Previous Daf

SHEVUOS 14

Ask A Question

1)   click for question
(a) We just learned from the Pasuk "asher la'Am" that the Sa'ir atones for Yisre'elim, but not for the Kohanim. We refute the Kashya that this Pasuk is needed to teach us that it is the people who must pay for it, and not the Kohen Gadol - by citing another Pasuk "u'me'es Adas B'nei Yisrael Yikach ... " from which we can learn that.
(b) We might otherwise have thought that the Kohen Gadol has to pay for it - since he is the one who pays for the Par.

2)   click for question
(a) We query the D'rashah of "Asher lo" to preclude Yisrael from the Kaparah of the Kohen Gadol from a Beraisa, which learns from it that the Kohen Gadol must pay for his Par.
(b) We initially think that the Kohanim are nevertheless permitted to pay for it - since they share in the Kaparah.
(c) We know that they are not - from "Asher lo", which the Torah writes a second time.
(d) From the fact that the Torah writes "Asher lo" a third time - the Tana learns - that this Din is crucial to the fulfillment of the Mitzvah (and if he is not the one who paid for it, he and the Kohanim will not receive a Kaparah).

3)   click for question
(a) We therefore explain the Tana's attempt to preclude the Kohanim from Aharon's Par (even though "Asher lo" does not imply Aharon only, as we just explained) - that since the Kohanim do not share in the costs, they ought not to share in the Kaparah either (in the same way as they don't share in the Kaparah of the Sa'ir, because they did not pay for it).
(b) And he answers - that they share in the Kaparah because they fall under the category of 'Beiso' (as we explained earlier).

4)   click for question
(a) Three Kaparos are written in connection with Aharon's Par - two Viduyin ('Kaparas Devarim') and the sprinkling of its blood.
(b) This goes nicely with Rebbi Shimon's explanation - because one corresponds to Yisrael's Sa'ir Penimi, one, to their Sa'ir ha'Na'aseh ba'Chutz and one, to the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach (which, according to Rebbi Shimon, does not cover the Kohanim).
(c) The problem according to Rebbi Yehudah is - that two ought to suffice (since, in his opinion, the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach covers the Kohanim too). So what is the point of the extra Viduy?
(d) So Rebbi Yehudah explains the extra Viduy like Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael, who says - that when one person atones for someone else, he must first ensure that he himself is innocent ('Yavo Zakai Vi'yechaper al Chayav').
(e) So too here - the Kohen Gadol must first atone for himself and for his family (by means of the first Viduy) before atoning for his fellow Kohanim. In fact, the two are part of one and the same Kaparah.

5)   click for question
(a) Our Mishnah opens with the statement 'Yedi'os ha'Tum'ah Shetayim she'Hein Arba'. They are called 'Yedi'os ha'Tum'ah' - because one has to be aware of the Tum'ah and the Mikdash or Kodesh both prior to performing the sin and after it.
(b) We already discussed 'Shetayim she'Hein Arba' in the first Perek. If one forgot ...
1. ... the Kodesh or the Mikdash and remembered only the Tum'ah, or vice-versa, or if he forgot ...
2. ... both the Tum'ah and the Kodesh before eating it or the Mikdash before entering it, and remembered them only after having transgressed - he nevertheless brings a Korban Oleh ve'Yored.
(c) With regard to Tum'as Mikdash, our Mishnah equates the 'Tosefes ha'Azarah' - (the area that they later added to the Azarah) with the Azarah.
(d) What gives the Tosefes ha'Azarah the status of the Azarah - is elaborate consecration ceremony, which the Tana is about to describe.

6)   click for question
(a) The ceremony involves - the King, the Navi, the Kohen Gadol (wearing the Urim ve'Tumim) and the Sanhedrin of seventy-one
(b) ... and it includes 'Shir', and two Todos (Thanks-offerings) which are carried behind the Sanhedrin. If the inner Todah is eaten - the outer one is burned.
(c) The whole of Yisrael - take up the rear of the procession.
(d) If any of these details are omitted from the ceremony - then that part of the Azarah remain Chol like before, and a Tamei person who enters there is not Chayav.

7)   click for question
(a) Our Mishnah discusses a case where someone became Tamei in the Azarah and was aware of this. In order to be Chayav a Korban Oleh ve'Yored, he would then have to forget - either that he was Tamei, or that he was in the Beis-Hamikdash, or both.
(b) There are also three possibilities regarding the time he remains in the Azarah that will render him Chayav. One is if he prostrates himself there before leaving - the second, if he remains there for the time it would have taken him to do so; and the third, if he exited the Azarah taking any route other than the shortest.
(c) He will not however, be Chayav - if he leaves the Azarah by the shortest route, but taking longer to reach the exit than the time it would take him to prostrate himself.

