POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Makos 14
MAKOS 11-15 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi publications
for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.
1) A KORBAN FOR EACH "ERVAH"
(a) (Beraisa - R. Yitzchak): The Torah taught that (all)
Arayos are Chayavei Kerisus, and (superfluously) mentions
Kares for relations with a sister;
1. This teaches that it (and all other Chayavei
Kerisus) are punishable by Kares, not by lashes.
(b) Question: What do Chachamim learn from this?
(c) Answer #1: This Kares individualizes the Arayos, as R.
1. (R. Yochanan): If one forgot several Chayavei
Kerisus and transgressed them (without remembering
in between), he brings a Korban for each one. (Since
one verse is Mechayev Kares for all the Arayos
("Mi'Kol ha'To'evos ha'Eleh v'Nichresu"), one might
have thought that they are all considered one Kares,
and only one Korban is brought for many
transgressions in one He'elam (forgetting)).
(d) Objection: Chachamim should also learn from "V'El
2. Question: What is R. Yitzchak's source to
individualize the Arayos?
3. Answer: He learns from "V'El Ishah b'Tumas Nidasah"
- this obligates for every woman.
(e) Answer #2: (Indeed, they do - rather,) the Kares for
relations with a sister teaches that if one has relations
with his sister, and the sisters of his father and mother
he is liable for each one.
(f) Question: This is obvious, they are different
transgressions and different women!
(g) Answer #3: Rather, it teaches that if one has relations
with his sister, who is also the sister of his father and
mother, he is liable (a separate Korban) for each (of the
three reasons she is forbidden to him).
(h) Question: How can his sister be the sister of his
(i) Answer: His father was a Rasha (Zimri fathered Rachel and
Leah from his mother, and he fathered Doson from Rachel -
Leah is the (paternal) sister of Doson, and the maternal
sister of his parents).
(j) Question: What is R. Yitzchak's source for this?
(k) Answer #1: He learns from a Kal va'Chomer.
1. (Beraisa - R. Akiva) Question: If one has relations
with his sister, who is also the sister of his
father and mother, is he is liable once, or for each
(l) Objection: R. Yitzchak must admit, the Kal va'Chomer is
2. Answer (R. Gamliel and R. Yehoshua): We only heard
the following case - if one has relations with five
Nidos in one He'elam, he is liable for each woman -
all the more so in your case!
i. If he is liable for each one when they are the
same transgression (Nidah), all the more so for
different Arayos (sister, paternal aunt,
3. Chachamim reject this Kal va'Chomer - he is liable
for each Nidah because they are different women!
(m) Answer #2: He learns from the end of the verse ("Ervas
1. Chachamim learn from this that one is liable for a
full sister, for we do not punish based on a Kal
va'Chomer (we cannot learn from a Kal va'Chomer, if
he is liable for a half sister, all the more so for
a full sister!)
2. (Implied question: What is R. Yitzchak's source to
obligate for a full sister?)
3. Version #1 (Rashi) Answer #1: He learns from the Lav
("Achoscha Hi" forbids a full sister).
4. Version #2 (Tosfos) Answer #1: R. Yitzchak holds
that we punish based on a Kal va'Chomer, therefore
it suffices that there is a Lav for a half-sister.
(End of Version #2)
5. Answer #2: He learns from the beginning of the verse
("Achoso Bas Aviv O Vas Imo" - 'Achoso' is extra to
teach about a full sister).
2) MALKUS FOR A TAMEI WHO ATE KODESH
6. Chachamim use that 'Achoso' to teach that one who
makes oil like Shemen ha'Mishchah and anoints with
(the original) Shemen ha'Mishchah is liable twice.
7. R. Yitzchak learns like R. Elazar.
i. (R. Elazar): Whenever the Torah writes separate
Lavim for two transgressions but only mentions
Kares once, they are separate regarding
Korbanos (if done in one He'elam, two Korbanos
8. Alternatively, he does not learn like R. Elazar, he
learns from an extra Kares written regarding Nidah,
"V'Ish Asher Yishkav Es Ishah Davah...v'Nichresu".
9. Chachamim use this to teach R. Yochanan's law.
i. (R. Yochanan): A woman becomes Nidah only if
the blood leaves through her Ervah (i.e. to
exclude blood that comes out through Caesarian
(a) (Mishnah): A Tamei person who eats Kodesh (or enters the
(b) Question: We understand why a Tamei who enters the
Mikdash is lashed (and is listed with transgressions of
1. The punishment is explicit - "Es Mishkan Hash-m
(c) Answer #1 (Reish Lakish): "B'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga".
2. The Lav (the warning for lashes) is explicit - "V'Lo
Yetam'u Es Machaneihem".
3. The Kares for eating Kodesh is explicit -
"Veha'Nefesh Asher Tochal...ha'Shlamim...v'Tum'aso
4. But what is the warning against eating Kodesh?
(d) Answer #2 (R. Yochanan): We learn from a Gezerah Shavah
1. It says here "V'Tum'aso Alav", it says (regarding a
Tamei who enters the Mikdash) "Od Tum'aso Vo";
(e) Question: We understand why Reish Lakish did not learn
like R. Yochanan - he has no tradition for the Gezerah
i. Just as there the Torah specifies warning and
punishment, also regarding eating Kodesh.
1. But why didn't R. Yochanan learn like Reish Lakish?
(f) Answer: He holds that "B'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga" discusses
(g) Question: Where does Reish Lakish learn that a Tamei is
warned against eating Terumah?
(h) Answer: "Ish Ish mi'Zera Aharon v'Hu Tzaru'a O Zav
ba'Kodoshim Lo Yochal";
1. Question: Why does it say "mi'Zera Aharon"?
(i) Question: (Reish Lakish cannot say that "B'Chol Kodesh Lo
Siga" forbids a Tamei to eat Kodesh -) he uses it to
forbid a Tamei from touching Kodesh!
2. Answer: The verse discusses something that all seed
of Aharon (i.e. including women) may eat, i.e.
3. R. Yochanan agrees that this forbids a Tamei to eat
Terumah; he holds that "B'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga"
forbids touching Terumah.
1. (Reish Lakish): If a Tamei touches Kodesh he is
lashed - "B'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga";
(j) Answer: Since it says "Lo Siga", it forbids touching;
2. (R. Yochanan): He is not lashed - that is a warning
not to touch Terumah,
1. The verse ("B'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga v'El ha'Mikdash Lo
Savo"), equates Kodesh to the Mikdash - just as a
Tamei may not enter the Mikdash, he may not eat
(k) Question: We need the verse to forbid a Tamei to eat
Kodesh before Zerikah (throwing the blood)!
1. (Reish Lakish): If a Tamei ate Kodesh before Zerikah
he is lashed - "B'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga" applies
before and after Zerikah;
(l) Answer: Reish Lakish says, "*B'Chol* Kodesh" includes
2. (R. Yochanan): He is not lashed - we learn from a
Gezerah Shavah "Tum'aso-Tum'aso" (written regarding
the punishment), one is liable only for Kodesh
permitted to Tehorim, i.e. after Zerikah.
(m) Support (for Reish Lakish - Beraisa): "B'Chol Kodesh Lo
Siga" - this forbids eating Kodesh;
1. Suggestion: Perhaps it forbids touching!
2. Rejection: "B'Chol Kodesh...v'El ha'Mikdash" equates
Kodesh to the Mikdash - a Tamei who enters the
Mikdash is Chayav Misah (bi'Dei Shamayim, this is
included in Kares), the prohibition of Kodesh also
i. One is not Chayav Misah for touching,