ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Makos 14
MAKOS 11-15 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi publications
for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.
(a) We cited Rebbi Yitzchak, who precludes Chayvei K'risus from Malkos from
the fact that the Torah mentions Kares by 'Achoso'. The Rabbanan (Rebbi
Yishmael and Rebbi Akiva) explain Kareis by 'Achoso' like Rebbi Yochanan -
who said that if someone transgressed all the eighteen Arayos in one He'elam
(without being aware in the middle that he had sinned), he is Chayav to
bring eigheen Chata'os.
(b) We need the Pasuk by Achoso to teach us this, because - since the Torah
incorporates all the K'risos in one Pasuk, we might have thought that he is
only Chayav one Chatas.
(c) Rebbi Yitzchak learns this from the Pasuk "ve'El *Ishah* be'Nidas
Tum'asah", 'Lechayev al Kol Ishah ve'Ishah'. We ask why the Rabbanan cannot
learn it from there too, and we answer - that in fact, they do.
(d) And they learn from "Achoso" - that, in a case where a man commits
incest with his sister, with his father's sister and with his mother's
sister in one He'elam, he is Chayav three Chata'os.
(a) We retract from this however, on the grounds that it is obvious - seeing
as they are three different sins an well as three different women.
(b) The case the Torah is referring to must therefore be - when a man
commits incest with one woman who is both his sister, his father's sister
and his mother's sister.
(c) We establish this in the case of 'Reshi'a bar Reshi'a' - meaning that a
man fathers two daughters from his own mother and a son from one of his
daughters, and that son then commits incest with his mother's sister.
(d) Rebbi Yitzchak learns this from a 'Kal Vachomer', as Rebbi Akiva taught
in the name of Raban Gamliel and Rebbi Yehoshua - whom he asked this
She'eilah when they were at the butcher, buying meat for Raban Gamliel's
(a) They derived the 'Kal va'Chomer' from - someone who had relations with
five Nidos, which is only one La'av, yet he is Chayav five Chata'os, how
much more so 'Achoso she'Hi Achos Aviv va'Achos Imo', which incorporates
three different La'avin.
(b) The 'Pircha' on this 'Kal va'Chomer' however, is - that the former case
constitutes three different women, whereas the latter one constitutes only
(c) Rebbi Yitzchak concedes to this 'Pircha', and he learns the Din of three
Achosos from "Achoso de'Seifa ("Ervas Achoso Gilah").
The Rabbanan learn
from there that one is Chayav Kareis (and Malkos) for a full sister (who is
both from the father's side and from the mother's).
(d) We learn from here the principle of 'Ein Onshin min ha'Din (otherwise,
we could have learned the Din of a full sister from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from a
(a) Rebbi Yitzchak learns the Onesh of Achaso she'Hi bas Aviv u'Bas Imo -
either from the Azharah (in Kedoshim, where the Torah specifically writes
"Achoscha Hi" to include a full sister), or from "Achoscha" of the Reisha
(by the Azharah in Acharei-Mos) "ve'Ish Ki Yikach es Achoso ... " (when the
Torah could justas well have written "ve'Ish Ki Yikach es bas Aviv O es bas
Imo ... ").
(b) The Rabbanan learn from "Achoso" de'Reisha 'Lechalek Kareis li'Mefatem
ve'Sach' (that if someone makes a replica of the anointing oil and anoints
someone with it, he is obligated to bring two Chata'os) - where the Torah
(in Ki Sisa) writes a La'av for each one ("Al B'sar Adam Lo Yisach, u've'Mas
kunto Lo Sa'asu Kamohu" ), but only one Kareis ("Ish Asher Yikach Kamohu ...
ve'Nichras me'Amav"), for which he would have therefore only been Chayav one
(c) Rebbi Yitzchak does not need this D'rashah however, because he holds
like Rebbi Elazar Amar Rebbi Hoshaya, who maintains - that wherever the
Torah writes two La'avin and one Kareis, someone who transgresses both
La'avin be'Shogeg is automatically Chayav two Korbanos.
