ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafRosh Hashanah 5
ROSH HASHANAH 2-10 sponsored by a generous grant from an anonymous donor. Kollel Iyun Hadaf is indebted to him for his encouragement and support and prays that Hashem will repay him in kind.
(a) We know that Pesach requires Linah - from the Pasuk in Re'ei "u'Fanisa
va'Boker ve'Halachta le'Ohalecha".
(b) The Mitzvah of 'Linah' on Pesach comprises remaining in Yerushalayim
overnight - until the first morning of Chol ha'Mo'ed.
(a) We ask from where the Tana Kama and Rebbi Shimon (who learn 'Bal
Te'achar' from "be'Chag ha'Matzos, u've'Chag ha'Shavu'os u've'Chag
ha'Sukos") will learn Tashlumin by Shavu'os. We cannot ask the same question
on Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, who learns 'Bal Te'achar' from "u've'Chag
ha'Sukos" - because, according to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, Sukos alone
determines Bal Te'acher, in which case, "be'Chag ha'Matzos, u've'Chag
ha'Shavu'os" remain superfluous, to Darshen Tashlumin by Shavu'os.
(b) The Tana Kama and Rebbi Shimon in fact, learn Tashlumin from Rosh
Chodesh - because in the same way as the Torah says to count the *days*
which comprise the month, and then to bring the Korban of Rosh Chodesh on
one of the *days* that one counted (i.e. the following day), so too, does
the Torah say count the *weeks* until Shavu'os and bring the Korban on one
of the *weeks* that one counted (i.e. the following week).
(c) We know to reckon one *week* in which to bring the Korbanos of Shavu'os,
on account of the seven *weeks* of the Omer, and not just the one *day*, on
account of the forty-nine *days* - because the name of the Chag is
'Shavu'os' (indicating that the weeks that one counts are the main objective
of the Mitzvah, and that the counting of the days is of secondary
(a) How can the Tana list Pesach among the Korbanos that are included in Bal
Te'acher, we ask - when the Pesach can only be brought on the fourteenth of
(b) Rav Chisda answers that the Tana includes Pesach only by the way, but
not because it belongs there - Rav Sheshes interpret 'Pesach' to mean
'Shalmei Pesach' (i.e. a Korban Pesach that was left over and not Shechted
on the fourteenth, and which becomes a Shelamim.
(c) The Tana nevertheless finds it necessary to mention them specifically,
despite the fact that he has already included Shelamim in the list - because
it is the way of the Tana'im to categorize lists in this way (e.g. ordinary
Shelamim and Shelamim that came from a Pesach).
(a) The Beraisa learns Bal Te'acher in all the cases mentioned in the
Beraisa on 4a. from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei (which is the source for Bal
Te'acher. Although the Torah only writes "Neder", we nevertheless include
Nedavah from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Neder" "Neder" from the Dinim of Korbanos
in Tzav. A Neder - consists of a vow to bring an unspecified animal as a
Korban (a Shelamim or an Olah) ; whereas a Nedavah - consists of designating
a specific animal as a Korban.
(b) In the case of a Neder (which he did not specify) - he remains
*responsible*, should he subsequently designate an animal for his Neder and
it gets lost; whereas in the case of a Nedavah - he is *not* (seeing as the
animal which he designated, is no longer available to bring).
(c) From "la'Hashem Elokecha" we learn Damim, Erchin, Charamim and Hekdeshos
- which are all Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis.
(d) From the Pasuk "Lo Se'acher Le'shal*mo*" - we learn 'Hu ve'Lo Chalifav'
(that Bal Te'acher is confined to the animal itself, but not to the animal
which the owner designated in place of the Korban which got lost, and which
he subsequently found and brought on the Mizbe'ach).
(a) From "Darosh Yidreshenu" we learn four Korbanos - Chata'os and Ashamos,
Olos and Shelamim.
(b) The Nedarim and Nedavos that we learned earlier covers Olos and Shelamim
that one volunteered to bring during the year - the Derashah of "Darosh
Yidreshenu" comes to include Olos Re'iyah and Shalmei Chagigah (which are
(c) Besides Tzedakos - we learn from "Hashem Elokecha" that Ma'asros (Dagan
and Beheimah) and Bechor are also included in the La'av of 'Bal Te'acher'.
(d) From "me'Imach", we include Leket, Shikchah and Pei'ah in the La'av of
(a) We learn from the Pasuk "ve'Hayah *Becha Chet*" - 've'Lo be'Korbancha
Chet' (to teach us that even though one has transgressed the La'av of 'Bal
Te'acher', the Korban nevertheless remains valid).
