Previous daf

1)

(a) We object to the Tana's suggestion that "el Yesod Mizbach ha'Olah" comes to teach us that the actual sprinkling requires Yesod, because then the Torah ought to have written ''el Yesod ha'Olah" - bearing in mind that it is not a principle pertaining to whatever goes on the Mizbe'ach (seeing as it does not extend to Chata'os, whose blood is placed on all four corners of the Mizbe'ach [even the south-eastern one which did not have a Yesod]), but one that is confined to the Olah.

(b) This not a problem however, now that it teaches us Shefichas Shirayim by all Korbanos - since then, it does indeed extending to all Korbanos that are brought on the Mizbe'ach.

(c) We resolve this problem by pointing out that, if not for the word "Mizbach", we would have thought - that the blood must be sprinkled on to the wall of the Yesod. But now that the Torah writes "el Yesod Mizbach ha'Olah", we know that it must be sprinkled (or poured) on the roof of the Yesod.

(d) We now amend Rebbi Yishmael's argument accordingly. In fact, he claims - that the roof of the Yesod with regard to Shefichas Shirayim of the Olah does not need a Pasuk, since we would know that from a 'Kal-va'Chomer' from the Shefichas Shirayim of the Chatas.

(a) Where Rebbi Yishmael stated his 'Kal-va'Chomer 'u'Mah Sheyarei Chatas she'Ein Mechaprin ... ', Rebbi Akiva (who agrees with him against the Tana Kama), adds ' 've'Ein Ba'in Lechaper'. The basis of their Machlokes, Rav Ada bar Ahavah explains, is - whether Shirayim is crucial to the Avodah (Rebbi Yishmael) or not (Rebbi Akiva).

(b) According to Rav Papa however, even Rebbi Yishmael agrees that the Sheyarei ha'Dam are not crucial - even the Shirayim of the Chata'os ha'Penimiyos.

(c) And they argue over 'Mitzuy ha'Dam' of the Chatas ha'Of, which constitutes - the squeezing of the leftover blood in the neck of the bird on the Yesod, after the Haza'ah has been performed.

(d) The basis of their Machlokes is whether the Mitzuy Chatas ha'Of is crucial (Rebbi Yishmael) or not).

(a) In another Beraisa, Rebbi learns from the Pasuk "ve'es Kol Dam *ha'Par* Yishpoch" - that the Par Yom ha'Kipurim, like the Par Kohen Mashi'ach, needs 'Shefichas Shirayim li'Yesod'.

(b) Rebbi Yishmael argues that we do not need a Pasuk to teach us this, since we can learn it from a 'Kal-va'Chomer' from the Par Kohen Mashi'ach, 'she'Ein Nichnas Damo Lifenim Chovah' - by which he means that there is no obligation for the Kohen Gadol to sin and bring a Par, whereas the Par shel Yom ha'Kipurim is obligatory each year, whether Yisrael sinned or not.

(c) Rebbi Akiva extends the 'Kal-va'Chomer' - by pointing to the fact that in addition, the blood of the Par shel Yom ha'Kipurim is taken into the Kodesh Kodashim, whereas that of the Par shel Kohen Mashi'ach is not.

(a) Rebbi Yishmael learns from the Pasuk "Ve'chilah mi'Kaper es ha'Kodesh" - that as long as the Kohen Gadol has performed the Matnos Dam, the Shefichas Shirayim of the Par shel Yom ha'Kipurim is not Me'akev ...

(b) ... which we would otherwise have thought it is - since the Torah includes it from "ve'es Kol Dam ha'Par", even though (due to the 'Kal-va'Chomer') it is not necessary.

(c) We do not answer that the Torah included it in spite of the 'Kal-va'Chomer', on account of the principle 'Milsa de'Asya be'Kal-va'Chomer, Tarach ve'Kasav Lah K'ra' (the Torah will insert a Pasuk to teach us something that we already know from a 'Kal-va'Chomer) - because we only apply it if there is nothing to Darshen from it, but not if there is (such as that the Mitzvah is Me'akev, like here).

