QUESTION: The Gemara (end of 2b) cites the Mishnah later (18a) that states that one who derives benefit from a dead Chatas (that was a Ba'al Mum) transgresses the Isur of Me'ilah (mid'Rabanan). The Gemara questions this law from a Beraisa that states that one may not derive benefit from any of the Chata'os ha'Mesos, animals that cannot be offered as a Chatas but must be left to die (as enumerated in Temurah 16a), or from money that was designated for the purchase of a Chatas which cannot be used but must be thrown into the sea. However, if one transgressed and derived benefit from such an animal, or from such money, he is not liable for Me'ilah (even mid'Rabanan). This contradicts the Mishnah that says that one is liable for Me'ilah for benefiting from a dead Chatas.

The Gemara answers that since, when it is alive, people stay away from the Chatas that must be left to die, there is no concern that one might benefit from it after it dies, and thus the Rabanan did not enact a decree of Me'ilah. In contrast, people do not stay away from an ordinary Chatas when it is alive, and thus there is a concern that one might benefit from it after it dies. Consequently, the Rabanan enacted an Isur of Me'ilah for it.

RASHI (DH Lo Nehenin) writes that the Isur against benefiting from the Chata'os ha'Mesos is only mid'Rabanan. (See CHAZON ISH, Bechoros 18:17, who explains that there is no Isur mid'Oraisa to benefit from them, because the Beis ha'Mikdash will never accrue benefit from the dead Kodshim and thus they lose their Kedushah, as the Gemara discusses in Chulin 139a and in Gitin 28b, as the KEHILOS YAKOV adds.)

Rashi's statement here seems to contradict his words in Kidushin (57b). The Gemara there states that one is forbidden to derive benefit from an animal of Chulin that was slaughtered in the Azarah. The Gemara derives this law from the law of Kodshim slaughtered outside of the Azarah: just as Kodshim slaughtered outside the Azarah are Asur b'Hana'ah, Chulin slaughtered in the Azarah are Asur b'Hana'ah. Rashi there (DH Mah) explains the reason for why Kodshim slaughtered outside the Beis ha'Mikdash are Asur b'Hana'ah as follows. Since Kodshim are certainly Asur b'Hana'ah when they are alive, and the only way to remove that Isur is through Zerikas ha'Dam, when the Kodshim are dead there is no way to remove the Isur. Rashi clearly understands that the Isur Hana'ah of dead Kodshim is an Isur mid'Oraisa, and not mid'Rabanan.

Why, then, does Rashi here write that the Chata'os ha'Mesos are Asur b'Hana'ah only mid'Rabanan? Rashi himself explains in Kidushin that as long as the blood of Kodshim was not sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach, the Kodshim remain Asur b'Hana'ah mid'Oraisa!

ANSWER: The KEHILOS YAKOV (Kidushin 44:2, DH v'Nir'eh) answers that there is a fundamental difference between a Chatas that must be left to die and Kodshim that died. Even if it would be possible to redeem a Chatas that must be left to die, it would still be impossible for Hekdesh to do anything with the money received from the Pidyon because the money itself must be thrown into the sea. Since both the animal or the redemption money must go to waste and cannot be used, Hekdesh has no use for them. Since Hekdesh can do nothing with them, it follows that their Kedushah automatically goes away (as the Chazon Ish, cited above, mentions).

In contrast, if other Kodshim that died could be redeemed, it would be possible for Hekdesh to use the money to buy other Korbanos and offer them on the Mizbe'ach. In practice, though, it is not possible to redeem dead Kodshim, either because the Pidyon process requires that they be "stood up and appraised," and a dead animal cannot be stood up (see Temurah 32b), or because of the Halachah that one may not redeem Kodshim in order to feed the redeemed carcasses to dogs (see Temurah 17a). However, since -- if it would be possible to redeem such Kodshim -- Hekdesh would be able to use the redemption money, such Kodshim still have some connection with Hekdesh and their Kedushah has not expired. Therefore, deriving benefit from them is forbidden mid'Oraisa, as Rashi in Kidushin writes, while deriving benefit from a Chatas that must be left to die is permitted mid'Oraisa, as Rashi here writes. (D. BLOOM)