(d) This effects our case of three Achosos - inasmuch as there too, they are
three separate La'avin and one Kareis, which will therefore not require a
(e) Alternatively (he does not hold like Rebbi Elazar Amar Rebbi Hoshaya,
but) he learns it from "Ish Asher Yishkav es Ishah Davah". The Rabbanan
learn from there the Din of Rebbi Yochanan in the name of Rebbi Shimon bar
Yochai, who says - that a woman only becomes Tamei Nidah if the blood flows
from her womb, but not if it flows from an incision that was made in that
area of the body.
(a) The two Pesukim "es Mishkan Hashem Timei ve'Nichresah" (Chukas) and
"ve'Lo Yetam'u es Machaneihem" - constitute the Onesh and the Azharah,
respectively, for entering the Beis-Hamikdash be'Tum'ah.
(b) The Pasuk "ve'ha'Nefesh Asher Tochal Basar mi'Zevach ha'Shelamim Asher
la'Hashem ve'Tum'aso Alav, ve'Nichresah" is the Onesh for Tamei she'Achal es
ha'Kodesh. We cannot learn the Azharah from the Pasuk "be'Kodshim Lo
Yochal" - since "Kodshim" there means Terumah (as we shall soon see).
(c) Resh Lakish learns the Azharah from "be'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga". Rebbi
Yochanan (citing a Beraisa quoted by Bardela) learns it from the
'Gezeirah-Shavah' - "Tum'aso" "Tum'aso" from ha'Ba el ha'Mikdash be'Tum'ah.
(d) Resh Lakish does not agree with Rebbi Yochanan, because he did not
receive the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' from his Rebbes, whereas Rebbi Yochanan
declines to learn like Resh Lakish - because in his opinion, "be'Chol Kodesh
Lo Siga" pertains to someone who eats Terumah when he is Tamei (and not
(a) Resh Lakish learns the Azharah to eat Terumah be'Tum'ah from the Pasuk
(that we quoted earlier) "Ish Ish me'Zera Aharon ... be'Kodshim Lo Yochal",
which must be speaking about Terumah and not Kodshim - because, unlike
Kodshim, all "Zera Aharon", female as well as male, are eligible to eat it.
(b) Despite the fact that B'nos Aharon are eligible to eat Chazeh ve'Shok of
Kodshim Kalim, the Pasuk can not be referring to Kodshim Kalim - since a bas
Kohen who returns to her father's house when her Yisrael husband dies,
leaving her without children is not permitted to eat Chazeh ve'Shok, whereas
she is permitted to eat Terumah.
(c) Rebbi Yochanan nevertheless requires the Pasuk "be'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga"
by Terumah as well - one for eating be'Tum'ah, and the other, for touching
(a) In an independent Machlokes, Rebbi Yochanan establishes the Pasuk
"be'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga" by a Tamei who touches Terumah. According to Resh
Lakish, the Pasuk - pertains to a Tamei who touches Kodesh.
(b) And he applies the same Pasuk to a Tamei who *eats* Kodesh (because,
whereas on the One hand, the Torah uses the Lashon of 'touching', on the
other) - since that same Pasuk compares Kodesh to Mikdash, which is Chayav
Kareis, the case of Kodesh must be one of Chiyuv Kareis too (and there is no
Chiyuv Kareis for touching Kodesh, only for eating it)
(c) In a third Machlokes, Rebbi Yochanan confines the Din of Malkos by a
Tamei who eats Kodesh to Kodshim *after* the Zerikah - because the Pasuk of
"Tum'aso" (the source of the 'Gezeirah-Shavah') speaks specifically in such
(d) Whereas Resh Lakish learns that he is Chayav even he eats them before
the Zerikah - from the word "*be'Chol* Kodesh, which is superfluous'
(a) It is the opinion of - Resh Lakish that is supported by a Beraisa.
(b) The Beraisa cites the Pasuk "be'Chol Kodesh", and goes on to prove from
the Hekesh to Mikdash that it must be referring to eating the Kodesh and not
touching it, as we just explained.