ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Kama 110
(a) We just learned that if the Kohen is old or sick (and unable to eat the
flesh), then he appoints another Kohen to take his place, but the skin and
the flesh go to all the Kohanim of the current Mishmar. The problem with
this, assuming that he is ...
1. ... physically capable of performing the Avodah himself is - why then,
does he not also take the skin and the flesh?
(b) Consequently, Rav Papa establishes the Beraisa - where the Kohen is able
to perform the Avodah and to eat the Korban, but only with great difficulty.
In that case, he is permitted to appoint a Sheli'ach, seeing as his Avodah
would be Kasher if he exerted himself and performed it; but he cannot
appoint a Sheli'ach to eat it, since (based on the principle 'Achilah
al-Yedei ha'D'chak Lo Sh'mah Achilah'), if he were to eat it in that way, he
would not have fulfilled the Mitzvah.
2. ... incapable of performing the Avodah himself - then how is he permitted
to appoint a Sheli'ach to bring the Korban on his behalf?
(a) A Tamei Kohen - may bring a Korban Tzibur be'Tum'ah (because a Korban
Tzibur overrides Tum'ah). He is not however, permitted to eat it.
(b) Rav Sheishes rules that if a Tamei Kohen is bringing a Korban Tzibur, he
appoints another Kohen to bring it, and gives the skin and the flesh to the
members of the Mishmar to eat. The problem with this, assuming that ...
1. ... there are Tahor Kohanim available to bring the Korban is - that, if
so, Temei'im are forbidden to bring it, in which case, he cannot appoint a
(c) Rava subsequently amends the Mishnah to read - that the Tamei Kohen
actually gives the skin and the flesh to blemished Kohanim who are Tahor ...
2. ... all the Kohanim in the Mishmar are Tamei - then what point is there
in giving the flesh to the members of that Mishmar, seeing as they cannot
eat it anyway?
(d) ... and the Tana is speaking when there are no Tahor Kohanim other than
(a) A Kohen Gadol who is an Onan ...
1. ... may sacrifice Korbanos?
(b) We might we have thought that he is permitted to eat Korbanos the
following evening - because his Aninus (d'Oraysa) ends at nightfall (as we
learn from the Pasuk in Amos "ve'Achariysah ke'Yom Mar").
2. ... not eat the Korbanos that he brings?
3. ... does not receive a portion of the Korbanos when they are distributed
in the evening.
(c) The principle regarding appointing a Sheli'ach to perform a Mitzvah on
one's behalf is - that a person can appoint a Sheli'ach to perform whatever
he himself can do (and the reverse is true as well).
(d) When Rav Ashi rules that a Kohen Gadol Onan can appoint a Sheli'ach to
bring his Korban in his place, but that the skin and the flesh are
distributed among the other Kohanim in the evening - he is coming to teach
us that the Torah does not only permit him to bring the Korbanos as an Onan,
but that he is even permitted to appoint a Sheli'ach.
(a) We already discussed the basic details of 'ha'Gozel es ha'Ger u'Meis',
discussed in the opening section of our Mishnah. In the event that the Ganav
dies on the way to Yerushalayim, with the money that he stole plus a Chomesh
and with the Asham, the Tana says that ...
1. ... his children inherit the Keren ve'Chomesh?
(b) We learn that, once their father has already given the money to the
members of the Mishmar, there is nothing they can do about it, should he die
before he has had a chance to bring his Asham - from the Pasuk "Ish Asher
Yiten la'Kohen Lo Yih'yeh"(whatever the Kohen receives, he keeps).
2. ... the Asham - is sent into the meadow to graze until it becomes
blemished, when it is sold, and the proceeds are placed in the box marked
'Nedavah' (whose contents are used to purchase 'Olos Kayitz ha'Mizbe'ach'
during the long summer days).
(a) The two Mishmaros Yehoyariv and Yedayah served - in that order.
(b) Consequently, if the Ganav ...
1. ... gave the money to Yehoyariv and the Asham to Yedayah - he has
fulfilled his obligation, because he gave them in the correct order.
(c) The reason for this is because Chazal penalized the Mishmar of Yehoyariv
for accepting the Asham prematurely. The reason why they did not rather
penalize the Mishmar of Yedayah (and allow Yehoyariv to bring the Asham)
is - because the latter did nothing wrong in accepting the money first.
2. ... gave the Asham to Yehoyariv and the money to Yedayah, then, assuming
that the Asham has not yet been brought - Yehoyariv must give the Asham to
(d) In the case of a Ganav who returned the Keren but not the Chomesh, the
Tana of our Mishnah rules - that the Chomesh does not prevent the Mitzvah
from taking effect.
