In the Arachin 21b we have a mahlokes of Shmuel and Ulo about the daas of the makriv corban. The first says that one need to be aware of his corban at the point of hafrosho, and the second demands daas only at the point of kaporo (i.e. hakrovo).
Shmuel's opinion strictly corresponds to the concept of memashkenin of the Mishno, but Ulo's point of view needs an explanation. Why must he argue with Shmuel and a pshat ha-poshut of Mishno?
Sincerely,
Alexander Kutukov
The Machlokes of Ula and Shmuel is where another person is Makdish the Korban for the person who is Chayav to bring it. "Memashkenin" relates to taking the Korban against his will from the person who is obligated to bring it. Please elaborate on how these two Halachos relate to each other and why Shmuel corresponds to the Mishnah.
D. Zupnik
The very point of a Gemoro is that the demands to daas baal a-korban in these two cases are the same: it's no matter to which person belongs the money and the question only is whether the person Rotzeh be-hakrovas ha-korban.
My statement that shitas Shmuel corresponds to Mishno is not my own hiddush - it is based on Tos. Arachin 21b DH Omar L'ho Shmuel. So from the Tos. I can realize why Shmuel argues with Ulo. But why Ulo argues with Shmuel? This is my question.
I'm sorry of my bad English - my native language is Russian and I never used to speak English. (You can write to me in Hebrew as well). And I have one more question - maybe more simple. Gemoro on 24b asks what does Rabby with the pundion. But the question is to be asked on shitas Rav on omud 1! Why the Gemoro waits to this point?
Sincerely,
Alexander
Let's analyze this Tosfos. Tosfos asks, why doesn't the Gemara say that Shmuel agrees with Ula (that Da'as is necessary during Kaparah)? This question clearly indicates that Ula's explanation is seemingly better, and it would be best if Shmuel agreed with Ula. One could suggest in Ula's favor that the Mishnah actually indicates Sha'as Kaparah, as it says "she'Ain Miskaper Lo Ad she'Yisratzeh," implying Kaparah (as does the Re'aim Horovitz on our Gemara). Tosfos answers that the Gemara itself holds that the Mishnah is probably talking about Sha'as Hafrashah, and therefore Shmuel's statement on our Mishnah must be talking about Sha'as Hafrashah. However, the Mishnah can be interpreted both ways. This is also obvious from the fact that the Gemara did not quote our Mishnah as a question on Ula.
Regarding 24b, the Gemara wanted to fully explain their positions before asking this type of question.
All the best,
Yaakov Montrose