Previous daf

1)

(a) The Beraisa restricts the Din of one Matanah being Mefagel, to the Matanos on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon, but that will not be the case with regard to the Matanos of the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi. There are three such cases - the Par ve'Sa'ir shel Yom ha'Kipurim, the Par shel Kohen Mashi'ach and the Par He'elam Davar shel Tzibur.

(b) The Tana arrives at ...

1. ... the forty-three Matanos of Yom ha'Kipurim (given the eight in the Kodesh Kodashim [towards the lid of the Aron] and the eight in the Heichal [towards the Paroches] of both the Par and the Sa'ir [totaling thirty-two) - by adding the four Matanos of the combined bloods that he placed on the four K'ranos of the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav, and the seven that he sprinkled on top of it.
2. ... the eleven Matanos of the Par Kohen Mashi'ach and the Par He'elam Davar shel Tzibur - by adding the seven that he sprinkled towards the Paroches and the four that he placed on the four corners of the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav.

(c) Rebbi Meir says 'Pigeil bein ba'Rishonah, bein bi'Sheniyah, bein bi'Shelishis', Pigul ve'Chayavin Alav Kareis'. The Chachamim hold - that there is no Kareis until he is Mefagel at every stage of the Matir

(d) When Rebbi Meir says 'bein ba'Rishonah, bein bi'Sheniyah, bein bi'Shelishis', he means - that at whichever stage the Kohen is Mefagel (the Matanos in the Kodesh Kodashim, in the Heichal towards the Paroches, or on the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav), it is considered Pigul, and subject to Kareis.

(a) The problem this Beraisa creates with Resh Lakish's current statement - stems from the statement 'bein bi'Sheniyah ... ', implying that it is Pigul even though the Kohen was not Mefagel by the first set of Matanos (because he holds Mefaglin be'Chatzi ha'Matir'), which clashes with Resh Lakish's statement.

(b) Rav Yitzchak bar Avin establishes that the Kohen was Mefagel by the Shechitah - where the blood spilled after the termination of the Matanos in the Kodesh Kodashim and where Rebbi Elazar holds that they bring another Par, to continue with the Avodah from the point where they left off. And it was during the Shechitah of the second animal that the Kohen was Mefagel.

(c) In such a case, even Resh Lakish will agree that it is Pigul because, the Avodah of that animal is independent of that off the previous one.

(d) The problem now is - on what grounds the Rabbanan then argue with Rebbi Meir. What reason is here not to be Pigul?

(a) Rava establishes the author as Rebbi Elazar. According to the Rabbanan in a Mishnah in 'ha'Shochet ve'ha'Ma'aleh', one is Chayav for bringing a k'Zayis ba'Chutz of the Kometz, Levonah, Ketores, Minchas Kohanim, Minchas Kohen Mashi'ach or Minchas Nesachim. Rebbi Elazar rules - that he is Patur unless he brings whatever there is (and not just a k'Zayis).

(b) In a case where he brought the bulk of the Korban bi'Fenim, and the last k'Zayis ba'Chutz - Rebbi Elazar will concede that he is Chayav (because he also holds 'Haktaras k'Zayis Havi Haktarah', and he only holds Patur in the Mishnah, because he did not burn all that there was to be burned.

(c) Similarly, the Chachamim of Rebbi Meir (alias Rebbi Elazar) hold 'Ein Bo Kareis ad she'Yefagel be'Chol ha'Matir', because if burning half the Matir ba'Chutz is not considered Avodas Chutz, 'Kal va'Chomer' bi'Fenim will not be considered an Avodah concerning Pigul.

(d) We query this from Rava however, who maintains that even Rebbi Elazar will agree that if the Kohen sprinkled one of the above three bloods ba'Chutz he will be Chayav - because it is effective bi'Fenim (even if the blood spilt in the middle of one of the sets of Matanos, since Rebbi Elazar holds that he Shechts a second Par and carries on from where he left off, even if it spilt in the middle of the one of the Matanos [though it is not why clear why we need to mention this here[).

(a) Rava therefore (retracts from Rav Yitzchak's answer ['Kgon she'Pigeil bi'Shechitah'] and) tries to establish Rebbi Meir (in the Beraisa currently under discussion) when the Kohen had a Machsheves Pigul by the first and third sets of Damim, but not by the second, in which case we might have thought - that the fact that the Kohen had a Machsheves Pigul by the third set is proof that he did not follow his first Machshavah (even when performing the second set of Damim).

(b) And the Chachamim argue with Rebbi Meir in that - they disagree with the S'vara of 'Kol ha'Oseh, a'Da'as Rishonah Hu Oseh'.

(c) Rav Ashi refutes Rava's explanation however, on the grounds of 'Midi Shasak Katani' - meaning that 'Pigeil bein ba'Rishonah, bein bi'Sheniyah ... ', does not imply that he performed the second set 'Stam'.

