I apologize because I must really be missing something here. The gemora is concerned with why R' Yehuda doesn't pasul if he had machshava liten es ahanitanim l'mateh, l'maaleh. Why isn't the gemora just as bothered with the Rabonon - isn't this a classic case of machshavas chutz l'mkomo? Tosfos only asks this by the next question of the sha"S, Hanitanim bachutz bifnim. Why isn't Tosfos bothered by the exact question in the previous case? And if the gemora simply holds that our Mishna holds shelo b'mkomo k"mkomo dami, why does it have a problem with R' Yehuda holding that and ask on R' Yehuda? And further compounding my confusion - why doesn't the sugya on 26b/26a even try to bring a rayah from our Mishna to Shmuel (and Reish Lakish) that shelo b'mkomo k'mkomo? What am I missing??
Yzf, Toronto
Machsheves Chutz li'Mekomo applies only if he intended to eat it outside the Azarah. This is stated by Rashi earlier (29a, DH she'Yehei): "Thought for outside its place is effective only for Kodshei Kodashim if he intended to eat them outside the Courtyard." Intention to sprinkle the blood in the wrong place on the Mizbe'ach, but inside the Azarah, is not considered Chutz li'Mekomo.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
Thank you. I agree that Rashi says that clearly but the question really is why this is so. I see that Tosfos (29a) really deals with this issue. If we go with Rabeinu Yomtov's explanation of mokom Meshulach, that would explain it. If we go with Rashi's p'shat, then we really need to explain why machsheves chutz l'mkom doesn't apply for the wrong place on the mizbeach - and Tosfos does seem to allude to my problems (although Tosfos asks about the geisha of the braise that the gemora brings on 27a - but the question seems to be even stronger from the stam Mishna on 36a)
The Mishnah (27b) states that if he slaughtered the Zevach with intention of sprinkling the blood outside, it is Pasul. If the Mishnah would have meant that the wrong place on the Mizbe'ach is also Pasul, it would not have used the word "ba'Chutz," so "ba'Chutz" must mean outside the courtyard.
Yasher Ko'ach,
Dovid Bloom
Shalom. Thank you. Of course that is a correct diyuk. My question is how the Mishna knows that and why the gemora is not bothered with that din. Its not being a Mokom Meshulash is only a good explanation according to Rabeinu Yomtov.
Have a good Shabbos!
Rashi (29a, DH she'Yehei) also learns from Makom Meshulash that intention for the wrong place means outside the Azarah.
It should also be noted out that the Gemara on 26b learns from the verse, "And I have given it for you on the Mizbe'ach to atone" (Vayikra 17:11), that once blood reaches the Mizbe'ach, the owners of the Korban receive Kaparah. Rashi writes that any place on the Mizbe'ach is equal for atonement.
It is from here that the Mishnah on 27b knows that it is only if he intended to sprinkle the blood outside the Azarah that it is considered Machsheves Chutz li'Mekomo.
B'Hatzlachah Rabah,
Dovid Bloom
Thank you.
But we remain with the problem that Rashi's own explanation of Mokom Meshulash doesn't explain why it excludes the mizbeach itself.
The gemora on 26b was only according to the Man D'amar Shelo bimkomo k'm'komo dami. That just leads me back to my original question - that if that is the only source for the din of the Mishna on 27b is the drasha of 26b, it is a proof that shelo bimkomo k'm'kmo dami and the sugya on 26a should have discussed it.
I need to look into this matter more thoroughly, bs'd, but I will just make a quick comment for the moment.
1) I think what you mean, Reb Yaakov, is that there appears to be somewhat of a contradiction from the beginning of Rashi (29a, DH she'Yehei) to the end of the same Dibur of Rashi. Rashi starts by saying that Machshavah for the wrong place applies only for Kodshei Kodashim if he thought to eat it outside the Azarah. Rashi continues and says that if one intended to eat inside the Heichal, this is not Posel. Rashi omits what would be the Din if one intended to eat inside the Azarah. I do not know how to resolve this contradiction, but at any rate Rashi does say (29a, DH b'Dam) that Chutz li'Mekomo is only outside the Azarah.
2) The Shitah Mekubetzes (36a, #8), writes that one needs to say Chutz li'Mekomo ki'Mekomo Dami only if one does not know the Derashah of Meshulash (see also Tosfos 82b, DH v'Lo). This implies that once one knows "Meshulash," even if one maintains that Chutz li'Mekomo Lav ki'Mekomo Dami, nevertheless only outside the Azarah is Pasul.