(b) When the Tana says "Hu" 've'Lo Chilufav', he cannot possibly be
referring to ...
1. ... Chilufei Olah or Shelamim - because they become Korbanos in their own
right, so why should 'Bal Te'achar' not apply to them?
(c) We then suggest that maybe he is referring to Chilufei Todah - which one
brings without the forty loaves.
2. ... Chilufei Chatas - because it is one of the Chata'os that has to die,
and it is obvious that 'Bal Te'acher' will not apply to it.
(d) If both animals were still alive - one would bring both of them together
with the one set of loaves, and stipulate that the loaves go together with
whichever one is the original Todah.
(a) "Hu" 've'Lo Chalipav' cannot refer to the previous case, but when one of
the animals died, - because then it would be obvious that 'Bal Te'acher'
will not apply, seeing as there is no way that he can bring the Todah
(because, if it *is* the original Todah, then he is *obligated* to bring the
loaves too; whereas if it is *not*, then he is *not permitted* to bring
(b) Rav Sheshes finally establishes "Hu" 've'Lo Chalipav' by a Chalipei Olah
or Shelamim. As for the Kashya 'P'shita' that we asked before - it speaks
when two Yamim-Tovim had already passed when the original Korban became
blemished, and he designated this one to replace it. We would have thought
that seeing as this animal is to replace the original one, he will already
transgress 'Bal Te'acher' after the third Yom-Tov arrives, (as if it was the
original Korban); therefore we learn from "Hu" 've'Lo Chalipav', that he is
*not* (until three Regalim pass from the time that he designated *it*).
(c) According to Rebbi Meir, in whose opinion one transgresses Bal Te'acher
already after *one* Yom-Tov - Rav Sheshes will establish the case when he
designated a second animal in the middle of Yom-Tov to replace the
original Korban which had just become blemished. We would have thought that
one transgresses 'Bal Te'acher' immediately after Yom-Tov (seeing as this
animal comes to replace the original one). The Torah therefore writes "Hu"
to teach us - to teach us 've'Lo Chalipav' (as we explained in b.).
(a) The Torah writes in connection with Bechor Beheimah "Shanah be'Shanah".
We would have thought that the Bechor even *becomes Pasul* after the first
year has expired - like a blemished Korban, which becomes Pasul.
(b) We learn that it does *not* from the fact that the Torah compares it to
Ma'aser (Dagan) which does *not* become Pasul - because of the Pasuk in Ki
Savo, which obligates the clearing out of all one's Ma'asros and of giving
them to their rightful owners after the end of the third year.
(c) Acheirim (in a Beraisa) learns from the Torah's Hekesh of Bechor to
Ma'aser (in the Pasuk in Re'ei "ve'Achalta Lifnei Hashem Elokecha ... ") -
that just as Ma'aser does not become Pasul even after the time period of one
year has expired, so too, does a Bechor not become Pasul after one year (as
we just explained).
(d) We nevertheless need the Derashah of "ve'Hayah Becha Chet" 've'Lo
be'Korbancha Chet', to teach us that a Korban does not become Pasul on
account of 'Bal Te'acher' - because we might otherwise have said that Bechor
does *not* become Pasul, because it does not come to atone (for a sin) or
even as a gift, but other Korbanos, which come for either one or the other,
*do* (seeing as he is now bringing then sinfully).
(a) Ben Azai learns from the Pasuk in Tzav (regarding the P'sul of Pigul)
"ha'Makriv *Oso* Lo Yechasheiv" - that Pigul (a thought on the part of the
Kohen to bring the animal in its wrong time) renders the Korban invalid, but
not an animal that is brought to the Beis Hamikdash after its time.
(b) So we amend the Beraisa to read "Be'cha Chet" 've'Lo be'Ishtecha Chet'.
We would have otherwise thought that a man's wife would die because *he*
transgressed 'Bal Te'achar' - because Rebbi Yochanan (some say Rebbi Elazar)
said that a man's wife can die because he did not pay back money that he
stole from *human beings*(see Tosfos DH 'Ela Im Kein'), so why should she
not die when he does not pay what is owing to *Hashem*?
Note: That a woman
dies for her husband's sins probably speaks when she is Chayav Misah anyway
(for other transgressions). Normally however, her husband's merits would
protect her and she would not die. Now however, that he too, is guilty of
not paying money that he stole, his merits will not protect her.