ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Sanhedrin 83
(a) The Beraisa lists many Avodos that are subject neither to Zarus nor to
Tum'ah. The first six pertain to the Minchah: 'ha'Yotzek, ve'ha'Bollel,
ve'ha'Poses, ha'Mole'ach, ha'Meinif ha'Meigish'. 've'ha'Poses' - which
pertains to those Menachos that were pre-baked, means that it had to be
broken into pieces.
(b) When the Kohen would perform 'Hagashah', he would take the Minchah to -
the south-western corner of the Mizbe'ach.
(c) The remaining four Avodos incorporate 'ha'Mesader es ha'Shulchan,
ha'Meitiv es ha'Neiros, ha'Kometz (which also pertains to the Minchah)
ve'ha'Mekabel Damim ba'Chutz'. What they all have in common is - the fact
that they are not final Avodos ('Avodah Tamah'), and the Chiyuvim of Zarus
and Tum'ah do therefore not pertain to them.
(d) The other two Isurim to which they are not subject are - 'Mechusar
Begadim' and 'Eino Rachutz Yadayim ve'Raglayim'.
(a) If the Kohen performs any of the above outside its allotted place - he
is Patur from Kareis.
(b) The final Avodah that has still to follow ...
1. ... all the above-mentioned Avodos of the Minchah is - burning the Kometz
on the Mizbe'ach.
(c) With regard to Avodas Chutz, besides Shechitah (''Asher Yishchat ... ''
[in Acharei-Mos]) the other two Avodos that are specifically mentioned are -
'Ha'ala'ah' (burning the Korban ["Asher Ya'aleh Olah O Zavach"]) and Zerikas
ha'Dam (which is learned from "Dam Shafach").
2. ... arranging the Lechem ha'Panim on the table - is the removal of the
bowls of frankincense and burning them.
3. ... preparing the Menorah during the day is - kindling the lights at
4. ... receiving the blood - is sprinkling it on the Mizbe'ach.
(a) We extrapolate from the Beraisa 'Ha Miktar, Chayav' - and assume that
'Chayav' means Chayav Miysah (a Kashya on Rav Sheishes [who holds that Kohen
she'Shimesh be'Tum'ah is not Chayav Miysah]).
(b) Zar (mentioned together with Tumah in the Beraisa) cannot possibly be
only a La'av - because of the Pasuk in Korach "ve'ha'Zar ha'Kareiv Yumas").
(c) We counter the argument on the above suggestion, that seeing as Zar is
Chayav Miysah, so is Tum'ah - by applying the principle 'Ha ke'de'Isa, ve'Ha
ke'de'Isa' (each one is independent of the other).
(a) The problem with saying that Yotzek and Bolel and the other things in
the above list do not even transgress a La'av is - the Beraisa which
specifically learns an Azharah for Yotzek u'Bolel from the Pasuk in Emor
"Kedoshim Yiheyu ve'Lo Yechalelu".
(b) So (to accommodate Rav Sheishes) - we consider the La'av referred to in
the Beraisa as an Asmachta (meaning that the Pasuk is no more than a hint to
what is really only a La'av de'Rabbanan).
(c) We finally prove Rav Sheishes wrong - from a Beraisa which specifically
lists Tamei she'Shimesh among the Chayvei Miysah.
(d) We know that the Pasuk "Kedoshim Yiheyu ve'Lo Yechalelu" refers to
Avodah she'Einah Tamah and not to Avodah Tamah - because we already have a
Pasuk for Avodah Tamah (as we shall see shortly).
(a) The Tana lists eleven cases of Chiyuv Miysah (bi'Yedei Shamayim).
1. ... someone who eats Tevel and a Kohen who eats Terumah - he also
includes a Zar among those who are Chayav for eating Terumah.
(b) We learn from the Pasuk ...
2. ... Zar and Tamei she'Shimesh - a T'vul-Yom and a Mechusar Kipurim are
also Chayav Miysah for serving in the Beis-Hamikdash.
1. ... "vi'Yenazru mi'Kodshei B'nei Yisrael ve'Lo Yechalelu ... " - that
Tamei she'Shimesh (by Avodah Tamah) is Chayav Miysah.
(c) "B'nei Yisrael" cannot be coming to preclude the Kodshim of Nochrim and
of women - because the Sugya in Zevachim specifically includes them in the
2. ... "B'nei Yisrael" (mentioned there) - that the same applies to a Zar
(even if he is Tahor).
