(a)From where does the Tana of another Beraisa initially learn a Binyan Av that one Matanah will suffice Bedieved by a Chatas Chitzonah?
(b)On the other hand, from where might we learn a Binyan Av that all four Matanos are required?
(c)On what basis would it be preferable to learn Chatas Chitzonah from ...
1. ... the former?
2. ... the latter?
(d)How do we know that "ve'Dam Zevachecha Yishafech" (the source of Matanah Achas Bedieved by other Korbanos), does not extend to Chata'os, too?
1)
(a)The Tana of another Beraisa initially learns a Binyan Av that one Matanah will suffice Bedieved by a Chatas Chitzonah - from all other Korbanos whose blood is sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon below the Chut ha'Sikra.
(b)On the other hand, we might learn that all four Matanos are required - from a Binyan Av from a Chatas Penimi.
(c)It would be preferable to learn Chatas Chitzonah from ...
1. ... the former - since it is Chutz from Chutz.
2. ... the latter - since it is Chatas and K'ranos from Chatas and K'ranos.
(d)We know that "ve'Dam Zevachecha Yishafech" (the source of Matanah Achas Bedieved by other Korbanos), does not extend to Chata'os too - because Shefichah implies from the bowl, incorporating Zerikah, but not the Matanos of a Chatas, which are placed with the finger.
2)
(a)What does the Tana therefore learn from the three times "Vechiper" written by a Chatas Chitzonah (by the Sa'ir Nasi, and the Kisbah and Se'irah of a Yachid, as we learned earlier)?
(b)Rav Ada Mari explained to Rava why these words are not all needed for the intrinsic Halachah of Kaparah in each of the three cases. What did he tell him?
(c)We still query the D'rashah, on the grounds that maybe we ought to learn from the first "ve'Chiper" that even three Matanos above the Chut ha'Sikra and one below will suffice, from the second, two above and two below, and from the third, even all below and none above. What is the problem with this suggestion?
(d)And how do we then refute Rav Ada bar Yitzchak's answer, that if the Torah indicates that Bedieved, no K'ranos are needed, so be it? What do we learn from the fact that Torah writes three times "Ve'chiper", and not four?
2)
(a)The Tana therefore learns from the three times "Vechiper" written by a Chatas Chitzonah (by the Sa'ir Nasi, and the Kisbah and Se'irah of a Yachid, as we learned earlier) - "Ve'chiper", even three Matanos, "Ve'chiper", even two Matanah, "Ve'chiper", even one Matanah.
(b)Rav Ada Mari explained to Rava that these words are not all needed for the intrinsic Halachah of Kaparah (Matnas Dam) in each of the three cases - because we already know from "Ve'nislach" (which is written in each of the three cases) that Kaparah is required.
(c)We still query the D'rashah, on the grounds that maybe we ought to learn from the first "ve'Chiper" that even three Matanos above the Chut ha'Sikra and one below will suffice, from the second, two above and two below, and from the third, even all below and none above. The problem with this suggestion is that - this would mean negating the whole concept of 'K'ranos' (which is synonymous with Matanos above the Chut ha'Sikra).
(d)And we then refute Rav Ada bar Yitzchak answer, that if the Torah indicates that Bedieved, no K'ranos are needed, so be it - inasmuch as if that were so, the Torah would have written four times "Ve'chiper", to teach us that even if he placed all four Matanos below the Chut ha'Sikra, the Chatas would be Kasher. Three K'ranos implies that we permit only up to three Matanos below the Chut, but not four.
3)
(a)Still, we persist, perhaps Bedieved, the Chatas requires one Matanah above the Chut ha'Sikra and three below it. How do we reject this suggestion as well?
(b)How do we reconcile this statement with the Mishnah in Yoma (regarding the blood of the Par on Yom Kipur) Hizah mimenu Achas Lema'alah, ve'Sheva le'Matah'?
