Previous daf

1)

(a) Rava rules - 'Miyn be'Miyno be'Ruba, Miyn be'she'Eino Miyno beTa'ama' (merely coroborating what we learned earlier.

(b) The third item that he adds to the list - is 'Chazuta' (which sometimes replaces 'Ta'ama', such as in the case of the Tevilah of a barrel, that we cited earlier, too).

(a) Earlier in the Sugya, we cited Resh Lakish, who says 'Isurin Mevatlin Zeh es Zeh'. Rebbi Elazar disagrees. He holds - that just as Mitzvos do not negate each other, neither do Isurin.

(b) The Tana who holds 'Ein Mitzvos Mevatlos Zu es Zu' is Hillel, who rules - that, on Seder night, one eats Pesach, Matzah and Maror together, in the form of a sandwich (and one is Yotze the Mitzvah of Matzah [which is basically tasteless], in spite of the strong overpowering taste of Maror).

(c) Hillel's source is - the Pasuk in Beha'aloscha "al Matzos u'Merorim Yochluhu".

3)

(a) The Beraisa discusses a 'Charsan of a Zav and a Zavah'. A 'Charsan' is - a potty.

(b) When the Tana declares it Tamei the first two times, and Tahor the third time, he means - that it remains Tamei after being washed twice with water ...

(c) ... because by the third time, the urine that is absorbed in its walls will have become Bateil in the water.

(a) According to the Tana Kama, the Halachah will differ if, instead of water, it was 'washed' three times with the urine of a Tahor person. in that case, says the Tana Kama - the potty remains Tamei, because 'Miyn be'Miyno Eino Bateil'.

(b) Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov disagrees with the Tana Kama. According to him - the Halachah in the latter case is the same as in the first (because he holds 'Miyn be'Miyno Bateil').

(c) The Tana Kama - is Rebbi Yehudah.

(a) Another Beraisa declares flax that was spun by a Nidah and that someone subsequently moved, to be Tahor (despite the fact that presumably, she spat on the flax whilst spinning it) - because dry spit is not Metamei.

(b) The Tana Kama holds, that if the spit is still wet - the person who moves it renders it Tamei.

(c) Rebbi Yehudah is even more stringent. According to him - even if the flax is wet due to having been washed with water, it becomes Tamei when someone subsequently moves it.

(d) His words imply that this is the Halachah even if the flax was washed many times. We reconcile this with the previous Beraisa, where even Rebbi Yehudah agrees that by the third washing, the Tamei urine has all been exuded - by confining that ruling to urine, which does not become as deeply absorbed in the K'li as spit does in the flax.

(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'be'Dam ha'Tazmtzis Yishafech le'Amah; Rebbi Eliezer Machshir'. According to Rebbi Z'vid, they are arguing over whether, on principle, the Chachamim will issue a decree in the Beis-Hamikdash (the Tana Kama) or not (Rebbi Eliezer). Really, we ought to go after the Rov, which is Dam ha'Nefesh, only the Rabbanan decreed because of where the Dam ha'Tamtzis was in the majority.

(b) Rebbi Eliezer's reason is - on account of 'Hefsed Kodshim' (to stop Kodshim from becoming Pasul).

(c) The Machlokes is not therefore, confined to Dam ha'Tamtzis - but extends to the previous case in the Mishnah (where the Tana Kama said 'Nis'arev be'Dam Pesulin, Yishafesh le'Amah' as well.

(a) According to Rav Papa - the Chachamim sometimes decreed in the Beis-Hamikdash too ...

(b) ... and the reason that Rebbi Eliezer declares the blood Kasher, in spite of the Dam ha'Tamtzis is - due to the rarity of the Dam ha'Tamtzis exceeding that of the Dam ha'Nefesh.

(c) Consequently, the Machlokes - does not extend to the blood of Pasul Korbanos, according to Rebbi Papa, because in the realm of Kodshim, it is not uncommon for Pasul blood to exceed Kasher blood.

(d) We now ask on Rav Z'vid - why the Tana presents Dam Pesulim and Dam ha'Tamtzis independently, when really, seeing as Rebbi Eliezer and the Rabbanan argue in both cases, he ought to have presented them together. The Kashya remains unanswered.

(a) 'Dam Temimim be'Dam Ba'alei-Mumin Yishafech le'Amah'. Where it was cups of blood that became mixed up - Rebbi Eliezer rules that once one of those cups has been sprinkled, all the others may be sprinkled, too.

(b) He does not dispute the Mishnah's ruling however - because it is common for the blood of Ba'alei-Mumin to get mixed-up with that of Temimim.

(c) The Chachamim counter Rebbi Eliezer's ruling - with their own, that even if all the cups have been sprinkled except for the last one, it goes to the Beis-ha'Sereifah.

(a) Rebbi Eliezer rules that 'Nitnin le'Ma'alah she'Nis'arvu be'Nitnin le'Matah - Yitein Lema'alah'.

(b) And he justifies sprinkling the blood that belongs Lematah, Lema'alah - by considering it as if it was water.

(c) He does not say 'Yiten Lematah ... ' - because one always gives precedence to the Matanos Lema'alah (as we shall see).

(d) The Rabbanan rule ...

1. ... Lechatchilah - 'Yishafech le'Amah'.
2. ... that if Bedieved, the Kohen followed Rebbi Eliezer's ruling - the Korbanos are Kasher.

(a) Our Mishnah rules 'ha'Nitnin be'Matanah Achas she'Nis'arvu be'Nitnin be'Matanah Achas, Yinasnu be'Matanah Achas'. The case is - where the blood of a Bechor became mixed up with that of Ma'aser Beheimah.

(b) ' ... Matan Arba be'Matan Arba, Yinasnu be'Matan Arba'. The case is - where the blood of a Shelamim became mixed up with an Olah or with an Asham, all of which require sprinkling on all four Yesodos (by means of 'Sh'tayim she'Hein Arba').

(c) 'Matan Arba be'Matanah Achas' says Rebbi Eliezer, 'Yinasnu be'Matan Arba'. On the assumption that the Tana is referring to Ta'aroves Dam (where the blood of two Korbanos became mixed up in one cup), we will need to apply the principle 'Yesh Bilah' (meaning that we consider the two sets of blood as being totally integrated, and each particle of the two sets of blood contains a little of each.

(d) Alternatively, we might interpret the Mishnah to mean - that the cups of blood became mixed up, in which case 'Matanah Achas' means one Matanah from each cup.

(a) Rebbi Yehoshua maintains that the Kohen performs only one Matanah and we have already learned that Bedieved - Korbanos that require 'four' Matanos are valid with only one.

(b) Rebbi Eliezer objects to Rebbi Yehoshua's ruling - on the basis that it involves the La'av of 'bal Tigra'.

(c) Rebbi ...

1. ... Eliezer counters Rebbi Yehoshua's assertion, that by performing four Matanos, one transgresses 'bal Tosif' - by restricting 'bal-Tosif' to where the object is on its own, but not to cases such as ours, where it is mixed with something else ...
2. ... and that is exactly how Rebbi Yehoshua counters Rebbi Eliezer's assertion, that by performing one Matanah, one transgresses 'bal Tigra'.

(d) Rebbi Yehoshua's final argument, taking both arguments into account is - that if one weighs up 'bal Tosif' against 'bal Tigra', it is better to transgress negatively than transgressing positively ('Shev ve'Al Ta'aseh, Adif').