ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler of Kollel Iyun Hadaf
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
(a) The Tana presents ...
1. ... the five Chata'os ha'Meisos in two groups ('V'lad Chatas, Temuras Chatas and Chatas she'Meisah Ba'alehah' in one group, and she'Ibrah Shenasah and ve'Nimtza'as Ba'alas-Mum' in the other) - because the first group is unconditional (i.e. even if the owner did not yet obtain an atonement, as we just learned in the Mishnah), whereas the second, is not.
2. ... the entire Mishnah both here and in Me'ilah - because here it is concerned primarily with the Din of Temurah, and mentions the Din of Me'ilah by the way; whereas in Me'ilah, it is the other way round.
(a) Resh Lakish rules - that a Chatas whose year passed is Ro'eh (as if it was a Chatas in a graveyard, to which the Kohen has no access).
(b) The problem with Resh Lakish's ruling is - that our Mishnah learns (in connection with the second group, which includes Chatas she'Ibrah Shenasah) 'Im Achar she'Kipru Ba'alim, Tamus'.
(c) We initially answer that 'Im mi'she'Kipru ha'Ba'alim Tamus' refers exclusively to 'she'Avdah ... ', but not to 'she'Ibrah Shenasah', which is inadequate however - because why does the Tana then insert 'Ibrah Shenasah' in the Mishnah at all (as we will ask later).
(d) This leaves us with a Kashya from the Seifa 've'Im ad she'Lo Kipru ha'Ba'alim, Tir'eh ad she'Tista'ev ... ' - because if it pertains exclusively to 'she'Avdah ... ' (and not to 'Ibrah Shenasah') - then why does the Tana add 'Tir'eh ad she'Tista'ev ... ' (seeing as it already has a blemish)?
(a) Rabah tries to solve the problem by establishing 'Ba'alas Mum' as - a temporary blemish, in which case 'Tir'eh ad she'Tista'ev ... ' means that the Chatas must graze until it obtains a permanent Mum.
(b) Rava raises two objection to Rabah's explanation however. Firstly, he asks, the Tana ought then to have said 'Yishmor' (he should wait) - to see whether the temporary blemish turns into a permanent (one something that is evidently not uncommon).
(c) Rava's second objection is - why the Tana then inserts 'Ibrah Shenasah' in our Mishnah at all, seeing as it does not conform with the other rulings there.
(d) To accommodate Resh Lakish therefore, Rava amends the Mishnah to read 'Ibrah Shenasah ve'Avdah, O Avdah ve'Nimtza'as Ba'alas-Mum', in which case it must die - because it has two disadvantages (it passed its year and got lost) - whereas Resh Lakish is speaking about a Chatas that passed its year but did not get lost.
(a) The Tana finds it necessary to teach us both cases of Avdah, because had he only inserted the Din of Avdah and ...
1. ... Ibrah Shenasah, we would have thought - that Aveidah helps to seal the fate of the Chatas for Misah there, only because even before it became lost, it was no longer fit to bring as a Chatas (due to a P'sul ha'Guf), whereas a Ba'alas-Mum, which before it became lost, was basically fit to bring as a Chatas (and it is only because of a P'sul Chesaron that it could not in fact, be brought), would be permitted via 'Ro'eh'.
2. ... Nimtza'as Ba'al-Mum, we would have thought - that Aveidah helps to seal its fate for Misah there, only because it is no longer fit to bring as a Korban at all, but a Chatas whose year passed (which is still fit to bring as another type of Korban other than a Chatas), Aveidah will not seal its fate.
(b) Rava rules that if a Chatas got lost during the night 'it does not become Pasul' (since it is not eligible to go on the Mizbe'ach at that time anyway).
(c) We reconcile this with his previous ruling, that Avudah of Ibrah Shenasah and of Nimtza'as Ba'alas-Mum of a Chatas seals its fate for Misah - in that night-time is not fit even for the animal's Damim to be brought on the Mizbe'ach at all, whereas both Ibrah Shenasah and a Ba'alas-Mum are (had they not got lost).
(a) We query Rava however, from the Mishnah in Yoma, which rules that if the Sa'ir la'Azazel dies, they bring another pair of goats, on which they draw lots to determine which one goes to Azazel. The second goat is - 'Yir'eh'.
(b) Rebbi Yochanan explains that in fact, they bring the second goat of the second pair for the Sa'ir la'Hashem, rather than of the first pair - because he holds 'Ba'alei Chayim Nidachin' (live animals can be permanently rejected), thereby disqualifying the latter from the Mizbe'ach.
(c) We can extrapolate from the Tana, who says that the reason that the disqualified goat does not die is because 'Ein Chatas Tzibur Meisah' - that had it been a Chatas Yachid, it would have had to die ...
(d) ... even though it was not lost, and there are no two disadvantages (creating a problem for Rava, who requires two disadvantages for the Chatas to die.
(a) To solve the problem, we draw a distinction between Avudin alone - which do not die, and Dechuyin alone which do - because whereas the owner's mind remains on the former (in the hope that they will be found), there is no reason why his mind should remain on the latter.
(b) Resh Lakish does indeed require Avudin together with Ibrah Shenasah (which is Dechuyin) - but Rava disagrees with him.
(a) We cited Rava, who holds 'Avudah de'Laylah Lo Sh'mah Avudah'. We initially think that he cannot be saying this according to the Rabbanan - who hold 'Avudah be'Sha'as Hafrashah (at the time when the owner designated the replacement) Ro'ah' even if it got lost by day.
(b) So we initially establish Rava like Rebbi, who holds - 'Avudah be'Sha'as Hafrashah Meisah' (but not Avudah ba'Laylah).
(c) Alternatively, we establish his ruling like the Rabbanan - and he is speaking about 'Avudah be'Sha'as Kaparah' (where the Rabbanan concede 'Meisah' [but not ba'Laylah]).
(d) Despite the fact that there is no Kaparah at night-time - what Rava means is that if it got lost at night-time and was not found until after the Kaparah, it is called Avudas Laylah and the Chatas is Ro'ah.
(a) Abaye says that Genuvah or Gezulah be'Sha'as Kaparah - is not the same as Avudah (and is Ro'ah).
(b) Rebbi Oshaya defines 'Avudah' as a Chatas that is mixed up in the flock and unidentifiable - even if there is only one other sheep in the flock.
(c) Rebbi Yochanan defines 'Avudah' as - 'lost' behind the door, and one cannot see it.
(a) We ask whether, according to Rebbi Yochanan, this incorporates outside, by which he means - that the Chatas went into the desert and 'got lost' in somebody else's flock, who does not recognize it.
(b) This might not be considered Avudah, even though behind the door is - because at least someone can see it (or because he himself can see all the animals [even though he does recognize which is his] though according to this explanation it must be speaking about a flock that is close by).
(c) On the other hand, outside might be even worse than behind the door - where he could just peep behind the door and he would see it, whereas in this case, he cannot see it at all.
(d) Rav Papa takes for granted that if the Chatas is Avudah from the owner but not from the shepherd, and certainly vice-versa, it is not considered 'Avudah'. He is not so certain however - in a case where the Chatas is Avudah from both the owner and the shepherd, only someone somewhere in the world, knows where it is.
(e) The outcome of both She'eilos is -Teiku.
(a) When Rav Papa asks 'Avudah be'Kos Mahu', he is referring to - where the lost Chatas is found after the replacement has already been Shechted and the blood is in the bowl ready to sprinkle.
(b) We initially think that the She'eilah cannot go according to Rebbi - because, since the Chatas was lost at the time that the second animal was designated, the first Chatas must die (like Rebbi holds in all cases).
(c) And it is according to the Rabbanan that Rav Papa thinks that perhaps, even though the Kaparah has not yet taken place, the Chatas may have to die - because of the principle 'Kol ha'Omeid Lizarek ke'Zaruk Dami' (seeing as the blood is already in the bowl ready to sprinkle, it is as if it has already been sprinkled), and the Chatas must therefore die.
(a) Alternatively, we establish the She'eilah even according to Rebbi, but in a case where the Kohen received the blood of the one Chatas in two bowls, and one of them got lost and was only found after the first one had been sprinkled. Rav Papa now asks -whether the blood in the other bowl is poured on to the Y'sod of the Mizbe'ach (like other Shirayim [leftovers]), or into the 'Amah (the stream that flowed through the Azarah) like other Pasul blood.
(b) It is not feasible to learn the She'eilah with regard to whether the Korban is Kasher or not - because since the blood in the other bowl remains fit to sprinkle, there is no reason to disqualify it.
(c) The She'eilah does not go according to the opinion in Yoma that one Kos renders the other Kosos Dachuy (rejected). The case there is - where the Kohen received the blood of a Chatas in four bowls, and promptly made all four Matanos on the Mizbe'ach from the blood in one of the bowls.
