(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

Shevuos 10

SHEVUOS 6-10 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.



(a) Bearing in mind that, according to Rebbi Shimon, the Se'irei Rosh Chodesh do not atone for Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav 'she'Ein Bahem Yedi'ah Lo ba'Techilah ve'Lo be'Sof', he first of all learns (regarding the Se'irei ha'Regalim) from Rav Chama b'Rebbi Chanina's D'rashah "Se'ir", "u'Se'ir" from Rosh Chodesh - that they atone for Tum'as Kodshim (and not for other sins).

(b) He cannot learn from "Sa'ir" "u'Se'ir" that they should atone for the same as the Sa'ir of ...

1. ... Rosh Chodesh (a Tahor who ate Tamei Kodshim) - because of the Pasuk (in Shemini) "Osah" (confining the Kaparah to the Korban of Rosh Chodesh, as we learned earlier).
2. ... Yom Kipur (ha'Na'aseh ba'Chutz ['she'Ein Bah Yedi'ah bi'Techilah ve'Yesh Bah Yedi'ah be'Sof']) - because of the Pasuk (in Acharei-Mos) "Achas ba'Shanah" (precluding others from atoning for that sin, as we learned earlier).
(c) Neither can they atone for Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav where there was ...
1. ... 'Yesh Bah Yedi'ah bi'Techilah ve'Yesh Bah Yedi'ah be'Sof' - because they are subject to a Korban Olah ve'Yored.
2. ... 'Yesh Bah Yedi'ah bi'Techilah ve'Ein Bah Yedi'ah be'Sof' - because they are tided over by the Sa'ir Penimi together with Yom Kipur.
3. ... 'Ein Bah Yedi'ah bi'Techilah ve'Yesh Bah Yedi'ah be'Sof' - because they are subject to the Kaparah of the Sa'ir ha'Na'aseh ba'Chutz together with Yom Kipur.
(d) What we are therefore left with is - Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav where there is no Yedi'ah bi'Techilah and no Yedi'ah be'Sof, and that is what they atone for, according to Rebbi Shimon.
(a) Once again, we quote Rebbi Chama b'Rebbi Chanina's Hekesh ("Sa'ir u'Se'ir") to explain Rebbi Meir, who holds that all the goats atone for everything. The sole exception to this sweeping statement, is - the Sa'ir Penimi, which does not atone for the same sins as they do, neither do they atone for the sin ('Yesh Bo Yedi'ah bi'Techilah') that it does.

(b) When we suggest that this means 'Kol Chad ve'Chad me'Chavreih Gamar', we initially take it to mean - that we first learn all the Regalim from Rosh Chodesh regarding Tahor she'Achal es ha'Tamei, and Sukos from Yom-Kipur (regarding 'Ein Bah Yedi'ah bi'Techilah ... ') and vice-versa (regarding 'Ein Bah Yedi'ah Lo bi'Techilah ve'Lo be'Sof'), and then we learn each one from the one that is next to it.

(c) We have a problem with this explanation however, from a statement by Rebbi Yochanan - who precludes one Lameid from another in the realm of Kodshim.

(d) So we suggest that we learn all the cases from Rosh Chodesh (with regard to Tahor she'Achal Tamei, and vice-versa, regarding where there is no Yedi'ah at all), and from Yom ha'Kipurim (with regard to 'Ein Bah Yedi'ah bi'Techilah ... ' and vice-versa, regarding 'Ein Bah Yedi'ah Lo bi'Techilah ve'Lo be'Sof').

(a) The problem with applying Rebbi Chama b'Rebbi Chanina's D'rashah here at all, is - that by Shevu'os and Yom Kipur there is no extra 'Vav', so how will we be able to learn them from the other cases.

(b) We finally learn all the cases one from the other from the Hekesh quoted by Rebbi Yonah - "Eileh Ta'asu la'Hashem be'Mo'adeichem", comparing all of the cases currently being discussed.

(c) Rosh Chodesh is considered a Mo'ed only because of the Pasuk in Eichah "Kara Alai Mo'ed". Abaye explains this Pasuk to mean - that they made Tamuz of that year (the second year in the desert, when they sent the spies) a full month (which is not usually the case).

(d) The significance of Abaye's statement is - that (instead of the spies returning on the ninth of Av and Yisrael's subsequent weeping on the eve of the tenth), they returned on the eighth, and Yisrael wept on the eve of the ninth, with the result that Tish'ah be'Av came to be fixed as a day of Churban.

(a) Even Rebbi Meir will agree, says Rebbi Yochanan, that the Sa'ir Penimi does not atone for the atonement of the other Regalim, or vice-versa. His source for saying that ...
1. ... it does not atone their atonements is - the Pasuk "Achas", implying that it only attains one Kaparah (as we already learned).
2. ... the others do not atone its atonement is - the Pasuk "Achas ba'Shanah", which implies that it only atones once a year, and no more.
(b) And we corroborate Rebbi Yochanan's statement from a Beraisa. The proof from the Beraisa that ...
1. ... it does not atone their atonements is - that although the Tana lists all the other goats, it omits the Sa'ir Penimi.
2. ... they do not atone its atonement is - that although it mentions all the sins that the various goats atone for, it does not mention 'Yesh Bah Yedi'ah bi'Techilah ve'Ein Bah Yedi'ah be'Sof'.
(a) According to Rebbi Shimon, the Sa'ir of Rosh Chodesh does not atone for the sins of the other Regalim, because the Torah writes "Avon", restricting its Kaparah to only one sin. Neither do *they* not atone for *its* sins - because of the Pasuk "Osah", which confines the Kaparah for a Tahor she'Achal Tamei to the Sa'ir of Rosh Chodesh.

