4) click for question
(a) The Beraisa explains that the Tzitz cannot come to atone for the sin of Pigul, because the Torah writes there "Lo Yeratzeh", or for the sin of Nosar, where it writes "Lo Yechashev". When the Tana refers to ...
1. ... 'Pigul' in this context - he means a Machsheves Chutz li'Mekomo'.
2. ... 'Nosar' - he means a Machsheves Chutz li'Zemano.
(b) The problem with our text, which pairs 'Pigul' with "Lo Yechashev", and Nosar with "Lo Yeratzeh" is - that seeing as elsewhere, we establish the Pasuk of "Lo Yechashev" by Pigul ('Chutz li'Zemano'), Nosar in connection with "Lo Yeratzeh" must mean literally Nosar (and not a Machsheves Pigul), in which case, there would be no reason to invalidate the rest of the Korban.
(c) The Tana therefore concludes that the Tzitz must come to atone for the sin of Tum'ah which possesses the leniency that it is permitted be'Tzibur. Initially, we reject the suggestion that the Tana is speaking about Tum'as Sheretz - because (seeing as a Yachid is not Nidcheh) it does not possess a Heter be'Tzibur.
(d) So it must be speaking about Tum'as Meis. Seeing as it does not pertain to where the owner was a Nazir, because he is obligated to begin his Nezirus all over again (and has therefore no justification to bring his final Korbanos), it must therefore pertain to - a Tamei who sent his Korban Pesach to the Beis-Hamikdash ...
(e) ... a Kashya on Rami bar Chama.
5) click for question
(a) So we conclude that the Beraisa must be speaking by a Tamei Sheretz after all, and we reconcile this with the statement 'she'Hutrah mi'Chelalah be'Tzibur' - with 'Shem Tum'ah ba'Olam' (i.e. what the Beraisa means is that we establish Ritzuy Tzitz by Tum'ah (of a Sheretz), because Tumah (albeit of a Meis) is permitted be'Tzibur.
(b) In the second Lashon, we ask from the inference ' "Avon ha'Kodshim" In, Avon ha'Makdishim, Lo'! - by which we mean that we follow through the same arguments as we did in the first Lashon, arriving at the initial conclusion that the Tzitz must atone for the sin of Tum'as Kodshim of a Korban Pesach, but not if the owner became Tamei, because 'Tamei Meis Eino Meshale'ach Korbenosav', a Kashya on the Ziknei Darom.
(c) And we answer like we did in the first Lashon, that the Tana is speaking about Tum'as Sheretz, and with reference to 'Shem Tum'ah'.
6) click for question
(a) Rav Nachman learns from the Pasuk in Parshas "La'amod Leshareis" - that a Kohen is obligated to perform the Avodah standing.
(b) The Beraisa quotes this Pasuk, too. And from the Pasuk "ha'Omdim Sham", the Tana learns - that he also desecrates the Avodah.
(c) The Beraisa rules that a Kohen 'Areil, Tamei, Yoshev and Onan' who performs the Avodah' - are all subject to Malkos, but not to Misah.
(d) Based on his assumption that Yoshev is considered a Zar, Rava asks - why a Kohen who serves sitting should not be Chayav Misah too (like a Zar).
7) click for question
(a) Rav Nachman answered Rava by citing the Halachah by a Mechusar Begadim and a Lo Rachutz Yadayim ve'Raglayim - both of whom the Torah sentences to Misah ...
(b) ... thereby answering Rava's Kashya, in that we now apply the principle 'Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'Echad Ein Melamdin'' (when the Torah issues the same ruling in two places, we cannot extend it to any other cases).
(c) We might need to add a Kohen who drunk wine - to fall in line with those who say that 'Sh'nei Kesuvim ... Melamdin', but who agree that 'Sheloshah Kesuvim ... Ein Melamdin'.
(d) We have two problems (which remain unsolved) with this Sugya however. Seeing as we consider Yoshev a Zar ...
1. ... we ought not to need to learn the Chiyuv Misah from Mechusar Begadim and a Lo Rachutz Yadayim ve'Raglayim - seeing as the Torah writes it explicitly by a Zar (which is in fact, the source of Chiyuv Misah by a Mechusar Begadim).
2. ... he ought not to desecrate the Avodah either - because in that regard too, there are a number of Pesukim (just like there are by the Chiyuv Misah [see Tosfos DH 'Eima']).
Index to Review Questions and Answers
for Maseches Zevachim
Homepage for Maseches Zevachim