1)

(a)Abaye establishes the Machlokes between Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish concerning Tamei sha'Achal Basar Kodesh Lifnei Zerikah, by Tum'as ha'Guf. Even Rebbi Yochanan will agree however that - someone who eats Basar Kodesh Tamei before the Zerikas ha'Dam will receive Malkos.

(b)And he learns it from Mar who Darshens "ve'ha'Basar" (in the Pasuk in Tzav "ve'ha'Basar asher Yiga be'Chol Tamei Lo Ye'achel") - to include wood and frankincense in the Isur (even though they are not edible).

2)

(a)Based on the fact that Tum'as Basar is not subject to "ve'Tum'aso alav Venichr'sah" (which speaks after the Zerikas ha'Dam [as we explained), Rava maintains that quite to the contrary - even Resh Lakish will agree that there is no Malkos for eating Basar Kodesh Tamei before the Zerikas ha'Dam.

(b)And he establishes Mar's interpretation of "ve'ha'Basar" - by wood that the Kohen shoveled from the Mizbe'ach, using a shovel that was a K'li Shareis, together with coal and frankincense.

(c)This in turn, is based on a Mishnah inre Me'ilah, which draws a distinction between Kodshim that have a Matir (which a subject to Kareis if one eats them be'Tum's ha'Guf only after the Matir has been brought), and Kodshim that don't (which are subject to Kareis as soon as they are placed inside a K'li Shareis).

3)

(a)Resh Lakish extrapolates from the Pasuk in Vayikra "min ha'Bakar u'min ha'Tzon Takrivu" that if a Kohen takes the limbs of a Tamei (non-Kasher) animal on to the Mizbe'ach - he receives Malkos.

(b)Rebbi Yochanan rules that - he does not ...

(c)... because "min'ha'Bakar u'min ha'Tzon Takrivu" is an Asei, and - he holds La'av ha'Ba mi'Chelal Asei, Asei; whereas according to Resh Lakish, it is a La'av.

(d)Rebbi Yirmiyah queries Resh Lakish from a Beraisa, where the Tana ...

1. ... extrapolates from the Pasuk in Shemini (in connection with the list of Kasher animals) "Osah Tocheilu" - to preclude non-Kasher animals ...

2. ... adding - ve'La'av ha'Ba mi'Chelal Asei, Asei (a Kashya on Resh Lakish).

4)

(a)Rebbi Ya'akov therefore amends the wording of the Machlokes. In fact, he says, both Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish hold that someone who brings a non-Kasher animal on the Mizbe'ach - does not receive Malkos ...

(b)... and they argue by a Chayah. Rebbi Yochanan exempts from Malkos someone who brings a Chayah on the Mizbe'ach - based on the same Pasuk "min ha'Bakar u'min ha'Tzon Takrivu", which is a 'La'av ha'Ba mi'Chelal Asei', which is an Asei, as we just explained.

(c)Whereas Resh Lakish absolves him even from an Asei - because, in his opinion, the Torah only absolves us from having to bring a Chayah, but someone who wishes to bring one, may do so (see Shitah Mekubetzes).

(d)We cannot say the same regarding bringing a non-Kasher animal because we know from the Pasuk in Yechezkel "mi'Mashkeh Yisrael", that - one may only bring a Korban from an animal that a Yisrael is permitted to eat.

5)

(a)We learn from the Pasuk in Re'ei "Zos ha'Beheimah asher Tocheilu, Shor ... Ayal u'Tzvi ... " that - "Beheimah" incorporates Chayah.

(b)Had the Pasuk written " ... Adam ki Yakriv Mikem Korban la'Hashem min ha'Beheimah" and stopped there, we would have said that - one is permitted to bring a Chayah on the MIzbe'ach.

(c)The Beraisa learns from the fact that the Torah adds "min ha'Bakar u'min ha'Tzon" ...

1. ... once that - one would be permitted to bring a Chayah, even though it is not a Mitzvah; but now that it is written ...

2. ... twice - it is forbidden.

6)

(a)We present an analogy of a Rebbe who instructed his Talmid to bring him wheat...

1. ... and the Talmid brought him wheat and barley, to describe the first scenario (where bringing a Chayah is R'shus), since the Talmid did not transgress his Rebbe's command by adding barley.

2. ... only, in which case the Talmid would transgress by bringing barley as well (describing the second scenario (where it is Asur).

(b)The Beraisa - disproves Resh Lakish.

7)

(a)Resh Lakish asked Rebbi Yochanan whether a Pasul person who received some of the blood (see Tosfos DH 'Li'me'utei' makes the blood that remains Shirayim - in which case it must be poured out on to the Y'sod (and it will not help for a Kasher Kohen to receive it and sprinkle it), or not (in which case, it will).

(b)Rebbi Yochanan replied that in general, a Kabalah or a Zerikah Pesulah does not make Shirayim - except for Zerikah be'Machshaves Chutz li'Zemano or Chutz li'Mekomo ...

(c)... since they are effective in rendering the Korban Pigul or Pasul (respectively).

(d)According to Rav Z'vid, Resh Lakish asked Rebbi Yochanan whether a Kos Pasul renders the rest of the blood Shirayim or not, by which he meant - whether for example, if the Kos of blood that he received is taken out of the Azarah, the rest of the blood (that is still on the animal's neck) becomes Shirayim, or whether a Kohen may still receive it and sprinkle it.

(e)Rebbi Yochanan replied - by expressing surprise that he did not ask the previous She'eilah (regarding a Pasul person who received some of the blood), since if the one is Shirayim, so is the other.

