ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler of Kollel Iyun Hadaf
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
(a) Rav Oshaya too, queries Shmuel from Rebbi Shimon Shezuri and Rebbi Shimon in our Mishnah (whose statement ('Lo Nechl'ku al Davar she'Hu Mishum Shem Echad ... Ela') preceded that of Rebbi Yehudah). Rav Oshaya's problem is - that seeing as both they and Rebbi Yehudah establish the Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua by two species (into which category he fits black and white figs), they don't appear to be arguing.
(b) Initially, he solves the problem - by establishing the Machlokes by Mis'asek (which the beginning of the Mishnah did not discuss and) which Rebbi Shimon Shezuri ... considers to be the subject of Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua's Machlokes, whilst Rebbi Yehudah (who initially thought likewise), rejects it (as we saw in our Mishnah) ...
(c) ... a problem for Shmuel - who stated categorically that Mis'asek is Patur (without any reference to a Machlokes Tana'im).
(a) Shmuel solves the problem by assuming that Rebbi Shimon Shezuri ... and Rebbi Yehudah both agree that Mis'asek is Patur in any case, and they are arguing over - 'Avad Melaket mi'Libo' (which we discussed at the end of the previous Amud).
(b) And (taking for granted that Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua argue over 'Avar Melaket mi'Libo' by two species) their bone of contention is whether they also argue by one species.
(c) According to Rebbi Shimon Shezuri and Rebbi Shimon, 'Avad Melaket mi'Libo' by one species is Chayav according to all opinions - whereas Rebbi Yehudah maintains that it is included in the Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua ...
(d) ... because he actually categorizes the 'black and white figs' of Rebbi Yehudah as one species.
(a) Rava agrees with the previous explanation as regards the distinction between one and two species, only he establishes the Machlokes between Rebbi Shimon Shezuri and Rebbi Yehudah by 'Likadem' - where he intended to pick fig a. first and then fig b., and he inadvertently reversed the order. According to Rebbi Shezuri, he is unanimously Chayav, whereas according to Rebbi Yehudah, Rebbi Yehoshua declares him Patur.
(b) And we support Rava's explanation with a Beraisa, where the Tana rules that someone who means to extinguish or to kindle one of two lights, and he inadvertently extinguishes the wrong one - is Patur.
(c) And someone who intends to first kindle one light and then to extinguish another one, but where he reversed the order ...
1. ... with two blows - is Patur
2. ... with one blow - is Chayav.
(d) The last case is not so obvious - because even though he did not perform the two acts in the reverse order that he intended to, he did not perform them exactly as he intended to either.
(a) The Beraisa discusses someone who extinguishes coals on Shabbos - by taking a shovel-full of ashes from the fire and deposits them elsewhere, turning the shovel upside down in the process.
(b) The Tana Kama obligates him to bring one Chatas. Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar in the name of Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok - obligates him to bring two, because due to the weight of the top coals, he extinguishes the ones that were previously on top, whilst causing those that are now on top, to catch fire.
(c) The problem with ...
1. ... the Tana Kama is - that if he intended to perform both Melachos, why he does not bring two Chata'os.
2. ... Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar is - that if he did not intend to perform both Melachos, why he does bring two Chata'os.
(a) Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Chanina establish the case where he intended to extinguish the top coals in order to kindle the bottom ones - which he did not really want, but which (knowing that they would get spoilt ['Mekalkel']) he was willing to lose in order to extinguish the top ones.
(b) And the Tana'im's bone of contention is - whether 'Mekalkel be'Hav'arah' is Chayav (Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon) or not (the Tana Kama).
(c) Rebbi Yochanan too, interprets the Beraisa like Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Chanina (where he extinguished the bottom coals). When he says 'be'Nafach Shanu', he means - that the Beraisa is talking about a blacksmith, who needs charcoal, and who therefore prefers the spent coals not to be re-lit.
(d) After hearing Rebbi Yochanan explanation, Rebbi Yirmiyah commented - that up until then, the Beraisa's reason had not been revealed.
(a) Abaye bar Avin and Rav Chananya bar Avin establish the Beraisa where he actually intended to kindle one of the lights as well as to extinguish the other, and the Tana Kama, who requires only one Chatas, holds like Rebbi Yossi, who says - 'Hav'arah le'La'av Yazta'as' (meaning that, of all thirty-nine Melachos, the Toah mentions kindling a fire specifically, to teach us that it constitutes only a La'av, and is not subject to Kareis or a Chatas).
