Previous daf

1)

(a) We reconcile the current Beraisa (Damim ha'Te'unin Yesod ... Te'unin Kibus ... ') with another Beraisa, which precludes Shirayim and Haktaras Eimurim from Machsheves P'sul - by establishing it by the three Matanos of a Chatas Chitzonah.

(b) And we amend the Tana's statement 'Te'unin Yesod' - to 'Nit'anin Yesod', meaning that the Shirayim will be poured on to the Yesod (though it is not clear why the Tana did not then say 'Te'unin Keren').

(c) However, seeing as Rav Papa ruled before (regarding those three Matanos) 'Lo Sharya, ve'Lo Mefagla ve'Lo Ayla le'Gava'i ke'Sofan' - we re-establish the earlier Beraisa by the blood of a Chatas P'nimi (where all four Matanos are crucial).

(d) The problem with the Seifa 've'Damim ha'Nishpachin le'Amah Ein Te'unin Kibus, ve'Ein Machshavah Mo'eles Bahen, ve'ha'Ma'aleh Bahen ba'Chutz Patur' is - why the Tana jumped to 'Damim ha'Nishpachin le'Amah', rather than the last three Matanos of the Chatas Chitzonah.

(a) We answer by establishing the author of the Beraisa as Rebbi Nechemyah, who holds 'Sheyarei ha'Dam she'Hikrivan ba'Chutz Chayav' in which case, according to the suggestion, the Seifa would not have balanced the Reisha - since he could only have mentioned two of the three Dinim in the Reisha (i.e. 'Ein Te'unin Kibus ve'Ein Machshavah Mo'eles Bahen'), whereas by 'Damim ha'Nishpachin le'Amah' he is able to mention all three.

(b) Going back to the Mishnah in Dam Chatas, 'min ha'Keren u'min ha'Yesod Eino Ta'un Kibus' (from which Rav Papa extrapolated 'Ha min ha'Ra'uy le'Keren, Ta'un Kibus'), on which we asked from 'min ha'Yesod ... ', where we cannot make the same inference. To answer this Kashya, Ravina establishes 'min ha'Yesod ... ' - as 'min ha'Ra'uy li'Yesod'.

(c) Rav Tachlifa bar Gaza asked Ravina why we cannot interpret the Reisha too, to mean 'Ra'uy le'Keren' (like the Seifa means 'Ra'uy li'Yesod') - refuting Rav Papa's inference-based proof altogether.

(d) To which Ravina replied - that having taught 'min ha'Ra'uy le'Keren, Eino Ta'un Kibus', the Tana would not then have needed to add 'min ha'Ra'uy li'Yesod', which is obvious (finally vindicating Rav Papa).

3)

(a) The Torah writes in Parshas Vayikra (in connection with the Par He'elam Davar shel Tzibur) "Ve'asah la'Par Kasher Asah le'Par ha'Chatas". "Par ha'Chatas" refers to - the Par Kohen ha'Mashi'ach.

(b) The problem with this Pasuk is - that it is superfluous in its context, since everything that needs to be done to the Par He'elam Davar has been specifically mentioned, except for one thing, as we shall now see.

(c) We cannot answer that the Hekesh comes to include the burning of the lobe of the liver and the two kidneys, which the Torah does not mention by the Par He'elam Davar - because the Torah writes Ve'chiper Aleihem", and the 'Yoseres ha'Kaveid and the Sh'tei K'layos do not impede the Kaparah.

(d) And the Torah writes "Ve'asah la'Par ... " - to teach us that all the Matanos are crucial.

(a) We learn from "Kein Ya'aseh Lo" - that the current Chumra pertains not only to the seven Matanos on the Paroches, but also to the four Matanos on the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav.

(b) From the word "(Kein Ya'aseh) le'Par", the Tana includes the Par (of the Chatas ha'Tzibur) of Yom Kipur, from ...

1. ... "(Ka'asher Asah) le'Par" - he includes the Par Kohen Mashi'ach, and from ...
2. ... "ha'Chatas" - the Se'irei Avodas-Kochavim.

(c) The Tana incorporates the Par Kohen Mashi'ach in the current Din (of Ikuv Matnosav) - but it comes to incorporate the Se'irei Avodas-Kochavim in the initial Din of a Chatas Penimi (regarding sprinkling the blood on the Paroches and on the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav, and burning it outside the three Machanos), which is not mentioned in the Parshah itself.

(d) On the other hand, from the word "(Kein Ya'aseh) Lo", he precludes - the goats of (the Musaf) of Yom-tov and Rosh Chodesh, from the Dinim of Chatas Penimi.

(a) The Tana includes Se'irei Avodas-Kochavim, and precludes the Se'irei Yom-Tov and Rosh Chodesh (and not vice-versa) - because, seeing as the Par He'elam Davar (the source) speaks about a specific sin, it is more logical to include a Korban that comes likewise to atone for a specific sin (rather than one that comes to atone for Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav, of which one was unaware).

(b) The Beraisa goes on to preclude the Semichah from deterring the Korbanos in question, from "Ve'chiper" - whereas from "Ve'nislach" he precludes the pouring of the Shirayim on to the Yesod.

(c) We might have thought otherwise - because of the Pasuk "ve'Asah ... Ka'asher Asah".

(d) The Tana sees fit to include the Haza'os and to preclude Semichah and Shirayim (and not the other way round) - because elsewhere we find that the Haza'os are crucial, whereas Semichah and Shirayim are not (as we will explain shortly).