(a)We just learned that according to Rebbi Yishmael, "la'Par" (in the Pasuk in Vayikra) comes to include the Par He'elam Davar shel Tzibur. What is the problem with that?
(b)Rav Papa answers that the Torah needs to write it in order to learn the Din of the Yoseres (the lobe of the liver) and the Sh'tei K'layos (the two kidneys) with a Hekesh from it to Se'irei Avodas-Kochavim (as we will now see). From where do we learn that the Par He'elam Davar requires the Yoseres and Sh'tei K'layos to be burned together with the Cheilev?
(c)What problem does this now create?
(d)How have we solved it?
1)
(a)We just learned that according to Rebbi Yishmael, "la'Par" (in the Pasuk in Vayikra) comes to include the Par He'elam Davar shel Tzibur. The problem with that is - the Pasuk is written specifically in connection with the Par He'elam Davar ... , so why is it necessary to include it?
(b)Rav Papa answers that the Torah needs to write it in order to learn the Din of the Yoseres (the lobe of the liver) and the Sh'tei K'layos (the two kidneys) with a Hekesh from it to Se'irei Avodas-Kochavim (as we will now see). We learn that the Par He'elam Davar requires the Yoseres and Sh'tei K'layos to be burned together with the Cheilev - from a Hekesh to Par Kohen Mashi'ach ("Ve'asah la'Par ka'asher Asah la'Par ha'Chatas"), where it is written explicitly.
(c)This creates a problem however - based on the principle Davar ha'Lameid be'Hekesh, Eino Chozer u'Malamed be'Hekesh (so how can we learn the Se'irei Avodas-Kochavim from the Par He'elam Davar with a Hekesh, when the Par He'elam Davar itself is only learned from a Hekesh?)
(d)We have solved it - by Darshening "la'Par" to include the Par He'elam Davar (as if the Yoseres and the Sh'tei K'layos were written there explicitly, and were not learned from a Hekesh.
2)
(a)We cite a Beraisa in support of Rav Papa. Quoting the Pasuk in Sh'lach-l'cha (in connection with the Se'irei Avodas-Kochavim) "Ve'nislach lahem, ve'Heim Hevi'u es Korbanam ... ve'Chatasam ... al Shigegasam" (which is all superfluous), the Tana explains that "ve'Chatasam" pertains to the Se'irei Avodas-Kochavim. How does he then explain "al Shigegasam"?
(b)And how does he explain the connection between them?
(c)We ask why Rebbi Yishmael finds it necessary to learn the Din of the Yoseres and the Sh'tei K'layos by the Se'irei Avodas-Kochavim from "ve'Chatasam". What is the problem? From where else might he learn it?
(d)What does Rav Papa answer? Why might we not be able to learn the Yoseres and the Sh'tei K'layos from the original D'rashah?
2)
(a)We cite a Beraisa in support of Rav Papa. Quoting the Pasuk in Sh'lach-l'cha (in connection with the Se'irei Avodas-Kochavim) "Ve'nislach lahem, ve'Heim Hevi'u es Korbanam ... ve'Chatasam ... al Shigegasam" (which is all superfluous). The Tana explains that "ve'Chatasam" pertains to the Se'irei Avodas-Kochavim and "al Shigegasam" - to the Par He'elam Davar shel Tzibur.
(b)And he explains the connection between them - by comparing the former to the latter as regards the Korbanos (including the Yoseres and Sh'tei K'layos).
(c)We ask why Rebbi Yishmael finds it necessary to learn the Din of the Yoseres and the Sh'tei K'layos by the Se'irei Avodas-Kochavim from "ve'Chatasam" rather than - from the Pasuk "ha'Chatas" (from which we Darshened 'Lerabos Se'irei Avodas-Kochavim').
(d)Rav Papa answers that we might not be able to learn the Yoseres and the Sh'tei K'layos from the original D'rashah - because the Torah may well be comparing the Se'irei Avodas-Kochavim to the Par He'elam Davar, as regards Haza'os which are written specifically, but not as regards things like the Yoseres ... , which we only learn from a D'rashah.
41b----------------------------------------41b
3)
(a)Rav Papa confined the D'rashah of "la'Par", 'Lerabos Par Yom ha'Kipurim' to 'es', 'be'Dam' and 'Tevilah'. What does Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael say?
(b)What did Rav Papa reply, when Rav Huna bar Nasan queried him from there?
(c)What Mashal does Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael give to explain why the Torah ...
1. ... specifically mentions the Yoseres and the Sh'tei K'layos by the Par Kohen Mashi'ach, but not by the Par He'elam Davar shel Tzibur?
2. ... refers to the Paroches ha'Kodesh in the Parshah of the Par Kohen Mashi'ach, but not in the Parshah of the Par He'elam Davar shel Tzibur?
3)
(a)Rav Papa confined the D'rashah of "la'Par", 'Lerabos Par Yom ha'Kipurim' to 'es', 'be'Dam' and 'Tevilah'. According to Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael however - it comes to include everything in the Parshah.
(b)When Rav Huna bar Nasan queried Rav Papa from there, he replied that - that is the opinion of Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael, but that he holds like Tana de'bei Rebbi, as we explained above.
(c)Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael gives a Mashal to explain why the Torah ...
1. ... specifically mentions the Yoseres and the Sh'tei K'layos by the Par Kohen Mashi'ach but not by the Par He'elam Davar shel Tzibur - to a king who became angry with his close friend, and whose sin he subsequently minimizes because of their special relationship (so it is with a Tzibur, with whom Hash-m is particularly close).
