Previous daf

1)

(a) Rebbi learns from the Pasuk "Ve'chiper Alav ha'Kohen al Shigegaso Asher Shagag" - that only someone whose entire Chiyuv consists of Shigegas Ma'aseh is subject to an Asham Taluy ('Mi she'*Kol* Chet'o bi'Shegagah'), but not a Kohen Gadol, who sometimes requires He'elam Davar as well.

(b) We refute the Kashya that the Torah did not write '*Kol* Chet'o bi'Shegagah' - by pointing out that the next words "Asher Shagag" are superfluous, and it is as if the Torah had written "Kol Chet'o bi'Shagagah".

1. ... a Kohen Gadol.
2. ... Beis-Din who permitted Avodah-Zarah.

(a) Rebbi in a Beraisa, learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Alehah ("Ve'nod'ah ha'Chatas Asher Chat'u Alehah") "Alehah" (Le'galos Ervasah Alehah" [in connection with Nidah]) - that Beis-Din are only Chayav to bring Par He'elam Davar if they permitted something which, like Nidah, is 'Zedono Kareis ve'Shigegaso Chatas'.

(b) He learns that the same applies to a Kohen Gadol - from the Pasuk "le'Ashmas ha'Am".

(c) From the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Mitzvos" ("Ve'asah Achas mi'Kol Mitzvos Hashem" [in connection with a Nasi who sinned]) "Mitzvos" ("Ve'asu Achas mi'Kol Mitzvos Hashem" [in connection with a Tzibur]) he learns - that the same applies to a Nasi who sinned ...

(d) ... and he learn from "ve'Im Nefesh Achas Techeta ... " - that the same applies to a Yachid.

(a) Rebbi learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "me'Einei" "me'Einei" - that Beis-Din who permit Avodah-Zarah are only Chayav to bring a Par le'Olah and a Sa'ir le'Chatas if they permitted something which is subject to Kareis be'Meizid and Chatas be'Shogeg (just like other Mitzvos).

(b) This comes to preclude - things like kissing and hugging an idol, which constitute a La'av but not Kareis.

(a) Rebbi learns ...

1. ... a Nasi and a Kohen Gadol in this regard - from "Nefesh Achas" (by other Mitzvos), and ...
2. ... a Yachid from a Nasi (who precedes it in the Pasuk [see Tosfos DH 'Ve'yilmod').

(b) The problem according to the Rabbanan, who need "Alehah" for another D'rashah (Arayos and Tzaros) is - that we now need to find a new source for Rebbi's D'rashah.

(c) We answer that they learn it from a D'rashah of Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who told his son - that the Torah juxtaposes the two Pesukim (in connection with Avodah-Zarah) "Torah Achas Yih'yeh Lachem la'Oseh bi'Shegagah ... ve'ha'Nefesh Asher Ta'aseh be'Yad Ramah", to compare the entire Torah to Avodah-Zarah, for which one is Chayav Kareis be'Meizid and a Chatas be'Shogeg (so too, is a Yachid only Chayav a Chatas under those circumstances).

(d) And when he said to him 'Ve'yilmod Elyon mi'Tachton', he meant - that we will learn a Tzibur from a Yachid.

(a) Rebbi explains the Pasuk "Torah Achas Yih'yeh Lachem" like the Beraisa. A Tzibur that worships Avodah-Zarah receives Sekilah (stoning), whereas individuals receive only Sayaf (burning). The other difference between them - that the property of the former is burned, whereas that of the former is not.

(b) Rebbi therefore learns from "Torah Achas Yih'yeh Lachem" - that be'Shogeg, they both bring the same Korban.

(c) Rav Chilkiyah from Hagrunya has a problem however, in working out what Rebbi thinks an Ir ha'Nidachas be'Shogeg might otherwise have brought. He could not have meant that they might have brought ...

1. ... just a Par - since that is the Korban brought by the Tzibur by other Mitzvos.
2. ... a Par le'Olah and a Sa'ir le'Chatas - which is the Korban that the Tzibur brings by Avodah-Zarah.
3. ... a Sa'ir - which is the Korban that a Nasi brings by other Mitzvos.
4. ... a Se'irah - since this is the Korban that a Yachid brings.

(d) So (besides the possibility that they would have brought a Par le'Chatas and a Sa'ir le'Olah) we suggest that Rebbi might have meant - that although they ought really to bring a Korban, this is practically impossible (so they in fact, bring nothing).

(a) The problem we have in establishing the Pasuk in Sh'lach-Lecha by Avodah-Zarah is - that the Torah makes no mention of Avodah-Zarah in the Parshah.

(b) We solve the problem by citing Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi (or Kadi), who extrapolates that be speaking about Avodah-Zarah from the Pasuk "Ve'Chi Sishgu ve'Lo Sa'asu es Kol ha'Mitzvos ha'Eileh" - since Avodah-Zarah is the Mitzvah that is compared to the entire Torah.

(c) de'Bei Rebbi learns it from the Pesukim there "Asher Diber Hashem el Moshe" and "Asher Tzivah Hashem Aleichem be'Yad Moshe" - implying a Mitzvah that was commanded directly by Hashem, but explained elsewhere by Moshe, and, as Tana de'Bei Yishmael has taught us, the only two Mitzvos that we heard from Hashem directly were "Anochi" and "Lo Yih'yeh Lecha".

(d) We reject the explanation of de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael, Darshening from the Pasuk there "le'Min ha'Yom Asher Tzivah Hashem ve'Hal'ah le'Doroseichem", that it must be speaking about Avodah-Zarah, because it was the first Mitzvah that Hashem commanded Yisrael - in the grounds that Yisrael were already commanded ten Mitzvos at Marah, which preceded Sinai, as Mar taught us.

