Previous daf

1)

(a) We cited Rebbi Yitzchak, who precludes Chayvei K'risus from Malkos from the fact that the Torah mentions Kares by 'Achoso'. The Rabbanan (Rebbi Yishmael and Rebbi Akiva) explain Kareis by 'Achoso' like Rebbi Yochanan - who said that if someone transgressed all the eighteen Arayos in one He'elam (without being aware in the middle that he had sinned), he is Chayav to bring eigheen Chata'os.

(b) We need the Pasuk by Achoso to teach us this, because - since the Torah incorporates all the K'risos in one Pasuk, we might have thought that he is only Chayav one Chatas.

(c) Rebbi Yitzchak learns this from the Pasuk "ve'El *Ishah* be'Nidas Tum'asah", 'Lechayev al Kol Ishah ve'Ishah'. We ask why the Rabbanan cannot learn it from there too, and we answer - that in fact, they do.

(d) And they learn from "Achoso" - that, in a case where a man commits incest with his sister, with his father's sister and with his mother's sister in one He'elam, he is Chayav three Chata'os.

(a) We retract from this however, on the grounds that it is obvious - seeing as they are three different sins an well as three different women.

(b) The case the Torah is referring to must therefore be - when a man commits incest with one woman who is both his sister, his father's sister and his mother's sister.

(c) We establish this in the case of 'Reshi'a bar Reshi'a' - meaning that a man fathers two daughters from his own mother and a son from one of his daughters, and that son then commits incest with his mother's sister.

(d) Rebbi Yitzchak learns this from a 'Kal Vachomer', as Rebbi Akiva taught in the name of Raban Gamliel and Rebbi Yehoshua - whom he asked this She'eilah when they were at the butcher, buying meat for Raban Gamliel's son's wedding.

(a) They derived the 'Kal va'Chomer' from - someone who had relations with five Nidos, which is only one La'av, yet he is Chayav five Chata'os, how much more so 'Achoso she'Hi Achos Aviv va'Achos Imo', which incorporates three different La'avin.

(b) The 'Pircha' on this 'Kal va'Chomer' however, is - that the former case constitutes three different women, whereas the latter one constitutes only one.

(c) Rebbi Yitzchak concedes to this 'Pircha', and he learns the Din of three Achosos from "Achoso de'Seifa ("Ervas Achoso Gilah").
The Rabbanan learn from there that one is Chayav Kareis (and Malkos) for a full sister (who is both from the father's side and from the mother's).

(d) We learn from here the principle of 'Ein Onshin min ha'Din (otherwise, we could have learned the Din of a full sister from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from a half- sister.

(a) Rebbi Yitzchak learns the Onesh of Achaso she'Hi bas Aviv u'Bas Imo - either from the Azharah (in Kedoshim, where the Torah specifically writes "Achoscha Hi" to include a full sister), or from "Achoscha" of the Reisha (by the Azharah in Acharei-Mos) "ve'Ish Ki Yikach es Achoso ... " (when the Torah could justas well have written "ve'Ish Ki Yikach es bas Aviv O es bas Imo ... ").

(b) The Rabbanan learn from "Achoso" de'Reisha 'Lechalek Kareis li'Mefatem ve'Sach' (that if someone makes a replica of the anointing oil and anoints someone with it, he is obligated to bring two Chata'os) - where the Torah (in Ki Sisa) writes a La'av for each one ("Al B'sar Adam Lo Yisach, u've'Mas kunto Lo Sa'asu Kamohu" ), but only one Kareis ("Ish Asher Yikach Kamohu ... ve'Nichras me'Amav"), for which he would have therefore only been Chayav one Chatas.

(c) Rebbi Yitzchak does not need this D'rashah however, because he holds like Rebbi Elazar Amar Rebbi Hoshaya, who maintains - that wherever the Torah writes two La'avin and one Kareis, someone who transgresses both La'avin be'Shogeg is automatically Chayav two Korbanos.

