Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) DO "SHIRAYIM" REQUIRE "YESOD"?

(a) Suggestion: Perhaps this only teaches that the blood (of the Olah) must be put on the Yesod.
(b) Rejection: It does not say 'El Yesod ha'Olah', rather, "El Yesod Mizbach ha'Olah";

1. Had it said 'El Yesod ha'Olah', one might have thought that the blood may be thrown on the vertical wall of the Yesod - since it says "El Yesod Mizbach ha'Olah", this teaches that it is thrown on the Gag (top) of the Yesod. (The primary Zerikos are against the edges of the Mizbe'ach itself, the blood falls onto the Gag.)

(c) Beraisa (R. Yishmael): We do not need a verse, we can learn this from a Kal va'Chomer!

1. Shirayim of Chatas are not Mechaper, yet they must be put on Gag Yesod - the first Zerikah of Olah is Mechaper, all the more so it must be on (or over) Gag Yesod!

(d) (R. Akiva): Shirayim are not Me'akev Kaparah, they do not come to Mechaper, yet they require Gag Yesod - the first Zerikah of Olah is Me'akev Kaparah, it comes to Mechaper, all the more so it requires Gag Yesod!
(e) Question: If so, what do we learn from the last "El Yesod Mizbach ha'Olah"?
(f) Answer: It teaches that blood leftover in the Kli is poured on the Yesod.
(g) Question: What do they argue about?
(h) Answer #1 (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): They argue about whether or not Shirayim are Me'akev (R. Yishmael says that (they are not Mechaper, but) they are Me'akev Kaparah; R. Akiva says, they are not Me'akev.)
(i) Answer #2 (Rav Papa): All agree that they are not Me'akev; they argue about Mitzuy of Chatas ha'Of (after Haza'ah (shaking the bird towards the Mizbe'ach to sprinkle the blood), the Kohen squeezes out the remaining blood against the Mizbe'ach):

1. R. Yishmael says that this is Me'akev, R. Akiva says that it is not.

(j) Support (for Rav Papa - Beraisa) Question: "V'Es Kol Dam *ha'Par* (of a Mashu'ach) Yishpoch" - what do we learn from this? (It could have said 'Damo' and omitted "ha'Par"!)

1. Answer #1 (R. Akiva): This teaches about Par Yom Kipur, that its Shirayim require (to be put on) the Yesod.
2. Answer #2 (R. Yishmael): We know this from a Kal va'Chomer! There is no Mitzvah to bring the blood of Par Mashu'ach inside (the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim), yet it requires Yesod - we must bring the blood of Par Yom Kipur inside, all the more so it requires Yesod!

i. R. Akiva: There is no obligation or Mitzvah to bring the blood of Par Mashu'ach inside (he should not sin, and never bring the Korban!), yet it requires Yesod - the blood of Par Yom Kipur must be brought inside, all the more so it requires Yesod!

3. Suggestion: Perhaps this is Me'akev!
4. Rejection (R. Yishmael): "V'Chilah mi'Chaper Es ha'Kodesh" - once the Haza'os in the Heichal are finished, the Kaparah is complete - Kal va'Chomer, Shirayim are not Me'akev in Par Mashu'ach.
5. Suggestion: A Kal va'Chomer should teach that Par Yom Kipur requires Yesod!

i. There is no Mitzvah to bring the blood of Se'ir Nasi inside the Heichal (even if he sinned and brings the Korban), yet it requires Yesod - the blood of Par Mashu'ach (when it is brought) must be brought inside, all the more so it requires Yesod!
ii. Since the Torah wrote that Par Mashu'ach requires Yesod even though we could have learned this from a Kal va'Chomer, we should say that this is Me'akev!

6. Rejection: "V'Es Kol Dam ha'Par *Yishpoch*" - it does not say 'v'Shafach' (whereas the rest of the Parshah is written thusly, "Velakach...Vehizah...Venasan"') to teach that it is only l'Chatchilah, it is not Me'akev.

(k) Question: But R. Yishmael holds that Mitzuy of Chatas ha'Of is not Me'akev!

