1)

(a)From where do we learn the concession of Tum'ah b'Tzibur?

(b)Does this principle apply to all types of Tum'ah?

1)

(a)We learn the concession of Tum'ah b'Tzibur from the Pasuk in Beha'aloscha "Ish Ki Yihyeh Tamei la'Nefesh" - 'Ish Nidcheh l'Pesach Sheni, v'Ein Tzibur Nidachin'.

(b)This principle does not apply to any type of Tum'ah that stem from a person's body (i.e. Zavin, Metzora'in, Nidos and Yoldos).

2)

(a)We learned above that according to Rav Sheishes, Tum'ah Dechuyah Hi b'Tzibur. How does he prove this from a Beraisa in Menachos with regard to a Kohen who was bringing the Minchas ha'Omer, when it became Tamei?

(b)Rav Nachman refutes this proof on the basis of 'Modina Heicha d'Ika Shirayim la'Achilah'. What does he mean by that?

2)

(a)Rav Sheishes proves that 'Tum'ah Dechuyah Hi b'Tzibur', from a Beraisa in Menachos which rules that a Kohen who was bringing the Minchas ha'Omer when it became Tamei, must bring another one (if this is possible) - something which would not be necessary if 'Tum'ah Hutrah b'Tzibur.

(b)Rav Nachman refutes this proof on the basis of 'Modina Heicha d'Ika Shirayim la'Achilah' - meaning that Tum'ah Hutrah b'Tzibur only applies to bringing the Korban, but not to eating it (which in fact, remains forbidden, as we have already learned). Consequently, when we are speaking of a Korban that needs to be eaten (such as the Korban Omer), even he will agree that we try to re-place the Tamei Korban (in order to fulfill the Mitzvah of eating it).

3)

(a)Rav Sheishes then brings proof from another Beraisa there, which issues an equivalent ruling with regard to a Kohen who was bringing a Minchas Parim, v'Eilim u'Kevasim'. What is his proof from there?

(b)How does Rav Nachman counter this proof (to explain the Beraisa even if we normally hold 'Tum'ah Hutrah Hi b'Tzibur')?

3)

(a)Rav Sheishes then brings proof from another Beraisa there, which issues an equivalent ruling with regard to a Kohen who was bringing a Minchas Parim, v'Eilim u'Kevasim', even though they are not eaten (because he thinks that the Tana is referring to the Minchas Parim, v'Eilim u'Kevasim' of the Musaf of Yom-Tov, which is fixed (indicating that 'Tum'ah Dechuyah b'Tzibur).

(b)Rav Nachman interprets 'Parim' to mean Par Avodah-Zarah (which does not have a fixed time); 'Eilim', Eilo shel Aharon (which is only a Korban Yachid) and 'Kevasim', Keves ha'Ba Im ha'Omer (which is eaten).

4)

(a)What happens in both of the above cases when there is no re-placement flour or animal available? What do the other Kohanim then say to the Kohen who is bringing the Korban?

4)

(a)When the Kohen comes to report that the Minchas ha'Omer or the already Shechted animals became Tamei, and there is no other barley (that was cut for the Mitzvah) or prepared animals, available - we tell him to be prudent and remain silent.

5)

(a)'Dam she'Nitma, v'Zarko, b'Shogeg, Hurtzah, b'Meizid, Lo Hurtzah'. According to Rav Sheshes, what does 'be'Meizid, Lo Hurtzah' mean?

(b)Why do the owners not need to bring a new Korban?

5)

(a)'Dam she'Nitma, v'Zarko, b'Shogeg Hurtzah, b'Meizid, Lo Hurtzah' means that although min ha'Torah Ritzuy Tzitz (the atonement of the Tzitz) permits the Korban even to be eaten, Chazal decreed on a case where the blood became Tamei b'Meizid, that it may not be eaten.

(b)The reason that they did not disqualify the Korban completely - is because bringing a Korban when it is not obligatory, entails bringing Chulin to the Azarah.

6)

(a)How does Rav Nachman establish the Beraisa which seems to make no distinction between Shogeg and Meizid, Yachid and Tzibur, the Tzitz always atones for the blood, the flesh and the Chelev that became Tamei. How does he explain 'be'Tzibur' (according to the first answer)?

(b)In the second answer, Rav Nachman establishes the Beraisa by certain Korbenos Tzibur which also need the Tzitz to atone for them. Which ones?

6)

(a)Rav Nachman establishes the Beraisa (which appears to makes no distinction between Shogeg and Meizid, Yachid and Tzibur, the Tzitz always atones for the blood, the flesh and the Chelev that became Tamei) with regard to the Kashrus of the Korban. The Tzitz is only needed to atone for a Korban Yachid - a Korban Tzibur which is Tamei does not require the Tzitz to atone for it.

(b)In the second answer, Rav Nachman establishes the Beraisa by Korbenos Tzibur which are not time-bound, which also need the Tzitz to atone for them (known as Ritzuy Tzitz).

