brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim
daf@dafyomi.co.il
http://www.dafyomi.co.il
 Previous |
 Next |
 Ask the Kollel |
1) RAV PAPA'S OPINION
QUESTION: The Torah states that clothing onto which the blood of a Chatas splashed must be washed in the Azarah (see Vayikra 6:20 and RASHI there, DH v'Asher Yazeh). However, the Mishnah later (93a) teaches that if blood sprayed from the neck of a slaughtered Korban onto clothing, the clothing does not need to be washed. Similarly, if the blood that splashed onto the clothing came from the "Keren or Yesod (of the Mizbe'ach)," the clothing does not need to be washed.
The Gemara here (38b) quotes Rav Papa who explains that this Mishnah implies that if the blood is not from the Keren, but rather is fit for the Keren -- that is, it is blood from any of the last three Zerikos of a Chatas (which, if not performed, do not invalidate the Korban) -- the clothing requires washing.
The Gemara questions the statement of Rav Papa. The same Mishnah says that if the blood is from the Yesod, the clothing does not need to be washed. Does this mean that if the blood is "appropriate for the Yesod," a reference to the leftover blood that is poured on the Yesod, the clothing must be washed? Leftover blood that spills on clothing should not necessitate the washing of the clothing.
Rav Papa answers that the Tana of that Mishnah is Rebbi Nechemyah, who maintains that one who pours leftover blood outside the Beis ha'Mikdash is liable for performing Avodah outside the Beis ha'Mikdash.
The Gemara asks that just because Rebbi Nechemyah maintains that one is liable for pouring leftover blood outside the Beis ha'Mikdash does not mean that he also maintains that clothing onto which the leftover blood spilled must be washed.
Rav Papa answers that Rebbi Nechemyah does require the clothing to be washed if this blood spilled on it. He cites a Beraisa, which he suggests was authored by Rebbi Nechemyah, which indeed says that clothing onto which the leftover blood spilled must be washed.
The Gemara then quotes a contradictory Beraisa. The Gemara explains that this Beraisa refers to the last three Zerikos of a Korban Chatas. The Gemara seems to be defending the view of Rav Papa with this answer. Accordingly, is it correct to assume that the Gemara concludes in accordance with Rav Papa's statements?
ANSWERS:
(a) RASHI (DH b'Shalosh) says that this answer (that the Beraisa refers to the last three Zerikos of a Korban Chatas) is essentially part of the Gemara's question on Rav Papa. In other words, the Gemara remains with its original question, that just because Rebbi Nechemyah maintains that one is liable for pouring leftover blood outside the Beis ha'Mikdash does not mean that he also maintains that clothing onto which the leftover blood spilled must be washed. Accordingly, when the Gemara says that the second Beraisa refers to the last three Zerikos, it means that when the first Beraisa mentions "the blood that is appropriate for the Yesod," it refers to the last three Zerikos. This means that the Gemara's conclusion is that Rebbi Nechemyah maintains that the leftover blood does not require that the clothing be washed. Therefore, Rav Papa's proof from the Mishnah later (93b) is incorrect, but his ruling that blood from the last three Zerikos of a Korban Chatas require that the clothing be washed indeed is correct.
(b) The KEREN ORAH presents, at great length, another way to understand the Gemara. He explains (and asserts that this is the opinion of TOSFOS DH Ha Mani) that the Gemara concludes that Rav Papa's statements are entirely correct. His ruling is correct, and his proof from the Mishnah later (93b) is correct. Rebbi Nechemyah indeed maintains that the leftover blood requires clothing to be washed. (See Keren Orah at length.) (Mordechai Zvi Dicker, Y. Montrose)
2) THE SUGGESTION THAT THE VERSE INCLUDES THE "CHATAS" OF ROSH CHODESH
The Beraisa (39a) adds that one might have thought that these words ("la'Par") refer to the Chata'os of the Regalim and of Roshei Chadashim. The Beraisa says that it is logical that they refer to Korbanos that are clearly brought for sins, and not to Korbanos that are not brought for sins.
TOSFOS (DH u'Se'irei) asks why the Gemara entertains the possibility that the verse includes the Chatas of Rosh Chodesh. The Chatas of Rosh Chodesh is eaten, as indicated by the fact that Moshe Rabeinu was upset at the sons of Aharon for burning the Chatas of Rosh Chodesh (Vayikra 10:16). The Chata'os listed in the Beraisa, however, are not eaten but burned! (Since they are so different in such a significant way, it seems clear that the verse would not include them in place of other Chata'os which are burned.)
ANSWERS:
(b) The SHITAH MEKUBETZES also suggests this answer, but he has difficulty with it. He suggests instead that the Gemara does not really mean to suggest that the verse includes the Chatas of Rosh Chodesh, but it means to suggest only that the verse includes the Chata'os of the Regalim. Since Rosh Chodesh and the Regalim are always mentioned together, the Gemara mentions Rosh Chodesh here as well.
However, the Shitah Mekubetzes quotes RABEINU NESANEL who has a problem with the suggestion that the verse includes the Chata'os of the Regalim as well. Since the Chatas (Par) of Yom Kippur is included, and the verse "Achas ba'Shanah" (Vayikra 16:34) teaches that a type of Korban like that of Yom Kippur is brought only once a year, how can the Gemara suggest that the Korbanos of the Regalim should also be brought on the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi?
(c) RABEINU NESANEL therefore answers that the Gemara does not mean to suggest that the Chatas of Rosh Chodesh has all of the same laws as the Par He'elem Davar. Rather, it merely raises the possibility that all four Zerikos of its blood must be done or the Korban will be invalid. In this respect it is similar to the Par He'elem Davar, for which all of the Zerikos must be done or the Korban will be invalid.
However, the Shitah Mekubetzes asks that this answer is also difficult. If it is true that the Chata'os of Rosh Chodesh and the Regalim are not brought on the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi, then why does the Gemara say that the verse should include the other Chata'os because they are clearly brought for sins? It should give the more basic difference -- that the other Chata'os are Penimiyos, while the Chata'os of Rosh Chodesh and the Regalim are brought on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon! It must be that the Gemara means to say that the Chata'os of Rosh Chodesh and the Regalim should also be Penimiyos.
(d) The Shitah Mekubetzes returns to his original answer (in (b) above). He answers Rabeinu Nesanel's challenge to his answer by saying that when the verse implies that a Korban like that of Yom Kippur is brought only once a year, it does not exclude other Korbanos from being brought on the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi. It means only that this Korban of Yom Kippur serves for only one type of atonement, and not for two types of atonement. This explanation of "Achas ba'Shanah" is indeed mentioned by the Gemara in Shevuos (10a-b). (Mordechai Zvi Dicker, Y. Montrose)
QUESTION: The Torah states regarding the Par He'elem Davar, "v'Asah la'Par Ka'asher Asah l'Far ha'Chatas" -- "And he shall do with the bull as he did with the bull of the Chatas" (Vayikra 4:20). The Beraisa (39a) states that the first word "la'Par" includes the Par Yom ha'Kipurim, and the second "l'Far" includes the Par Kohen Mashi'ach. The word "ha'Chatas" includes a Chatas brought by the people for a communal transgression of the sin of idolatry. The verse teaches that all of their Zerikos must be done in order for the Korban to be valid.
(a) TOSFOS answers that the Gemara's question is actually why Moshe Rabeinu did not derive from this verse that the Chatas of Rosh Chodesh has the same law in all respects as the Chata'os that are burned (such as the Par He'elem Davar).
for Maseches Zevachim
