Previous daf

1)

(a) The Tana of another Beraisa initially learns a 'Binyan Av' that one Matanah will suffice Bedieved by a Chatas Chitzonah - from all other Korbanos whose blood is sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon le'Matah mi'Chut ha'Sikra.

(b) On the other hand, we might learn that all four Matanos are required - from a 'Binyan Av' from a Chatas Penimi.

(c) It be preferable to learn Chatas Chitzonah from ...

1. ... le'Matah mi'Chut ha'Sikra - since it is 'Chutz from Chutz.
2. ... a Chatas Penimi - since it is Chatas and K'ranos from Chatas and K'ranos.

(d) We know that "ve'Dam Zevachecha Yishafech" (the source of Matanah Achas Bedieved by other Korbanos), does not extend to Chata'os too - because Shefichah implies from the bowl, incorporating Zerikah, but not the Matanos of a Chatas, which were placed with the finger.

(a) The Tana therefore learns from the three times "Ve'chiper" written by a Chatas Chitzonah (by the Sa'ir Nasi, and the Kisbah and Se'irah of a Yachid) - "Ve'chiper", even three Matanos, "Ve'chiper", even two Matanah, "Ve'chiper", even one Matanah.

(b) Rav Ada Mari explained to Rava why these words are not all needed for the intrinsic Halachah of Kaparah (Matnas Dam) in each of the three cases. He told him - that we already know from "Ve'nislach" (which is written in each of the three cases) that Kaparah is required.

(c) We still query the D'rashah, on the grounds that maybe we ought to learn from the first "ve'Chiper" that even three Matanos above the Chut ha'Sikra and one below will suffice, from the second, two above and two below, and from the third, even all below and none above. What is the problem with this suggestion?

(d) And we then refute Rav Ada bar Yitzchak answer, that if the Torah indicates that Bedieved, no K'ranos are needed, so be it - on the grounds that if that were so, the Torah would have written four times "Ve'chiper", to teach us that even if he placed all four Matanos below the Chut ha'Sikra, the Chatas is Kasher. Three 'K'ranos' implies that we permit only up to three Matanos below the Chut, but not four.

(a) Still, we persist, perhaps Bedieved, the Chatas requires one Matanah above the Chut ha'Silra and three below it. We reject this suggestion as well however - on the grounds that we do not find such a concept as some Matanos above the Chut, and others below it.

(b) We reconcile this statement with the Mishnah in Yoma (regarding the blood of the Par on Yom Kipur) 'Hizah Mimenu Achas Lema'alah, ve'Sheva le'Matah' - by explaining it to mean 'ke'Matzlif', which means not one above the Chut and seven below it, but one starting near the top, and the rest moving gradually down the Aron, but all on the top half of the Aron.

(c) Rav Yehudah demonstrated 'ke'Matzlif' 'ki'Menagdana', which means - like the strokes of Malkos, which were delivered moving gradually down the body.

(d) The Tana says 'le'Ma'alah' and 'le'Matah' because the higher Matanos required sprinkling in an upward direction, and the lower ones, in a downward direction.

(a) We also learned in the Mishnah there (in connection with the blood of the Par of Yom Kipur) 'Hizah al Taharo shel Mizbe'ach Sheva Pe'amim'. Assuming that 'Taharo' is from the same root as 'Tihara Yoma' (mid-day) - this would mean that the that he would sprinkle all eight towards the middle of the wall of the Mizbe'ach, even though it was inevitable for some of the blood not to go on the top half, and some, on the lower half (see also Tosfos DH 'Mai La'av').

(b) Based on the Pasuk "u'che'Etzem ha'Shamayim la'Tohar", Rava bar Shilo explains 'Tihara' to mean - on the roof of the Mizbe'ach, after it had been revealed (by removing the ashes from it)

(c) And we reconcile the current theory with the fact that although the blood of the Chatas ...

1. ... Chitzonah was sprinkled above the Chut ha'Sikra, the Shirayim was poured on to the Yesod (which is below it) - by pointing out that pouring out the Shirayim is not crucial to the Avodah anyway (so what does it matter that it is poured below the Chut ha'Sikra, even though the initial Matanos above it)?
2. ... Penimi was sprinkled on the K'ranos of the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi, yet the blood was poured on to the Yesod of the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon (according to those who hold that it was crucial to the Avodah) - because the principle of not dividing the Matanos, pertains exclusively to where they are all placed on the same Mizbe'ach, whereas in this case, the blood is finally placed on the Yesod of a different Mizbe'ach.

5)

(a) When Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov says in a Beraisa that two Matanos of a Chatas (and one of other Korbanos), according to Beis-Shamai ...

1. ... are Matir, he means - that the Kohen is not permitted to burn the Eimurim or to eat the Basar until at least two Matanos have been performed with the blood.
2. ... are Mefagel he means - that Pigul is not effective unless at least two Matanos have been performed.

(b) And he issues an equivalent ruling according to Beis-Hillel - after only one Matanah has been performed.

