ME'ILAH 3 (26 Nisan) - dedicated by Mr. Avi Berger of Queens, N.Y./Passaic, N.J. in memory of his mother, Leah bas Michel Mordechai, in honor of her Yahrzeit.
1)
(a)We query the previous ruling (that a Chatas that dies is subject to Me'ilah) from a Beraisa. What does the Tana there say with regard to (the five) Chata'os ha'Meisos and money that goes to the Yam ha'Melach?
(b)What is money that goes to the Yam ha'Melach referring to?
(c)Why can we not interpret 'Lo Mo'alin' to mean mi'd'Oraysa (but mi'de'Rabbanan, Mo'alin)?
(d)How will we then reconcile this ruling with the Mishnah that we cited earlier, ascribing Me'ilah to a Chatas Ba'alas-Mum?
1)
(a)We query the previous ruling (that a Chatas that dies is subject to Me'ilah) from a Beraisa, which rules with regard to (the five) Chata'os ha'Meisos and money that goes to the Yam ha'Melach - Lo Nehenin ve'Lo Mo'alin.
(b)Money that goes to the Yam ha'Melach is referring to - Chatas money that is lost, and that is found only after the Kaparah has already taken place.
(c)We cannot interpret 'Lo Mo'alin' to mean mi'd'Oraysa (but mi'de'Rabbanan, Mo'alin) - because since Lo Nehenin means mi'de'Rabbanan (seeing as they are not subject to Me'ilah mi'd'Oraysa), 'Lo Mo'alin' must also mean mi'de'Rabbanan.
(d)And as for the Mishnah that we just cited, ascribing Me'ilah to a Chatas Ba'alas-Mum - that is because already during the animal's lifetime, people did not separate from it, since it was unfit to atone (as we explained earlier).
2)
(a)Rav Yosef queries Rabah ('Im Alu, Yerdu') Chada mi'Gav Chada, ve'Chada mi'Gav Chada. What does he mean by that?
(b)The Mishnah in Zevachim, discussing a Melikah or Haza'ah that was performed in the wrong location on the Mizbe'ach, states that all the cases mentioned there do not render whoever eats them Tamei (Letamei Begadim a'Beis ha'Beli'ah). What is the significance of Metamei Begadim a'Beis ha'Beli'ah'?
(c)The Mishnah adds 'u'Mo'alin bahen, Chutz me'Chatas ha'Of she'Asah le'Matah ke'Ma'aseh Chatas ha'Of le'Shem Chatas ha'Of'. Why is that? What is the difference between this latter case and the other cases referred to by the Tana?
2)
(a)Rav Yosef queries Rabah ('Im Alu Yerdu') Chada mi'Gav Chada, ve'Chada mi'Gav Chada, meaning - that his Kashya is based (not on one Mishnah, but) on three Mishnahs, one dependent upon the other (as we will now see).
(b)The Mishnah in Zevachim, discussing a Melikah or Haza'ah that was performed in the wrong location on the Mizbe'ach, states that all the cases mentioned there do not render whoever eats them Tamei (Letamei Begadim a'Beis ha'Beli'ah) - which is the only manifestation of the Tum'ah pertaining to a Nivlas Of Tahor.
(c)The Mishnah adds 'u'Mo'alin bahen, Chutz me'Chatas ha'Of she'Asah le'Matah ke'Ma'aseh Chatas ha'Of le'Shem Chatas ha'Of' - because (as opposed to all the other cases referred to by the Tana), this latter case - is a Kasher Melikah, which permits the Kohanim to eat the bird, taking it out of the realm of Me'ilah (as we have already learned).
3)
(a)The second Mishnah there divides the Pesulim into two categories. Into which category do the above-mentioned Pesulim fit?
(b)Regarding which kind of Pesulim then, will Melikah render the birds Neveilah to be Metamei Begadim a'Beis ha'Beli'ah?
3)
(a)The second Mishnah there divides the Pesulim into two categories - placing the above Pesulim into that of 'Pesulo ba'Kodesh' (Pesulim that take place after the declaration of Hekdesh).
(b)Regarding Pesulim that belong to the category of La'av Pesulo ba'Kodesh (where the P'sul preceded the declaration of Hekdesh [such as too old, a shriveled wing, or a severed leg], Melikah will render the birds Neveilah to be Metamei Begadim a'Beis ha'Beli'ah.