3) I found that Rav Chaim Greineman zt'l, in Chidushim u'Vi'urim to Zevachim 36a (DH v'Ein l'Hakshos), seems to deal with the point that you have raised. He writes that one should not ask: "Why, according to Rebbi Yehudah, is it necessary to have the verse of 'Shlishi,' from which we derive 'Makom Meshulash'? Since out of place is equivalent to being in place according to Rebbi Yehudah, which means that if one had intention to sprinkle inside the blood which should be sprinkled outside, the Korban is still Kosher, so why is it necessary to have the Limud of Shlishi?"
Rav Greineman writes that this question is not difficult, because one requires the verse of Shlishi for someone who intended to sprinkle the blood in the Azarah, but not on the Mizbe'ach. One might have thought that this is considered "she'Lo bi'Mekomo," so therefore the verse tells us that it is only if one had intention to sprinkle in a Makom Meshulash, outside the Azarah, that it is Pasul.
However, Rav Greineman concludes that the above answer is following the explanation of Rabeinu Yom Tov in Tosfos 29a. This seems to suggest that according to Rashi the question has not yet been answered, which is what you have been arguing.
Reb Yaakov, than you for your very good questions.
Shavu'a Tov,
Dovid Bloom
Shalom. Thank you very much for the insightful haoros.
(1) I am not sure that that Rashi on 29a is such a problem. Rashi is not discussing machsheves zrika, rather Rashi is discussing a machshava to eat kodshei kodshim chutz l'mkomo. All of the azara is the correct place to eat the meat. The question is only if a machsheves chutz l'mkomo of eating happens out of the azarah or even for inside the heichal.
But, I think that you could ask your question on Rashi 36a d"h "kosovor Rebbi Yehuda" who says the same "contradictory" thing about sprinkling the dam. - But I would suggest that this Rashi is also not so difficult because he is going in Rebbi Yehuda who holds shelo b'mkomo k'mkomo dami and the entire mizbeach is not a problem of chutz l'mkomo - and the rest of the azara may also not be a problem because R' Yehuda holds (59/60) that the whole azara is Kodesh (notwithstanding Rava who says that this doesn't apply for dam, as the gmara (60a) seems to be madcheh that). So, at a minimum, it isn't unreasonable that Rashi didn't want to deal with a machshava to sprinkle anywhere in the azara. - So what I'm suggesting is that Rashi could be saying all this without any regard to the din of Mokom Meshulash and we can't bring rayos from these Rashi's to our problem which is on the tzad that we don't say shelo b'mkom l'mkomo dami.
(2) I am pretty sure that I mentioned that Shita in an earlier correspondence on the sugya (that I don't believe your responded to because I immediately followed up with the message that started this thread). I believe that I said that that Shita must be going with the Shita of Rabeinu Yomtov in Mokom Meshulash.
(3) I don't have that sefer so I don't know the context of Rav Greineman zt"l's question - but I don't really understand it: (a) Tosfos on 26b is mesupak whether shelo b'mkomo k"mkom dami applies to ha'Nitanim bachutz litnom bifnim - and uses the sugya on 36a to deal with the issue - so I must assume that he is asking on the tzad that it does apply. (b) According to the tzad that R' Yehuda is not modeh by dam, the whole azara has a din of the mizbeach so we don't need the din of Mokom Meshulash. I guess his question is only according to Rava. (c) L'chora, the din of shelo b'mkomo l'mkomo dami only applies to dam, since the posuk Shmuel learns it out from (26b) is referring to dam. So we would need the din of Mokom mehshulash for a machshava to eat or burn the meat or the aimurim in the heichal. (Unless, he doesn't think that it is logical that dam and basser and aimurim have different halachos, so once I know that by dam there isn't a psul of shelo b'mkomo in the heichal, hu hadin for basser and ameirum.)
1)
a) I saw in the Mesivta edition (29a) that they write (based on Rashi DH she'Yehei), "This teaches about Machsheves Chutz li'Mekomo that it does not disqualify unless he thought to eat the meat [or sprinkle the blood or burn the Eimorin] in the Meshulash place."
So they understood that Rashi does not only mean Machshavah for eating the meat but also for sprinkling the blood. I do not know where they got this from, and your approach, Reb Yaakov, may very possibly be more accurate than the Mesivta's, but at least we now seem to have a Machlokes about how to learn Pshat in Rashi, and having a Machlokes often helps one to focus on the matter and decide who is correct.
b) I am not sure about what you write that according to Rebbi Yehudah the rest of the Azarah might not be a problem, because Rav says (59a) that Rebbi Yehudah agrees about blood. Rashi (DH Modeh) writes that this means one needs a Mizbe'ach for the blood. The Chazon Ish (Zevachim 19:23, DH Ritzpas) writes that according to the conclusion of the Gemara, Rebbi Yehudah maintains that the floor has Kedushah only for Haktarah but not for sprinkling the blood. Sprinkling on the floor is worse than on the wrong place on the Mizbe'ach.
c) I think I have found a source, bs'd, which may help us with our original problem. The Chazon Ish (Zevachim 8:5, DH Sham Kasavar) writes that the Machshavah of Chutz li'Mekomo is different from all other Pesulim which are caused by wrong intentions. When the Torah teaches us about Makom Meshulash, it is teaching that, for Machshavah, the only wrong place is the Meshulash. Any other place where one may put the blood will always be Kosher, b'Di'eved. (In fact, the Chazon Ish would seem to support the Mesivta I cited (a) above.)