OPINIONS: Rav Gidal in the name of Rav states that when the Zerikas ha'Dam of a Korban is performed with a thought of Pigul, the Zerikah is ineffective in changing the status of the Korban with regard to Me'ilah. Normally, when the Zerikah is performed it removes the Isur of Me'ilah from the meat (Basar) of an animal that is Kodshei Kodashim (such as a Chatas or Asham). For an animal that is Kodshim Kalim (such as a Shelamim), the Zerikah causes Me'ilah to take effect on the Eimurim. Rav Gidal teaches that a Zerikah of Pigul (which invalidates the Korban from being offered) does not remove Me'ilah from the Basar of Kodshei Kodashim, and it does not cause Me'ilah to take effect on the Eimurim of Kodshim Kalim.

Rav Papa questions Rav Gidal's ruling from a Beraisa that states that when one slaughters a Korban Todah with a thought of Pigul, the Lachmei Todah (the loaves that accompany the Todah) become Kadosh and the Isur of Me'ilah applies to them, just as they become Kadosh with a proper Shechitah. Since a Todah is Kodshim Kalim, the Isur of Me'ilah normally takes effect when the Zerikas ha'Dam is performed. The Beraisa (which says that the Lachmei Todah are Kadosh and subject to Me'ilah when the Zerikah is performed) contradicts Rav Gidal, who says that Zerikah cannot cause Me'ilah to take effect on an animal that is Pigul!

Rebbi Aba answers Rav Papa's challenge with one word: "b'Zerikah."

What does Rebbi Aba's answer mean? How does his statement answer the question of Rav Papa?

(a) RASHI explains that according to Rebbi Aba, when Rav Gidal said that a Zerikah of Pigul is unable to change the animal's status with regard to Me'ilah, he was referring to a case in which the Kohen had a thought of Pigul during the Zerikah itself, and not merely during the Shechitah. A thought of Pigul during the Shechitah alone does not render the animal Pigul.

Rav Papa, in his question, assumed that a thought of Pigul during Shechitah renders the animal Pigul. Rebbi Aba answers that a thought of Pigul during Shechitah does not render the animal Pigul; only "b'Zerikah" does a thought of Pigul invalidate the animal as Pigul. In the case of the Beraisa, the thought of Pigul occurred only at the time of the Shechitah, but not at the time of the Zerikah, and therefore the Zerikah is able to cause Me'ilah to take effect.

Rashi's explanation is difficult to understand for two reasons. If a thought of Pigul during Shechitah does not affect the Korban, then why is it necessary for the Beraisa to teach that the Lachmei Todah are Kadosh in such a case? Since the Korban is valid, why would one have thought that the Lachmei Todah are not Kadosh? Moreover, many Mishnayos mention that a thought of Pigul even during Shechitah disqualifies a Korban. (See TOSFOS DH Kometz.)

The answer to these questions is evident in Rashi's words. Rashi does not say that a thought of Pigul during Shechitah does not affect the Korban at all, such that it is valid like any other Korban. Rather, Rashi says that a thought of Pigul during Shechitah disqualifies the Korban, but it does not make it entirely Pigul ("Pigul Gamur"). That is, the Korban is disqualified and may not be offered, but one who eats the meat of such a Korban does not transgress the Isur of Pigul and is not punished with Kares. Since the animal is not "fully" Pigul, the Zerikah is able to cause Me'ilah to take effect. Only when one has a thought of Pigul during Zerikah does the animal become "fully" Pigul, in which case the Zerikah does not work to make Me'ilah take effect.

The Gemara continues with attempts to reject the assumption that a thought of Pigul during Shechitah does not make the animal entirely Pigul.

(b) TOSFOS (DH Amar Lei b'Zerikah) explains that a thought of Pigul during Shechitah does create a full-fledged Pigul, but that status of Pigul takes effect only after Zerikah is performed (regardless of whether it is performed with a thought of Pigul or not). This is because of the requirement in the laws of Pigul that the "Matirin" of the Korban must have been offered in order for Pigul to take effect ("Karvu Matirav"). Therefore, after the Zerikah (with or without a thought of Pigul) is performed, the Korban becomes Pasul because of the thought of Pigul during Shechitah. The Zerikah of a Korban that is Pigul cannot alter the Me'ilah status of the Korban, as Rav Gidal says.

The reason why the Lachmei Todah become Kadosh at the time of the Shechitah of the Korban, as the Beraisa says, is that the Korban is not yet considered Pigul (and one who eats the meat at this point will not be Chayav Kares) until after the Zerikah, even though the Korban is invalidated from being offered. However, this does not mean that Me'ilah applies to the Lachmei Todah. Me'ilah takes effect only when a valid Zerikah is performed, but since the Zerikah of this Korban invalidates the Korban as Pigul retroactively, Me'ilah cannot take effect, as Rav Gidal says. Accordingly, when the Beraisa says that the Lachmei Todah become Kadosh, it does not mean that Me'ilah will apply to them when the Zerikah is done. Rather, it means that since the Kedushah of the Lechem depends on the Shechitah of the Korban, the Lachmei Todah become Kadosh even though the Shechitah was done with a thought of Pigul, since the actual status of Pigul takes effect only later, when the Zerikah is done (that is, the Shechitah is considered valid inasmuch as the Lachmei Todah become Kadosh).

The Gemara continues with attempts to disprove Rav Gidal's ruling by showing that immediately at the time of Shechitah, a thought of Pigul invalidates the Korban as Pigul (and, consequently, it could be inferred from the Beraisa regarding Lachmei Todah that Zerikas Pigul does effect a change of status with regard to Me'ilah).

QUESTION: The Gemara (end of 3a) suggests that the matter of dispute between Rabah and Rav Yosef -- whether a Korban that was slaughtered in the wrong place (in the southern part of the Azarah) must be removed from the Mizbe'ach if, b'Di'eved, it was placed there -- was obvious to Rebbi Eliezer. The Gemara explains, however, that even Rebbi Eliezer was in doubt about this, and it concludes that the dispute is unresolved ("Teiku").

Why is the dispute unresolved? In the Gemara earlier (3a), Rav Yosef cites clear proof from the Mishnah in Zevachim (84a) against the opinion of Rabah, and the Gemara there concludes that his opinion indeed is refuted, "Tiyuvta d'Rabah Tiyuvta"!

ANSWER: The CHAFETZ CHAYIM (in LIKUTEI HALACHOS) writes that when the Gemara (3a) disproves Rabah's opinion, it disproves only what he says about the ruling of Rebbi Shimon. Rabah (2b) asserts that Rebbi Shimon agrees that in a case of Shechitah in the south, the animal must be removed from the Mizbe'ach ("Im Alu Yerdu"). The Gemara refutes this from the Mishnah in Zevachim that says "Im Alu Lo Yerdu," certainly following the view of Rebbi Shimon. Thus, Rabah's assertion that Rebbi Shimon agrees that "Im Alu Yerdu" is incorrect.

However, Rebbi Yehudah, who maintains "Im Alu Yerdu" in all of the cases (as the Gemara says on 2b), certainly argues with the Mishnah in Zevachim. Accordingly, Rabah's opinion that "Im Alu Yerdu" still has support from the view of Rebbi Yehudah. The Halachic conclusion remains in doubt, and therefore the Gemara concludes with "Teiku."

The Chafetz Chayim adds, however, that there is a general rule that whenever Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon argue, the Halachah follows the view of Rebbi Yehudah (Eruvin 46a, Beitzah 27a, Bechoros 11a). Accordingly, in the cases of the Mishnah here, if the animals were placed on the Mizbe'ach they must be removed, because the Halachah follows the view of Rebbi Yehudah! Since they must be removed, when the Mishnah says that they have Me'ilah it must mean that they have Me'ilah d'Rabanan, as Rabah says. (The exception to this is the case of Pigul, which Rebbi Yehudah agrees is not removed from the Mizbe'ach, and thus its Me'ilah is mid'Oraisa.) (See, however, the Chafetz Chayim in ZEVACH TODAH, who discusses the differing views of the RAMBAM and BARTENURA.)