QUESTION: Rava (or Ula, according to the Shitah Mekubetzes) teaches that one who benefits from the meat of Kodshei Kodashim after it has become Tamei is not Chayav for Me'ilah. RASHI explains that since the meat is Tamei and cannot be eaten by Kohanim or offered on the Mizbe'ach, it is no longer of any value to Hekdesh.

According to this reasoning, one also should not be Chayav for Me'ilah when he benefits from a Korban that is Pigul. However, the Mishnah (2a) and Beraisa (4a) clearly state that the Isur of Me'ilah applies to Pigul! Why is one Chayav for Me'ilah of Pigul if the Korban has no value to Hekdesh?

(a) RASHI in Kerisus (23a, DH b'Gasah) and TOSFOS earlier in Me'ilah (2a, DH Chutz) explain that, normally, Kodshim that are Pasul are still of some value to Hekdesh, because they are allowed to remain burning on the Mizbe'ach when they are accidentally placed there ("Im Alu Lo Yerdu"). However, meat of Kodshim -- that must be eaten and not burned -- that became Tamei may not be left on the Mizbe'ach if it is accidentally placed there, and therefore it has absolutely no value to Hekdesh and there is no Me'ilah for such meat. (The Gemara earlier (2b) supports this approach.)

(b) RASHI here (DH Peshita) explains that the Pesul of Pigul differs from all other types of Pesul, because the Torah requires a Korban that is Pigul to have a proper Zerikas ha'Dam, like a Korban that is not Pasul, in order for the Pesul of Pigul to take effect fully. Because of this requirement, a Korban that is Pigul is treated like a valid Korban with regard to Me'ilah as well. (Rashi's explanation is based on the words of the Gemara earlier (2a), "Ho'il u'Meratzin l'Figulin." A similar logic may be applied to Kodshei Kodashim that were slaughtered in the southern part of the Azarah, as the Gemara there explains.)

The words of Rashi imply that there can be Me'ilah for Kodshim even when the Kodshim are of absolutely no value to Hekdesh (as long as the Kodshim are not dead, in which case Me'ilah does not apply, as Ula in the name of Rebbi Yochanan teaches (2a, 12a, 15a)).

This also seems to be the approach of TOSFOS here (DH ha'Kol), who explains that there is no Me'ilah when one benefits from meat of Kodshei Kodashim that has become Tamei because "its Mitzvah has already been performed." This implies that although the meat is worthless now that it has become Tamei, it would be possible to transgress the prohibition of Me'ilah with such meat if not for the fact that its Mitzvah has already been performed.

Similarly, the TOSFOS YESHANIM in Kerisus (13b, DH v'Asham) explains that although there is no Me'ilah for Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis which became Asur b'Hana'ah, since they are of no value to Hekdesh, there is Me'ilah for Kodshim that have Kedushas ha'Guf which become Asur b'Hana'ah.

What is the logic behind this ruling?

1. The NESIVOS HA'MISHPAT (CM 28:2) explains that the logic for the distinction between Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis which have Kedushas Damim and Kodshim that have Kedushas ha'Guf is that the Isur of Me'ilah of Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis is a form of theft. One must bring a Korban for stealing from Hekdesh. In contrast, the Isur of Me'ilah of Kodshim with Kedushas ha'Guf is an intrinsic prohibition against benefiting from a sanctified object, and is not based on the fact that they are the property of Hekdesh.

2. The TAKANAS EZRA (here, DH v'Ra'isi) argues that it is not logical to differentiate one Isur, learned from one verse, into two different types of Isurim. He asserts that the difference between Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis and Kodshim with Kedushas ha'Guf is that when Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis become valueless, they are no longer owned by Hekdesh, since Hekdesh owns only their value. (The same logic presumably applies to a person's object that becomes Asur b'Hana'ah.) In contrast, objects that have Kedushas ha'Guf are inherently Hekdesh, and therefore their Kedushah remains even when they become valueless.

QUESTION: Rava (or Ula, according to the Shitah Mekubetzes) teaches that one who benefits from the Eimurim of Kodshim Kalim after it has been placed upon the Mizbe'ach is not Chayav for Me'ilah. RASHI explains that as soon as the flame takes hold of the Eimurim, Me'ilah no longer applies, even though they have not yet become ashes.

This teaching seems to contradict the Gemara in Zevachim (85b) which states that if Eimurim of Kodshim Kalim were placed on the Mizbe'ach before the Zerikah, there is no Isur of Me'ilah. This implies that after Zerikah, there is an Isur of Me'ilah, even though the Eimurim have been placed on the Mizbe'ach! (See KEREN ORAH DH veha'Yoser.)

ANSWER: The ACHI'EZER (2:26:8) answers that a distinction may be made between when the fire has taken hold of the majority of the Eimurim on the Mizbe'ach, and when the fire has only started to burn a minority of the Eimurim. Even when the fire has only begun to burn a minority of the Eimurim, the Korban has already become the "food of the Mizbe'ach," as the Gemara in Zevachim says. For this reason, the Korban should not be taken down from the Mizbe'ach even if the Zerikah has not yet been done. After Zerikah, but before the fire has taken hold of a majority of the Eimurim, there remains an Isur of Me'ilah, even though the Korban should not be removed from the Mizbe'ach. Only after the fire takes hold of the majority of the Eimurim does the Isur of Me'ilah depart, because the Mitzvah of burning the Korban is considered complete.

According to this explanation, it must be that when Rashi writes that the Isur of Me'ilah no longer applies as soon as the fire takes hold of the Eimurim, he is referring only to a case in which the fire has taken hold of a majority of the Eimurim. (D. BLOOM)