Previous daf

1)

(a) We now go back on all our previous answers (such as establishing our Mishnah when one Shi'ur of blood became mixed up with one Shi'ur, and four with four, and explaining that 'Tachtonim Alu Lo' refers to the Shirayim of the Chatas). Instead, we interpret 'got mixed up' to mean - when the two bloods were still in the cups (and not mixed together).

(b) This solves all the Kashyos on Rav Ashi - because now we can no longer extrapolate from the various rulings of Rebbi Eliezer 'Yesh Bilah'.

(c) The only bone of contention that remains between Rebbi Eliezer and the Rabbanan is that Rebbi Eliezer holds 'Ro'in', whereas the Rabbanan don't (though Rebbi Eliezer is still able to hold 'Ein Bilah', seeing as most of the answers that we gave earlier to explain the Beraisa are still feasible).

(a) According to Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa, Rebbi Eliezer and the Rabbanan only argue in a case where the blood of an Olah Temimah became mixed up with that of a Ba'al-Mum. But in a case where the blood of a Chatas became mixed up with that of ...

1. ... an Olah - even the Rabbanan will agree that it is brought on the Mizbe'ach
2. ... a Rovei'a or Nirva - even Rebbi Eliezer will agree that it is not.

(b) Rebbi Yehudah quotes the Rabbanan as saying that one is permitted to bring the blood of a Chatas that became mixed up with that of an Olah - because he disagrees with the Tana of our Mishnah, in whose opinion they don't hold of 'Ro'in'.

(c) According to Rebbi Yehudah, Rebbi Eliezer permits the blood of a Temimah that became mixed up with a Ba'alas-Mum Lechatchilah (even though nothing has been brought yet) - based on the Pasuk "Mum Bam", confining the prohibition of bringing the blood of a Ba'al-Mum on the Mizbe'ach to where it is on its own, but precluding there where it is mixed with other blood (as we learned earlier).

(a) Rebbi Yehudah concludes 'she'Rebbi Eliezer Omer Yikarev Bein be'Balul, Bein be'Kosos'. We reconcile this with what we just concluded (to accommodate Rav Ashi), that Rebbi Eliezer and the Rabbanan argue specifically by Kosos, and not by Ta'aroves Dam - by making this a Machlokes Tana'im.

(b) Rebbi Yehudah on the other hand, is happy to learn like that, even though we rejected this explanation out of hand in our Mishnah - because he establishes the Machlokes by Temimim and Ba'alei-Mumin, but by the same Korban. Consequently, he does not have the problem of 'bal Tosif', which caused us to establish our Mishnah by Kosos and not by Ta'aroves.

(a) When Abaye confines the Rabbanan's ruling 'Yishafech le'Amah' to Techilas Chatas, but by Sof Chatas, 'Makom Olah Makom Shirayim' - he means that even the Rabbanan will agree with Rebbi Eliezer, that having made the Matanos of Dam Chatas and Dam Olah that got mixed up, above the Chut ha'Sikra, the Kohen pours the Shirayim below the Chut ha'Sikra, on the wall of the Mizbe'ach (where one sprinkles the blood of the Olah Lechatchilah).

(b) However, Rav Yosef (quoting Rav Yehudah) objects to this - on the grounds that the Shirayim must be poured on the horizontal section of the Yesod, and not on the vertical wall of the Mizbe'ach.

(c) Rebbi Yochanan (or Rebbi Elazar) holds - 'Adayin hi Machlokes' (the Rabbanan argue with Rebbi Eliezer here, just as they argue by Techilas Chatas), like Rav Yosef.

(d) Rav Huna bar Yehudah quotes a Pasuk in Korach (in connection with a Bechor Beheimah) "Kodesh Hu", from which the Tana learns that if the blood of a Bechor Beheimah becomes mixed up with the blood of another Korban - it must nevertheless be brought on the Mizbe'ach.

(a) We assume that the Tana is speaking when Techilas Bechor became mixed up with Sof Olah - a proof that one may pour Sof Olah on the vertical wall of the Mizbe'ach (where Techilas Chatas is poured).

(b) We refute it however - by establishing the case when Techilas Bechor became mixed up with Techilas Olah.

(c) Bearing in mind that this Beraisa goes according to the Rabbanan, this ruling is based on - 'Yesh Bilah'.

(d) And the Tana is coming to teach us - that 'Olin' (Korbanos) are not Mevateil each other.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk "Ve'lakach mi'Dam ha'Par u'mi'Dam ha'Sa'ir" - that Olin are not Mevateil each other.

(b) The two Pesukim are needed to teach us the same thing - because they are learned by two different Tana'im who in fact, argue over the source, as we shall see shortly.

7)

(a) The Beraisa learns from the word "ha'Dam" (in the Pasuk in Vayikra "Ve'hikrivu B'nei Aharon ha'Kohanim es ha'Dam") that if the blood of an Olah became mixed with that of other Korbanos, it must nevertheless be sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach. This D'rashah would certainly come to include ...

1. ... an Olah, a Temurah and Chulin - because, unlike other Korbanos, had any of them become mixed up with an Olah whilst they were alive, they would all have been brought directly on the Mizbe'ach.
2. ... a Todah and Shelamim - because like an Olah, they can be volunteered as a Neder or a Nedavah
3. ... an Asham - because like an Olah, they are Kodesh Kodshim.

(b) The three Korbanos (which fall into none of these categories) the Tana then includes from the second "ha'Dam" (in the Pasuk "Ve'zarku es ha'Dam") are - Bechor, Ma'aser and Pesach.

