POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Horayos 11
HORAYOS 11 (7 Sivan) - L'Iluy Nishmas Mrs. Grune Fradl bas ha'Rav Shmuel
David Levinson (who passed away on 7 Sivan 5753), a true 'Isha Yir'as
Hashem.' Dedicated by her son.
1) DIFFERENT LAWS OF A "MASHU'ACH" AND "NASI"
(a) (Beraisa): "From the common people" - this excludes a
Mashu'ach and a Nasi.
2) A "MUMAR"
(b) Question: The Torah already taught that a Mashu'ach
brings a Par, and a Nasi brings a Sa'ir (unlike
(c) Answer (part 1): One might have thought, a Mashu'ach
brings a Par when he sins through Hora'ah, and a Se'irah
or Kisvah for Shogeg - the Tana teaches that this is not
1. Question: This does not explain why we must exclude
a Nasi - he only brings for Shogeg!
(d) Answer (part 2 - Rav Zvid): The case is, he ate a k'Zayis
of Chelev when he was a commoner, and then he was
appointed Nasi, and then learned of his sin. One might
have thought, he brings like a commoner - the Tana
teaches that this is not so (he is exempt).
(e) Question: We understand according to R. Shimon, who says
that the law follows (depends on his status at) the time
he learns of his sin;
1. But Chachamim follow the time of his sin, in this
case he brings like a commoner - when do we exempt a
Nasi from a Se'irah or Kisvah?
(f) Correction (Rav Zvid): Rather, he ate a half k'Zayis of
Chelev when he was a commoner, then he was appointed
Nasi, he ate another half k'Zayis (the entire k'Zayis was
eaten within the normal allotted time), and then learned
of his sin. One might have thought, he brings like a
commoner - the Tana teaches that this is not so (he is
(g) Question (Rava): Does being Nasi separate (acts of
eating, so they will not join)?
1. Question: What is the case?
(h) Suggestion: We can settle this from Ula's law!
2. Answer: He ate a half k'Zayis of Chelev when he was
a commoner, he was appointed Nasi, he was deposed,
and then ate another half k'Zayis (all within the
normal allotted time) and then learned of his sin.
i. Perhaps the two eatings do not join when his
status was not the same for both - but here,
both times he was a commoner!
ii. Or - perhaps in either case, the eatings do not
1. (Ula): A man ate Chelev; he (later realized this
and) separated a Chatas, became a Mumar (idolater)
then repented. Since the Korban could not be offered
when he was a Mumar, it is permanently disqualified.
(i) Rejection: We cannot learn from there - a Mumar cannot
bring a Korban, but a Nasi can (just it is different)!
(j) Question (R. Zeira): A man ate doubtful Chelev when he
was a commoner. He was appointed Nasi, and then learned
of his (doubtful) sin - what is the law?
1. Obviously, according to Chachamim, who follow the
time of the sin, he brings an Asham Taluy (like a
(k) This question is unsettled.
2. The question is according to R. Shimon - since his
law changed regarding a definite sin, does it also
change regarding a doubtful sin?
i. Or - perhaps his law changes only in the
definite case, not in a case of doubt?
(a) (Beraisa): "From the common people" - this excludes a
3) WHO IS CONSIDERED A "NASI"
(b) R. Shimon bar Yosi says, "(A Mitzvah) that one may not do
it, and he forgot, and sinned" - one only brings a Korban
if he would not have sinned had he known (that he is
(c) Question: What do they argue about?
(d) Answer #1 (Rav Hamnuna): They argue whether a Mumar to
eat Chelev (one who wantonly eats Chelev) brings a Korban
for eating blood.
1. The first Tana holds, since he is a Mumar to eat
Chelev, he is also a Mumar regarding blood;
(e) Answer #2: The case is, he is a Mumar to eat Neveilah
l'Te'avon (for pleasure), he intended to eat Kosher meat
and accidentally ate Neveilah.
2. R. Shimon bar Rebbi Yosi holds, since he would not
have eaten blood knowingly, he brings a Korban.
3. Question: But Rava holds that all agree that a Mumar
to eat Chelev is not a Mumar to eat blood!
1. The first Tana holds, since he intentionally sins
l'Te'avon, he is as a (standard) Mumar (i.e.
(f) (Beraisa): If a man ate Chelev, he is a Mumar;
2. R. Shimon bar Yosi holds, since he does not sin when
he can fulfill his desire in a permitted way, he is
not a Mumar.
