1)
(a)We just stated categorically that whenever the Mitzvah has been completed, Me'ilah no longer applies. Then how will we account for the fact that there is Me'ilah by the ashes of the Terumas ha'Deshen and by the Bigdei Kohen Gadol of Yom Kippur?
(b)According to Rebbi Dosa, in whose opinion the Bigdei Kohen Gadol are not forbidden, why is Terumas ha'Deshen not a 'Binyan Av' - to teach us that Me'ilah always applies - even after the Mitzvah has been completed?
(c)Similarly, according to those who maintain that we do learn a Binyan Av from two sources, why do we not learn from Terumas ha'Deshen and Eglah Arufah (according to the Rabanan of Rebbi Dosa), that Me'ilah applies even after the Mitzvah has been completed?
1)
(a)It is because there is Me'ilah by the ashes of the Terumas ha'Deshen and the Bigdei Kohen Gadol of Yom Kippur - that we say 'Shnei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im k'Echad, Ein Melamdin' (i.e. Had the Torah written Me'ilah in one case, then we would apply it via a Binyan Av to the entire Torah. But now that the Torah sees fit to repeat it twice - unnecessarily - we treat the two cases as exceptions, and say that, in all other cases, there is no Me'ilah once the Mitzvah has been concluded.
(b)Rebbi Dosa replaces the Bigdei Kohen Gadol with the Eglah Arufah, which is also Asur b'Hana'ah, so that we remain with two cases that are Asur b'Hana'ah even after their Mitzvah has been concluded.
(c)According to those who maintain that we do learn a Binyan Av from two sources, we will not learn from Terumas ha'Deshen and Eglah Arufah (according to the Rabanan of Rebbi Dosa), that Me'ilah applies even after the Mitzvah has been completed - because the Torah writes two Mi'utin (exclusions) - "v'Sam*o*" and "haArufah" - to teach us that Me'ilah applies only to those two cases, but not to any other cases (though why we need two Mi'utin is not clear).
2)
(a)We need one of the three Pesukim written by blood: "Lachem", "Lechaper" and "Hu" - to preclude Kodshim whose Mitzvah has been concluded, from Me'ilah. What do the other two come to preclude?
(b)Why do neither of them come to preclude the blood of Kodshim from Pigul?
(c)We learn this from Shelamim. How do we find these two conditions fulfilled by Shelamim?
2)
(a)We need one of the three Pesukim written by blood: "Lachem", "Lechaper" and "Hu" - to preclude Kodshim whose Mitzvah has been concluded, from Me'ilah. The other two come to preclude the blood of Kodshim from Nosar and from Tum'ah (i.e. that someone who ate the blood of Kodshim which was Nosar or when he was Tamei, was Chayav for eating blood, but not for eating Nosar or for eating Kodshim b'Tum'ah).
(b)Neither of them comes to preclude the blood of Kodshim from Pigul - because it is only something which becomes permitted either to the Mizbe'ach or to a person that is subject to Pigul. Blood of Kodshim permits others, and is therefore not subject to Pigul.
(c)We learn this principle from Shelamim - whose flesh becomes permitted to the owner, and whose fat-pieces become permitted to the Mizbe'ach - both through the sprinkling of the blood.
3)
(a)What does the Tana of our Mishnah say regarding the Avodah of Yom Kippur that the Torah writes in a specific sequence?
(b)What must the Kohen Gadol do ...
1. ... if he sprinkled the blood of the goat before that of the bull?
2. ... if, before he concluded the Matanos of the bull (for example) in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim, or those in the Heichal, the blood spilled?
(c)Will the same apply if the blood spilled before he had concluded the Matanos on the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi?
(d)From where did he resume the Avodah if the blood spilled after he had concluded the Matanos ...
1. ... in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim?
2. ... in the Heichal?
3)
(a)The Tana of our Mishnah says that - if the Kohen Gadol changes the sequence of any Avodah of Yom Kippur from the sequence that is stated in the Torah, that Avodah is invalid.
(b)If the Kohen Gadol ...
1. ... sprinkled the blood of the goat before that of the bull - he must sprinkle it again after the blood of the bull.
2. ... spilled the blood before he concluded the Matanos of the bull (for example) in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim, or those in the Heichal - he must bring another bull, Shecht it, and begin again with those Matanos that he was busy with when the blood spilled (e.g. to the beginning of the Matanos of the Kodesh ha'Kodashim - if that is what he was doing when the blood spilled).
(c)The same will apply if the blood spilled before he had concluded the Matanos on the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi.
(d)If the blood spilled after he had concluded the Matanos ...
1. ... in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim - he would resume with the Matanos in the Heichal.
2. ... in the Heichal - he would resume with the Matanos on the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi.
4)
(a)In which point do Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon disagree with the Tana Kama?
4)
(a)According to Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon - the Kohen Gadol resumed wherever he left off (even if he was in the middle of the Avodos of the Kodesh ha'Kodashim, for example - he did not need to begin again).
5)
(a)Rebbi Yehudah restricts the Din of our Mishnah to Avodos that the Kohen Gadol performed inside the Kodesh ha'Kodashim wearing the white garments, but not to Avodos that he performed outside wearing the white garments. To which Avodos does the latter refer?
(b)Why will Rebbi Yehudah agree by the Shechitah and the Chafinah that the order is crucial, even though they are performed outside the Kodesh ha'Kodashim?
(c)Rebbi Nechemyah is more stringent than Rebbi Yehudah. What does he say?
5)
(a)Rebbi Yehudah restricts the Din of our Mishnah to Avodos that the Kohen Gadol performed in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim wearing the white garments, but not to Avodos that he performed outside wearing the four white garments - i.e. Hagralah, Viduy, Shefichas Shirayim and all the Matanos of the Paroches and of the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi.
(b)Rebbi Yehudah will agree however, by the Shechitah and the Chafinah, that the order is crucial, even though they are performed outside the Kodesh ha'Kodashim - because they pertain to the Avodah of the Kodesh ha'Kodashim.
(c)Rebbi Nechemyah says that the order is crucial - even by the Avodos that the Kohen Gadol performed outside wearing the white garments. According to him, it is only Avodos that he performed outside wearing the eight golden garments that are not crucial.
60b----------------------------------------60b
6)
(a)Both Tana'im derive their respective opinions from the Pasuk "Vehaysah Zos Lachem l'Chukas Olam Achas ba'Shanah". What do we initially learn from this Pasuk with which everybody agrees?
(b)Rebbi Yochanan initially explains, according to Rebbi Nechemyah that every atonement that occurred once a year was included in Chukah. How does he explain Rebbi Yehudah?
(c)Why does the Gemara not like this interpretation of Rebbi Yehudah's opinion?
(d)How do we then explain Rebbi Yehudah's opinion from the words "Zos" and "Achas"?
6)
(a)Both Tana'im derive their respective opinions from the Pasuk "Vehaysah Zos Lachem l'Chukas Olam Achas ba'Shanah". Both Tana'im learn from "Achas ba'Shanah" - that the order of whatever is performed with the Bigdei Lavan bi'F'nim is crucial (only Rebbi Nechemyah extends that even to outside the Kodesh ha'Kodashim).
(b)Rebbi Yochanan initially explains, according to Rebbi Nechemyah, that every atonement that occurred once a year was included in Chukah. Only according to Rebbi Yehudah - this is confined to the Kodesh ha'Kodashim.
(c)The Gemara rejects this interpretation of Rebbi Yehudah's opinion - on the grounds that the Torah makes no mention of location, that would prompt Rebbi Yehudah to make such a Derashah.
(d)We then explain Rebbi Yehudah's opinion from the words "Zos" and "Achas" - one of which comes to exclude Avodos of the Bigdei Lavan ba'Chutz from Chukah (i.e. that it is not crucial), and the other, to exclude the Avodos of the Bigdei Zahav.
7)
(a)Rebbi Nechemyah agrees that one of the words comes to exclude all Avodos that he performed in the Bigdei Zahav from 'Chukah'. What does he learn from the second one?
(b)What does Rebbi Yehudah say about that?
7)
(a)Rebbi Nechemyah agrees that one of the words comes to exclude the sequence of all Avodos that he performed in the Bigdei Zahav from 'Chukah' - the other word comes to exclude the sequence of the Shirayim from "Chukah".
