1)

(a)Resh Lakish states that according to Rebbi Shimon - the Holachah of the blood of the Chata'os ha'Penimiyos renders them Pasul (even though it is not subject to Kareis, as we just explained).

(b)When, as a reason for this, he explains because it is impossible to dispense with it, he means - that it is not Derech Eretz to Shecht in the Heichal; therefore one has no option but to Shecht it in the Azarah and to take the blood into the Heichal (to place it on the corners of the Mizbe'ach he'Zahav and to sprinkle it towards the Paroches [like the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kipur).

(c)The problem with this statement is - that in Rebbi Shimon's own opinion, there is no Pigul outside the realm of the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon (as we just explained).

(d)Rav Yosef b'Rebbi Chanina answers that Resh Lakish learns this from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from she'Lo li'Shemo - to which Shelamim are not subject, even though they are subject to Pigul, how much more so Chata'os ha'Penimiyos, which are subject to she'Lo li'Shemo.

(e)He is not Chayav Kareis however - because of the principle 'Dayo min ha'Din Lih'yos ka'Nadun' (when you learn a. from b. with a 'Kal va'Chomer', a. cannot be more stringent than b.), and here the source is Shelamim, which is not subject to Kareis.

2)

(a)We then ask what Rebbi will say with regard to Chutz li'Mekomo by Chata'os ha'Penimiyos. The objection against learning it from ...

1. ... Chutz li'Zemano (with a 'Mah Matzinu') is - that the latter possesses the Chumra of Kareis, which the former does not.

2. ... she'Lo li'Shemo (with a 'Kal-va'Chomer') is - that the latter applies by a Bamas Yachid (at the time when Bamos are allowed), whereas the former does not.

(b)We finally learn Chutz li'Mekomo from she'Lo li'Shemo, because the latter is not applicable by a Bamah either - seeing as it only applies to a Korban Pesach and Chatas, neither of which are brought on a Bamas Yachid (on which only Nedarim and Nedavos were sacrificed).

(c)Alternatively, we learn it from a Hekesh from Chutz li'Zemano. The Pasuk ...

1. ... "ve'Im He'achol Ye'achel ba'Yom ha'Shelishi ... " refers to - the P'sul of Chutz li'Zemano (Pigul) ...

2. ... "Lo Yechashev lo Pigul Yih'yeh" - to that of Chutz li'Mekomo.

3)

(a)Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon (in the second Perek) holds that the north side of the area known as 'Bein ha'Ulam ve'la'Mizbe'ach' is considered Tzafon (regarding the Shechitah of Kodshei Kodshim) - even though it is not actually north of the Mizbe'ach (which is what the Rabbanan require).

(b)On the assumption that Rebbi Shimon holds like his son (Rebbi Elazar), Rava asserts that a Machsheves P'sul by the Holachah of the Chata'os ha'Penimiyos, according to him, will invalidate the Korban - only from the entrance of the Ulam and inwards (since the animal could have been Shechted up to that point, and the Holachah was therefore dispensable).

(c)And he makes a similar statement with regard to the two Bazichei (little bowls of) Levonah - whose burning on the Mizbe'ach permits the Lechem ha'Panim to be eaten (like the Zerikas ha'Dam permits the flesh of the Shelamim), which they will no longer do should they become Pasul.

(d)Based on the assumption that Rebbi Shimon holds like Rebbi Yehudah (who maintains that the entire Azarah was sanctified to burn sacrifices, and not just the Mizbe'ach), Rava now says - that only a Machsheves P'sul by the Holachas Bazichin, from the entrance of the Heichal and outwards (meaning the Ulam exclusively) will invalidate the Lechem ha'Panim, by which he comes to preclude the Azarah and 'between the Ulam and the Mizbe'ach', since carrying it anywhere from 'between the Ulam and the Mizbe'ach and the Mizbe'ach is dispensable.

(e)A Machsheves P'sul will not affect the Bazichin in the Heichal either, seeing as the Shulchan can be placed anywhere in the Heichal.

4)

(a)Rava also says that, based on the assumption that, in addition ...

1. ... the Kedushah of the Heichal and the Ulam are one and the same - the Kohen will only be Chayav from the entrance of the Ulam and outwards (meaning within the five Amoh thick walls that served as the entrance.

2. ... the doorway of the Ulam is considered like the Ulam itself - he will only be Chayav by bending down in the entrance of the Ulam and placing the Bazichin on the floor of the Azarah.

3. ... Holachah she'Lo be'Regel (placing the Bazichin without actually walking with them) is not considered Holachah - then, according to Rebbi Shimon, Machsheves P'sul will not apply by Holachah of the Bazichin at all.

(b)Abaye (or Rav Sheishes) asked the Amora (sometimes referred to as a 'Meturgeman') of Rav Chisda to ask Rav Chisda whether the 'Holachah of a 'Zar' - is Kasher or not.

(c)The Amora himself, supported by the Pasuk in Divrei Hayamim "Vayishchatu es ha'Pesach, Vayizreku ha'Kohanim mi'Yadam ... " (implying that the Zarim took the blood from the Mekabel and carried it to the Kohen) - replied that it is Kasher.

