Re: Insights to the Daf: Pesachim 62
One question on the first answer and two questions on your second answers
(a) Question #1
If someone choose to transgress the lav of Ushmartem es nafshoseichem, would
that make him a mumar ? If yes, then nothing is accomplished the "Since" logic of Rav Chisda, since without the bris he is not a bar kapara because he is an arel, and with a bris he is not a bar kapara because he is a mumar.It therefore appears that he won't become a mumar. But why not?
(b) Question #2
You write in the second answer ( see underlined text below) and I quote;
>>We know that if one slaughters for a person (not the owner) who is not fit to eat the Pesach, this does not invalidate the Korban.<<
In what exact case does this statement apply ?
1) It can't apply when this person ( not the owner) is the only person for
which the korban was slaughtered, since our Mishna states that if one slaughters for a person, not the owner or not fit to eat or arel or tamey the korban is posul.
2) It can't apply if it was slaughtered for other persons qualified who owned the korban besides this person who did not owned it., since then even if this person was an Arel it would be kasher, as long as other qualified owners are part of the group for which the slaughtering was done.
3) I assume that the entire question of the gemara ( first line 61b), now revised by Rav Ashi ( last line 61b) was when he slaughtered lamolim owners al menas that only areilim not onwers get the kapara by the zrika and not in combination with the kapara for the qualified owners, because if it was with the combination then even by Shechita itself such a combination always work. ( Only before Rav Ashi's answer did Rav Chisda considered a combination by zerika as posul)
And on this case you are stating that "We know that if one slaughters for a person (not the owner) who is not fit to eat the Pesach, it doesn't not invalidate the Korban". Where does the gemara state that If one slaughters for an owner al menas that the kapara by the zrika is not for the qualified owner , but for someone else, fit or not fit to eat, that this does not invalidate the korban ?
It would appear that the answer of Rav Ashi applies equally for any other person who is not fit to eat the korban such as a Cholei or Zoken, who can also possibly one day get fit to eat when they feel better, or disobey the doctor's order , as in the first answer you gave, and thertefeore the arel in question, is probably the one whose brothers died because of mila, and who is very similar to the Cholei or Zoken.
(c) Question #3
When Rav Ashi states that according to Rav Chisda "Chaveiro dumia didei" means that he must be a bar kapara and since he could get a mila that makes him now a bar kapara, that is true even if he never gets a mila. Yet, if he truly never wants to get a mila and never got a mila that night of Pesach because this person was a real mumar, then he was already a real mumar at the time of zrika , and we don't say "Since if he wanted he could have been not a mumar , therefore he is a bar kapara now."
If so then, the only possible way Rav Chisda's logic of "Since" works, is in the case of Meisu Ochiv Machamas Mila when he is not a mumar now. My question therefore is : Do we ever find that a Mumar is a Bar Kapara ? If yes, then I retract my above comment.
In the meantime, I must express time and again how valuable your insights are to me and how I appreciate the depth of your explanations which I find each time more and more impressive. Chazak meyematz leshono tov shin nun teis . Thanks a trillion.
(a) Good question. The answer is that if the Arel, whose brothers died of Milah, chooses to transgress the Lav of protecting his life, this does not make him a Mumar to disqualify him from bringing the Korban Pesach. The Halachah is that a Mumar le'Davar Echad is not considered a Mumar le'Kol ha'Torah with regard to bringing the Korban Pesach. (In this case, he is not even considered a Mumar l'Davar Echad, because he only transgressed once , and he is not a consistent transgressor.)
(b) The statement that you cited from the Insights is clearly stated to be the opinion of Rabah according to Rav Ashi's understanding -- the Korban does not become Pasul if slaughtered with intention to do Zerikah (be Miskaper) for Arelim who are not owners, since they are not fit for Kaparah at all. (Even though Rav Ashi apparently holds that if it was slaughtered with intention to be Miskaper for Arelim who are owners, it is Pasul (end of 61b), nevertheless when it was done for Arelim who are not owners it is Kosher, as Tosfos points out in end of DH Ki Leis Lei.)
(c) Good point. However, I disagree with your assertion that if the Arel truly never wants to get a Milah and thus he is a real Mumar that we do not say "Since if he wanted he could have not been a Mumar, therefore his is a Bar Kaparah now." Even if he is a real Mumar now, he is still a Bar Kaparah, because all he is lacking is Teshuvah and not a Ma'aseh (in contrast to a Zaken and Choleh, at least according to Rav Ashi's understanding of Rabah). In addition, the fact that he is not circumcized at this moment does not make him a non-Bar Kaparah, because "it is in his hands to perform Milah," according to Rav Ashi. Even though such an Arel is lacking a Ma'aseh -- that is, Milah -- he is still a Bar Kaparah, so certainly a Mumar who is not lacking a Ma'aseh at all.
(One of our Avreichim did point out that perhaps the fact that an Arel Mumar has two things working against him -- he is lacking a Milah and he is lacking Teshuvah -- perhaps that makes him worse, which would support your assertion. However, it does not seem that we "combine" those two factors, since the lack of something which is not a Ma'aseh by itself is not considered significant at all.)