Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) "KORBANOS" FOR IDOLATRY WITH MULTIPLE "AVODOS"

(a) Version #1 (R. Zakai): If one did Zevichah, Haktarah, Nisuch and Hishtachava'ah in one forgetting (he did not remember in between that these are forbidden), he only brings one Korban.
(b) R. Yochanan: Leave the Beis Medrash (that is wrong)!
(c) (R. Aba): Tana'im argue about R. Zakai's law.

1. (Beraisa - R. Yosi): The Torah forbids all Melachos - it specifically forbids burning to teach that it is only a Lav, one is not Chayav Misah for it;
2. R. Noson says, it is taught by itself to separate the Melachos (it teaches that one is liable for a single Melachah, and obligates one to bring a Korban for every Melachah done b'Shogeg).
3. R. Zakai's law is like the opinion that burning was taught by itself to teach that it is only a Lav - likewise, Hishtachava'ah (and we have no source to Mechayev a separate Chatas for each Avodah in one He'elam)
4. According to the opinion that burning teaches that we Mechayev a separate Chatas for each Melachah in one He'elam, Hishtachava'ah teaches similarly about Avodos.

(d) Objection (Rav Yosef): Perhaps R. Yosi only said that burning was taught by itself to teach that it is only a Lav because "Me'Achas me'Henah" is Mechalek Melachos;

1. (Beraisa - R. Yosi): "V'Asah me'Achas me'Henah" - sometimes one is liable one Chatas for many Melachos, sometimes he brings one Chatas for each transgression.
2. (R. Yonason): He learns from "V'Asah me'Achas me'Henah" - it could have said 'V'Asah Achas', therefore we expound the extra 'Mem', 'Henah' and 'me'Henah':
3. Achas refers to a full Melachah, e.g. writing the name 'Shimon'; "me'Achas" teaches that he is liable even for part of a Melachah, he wanted to write 'Shimon', he only wrote the first two letters, 'Shem' (Rashi - because this is also a name or word; Me'iri - even if they would not form a word);
4. 'Henah' teaches Avos (important Melachos used to build the Mishkan), 'me'Henah' teaches Toldos (secondary Melachos derived from and similar to the Avos);
5. Achas (transgression of one Mitzvah, do not do Melachah on Shabbos) is sometimes Henah (liable multiple Chata'os) - he remembered that it was Shabbos, he forgot (and did) different Melachos;
6. Henah (many transgressions) is sometimes liable only Achas (one Chatas) - he forgot that it was Shabbos, he remembered that he was doing Melachos.
7. Summation of objection: Regarding idolatry, R. Yosi has no other source to Mechalek Avodos, he would agree that Hishtachava'ah is Mechalek Avodos!

(e) Counter-question: The same verse can be used to teach Chiluk Avodos!

1. Achas refers to a full Avodah, e.g. slaughter; "me'Achas" teaches that he is liable even for part of an Avodah, he slaughtered one of the two Simanim (Kaneh and Vesht);
2. 'Henah' teaches Avos - slaughtering, burning, Nisuch and bowing; 'me'Henah' teaches Toldos, breaking a stick in front of it (if the idolatry is served with a stick), which resembles slaughter;
3. Achas (transgression of one Mitzvah, idolatry) can be Henah (multiple Chata'os) - he remembered that idolatry is forbidden, he forgot the Avodos (and did different Avodos);
4. Henah (many transgressions) can be Achas (one Chatas) - he was Shogeg regarding idolatry, he remembered the Avodos.
5. Question: What is the case of idolatry b'Shogeg?

i. If he thought he was bowing to a synagogue, and it really was idolatry - he intended to serve Hash-m (surely, he is exempt)!

6. Answer #1: Rather, he bowed to a statue.
7. Rejection: If he accepted it to be his god, he was Mezid; if he did not accept it, he did not serve idolatry!
8. Answer #2: Rather, he served idolatry on account of love or fear.
9. Question: This is like Abaye, who obligates for serving on account of love or fear;

i. According to Rava, who exempts, how can we answer?

