(a)What S'vara does the Sugya in Zevachim ascribe to Ula's ruling 'Kometz Pigul she'He'elu Legabei Mizbe'ach, Paka Pigulo'?
(b)What Kashya does this pose on Rebbi Gidal Amar Rav?
(c)How do we resolve it?
1)
(a)The Sugya in Zevachim ascribes Ula's ruling 'Kometz Pigul she'He'elu Legabei Mizbe'ach, Paka Pigulo' to the S'vara that - if the Kemitzah can bring others to Pigul, it must itself be acceptable ...
(b)... in which case it will also cause Me'ilah (a Kashya on Rebbi Gidal Amar Rav) ...
(c)... which we resolve - by interpreting this too, to mean that the Kemitzah removes Me'ilah, provided the Kohen is also Mefagel when performing the Haktarah.
2)
(a)We query Rav Gidal again from Ilfa's comment on a Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabbanan. What is the Halachic difference between a Machsheves Chutz li'Zemano and a Machsheves Chutz li'Mekomo?
(b)In a case where a person had both Machshavos, what distinction does Rebbi Yehudah draw between where the Machsheves Chutz li'Zemano preceded the Machsheves Chutz li'Mekomo and vice-versa?
(c)What do the Rabbanan say?
2)
(a)We query Rav Gidal again from Ilfa's comment on a Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabbanan. The Halachic difference between a Machsheves Chutz li'Zemano and a Machsheves Chutz li'Mekomo is that - whereas the former is subject to Kareis, the latter is only a plain La'av.
(b)In a case where a person has both Machshavos, Rebbi Yehudah rules that if the Machsheves Chutz li'Zemano precedes the Machsheves Chutz li'Mekomo - he is Chayav Kareis, whereas vice-versa, he is not.
(c)The Rabbanan hold that - either way Eiruv Machshavos Yesh Ka'an (there is a mixture of Machshavos), and he is not Chayav Kareis.
3)
(a)Ilfa qualifies the Machlokes by confining it to two Avodos. Based on what principle is he able to refer to the two Simanim as two Avodos?
(b)According to Ilfa then, in which case will Rebbi Yehudah agree that Eiruv Machshavos Yesh Ka'an?
3)
(a)Ilfa qualifies the Machlokes by confining it to two Avodos. He calls the two Simanim two Avodos - based on the principle Yeshnah li'Shechitah mi'Techilah ve'ad Sof (Shechitah constitutes the entire process from beginning to end), in which case, each Siman is considered half the Shechitah).
(b)In fact, he says, Rebbi Yehudah will agree that Eiruv Machshavos Yesh Ka'an - by one Avodah (if he has the dual Machshavah whilst Shechting one of the Simanim).
4)
(a)Based on the ruling of Rebbi Yehudah, what can we extrapolate regarding the opinion of the Rabbanan, in a case where one Shechts one Siman purely with a Machsheves Pigul?
(b)What problem does this now pose with Rav Gidal, based on the Beraisa 'ha'Shochet es ha'Todah'?
(c)How will Rav Gidal answer the Kashya?
(d)If, as we just concluded, the loaves (which are Kodshim Kalim) become sanctified after the Zerikah, this surely implies that they are now subject to Me'ilah. How will Rav Gidal explain this to concur with his ruling?
4)
(a)Based on the ruling of Rebbi Yehudah, we can extrapolate that, in a case where one Shechts one Siman purely with a Machsheves Pigul, the Rabbanan will hold that - the Pigul will be effective ...
(b)... in which case 'Kidesh ha'Lechem' in the Beraisa 'ha'Shochet es ha'Todah ... ' will once again create a problem for Rav Gidal ...
(c)To answer the Kashya, Rav Gidal explains that - although the Tana refers to Shechitah, the Machsheves Pigul will only sanctify the loaves (with one Avodah, even according to Rebbi Yehudah, and with two Avodos, according to the Rabbanan) retroactively, if the Zerikah too, is performed with a Machsheves Pigul.
(d)Even though we just concluded that the loaves (which are Kodshim Kalim) become sanctified after the Zerikah, according to Rav Gidal, this implies (not that they are now subject to Me'ilah [like we learned until now], but) that - they now need to be burned.
5)
(a)How do we establish the Beraisa (in connection with Kodshei Kodshim) 'ha'Pigul Le'olam Mo'alin bo' in an attempt to support Rav Gidal?
(b)How do we refute this proof? How else might we establish the Beraisa?
(c)What is the problem with establishing the Beraisa where the Shechitah was performed with a Machsheves Pigul, but not the Zerikah?
(d)So we establish it where it was, but the Tana is speaking about an Olah. How will that answer the Kashya?
5)
(a)We establish the Beraisa (in connection with Kodshei Kodshim) 'ha'Pigul Le'olam Mo'alin bo' - even after the Zerikah has been performed with a Machsheves Pigul (a proof that Z'rikas Pigul does not take Kodshei Kodshim out of the realm of Pigul [a support for Rav Gidal]).
(b)We refute this proof however, by establishing the Beraisa - where the Shechitah was performed with a Machsheves Pigul but not the Zerikah.
(c)The problem with this is that - it is obvious (and the Beraisa is then not teaching us anything).
(d)So we establish it where it was, but the Tana is speaking about an Olah - which is not eaten by the Kohanim anyway (which is what takes the Basar Chatas out of the realm of Me'ilah).
6)
(a)On what grounds do we reject this answer? Why can the Beraisa not possibly be speaking about an Olah?
(b)And we also prove from the Seifa 'Lan Damah, Af-al-Pi she'Chazar ve'Zorko, Mo'alin bo' that the Tana must be speaking about a Chatas. But what does the Seifa (which is speaking about Linah) have to do with Pigul?
(c)What makes the Seifa a stronger proof for Rav Gidal than the Reisha?
(d)What objection do we raise to the implication that the sole proof lies in the Seifa?
6)
(a)We reject this answer however - for the same reason that we rejected the previous one (in that it is then obvious).
(b)And we also prove from the Seifa 'Lan Damah (where the blood has not been sprinkled by dawn-break), Af-al-Pi she'Chazar ve'Zorko, Mo'alin bo' that the Tana must be speaking about a Chatas - because just as 'Lan Damah' does not remove the Me'ilah (even though the blood is subsequently sprinkled), neither does Pigul.
(c)The reason that the Seifa is a stronger proof for Rav Gidal than the Reisha is - because it speaks specifically where the Zerikah was performed bi'Pesul (and does not need to be proved, like the Reisha does).
(d)We object however, to the implication that the sole proof lies in the Seifa - by declaring that Rav Gidal certainly has support from the Seifa, but that he has support from the Reisha too.
4b----------------------------------------4b
7)
(a)What is our initial response to the suggestion that, even though Lan does not remove the Me'ilah (in spite of the subsequent Zerikah), Pigul does?
(b)To which we retort that indeed there is. What is the source for the ruling with regard to Lan?
(c)Then why will it not apply to Pigul?
(d)This explanation does not concur with Rav Gidal's opinion, however. If the Tana does not hold of Rav Gidal, then how will we interpret the Reisha 'ha'Pigul Le'olam Mo'alin bo'?
7)
(a)Our initial response to the suggestion that, even though Lan does not remove the Me'ilah (in spite of the subsequent Zerikah), Pigul does that - there is no reason to differentiate between them.
(b)To which we retort that indeed there is, because - the reason that the Zerikah following Lan does not remove the Din Me'ilah from the Chatas is merely a 'K'nas de'Rabbanan' for transgressing the Isur of Linah ...
(c)... which may well not extend to someone who transgressed the Isur Pigul, which is only a P'sul Machshavah (unlike Linah which is a factual P'sul).
(d)This explanation does not concur with Rav Gidal's opinion however. If the Tana does not hold of Rav Gidal, then we will have to interpret the Reisha 'ha'Pigul Le'olam Mo'alin bo' - by an Olah (despite the Kashya that we asked on this earlier [see Chok Nasan]).
8)
(a)How will Rav Gidal establish the Beraisa 'ha'Pigul be'Kodshei Kodshim Mo'alin bo'?
(b)If we establish it where it wasn't, it creates a problem with the Seifa. What does the Seifa say about Kodshim Kalim?
(c)What is now the problem? What should the Beraisa then have said?
8)
(a)Rav Gidal will establish the Beraisa 'ha'Pigul be'Kodshei Kodshim Mo'alin bo' - where the Zerikah was performed with a Machsheves Pigul too.
(b)If we establish it where it wasn't, it creates a problem with the Seifa, which continues 'be'Kodshim Kalim, Ein Mo'alin bo' ...
(c)... which is problematic - since the Beraisa should then have said - 'Lifnei Zerikah, Mo'alin bo, le'Achar Zerikah, Ein Mo'alin bo' (without switching to Kodshim Kalim).
9)
(a)What do we in any event learn from the Seifa?
(b)How do we also try to support Rav Gidal's ruling by Kodshei Kodshim from the Reisha?
(c)What do we answer to that?
9)
(a)In any event, we learn from the Seifa that - 'Z'rikas Pigul, Eino Meivi li'Yedei Me'ilah be'Kodshim Kalim' (like Rav Gidal).
(b)We also try to support Rav Gidal's ruling by Kodshei Kodshim from the Reisha - by establishing it by Z'rikas Pigul too (like we explained).
(c)And we answer that, even though it does seem that the Reisha is indeed speaking by Z'rikas Pigul, it may also be that - the Tana preferred to switch to Kodshim Kalim in the Seifa (rather than remain with Kodshei Kodshim after Z'rikas Pigul) because it is unconditional (irrespective of whether the Zerikah was performed with a Machsheves Pigul or not).
