(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

Makos 18

MAKOS 16-20 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.


(a) We conclude that in fact, the entire Pasuk of "Lo Suchal Le'echol bi'She'arecha ... " is superfluous. What makes it superfluous?

(b) What ought the Torah to have then written, to teach us Chutz le'Chomah?

(c) What are the ramifications of this D'rashah? What do we then learn from the extra La'av by ..

  1. ... each of the Korbanos?
  2. ... Bikurim?
(d) From where does our Mishnah then learn Malkos for eating Kodshei Kodshim outside the hangings of the Azarah?
(a) Why would it have sufficed to write "Lo Suchal le'Ochlam" to subject each of the La'avin to Malkos? Why would that not be a 'La'av she'bi'Kelalus'?

(b) What is then a 'La'av she'bi'Kelalus'?

(a) We cited Rava who lists five Isurim by a Zar who eats a piece of Olah before the Zerikah outside the walls of Yerushalayim.
Why does he not include the La'av of "ve'Zar Lo Yochal Ki Kodesh Heim" (written in Tetzaveh, in connection with the Korbonos of the Shiv'as Yemei ha'Milu'im, which were Kodshei Kodshim) in the list?

(b) What do we learn from the Pasuk in Mishpatim "u'Basar ba'Sadeh Tereifah Lo Socheilu"?

(c) Then why does Rava not include this La'av in the list?

(a) What does Rebbi Eliezer Darshen from the Pasuk in Tetzaveh (in connection with Nosar) "Lo Ye'achel Ki Kodesh Hu"?

(b) Then why does Rava not reckon this La'av together with the other six?

(c) Finally, we ask why Rava does not include the La'av of "Kalil Tiheyeh Lo Te'achel" (Parshas Tzav).
What do we answer?

Answers to questions



(a) What does Rav Gidal Amar Rav initially learn from the Pasuk in Tetzaveh "Ve'achlu Osam Asher Kupar Bahem" with regard to a Kohen who ate from a Chatas ve'Asham before the Zerikah?

(b) Why is that, considering that this Pasuk constitutes an Asei and not a La'av?

(c) What do we prove from the fact that the Torah writes in Re'ei "Ach es Zeh Lo Sochlu mi'Ma'alei ha'Geirah ... ", after having written "ve'Chol Beheimah Mafreses Parsah ... Osah Tocheilu"? What problem does this create for Rav Gidal Amar Rav?

(d) In fact, we conclude, what Rav Gidal Amar Rav really said was that a Kohen who ate from a Chatas ve'Asham before the Zerikah does *not* receive Malkos because of "ve'Zar Lo Yochal Ki Kodesh Heim".
How does he extrapolate this ruling from the Pasuk "ve'Achlu Osam Asher Kupar Bahem"?

(a) What does Rebbi Elazar Amar Rebbi Hoshaya say about Bikurim that were separated before Sukos and left until after Sukos?

(b) Why is that?

(c) How do we reconcile this with another statement of Rebbi Elazar Amar Rebbi Hoshaya, where he considers Hanachah as being crucial to the Mitzvah, but not Keri'ah?

(d) What did Rebbi Zeira about someone who brings sixty-one Isaron for his Minchah?

(a) Rebbi Asi asked Rebbi Yochanan from when the Kohanim are permitted to eat Bikurim. He replied that Bikurim that are subject to Keri'ah, from after the Keri'ah.
What did he mean by 'Bikurim that are subject to Keri'ah'?

(b) What did he say about Bikurim that are not subject to Keri'ah?

(c) Rav Acha bar Ya'akov cited the statement that Hanachah is crucial to the Mitzvah, but not Keri'ah, in the name of Rebbi Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan. What double S'tirah did that create?

(a) In fact, we conclude, we are dealing here with two Machlokos Tana'im. To answer the Kashya 'Keri'ah a'Keri'ah', like whom do we establish Rebbi Yochanan's ...
  1. ... latter ruling, which considers Keri'ah crucial to the Mitzvah of Bikurim?
  2. ... earlier ruling, which does not?
(b) To answer the Kashya 'Hanachah a'Hanachah', we establish Rebbi Yochanan's statement which considers Hanachah crucial to the Mitzvah of Bikurim, like the Rabbanan of Rebbi Yehudah.
What is the basis of their ruling?

(c) Seeing as the Torah writes 'Hanachah' twice, on what grounds does Rebbi Yehudah disagree with them? If "Vehinachto" does not come to make Hanachah Me'akev, then what does it come for?

(d) What does the word "Vehinachto" mean, according to Rebbi Yehudah?

(a) We establish the Rabbanan of Rebbi Yehudah as Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov.
What does he learn from the Pasuk in Ki Savo "Velakach ha'Kohen ha'Tene *mi'Yadecha*" that clashes with Rebbi Yehudah's opinion?

(b) From where does Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov learn that "mi'Yadecha" refers to Tenufah?

(c) If we learn from our Parshah that Tenufah requires the Kohen's participation by a Shelamim, too, what do we learn from Shelamim, that will apply to the Tenufah of Bikurim, as well?

(d) How do we then combine the two D'rashos?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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