YOMA 68 (8 Tamuz) - The Zechus of today's Dafyomi study is dedicated to the memory of Dr. Moshe Gottlieb z'l, who healed the sick of Jerusalem and Israel with Chesed, on the day of his Yahrzeit. Dedicated by his loving wife, children and grandchildren.

1)

TOSFOS DH k'Shem she'Pirsho b'Kirbi Kach Besaro b'Kirbo

úåñôåú ã"ä ëùí ùôøùå á÷øáå ëê áùøå áòåøå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how we learn that we leave the meat in the skin.)

- ôéøù"é åàéú÷ù ùøéôä ìäåöàä

(a)

Rashi's opinion: There is a Hekesh between Sereifah and Hotza'ah.

åúéîä ìé åäà á÷ãùéí àéï ìîéãéï äé÷ù îäé÷ù

(b)

Question: In Kodshim, something learned from a Hekesh cannot teach through a Hekesh!

åäëà ëéåï ãäåöàä âåôä ìîéãéï áäé÷ù îãàéú÷ù òåø åáùø ìôøù äéëé äãø úå âîøéðï îéðä ùøéôä áäé÷ù

1.

Since Hotza'ah itself is learned from a Hekesh, since skin and meat are Hukash to Peresh (excrement), how can we learn Sereifah from it through a Hekesh?

åàéï ìúøõ ëéåï ãðùøôéï çåõ ìùìù îçðåú ìà çùéáé òåø åáùø ùìäí ÷åãù ìòðéï æä ùìà éçæøå åéìîãå áäé÷ù àìà çåæøéï ùôéø åîìîãéï áäé÷ù

2.

Suggestion: Since they are burned outside of three Machanos, their skin and meat are not considered Kodesh regarding this, that they should not be able to teach through a Hekesh. Rather, they can teach through a Hekesh.

ãäà áô' àéæäå î÷åîï (æáçéí ãó ð.) îééúé äà áøééúà ãäëà åâîø îéðä ãáø äìîã áâ"ù çåæø åîìîã áâ"ù á÷ãùéí

3.

Rejection: In Zevachim (50a), we bring this Beraisa, and learn from it that something learned from a Gezeirah Shavah can teach through a Gezeirah Shavah in Kodshim!

àìà éù ìåîø ãùøéôä âåôä àéú÷ù ìôøù ëùí ùôøùå á÷øáå áùòú ùøôä ëê áùøå áòåøå

(c)

Answer: We can say that Sereifah [of the meat] itself is Hukash to Peresh. Just like the Peresh is inside at the time of Sereifah, also the meat is in the skin;

ãåùøó ÷àé òì òåøå åáùøå (âéøñú äøù"ù) åøàùå åëøòéå å÷øáå åôøùå ùùåøó äëì åëùí ùôøùå á÷øáå ãâðàé äéä ìùøåó äôøù áôðé òöîå àó áùøå áòåøå

1.

"V'Saraf" applies to its skin, meat, head, feet, innards and Peresh. He burns all of them. Just like the Peresh is inside, for it would be disgraceful to burn the Peresh by itself, also the meat is in the skin;

îéäå éëåìðé ìééùá ôéøù"é.

(d)

Defense: However, I can resolve Rashi's opinion. (Si'ach Yitzchak - the Limud from Hotza'ah is not a Hekesh, rather, a Giluy Milsa. Just like the meat is in the skin at the time of Hotza'ah, also at the time of Sereifah.)

2)

TOSFOS DH Ten Lo Machaneh Shelishis

úåñôåú ã"ä úï ìå îçðä ùìéùéú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the source for matters that must be outside of three Machanos.)

- úéîä áôø äòãä îðìï ùìù îçðåú

(a)

Question #1: What is the source for three Machanos for Par ha'Edah (Helam Davar)?

àé îôø ëäï îùéç

1.

Suggestion: We learn from Par Kohen Mashi'ach.

äà àéäå âåôéä âîø áäé÷ù îãùï åãáø äìîã áäé÷ù àéðå çåæø åîìîã áäé÷ù

2.

