QUESTION: The Gemara cites a Beraisa which relates that Shimon ha'Amsuni (or, according to others, Nechemyah ha'Amsuni) used to expound every word "Es" in a verse as a Ribuy which adds something to the Halachah of the verse. When he arrived at the word "Es" in the verse, "Es Hash-m Elokecha Tira" -- "You shall fear Hash-m your G-d" (Devarim 6:13), he did not expound the word "Es." His students asked him, "Rebbi, what will be now with all of the words 'Es' that you expounded?" He replied, "Just as I received reward for expounding (Derishah), so, too, I received reward for ceasing to expound (Perishah)."

The Beraisa continues and says that the word "Es" in the verse "Es Hash-m Elokecha Tira" was not expounded until Rebbi Akiva taught that the word "Es" is a Ribuy which teaches that one must fear Talmidei Chachamim.

From Shimon ha'Amsuni's statement, "k'Shem she'Kibalti" -- "just as I received," it is evident that he gave equal importance to his refraining from expounding the word "Es" as he gave to his expounding the word "Es." In what way was his refraining from expounding "Es" equal in importance to his expounding it?

ANSWER: The MAHARSHA explains that Shimon ha'Amsuni expounded every word "Es" for the sake of increasing the honor of Hash-m ("Marbeh Kevod Shamayim"). His aim was to show how even the smallest word in the Torah has great meaning and importance and is not extra. His motive for refraining from the Derashah of "Es" in the verse of "Es Hash-m Elokecha Tira" was the same: to increase the honor of Hash-m. Since nothing else in the world warrants the awe that one must have for Hash-m, by refraining from including something else in the verse of "Es Hash-m Elokecha Tira" Shimon ha'Amsuni showed the tremendous degree of Yir'as Hash-m which a person must have, and he thereby increased the honor of Hash-m.

The Maharsha explains the view of Rebbi Akiva based on this approach as well. While Rebbi Akiva certainly agrees that nothing in the world warrants the degree of Yir'ah which one must have for Hash-m, he maintains that there is a certain type of Yir'ah which represents another way of showing honor to Hash-m. When one has awe for a Talmid Chacham, the awe he expresses is for the Torah knowledge which the Talmid Chacham has attained. Having such awe for Hash-m's Torah is a form of giving honor to Hash-m.

(The RASHBA writes that although Shimon ha'Amsuni agrees with Rebbi Akiva on this point, nevertheless he maintains that the magnitude and degree of Yir'ah for a Talmid Chacham is not the same as the Yir'ah for Hash-m, and therefore he does not derive the obligation to have Yir'ah for Talmidei Chachamim from the verse of "Es Hash-m Elokecha Tira.")

QUESTION: Reish Lakish and Rebbi Yochanan disagree about whether the Tziporei Metzora become Asur b'Hana'ah while they are still alive (Reish Lakish) or only after they are slaughtered (Rebbi Yochanan).

The Gemara says that Reish Lakish derives his view from the law of Eglah Arufah, which is Asur b'Hana'ah while it is still alive. The Gemara clearly implies that if the Isur Hana'ah of the Tziporei Metzora is derived from the Isur Hana'ah of Eglah Arufah, the prohibition should begin while the birds are alive, just as the Eglah Arufah is Asur b'Hana'ah while it is alive.

This implication, however, contradicts the beginning of the Sugya, where the Gemara assumes that everyone -- even Rebbi Yochanan (who maintains that the Tziporei Metzora are Asur b'Hana'ah only after they are slaughtered) -- agrees that Eglah Arufah is the source for the Isur Hana'ah of the Tziporei Metzora. The Gemara earlier cites Tana d'Vei Rebbi Yishmael who teaches that Eglah Arufah is the source for the Isur Hana'ah of Tziporei Metzora, and it then discusses the dispute between Reish Lakish and Rebbi Yochanan about when the Isur Hana'ah begins. The Gemara there implies that everyone agrees with the Derashah of Tana d'Vei Rebbi Yishmael who derives the Isur Hana'ah from Eglah Arufah. Why, then does the Gemara cite it as proof for Reish Lakish?

(a) The RASHBA offers two explanations. In his first explanation, he writes that the Tana'im disagree about the extent to which Tziporei Metzora are compared to Eglah Arufah. Everyone agrees that the Isur Hana'ah of Tziporei Metzora is derived from Eglah Arufah. However, Tana d'Vei Rebbi Yishmael maintains that the comparison is absolute and applies even with regard to the time at which the Isur Hana'ah takes effect. The other Tana'im argue and maintain that the time at which the Isur takes effect is not derived from Eglah Arufah (see following Insight).

