(a)Bearing in mind that the Pasuk in Emor "Kedoshim Yih'yu l'Elokeihem" (written in connection with the Kohanim) is written with reference to bringing Kodshim be'Tum'ah, what do we learn from there?
(b)Why can it not refer to a Kohen who is Tamei?
(c)On what grounds do we suggest that the Pasuk is referring to a Kohen who makes a bald patch for a dead person or who destroys his beard with a razor?
1)
(a)Bearing in mind that the Pasuk in Emor "Kedoshim Yih'yu l'Elokeihem" (written in connection with the Kohanim) is written with reference to bringing Kodshim be'Tum'ah we learn from there that - a Kohen T'vul-Yom who performs the Avodah desecrates it.
(b)It cannot refer to a Kohen who is Tamei - because we already know that from "vi'Yenazru mi'Kodshei B'nei Yisrael", as we learned earlier.
(c)We suggest that the Pasuk is referring to a Kohen who makes a bald patch for a dead person or who destroys his beard with a razor - on the grounds that that is what the previous Pesukim are talking about.
2)
(a)We refute this suggestion however, by citing the Gezeirah-Shavah "Chilul" "Chilul" (from Terumah). What does the Gezeirah-Shavah teach us?
(b)How do we therefore know to establish the Pasuk by a T'vul-Yom who performs the Avodah (and not a Kohen who makes a bald patch for a dead person or who destroys his beard with a razor)?
(c)Which three levels of Tum'ah does the Torah present which desecrate the Avodah?
(d)Rabah explains why we need all three. Why can we not learn ...
1. ... the other two from Tamei?
2. ... Mechusar Kipurim from T'vul-Yom?
3. ... T'vul-Yom from Mechusar Kipurim?
2)
(a)We refute this however, by citing the Gezeirah-Shavah "Chilul" "Chilul" where we learn from Terumah that a T'vul-Yom is subject to Misah (bi'Yedei Shamayim) ...
(b)... so we see that the Pasuk is talking specifically about a T'vul-Yom who performs the Avodah.
(c)The three levels of Tum'ah that the Torah presents which desecrate the Avodah are - a Tamei, a T'vul-Yom and a Mechusar Kipurim.
(d)Rabah explains that we cannot learn ...
1. ... the other two from Tamei - which renders whatever touches it Tamei (whereas they do not affect whatever touches them).
2. ... Mechusar Kipurim from T'vul-Yom - because, whereas the latter is prohibited to eat Terumah as well, the former is not.
3. ... T'vul-Yom from Mechusar Kipurim - because whereas the latter is lacking an act (bringing his Korban, the former is not (since all he is lacking is sunset, which comes automatically).
3)
(a)We also refute the suggestion to learn one from two. Why can we not learn ...
1. ... Mechusar Kipurim from Tamei and T'vul-Yom?
2. ... T'vul-Yom from Tamei and Mechusar Kipurim?
(b)Why does Rabah make no attempt to explain why we cannot learn Tamei from the others?
(c)Even if we did include Tamei in the deliberations, why would we not decline to learn Tamei from Mechusar Kipurim because it is lacking an act (like we said with regard to T'vul-Yom)?
3)
(a)We also refute the suggestion to learn ...
1. ... Mechusar Kipurim from Tamei and T'vul-Yom - because whereas they are Pasul by Terumah, a Mechusar Kipurim is not.
2. ... T'vul-Yom from Tamei and Mechusar Kipurim - because whereas they are lacking an act, a T'vul-Yom is not.
(b)Rabah makes no attempt to explain why we cannot learn Tamei from the others - because if we did not know Tamei from "Veyinazru", we would not T'vul-Yom (which we know only because of Im Eino Inyan [since we already know Tamei], and Mechusar Kipurim, which we only include because it is called Tamei.
(c)Even if we did include Tamei in the deliberations, we would not decline to learn Tamei from Mechusar Kipurim because there it is lacking an act (like we said with regard to T'vul-Yom) - since it requires Tevilah (which is an act).
4)
(a)How do we try to counter the refutation of not learning T'vul-Yom from Tamei and Mechusar Kipurim she'Kein Mechusarim Ma'aseh?
(b)To answer the Kashya, what does Rabah hold?
4)
(a)We try to counter the refutation of not learning T'vul-Yom from Tamei and Mechusar Kipurim she'Kein Mechusarim Ma'aseh - inasmuch as, when all's said and done, the Tum'ah of a Mechusar Kipurim has become weaker (after nightfall) - in which case it makes no difference whether it lacks an act or not.
(b)To answer the Kashya Rabah must hold that - a Mechusar Ma'aseh of a Zav is a Zav (and the same applies to that of a Metzora), in which case, the Tum'ah remains in full force, and the Pircha on the Mah Matzinu is justified.
17b----------------------------------------17b
5)
(a)The Tana Kama in a Beraisa rules that if an Onan or a Mechusar Kipurim burn it, it is nevertheless Kasher. What is he referring to?
(b)What does Yosef ha'Bavli say?
(c)How do we initially establish the basis of their Machlokes?
(d)And what will both Tana'im hold with regard to a T'vul-Yom (who is not Chayav a Korban) burning it?
5)
(a)When the Tana Kama in a Beraisa rules that if an Onan or a Mechusar Kipurim burn it, it is nevertheless Kasher, he is referring to - a Parah Adumah.
(b)Yosef ha'Bavli - validates a Parah Adumah that an Onan burns, but not one that is burned by a Mechusar Kipurim.