1. Who is a Mumar? One who eats Neveilos, Treifos,
Shekatzim u'Rmashim (insects and swarming rodents),
or drinks Yayin Nesech (wine offered to idolatry);
(g) Question: The first Tana contradicts himself!
2. R. Yehudah says, even one who wears Sha'atnez is a
(h) Answer (Rabah bar bar Chanah): It means, if a man ate
Chelev because he desired it, he is a Mumar; if he ate to
anger Hash-m, he is a Tzeduki;
1. What kind of Mumar is assumed to be a Tzeduki? One
who eats Neveilos, Treifos, insects, Shekatzim
u'Rmashim, or drinks Yayin Nesech;
(i) Rav Acha and Ravina argued. One said, one who sins
l'Te'avon is a Mumar; one who sins to anger Hash-m is a
2. R. Yehudah says, even one who wears Sha'atnez is a
3. Question: What do they argue about?
4. Answer: They argue about one who wears Sha'atnez
mid'Rabanan - Chachamim say, one is Mumar only for
5. R. Yehudah says, since this is a well-known
prohibition, he is a Mumar even for Sha'atnez
1. The other said, even one who sins to anger Hash-m is
(j) Question (against the first opinion - Beraisa): One who
eats a flea or mosquito is a Mumar.
2. Question: What does he consider to be a Tzeduki?
3. Answer: An idolater.
1. Surely, this is to anger Hash-m, and he is only a
(k) Answer: He only does this to taste what is forbidden, not
to anger Hash-m.
(a) (Mishnah): Nasi is a king.
(b) (Beraisa) Suggestion: Perhaps "Nasi" refers even to the
head of a Shevet, such as Nachshon;
1. It says regarding the Nasi "Hash-m Elokav"; like it
says about a king;
4) WHO IS A "MASHU'ACH"?
2. Just as a king only has Hash-m over him, also a
(c) Version #1 - Question (Rebbi): Would I be considered a
(d) Answer (R. Chiya): No - you have a counterpart in Bavel
(the Reish Galusa).
(e) Question (Rebbi - Beraisa): Kings of Yisrael and kings of
the Davidic line both bring the Korban of a Nasi.
(f) Answer (R. Chiya): They were not submissive to each
other, but we are submissive to Bavel.
(g) Version #2 (Rav Safra) Question (Rebbi): Would I be
considered a Nasi?
(h) Answer (R. Chiya): No, (the Reish Galusa of) Bavel is the
staff (executive authority); Eretz Yisrael (which you are
the leader of) is (only) the lawmaker.
1. (Beraisa): "The staff will not depart from Yehudah"
- this is the Reish Galusa of Bavel, who subjugates
Yisrael with a staff;
2. "The lawmaker (will not depart) from (Yehudah)" -
these are the descendants of Hillel, who teach Torah
to the masses.
(a) (Mishnah): Which Kohen Gadol is considered Mashu'ach? One
anointed with Shemen ha'Mishchah, not Merubah Begadim
(who was not anointed, he just wears the extra garments
of a Kohen Gadol).
5) WHEN THE KINGSHIP IS DISPUTED
(b) The only difference between a Mashu'ach and Merubah
Begadim is that the former brings a Par (for Hora'ah).
(c) (If the Kohen Gadol is Tamei or sick on Yom Kipur,
another Kohen does the Avodah in his stead. When the
former becomes Tahor or healthy, he resumes being Kohen
Gadol, he is called the serving Kohen Gadol, the latter
is called Kohen she'Avar.) The only difference between
them is that serving Kohen *pays for* the Par (that
atones for for the Kohanim) on Yom Kipur and Asiris
ha'Efah (the daily Minchah of the Kohen Gadol);
(d) The following apply to both of them:
1. He may offer the Korbanos on Yom Kipur, he is
commanded to marry a virgin, a widow is forbidden to
him, he may not become Tamei if a relative dies, he
does not grow his hair or tear his clothes over a
Mes, Shogeg murderers in Arei Miklat (refuge cities)
go free when he dies.
(e) (Gemara - Beraisa #1 - R. Yehudah): To make Shemen
ha'Mishchah in the Midbar, they cooked the spices in the
1. R. Yosi: There was not even enough oil to rub on the
spices! Rather, they soaked the spices in water,
then put the oil on them to absorb the fragrance,
then scraped off the oil.
