(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


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.
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 night.

4. ... receiving the blood - is sprinkling it 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").
(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). Besides ...
1. ... someone who eats Tevel and a Kohen who eats Terumah - he also includes a Zar among those who are Chayav for eating Terumah.
2. ... Zar and Tamei she'Shimesh - a T'vul-Yom and a Mechusar Kipurim are also Chayav Miysah for serving in the Beis-Hamikdash.
(b) We learn from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "vi'Yenazru mi'Kodshei B'nei Yisrael ve'Lo Yechalelu ... " - that Tamei she'Shimesh (by Avodah Tamah) is Chayav Miysah.
2. ... "B'nei Yisrael" (mentioned there) - that the same applies to a Zar (even if he is Tahor).
(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 prohibition.

(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.
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).
(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) ...

(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 others]).

(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 la'Aretz.

(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 eaten.
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 Tamei.
2. 'she'Ein Heter be'Mikvah' means - that whereas Tevel and Nosar are not subject to Tevilah, Terumah 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.

(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).
2. ... "u'Meisu *Bo* Ki Yechaleluhu" - that had the Terumah too, been Tamei, he would have been Patur ...
(d) ... since the Terumah has already been desecrated (Rebbi Elazar).



(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 Beraisa.

(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 earlier.

(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 eat Terumah).

(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 Tamei.

(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 Asei).

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,