Previous daf

1)

(a) When the Torah in Acharei-Mos writes "Al ha'Kapores" (with regard to the Matanos of the blood of both the Par and the Sa'ir) - it is not to be taken literally; it means *towards* the Paroches (see also, next question).

(b) When the Kohen Gadol performed the Mitzvah of "*Al* ha'Kapores" - he sprinkled the blood in an upward direction (underhand), whereas that of "*Lifnei* ha'Kapores" - he performed in a downward direction (overhand).

(c) The Torah specifically writes ...

1. ... by the Par - Shiv'ah Lematah, which it does not write by the Sa'ir.
2. ... by the Sa'ir - Achas Lema'alah, which it does not write by the Par.

(a) The Pasuk "(written by the Sa'ir) "al ha'Kapores *ve'Lifnei ha'Kapores*" initially appears to be redundant - since we anyway need to learn the Sheva Lematah from the Par (as we shall see shortly).

(b) The Torah writes it in order to compare "Al" to "Lifnei" - just as by "Lifnei", the blood does not touch the lid of the Aron (because that is the implication of "Lifnei"), by "Al" it does not need to touch either.

(c) The Torah does not want the blood to touch the Aron - it writes "Al" to teach the Kohen Gadol to sprinkle the blood underhand (as we explained above in 1b.).

(d) We might say the opposite with regard to the "Al" of the Par - and say that the Torah does not really need to write "Al" by the Par (since we anyway need to learn 'Achas Lema'alah' from the Sa'ir, as we shall soon see). So why does the Torah write it? In order to compare "Lifnei" to "Al" - to teach us that "Lifnei", like "Al", must touch.

(a) Even though we use 'Lematah' of Sa'ir to compare the Lema'alah of Sa'ir to it - we still need the 'Lema'alah' of Par (i.e. "al P'nei ha'Kapores Kedmah") to teach us that "P'nei" always means on the east side.

(b) We learn from the Pasuk "ve'Asah es Damo Ka'asher Asah *le'Dam ha'Par*" - that all the Matanos of the Sa'ir should be equivalent to those of the Par (i.e. even the 'Sheva Lematah', which are not explicitly written).

(c) We cannot learn that from the comparison of "Damim" by the Sa'ir to "Damim" by the Par - written in both cases by "Lifnei" - because then, perhaps we will learn "Damim" *Lematah* by Sa'ir from "Damim" *Lema'alah* by Sa'ir, in which case the Kohen Gadol will have to make only *one* Matanah Lematah, and not *seven*.

(a) We learn from the same Pasuk "ve'Asah es Damo *Ka'asher Asah* le'Dam ha'Par" - that just as the Kohen Gadol made *one* Matanah *Lema'alah* by the Sa'ir, so too did he do by the Par.

(b) We cannot learn that from the comparison of "Damim" written by 'Lema'alah' of *Par* to "Damim" written by 'Lema'alah' of *Sa'ir* - because then we might just as well learn "Damim" by 'Lema'alah' of Par from "Damim" by 'Lematah' of Par, and say that he must make *seven* Matanos 'Lema'alah', and not *one*.

(a) Rebbi Meir cites the text of the wording of the Kohen Gadol as 'Achas, Achas ve'Achas, *Achas u'Shetayim* ... ', like in our Mishnah. According to Rebbi Yehudah - the text is 'Achas ... *Shetayim ve'Achas*' ... .

(b) Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah are not involved here in a basic Machlokes. Each one simply follows the custom of his town: In Rebbi Meir's town, when counting, they would mention first the tens before the units - the original number first (e.g. twenty-one, twenty-two - like we do); whereas in Rebbi Yehudah's town, they would mention the units (the new number) first (e.g. one and twenty, two and twenty).

(c) According to Rebbi Elazar, the purpose of announcing the number each time the Kohen Gadol sprinkled was to prevent him from erring. According to Rebbi Yochanan - it is derived from the word "ve'Lifnei ha'Kapores *Yazeh*" - which is redundant, to teach us that the Kohen Gadol needs to count and that he must repeat the first Matanah (Lema'alah) with each subsequent Matanah.

(d) The Halachic difference between the two opinions will be in a case where he neither counted nor did he err - according to Rebbi Elazar he *will* be Yotze; whereas according to Rebbi Yochanan, who holds that the counting is d'Oraysa (and the Torah writes "Chukah"), he will *not*.

(a) Rebbi Yehudah in Shekalim, holds that there were no collecting boxes for the Kinei Chovah (the obligatory bird-offerings - e.g. that of a Zav or a Zavah), because they might become mixed. Rav Yosef initially interprets this to mean that the Chovos might become mixed up with the Nedavos.

(b) It will not help to take *two* boxes, and write on the one 'Chovah', and on the other, 'Nedavah' - because, in Rebbi Yehudah's opinion, writing is not reliable, since sometimes one forgets to look at the writing.

(c) We try to prove from the single stand in our Mishnah, that Rebbi Yehudah does *not* rely on the method of writing as a reminder - because if he *did*, why does he disagree with the Tana Kama that there were *two* stands on the grounds that the Kohen Gadol may become confused? Let them place *two* stands, and write on the one 'Par' and on the other, 'Sa'ir'?

7)

(a)

1. The box marked 'Tiklin Chadtin' - was for the current year's Shekalim, the one marked 'Tiklin Atikin' - was for last year's.
2. The box marked 'Kinin' - was for (older) pigeons, the one marked 'Gozlei Olah' - for (young) doves.

(b) There were six boxes for Nedavah - one for each of the Batei Av of the current Mishmar (each of whom served on one day of the week).

(c) Considering the author of this Mishnah in Shekalim is Rebbi Yehudah, this contradicts what we just wrote - that Rebbi Yehudah does *not* consider writing to be a reliable reminder. But we now see that he *does*?

(a) We just established that, in principle, Rebbi Yehudah *does* rely on writing. Rav Dimi from Eretz Yisrael now establishes why Rebbi Yehudah said earlier that there were no boxes for Kinei Chovah - because of a decree in case the owner of one of the Chata'os dies, in which case his money becomes Ma'os Chatas Shemeisu Ba'aleha, which must be thrown into the Yam ha'Melach; however, because it is now mixed with all the other money, it renders it all Pasul.

(b) We refute this however, on the basis of a Mishnah in Gitin - which rules that if someone sent his Chatas from overseas, the Kohanim would bring it, on the assumption that the sender was still alive. So we see that we do not suspect that someone may have died as long as we do not know that he has.

(c) So we amend Rav Dimi's decree - to a case when we *know* that the owner of one of the Chata'os died'.

(d) The Kohen cannot just take four Zuzim from the box and throw it into the Yam ha'Melach (in order to fulfill the obligation of 'Chatas le'Misah Azla') - because Rebbi Yehudah holds 'Ein Bereirah'.

Next daf