ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Shevuos 19
(a) Rebbi Yochanan disagrees with Chizkiyah and Ula in the previous Sugya,
who established the Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Akiva by
Sheretz u'Neveilah'. According to him, there is no dispute. They simply
argue over the source, but agree that one is Chayav a Korban Oleh ve'Yored
in a case of He'elam Tum'ah, but Patur by He'elam Mikdash ve'Kodesh.
(b) We know that Rav Sheishes agrees with Rebbi Yochanan - from the fact
that he would sometimes switch the opinions without batting an eyelid.
(c) Both Tana'im obligate someone who forgot that he was Tamei to bring a
Korban Oleh ve'Yored, but exempt him if he forgot that he was in the
Beis-Hamikdash or that he was eating Kodshim. Rava now asked Rav Nachman -
whether someone who forgot both would be Chayav or Patur.
(a) Rav Ashi attempts to resolve the She'eilah by - analyzing the sinner's
reason for desisting. If he desists because he was told that he is Tamei,
then he should be Chayav; whereas if he desists because he was told that he
is in the Beis-Hamikdash or because he is eating Kodshim, then he should be
Patur (see also Tosfos DH 'Amar Rav Ashi').
(b) Ravina rejects this suggestion however - because either way, he will
desist because he is a Tamei person eating in the Beis-Hamikdash or eating
Kodshim, so Rav Ashi's gauge is unreliable.
(c) Ravina resolves the She'eilah with the words - 'Lo Sh'na', which means
that he is Patur (see Ritva).
(a) The Beraisa rules that in a case where someone walked along two paths,
one Tamei, and the other Tahor (though it is not known which is which), and
then enters the Beis-Hamikdash - he is Chayav to bring a Korban Oleh
ve'Yored (since there is a Vaday Yedi'ah that he is Tamei).
(b) The Tana Kama and Rebbi Shimon argue in a case - where after traversing
one of the paths and entering the Beis Hamikdash, he Tovels and is sprinkled
with the ashes of the Parah Adumah before traversing the second one and
entering the Beis Hamikdash a second time.
(c) The Tana Kama rules 'Chayav' because at the end of the day, he
definitely traversed the Tamei path. Rebbi Shimon nevertheless exempt him
from a Korban - because on neither occasion does he know that he entered the
(d) Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah in the name of Rebbi Shimon - exempts him from
a Korban even in the first case.
(a) The problem with the ruling of Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah, who says in the
name of Rebbi Shimon that someone who walks along two paths, one Tamei, and
the other Tahor, and then enters the Beis-Hamikdash is Patur from a Korban
Oleh ve'Yored is - that seeing as 'Mah Nafshach' he is Tamei and he knows
it, why should he not be Chayav?
(b) So Rava establishes the case when, at the time that he traversed the
second path, he forgot what he had done in the first instance - because
Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah holds that a partial Yedi'ah is not considered a
(c) ... whilst the Tana Kama holds that it is.
(a) The Tana Kama's ruling in the case where someone traverses one of the
paths and enters the Beis Hamikdash, Tovels and is sprinkled with the ashes
of the Parah Adumah, then traverses the second path and enters the Beis
Hamikdash a second time is - that he ought not to be Chayav, because on each
occasion, he entered the Beis-Hamikdash, it was with a Safek Yedi'ah.
(b) Rebbi Yochanan therefore explains that the Tana Kama holds 'Asu Safek
Yedi'ah ki'Yedi'ah'. According to Resh Lakish however, the Tana Kama is none
other than Rebbi Yishmael - who does not require a Yedi'ah at the beginning
in the first place.
(a) Someone who ate Safek Cheilev Safek Shuman - is obligated to bring an
(b) The Beraisa discusses a case where after eating a piece of fat and
realizing that what he ate was Safek Cheilev Safek Shuman, a person repeats
the performance. Rebbi obligates him to bring - two Asham Taluys.
