(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

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.



(a) From the switch in Lashon by Amon, where the Torah writes "Al Tetzureim ve'Al Tisgar Bam", to Mo'av, where it writes "Al Tatzar es Mo'av ve'Al Tisgar Bam Milchamah", we extrapolate - that although Yisrael were forbidden to start up with Amon at all, the prohibition against Mo'av was confined to engaging them in battle (but did not extend to making forays into their territory and suchlike).

(b) The reason that Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan gives to explain that is - because Mo'av's mother (the elder sister), called him by a name which publicizes what she did ('me'Av', from my father), whereas her sister chose a less suggestive name for son Amon. And Hashem rewards a person for refined speech.

(c) Mo'av preceded Amon in joining K'lal Yisrael by four generations (Oved, Yishai, David and Shlomoh), because whereas Rus married Bo'az (Oved's father), Na'amah ha'Amonis married Rechavam, Shlomoh's son.

(d) Rebbi Chiya bar Avin Amar Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah attributes this - to the fact that the older daughter of Lot preceded the younger one by one night (from which we learn that, when it comes to performing a Mitzvah, the sooner the better).

(a) The Pasuk "me'Am ha'Aretz" comes to preclude - a Kohen Gadol and a Nasi from bringing a Kisbah or a Se'irah by Shigegas Ma'aseh.

(b) We need a Pasuk to preclude a Kohen Gadol - because we only know that his Korban consists of a Par when there has been He'elam Davar (but not by Shigegas Ma'aseh, where in fact, he is Patur altogether, as we have already learned).

(c) This answer is not adequate to explain why we need a Pasuk for a Nasi - since he is Chayav to bring a Sa'ir by Shigegas Ma'aseh alone, as we have already learned.

(a) To explain the Miy'ut by Nasi, Rav Z'vid in the name of Rava initially establishes the case where he ate a k'Zayis of Cheilev when he was still a Hedyot, but only realized that he had, after he was crowned king. And the Pasuk is coming to teach us - that the sinner's Chiyuv is determined by his status at the time that he realizes that he sinned, and not by his status at the time that he sinned ...

(b) ... like the opinion of Rebbi Shimon - leaving us with a Kashya on the Rabbanan.

(a) So Rav Z'vid amends Rava's answer to conform with the Rabbanan - by establishing the case when the Nasi ate half a k'Zayis when he was still a Hedyot, and another half after he was crowned, and it was then that he became aware of both k'Zeisim.

(b) We would have thought that he is Chayav to bring a Kisbah or Se'irah - because seeing as he ate the first half k'Zayis when he was a Hedyot, the second half k'Zayis does not combine with the first.

(c) This does not mean that he brings a Sa'ir - because since the two halves do not combine, he is in fact, altogether Patur from a Korban.

(d) We opted not to explain that the Pasuk comes to teach us that the first half-k'Zayis does not combine with the second one, to teach us that he does not bring a Sa'ir - because the Pasuk is talking about the Chiyuv to bring a Kisbah or Se'irah, so we preferred to teach the Chidush in that case, too.

(a) Rebbi Zeira asked Rav Sheishes what the Din will be if a Nasi ate a piece of Safek Cheilev before he was crowned king, but realized what he had done only afterwards - according to Rebbi Shimon (because according to the Rabbanan, it is obvious that he will be Chayav, just like any other Yachid.

(b) The She'eilah is - that seeing as (unlike a Vaday, where his Korban changes when he becomes king) he brings the same Korban whether he is a Hedyot or whether he is a king, so perhaps he will not be subject to the P'tur.

(c) The outcome of the She'eilah is - 'Teiku'.

(a) The Tana Kama in a Beraisa learns from "me'Am ha'Aretz", 'P'rat le'Mumar'. Rebbi Shimon b'Rebbi Yossi in the name of Rebbi Shimon learns from the Pasuk "Asher Lo Se'asenah bi'Shegagah Ve'ashem" - that a sinner only brings a Korban for a Shogeg from which he will retract once he knows he knows that what he is doing is forbidden.

(b) The problem with this Machlokes is - that they seem to be saying the same thing (seeing as a Mumar is a prime example of someone who will not retract, even if he knows that what he is doing is forbidden).

(c) Rav Hamnuna suggests that they argue over whether a Mumar to eat Cheilev needs to bring a Korban for drinking blood - in which case the Tana Kama will exempt him from a Korban (since he is a Mumar), whereas Rebbi Shimon bar Yossi will obligate him (seeing as he will retract, once he knows that he is drinking blood).

(d) We refute Rav Hamnuna's explanation however, due to a statement by Rava, who says - that, according to all opinions, someone who is a Mumar to eat Cheilev is not considered a Mumar to bring blood.

(a) So we establish the Machlokes by a Mumar who eats Neveilah for pleasure, but on this occasion, he actually intended to eat Shuman, and after eating it, he discovered that it was Cheilev - in which case, according to the Tana Kama, he is considered a Mumar (seeing as he does eat Isur on purpose) and he will be Patur; whereas according to Rebbi Shimon bar Yossi, since he retracts when he has Heter, he is considered 'Shav mi'Yedi'aso', and is therefore Chayav to bring a Korban.

