Previous daf

1)

(a) Rami bar Chama asked Rav Chisda whether the blood of a Korban that squirted on to a Tamei garment requires Kibus. It might ...

1. ... not - because since it became Pasul as it touched the garment, it is as if Tamei blood was sprinkled on the garment.
2. ... nevertheless require Kibus - because, since it was not Tamei before it touched the garment, it is considered as if Tahor blood was sprinkled on it.

(b) Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua proves that Rami bar Chama must hold that even if the blood had a Sha'as ha'Kosher, it does not require Kibus (like our Mishnah) - because it is clear from the She'eilah, that if the blood had become Tamei before reaching the garment, it would not require Kibus, even though, up to that moment, it had been Kasher.

(c) Rami bar Chama's She'eilah is - whether 'bas Achas' (when the Tum'ah and the Taharah of the blood take effect simultaneously) has the same Din as 'Zeh Achar Zeh' (where the Tum'ah occurred first).

(d) Rav Chisda answered Rami bar Chama - that this is a Machlokes Tana'im, according to the way Abaye understood Rabah's interpretation of a Mishnah in Parah.

(a) The Mishnah in Parah discusses 'Mei Chatas she'Nitme'u'. Rebbi Elazar rules 'Metaharin' - based on the fact that it renders Tahor a Nidah, even though it becomes Tamei in the process.

(b) We know that she is not obligated to Tovel from her Nidus before the Haza'ah - because nowhere does the Torah say that she is.

(c) She is obligated to make - only one Tevilah after the Haza'ah from the Mei Chatas, which will cover both her Nidus, and her Tum'as Meis.

(a) The problem Rabah has with Rebbi Elazar's comparison to Nidah is - that there, the Eifer ha'Parah became Tamei at the same time as the Haza'ah, whereas in Rebbi Elazar's case, the Tum'ah came first.

(b) Rabah therefore equates Rebbi Elazar's ruling with a statement by his Rebbe, Rebbi Akiva, who rules that if a vessel containing the Mei Chatas passes over a location that is Tamei - it becomes Tamei immediately, as if it had been placed there.

(c) This in turn, is based on a Mishnah in Parah, where Rebbi Akiva rules that, in a case where someone took a jar containing Mei Chatas, from a window-sill behind an oven, inside which there is a Sheretz, and passes it over the Tanur - it is Tamei.

(d) The Rabbanan declare it Tahor, says Rabah - because they do not consider the Mei Chatas as if it had been placed (whereas Rebbi Elazar does).

(a) The distinction that the Beraisa draws (according to Rebbi Akiva's opinion), between Tamei Meis and Even ha'Menuga'as on the one hand, and other Tum'os on the other is - that Tum'as Ohel applies to them exclusively, but not for example, to a jar of Mei Chatas that one passed over the opening of an earthenware oven that is Tamei Mishkav u'Moshav.

(b) The problem Abaye therefore has with Rabah's interpretation of Rebbi Akiva, regarding ...

1. ... the Mishnah in Parah is - that the reason cannot now be because we consider the Mei Chatas as if it was placed on the oven.
2. ... his ruling 'Nidah Mazin Alehah' - because there too, Tum'as Ohel is not applicable (as Rabah thought it was).

(c) So Abaye interprets Rebbi Akiva's ruling ...

1. ... in the Mishnah in Parah - as a decree in case he actually places the jar on the oven (and the Tum'ah is only mi'de'Rabbanan).
2. ... regarding Nidah - as being the fact that this decree is simply not applicable by Haza'ah (because once the Mei Chatas has left the Kohen's hand, there is no reason to decree.

(a) And Abaye explains the Machlokes between Rebbi Elazar ('Mei Chatas she'Nitme'u, Metaharin') and the Rabbanan (who hold 'Metam'in') - as being whether 'Bas Achas' is considered like 'Zeh Achar Zeh' (i.e. when the Tum'ah takes effect at the same time as the Taharah, it has the same Din as when it took effect first, as we explained earlier) or not.

(b) This helps us resolve Rami bar Chama's She'eilah (regarding 'Nitaz al Beged Tamei') - because the Machlokes Tana'im evolves around the very point on which his She'eilah is based; Rebbi Elazar holds Tahor, and the Rabbanan, Tamei.

(c) We referred to Abaye's explanation as being according to Rabah, even though Rabah appears to disagree with him entirely - because Abaye was Rabah's Talmid. Consequently, he was not coming to argue with his Rebbe, only to query him, and we can safely assume that Rabah agreed with his Talmid's conclusion.