(b)Rebbi Yehudah counters that the Shirayim are no different than all other Avodos that are performed with Bigdei Lavan ba'Chutz. Consequently, if their sequence is crucial, so is its sequence crucial; and if theirs is not, neither is its.
8)
(a)"v'Chilah mi'Kaper es ha'Kodesh". Rebbi Akiva explains 'Im Kipar, Kilah, v'Im Lo Kipar, Lo Kilah'. What does he mean?
(b)What does Rebbi Yehudah say?
(c)Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi argue over whether Rebbi Yehudah is saying the same thing as Rebbi Akiva, or whether he really comes to argue with him. Our Sugya holds that he comes to argue. What is he then saying?
(d)What have we proven from here?
8)
(a)"v'Chilah mi'Kaper es ha'Kodesh". Rebbi Akiva explains 'Im Kipar, Kilah, v'Im Lo Kipar, Lo Kilah' - meaning that if the Kohen Gadol performed the Kaparah (i.e. the Matanos), he has finished (and the pouring of the Shirayim is not crucial to the Avodah).
(b)Rebbi Yehudah says 'Im Kilah, Kipar, v'Im Lo Kilaah Lo Kipar'.
(c)Our Sugya, which holds that Rebbi Yehudah comes to argue with Rebbi Akiva, explains his words to mean that he has finished the Kaparah only if he finishes everything (including the pouring of the Shirayim), otherwise, he is not Yotzei.
(d)In any event, we have proven from here that according to Rebbi Yehudah, the Shirayim are a crucial part of the Avodah, and their Din vis-a-vis sequence, will be no different than any other Avodah which is performed ba'Chutz wearing the Bigdei Lavan.
9)
(a)What is the problem with Rebbi Yochanan's statement (that, according to Rebbi Nechemyah, the Avodah of the Shirayim is not crucial)?
(b)How do we deal with this Kashya?
9)
(a)How can Rebbi Yochanan say that, according to Rebbi Nechemyah, the Shirayim is not crucial to the Avodah - when in Zevachim, he specifically said that Rebbi Nechemyah holds that it is!?
(b)We remain with a Kashya, making no attempt to answer it.
10)
(a)Rebbi Chanina says that if the Kohen Gadol performed the (first) Chafinah before Shechting the Par, he is not Yotzei. Can this go according to Rebbi Yehudah?
(b)What is the problem with this from our Mishnah which says that if the blood of the Par spilled before the Kohen Gadol had concluded the Matanos in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim, he must sprinkle all over again (i.e. Shecht another bull ... )? According to Rebbi Chanina, what ought the Tana to have said?
(c)How do we answer this Kashya?
10)
(a)Rebbi Chanina says that if the Kohen Gadol performed the (first) Chafinah before Shechting the Par, he is not Yotzei. This can well go like Rebbi Yehudah - because, as we explained earlier, the Chafinah is considered part of the Avodas Penim, since it is for the needs of the Avodas Penim.
(b)The problem with this from our Mishnah, which says that if the blood of the Par spilled before the Kohen Gadol had concluded the Matanos in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim, he must sprinkle all over again (i.e. Shecht another bull ... ) is - that according to Rebbi Chanina, the Tana ought to have added that he is obligated to perform the Chafinah again.
(c)We answer that the Tana is concerned with the Avodos of the Matnos Dam, and not those of the Ketores - therefore he did not mention the Chafinah (even though, the Kohen Gadol is Chayav to perform it).
11)
(a)Ula says that if the Kohen Gadol Shechted the goat before having performed the Matanos of the bull, he will have to Shecht another goat. In that case, when the Tana of our Mishnah says that if he performed the Matanos of the goat before those of the bull, he must sprinkle the blood of the goat again - why does he not add that he must also Shecht another goat?
11)
(a)Ula says that if the Kohen Gadol Shechted the goat before having performed the Matanos of the bull, he will have to Shecht another goat. When the Tana of our Mishnah says that if he performed the Matanos of the goat before those of the bull, he must sprinkle the blood of the goat again, he is speaking about the Matanos of the Heichal, when the goat was Shechted earlier - after the conclusion of the Matanos of the bull in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim, in which case, Ula too, will agree, that it will not be necessary to Shecht another goat.