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


by Rabbi Ephraim Becker
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

Yoma 63

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) HO'IL

(a) Question: We have an indication (from his teaching regarding a Korban Pesach during the year) that R. Chisda does *not* employ the perspective of Ho'il, contrary to what we learned regarding Shechutei Chutz!?
(b) Answer: R. Chisda taught that a Korban Pesach during the year does not incur the Chiyuv of Shechutei Chutz if the Shechitah is LeShem Pesach (since it could not be brought then).
1. If the Korban Pesach were slaughtered Shelo Lishmo (ie. as a Shelamim), he would incur the Chiyuv (since it could be brought as a Shelamim).
2. We may infer that if he slaughtered the Korban Pesach with no special intent that he would be Patur.
3. Question: Why is that so; Ho'il should give it a status of Shechutei Chutz since it *could have* been brought Shelo Lishmo as a Shelamim!?
4. Answer: There is no comparison, since the Korban Pesach needs to be removed from its Lishmo state (Akirah) whereas the Seir of Yom Kipur needs no Akirah to be used as a Seir for Musafin.
(c) Rabah b. Simi taught that the contradiction above was not in R. Chisda but in Rabah (the answer remains the same).
(a) R. Dimi cites R. Yirmiyah as saying that he is Patur even if he does the Shechitah Shelo Lishmo.
(b) When asked for a rationale R. Yirmiyah explained that Akirah only works in the Azarah (such that this Korban remains a Pesach Shelo Bizmano and is hence Patur from Shechutei Chutz).
(c) Ravin cites R. Yochanan as teaching that in all instances he is *Chayav*.
(d) Question: Could this mean that he is Chayav even if the Shechitah is Lishmo!?
1. But we learned that a Korban Shelo Bizmano is Patur.
2. The Mishnah lists those Korbanos which are Mechusar Zman and Patur (whose owners are not yet ready to bring such a Korban) and which cannot convert into Nedavos.
3. Those Korbanos which can convert to Nedavos are Chayav if, qualifies R. Chilkiyah b. Tuvi, the Shechitah was Lishmo, but Shelo Lishmo is *Patur*.
4. Question: But Lishmo by Ashamos should be Chayav on account of Ho'il!, as by the Korban Pesach?
5. Answer: An Asham requires Akirah while a Pesach does *not* require Akirah as it automatically converts to a Shelamim.
(e) R. Ashi cites Ravin/R. Yochanan as saying Chayav (like our text) while;
(f) R. Yosef MiDifti cites them as saying Patur, as he holds that a Pesach *does* require an Akirah to become a Shelamim, and he is Patur because Akirah outside of the Azarah is not an Akirah (and he argues with R. Chilkiyah b. Tuvi who holds that Akiras Chutz *is* an Akirah (as in d.3. above).
(a) As taught above, after the Hagralah he is only Chayav on the Seir LaShem.
(b) The Beraisa cites the Pasuk dealing with Shechutei Chutz and (says that the word Korban teaches that the Isur is only Kodashim BaChutz, not Chulin BiFnim and then) asks:

(c) Question: Perhaps the word Korban comes to add Kodeshei Bedek HaBayis to those Kodoshim for which one would be Chayav for Shechutei Chutz?
(d) Answer: The words VeEl Pesach Ohel Moed... restrict the Isur to those Korbanos which *could* be brought there, and that which could not be brought to the Pesach Ohel Moed is Patur.
(e) Question: But we should then not exclude the Seir HaMishtaleach which is brought to the Ohel Moed for Hagralah, and one should be Chayav for it!?
(f) Answer: LaShem restricts the Isur to Korbanos whose Avodah is only LaShem (and not the Seir HaMishtaleach).
(g) Question: But we find that LaShem is used to *include* the Seir HaMishtaleach!?
(h) Answer (Rava): Each instance of LaShem must be understood in its context.
1. Where El Pesach (by Shechutei Chutz) includes; LaShem excludes;
2. Where Isheh (by Mechusar Zman) excludes; LaShem includes.
(i) Question: Are we to infer that a Seir HaMishtaleach would be Kadosh even as Mechusar Zman, had the Pasuk not taught otherwise?
1. But that would mean that one of the animals in the Goral was not fit to be brought LaShem.
2. We know that both must be fit LaShem!?
(j) Answer (R. Yosef): The Beraisa which employs LaShem to include the Seir HaMishtaleach in Mechusar Zman is Chanan HaMitzri (who holds that a replacement Seir HaMishtaleach is brought without Hagralah).
(k) Question: While it is true that Chanan HaMitzri allows the use of Dam which was Dechuyah (temporarily unusable), but who says that he allows the Seir to come into service without Hagralah!?
(l) Answer: Rather, the Beraisa is R. Shimon who teaches that the replacement can be brought without Hagralah.
(m) Alternate Answer (Ravina): The Beraisa speaks of a case where the Seir HaMishtaleach contracted a Mum after the Hagralah and its substitute does not then require Hagralah.
1. Question: Whence that a Mum invalidates the Seir HaMishtaleach?
2. Answer: The Beraisa analyzes the words in the Pasuk dealing with Mumin and finds two words combining to teach that both Mechusar Zman and Ba'al Mum will invalidate the Seir HaMishtaleach.
Next daf


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