Previous daf

1)

(a) Our Mishnah now discusses Menachos. Like Chata'os, they can be eaten by male Kohanim, inside the Kela'im ... . The Kemitzah may be performed -anywhere in the Azarah.

(b) Rebbi Elazar (ben P'das) learns that if the Kemitzah takes place in the Heichal, the Minchah is Kasher - from the Bazichin, whose removal from the Shulchan in the Heichal, corresponds to the Kemitzah of the Minchah, permitting the Lechem ha'Panim to be eaten by the Kohanim.

(c) Rebbi Yirmiyah queries Rebbi Elazar from a Beraisa, which learns from the Pasuk "Ve'hevi'ah (ha'Zar) el B'nei Aharon ha'Kohanim, ve'Kamatz *mi'Sham* M'lo Kumtzo" - that the Kohanim may perform the Kemitzah wherever a Zar is permitted to go (which seems to preclude the Heichal).

(d) ben Beseira learns from there that - if the Kohen took the Kemitzah with his left hand, he must repeat the process with his right hand.

(a) Rebbi Yirmiyah himself (or Rebbi Ya'akov to Rebbi Yirmiyah bar Tachlifa) answers the Kashya. In fact he says, the Tana Kama is coming not to teach us a Chumra (to preclude the Heichal from Kemitzah), but a Kula - namely, that anywhere in the Azarah is Kasher for Kemitzah, and not just in the north ...

(b) ... like other Kodshei Kodshim.

(c) The source for this supposition could not have been...

1. ... the Olah - since it is completely burned, which the Minchah is not.
2. ... the Chatas - since it comes to atone for Chayvei Chatas ... (which the Minchah does not).
3. ... the Asham - since it is an animal offering (whose blood is sprinkled, whereas the Minchah is not) and for the same reason ...
4. ... we could not learn the Minchah from all three?

(d) We conclude that the source is in fact, the Pasuk "ve'Higishah el ha'Mizbe'ach ... ve'Heirim Mimenu be'Kumtzo", from which, if not for "Vekamatz mi'Sham", we would have learned - that the Kemitzah must take place by the south-western Keren.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan learns from the Pasuk (in connection with the Shelamim) "u'Shechato Pesach Ohel Mo'ed" - that if Shelamim can be Shechted in the Azarah (which the Torah refers to here as ''Pesach Ohel Mo'ed"), then they can certainly be Shechted in the Ohel Mo'ed proper (i.e. the Heichal).

(b) The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk (in connection with Achilas Kodshei Kodshim) "be'Kodesh ha'Kodshim Tochlenu" - that if the enemy are bombarding the Azarah, and it is impossible for the Kohanim to eat Kodshei Kodshim there, then they are permitted to eat them in the Heichal.

(c) Bearing in mind that we learn Achilas Kodshei Kodshim from the Pasuk "ba'Chatzar Ohel Mo'ed Yochluhah", the Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan is - why may they not do so even Lechatchilah, using the same S'vara (that if they can eat Kodshei Kodshim in the Chatzer of the Ohel Mo'ed, how much more so in the Ohel Mo'ed itself).

(d) We reconcile Rebbi Yochanan with the Beraisa - by drawing a distinction between the Kemitzah of the Minchah - which in its capacity as an Avodah, is applicable no less in the Heichal than in the Azarah, and Achilas Kodshei Kodshim - which one may do in the outer courtyard, but not in the presence of one's Master.

(a) The Tana now discusses Chatas ha'Of - which the Kohen brought to the south-western corner, though he appears to say that this was not crucial.

(b) That Keren was used for three things below the Chut ha'Sikra and three things above it. Two of the things below were the Chatas ha'Of and the 'Hagashos' - bringing the Minchah to the Mizbe'ach.

(c) The third thing that was performed there was - the Shefichas Shirayim of the Chata'os ha'Chitzaniyos.

(a) One of the three things to be performed by the Keren Ma'aravis-Deromis was the Olas ha'Of - which was usually brought by the south-eastern corner, unless there was no room on the Sovev (where the Kohen stood when bringing it), because a number of Olos ha'Of were being brought there.