2. ... refers to the Paroches ha'Kodesh in the Parshah of the Par Kohen Mashi'ach, but not in the Parshah of the Par He'elam Davar shel Tzibur - because on the other hand, when the majority of the king's subjects rebel against him, his relationship with them is broken; so too, here, when the Tzibur sin, the Kedushah is no longer intact.
4)
(a)Rebbi Meir learns in a Mishnah in Menachos Pigeil be'Kometz ve'Lo bi'Levonah ... Pigul ve'Chayavin alav Kareis. What do the Rabbanan say?
(b)Resh Lakish maintains that Rebbi Meir's reason is not because he holds Mefaglin be'Chatzi Matir. Then what is it?
(c)He learns this from our Mishnah Lefichach Im Nasan Kulan ke'Tiknan ve'Achas she'Lo ke'Tiknah, Pasul ve'Ein bo Kareis. What does Resh Lakish extrapolate from there? Why can the author not be the Chachamim?
(d)So what does this prove?
4)
(a)Rebbi Meir learns in a Mishnah in Menachos Pigeil be'Kometz ve'Lo bi'Levonah ... Pigul ve'Chayavin alav Kareis. The Rabbanan rule Ein bo Kareis ad she'Yefagel be'Chol ha'Matir.
(b)Resh Lakish maintains that Rebbi Meir's reason is not because he holds Mefaglin be'Chatzi Matir, but because he holds that - a person's S'tam Machshavah generally follows on from his first Machshavah, and the Beraisa is speaking when his first Machshavah was Pigul, and the second one, Stam.
(c)He learns it from our Mishnah Lefichach Im Nasan Kulan ke'Tiknan ve'Achas she'Lo ke'Tiknah, Pasul ve'Ein bo Kareis, from which he extrapolates that - the other way round Achas she'Lo ke'Tiknah, ve'Chulan ke'Tiknan, Pigul. The author cannot be the Chachamim - who hold Ein Mefaglin be'Chatzi Matir under any circumstances.
(d)This proves that - Rebbi Meir's reason is because, in his opinion, the second Machshavah follows the first one, like Resh Lakish explained, because, if it was because he held Mefaglin be'Chatzi Matir, then it ought to be Pigul whichever way round he thought.
5)
(a)Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak establishes the author as the Rabbanan, and Kulan ke'Tiknan ... means ke'Tiknan le'Pigul. What does he mean?
(b)What is then the Chidush?
(c)We query him from the Lashon Kulan ke'Tiknan ve'Achas she'Lo ke'Tiknan. What is the Kashya? What should the Tana otherwise have said?
(d)How does Rava explain she'Lo ke'Tiknan to corroborate Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak's explanation? What is then the Chidush?
5)
(a)Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak establishes the author as the Rabbanan, and Kulan ke'Tiknan ... , means ke'Tiknan le'Pigul, meaning that - the first Matanos were performed with a Machsheves Pigul, and the last one S'tam.
(b)And the Chidush is that - the second Machshavah does not necessarily follow the first one (to render it Pigul).
(c)We query him from the Lashon Kulan ke'Tiknan ve'Achas she'Lo ke'Tiknan - which implies that the first Matanah alone renders the Korban Kasher. Otherwise, the Tana would have said Kulan ke'Tiknah Chutz me'Achas, or ve'Achas bi'Shesikah.
(d)To corroborate Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak's explanation, Rava therefore explains she'Lo ke'Tiknan to mean - with a Machshaves Chutz li'Mekomo, and the Chidush is that a Machsheves Chutz li'Mekomo by the last Matanah of a Chatas Penimi negates the Machsheves Chutz li'Zemano of the first Matanos.
6)
(a)Rav Ashi establishes she'Lo ke'Tiknan to mean she'Lo li'Shemo. What can we extrapolate from the Mishnah, according to both Rava and Rav Ashi?
(b)Why can the author then not be the Rabbanan?
6)
(a)Rav Ashi establishes she'Lo ke'Tiknan to mean she'Lo li'Shemo. Either way, we can now extrapolate from the Mishnah that - if The Kohen performs the last Matanah of the Chatas P'nimi ke'Tiknan, the Korban will be Pigul ...
(b)... in which case the author cannot be the Rabbanan - who hold Ein Mefaglin be'Chatzi Matir.
7)
(a)To establish the Mishnah like the Rabbanan, we answer Aydi de'Tana Reisha Pigul ve'Chayavin alav Kareis, Tana Nami Seifa ve'Ein bo Kareis. What do we mean by that?
(b)Then why does the Tana present the Seifa by she'Lo ke'Tiknan?
(c)And why did the Tana need to learn Chutz li'Mekomo or she'Lo li'Shemah in the Reisha (by Chata'os ha'Chitzonos)?
7)
(a)To establish the Mishnah like the Rabbanan, we answer Aydi de'Tana Reisha Pigul ve'Chayavin alav Kareis ... , by which we mean that - the Tana could just as well have learned the Seifa by ke'Tiknan, and it would not be Pigul because Ein Mefaglin be'Chatzi Matir and ...
(b)... the Tana presents the Seifa by she'Lo ke'Tiknan (by Chutz li'Mekomo or she'Lo li'Shemah) merely to balance with the Reisha (by Chata'os ha'Chitzonos) ...
(c)... where he needed to learn Chutz li'Mekomo or she'Lo li'Shemah - to teach us that in spite of that, the Korban is Pigul, because the last three Matanos are not crucial to the Avodah, as we learned there.
