Previous daf

1)

(a) In similar style to the previous She'eilah, Rava asks 'Talah Atzmo be'Avir Azarah Mahu'? - whether the Shehiyah must contain a potential Hishtachavayah (which passing through in the air does not), or whether the Halachah incorporates all cases of Tum'ah in the Azarah, irrespective of whether Hishtachavayah is possible or not. Nevertheless, 'k'Dei Hishtachavayah' is most certainly crucial, so the She'eilah speaks when he did indeed wait that length of time in the Azarah after becoming Tamei.

(b) Assuming that Meizid requires Shehiyah like Shogeg does, Rav Ashi then asks - whether the Halachah pertains exclusively to someone who became Tamei be'O'nes, or whether it extends even to someone who did so be'Meizid.

(a) Rav Ashi asks further whether a Nazir who became Tamei be'O'nes in a Beis ha'Kevaros also requires a K'dei Shehiyah. The case is - when one entered in a covered wagon which prevented him from becoming Tamei, and his friend then removed the roof of the wagon, rendering Him Tamei be'O'nes.

(b) The She'eilah is - that the Shiur might ...

1. ... not pertain to him - because it is confined to Tum'ah in the Azarah.
2. ... pertain to him too - because the criterion of the Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai is 'Tum'ah be'Ones', irrespective of where it took place.

(c) We take for granted that this She'eilah is confined to Malkos, and does not to pertain Korban at all - because a Tamei Nazir is not Chayav Kareis be'Meizid, and therefore not Chayav a Chatas be'Shogeg. Neither is he included in the Parshah of Korban Oleh ve'Yored, and the Korban that he does bring is to enable him to begin his Nezirus Taharah (and not as a Kaparah).

(d) The outcome of the last three She'eilos is also 'Teiku'. Consequently, we do not know whether the criterion for Shehiyah K'dei Hishtachavayah is a Korban, Hishtachavayah, O'nes or inside the Azarah, or not.

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that if the Tamei person leaves the Azarah via the shortest route, he is Patur from a Korban - irrespective of how long it takes him to leave, for so Rava said 'even if he takes goose-steps; even if it takes him all day'.

(b) Rava asks whether the Shehiyos will combine. We cannot resolve this She'eilah from Rava's previous statement - because he is speaking there when the Tamei person did not stop.

(c) Abaye asked Rabah what the Din will be if the Tamei person leaves the Azarah via the longest route, but so fast that he is able exit at the same time as he would have had he left via the shortest route walking. He might be Patur - because perhaps the long route that Moshe was told on Har Sinai referred to the time it takes to leave via the long route (i.e. the criterion was time, not distance).

(d) Rabah replied - that when Hashem gave Moshe the Shiur of 'the long route', he meant specifically that, and the speed with which he leaves via that route, will not affect the Chiyuv Korban.

(a) Rebbi Zeira queries Rabah (and Rava) from the Din of 'Tamei she'Shimesh be'Misah' - which is a lesser Chiyuv than that of a Tamei who was Metamei the Azarah (without serving), who is Chayav Kareis.

(b) The case must be one where the Kohen became Tamei in the Azarah - because if he entered when he was already Tamei, he would immediately be Chayav Kareis (and there would be no possibility of then becoming Chayav Misah).

(c) Rebbi Zeira's Kashya on Rabah is - that even if he became Tamei in the Azarah, what sort of Avodah could he perform without stopping 'K'dei Hishtachavayah' (and being Chayav Kareis)?

(d) There would be no problem if the criterion was the Shiur, because then he could quickly perform an Avodah and run from the Azarah via a short route (taking less time than he would done had he walked out normally).

(a) Abaye refutes Rebbi Zeira's Kashya by citing a ruling of Rav Huna - who obligates a Zar who turns over a limb burning on the Mizbe'ach with a large fork.

(b) This explains Rabah and Rava adequately - because it enables us to find a case where the Tamei Kohen is Chayav Misah for performing an Avodah, but not for being Metamei the Azarah, since it is possible to turn over a limb on the Mizbe'ach even whilst he is on his way out of the Azarah, without stopping.

(c) We have a problem in establishing Rav Huna, however. Assuming that the limb ...

1. ... would not have burned had he not turned it over - then it is obvious (that he has performed a complete Avodah).
2. ... would have burned anyway - then why should he be Chayav (seeing as he hasn't done anything?

(d) We finally establish Rav Huna's case - where he hastened the burning process, and the Chidush is that in itself, is considered an Avodah.

6)

(a) Rebbi (or Rav) Oshaya wanted to declare that if someone entered a house that was stricken with Tzara'as backwards - except for his nose, he is Tahor, because he did not enter the house in the conventional manner. Note, that if he entered the house forwards, he would be Chayav as soon as the majority of him was in the house.

(b) The reason that he was so hesitant about saying it was - because if that were so, then even if his nose was in the house too, he ought to be Patur (presumably, he had a tradition that it wasn't, but didn't know why).

