1) THE CASE OF "KODE'ACH MI'TOCHO"
OPINIONS: The Gemara quotes Rebbi Yosi who says that when the Kiyor does not contain enough water to be Mekadesh Yadayim v'Raglayim for four Kohanim, it may not be used for Kidush Yadayim v'Raglayim. (See ZEVACH TODAH for what constitutes enough water to be Mekadesh Yadayim v'Raglayim for four Kohanim.) The Gemara questions this ruling from a Beraisa which states that any Kli may be used for Kidush Yadayim v'Raglayim, even one that does not contain a Revi'is, as long as the Kli is a Kli Shares. Rav Ada bar Ahavah answers that Rebbi Yosi's ruling applies to a case of "Kode'ach mi'Tocho." What is Rav Ada's answer?
(a) RASHI (DH b'Kode'ach) explains that "Kode'ach mi'Tocho" refers to one who chisels a hole into the side of the Kiyor and places a small vessel in the hole, from which he draws water through the Kiyor into the vessel to do Kidush Yadayim v'Raglayim. In this case, the Beraisa says that one may use a small Kli for Kidush Yadayim v'Raglayim.
The SHITAH MEKUBETZES questions Rashi's explanation. Using such a vessel for Kidush Yadayim v'Raglayim is exactly the same as using the Kiyor itself. If this is the intention of Rav Ada, then the Gemara's question on his answer does not make sense. The Gemara asks that the verse, "Mimenu" -- "from it" (Shemos 40:31), teaches that one may not do Kidush Yadayim v'Raglayim from anything other the Kiyor. Using a vessel inside of a hole in the Kiyor, however, is exactly like using the Kiyor!
(b) TOSFOS (DH Kode'ach) explains that "Kode'ach" merely means that the Kohen scoops some water from the Kiyor into a smaller Kli Shares.
The YAD BINYAMIN quotes the CHEIL HA'MIKDASH who explains that the argument between Rashi and Tosfos is based on their respective ways of understanding the Halachah that there must be enough water in the Kiyor to do Kidush Yadayim for four Kohanim. Does the Halachah require that Kidush Yadayim v'Raglayim be from a Kli which contains enough water for four Kohanim, or does the Halachah require that the water must have once been in a Kli which contained enough water for four Kohanim? Rashi understands that the Kli must contain water for four Kohanim, and thus he understands that the Gemara refers to a small Kli attached to the Kiyor. Tosfos understands that the water must have once been in a Kli which contained enough water for four Kohanim, and therefore he learns that the Gemara refers to water taken from the Kiyor and placed into a smaller Kli.
The Zevach Todah has difficulty with the explanations of both Rashi and Tosfos. When the Kohen performs Kidush Yadayim v'Raglayim, he must wash both of his hands and his feet. In order for the Kidush Yadayim v'Raglayim to be valid, he certainly needs a Revi'is of water! The Zevach Todah answers that, of course, more water was needed to complete the Kidush Yadayim v'Raglayim. The Beraisa is merely saying that the water in this Kli may be used as part of the water for the Kidush Yadayim. (Y. MONTROSE)
2) ONE WHO IS "TAMEI MES" WHO SENDS HIS KORBANOS TO THE BEIS HA'MIKDASH
OPINIONS: The Mishnah (15b) teaches that when a Kohen who is Tamei is Mekabel the blood of a Korban, the Avodah is Pasul. The Gemara quotes the Ziknei Darom who explain that this refers only to a Kohen who is Tamei with Tum'as Sheretz. If, however, a Kohen touched a corpse and became Tamei with Tum'as Mes, b'Di'eved his Avodah is valid. Since a public Korban may be brought in a state of Tum'ah when most of the people are Tamei with Tum'as Mes, even a private Korban does not become Pasul when the Avodah is done by a Kohen who is Tamei Mes.
The reason why the Ziknei Darom maintain that when the Kohen is Tamei with Tum'as Sheretz the Avodah is not valid b'Di'eved is that they compare the Kohen to the owner of the Korban who receives atonement. Just as the owner may bring his Korban when he is Tamei only when he is Tamei with Tum'as Mes but not when he is Tamei with Tum'as Sheretz, the Avodah of the Kohen is valid only when the Kohen is Tamei with Tum'as Mes and not with Tum'as Sheretz.
