More Discussions for this daf
1. Kerisus dafim 25b, 4b, & 20b. Blood/"sheretz" &"kaparah gemurah" 2. Ashamos

Daniel Gray asked:

Mishnah- Kresus 20b- according to the "rabanan", there is "kareis" only for the blood that is the "dam hanefesh". Rashi brings a posuk that calls the blood "nefesh". The gemorah in Shabbos says on opinion as to why Shochet is an "av melachah" is b/c of "netilas neshama" and Rashi says on Shabbos 107a an opinion that "chovel" is "chayiv" as a "toldah" of "shochet". It is explained that "chovel" is considered "netilas neshama", even though the animal isn't killed. b/c of pesukim that call the "nefesh" "dam". If so, these two different "halachos"- getting "kareis" for eating blood" and being "chovel" on Shabbos seem to stem from the same source. If so, shouldn't the application of the posuk's revelation that dam=nefesh be applied equally in both instances to produce a result that "chovel" should only be"chayiv" if blood that is life-blood- that the animal will die from if it is released- is let out during the action of "chovel". yet, this isn't true. Why not?

Also, on Kreisus 4b- "ka mashma lan kol meili dein damo chaluk mbsiaro mashma" - for "shrazim" their bolld is not considered blood, but rather "sheretz" itself, as further evidenced by Kreisus daf 21b- if they gave one "hasraah" for "dam" of a "sheretz", one is not "lokeh"; only if they warned one of the "eisur" of "sheretz", is one "lokeh" for eating a "sheretz's" blood. If so, why in Shabbos 107a ("Shmoneh Sheratim"), is a person "chayiv" for "chovel" on a "sheretz" (a type which has a hide, according to those who are "mepharish" that "chovel" is a "toldeh" of "shochet" and is "netilas neshama" b/c "dam"="nefesh", for no blood has been let! The gemara says that a sheretz's blood is not "dom", but rather "sheretz" and the gemara explicitly states that an extra pasuk teaches that this rule applies across the board- by virtue of having an extra posuk- it teaches that this applies to "kol medie", i.e., all halchos concerning a shertz's blood.

Last, a question in understanding plian pshat in today's daf (25b): R"E holds that an "asdham talui" may be brought for a "lav", like "nevaileh" and the gemara deduces that R"E therefore holds that an "asham talui" forgives entirely. Rashi explains the logic: the proof is that he doesn't need to bring a "chatas" when he finds out for sure that he ate "nevailah". In Rashi just a few lines down from that, Rashi cites "nevailah" as an example of "chateim delav bnai karban" (and Yom Kippur is "mechapair"). So even if someone knew for sure that he ate "nevailah", he wouldn't bring a "chatas". If so, what is the proof that R'E holds that an "asham talui" forgives entirely by virtue of his not needing to bring a sacrafice when he finds out his sin- for such sacrifice is never brought!?

Daniel Gray, Toronto, Canada

The Kollel replies:

Your questions are excellent questions. Starting with your last question ("mid'Salik Minei"): I think that the meaning of "Kaparah Gemurah" means only that there is no further need for a Korban. R. Eliezer also holds that when he is Noda after the Asham Taluy that he did a Chayavei Kerisus, he brings a Chatas; however, he holds that there is an Asham Taluy which is Mechaper totally, which means that there is no further need to bring another Korban. That is the case of Neveilah.

Your first two questions are based on the premise that the fact that Chovel is considered Netilas Neshamah is because "Dam = Nefesh" as derived from the verse of "Ki ha'Dam." However, the Gemara does not cite this Limud; it is Rabeinu Tam who suggests it, when commenting on the Gemara in Kesuvos (5b) and Shabbos (75a). In order to avoid the problem of Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah by saying that Chovel is Netilas Neshamah since it weakens the subject, Rabeinu Tam is Mechadesh that letting blood is Netilas Neshamah in its own right, because "Dam = Nefesh." However, surely Rabenu Tam does not mean that it is a Limud from the Pasuk, for it is doubtful that Dam Besulim can be considered Dam sheha'Neshamah Yotzes Bo, even if we say Mivla Bli'a. Rather, Rabeinu Tam is infering from the Pasuk that taking Dam can be considered taking Nefesh. Even so, he need not learn the Mi'ut of "Dam sheha'Nefesh Yotzei Bo" for it is not a Limud from the Pasuk.

D. Zupnik