(c) Rava allayed his fears by quoting the Pasuk "ve'Lo Yitma Kol Asher ba'Bayis" - which teaches us that all the vessels in the house become Tamei too (therefore the Torah is advising the owner to take everything outside, before the Kohen arrives and declares the house Tamei).

(d) Rava proves from here - that one does not need to actually enter the house in order to be Tamei. Likewise, if the person entered the house backwards with his nose too, he would be Tamei just like the vessels.

(a) The Beraisa rules - that one a Kohen may not eat Kodshei Kodshim on the roof of the Azarah ...

(b) ... neither may one Shecht Kodshim Kalim there, because the roof does not have the Kedushah of the Azarah.

(c) The Tana also - exonerates a Tamei person who enters the Heichal via the roof from Kareis, because the Pasuk writes "ve'el ha'Mikdash Lo Savo", in which case a conventional 'Bi'ah' (entry) is required

(d) We prove from here - that someone who enters a Tamei house backwards (minus his nose as we expained) will be Patur, since there too, the Torah writes "ve'ha'Ba el ha'Bayis".

(a) After discussing the Din of someone who became Tamei in the Azarah, the Tana concludes 'Zu hi Mitzvas Asei she'be'Mikdash she'Ein Chayavin Alehah'. The Tana is referring to - the Mishnah in Hori'os, which we will proceed to discuss.

(b) The Mishnah refers specifically to the Chiyuvim and the Peturim of Tum'as Mikdash and Nidah - since both have an Asei and a Lo Sa'aseh (the Isur of entering, and the obligation to leave in a certain way).

(a) When the Tana writes 'Ein Chayavin al Asei ve'al Lo Sa'aseh she'be'Mikdash', he is referring to - the Sanhedrin (who are obligated to bring a bull for a false ruling [a Par He'elam Davar]).

(b) Despite the fact that the Sanhedrin bring a Par He'elam Davar on an Asei and a Lo Sa'aseh she'be'Nidah, they are not also obligated to bring one on an Asei and a Lo Sa'aseh she'be'Mikdash - because they only bring a Par He'elam Davar for a sin which carries with it a Chiyuv Chatas Kevu'ah (a fixed Chatas) for a Yachid (but not a Korban Oleh ve'Yored).

(a) When the Tana writes 've'Ein Mevi'in Asham Taluy al Asei ve'al Lo Sa'aseh she'be'Mikdash', he is referring to - a Yachid.

(b) Despite the fact that a Yachid does bring an Asham Taluy on an Asei and a Lo So Sa'aseh shel Nidah, he does not bring one for an Aei ve'Lo Sa'aseh she'be'Mikdash - because one only brings an Asham Taluy in the case of a Safek Chatas Kevu'ah (but not a Safek Chatas Oleh ve'Yored).

(c) We know that 'Mevi'in Asam Taluy' refers to Yechidim and not to the Sanhedrin (like the previous case) - because only Yechidim bring an Asham Taluy (on a Safek Kareis), and not the Tzibur.

(a) We learned that if a man seperates from his wife who is a Nidah immediately (be'Shogeg), he is Chayav a Chatas. Abaye in the name of Rebbi Chiya bar Rav and Rava Amar ... Rav Huna says - that he is Chayav two Chata'os, one for the entry and one for the withdrawal.

(b) Rabah (or Rava) has a problem with this ruling. On the assumption that we are speaking about 'Samuch le'Vestah' (close to the time that her fixed monthly period was due), the problem, if the person concerned is ...

1. ... a Talmid-Chacham is - that he ought to be Chayav only one Chatas for the entry, but not for the withdrawal, since he is a Meizid (for which he is Chayv Kareis).
2. ... an Am ha'Aretz - he was a Shogeg for the entry and, since believing himself to have been an O'nes for the entry, he does not know that he sinned by the time he withdraws, in which case it is like eating two k'Zeisim of Cheilev without knowing in between that he sinned.

(c) By 'Samuch le'Vestah', we mean - from the beginning of the twelve-hour period (day or night) during which she is due to see blood.

(a) On the assumption that we are speaking about not 'Samuch le'Vestah', the problem, if the person concerned is ...

1. ... a Talmid-Chacham is - that he is then an O'nes on the entry and Meizid on the withdrawal (so why should he bring any Chata'os at all?)
2. ... an Am ha'Aretz - then he should only be Chayav one Chatas for the withdrawal, but why two?

(b) When he finally establishes the case by a Talmid-Chacham and Samuch le'Vestah - he explains that the sinner is a Talmid-Chaham who knows that intimacy is forbidden Samuch le'Vestah, but he does not aware of the Halachah that he needs to wait before separating.

(c) This us not a case of 'two k'Zeisim of Cheilev in one He'elam' - because the Talmid-Chacham will have known that he sinned when his wife informed him that she had become Temei'ah, and his immediate withdrawal is therefore considered a second Ha'alamah.

(d) He cannot be considered a Meizid for being intimate with his wife Samuch le'Vestah - since she was not actually a Nidah at the time.