Reish Lakish disagrees with the Ziknei Darom. He says that the owner of a Korban has the ability to send his Korban to the Beis ha'Mikdash when he is Tamei with Tum'as Sheretz. However, the law is that a Kohen cannot perform the Avodah when he is Tamei with Tum'as Sheretz. Accordingly, the Tum'ah of the owner of a Korban is easier to circumvent than the Tum'ah a Kohen. Accordingly, since an ordinary person cannot have a Korban brought for him under normal circumstances when he is Tamei with Tum'as Mes, a Kohen who performs the Avodah when he is Tamei with Tum'as Mes should invalidate the Avodah, just as he does when he is Tamei with Tum'as Sheretz!
The Gemara concludes that the Ziknei Darom maintain that when one is Tamei with Tum'as Mes, he is permitted to send Korbanos to the Beis ha'Mikdash according to the letter of the law.
The Gemara proceeds to ask numerous questions on this opinion of the Ziknei Darom. The questions center around the Korban Pesach and Pesach Sheni. Apparently, the Torah instituted Pesach Sheni for the people who were Tamei on Pesach and who could not bring their Korbanos to the Beis ha'Mikdash then. According to the Ziknei Darom, why were the Tamei people unable to send their Korbanos on Pesach despite the fact that they were Tamei? The Gemara answers that there is a Mitzvah that those who send their Korban Pesach should not be Tamei Mes, even though the letter of the law is that they could send their Korban anyway.
Does the argument between Reish Lakish and the Ziknei Darom apply only to the Korban Pesach or to all other Korbanos as well?
(a) RASHI throughout the Gemara (see, for example, DH Tamei Mes Nami) implies that the questions asked on the Ziknei Darom involve only Korban Pesach, and that the question is relevant only to whether or not a Tamei Mes may send his Korban Pesach to the Beis ha'Mikdash. The question does not apply to other Korbanos.
(b) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Bi'as ha'Mikdash 2:12) writes that one who is Tamei with Tum'as Mes cannot send any of his Korbanos to the Beis ha'Mikdash until he becomes Tahor. The KESEF MISHNEH explains that the Rambam reaches this conclusion because he rules like Reish Lakish in the Gemara here, and not like the Ziknei Darom.
The Acharonim grapple the opinion of the Rambam. Not only does the Gemara not mention that this dispute applies to other Korbanos, but the Beraisa in Pesachim (62a) says explicitly that one who is Tamei may send his Korbanos to the Beis ha'Mikdash. Why does the Rambam rule that one who is Tamei may not send his Korbanos to the Beis ha'Mikdash?
1. The MINCHAS BARUCH (23:2) cites the Gemara in Moed Katan (15b) which implies that a Tamei Mes may not send his Korbanos to the Beis ha'Mikdash. Accordingly, the Rambam is ruling in like the Gemara in Moed Katan, and not like the Beraisa in Pesachim. The YAD BINYAMIN also gives this answer. These Acharonim apparently disagree with the Kesef Mishneh regarding the Rambam's source for this ruling.
2. The Minchas Baruch (22:2) answers further that the Rambam rules in accordance with the view of Rebbi Yitzchak in Pesachim (90b). Rebbi Yitzchak understands that when the verses mention people who were Tamei Mes and could not bring their Korban Pesach, it refers to people who were about to become Tahor on the night of Pesach, when the Korban Pesach is eaten. Although they technically would have been able to eat the Pesach b'Taharah on Pesach night, they were not allowed to send their Korban Pesach on Erev Pesach when they were Tamei. Rebbi Yitzchak does not agree with the logic of the Gemara here, that a Tamei Mes is forbidden only from sending a Korban Pesach since he will not be able to eat the Korban that he sends. Other Korbanos, in contrast, do not have to be eaten, and thus a Tamei Mes may send them to the Beis ha'Mikdash. Since Rebbi Yitzchak maintains that even when one is able to eat the Korban Pesach he may not send his Korban Pesach to the Beis ha'Mikdash, it must be that he understands that a Tamei Mes may never send any Korban, because the sending is prohibited by the Torah, not the fact that he cannot eat the Korban b'Taharah. (Y. MONTROSE)