(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 12



(a) According to Rebbi Yochanan, Rabbanan argue with Rebbi Shimon (and hold 'Leiv Beis-Din Masneh Aleihem' with regard to Temidin). They are not necessarily the Tana of ...
1. ... the Mishnah in Shekalim ('Mosar ha'Ketores') - because maybe it is only there that they hold 'Leiv Beis-Din ... ', since Ketores cannot graze in the meadow, but Temidin which can, should.
2. ... the Beraisa of Parah Adumah ('Parah Nifdis') - because maybe it is only there that they hold Leiv Beis-Din Masneh ... ' due to the value of the Parah Adumah, but not by Temidin.
(b) We suggest that maybe it is the 'Amru Lo' (whom we just quoted) who question Rebbi Shimon. When they say 'Ho'il ve'Ein Kaparasan Shaveh, He'ach Hein Kereivin?' - they would then be pointing out that Rebbi Shimon, who does not hold of 'Leiv Beis-Din ... ' had a problem, but not they, since they held 'Leiv Beis-Din Masneh ... '.

(c) We refute this proposition however, on the grounds that perhaps the Amru Lo is Rebbi Meir - who would then be saying to Rebbi Shimon that he had a problem because he maintained that each Sa'ir came to atone for something else, but not he, who held that they all came to atone for the same thing.

(d) The mystery Tana whose opinion Ula Amar Rebbi Yochanan cites must therefore be - an unknown Tana who, Rebbi Yochanan received by tradition, holds 'Leiv Beis-Din Masneh' even by Temidin.

(a) According to Rebbi Shimon (who does not hold of 'Leiv Beis-Din Masneh Aleihen') the redundant Temidei Tzibur - are placed on the Mizbe'ach as 'Olos Kayitz ha'Mizbe'ach' (which will be explained shortly).

(b) Even Rebbi Shimon will agree however, says Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak, that this is not the case by redundant Se'irei Chata'os - such as Se'irei Chata'os that got lost in the month of Adar, were replaced by other goats, and were found in Nisan.

(c) Se'irei Chata'os are different than Temidin in this regard - simply because they are Chata'os, and one cannot simply bring a Chatas as an Olah, even after the Kaparah has been achieved, since Chazal decreed after the Kaparah on account of before the Kaparah (where one might come to do likewise).

(d) Consequently, one takes a redundant Sa'ir Chatas, according to Rebbi Shimon - and lets it graze in the meadow until it obtains a blemish, before redeeming it and using the proceeds to purchase Olos for Kayitz ha'Mizbe'ach.

(a) Abaye corroborates Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak's statement with a Beraisa ('ve'Chein Se'irei Avodah-Zarah she'Avdu ... ' [which we already discussed on the previous Daf]). Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon say there - that if the Se'irei Avodah-Zarah or the bull and the goat of Yom Kipur got lost and were replaced, they must graze in the meadow until they obtain a blemish, when they are redeemed and the money goes towards 'Nedavah' (Olas Kayitz la'Mizbe'ach).

(b) Rava proves this from a Mishnah in Yoma. The Tana says there that in a case where the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach died, and they brought two fresh goats and made the required Goral - one of the remaining goats is brought la'Hashem, and the other, 'must graze in the meadow until it obtains a blemish ... '.

(c) Rava knows that the author of that Mishnah is Rebbi Shimon - because he is the one who confines the Halachah of 'Chatas Meisah' to a Chatas Yachid.

(a) Ravina proves it from a Mishnah in Temurah. The Tana Kama there rules that an Asham whose owner died or was atoned for with another Asham 'Yir'eh ad she'Yista'ev ... ' ('it must graze until it obtains a blemish ... ' [based on the principle that wherever a Chatas Yachid dies, the Din of an Asham is 'Yir'eh']), whilst Rebbi Eliezer holds 'Yamus'. Rebbi Yehoshua (or Rebbi Elazar) says - 'Yavi be'Damav Olah'.

(b) The difference between the Tana Kama and Rebbi Yehoshua (or Rebbi Elazar) is - whether the Olas Kayitz is a Korban Tzibur (the Tana Kama) or a Korban Yachid (Rebbi Yehoshua ... ), (the ramifications of which are explained in Yoma) ...

(c) ... but not the animal itself - a proof that a redundant Korban (other than an Olah) cannot be transferred directly into an Olah ('Gezeirah Achar Kaparah Atu Lifnei Kaparah').

(a) We also cite a Beraisa as a further proof that, according to Rebbi Shimon, redundant Korbenos Tzibur are used as a 'Kayitz la'Mizbe'ach'. Initially, we interpret Beraisa 'Mah Hein Mevi'in min ha'Mosros, Kayitz ki'Benos Shu'ach' to mean - that Mosros Tzibur are sold and with the proceeds, one purchases figs (Kayitz) to place on the Mizbe'ach like a dessert after a meal.

