ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Sotah 46
SOTAH 46 - Generously dedicated by Ha'Rav Aviezer Wolfson, an Ohev Torah and
Mokir Torah and the prime example of Torah u'Gedulah b'Makom Echad. May he
and his wife be blessed with much Nachas from all of their illustrious
(a) The maximum age of an Eglah Arufah is - one year.
(b) There is no minimum age for a Parah Adumah.
(c) We attempt to learn a 'Kal va'Chomer from Parah Adumah, where a blemish
disqualifies, even though age does not that a blemish should disqualify a
calf from being used as an Eglah Arufah, where age does disqualify.
(d) We reject that 'Kal va'Chomer' from the Pasuk "Asher Ein *Bah* Mum"
(written in connection with Parah Adumah) - which implies that a blemish
only disqualifies by a Parah, but not by an Eglah (thereby overriding the
(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav disqualifies a Parah Adumah which had a bundle of
sacks placed on its back. He learns from the Pasuk (written in connection
with an Eglah Arufah) "Asher Lo Mashchah be'Ol" - that it only becomes
disqualified if it actually walked with the load.
(b) We initially assume his source for disqualifying a Parah on such a
basis, despite the fact that the Torah writes "Ol" (and this is not an Ol)
to be - a Kal va'Chomer from Eglah.
(c) Based on what we just said - how can Rav Yehudah Amar Rav learn such a
'Kal va'Chomer', in spite of the word "Asher Lo Ubad *Bah*" which precludes
a Parah Adumah from the Din of Eglah?
(d) We answer that Parah is not learned from a 'Kal va'Chomer', but from a
'Gezeirah-Shavah' ("Ol" "Ol") from Eglah. Nevertheless, we do not also learn
Eglah from Parah, to disqualify an Eglah Arufah with a blemish - because the
Torah writes "Bah" by Parah, to preclude an Eglah (and there is nothing else
that we can learn from this word).
(a) Even though the Torah also writes "Bah" ("Asher Lo Ubad Bah") in
connection with Eglah Arufah, as we explained earlier, we do not learn from
it to preclude Parah from other Avodos - because we have an alternative, to
preclude Kodshim from the P'sul of having been worked with.
(b) If not for "Bah", we would have disqualified Kodshim that were worked
with - from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Eglah, where a blemish does disqualify
but work does (how much more so Kodshim, where even a blemish disqualifies).
(c) We are concerned specifically with Kodshim whose age is restricted
(otherwise we could not even think of learning them from Eglah, whose age is
restricted). This involves - the Korban Pesach and a Chatas (both of which
must be within their first year).
(a) We extrapolate from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "Averes O Shavur ... Lo Sakrivu *Eileh* la'Hashem" - that these
(blemishes) are Pasul, but not Kodshim with which work was performed.
(b) The second D'rashah comes to add that even Kodshim with which work that
entailed a sin was performed may be sacrificed - such as working with them
on Shabbos or an ox which one used for plowing together with a donkey.
2. ... "u'mi'Yad ben Neichar Lo Sakrivu *Eileh* la'Hashem" - that these are
Pasul, but not Kodshim with which forbidden work was performed.
(c) In spite of these Pesukim, we need "Asher Lo Ubad *Bah* to preclude
Kodshim from the P'sul of Avodah - even if work was performed with them
after they were declared Kodshim (whereas the previous Pesukim speak when
work was only performed with them before they were declared Hekdesh).
(a) We learn other Avodos by Parah from "Ol" "Ol" from Eglah. We cannot
learn it from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Eglah, because Eglah is subject to age,
which Parah is not (as we explained earlier). We cannot learn it from a
'Kal va'Chomer' from Eglah (which is not disqualified with a blemish like
Parah is), because Eglah is subject to age, which Parah is not (as we
explained earlier). We might also refute the 'Kal va'Chomer' from Kodshim -
which do *not* become disqualified through work, even though they *do*
through a blemish.
(b) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav disqualifies a Parah that carried a pile of sacks
on its back even though it did not move, whereas an Eglah only becomes Pasul
when it walks with them. The problem with this is - seeing as we learn other
Melachos by Parah from Eglah, why do we not learn Parah from Eglah in this
(c) We answer that he holds like the Tana who learns Parah from its own
Pasuk (and not from "Ol" "Ol"). He learns from "Asher Lo Alah Alehah ...
" - to include other Melachos (besides pulling a yoke).