(a) The Beraisa explains that "ha'Asham" refers to the Keren of Gezel
ha'Ger - and "ha'Mushav", to the Chomesh.
(b) We know that "ha'Asham" does not refer to the Korban - because the Pasuk
adds "mi'L'vad Eil ha'Asham", which obviously refers directly to the Asham.
(c) The ramifications of referring to the Keren as "Asham" are twofold. Rava
compares the Keren to an Asham with regard to - not having fulfilled one's
duty if one paid at night (which by a Korban, is learned from the Pasuk in
Tzav "be'Yom Tzavoso"), or if one paid in halves (which is simply not
possible by a Korban.
(a) Another Beraisa suggests that we invert the two, that "ha'Asham" ought
to refer to the Chomesh, and "ha'Mushav", to the Keren. This would negate
the Din in our Mishnah - 'Nasan es ha'Keren ve'Lo Nasan es ha'Chomesh, Ein
ha'Chomesh Me'akev' (since whatever we compare to the Asham is bound to
prevent the Mitzvah from taking effect.
(b) The Pasuk "ve'Heishiv es Ashamo be'Rosho, va'Chamishiso" therefore
teaches us - that "ha'Asham" refers to the Keren and not to the Chomesh.
(c) A third Beraisa suggests that the Pasuk is talking (not about Gezel
ha'Ger, but) about Geneivas ha'Ger. The difference between the two is - that
the former pays only Keren, whereas the latter also pays Kefel.
(d) We know that the Pasuk is not talking about Geneivas ha'Ger - because
the Pasuk also writes "ve'Heishiv es Ashamo la'Hashem va'Chamishiso", from
which we extrapolate 'Mamon ha'Mishtalem be'Rosh ha'Kasuv Medaber' (but not
when he pays Kefel as well).
(a) Rava learns from the Pasuk "ha'Asham ha'Mushav" - that the minimum
payment of Gezel ha'Ger is a P'rutah for each member of the Mishmar that is
serving when the Gazlan pays. Otherwise, he must add what is missing from
his own pocket.
(b) Rava asks what the Din will be if, in a case where the sum is sufficient
to provide each member of Yedayah with a P'rutah, but not Yehoyariv, the
Gazlan gives the money to Yedayah - during the term of Yehoyariv (and the
She'eilah remains unanswered).
(c) Despite the fact that when he gives it to them it is not their turn to
serve, he might nevertheless have fulfilled his duty - because since there
is not sufficient to supply Yehoyariv, the money is initially destined for
(a) Rava asks whether the Kohanim are permitted to swap their respective
portions of Gezel ha'Ger with one another (e.g. Sunday's for Monday's). This
might be forbidden because the Torah refers to it as "Asham". On the other
hand, it might be permitted - because, when all's said and done, Gezel
ha'Ger is a monetary obligation.
(b) Rava concludes - like the first side of the She'eilah.
(c) According to Rav Acha B'rei de'Rava - Rava did not ask a She'eilah, but
made a statement, conforming with his previous conclusion.
(a) Rava asks whether the Kohanim are considered the heirs of the Ger, or
recipients of a gift from Hashem. The ramifications of this She'eilah are -
whether, someone who steals Chametz from a Ger before Pesach, the Ger died
and Pesach passed, may return it as it is (like an heir takes whatever he
receives), or not (because the Torah obligates the Gazlan to give a Matanah
[which must be worth at least a P'rutah]), in which case, he will have to
pay the original value of the Chametz out of his own pocket.
(b) Rav Ze'ira does not consider this a She'eilah. He holds - that even
assuming that the Kohanim are considered recipients of a gift from Hashem,
the Torah only obligates the Gazlan to give the article that he has (and not
to pay out of his own pocket).
(c) He interprets the She'eilah in connection with the Mitzvah of Ma'aser
Beheimah - whether a Kohen who inherits ten animals of Gezel ha'Ger is
obligated to Ma'aser them or not. He might be Chayav, because Mar obligated
heirs who inherited animals from their father to Ma'aser them.
(d) The reason that he might be Patur is connected with the Mishnah in
Bechoros. The Tana there exempts from Ma'aser Beheimah - someone who buys or
who receives a gift of ten animals.
(a) The Beraisa lists twenty four Matnos Kehunah, all of which were given
with a 'Klal u'P'rat u'Ch'lal' ("le'Chol Kodshei B'nei Yisrael Lecha Nesatim
le'Mashchah", "Zeh Yih'yeh Lecha mi'Kodesh ha'Kodashim min ha'Eish", "Kol
T'rumos ha'Kodashim" respectively). The two other things listed by the
Tana - are "B'ris" and "Melach".
(b) When the Tana states that if someone gives the Matanos, it is as if he
had fulfilled ...
