THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question about the Daf
YOMA 59-88 have been dedicated to the memory of the late Dr. Simcha
Bekelnitzky (Simcha Gedalya ben Shraga Feibush) of Queens N.Y. by his wife
and daughters. Well known in the community for his Chesed and Tzedakah, he
will long be remembered.
1) "BA'ALEI CHAYIM EINAN NIDACHIN"
QUESTIONS: Rav and Rebbi Yochanan argue whether a live animal that was
designated to be a Korban -- which became disqualified -- remains
disqualified permanently, or whether it becomes valid again if the
disqualifying factor is eliminated.
2) "BITUL B'ROV" WITH REGARD TO "BA'ALEI MUM" AND "TEMIMIM"
Rav, who holds that Ba'alei Chayim Einan Nidachin (live animals do not
become permanently disqualified), proves this from the case of a "Ba'al Mum
Over," an animal with a transitory blemish. Even though the animal is Pasul
now, it will become kosher later when the blemish goes away. Rebbi Yochanan
counters that the Torah (Vayikra 22:25) specifically makes the case of a
"Ba'al Mum Over" an exception to the rule when it says "Mum *Bam*", but all
other cases of disqualified animals are indeed disqualified permanently.
The case of a "Ba'al Mum Over" is the only case in which an animal that is
Nidcheh can be brought as a Korban at a later time. Rav replies that the
verse "Mum Bam" is teaching something else, and thus in any case of a live
animal that is Nidcheh, it is not Nidcheh permanently but only until it
becomes fit again to be brought as a Korban.
Rav maintains that the verse "Mum Bam" teaches a different Halachah -- that
when a Ba'al Mum become mixed with unblemished animals, the entire mixture
("Ta'aruvos") may be brought upon the Mizbe'ach. The Gemara cites the
Mishnah in Zevachim in which we see this Halachah that a Ta'aruvos may be
brought upon the Mizbe'ach. The Mishnah there says that if the limbs of a
Ba'al Mum became mixed up with the limbs of unblemished animals, then if
the first set of limbs was already brought upon the Mizbe'ach, then the
rest may be offered. For example, if one of the heads was already brought,
all the rest of the heads may also be brought, because maybe the head that
was already brought was the Ba'al Mum, and all the others are Temimim
(unblemished animals). This is the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer. The Chachamim
argue and say that the heads that were not yet offered may not be brought
upon the Mizbe'ach but must be sent to the Beis ha'Sereifah to be burned.
There are several problems with this Gemara.
(a) First, Rebbi Eliezer, who permits bringing all of the heads including
the one of the Ba'al Mum, does not permit it because of Rav's rule that the
Torah permits bringing a Ta'aruvos, but rather because one of the heads was
already brought (and thus there is a chance that the rest are not the
Ba'alei Mum)! If Rebbi Eliezer permits it because of Rav's rule that a
Ta'aruvos with a Ba'al Mum may be offered, why does he require that one of
the heads be offered already in order to permit the rest? Where in the
words of Rebbi Eliezer do we see the Halachah of Rav, that a Ta'aruvos with
a Ba'al Mum may be brought?
(b) Second, even if Rebbi Eliezer's opinion supports Rav, how will Rav
explain the verse of "Mum Bam" according to the *Chachamim*? The Chachamim
do not agree that the other heads of the mixture may be brought when a
Ba'al Mum was mixed in with them!
(a) The Rishonim (TOSFOS HA'ROSH, TOSFOS YESHANIM) explain that Rebbi
Eliezer's requirement that one of the heads already have been brought in
order to permit bringing the rest *is only mid'Rabanan*. Mid'Oraisa, a
Ba'al Mum in a Ta'aruvos may be offered, just like Rav says. But
mid'Rabanan it is not permitted unless there is the additional possibility
that the Ba'al Mum was already brought (in which case each head that is
offered is a Safek d'Rabanan, and is permitted).
It is clear from the context of the case that mid'Oraisa a mixture with
limbs of Ba'alei Mumim may be brought on the Mizbe'ach, since if it would
have been Asur mid'Oraisa to offer a Ba'al Mum in a mixture, then it would
have remained forbidden to offer any of the heads even after one of the
heads was already offered, because it would be a Safek d'Oraisa whether the
one that was already offered was a Tamim or the Ba'al Mum.