(c)Rav Yehudah demonstrated ke'Matzlif ki'Menagdana. What does that mean?
(d)Why then, does the Tana say le'Ma'alah and le'Matah?
3)
(a)And we reject the suggestion that perhaps Bedieved, the Chatas requires one Matanah above the Chut ha'Silra and three below it - on the grounds that we do not find such a concept as some Matanos above the Chut, and others below it.
(b)We reconcile this statement with the Mishnah in Yoma (regarding the blood of the Par on Yom Kipur) Hizah mimenu Achas Lema'alah, ve'Sheva le'Matah - by explaining it to mean ke'Matzlif, which means not one above the Chut and seven below it, but one starting near the top, and the rest moving gradually down the Aron, but all on the top half of the Aron.
(c)Rav Yehudah demonstrated ke'Matzlif ki'Menagdana - like the strokes of Malkos, which are delivered moving gradually down the body.
(d)And the reason that the Tana says le'Ma'alah and le'Matah is - because the higher Matanos require sprinkling in an upward direction, and the lower ones, in a downward direction.
4)
(a)We also learned in the Mishnah there Hizah al Taharo shel Mizbe'ach Sheva Pe'amim. Assuming that Taharo is from the same root as Tihara Yoma (mid-day), what Kashya does this pose on the current theory?
(b)So how does Rava bar Shilo explain Taharo, based on the Pasuk in Mishpatim "u'che'Etzem ha'Shamayim la'Tohar"?
(c)How do we then reconcile the current theory with the fact that although the blood of the Chatas ...
1. ... Chitzonah is sprinkled above the Chut ha'Sikra, the Shirayim is poured on to the Y'sod (which is below it)?
2. ... Penimi is sprinkled on the K'ranos of the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi, the blood is poured on to the Y'sod of the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon (according to those who hold that it is crucial to the Avodah)?
4)
(a)We also learned in the Mishnah there Hizah al Taharo shel Mizbe'ach Sheva Pe'amim. Assuming that Taharo is from the same root as Tihara Yoma (mid-day) - this will mean that the Kohen Gadol sprinkles all eight Matanos towards the middle of the wall of the Mizbe'ach, even though it is inevitable for some of the blood not to go on the top half, and some, on the lower half (see also Tosfos DH 'Mai La'av').
(b)Based on the Pasuk in Mishpatim "u'che'Etzem ha'Shamayim la'Tohar", Rava bar Shilo therefore explains Taharo to mean - on the roof of the Mizbe'ach, after it had been revealed (by removing the ashes from it)
(c)And we reconcile the current theory with the fact that although the blood of the Chatas ...
1. ... Chitzonah is sprinkled above the Chut ha'Sikra, the Shirayim is poured on to the Y'sod (which is below it) - by pointing out that pouring out the Shirayim is not crucial to the Avodah anyway (so what does it matter that it is poured below the Chut ha'Sikra, even though the initial Matanos were placed above it)?
2. ... Penimi is sprinkled on the K'ranos of the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi, the blood is poured on to the Y'sod of the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon (according to those who hold that it is crucial to the Avodah) - because the principle of not dividing the Matanos, pertains exclusively to where they are all placed on the same Mizbe'ach, whereas in this case, the blood is finally placed on the Y'sod of a Mizbe'ach other than the original one.
38b----------------------------------------38b
5)
(a)What does Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov mean when he states in a Beraisa that two Matanos of a Chatas (and one of other Korbanos), according to Beis- Shamai ...
1. ... are Matir?
2. ... are Mefagel?
(b)What equivalent ruling does he issue according to Beis-Hillel?
(c)What did Rav Oshaya mean when he asked why the Machlokes does not appear in Iduyos? Why ought it to appear there?
(d)What did Rava answer him?
5)
(a)When Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov says in a Beraisa that two Matanos of a Chatas (and one of other Korbanos), according to Beis-Shamai ...