4)
(a)How does the third Mishnah in Zevachim correlate the Din of Pesulo ba'Kodesh with that of Im Alu, Lo Yerdu?
(b)Why does this now pose a Kashya on Rabah?
(c)How do we answer the Kashya?
4)
(a)The third Mishnah in Zevachim adds - 'Kol she'Hayah Pesulo ba'Kodesh, Im Alu, Lo Yerdu' ...
(b)... a Kashya on Rabah, who rules 'Im Alu, Yerdu', even though our Mishnah refers to cases of Pesulo ba'Kodesh.
(c)We (offer no answer - but) remain with a 'Tiyuvta' on Rabah.
3b----------------------------------------3b
5)
(a)We initially assume that Rebbi Elazar, who discusses the Olah of a Bamas Yachid, disagrees with the She'eilah over which Rabah and Rav Yosef argue. Which two Halachos (besides Tzafon, Tenufah and Hagashah) distinguish between a Bamas Tzibur and a Bamas Yachid?
(b)What did Rebbi Elazar say about an Olah that one designated to bring on a Bamas Yachid, which one then took into the Azarah (of the Bamas Tzibur)?
(c)And what did he ask with regard to that Olah, in a case where it became Pasul (if one Shechted it on the south side of the Azarah)?
(d)What do we initially assume from the fact that Rebbi Elazar asked his She'eilah with regard to a Bamas Yachid?
5)
(a)We initially assume that Rebbi Elazar, who discusses the Olah of a Bamas Yachid, disagrees with the She'eilah over which Rabah and Rav Yosef argue. Whereas a Bamas Tzibur requires Tzafon, Tenufah and Hagashah - Re'ach Nicho'ach, and becomes Pasul be'Yotzei, a Bamas Yachid is not subject to any of them.
(b)Rebbi Elazar rules that if one takes an Olah that one designated to bring on a Bamas Yachid, into the Azarah (of the Bamas Tzibur) - Kaltuhah Mechitzos (it adopts all the Dinim of a Korban that is brought on a Bamas Tzibur)
(c)He also asked what the Din will be if, assuming that this Olah then became Pasul (if one Shechted it on the south side of the Azarah) - the Kohen took it up on to the Mizbe'ach regarding the Din of Im Alu?
(d)From the fact that Rebbi Elazar asked his She'eilah with regard to a Bamas Yachid, we initially assume that - in the case in our Mishnah, he will hold either like Rabah (Yerdu) or like Rav Yosef (Lo Yerdu) without any need to ask a She'eilah.
6)
(a)On what grounds do we reject this premise? How might the two She'eilos be connected (Chada mi'Chelal de'Idach)?
(b)Why, even we were to rule ...
1. ... 'Im Alu, Yerdu' (like Rabah) in our Mishnah, might we nevertheless say ... Lo Yerdu in this case, and ...
2. ... even we were to rule Im Alu, Lo Yerdu (like Rav Yosef) in our Mishnah, might we still say ... Yerdu in this case?
(c)What is the outcome of Rebbi Elazar's She'eilah?
6)
(a)We reject this premise however, on the grounds that the two She'eilos might well be connected (Chada mi'Chelal de'Idach). In other words - Rebbi Elazar asked the second She'eilah, irrespective of whether we hold like Rabah or like Rav Yosef in the first one (as we will now explain).
(b)Even if we were to rule ...
1. ... Im Alu, Yerdu in our Mishnah, we might nevertheless say ... Lo Yerdu in this case - because whereas a proper Mechitzah (where one initially declared the animal Kadosh to be brought in the Azarah) renders the Korban Pasul, an improper Mechitzah (where he declared it Kadosh to be brought on a Bamas Yachid) does not, and ...
2. ... even we were to rule Im Alu, Lo Yerdu (like Rav Yosef) in our Mishnah, we might still say ... Yerdu in this case - because a proper Mechitzah' enables the Mizbe'ach to accept the Korban, whereas an improper one does not.
(c)The outcome of Rebbi Elazar's She'eilah is - Teiku ('Tishbi Yetaretz Kushyos ve'Ibayos').
