prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler of Kollel Iyun Hadaf
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
(a) What did Rav Tachlifa Avuhah de'Rav Huna Amar Rava say about Chayvei La'avin over which Yom Kipur passed?
(b) Why might we have thought that they are Patur, even though we just learned that Chayvei Chata'os and Ashamos are Chayav?
(c) How do 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?
(a) Based on Rebbi Elazar's D'rashah (from the Pasuk "Lifnei Hash-m") 'Chet she'Ein Makir bo Ela ha'Makom ... ', what do we ask on Safek Yoledes, Safek Metzora, Safek Nazir, Safek Sotah and Eglah Arufah?
(b) What is the case of Safek ...
1. ... Metzora?
2. ... Nazir?
(c) Why can 'Safek' Nazir not be referring to Safek Nazir Tahor? What would be the case if it was?
(a) How does Rav Hoshaya, assuming that all the above did not sin, answer all four Kashyos, based on the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos "le'Chol Chatosam"?
(b) What alternative answer do we give, assuming that a Yoledes, a Metzora and a Nazir are sinners after all, as we will explain?
(c) And how, in similar vein, will Rava explain why the Korban of a Safek Sotah must still be brought (by her husband) after Yom Kipur, even though only Hash-m knows about her sin?
(a) We query Rav Hoshaya's answer by Safek Yoledes, from a statement by Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai. What sin does Rebbi Shimon ascribe to a Yoledes?
(b) How does Rav Ashi prove from our Mishnah, that the alternative explanation is the correct one?
(a) We refute Rav Hoshaya's answer by Safek Metzora from a statement of Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni Amar Rebbi Yonasan. What does he say about Tzara'as?
(b) And we query his explanation with regard to a Safek Nazir, from Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar. What sin does he attribute to a Nazir?
(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. Why do we ignore the possibility that it comes to atone for their respective sins?
(a) How does Abaye explain why a. Sotah and b. Eglah Arufah are not Patur after Yom Kipur, even though it appears that only Hash-m knows about their sin?
(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". How does Rav Papa learn it from the Pasuk there "Kaper le'Amcha Yisrael"? To whom does this Pasuk hint?
(c) Based on the ruling that Yom Kipur atones for a sin that only Hash-m knows about, what do we suggest that the Din ought to be, regarding someone who discovers only after Yom Kipur, that before Yom Kipur, he committed a sin for which one is Chayav 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. What does that prove?
(a) We refute Rebbi Ze'ira's proof however, on the grounds that all three 'Yedi'os' are needed. Why can we not learn ...
1. ... Nasi and Tzibur from Yachid?
2. ... Yachid from Nasi?
3. ... Tzibur from Nasi?
4. ... Yachid and Nasi from Tzibur?
(b) So we try to learn Yedi'ah by one of them from the other two. Why can we not learn ...
1. ... Yachid from Nasi and Tzibur?
2. ... Tzibur from Yachid and Nasi?
(c) What about learning Nasi from Yachid and Tzibur?
(d) What does this prove?
(a) Abaye refutes the previous proof, based on a specification that applies to a Nasi but not to a Yachid or Tzibur? Which specification?
(b) How can we ask a 'Pircha' that is neither a Chumra nor a Kula?
(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". What does he learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah'?
(d) From where does he then learn the current Halachah?
(a) We ask that someone who brings an Asham Taluy, ought to be Patur from a Chatas, even after he discovers that he sinned. Why might a Chatas after an Asham Taluy be different than a Chatas after Yom Kipur (which, we just proved, remains intact)?
(b) Which Pasuk does Rava quote, to refute this suggestion?
(c) What objection does Rava raise 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?
(d) So what reason does Rava give for an Asham Taluy?
(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, the bird must be buried. What does Rav comment regarding the bird?
(b) We suggest that it nevertheless requires burial because it was not guarded. What does this mean?
(c) What problem do we have with this explanation 'Mah Nafshach'?
(a) How do we therefore reinterpret our Mishnah? What does the Yoledes discover after the Melikah has already been performed?
(b) Then on what grounds does the bird require burial?
(c) Strictly speaking, the bird ought to revert to Chulin. Why is it not Pasul because of 'Chulin she'Nishchatu ba'Azarah'?
(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. Why is that?
(b) Should she discover that she is Chayav only after the Melikah, then the blood requires first Haza'ah and then Mitzuy on the Mizbe'ach. What is ...
1. ... 'Haza'ah'?
2. ... 'Mitzuy'?
(c) Rav even permits the Kohanim to eat it. On what grounds does Rebbi Yochanan forbid it?
(d) We learned one Beraisa in support of Rav and another one in support of Rebbi Yochanan. What does the second Beraisa say in a case where she discovered ...
1. ... that she did not give birth before the Melikah?
2. ... that she did give birth before the Melikah?
3. ... that she gives birth only after the Melikah?
(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. What is the required value of an Asham?
(b) What does the Tana rule in a case where one of the two rams is worth two Sela'im? What happens to the second one?
(c) What does the Tana then rule in a case where the owner uses the money to purchase two rams ...
1. ... as Chulin, assuming that one of them is worth two Sela'im and the other, ten Zuz (i.e. Dinrim [or two and a half Sela'im])?
2. ... one as an Asham and the other, as Chulin, assuming that one of them is worth two Sela'im?
(d) In the last case, what happens to the Sela plus a fifth that he is Chayav to pay for being Mo'el?
(a) What is the Mishnah referring to when it writes in the second case (where he used the two Sela'im to purchase two Chulin animals) 've'ha'Sheini li'Me'ilaso'?
(b) Bearing in mind that the second ram is worth ten Dinrim, why can the Tana not be referring to the Asham Me'ilos? What do we learn from the Pasuk in Vayikra "ve'es asher Chata min ha'Kodesh Yeshalem, ve'es Chamishiso ... "?
(c) How do we also learn this from our Mishnah?
(a) And what is the Mishnah referring to when, in the Seifa (where he uses the two Sela'im to purchase one for his Asham and one for Chulin), it writes 've'ha'Sheini li'Me'ilaso'?
(b) How do we know that?
(c) On what grounds do we justify using the term 'Me'ilah' for two different things?