ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Shevuos 13
(a) The phrase "Ki D'var Hashem Bazah" refers to someone who denies Hashem
and someone who deliberately makes false D'rashos in the Torah, whereas
"ve'es Mitzvaso Heifar" refers to - someone who nullifies the B'ris Milah.
(b) Rebbi explains
1. ... the double expression "Hikares Tikares" to mean - both before Yom
Kipur and after Yom Kipur.
(c) Rebbi extrapolates that "Ki D'var Hashem Bazah" refers to somebody ...
2. ... the phrase "Avonah Bah" - to restrict the Kareis to where he has not
done Teshuvah; if he has, then Yom Kipur atones even for the above three
1. ... who denies Hashem - because "D'var Hashem" implies the first of the
Aseres ha'Dibros ("Anochi Hashem Elokecha"), since (together with "Lo
Yiheyeh Lecha") it is the one commandment that they heard directly from
(d) The Rabbanan (in whose opinion Teshuvah is crucial to Mechilah) explain
2. ... who deliberately makes false D'rashos in the Torah - because someone
who does that despises the Torah (the word of Hashem).
1. ... "Hikares Tikares" to mean - both in this world and in the next.
2. ... "Avonah Bah" - that without Teshuvah, death will not atone for these
three sins (though it will atone for other sins).
(a) The author of the Seifa of our Mishnah (regarding the Sa'ir
ha'Mishtale'ch) 'Echad Yisrael, ve'Echad Kohanim ve'Echad Kohen Mashu'ach'
is - Rebbi Yehudah.
(b) Nevertheless, Rav Yosef explains, we establish the author as Rebbi -
because in this point, Rebbi holds like Rebbi Yehudah.
(c) Abaye asked Rav Yosef whether he established our Mishnah specifically
like 'Rebbi', who holds like Rebbi Yehudah, but not like Rebbi Yehudah
(because he does not hold like Rebbi), or whether Rebbi Yehudah holds like
Rebbi too, and he could have established the Mishnah like Rebbi Yehudah had
he so wished. According to the second side, Rav Yosef preferred to establish
the author as Rebbi and not as Rebbi Yehudah - because it is more common to
establish the Talmid like the Rebbe than vice-versa.
(a) With regard to the Kaparah of Yom-Kipur, the Sifra initially tries to
prove from the Korban Chatas and Asham - that Yom Kipur, like them, only
atones together with Teshuvah.
(b) The Tana refutes this proof however - by pointing out that Yom Kipur
(unlike Chatas and Asham) atones for Meizid as well as Shogeg. Perhaps then,
it will also atone without Teshuvah.
(c) We ask this Pircha in spite of the fact that three out of the five
Ashamos as well as the Chatas of Shevu'as ha'Eidus atone for Meizid -
because they constitute only a small minority of Chata'os and Ashamos.
(a) The Tana finally learns from "*Ach* be'Asor la'Chodesh ... " - that Yom
Kipur atones for those who do Teshuvah, but not for those who don't.
(b) Rav Yosef has ostensibly proved from here - that Rebbi Yehudah (who is
the author of the Sifra) does not hold like Rebbi.
(c) Another Beraisa Darshens from the Pasuk "Ki Yom Kipurim *Hu* - that Yom
Kipur even atones for someone who fails to fast on Yom Kipur, who declare it
Kadosh or who works on it.
(d) Abaye establishes the first Beraisa like Rebbi Yehudah, and the second
one, like Rebbi. Rava establishes both Beraisos like Rebbi, and he
establishes the first Beraisa - by someone who breaks Yom Kipur, in which
case it will not atone for him, even according to Rebbi.
(a) We try to prove the latter statement logically - because if Yom Kipur
atoned for its own sins even without Teshuvah, then how would one ever
receive Kareis for transgressing Yom Kipur?
(b) We refute this proof however, on the basis of the Pasuk "Ki ba'Yom
ha'Zeh Yechaper Aleichem" - from which we learn that it is specifically the
day of Yom Kipur that atones, in which case, Kareis would apply even
according to Rebbi, if one transgressed on 'Kol Nidrei' night and died
before the morning.
(c) So we try bringing an identical proof from the fact that, according to
Rebbi, Kareis would not apply to someone who transgressed Yom Kipur by day,
which we know must be possible - because the Torah writes (in connection
with both the prohibition of work and of eating) "be'Etzem *ha'Yom* ha'Zeh".
