Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

December 12, 2017 | 讻状讚 讘讻住诇讜 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Shevuot 14

Study Guide Shevuot 14. The braita聽at the end of the last page pointed out that the kohanim seem to be excluded from both the聽goat offering to azazel and from the聽bull offering of the high priest.聽 This assumption is challenged聽and explained.聽 The second perek starts with a description of the 4 cases of “yediot ha’tuma” and explain the 4 cases.聽 It also describes what one who becomes impure while in the mikdash should do.聽 Rav Papa challenges the number 4 used in the mishna and the gemara brings 2 versions of his answer to his own question.聽 A few questions for which there are no answers are brought regarding what is considered – having had knowledge from the beginning in particular cases.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讘讟讜诪讗转 诪拽讚砖 讜拽讚砖讬讜 讘诪讛 讛诐 诪转讻驻专讬谉 诪讜讟讘 砖讬转讻驻专讜 讘驻专讜 砖诇 讗讛专谉 砖讛专讬 讛讜转专 诪讻诇诇讜 讗爪诇 讘讬转讜 讜讗诇 讬转讻驻专讜 讘砖注讬专 讛谞注砖讛 讘驻谞讬诐 砖讛专讬 诇讗 讛讜转专 诪讻诇诇讜

for their defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods. Through which means, then, do they achieve atonement for this? Is it through the internal goat or the bull of Aaron? It is better to say that they achieve atonement through the bull of Aaron, as in any event with regard to his household an exception was made to its rule that it atones only for Aaron. And one should not say that they achieve atonement through the goat whose blood presentation is performed inside the Sanctuary, as it is not found that with regard to Aaron鈥檚 household an exception was made to its rule.

讜讗诐 谞驻砖讱 诇讜诪专 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讘讬转 讗讛专谉 讘专讻讜 讗转 讛壮 讜讙讜壮

And if it is your wish to say that this reasoning can be refuted, one can bring another proof, as it states: 鈥淗ouse of Aaron, bless the Lord,鈥 which is referring to all priests and not just to Aaron鈥檚 immediate household, and so it is reasonable that Aaron鈥檚 bull should atone for them.

讜诪讗讬 讗诐 谞驻砖讱 诇讜诪专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讘讬转讜 讻转讬讘 讻讜诇谉 拽专讜讬讬谉 讘讬转讜 砖谞讗诪专 讘讬转 讗讛专谉 讘专讻讜 讗转 讛壮 讬专讗讬 讛壮 讘专讻讜 讗转 讛壮

The Gemara clarifies the last part of the baraita: And what possible refutation is the baraita referring to when it says: If it is your wish to say that this reasoning can be refuted? The Gemara explains: And if you would say of the preceding proof that it is incorrect to suggest that all priests achieve atonement from the bull of Aaron, as with regard to it the term: 鈥淗is household鈥 (Leviticus 16:6), is written, which suggests that it atones only for his immediate family, then this can be refuted, as all of the priests are collectively referred to as his household, as is evident from that which is stated: 鈥淗ouse of Aaron, bless the Lord; house of Levi, bless the Lord, those who fear the Lord, bless the Lord.鈥

讜讛讗讬 讗砖专 诇注诐 诇讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讛讗讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讚拽讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诪讚注诐 诇讬讛讜讬 讛讛讜讗 诪讜诪讗转 注讚转 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 谞驻拽讗

The Gemara questions some of the expositions of the baraita: And with regard to this phrase: 鈥淕oat of the people鈥 (Leviticus 16:15), does it come to teach that which the baraita teaches, i.e., that the priests do not achieve atonement through it? But that phrase is necessary to teach that the Merciful One states that the goat must be purchased with funds collected from the people. The Gemara refutes this: That requirement is derived from the verse: 鈥淎nd from the assembly of the children of Israel he shall take two goats鈥 (Leviticus 16:5).

讜讛讗讬 讗砖专 诇讜 诇讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讛讗讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 诪砖诇讜 讛讜讗 诪讘讬讗 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讘讬讗 诪砖诇 爪讘讜专

The Gemara asks further: And with regard to this phrase: 鈥淗is own bull sin-offering鈥 (Leviticus 16:6), does it come to teach that which the baraita teaches, i.e., that it atones only for Aaron鈥檚 transgressions, not for the transgressions of others? But that phrase is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: The High Priest brings, i.e., purchases, the bull from his own funds, but he does not bring it from funds collected from the public.

讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讘讬讗 诪砖诇 爪讘讜专 砖讗讬谉 讛爪讘讜专 诪转讻驻专讬谉 讘讜 讗讘诇 讬讘讬讗 诪砖诇 讗讞讬讜 讛讻讛谞讬诐 砖讗讞讬讜 讛讻讛谞讬诐 诪转讻驻专讬谉 讘讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖专 诇讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讘讬讗 讜讗诐 讛讘讬讗 讻砖专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 砖讜讘 讗砖专 诇讜 讛讻转讜讘 砖谞讛 注诇讬讜 诇注讻讘

One might have thought that he does not bring it from funds collected from the public because the public does not achieve atonement through it, but he may bring it from funds belonging to his brethren the priests because his brethren the priests achieve atonement through it. To counter this, the verse states: 鈥淗is own bull sin-offering,鈥 to indicate that he must purchase it using only his own funds. One might have thought that he should not bring it from others鈥 funds, but nevertheless, if he did it would still be valid. To counter this, the verse again states 鈥渉is own.鈥 The verse repeats the phrase to render the requirement essential.

转谞讗 讛讻讬 拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讘讚注诐 讚诇讗 诪讻驻专 讚诇讗 拽讗 讞住专讬 讘讬讛 诪诪讜谞讗 讚讻转讬讘 讗砖专 诇注诐 讘讚讗讛专谉 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽讗 讞住专讬 讘讬讛 诪诪讜谞讗 讜拽讗诪专 讻讜诇谉 拽专讜讬讬谉 讘讬转讜

If both mentions of the phrase 鈥渉is own鈥 are necessary to teach about the ownership of the bull, how can the above baraita suggest that the phrase indicates that the bull atones only for the High Priest鈥檚 transgressions? The Gemara explains: This is what is difficult for the tanna of the baraita: What is different about the goat of the people that explains why it does not atone for the priests? The difference is that the priests did not forfeit any money over the purchase of it. Therefore, it does not atone for the priests, but only for the Israelites, as it is written with regard to the internal goat: 鈥淥f the people.鈥 With regard to the bull of Aaron as well, the priests do not forfeit any money over the purchase of it, so it follows that they should not achieve atonement through it. And therefore, to explain why they do achieve atonement, the baraita states that all of the priests are collectively referred to as: His household.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 转专讬 讜讬讚讜讬谉 讜讚诐 讛驻专 讞讚 讻谞讙讚 砖注讬专 讛谞注砖讛 讘驻谞讬诐 讜讞讚 讻谞讙讚 砖注讬专 讛谞注砖讛 讘讞讜抓 讜讞讚 讻谞讙讚 砖注讬专 讛诪砖转诇讞

搂 The Gemara returns to its discussion of the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon. The Gemara asks: Granted, according to Rabbi Shimon, who holds that the priests do not achieve atonement through the scapegoat, that is why it is written in the Torah that two confessions are to be recited over the bull and that the blood of the bull is to be presented inside the Sanctuary: Of these three forms of atonement, one corresponds to the atonement provided by the goat whose blood presentation is performed inside the Sanctuary, one corresponds to the atonement provided by the goat whose blood presentation is performed outside the Sanctuary, and one corresponds to the atonement provided by the scapegoat.

讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 转专讬 讜讬讚讜讬谉 讜讚诐 讛驻专 诇诪讛 诇讬 讘讞讚 讜讬讚讜讬 讜讚诪讜 住讙讬讗

But according to Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that the priests do achieve atonement through the scapegoat, why do I need the two confessions recited over the bull and the blood of the bull to be presented inside the Sanctuary? One confession over the bull and its blood being presented inside the Sanctuary would be sufficient.

讗讞讚 诇讜 讜讗讞讚 诇讘讬转讜 讻讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讻讱 讛讬讗 诪讚转 讛讚讬谉 谞讜讛讙转 诪讜讟讘 讬讘讜讗 讝讻讗讬 讜讬讻驻专 注诇 讛讞讬讬讘 讜讗诇 讬讘讜讗 讞讬讬讘 讜讬讻驻专 注诇 讛讞讬讬讘

The Gemara answers: Two confessions are necessary, one for the High Priest himself, and one for his household, i.e., the priests, as the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The High Priest must first confess his own transgressions and only afterward those of the priests, because that is how the attribute of justice functions: It is better that the innocent come and atone for the guilty, than that the guilty come and atone for the guilty. When the High Priest confesses the transgressions of those in his house, it is better that he already be considered innocent, having confessed and been absolved of his own transgressions.

讛讚专谉 注诇讬讱 砖讘讜注讜转 砖转讬诐

 

诪转谞讬壮 讬讚讬注讜转 讛讟讜诪讗讛 砖转讬诐 砖讛谉 讗专讘注 谞讟诪讗 讜讬讚注 讜谞注诇诪讛 诪诪谞讜 讛讟讜诪讗讛 讜讝讻讜专 讗转 讛拽讚砖

MISHNA: With regard to cases of awareness of the defiling of the Temple by entering it while one is ritually impure, or defiling its sacrificial foods by partaking of them while one is ritually impure, there are two types that are actually four. How so? If one became ritually impure and he was aware that he was impure, but afterward his impurity was hidden from him, though he remembered that he was partaking of sacrificial food, which is forbidden to one who is in a state of ritual impurity; this is one of the four types of awareness of impurity.

谞注诇诐 诪诪谞讜 讛拽讚砖 讜讝讻讜专 讗转 讛讟讜诪讗讛 谞注诇诪讜 诪诪谞讜 讝讛 讜讝讛 讜讗讻诇 讗转 讛拽讚砖 讜诇讗 讬讚注 讜诪砖讗讻诇 讬讚注 讛专讬 讝讛 讘注讜诇讛 讜讬讜专讚

If the fact that he was partaking of sacrificial food was hidden from him, though he remembered the ritual impurity that he had contracted; this is the second of the four types of awareness of impurity. And the same halakha applies if both this and that were hidden from him, both the fact that he was impure and the fact that he was partaking of sacrificial food. In all these cases, if he partook of the sacrificial food and was unaware either that he was impure, or that the food was sacrificial food, or both, and after he partook of it he became aware of that which he had forgotten, he is required to bring a sliding-scale offering. In this type of offering, the sinner sacrifices an animal, bird, or meal-offering, depending on his financial status.

谞讟诪讗 讜讬讚注 讜谞注诇诪讛 诪诪谞讜 讟讜诪讗讛 讜讝讻讜专 讗转 讛诪拽讚砖 谞注诇诐 诪诪谞讜 诪拽讚砖 讜讝讻讜专 讗转 讛讟讜诪讗讛 谞注诇诐 诪诪谞讜 讝讛 讜讝讛 讜谞讻谞住 诇诪拽讚砖 讜诇讗 讬讚注 讜诪砖讬爪讗 讬讚注 讛专讬 讝讛 讘注讜诇讛 讜讬讜专讚

And similarly with regard to entering the Temple: If one became ritually impure and he was aware that he was impure, but afterward his impurity was hidden from him, though he remembered that he was entering the Temple, which is prohibited for one who is in a state of ritual impurity; this is the third of the four types of awareness of impurity. If the fact that he was entering the Temple was hidden from him, though he remembered the ritual impurity that he had contracted; this is the fourth type of awareness of impurity. And the same halakha applies if both this and that were hidden from him, both the fact that he was impure and the fact that he was entering the Temple. In all these cases, if he entered the Temple and was unaware either that he was impure, or that he was entering the Temple, or both, and after he left he became aware of what was hidden from him, he is required to bring a sliding-scale offering.

讗讞讚 讛谞讻谞住 诇注讝专讛 讜讗讞讚 讛谞讻谞住 诇转讜住驻转 讛注讝专讛 砖讗讬谉 诪讜住讬驻讬谉 注诇 讛注讬专 讜注诇 讛注讝专讜转 讗诇讗 讘诪诇讱 讜谞讘讬讗 讜讗讜专讬诐 讜转讜诪讬诐 讜住谞讛讚专讬谉 砖诇 砖讘注讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讜讘砖转讬 转讜讚讜转 讜讘砖讬专

As for the boundaries of the Temple with regard to the halakhot of impurity, the same halakha applies to one who enters the area that was part of the original Temple courtyard and to one who enters the later addition to the Temple courtyard, because the additional section is sanctified with the full sanctity of the Temple courtyard. The mishna notes: As, additions can be made to the city of Jerusalem or to the Temple courtyards only by a special body comprising the king, a prophet, the Urim VeTummim, and the Sanhedrin of seventy-one judges, and with two thanks-offerings and with a special song. Once the addition to the courtyard is made by this body and this process, it is given the full sanctity of the original courtyard area.

讜讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪讛诇讻讬谉 讜砖转讬 转讜讚讜转 讗讞专讬讛谉 讜讻诇 讬砖专讗诇 讗讞专讬讛诐

The mishna provides certain details of the consecration ceremony. And the court would move forward, and two thanks-offerings would be brought after them, and all of the Jewish people would follow behind them.

讛驻谞讬诪讬转 谞讗讻诇转 讜讛讞讬爪讜谞讛 谞砖专驻转 讜讻诇 砖诇讗 谞注砖讬转 讘讻诇 讗诇讜 讛谞讻谞住 诇砖诐 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讛

When they would reach the end of the place that they desired to consecrate, the inner thanks-offering would be eaten and the outer one would be burned. The details of this ceremony will be described in the Gemara. And with regard to any addition to the Temple that was not made with all these ceremonial procedures, one who enters there while ritually impure is not liable to bring an offering if his entry was unwitting, nor to be punished with karet, excision from the World-to-Come, if his entry was intentional.

