ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafPesachim 72
(a) 'ha'Pesach she'Shechato she'Lo Lishemo be'Shabbos, Chayav Alav Chatas' -
speaks by 'Oker' - meaning that he deliberately Shechted it in the name of a
Shelamim . We learn from here that 'Akirah be'Ta'us Lo Havya Akirah'.
(b) The Seifa ('ve'Sha'r Kol ha'Zevachim ... Im Einan Re'uyin, Chayav ... '), on the other hand, must be speaking about 'To'eh' (thinking that it was
a Shelamim) - because otherwise, he would not be To'eh bi'D'var Mitzvah, and
why would Rebbi Yehoshua exempt him from a Chatas?
(c) Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef heard the distinction between the Reisha and the
Seifa from Rebbi Avahu - forty times, before he was satisfied that he would
never forget it.
(a) Rebbi Eliezer nevertheless learns a Kal va'Chomer to disqualify Sha'r
Zevachim in the Seifa from the Pesach in the Reisha - because he does not
differentiate between Oker and To'eh.
(b) Rebbi Yehoshua was saying to Rebbi Eliezer; 'as far as I'm concerned,
you cannot learn the Seifa from the Reisha, since the latter is speaking by
Oker (which explains why he is Chayav), and the former, by To'eh (so he may
well be Patur). But won't you, who do not agree with this distinction, at
least concede that one cannot learn a case where one changes to a Korban
that is permitted from one where one changes to one that is forbidden.
(a) The Mishnah in Kerisus, where Rebbi Yehoshua exempts a Mohel who had two
babies to circumcise, one who was due *before* Shabbos, and one, *on*
Shabbos, if he circumcised the Erev Shabbos baby - specifically when, at the
time that he circumcised the Erev Shabbos baby, the Shabbos baby had not yet
been circumcised. Consequently, he still had the Mitzvah to perform, which
renders him an O'nes.
(b) Whereas in our Mishnah, where he Shechted the other Korban in the name
of the Korban Tzibur, it speaks when the Tamid had already been Shechted, so
that there was no excuse for him to make the mistake, and he remains a
(c) Rebbi Eliezer holds that even 'To'eh bi'D'var Mitzvah ve'Asah Mitzvah,
(a) How can Rebbi Meir render Chayav a Mohel who had a Friday baby and a
Shabbos one to circumcise, for circumcising the *Friday* baby on Shabbos
(where he performed a Mitzvah), and absolve him from a Chatas for
circumcising the *Sunday* baby instead of the Shabbos one (where he did
(b) The first case must be speaking when he already circumcised the Shabbos
baby on Friday, so that there was no reason to perform any Milah on that
Shabbos; whereas the second case speaks when the Mohel is faced with both
the Shabbos baby and the Sunday one.
(c) The criterion, according to Rebbi Meir, is whether, when Shabbos came
in, it stood to be over-ridden *by this person*. Consequently, by the Korban
Tamid, which stood to be Shechted by anyone when Shabbos came in, one is
Patur for Shechting another Korban in its name, according to Rebbi Meir
(even though, by the time he Shechted the Korban, the Tamid had already been
(a) Rebbi Meir holds that one is Patur if one Shechts other Korbanos in the
name of the Pesach, even if it is not fit to be brought as a Pesach.
(b) According to him, if someone Shechted as a Korban Pesach ...
1. ... a *calf* of a Shelamim - is Patur (since he is involved with bringing
it on the Mizbei'ach).
2. ... a lamb of *Chulin* - is Patur (since he confuses it with a lamb of a
3. ... a lamb that is blemished - is Chayav (since he is not neither
involved with bringing it on the Mizbei'ach, nor will he confuse it with a
(a) Resh Lakish, who rules that someone who got confused and ate a spit
containing Nosar thinking that it was roasted meat of a Korban Pesach, is
Chayav - holds like Rebbi Shimon (because, according to Rebbi Meir, neither
of the two criteria to be Patur mentioned in the previous question, are
(b) It may be, the Gemara points out, that Rebbi Yochanan renders him Chayav
in the case of his wife - because he should have asked her whether she was a
Nidah or not, which of course, is not possible by a spit of Nosar (which is
why he will be Patur, even though he did not perform a Mitzvah).
(a) There *is* a Mitzvah to be Mesamei'ach one's wife ...
1. ... even when she is pregnant, if it is the time of her Onah, and ...
(b) It is not a Mitzvah to be Mesamei'ach one's wife within the Onah of her
expected Veses (when Chazal forbade it).
2. ... even it is not the time of her Onah (should she indicate that she
(c) Rebbi Yochanan obligates a man who was inadvertently Bo'el his wife when
she was a Nidah, because he should have checked with her, as we explained.
This does not apply however, to a being Bo'el a Yevamah for the first time,
since he is not yet familiar with her, and is still too embarrassed to ask
her (making him an O'nes, rather than a Shogeg).
(a) The reason of Rebbi Yossi, who exempts someone who carried a Lulav into
the street on the first day of Succos that fell on Shabbos - may well be
because when a Mitzvah is imminent, such as that of Lulav, one rushes to an
expert to discover how do perform the Mitzvah, and if not now, when? This
reason will not of course, applicable in the case of being Bo'el a Yevamah
who is a Nidah, where Rebbi Yossi will hold that he is Chayav, since it is
not a time-bound Mitzvah.
(b) And the same argument applies to Rebbi Yehoshua in our Mishnah, who
exempts someone who Shechts another Korban as a Korban Pesach from a Chatas,
because, like in the previous case, it is a Mitzvah whose time has fallen
(c) Rebbi Yehoshua in Terumos, may well exempt a Kohen who was eating
Terumah when he discovered that he was a Ben Gerushah or a ben Chalutzah
from paying the principle plus the extra fifth - because the Torah writes
"Barech Hashem Cheilo, *u'Fo'al Yadav Tirtzeh*", from which he learns that
any Avodah that a Kohen performed up to the time that he discovers that he
is Ben Gerushah or a Ben Chalutzah is Kasher. And the same will apply to a
Kohen who mistakenly ate Terumah when he discovered that he was a Ben
Gerushah etc., because eating Terumah is considered an Avodah. This has
nothing whatsoever to do with Rebbi Yochanan's Din of inadvertently being
Bo'el his Yevamah when she is a Nidah, where Rebbi Yehoshua will hold,
(a) Rebbi Tarfon, who was a Kohen, justified his absence from the Beis
ha'Medrash the previous day - because he had been performing the Avodah of
(b) He referred to eating Terumah as an Avodah - because of the Pasuk in
Korach, which writes "Avodas Matanah (referring to the Matnos Kehunah) Etein
es Kehunaschem" ... from which he derived that 'Asu Achilas Terumah
bi'Gevulin ka'Avodas Beis ha'Mikdash'.
(c) Raban Gamliel was initially surprised when Rebbi Tarfon said that he had
been doing the Avodah - because they lived after the Churban Beis
ha'Mikdash, when the Avodah was no longer applicable.