prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler of Kollel Iyun Hadaf
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
(a) We ask why the Rabbanan exempt the man who denies that he ate Cheilev even against two witnesses. What might be the reason, other than the fact that he has a 'Migu' that he could have said 'Lo Achalti Shogeg Ela Meizid'?
(b) How can we possibly believe a person against two witnesses?
(c) What are the ramifications of the She'eilah, seeing as 'Mah Nafshach', he is believed?
(a) We establish the case of Tum'as Mikdash specifically by Tum'ah Chadashah. What is Tum'ah ...
1. ... Yeshanah?
2. ... Chadashah?
(b) Why is there no problem with Tum'ah Yeshanah? What 'Migu' does he have?
(c) What is the problem with Tum'ah Chadashah? Why could he not claim ...
1. ... that he Toveled before entering the Beis-ha'Midkdash?
2. ... 'Lo Nitmeisi Shogeg Ela Meizid'?
(d) In the case of Tum'ah Yeshanah, how can we believe him even with a 'Migu', when he says 'Lo Nitmeisi', since this is a 'Migu be'Makom Eidim' ?
(a) We cite a Beraisa where Rebbi Meir and the Chachamim argue by two witnesses in the case of Tum'ah. What reason do the Rabbanan give for ruling that he is Patur from a Korban (which seemingly resolves our She'eilah)?
(b) Rebbi Ami however, rejects the proof (establishing the case by Tum'ah Yeshanah). How does he explain the reason behind their statement 'Adam Ne'eman al Atzmo ... '?
(c) What is the problem with this?
(d) How do we solve the problem? Why could we not have known what the Chachamim hold by Tum'ah Yeshanah from Cheilev?
(a) What does another Beraisa learn from the Pasuk in Vayikra (in connection with Tum'as Mikdash) "ve'Hisvadah asher Chata alehah"?
(b) What does Rebbi Meir say?
(c) Rebbi Yehudah holds 'Ne'eman Adam al Atzmo ... '. What compromise do the Chachamim make between Chalavin and Bi'as Mikdash on the one hand, and Tum'ah on the other? Why is that?
(a) What do the Chachamim mean by ...
1. ... Bi'as Mikdash?
2. ... Tum'ah?
(b) What is the difference between them?
(c) Why do we initially establish the Beraisa by Tum'ah Chadashah? What is the problem in establishing it by Tum'ah Yeshanah?
(a) According to the second Lashon, 'Tum'ah' in this case, refers, not to Bi'as Mikdash, but to simply being Tamei and touching Taharos. Why do the Rabbanan then disagree with Rebbi Yehudah?
(b) How, according to this Lashon, do we proves that the Rabbanan's reason is not because of 'Migu', but because of 'Adam Ne'eman al Atzmo ... '?
(c) Either way, Ravina establishes the Beraisa by Tum'ah Yeshanah, when the witnesses said that he ate Kodshim be'Tum'as ha'Guf, and he replied that he did not become Tamei. Why does 'Migu' not apply in that case?
(a) Like which Tana does Rav Nachman rule?
(b) How does Rav Yosef qualify Rebbi Yehudah's ruling? Under which conditions does he allow the person to eat Kodshim after two witnesses have testified that he is Tamei?
(a) Why, according to Resh Lakish, will Rebbi Meir concede that if two witnesses testify that he is Chayav for having relations with a Shifchah Charufah, he is believed to say 'Lo Ba'alti'?
(b) Why, according to Rav Sheishes, will Rebbi Meir concede that if two witnesses testify that a Nazir became Tamei Meis (and is Chayav a Korban), he is believed to say 'Lo Nitmeisi'?
(c) And why, according to Abaye, will Rebbi Meir concede that if two witnesses testify that he knows a certain testimony (and is Chayav a Chatas for swearing that he does not), he is believed to say 'Lo Yada'ti'?
(d) Then why does Rebbi Meir not hold of the Chachamim's 'Migu' in our Mishnah, where he could have said 'Meizid Hayisi'?
(a) Rebbi Zeira asked why our Mishnah obligates someone who ate two k'Zeisim of Cheilev in one Ha'alamah to bring only one Chatas and not two. What did Abaye reply?
(b) What do others extrapolate from our Mishnah, which specifically refers to one Ha'alamah? What would then be the Din if someone ate two k'Zeisim of Cheilev in two Ha'alamos?
(c) What reason did Abaye give to explain that?
(a) Our Mishnah obligates someone who ate two half-k'Zeisim of Cheilev in one Ha'alamah to bring a Chatas. What problem do we have with this?
(b) Resh Lakish in the name of bar Tutini answers that the Tana is speaking when he ate them in two different dishes (bi'Shetei Tamchuyin), according to Rebbi Yehoshua. What does Rebbi Yehoshua say about 'Tamchuyin'?
(c) Then why does our Mishnah render him Chayav?
(a) A second Lashon quotes Resh Lakish in the name of bar Tutni on the Seifa, 'mi'Shenei Minin, Patur'. What does Resh Lakish now say? How does he interpret 'Sh'nei Minim', and what are now the ramifications of his statement?
(b) For the sake of uniformity, how must the Reisha ('Miyn Echad') then be speaking?
(c) To explain the Chidush, Ravina establishes the Reisha when there was a Yedi'ah in between. Who is then the author of our Mishnah?
(d) The Mishnah in Shabbos discusses someone who writes two letters (Osiyos) in two Ha'alamos, one in the morning and one in the afternoon. The Chachamim say 'Patur'. What does Raban Gamliel say?
(e) What is Raban Gamliel's reason?
(a) With reference to someone who eats two half-k'Zeisim (discussed in the previous Mishnah), Rebbi Meir requires him to eat them 'like one eats parched ears of corn. What does he mean by that?
(b) What time limit does he have, according to the Chachamim?
(c) What does our Mishnah say about a Kohen who ...
1. ... eats Tamei food or drinks Tamei beverages? What is the maximum time-span in which he must eat them, for the Isur to take place?
2. ... drinks wine, enters the Azarah of the Beis-Hamikdash and performs the Avodah (see Tiferes Yisrael)?
(d) How does Rebbi Eliezer qualify the latter ruling? In which cases will he be Patur?
(a) We ask whether Rebbi Meir in our Mishnah ('ke'Ilu Ochel K'layos') comes to be stringent or lenient. In what way might he be ...
1. ... more stringent?
2. ... more lenient?
(b) We resolve the She'eilah from the Lashon 'Ad she'Yash'he ... K'dei Achilas P'ras'. What does this prove? What would the Chachamim have said, had they come to be stringent?