Previous daf

1)

(a) We object to the Tana's suggestion that "el Yesod Mizbach ha'Olah" comes to teach us that the actual sprinkling requires Yesod, because then the Torah ought to have said ''el Yesod ha'Olah".
Why is that?

(b) Why is this not a problem now that it teaches us Shefichas Shirayim by all Korbanos?

(c) How do we resolve this problem? Where would we have thought that the blood should be poured had the Torah omitted the word "Mizbach"?

(d) We now amend Rebbi Yishmael's argument accordingly.
What is now the basis of his Machlokes with the Tana Kama?

(a) Where Rebbi Yishmael stated his 'Kal-va'Chomer' 'u'Mah Sheyarei Chatas she'Ein Mechaprin ... ', Rebbi Akiva (who agrees with him against the Tana Kama), adds ' 've'Ein Ba'in Lechaper'. How does Rav Ada bar Ahavah explain the basis of their Machlokes (in connection with Shefichas Shirayim)?

(b) According to Rav Papa however, even Rebbi Yishmael agrees that the Shefichas Sheyarei ha'Dam of a Beheimah are not crucial.
Which Shirayim does this refer to?

(c) And they argue over 'Mitzuy ha'Dam' of the Chatas ha'Of.
What is 'Mitzuy ha'Dam'?

(d) What is then the basis of their Machlokes?

(a) What does Rebbi, in another Beraisa, learn from the Pasuk in Vayikra (in connection with the Par Kohen Mashi'ach) "ve'es Kol Dam *ha'Par* Yishpoch"?
Which Par does this include with regard to 'Shefichas Shirayim li'Yesod'?

(b) Rebbi Yishmael argues that we do not need a Pasuk to teach us this, since we can learn it from a 'Kal-va'Chomer' from the Par Kohen Mashi'ach, 'she'Ein Nichnas Damo Lifenim Chovah'.
What does he mean by that?

(c) How does Rebbi Akiva extend the 'Kal-va'Chomer'?

(a) What does Rebbi Yishmael learn (with regard to the Shefichas Shirayim) from the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos (written in connection with Yom Kipur) "Ve'chilah mi'Kaper es ha'Kodesh"?

(b) Why would we have otherwise thought that it is Me'akev?

(c) Perhaps the Torah included it in spite of the 'Kal-va'Chomer', on account of the principle 'Milsa de'Asya be'Kal-va'Chomer, Tarach ve'Kasav Lah K'ra' (the Torah will insert a Pasuk to teach us something that we already know from a 'Kal-va'Chomer)?

(a) By the same token, says the Beraisa, we could have learned the Shefichas Shirayim by the Par Kohen Mashi'ach, from the Sa'ir Nasi via a 'Kal-va'Chomer'.
Which 'Kal-va'Chomer'?

(b) According to our text, the Tana refers to the blood of the Par as 'Nichnas Damo Lifenim bein le'Chovah bein le'Mitzvah'.
But did we not describe it earlier as 'she'Ein Nichnas Damo Lifenim Chovah'?

(c) And by the same token, we refute the suggestion that the Shefichas Damim is Me'akev, by quoting the Pasuk with which we began "ve'es Kol Dam ha'Par Yishpoch".
What does this Pasuk teach us?

(d) What have we now proved from this Beraisa?

(a) In another Beraisa, what does Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael learn from the Pasuk in Vayikra (in connection with the Chatas ha'Of) "ve'ha'Nish'ar ba'Dam Yimatzei"?

(b) We reconcile this with Rebbi Yishmael in the previous Beraisa, who, we just explained, holds that the Mitzuy ha'Dam of the Chatas ha'Of is Me'akev?

7)

(a) What does the Beraisa extrapolate from "Osah" in the Pasuk in Tzav (in connection with the Kohen who sprinkles the Chatas Beheimah) "ha'Kohen ha'Mechatei Osah"?

(b) The Tana bases this ruling on the Pasuk in Re'ei "ve'Dam Zevachecha Yishafech al Mizbach Hashem Elokecha".
What do we learn from there (with regard to Chata'os [which require four Matanos])?

(c) How does that justify the D'rashah from "Osah"?

(a) The Tana queries why the Pasuk is necessary however.
How does he initially try to learn 'Damim ha'Nitnin Lema'alah she'Nitnu Lematah' from 'Damim ha'Nitnin Lematah she'Nitnu Lema'alah'?

(b) How does he refute this? On what logical grounds might 'Damim ha'Nitnin Lematah she'Nitnu Lema'alah be worse that 'Damim she'Nesunin Lema'alah she'Nitnu Lematah'?

(c) The Tana refutes this counter argument however, by citing 'Damim ha'Penimiyim, she'Nitnu ('Lechatchilah) ba'Chutz'.
What does he prove from there?

(d) Finally, he rejects this too, on the grounds that 'Ein Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi Memarkan', Tomar ba'Elyonim she'Harei Karnos Memarkos Osan'.
How does Rami bar Chama interpret the Chumra of 'Ein Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi Memarkan'? What does this then prove?

(a) Rava objects to Rami bar Chama's interpretation of the Beraisa, because if that is what the Tana means, we certainly ought to learn the Damim ha'Chitzoniyim from the Damim ha'Penimiyim (in which case, the Pasuk would be redundant).
What does he mean by that?

(b) So what does the Tana mean when he says 'Ein Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi Memarkan'?

(c) What does Rava prove with this?

(a) Rebbi Akiva in a Beraisa explains the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos "Ve'chilah mi'Kaper es ha'Kodesh", 'Im Kiper Kalah, ve'Im Lo Kiper, Lo Kalah'.
What does he mean by that?

(b) On what grounds does Rebbi Yehudah disagree with Rebbi Akiva's D'rashah?

(c) Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi argue. One of them says 'Mashma'os Dorshin Ika Beinaihu'.
What does he mean by that?

(d) How does the other opinion interpret Rebbi Yehudah?

(a) We try to prove that the latter opinion is that of Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi from a statement that he made.
What did he say should be done in a case where the blood of the Par shel Yom ha'Kipurim spilled after the Kohen Gadol had completed all the Matanos in the Heichal?

(b) Why does the Kohen Gadol not simply Shecht an animal and begin with the Shefichas Shirayim?

(c) What are we trying to prove with this statement?

(a) We counter this however, with a statement of Rebbi Yochanan.
What did Rebbi Yochanan say to explain Rebbi Nechemyah, who is Mechayev someone who sacrifices Sheyarei ha'Dam ba'Chutz because of 'Shechutei Chutz'?

(b) What do we therefore conclude regarding both opinions?

Next daf