ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafYoma 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.
(a) In the case in our Mishnah, when the Kohen Gadol made a second Hagralah
to replace one of the goats that died, Rav holds that it is the *first*
goat that is brought on the Mizbe'ach, and the *second* one that grazes -
because he holds 'Ein Ba'alei Cha'im Nidachin' (live animals cannot be
(b) Rebbi Yochanan says that the *first* goat *grazes* and it is the
*second* one that goes on the Mizbe'ach - because he holds 'Ba'alei Chayim
(c) The source of Rav's opinion cannot be the case of a Mechusar Z'man,
where the animal is rejected because it was unfit before - because there,
the animal was unfit to begin with, whereas Rav is speaking about an animal
that was *originally* fit, but became unfit only *later* (which is worse
than an animal that was never fit).
(d) Rav's source is Kodshim that became temporarily blemished, which regain
their status as Korbanos once the blemish passes (as we learn from the
Pasuk in Emor "Ki Moshchasam Bahem Mum Bam"), despite the fact that they
had originally been fit.
(a) Rebbi Yochanan counters Rav's proof (that 'Ein Ba'alei Cha'im
Nidachin') from the Pasuk "Ki Moshchasam Bahem Mum *Bam*. He infers from
the word "Bahem" that it is exclusively *there* that an animal that became
unfit retains its status as a Korban, but not anywhere else.
(b) Rav Darshens from the word "Bahem" - that it is only Ba'alei Mumin
that are on their own that are Pasul, but not when they are mixed with
unblemished Korbanos (concurring with the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer).
(c) Rebbi Eliezer says - that if the limbs of an unblemished Olah became
mixed up with those of a blemished one (in which case, *min ha'Torah*, one
may bring all the limbs on the Mizbe'ach - due to Rav's Derashah from
"Bahem", and it is only forbidden to do so mi'de'Rabbanan. Consequently),
if one of the heads or the legs of one of them was brought on the
Mizbe'ach, one may proceed to bring all of the heads or of the legs - on
the assumption that the one that was brought was from the blemished animal
(as we always tend to do by Isurim de'Rabbanan).
(d) According to the Rabbanan, even if they had already brought all the
limbs except for one, that one must be burned on the Beis ha'Sereifah.
(a) Rebbi Yochanan learns Rebbi Eliezer's Din from the extra 'Hey' in
"Bahem", when the Torah could just as well have written "Ki Mashchasam
(b) Rav does not learn anything from the extra 'Hey' - in his opinion, it
is natural for the Torah to write "Bahem".
(a) Rav holds 'Ein Ba'alei Cha'im Nidachin' - therefore he brings the
*first* goat (and not whichever one he wants), because he holds 'Mitzvah
(b) Rav holds like Rebbi Yossi - who says that someone who re-placed his
lost Pesach with another lamb, and the original one is subsequently found,
he brings the *original* one, because 'Mitzvah ba'Rishon'.
(c) The Chachamim of Rebbi Yossi hold - that the owner may bring whichever
one he wishes.
(d) Everybody agrees that, if the second lamb is more choice quality than
the first, one brings it, and not the first one.
(a) Rava infers from our Mishnah, which says 'Im shel Shem Meis, Zeh
she'Alah Alav ha'Goral la'Hashem, Yiskayem Tachtav' - that the goat that
remains alive retains its Kedushah (and is not rejected), like Rav (who
holds 'Ba'alei Cha'im Einan Nidachin').
(b) The Tana of the Beraisa learns from the words "Ya'amad Chai" - that the
Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach must *initially* be stood alive - but not if it has
already been stood i.e. before the Sa'ir la'Hashem died (once that happens,
the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach becomes Pasul - because 'Ba'alei Cha'im Nidachin'
, like Rebbi Yochanan).
(c) Rav agrees that Rebbi Yehudah, who says 'Nishpach ha'Dam, Yamus
ha'Mishtale'ach' holds 'Ba'alei Cha'im Nidachin' - when he (Rav) said 'Ein
Ba'alei Cha'im Nidachin', that was the opinion of the Rabbanan of Rebbi
(a) According to Rav, Rebbi Yehudah argues with the Rabbanan in *two*
points: firstly, he heard the Rabbanan say that the second goat of the
*first* pair was the one to be brought (because they hold 'Ein Ba'alei
Nidachin') - and he holds 'Ba'alei Chayim Nidachin', in which case, it has
to *die* - because, in his opinion 'Chatas Tzibur Meisah'; whereas the
Rabbanan hold that the second goat in the second pair *grazes* - because
they hold 'Ein Chatas Tzibur Meisah'.
(b) We do not know how Rebbi Yochanan explains the second Machlokes between
Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabbanan in our Mishnah (contained in the final
phrase 've'Od Amar Rebbi Yehudah ... '. That constitutes Rava's proof for
(a) We can infer from the Mishnah 've'ha'Sheini Yir'eh ... she'Ein Chatas
*Tzibur* Meisah' - that a Korban *Yachid* under the same circumstances
(b) Rebbi and the Rabbanan argue in a case where a Chatas was lost,
replaced, and then found. Rebbi holds that the owner brings one of them and
the other one must die; whereas according to the Rabbanan, it only dies if
it was found *after* the substitute was brought, but not if it was found
between the time it was designated and brought - in which case, it grazes.
(c) The Rabbanan will agree, according to Rebbi Aba Amar Rav - that if they
subsequently brought the substitute, the original animal must die (even if
it was found *before* the substitute was actually brought. The Rabbanan
only say that the substitute grazes - if it was the *original animal* that
(a) Rebbi Aba Amar Rav concurs with Rebbi Yochanan - who explains 'Sheini'
in our Mishnah to mean the second of the *first* pair (i.e. the original
animal that became Dachuy). That is why the Tana says that it is only
because it is a Chatas Tzibur that it does *not* die, but had it been a
Chatas Yachid, it *would* (like Rebbi Yochanan).
(b) According to Rav (who explains 'Sheini' to mean the second one in the
*second* pair) -why should it die? Certainly according to the Rabbanan of
Rebbi, who say that, if the lost animal was found before the substitute was
brought, and they then brought the original animal, the substitute does not
die, it ought not to die in this case either (since that is precisely what
happened here). But even according to Rebbi, since it was not designated as
a substitute for the first animal, which was still alive - but only to pair
off with the second goat that was being brought as a substitute for the
animal that died (see also, next question), it ought not to die.
(c) Rebbi Oshaya says about 'ha'Mafrish Sh'tei Chata'os le'Acherayos' -
that one may bring whichever one he wished on the Mizbe'ach. Similarly, in
our case, too; since, according to Rav, 'Ein Ba'alei Chayim Nidachin, it is
as if the original goat and this one were both being designated, to use
whichever one he wished.
(d) According to Rav, 'Mafrish Sh'tei Chata'os le'Acherayos' will only
apply if he designated them simultaneously, but not if he designated one
before the other. There, Rav holds like Rebbi Yossi, who says 'Mitzvah
ba'Rishon' - and the second one is a case of 'Mafrish le'Ibud', which,
according to Rebbi, is 'ke'Ibud Dami'.