Previous daf

1)

(a) We already explained the reason of the Chachamim as to why exclusively a Chatas whose blood is taken into the Heichal, is Pasul. Rebbi Akiva bases his opinion on a parable. If a Talmid was diluting wine with hot water, and his Rebbe asked him to dilute him a drink with hot water - he would mean to present him with a choice of diluting it with whatever he pleased, even with hot water.

(b) In the same way, said Rebbi Akiva - seeing as the Parshah is speaking about a Chatas, when it writes "ve'Chatas Asher Yuva es Damah ... ", it comes to prohibit the blood of all Korbanos that is taken into the Heichal, including that of a Chatas.

(c) It would be necessary to include the blood of Chata'os - which we would otherwise preclude from the prohibition, because we would take our cue from Chata'os Penimi'os, whose blood is taken into the Heichal Lechatchilah.

(a) The correct version of Rebbi Akiva's Mashal is - that of a Talmid who is diluting wine with both hot and cold water (since the Parshah of Chatas in question is only one of many Korbanos that are discussed in Tzav), when his master asks him to dilute his drink with hot water, in which case he expects hot water exclusively.

(b) Likewise, when the Torah specifically mentions Chatas, it means Chatas exclusively.

(a) So Rebbi Akiva finally learns his ruling from the ...

1. ... "ve'Chol Chatas" (in the Pasuk "ve'Chol Chatas Asher Yuva mi'Damah ... ") - which comes to incorporate all Kodshei Kodshim (like Chatas).
2. ... the extra 'Vav' in "ve'Chol" - which incorporates even Kodshim Kalim.

(b) Rebbi Yossi Hagelili insists that the Torah restricts the prohibition to Chata'os. From ...

1. ... "ve'Chol Chatas" he includes - Chatas Tzibur (since the Parshah of Chatas in Tzav is dealing with a Chatas Yachid).
2. ... the extra 'Vav' in "ve'Chol" (according to the initial text) he learns - that a Chatas Nekeivah is also included.

(c) We object to the initial version of his statement however - because a regular Chatas is a Nekeivah, and not a Zachar (so why would we need to include a Nekeivah?).

(d) The correct version of Rebbi Yossi Hagelili's statement therefore is - that the 'Vav' comes to include a Chatas Zachar.

(a) In another Beraisa, Rebbi Yossi Hagelili establishes the current Pasuk by Chata'os ha'Penimi'os. He learns from ...

1. ... "ba'Kodesh ba'Eish Tisaref" - that once Chata'os Penimi'os become Pasul, they must be burned in the Heichal.
2. ... "Lo Se'achel" (which precedes it) - that someone who eats them (even if they are Kasher) transgresses a La'av.

(b) In answer to the Rabbanan's query, he extrapolates from the Pasuk (in connection with the Sa'ir Chatas of Rosh Chodesh that Aharon burned) "Hein Lo Huva es Damah el ha'Kodesh Penimah" - that a Chatas whose blood is taken into the Kodesh is Pasul.

(a) A Chatas whose blood was received in two cups - is Kasher.

(b) Our Mishnah rules that in such a case, if one of the cups is then taken outside the Azarah - the Korban remains Kasher.

(c) If it is taken into the Heichal, Rebbi Yossi declares it Kasher. In both of these cases - the remaining blood is sprinkled in the conventional manner.

(d) According to the Chachamim of Rebbi Yossi - the Korban in the latter case, is Pasul.

(a) If a Kohen had a Machsheves Chutz (with regard to the blood of a Korban) - the Korban is Pasul, whereas if he had a Machsheves P'nim - it is Kasher.

(b) Rebbi Yossi proves his ruling from there - by Darshening that if taking some of the blood to a location where a Machshavah would render the Korban Pasul, does not render it Pasul, then taking it to a location where it would not, should certainly not do so.

(c) According to Rebbi Eliezer, the Korban becomes Pasul as soon as the Kohen takes some of the blood into the Heichal. Rebbi Shimon maintains - that it only becomes Pasul once the Kohen actually performs the Matanos.

(d) Rebbi Yehudah declares the Korban Kasher, even if the Kohen sprinkled the blood there - provided he did so be'Shogeg.

(a) The Tzitz atones for the P'sul of Tum'ah - but not for any other type of P'sul, even if they belong to the category of 'Im Alu, Lo Yerdu'.

(b) The Rabbanan of Rebbi Yossi learn from the 'Mem' in "Asher Yuva mi'Damah" - that even if some of the blood is taken into the Heichal, the Korban becomes Pasul.

(c) Using reverse logic, Rebbi Yossi then tries to learn that if some of the blood is taken outside the Azarah - it should render the Korban, Pasul.

(d) The Rabbanan counter this however, from the word "Yuva" - which implies that it renders the Korban Pasul only when it is taken inside, but not when it is taken outside.

(a) In that case, Rebbi Yossi persists, let a Machsheves P'nim render the Korban Pasul ('Kal va'Chomer' from Machsheves Chutz, where a Korban is not invalidated, like it is bi'Fenim). When the Rabbanan quote the Pasuk "ba'Yom ha'Shelishi" in response - they mean that from there we learn that Machsheves Chutz li'Mekomo only invalidates a Korban there where the three things are to be found, Dam, Basar and Eimurim (to preclude in the Heichal, where they do not enter).

(b) The Rabbanan learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Shelishi" - the P'sul of Chutz li'Zemano.
2. ... "Pigul" - that of Chutz li'Mekomo (outside the Azarah), in this case.

