Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) WHAT ATONES FOR THE KOHANIM?

(a) Answer #2 (Abaye): The Beraisa can be R. Yehudah, it asked as follows:

1. Question: We should say that the bull does not atone for them for Tum'ah of the Mikdash or Kodshim, and nothing would atone for them for Tum'ah!
2. Answer #1: "Yp v'Al ha'Kohanim" - this proves that they get atonement for other transgressions;

i. Since they get atonement for other transgressions, presumably they also get atonement for Tum'ah.
ii. It is more reasonable to say that they get atonement through the Kohen Gadol's bull, for it atones for more than it says, it also atones for "Beiso";
iii. We do not find that the inner goat atones for more than Yisraelim.

3. Answer #2: Alternatively, we can learn from "Beis Aharon Borechu Es Hash-m".

(b) Question: What could one ask on the first answer, that forced the Tana to give an alternative answer?
(c) Answer: One might have asked, the Torah says (only) "Beiso" - therefore, he shows that all Kohanim are called Beiso.
(d) Question: (Above, we learned from "La'Am" that the inner goat does not atone for Kohanim - but) "La'Am" is needed to teach that the congregation pays for it!
(e) Answer: That is learned from "Ume'Es Adas Benei Yisrael".
(f) Question: (Above, we thought to learn from "Asher Lo" that the bull does not atone for Kohanim - but) "Asher Lo" is needed to as follows!

1. (Beraisa): The Kohen Gadol pays for the bull himself, not the congregation;

i. Suggestion: Perhaps the congregation does not pay, because it does not atone for them, but Kohanim may pay, for it atones for them!
ii. Rejection: "Asher Lo".
iii. Suggestion: Perhaps the Kohanim should not pay, but if they did, it is Kosher!
iv. Rejection: "Asher Lo" - the Torah repeats this to teach that even b'Diavad, it is invalid.

(g) Answer: The Tana was bothered: just as the bull does not atone for the congregation, because they do not pay for it, it should not atone for Kohanim, for also they do not pay for it!

1. He answered, Kohanim are called Beiso.

(h) Question: According to R. Shimon, we understand why the Torah teaches about two confessions (over the bull) and the (sprinkling of its) blood - these atone for the Kohanim for the three atonements Yisraelim get from the inner and outer goats and the goat that is sent;

1. But according to R. Yehudah, the goat that is sent also atones for Kohanim, one confession and the blood should suffice!

(i) Answer: The extra confession is to atone for himself before he atones for the Kohanim;

1. (Beraisa - Tana d'vei R. Yishmael): It is proper that the one making atonement for others should already have atonement himself.

2) "YEDI'OS" OF "TUM'AH"

(a) (Mishnah): There are two primary Yedi'os (awarenesses) of Tum'ah, there are four in all:

1. He knew that he became Tamei, then forgot and knowingly ate Kodshim;
2. He knew that he became Tamei, then forgot (that this meat is) Kodesh and ate it;
3. He forgot the Tum'ah and the Kodesh, and after eating it he found out - in all these cases, he brings an Oleh v'Yored.
4. He knew that he became Tamei, then forgot and knowingly entered the Mikdash;
5. He knew that he became Tamei, then forgot the (place of the) Mikdash and entered;
6. He forgot the Tum'ah and the Mikdash, and after he left he found out - in all these cases, he brings an Oleh v'Yored.

(b) The same law applies to one who enters the Azarah (Chatzer) of the Mikdash, or a (valid) addition to it;

1. The following are required to add on to Yerushalayim or the Azarah: a king, a prophet, the Urim v'Tumim, the great Sanhedrin of 71, two loaves of a Todah (thanksgiving offering), singing; Beis Din walks, the loaves are after them, and all of Yisrael are after them.

2. The inner loaf is eaten, the outer loaf is burned.
3. If one enters an addition that was not made with all this, he is exempt.