(a) By the same token, says the Beraisa, we could have learned the Shefichas Shirayim by the Par Kohen Mashi'ach, from the Sa'ir Nasi via a 'Kal-va'Chomer' - since the blood of the latter is not even taken into the Heichal, whereas that of the former is.

(b) According to our text, the Tana refers to the blood of the Par as 'Nichnas Damo Lifenim bein le'Chovah bein le'Mitzvah'. True, we described it earlier as 'she'Ein Nichnas Damo Lifenim Chovah' - but that was compared to the Par shel Yom ha'Kipurim; when compared to the Sa'ir Nasi, it is appropriate to refer to is as 'le'Chovah' (since there is an aspect of Chovah that does not exist by the latter).

(c) And by the same token, we refute the suggestion that the Shefichas Damim is Me'akev, by quoting the Pasuk with which we began "ve'es Kol Dam ha'Par Yishpoch", which teaches us - that the Shefichas Shirayim of this Par is only a Mitzvah (and not Me'akev, like the other Avodos, where the Torah uses a stronger term, such as "Ve'lakach", "Ve'hizah" ... ).

(d) We have proved from this Beraisa - that even according to Rebbi Yishmael, the Shefichas Dam is not Me'akev, even by the Chata'os ha'Penimiyos,.

(a) In another Beraisa, Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael learns from the Pasuk "ve'ha'Nish'ar ba'Dam Yimatzei" - that if the Kohen has used all the blood of the Chatas ha'Of for the Haza'ah, it is not necessary to perform the Mitzuy ha'Dam.

(b) We reconcile this with Rebbi Yishmael in the previous Beraisa, who, we just explained, holds that the Mitzuy ha'Dam of the Chatas ha'Of is Me'akev - by presenting this as a Machlokes Tana'in in what Rebbi Yishmael's really holds.

7)

(a) In the Pasuk in Tzav (in connection with the Kohen who sprinkles the Chatas Beheimah) "ha'Kohen ha'Mechatei *Osah*", the Beraisa extrapolates - that if the Kohen placed the blood of the Chatas below the Chut ha'Sikra, the Korban does not atone.

(b) The Tana bases this ruling on the Pasuk in Re'ei "ve'Dam Zevachecha Yishafech al Mizbach Hashem Elokecha" - from which we learn that if the Kohen performed only one Matnas Dam of a Chatas Beheimah, instead of four, the Korban nevertheless atones.

(c) That justifies the D'rashah from "Osah" - without which we might have applied the same ruling, rendering Kasher Bedieved, a Korban Chatas whose blood is sprinkled below the Chut ha'Sikra from a 'Binyan Av' from the previous case.

(a) The Tana queries why the Pasuk is necessary. Initially, he tries to learn - that 'Damim ha'Nitnin Lema'alah she'Nitnu Lematah' should not atone even Bedieved from 'Damim ha'Nitnin Lematah she'Nitnu Lema'alah' via a 'Binyan Av'.

(b) He refutes that Limud - with the Pircha that 'Damim ha'Nitnin Lematah sh e'Nitnu Lema'alah' are Pasul, because they are not destined to be placed above the Chut ha'Sikra at any stage, whereas 'Damim she'Nesunin Lema'alah she'Nitnu Lematah' would be Kasher, seeing as they are anyway destined to be placed below the Chut ha'Sikra in the form of Shefichas Shirayim.

(c) The Tana refutes this counter argument however, by citing 'Damim ha'Penimiyim, she'Nitnu ('Lechatchilah) ba'Chutz', which are Pasul if the blood is placed Lechatchilah (in the form of Matanos ba'Chutz), even though Bedi'eved, it is destined to be placed there in the form of Shefichas Shirayim.

