ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler of Kollel Iyun Hadaf
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
(a) Bearing in mind that the first Isur to take effect in our Mishnah is that of Cheilev, we initially ascribe to Rebbi Meir (the only name explicitly mentioned there) - the principle of 'Isur Chal al Isur'.
(b) If that is so, he cannot be the author of the Beraisa cited in Chulin where someone ate the Neveilah of a non-Kasher animal - and where the Tana exempts him from Malkos for eating Neveilah ...
(c) ... because he holds 'Ein Isur Chal al Isur'.
(d) We refute this proof however, bearing in mind - that the cases in our Mishnah are either Isur Kolel or Isur Mosif, which Rebbi Meir will hold, take effect, even if S'tam Isur does not, in which case Rebbi Meir may well be the author of the above Beraisa after all.
(e) The definition of ...
1. ... 'Isur Mosif' - where an Isur is added to the forbidden object.
2. ... 'Isur Kolel' - where permitted objects are incorporated in the Isur.
(a) What makes ...
1. ... 'Tamei' an Isur Kolel is - the fact that it incorporates the rest of the animal (besides Cheilev) in the Isur.
2. ... Hekdesh an Isur Mosif is - the fact that the Cheilev now becomes Asur be'Hana'ah, as well.
3. ... Nosar an Isur Mosif is - the fact that it now becomes Asur to Hash-m, too.
(b) In answer to why the Tana does not insert Pigul, to make it five Chata'os, we answer - that the Tana lists only those Isurim which pertain to the same animal, and Nosar and Pigul cannot pertain to the same animal ...
(c) ... because Pigul takes place by one of the four Avodos pertaining to the blood, rendering the animal unfit to be eaten, in which case it can no longer becomes Nosar.
(d) We query this however, from a statement of Ula, who said - that once a limb of Pigul is placed on the Mizbe'ach, the Isur of Pigul falls away. Consequently, that piece could become Nosar (even though the rest of the animal is Pigul).
(a) We try to reject the answer that the Tana only speaks about four Chata'os on the same limb, but not on two different ones - by establishing the case where half the Pigul limb was placed on the Ma'arachah and half off it was not, in which case the former could become Nosar, whilst the latter would remain Pigul.
(b) We object to this suggestion however, by pointing out - that in such a case we would go after the majority of the limb, so that the entire limb would either be one or the other, but not both.
(c) And we override this objection because it would resolve the She'eilah of Rami bar Chama - who asked whether we go after the majority of the limb in such a case or not (and Amora'im do not ask She'eilos that the Tana'im have already dealt with).
(d) We also object to the suggestion that the Tana is speaking about Isurim that pertain to the same k'Zayis but not to a second k'Zayis - from the insertion of Yom Kipur in our Mishnah, whose Isur comprises a Koseves (a dry date, the Shi'ur for which one is Chayav on Yom Kipur) which is equivalent to two k'Zeisim.
(a) So we establish the case where the sinner ate a Kulya (a kidney, comprising a k'Zayis) together with its Cheilev (comprising a second k'Zayis). The ...
1. ... Cheilev - constitutes the three Chata'os (other than Yom Kipur) and the Asham.
2. ... Kulya - constitutes the extra k'Zayis, making up the Shi'ur Koseves of Yom Kipur.
(b) This explains the Tana's omission of Pigul - because it would then require a second k'Zayis of Cheilev, and the Tana is speaking about one k'Zayis of Cheilev, and not two.
(c) Nor can we establish the case where the Kulya was placed on the Mizbe'ach, in order to add Pigul to the list - because 'Tamei she'Achal Cheilev ... ' implies that all the Isurim are contained in the Cheilev (and not in the Kulya, which only comes to complement the Shi'ur Koseves, as we explained).
(d) Rav Papa answers that he filled it with dates - meaning that (to avoid having to add the Kulya), he establishes the Mishnah where the sinner complemented the Shi'ur Koseves of Yom Kipur, by filling the Cheilev with a second k'Zayis of dates.
(a) According to Rav Ada bar Ahavah, our Mishnah does indeed list five Chata'os - by adding Pigul to the four Isurim.
(b) And he reconciles Pigul and Nosar being transgressed simultaneously - by establishing that the Pigul came from a different animal.
(c) He ignores the answers that the other Amora'im gave - because he does not consider the questions relevant.