(c) If a person became Tamei in the Azarah, then forgot the Tum'ah but remembered (that he was in) the Azarah; or, if he remembered that he was Tamei, but forgot the Azarah; or, he forgot both:

1. If he bowed (before leaving), or delayed the time needed to bow, or did not leave on the shortest path, he is liable;
2. If he left on the shortest path, he is exempt.

(d) This is a Mitzvas Ase (that he must leave on the shortest path), the sacrifices for a mistaken ruling of the great Sanhedrin (which caused most of Yisrael to transgress a Mitzvah involving Kares) do not apply to it.
(e) There is a Mitzvas Ase regarding Nidah to which the sacrifices for a mistaken ruling of the great Sanhedrin do apply:

1. If a woman told her husband during relations that she felt a flow of blood which makes her a Nidah, if he withdraws the Ever (while it is still in erection), he is liable to Kares, because withdrawing it is pleasurable, just as inserting it;
2. (Rather, he must not withdraw it until the erection ceases.)

(f) R. Eliezer says, "Sheretz Tamei v'Nelam" - this teaches that he brings a sacrifice only if he forgot the Tum'ah, not if he forgot the Mikdash;
(g) R. Akiva says "V'Nelam Mimenu v'Hu Tamei" - he brings a sacrifice only if he forgot the Tum'ah, not if he forgot the Mikdash. (The Gemara will explain what they argue about.)
(h) R. Yishmael says, it says 'v'Ne'elam' twice, to obligate in both cases, i.e. forgetting the Tum'ah or the Mikdash.
(i) (Gemara - Rav Papa) Question: Why does the Mishnah say that there are four Yedi'os in all, really there are six:

1. Yedi'ah of the Tum'ah at the beginning and at the end;
2. Yedi'ah of the Kodesh at the beginning and at the end;
3. Yedi'ah of the Mikdash at the beginning and at the end!
4. Question: Why didn't Rav Papa say that there are eight cases?

i. Each of the two Yedi'os of Tum'ah is really two cases - when he later ate Kodshim, or entered the Mikdash!

5. Answer: Both are considered a Yedi'ah of Tum'ah, we do not distinguish them.

(j) Answer (Rav Papa): Really, there are eight Yedi'os;

1. Version #1: The Tana only counts the four Yedi'os at the end, for these Yedi'os cause him to bring a sacrifice.
2. Version #2: The Tana only counts the four Yedi'os at the beginning, for these are special to Tum'ah in the Mikdash or with Kodshim;

i. Regarding other sacrifices, a person is liable even if he only had Yedi'ah at the end.

(a) Question (Rav Papa): What is the law if he forgot the laws of Tum'ah?

1. Question: What is the case?

i. If he does not know which rodents are Metamei and which are not - even children learn this, surely this lack of Yedi'ah does not exempt him!

2. Answer: Rather, he knows which rodents are Metamei; he did not know whether a lentil's worth of a rodent is Metamei.

i. Do we say that knowing that rodents are Metamei is considered Yedi'ah?
ii. Or - since he did not know whether a lentil's worth is Metamei, it is not Yedi'ah?

(b) This question is not resolved.
(c) Question (R. Yirmeyah): Someone from Bavel, who never knew where the Mikdash is (and entered while Tamei) - what is the law?

1. Question: According to whom does he ask?

i. If according to R. Akiva, who says that one brings a sacrifice only if he knew at the beginning - but R. Akiva does not obligate for forgetting the place of the Mikdash!
ii. If according to R. Yishmael, who says that one brings a sacrifice for forgetting the place of the Mikdash - but R. Yishmael obligated even if he did not know at the beginning (clearly, he is liable)!

2. Answer: He asks according to Rebbi, who says that one brings a sacrifice only if he knew at the beginning, and obligates for forgetting the place of the Mikdash;

i. Rebbi also holds that having once learned is considered Yedi'ah (at the beginning).

3. Do we say that knowing that there is a Mikdash is considered Yedi'ah?
4. Or - since he did not where it is, it is not Yedi'ah?

(d) This question is not resolved.