(b) Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan amends a jumbled Beraisa by differentiating between a Mumar and a Tzedoki (or a Miyn [a heretic]). The Tana defines ...

1. ... a Mumar - as someone who eats Cheilev (which some people enjoy eating) for pleasure.
2. ... a Tzedoki - as someone who eats it to anger Hashem (i.e. even when there is Shuman available.
(c) The Halachic distinction between them is - that a. the Shechitah of the latter has the Din of Avodas-Kochavim and b. (according to some) one may also throw him into a deep pit and remove the ladder.

(d) Rebbi Yochanan then explains the continuation of the Beraisa 'Achal Neveilah, u'Tereifah (see Mesores ha'Shas), Shekatzim u'Remasim' to mean - that in all of these cases, which are considered inedible, he is considered a Tzedoki (even S'tam).

(e) The Tana add to the list - someone who drinks Yayin Nesech.

(a) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah considers someone who wears Kil'ayim - even Kil'ayim de'Rabbanan, a Mumar, whereas the Tana Kama considers a Mumar only someone who wears Kil'ayim d'Oraysa.

(b) Kil'ayim ...

1. ... d'Oraysa is - a thread of wool that is woven fully into a linen garment (or vice-versa) i.e. that they are 'Shu'a (combed together), Tavuy (spun together) ve'Nuz' (woven together).
2. ... de'Rabbanan is - when a thread is either Shu'a or Tavuy or Nuz.
(c) Rav Acha and Ravina argue over the definition of a 'Mumar' and a 'Tzedoki'. One of them learns like the Tana Kama of the previous Beraisa. The other one considers both definitions to fall under the category of Mumar; whereas a Tzedoki in his opinion, is - someone who worships idols.

(d) The Beraisa calls someone who eats a beetle or an ant - a Mumar.

(e) We reconcile this with the first opinion above (which considers eating insects to be a Tzedoki) - by establishing the Beraisa by someone who is simply trying out the taste of every conceivable Isur (and whose intention therefore, is not to anger Hashem).




(a) The Beraisa learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "mi'Kol Mitzvos Hashem Elokav" (in Vayikra, in connection with a Chatas of a Nasi) from "Lema'an Yilmad Le'yir'ah es Hashem" (Shoftim, in connection with a king) - that just as the latter is speaking about a king (ever whom no-one but Hashem had jurisdiction), so too does the former.

(b) When Rebbi (who was the supreme authority in Eretz Yisrael) asked Rebbi Chiya whether, in the time of the Beis-Hamikdash, he would be Chayav to bring a Sa'ir for a Chet - he replied in the negative, because the Resh Galusa was his superior.

(c) We reconcile the Beraisa 'Malta Yisrael u'Malchei Beis David Eilu Mevi'im le'Atzmam, ve'Eilu Mevi'im le'Atzmam' - by pointing out that neither was under the jurisiction of the other (in the way that Rebbi was under the jurisdiction of the Resh Galusa).

(d) According to Rav Safra's version, Rebbi Chiya, based on a Pasuk in Vayechi, answered Rebbi 'Hasam Sheivet, Hacha Mechokek', by which he meant - that whereas the heads of Bavel ruled with their brawn ("Sheivet" means a stick), the heads of Eretz Yisrael (in particular, Hillel and his descendants) ruled with their brains ("Mechokek" means Chochmah).

(a) The Tana'im in this Masechta refer to the Kohen Gadol as 'Mashu'ach' - which comes to preclude a Merubeh Begadim (the Kohanim Gedolim who were inaugurated by wearing the eight garments of a Kohen Gadol, such as those who lived in the era of the second Beis-Hamikdash).

(b) Our Tana presents - only one difference between a Kohen Mashu'ach and a Merubeh Begadim; namely, the current one, which obligates the former to bring a Par He'elam Davar, but not the latter (who brings a Kisbah or a Se'irah like any other Yachid).

(c) A Kohen she'Avar (as opposed to a Kohen ha'Meshamesh) is - a Kohen Gadol who deputized for the Tamei Kohen Gadol on Yom-Kipur, and stood down upon his return.

(d) The two differences between them are - the Kohen Gadol's bull of Yom Kipur and his bi-daily Minchas Chavitin (consisting a tenth of an Eifah of flour).

(a) Both the Kohen she'Avar and the Kohen Meshamesh are eligible to perform the Avodah on Yom Kipur. They are both ...
1. ... obligated to marry - a Besulah.
2. ... forbidden to marry - an Almanah.
(b) Besides the fact that both of them are eligible to perform the Avodah on Yom-Kipur and are forbidden to bury even their close relatives - they are also forbidden to rent their clothes or let their hair grow (in mourning for their deceased relatives), and if either of them die, the murderers in the cities of refuge are permitted to leave.

(c) According to Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa, when Moshe manufactured the anointing oil in the desert, he actually boiled all the ingredients (listed in Ki Sisa) in the oil. Rebbi Yossi objected to that - because, he claimed, there was not sufficient oil to soak the large quantity of spices that were required, let alone boil them together.