(b) To answer the second question, RASHI (DH Ha) seems to say that indeed,
Rav's opinion is only in agreement with Rebbi Eliezer.
TOSFOS and other Rishonim explain that Rav's opinion is also in agreement
with the Chachamim, for even the Chachamim agree that a Ta'aruvos with a
Ba'al Mum in it is permitted mid'Oraisa. The Chachamim maintain -- like
Rebbi Eliezer -- that there is an Isur *d'Rabanan* to offer such a
Ta'aruvos on the Mizbe'ach. They argue with Rebbi Eliezer, though, and
maintain that the Isur d'Rabanan applies even when one of the heads was
Tosfos proves that the Chachamim agree that it is permitted mid'Oraisa,
like Rav says, from the fact that the Chachamim do not require the head
that was already placed on the Mizbe'ach to be removed from the Mizbe'ach.
If it is Asur mid'Oraisa to offer it like any other Ba'al Mum, then one
would be required to remove if from the Mizbe'ach.
QUESTION: In the Gemara, Rav says that animals from a Ta'aruvos of Ba'alei
Mumin and Temimim (a mixture of blemished and unblemished animals) are
permitted to be brought upon the Mizbe'ach. This is derived from the phrase
in the Torah, "Mum *Bam*" (Vayikra 22:25). Likewise, Rebbi Eliezer teaches
that if one Ba'al Mum became mixed up with Temimim, the mixture is
permitted to be offered on the Mizbe'ach, mid'Oraisa.
It seems from the case that Rebbi Eliezer was discussing that a single
Ba'al Mum became mixed up with Temimim. This is evident from the fact that
he permits offering all the heads in the mixture if "one head" has already
been offered, since that one might have been the Ba'al Mum, and the
remainder are Temimim. Why do we need the verse of "Mum Bamidbar" to permit
the limbs of such a mixture? It should be permitted to offer them because
of the principle of "Bitul b'Rov" -- the Ba'al Mum is nullified in the
majority of unblemished animals!
(a) The RITVA answers that indeed, the verse is needed only for a case when
equal amounts of Ba'alei Mumim and unblemished animals were mixed together
(or if there were more Ba'alei Mumim), in which case the principle of
"Bitul ba'Rov" does not apply. Rebbi Eliezer is discussing a situation
where a single Ba'al Mum was mixed together with a single Tamim.
(b) The TOSFOS HA'ROSH and TOSFOS YESHANIM explain that even a mixture in
which there is a *majority* of unblemished animals would not be permitted
because of the principle of "Bitul ba'Rov." The mixture would be prohibited
because of the principle that the Rabanan decreed that a "Davar
she'b'Minyan" (an item that is important enough to be counted one by one
when sold) is not Batel b'Rov, and the mixture would be prohibited
mid'Rabanan for that reason. Now that we see from "Mum Bam" that the Torah
did not prohibit a mixture of limbs even when there are equal amounts of
Ba'alei Mumim and Temimim in the mixture, the Rabanan also did not enact a
Gezeirah of "Davar she'b'Minyan" in such a case when there is Bitul b'Rov.
(c) The TOSFOS RID in Bava Basra (31b) holds that if one piece of Isur
became mixed with two pieces of Heter, it is forbidden for one person to
eat all three pieces, because he will certainly be eating a piece of Isur.
According to his opinion, it is clear why we need the verse of "Bam" to
permit the mixture to be offered on the Mizbe'ach. Even though the Ba'al
Mum is "Batel b'Rov," that does not permit offering *all* of the limbs of
the mixture on the Mizbe'ach. The verse of "Bam" permits offering *all* of
the limbs on the Mizbe'ach, even though it is certain that the Ba'al Mum is
also being offered. (M. Kornfeld)
(d) The TOSFOS YESHANIM mentions another possibility. Perhaps there is no
such thing as Bitul for a Ba'al Mum, because there is a principle that
states that "Ein ha'Olin Mevatlin Zeh Es Zeh" -- Korbanos cannot be Mevatel
each other (Zevachim 81b). However, he concludes that it is unlikely that
the principle that Korbanos cannot be Mevatel each other applies to Ba'alei
Mum. That principle applies only to kosher Korbanos ("Olin"). A Ba'al Mum,
though, which is not Oleh Al ha'Mizbe'ach (even though it is Kadosh),
should be Batel like any other object.