(c) We would otherwise have thought - that it will not become Pasul with a Machsheves Chutz li'Mekomo, 'Kal va'Chomer' from Machsheves P'nim.

(a) Basar that is taken outside the Azarah is Pasul - whereas Basar that is taken into the Heichal is Kasher.

(b) We learn this latter ruling from "mi'Damah", 've'Lo mi'Besarah'. Otherwise, we would have assumed - that it is Pasul, 'Kal va'Chomer from Basar that is taken outside.

(c) In that case, using reverse logic, Basar that is taken outside the Azarah, should certainly be Kasher. We know that it is not - from the Pasuk "u'Basar ba'Sadeh T'reifah Lo Socheilu" (which teaches us that Basar that left its boundaries becomes Pasul).

10)

(a) In the Pasuk "Hein Lo Huva es Damo el ha'Kodesh Penimah", the Beraisa learns from ...

1. ... "Penimah" - that the blood of the Chatas Rosh Chodesh was not taken into the D'vir (the Kodesh Kodshim), and from ...
2. ... "Kodesh" - that it was not taken into the Heichal either.

(b) The problem with this is - that having stated that the blood was not taken into the Kodesh Kodashim, why did Aharon need to even mention that it was not taken into the D'vir?

(c) Rabah answers the Kashya by citing another Beraisa. The Torah writes "Toshav Kohen ve'Sachir Lo Yochal Kodesh (i.e. Terumah)". ''Toshav'' - is an Eved Ivri who has had his ear pierced, and who continues to serve until the Yovel - whereas "Sachir" is an Eved Ivri during the first six years (whose status is more temporary).

(d) Despite having stated "Toshav", the Torah finds it necessary to add "Sachir" - because had the Torah not written it, we would have interpreted "Toshav" as an Eved during the first six years (in which case we would not have known that the prohibition extends to the current interpretation of "Toshav").

(a) Rabah now applies the same S'vara to "Kodesh" and "Penimah" - in that had the Torah not written "Penimah", we would have interpreted ''Kodesh" as the D'vir.

(b) Abaye objects to Rabah's proof however, on the grounds - that the underlying principle that explains why the Torah inserts "Sachir" is (not because it is included in "Toshav", but) because if Reuven (Mr. Kohen's Toshav) is forbidden to eat Terumah, then 'Kal va'Chomer' Shimon (his Sachir). Nevertheless, the Torah does not hesitate to write both, because of the principle 'Milsa de'Asya be'Kal va'Chomer, Tarach ve'Kasav Lah K'ra' ...

(c) ... which will not help us to understand why the Torah inserts "Penimah" - because there it is the same piece of meat, which, seeing as it did not enter the Heichal, cannot possibly have entered the D'vir. So (Limud or no Limud) how could the Torah mention D'vir, now that we know Heichal?

(d) Abaye himself resolves the problem - by raising the possibility of having brought the piece of Chatas into the D'vir via the roofs and attics ('Derech Meshupat'), without having taken it through the Heichal (rendering it similar to the case of "Toshav" and "Sachir").

(a) Rava however, rejects Abaye's answer, based on the Lashon 'Hava'ah' ("Hein Lo Huva ... ") that the Torah uses - which implies being taken there in a regular manner, using the regular route.

(b) So Rava explains that the Torah inserts the word "Penimah" - to teach us that if the Kohen intends to take a piece of Korban into the D'vir, he is not Chayav until he actually gets there. Consequently, if he is standing in the Heichal holding it, when he changes his mind and retraces his steps, he will be Patur (turning D'vir into a case that is independent from Heichal).

(a) The Par He'elam Davar shel Tzibur and the Sa'ir Avodas-Kochavim differ from other Chata'os - inasmuch as their blood is sprinkled in the Heichal, and not in the Azarah.

(b) Rava therefore thinks that maybe the Kohen is not Chayav for taking their blood into the D'vir - because the Chiyuv for taking it into the Heichal doe not apply to them, and (seeing as the Torah writes both "Kodesh" and "Penimah"), perhaps the Kohen is only Chayav when both are applicable.

(c) He might nevertheless be Chayav - since, when all's said and done, the D'vir is 'she'Lo bi'Mekoman' (not their location [so why should the fact that the Heichal is, affect that]).

(d) This S'vara might also apply, Rava continues, to the blood of the Par and Sa'ir of Yom Kipur which the Kohen Gadol sprinkled between the poles of the Aron, and then took back into the D'vir, after having concluded the Avodah there, and returned to the Heichal (seeing as he has finished with the Avodas ha'D'vir). Nevertheless, he may be Patur - because we might apply the S'vara 'once their place, always their place'.

(a) After sprinkling the blood of the Par and of the Sa'ir towards the Paroches - the Kohen Gadol - sprinkles it on the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav.

(b) Assuming that he is Chayav in the previous case, Rava finally asks what the Din will be if the Kohen Gadol takes the blood back from the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav to the Paroches. On the ...

1. ... one hand, he should definitely be Patur - since he has not moved out of the Azarah.
2. ... other, he might be Chayav there too - since he is obligated to place the blood on the Mizbe'ach on the far side of the Mizbe'ach (with the Mizbe'ach between him and the Paroches), transforming the two locations into two different domains.

(c) The outcome of all these She'eilos is - 'Teiku' ('Tishbi Yetaretz Kushyos ve'Ibayos').