ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler of Kollel Iyun Hadaf
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
(a) Besides in the area of Mumin, Rav Chiya bar Avin Amar Rav Amram also permits three ordinary people - to annul Nedarim, if one expert is not available.
(b) Rav Amram made this statement regarding Mumin to preclude the opinion of Rebbi Yossi in our Mishnah, and regarding Nedarim, to preclude the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa, who qualifies the ruling permitting three ordinary people by Nedarim - by requiring at least one of them to be a Chacham.
(c) When they asked Rav Nachman what 'Chacham' means according to the Tana Kama (who permits three ordinary people if there is no Chacham available) - he gave the example of himself (Ana [though some interpret 'Ana' as the name of a Chacham]).
(a) The problem with Rebbi Yehudah, who requires one of the three Matirin to be a Chacham is - that we then assume the other two to be Amei ha'Aretz, whose opinions would be meaningless in the presence of a Chacham.
(b) We answer - that the other two people annulling the vow must be able to understand the reasons of the Halachos that they are taught, in which case the Chacham must first teach them the Dinim of Nedarim.
(c) Rav Chananel Amar Rav rules not like Rebbi Yossi in our Mishnah (who requires a Yachid Mumcheh regarding B'chor, at all costs). We might otherwise have ruled like him (despite the fact that he a individual opinion against the majority) - because Rebbi Yossi had the superior trait of 'Nimuko Imo' (of backing his rulings with sound reasoning).
(a) Earlier in the Sugya, we cited Rebbi Yirmiyah bar Aba in the name of either Rav or Shmuel, restricting the Tana Kama in our Mishnah, who permits three ordinary people to examine a B'chor where there is no Yachid Mumcheh. We try to prove from the current ruling of Rav Chananel Amar Rav - that Rebbi Yirmiyah bar Aba must have been quoting Shmuel (because if he was quoting Rav, why would Rav Chananel have needed to issue the current statement, which is obvious from the earlier one).
(b) We conclude that in fact, it is possible for both rulings to go according to Rav - inasmuch as Rav Chananel simply inferred his statement from the ruling of Rebbi Yirmiyah bar Aba Amar Rav.
(a) Our Mishnah rules that if, after someone Shechts a B'chor and sells it, it is discovered that he had not shown it to a Chacham - then 'what he ate, he ate, yet the owner is obligated to refund the money ...
(b) ... due to a K'nas (a penalty).
(c) The meat that they has not yet been eaten - must be buried.
(d) And the Tana rules in a parallel case, where someone Shechts and sells a cow, which is later found to be a T'reifah, regarding the meat which the purchaser ...
1. ... already ate - exactly the same as in the previous case.
2. ... did not yet eat it - that the purchaser must return the meat, and the seller, the money.
(e) And in a case where, instead of having eaten it, the buyer then sold the animal to Nochrim or fed it to his dogs - the purchaser pays the seller the (cheap) price of T'reifah meat. In the event that he already paid in full, the seller must refund the difference.
(a) In a case where Reuven sells meat to Shimon which turns out to be meat of a B'chor, fruit ... Tevel, or wine ... Yayin Nesech, the Tana Kama of the Beraisa rules - 'Mah she'Achlu Achlu ... ' (just like the Reisha of our Mishnah).
(b) Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar (who does not agree with the reason of K'nas) qualifies the Tana Kama's ruling - confining it to where the meat turns out to be Shekatzim u'Remasim (insects) ...
(c) ... in which case, the knowledge of what he ate sickens him and negates the pleasure that he derived from eating what he thought was Kasher meat.
(d) But in the case of the Tana Kama, he maintains - where the purchaser enjoyed his food, and the fact that what he ate was B'chor, Tevel or even Yayin Nesech is not sufficiently repulsive to negate the pleasure, the owner is not obligated to refund the money for what the purchaser already ate.
(a) We ask why, according to Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar, they should pay anything at all - seeing as he would have had to bury it anyway (so what loss did they cause him?)
(b) And we answer - that the part of the B'chor that they ate was the location of the blemish, thereby preventing him from showing it to a Chacham, who might still have declared the animal a Ba'al-Mum and permitted it.
(c) In that case, we are forced to establish Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar like...
1. ... Rebbi Yehudah with regard to B'chor, which he permits showing to a Chacham after it has been Shechted (as we learned in Perek 'ad Kamah'). we will establish him like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel.
2. ... Raban Shimon ben Gamliel with regard to Yayin Nesech, where he rules that if it falls into a pit of wine - the owner may sell the wine, minus the value of the Yayin Nesech (and the Beraisa is speaking in precisely such a case, and the fact that the purchaser drank all the wine prevents him from doing so).
