Previous daf

1)

(a) The Beraisa just included Matan Sheva in the Din of 'Ikuv Matanos', because it is Me'akev elsewhere. 'Elsewhere' refers to the Parah Adumah ("Ve'hizah el Nochach P'nei Ohel Mo'ed" [Chukas]) and Nega'im ("Ve'hizah min ha'Shemen Asher be'Etzba'o" [Metzora]). We know 'Ikuv Matanos' by ...

1. ... Parah Adumah - from the word "Chukah", which always implies Ikuv.
2. ... Nega'im - from the word "Toras", which does too.

(b) The Tana also included Matan Arba from "Kein Ya'aseh". We answer the Kashya that the Pasuk specifically refers to Matan Arba too (no less than to Matan Sheva) by establishing the author as Rebbi Shimon, who Darshens in another Beraisa from "Keren, K'ranos" (by the Par He'elam Davar), "Keren, K'ranos" (by the Par Kohen Mashi'ach) - that each one requires four Matanos (because we add them together).

(c) He Darshens "Keren K'ranos" - on the basis of the Torah's use of the plural (when it could have written 'Keren'). The fact that "K'ranos" by the Par He'elam Davar is written minus a 'Vav' does not bother him - because he holds 'Yesh Eim le'Mikra'.

(d) In any even, this answers the Kashya - because since not all four Matanos are written by the Par He'elam Davar (the Parshah under discussion), "Ve'asah ... Kasher Asah" will not pertain to them (thereby justifying the independent D'rashah for them).

(a) Rebbi Yehudah learns from "be'Ohel Mo'ed" - that "Ve'asah ... Kasher Asah" refers to everything that is performed in the Ohel Mo'ed (incorporating the Matan Arba)

(b) And from "Kein Ya'aseh" he includes the Par Yom ha'Kipurim in the Din of Semichah and the pouring of the Sheyarei ha'Dam, which we would not otherwise know from "la'Par" 'Zeh Par Yom ha'Kipurim' - because neither of them is crucial to the Avodah.

(a) Rebbi Shimon learns from "be'Ohel Mo'ed" - that if the ceiling of the Heichal broke (in which case it no longer constituted an Ohel), the Kohen is not permitted to perform the Haza'os.

(b) He disagrees with Rebbi Yehudah, who learns this from ''Asher (Pesach Ohel Mo'ed)" - because he does not consider "Asher" a D'rashah.

(c) According to Abaye, the author of our Mishnah could even be Rebbi Yehudah. He too, requires a Pasuk to include Matan Arba, even though it is written explicitly in the Torah - because we might have otherwise compared it to Semichah and Sheyarei ha'Dam, which, we learned earlier, is not crucial to the Avodah.

(a) The Beraisa learned Par Yom ha'Kipurim from "la'Par". The problem with this is - that the Torah writes "Chukah" with regard to Yom Kipur, which already teaches us that whatever is written there is crucial.

(b) We establish the Beraisa like Rebbi Yehudah, who learns "Chukah" on the things that were performed with the Kohen Gadol's white garments inside - meaning inside the Kodesh Kodshim (i.e. the Matanos of the blood of the Par and the Sa'ir between the poles of the Aron).

(c) When we say that Chukah, according to Rebbi Yehudah, does not pertain to the things that were performed with the Kohen Gadol's white garments outside - we are referring to the Matanos of the blood of the Par and the Sa'ir in the direction of the Paroches, inasmuch as if he sprinkled the blood of the Sa'ir before that of the Par, he is Yotze).

(d) According to Rebbi Yehudah, had the Torah not written "la'Par" we would have thought - that, by the same token, if the Kohen Gadol did not sprinkle all the Matanos in the Heichal, he is Yotze, too.

(a) Rav Papa asked how we can establish the previous Beraisa like Rebbi Yehudah, in light of another Beraisa, where Rebbi Akiva Darshens from the Pasuk "Ve'chilah mi'Kaper es ha'Kodesh" 'Im Kiper, Kilah; ve'Im Lo Kiper, Lo Kilah', by which he means - that as long as the Kohen Gadol has performed the Matanos, he has finished, and pouring the remainder of the blood on to the Yesod of the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon is not crucial.

(b) Rebbi Yehudah asks Rebbi Akiva why he inverts the words "V'echilah mi'Kaper es ha'Kodesh". So he Darshens the opposite - 'Im Kilah, Kiper; ve'Im Lo Kilah, Lo Kiper', meaning that the Kaparah is only valid if he finishes the process (by pouring the remains of the blood on to the Yesod of the Mizbach ha'Chitzon.

(c) In any event, we see from there - that according to Rebbi Yehudah, we learn Ikuv Matanos by the Chata'os ha'Penimiyos from "Ve'chilah", and not from "la'Par", in which case we cannot establish the previous Beraisa like Rebbi Yehudah.