1. ... are Matir, he means that - the Kohen is not permitted to burn the Emurim or to eat the Basar until at least two Matanos have been performed with the blood.
2. ... are Mefagel he means that - Pigul is not effective unless at least two Matanos have been performed ...
(b)... whereas according to Beis-Hillel - it is after only one Matanah has been performed.
(c)When Rav Oshaya asked why the Machlokes does not appear in Iduyos, he meant to ask that - seeing as in this regard, Beis-Hillel is more stringent than Beis Shamai, why does this Machlokes not appear in Iduyos, which lists all the cases where Beis-Hillel is more stringent than Beis-Shamai.
(d)Rava answered him - that it does not belong in Iduyos because the initial Machlokes came up following a She'eilah regarding how many Matanos are required as a Matir (where Beis-Hillel are more lenient.
6)
(a)On what grounds did Rebbi Yochanan rule that the last three Matanos of a Chatas ...
1. ... may not be performed at night-time?
2. ... may be performed after the owner's death?
(b)And what did he say about someone who performs them outside the Azarah?
(c)Rav Papa lists the first and third Halachah of Rebbi Yochanan among the things that give the last three Matanos the status of the first one. What does he say about Chutz, Zarus, K'li Shareis, Keren, Etzba, Kibus Begadim and Shirayim?
(d)Shirayim means that if the Kohen received the blood in four Kosos, and sprinkled on one Keren from each Kos, the remainder must be poured on to the Y'sod (as we learned earlier). What does Rav Papa mean by Kibus Begadim?
6)
(a)Rebbi Yochanan ruled that the last three Matanos of a Chatas ...
1. ... may not be performed at night-time - because blood becomes Pasul at nightfall, in which case they should not be brought on the Mizbe'ach Lechatchilah, even though they do not constitute a proper Zerikah.
2. ... may be performed after the owner's death - because, since the Chatas already atoned with the first Zerikah, the remaining blood does not have the full status of Dam Chatas to become Pasul because of a Chatas she'Meisah Ba'alehah.
(b)He also ruled that someone who performs them outside the Azarah - is Chayav, because, in their capacity, as the conclusion of the Matanos of a Chatas, they are fit to be placed on the Mizbe'ach.
(c)Rav Papa lists the first and third Halachah of Rebbi Yochanan among the things that give the last three Matanos the status of the first one. And he also incorporates in this ruling - Chutz, Zarus, K'li Shareis, Keren, Etzba, Kibus Begadim and Shirayim.
(d)Shirayim means that if the Kohen received the blood in four Kosos, and subsequently sprinkled on one Keren from each Kos, the remainder must be poured on to the Y'sod (as we learned earlier). By Kibus Begadim, Rav Papa means that - if the blood from one of the last three Matanos touches one of the Kohen's Begadim, it requires Tevilah.
7)
(a)Rav Papa also includes Rebbi Yochanan's Din of 'Ba'os le'Achar Miysah' in his list of those things that render the last three Matanos, Shirayim. What does he mean when he includes in this list ...
1. ... Lo Sharya?
2. ... Lo Mefagla?
3. ... Lo Ayla le'Gava'i?
(b)Rav Papa proves his ruling by Kibus Begadim from a Mishnah in Perek Dam Chatas. What distinction does the Tana there draw between blood that squirted straight from the animal's neck and blood that splashed from the Keren or the Y'sod, on to the Kohen's shirt?
(c)What does Rav Papa extrapolate from min ha'Keren, Eino Ta'un Kibus Begadim, as a source for his ruling?
(d)How do we initially refute Rav Papa's proof from min ha'Yesod Eino Ta'un Kibus Begadim? What is wrong with making the same inference there?
7)
(a)Rav Papa also includes Rebbi Yochanan's Din of 'Ba'os le'Achar Miysah' in his list of those things that render the last three Matanos, Shirayim. When he includes in this list ...
1. ... Lo Sharya, he means that - they are not Matir the remainder of the Korban (which was already permitted after the first Matanah).