8)

(a)According to Rav Yirmiyah mi'Difti, Abaye asked Rabah whether one Kos renders the blood in a second Kos Dachuy - (emptied into the Amah [the stream that flowed through the Azarah]) or Shirayim - (poured on to the Y'sod of the Mizbe'ach, as we have already explained).

(b)Rabah replied that this She'eilah is a Machlokes Tana'im in a Beraisa. The Tana Kama learns from the Pasuk in Vayikra ...

1. ... (in connection with a Chatas Yachid) "ve'es Kol Damah Yishpoch el Y'sod ha'Mizbe'ach" that - there where the Kohen receives the blood in four Kosos, and subsequently places blood from each Kos on one corner of the Mizbe'ach, the remainder of all four Kosos is poured on to the Y'sod.

2. ... (in connection with a Chatas of a Nasi) "es Damo Yishpoch" that - where the Kohen received the blood in four Kosos, and placed blood from only one of the Kosos on each corner of the Mizbe'ach, the remainder of blood in that Kos only, is poured on to the Y'sod, whilst the blood in the other four Kosos is emptied into the Amah.

(c)Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon rules in the latter case that - the remaining blood in all four Kosos is poured on to the Y'sod.

(d)And he establishes the Pasuk "ve'es Damo Yishpoch" - with regard to the blood that remains on the neck of the animal, which is poured into the Amah.

9)

(a)Our Mishnah presents three cases of P'sul which can be rectified by retracting what one did. Having presented the case of ...

1. ... Kibeil ha'Kasher ve'Nasan le'Pasul, the Tana sees fit to add the case of Kibeil bi'Yemin ve'Nasan li'Semol - because otherwise, interpreting Pasul to mean Tamei, we would have restricted the concession to rectify to that case only, since Tum'ah is permitted be'Tzibur (whereas S'mol is not).

2. ... Kibeil bi'Yemin ve'Nasan li'Semol, he nevertheless finds it necessary to add Kibeil bi'K'li Kodesh ve'Nasan li'Keli Chol' - because, by the same token, S'mol has a leniency on Yom-Kipur (where he has to carry both the pan with the coal and the spoon with the Levonah simultaneously (the latter inevitably in his left hand [which a K'li Chol does not]).

3. .. Kibeil bi'K'li Kodesh ve'Nasan li'K'li Chol, the Tana needs to present the first two cases - because unlike a K'li Chol, which can easily be sanctified, a Pasul and a left-hand cannot easily be be rectified.

(b)The problem with the Mishnah's basic ruling is - why, having transferred the blood to a Pasul, it is not Dachuy (since, something that was Kasher and becomes Dachuy, is Pasul according to all opinions).

(c)To answer the Kashya, Ravina told Rav Ashi quoting Rebbi Yirmiyah mi'Difti in the name of Rava, that - the author of our Mishnah is Chanan ha'Mitzri - who does not hold of Dichuy at all ...

(d)... which we see from a case where the blood of the Sa'ir la'Hashem (on Yom Kipur) is already in the Kos, when the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach dies, and where he rules in a Beraisa that - they simply pair off the Sa'ir la'Hashem with another goat, and the Kohen Gadol proceeds from where he left off.

10)

(a)Rav Ashi establishes our Mishnah even like those who argue with Chanan ha'Mitzri. According to him, none of the cases in our Mishnah fall into the category of Dachuy - because the Kohen has the power to rectify them.

(b)Rav Shisha bears this out by reminding us that Chanan ha'Mitzri's disputant is Rebbi Yehudah, who rules, that in a case where ...

1. ... the blood (of the Sa'ir la'Hashem) spills - the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach must die.

2. ... the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach dies - the blood in the cup must be poured out, because the Korban is Dachuy.

(c)And in another Beraisa, Rebbi Yehudah says that - a Kohen should gather a cupful of the blood of the many Korb'nos Pesach that spilt and sprinkle it towards the Y'sod of the Mizbe'ach ...

(d)... a proof that, according to him, whatever is rectifiable does not fall under the category of Dachuy.

11)

(a)In the previous case, the purpose of that one Zerikah - is so that, in case the entire Kos of any other Korban Pesach spilt, it will be covered by this Zerikah.

(b)The Kohen is not able to sprinkle it on the south-eastern corner of the Mizbe'ach - because it has no Y'sod.

(c)When they asked Rebbi Yehudah that perhaps the blood fell directly from the neck on to the floor (and not from the K'li) he replied that - he was talking about blood that spilt from the K'li.

(d)They could take this for granted - based on the principle Kohanim Zerizim hein (Kohanim are alert, and it is therefore unlikely for the blood to have spilt on the floor before it had been received in a K'li Shareis).

12)

(a)Initially, we answer the Kashya that perhaps, some of the blood was Dam ha'Tamtzis (blood that trickled from the neck) and not Dam ha'Nefesh [blood that flowed]), which is not considered blood in this regard, based on the fact that the author is Rebbi Yehudah who says that - Dam ha'Tamtzis is considered blood ...

(b)... which we know from a Beraisa, where Rebbi Yehudah declares Chayav Kareis someone who drinks it, (whereas according to the Rabbanan, he is only subject to Malkos).

(c)We reject this answer however - on the basis of a statement of Rebbi Elazar, who confines that ruling to Chulin, but who precludes Dam ha'Tamtzis of Korbanos from being Mechaper.

(d)We ytherefore resolve the problem - by citing another Beraisa, where Rebbi Yehudah rules that blood does not nullify blood (Miyn be'Miyno Lo Bateil), in which case it doesn't really matter even if some of the blood in the cup is Dam ha'Tamtzis.