ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Shevuos 7
SHEVUOS 6-10 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi
publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.
(a) We try to learn from the Pasuk "le'Chol Tum'aso Asher Yitma *Bah*" -
that eating Terumah be'Tum'ah is precluded from a Korban Oleh ve'Yored, and
that the Pasuk must therefore be speaking about Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav.
(b) When we suggest that maybe the Miy'ut comes to preclude Mikdash
ve'Kodashav, we mean - that we to preclude them from Korban Oleh ve'Yored,
but that they should be obligated to bring a regular Chatas.
(c) Rava turns to a Beraisa to settle the issue. He refers to - Rebbi, its
author, as 'Doleh Mayim mi'Boros Amukim'.
(d) Having stated in the Parshah of Korban Oleh ve'Yored "O be'Nivlas Chayah
Temei'ah", Rebbi considers the phrase "O be'Nivlas Beheimah Temei'ah"
superfluous - based on the Pasuk in Shemini, which opens with "Zos ha'Chayah
Asher Tocheilu", and goes on to include Beheimos in the list that follows,
to teach us that "Chayah" incorporates 'Beheimah'.
(a) Rebbi learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Beheimah Temei'ah" "Nefesh Ki
Siga ... O bi'Veheimah Temei'ah" (in Tzav [in connection with someone who
then eats Kodshim]) - that just as there, the Pasuk is speaking about Tum'as
Kodesh (and not Terumah), so too here (by Korban Olah ve'Yored).
(b) And from the Hekesh "be'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga ve'el ha'Mikdash Lo Savo",
we learn - that Tum'as Mikdash is compared to Tum'as Kodshim, which is
therefore included too.
(c) We ask on this from the Pasuk "be'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga" - that in that
case, we should also include Terumah, which is compared to Achilas Kodshim
(with regard to a Tevulas Yom Aruch such as a Yoledes, who is not permitted
to eat Terumah after the first nightfall, until the night before she brings
(d) We counter the suggestion that it is more logical to include Mikdash
from the Hekesh and to preclude Terumah from "Bah", because Mikdash, like
Kareis, is subject to Kareis - by arguing that by the same token, perhaps it
is more logical to include Terumah, because it is similar to Kodesh, since
like it, it entails eating whereas Mikdash does not).
(a) So Rava tries to learn Mikdash (as opposed to Terumah) from the three
Kerisos that are written in connection with someone who eats Shelamim
be'Tum'ah. When Rava says 'Achas li'Chelal (in Parshas Emor) ve'Achas
li'P'rat (in Parshas Tzav) - he means that Shelamim is a 'Davar she'Hayah
bi'Chelal, she'Yatza Li'don be'Davar he'Chadash', which comes to reflect on
the entire K'lal.
(b) Consequently, it is coming to teach us - that only Kodshei Mizbe'ach,
like Shelamim, are subject to Kareis for Tum'ah, but not Kodshei Bedek
(c) The reason that we do not rather treat it as a regular K'lal u'P'rat, in
which case we would rule 'Ein bi'Ch'lal Ela Mah she'bi'P'rat' is - because
the K'lal and P'rat are far apart (in two different Parshiyos).
(a) From the third Kareis (also in Tzav) Rava learns - Tum'as Kodshim by
Korban Oleh ve'Yored (which is currently hanging in abeyance). However,
since we already know this from Rebbi, he switches it ('Im Eino Inyan') to
Tum'as Mikdash (leaving "Bah" to preclude Terumah).
(b) We refute Rava's explanation however, in face of Rebbi Avahu, who learns
from the third Kareis - that one is Chayav Kareis even for eating Kodshim
that is not edible (such as wood from the Ma'arachah), Levonah (from the
Minchah) and Ketores.
(c) And according to Rebbi Shimon, Rebbi Avahu concludes, we need the third
Kareis to include a Chatas Penimis (such as the Par ve'Sa'ir of Yom Kipur)
in the Din of Kareis for eating them be'Tum'ah. The reason that ...
1. ... Rebbi Avahu requires a special D'rashah for Rebbi Shimon is - because
he specifically precludes things that are inedible from the Din of Kareis.