(a) Rav Ashi himself therefore tries to establish Rebbi Meir, when he was Mefagel by all three sets of Matnos Damim, but not by the fourth (see Tosfos DH 'K'gon') - i.e. the sprinkling on top of the Mizbe'ach ha'Ketores.

(b) The Chidush is - that the Kohen's Machsheves Pigul by the same second and third set of Matanos does not indicate that his S'tam fourth Matanos did not follow the Machsheves Pigul of the first.

(c) We refute Rav Ashi's explanation - on the grounds that, here too, the Beraisa says (not 'u'vi'Sheniyah u'vi'Shelishis', but 'bein bi'Sheniyah, bein bi'Shelishis').

(d) Rebbi Meir's reason is finally - because of 'Mefaglin be'Chatzi Matir'.

6)

(a) Pigul cannot take effect 'ad she'Yikrevu Kol Matirav' - in the same way as the Korban does not atone until its final Avodah has been completed, so too, does its P'sul not take effect until its final Avodah has been completed.

(b) Based on this principle, the problem now that we ascribe Rebbi Meir's ruling to 'Mefaglin be'Chatzi Matir' is - that not only does the Kohen end up without a Zerikah Kesheirah, but he also ends up without a Zerikah Pesulah (but with only half of each).

(c) This is not a problem according to those who establish the Beraisa by Pigeil bi'Shechitah (or according to the Rabbanan who require a Machsheves Pigul by all parts of the Zerikah) - because in those cases, there is no other way of becoming Pigul (and that is the way the Torah obligates the Mefagel).

(a) Rabah establishes the case by four Parim or four Se'irim, by which he means - that each time after he concluded the Matanos, the blood spilt, first in the Kodesh Kodashim, then in the Heichal, then on the K'ranos, and then on the roof of the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav, and each time, he Shechted another bull (or goat), and continued with the next set of Matanos.

(b) And when Rebbi now says 'Pigeil bein ba'Rishonah, bein bi'Sheniyah ... Pigul ve'Chayavin Alav Kareis', he means - that if he was Mefagel by all the Matanos in any one of the locations, the Korban is Pigul, even if he performed all the others be'Kashrus.

(c) In fact - even the Rabbanan of Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon agree that the Kohen continues the new Matanos from where he left off. They argue with Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon only in a case where the blood spilt in the middle of a set of Matanos.

(a) Rava (or Abaye) establishes the Beraisa even by one Par and one Sa'ir, because 'le'Pigulo Meratzeh', which means - that the second half of the Zerikah that is performed be'Kashrus concludes the Pigul just like the Zerikah be'Kashrus does if the Shochet is Mefagel the Korban by the Shechitah.

(b) The Tana of the current Beraisa refers to forty-three Matanos. The Beraisa which refers to ...

1. ... forty-seven - holds that the Kohen Gadol sprinkled the blood of the Par and the Sa'ir on the roof of the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav separately, whereas our Beraisa maintains that they mixed the two bloods before sprinkling it.
2. ... forty-eight - counts the pouring of the Shirayim of the blood on to the Yesod of the Mizbe'ach ha'Olah (which he considers crucial to the Avodah) as a Matanah. The other two Tana'im do not consider it crucial.

(a) When the Tana of another Beraisa states 'ba'Meh Devarim Amurim, bi'Kemitzah, be'Matan K'li u've'Hiluch', he means - that it is specifically by these three Avodos that Pigul applies to the Kometz only and not to the Levonah (which is not subject to these three Avodos).

(b) The Levonah is however - subject to Haktarah.

(c) The Chachamim go on to rule 'Nasan es ha'Kometz be'Machshavah ve'es ha'Levonah bi'Shesikah, O es ha'Kometz bi'Shesikah ve'es ha'Levonah be'Machshavah, Ein Chayavin Alav Kareis' - because they hold 'Ein Mefaglin be'Chatzi Matir'.

(d) Rebbi Meir holds 'Pigul ve'Chayavin Alav Kareis, in spite of the fact that in the latter case, the Shesikah preceded the Machsheves Pigul, a Kashya on Resh Lakish (since Rebbi Meir's clearly holds 'Mefaglin be'Chatzi Matir').

(a) We try to amend the Lashon ' ... ve'es ha'Levonah be'Machshavah' - to ' ... u'K'var Nasan es ha'Levonah be'Machshavah' (to reconcile the Beraisa with Resh Lakish).

(b) We object to that however - because it would merely be a repetition of the first case (since, if it is a matter of following the first Lashon, what difference will it make which of the two he did first?).

(c) In any case, another Beraisa words the same ruling ' ... ve'Achar-Kach Levonah be'Machshavah', rendering our amendment impossible.