7)
(a)What does Rav Gidal Amar Rav say about Z'rikas Pigul with regard to ...
1. ... Kodshei Kodshim?
2. ... Kodshim Kalim?
(b)What is the definition of Z'rikas Pigul (see Rabeinu Gershom)?
(c)When Abaye repeated this Halachah, Rav Papa queried it from a Beraisa, which discusses the loaves of a Korban Todah that has been Shechted bi'Pesul. What does the Tana say in a case where one Shechts the Todah when the loaves are ...
1. ... outside the walls of Yerushalayim?
2. ... not yet fully baked? What if most of the loaves are?
3. ... with a Machshavah of Chutz li'Zemanah or Chutz li'Mekomah?
(d)What did Rav Papa now ask Abaye from there on Rav Gidal?
7)
(a)Rav Gidal Amar Rav rules that Z'rikas Pigul with regard to ...
1. ... Kodshei Kodshim - does not remove the Din of Me'ilah from the Evarim (since, unlike a Kasher Zerikah, it does not enable the Kohanim to eat them]).
2. ... Kodshim Kalim - does not cause Me'ilah to take effect on the Emurim (like a Kasher Zerikah does [since it is not considered a Kasher Zerikah]).
(b)Z'rikas Pigul means that - the Kohen who Shechts it has in mind to perform the Zerikah in the wrong time or place.
(c)When Abaye repeated this Halachah, Rav Papa queried it from a Beraisa, which discusses the loaves of a Korban Todah that has been Shechted bi'Pesul. The Tana rules in a case where one Shechts the Todah when the loaves are ...
1. ... outside the walls of Yerushalayim that - the loaves do not become sanctified, and the same will apply if they are ...
2. ... all not yet fully baked (even if most of them are).
3. ... with a Machshavah of Chutz li'Zemanah or Chutz li'Mekomah - the loaves do become sanctified.
(d)Rav Papa now asked Abaye from there on Rav Gidal - who maintains that Pigul by the Shechitah does not have the power to take out of Me'ilah (since it does not sanctify the Korban).
8)
(a)What was Abaye's reaction to Rav Papa's Kashya?
(b)When Abaye put the problem to Rebbi Aba however, he resolved it with the single word 'bi'Zerikah'. What did he mean by that? In what case was Rav Gidal Amar Rav then speaking?
8)
(a)Abaye's reaction to Rav Papa's Kashya was - to remain silent (since he had no answer).
(b)When Abaye put the problem to Rebbi Aba however, he resolved it with the one word 'bi'Zerikah' - the Beraisa is speaking where he was Mefagel by the Shechitah, but silent by the Zerikah, whereas Rav Gidal Amar Rav is speaking where the Kohen extended the Machsheves Pigul to the Zerikah as well.
9)
(a)Rav Ashi nevertheless queried Rav Gidal from a statement of Ula. What did Ula say about a Kometz of Pigul that one places on the Mizbe'ach?
(b)On what grounds do we compare the limbs of Shechitah to the Kometz of Kemitzah?
(c)Why does Ula then state this Halachah with regard to the Kometz of Kemitzah and not the limbs of Shechitah (implying that we cannot compare them)?
(d)In any event, it poses a Kashya on Rav Gidal. What did Rava answer?
9)
(a)Rav Ashi nevertheless queried Rav Gidal from a statement of Ula, who ruled that if one places a Kometz of Pigul on the Mizbe'ach - as soon as it catches fire, the Pigul dissipates.
(b)We compare the limbs of Shechitah to the Kometz of Kemitzah - because the Shechitah, like the Kemitzah, is the first of the four respective main Avodos.
(c)And the reason that Ula states this Halachah with regard to the Kometz of Kemitzah and not the limbs of Shechitah - is to teach us that even though (unlike the limb of an animal) the particles of flour are not joined together, the fire on the Mizbe'ach nevertheless removes the Pigul from the entire Kometz, the moment part of it begins to burn.
(d)In any event, it poses a Kashya on Rav Gidal. Rava replied that - Ula is speaking where the Kohen performed not only the Kemitzah with a Machsheves Pigul, but the Haktarah as well (like Ula, who speaks where he performed the Zerikah, as well as the Shechitah, with a Machsheves Pigul (as we just explained).