10. Answer #3: He thought that idolatry is permitted.
11. Question: If so, we can settle a question of Rava!

i. Question (Rava): If a person forgot that it was Shabbos *and* he forgot Melachos (and did them), does he bring just one Chatas (for forgetting Shabbos), or one for each Melachah?
ii. Just like here, he forgot that idolatry is forbidden (and perforce, he also forgot that Avodos are forbidden), he brings only one Korban, also regarding Shabbos! (We retract from the previous explanation of Henah that is Achas, we know say that he was Shogeg regarding idolatry *and* the Avodos.)
iii. Answer: Indeed, Rava will answer as we said, and we resolve his question.

(f) Answer: We cannot establish "Me'Achas me'Henah" to refer to idolatry - this verse is in the Parshah of Chata'os in Vayikra, where it says that an anointed Kohen brings a bull, a Nasi brings a male goat, and a commoner brings a female lamb or goat;

1. (Mishnah): Regarding idolatry, an anointed Kohen or Nasi brings a female goat, like a commoner.

(g) Conclusion: Rav Yosef's objection is affirmed. (R. Zakai must learn from "V'Lo So'ovdem" that all Avodos are considered one.)

2) SHABBOS IS DIFFERENT FROM OTHER "MITZVOS"

(a) Version #2 (Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah): R. Zakai taught in front of R. Yochanan as follows:

1. There is a stringency of Shabbos over other Mitzvos, and there is a stringency of other Mitzvos over Shabbos:

i. The stringency of Shabbos - if two Melachos were done in one He'elam, he is liable for each one, this is not so regarding other Mitzvos.
ii. The stringency of other Mitzvos - if someone transgressed b'Shogeg without intention he is liable, this is not so regarding Shabbos (one is not liable unless he intended to do the Melachah).

(b) Question: He said that regarding Shabbos, if two Melachos were done in one He'elam, he is liable for each one - what is the case?

1. If he reaped and ground - the corresponding case of other Mitzvos is eating Chelev and blood, also there he is liable for each!

(c) Answer #1: We must say, regarding other Mitzvos he ate Chelev twice (in one He'elam).
(d) Rejection: Also regarding Shabbos, if he reaped twice he is liable only once!

1. This is why R. Yochanan told him to leave the Beis Medrash.

(e) Question (and Answer #2): Why not say, really, he reaped and ground - the corresponding case of other Mitzvos is idolatry, as R. Ami taught!

1. (R. Ami): If someone did Zevichah, Haktarah and Nisuch in one He'elam, he is liable only one Korban.

(f) Answer: We cannot establish it regarding idolatry on account of the latter clause - The stringency of other Mitzvos, if someone transgressed b'Shogeg without intention he is liable, this is not so regarding Shabbos.

1. Question: How could we establish this regarding idolatry?

i. If he thought he was bowing to a synagogue, and it really was idolatry - he intended to serve Hash-m!

2. Answer #1: Rather, he bowed to a statue.
3. Rejection: If he accepted it to be his god, he was Mezid; if not, he did not serve idolatry!
4. Answer #2: Rather, he served idolatry on account of love or fear.
5. Question: This is like Abaye, who obligates for serving on account of love or fear;

i. According to Rava, who exempts, how can we answer?

6. Answer #3: He thought that idolatry is permitted.
7. Question: R. Zakai taught, this is not so regarding Shabbos, he is totally exempt;

i. Rava only asked whether a person who forgot that it was Shabbos and forgot Melachos brings one Chatas, or for each Melachah - there was no side to say that he is totally exempt!

(g) Question: Perhaps the first clause refers to idolatry, the second clause refers to a different Mitzvah!

1. Transgressing b'Shogeg without intention - he thought that saliva was on his tongue and he swallowed it (and it was really Chelev);
2. The corresponding case regarding Shabbos - he intended to pick up something detached, and cut something attached to the ground, he is exempt.

i. (Rav Nachman): Misasek (doing an action without intention) regarding Arayos or forbidden foods is liable, for he received pleasure;
ii. Misasek regarding Shabbos is exempt - the Torah only forbids Melachah Machsheves (one who accomplished his intention).

(h) Answer: R. Yochanan rejected this possibility because (also elsewhere) he demands that the beginning and end of a Mishnah or Beraisa resemble each other.

1. (R. Yochanan): If someone can explain the Mishnah of a barrel (that a watchman moved without permission) according to one Tana, I will carry his clothes to the bathhouse.