12TH CYCLE DEDICATIONS
 
YOMA 27 - sponsored by Avi and Esti Turkel. May they merit to have much Nachas from their son, Yakov, and to raise him l'Torah, l'Chupah and l'Ma'asim Tovim.
 
May Hashem send a Refu'ah Shelemah to Efrayim Henoch ben Yita and Ester Malkah bas Hudya Tovah.

1) THE "AVODOS" WHICH A NON-KOHEN MAY PERFORM
QUESTION: The Gemara attempts to find the source which permits a Zar (non-Kohen) to perform the Hefshet v'Nitu'ach (skinning and cutting) of the Korban. The Gemara cites the verse, "The sons of Aharon, the Kohanim, shall arrange the body parts... upon the Mizbe'ach" (Vayikra 1:8). This verse teaches that the Kohanim must arrange the parts of the animal on the Mizbe'ach, and it implies that the procedures performed before that Avodah do not need to be done by a Kohen, but may be done by a Zar.
The Gemara asks that perhaps the verse intends to permit a Zar only to perform the "Sidur Shnei Gezirei Etzim" (placing the two strips of firewood upon the Mizbe'ach), but only a Kohen may perform the Hefshet v'Nitu'ach. The Gemara responds that it is more logical that the intention of the verse -- which discusses the arrangement of the body of the Korban itself on the Mizbe'ach -- is to permit a Zar to perform Hefshet v'Nitu'ach, which also involves the body of the Korban itself (in contrast to the Sidur Shnei Gezirei Etzim).
The Gemara rejects this argument and says that it is more logical that the verse intends to permit a Zar to perform the Sidur Shnei Gezirei Etzim. The verse discusses the arrangement of the Korban on the Mizbe'ach, and thus it is logical that it intends to permit a Zar to perform the Sidur Shnei Gezirei Etzim, which is also a form of arrangement on the Mizbe'ach.
The Gemara concludes that the verse cannot intend to permit a Zar to perform the Sidur Shnei Gezirei Etzim, because another verse (Vayikra 1:13) clearly teaches that the Sidur Shnei Gezirei Etzim requires a Kohen. (The verse teaches this through a double-inference. The verse says that the act of bringing the Evarim to the Kevesh must be done by a Kohen, which implies that bringing the wood does not need to be done by a Kohen, which in turn implies that the Sidur, or arrangement, of the wood upon the Mizbe'ach does need to be done by a Kohen.)
The Gemara returns to question whether "v'Archu" (Vayikra 1:8) teaches that a Zar may do the Hefshet v'Nitu'ach. The Gemara asks that perhaps the verse "is needed for itself" -- to teach that the act of placing the body parts on the Mizbe'ach must be done by a Kohen, and not to teach through inference that the Hefshet v'Nitu'ach may be done by a Zar. The Gemara concludes that another verse, "v'Hiktir ha'Kohen Es ha'Kol" (Vayikra 1:9), teaches that a Zar may do Hefshet v'Nitu'ach.
The Gemara's conclusion is puzzling. Why does the Gemara reject the verse "v'Archu" (Vayikra 1:8) as the source that a Zar may do Hefshet v'Nitu'ach on the basis that it is needed to teach that the placing of the body parts on the Mizbe'ach must be done by a Kohen? That law was taught already by an earlier verse, "v'Hikrivu Bnei Aharon ha'Kohanim..." (Vayikra 1:5), which -- as the Gemara explained -- teaches that everything after the Kabalas ha'Dam must be done by Kohanim!
ANSWERS: The Rishonim apparently did not have the words, "v'Eima... l'Gufei," in their text of the Gemara. (This is also the emendation made by the VILNA GA'ON here in Hagahos ha'Gra #1.) According to this text, the Gemara never asks the question that the verse "v'Archu" is "needed for itself." What, though, is the correct text of the Gemara? There are different opinions among the Rishonim:
(a) The TOSFOS YESHANIM omits all of the words from "v'Eima Hachi Nami" until "v'Archu Shenayim." He explains that the Gemara asks no question at all on the source of "v'Archu," and it indeed concludes that the verse "v'Archu" teaches that a Zar may perform the Hefshet v'Nitu'ach. Rather, the Gemara goes on to teach another Derashah (that the sheep offered as the Korban Tamid is offered by six Kohanim). The Tosfos Yeshanim says that this was also the Girsa of Rashi.
He asks, however, that the Gemara seems to derive two laws from the word "v'Archu." First, the Gemara derives from "v'Archu" that a Zar may perform the Hefshet v'Nitu'ach. Second, when the Gemara counts the number of Kohanim alluded to in the verse who are needed to perform the Avodah of the Tamid, it uses the word "v'Archu" to refer to two Kohanim (so that it arrives at a total of six). How can the same word be used to teach two different laws?
The RITVA answers this question. He explains that since the rest of the verse teaches the number of Kohanim needed for the Avodah of the Tamid (when it says, "Bnei Aharon ha'Kohanim," in the plural form), it is logical that any word in the verse which has a numerical implication (such as "v'Archu," in the plural form) is meant to teach the number of Kohanim, even though the word is used already to teach something else. (The total number of Kohanim is derived from the simple implication of the words and does not interfere with the exegetical elucidation of the verse.)
(b) According to the Girsa of RABEINU CHANANEL, the Gemara does not make a double-inference from "v'Hikriv" (Vayikra 1:13) to teach that a Zar may not arrange the Etzim on the Mizbe'ach. Rather, the only source that teaches that a Zar may not arrange the Etzim is the absence of any verse that permits it.
Accordingly, the Gemara leaves its question on the Derashah of "v'Archu" unanswered (that perhaps the Hefshet v'Nitu'ach must be done by a Kohen, and it is the Sidur Shnei Gezirei Etzim which may be done by a Zar). The Gemara instead explains that the source that a Zar may perform the Hefshet v'Nitu'ach is "v'Hiktir" (Vayikra 1:9), which does not refer at all to the Gezirei Etzim. The source that a Zar may not perform the Sidur Shnei Gezirei Etzim is the absence of any verse that permits it.
In summary, "v'Archu" teaches the number of Kohanim who offer the Tamid, "v'Hikriv" permits a Zar only to bring the wood to the Mizbe'ach (but not to arrange it there), and "v'Hiktir" permits a Zar to perform Hefshet v'Nitu'ach.
(c) According to the Girsa of the VILNA GA'ON, the Gemara asks that if "v'Archu" teaches that a Zar may perform the Hefshet v'Nitu'ach, then the word "v'Hiktir" teaches nothing and is unnecessary. It must be that "v'Hiktir" teaches that a Zar may perform the Hefshet v'Nitu'ach, and "v'Archu" teaches only the number of Kohanim needed for the Avodah of the Tamid.
In summary, there are three answers for why the Gemara rejects the Derashah of "v'Archu." According to Rashi, the Gemara does not reject it, and two different laws are derived from "v'Archu." According to Rabeinu Chananel, the Gemara rejects the Derashah based on the argument that "v'Archu" teaches instead that a Zar may perform the Sidur Shnei Gezirei Etzim. The Vilna Ga'on says that the Gemara rejects the Derashah of "v'Archu" only because there is an extra verse of "v'Hiktir."

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF