QUESTION: Rav Gidal in the name of Rav (3b) states that when the Zerikas ha'Dam of a Korban is performed with a thought of Pigul, the Zerikah is ineffective in changing the status of the Korban with regard to Me'ilah. A Zerikah of Pigul does not remove Me'ilah from the Basar of Kodshei Kodashim, and it does not cause Me'ilah to take effect on the Eimurim of Kodshim Kalim.

Rav Papa questions Rav Gidal's ruling from a Beraisa that states that when one slaughters a Korban Todah with a thought of Pigul, the Lachmei Todah (the loaves that accompany the Todah) become Kadosh and the Isur of Me'ilah applies to them, just as they become Kadosh with a proper Shechitah. Since a Todah is Kodshim Kalim, the Isur of Me'ilah normally takes effect when the Zerikas ha'Dam is performed. The Beraisa (which says that the Lachmei Todah are Kadosh and subject to Me'ilah when the Zerikah is performed) contradicts Rav Gidal, who says that Zerikah cannot cause Me'ilah to take effect to an animal that is Pigul!

Rebbi Aba answers Rav Papa's question. According to RASHI's explanation (see Insights to Me'ilah 3:2), when Rav Gidal said that a Zerikah of Pigul is unable to change the animal's status with regard to Me'ilah, he was referring to a case in which the Kohen had a thought of Pigul during the Zerikah itself, and not merely during the Shechitah. A thought of Pigul during the Shechitah alone does not render the animal entirely Pigul.

Rav Papa, in his question, assumed that a thought of Pigul during Shechitah renders the animal Pigul. Rebbi Aba answers that a thought of Pigul during Shechitah does not render the animal Pigul; only when one has a thought of Pigul during Zerikah does the animal become entirely Pigul. In the case of the Beraisa, the thought of Pigul occurred only at the time of the Shechitah, but not at the time of the Zerikah, and therefore the Zerikah (without a thought of Pigul) is able to cause Me'ilah to take effect.

The Gemara continues with attempts to reject the assumption that a thought of Pigul during Shechitah does not make the animal entirely Pigul. Ravina quotes Ilfa who says (in Zevachim 29b) that according to Rebbi Yehudah (there), a thought of Pigul of Chutz l'Zemano during the first half of the act of Shechitah makes a Korban become Pigul (with a Chiyuv Kares for one who eats it), even if it was followed by a Machshavah of Chutz l'Mekomo during the second half of the Shechitah. The Chachamim argue and say that since there were two different types of Machshavos during the Shechitah, the animal is not Pigul. They agree, however, that if one had the same Machshavah -- a Machshavah of Chutz l'Zemano -- for the entire Shechitah, the animal is Pigul.

From this it is clear that at the time of Shechitah, a full-fledged Pigul takes effect. This refutes Rebbi Aba's assertion that a full-fledged Pigul takes effect only when the Zerikah is also done with a thought of Pigul.

The Gemara answers that Ilfa's statement cannot prove that a full-fledged Pigul takes effect at Shechitah. Rather, it takes effect only when the Zerikah is performed with a thought of Pigul, and at that point we investigate whether or not the Shechitah was done with a single Machshavah of Pigul, and, if it was, then the animal is Pasul as Pigul.

The Gemara continues and says that according to this explanation, the Beraisa regarding the Lachmei Todah must also be understood in this way. When the Beraisa says that the Lachmei Todah are Kadosh even when the Korban is slaughtered with a thought of Pigul, it means that when the Zerikah is done with a thought of Pigul and the animal is clearly Pigul, the Lachmei Todah nevertheless are Kadosh and have Me'ilah. The original question on Rav Gidal's ruling now returns, since the Beraisa is saying that Zerikah of Pigul works to make Me'ilah take effect. The Gemara answers that when the Beraisa says that the Lachmei Todah become "Kadosh," it does not mean that they are Kadosh with regard to Me'ilah, but rather it means that they are Kadosh with regard to the requirement to burn them.

Why does the Gemara retract its original explanation of the Beraisa regarding Lachmei Todah? The Gemara at this point agrees that a thought of Pigul during Shechitah will not make the animal Pigul if there is no thought of Pigul during Zerikah (see Rashi, end of DH Amar Lach). Therefore, the Beraisa can still be referring to a case in which there was no thought of Pigul during Zerikah, and that is why the Lachmei Todah have Me'ilah when the Zerikah is done (like Rav Gidal)!

(a) It is obvious that there must have been a thought of Pigul during the Zerikah as well, because if not, then what is the Beraisa teaching by saying that the Lechem is Kadosh? It cannot be teaching simply that a thought of Pigul during Shechitah alone does not make Pigul, because it would not need to specify the loaves of a Korban Todah in order to teach this. It must be that the Beraisa is discussing a case in which there was a thought of Pigul during the Zerikah as well, and it is teaching that the Lachmei Todah are still Kadosh.

(b) According to TOSFOS' explanation of Rebbi Aba's answer (see Insights to Me'ilah 3:2), the Gemara's logic is clear. The Gemara concludes that a thought of Pigul during Shechitah does affect the Korban, but only retroactively once the Zerikah has also been done with a thought of Pigul. Accordingly, when the Beraisa says that the Lachmei Todah are Kadosh even though the Shechitah was done with a thought of Pigul, it must be that the same applies when the Zerikah is done with a thought of Pigul, because such a Shechitah immediately makes the animal Pigul from the moment of Shechitah, albeit retroactively. (TOSFOS DH Iy Hachi)

QUESTION: The Mishnah (2a) quotes Rebbi Yehoshua's rule, "One does not transgress Me'ilah [with any Korban of Kodshei Kodashim] that was permitted to the Kohanim at some point." The Gemara here begins a lengthy discussion about the meaning of "She'as Heter la'Kohanim."

According to one opinion, Me'ilah no longer applies from the moment that the Korban is properly slaughtered ("Heter Shechitah"; the Shechitah is called "She'as Heter la'Kohanim" because it permits the Kohanim to perform the Avodah with the animal (TOSFOS, end of DH Heter Shechitah)). According to another opinion, Me'ilah no longer applies from the moment that the blood of the Korban is received ("Heter Zerikah"; the Kabalas ha'Dam is called "Heter Zerikah" and "She'as Heter la'Kohanim" because it enables the Zerikas ha'Dam to be performed, which in turn permits the meat to the Kohanim). According to a third opinion, the law of Me'ilah is removed from the Korban only when its blood is sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach, since it is the Zerikas ha'Dam that permits the meat to the Kohanim ("Heter Achilah").

The first opinion -- that "Heter Shechitah" suffices to remove the law of Me'ilah -- seems to contradict the Mishnah in Zevachim (66a). The Mishnah there says that a Chatas ha'Of that was offered in the manner of an Olas ha'Of is Pasul. The Gemara inquires as to the nature of the Avodah of an Olas ha'Of which makes a Chatas ha'Of Pasul. The Gemara concludes that the Avodah of the Olas ha'Of that disqualifies the Chatas ha'Of is the sprinkling of the blood. For the Olas ha'Of, only Mitzuy (pressing the bird against the Mizbe'ach such that its blood oozes out) is done, instead of Haza'ah (sprinkling the blood), which is done for a Chatas ha'Of.

The following Mishnah there (66b) says that when one changes the Avodah of a Chatas ha'Of, performing the Avodah as though it was an Olas ha'Of as described above, the Isur of Me'ilah applies and remains even after the bird is offered. RASHI there (DH u'Mo'alin) explains that since the Chatas was invalidated and thus never became permitted for the Kohanim, the Isur of Me'ilah remains.

According to the opinion that the Isur of Me'ilah is removed at the time of Shechitah ("Heter Shechitah"), why, in the case of the bird-offering in Zevachim, is the Isur of Me'ilah not removed at the moment of Melikah, which is equivalent to Shechitah? Since the Me'ilah was performed properly (it was only afterwards that the bird was disqualified, when Mitzuy was done instead of Haza'ah), the Isur of Me'ilah should be removed!

ANSWER: The SHITAH MEKUBETZES in Zevachim (66a, #4) explains that Shechitah and Melikah differ with regard to their ability to remove the Isur of Me'ilah. Immediately after the Shechitah of an animal it is possible to perform Kabalas ha'Dam, receiving the blood. The Avodah of Kabalas ha'Dam is an immediate result of the Shechitah. In contrast, when a bird is slaughtered with Melikah, the Melikah does not enable any immediate Avodah to be done (even though the Mizuy or Haza'ah now can be done, those acts are considered separate, independent Avodos that are not direct outcomes of the Melikah). Therefore, the act of Melikah is not considered a "Heter" to remove the Isur of Me'ilah.

This distinction is consistent with the words of TOSFOS here (end of DH Heter Shechitah, as mentioned above), who asks that if Kabalas ha'Dam is called "Heter Zerikah" because it permits the Zerikah to be done, then the Shechitah should be called "Heter Kabalah" because it permits the Kabalah to be done! Tosfos answers that Kabalas ha'Dam is called "Heter Zerikah," because if the Kabalah was invalid, then it is forbidden to do Zerikah. In contrast, even if the Shechitah was invalid, there is no prohibition to do Kabalah. Tosfos adds that it is called "Heter Shechitah" because it was done properly, and it is called "She'as Heter la'Kohanim" because it enables the Kohanim to perform the rest of the Avodah of the Korban.

Since, as Tosfos explains, the word "Heter" refers to an act that permits a further stage of the Avodah, the word cannot be applied to Melikah since Melikah does not permit any immediate, further stage of the Avodah. (D. BLOOM)