(a)What title did the third group earn itself?
(b)What is the connection between it and spicers and tanners, sons and daughters?
(a)The third group earned itself the title of 'lazy'.
(b)The world cannot exist without spicers and tanners, sons and daughters, says Rebbi; yet how fortunate is someone who is a spicer, and how unfortunate is someone who is a tanner, how fortunate is someone who has sons, and how unfortunate is someone whose children are all daughters. In similar vein, although some people must inevitably comprise the third group, they are nevertheless called lazy.
(a)The Kohanim would wash out the Azarah against the wishes of the Chachamim. According to Rav Chisda, the Chachamim in this case, is Rebbi Eliezer (or those who hold of his opinion), but not the Chachamim of Rebbi Eliezer. What does Rebbi Eliezer say?
(b)What do the Rabanan hold?
(c)Rav Ashi maintains that the Chachamim of Rebbi Eliezer would also agree with Rebbi Eliezer that washing the floor of the Azarah is forbidden. Why?
(d)Rebbi Eliezer is also Mechayev Chatas, someone who makes cream or cheese, settles the dust by sprinkling water, or removes honey-combs from a bee-hive. With which two of these do the Rabanan also agree?
(a)Rebbi Eliezer says that someone who sweeps on Shabbos is Chayav Chatas. Consequently, sweeping (or washing the floor, is forbidden in the Beis Hamikdash, too).
(b)According to the Rabanan, sweeping is only Asur mid'Rabanan, and 'Ein Shevus ba'Mikdash'.
(c)Rav Ashi maintains that the Chachamim of Rebbi Eliezer would also agree with Rebbi Eliezer that washing the floor of the Azarah is forbidden - because the Rabanan only waived a Shevus that is necessary, but not one that is not, and washing the floor of the Azarah is unnecessary.
(d)The Rabanan also agree that one is Chayav for making cream or cheese on Shabbos.
(a)Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah rules that the Kohanim would scoop up one cupful of blood from the floor of the Beis ha'Mikdash and sprinkle it on the Mizbe'ach. On what grounds do the Chachamim disagree with him?
(b)How does Rebbi Yehudah counter their argument?
(c)If the Kohanim are alert, then how did the blood spill in the first place?
(a)The Chachamim disagree with Rebbi Yehudah (who maintains that the Kohanim would scoop up one cupful of blood from the floor of the Beis ha'Mikdash and sprinkle it on the Mizbe'ach) - because the blood may well not have been received in a Kli Shares.
(b)Rebbi Yehudah counters this by applying the principle that the Kohanim are alert, and that the blood would definitely have been received in a Kli Shares before spilling.
(c)It is precisely due to their alertness, and the speed with which they worked, that would result in blood spilling.
(a)The Gemara asks from the large amount of Dam ha'Tamtzis which ought to render the or two cupfuls of Dam ha'Nefesh which spilt, Batel. On what grounds does the Gemara reject the answer that, according to Rebbi Yehudah, one is Chayav Kares for drinking Dam ha'Tamtzis, just like one is for Dam ha'Nefesh?
(b)Then why is the Dam ha'Nefesh not Batel?
(a)It may well be that according to Rebbi Yehudah, one is Chayav Kares for drinking Dam ha'Tamtzis, just like one is for Dam ha'Nefesh - nevertheless, Rebbi Elazar said that even Rebbi Yehudah will agree that it is not Mechaper (i.e. it is not fit for Zerikah), so that the Kashya (why the Dam ha'Tamtzis ought to render the one or two cupfuls of Dam ha'Nefesh which spilt, Batel - remains).
(b)In fact, the Dam ha'Nefesh is not Batel - because Rebbi Yehudah holds 'Ein Dam Mevatel Dam'.
(a)Every Erev Pesach they would plug the outlet through which the blood flowed out of the Azarah. Why did they do this according to ...
1. ... Rebbi Yehudah?
2. ... the Chachamim?
(b)What do we learn from the Pasuk in Shoftim "La'amod Leshares"?
(c)Why was the blood in which the Kohanim had to wallow not a Chatzitzah?
(a)Every Erev Pesach they would plug the outlet through which the blood flowed out of the Azarah. According to ...
1. ... Rebbi Yehudah - this was for the blood to accumulate, from which they eventually took a cupful, to sprinkle on the Mizbe'ach.
2. ... the Chachamim - it was because it was praiseworthy for the Kohanim to walk up to their ankles in blood.
(b)We learn from the Pasuk "La'amod Leshares" - that the Kohanim are obligated to stand on the floor and not on anything else.
(c)The blood in which the Kohanim walked on Erev Pesach was not a Chatzitzah - because it was wet, and liquid does not constitute a Chatzitzah (as we have learnt in a Beraisa).
(a)What is the problem with the Kohanim's clothes?
(b)What do we learn from the Pasuk in Tzav "Mido Vad" and how does that prevent us from answering this question?
(c)Why can we not solve the problem by establishing the Beraisa by carrying the limbs to the ramp, which, the Gemara suggests, is not an Avodah?
(d)So how do we establish the case, to solve the problem?
