ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler of Kollel Iyun Hadaf
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
ERCHIN 4 - Two weeks of study material have been dedicated by Mrs. Estanne Abraham Fawer to honor the twelfth Yahrzeit of her father, Rav Mordechai ben Eliezer Zvi (Rabbi Morton Weiner) Z'L, who passed away on 18 Teves 5760. May the merit of supporting and advancing Dafyomi study -- which was so important to him -- during the weeks of his Yahrzeit serve as an Iluy for his Neshamah.
(a) The Beraisa states 'ha'Kol Chayavin be'Mikra Megilah, Kohanim, Levi'im ve'Yisre'elim', and repeats this with regard to the Mitzvah of Zimun. The Tana finds it necessary to write it with regard to ...
1. ... Mikra Megilah, based on a statement by Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel 'Kohanim ba'Avodasam, u'Levi'im be'Duchanam, ve'Yisrael be'Ma'adamam ... ', which teaches us - that the Kohanim are even Chayav to interrupt the Avodah, in order to hear the Megilah (even though it is only a Mitzvah mi'de'Rabbanan).
2. ... Zimun, based on the Pasuk in Eikev "ve'Achlu Osam asher Kupar bahem) - which obligates the Kohanim to eat the Menachos (which are Kodshei Kodshim) in order for Yisrael to obtain a Kaparah, and since their eating is obligatory, we might have thought that they are exempt from Bensching with a Mezuman.
(b) And we conclude that they are nevertheless Chayav, based on the Pasuk there "ve'Achalta ve'Sava'ata u'Verachta ... " - which places the criterion for Mezuman on being satisfied, irrespective of whether they eat because they are hungry or because they have to.
(c) The Tana thinks that if a Kohen ate Terumah, he may not combine with a Levi and a Yisrael to form a Mezuman - because the Levi and the Yisrael could not have shared his food.
(d) We answer that they nevertheless may - because even though they could not have shared his food, he could have shared theirs.
(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'ha'Kol Ma'arichin, Kohanim, Levi'im ve'Yisre'elim', which Rabah establishes like ben Buchri. Rebbi Yehudah in the Mishnah in Shekalim quotes ben Buchri as having testified in Yavneh - that any Kohen who gives a half-Shekel on Rosh Chodesh Adar has not sinned.
(b) The problem with ben Buchri is - why indeed the Kohen has not sinned. Because since he is not Chayav (as we shall now see), why is he not guilty of bringing Chulin to the Azarah?
(c) To circumvent this problem, we establish the case - where the Kohen handed the half-Shekel to the community, in which case it is no longer considered his.
(a) Ben Buchri's source is the Pasuk in Ki Sisa "Kol ha'Over al ha'Pekudim", which he interprets as - whoever was counted (in the desert), which precludes the tribe of Levi.
(b) Rebbi Akiva, who holds that on the contrary, any Kohen who does not give the half-Shekel has sinned, interprets "Kol ha'Over al ha'Pekudim" - to mean whoever crossed over the Yam-Suf, which includes the tribe of Levi.
(c) According to what we just learned, Rabah now suggests that, based on the Pasuk in Bechukosai "ve'Chol Erk'cha Yih'yeh be'Shekel ha'Kodesh", our Mishnah states 'ha'Kol Ma'arichin', according to ben Buchri - who would otherwise interpret the Torah's comparison to mean that whoever is Patur from Machtzis ha'Shekel is also Patur from Erchin.
(d) Abaye refutes Rabah's explanation however, because the Pasuk is needed to teach us - that the minimum Erech (with regard to the Kohen's assessment of a person who cannot afford the full Erech) is one Sela (which, in Torah measurements, is equivalent to a Shekel).
(a) Abaye therefore attempts to learn Ben Buchri's Din from the Pasuk in Korach "u'Feduyav mi'ben Chodesh Tifdeh be'Erk'cha", which would teach us - that whoever is not subject to the Din of Pidyon ha'Ben (i.e. the tribe of Levi) is not subject to Erchin.
(b) We learn that the tribe of Levi is Patur from Pidyon ha'Ben - from the fact that in the desert, they exempted a Yisrael's firstborn from the need to be redeemed (so it goes without saying that they themselves did not require redemption).
(c) Rava however, refutes Abaye's explanation from the Pasuk in Vayikra "ve'es Ashamo Yavi la'Hashem Eil Tamim min ha'Tzon be'Erk'cha", which ben Buchri would then have to Darshen - to preclude a Tumtum and Androginus from Eil ha'Asham. This would be baseless however, since they are no less Jews than any man or woman).
(d) Rava (or Rav Ashi) finally learns Ben Buchri's potential ruling from the Pasuk in Bechukosai "ve'He'emido Lifnei ha'Kohen", which Ben Buchri would Darshen - "ve'He'emido Lifnei ha'Kohen", 've'Lo ha'Kohen Lifnei ha'Kohen' ...
(e) ... if not for our Mishnah ('ha'Kol Ma'arichin'), which teaches us that a Kohen is not Patur.
(a) 'ha'Kol Ne'erachin' (in our Mishnah) comes to include a Menuval u'Mukeh Sh'chin (a particularly ugly person and a leper). We learn ...
1. ... (initially) from the Pasuk in Bechukosai "Nadar be'Erkecha" - that whoever is not included in Neder, such as a Menuval or a Mukeh Sh'chin (who have no intrinsic value), is not included in Erchin either.
2. ... from the Pasuk there "Nefashos" - that a Menuval and a Mukeh Sh'chin are in fact, included in the Din of Erchin.
(b) We learn from ...
1. ... the word "ha'Zachar" (in the Pasuk there "Ve'hayah Erk'cha ha'Zachar") - that a Tumtum and Androginus are not subject to the Erech of a male.