(c)Initially, we establish the basis of their Machlokes as being - whether T'vul-Yom de'Zav ke'Zav Dami (Yosef ha'Bavli) or not (the Tana Kama), since everyone agrees that a Tamei may not burn the Parah Adumah.
(d)And both Tana'im agree that - a T'vul-Yom (who is not Chayav a Korban) may burn it (as we will see shortly).
6)
(a)We reject this interpretation however, by referring to the Pasuk in Chukas "Ve'hizah ha'Tahor al ha'Tamei" (when the Torah could have written "Ve'hizah al ha'Tamei"). What do we Darshen from the word "ha'Tahor"? Whom is the Torah permitting here to sprinkle the ashes of the Parah Adumah?
(b)What is now the basis of the Machlokes between the Tana Kama and Yosef ha'Bavli?
(c)What will both Tana'im then hold with regard to Mechusar Kipurim de'Zav on principle?
6)
(a)We reject this interpretation (of their Machlokes) however, by referring to the Pasuk in Chukas "Ve'hizah ha'Tahor al ha'Tamei" (when the Torah could have written "Ve'hizah al ha'Tamei") - from which we Darshen that he is still slightly Tamei, permitting a T'vul-Yom to sprinkle and (to burn the ashes of) the Parah Adumah.
(b)And the basis of the Machlokes between the Tana Kama and Yosef ha'Bavli is now - whether the T'vul-Yom under discussion is specifically a T'vul-Yom of a Tamei Meis (about which the Torah is currently speaking [Yosef ha'Bavli]), or whether it extends to all Teme'ei Meis (even those who are Chayav to bring a Korban [the Tana Kama]).
(c)And both Tana'im will agree that, on principle - Mechusar Kipurim de'Zav ke'Zav.
7)
(a)Seeing as, whether we say Mechusar Kipurim de'Zav ke'Zav Dami or not, makes no difference with regard to the Parah Adumah, what are its ramifications?
(b)What is the basis of the Chumra of a Mechusar Kipurim over a T'vul-Yom who is not a Mechusar Kipurim?
7)
(a)Despite the fact that, whether we say Mechusar Kipurim de'Zav ke'Zav Dami or not, makes no difference with regard to the Parah Adumah - it does make a difference with regard to other areas of Halachah (such as eating Terumah), where a T'vul Yom is permitted, yet a Mechusar Kipurim of Zav is forbidden (since he is still considered Tamei).
(b)The basis of the Chumra of a Mechusar Kipurim over a T'vul-Yom who is not a Mechusar Kipurim is - the fact that all those who require a Korban are those whose Tum'ah come from their own bodies (whereas in the case of those who do not, it is only the result of contact with an external source of Tum'ah).
8)
(a)What does Rebbi Avahu Amar Rebbi Yochanan (or Amar Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon) learn from the Pasuk in Tetzaveh "Ve'chagarta 'sam Avnet Aharon u'Vanav ... Vehaysah lahem Kehunah le'Chukas Olam"?
(b)And what does the Beraisa learn from the Pasuk in Shemini "Yayin ve'Sheichar Al Teisht ... u'Lehavdil bein ha'Kodesh u'vein ha'Chol"?
(c)In which three regards (in connection with the Mitzvos of Kehunah) does the Torah write "Chukas Olam"?
8)
(a)Rebbi Avahu Amar Rebbi Yochanan (or Amar Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon) learns from the Pasuk in Tetzaveh "Ve'chagarta osam Avnet Aharon u'Vanav ... Vehaysah lahem Kehunah le'Chukas Olam" that - as long as a Kohen is not wearing the four Bigdei Kehunah, he does not have the status of a Kohen (vis-a-vis the Avodah), in which case he desecrates it if he performs it.
(b)And from the Pasuk in Shemini "Yayin ve'Sheichar Al Teisht ... u'Lehavdil bein ha'Kodesh u'Vein ha'Chol" the Beraisa learns that - a Kohen who serves in the Beis-Hamikdash after having drunk wine desecrates the Avodah, too.
(c)The Torah writes "Chukas Olam" three times; twice (in Shemini, in connection with the two Mitzvos of Kehunah currently under discussion and once (in Ki Sisa), in connection with Richutz Yadayim ve'Raglayim (the Mitzvah of washing his hands and feet before performing the Avodah).
9)
(a)By Shesuyei Yayin, the Torah adds "be'Vo'achem el Ohel Mo'ed ve'Lo Samusu". Given that this refers specifically to those Avodos for which a Zar is Chayav Misah, which four Avodos does it incorporate?
(b)What do we learn from the double Gezeirah-Shavah "Chukah" "Chukah"?
(c)Seeing as the Tana learns Mechusar Begadim from the Gezeirah-Shavah, why does Rebbi Avahu then need to learn it from "Vechagarta osam Avnet ... "?
9)
(a)By Shesuyei Yayin, the Torah adds "be'Vo'achem el Ohel Mo'ed ve'Lo Samusu". Given that this refers specifically to those Avodos for which a Zar is Chayav Misah, it incorporates - Zerikah, Haktarah, Nisuch ha'Mayim and Nisuch ha'Yayin.
(b)We learn from the double Gezeirah-Shavah "Chukah" "Chukah" that - a Kohen who serves without wearing the Bigdei Kehunah or without washing his hands and feet desecrates the Avodah.
(c)Despite the fact that the Tana learns Mechusar Begadim from the Gezeirah-Shavah, Rebbi Avahu needs to learn it from "Ve'chagarta osam Avnet ... " - to include those Avodos for which a Zar is not Chayav Misah in the Din (of Chilul Avodah).