5)

(a)Rav Sheishes queried the Amora from a Beraisa which discusses a Zar, an Onan, a Shikor - (a Kohen who has drunk a Revi'is of wine) and a Ba'al-Mum.

(b)The Beraisa disqualifies them all - from performing Kabalah, Holachah and Zerikah, adding a Kohen who is seated and one who uses his left hand.

(c)This Kashya - remains unanswered.

(d)Rav Sheishes explains the Pasuk in Divrei Hayamim to mean - that the Kohanim took the blood from the hands of the Zarim, without the latter making any movement that might be construed as Holachah.

6)

(a)According to Rabah and Rav Yosef, whether Holachah Kesheirah be'Zar or not is a Machlokes between the Rabbanan - (who consider Holachah an Avodah, and Rebbi Shimon - who does not consider it an Avodah, since it is dispensable.

(b)When Abaye queried them from Shechitah, which is indispensable, yet a Zar is eligible to perform it (even according to the Rabbanan), they answered - that Shechitah is different, inasmuch as it is not an Avodah.

(c)Rebbi Zeira Amar Rav learns from the Pasuk in Chukas (in connection with the Parah Adumah), from the fact that, as Rav Papa explained, the Torah writes "Elazar" and "Chukah" - that it requires a Kohen to Shecht it.

(d)Despite the previous ruling permitting a Zar to Shecht Kodshim, the Torah forbids it here - because Parah Adumah is different, since it is Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis (which is not subject to Avodos to begin with, and must therefore be a 'Gezeiras ha'Kasuv').

7)

(a)We query the previous answer (which distinguishes between Kodshei Mizbe'ach and Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis) however - by asking that if Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis requires Kehunah, how much more so Kodshei Mizbe'ach (to which Avodah does pertain).

(b)Rav Shisha b'rei de'Rav Idi answers 'Midi de'Havi a Mar'os Nega'im ... ' - meaning that Mar'os Nega'im too (which has certainly nothing to do with Avodah), requires Kehunah, because it is a 'Gezeiras-ha'Kasuv' (likewise by Parah Adumah).

(c)So we ask from Holachas Evarim la'Kevesh, which we consider a dispensable Avodah - because the Kohanim have the option of flaying it and cutting it up beside the Mizbe'ach.

(d)Yet we learn from the Pasuk in Vayikra "Vehikriv ha'Kohen es ha'Kol Vehiktir ha'Mizbeichah" - that Holachas Evarim la'Kevesh requires Kehunah.

(e)And we reconcile this with Rebbi Shimon, who holds that any Avodah that is dispensable can be performed by a Zar - with 'Heicha de'Gali, Gali' (meaning that wherever the Torah indicates that an Avodah requires Kehunah, it requires Kehunah, irrespective of the fact that it is dispensable.

8)

(a)We finally learn from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Holachas Evarim - which is not crucial to the Avodah, yet it requires Kehunah, how much more so Holachas Dam, which is.

(b)And we bear this out with a statement from Ula Amar Rebbi Elazar, who adds 'Afilu le'Rebbi Shimon' meaning - that even though, according to him, a P'sul Machshavah by Holachas ha'Dam does not invalidate the Korban, it is nevertheless an Avodah that requires Kehunah.

9)

(a)They asked whether 'Holachah she'Lo be'Regel Sh'mah Holachah' or not, meaning - that one made Holachah by handing over the bowl of blood to a Kohen to sprinkle, without actually moving from the spot.

(b)The She'eilah has two ramifications, one of them, whether a Machshavah Pesulah whilst it is being performed will invalidate the Korban, according to the Rabbanan. The other - whether it invalidates the Korban if performed by a Zar (even according to Rebbi Shimon, as we just explained).

10)

(a)We learned above in a Beraisa 've'Chein Yoshev, ve'Chein S'mol' - implying that if the Kohen performed the Avodah standing, in the same way as one normally sits (i.e. without moving), the Korban would be Kasher, thereby resolving our She'eilah.

(b)We refute the proof by establishing 'Yoshev' - where he actually shuffled along, and that is what 'Omeid' means too.

(c)And that is also how we establish the Beraisa 'Shachat ha'Kohen ve'Kibel ha'Kohen, Nasno la'Chavero, ve'Chavero la'Chavero'. Consequently, the Tana is coming to teach us - the principle o 'be'Rov Am Hadras Melech' (the more who participate in performing a Mitzvah, the more Hash-m's glory is enhanced).

11)

(a)In a case where a Kasher Kohen received the blood and handed it to someone who is Pasul - the Beraisa rules that the latter must hand it back to the one who handed it to him.

(b)Besides the fact that the Korban does not become Pasul by virtue of the fact that a Pasul person received it in the middle, the Tana is also coming to teach us - that the Holachah of the first person was not Kasher (because he handed it over without walking), because if it was, why not allow the Pasul person to stand still, and a Kasher Kohen to come and take it from him ...

(c)... a proof - that 'Holachah she'Lo be'Regel, Lo Sh'mah Holachah'.

(d)We reject the proof by amending the Beraisa to read - 'Yachzir ha'Kasher Viyekablah'.