(d) And the reason that the Tana does not add blood to the list (bringing it up to six Chata'os) is - because having learned that the throat cannot hold more than two k'Zeisim, it would have had to be eaten separately, and the Tana is speaking about how many Chata'os one is obligated to bring for one eating, not two.
(a) The problem with the Lashon of the Mishnah 'Im Hayah Shabbos ve'Hotzi'o Chayav' is - that Rebbi Meir did not need to mention Shabbos at all. He could have simply said 'Im Hotzi'o, Chayav' (seeing as the case is speaking about Yom-Kipur) ...
(b) ... leading Rafram to extrapolate - that there is no prohibition against carrying on Yom Kipur ('Ein Eiruv ve'Hotza'ah be'Yom ha'Kipurim').
(c) We refute Rafram's inference, justifying the Tana's Lashon however, (even assuming that the Tana holds 'Yesh Eiruv ve'Hotza'ah le'Yom ha'Kipurim') - by explaining that he is actually coming to add an additional Chatas for carrying on Shabbos, besides the one for Yom Kipur.
(a) So we connect Rafram with the Beraisa which discusses the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos (in connection with the Sa'ir la'Azazel) "ve'Shilach be'Yad Iti ... ". The Tana learns from ...
1. ... "Ish" - to include a Zar.
2. ... "Iti" (besides that his appointment must be prearranged) - "Iti", 'Afilu be'Tum'ah', "Iti", 'Afilu be'Shabbos'.
(b) Rafram now extrapolates from the previous D'rashah - "Iti", 'Afilu be'Shabbos', that 'Ein Eiruv ve'Hotza'ah le'Yom ha'Kipurim'.
(c) We conclude however, that Rafram's statement is a joke - because the reason for the D'rashah pertaining to Shabbos and not to Yom Kipur is because as far as Yom Kipur is concerned, it is the Mitzvah of the day (which is in any case permitted, like the Korban Tamid on Shabbos and Yom Kipur).
(a) Our Mishnah presents a case of someone who is Chayav six Chata'os for one Bi'ah; Bito, Achoso - Eishes Achiv, Eishes Achi Aviv, Eishes Ish and Nidah.
(b) The problem with our Mishnah is - that based on the principle 'Ein Isur Chal al Isur', the sinner ought not to be Chayav more than one Chatas
(c) And we answer that most of the Isurim are Isur Mosif. Bito and Achoso, however (which is how the case begins) both take effect - because they occur simultaneously (when the sinner was intimate with his mother, who bore him a daughter (who was also his sister).
1. Eishes Achiv, Eishes Achi Aviv and Eishes Ish take effect after that - because they become Asur to the other brothers, uncles (or their children on account of Eishes Av) and all other men, respectively.
2. Nidah takes effect last - because she becomes forbidden to her husband too.
(a) Our Mishnah presents a case where a man is Chayav seven Chata'os for having relations with his daughter's daughter, who is also his daughter-in-law (since his son married her). And she also bears the title of ...
1. ... his wife's sister - because he married his son-in-law's daughter, who was born to him from another wife (making him the father of both his wife and his granddaughter).
2. ... his brother's wife and the wife of his paternal uncle - because his brother married her after his son (her first husband) died, and his paternal uncle married her after his brother died.
(b) The last two Isurin for which he brings two additional Chata'os are - Eishes Ish and Nidah.
(c) In a case where the sinner's father then transgressed and married her (after his brother died), Rebbi Yossi rules that - he (the sinner) is also Chayav because of Eishes Av.
(d) And the Tana concludes - that someone who has relations with his wife's daughter or with her daughter's daughter (instead of with his own) - under the same circumstances is Chayav the same seven Chata'os.
(a) The problem with Rebbi Yossi's adding Eishes Av to the list, (there where his father married his granddaughter after his uncle died) is - how such a marriage can be valid (seeing as she is Eishes Achiv).
(b) Rebbi Yochanan solves the problem - by establishing the case where his brother died without children, leaving him with the Mitzvah of Yibum.
(c) Rebbi Ya'akov explains Rebbi Yossi's use of the term 'transgressed' - by referring to the Isur of Kalas B'no (seeing as the Mishnah included 'Kalaso' (i.e. the daughter-in-law of his son) among the list of Chata'os, and a Beraisa lists 'Kalas B'no' among the Sheniyos (Arayos de'Rabbanan).
(d) Instead of Kalas B'no, Rebbi Ya'akov might have mentioned - Bas Bas B'no' which is a Sheniyah, too).