(d) Rebbi Yossi therefore explains - that they first boiled the other ingredients in water (with which they became satiated), and then poured the oil on top (to absorb the aroma of the spices), before skimming it off.

(a) Rebbi Yehudah countered Rebbi Yossi's argument - by ascribing the oil's lasting power to a miracle, seeing as the mere fact that it lasted forever, even after they had used it (a mere twelve Lugin) to anoint, on seven consecutive days, the Mishkan and all its vessels, plus Aharon and his sons. And if one miracle could occur, why shouldn't another?

(b) We learn from the Pasuk in "Shemen Mishchas Kodesh Yih'yeh Zeh Li le'Doroseichem" - that although it only comprised twelve Lugin (the numerical value of "Zeh"), it was destined to last forever.

(c) In another Beraisa, Rebbi Yehudah adds other aspects to the miracle of the oil remaining intact - pointing out that (apart from the proportion of the oil to the spices and the number of people and objects it anointed) one would have expected the caldron, the spices and the fire to absorb some of the oil.

(d) The Beraisa draws a distinction between a Kohen Gadol ben Kohen Gadol - who requires anointing (in order to be eligible to perform the Avodah) and a Melech ben Melech - who does not.

(a) In spite of what we just said, they saw fit to anoint Shlomoh, Yo'ash and Yeho'achaz (who all succeeded their fathers on the throne) - because of Adoniyahu (Sh'lomoh's brother), Asalyah (the current Queen) and Yehoyakim (Yeho'achaz's brother), who would otherwise have posed a threat to the three kings in question.

(b) We learn from the Pasuk "ve'ha'Kohen ha'Mashi'ach Tachtav mi'Banav" - that the new Kohen Gadol must be anointed, even if he is the son of the previous one. Otherwise, the Torah should have omitted the word "ha'Mashi'ach".

(c) We learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Lema'an Ya'arich Yamim *Hu u'Vanav*" - that the kingship is an inheritance that is handed down from father to son, and does not therefore require anointing (Rav Acha bar Ya'akov)?
2. ... "Hu u'Vanav *be'Kerev Yisrael*" - that the above only applies when there is peace among the people, but when there is strife, then the chosen king must be anointed, to strengthen his hand and avert Machlokes (Rav Papa).
(a) Rava learns from the Pasuk (in connection with David Hamelech) "Kum Mashcheihu, Ki Zeh Hu" - that only kings of Malchus Beis-David need to be anointed, but not of Malchus Yisrael.

(b) They anointed Yeihu ben Nimshi (who was King of Malchus Yisrael) - only to prevent Yoram the son of Achav from rebelling against him.

(c) To answer the Kashya how they could be Mo'el with the anointing oil by using it to anoint someone who was not from Malchus Beis-David, we cite Rav Papa who will say later - that in order not to be Mo'el with the Shemen ha'Mishchah, they used Afarsemon oil to anoint kings who were not from Malchus Beis-David (and not the Shemen ha'Mishchah, which consisted of olive oil).

(a) They anointed Yeho'achaz, son of Yoshiyahu, the Tana explains, because of Yehoyakim, who was his senior by two years. Rebbi Yochanan, with reference to the Pasuk "u'Venei Yoshiyah ha'Bechor Yochanan, ha'Sheini Yehoyakim, he'Shelishi Tzidkiyahu, ha'Revi'i Shalum", comments - that Shalum and Tzidkiyahu were one and the same person, and so were Yochanan and Yeho'achaz (see Agados Maharsha).

(b) To reconcile this with what we just said (that Yehoyakim was older than Yeho'achaz), we interpret 'Bechor' as - the first in line to rule.

(c) They crowned Yehoram son of Yehoshafat, king 'because he was the oldest sibling' - due to the fact that he was a worthy successor of his father (since he was still a Tzadik at that time), whereas Yehoyakim was not. Note, we will then have to say that Yeho'achaz (like Yehoram), whom the Pasuk describes as 'evil', was still a Tzadik when he became king, and only changed afterwards).

(a) The problem with Rebbi Yochanan's previous statement (that Shalum, Tzidkiyahu, Yochanan and Yeho'achaz were one and the same person) is from the Pasuk itself - which specifically writes "ha'Shelishi Tzidkiyahu, ha'Revi'i" Shalum (so how could they be the same person)?

(b) We therefore explain "Shelishi" and "Revi'i" in the Pasuk to mean - that Tzidkiyahu was the third son (after Yehoyakim and Yeho'achaz), and Shalum (the same person), the fourth to rule (since his nephew Yechonyah, son of Yehoyakim) ruled before him.

(c) The Beraisa, corroborating Rebbi Yochanan's previous statement, explains why Tzidkiyahu had two names. He was called ...

1. ... Shalum (according to the first version) - because he was perfect in his deeds (see last Agados Maharsha).
2. ... Tzidkiyahu (according to the second version) - because Nevuchadnetzar changed his original name, warning him that Hashem would be 'Matzdik on him the Din' (would judge him accordingly) if he broke the oath that he made when he crowned him (that he would not rebel against him).
(d) He did not, in fact, keep his oath.
Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,