ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler of Kollel Iyun Hadaf
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
(a) According to Rav Hamnuna, an Eglah Arufah becomes Asur be'Hana'ah already during its lifetime. Rabah gives the moment of Isur as - le'Achar Arifah (after its neck is broken).
(b) The problem with Rav Hamnuna is that whereas Rabah ascribes a specific moment to the Isur - he does not. So at which point does the Isur take effect?
(c) In reply, Rav Hamnuna cites Rebbi Yanai, who did indeed once hear of a specific moment during the animal's lifetime at which the Eglah Arufah becomes forbidden, but he could not recall what it was. So he suggested - that it was when it was taken down to the Nachal Eisan (an uncultivated valley), prior to having its neck broken.
(a) In support of his opinion, Rav Hamnuna quotes a Mishnah in Chulin, where Rebbi Shimon exempts someone who Shechts a Parah Adumah, a Shor ha'Niskal or an Eglah Arufah, from 'Oso ve'es B'no'. The Chachamim - rule that he is Chayav.
(b) He explains the basis of their Machlokes as - whether a Shechitah she'Einah Re'uyah (one that does not permit the animal to be eaten) is considered a Shechitah (the Chachamim) or not (Rebbi Shimon).
(c) The problem he has with understanding the Machlokes according to Rabah is - that since the 'Arifah has not yet taken place, at the time of Shechitah (according to him), the animal is still permitted, so why does Rebbi Shimon consider it a Shechitah she'Einah Re'uyah?
(d) And he refutes the suggestion that it is because Arifah incorporates Shechitah (which therefore renders it Asur be'Hana'ah no less the actual Arifah), by citing a Mishnah in Chulin, which rules that Arifah is Kasher by Eglah, but Pasul by Parah (Adumah) - whereas Shechitah is Kasher by Parah but Pasul (as Arifah) by Eglah.
(a) Initially, Rabah had no answer to counter Rav Hamnuna's Kashya - so he responded with silence.
(b) However, after Rav Hamnuna left the room, he 'could have kicked himself' - for not answering that the Mishnah in Chulin goes according to the Chachamim, but that Rebbi Shimon will hold 'Eglah bi'Shechitah Kesheirah'.
(c) Rav Hamnuna would have rejected that answer outright however - because we do not find a Mishnah or Beraisa that cites such an opinion (in which case it doesn't exist).
(a) Rabah finds support for his opinion in our Mishnah, which rules 'Eglah Arufah Einah Kein; Im ad she'Lo Ne'erfah, Teitzei ve'Tir'eh be'Eider' - a Kashya on Rav Hamnuna, in whose opinion the Eglah has already become Asur be'Hana'ah before the Arifah.
(b) To counter the Kashya, Rav Hamnuna amends ...
1. ... the Mishnah's statement to - 'Im ad she'Lo Nir'is la'Arifah ... '.
2. ... the Mishnah's following ruling 'mi'she'Ne'erfah, Tikaver bi'Mekomah' to - 'mi'she'Nir'is la'Arifah ... '.
(c) The problem that still remains with Rav Hamnuna's opinion from the Seifa 'she'al ha'Safek Ba'ah mi'Techilah, Kiprah Sefeikah ve'Halchah lah' - because, since according to Rav Hamnuna, the Tana includes a case where the Eglah is still alive, the term 'Kiprah ... ' is simply incorrect.
(a) So we cite a Beraisa (Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael) in support of Rav Hamnuna, which compares Machshir and Mechaper ba'Chutz to Machshir and Mechaper bi'Fenim'. 'Machshir' - refers to a 'Korban' whose purpose is to permit the owner to do something, whereas 'Mechaper' - comes to atone for him.
(b) 'Machshir ...
1. ... bi'Fenim' refers to Asham Metzora, 'Mechaper bi'Fenim', to - other Chata'os and Ashamos.
2. ... ba'Chutz' refers to the Tziprei Metzora, 'Mechaper ba'Chutz', to - the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach.
(c) The Torah compares ...
1. ... Machshir bi'Fenim to Mechaper bi'Fenim - with regard to the Dinim of Chata'os and Ashamos (which are not mentioned in the Parshah of Asham Metzora.
