ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Shevuos 17
SHEVUOS 16-18 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi
publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.
(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.
(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).
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.
(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
(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
(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
(c) We have a problem in establishing Rav Huna, however. Assuming that the
1. ... would not have burned had he not turned it over - then it is obvious
(that he has performed a complete Avodah).
(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.
2. ... would have burned anyway - then why should he be Chayav (seeing as he
hasn't done anything?
(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
(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
(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.
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.
(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?)
(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.
2. ... an Am ha'Aretz - then he should only be Chayav one Chatas for the
withdrawal, but why two?
(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.