More Discussions for this daf
1. Order of Chata'os 2. 'חטאת' 'חטאתו' של נזיר

Boruch Kahan asks:

On the top of Daf Cheys Omud Beys towards the end of the Sugya of the various Limmudim for Chatoos ,the Gemoro wants to know if the Halochos on Ches Omud Aleph to Chatoos would apply in the following 4 types of Chatoos .It firstly mentions Avodah Zoroh mentioned by itself in the Parshah of Shelach then puts together the 3 in Parshas Vayikro which I know are detailed much more in Mas. Shovuos BUT the order the Gemoro brings them is a) Shemias Kol b)Bitui Sefosaim c) Tumas Mikdosh VeKodoshov however this changes from the order in the Torah where in Parshas Vayikro Perek 5 a) Shemias Kol is mentioned in Possuk 1 but Tumas Mikdosh VeKodoshov is in Possuk 2 and Possuk 3 and Bitui Sefosaim is only in Possuk 4 .Why does the Gemoro change the order from the Torah.

I was Poshut thinking that Chazal wanted to change the order by putting Shemias Kol and Bitui Sefosoim together since they are connected Shovuos ,Eidus ie Dinei Mommonus and Beys Din whereas Tumas Mikdosh VeKodoshov is a different topic altogether.

What does the Kollel think

Boruch Kahan, London England

The Kollel replies:

1. The Mishnah in Horiyos (2:5) also lists Bituy Sefasayim before Tum'as Mikdash v'Kedoshav. The Tosfos Yom Tov there (DH v'Al) writes that even though the order of the Pesukim in the Torah is the other way around, nevertheless since we do not nowadays possess the Beis ha'Mikdash the Mishnah puts Bituy Sefasayim first because it applies always, even when there is no Beis ha'Mikdash.

2. There is another Mishnah where we find the order of the Chata'os different from their order in the Torah. This is the Mishnah in Kerisus 10b, which also lists Bituy Sefasayim before Tum'as Mikdash v'Kedoshav. The Aruch la'Ner in Kerisus cites the above answer of the Tosfos Yom Tov, but he states that he is perplexed at what the Tosfos Yom Tov answers.

First, he challenges the implication of the Tosfos Yom Tov that Tum'as Mikdash v'Kedoshav is not applicable nowadays. The Aruch la'Ner argues that this is not true, because the Kedushah of the Beis ha'Mikdash does not disappear even in our times. The proof for this is the Rambam in Hilchos Beis ha'Bechirah 6:16, who writes that the Kedushah of the Beis ha'Mikdash and of Yerushalayim has its origin in the Shechinah which is found there. The Shechinah never disappears from Yerushalayim and the Beis ha'Mikdash, so they are always holy. It follows that someone who enters the place of the Beis ha'Mikdash, even nowadays, is Chayav Kares, so Tum'as Mikdash v'Kedoshav applies now also.

Second, the Aruch la'Ner questions the implication of the Tosfos Yom Tov that Bituy Sefasayim is more applicable today than Tum'as Mikdash v'Kedoshav. The Mishnayos (and the Gemara in Zevachim) mention this Din in connection with bringing a Korban, and nowadays anyway we do not have Korbanos. Therefore, the Aruch la'Ner argues that Bituy Sefasayim is no more Noge'a today than Tum'as Mikdash v'Kedoshav.

3. The Aruch la'Ner gives his own Peshat -- and, Reb Boruch, Baruch sh'Kivanta to what he writes! He writes that the reason why Bituy Sefasayim is put before Tum'as Mikdash v'Kedoshav is because we want to put Bituy Sefasayim next to Shemi'as Kol, since these both are prohibitions transgressed through a Shevu'ah.

4. The Chok Nasan, in Horiyos 8b, suggests another reason for why the order of the Pasuk is changed. This is because we want to put Shemi'as Kol and Bituy Sefasayim together since they both involve a Lav, while Tum'as Mikdash v'Kedoshav involves a Chiyuv Kares.

Kol Tuv,

Dovid Bloom