ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafPesachim 60
The Sha'aleh (whether the dual Machshavah took place in *one* Avodah or in
*two*) is confined to a case of 'Lishemo ve'she'Lo li'Shemo', and not to the
reverse case - because if he first thought she'Lo Lishmo, then the Pesach
would be Pasul in all cases, since even Rebbi Yossi, who says that '*Af*
bi'G'mar Devarav Adam Nitfas, agrees that we take into account his opening
(a) The problem with the Reisha of our Mishnah 'ha'Pesach she'Shechato
she'Lo Lishemo, ve'Kibel, ve'Halach, ve'Zarak Lishemo ve'she'Lo Lishemo ...
Pasul' is - that the moment he Shechted the Pesach she'Lo Lishemo, it
already becomes Pasuk. Consequently, why does the Tana need to add the
(b) We therefore establish the Beraisa to mean the following: 'ha'Pesach
she'Shechato she'Lo Lishemo, *I Nami Shechato,ve'Kibel Damo, ve'Halach
Lishemo* ve'Zarak she'Lo Lishemo ... Pasul' (which is a case of two Avodos).
(c) Consequently, the Gemara continues, 'I Nami, Lishemo ve'she'Lo Lishemo'
in the Seifa can only be referring to *one* Avodah (otherwise ti will be
exactly the same as the Reisha) - thereby proving that the author of our
Mishnah is Rebbi Yossi.
(d) The Gemara then goes on to establish both the Reisha and the Seifa by
*two* Avodos even according to Rebbi Meir; the Reisha speaks when he Shechts
Lishemo for example and sprinkles she'Lo Lishemo, whereas the Seifa speaks
when he Shechts Lishemo, having in mind to sprinkle she'Lo Lishemo. And we
learn from here that 'Mechashvin me'Avodah la'Avodah' (which Rav Papa
teaches us in Zevachim).
(a) The Gemara then attempts to prove that the Mishnah must be speaking by
one Avodah, from the next section of Mishnah 'O she'Lo Lishemo ve'Lishemo' -
because, if it were speaking by two Avodos, having already taught us *that*
by Lishemo ve'she'Lo Lishemo, what is the Chidush by she'Lo Lishemo
ve'Lishemo'? Is that not obvious? Consequently, the Mishnah must be speaking
by one Avodah, and since the Seifa is speaking by one Avodah, so too is the
Reisha, from which we see that the author is Rebbi Yossi.
(b) The Chidush of she'Lo Lishemo ve'Lishemo in the Seifa - is that the
author is Rebbi Yossi, who says 'Af bi'G'mar Devarav Adam Nitfas'.
Otherwise, we might have thought that this Tana holds 'bi'G'mar Devarav Adam
Nitfas' (and not bi'Techilas Devarav - since he retracted from his opening
(c) Perhaps the entire Mishnah is speaking by two Avodos, counters the
Gemara, and even though the case of 'she'Lo Lishemo ve'Lishemo' appears
superfluous - it mentions it since it mentioned the case of Lishemo
ve'she'Lo Lishemo (as the Tana sometimes tends to do).
(a) she'Lo le'Ochlav - refers to someone who is too sick or too old to eat
roasted meat, and (provided one has *only* such people in mind) the Korban
is Pasul - because the Torah writes (in Bo) "Ish Le'fi Ochlo".
(b) she'Lo le'Ochlav - refers to a group of people who were not designated
to eat this Korban Pesach before it was Shechted.
(c) The Gemara refutes the suggestion that since *that Mishnah* is speaking
by one Avodah, so must *ours* - on the grounds that 'Midi Ayrei; Ha
ke'de'Isa, ve'Ha ke'de'Isa'. That Mishnah is speaking by *one* Avodah,
perhaps ours is speaking by *two*.
(a) le'Ochlav ve'she'Lo le'Ochlav would be Kasher by two Avodos (Shechitah
and Zerikah) - because a Machshavah of she'Lo le'Ochlav only invalidates by
the Shechitah, not by the Zerikah.
(b) If le'Ochlav ve'she'Lo le'Ochlav was Kasher because it was speaking by
*two* Avodos, then we could deduce that, by *one* Avodah, it would be Pasul.
