ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler of Kollel Iyun Hadaf
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
(a) Rav Tachlifa Avuhah de'Rav Huna Amar Rava ruled that Chayvei La'avin over which Yom Kipur passed - are still Chayav Malkos.
(b) We might otherwise have thought that they are Patur, even though we just learned that Chayvei Chata'os and Ashamos are Chayav - because they are monetary obligations, which are not subject to any Kaparah other than payment, whereas Malkos is a corporal punishment.
(c) We reconcile Rava with the Mishnah in Shevu'os, which lists 'Asei and Lo Sa'aseh' among the things that the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach atones for - by establishing the Mishnah in a case where there was no warning, whereas Rava is speaking where there was.
(a) Based on Rebbi Elazar's D'rashah (from the Pasuk "Lifnei Hash-m") 'Chet she'Ein Makir bo Ela ha'Makom ... ', we ask that Safek Yoledes, Safek Metzora, Safek Nazir, Safek Sotah and Eglah Arufah - should all be Patur once Yom Kipur has passed (seeing as they are Chata'os which nobody but Hash-m knows about).
(b) 'Safek ...
1. ... Metzora' - refers to where it is not sure whether the white hairs preceded the Baheres (in which case he is not a Metzora) or vice-versa.
2. ... Nazir' - refers to a Nazir who is unsure whether he became Tamei in the middle of his Nezirus, in which case he would be Chayav to bring the Korban of a Nazir Tamei, or not.
(c) Safek Nazir cannot be referring to a Safek Nazir Tahor (where someone says 'Hareini Nazir Im Teiled Ishti Zachar, and he doesn't know whether she gave birth to a boy or a girl) - since he is Chayav to keep Nezirus anyway, on condition that if his wife gave birth to a girl, he volunteers now to become a Nazir.
(a) Rav Hoshaya, assuming that all the above did not sin and that their Korban comes for the Tum'ah aspect - Darshens from the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos "le'Chol Chatosam" - "le'Chol Chatosam" 've'Lo le'Chol Tum'osam', meaning that Yom Kipur atones for unknown sins, but not for unknown Tum'os.
(b) Alternatively, assuming that a Yoledes, a Metzora and a Nazir are sinners after all, we answer that Safek Yoledes, Safek Metzora - come (not for their respective sins, but) to permit them to eat Kodshim, and Safek Nazir to resume his Nezirus Taharah (see also Rashash).
(c) And in similar vein, Rava will explain that the Korban of a Safek Sotah must still be brought after Yom Kipur (by her husband), even though only Hash-m knows about her sin - because it does not come to atone for the Sotah, but to clarify that she sinned.
(a) We query Rav Hoshaya's answer by Safek Yoledes, from a statement by Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai - that a Yoledes sins by swearing that she will never again be intimate with her husband.
(b) Rav Ashi proves that the alternative explanation is the correct one from our Mishnah, which specifically gives the reason for the Korban of a Safek Yoledes after Yom Kipur as - 'because it permits her toeat Kodshim'.
(a) We refute Rav Hoshaya's answer by Safek Metzora from a statement of Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni Amar Rebbi Yonasan, who ascribes Tzara'as to one of seven sins (as we learned in Erchin).
(b) And we query his explanation with regard to a Safek Nazir, from Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar, who attributes to a Nazir - the sin of abstaining from wine, when the Torah has permitted it.
(c) We explained earlier that, according to the latter explanation, the Korban comes to permit the Nazir to resume his Nezirus Taharah, and, in the previous cases, for the Metzora and the Yoledes to eat Kodshim. We ignore the possibility that it comes to atone for their respective sins - because each one has already atoned for his sin with his suffering (the Yoledes with the pains of birth, the Metzora with his Tzara'as, and the Nazir with his unkempt hair.
(a) Abaye explains that a. Sotah and b. Eglah Arufah are not Patur after Yom Kipur, even though it appears that only Hash-m knows about their Chet - because in the former case the Bo'el (as well as the Sotah herself), and in the latter case, the murderer, knows about the sin. Note, that Rava and Rav Papa do not accept this answer, because they consider the criterion as whether the owner of the Korban knows or not. And in both of these cases he neither knows, nor is there anyone who will tell him.
(b) Rava learns that Eglah Arufah remains Chayav after Yom Kipur from the Pasuk in Shoftim "ve'la'Aretz Lo Yechupar ... ki-Im be'Dam Shofcho". Rav Papa learns it from the Pasuk there "Kaper le'Amcha Yisrael" - which he explains, hints to the generation that left Egypt, on whose behalf this Kaparah is worthy of atoning for (assuming any unknown murders took place among them [even though many Yom Kipurs passed since then[).