谞讟诪讗 讘注讝专讛 讜谞注诇诪讛 诪诪谞讜 讟讜诪讗讛 讜讝讻讜专 讗转 讛诪拽讚砖 谞注诇诐 讛讬诪谞讜 诪拽讚砖 讜讝讻讜专 讛讟讜诪讗讛 谞注诇诐 诪诪谞讜 讝讛 讜讝讛 讜讛砖转讞讜讛 讗讜 砖砖讛讛 讘讻讚讬 讛砖转讞讜讗讛 讗讜 讘讗 诇讜 讘讗专讜讻讛 讞讬讬讘 讘拽爪专讛 驻讟讜专

The first part of the mishna discussed one who became ritually impure before entering the Temple. The mishna proceeds to consider a case involving one who was ritually pure when he entered the Temple but who became impure while in the Temple courtyard, and afterward, his impurity was hidden from him but he remembered that he was standing in the Temple, or the fact that he was standing in the Temple was hidden from him but he remembered his impurity, or both this fact and that fact were hidden from him. In all these cases, if he bowed down, or he tarried in the Temple courtyard long enough to bow down even though he did not actually bow, or he went out by way of a longer route when he could have taken a shorter route, he is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering. But if he left the Temple via the shortest way, he is exempt.

讝讜 讛讬讗 诪爪讜转 注砖讛 砖讘诪拽讚砖 砖讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛

This mitzva that the ritually impure must be sent out of the Temple is the positive mitzva concerning the Temple for which, as is taught elsewhere in the Mishna (Horayot 8b), the Sanhedrin is not liable to bring an offering for an erroneous ruling. A communal bull sin-offering is brought because of the unwitting transgression of a prohibition involving an action by the Jewish people resulting from an erroneous halakhic decision handed down by the Sanhedrin. But if the Sanhedrin mistakenly ruled that one who became impure while in the Temple may leave by way of a longer route, they do not bring this offering, as it is brought only for an erroneous ruling on a matter that requires the bringing of a fixed sin-offering, and not a sliding-scale offering, for its unwitting violation.

讜讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 诪爪讜转 注砖讛 砖讘谞讚讛 砖讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛 讛讬讛 诪砖诪砖 注诐 讛讟讛讜专讛 讜讗诪专讛 诇讜 谞讟诪讗转讬 讜驻讬专砖 诪讬讚 讞讬讬讘 诪驻谞讬 砖讬爪讬讗转讜 讛谞讗讛 诇讜 讻讘讬讗转讜

And which is the positive mitzva with regard to a menstruating woman for which, as is taught in Horayot there, the Sanhedrin is liable to bring a bull offering for an erroneous ruling? If a man was engaging in intercourse with a ritually pure woman, and during the course of their act of intercourse she experienced menstrual bleeding and said to him: I have become impure, and unwittingly he immediately withdrew from her and did not wait until his penis became flaccid, he is liable to bring a sin-offering for engaging in intercourse with a menstruating woman, because his withdrawal from her is as pleasant to him as his entry. If the Sanhedrin mistakenly ruled that one may withdraw immediately, they bring a bull offering for their erroneous ruling.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讛砖专抓 讜谞注诇诐 诪诪谞讜 注诇 讛注诇诐 砖专抓 讞讬讬讘 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讛注诇诐 诪拽讚砖

Rabbi Eliezer says: With regard to the sliding-scale offering the verse states: 鈥淥r if a person touches any impure thing, whether it is the carcass of a non-kosher undomesticated animal, or the carcass of a non-kosher domesticated animal, or the carcass of a non-kosher creeping animal, and it is hidden from him鈥 (Leviticus 5:2). A precise reading of this verse indicates that in a case where one has a lapse of awareness that he had contracted ritual impurity by touching a creeping animal, he is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering for having defiled the Temple or the sacrificial food, but he is not liable to bring such an offering in a case where he has a lapse of awareness that he is entering the Temple or partaking of sacrificial food.

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讜谞注诇诐 诪诪谞讜 讜讛讜讗 讟诪讗 注诇 讛注诇诐 讟讜诪讗讛 讞讬讬讘 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讛注诇诐 诪拽讚砖

Similarly, Rabbi Akiva says: The verse states: 鈥淎nd it is hidden from him, so that he is impure鈥 (Leviticus 5:2), thereby teaching that in a case when one has a lapse of awareness that he had contracted ritual impurity, he is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering, but one is not liable to bring such an offering in a case when he has a lapse of awareness that he is entering the Temple or partaking of sacrificial food.

专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 讜谞注诇诐 讜谞注诇诐 砖转讬 驻注诪讬诐 诇讞讬讬讘 注诇 讛注诇诐 讟讜诪讗讛 讜注诇 讛注诇诐 诪拽讚砖

Rabbi Yishmael says: The verse states: 鈥淎nd it is hidden from him鈥 (Leviticus 5:2), and it states: 鈥淎nd it is hidden from him鈥 (Leviticus 5:3), twice, in order to render one liable to bring a sliding-scale offering both in a case where one has a lapse of awareness that he had contracted ritual impurity and in a case where one has a lapse of awareness that he is entering the Temple.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 砖转讬诐 砖讛谉 讗专讘注 砖转讬诐 砖讛谉 砖砖 讛讜讬讬谉 讬讚讬注讜转 讛讟讜诪讗讛 转讞诇讛 讜住讜祝 讬讚讬注讜转 讛拽讜讚砖 转讞诇讛 讜住讜祝 讬讚讬注讜转 诪拽讚砖 转讞诇讛 讜住讜祝

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the halakhot concerning awareness of ritual impurity are two that are further subdivided into four. Rav Pappa said to Abaye: Are these actually two states of awareness that are subdivided into four? As the mishna lists them, they seem to be two that are subdivided into six: Awareness of the impurity at the beginning and at the end, awareness of the sacrificial food at the beginning and at the end, and awareness of the Temple at the beginning and at the end.

讜诇讟注诪讬讱 转诪谞讬 讛讜讬讬谉 讚讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讟讜诪讗讛 讚拽讜讚砖 讜讟讜诪讗讛 讚诪拽讚砖 转讞诇讛 讜住讜祝

Abaye answered him: According to your reasoning, that you count all the various cases listed in the mishna, there are eight states of awareness, as there is also awareness of the impurity in connection with eating the sacrificial food, at the beginning and at the end, and awareness of the impurity in connection with entering the Temple, at the beginning and at the end. The mishna mentions awareness of the impurity both in the first clause, which discusses partaking of sacrificial food, and in the second clause, which discusses entering the Temple.

讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 砖诐 讟讜诪讗讛 讗讞转 讛讬讗 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讬转 讛讜讬讬谉

Rav Pappa refutes this: This is not difficult, as the status of ritual impurity carries one name in both cases: The person was aware that he had contracted ritual impurity and then it became hidden from him, and there is no reason to distinguish between impurity in connection with partaking of sacrificial food and impurity in connection with entering the Temple. Accordingly, Rav Pappa鈥檚 first question remains: In any case there are six states of awareness.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇注讜诇诐 转诪谞讬 讛讜讬讬谉 讗专讘注讬 拽诪讬讬转讗 讚诇讗 诪讬讬转谉 诇讬讛 诇讬讚讬 拽专讘谉 诇讗 拽讗 讞砖讬讘 讗专讘注讛 讘转专讬讬转讗 讚诪讬讬转谉 诇讬讛 诇讬讚讬 拽专讘谉 拽讗 讞砖讬讘

Rav Pappa said in answer to his own question: Actually, there are eight states of awareness, two of the impurity in connection with partaking of sacrificial food, two of the impurity in connection with entering the Temple, two of awareness of the sacrificial food, and two of awareness of the Temple, each pair having one awareness at the beginning and one at the end. But the first four states of awareness at the beginning do not in themselves bring the unwitting transgressor to liability to bring an offering, as if he does not reach awareness at the end, he will not have known that he transgressed. Therefore, the tanna does not count them. But the tanna does count the last four states of awareness, which bring the unwitting transgressor to the liability to bring an offering.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇注讜诇诐 转诪谞讬 讛讜讬讬谉 讜讗专讘注讬 拽诪讬讬转讗 讚诇讬转谞讛讜 讘讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讻讜诇讛 拽讗 讞砖讬讘 讗专讘注讬 讘转专讬讬转讗 讚讗讬转谞讛讜 讘讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讻讜诇讛 诇讗 拽讗 讞砖讬讘

And there are those who say that Rav Pappa said as follows: Actually, there are eight states of awareness, and it is the first four states of awareness at the beginning, which are not found in the entire Torah, that the tanna counts. In all the other instances where one is liable to bring an offering for an unwitting transgression, it is not necessary that there be any awareness at the beginning. Since this is a novel requirement, the tanna counts these states of awareness. But the tanna does not count the last four states of awareness at the end, which are found also in the entire Torah, as a standard sin-offering is brought when one is made aware after the fact that he had transgressed.

讘注讬 专讘 驻驻讗 谞注诇诪讜 诪诪谞讜 讛诇讻讜转 讟讜诪讗讛 诪讛讜 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚诇讗 讬讚注 讗讬 砖专抓 讟诪讗 讗讬 爪驻专讚注 讟诪讗 讝讬诇 拽专讬 讘讬 专讘 讛讜讗

The amora鈥檌m try to define the awareness of the impurity mentioned in the mishna. Rav Pappa raises a dilemma: If the halakhot of impurity became hidden from him, what is the halakha? Is he liable to bring a sliding-scale offering in such a situation? The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of the case under discussion? If we say that he did not know whether a creeping animal is impure or pure or whether a frog is impure or pure, this is a topic that you could go learn in a children鈥檚 school. As these matters are explicitly recorded in the Torah, they can never be considered hidden.

诇注讜诇诐 讚讬讚注 讘讟讜诪讗转 砖专抓 讜讻讙讜谉 讚谞讙注 讘讻注讚砖讛 讜诇讗 讬讚注 讻注讚砖讛 讗讬 诪讟诪讗 讗讬 诇讗 诪讟诪讗 诪讗讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讬讚注 讚诪讟诪讗 砖专抓 讘注讜诇诐 讬讚讬注讛 讛讬讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讻注讚砖讛 诇讗 讬讚注 讗讬 诪讟诪讗 讗讬 诇讗 诪讟诪讗 讛注诇诪讛 讛讬讗 转讬拽讜

Actually, Rav Pappa must have been asking about a case where he knew the essential halakha with regard to the ritual impurity of a creeping animal, and it is a case where he touched a portion of the animal that was of a lentil-bulk and he did not know the halakha concerning whether a portion that was of a lentil-bulk renders a person impure or does not render him impure. What is the halakha in such a case? The Gemara explains the two possibilities: Does one say that since he knows generally that a creeping animal renders a person impure, it is awareness? Or perhaps one says that since he does not know whether a portion that was of a lentil-bulk renders a person impure or does not render a person impure, it is considered hidden from him. The Gemara comments: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘谉 讘讘诇 砖注诇讛 诇讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讜谞注诇诐 诪诪谞讜 诪拽讜诐 诪拽讚砖 诪讛讜

Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma concerning the awareness of the Temple: If a Babylonian or a resident of another country ascended to Eretz Yisrael, and the site of the Temple was hidden from him, so that he unwittingly entered into the Temple in a state of ritual impurity, what is the halakha? Is he liable to bring a sliding-scale offering to atone for his offense, or not?

讗诇讬讘讗 讚诪讗谉 讗讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讘注讬 讬讚讬注讛 讘转讞诇讛 讛讗 诇讗 诪讞讬讬讘 注诇 讛注诇诐 诪拽讚砖 讗讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚诪讞讬讬讘 注诇 讛注诇诐 诪拽讚砖 讛讗 诇讗 讘注讬 讬讚讬注讛 讘转讞诇讛

The Gemara clarifies: In accordance with whose opinion was this dilemma raised? If it was raised in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who requires that there be awareness at the beginning in order for one to become liable to bring an offering, that is difficult, as Rabbi Akiva does not deem one liable when he had a lapse of awareness that he was entering the Temple. And if the dilemma was raised in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who deems one liable when he had a lapse of awareness that he was entering the Temple, that is difficult, as Rabbi Yishmael does not require that there be awareness at the beginning. According to both tanna鈥檌m, the dilemma is not relevant.

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讚讘注讬 讬讚讬注讛 讘转讞诇讛 讜诪讞讬讬讘 注诇 讛注诇诐 诪拽讚砖 讜讗诪专 讬讚讬注转 讘讬转 专讘讜 砖诪讛 讬讚讬注讛 诪讗讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讬讚注 讚讗讬讻讗 诪拽讚砖 讘注讜诇诐 讬讚讬注讛 讛讬讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诪拽讜诪讜 诇讗 讬讚注 诇讬讛 讛注诇诪讛 讛讬讗 转讬拽讜

The Gemara explains: No, it is necessary to raise the dilemma only in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who requires awareness at the beginning and also deems one liable when he had a lapse of awareness that he was entering the Temple, and he also says that awareness that one gains in the house of his teacher is called awareness (see 5a). What is the halakha in such a case? The Gemara explains the two possibilities: Does one say that since he knows that there is a Temple someplace in the world, it is awareness? Or perhaps one says that since he does not know the precise location of the Temple, it is considered hidden from him. The Gemara comments: This dilemma shall stand unresolved.

