1)
(a)Based on the previous Sugya, where we learned Achas Lema'alah in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim by the Par from the goat, and the Sheva Lematah by the Sa'ir from the Par, what problem does the Gemara have with learning the Matanos of the Heichal from those of the Dvir (from "v'Chen Ya'aseh l'Ohel Mo'ed")?
(b)We answer with the principle that 'Heimenu v'Davar Acher' is not called a Hekesh. What does this mean?
(c)Those who do consider this a Hekesh answer ...
1. ... 'Mekomos Hu d'Gamri me'Hadadi'. What does that mean?
2. ... 'Chutz mi'bi'Fenim b'Chada Zimna Gamar'. What does this mean?
1)
(a)The problem the Gemara has with learning the Matanos of the Heichal from those of the Dvir (from "v'Chen Ya'aseh l'Ohel Mo'ed") is - that, in the previous Sugya, we learned the Achas Lema'alah in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim by the Par from the goat, and the Sheva Lematah by the Sa'ir from the Par both by means of a Hekesh, and we have a principle in Kodshim that we cannot learn a Hekesh from something that was itself learned by means from a Hekesh!?
(b)We answer with the principle that 'Heimenu v'Davar Acher' is not called a Hekesh - meaning that the original Hekesh is not a proper Hekesh, since both Ma'alah and Matah are written both by the Par and by the Sa'ir, and it is only the number of Matanos that we learn one from the other.
(c)Those who nevertheless consider this a Hekesh answer ...
1. ... 'Mekomos Hu d'Gamri me'Hadadi' - meaning that this is not really a Hekesh from a Hekesh, since, in the first Hekesh, we learned one animal from the other, whereas in the second, it is the locations that we are learning from one another, and not the animals.
2. ... 'Chutz mi'bi'Fenim b'Chada Zimna Gamar' - meaning that since we need the second Hekesh to learn even what is written explicitly (and not from a Hekesh (seeing as nothing at all is written by the Matanos of the Heichal), we may, at the same time, learn even what is learnt through a Hekesh (with a sort of 'Migo').
2)
(a)What did Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Yosi profess to have seen in Rome, and what was he proving with his testimony?
(b)Why can what he saw not have been the marks of blood from the Par He'elam Davar shel Tzibur or that of the Se'irei Avodah-Zarah?
(c)Where did Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Yosi see the Paroches, and what was he doing there?
(d)What did he choose?
2)
(a)Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Yosi professed to have seen the Paroches in Rome - with spots of blood from the bull and the goat of Yom Kippur, proving that the blood of the Matanos was supposed to touch the Curtain.
(b)What he saw cannot have been the marks of blood from the Par He'elam Davar shel Tzibur or that of the Se'irei Avodah-Zarah - since they were not sprinkled Achas Lema'alah and Sheva Lematah ('k'Matzlif' - like the Par and Sa'ir of Yom Kippur were), and he saw them 'k'Matzlif'.
(c)Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Yosi saw the Paroches in the treasury of the King, where they had taken to help himself to whatever he desired - after he had miraculously cured the princess.
(d)He chose the letters containing royal decrees against the Jewish people, which he subsequently tore to shreds.
3)
(a)In another Mishnah, Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Yosi claimed to have seen the Paroches with the marks of blood from the Par He'elam Davar shel Tzibur or that of the Se'irei Avodah-Zarah. What was he proving with his testimony?
(b)Why can what he saw not have been the blood-stains from the bull and the goat of Yom Kippur?
3)
(a)In another Mishnah, Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Yosi claimed to have seen the Paroches with the marks of blood from the Par He'elam Davar shel Tzibur or that of the Se'irei Avodah-Zarah - proving there, the blood had to touch the Paroches (as opposed to the Chachamim, who maintained that it was unnecessary).
(b)What he saw cannot have been the blood-stains from the bull and the goat of Yom Kippur - because he saw the bloodstains not 'k'Matzlif', and on Yom Kippur, it had to be 'k'Matzlilf'.
4)
(a)Rava maintained that if the blood of the bull and of the goat got mixed up before any of it had been sprinkled in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim, the Kohen Gadol would simply sprinkle one above and seven below, thereby fulfilling both the Mitzvah concerning the bull and that of the goat simultaneously. What did Rebbi Yirmeyahu (a Yerushalmi) exclaim. How did he describe Rava?