(b) The other two things that were performed on top of the Mizbe'ach by the south-western corner were - Nisuch ha'Yayin and Nisuch ha'Mayim.

(c) To perform the Avodah of the Chatas Beheimah, arrange the Ma'arachah or turn over the limbs on the Mizbe'ach, the Kohanim would - ascend on the right side of the ramp and descend on the left.

(d) The three exceptions to this rule - are the Olas ha'Of (when it was performed in the south-west), Nisuch ha'Yayin and Nisuch ha'Mayim.

6)

(a) Rebbi Elazar learns from the Pasuk "Lo Yasim Alehah Shemen ... ki Chatas Hi", that a Minchah, like a Chatas, requires Tzafon, an obvious error, since we learned in our Mishnah that the Minchah requires the south-western corner.

(b) Neither can the Torah be comparing a Minchas Chotei to a Chatas Beheimah, and the Minchas Chotei is an exception, because then our Mishnah ought to have said so. And besides - if the Chatas ha'Of, (which the Minchas Chotei replaces) does not require Tzafon, why should the Minchas Chotei?

(c) Rebbi Elazar is comparing a Minchah to a Chatas - with regard to P'sul she'Lo Lishmah.

(a) Rebbi Elazar also compares a Chatas to a Minchah, in that like it, its Avodah requires the south-western corner. To reconcile this with the earlier Mishnah, which permits Kemitzah anywhere in the Azarah, we must remember that the Tana is speaking about Hagashah, and not Kemitzah.

(b) And as far as the Chatas ha'Of is concerned - Rebbi Elazar is referring to Haza'as ha'Dam (which is the main Avodah).

(c) As far as the Minchah itself is concerned, the Beraisa learns it from a combination of two Pesukim in Tzav, "Lifnei Hashem" - which implies the west, and "el P'nei ha'Mizbe'ach" - implying the south.

(d) The Kohen therefore brings the Minchah - to the edge of the south-western corner.

(a) Alternatively, Rebbi Eliezer, in a Beraisa, suggests reconciling the two Pesukim - by giving the Kohen a choice to bring the Minchah to whichever of the two sides he chooses.

(b) He rejects this suggestion however, applying the S'vara - that it is preferable to explain a Pasuk in a way that incorporates a second Pasuk, rather than in a way that negates it.

(c) Rav Ashi explains the fact that the southern corner is considered "Lifnei Hashem" - by establishing Rebbi Eliezer like those who hold that the Mizbe'ach was entirely in the north, because then, its south side faced the Heichal.

(a) According to Rav Ashi, the statement in our Mishnah (in connection with the Chatas ha'Of) 'u've'Chol Makom Haysah Kesheirah' means - that the Melikah could take place anywhere on the Mizbe'ach (on top or below).

(b) Initially, the supporting Beraisa - permits the Haza'as ha'Dam (of the Chatas ha'Of) anywhere on the Mizbe'ach.

(c) Subsequently however, the Tana adds - that it must be done below the Chut ha'Sikra.

(d) We cannot reconcile the two statements by saying that the Tana requires two Ha'za'os - because 'Hizah Damah be'Chol Makom' implies *all* of its blood.

(a) To answer the Kashya, we amend the Beraisa to read (not 'Hizah Damah be'Chol Makom Kesheirah', but) - 'Mitzah Damah ... '.

(b) 'Mitzuy' entails - squeezing its blood on the wall of the Mizbe'ach.

(c) The Tana mentions Haza'ah in that statement - because the reason that Mitzuy does not need to be performed by the south-western corner is 'she'Im Hizah ve'Lo Mitzah, Kesheirah' (which concludes the amendment).

(d) The Chatas ha'Of Kasher, irrespective of whereabouts the Mitzuy is performed - provided the Haza'ah that preceded it was performed with the Dam ha'Nefesh on the south-western corner of the Mizbe'ach.