prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler of Kollel Iyun Hadaf
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
(a) What does our Mishnah say in a case where someone eats one of two pieces of Chulin and Cheilev that are lying in front of him, and does not know which one he ate?
(b) And what does the Tana rule in a case where ...
1. ... the same person then ate the second piece?
2. ... somebody else ate the second piece?
(c) Is this latter ruling unanimous?
(d) Like in the previous case, Rebbi Yossi does not agree with Rebbi Shimon. What does Rebbi Simon say?
(a) In the same case, but where one piece was Cheilev and one Kodesh, what does the Tana rule where after eating the first piece ...
1. ... he also ate the second one?
2. ... somebody else ate the second one?
(b) What does Rebbi Shimon say? What do they stipulate?
(c) If he ate one of two pieces, one of which was Cheilev and the other, Cheilev Kodesh, the Tana Kama obligates him to bring a Chatas. What does Rebbi Akiva say?
(d) And what does the Tana rule if he then ate the second piece?
(a) If somebody else came and ate the second piece, the Tana Kama obligates each one to bring a Chatas. What does Rebbi Akiva say?
(b) Here too, Rebbi Yossi disagrees with Rebbi Shimon, as he will in the final case. What does Rebbi Shimon say?
(c) If the sinner ate one of two pieces that were Cheilev and Cheilev Nosar, then he brings a Chatas and an Asham Taluy. What will be the Din if ...
1. ... he then eats the second piece?
2. ... somebody else eats the second piece?
(d) What does Rebbi Shimon say?
(e) Rebbi Yossi declares that any Chatas that comes to atone for a sin, cannot be brought in partnership. What does this come to preclude? In which case will Rebbi Yossi concede that it can?
(a) What did Rava comment regarding Rebbi Yossi's ruling (in the case of Chatichah shel Chulin va'Chatichah shel Cheilev) 'Ein Shenayim Mevi'in Chatas Achas'?
(b) How did he tried to refute the Kashya that this is precisely what the Tana Kama says? In which point does he suggest Rebbi Yossi argues with the Tana Kama?
(c) How did Rav Nachman then resolve the problem, in light of the Beraisa where Rebbi Yossi specifically requires them both to bring an Asham Taluy?
(a) Rava asked Rav Nachman, why, in the last case ('Chatichas Cheilev va'Chatichas Cheilev Nosar'), one is not also Chayav an Asham (since it was also Nosar of Kodesh [see Shitah Mekubetzes 16]). What did Rav Nachman reply?
(b) How do we reconcile this with the Reisha, where the Tana refers to a piece of Hekdesh which is worth a P'rutah and where he is obligated to bring an Asham?
(c) How come then that the Mishnah in the third Perek ('Yesh Ochel Achilah Achas ... ') refers to a piece of Nosar that is worth a P'rutah?
(d) Seeing as Nosar is Asur be'Hana'ah (and therefore has no value), why is he Chayav even if it is intrinsically worth a P'rutah?
(a) What does Rebbi Shimon in a Beraisa say with regard to someone who eats Neveilah on Yom Kipur?
(b) Why does this ruling extend even to an animal that became a Neveilah only on Yom Kipur?
(c) Based on this Beraisa, how did Rava query Rebbi Shimon in the Seifa of our Mishnah, where he obligates the person who ate Cheilev of Nosar to bring two Chata'os?
(d) What did Rav Nachman reply? What did the sinner eat that will enable both Isurim to apply?
(a) What problem still remains regarding Nosar? Why ought he not to be Chayav for that?
(b) We suggest that Rebbi Shimon holds of Isur Chamur. What do we mean by that?
(c) On what grounds do we refute this suggestion?
(d) So what do we answer? How do we justify the Isur Nosar taking effect on Olin, according to Rebbi Shimon?
(a) The previous answer is based on a Beraisa. What does the Tana learn from the Pasuk in Tzav (in connection with the Isur of eating Kodshim be'Tum'as ha'Guf ) " ... asher la'Hashem"? Which two Isurin are affected by it?
(b) And we prove this further from Rebbi. Under what circumstances does Rebbi hold 'Isur Chal al Isur'?
(c) In that case, why ought the Isur Me'ilah not to take effect on Kodshim, according to Rebbi? What makes it an Isur Kal?
(d) What does Rebbi nevertheless learn from the Pasuk in Vayikra "Kol Cheilev la'Hashem"?
(a) We query our previous interpretation of Rebbi Shimon however, from Rebbi Shimon's own ruling in another Beraisa. What does Rebbi Shimon say about Pigul and Nosar with regard to Olin?
(b) How do we then reconcile our previous interpretation of Rebbi Shimon with this Beraisa?
(c) We ask what the latter opinion will then learn from the Pasuk (that we just cited) "Kol Cheilev la'Hashem". Why do we not ask the same question from the Pasuk that we cited earlier " ... asher la'Hashem" ('Lerabos es ha'Emurin')?
(d) Then why can we not give same answer regarding the previous D'rashah (of "Kol Cheilev la'Hashem")?
(a) We answer this Kashya by establishing the Beraisa by V'lados Kodshim. How does this solve the problem?
(b) hat will Rebbi Shimon in the Beraisa now learn from the Pasuk that we cited earlier " ... asher la'Hashem"?
** Hadran Alach 'Dam Shechitah'
Perek ha'Meivi Asham
(a) Our Mishnah discusses a case of someone who is bringing an Asham Taluy, when he discovers that he did not sin. According to Rebbi Meir, if he makes this discovery before the animal has been Shechted, it is returned to the flock. What do the Chachamim say?
(b) Rebbi Eliezer permits the animal to be sacrificed. Why is that?
(c) What does the Tana say, should the discovery occur when ...
1. ... the animal has already been Shechted?
2. ... the blood has already been sprinkled?
(d) Why does the Din in the former ruling differ from that of Chulin she'Nishchatu ba'Azarah, which are buried and not burned?
(a) Rebbi Yossi argues with the Tana Kama with regard to the last case. What does he say in a case where the blood has already been received in a cup but has not yet been sprinkled?
(b) What is his reason?
(c) The Tana draws a distinction between an Asham Taluy and an Asham Vaday under the same circumstances. Where he discovers that he did not sin for example, before the animal has been Shechted, the animal is sent to graze with the other animals. What is the case? Bearing in mind that an Asham Vaday is generally brought following a Vaday Yedi'ah, how did such a discovery come about?
(d) Why do the Rabbanan not argue here, like they argued with Rebbi Meir by Asham Taluy?
(a) If the owner discovers that he did not sin after the Asham has been Shechted, the animal must be buried. What does the Tana say in a case where the blood has already been sprinkled?
(b) What does our Mishnah rule in the case of a Shor ha'Niskal if it is discovered that the animal did not kill ...
1. ... before it has been stoned?
2. ... after it has been stoned?
(c) What distinction does the Tana draw between Eglah Arufah and Shor ha'Niskal in this regard?
(a) What is the basis of the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir ('Yeitzei ve'Yir'eh') and the Rabbanan ('Yir'eh ad she'Yista'ev ... ') in the opening case in our Mishnah?
(b) Our Mishnah discusses a case where after being Makdish the Asham Taluy, he discovered that he did not sin. What does the Beraisa add to that?
(c) Whose opinion is ...
1. ... our Mishnah therefore coming to stress?
2. ... the Beraisa coming to stress?