ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
in memory of Reb David ben Aharon Ha'Levi Rosenwald z"l
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler of Kollel Iyun Hadaf
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
(a) We try to prove from the Pasuk in Melachim "Kamoni Kamocha, ke'Ami ke'Amcha" - that Yehoshafat did not segregate from Achav, but that he trusted him and his Shechitah (even though the latter was a Mumar la'Avodas Kochavim).
(b) We refute this proof however - on the basis of the continuation of the Pasuk "ke'Susai ke'Susecha", which can only be referring to the impending battle, and not to spiritual matters (and that is how we will interpret "Kamoni ke'Kamocha ... " as well).
(c) We ultimately learn it from the Pasuk there "u'Melech Yisrael vi'Yehoshafat Melech Yehudah Yoshvim ... ba'Goren, Pesach Sha'ar Shomron" - which means to compare the relationship of the two kings as cordial (like the Sanhedrin, which is called 'Goren', because they sat in a semi-circle, so that all the Dayanim could see each other).
(d) "Goren" cannot be understood literally - because the gates of Shomron were not a granary.
(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav comments on the Pasuk there "ve'ha'Orvim Mevi'im lo Lechem u'Basar ba'Boker ve'Lechem u'Basar ba'Erev" - that they brought the meat from the slaughter-house of Achav.
(b) There is no proof from there for Rava however, that 'Mumar le'Oso Davar Lo Havi Mumar' (as long as it is easily available [though it is unclear who examined the knives for Achav's Shochtim] see also Tosfos DH 'al-Pi ha'Dibur') - because Eliyahu ate the meat by Divine Command.
(a) Rav Ada bar Minyumi tries to disprove Ravina, who translates "Orvim" as 'ravens', from the Pasuk "Va'yahargu es Oreiv be'Tzur Oreiv ... " - where we see that Orev is the name of a person. In that case, perhaps here too, 've'ha'Orvim' refers to two men by the name of Oreiv.
(b) We reject this suggestion however - on the basis of the unlikelihood that both men would have been called by the same (unusual) name.
(c) Rebbi P'das explains the Pasuk that refers to the young Jewish girl captured by the Syrians as a "Na'arah Ketanah" (who cannot, at one and the same time, have been both a Na'arah and a Ketanah) as - a Ketanah from a town called 'Ne'uran'.
(d) We cannot, by the same token, translate "ha'Orvim" as 'the men from Oreiv' - because the Pasuk would then have written "ha'Orviyim" (with two 'Yudin').
(a) We already cited the Beraisa 'ha'Kol Shochtin va'Afilu Kuti, va'Afilu Areil, va'Afilu Mumar' earlier in the Sugya. We now try to prove Rav Anan Amar Shmuel ('Mumar la'Avodas Kochavim Lo Havi Mumar le'Chol ha'Torah Kulah') from 'va'Afilu Mumar' - since we already know 'Mumar le'Davar Echad' from 'va'Afilu Areil' (as we proved there), in which case 'va'Afilu Mumar' must refer to a Mumar la'Avodas Kochavim.
(b) We reject this proof however - because the Tana might be referring to a Mumar le'Oso Davar (who has been given a knife that has been examined, like Rava).
(c) A Mumar la'Avodas Kochavim might be worse than a Mumar le'Oso Davar' - because, as Mar said, Avodas Kochavim is particularly severe, since whoever denies it is considered as if he has accepted the entire Torah (and conversely, whoever accepts it, is considered as if he has denied the entire Torah).
(a) The Torah writes in Vayikra "Adam ki Yakriv Mikem Korban", from which the Beraisa learns - "Mikem", 've'Lo Kulchem, Lehotzi es ha'Mumar'.
(b) When the Tana adds "Mikem", 'Bachem Chilakti, ve'Lo ba'Umos', he means - that the above distinction only exists by a Yisrael, but not by a Nochri (who, we already know can bring Korbanos from "Ish", as we will learn later).
(c) The Tana interprets "min ha'Beheimah" allegorically as - people who are like animals (i.e. who sin without restraint).
(d) And he learns from here that one may accept Korbanos from sinners ('Posh'ei Yisrael') - with reference to a Mumar le'Davar Echad (to encourage them to do Teshuvah).
(a) In view of what we just explained, we interpret ...
1. ... the Reisha "Mikem" ... 'Lehotzi es ha'Mumar' - with regard to a Mumar le'Chol ha'Torah Kulah.
2. ... the Seifa 'Chutz min ha'Mumar, u'Menasech es ha'Yayin u'Mechalel Shabbasos be'Farhesya' - to read 'Chutz min ha'Mumar Lenasech es ha'Yayin ... '.
(b) The Beraisa - serves as a final proof against Rav Anan Amar Shmuel, in that 'Mumar la'Avodas Kochavim havi Mumar le'Chol ha'Torah Kulah'.
(a) In another Beraisa, the Tana Kama learns from the Pasuk in Vayikra (in connection with a Korban Chatas) "me'Am ha'Aretz", 'P'rat le'Mumar". Rebbi Shimon ben Yossi Amar Rebbi Yossi learns from the Pasuk there "Asher Lo Se'asenah bi'Shegagah ve'Ashem" - that anyone may bring a Chatas, provided he would have retracted had he known that what he was doing is forbidden (e.g. had he known that what he was eating was Cheilev, he would not have eaten it).
(b) Rav Hamnuna explains the ramifications of their Machlokes - with regard to a case where a Mumar Le'echol Cheilev ate Dam be'Shogeg. He is obligated to bring a Korban, according to Amar Rebbi Yossi, but forbidden to bring it, according to the Tana Kama.
(c) In spite of the fact that we already know from there that a Mumar cannot bring a Chatas, we nevertheless need the Pasuk "Mikem", 've'Lo Kulchem', to teach us that he cannot bring an Olah either. We would not know ...
1. ... Olah - (which comes as a mere gift), from Chatas - from which he is perhaps disqualified, because it comes as a Kaparah (of which he is not worthy).
2. ... Chatas - which is obligatory, from Olah - which is voluntary.
(d) The S'vara ...
1. ... on the one hand, to disqualify a Mumar from bringing an Olah is - that it is a disgracev for Hash-m to receive a gift from such a person (as the Pasuk writes in Mishlei "Zevach Resha'im To'eivah".
2. ... on the other hand, to obligate him to bring a Chatas (if not for the Pasuk that disqualifies him too) - to deprive the sinner of any financial benefit from his sin.
(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav interprets the Pasuk "Adam u'Veheimah Toshi'a Hash-m" to mean - that Hash-m will save those people who are wise like Adam ha'Rishon, but who make themselves small like an animal.
(b) To reconcile this with the Beraisa on Amud Alef, which Darshens "min ha'Beheimah" derogatively - we differentiate between here, where the Pasuk mentions 'Adam' together with "Beheimah", and there, where it does not.
(c) Regarding the Pasuk "Ve'zara'ti es Beis Yisrael Zera Adam ve'Zera Beheimah" ...
1. ... "Zera Adam" refers to - Talmidei-Chachamim, and ...
2. ... "Zera Beheimah" - to Amei-ha'Aretz, who have learned neither Chumash, nor Mishnah, not Gemara.
(d) And we reconcile this with the current Beraisa, which Darshens "Adam u'Veheimah Toshi'a Hash-m" positively - by pointing to the double "Zera", which divides between "Adam" and "Beheimah".
(a) Rav Chanan ... states in the name of bar Kapara - that Rabban Gamliel and his Beis-Din issued a decree forbiding the Shechitah of a Kuti.
(b) The Raban Gamliel to whom he is referring to is - Raban Gamliel the son of Rebbi.
(c) This does not mean that Raban Gamliel disagrees with our Mishnah (which validates the Shechitah of a Kuti, according to Abaye and Rava) - since the decree was issued after the ruling in the Mishnah.
(a) When Rebbi Zeira suggested that perhaps bar Kapara statement is confined to where there was no Yisrael watching him when he Shechted, Rav Ya'akov bar Idi - exclaimed in surprise that such a suggestion created the impression that Rebbi Zeira did not how to learn ...
(b) ... because if their Shechitah is not supervised, then, knowing their aversion to the La'av of 'Lifnei Iver', it is obvious that their Shechitah is Pasul, and does not require a special decree to forbid it.
(c) Whether or not, Rebbi Zeira accepted his objection - is the subject of the She'eilah that we are about to discuss.
(a) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak cites Rebbi Asi, who saw Rebbi Yochanan eat from the Shechitah of a Nochri, and he goes on to say - that Rebbi Asi did the same thing.
(b) They did that - either with a Yisrael watching them (incorporating 'Yotzei ve'Nichnas') or after handing him a piece of meat from his Shechitah and watching him eat it.
(c) Rebbi Zeira asks on this - whether they had perhaps not heard of Raban Gamliel and his Beis-Din's ruling, or whether they had, but disagreed with it.
(a) Rebbi Zeira concludes that they must have heard of the ruling, but disagreed with it is, because if they had not (but would have agreed if they had) - then it transpires that they sinned, and we have a principle that Hash-m does not bring a Takalah on Tzadikim (even an inadvertent one) ...
(b) ... 'Kal va'Chomer' from their animals, as we shall see later (in connection with the donkey of Rebbi Pinchas ben Ya'ir).
(c) This proves - that Rebbi Zeira must have accepted Rebbi Ya'akov's refutation of his suggestion, because if he hadn't, then he could have easily reconciled Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Asi with Raban Gamliel's ruling by establishing the former when a Jewish supervisor was present, and the latter, when he was not.