(a) Rav Papa answers that, based on the Pasuk (in connection with the Par Kohen Mashi'ach) "Ve'taval ha'Kohen es Etzba'o ba'Dam", we learn from "la'Par" 'es', 'be'Dam' and 'Tevilah' (with regard to Yom Kipur) see also Tosfos DH Amud 2 DH 'le'es, be'Dam u'Tevilah'. Rav Acha bar Ya'akov explains "es Etzba'o" - to mean that was is secondary to the Kohen Gadol's finger, that if he performed Haza'ah with the blood that was on a blister on his finger, he is Yotze (and it is not considered a Chatzitzah).

(b) We explain 'be'Dam' to mean 'she'Yehei be'Dam Shi'ur Tevilah Lechatchilah, by which we mean - that the Kohen must receive sufficient blood in one Kli for the Kohen Gadol to make Tevilah and Haza'ah (and not that he receives it in two Keilim before pouring one into the other).

(c) And we learn from "Ve'taval" - that the Shi'ur Tevilah must be contained inside the K'li, so that the Kohen only needs to dip his finger into it, without needing to wipe it from the wall of the K'li.

(d) We reconcile the fact that we are learning the Par Yom Kipur from the Pasuk of the Par He'elam Davar, whereas the Pasuk ("Ve'taval ha'Kohen es Etzba'o ba'Dam") is written by Kohen Mashi'ach - by pointing out that we learn the Par Kohen Mashi'ach too, from the Par He'elam Davar (via the word "le'Par").

7)

(a) The Torah needs to write both "be'Dam" and "Ve'taval", because had it written ...

1. ... "Ve'taval" and not "be'Dam" - we might have thought that although the Kohen Gadol needs to dip his finger in the bowl, it is not necessary to receive the full amount in one bowl initially.
2. ... "be'Dam" and not "Ve'taval" - we might have thought that even though the Kohen Gadol must receive the full amount initially, it doesn't matter if he needs to wipe it from wall of the bowl to make up the Shi'ur.

(b) Having written "Mizbach ... Asher Lifnei Hashem", the Torah nevertheless needs to add "(Mizbach) Ketores Samim ... " - to teach us that the Kohen Gadol is not permitted to make any Ha'za'os in the Heichal before the Mizbe'ach ha'Ketores has been initiated, by having the Ketores brought on it at least once.

(a) When Rebbi (or Rebbi Akiva) in a Beraisa learns from "la'Par", 'Le'rabos Par Yom ha'Kipurim, le'Chol Mah she'Amur ba'Inyan', he means - to include 'es', 'be'Dam' and 've'Taval'.

(b) Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael learns this from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from where *the animals are not the same* - yet in their context, they are compared, how much more so there where *they are*.

(c) So he Darshens "la'Par" to include Par He'elam Davar shel Tzibur (which we will explain later), and "le'Par" - to include Par Kohen Mashi'ach (like the Tana did before).

(d) We can ask on Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael, assuming he is trying to learn Par Yom ha'Kipurim from Par He'elam Davar (regarding 'es', 'be'Dam u'Tevilah') via a 'Kal-va'Chomer' from the fact that ...

1. ... it is similar to the Sa'ir Yom ha'Kipurim (regarding the Avodos) - that in the latter case, the blood of both animals is brought into the Kodesh Kodashim (which that of the Par He'elam Davar is not [so it does not follow that we learn the Par Yom Kipur from it).
2. ... the Par He'elam Davar shel Tzibur is similar to the Se'irei Avodas-Kochavim (regarding the Avodos) - that in the latter case, both Korbanos come to atone for specific sins (whereas the Par shel Yom ha'Kipurim atones for Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav where there was a Yedi'ah at the beginning but not at the end [so it does not follow that we will learn it from the Par He'elam Davar]).

(a) We therefore conclude that, when Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael says 'u'Mah be'Makom she'Lo Hushvah Korban le'Korban', he is referring to - the Par He'elam Davar and the Sa'ir shel Yom ha'Kipurim (which have neither of the two points mentioned earlier in common).

(b) Bearing in mind that there are differences between them, when Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael said 'Hushvu Ma'asim le'Ma'asim' - he had in mind the three major points that they have in common (i.e. the blood of both is sprinkled on the Paroches, and placed with the finger on the K'ranos of the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav).

(c) The two major differences between the Avodah of the Par He'elam Davar and the Sa'ir shel Yom ha'Kipurim are - that the blood of the latter is sprinkled eight times inside the Kodesh Kodshim (as well as in the Heichal), whereas the blood of the former is only sprinkled seven times in the Heichal.

(d) We learn the Par Yom ha'Kipurim (with regard to 'es', 'be'Dam' and 'Tevilah') with a 'Kal va'Chomer' from the Par He'elam Davar shel Tzibur, and Sa'ir Yom ha'Kipurim, in this regard - with the same 'Kal va'Chomer from the Se'irei Avodas-Kochavim.

(a) We learned 'es', 'be'Dam' and 'Taval' by Se'irei Avodas Kochavim - from a Hekesh to Par He'elam Davar (where the Torah writes "Chatas").

(b) The problem this creates with the previous D'rashah is - that in the realm of Kodshim, we do not learn one Lameid from another (a 'Kal va'Chomer' from a Hekesh, in this case).

(c) Rav Papa resolves the problem - by establishing that Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael holds 'Davar ha'Lameid be'Hekesh Chozer u'Melameid be'Kal va'Chomer'.