Rejection: We learn Par Kohen Mashi'ach from a Hekesh from ashes. Something learned from a Hekesh cannot teach through a Hekesh!

åìîàï ãàîø äéîðå åãáø àçø ìà äåé äé÷ù ðéçà

(b)

Answer #1: According to the opinion that something learned from a Hekesh and something else is not considered a Hekesh (so it can teach through a Hekesh), this is fine;

ãàâá ãâîøé îéðéä îçðä äëúåá áå âîøéðï ðîé îçðä ãâîø áäé÷ùà

1.

Since we learn from it (Par Kohen Mashi'ach) the Machaneh written regarding it, we learn from it also the Machaneh we learned for it from a Hekesh.

åëï ÷ùä áôø÷ ðâîø äãéï (ñðäãøéï ãó îá:) ãéìéó î÷ìì ãñ÷éìúå çåõ ìùìù îçðåú îâæéøä ùåä ãôøéí äðùøôéí

(c)

Question #2: In Sanhedrin (42b), we learn that the Mekalel (blasphemer) was stoned outside of three Machanos from a Gezeirah Shavah to Parim ha'Nisrafim.

åàîàé åäà ãáø äìîã áäé÷ù àéðå çåæø åîìîã áâæéøä ùåä

1.

Something learned from a Hekesh cannot teach through a Gezeirah Shavah!

ìîàï ãàîø áàéæäå î÷åîï ãáúø îìîã àæìéðï àò"â ãìîã çåì äåà

2.

This is difficult according to the opinion in Zevachim that it depends on the source. (If the source is Kodshim, we may not learn), even if the Nilmad (what is learned) is Chulin.

åëï áùîòúà ã÷àîø ìäìï àúä ðåúï ìäí ùìù îçðåú åëàï îçðä àçú ôéøåù äà âîøé îäããé áâ"ù ãçèàú çèàú áùéìäé äúòøåáú (æáçéí ãó ôâ.)

(d)

Question #3: In our Sugya, we say "there you give three Machanos, and here [only] one Machaneh! I.e. we learn them from each other through a Gezeirah Shavah Chatas-Chatas in Zevachim 83a.

å÷ùä åäà ãáø äìîã áäé÷ù àéðå çåæø åîìîã áâæéøä ùåä

1.

Something learned from a Hekesh cannot teach through a Gezeirah Shavah!

åëï ÷ùä ìø' ùîòåï ãâîø ôøä îôø éåí äëôåøéí çåõ ìùìù îçðåú áâæéøä ùåä åôø éåí äëôåøéí âåôéä áäé÷ù îôø ëäï îùéç ëãôéøù øù"é

(e)

Question #4: R. Shimon learns Parah [Adumah] from Par Yom Kipur, that it is outside of three Machanos. Par Yom Kipur itself we know through a Hekesh from Par Kohen Mashi'ach, like Rashi explained!

îããøùé ìôø æä ôø éåí äëôåøéí ãàéú÷ù áääåà ÷øà ìôø ëäï îùéç åìôø äòìí

1.

We expound "Par" to be Par Yom Kipur, which is Hukash in the verse to Par Kohen Mashi'ach and Par Helam.

åá÷øà àçøéúé ãëúéá åàú ôø äçèàú åàú ùòéø äçèàú ùàéï úìîåã ìåîø äçèàú äçèàú àìà äçèàú éúéøà ìùàø ðùøôéï äåà ãàúà äøé àéú÷ùå ìäããé

2.

Another verse says "v'Es Par ha'Chatas v'Es Se'ir ha'Chatas." The word ha'Chatas is repeated to teach about other Korbanos that are burned. They are Hukash to each other.

åëì ùëï ã÷ùä èôé äëà ãâîø ôøä áâæéøä ùåä îôø éåí äëôåøéí åôø éåí äëôåøéí áäé÷ù îôø ëäï äîùéç ãàéäå âåôéä éìéó áäé÷ù

3.

