In Moed Katan there is a section mentioned where it states that if shamta were to be placed on only the tail of a dog it would effect only the tail.
The Maharasha says here that although the tail is not a limb that is needed for the dog to live, still the shamta will destroy the tail.
This sounds a lot like kiddushin (daf zion umud alef) where there is the inyan brought of whether or not hekdesh (and later, kiddushin) spreads. There we mention an opinion that if a person makes a limb of an animal that is not essential to the animal's life hekdesh that it does not spread.
Is there a connection here? Is the Maharasha suggesting that the reason why it ONLY effects the tail is b/c it is not something that is essential for the life of the animal, and therefore had he put shamta on the head of the animal, it would have spread throughout the entire body?
Is he taking sides on this argument over whether or not a nonessential limb will cause hekdesh to spread?
Is there even a connection that can be made between these cases? It seems like with such similar ideas of spreading a single designation (especially considering that the Maharsha addresses a limb that is essential) that there must be some connection between these two gemaras.
Any meforshim who discuss any of these questions...or even attempt to link these two gemaras?
Thanks,
Josh Krisch, Cherry Hill, NJ USA
Although the Gemara seems to say that the Shamta only affects the dog's tail, this is not absolutely clear. In fact, the Ben Yehoyada is of the opinion that the whole dog was burnt. He explains that when the Gemara says that the tail caught fire it means to say that the tail was the part of the animal that was set alight first. I would argue that the Maharsha also leaves room for doubt as to whether he means to say that just the tail was burnt or the whole dog. He may mean that even though the tail is not a vital organ of the animal, and we may not have expected it to be the first thing to be affected, even so the fire started there. This explanation is supported by the Maharsha's use of the word "Gam" which would seem to denote that other parts of the dog were also affected. However the last word of the Maharsha seems to lend credence to your explanation that only the tail was burnt, since according to the Ben Yehoyada, "v'Achaltei" refers to the entire animal and not just the tail.
According to the Ben Yehoyada we can explain that the Chachamim were unaware of the fact that the culprit of the story was a dog, hence the use of a Shamta. Rav Yosef was pointing out the force of a Shamta, in that it will affect whatever necessary, even an animal. If we were to say that the Shamta was placed specifically on the tail, we would have to address the question of why the Chachamim decided to place the Shamta on the tail. Surely the mouth would have been a more suitable option. The Ben Yehoyada explains why the fire started at the tail. At a simple level, we could say that the tail is the part of the animal most prone to catch fire, under normal circumstances.
If we were to explain that the Shamta was placed specifically on the tail, and did not burn the whole animal as you suggest, I still believe that it would not have a connection with the Din of Pashta. We say Pashta where a Din on a part of a subject cannot be sustained if it will not spread over the whole subject. For example, since Kidushin cannot be on half of a woman, we say Pashta in order to sustain the Kidushin. Similarly with Hekdesh. However, were it possible for half of a woman to be married we would not say Pashta. See Nesivos ha'Mishpat (Biurim 209:2). So too, if the Chachamim placed a Shamta on the tail, this would indicate that the tail alone could have a Shamta and there would be no need for us to say Pashta. I would say the same for your query with regards to a Shamta on a head. Here too, there would seem to be no need for a Pashta since a Shamta on the head would seem to be sufficient.
I did look around in the Sefarim available on Moed Katan, but unfortunately I could not find any Mefarshim who connect our Sugya with that of Pashta.