1) HOW DOES BEIS HILLEL UNDERSTAND THE WORD "B'SUKOS"?
OPINIONS: The Mishnah (36b) discusses the minimum number of Zerikos which must be done for a Korban Chatas to be valid. Beis Hillel maintains that only one Zerikah is absolutely necessary, while Beis Shamai requires two.
The Gemara (37b) discusses the reasoning of Beis Hillel. According to one explanation, Beis Hillel derives his ruling from the three words "Karnos" ("corners") written in the Parshah of the Korban Chatas, one spelled with a Vav and two without a Vav. Beis Hillel follows the opinion that "Yesh Em la'Masores" (Halachos are learned from the verse based on the way it is written), and thus the number indicated by these three words "Karnos" is four. Accordingly, one Zerikah is absolutely necessary ("Me'akev") and the other three are required only l'Chatchilah. Beis Shamai, in contrast, follows the opinion that "Yesh Em la'Mikra" (Halachos are learned from the verse based on the way it is read), and thus the number indicated by these words is six; since there are only four corners on the Mizbe'ach, the extra two teach that two Zerikos are the absolute minimum.
According to the Gemara's second explanation, Beis Hillel considers both the Masores (the way the verse is written, which implies four corners) and the Mikra (the way the verse is read, which implies six corners), and thus he considers it as though five corners are written. Since there are only four corners on the Mizbe'ach, the extra one teaches that one Zerikah is the absolute minimum.
The Gemara asks that if Beis Hillel expounds both the Masores and the Mikra, then he should require five walls for a Sukah. In the Parshah of Sukah, three words "b'Sukos" are written, one spelled with a Vav and two without a Vav. The Masores implies four, while the Mikra implies six, and thus Beis Hillel, who expounds both, should require five walls. The Gemara answers that one word "b'Sukos" is needed to teach the context (the basic Mitzvah of Sukah), one is needed to teach the requirement of Sechach, and the remaining three teach the requirement for three walls.
What is the meaning of the Gemara's answer? According to Beis Hillel, how is the calculation made for how many walls a Sukah must have?
(a) RASHI (DH Hasam) explains that "one entire verse" of "b'Sukos" (without a second Vav) is used to teach that one must have a Sukah. One part of the second "b'Sukos" (without a second Vav) is used to teach that Sechach is required. The second part of the second "b'Sukos" teaches one wall, and the remaining "b'Sukos" (with a second Vav) teaches two walls. A Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai teaches that the three walls may be comprised of two walls and a Tefach.
The RASHASH writes that the Gemara and Rashi should read "take away one ['b'Sukos'] for the topic itself, and one for the Sechach.," and not, "one entire verse." In other words, these three verses indicate either six (according to Mikra) or four (according to Masores) walls, so that together they imply five. One is used for the topic of Sukah and one is used for the Sechach, leaving three to teach the three walls, before the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai teaches that one wall may be a Tefach.
(b) The SHITAH MEKUBETZES and BACH preserve the text of "one entire word." However, they cannot explain the derivation as the Rashash does, because once an entire word "b'Sukos" is taken away, only two walls are implied (one "b'Sukos" is used for itself, one for the Sechach, and two for the walls), and the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai teaches that one could be a Tefach. This clearly is not a valid opinion.
It is possible that the Shitah Mekubetzes and Bach understand the Gemara (and Rashi) as follows. Beis Hillel derives the number five because of a doubt about whether to expound Masores or Mikra. However, in the case of Sukah, the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai that teaches that "the third wall is a Tefach" clearly implies that the verses of "b'Sukos" should be read according to Mikra (six) and not Masores (four). This is because there is no way to derive Masores and remain with a third wall after deriving one for the topic of Sukah and another for the Sechach.