(d) This effects our case of three Achosos - inasmuch as there too, they are three separate La'avin and one Kareis, which will therefore not require a Pasuk either.

(e) Alternatively (he does not hold like Rebbi Elazar Amar Rebbi Hoshaya, but) he learns it from "Ish Asher Yishkav es Ishah Davah". The Rabbanan learn from there the Din of Rebbi Yochanan in the name of Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai, who says - that a woman only becomes Tamei Nidah if the blood flows from her womb, but not if it flows from an incision that was made in that area of the body.

5)

(a) The two Pesukim "es Mishkan Hashem Timei ve'Nichresah" (Chukas) and "ve'Lo Yetam'u es Machaneihem" - constitute the Onesh and the Azharah, respectively, for entering the Beis-Hamikdash be'Tum'ah.

(b) The Pasuk "ve'ha'Nefesh Asher Tochal Basar mi'Zevach ha'Shelamim Asher la'Hashem ve'Tum'aso Alav, ve'Nichresah" is the Onesh for Tamei she'Achal es ha'Kodesh. We cannot learn the Azharah from the Pasuk "be'Kodshim Lo Yochal" - since "Kodshim" there means Terumah (as we shall soon see).

(c) Resh Lakish learns the Azharah from "be'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga". Rebbi Yochanan (citing a Beraisa quoted by Bardela) learns it from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' - "Tum'aso" "Tum'aso" from ha'Ba el ha'Mikdash be'Tum'ah.

(d) Resh Lakish does not agree with Rebbi Yochanan, because he did not receive the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' from his Rebbes, whereas Rebbi Yochanan declines to learn like Resh Lakish - because in his opinion, "be'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga" pertains to someone who eats Terumah when he is Tamei (and not Kodesh).

(a) Resh Lakish learns the Azharah to eat Terumah be'Tum'ah from the Pasuk (that we quoted earlier) "Ish Ish me'Zera Aharon ... be'Kodshim Lo Yochal", which must be speaking about Terumah and not Kodshim - because, unlike Kodshim, all "Zera Aharon", female as well as male, are eligible to eat it.

(b) Despite the fact that B'nos Aharon are eligible to eat Chazeh ve'Shok of Kodshim Kalim, the Pasuk can not be referring to Kodshim Kalim - since a bas Kohen who returns to her father's house when her Yisrael husband dies, leaving her without children is not permitted to eat Chazeh ve'Shok, whereas she is permitted to eat Terumah.

(c) Rebbi Yochanan nevertheless requires the Pasuk "be'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga" by Terumah as well - one for eating be'Tum'ah, and the other, for touching be'Tum'ah.

(a) In an independent Machlokes, Rebbi Yochanan establishes the Pasuk "be'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga" by a Tamei who touches Terumah. According to Resh Lakish, the Pasuk - pertains to a Tamei who touches Kodesh.

(b) And he applies the same Pasuk to a Tamei who *eats* Kodesh (because, whereas on the One hand, the Torah uses the Lashon of 'touching', on the other) - since that same Pasuk compares Kodesh to Mikdash, which is Chayav Kareis, the case of Kodesh must be one of Chiyuv Kareis too (and there is no Chiyuv Kareis for touching Kodesh, only for eating it)

(c) In a third Machlokes, Rebbi Yochanan confines the Din of Malkos by a Tamei who eats Kodesh to Kodshim *after* the Zerikah - because the Pasuk of "Tum'aso" (the source of the 'Gezeirah-Shavah') speaks specifically in such a case.

(d) Whereas Resh Lakish learns that he is Chayav even he eats them before the Zerikah - from the word "*be'Chol* Kodesh, which is superfluous'

(a) It is the opinion of - Resh Lakish that is supported by a Beraisa.

(b) The Beraisa cites the Pasuk "be'Chol Kodesh", and goes on to prove from the Hekesh to Mikdash that it must be referring to eating the Kodesh and not touching it, as we just explained.