1)
(a)When the Torah in Acharei-Mos writes with regard to blood of both the Par and the Sa'ir that it has to be sprinkled "Al ha'Kapores", does it mean it literally?
(b)What was the difference in the way the Kohen Gadol performed the Mitzvah of "Al ha'Kapores", and the way he performed that of "Lifnei ha'Kapores"?
(c)What does the Torah write specifically ...
1. ... by the Par that it does not write by the Sa'ir?
2. ... by the Sa'ir that it does not write by the Par?
1)
(a)When the Torah in Acharei-Mos writes "Al ha'Kapores" (with regard to the Matanos of the blood of both the Par and the Sa'ir) - it is not to be taken literally; it means towards the Paroches (see also, next question).
(b)When the Kohen Gadol performed the Mitzvah of "Al ha'Kapores" - he sprinkled the blood in an upward direction (underhand), whereas that of "Lifnei ha'Kapores" - he performed in a downward direction (overhand).
(c)The Torah specifically writes ...
1. ... by the Par - Shiv'ah Lematah, which it does not write by the Sa'ir.
2. ... by the Sa'ir - Achas Lema'alah, which it does not write by the Par.
2)
(a)Why does the Pasuk "(written by the Sa'ir) "v'Lifnei ha'Kapores" initially appear to be redundant?
(b)Why then, does the Torah write it?
(c)If the Torah does not want the blood to touch the Aron, then why does it write "Al"?
(d)How might we say the opposite with regard to the "Al" of the Par?
2)
(a)The Pasuk "(written by the Sa'ir) "al ha'Kapores v'Lifnei ha'Kapores" initially appears to be redundant - since we anyway need to learn the Sheva Lematah from the Par (as we shall see shortly).
(b)The Torah writes it in order to compare "Al" to "Lifnei" - just as by "Lifnei", the blood does not touch the lid of the Aron (because that is the implication of "Lifnei"), by "Al" it does not need to touch either.
(c)The Torah does not want the blood to touch the Aron - it writes "Al" to teach the Kohen Gadol to sprinkle the blood underhand (as we explained above in 1b.).
(d)We might say the opposite with regard to the "Al" of the Par - and say that the Torah does not really need to write "Al" by the Par (since we anyway need to learn 'Achas Lema'alah' from the Sa'ir, as we shall soon see). So why does the Torah write it? In order to compare "Lifnei" to "Al" - to teach us that "Lifnei", like "Al", must touch.
3)
(a)We answer the previous Kashya by pointing out that if we use the 'Lematah' of Sa'ir to compare the 'Lema'alah' of Sa'ir to it, we would still need the 'Lema'alah' of Par to teach us something else, whereas if we were to use the 'Lema'alah' of Par to compare the 'Lematah' of Par to it, then we would have no use for the 'Lematah' of Sa'ir. What would we learn from the 'Lema'alah' of Par (i.e. "al Pnei ha'Kapores Keidmah")?
(b)What do we learn from the Pasuk "v'Asah es Damo Kasher Asah l'Dam ha'Par"?
(c)And why can we not learn that from the comparison of "Damim" by the Sa'ir to "Damim" by the Par - written in both cases by 'Lematah'?
3)
(a)Even though we use 'Lematah' of Sa'ir to compare the Lema'alah of Sa'ir to it - we still need the 'Lema'alah' of Par (i.e. "al Pnei ha'Kapores Kedmah") to teach us that "Pnei" always means on the east side.
(b)We learn from the Pasuk "v'Asah es Damo Ka'asher Asah l'Dam ha'Par" - that all the Matanos of the Sa'ir should be equivalent to those of the Par (i.e. even the 'Sheva Lematah', which are not explicitly written).
(c)We cannot learn that from the comparison of "Damim" by the Sa'ir to "Damim" by the Par - written in both cases by "Lifnei" - because then, perhaps we will learn "Damim" Lematah by Sa'ir from "Damim" Lema'alah by Sa'ir, in which case the Kohen Gadol will have to make only one Matanah Lematah, and not seven.
4)
(a)What do we learn from the same Pasuk "v'Asah es Damo Kasher Asah l'Dam ha'Par"?
(b)And why can we not learn that from the comparison of "Damim" written by 'Lema'alah' of Par to "Damim" written by 'Lema'alah' of Sa'ir.
4)
(a)We learn from the same Pasuk "v'Asah es Damo Ka'asher Asah l'Dam ha'Par" - that just as the Kohen Gadol made one Matanah Lema'alah by the Sa'ir, so too did he do by the Par.
(b)We cannot learn that from the comparison of "Damim" written by 'Lema'alah' of Par to "Damim" written by 'Lema'alah' of Sa'ir - because then we might just as well learn "Damim" by 'Lema'alah' of Par from "Damim" by 'Lematah' of Par, and say that he must make seven Matanos 'Lema'alah', and not one.
5)
(a)Rebbi Meir cites the text of the wording of the Kohen Gadol as 'Achas, Achas v'Achas, Achas u'Shtayim ... ', like in our Mishnah. What is Rebbi Yehudah's version of the text?
(b)What is the basis of the two versions? Do they really argue?
(c)According to Rebbi Elazar, the purpose of announcing the number each time the Kohen sprinkled was to prevent him from erring. What does Rebbi Yochanan say?
(d)What is the Halachic difference between the two opinions?
5)
(a)Rebbi Meir cites the text of the wording of the Kohen Gadol as 'Achas, Achas v'Achas, Achas u'Shtayim ... ', like in our Mishnah. According to Rebbi Yehudah - the text is 'Achas ... Shtayim v'Achas' ... .