2. ... Lo Mefagla, he means that - if the Kohen performed the first Matanah S'tam, and the last three with a Machsheves Chutz li'Zemano, the Korban is Kasher.
3. ... Lo Ayla le'Gava'i that - after the Kohen has performed the first Matanah, the Korban can no longer become Pasul, by taking the rest of the blood into the Heichal (since the Torah writes "Lechaper ba'Kodesh", and this blood is not fit to atone).
(b)Rav Papa proves his ruling by Kibus Begadim from a Mishnah in Perek Dam Chatas, where the Tana rules that - whereas blood that squirted straight from the animal's neck does not require the shirt to be washed, blood that splashed from the Keren or the Y'sod, on to the Kohen's shirt does.
(c)Rav Papa extrapolates from min ha'Keren, Eino Ta'un Kibus Begadim - Ha min ha'Ra'uy li'Y'sod, Ta'un Kibus Begadim' (but whatever is fit for the Keren does require Tevilah) as a source for his ruling.
(d)We initially refute Rav Papa's proof from min ha'Yesod Eino Ta'un Kibus Begadim - which is subject to the same inference Ha min ha'Ra'uy li'Y'sod, Ta'un Kibus Begadim, which cannot be correct, because it is precluded from Kibus Begadim from the Pasuk "Asher Yizeh", 'P'rat la'Zeh she'K'var Huzah' (with reference to blood that it fit for the Y'sod).
8)
(a)We answer this Kashya by establishing the Beraisa like Rebbi Nechemyah (see Tosfos DH 'Ha Mani'). What does Rebbi Nechemyah say in a Mishnah in the thirteenth Perek with regard to Sheyarei ha'Dam she'Hikrivan ba'Chutz?
(b)How does this answer the Kashya on Rav Papa?
(c)How do we refute this answer?
(d)What do we mean by Midi de'Havi a'Evarim u'Pedarim?
8)
(a)We answer this Kashya by establishing the Beraisa like Rebbi Nechemyah (see Tosfos DH 'Ha Mani'), who rules in a Mishnah in the thirteenth Perek - Sheyarei ha'Dam she'Hikrivan ba'Chutz, - Chayav ...
(b)... in which case we take for granted that Dam Kodshim also require Kibus Begadim, vindicating Rav Papa's proof from min ha'Keren (with which the Rabbanan do not argue [though it is not clear how Rebbi Nechemyah will Darshen "Asher Yizeh"]).
(c)We refute this answer - by querying what we previously took for granted. Maybe it is only considered Dam Kodshim with regard to Shechutei Chutz but not with regard to Kibus Begadim ...
(d)... Midi de'Havi a'Evarim u'Pedarim - (just like the limbs and the fat-pieces, which are also not crucial to the Avodah, yet they are subject Ha'ala'as Chutz, even though Kibus Begadim does not pertain to them).
9)
(a)We reject this refutation however, on the basis of another Beraisa. What does the Tana there say about blood that needs to be poured on to the Y'sod regarding Kibus, Machshavah and Ma'aleh ba'Chutz?
(b)In which case is the Tana lenient in all three regards?
(c)How do we know that the author of this Beraisa is Rebbi Nechemyah?
(d)What does this prove?
9)
(a)We reject this refutation however, on the basis of another Beraisa, where the Tana rules that - blood that needs to be poured on to the Y'sod, requires Kibus Begadim, is subject to Machshavah Pesulah and ha'Ma'aleh Meihen ba'Chutz, Chayav'.
(b)The Tana is lenient in all three regards - in the case of blood that became Pasul and needs to be poured into the Amah (the stream that flows through the Azarah).
(c)And we know that the author of this Beraisa is Rebbi Nechemyah - because he is the Tana who ruled in the previous Beraisa Sheyarei ha'Dam she'Hikrivan ba'Chutz, Chayav ...