(c) Based on the ruling that Yom Kipur atones for a sin that only Hash-m knows about, we suggest that someone who discovers only after Yom Kipur, that before Yom Kipur, he committed a sin for which one is Chayav a Chatas - ought to remain Patur from a Chatas.
(d) Rebbi Ze'ira tries to counter the suggestion with the fact that the Torah writes "O Hoda eilav Chatoso" by a Yachid, by a Nasi and by a Tzibur - one of which (at least) must be superfluous, to teach us that as long as there is a Yedi'ah (even if it occurs only after Yom Kipur), the obligation to bring a Chatas remains.
(a) We refute Rebbi Ze'ira's proof however, on the grounds that all three 'Yedi'os' are needed. We cannot learn ...
1. ... Nasi and Tzibur from Yachid - because he has the leniency that he always brings a female animal as a Chatas. Perhaps a Nasi and a Tzibur, who (sometimes) bring a male, will be Chayav even without a Yedi'ah.
2. ... Yachid from Nasi - because he is not included in the Din of Shemi'as Kol (since a king cannot be a witness).
3. ... Tzibur from Nasi - since a Nasi sometimes brings a female animal as a Chatas (i.e. by Avodah-Zarah), whereas a Tzibur never does.
4. ... Yachid and Nasi from Tzibur - because a Tzibur only brings a Chatas following a He'elam Davar (an erroneous ruling on their part) followed by the Tzibur carrying it out.
(b) So we try to learn Yedi'ah by one of them from the other two. We cannot learn ...
1. ... Yachid from Nasi and Tzibur - which are not subject to Shemi'as Kol.
2. ... Tzibur from Yachid and Nasi - which (at least sometimes) bring a male as a Chatas.
(c) We can however, learn Nasi from Yachid and Tzibur - since on the one hand, all the Chata'os of a Yachid are females, those of a Tzibur are not, and on the other, even though the Tzibur only brings a Chatas following a He'elam Davar, a Yachid brings it even without it.
(d) This leaves us with the superfluous Yedi'ah of Tzibur - to teach us that one is Chayav a Chatas even for a Yedi'ah which takes place after Yom Kipur.
(a) Abaye refutes the previous proof based on a specification that applies to a Nasi but not to a Yachid or Tzibur - namely, that his Nesi'us stands to change (should he be removed from his position), whereas a Yachid and a Tzibur do not (see Shitah Mekubetzes 1).
(b) There is no problem with asking a 'Pircha' that is neither a Chumra nor a Kula on a 'Mah ha'Tzad' - because on a 'Mah ha'Tzad', one can ask anything.
(c) So Abaye learns that one is Chayav a Chatas even for a Yedi'ah which takes place after Yom Kipur, using the Gezeirah-Shavah "Mitzvos" "Mitzvos" - which effectively, compares all three Chata'os (Yachid, Nasi and Tzibur) with regard, inter alia, to the Din of Yedi'ah ...
(d) ... in which case, two of the "O Hoda eilav Chataso" become superfluous - enabling us to learn the Din of Yedi'ah after Yom Kipur.
(a) We ask that someone who brings an Asham Taluy, ought to be Patur from a Chatas, even after he discovers that he sinned, despite the fact that his Chiyuv to bring a Chatas remains intact after Yom Kipur (as we just learned) - because unlike Yom-Kipur, which does not come specifically to atone for the sin for which he is Chayav his Chatas, the Asham Taluy specifically atones for the sin for which it is brought.
(b) To refute this suggestion, Rava therefore quotes the Pasuk - "O Hoda eilav" implying that as long as one is aware that he sinned, he brings a Chatas, irrespective of when the Yedi'ah takes place.
(c) Rava objects to Rebbi Zeira's explanation that seeing as the Chiyuv Chatas remains intact, the Asham Taluy must come to save him from the need for a Kaparah, should he die - on the grounds that, somebody who dies, does not require an independent Kaparah, as the death itself will atone for his sin.
(d) Rava therefore explains - that the Asham Taluy serves the purpose of staving off the punishment until he discovers that he sinned.
(a) We learned in our Mishnah that if a Yoledes gets to know (that she gave birth and is therefore Chayav a Chatas ha'Of) after the Melikah of her Chatas ha'Of ha'Ba al ha'Safek has already been performed, it nust be buried. Rav comments - that the bird nevertheless atones for her.
(b) We suggest that it nevertheless requires burial because it was not guarded, meaning - that it was not guarded from becoming Tamei, which is known as 'Hesech ha'Da'as', and is an intrinsic P'sul (whether it was subsequently known to have become Tamei or not).
