ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafBeitzah 20
(a) When a certain man told a group of people to give four hundred Zuz to so
and so, if he would marry his daughter - Rav Papa obligated him to give the
recipient the money whether he married his daughter or not.
(b) The condition would have been valid - had the man reversed the order, to
place the condition first. Then, the recipient would only have received the
money after he had married the man's daughter.
(c) When Mereimar said Rebbi Yochanan's Din (that the condition to use
Ma'aser Sheini money for the Korbanos of his Nezirus is not valid) in his
*own* name - Ravina pointed out to him, that *he* had learned it in the name
of Rebbi Yochanan as an answer to Resh Lakish's Sh'eilah.
(a) The Beraisa expert, quoting a Beraisa, learn from the Pasuk in Shemini
(regarding the Olah that was brought on the last day of the Milu'im)
"va'Yakreiv es ha'Olah, va'Ya'aseha *ka'Mishpat*" 'ke'Mishpat Olas Nedavah'
- meaning that an Olas Chovah (by which Semichah is *not* mentioned
explicitly) requires Semichah just like an Olas Nedavah (where it *is*).
(b) Rav Yitzchak bar Aba points out that the author of this Beraisa must be
Beis Shamai - who will need a special Limud for Olas Chovah, because he does
not learn it automatically with a Binyan Av (like we find in our Mishnah
with regard to Shalmei Chovah).
(c) We learn from the Pasuk "ve'Im Zevach Shelamim Korbano, ve'Samach Yado"
that Shalmei Nedavah require Semichah.
(d) We *cannot* learn Korbenos Chovah - which can only be brought when their
time falls due, from Korbenos Nedavah - which can be brought at any time and
are consequently more common.
(a) We query Rav Yitzchak bar Aba however. From where does he know that it
is from Shalmei Nedavah that Beis Hillel learn Shalmei Chovah? Maybe he
learns them from Olos Chovah (which he, like Beis Shamai, will learn from
(b) We counter this contention by pointing out that it is no better to learn
Shalmei Chovah from Olos Chovah, than it is from Shalmei Nedavah - because
Olos Chovah are completely burned, whereas Shalmei Chovah are not.
(c) We conclude that Beis Hillel might learn Shalmei Chovah from a 'Mah
ha'Tzad' from both Shalmei Nedavah and Olas Chovah together - in which
case, Beis Hillel too, must learn Olas Chovah from "ka'Mishpat".
Consequently, they could well be the author of the Beraisa, and Rav
Yitzchak's Kashya on the Beraisa expert is not valid.
(d) In any event, we are assuming that when Beis Shamai say in our Mishnah,
've'Ein Somchin Aleihen', they mean that Shalmei Chovah do not require
Semichah. This clashes however, with Rebbi Yossi in a Beraisa - who says ...
1. ... that Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel both agree that they *do* require
Shechitah, and that what they are disputing is whether the Semichah must
come immediately prior to the Shechitah ('Teikef li'Semichah Shechitah') -
which is the opinion of Beis Hillel, or whether it can be performed the day
before - like Beis Shamai.
2. ... Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah learns that Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel
agree that 'Teikef li'Semichitah Shechitah' - what they are disputing is
whether Shalmei Chovah require Semichah or not (vindicating Rav Yitzchak bar
Aba in 2b.).
(a) When Hillel ha'Zaken once brought his Olah to the Azarah on Yom-Tov,
intending to make Semichah on it - he was approached by a large group of
disciples of Shamai, who demanded to know what sort of animal he was
bringing (they suspected that it was an Olah, and wanted to stop him from
making Semichah on Yom-Tov).
(b) When they queried him about it - he replied that in fact, the animal was
a female (and must therefore be a Shelamim, and not an Olah); to prove his
point (and put them off) , he swished its tail.
(c) They would have fixed the Halachah like Beis Shamai, were it not for
Bava ben Buta - a disciple of Shamai ha'Zaken, who, knowing that the
Halachah was like Beis Hillel, brought a stack of best-quality calves to the
Azarah (see Tosfos DH 've'Heivi'), and made a public announcement inviting
anyone who wanted to make Semichah on them to come and do so.
(a) In a subsequent episode, when a disciple of Beis Shamai tried to stop a
disciple of Beis Hillel him from making Semichah on an Olah on Yom-Tov, he
countered his query 'Mah Zu Semichah' with 'Mah Zu Shesikah' (meaning 'Why
are you not silent'?)
(b) From the disciple of Beis Hillel (who gave a three word retort to the
disciple of Beis Shamai) - we can learn how to counter an argument (that one
should counter it using as curt a Lashon as one disputant).
(a) Beis Hillel tries to prove that one may bring an Olas Re'iyah on Yom-Tov
from Shabbos - where Melachos are *forbidden* for a *Hedyot* (to cook for
oneself), but *permitted* for *Hashem* (as a Korban Tamid). If so, Yom-Tov,
where they are *permitted* for a Hedyot, they should certainly be
*permitted* for Hashem (as an Olas Re'iyah).