2. ... Machshir ba'Chutz to Mechaper ba'Chutz - with regard to it being prohibited already during its lifetime.
(d) And if the Tana compares Machshir from Mechaper, then he will certainly compare Mechaper to Mechaper (i.e. Eglah Arufah to Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach) with regard to prohibiting it already in its lifetime.
(a) Rebbi Eliezer in our Mishnah - permits bringing an Asham Taluy - 'on any day and at any time' (even without having committed a known sin ...
(b) ... which explains why they referred to his Ashamaos as 'Asham Chasidim'.
(c) They said that Bava ben Buta brought an Asham Taluy every day - except for the day after Yom Kipur (when he knew that he had sinned, and that there was not even a Safek Aveirah to which to attribute it.
(d) Had he had his way, he swore by the Beis-Hamikdah that he would have brought it on that day also (only they made him wait until there was at least a chance that he may have sinned).
(e) The Chachamim of Rebbi Eliezer confine the Din of Asham Taluy - to someone who may have committed a Safek sin for which one is Chayav Kareis be'Meizid, and Chatas, be'Shogeg.
(a) The Tana draws a distinction between Chayvei Chata'os and Ashamos Vada'in - which one remains obligated to bring after Kipur, and Chayvei Ashamos Teluyin - from which one is Patur.
(b) The Mishnah also rules that ...
1. ... someone who performs a Safek Aveirah on Yom Kipur any time up to dusk - is Patur, because each moment of the entire day atones.
2. ... a Yoledes who has a Safek Chatas ha'Of to bring and Yom Kipur passes - remains Chayav to bring it afterwards, since it comes (not to atone, but) to permit her to eat Kodshim.
3. ... a Chatas ha'Of Safek that becomes clarified after the Melikah has already been performed - must be buried.
(c) Rebbi Eliezer proves that Asham Taluy is not an obligatory Korban - because if it was, then why would the Torah obligate the owner to then bring a Chatas, in the event that he discovers that he definitely sinned.
(a) To counter Rebbi Eliezer, the Chachamim, defining the difference between Olah and Shelamim on the one hand, and Chatas and Asham on the other - explain that Olah and Shelamim are Nedavos, and Chatas and Asham, Chovos.
(b) And to explain the corollary between an Asham Taluy and the Chatas that one brings, in the event that he discovers that he did sin, they explain that (due to the Torah's pity on a Jew suffering) the purpose of an Asham Taluy is to protect the owner from any punishment between the time that he performed the act until he discovers that he sinned for sure.
(c) Rav Acha b'rei de'Rava asked Rav Ashi why Asham Taluy (like Olah and Shelamim - which are brought as a Chovah on Yom-Tov, in the form of an Olas Re'iyah and a Shalmei Chagigah), might not be brought both as a Chovah and as a Nedavah.
(d) To which Rav Ashi replied - that Olah and Shelamim are different, inasmuch as they function mainly as Nedavos, whereas the main function of an Asham Taluy is as a Chovah (in which case it is illogical to place it also under the category of Nedavah.
(a) Rava queried the Beraisa that Rebbi Chanina quoted 'Asham Taluy Ba al ha'Neveilah' mi'Mah Nafshach, on the grounds that 'Mah Nafshach' - the Rabbanan require a La'av which carries Kareis and a Chatas, whereas Rebbi Eliezer permits even a Nedavah.
(b) Rebbi Chanina's reaction to Rava's Kashya was - to scold him for not attending Rabah's Shi'urim more diligently, because if he had, he would have heard how he (Rebbi Chanina) had asked Rabah this question many times, and Rabah had answered ...
(c) ... that the Beraisa goes according 'Amru lo' (i.e. Bava ben Buta, who does require some sort of Safek Chet, even if it is only a La'av).
(d) The source of ...
1. ... 'Amru Lo's ruling is the Pasuk in Vayikra - " ... asher Lo Se'asenah ve'Ashem" (implying any La'av).
2. ... the Rabbanan, who confine Asham Taluy to a La'av which carries with it Kareis and Chatas, Rabah cites as - "Mitzvos" "Mitzvos" (from Chatas Cheilev).
