitted be'Tzibur (whereas S'mol is not).
2. ... 'Kibeil bi'Yemin ve'Nasan li'S'mol', he nevertheless found it necessary to add 'Kibeil bi'Keli Kodesh ve'Nasan li'Keli Chol' - because, by the same token, S'mol has a leniency on Yom-Kipur (when he has to carry both the pan with the coal and the spoon with the Levonah simultaneously (which K'li Chol does not).
3. .. 'Kibeil bi'Keli Kodesh ve'Nasan li'Keli Chol', the Tana needs to present the first two cases - because unlike a K'li Chol, which can be sanctified, a Pasul and a left-hand cannot be rectified at will.

(b) The problem with the Mishnah's basic ruling is - why, having transferred the blood to a Pasul, it is not Dachuy (since, something that was Kasher and becomes Dachuy, is Pasul according to all opinions).

(c) Ravina told Rav Ashi quoting Rebbi Yirmiyah mi'Difti in the name of Rava that the author of our Mishnah is Chanan ha'Mitzri - who does not hold of Dichuy at all.

(d) In a case where the blood of the Sa'ir la'Hashem is already in the Kos, when the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach dies, he rules in a Beraisa - that they simply pair off the Sa'ir la'Hashem which another goat, and the Kohen Gadol proceeds from where he left off.

(a) Rav Ashi establishes our Mishnah even like those who argue with Chanan ha'Mitzri. According to him, none of the cases in our Mishnah fall into the category of Dachuy - because it lies in the hands of the Kohen to rectify.

(b) Rav Shisha bears this out by reminding us that Chanan ha'Mitzri's disputant is Rebbi Yehudah, who rules, that in a case where ...

1. ... the blood (of the Sa'ir la'Hashem) spills - the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach must die.
2. ... the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach dies - the blood in the cup must be poured out, because the Korban is 'Dachuy'.

(c) And in another Beraisa, Rebbi Yehudah says - that a Kohen should gather a cupful of the blood of the many Korbenos Pesach that spilt and sprinkle it towards the Yesod of the Mizbe'ach ...

(d) ... a proof that whatever is rectifiable does not fall under the category of 'Dachuy'.

(a) The purpose of that one Zerikah - was so that, in case the entire Kos of any other Korban Pesach spilt, it would be covered by this Zerikah.

(b) The Kohen was not able to sprinkle it - on the south-eastern corner, because it had no Yesod.

(c) When they asked Rebbi Yehudah that perhaps the blood fell directly from the neck on to the floor (and not from the bowl) - he replied that he was talking about blood which had spilt from the K'li.

(d) They could take this for granted - based on the principle 'Kohanim Zerizim Hein' (Kohanim are alert, and it is therefore unlikely that the blood spilt on the floor before it had been received in a K'li Shareis).

(a) Perhaps, we ask, some of the blood was 'Dam ha'Tamtzis (and not Dam ha'Nefesh). Initially, we answer - that Rebbi Yehudah follows his own reasoning, that Dam ha'Tamtzis is considered blood ...

(b) ... which we know from a Beraisa, where Rebbi Yehudah declares someone who drinks it, Chayav Kareis (whereas according to the Rabbanan, he is only subject to Malkos).

(c) We reject this answer however - on the basis of a statement of Rebbi Elazar, who confines Rebbi Yehudah's ruling to Chulin, but who precludes it from being Mechaper.

(d) We final resolve the problem of 'Dam ha'Tamtzis' - by citing another Beraisa, where Rebbi Yehudah rules that blood does not nullify blood ('Miyn be'Miyno La Bateil'), in which case it doesn't really matter even if some of the blood in the cup is Dam ha'Tamtzis.