TEMURAH 20 (7 Av) - (7 Av) - Dedicated in memory of Dr. Simcha Bekelnitzky (Simcha Gedalya ben Shraga Feibush) of Queens, N.Y., Niftar 7 Av 5757, by his wife and daughters. G-d-fearing and knowledgeable, Simcha was well known in the community for his Chesed and Tzedakah. He will long be remembered.
1) DESIGNATING A FEMALE COW AS THE KOHEN GADOL'S KORBAN ON YOM KIPPUR
OPINIONS: The Mishnah earlier (19b) cites a dispute regarding a case in which one designated a female animal as an Asham (even though an Asham may be brought only from a male animal). The Rabanan rule that the animal must be put out to pasture until it develops a Mum, sold, and the proceeds used to buy an Asham. Rebbi Shimon rules that it may be sold immediately, without having to wait until it develops a Mum, and the proceeds used to buy an Asham.
The Gemara quotes a Beraisa in which Rebbi Shimon states that in the case of the Mishnah, and in a case in which one designates a female animal as a Korban Pesach, one cannot make a Temurah with the animal. He apparently maintains that these animals do not have Kedushas ha'Guf, and therefore Temurah does not take effect. However, he adds that if one designates a female animal as an Olas Behemah, the animal can be used to make Temurah. Why should that animal be able to make a Temurah if a female animal cannot be brought as an Olah? The Gemara suggests that since a female bird can be brought as an Olas ha'Of, a female animal can become Kadosh with Kedushas ha'Guf for an Olas Behemah as well.
The Gemara challenges this answer from the following case. If a Kohen Gadol designates a female cow (Parah) instead of a bull (Par) as his Korban for Yom Kippur, should the Parah become Kadosh with Kedushas ha'Guf merely because there exists such a thing as a "cow Korban," in the form of the Parah Adumah? The Gemara answers that the case of a Parah is different. A Parah Adumah has only the Kedushah of Bedek ha'Bayis, and therefore it does not enable any other Parah to become Kadosh with Kedushas ha'Guf.
Why does the Gemara assume that Rebbi Shimon maintains that such a cow (designated by the Kohen Gadol to be his Korban on Yom Kippur) would not have Kedushas ha'Guf? We do not find that Rebbi Shimon makes any such statement. Perhaps such a Parah indeed would become Kadosh with Kedushas ha'Guf according to Rebbi Shimon! The YAD BINYAMIN answers that the Gemara knows that Rebbi Shimon maintains that such a cow would not become Kadosh by virtue of the fact that the Beraisa lists three cases of a female being designated as a Korban for which it cannot be brought: an Olah, Asham, and Pesach. If designating a Parah was a similar case, then the Beraisa would have listed it as well.
It is clear, therefore, that Rebbi Shimon maintains that when the Kohen Gadol designates a Parah for his Korban, it does not become Kadosh with Kedushas ha'Guf. Is this true also according to the Rabanan? The Rabanan in the Mishnah (and Beraisa) maintain that a female animal designated as an Asham, or a Pesach, does have Kedushas ha'Guf. We never find that the Rabanan are lenient in such a case. What, then, is their opinion regarding a Parah designated by the Kohen Gadol?
(a) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashin 4:16-17) seems to rule like the Rabanan in general, and yet he rules that a Parah designated by the Kohen Gadol does not become Kadosh at all, not even with Kedushas Damim.
The LECHEM MISHNEH has difficulty with the Rambam's ruling. Why does the Gemara not ask a similar question on the opinion of the Rabanan? The Rabanan maintain that female animals designated inappropriately as Korbanos nevertheless become Kadosh with Kedushas ha'Guf. The Gemara should challenge their view, as it challenges the view of Rebbi Shimon, from the fact that this is not the Halachah in the case of a Parah designated by the Kohen Gadol as his Chatas!
The CHOK NASAN
answers that this is not a question according to the logic of the Rabanan. The Rabanan maintain that these animals are Kadosh because of the principle of "Migu d'Nachsa Lei Kedushas Damim, Nachsa Lei Kedushas ha'Guf" -- once an object becomes Kadosh with Kedushas Damim, it also can become Kadosh with Kedushas ha'Guf. (See Insights to Temurah 19:2
.) The Rambam maintains that when one inappropriately designates a Chatas, the animal receives no Kedushah at all, not even Kedushas Damim. Therefore, it is clear that the Rabanan would not say that a Parah designated by the Kohen Gadol should have the Kedushas ha'Guf of a Chatas.