(d) The case of Tevel however, is unanimous - since, had the purchaser returned it uneaten, all the owner would have had to do is to Ma'aser it.
Hadran Alach 'Kol Pesulei ha'Mukdashin'
Perek Al Eilu Mumin
(a) Our Mishnah discusses the blemishes on which one may Shecht a B'chor. The part of the ear that must be blemished to be considered a Mum is - the cartilage ...
(b) ... which is considered blemished even if it is only split (but nothing is missing).
(c) To be considered a Mum, a hole must be - the size of a Karshinah (a species of vetch known as a horse-bean).
(d) The Tana Kama defines 'dry' as a blemish that is pierced and no blood emerges. According to Rebbi Yossi ben ha'Meshulam - it must be sufficiently dry to crumble when handled.
(a) We learn from the Pasuk in Re'ei "Kol Mum Ra" - that blemishes other than lame and blind (which the Torah mentions specifically) are also included.
(b) We ask that "ve'Chi Yih'yeh bo Mum" is a 'K'lal' and "Pise'ach O Iver" a 'P'rat' - in which case we ought to apply the principle 'K'lal u'P'rat, Ein bi'Chelal Ela Mah she'bi'P'rat' (to preclude all other Mumin).
(c) The continuation of the Pasuk "Kol Mum Ra" solves the problem - because it turns the Limud into a 'K'lal u'P'rat u'K'lal', in which case we include whatever is similar to the P'rat ...
(d) ... incorporating all blemishes that are a. permanent, and b. automatically visible.
(a) When we ask that the P'rat is also a case of 'Bateil mi'Melachto' we mean - that the blemish prevents the blemished limb from doing its job (one cannot walk with the lame leg or see with the blind eye), which is not the case by the chipped or split ear.
(b) We solve that however, by referring to the word "Kol" - which turns the Limud into a 'Ribuy, Miy'ut ve'Ribuy', which includes more than a 'P'rat u'K'lal u'P'rat' does.
(c) If so, we ask, hidden blemishes should also be included. We know that they are not - from the Mishnah later (that we have already quoted) which precludes broken gums at the back of the mouth.
(d) And we answer by citing the Pasuk - "Kol Mum Ra", which implies that the blemish must be visible (since it renders the animal ugly).
(a) Similarly, we ask why the Ribuy does not also include a temporary blemish - which we know does not, from our Mishnah ('Aval Lo min ha'Or' [precluding a Mum on the fleshy part of the ear which is destined to heal]).
(b) And we answer with a 'Kal-va'Chomer' that is based on a Beraisa (which discusses the following Pesukim [in connection with Pidyon]). Now that the Pasuk has already written "ve'Im ba'Beheimah Temei'ah u'Fadah be'Erkecha ... " (to preclude non-Kasher animals from Pidyon), the Pasuk "ve'Im Kol Beheimah Temei'ah asher Lo Yakrivu mimenu Korban la'Hashem ... " must be referring to - Ba'alei-Mumin that were redeemed (i.e. Pesulei ha'Mukdashin).
(c) The words "asher Lo Yakrivu mimenu Korban la'Hashem ... " come to preclude - an animal with a temporary blemish (which will later once again be eligible to be brought as a Korban) from Pidyon.
(d) We now solve our problem from there - because if a Hekdesh animal with a temporary blemish cannot even be redeemed, it certainly cannot be Shechted on account of it.
(e) Alternatively, we learn it from "Pise'ach O Iver" - (which preclude a Hekdesh animal with a temporary blemish and) which would otherwise be superfluous.
(a) The minimum-size split (in the ear) that the Beraisa refers to is - Kol-she'Hu (ha'Sedek Kolshehu').
(b) The problem with the Seifa 'ha'Pegimah (a notch), bein bi'Yedei Adam bein bi'Yedei Shamayim' is - that this implies that one cannot one cannot Shecht a B'chor with a split that is bi'Yedei Shamayim, whereas in fact, there is no reason to differentiate.
(c) We therefore amend the Beraisa to read - 'ha'Sedek ve'ha'Pegimah, bein bi'Yedei Adam bein bi'Yedei Shamayim'.
(d) The minimum Shi'ur the Beraisa gives for a Pegimah is - one that causes the examining finger-nail to get caught in it when running it across that spot.
(a) The Beraisa repeats the Machlokes between the Tana Kama and Rebbi Yossi ben ha'Meshulam (regarding an ear that has dried) in our Mishnah, as well as the Tana's ruling 'Kamah Nekivas ha'Ozen, M'lo Karshinah', but cites Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, who, with regard to the latter, gives the Shi'ur as - 'bi'ch'Adsashah' (the size of a lentil).