(d) Finally, he rejects this too, on the grounds that 'Ein Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi Memarkan', Tomar ba'Elyonim she'Harei Karnos Memarkos Osan', which Rami bar Chama interprets to mean - that we cannot learn Chata'os Chitzoniyos from Chata'os Penimiyos in this regard, since Chata'os Penimiyos have the Chumra that the Matanos on the Keranos alone do not atone, without the Shefichas Shirayim, a proof that this Tana holds 'Shirayim Me'akvi'.

(a) Rava objects to Rami bar Chama's interpretation of the Beraisa, because if that is what the Tana means, we certainly ought to learn the Damim ha'Chitzoniyim from the Damim ha'Penimiyim (in which case, the Pasuk would be redundant) - inasmuch as if the Damim ha'Penimiyim, which are destined to be placed as a Chovah on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon in the form of Shefichas Shirayim, yet if the Kohen paced it there Lechatchilah, it is Pasul, Damim Chata'os Chitzoniyim, which is not destined to be placed below the Chut ha'Sikra as a Chovah below the Chut ha'Sikra, should definitely be Pasul if the Kohen placed it there Lechatchilah.

(b) What the Tana therefore means when he says 'Ein Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi Memarkan' - is that the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi alone is not Mechaper without having first sprinkled the blood on the Paroches ...

(c) ... but 'Shirayim Lo Me'akvi'.

(a) Rebbi Akiva in a Beraisa explains the Pasuk "Ve'chilah mi'Kaper es ha'Kodesh", 'Im Kiper Kalah, ve'Im Lo Kiper, Lo Kalah', by which he means - that as the Kohen Gadol finishes the three sets of Matanos, the Chatas atones, but not if he doesn't.

(b) Rebbi Yehudah disagrees with Rebbi Akiva's D'rashah - on the grounds that the latter (his Rebbe) for some reason Darshens the Pasuk backwards, beginning with "Kiper", and ending with "Kilah" (and he prefers to Darshen it forwards, beginning with "Kilah", and ending with "Kiper".

(c) Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi argue. One of them says 'Mashma'os Dorshin Ika Beinaihu', by which he means - that Rebbi Yehudah does not argue with Rebbi Akiva practically, only technically, as we explained.

(d) According to the other opinion however, Rebbi Yehudah Darshens 'Im Kilah Kiper', to mean that the Chatas only atones if the Kohen performed the Shefichas Shirayim, as well (because he holds 'Shirayim Me'akvi').

(a) We try to prove that the latter opinion is that of Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, from a statement that he made. In a case where the blood of the Par shel Yom ha'Kipurim spilled after the Kohen Gadol had completed all the Matanos in the Heichal, he ruled that according to the Tana who holds 'Shirayim Me'akvi', he is obligated to Shecht a fresh bull, and to begin with the Matanos on the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi, before pouring the remainder of the blood on the Yesod of the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon.

(b) He does not simply Shecht an animal and begin with the Shefichas Shirayim - because unless he first performs some Matanos in the Heichal, what he pours on to the Yesod is be considered Shirayim.

(c) We are trying to prove with this statement - that (based on the assumption that the Tana referred to by Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi is Rebbi Yehudah) Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi must be the one who holds that according to Rebbi Yehudah, 'Shirayim Me'akvi'.

(a) We counter this however, with a statement of Rebbi Yochanan, who maintains that Rebbi Nechemyah, who is Mechayev someone who sacrifices Sheyarei ha'Dam ba'Chutz because of 'Shechutei Chutz' - must hold 'Shirayim Me'akvi.

(b) We therefore conclude - that just as, according to Rebbi Yochanan, Rebbi Nechemyah holds 'Shirayim Me'akvi, but not necessarily Rebbi Yehudah; so too, even though Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi cites a Tana who holds 'Shirayim Me'akvi', it does not necessarily mean that Rebbi Yehudah holds like that, too.