ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler of Kollel Iyun Hadaf
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
(a) We just cited Rav Huna Amar Rav, who said that both Rebbi and the Rabbanan agree that if the owner takes either the Avudah or the she'Einah Avudah and brings it, then the second one must die - and they argue in a case where they come to Beis-Din to ask what they should do (as we will explain shortly).
(b) According to Rebbi, we then instruct him to bring the she'Einah Avudah (and the Avudah dies); whereas the Rabbanan hold - that we instruct him to bring the Avudah (and the Einah Avudah is Ro'eh).
(c) The basis of their Machlokes is - whether the Chachamim made a Takanah to save Kodshim from having to die (the Rabbanan) or not (Rebbi, since strictly speaking, the Avudah is meant to die).
(a) In the case where the owner found the Chatas money that was lost, before he had a chance to purchase a Chatas with the replacement money, our Mishnah rules 'Yavi me'Eilu u'me'Eilu Chatas ... ' - implying that if he would do so with either set of money on its own, the other set would go to the Yam ha'Melach.
(b) Seeing as the opening cases in the Mishnah go according to the Rabbanan, the Tana could also have advised him to consult the Beis-Din, who would have instructed him to purchase the Chatas with the lost money (in which case the she'Einah Avudah would have gone to Nedavah).
(c) But he preferred the ruling that he gave - to save the owner the trouble of going to the Beis-Din for instructions.
(a) Rav Mesharshaya queries Rav Huna Amar Rav from a Beraisa that discusses the Pasuk (in connection with the Sheyarei Minchah) "ve'ha'Noseres Mimenah Yochlu Aharon u'Vanav ... ba'Chatzar Ohel Mo'ed Yochluhah". The Tana Darshens from the extra ...
1. ... "Yochlu" (of "Yochluhah") - that if the Kohanim receive only a small portion of Minchah, then they eat either Chulin or Terumah together with it.
2. ... the "hah" of the same word - that they have to eat it on its own, without Chulin or Terumah, with reference to a large portion of Minchah ...
(b) ... the former, in order that it should be eaten to satisfaction (like the Afikoman), and the latter, so that it should not be eaten with gluttony.
(c) In the former ruling, the Kohanim circumvent the Isur of bringing Chulin into the Azarah - by eating the Chulin first outside the Azarah (see also Tosfos DH 'Ochlin Imah')
(d) In answer to Rav Mesharshaya's Kashya, we reconcile this Beraisa with Rebbi, who holds that the Chachamim did not make a Takanah to preserve Kodshim - by establishing the author of the Beraisa as the Rabbanan.
(a) Rebbi Aba Amar Rav now holds that ...
1. ... even the Rabbanan will agree that if the owner received atonement via the Einah Avudah (even on the instructions of the Beis-Din), the Avudah has to die.
2. ... Rebbi and the Rabbanan argue over whether, if he brought the Avudah, the Einah Avudah dies ('Mafrish le'Ibud ke'Ibud Dami' [Rebbi]) or is Ro'eh (the Rabbanan ['Mafrish le'Ibud La'av ke'Ibud Dami']).
(b) On the previous Daf, we cited the Mishnah in Yoma (in connection with a case where the Sa'ir la'Azazel died and they took a second pair to find a partner for the Sa'ir la'Hashem) 'ha'Sheini Yir'eh ... ve'Yiplu Damav li'Nedavah'. From the fact that this is a Korban Tzibur, we extrapolate - that in the equivalent case by a Korban Yachid, the Chatas must die.
(c) Rav says 'Ba'alei Chayim Ein Nidachin' - to explain why the Sa'ir la'Hashem from the first pair is brought on the Mizbe'ach, in which case the Sa'ir la'Hashem of the second pair is a case of 'Mafrish le'Ibud'.
(d) The problem with this, according to the Rabbanan of Rebbi (based on the interpretation of Rebbi Aba Amar Rav) is - from the implication that we just made (that a Korban Yachid would have to die), seeing as they hold 'Mafrish le'Ibud La'av ke'Ibud Dami'.
(e) We therefore reconcile the Mishnah in Yoma with Rebbi Aba Amar Rav's interpretation of the Rabbanan - by establishing the author there as Rebbi and not the Rabbanan.
(a) Our Mishnah opens with 'ha'Mafrish Chatas ve'Avdah, ve'Hikriv Acheres Tachtehah Tamus', from which we can extrapolate - 'Ha Lo Hikrivah, Tir'eh (irrespective of which one he brought or whether he brought it on his own or consulted the Beis-Din (thereby creating a problem for both Rav Huna and Rebbi Aba).
(b) And we answer 'Milsa di'Pesika leih Katani, Milsa de'Lo Pesika leih Lo Katani', by which we mean - that the Tana only mentions 'Hikrivah' because there the Din is 'Tamus' with no exceptions (but by 'Lo Hikrivah' there are times when it is Tir'eh, according to Rav Huna in some cases, and according to Rebbi Aba, in others).
(c) By the same token, we can extrapolate from the subsequent ruling 'ha'Mafrish Ma'os le'Chatas ve'Avdu, ve'Hifrish Acherim ... Yavi me'Eilu u'me'Eilu' - that had he purchased the Chatas from either of them, the Din would have been 'Yolichem le'Yam ha'Melach', just as we extrapolated from the previous ruling (again posing a Kashya on both Rav Huna and Rebbi Aba).
(d) And we reconcile them with the Mishnah - by answering here once again - 'Milsa di'Pesika leih Katani ... ' (just as we answered the previous Kashya).
(a) Rebbi Ami issues a ruling in a case where someone designates two piles of money for Acharayus - meaning that one of the piles will be used for his Korban, the other one, as a sort of security, in case the first one is lost.
(b) And he rules - that he may use whichever pile he wants for his atonement, and the other one goes to Nedavah.
(c) This ruling is superfluous according to ...
1. ... Rebbi - who we already know, only rules Meisah in a case of 'Mafrish le'Ibud' (as we explained), but not by 'Mafrish le'Achrayus').
2. ... the Rabbanan - who hold even by 'Mafrish le'Ibud, Yiplu li'Nedavah', how much more so by 'Mafrish le'Acharayus'.
(a) So we establish Rebbi Ami like Rebbi Shimon, who rules in the second Perek that 'Chameish Chata'os Meisos' - under all circumstances, and that there is no such Din as Ro'eh (which is synonymous with Nedavah).
(b) Rebbi Ami now comes to teach us - that although there is no Din of Nedavah by the actual Chatas, there is by the money.
(c) We query this however, from a Mishnah in Yoma, which discusses the thirteen collecting-boxes in the Beis-Hamikdash. On six of them was written - Nedavah.
(d) The money inside was used for - Mosros (of Chata'os, Ashamos and wherever the Chachamim rule that the money goes to Nedavah).
(a) According to Rebbi Yehudah, the Kohanim did not receive the skins of these Mosros - which were sold and the proceeds used to purchase Olos for Kayitz ha'Mizbe'ach.
(b) Rebbi Nechemyah (or Rebbi Shimon) disagrees on account of the D'rashah of Yehoyadah ha'Kohen, who Darshened from the Pasuk in Vayikra "Asham hu, Ashom Asham la'Hashem" - that with the above Mosros one purchases Olos, whose Basar goes on the Mizbe'ach, whilst and the skin goes to the Kohanim.
(c) The problem with Rebbi Ami from there is that - seeing as Rebbi Shimon already teaches us that Nedavah does apply in certain circumstances, why do we need Rebbi Ami to teach us the same thing.
(d) And he answers that the Mishnah in Shekalim only teaches us 'one Seider' - where the owner designated one pile of money for his Chatas, which subsequently went down in price, leaving him some of the original money still intact after the purchase; but we need Rebbi Ami to extend Rebbi Shimon's ruling to 'two Sedarim' - where the owner designated two piles of money for Acharayus to begin with.