(a) Rav Yosef interprets the Beraisa which states that the five Ashamos atone, whereas Asham Taluy does not, to mean - that whereas the five Ashamos complete the atonement of the sinner, Asham Taluy does not, since should he discover that he sinned, he remains obligated to bring a Chatas.
(b) The five Ashamos referred to by the Tana are - Asham Gezeilos, Me'ilos, Shifchah Charufah, Nazir and Asham Metzora.
(c) The author of the Beraisa cannot be Rebbi Eliezer - who maintains that Asham Taluy also atones for Safek Neveilah, which is not Chayav a Chatas like Chayvei Kareis are.
(d) Ravina explains that whereas nothing else can replace the atonement of the five Ashamos, something else does replace the atonement of the Asham Taluy - Yom Kipur (as we learned in our Mishnah) ...
(e) ... even according to Rebbi Eliezer.
(a) Rav Dimi Amar Rebbi Ami Amar Rebbi Chanina initially learns from the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos "ve'Chiper al ha'Kodesh ... u'mi'Pish'eihem le'Chol Chatosam" - that the Sa'ir ha'Na'aseh bi'Fenim (i.e. the Sa'ir la'Hashem on Yom Kipur) atones for Chata'im (be'Shogeg) that are similar to Pesha'im (rebellious sins), which do not require a Korban (Chatas or Asham).
(b) Abaye refutes the proof from this Pasuk - on the grounds that the Sa'ir ha'Na'aseh bi'Fenim atones for unknown sins, whereas our Mishnah is talking about sins about which the Torah writes "O Hoda eilav Chataso".
(c) The Korban that atones for sins which are known - is the Sa'ir la'Azazel (the Sa'ir ha'Na'aseh ba'Chutz).
(d) According to Abaye, the Pasuk which preclude sins which require a Chatas from the Kaparah of Yom Kipur, are - the words "Kol Pish'eihem le'Chol Chatosam" (in the Pasuk there "ve'Hisvadah alav es Kol Avonos B'nei Yisrael ve'es Kol Pish'eihem le'Chol Chatosam" [based on the same D'rashah as that of Rav Dimi]).
(a) Rav Dimi queried Abaye's source from a Mishnah in the second Perek - which cited four cases of 'Pesha'im' for which one is obligated to bring a Korban (a refutation of the answer that he himself quoted, as well as that of Abaye.
(b) When Ravin arrived from Eretz Yisrael, he cited Rebbi Asi Amar Resh Lakish, who also quoted the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos - "ve'es Kol Pish'eihem le'Chol Chatosam" in this regard.
(c) On which Abaye commented - that he too had cited this Pasuk, but Rav Dimi had proved it wrong, by citing the Mishnah in the second Perek.
(d) Abaye rejected Ravin's answer that we go after the majority of 'Pesha'im', which are not Chayav a Korban - in that the Pasuk did not mention 'the majority' here.
(a) Abaye finally quoted the beginning of the previous Pasuk "ve'Hisvadah alav es Kol Avonos B'nei Yisrael". Based on the fact that "Avonos" (like "Pesha'im") refers to sins performed on purpose, this helps solve our problem - by now rendering the Pasuk (that we quoted earlier) "ve'es Kol Pish'eihem le'Chol Chatosam", superfluous (since 'Pesha'im' means sins performed on purpose, just like 'Avonos'). Consequently, the Torah must mention them to indicate the comparison of 'Chata'im to Pesha'im' (in spite of the 'Pircha'), which in turn, serves as the source for the ruling that Yom Kipur does not atone for Chayvei Chata'os, as we explained.
(b) Rebbi Elazar learns from the Pasuk there "mi'Kol Chatosam Lifnei Hash-m Tit'haru" - that Yom Kipur atones for Chata'os about which only G-d knows (i.e. Asham Taluy) ...
(c) ... at the same time precluding, says Rav Tachlifa Avuhah de'Rav Huna citing Rava - the Chatas Vaday that we discussed in the previous Halachah, for which Yom Kipur does not atone.
(d) And he comes to preclude - the D'rashos of Rav Dimi and Abaye, which he considers a Dochek, since the Kashyos that the Gemara originally asked remain intact.