ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
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
(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).
(c) Neither can they atone for Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav where there was
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
1. ... 'Yesh Bah Yedi'ah bi'Techilah ve'Yesh Bah Yedi'ah be'Sof' - because
they are subject to a Korban Olah ve'Yored.
(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.
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.
(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
(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
(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
(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).
(b) And we corroborate Rebbi Yochanan's statement from a Beraisa. The proof
from the Beraisa that ...
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.
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
(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).