Rabbi Kornfeld AMV"S,
Two related questions.
1) On 94b the Gemorah states that according to Rav Nachman whether one
carries out half a Kzias Mais from a Kzias of a Mais or half a Kzias Mais from
a Kzias and a half of a Mais he would be Chaiv on Hotzah. Rashi explains that
taking out the half a Kzias IS considered CHASHIV since it will eliminate Tumas
Mais from the house if there was only a Kzias,and in the case where there will
still be a Kzias left so that the house is still Tumai, Rav Nachman still
states one would be Chiav since it creates a condition where if the remaining
Tumah is reduced slightly the house will no longer be an Ohel for Tumah and
therefore the Hotzah IS still CHASHIV. However on 91a Ravah asks Rav Nachman if one throws a
Kzias of Trumah into a house which had less than a Baizah of Tumas Ochalin
whether since the Kzias will complete the Baizah to create Tumas Ochalin will
the Zrikah therefore be Chashiv to be Chiav on Hotzah. Rav Nachman wants to
bring a proof that the Zrikah IS NOT CHASHIV from Abba Shaul who states to be
Chiav on Hotzah of Shabbas of Stai Halechem or Lechem Hapainim one needs a
Grogaras even though bringing out just a Kzias of either of these from the
place in the Bais Hamikdash where they are to be eatten makes them Pasul and is
Mchiav someone who eats them. The Gemorah answer the case of Stai HaLechem is
different because the CHIAV on HOTZAH would occur AFTER the Psul would occur.
How are we to reconcile these two Gemoras? One where Rav Nachman states that
if an act of Hotzah of less than the normal amount to be Chiav for Shabbos,
will create a state of Tumah, the Hozah is Chiav and the other where Rav
Nachman wants to prove the opposite.
2) Furthermore Tosphos states on 91a D'H Cgoan that Ravah only asked Rav
Nachman about Zrikah because then the Zrikah and Tumah come at one time but on
Haknasah there would be no question that the Zrikah is NOT CHASHIV since the
Issur on carrying would occur as soon as the house was entered while the TUMAH
would only occur LATER when the two items of Tumah are combined. Thus according
to everyone on 91b one would not be Chaiv on Haknasah of less than a Shiur of
Tumah while on 94b everyone (even Rav Shasas) states that one would be Chiav on
carrying out less than a Shiur of Tumah if there was ONLY a Shiur of Tumah
originally. This last question could be resolved if Tumas Mais in a house
occurs as soon as the house has a Kzias of Mais in it even if this Kzias is
comprised of pieces which are not touching so the Hotzah and elimination of
Tumas Mais occur at the same time while Tumas Ochalin only occurs when the
pieces are touching. From the Mishnah in Ohalos Ch2 M 1 which states simply
Kzias from a Mais is Matumai there doesnt seem to be a proof one way or the
other. However the Rambam states in Tumas Mais Perek 4 Simin 5 that a Kzias
from a Mais that was chopped up into pieces and then beaten and pressed
together is Mtamai Tumas Ohel while implies if the pieces were not attached
they would not be Tumas Ocalin. The Cesef Mishnah states the Rambam appears to
have derived this from a Toseftah in Ohalot 4.
Any thoughts would be appreciated. I look in the Rashba, Pnai Yehushua and
Rabbi Akivah Eiger. Yashur Choach again on your efforts for Harbotsis Torah.
Kol Tov,
Yehudah Relis
1) On Daf 91a (with regard to the Shtei ha'Lechem), the Gemara is referring to an item of food that can be eaten, and only in such a case does Rav Nachman attempt to prove that a Grogeres is necessary, and its prohibition is not Machshiv it.
This is not the case with carrying out a Meis, where everyone agrees that the Shi'ur of Hotza'ah is a k'Zayis, just like the Shi'ur for its Tum'ah. The only argument is whether the Chiyuv for carrying it out comes when its size is diminished from a k'Zayis, or diminished until a k'Zayis.
2) Your point is correct; it seems possible to differentiate between a k'Zayis of Terumah (91a) (which one carries out without throwing it, in which case it has no Chashivus -- not at the time of Akirah nor at the time of Hanachah -- but rather only afterwards when it joins to the less-than-k'Beitzah in the house), and a half-Zayis of a Meis (which, at the time of its Akirah, it diminishes the Shi'ur of the Meis from a k'Zayis). Even if we say that the two half-Zeisim from the Meis in one house join together, nevertheless in the middle of his act of Hotza'ah (when he carries them from the house), he diminishes it from a k'Zayis, and therefore that half-Zayis is Chashuv to make him Chayav for this Hotza'ah.
3) Regarding whether two half-Zeisim from a Meis in one house join together -- there is a Machlokes Tana'im in Ohalos (3:1) and in Chulin (124b-125b) whether we say "Ma'ahil v'Chozer u'Ma'ahil" or not.
l'Hitra'ot!
-Mordecai