(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Yoma 64

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.


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.

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 already offered.

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.


Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,