(b) In his second explanation, the Rashba writes that Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree about this very point: what did Tana d'Vei Rebbi Yishmael intend to say? Did he intend to compare Tziporei Metzora to Eglah Arufah only with regard to the presence of an Isur Hana'ah, or even with regard to the time at which the Isur takes effect? Rebbi Yochanan agrees with his comparison, but maintains that it was limited and teaches only that the Tziporei Metzora are Asur b'Hana'ah, but not when they become Asur b'Hana'ah.

QUESTION: Reish Lakish and Rebbi Yochanan disagree about whether the Tziporei Metzora become Asur b'Hana'ah while they are still alive (Reish Lakish) or only after they are slaughtered (Rebbi Yochanan). Rebbi Yochanan maintains that they become Asur b'Hana'ah from the moment they are slaughtered because it is the act of Shechitah which renders them forbidden. Reish Lakish maintains that they become Asur b'Hana'ah from the moment they are purchased for the purpose of being offered, just as the calf used for the Eglah Arufah becomes Asur b'Hana'ah at that time.

Reish Lakish's reasoning is clear. Since the Isur Hana'ah of Tziporei Metzora is derived from Eglah Arufah, the time at which the Isur takes effect is also derived from Eglah Arufah.

Rebbi Yochanan's reasoning, however, seems difficult to understand. Rebbi Yochanan maintains that the Isur begins only at the moment of Shechitah. His reason is that "it is the Shechitah that prohibits the bird." Rebbi Yochanan's reason seems to be nothing more than a reiteration of his opinion which provides no clear explanation or rationale for it. What does Rebbi Yochanan mean to say?

ANSWER: To better understand Rebbi Yochanan's opinion, it is necessary to analyze the Derashah of Reish Lakish who derives the Isur Hana'ah of Tziporei Metzora from the laws of Eglah Arufah. The Eglah Arufah is Asur b'Hana'ah from the time of "Horadah," when it is brought down to the valley. Although the "Arifah" procedure (or any other act) has not yet been performed on the body of the animal, the animal attains the status of an Eglah Arufah immediately from the time it is brought down to the valley. RASHI explains that since the "Horadah" is the cause for the eventual status of "Arufah," the animal is already labeled as an Eglah Arufah from that time.

What act in the procedure of the Tziporei Metzora is comparable to the act of "Horadah" in the procedure of the Eglah Arufah? Reish Lakish maintains that since the purchase of the birds ultimately leads to the Shechitah, they are labeled as Tziporei Metzora from the time of the purchase and thus are Asur b'Hana'ah from that moment.

In contrast, Rebbi Yochanan maintains that the purchase of the birds is too far removed from the act of Shechitah to be considered a "cause" for the eventual Shechitah such that the birds acquire the status of Tziporei Metzora from the moment of the purchase. Rather, only when the actual Shechitah is performed do they acquire the status of Tziporei Metzora.

This is the intent of Rebbi Yochanan's statement that "it is the act of Shechitah which prohibits them." The birds acquire the title of Tziporei Metzora only through Shechitah because no other act is comparable to the "Horadah" of Eglah Arufah. (A. Kronengold)

QUESTION: The Gemara searches for a case in which an animal's Isur Hana'ah takes effect during the life of the animal and continues even after the Mitzvah has been done with that animal (see Rashi, who calls this an "Isur Olam," an everlasting Isur). Why does the Gemara not cite the case of Eglah Arufah, which is the source for the Isur Hana'ah of Tziporei Metzora? The Isur Hana'ah of Eglah Arufah begins while the animal is alive and remains in effect even after the Mitzvah of "Arifah" has been performed.

ANSWER: The RASHBA answers that the cause of the Isur Hana'ah of an Eglah Arufah is not something which happens to the animal while it is alive. Rather, it is the act of "Arifah" which causes the animal to become Asur b'Hana'ah. The Isur takes effect before the "Arifah" only because the "Horadah" (bringing the Eglah down to the valley) is the first step in the "Arifah" process (see previous Insight).

The Gemara seeks a case in which the animal becomes Asur b'Hana'ah as a result of something which occurs while it is alive. The cause of the Isur must be an independent occurrence and not an act that is a preliminary step to the death of the animal. The Isurim of "Rove'a" and "Nirva" are Isurim which come about as a result of an event which occurs while the animal is alive. The transgression of the prohibition of Arayos is what creates the Isur Hana'ah of the animal in those cases, and not the ultimate Sekilah of the animal in Beis Din.