POINT BY POINT OUTLINE OF THE DAF
prepared by Rabbi Pesach Feldman of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
1) GREIRAH (cont.)
(a) But if he first found out about his latter reaping (Shigegas Melachah), and separated a Korban for it, it will Gorer the first reaping, and the first reaping will Gorer the first grinding (both were in the same Shigegas Shabbos), but the latter grinding will need its own Korban.
(b) (Abaye): Also the first grinding is Gorer the latter grinding - all grinding is one.
(c) Question: Rava argues with the principle of Greirah!
1. (Rava): If one ate two k'Zeisim of Chelev in one Helam, and found out about one of them, and ate a third k'Zayis in the same Helam with (i.e. before finding out about) the second [and later finding out about the last two):
i. If he brought a Korban [and said that it is] for the first, it atones for the first two, but not for the third.
ii. If he brought a Korban for the third, it atones for the last two, but not for the first.
iii. If he brought a Korban for the second, it atones for all three.
2. (Abaye): In any case, the Korban atones for all three.
(d) Answer: Once Rava heard about Greirah from Abaye, he agreed to it.
(e) Objection: If so, grinding should also Gorer grinding [when he separated a Korban for the latter reaping]!
(f) Answer: He agreed to Greirah (the latter reaping is Gorer the first reaping), but not Greirah of Greirah (the first grinding only gets atonement through Greirah, it cannot Gorer something else).
(g) Abaye and Rava had no doubt that a Korban for Zadon Shabbos and Shigegas Melachos also atones for Zadon Melachos and Shigegas Shabbos - R. Zeira was unsure about this.
(h) Question (R. Zeira): If one reaped [or grinded] half a k'Zayis amidst Zadon Melachos and Shigegas Shabbos, and later reaped [or grinded] half a k'Zayis amidst Zadon Shabbos and Shigegas Melachos, do they join [together to obligate a Korban]?
(i) Answer (R. Asi): They require separate Chata'os (a Korban for Zadon Shabbos and Shigegas Melachos does not atone for Zadon Melachos and Shigegas Shabbos), [therefore] they do not join.
(j) Question (R. Zeira): It is not true that whenever separate Chata'os are required, they do not join!
1. (Mishnah): If one ate Chelev twice in one Helam, he is liable only once;
2. If he ate Chelev, blood, Pigul, and Nosar in one Helam, he is liable for each one - this is a stringency of different Minim (Isurim) over [multiple transgressions of] one Min.
3. A stringency of one Min over different Minim - if one ate half a k'Zayis, and then another half a k'Zayis in one Helam:
i. If they were both the same Min, he is liable; if they were different Minim, he is exempt.
4. Objection: Obviously, he is liable regarding one Min!
5. Answer (Reish Lakish): The case is, he ate it in two plates (Rashi - cooked two different ways) - it is like R. Yehoshua who says that plates Mechalek;
i. One might have thought that he says this both to be lenient and to be stringent - we learn that, this is not so, he says this only to be stringent (i.e. only when being Mechalek will obligate more Korbanos).
6. Summation of question: Even though separate Chata'os are required, they join!
(k) Answer (R. Asi): You ask because you assume that Reish Lakish discusses the Reisha - we learn that he discusses the Seifa, it is not difficult;
1. Question (regarding the Seifa): Obviously, he is exempt regarding two Minim!
2. Answer (Reish Lakish): Really, it is one Min - it is called two Minim because it was eaten in two plates;
i. It is like R. Yehoshua who says that plates Mechalek - we learn that he says this both to be lenient and to be stringent.
(l) Question: If the Seifa discusses one Min and two plates, the Reisha must discuss one Min and one plate - this is obvious (that in such a case he is Chayav)!
(m) Answer (Rav Huna): The case is, he found out in between;
1. The Mishnah is like R. Gamliel, who says that Yedi'ah (finding out) after eating half a Shi'ur has no effect (if he eats another half-Shi'ur b'Shogeg, they join).
2) DOES HAFRASHAH OR KAPARAH MAKE CHILUK CHATA'OS?
(a) (R. Yochanan): If one ate two k'Zeisim of Chelev in one Helam, and found out about one of them, and later found out about the other, he brings two Chata'os;
(b) (Reish Lakish): He is liable only one Korban.
(c) R. Yochanan learns from "Al Chataso v'Hevi" (one must bring for each transgression);
(d) Reish Lakish learns from "Me'Chataso v'Nislach Lo" (even if he brought a Korban for part of his Chet, it atones for all of it).
(e) Question: How does Reish Lakish explain "Al Chataso v'Hevi"?
(f) Answer: That teaches about [finding out about another transgression] after Kaparah (then, another Korban is required).
(g) Question: How does R. Yochanan explain "Me'Chataso v'Nislach Lo"?
(h) Answer: The case is, he ate one and a half k'Zeisim, he found out about a k'Zayis, then ate another half k'Zayis in the same Helam with the remaining half k'Zayis;
1. One might have thought that the half-k'Zeisim join - the verse teaches, this is not so.
(i) Question (Ravina): Do they argue about when he found out before Hafrashah (being Makdish a Chatas) - R. Yochanan holds that Yedi'os Mechalek, Reish Lakish holds that Hafrashos Mechalek;
1. Reish Lakish agrees that if he found out after Hafrashah he brings two Korbanos.
2. Or, do they argue about when he found out after Hafrashah - R. Yochanan holds that Hafrashos Mechalek, Reish Lakish holds that Kaparos Mechalek?
i. R. Yochanan agrees that if he found out before Hafrashah he brings one Korban.
3. Or, do they argue in both cases, whether he found out before or after Hafrashah?
(j) Answer (Rav Ashi): Presumably, they argue in both cases:
1. If Reish Lakish agreed that if he found out after Hafrashah he brings two Korbanos, he could have established "Al Chataso v'Hevi" in this case, instead of after Kaparah;
2. If R. Yochanan agreed that if he found out before Hafrashah he brings one Korban, he could have established "Me'Chataso v'Nislach Lo" in this case, instead of a case of one and a half k'Zeisim [followed by another half k'Zayis]!
(k) Rejection: Perhaps the above answers for how each of them would explain the other's verse were given because the Gemara was unsure in which case they argue (therefore it covered all possibilities):
1. If you will say that they argue before Hafrashah, R. Yochanan can establish "Me'Chataso v'Nislach Lo" in a case of one and a half k'Zeisim;
2. If you will say that they argue after Hafrashah, Reish Lakish can establish "Al Chataso v'Hevi" to discuss after Kaparah.