ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafShabbos 72
(a) There are three cases of Asham Vaday that come to atone for a sin: an
Asham Me'ilos, an Asham Gezeilos and an Asham Shifchah Charufah. When
dealing with any of them , the Gemara will refer to it as an Asham Vaday,
to preclude from an Asham Taluy.
(b) According to those who hold ...
1. ... that an Asham Vaday *does* need a Yedi'ah, then he will be Chayav as
many Ashamos as there were Yedi'os.
(c) Five Be'ilos *without* a Yedi'ah simply means that he did not have a
Yedi'ah until afterwards. Whereas *with* a Yedi'ah means that he was aware
at the time of each Bi'ah, that he was contravening a sin.
2. ... that an Asham Vaday does *not* need a Yedi'ah, someone who is Bo'el
a Shifchah Charufah five times will always be Chayav only one Asham, even
in a case of Shogeg - and even if he had a Yedi'ah in between each one
(even according to Rebbi Yochanan, who learnt above that Yedi'os Mechalkos
- according to the first opinion on 71b). Why is that?
Because since this Asham does not require a Yedi'ah, Yedi'ah is not
Chashuv, and does not divide).
(d) It is obvious, Ula answered Rav Hamnuna, that even if a Yedi'ah does
*not* divide, Hafrashah *does*, as we learnt earlier in the Sugya.
(a) According to our initial understanding of Rav Dimi, the Mishnah, which
expressly states that he only needs to bring *one* Asham, speaks either
be'Meizid - or be'Shogeg, but when he did *not* have a Yedi'ah between the
(b) No! Rav Dimi does not come to argue with Ula - Ula speaks according to
those who hold that an Asham does *not* need a Yedi'ah to be Chayav, and
Rav Dimi, according to those who hold that it *does*.
(c) How can Rav Dimi say, that according to those who hold that a Yedi'ah
is Chashuv, everybody will agree that Yedi'os divide by a Shifchah
Charufah. Then why, in the case of two pieces of Chelev, does Resh Lakish
hold that a Yedi'ah (after eating the two Kezeisim in one Ha'alamah) does
*not* divide, even though a Yedi'ah is Chashuv, as we see from the fact
that a Yedi'ah *before* eating the second Kezayis, *does*.
(It is important to realize that we are comparing the Yedi'ah *in between*
the Bi'os of a Shifchah Charufah to a Yedi'ah *after* eating the two
(d) The Gemara therefore establishes Rav Dimi's Din, not by a Yedi'ah in
between the Bi'os, but by someone who actually separated his Asham between
the Bi'os - and, as we already pointed out in the previous Sugya, even Resh
Lakish agrees that Hafrashah divides (according to the first opinion
(a) The reason that a Yedi'ah in between two Kezeisei Chelev divides -
according to everybody, is because by Chelev, the Chiyuv Korban comes for
the number of Shegagos, and if one became aware in between, that one had
sinned, then he has transgressed two Shegagos, and is Chayav two Chata'os.
Whereas by a Shifchah Charufah, for whom one is Chayav even be'Meizid, the
Yedi'ah has nothing to do with the number of Shegagos.
(b) According to Rebbi Yochanan, who holds that a Yedi'ah divides after
eating the second Kezayis of Chelev, it will also divide in between the two
Bi'os of the Shifchah Charufah.
(a) Both Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish agree that, according to Rebbi
Tarfon, who does not require a Yedi'ah by an Asham Vaday, a Yedi'ah in
between the two Bi'os of a Shifchah Charufah does not divide, and the Bo'el
is only Chayav one Asham.
(b) Both Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish agree (in the above case), that the
Bo'el's designation of his Asham before the second Bi'ah divides, and he
will be Chayav two Ashamos.
(c) And according to Rebbi Akiva, who holds that an Asham Vaday requires
Yedi'ah, Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish follow their respective opinions
quoted in the previous Sugya: according to Rebbi Yochanan, just like the
Yedi'ah there (after the second Kezayis) divides, so too, does the Yedi'ah
(in between the Bi'os) divide, and he will be Chayav two Ashamos; whereas
according to Resh Lakish, the Yedi'ah *there* does not divide, and neither
does the Yedi'ah *here*.