This explanation provides a precise understanding of the words of Rashi. Rashi says that after "one entire word" is used for the Sukah itself, the other words teach four walls, and after another word "b'Sukos" is used for the Sechach, the other words teach three walls. Rashi says, "The Halachah was said in this manner, that it is enough for the third wall to be a Tefach." According to the Rashash's explanation, why does Rashi need to say, "The Halachah was said in this manner..."? It is clear that this Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai was the deciding factor which influenced Beis Hillel to read the verses based on Mikra in this case. (Y. MONTROSE)
(This may be the intent of the Bach, who cryptically adds at the end of his note, "Ahani Mikra." Perhaps he understands that this is the text of the Gemara in order to show that in this case, Beis Hillel expounds the verse only according to Mikra. Moreover, it should be noted that Tosfos in Sanhedrin (4a, DH Kulhu) points out that the Tana'im expound verses according to either Mikra or Masores depending on the context of the verses. The Tana'im did not necessarily always follow one approach over the other.) (Mordechai Zvi Dicker, Y. MONTROSE)
38b----------------------------------------38b
2) THE INSIGNIFICANCE OF "ONE ABOVE AND THREE BELOW"
QUESTION: The Gemara quotes a Beraisa which gives a different source for Beis Hillel's position that if the blood of a Chatas was thrown above the Chut ha'Sikra only once, it is valid b'Di'eved. The Torah says, "v'Chiper" ("and he will atone") three times. Each word "v'Chiper" teaches that the Korban is valid even without the prescribed number of Zerikos. Hence, the first "v'Chiper" teaches that three Zerikos suffice, the second "v'Chiper" teaches that two suffice, and the third teaches that even one Zerikah suffices b'Di'eved.
The Gemara asks that we should derive from the three words "v'Chiper" that the Korban is valid even when the blood is sprinkled below the Chut ha'Sikra. The first "v'Chiper" should teach that one of the Zerikos may be done below the Chut ha'Sikra, the second should teach that two Zerikos may be done below the Chut ha'Sikra, and the third should teach that all of the Zerikos may be done below the Chut ha'Sikra.
Rava answers that each time the Torah says "v'Chiper," it excludes one corner of the Mizbe'ach (above the Chut ha'Sikra) from having to have the blood land on it. Accordingly, the last "v'Chiper" excludes only the second to last corner, but it cannot exclude the last corner, which is above the Chut ha'Sikra.
Why does the Gemara entertain the possibility that no Zerikos are required (b'Di'eved) above the Chut ha'Sikra? How does the Gemara make the leap from saying that the second "v'Chiper" should teach that only two corners are required, while the last "v'Chiper" should teach that none are required? It stands to reason that one still should be required! (Although the Gemara later does change the question and asks that only one corner should be required, what is the reasoning behind the Gemara's original question?)
ANSWERS:
(a) TOSFOS (DH v'Chiper) answers that the Gemara skips the step of "one above and three below" because the way three Zerikos would be done below would be by doing one Zerikah on the side (the lower corner) of the Mizbe'ach that would divide into two, and one on a different side that would not divide into two, but rather be one. There is no Korban that requires four Zerikos with a Zerikah on one side alone. (All Korbanos that require four Zerikos require two Zerikos that each divide into two.) Therefore, the third "v'Chiper" does not have to exclude one above and three below, as this obviously is not valid.
Tosfos addresses the obvious question on his answer. The first "v'Chiper" is required to exclude one below and three above. Why, though, would one have thought that this is valid if, as mentioned above, there is no Korban that requires four Zerikos with a Zerikah on one side alone?
Tosfos answers that while this is a problem for both the case of one above and three below, and the case of one below and three above, the former case has the additional issue that the Zerikos of a Chatas are supposed to be done above the Chut ha'Sikra. Accordingly, these two problems together (the wrong place, and an abnormal manner of sprinkling) certainly invalidate the Zerikah. In contrast, in the case of one below and three above, the Zerikah may be valid despite the abnormal sprinkling (since three Zerikos were done in the proper place). This is the basis for the Gemara's question.
Tosfos adds that Rava's answer is a refutation of this logic. Rava claims that if the case of three below is not considered a possibility because one of the Zerikos will be a solitary one, the case of three above and one below also should not be considered a possibility. However, if this is true, then the three verses of "v'Chiper" are not necessary; two suffice to teach that all Zerikos may be done below the Chut ha'Sikra. Since there are three verses of "v'Chiper," it must be that the Beraisa's teaching, that one sprinkling must be done above the Chut ha'Sikra, is correct.
