Previous daf

1)

(a) Assuming that Kevuras Meis Mitzvah does not override Shabbos, we refute the 'Kal va'Chomer' that Retzichah ought to, because it overrides Avodah - by citing Kevuras Meis Mitzvah, which overrides Avodah, but not Shabbos.

(b) We counter this (and re-instate the 'Kal va'Chomer') - by suggesting that Kevuras Meis-Mitzvah ought to override Shabbos, since it overrides Avodah which overrides Shabbos?

(a) We initially thought that when the Beraisa's originally contended that Retzichah should override Shabbos, that is based on the principle 'Asei Docheh Lo Sa'aseh'. The Tana reconsiders this however - on the grounds that we only say that by an ordinary La'av, but not by a La'av which carries with it Kareis (such as "Mechalelehah Mos Yumas").

(b) We counter that an Asei anyway overrides a La'av, in spite of the fact that the La'av is more stringent than it (so what difference does it make if the La'av carries with it Kareis as well?). What makes a La'av more stringent than an Asei - is the fact that it is punishable by Malkos, which an Asei is not.

(a) Although the Torah includes all Kodshim in the Kareis of "Kol Ish Asher Yikrav ... el ha'Kodoshim Asher Yakdishu ... ", it nevertheless finds it necessary to add the Pasuk "ve'ha'Nefesh Asher Tochal B'sar Zevach ha'Shelamim ve'Tum'aso Alav ... ve'Nichresah" - to teach us that a Tamei person is only Chayav Kareis for eating Kodshei *Mizbei'ach* (like Shelamim), but not Kodshei Bedek *ha'Bayis*.

(b) The principle that governs this D'rashah is - the eighth of Rebbi Yishmael's thirteen principles: 'Any P'rat (detail of a K'lal) that was included in the K'lal (the general category), and was then taken out to teach a new Chidush, that Chidush is not confined to the P'rat, but reflects on the entire K'lal'.

(c) We are still searching for a source to include Achos Ishah in the Heter of Yibum (for the need to preclude her from "Alehah"). We attempt to use this principle as the source - by contending that Achos Achiv was included in the Arayos, and was now taken out to teach us the Heter of Yibum, that Heter should extend to all the Arayos.

(d) We reject that contention however - on the grounds that in the principle of Rebbi Yishmael, both the K'lal and the P'rat are teaching us a Chumra (a Chiyuv Kareis for eating them when one is Tamei); whereas in our case, we are trying to use Achos Achiv to superimpose a Kula on the Arayos.

(a) The Torah writes in Metzora "ve'Shachat es ha'Keves bi'M'kom Asher Yishchat es ha'Chatas ve'es ha'Olah bi'Mekom ha'Kodesh, Ki ka'Chatas ha'Asham". We do not need "Ki ka'Chatas ha'Asham" to designate ...

1. ... the location of the Shechitah of the Asham - because we know that already from "bi'Mekom Asher Yishchat es ha'Chatas" mentioned earlier.
2. ... the way the blood was to be sprinkled or how it was to be eaten - because we know that from "Zos Toras ha'Asham" in Tzav (which teaches us that all the Ashamos have the same Din).

(b) The Hekesh comes to teach us - that even though some of the blood of this particular Asham had the distinction of being placed on the owner's right thumb and right big toe, it nevertheless required sprinkling like the Chatas.

(c) We can deduce from here - that if not for the Hekesh, the blood of the Asham Metzora would not require sprinkling, which in turn, teaches us that something that was originally part of a K'lal, and was then taken out to teach something new, cannot be returned to the K'lal unless the Torah specifically reinstates it.

(d) In that case, we ought to apply the same principle to Eishes Achiv, and say - that Eishes Achiv has been given the Mitzvah of Yibum (the Heter to 'marry' an Ervah - a Chidush), but that that Heter does not extend to the rest of the K'lal. So why do we need "Alehah" (to preclude Achos Ishto from Yibum)?

5)

(a) We conclude that Achos Ishto ought to be included in the Mitzvah of Yibum - from a 'Mah Matzinu' from Eishes Achiv (seeing as both are Arayos).

(b) In spite of the fact that, whereas Eishes Achiv constitutes only *one* Isur, Achos Ishto constitutes *two* - we would say 'Ho'il ve'Ishteri, Ishteri'.

(a) No Tamei person may enter the Azarah. Some Tum'os however, are permitted in the Har ha'Bayis.

1. A Tamei Meis or Sheretz - is *permitted* to enter the Har ha'Bayis;
2. a Ba'al Keri or Zav - is *not*;
3. a T'vul Yom of a Ba'al Keri - is also *not*.

(b) The Sha'ar Nikanor was the gate leading to the Ezras Nashim - Chazal ascribed to it the Kedushah of the Har ha'Bayis.

(c) On Erev Pesach, they permitted a Metzora on his eighth day to enter the Sha'ar Nikanor (for the placing of the blood of his Asham on his big, right thumb etc.), even if he saw Keri on that day, provided he had also Toveled - because an Asei which carries with it Kareis (i.e. the bringing of the Pesach) overrides an Asei which does not (i.e. a T'vul Yom entering the Har ha'Bayis).

(d) Rebbi Yochanan learns from the Pasuk "va'Ya'amod Yehoshafat bi'K'hal Yehudah Lifnei *ha'Chatzer ha'Chadashah*" - that min ha'Torah, a T'vul Yom is permitted to enter the Har ha'Bayis, and it was Yehoshafat who had just issued a new Takanah forbidding him to do so.

(a) Ula has a problem with a Metzora who is also a Ba'al Keri, placing his hands inside the Azarah - because he holds that even if part of a person enters the Azarah, it is as if he had entered completely. That being so, granted that the Torah instructs the Metzora to place his hands inside the Azarah (as part of his purification process), but how can we permit a T'vul-Yom of a Ba'al Keri to do likewise, seeing as he is Chayav Kareis no less than the person who does not bring his Korban Pesach?

(b) He solves the problem - by applying the principle 'Ho'il ve'Ishteri, Ishteri.

(c) In that case, we conclude, all the Arayos ought to be included in the Mitzvah of Yibum, which explains why "Alehah" is required to forbid them.