1. (Beraisa - Tana d'vei R. Yishmael): "*Veha'Nish'ar* ba'Dam Yimatze" - if blood remains, he squeezes it against the Mizbe'ach, if none remains, it is not Me'akev.

(l) Answer: Tana'im argue about the opinion of R. Yishmael.

(a) (Rami bar Chama): The following Tana holds that Shirayim are Me'akev.

1. (Beraisa): "Ha'Kohen ha'Mechatei Osah..." - if he put the blood on top (of the Mizbe'ach, this is proper for Chatas, he may eat it), not if he put the blood on bottom.
2. Question: Why do we need a verse to Posel this?
3. Answer: "V'Dam Zevachecha Yishpoch El Mizbach" teaches that one Matanah of blood is Machshir a Korban that (l'Chatchilah) requires four Matanos;

i. One might have thought, even if he put the blood on bottom (of a Chatas whose blood goes on top) he was Mechaper.

4. Question: We should know this without a verse!

i. The Torah teaches that blood that should go on bottom (e.g. of Chatas ha'Of) is not Mechaper if it was put on top - likewise, blood that should go on top (Chatas Behemah) should not be Mechaper if put on bottom!

5. Answer: No, we cannot learn from lower blood, since none of it should be put on top, but some of the upper blood (Shirayim of Chatas Behemah) should be put on bottom!
6. Question: We should be able to learn from inner Chata'os - their Shirayim go outside (on the outer Mizbe'ach), if their first Matanah was outside, it was not Mechaper!
7. Answer: We cannot learn from inner Chata'os, for the inner Matanos do not complete the Kaparah (i.e. the Shirayim are Me'akev, the blood must be put in different places), whereas (even one of) the upper Matanos of a Chatas complete the Kaparah (perhaps even below, it is Mechaper).

i. This is why it must say "Osah" to teach that a Chatas is Kosher only if its blood was put above.

8. Summation of Rami's assertion: The Beraisa said that the inner Matanos do not complete the Kaparah - this means that the Shirayim are Me'akev!

(b) Rejection (Rava): If so, we could learn from the Shirayim:

1. The Shirayim of inner Chata'os must be put outside, this is Me'akev, yet one Matanah outside is not Mechaper;

i. Putting Shirayim of outer Chata'os on bottom is not Me'akev, all the more so one Matanah below is not Mechaper!

(c) Rather, 'the inner Matanos do not complete the Kaparah', i.e. Matanos on the inner Mizbe'ach, for the blood must also be thrown towards the Paroches.
(d) (Beraisa - R. Akiva): "V'Chilah mi'Kaper" - if he was Mechaper, he finished; if not, not (this will be explained);
(e) R. Yehudah: We should expound (in order) if Chilah (he finished), he was Mechaper; if not, not, i.e. if one Matanah was omitted, he accomplished nothing.
(f) Question: What is the difference between them?
(g) Answer #1 (R. Yochanan or R. Yehoshua ben Levi): They only argue about how to expound (not about the Halachah).
(h) Answer #2 (The other of R. Yochanan and R. Yehoshua ben Levi): R. Akiva holds that Shirayim are not Me'akev (once all the inner Matanos are done, he finished everything that is Me'akev), R. Yehudah holds that they are Me'akev.
(i) Suggestion: R. Yehoshua ben Levi said that they argue!

1. (R. Yehoshua ben Levi): (If the blood of Par Yom Kipur spilled during the Avodah, any Kaparah that was finished need not be repeated; another Par is brought, its blood is used for the remaining Kaparos. If the blood spilled after all the inner Matanos), according to the opinion that Shirayim are Me'akev, he must bring another Par and make its blood Shirayim, i.e. he puts some on the inner Mizbe'ach, and then the Shirayim on the outer Mizbe'ach.

(j) Rejection: This only shows that R. Yehoshua holds that *some* Tana says that Shirayim are Me'akev - R. Yochanan agrees with this!

1. (R. Yochanan): R. Nechemyah holds like the opinion that Shirayim are Me'akev.
2. If R. Yochanan said that R. Akiva and R. Yehudah agree that they are not Me'akev, he must refer to some other Tana.
3. Likewise, it is possible that R. Yehoshua ben Levi refers to another Tana!