Shalom. In the Shita 23A #2 he asks why we don't bring a rayah to Rava's Sheilah about nitza dama Al haetzim from the Mishna on 22a. He answers that the p'sul in the Mishna is only for chosser sh'mana. Aside from the fact that it is entirely opposed to Tosfos d"h Choraiv's conclusion, I don't understand this answer. If it is considered chossser, then it proves that it's not k"Olin (according to Rashi's first p'shat). If he answered the opposite, that the mishna's p'sul is only for ribuy shmana,then I would understand - as the Shita in #3 seems to answer this same question
I checked the girsa in the Oz Vehadar, where they would normally make corrections, and it is the same. Can you please explain what this Shita means - or have you seen a different girsa in this Shita? Todah
Reb Yakov, at first sight I do not understand why you ask only on the Shitah; you could equally ask on Rashi 22a, DH v'Hen, who also writes that the Minchas Nesachim is Pesulah because of Choser Shamnah. The Shitah (23a, #2) follows Rashi (22a, DH v'Hen) and not Tosfos (23a, DH Chorev). The Shitah writes that the Mishnah above (22a) is not relevant to the Sugya of Chiburei Ochalin. However, I need to learn this Sugya a lot better, bs'd, to be able to address your question.
I will just point out that the Chazon Yechezkel on the Tosefta (4:1, DH Rebbi Eliezer) notes that there is a dispute between the abovementioned Rashi and Tosfos. The Chazon Yechezkel implies that Rashi's Pshat possesses an advantage over that of Tosfos because, according to Rashi, they are both Pasul. If one of them would be Kosher then it could be brought as a Korban even l'Chatchilah.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
Shalom. Thank you for taking the time to look at this.
My question is not related to whether Rashi or Tosphos have a better p'shat in the Mishnah. The issue is specifically how the Shita addresses the question of why we can't bring a rayah to Rava from the Mishna. I agree that according to Rashi we are left hanging with this question, since Rashi does indeed say that there is a p'sul for choser shmanah. But Rashi does not say that this somehow explains how the Mishna is not relevant to Rava's shailah, like the Shita does. My question is on the shita who somehow sees the fact that the p'sul in the Mishna is choser shmanah being a reason why the Mishna cannot be poshet Rava's shailah.
Thank you!
Wishing you a good Shabbos and a K'siva v'chasimah tovah!
1) The Yad Binyamin (by Rav Binyamin Elyashiv shlit'a) explains that what the Shitah says here applies only according to the first Pshat in Rashi -- on 23a, DH k'Olin, and not according to the other Pshat in Rashi -- 23a, DH Etzem. Rashi (DH Mahu and DH k'Olin) writes that if one maintains "Chiburei Olin k'Olin Damu," this means that when one connects the oil to the Kometz by putting the Kometz on the logs again, it is considered as if the oil is absorbed in the Kometz and it is kosher when one burns them together on the Mizbe'ach.
2) The Yad Binyamin explains that the above cannot be compared to the Mishnah on 22a. When the Mishnah states, "and they absorb from each other," it refers to something quite different. In the Mishnah, the problem is that the oil of the Minchas Nesachim becomes absorbed in the flour of the Kometz and becomes lost in the Kometz. Since the oil is lost, this means that the Minchas Nesachim is missing oil and is therefore Pasul. However, the fact that the oil of the Minchas Nesachim got lost in the Kometz does not mean that the Kometz became any bigger. If so, this is not similar to the concept of Chiburei Olin k'Olin -- because in the latter case, everything became mixed together, while in the Mishnah on 22a the oil of the Minchas Nesachim became lost without it all being considered one mixture.
3) This is stated in the Shitah Mekubetzes on 22a, #3. The oil of the Minchas Nesachim becomes Batel, and is k'Man d'Leisa, as if it did not exist. Therefore, the Kometz does not become Pasul because of Ribah Shamnah, because we consider the oil of the Minchas Nesachim as being not there.
4) This is what the Shitah means when he writes, "v'Lo Dami Klal l'Hacha." The Mishnah on 22a is not similar at all to the Sugya on 23a about Chiburei Olin. This is because Chiburei Olin means they all become mixed in, while the Mishnah on 22a means that the oil of the Minchas Nesachim got lost and did not mix in.
Gmar Chasimah Tovah,
Dovid Bloom