(d) So the Neherda'i in the name of Rava try to learn the Din of Tum'as
Mikdash from one of the three extra 'Tum'os' that are mentioned together
with the three above-mentioned 'Kerisos'. We refute this suggestion too
however - on the grounds that once the Torah has written Kareis (as we just
learned), it had no option but to write Tum'ah as well (in which case, none
of the three Tum'os is superfluous).
2. ... Rebbi Shimon requires a special D'rashah for Chata'os Penimi'os is -
because he precludes them from Pigul. Consequently, says Rebbi Avahu, if not
for the extra 'Kareis', he would have precluded them from Tum'ah, too.
(a) Rava finally learns Tum'as Mikdash from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Tum'aso"
(in connection with Korban Oleh ve'Yored) "Tum'aso" (in Parshas Chukas),
which is written - in connection with Parah Adumah.
(b) We ask why the Torah now needs to write "Bah". "Bah" cannot come to
preclude Terumah from a Korban Oleh ve'Yored - because seeing as it is not
Chayav Kareis be'Meizid, it does not need to be precluded (see also Tosfos
(c) The problem with the answer (that it comes to include 'Nivlas Of Tahor')
is - that previously, we considered "Bah" to be a 'Miy'ut', and not a
(d) Based on the Pasuk "O Ki Yiga", we answer that "Bah" is indeed a
Miy'ut', only bearing in mind that 'Nivlas Of Tahor' is automatically
precluded from "O Ki Yiga" (since its Tum'ah is confined to swallowing it,
and not touching it), it is turned into a 'Miy'ut Achar Miy'ut', which comes
(a) We learned in our Mishnah that the Sa'ir Penimi atoned for Tum'as
Mikdash ve'Kodashav of which one was aware at the time that one sinned, but
forgot later. The Beraisa suggests - that it might have come to atone for
the three cardinal sins Avodah-Zarah, Giluy Arayos and Shefichus Damim,
since in each case, the Torah uses an expression of Tum'ah.
(b) When the Torah writes ...
1. ... in Kedoshim "Le'ma'an Tamei es Mikdashi" - it is referring to
(c) Rebbi Yehudah in the Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "mi'Tum'os B'nei
Yisrael" - that the Sa'ir Penimi atones for only some Tum'os (which refers
to Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav (seeing as the Torah has already already
distinguished it from other Tum'os [as will be explained shortly]).
2. ... in Acharei-Mos "u'Shemartem es Mishmarti Levilti Asos me'Chukos
ha'To'evos ... ve'Lo Sitam'u Bahem" - it is referring to Giluy Arayos.
3. ... in Masei "ve'Lo Setamei es ha'Aretz" - it is referring to Shefichus
(a) Rebbi Shimon queries the need for Rebbi Yehudah's D'rashah - because, in
his opinion, it can be derived from the Parshah of Chatas Penimi itself,
without having to learn it from other sources.
(b) From ...
1. ... the Pasuk "ve'Chiper al ha'Kodesh mi'Tum'os ... " he learns - that
the Chatas Penimi comes to atone for Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav.
2. ... the Hekesh "mi'Pish'eihem le'Chol Chatosam" he learns - that it must
be coming to atone for sins which do not require a Korban (like
"Pish'eihem", which always refers to sins done on purpose, for which there
is no Korban), such as where was a Yedi'ah bi'Techilah, but not at the end.
3. ... "le'Chol Chatosam" - that it only atones for cases which can still
lead to a Chatas (should the sinner remember what he did) but not to cases
where there was no Yedi'ah at all.
(a) The problem with the Tana's passing suggestion that the Sa'ir Penimi
comes to atone for the three cardinal sins is - that Meizid is already
Chayav Misah, whereas Shogeg is Chayav a Korban (or Galus [so what is the
point of the Sa'ir Penimi])?
(b) We answer this Kashya by establishing the need for the Sa'ir Penimi -
either by Meizid where there was no warning (see Tosfos DH 'be'Meizid'), or
by Shogeg where there was no Yedi'ah at the end (see Tosfos DH 'be'Shogeg').
(c) The second answer that applies to Shefichus Damim, and not to the others
is that it speaks be'Shogeg, in one of the various cases where the murderer
is not Chayav Galus (e.g. if he killed the victim with an upward stroke).