Previous daf

1)

(a) Rebbi Yehudah asked on Rebbi Yossi when he thought that, according to him, the Kohen performing would be visible from outside the Azarah. The Kashya does not boomerang on himself, from the fact that, if the Mizbe'ach was three Amos tall, and the Kela'im five, the Kohen would be visible from the outside too - because even though the top of the Kohen would be visible, the Avodah would not.

(b) Seeing as according to Rebbi Yossi, Shlomoh did not burn the Korbanos on the floor of the Azarah, what are ramifications of the Pasuk's statement that Shlomoh sanctified the Chatzer - are with regard to the Mizbe'ach ha'Olah, whose Kedushah was synonymous with the Azarah to which it was attached.

(c) And according to Rebbi Yehudah, when the Pasuk states that the Mizbe'ach ha'Nechoshes was too small - it refers to the Mizbe'ach of Shlomoh which replaced the Mizbe'ach ha'Nechoshes, as we explained above.

(d) The basis of their Machlokes with regard to the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' is, that ...

1. ... Rebbi Yehudah prefers to learn the measurements of Moshe's Mizbe'ach (i.e. the length and the breadth) from Shlomoh's Mizbe'ach - Chutz from Chutz (rather than Chutz from P'nim [the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav').
2. ... Rebbi Yossi prefers to learn it from the Mizbe'ach ha'Ketores - K'li from Kli (rather than K'li from Binyan [since, Shlomoh's Mizbe'ach was considered attached to the ground]).

(a) When Rava says 'Modeh Rebbi Yehudah be'Damim', he means - Rebbi Yehudah concedes that the blood must be sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach, and not on the floor of the Azarah (see Tosfos DH 'Modeh').

(b) He bases this on a statement of Rebbi Yehudah, who said in a Beraisa that a Kohen should fill a bowl with the spilt blood on the floor of the Azarah on Erev Pesach - and pour it on the Mizbe'ach (as we already discussed earlier).

(c) We attempt to refute Rava's proof from here that the blood must be sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach (even though the Korban itself does not) - by ascribing the need for this to the fact that the blood spilled inadvertently, whereas really, it needs to be poured deliberately.

(d) We counter Rava's answer that in that case, all the Kohen would need to do would be to pour the blood back on the floor by suggesting that maybe Rebbi Yehudah requires the blood to be poured on to the Mizbe'ach - in order to fulfill the Mitzvah in an ideal way (but that if Bedi'eved, he poured it back on to the floor, he would be Yotze.

(a) Rebbi Elazar learns from the Pasuk (in connection with the eighth day of the Milu'im) ...

1. ... "Ve'ichluhah Matzos Eitzel ha'Mizbe'ach" - that (seeing as there no Mitzvah to eat the Sheyarei Minchah beside the Mizbe'ach, the Pasuk must be coming to teach us) the Kohanim may only eat it as long as the Mizbe'ach is whole.
2. ... "Kodesh" "Kodesh" from there - that the same applies to all Kodshei Kodshim.

(b) And he extended this ruing - to a Yisrael eating Kodshim Kalim in Yerushalayim, from one of three statements cited by Rebbi Yossi in the name of three elders (as we shall now see).

4)

(a) Rebbi Yishmael thought that it might be permitted to bring Ma'aser Sheini to Yerushalayim nowadays, and eat it there. It would be necessary to separate Ma'aser nowadays - because Rebbi Yishmael clearly holds that the Kedushah of Eretz Yisrael did not become Bateil with the Churban.

(b) He learns from Bechor - that just as Bechor requires the Mizbe'ach, so too, does Ma'aser.

(c) He refute this however, on the grounds that one cannot learn Ma'aser Sheini from Bechor - which requires Matan Damim ve'Eimurim Legabei Mizbe'ach' (which Ma'aser does not).

(d) So he tries to learn from Bikurim, which does not require Matan Damim ve'Eimurim. He asks on that Limud too however - on the grounds that they require placing beside the Mizbe'ach (which Ma'aser does not).

