Previous daf

1)

(a) We learned in a Beraisa 'Yayin ke'Divrei Rebbi Akiva le'Sapalim, Shemen ke'Divrei Rebbi Tarfon le'Ishim'. A second Beraisa gives the reason why 'Yayin le'Sapalim' (and not le'Ishim) as - the prohibition of "Lo Yichbeh" (a Kashya on Shmuel.

(b) We reconcile Shmuel with this Beraisa, by establishing the author as Rebbi Yehudah, who holds - 'Davar she'Eino Miskavein, Chayav' ...

(c) ... whereas Shmuel holds like Rebbi Shimon, who holds Patur.

(a) Shmuel rules that extinguishing a burning coal in the street if it is made of ...

1. ... metal - is permitted, to prevent the public from getting hurt.
2. ... wood - is forbidden ...

(b) ... because the latter is an Isur d'Oraysa (which the Rabbanan are not empowered to permit), whereas the former is only Asur mi'de'Rabbanan.

(c) This proves that Shmuel really holds like Rebbi Yehudah, because if he held like Rebbi Shimon (who also holds 'Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah le'Gufah' Patur'), then he would allow the removal of a wooden coal, as well (see Tosfos 'DH' 'Melachah').

(d) What makes this a case of 'Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah le'Gufah' is the fact - that he only extinguishes the coal in order to remove the danger, not because he needs the extinguished coal (in the same way as Rebbi Shimon considers carrying a deceased person out of the house to bury him 'Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah le'Gufah' - for exactly the same reason).

(e) We resolve the contradiction in Shmuel - by establishing him like Rebbi Yehudah with regard to 'Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah le'Gufah', and like Rebbi Shimon regarding 'Davar she'Eino Miskaven'.

(a) Rav Huna learns from the Pasuk "*ve'Chol* Chatas ... ba'Kodesh ba'Eish Tisaref" - that when Nesachim became Tamei, they must be burned on a special Ma'arachah on the floor of the Mizbe'ach.

(b) They burn all other P'sulei Kodshei Kodshim - in the Beis ha'Deshen in the Azarah ...

(c) ... and the reason that they did not burn the Nesachim there as well, is because since they are liquid, their burning would be noticeable, in the regular Beis ha'Deshen.

(a) We learned a Beraisa in support of Rav Huna. The Tana adds to 'Nesachim she'Nitme'u' - 'ha'Dam, ve'ha'Shemen, ve'ha'Menachos'.

(b) Shmuel asked Rav Chana Bagdesa'a - to bring him ten men, so that he could announce in front of them that 'Nesachim she'Nitme'u Oseh Lahen Ma'arachah Bifnei Atzman ve'Sorfan'.

5)

(a) Our Mishnah rules that if the blood of a Chatas squirted on to a garment - that garment must be washed (in the Azarah).

(b) The source for this is - the Pasuk in Tzav "be'Makom Kadosh Te'achel".

(c) We learn from the Pasuk "Zos Toras ha'Chatas" - that this ruling extends to the blood of Chata'os Penimiyos (even though they are not eaten).

(a) The above ruling does not however, extend to the blood of Chata'os Pesulos ...

1. ... which did not have a Sha'as ha'Kosher" ...
2. ... or even if they did.

(b) An example of ...

1. ... 'she'Haysah Lah 'Sha'as ha'Kosher' is - if the blood stayed overnight without being sprinkled, became Tamei or was taken out of the Azarah.
2. ... 'she'Lo Haysah Lah Sha'as ha'Kosher' is - if the animal was Shechted with a Machshavah of Chutz li'Zemanah or Chutz li'Mekomah or if Pesulin received the blood.

(c) And we learn from "Zos" - that the basic Halachah (of Kibus) does not extend to the blood of birds.

(a) Resh Lakish quoting bar Kapara, learns from "Tishachet" - that the basic Pasuk requiring Kibus is confined to animals (that are Shechted) and not to birds (that are killed by means of Melikah).

(b) "Zos" will not suffice to teach us this - because if not for "Tishachet", "Zos" might just as well preclude Chata'os Penimiyos, which are not eaten (and the Torah writes ''Te'achel'', as we explained in the Mishnah)?

(c) We include Chata'os Penimiyos, and preclude Ofos - because they are similar to Chata'os Chitzonos in more respects than Chatas ha'Of is.

(d) Chata'os Penimiyos are more similar to Chata'os Chitzonos than Chatas ha'Of in no less than eight respects 'Beheimah, Shechitah, Tzafon, Kabalas K'li, Keranos, Chudah shel Keren, Etzba and Emureihen le'Ishim'. Chatas ha'Of is more similar to Chata'os Chitzonos than Chata'os Penimiyos are - inasmuch as it is brought ba'Chutz and that it is eaten, like they are.

8)

(a) Rav Yosef solves the problem of whether to preclude Chata'os Penimiyos or Chatas ha'Of from the Din of Kibus, by referring to the word "Yochlenah" (in the previous Pasuk) - which teaches us to preclude from "Zos", something that is eaten, like Chata'os Chitzoniyos (and birds are eaten, whereas Chata'os Penimiyos are not).

(b) We nevertheless need "Zos" - because otherwise we would have presumed "Yochlenah" to be a natural expression (from which nothing can be learned).

(c) When Rabah says "Asher Yazeh", 'be'Niza'os ha'Kasuv Medaber", he means that the Torah is talking (not about Chata'os Chitzonos, as we assumed until now, but) - about Chata'os Penimiyos, because that is where it mentions 'Haza'ah' specifically ...