(b)What ought the Kohen Gadol to do according to him?
(c)What did Rav Papa rule in a case where the two bloods got mixed up, but only after the Achas Lema'alah of the blood of the bull?
(d)Rava learned his lesson. What did he in turn, say to Rav Papa? What was wrong with Rav Papa's suggestion?
4)
(a)When Rebbi Yirmeyahu (a Yerushalmi) heard that, according to Rava, if the blood of the bull and of the goat got mixed up before any of it had been sprinkled in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim, the Kohen Gadol would simply sprinkle one above and seven below, thereby fulfilling both the Mitzvah concerning the bull and that of the goat simultaneously - he exclaimed 'Stupid Babylonians! Is it because they reside in a dark land (i.e. it is very deep, surrounded by mountains), that they make statements that are dark (do not enlighten, because they are false)?! According to Rava, he will be placing the blood of the goat above, before he has placed the blood of the bull below (and we have already learned that he must complete the Matanos of the bull before starting with those of the goat).
(b)Rebbi Yirmeyahu therefore rules that he makes one Matanah Lema'alah and one Lematah for the bull, and then repeats this for the goat.
(c)When the blood of the Par and of the Sa'ir got mixed up, but after the Achas Lema'alah of the blood of the Par - Rav Papa ruled that the Kohen Gadol simply sprinkles the blood 'Sheva Lematah' for both the Par and the Sa'ir, and then 'Achas Lema'alah' for the Sa'ir.
(d)Rava, having learned his lesson from Rebbi Yirmeyahu - said to Rav Papa 'If Rebbi Yirmeyahu referred to us as stupid Babylonians, then he will now refer to us as very stupid Babylonians (because we don't learn when we are corrected) - how can one perform the Matanos shel Matah of the Sa'ir, before the Matanos shel Ma'alah?!
5)
(a)So what did Rava advocate that the Kohen Gadol do in the previous case?
5)
(a)So Rava advocated that the Kohen Gadol should complete the Sheva Lematah for the Par only, and then Achas Lema'alah and Sheva Lema'alah for the Sa'ir.
57b----------------------------------------57b
6)
(a)What should the Kohen Gadol do if the two cups got mixed up before he began sprinkling the blood of the bull?
(b)If some of the two sets of blood became mixed (in a third bowl), and some did not, then it is obvious that he sprinkles the blood that remained intact. What She'eilah does Rav Papa have with regard to the blood that is mixed? Why might it not be considered Shirayim?
(c)What is the difference whether the blood is called 'Shirayim' or 'Dachuy'? What does 'Dachuy' mean?
(d)Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua disagrees. According to him, the blood in the third bowl is definitely not considered Dachuy. Why not?
6)
(a)If the two cups got mixed up before he began sprinkling the blood of the bull - the Kohen Gadol should sprinkle 'Achas Lema'alah v'Sheva Lematah', first from the one cup and then from the other (if the first cup contained the blood of the Par and the second one' the Sa'ir, then he has fulfilled his obligation. However, taking into account the possibility that the first cup contained the blood of the Sa'ir, and the second one of the Par, he now sprinkles from the first cup again. One way or another, he will now have made all the Matanos in their correct order.
(b)Rav Papa asks whether, if some of the two sets of blood became mixed (in a third bowl), and some did not, and he sprinkles the blood that remained intact - the remaining blood is even considered Shirayim, since maybe it is only blood that is fit to be sprinkled that is considered Shirayim, but not blood that is not.
(c)If the blood is called 'Shirayim' - it is poured on to the western Yesod of the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon, whereas if it is called 'Dachuy' (rejected) - it is poured into the Amah in the Azarah, from where it flows out to the valley of Kidron.
(d)Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua disagrees. According to him, the blood in the third bowl is definitely not considered Dachuy - because this blood was not positively rejected, since it was originally received in the two bowls from which the Kohen Gadol would later sprinkle.
7)
(a)How does the Tana Kama of the Beraisa resolve the discrepancy between the Pasuk in Vayikra (regarding the Chatas Sa'ir of the Nasi) "v'es Damo Yishpoch" and the Pasuk there (regarding the Chatas Yachid) which writes "v'es Kol Damo Yishpoch"?
(b)What does Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon say? What is his source?
(c)What does he then preclude from pouring on to the Yesod from the Pasuk which omits the word "Kol"?
7)
(a)the Tana Kama of the Beraisa resolves the discrepancy between the Pasuk in Vayikra (regarding the Chatas Sa'ir of the Nasi) "v'es Damo Yishpoch" and the Pasuk (regarding the Chatas Yachid) which writes "v'es Kol Damo Yishpoch" - by establishing both Pesukim when the Kohen received the blood of a Chatas in four bowls; however, the latter Pasuk speaks when he sprinkled from each bowl on to one corner of the Mizbe'ach; whereas the former Pasuk speaks when he sprinkled on each of the corners from the one bowl. In the former case, where the blood is not Dachuy, then all the blood has to be poured on to the Yesod of the Mizbe'ach; whereas in the latter case, where the blood in the other three bowls is Dachuy, it is only the blood in the first bowl that is poured on to the Yesod.
(b)According to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon - in both of the above cases, the blood in the other three bowls is poured on to the Yesod.
(c)From the Pasuk which omits the word "Kol" - he precludes the blood which remains on the neck of the Chatas from having to be poured on to the Yesod.
8)
(a)Why do we initially establish our Mishnah (which learns that the blood of the Par and of the Sa'ir had to be mixed and placed together on to the corners of the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav) like Rebbi Yeshayah? What does he say with regard to the Pasuk in Kedoshim "... Ish Ish Asher Yekalel es Aviv v'es Imo ... "?
(b)How does Rebbi Yonasan explain this Pasuk? How ought he therefore to rule with regard to the blood of the Par and of the Sa'ir?
(c)How do we try to reconcile our Mishnah even with Rebbi Yonasan?
8)
(a)With regard to the Pasuk "... Ish Ish Asher Yekalel es Aviv v'es Imo ... " - Rebbi Yeshayah learns that, were it not for the words "Aviv v'Imo Kilel", one would only be Chayav for cursing both parents together, but not individually (in spite of the fact that the Torah does not write "Yachdav").
(b)According to Rebbi Yonasan, whenever the Torah does not use the word "Yachdav", then it means individually. Consequently, a person would be Chayav for cursing either his Chayav or his mother - even without the extra Pasuk of "Aviv v'Imo Kilel". Similarly, he ought to rule that the blood of the Par and of the Sa'ir should be placed separately on the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi, since the Torah does not write "Yachdav".
(c)We try to reconcile our Mishnah even with Rebbi Yonasan by applying the Pasuk "v'Chiper Aharon al Karnosav Achas ba'Shanah" - which Rebbi Yonasan will explain 'Achas v'Lo Shtayim' meaning that one only places one set of Matanos on the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi on Yom Kippur, and not two.
9)
(a)The Beraisa however, corroborates the Gemara's original contention, establishing our Mishnah like Rebbi Yashiyah. What is the Beraisa's source for ...
1. ... Rebbi Yashiyah, who says that the two sets of blood should be placed on the corners of the Mizbe'ach mixed?
2. ... Rebbi Yonasan who says that the two sets of blood should be placed on the corners of the Mizbe'ach independently (in spite of the Pasuk "Achas")?
(b)How will Rebbi Yonasan explain the word "Achas"?
9)
(a)The Beraisa however, corroborates the Gemara's original contention, establishing our Mishnah like Rebbi Yashiyah. The Beraisa's source for ...
1. ... Rebbi Yashiyah, who says that the two sets of blood should be mixed, before being placed on the corners of the Mizbe'ach - is the word "Achas".
2. ... Rebbi Yonasan who says that the two sets of blood should be placed on the corners of the Mizbe'ach independently (in spite of the Pasuk "Achas") - is "mi'Dam ha'Par u'mi'Dam ha'Sa'ir" (which suggests that they should be placed separately).
(b)Rebbi Yonasan explains the word "Achas" - to mean that the Kohen Gadol should only place the blood of the Par once and the blood of the Sa'ir, once.