(When the Gemara asks that the third "v'Chiper" should teach that at least one sprinkling above and three below are required (as opposed to the Beraisa's teaching that one above is enough), the Gemara now rejects the logic mentioned above, that there is no need to exclude one above and three below.)
(b) A parenthetical comment in Tosfos explains RASHI's (DH Eizehu) understanding of the Gemara. Rashi understands that the reason why the Gemara, in its question, skips from two below to four below is that if three below would be permitted, this would constitute a majority of the Zerikos, and thus four Zerikos below also should be permitted (because of "Rubo k'Kulo," "most is like all").
Rava's answer is that four verses of "v'Chiper" should be required in order to teach that all four Zerikos may be done below the Chut ha'Sikra. Rava maintains that we cannot rely on the principle of "Rubo k'Kulo" to permit all of the Zerikos to be done below the Chut ha'Sikra. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker, Y. MONTROSE)
3) POURING THE LEFTOVER BLOOD AT NIGHT
OPINIONS: Rebbi Yochanan teaches that the last three Zerikos of the blood of a Chatas (according to Beis Hillel) may not be done at night. RASHI (DH Amar Rebbi Yochanan) explains that although these Zerikos are not "complete Zerikos," since their absence does not invalidate the Korban (since one suffice, b'Di'eved, according to Beis Hillel), they still may not be done at night because the blood becomes invalid at sunset.
Rebbi Yochanan's words imply that only the last three Zerikos must be done during the day, while the pouring of the leftover blood (Shefichas Shirayim) may done at night. This is also implied by Rav Papa's statement later in the Gemara, that the last three Zerikos are invalid when done at night because they are "like their beginning" (like the first Zerikah). This implies that if they would be "like their end" (like the Shefichas Shirayim), they would be valid at night.
What is the Halachah? May the pouring of the leftover blood be done at night?
(a) The SEFER EIZEHU MEKOMON quotes many Acharonim, including the ZEVACH TODAH, who maintain that the pouring of the leftover blood may be done at night. This is also the opinion of the CHAFETZ CHAIM in LIKUTEI HALACHOS.
The KEHILOS YAKOV (29:2) quotes the Yerushalmi (Yoma 5:6) which strongly supports this opinion. The Yerushalmi is in doubt about whether the pouring of the leftover blood may be done at night, according to the opinion that the validity of the Korban depends upon the pouring of the leftover blood. This clearly implies that according to the opinion (which the Halachah follows) that the Korban's validity does not depend on the pouring of the leftover blood (and it is just a Mitzvah to pour the leftover blood), the leftover blood certainly may be poured at night.
(b) However, the Eizehu Mekoman quotes others, such as the MINCHAS CHINUCH (#144), who maintain that the pouring of the leftover blood may not be done at night. This is also the opinion of the CHAZON ISH (Likutim, end of #1). How do these Acharonim understand the Gemara here which implies that the leftover blood may be poured at night?
The Chazon Ish explains that the leftover blood becomes invalid, like all blood of a Korban becomes invalid at sunset. Although Rav Papa says that the three Zerikos are "like their beginning," he clearly does not mean to say that if they would be "like their end," their sprinkling at night would be valid, like the pouring of the leftover blood would be valid. This is evident from the fact that he says that a Kohen, and not a Zar, must sprinkle the last three Zerikos, and they must be done from a Kli Shares. It is clear that the pouring of the leftover blood must be done by a Kohen, and not a Zar, and it also requires a Kli Shares. Therefore, one cannot infer from Rav Papa's words that the opposite laws apply to the pouring of the leftover blood.
However, the Kehilos Yakov (29:2) points out that RASHI (DH Chutz) seems to disagree with the Chazon Ish's assertion that the blood becomes invalid at night. Rashi writes, "They (the three Zerikos) cannot be done at night, because they have become disqualified from being sprinkled, and this is considered a sprinkling." Why does Rashi add, "And this is considered a sprinkling"? Apparently, his intention is to say that the pouring of the blood is not a sprinkling, and therefore is valid at night. In other words, sunset renders the blood invalid only for sprinkling, but not for pouring. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker, Y. MONTROSE)