(d) ... and we learn Haza'ah by the Chata'os Chitzoniyos - from "Zos Toras ha'Chatas" (in Parshas Tzav).

(a) Rabah will explain ...

1. ... 'Af-al-Pi she'Ein ha'Kasuv Medaber Ela be'Ne'echalos' in our Mishnah - with regard to 'Merikah and Shetifah' (which we have yet to discuss), but not with regard to 'Kibus'.
2. ... the Mishnah 'Echad ha'Ne'echalos ve'Echad ha'Penimiyos', as if the Tana was learning the latter from the former, instead of vice-versa - by actually inverting the two, to now read 'Echad ha'Penimiyos ve'Echad ha'Ne'echalos'.

(b) Here again, we prefer to include Chata'os Chitzoniyos and preclude Ofos, because the former are similar to Chata'os Penimiyos in more ways than the latter are. The only similarity between Ofos and Chata'os Penimiyos (that does not exist by Chata'os Chitzoniyus) is - that they are both 'Niza'os' in the way that we just explained it.

(a) Rebbi Avin asks what the Din will be if the Kohen took a Chatas ha'Of inside the Heichal with the blood on its neck. If he did the same thing with a Chatas Beheimah - the animal would be Kasher, since he did not take it there in a K'li Shareis.

(b) What causes him to ask the She'eilah by Chatas ha'Of is - the fact that a bird does not require a K'li Shareis ...

(c) ... and the two sides of Rebbi Avin's She'eilah are - whether the animal's neck takes the place of a K'li Shareis (in which case, it will be Pasul), or whether it will be Kasher, since the Torah writes "mi'Damah", from which we Darshen 've'Lo Besarah' (not if he took it inside together with its flesh).

(d) We try to resolve the She'eilah from the Beraisa (in connection with a Chatas ha'Of) 'Pirch'sah Ve'nichn'sah li'Fenim ve'Chazrah, Kesheirah', from which we infer - 'Ha Hichnisah, Pesulah'.

(a) We counter this proof from a similar Beraisa which rules (in connection with Kodshei Kodshim) 'Pirch'sah ve'Yatz'ah le'Darom ve'Chazrah, Kesheirah'. The problem with making the same inference there is - that there is no mark delineating between the north and south of the Azarah, so how can an animal possibly become Pasul, even if it is taken there?

(b) In fact, the Tana inserts the case of 'Yatz'ah le'Darom' - to balance the case of 'Yatz'ah ba'Chutz, Pasul ... ', which is a Chidush in itself ...

(c) ... similarly, the Tana inserts the case of 'Nichn'sah li'Fenim, to balance 'Yatzesah la'Chutz, Pesulah' (and not because of the inference).

(d) Despite the fact that in the cases of 'Nichn'sah b'Fenim' and 'Yatz'ah le'Darom', 'Ve'chazrah' is superfluous, the Tana nevertheless mentions it - because in both cases of 'Yatz'ah ba'Chutz ... Pesulah', where it is a Chidush.

(a) Rebbi Avin also asked whether blood that spilled from the bird's neck on to the floor of the Azarah, and the Kohen gathered it, is Kasher for Haza'ah or not. In the equivalent case, if blood spilled on the floor from the neck of a Chatas Beheimah - it would be Pasul (because it spilled before being received in a K'li Shareis).

(b) And the basis of Rebbi Avin's She'eilah is - that, since the Torah did not prescribe a K'li Shareis for the blood of a bird, its neck takes the place of a K'li Shareis. If it does, then it will be Kasher.

(c) On the other hand, it might be Pasul there too - because maybe the Torah deliberately disqualifies a K'li Shareis by the blood of a bird, and if a K'li Shareis renders the blood Pasul, how much more so the floor.

(a) We already discussed the Beraisa regarding Dam Chatas ha'Of. The Tana learns from "Zos" - that the blood of Chatas ha'Of does not require Kibus.

(b) Rava tries to resolve the current She'eilah from there - because if the blood from the floor was Pasul, then it will also be Pasul from the moment it enters the air-space of the garment on which it is squirting (and why do we then need "Zos" to render it Pasul).

(c) To refute the proof, Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua establishes the Beraisa - when the Kohen is actually holding the bird right next to the garment.

(a) Levi asked Rebbi whether, if the blood of a Korban Beheimah bounces off one garment on to another, the second garment requires Kibus or not. The She'eilah is - whether it is perhaps worse than the blood of a bird which spilt from the K'li on to the floor, where it is at least fit to pick up and perform Haza'ah with it, whereas here, having already been Chayav Kibus when it squirted on to the first garment, it is no longer eligible for Haza'ah.

(b) Rebbi replied - that 'Mah Nafshach', it requires Kibus. If it is still eligible (which Levi took for granted it is not), then it certainly requires Kibus; but even if it is not ('Osfo u'Pasul'), he rules 'Ta'un Kibus ...

(c) ... because he follows the opinion of Rebbi Ya'akov, who holds that even if the blood is Pasul, it still requires Kibus, as long as it had a Sha'as ha'Kosher.

(d) We did indeed learn in our Mishnah that the garment does not require Kibus, even if had a Sha'as ha'Kosher - but that was the opinion of the Rabbanan, who argue with Rebbi Ya'akov (as we shall soon see).