All the more so this is difficult! Here he learns Parah from a Gezeirah Shavah from Par Yom Kipur, and Par Yom Kipur from a Hekesh from Par Kohen Mashi'ach, which itself was learned from a Hekesh!

áùìîà îæøçä ùì éøåùìéí ãâîø éåí äëôåøéí îôøä îöé äãø ìîéâîø îéðéä (äâäú øé"à çáø, åëòéï æä äâéä äøù"ù) ôø ëäï îùéç ìøá ôôà ãôø÷ àéæäå î÷åîï ãàîø áúø îìîã àæìéðï

4.

Granted, regarding to the east of Yerushalayim, he learns Yom Kipur from Parah. He can then learn from it Par Kohen Mashi'ach, according to Rav Papa in Zevachim, who says that it depends on the source;

åîìîã çåìéï äåà ãôøä ÷ãùé áã÷ äáéú äéà

i.

The source is Chulin, for Parah is Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis.

àáì äéëé îìîã éåí äëôåøéí òì ôøä ëéåï ãîìîã ÷åãù äåà

5.

However, how can Yom Kipur teach about Parah? The source is Kodesh!

åéù ìåîø ãôø éåí äëôåøéí åôø ëäï îùéç ìà áäé÷ù âîøé áäããé

(f)

Answer: We do not learn Par Yom Kipur and Par Kohen Mashi'ach from each other through a Hekesh;

àìà áâæéøä ùåä ãòåø åáùø åôøù ëãìòéì àå áâ"ù ãäçèàú äçèàú îäããé ãáëåìäå ëúéá äçèàú

1.

Rather, we learn through a Gezeirah Shavah "Ohr, Basar and Peresh", like above, or through a Gezeirah Shavah "ha'Chatas-ha'Chatas." It says "ha'Chatas" regarding all of them.

åìà ëîå ùôéøù øù"é ãäé÷ù äåà

2.

This is unlike Rashi said, that it is a Hekesh.

åäùúà ðéçà ãäåä ìéä ãáø äìîã áâæéøä ùåä çåæø åîìîã áâæéøä ùåä

3.

Now it is not difficult. This is something learned from a Gezeirah Shavah, which can teach through another Gezeirah Shavah.

åôø äòìí ðîé ìîàï ãàîø äéîðå åãáø àçø äåé äé÷ù ìàå áäé÷ù éìéó àìà áâæéøä ùåä ãäçèàú äçèàú

(g)

Answer #2 (to Question #1): Also Par Helam Davar, according to the opinion that something learned from a Hekesh and something else is considered a Hekesh, is not learned from a Hekesh, rather, from a Gezeirah Shavah "ha'Chatas-ha'Chatas."

1.

Note: The Maharsha does not understand how this helps. One Machaneh of Par Kohen Mashi'ach was learned from Terumas ha'Deshen through a Hekesh. It cannot teach to Par Helam Davar through a Gezeirah Shavah!

åàôéìå ìø' îàéø ãôìéâ áñ"ô äúòøåáåú (âí æä ùí) àääåà ãøùà ãçèàú å÷àîø àéðå öøéê äøé äåà àåîø ìëôø ëå' ìàå îùåí ãìéú ìéä âæéøä ùåä

2.

Even according to R. Meir, who says in Zevachim that we do not need the Drashah "Chatas", for it says Lechaper..., this is not because he does not learn the Gezeirah Shavah;

àìà ä"÷ àéðå öøéê âæéøä ùåä ìèåîàú áâãéí ãî÷øà ãìëôø ðô÷à

i.

Rather, he means that we do not need the Gezeirah Shavah for Tum'as Begadim, for we learn it from "Lechaper".

àé ðîé éìéó ùøéôä çåõ ìâ' îçðåú îâæéøä ùåä ãîçåõ ìîçðä ëøáé ùîòåï

3.

Alternatively, he learns burning outside of three Machanos from a Gezeirah Shavah "mi'Chutz la'Machaneh", like R. Shimon.