7)

(a)The Pasuk of "v'Nasa Aharon es Avon ha'Kodashim" (Tetzaveh) -which is speaking about Ritzuy Tzitz, cannot be referring to the sin of Pigul or to that of Nosar. What do Pigul and Nosar mean in this context?

(b)Why can the Pasuk not be referring to them?

(c)The Beraisa concludes that the Tzitz atones for the sin of Tum'ah. Why does the Tzitz atone for Tum'ah more than for 'Pigul' and 'Nosar'?

(d)The Beraisa explicitly mentions 'Hutrah'! How does Rav Sheishes reconcile this with his own opinion?

7)

(a)The Pasuk of "v'Nasa Aharon es Avon ha'Kodashim" (which is speaking about Ritzuy Tzitz), cannot be referring to the sin of Pigul i.e. (the thought of Shechting the Korban in the wrong location) or to that of Nosar (Shechting it in order to eat it outside the allotted time - which is normally referred to as Pigul).

(b)The Pasuk cannot be referring to them - because the Torah has already written "Lo Yeratzeh" by the former and "Lo Yechashev" by the latter.

(c)The Tzitz atones for Tum'ah more than it does for 'Pigul' and 'Nosar' - because we have another leniency by Tum'ah (which does not exist by them) - namely, that 'Tum'ah Hutrah b'Tzibur', forming a precedent.

(d)The Beraisa explicitly mentions 'Hutrah'. Rav Sheshes answers that this is a Machlokes Tana'im, and that his opinion concurs with the Tana of another Beraisa.

7b----------------------------------------7b

8)

(a)According to Rebbi Shimon, the Tzitz atones for Kodshim which became Tamei, whether they became Tamei whilst the Kohen Gadol was wearing it or not. What does Rebbi Yehudah hold?

(b)How does Rebbi Shimon prove his point from the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kipur?

(c)How does Rebbi Yehudah repudiate the proof?

(d)In which case does Rebbi Shimon agree that the Tzitz does not atone?

8)

(a)Rebbi Shimon holds that the Tzitz atones for Kodshim which became Tamei, whether they became Tamei whilst the Kohen Gadol was wearing it or not. According to Rebbi Yehudah, it will only atone as long as the Kohen Gadol is actually wearing it.

(b)Rebbi Shimon proves his point from the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kipur, when the Kohen Gadol did not actually wear the Tzitz whenever entering the Kodesh Kodshim, yet it clearly atoned at that time, too.

(c)The Kohen Gadol on Yom Kipur is no proof, replies Rebbi Yehudah - because he was performing the Avodah for the Tzibur and 'Tum'ah Hutrah b'Tzibur', in which case, the Tzitz was not needed.

(d)Rebbi Shimon agrees that, if the Tzitz is broken, and is unfit to atone, it will not atone.

9)

(a)What is the basis of the Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon?

9)

(a)Rebbi Yehudah holds 'Tum'ah Hutrah hi b'Tzibur' (which is why he does not require the Tzitz on Yom Kipur); whereas Rebbi Shimon holds 'Tum'ah Dechuyah Hi b'Tzibur' (and he is therefore forced to say that the Tzitz would atone even when the Kohen Gadol was not wearing it).

10)

(a)The Pasuk in Tetzaveh writes "v'Hayah Al Metzach Aharon, v'Nasa Aharon es Avon ha'Kodashim ... v'Hayah Al Mitzcho Tamid, l'Ratzon Lahem Lifnei Hash-m". How does each Tana prove his opinion from here, Rebbi Yehudah from the first half of the Pasuk, and Rebbi Shimon from the second?

(b)How does Rebbi Shimon know that "Tamid" does not mean that it must always be on the Kohen Gadol's forehead?

(c)How does Rebbi Yehudah explain "Tamid"?

(d)What Halachah does Rebbi Yehudah learn from a Kal va'Chomer from Tzitz?

10)

(a)Rebbi Yehudah learns from "v'Hayah Al Metzach Aharon, v'Nasa ... " - that the Tzitz atoned only when the Kohen Gadol is actually wearing it; Rebbi Shimon from "v'Hayah Al Mitzcho Tamid, l'Ratzon ... " - that it atoned at all times, even when he was not.

(b)"Tamid" cannot mean that it always had to be on the Kohen Gadol's forehead, Rebbi Shimon argues - because that was not possible! Does he not need to sleep and go to the bathroom?

(c)According to Rebbi Yehudah, we learn from "Tamid" that the Kohen Gadol was not permitted to take his mind off the Tzitz (i.e. by behaving in a manner that was not conducive with the standard of Kedushah that went with the Tzitz).

(d)Rebbi Yehudah learns from a Kal va'Chomer from Tzitz (which contained only one name of Hash-m) - that one may not take one's mind off one's Tefilin (whilst one is wearing them), and should therefore feel them at regular intervals.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF