Previous daf

1)

(a) We learn from

1. ... "be'Mo'ado" (mentioned in connection with the Tamid and the Pesach) - that they override Shabbos and Tum'ah.
2. ... "be'Mo'adeichem" (mentioned in connection with the other Yamim-Tovim) - that all other Korbenos Tzibur likewise override Shabbos and Tum'ah.
3. ... "Vayedaber Moshe es Mo'adei Hashem El B'nei Yisrael" - that the same applies to the Omer plus the Korbenos that accompany it, and the Sh'tei ha'Lechem and the Korbenos that accompany them.

(b) We cannot learn ...

1. ... all the other Korbanos from the Tamid and the Pesach - since they each have a Chumra, the one is daily, the other carries with it a Chiyuv Kares.
2. ... the Omer and the Sh'tei ha'Lechem (which only come to permit Chadash, the former *outside* the Beis Hamikdash, the latter *inside* it) from the other Korbanos (which come to atone).
3. ... the other Korbanos from the Omer and the Sh'tei ha'Lechem - precisely *because* the latter come to permit (Chadash), whereas the former do not.

(a) 'Tum'ah Dechuyah Hi be'Tzibur' means that the Torah only permits Tum'ah be'Tzibur with difficulty, *because* there are no Tehorim, and *when* there are no Tehorim. Consequently, it requires the Tzitz to atone for it.

(b) The only Tana to hold 'Tum'ah Hutrah Hi be'Tzibur' - is Rebbi Yehudah.

(a) Rebbi Shimon proves from the Kohen Gadol (who served in the Kodesh Kodshim on Yom Kipur wearing the four white garments - without the Tzitz) that the Tzitz atones even when it is not being worn (as opposed to Rebbi Yehudah who maintains that it only atones as long as the Kohen Gadol is actueally wearing it).

(b) Rebbi Yehudah's replies that Yom Kipur (which is entirely Avodas Tzibur) is different, since 'Tum'ah Hutrah be'Tzibur (and does not therefore require the atonement of the Tzitz).

(c) 'ha'Tzitz Meratzeh Al Achilos' means - that the Tzitz atones even for the parts of the Korban that are eaten which became Tamei e.g. the flesh, to permit them to be eaten.

(d) The only Tana to hold 'ha'Tzitz Meratzeh Al Achilos' is Rebbi Elazar.

5)

(a) Rebbi Yehoshua learns from the Pasuk "ve'Asisa Olosecha *ha'Basar ve'he'Dam*" - 'Im Ein Dam Ein Basar, Im Ein Basar Ein Dam'.

(b) Rebbi Eliezer learns from the Pasuk "ve'Dam Zevachecha Yishafech" - 'Dam, Af al Pi she'Ein Basar'.

(c) Rebbi Eliezer learns from "ve'Asisa Olosecha *ha'Basar ve'he'Dam*" - that one throws the limbs of the Korban across the small space that divided the ramp from the Mizbei'ach, just as one throws (i.e. sprinkles) the blood.

(d) Rebbi Yehoshua disagrees with Rebbi Eliezer's Derashah because the Pasuk continues "ve'ha'Basar Tochel". This prompts him to use the Pasuk to correlate the Basar with the Dam (as in 5a.), rather than to learn "ve'Dam Zevachecha Yishafech" independently, as Rebbi Eliezer does.

6)

(a) We would not be able to learn that both the blood and the flesh are required ...

1. ... by the Shelamim from the Olah, according to Rebbi Yehoshua - because the Olah has the stringency that it is entirely burnt.
2. ... by the Olah from the Shelamim - for precisely the opposite reason; because by the Shelamim, there are *two* Achilos (Achilos Mizbei'ach & Achilas Ba'lim) whereas by the Olah there is only *one*.

(b) Rebbi Eliezer learns from "ve'ha'Basar Tochel" - that the meat only becomes permitted after the blood has been sprinkled.

(c) He learns 'Dam, Af al Pi she'Ein Basar' from the same Pasuk as he learns the previous Derashah - because otherwise, the Torah should have written "ha'Basar Tochel, ve'Dam Zevachecha Yishafech" (placing the Basar before the Dam, as it did in the Pasuk "ve'Asisa Olosecha ha'Basar ve'ha'Dam"). By reversing the order, it enables us to learn both Derashos.

(a) Rebbi Yehoshua learns that the meat is forbidden until the blood has been sprinkled, from a Kal va'Chomer from the Emurim (which *do not* render the Korban Pasul by their absence - yet when they are there, they must be brought before the rest of the Korban may be eaten); How much more so the blood, which *does* render the Korban Pasul by its when it is not there, must certainly be sprinkled before the Korban may be eaten.