(b) Beis Shamai refutes this proof from Nedarim and Nedavos - which are
forbidden on Yom-Tov, even though Melachos are permitted for ones personal
(c) Beis Hillel then counter Beis Shamai's argument by differentiating
between Olos Re'i'yah, which *have* a fixed time - and which ought
therefore to be permitted (like the Korban Tamid on Shabbos), and Nedarim
and Nedavos - which are forbidden because they *don't*.
(a) Beis Shamai replied that the time of Olos Re'iyah is also not fixed for
(the first day of) Yom-Tov - seeing as we have learned in the Mishnah in
Chagigah that someone who failed to bring an Olas Re'iyah on Yom-Tov, has
the remainder of Yom-Tov on which to bring it.
(b) Beis Hillel counter this by referring to an Olas Re'iyah as having a
fixed time - due to the continuation of the Mishnah there, which states that
once Yom-Tov has passed, he no longer remains obligated to bring it
(although strictly speaking, this is not called a fixed time, nevertheless,
since he has limited time in which to bring it, the Torah is afraid that he
may be prevented from bringing the Korban on subsequent days, and permits
him to bring it on Yom-Tov itself. It is unclear though, how this can be
mi'd'Oraysa - see 9a.).
(c) Beis Shamai finally learn from "Lachem" in Bo, 'Lachem' ve'Lo Ligvo'a' -
whereas Beis Hillel learn from the Pasuk in Emor "la'Hashem" (from which
they learn 'Kol de'la'Hashem') that one does bring an Olas Re'iyah on Yom-
(d) Beis Hillel learn from "Lachem" - 'Lachem, ve'Lo le'Kutim, Lachem, ve'Lo
(a) Aba Shaul quotes Beis Hillel's argument for permitting an Olas Re'iyah
differently - according to him, Beis Hillel say that if when your oven is
closed (on Shabbos), Hashem's is open, then when your oven is open (on Yom-
Tov), Hashem's should certainly be open. And anyway, it is not right that
your table should be full and your master's, empty.
(b) Beis Shamai do not counter Beis Hillel's argument with 'Nedarim
u'Nedavos Yochichu', according to Aba Shaul - because in his opinion, Beis
Hillel hold 'Nedarim u'Nedavos Kereivin be'Yom-Tov' (in which case, Beis
Shamai cannot use that as an argument against Beis Hillel).
(a) If the bringing of Nedarim and Nedavos on Yom-Tov would be a Rabbinical
prohibition (according to those who hold that it is forbidden) - the
Rabbanan's reason for prohibiting it would be because of the fear that one
may postpone one's Korbanos for Yom-Tov, and then be unable to bring them
(it is however, unclear, what this decree would achieve, since one is still
able to bring them on Chol ha'Mo'ed).
(b) The proof that if it in fact, Asur mi'd'Oraysa - is from the Sh'tei
ha'Lechem on Shavu'os, which cannot be brought before Yom-Tov (because it is
premature), and to which the decree that he might postpone it does not
therefore apply; yet their preparation over-rides neither Shabbos nor Yom-
(c) If someone Shechted Nedarim or Nedavos on Yom-Tov, the Kohen would go
ahead and sprinkle the blood - provided one of two possible conditions is
met, as we shall now see.
(a) According to Rava, the Kohen sprinkled the blood only if it was in order
to permit the flesh of the Korban to be eaten. Rabah bar Rav Huna says -
that the Kohen would even sprinkle the blood if he only had the fat-pieces
to be burned after nightfall (which would permit him to sprinkle it even if
the flesh became Tamei or lost); whereas according to Rava, the Kohen would
not sprinkle the blood if the flesh became Tamei or lost.
(b) The sprinkling of the blood is only an Isur mi'de'Rabbanan there where
there is no Chiyuv to sprinkle it.
(a) If someone Shechted the lambs of the Shalmei Tzibur of Shavu'os she'Lo
li'Shemah or on the wrong time day, the Kohanim would ...
(b) If the Kohen went ahead and sprinkled the blood - the Korban would be
effective, and he then goes ahead and burns the fat-pieces after nightfall.
- ... sprinkle the blood.
- ... eat the flesh.
- ... neither sprinkle the blood nor eat the flesh - if this happened on Shabbos.
(c) This Beraisa, which permits Shechting a Korban on Yom-Tov in order to
burn the fat-pieces only Bedieved - poses a Kashya on Rabah bar Rav Huna in
10)a., who permits it even Lechatchilah.
(d) We remain with a Kashya against Rabah bar Rav Huna. Alternatively, based
on the fact that the Beraisa is talking on Shabbos, and not on Yom-Tov (like
Rabah bar Rav Huna was), we suggest - that maybe Chazal were more stringent
by Shabbos than they were by Yom-Tov.