(d) The Torah adds the word "Ol" - to teach us that whereas pulling a yoke
disqualifies the cow even if it was placed on it not whilst it is working,
other Melachos only disqualify it if they are performed whilst it is
(a) We ask that "Asher Lo Alah Alehah" should be a 'K'lal' and "Ol" a
'P'rat' - in which case, the Din would be confined to pulling an Ol and no
other Melachah (because 'K'lal u'P'rat, Ein bi'Ch'lal Ela Mah
(b) We refute this Kashya - by pointing out that "Asher" is a Ribuy which
comes to include all other Melachos.
(c) The Tana makes exactly the same D'rashos with regard to Eglah, learning
"Asher Lo Ubad Bah" and "Ol" as it did "Asher Lo Alah Alehah" and "Ol" by
Parah. He refutes the Kashya that "Asher Lo Ubad Bah" should be a 'K'lal'
and "Ol" a 'P'rat' - in exactly the same way as we did the Kashya on Parah:
by establishing "Asher" as a Ribuy, that includes all other Melachos.
(a) They asked Rebbi Yochanan what distance the Eglah must pull the yoke in
order to be disqualified. He replied - 'ki'Melo Ol' (the distance of the
(b) The two possible interpretations of 'ki'Melo Ol' - are the length of the
yoke or its breadth.
(c) Rebbi Ya'akov resolves the dilemma by quoting Rebbi Yochanan himself,
who told him that he meant the width, which is a Tefach.
(d) Having established the width of a yoke as one Tefach, Rebbi Yochanan
said 'ki'Melo Ol' rather than a Tefach - to teach us that the standard width
of a yoke, which result in a false sale should someone sell his friend a
yoke of a different width.
(a) The Torah prescribes for this Mitzvah to bring a calf to a strong
valley - because Hashem said 'Let them bring something which did not produce
fruit and have its neck broken in a location which does not produce fruit,
to atone for a person whom they did not allow to produce fruit'.
(b) When Rebbi Yochanan ben Shaul quoted Hashem as referring to 'a person
who was not allowed to produce fruit', he could not have meant that he was
unable to have children - because what would we then say in the case of an
old or sterile man?
(c) What he really meant was - that they prevented him from performing
1. The Tana Kama of the Beraisa, based on the Pasuk "Eisan Moshavecha"
interprets "Nachal Eisan" to mean - a strong valley (i.e. one with virgin
(b) The Tana of our Mishnah learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Arifah"
"Arifah" from Chatas ha'Of - that one kills the Eglah Arufah from the back
of its neck.
2. Acheirim, based on the Pasuk "Goy Eisan Hu Goy Me'olam Hu" interprets it
to mean - that its earth has always been there (and not one to which earth
had been transported).
(a) Rebbi Yashiyah interprets "Asher Lo Ye'aved Bo ve'Lo Yiza'rei'a" to mean
that the valley had never been worked. According to Rebbi Yonasan - it means
that it would never be worked.
(b) According to Rava, both Tana'im agree that it pertains to the future.
Rebbi Yashiyah learns from the fact that the Pasuk writes "Asher Lo Ye'aved
and not just "ve'Lo Ye'aved" - that it pertains to the past as well.
(c) Rebbi Yonasan's source for restricting the Pasuk to the future and not
to the past - is the Lashon "Asher Lo Ye'aved", which is the future tense.
(d) According to him, the Torah writes ...
1. ... "Asher" - to include other Avodos (besides sowing).
2. ... "Lo Yiza'rei'a" - to restrict the prohibition to working the ground,
but permitting other tasks, such as combing flax and chiseling stones to be
(a) The local judges declared 'Our hands did not spill this blood'! -
meaning that he had not come to them for assistance and they turned him
away, sending him empty-handed on his way, nor did they see him leave and
allow him to go unaccompanied.
(b) Rebbi Meir says that one forces a person to perform the Mitzvah of
'Levayah', whose reward is limitless. He bases his statement on the man who
showed the Beis Yosef how to gain entry into Beis-El (alias Luz) for them to
capture it. What ...
1. ... the man there subsequently merited to build in the land of the
Chitim - was the town Luz, where nobody ever died.
(c) Neither Sancheriv not Nevuchadnetzar were able to destroy Luz. The
implication of the Pasuk "Hi Sh'mah Ad ha'Yom ha'Zeh" - is that it continues
to exist until the end of time.
2. ... the inhabitants of the second Luz do when they feel that they have
lived long enough - is to leave the precincts of the town and die outside
3. ... they do in Luz - is to dye the Techeiles for the Mitzvah of Tzitzis.
