(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 13


(a) If the phrase (in Sh'lach-Lecha) "Ki D'var Hashem Bazah" refers to someone who denies Hashem and someone who deliberately makes false D'rashos in the Torah, to what does "ve'es Mitzvaso Heifar" refer?

(b) How does Rebbi then explain ...

  1. ... the double expression "Hikares Tikares"?
  2. ... the phrase "Avonah Bah"?
(c) How does Rebbi extrapolate that "Ki D'var Hashem Bazah" refers to somebody ...
  1. ... who denies Hashem?
  2. ... who deliberately makes false D'rashos in the Torah?
(d) How do the Rabbanan (in whose opinion Teshuvah is crucial to Mechilah) explain ...
  1. ... "Hikares Tikares"?
  2. ... "Avonah Bah"?
(a) Who is the author of the Seifa of our Mishnah (regarding the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ch) 'Echad Yisrael, ve'Echad Kohanim ve'Echad Kohen Mashu'ach'?

(b) Then how can we establish the author as Rebbi?

(c) Abaye asked Rav Yosef whether he established our Mishnah specifically like 'Rebbi', who holds like Rebbi Yehudah, but not like Rebbi Yehudah (because he does not hold like Rebbi), or whether Rebbi Yehudah holds like Rebbi too, and he could have established the Mishnah like Rebbi Yehudah had he so wished.
According to the second side, why did Rav Yosef prefer to establish the author as Rebbi than as Rebbi Yehudah?

(a) With regard to the Kaparah of Yom-Kipur, what does the Sifra initially try to prove from the Korban Chatas and Asham?

(b) How does the Tana refute the proof? What other leniency does Yom Kipur have that Chatas and Asham do not?

(c) How can we reconcile this with the fact that three out of the five Ashamos as well as the Chatas of Shevu'as ha'Eidus atone for a Meizid?

(a) So what does the Tana finally learn from "*Ach* be'Asor la'Chodesh ... "?

(b) What has Rav Yosef proved from here?

(c) What does another Beraisa Darshen from the Pasuk in Emor "Ki Yom Kipurim *Hu*? What sort of person is the Torah referring to?

(d) Abaye establishes the first Beraisa like Rebbi Yehudah, and the second one, like Rebbi. Rava establishes both Beraisos like Rebbi.
How does he then explain the first Beraisa? In which case will Yom Kipur not atone without Teshuvah even according to Rebbi?

(a) How do we try to prove the latter statement logically?

(b) How do we refute this proof? What do we learn from the Pasuk in Emor "Ki ba'Yom ha'Zeh Yechaper Aleichem"?

(c) So we try bringing an identical proof from the fact that, according to Rebbi, Kareis would not apply to someone who transgressed Yom Kipur by day.
How do we know that this must be possible?

(d) How do we refute this proof too? How would it be possible, even according to Rebbi (even if Yom Kipur atones without Teshuvah), to receive Kareis on the day of Yom Kipur without the sinner attaining a Kaparah?

Answers to questions



(a) How does Rav Yehudah reconcile the statement in our Mishnah 'Echad Yisrael, ve'Echad Kohanim ve'Echad Kohen Mashu'ach' with the statement (that follows it) 'Mah Bein Yisrael le'Kohanim u'le'Kohen Mashu'ach'? Who is then the author of the Mishnah?

(b) According to Rebbi Yehudah, the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos (in connection with the Par ve'Sa'ir) "Ve'chiper es Mikdash ha'Kodesh" refers to the Kodesh Kodshim.
How long would a Tamei person have to wait in the Kodesh Kodshim, in order to render it Tamei and to be Chayav?

(c) And what does Rebbi Yehudah Darshen from ...

  1. ... "ve'es Ohel Mo'ed"?
  2. ... "ve'es ha'Mizbe'ach"?
  3. ... "Yechaper"?
(a) And if, according to him, ''ha'Kohanim" (in the phrase "ve'Al ha'Kohanim, ve'Al Kol Am ha'Kahal Yechaper", "ha'Kohanim" is literal, to what does ...
  1. ... "Kol Am ha'Kahal" refer?
  2. ... "Yechaper" refer?
(b) Why can this latter phrase not also be referring to the Par and the Sa'ir (where it is written)?

(c) Then to what does it refer?

(d) According to Rebbi Shimon, the Viduy of the Par of the Kohanim (and not the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ch) atones for the sins of the Kohanim, as we learned in our Mishnah.
How does Rebbi Shimon then explain the Hekesh of the Kohanim and Levi'im to the Yisre'elim, that we just quoted?

(a) What does Rebbi Shimon learn from the Pasuk "Ve'lakach es Sh'nei ha'Se'irim"?

(b) From where do we know that the Sa'ir Penimi does not atone for the Kohanim?

(c) And what Rebbi Yehudah learn from "Sh'nei ha'Se'irim"?

(a) What does the Beraisa attempt to learn from the Pasuk "Ve'hikriv Aharon es Par ha'Chatas *Asher Lo*"?

(b) In that case, how would the Kohanim gain atonement for their sins?

(c) From where does the Tana therefore learn that either Aharon's bull or Yisrael's Sa'ir atones for all the Kohanim?

(d) On what basis does the Tana conclude that it must be the Par (despite "Asher Lo"), and not the Sa'ir?

(a) To answer a Kashya that will be explained shortly, what does the Tana prove from the Pasuk in Hallel "Beis Aharon Borchu es Hashem ... "?

(b) On what basis does Rebbi Yirmiyah and Rava establish the Beraisa like Rebbi Shimon?

(c) In that case, how can Abaye establish it even like Rebbi Yehudah?

(d) And what did the Tana mean when he said 've'Im Nafshach Lomar'? What Kashya was he referring to, that caused him to answer with the Pasuk "Beis Aharon Borchu es Hashem"?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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