1) THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF BLOOD FOR "KABALAS HA'DAM"
OPINIONS: The Beraisa states that when the Kohen performs the Avodah of Kabalas ha'Dam, he must receive the blood directly from the animal. This is derived from the verse, "v'Lakach ha'Kohen ha'Mashi'ach mi'Dam ha'Par" -- "and the Kohen ha'Mashi'ach shall take from the blood of the animal" (Vayikra 4:5), which must be read as "Dam meha'Par" -- "[the Kohen ha'Mashi'ach shall take] the blood from the animal," and not from any other surface onto which it might fall. It is necessary to read the words "mi'Dam ha'Par" as "Dam meha'Par," because the words "mi'Dam ha'Par" imply that the Kohen may take a portion of the blood and does not need to take all of the blood, but the Halachah is, as Rav states, that he must take all of the blood. Hence, the words "mi'Dam ha'Par" must mean that he is to take the blood directly from the animal, "Dam meha'Par."
Rav's teaching -- that the Kohen must receive all of the blood during Kabalas ha'Dam -- is derived from the verse, "v'Es Kol Damo Yishpoch" -- "and all of the blood he will pour" (Vayikra 4:18). The word "Kol" ("all") is unnecessary, since the verse is discussing the pouring of the remainder of the blood, after the Zerikah was performed. It must be that the word "Kol" refers to another stage in the Avodah which must be done with all of the blood, and that must be the Kabalas ha'Dam.
The CHAFETZ CHAIM in LIKUTEI HALACHOS explains that the requirement to receive all of the blood of the animal when performing Kabalas ha'Dam is only l'Chatchilah. If the Kohen received less than all of the blood, the Korban is still valid b'Di'eved. This is apparent from the Gemara in Menachos (7b), which explicitly discusses receiving a minimal amount of blood during Kabalas ha'Dam. What is the minimum amount of blood required in order for the Kabalas ha'Dam to be valid?
(a) RASHI in Menachos (7b, DH b'Dam Mai) and TOSFOS there (DH v'Im Isa) imply that the minimum amount of blood necessary for Kabalas ha'Dam is the amount which is supposed to be sprinkled during the Zerikah for that particular Korban. The Gemara there asks whether or not the Kabalah is valid when the minimum amount of blood of Parim ha'Nisrafim was received in two different vessels. Rashi explains that three sprinkles of blood fell into one vessel, and four fell into the other vessel. Tosfos also mentions that the minimum amount of blood necessary for Kabalas ha'Dam is seven sprinkles of blood.
(b) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 4:8) states that in order for the Kabalah to be valid, the Kohen must receive only a single sprinkle of blood in the vessel. He does not differentiate between the different types of Korbanos.
This opinion is difficult to understand. If the Kohen receives only one sprinkle for a Korban that needs more than one sprinkle of Zerikah, then the Korban will be Pasul because the Zerikah will not be done properly! The BIRKAS HA'ZEVACH explains that the Rambam's ruling is relevant in a case in which the Kohen received a single sprinkle of blood, performed Zerikah, and then received another sprinkle of blood and performed Zerikah, and so on until he completed a proper Zerikah.
The MISHNEH L'MELECH understands the opinions of Rashi (and Tosfos) and the Rambam in the way explained above. However, the Birkas ha'Zevach learns that this explanation does not properly represent the opinion of Rashi. Rashi requires the amount of seven sprinkles only in a case of Parim ha'Nisrafim, because all seven are necessary for the Korban to be valid even b'Di'eved. With regard to other Korbanos -- which require multiple sprinkles but are valid b'Di'eved even if only one is done -- Rashi would agree that the minimum amount for Kabalah is the same as the minimum amount for Zerikah (see Rashi to Zevachim 38b, DH Shirayim). According to the Birkas ha'Zevach, the only point of dispute between Rashi and the Rambam is in a case such as Parim ha'Nisrafim in which the minimum amount of blood needed for Zerikah is more than one sprinkle. (See KEREN ORAH to Menachos 7b for additional commentary on the opinion of Rashi there.)
