(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 8

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


(a) We just learned in a Beraisa that according to Rebbi Yehudah, "mi'Tum'os Bnei Yisrael" (in connection with the Sa'ir Penimi) refers to Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav, seeing as the Torah has already distinguished it from other Tum'os.
Where does the Torah do this?

(b) In what way does the Korban Olah ve'Yored differ from the Chatas that one brings for other Tum'os?

(c) In that case, how do we know that it does not pertain to ...

  1. ... Avodah-Zarah, who brings a goat without the option of bring a lamb (Rav Kahana)?
  2. ... a Yoledes (a woman who gave birth) who has the option of bringing a Korban Oleh ve'Yored (Rav Hoshaya)?
(a) What did Rav Kahana mean when he said 'Ana Chalak Lehakeil ka'Amrinan, ve'Hai Chalak Lehachmir'? Which leniency is he referring to?

(b) In that case, what did we mean when we then asked 've'Eima Yoledes'?

(c) How will we answer the Kashya from Yoledes according to Rebbi Shimon, who holds that a Yoledes is considered a sinner? Which sin is he referring to?

(a) We then ask 've'Eima Metzora?' Why can the Kashya not be the fact that he brings birds as a Korban (like we will ask shortly in the case of a Tamei Nazir)?

(b) What is the Kashya?

(c) How does Rav Hoshaya answer this Kashya?

(d) And how will we answer according to Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni, who ascribes Tzara'as to one of seven sins?

(e) Then what is the purpose of the Korban?

(a) We then ask that perhaps "le'Chol Chatosam" refers to a Tamei Nazir.
What leniency pertains to the Korbanos of a Tamei Nazir?

(b) In this case too, we apply Rav Hoshaya's answer, except according to the opinion of Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar.
Of which sin is a Nazir guilty, according to Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar?

(c) So how do we know that "le'Chol Chatosam" does not pertain to a Tamei Nazir according to him?

(a) Rebbi Shimon seems to be right, when he learns from "ve'Chiper al ha'Kodesh mi'Tum'os ... " that the Chatas Penimi comes to atone for Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav.
What does Rebbi Yehudah learn from ...
  1. ... there?
  2. ... the Pasuk there "ve'Chein Ya'aseh le'Ohel Mo'ed" (from which Rebbi Shimon learns Rebbi Yehudah's previous D'rashah)? What might we have thought if not for this Pasuk?
(b) And how does Rebbi Shimon counter Rebbi Yehudah's argument?

(c) Rebbi Shimon learned from "mi'Pish'eihem le'Chol Chatosam" that the Sa'ir Penimi does not atone for Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav where there was a Yedi'ah at the beginning and at the end with a He'elam in the middle.
What problem do we have with this D'rashah?

(d) How do we establish the case to solve the problem?

Answers to questions



(a) Having established that the Sa'ir Penimi tides over Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav which is not subject to a Korban, what does the Tana mean when he asks 'Minayin le'Yesh Bah Yedi'ah bi'Techilah ve'Ein Bah Yedi'ah be'Sof she'Sa'ir Zeh Toleh'? What alternative is there?

(b) What would the Din then be by 'Yesh Bah Yedi'ah bi'Techilah ve'Ein Bah Yedi'ah be'Sof'?

(c) But surely, the Sa'ir ha'Na'aseh ba'Chutz already atones for 'Ein Bah Yedi'ah bi'Techilah ve'Yesh Bah Yedi'ah be'Sof'?

(d) So what do we learn from the fact that the Torah writes "le'Chol Chatosam" (by Chatas Penimi) and not "me'Chatosam"?

(a) What objection does Rava raise to Rebbi Zeira's suggestion that 'tides over' means that, should he die, it will atone for his sin?

(b) Then how does Rava explain it?

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that the Sa'ir ha'Na'seh ba'Chutz atones for Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav where there was no Yedi'ah at the beginning but there was at the end.
Seeing as the two goats are compared, we ask, how do we know that the Chatas Penimi does not atone for 'Ein Bah Yedi'ah bi'Techilah ... ', as well as 'Yesh Bah Yedi'ah ba'Techilah ... '?
What would be the point of that, seeing as the 'Sa'ir ha'Na'aseh ba'Chutz' is going to be brought anyway, a short while later?

(b) What do we learn from "Ve'chiper Aharon al Karnosav *Achas* ba'Shanah" (written in connection with the Par ve'Sa'ir ha'Penimi on the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi)?

(c) And from where do we then learn that conversely, the Sa'ir ha'Na'aseh ba'Chutz does not also atone for 'Yesh Bah Yedi'ah bi'Techilah ... ', like the Sa'ir Penimi?

(d) What would be the ramifications if it did? Why would we need two Korbanos performing the same task?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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