讗讞讚 讛谞讻谞住 诇注讝专讛 讜讻讜壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讞讬讬讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讻诇 讗砖专 讗谞讬 诪专讗讛 讗讜转讱 讗转 转讘谞讬转 讛诪砖讻谉 讜讗转 转讘谞讬转 讻诇 讻诇讬讜

搂 The mishna teaches: The same halakha applies to one who enters the area that was part of the original Temple courtyard and to one who enters the later addition to the Temple courtyard, as additions can be made to the city of Jerusalem or to the Temple courtyards only by a special body comprising the king, a prophet, the Urim VeTummim, and the Sanhedrin of seventy-one judges, and with two thanks-offerings and with a special song. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived? Rav Shimi bar 岣yya said: As the verse states: 鈥淎ccording to all that I show you, the form of the Tabernacle, and the form of all its vessels,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Shevuot 14

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shevuot 14

讘讟讜诪讗转 诪拽讚砖 讜拽讚砖讬讜 讘诪讛 讛诐 诪转讻驻专讬谉 诪讜讟讘 砖讬转讻驻专讜 讘驻专讜 砖诇 讗讛专谉 砖讛专讬 讛讜转专 诪讻诇诇讜 讗爪诇 讘讬转讜 讜讗诇 讬转讻驻专讜 讘砖注讬专 讛谞注砖讛 讘驻谞讬诐 砖讛专讬 诇讗 讛讜转专 诪讻诇诇讜

for their defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods. Through which means, then, do they achieve atonement for this? Is it through the internal goat or the bull of Aaron? It is better to say that they achieve atonement through the bull of Aaron, as in any event with regard to his household an exception was made to its rule that it atones only for Aaron. And one should not say that they achieve atonement through the goat whose blood presentation is performed inside the Sanctuary, as it is not found that with regard to Aaron鈥檚 household an exception was made to its rule.

讜讗诐 谞驻砖讱 诇讜诪专 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讘讬转 讗讛专谉 讘专讻讜 讗转 讛壮 讜讙讜壮

And if it is your wish to say that this reasoning can be refuted, one can bring another proof, as it states: 鈥淗ouse of Aaron, bless the Lord,鈥 which is referring to all priests and not just to Aaron鈥檚 immediate household, and so it is reasonable that Aaron鈥檚 bull should atone for them.

讜诪讗讬 讗诐 谞驻砖讱 诇讜诪专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讘讬转讜 讻转讬讘 讻讜诇谉 拽专讜讬讬谉 讘讬转讜 砖谞讗诪专 讘讬转 讗讛专谉 讘专讻讜 讗转 讛壮 讬专讗讬 讛壮 讘专讻讜 讗转 讛壮

The Gemara clarifies the last part of the baraita: And what possible refutation is the baraita referring to when it says: If it is your wish to say that this reasoning can be refuted? The Gemara explains: And if you would say of the preceding proof that it is incorrect to suggest that all priests achieve atonement from the bull of Aaron, as with regard to it the term: 鈥淗is household鈥 (Leviticus 16:6), is written, which suggests that it atones only for his immediate family, then this can be refuted, as all of the priests are collectively referred to as his household, as is evident from that which is stated: 鈥淗ouse of Aaron, bless the Lord; house of Levi, bless the Lord, those who fear the Lord, bless the Lord.鈥

讜讛讗讬 讗砖专 诇注诐 诇讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讛讗讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讚拽讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诪讚注诐 诇讬讛讜讬 讛讛讜讗 诪讜诪讗转 注讚转 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 谞驻拽讗

The Gemara questions some of the expositions of the baraita: And with regard to this phrase: 鈥淕oat of the people鈥 (Leviticus 16:15), does it come to teach that which the baraita teaches, i.e., that the priests do not achieve atonement through it? But that phrase is necessary to teach that the Merciful One states that the goat must be purchased with funds collected from the people. The Gemara refutes this: That requirement is derived from the verse: 鈥淎nd from the assembly of the children of Israel he shall take two goats鈥 (Leviticus 16:5).

讜讛讗讬 讗砖专 诇讜 诇讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讛讗讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 诪砖诇讜 讛讜讗 诪讘讬讗 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讘讬讗 诪砖诇 爪讘讜专

The Gemara asks further: And with regard to this phrase: 鈥淗is own bull sin-offering鈥 (Leviticus 16:6), does it come to teach that which the baraita teaches, i.e., that it atones only for Aaron鈥檚 transgressions, not for the transgressions of others? But that phrase is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: The High Priest brings, i.e., purchases, the bull from his own funds, but he does not bring it from funds collected from the public.

讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讘讬讗 诪砖诇 爪讘讜专 砖讗讬谉 讛爪讘讜专 诪转讻驻专讬谉 讘讜 讗讘诇 讬讘讬讗 诪砖诇 讗讞讬讜 讛讻讛谞讬诐 砖讗讞讬讜 讛讻讛谞讬诐 诪转讻驻专讬谉 讘讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖专 诇讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讘讬讗 讜讗诐 讛讘讬讗 讻砖专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 砖讜讘 讗砖专 诇讜 讛讻转讜讘 砖谞讛 注诇讬讜 诇注讻讘

One might have thought that he does not bring it from funds collected from the public because the public does not achieve atonement through it, but he may bring it from funds belonging to his brethren the priests because his brethren the priests achieve atonement through it. To counter this, the verse states: 鈥淗is own bull sin-offering,鈥 to indicate that he must purchase it using only his own funds. One might have thought that he should not bring it from others鈥 funds, but nevertheless, if he did it would still be valid. To counter this, the verse again states 鈥渉is own.鈥 The verse repeats the phrase to render the requirement essential.

转谞讗 讛讻讬 拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讘讚注诐 讚诇讗 诪讻驻专 讚诇讗 拽讗 讞住专讬 讘讬讛 诪诪讜谞讗 讚讻转讬讘 讗砖专 诇注诐 讘讚讗讛专谉 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽讗 讞住专讬 讘讬讛 诪诪讜谞讗 讜拽讗诪专 讻讜诇谉 拽专讜讬讬谉 讘讬转讜

If both mentions of the phrase 鈥渉is own鈥 are necessary to teach about the ownership of the bull, how can the above baraita suggest that the phrase indicates that the bull atones only for the High Priest鈥檚 transgressions? The Gemara explains: This is what is difficult for the tanna of the baraita: What is different about the goat of the people that explains why it does not atone for the priests? The difference is that the priests did not forfeit any money over the purchase of it. Therefore, it does not atone for the priests, but only for the Israelites, as it is written with regard to the internal goat: 鈥淥f the people.鈥 With regard to the bull of Aaron as well, the priests do not forfeit any money over the purchase of it, so it follows that they should not achieve atonement through it. And therefore, to explain why they do achieve atonement, the baraita states that all of the priests are collectively referred to as: His household.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 转专讬 讜讬讚讜讬谉 讜讚诐 讛驻专 讞讚 讻谞讙讚 砖注讬专 讛谞注砖讛 讘驻谞讬诐 讜讞讚 讻谞讙讚 砖注讬专 讛谞注砖讛 讘讞讜抓 讜讞讚 讻谞讙讚 砖注讬专 讛诪砖转诇讞

搂 The Gemara returns to its discussion of the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon. The Gemara asks: Granted, according to Rabbi Shimon, who holds that the priests do not achieve atonement through the scapegoat, that is why it is written in the Torah that two confessions are to be recited over the bull and that the blood of the bull is to be presented inside the Sanctuary: Of these three forms of atonement, one corresponds to the atonement provided by the goat whose blood presentation is performed inside the Sanctuary, one corresponds to the atonement provided by the goat whose blood presentation is performed outside the Sanctuary, and one corresponds to the atonement provided by the scapegoat.

讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 转专讬 讜讬讚讜讬谉 讜讚诐 讛驻专 诇诪讛 诇讬 讘讞讚 讜讬讚讜讬 讜讚诪讜 住讙讬讗

But according to Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that the priests do achieve atonement through the scapegoat, why do I need the two confessions recited over the bull and the blood of the bull to be presented inside the Sanctuary? One confession over the bull and its blood being presented inside the Sanctuary would be sufficient.

讗讞讚 诇讜 讜讗讞讚 诇讘讬转讜 讻讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讻讱 讛讬讗 诪讚转 讛讚讬谉 谞讜讛讙转 诪讜讟讘 讬讘讜讗 讝讻讗讬 讜讬讻驻专 注诇 讛讞讬讬讘 讜讗诇 讬讘讜讗 讞讬讬讘 讜讬讻驻专 注诇 讛讞讬讬讘

The Gemara answers: Two confessions are necessary, one for the High Priest himself, and one for his household, i.e., the priests, as the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The High Priest must first confess his own transgressions and only afterward those of the priests, because that is how the attribute of justice functions: It is better that the innocent come and atone for the guilty, than that the guilty come and atone for the guilty. When the High Priest confesses the transgressions of those in his house, it is better that he already be considered innocent, having confessed and been absolved of his own transgressions.

讛讚专谉 注诇讬讱 砖讘讜注讜转 砖转讬诐

 

诪转谞讬壮 讬讚讬注讜转 讛讟讜诪讗讛 砖转讬诐 砖讛谉 讗专讘注 谞讟诪讗 讜讬讚注 讜谞注诇诪讛 诪诪谞讜 讛讟讜诪讗讛 讜讝讻讜专 讗转 讛拽讚砖

MISHNA: With regard to cases of awareness of the defiling of the Temple by entering it while one is ritually impure, or defiling its sacrificial foods by partaking of them while one is ritually impure, there are two types that are actually four. How so? If one became ritually impure and he was aware that he was impure, but afterward his impurity was hidden from him, though he remembered that he was partaking of sacrificial food, which is forbidden to one who is in a state of ritual impurity; this is one of the four types of awareness of impurity.

谞注诇诐 诪诪谞讜 讛拽讚砖 讜讝讻讜专 讗转 讛讟讜诪讗讛 谞注诇诪讜 诪诪谞讜 讝讛 讜讝讛 讜讗讻诇 讗转 讛拽讚砖 讜诇讗 讬讚注 讜诪砖讗讻诇 讬讚注 讛专讬 讝讛 讘注讜诇讛 讜讬讜专讚

If the fact that he was partaking of sacrificial food was hidden from him, though he remembered the ritual impurity that he had contracted; this is the second of the four types of awareness of impurity. And the same halakha applies if both this and that were hidden from him, both the fact that he was impure and the fact that he was partaking of sacrificial food. In all these cases, if he partook of the sacrificial food and was unaware either that he was impure, or that the food was sacrificial food, or both, and after he partook of it he became aware of that which he had forgotten, he is required to bring a sliding-scale offering. In this type of offering, the sinner sacrifices an animal, bird, or meal-offering, depending on his financial status.

谞讟诪讗 讜讬讚注 讜谞注诇诪讛 诪诪谞讜 讟讜诪讗讛 讜讝讻讜专 讗转 讛诪拽讚砖 谞注诇诐 诪诪谞讜 诪拽讚砖 讜讝讻讜专 讗转 讛讟讜诪讗讛 谞注诇诐 诪诪谞讜 讝讛 讜讝讛 讜谞讻谞住 诇诪拽讚砖 讜诇讗 讬讚注 讜诪砖讬爪讗 讬讚注 讛专讬 讝讛 讘注讜诇讛 讜讬讜专讚

And similarly with regard to entering the Temple: If one became ritually impure and he was aware that he was impure, but afterward his impurity was hidden from him, though he remembered that he was entering the Temple, which is prohibited for one who is in a state of ritual impurity; this is the third of the four types of awareness of impurity. If the fact that he was entering the Temple was hidden from him, though he remembered the ritual impurity that he had contracted; this is the fourth type of awareness of impurity. And the same halakha applies if both this and that were hidden from him, both the fact that he was impure and the fact that he was entering the Temple. In all these cases, if he entered the Temple and was unaware either that he was impure, or that he was entering the Temple, or both, and after he left he became aware of what was hidden from him, he is required to bring a sliding-scale offering.

讗讞讚 讛谞讻谞住 诇注讝专讛 讜讗讞讚 讛谞讻谞住 诇转讜住驻转 讛注讝专讛 砖讗讬谉 诪讜住讬驻讬谉 注诇 讛注讬专 讜注诇 讛注讝专讜转 讗诇讗 讘诪诇讱 讜谞讘讬讗 讜讗讜专讬诐 讜转讜诪讬诐 讜住谞讛讚专讬谉 砖诇 砖讘注讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讜讘砖转讬 转讜讚讜转 讜讘砖讬专

As for the boundaries of the Temple with regard to the halakhot of impurity, the same halakha applies to one who enters the area that was part of the original Temple courtyard and to one who enters the later addition to the Temple courtyard, because the additional section is sanctified with the full sanctity of the Temple courtyard. The mishna notes: As, additions can be made to the city of Jerusalem or to the Temple courtyards only by a special body comprising the king, a prophet, the Urim VeTummim, and the Sanhedrin of seventy-one judges, and with two thanks-offerings and with a special song. Once the addition to the courtyard is made by this body and this process, it is given the full sanctity of the original courtyard area.

讜讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪讛诇讻讬谉 讜砖转讬 转讜讚讜转 讗讞专讬讛谉 讜讻诇 讬砖专讗诇 讗讞专讬讛诐

The mishna provides certain details of the consecration ceremony. And the court would move forward, and two thanks-offerings would be brought after them, and all of the Jewish people would follow behind them.

讛驻谞讬诪讬转 谞讗讻诇转 讜讛讞讬爪讜谞讛 谞砖专驻转 讜讻诇 砖诇讗 谞注砖讬转 讘讻诇 讗诇讜 讛谞讻谞住 诇砖诐 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讛

When they would reach the end of the place that they desired to consecrate, the inner thanks-offering would be eaten and the outer one would be burned. The details of this ceremony will be described in the Gemara. And with regard to any addition to the Temple that was not made with all these ceremonial procedures, one who enters there while ritually impure is not liable to bring an offering if his entry was unwitting, nor to be punished with karet, excision from the World-to-Come, if his entry was intentional.

