Previous daf

1)

(a) Our Mishnah (which confines Machsheves P'sul to the Oved) does not go like Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Yossi, who says - that the owner of a Korban is Mefagel (as well).

(b) And he learns this from the Pasuk (in connection with the Nesachim) "Ve'hikriv ha'Makriv Korbano la'Hashem" - since the Pasuk (which is talking about the owner bringing his Korban with the appropriate Nesachim) refers to him as 'ha'Makriv'.

(c) Abaye points out that Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar hold similar views to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Yossi. The Tana Kama of a Mishnah in Chulin permits an animal that a Yisrael Shechts on behalf of a Nochri. Rebbi Eliezer disagrees - because he takes into account the Machshavah of the owner, whose S'tam Machshavah is for Avodah-Zarah.

(d) And Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar rules - that if Reuven carries out into the street on Shabbos less than the Shiur of an article that Shimon put away (because he considered it Chashuv), he is Chayav.

(a) We presume that ...

1. ... both Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar hold like Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Yossi - because if he says 'Nischayev Zeh be'Machshavto shel Zeh' ba'Chutz, 'Kal-va'Chomer' bi'Fenim (by Korbanos, where the main Din of Machshavah is written).
2. ... Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Yossi does not hold like them - because, since he only issued his ruling bi'Fenim (in connection with Kodshim), he probably does not hold of it in other areas of Halachah.

(b) And we presume that Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar holds like Rebbi Eliezer, but not vice-versa - because with regard to Shabbos, the Torah requires "Meleches Machsheves" (that the person who performs the Melachah means what he is doing). Consequently, someone who applies the principle of 'Nischayev Zeh be'Machshavto shel Zeh' on Shabbos (despite 'Meleches Machsheves'), will certainly apply it by Avodas-Kochavim (which is even compared to Avodas P'nim regarding the Avodos for which one is Chayav), but not vice-versa.

3)

(a) Our Mishnah discusses the location where Kodshei Kodashim are Shechted. 'Kodshei Kodashim' incorporates four types of Korban. Three of them are Chatas, Asham and Olah - the fourth is Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur (that are brought on Shavu'os).

(b) The first Korbanos discussed are 'Par ve'Sa'ir shel Yom ha'Kipurim'. Besides the Shechitah - the Kabalas ha'Dam also requires Tzafon.

(c) Their blood is sprinkled - between the poles of the Aron, towards the Paroches and on the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav.

(d) We learn that they (as well as all Kodshim) require the blood to be received in a K'li Shareis - from Har Sinai, where the Torah writes that Moshe received the blood in bowls and to which all other Korbanos are compared.

(a) After all the Haza'os, the Kohen Gadol poured the Shirayim - on the western Yesod of the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon.

(b) The distinction between the Haza'os and the pouring of the Shirayim - is that whereas even one Haza'ah is crucial to the Avodah, the Shefichas Shirayim is not.

(a) The difference between the Avodah of the Par ve'Sa'ir shel Yom ha'Kipurim and that of the Parim and Se'irim ha'Nisrafin is - that the blood of the latter was not sprinkled in the Kodesh Kodshim, whereas the blood of the former was, as we just learned.

(b) The Shirayim of the latter was poured - on the western Yesod of the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon (like the Par ve'Sa'ir shel Yom ha'Kipurim).

(c) All of the above were burned - outside Yerushalayim, on the 'Shefech ha'Deshen' (the place where the Terumas ha'Deshen was poured each morning).

6)

(a) We ascribe the fact that our Mishnah does not mention 've'Kibul Daman bi'Cheli Shareis ba'Tzafon' by Kodshei Kodshim, to the Asham Metzora - meaning that it could not do so, since Kodshei Kodshim incorporates Asham Metzora, whose blood had to be received in the Kohen's palm, and not in a K'li Shareis.

(b) The Tana nevertheless mentions it later in the very Mishnah which deals with Asham Nazir and Asham Metzora - because part of its blood did have to be received in a K'li Shareis (as we shall now see).

(c) The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Ve'lakach ha'Kohen mi'Dam ha'Asham ... Ve'nasan al T'nuch ... " - that just as "Ve'nasan" had to be done with the hands, so too "Ve'lakach"?
2. ... "Ki ka'Chatas ha'Asham Hu" - that the blood of the Asham Metzora, just like that of the Chatas, had to be received in a K'li Shareis.

(a) We resolve this apparent discrepancy - by establishing the first Drashah with regard to the blood that the Kohen placed on the various locations of the Metzora's body, and the second, to the blood that was sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach.

(b) In fact - two Kohanim had to receive the blood of the Asham Metzora, one with his palms, the other, with a bowl. The latter carried it to the Mizbe'ach, the former, took the blood in his palm to the Metzora.