(c) Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah and Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon in the name of
Rebbi Shimon - require him to bring only one.
(d) And they derive this from the Pasuk "al Shigegaso Asher Shagag" - which,
because it is superfluous, comes to teach us that sometimes, one brings only
one Asham for a number of Shegagos.
(a) Resh Lakish declared 'Ka'an Shanah Rebbi Yedi'os Sefeikos Mechalkos
le'Chata'os', by which he means - that just as a Yedi'as Safek divides the
Chata'os (because Safek Yedi'ah is considered a Yedi'ah), so too, do does it
divide the Ashamos.
(b) Rebbi Yochanan says - that just as Yedi'as Vaday divides the Chata'os,
so too, does Yedi'as Safek divide the Ashamos.
(c) The problem with the both the opinions of Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish
is - that they appear to have switched what they held by Korban Oleh
ve'Yored when it comes to Korban Chatas Kavu'a.
(a) We resolve the contradiction in Rebbi Yochanan, based on the Pasuk
"ve'Ne'elam" (by the Korban Oleh ve'Yored) - the only source (by way of
hint) for the Ha'alamah, on the one hand, and "O Hoda Eilav Chataso" (by the
Chatas Kavu'a) - which is more specific (and therefore more inclusive) on
***** Hadran Alach 'Yedi'os ha'Tum'ah' *****
(b) The problem with Resh Lakish is - that, based on the latter Beraisa, why
he had to establish the first Beraisa like Rebbi Yishmael, when he could
have established it like Rebbi (who agrees that a Korban Oleh ve'Yored
requires a Yedi'ah at the beginning).
(c) The reason he chose to establish it like Rebbi Yishmael however, is - to
teach us that Rebbi Yishmael does not require a Yedi'ah at the beginning at
(d) This is not so obvious at all - because, even though he uses
"ve'Ne'elam" (from which the Chachamim learn 'Yedi'ah ba'Techilah') for
something else, we might have thought that he nevertheless concedes that a
Yedi'ah ba'Techilah is necessary from a 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai' which
he had perhaps received from his Rebbes.
***** Perek Shevu'os Shetayim (Basra) *****
(a) 'Shevu'os Shetayim she'Hein Arba' means - 'Shevu'os Shetayim (Le'hara O
Le'heitiv le'Ha'ba) she'Hein Arba (Le'hara O Le'heitiv le'she'Avar)'.
(b) The radical ruling that Rebbi Akiva issues with regard to 'Lo Ochal
le'Haba' is - that one is Chayav even for eating a 'Kol she'Hu' (less than
the k'Zayis that normally constitutes Achilah).
(c) And he bases this ruling on the equally radical Halachah - that mere
speech causes a person to bring a Korban. Consequently, if the basis of a
Korban can be speech (and not an act), then it does not require a Shiur
(a) The Beraisa rules that if Reuven says to Shimon either 'Shevu'ah Lo
Ochal Lach', 'Shevu'ah she'Ochal Lach' or 'Lo Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal Lach' -
he is forbidden to eat from him.
(b) The last case implies - that he will not have transgressed if he does
not eat by him, but that he will if he does.
(c) The Kashya this Beraisa poses on our Mishnah is - that it interprets
'Achilna' as meaning that he will not eat, whereas in our Mishnah, it means
that he will.
(a) To answer the Kashya, Abaye establishes the Beraisa - when his statement
followed an attempt to induce him to eat by that person, where even
'Shevu'ah she'Ochal Lach', is obviously meant to counter the pressure, as if
to say 'a Shevu'ah (I will transgress) if I eat from you'.
(b) Rav Ashi establishes the Beraisa where he said (not 'she'Ochal Lach',
but) 'she'I Ochal Lach. In spite of the similarity between this case and
'she'Lo Ochal Lach', we might otherwise have considered 'sh'I' as a a slip
of the tongue, and that he actually meant to say 'Shevu'ah she'Ochal Lach'
(in which case he would be obligated to eat by him).