8) click for question
(a) Rav Yosef solves the problem of whether to preclude Chata'os Penimiyos or Chatas ha'Of from the Din of Kibus, by referring to the word "Yochlenah" (in the previous Pasuk) - which teaches us to preclude from "Zos", something that is eaten, like Chata'os Chitzoniyos (and birds are eaten, whereas Chata'os Penimiyos are not).
(b) We nevertheless need "Zos" - because otherwise we would have presumed "Yochlenah" to be a natural expression (from which nothing can be learned).
(c) When Rabah says " Yizeh mi'Damah", 'be'Niza'os ha'Kasuv Medaber", he means that the Torah is talking (not about Chata'os Chitzonos, as we assumed until now, but) - about Chata'os Penimiyos, because that is where it mentions 'Haza'ah' specifically ...
(d) ... and we learn Haza'ah by the Chata'os Chitzoniyos - from "Zos Toras ha'Chatas" (in Parshas Tzav).
9) click for question
(a) Rabah will explain ...
1. ... 'Af-al-Pi she'Ein ha'Kasuv Medaber Ela be'Ne'echalos' in our Mishnah - with regard to 'Merikah and Shetifah' (which we have yet to discuss), but not with regard to 'Kibus'.
2. ... the Mishnah 'Echad ha'Ne'echalos ve'Echad ha'Penimiyos', as if the Tana was learning the latter from the former, instead of vice-versa - by actually inverting the two, to now read 'Echad ha'Penimiyos ve'Echad ha'Ne'echalos'.
(b) Here again, we prefer to include Chata'os Chitzoniyos and preclude Ofos, because the former are similar to Chata'os Penimiyos in more ways than the latter are. The only similarity between Ofos and Chata'os Penimiyos (that does not exist by Chata'os Chitzoniyus) is - that they are both sprinkled in the way.
10) click for question
(a) Rebbi Avin asks what the Din will be if the Kohen took a Chatas ha'Of inside the Heichal with the blood on its neck. If he did the same thing with a Chatas Beheimah - the animal would be Kasher, since he did not take it there in a K'li Shareis ...
(b) ... and the reason that he asks the She'eilah by Chatas ha'Of is - because birds do not require a K'li Shareis ...
(c) ... and the two sides of Rebbi Avin's She'eilah are - whether the animal's neck takes the place of a K'li Shareis (in which case, it will be Pasul), or whether it will be Kasher, since the Torah writes "mi'Damah", from which we Darshen 've'Lo Besarah' (not if he took it inside together with its flesh).
(d) We try to resolve the She'eilah from the Beraisa (in connection with a Chatas ha'Of) 'Pirch'sah Ve'nichn'sah li'Fenim ve'Chazrah, Kesheirah', from which we extrapolate - 'Ha Hichnisah, Pesulah'.
11) click for question
(a) We counter this proof from a similar Beraisa which rules (in connection with Kodshei Kodshim) 'Pirch'sah ve'Yatz'ah le'Darom ve'Chazrah, Kesheirah'. The problem with making the same inference there is - that there is no mark delineating the northern and southern sections of the Azarah, so how can an animal possibly become Pasul, even if it is taken there?
(b) If not for the inference, the Tana would have inserted the case of 'Yatz'ah le'Darom' - to balance the case of 'Yatz'ah ba'Chutz, Pasul ... ', which is a Chidush in itself.
(c) Similarly, the Tana inserts the case of 'Nichn'sah li'Fenim, to balance that of 'Yatzesah la'Chutz, Pesulah' (and not because of the inference).
(d) Despite the fact that in the cases of 'Nichn'sah b'Fenim' and 'Yatz'ah le'Darom', 'Ve'chazrah' is superfluous, the Tana nevertheless mentions it - because in both cases of 'Yatz'ah ba'Chutz ... Pesulah', where it is a Chidush.
12) click for question
(a) Rebbi Avin also asked whether blood that spilled from the bird's neck on to the floor of the Azarah, and the Kohen gathered it, is Kasher for Haza'ah or not. In the equivalent case, if blood spilled on the floor from the neck of a Chatas Beheimah - it would be Pasul (because it spilled before being received in a K'li Shareis).
(b) And the basis of Rebbi Avin's She'eilah is - whether, since the Torah did not prescribe a K'li Shareis for the blood of a bird, its neck takes the place of a K'li Shareis. If it does, then it will be Kasher.
(c) On the other hand, it might be Pasul there too - because maybe the Torah deliberately disqualifies a K'li Shareis by the blood of a bird, and if a K'li Shareis renders the blood Pasul, how much more so the floor.
13) click for question
(a) We already discussed the Beraisa regarding Dam Chatas ha'Of. The Tana learns from "Zos" - that the blood of Chatas ha'Of does not require Kibus.
(b) Rava tries to resolve the current She'eilah from there - because if the blood from the floor is Pasul, then it will also be Pasul from the moment it enters the air-space of the garment on which it is squirting (and why do we then need "Zos" to render it Pasul).
(c) To refute the proof, Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua establishes the Beraisa - where the Kohen is actually holding the bird right next to the garment (so that there is no air in between them.
14) click for question
(a) Levi asked Rebbi whether, if the blood of a Korban Beheimah bounces off one garment on to another, the second garment requires Kibus or not. The She'eilah is - whether it is perhaps worse than the blood of a bird which spilt from the K'li on to the floor, where it is at least fit to pick up and perform Haza'ah with it, whereas here, having already been Chayav Kibus, when it squirted on to the first garment, it is no longer eligible for Haza'ah.
(b) Rebbi replied - that 'Mah Nafshach', it requires Kibus. If it is still eligible (which Levi took for granted it is not), then it certainly requires Kibus; but even if it is not ('Osfo u'Pasul'), he rules 'Ta'un Kibus ...
(c) ... because he follows the opinion of Rebbi Ya'akov, who holds that even if the blood is Pasul, it still requires Kibus, as long as it had a Sha'as ha'Kosher.
(d) We did indeed learn in our Mishnah that the garment does not require Kibus, even if had a Sha'as ha'Kosher - but that was the opinion of the Rabbanan, who argue with Rebbi Ya'akov (as we shall soon see).
Index to Review Questions and Answers
for Maseches Zevachim
Homepage for Maseches Zevachim