ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler of Kollel Iyun Hadaf
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
(a) Rebbi Hoshaya rules that someone who sets aside two Chata'os for Acharayus - picks one for his Chatas and the other one is Ro'eh.
(b) This cannot go like ...
1. ... the Rabbanan of Rebbi - who hold that 'ha'Mafrish le'Ibud La'av ke'Ibud Dami', how much more so if Mafrish le'Acharayus (as we learned earlier).
2. ... Rebbi Shimon - according to whom every Chatas she'Niskaprah Ba'alehah must die.
(c) In fact, Rebbi Hoshaya is going according to Rebbi, who concedes that a Chatas that has been designated le'Achrayus is Ro'ah.
(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon Omer, Im Karvah Sheniyah Kodem she'Nishchetah Rishonah, Tamus, she'Kevar Kiprah Ba'alehah'. We initially query Rebbi Hoshaya from there, because we think - that Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon follows the opinion of Rebbi, yet he holds Meisah, even though it was not designated for Ibud.
(b) And we answer - that he holds, not like Rebbi, but like his (Rebbi Elazar's) father (Rebbi Shimon), who holds 'Chamesh Chata'os Meisos', under all circumstances.
(c) We cited earlier the Mishnah in Yoma (in connection with the Sa'ir la'Azazel that died) which rules that the first Sa'ir la'Hashem is paired with the second Sa'ir la'Azazel, and the second Sa'ir la'Hashem is 'Yir'eh'. We extrapolate from there - that a Korban Tzibur under the same circumstances would die (even though it was not designated for Ibud, seeing as there was a choice of two such goats), a Kashya on Rebbi Hoshaya.
(d) And we answer that Rav follows his reasoning. In fact, he holds like Rebbi Yossi, who rules that if a lost Pesach is found after the owner already designated a second one - it is a Mitzvah to bring the original Pesach (as opposed to the Chachamim, who say that he can pick whichever one he pleases), rendering the second lamb a case of Mafrish le'Ibud.
(e) Likewise, the second Sa'ir is Mafrish le'Ibud, according to Rav, for exactly the same reason.
(a) The Beraisa cited by Rav Shimi bar Ziri states 'Avdah be'Sha'as Hafrashah le'Rebbi Meisah, le'Rabbanan Tir'eh'. The Tana then switches their rulings by 'Avdah be'Sha'as Kaparah - to 'le'Rabbanan Meisah, le'Rebbi Ro'ah'.
(b) Rav Papa queries this - on the basis of a 'Kal-va'Chomer', if where the Rabbanan hold Ro'ah, Rebbi holds Meisah, how much more so where they concede Meisah, will Rebbi hold Meisah, too.
(c) He therefore amends it to - 'be'Sha'as Kaparah, le'Divrei ha'Kol Meisah'.
(a) We learned in a Beraisa 'Ein Margilin be'Yom-Tov' - meaning that it is forbidden to skin an animal on Yom-Tov, starting from the foreleg (in a way that it remains whole) ...
(b) ... to make it into a bellows or to hold honey.
(c) One would otherwise cut the skin with a knife - starting from its throat, and through to its tail, via its belly, in flay to skin it.
(d) The Tana also forbids Hargalah - by B'chor and Pesulei ha'Mukdashin.
(e) Rav Chisda explains that he forbids it by B'chor, because he holds like Beis Shamai, who rules in a Mishnah in B'choros - that a Yisrael is not permitted to join a Kohen to eat a B'chor Pesulei ha'Mukdashin (that has been redeemed), a proof that according to them, a B'chor retains its Kedushah.
(a) The Tana of another Beraisa rules that someone who has two Chata'os, one a Tam, the other, a Ba'al-Mum - brings the Tam, and redeems the Ba'al Mum.
(b) If he Shechted the Ba'al-Mum ...
1. ... before the blood of the Tam has been sprinkled - then it is permitted.
2. ... after the Tam has been sprinkled - it is forbidden.
(c) Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon rules - that once the blood of the Tam is sprinkled, even if the Ba'al-Mum is already in the pot, it must be taken out to the Beis-ha'Sereifah and burned.
(d) Rav Chisda now establishes the ruling with regard to Pesulei ha'Mukdashin in the current Beraisa - like Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, who holds that they still retain their Kedushah, even after being redeemed.
(a) Rav Chisda establishes the ruling by B'chor, according to Beis Shamai, and not that of ...
1. ... Pesulei ha'Mukdashin - because unlike B'chor, they are not Kadosh from birth (so perhaps Beis Shamai will concede that they do not retain their Kedushah).
2. ... B'chor as well, according to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon - because unlike Pesulei ha'Mukdashin, it is not subject to Pidyon (as we have already learned, so perhaps Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon will agree ... ).
(b) The Mishnah in B'choros permits selling Pesulei ha'Mukdashin in the butchery and weighing it on regular scales - because it will fetch a better price if it is sold that way.
(c) We ask why Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon does not permit Hargalah too for the same reason. Rav Mari b'rei de'Rav Kahana answers that it will not fetch a better price at all - because in order to avoid tearing the skin, he will puncture the Basar instead (so what he gains at one end he loses at the other).
(a) In Eretz Yisrael in the name of Rav Mari b'rei de'Rav Avin they explained that the Chachamim forbade Hargalah, because making a pair of bellows looks like working with Kodshim. It is not considered working with Kodshim min ha'Torah - because the Isur of Avodah be'Kodshim only applies as long as the animal is alive.
(b) The third answer given by Rebbi Yossi bar Avin to explain why the Chachamim forbade Hargalah is - that the Chachamim were afraid that whilst waiting for a lucrative order for a pair of bellows before Shechting the animal, he will rear flocks of Kodshim animals.
PEREK EIN MA'ARIMIN
(a) Our Mishnah discusses how to circumvent the Mitzvah of Bechorah - which someone who is Chayav a Korban might want to do in order to use the B'chor to fulfill his obligation.
(b) Assuming that the mother is expecting its firstborn baby, he must then say - that if whatever is in its stomach is a male, it will be brought as an Olah.
(c) If he declares ...
1. ... 'Im Yaldah Nekeivah ... Zivchei Shelamim' - then it is brought as a Shelamim.
2. ... 'Im Zachar Olah, ve'Im Nekeivah, Shelamim, and it gives birth to a male and female (twins) - then the male is brought as an Olah, and the female, as a Shelamim.
(d) If, in the current case, the mother gives birth to ...
1. ... male twins - then one of them is brought as an Olah, and the other, is sold to someone who needs an Olah, and the proceeds are Chulin.
2. ... female twins - then the one is brought as a Shelamim, and the other one is sold to someone who needs a Shelamim and the proceeds are Chulin.
(e) The reason for these two rulings is - because on the one hand, he did say on a male 'Olah' and on a female 'Shelamim', whereas on the other, he only sanctified one animal, and not two.
(a) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel rules that if the mother gave birth to a Tumtum and Androginus - Kedushah does not take effect on them.
(a) Rav Yehudah - permits making a blemish on a B'chor before it is born.
(b) We query this however, from our Mishnah - 'Im Zachar, Olah ... ', from which we extrapolate that if he were to declares the B'chor in his animal's womb a Shelamim - it would not take effect (because, as opposed to Olah, which cannot be eaten, he is switching the B'chorah for a minor Kedushah).
(c) The Kashya on Rav Yehudah is - that if one is forbidden to exchange Kedushas B'chor for Kedushas Shelamim, then how much more so should it be forbidden to negate it altogether!
(d) To answer the Kashya, Rav Yehudah confined his concession to nowadays, where there is no Mizbe'ach, whereas our Mishnah is speaking about the time of the Beis-Hamikdash.
(a) The problem with establishing Rav by a B'chor nowadays is - that it appears to then be obvious that it is permitted to negate the Kedushas B'chor before it is born.
(b) And we answer that if not for Rav Yehudah, we might have been afraid - that the owner will effect the Mum after most of the head has emerged (in which case he will be guilty of making a Mum on Kodshim.
(c) And the reason that we are not afraid of that (on the assumption that he will take care to make the blemish before that stage), is - because the fear that if he does not effect a Mum now, he will work with the B'chor or shear its wool even without a blemish supercedes it.
(a) When our Mishnah says 've'Im Nekeivah, Zivchei Shelamim', it is referring, not to a B'chor, but to a case where the mother is Hekdesh (i.e. a Chatas).
(b) The owner is trying to circumvent the baby becoming a Chatas - to prevent it from having to die.
(c) His declaration of Shelamim, is effective - due to the principle that babies of Kodshim only become Kadosh when they are born.
(a) The problem with the subsequent ruling in our Mishnah 'Yaldah Sh'nei Zecharim' is - that if the mother is Hekdesh, then why does the second animal become an Olah, rather than adopt the same Kedushah as the mother.
(b) And we answer - that the Seifa is speaking with reference to a mother that is Chulin (like the Reisha did).