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


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Shabbos 71



(a) Someone who reaped and then ground first be'Shigegas Shabbos, and then he did vice-versa, becoming aware first of the Ketzirah of Shigegas Melachos ...
1. ... according to Rava, he will be Chayav *two* Chata'os, one for both of the Ketziros, and the Techinah which accompanied the first Ketzirah, and one for the second Techinah, because he does not hold of Gereirah li'Gereirah.
2. ... according to Abaye, he only needs to bring *one* Chatas, because he holds of Gereirah li'Gereirah.
(b) The Chatas that someone brings for eating one Kezayis of Chelev, automatically covers all Kezeisim of Chelev that he ate within the same Ha'alamah.

(c) Rava originally thought that the third Kezayis, which was eaten in the same Ha'alamah as the second Kezayis, but not as the first, will not combine with the first (due to Gereirah), because initially, he did not hold of Gereirah at all.

(d) Rava changed his mind when he heard from Abaye that Gereirah is effective.

(a) Rebbi Zeira was not certain what the Din would be if someone reaped and ground one half a ki'Gerogeres be'Shigegas Shabbos ve'Zadon Melachos, and another half ki'Gerogeres be'Zadon Shabbos ve'Shigegas Melachos, whether he is Chayav to bring a Chatas or not.
Abaye and Rava took for granted that Shigegas Shabbos and Shigegas Melachos combine as if they were one Ha'alamah; Rebbi Zeira is not so sure.

(b) Someone who eats within one Ha'alamah ...

1. ... a Kezayis of Chelev, one of blood, one of Nosar and one of Pigul is Chayav four Chata'os.
2. ... two Kezeisim of Chelev, is Chayav only one Chatas.
(c) As far as two Kezeisim is concerned, it makes no difference whether he eats them within a Kedei Achilas P'ras or not.

(d) Somebody who takes longer than a Kedei Achilas P'ras to eat two *half*-Kezeisim of Chelev, is Patur from a Chatas.

(a) The Mishnah, which obligates someone who eats two half-Kezeisim of Chelev within a Kedei Achilas P'ras, is speaking about two different kinds of dishes, and goes according to Rebbi Yehoshua, who holds that, when it comes to eating two Kezeisim of Chelev eaten in one Ha'alamah, the two dishes divide, and are considered like two La'avin, so he is Chayav two Chata'os.
In that case, we may have thought that in the case of two half Kezeisim too, the dishes should divide, and exempt him from bringing a Korban. The Chidush of the Mishnah is that Rebbi Yehoshua holds dishes divide only le'Hachmir, but not le'Hakel.

(b) In any event, we see from Rebbi Yehoshua that it does not follow that whatever divides the Chata'os (by two *whole* Kezeisim) cannot combine (i.e. the equivalent case by two *half*-Kezeisim)? So how can Rav Asi decide that the two are interdependent?

(c) The Gemara answers that Rebbi Yehoshua should not be quoted on the Reisha of the Mishnah, because there, the author of the Mishnah cannot be Rebbi Yehoshua, since according to him, he would indeed be Patur if he ate two half-Kezeisim of different dishes of Chelev.
Rav Asi learnt that when we establish the Mishnah like Rebbi Yehoshua, it is not on the case of 'mi'Min Echad (of two half-Kezeisim) Chayav' but on that of 'mi'Sh'nei Minin, Patur'.
The Chidush, he explains, is according to Rebbi Yeshoshua, because two kinds means two dishes, because, since 'two dishes' divides, it cannot combine, as we just explained.

(d) The Chidush of the Reisha, which declares him Chayav if he eats two different dishes of two half-Kezeisim of Chelev, speaks when he realized after eating one of the half-Kezeisim, that he had sinned. The author of the Mishnah is Rabban Gamliel, who holds that Yedi'ah only divides *full* Shiurim, but not *half*-Shiurim.




(a) "Al Chataso ve'Hevi" implies - according to Rebbi Yochanan - that one must bring a separate Chatas for each sin.

(b) "me'Chataso ve'Nislach Lo" implies - according to Resh Lakish - that even though he only brought a Chatas for a part of his sin, he is forgiven for the whole sin.

(c) Resh Lakish concedes that if he becomes aware that he sinned only after he had actually *brought* his Chatas, that he is Chayav two Chata'os; he learns it from "Al Chataso ve'Hevi".

(d) And Rebbi Yochanan concedes that, if he became aware of eating one Kezayis, after having eaten one a half Kezeisim, after which he ate another half-Kezayis within the Ha'alamah of the first *half*, that he only needs to bring one Chatas. Why is that?
Because a half-Kezayis is not Chashuv, and does not require a Yedi'ah for its atonement. Consequently, the Yedi'ah that he had after the first Kezayis covers the half-Kezayis too, in which case it is also Gorer the second half-Kezayis together with it. He learns this from "me'Chataso ve'Nislach Lo."

(a) Hafrashah Mechalekes means that, even if a Yedi'ah of one Kezayis (in between two Kezeisim that one ate be'He'elam Echad) does *not* divide between them to obligate a second Chatas, Hafrashah - separating his Chatas - *does*.

(b) According to the second side of the Sha'aleh, even Rebbi Yochanan, who holds Hafrashah divides, will agree with Resh Lakish that Yedi'ah does *not*. Resh Lakish maintains that Hafrashah does divide, though even he will agree that Kaparah (actually having brought the Chatas will most certainly divide - and that is the one case with which everyone agrees.

(c) According to the first side of the Sha'aleh, Abaye and Rava, who said earlier that Yedi'ah does not divide, hold like Resh Lakish; according to the second side, it is unanimously agreed that Yedi'ah does not divide.

(a) The third side to the Sha'aleh is that Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue in both cases: Rebbi Yochanan holds that both Yedi'ah and Hafrashah divide, whereas in the opinion of Resh Lakish, neither do.

(b) The Gemara tries to prove the accuracy of the third side, from the earlier statement of the Gemara. If Resh Lakish would agree that Hafrashah divides, then why did it establish the Pasuk of "Al Chataso ve'Hevi" (according to him) specifically by after *Kaparah*, and not - even by after *Hafrashah*? And if Rebbi Yochanan would agree that Yedi'ah does not divide, then why did the Gemara establish the Pasuk of "me'Chataso ve'Nislach Lo" (according to him) by someone who ate one and a half Kezeisim of Chelev etc.? It should have established it by after Yedi'ah? This suggests seems to prove the third side of the Sha'aleh - that the dispute between Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish extends to both Yedi'ah and Hafrashah.

(c) The Gemara rejects this proof however, on the grounds that the Gemara earlier was not certain of the extent of their Machlokes, so it conceded both to Rebbi Yochanan and to Resh Lakish, only what it knows for sure (the minimum Chidush): namely, that Resh Lakish agrees that Kaparah divides, and Rebbi Yochanan in the case of someone who ate one and a half Kezeisim, remembered the one and then ate another half, within the Ha'alamah (and within a Kedei Achilas P'ras) of the first.

Next daf


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