Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) TUMAH FOR WHICH ONE MUST BRING A SACRIFICE (cont.)

(a) Question: Why not say that one brings a sacrifice for eating Terumah when he is Tamei - the Torah warns and punishes for this!
(b) Answer #1: We do not find that the Torah obligates a sacrifice for a Lav punishable (only) by death at the hands of Heaven (rather for Lavim punishable by Kares).

1. Question: Perhaps that general rule only applies to a fixed sin-offering, not to an Oleh v'Yored;

i. We find that one brings an Oleh v'Yored for a false oath of not knowing testimony or of Bituy, even though these are not punishable by Kares!

(c) Answer #2: "Bah" - one brings an Oleh v'Yored for Tum'ah of the Mikdash or Kodshim (as above), not for Tum'ah of Terumah.
(d) Question: Perhaps one brings an Oleh v'Yored for eating Terumah when he is Tamei; "Bah" excludes one who entered the Mikdash or ate Kodshim (when Tamei), for he does not bring an Oleh v'Yored, rather a fixed sin-offering!
(e) Answer (part 1 - Rava - Beraisa - Rebbi): ("Nefesh Asher Tiga...v'Nivlas Chayah...Behemah") - Behemah was already included in Chayah!

1. This is extra, to learn a Gezeirah Shavah "Behemah-Behemah" from eating Kodshim when Tamei (also our verse speaks of this).
2. Question: How do we learn entering the Mikdash (when Tamei)?

(f) Answer (part 2): "B'chol Kodesh Lo Siga v'El ha'Mikdash Lo Savo" equates entering the Mikdash and eating Kodshim.
(g) Question: If so, we should say the same for eating Terumah!

1. "*B'chol* Kodesh Lo Siga" - this includes Terumah!

(h) Answer: "Bah" excludes Terumah.
(i) Question: Perhaps "Bah" excludes entering the Mikdash, but one brings a sacrifice for eating Terumah!
(j) Answer: Presumably, entering the Mikdash is like eating Kodshim, for both are punishable by Kares.
(k) Rejection: Eating Terumah is more similar to eating Kodshim, for both are acts of eating!
(l) Answer #3 (to Question 3:b, Daf 6B - Rava): We learn from the three times it says 'Kares' for a Tamei person who eats Shelamim:

1. One teaches about Shelamim itself;
2. One teaches about the general category of Kodshim (that Kares is only for Kodshim similar to Shelamim, i.e. fit for the Altar);
3. One teaches about the unspecified Tum'ah for which the Torah obligates an Oleh v'Yored, that it is for eating Kodshim (while Tamei);

i. Since we already know (from Answer (e), part 1) that one is liable for eating Kodshim - therefore, we apply the third 'Kares' to obligate for another transgression of Tum'ah punishable by Kares, i.e. entering the Mikdash.

(m) Objection #1: The third Kares is needed to teach R. Avahu's law!

1. (R. Avahu): The three times it says 'Kares' for a Tamei person who eats Shelamim - one teaches about Shelamim itself, one teaches about the general category of Kodshim (as above);
2. The third obligates Kares for eating (while Tamei) Kodshim that are not normally eaten (e.g. wood burned on the Altar, frankincense, incense).

(n) Objection#2: According to R. Shimon, who exempts (from Kares) for Kodshim that are not normally eaten, the third 'Kares' is needed to teach about sin-offerings whose blood is offered on the inner Altar.

1. One might have thought, since R. Shimon taught that Kares of Pigul (a sacrifice offered with intent to eat it after the allowed time) only for Kodshim brought on the outer Altar, like Shelamim, the same applies to Tum'ah - the third 'Kares' teaches, this is not so.

(o) Answer #4 (Chachamim of Neharda'a): We learn from the three times it mentions Tum'ah regarding a Tamei person who eats Shelamim:

1. One teaches about Shelamim itself; one teaches about the general category of Kodshim;
2. One teaches about the unspecified Tum'ah for which the Torah obligates an Oleh v'Yored, that it is for eating Kodshim (while Tamei);

i. Since we already know that one is liable for eating Kodshim - therefore, we apply the third Tum'ah to obligate for another transgression of Tum'ah punishable by Kares, i.e. entering the Mikdash.

(p) Objection: Since the Torah must teach Kares three times for R. Avahu's law, it must mention Tum'ah three times (Tum'ah is not free to be expounded)!
(q) Answer #5 (Rava): We learn from a Gezeirah Shavah "Tum'aso-Tum'aso";

1. Just as there it speaks of a Tamei person who entered the Mikdash, also here (regarding Oleh v'Yored).

(a) Question: Since we have no source to include Terumah, what does "Bah" come to exclude?
(b) Answer: It comes to *include* one who ate Neveilah of a Tahor bird (and later entered the Mikdash), that he is liable.
(c) Question: But "Bah" comes to exclude!
(d) Answer: "Chi Yiga" already excludes one who ate Neveilah of a Tahor bird (since one who touches it does not become Tamei, only one who eats it);

1. "Bah" also comes to exclude, and two exclusions for the same matter come to include it.

(a) (Mishnah): If he knew of the Tum'ah, and forgot (and entered the Mikdash or ate Kodshim), and did not remember before Yom Kipur, the goat (whose blood is) offered inside (the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim on Yom Kipur and Yom Kipur itself protect him from punishment).
(b) (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): "(The inner goat of Yom Kipur) V'Chiper Al ha'Kodesh mi'Tum'os Benei Yisrael umi'Pisheihem l'Chol Chatosom" - one might have thought, this atones for three transgressions that are called 'Tum'ah': idolatry, Arayos (forbidden relations), and murder.

1. By idolatry it says "Lema'an Tamei Es Mikdashi"; by Arayos it says "V'Lo Sitame'u Bahem"; by murder it says "V'Lo Sitamei Es ha'Aretz".
2. "Mi'Tum'os Benei Yisrael", not from all Tum'os.
3. Question: Which Tum'os have a special law (presumably, the verse refers to these)?
4. Answer: Tum'ah of the Mikdash and Kodshim.

(c) R. Shimon says, obviously the verse speaks of Tum'ah of the Mikdash and Kodshim - "V'Chiper Al ha'Kodesh mi'Tum'os", Tum'os of Kodesh!

1. Suggestion: Perhaps it atones for all transgressions of Tum'os of Kodesh!
2. Rejection "Umi'Pisheihem l'Chol Chatosom" - it atones for Chata'im (unintentional sins) that resemble Pesha'im (intentional sins);

i. Just as there is no sacrifice for Pesha'im, also the Chata'im (to exclude one who knew he was Tamei, forgot, and later learned of his sin).

3. Question: How do we know that this sacrifice protects from punishment one who knew at the beginning (that he became Tamei, forgot and entered the Mikdash or ate Kodshim), but not at the end (he did not realize his sin before Yom Kipur)?
4. Answer: "L'Chol Chatosom" - the verse speaks of one who will bring a sacrifice (when he later realizes his sin).