Previous daf

1)

(a) The only two Korbanos that are disqualified when the owner becomes Tamei are - the Korban Pesach (which can only be brought by someone who can eat it) and the Korban Nazir (who must begin his Nezirus all over again once he becomes Tamei).

(b) The Beraisa rules that the Tzitz ...

1. ... atones for a Nazir and someone bringing his Pesach, if the blood became Tamei ...
2. ... but not if the owner became Tamei.

(c) According to the Ziknei Darom, the Beraisa cannot be referring to where the owner was a Tamei Sheretz - because they hold 'Shochtin ve'Zorkin al Tamei Sheretz' (in which case he does require a Kaparah).

(d) If, on the other hand, the Tana is talking about where he was a Tamei Meis - we have a proof that 'Ein Shochtin ve'Zorkin al Tamei Meis' (a Kashya on the Ziknei Darom).

(a) We answer that the owner was neither the one, nor the other, and the Tana is speaking - when it was the Kohen who was Tamei Sheretz.

(b) The Tana nevertheless mentions specifically a Nazir and someone who is bringing his Korban Pesach (even though the Kohen is Pasul from bringing *any* Korban Yachid) - because of the Seifa, where he talks about Tum'as ha'Tehom, which only affects Nazir and Oseh Pesach).

(c) The problem with the Seifa 'Nitma Tum'as ha'Tehom, ha'Tzitz Meratzeh' is the Beraisa of Rebbi Chiya 'Lo Amru Tum'as ha'Tehom Ela le'Meis Bil'vad' - which implies 'but not Tum'as Sheretz', in which case the Reisha cannot be speaking about Tum'as Sheretz either.

(d) We cannot learn Tum'as ha'Tehom de'Sheretz with a 'Kal-va'Chomer' from Meis (since it does require Haza'ah like a Tamei Meis, as we explained earlier) - because one cannot learn a 'Kal va'Chomer from a Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai (which Tumas ha'Tehom is).

(a) If the Beraisa does not come to preclude Tum'as ha'Tehom de'Sheretz from Ritzuy Tzitz (because that would create a problem with the Ziknei Darom, as we just explained) it comes to preclude - Tum'as ha'Tehom de'Zivah (which is precluded from the leniency because it concerns an internal Tum'ah that comes from the body).

(b) Tum'as ha'Tehom is a general term which incorporates Safek Tum'ah - which pertains to every Tum'ah according to its specifications. With regard to Zivah, it means that the 'Zav' saw Zivus for the duration of Bein-ha'Shemashos, which might be all night or all day, in which he case he only saw one day (and is not a Zav), or it might be half day and half night, in which case he saw on two consecutive days, and is a Zav.

(c) Rami bar Chama asks - whether a Kohen who is bringing the Korbanos of a Nazir or of someone who is bringing his Korban Pesach, is subject to Ritzuy Tzitz.

(d) We cannot resolve Rami bar Chama's She'eilah from the Beraisa 've'Ein ha'Tzitz Meratzeh al Tum'as ha'Guf', according to the Ziknei Darom, as we just explained - because Rami bar Chama disagrees with them, establishing the Beraisa by Tum'as Meis of the owner, and he holds 'Ein Yachid Tamei Meis Meshale'ach Korbenosav'.

4)

(a) The Tzitz cannot come to atone for the sin of Pigul, the Beraisa explains, because the Torah writes there "Lo Yeratzeh", or for the sin of Nosar, where it writes "Lo Yechashev". When the Tana refers to ...

1. ... 'Pigul' in this context - he means a Machsheves Chutz li'Mekomo'.
2. ... 'Nosar' - he means a Machsheves Chutz li'Zemano.

(b) The problem with our text, which pairs 'Pigul' with "Lo Yechashev", and Nosar with "Lo Yeratzeh" is - that seeing as elsewhere, we establish the Pasuk of "Lo Yechashev" by Pigul ('Chutz li'Zemano'), Nosar in connection with "Lo Yeratzeh" must mean literally Nosar (and not a Machsheves Pigul), in which case, there would be no reason to invalidate the rest of the Korban.

(c) In that case, the Tana concludes, the Tzitz must come to atone for the sin of Tum'ah, because it possesses the leniency that it becomes permitted be'Tzibur. Initially, we reject the suggestion that the Tana is speaking about Tum'as Sheretz - because (seeing as a Yachid is not Nidcheh) it does not possess a Heter by a Tzibur.

(d) So it must be speaking about Tum'as Meis. Seeing as it does not pertain to where the owner was a Nazir, because he is obligated to begin his Nezirus all over again (and has therefore no justification to bring his final Korbanos), it must therefore pertain to - a Tamei who sent his Korban Pesach to the Beis-Hamikdash, a Kashya on Rami bar Chama.

(a) So we establish the Beraisa by a Tamei Sheretz after all, and we reconcile this with the statement 'she'Hutrah mi'Chelalah be'Tzibur' - with 'Shem Tum'ah ba'Olam' (i.e. what the Beraisa means is that we establish Ritzuy Tzitz by Tumah (of a Sheretz), because Tumah (albeit of a Meis) is permitted by Tzibur.

(b) In the second Lashon, we ask from the inference ' "Avon ha'Kodshim" In, Avon ha'Makdishim, Lo'! - by which we mean that we follow through the same arguments as we did in the first Lashon, arriving at the initial conclusion that the Tzitz must atone for the sin of Tum'as Kodshim of a Korban Pesach, but not if the owner became Tamei, because 'Tamei Meis Eino Meshale'ach Korbenosav', a Kashya on the Ziknei Darom.

(c) And we answer like we did in the first Lashon, that the Tana is speaking about Tum'as Sheretz 've'Shem Tum'ah ba'Olam'.

(a) Rav Nachman learns from the Pasuk in "La'amod Le'shareis" - that a Kohen is obligated to perform the Avodah standing.

(b) The Beraisa quotes this Pasuk, too. And from the Pasuk "ha'Omdim Sham", the Tana learns - that he also desecrates the Avodah.

(c) The Beraisa rules that 'Areil, Tamei, Yoshev and Onan' - are all subject to Malkos, but not to Misah.

(d) Based on his assumption that Yoshev is considered a Zar, Rava asked - why a Kohen who serves sitting should not be Chayav Misah too (like a Zar).

(a) Rav Nachman answered Rava by citing the Halachah by a Mechusar Begadim and a Lo Rachutz Yadayim ve'Raglayim - both of whom the Torah sentences to Misah, and we apply the principle 'Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'Echad Ein Melamdin'' (when the Torah issues the same ruling in two places, we cannot extend it to any other cases.

(b) We might need to add a Kohen who drunk wine - to fall in line with those who say that 'Sh'nei Kesuvim ... Melamdin', but who agree that 'Sheloshah Kesuvim ... Ein Melamdin'.

(c) We have two problems with this Sugya however. Seeing as we consider Yoshev a Zar ...

1. ... we ought not to need to learn the Chiyuv Misah from Mechusar Begadim and a Lo Rachutz Yadayim ve'Raglayim - seeing as the Torah writes it explicitly by a Zar (which is in fact, the source of Chiyuv Misah by a Mechusar Begadim).
2. ... he ought not to descrate the Avodah either - because in that regard too, there are a number of Pesukim (just like there are by the Chiyuv Misah [see Tosfos DH 'Eima']).