In contrast, Rebbi Shimon's logic is that anything similar to a actual Korban can be considered to have Kedushas ha'Guf. This is why he states that a female animal can have the Kedushas ha'Guf of an Olah since an Olas ha'Of is female. Accordingly, the Gemara questions his opinion from the case of a Parah designated by the Kohen Gadol; the Parah should also have Kedushas ha'Guf because there is a Korban brought from a Parah, namely the Parah Adumah.
(b) The RA'AVAD (ibid. 4:18) argues that the Gemara's question is only according to Rebbi Shimon. According to the Rabanan, the Parah indeed would have Kedushas ha'Guf.
The Yad Binyamin points out that this position seems difficult. Why was the Gemara certain that Rebbi Shimon maintains that the cow would not have Kedushas ha'Guf? Why does the Gemara not consider the possibility that Rebbi Shimon agrees with the Rabanan in this case? The fact that Rebbi Shimon does not mention the case of a Chatas in the Beraisa is no proof, as mentioned earlier in the name of the Yad Binyamin, that this is the view of Rebbi Shimon. Perhaps in the Beraisa Rebbi Shimon is merely responding to the cases mentioned by the Tana Kama. The Yad Binyamin leaves this question unanswered. (Others, including the KESEF MISHNEH and MAHARI KURKUS, are troubled by other difficulties in the Ra'avad.) (Y. MONTROSE)
2) AN ARGUMENT REGARDING A "HALACHAH L'MOSHE MI'SINAI"
OPINIONS: The Mishnah states that the Temurah of an Asham and the offspring of an Asham are put out to pasture until they develop a Mum. They are then sold and the money is used for a Korban Nedavah. Rebbi Eliezer says that they are put to death.
RASHI (DH Temuras Asham) explains the reasoning of the Tana Kama as follows. The Gemara earlier (18a) says that there is a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai that in any case in which a Chatas is put to death, an Asham in the same case is left to graze until it gets a Mum. Since the Halachah of such a Chatas (a Temuras Chatas or Velad Chatas) is that it is put to death, the Tana Kama simply applies this Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai to the corresponding case of an Asham, and says that the Temuras Asham or Velad Asham is left to graze until it gets a Mum. When the Gemara earlier (18b) quotes this Mishnah, Rashi (DH Yamusu) explains the reasoning of Rebbi Eliezer as follows: Rebbi Eliezer argues that such an Asham should die because he derives from the verse, "ka'Chatas vecha'Asham" -- "... like the Chatas and like the Asham" (Vayikra 6:10), that the Halachos of an Asham are comparable to the Halachos of a Chatas (see Zevachim 10b).
Does this mean that Rebbi Eliezer argues with the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai of the Tana Kama and maintains that there is no such Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai?
(a) The TOSFOS YOM TOV says that it is not possible that Rebbi Eliezer argues with a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai. There is no argument about whether a certain law is a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai. Rather, when the Gemara earlier (18a) says that "Hilchesa Gemiri Lah" that when a Chatas dies, an Asham is put out to pasture, it does not mean (as the words usually imply) that this is a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai. Rather, it means that he received this Halachah through a tradition from his teachers.
However, the Tosfos Yom Tov points out that Rashi does not seem to agree with this explanation. Rashi (18b, DH Temuras Asham) writes explicitly that this is a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai.
The Tosfos Yom Tov therefore explains that Rebbi Eliezer agrees that there is a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai regarding Chatas and Asham. He understands, like the Tana Kama, that the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai precludes such an Asham from being offered on the Mizbe'ach. However, he argues with the Tana Kama and maintains that the final status of this animal is not that it must be left to graze, but rather that it must be put to death.
(b) The CHAVOS YAIR (#192), in his famous responsum regarding the concept of Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai, disagrees with the Tosfos Yom Tov's opinion. He asserts that there can be an argument about whether a Halachah was said to Moshe Rabeinu at Har Sinai. Based on various sources in the Gemara, the Chavos Yair establishes a general rule for how one can determine whether the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai being discussed can be disputed by other Tana'im: if the Tana is quoted as stating explicitly that a certain law is a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai, then no one may argue. If the Tana says a Halachah, and the Gemara (not the Tana himself) explains that his source is a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai, then other Tana'im may argue with this. Accordingly, the Mishnah here is clear; the Tana Kama maintains that there is a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai that in a case in which a Chatas is killed, an Asham is left to graze, while Rebbi Eliezer maintains that there simply is no such Halachah. (Y. MONTROSE)