(b) Another Beraisa states that the opinions of the two disputants are very close to each other. This cannot refer to the Machlokes between the Tana Kama and Rebbi Yossi ben ha'Meshulam - because the difference between piercing the ear and no blood emerging and cracking when touched, is considerable.
(c) So it must refer to that of the Tana Kama and Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah - to say that a horse-bean is only marginally larger than a lentil.
(a) We query this from another Beraisa however, where based on the word "Velakachta" (in the Pasuk in Mishpatim "Ve'lakachta es ha'Martze'a" - Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah validates a splinter, a thorn, a borer and a pointed pen to pierce the ear of an Eved who wishes to remain after the termination of the six-year period.
(b) Whereas Rebbi learns from "Martzei'a" - that it must be made of metal.
(c) According to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Yudan b'Rivi, the Eved is pierced in the soft, fleshy part of the ear. The Chachamim say - that the ear of an Eved Ivri Kohen may not be pierced, because it turns him into a Ba'al-Mum (thereby invalidating him from performing the Avodah) ...
(d) ... in which case they must hold that the piercing is performed in the cartilage (for him to become a Ba'al-Mum).
(a) The opinion of Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah in the latter Beraisa, where he talks of a hole made by a needle, appears to clash with his earlier ruling - where he gave the minimum Shi'ur of a hole as the size of a lentil.
(b) To resolve the discrepancy, Rav Chana bar K'tina draws a distinction between 'Lishechot' - where the blemish only permits the B'chor if it is the size of a lentil and 'Lifesol' - which disqualifies an animal from the Mizbe'ach with a hole the size of a Kol-she'Hu.
(c) Rav Sheravya translates Karshinah as 'Hinda' (vetch). Rav Hoshaya asked Rav Huna senior how to measure the Shi'ur Karshinah - whether it just sits on top of the hole or whether it actually fits inside it.
(d) Rav Huna's immediate reply was - that although he had not heard the answer to this She'eilah, he had heard the equivalent answer to a similar case, as we will now explain.
(a) He cited a Mishnah in Ohalos, which discusses how much of the spinal cord and of the skull must be missing, for them not to be Metamei be'Ohel. Beis Shamai gives the Shi'ur for the spinal cord as two vertebrae, and of the skull as 'a borer-full'. The Shi'ur Beis Hillel give for the spinal cord is - one vertebra missing
(b) And they give the Shi'ur for the skull as the amount that would cause the animal to die if it was removed. Rav Tachlifa bar Avimi quoting Shmuel defined it more specifically as - the size of a Sela (coin).
(c) Rav Safra quoted the above as a statement of Shmuel; Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah - as a Beraisa quoted by him.
(d) It is easy to remember which is which - because Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah himself was known to often quote Beraisos.
(a) Rav Chisda however, queries this from a Mishnah in Keilim, which refers to a wall between two houses that partially broke, leaving a gap the size of a small window. The minimum size opening that will transmit Tum'ah from one side to the other via Tum'as Ohel is - that of an extra large fist ...
(b) ... such as that of ben Avti'ach, who was very fat.
(c) Rebbi Yossi equated that - with a large-size head.
(d) A man-made hole (which is more Chashuv) does not require such a large Shi'ur to transmit Tum'ah. The Tana therefore gives it as the size of a special borer - used for repairs in the Beis-Hamikdash.
(e) This is equivalent to the size of an Italian Pundiyon and to the size of the hole that they would bore in the yoke of an ox (which held the peg to which the straps of the yoke were tied) - and to a Sela from the era of the Emperor Nero.
(a) Rav Chisda's problem with Shmuel, who defines Beis Hillel's 'K'dei she'Yinatel min ha'Chai ve'Yamus' as the size of a Sela is - that this is synonymous with the 'M'lo Makde'ach' of Beis Shamai (as we just saw in the latter Beraisa).
(b) Rav Tachlifa's response to that query - was silence.
(c) Rav Chisda himself answered with 'Shema Makde'ach ve'Chisumo Shaninu' - which means that maybe 'M'lo Makde'ach of Beis Shamai means a hole made by a borer, which has been slightly widened (using the borer) in order to withdraw it (which is then a bit larger than a Sela).
(d) Likewise, Rav Huna now presume - that 'M'lo Karshina' in our Mishnah means the Shi'ur into which a Karshinah bean will fit.
(e) Rav Tachlifa's reaction to this was - that Rav Chisda ought not to say 'maybe', because he can certainly rely on that explanation (like we rely on the testimony of Chizkiyah Avi Ikesh, whose indisputable statement we are about to discuss).