ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafYoma 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.
(a) According to Rav Chisda, a person is *Chayav* for Shechting a Korban
Pesach ba'Chutz during the year - if he Shechts it as a *Shelamim*.
Rav Dimi Amar Rebbi Yirmiyah quoted Rebbi Yochanan as saying that one is
Patur even for Shechting a Pesach ba'Chutz during the year specifically *as
a Shelamim* - because he agrees with Rav Chisda (that Chesaron Akirah is
considered a Chesaron), only *he* holds that the Akirah has to accompany a
Shechitah *in* the Azarah; an Akirah *outside* the Azarah is not considered
(b) Seeing as by the case of the goats that the Kohen Gadol Shechted before
the Hagralah, Rav Chisda says 'Ho'il' (since they were fit to be brought as
the Korban Musaf), why does he not say here too, 'Ho'il' (since it was fit
to be brought in the Azarah - she'Lo Lishemo, as a Shelamim)?
(c) Rav Chisda does not apply 'Ho'il' *there* - because it is still lacking
Akirah (to specifically uproot the name Pesach from it at the time of
(d) Others ask this apparent contradiction in the name of Rabah, and give
the same answer.
(a) Ravin Amar Rebbi Yirmiyah quoted Rebbi Yochanan as saying that someone
who Shechted a Pesach ba'Chutz during the year is Chayav - even if he
Shechted it specifically as a Pesach.
In the previous case, Rav Chilkiyah bar Tuvi restricts the Petur of Chatas
and Asham to where he Shechted the Asham as an *Asham*, but not if he
Shechted it as an *Olah* or a *Shelamim*. Rebbi Yochanan will agree that
Ho'il does not apply in the case of Asham to render the Shochet ba'Chutz,
Chayav, even if he Shechted it as an Asham - because the Asham *requires*
Akirah; whereas, in his opinion, the Pesach does *not*; it automatically
becomes a Shelamim after Pesach.
(b) The Mishnah in Zevachim speaks about a case of someone Shechting a
'Mechusar Z'man' - either of the animal itself or of the owner, ba'Chutz.
A 'Mechusar Z'man' ...
1. ... of the animal - means before it reaches its eighth day.
(c) Someone who Shechts an animal which is a 'Mechusar Z'man' - is Patur.
2. ... of the owner - (a Zav, a Zavah, a Yoledes and a Metzora), too, means
within the first seven days, whose Korban only falls due on the *eighth*
(d) A Zav, a Zavah, a Yoledes and a Metzora on the *eighth* day ...
1. ... are Patur for Shechting their respective Chatas or Asham ba'Chutz -
because they are not fit to be brought in the Azarah (either as an
obligation - since their time is premature, or as a voluntary offering -
since a Chatas and an Asham cannot be brought voluntarily).
2. ... are Chayav for bringing their Olah or Shelamim - since they are fit
to be brought as voluntary offerings in the Azarah. None of the above cases
brings a Shelamim, and it is necessary therefore to add a Nazir to the
(a) We learn from the Pasuk in Matos "va'Nakreiv es Korban Hashem" (with
regard to the ornaments that the soldiers brought back as war spoils from
Midian) - that Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis is called a 'Korban'.
Rashi omits 'Paras Chatas' (i.e. the Parah Adumah) from the previous
Derashah - because it is anyway unfit to come to the Pesach Ohel Mo'ed (and
has therefore already been precluded from the previous Derashah).
(b) Shechting an animal of Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis ba'Chutz is nevertheless
not included in the prohibition of Shechitas Chutz - because the Torah
writes "ve'El Pesach Ohel Mo'ed Lo Hevi'o" (to teach us that one is only
Chayav on Shecutei Chutz for animals that are fit to be brought to the
entrance of the Ohel Mo'ed - i.e. Kodshei Mizbe'ach, which Kodshei Bedek
ha'Bayis are not).
(c) One is not permitted to donate an animal that is fit for the Mizbe'ach
to Bedek ha'Bayis.
(d) From the word "la'Hashem" mentioned there we preclude the Sa'ir
ha'Mishtale'ach from the Din of Shechutei Chutz.
