POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
by Rabbi Ephraim Becker
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous dafBeitzah 20
1) THE TODAH AS SIMCHAH BUT NOT AS CHAGIGAH
(a) Question: Is it not obvious that an obligation, such as
Chagigah, must come from Chulin!?
2) SEMICHAH BY OLAS CHOVAH
(b) Answer: We might have permitted the use of the Todah as
a Chagigah in the case where he stipulated such when he
designated the Korban.
1. We learn that such stipulations are not effective
from the exchange between Resh Lakish and R.
(c) Mereimar reported R. Yochanan's Din (that the condition
to use Ma'aser Sheni for the Korbanos of his Nezirus is
not valid) in his own name.
2. Resh Lakish asked about a conditional Todah and a
conditional Nezirus and, in both cases, R.
Yochanan responded that his vow is binding and his
condition is not acceptable.
3. We find a similar concept where a statement being
binding and an apparent condition is void.
i. A person, on his deathbed, instructed that
money be given the Reuven and that Reuven
should marry the dying man's daughter.
ii. (R. Papa) The money is to be given and he
need not marry the daughter.
iii. It appears that the second part of the
statement losses its binding nature because
it was stated as additional to the first
statement; had it been stated as a formal
condition (let him marry my daughter and give
him the money) then the condition is binding.
(d) Ravina pointed out to him, that *he* had learned it in
the name of R. Yochanan as an answer to Resh Lakish's
(a) The Beraisa expert, quoting a Beraisa, learns from the
Pasuk that an Olas Chovah (where Semichah is not
mentioned explicitly) requires Semichah just like an
Olas Nedavah (where it is explicit).
3) THE INCIDENT OF HILLEL HAZAKEN AND SEMICHAH
(b) (R. Yitzhok b. Aba) The author of this Beraisa must be
Beis Shamai who needs a special Pasuk for Olas Chovah,
because he does not learn it automatically with a
Binyan Av (unlike Beis Hillel who learn Shalmei Chovah
from Shalmei Nedavah).
(c) Question: How are you so certain that Beis Hillel
learns the Semichah of Shalmei Chovah from Shalmei
Nedavah; perhaps (we do not learn Chovah from Nedavah
and) they learn it from Olas Chovah (and thus Olas
Chovah itself needs a Pasuk, and the Beraisa is all
(d) Answer (R. Yitzhok): It is not more reasonable to learn
Shalmei Chovah from Olos Chovah, than from Shalmei
Nedavah because Olos Chovah are completely burned,
whereas Shalmei Chovah are not.
(e) In conclusion:
1. Beis Hillel might learn Shalmei Chovah from both
Shalmei Nedavah and Olas Chovah together.
(f) Question: But we have a Beraisa which teaches that Beis
Shamai *does* require Semichah (and their dispute is
whether the Semichah must come immediately prior to the
Shechitah [Beis Hillel], or whether it can be performed
the day before [Beis Shamai])!?
2. If so, Beis Hillel too, must learn Olas Chovah
3. Consequently, Beis Hillel could well be the author
of the Beraisa, and R. Yitzhok's question on the
Beraisa expert is not valid.
(g) Answer: R. Yitzhok based himself on R. Yosi b.R.
Yehudah who learns that Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel
dispute whether Shalmei Chovah require Semichah or not.
(a) Hillel ha'Zaken was approached by a large group of
disciples of Shamai, who demanded to know what sort of
animal he was bringing (they suspected that it was an
Olah, and wanted to stop him from making Semichah on
(b) He replied that the animal was a female (and must
therefore be a Shelamim, and not an Olah); to prove his
point (and put them off), he swished its tail.
(c) They would have fixed the Halachah like Beis Shamai,
were it not for the intervention of Bava b. Buta, thus
assuring that the Halachah was fixed like Beis Hillel.
(d) When a disciple of Beis Shamai tried to stop a disciple
of Beis Hillel him from making Semichah on an Olah on
YomTov, he countered his query 'Mah Zu Semichah' with
'Mah Zu Shesikah.'
