Question in decryption encryption

B. H.

Good afternoon.

I happened to see somewhere that you wrote about yourself that you were involved in the teachings of Rogoczybi, so I’m taking advantage of this to ask you a question that I’m having difficulty with.

The Rambam in chapter 6 of the Laws of the Nazarites, when he defines what is the impurity of the abyss, says that this impurity is specifically when it comes to a dead person and not to a killed person, and reasons, ‘for the one who killed knew about it.’ Apparently he deduces this from what is said in the baraita, ‘And they did not say the impurity of the abyss except for the dead person only.’ The Rabbi on the spot contradicts him and claims that the baraita did not come to exclude the murdered person, but the impurity of gonorrhea. It is not clear whether he disagrees with the law or only with the interpretation of the baraita (it is quite clear that he does not disagree legally). However, in the article on the website, he understands that this is a dispute in law. In his opinion, they disagreed whether the knowledge of the speaker is considered knowledge. According to the Rambam, yes, and according to the Rabbi, no. He claims (as is his custom…) that this is already a dispute in the Gemara between Abaye and Rava. For example, in Batons 6, when Rav Papa asks Abaye whether from now on the murdered person will save, he answers no when the murdered person is behind him, while Rava answers him in the sense of fulfilling the deed. The text speaks (according to the interpretation of the Tzaf, the knowledge of the speaker is not knowledge). Or for example, in Kiratot 26, the Gemara, on the assumption that Yom Kippur atones for offenses that no one knows, asks the Gem from a stray woman who has committed a Yom Kippur sin that she will not have to bring a sacrifice. Abaye makes the excuse that the one who burned the sacrificial lamb knows. Rava chooses a different excuse. Similarly, regarding a decapitated calf, Abaye makes the excuse that the one who kills it knows, and Rava makes a different excuse.

My question is what is the explanation for saying that the knowledge of the owner of a thing is not considered knowledge. What is the difference between it and the knowledge of another person? In our case, the impurity of the abyss is an impurity that no one knew about (in a baraita). If so, why is it that when the murderer knew about the thing, it is still considered that no one knows about it. Perhaps the Rogochovi defined a disagreement for us, but he explained it (reference: R. Chaim..). This seems very arbitrary. Let us say that the Briskian divisions that are said to be unexplained are much more explained than this division.

By the way, I don’t think it’s really possible to define without explaining. It seems to me to be a bit of a stretch and an incoherent statement. The statement that Rabbi Chaim only says what (unlike Rabbi Shimon) seems inaccurate. Someone there made a mistake in the diagnosis or at least didn’t look at themselves well.

Anyway, I would be happy to answer.
Thank you very much and a happy and kosher Passover.
from’