(d) Included in the list are also Mechusar Begadim and she'Lo Rachutz
Yadayim ve'Raglayim. The last two items on the list are - Shesuyei Yayin and
Peru'ei Rosh (a Kohen who serves in the Beis-Hamikdash with long hair or
after having drunk wine).
(e) 'Peru'ei Rosh' means - a thirty-day growth.
(a) We know that one is Chayav for ...
1. ... Mechusar Begadim - from the fact that the Pasuk refers to a Kohen who
is not wearing his Bigdei Kehunah when he serves, as a Zar.
(b) What an Areil, an Onen and someone who serves sitting all have in
common - is the fact that they are all Chayvei La'avin (and not Miysah) ...
2. ... she'Lo Rachutz Yadayim ve'Raglayim - from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah'
"Chukah" "Chukah" from Mechusar Begadim (to invalidate such an Avodah, and
according to this Tana, to render him Chayav Miysah too).
(c) ... in spite of the fact that they invalidate the Avodah.
(d) According to Rebbi, a blemished Kohen who serves or someone who uses
Hekdesh (Heizid bi'Me'ilah) receives Miysah. According to the Rabbanan - he
transgresses only a La'av.
(a) Shmuel in the name of Rebbi Elazar extrapolates from the future tense
used by the Pasuk "vi'Yechalelu es Kodshei B'nei Yisrael es Asher *Yarimu*
la'Hashem" - that it is referring to Tevel and not Terumah.
(b) We then know that Tevel is Chayav Miysah - from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah'
"Chilul" "Chilul" from Terumah.
(c) We ask why we do not learn the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' from Nosar - in which
case the Kohen would be Chayav Kareis (to die at fifty rather than at sixty
according to some commentaries [or that he will die childless, according to
(d) We prefer to learn Tevel from Terumah and not from Nosar, 'she'Kein
Terumah, Chutz la'Aretz, Hutrah, be'Rabim, Peiros, Pigul ve'Nosar'. So both
Terumah and Tevel have the same name and neither ever applied outside Eretz
Yisrael. This does not however, mean that Nosar could occur in Chutz
la'Aretz, even during the time when the Beis-Hamikdash stood - but that it
applied in the desert and at the time when Bamos were permitted (between
Yisrael's entry into Eretz Yisrael and Mishkan Shiloh) even in Chutz
(e) They are both fruits of the grounds, which Nosar is not, neither do
Pigul and Nosar pertain to them, since they are not Kodshim.
1. 'Hutrah' means - that, under the correct circumstances, they can both be
2. 'ba'Rabim' means - that the Torah uses a plural expression with regard to
them ("ve'Lo Yechalelu"), whereas it uses a singular one with regard to
Nosar "Kodesh Hashem Chilel").
(a) We counter that, to the contrary, we ought to learn Tevel from Nosar
'she'Kein P'sul Ochel, ve'she'Ein Heter be'Mikvah', meaning - that for these
two reasons it would be better to learn from Nosar than from Terumah.
1. 'she'Kein P'sul Ochel' means - that in both cases, the items themselves
are intrinsically Pasul, whereas with regard to the Isur of eating Terumah
be'Tum'ah, the Tana is talking about eating Tahor Terumah when the Kohen is
(b) The obvious answer to the Kashya is that Tevel has more advantages over
Nosar than vice-versa. Ravina however, answers (even assuming that it did
not) - that the last advantage of Terumah and Tevel over Nosar ('de'Rabim')
outweighs the two advantages of Nosar and Tevel over Terumah.
2. 'she'Ein Heter be'Mikvah' means - that whereas Tevel and Nosar are not
subject to Tevilah, Terumah is.
(c) We learn from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "ve'Shamru es Mishmarti" ve'Lo Yis'u Alav Chet ... u'Meisu ... " -
that a Kohen Tamei who eats Terumah Tehorah is Chayav Miysah (Shmuel).
(d) ... since the Terumah has already been desecrated (Rebbi Elazar).
2. ... "u'Meisu *Bo* Ki Yechaleluhu" - that had the Terumah too, been Tamei,
he would have been Patur ...
(a) When Rav ruled 'Zar she'Achal es ha'Terumah Lokeh', Rav Kahana and Rav
Asi asked him - why (seeing as, before "ve'Chol Zar Lo Yochal Kodesh, the
Torah wrote "u'Meisu Bo ... ") he did not ascribe to him Miysah?
