Shevuos 8
Summary
- The daf analyzes a long beraita that defines the se'ir laHashem brought bifnim on Yom Kippur as providing kapparah for *tum'at Mikdash ve'Kodashav* specifically when יש ידיעה בתחילה ואין ידיעה בסוף, distinguishing it from cases with ידיעה בתחילה ובסוף that require an oleh v’yored. The Gemara tests whether the pasuk “וכיפר על הקודש מטומאות בני ישראל” could extend to other “tum’ot” like *avodah zarah*, *giluy arayot*, and *shefichut damim*, and concludes—by Rabbi Yehuda’s sevara and Rabbi Shimon’s derashah—that the focus is uniquely *tum'at Mikdash ve'Kodashav*. The sugya deflects candidate categories by criteria of unique leniencies, rejects yoledet, metzora, and nazir tamei for textual or conceptual reasons, and clarifies textual bases for the kapparah locus and the blood applications inside and in the Heichal. The beraita’s scope is limited further: the se'ir’s effect is toleh rather than mechaper gamur, and it serves to protect from yissurin until awareness, not to replace a future korban.
- The se'ir laHashem brought bifnim on Yom Kippur is designated for *tum'at Mikdash ve'Kodashav* when there is יש ידיעה בתחילה ואין ידיעה בסוף. The case of יש ידיעה בתחילה ובסוף obligates an oleh v’yored, and the se'ir laHashem is not needed there.
- Rabbi Yehuda derives from “מטומאות בני ישראל” that the kapparah concerns a distinctive “tum’ah,” and he identifies *tum'at Mikdash ve'Kodashav* as unique. Rabbi Shimon says it is *mimkomo hu muchra*, since “וכיפר על הקודש מטומאות” indicates a tum’ah related to kodesh.
- The Gemara rejects *avodah zarah* as the focus: in mezid it is bar ketala, and in shogeg it is bar korban. Mahari Assad suggests a mezid case without mitah, namely ma’avir kol zaro laMolech (Sanhedrin 64b), and answers via the Maharsha that this exemption stems from the severity being too great for kapparah, not from leniency, so the se'ir laHashem cannot serve as a kula there. Mahari Assad also rejects applying the se'ir to someone who is a mumar le’chelev ve’dam whom we do not accept a korban from (Chullin 5b), since that refusal reflects that Hashem withholds kapparah, so the se'ir cannot override it.
- The Chatam Sofer (YD 155) infers from the sugya’s “אי בשוגג בר קרבן הוא” that even Beit Din shel Ma’alah punishes from age thirteen, since otherwise the Gemara could have posited a youth between thirteen and twenty as not bar korban. Yosef Engel counters that a chattat obligation can exist even if karet is only from age twenty, because the chattat addresses the act classified as chayav karet when done bemezid, not the karet punishment itself.
- The Gemara entertains mezid without hatra’ah or shogeg without subsequent awareness, allowing the se'ir laHashem to be toleh until awareness and then a korban follows. Tosafot asks from kapparah via bigdei kehunah (ephod for *avodah zarah*, ketonet for *shefichut damim*, michnasayim for *giluy arayot*) and answers that these work only together with the se'ir, or that the bigdei kehunah atone for communal responsibility while the se'ir could address individual sin. The Rambam omits the halachah of bigdei kehunah’s kapparah; the Berkat Avraham explains it as a segulah dimension rather than a concrete halachic kapparah.
- The same rejection applies to *giluy arayot*: mezid is bar ketala and shogeg is bar korban, with room only for mezid without hatra’ah or shogeg without awareness as interim toleh. For *shefichut damim*, mezid is bar ketala and shogeg is bar galuta, leaving mezid without hatra’ah or shogeg without awareness, and also cases that are not bnei galut due to technicalities (e.g., derech aliyah). The Or Sameach (Hilchot Sanhedrin 17:7) is pained by the case of shogeg without awareness, noting that without edim there is no galut regardless, and with edim the killer’s lack of knowledge is irrelevant; he infers that if one goes to galut voluntarily even without obligation, he becomes exempt from Onesh Shamayim.
- The Gemara defines the unique feature of *tum'at Mikdash ve'Kodashav* as the oleh v’yored. The suggestion that *avodah zarah* is unique (she-goat but not ewe) is rejected as a chumra rather than a kula for assigning the lenient se'ir bifnim kapparah.
- The yoledet is excluded because “לכל חטאתם” implies sin, not mere tum’ah, while a yoledet did no aveirah. Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai’s view that a yoledet is a chotei for swearing in labor not to be with her husband is set aside because Rabbi Shimon anyway holds it is *mimkomo hu muchra* that the se'ir laHashem addresses *tum'at Mikdash ve'Kodashav*.
- The metzora is excluded by “לכל חטאתם,” since tzara’at is a tum’ah status. Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani states that nega’im come on seven sins, yet the kapparah is achieved by the nega itself, while the korbanim restore entry to the congregation, so the se'ir laHashem is not addressing that.
- The nazir tamei is excluded as tum’ah-based. Rabbi Elazar HaKappar’s view that a nazir is a sinner is aligned with Rabbi Shimon’s position that the pasuk limits the se'ir to *tum'at Mikdash ve'Kodashav*. Tosafot explains that the “sin” is the self-affliction from wine, and the tum’ah exacerbates it by forcing a restart that prolongs the self-denial.
- Rabbi Shimon argues from the wording “וכיפר על הקודש מטומאות” that the se'ir is for *tum'at Mikdash ve'Kodashav*. Rabbi Yehuda claims that phrase is needed to teach that what is done lifnai velifnim is likewise done in the Heichal, while Rabbi Shimon derives that from “וכן יעשה.” Rabbi Yehuda responds that “וכן יעשה” could have implied bringing another *par* and *sa'ir* for the Heichal, and “וכיפר על הקודש” teaches using the same bloods; Rabbi Shimon maintains that “וכן יעשה” already implies using the same bloods in the Ohel Moed.
- The beraita entertains that the se'ir might be mechaper for all tum’ot bekodesh, including cases with ידיעה בתחילה ובסוף, and rejects this since such a person is bar korban, even if awareness comes erev Yom Kippur near sheki’ah. The Peresh Yosef notes that even earlier on that day one would not bring such a korban due to מביאין קדשים לבית הפסול, and the case is framed to fit even Rabbi Shimon who holds מביאין קדשים לבית הפסול. The conclusion from “לכל חטאתם” is that the se'ir is toleh only for one who is in the parashah of chattat—i.e., he once had awareness—and it does not grant kapparah gemurah. The Gemara explains that this toleh protects him from yissurin until he attains awareness, while death itself would be memareket and not require the se'ir.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions