Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Yoma 63

1) RAV CHISDA'S OPINION REGARDING THE "ISUR" OF "SHECHUTEI CHUTZ"

QUESTION: According to Rav Chisda, a person is Chayav for slaughtering an animal outside of the Azarah ("Shechutei Chutz") if one slaughters an animal which *under any circumstances* could be used as a kosher Korban (as long as it is not "Mechusar Ma'aseh," lacking an essential requisite to be a Korban).

The Gemara challenges Rav Chisda's opinion from another statement of Rav Chisda. We know that a Korban Pesach that is slaughtered during the rest of the year she'Lo Lishmo (that is, with intention to be brought as a Korban Shelamim) is a kosher Korban Shelamim (Pesachim 70b). Rav Chisda states that if one slaughtered a Korban Pesach during the rest of the year outside of the Azarah ("ba'Chutz"), he is Patur for "Shechutei Chutz" if he slaughtered it Lishmo (since in that case it remains a Korban Pesach, which is not a kosher Korban any time of the year other than the fourteenth of Nisan). If he slaughtered it she'Lo Lishma (e.g. l'Shem Shelamim) he is Chayav, since he slaughtered a kosher Korban ba'Chutz.

The Gemara says that from this statement we see that Rav Chisda holds that if one slaughtered it outside of the Mikdash "Stam" (that is, with no explicit intention), one would also be Patur, because it is not fit to be brought as a Korban Pesach on that day. This contradicts Rav Chisda's other statement that it is forbidden to slaughter any animal ba'Chutz which is fit to be brought as a Korban. The Korban Pesach which was slaughtered "Stam" *could be brought* as a Korban Shelamim if he had in mind during the Shechitah that it is l'Shem Shelamim, and thus one should be Chayav for slaughtering it ba'Chutz, even Stam! (It appears that the Gemara thinks that it is not necessary to have an Akirah for a Pesach to become a Shelamim.) Why, asks the Gemara, does Rav Chisda say that one is Patur for slaughtering it "Stam" ba'Chutz?

The Gemara's logic in its question is difficult to follow. Rav Chisda said nothing about a Pesach that is slaughtered "Stam." How does the Gemara know that Rav Chisda holds that if a Korban Pesach is slaughtered "Stam" (during the rest of the year) ba'Chutz one is Patur? Perhaps Rav Chisda holds that he is indeed Chayav! If the Gemara deduces it from the fact that Rav Chisda said that if one slaughters it she'Lo Lishmo he is Chayav, thus implying that if one slaughters it "Stam" he is Patur, then the opposite implication can be deduced from the beginning of his statement! Rav Chisda says that if one slaughters the animal Lishmo ba'Chutz, he is Patur, which implies that if he slaughtered it "Stam" ba'Chutz, he is Chayav! What, then, is the Gemara's question on Rav Chisda?

ANSWERS:

(a) TOSFOS (DH Ta'ama) suggests, and the RITVA explains at greater length, that according to Rashi the Gemara is assuming that Rav Chisda must have meant to discuss the case of "Stam," and not just the other two cases of Lishmo and she'Lo Lishmo. Rav Chisda would not have left out that case. Since the rule is that all Korbanos that are slaughtered "Stam" are considered to have been slaughtered Lishmo, then we can assume that when Rav Chisda discusses slaughtering the Korban Pesach "Lishmo," he really means that one slaughters it "Stam." That is, Rav Chisda says that the person who slaughters the animal "Stam" ba'Chutz is *Patur*, which contradicts his other statement.

(b) TOSFOS in the name of RABEINU TAM answers that the Gemara's question is from the beginning of Rav Chisda's statement, regarding slaughtering the animal Lishmo. (He is not Gores the line in the Gemara that pinpoints Stam as being the problematic case.) Rav Chisda says that if one slaughters it Lishmo ba'Chutz, he is Patur, because if it is slaughtered Lishmo in the Mikdash after the fourteenth of Nisan it becomes Pasul. But if one slaughters it *Stam*, it *is* fit to be brought as a Korban, for the Gemara at this point maintains that it is not necessary to make an Akirah and the Korban is automatically a Shelamim when slaughtered "Stam." There is no difference between slaughtering it l'Shem Shelamim and slaughtering it "Stam." If so, when he slaughters it Lishmo ba'Chutz, he should also be Chayav, for this animal was fit to be brought as a Korban had it been slaughtered "Stam," and it is not Mechusar Ma'aseh.

It is apparent that Rashi's original text agreed with Rabeinu Tam's Girsa, since he finds it necessary to emphasize that one must add the words "Ta'ama d'Lo Lishmo..." to the Gemara. Tosfos, on the other hand, says that there is no need to add them. Indeed, the TOSFOS YESHANIM says that Rabeinu Tam's explanation is so straightforward that it is difficult to understand why Rashi changed the Girsa and gave a different explanation.

The answer to this question on Rashi might be that Rashi and Rabeinu Tam are following their respective opinions as expressed elsewhere. They are arguing about a basic point in the opinion that an animal that was designated to be a Korban Pesach does not require Akirah to become a kosher Shelamim. Does that mean that it is automatically a Korban Shelamim once Pesach passes, no matter what thought the Shochet has, or does it mean that only by default it is a Korban Shelamim (but not if the Shochet has in mind that it is a Korban Pesach)?

Rabeinu Tam in Pesachim (64a, TOSFOS DH Ta'ama) says that after the first day of Pesach has passed, the animal designated to be a Korban Pesach automatically becomes a Korban Shelamim since it can no longer be brought as a Pesach, if it does not need Akirah. Even if one slaughters it *Lishmo* (i.e. as a Pesach), Rabeinu Tam says, *it remains a Shelamim*. There is no such thing as a Korban Pesach after Pesach has passed, and thus the Korban remains a Shelamim. (In fact, it is not clear how, according to Tosfos, our Sugya originally presupposed that it would be an *invalid Korban* if it was slaughtered in the Mikdash l'Shem Pesach, according to those who hold Akirah is not necessary. It should remain a Shelamim she'Nishchatu l'Shem Pesach, which we rule is valid, as Tosfos writes in Yoma! Apparently, our Sugya thought that all Shelamim she'Nishchatu l'Shem Pesach are actually invalid, like the Gemara wanted to suggest in Yoma 60b.)

Rashi, though, learns that even if a Korban Pesach does not need Akirah to turn it into a valid Korban Shelamim, that does not mean that it is *immutably* a Shelamim. If it is slaughtered l'Shem *Pesach*, the Machshavah of the Shochet *can* make it a Korban Pesach she'Lo b'Zemano, which is an invalid Korban. In a case where the Machshavah of the Shochet actively disqualifies the Korban, we never find that "Ho'il" can be applied to make one Chayav for slaughtering it outside of the Azarah, and therefore the Gemara would not have asked that he should be Chayav for slaughtering the animal *l'Shem Pesach* ba'Chutz (if Akirah is not necessary), unlike Rabeinu Tam suggests. (The Ritva seems to explain Rashi as we have suggested.)

63b