(b)Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah are not involved here in a basic Machlokes. Each one simply follows the custom of his town: In Rebbi Meir's town, when counting, they would mention first the tens before the units - the original number first (e.g. twenty-one, twenty-two - like we do); whereas in Rebbi Yehudah's town, they would mention the units (the new number) first (e.g. one and twenty, two and twenty).
(c)According to Rebbi Elazar, the purpose of announcing the number each time the Kohen Gadol sprinkled was to prevent him from erring. According to Rebbi Yochanan - it is derived from the word "v'Lifnei ha'Kapores Yazeh" - which is redundant, to teach us that the Kohen Gadol needs to count and that he must repeat the first Matanah (Lema'alah) with each subsequent Matanah.
(d)The Halachic difference between the two opinions will be in a case where he neither counted nor did he err - according to Rebbi Elazar he will be Yotzei; whereas according to Rebbi Yochanan, who holds that the counting is d'Oraisa (and the Torah writes "Chukah"), he will not.
6)
(a)Rebbi Yehudah in Shekalim, holds that there were no collecting boxes for the Kinei Chovah (the obligatory bird-offerings - e.g. that of a Zav or a Zavah), because they might become mixed. How does Rav Yosef initially interpret this?
(b)In that case, why should they not take two boxes, and write on the one 'Chovah', and on the other, 'Nedavah'?
(c)How do we try to prove from the stand in our Mishnah, that Rebbi Yehudah does not rely on the method of writing as a reminder?
6)
(a)Rebbi Yehudah in Shekalim, holds that there were no collecting boxes for the Kinei Chovah (the obligatory bird-offerings - e.g. that of a Zav or a Zavah), because they might become mixed. Rav Yosef initially interprets this to mean that the Chovos might become mixed up with the Nedavos.
(b)It will not help to take two boxes, and write on the one 'Chovah', and on the other, 'Nedavah' - because, in Rebbi Yehudah's opinion, writing is not reliable, since sometimes one forgets to look at the writing.
(c)We try to prove from the single stand in our Mishnah, that Rebbi Yehudah does not rely on the method of writing as a reminder - because if he did, why does he disagree with the Tana Kama that there were two stands on the grounds that the Kohen Gadol may become confused? Let them place two stands, and write on the one 'Par' and on the other, 'Sa'ir'!
55b----------------------------------------55b
7)
(a)Apart from the six boxes marked 'Nedavah', that stood in the Azarah, there were another seven boxes marked 'Tiklin Chadtin', 'Tiklin Atikin', 'Kinim', 'Gozlei Olah', 'Etzim', 'Levonah' and 'Zahav la'Kapores'. What was the difference between ...
1. ... Tiklin Chadtin and Tiklin Atikin?
2. ... Kinin and Gozlei Olah?
(b)Why were there six boxes for Nedavah?
(c)Considering the author of this Mishnah in Shekalim is Rebbi Yehudah, how does this create a problem with what we just wrote above in question 6c?
7)
(a)
1. The box marked 'Tiklin Chadtin' - was for the current year's Shekalim, the one marked 'Tiklin Atikin' - was for last year's.
2. The box marked 'Kinin' - was for (older) pigeons, the one marked 'Gozlei Olah' - for (young) doves.
(b)There were six boxes for Nedavah - one for each of the Batei Av of the current Mishmar (each of whom served on one day of the week).
(c)Considering the author of this Mishnah in Shekalim is Rebbi Yehudah, this contradicts what we just wrote - that Rebbi Yehudah does not consider writing to be a reliable reminder. But we now see that he does!
8)
(a)We just established that, in principle, Rebbi Yehudah does rely on writing. What reason does Rav Dimi from Eretz Yisrael now give for his having said earlier that there were no boxes for Kinei Chovah?
(b)How do we refute this on the basis of a Mishnah in Gitin (with regard to someone who sends his Chatas from overseas)?
(c)So how do we amend Rav Dimi's statement?
(d)Why can the Kohen not just take four Zuzim from the box and throw it into the Yam ha'Melach (in order to fulfill the obligation of 'Chatas l'Misah Azla')?
8)
(a)We just established that, in principle, Rebbi Yehudah does rely on writing. Rav Dimi from Eretz Yisrael now establishes why Rebbi Yehudah said earlier that there were no boxes for Kinei Chovah - because of a decree in case the owner of one of the Chata'os dies, in which case his money becomes Ma'os Chatas Shemeisu Ba'aleha, which must be thrown into the Yam ha'Melach; however, because it is now mixed with all the other money, it renders it all Pasul.
(b)We refute this however, on the basis of a Mishnah in Gitin - which rules that if someone sent his Chatas from overseas, the Kohanim would bring it, on the assumption that the sender was still alive. So we see that we do not suspect that someone may have died as long as we do not know that he has.
(c)So we amend Rav Dimi's decree - to a case when we know that the owner of one of the Chata'os died'.
(d)The Kohen cannot just take four Zuzim from the box and throw it into the Yam ha'Melach (in order to fulfill the obligation of 'Chatas l'Misah Azla') - because Rebbi Yehudah holds 'Ein Bereirah'.
9)
(a)What is the significance of the 'four Zuzim' in the previous question?
9)
(a)The 'four Zuzim' in the previous question - was the value of a bird Chatas in those days. Because their value is stated in a Mishnah in Kerisus as being Riv'asayim (two Rova) = one Zuz Tzuri (for a pair of birds) - half a Zuz for one bird, and the Zuz mentioned in our Sugya is a Zuz Medinah, which is one eighth of a Zuz Tzuri.