Previous daf

1)

(a) We just learned from the Pasuk "Asher la'Am" that the Sa'ir atones for Yisre'elim, but not for Kohanim. We refute the Kashya that this Pasuk is needed to teach us that it is the people who must pay for it, and not the Kohen Gadol - by citing another Pasuk "u'me'es Adas B'nei Yisrael Yikach ... " from which we can learn that.

(b) We might otherwise have thought that the Kohen Gadol has to pay for it - because he is the one who pays for the Par.

(a) We ask on the need to Darshen "Beis Aharon ... " to counter "Asher Lo", from the Beraisa, which Darshens "Asher Lo" - to teach us that the Kohen Gadol must pay for the Par (and not that it atones only for him), and not Yisrael.

(b) The Tana then extrapolates from the fact that "Asher Lo" is written ...

1. ... a second time - that it is the Kohen Gadol who has to pay for the Par, and not the other Kohanim.
2. ... a third time - that this Din is crucial to the fulfillment of the Mitzvah (and if he doesn't pay for it, he and the Kohanim will not be atoned for).

(c) We therefore explain the initial Kashya to be - that since we learn from "Asher Lo" that Aharon must pay for it, the Kohanim ought not to share in the Kaparah (in the same way as they don't share in the Kaparah of the Sa'ir, because they did not pay for it).

(a) Three Kaparos are written in connection with Aharon's Par - two Viduyin ('Kaparas Devarim') and the sprinkling of its blood.

(b) This goes nicely with to Rebbi Shimon's explanation - because one corresponds to Yisrael to Yisrael's Sa'ir Penimi, one, to their Sa'ir ha'Na'aseh ba'Chutz and one, to the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach (which, according to Rebbi Shimon, does not cover the Kohanim).

(c) The problem according to Rebbi Yehudah is - that two ought to suffice (since, in his opinion, the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach covers the Kohanim too). So what is the point of the extra Viduy?

(d) So Rebbi Yehudah explains the extra Viduy like Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael, who says - that when one person atones for someone else, he must first ensure that he himself is innocent ('Yavo Zakai Vi'yechaper al Chayav').

(e) So too here - the Kohen Gadol must first atone for himself and for his family (by means of the first Viduy) before atoning for his fellow Kohanim. In fact, the two are part of one and the same Kaparah.

4)

(a) 'Yedi'os ha'Tum'ah Shetayim she'Hein Arba'. They are called 'Yedi'os ha'Tum'ah' - because one has to remember the Tum'ah (Av [or the Mikdash or Kodesh - Toldah]) both prior to performing the sin and later.

(b) The first Yedi'ah takes place - as he becomes Tamei, or shortly afterwards (or as he enters the Mikdash or eats the Kodesh [see also Tosfos]).

(c) The two Avos (that are written) are two cases of Yedi'as ha'Tum'ah, and the two Toldos, Yedi'as Mikdash or Yedi'as Kodesh (as we already learned). It makes no difference whether the sinner forgot either the Tumah or the Kodesh or Mikdash, or if he forgot both. Either way, he is Chayav to bring a Korban Oleh ve'Yored when he remembers.

(a) With regard to Tum'as Mikdash, our Mishnah equates the 'Tosefes ha'Azarah' with the Azarah - because it follows an elaborate consecration ceremony, which the Tana will now describe.

(b) The ceremony involves - the King, the Navi, the Kohen Gadol (wearing the Urim ve'Tumim) and the Sanhedrin of seventy-one ...

(c) ... it includes 'Shir', and two Todos (Thanks-offerings) which are carried behind the Sanhedrin.
The inner Todah is eaten - the outer one is burned.

(d) The whole of Yisrael - take up the rear of the procession.

(e) If these details are omitted from the ceremony - that part of the Azarah remain Chol like before, and a Tamei person who enters there is not Chayav.

6)

(a) Our Mishnah discusses a case where someone became Tamei in the Azarah and was aware of this. In order to be Chayav a Korban Oleh ve'Yored, he would have to forget, there and then - either that he was Tamei, or that he was in the Beis-Hamikdash or both.

(b) There are also three possibilities regarding the time he remains in the Azarah that will render him Chayav. One is if he prostrates himself there before leaving - the second, if he remains there for the time it would have taken him to do so; and the third, if he exited the Azarah taking any route other than the shortest.

(c) He would not however, be Chayav - if he were to leave the Azarah by the shortest route, but taking longer to reach the exit than the time it would take him to prostrate himself.

(a) This leniency is based on - the Mitzvas Asei (in Naso) "vi'Yeshalchu min ha'Machaneh ... ve'Chol Tamei la'Nafesh".