(a) A Shogeg on Shabbos is someone who meant to do what he did (a Melachah
on Shabbos) but who forgot, either that it was Shabbos, or that the
Melachah that he transgressed, was forbidden on Shabbos.
(b) From "Asher Chata Bah" (written by the Chatas of a Nasi) we learn that
someone who intends to do an act that is permitted (e.g. to pick a knife),
but inadvertently performs one that is forbidden (e.g. to cut a vegetable
with it as he is picking it up), is not even called a Shogeg (in fact, he
is termed an 'Ones'), and is Patur from a Korban. He is described as
'Misasek' (According to Tosfos, we are speaking even if he means to pick up
a vegetable thinking that is detached, but, after picking it up, he
discovers that in reality, it was attached, and that he has detached it
from the ground.
(c) According to Rava, someone who intends to cut something which is
detached, but by mistake, he cuts something which was really attached, he
is also termed 'Misasek' and is Patur from a Korban - since he did not
intend to do something which is forbidden. But Abaye maintains that he is
Chayav, because he *did* after all, intend to cut, and the action of
cutting, is sometimes forbidden (so it is still closer to Shogeg than it is
(a) How does the Beraisa of 'Chomer Shabbos mi'be'She'ar Mitzvos' etc.,
Rava cannot explain the Beraisa by an Omer Mutar, which will mean that an
Omer Mutar is Chayav by other sins, but Patur by Shabbos, because Rava
himself asked Rav Nachman (above on Daf 70b), whether an Omer Mutar is
Chayav *one* Chatas (for many Melachos on many Shabbasos) or *many*, but
certainly not Patur altogether?
If it speaks about someone who reaped and ground (be'Shigegas Melachos),
and who is therefore Chayav two Chata'os, the equivalent case of other
'Mitzvos' would be if he ate, for example, Chelev and blood - then why
should he not be Chayav two Chata'os there, as well?
If, on the other hand, it speaks when he ate Chelev twice in one Ha'alamah,
then the equivalent case by Shabbos would be when he reaped twice in one
Ha'alamah - then why would he be Chayav two Chata'os more than by other
(b) The four Chiyuvim comprising Avodah-Zarah are Shechitah, bringing
incense, pouring wine and prostrating oneself before the idol. For
performing all of these in one Ha'alamah, one would only be obligated to
bring one Chatas.
(c) Certainly not! Idolatry is rooted in the heart, so if someone
prostrates himself before an idol believing it to be a Shul, he has in his
heart, prostrated himself before Hashem, so why should he be Chayav?
(d) Nor can the Seifa of the Beraisa (which obligates 'she'Lo be'Kavanah'
by Avodah-Zarah) be speaking about someone who prostrates himself before
the bust of a king. Why not?
Because, if he does this in order to worship him as a god, then he is a
Meizid, and not Shogeg? Whereas if he does it merely in deference to the
king, then what is wrong with it?
(a) The Seifa of the Beraisa, according to Rava, speaks by Chelev, when
someone eats Chelev, believing it to be Shuman (Kasher fat). Although he is
Patur by Shabbos and by other sins which do not involve direct physical
pleasure, this is not the case by Chelev. Why not?
(b) Because Shmuel has already taught us that Mis'asek is Chayav (a Korban)
by Chalavim and Arayos, since he had direct physical pleasure - and the
Korban there comes to atone for the pleasure, not for the intention, as it
does by Shabbos, and other sins that do not involve direct physical
(c) The equivalent case by Shabbos is when someone meant to cut something
which was detached, and then found that it had been attached - the point
currently under debate (and Rava has proved his opinion from this Beraisa).
(d) Abaye counters that the Beraisa speaks, not about someone who ate
Chelev, thinking that it was Shuman (in which case the equivalent case by
Shabbos is that cited by Rava), but about someone who swallowed melted
Chelev - which *is* called eating - believing it to be spittle, which is
*not*. And the equivalent case by Shabbos will be someone who intended to
pick up something that was detached, and then discovered that is was
attached (that is when he is Patur, but not when he meant to cut the one,
and cut the other).