ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafShekalim 22
(a) According to Beis Shamai, one burns Kodshei Kodshim that became Tamei
inside the Azarah - inside the Azarah.
(b) The sole case where Kodshei Kodshim are burned outside the Azarah - is
when they became Tamei *outside* the Azarah through an *Av ha'Tum'ah* .
(a) According to Beis Hillel, Kodshei Kodshim that became Tamei must be
taken straight outside and burned there - unless they became Tamei *inside*
the Azarah through a *Vlad* ha'Tum'ah (because there are *two* point in its
1. It occurred inside;
2. Its Tum'ah is light.
(b) Rebbi Eliezer goes after the degree of Tum'ah. Whatever became Tamei
only through a *V'lad ha'Tum'ah* must be burned *inside* the Azarah even if
it became Tamei outside - because, since its Tum'ah is only mi'de'Rabbanan
(as we explained, we will even bring it inside the Azarah, in order to
fulfill the Mitzvah of burning it in the Kodesh.
(c) According to Rebbi Akiva - the Kodshim must be burned wherever they
became Tamei (irrespective of the degree of Tum'ah).
(a) According to 'Bar Kapara, the V'lad ha'Tum'ah referred to in our Mishnah
is a Tum'ah de'Rabbanan - e.g. the Tum'ah of liquids (or any other of the
eighteen Tum'os decreed by Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel in the first Perek of
(b) Rebbi Yochanan, who learns that the Tana is speaking about Tum'ah
d'Oraysa, explains V'lad ha'Tumah to mean that the flesh touched a vessel
which touched one of the liquids of a Zav.
(c) The Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan ...
1. ... from Beis Shamai is - why does he permit Kodshim which became Tamei
through a Vlad ha'Tum'ah to be taken inside the Azarah - seeing as, when
all's said and done, they are Tamei d'Oraysa?
(d) The Kashya on Bar Kapara from Beis Shamai is - why Beis Shamai make a
distinction between an Av ha'Tum'ah which became Tamei *outside* and one
which became Tamei *inside*, seeing as both are Tamei mi'd'Oraysa? (It is
not however clear, why the Gemara asks this on *Bar Kapara*. The Kashya
appears to be one on *Beis Shamai* - since there is no alternative
explanation to Bar Kapara's - as far as Av ha'Tum'ah is concerned.)
2. ... from Beis Hillel is - why do they permit burning Kodshim inside the
Azarah if they became Tamei inside through a Vlad ha'Tum'ah, since there
too, the Tum'ah is mi'd'Oraysa?
(a) The Rabbanan did not discuss the Kashyos on Rebbi Yochanan - because
they are definitely difficult (and it is not possible to answer them). They
did however, discuss the Kashya on Bar Kapara, since they sensed that it was
easy to answer.
(b) We see from Rebbi Akiva, answers the Gemara, that we go after the
location where the Kodshim became Tamei. That explains why (in the case of
when they became Tamei through an Av ha'Tum'ah) Beis Shamai differentiates
between whether they became Tamei *inside* or *outside*. Whereas in the case
where they became Tamei through a *V'lad* ha'Tum'ah, since there, the Tum'ah
is only *mi'de'Rabbanan*, the Chachamim were lenient, even permitting one to
take the Tamei Kodshim inside (in order to fulfill the Mitzvah of burning it
ba'Kodesh). Note: The Kashya presumed like Rebbi Eliezer, who differentiates
between the *degree* of Tum'ah, rather than *where* they became Tamei.
(c) Beis Hillel's distinction between a Vlad ha'Tum'ah (de'Rabbanan) which
became Tamei *inside* and one which became *outside* (on which one can ask:
since they are both mi'de'Rabbanan, why are they stringent by a case when
the Kodshim became Tamei outside?) is based on Rebbi Shimon, who holds that
the food and drink of a Metzora may not be brought into the Azarah (even
though that which is already there, may remain). Similarly, Chazal were
stringent about bringing Kodshim which became Tamei outside, inside even
though, that which is already, may be burnt there.
(a) The limbs of both the Tamid and those of the Musaf were initially placed
on the lower half of the ramp - the former on the *west* side of the ramp,
the latter, on the *east*.
(b) In between the placing of the limbs on the ramp and taking them up to
the Mekom ha'Ma'arachah - the Kohanim would go to the Lishkas ha'Gazis to
read the Shema (and Daven).
(c) The limbs of the Musaf of Rosh Chodesh were not placed on the ramp at
all. They were placed on the Karkov of the Mizbe'ach i.e. on top of the
Mizbe'ach, on the Amah surrounding the Mekom ha'Ma'arachah, where the
Kohanim used to walk.
(a) Shekalim and Bikurim only apply when the the Beis-Hamikdash is standing;
whereas Ma'ser Dagan, Ma'ser Beheimah and Bechor Beheimah apply even when it
(b) the Mitzvah of ...
1. ... Shekalim does not apply nowadays - because there are no Korbanos, and
the purpose of the Shekalim is only for the Korbanos.
(c) According to the Tana Kama - this means that there is no obligation
nowadays to give a half-Shekel or to bring Bikurim. But if someone
designated either of them, they are nevertheless Kadosh.
2. ... Bikurim - because the Torah writes in Ki Savo "Reishis Bikurei
Admascha Tavi Beis Hashem Elokecha". Consequently, when there is no Beis
Hamikdash, there are no Bikurim.
(d) Rebbi Shimon says that if someone designated Bikurim, they are not
(a) The Musaf of Shabbos preceded that of Rosh Chodesh - because it was
Tadir (more common), and whatever is more Tadir, has precedence.
The Shir of Rosh Chodesh was sung after the Shechitah of the Musaf of
Shabbos, and was followed by the Shir of Shabbos.
(b) Nevertheless, the Shir of Rosh Chodesh took precedence over that of
Shabbos - in order to publicise the fact that it was was Rosh Chodesh.
(c) This would be necessary - because Rosh Chodesh depended upon the the
proclamation of Beis-Din (of which not everyone was aware), so Chazal gave
the Shir of Rosh Chodesh precedence, as one method of informing the people
that it was Rosh Chodesh.
Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah says in the name of Rebbi Shimon that neither
Bikurim nor Shekalim are Kadosh nowadays.
(a) The Tana Kama of the Beraisa rules that a convert is obligated nowadays
to set aside a Revi'is Kesef for his Kan - birds which every convert is
obligated to bring at the time of his conversion.
(b) According to Rebbi Shimon, Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai annuled this
obligation, because of Takalah (the fear that the Hekdesh money may
inadvertently be used for Chulin).
(c) For the same reason, one is forbidden to declare something Hekdesh or
Cherem nowadays. If one declared Hekdesh ...
- ... clothes - they must be burned.
- ... an animal - it must be placed in a room and left there without food to die.
- ... money - it is thrown into the Yam-Hamelach.
(a) If someone declares his half-Shekel Kadosh (according to Rebbi Shimon
ben Yehudah), his declaration is invalid - because of the likelihood that,
after he has sanctified his half-Shekel, the Beis-Hamikdash will be rebuilt
in Nisan (like the Mishkan was) - in which case it will immediately become
Terumah *Yeshanah* - and the Korbanos can only be purchased with money from
the Terumah *Chadashah*. If, on the other hand, a convert declared money
for his Kan Hekdesh - it *does* become Kadosh - because by the Kan of a
convert it makes no difference how old the money is.
On to Yoma
(b) The Halachah is like Rebbi Shimon in our Mishnah - that nowadays Bikurim
are *not* Kadosh, whereas Shekalim and the Kan of a convert are, should the
owners designate them.