1) THE SOURCE THAT AN "EGLAH ARUFAH" IS "ASURAH B'HANA'AH"
QUESTION: The Gemara lists certain objects of Mitzvah which remain subject to the prohibition of Me'ilah, and are forbidden from benefit, even after the Mitzvah has been done with them and the Mitzvah is finished. One of these objects is the Eglah Arufah (the young calf which must be beheaded to atone for the murder of an intercity traveler whose murderer is unidentified). What is the source for the Gemara's statement that what is left of the Eglah Arufah is forbidden from benefit?
RASHI (DH v'Eglah) quotes the verse, "v'Arfu Sham" -- "and they will behead it there" (Devarim 21:4). The word "Sham" ("there") seems extra, because the same verse clearly states where the calf is to be taken. It must be that the verse is teaching that the calf should stay there, even after it is killed, since it is forbidden from benefit. Indeed, this is the source for this law as recorded by the Gemara in Kerisus (6a).
However, TOSFOS (DH Eglah) points out that the Gemara in Avodah Zarah (29a) gives a different source for this law. The Gemara there teaches that the Torah's usage of the word "Kaper" -- "atone" (Devarim 21:8) after the calf is killed implies that the animal is forbidden from benefit even after it is killed. Tosfos asks, therefore, which verse is the primary source for this law, "v'Arfu Sham" or "Kaper"?
ANSWERS:
(a) TOSFOS (DH Eglah, and in more length in Kidushin 57a, DH Kaparah) answers that the teaching in Avodah Zarah of "Kaper" applies when the animal is alive. Just as an animal of Kodshim is forbidden from benefit before it is slaughtered, the Eglah Arufah is forbidden from benefit when it is alive. However, one might have thought that when the Mitzvah of Eglah Arufah is completed and the animal is dead, one is permitted to benefit from the animal. The verse therefore states "v'Arfu Sham" to teach that it is forbidden from benefit after its death as well. The verse of "v'Arfu Sham" alone would not have sufficed, because one might have thought that the animal becomes forbidden only once it is dead, but not when it is alive. This is why both verses, "Kaper" and "v'Arfu Sham," are necessary.
The AVODAH BERURAH in Avodah Zarah (29b) points out that Rashi seems to disagree with Tosfos. According to Tosfos, two separate prohibitions forbid benefiting from the Eglah Arufah. The first prohibition forbids benefiting from the Eglah Arufah when it is alive, just as an animal of Kodshim is forbidden from benefit while it is alive. The second prohibition forbids benefiting from the remains of the Eglah Arufah after its death. Rashi in Sotah (47a, DH Kiprah), however, states that if the murderer is found after the Eglah Arufah has been killed, the Eglah Arufah remains forbidden from benefit, since "Kaparah is written with regard to it (the Eglah Arufah) like Kodshim." This implies that Rashi does not agree that the Halachah of Kaparah is applicable only before it is killed. Rashi understands that the Halachah of Kaparah applies even after it has been killed.
(b) TOSFOS in Kidushin (57a, DH Kaparah) gives a different answer. He says that the primary source is "v'Arfu Sham." This is evident from the fact that the Gemara in Chulin (11a) uses the word "Kaper" for a different Derashah. (Y. MONTROSE)
46b----------------------------------------46b
2) WHY IS THE THOUGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE KORBAN INSIGNIFICANT?
QUESTION: The Gemara (47a) records an argument among the Tana'im about whether thoughts of Pigul of the owner of the Korban disqualify the Korban, even though the Kohen who performs the Avodah has the proper intentions. The Gemara clearly follows the opinion implied by the Mishnah (46b), that only the Kohen's thoughts are significant with regard to Pigul.
The EIN YITZCHAK (YD 19) asks that this conclusion seems problematic in light of the question asked by the Gemara in Nedarim (35b). The Gemara there inquires whether the Kohanim who offer Korbanos on behalf of the people are considered the messengers of the people or the messengers of Hash-m. If, as the Gemara here maintains, the thoughts of the owner of the Korban are insignificant compared to the thoughts of the Kohen, then clearly the Kohanim are the agents of Hash-m. If they would be the agents of the people, then the thoughts of the owner should be primary, and the thoughts of the agent (the Kohen) should be subordinate to the thoughts of the owner.
ANSWER: The OLAS SHLOMO answers as follows. The Gemara in Kidushin (59a) discusses a case in which a man gives money to a woman and says that she should be betrothed to him with this money after thirty days. If, after she accepts the money of Kidushin, the woman changes her mind within thirty days, does the Kidushin still take effect? Rebbi Yochanan says that she may change her mind and the Kidushin does not take effect, while Reish Lakish says that she may not change her mind and the Kidushin takes effect. The Gemara there assumes that the argument is based on whether one's words can annul one's earlier words. Rebbi Yochanan says that they can, and Reish Lakish says that they cannot. The Gemara questions Reish Lakish's opinion from the law that when a person sends an agent to separate Terumah from his produce, the owner can cancel the Shelichus before the Terumah is separated. Accordingly, the woman also should be able to annul the Kidushin before it takes effect. The Gemara answers that in the case of Kidushin, the words must be powerful enough not only to annul words, but to annul the act of giving of the money for the Kidushin. Although the Kidushin did not yet take effect, the act of giving money for Kidushin was done, and it is not possible to annul that act with mere words.
Similarly, in the case of an owner who sends a Korban to be offered by a Kohen, the Kohen clearly is not acting as a Shali'ach for the owner. Once the owner gives over the Korban to the Kohen, and the Kohen starts the process of Shechitah, the mere thought of the owner no longer can affect the Shelichus, even if the Kohen originally was a messenger of the owner. This explains why the Gemara in Nedarim does not answer its question from the Mishnah here. (Y. MONTROSE)