(b) Whereas Rebbi Nasan holds - 'Hav'arah Lechalek Yatza'as' (that it is to establish an independent Chatas for each individual Melachah that the Torah mentions it).
(a) Rava establishes the Machlokes with regard to 'Lehakdim' - meaning that he intended to first extinguish the top coals before kindling the bottom ones, but ended up performing them both simultaneously ...
(b) ... and the Tana Kama obligates him to bring only one Chatas for kindling, but not a second one for extinguishing, since he did not perform it first, as he intended.
(c) Whereas according to Rav Ashi, the sinner wanted to extinguish the bottom coals, but not to kindle the top ones, and their Machlokes is a replica of the Machlokes between Rebbi Shimon, who holds - 'Davar she'Eino Miskaven, Mutar', and Rebbi Yehudah, who holds 'Davar she'Eino Miskaven - Chayav.
(a) The Beraisa discusses someone who is stoking hot coals to warm himself, and the coals catch fire by themselves - even though he knew that this would happen.
(b) The Tana exempt him from a Chatas - because he holds 'Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah le'Gufah (a Melachah whose outcome he does not need) Patur'.
(c) Whereas the Beraisa that obligates him to do so holds - 'Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah le'Gufah, Chayav'.
Hadran Alach 'Safek Achal'
Perek Dam Shechitah
(a) Our Mishnah rules that someone who 'eats' the blood ...
1. ... of a Beheimah, a Chayah or a bird - is subject to Kareis (or a Chatas), and so is that ...
2. ... of an animal that has been torn open, an animal that has been killed by blood-letting.
3. ... of the spleen, of the heart, Dam Beitzim, Dagim or Chagavim - is not subject to Kareis (or a Chatas).
(b) In the middle list, the Tana includes 'Dam Ikur' - the blood of an animal whose Simanim were Shechted after being moved (but not detached) from their regular location on the neck.
(c) It cannot mean the blood of an animal with which Ikur was performed - because Ikur renders an animal T'reifah, but does not kill it.
(d) Regarding the first list, the same Din will apply to the blood of a Tamei species of animal.
(a) The Tana includes Dam Beitzim and Dam ha'Tamtzis in the third list. 'Dam Beitzim' means - either the blood of a male animal's Beitzim, or that of a unfertilized egg which became hot after the hen sat on it.
(b) 'Dam ha'Tamtzis' is - the blood that oozes from the animal's neck after the Dam ha'Nefesh has finished squirting out, since the Chiyuv Kareis pertains to Dam ha'Nefesh exclusively.
(c) Rebbi Yehudah - includes Dam ha'Tamtzis in the first list, for which one is Chayav Kareis.
(a) The Beraisa learn from "la'Of 've'la'Beheimah" (in the Pasuk in Tzav "Kol Dam Lo Socheilu la'Of ve'la'Beheimah") that Dam Beitzim, Dagim and Chagavim - Dam Mehalchei Shetayim (human-beings) and Dam Sheratzim are not subject to Kareis.
(b) The three things that "Of" and "Beheimah" have in common are that they are both subject to Tum'ah Kalah and Tum'ah Chamurah (a lenient and a stringent level of Tum'ah) and to Isur and Heter - and they both belong to the species of Basar.
(c) When the Tana refers to ...
1. ... 'Tum'ah Kalah ve'Tum'ah Chamurah', he means - Tum'as Ochel (which has the Shi'ur of a k'Beitzah and is not Metamei be'Masa (through carrying) and Tum'as Neveilah (which has the Shi'ur of a k'Zayis and is Metamei be'Masa), respectively.
2. ... 'Isur and Heter', he means - that they are forbidden before the Shechitah and permitted afterwards.
(d) We now preclude from the Isur of Dam ...
1. ... human blood - because it is subject to Tum'ah Chamurah but not to Tum'ah Kalah
2. ... the blood of Sheratzim - because it is subject to Tum'ah Kalah but not to Tum'ah Chamurah (as regards Tum'as Masa).
3. ... Dam Beitzim - because 'Beitzim' are not a species of Basar.
4. ... the blood of fish and locusts - because they are not Asur to begin with.