8)   click for question
(a) This leniency is based on - the Mitzvas Asei (in Naso) "vi'Yeshalchu min ha'Machaneh ... ve'Chol Tamei la'Nafesh".
(b) Under similar circumstances, one would be Chayav Kareis regarding an Asei by Nidah (which will be cited in the Sugya) - if, in the middle of a Bi'ah, his wife informs him that she has become a Nidah, and he exits immediately ...
(c) ... because of the pleasure one derives from the actual exiting.
(d) What one must therefore do is - to wait for the Milah to go limp, and then to exit.

9)   click for question
(a) Rebbi ...
1. ... Eliezer learns from the juxtaposition of "O be'Nivlas Sheretz ... ve'Ne'elam Mimenu" - that one is only Chayav for He'elam Sheretz (Tum'ah), but not for He'elam Mikdash (or Kodesh).
2. ... Akiva learns from the Pasuk "ve'Ne'elam Mimenu ve'hu Tamei" - that one is only Chayav for He'elam Tum'ah, but not for He'elam Mikdash (or Kodesh [like Rebbi Eliezer learned from the previous juxtaposition, and the Sugya will discuss the ramifications of their Machlokes shortly]).
(b) Rebbi Yishmael learns from "ve'Ne'elam" "ve'Ne'elam" - that he is Chayav a Korban Oleh ve'Yored even for He'elam Mikdash and Kodesh as well.

10)   click for question
(a) The problem Rav Papa has with the Lashon of our Mishnah 'Yedi'os ha'Tum'ah Shetayim she'Hein Arba' is - that there are actually six cases all in all (since each case of Mikdash and Kodesh, besides the Yedi'ah of Tum'ah, requires Techilas Yedi'ah and Sof Yedi'ah).
(b) Initially, he expected the Tana to say 'Shetayim she'Hein Sheish', and not 'Shetayim she'Hein Shemonah' (in spite of the fact that He'elam Tum'ah by both Tum'as Mikdash Tum'as and Kodesh also requires Yedi'ah bi'Techilah and Yedi'ah be'Sof) - because Yedi'as ha'Tum'ah is exactly the same by Kodesh as by Mikdash, so the two are counted as one.
(c) Rav Papa himself concludes that in fact, there are eight cases, like Abaye initially retorted, and the Tana states 'four' (according to ...
1. ... the first Lashon) - because he is only concerned with the second Yedi'ah, which actually creates the Chiyuv Korban.
2. ... the second Lashon) - because he is only concerned with the first Yedi'ah, which is peculiar to Korban Oleh ve'Yored (whereas the second is common to all Korbanos).

11)   click for question
(a) Rav Papa asks whether a person who forgot Hilchos Tum'ah will be obligated to bring a Korban Oleh ve'Yored. The case cannot be where he touched a dead lizard, but thought that it is a frog that is Tamei and not a lizard - because that is an explicit Pasuk, and every child knows the real facts. Consequently, it is not considered a Ha'alamah.
(b) Rav Papa is referring to a case where the sinner knew exactly that he had touched a piece of Sheretz, and that that piece measured a 'k'Adashah' (a lentil), only he thought that the Shi'ur Tum'ah of a Sheretz is larger than a 'k'Adashah'.
(c) The She'eilah is that even though he did not know the Shi'ur Tum'ah, he might nevertheless be Chayav to bring a Korban - because he knew that a Sheretz is Metamei.
(d) The outcome of the She'eilah is -'Teiku' (Tishbi Yetaretz Kushyos ve'Ibayos').

12)   click for question
(a) Rebbi Yirmiyah asks whether - it is considered He'elam Mikdash in a case where a ben Bavel arrives in Eretz Yisrael and, in a state of Tum'ah, he enters the Beis-Hamikdash without being aware that that is where he is.
(b) Rebbi Yirmiyah cannot have asked this She'eilah according to ...
1. ... Rebbi Akiva (even though he requires Yedi'ah bi'Techilah) - because he does not incorporate He'elam Mikdash in the Din of Korban Oleh ve'Yored (as we just learned in our Mishnah).
2. ... Rebbi Yishmael (even though he incorporates He'elam Mikdash in the Din of Korban Oleh ve'Yored) - because he does not require a Yedi'ah bi'Techilah (as we will learn later in the Masechta).
(c) In fact, Rebbi Yirmiyah asks his She'eilah - according to Rebbi (who both incorporates He'elam Mikdash in the Din of Korban Oleh ve'Yored and requires a Yedi'ah bi'Techilah).
(d) The two sides of the She'eilah (which, like the previous one, remains unanswered) are - whether, in spite of the fact that he knew about Tum'as Mikdash, it is not even called 'Yedi'as Beis Rabo' in the case of Tum'ah (where he once knew what a Sheretz was and that touching it will render him Tamei, but forgot) - since in our case, he never knew that where he was standing was the location of the Beis-Hamikdash (and that a Tamei person standing where he was would be Chayav).

Next Daf