(b) Under similar circumstances, one would be Chayav Kareis regarding an Asei by Nidah (which will be cited in the Sugya) - if, in the middle of a Bi'ah, his wife informed him that she had become a Nidah, and he exited immediately ...

(c) ... because of the pleasure one derives from the actual exiting.

(d) What one should therefore do is - to wait for the Milah to go limp, and then to exit.

(a) Rebbi ...

1. ... Eliezer learns from the juxtaposition of "O be'Nivlas Sheretz ... ve'Ne'elam Mimenu" - that one is only Chayav for He'elam Sheretz (Tum'ah), but not for He'elam Mikdash (or Kodesh).
2. ... Akiva learns from the Pasuk "ve'Ne'elam Mimenu ve'Hu Tamei" - that one is only Chayav for He'elam Tum'ah, but not for He'elam Mikdash (or Kodesh [like Rebbi Eliezer learned from the previous juxtaposition, and the Sugya will discuss the ramifications of their Machlokes]).

(b) Rebbi Yishmael learns from "ve'Ne'elam" "ve'Ne'elam" - that he is Chayav a Korban Oleh ve'Yored even for He'elam Mikdash and Kodesh as well.

(a) The problem Rav Papa has with the Lashon of our Mishnah 'Yedi'os ha'Tum'ah Shetayim she'Hein Arba' is - that there are actually six cases all in all (since each case of Mikdash and Kodesh, besides the Yedi'ah of Tum'ah, requires Techilas Yedi'ah and Sof Yedi'ah).

(b) Initially, he expected the Tana to say 'Shetayim she'Hein Sheish', and not 'Shetayim she'Hein Shemonah' (in spite of the fact that He'elam Tum'ah by both Tum'as Mikdash Tum'as and Kodesh also requires Yedi'ah bi'Techilah and Yedi'ah be'Sof) - because Yedi'as ha'Tum'ah is the same by Kodesh as by Mikdash, so the two are counted as one.

(c) Rav Papa himself concludes that in fact, there are eight cases, like Abaye initially retorted, and the Tana states 'four' (according to ...

1. ... the first Lashon) - because he is only concerned with the second Yedi'ah, which actually creates the Chiyuv Korban.
2. ... the second Lashon) - because he is only concerned with the first Yedi'ah, which is peculiar to Korban Oleh ve'Yored (whereas the second is common to all Korbanos).

(a) Rav Papa asks whether a person who forgot Hilchos Tum'ah will be obligated to bring a Korban Oleh ve'Yored. The case cannot be where he touched a dead lizard, but thought that it is a frog that is Tamei and not a lizard - because that is an explicit Pasuk, and every child knows the real facts. Consequently, it is not considered a Ha'alamah.

(b) Rav Papa is referring to a case where the sinner knew exactly that he had touched a piece of Sheretz, and that that piece was the size of a lentil (a 'ke'Adashah'), only he thought that the Shiur Tum'ah of a Sheretz is larger than a 'ke'Adashah'.

(c) The She'eilah is that even though he did not know the Shiur Tum'ah, he might nevertheless be Chayav to bring a Korban - because he knew that a Sheretz is Metamei.

(d) The outcome of the She'eilah is -'Teiku' (Tishbi Yetaretz Kushyos ve'Ibayos').

(a) Rebbi Yirmiyah asks whether - it is considered He'elam Mikdash in a case where a ben Bavel arrived in Eretz Yisrael and, in a state of Tum'ah, he entered the Beis-Hamikdash without being aware that this is where he was.

(b) Rebbi Yirmiyah cannot have asked this She'eilah according to ...

1. ... Rebbi Akiva (even though he requires Yedi'ah bi'Techilah) - because he does not incorporate He'elam Mikdash in the Din of Korban Oleh ve'Yored (as we just learned in our Mishnah).
2. ... Rebbi Yishmael (even though he incorporates He'elam Mikdash in the Din of Korban Oleh ve'Yored) - because he does not require a Yedi'ah bi'Techilah (as we will learn later in the Masechta).

(c) In fact, Rebbi Yirmiyah asks his She'eilah - according to Rebbi (who both incorporates He'elam Mikdash in the Din of Korban Oleh ve'Yored and requires a Yedi'ah bi'Techilah).

(d) The two sides of the She'eilah (which, like the previous one, remains unanswered) are - whether, in spite of the fact that he knew about Tum'as Mikdash, it is not even called 'Yedi'as Beis Rabo' in the case of Tum'ah (where he once knew what a Sheretz was and that touching one would render him Tamei, but forgot) - since in our case, he never knew that where he was standing was the location of the Beis-Hamikdash (and that a Tamei person standing where he was would be Chayav).