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, what would he mean by that?

(b) What is then the Nimshal? How will it explain Rebbi Akiva's opinion in the Mishnah?

(c) Why would it be necessary to include the blood of Chata'os?

(a) So what is the correct version of Rebbi Akiva's Mashal?

(b) And what is then the Nimshal?

(a) What does Rebbi Akiva finally learn from ...

1. ... "ve'Chol Chatas" (in the Pasuk "ve'Chol Chatas Asher Yuva mi'Damah ... ")?
2. ... the extra 'Vav' in "ve'Chol"?

(b) Rebbi Yossi Hagelili insists that the Torah restricts the prohibition to Chata'os.
What does he learn from ...

1. ... "ve'Chol Chatas"?
2. ... the extra 'Vav' in "ve'chol" (according to the initial text)?

(c) Why do we object to the initial version of Rebbi Yossi Hagelili's statement?

(d) So what is the correct version of Rebbi Yossi Hagelili's statement?

(a) In another Beraisa, Rebbi Yossi Hagelili establishes the current Pasuk by Chata'os ha'Penimiyos.
What does he learn from ...

1. ... "ba'Kodesh ba'Eish Tisaref"?
2. ... "Lo Se'achel" (which precedes it)?

(b) In answer to the Rabbanan's query, what does he extrapolate from the Pasuk in Shemini (in connection with the Sa'ir Chatas of Rosh Chodesh that Aharon burned) "Hein Lo Huva es Damah el ha'Kodesh Penimah"?

(a) Is a Chatas whose blood was received in two cups, Kasher?

(b) What does our Mishnah say about such a Chatas, if one of the cups is then taken outside the Azarah?

(c) If it is taken into the Heichal, Rebbi Yossi declares it Kasher.
What does one do with the remaining blood, in both of these cases?

(d) What do the Chachamim of Rebbi Yossi say in the latter case?

(a) What is the difference between a Kohen who had a Machsheves Chutz (with regard to the blood of a Korban), and one who had a Machseves P'nim?

(b) How does Rebbi Yossi prove his ruling from there (via a 'Kal-va'Chomer')?

(c) According to Rebbi Eliezer, the Korban becomes Pasul as soon as the Kohen takes some of the blood into the Heichal.
What does Rebbi Shimon say?

(d) Under which circumstances does Rebbi Yehudah declare the Korban Kasher, even if the Kohen sprinkled the blood there?

(a) The Tzitz atones for the P'sul of Tum'ah.
Does it also atone for other P'sulim that belong to the category of 'Im Alu, Lo Yerdu'?

(b) What do the Rabbanan of Rebbi Yossi learn from the 'Mem' in "Asher Yuva mi'Damah"?

(c) What does Rebbi Yossi then try to learn with regard to where some of the blood is taken outside the Azarah (using reverse logic)?

(d) How do the Rabbanan counter this from the word "Yuva"?

(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). What do the Rabbanan mean when they quote the Pasuk in Tzav "ba'Yom ha'Shelishi" in response?

(b) And what do the Rabbanan learn from the Pasuk in Tzav ...

1. ... "Shelishi"?
2. ... "Pigul"?

(c) What would we otherwise have thought?

(a) What is the difference between Basar that is taken outside the Azarah and Basar that is taken into the Heichal?

(b) We learn this from "mi'Damah", 've'Lo mi'Besarah'.
What would we otherwise have thought?

(c) In that case, using reverse logic, Basar that is taken outside the Azarah, should certainly be Kasher.
From where do we then know that it is not?

10)

(a) In the Pasuk in Shemini "Hein Lo Huva es Damo el ha'Kodesh Penimah", what does the Beraisa learn from ...

1. ... "Penimah"?
2. ... "Kodesh"?

(b) What problem do we have with this?

(c) Rabah answers the Kashya by citing another Beraisa. The Torah writes in Emor "Toshav Kohen ve'Sachir Lo Yochal Kodesh (i.e. Terumah)".
What is the difference between ''Toshav'' and "Sachir"?

(d) Having stated that a Toshav may not eat Terumah, why did the Torah find it necessary to add "Sachir"? Is that not obvious?

(a) How does Rabah now apply the same S'vara to "Kodesh" and "Penimah"?

(b) On what grounds does Abaye object to Rabah's proof? What is the underlying principle that explains why the Torah inserts "Sachir"?

(c) Why will it not help us to understand why the Torah inserts "Penimah"?

(d) How does Abaye himself resolve the problem? What is 'Derech Meshupat'?

(a) Rava however, rejects Abaye's answer, based on the Lashon 'Hava'ah' ("Hein Lo Huva ... ") that the Torah uses.
What does 'Hava'ah' imply?

(b) So how does Rava explain the Torah's insertion of the word "Penimah"?

(a) In what way do the Par He'elam Davar shel Tzibur and the Sa'ir Avodas-Kochavim differ from other Chata'os?

(b) Why does Rava therefore think that maybe the Kohen is not Chayav for taking their blood into the D'vir?

(c) Why might he nevertheless be Chayav?

(d) This S'vara might also apply, Rava continues, to the blood of the Par and Sa'ir of Yom ha'Kipurim, 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).
Why may he nevertheless be Patur?

(a) What does the Kohen Gadol do with the blood of the Par and of the Sa'ir after sprinkling it towards the Paroches?

(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.
Why ...

1. ... on the one hand, should he definitely be Patur?
2. ... on the other, might he be Chayav there too?

(c) What is the outcome of all these She'eilos?

Next daf