ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler of Kollel Iyun Hadaf
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
(a) The Mishnah in Orlah rules that if someone wove the Shi'ur of 'M'lo ha'Sit' (the space between the stretched thumb and forefinger) of ...
1. ... the wool of a firstborn lamb into a garment - it must be burned, and the same applies to ...
2. ... the hair of a Nazir or of a Petter Chamor that he wove into a sack.
(b) To answer Tavi's Kashya from our Mishnah, which lists the hair of a Nazir among the Nikbarin, Rav Nachman differentiates between the hair of a Nazir Tahor - which the Torah requires to be burned, and that of a Nazir Tamei - of which the Torah says nothing.
(a) When Tavi repeated the Kashya with regard to Petter Chamor, which our Tana also includes in the list of Nikbarin, Rav Nachman - was stumped for an answer.
(b) Tavi though, had heard an answer from Rav Sheishes (covering both the hair of a Nazir and that of Petter Chamor), who drew a distinction between plain hair - which soon integrates into the soil, and hair that had been woven into a sack (exactly as the respective Mishnahs stated) - which takes a long time to do so, and which Chazal (afraid that someone may dig up and use), therefore required to be burned.
(c) And this answer has the support of Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina. It makes no difference as to whether the hair is Tahor or Tamei.
(d) Rebbi Elazar differentiates between the hair of a Nazir Tahor and that of a Nazir Tahor (like Rav Nachman explained earlier).
(a) Rav Nachman asked Tavi why, according to Rav Sheishes, the few hairs that were woven into the garment should not become Bateil. This does not contradict the Sugya in Nidah, which forbids selling to a Nochri, a garment in which a thread of Kil'ayim is lost - because, specifically there, since it is only with regard to Kil'ayim, which is the result of a mixture, that Bitul does not apply.
(b) Rav Papa replied that the Tana is speaking about a bird, by which he means - that he used the forbidden threads to weave the shape of a bird into the fabric, lending it special importance, which is the reason why it does not become Bateil.
(c) We object to Rebbi Yirmiyah's answer to the question 'Lishlefinhu', that the author of the Beraisa of Sak is Rebbi Yehudah, who permits burning Nikbarin, on the grounds - that it does not answer the question (why the threads cannot simply be removed).
(d) Rebbi Yirmiyah explained himself - by pointing out that he had meant to kill two birds with one stone; since after establishing that the forbidden threads were woven in such a way that they could not be removed, there is no problem with the Tana's ruling 'Yidalek ha'Beged', since the author is Rebbi Yehudah (and it is not necessary to differentiate between hair and sack, as we did earlier).
(a) The author of our Mishnah, which prescribes Sereifah for Chametz on Pesach is - Rebbi Yehudah (who holds 'Ein Biy'ur Chametz Ela Sereifah').
(b) Our Mishnah lists Terumah Temei'ah, K'lai ha'Kerem and Orlah among the Nisrafin, and when the Tana adds that those whose way it is to be buried, must be buried - he is referring to liquids (such as wine and oil).
(c) Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa adds to his words in our Mishnah (regarding Chatas ha'Of ha'Ba'ah al ha'Safek 'Yatilenah le'Amah'), that before tossing it into the Amah - the Kohen should cut it up into pieces.
(d) The Amah carries the pieces - to the valley of Kidron.
(a) The Chachamim forbid Nikbarin to be burned - because whereas the ashes of Nisrafin are Mutar be'Hana'ah, the remains of Nikbarin are Asur.
(b) The Tana in a Beraisa rules that the blood of a Nidah and the flesh of a dead person that turned into dust (provided the latter is less than a medicinal spoonful) - are no longer Tamei.
(c) We reconcile what we just said (about Nikbarin remaining Asur be'Hana'ah) with this Beraisa - by differentiating between the Tum'ah, which has been removed, and the Isur, which has not.
(a) Another Beraisa rules that the crop and the feathers of an Olas ha'Of (which require Kevurah), whose blood was squeezed on the Mizbe'ach - is no longer subject to Me'ilah.
(b) Rav Pinchas queried the previous statement regarding Nikbarin (Afran Asur) from here. And once again, we reconcile the two - by differentiating between Me'ilah (which has been removed) and Isur (mi'de'Rabbanan), which remains.
(a) We query the premise that the ashes of all Nisrafin are permitted (see Hagahos ha'G'ra) from another Beraisa, where the Tana rules that ...
1. ... all Nisrafin - are permitted, except for ...
2. ... the ashes of an Asheirah-tree.
3. ... the ashes of Hekdesh are always Asur.
(b) The Tana finds it necessary to add the words 'are always Asur' with regard to Hekdesh - because whereas the wood of an Asheirah-tree is subject to Bitul (at the hand of a Nochri, as we learned in Avodah-Zarah), Atzei Hekdesh is indeed Asur forever.
(c) Rami bar Chama answers the Kashya - in that the Beraisa is speaking specifically in a case where the fire began to burn by itself, whereas Hekdesh only goes out to Chulin where somebody has been Mo'el by kindling the fire.
(a) Rav Sh'maya establishes the Beraisa (of Hekdesh) by T'rumas ha'Deshen - a handful of ashes taken from the Mizbe'ach ...
(b) ... which is placed beside the Mizbe'ach.
(c) Besides the fact that the Kohen must place the ashes gently and that he must place all of it at the required location, the Beraisa learns from the word "ve'samo" (in the Pasuk in Tzav "ve'Samo Eitzel ha'Mizbe'ach") - that he must take care not to allow the ashes to scatter.
(d) Rav Sh'maya now learns from the fact that the Torah orders the ashes to be put away - that they must be Asur be'Hana'ah (even though other Nisrafin are not).
HADRAN ALACH 'YESH BE'KODSHEI MIZBE'ACH', U'SELIKA LAH MASECHES TEMURAH