1. ... the 'K'lal u'P'rat u'Ch'lal', he means - that it is as if he had
fulfilled the entire Torah, which can be Darshened with a 'K'lal u'P'rat
(c) We resolve Rava's She'eilah from this Beraisa - which refers to all the
Matanos (including Gezel ha'Ger) as 'Matanos'.
2. ... the covenant of salt - that it is as if he had brought all the
Korbanos, which were given with a covenant of salt.
(a) All ...
1. ... ten Kodshei Hamikdash - have to be eaten behind the Kela'im (the
hangings that separated the Courtyard from the Har ha'Bayis), because they
all fall under the category of Kodshei Kodshim.
(b) The ten Kodshei ha'Mikdash include Chatas Beheimah, Chatas ha'Of, Asham
Vaday, Asham Taluy, Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur, Log Shemen shel Metzora, Mosar
ha'Omer, the Sh'tei ha'Lechem, the Lechem ha'Panim and the Sheyarei
Menachos. Asham Vaday incorporates five Ashamos - Asham Gezeilos, Me'ilos,
Shifchah Charufah, Nazir and Metzora. They are all brought for definite sins
or for specific obligations. An Asham Taluy is brought for any case of
Ka'res that one is unsure of having transgressed.
2. ... four Kodshei Yerushalayim - had to be distributed inside the walls of
Yerushalayim, and with the exception of the skins of Kodshei Kodshim, they
had to be eaten there too.
3. ... ten Kodshei ha'Gevul - had to given to the Kohen within the borders
of Eretz Yisrael.
(c) The four Kodshei Yerushalayim incorporate Bechorah, Bikurim, ha'Moram
min ha'Todah ve'Eil Nazir and the skins of Kodshim. Included in 'Moram ...
1. ... min ha'Todah' is - the chest and the right calf, as well as one of
each of the four different kinds of loaves that were brought together with
(d) The Tana is referring to - the skins of Kodshei Kodshim (since the skins
of Kodshim Kalim belong to the owner).
2. ... me'Eil Nazir' is - the cooked right foreleg.
(e) The ten Kodshei ha'Gevul include T'rumah, T'rumas Ma'aser, Chalah,
Reishis ha'Gez ve'ha'Matanos, Pidyon ha'Ben, Pidyon Peter Chamor, Sadeh
Achuzah, Sadeh Charamim and Gezel ha'Ger.
1. Matanos - incorporates the right fore-leg, the cheeks and the Keivah
2. ... Sadeh Achuzah - an inherited field (as opposed to one that is
purchased) which the owner declared Hekdesh, and, when he declined to redeem
it, the treasurer of Hekdesh sold it to someone else. When the Yovel-year
arrives, it is given to the Kohanim.
3. ... Sadeh Charamim - an inherited field which the owner declared Cherem,
which goes to the members of the group of Kohanim that is serving that week
in the Beis-Hamikdash.
(a) Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur consitute the two lambs that are brought on
Shavu'os. They are the only Shelamim which fall under the category of
1. Log Shemen shel Metzora is - the remains of the Log of oil after it has
been poured into the left palm of the Kohen and the purification ritual had
(c) The Tana omits the Moram mi'Shelamim - because it is included in the
Moram mi'Todah (only no loaves were brought with the Shelamim).
2. Mosar ha'Omer is - the remains of the Omer (of barley) after the Kemitzah
(the fistful) has been taken from it.
3. Sheyarei ha'Menachos - is the remains of the Menachos from which a
Kemitzah is taken (the Minchas Nedavah, Chotei and Sotah. Other Menachos,
such as a Minchas Kohen, from which no Kemitzah is taken, are not eaten).
(a) We extrapolate from our Mishnah (which rules that if the Gazlan gave the
Gezel ha'Ger to the members of the Mishmar and died ... , his heirs cannot
reclaim the money from the Kohanim) - that the money itself must constitute
half an atonement. Otherwise, the heirs would be able to reclaim it, since
their father did not give the money for nothing.
(b) Nevertheless ...
1. ... a Chatas whose owner died, does not go out to Chulin. We do not say
there too, that the owner did not declare his animal a Chatas for nothing -
because the fact that a Chatas whose owner died, must die, is a 'Halachah
2. ... an Asham whose owner died does not go out to Chulin, but is sent to
graze - because the 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai' concludes that - whenever a
Chatas has to die, the equivalent by an Asham, must be sent to graze.
3. ... a Yevamah who falls to a leper needs to make Chalitzah, and cannot
argue that, had she known that she will fall to a leper, she would never
have married his brother in the first place - because of Resh Lakish's
principle, that a woman would rather be married to anyone than live as a