谞讟诪讗 讘注讝专讛 讜谞注诇诪讛 诪诪谞讜 讟讜诪讗讛 讜讝讻讜专 讗转 讛诪拽讚砖 谞注诇诐 讛讬诪谞讜 诪拽讚砖 讜讝讻讜专 讛讟讜诪讗讛 谞注诇诐 诪诪谞讜 讝讛 讜讝讛 讜讛砖转讞讜讛 讗讜 砖砖讛讛 讘讻讚讬 讛砖转讞讜讗讛 讗讜 讘讗 诇讜 讘讗专讜讻讛 讞讬讬讘 讘拽爪专讛 驻讟讜专

The first part of the mishna discussed one who became ritually impure before entering the Temple. The mishna proceeds to consider a case involving one who was ritually pure when he entered the Temple but who became impure while in the Temple courtyard, and afterward, his impurity was hidden from him but he remembered that he was standing in the Temple, or the fact that he was standing in the Temple was hidden from him but he remembered his impurity, or both this fact and that fact were hidden from him. In all these cases, if he bowed down, or he tarried in the Temple courtyard long enough to bow down even though he did not actually bow, or he went out by way of a longer route when he could have taken a shorter route, he is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering. But if he left the Temple via the shortest way, he is exempt.

讝讜 讛讬讗 诪爪讜转 注砖讛 砖讘诪拽讚砖 砖讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛

This mitzva that the ritually impure must be sent out of the Temple is the positive mitzva concerning the Temple for which, as is taught elsewhere in the Mishna (Horayot 8b), the Sanhedrin is not liable to bring an offering for an erroneous ruling. A communal bull sin-offering is brought because of the unwitting transgression of a prohibition involving an action by the Jewish people resulting from an erroneous halakhic decision handed down by the Sanhedrin. But if the Sanhedrin mistakenly ruled that one who became impure while in the Temple may leave by way of a longer route, they do not bring this offering, as it is brought only for an erroneous ruling on a matter that requires the bringing of a fixed sin-offering, and not a sliding-scale offering, for its unwitting violation.

讜讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 诪爪讜转 注砖讛 砖讘谞讚讛 砖讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛 讛讬讛 诪砖诪砖 注诐 讛讟讛讜专讛 讜讗诪专讛 诇讜 谞讟诪讗转讬 讜驻讬专砖 诪讬讚 讞讬讬讘 诪驻谞讬 砖讬爪讬讗转讜 讛谞讗讛 诇讜 讻讘讬讗转讜

And which is the positive mitzva with regard to a menstruating woman for which, as is taught in Horayot there, the Sanhedrin is liable to bring a bull offering for an erroneous ruling? If a man was engaging in intercourse with a ritually pure woman, and during the course of their act of intercourse she experienced menstrual bleeding and said to him: I have become impure, and unwittingly he immediately withdrew from her and did not wait until his penis became flaccid, he is liable to bring a sin-offering for engaging in intercourse with a menstruating woman, because his withdrawal from her is as pleasant to him as his entry. If the Sanhedrin mistakenly ruled that one may withdraw immediately, they bring a bull offering for their erroneous ruling.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讛砖专抓 讜谞注诇诐 诪诪谞讜 注诇 讛注诇诐 砖专抓 讞讬讬讘 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讛注诇诐 诪拽讚砖

Rabbi Eliezer says: With regard to the sliding-scale offering the verse states: 鈥淥r if a person touches any impure thing, whether it is the carcass of a non-kosher undomesticated animal, or the carcass of a non-kosher domesticated animal, or the carcass of a non-kosher creeping animal, and it is hidden from him鈥 (Leviticus 5:2). A precise reading of this verse indicates that in a case where one has a lapse of awareness that he had contracted ritual impurity by touching a creeping animal, he is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering for having defiled the Temple or the sacrificial food, but he is not liable to bring such an offering in a case where he has a lapse of awareness that he is entering the Temple or partaking of sacrificial food.

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讜谞注诇诐 诪诪谞讜 讜讛讜讗 讟诪讗 注诇 讛注诇诐 讟讜诪讗讛 讞讬讬讘 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讛注诇诐 诪拽讚砖

Similarly, Rabbi Akiva says: The verse states: 鈥淎nd it is hidden from him, so that he is impure鈥 (Leviticus 5:2), thereby teaching that in a case when one has a lapse of awareness that he had contracted ritual impurity, he is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering, but one is not liable to bring such an offering in a case when he has a lapse of awareness that he is entering the Temple or partaking of sacrificial food.

专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 讜谞注诇诐 讜谞注诇诐 砖转讬 驻注诪讬诐 诇讞讬讬讘 注诇 讛注诇诐 讟讜诪讗讛 讜注诇 讛注诇诐 诪拽讚砖

Rabbi Yishmael says: The verse states: 鈥淎nd it is hidden from him鈥 (Leviticus 5:2), and it states: 鈥淎nd it is hidden from him鈥 (Leviticus 5:3), twice, in order to render one liable to bring a sliding-scale offering both in a case where one has a lapse of awareness that he had contracted ritual impurity and in a case where one has a lapse of awareness that he is entering the Temple.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 砖转讬诐 砖讛谉 讗专讘注 砖转讬诐 砖讛谉 砖砖 讛讜讬讬谉 讬讚讬注讜转 讛讟讜诪讗讛 转讞诇讛 讜住讜祝 讬讚讬注讜转 讛拽讜讚砖 转讞诇讛 讜住讜祝 讬讚讬注讜转 诪拽讚砖 转讞诇讛 讜住讜祝

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the halakhot concerning awareness of ritual impurity are two that are further subdivided into four. Rav Pappa said to Abaye: Are these actually two states of awareness that are subdivided into four? As the mishna lists them, they seem to be two that are subdivided into six: Awareness of the impurity at the beginning and at the end, awareness of the sacrificial food at the beginning and at the end, and awareness of the Temple at the beginning and at the end.

讜诇讟注诪讬讱 转诪谞讬 讛讜讬讬谉 讚讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讟讜诪讗讛 讚拽讜讚砖 讜讟讜诪讗讛 讚诪拽讚砖 转讞诇讛 讜住讜祝

Abaye answered him: According to your reasoning, that you count all the various cases listed in the mishna, there are eight states of awareness, as there is also awareness of the impurity in connection with eating the sacrificial food, at the beginning and at the end, and awareness of the impurity in connection with entering the Temple, at the beginning and at the end. The mishna mentions awareness of the impurity both in the first clause, which discusses partaking of sacrificial food, and in the second clause, which discusses entering the Temple.

讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 砖诐 讟讜诪讗讛 讗讞转 讛讬讗 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讬转 讛讜讬讬谉

Rav Pappa refutes this: This is not difficult, as the status of ritual impurity carries one name in both cases: The person was aware that he had contracted ritual impurity and then it became hidden from him, and there is no reason to distinguish between impurity in connection with partaking of sacrificial food and impurity in connection with entering the Temple. Accordingly, Rav Pappa鈥檚 first question remains: In any case there are six states of awareness.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇注讜诇诐 转诪谞讬 讛讜讬讬谉 讗专讘注讬 拽诪讬讬转讗 讚诇讗 诪讬讬转谉 诇讬讛 诇讬讚讬 拽专讘谉 诇讗 拽讗 讞砖讬讘 讗专讘注讛 讘转专讬讬转讗 讚诪讬讬转谉 诇讬讛 诇讬讚讬 拽专讘谉 拽讗 讞砖讬讘

Rav Pappa said in answer to his own question: Actually, there are eight states of awareness, two of the impurity in connection with partaking of sacrificial food, two of the impurity in connection with entering the Temple, two of awareness of the sacrificial food, and two of awareness of the Temple, each pair having one awareness at the beginning and one at the end. But the first four states of awareness at the beginning do not in themselves bring the unwitting transgressor to liability to bring an offering, as if he does not reach awareness at the end, he will not have known that he transgressed. Therefore, the tanna does not count them. But the tanna does count the last four states of awareness, which bring the unwitting transgressor to the liability to bring an offering.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇注讜诇诐 转诪谞讬 讛讜讬讬谉 讜讗专讘注讬 拽诪讬讬转讗 讚诇讬转谞讛讜 讘讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讻讜诇讛 拽讗 讞砖讬讘 讗专讘注讬 讘转专讬讬转讗 讚讗讬转谞讛讜 讘讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讻讜诇讛 诇讗 拽讗 讞砖讬讘

And there are those who say that Rav Pappa said as follows: Actually, there are eight states of awareness, and it is the first four states of awareness at the beginning, which are not found in the entire Torah, that the tanna counts. In all the other instances where one is liable to bring an offering for an unwitting transgression, it is not necessary that there be any awareness at the beginning. Since this is a novel requirement, the tanna counts these states of awareness. But the tanna does not count the last four states of awareness at the end, which are found also in the entire Torah, as a standard sin-offering is brought when one is made aware after the fact that he had transgressed.

讘注讬 专讘 驻驻讗 谞注诇诪讜 诪诪谞讜 讛诇讻讜转 讟讜诪讗讛 诪讛讜 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚诇讗 讬讚注 讗讬 砖专抓 讟诪讗 讗讬 爪驻专讚注 讟诪讗 讝讬诇 拽专讬 讘讬 专讘 讛讜讗

The amora鈥檌m try to define the awareness of the impurity mentioned in the mishna. Rav Pappa raises a dilemma: If the halakhot of impurity became hidden from him, what is the halakha? Is he liable to bring a sliding-scale offering in such a situation? The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of the case under discussion? If we say that he did not know whether a creeping animal is impure or pure or whether a frog is impure or pure, this is a topic that you could go learn in a children鈥檚 school. As these matters are explicitly recorded in the Torah, they can never be considered hidden.

诇注讜诇诐 讚讬讚注 讘讟讜诪讗转 砖专抓 讜讻讙讜谉 讚谞讙注 讘讻注讚砖讛 讜诇讗 讬讚注 讻注讚砖讛 讗讬 诪讟诪讗 讗讬 诇讗 诪讟诪讗 诪讗讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讬讚注 讚诪讟诪讗 砖专抓 讘注讜诇诐 讬讚讬注讛 讛讬讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讻注讚砖讛 诇讗 讬讚注 讗讬 诪讟诪讗 讗讬 诇讗 诪讟诪讗 讛注诇诪讛 讛讬讗 转讬拽讜

Actually, Rav Pappa must have been asking about a case where he knew the essential halakha with regard to the ritual impurity of a creeping animal, and it is a case where he touched a portion of the animal that was of a lentil-bulk and he did not know the halakha concerning whether a portion that was of a lentil-bulk renders a person impure or does not render him impure. What is the halakha in such a case? The Gemara explains the two possibilities: Does one say that since he knows generally that a creeping animal renders a person impure, it is awareness? Or perhaps one says that since he does not know whether a portion that was of a lentil-bulk renders a person impure or does not render a person impure, it is considered hidden from him. The Gemara comments: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘谉 讘讘诇 砖注诇讛 诇讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讜谞注诇诐 诪诪谞讜 诪拽讜诐 诪拽讚砖 诪讛讜

Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma concerning the awareness of the Temple: If a Babylonian or a resident of another country ascended to Eretz Yisrael, and the site of the Temple was hidden from him, so that he unwittingly entered into the Temple in a state of ritual impurity, what is the halakha? Is he liable to bring a sliding-scale offering to atone for his offense, or not?

讗诇讬讘讗 讚诪讗谉 讗讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讘注讬 讬讚讬注讛 讘转讞诇讛 讛讗 诇讗 诪讞讬讬讘 注诇 讛注诇诐 诪拽讚砖 讗讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚诪讞讬讬讘 注诇 讛注诇诐 诪拽讚砖 讛讗 诇讗 讘注讬 讬讚讬注讛 讘转讞诇讛

The Gemara clarifies: In accordance with whose opinion was this dilemma raised? If it was raised in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who requires that there be awareness at the beginning in order for one to become liable to bring an offering, that is difficult, as Rabbi Akiva does not deem one liable when he had a lapse of awareness that he was entering the Temple. And if the dilemma was raised in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who deems one liable when he had a lapse of awareness that he was entering the Temple, that is difficult, as Rabbi Yishmael does not require that there be awareness at the beginning. According to both tanna鈥檌m, the dilemma is not relevant.

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讚讘注讬 讬讚讬注讛 讘转讞诇讛 讜诪讞讬讬讘 注诇 讛注诇诐 诪拽讚砖 讜讗诪专 讬讚讬注转 讘讬转 专讘讜 砖诪讛 讬讚讬注讛 诪讗讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讬讚注 讚讗讬讻讗 诪拽讚砖 讘注讜诇诐 讬讚讬注讛 讛讬讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诪拽讜诪讜 诇讗 讬讚注 诇讬讛 讛注诇诪讛 讛讬讗 转讬拽讜

The Gemara explains: No, it is necessary to raise the dilemma only in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who requires awareness at the beginning and also deems one liable when he had a lapse of awareness that he was entering the Temple, and he also says that awareness that one gains in the house of his teacher is called awareness (see 5a). What is the halakha in such a case? The Gemara explains the two possibilities: Does one say that since he knows that there is a Temple someplace in the world, it is awareness? Or perhaps one says that since he does not know the precise location of the Temple, it is considered hidden from him. The Gemara comments: This dilemma shall stand unresolved.

讗讞讚 讛谞讻谞住 诇注讝专讛 讜讻讜壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讞讬讬讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讻诇 讗砖专 讗谞讬 诪专讗讛 讗讜转讱 讗转 转讘谞讬转 讛诪砖讻谉 讜讗转 转讘谞讬转 讻诇 讻诇讬讜

搂 The mishna teaches: The same halakha applies to one who enters the area that was part of the original Temple courtyard and to one who enters the later addition to the Temple courtyard, as additions can be made to the city of Jerusalem or to the Temple courtyards only by a special body comprising the king, a prophet, the Urim VeTummim, and the Sanhedrin of seventy-one judges, and with two thanks-offerings and with a special song. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived? Rav Shimi bar 岣yya said: As the verse states: 鈥淎ccording to all that I show you, the form of the Tabernacle, and the form of all its vessels,

Scroll To Top