What does it mean that the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach is Mechaper on Arayos (Rashi)? Isn't it Mechaper on every Aveirah in the book, like the Mishnah says in Shevuos 2a?
Thanks!
Q. Reese, Atlanta, GA
The 'Bi'urei ha'Daf' cites the Gevuras Ari who asks your Kashya (or perhaps should I say that you ask his). Here are the two answers that he gives:
1. The Gemara is coming to tell us that the Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach is Mechaper on even such severe sins as Giluy Arayos (Yad David).
2. That the Gemara is not informing us per se what the Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach atones for, but rather refers to the Chidush of Tosfos in Megilah, who cites a Medrash that we Lein the Parshah of Arayos on Yom Kipur afternoon at Minchah as a hint that, just as He has warned Yisrael not to 'reveal their nakedness', so too will the 'nakedness' (i.e. the sins) of Yisrael not be revealed before Him, here too, sending the Se'ir to Az'azel.
I would have answered that of all the sins for which the Se'ir la'Azazel atones, this is the most common, in which case it incorporates all sins. As proof of this, the Chachamim use the word 'Aveirah' with specific reference to Giluy Arayos (though I cannot recall exactly where).
Be'Virchas Kol Tuv
Eliezer Chrysler
How do we know that giluy arayos is the "most common"? (As opposed to chillul Shabbos or a'vodeh zoro etc.)
The proof that I brought was meant to answer your question. Incidently, I found the location of the Gemara that I cited - it is in Rosh Hashanah (17a).
What I meant to say was that if the Gemara uses the word 'Aveirah' Stam, and assumes that we know what it means, it must be speaking about the most obvious (i.e. the most common) of all sins.
Having said that, it would seem to me that the facts speak for themselves, and need no further proof - particularly when we see how many times the Torah (not to speak of the Nevi'im) warns against Giluy Arayos. Remember also what Chazal say, that 'Yisrael only served Avodah Zarah in order to permit Giluy Arayos' (like we find by Ba'al Pe'or).
Nevertheless, I will bring an additional proof for this from the Rambam (cited by the Ramban at the end of Parshas Acharei Mos). The Rambam attributes the fact that half of the Chayvei Kares (18 out of thirty-six) are written in connection with Arayos, to the fact that the strong urge to sin in that regard requires a more powerful deterrent than other sins. The Ramban himself, who offers a different explanation, concedes that the Rambam is right too.
be'Virchas Kesivah va'Chasimah Tovah.
Eliezer Chrysler
See Chagigah 11b, which explicitly states the reasons for the frequency of Aveirah of Arayos. See also Bava Basra, end of 164b and beginning of 165a, concerning the frequency of the Aveirah of Arayos.
Without checking your references,I think there is one fundamental difference between "Arayos" and most other avaros-namely that one can NEVER undo a "Mamzer" no matter how much "T'suvah". It is perhaps for that reason that we have so much warnings against that avarah.
Does the Gemara that we just studied,about the "Yatzer Horo" being captured and no eggs being found prove your point?
Respectfully yours,
Naftoli