(c) The problem with this explanation is that 'Mah Nafshach' - before the Melikah, it is not subject to Tum'ah anyway (in which case it does not require guarding), whereas after the Melikah, why would the Kohen not have guarded it?
(a) We therefore reinterpret our Mishnah, which now speaks about where the Yoledes discovers after the Melikah has been performed - that she did not give birth and is therefore Patur ...
(b) ... and the bird requires burial - mi'de'Rabbanan (because people will think that one is permitted to derive benefit from a Safek Chatas ha'Of).
(c) Strictly speaking, the bird ought to revert to Chulin. It is not Pasul because of Chulin she'Nishchatu ba'Azarah' - which is confined to Shechitah, and does not extend to Melikah.
(a) In fact, Rav made a different statement, with reference to the Mishnah in the previous Perek, which rules that if a Yoledes who brought a Chatas ha'Of mi'Safek, discovered before the Melikah that she was Chayav, the bird becomes a Vaday Chatas ha'Of - because there is no difference between the composition of a Vaday Chatas ha'Of and a Safek (as we learned there).
(b) Should she discover that she is Chayav only after the Melikah, then the blood requires ...
1. ... first Haza'ah ... which requires holding the head and moving it up and down, so that the blood squirts on to the Mizbe'ach.
2. ... and then Mitzuy, which is - actually squeezing the neck on the Mizbe'ach.
(c) Rav even permits the Kohanim to eat it. Rebbi Yochanan forbids it - because he is afraid that people will say that one is permitted to eat a Chatas ha'Of that comes for a Safek.
(d) We learned one Beraisa in support of Rav and another one in support of Rebbi Yochanan. The second Beraisa rules, in a case where she discovered ...
1. ... that she did not give birth before the Melikah - that it either goes out to Chulin, or is sold to the Yoledes' friend who has given birth.
2. ... that she did give birth before the Melikah - it is brought as a Vaday Chatas ha'Of.
3. ... that she gave birth after the Melikah - it is Asur be'Hana'ah, because it was brought as a Safek, and served its purpose in that capacity.
(a) Our Mishnah discusses a case where someone designates two Sela'im for his Asham, and then uses the money to purchase two rams as Ashamos. The required value of an Asham is - two Sela'im.
(b) The Tana rules that in a case where one of the two rams is worth two Sela'im - it is brought as his Korban, whilst the second one is sent into the field to graze until it obtains a blemish ... .
(c) The Tana then rules in a case where the owner used the money to purchase two rams ...
1. ... as Chulin, assuming that one of them is worth two Sela'im and the other, ten Zuzim (i.e. Dinrim [or two and a half Sela'im]) - then the first one he brings as his Asham Me'ilos (which he is Chayav for having used Hekdesh money), and the second one, as payment to Hekdesh (incorporating the Asham money that he used plus the fifth).
2. ... one as an Asham and the other, as Chulin, assuming that one of them is worth two Sela'im - then he brings that as the Asham that he was previously Chayav, and the second one, for his Asham Me'ilos ...
(d) ... and he pays the Sela plus a fifth that he is Chayav to pay for being Mo'el - out of his own pocket.
(a) When the Mishnah writes in the second case (where he used the two Sela'im to purchase two Chulin animals) 've'ha'Sheini li'Me'ilaso' - it is referring to the money that he stole (the Keren plus the Chomesh).
(b) Bearing in mind that the second ram is worth ten Dinrim, the Tana cannot be referring to the Asham Me'ilos - which only needs to be worth eight (two Sela'im), and as for the Chomesh (the extra fifth, which amounts to two Dinrim) - we learn from the Pasuk in Vayikra "ve'es asher Chata min ha'Kodesh Yeshalem, ve'es Chamishiso ... " - that one pays it together with the Me'ilah money (and not together with the Asham Me'ilos).
(c) And we also learn this from the Seifa of our Mishnah, which concludes - 've'Yavi Imo Sela ve'Chomshah'.
(a) When, on the other hand, the Mishnah writes in the Seifa (where he uses the two Sela'im to purchase one for his Asham and one for Chulin) 've'ha'Sheini li'Me'ilaso' - it is referring to the Asham Me'ilos.
(b) We know that from the continuation of the Mishnah (that we just cited) 've'Yavi Sela ve'Chomshah' (in which case 'Me'ilaso' that precedes it cannot be referring to the same thing).
(c) And we justify using the term 'Me'ilah' for two different things - because in the Reisha, the second ram that he purchased happened to coincide with the value of the Keren plus a fifth, so it referred to it as 'Me'ilaso', whereas in the Seifa, where it did not, it referred to the Asham Me'ilos as 'Me'ilaso'.