8)

(a) Our Mishnah exempts Beis-Din from a Korban on the Asei and the Lo 'Sa'aseh concerning the Beis-Hamikdash - namely, "Viyeshalchu min ha'Machanaeh Kol Tzaru'a ... " and "ve'Lo Yetam'u es Machaneihem" (Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav).

(b) They are Patur - because their Chiyuv is confined to a La'av for which one brings a fixed Chatas (but does not extend to a Korban Oleh ve'Yored).

(c) Yechidim are Patur from - an Asham Taluy for the same reason.

(d) The current exemption incorporates a Nasi, which will be discussed in the next Mishnah - and a Kohen Gadol, which will be discussed later in a Beraisa.

(e) The Tana goes on to say - that Beis-Din are however, Chayav for an Asei and a Lo Sa'aseh she'be'Nidah' (namely, "ve'el Ishah be'Nidas Tum'asah Lo Sikrav" and "Ve'hizartem es B'nei Yisrael" [a warning to B'nei Yisrael to separate from their wives during the Onah in which her regular period falls]).

(a) Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi learns from the double 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "ve'Im Nefesh Achas Techeta bi'Shegagah ... ve'Ashem", "ve'Ashem (in connection with an Asham Taluy) and "ve'Asheimu" - that just as "Ve'ashem" by a Chatas Yachid speaks about a Chatas Kavu'ah, so too, does "ve'Asheimu" of the Par He'elam Davar of the Tzibur and the "Ve'ashem" of the Asham Taluy of the Yachid.

(b) We do not however, incorporate the Korban Oleh ve'Yored (where the Torah writes ''Ve'hayah Ki Ye'esham le'Achas me'Eileh") in the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' - because (we initially suggest), we cannot compare "Ye'esham" to "ve'Ashem" and "Ve'asheimu".

(c) We query this however, by citing Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael, who says 'Mah Hi Shivah Mah Hi Bi'ah' - meaning that when the Torah writes "Ve'shav ha'Kohen" (in connection with Tzara'as Batim), it does not mean that the Kohen has to go home and return to inspect the stricken house, but that he goes straight to the house (as if it had written "U'va ha'Kohen"). In other words, we do compare words that are similar in meaning, even though they are not exactly the same.

(d) Rav Papa counters this Kashya, as well as the observation that the Torah also writes "Ve'ashem" in connection with Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav - by changing the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' (from Tzibur to Asham Taluy of a Yachid) to "Ve'ashem" and "Mitzvos Hashem" (which is written by both).

(a) Rav Shimi bar Ashi queries Rav Papa, by asking why we should not rather then learn Asham Taluy with a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' from 'Ve'ashem u'Nesi'as Avon' - from Korban Olah ve'Yored.

(b) The 'Gezeirah-Shavah would then teach us - that the Asham Taluy *does* apply by Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav.

(c) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak finally learns the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' of Asham Taluy from "ve'Ashem", "Mitzvos Hashem" and "Asher Lo Se'asenah" - from Par He'elam Davar shel Tzibur (which only applies in the case of a Chatas Kavu'ah, as we have already learned).

(d) When he concludes 've'Al Yochi'ach Shemi'as Kol, u'Bituy Sefasayim ve'Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kadashav", he is referring to the Korban Oleh ve'Yored, which is brought for these three sins.

(a) Rebbi Yossi Hagelili adds a Nasi to the current list (of those who are only Chayav a Korban for permitting a Chiyuv Kareis if it is Chayav a Chatas Kavu'a be'Shogeg). Rebbi Akiva makes a compromise. 'Nasi', in this regard means - the king.

(b) Rebbi Akiva disagrees with Rebbi Yossi Hagelili - by Shevu'as Bituy and Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav.

(c) Bearing in mind that we are speaking about a Nasi, he considers Shemi'as Kol different than the two other cases - because a king can neither judge (as a member of Beis-Din), nor can he be judged (though this really refers to the Seifa of the Mishnah, which disqualifies him from testifying, too).

(a) Rebbi Yossi Hagelili explains the Pasuk "Ve'hayah Ki Ye'esham le'Achas me'Eileh" - to mean that whoever is not Chayav even one of the three cases of Korban Oleh ve'Yored, is not subject to the other two either (consequently, since a Yachid by Shigegas Hora'ah is not Chayav Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav, he is not subject to a Korban Oleh ve'Yored at all.

(b) We refute this explanation however, on the grounds that there is another way of explaining the Pasuk - namely, that even if only one of the three cases applies to a particular person, then he is subject at least to that one.

(c) We finally equate Rebbi Yossi Hagelili's reason with a statement by Rebbi Yirmiyah in a Beraisa, who learns from the Pasuk "Lo Sasig Yado" - that whoever is not subject to poverty, is not subject to a Korban Oleh Veyored, either.

(a) Rebbi Yirmiyah learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Ve'asah Achas mi'Kol Mitzvos *Hashem Elokav*" - that 'Nasi' means (not a president or a prince, but) a king, who has no superior over him other than Hashem (and a king is always wealthy).
2. ... "ve'ha'Kohen ha'Gadol me'Echav" - that a Kohen Gadol must be greater than all the other Kohanim, incorporating the attributes of looks and strength - wisdom and wealth.

(b) Rebbi Meir carries the D'rashah even further. He learns from "ve'ha'Kohen ha'Gadol me'Echav" - that if the Kohen Gadol is not exceptionally wealthy, then the other Kohanim are obligated to make sure that he becomes that.