(b) We object to this literal interpretation however - on the basis of the Pasuk in Vayikra, forbidding yeast (leaven) and honey (incorporating all fruit) to be brought on the Mizbe'ach.

(c) Rav Chanina, quoting a Beraisa, therefore explains the Beraisa to mean - that one brings a dessert (a non-literal translation of 'Kayitz') on the Mizbe'ach, like we would eat figs as a dessert.




(a) When Rava heard from Rav Nachman bar Rav Chisda that one cannot use birds for the Kayitz ha'Mizbe'ach - he objected on the grounds that his statement was baseless.

(b) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said in response - that Rava should not say that, since it was from him that Rav Nachman bar Rav Chisda heard it.

(c) In fact, Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak had merely quoted Rav Shimi from Neherda'a, who said - that Mosros went to Nidvas Tzibur (like the Tana Kama of Rebbi Yehoshua (or Rebbi Elazar on the previous Amud), and no birds are ever brought as a Korban Tzibur.

(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Sh'muel agrees with Rebbi Yochanan - who rules that, according to Rebbi Shimon, who does not hold of 'Leiv Beis-Din Masneh Aleihen, redundant Temidei Tzibur are brought on the Mizbe'ach as Olas Kayitz ha'Mizbe'ach (as we discussed earlier).

(b) When Sh'muel ...

1. ... said 'Korbenos Tzibur, Sakin Moshchasan', he meant that - the Shechitah of redundant Temidin is sufficient to transfer them from one Tamid to the other.
2. ... added 'le'Mah she'Hein', he meant - that (since they are basically both the same Korban [Olos in this case]) that will apply even though the second Korban is not exactly the same as the first.
(c) And we corroborate this further with a Beraisa, where Rebbi Shimon says - that a goat (of a Chatas Tzibur) that was not brought ...
1. ... on Pesach or Shavu'os - should be brought on Rosh Chodesh.
2. ... on Rosh Chodesh - should be brought on Yom Kipur.
3. ... on Yom Kipur - should be brought on Sukos.
4. ... on Sukos - should be brought on Shemini Atzeres ...
(d) ... because, he explained, they all come to atone for the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon (i.e. the Mizbach ha'Olah [see Tosfos DH 'she'mi'Techilah').
(a) We learned in our Mishnah that the Sa'ir Penimi atones for Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav. We derive from the Pasuk "ve'Chiper al ha'Kodesh mi'Tum'os B'nei Yisrael ...
1. ... "u'mi'Pish'eihem" - that it atones if he transgressed be'Meizid.
2. ... "le'Chol Chatosam" - that it also atones if he transgressed be'Shogeg (with a Yedi'ah bi'Techilah ve'Lo be'Sof, as we learned in our Mishnah).
(b) The source for 'Pesha'im' are the Pesukim in Melachim "Melech Mo'av Pasha Bi" and "Az Tifsha Livnah ba'Eis ha'Hi", and from the Pasuk "Nefesh Ki Secheta - bi'Shegagah" that "Chata'os" refers to Shogeg.
(a) Our Mishnah writes that the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach atones for 'Kalos va'Chamuros, Zedonos u'Shegagos, Hoda ve'Lo Hoda, Asei ve'Lo Sa'aseh, Kerisos u'Misos Beis-Din'. To avoid a seeming repetition, Rav Yehudah explains the sequence of ...
1. ... 'Kalos va'Chamuros, Zedonos u'Shegagos' to mean - that the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach atones whether one transgressed those Kalos and Chamuros (which will be explained shortly) be'Shogeg or be'Meizid.
2. ... 'Zedonos u'Shegagos, Hoda ve'Lo Hoda' - that, assuming he had transgressed be'Shogeg, whether he knew that he may have transgressed or not.
3. ... 'Asei ve'Lo Sa'aseh, Kerisos u'Misos Beis-Din' - to mean that 'Asei ve'Lo Sa'aseh' is the explanation of 'Kalos', and 'Kerisos u'Misos Beis-Din', of 'Chamuros'.
(b) Initially, we interpreted 'Hoda' to mean sins that one committed on purpose. It cannot mean sins that one committed be'Shogeg and of which one was fully aware - because then he would remain Chayav to bring his Chatas or Asham after Yom Kipur (and the Tana should not have included them in sins for which the Sa'ir ha'Mishta'le'ach atones).
(a) The problem with the insertion of Mitzvos Asei in the above list is - that if he did not do Teshuvah, then we ought to apply the Pasuk "Zevach Resha'im To'eivah" (in which case, the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach would not help him); whereas, if he did Teshuvah, then no further Kaparah would be necessary.

(b) Rebbi Zeira establishes the author as Rebbi - who holds - that Yom Kipur atones even for sins for which one did not do Teshuvah ...

(c) ... with the three exceptions: someone who denied Hashem altogether, someone who deliberately made false D'rashos in the Torah and someone who nullified the B'ris Milah (by pulling back the skin).

Next daf


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