Previous daf

1)

(a) In the Pasuk "Hein Lo Huva es Damah", the Torah continues "Lechaper ba'Kodesh". ...

1. ... Rebbi Eliezer (in our Mishnah) learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Lechaper" from the Pasuk "ve'Chol Adam Lo Yih'yeh ba'Kodesh be'Vo'o *Lechaper* ba'Kodesh" (warning everybody to leave the Heichal the moment the Kohen Gadol enters to perform the Avodah) - that the Korban is Pasul as soon as the Kohen brings the blood into the Heichal, even before he sprinkles it.
2. ... Rebbi Shimon learns from the Pasuk there "ve'es Par ha'Chatas ve'es Se'ir ha'Chatas Asher Huva es Damam Lechaper ba'Kodesh" - that he is only Chayav once he sprinkles the blood.

(b) Rebbi Eliezer, we explain, learns 'Chutz' from 'Chutz', by which we mean that - he learns Chatas Chitzonah from the Pasuk which warns everyone to remain outside (rather than from the Par and Sa'ir of Yom Kipur, whose blood is brought inside the Heichal Lechatchilah).

(c) Rebbi Shimon - prefers to learn from the latter Pasuk, because it entails learning Beheimah from Beheimah, rather than from the former, which is Beheimah from Adam.

(a) Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah validates a Chatas if its blood is taken into the Heichal be'Shogeg, implying that be'Meizid, it would be Pasul. We are not initially sure whether he is speaking - specifically when the Kohen sprinkled the blood (like Rebbi Shimon), or even if he didn't (like Rebbi Eliezer).

(b) Rebbi Yirmiyah cites a Beraisa which discusses the Pasuk (that we just cited) "ve'es Par ha'Chatas ve'es Se'ir ha'Chatas ... ". The Tana's question 'Mah Talmud Lomar "ve'ha'Soref Osah ... " - makes no sense, since the Pasuk is needed to teach us that both the person who burns the Par shel Yom ha'Kipurim and the clothes he is wearing are Tamei.

(c) The words in the Pasuk the Tana is concerned with are - the double Lashon "Chatas", when *one* would have sufficed.

(d) He learns from there - that it is not only the Par and the Sa'ir of Yom ha'Kipurim that must be burned in the Beis ha'Deshen and that render even the clothes of the one who burns them, Tamei, but also the other Chata'os ha'Penimiyos.

(a) Rebbi Meir learns this from - the word "Lechaper", implying the blood of all Chata'os that come to atone (in the Heichal).

(b) Rebbi Yehudah cannot learn other Nisrafin from "Lechaper" - since he needs it for the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' (as we just explained) ....

(c) ... to teach us - that the Kohen is only Chayav for taking the blood of Chata'os ha'Chitzoniyos into the Heichal, if he also sprinkled it there (like Rebbi Shimon).

4)

(a) The Tana Kama of our Mishnah rules that the Mizbe'ach sanctifies whatever is fit for it - meaning 'Im Alu Lo Yerdu'.

(b) 'Fit for it' means - that it has been designated to go on the Mizbe'ach.

(a) Rebbi Yehoshua says 'Kol ha'Ra'uy Le'Ishim'. Raban Gamliel says - 'Kol ha'Re'uy la'Mizbe'ach'.

(b) Rebbi Yehoshua precludes - Dam and Nesachim (since they do not go on the fire on the Ma'arachah) from the principle 'Im Alu Lo Yerdu', whereas Raban Gamliel includes them (since they do go on the Mizbe'ach)

(c) Rebbi Yehoshua learns from "Hi ha'Olah al Mokdah" that 'Kol ha'Ra'uy la'Ishim ... Lo Teired', and Raban Gamliel learns 'Kol ha'Ra'uy la'Mizbe'ach' from the continuation of the same Pasuk "Hi ha'Olah al Mokdah al ha'Mizbe'ach".

(a) Rebbi Shimon rules that in a case where the Korban is Kasher and the Nesachim became Pasul or vice-versa - the Korban remains on the Mizbe'ach, whereas the Nesachim are taken down.

(b) They are taken down even if it is the Korban that became Pasul - since the Nesachim are secondary to the Korban (and not vice-versa). The same will apply ...

(c) ... if they both became Pasul.

7)

(a) We already explained that when the Tana refers to 'whatever is fit for the Mizbe'ach', he means that it has been designated to go on it. According to Rav Papa - precludes 'Kematzim' (the fistfuls of Kemitzah from a Minchah) which the Kohen did not sanctify in a K'li Shareis.