(a) With regard to bringing an animal on the Mizbe'ach before it is eight
days old, the Torah writes "Yeratzeh le'Korban Isheh la'Hashem". From ...
1. ... "Isheh" - we preclude a Korban from being brought on to the
Mizbe'ach before it is eight days old.
(b) "la'Hashem" comes to *include* the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach in this
prohibition, in spite of the fact that it is not fit to go on the Mizbe'ach
- because, since the previous Derashah ("korban") comes to *ex*clude,
"la'Hashem" comes to *in*clude; whereas in the previous case (that of
Shechutei Chutz), since "el Pesach" came to *in*clude (whatever is fit to
be brought to the entrance of the Ohel Mo'ed), "la'Hashem" comes to
*ex*clude (the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach from the La'av of Shechutei Chutz).
2. ... "Korban" - that one may not even declare it Hekdesh.
(a) If not for "la'Hashem", the Beraisa would have permitted a baby kid-
goat before its eighth day to be used as the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach. But
how can that be? Have we not learned that the Goral only fixes the Sa'ir
la'Az'azel if it is fit to be brought la'Hashem - which a baby of less than
eight days is *not*?
(b) We try to solve ithis problem by establishing the Beraisa like Chanan
ha'Mitzri - who says that even if the blood (of the Sa'ir la'Hashem) is
already in the cup, and the Sa'ir la'Az'azel dies, he simply brings a goat
from the market and combines it with the blood of the Sa'ir la'Hashem -
(c) We reject this answer on the grounds that Chanan ha'Mitzri said nothing
about not requiring Hagralah for the new goat. Perhaps *two* goats need to
be brought, and it is only after the Hagralah, that they combine it with
the blood - his Chidush being that he disagrees with Rebbi Yehudah in our
Mishnah, who holds 'Meis ha'Mishtale'ach, Yishafech ha'Dam').
(d) So Rav Yosef establishes the Beraisa like Rebbi Shimon - who says that,
if one of the goats dies, he brings a second one, specifically adding that
Hagralah is unnecessary.
(a) Ravina answers that we need the Pasuk to invalidate a Mechusar Z'man
from being used as the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach by a substitute goat, which
received its Kedushah by transfer (after the original one became
blemished). This second goat does not require Hagralah (even according to
the Rabbanan of Rebbi Shimon, since its Kedushah came from the goat which
had already been chosen by Hagralah.
(b) We learn from the Pasuk ...
(c) From "Mehem" we learn that one is Chayav for bringing even *part* of
the Chalavim of a Ba'al Mum - i.e. a k'Zayis - on the Mizbe'ach.
- ... "va'Isheh Lo Sitnu ... " - that the Chalavim of a Ba'al Mum are disqualified from being brought on the Mizbe'ach.
- ... "al ha'Mizbe'ach - that it is also forbidden to sprinkle the blood.
- ... "la'Hashem" - that the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach may not be a Ba'al Mum either.
(d) We require a Pasuk to include the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach in the
prohibition of both a Ba'al Mum and a Mechusar Z'man. We would not know ...
1. ... a Ba'al Mum from a Mechusar Z'man - because a Mechusar Z'man has the
disadvantage of being premature, which a Ba'al Mum is not.
2. ... a Mechusar Z'man from a Ba'al Mum - because a Ba'al Mum is
considered disgusting in the eyes of Hashem, which a Mechusar Z'man is not.
(a) Rava establishes the Beraisa of Mechusar Z'man by a Sa'ir
ha'Mishtale'ach whose mother was Shechted on Yom Kipur for a person who was
dangerously ill (a question of 'Oso ve'es Be'no' - a different kind of
Mechusar Z'man) - in which case the Hagralah (which now took place *before*
it became a Mechusar Z'man) was valid, since, at that time, it was fit to
be brought as the Sa'ir la'Hashem.
(b) Even though the La'av of 'Oso ve'es 'Be'no' applies exclusively to
*Shechting* them on the same day - nevertheless it will pertain to a Sa'ir
ha'Mishtale'ach, which, strictly speaking, is not *Shechted*, yet, since
pushing it off the rock is *its* Mitzvah, it is considered a Shechitah, and
the goat is therefore considered a Mechusar Z'man.