(a) According to Rava, even Rebbi Elazar agrees that we do not consider 'Bas Achas' like 'Zeh Achar Zeh' in this regard, and he holds 'Metaharin' - because he holds that even Mei Chatas that is already Tamei renders Tahor.

(b) And he proves from Nidah - that even though the Mei Chatas is already Tamei, it renders Tahor.

(c) We know that Rebbi Akiva (according to Rebbi Elazar) is speaking about where the Mei Chatas became Tamei earlier - because he holds that Haza'ah requires a Shi'ur and the Haza'os combine to make up the Shiur. Consequently, the first Haza'ah of Mei Chatas became Tamei first, and only combined with the rest to become Mei Chatas later.

(d) The Rabbanan hold, regarding the case in Nidah - 'Ein Haza'ah Tzerichah Shi'ur'. Consequently, the Tum'ah and the Taharah take effect simultaneously ...

(e) ... which is why Rebbi Akiva renders the Nidah Tahor, but that does not mean that Mei Chatas that is already Tamei is Metaher.

(a) Still with regard to the Halachah of Kibus, the Tana Kama of the Beraisa precludes from the Pasuk "va'Asher Yizeh *mi'Damah* al ha'Beged" - that it is only Dam Kasher that requires Kibus, but not Dam Pasul.

(b) Rebbi Shimon learns from the additional Miy'ut "Osah" - that the Tana Kama's ruling applies both to 'Lo Haysah Lo Sha'as ha'Kosher' and 'Haysah Lo Sha'as ha'Kosher'.

(c) Rebbi Akiva - confines the Tana Kama's ruling to where the blood did not have a Sha'as ha'Kosher ...

(d) ... and from "Osah", he learns - to preclude Terumah from the Din of Merikah and Shetifah (which we will explain later).

(e) Rebbi Shimon learns that - from Kodshim Kalim, which in his opinion, are not subject to the Din of Merikah and Shetifah (as we shall see later), 'Kal va'Chomer' Terumah.

(a) Our Mishnah exempts blood that squirted on a garment from the neck, from the Keren or the Yesod, or which the Kohen gathered fom the floor - from Kibus.

(b) 'min ha'Yesod' in this context means - from the moment the Matanos have been performed, rendering the rest of the blood, Shirayim (and fit for the Yesod).

(c) The blood requires Kibus" - provided a. it has been received in a K'li Shareis, and b. it is still fit for Haza'ah.

(d) The Beraisa Darshens the Pasuk "Asher Yizeh" to exempt from Kibus, blood which squirted on to a garment ...

1. ... directly from the animal's neck - because it is not fit for Haza'ah.
2. ... from the Keren or the Yesod - because "Asher Yizeh" is in the future, precluding blood that has already been sprinkled.

9)

(a) In spite of having said 'Nishpach al ha'Ritzpah ve'Asfo Ein Ta'un Kibus Begadim', the Tana adds 'Ein Ta'un Kibus Begadim Ela Dam she'Niskabel bi'K'li' - not to add a Chidush, but to give the reason why the blood that is gathered from the floor is not subject to Kibus.

(b) 'Ra'uy le'Haza'ah comes to teach us - that if the Kohen receives less than the Shi'ur Hazayah in each of two Keilim, they do not combine to make up a Shi'ur.

(c) Rebbi Chalafta rules - that if a Kohen is Mekadesh less than a Shi'ur Haza'ah of Mei Chatas in one K'li and less than a Shi'ur in another K'li, they do not combine.

(a) We ask what the Din will be with regard to receiving half the blood of the Chata'os ha'Penimiyos in one K'li and half in another. On the one hand - perhaps the Din by Mei Chatas is 'Halachah (le'Moshe mi'Sinai)', and one cannot learn from a 'Halachah'.

(b) On the other hand - the reason by Mei Chatas may be derived from the Pasuk "Ve'taval ba'Mayim" (with a Kamatz), in which case, we will make the same D'rashah by the Chata'os Penimiyos, where the Torah writes "Ve'taval ba'Dam".

(c) To resolve the She'eilah, we cite Rebbi Zerikah Amar Rebbi Elazar, who says - ''Af be'Dam Lo Kidesh' (conforming with the Halachah that we just inferred from our Mishnah 'Ra'uy le'Haza'ah').