2. ... "ve'Im Nekeivah Hi" - that they are not subject to the Erech of a female either.
(c) Based on these D'rashos, we would be inclined to learn from "Neder be'Erkecha" - that they are not subject to Damim either.
(d) "Vehayah Erk'cha" therefore teaches us - that they are.
(a) The Beraisa also learns from the word "be'Erk'cha", 'Lerabos Erech S'tam', which means - that even if someone declared 'Harei alai Erech' (without specifying a specific person), he is nevertheless Chayav.
(b) Another Beraisa obligates him to pay Hekdesh - the smallest Erech of three Shekalim.
(c) We make him pay three Shekalim and not ...
1. ... fifty (the biggest Erech) - because of the principle 'Tafasto Merubah Lo Tafasta ... ', which means that whenever one is confronted with two possible amounts, one always takes the lesser one, which after all, is incorporated in the larger one.
2. ... one (as we learned from "ve'Chol Erk'cha Yih'yeh be'Shekel ha'Kodesh") - because that applies exclusively to the Din of 'Heseg Yad' (someone who cannot afford the minimum Erech of three Shekalim).
(a) Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah says that, seeing as S'tam Erech is three Shekalim, we learn from "be'Erk'cha" - that there is no Din of Heseg Yad by S'tam Erchin ...
(b) ... because when a person is Noder S'tam, it is as if he had declared the least of the Erchin (precluding anything less than one Shekel).
(c) 'Erko shel P'loni' or 'Erki ... alai' is different - because, seeing as not everyone knows the age of the Ne'erach, there is no indication as to which Erech the Noder was referring to (leaving an opening for Heseg Yad).
(d) In the second Lashon, Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah says - 'Nidon be'Heseg Yad', because in this opinion, S'tam is not considered as if he had specified the least of the Erchin.
(a) The Beraisa also learns from ...
1. ... "be'Erk'cha" - that one only gives the Erech of the entire person, but not of any of his limbs.
2. ... "Nefashos" - that if the Noder specified a limb on which the Nidar's life depends, then his Neder extends to the entire person.
(b) We resolve the problem that ...
1. ... we just used "be'Erk'cha" for the previous D'rashah (regarding Erech S'tam) - by learning the first Limud from "be'Erech", and the second from the suffix ("be'Erk'ch*a*").
2. ... we then go on to use the same word "Nefashos" to preclude Meisim from the Din of Erchin - by likewise learning the first Limud from "Nefesh" and the second from the extra 'Vav' 'Tav'.
(c) And "Vehe'emid Vehe'erich" - comes to preclude a Goseis (someone who is dying) too, from the Din of Erchin.
(d) And we conclude - that we do in fact preclude a Meis from being Ne'erach.
(a) We therefore (initially) learn from "Nefashos" - that even if someone undertakes to give the Erech of many people with one Neder, he is obligated to do so.
(b) Besides a woman who declares the Erech of a man or a woman, the Tana also learns from "Nefashos" - that a Menuval and a Mukeh Sh'chin are included in the Din of Erchin, too (as we learned earlier).
(c) Having made the first two D'rashos from "Nefashos", the Tana adds the third D'rashah - because the first two are not necessary, since they are included in the initial "Nefesh" (and do not therefore require an independent D'rashah).
(d) Finally, the Beraisa learns from "Ve'hayah Erk'cha", 'Lerabos Tumtum ve'Anroginus le'Damim' - 'Im Eino Inyan le' (if it is not needed with regard to) Erchin, Teneihu Inyan le' (then transfer it to) Damim'.
(a) We just learned from "Vehayah Erk'cha" to include Tumtum and Androginus in Kedushas Damim. The problem with that is - why we need to include a Tumtum and Androginus in Damim any more than we need to include a date-palm.
(b) Rabah answers that we need the Pasuk to teach us 'Nidon bi'Chevodo' - meaning that anyone who undertakes to pay the value of the head or of any limb on which the Tumtum or Androginus' life depends), is obligated to pay his full value.
(c) Based on the Pasuk "Neder be'Erkecha", we might have otherwise thought - that since he is not subject to Erchin, he is not subject to Nidon bi'Chevodo either.
(a) We query this however, from a Beraisa, which states that someone who declares 'Rosh Eved Zeh Hekdesh - Hu ve'Hekdesh Shutfin bo'.
(b) When the Beraisa then says 'Rosh Eved Machur lach, Meshamnin Beinehem' - the Tana means likewise, that Hekdesh and the owner share the Eved.
(c) The Tana differentiates between the two Leshonos - because 'Meshamnin Beinehem' means that the Eved actually work intermittently for the owner and the purchaser, which is not possible by an Eved or an animal of Hekdesh, which a Hedyot is not permitted to use, in which case they must either sell it or one of them must buy the other out (as implied by the Lashon 'Shutfin bo').
(d) The Tana says the same about 'Rosh Chamor Zeh Hekdesh', and 'Rosh Chamor Machur lach ', respectively. But with regard to 'Rosh Parah Zeh Hekdesh' and 'Rosh Parah Machur lach ', he rules - 'Ein le'Hekdesh Ela Roshah'.
(e) Rav Papa ascribes this to the fact - that they tended to sell the head of an ox on its own in the butchery (but not the head of a donkey).
(a) Abaye now queries Rabah from Chamor and Parah - which are not Nidon bi'Chevodo, apparently because they are not subject to Erchin.
(b) And we counter Abaye's Kashya - from Eved, which is subject to Erchin, yet it is not Nidon bi'Chevodo' (so we must find another reason for the fact that they are all not Nidon bi'Chevedo).
(c) We therefore establish the Beraisa - by Kodshei Mizbe'ach, whilst Nidon bi'Chevodo is confined to Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis (such as Erchin).