This explanation however, is unacceptable - because of the ruling that
'Miktzas Ochlin Lo Pasla' (only if one Shechts entirely for a group of
people who cannot eat the Korban Pesach).
(a) A Korban Pesach that is Shechted before Pesach ...
1. ... as a Shelamim - is a Kasher Shelamim
(b) The Gemara asks what the Din will be if a Korban Pesach is Shechted
before Pesach with a dual Machshavah of Lishemo (as a Pesach - which renders
it Pasul) and she'Lo Lishemo (as a Shelamim - which normally renders it
Kasher) - whether the she'Lo Lishemah will negate the Pesul of the Lishemah,
and render the Korban Kasher or not.
2. ... as a Pesach - is Pasul, since it is premature.
(c) Rebbi Dimi tried to resolve the Sha'aleh by means of a Binyan Av from
'Lishemo ha'Machshiro bi'Zemano', yet it does not negate the she'Lo Lishemah
that preceded it, so too, she'Lo Lishemo ha'Machshiro she'Lo bi'Zemano will
not negate the Lishemah that preceded it.
(d) The reason that 'Lishemo ha'Machshiro bi'Zemano' does not negate the
she'Lo Lishemah that preceded it, Rebbi Yirmiyah explain, is because the
Pesul of she'Lo li'Shemo applies to all Korbanos, whereas that of Lishemo is
confined to Pesach, and will therefore perhaps be negated by the Lishemo
which follows it.
(a) Rava proves that Lishmo ve'she'Lo Lishemo is Kasher from the fact that a
Korban Pesach before Pesach is 'Setamo Lishemo Ka'i' (i.e. it is anyway
designated to be brought Lishemo on Pesach), and yet a specific thought of
she'Lo Lishemo takes it out of the realm of Lishemo and renders it Kasher.
So why should it be any different if he first *specifcally* Shechted it
(b) Rav Ada Bar Ahavah tries to refute Rava's proof because 'Sha'ni Heicha
de'Amar me'Heicha de'Lo Amar' - and he proves this from the fact that (a
specific Machshavah of) le'Ochlav and she'lo le'Ochlav is Kasher, in spite
of the fact that, had he not specifically said 'le'Ochlav, a thought of
she'Lo le'Ochlav would negate the Stam (she'l'Ochlav Ka'i).
(c) The S'tam of le'Ochlav (bi'Zemano - which depends on the owners, who can
withdraw any time before the Shechitah) is not as strong as that of Lishemo
(she'Lo bi'Zemano - which automatically stands to be brought as a Pesach);
that is why le'Ochlav Stam is *not* as good as saying it specifically,
whereas li'Shemo *is*.
(a) The Gemara asks whether Shinuy Ba'lim (Shechting for the wrong owners)
will render the Pesach Kasher she'Lo bi'Zemano, just like Shinuy Kodesh does
(as we have just seen).
(b) Rav Papa maintained that Shinuy Ba'lim (which invalidates bi'Zemano),
should render Kasher she'Lo bi'Zemano, just as Shinuy Kodesh (which also
invalidates bi'Zemano) does.
(c) Rava refutes Rav Papa's proof on the grounds that Shinuy Kodesh has the
power to validate the Pesach she'Lo bi'Zemano because it has four Chumros
over Shinuy Ba'lim (which we will now discuss), and that we cannot therefore
learn Shinuy Ba'lim from it.
(a) The four Chumros of Shinuy Kodesh are ...
1. ... Pesulo be'Gufo - meaning that it is an intrinsic Pesul (on the actual
Korban), unlike Pesul Ba'lim, which is an external Pesul;
(b) The fourth Chumra is 'Yeshno be'Tzibur ke'va'Yachid', which does not
apply to Shinuy Ba'lim, because the Tzibur (Klal Yisrael) does not die.
2. ... Yeshno be'Arba Avodos - meaning that it pertains to all four Avodos,
unlike Shinuy Ba'lim, which, by Korbanos other than the Korban Pesach, is
confined to the sprinkling.
3. ... Yeshno be'le'Achar Misah - meaning that it applies after death, which
Shinuy Ba'lim does not.