(f) (Beraisa #2 - R. Yehudah): "Moshe took the Shemen
ha'Mishchah and anointed the Mishkan and everything in
it" - several miracles occurred with the Shemen
2. R. Yehudah: We know that other miracles occurred
with Shemen ha'Mishchah(so we can say that the
cooking was also a miracle)!
i. Only 12 Lugim of oil were made; with it, they
anointed the Mishkan, its vessels, Aharon, and
his sons all seven days of the inauguration,
yet the full measure lasted for all
ii. "*Zeh* (this) will be to me for generations"
(the Gematri'a of "Zeh" is 12).
1. They started with only 12 Lugim. Much should have
been lost through absorptions into the pot (in which
they cooked it) and the spices, through evaporation
during the cooking, through anointing the Mishkan,
its vessels, Aharon and his sons all seven days of
the inauguration, through anointing Kohanim Gedolim
(g) Question: The Beraisa requires anointing a Kohen Gadol
that succeeds his father - what is the source of this?
i. A Kohen Gadol must be anointed even if his
father was Kohen Gadol, but we do not anoint a
king succeeding his father.
2. All the oil is intact for future use: "*Zeh* will be
to me for generations".
ii. Question: Some kings who succeeded their
fathers were anointed!
iii. Answer: In each case, this was to silence a
dispute over the kingship - Adoniyahu tried to
usurp Shlomo's kingship, Asalyah had seized
reign in place of Yeho'ash, Yehoyakim expected
to reign before Yeho'achaz, for he was two
(h) Answer: "The Kohen *ha'Mashi'ach* in place of him from
his children" - even though he succeeds his father, he is
Kohen Gadol only if he was anointed.
(i) Question: The Beraisa does not require anointing a king
who succeeds his father - what is the source?
(j) Answer (Rav Acha bar Yakov): "In order that his kingship
will last (he and his children)" - it is an inheritance.
(a) Question: How do we know that we must anoint his son when
there is a dispute, it does not suffice to say which son
will succeed him?
(b) Answer (Rav Papa): "He and his children, *b'Kerev*
(amidst) Yisrael" - it is an inheritance (only) when
there is peace in Yisrael.
(c) (Beraisa): Yehu ben Nishmi was anointed because Yoram
disputed his kingship.
(d) Question: In any case, he needed to be anointed - his
father was not king!
(e) Answer: The Beraisa is abbreviated, it means, we anoint
kings of the Davidic line, not Malchei Yisrael.
1. Question: How do we know this?
(f) Question: If Malchei Yisrael are not anointed, Yoram's
dispute is no justification for Me'ilah (forbidden usage)
of Shemen ha'Mishchah!
2. Answer (Rava): "Go anoint (David) for *this one*..."
- only this (royal line) must be anointed.
(g) Answer: We answer like Rav Papa did (to answer a
different question) - he was anointed with pure Afarsimon
oil (not Shemen ha'Mishchah).
(h) Question: The Beraisa said that Yehoyakim expected to
reign before Yeho'achaz, for he was two years older - the
verse contradicts this!
1. "The sons of Yoshiyahu - the firstborn was Yochanan,
the second was Yehoyakim, the third Tzidkiyahu, the
(i) Answer: Yehoyakim was older; the verse calls Yochanan the
firstborn regarding kingship (i.e. he was the first of
them to reign).
2. (R. Yochanan): Shalom is Tzidkiyahu (this will be
explained); Yochanan is Yeho'achaz.
(j) Question: A younger son may not reign before an older son
- "He gave the kingship to Yehoram, for he is the
(k) Answer: Yehoram was a fitting heir, Yehoyakim was not.
(l) (R. Yochanan): Shalom is Tzidkiyahu; Yochanan is
(m) Question: But it says "The third Tzidkiyahu, the fourth
Shalom" - they are different!
(n) Answer: He was the third oldest, he was the fourth to
1. First Yeho'achaz reigned, then Yehoyakim, then his
son Yechanyah (he is also called Yehoyachin), then
(o) (Beraisa): Shalom is Tzidkiyahu;
1. Version #1: He is called Shalom because his deeds
were Meshulam (complete, i.e. righteous).
(p) Really his name was Matanyah - "Melech Bavel appointed
Matanyah, his (Yehoyachin's) uncle as king in place of
him, and changed his name to Tzidkiyahu."
2. Version #2: He is called Shalom because he Shalmah
(finished) the line of Davidic kings.
1. The name signified *Kah* (Hash-m) will *Matzdik*
(justify) the sentence (to exile the rest of
Yisrael) if you rebel against me (for already Hash-m
would have exiled the rest of Yisrael if not for the
merit of Tzidkiyahu);
2. "(Tzidkiyahu) rebelled against Melech
Nebuchadnetzar, who had imposed on him an oath in