(a)When the Kohanim walked up to their ankles in blood, their clothes were bound to become blood-stained, and blood-stained clothes (we have learnt in a Beraisa) render the Avodah Pasul.
(b)It would be possible for the Kohanim to avoid getting their clothes blood-stained by raising them whenever they walked through the blood. The problem with this however, is that the Torah writes "Mido Vad" - which teaches us that the Kohens' clothes must fit them exactly, which prohibits them from folding their clothes or raising them whilst wearing them.
(c)The Gemara attempts to solve the problem by establishing the Beraisa by carrying the limbs to the ramp, which, the Gemara suggests, is not an Avodah. However, it immediately retracts from this contention, because, since carrying the limbs to the ramp requires Kohanim, it must be an Avodah.
(d)The Gemara finally establishes the case where the Kohanim would walk in blood - by carrying wood on to the Mizbe'ach.
(a)In view of all the blood, how did they manage to transport the limbs on to the ramp, and the blood on to the Mizbe'ach?
(b)What is wrong with the text in our Mishnah 'Nasnam b'Meigis, v'Hiktiran Al Gabei ha'Mizbe'ach'?
(c)How does the Gemara amend it?
(d)How did they used to carry their Pesachim to the location where it was to be roasted?
(a)They transported the limbs on to the ramp, and the blood on to the Mizbe'ach - by walking on raised platforms that were dotted round the Azarah.
(b)'Nasnam b'Meigis, v'Hiktiran Al Gabei ha'Mizbe'ach' - suggests that the same person who stripped the Pesach, would burn it on the Mizbe'ach. Now how can a Zar burn the Chalavim on the Mizbe'ach?
(c)The Gemara therefore amends the Mishnah to read 'Nasnam b'Meigis, l'Haktiran Al Gabei ha'Mizbe'ach' - meaning that the Zar placed the Chalavim in a bowl, for the Kohen to burn them on the Mizbe'ach.
(d)They would place their Pesach in its skin and walk with it slung over their shoulder to the location of roasting - just like the Arab merchants used to transport their wares.
Hadran Alach, 'Tamid Nishchat'
Perek Elu Devarim
(a)The Shechitah of the Korban Pesach, the Zerikah and the cleaning out of its innards all over-ride the prohibitions of Shabbos, whereas its roasting and the washing of its innards do not. Why the difference?
(b)The Chachamim forbid carrying it to the Azarah, leading it from outside the Techum and removing its warts on Yom-Tov. What does Rebbi Eliezer hold and what is the source of the Machlokes?
(c)How does Rebbi Eliezer learn his leniency from a Kal va'Chomer from the Shechitah?
(d)How does Rebbi Yehoshua counters the Kal va'Chomer from the general Din of Yom-Tov?
(a)The Shechitah of the Korban Pesach, the Zerikah and the cleaning out of its innards, over-ride the prohibitions of Shabbos - because the had to be performed immediately; whereas its roasting and the washing of its innards do not - because they could wait until after Shabbos.
(b)Rebbi Eliezer permits the carrying of the Pesach to the Azarah, leading it from outside the Techum and removing its warts on Shabbos, because he holds that Machshirei Mitzvah Dochin Shabbos. The Chachamim forbid it, because they hold Machshirei Mitzvah Einan Dochin Shabbos.
(c)If the Shechitah of the Pesach, which is normally an Isur d'Oraisa, overrides Shabbos, then how much more so the above cases, which are only Isurim d'Rabanan.
(d)Rebbi Yehoshua counters Rebbi Eliezer's Kal va'Chomer from the general Din of Yom-Tov, where they permitted Melachos (Ochel Nefesh) and yet they forbade cases of Shevus (such as bringing an animal from outside the Techum), since this could have been performed before Shabbos.
(a)Rebbi Akiva sides with Rebbi Yehoshua. What proof does he bring for him from Haza'ah? What kind of Haza'ah is he referring to?
(b)Rebbi Eliezer retorted 've'Aleha Ani Dan'. What does this mean?
(c)Rebbi Akiva knew full-well that the word "b'Mo'ado" (Beha'aloscha) comes to permit the Shechitah of the Pesach even on Shabbos. What was he driving at when he asked Rebbi Eliezer that if Haza'ah, which is only d'Rabanan, is not Docheh Shabbos, then how much more so Shechitah, which is d'Oraisa?
(d)Rebbi Akiva finally issues a Klal - 'Kol Melachah' ... (which is Halachah). What does the Klal say?
(a)The Haza'ah (with the ashes of the Parah Adumah) of a Tamei Mes whose seventh day fell on Shabbos Erev Pesach, and which will therefore permit him to bring his Korban Pesach.
(b)Rebbi Eliezer retorted 've'Aleha Ani Dan' - meaning that Haza'ah is included in what he was coming to permit.
(c)When Rebbi Akiva asked Rebbi Eliezer that if Haza'ah, which is only d'Rabanan, is not Docheh Shabbos, then how much more so Shechitah, which is d'Oraisa - he was merely trying to remind Rebbi Eliezer that Haza'ah is not Docheh Shabbos.
(d)'Amar Rebbi Akiva, Kol Melachah she'Efshar La'asosah me'Erev Shabbos Einah Docheh es ha'Shabbos' ...