(c) Based on the assumption that the latter D'rashah is referring to Sof Olah u'Bechor, the Pasuk is coming to teach us - that 'Makom Olah, Makom Shirayim'.

(d) We refute the Kashya from there on Rav Yosef - by establishing the Beraisa by Techilas Olah u'Bechor.

(a) Seeing, as we just concluded, the Pasuk is referring to Techilas Olah u'Bechor, the Chidush then is - 'Ein Olin Mevatlin Zeh es Zeh' ...

(b) ... leaving us with three Pesukim to teach us that (this Pasuk, "Ve'lakach mi'Dam ha'Par u'mi'Dam ha'Chatas" [in Acharei-Mos] and "Kodesh Heim" [in Korach]).

(c) The other two Tana'im decline to learn it from ...

1. ... "Ve'lakach mi'Dam ha'Par u'mi'Dam ha'Sa'ir" - because they interpret the Pasuk to mean that the Kohen Gadol must take from the blood of the bull and the blood of the goat (to place on the Keranos of the Golden Mizbe'ach) independently.
2. ... "Dam" "Dam" - because they do not consider it a D'rashah.
3. ... "Kodesh Heim" - because they learn from there 'Heim Kereivim, ve'Ein Temurasan Kereivah' (to preclude the Temurah of Bechor and Ma'aser from being brought on the Mizbe'ach).

(d) The other two Tana'im learn from the Pasuk "Im Shor Im Seh la'Hashem Hu" - what the previous Tana learns from "Kodesh Heim".

(a) We already cited the Beraisa 'Nasan Lema'alah ve'Lo Nimlach, Eilu ve'Eilu (Rebbi Eliezer and the Rabbanan) Modim she'Yachzor Ve'yiten Lematah. Eilu ve'Eilu Olin Lo'. We now attempt to prove from there - that 'Makom Olah Makom Shirayim' (a Kashya on Rav Yosef).

(b) Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef quoting the B'nei Ma'arva, establishes the Beraisa by the blood of a Chatas Chitzonah that became mixed up with the Shirayim of a Chatas ha'Penimis - which conforms with the opinion of Rav Yosef, in that both are officially poured either on the same Yesod (either on the western Yesod of the Mizbe'ach ha'Olah, according to Rebbi Yishmael, or on the southern Yesod, according to Rebbi Shimon).

(c) Abaye asked him why the B'nei Ma'arva did not rather establish it when the blood of a Chatas Chitzonah became mixed with its own Shirayim. The advantage of learning this way is - that then it will even conform with the opinion of the Rabbanan (who hold in the previous case that the Shirayim of a Chatas Penimis is poured on the western Yesod, whereas that of a Chatas Chitzonah is poured on the southern Yesod).

(d) We answer that, by establishing it by the blood of a Chatas Penimis, we learn the additional Chidush - that even though the Shirayim of a Chatas Penimis is Me'akev, it does not matter if the blood became Chaser (such as in this case, where some of it was first placed on the Mizbe'ach in the form of Matanos).

(a) Earlier in the Sugya, we established 'Nasan Lema'alah ve'Lo Nimlach' when the Kohen placed the Shi'ur Olah plus a Mashehu above the Chut ha'Sikra - and 'Yiten Lematah' referred to the Shiyurei Chatas ...

(b) ... in which case, there would be no proof that 'Makom Olah Makom Shirayim (and no Kashya on Rav Yosef).

(c) In that case, Rava Tosfa'ah asked Ravina, why the B'nei Ma'arva found it necessary to establish the case by a Ta'aroves Dam of a Chatas Penimis and a Chatas Chitzonah, to which he replied - that that was initially, when we thought the Tana was speaking when the two bloods were mixed. In the meantime, we concluded that our Mishnah is speaking when it was the cups that became mixed up, and if the Kohen were to place the blood twice from each cup, once for the Shirayim of the Chatas and once for the Olah, it would still pose a Kashya on Rav Yosef.

(a) Our Mishnah rules 'ha'Nintin bi'Fenim she'Nis'arvu be'Nintin ba'Chutz - Yishafchu le'Amah'.

(b) If without consulting, the Kohen performed the Matanos first ba'Chutz and then bi'Fenim, our Mishnah rules 'Kasher'.

(c) Where the Kohen did the reverse, Rebbi Akiva rules Pasul - because, in his opinion, any Korban whose blood is taken into the Heichal becomes Pasul.

(a) The Chachamim restrict the P'sul to a Chatas - because the source of the prohibition (the Pasuk in Tzav "ve'Chal Chatas Asher Yuva mi'Damah Lechaper ba'Kodesh Lo Ye'achel") only mentions Chatas.

(b) Rebbi Eliezer adds an Asham, because the Torah there writes "ka'Chatas ka'Asham", comparing Asham to Chatas.

(a) We ask why Rebbi Eliezer does not argue with the Tana Kama in the Reisha (and say 'Yiten ... ' like he did in the previous Mishnah). If he had, he would not have said 'Yiten ba'Chutz ve'Ro'in ... ve'Yachzor Ve'yiten bi'Fenim' - because just as Lema'alah takes precedence over Lematah (as we have already explained), so too, does P'nim take precedence over Chutz.

(b) What he would have said is - 'Yiten bi'Fenim ve'Ro'in ... ve'Yachzor Ve'yiten ba'Chutz'

(c) He declined to answer that - because Chatas and Asham, according to him, become Pasul once they enter the Azarah, as we learn in the Seifa.