(c) When Rav Oshaya asked why the Machlokes does not appear in Iduyos, he meant to ask - that seeing as with regard to Pigul, Beis-Hillel is more stringent than Beis Shamai, why does this Machlokes not appear in Iduyos, which lists all the cases where Beis-Hillel is more stringent than Beis-Shamai.

(d) Rava answered him - that is because the initial Machlokes came up following a She'eilah regarding how many Matanos are required as a Matir (where Beis-Hillel are lenient) that it does not belong in Iduyos.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan ruled that the last three Matanos of a Chatas ...

1. ... may not be performed at night-time - because blood becomes Pasul at nightfall, in which case they should not be brought on the Mizbe'ach Lechatchilah, even though they do not constitute a proper Zerikah.
2. ... may be performed after the owner's death - because, since the Chatas already atoned with first Zerikah, the remaining blood does not have the full status of Dam Chatas to become Pasul because of a Chatas she'Meisah Ba'alehah.

(b) He also ruled that if someone performed them outside the Azarah - he is Chayav, because, in their capacity, as the conclusion of the Matanos of a Chatas, they were fit to be placed on the Mizbe'ach.

(c) Rav Papa lists the first and third Halachah of Rebbi Yochanan among the things that give the last three Matanos the status of the first one. And he also incorporates in this list - Zarus, K'li Shareis, Keren, Etzba, Kibus Begadim and Shirayim.

(d) 'Shirayim' means that if the Kohen received the blood in four cups, and subsequently sprinkled on one Keren from each Kos, the remainder must be poured on to the Yesod (as we learned earlier). By 'Kibus', Rav Papa means - that if the blood from one of the last three Matanos touches a Kohen's shirt, it requires Tevilah.

(a) Rav Papa also includes Rebbi Yochanan's Din of 'Ba'os le'Achar Miysah' in his list of those things that give the last three Matanos the status of Shirayim. When he includes in this list ...

1. ... 'Lo Sharya', he means - that they are not Matir the remainder of the Korban (which was already permitted after the first Matanah).
2. ... 'Lo Mefagla', he means - that if the Kohen performed the first Matanah S'tam, and the last three with a Machsheves Chutz li'Zemano, the Korban is Kasher.
3. ... 'Lo Ayla le'Gava'i' - that after the Kohen has performed the first Matanah, the Korban can no longer become Pasul, by taking the rest of the blood into the Heichal (since the Torah writes "Lechaper ba'Kodesh", and this blood is not fit to be Mechaper).

(b) Rav Papa proves his ruling by Kibus Begadim from a Mishnah in Perek Dam Chatas. The Tana there draws a distinction between blood that squirted straight from the animal's neck - which does not obligate the shirt to be washed, and blood that splashed from the Keren or the Yesod, on to the Kohen's shirt - which does.

(c) Rav Papa extrapolates from 'min ha'Keren, Eino Ta'un Kibus Begadim' - 'Ha min Ra'uy le Keren, Ta'un Kibus' (as a source for his ruling).

(d) We initially refute Rav Papa's proof from 'min ha'Yesod Eino Ta'un Kibus Begadim' - which is subject to the same inference 'Ha min ha'Ra'uy li'Yesod, Ta'un Kibus Begadim', which cannot be, because it is precluded from Kibus Begadim from the Pasuk "Asher Yizeh", 'P'rat la'Zeh she'K'var Huzah'.

(a) We answer this Kashya by establishing the Beraisa like Rebbi Nechemyah (see Tosfos DH 'Ha Mani'), who rules in a Mishnah in 'ha'Shochet u'Ma'aleh' - 'Sheyarei ha'Dam she'Hikrivan ba'Chutz - Chayav' ...

(b) ... in which case we take for granted that it is also Dam Kodshim to require Kibus Begadim, vindicating Rav Papa's proof from 'min le'Keren' (with which the Rabbanan do not argue), though it is not clear how Rebbi Nechemyah will Darshen "Asher Yizeh".

(c) We refute this answer - by querying what we previously took for granted. Maybe it is only considered Dam Kodshim with regard to Shechutei Chutz but not regarding Kibus Begadim ...

(d) ... 'Midi de'Havi a'Eivarim u'Pedarim' - just like the limbs and the fat-pieces, which are also not crucial to the Avodah, yet they are subject Ha'ala'as Chutz (even though Kibus Begadim does not pertain to them).

(a) We reject this refutation however, on the basis of another Beraisa, where the Tana rules - that blood that needs to be poured on to the Yesod, obligates Kibus Begadim, is subject to Machshavah Pesulah and ha'Ma'aleh Meihen ba'Chutz, Chayav'.

(b) The Tana is lenient in all three regards - by blood that became Pasul and needs to be poured into the Amah (the stream that flows through the Azarah).

(c) We know that the author of this Beraisa is Rebbi Nechemyah - because he is the Tana who ruled in the previous Beraisa 'Sheyarei ha'Dam she'Hikrivan ba'Chutz, Chayav'.

(d) This proves Rav Papa right.