(e) She is not necessarily forbidden to the father anyway (even though she is listed as being his son's brother's wife) - because the Tana is speaking about the wife of the sinner's maternal brother (who is only his father's stepson, and who is therefore permitted to him).
(a) We query Rebbi Yossi in our Mishnah from his opinion in a Mishnah in Yevamos, where the Tana Kama sentences someone who performs a double-barreled sin which carries the death penalty, to the more stringent death. According to Rebbi Yossi - he receives the death of the sin which took effect first.
(b) To illustrate, we cite a Beraisa where Rebbi Yossi rules that where a man has relations with ...
1. ... his mother-in-law who had later got married - he receives Sereifah (because of Chamoso).
2. ... a married woman who had later become his mother-in-law - he receives Chenek.
(c) According to the Tana Kama there - either way, he receives Sereifah (which is more stringent than Chenek) - because he holds - 'Isur Chal al Isur'.
(a) Rebbi Avahu reconciles Rebbi Yossi in our Mishnah (who seems to hold 'Isur Chal Al Isur') with Rebbi Yossi in the Mishnah in Yevamos - by establishing our Mishnah by Isur Mosif (and he also holds of Isur Kollel and Isur Bas Achas [see Tosfos DH 'Modeh Rebbi Yossi']), which Eishes Ish she'Na'aseh Chamoso is not
(b) Nevertheless, he gives Chamoso precedence over Eishes Ish, because it came into effect first (despite the fact that Eishes Ish is an Isur Mosif, as it incorporates the rest of the world) - because Chamoso is more stringent, as we explained (in which case even though the Isur Eishes Ish is an Isur Mosif, he will still receive the stricter punishment, like anyone who is Chayav two Misos).
(a) Our Mishnah now presents another case where someone who is intimate with his mother-in-law, is Chayav seven Chata'os; Chamoso, Kalaso, Eishes Achiv, Eishes Achi Aviv, Achos Ishto, Eishes Ish and Nidah (see Tiferes Yisrael). The Tana adds - that the same will apply in a case where he is intimate with the mother of his father-in-law or of his mother-in law under the same circumstances.
(b) Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri cites a case of someone who has relations with his mother-in-law, who is also Chayav because of Eim Chamoso and Eim Chamiv - where Chavah had two daughters and one son, and Ya'akov marries one of her daughters (making her his mother-in-law), her other daughter's daughter (making her Eim Chamoso) and her son's daughter (making her Eim Chamiv).
(c) The Chachamim disagree with him, due to the fact - that since all three Isurim stem from the same Pasuk (see Acharei-Mos 18:17), the sinner is only Chayav one Chatas.
(a) Rebbi Elazar Amar Rebbi Hoshaya equates Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri (in our Mishnah) with Sumchus in the Mishnah in Chulin (which discusses the Isur of 'Oso ve'es B'no'). If someone Shechts Oso ve'es bas B'nah - he will be Patur from Malkos (since that is not what the Torah prohibits.
(b) The Tana Kama there rules that someone who does so, and who then goes on to Shecht its daughter, 'Sofeg es ha'Arbayim'. According to Sumchus - he receives two sets of Malkos (one for 'Oso ve'es B'no', and one for 'B'no ve'Oso'.
(c) Rebbi Elazar is now saying - that both Tana'im apply as many punishments as there are Isurim, even though they all stem from the same Pasuk (in the form of one La'av).
(d) Rava and Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak both object to this equation. In fact ...
1. ... Rava claims that Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri would agree with the Tana Kama of 'Oso ve'es B'no' (that he would only receive one set of Malkos there) - because strictly speaking, both Isurim share exactly the title 'Oso ve'es B'no' (whose order will make no difference according to him), whereas in our Mishnah, one is called 'Chamoso', one, 'Eim Chamoso', and one 'Eim Eim Chamoso'.
2. ... Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak maintains that Sumchus will agree with the Tana Kama of our Mishnah that one would only bring one Chatas in the case of 'Chamoso' - because, unlike his case, which refers to two different bodies ('Oso ve'es B'no' and 'B'no ve'Oso'), the entire Isur takes place on one woman.
(e) This last statement is based on a statement of Rebbi Avahu Amar Rebbi Yochanan, who learns from the words "Zimah Hi" (in the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos 'Sha'arah Heinah Zimah hi")- that 'Ishah u'Bitah u'Bas Bitah' (which is equivalent to Chamoso, Ein Chamaso and Eim Eim Chamoso) are all considered one act of adultery.