(b) To which Rav replied - that between "u'Meisu Bo" and "ve'Chol Zar" the
Pasuk interrupts with the words "Ani Hashem Mekadishchem" (thereby
precluding it from Miysah).
(c) Rav is not perturbed by the Beraisa 've'Eilu Hein she'be'Miysah Zar
ha'Ochel es ha'Terumah' - since he is considered a Tana who can argue with a
(a) We know Zar she'Shimesh is Chayav Miysah from the Pasuk in Korach
"ve'ha'Zar ha'Kareiv Yumas". In reply to Rav Chiya bar Avin's request for
the source of Tamei she'Shimesh, Rav Yosef learns it from the Pasuk there
"Daber el Aharon ve'el Banav, vi'Yenazru mi'Kodshei B'nei Yisrael ve'Lo
Yechalalu es Sheim Kodshi" - by means of the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Chilul"
"Chilul" from Terumah.
(b) Again we ask 've'Neilef "Chilul" "Chilul" mi'Nosar'? And we answer
'Mistavra mi'Terumah she'Kein Guf, Tamei, Mikveh, Rabim.' We answer the
Kashya 'Arabia, mi'Nosar Havah Leih le'Meilaf she'Kein Kodesh, P'nim, Pigul,
Nosar' - with 'Chilul de'Rabim mi'Chilul de'Rabim Adif', like we answered
(c) 'P'nim' means - that Nosar and Zar she'Shimesh only apply in the Azarah
(because they belong to the category of Kodshei Mizbe'ach), whereas Terumah
does not (because it is Kodshei ha'Gevul).
(d) Bearing in mind that we just learned Tamei she'Shimesh from
"vi'Yenazru", Rebbi Sima'i in a Beraisa learns that - the Pasuk "Kedoshim
Yiheyu ... ve'Lo Yechalalu" must then pertain to a T'vul-Yom (a Tamei who
has been to Mikveh and who is waiting for nightfall in order to be able to
(a) Rebbi Avahu Amar Rebbi Yochanan (possibly in the name of Rebbi Shimon
ben Elazar) learns from the Pasuk "ve'Chagarta Osam Avneit ve'Haysah Lahem
Kehunah ... " - that when a Kohen does the Avodah without the Bigdei
Kehunah, he has the Din of a Zar.
(b) Rav Huna extrapolates from the Pasuk (in connection with the Korban of a
woman who gave birth) "ve'Chiper Alehah ha'Kohen ve'Taheirah" that a
Mechusar Kipurim who serves in the Beis-Hamkdash is Chayav Miysah - by
extrapolating that until the Kaparah has been brought he is still considered
(c) And we know that the same applies to a Kohen who serves ...
1. ... without washing his hands and feet - from the Pasuk in Ki Sisa
"Yirchatzu Mayim ve'Lo Yamusu".
2. ... after having drunk wine - from the Pasuk in Shemini "Yayin ve'Shechar
Al Tesht ... be'Vo'achem el Ohel Mo'ed ... ve'Lo Samusu".
3. ... with a growth of hair of thirty days - from the Pasuk in Yechezkel
"Rosham Lo Yegalechu ... ve'Yayin Lo Yishtu" (comparing the Kohanim growing
their hair long to drinking wine).
(a) The definition of a ben Neichar ve'Areil Leiv - is a Kohen (in this
case) who worships idols (whose heart is uncircumcised [i.e. wicked] and who
is estranged from Hashem.
(b) The Navi Yechezkel writes - "Kol ben Neichar Areil Leiv ve'Areil Basar
Lo Yavo el Mikdashi", from which Rav Chisda learns that a Kohen Areil who
does the Avodah in the Beis-Hamikdash has transgressed only a La'av.
(c) And we extrapolate from the Pasuk "u'min ha'Mikdash Lo Yeitzei ve'Lo
Yechalel es Mikdash Elokav" - that a Kohen Hedyot Onan who fails to leave
the Beis-Hamikdash too, has transgressed a La'av.
(d) Rav Ada asked Rava why we should not then go on to learn "Chilul"
"Chilul" from Terumah that an Kohen Onan who serves should be Chayav
Miysah - to which Rava replied by citing the principle that one can only
learn a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' from what the Torah writes directly, but not from
what is learned from an inference (as is the case here).
(e) And we learn from the Pasuk "Ki Bo Bachar Hashem ... La'amod
Le'shares" - that a Kohen is obligated to perform the Avodah in the
Beis-Hamikdash standing and that he transgresses a La'av if he does not
(though it is not clear why this is considered a La'av, and not just an