1)

(a)Ula Amar Rebbi Yochanan rules that Holachah she'Lo be'Regel, Lo Sh'mah Holachah', on which we ask - whether it can be rectified or not.

(b)We try to resolve the She'eilah from the Beraisa that we just discussed 'Kibel ha'Kasher ve'Nasan le'Pasul, Yachzir le'Kasher' - which seems to imply that one can (see Rashash).

(c)To refute the proof however, we establish the Beraisa - where the Pasul was standing further from the Mizbe'ach than the Kasher Kohen, in which case it is as if nothing at all had been done.

(d)In the second Lashon, Ula quoted Rebbi Yochanan in such a way that the She'eilah is automatically resolved, by saying - Holachah she'Lo be'Regel, Pesulah (implying that it cannot be rectified).

2)

(a)Rav Nachman queries Ula from a Mishnah in the third Perek Nishpach min ha'Keli al ha'Ritzpah, ve'Asfo, Kasher - despite the fact that some of the blood presumably splashes in the direction of the Mizbe'ach without being carried by a Kohen (a Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan).

(b)Ula refutes ...

1. ... Rav Nachman's Kashya - by establishing the Mishnah in a case where all the blood splashed in one direction (away from the Mizbe'ach).

2. ... Rav Nachman's contention that the blood is unlikely to do that - by establishing the Mishnah further where the blood spills on a slope (that leads away from the Mizbe'ach).

(c)Alternatively, he establishes the case where the blood falls into a hole - or where the blood is thick and does not splash at all.

3)

(a)Rav Nachman rejects Ula's answers - on the grounds that the Tana is unlikely to be speaking in any of these cases, because he would then not be teaching us anything.

(b)He finally proves him wrong from the Mishnah in the second Perek Nishpach al ha'Ritzpah Ve'asfo, Pasul. According to Ula, the Tana ought to have said (to balance the Mishnah in the third Perek) Bameh Devarim Amurim, ke'she'Yatza le'Chutz, Aval Nichnas Li'fenim, Pasul.

(c)In fact, we have no answer to these Kashyos on Ula, and conclude with Tiyuvta (even though the Kashyos pertain to his interpretation of the Mishnah, not necessarily to his ruling, as we will now see).

4)

(a)With regard to the Machlokes between Rebbi Shimon and the Rabbanan in our Mishnah (whether Holachah is an Avodah or not), when initially, we confine it to Holachah Zutr'si - Holachah she'Lo be'Regel.

(b)Rebbi Shimon will then concede - that a regular Holachah is considered an Avodah.

(c)The B'nei Eretz Yisrael reacted to this statement - by bursting out laughing.

5)

(a)We initially think that they laughed at the statement, because it creates a problem with the Chatas ha'Of with regard to P'sul Machshavah, which is not applicable during the sprinkling ...

1. ... before the blood emerges - because since the Avodah (which takes place right beside the Mizbe'ach) is a form of Holachah she'Lo be'Regel, P'sul Machshavah will not apply to it (according to our current understanding of Rebbi Shimon).

2. ... after the blood emerges - because the Mitzvah has already been completed.

(b)The problem then is that - according to Rebbi Shimon, how will Holachah of a Chatas ha'Of be subject to P'sul Machshavah (which we know it is, as we will prove in the sixth Perek).

(c)This does not pose a Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan, who ruled earlier that Holachah she'Lo be'Regel Lo Sh'mah Holachah - because he concedes that even by a Korban Beheimah, if the Kohen is already standing beside the Mizbe'ach, or by a Chatas ha'Of, which Lechatchilah is 'pinched' (Melikah, which is the equivalent of Shechitah by a Korban Beheimah) next to the Mizbe'ach, it is considered an Avodah.

6)

(a)We resolve the B'nei Eretz Yisrael's problem - by establishing the P'sul of Holachah between the time that the blood emerges and the time that it hits the Mizbe'ach (which is when the Avodah of Haza'ah ends, not as soon as the blood emerges, like the B'nei Eretz Yisrael thought).

(b)And we learn this from a She'eilah of Rebbi Yirmiyah, who asked Rebbi Zeira in a case where the Kohen's hand becomes severed after he has sprinkled the blood of a Chatas ha'Of, but before the blood has reached the Mizbe'ach - whether the Zerikah is valid or not.

(c)To which Rebbi Zeira replied - that it is not ...

(d)... because we need "Ve'hizah Ve'nasan" (the sprinkling and the blood reaching the Mizbe'ach) be'Kashrus, a proof that the Avodah does not end until the blood hits the Mizbe'ach.

7)

(a)Rav Papa and Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua ascribe the B'nei Ma'arva's laughter to the statement that Rebbi and the Rabbanan do not argue by Holachah Rabsi, when that is precisely what they are arguing about - seeing as Rebbi Shimon attributes his ruling to the fact that Holachah is dispensable (which Holachah Zutr'si is not).

(b)Regarding a Machshavah Pesulah by Holachah Zutr'si, Rebbi Shimon and the Rabbanan both agree, though there are two versions as to what they say. The reason of those who say that it is ...

1. ... Pasul is - the fact that it is indispensable.

2. ... Kasher is - because it is not an Avodah.

8)

(a)The B'nei Rebbi Chiya and Rebbi Yanai argue over whether, if a Zar performed Holachah, and a Kohen took the blood back, the Korban is Kasher - because Efshar Le'saknah or not, because Lo Efshar li'Tekonah.

(b)They only argue over Holachah, and not over ...

1. ... Shechitah and Zerikah - neither of which can be factually withdrawn.

2. ... Kabalas ha'Dam - because Mah Nafshach, if there is no blood left in the neck, then it cannot be withdrawn either, whereas if there is, then it is obvious that the Kohen sprinkles it and the Korban is Kasher (as we will learn in the third Perek).