(d) We learn from the man who built Luz - that if one receives such
tremendous reward for himself and for all his descendants for just a few
words (Chizkiyah) or even just pointing with one's finger (Rebbi Yochanan -
whose opinion is corroborated by a Beraisa), then imagine how much reward is
forthcoming for accompanying a person on a journey!
(a) Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi advises a person who has no-one to accompany him
on his journey - to study Torah, which is described in Mishlei as "Ki Livyas
Chein le'Roshecha ('Because they are an accompaniment of charm for your
head') va'Anakim le'Gargerosecha" ('and necklaces for your neck').
(b) For the four steps that Par'oh's emissaries accompanied Avraham when he
left Egypt - Par'oh merited to subjugate Avraham's descendants for four
(c) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav's statement about someone who accompanies his
friend in town is corroborated by Ravina and Rava bar Yitzchak. When the
former accompanied the latter four Amos in town - the latter was
miraculously saved from a situation which almost caused him harm.
(d) A Rav is obligated to accompany his disciple until the town's limits
(the furthest house within seventy Amos from the city walls). The minimum
distance for the Mitzvah of Levayah for ...
1. ... a friend accompanying a friend is - until T'chum Shabbos (one Mil
from the city walls).
2. ... a Talmid accompanying his Rebbe she'Eino Muvhak' (who taught him
Torah) is - one Parsah (four Mil).
3. ... a Talmid accompanying his Rebbe Muvhak' (who taught him most of the
Torah that he knows) is - three Parsah.
(a) When Rav Kahana, who was accompanying his Rebbe, Rav Shimi bar Ashi,
arrived with him in Bei Tzinisa de'Bavel, he pointed out that the date-palms
there had been there from the time of Adam ha'Rishon. This reminded Rav
Shimi bar Ashi of Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina, who, based on the Pasuk in
Yirmiyah "be'Eretz Lo Avar Bah Ish, ve'Lo Yashav Sham Adam", said - that any
town that Adam ha'Rishon decreed would be inhabited, was ultimately
inhabited, and any town that he decreed should not be inhabited (only that
palm-trees should grow there), did not become inhabited (but palm-trees grew
(b) Rebbi Yochanan quoting Rebbi Meir says - that if someone fails to
accompany a fellow Jew on his way or leaves on a journey without being
accompanied, it is as if he has murdered.
(c) His source for this is - the episode where forty-two youths were cursed
to death by Elisha, and which would have been avoided had the residents of
Yericho accompanied Elisha when he left town.
(d) When the youths from Yericho said to Elisha "Alei Kerei'ach, Alei
Kerei'ach" - they were referring to his having cured the undrinkable water
of the town, and in doing so, he had deprived them of their income (which
had been from providing the local residents with water) They were accusing
him of having turned their town into a bald patch 'where their Parnasah
would no longer grow', so to speak.
(a) According to Rebbi Elazar, the Pasuk calls them '"Ne'arim", because they
were empty of Mitzvos, and "Ketanim" because they were 'Ketanei Emunah'
(they had little faith). The Navi labeled them with that title - because
they were worried that they had lost their Parnasah on account of the water
having been healed (when Hashem can just as well provide Parnasah from
(b) The Tana of the Beraisa interprets the double term "Ne'arim Ketanim" to
mean - that they were really youths, but that they degraded themselves like
(c) We reject the suggestion that they were Ketanim from the town Ne'uran
(in the same way as Rebbi P'das interprets the Pasuk in Melachim " ...
va'Yishbu me'Eretz Yisrael Na'arah Ketanah") - on the grounds that here, the
Pasuk specifically informs us that they were from Yericho (and not from
(a) "va'Yifen Acharav va'Yir'em, ve'Yekalelem be'Shem Hashem". According to
Rav, who explains "va'Yir'em" to mean that he looked at them before cursing
them, this is based on a statement of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, who stated
in a Beraisa - that whenever the Chachamim gave someone a piercing look, it
resulted in either death or poverty.
(b) According to Shmuel, Elisha saw that all of them had been conceived on
Yom Kipur, and according to Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha, he saw that they had all
grown long hair in the style of idolaters. The last opinion is that of Rebbi
Yochanan, who explains - that he saw into the future, that not one of them
or their descendants would ever possess even the trace of a Mitzvah.
(c) Some say that appearance of the two bears (out of the blue as it were)
that attacked the youths was a miracle, whilst others claim that it was a
miracle within a miracle - meaning that not only did the bears appear from
nowhere, but so did the forest from which they emerged.
(d) The second miracle was necessary - because bears are afraid to attack
unless they are have the back-up of a safe haven to escape to (such as a