1)

(a)According to Rav Amram, the Tana'im (and Rav in the second Lashon) might even hold K'lei Shareis Mekadshin Afilu she'Lo mi'Da'as. And he establishes the case where the Kometz is returned to a K'li that is heaped over the brim - because this ensures that it does not become Kodesh (since only something that is actually inside the airspace of the K'li Shareis becomes sanctified.

(b)We cannot accept ...

1. ... this answer however - because if that is so, how will the Kohen subsequently perform the Kemitzah?

2. ... the answer that the K'li was not heaped over the brim, but to the brim - because when the Kemitzah would have ben taken, it would then have left a gap within the airspace of the K'li, and it is into that gap that the Kemitzah was returned, leaving the Kashya unanswered.

(c)We finally establish Rav Amram - where the Kemitzah is returned on to the top surface of the wall, and is allowed to fall by itself into the K'li, which is considered as if a monkey placed it there, in which case it does not become sanctified.

2)

(a)Rebbi Yirmiyah asked Rebbi Zeira why Rav Amram did not establish the case where whoever performed the Pasul Kemitzah, replaced it in a K'li on the ground - because he initially presumes that a K'li only sanctifies what one places inside it, provided a Kohen is holding it.

(b)From the fact that Rav Amram did not establish the case like that, Rebbi Yirmiyah extrapolated that - it sanctifies what is inside it, even if it is lying on the ground.

(c)Rebbi Zeira replied that he had touched on the She'eilah that Avimi had already asked Rav Chisda (as we will explain shortly). We object however, to the mere fact that he quoted Avimi as having asked Rav Chisda - since Avimi was Rav Chisda's Rebbe, and not his Talmid.

3)

(a)We know that Rav Chisda was Avimi's Talmid - from Rav Chisda himself, who testified how he had received many Makos with a club from his Rebbe, Avimi.

(b)The problematic Sugya (that Rav Chisda kept on forgetting) was that of Shum ha'Yesomim in Erchin, where one Tana gave the time of assessment as thirty days, and the other - as sixty.

(c)Avimi explained - that if they decided to announce the days consecutively, then they would fix thirty days, whereas if they announced only on Mondays and Thursdays, then they would fix sixty.

(d)Nevertheless, it was Avimi who asked Rav Chisda how one takes Kemitzah - because he forgot the Sugya, so he asked Rav Chisda to remind him.

4)

(a)He did not ask Rav Chisda to come to him - because he figured that by making the effort to go to Rav Chisda, he would discover the answer (due to the principle Yaga'ti u'Matzasi ... [if a person makes sufficient effort, he will find the answer]).

(b)On the way, he met Rav Nachman. When, in reply to Avimi's question how one takes Kemitzah, the latter pointed to a K'li lying on the ground - Avimi was quite surprised.

(c)Rav Nachman's explained that - what he meant was after the Kohen had picked it up (see Tosfos DH 'Amar Leih').

5)

(a)Avimi asked that if so, every Kemitzah would require three Kohanim, two to hold the K'li containing the Minchah and the K'li into which the Kohen would place the Kemitzah respectively, and one to perform the actual Kemitzah. One Kohen not hold the first two Keilim - since Avodah with the left hand is Pasul.

(b)To which Rav Nachman replied that - if necessary, thirteen Kohanim could perform an Avodah, like they did when they brought the Korban Tamid.

(c)When Avimi asked him why, in the Mishnah later Kol ha'Kometz, ve'Nosen bi'Cheli, ha'Molich ve'ha'Maktir Davar Le'echol ... , the Tana omitted ha'Magbihah, he replied that - the Tana was concerned with independent Avodos (and not with the number of Kohanim involved).

6)

(a)When they asked Rav Sheishes whether the Kohen may perform the Kemitzah from a K'li that is lying on the ground, he cited a Beraisa which describes how every Shabbos, eight Kohanim would enter the Heichal - to perform the Avodah of Siluk Bazichin (removing the bowls of frankincense from the Shulchan) ...

(b)... two were holding the (fresh) rows of Lechem ha'Panim and two, the Bazichin, and the other four, to remove the previous week's Loaves and Bazichin from the Shulchan.

(c)Rav Sheishes resolved the She'eilah from there - since the Tana made no mention of Kohanim to pick up the Shulchan before removing the Lechem ha'Panim (a proof that, by the ssame token, it is not necessary to hold the Minchah whilst performing the Kemitzah.

(d)The connection between the Siluk Bazichin and the Kemitzah of the Minchah is - that a. the former permits the Lechem ha'Panim to the Kohanim just as the latter permits them to eat the Minchah, and b. the Torah refers to them both as Azkarah.

(e)Rav Sheishes countered the Kashya that maybe the Tana is speaking about Avodos and not Kohanim (like we explained with regard to the previous Beraisa) - by pointing out that this Tana refers to the number of Kohanim, seeing as he actually made a point of mentioning how many Kohanim there were.

7)

(a)According to Rava, it is obvious that the Kohen may perform Kemitzah from a K'li which is lying on the ground, and likewise, he may sanctify the Minchah in such a K'li. He learns the first ruling from the Siluk Bazichin, like Rav Nachman, and the second - from the Sidur Bazichin (arranging the Bazichin on the Shulchan, which the Kohanim also did without picking up the Shulchan).

(b)He is not certain however, about being Mekadesh the Kometz in such a K'li. the Kohen may be able to, just like the Kidush of the Minchah. On the other, he may not - like Kabalas ha'Dam, which cannot be performed in two Keilim.

(c)Rava concludes - that we learn it from Kabalas ha'Dam.

(d)The four main Avodos of the Minchah correspond to the four main Avodos of the Zevach. Kemitzah corresponds to Shechitah, Kidush Kometz to the Kabalas ha'Dam. The Avodah of a Zevach to which ...

1. ... Holachas Kometz corresponds is - Holachas ha'Dam.

2. ... Haktaras Kometz corresponds is - Zerikas ha'Dam.

8)

(a)Rav Nachman invalidates a Kometz which the Kohen halves and places into two Keilim. He learns it from - the blood of a Korban which the Kohen receives in two Keilim.

(b)Rava maintains - that it is Kasher.

(c)Despite having just learned the previous Din of Kometz from the Dam of the Zevach, Rava disagrees with Rav Nachman - since he retracted from that ruling, and concedes that Rav Nachman (there) is right.

9)

(a)The original source of this ruling is where the Kohen was Mekadesh less than the Shiur Haza'ah of the Mei Parah in two Keilim, rendering it Pasul. Pouring the contents of one of the Keilim into the other to make up the Shi'ur - will not help to make up the Shi'ur.

(b)We know that the blood does not become Kadosh in halves - from a Beraisa cited by Rav Tachlifa ben Shaul (or from a Beraisa quoting Rebbi Tachlifa ben Shaul), which first cites the Din by Kidush Mei Chatas, and then goes on to discuss the Din by Kabalas ha'Dam.

(c)We will not learn Kabalas ha'Dam from Mei Chatas - if its source is Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai, (because we cannot learn from a Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai).

(d)If, on the other hand, we learn the Din by Mei Chatas from the Pasuk in Chukas "Vetaval ba'Mayim", the Din will extend to Kabalas ha'Dam - because there too, the Torah writes in Vayikra "Vetaval ... ba'Dam".

(e)Rebbi Zerika Amar Rebbi Elazar concludes - Af be'Dam Lo Kidesh.

10)

(a)Rava informs us that the current Halachah is already mentioned in a Beraisa. The Tana there learns from the Pasuk (in connection with the Par Kohen Mashi'ach) ...

1. ... "Vetaval" that - the Kohen must dip his finger into the blood inside the bowl, and not take from the blood on the wall of the bowl.

2. ... "ba'Dam" that - the entire Shi'ur must be inside the bowl to begin with (and not half in one bowl and half in another).

(b)And when the Tana also Darshens from the Pasuk there "min ha'Dam" min ha'Dam she'be'Inyan, he means that - the Kohen cannot perform the next Haza'ah using the blood that is still left on his fingers from the last one.

(c)This bears out a statement by Rebbi Elazar - who said Shirayim she'be'Etzba, Pasul.

11)

(a)Ravin bar Rav Ada cites ... Rav Amram, who queries Rebbi Elazar from a Beraisa (in connection with the Kohen Gadol sprinkling the blood of the Chata'os Chitzoniyos). According to Rav Amram, Hayah Mazeh, Venitzah Haza'ah mi'Yado; Im ad she'Lo Hizah, Ta'un Kibus - as long as the Kohen Gadol has not concluded all the Haza'os, if blood from his finger drips on to someone, that person's clothes require Tevilah, in which case the blood must still be fit to be sprinkled, a Kashya on Rebbi Elazar.

(b)And he explains the Seifa mi'she'Hizah, Eino Ta'un Kibus Begadim to mean that - once he has concluded all the Ha'za'os, blood that drips from his finger does not render the clothes Tamei.

(c)To reconcile Rebbi Elazar with the Beraisa, Rava therefore interprets ad she'Lo Hizah, and mi'she'Hizah as - before the blood has left his finger (to be sprinkled on the Paroches) it renders Tamei, but not blood that remains on his finger after he has already sprinkled it.

(d)Abaye extrapolate from the Mishnah in Parah Gamar mi'Lehazos, Mekane'ach Yado be'Gufah shel Parah, that - as long as he has not finished all the Haza'os, the Kohen Gadol is not required to wipe the blood that remains on his finger (a Kashya on Rebbi Elazar, who holds that he must wipe his finger from the blood after every Haza'ah ... )

12)

(a)Rava answers Abaye's Kashya, by changing the inference to - 'Gamar ... Mekane'ach es *Yado* ... Lo Gamar, Mekane'ach *Etzba'o*'.

(b)The ...

1. ... Parah is burned - at the foot of Har ha'Zeisim.

2. ... blood of the Parah is sprinkled (towards the entrance of the Ohel Mo'ed) - at the top of the same mountain.

(c)The body of the Parah Adumah is burned - in the presence of the Kohen who sprinkled it, after the latter has descended the mountain.

(d)The problem this presents on our previous answer, obligating the Kohen to wipe his finger between each Haza'ah is that - assuming that he too, has to wipe his finger clean on the body of the bull, how can he be expected to descend the mountain each time he needs to wipe his finger.

13)

(a)Abaye (who asked the initial Kashya) answers this question - by establishing the obligation of cleaning his finger by doing so on the bowl (and not on the actual cow).

(b)This explains the fact that Ezra refers to the bowls as Kipurei Zahav - because the word Kipurei also has connotations of cleaning.