Previous daf

1)

(a) The final four part question we ask in connection with 'Davar ha'Lamed be'Binyan-Av' is - whether Chozer u'Melamed be'Hekesh, bi'Gezeirah-Shavah, be'Kal-va'Chomer or be'Binyan-Av' or not.

(b) We try to resolve one of the four She'eilos from the Beraisa (which, based on the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah in 'ha'Mizbe'ach Mekadesh', who holds in certain cases of 'Pesulo ba'Kodesh, 'Im Alah, Yered', asks) 'Mipnei Mah Amru Lan be'Dam, Kasher?' (see Tosfos DH 'P'shot') - which means - that blood of a Korban that remained off the Mizbe'ach until dawn break (when it becomes Pasul), that is placed on the Mizbe'ach, need not be taken down ('Im Alah, Lo Yered').

(c) We know that ...

1. ... 'Lan be'Dam, Kasher' - from the fact that 'Lan be'Eimurim, Kasher'.
2. ... 'Lan be'Eimurim, Kasher' - from the fact that 'Lan be'Basar, Kasher'.

(d) And 'Lan be'Basar' is Kasher - because a Shelamim (the source for 'Im Alah, Lo Yered') may be eaten for two days.

(a) The reason that 'Im Alah, Lo Yered', by ...

1. ... Yotzei is - because it is Kasher by a Bamah
2. ... Tamei is - because it is permitted by a Tzibur.
3. ... Chutz li'Zemano is - because it brings Pigul into effect.
4. ... Chutz li'Mekomo - because it is compared to 'Chutz li'Zemano'.
5. ... she'Kiblu Pesulin ve'Zarku es Damo' - because Rebbi Yehudah is speaking about those Pesulin which are Kasher to perform Avodas Tzibur (i.e. a Tamei Kohen).

(b) We try to prove from this Beraisa - that 'Davar ha'Lamed be'Binyan-Av ('Lan be'Dam, Kasher'), Chozer u'Melamed be'Binyan-Av' ('Lan be'Eimurim, Kasher').

(a) We ask how the Tana can possibly learn someone illegal from something that is legal. Besides learning 'Lan be'Eimurim' from 'Lan be'Basar', we are referring to - 'Yotzei' in the Beis-Hamikdash' (which is illegal) from 'Yotzei' by a Bamah (which was perfectly legal, seeing as it was not enclosed to begin with).

(b) When we answer that the Tana relies on the Pasuk "Zos Toras ha'Olah", we mean - that in fact, Rebbi Yehudah learns all the cases from this Pasuk, and the Limudim are only 'Asmachtos' (in support of the Pasuk).

(c) This affects our proof - in that it completely negates it, leaving us with all four She'eilos (regarding 'Davar ha'Lamed be'Binyan Av', unanswered).

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that the Sheyarei ha'Dam of the Chata'os must be poured on to the western Yesod of the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon. We learn this from the Pasuk (in connection with the Par Kohen Mashi'ach) "el Yesod Mizbach ha'Olah Asher Pesach Ohel Mo'ed" - which implies the western Yesod (see Tosfos DH 'Asher').

(b) The Beraisa discusses the many times the phrase "el Yesod Mizbach ha'Olah" occurs. The significance of this phrase in the Parshah of the Par Kohen Mashi'ach is - that it must be poured on the Yesod of the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon, and not of the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi, even though that is where it was sprinkled.

(a) The Toras Kohanim learns from "el Yesod Mizbach ha'Olah" (written by the Par He'elam Davar shel Tzibur) - that the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi does not even require a Yesod.

(b) The Tana knows that the Pasuk is not coming to teach the Kohen where to pour the Sheyarei ha'Dam - because the Par He'elam Davar is compared to the Par Kohen Mashi'ach (which we just learned).

(c) When to explain "el Yesod Mizbach ha'Olah" written by the Sa'ir Nasi, he says 'Ten Yesod le'Mizbe'ach shel Olah', he means - that this is what must be done to all leftovers of blood from all Korbanos Chitzoniyos (to include that of the Olah, which the Torah has hitherto omitted).

(d) The Tana knows that the Pasuk is not coming to teach the Kohen to pour the Sheyarei ha'Dam of the Sa'ir Nasi on the Yesod of the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon, and not the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi - because a. if the Shirayim of the Chata'os ha'Penimiyos is not poured on the Yesod of the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi, 'Kal-va'Chomer' that of the Sa'ir Nasi, which is a Chatas Chitzonah, and b. the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi did not have a Yesod (as we just learned).

(a) When the Tana suggests 'O Eino Ela le'Mizbechah shel Olah Ten Yesod', he means - that perhaps the Pasuk is coming to teach us (not where to pour the Sheyarei ha'Dam, but) that the Zerikah of the Olah must be placed on the two opposite corners which have a Yesod.

(b) Rebbi Yishmael explains that we know that already from the Sheyarei Chatas - which *does not atone* and yet which requires Yesod, 'Kal-va'Chomer' the actual Zerikah, which *does*.

(a) From the first "el Yesod Mizbach ha'Olah", the Beraisa learned 've'Lo Yesod Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi'. We query this statement on the grounds - that we need the Pasuk to permit pouring the Sheyarei ha'Dam there as well, should the Kohen choose to do so (but certainly on the Yesod of the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi, should he so wish.

(b) Indeed we learned that the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi did not have a Yesod - but that was only after we concluded that the second "el Yesod Mizbach ha'Olah" is superfluous.

(c) We refute the query - by citing two D'rashos from the Pasuk. We know that the Shirayim of the Par Kohen Mashi'ach ...

1. ... *may* be poured on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon - from "me'Asher Pesach Ohel Mo'ed', and from ...
2. ... "Mizbach ha'Olah", which is otherwise superfluous, we learn that it *must* be poured on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon.

8)

(a) From the third "el Yesod Mizbach ha'Chitzon", we learned 'Ten Yesod le'Mizbe'ach shel Olah'. We already explained why the simple explanation (to pour the Shirayim on the Yesod of the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon, and not of the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi) seems obvious. We nevertheless suggest that that is what it comes to teach us. We might still have thought that one should pour the blood of the Sa'ir Nasi on the Yesod of the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi (the opposite as it were, of where it is brought) - following the pattern set by the Chata'os ha'Penimiyos, which are brought in the Heichal, but poured on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon.

(b) We reject this suggestion however - on the grounds that the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi has no Yesod on which to pour it.