4) BRINGING OLAS RE'IAH ON YOMTOV
1. From his three word retort we can learn how to
counter an argument.
2. One should counter using language as curt as that
of the first disputant.
(a) Question (Beis Hillel): We should learn from Shabbos
where Melachos are forbidden for a Hedyot (to cook for
oneself), but permitted for HaShem (as a Korban Tamid)
then on YomTov, when Melachos are permitted for a
Hedyot, they should certainly be permitted for HaShem
(as an Olas Re'iah)!?
5) ALTERNATE RENDITION OF BEIS HILLEL'S KAL VACHOMER
(b) Answer (Beis Shamai): This may be refuted from Nedarim
and Nedavos, which are forbidden on YomTov, even though
Melachos are permitted for ones personal needs.
(c) Question (Beis Hillel): But Olos Re'iah have a fixed
time and ought to be permitted (like the Korban Tamid
on Shabbos), while Nedarim and Nedavos ought be
forbidden because they don't!?
(d) Answer (Beis Shamai): The time of Olos Re'iah is also
not fixed for (the first day of) YomTov (one who failed
to bring an Olas Re'iah on YomTov, has the remainder of
YomTov on which to bring it).
(e) Question (Beis Hillel): Olas Re'iah does have a fixed
time since, as the Mishnah there continues, once YomTov
has passed, he no longer remains obligated to bring it.
(f) (Beis Shamai): Lachem teaches that only your needs, not
those of HaShem, may be performed on YomTov.
(g) (Beis Hillel) la'Shem teaches that one does bring an
Olas Re'iah on Yom-Tov.
(h) Question: How will Beis Hillel understand Lachem?
(i) Answer: Your needs and not those of other nations or
(a) (Aba Shaul) If when your oven is closed (on Shabbos),
HaShem's is open, then when your oven is open (on
YomTov), HaShem's should certainly be open (and anyway,
it is not right that your table should be full and your
6) THE RESTRICTION OF NEDARIM AND NEDAVOS- D'OREISA OR
(b) Question: What is the dispute between the Tana Kama and
Aba Shaul (leading to a difference in the claims)?
(c) Answer: Beis Shamai do not refute Beis Hillel's
argument with Nedarim and Nedavos (according to Aba
Shaul) because, in his opinion, Beis Hillel hold
Nedarim and Nedavos *are* brought on YomTov.
(a) (R. Huna) Bringing Nedarim and Nedavos on YomTov is not
only an Isur d'Rabanan;
1. If it were, the Rabanan's reason for prohibiting
it would be out of the fear that one may postpone
one's Korbanos for YomTov.
(b) It is even an Isur d'Oreisa.
2. He would then be unable to bring them.
1. As learned from the Sh'tei ha'Lechem on Shavuos,
which cannot be brought before YomTov (because it
(c) Question: If someone slaughtered Nedarim or Nedavos on
YomTov (against the prohibition of those who hold it to
be Asur), may the Zerikah be still done (to permit it)?
2. The decree that he might postpone it does not
therefore apply; yet their preparation over-rides
neither Shabbos nor YomTov.
(d) Answer (Rava): The Kohen sprinkles the blood only if it
was in order to permit the flesh of the Korban to be
(e) Answer (Rabah b.R. Huna): The Kohen would even sprinkle
the blood if he only had the fat-pieces to be burned
(f) Question: What difference would their answers make?
(g) Answer: Whether he would be permitted (Rabah b.R. Huna)
or prohibited (Rava) to sprinkle it even if the flesh
became Tamei or lost (sprinkling the blood is only an
Isur d'Rabanan there where there is no Chiyuv to
(h) Question: The Beraisa (speaking of improperly
slaughtered lambs of the Shalmei Tzibur of Shavuos)
implies that ideally one would *not* do the Zerikah on
(i) Answer: This is indeed a good question on Rabah b.R.
(j) Alternate Answer: Given that the Beraisa is speaking on
Shabbos, and not on YomTov, perhaps Chazal were more
stringent by Shabbos than they were by YomTov.