å÷ùä àîàé àéöèøéê ìøáé ùîòåï îçåõ ìîçðä îéåúø ììîã òì ôøä ùìù îçðåú ðâîø ìä îôøéí äðùøôéí ëãâîø î÷ìì áø"ô ðâîø äãéï (ñðäãøéï ãó îá:)

(h)

Question: Why does R. Shimon need to expound an extra "mi'Chutz la'Machaneh" to teach three Machanos regarding Parah? He can learn it from Parim ha'Nisrafim, like we learn Mekalel [from Parim ha'Nisrafim] in Sanhedrin!

åéù ìåîø ãùîà ìøáé ùîòåï î÷ìì ðîé îôø éåä"ë âîø ëîå ôøä

(i)

Answer: Perhaps R. Shimon learns also Mekalel from Par Yom Kipur, just like [he learns] Parah [from Par Yom Kipur].

åòåã úéîä ìãéãï ðâîø î÷ìì ùéäà çåõ ìîçðä îéåí äëôåøéí ãîèîà áâãéí çåõ ìîçðä àçú åìà ðâîø çåõ ìâ' îçðåú îùøéôú ôøéí

(j)

Question: Also, according to us, we should learn that Mekalel is outside the Machaneh from Yom Kipur, which is Metamei Begadim outside of one Machaneh, and not learn three Machanos from Sereifas Parim!

åéù ìåîø îñúáøà îùøéôä àéú ìï ìîéâîø ãàéãé åàéãé äëùéøå ùí î÷ìì ìñå÷ìå åôøéí ìùåøôï

(k)

Answer: It is more reasonable to learn from Sereifah. For both of these, the Hechsher (proper way to do the Mitzvah) is there - stoning the Mekalel and burning the bulls;

àáì èåîàú áâãéí ùçåõ ìîçðä àçú àéðï äëùéøå

1.

Tum'as Begadim outside one Machaneh is not its Hechsher.

àáì úéîä îàé àéöèøéê ÷øà áô' äùåçè åäîòìä (æáçéí ãó ÷æ:) (îòîåã äáà) áîçðä ìøáåú àôéìå çåõ ìîçðä àçú ãìà úéîà çåõ ìâ' îçðåú ëîå ôøéí äðùøôéí

(l)

Question: Why do we need in Zevachim 107b "ba'Machaneh" to teach that [one is liable for Shechutei Chutz] even outside of one Machaneh, so we will not say outside of three Machanos, like regarding Parim ha'Nisrafim?

68b----------------------------------------68b

áìàå ÷øà ðâîø îçåõ ìîçðä ãèåîàú áâãéí ããîå ìäããé ãúøåééäå ìàå îëùéøéí ðéðäå

1.

Even without the verse, we should learn from "mi'Chutz la'Machaneh" of Tum'as Begadim, for both of them are similar. They are not Machshirim!

ãàé ìà ëúá áîçðä äåä âîøéðï îôøä

(m)

Answer: Had the Torah not written ba'Machaneh, we would have learned from Parah;

ãàó òì âá ãäàé îëùéø åäàé ìàå îëùéø äåà

(n)

Implied question: We should not learn it, for this (Parah) is Machshir, and this (Shechutei Chutz) is not Machshir!

îëì î÷åí ëéåï ãàéãé åàéãé áùçéèú çåõ àééøé ãëúéá âáé ôøä åäåöéà àåúä àì îçåõ ìîçðä åùçè àåúä ìôðéå åâîøéðï ìäå îäããé

(o)

Answer: Even so, since both of them discuss Shechitah b'Chutz - regarding Parah it says "v'Hotzi Osah El mi'Chutz la'Machaneh v'Shachat Osah Lefanav" - we would learn them from each other.

åôøä âîøéðï îôøéí äðùøôéï îùøéôúï åìà îèåîàúï

1.

We learn Parah from Parim ha'Nisrafim, from burning them, and not from their Tum'ah;

ãìùøéôúï ãîéà ãàéãé åàéãé îëùéø äåà àáì ìèåîàúï ìà ãîéà ëìì.

i.

It is more similar to burning them, for both of these are Machshir. It is not like their Tum'ah at all.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF