1) THE BLOOD OF AN "OLAH" AND OF A "BECHOR" THAT BECAME MIXED
QUESTION: The Gemara records a dispute about whether or not the place on the Mizbe'ach where the blood of the Korban Olah is placed is the same place where the leftover blood ("Shirayim") is placed. Rav Huna bar Yehudah quotes a Beraisa to support the view that it is the same place. The Torah says, "Kodesh Hem" -- "they (the various types of Bechor) are holy" (Bamidbar 18:17). The Beraisa explains that the verse teaches that even if the blood of a Bechor was mixed with blood of other Korbanos, it still should be offered. Rav Huna says that the Beraisa must be referring to a case in which the leftover blood of an Olah was mixed with that of a Bechor, and the verse is teaching that the Kohen still should perform the Zerikah. The primary Zerikah of the blood of a Bechor is performed in the same place as the primary Zerikah of an Olah. The Beraisa's statement proves that the original Zerikah of a Korban Olah itself also may be sprinkled in the same place as the leftover blood is placed. The Gemara answers that in the case of the Beraisa, the original Zerikah-bloods from an Olah and a Bechor become mixed, and thus there is no way to infer from there whether the place on which the primary Zerikah is performed is the same as the place where the leftover blood is placed.
The Gemara asks, what is the verse teaching? Since it is known that the place of the sprinkling of the blood of an Olah and of a Bechor is the same, it is obvious that the bloods of each type of Korban should be sprinkled in the same place. The Gemara answers that the verse teaches that the blood of Korbanos do not cancel each other's status when mixed.
TOSFOS (DH Mai) has difficulty with the Gemara's question. What does the Gemara mean when it says that the verse is teaching nothing novel if it is teaching merely that a mixture of blood of an Olah and of a Bechor is sprinkled? There is a dispute in the Mishnah here about whether there are issues of Bal Tosif and Bal Tigra with the Zerikah of a mixture of blood in a case in which one of the Korbanos requires four Zerikos (Olah) and one requires only one (Bechor). The verse is needed in order to teach that the blood may be sprinkled!
ANSWERS:
(a) TOSFOS answers that because the extra Zerikos are supposed to be performed with intent that one is merely placing water on the Mizbe'ach if the Zerikos are not necessary, there is no issue of Bal Tosif (see Tosfos to 77b, DH b'Dam, and 79b, DH b'Mai). There is also no issue of Bal Tigra, since the Kohen is doing the minimum Zerikah in order to fulfill the obligation of the Korban. Since it is known from logic that there is no problem of Bal Tosif or Bal Tigra, no verse is needed to teach that the mixed blood may be sprinkled.
The TZON KODASHIM questions the explanation of Tosfos. Rebbi Eliezer, who says in the Mishnah that one should perform four Zerikos and is not concerned about Bal Tosif, obviously maintains that the extra Zerikos are considered like water if the Zerikos are not necessary. Nevertheless, Rebbi Yehoshua still argues with this logic and says that one should perform only one Zerikah. Since this logic is not unanimously accepted, clearly a verse is needed to teach this concept. Why, then, does the Gemara assume that the verse expresses no novel teaching? (See KEREN ORAH, who also has difficulty with the explanation of Tosfos.)
(b) The SHITAH MEKUBETZES answers in the name of TOSFOS RABEINU PERETZ that the Gemara understands that the verse is not relevant to the argument between Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua, since it was not quoted in the Mishnah. It must be that no Halachic conclusions can be derived in this case based on the verse. This is why the Gemara seeks to derive a different from the verse.
The YAD BINYAMIN explains that Tosfos actually is giving the same answer as Tosfos Rabeinu Peretz. When Rebbi Eliezer states in the Mishnah that Bal Tosif is only "k'she'Hu b'Atzmo" (when it is by itself), he is explaining why -- when the bloods of two Korbanos are mixed together -- there is no problem of Bal Tosif. As mentioned above, if the blood being sprinkled in the last Zerikos is that of the Korban which is supposed to have one Zerikah, it is done with intent that the blood is like water, and therefore there is no problem of Bal Tosif. Only when the sole intent is for the Mitzvah of Zerikah, as it is when there is only the blood of one Korban, is there a problem of Bal Tosif. Since this is the reason given by Rebbi Eliezer in the Mishnah, no Halachic conclusion can be deduced from the verse, as Tosfos Rabeinu Peretz states explicitly. The same applies to the reason which Tosfos gives for Rebbi Yehoshua (which is more directly what Rebbi Yehoshua states in the Mishnah). (Y. MONTROSE)
81b----------------------------------------81b
2) CONSIDERING BLOOD TO BE LIKE WATER
QUESTION: The Mishnah discusses a case of blood of a Korban which was supposed to be brought in the Heichal which became mixed with blood from a Korban which was supposed to be placed on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon. The Mishnah states that when the blood was sprinkled first on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon and afterwards brought into the Heichal and sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi, the Zerikos are valid. When, however, the Zerikos were done in the reverse order, there is an argument about whether or not the Korban that requires Zerikah on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon is valid. The Chachamim maintain that both Korbanos are valid. Rebbi Akiva maintains that the Korban that requires the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon is not valid, because any blood that requires Zerikah on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon but is brought into the Heichal becomes invalid.
TOSFOS (DH Nasan) explains that in the Mishnah's first case, in which the first Zerikah was done on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon, it must be that the sprinkling of the blood that was supposed to be done on the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi was done with intent that the blood is merely like water being sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach. The Gemara earlier (26b) quotes Shmuel who says that even when a Korban is supposed to have its Zerikah done in the Heichal, if the blood is sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon the Korban remains valid. If, however, the first Zerikah was done with intent to attain atonement, then the Zerikah no longer may be done on the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi, since the atonement was already attained.
Tosfos says that the second case, in which the blood was first brought into the Heichal, also must refer to when the Kohen brought the part of the blood that was supposed to atone on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon into the Heichal with intent that he merely was bringing water into the Heichal.
However, Tosfos is left with a question. If, in the second case, the blood of the Korban that needs to be brought on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon is brought into the Heichal with intent that it is merely water, then why should anyone say that it is Pasul? Rebbi Akiva derives his ruling -- that blood that must be sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon but that is brought into the Heichal is Pasul -- from the verse, "Any Chatas whose blood is brought into the Ohel Mo'ed in order to atone in the sanctuary may not be eaten" (Vayikra 6:23; see the Gemara later (82a) which explains how Rebbi Akiva extends this law to other types of Korbanos). The verse uses the word, "l'Chaper" -- "to atone." Tosfos asks that if, in this case, the blood is not brought with intent to attain atonement but rather it is brought into the Heichal merely as water, then why should this invalidate the Korban even according to Rebbi Akiva?
The TOSFOS YOM TOV challenges Tosfos' question based on the words of Tosfos earlier. Tosfos earlier (26b, DH v'Iy) attempts to resolve a contradiction between Shmuel's comment there and the Mishnah (79b). Rebbi Eliezer in the Mishnah says that if the blood of a Korban that was supposed to be sprinkled above the Chut ha'Sikra was mixed with blood that was supposed to be sprinkled below the Chut ha'Sikra, the blood may be viewed like water, and then some of the blood may be sprinkled above the Chut ha'Sikra (viewing it as blood) and then some below the Chut ha'Sikra. Rebbi Eliezer follows the principle of "Ro'in," which enables one to view the temporarily unwanted part of the mixture like water. Although the Rabanan argue with Rebbi Eliezer, they agree that when the Zerikah above the Chut ha'Sikra was already performed in such a manner, one should proceed and perform the Zerikah below the Chut ha'Sikra. This contradicts Shmuel's view that a Zerikah performed at the wrong place on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon is a valid Zerikah, b'Di'eved. The Rabanan do not follow the principle of "Ro'in," and thus, in the case of the Mishnah there, both types of blood were sprinkled above the Chut ha'Sikra.
The Tosfos Yom Tov writes that he does not understand the words of Tosfos. Tosfos here asserts that everyone should agree that the blood may be viewed like water, and therefore the fact that the blood was brought into the Heichal should be of no significance. Why, then, does he not answer simply that the case of the Mishnah earlier (79b) refers to when the blood is sprinkled with intent that it is water? Based on what criterion does Tosfos determine when blood may be considered water, and when it may not be considered water?
The Tosfos Yom Tov proceeds to explain the questions of Tosfos here and Tosfos earlier (26b). The Rabanan argue that the principle of "Ro'in" does not apply when there is a need to establish guidelines to determine how a person should act. Similarly, it does not apply when one acts without asking for a ruling about what to do. This is why Tosfos is unsure about how the Mishnah (79b) can be reconciled with Shmuel's opinion. In contrast, when the Kohen views the blood as water (which, as Tosfos explains, is the case in the Gemara here), even the Rabanan agree that "Ro'in" applies. This is why Tosfos remains with a question here: everyone should agree that blood brought into the Heichal with intent that it is water is indeed considered water. Why, then, does Rebbi Akiva say that this fulfills the verse of "l'Chaper"?
ANSWERS:
(a) The SHITAH MEKUBETZES answers that the verse of "l'Chaper" is fulfilled in this case as follows. Since the blood of this Korban is mixed with the blood of a Korban which does require Zerikah in the Heichal, the mixture of blood indeed is considered as though it is being brought into the Heichal "l'Chaper." This answer is also quoted by the CHOK NASAN in the name of the RIVA.
(b) The ZEVACH TODAH says that had Tosfos not given this approach in the Gemara, he would have learned the Mishnah in an entirely different manner which would have avoided this question. Tosfos is left with a question on the Gemara because he learns that the first case must refer to when the first Zerikah was done with intent that the blood is water since, otherwise, the Zerikah would not be necessary on the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi due to Shmuel's principle that a misplaced Zerikah on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon is valid b'Di'eved. This forces Tosfos to say that the second case must be similar.
The Zevach Todah says that the first case is not discussing a case in which the first Zerikah is performed with intent that the blood is like water. Why, then, is a second Zerikah necessary? The Gemara earlier (8b) states that a Chatas which is brought with intent that it should atone for a sin other than the sin for which it was designated is not effective. Accordingly, it is logical to say that in the case of the Gemara here, in which the blood of the Korban that was supposed to be brought in the Heichal is the blood of a Chatas, the Zerikah on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon was most likely performed with intent for the Korban that is supposed to be brought on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon, and not with intent for the Korban that is supposed to be offered in the Heichal. In such a case, even Shmuel would agree that such a Zerikah is not valid for a Korban Chatas. Although the second case of the Mishnah, in which the second Zerikah is done on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon and presumably could be valid for any Korban (which does not need specific intent), the Mishnah retains the format of the first case in which the second Zerikah must be performed, since the first case definitely discusses a Chatas. This avoids Tosfos' question about bringing the blood into the Heichal with intent that it is water. (Y. MONTROSE)