(c)Rav Shimi bar Ashi says that in the reverse case (where a Kohen performed the Holachah, and a Yisrael took it back) - they simply reverse their opinions (the one who goes after the first one and is Machshir, goes after the first one here too, and declares the Korban Pasul, and vice-versa).

(d)Rava holds that even the one who holds Pasul in the previous case, will hold Pasul here too - si the Kohen has to return the blood (Tzarich le'Amtuyei), and it is therefore necessary (and considered an Avodah).

9)

(a)Ravina quoting Rav Yirmiyah mi'Difti, told Rav Ashi that - Tzarich le'Amtuyei is a Machlokes between Rebbi Elazar and the Rabbanan.

(b)Rebbi Elazar draws a distinction between Holachah be'Makom she'Hu Tzarich Lehalech and Holachah be'Makom she'Eino Tzarich Lehalech. According to Rava, everyone holds that ...

1. ... Kiblo ba'Chutz Vehichniso bi'Fenim - is considered Makom she'Hu Tzarich Lehalech and is therefore subject to P'sul Machshavah.

2. ... Kiblo bi'Fenim Vehotzi'o la'Chutz - is considered Makom she'Eino Tzarich Lehalech and is therefore not subject to P'sul Machshavah.

(c)ba'Chutz means - at a distance from the Mizbe'ach, and bi'Fenim' - next to it.

10)

(a)And they argue in a case - where the Kohen took the blood in and then took it out again.

(b)Rebbi Elazar says Chayav - because of the S'vara Tzarich le'Amtuyi ...

(c)... whereas the Rabbanan say Patur - because they hold that this is not a regular Hiluch that comes as part of the Avodah, but is performed in order to rectify the fault.

11)

(a)Abaye queried Rava's statement from a Beraisa, where Rebbi Elazar himself explained ...

1. ... Holachah be'Makom she'Tzarich Lehalech to mean - Kiblo ba'Chutz ve'Ve'hichniso bi'Fenim.

2. ... Holachah be'Makom she'Eino Tzarich Lehalech to mean - Kiblo bi'Fenim Vehotzi'o la'Chutz.

(b)According to this, Rebbi Elazar is coming to argue (not with the Chachamim, but) with - Rebbi Shimon (his father, in which case Rebbi Elazar throughout the Sugya must be Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon. See Hagahos ha'Bach on the Mishnah 13a), who holds that Holachah is not subject to P'sul Machshavah at all.

(c)Rava reacted with the words -I Tanya, Tanya (retracting from his initial statement).

12)

(a)Among the Pesulim regarding Kabalas ha'Dam, our Mishnah lists - Zar, Onan, T'vul-Yom Mechusar Kipurim and Mechusar Begadim.

1. An Onan is - someone whose deceased relative has not yet been buried.

2. A Mechusar Kipurim - is a Zav, a Zavah, a Metzora and a Yoledes who after Toveling on the seventh day, has waited for nightfall but has yet to bring his/her Korban on the eighth day.

(b)The list also includes Areil - a Kohen who is uncircumcised (even if it is due to two brothers who died on account of the B'ris Milah), Tamei and Yoshev.

(c)The three cases of Omeid that close the Tana's list are - standing on vessels, on an animal or on another Kohen's foot ...

(d)... and they invalidate the Avodah - because they comprise a Chatzitzah (an interruption between the Kohen's foot and the floor of the Azarah).

(e)The Tana Kama also disqualifies Kabalah with the left hand, whereas Rebbi Shimon - validates it.

13)

(a)Levi in a Beraisa discusses the Pasuk in Emor (in connection with bringing Korbanos be'Tum'ah) "Daber el Aharon ve'el Banav Leimor Ve'yinazru mi'Kodshei B'nei Yisrael, ve'Lo Yechal'lu", from which the Tana extrapolates - Ha Im Avdu, Yechal'lu (that if they serve be'Tum'ah, they will desecrate the Korban).

(b)"B'nei Yisrael" cannot come to preclude the Korban of ...

1. ... women - because why would we even think that a Kohen should be permitted to bring a woman's Korban be'Tum'ah, any more than that of a man?

2. ... Nochrim - because, based on Mar, who said that the Tzitz (which appeases for Korbanos that are brought be'Tum'ah) does not atone for Nochrim whose Korban is brought be'Tum'ah (the blood or the Cheilev that is Tamei), it is inconceivable that the Kohanim should be permitted to bring it be'Tum'as ha'Guf.

(c)We therefore conclude that the Pasuk comes to teach us that the Kohanim should separate from Tum'ah regarding everybody's Korban) and "B'nei Yisrael ve'Lo Yechal'lu" (that a Yisrael who offers Korbanos desecrates them).

14)

(a)de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael learns Zar from a Kal va'Chomer from Ba'al Mum. He asks on the Limud from Ba'al Mum however - she'Kein Asah bo Karev ke'Makriv' (that the P'sul pertains to the Korban as much as it does to the Kohen who brings it), a Chumra which does not pertain to a Zar ...

(b)... to which we answer Tamei Yochi'ach. And we answer the Pircha Mah le'Tamei she'Kein Metamei - with Ba'al Mum Yochi'ach.

(c)de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael learns from the Tzad ha'Shaveh that - a Zar is forbidden to performs the Avodah and that, if he does, he invalidates it.

(d)We learn the prohibition of a Tamei from "vi'Yenazaru", that of a Ba'al Mum from "Lo Yigash" and that of a Zar - from the Pasuk in Korach "ve'Zar Lo Yikrav aleichem".

(e)We cannot however, learn it from "B'nei Yisrael Vi'yenazru" - because then we would also learn Chilul from there (and the Kal va'Chomer would be unnecessary).