(d) The blood in the other three Kosos - had to be poured into the Amah.
(a) The She'eilah therefore goes according to the opinion that holds that one Kos renders the other Kosos Shirayim, in which case they are poured on to the Y'sod, and the reason Rav Papa then thinks that the Din in the current case might be different is - because unlike the case there, the blood in the remaining bowl was not available at the time that the blood in the first bowl was sprinkled.
(b) The outcome of the She'eilah is - 'Teiku'.
(a) Our Mishnah rules, in a case where after its replacement has already been brought on the Mizbe'ach ...
1. ... the Chatas that got lost is found - 'Tamus'.
2. ... the lost money that one originally designated for one's Chatas is found - 'Yolichem le'Yam ha'Melach'.
(b) The Tana also rules that if someone loses the money that he designated for his Chatas, and finds it before he manages to purchase a Chatas with the replacement money - he purchases his Chatas out of the combined monies, and the money that is leftover goes to Nedavah.
(c) If the lost money was found only after he had already purchased his Chatas - he would have to throw it into the Yam ha'Melach.
(d) And if he lost the money that he designated for his Chatas and found it again before he had managed to bring the replacement Chatas on the Mizbe'ach, assuming that the Chatas was found to be ...
1. ... a Tam - the Chatas would go on the Mizbe'ach and the money to the Yam ha'Melach.
2. ... a Ba'al-Mum - it would have to be sold, and out of the proceeds plus the lost money he would purchase a Chatas, whilst the leftovers would go to Nedavah.
(e) The author of the current rulings is - Rebbi (who holds 'Avudah be'Sha'as Hafrashah, Meisah').
(a) The Tana rules that in a case where both the Chatas which he lost and found after designating a replacement, and the replacement were found to be ...
1. ... Ba'alei-Mumin - both animals are sold and the proceeds used to purchase a Chatas; the leftovers go to Nedavah.
2. ... Temimin, according to Rebbi - one of them goes on the Mizbe'ach, the other Tamus.
3. ... Temimin, according to the Chachamim - one of them goes on the Mizbe'ach, the other, Tir'eh.
(b) They will hold ...
1. ... Meisah by a Chatas that got lost - if it is found after the replacement has been brought on the Mizbe'ach.
2. ... Holchin le'Yam ha'Melach by the money for a Chatas that got lost - if the money is found after the Chatas has been purchased and brought on the Mizbe'ach.
(c) The Mishnah rules that a Chatas that one designated and then found to be a Ba'al-Mum - must be sold and the proceeds used to purchase one's Chatas.
(d) Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon rules that if the replacement Chatas has been Shechted before the first one (that was lost and found) has been Shechted to be eaten - then the latter is still considered a Chatas she'Kipru Ba'alehah and must die.
(a) The author of ...
1. ... the opening case of the Mishnah, which rules that the lost Chatas is Meisah provided the replacement Chatas has been brought is - the Rabbanan of Rebbi.
2. ... the subsequent case, where the designated money that was lost is found before a Chatas has been purchased with the replacement money, implying that ... is - Rebbi (as we explained in our Mishnah).
(b) The problem with this is - that the Seifa cites their Machlokes specifically, so why does the Tana find it necessary to first present the Machlokes without names.
(c) And we answer that the Mishnah first presents the two opinions in this way, and then adds that this is a Machlokes between Rebbi and the Rabbanan (citing it in detail).
(a) In fact, we could establish the Seifa like the Rabbanan too, according to Rav Huna Amar Rav - according to whom the Rabbanan will concede 'Meisah' whenever the owner takes one of them and bring it on the Mizbe'ach (demonstrating that he has rejected the other one) ...
(b) ... even if it is the Avudah that he brought and it is the Einah Avudah that is left.
(c) And it is according to Rebbi Aba Amar Rav that we need to establish the Mishnah according to two Tana'im - because according to him, the Rabbanan argue with Rebbi in a case where the Avudah is found before the Einah Avudah has been brought (even if it is subsequently brought).
(d) The Rabbanan concede however - that Misah applies in a case of Avudah be'Sha'as Hafrashah if the owner brought the Einah Avudah and the Avudah is the one that is left (and the reason that we did not establish the latter case like this, even according to the Rabbanan, is because the Tana implies that if the owner brought either one it is Meisah (and not just the Einah Avudah).