(a) Rava cites a Beraisa. The Tana learns from ...

1. ... "Ve'taval" - 've'Lo Mesafeg', meaning that the Kohen is obligated to dip his finger into the bowl containing the blood before performing each Matanah, and not wipe the blood from the base or the side of the bowl.
2. ... "be'Dam" - that the bowl must contain sufficient blood to dip in the Kohen's finger and take out a Shi'ur Haza'ah.

(b) In spite of having written ...

1. ... "ve'Taval", the Torah needs to add be'Dam" - because we would have otherwise thought that as long as the Kohen dips in his finger, it doesn't matter whether there is a Shi'ur Tevilah or not.
2. ... "be'Dam", the Torah also needs to write "Ve'taval" - because we would otherwise have thought that as long as there is a Shi'ur Tevilah, what difference does it make whether the blood comes from inside the bowl or from the outside?

(c) Rava explains that when the Beraisa learns from "min ha'Dam" 'min ha'Dam she'be'Inyan', he means - that the Kohen is obligated to dip his finger into the bowl for each Haza'ah (and not use the blood that remains from the previous Haza'ah.

(d) This corroborates a statement by Rebbi Elazar - who said 'Shirayim she'be'Etzba - Pesulin.

(a) Ravin bar Rav Ada asked Rava from Rav Amram who cited a Beraisa (in connection with the Chata'os ha'Penimiyos) 'Hayah Mazeh ve'Nitzah Haza'ah mi'Yado, ad she'Lo Hizah, Ta'un Kibus, mi'she'Hizah, Ein Ta'un Kibus' - which he interpreted to mean that as long as the Kohen had not finished all the Haza'aos, any blood that fell on his clothes requires Kibus (implying that the Shirayim on his finger is Kasher), a Kashya on Rava and Rebbi Elazar.

(b) Rava explained the Beraisa to mean - that if blood fell from the Kohen's finger on to the garment before he sprinkled it, the garment requires Kibus, but if it fell on the garment (from the Shirayim) after he sprinkled it, it does not (a proof for his opinion).

(c) Abaye asked Rava from another Beraisa (in connection with the blood of the Parah Adumah) 'Gamar Lehazos, Mekane'ach Yado be'Gufo shel Parah' - which is necessary, because the Kohen is obligated to burn the entire Parah, including the remains of the blood on his hand.

(d) This Beraisa poses a Kashya on Rava - because it implies that before he has completed all the Haza'os, the Shirayim on his hand is still Kasher, and does not need to be burned.

(a) Rava refuted the Kashya - by inferring that it was only when he had finished all the Haza'aos, that he had to wipe all of his hand clean; during the Haza'os, the Tana also agrees that he had to wipe his finger between one Haza'ah and the next, but not on the body of the cow ...

(b) ... because then he would pick up hairs that would interfere with the Haza'aos.

(c) So he wiped his finger - on the side of the bowl.

(d) This explains why the Pasuk in Ezra refers to the bowls as "Kipurei Zahav" - because 'Kipurei' also has connotations of wiping clean.

(a) Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah draws a distinction between animal skin that has been flayed and animal skin that is still attached to the animal - in that the former requires Kibus, whereas the latter does not ...

(b) ... because only a garment that is subject to Tum'ah without any additional preparation is subject to Kibus.

(c) Rebbi Elazar qualifies even a skin that has been detached - exempting any part of it not touched by the blood, from Kibus.

(d) When the Mishnah includes any skin that is subject to Tum'ah - it is referring to a skin that might still require Machshavah to determine its status as a K'li, as long as it does not require more work to complete it.

(a) The Tana rules that ...

1. ... a garment, a sack-cloth, and skin - all require Kibus.
2. ... Kibus, Sheviras K'lei Cheres and Merikah u'Shetifah bi'Kelei Cheres - must all be performed in a Makom Kadosh (in the Azarah).

(b) When the Tana concludes 'Zeh Chomer be'Chatas mi'Kodshei Kodshim' - he is referring to the Chiyuv Kibus.

(c) "va'Asher Yizeh mi'Damah al ha'Beged" includes all garments. The continuation of the Pasuk "Asher Yizeh Alehah Techabes" comes to include - skin that has been flayed.

(d) And we learn from the word "Beged" - that only something that is subject to Tum'ah, like a garment (irrespective of its size), requires Kibus, to preclude skin that is still attached to the animal.