(b) The Se'irei ha'Regalim do not atone for the Sa'ir of ha'Na'aseh ba'Chutz of Yom Kipur because the Torah writes "Achas ba'Shanah". And *it* does not atone for *them* - because of the Pasuk "Achas", implying that it only has one Kaparah and not two.

(c) Certainly, "Achas" is written by the Sa'ir Penimi, (whereas we are concerned with the Sa'ir ha'Na'aseh ba'Chutz). However - the Torah compares the two goats, when it writes "Milevad Chatas ha'Kipurim".




(a) According to Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah in our Mishnah, the Se'irei ha'Regalim are Mechaper for 'Tahor she'Achal es ha'Tamei' as well as 'Ein Bah Yedi'ah Lo bi'Techilah ve'Lo be'Sof'. He counters the Tana Kama (who argues on the basis of the Pasuk "ve'Osah Nasan Lachem", 'Osah Hu Nosei Avon, ve'Ein Acher Nosei Avon") - on the grounds that he does not make such a D'rashah from "Osah".

(b) Nevertheless, the Sa'ir of Rosh Chodesh does not atone for 'Ein Bah Yedi'ah Lo bi'Techilah ve'Lo be'Sof' (like the Se'irei ha'Regalim) - because he concedes to the Tana Kama that "Avon" implies 'Avon Echad Hu Nosei, ve'Eino Nosei Sh'tei Avonos'.

(a) Similarly, the Sa'ir ha'Na'aseh ba'Chutz of Yom Kipur atones for both of the above, as well as for 'Ein Bah Yedi'ah bi'Techilah ... '. Initially, he counters the Tana Kama, who argues on the basis of the Pasuk "Achas", 'Kaparah Achas Mechaper, ve'Eino Mechaper Sh'tei Kaparos' - by disagreeing on principle with this D'rashah too ...

(b) ... because it is written by the Chatas Penimi - and he does not hold of the Hekesh between the Chatas Penimi and the Chatas ha'Na'asah ba'Chutz.

(c) However, the fact that he agrees that the Se'irei ha'Regalim do not atone for 'Ein Bah Yedi'ah bi'Techilah ... ' creates a problem on what we just said - since the basis for this ruling is the word "Achas" (written in the Seifa), from which we Darshen that nothing else can atone its atonement (despite the fact that it is written by Chatas Penimi [a clear proof that he must hold of the Hekesh])?

(d) We therefore reinterpret Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah's reasoning, based on the Pasuk "Ve'chiper Aharon *al Karnosav* Achas ba'Shanah". In fact, we conclude - on principle, he does Darshen "Achas", which he applies even to the Sa'ir ha'Na'aseh ba'Chutz (from the Hekesh). Only this D'rashah is not possible regarding the "Achas" in the Reisha, where the Torah is referring to the Kaparah of the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi, to which the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon is not compared (which is why he does not Darshen "Achas' in this particular case).

(a) Ula Amar Yochanan discussed Temidin that were redundant - by which he meant the four lambs that inevitably remained on Rosh Chodesh Nisan, out of the six inspected lambs that were always standing ready in the Lishkas ha'Tela'im. The reason for this is - because, starting from Rosh Chodesh Nisan, the Torah requires the Temidin to be purchased from the new money that had been donated during the month of Adar.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan ruled with regard to them - that they can be redeemed even without a blemish, re-purchased with money from the new donations and replaced into the Lishkas ha'Tela'im to be brought as a Korban Tamid.

(c) The Chulin money on which they were redeemed - would go to 'Mosar Terumah Yeshanah to buy gold-plating to overlay the Kodesh Kodshim.

(d) One could not simply redeem them on to the money of the new Terumah directly - because of the principle 'Ein Hekdesh Mischalel al Hekdesh'.

(a) When Rabah quoted Rav Chisda Rebbi Yochanan's statement, the latter retorted - that nobody would listen to him (Rabah) or Rebbi Yochanan his Rebbe, because where did the Kedushah go (seeing as generally, the Kedushas ha'Guf of a Korban cannot be redeemed before the animal obtains a blemish).

(b) In response to Rav Chisda's Kashya, Rabah quoted the Mishnah in Shekalim in connection with Mosar ha'Ketores, which is - the leftover Ketores that inevitably remained each year on account of the extra three Manim (that they added to the three-hundred and sixty-five Manim [one Manah per day]), from which the Kohen Gadol would take only one handful on Yom Kipur.

(c) They would pay the mixers their annual wage from the Mosar ha'Ketores by giving them money from the Terumas ha'Lishkah which had become Chulin via one of the treasurers. Then they would redeem the Mosar ha'Ketores on that money, and purchase it back for ten Manah from the new donations.

(a) Rabah tries to prove from the fact that the Ketores can be redeemed - that even Kodshei *Mizbe'ach* of the Tzibur do not require a blemish in order to be redeemed.

(b) What led him to believe that the Ketores was Kedushas ha'Guf - was the fact that the mortar in which they were pounded was a K'li Shares (or so he thought), and whatever is placed in a K'li Shares becomes Kedushas ha'Guf.

(c) Rav Chisda retorted - that Ketores was not Kedushas ha'Guf at all, but Kedushas Damim (and Rabah's mistake was - that the mortar in which the Ketores was pounded was not a K'li Shares, like he thought).

Next daf


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