(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

Yoma 7

YOMA 7 (Teves 23) - has been dedicated to the memory of Nachum ben Shlomo Dovid Mosenkis on the day of his Yahrzeit, by his son, Sid Mosenkis (Queens, NY)


(a) From where do we learn the concession of Tum'ah be'Tzibur?

(b) Does this principle apply to all types of Tum'ah?

(a) We learned above that according to Rav Sheishes, Tum'ah Dechuyah Hi be'Tzibur.
How does he prove this from a Beraisa in Menachos with regard to a Kohen who was bringing the Minchas ha'Omer, when it became Tamei?

(b) Rav Nachman refutes this proof on the basis of 'Modina Heicha de'Ika Shirayim la'Achilah'.
What does he mean by that?

(a) Rav Sheishes then brings proof from another Beraisa there, which issues an equivalent ruling with regard to a Kohen who was bringing a Minchas Parim, ve'Eilim u'Kevasim'.
What is his proof from *there*?

(b) How does Rav Nachman counter this proof (to explain the Beraisa even if we normally hold 'Tum'ah Hutrah Hi be'Tzibur')?

4) What happens in both of the above cases when there is no re-placement flour or animal available? What do the other Kohanim then say to the Kohen who is bringing the Korban?


(a) 'Dam she'Nitma, ve'Zarko, be'Shogeg, Hurtzah, be'Meizid, Lo Hurtzah'. According to Rav Sheshes, what does 'be'Meizid, Lo Hurtzah' mean?

(b) Why do the owners not need to bring a new Korban?

(a) How does Rav Nachman establish the Beraisa which seems to make no distinction between Shogeg and Meizid, *Yachid and Tzibur*, the Tzitz always atones for the blood, the flesh and the Cheilev that became Tamei.
How does he explain 'be'Tzibur' (according to the first answer)?

(b) In the second answer, Rav Nachman establishes the Beraisa by certain Korbenos Tzibur which also need the Tzitz to atone for them.
Which ones?

(a) The Pasuk of "ve'Nasa Aharon es Avon ha'Kodashim" (Tetzaveh) -which is speaking about Ritzuy Tzitz, cannot be referring to the sin of Pigul or to that of Nosar.
What do Pigul and Nosar mean in this context?

(b) Why can the Pasuk not be referring to them?

(c) The Beraisa concludes that the Tzitz atones for the sin of Tum'ah.
Why does the Tzitz atone for Tum'ah more than for 'Pigul' and 'Nosar'?

(d) The Berasia explicitly mentions 'Hutrah'! How does Rav Sheishes reconcile this with his own opinion?

Answers to questions



(a) According to Rebbi Shimon, the Tzitz atones for Kodshim which became Tamei, whether they became Tamei whilst the Kohen Gadol was wearing it or not.
What does Rebbi Yehudah hold?

(b) How does Rebbi Shimon prove his point from the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kipur?

(c) How does Rebbi Yehudah repudiate the proof?

(d) In which case does Rebbi Shimon agree that the Tzitz does not atone?

9) What is the basis of the Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon?


(a) The Pasuk in Tetzaveh writes "ve'Hayah Al Metzach Aharon, ve'Nasa Aharon es Avon ha'Kodashim ... ve'Hayah Al Mitzcho Tamid, le'Ratzon Lahem Lifnei Hashem".
How does each Tana prove his opinion from here, Rebbi Yehudah from the first half of the Pasuk, and Rebbi Shimon from the second?

(b) How does Rebbi Shimon know that "Tamid" does not mean that it must *always* be on the Kohen Gadol's forehead?

(c) How does Rebbi Yehudah explain "Tamid"?

(d) What Halachah does Rebbi Yehudah learn from a Kal va'Chomer from Tzitz?

Answers to questions
Next daf

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