(b) Rebbi Eliezer agrees with the Kal va'Chomer; only he says 'Milsa de'Asya be'Kal va'Chomer, Tarach ve'Kasav Lah Kera' (whereas, in Rebbi Yehoshua's opinion, we only say this if there is *no* Derashah to make, but not if there *is*.)

(a) We reconcile at least Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur with Rebbi Yehoshua - by saying that he holds "Tzitz Meratzeh Al ha'Olin'.

(b) The Kemitzah of the Omer is comparable to the blood of a regular Korban (since, like the blood, it is given to Hashem). However, there are no leftovers to go on the Mizbei'ach - like the Emurin of a Korban, and Rebbi Yehoshua requires leftovers, besides the blood.

(a) So we try to establish our Mishnah like Rebbi Yehoshua by differentiating between Zevachim and Menachos: Zevachim, which consist of three parts, require blood and Emurim to remain; Menachos, which do not have Emurim to begin with, do not require that Emurim remain.

(b) We reject this however, on the basis of the Mishnah in Menachos 'Nitme'u Shireha ... ke'Midas Rebbi Yehoshua, Pesulah' - meaning that according to Rebbi Yehoshua, who holds 'Im Ein Basar, Ein Dam', if the rest of the Minchah (after the Kemitzah has been taken) becomes Tamei, the Minchah is Pasul. This proves that Yehoshua does not differentiate between Zevachim and Menachos.

(c) Rebbi Yossi says in the Beraisa 'Ro'eh Ani es Divrei Rebbi Eliezer bi'Menachos u'vi'Zevachim, ve'Divrei Rebbi Yehoshua be'Zevachim u'vi'Menachos. In any event, we see that Rebbi Yehoshua argues with Rebbi Eliezer by Menachos as well as by Zevachim.

(a) If Rebbi Yehoshua too, holds 'Tzitz Meratzeh Al ha'Olin ve'Al ha'Achilos' - then when the Mishnah in Menachos says 'Nitme'u Shireha, Avdu Shireha ... *ke'Midas Rebbi Yehoshua Pesulah'*, it refers, not to Nitme'u, but to Avdu (or Nisrefu), since the Tzitz only atones for the Pesul of Tum'ah, but not for that of other Pesulim.

(b) As far as Rebbi Eliezer is concerned, the Tana would not need to mention that 'Nitme'u' is Kasher - because if Avdu (where the Shirayim are *not* there, is Kasher) how much more so Nitme'u (where they *are*)! So the Tana must mention Nitme'u, to teach us that even Nitme'u is Pasul according to Rebbi Yehoshua, refuting the contention that 'ke'Midas Rebbi Yehoshua, Pasul', refers only to 'Avud' (and 'Saruf', but not to 'Nitme'u').

(c) The second proof (to reject the suggestion that according to Rebbi Yehoshua 'Tzitz Meratzeh Al ha'Olin ve'Al ha'Achilos') - is from the Beraisa, which quotes Rebbi Yehoshua as saying 'Kol ha'Zevachim she'ba'Torah, Bein she'Nitma Basar ve'Chelev Kayam ... Zorek es ha'Dam. Aval Nitme'u Tarvayhu, Lo', which teaches us that, according to Rebbi Yehoshua, 'Ein ha'Tzitz Meratzeh Lo Al ha'Olin ve'Lo Al ha'Achilos.

(a) Perhaps our Mishnah does indeed go like Rebbi Yehoshua. True, Rebbi Yehoshua requires *two* leftovers, even by Menachos. However, that is only Lechatchilah, but Bedi'eved, even *one* will suffice - conforming with the Tana of our Mishnah.

(b) We know that Rebbi Yehoshua, on principle, makes such a distinction - from the Beraisa, where he says 'Nitma Basar O she'Nifsal O she'Yatza Chutz li'Kela'im ... Rebbi Yehoshua Omer, Lo Yizrok ... u'Modeh ... she'Im Zarak, Hurtzah'.

(c) 'Chamishah Devarim Ba'in be'Tum'ah' - implies Lechatchilah, so how can we establish it be Bedi'eved in order to establish it like Rebbi Yehoshua?

(d) We finally reconcile our Mishnah with Rebbi Yehoshua (at the same time as resolving the contradiction that we just created in Rebbi Yehoshua's own words) - by establishing Rebbi Yehoshua by a Korban Yachid (which he invalidates Lechatchilah without Shirayim) but Kasher Bedi'eved (because of Ritzuy Tzitz); whereas our Mishnah, (which relies on Ritzuy Tzitz even Lechatchilah) is speaking about a Korban Tzibur.