(d) We refute this proof too however - by establishing the Kareis by day in
a case where either someone ate a bone and choked before a second of the day
passed that could atone for him, or where he ate at the last second before
nightfall. Either way, he will receive Kareis for his sin on the day of Yom
Kipur, even according to Rebbi (even if Yom Kipur atones without Teshuvah.
(a) Rav Yehudah reconciles the statement in our Mishnah 'Echad Yisrael,
ve'Echad Kohanim ve'Echad Kohen Mashu'ach' with the statement (that follows
it) 'Mah Bein Yisrael le'Kohanim u'le'Kohen Mashu'ach' - by explaining the
Mishnah to mean - that even though the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach atones for
Yisre'elim, Kohanim and the Kohen Machu'ach alike, when it comes to Tum'as
Mikdash ve'Kodashav, their Kaparos are different, and the author is then
(b) According to Rebbi Yehudah, the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos (in connection with
the Par and the Sa'ir of Tom Kipur) "Ve'chiper es Mikdash ha'Kodesh" refers
to the Kodesh Kodshim - where a Tamei person would have to wait the time it
takes to prostrate oneself, before rendering it Tamei, and being Chayav.
(c) Rebbi Yehudah Darshens from ...
1. ... "ve'es Ohel Mo'ed" - that the Par and Sa'ir atone for the Heichal
that became Tamei too, from ...
2. ... "ve'es ha'Mizbe'ach" - that the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav (for the Ketores)
is included as well, and from ...
3. ... "Yechaper" - that they also atone for the Azaros.
(a) According to him, ''ha'Kohanim" (in the phrase "ve'Al ha'Kohanim, ve'Al
Kol Am ha'Kahal Yechaper", "ha'Kohanim" is literal ...
1. ... "Kol Am ha'Kahal" refers to - Yisre'elim who sinned ...
(b) This latter phrase cannot also be referring to the Par and the Sa'ir
(where it is written) - because the Torah specifically differentiates
between Yisrael (who bring a goat) and the Kohanim (who bring a bull).
2. ... and "Yechaper", to - Levi'im who sinned.
(c) It therefore refers to - the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach.
(d) According to Rebbi Shimon, the Viduy of the Par of the Kohanim (and not
the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach) atones for the sins of the Kohanim, as we learned
in our Mishnah. Rebbi Shimon therefore explains that the Hekesh of the
Kohanim and Levi'im to the Yisre'elim that we just quoted - merely comes to
teach us that they are all B'nei Kaparah, both as regards Tum'as Mikdash
ve'Kodashav and as regards all other sins.
(a) Rebbi Shimon learns from the Pasuk "Ve'lakach es Sh'nei ha'Se'irim" -
that just as the Sa'ir Penimi does not atone for the Kohanim (since that is
what the Par did), neither does the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach.
(b) We know that the Sa'ir Penimi does not atone for the Kohanim - because
the Torah writes "Asher la'Am".
(c) Rebbi Yehudah learns from there - that the two goats must be equal in
appearance, height and value.
(a) The Beraisa attempts to learn from the Pasuk "Ve'hikriv Aharon es Par
ha'Chatas Asher Lo" - that Aharon's bull will atone for his own sins, but
not for that of the other Kohanim.
(b) In that case - the Kohanim would not gain atonement at all.
(c) The Tana therefore learns that either Aharon's bull or Yisrael's Sa'ir
atones for them - because the Pasuk writes there "ve'Al ha'Kohanim" (as we
(d) The Tana concludes that it must be the Par and not the Sa'ir - because
(despite "Asher Lo"), it is by the Par that the Torah writes "ve'es Beiso".
(a) To answer a Kashya that will be explained shortly, the Tana proves from
the Pasuk in Hallel "Beis Aharon Borchu es Hashem ... " - that all the
Kohanim are referred to as ''Beiso".
(b) Rava establishes the Beraisa like Rebbi Shimon - because it insinuates
that if not for the bull, the Kohanim would have no Kaparah at all, not even
for other sins (and it is according to Rebbi Shimon, that it is the bull and
its Viduy that atone for *all* the sins of the Kohanim.
(c) Abaye establishes it even like Rebbi Yehudah - because, according to
him, the Beraisa is only referring to Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav, and when
it says '"Yechaper al ha'Kohanim", he means that just as the Kohanim receive
atonement for their other sins (via the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach), so too, will
they receive atonement for Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav).
(d) And when the Tana said 've'Im Nafshach Lomar' (to which he answered with
the Pasuk "Beis Aharon Borchu es Hashem") - he meant to ask simply from the
Pasuk "es Beiso", which appears to pertain to Aharon alone.