(a) So Rebbi Yishmael learns from the Pasuk "Va'haveisem Shamah ... ve'es Ma'asroseichem ... u'Vechoros Bekarchem ... " - where Ma'aser is compared to Bechor with a Hekesh (and we have a principle 'Ein Mashivin al ha'Hekesh'.

(b) Rebbi Yishmael did not even attempt to learn from a 'Mah ha'Tzad' from Bechor and Bikurim - since one would immediately repudiate such a Limud with the Pircha that whereas they both require the Mizbe'ach in one way or another, Ma'aser Sheini does not.

(a) The problem with Rebbi Yishmael's Limud of Bechor to Ma'aser, assuming that he holds 'Kedushah Rishonah Kidshah le'Sha'atah ...

1. ... ve'Kidshah le'Asid Lavo' (meaning the Kedushah of the Beis-Hamikdash) is - then why should one not be able to bring even a Bechor nowadays?
2. ... ve'Lo Kidshah le'Asid Lavo' is - what then makes Bechor less of a She'eilah than Ma'aser.

(b) In the latter case, we would justify bringing a Bechor nowadays - where the blood was sprinkled and the Eimurim sacrificed before the Churban, and the Kohen now wants to eat the Basar in Yerushalayim.

(c) If on the other hand, Rebbi Yishmael were to hold 'Lo Kidshah le'Asid Lavo', one might still be able to eat either Ma'aser or Bechor even in Yerushalayim - on the assumption that Kodshim Kalim do not require the Mizbe'ach ...

(d) ... and the She'eilah is - whether Yerushalayim is called 'Lifnei Hashem' even when there is no Mizbe'ach, or not.

(a) Ravina adopts the latter side of the She'eilah, and Rebbi Yishmael then learns from the Pasuk "ve'es Damam Tizrok ... u'Vesaram Yih'yeh Lach" - that one may only eat the Basar when the blood can be sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach.

(b) The problem with learning Basar from Dam and Ma'aser from Bechor is - that it contravenes the principle "Ein Lemeidin Hekesh min ha'Hekesh be'Kodshim' (as we have already learned).

(c) We refute the answer that Ma'aser Dagan is considered Chulin - by referring to those who go after the Melamed (and not the Lameid), which is Kodshim.

(d) We ultimately answer the Kashya - that Dam and Basar are considered one entity (and the Hekesh is merely a 'Giluy Milsa' [an indication], and not a real Limud.

(a) When Ravin arrived in Eretz Yisrael and told Rebbi Yirmiyah Abaye's Chidush invalidating Kodshim Kalim when the Mizbe'ach becomes chipped and the proof from Rebbi Yossi's statement, the latter commented - by referring to 'those Babylonian fools, who make 'dark (unenlightened) statements, because they live in a dark country (since Bavel is very low, as Rashi explains in No'ach), and surrounded by mountains.

(b) The Beraisa he cites discusses the moving of the camp in the desert. The Tana rules that ...

1. ... (Kodshei) Kodshim - become Pasul, and ...
2. ... Zavin and Metzora'im - must leave their respective camps (Metzora'im, even Machaneh Yisrael, and Zavin, only Machaneh Leviyah).

(c) We know that the traveling Ohel Mo'ed does not lose its status - because the Machaneh Leviyah, which the Zav is obligated to leave, only has the status of Machneh Leviyah, because of the Ohel Mo'ed.

(d) Consequently, the (Kodshei) Kodshim must be Pasul - because the Mizbe'ach is not standing in its place.

(a) A second Beraisa adds that Kodshim can be eaten in two places - one, in their regular location when Yisrael is still encamped (Kodshei Kodshim in the Azarah and Kodshim Kalim in Machaneh Yisrael), the other, when Yisrael are traveling.

(b) The two Beraisos appear to clash - since the first Beraisa forbids Kodshim to be eaten whilst Machaneh Yisrael are traveling, whereas the second Beraisa permits it.

(c) Rebbi Yirmiyah reconciles them - by establishing the first Beraisa by Kodshei Kodshim, and the second, by Kodshim Kalim, a proof that Kodshim Kalim may be eaten even when the Mizbe'ach is not standing (a Kashya on Abaye).