Yasher Koach Gadol,
Dovid Bloom
Shalom and thank you again for the thoughtful responses and mareh mekomos.
1) a) I don't have the Mesivta gemora so I don't know the context of that statement but I don't believe that what you wrote is at all inconsistent with how I understand that Rashi. Certainly this drasha ("Shlishi" of Kedoshim) is the m'kor for the rule that all machsheves chutz l'mkomo needs to be about a Mokom Meshulash, whether for sprinkling blood, eating meat or burning eimurim, exactly as the Mesivta says. I am simply pointing out that the case that Rashi discusses openly is the case of a machshava of eating Kodesh Kedoshim meat. For this case, it is not relevant to discuss a machshava to eat it anywhere in the azara because anywhere in the azara is the proper place for it. So Rashi simply discusses eating outside the azara - which is a machsheves chutz l'mkomo - and eating inside the heichal - which isn't a machsheves chutz l'mkomo, because it isn't a Mokom Meshulash. Rashi had no need to discuss eating anywhere on the mizbeach (or anywhere in the azarah, for that matter) because that would be b'mkomo for eating meat. But we cannot deduce from this Rashi what the din for a machshava to sprinkle dam in the wrong part of the mizbeach would be. (Though I believe it is muchach elsewhere that Rashi holds that the mizbeach is considered a Mokom Meshulash - as I mention below.)
(b) Of course, what you write is correct - that according to Rava, Rebbe Yehuda admits that for zrikas hadam the whole azara is not like the mizbeach. And the Chazan Ish (which I don't have on hand) is apparently stating that this is the maskanas hagemora (60a). I was just suggesting that it is possible to learn not like the mehalech of the Chazan Ish, ie that the gemora l'maskana is madcheh Rava (as it does actually end with a dichui of Rava - that they only resprinkled on the mizbeach for a mitzva min a hamuvchar, but me'ikar hadin they were yotzei with the blood that fell on the floor.) I was suggesting that according to this possibility, ie not according to Rava, the whole azara is also the proper place for blood and we have a possible solution to the apparent stirah within Rashi on 36a.
(c) I am not sure how you want to use this Chazan Ish to solve the original problem - or how you see it supporting the mehalech of the Mesivta (which I already didn't think was inconsistent with anything I suggested).
What I see as the original - and remaining issue are (a) why the gemora on 36a isn't concerned about the Rabanon in the mishna not pasaling "Al m'nas liten es ha'Nitanim l'Matah l'Ma'alah", even before it introduces the idea of Mokom Meshulash (which anyway would only solve the problem according to Rabeinu Yom Tov). And (b) if the only way to say p'shat in the Rabanon is what the gemora answers on Rebbe Yehuda - that shelo b'mkomo k"mkomo dami, (and the gemora could have asked l'taamech, when it asks on Rebbe Yehuda,) - then the sugya on 26b/27a should have brought this Mishna as a rayah to Shmuel who says shelo b'mkomo k"mkoml dami.
As far as Rashi, it seems clear to me that he argues on Rabeinu Yomtov and would hold that the entire mizbeach is a Mokom Meshulash - as it is a place kosher for dam, basser and eimurim (I think it is Kosher for eimurim - certainly according to Rebbe Yehuda who is machshir the entire azara for eimurim, but k'mdumeh Li even according to Rabbi Yosi who is not, maybe he is modeh by the Keren and sovev of the mizbeach. - there probably is a mefurash sugya about that but I don't remember if so or where).
I think this p'shat in Rashi is also clear from Tosfos on 29a who only is satisfied with solving their question on the top of 27a with Rabeinu Yomtov's p'shat in Mokom Meshulash. Clearly they are saying that Rashi holds that the mizbeach is a Mokom Meshulash, not like Rabeinu Yomtov.
I feel bad that you have had to respond to all of these responses and questions and I have certainly taken you away from your other learning and responsibilities at the kollel so I am ok to leave the questions open and please don't feel that you need to respond.
Thank you - Kol tuv and good Shabbos.