It is important to note that there are various texts in the Gemara in Menachos, which support both opinions. One text in the Gemara says specifically that the minimum amount is seven sprinklings, the amount of the Korbanos discussed in that Gemara. The Mishneh l'Melech points out that the Rambam had a different text which omits this number. (See Mishneh l'Melech at length for his explanation of the reasoning of the Rambam.) (Y. MONTROSE)
QUESTION: Rebbi Zeira questioned an explanation of Rebbi Chiya bar Aba, to which Rebbi Chiya bar Aba exclaimed, "Tarda!" and refuted his question. RASHI writes that the word "Tarda" means a "Shoteh Bahul," a "baffled fool." Rashi in Kerisus (18b) writes that another interpretation is "lazy one." The ARUCH (Erech Tarir) has a different Girsa, according to which the word is "Terura," which means a fool from whose mouth saliva ("Ror") constantly drips.
What does the Gemara mean when it says that Rebbi Chiya bar Aba referred to Rebbi Zeira in such a way? Certainly the holy Amora'im would not insult each other! How is this remark to be understood?
(a) The CHAVOS YA'IR (#152) explains that it was customary that when a Torah teacher noticed his student being lazy in his thinking, he would sometimes call him a derogatory name as a form of rebuke in order to ensure that the student would no longer be lazy in his thinking. Rebbi was the paragon of humility (see Sotah 49b), and yet Rebbi responded to a question posed by his student, Levi, that "it seems to me that he has no brain in his head." Rebbi said this because he saw that Levi needed to be rebuked for not fulfilling his potential in Torah study.
Similarly, in the Gemara here (and in other places where the term "Tarda" is used), the Amora who made this remark was talking to a younger Amora. The younger Amora did not mind receiving this instruction from his senior colleague.
The Chavos Ya'ir, in an earlier responsum (#65), adds that the word "Tarda" is an example of an expression which people in general do not consider offensive. (See Insights to Bava Kama 65a.)
The SEFER L'RE'ACHA KAMOCHA (vol. 3, Kuntrus ha'Bi'urim, ch. 6) adds that it is common that when two good friends are learning together, they use an interchange of words that would not be appropriate for strangers. Such an instance is recorded in Bava Metzia (83b), where the Gemara relates that Rebbi Yehoshua ben Karcha sent a message to Rebbi Eliezer ben Shimon addressing him as "Chametz ben Yayin" -- "vinegar, the son of wine." Rebbi Eliezer ben Shimon was not offended. However, when a common launderer said the same thing to him, he deemed it inappropriate and considered it grounds for punishment.
(b) The Mashgi'ach of the Mirrer Yeshiva, RAV YERUCHAM LEVOVITZ zt'l, writes in DA'AS CHOCHMAH U'MUSAR (2:10) that everything that the holy Amora'im did they did with the utmost purity and holiness. We, who do not live on such a lofty level of holiness, would be guilty of insulting and degrading our fellow man were we to call him by a derogatory name, and it indeed would be a severe transgression, for we cannot be confident that no impure motive was mixed with our words or actions. The holy Amora'im, on the other hand, spoke only with absolute purity of intention. Hence, even words that might seem to us to be words of derision were spoken -- and understood -- by the Amora'im with the "fire of Torah" burning in them, with only the purest intentions.
(c) The BEN YEHOYADA in Bava Metzia (20b) gives alternate explanations for the word "Tarda." He explains that the word is actually made up of two other words, "Tor" and "Da." "Tor" is an expression of alertness. The Gemara in Megilah (18b) describes someone in a semi-sleeping state as "Tir v'Lo Tir" ("alert and not alert"). "Da" means "this" or "here." Thus, "Tarda" means "be alert to this matter."
Alternatively, "Tor" means "carry," as in the expression "Tir Minach Sha'atach," or "your time should carry you" (see Avodah Zarah 34b; ARUCH, Erech Tor). Accordingly, "Tarda" means "carry this with you" and is not an insulting remark. (Y. MONTROSE)