(b) Ula rules that if the Kohen brought Eimurei Kodshim Kalim on the Mizbe'ach before the Zerikas Dam - 'Lo Yerdu'.

(c) The Eimurim of Kodshei Kodshim differ in this regard - inasmuch as they are fit for the Mizbe'ach and subject to Me'ilah, immediately upon being declared Kadosh; whereas Kodshim Kalim whose Kedushah depends upon the Zerikas Dam, which also renders them subject to Me'ilah.

(d) When Ravina queried Rav Papa from Ula's ruling, the latter reconciled the two - by pointing out that whereas the Kematzim themselves are lacking the act of placing them in a K'li Shareis (and therefore 'Im Alu, Yerdu'), the Eimurei Kodshim Kalim are only lacking an act that is performed with an external body (the blood), but not with Eimurim themselves (therefore 'Im Alu, Lo Yerdu').

(a) Raban Gamliel in our Mishnah learns 'Kol ha'Ra'uy la'Mizbe'ach' from 'Hi ha'Olah ... al ha'Mizbe'ach', whereas from "Hi ha'Olah al Mokdah" he learns 'Pok'in' - which means the obligation to return limbs that fell off the Mizbe'ach during the night, back on to the Mizbe'ach (since "Mokdah" implies Kesheirim rather than Pesulim).

(b) Rebbi Yehoshua learns Pok'in from "Asher Tochal ha'Eish".

(c) Raban Gamliel Darshens "Asher Tochal ha'Eish es ha'Olah al ha'Mizbe'ach" like the Beraisa cited by Rebbi Chanina bar Minyumi which extrapolates from there - that one only needs to return the burnt limbs that fall off the Mizbe'ach, but not the burnt Ketores.

(d) Rebbi Yehoshua - actually agrees with this inference, which automatically teaches us that the Kohanim must return the burnt limbs.

(a) According to Rebbi Yehoshua, the Torah adds the words "al ha'Mizbe'ach" - to teach us that 'Im Alah, Lo Yeired' is due to the Kedushah of the Mizbe'ach.

(b) Raban Gamliel learns that - from a second Pasuk ' "Kol ha'Noge'a ba'Mizbe'ach Yikdash".

(c) Rebbi Yehoshua needs both Pesukim to teach us - that 'Im Alah, Lo Yeired' applies both to an animal that was Shechted be'Kashrus (and that only became Pasul after it was then Lan, Yotzei or Tamei), the other for an animal that was Shechted after its time had expired or in the wrong location (and that was not fit for the Mizbe'ach at all).

(d) Raban Gamliel holds - that since they became Pasul, what difference does it make whether they were initially Kasher to bring on the Mizbe'ach or not?

(a) Rebbi Shimon in our Mishnah learns that the Korban remains on the Mizbe'ach, but not the Nesachim from "Hi ha'Olah" - which implies that whatever is brought independently, like an Olah, remains on the Mizbe'ach (even when it is Pasul), but not Nesachim which come together with the Korban (and which are secondary to it).

(b) Rebbi Yossi Hagelili in a Beraisa learns what 'Im Alu, Lo Yerdu', from the Pasuk "ve'Zeh Asher Ta'aseh al ha'Mizbe'ach, Kevasim ... "; Rebbi Akiva learns it from "Hi ha'Olah". According to Rav Ada bar Ahavah, the ramifications of their Machlokes are - an Olas ha'Of, which Rebbi Akiva will include, and Rebbi Yossi Hagelili will exclude.

(c)

1. Rebbi Yossi Hagelili learns from "ha'Olah" - that 'Lo Yerdu' only applies if 'Alu' after the animal was Shechted (like the Olah in the Pasuk), but not if it went up during its lifetime (see Shitah Mekubetzes).
2. Rebbi Akiva learns from "Kevasim" - to preclude Korbenos Of from the Din of 'Im Alu, Lo Yerdu'.

(d) And the Tana'im of the Beraisa (Rebbi Yossi Hagelili and Rebbi Akiva) argue with the Tana'im in our Mishnah (Raban Gamliel and Rebbi Yehoshua) - regarding Kematzim which they sanctified, which the former preclude from ' ... Lo Yerdu' (since it is not included in "ha'Olah"), whilst the latter include it (seeing as both "Mokdah" and "Mizbe'ach" incorporate them.